Abstract
Introduction Analyzing the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilizer application and water management on the carbon (C) and N footprints is vital to maize production systems. Methods This study conducted field experiments from 2019-2020 involving flood- and drip-irrigated maize production systems in Northwest China to analyze N and C footprints (NF and CF, respectively) based on the life cycle assessment (LCA). The N fertilizer treatments studied included no N fertilizer application (Control), optimized N management (OM), optimized N management incorporated with urease inhibitor (OMI, UI), and farmer practice (FP). Results and discussion The maize grain yields under flood irrigation afforded by OMI (12.3 t ha -1 ) and FP treatments (13.4 t ha -1 ) were significantly higher than that of OM treatment (11.0 t ha -1 ). But maize grain yields of the OM (12.1 t ha -1 ), OMI (12.5 t ha -1 ), and FP treatments (12.5 t ha -1 ) showed no significant difference under drip irrigation although less N was applied to OM and OMI. The OMI treatment had better environmental effects than the OM treatment under both flood and drip irrigation. Applying N fertilizer with UI increased N use efficiency (NUE) and reduced N losses under flood irrigation. The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment. The Nr losses, GHG emissions, NF, and CF of drip irrigation were lower than those of flood irrigation. According to the analysis of driven indicators, the N leaching, electricity for irrigation, and NH 3 volatilization were the most important contributors to the NF; the fertilizer, electricity for irrigation, and N 2 O emissions were the dominant factors controlling the CF. The environmental impact of the OMI treatment was less than that of the OM and FP treatments. Therefore, integrating better N management practices and efficient irrigation methods can significantly reduce environmental impacts while maintaining yields in maize cultivation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 18
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, OMI yielded 12.3 t ha -1, significantly above OM at 11.0 t ha -1.
- Treatment
- OMIe0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- significantly highere0
- Value
- 12.3 t ha -1e0
- Comparator
- OM treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“maize grain yields under flood irrigation afforded by OMI (12.3 t ha -1 ) and FP treatments (13.4 t ha -1 ) were significantly higher than that of OM treatment (11.0 t ha -1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, FP yielded 13.4 t ha -1, significantly above OM at 11.0 t ha -1.
- Treatment
- FP treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- significantly highere0
- Value
- 13.4 t ha -1e0
- Comparator
- OM treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“maize grain yields under flood irrigation afforded by OMI (12.3 t ha -1 ) and FP treatments (13.4 t ha -1 ) were significantly higher than that of OM treatment (11.0 t ha -1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OM yielded 12.1 t ha -1 without a significant difference from OMI or FP.
- Treatment
- OMe0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Value
- 12.1 t ha -1e0
- Comparator
- OMIe0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“maize grain yields of the OM (12.1 t ha -1 ), OMI (12.5 t ha -1 ), and FP treatments (12.5 t ha -1 ) showed no significant difference under drip irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OMI yielded 12.5 t ha -1 without a significant difference from FP.
- Treatment
- OMIe0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Value
- 12.5 t ha -1e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmentse0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“maize grain yields of the OM (12.1 t ha -1 ), OMI (12.5 t ha -1 ), and FP treatments (12.5 t ha -1 ) showed no significant difference under drip irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Urease inhibitor with nitrogen fertilizer increased nitrogen use efficiency under flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- Applying N fertilizer with UIe0
- Outcome
- N use efficiency (NUE)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“Applying N fertilizer with UI increased N use efficiency (NUE) and reduced N losses under flood irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Urease inhibitor with nitrogen fertilizer reduced nitrogen losses under flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- Applying N fertilizer with UIe0
- Outcome
- N lossese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“Applying N fertilizer with UI increased N use efficiency (NUE) and reduced N losses under flood irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, OMI reduced reactive nitrogen losses by 43.9% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- reactive N (Nr) lossese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 43.9%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, OMI reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 45.3% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 45.3%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, OMI reduced the nitrogen footprint by 35.7% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- NFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 35.7%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under flood irrigation, OMI reduced the carbon footprint by 37.4% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- CFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 37.4%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OMI reduced reactive nitrogen losses by 43.3% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- reactive N (Nr) lossese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 43.3%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OMI reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 37.1% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 37.1%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OMI reduced the nitrogen footprint by 43.2% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- NFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 43.2%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Under drip irrigation, OMI reduced the carbon footprint by 37.1% relative to FP.
- Treatment
- OMI treatmente0
- Outcome
- CFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 37.1%e0
- Comparator
- FP treatmente0
- Setting
- drip irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The reactive N (Nr) losses, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, NF, and CF of OMI treatment were 43.9%, 45.3%, 35.7%, and 37.4% lower under flood irrigation (77.6 kg N ha -1 , 4499.9 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 6.7 kg N t -1 , and 387.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) and 43.3%, 37.1%, 43.2%, and 37.1% lower under drip irrigation (57.8 kg N ha -1 , 4144.3 kg CO2 eq ha -1 , 4.7 kg N t -1 , and 332.7 CO2 eq N t -1 ) compared to the FP treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation had lower reactive nitrogen losses, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen footprint and carbon footprint than flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Nr losses, GHG emissions, NF, and CFe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- flood irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The Nr losses, GHG emissions, NF, and CF of drip irrigation were lower than those of flood irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen leaching, irrigation electricity and ammonia volatilization were the main nitrogen-footprint contributors.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“the N leaching, electricity for irrigation, and NH 3 volatilization were the most important contributors to the NF”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer, irrigation electricity and nitrous oxide emissions dominated the carbon footprint.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“the fertilizer, electricity for irrigation, and N 2 O emissions were the dominant factors controlling the CF”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend improved nitrogen management with efficient irrigation to reduce impacts while maintaining maize yield.
- Outcome
- reduce environmental impacts while maintaining yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“integrating better N management practices and efficient irrigation methods can significantly reduce environmental impacts while maintaining yields in maize cultivation”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
173 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →irrigation · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
278 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.