Ammonia volatilization after application of urea to winter wheat over 3 years affected by novel urease and nitrification inhibitors

2014 ◽  
Vol 197 ◽  
pp. 184-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kang Ni ◽  
Andreas Pacholski ◽  
Henning Kage
2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.L. Beres ◽  
R.J. Graf ◽  
R.B. Irvine ◽  
J.T. O’Donovan ◽  
K.N. Harker ◽  
...  

To address knowledge gaps around enhanced efficiency urea fertilizer efficacy for nitrogen (N) management, a study was designed to improve integrated nutrient management systems for western Canadian winter wheat producers. Three factors were included in Experiment 1: (i) urea type [urea, urea + urease inhibitor—Agrotain®; urea + urease and nitrification inhibitor—SuperU®, polymer-coated urea—Environmentally Smart Nitrogen® (ESN®), and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN)], (ii) application method (side-band vs. spring-broadcast vs. 50% side-band: 50% spring-broadcast), and (iii) cultivar (AC Radiant hard red winter wheat vs. CDC Ptarmigan soft white winter wheat). The Agrotain® and CDC Ptarmigan treatments were removed in Experiment 2 to allow for additional application methods: (i) fall side-band, (ii) 50% side-band — 50% late fall broadcast, (iii) 50% side-band — 50% early spring broadcast, (iv) 50% side-band — 50% mid-spring broadcast, and (v) 50% side-band — 50% late spring broadcast. CDC Ptarmigan produced superior grain yield and N utilization over AC Radiant. Grain yield and protein content were influenced by N form and application method. Split applications of N usually provided the maximum yield and protein, particularly with Agrotain® or SuperU®. An exception to the poor fall-application results was the SuperU® treatments, which produced similar yield to the highest-yielding treatments. The results suggest that split applications of N might be most efficient for yield and protein optimization when combined with an enhanced efficiency urea product, particularly with urease or urease + nitrification inhibitors, and if the majority of N is applied in spring.


1971 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 497-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. S. Cornforth ◽  
H. A. D. Chesney

1999 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. HAYNES

15N-labelled fertilizer urea was applied at increasing rates (0–200 kg N/ha), in spring, to winter wheat crops in the Canterbury region of New Zealand in three successive seasons (1993/94, 1994/95 and 1995/96). Recovery of fertilizer N by the crop (grain, chaff, straw and roots) ranged from 43–58% (mean 48%). The quantity of fertilizer N retained in the soil (0–40 cm), at harvest, ranged from 26–42%. Of the labelled N present in the soil, over 95% was present in organic form and 60–80% was retained in the surface 0–10 cm layer. Since soil organic matter represents a substantial sink for fertilizer N there is a need to characterize the nature of this organic pool of N more fully. The quantity of inorganic N present in the soil profile at harvest ranged from 20–46 kg N/ha and labelled fertilizer-derived N contributed less than 16% (mean 9·2%) to this inorganic pool. Loss of fertilizer N from the crop/soil system (i.e., labelled N not recovered in the crop or soil at harvest) varied from 12–26% (mean 18%). Losses were attributed mainly to denitrification since conditions were not conducive for ammonia volatilization or leaching of nitrate. In agreement with European research, it was concluded that almost all of the N at risk of leaching over the winter originates from mineralization of soil organic N and not from unused fertilizer-N applied in spring.


2020 ◽  
Vol 112 (5) ◽  
pp. 3758-3772
Author(s):  
Vinicius Perin ◽  
Eduardo A. Santos ◽  
Romulo Lollato ◽  
Dorivar Ruiz‐Diaz ◽  
Gerard J. Kluitenberg

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (15) ◽  
Author(s):  
李豫婷 LI Yuting ◽  
林树基 LAM Shu Kee ◽  
韩雪 HAN Xue ◽  
冯永祥 FENG Yongxiang ◽  
林而达 LIN Erda ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rayehe Mirkhani ◽  
Mohammad Sajad Ghavami ◽  
Elnaz Ahmadi ◽  
Ebrahim Moghiseh

<p>Nitrogen (N) is a crop nutrient that is commonly applied as fertilizer, however the dynamic nature of N and its propensity for loss from soil‐plant systems creates a unique and challenging environment for its efficient management. Nitrification inhibitors (NIs) are compounds that can reduce the bacterial oxidation of NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> to NO<sub>2</sub><sup>−</sup> by inhibiting the activity of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and maintaining a higher proportion of applied nitrogen in the soil by preventing nitrate loss from leaching and gaseous N losses from nitrification and denitrification. The organic compound 2-chloro-6-(tri-chloromethyl) pyridine, commonly known as nitrapyrin (NP), is such a nitrification inhibitor that is used in agriculture. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of NI (NP) on winter wheat yield compared to farmers practice without NI at a given N rate and same number of N split applications.</p><p>A randomized complete block design in five replications was used in this study. Treatments were: T<sub>1</sub> (control treatment - without urea), T<sub>2</sub> (farmers practice - 300 kg urea/ha), and T<sub>3</sub> (urea+NP - 300 kg urea/ha). Urea was applied in three split applications at tillering, stem elongation and booting stages in treatments T<sub>2</sub> (farmers practice) and T<sub>3</sub> (urea+NP). The average grain yield of winter wheat was 8.7 t ha<sup>-1</sup> for the farmers practice (T<sub>2</sub>) and 9.1 t ha<sup>-1</sup> for the urea+NP treatment (T<sub>3</sub>) at the same number of split fertilizer applications.</p><p>The crop yield data showed that urea applied with NP (T<sub>3</sub>) did increase only slightly grain yield, as compared to farmers practice (T<sub>2</sub>). The grain yield increase with NP was about 4%, however the statistical analysis showed that this increase due to the application of urea with NP was not significant. Further research is needed to investigate additional nitrification inhibitors and their effect on wheat production.</p>


2012 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 82-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnny Rodrigues Soares ◽  
Heitor Cantarella ◽  
Marcella Leite de Campos Menegale

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document