Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
32 (2008) 177-182
© TÜB‹TAK
Terry L. ROBERTS*
International Plant Nutrition Institute, 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 550 Norcross, Georgia 30092 USA
Received: 09.01.2008
Abstract: Public interest and awareness of the need for improving nutrient use efficiency is great, but nutrient use efficiency is easily
misunderstood. Four indices of nutrient use efficiency are reviewed and an example of different applications of the terminology show
that the same data set might be used to calculate a fertilizer N efficiency of 21% or 100%. Fertilizer N recovery efficiencies from
researcher managed experiments for major grain crops range from 46% to 65%, compared to on-farm N recovery efficiencies of
20% to 40%. Fertilizer use efficiency can be optimized by fertilizer best management practices that apply nutrients at the right rate,
time, and place. The highest nutrient use efficiency always occurs at the lower parts of the yield response curve, where fertilizer
inputs are lowest, but effectiveness of fertilizers in increasing crop yields and optimizing farmer profitability should not be sacrificed
for the sake of efficiency alone. There must be a balance between optimal nutrient use efficiency and optimal crop productivity.
Key Words: Fertilizer best management practices, BMPs, balanced fertilization, nitrogen efficiency, right rate, right time, right place
177
Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency
Understanding the terminology and the context in be released at a later time, all of which impact apparent
which it is used is critical to prevent misinterpretation and use efficiency. Dobermann et al. (2005) introduced the
misunderstanding. For example, Table 1 shows the same term system level efficiency to account for contributions
maize data from the north central U.S. can be used to of added nutrients to both crop uptake and soil nutrient
estimate crop recovery efficiency of nitrogen (N) at 37% supply.
(i.e. crop recovered 37% of added N) or crop removal Current Status of Nutrient Use Efficiency
efficiency at 100% (N removed in the grain was 100% of
applied N; Bruulsema et al., 2004). Which estimate of A recent review of worldwide data on N use efficiency
nutrient use efficiency is correct? for cereal crops from researcher-managed experimental
plots reported that single-year fertilizer N recovery
Recovery of 37% in the above-ground biomass of efficiencies averaged 65% for corn, 57% for wheat, and
applied N is disturbingly low and suggests that N may 46% for rice (Ladha et al., 2005). However,
pose an environmental risk. Assuming the grain contains experimental plots do not accurately reflect the
56% of the above-ground N, a typical N harvest index; efficiencies obtainable on-farm. Differences in the scale of
only 21% of the fertilizer N applied is removed in the farming operations and management practices (i.e.
grain. Such low recovery efficiency prompts the question tillage, seeding, weed and pest control, irrigation,
… where is the rest of the fertilizer going and what does harvesting) usually result in lower nutrient use efficiency.
a recovery efficiency of 37% really mean? Nitrogen recovery in crops grown by farmers rarely
In the above data, application of N at the optimum exceeds 50% and is often much lower. A review of best
-1
rate of 103 kg ha increased above-ground N uptake by available information suggests average N recovery
-1
38 kg ha (37% of 103). Total N uptake by the fertilized efficiency for fields managed by farmers ranges from
maize was 184 kg ha-1; 146 from the soil and 38 from about 20% to 30% under rainfed conditions and 30% to
the fertilizer. The N in the grain would be 56% of 184, 40% under irrigated conditions.
or 103 kg ha-1: equal to the amount of N applied. Which Cassman et al. (2002) looked at N fertilizer recovery
is correct — a recovery of 21% as estimated from a under different cropping systems and reported 37%
single-year response recovery in the grain or 100% as recovery for corn grown in the north central U.S. (Table
estimated from the total uptake (soil N + fertilizer N) of 2). They found N recovery averaged 31% for irrigated
N, assuming the soil can continue to supply N long-term? rice grown by Asian farmers and 40% for rice under field
The answer cannot be known unless the long-term specific management. In India, N recovery averaged 18%
dynamics of N cycling are understood. for wheat grown under poor weather conditions, but
Fertilizer nutrients applied, but not taken up by the 49% when grown under good weather conditions.
crop, are vulnerable to losses from leaching, erosion, and Fertilizer recovery is impacted by management, which can
denitrification or volatilization in the case of N, or they be controlled, but also by weather, which cannot be
could be temporarily immobilized in soil organic matter to controlled.
Table 1. Fertilizer N efficiency of maize from 56 on-farm studies in north central U.S. (Cassman
et al., 2002, source of data, Bruulsema et al., 2004, source of calculations).
178
T. L. ROBERTS
Table 2. Nitrogen fertilizer recovery efficiency by maize, rice, and wheat from on-farm measurements (Cassman
et al., 2002).
* recovery is the proportion of applied N fertilizer taken up the crop, calculated as the difference in total N uptake
in above-ground biomass at physiological maturity between fertilized plots and an unfertilized control.
The above data illustrate that there is room to available in all regions of the world because reliable
improve nutrient use efficiency at the farm level, laboratories using methodology appropriate to local soils
especially for N. While most of the focus on nutrient and crops are inaccessible or calibration data relevant to
efficiency is on N, phosphorus (P) efficiency is also of current cropping systems and yields are lacking.
interest because it is one of the least available and least Other techniques, such as omission plots, are proving
mobile mineral nutrients. First year recovery of applied useful in determining the amount of fertilizer required
fertilizer P ranges from less than 10% to as high as 30%. for attaining a yield target (Witt and Doberman, 2002).
However, because fertilizer P is considered immobile in In this method, N, P, and K are applied at sufficiently high
the soil and reaction (fixation and/or precipitation) with rates to ensure that yield is not limited by an insufficient
other soil minerals is relatively slow, long-term recovery supply of the added nutrients. Target yield can be
of P by subsequent crops can be much higher. There is determined from plots with unlimited NPK. One nutrient
little information available about potassium (K) use is omitted from the plots to determine a nutrient-limited
efficiency. However, it is generally considered to have a yield. For example, an N omission plot receives no N, but
higher use efficiency than N and P because it is immobile sufficient P and K fertilizer to ensure that those nutrients
in most soils and is not subject to the gaseous losses that are not limiting yield. The difference in grain yield
N is or the fixation reactions that affect P. First year between a fully fertilized plot and an N omission plot is
recovery of applied K can range from 20% to 60%. the deficit between the crop demand for N and indigenous
Optimizing Nutrient Use Efficiency supply of N, which must be met by fertilizers.
The fertilizer industry supports applying nutrients at Nutrients removed in crops are also an important
the right rate, right time, and in the right place as a best consideration. Unless nutrients removed in harvested
management practice (BMP) for achieving optimum grain and crop residues are replaced, soil fertility will be
nutrient efficiency. depleted.
Right rate: Most crops are location and season Right time: Greater synchrony between crop demand
specific — depending on cultivar, management practices, and nutrient supply is necessary to improve nutrient use
climate, etc., and so it is critical that realistic yield goals efficiency, especially for N. Split applications of N during
are established and that nutrients are applied to meet the the growing season, rather than a single, large application
target yield. Over- or under-application will result in prior to planting, are known to be effective in increasing
reduced nutrient use efficiency or losses in yield and crop N use efficiency (Cassman et al., 2002). Tissue testing is
quality. Soil testing remains one of the most powerful a well known method used to assess N status of growing
tools available for determining the nutrient supplying crops, but other diagnostic tools are also available.
capacity of the soil, but to be useful for making Chlorophyll meters have proven useful in fine-tuning in-
appropriate fertilizer recommendations good calibration season N management (Francis and Piekielek, 1999) and
data is also necessary. Unfortunately, soil testing is not leaf color charts have been highly successful in guiding
179
Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency
split N applications in rice and now maize production in with the soil lessens the opportunity for nutrient loss due
Asia (Witt et al., 2005). Precision farming technologies to leaching or fixation reactions. Placement decisions
have introduced, and now commercialized, on-the-go N depend on the crop and soil conditions, which interact to
sensors that can be coupled with variable rate fertilizer influence nutrient uptake and availability.
applicators to automatically correct crop N deficiencies on Plant nutrients rarely work in isolation. Interactions
a site-specific basis. among nutrients are important because a deficiency of
Another approach to synchronize release of N from one restricts the uptake and use of another. Numerous
fertilizers with crop need is the use of N stabilizers and studies have demonstrated that interactions between N
controlled release fertilizers. Nitrogen stabilizers (e.g., and other nutrients, primarily P and K, impact crop yields
nitrapyrin, DCD [dicyandiamide], NBPT [n-butyl- and N efficiency. For example, data from a large number
thiophosphoric triamide]) inhibit nitrification or urease of multi-location on-farm field experiments conducted in
activity, thereby slowing the conversion of the fertilizer India show the importance of balanced fertilization in
to nitrate (Havlin et al., 2005). When soil and increasing crop yield and improving N efficiency (Table 3).
environmental conditions are favorable for nitrate losses, Adequate and balanced application of fertilizer
treatment with a stabilizer will often increase fertilizer N nutrients is one of the most common practices for
efficiency. Controlled-release fertilizers can be grouped improving the efficiency of N fertilizer and is equally
into compounds of low solubility and coated water- effective in both developing and developed countries. In a
soluble fertilizers. recent review based on 241 site-years of experiments in
Most slow-release fertilizers are more expensive than China, India, and North America, balanced fertilization
water-soluble N fertilizers and have traditionally been with N, P, and K increased first-year recoveries an
used for high-value horticulture crops and turf grass. average of 54% compared to recoveries of only 21%
However, technology improvements have reduced where N was applied alone (Fixen et al., 2005).
manufacturing costs where controlled-release fertilizers Efficient Does Not Necessarily Mean Effective
are available for use in corn, wheat, and other commodity
Improving nutrient efficiency is an appropriate goal
grains (Blaylock et al., 2005). The most promising for
for all involved in agriculture, and the fertilizer industry,
widespread agricultural use are polymer-coated products,
with the help of scientists and agronomists, is helping
which can be designed to release nutrients in a controlled
farmers work towards that end. However, effectiveness
manner. Nutrient release rates are controlled by
cannot be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. Much
manipulating the properties of the polymer coating and
higher nutrient efficiencies could be achieved simply by
are generally predictable when average temperature and
sacrificing yield, but that would not be economically
moisture conditions can be estimated.
effective or viable for the farmer, or the environment.
Right place: Application method has always been This relationship between yield, nutrient efficiency, and
critical in ensuring fertilizer nutrients are used efficiently. the environment was ably described by Dibb (2000) using
Determining the right placement is as important as a theoretical example. For a typical yield response curve,
determining the right application rate. Numerous the lower part of the curve is characterized by very low
placements are available, but most generally involve yields, because few nutrients are available or applied, but
surface or sub-surface applications before or after very high efficiency (Figure 1). Nutrient use efficiency is
planting. Prior to planting, nutrients can be broadcast high at a low yield level, because any small amount of
(i.e. applied uniformly on the soil surface and may or may nutrient applied could give a large yield response. If
not be incorporated), applied as a band on the surface, or nutrient use efficiency were the only goal, it would be
applied as a subsurface band, usually 5 to 20 cm deep. achieved here in the lower part of the yield curve.
Applied at planting, nutrients can be banded with the However, environmental concerns would be significant
seed, below the seed, or below and to the side of the because poor crop growth means less surface residues to
seed. After planting, application is usually restricted to N protect the land from wind and water erosion and less
and placement can be as a topdress or a subsurface root growth to build soil organic matter. As you move up
sidedress. In general, nutrient recovery efficiency tends to the response curve, yields continue to increase, albeit at a
be higher with banded applications because less contact slower rate, and nutrient use efficiency typically declines.
180
T. L. ROBERTS
Table. 3. Effect of balanced fertilization on yield and N agronomic efficiency in India (Prasad, 1996).
0
} Low yield and highest nutrient use
efficiency
through soil fertility or other soil quality components. He
cited 2 examples. Figure 2 shows Saskatchewan data
from a long-term wheat study where 3 initial soil test
levels were established with initial P applications followed
Increasing nutrient inpit and by annual additions of seed-placed P. Fertilizer P recovery
decreasing nutrient use efficiency
efficiency, at the lowest P rate and at the lowest soil test
Figure 1. Relationship between yield response and nutrient use level, was 30% … an extremely high single-year
efficiency (adapted from Dibb, 2000).
efficiency. However, this practice would be ineffective
because wheat yield was sacrificed.
However, the extent of the decline will be dictated by the The second example is from a maize study in Ohio that
BMPs employed (i.e. right rate, right time, right place, included a range of soil test K levels and N fertilizer rates
improved balance in nutrient inputs, etc.) as well as soil (Figure 3). N recovery efficiency can be greatly increased
and climatic conditions.
2800 Initial Soil test P
broadcast after 5-
kgP ha-1 yr, mg kg-1
2600
Wheat yield, kg ha-1
0 5
2400
80 8
2200 160 15
Figure 2. Relationship between P efficiency and wheat yield (adapted from Wagner et al., 1986).
181
Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency
Four year average level. Nitrogen efficiency was improved with both
110
approaches, but the latter option was most effective in
N recovery in biomass, %
References
Blaylock, A.D., J. Kaufmann and R.D. Dowbenko. 2005. Nitrogen Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale and W.L. Nelson. 2005. Soil
fertilizer technologies. In: Proceedings of the Western Nutrient Fertility and Fertilizers. An Introduction to Nutrient Management.
Management Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 3-4, 2005. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Vol. 6, pp. 8-13. Johnson, J.W., T.S. Murrell and H.F. Reetz. 1997. Balanced fertility
Bruulsema, T.W., P.E. Fixen and C.S. Snyder. 2004. Fertilizer nutrient management: a key to nutrient use efficiency. Better Crops. 81:
recovery in sustainable cropping systems. Better Crops. 88: 15- 3-5.
17. Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six and C. van Kessel. 2005.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann and D.T. Walters. 2002. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: retrospects
Agroecosystems, nitrogen use efficiency, and nitrogen and prospects. Adv. Agron. 87: 85-156.
management. Ambio. 31: 132-140. Mosier, A.R., J.K. Syers and J.R. Freney. 2004. Agriculture and the
Dibb, D.W. 2000. The mysteries (myths) of nutrient use efficiency. Nitrogen Cycle. Assessing the Impacts of Fertilizer Use on Food
Better Crops. 84: 3-5. Production and the Environment. Scope-65. Island Press, London.
Dobermann, A., K.G. Cassman, D.T. Waters and C. Witt. 2005. Prasad, R. 1996. Management of fertilizer nitrogen for higher
Balancing short- and long-term goals in nutrient management. In: recovery. In: Nitrogen Research and Crop Production. (Ed. H.L.S.
Proceedings of the XV International Plant Nutrient Colloquium, Tandon), FDCO, New Delhi, India. pp. 104-115.
Sep. 14-16, 2005. Beijing, China. Solie, J.B., M.L. Stone, W.R. Raun, G.V. Johnson, K. Freeman, R.
Fixen, P.E. 2005. Understanding and improving nutrient use efficiency Mullen, D.E. Needham, S. Reed and C.N. Washmon. 2002. Real-
as an application of information technology. In: Proceedings of time sensing and N fertilization with a field scale
the Symposium on Information Technology in Soil Fertility and Greenseekertm applicator. Accessed on-line on 1/26/2006 at:
Fertilizer Management, a satellite symposium at the XV http://nue.okstate.edu/Papers/Minnesota_2002_Solie.htm
International Plant Nutrient Colloquium, Sep. 14-16, 2005. Wagner, B. I., J.W.B. Stewart and J.L. Henry. 1986. Comparison of
Beijing, China. single large broadcast and small annual seed-placed phosphorus
Fixen, P.E. 2006. Turning challenges into opportunities. In: Proceedings treatments on yield and phosphorus and zinc contents of wheat
of the Fluid Forum, Fluids: Balancing Fertility and Economics. on Chernozemic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 66: 237-248.
Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, February 12-14, 2006, Scottsdale, Witt, C. and A. Dobermann. 2002. A site-specific nutrient management
Arizona. approach for irrigated, lowland rice in Asia. Better Crops
Fixen, P.E., J. Jin, K.N. Tiwari, and M.D. Stauffer. 2005. Capitalizing International. 16: 20-24.
on multi-element interactions through balanced nutrition — a Witt, C., J.M.C.A Pasuquin, R. Mutters and R.J. Buresh. 2005. New leaf
pathway to improve nitrogen use efficiency in China, India and color chart for effective nitrogen management in rice. Better
North America. Sci. in China Ser. C Life Sci. 48: 1-11. Crops. 89: 36-39.
Francis, D.D. and W.P. Piekielek. 1999. Assessing Crop Nitrogen Needs
with Chlorophyll Meters. Site-Specific Management Guidelines,
Potash & Phosphate Institute. SSMG-12. Reference 99082/
Item#10-1012.
182