Published in:Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1002/jpln.201900561
ISSN:
1436-8730;
1522-2624
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p><jats:bold><jats:italic>Background:</jats:italic></jats:bold> The inadequate application of nitrogen (N) to crops has increased the reactive N in the atmosphere and in the surface and ground waters. Stabilized N‐fertilizers with nitrification (NI) and urease (UI) inhibitors have been proposed to reduce these environmental problems without affecting or even increasing crop productivity.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold><jats:italic>Aim:</jats:italic></jats:bold> The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a maize–maize–wheat rotation, if the use of the NI 3,4‐dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) and the UIs N‐(n‐butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) and monocarbamide dihydrogen sulfate (MCDHS) reduces N leaching without compromising yield under optimal management of N and water.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold><jats:italic>Methods:</jats:italic></jats:bold> The experiment was conducted in 24 drainage lysimeters with two soil types with contrasting water holding capacity under Mediterranean irrigated conditions. The fertilizer treatments were urea, urea with DMPP, urea with NBPT, and urea with MCDHS. For the maize crop, conventional fertilizer application was split into 6‐ and 13‐leaf stages, whereas stabilized fertilizers were applied as a single application at the 6‐leaf stage. All fertilizer treatments were applied at late tillering in the wheat crop.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold><jats:italic>Results:</jats:italic></jats:bold> The soil mineral N was measured at the beginning and the end of each crop season, but no differences were found among fertilizer treatments. Differences in the volume of water drained or the cumulative mass of nitrate depending on the fertilizer were not significant (three‐year treatment average of 200 L m<jats:sup>−2</jats:sup> and 22 kg N ha<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup> in the Deep soil, and 334 L m<jats:sup>−2</jats:sup> and 40 kg N ha<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup> in the Shallow type, respectively). No consistent significant differences were found in agronomic parameters (chlorophyll measurements, yield, and total N uptake) between the fertilizer treatments.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold><jats:italic>Conclusion:</jats:italic></jats:bold> Based on the results, the use of stabilized N‐fertilizer could be recommended to reduce the number of N applications in maize without compromising grain yield but with no advantages to reduce nitrate‐leaching losses if N rates are managed properly under efficient irrigation management practices.</jats:p>