Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jul 15;11(14):1855.
doi: 10.3390/plants11141855.

Fertilizers and Fertilization Strategies Mitigating Soil Factors Constraining Efficiency of Nitrogen in Plant Production

Przemysław Barłóg  1 , Witold Grzebisz  1 , Remigiusz Łukowiak  1
Affiliations
Review

Fertilizers and Fertilization Strategies Mitigating Soil Factors Constraining Efficiency of Nitrogen in Plant Production

Przemysław Barłóg et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

Fertilizer Use Efficiency (FUE) is a measure of the potential of an applied fertilizer to increase its impact on the uptake and utilization of nitrogen (N) present in the soil/plant system. The productivity of N depends on the supply of those nutrients in a well-defined stage of yield formation that are decisive for its uptake and utilization. Traditionally, plant nutritional status is evaluated by using chemical methods. However, nowadays, to correct fertilizer doses, the absorption and reflection of solar radiation is used. Fertilization efficiency can be increased not only by adjusting the fertilizer dose to the plant's requirements, but also by removing all of the soil factors that constrain nutrient uptake and their transport from soil to root surface. Among them, soil compaction and pH are relatively easy to correct. The goal of new the formulas of N fertilizers is to increase the availability of N by synchronization of its release with the plant demand. The aim of non-nitrogenous fertilizers is to increase the availability of nutrients that control the effectiveness of N present in the soil/plant system. A wide range of actions is required to reduce the amount of N which can pollute ecosystems adjacent to fields.

Keywords: crop growth rate; fertilizer market; nitrogen gap; nitrogen use efficiency; nutrient uptake; partial factor productivity; root architecture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagram of yield trends in response to the nitrogen gap (NG) change. Example for winter wheat (based on Grzebisz and Łukowiak [8]). Key: Yattmax—maximum attainable yield; Ya—actual yield; 1–16 are the field numbers.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effect of long-term differentiated fertilization on yield of winter wheat, mean of 2005–2008 years (own projection based on Blecharczyk et al. [17]). Key: AC—absolute control; K, P, N—experimental trials since 1957; LSD0.05—Least Significant Difference; 0/0/0*—respective values of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium use efficiency.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fertilizer Use Effectiveness (FUE) indices in response to soil physical and chemical properties and processes responsible for nutrient uptake: (A) release of nutrients from solid phase; (B) processes of nutrient transport from the soil to the root surface; (C) the plant’s physiological response to conditions of nutrient supply; (D) processes of nutrient transportation to the plant shoot; (E) nutrient remobilization and transfer into grain/seeds. Blue arrows—transport processes; red arrows—influencing and feedback responses. FUE indices explanations: PFPNf —partial factor productivity of nitrogen; ANuE—apparent nutrient efficiency; NG—nitrogen gap; NRE—nitrogen remobilization efficiency; CNR—contribution of remobilized N to grain; ANuR—apparent nutrient recovery; NuE—nutrient uptake efficiency; PE—physiological N efficiency; Umin—minimum uptake of a nutrient for the maximum rate of plant growth.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Crop growth rate (CGR) of winter oilseed rape (WOSR) during the growing season as affected by nitrogen fertilizer (based on Barłóg and Grzebisz [22]). Key: CGR—crop growth rate, N–0—absolute control, N–80 + 80*–N rate of 160 kg N ha−1 applied at the onset of the growing season restart in Spring; * ammonium nitrate; 30, 51, 62, 69, 79, 89—WOSR growth stages in BBCH scale.
Figure 5
Figure 5
A conceptual pattern of dry matter accumulation by a typical seed/grain crop. Key: CK1, CK2—cardinal stage 1 and 2, respectively [8].
Figure 6
Figure 6
The Cardinal Stage 1 (CK1): winter wheat (monocot) (a) and winter oilseed rape (dicot) (b). Photos by W. Grzebisz.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Relative growth rate (RGR) of maize during the growing season in response to foliar zinc (Zn) application (based on Grzebisz et al. [31]—modified).
Figure 8
Figure 8
The Cardinal Stage 2 (CK2): winter rye (monocot) (a) and winter oilseed rape (dicot) (b). Photos by W. Grzebisz.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The seasonal patterns of available phosphorus distribution within soil layers (based on Łukowiak et al. [65]). Key: WW—winter wheat, OSR—oilseed rape. Letters indicate significant differences between treatments.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The general pattern of the growth of the root and shoot biomass of cereals during the growing season (based on Grzebisz [70]). Legend: R/S—root to shoot biomass ratio.
Figure 11
Figure 11
The amount of the soil and fertilizer N depleted during the Yield Formation Period (YFP) depending on nitrogen (Nf) rate. Key: High, Low yield of winter oilseed rape. (Based on Grzebisz et al. [35]).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Exchangeable aluminum (Al3+) content as a function of soil pH measured in suspension of 1 molar KCl (1:2.5, w/v). Sandy soils, western Poland (n = 986). The red lines indicate the critical points for soil pH and Al3+ content. Source: Błaszyk [146].
Figure 13
Figure 13
Effect of nitrogen application (40, 80, 120, 160 and 200 kg N ha−1) on the agronomic efficiency of nitrogen (AEN), calculated for white sugar yield of sugar beet, depending on the availability of magnesium in the soil—kieserite application at a rate of 24 kg Mg ha−1. Mean for two years for sandy soil (a) and loamy soil (b). Source: Pogłodziński et al. [182].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Licker R., Johnston M., Foley J.A., Barford C., Kucharik C.J., Monfreda C., Ramankutty N. Mind the gap: How do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010;19:769–782. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00563.x. - DOI
    1. Tandzi N.L., Mutengwa S.C. Factors affecting yields of crops. In: Amanullah, editor. Agronomy—Climate Change and Food Security. IntechOpen; London, UK: 2020. p. 16.
    1. Sattari S.Z., Van Ittersum M.K., Bouwman A.F., Smit A.L., Janssen B.H. Crop yield response to soil fertility and N, P, K inputs in different environments: Testing and improving the QEFTS model. Field Crops Res. 2014;157:35–46. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.005. - DOI
    1. Lollato R.P., Edwards J.T. Maximum attainable wheat yield and resources-use efficiency in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci. 2015;55:2863–2875. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.04.0215. - DOI
    1. Wallace A., Wallace G.A. Closing the Crop-Yield Gap through Better Soil and Better Management. Wallace Laboratories; Los Angeles, CA, USA: 2003. p. 162.

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.

LinkOut - more resources