Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors
Urease inhibitor (specifically, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) have been used to minimize nitrogen (N) loss from urea. However, their effects on improving crop N use efficiency (NUE) are usually inconsistent. A 2-year study was conducted to determine th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian Journal of Soil Science 2022-09, Vol.102 (3), p.673-684 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 684 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 673 |
container_title | Canadian Journal of Soil Science |
container_volume | 102 |
creator | Lasisi, Ahmed A. Akinremi, Olalekan O. Kumaragamage, Darshani |
description | Urease inhibitor (specifically, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) have been used to minimize nitrogen (N) loss from urea. However, their effects on improving crop N use efficiency (NUE) are usually inconsistent. A 2-year study was conducted to determine the best combination of NBPT and different NIs on urea that will maximize NUE while reducing nitrate leaching. Treatments consisted of untreated urea, NBPT-treated urea, and six types of (NBPT + NI)-treated urea that were surface applied at 80 kg N ha−1 on plots seeded to canola (2019) and wheat (2020) at Carman and Portage in Manitoba, Canada. Plots at Carman had lysimeters installed to measure leached water and nitrate. The sites had at least 35% lesser rainfall than climate normal during each growing season. At each site, average grain yields, N removal, and residual nitrate were not significantly different between untreated urea and inhibitor-treated urea. Over the 2 years, there was no significant benefit of NBPT or NBPT + NI on crop NUE at each site. Cumulative leached nitrate (19–40 kg N ha−1) did not differ significantly among urea treated with and without inhibitors. This is because >50% of the precipitation occurred when the effectiveness of NI had elapsed. Although NBPT and NI are known to reduce N losses to the atmosphere, this study suggests that the agronomic benefit and nitrate leaching prevention by NI applied in the spring may be limited in regions where large precipitation occurs later in the growing season or during non-growing season. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1139/cjss-2021-0159 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2717833237</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A721801202</galeid><sourcerecordid>A721801202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b334t-57db8e1d50160ded7ff324036a8c4801a5b8a067e3005f0b7fefd8d823b59dff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1rGzEQxUVooW6aa88iOQW6ibTatbRHY_phMM4hyVlopZEtY0u2pMX1f18tzqGBQhnQMOL35iE9hL5S8kAp6x71NqWqJjWtCG27KzShHRUVFQ39gCaEEFE1Naef0OeUtmXkDe0maL1yOYY1eDwkwGCt0w68PuNg8WkDKmPlDdbKh53CNoY9HiIonMuRweCTyxtsnLUQwWeczwdIo9SEod8Bdn7jepdDTF_QR6t2CW7e-jV6_fH9Zf6rWj79XMxny6pnrMlVy00vgJqW0CkxYLi1rG4ImyqhG0GoanuhyJQDI6S1pOcWrBFG1KxvO1Pga3R32XuI4ThAynIbhuiLpSyP54KxmvFC3V6otdqBdN6GHJXWB3eUvKbFp3xjgR7-AZUysHc6eLCu3M_-Fty_ExQmw--8VkNKcvG8es--LdcxpBTBykN0exXPkhI5xinHOOUYpxzjLIJvF0HvQvH-H_4HBSygQg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2717833237</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lasisi, Ahmed A. ; Akinremi, Olalekan O. ; Kumaragamage, Darshani</creator><creatorcontrib>Lasisi, Ahmed A. ; Akinremi, Olalekan O. ; Kumaragamage, Darshani</creatorcontrib><description>Urease inhibitor (specifically, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) have been used to minimize nitrogen (N) loss from urea. However, their effects on improving crop N use efficiency (NUE) are usually inconsistent. A 2-year study was conducted to determine the best combination of NBPT and different NIs on urea that will maximize NUE while reducing nitrate leaching. Treatments consisted of untreated urea, NBPT-treated urea, and six types of (NBPT + NI)-treated urea that were surface applied at 80 kg N ha−1 on plots seeded to canola (2019) and wheat (2020) at Carman and Portage in Manitoba, Canada. Plots at Carman had lysimeters installed to measure leached water and nitrate. The sites had at least 35% lesser rainfall than climate normal during each growing season. At each site, average grain yields, N removal, and residual nitrate were not significantly different between untreated urea and inhibitor-treated urea. Over the 2 years, there was no significant benefit of NBPT or NBPT + NI on crop NUE at each site. Cumulative leached nitrate (19–40 kg N ha−1) did not differ significantly among urea treated with and without inhibitors. This is because >50% of the precipitation occurred when the effectiveness of NI had elapsed. Although NBPT and NI are known to reduce N losses to the atmosphere, this study suggests that the agronomic benefit and nitrate leaching prevention by NI applied in the spring may be limited in regions where large precipitation occurs later in the growing season or during non-growing season.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4271</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1918-1841</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1918-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1139/cjss-2021-0159</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ottawa: Canadian Science Publishing</publisher><subject>Agronomy ; Canola ; Crop yield ; Growing season ; Inhibitors ; Leaching ; Lysimeters ; NBPT ; nitrate leaching ; Nitrates ; Nitrification ; nitrification inhibitor ; Nitrogen ; nitrogen use efficiency ; Precipitation ; Rain and rainfall ; Rainfall ; Urea ; Urease ; Wheat</subject><ispartof>Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 2022-09, Vol.102 (3), p.673-684</ispartof><rights>2022 The Author(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from copyright.com.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 NRC Research Press</rights><rights>2022 Published by NRC Research Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b334t-57db8e1d50160ded7ff324036a8c4801a5b8a067e3005f0b7fefd8d823b59dff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b334t-57db8e1d50160ded7ff324036a8c4801a5b8a067e3005f0b7fefd8d823b59dff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lasisi, Ahmed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akinremi, Olalekan O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumaragamage, Darshani</creatorcontrib><title>Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors</title><title>Canadian Journal of Soil Science</title><addtitle>Can. J. Soil Sci</addtitle><description>Urease inhibitor (specifically, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) have been used to minimize nitrogen (N) loss from urea. However, their effects on improving crop N use efficiency (NUE) are usually inconsistent. A 2-year study was conducted to determine the best combination of NBPT and different NIs on urea that will maximize NUE while reducing nitrate leaching. Treatments consisted of untreated urea, NBPT-treated urea, and six types of (NBPT + NI)-treated urea that were surface applied at 80 kg N ha−1 on plots seeded to canola (2019) and wheat (2020) at Carman and Portage in Manitoba, Canada. Plots at Carman had lysimeters installed to measure leached water and nitrate. The sites had at least 35% lesser rainfall than climate normal during each growing season. At each site, average grain yields, N removal, and residual nitrate were not significantly different between untreated urea and inhibitor-treated urea. Over the 2 years, there was no significant benefit of NBPT or NBPT + NI on crop NUE at each site. Cumulative leached nitrate (19–40 kg N ha−1) did not differ significantly among urea treated with and without inhibitors. This is because >50% of the precipitation occurred when the effectiveness of NI had elapsed. Although NBPT and NI are known to reduce N losses to the atmosphere, this study suggests that the agronomic benefit and nitrate leaching prevention by NI applied in the spring may be limited in regions where large precipitation occurs later in the growing season or during non-growing season.</description><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>Canola</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Growing season</subject><subject>Inhibitors</subject><subject>Leaching</subject><subject>Lysimeters</subject><subject>NBPT</subject><subject>nitrate leaching</subject><subject>Nitrates</subject><subject>Nitrification</subject><subject>nitrification inhibitor</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>nitrogen use efficiency</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Rain and rainfall</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Urea</subject><subject>Urease</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><issn>0008-4271</issn><issn>1918-1841</issn><issn>1918-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1rGzEQxUVooW6aa88iOQW6ibTatbRHY_phMM4hyVlopZEtY0u2pMX1f18tzqGBQhnQMOL35iE9hL5S8kAp6x71NqWqJjWtCG27KzShHRUVFQ39gCaEEFE1Naef0OeUtmXkDe0maL1yOYY1eDwkwGCt0w68PuNg8WkDKmPlDdbKh53CNoY9HiIonMuRweCTyxtsnLUQwWeczwdIo9SEod8Bdn7jepdDTF_QR6t2CW7e-jV6_fH9Zf6rWj79XMxny6pnrMlVy00vgJqW0CkxYLi1rG4ImyqhG0GoanuhyJQDI6S1pOcWrBFG1KxvO1Pga3R32XuI4ThAynIbhuiLpSyP54KxmvFC3V6otdqBdN6GHJXWB3eUvKbFp3xjgR7-AZUysHc6eLCu3M_-Fty_ExQmw--8VkNKcvG8es--LdcxpBTBykN0exXPkhI5xinHOOUYpxzjLIJvF0HvQvH-H_4HBSygQg</recordid><startdate>20220901</startdate><enddate>20220901</enddate><creator>Lasisi, Ahmed A.</creator><creator>Akinremi, Olalekan O.</creator><creator>Kumaragamage, Darshani</creator><general>Canadian Science Publishing</general><general>NRC Research Press</general><general>Canadian Science Publishing NRC Research Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220901</creationdate><title>Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors</title><author>Lasisi, Ahmed A. ; Akinremi, Olalekan O. ; Kumaragamage, Darshani</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b334t-57db8e1d50160ded7ff324036a8c4801a5b8a067e3005f0b7fefd8d823b59dff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>Canola</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Growing season</topic><topic>Inhibitors</topic><topic>Leaching</topic><topic>Lysimeters</topic><topic>NBPT</topic><topic>nitrate leaching</topic><topic>Nitrates</topic><topic>Nitrification</topic><topic>nitrification inhibitor</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>nitrogen use efficiency</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Rain and rainfall</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Urea</topic><topic>Urease</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lasisi, Ahmed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akinremi, Olalekan O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumaragamage, Darshani</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Canadian Journal of Soil Science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lasisi, Ahmed A.</au><au>Akinremi, Olalekan O.</au><au>Kumaragamage, Darshani</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors</atitle><jtitle>Canadian Journal of Soil Science</jtitle><stitle>Can. J. Soil Sci</stitle><date>2022-09-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>673</spage><epage>684</epage><pages>673-684</pages><issn>0008-4271</issn><eissn>1918-1841</eissn><eissn>1918-1833</eissn><abstract>Urease inhibitor (specifically, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) have been used to minimize nitrogen (N) loss from urea. However, their effects on improving crop N use efficiency (NUE) are usually inconsistent. A 2-year study was conducted to determine the best combination of NBPT and different NIs on urea that will maximize NUE while reducing nitrate leaching. Treatments consisted of untreated urea, NBPT-treated urea, and six types of (NBPT + NI)-treated urea that were surface applied at 80 kg N ha−1 on plots seeded to canola (2019) and wheat (2020) at Carman and Portage in Manitoba, Canada. Plots at Carman had lysimeters installed to measure leached water and nitrate. The sites had at least 35% lesser rainfall than climate normal during each growing season. At each site, average grain yields, N removal, and residual nitrate were not significantly different between untreated urea and inhibitor-treated urea. Over the 2 years, there was no significant benefit of NBPT or NBPT + NI on crop NUE at each site. Cumulative leached nitrate (19–40 kg N ha−1) did not differ significantly among urea treated with and without inhibitors. This is because >50% of the precipitation occurred when the effectiveness of NI had elapsed. Although NBPT and NI are known to reduce N losses to the atmosphere, this study suggests that the agronomic benefit and nitrate leaching prevention by NI applied in the spring may be limited in regions where large precipitation occurs later in the growing season or during non-growing season.</abstract><cop>Ottawa</cop><pub>Canadian Science Publishing</pub><doi>10.1139/cjss-2021-0159</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0008-4271 |
ispartof | Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 2022-09, Vol.102 (3), p.673-684 |
issn | 0008-4271 1918-1841 1918-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2717833237 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Agronomy Canola Crop yield Growing season Inhibitors Leaching Lysimeters NBPT nitrate leaching Nitrates Nitrification nitrification inhibitor Nitrogen nitrogen use efficiency Precipitation Rain and rainfall Rainfall Urea Urease Wheat |
title | Nitrogen use efficiency of wheat and canola from urea treated with different types of double inhibitors |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T00%3A53%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Nitrogen%20use%20efficiency%20of%20wheat%20and%20canola%20from%20urea%20treated%20with%20different%20types%20of%20double%20inhibitors&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20Journal%20of%20Soil%20Science&rft.au=Lasisi,%20Ahmed%20A.&rft.date=2022-09-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=673&rft.epage=684&rft.pages=673-684&rft.issn=0008-4271&rft.eissn=1918-1841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139/cjss-2021-0159&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA721801202%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2717833237&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A721801202&rfr_iscdi=true |