Next Article in Journal
Screening and Evaluation of Dermo-Cosmetic Activities of the Invasive Plant Species Polygonum cuspidatum
Next Article in Special Issue
Winter Green Manure Decreases Subsoil Nitrate Accumulation and Increases N Use Efficiencies of Maize Production in North China Plain
Previous Article in Journal
qPCR as a Selective Tool for Cytogenetics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulating the Effects of Different Textural Soils and N Management on Maize Yield, N Fates, and Water and N Use Efficiencies in Northeast China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/plants12010081
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers Impact on Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from an Open-Field Vegetable System in North China

by
Daijia Fan
,
Wentian He
*,
Rong Jiang
,
Daping Song
,
Guoyuan Zou
,
Yanhua Chen
,
Bing Cao
,
Jiachen Wang
and
Xuexia Wang
*
Institute of Plant Nutrition, Resources and Environment, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(1), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010081
Submission received: 10 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 23 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water and Nitrogen Management in Soil-Crop System)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Open vegetable fields in China are a major anthropogenic source of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions due to excessive nitrogen (N) fertilization. A 4 yr lettuce experiment was conducted to determine the impacts of controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) on lettuce yield, N2O emissions and net economic benefits. Five treatments included (i) no N fertilizer (CK), (ii) conventional urea at 255 kg N ha–1 based on farmers’ practice (FP), (iii) conventional urea at 204 kg N ha–1 (OPT), (iv) CRF at 204 kg N ha–1 (CU) and (v) CRF (204 kg N ha–1) added with NI (CUNI). No significant differences were found in the lettuce yields among different N fertilization treatments. Compared with FP, the cumulative N2O emissions were significantly decreased by 8.1%, 38.0% and 42.6% under OPT, CU and CUNI, respectively. Meanwhile, the net benefits of OPT, CU and CUNI were improved by USD 281, USD 871 and USD 1024 ha–1 compared to CN, respectively. This study recommends the combined application of CRF and NI at a reduced N rate as the optimal N fertilizer management for the sustainable production of vegetables in China with the lowest environmental risks and the greatest economic benefits.

1. Introduction

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) and the greatest contributor to ozone depletion in the stratosphere [1,2]. The atmospheric N2O concentration has increased by 22.6% since the preindustrial period as a result of anthropogenic activities, including agricultural production [3]. With the continuing growth of the human population, the higher demand for food requires a substantial input of fertilizer nitrogen (N) into the cropland soils and, hence, makes croplands the largest anthropogenic source of atmospheric N2O in recent decades [4]. Thus, there exists an urgent need to develop optimized fertilization strategies that can mitigate N2O emissions without detrimental impacts on crop yields [5].
Vegetables are indispensable in the human diet. However, the current vegetable production generally involves intensive fertilization with high N loss potential, which accounts for 9% of the global cropland N2O emissions [6,7]. The vegetable cultivation in China has been rapidly expanding due to abundant economic benefits and increasing demand for vegetables, placing China as the leading vegetable producer worldwide, with 51% of the global total production [8]. Compared with cereal crops, higher levels of fertilizer N are applied to Chinese vegetable fields to support vegetables’ rapid growth and achieve high yields, resulting in a greater potential for N losses, including N2O emissions [9,10]. Recent study revealed that Chinese vegetable production uses 7.8% of the global synthetic N fertilizers and generates 6.6% of the cropland GHG emissions worldwide [11]. The use of synthetic N fertilizers in the vegetable fields in China caused 33% of the national cropland N2O emissions [12].
Open-field cultivation is the dominant vegetable production system in China, comprising 80% and 65% of the total vegetable planting area and output, respectively [13]. The current average N input of Chinese open-field vegetable production is 2.7 times that of the recommended N application rate [14]. Consequently, the open vegetable fields in China remain a hotspot of N2O emissions. Differing from greenhouse vegetable production, open vegetable fields are more susceptible to the changes in climatic factors, including air temperature and precipitation, thus resulting in a more complex interplay between soil N transformation and agricultural management practices coupled with wide-ranging weather conditions [15]. Therefore, exploring the responses of vegetable yields and N2O emissions to different management practices in the open vegetable fields is essential to achieve the sustainable vegetable production in China.
The N2O in soil is mainly produced via the microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification [16]. The N fertilizer management could regulate the microbially meditated production and emission of N2O from soil directly or indirectly by altering the soil conditions, such as N availability and pH [17,18]. Numerous studies indicated that the soil N2O emissions were positively correlated with the application rate of N fertilizer, as the surplus N in soil was a major source of reactive N losses [19,20]. Optimizing the N application rate could significantly decrease the N2O emissions from agricultural soils [21,22]. Previous studies suggested that reduced fertilizer N rate could mitigate the N2O losses from the vegetable cropping systems by 18–57% [23,24].
In addition, applying N fertilizer with the right source offers an effective approach to improve the N use efficiency (NUE) and reduce the fertilizer-induced N2O emissions in croplands [25,26]. Enhanced-efficiency N fertilizers (EENFs) (e.g., controlled-release urea fertilizers [CRFs] and inhibitors) have been developed and widely adopted to better synchronize N supply with crop N uptake by retarding the fertilizer N release or microbial N transforming, thereby enhancing NUE and preventing N losses, such as N2O [27,28]. The EENF application was estimated to significantly mitigate the N2O emissions from vegetable fields by 36% [29]. However, the mitigation effectiveness of EENFs varied with EENF types and management practices [30,31]. Previous meta-analyses reported that the CRFs and nitrification inhibitors (NIs) could significantly reduce the soil N2O emissions by 19–74% and 33–58%, respectively [32,33]. Additionally, the surplus N in soil is found to directly impact the EENF effectiveness, and EENFs provide a greater opportunity for reducing fertilizer N inputs and N2O losses in high-N-surplus cropping systems [34,35]. Therefore, it is critical to establish an optimal EENF application strategy specifically targeting the Chinese open-field vegetable systems.
China is the leading lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) producer worldwide, with an annual planting area and output of 6.06 × 105 ha and 1.43 × 107 t in 2020, respectively [36]. As one of the most widely planted and consumed leafy vegetables in China, lettuce is rich in essential nutrients, such as vitamin C, vitamin E, lutein and fibers, and plays an important role in promoting health and reducing the risk of numerous chronic diseases [37,38]. However, the environmental risk of lettuce production in North China has been increasing with the increased demand for this nutrient-dense crop, as most local farmers apply excessive fertilizer N to obtain high vegetable yields [39]. In order to determine the agronomically, environmentally and economically optimal EENF application strategy for the open-field lettuce production in China, the impacts of reduced N application combined with different EENFs (i.e., CRF and NI) on the lettuce yield, N2O emissions and net economic benefits were comprehensively investigated in this study based on a 4 yr open-field lettuce experiment located in the suburb of Beijing and a cost–benefit analysis (CBA).

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Impacts of EENFs on Lettuce Growth and NUE

On average, the lettuce yields under FP, OPT, CU and CUNI treatments were significantly increased by 54.9% in 2017, 144.2% in 2018, 276.1% in 2019 and 646.6% in 2020 compared to CK, without significant differences among them (Table 1). This lack of difference in the vegetable yields between FP and other N fertilization treatments is consistent with prior Chinese open-field vegetable studies [24,29,40], indicating a great potential for fertilizer N input reduction in open vegetable fields without compromising vegetable growth and yield.
Lettuce reached the highest NUE under EENF treatments (CU in 2017 and CUNI in 2018–2020), and a significant increase of 9.1–14.1% and 7.7–8.4% in NUE was found for CU and CUNI relative to FP, respectively (Table 1). Numerous studies observed a similar significant enhancement in NUE (by 6.1–14.9%) when adopting EENFs at a reduced N application rate (by 20–33%) in Chinese open-field leafy vegetable systems compared to conventional N management [41,42,43]. This is expected considering the great effectiveness of EENFs in mitigating reactive N losses in vegetable fields [44,45]. The performance of CUNI for increasing NUE was more consistent than CU in this study (Table 1). This was probably owing to the effective reduction in N2O without triggering the tradeoff between NH3 and N2O emissions, as the N fertilizers were less susceptible to NH3 losses when incorporated into soil [35]. Contrary to previously reported findings by Suter et al. [46], the EENF treatments (except for CUNI in 2018) did not further improve the NUE of lettuce system compared to OPT (Table 1), which was probably due to the limited capacity of EENFs for promoting N uptake in this study (Figure 1).
The N uptake of lettuce plants under N fertilization treatments was generally found to be significantly higher than CK, regardless of growing stages, during 2017–2020 (Figure 1). However, similar with vegetable yields, no significant differences were observed in the N uptake among different N fertilization treatments (Figure 1), implying that the lettuce growth was not further promoted by the addition of EENFs relative to reducing N rate alone.

2.2. Impacts of EENFs on Soil NH4+–N and NO3−–N Contents

Our results showed that the average soil NH4+–N contents of all treatments declined during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020, and significantly greater NH4+–N contents were observed for N fertilization treatments compared to CK, despite lettuce growing stage. The average NH4+–N contents of CK and N fertilization treatments ranged from 0.88 to 2.06 mg kg–1 and from 11.14 to 15.99 mg kg–1, respectively (Figure 2a). Though FP and OPT were not significantly different, the highest and lowest soil NH4+–N contents were, respectively, found under the CU and CUNI treatments at the seedling stage (Figure 2a), mainly due to the delayed N release from CRF and the accumulation of NH4+–N induced by NI via inhibited nitrification [47,48]. The FP, OPT, CU and CUNI treatments did not lead to significantly different average soil NH4+–N contents at the rosette and mature stages (Figure 2a), probably because NO3−–N was favored over NH4+–N by lettuce uptake [49].
In contrast, the average NO3−–N contents in soil presented a distinctive variation pattern from NH4+–N in this study. While the average NO3−–N contents under CK, FP and OPT declined throughout the lettuce growing season, those under CU and CUNI treatments reached the highest level at the rosette stage (Figure 2b). The elevated NO3−–N under CU and CUNI at the rosette stage probably resulted from the recovered soil nitrification after the EENFs lost effectiveness via biodegradation [50,51]. The average NO3−–N contents of CK and N fertilization treatments ranged between 2.55 and 5.22, and 27.47 and 39.62 mg kg–1, respectively (Figure 2b). In comparison to FP, a reduction of 12.7% in soil NO3−–N contents for CU and 24.1% for CUNI were observed at the seedling stage (Figure 2b), owing to the inhibited soil N transformation via EENFs when they were most effective [28]. The less evident response of soil NO3−–N to EENF application at later lettuce growing stages were probably due to the limited effectiveness duration of EENFs, as mentioned earlier (Figure 2b).

2.3. Impacts of EENFs on N2O Emissions

The soil N2O fluxes under N fertilization treatments, including FP, OPT, CU and CUNI, followed a similar pattern during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020. Three N2O peaks were found for FP and OPT treatments and one for CU and CUNI after each fertilizer application event (Figure 3), showing that N fertilization was the major driver of soil N2O emissions. Precipitation was also found to be a critical regulator for soil N2O emissions [52]. However, the relatively low precipitation intensity and frequency during the lettuce growing seasons in this study implied a limited impact of precipitation on soil N2O emissions (Figure 4). The peak N2O fluxes from CK, FP, OPT, CU and CUNI treatments ranged from 9.1 to 21.7, 40.6 to 56.3, 36.3 to 54.0, 21.0 to 41.4 and 19.5 to 39.9 g N ha–1 d–1, respectively (Figure 3). The peak N2O fluxes of EENF treatments appeared 2–8 days later than the first N2O peaks of FP and OPT treatments (Figure 3) due to the delayed urea hydrolysis, retarded nitrification and impeded accumulation of NO3− in soil via the addition of CRF and NI [48,53], as supported by the lower soil NH4+–N and NO3−–N contents during the early lettuce growing stage in this study (Figure 2) and previous findings [54,55].
The N fertilization treatments resulted in a 115.1–273.3% increase in area-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions relative to CK. Compared with FP treatment, OPT, CU and CUNI significantly reduced the area-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions by 7.4%, 37.7% and 42.4% on average, respectively. Similarly, the yield-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions under OPT, CU and CUNI treatments were significantly lower than FP by 9.6%, 42.4% and 47.5% on average, respectively (Table 2). However, the highly variable yields of CK led to different patterns of yield-scaled emissions across different years in comparison to the N fertilization treatments (Table 1), and the yield-scaled cumulative N2O emissions under CK were significantly lower than FP and OPT by 13.1–25.1% and higher than CU and CUNI by 27.9–34.4% on average, respectively (Table 2).
In this study, the adoption of EENFs at an optimized N rate was more effective in mitigating N2O emissions than reducing N rate alone. This is as expected, given that the N2O generation was further suppressed owing to the decreased accumulation of soil available N via CRF and the impeded nitrification in soil via NI. The CUNI treatment had significantly lower area- and yield-scaled N2O emissions than CU in this study. Similar results were reported by Fan et al. [43] and Muller et al. [56], who observed greater reduction in soil N2O emissions under the double addition of CRF and NI than the sole amendment of CRF in open vegetable fields. This was mainly attributed to the NI-induced efficient inhibition of soil nitrification and N2O production [57]. In addition, the lettuce yields under CUNI tended to be higher than CU (Table 1), thus further lowering the yield-scaled N2O emissions.
It was reported that NI amendment could result in higher NH3 volatilization through the improved NH4+–N accumulation in soil and subsequently elevated soil pH [47]. Although the NH3 volatilization was not measured in this study, it could be speculated that CUNI treatment did not lead to higher NH3 losses, given that soil NH4+–N availability was a vital modulator of soil NH3 emission [58] and there existed no significant differences basically in soil NH4+–N contents among different N fertilization treatments in this study (Figure 2a). The incorporation of basal N fertilizers into the soil in this study could have prevented the NH3 volatilization to a large extent [59]. Additionally, a previous study found that the application of CRF could offset the negative impacts of NI on NH3 mitigation [43].
In summary, this study showed that, compared with conventional N fertilizer management, the application of EENFs reduced the N2O emissions mainly by decreasing the NO3−–N contents in soil during the early lettuce growing stage via the retarded N release from CRF and the NI-induced inhibition of microbial nitrification, thereby effectively improving the NUE and alleviating the negative environmental impacts while maintaining high lettuce yield. Similarly, the optimum agronomic and environmental performance of CUNI treatment resulted from the greater reduction in soil NO3−–N contents and N2O loss potential under the double application of CRF and NI.

2.4. Impacts of EENFs on Net Economic Benefit of Lettuce Production

The CBA results showed that the N fertilization treatments significantly improved the yield benefits compared to CK, and no significant differences were found among FP, OPT, CU and CUNI treatments. In contrast, OPT, CU and CUNI treatments led to a significant decrease of 8.1%, 38.0% and 42.6% in the N2O reduction costs on average compared to FP, respectively. The net economic benefits of lettuce production under OPT, CU and CUNI treatments were higher than that under FP by USD 281, USD 871 and USD 1024 ha–1 on average, respectively, among which only CUNI treatment had significantly higher net benefit than FP (by 11.1%) (Table 3).
In this study, the sole optimization of N rate slightly increased the net benefits of a lettuce system compared to local farmers’ practice, showing the potential of decreasing fertilizer N inputs without economic penalty in Chinese open-field vegetable production. In line with previous reports [60,61], applying EENFs at a reduced N rate exceeded the economic performance of optimizing N rate alone, which indicated that the agronomic, environmental and fertilizer- and labor-input saving benefits of EENFs outweighed their extra costs. In addition, it is noteworthy that the implementation of EENFs allowed for lower N fertilizer inputs, thus further reducing the GHG emissions caused by the upstream fertilizer production [62]. The greatest net benefits of lettuce production were derived from the CUNI treatment, implying that the double amendment of CRF and NI combined with N rate optimization could be the most promising approach for allowing the open-field vegetable production in China to achieve high yields as well as great environmental sustainability and economic benefits.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Site

The field experiment was carried out in Zhaoquanying Town, Shunyi District in suburban Beijing in North China (116°35′59″ E, 40°13′6″ N), with a temperate semi-humid continental monsoon climate. The average annual air temperature and precipitation (mostly occurring in July and August) are 11.5 °C and 625 mm, respectively. The daily precipitation and mean air temperature during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020 were obtained from a local weather station near the study site (Figure 4). The soil type is classified as a cinnamon fluvo-aquic loam soil. The topsoil (0–20 cm) properties of the study site are as follows: pH 7.89, bulk density 1.31 g cm–3, organic matter 1.03%, total N1.10 g kg–1, available phosphorus (P) 13.2 mg kg–1, and available potassium 136.8 mg kg–1.

3.2. Experimental Design and Field Management

The treatments include five N fertilization practices: (1) CK: no N fertilizer; (2) FP: conventional urea (46% N) at 255 kg N ha–1 based on local farmers’ practices; (3) OPT: conventional urea (46% N) at 204 kg N ha–1; (4) CU: polyurethane-coated urea (44% N, 50-day release) at 204 kg N ha–1; (5) CUNI: polyurethane-coated urea at 204 kg N ha–1 in combination with NI (3,4-dimethyl pyrazole phosphate (DMPP), 1 kg ha–1).
The experiment followed a randomized complete block design with four replicates per treatment. The area of each plot was 15 m2 (5 m × 3 m). A local head lettuce variety of ‘Sheshou No. 101′ was chosen for the open-field experiment during 2017–2020. The lettuce seeds were sterilized with 50% carbendazim solution (v/v) for 20 min, and then washed with deionized water four times after being soaked for 8 h each time. Then, the sterilized seeds were wrapped in lint and kept in the incubator at 16 °C for 1 d to promote germination. The lettuce seeds were sown in the seedbeds afterward at a rate of 300 g ha–1 and cultivated for 25 days before transplant. The soil of the experimental field was plowed to a depth of 20 cm beforehand with a rotary tiller. The lettuce was transplanted with two rows on each ridge (four ridges per plot) on September 7th in 2017 and 2018, September 8th in 2019 and September 9th in 2020, and was harvested on November 4th in 2017 and 2018, and October 31st in 2019 and 2020.
The 36% of the total N was applied as the basal fertilizer at the seedling stage, 41% as the first top-dressing fertilizer at the rosette stage, and 23% as the second top-dressing fertilizer at the heading stage for both FP and OPT treatments, while all N was applied as the basal fertilizer for CU and CUNI treatments. The P and K fertilizers were applied as basal fertilizers for all treatments at rates of 41 kg P ha−1 and 197 kg K ha−1. Basal fertilizers were surface applied before lettuce transplant, and then incorporated into soil, whereas top-dressing fertilizers were applied with irrigation. The same experimental arrangement was repeated for four years (2017–2020).

3.3. Sampling and Measurements

Five lettuce plants were randomly sampled each time from each experimental plot at the seedling, rosette, heading and mature stages, respectively. The lettuce plants harvested at the mature stage were weighed for fresh yield. The sampled plants were then dried in an oven at 70 °C for 2 days and weighed for dry matter yield. The plant N content was determined via the method of Kjeldahl digestion [63]. The plant N uptake was calculated as follows:
N uptake = N plant × DM plant ,
where Nuptake is the plant N uptake (kg N ha–1), Nplant is the plant N content (%), and DMplant is the lettuce dry matter yield (kg ha–1). The NUE was obtained by the following equation:
NUE = N F − N C N rate ,
where NUE is the N use efficiency (%), NF and NC are the plant N uptake (kg N ha–1) with and without N fertilization, and Nrate is the application rate of fertilizer N (kg N ha–1) under N fertilization treatments.
The ring knife method was adopted to measure the soil bulk density in situ [64]. Five soil samples (0–20 cm) were randomly collected each time from each experimental plot at the seedling, rosette and mature stages, respectively, and then homogeneously mixed into a composite sample for chemical analysis. The sieved soil was made into a slurry by adding deionized water with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:5 (w/v), and then measured by a pH meter for soil pH. The organic matter content in soil was determined using the Walkley & Black method [65]. The total N content in soil was measured by the dry combustion method [66]. Soil NH4+–N and NO3−–N were extracted with 1.0 M KCl solution and then measured for NH4+–N and NO3−–N contents with a continuous flow injection analyzer [67].
Soil N2O emissions were determined by the static chamber-gas chromatography method [68]. Polyvinyl chloride plastic-made column chambers (34.5 cm in diameter, 60 cm high) installed with a digital thermometer, an electric fan and a vent tube inside were used for N2O sampling. Two chamber bases per experimental plot were inserted 10 cm deep into the soil after lettuce transplant, covering one lettuce plant under each chamber during the gas sampling. The samplings were carried out between 9:00 am and 11:00 am every day following each N fertilization or precipitation event for 3–5 days or once every 5–10 days otherwise. Four gas samples were successively collected from the chamber headspace in each plot at an interval of 10 min with a 20 mL gas-tight syringe, and then immediately transferred to 12 mL air-evacuated gas-tight glass vials. The N2O concentrations of gas samples were measured by a gas chromatography (Shimadzu, GC-14B, Japan). The N2O flux was obtained via the equation below [68]:
F = H × ρ × ( Δ c Δ t ) × ( 273 273 + T ) ,
where F is the N2O flux (mg m–2 h–1), H is the height of the chamber headspace (m), ρ is the density of N2O standard gas (mg m–3), Δc/Δt is the changing rate of gas concentration in the chamber (mg m–3 h–1), and T is the chamber mean temperature during the gas sampling (°C). The area-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions were calculated as follows [68]:
ASE = ∑ i n ( ( F i + F i + 1 ) × 24 2 × 1000 × D i ) × 14 44 × 10 ,
where ASE is the area-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emission (kg N2O-N ha–1 season–1), Fi and Fi+1 are the N2O fluxes measured on two adjacent sampling dates (mg m−2 h−1), Di is the length of the ith sampling interval (d), n is the total number of sampling intervals, and 44 and 14 are the relative molecular masses of N2O and N, respectively. The yield-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions were derived from dividing ASE by lettuce yield.

3.4. CBA Analysis

The net economic benefits of the lettuce production system under different N fertilization practices were estimated by deducting the costs of N fertilizer products (i.e., conventional urea and EENFs), N2O-induced environmental impacts and labor inputs for N fertilization from the benefits of lettuce yield. The local market prices of USD 0.14 kg–1, USD 352 t–1, USD 487 t–1 and USD 21 kg–1 were adopted for lettuce, conventional and polyurethane-coated urea, and DMPP, respectively [69]. The carbon price of USD 7.38 t–1 CO2-equivalent was used to assess the N2O reduction costs [70]. Four persons were employed for basal fertilization and two persons for top-dressing fertilization, with a payment of USD 28 per person.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA; Version 21.0). The Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests were used to verify the normality and homogeneity of variance before the analysis of variance (ANOVA). One-way and two-way repeated measures ANOVA were adopted to analyze the data obtained at the mature stage and at different lettuce growing stages, respectively, which was followed by the Tukey honest significant difference test if the treatment effects were significant. All levels of significance were defined at p ≤ 0.05. All plots were illustrated using Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA; Version Microsoft 365).

4. Conclusions

The adoption of EENFs (CRF and NI) significantly decreased the seasonal cumulative N2O emissions while maintaining high lettuce yield and reducing fertilizer N inputs compared with conventional fertilization. The double amendment of CRF and NI led to the lowest N2O emissions and the highest NUE as a result of the effectively inhibited soil NO3−–N accumulation. In addition, CBA revealed that the yield-boosting, environment-preserving and fertilizer- and labor-input saving benefits of EENFs outweighed their extra costs, thus improving the net benefits of the lettuce production system. Overall, our study highlighted that the double addition of CRF and NI combined with N rate optimization would be the optimal N fertilization practice to reach the environmentally and economically sustainable production of open-field vegetables in China, especially when concurrently employing other 4R practices, such as fertilizer incorporation to prevent the soil NH3 volatilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.W. and W.H.; Methodology, B.C. and J.W.; Software, D.F. and R.J.; Validation, X.W., D.S. and Y.C.; Formal Analysis, D.F.; Investigation, R.J. and D.S.; Resources, B.C. and Y.C.; Data Curation, D.F. and X.W.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, D.F.; Writing—Review and Editing, W.H., R.J., D.F. and X.W.; Visualization, D.F.; Supervision, X.W., W.H. and G.Z.; Project Administration, G.Z.; Funding Acquisition, W.H., J.W. and D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this research was received from Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences (KJCX20220416, YZS202103, KJCX20200411) and from China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M700492).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate change: Synthesis report. In Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  2. Revell, L.E.; Tummon, F.; Salawitch, R.J.; Stenke, A.; Peter, T. The changing ozone depletion potential of N2O in a future climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 10047–10055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Tian, H.; Xu, R.; Canadell, J.G.; Thompson, R.L.; Winiwarter, W.; Suntharalingam, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 2020, 586, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cui, X.; Zhou, F.; Ciais, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Tubiello, F.N.; Niu, X.; Ju, X.; Canadell, J.G.; Bouwman, A.F.; Jackson, R.B.; et al. Global mapping of crop-specific emission factors highlights hotspots of nitrous oxide mitigation. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maaz, T.M.; Sapkota, T.B.; Eagle, A.J.; Kantar, M.B.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Majumdar, K. Meta-analysis of yield and nitrous oxide outcomes for nitrogen management in agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 2343–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rashti, M.R.; Wang, W.; Moody, P.; Chen, C.; Ghadiri, H. Fertiliser-induced nitrous oxide emissions from vegetable production in the world and the regulating factors: A review. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 112, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Searchinger, T.D.; Dumas, P.; Shen, Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 2015, 528, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. FAO. FAOSTAT Database-Resources. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2017: World Food and Agriculture. 2017. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed on 3 October 2022).
  9. Wu, L.; Zhang, W.F.; Chen, X.P.; Cui, Z.L.; Fan, M.S.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, F.S. Nitrogen fertilizer input and nitrogen use efficiency in Chinese farmland. Soil Fertil. Sci. China 2016, 4, 76–83, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, X.; Zou, C.; Gao, X.; Guan, X.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, X.; Chen, X. Nitrous oxide emissions in Chinese vegetable systems: A meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 239, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, X.; Dou, Z.; Shi, X.; Zou, C.; Liu, D.; Wang, Z.; Guan, X.; Sun, Y.; Wu, G.; Zhang, B.; et al. Innovative management programme reduces environmental impacts in Chinese vegetable production. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ma, R.; Yu, K.; Xiao, S.; Liu, S.; Ciais, P.; Zou, J. Data-driven estimates of fertilizer-induced soil NH3, NO and N2O emissions from croplands in China and their climate change impacts. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 1008–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liang, L.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Lal, R.; Wang, D.; Wu, W.; Peng, P.; Hang, S.; Wang, L.; Zhao, G. Nitrogen footprint and nitrogen use efficiency of greenhouse tomato production in North China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, S.W.; Tang, J.W.; Li, C.H.; Zhang, H.Z.; Yuan, S. Reducing potential of chemical fertilizers and scientific fertilization countermeasure in vegetable production in China. J. Plant Nutr. Fertilzer 2017, 23, 1480–1493, (In Chinese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  15. Ti, C.P.; Luo, Y.X.; Yan, X.Y. Characteristics of nitrogen balance in open-air and greenhouse vegetable cropping systems of China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 18508–18518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thompson, K.A.; Bent, E.; Abalos, D.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; Dunfield, K.E. Soil microbial communities as potential regulators of in situ N2O fluxes in annual and perennial cropping systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baggs, M.E.; Smales, L.C.; Bateman, J.E. Changing pH shifts the microbial source as well as the magnitude of N2O emission from soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2010, 46, 793–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saggar, S.; Jha, N.; Deslippe, J.; Bolan, N.S.; Luo, J.; Giltrap, D.L.; Kim, D.-G.; Zaman, M.; Tillman, R.W. Denitrification and N2O:N2 production in temperate grasslands: Processes, measurements, modelling and mitigating negative impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 465, 173–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hoben, J.P.; Gehl, R.J.; Millar, N.; Grace, P.R.; Robertson, G.P. Nonlinear nitrous oxide (N2O) response to nitrogen fertilizer in on-farm corn crops of the US Midwest. Glob. Change Biol. 2011, 17, 1140–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bouwman, L.; Goldewijk, K.K.; Van Der Hoek, K.W.; Beusen, A.H.W.; Van Vuuren, D.P.; Willems, J.; Rufino, M.C.; Stehfest, E. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20882–20887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Eagle, A.; Olander, L.; Locklier, L.K.; Heffernan, J.; Bernhardt, E. Fertilizer management and environmental factors drive N2O and NO3 losses in corn: A meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017, 81, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Jiang, J.; Jiang, S.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Zhang, J. Lowering nitrogen inputs and optimizing fertilizer types can reduce direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from rice-wheat rotation systems. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2020, 97, 103152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liang, H.; Chen, Q.; Liang, B.; Hu, K. Modeling the effects of long-term reduced N application on soil N losses and yield in a greenhouse tomato production system. Agric. Syst. 2020, 185, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, F.; Liu, F.; Ma, X.; Guo, G.; Liu, B.; Cheng, T.; Liang, T.; Tao, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, X. Greenhouse gas emissions from vegetables production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, T.; Zhang, X.; Gao, H.; Li, B.; Wang, H.; Yan, Q.; Ollenburger, M.; Zhang, W. Exploring optimal nitrogen management practices within site-specific ecological and socioeconomic conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fixen, P.E. A brief account of the genesis of 4R nutrient stewardship. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 4511–4518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Trenkel, M.E. Slow-and Controlled-Release and Stabilized Fertilizers: An Option for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency in Agriculture; IFA, International Fertilizer Industry Association: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, F.; Cui, Z.; Chen, X.; Ju, X.; Shen, J.; Chen, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Mi, G.; Fan, M.; et al. Integrated nutrient management for food security and environmental quality in China. Adv. Agron. 2012, 116, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yang, T.; Li, F.; Zhou, X.; Xu, C.; Feng, J.; Fang, F. Impact of nitrogen fertilizer, greenhouse, and crop species on yield-scaled nitrous oxide emission from vegetable crops: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abalos, D.; Jeffery, S.; Sanz-Cobena, A.; Guardia, G.; Vallejo, A. Meta-analysis of the effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 189, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sha, Z.; Ma, X.; Wang, J.; Lv, T.; Li, Q.; Misselbrook, T.; Liu, X. Effect of N stabilizers on fertilizer-N fate in the soil-crop system: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 290, 106763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thapa, R.; Chatterjee, A.; Awale, R.; McGranahan, D.A.; Daigh, A. Effect of enhanced efficiency fertilizers on nitrous oxide emissions and crop yields: A meta-analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 1121–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, T.; Zhang, W.; Yin, J.; Chadwick, D.; Norse, D.; Lu, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, X.; Zhang, F.; Powlson, D.; et al. Enhanced-efficiency fertilizers are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, e511–e521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, H.; Zhang, H.; Powlson, D.; Min, J.; Shi, W. Rice production, nitrous oxide emission and ammonia volatilization as impacted by the nitrification inhibitor 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)-pyridine. Field Crops Res. 2015, 173, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fan, D.; He, W.; Smith, W.N.; Drury, C.F.; Jiang, R.; Grant, B.B.; Shi, Y.; Song, D.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; et al. Global evaluation of inhibitor impacts on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 5121–5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. FAO. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2020: World Food and Agriculture. 2020. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  37. Hooper, L.; Cassidy, A. A review of the health care potential of bioactive compounds. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 1805–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Christopoulou, M.; Wo, S.R.; Kozik, A.; McHale, L.K.; Truco, M.J.; Wroblewski, T.; Michelmore, R.W. Genome-wide architecture of disease resistance genes in lettuce. G3 Genes Genomes Genet. 2015, 5, 2655–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Li, J.G.; Shen, M.C.; Hou, J.F.; Li, L.; Wu, J.X.; Dong, Y.H. Effect of different levels of nitrogen on rhizosphere bacterial community structure in intensive monoculture of greenhouse lettuce. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ma, X.; Zhang, F.; Liu, F.; Guo, G.; Cheng, T.; Wang, J.; Shen, Y.; Liang, T.; Chen, X.; Wang, X. An integrated nitrogen management strategy promotes open-field pepper yield, crop nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen use efficiency in Southwest China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, D.; Guo, L.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, R.; Li, M.; Ma, F.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and water management practices on nitrogen leaching from a typical open field used for vegetable planting in northern China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 913–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guo, G.; Zhang, F.; Shen, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Zhu, P.; Wang, F.; Chen, X.; Wang, X. Comprehensive assessment of the agronomic and environmental effects of N application rate reduction combined with nitrification inhibitor on Chinese cabbage. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2020, 39, 2307–2315, (In Chinese, with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  43. Fan, D.; Wang, X.; Song, D.; Shi, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Cao, B.; Zou, G.; He, W. Optimizing nitrogen management to mitigate gaseous nitrogen losses and improve net benefits of an open-field Chinese cabbage system. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 318, 115583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, J.; Liao, S.; Li, Y.; Cao, B.; Sun, Y.; Zou, G.; Liu, B. Reducing nitrogen pollution while improving tomato production by controlled-release urea application. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 632–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Min, J.; Sun, H.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Wang, Y.; Shi, W. Comprehensive assessment of the effects of nitrification inhibitor application on reactive nitrogen loss in intensive vegetable production systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 307, 107227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Suter, H.; Lam, S.K.; Walker, C.; Chen, D. Benefits from enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilisers in rainfed temperate pastures are seasonally driven. Soil Res. 2022, 60, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lam, S.K.; Suter, H.; Mosier, A.R.; Chen, D. Using nitrification inhibitors to mitigate agricultural N2O emission: A double-edged sword? Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Martinez, C.; Clarke, D.; Dang, Y.P.; Janke, C.; Bell, M.J. Integrated field assessment of nitrogen release dynamics and crop recovery of band-applied controlled-release fertilisers. Plant Soil 2021, 466, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rocha, D.C.; da Silva, B.F.I.; dos Santos, J.M.M.; Tavares, D.S.; Pauletti, V.; Gomes, M.P. Do nitrogen sources and molybdenum affect the nutritional quality and nitrate concentrations of hydroponic baby leaf lettuce? Food Sci. 2020, 85, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Saggar, S.; Singh, J.; Giltrap, D.L.; Zaman, M.; Luo, J.; Rollo, M.; Kim, D.-G.; Rys, G.; van der Weerden, T.J. Quantification of reductions in ammonia emissions from fertilizer urea and animal urine in grazed pastures with urease inhibitors for agriculture inventory: New Zealand as a case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 465, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naz, M.Y.; Sulaiman, S.A. Slow release coating remedy for nitrogen loss from conventional urea: A review. J. Control. Release 2016, 225, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yan, G.; Mu, C.; Xing, Y.; Wang, Q. Responses and mechanisms of soil greenhouse gas fluxes to changes in precipitation intensity and duration: A meta-analysis for a global perspective. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 98, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thilakarathna, S.K.; Hernandez-Ramirez, G. How does management legacy, nitrogen addition, and nitrification inhibition affect soil organic matter priming and nitrous oxide production? J. Environ. Qual. 2021, 50, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Benlamlih, F.Z.; Lamhamedi, M.S.; Pepin, S.; Benomar, L.; Messaddeq, Y. Evaluation of a new generation of coated fertilizers to reduce the leaching of mineral nutrients and greenhouse gas (N2O) emissions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Borzouei, A.; Mander, U.; Teemusk, A.; Alberto, S.C.; Zaman, M.; Dong-Gill, K.I.; Muller, C.; Kelestanie, A.A.; Amin, P.S.; Moghiseh, E.; et al. Effects of the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin and tillage practices on yield-scaled nitrous oxide emission from a maize field in Iran. Pedosphere 2021, 31, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Muller, J.; De Rosa, D.; Friedl, J.; Migliorati, M.; Rowlings, D.; Grace, P.; Scheer, C. Combining nitrification inhibitors with a reduced N rate maintains yield and reduces N2O emissions in sweet corn. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lou, Y.; Xu, M.; He, X.; Duan, Y.; Li, L. Soil nitrate distribution, N2O emission and crop performance after the application of N fertilizers to greenhouse vegetables. Soil Use Manag. 2012, 28, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rochette, P.; Angers, D.A.; Chantigny, M.H.; Gasser, M.O.; MacDonald, J.D.; Pelster, D.E.; Bertrand, N. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen retention: How deep to incorporate urea? J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 1635–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mencaroni, M.; Dal Ferro, N.; Furlanetto, J.; Longo, M.; Lazzaro, B.; Sartori, L.; Grant, B.B.; Smith, W.N.; Morari, F. Identifying N fertilizer management strategies to reduce ammonia volatilization: Towards a site-specific approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 277, 111445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kanter, D.R.; Searchinger, T.D. A technology-forcing approach to reduce nitrogen pollution. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhou, X.V.; Larson, J.A.; Yin, X.; Savoy, H.J.; McClure, A.M.; Essington, M.E.; Boyer, C.N. Profitability of enhanced efficiency urea fertilizers in no-tillage corn production. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Walling, E.; Vaneeckhaute, C. Greenhouse gas emissions from inorganic and organic fertilizer production and use: A review of emission factors and their variability. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Suhre, F.B.; Corrao, P.A.; Glover, A.; Malanoski, A.J. Comparison of three methods for determination of crude protein in meat: Collaborative study. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 1982, 65, 1339–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. ISO 11272-2017; Soil Quality—Determination of Dry Bulk Density. International Organization for Standardization. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  65. Gillman, G.P.; Sinclair, D.F.; Beech, T.A. Recovery of organic-carbon by the Walkley and Black procedure in highly weathered soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1986, 17, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Meersmans, J.; Van Wesemael, B.; Van Molle, M. Determining soil organic carbon for agricultural soils: A comparison between the Walkley & Black and the dry combustion methods (north Belgium). Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 346–353. [Google Scholar]
  67. Zaman, M.; Saggar, S.; Blennerhassett, J.D.; Singh, J. Effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on N transformation, gaseous emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide, pasture yield and N uptake in grazed pasture system. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 1270–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fan, D.; Liu, T.; Sheng, F.; Li, S.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Nitrogen deep placement mitigates methane emissions by regulating methanogens and methanotrophs in no-tillage paddy fields. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 711–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. 2022. Available online: http://www.moa.gov.cn/ (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  70. Wang, Y.; Fu, Q.; Chang, C.P. The integration of carbon price between european and chinese markets: What are the implications? Int. J. Environ. Res. 2021, 15, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00081 g001 550
Figure 1. Nitrogen (N) uptake during lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with nitrification inhibitor (NI). Same letter indicates no significant differences at the level of 0.05. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Figure 1. Nitrogen (N) uptake during lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with nitrification inhibitor (NI). Same letter indicates no significant differences at the level of 0.05. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Plants 12 00081 g001
Plants 12 00081 g002 550
Figure 2. Average soil NH4+–N (a) and NO3−–N (b) contents during lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI. Same letter indicates no significant differences at the level of 0.05. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Figure 2. Average soil NH4+–N (a) and NO3−–N (b) contents during lettuce growing seasons in 2017–2020. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI. Same letter indicates no significant differences at the level of 0.05. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Plants 12 00081 g002
Plants 12 00081 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil N2O fluxes during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017 (a), 2018 (b), 2019 (c) and 2020 (d). CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Figure 3. Soil N2O fluxes during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017 (a), 2018 (b), 2019 (c) and 2020 (d). CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI. Bars represent standard deviations (n = 4).
Plants 12 00081 g003
Plants 12 00081 g004 550
Figure 4. Daily precipitation and mean air temperature during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017 (a), 2018 (b), 2019 (c) and 2020 (d).
Figure 4. Daily precipitation and mean air temperature during the lettuce growing seasons in 2017 (a), 2018 (b), 2019 (c) and 2020 (d).
Plants 12 00081 g004
Table
Table 1. Lettuce yield and N use efficiency (NUE) under different treatments during 2017–2020.
Table 1. Lettuce yield and N use efficiency (NUE) under different treatments during 2017–2020.
Treatment2017201820192020Avg.
Lettuce yield (Mg ha–1)
CK46.3 (11.3) 1 b30.0 (5.8) b 219.3 (1.4) b9.8 (1.5) b26.4 (3.8) b
FP66.2 (7.2) a70.4 (4.4) a69.4 (5.3) a70.4 (7.6) a69.1 (2.6) a
OPT70.9 (11.4) a73.4 (4.7) a69.3 (6.3) a69.7 (4.9) a70.8 (5.0) a
CU74.0 (9.5) a74.4 (8.8) a74.5 (5.5) a75.9 (5.1) a74.7 (6.6) a
CUNI75.9 (9.8) a75.1 (7.6) a77.3 (7.2) a75.6 (8.5) a76.0 (2.3) a
NUE (%)
FP9.9 (7.4) b22.5 (6.9) c29.4 (5.5) b37.1 (12.7) b24.7 (7.4) b
OPT14.8 (12.2) ab28.4 (2.8) bc37.3 (4.1) ab42.1 (3.0) ab30.6 (3.5) ab
CU21.3 (5.1) a31.6 (7.2) ab43.5 (5.6) a47.8 (7.8) ab36.1 (6.1) a
CUNI17.5 (4.1) ab36.1 (0.9) a45.0 (4.9) a50.6 (7.2) a37.3 (2.3) a
F value and probability level
Lettuce yield
Treatment5.8 **36.0 ***76.1 ***88.4 ***92.4 ***
NUE
Treatment5.5 **37.7 ***66.3 ***29.6 ***42.9 ***
1 Values in brackets are standard deviations (n = 4). 2 Same letter within column means no significant difference at the level of 0.05. ** Significant at p < 0.01; *** significant at p < 0.001. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI.
Table
Table 2. Area- and yield-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions under different treatments during 2017–2020.
Table 2. Area- and yield-scaled seasonal cumulative N2O emissions under different treatments during 2017–2020.
Treatment2017201820192020Avg.
Area-scaled cumulative emissions (kg N ha–1 season–1)
CK0.30 (0.01) 1 e0.46 (0.02) e 20.31 (0.01) e0.14 (0.004) e0.30 (0.01) e
FP1.05 (0.02) a1.24 (0.05) a0.98 (0.03) a1.22 (0.03) a1.12 (0.02) a
OPT0.96 (0.03) b1.13 (0.05) b0.92 (0.04) b1.14 (0.03) b1.04 (0.01) b
CU0.64 (0.01) c0.74 (0.02) c0.74 (0.02) c0.67 (0.03) c0.70 (0.01) c
CUNI0.60 (0.01) d0.68 (0.01) d0.68 (0.02) d0.62 (0.03) d0.65 (0.01) d
Yield-scaled cumulative emissions (g N Mg–1 season–1)
CK6.38 (0.22) e15.2 (0.64) b16.1 (0.46) a14.1 (0.39) c13.0 (0.36) c
FP15.8 (0.28) a17.6 (0.65) a14.0 (0.43) b17.3 (0.44) a16.2 (0.32) a
OPT13.6 (0.37) b15.5 (0.61) b13.2 (0.56) c16.3 (0.47) b14.6 (0.11) b
CU8.61 (0.15) c9.95 (0.24) c9.90 (0.26) d8.87 (0.39) d9.33 (0.17) d
CUNI7.94 (0.17) d9.09 (0.14) d8.81 (0.24) e8.15 (0.33) e8.50 (0.13) e
F value and probability level
Area-scaled cumulative emissions
Treatment1291 ***436.9 ***426.0 ***1068 ***2410 ***
Yield-scaled cumulative emissions
Treatment1033 ***217.9 ***217.0 ***428 ***769.5 ***
1 Values in brackets are standard deviations (n = 4). 2 Same letter within column means no significant difference between treatments at the level of 0.05. *** Significant at p < 0.001. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI.
Table
Table 3. The average benefits of lettuce yield (USD ha–1) and costs of purchasing N fertilizers, reducing N2O-induced environmental impacts and N fertilization-related labor inputs (USD ha–1) under different treatments during 2017–2020.
Table 3. The average benefits of lettuce yield (USD ha–1) and costs of purchasing N fertilizers, reducing N2O-induced environmental impacts and N fertilization-related labor inputs (USD ha–1) under different treatments during 2017–2020.
TreatmentYield BenefitFertilizer Cost 1Environmental Cost of N2OLabor Cost 1Net Benefit
CK3690 (533) 2 b0 2.09 (0.06) e03688 (533) c
FP9675 (362) a 3195.17.82 (0.14) a2249248 (362) b
OPT9916 (697) a156.17.19 (0.06) b2249528 (697) ab
CU10,461 (919) a225.84.85 (0.09) c11210,118 (919) ab
CUNI10,635 (323) a246.84.49 (0.07) d11210,272 (323) a
F value and probability level
Treatment92.4 ***-2724 ***-82.4 ***
1 Fertilizer and labor costs for each treatment are constant values. 2 Values in brackets are standard deviations (n = 4). 3 Same letter within column means no significant difference at the level of 0.05. *** Significant at p < 0.001. CK, no N fertilizer; FP, conventional urea based on local farmers’ practices; OPT, conventional urea at reduced N rate; CU, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate; CUNI, polyurethane-coated urea at reduced N rate in combination with NI.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, D.; He, W.; Jiang, R.; Song, D.; Zou, G.; Chen, Y.; Cao, B.; Wang, J.; Wang, X. Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers Impact on Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from an Open-Field Vegetable System in North China. Plants 2023, 12, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010081

AMA Style

Fan D, He W, Jiang R, Song D, Zou G, Chen Y, Cao B, Wang J, Wang X. Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers Impact on Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from an Open-Field Vegetable System in North China. Plants. 2023; 12(1):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Daijia, Wentian He, Rong Jiang, Daping Song, Guoyuan Zou, Yanhua Chen, Bing Cao, Jiachen Wang, and Xuexia Wang. 2023. "Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers Impact on Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from an Open-Field Vegetable System in North China" Plants 12, no. 1: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop