Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 4995 2022-11-17 12:57:08 |
2 format Meta information modification 4995 2022-11-18 03:01:55 | |
3 format -2 word(s) 4993 2022-11-18 03:44:10 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Grzebisz, W.;  Diatta, J.;  Barłóg, P.;  Biber, M.;  Potarzycki, J.;  Łukowiak, R.;  Przygocka-Cyna, K.;  Szczepaniak, W. Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 11 December 2023).
Grzebisz W,  Diatta J,  Barłóg P,  Biber M,  Potarzycki J,  Łukowiak R, et al. Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed December 11, 2023.
Grzebisz, Witold, Jean Diatta, Przemysław Barłóg, Maria Biber, Jarosław Potarzycki, Remigiusz Łukowiak, Katarzyna Przygocka-Cyna, Witold Szczepaniak. "Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control" Encyclopedia, (accessed December 11, 2023).
Grzebisz, W.,  Diatta, J.,  Barłóg, P.,  Biber, M.,  Potarzycki, J.,  Łukowiak, R.,  Przygocka-Cyna, K., & Szczepaniak, W.(2022, November 17). Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control. In Encyclopedia.
Grzebisz, Witold, et al. "Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 November, 2022.
Soil Fertility Clock—Paradigm in Nitrogen Fertilizer Productivity Control
The Soil Fertility Clock (SFC) concept is based on the assumption that the critical content (range) of essential nutrients in the soil is adapted to the requirements of the most sensitive plant in the cropping sequence (CS). This provides a key way to effectively control the productivity of fertilizer nitrogen (Nf). The production goals of a farm are set for the maximum crop yield, which is defined by the environmental conditions of the production process. This target can be achieved, provided that the efficiency of Nf approaches 1.0. Nitrogen (in fact, nitrate) is the determining yield-forming factor, but only when it is balanced with the supply of other nutrients (nitrogen-supporting nutrients; N-SNs). The condition for achieving this level of Nf efficiency is the effectiveness of other production factors, including N-SNs, which should be set at ≤1.0. A key source of N-SNs for a plant is the soil zone occupied by the roots. N-SNs should be applied in order to restore their content in the topsoil to the level required by the most sensitive crop in a given CS. Other plants in the CS provide the timeframe for active controlling the distance of the N-SNs from their critical range.
nitrate-nitrogen nitrogen use efficiency nitrogen-supporting nutrients maximum attainable yield soil fertility management

1. Introduction—The Battle for Yield

The required increase in total food production of around 70% in 2050, compared to 2010, will largely depend on increases in the yields of crop plants, which serve as staple food for humans [1][2]. At present, meeting the demand for food in the next 28 years, in connection with the required reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, poses a major challenge for global organizations (e.g., the United Nations), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and national governments [3][4]. Russia’s war on Ukraine has clearly highlighted the importance of net food producers, such as Ukraine, in stabilizing the global food market. In the 2020/21 season, this country exported 69.8 million tons of all cereals, accounting for 11.8% of the global export. Ukraine’s share in global exports of sunflower seeds and oil exceeded 50% (52%). The war collapsed exports from Ukraine, not only of cereals and sunflower products, but also soybeans and rapeseed [5][6]. Strubenhoff [6] has indicated four groups of activities that can be urgently taken by world leaders to save the world from hunger. Concerning the national level, he pointed to the need to change the food policies of the EU and the USA. In the case of the USA, researchers suggested reducing the production of biofuels. In the case of the EU, researchers indicated the need to move away from policies on reducing the use of mineral fertilizers. The general conclusion formulated by Strubenhoff [6] was as follows: “For the time being, we need more production, not less. Climate objectives are good to save the planet, but we also need to feed the people on the planet. This should be seen as a motto for political and environmental players who truly understand the functioning of Planet Earth in a holistic, not reductionist sense.
The increase in food production by 2050 will in fact be the result of two main drivers, including the increases in arable land area and yields of main staple crops. The first, the main factor in covering the food gap by 2050—is in fact a key constraint, as evidenced by the wide discourse pursued by decision makers in the area of food policy. This goal, in fact, is limited by a lack of fertile soils. The potential resources for expanding arable land area are predominantly in the tropics. However, these soils, despite high natural fertility, require large inputs of the means of production [7][8]. Moreover, the destruction of the rain forest is expected to completely disrupt the Earth’s climate [9]. Thus, in order to cover the food gap by 2050, the main challenge facing the world is to increase the yields of crop plants in “old agricultural areas” [10]. The share of the second—but dominant—factor in covering the food gap by 2050 (crop yields), has been estimated at over 80% [11][12]. There are four main factors that are considered crucial in actions oriented toward yield increases. The first is breeding progress. Meeting the 2050 target requires an annual increase in the yield of major crops such as wheat, maize, rice, and soybean at the level of 2.4% annually. This target, as reported by Ray et al. [13], will not easily be met, as the current yield increases of these crops are much below this target, reaching in relative terms only 67% for wheat, 42% for maize, 38% for rice, and 55% for soybean. The second factor is inherent in the effective use of mineral fertilizers and other crop protection measures. The actions taken by farmers should, however, be in line with the main assumptions of the concept known as Intensification of Sustainable Agriculture, which indicates the effective use of production means, including fertilizers [14]. The term “battle for yield,” as proposed in the title of this chapter, in the current geopolitical context refers precisely to the productivity of the basic unit of plant production (i.e., a single field) which, in fact, defines the homogenous fertility unit of the field [15].
The third factor—and, indeed, a dominant factor in the food production sector—is the effective use of fertilizer nitrogen (Nf). The Nf consumption, as forecast for 2050, is 76% higher than in 2000 (181 vs. 103 mln t y−1) [4]. In another study, the increase in the demand for Nf in 2050, compared to 2005, will be in the range of 43–73% [16]. The crucial problem with Nf use by farmers—both for production and, consequently, for the environment—is its low efficiency (recovery). Limiting the effectiveness of Nf to the right N dose, fertilizer approach, and even the timing of its application is a dramatic simplification of a complex problem [17][18]. A reduction in Nf consumption, in light of the drastic increase in N fertilizer prices in 2022, seems more realistic at present [19]. However, the sudden drop in Nf consumption, as observed in 2022 in Europe, could disrupt the global food production chain. The maintenance of the level of Nf consumption is crucial for food production in the old agricultural areas in the world [20]; for example, a simulation regarding reduced Nf consumption in the U.S. for maize and rice indicates a possible decrease in yields of 41% and 27%, respectively [21]. These theoretical considerations from 10 years ago should be considered, in the face of the current fertilizer crisis [6][19].
The fourth factor, which is decisive for the efficient use of production measures in agriculture, is the knowledge and skills of the farmers and their advisers, which are necessary to exploit the yield potential of the currently grown varieties. The real challenge for the farmer in the effective use of Nf is the correct diagnosis of the plant demand for N in the most critical phase(s) of the yield formation. At this particular stage of crop plant growth, a synchronization between the plant’s requirements for N with its supply from soil (soil N resources plus controlled Nf application) is crucial for the formation of yield components. The farmer must know and recognize both the phases in which the plant builds up the yield components and the phases in which they are reduced. The importance of this issue can be presented through the examples of three crops. The first example concerns cereals, which deliver about 60% of carbohydrates and 50% of proteins to the world food market [22]. The key yield component determining the grain yield is the number of grains per unit area (grain density; GD). The most critical period of GD formation extends from the heading phase through flowering to the early milk (BBCH 71) [23][24]. Therefore, it can be called “the critical cereals’ window”. The second primary component of the yield is the grain weight (1000 grain weight; TGW), which is established during the grain filling period (GFP). This period extends from the early milk stage (BBCH 72) to plant maturity (BBCH 90) [25]. Its impact on grain yield is much lower than that of GD [26]. For the second example, maize is a crop producing the greatest amount of food for humans or fodder for livestock [27]. The critical period of the primary yield’s component formation is the stage of fifth leaf, in which the cob initials are formed. The key nutrient responsible for this process is the supply of N [28][29]. The third example is potatoes, the importance of which as food for humans has been growing rapidly [30]. The critical period for tuber yield establishment is tuberization [31]. The tuber yield depends on the number and weight of young tubers. These processes are driven by the supply of N, but also require a good supply of potassium (K) and phosphorus (P), at least [32][33].

2. Nitrogen—A Unique and Critical Factor in Plant Production

There exists a general consensus that the choice of a cultivar with well-defined yield potential is the basis of crop cultivation. Exploitation of the crop potential, however, essentially depends on the supply of water and N. For these reasons, these production factors are defined as yield-limiting [34][35]. These factors cannot be, however, treated as substitutes [36]. Water is a growth factor that regulates the plant temperature and, as a consequence, its whole metabolism and growth [37]. It has been well-documented that the amount of water available to the plant during the growing season is the result of both the water retention capacity of the soil and current precipitation. These two factors determine the Yattmax under well-defined climate and soil conditions [38]. Water acts as a natural carrier of nutrients, both in soils and in the plant [39].
The plant is an autotrophic organism which, in order to close its life cycle, must be supplied with adequate amounts of both water and nutrients at well-defined stages of growth [40]. Plant growth can be defined as a set of processes in which both the plant and the soil—as its natural growth medium—interact with each other throughout the growing season. The importance of N for plant growth and yield results from its presence in key biological molecules [39]. The key N-dependent enzyme, which is decisive in the survival of life on Earth, is the ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase-oxygenase enzyme, simply called Rubisco (RuBP). Its key function is the capture and subsequent fixation of the CO2 molecule, which is the basic substrate for the production of elementary sugar compounds [41][42]. The total mass of Rubisco in terrestrial plants has been estimated at ≈0.7 Gt. This enzyme constitutes 2.5–3% of the total leaf weight of leaves and about 50% of the total leaf proteins [43]. A hypothesis has recently emerged that Rubisco may also be treated a source of N during protein synthesis. This phenomenon is revealed only under conditions of excessive CO2 capture by the plant in the circadian cycle [43].
N, mainly as nitrate (N-NO3), also acts a local and systemic signaling molecule involved in the current regulation of the hormonal status and morphology of the plant [44][45]. For this reason, this inorganic N form has recently been termed a plant morphogen [46]. Clear evidence for the dominant role of N-NO3 in yield formation is its influence on plant growth, which affects both the shoot and root system architecture [47]. The effect of N supply to the plant manifests itself in clear, visible changes in the architecture of the plant’s canopy. Wheat plants grown on an N control plot (i.e., without Nf supply) presented stunted growth (i.e., dwarf stature), low weight and surface area of leaves, and pale green color. In contrast, plants well-fed with N were characterized by a well-developed shoot, high mass and surface area of leaves, and an intense green color. All of these plants, despite a significant difference in the architecture of shoots, were in the same phase of growth (i.e., booting; BBCH 40–49). This phase is the crucial for the development of yield structure and determines the number of fertile florets [48]. Excess N supply to the plant, as shown for maize, results in the establishment of more cobs per plant. However, this does not mean a higher yield of grain. Excessive supply of N also results in excessive growth of non-productive plant parts, leading to a reduction in grain per unit area [49][50].
The introduction of new cereal phenotypes in the 1960s, such as varieties with reduced stem length, first for wheat and then for rice, significantly changed the shoot architecture (dwarfism of the shoot). These genetic modifications resulted in an increased harvest index (HI)—that is, the share of grain in the total shoot biomass—at the expense of the stem. Improvement of the harvest index (HI) is the greatest effect of the Green revolution, as it finally led to higher grain yields of cereals, including rice [51]. However, the exposition of dwarf genes has also caused a reduction in the root system size of wheat varieties, which is significantly smaller than that of the classic ones [52][53]. As a consequence, the semi-dwarf or dwarf growth mode of modern cereals varieties result in the higher yield, provided that the supply of nutrients (especially Nf) is high, and that the plants are strongly protected against pathogens [51][54]. It can, therefore, be concluded that the currently grown cereals, due to their high requirements for N on one hand, and their smaller root systems on the other hand, are extremely sensitive to the supply of nutrients responsible for the uptake of N from the soil. One of the proposed solutions aimed at the increase in nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) are new-generation varieties that are capable of developing deep root systems. The proposed ideotype of this root system—referred to as “steep, cheap, and deep”—assumes the effective uptake of water and dissolved nutrients (mainly nitrates) [55][56]. A reorientation of the current breeding approach is urgently required in intensive production systems, where high rates of Nf are typically applied. It can also provide a good solution in areas with frequent periods of drought, regarding the main phases of plant growth.

3. Nitrogen-Supporting Nutrients

Plant growth and productivity are the result of the action of about 20 elements that must be present in the soil to complete the plant’s life cycle. The biophysical functions of plant-related elements have been well-documented and presented extensively in textbooks and review articles [57][58][59]. Not all of these elements are considered as nutrients, but all of them have a positive impact on the yield of crop plants [60]. A typical example is titanium (Ti), the positive effect of which on many crops has been recently documented [61].
N, considered especially in the form of nitrate (as discussed in the previous section), is the key nutrient, affecting both the rate of plant growth and the formation of yield components. The key evidence, in addition to that discussed above, is the response of the yield to the application of N–P–K fertilizers in various mutual fertilization systems. The effect of the interactions between N and other basic nutrients has been well-presented in long-term static fertilization experiments [62][63][64]. Winter rye cultivated on Luvisol in a 7-course crop rotation (including two years of alfalfa) for 40 years yielded on plots without K (NP) or P (NK) only 6% and 5% less than on the NPK plot. The lack of both nutrients (i.e., K and P), as evidenced on a plot fertilized only with N, resulted in a yield drop of only 2.5%. The yield on the absolute control (AC) plot (i.e., the plot without application of any fertilizer, mineral or organic) for 40 years, was 30% lower than that on the NPK plot. Moreover, the same level of yield was recorded on plots fertilized only with P or K. Slightly greater differences between fertilization treatments were recorded for spring barley. Relative yield reductions were: −10%, −7%, and −42%, for NP, NK, and AC, respectively, as compared to NPK. The same yield level as for AC was noted on plots fertilized only with P or K. It must be added that the yields on the N plot were lower by 10%, compared to NPK [62]. The above-documented trends of plants grown on the naturally low fertility soil (Luvisol), with respect to different combinations of basic nutrients, have been supported by data from fertile soils, such as Entisol in the Netherlands (calcareous Entisol, containing 30% clay, 10% CaCO3. The obtained data indicated that a lack of K fertilization over a period of 28 years did not adversely affect the yield of four crops grown in four-course crop rotation (sugar beets, spring barley, potatoes, and winter wheat) over 28 years. The lack of P was much more important, as its lack reduced the yield of sugar beets by 11%, but those of potatoes and spring barley by only 7% [65]. These two examples clearly show that the main source of P and K for crops is soil.
All plant nutrients support plant growth and yield formation through their impact on the productivity of N which, to a great extent, depends on the application of Nf. It can be concluded that it is unrealistic to expect an increase in the yield of a modern variety, as discussed above, without delivering N from external sources, whether natural (e.g., manure) or mineral. For these reasons, all nutrients affecting plant growth and yield can be called “nitrogen-supporting nutrients” (N-SNs). Based on agronomic practice, the whole set of N-SNs can be divided into four groups: (i) basic macronutrients, such as potassium (K) and phosphorus (P); (ii) secondary macronutrients, including magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), and calcium (Ca); (iii) micronutrients, such as iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (N), molybdenum (Mo), and chloride (Cl); and (iv) the beneficial group, composed of nickel (Ni), sodium (Na), silicon (Si), and titanium (Ti) [58][66].
The second important stage in the development of an economically and environmentally sound fertilization system using Nf requires knowledge regarding the patterns of accumulation of N-SNs during the growing season. There are some characteristics “hotpoints” in N-SN in-season patterns that require special attention by the farmer, based on the course of N accumulation. The most important points are:
The higher accumulation of K over N during the whole season of WOSR growth:
  • Starting with the rosette stage in Spring;
  • Achieving the maximum K uptake over N at the full flowering stage (K2O:N as 1:1.6);
  • Declining from flowering to maturity (K2O:N as 1:1).
Slow early growth in P uptake, continued up to the inflorescence stage (BBCH 50), followed by rapid ingrowth, lasting until the full flowering stage (BBCH 65), and then smoothly decreasing up to maturity.
A similar pattern for Mg as for P, but at a much lower level.
A spectacular pattern of Ca accumulation. Its uptake increases sharply at inflorescence, reaching a maximum at the end of the pod growth stage.
The presented patterns of N, P, and K accumulation by WOSR during the growing season, obtained at the end of the 20th century, were very similar to their trends observed in the 1980s [67]. The same pattern has been observed for high-yielding rice [68]. The effective production of maize depends on the supply of K and N during the period preceding flowering, but requires stabilization of K accumulation up the milk stage [69]. It can be concluded that the high yield of the seed crops can be achieved, provided that the K:N ratio is higher than 1.0 during the vegetative phases for seed plant growth. In the light of the available data, the maximum K:N should be revealed for the high-yielding crop just before the end of the linear phase of its growth [70]. The seasonal pattern of basic nutrient accumulation by legumes is only slightly different. As observed for soybean, the maximum K was at the late vegetative stages, and the level then decreased smoothly, while the accumulation of N, P, Ca, Mg, and S progressed through to maturity. Moreover, the maximum K:N ratio was 0.6:1 [71].

4. An Efficient System for Management of N-SNs—Principles of the Soil Fertility Clock

4.1. State of K and P Fertility Level and Food Production

The crop production potential of a single field in inherently related to its soil fertility level, presented as the depth of the humus profile and the content of available nutrients [72]. Fertile soil creates conditions for the build-up of a large (extensive) root system, which is crucial for the uptake of non-mobile nutrients, such as phosphorus and potassium [73].
The share of N, P, and K fertilizers in total nutrient uptake by cereals has been assessed as 33% for N, 16% for P, and 19% for K [74]. In China, as reported by Ren et al. [75], K fertilizer covers less than 20% (18.5%) of the total K in winter oilseed rape at harvest. Khan et al. [76], who studied 1400 field trials fertilized with K, did not observe any significant impact of the applied K (as KCl) on the yield of basic crops. According to MacDonald et al. [77], 29% of the world area of arable soils shows a deficit, while the remaining part shows a surplus of available P. The significant impact of P fertilizer can be revealed, as a rule, on soils with a low content of available P. The yield loss due to deficiency of P supply (P yield gap) to wheat is 22% (18–28%), 55% for maize (47–66%), and 26% for rice (18–46%). Moreover, the application of P fertilizers reduced this production gap to only 17% for wheat, 46% for maize, and 15% for rice [78]. At this point, it is necessary to ask whether the yield gap is actually due to a deficiency of available P, or the ineffectiveness of Nf due to the imbalance of P and other nutrients.
The key question to be formulated is: what is the appropriate level—or rather, the critical range—of N-SNs content in the soil? In the light of the facts presented above, classic P and K management strategies require significant modifications. The basis for these required corrections is the fact that the plants are grown in a cropping sequence determined by the economic goals of the farm. Not all modern crop sequences follow rational principles (i.e., biologically based crop plant succession) [51][79][80][81]. It has been well-documented, in millions of scientific articles, that the deviation of a particular cropping sequence from biological rules leads to a decrease in yield. The classic example is the Rothamsted long-term experiment with winter wheat [64]. Wheat followed directly by wheat or grown in monoculture yielded a significantly lower level, compared to that following dicotyledonous plants. Second, the maximum grain yield achieved under non-optimal rotation was, in this example, both lower and, at the same time, required a higher Nf rate. These results clearly indicate lower unit Nf productivity due to N immobilization, disturbance in uptake of N-SNs, and stronger pressure by pathogens [82][83][84][85].
The soil resources of P and K are the main source of nutrients for the cultivated crop. Over-exploitation of available pools of these nutrients leads to the degradation of soil fertility, subsequently resulting in the lower Nf productivity. Moreover, these processes create a multi-level risk, for the yield, farm economics, and the environment (Photos 2 and 3; [86]). The productivity of a particular field is determined by the level of soil fertility, conditioned by water capacity and the content of available N-SNs in the rooting zone of the currently cultivated crop [87][88][89]. At present, the subsoil resources of N-SNs are not included in typical soil fertility status diagnostic procedures. Moreover, there is a frequently presented opinion regarding their low significance for the plant growth and yield [90]. In the light of the published data, the share of P and K from fertilizers for crop plant nutrition is of secondary importance for the maintenance and synchronization of plant needs and nutrient supply from the soil. The logical conclusion to be drawn from these facts is unambiguous: the farmer’s goal for effective management of Nf is not to use P and K fertilizers or other carriers of these nutrients for direct feeding of the plant, but to coordinate the soil fertility level to maximize Nf use efficiency.

4.2. Management of Soil Fertility—Oriented to Cropping Sequence

Soil productivity is the ability of arable soil to provide the currently grown plant with air, water, and nutrients in the required amounts, mutual proportions, and ratios, ensuring full expression and development of the yield components [91]. This general property of arable soils has been indicated as one of the most important objectives listed in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [92]. This global goal can be achieved, but only through two targeted actions. The first is oriented towards stopping the degradation of soil fertility. This action refers to the world regions where soil fertility has been drastically reduced [10][86]. The second requires a significant correction in N-SN management strategies in areas of the world with advanced crop plant productivity. The so-called Old Agricultural Areas of the world will be decisive for food supply to the growing human population in the coming decades.
At present, two main concepts dominate in soil fertility management. The first—called the maintenance approach—is based on the assumption that the main goal of N-SNs is necessary to maintain the content of available nutrients at a certain level, allowing crop growth and yield. Three phases of soil fertility build-up can be distinguished using this approach: (i) build-up, (ii) maintenance, and (iii) draw-down [93]. In practice, the recommended rates of nutrients increase with the size of the gap between the maintenance level and the actual soil fertility status for a given nutrient. In most countries, using this fertilization approach, the nutrient doses recommended by agrochemical testing laboratories are consistent with the state of its deficiency. A classic example is the K recommendation in China for WOSR yielding at 3.75 t ha−1 [75]. The decreasing content of available K (NH4OAc-K extraction method) resulted in increasing the dose of applied K from 232 kg ha−1 at low K range to 50 kg ha−1 at high K range. The second approach, called sufficiency ranges, is based on the required (i.e., sufficient) level of the given nutrient for the respective crop [93].
These two fertilization strategies are based on the assumption that low-mobility nutrients are as effective as nitrate nitrogen [94]. The coefficient of effective diffusion for the N form is 2.7 × 10−1 cm2 s−1. In comparison, this index for K+ and NH4+ ions are about 100-fold lower (1–28 × 10−8 and 6.1 × 10−8 cm2 s−1, respectively). For H2PO4 ions, this index is 10,000-fold lower, compared to nitrates [95][96]. Within 7 days of sugar beet growth in July, the N-NO3 resources, but not K, were completely depleted (100%) to a depth of 1.8 m. For K, this level of depletion was reached at a depth of 0.5 m. The most intensive uptake of both nutrients took place in the soil layer (0.0–0.6 m).
The classic concepts of N-SNs do not take into account two crucial facts; that crop plants differ in their sensitivity to the supply of N-SNs:
  • During the growing season;
  • In the course of crop rotation.
The efficient management of N-SNs in a soil/plant system should be based on the following principles of crop production:
Annual crop plants should be cultivated in a fixed sequence (i.e., the crop rotation).
Cereals have, as a rule, lower requirements for K, but higher requirements for P, compared to non-cereal crops.
Dicotyledonous plants have higher requirements for K than cereals.
The architecture of the root system of cereals is, as a rule, extensive compared to dicotyledonous plants. Consequently, cereals are less sensitive to the level of P and K fertility.
The distribution of low-mobility nutrients varies with depth.
Plants during the growing season differ significantly in the critical stages of nutrient requirement:
  • Seed crops show critical periods, in terms of P requirements, during the vegetative (minor one) and reproductive (main one) periods of growth;
  • All crops are sensitive to K during the linear phase of growth.
The critical period for N requirements by a seed crop is related to stages of seed/grain density formation.
The key yield-forming function of P in all crops is to accelerate the early rate of the plant growth.
The exploitation of P resources by seed crops, accumulated in vegetative parts before flowering, depends on seed/grain density.
The yield-forming function of K in
  • Seed crops is to strengthen N action;
  • Dicotyledonous crops is acceleration of the early rate of the plant growth (mostly up to the rosette stage).
All of these points should be taken into account by the farmer during the process of development of the fertilization system.
Soil Fertility Clock (SFC) is an approach based on three assumptions which are key to the effective management of Nf:
Critical soil fertility is the value or range of a soil nutrient’s content that is sufficient to provide it in the appropriate amount to the plant most sensitive to its supply in a given crop rotation.
Other, non-sensitive plants in the given crop rotation create the necessary time-frame for recovery of its original critical content.
The content of a specific nutrient cannot be a limiting factor in N uptake and utilization for any crop grown. Its fractional use efficiency, regardless of the actual plant in crop rotation, is ≤1.0.
The critical K level for oilseed rape or any other dicotyledonous crop creates favorable conditions for the succeeding crop; that is, cereals, and most often wheat. The K level will still be high enough to cover the K requirement of wheat. A third crop in a certain cropping sequence—for example, maize—requires the farmer’s attention to adjust the K content. This is necessary only if the K content drops below the medium level. This is very probable when harvest residues are removed from the field. The critical period of K correction, which must be oriented toward the so-called crop rotation critical K level is, in the discussed case, the spring barley growing season. This is a key term in the agronomic clock for determining both the level of K in the soil and determining the fertilization needs for the plant sequence spring barley → winter oil-seed rape. Managing P in crop rotation is a bit more complicated. It requires, regardless of the grown crop, the use of a starting dose of P fertilizer. Basic P fertilization complies with the principles presented for K. An additional component of an effective system regarding the full set of nutrients is foliar fertilization. This method allows for the correction of plant nutritional status—in fact, N action—but only at stages preceding the critical stages of yield formation.


  1. Hunter, M.C.; Smith, R.G.; Schipanski, M.E.; Atwood, L.W.; Mortensen, D.A. Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 2017, 67, 386–391.
  2. Beltran-Peña, A.; Rosa, L.; D’Odorico, P. Global food self-sufficiency in the 21st century under sustainable intensification of agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 095004.
  3. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 1–12.
  4. Conijn, J.G.; Bindraban, P.S.; Schröder, J.J.; Jongschaap, R.E.E. Can our global food system meet food demand within planetary boundries? Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2018, 251, 244–256.
  5. FAO. Impact of the Ukraine-Russia Conflict on Global Food Security and Related Matters under the Mandate of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO). CL 170/6. May 2022. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  6. Strubenhoff, H. The War in Ukraine Triggered a Global Food Shortage. 2022. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  7. Alexander, P.; Brown, C.; Ameth, A.; Finnigan, J. Human appropriation for land and food: The role of diet. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 41, 88–98.
  8. Gomiero, T. Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex challenge. Sustainability 2016, 8, 281.
  9. Lawrence, D.; Coe, M.; Walker, W.; Verchot, L.; Vandecar, K. The unseen effects of deforestation: Biophysical effects on climate. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2022, 5, 756115.
  10. Silver, W.L.; Perez, T.; Mayer, A.; Jones, A.R. The role of soil in the contribution of food and feed. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2021, 376, 20200181.
  11. Jaggard, K.W.; Qi, A.; Ober, E.S. Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2835–2851.
  12. Harvey, M.; Pilgrim, S. The new competition for land: Food, Energy, and climate change. Food Policy 2011, 36, 40–50.
  13. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428.
  14. The Royal Society. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture; RS Policy Document 11/09; The Royal Policy Center: London, UK, 2009; p. 86.
  15. Łukowiak, R.; Grzebisz, W.; Ceglarek, J.; Podolski, A.; Kaźmierowski, C.; Piekarczyk, J. Spatial variability of yield and nitrogen indicators—A crop rotation approach. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1959.
  16. Pradhan, P.; Fischer, G.; van Velthuizen, H.; Reusser, D.E.; Kropp, J.P. Closing yield gaps: How sustainable can we be? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129487.
  17. Houlton, B.Z.; Almaraz, M.; Aneja, V.; Austin, V.T.; Bai, E.; Cassman, K.G.; Compton, J.E.; Davidson, E.A.; Erisman, J.W.; Galloway, J.N.; et al. A world co-benefits: Solving the global nitrogen challenge. Earths Future 2019, 7, 865–872.
  18. Anas, M.; Liao, F.; Verma, K.K.; Sarwar, M.A.; Mahmood, A.; Chen, Z.-L.; Li, Q.; Zeng, X.-P.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.-R. Fate of nitrogen in agriculture and environment: Agronomic, eco-physiological and molecular approaches to improve nitrogen use efficiency. Biol. Res. 2020, 53, 47.
  19. Schnitkey, G.; Paulson, N.; Swanson, K.; Colussi, J.; Baltz, J.; Zulauf, C. Nitrogen fertilizer prices and supply in light of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Farmdoc Dly. 2022, 12, 45. Available online: (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  20. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Wang, P.; McKenza, B.A.; Lombi, E. Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105078.
  21. Stewart, W.M.; Roberts, T.L. Food security and the role of fertilizer in supporting it. Procedia Eng. 2012, 46, 76–82.
  22. Poutanewn, K.S.; Karlund, A.O.; Gomez-Gallego, C.; Johansson, D.P.; Scheers, N.M.; Marklinder, I.M.; Eriksen, A.K.; Silventoinen, P.C.; Nordlund, E.; Sozer, N.; et al. Grains—A major source of sustainable protein for health. Nutr. Rev. 2022, 80, 1648–1663.
  23. Kong, L.G.; Xie, Y.; Hu, L.; Feng, B.; Li, S.D. Remobilization of vegetative nitrogen to developing grain in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Field Crops Res. 2016, 196, 134–144.
  24. Xie, Q.; Mayes, S.; Sparkes, D.L. Preanthesis biomass accumulation and plant organs defines yield components in wheat. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 81, 15–26.
  25. Klepper, B.; Rickman, R.W.; Waldman, S.; Chevalier, P. The physiological life cycle of wheat: Its use in breeding and crop management. Euphytica 1998, 100, 341–347.
  26. Slafer, G.A.; Elia, M.; Savin, R.; Garcia, G.A.; Terrile, I.I.; Ferrante, A.; Miralles, D.J.; González, F.G. Fruiting efficiency: An alternative trait to further rise in wheat yield. Food Energy Secur. 2015, 4, 92–109.
  27. Erenstein, O.; Jaleta, M.; Sonder, K.; Mottaleb, K.; Prasanna, B.M. Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R&D implications. Food Secur. 2022, 5, 345–360.
  28. Subedi, K.; Ma, B. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning in stay-green and leafy maize hybrids. Crops Sci. 2005, 45, 740–747.
  29. Grzebisz, W.; Wrońska, M.; Diatta, J.B.; Szczepaniak, W. Effect of zinc foliar application at early stage of maize growth on the patterns of nutrients and dry matter accumulation by the canopy. Part II. Nitrogen uptake and dry matter accumulation patterns. J. Elementol. 2008, 13, 29–39.
  30. Andre, C.M.; Legay, S.; Iammarino, C.; Ziebel, J.; Guignard, C.; Larondelle, Y.; Hausman, J.-F.; Evers, D.; Miranda, L.M. The potato in the human diet: A complex matrix with potential health benefits. Potato Res. 2014, 57, 201–214.
  31. Jackson, S.D. Multiple signaling pathway control tuber induction in potato. Plant Physiol. 1999, 119, 1–8.
  32. Engels, C.; Marschner, H. Allocation of photosynthate to individual tubers of Solanum tuberosum L. III. Relationship between growth rate of individual tubers, tuber weight and stolon growth prior to tuber initiation. J. Exp. Bot. 1986, 37, 1813–1822.
  33. Grzebisz, W.; Potarzycki, J. The in-season nitrogen concentration in the potato tuber as the yield driver. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 1287–1308.
  34. Rabbinge, R. The ecological background of food production. In Crop Production and Sustainable Agriculture; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 2–29.
  35. Rubio, G.; Zhu, J.; Lynch, J. A critical test of the prevailing theories of plant response to nutrient availability. Am. J. Bot. 2003, 90, 143–152.
  36. Grafton, R.Q.; Williams, J.; Jiang, Q. Food and water gaps to 2050: Preliminary results from the global food and water systems (GFWS) platform. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 209–220.
  37. Sinclair, T.R.; Rufty, T.W. Nitrogen and water resources commonly limit crop yield increases, not necessarily plant genetics. Glob. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 94–98.
  38. 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.
  39. Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Press: London, UK, 1995; p. 899.
  40. Reid, R.; Hayes, J. Mechanisms and control of nutrient uptake in plants. Int. Rev. Cytol. 2003, 229, 73–114.
  41. Kant, S.; Seneweera, S.; Rodin, J.; Materne, M.; Burch, D.; Rothstein, S.J.; Spangenberg, G. Improving yield potential in crop under elevated CO2: Integrating the photosynthetic and nitrogen utilization efficiencies. Front. Plant Sci. 2012, 3, 162.
  42. Parry, A.J.; Andralojc, P.J.; Scales, J.C.; Salvucci, M.E.; Carmo-Silva, A.E.; Alonso, H.; Whitney, S.M. Rubisco activity and regulation as targets for crop improvement. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 6493, 717–730.
  43. Bar-On, Y.M.; Milo, R. The global mass and average rate of rubisco. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 10.
  44. Giehl, R.F.H.; Gruber, B.D.; von Wirén, N. It’s time to make changes: Modulation of root system architecture by nutrient signals. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 769–778.
  45. Kurepa, J.; Smalle, J.A. Auxin/cytokinin antagonistic control of the shoot/root growth ratio and its relevance for adaptation to growth and nutrient deficiency stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1933.
  46. Guan, P. Dancing with hormones: A current perspective of nitrate signaling and regulation in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1697.
  47. Tegeder, M.; Masclaux-Daubresse, C. Source and sink mechanism of nitrogen transport and use. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 35–53.
  48. Guo, Z.; Chen, D.; Schnurbusch, T. Plant and floret growth at distinct developmental stages during the stem elongation phase in wheat. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 330.
  49. Potarzycki, J. Influence of balanced fertilization on nutritional status of maize at anthesis. Fertil. Fertil. 2010, 39, 90–108.
  50. Ciampitti, I.A.; Camberato, J.J.; Murrel, S.T.; Vyn, T.J. Maize nutrient accumulation and partitioning in response to plant density and nitrogen rate. I. Macronutrients. Agron. J. 2013, 10593, 7830.
  51. Taiz, L. Agriculture, plant physiology, and human population growth: Past, present, and future. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2013, 25, 167–181.
  52. White, C.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Berry, P.M. Root length densities of UK wheat and oilseed rape crops with implications for water capture and yield. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2293–2303.
  53. Fradgley, N.; Evans, G.; Biernaskie, J.M.; Cockram, J.; Marr, E.C.; Oliver, A.G.; Ober, E.; Jones, H. Effects of breeding history an crop management on the root architecture of wheat. Plant Soil 2020, 452, 587–600.
  54. Milach, S.C.K.; Federizzi, L.C. Dwarfing genes in plant improvement. Adv. Agron. 2001, 73, 35–63.
  55. Lynch, J.L. Steep, cheap and deep: An ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 347–357.
  56. Kell, D.B. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: Their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108, 407–418.
  57. Marschner, P. (Ed.) Marchnerr’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; p. 672.
  58. Benton Jones, J., Jr. Agronomic Handbook: Management of Crops, Soils and Their Fertility; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; 450p.
  59. Wang, Y.; Wu, W.-H. Genetic approaches for improvement of the crop potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 24, 46–52.
  60. White, P.J.; Brown, P.H. Plant nutrition for sustainable development and global health. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 1073–1080.
  61. Lyu, S.; Wei, X.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Pan, D. Titanium as a beneficial element for crop production. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 597.
  62. Blecharczyk, A. The reaction of winter rye and spring barley to the plant crop rotation system and fertilization in a long-term experiment. Rocz. Akad. Rol. Pozn. 2002, 236, 128, (In Polish with English Summary).
  63. Buczko, U.; van Laak, M.; Eichler-Löbermann, B.; Gans, W.; Merbach, I.; Panten, K.; Peiter, E.; Reitz, T.; Spiegel, H.; von Tucher, S. Evaluation of the yield response to phosphorus fertilization based on meta-analysis of long term experiments. Ambio 2018, 47, 50–61.
  64. Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R. The importnance of long-term experiments in agriculture: Their management to ensure continued crop production and soil fertility: The Rothamsted experience. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 113–125.
  65. Janssen, B.H. Crop Yields and NPK Use Efficiency of a Long-Term Experiment on Former Seas Bottom in The Netherlands; Wgageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 155. ISBN 978-94-6343-130-9.
  66. Plant Health Association California. Western Fertilizer Handbook, 10th ed.; Waveland Press, Inc.: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2022; 371p.
  67. Barraclough, P.B. Root growth, macro-nutrient uptake dynamics and soil fertility requirements of a high-yielding winter oilseed rape crop. Plant Soil 1989, 119, 59–70.
  68. Hirzel, J.; Undurraga, P. Nutritional Management of cereals cropped under irrigation conditions. In Crop Production; Goyal, A., Asil, M., Eds.; InTech: London, UK, 2013; pp. 99–130.
  69. Grzebisz, W. Technology of Crop Plants Fertilization–Yield Physiologu. Part II. Cereals and Maize; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 2012; 279p. (In Polish)
  70. Grzebisz, W.; Diatta, J. Constrains and solutions to maintain soil productivity, a case study from Central Europe. In Soil Fertility Improvement and Integrated Nutrient Management—A Global Perspective; Whalen, J., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2012; pp. 159–183.
  71. Bender, R.R.; Haegele, J.W.; Below, F.E. Nutrient uptake, partitioning, and remobilization in modern soybean varieties. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 563–573.
  72. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 15th ed.; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2017; 1071p.
  73. Usherwood, N.R.; Segars, W.I. Nitrogen interactions with phosphorus and potassium for optimum yield, nitrogen use effectiveness, and environmental stewardship. Sci. World 2001, 1, 57–60.
  74. Dhillon, J.; Torres, G.; Driver, E.; Figueiredo, B.; Raun, W.R. World phosphorus use efficiency in cereal crops. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1670–1677.
  75. Ren, T.; Liu, J.; Li, H.; Zou, J.; Xu, H.; Liu, X.; Li, X. Potassium-fertilizer management in winter oilseed-rape production in China. J. Plant Sci. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 429–440.
  76. Khan, S.A.; Mulvaney, R.L.; Ellsworth, T.R. The potassium paradox: Implications for soil fertility, crop production and human health. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 29, 3–27.
  77. MacDonald, G.K.; Bennett, E.M.; Potter, P.A.; Ramankutty, N. Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3086–3091.
  78. Lambers, H.; Shane, M.W.; Cramer, M.D.; Pearse, S.J.; Veneklaas, E.J. Root structure and functioning for efficient acquisition of phosphorus: Matching morphological and physiological traits. Ann. Bot. 2006, 98, 693–713.
  79. Karlen, D.L.; Varvel, G.E.; Bullock, D.G.; Cruse, R.M. Crop Rotations for the 21st Century. Adv. Agron. 1994, 53, 1–45.
  80. European Commission. Environmental Impacts of Different Crop Rotation in the European Union; Final Report; European Commission, Bio Intelligence Service S.A.S.: Paris, France, 2010; p. 141. Available online: (accessed on 25 August 2022).
  81. Tanveer, A.; Ikram, R.M.; Ali, H.H. Crop rotation: Principles and practices. Agron. Crops 2019, 1–12.
  82. Hennessy, D.A. On monoculture and the structure of crop rotations. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88, 900–914.
  83. Bruns, H.A. Concepts in crop rotations. In Agricultural Science; Alakpui, G., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; 26p.
  84. Costa, M.P.; Chadwick, D.; Saget, S.; Rees, R.M.; Williams, M.; Stylres, D. Representing crop rotations in life cycle assessment: A review of legume LCA studies. Inter. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 14, 1942–1956.
  85. Marini, L.; Stomartin, A.; Vici, G.; Baldoni, G.; Berti, A.; Blecharczyk, A.; Małecka-Jankowiak, I.; Morari, F.; Sawińska, Z.; Bommmaeco, R. Crop rotations sustain cereal yields under a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 15, 124011.
  86. Tan, Z.X.; Lal, R.; Wiebe, K.D. Global soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction. J. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 26, 123–146.
  87. Grzebisz, W.; Łukowiak, R.; Sassenrath, G. Virtual nitrogen as a tool for assessment of nitrogen at the field scale. Field Crops Res. 2018, 218, 182–184.
  88. Kautz, T.; Amelung, W.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Horn, R.; Jahn, R.; Javaux, M.; Kemna, A.; Kuzyakova, Y.; Munch, J.-C.; et al. Nutrient acquisition from arable subsoils in temperate climates: A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 1003–1022.
  89. Grzebisz, W.; Łukowiak, R.; Kotnis, K. Evaluation of nitrogen fertilization systems based on the in-season variability of the nitrogenous growth factors and soil fertility factors—A case of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 1701.
  90. Siebers, N.; Wang, L.; Funk, T.; von Tucher, S.; Merbach, I.; Schweitzer, K.; Kruse, J. Subsoils—A sink for excess fertilizer P but a minor contribution to P plant nutrition: Evidence from long-term fertilization trials. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2021, 33, 60.
  91. Grzebisz, W. Crop Plant Fertilization. Part II. Fertilizers and Fertilization Systems; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 2015; 376p. (In Polish)
  92. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silva, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Monitoring soil for sustainable development and land degradation neutrality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 57.
  93. Clarkson, D.T. Nutrient interception and transport by root system. In Physiological Processes Limiting Plant Productivity; Johnson, C.B., Ed.; Butterworths: London, UK, 2013; pp. 307–330.
  94. Barłóg, P.; Grzebisz, W.; Łukowiak, R. Fertilizers and fertilization strategies mitigating soil factors constraining efficiency of nitrogen in plant production. Plants 2022, 11, 1855.
  95. Johnston, A. Soil Testing Philosophy or “How Do We Make Fertilizer Recommendations”. In Proceedings of the Direct Seeding Conference: Managing Risk for the Future. 2006. Available online: (accessed on 26 August 2022).
  96. Raynaud, X.; Leadley, P. Soil characteristics play a key role in modeling nutrient competition in plant communities. Ecology 2004, 85, 2200–2214.
Subjects: Agronomy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , , , , , ,
View Times: 250
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Nov 2022