You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Fertilization Strategies for Soil Factors of Nitrogen Efficiency: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor: Przemysław Barłóg , Witold Grzebisz , Remigiusz Łukowiak

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

  • crop growth rate
  • fertilizer market
  • nitrogen use efficiency
  • nitrogen gap

1. Fertilizer Use Efficiency—A Real Farming Practice

1.1. Nitrogen Gap and the Maximum Attainable Yield

A farmer needs to recognize production boundaries in order to develop an effective production program for each of the crops grown on the farm. The key to the sound management of production processes is a knowledge of the maximum yield that can be achieved in a production area with a well-defined climate and soils. The actual yield (Ya) of a currently cultivated crop may be simply presented as the difference between the maximum attainable yield (Yattmax) and the yield gap (YG). The relationship between these terms may be expressed as the formula:
Ya is a real, harvested yield in the current growing season under actual environmental, agronomic and management practice on the farm. To define the Yattmax of this crop, two conditions must be fulfilled. The first concerns a strictly defined climatic area and the dominating, i.e., standard, weather conditions [1][2]. The second necessary condition is the level of soil fertility, agronomic conditions and management of the production processes on the farm. These factors modify the Yattmax of the grown crop [3][4]. All of these factors must be oriented towards optimizing the supply of nutrients to that particular crop only [5]. The YG is a measure of the ineffectiveness of production factors, in fact expressed in the ineffectiveness of fertilizer nitrogen (Nf), or available N present in the soil/plant system during the growing season of the currently grown crop [6]. The basic and at the same time simplest method for calculating both components of the Ya formula is to use the efficiency index of Nf known as the Partial Factor Productivity of Fertilizer N, PFPNf [7]. Considering both the yield and the environmental aspects of the on-farm production process, the farmer’s goal should not be to determine the YG, but rather the ineffectiveness of the applied Nf. The quantitative expression of N inefficiency is the nitrogen gap (NG) [8]. In fact, two sets of data are needed to determine both the YG and the NG, i.e., (i) the actual yield harvested by the farmer, and (ii) the amount of applied Nf. The calculation procedure consists of a set of formulas:
Partial Factor Productivity of Nf:
Attainable, maximum yield: 
Yield Gap:
Nitrogen Gap: 
where: PFPNf—partial factor productivity of Nf, kg grain/seeds, tubers etc. per kg Nf; Ya—actual yield of a currently grown crop, t ha−1; Nf—the amount of applied fertilizer N, kg ha−1; Yattmax—the maximum attainable yield, t ha−1; cPFPNf—the average of the third quartile (Q3) of the set of PFPNf indices arranged in ascending order, kg grain/seeds, tubers etc. per kg Nf; YG—yield gap, t ha−1; NG—nitrogen gap, kg ha−1 of N.
The NG calculation is important for the farmer for at least three areas of his production activity: (i) the determination of Yattmax, which determines not only the maximum yield for the production area, but also determines the potential requirements of the cultivated crop for N; (ii) the identification of hotspots in N management for a given crop, including an inadequate supply of nutrients other than N; (iii) the set of actions needed to improve the level of soil fertility for a given crop.
The data on NG is used to construct a diagram of the impact of the NG change on trends in actual and maximum yields. The target of the NG construction is to find the maximum attainable yield (Yattmax) for the geographical area of the farm operation. The Yattmax value is determined by the intersection of Ymax and Ya linear regression models. In this specific case, representing 16 fields located in a small region of central-western Poland, the weather and soil conditions are stable. Yattmax for winter wheat reached 7.99 t ha−1. Moreover, both Ya and Yattmax showed significant variability in the amount of notworkable Nf during the growing season. The course of both models indicates a surplus of Nf on fields No. 13 and 10 as the main reason for its lower use efficiency. The maximum YG on field No. 13 reached 3.729 t ha−1, i.e., it constituted 47% of the actual yield. The diagnostic goal of the NG diagram construction is to identify the key factors responsible for YG appearance as a result of Nf inefficiency. The ranges for the evaluation of the effect of any production factor were constructed using a clear scale: low, medium, high, which were in special cases underlined by “very”.

1.2. Fertilizer Use Efficiency—FUE

The term Fertilizer Use Efficiency—FUE is not new. It has been widely used for decades but has become widespread recently thanks to the use of the FUE indexes to assess the global productivity of NPK fertilizers [7][9]. The productivity of nutrients applied in fertilizers can be estimated by the same formula as shown in Equation (2) for fertilizer N. Another methodological way for FUE determination is to use a set of indices used in field experiments such as Apparent Nutrient Efficiency (ANeE) and/or Apparent Nutrient Recovery (ANuR):
where: ANuE—Apparent Nutrient Efficiency, kg yield kg−1 nutrient applied; ANuR—Apparent Nutrient Recovery, %; Yf, Yc—yield on a plot with and without fertilizer, t or kg ha−1; Nr—the rate of a nutrient applied as fertilizer, kg or g ha−1; Nuf, Nuc —the uptake of a tested nutrient on a plot with and without fertilizer, kg, g ha−1.
The recorded values of ANuE and ANuR usually show a decreasing trend, with an increase in the rate of the nutrient applied as fertilizer, which is satisfactory for the researcher. Moreover, the values obtained have a tendency opposite to the soil fertility indexes for a given nutrient [7]. It simply means that FUE is highly dependent on the current soil fertility level, which the farmer needs to know. However, the main disadvantage of these two indices is that the farmer does not have a control plot to assess the actual nutrient productivity in the applied fertilizers. The values of the ANuR indices, evaluated on the global scale, are low and amount to 40–65% for N, 15–25% for P, and 30–50% for K used in fertilizers [9]. At this point it is necessary to pose the question, what is the main source of nutrients for the currently grown crop?
The productivity of nutrients taken up by the crop during one growing season can also be estimated by the partial nutrient balance (PNB) method:
where: NuE—Nutrient uptake Efficiency, kg kg−1; Nut—the uptake of a tested nutrient, kg or g ha−1; Nuf—the rate of a nutrient applied as fertilizer, kg, g ha−1.
The efficiency of N, P, and K using this method show much higher values or even a surplus of nutrients [10]. The low efficiency of nutrients using the differential methods, but high yield indirectly indicates that the main source of nutrients for crops grown in one growing season is soil [11].
The main problem is the assessment of the production role of nitrogen, which plants take in in two distinct inorganic forms, i.e., as nitrate (NO3−1) and ammonium (NH4+) [12]. Nitrates affect plant growth in many ways, inducing plant morphology, physiology through hormones and finally metabolism through their influence on the production of organic acids [13][14][15]. Plants fed with nitrates, compared to ammonium, show a high growth rate, which results in higher yields [16]. The above-identified aspects of the impact of N on plants are fully supported by field experiments and agricultural practice [17][18]. The yields of winter wheat grown on the control plot (non-fertilized) and on the plots fertilized with K, P in the same way since 1957, did not show large differences. The average yield for these three objects of 4.38 ± 0.14 t ha−1, can be considered as high. The primary reason for such a high yield, despite the lack of N fertilization, was alfalfa as a forecrop. The use of 90 kg N ha−1 increased the yield by 1.94 t ha−1. The same level of yields was also recorded for the NP and NK plots. The lack of response to the P or K application clearly emphasizes the importance of these two nutrients for plant growth and yield. This conclusion was fully confirmed by the yield achieved on the NPK plot. Even more important is the fact that N use efficiency (NUE) increased by 10–13%, compared to incomplete fertilization treatments. The observed interaction was even more important for P use efficiency (PUE), which in the NPK plot increased by 9% and by 73% compared to NP and P treatments, respectively. The same trend was observed for potassium. The importance of the N × PK interaction on the productivity of Nf is observed for all crops, regardless of the world region [17][19][20]. The complex effect of N on plant growth and yielding clearly indicates the superior function of N in crop production. It can, therefore, be concluded that the production efficiency of nutrients, applied as mineral fertilizers, can be mainly evaluated through their impact on NUE. Thus, the search for indicators of productivity or efficiency for other nutrients is pointless. This is well presented in the analysis of the causes of the NG.

1.3. Factors Affecting Fertilizer Use Efficiency

Fertilizer use efficiency is the result of a series of interactions between plant genotype and environment, including both abiotic and biotic factors. Full recognition of these factors is the basis for proper fertilization of plants in farming practice, aimed at maximizing the FUE values. The soil is both the growth environment for plants and their main reservoir of water and nutrients. Hence, the impact of soil factors on nutrient uptake and FUE should be considered at the level of several groups of phenomena and processes.
In the first group (A) all of the factors, both abiotic and biotic, that lead to the release of nutrients from their solid phase in the soil to their solution phase should be analyzed. The next group of factors (B) is concerned with the processes of transporting nutrients from the soil to the root surface. The third group (C) of factors influencing FUE concerns plant responses manifested by changes in architecture and root growth rate. This group of factors, also related to plant activity, should consider the composition of the root exudates in the plant root—mycorrhizal system. For the assessment of the effectiveness of fertilizer application, the processes taking place in the plant itself, related to transport, assimilation in the aboveground mass (D), as well as remobilization of components and their transfer from the vegetative parts to the generative crop (E), are also important.

2. Soil Factors Affecting FUE

2.1. Soil Texture

The most important soil physical properties include: soil texture, density, structure, porosity, consistence, temperature, air and color. Among them, soil texture is the basic physical feature that determines not only the other physical properties of the soil, but also the chemical ones [21]. The percentage and mineralogical composition of the smallest mineral fractions in the parent rock determines the primary soil potential to supply plants with nutrients, which is the function of weathering and transforming primary minerals [22]. In addition, the content of mineral colloids is positively correlated with soil organic matter (SOM), which in turn is a source of organic colloids, which have a great impact on the water retention of the soil, cation exchange capacity, erosion processes, as well as soil microbial activity [23]. SOM sequestration is achieved through various mechanisms which include the formation of clay-humic complexes, sorption of organic matter on clay particles, fixation of organic carbon in the crystal lattices of clays and the formation of organo-metallic compounds such as Ca, Fe and Al humates through humification processes [24][25]. In general, the greater the SOM concentration, the greater the sorption capacity of the soil, and potential for water retention in soil [26] and nutrients [27]. Numerous studies show that soils with a high proportion of clay particles have a higher content of nutrients than soils with a low content of nutrients, not only in terms of general forms, but also plant-available forms [28][29]. At the same time, the clay content affects the fixation and de-fixation processes of some nutrients, especially K+ [28]. On the one hand, excessive fixation reduces the pool of mobile K+ ions in the soil and reduces the use of potassium from fertilizers, especially in dry soil conditions. On the other hand, it prevents the leaching of potassium from the soil [30]. Moreover, adsorption and non-exchangeable ammonium nitrogen (NH4+) fixation in soil is highly dependent on clay mineral composition [31]. Another problem with soil texture is water infiltration and the leaching of nitrates (NO3−) resulting from ammonium nitrification. Coarser-textured soils are more susceptible to soil N loss following the leaching of NO3−, and thus have potentially lower FUE values [32]. Furthermore, soil texture largely affects fertilizer and soil P transformations in soils. In coarser-textured soils the content of labile P fractions after adding phosphorus fertilizers is higher than in clay and loam soils. Therefore, in these soils there is a high risk of P transfer from soil to water systems [33].

2.2. Water Content

One of the most important factors controlling nutrient uptake and utilization by plants is the water content of the soil. First of all, water determines the processes of nutrient release from the soil solid phase to the solution phase [34][35]. Water deficiency in soil negatively affects microbiological activity and the processes of mineralization/biological fixation [36]. Water is also essential for dissolving and releasing nutrients from mineral fertilizers, including controlled release fertilizer [37]. However, from the point of view of the process of uptake of nutrients by plants, two phenomena deserve special mention: mass flow and diffusion [38]. Water deficiency in the soil reduces the intensity of both processes, and thus leads to a reduction in the amount of nutrients flowing to the root surfaces [39]. In this aspect, the degree of plant reaction to water stress depends on the element and its function. According to Oliveira et al. [40], in maize the proportion of mass flow contribution to Ca, Mg, N, S and K transport was as follows: 100, 63, 56, 45 and 10%, respectively. This series clearly shows that the supply of plants with Ca and Mg may be severely limited in drought conditions, despite their relatively high concentration in the soil compared to other macronutrients [41]. Taking into account the diffusion processes, a water shortage in the soil will primarily limit the mobility of phosphate ions and micronutrients. Moreover, it will lead to the intensification of precipitation processes and the crystallization of amorphous compounds of phosphorus with other cations, depending on the pH [42]. As the water deficit in the soil increases, the proportion of pores filled with air increases, mechanical resistance increases, and the rate of root growth decreases. Under conditions of high soil oxygenation, the potential of the soil to supply plants with some micronutrients is reduced (Fe, Mn), whose higher oxidation state forms are less plant-available than the reduced forms [43]. The second group factors effecting NUE directly relates to the plant response (growth) and its ability to convert in biomass the assimilated/remobilized nutrients, especially nitrogen [44]. Water has a direct effect on root growth. In order to meet the demand for water, the roots constantly explore the soil, building a very complex, branched architecture [45]. An increase in the number of hairs and diameter root tips has been observed in plants under drought conditions. Root hairs greatly increase root-soil contact and the surface area available for adsorbing water and nutrients [46]. However, dense and deep root systems are not always good under all hydrological conditions, for example they poorly capture water from the topsoil under low rainfall conditions [47]. In drought conditions, the above-ground mass is reduced more than the underground mass, which in the case of a long-lasting drought may limit the inflow of assimilations and stop root growth, with all the negative effects of this phenomenon [48]. Lupini et al. [49] reported that water stress in durum wheat reduces the values of NUE, NUpE, and NUtE indices, regardless of the genotype. However, it should be remembered that excess water is just as harmful to plants as is its deficiency. One of the reasons for this is the reduction in the oxygen content in the soil needed for the respiration of plants and microorganisms [36]. In addition, large amounts of iron or manganese are released, which in excess may be toxic or interfere with the absorption of other nutrients. This phenomenon is particularly harmful in the cultivation of rice paddy on acidic soils [50].

2.3. Soil Compaction

Another important physical factor influencing nutrient uptake from soil, as well as their utilization from fertilizers, is soil compaction. Compaction affects plant growth by reducing the content of soil air and plant-available water, and the consequent restricted root growth results in the plant being unable to obtain an adequate amount of nutrients. Soil compaction can be assessed by measuring the following soil properties: bulk density, porosity and mechanical impedance [51]. Mechanical impedance is defined as a physical barrier to developing roots as a result of excessive bulk density. In general, root growth rates decrease sharply for soil mechanical impedance values between 0.8 and 3 MPa. On the other hand, when assessing soil compaction by soil bulk density, most researchers give the value of 1.47–1.85 g cm−3 as critical for crops, depending on the percentage of clay [52][53]. The turgor in the cells in the elongation part of the roots determines their ability to overcome the mechanical resistance of the soil [54]. The greater it is, the greater the probability of root growth into the zone of compacted soil [55]. At the same time, root elongation is facilitated by root secretions and abraded side cells of the roots, which reduce the effect of the friction force [56]. When the mechanical resistance is too high, changes are observed at the physiological level (accumulation of solutes, reduction in the growth rate, new cell production) as well as anatomical (increase in the root diameter and the share of mechanical tissue in the direction of growth) [57][58]. The entire root system develops into less resistant parts of the soil, often forming a shallow system with the roots parallel to the soil surface [59]. According to Ramalingam et al. [60] the root length density at 30–60 cm soil depth decreased with hard compaction (to 70% of control) and increased with moderate compaction (to 135%). At the same time, the number of roots with a deep angle (i.e., 45° to 90° from the horizontal) correlated with the root length density and its proportion was lower in compacted soil. Considering the root architecture, the studies carried out so far have shown that deeper root growth is more important for N uptake than increased root density [61]. In this respect, it is necessary to remove the soil compaction in the subsoil. On arable land, the use of heavy machinery increases the risk of soil compaction especially in the subsoil [62]. Changes in the root architecture mean that the plant is unable to fully use nutrients, especially those whose main reservoirs are in deeper layers of soil [63]. Regardless of the soil depth, when the soil is characterized by excessive bulk density and/or mechanical impedance, the roots develop mainly in macro-pores [64]. This results in a poor supply of nutrients in plants under soil drought conditions, as the macro-pores in soil water retention only contribute to a small extent [36]. Another important issue with soil compaction is the loss of nitrogen from the soil through the emission of its gaseous forms into the atmosphere. As a result of soil compaction and the oxygen deficiency caused by this process, the activity of denitrifying bacteria increases and the production of N2O and N2 increases [65]. The emission of these gases to the atmosphere is favored by the low values of the parameters that define gas diffusivity in compacted soils [66]. According to Ruser et al. [67], high N2O emissions in compacted soils occurred at a water-filled pore space > 70%. N2 production took place only at the highest soil moisture level (>90% water-filled pore space) but it was considerably less than the N2O-N emission in the most compacted areas in a potato field. Soil compaction also increases the volatilization of ammonia, as compared to uncompacted soils [68]. However, for this gas, the emissions are mainly determined by other soil physical and chemical characteristics [69].

2.4. Soil Temperature

Temperature has a substantial effect on some soil properties as well as root growth. Important processes depend on the temperature of the soil, such as: soil structure, aggregate stability, soil moisture content and aeration, soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil microbial activities and organic matter decomposition [70]. A soil temperature between 2–38 °C increases the decomposition of organic matter by stimulating microbial activities and increasing the solubility of chemical compounds [71]. As a result of decomposition, the resources of N, P, S and other nutrients available to plants increase [72]. From the point of view of the nutritional status of plants, an extremely important temperature-dependent process is the availability of P to plants. Soils with low temperature have low availability of P because the release of P from organic material is limited [73]. Soil temperature also influences the P diffusion coefficient in the soil. Yilvainio and Pettovuori [74] observed that water-soluble P increased with soil temperature from 50 to 250 °C due to the increase in the movement of P in soil controlled by diffusion. Soil temperature also affects nutrient uptake by changing soil water viscosity and root nutrient transport. At low soil temperature, nutrient uptake by plants is reduced as a result of high soil water viscosity and low activity of root nutrient transport [75]. In general, low temperature decreases both root elongation and branching. However, low temperatures inhibit shoot growth more than root, leading to a high root/shoot dry matter ratio [76]. Vessel lignification can be delayed and axial hydraulic conductivity is higher in roots grown at low temperatures compared to high temperatures [77]. Thus, tomato, for example, showed that low soil temperature results in reduced root growth, tissue nutrient concentrations and, as a consequence, the amount of the component taken from the soil [78]. The unfavorable effect of higher temperature is marked in various ways. Too high a temperature may lower the CEC, and at the same time cause an increase in the concentration of hydrogen protons (increase in soil acidification) due to the high rate of soil organic matter decomposition. The plant’s response to temperature changes depends not only on the plant species, but also on the content of nutrients in the soil. According to Xia et al. [79], negative effects of excessive temperature on P content and uptake occur especially in P-poor soils. The researchers also found that an overly high root zone temperature reduced root vitality and plant phosphorus content, which in turn affected plant growth and light energy utilization efficiency.

2.5. Soil Reaction

Among a number of chemical parameters describing the chemical properties of soils, the use of nutrients from fertilizers is very much influenced by its pH [80]. This feature directly relates to the concentration of active H+ protons in aqueous solutions, and indirectly it is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a soil. The influence of soil pH on the nutrient uptake of plants results from many different phenomena and processes. The most important ones include: effecting the content of plant-available forms of nutrients in soil; capacity and proportions between cations in CEC; activity of trace elements and heavy metals; soil microbial activity, biological N2 fixation; emissions of ammonia and other gases from the soil [81][82]. Both too acidic and alkaline soils have a negative effect on nutrient uptake. However, the phenomena occurring in acidic and alkaline soils differ significantly in terms of processes contributing to their degradation. A significant problem of acidified soils is an increase in exchangeable aluminum (Al3+) [83]. The content of this form of aluminum monomers rapidly increases in soils below pH 5.0–5.5 [84]. An excessive amount of Al3+ ions in the soil negatively affects the nutrient uptake processes and plant growth [85]. Numerous studies show that even at the stage of nutrient uptake, unfavorable phenomena take place, such as the competition of Al3+ ions with other ions for attachment sites in the apoplast, in carriers, attachment to the ATPase of cytoplasmic membranes and disruptions in the operation of the proton pump [86][87]. An excessive content of Al3+ ions in the soil significantly reduces the uptake of Mg2+ ions. This is due to the similar size of the hydrated ions [88]. One of the most important consequences of the presence of exchangeable aluminum in the soil is the disturbance of the growth and development of the root cap, and consequently the shortening of the root length and unfavorable changes in its structure [89]. For most crops, even a small concentration of exchangeable aluminum (in nanomoles) in the root cells is a toxic factor for the metabolic, physiological, genetic and biochemical processes taking place in the plant [90]. The reduction in the root system negatively affects the use of nitrogen in fertilizers and increases the risk of nitrate being washed out from the soil [91]. Moreover, nitrate nitrogen, which is not taken up by plants, is reduced to gaseous compounds, including N2O [92]. In highly acidic soils, apart from exchangeable aluminum, excessive amounts of manganese (Mn2+) and iron (Fe2+) can also appear, which can further disrupt the proper growth and development of plants [93].

2.6. Soil Salinity

In arid or semi-arid climates, the problem is not soil acidification, but alkalization and salinity [94]. Under low rainfall conditions and a high evaporation rate, Na+ ions, as well as various soluble salts, accumulate in the soil. Their excessive accumulation contributes to the significant advantage of OH− ions over H+ and, consequently, to an increase in soil pH to the level of 9–10 [95]. Soil alkalinity can also be increased by the addition of water containing dissolved bicarbonates, especially when irrigating with high-bicarbonate water [96]. The low osmotic potential of water in saline soils adversely affects water absorption by plants and nutrient uptake [97]. Salinity of soil significantly decreases P uptake by plants because phosphate ions precipitate with Ca ions contained in saline soils [98]. However, the alkalinity of soils is most often associated with the Na concentration [99]. Alkaline soils are characterized by unfavorable physical conditions, low content of plant-available forms of microelements and phosphorus, components determining nitrogen metabolism in the plant. During nutrient uptake processes, Na+ ions compete for carriers with other nutrients in cationic form, in particular with K+ ions [100]. This is a negative phenomenon because Na, dissimilar to K, negatively affects the activity of plant enzymes [101]. The reduced uptake of K+ ions also means the insufficient or slower transport of NO3− from the roots to the above-ground parts, and thus poor efficiency of N from fertilizers [102]. Furthermore, an excess of Cl− ions in the soil has a negative effect on NO3− uptake. However, as recent studies show, optimal NO3− vs. Cl− ratios become a useful tool to increase crop yield and quality, agricultural sustainability and reduce the negative ecological impact of NO3− on the environment and on human health [103]. Under saline soil conditions, plants change their root architecture, which also has negative consequences for nutrient uptake [104].

2.7. Soil Organic Matter

The content of soil organic matter (SOC) in soil is one of the most important features influencing soil fertility [105]. Changes in SOC are associated mainly with changes in macronutrient contents, such as N, P and sulfur (S) which are chemically bound to carbon (C) in organic compounds [106]. Therefore, in systems where SOC content is declining, soil fertility declines over time and soils become increasingly dependent on the use of mineral fertilizers, especially nitrogen [107]. A total loss of organic N directly translates into a weaker potential of soils to release mineral forms that are taken up by plants. At the same time, under such conditions, the demand for N from fertilizers increases. Numerous experiences show that the most effective use of N from fertilizers is observed in the small dose range [9][108]. Conventional tillage with plowing can reduce SOC stocks by 30–60% [106]. Changes in NUE resulting indirectly from the increase in the degree of SOC degradation are confirmed by research of Luis et al. [109]. The researchers calculated that over many years the efficiency of nitrogen fertilization application decreased from 68% in 1961 to 47% in 2010. This means that the use of N from fertilizers deteriorated and N losses to the environment increased by 21%.
In general, the transformation of native soil to agricultural uses leads to a decline in SOC levels [110]. However, agricultural land uses do not always result in losses of SOC. The rate and direction of changes in the C content in soils depend on the soil use system, irrigation, crops, and the level of organic matter return to the soil [111][112]. Failure to plow or use various simplified systems leads to the accumulation of SOC, especially in topsoil [113]. Reduced tillage in comparison with ploughing increased SOC stocks in the surface layer (0–10/15 cm) by 20.8% or 3.8 t ha−1, depleted SOC stocks in the intermediate soil layers to 50 cm soil depth with a maximum depletion of 6.6% or 1.6 t ha−1 in 15/20–30 cm and increased SOC stocks in the deepest (70–100 cm) soil layer by 14.4% or 2.5 t ha−1 [114]. However, the use of natural and organic fertilizers is of greater practical importance in maintaining an appropriate SOC [115]. Szajdak et al. [116] reported that a yearly application of 30 t ha−1 of manure to light soil over 38 years doubled the SOC content. The increase in plant biomass as a result of the use of NPK fertilizers leads to an increase in the influx of C to the soil. Nevertheless, accumulation of C in soil is not favored by an excess of N in the soil from high fertilizer application rates and/or low plant uptake can cause an increase in the mineralization of organic carbon which, in turn, leads to an increased loss of C from soils [117].

2.8. Nutrient Shortage

Factors responsible for nutrient deficiency in crops can be divided into two main groups: (i) causing an absolute deficiency of nutrients in soil, resulting from low nutrient contents in the parent soil material, low level of SOC, nutrient losses from the soil, e.g., Mg leaching, long-term unbalanced crop fertilization practice neglecting nutrient depletion in soils through crop nutrient removal; (ii) causing an induced deficiency, resulting from factors that disturb the flow of nutrients to the root such as: improper moisture and temperature of soil, ion competition, factors responsible for root system size, etc. [12]. The natural source of most nutrients in the soil are primary and secondary minerals. As a result of weathering, often stimulated by the activity of living organisms, potentially available nutrients are released into the environment. Their reactions in soil and fate in the environment depend on the type of element. Some nutrients are strongly absorbed in the soil, others are easily lost (by leaching or emission). The first group includes K. The ions of this element can be absorbed in the soil in an exchangeable and non-exchangeable form [118]. The second type of adsorption prevents the elution of K+ ions from soil, but on the other hand this leads to a reduction in the potential to supply plants with K. This phenomenon is responsible for the poor efficiency of K from fertilizers on soils rich in mineral colloids. The strength of the non-exchangeable K ion fixation increases in dry years, which further aggravates the symptoms of water stress [119]. Non-exchangeable adsorption may also apply to other cations, e.g., Mg. However, in relation to Mg, the degree of soil moisture has a greater practical importance, as this element is assimilated by plants as a result of a mechanism known as mass flow. Contrary to K, Mg is less readily absorbed [41]. This is one of the reasons for the relatively easy leaching of Mg from the soil. An absolute deficiency of K and Mg leads to a poor efficiency of N, as both elements greatly affect the metabolism and transport of N in plants [16]. Studies conducted on sugar beet show that Mg applied to the soil significantly increases the agronomic efficiency of N, but in the range of low doses of N. This indicates that an excess of nutrients in the soil may not lead to better FUE/NUE values. Phosphorus and micronutrient deficiencies in the soil are often the result of an inappropriate pH range in the soil. In an acidic reaction, the adsorption of P on iron and aluminum compounds increases, while in an alkaline pH, insoluble calcium phosphates precipitate in the soil [42]. An inappropriate soil pH also influences, directly or indirectly, the content of plant-available forms of K, Mg and Ca [82]. Thus, in order to restore the optimal conditions for the uptake of nutrients, it is necessary to regulate and/or constantly control the soil pH. If this does not help, then one option is to enrich the soil with nutrients to eliminate their absolute deficiency, or to support the plants by foliar fertilization.

3. FUE—A Message for Agricultural Practice

The stagnation in the increase in the crop yields is well-documented [120][121]. Despite considerable progress in breeding and the continual release of new varieties, the real improvement in NUE is small [122]. The challenge for the farmer to exploit the yield potential of the grown variety is:
  • Determine the maximum attainable yield (Yattmax). This is the basis for choosing the most suitable variety for the actual climatic and soil conditions of the farm;
  • Identify soil conditions that constrain:
    • growth and architecture of the root system
    • water and nutrient availability;
  • Divide the whole field area into units of homogenous productivity;
  • Identify Nitrogen Hotspots both on the farm and on the specific field;
  • Observe the viability of plants at stages preceding the cardinal phases of yield formation;
  • Schedule the correction of the plant nutritional status during the season to exploit its yield potential.
The effective control of the set of factors indicated above is crucial to optimizing NUE. The general formula can be written as:
The denominator includes all growth factors that determine the plant’s uptake and utilization available N present in the soil-plant system during the growing season. The fractional value of all these factors, excluding N, should be ≤1.0 [5][8]. If the fractional value of a given growth factor approaches 1.0, its negative impact on NUE decreases and vice versa. The main challenge for the farmer in using Nf efficiently is to mitigate, or rather eliminate, the cause that leads to its fractional value drop below 1.0. Insufficient recognition of this value, and worse, the lack of action to control its value, is the main reason for low NUE both on the farm and worldwide [123][124].
The numerator of this equation is not the first but the second step in an effective control of the Nf use efficiency. The amount of Nf applied must meet at plant’s requirement for N to exploit its yield potential, taking into account both the stage of growth and the spatial variability in plant N status [125]. The effective determination of the amount of Nf requires the use of appropriate diagnostic tools. The first dose of Nf, regardless of the crop, must be based on the content of Nmin in the effective rooting depth of the currently cultivated plant [126]. A comprehensive view of the nutritional status of a plant in its full vegetation should be based on data on the content of both Nmin and other nutrients in the soil [32]. The control of the plant nutritional status during the growing season, in fact, is limited to N. The chemometric diagnostic tools are good, but their use is limited. These methods are time-consuming and because of the delay between the sampling time and the delivery of the data to the farmer, they do not show the real condition of the plant N status. Real-time data can be obtained by using remote sensing techniques [127][128]. These methods rely on the absorption and reflection of solar radiation by a plant canopy. From this property of the plant, a number of crop characteristics can be determined in real time, such as (i) plant biomass, (ii) leaf area index, (iii) nitrogen content, (iv) chlorophyll content [129]. Biometric and nutritional data obtained at the cardinal stages of plant growth, combined with the required sum of the physiological effective temperatures at a given stage, form the basis for determining the crop growth rate. These data are used to forecast a plant’s demand for N in strictly defined stages of its development. This is the basis for determining the appropriate dose of Nf. The spatial differences in the values of the field spectral indices can be used to develop a zonal map, showing the temporary crop N status. These maps are the basis for the application of Nf according to a plant’s requirements in a well-defined field area [130][131].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants11141855

References

  1. Licker, R.; Johnston, M.; Foley, J.A.; Barford, C.; Kucharik, C.J.; Monfreda, C.; Ramankutty, N. Mind the gap: How do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010, 19, 769–782.
  2. Tandzi, N.L.; Mutengwa, S.C. Factors affecting yields of crops. In Agronomy—Climate Change and Food Security; Amanullah, Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; p. 16.
  3. Sattari, S.Z.; Van Ittersum, M.K.; Bouwman, A.F.; Smit, A.L.; Janssen, B.H. Crop yield response to soil fertility and N, P, K inputs in different environments: Testing and improving the QEFTS model. Field Crops Res. 2014, 157, 35–46.
  4. Lollato, R.P.; Edwards, J.T. Maximum attainable wheat yield and resources-use efficiency in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 2863–2875.
  5. Wallace, A.; Wallace, G.A. Closing the Crop-Yield Gap through Better Soil and Better Management; Wallace Laboratories: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2003; p. 162.
  6. 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.
  7. Dobermann, A.R. Nitrogen use efficiency—State of the art. In Agronomy & Horticulture Faculty Publications, Proceedings of the IFA International Workshop on Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers, Frankfurt, Germany, 28–30 June 2005; University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2005; Volume 316, pp. 1–16.
  8. Grzebisz, W.; Łukowiak, R. Nitrogen Gap Amelioration is a Core for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture—A Concept. Agronomy 2021, 11, 419.
  9. Fixen, P.; Brentrup, F.; Bruulsema, T.; Garcia, F.; Norton, R.; Zingore, S. Nutrient/fertilizer use efficiency: Measurement, current situation and trends. In Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification; Drechsel, P., Heffer, P., Magen, H., Mikkelsen, R., Wichelns, D., Eds.; IFA: Paris, France, 2015; pp. 8–38.
  10. Oenema, O.; Kros, H.; De Vries, W. Approaches and uncertainties in nutrient budgets: Implications for nutrient management and environmental policies. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 20, 3–16.
  11. 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.
  12. Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA; Academic Press: London, UK , 1995; p. 899.
  13. 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.
  14. Guan, P. Dancing with hormones: A current perspective of nitrate signaling and regulation in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1697.
  15. Luo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, G. How does nitrogen shape plant architecture. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 4415–4427.
  16. Marschner, P. (Ed.) Marchnerr’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; p. 672.
  17. Blecharczyk, A.; Zawada, D.; Sawińska, Z.; Małcka-Jankowiak, I.; Waniorek, W. Impact of crop seqeunce and fetilization on yield of winter wheat. Fragm. Agron. 2019, 36, 27–35.
  18. Tabak, M.; Lepiarczyk, A.; Filipek–Mazur, B.; Lisowska, A. Efficiency of Nitrogen Fertilization of Winter Wheat Depending on Sulfur Fertilization. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1304.
  19. Roberts, T.L. Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2008, 32, 177–182.
  20. Zhang, F.; Niu, J.; Zhang, W.; Chen, X.; Li, C.; Yuan, L.; Xie, J. Potassium nutrition of crops under varied regimes of nitrogen supply. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 21–34.
  21. Osman, K.T. Soils: Principles, Properties and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 271.
  22. Kome, G.K.; Enang, R.K.; Tabi, F.O.; Yerima, B.P.K. Influence of Clay Minerals on Some Soil Fertility Attributes: A Review. Open J. Soil Sci. 2019, 9, 155–188.
  23. Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Wang, P.; McKenna, B.A.; Lombi, E. Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105078.
  24. Merino, C.; Nannipieri, P.; Matus, F. Soil Carbon Controlled by Plant, Microorganism and Mineralogy Interactions. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 321–332.
  25. Sarkar, B.; Singh, M.; Mandal, S.; Churchman, G.J.; Bolan, N.S. Clay Minerals—Organic Matter Interactions in Relation to Carbon Stabilization in Soils. In The Future of Soil Carbon: Its Conservation and Formation; Garcia, C., Nannipieri, P., Hernandez, T., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2018; Chapter 3; pp. 71–86.
  26. Lal, R. Soil organic matter and water retention. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 3265–3277.
  27. Carter, M.R. Soil quality for sustainable land management: Organic matter and aggregation interactions that maintain soil function. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 38–47.
  28. Raheb, A.; Heidari, A. Effects of Clay Mineralogy and Physicochemical Properties on Potassium Availability under Soil Aquic Conditions. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012, 12, 747–761.
  29. Moraru, S.S.; Ene, A.; Badila, A. Physical and Hydro-Physical Characteristics of Soil in the Context of Climate Change. A Case Study in Danube River Basin, SE Romania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9174.
  30. Römheld, V.; Kirkby, E.A. Research on potassium in agriculture: Needs and prospects. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 155–180.
  31. Nieder, R.; Dinesh, K.B.; Scherer, H.W. Fixation and Defixation of Ammonium in Soils: A Review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2011, 47, 1–14.
  32. Barłóg, P.; Łukowiak, R.; Grzebisz, W. Predicting the content of soil mineral nitrogen based on the content of calcium chloride-extractable nutrients. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 180, 624–635.
  33. Zheng, Z.; Parent, L.E.; MacLeod, J.A. Influence of soil texture on fertilizer and soil phosphorus transformations in Gleysolic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2003, 83, 395–403.
  34. Wilson, M.J. Weathering of the primary rock-formingminerals: Processes, products and rates. Clay Miner. 2004, 39, 233–266.
  35. Erlandsson Lampa, M.; Sverdrup, H.U.; Bishop, K.H.; Belyazid, S.; Ameli, A.; Köhler, S.J. Catchment export of base cations: Improved mineral dissolution kinetics influence the role of water transit time. Soil 2020, 6, 231–244.
  36. Gavrilescu, M. Water, Soil, and Plants Interactions in a Threatened Environment. Water 2021, 13, 2746.
  37. Trinh, T.H.; KuShaari, K.; Basit, A. Modeling the Release of Nitrogen from Controlled-Release Fertilizer with Imperfect Coating in Soils and Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 6724–6733.
  38. Alaoui, I.; El-ghadraoui, O.; Serbouti, S.; Ahmed, H.; Mansouri, I.; El-Kamari, F.; Taroq, A.; Ousaaid, D.; Squalli, W.; Farah, A. The Mechanisms of Absorption and Nutrients Transport in Plants: A Review. Trop. J. Nat. Prod. Res. 2022, 6, 8–14.
  39. Comerford, N.B. Soil Factors Affecting Nutrient Bioavailability. In Nutrient Acquisition by Plants; Ecological Studies; Bassiri, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 181, p. 14.
  40. Oliveira, E.M.M.; Ruiz, H.A.; Alvarez, V.V.H.; Ferreira, P.A.; Costa, F.O.; Almeida, I.C.C. Nutrient supply by mass flow and diffusion to maize plants in response to soil aggregate size and water potential. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2020, 34, 317–327.
  41. Gransee, A.; Führs, H. Magnesium mobility in soils as a challenge for soil and plant analysis, magnesium fertilization and root uptake under adverse growth conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 5–21.
  42. Hinsinger, P.; Brauman, A.; Devau, N.; Gérard, F.; Jourdan, C.; Laclau, J.P.; Le Cadre, E.; Jaillard, B.; Plassard, C. Acquisition of phosphorus and other poorly mobile nutrients by roots. Where do plant nutrition models fail? Plant Soil 2011, 348, 29–61.
  43. Rengel, Z. Availability of Mn, Zn and Fe in the rhizosphere. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 397–409.
  44. Mauceri, A.; Bassolino, L.; Lupini, A.; Badeck, F.; Rizza, F.; Schiavi, M. Genetic variation in eggplant for nitrogen use efficiency under contrasting NO3− supply. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2020, 62, 393–543.
  45. Maurel, C.; Nacry, P. Root architecture and hydraulics converge for acclimation to changing water availability. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 744–749.
  46. Haling, R.E.; Brown, L.K.; Bengough, A.G.; Young, I.M.; Hallett, P.D.; White, P.J.; George, T.S. Root hairs improve root penetration, root-soil contact, and phosphorus acquisition in soils of different strength. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 3711–3721.
  47. Tron, S.; Bodner, G.; Laio, F.; Ridolfi, L.; Leitner, D. Can diversity in root architecture explain plant water use efficiency? A modeling study. Ecol. Model. 2015, 312, 200–210.
  48. Fang, Y.; Du, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, A.; Qiao, S.; Xu, B.; Zhang, S.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Chen, Y. Moderate Drought Stress Affected Root Growth and Grain Yield in Old, Modern and Newly Released Cultivars of Winter Wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 672.
  49. Lupini, A.; Preiti, G.; Badagliacca, G.; Abenavoli, M.R.; Sunseri, F.; Monti, M.; Bacchi, M. Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Durum Wheat Under Different Nitrogen and Water Regimes in the Mediterranean Basin. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 607226.
  50. Becker, M.; Asch, F. Iron toxicity in rice—Conditions and management concepts. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2005, 168, 558–573.
  51. Vepraskas, M.J. Plant response mechanisms to soil compaction. In Plant-Environment Interactions; Wilkonson, R.E., Ed.; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 263–287.
  52. Bengough, A.G.; McKenzie, B.M.; Hallett, P.D.; Valentine, T.A. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 59–68.
  53. Correa, J.; Postma, J.A.; Watt, M.; Wojciechowski, T. Soil compaction and the architectural plasticity of root systems. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 6019–6034.
  54. Clark, L.J.; Whalley, W.R.; Barraclough, P.B. How do roots penetrate strong soil? Plant Soil 2003, 255, 93–104.
  55. Whalley, W.R.; Bengough, A.G.; Dexter, A.R. Water stress induced by PEG decreases the maximum growth pressure of the roots of pea seedlings. J. Exp. Bot. 1998, 49, 1689–1694.
  56. Iijima, M.; Morita, S.; Barlow, P.W. Structure and function of the root cap. Plant Prod. Sci. 2008, 11, 17–27.
  57. Hunbury, C.D.; Atwell, B.J. Growth dynamics of mechanically impeded lupin roots: Does altered morphology induce hypoxia? Ann. Bot. 2005, 96, 913–924.
  58. Jin, K.; Shen, J.; Ashton, R.W.; Dodd, I.C.; Parry, M.A.; Whalley, W.R. How do roots elongate in a structured soil? J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 4761–4777.
  59. Bengough, A.G. Root elongation is restricted by axial but not by radial pressures: So what happens in field soil? Plant Soil 2012, 360, 15–18.
  60. Ramalingam, P.; Kamoshita, A.; Deshmukh, V.; Yaginuma, S.; Uga, Y. Association between root growth angle and root length density of a near-isogenic line of IR64 rice with DEEPER ROOTING 1 under different levels of soil compaction. Plant Prod. Sci. 2017, 20, 162–175.
  61. Thorup-Kristensen, K.; Cortasa, M.S.; Loges, R. Winter wheat roots grow twice as deep as spring wheat roots, is this important for N uptake and N leaching losses? Plant Soil 2009, 322, 101–114.
  62. Batey, T. Soil compaction and soil management—A review. Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 335–345.
  63. Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: Global patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry 2001, 53, 51–77.
  64. Valentine, T.A.; Hallett, P.D.; Binnie, K.; Young, M.W.; Squire, G.R.; Hawes, C.; Bengough, A.G. Soil strength and macropore volume limit root elongation rates in many UK agricultural soils. Ann. Bot. 2012, 110, 259–270.
  65. Sitaula, B.K.; Hansen, S.; Sitaula, J.I.B.; Bakken, L.R. Effects of soil compaction on N2O emission in agricultural soil. Chemosphere-Glob. Chang. Sci. 2000, 2, 367–371.
  66. Chamindu Deepagoda, T.K.K.; Clough, T.J.; Thomas, S.M.; Balaine, N.; Elberling, B. Density Effects on Soil-Water Characteristics, Soil-Gas Diffusivity, and Emissions of N2O and N2 from a Re-packed Pasture Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2018, 83, 118–125.
  67. Ruser, R.; Flessa, H.; Russow, R.; Schmidt, G.; Buegger, F.; Munch, J.C. Emission of N2O, N2 and CO2 from soil fertilized with nitrate: Effect of compaction, soil moisture and rewetting. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 263–274.
  68. Soane, B.; Van Ouwerkerk, C. Implications of soil compaction in crop production for the quality of the environment. Soil Till Res. 1995, 35, 5–22.
  69. Sommer, S.G.; Hutchings, N.J. Ammonia emission from field applied manure and its reduction. Eur. J. Agron. 2001, 15, 1–15.
  70. Onwuka, B.; Mang, B. Effects of soil temperature on some soil properties and plant growth. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2018, 8, 34–37.
  71. Fang, C.M.; Smith, P.; Moncrieff, J.B.; Smith, J.U. Similar response of labile and resistant soil organic matter pools to changes in temperature. Nature 2005, 436, 881–883.
  72. Elbasiouny, H.; El-Ramady, H.; Elbehiry, F.; Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Mandzhieva, S. Plant Nutrition under Climate Change and Soil Carbon Sequestration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 914.
  73. Gahoonia, T.S.; Nielsen, N.E. Phosphorus uptake and growth of root hairless barley mutant (bald root barley) and wild type in low and high–p soils. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 1759–1766.
  74. Yilvainio, K.; Pettovuori, T. Phosphorus acquisition by barley (Hordeum yulgar) at suboptimal soil temperature. Agric. Food Sci. 2012, 21, 453–461.
  75. Lahti, M.; Aphalo, P.; Finér, L.; Ryyppö, A.; Lehto, T.; Mannerkoski, H. Effects of soil temperature on shoot and root growth and nutrient uptake of 5-year-old Norway spruce seedlings. Tree Physiol. 2005, 25, 115–122.
  76. Gavelienė, V.; Jurkonienė, S.; Jankovska-Bortkevič, E.; Švegždienė, D. Effects of Elevated Temperature on Root System Development of Two Lupine Species. Plants 2022, 11, 192.
  77. Huang, B.R.; Taylor, H.M.; McMichael, B.L. Effects of Temperature on the Development of Metaxylem in Primary Wheat Roots and Its Hydraulic Consequence. Ann. Bot. 1991, 67, 163–166.
  78. Falah, M.A.F.; Wajima, T.; Yasutake, D.; Sago, Y.; Kitano, M. Responses of root uptake to high temperature of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in soil-less culture. J. Agric. Technol. 2010, 6, 543–558.
  79. Xia, Z.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, G.; Fu, Y.; Lu, H. Effects of Root Zone Warming on Maize Seedling Growth and Photosynthetic Characteristics Under Different Phosphorus Levels. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 746152.
  80. Fageria, N.K.; Barbosa Filho, M.B. Influence of pH on Productivity, Nutrient Use Efficiency by Dry Bean, and Soil Phosphorus Availability in a No-Tillage System. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2008, 39, 1016–1025.
  81. Jackson, K.; Meetei, T.T. Influence of soil pH on nutrient availability: A Review. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2018, 5, 708–713.
  82. Neina, D. The Role of Soil pH in Plant Nutrition and Soil Remediation. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019, 2019, 5794869.
  83. Bojórquez-Quintal, E.; Escalante-Magaña, C.; Echevarría-Machado, I.; Martínez-Estévez, M. Aluminum, a friend or foe of higher plants in acid soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1767.
  84. Błaszyk, R. Effects of Lime Fertilizer Reactivity on Selected Chemical Properties of Soil and Crop Yielding in Two Different Tillage Systems. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Environmental Biogeochemistry, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland, 2020; p. 237. (In Polish).
  85. McCauley, A.; Jones, C.; Jacobsen, J. Soil pH and Organic Matter. Montana State University (MSU) Extension. Available online: https://apps.msuextension.org/publications/pub.html?sku=4449-8 (accessed on 26 June 2022).
  86. Rangel, A.F.; Madhusudana, R.I.; Johannes, H.W. Intracellular distribution and binding state of aluminum in root apices of two common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes in relation to Al toxicity. Physiol. Plant. 2009, 135, 162–173.
  87. Rahman, M.A.; Lee, S.H.; Ji, H.C.; Kabir, A.H.; Jones, C.S.; Lee, K.W. Importance of Mineral Nutrition for Mitigating Aluminum Toxicity in Plants on Acidic Soils: Current Status and Opportunities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3073.
  88. Bose, J.; Babourina, O.; Rengel, Z. Role of magnesium in alleviation of aluminum toxicity in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 2251–2264.
  89. Čiamporová, M. Morphological and Structural Responses of Plant Roots to Aluminium at Organ, Tissue, and Cellular Levels. Biol. Plant. 2002, 45, 161–171.
  90. Singh, S.; Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Sharma, S.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K.; Vaculík, M. Toxicity of aluminium on various levels of plant cells and organism: A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2017, 137, 177–193.
  91. Zhao, X.Q.; Shen, R.F. Aluminum–Nitrogen Interactions in the Soil–Plant System. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 807.
  92. Ma, D.; Wang, J.; Xue, J.; Yue, Z.; Xia, S.; Song, L.; Gao, H. Effects of Soil pH on Gaseous Nitrogen Loss Pathway via Feammox Process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10393.
  93. Faria, J.M.S.; Teixeira, D.M.; Pinto, A.P.; Brito, I.; Barrulas, P.; Carvalho, M. Aluminium, Iron and Silicon Subcellular Redistribution in Wheat Induced by Manganese Toxicity. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8745.
  94. Stavi, I.; Thevs, N.; Priori, S. Soil Salinity and Sodicity in Drylands: A Review of Causes, Effects, Monitoring, and Restoration Measures. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 712831.
  95. Shrivastava, P.; Kumar, R. Soil salinity: A serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 123–131.
  96. Mohanavelu, A.; Naganna, S.R.; Al-Ansari, N. Irrigation Induced Salinity and Sodicity Hazards on Soil and Groundwater: An Overview of Its Causes, Impacts and Mitigation Strategies. Agriculture 2021, 11, 983.
  97. Munns, R.; Passioura, J.B.; Colmer, T.D.; Byrt, C.S. Osmotic Adjustment and Energy Limitations to Plant Growth in saline Soil. New Phytol. 2019, 225, 1091–1096.
  98. Shahriaripour, R.; Tajabadi Pour, A.; Mozaffari, V. Effects of Salinity and Soil Phosphorus Application on Growth and Chemical Compositiono Pistachio Seedlings. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 144–158.
  99. Rengasamy, P. Soil processes affecting crop production in salt-affected soils. Funct. Plant Biol. 2010, 37, 613–620.
  100. Maathuis, F.J.M. Sodium in plants: Perception, signalling, and regulation of sodium fluxes. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 849–858.
  101. Kronzucker, H.J.; Coskun, D.; Schulze, L.M.; Wong, J.R.; Britto, D.T. Sodium as nutrient and toxicant. Plant Soil 2013, 369, 1–23.
  102. Raddatz, N.; Morales de los Ríos, L.; Lindahl, M.; Quintero, F.J.; Pardo, J.M. Coordinated Transport of Nitrate, Potassium, and Sodium. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 247.
  103. Rosales, M.A.; Franco-Navarro, J.D.; Peinado-Torrubia, P.; Díaz-Rueda, P.; Álvarez, R.; Colmenero-Flores, J.M. Chloride Improves Nitrate Utilization and NUE in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 442.
  104. Acikbas, S.; Ozyazici, M.A.; Bektas, H. The Effect of Salinity on Root Architecture in Forage Pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.). Legume Res. 2021, 44, 407–412.
  105. Lal, R. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 2016, 5, 212–222.
  106. Kopittke, P.M.; Dalal, R.C.; Finn, D.; Menzies, N.W. Global changes in soil stocks of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur as influenced by long-term agricultural production. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 2509–2519.
  107. Sanderman, J.; Hengl, T.; Fiske, G.J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9575–9580.
  108. Huang, S.; Yang, W.; Ding, W.; Jia, L.; Jiang, L.; Liu, Y.; Xu, X.; Yang, Y.; He, P.; Yang, J. Estimation of Nitrogen Supply for Summer Maize Production through a Long-Term Field Trial in China. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1358.
  109. Luis, L.; Gilles, B.; Bruna, G.; Juliette, A.; Josette, G. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: The relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 105011.
  110. Wei, X.; Shao, M.; Gale, W.; Li, L. Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to agricultural land. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4062.
  111. Xue, Z.; An, S. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen at a Small Watershed Scale as the Result of Land Use Conversion on the Loess Plateau. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4757.
  112. Livsey, J.; Alavaisha, E.; Tumbo, M.; Lyon, S.W.; Canale, A.; Cecotti, M.; Lindborg, R.; Manzoni, S. Soil Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Contents along a Gradient of Agricultural Intensity in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania. Land 2020, 9, 121.
  113. Haddaway, N.R.; Hedlund, K.; Jackson, L.E.; Kätterer, T.; Lugato, E.; Thomsen, I.K.; Jørgensen, H.B.; Isberg, P.E. How does tillage intensity afect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 30.
  114. Krauss, M.; Wiesmeier, M.; Don, A.; Cuperus, F.; Gattinger, A.; Gruberf, S.; Haagsma, W.K.; Peign’e, J.; Chiodelli Palazzoli, M.; Schulz, F.; et al. Reduced tillage in organic farming affects soil organic carbon stocks in temperate Europe. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 2016, 105262.
  115. Powlson, D.S.; Bhogal, A.; Chambers, B.J.; Coleman, K.; Macdonald, A.J.; Goulding, W.T.; Whitmore, A.P. The potential to increase soil carbon stocks through reduced tillage or organic material additions in England and Wales: A case study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 146, 23–33.
  116. Szajdak, L.; Życzyńska-Bałoniak, I.; Meysner, T.; Blecharczyk, A. Bound amino acids in humic acids from arable cropping systems. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2004, 167, 562–567.
  117. Khalil, M.I.; Rahman, M.S.; Schmidhalter, U.; Olfs, H.-W. Nitrogen fertilizer–induced mineralization of soil organic C and N in six contrasting soils of Bangladesh. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2007, 170, 210–218.
  118. Barre, P.; Montagnier, C.; Chenu, C.; Abbadie, L.; Velde, B. Clay minerals as a soil potassium reservoir: Observation and quantification through X-ray diffraction. Plant Soil 2008, 302, 213–220.
  119. Khan, H.R.; Elahi, S.F.; Hussain, M.S.; Adachi, T. Soil Characteristics and Behavior of Potassium under Various Moisture Regimes. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 1994, 40, 243–254.
  120. Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1293.
  121. Schauberger, B.; Ben-Ari, T.; Makowski, D.; Kato, T.; Kato, H.; Ciais, P. Yield trends, variability and stagnation analysis of major crops in France over more than a century. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16865.
  122. Bindraban, P.S.; Dimkpa, C.; Nagarajan, L.; Roy, A.; Rabbinge, R. Revisiting fertilisers and fertilization strategies for improved nutrient uptake by plants. Boil. Fertil. Soils 2015, 51, 897–911.
  123. Spiertz, J.H.J. Nitrogen, sustainable agriculture and food security. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 43–55.
  124. Grzebisz, W.; Niewiadomska, A.; Przygocka-Cyna, K. Nitrogen Hotspots on the farm—A practice-oriented approach. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1305.
  125. Berbell, J.; Martinez-Dalmau, J. A simple agro-economic model for optimal farm nitrogen application under yield uncertainty. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1107.
  126. Olfs, H.-W.; Blankenau, K.; Brentrup, F.; Jasper, J.; Link, A.; Lammel, J. Soil- and plant-based nitrogen-fertilizer recommendations in arable farming. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2005, 168, 414–431.
  127. Córdova, C.; Barrera, J.A.; Magna, C. Spatial variation in nitrogen mineralization as a guide for variable application of nitrogen fertilizer to cereal crops. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2018, 110, 83–88.
  128. Herath, A.; Ma, B.L.; Shang, J.; Liu, J.; Dong, T.; Jiao, X.; Kovacs, J.M.; Walters, D. On-farm spatial characterization of soil mineral nitrogen, crop growth, and yield of canola as affected by different rates of nitrogen application. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 98, 1–14.
  129. Stamatiadis, S.; Schepers, J.S.; Evangelou, E.; Tsadilas, C.; Glampedakis, M.; Dercas, N.; Spyropoulos, N.; Dalezios, N.R.; Eskridge, K. Variable-rate nitrogen fertilization of winter wheat under high spatial resolution. Precis. Agric. 2018, 19, 570–587.
  130. 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.
  131. Vizzari, M.; Santaga, F.; Benincasa, P. Sentinel 2-based nitrogen VRT fertilization in wheat: Comparison between traditional and simple precision practices. Agronomy 2019, 9, 278.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Academic Video Service
Feedback