/
Blog Posts
Page History
| HTML |
|---|
<div class="banner_general_fiche"><div class="table-wrap"><table class="ficheTable" style="width: 99.1985%;"><colgroup><col style="width: 60%;"><col style="width: 20%;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td class="confluenceTd"><h1 style="text-align: center;" title="" id="banner_title"></h1></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>
<script>
var title = $('#title-text').find('a').text();
var mytitle = title.replace('_',' ');
$('#banner_title').text(mytitle + ' Fiche');
</script>
<style>
.banner_general_fiche {
height: 194px;
padding-right: 20px;
background-color: #00afef;
}
.banner_general_fiche h1 {
position: relative;
font-size: 1.7 !important;
font-family: corbel;
color: #ffffff !important;
letter-spacing: -0.01em;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 1.25;
top: 64px;
font-weight: bold;
margin-left: 30px;
}
#banner_title {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
.table-wrap {
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: hidden;
}
.banner_general_fiche td {
border: 0px !important;
height: 170px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-wrapper {
font-family: corbel;
position: relative;
}
</style>
<style>
.highlight-green {
color: #000000;
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-green>p {
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
.highlight-red {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-red>p {
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
.highlight-yellow {
color: #000000;
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-yellow>p {
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
.highlight-grey {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-grey>p {
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
#Agroforestry_GENERAL-GENERALFICHE-AGROFORESTRY {
color: #F8F8FF !important;
}
#main-content { font-family: corbel; }
.wiki-content img.confluence-embedded-image { cursor: default !important;}
</style> |
Data extracted in October 2020
Fiche created in November 2023
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of ENHANCED EFFICIENCY FERTILISERS found in a review of 26 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 59 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 10 to 376. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
Description:Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilisers (EEFs) correspond to different types of fertilisers or products associated to fertilisers, which have been developed to better synchronize fertiliser N release with crop uptake, offering the potential for enhanced N-use efficiency (NUE) in crops and reduced losses (Li et al., 2017).[2]
There are four main types of EEFs:
Some EEFs are designed to release nutrients by diffusion through semipermeable polymer-membrane coatings, in a controlled manner. Thus, nutrient release is better matched with crop demands and the availability of the fertiliser-derived N to nitrifiers and denitrifiers is limited. These products are called controlled-release fertilisers (CRF) and include coated or encapsulated fertilisers with inorganic or organic materials (Thapa et al., 2016).[3]
Some other types of EEFs can be coupled to nitrogen fertilisers (both organic and mineral, excluding nitrate-containing mineral fertilisers) to delay the hydrolysis of urea into NH4+ by blocking the urease enzyme binding sites. These products are defined as urease inhibitors (UI) (Trenkel et al., 2010).[4]
Nitrification inhibitors are substances that, coupled to fertilizers, delay the bacterial oxidation of NH4+ (ammonium) to NO2− (nitrite) for a certain period by suppressing the activity of Nitrosomonas spp. (nitritation, step one of nitrification), and therefore the formation of NO3- (nitrate). In this way, mineral nitrogen (N) is retained as ammonium, which is less prone to leaching than nitrate, and which cannot be lost to the atmosphere by denitrification. Therefore, nitrification inhibitors are combined with fertilizers in order to increase fertilizer use efficiency (Chaves et al., 2006).[5]
The combined application of UI with nitrification inhibitors (NI) is referred to as double inhibitors (DI). DI are designed to increase crop NH4+ availability not only by delaying urea hydrolysis but also by prolonging NH4+ retention in soil, through inhibition of microbial nitrification (Thapa et al., 2016).[6]
Key descriptors:
All the four types of enhanced efficiency fertilisers were included in this fiche.
2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impact of EEFs, including control-release fertilisers, fertilisers amended with urease inhibitors, fertilisers amended with nitrification inhibitors and fertilisers amended with double inhibitors compared to conventional fertilisers (Table 1).
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 26 selected synthesis papers, 12 included studies conducted in Europe, and 20 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
Statistically Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||||||||||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |||||
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | NH3 emission | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||||
Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 (0) | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 (0) | ||||||
NO emission | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
Decrease GHG emissions | CH4 emission | Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||
CH4 uptake* | Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
N2O emission | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 6 | 0 | 3 | 1 (0) | |||||
Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 9 (8) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||||||
Increase Grassland production | Grassland production | Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Decrease Nutrient leaching and run-off | N leaching/run-off | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
Increase Plant nutrient uptake | Nutrient uptake | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Nutrient use efficiency | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 4 (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil content of fertiliser-derived N forms | Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Increase Crop yield | Crop yield | Controlled-release fertilisers | Conventional fertilisation | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||||
Fertiliser amended with double inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 2 (1) | 0 | 2 (1) | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with nitrification inhibitor | Conventional fertilisation | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||
Fertiliser amended with urease inhibitors | Conventional fertilisation | 4 (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
*Increase CH4 uptake is considered as a positive result. | |||||||||||
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Air pollutants emissions | Baseline emission (Ref26), CRF type (Ref18), Crop type (Ref4, Ref4, Ref10, Ref13), Fertiliser rate (Ref12, Ref13), Fertilizer type (Ref10), NH3 baseline emission (Ref10), NI type (Ref10, Ref13, Ref18, Ref21, Ref26), SOC (Ref13), Soil pH (Ref13), Soil texture and pH (Ref10), Soil TN (Ref13) and UI type (Ref10, Ref18) |
GHG emissions | Aridity (Ref15), Aridity/soil moisture (Ref9), Crop type (Ref10, Ref13, Ref16, Ref19), Fertiliser timing application (Ref19), Fertiliser type (Ref16), Fertilizer placement (Ref19), Irrigation (Ref15), Land use (Ref26), N application characteristics (Ref15), NI type (Ref13, Ref19, Ref21), SOC content (Ref10), Soil characteristics (Ref15), Soil pH (Ref5, Ref10, Ref13, Ref19), Soil texture (Ref10), Soil texture and pH (Ref16), Soil type (Ref26), Temperature (Ref10), Tillage (Ref15), UI type (Ref26) and Water management (Ref19) |
Grassland production | Soil texture (Ref21) |
Nutrient leaching and run-off | Crop type (Ref10, Ref21), Fertiliser rate (Ref13, Ref20), Fertiliser type (Ref21), NI type (Ref20, Ref21), SOC (Ref13), Soil texture (Ref21) and Soil TN (Ref13) |
Plant nutrient uptake | Crop type (Ref3, Ref10, Ref21), Fertiliser rate (Ref3, Ref13), Fertiliser type (Ref3), Fertilizer type (Ref10), NI type (Ref3, Ref10, Ref13, Ref21), Rainfall (Ref10), SOC (Ref13), Soil characteristics (Ref10), Soil N content (Ref13), Soil pH (Ref13), Soil texture (Ref3), SOM content (Ref3), Temperature (Ref10) and Water magement (Ref10) |
Soil nutrients | Application timing (Ref3), Ecosystem type (Ref3), Fertiliser rate (Ref3), NI type (Ref3), Soil texture and pH (Ref3) and UI type (Ref3) |
Crop yield | Aridity/soil moisture (Ref9), Crop type (Ref10, Ref13, Ref19, Ref21), EEF type (Ref10, Ref13), Fertiliser rate (Ref7, Ref13), NI type (Ref19, Ref21), Rainfall (Ref10), SOC (Ref13), SOC content (Ref10), Soil pH (Ref10), Soil texture (Ref10, Ref12, Ref21), Soil TN (Ref13) and Temperature (Ref10) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
...
...
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 6 October 2020 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Abdo, AI, Shi, D, Li, J, Yang, T, Wang, X, Li, H, Abdel-Hamed, EMW, Merwad, ARMA, Wang, L | 2021 | Ammonia emission from staple crops in China as response to mitigation strategies and agronomic conditions: Meta-analytic study | JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 279 (10), 123835. | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123835 |
Ref2 | Mazzetto, AM; Styles, D; Gibbons, J; Arndt, C; Misselbrook, T; Chadwick, D | 2020 | Region-specific emission factors for Brazil increase the estimate of nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen fertiliser application by 21% | ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 230, 117506. | 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117506 |
Ref3 | Sha, ZP; Ma, X; Wang, JX; Lv, TT; Li, QQ; Misselbrook, T; Liu, XJ | 2020 | Effect of N stabilizers on fertilizer-N fate in the soil-crop system: A meta-analysis | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 290, 106763. | 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106763 |
Ref4 | Ti, CP; Xia, LL; Chang, SX; Yan, XY | 2019 | Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: A meta-analysis | ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 245, 141-148. | 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124 |
Ref5 | Fan, XP; Yin, C; Yan, GC; Cui, PY; Shen, Q; Wang, Q; Chen, H; Zhang, N; Ye, MJ; Zhao, YH; Li, TQ; Liang, YC | 2018 | The contrasting effects of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on N2O emissions in arable soils differing in pH are underlain by complex microbial mechanisms | SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 642, 155-167. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.356 |
Ref6 | Jenkins, TA; Randhawa, P; Jenkins, V | 2018 | How well do fertilizer enhancers work? | JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION, 41(7), 832-845. | 10.1080/01904167.2018.1426018 |
Ref7 | Rose, TJ; Wood, RH; Rose, MT; Van Zwieten, L | 2018 | A re-evaluation of the agronomic effectiveness of the nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP and the urease inhibitor NBPT | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 252, 69-73. | 10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.008 |
Ref8 | Eagle, AJ; Olander, LP; Locklier, KL; Heffernan, JB; Bernhardt, ES | 2017 | Fertilizer Management and Environmental Factors Drive N2O and NO3 Losses in Corn: A Meta-Analysis | SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 81(5), 1191-1202. | 10.2136/sssaj2016.09.0281 |
Ref9 | Gao, WL; Man, XM | 2017 | Evaluation of the Agronomic Impacts on Yield-Scaled N2O Emission from Wheat and Maize Fields in China | SUSTAINABILITY, 9(7), 1201. | 10.3390/su9071201 |
Ref10 | Li, T; Zhang, W; Yin, J, Chadwick, D; Norse, D; Lu, Y; Liu, X; Chen, X; Zhang, F; Powlson, D; Dou, Z | 2017 | Enhanced-efficiency fertilizers are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 24(2), e511-e521. | 10.1111/gcb.13918 |
Ref11 | Liu, SW; Lin, F; Wu, S; Ji, C; Sun, Y; Jin, YG; Li, SQ; Li, ZF; Zou, JW | 2017 | A meta-analysis of fertilizer-induced soil NO and combined NO+N2O emissions | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 23(6), 2520-2532. | 10.1111/gcb.13485 |
Ref12 | Silva, AGB; Sequeira, CH; Sermarini, RA; Otto, R | 2017 | Urease Inhibitor NBPT on Ammonia Volatilization and Crop Productivity: A Meta-Analysis | AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 109(1), 1-13. | 10.2134/agronj2016.04.0200 |
Ref13 | Xia, LL; Lam, SK; Chen, DL; Wang, JY; Tang, Q; Yan, XY | 2017 | Can knowledge-based N management produce more staple grain with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pollution? A meta-analysis | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 23, 1917–1927. | 10.1111/gcb.13455 |
Ref14 | Abalos, D; Jeffery, S; Drury, CF; Wagner-Riddle, C | 2016 | Improving fertilizer management in the US and Canada for N2O mitigation: Understanding potential positive and negative side-effects on corn yields | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 221, 214-221. | 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.044 |
Ref15 | Feng, JF; Li, FB; Deng, AX; Feng, XM; Fang, FP; Zhang, WJ | 2016 | Integrated assessment of the impact of enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizer on N2O emission and crop yield | AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 231, 218-228. | 10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.038 |
Ref16 | Gilsanz, C; Baez, D; Misselbrook, TH; Dhanoa, MS; Cardenas, LM | 2016 | Development of emission factors and efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors, DCD and DMPP. | AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEM & ENVIRONMENT, 216, 1-8. | 10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.030 |
Ref17 | Huang, S; Lv, WS; Bloszies, S; Shi, QH; Pan, XH; Zeng, YJ | 2016 | Effects of fertilizer management practices on yield-scaled ammonia emissions from croplands in China: A meta-analysis | FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 192, 118-125. | 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.04.023 |
Ref18 | Pan, BB; Lam, SK; Mosier, A; Luo, YQ; Chen, DL | 2016 | Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: A global synthesis | AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 232, 283-289. | 10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019 |
Ref19 | Thapa, R; Chatterjee, A; Awale, R; McGranahan, DA; Daigh, A | 2016 | Effect of Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers on Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Crop Yields: A Meta-analysis | SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 80(5), 1121-1134. | 10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0179 |
Ref20 | Yang, M; Fang, YT; Sun, D; Shi, YL | 2016 | Efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors (dicyandiamide and 3, 4-dimethypyrazole phosphate) on soil nitrogen transformations and plant productivity: a meta-analysis. | SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 6, 22075. | 10.1038/srep22075 |
Ref21 | Qiao, C.; Liu, L.; Hu, S.; Compton, JA.; Greaver, TL.; Li, Q. | 2015 | How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 21, 1249–1257. | 10.1111/gcb.12802 |
Ref22 | Decock, C | 2014 | Mitigating Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Corn Cropping Systems in the Midwestern US: Potential and Data Gaps | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 48(8), 4247–4256. | 10.1021/es4055324 |
Ref23 | Hu, Y; Schraml, M; von Tucher, S; Li, F; Schmidhalter, U | 2013 | Influence of nitrification inhibitors on yields of arable crops: A meta-analysis of recent studies in Germany. | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION, 8(1), 33-50. | 10.22069/IJPP.2014.1371 |
Ref24 | Kim, DG; Saggar, S; Roudier, P | 2012 | The effect of nitrification inhibitors on soil ammonia emissions in nitrogen managed soils: a meta-analysis. | NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 93:51-64. | 10.1007/s10705-012-9498-9 |
Ref25 | Linquist, BA; Adviento-Borbe, MA; Pittelkow, CM; van Kessel, C; van Groenigen, KJ | 2012 | Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice systems: A quantitative review and analysis | FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 135, 10-21. | 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.06.007 |
Ref26 | Akiyama, H; Yan, XY; Yagi, K | 2010 | Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 16(6), 1837-1846. | 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02031.x |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] Li, T, Zhang, W, Yin, J, et al.
...
Enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem. Glob Change Biol. 2018; 24: e511– e521. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13918
[3] Thapa, R., Chatterjee, A., Awale, R., McGranahan, D.A. and Daigh, A. (2016), Effect of Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers on Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Crop Yields: A Meta‐analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 80: 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0179
[4] Trenkel, M.E. 2010. Slow- and controlled-release and stabilized fertilizers: An option for enhancing nutrient use efficiency in agriculture. 2nd ed. Int.Fert. Assoc., Paris.
[5] Chaves, B., Opoku, A., De Neve, S., Boeckx, P., Van Cleemput, O., & Hofman, G. (2006). Influence of DCD and DMPP on soil N dynamics after incorporation of vegetable crop residues. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43(1), 62-68.
[6] Thapa, R., Chatterjee, A., Awale, R., McGranahan, D.A. and Daigh, A. (2016), Effect of Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers on Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Crop Yields: A Meta‐analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 80: 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0179
Overview
Content Tools
Apps