Where do Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers and Split N Applications Fit?

Cynthia Grant and Alan Moulin

AAFC - Brandon Research Centre

Nicolas Tremblay
AAFC - St. Jean
cgrant@agr.gc.ca

Producers have Adopted Many Fertilizer BMPs

Rate Source Timing Placement
More than 75% of fertilizer in Canada is banded even higher proportion in the prairies
But: Fertilizer N use efficiency IN THE YEAR OF APPLICATION is generally less than 50%

Synchrony of N Supply and Uptake Can Improve NUE

8000 7000 6000 120

N Uptake
Nutrient content (kg/ha)
100

Biomass (kg/ha)

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 140

80

60

N Loss

N loss
40

Biomass Nitrogen
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230

20

0 240

Julian Day

Adrian Johnston

How Can We Match N Supply to Crop Uptake?

Historically, Split Applications Have Been Used to Match N Supply with Crop Demand

Minimise inorganic N in solution before crop uptake Reduce the risk of N losses and may increase nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) Allow rate to be changed if yield potential changes
Minimise investment in low-yielding crop

Potential agronomic benefits

Reduced lodging Less disease Improved crop quality

Drawbacks of Split Applications

Surface application may be inefficient

Volatilization and immobilization Stranding on soil surface Lack of foliar uptake

In-soil applications may damage crop Multiple passes increase cost, fuel consumption, traffic, and labour Often of limited value in short-season lowmoisture areas Risk of missing window of application

Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers

Fertilizers formulated to reduce losses and improve the plant uptake as compared to the unenhanced formulation Reduce volatilization and immobilization from broadcast fertilizers
May be used with split applications

Reduce losses from in-soil banded applications

Urease inhibitors, nitrification inhibitors, coated products

Slow release products can help match uptake with demand

Nitrification Inhibitors Delay Conversion of Ammonium to Nitrate

NH3
Fertilizer N volatilization NO N2 N2O

Ammonium NH4+

Nitrification

Denitrification

Nitrate NO3Leaching, runoff

Urease Inhibitors Delay Conversion of Urea to Ammonium

Urea NH3

Volatilization

x
Ammonia (um) NH3/NH4+

NO

N2 N2O

Denitrification

Nitrification

Nitrate NO3Leaching, runoff

Slow and Controlled Release Products Delay Release of Fertilizer into Solution, Reducing Losses

Fertilizer N

NH3 NO volatilization N2 N2O

Soil Solution

Denitrification

Ammonium NH4+

Nitrification

Nitrate NO3-

Leaching, runoff

Greater Potential for Benefit Under Wet Conditions

More potential for nitrogen loss Greater yield potential and N demand Under dry conditions, losses and benefits are both lower

Research Questions

Is there an economic benefit to more closely matching N supply to crop uptake under prairie conditions?

split N applications control release urea (CRU) urease and nitrification inhibitors

How does microclimate influence optimum N management? Should N management strategies be altered with seeding date? Can N sufficiency measurements be used to predict the need for in-crop N applications?

Treatments were applied at upper and lower slope positions at two sites

This gave us four different slope by site combinations

At each site-slope combination, two seeding dates were used

This let us test the fertilizer treatments at 8 different environments

Treatments

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Control no N Fall banded urea N at 1.0 x recommended rate Fall banded CRU at 1.0 x recommended rate Spring side-banded urea N at 0.5 x recommended rate Spring side-banded urea N at 1.0 x recommended rate Spring side-banded urea N at 1.5 x recommended rate Spring side-banded CRU at 0.5 x recommended rate Spring side-banded CRU at 1.0 x recommended rate Spring side-banded CRU at 1.5 x recommended rate Super U at recommended rate (broadcast before seeding) Agrotain Plus at 1.0 x recommended rate (dribble on seed row)) Split N application 1 - 0.5 side-banded at seeding and 0.5 dribble-banded as UAN at early tillering (Feekes stage 2-3) 2 off seed row 13. Split N application 2 - 0.5 side-banded at seeding and 0.5 dribble-banded as UAN at late tillering to early stem extension (Feekes stage 5-6) 2 off seed row

The Spad meter and Green Seeker were used to assess N sufficiency

Values were compared to tissue N analysis

Statistics

Split plot factorial experiment with four replicates

seeding dates as the main plots fertilizer treatments as the sub-plots, 2 locations x 2 slope positions x 2 seeding dates x 13 treatments x 4 replications 416 plots per year.

Statistical analysis used contrast analysis under Proc Mixed of SAS

What was the Season Like?

2009 growing season was wet and cool
Seeding was slightly later than normal Crop emergence was slow due to the cool temperatures.

Frosts occurred at the end of the first week of June, adding to crop stress. Crop growth was slow and crop maturity was delayed. Relatively dry weather occurred in early September
crops were not mature to harvest

Wet conditions through late September and much of October delayed harvest. Warm, dry weather in November allowed final harvest to occur, approximately 6 weeks behind schedule. Crop yields were high due to the prolonged growing season.

At the Silty Clay site, grain yield was affected by seeding date
Higher yield with late seeding date
18-26 bu/acre benefit Contrary to previous years Cold early season and late frosts hurt early-seeded crop
70 60
Grain Yield (bu/acre)

50 40 30 20 10 0
Early-Lower Late-Lower Early-Upper Late-Upper

No yield difference between lower and upper slope

No moisture stress

Slope position and seeding date had no effect at the clay loam site
No effect of seeding date or slope position at the Clay Loam site Contrary to previous years results Lack of moisture stress and long, cool season affected results
Early-Lower Late-Lower Early-Upper Late-Upper
60

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

50

40

30

Yield increased with N rate at the lower slope of the Silty Clay site no effect of coated N
70

Lower
Grain Yield (bu/acre)

70 65 60 55 50 45 40

Upper

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

65 60 55 50 45 40 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 N Rate (kg/ha) Urea CRU

Urea CRU

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N Rate (kg/ha)

Nitrogen increased grain yield at the Clay Loam site

-Yield similar with CRU and urea if spring-banded Lower
Grain Yield (bu/acre)

55

55 50 45 40 35 30 25

Upper

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

50 45 40 35 30 25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 N Rate (kg/ha) Urea CRU

Urea CRU

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N Rate (kg/ha)

Fall-banded urea was less effective than spring-applied urea on the CL

Fall CRU was intermediate Slight benefit to use of CRU No significant difference on the SiC
Clay Loam Average over slopes and dates
50 45 Control Fall Urea Fall CRU Spring Urea Spring CRU

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

40 35 30 25 Lower Upper

At the Silty Clay site there was no benefit of enhanced efficiency fertilizers with spring application
Good response to N but no difference among sources
60 Control Spring Urea Spring CRU SuperU Agrotain Plus Split-Early Split-Late

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

55

50

45

At the Clay Loam site there was no benefit of the enhanced efficiency fertilizers with spring fertilization
50

Spring banded urea was as higher or higher than enhanced efficiency products On lower slope, yields were slightly lower with Agrotain or early split application than urea or CRU
Surface placement less efficient than banding

45
Grain Yield (bu/acre)

40 35 30 25 20 Lower Upper

Control Spring Urea Spring CRU SuperU Agrotain Plus Split-Early Split-Late

Greenseeker readings were significantly related to spring applied urea later in the growing season,

early seeding, Brandon Site

0.70 0.65 Greenseeker NDVI

R2 = 0.04 P = 0.5521
Greenseeker NDVI

0.70

R2 = 0.52 P < 0.0001

0.60
0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30

0.65

0.60

0.55 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Spring Applied Urea (kg ha-1) 80

10

20 30 40 50 60 70 Spring Applied Urea (kg ha-1)

80

June 15, 2009

July 20, 2009

Greenseeker readings were significantly related to plant cover and leaf N,

early seeding, June 30, 2009, Brandon Site
70 65 60 55 50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
4 Leaf N (%)

R2 = 0.73 P <0.0001

5.5

R2 = 0.13 P <0.0061

Plant Cover

(%)

4.5

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

Greenseeker NDVI

Greenseeker NDVI

Summary
In 2009, Greenseeker detected differences in N status and growth by the end of June
Could be used to predict need for in-crop applications for yield enhancement

In 2008, readings were only related with N status and biomass yield by Mid-July
Too late for N applications for yield Could be used for protein enhancement

Summary across three study years

2009 differed from results in 2007 and 2008 where early seeding and lower slope positions increased crop yields at both sites
Cold, moist conditions and late frost in 2009 affected results

With spring application, enhanced efficiency fertilizers did not increase grain yield as compared to urea
Minimal N losses with short growing season and relatively dry conditions

Surface applications produced lower yields than in-soil band

Consistent across all years

With fall application, ESN tended to improve yield as compared to uncoated urea
Led to yields that were statistically equivalent to spring band

Thank you to the Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, Agrium, Agrotain International, Agvise Labs and AAFC-MII for their support of this project

The End