Bhuiyan Mohammad Saiful Islam, Rahman Azizur, Loladze Irakli, Das Suvendu, Kim Pil Joo
Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 660-701, South Korea; Department of Soil Science, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.
School of Computing, Mathematics and Engineering, Charles Sturt University, Wagg Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Sci Total Environ. 2023 Jun 10;876:162712. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162712. Epub 2023 Mar 13.
The subsurface application (SA) of nitrogenous fertilizers is a potential solution to mitigate climate change and improve food security. However, the impacts of SA technology on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and agronomic yield are usually evaluated separately and their results are inconsistent. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis synthesizing 40 peer-reviewed studies on the effects of SA technology on GHG and ammonia (NH) emissions, nitrogen uptake (NU), crop yield, and soil residual NO-N in rice paddies and upland cropping system. Compared to the surface application of N, SA technology significantly increased rice yields by 32 % and crop yield in upland systems by 62 %. The largest SA-induced increases in crop yield were found at low N input rates (<100 kg Nha) in rice paddies and medium N input rates (100-200 kg Nha) in upland systems, suggesting that soil moisture is a key factor determining the efficiency of SA technology. SA treatments increased yields by more at reduced fertilizer rates (~30 % less N), a shallow depth (<10 cm), and with urea in both cropping systems than at the full (recommended) N rate, a deeper depth (10-20 cm), and with ammonical fertilizer. SA treatments significantly increased NU in rice paddies (34 %) and upland systems (18 %), and NO-N (40 %) in paddyland; however, NO-N decreased (28 %) in upland conditions. Ammonia mitigation was greater in paddyland than in upland conditions. SA technology decreased the carbon footprint (CF) in paddyland by 29 % and upland systems by 36 %, and overall by 33 %. Compared with broadcasting, SA significantly reduced CH emissions by 16 %, NO emissions by 30 %, and global warming potential (GWP) by 10 % in paddy cultivation. Given SA increased grain yield and NU while reducing NH, CF, and GWP, this practice provides dual benefits - mitigating climate change and ensuring food security.
氮肥的地下施用是缓解气候变化和改善粮食安全的一种潜在解决方案。然而,地下施用技术对温室气体(GHG)排放和农艺产量的影响通常是分别评估的,其结果并不一致。为了填补这一空白,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,综合了40项关于地下施用技术对稻田和旱地种植系统中温室气体和氨(NH₃)排放、氮吸收(NU)、作物产量以及土壤残留硝态氮(NO₃-N)影响的同行评审研究。与地表施氮相比,地下施用技术使水稻产量显著提高了32%,旱地系统的作物产量提高了62%。在稻田低氮投入率(<100 kg N·ha⁻¹)和旱地系统中等氮投入率(100 - 200 kg N·ha⁻¹)时,地下施用导致的作物产量增加幅度最大,这表明土壤湿度是决定地下施用技术效率的关键因素。在两种种植系统中,与全量(推荐)施氮量、较深深度(10 - 20 cm)和施用铵态肥料相比,地下施用处理在降低施肥量(约少30%的氮)、较浅深度(<10 cm)和施用尿素时产量增加更多。地下施用处理显著提高了稻田(34%)和旱地系统(18%)的氮吸收,以及稻田中的硝态氮(40%);然而,在旱地条件下硝态氮减少了(28%)。稻田中氨减排效果比旱地条件更好。地下施用技术使稻田的碳足迹(CF)降低了29%,旱地系统降低了36%,总体降低了33%。与撒施相比,在水稻种植中地下施用显著减少了CH₄排放16%、NO排放30%以及全球变暖潜势(GWP)10%。鉴于地下施用增加了谷物产量和氮吸收,同时减少了氨排放、碳足迹和全球变暖潜势,这种做法带来了双重益处——缓解气候变化和确保粮食安全。