Next Article in Journal
Nitrogen Supplying Capacity of Animal Manures to the Soil in Relation to the Length of Their Storage
Previous Article in Journal
Pollution Reduction in Throughflow from Vegetated and Non-Vegetated, Foam-Based Surfaces and Green Roofs
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Extent and Variation of Nitrogen Losses from Non-legume Field Crops of Conterminous United States

Department of Soil Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA
Submission received: 17 March 2020 / Revised: 30 April 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2020 / Published: 19 May 2020

Abstract

:
Nitrogen (N) losses from field crops have raised environmental concerns. This manuscript accompanies a database of N loss studies from non-legume field crops conducted across the conterminous United States. Cumulative N losses through nitrous oxide-denitrification (CN2O), ammonia volatilization (CNH3), and nitrate leaching (CNO3) during the growing season and associated crop, soil, and water management information were gathered to determine the extent and controls of these losses. This database consisted of 404, 26, and 358 observations of CN2O, CNH3, and CNO3 losses, respectively, from sixty-two peer-reviewed manuscripts. Corn (Zea mays) dominated the N loss studies. Losses ranged between −0.04 to 16.9, 2.50 to 50.9, and 0 to 257 kg N ha−1 for CN2O, CNH3 and CNO3, respectively. Most CN2O and CNO3 observations were reported from Colorado (n = 100) and Iowa (n = 176), respectively. The highest values of CN2O, and CNO3 were reported from Illinois and Minnesota states, and corn and potato (Solanum tuberosum), respectively. The application of anhydrous NH3 had the highest value of CN2O loss, and ammonium nitrate had the highest CNO3 loss. Among the different placement methods, the injection of fertilizer-N had the highest CN2O loss, whereas the banding of fertilizer-N had the highest CNO3 loss. The maximum CNO3 loss was higher for chisel than no-tillage practice. Both CN2O and CNO3 were positively correlated with fertilizer N application rate and the amount of water input (irrigation and rainfall). Fertilizer-N management strategies to control N loss should consider the spatio-temporal variability of interactions among climate, crop-and soil types.

1. Introduction

Agricultural landscapes contribute to nitrate (NO3) leaching and gases like ammonia (NH3) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from denitrification [1,2]). Releases of these reactive N compounds link to adverse impacts on air, land, and water [3,4]. Since the 1970s, researchers initiated an effort to determine the consequences of fertilizer-N management practices on N losses through denitrification [5], leaching [6], and volatilization [7]. Worldwide cereal N use efficiency (NUE) was estimated to be approximately 33% [8], and somewhat higher efficiencies (37%) was estimated for corn in the US Corn belt [9]. Across the US, NUE generally decreased during 1987–2012, mainly due to increased use in mineral fertilizer N beyond crop requirements [10]. Annual fertilizer N application rate had increased from 0.22 g N m−2 yr−1 in 1940 to 9.04 g N m−2 yr−1 in 2015 [11]. Over the century, hotspots for N fertilizer use shifted from the southeastern and eastern to the Midwestern US, the Great Plains, and the Northwest [11]. In the Midwestern US, in low yielding years, overfertilization of low yield areas costs growers approximately USD 485 million per year in unused fertilizer N lost to the environment [12].
Global estimates suggest approximate N losses of 0.5–2%, 10–18%, and 10–20% of the fertilizer N input through denitrification, volatilization, and leaching, respectively [1,13,14,15]. The N cycle is complex, and substantial regional variability exists in reactive N formation and its degree of distribution. Regional scale drivers have substantial effects on N2O emissions and NO3 leaching losses that conform and potentially exceeds effects of fertilizer application rate [2]. In the Midwestern US, annual average N losses from stable high yield corn growing areas were averaged at only 51 kg N ha−1, whereas, estimated average N losses from stable low yield areas were 83 kg N ha−1, and unstable areas had intermediate N losses of 63 kg N ha−1 [12]. Control of particular N loss by specific factor varies with changes in other farm management decisions [16]. For example, no-till practice might be used to reduce N2O loss under irrigated condition but not under rainfed system [17]. Setting the research priorities and solutions to the problem of agricultural N loss requires a quantitative understanding of current N losses and controls of climate, soil, and plant interactions [4,9].
Agricultural N2O emissions were closely associated with fertilizer N source and rate, crop type, soil organic carbon (SOC) content, soil pH and texture [18]. Earlier, researchers [5] suggested that average background N2O emission from cultivated soils were 1.0 kg N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 within an additional increase of 1.25% of applied fertilizer-N in 90% of studies. However, recent studies have reported further fine control on the magnitude of N2O emission. A recent meta-analyses study had concluded an equivalent N2O release with 1 °C rise in average July temperature, and increase in soil C by 10 g kg−1 across North America [2]. The largest spike in N2O emissions was observed after a precipitation event greater than 20 mm [19]. Modification of the fertilizer-N rate, source, placement and/or timing has been recognized as an effective way to reduce N2O emissions [20,21]. However, the magnitude of the effect of N source varied spatially. Enhanced efficiency fertilizers like environmentally smart N or ESN (Nutrien Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada) were not effective means to reduce N2O emission in a rainfed system, particularly under inconsistent rainfall [22]. The split application of urea to match the period of high crop N demand does not necessarily reduce, and may increase, N2O emission [23]. Fertilizer N management practices interact with other crop, soil and water management decisions. Tillage affected N2O emission in 2 out of 3 y, when emissions decreased in the order of moldboard plow > chisel plow > strip till > no-till for continuous corn production in Indiana [24]. Crop rotation and N rate had a greater effect than tillage system on N2O emission, in Colorado river basin [17].
Precipitation cycles of wet and dry years and soil organic matter (SOM) mineralization primarily control NO3 concentration and loadings in subsurface drainage waters [25,26]. An additional 100 mm of precipitation can increase NO3 leaching losses from 8 to 9 kg N ha−1 [2]. Leaching loss reduced to 46% by the variable scheduling of irrigation (deficit calculation based on the crop growth stage) rather than a fixed deficit schedule (at 95% of maximum yield N rate) irrigation [27]. The amount of NO3-N leaching increased linearly as the proportion of N applied at planting increased for the potato loamy sand at Becker, Minnesota [28]. To reduce the average NO3 concentration to less than 10 mg L−1 in subsurface drainage, it was estimated that N application rates would need to be less than 112 kg N ha−1 under corn-soybean rotation in Iowa soils [29]. Corn and soybean both have similar leaching potentials [30,31]; 54% of NO3 were lost in corn phase and 46% during soybean [32]. Fertilizer application timing and inhibitor addition can influence NO3 concentration [27]. Researchers found that NO3 concentration and loss followed the order: fall N > split N > spring N = fall N + nitrapyrin [33].
Nitrogen from fertilizers containing ammonia-based form, urea [CO(NH2)2], and ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] have the potential for volatilization loss [1]. Changes in the magnitude of volatilization can occur on a daily as well as seasonal basis. Urea hydrolysis rate and NH3 emission rate follow a diurnal sequence with a peak at the time of highest air temperature [34]. Conditions like the surface application of N-fertilizer without incorporation, alkaline soils (pH > 8.5) and dry condition can accelerate the volatilization loss. Surface-applied urea is hydrolyzed by the urease enzyme, resulting in a soil pH from 7 to 9 [35]. According to global synthesis, the use of non-urea-based fertilizers, deep placement of fertilizers and irrigation reduced NH3 volatilization by 75%, 55% and 35%, respectively [1]. The addition of urease inhibitors, for example, n-butyl phosphoric triamide (NBPT) has the potential to reduce the volatilization loss by 52% compared to urea without NBPT [36].
Main goal of this manuscript was to prepare the dataset of cumulative N losses. Peer-reviewed journal articles, reporting cumulative losses of denitrification, leaching, and volatilization during the growing season from non-leguminous crops in response to inorganic N fertilizer applications conducted in the conterminous United States. The dataset was studied and analyzed to determine the extent of N losses as influenced by (i) state, (ii) fertilizer-N management practices (source, application rate and time), (iii) main crop and previous crop in rotation, (iv) tillage practices, (v) water management (rainfed, irrigated and subsurface drainage), and (vi) soil properties (pH, texture, cation exchange capacity and SOM content). Correlation and regression of these factors with N losses were determined to understand the control of these factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Compilation

Peer-reviewed journal articles were collected, reporting field studies conducted in conterminous United States, reporting cumulative N losses (CN2O, CNO3, and CNH3) through July 2019 using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) database. The keywords, ‘denitrification’, ‘leaching’ and ‘volatilization’, ‘corn’, ‘wheat’, ‘rice’, ‘crops’, were used for the search. Recent meta-analyses [1,2,36] were also checked to confirm the comprehensive inclusion of references. Studies reporting cumulative N losses of individual growing season from the specific fertilizer-N treatment were considered, but studies reporting organic N treatments, the average of multiple growing seasons or treatments or rotation were excluded. The final database was generated from sixty-two peer reviewed journal articles (Table 1 and Supplementary Materials).
From these journal articles, the following data and information were collected and arranged in separate columns: (i) location (region/field site), (ii) state, (iii) growing year, (iv) soil texture, (v) main crop, (vi) previous crop, (vii) tillage practice, (viii) water management (rainfed/subsurface-drained/irrigated), (ix) fertilizer N source, (x) amount of fertilizer-N applied (kg N ha−1), (xi) application time, (xii) fertilizer placement, (xiii), cumulative N loss type and amount of N loss (kg N ha−1), (xiv) crop yield (Mg ha−1), (xv) amount of water input (growing season rainfall and irrigation), (xvi) soil pH, (xvii) cation exchange capacity (CEC) (centimole+ kg−1), (xviii) sand content (g kg−1), (xix) silt content (g kg−1), (xx) clay content (g kg−1), and (xxi) soil organic matter content (g kg−1), see supplemental files for the database (database.xlsx) and list of references (references.docx). In the case of the absence of these values in the main manuscript, values were retrieved from other published journal articles associated with the experiment. Numerical data were collected from tables and graphs; data were extracted from figures using the WebplotDigitizer 4.2 software (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer).

2.2. Data Analysis

From sixty-two peer-reviewed journal articles, a total of 404, 26, and 358 observations of CN2O, CNO3, and CNH3 losses, respectively, were collected (Supplementary files). Exploratory data analyses, correlation and regression analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) to determine the extent of N losses, and how they were influenced by fertilizer, soil, tillage, water, and crop management factors. For the normal distribution of data, numerical data were log-transformed and used for correlation and regression analyses. Pearson correlation coefficients between cumulative N losses and parameters like soil pH, clay content, CEC, water input, fertilizer N rate and crop yield were determined at 95% probability level. Simple and multiple linear regression relationships between N losses and N rate were conducted using Proc Reg procedure using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1. The best model for the multiple linear regression was selected using the maximum adjusted R2 value and Akaike Information Criterion score.

3. Results

First, extent of cumulative N2O, NH3, and NO3 losses across the conterminous United States is presented, followed by control of these losses by nitrogenous fertilizer management practices (application rate, time, and placement), crop species, water management and soil properties are discussed.

3.1. Extent of Cumulative N Losses

Within 62 studies, values of CN2O (n = 404), CNO3 (n = 358), and CNH3 (n = 26) were ranged between −0.04 to 16.9 kg N ha−1, 0 to 257 kg N ha−1, and 2.50 to 50.9 kg N ha−1, with average values of 2.12 kg N ha−1, 37.7 kg N ha−1, and 11.5 kg N ha−1, respectively (Figure 1). Global estimates of N2O fluxes ranged between 0 and 30 kg N2O-N ha−1 yr−1 [37]. Previous estimates of NO3 leaching loss ranged between 4 and 155 kg N ha−1 yr−1 (Cameron et al., 2013). According to Pan et al. (2016), the amount of NH3-N volatilized per cropping season was highest in South Asia (37.5 kg N ha−1), followed by North America (22.2 kg N ha−1) and East Asia (20.6 kg N ha−1).
Reported cumulative N losses for different states were presented in Table 2. For CN2O, maximum number of observations (n = 100, 25%) was found within the Colorado state. The highest average value of CN2O (6.62 kg N ha−1) was observed from the Tennessee state; however, only six observations were reported. The lowest average value of CN2O was observed from Louisiana, whereas the highest maximum value was detected in the Illinois state. The spatial distribution of N2O sources closely mirrors data on fertilizer application with particularly large N2O sources over the US Cornbelt [38].
The maximum number of CNO3 values were reported from Iowa. Both the highest average value and the highest maximum value of CNO3 was noted in Minnesota. The major areas exhibiting high NO3 concentration in ground water were areas of intensive row cropping and heavy fertilization, locally intensive animal feeding and handling operations, and areas of irrigation and fertilization of vegetable crops on sandy soils [39]. An assessment of groundwater NO3 concentration in in the United States indicated that the highest concentrations were observed in parts of the Northeast, the Central Plains, and the Southwest [40].
The number of CNH3 observations was extremely low; the highest average value and the maximum values of CNH3 were reported for the Indiana soils. Ammonia emissions from fertilizer application are dependent on regional crop schedules. According to an estimate, the highest emissions were found in Kansas (13,100 Mg), Iowa (17,000 Mg), California (8800 Mg) and Ohio (11,100 Mg) in March, April, May, and June, respectively, across the conterminous United States [41].

3.2. Control of Fertilizer N Management

Fertilizer N application rate had significant influence on CN2O and CNO3 (Table 3). Fertilizer N application rate can explain 38% and 27% of the variability in CN2O and CNO3, respectively. Fertilizer N rate had a positive effect on both area- and yield-scaled N2O and NO3 losses [2]. A 30% increase in fertilizer-N rate increased annual NO3 leaching by 56%, while corn yield increased by only 1% [42]. In Iowa, to achieve an average NO3 concentration less than 10 mg L−1 in subsurface drainage, the N application rate for corn would need to be less than 112 kg N ha−1, but the current rate ranged from 112 to 168 kg N ha−1 [29]. Within the corn production system, linear regression indicates that each unit rise in fertilizer N application rate results in an N2O-N loss of 0.01 kg N2O-N ha−1 and leaching loss of 0.12 kg NO3-N ha−1 (Figure 2).
Influences of fertilizer-N source on N losses are presented in Table 4. Most of the CN2O and CNH3 observations were made on urea application, and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) was the most popular for the CNO3 observations. The highest average CN2O and CNO3 values were observed with ammonium nitrate (AN) application. The application of anhydrous NH3 had the highest maximum CN2O. The application of anhydrous NH3 lost 12.3 kg CN2O ha−1 or 7.33% of applied N, almost double of urea application (6.34 kg CN2O ha−1 or 3.77% of applied N) [43]. Applications of nitrification or both urease and nitrification inhibitors reduced CN2O values, but the ESN was not effective in reducing CN2O. The application of ESN delayed the N2O flux peak by 3 to 4 wk compared with other N sources, but CN2O did not differ significantly [44]. ESN was not effective in reducing N2O emission under rainfed condition [22]. The N fertilizer source and climatic conditions need consideration when selecting N sources to reduce denitrification loss [44].
The application of AN had the highest maximum CNO3, followed by urea (Table 4). The contribution of N source to NO3 leaching was calcium nitrate [Ca(NO3)2] > ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] > check ≥ urea [CO(NH2)2] [45]. The minimum and maximum values of CNO3 for urea with and without nitrapyrin addition were almost similar. Nitrification inhibitor additions had varying success depending on the influences of climate and soil type on the microbial process of nitrification [46]. This dataset indicates that urea application had the highest average and maximum values of CNH3 (Table 4). The greatest risk of NH3 volatilization losses occur from urea and ammonium hydroxide fertilizers [34].
The application of both urease and/or nitrification inhibitors had potential to reduce the CNH3 loss compared to urea alone. A urease inhibitor like NBPT addition can reduce NH3 loss by 52% [36]. The application of both urease and nitrification inhibitor reduced CNH3 by 34% under spring wheat production system in Minnesota [47].
The impacts of fertilizer placement on three N losses are presented in Table 5. The injection of fertilizer-N had the highest average and maximum CN2O values. The most common application methods, broadcast and incorporation, and banding, have similar average and maximum CN2O losses. Broadcast fertilizer, in comparison to injecting or banding, reduced overall N2O emissions by 25–33%. The banding of fertilizer-N had the highest average and maximum amount of CNO3 values, followed by broadcast and broadcast and incorporation, and then injection [2]. Deep-banded urea had significantly higher soil NO3-N concentrations in deep soil layers compared to the deep banding of urea with nitrapyrin additions on a poorly drained claypan soil [48]. An opposite trend, broadcast-incorporated application, had a higher nitrate immobilization in the top 90 cm than with the banded applications, in coarse silt loam soils [49]. The broadcast of fertilizer-N had the highest average and maximum CNH3 values. The placement of N fertilizers at 3–5 cm below the soil surface reduces the risk of NH3 volatilization because it reduces the NH3/NH4+ concentration at the soil surface [34].
The effects of fertilizer application time on N losses are presented in Table 6. For denitrification loss, most of the studies were conducted in the spring. The average values were similar for spring and split between fall and spring; however, one-time pre-plant spring application had a higher maximum value than split application. The late fall application of anhydrous NH3 before freeze-up increased N2O emissions at thaw and decreased emissions for the early growing season compared to spring pre-plant application [50]. The split application of fertilizer-N during spring increased CNO3 losses compared to a single application during either fall or spring. The portion of the midseason N application not taken up by corn was available for leaching for field with subsurface drainage [51]. The single pre-plant application of fertilizer-N had increased CNH3 value split between fall and spring. When fertilizer applied in summer, with high soil temperature and low soil moisture contents, NH3 volatilization tended to increase [1]. On the contrary, the researcher found that CNH3 loss from surface urea application was greater for late fall (16.4%) and winter (11.4%) than for spring (2.0%) applications [2].

3.3. Control of Crop Species

The influences of crop species on N losses are presented in Table 7. Denitrification losses were mostly measured for corn production, particularly for continuous corn, followed by corn–soybean rotation. Corn production had the highest average CN2O loss of 2.52 Kg N2O-N ha−1, followed by potato (1.02 Kg N2O-N ha−1) and spring wheat (0.98 Kg N2O-N ha−1). The rice production system had the least average CN2O, and it showed a negative minimum value. Due to inundation in wetland rice, N2O is consumed before being released into the atmosphere 18. Potato with winter rye in rotation had the highest average and maximum CNO3 losses. Continuous corn had the maximum CNO3 loss, followed by the corn–soybean rotation. Continuous corn also had the highest average and maximum CNH3 loss. Crop yield is significantly related to leaching and volatilization losses, but not with denitrification loss (Table 3).

Influence of Tillage

Controls of tillage practices on N losses are presented in Figure 3. Chisel plow had a slightly higher average (2.13 kg N2O-N ha−1) and maximum (16.9 kg N2O-N ha−1) CN2O than under no-tillage (1.91 and 16.3 kg N2O-N ha−1, respectively). One study [20] concluded no clear positive or negative effect of tillage on denitrification. However, in Indiana, reduced N2O emissions were observed in the order of moldboard plow > chisel plow > strip till > no-till for continuous corn production [24]. For CNO3, Chisel plow had higher average (37.8 kg N ha−1) and maximum (257 kg N ha−1) values than no-tillage (29.9 and 108 kg N ha−1, respectively). Soil disturbances were associated with tillage increases aeration and incorporate crop residues; a flush of mineralization and nitrification often occurs under such conditions, resulting in the loss of accumulation of leachable NO3-N in the soil [52]. On the contrary, no-tillage had higher average (20.7 kg N ha−1) and maximum (50.9 kg N ha−1) CNH3 values than chisel plow (5.70 and 11.1 kg N ha−1, respectively). Urease activity in the top 1 cm was significantly enhanced, being, on average, 4.2 times higher in NT than in CP soils; moreover, residues reduced the adsorption of NH4+ on soil particles [53].

3.4. Control of Water Management

The influences of water management practices (rainfed, irrigation, and subsurface drainage) on N losses are presented in Table 8. The mean value of CN2O was the highest from fields under subsurface drained conditions, and the average value of CN2O was lower under irrigated condition than soils under rainfed and subsurface drained conditions. Denitrification is strongly affected by water-filled porespace, and combined N2O and N2 losses were greater in wetter soils [20]. For leaching loss, the average and maximum values of CNO3 were higher for irrigated soils than rainfed and subsurface drained conditions. Excessive rates of irrigation can cause leaching, particularly under flood irrigation [34]. Adjusting irrigation to crops’ demand reduced leaching by 80% without a reduction in yield [54]. Rainfed soils had comparatively higher value of CNH3 than irrigated soils. Another study observed the greatest amount of NH3 loss (60% of applied N) occurred when no irrigation was applied, and NH3 losses can be reduced to 2.8% of applied N by applying irrigation immediately after urea [55]. The amount of water input (sum of rainfall during growing season and irrigation) had significant positive relationships with CN2O and CNO3 losses (Table 3).

3.5. Control of Soil Properties

The influences of soil textural class on N losses are presented in Table 9. Most of the CN2O observations were made on silt loam soils, followed by clay loam soils; clay loam soils were mostly studied for CNO3 and CNH3 losses. A study site, located in Illinois and dominated by two groups, silt clay loam, and loam, had the highest average CN2O loss, whereas the highest maximum loss was observed under a site dominated by silt loam and silty clay loam (located in central Iowa). More capillary pores within aggregates in fine textured soils have a slow percolation rate and can more easily reach and maintain anaerobic conditions than in coarse-textured soils [18].
Loamy sand soils had the highest average and maximum CNO3 loss, whereas the least values for average and maximum CNO3 were found under loam. The study supported the theory that NO3 losses were consistently higher on the loamy sand than on the clay loam soils [56]. Clay loam soils had the highest average and maximum CNH3 loss, and silt loam soils had the least.
The relationships of soil properties, SOM, clay content, pH, and CEC with N losses are presented in Table 3. Denitrification was positively associated with SOM content, whereas volatilization loss had a negative association with SOM. An opposite trend was observed in the case of clay content; this was negatively related to denitrification and positively related to volatilization losses (Table 3).
Multiple linear regression equation for the N2O loss is −0.173 × (CEC) + 0.013 × (clay content) + 0.008 × (fertilizer-N rate) with adjusted R2 value of 0.42 and model p < 0.001. Multiple regression equation for the NO3 leaching loss is −0.723 × (clay content) + 0.331 × (fertilizer-N rate) + 0.273 × (water input) with adjusted R2 value of 0.57 and model p < 0.001.

4. Limitations and Future Research Needs

Among the three N losses studied, volatilization loss had only 26 observations. Most of the volatilization losses occur soon after fertilizer application, hence some studies had recorded for a limited time. For example, one reported volatilization loss only for 120 h after application [57], and another research studied cumulative volatilization loss for 24 days after application [55]. A significant amount of N is lost through volatilization from agricultural systems [1]; comprehensive volatilization loss studies are required to determine the extent of loss and their controlling factors across different production systems.
For the other two losses, denitrification and leaching, most of the studies are restricted to within Colorado and Iowa, respectively. Several states with a significant area under agricultural production like Ohio, Florida, Kansas, Mississipi, had hardly any information on N losses. Moreover, most of the studies were conducted on a corn-based production system. Studies on shallow rooted crops with a significant N demand like potato were extremely meagre (Table 7). There are not many N loss studies on cotton, sunflower, canola and sugarbeets.
The main goal was to publish the research data to facilitate future research studies. Some authors reported cumulative N loss data from multiple treatments in figures; the extraction of N loss numbers from these figures is tedious, particularly for calculating CN2O from daily N2O flux. Providing the raw data in an appendix will greatly facilitate the further use of these data. Several studies did not provide basic experimental conditions and site information. It is critical to provide ancillary data related to climate variables (rainfall and temperature), crop yield and soil properties (bulk density, texture, SOM, pH, and CEC) to explain the control of N losses across agricultural systems.
This manuscript provides the current understanding, knowledge gap and future research needs of denitrification, leaching and volatilization. Most of the research studies were concentrated on corn production systems of the Great Plains. Finalizing the 4R (right rate, right source, right time, and right placement), fertilizer-N strategies should be based on local climate and crop and soil management practices. Crop rotation and water management decisions have significant influences on denitrification and leaching. Soil properties like clay content and SOM could explain the spatiotemporal variation in denitrification and leaching losses across the conterminous United States. Targeted research studies from states/regions lacking N loss data would facilitate the predictive modeling framework and policy development.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2504-3129/1/1/5/s1, Excel file of nitrogen loss data with ancillary information of studies used in this review, Word file: List of references for journal articles reporting nitrogen loss measurements from non-legume agricultural production system used in this review.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pan, B.B.; Lam, S.K.; Mosier, A.; Luo, Y.Q.; Chen, D.L. Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: A global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 232, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eagle, A.J.; Olander, L.P.; Locklier, K.L.; Heffernan, J.B.; Bernhardt, E.S. Fertilizer Management and Environmental Factors Drive N2O and NO3 Losses in Corn: A Meta-Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017, 81, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Galloway, J.N.; Cowling, E.B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. AMBIO 2002, 31, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Robertson, G.P.; Vitousek, P.M. Nitrogen in Agriculture: Balancing the Cost of an Essential Resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009, 34, 97–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Mosier, A.R.; Hutchinson, G.L. Nitrous-Oxide Emissions from Cropped Fields. J. Environ. Qual. 1981, 10, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kissel, D.E.; Ritchie, J.T.; Burnett, E. Nitrate and Chloride Leaching in a Swelling Clay Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 1974, 3, 401–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vlek, P.L.G.; Craswell, E.T. Effect of Nitrogen-Source and Management on Ammonia Volatilization Losses from Flooded Rice-Soil Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1979, 43, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Raun, W.R.; Johnson, G.V. Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Cassman, K.G.; Dobermann, A.; Walters, D.T. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. AMBIO 2002, 31, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Swaney, D.P.; Howarth, R.W.; Hong, B. Nitrogen use efficiency and crop production: Patterns of regional variation in the United States, 1987–2012. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 498–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cao, P.; Lu, C.; Yu, Z. Historical nitrogen fertilizer use in agricultural ecosystems of the contiguous United States during 1850–2015: Application rate, timing, and fertilizer types. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2018, 10, 969–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Basso, B.; Shuai, G.Y.; Zhang, J.S.; Robertson, G.P. Yield stability analysis reveals sources of large-scale nitrogen loss from the US Midwest. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bouwman, A.F.; Boumans, L.J.M.; Batjes, N.H. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: Summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hoben, J.P.; Gehl, R.J.; Millar, N.; Grace, P.R.; Robertson, G.P. Nonlinear nitrous oxide (N2O) response to nitrogen fertilizer in on-farm corn crops of the US Midwest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 1140–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Smil, V. Nitrogen in crop production: An account of global flows. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1999, 13, 647–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Beauchamp, E.G. Nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1997, 77, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Halvorson, A.D.; Del Grosso, S.J.; Reule, C.A. Nitrogen, tillage, and crop rotation effects on nitrous oxide emissions from irrigated cropping systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1337–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Stehfest, E.; Bouwman, L. N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: Summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 2006, 74, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernandez, F.G.; Terry, R.E.; Coronel, E.G. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Anhydrous Ammonia, Urea, and Polymer-Coated Urea in Illinois Cornfields. J. Environ. Qual. 2015, 44, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Snyder, C.S.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Jensen, T.L.; Fixen, P.E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Venterea, R.T.; Halvorson, A.D.; Kitchen, N.; Liebig, M.A.; Cavigelli, M.A.; Del Grosso, S.J.; Motavalli, P.P.; Nelson, K.A.; Spokas, K.A.; Singh, B.P.; et al. Challenges and opportunities for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized cropping systems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 562–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dell, C.J.; Han, K.; Bryant, R.B.; Schmidt, J.P. Nitrous Oxide Emissions with Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers in a Rainfed System. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Venterea, R.T.; Coulter, J.A. Split Application of Urea Does Not Decrease and May Increase Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Rainfed Corn. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Omonode, R.A.; Vyn, T.J. Tillage and Nitrogen Source Impacts on Relationships between Nitrous Oxide Emission and Nitrogen Recovery Efficiency in Corn. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Bakhsh, A.; Kanwar, R.S.; Pederson, C.; Bailey, T.B. N-source effects on temporal distribution of NO3-N leaching losses to subsurface drainage water. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 181, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Randall, G.W.; Mulla, D.J. Nitrate nitrogen in surface waters as influenced by climatic conditions and agricultural practices. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Walters, D.T.; Malzer, G.L. Nitrogen Management and Nitrification Inhibitor Effects on N-15 Urea 2. Nitrogen Leaching and Balance. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Errebhi, M.; Rosen, C.J.; Gupta, S.C.; Birong, D.E. Potato yield response and nitrate leaching as influenced by nitrogen management. Agron. J. 1998, 90, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lawlor, P.A.; Helmers, M.J.; Baker, J.L.; Melvin, S.W.; Lemke, D.W. Nitrogen application rate effect on nitrate-nitrogen concentration and loss in subsurface drainage for a corn-soybean rotation. Trans. ASABE 2008, 51, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Helmers, M.J.; Zhou, X.; Baker, J.L.; Melvin, S.W.; Lemke, D.W. Nitrogen loss on tile-drained Mollisols as affected by nitrogen application rate under continuous corn and corn-soybean rotation systems. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhu, Y.; Fox, R.H. Corn-soybean rotation effects on nitrate leaching. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 1028–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Randall, G.W.; Vetsch, J.A. Nitrate losses in subsurface drainage from a corn-soybean rotation as affected by fall and spring application of nitrogen and nitrapyrin. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 590–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Randall, G.W.; Vetsch, J.A.; Huffman, J.R. Nitrate losses in subsurface drainage from a corn-soybean rotation as affected by time of nitrogen application and use of nitrapyrin. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 1764–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cameron, K.C.; Di, H.J.; Moir, J.L. Nitrogen losses from the soil/plant system: A review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2013, 162, 145–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ferguson, R.B.; Kissel, D.E.; Koelliker, J.K.; Basel, W. Ammonia Volatilization from Surface-Applied Urea—Effect of Hydrogen-Ion Buffering Capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 578–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Silva, A.G.B.; Sequeira, C.H.; Sermarini, R.A.; Otto, R. Urease Inhibitor NBPT on Ammonia Volatilization and Crop Productivity: A Meta-Analysis. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bouwman, A.F. Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1996, 46, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Miller, S.M.; Kort, E.A.; Hirsch, A.I.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Andrews, A.E.; Xu, X.; Tian, H.; Nehrkorn, T.; Eluszkiewicz, J.; Michalak, A.M.; et al. Regional sources of nitrous oxide over the United States: Seasonal variation and spatial distribution. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2012, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Hallberg, G.R. Nitrate in Ground Water in the United States. In Developments in Agricultural and Managed Forest Ecology; Follett, R.F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; Volume 21, Chapter 3; pp. 35–74. [Google Scholar]
  40. Burow, K.R.; Nolan, B.T.; Rupert, M.G.; Dubrovsky, N.M. Nitrate in Groundwater of the United States, 1991–2003. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4988–4997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Goebes, M.D.; Strader, R.; Davidson, C. An ammonia emission inventory for fertilizer application in the United States. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, 2539–2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kucharik, C.J.; Brye, K.R. Integrated BIosphere Simulator (IBIS) yield and nitrate loss predictions for Wisconsin maize receiving varied amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Thornton, F.C.; Bock, B.R.; Tyler, D.D. Soil emissions of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide from injected anhydrous ammonium and urea. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25, 1378–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sistani, K.R.; Jn-Baptiste, M.; Lovanh, N.; Cook, K.L. Atmospheric Emissions of Nitrous Oxide, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide from Different Nitrogen Fertilizers. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1797–1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Bauder, J.W.; Montgomery, B.R. N-Source and Irrigation Effects on Nitrate Leaching. Agron. J. 1980, 72, 593–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dinnes, D.L.; Karlen, D.L.; Jaynes, D.B.; Kaspar, T.C.; Hatfield, J.L.; Colvin, T.S.; Cambardella, C.A. Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained midwestern soils. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Thapa, R.; Chatterjee, A. Wheat Production, Nitrogen Transformation, and Nitrogen Losses as Affected by Nitrification and Double Inhibitors. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1825–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Steusloff, T.W.; Nelson, K.A.; Motavalli, P.P.; Singh, G. Urea Nitrapyrin Placement Effects on Soil Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Claypan Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 1444–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maddux, L.D.; Raczkowski, C.W.; Kissel, D.E.; Barnes, P.L. Broadcast and Subsurface-Banded Urea Nitrogen in Urea Ammonium-Nitrate Applied to Corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991, 55, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tenuta, M.; Gao, X.P.; Flaten, D.N.; Amiro, B.D. Lower Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Anhydrous Ammonia Application Prior to Soil Freezing in Late Fall Than Spring Pre-Plant Application. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 1133–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jaynes, D.B.; Colvin, I.S. Corn yield and nitrate loss in subsurface drainage from midseason nitrogen fertilizer application. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1479–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Power, J.F.; Schepers, J.S. Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater in North-America. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1989, 26, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rochette, P.; Angers, D.A.; Chantigny, M.H.; MacDonald, J.D.; Bissonnette, N.; Bertrand, N. Ammonia volatilization following surface application of urea to tilled and no-till soils: A laboratory comparison. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 103, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Quemada, M.; Baranski, M.; Nobel-de Lange, M.N.J.; Vallejo, A.; Cooper, J.M. Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 174, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Holcomb, J.C.; Sullivan, D.M.; Horneck, D.A.; Clough, G.H. Effect of Irrigation Rate on Ammonia Volatilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 75, 2341–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sogbedji, J.M.; van Es, H.M.; Yang, C.L.; Geohring, L.D.; Magdoff, F.R. Nitrate leaching and nitrogen budget as affected by maize nitrogen rate and soil type. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 1813–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Keller, G.D.; Mengel, D.B. Ammonia Volatilization from Nitrogen Fertilizers Surface Applied to No-Till Corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1986, 50, 1060–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Extent of cumulative nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) during growing season from non-leguminous field crops, generated from data published in peer-reviewed manuscripts.
Figure 1. Extent of cumulative nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) during growing season from non-leguminous field crops, generated from data published in peer-reviewed manuscripts.
Nitrogen 01 00005 g001
Figure 2. Linear regression relationship between fertilizer N application rate (kg N ha−1) and (a) cumulative nitrous oxide flux (kg N2O-N ha−1) and (b) leaching loss of nitrate (kg NO3-N ha−1) within corn production system.
Figure 2. Linear regression relationship between fertilizer N application rate (kg N ha−1) and (a) cumulative nitrous oxide flux (kg N2O-N ha−1) and (b) leaching loss of nitrate (kg NO3-N ha−1) within corn production system.
Nitrogen 01 00005 g002
Figure 3. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influenced by chisel (CP) and no-tillage (NT) practices.
Figure 3. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influenced by chisel (CP) and no-tillage (NT) practices.
Nitrogen 01 00005 g003
Table 1. Nitrogen loss studies collected in the databases, their location, crop-, soil-, and water management, and soil characteristics.
Table 1. Nitrogen loss studies collected in the databases, their location, crop-, soil-, and water management, and soil characteristics.
CitationStateCropTextureTillageSoil pHWater Mgmt.N Losses Monitored
1Adviento-Borbe et al., 2007NECornSilty clay loamCP6.14IrrigatedN2O
2Adviento-Borbe et al., 2013CA, ARRiceClay loam, Clay, Silt loamCP5.46–6.19IrrigatedN2O
3Bakhsh et al., 2002IACornLoamCP, NTUnkRainfed/TileNO3
4Bakhsh et al., 2007IACornLoamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
5Bakhsh et al., 2010IACornLoamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
6Basso and Ritchie 2005MICornLoamCP5.5Rainfed/TileNO3
7Bronson et al., 1992COCornClay loamCP7.2IrrigatedN2O
8Curtis et al., 2014PACornSilt loamNTUnkRainfedNO3
9Duxbury and McConnaughey 1986NYCornSilt loamUnk6.9UnkN2O
10Engel et al., 2017MTWinter wheatClay loamNT6.3, 7.3RainfedNH3
11Errebhi et al., 1998MNPotatoLoamy sandCP6.7IrrigatedNO3
12Fernandez et al., 2015ILCornSilt loam, Silty clay loamCP6.2Rainfed/TileN2O
13Fujinuma et al., 2011MNCornLoamy sandCP4.85IrrigatedN2O
14Graham et al., 2018ILCornSilt loam Silty clay loamCP6.3, 6.1RainfedN2O
15Guillard et al., 1999CTCornSandy loamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
16Halvarson et al., 2008COCorn, barley, dry beanClay loamCP, NT7.7–7.8IrrigatedN2O
17Halvarson and Delgrosso 2012COCornClay loamNT7.6IrrigatedN2O
18Halvarson and Delgrosso 2013COCornClay loamNT, ST7.6IrrigatedN2O
19Halvarson et al., 2010aCOCornClay loamNT7.6IrrigatedN2O
20Halvarson et al., 2010bCOCorn, barley, dry beanClay loamNT7.7–8.0IrrigatedN2O
21Helmers et al., 2012IACornClay loamCP7.7Rainfed/TileNO3
22Hernandez-Ramirez et al., 2009INCornSilty clay loamCPUnkRainfed/TileN2O
23Hoben et al., 2011MICornLoam, Sandy loamCP6.6–7.6RainfedN2O
24Hyatt et al., 2010MNPotatoLoamy sandCP4.9–6.7IrrigatedN2O
25Janatalia et al., 2012COCornClay loamST7.8IrrigatedNH3
26Jaynes et al., 2013IACornClay loamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
27Jaynes et al., 2001IACornClay loamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
28Jemison and Fox 1994PACornSilt loamCPUnkUnkNO3
29Johnson et al., 2010MNCornLoamCP, ST7.2RainfedN2O
30Kanwar et al., 1997IACornSilt CP, MB, NT, RidgeUnkRainfed/TileNO3
31Keller and Mengel 1986INCornSandy loam, Silt loamNT5.6UnkNH3
32Kucharik and Brye 2003WICornSilt loamCP, NTUnkRainfed/TileNO3
33Lawlor et al., 2008IACornClay loamCP7.7Rainfed/TileNO3
34Lawlor et al., 2011IACornClay loamCP7.7Rainfed/TileNO3
35LaHue et al.,2016CARiceClayCP5.3IrrigatedN2O
36Linquist et al., 2015ARRiceSilt loamCPUnkIrrigatedN2O
37Maharjan and Venterea 2013MNCornSilt loamCPUnkRainfedN2O
38Mitchell et al., 2013IALoamCornNT6.4RainfedN2O
39Mosier et al., 2006COCornClay loamCP, NT7.7–7.8IrrigatedN2O
40Nash et al., 2012MOCornSilt loamNT, ST6.2IrrigatedN2O
41Omonode and Vyn 2013IACornSilt loamCP, NTUnkRainfedN2O
42Omonode and Vyn 2019INCornSilty clay loamNT, ST, MP, CPUnkRainfedN2O
43Omonode et al., 2015INCornSilty clay loamCP, NT6.1Rainfed/TileN2O
44Parkin et al., 2016IACornSilty clay loam, loamNTUnkRainfed/TileN2O
45Pittelkow et al., 2013CARiceClayCP6.2IrrigatedN2O
46Prunty and Greenland 1997NDPotato, CornLoamy fine sandCPUnkIrrigatedNO3
47Randall and Vetsch 2005MNCornClay loamCPUnkRainfedNO3
48Randall et al., 2003MNCornClay loamCPUnkRainfedNO3
49Sexton et al., 1996MNCornSandy loamCPUnkIrrigatedNO3
50Steusloff et al., 2019MOCornSilt loamCP6.9, 5.6RainfedN2O
51Sistani et al., 2011KYCornSilt loamNT5.8RainfedN2O
52Smith et al., 1982LARiceSilt loamCP6.0IrrigatedN2O
53Sogbedji et al., 2000NYCornClay loam, Loamy sandCPUnkRainfedNO3
54Thapa and Chatterjee 2017MNSpring wheatSilt loamCP8.1RainfedNH3, N2O
55Thapa et al., 2015MNSpring wheatSilt loamCP8.4RainfedNH3, N2O
56Thornton and Valente 1996TNCornSilt loamNT5.75RainfedN2O
57Thornton et al., 1996TNCornSilt loamNT6.6RainfedN2O
58Toth and Fox 1998PACornSilt loamCP6.2IrrigatedNO3
59Venterea et al., 2010MNCornSilt loamCP5.2–5.8RainfedN2O
60Vetsch et al., 2019MNCornClay loamCPUnkRainfed/TileNO3
61Walters and Malzer 1990MNCornSandy loamCP5.7IrrigatedNO3
62Zhu and Fox 2003PACornSilt loamNT/CP6.1RainfedNO3
Unk—Unknown; Tillage practice: CP—Chisel plow; ST—Strip tillage, NT—No-tillage; N losses: N2O—denitrification, NH3—volatilization, NO3—leachingMain goal of this manuscript was to prepare the dataset of cumulative N losses. Peer-reviewed journal articles, reporting cumulative losses of denitrification, leaching, and volatilization during the growing season from non-leguminous crops in response to inorganic N fertilizer applications conducted in the conterminous United States. The dataset was studied and analyzed to determine the extent of N losses as influenced by (i) state, (ii) fertilizer-N management practices (source, application rate and time), (iii) main crop and previous crop in rotation, (iv) tillage practices, (v) water management (rainfed, irrigated and subsurface drainage), and (vi) soil properties (pH, texture, cation exchange capacity and SOM content). Correlation and regression of these factors with N losses were determined to understand the control of these factors.
Table 2. Extent of variations in cumulative nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) during growing season across different states of the conterminous United States
Table 2. Extent of variations in cumulative nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) during growing season across different states of the conterminous United States
StatenMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
Arkansas160.22−0.011.05
California260.40−0.041.54
Colorado1000.810.113.56
Iowa215.600.3216.3
Illinois274.280.7216.9
Indiana182.880.796.88
Kentucky142.881.015.97
Louisiana50.110.070.17
Minnesota662.930.2511.2
Missouri164.571.127.70
Nebraska102.721.254.91
New York33.031.904.90
Pennsylvania280.720.102.85
Tennessee 66.621.4313.8
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
Connecticut627.84.0061.0
Iowa17634.10109
Michigan1234.711.089.0
Minnesota10945.44.00257
North Dakota842.33.00118
New York1214.45.9034.9
Pennsylvania2343.04.50135
Wisconsin1239.13.20102
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Colorado26.205.207.20
Indiana421.49.2050.9
Minnesota145.702.5011.1
Montana620.210.034.4
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and significance level at 95% significance level among soil pH, clay content, cation exchange capacity, water input (rainfall and irrigation), fertilizer N application rate, and crop yield and N losses. Data were log-transformed for the normal distribution of the data.
Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and significance level at 95% significance level among soil pH, clay content, cation exchange capacity, water input (rainfall and irrigation), fertilizer N application rate, and crop yield and N losses. Data were log-transformed for the normal distribution of the data.
Variables DenitrificationLeachingVolatilization
N rater0.380.270.09
(kg N ha−1)Pr > |r|<0.001<0.0010.66
n39935626
Crop yieldr−0.0150.120.66
(Mg ha−1)Pr > |r|0.800.020.01
n30534914
Water input (mm)r0.310.29−0.39
Pr > |r|<0.001<0.0010.09
n34830820
SOM (g kg−1)r0.44−0.08−0.61
Pr > |r|<0.0010.170.001
n34025124
Clay (g kg−1)r−0.420.060.55
Pr > |r|<0.0010.600.03
n2337116
pHr−0.21−0.07−0.65
Pr > |r|0.0010.340.001
n33716326
CEC (Cmole+ kg−1)r−0.230.03−0.72
Pr > |r|0.0070.83<0.001
n1354124
Table 4. Nitrogen losses as influenced by fertilizer-N sources and enhanced efficiency N fertilizers (addition of additives and slow release N fertilizers).
Table 4. Nitrogen losses as influenced by fertilizer-N sources and enhanced efficiency N fertilizers (addition of additives and slow release N fertilizers).
Fertilizer SourcenMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
AA373.820.0716.9
AN95.512.038.54
UAN422.380.1016.3
Urea1341.72−0.0414.1
ESN322.190.229.77
SuperU251.190.243.06
UAN + Agrotain81.070.163.90
UAN + Nitrapyrin81.890.325.37
Urea + Nitrapyrin62.160.365.71
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
AA5538.84.48122
AN4064.64.00257
Aqueous ammonia2645.82.0086.0
Urea3051.816.0141
UAN11128.60109
AA + Nitrapyrin2829.04.0080.0
Urea + Nitrapyrin1248.918.0139
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Urea1316.64.4150.9
UAN310.37.2014.6
Urea+ Nitrapyrin47.034.0811.1
SuperU44.684.085.82
AA: Anhydrous NH3; AN: Ammonium nitrate; UAN: Urea Ammonium nitrate.
Table 5. Effect of fertilizer placement on nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1).
Table 5. Effect of fertilizer placement on nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1).
Fertilizer Placement MethodnMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
Broadcast522.390.077.70
Broadcast-incorporated1051.84−0.0414.1
Banded1201.440.1012.5
Injected434.810.0716.9
Broadcast, banded142.010.326.12
Broadcast-incorporated, sidedress102.721.254.91
Sidedress62.882.383.36
Deep banded44.423.825.71
Drilled20.140.110.17
Midrow banded63.250.846.07
Subsurface banded21.361.351.37
Topdress20.100.090.11
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
Broadcast3946.85.90141
Broadcast-incorporated2454.416.0141
Broadcast-incorporated, sidedress638.027.059.0
Banded1481.35.90257
Injected12733.60.40122
Sidedress7834.03.00118
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Broadcast1020.79.2050.9
Broadcast-incorporated135.953.4811.1
Banded26.205.207.20
Table 6. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influence by fertilizer application time.
Table 6. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influence by fertilizer application time.
Application TimenMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
Split between fall and spring102.721.254.91
Spring3842.14−0.0416.9
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
Fall4436.16.00122
Spring24634.90.0141
Split during spring3867.23.00257
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Spring199.223.4850.9
Split between fall and spring620.010.034.4
Table 7. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influenced by previous crop.
Table 7. Nitrogen losses (kg N ha−1) as influenced by previous crop.
Main CropPrevious CropnMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
CornAlfalfa65.274.216.44
Barley40.520.190.83
Corn1661.920.1016.9
Cereal rye89.234.5011.2
Dry bean40.740.141.66
Soybean1202.890.2316.3
Total3232.520.1016.9
PotatoCereal rye111.020.422.11
BarleyCorn50.450.150.81
Spring wheatSoybean140.980.252.40
RiceRice340.34−0.041.54
Soybean80.300.031.05
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
CornAlfalfa1214.45.9034.9
Corn10641.13.20141
Corn/Lupine1651.815.0141
Potato447.33.00118
Soybean20632.50.0135
PotatoCorn437.38.0061
Winter Rye1011218.0257
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
CornCorn616.325.2550.9
Spring wheatSoybean140.980.252.40
Winter wheatFallow620.210.034.4
Table 8. Effect of water management practices on N losses (kg N ha−1).
Table 8. Effect of water management practices on N losses (kg N ha−1).
Water Mgmt.nMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
Irrigated1701.35−0.0411.2
Rainfed1972.27−0.0116.3
Subsurface drained345.060.7916.9
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
Irrigated6956.03.00257
Rainfed5830.14.00135
Subsurface drained22234.20.0109
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Irrigated26.205.207.20
Rainfed2010.12.5034.4
Table 9. Influence of soil textural class on cumulative N losses based on observations collected across conterminous United States.
Table 9. Influence of soil textural class on cumulative N losses based on observations collected across conterminous United States.
TexturenMeanMinimumMaximum
Denitrification loss (kg N2O-N ha−1)
Clay210.39−0.041.54
Clay loam1050.800.113.56
Loam542.310.346.99
Loamy sand194.470.4211.2
Sandy loam61.110.521.94
Silt loam1372.25−0.0116.3
Silty clay loam402.590.666.88
Silt loam +Silty clay loam125.200.9716.9
Silty clay loam + loam107.512.3012.5
Leaching loss (kg NO3-N ha−1)
Clay loam17535.70.00122
Loam5119.40.4089.0
Loamy sand2465.43.00257
Sandy loam4945.24.00141
Silt2442.44.48108
Silt loam3541.73.20135
Volatilization loss (kg NH3-N ha−1)
Clay loam816.75.2034.4
Sandy loam232.614.650.9
Silt loam95.642.5010.8
Silty clay loam77.003.4811.1

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chatterjee, A. Extent and Variation of Nitrogen Losses from Non-legume Field Crops of Conterminous United States. Nitrogen 2020, 1, 34-51. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen1010005

AMA Style

Chatterjee A. Extent and Variation of Nitrogen Losses from Non-legume Field Crops of Conterminous United States. Nitrogen. 2020; 1(1):34-51. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen1010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chatterjee, Amitava. 2020. "Extent and Variation of Nitrogen Losses from Non-legume Field Crops of Conterminous United States" Nitrogen 1, no. 1: 34-51. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen1010005

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop