In Vitro Evaluation of Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers Using Two Different Soils

There are discrepancies regarding the effectiveness of enhanced efficiency nitrogen (N) fertilizer (EENF) products on ammonia loss from unincorporated, surface applications of urea-based fertilizers. Soil properties and management practices may account for the differences in the performance of EENF. However, few studies have investigated the performance of urea- and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN)-based EENF on soils with contrasting properties. Controlled-environment incubation experiments were conducted on two soils with different properties to evaluate the efficacy of urea and UAN forms of EENF to minimize ammonia volatilization losses. The experiments were set up as a completely randomized design, with seven treatments replicated four times for 16 days. The N treatments, which were surface-applied at 134 kg N ha−1, included untreated urea, untreated UAN, urea+ANVOLTM (urease inhibitor product), UAN+ANVOLTM, environmentally smart nitrogen (ESN®), SUPERU® (urease and nitrification inhibitor product), and urea+Excelis® (urease and nitrification inhibitor product). In this study, urea was more susceptible to ammonia loss (24.12 and 26.49% of applied N) than UAN (5.24 and 16.17% of applied N), with lower ammonia volatility from soil with a pH of 5.8 when compared to 7.0. Urea-based EENF products performed better in soil with a pH of 5.8 compared to the soil with pH 7.0, except for ESN, which was not influenced by pH. In contrast, the UAN-based EENF was more effective in the high-pH soil (7.0). Across both soils, all EENFs reduced cumulative ammonia loss by 32–91% in urea and 27–70% in UAN, respectively, when compared to their untreated forms. The urea-based EENF formulations containing both nitrification and urease inhibitors were the least effective among the EENF types, performing particularly poorly in high-pH soil (pH 7.0). In conclusion, the efficacy of EENF is dependent on soil pH, N source, and the form of EENF. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring EENF applications to specific soil conditions and N sources to optimize N use efficiency (NUE), enhance economic returns for producers, and minimize environmental impacts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Soil Systems
Published
2025-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9030080
Primary Topic
Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

In Vitro Evaluation of Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers Using Two Different Soils

Nutifafa Adotey, Shinsaku Okai, Xinhua Yin, Lori Duncan et al.
Soil Systems
Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
article

In Vitro Evaluation of Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers Using Two Different Soils

Nutifafa Adotey, Shinsaku Okai, Xinhua Yin, Lori Duncan, Forbes Walker, Jones Akuaku, Debasish Saha, Daniel C. Yoder, Sydney Logwood
article en

Abstract

There are discrepancies regarding the effectiveness of enhanced efficiency nitrogen (N) fertilizer (EENF) products on ammonia loss from unincorporated, surface applications of urea-based fertilizers. Soil properties and management practices may account for the differences in the performance of EENF. However, few studies have investigated the performance of urea- and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN)-based EENF on soils with contrasting properties. Controlled-environment incubation experiments were conducted on two soils with different properties to evaluate the efficacy of urea and UAN forms of EENF to minimize ammonia volatilization losses. The experiments were set up as a completely randomized design, with seven treatments replicated four times for 16 days. The N treatments, which were surface-applied at 134 kg N ha−1, included untreated urea, untreated UAN, urea+ANVOLTM (urease inhibitor product), UAN+ANVOLTM, environmentally smart nitrogen (ESN®), SUPERU® (urease and nitrification inhibitor product), and urea+Excelis® (urease and nitrification inhibitor product). In this study, urea was more susceptible to ammonia loss (24.12 and 26.49% of applied N) than UAN (5.24 and 16.17% of applied N), with lower ammonia volatility from soil with a pH of 5.8 when compared to 7.0. Urea-based EENF products performed better in soil with a pH of 5.8 compared to the soil with pH 7.0, except for ESN, which was not influenced by pH. In contrast, the UAN-based EENF was more effective in the high-pH soil (7.0). Across both soils, all EENFs reduced cumulative ammonia loss by 32–91% in urea and 27–70% in UAN, respectively, when compared to their untreated forms. The urea-based EENF formulations containing both nitrification and urease inhibitors were the least effective among the EENF types, performing particularly poorly in high-pH soil (pH 7.0). In conclusion, the efficacy of EENF is dependent on soil pH, N source, and the form of EENF. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring EENF applications to specific soil conditions and N sources to optimize N use efficiency (NUE), enhance economic returns for producers, and minimize environmental impacts.

Soil SystemsVol. 9(3)
Ho Technical University (GH), University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.