Efficiency of fall-banded urea for spring wheat production in Manitoba: Influence of application date, landscape position and fertilizer additives

Tiessen, Kevin H.D.; Flaten, Don; Grant, C. A.; Karamanos, R. E.; Entz, Martin H.

doi:10.4141/s05-017

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This makes the nitrates more prone to denitrification in the spring; however, the use of ESN tm and Super Urea tm did not improve N response over untreated urea (Table 5). This result is similar to that of (Tiessen et al 2005). All other treatments performed equally to the benchmark early spring application of AN.…”

Section: Nitrogen Management Effectssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…At sites which are relatively dry it may be economically advantageous, to apply some or all the crop's N requirements at the time of planting since the price and time advantages may outweigh the potential N loss due to denitrification. When soil moisture conditions are high in the fall or early spring, N loss can be significant, and under these conditions denitrification losses can be large Malhi and Nyborg 1990;Tiessen et al 2005). Under conditions where there is a high potential for denitrification ''protected/specialty'' urea could be a viable option.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nitrification can be inhibited when urea is banded or nested to create high concentrations of ammonium (Malhi and Nyborg 1985;Yandvinder-Singh et al 1994). In Manitoba, seed yields of spring wheat were similar between early, mid or late fall, and spring applications of N in well-drained upland areas of the field (Tiessen et al 2005). However, seed yields from early fall and mid fall N applications were about 10% lower than late fall or early spring applications in the low-lying areas of the field (presumably due to higher moisture levels in these areas).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada

Irvine¹,

Lafond²,

May³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2010. Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 471Á478. Since fertilizer-grade ammonium nitrate is no longer available for general use in Canada, there is much discussion about the best management practices to minimize nitrogen (N) loss when fertilizing winter wheat. In two separate trials we compared several fall and spring N management options with the standard practice of spring-applied ammonium nitrate. In Study 1, the use of a coulter in fall or spring reduced seed yields, even when ammonium nitrate (AN) was broadcast in the spring, indicating crop damage. Spring broadcast applications of urea and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) produced yields equivalent to spring broadcast AN. Urea applied at the time of planting produced seed yields relative to spring application of AN. The late fall UAN treatment had lower yields than when this product was applied in the spring. Protein levels varied among site-years, but were generally lower than the marketing target of 115 g kg (1 , which indicates less than optimal N levels or N uptake. In both studies, late fall surface banded UAN was inferior to other products and timings. In Study 2, seed yield and protein content were similar for all forms of urea placed at seeding, and these were similar to spring broadcast AN. We also found that under the relatively low fall and spring moisture conditions encountered in Study 2 protected N sources did not increase N use efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Nitrogen Management Effectssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada

Irvine¹,

Lafond²,

May³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In unpublished studies, Grant et al (10) observed higher yield under no-till conditions with the use of the urease inhibitor NBPT when fertilizer was banded in the fall, but no benefit when NBPT was used with spring-banded N. Combination of a urease inhibitor with a nitrification inhibitor could increase the time that the fertilizer could be in he soil before significant losses occurred. However, combined use of a urease inhibitor and a nitrification inhibitor with fall banded urea did not increase crop yield or N recovery in studies in Manitoba (44,45).…”

Section: Urease Inhibitorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers for Use on the Canadian Prairies

Grant

2008

Crop Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spite of the management practices adopted by Canadian producers to mimize fertilizer losses, N‐use efficiency is normally estimated to be less than 50% in the year of application. Various types of enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers such as nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, and coated N fertilizers are available that attempt to address the constraints associated with traditional N management in order to improve N‐use efficiency and/or the operational efficiency of Canadian agricultural systems. Enhanced‐efficiency N fertilizers can chemically or physically influence the movement and transformations of N in order to improve synchrony between nutrient supply and crop uptake, reduce nutrient losses, and improve nutrient‐use efficiency. Pathways and magnitude of N loss are influenced by soil characteristics, weather conditions, and crop management practices, as well as by fertilizer source and management practices. Therefore, the effectiveness of the various enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers will be strongly dependent on the environmental conditions that influence potential losses. Under environmental conditions where the potential for N loss is high, enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers may provide an effective method of improving N use, particularly where other agronomic factors are optimized so that the crop is able to convert the N supplied into usable yield with the greatest efficiency.

show abstract

“…With respect to the influence of landscape and timing on the effectiveness of fall‐banded N, Tiessen et al (2005) reported that the effects of landscape position on the agronomic efficiency of fall‐banded urea were greatest when the fertilizer was applied in early fall. However, that study examined only the effects of general application periods in the fall (i.e., early fall‐banded N included all fertilizer applications occurring between 15 and 29 September, mid fall‐banded N were those applications occurring between 30 September and 14 October, and late fall‐banded N included any applications that occurred after 15 October) and did not quantify the integrated effects of time and soil temperature following the application of the fertilizer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive Effects of Landscape Position and Time of Application on the Response of Spring Wheat to Fall‐Banded Urea

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A gronomy J our n al • Volume 10 0 , I s sue 3 • 2 0 0 8 557 ABSTRACT Th e objective of this experiment was to quantify the eff ect of landscape position and time of application on the agronomic efficiency of fall-banded urea [CO(NH 2 ) 2 ] for spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in the eastern prairie region of Canada. Landscape positions in this experiment were defi ned as high and low based on their relative elevations to one another within the fi eld. Fertilizer treatments included urea banded at three diff erent times in the fall (early, mid-, and late fall), in the spring at planting, plus a control with no fertilizer N added. In the low landscape positions, grain yield, total crop N uptake, grain yield increases (GYI), and crop nitrogen use effi ciency (NUE) for fall-banded urea (all relative to spring-banded urea) increased linearly with delayed application dates and declining soil temperatures on date of application. However, only crop N uptake and NUE were related to cumulative soil heat units (SHU) from date of fertilizer application until freeze-up, and no measure of crop response to N was related to cumulative nitrifi cation heat units (NHU). In the high landscape positions, the performance of fallbanded urea was not related to any measures of time and/or soil temperature. Th ese results can be used to predict the increase in crop response to fall-banded N as a result of delaying application in low areas of the landscape. Our study also shows that date of application and soil temperature are robust and practical indicators for determining the appropriate time to fall-band urea fertilizer in these areas.

show abstract

Efficiency of fall-banded urea for spring wheat production in Manitoba: Influence of application date, landscape position and fertilizer additives

Cited by 20 publications

References 50 publications

Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada

Alternative nitrogen management options for winter wheat on the eastern prairies of western Canada

Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers for Use on the Canadian Prairies

Interactive Effects of Landscape Position and Time of Application on the Response of Spring Wheat to Fall‐Banded Urea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About