IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i17p4799-d263536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Phosphorus Use Efficiency and Optimizing Phosphorus Application Rates for Maize in the Northeast Plain of China for Sustainable Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Wenting Jiang

    (College of Life Science, Yan’an University, Yan’an 716000, Shaanxi, China)

  • Xiaohu Liu

    (College of Land and Environmental, Shenyang Agriculture University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Xiukang Wang

    (College of Life Science, Yan’an University, Yan’an 716000, Shaanxi, China)

  • Lihui Yang

    (College of Land and Environmental, Shenyang Agriculture University, Shenyang 110866, China)

  • Yuan Yin

    (College of Land and Environmental, Shenyang Agriculture University, Shenyang 110866, China)

Abstract

Optimizing the phosphorus (P) application rate can increase grain yield while reducing both cost and environmental impact. However, optimal P rates vary substantially when different targets such as maximum yield or maximum economic benefit are considered. The present study used field experiment conducted at 36 experiments sites for maize to determine the impact of P application levels on grain yield, plant P uptake, and P agronomy efficiency (AE P ), P-derived yield benefits and private profitability, and to evaluated the agronomically (AOPR), privately (POPR), and economically (EOPR) optimal P rate at a regional scale. Four treatments were compared: No P fertilizer (P 0 ); P rate of 45–60 kg ha −1 (LP); P rate of 90–120 kg ha −1 (MP); P rate of 135–180 kg ha −1 (HP). P application more effectively increased grain yield, reaching a peak at MP treatment. The plant P uptake in HP treatment was 37.4% higher than that in P0. The relationship between P uptake by plants (y) and P application rate (x) can be described by the equation y = −0.0003x 2 + 0.1266x + 31.1 (R 2 = 0.309, p < 0.01). Furthermore, grain yield (y) and plant P uptake (x) across all treatments also showed a significant polynomial function (R 2 = 0.787–0.846). The MP treatment led to highest improvements in P agronomic efficiency (AEP), P-derived yield benefits (BY) and private profitability (BP) compared with those in other treatments. In addition, the average agronomically (AOPR), privately (POPR), and economically optimal P rate (EOPR) in 36 experimental sites were suggested as 127.9 kg ha −1 , 110.8 kg ha −1 , and 114.4 kg ha −1 , which ranged from 80.6 to 211.3 kg ha −1 , 78.2 to 181.8 kg ha −1 , and 82.6 to 151.6 kg ha −1 , respectively. Economically optimal P application (EOPR) can be recommended, because EOPR significantly reduced P application compared with AOPR, and average economically optimal yield was slightly higher compared with the average yield in the MP treatment. This study was conducive in providing a more productive, use-effective, profitable, environment-friendly P fertilizer management strategy for supporting maximized production potential and environment sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenting Jiang & Xiaohu Liu & Xiukang Wang & Lihui Yang & Yuan Yin, 2019. "Improving Phosphorus Use Efficiency and Optimizing Phosphorus Application Rates for Maize in the Northeast Plain of China for Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4799-:d:263536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4799/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4799/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen Cao & Xueyun Chen, 2021. "Can Industrial Integration Improve the Sustainability of Grain Security?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-17, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    9. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    11. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    13. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    14. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    15. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    18. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    19. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.
    20. Hristov, Jordan & Clough, Yann & Sahlin, Ullrika & Smith, Henrik G. & Stjernman, Martin & Olsson, Ola & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Brady, Mark V., 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” reform on agricultural development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:17:p:4799-:d:263536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.