Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Variable Rate Nitrogen Fertilization (VRNF) is regarded as a sustainable approach to addressing environmental challenges in crop nitrogen management; however, its environmental footprints remain underexplored. This study assesses the environmental impacts of two VRNF methods compared to the traditional Uniform Rate N (URN) practice.</p> Methods <p>Soil fertility of two sites in Belgium and Spain was measured with an on-line visible-to-near infrared spectroscopy system and crop vegetation index was retrieved from Sentinel-2 images for generating Management Zone (MZ) maps. Two VRNF schemes, based on the Kings Approach (KA) and the Robin Hood (RH) method, were implemented in multiple crops. KA allocated up to 50% higher and lower N doses to highly and poorly fertile MZ respectively and vice-versa, while RH followed the opposite strategy. The IMPACT 2002 + vQ2.3 LCIA methodology was employed within a cradle-to-gate boundary system, with a functional unit of 1&#xa0;kg of fresh harvest at farm gate. Crop yield along with environmental impacts were assessed for CO<sub>2</sub> emission, resource depletion, water withdrawal, human health and ecosystem quality.</p> Results <p>Overall, VRNF improved crop yield and reduced environmental footprints. VRNF-KA was more productive and environmentally friendly than VRNF-RH and URN. Advantages of VRNF were very little and varied across crop types, within-field fertility index (FFI), N decision-making methods, and climate regions. Particularly, VRNF in barley was more eco-friendly [0.26 (Belgium) and 0.45 (Spain) kg CO<sub>2</sub>eqkg<sup>− 1</sup>] than that in rapeseed (≈ 0.87&#xa0;kg CO<sub>2</sub>eqkg<sup>− 1</sup>) and wheat (≈ 0.90&#xa0;kg CO<sub>2</sub>eqkg<sup>− 1</sup>). VRNF performed more sustainably at the Belgian climate than under Spanish condition.</p> Conclusion <p>Apparently, VRNF is agronomically advantageous over URN; however, the current LCA cannot conclusively determine whether the KA or RH method delivers the expected environmental benefits. Besides, FFI appears to be a critical factor of selecting N decision-making method. Therefore, adopting an FFI-based approach for recommending N doses is essential to achieve expected sustainability goal of VRNF.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Environmental life cycle assessment of precision nitrogen fertilization in multiple field crops

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月2日

查看全文
  • Muhammad Abdul Munnaf,
  • Xun Liao,
  • Paula Sangines,
  • Maria Calera,
  • Angela Guerrero,
  • Abdul Mounem Mouazen

摘要

Purpose

Variable Rate Nitrogen Fertilization (VRNF) is regarded as a sustainable approach to addressing environmental challenges in crop nitrogen management; however, its environmental footprints remain underexplored. This study assesses the environmental impacts of two VRNF methods compared to the traditional Uniform Rate N (URN) practice.

Methods

Soil fertility of two sites in Belgium and Spain was measured with an on-line visible-to-near infrared spectroscopy system and crop vegetation index was retrieved from Sentinel-2 images for generating Management Zone (MZ) maps. Two VRNF schemes, based on the Kings Approach (KA) and the Robin Hood (RH) method, were implemented in multiple crops. KA allocated up to 50% higher and lower N doses to highly and poorly fertile MZ respectively and vice-versa, while RH followed the opposite strategy. The IMPACT 2002 + vQ2.3 LCIA methodology was employed within a cradle-to-gate boundary system, with a functional unit of 1 kg of fresh harvest at farm gate. Crop yield along with environmental impacts were assessed for CO2 emission, resource depletion, water withdrawal, human health and ecosystem quality.

Results

Overall, VRNF improved crop yield and reduced environmental footprints. VRNF-KA was more productive and environmentally friendly than VRNF-RH and URN. Advantages of VRNF were very little and varied across crop types, within-field fertility index (FFI), N decision-making methods, and climate regions. Particularly, VRNF in barley was more eco-friendly [0.26 (Belgium) and 0.45 (Spain) kg CO2eqkg− 1] than that in rapeseed (≈ 0.87 kg CO2eqkg− 1) and wheat (≈ 0.90 kg CO2eqkg− 1). VRNF performed more sustainably at the Belgian climate than under Spanish condition.

Conclusion

Apparently, VRNF is agronomically advantageous over URN; however, the current LCA cannot conclusively determine whether the KA or RH method delivers the expected environmental benefits. Besides, FFI appears to be a critical factor of selecting N decision-making method. Therefore, adopting an FFI-based approach for recommending N doses is essential to achieve expected sustainability goal of VRNF.