Spatiotemporal Patterns and Regional Heterogeneity of Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Major Cereal and Oil Crops in Sichuan Province: A Regional Nitrogen Balance Perspective
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the NUE Framework
2.2. Data Sources and Processing
2.2.1. Data Collection
2.2.2. Calculation Procedures
- (1)
- Crop N Uptake (N output): The N output for each crop was estimated by multiplying the crop yield by its specific N concentration parameters, accounting for both the harvested grain/seeds and the residual straw. The parameters, including N content in the harvest, N content in the residue, and the residue-to-harvest ratio, were compiled from published regional N-balance studies and agronomic literature (Table 1 and Table 2) [11,12,20].
- (2)
- Total N Input (N input): Total N input was calculated as the sum of direct and indirect inputs.
- (3)
- Direct N Input: This included synthetic N fertilizers (urea, ammonium carbonate, compound fertilizers) and farmyard manure. Due to the lack of detailed organic fertilizer records in statistical sources, the manure component was estimated using provincial livestock population data and standard excretion parameters [2,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Provincial total manure N was allocated to each crop proportionally to its sown area, assuming uniform application intensity across crops in the absence of crop-specific manure use data.
- (4)
- Indirect N Input: This comprised biological N fixation and atmospheric N deposition. Crop-specific biological N fixation coefficients were applied: 30 kg N ha−1 yr−1 for rice, and 15 kg N ha−1 yr−1 for wheat, maize, and rapeseed [6]. For rice, the value of 30 kg N ha−1 yr−1 accounts for associative nitrogen fixation by rhizosphere bacteria in flooded paddy systems, following established regional N balance studies [11]. Atmospheric N deposition was set at 20.05 kg N ha−1 yr−1 for 2008–2010 and 20.40 kg N ha−1 yr−1 for 2011–2022, based on regional estimates [27,28].
2.3. Regional Aggregation
2.4. Uncertainty and Parameter Sensitivity

3. Results
3.1. Temporal Dynamics of NUE at the Provincial Level
3.1.1. Provincial-Scale Temporal Dynamics of NUE
3.1.2. Crop-Specific Differences in NUE
3.2. Spatiotemporal Evolution Across the Five Major Economic Zones
3.2.1. Regional Temporal Trajectories
3.2.2. Cross-Regional Comparison of Efficiency Levels and Stage-Specific Growth Rates
3.2.3. Panxi Economic Zone
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yu, X.; Keitel, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wangeci, A.N.; Dijkstra, F.A. Global meta-analysis of nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency in rice, wheat and maize. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 338, 108089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Ma, L.; Ma, W.; Wu, Z.; Cui, Z.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, F. What has caused the use of fertilizers to skyrocket in China? Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2018, 110, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, T.L. Improving nutrient use efficiency. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2008, 32, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X.; Ti, C.; Vitousek, P.; Chen, D.; Leip, A.; Cai, Z.; Zhu, Z. Fertilizer nitrogen recovery efficiencies in crop production systems of China with and without consideration of the residual effect of nitrogen. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 095002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wu, H.; Li, J.; Xiao, Q.; Li, J. Assessment of the effect of the main grain-producing areas policy on China’s food security. Foods 2024, 13, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Wu, G.; Chen, J.; He, J.; Wu, M.; Wang, D.; Wei, X.; Tian, P.; Wu, Z.; et al. Optimizing the Ratio of One-Off Slow-Release Fertilizer Can Improve the Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Yield of Rice Under the Condition of Nitrogen Reduction. Plants 2025, 14, 3650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Mei, H.; Yan, Z.; Hu, A.; Wang, S.; Feng, C.; Chen, K.; Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Ji, P.; et al. Year-round production of cotton and wheat or rapeseed regulated by different nitrogen rates with crop straw returning. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, W.; Zhu, A.; Ali, T.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, X.; Wu, F.; Huang, J.; Davis, K.F. Crop switching can enhance environmental sustainability and farmer incomes in China. Nature 2023, 616, 300–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altuntaş, Ö. Application of AMF under continuous and diverse fertilization regime: Case studies. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Sustainable Agriculture: Inoculum Production and Application; Springer: Singapore, 2024; pp. 333–360. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, B.; Ren, C.; Wang, C.; Duan, J.; Reis, S.; Gu, B. Driving forces of nitrogen use efficiency in Chinese croplands on county scale. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 316, 120610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; Xia, L.; Ti, C. Temporal and spatial variations in nitrogen use efficiency of crop production in China. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 293, 118496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, L.; Ma, C.; Liu, T. Revealing Greenhouse Gas Emission and Nitrogen Fertilizer Destination: A Case Study in Chengdu Plain Cultivation Industry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semenov, M.A.; Jamieson, P.D.; Martre, P. Deconvoluting nitrogen use efficiency in wheat: A simulation study. Eur. J. Agron. 2007, 26, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fixen, P.E.; Jin, J.; Tiwari, K.N.; Stauffer, M.D. Capitalizing on multi-element interactions through balanced nutrition-A pathway to improve nitrogen use efficiency in China, India and North America. Sci. China Ser. C Life Sci. 2025, 48, 780–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Novoa, R.; Loomis, R.S. Nitrogen and plant production. Plant Soil 1981, 58, 177–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Searchinger, T.D.; Dumas, P.; Shen, Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 2015, 528, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sichuan Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Available online: https://tjj.sc.gov.cn/scstjj/c105855/nj.shtml (accessed on 10 May 2026).
- National Development and Reform Commission. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/ztzl/ncpdc70zn/202408/t20240805_1392196.html (accessed on 10 May 2026).
- Narits, L. Effect of nitrogen rate and application time to yield and quality of winter oilseed rape. Brassica napus L. var. oleifera subvar. biennis. Agron. Res. 2010, 8, 681–686. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Ma, J.; Ding, W.; He, W.; Lei, Q.; Gao, Q.; He, P. Temporal and spatial variation of potassium balance in agricultural land at national and regional levels in China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, H.; Zheng, X.; Wu, R.; Liu, X.; Xiao, S.; Sun, L.; Hu, T.; Gao, Z.; Yang, L.; Huang, C.; et al. Agriculture related methane emissions embodied in China’s interprovincial trade. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 113850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, H.; Zhao, W.; Li, T.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Q. Balancing straw returning and chemical fertilizers in China: Role of straw nutrient resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2695–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Peng, S.; Chang, J.; Ciais, P.; Dumas, P.; Lin, X.; Piao, S. Inventory of methane emissions from livestock in China from 1980 to 2013. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 184, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Shen, J.; Zhang, F.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W. Carbon footprint of grain production in China. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Tian, H.; Shi, H.; Pan, S.; Qin, X.; Pan, N.; Dangal, S.R. Methane emissions from livestock in East Asia during 1961−2019. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2021, 7, 1918024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, G.; Jia, Y.; He, N.; Zhu, J.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Q.; Piao, S.; Liu, X.; He, H.; Guo, X.; et al. Stabilization of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in China over the past decade. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Han, W.; Tang, A.; Shen, J.; Cui, Z.; Vitousek, P.; Erisman, J.W.; Goulding, K.; Christie, P.; et al. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature 2013, 494, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sha, Z.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Ma, X.; Liu, X.; Misselbrook, T. Improved soil-crop system management aids in NH3 emission mitigation in China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 289, 117844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.; McQuoid, A.; Karayalcin, C. Fiscal decentralization, fiscal reform, and economic growth in China. China Econ. Rev. 2019, 53, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.; McQuoid, A.; Karayalcin, C. Estimating regional N application rates for rice in China based on target yield, indigenous N supply, and N loss. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Vitousek, P.; Chang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Matson, P.; Zhang, F. Evidence for a historic change occurring in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 505–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mao, H.; Zhou, L.; Ying, R.; Pan, D. Time Preferences and green agricultural technology adoption: Field evidence from rice farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Guo, S.; Cheng, S.; Guan, Y.; Cai, H.; Mi, G.; Yuan, L.; Chen, F. Enhanced crown root number and length confers potential for yield improvement and fertilizer reduction in nitrogen-efficient maize cultivars. Field Crops Res. 2019, 241, 107562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandio, A.A.; Nasereldin, Y.A.; Anh, D.L.T.; Tang, Y.; Sargani, G.R.; Zhang, H. The impact of technological progress and climate change on food crop production: Evidence from Sichuan—China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jia, M.; Lapen, D.R.; Su, D.; Mayer, K.U. Multi-domain reactive transport modeling of GHG emissions from macroporous agricultural soils with a focus on N2O hotspots and hot moments. Water Resour. Res. 2025, 61, e2025WR040588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellegrini, P.; Roberto, R. Crop intensification, land use, and on-farm energy-use efficiency during the worldwide spread of the green revolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2335–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rateb, A.; Scanlon, B.R.; Pokhrel, Y.; Shrestha, A.; Jia, M.; Peng, B. Freshwater availability in the Mississippi River Basin and adjacent Texas aquifers under human and climate pressures. Earth’s Future 2026, 14, e2025EF006653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Crop | N content of Harvest (%) (Seed N Content) | Residue/Harvest Ratio | N Content of Residue (%) (Straw N Content) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 1.30 | 1.00 | 0.91 |
| Wheat | 2.30 | 1.20 | 0.65 |
| Maize | 1.50 | 1.20 | 0.92 |
| Rapeseed | 3.90 | 2.50 | 0.87 |
| Indicator Name | Indicator Definition | Calculation Formula and Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Total N input | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | Direct N input + Indirect N input |
| Synthetic N fertilizer | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | Urea + Ammonium carbonate + Compound fertilizer |
| Farmyard manure | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | Livestock and human excrement |
| Direct N input | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | Synthetic N fertilizer + Farmyard manure |
| Biological N fixation | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | 30 for rice, and 15 for wheat, maize, and rapeseed |
| Atmospheric N deposition | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | 20.05 for 2008–2010, 20.40 for 2011–2022 |
| Indirect N input | kg N ha−1 yr−1 | Biological N fixation + Atmospheric N deposition |
| Crop Type | Mean Value | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 40.45 | 32.80 (2009) | 49.22 (2016) | 1.92 | −1.95 |
| Wheat | 25.43 | 19.17 (2009) | 31.77 (2021) | 1.78 | 1.63 |
| Maize | 33.29 | 24.33 (2010) | 43.18 (2017) | 2.35 | −2.86 |
| Rapeseed | 38.36 | 28.27 (2009) | 47.13 (2018) | 1.96 | −1.42 |
| Crop Type | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate | Peak Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 32.37 (2009) | 48.18 (2018) | 2.01 | −2.35 | 2018 |
| Wheat | 27.36 (2009) | 48.08 (2018) | 1.98 | −1.89 | 2018 |
| Maize | 25.62 (2009) | 39.70 (2018) | 1.52 | −2.21 | 2018 |
| Rapeseed | 23.85 (2009) | 31.95 (2018) | 1.03 | −1.76 | 2018 |
| Crop Type | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate | Peak Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 38.86 (2009) | 54.36 (2019) | 1.68 | −1.22 | 2019 |
| Wheat | 15.78 (2009) | 21.49 (2019) | 0.04 | −1.68 | 2019 |
| Maize | 27.94 (2009) | 43.80 (2019) | 1.42 | −1.56 | 2019 |
| Rapeseed | 25.62 (2009) | 45.08 (2019) | 1.55 | −1.31 | 2019 |
| Crop Type | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate | Peak Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 33.27 (2009) | 50.00 (2019) | 1.85 | −1.92 | 2019 |
| Wheat | 22.46 (2009) | 32.00 (2019) | 1.56 | −1.81 | 2019 |
| Maize | 30.44 (2009) | 47.59 (2019) | 1.72 | −1.98 | 2019 |
| Rapeseed | 31.25 (2009) | 53.75 (2019) | 1.92 | −1.78 | 2019 |
| Crop Type | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate | Peak Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 21.65 (2010) | 27.18 (2018) | 2.13 | −3.89 | 2018 |
| Wheat | 11.93 (2010) | 20.85 (2018) | 2.89 | −3.12 | 2018 |
| Maize | 14.74 (2010) | 17.39 (2018) | 2.35 | −3.67 | 2018 |
| Rapeseed | 12.93 (2010) | 16.36 (2018) | 2.52 | −4.01 | 2018 |
| Crop Type | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | 2008–2014 Average Annual Growth Rate | 2016–2022 Average Annual Growth Rate | Peak Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 30.56 (2010) | 44.42 (2019) | 1.79 | −1.02 | 2019 |
| Wheat | 22.10 (2010) | 38.81 (2019) | 1.85 | −0.91 | 2019 |
| Maize | 23.15 (2010) | 35.87 (2019) | 1.62 | −0.89 | 2019 |
| Rapeseed | 16.62 (2010) | 23.07 (2019) | 1.52 | −0.94 | 2019 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Zhao, G.; Dai, T.; Yu, Y.; Guo, X.; Chen, Y. Spatiotemporal Patterns and Regional Heterogeneity of Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Major Cereal and Oil Crops in Sichuan Province: A Regional Nitrogen Balance Perspective. Sustainability 2026, 18, 6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18126071
Zhao G, Dai T, Yu Y, Guo X, Chen Y. Spatiotemporal Patterns and Regional Heterogeneity of Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Major Cereal and Oil Crops in Sichuan Province: A Regional Nitrogen Balance Perspective. Sustainability. 2026; 18(12):6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18126071
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Guang, Tingting Dai, Yuecheng Yu, Xiao Guo, and Yanli Chen. 2026. "Spatiotemporal Patterns and Regional Heterogeneity of Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Major Cereal and Oil Crops in Sichuan Province: A Regional Nitrogen Balance Perspective" Sustainability 18, no. 12: 6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18126071
APA StyleZhao, G., Dai, T., Yu, Y., Guo, X., & Chen, Y. (2026). Spatiotemporal Patterns and Regional Heterogeneity of Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Major Cereal and Oil Crops in Sichuan Province: A Regional Nitrogen Balance Perspective. Sustainability, 18(12), 6071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18126071

