Next Article in Journal
Weed Abundance, Seed Bank in Different Soil Tillage Systems, and Straw Retention
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Analysis of Zm4CL Genes Identifies Zm4CL8 Regulating Drought and Salt Tolerance in Maize
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy15051103
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Deep Fertilization Is More Beneficial than Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer on Crop Productivity and Environmental Cost: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis

by
Qi Wu
1,
Hua Huang
1,
Qinhe Wang
1,
Zeyu Liu
1,
Runzhuo Pei
1,
Guosheng Wen
1,
Jinghui Feng
1,
Hao Wang
1,
Peng Zhang
2,
Zhiqiang Gao
1,
Chuangyun Wang
1,* and
Peng Wu
1,2,3,*
1
College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University/Key Laboratory of Sustainable Dryland Agriculture of Shanxi Province, Taiyuan 030031, China
2
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
3
Key Laboratory of Low-Carbon Green Agriculture in Northeastern China, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs P. R. China/College of Agronomy, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing 163000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(5), 1103; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051103
Submission received: 18 March 2025 / Revised: 25 April 2025 / Accepted: 28 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic High-Efficiency Utilization of Water-Fertilizer Resources and Green Production of Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
It is unclear whether enhanced efficiency fertilizer (EEF) or deep fertilization strategies (DF) can simultaneously improve crop productivity and reduce gaseous nitrogen losses. The DF strategy’s investment cost is lower than that of EEF’s, with more potential for large-scale promotion. However, there is still a need for a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of DF and EEF’s effects on crop productivity and gaseous nitrogen losses. Here, we examine the effects of DF and EEF on crop yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (NH3) emissions by a meta-analysis of published studies. We collected peer-reviewed articles on EEF and DF published in recent decades and conducted a global meta-analysis, and explored their responses to different climatic, field management practices, and environmental factors. The results showed that compared with urea application on the surface, EEF and DF significantly increased yields by 7.52% and 13.88% and NUE by 25.84% and 36.27% and reduced N2O emissions by 37.98% and 34.18% and NH3 emissions by 42.37% and 69.68%, respectively. The DF strategy is superior to that of the EEF. Due to differences in climatic factors, soil properties, and management practices, the effects of DF and EEF in improving crop productivity and gaseous nitrogen loss vary. However, in most cases, DF is more beneficial than EEF. Compared with EEF, DF significantly increased the yield by 84.63% and reduced NH3 volatilization by 64.47%, yield-scaled N2O emission by 13.32%, and yield-scaled NH3 emission by 60.23%. Therefore, we emphasize that DF can achieve higher yields, nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency, lower emissions of gaseous nitrogen, and lower yield-scaled N2O and NH3 emissions than EEF, which is beneficial for the sustainable development of global agricultural ecosystems. The research results provide valuable information on crop productivity and environmental costs under an effective fertilizer type and fertilization strategy management.

1. Introduction

The large gap between the demand for food and the production of food is increasing, and the reduction in food production caused by climate change is intensifying [1,2]. Agricultural activities have contributed significantly to global food security and climate change [3], including the extensive application of chemical fertilizers and intensive livestock farming on grasslands [4]. Ammonium (NH3) and N2O have polluted the environment, posing a threat to global public health [5,6,7]. Excessive fertilizer input and improper fertilization methods result in nitrogen loss in the form of runoff, leaching, NH3 volatilization, and N2O emissions, significantly reducing nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency and potential economic benefits in farmland [8,9]. Therefore, optimizing fertilizer management strategies to produce more food per unit land area, reduce NH3 and N2O emissions, and promote sustainable agriculture development has attracted significant global interest.
The 4R principle (right fertilization type, right fertilization place, right fertilization rate, and right fertilization time) was proposed to achieve a win–win goal of increasing crop productivity and reducing nitrogen loss, and it has been widely recognized [3,10]. Reducing fertilizer input may lead to lower nitrogen loss but also risks decreasing crop yields [11,12]. Splitting fertilization during the critical growth period of crops improves nitrogen utilization efficiency [13,14] but increases N2O and NH3 emissions, labor demand, and the cost of inputs [10,15]. Therefore, farmers still tend to adopt one-time fertilization technology in agricultural production. Using fertilizer types and fertilization strategies that can increase economic benefits and ecological news may change farmers’ choices.
Recent studies have shown that the application of enhanced efficiency fertilizer (EEF)and deep fertilization (DF) strategies may be more suitable for agricultural ecological environments [16,17,18]. EEF synchronizes the nitrogen supply and crop uptake by regulating the nitrogen conversion process [19]. Current types of EEFs include controlled-release urea (CRF) and the addition of nitrification inhibitors (NIs), and urease inhibitors (UIs), as well as a combination of these two inhibitors in nitrogen fertilizer (UI + NI) [20,21,22]. Controlled-release urea mainly achieves a slow release of nitrogen through coating technology to match the demand pattern for nitrogen during crop growth [23]. NIs mainly reduce N2O emissions by inhibiting the conversion process of NH4+ to NO3− [24], while UIs mainly delay the hydrolysis of urea by inhibiting urease activity to reduce NH3 volatilization [25]. The combined application of NIs and UIs can simultaneously reduce NH3 and N2O emissions. However, due to the existence of ”pollution exchange”, the cost of reducing the emissions of one pollutant is the increase in the emissions of another pollutant [26]. In addition, the impact of controlled-release urea on NH3 and N2O emissions varies [27,28]. An increasing number of studies have shown that the research results of EEF vary greatly in different regions, and its effectiveness is greatly influenced by soil characteristics, climate conditions, and management practices [29]. These contradictory results indicated that the impact of EEF on farmland ecology is highly complex. Therefore, there is an urgent need to obtain more general conclusions through a comprehensive analysis of global research data to guide production practice.
DF is considered an important fertilization strategy for improving NUE and yield [30,31]. However, in the past, due to the low level of mechanization, manual deep fertilization has been used, making it difficult to promote DF technology. In recent years, with the development of global agricultural mechanization, mechanical deep fertilization has been widely used in agricultural production [32,33]. Some studies have found that deep fertilization can significantly improve crop yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency [34] and reduce NH3 volatilization [32]. However, the impact of deep fertilization on N2O emissions is still unclear. Wu et al. [35] found that deep fertilization can significantly reduce N2O emissions, but Maaz et al. [36] found that deep fertilization increases the N2O emissions from farmland. Therefore, the impact of deep fertilization on farmland ecosystems may be influenced by climate factors, soil properties, and management measures. At present, there is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of deep fertilization on crop yield, nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency, and N2O and NH3 emissions from farmland, and key regulatory factors still need to be further elucidated.
Although EEF and DF are beneficial for improving the sustainability of farmland ecosystems, the high price of EEF restricts their application to some extent [37]. There has been limited research comparing the effects of DF and EEF on crop yield, NUE, and N2O and NH3 emissions. A key question remains in that we do not know the different effects of DF and EEF on crop productivity and gaseous nitrogen losses, and, currently, there is limited research on this topic. For this reason, we collected 4463 pairs of experimental data from 371 published literature studies worldwide, using traditional fertilization as the control, that is, with a traditional fertilization depth and without the addition of inhibitors, and deep fertilization or the application of inhibitors as the treatment. Our aims were the following: (1) to evaluate the impact of EEF and DF on crop productivity and environmental sustainability; (2) to identify the driving factors that related to crop productivity and environmental sustainability under the use of EEF and DF strategies and to quantify the impact of these different factors; (3) to analyze and compare the advantages, disadvantages, and applicability of EEF and DF in the sustainable development of global farmland ecosystems and to determine the best management practices for the sustainable development of farmland ecosystems; (4) to deepen our understanding of EEF and DF strategies and provide a reference for global food security and climate change research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search and Study Selection

In this meta-analysis, we selected two management practices, namely EEF and DF, and retrieved data from articles published before March 2023 from the Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 10 March 2023)), Web of Science (http://apps.webofknowledge.com/ (accessed on 10 March 2023)), and China National Knowledge (https://www.cnki.net/ (accessed on 10 March 2023)) databases to explore the impact of enhanced efficiency fertilizer and deep fertilization on crop productivity and the environment. The keyword panels we selected were (i) “enhanced efficiency fertilizer”, “enhanced efficiency nitrogen”, “slow-release nitrogen”, “controlled-release nitrogen”, “nitrification inhibitors”, “urease inhibitors”, “deep fertilization”, “deep placement fertilizer”, “deep placement nitrogen”, “fertilization depth”, “urea deep placement” and (ii) “yield”, “nitrogen use efficiency”, “NUE”, “nitrous oxide”, “N2O”, “ammonia volatilization”, “NH3”, “reactive nitrogen”, “gaseous nitrogen”, “yield scaled- N2O emission”, “yield scaled-NH3 emission”.
An article had to meet the following conditions before being included in the database: (1) All the research must have been conducted on-site; (2) The experiment must have used ordinary urea or shallow fertilization as the control group and synergistic fertilizer or deep fertilization as the treatment group, and conducted paired comparisons; (3) The experimental data must include the average, standard deviation or standard error, and number of replicates of our target parameters (yield, NUE, N2O, or NH3). The distribution of studies using the enhanced efficiency fertilizer strategy and deep fertilization strategy included in the global meta-analysis are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Extraction

We extracted the mean, number of replicates, standard error, or standard deviation of the target parameters for each study’s control and treatment groups. If the article did not show the standard error or standard deviation, we assumed that the standard deviation was 10% of the average of the data. The data presented in the literature were directly obtained in tabular form. If presented in graphical form, we used GetData Graph Digitizer 2.26 (https://getdata-graph-digitizer.com/ (accessed on 16 September 2022)) to extract the data.
To investigate the key factors related to crop yield, NUE, and N2O and NH3 emissions, and to investigate the effects of EEF and DF, we recorded a series of environmental and experimental variables: location (longitude and latitude), climate (annual average temperature and precipitation), soil conditions (soil pH, total nitrogen, organic carbon, soil texture), and management practices (fertilizer type, fertilization depth, nitrogen application rate, crop type, etc.). For some missing information, we extracted MAT and MAP from WorldClim2.1 (https://www.worldclim.org/ (accessed on 7 January 2024)), and soil content from SoilGrid2.0 (https://soilgrids.org/ (accessed on 7 January 2024)). In addition, to further analyze the impact of different factors on the research parameters, we divided the climate, environmental variables, and management practice databases into sub databases (Table 1).
We collected the yield-scaled N2O emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission data from the article, or used Formulas (1) and (2) for the calculations.
Y i e l d   s c a l e d − N 2 O   e m i s s i o n = N 2 O C r o p   y i e l d
Y i e l d   s c a l e d − N H 3   e m i s s i o n = N H 3 C r o p   y i e l d

2.3. Data Analysis

The impact of EEF or DF on the yield, NUE, and N2O, and NH3 emissions was evaluated by calculating the natural logarithm of the response ratio. All the data conformed to a normal distribution (Figure S1). A linear mixed-effect model with the “rma.mv” function in the R4.1.1 package “metafor” was used to calculate the overall effect value. The mixed-effects model considers “study” and “observation” as random factors to ensure the independence of each observation. The percentage change in the treatment group [(elnR − 1) × 100%] represents the change result, where a positive result indicates an increase in the target parameter and a negative change indicates a decrease. The average effect and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the “metafor” function of the R4.1.1 package. If the 95% confidence interval did not include the value 0, it was considered that the effect of EEF and DF on the target parameters was significant. In analyzing different parameters (yield, NUE, N2O, yield-scaled N2O emission, NH3, yield-scaled NH3 emission), we divided DF and EEF into two groups. Significant heterogeneity between the groups meant a substantial difference in the average effect size between the DF and EEF groups. Please refer to Tables S1–S3 in the Supplementary Materials for the analysis results.
We used the mixed-effect regression model in the R4.1.1 package “glmulti” to select and analyze the most important predictive factors used to determine the impact of EEF or DF on the target parameters. The model selection was based on maximum-likelihood estimation. We considered the sum of Akaike weights predicted by the model as the importance of the predictive factors and used a critical value of 0.8 to distinguish between important and non-important predictive factors. Also, we included all available predictive factors (MAP, MAT, SOC, TN, pH, soil texture, latitude, crop species, fertilization type, fertilization depth, nitrogen rate) in the model’s selectable variables and used regression analysis to study the relationship between the ln R of the target variable and the variables.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Effect

EEF and DF significantly increased crop productivity and decreased gaseous nitrogen losses. The yield- and NUE-increase effects and gaseous nitrogen loss reduction effects under DF were more significant than those under EEF (Figure 2). Compared with the controlled treatments, EEF significantly increased the yield and NUE by 7.52% (95% CI: 6.27–8.80%) and 25.83% (95 CI: 20.47–31.44%), while DF significantly increased the yield and NUE by 13.88% (95 CI: 10.83–17.03%) and 36.27% (95 CI: 23.45–50.44%). In addition, DF increased the yield and NUE by 84.63% and 40.41% compared with EEF.
EEF significantly decreased N2O emissions and yield-scaled N2O emissions by 37.98% (95% CI: 32.63–42.91%) and 42.37% (95% CI: 40.25–44.49%), and DF significantly decreased them by 34.18% (95% CI: 16.32–48.23%) and 69.68% (95% CI: 29.78–52.71%). Compared with EEF, DF increased N2O emissions by 10.00% but decreased NH3 emissions by 64.47%.
Also, we discovered a significant decrease in yield-scaled N2O and yield-scaled NH3 emissions of 39.67% (95% CI: 25.85–59.14%) and 45.25% (95% CI: 53.34–83.79%) under EEF treatment. DF significantly decreased the yield-scaled N2O and yield-scaled NH3 emissions by 44.96% (95% CI: 33.49–45.29%) and 72.50% (95% CI: 30.52–56.85%). DF decreased the yield-scaled N2O and yield-scaled NH3 emissions by 64.47% and 60.23%, respectively, compared with EEF.

3.2. Effects of Climate Characteristics

MAT and MAP were significantly related to the yield- and NUE-increase effect, as well as to the gaseous nitrogen loss reduction effect (Figure 3). In terms of yield and NUE, when MAT > 10 °C or MAP > 400 mm, both EEF and DF significantly increased the yield and NUE. When MAT > 20 °C or MAP > 1200 mm, EEF and DF achieved the highest yield and NUE effects. The increase effects on the yield and NUE by EEF were 10.54% and 23.78% and those by DF were 25.53% and 45.92%, respectively, when MAT > 20 °C, and 10.54% and 32.15% under EEF and 17.13% and 57.90% under DF when MAP > 1200 mm. In addition, DF obtained the highest N2O emission-reduction effects of 56.96% when MAT was within 15–20 °C and 47.24% when MAP > 1200 mm. However, no significant differences were observed in the N2O emission and yield-scaled N2O emission under EEF and DF. DF significantly decreased the NH3 emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission by 81.49% and 86.32% when MAP was within 800–1200 mm, which was significantly lower than that seen with EEF.

3.3. Effects of Soil Properties

EEF and DF significantly increased the yield regardless of different soil properties, except for soil pH > 8 under DF conditions (Figure 4). The yield-increasing effects of EEF and DF rise with SOC. The effects of EEF remain relatively stable with pH, while those of DF decline as the pH increases. DF obtained the highest yield-increase effects when the soil TN > 2.1 g kg−1 (19.63%), pH < 6 (17.76%), and 20 g kg−1 < SOC < 30 g kg−1 (19.36%) compared with EEF (p < 0.05).
Both EEF and DF significantly increased the NUE, but no significant difference was observed in the NUE-increase effects under DF and EEF regardless of soil pH, SOC, and soil texture. DF significantly increased the NUE (78.82%, 95% CI: 53.08–108.86%) when 1.4 < TN < 2.1 g kg−1 compared with EEF (p < 0.05).
DF and EEF significantly decreased the N2O emission and yield-scaled N2O emission, but there was no significant difference between EEF and DF. DF obtained the highest N2O emission (45.40%, 95%CI: 14.18–65.26%) and yield-scaled N2O emission (66.07%, 95%CI: 36.93–81.75%) reduction effects when the soil texture was fine.
Regardless of soil properties, DF and EEF both reduced the NH3 emission and yield-scaled N2O emission. However, regardless of soil pH, there were no significant differences between EEF and DF on NH3 emission and SOC on yield-scaled NH3 emission. The NH3 emission (70.62%, 95% CI:55.01–80.81%) and yield-scaled NH3 emission (76.54%, 95% CI: 57.48–87.05%) reduction effects under DF were significantly higher than under EEF when 1.4 g kg−1 < TN < 2.1 g kg−1. In addition, the NH3 emission-reduction effects under DF were significantly higher than under EEF when 10 g kg−1 < SOC <20 g kg−1 and the soil texture was coarse.

3.4. Effects of Field Management Practices

DF and EEF significantly increased the yield and NUE regardless of the nitrogen application rate (Figure 5). When the nitrogen application rate was between 150–225 kg ha−1 and above 225 kg ha−1, the yield-increase effect of DF was significantly higher than that of EEF, with an increase of 97.66% and 109.45%, respectively. The yield-increase effects (14.82%, 95%CI: 10.77–19.02%) and NUE-increase effects (39.39%, 95%CI: 22.37–58.77%) were the highest under DF when the nitrogen rate was within 150–225 kg ha−1. EEF obtained the highest NUE-increase effects when the EEF species was an NI.
Regarding N2O and yield-scaled N2O emissions, there was no significant difference between DF and EEF, but DF obtained higher yield-scaled N2O emission-reduction effects than EEF (Figure 2, p > 0.05). When the fertilization depth reached more than 25 cm, the effect on N2O emission reduction was the best. The EEF combination of UI + NI obtained the highest N2O emission-reduction effects, but NIs obtained the highest yield-scaled N2O emission-reduction effect.
DF obtained higher NH3 emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission effects than EEF, regardless of field management practices. When the nitrogen application rate was within 225–300 kg ha−1 and above 300 kg ha−1, DF had the highest yield-scaled NH3 emissions of 85.13% and 92.38%, significantly higher than those under EEF. DF obtained the highest NH3 emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission-reduction effects when the fertilization depth was over 25 cm. There were no significant reduction effects on NH3 emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission when the EEF species was an NI.

3.5. Correlation Between Climate Characteristics, Soil Properties, Field Management Practices, Crop Productivity, and Gaseous Nitrogen Losses

From the perspective of climate characteristics, the increased effects on the yield and NUE and the reduction effects on N2O emission, yield-scaled N2O emission under EEF increased with an increase in MAT and MAP and decreased with an increase in latitude (Figure 6). However, the reduction effects on NH3 emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission decreased with an increase in MAP and MAT under EEF.
In terms of soil properties (Figure 7), under EEF conditions, the increase effect on the yield increased with an increase in SOC. However, the reduction effect on N2O emissions and N2O emissions per unit yield shows a trend of first decreasing and then increasing with the increase in SOC. The ln R of NH3 and yield-scaled NH3 emission under EEF and DF increased with soil pH. However, under EEF conditions, the ln R value of N2O emissions shows a trend of increasing and then decreasing with the increase in soil pH. The ln R of N2O, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O, and NH3 emission decreased with the increase in soil TN.
In terms of field management practices (Figure 8), the increasing effect on the yield under the DF condition first increased and then decreased with the increase in the nitrogen application rate. However, the reduction effect on N2O increased, and the reduction effect on yield-scaled NH3 emission decreased first and then increased. The increasing effect on the NUE under EEF decreased with the increase in the nitrogen application rate. The reduction effect on NH3 emission increased with the increase in fertilization depth.

3.6. Important Predictors

Model selection analysis showed that the most important factors related to the yield, NUE, and N2O and NH3 emission under EEF and DF were different (Figure 9). Overall, the fertilizer type was the most important factor related to the N2O, NH3, and yield-scaled N2O and NH3 emission under EEF. The nitrogen rate was the most important factor related to the N2O emission and yield-scaled N2O emission under DF, and the fertilization depth was the most important factor related to the NH3 emission and NUE under DF. The crop species and soil texture were the most important factors related to the yield under EEF, while under DF conditions, the main factors related to yield were latitude, soil TN, and soil pH.

4. Discussion

The results of this study, collected from across six continents worldwide, indicate that EEF and DF have high universal applicability in improving global crop productivity and reducing gaseous nitrogen loss. Our results again confirm that the 4R principle of EEF and DF can achieve higher economic benefits with lower environmental costs. DF significantly increased the crop yield and reduced NH3 volatilization compared with EEF. In addition, our research results indicated no significant difference in the role of EEF and DF in most climate, soil properties, and management practice situations. However, when MAT > 20 °C, TN > 2.1 g kg−1, pH < 6, and the nitrogen rate < 150 kg ha−1, the yield increase and emission-reduction effect of DF were significantly higher than those of EEF, indicating that DF is more beneficial than EEF globally.

4.1. General Effects of DF and EEF on Crop Productivity

Our research results indicated that EEF and DF can increase crop yield and NUE. However, DF has a stronger ability to improve crop productivity than EEF. In addition, EEF and DF can regulate the inorganic nitrogen content in the soil, which is important for absorption and utilization [38,39,40]. Rice mainly absorbs NH4+-N. Due to rice seedlings’ low nitrogen demand, a large amount of NH4+-N is lost after applying urea. UIs can inhibit the hydrolysis rate of urea for plant absorption and utilization [41,42]. NIs increase the NH4+-N content in the soil by inhibiting the conversion of NH4+-N to NO3−-N, which is used for crop absorption and utilization [43,44]. CRF uses physical coating materials to delay the release of nitrogen, matching the nitrogen demand during crop growth and improving crop yield and fertilizer utilization efficiency [45]. As the latitude increases, the ln R of EEF gradually decreases. The main reason for this phenomenon is that as the latitude increases, the global temperature and precipitation decrease [45], making it difficult for EEFs to function. This is consistent with our finding that ln R was significantly positively correlated with MAT and MAP.
On the other hand, good soil nutrient content helps promote root development, thereby increasing crop yield [46,47]. Interestingly, we found that DF has a stronger ability to improve yield and NUE than EEF. The main reason is that DF has a greater impact on soil root development than EEF. Although both EEF and DF can alter the inorganic nitrogen content in the soil to promote root development [48], EEF mainly changes the form of the nitrogen fertilizer. At the same time, DF includes the deep application of nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, and the combination of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer [48,49,50,51]. DF may have a greater impact on soil microbial activity in the root zone than EEF [52], which, to some extent, explains the stronger yield-increasing effect of DF compared with EEF. In addition, EEF generally adopts conventional fertilization methods, which involve spraying fertilizer on the surface and rotating it into the soil at shallow depths. At the same time, crop roots are mainly distributed in the soil at 0–60 cm depths. Surface nitrogen enrichment reduces root penetration [49]. Research has shown that moderate nitrogen deficiency can stimulate roots to penetrate deeper into the soil to explore nitrogen [53,54]. Deep fertilization can reduce the nitrogen content of the surface soil, increasing the nitrogen content of deep soil [55,56], thereby promoting root growth [51]. Our previous study also showed that DF can promote root development, delay leaf senescence, and improve nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency and crop yield [31].
Recent studies have also found that EEF and DF with nitrogen, phosphorus, or nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers can delay the senescence of post-flowering leaves and promote grain formation [57,58]. However, research has found that nitrogen and phosphorus play vital roles in regulating leaf senescence [59,60]. Therefore, DF delays leaf senescence by applying nitrogen and phosphorus, significantly increasing crop yield and nitrogen uptake and ultimately increasing NUE [31].

4.2. General Effects of DF and EEF on the Reduction of Gaseous Nitrogen

Our research results indicated that DF and EEF can significantly reduce NH3 and N2O emissions. This is because DF and EEF can maintain more nutrients in the root zone and reduce nitrogen environmental losses [61]. As for UIs, these mainly reduce the rate of urea decomposition by inhibiting urease activity in the soil [62], thereby reducing NH3 emissions. This study found that UIs’ NH3 emission-reduction ability was stronger than that of DF. This is because the urease inhibitor (NBPT) is a urea analogue that is converted into N-(n-butyl) phosphate tripamide in aerobic soil and binds at the urease site, thereby slowing down urea hydrolysis and reducing NH3 volatilization [22], which is a form of biochemical inhibition. However, DF reduces NH3 emissions by reducing the nitrogen content of near-surface soil, which involves physical suppression. In terms of NIs, these directly target soil ammonia monooxygenase, slowing down the conversion of NH3 to nitrite by microorganisms, which, in turn, is converted into NO3−, reducing N2O emissions [63]. Specifically, urea dissolves in the soil and quickly distributes in the soil, while positively charged NIs can adsorb on floating point soil colloids, effectively suppressing N2O emissions [64]. The regulatory mechanism of NIs leads to the loss of nitrogen in the form of NH3 volatilization [65]. In this study, it was discovered that NIs increase NH3 emissions. Although NIs have a slightly stronger ability to reduce N2O emissions than DF, DF has a significantly higher ability to reduce NH3 volatilization than NIs. The combination of NIs and UIs can, to some extent, compensate for the NI’s disadvantage in increasing NH3 emissions, significantly reducing NH3 and N2O emissions, but DF’s ability to reduce N2O is still considerably stronger than that of the UI + NI combination. In terms of CRU, this controls nitrogen release through physical barriers or polymer soil layers, thereby synchronizing plant nitrogen demand and fertilizer nitrogen supply. Although CRU has a slightly stronger N2O emission-reduction ability than DF, its NH3 emission-reduction ability is significantly weaker than that of DF. The main reason for this phenomenon is that the nitrogen release rate is influenced by external factors such as soil temperature, moderation, and pH [66,67]. In addition, the coating material of CRU is expensive, and the release kinetics of CRU are difficult to understand in specific soil environments and conditions [68], and it cannot directly respond to the nutritional needs of plants. Therefore, the emission-reduction effect of DF is stronger than that of EEF.
The following points will help to increase our understanding of this phenomenon. Firstly, the emission reduction by EEF mainly relies on chemical reactions to prevent urea hydrolysis or NH3 conversion. External factors often influence this chemical process. Some studies have reported that when the soil temperature increases, the inhibitory ability of NIs will sharply decrease, making it difficult to exert their inhibitory effects [64]. Nitrogen is the primary substrate for N2O production in NH3 [69]. After deep fertilization, the nitrogen content in the surface soil decreases, which, ultimately, reduces N2O and NH3 emissions [51]. Secondly, although EEF can prevent urea hydrolysis or NH3 conversion, the traditional fertilization depth is relatively shallow, and N2O and NH3 will quickly migrate and discharge upward after being produced in the soil, ultimately leading to the loss of gaseous nitrogen [70]. Previous studies report that the 7–15 cm soil layer is the central location for N2O production [71,72]. After deep application of fertilizers, the upward migration path length of N2O and NH3 is increased through physical means. During the migration process, N2O is reduced to N2 by various factors such as soil temperature, moisture, and O2 content, which significantly lowers N2O emissions [55,73]. Therefore, DF has fewer limiting factors in reducing gaseous nitrogen emissions, and its application advantages are stronger than those of EEF.
The yield-scaled N2O emission and yield-scaled NH3 emission are considered the primary economic yield benefits, and the environmental costs due to NH3 and N2O emissions as the leading yield indicators [74,75], which can be used to comprehensively evaluate the applicability of our management practices [76]. Our research results indicated that DF significantly reduces the yield-scaled N2O emission (64.47%) and yield-scaled NH3 emission (60.23%) compared with EEF, indicating that the environmental cost of producing the exact grain under DF is significantly lower than that under EEF. Therefore, DF’s potential to reduce the social cost of nitrogen pollution is higher than that of EEF, which has excellent potential for application globally.

4.3. Conditions in Which the DF Strategy More Beneficial than the EEF Strategy

Climate factors (MAP and MAT) regulate the effects of EEF and DF on crop productivity and gaseous nitrogen emissions. The impact of EEF on yield and NUE is not related to MAP and MAT, but DF is significantly associated with them. This phenomenon may be due to their different mechanisms in increasing production and NUE.EEF mainly regulates nitrogen release rate through biochemical means to retain more nitrogen in the soil to match crop growth patterns [77,78], especially CRU [79], so it is less related to MAT and MAP. When MAP and MAT increase or decrease, changes in the soil moisture, nutrients, and microbial activity can affect the efficacy of EEF [80], thereby regulating the yield and NUE. However, the yield-increasing effect of EEF is relatively stable. The increase in yield under the DF condition is due to the better absorption of nutrients by the root system, which, ultimately, leads to an increase in yield and NUE [81,82,83,84]. Various factors influence deep fertilization, such as the degree of matching between the fertilization depth and root distribution [84], the loss of nitrogen in the form of NH3 and N2O volatilization when fertilization is shallow [38], and the possibility of nitrogen leaching during the rainy season. As reported by Wang et al. [56], the optimal fertilization depth for wheat is significantly affected by the amount of irrigation during its growth period. This study found that when MAT < 10 °C and MAP < 400 mm, the improvement effect of DF on the yield and NUE was not as good as that of EEF. EEF mainly reduces NH3 or N2O emissions by regulating soil nitrification and denitrification processes [85], which are significantly influenced by water and temperature. We found that EEF is more related to MAT and MAP when reducing NH3 emissions than N2O emissions, which may be influenced by the inhibitor type [86]. In most cases, the emission-reduction effect of DF on NH3 emission is significantly higher than that of EEF, as NIs can reduce N2O emission but increase NH3 emission. Although DF is affected by MAP and MAT and shows instability, its yield-increasing and emission-reducing effects are more potent than EEF’s.
The physical and chemical properties of soil are significantly related to the yield-increase and emission-reduction effects of EEF and DF due to their influence on the transformation process of nitrogen in the soil [87,88]. Our research results indicated that under most soil properties, such as 0.7 g kg−1 < TN < 1.4 g kg−1, pH < 6, and 20 g kg−1 < SOC < 30 g kg−1, the yield-increase effect of DF was significantly higher than that of EEF. In addition, DF has a stronger ability to reduce N2O and NH3 emissions than EEF, indicating that DF will have significant space for application in the future and can help alleviate global climate change.
Field management practices significantly affect crop yield and gaseous nitrogen emissions [89,90]. Overall, DF caused a greater increase in yield and NUE than EEF. Still, EEF’s yield-increase effect was relatively stable, and management practices significantly influenced DF. In this study, we discovered that the effects of DF and EEF on crop yield are unrelated to the three primary crop types (wheat, maize, and rice) and can all improve crop yield. However, the impact of EEF on potato and cotton yields was relatively small, mainly because wheat, maize, and rice are the main food crops, and a large amount of sample data is available. The different nitrogen application rates, fertilization depths, and inhibitor types had no significant impact on the EEF and DF yield increase, indicating that under most field management measures, EEF and DF can achieve the goal of increasing crop yield. The yield increase under the EEF condition was directly proportional to the increase in fertilizer application [91,92]. The application of EEF in this study reduced the loss of gaseous nitrogen, ensured that more nitrogen was retained in the soil for crop absorption and utilization, and ultimately improved crop yield. However, our research results further indicated that when the nitrogen application rate was <225 kg ha−1, the yield increase from DF was significantly higher than that from EEF. However, when the nitrogen application rate was high, there was a risk of nitrogen leaching in the DF strategy [31,56], and there was no significant difference in yield between DF and EEF. We must point out that different fertilization depths significantly affect the NUE. Nitrogen is lost in the form of gaseous nitrogen when applied close to the soil surface, and there is also a risk of nitrogen leaching when applied too deep into the soil. Previous research has suggested that the depth of fertilization should not exceed 15 cm to better utilize fertilizers and to increase crop yields. Therefore, this study obtained the highest NUE when the fertilization depth was 5 cm < FD < 15 cm. However, recent research findings suggest that fertilization at a depth of 25 cm may achieve the highest yield and NUE [38,56]. Therefore, from the perspective of overall production and NUE, DF is more beneficial than EEF under different management practices.
The loss of gaseous nitrogen significantly impacts different agricultural management practices. It is worth noting that when the EEF type is a nitrification inhibitor, it may increase NH3 volatilization, mainly because NIs selectively inhibit the activity of soil nitrifying microorganisms, slowing down the conversion of ammonium nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen in the soil. However, ammonium nitrogen is the substrate for NH3 volatilization, and the higher the amount of ammonium nitrogen in the soil, the greater the nitrogen loss, which is mainly manifested as NH3 volatilization. Therefore, a more critical fertilizer management strategy in the future is to combine NIs and UIs [91]. In addition, we found that DF significantly reduced NH3 emissions, and the deeper the fertilization depth, the more the NH3 emissions were reduced due to the downward transfer of ammonium nitrogen in the soil [38]. Therefore, overall, DF is more beneficial than EEF in reducing NH3 and N2O emissions, and DF’s emission-reduction potential is higher than that of EEF.

4.4. Limitations and Implications

Our research results indicate that both DF and EEF can achieve a win–win goal regarding economic and environmental benefits. However, DF increases production and reduces emissions more significantly compared with EEF, so it may be more conducive to sustainable global agricultural ecosystem development. EEF mainly includes NIs (nitrification inhibitors), UIs (urease inhibitors), and coated urea. These three inhibitors are all chemical reagents with complex production processes and high costs. Although specific yield and emission-reduction effects have been achieved under EEF, farmers rarely use this technology due to its high production costs. Therefore, subsidies are needed to encourage farmers to adopt EEF technology. With the increasing level of global agricultural mechanization, traditional manual spraying has been transformed into mechanical fertilization in most regions. Deep fertilization is very easy to achieve and has excellent potential for adoption. Therefore, the DF strategy has more potential for large-scale promotion than EEF.

5. Conclusions

This study established a global database on EEF and DF, aiming to compare their impact on the economic and ecological benefits of agricultural ecosystems. We concluded that DF is more beneficial than EEF in increasing crop productivity and decreasing gaseous nitrogen emissions. The results indicated that the nitrogen application rate, fertilizer type, and fertilization depth are the most important factors affecting DF and EEF. Both DF and EEF can increase the yield and NUE by reducing NH3 and N2O emissions. However, DF has a stronger potential for increasing the yield and reducing NH3 emissions than EEF. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that DF serves as a good substitute for EEF and can be applied globally to improve agricultural ecosystems’ economic and ecological benefits.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15051103/s1, Figure S1: Frequency distribution of the response ratios of (a) yield, (b) nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), (c) N2O emission, and (d) NH3 volatilization from using the enhanced efficiency fertilizer strategy and deep fertilization strategy compared with traditional farmers’ practices (common urea and shallow fertilization). The solid line represents the fitted normal (Gaussian) distribution of the frequency dataset; Table S1: Significance of between-group heterogeneity for DF strategy and EEF on yield, NUE, N2O, yield scaled N2O emission, NH3, and yield scaled NH3 emission; Table S2: Significance of between-group heterogeneity for DF strategy and EEF on yield, NUE, N2O yield-scaled N2O emission, NH3, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different climate condition groupings; Table S3. Significance of intergroup heterogeneity of DF strategy and EEF on yield, NUE, N2O, yield-scaled N2O emission, NH3, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different soil property groups; Table S4. Significance of between-group heterogeneity for DF strategy and EEF on yield, NUE, N2O, yield-scaled N2O emission, NH3, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different management practice groupings.

Author Contributions

Q.W. (Qi Wu): Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; H.H.: Data curation, Software, Supervision, Visualization; Q.W. (Qinhe Wang): Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Visualization; Z.L.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization; R.P.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Supervision; G.W.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software; J.F.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software; H.W.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software; P.Z.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review and editing; Z.G.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review and editing; C.W.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing; P.W.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a key lab construction project of Shanxi Province (Z135050009017-1-8), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32401970), the Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2024M751915), the Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (202203021222148), The College Students Innovation Training Program of Shanxi Agricultural University (S202410113002), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFD1900503), the Doctoral Research Starting Project at Shanxi Agricultural University (2023BQ26), the Award Scientific Program for Excellent Doctors in Shanxi Province (SXBYKY2023008), and the Major Special Project of Shanxi Province—Research on and demonstration of key technologies of green, high quality, and high efficiency production of dry farmland in Shanxi Province (202301140601014-6).

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare that we have no commercial or associated interests that might represent a conflict of interest regarding the work submitted.

References

  1. Wang, F.; Harindintwali, J.D.; Wei, K.; Shan, Y.; Mi, Z.; Costello, M.J.; Grunwald, S.; Feng, Z.; Wang, F.; Guo, Y.; et al. Climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation. Innov. Geosci. 2023, 1, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xia, L.; Yan, X. Maximizing Earth’s feeding capacity. Nat. Food 2023, 4, 353–354. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. 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] [PubMed]
  4. Reay, D.S.; Davidson, E.A.; Smith, K.A.; Smith, P.; Melillo, J.M.; Dentener, F.; Crutzen, P.J. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 2012, 2, 410–416. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tian, H.; Xu, R.; Canadell, J.G.; Thompson, R.L.; Winiwarter, W.; Suntharalingam, P.; Davidson, E.A.; Ciais, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 2020, 586, 248–256. [Google Scholar]
  6. Xu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Wen, Z.; Chang, Y.; Pan, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ma, X.; Sha, Z.; Li, Z.; Kang, J.; et al. Increasing importance of ammonia emission abatement in PM(2.5) pollution control. Sci. Bull. 2022, 67, 1745–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lelieveld, J.; Evans, J.S.; Fnais, M.; Giannadaki, D.; Pozzer, A. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature 2015, 525, 367–371. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lu, L.; Yuan, L.; Cai, Z.; Fu, J.; Wu, G. Emission inventory and distribution characteristics of NH3 from agricultural fertilizers in Hunan, China, from 2012 to 2021. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2025, 16, 102479. [Google Scholar]
  9. Song, Y.; Tan, M.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, P.; Mu, Y. Effect of fertilizer deep placement and nitrification inhibitor on N2O, NO, HONO, and NH3 emissions from a maize field in the North China Plain. Atmos. Environ. 2024, 334, 120684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xia, L.; Lam, S.K.; Chen, D.; Wang, J.; Tang, Q.; Yan, X. Can knowledge-based N management produce more staple grain with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pollution? A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 1917–1925. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gu, K.; Gao, K.; Guan, S.; Zhao, J.; Yang, L.; Liu, M.; Su, J. The impact of the combined application of biochar and organic fertilizer on the growth and nutrient distribution in wheat under reduced chemical fertilizer conditions. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 5285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, J.; He, W.; Wei, Z.; Chen, Y.; Gao, W. Integrating green manure and fertilizer reduction strategies to enhance soil carbon sequestration and crop yield: Evidence from a two-season pot experiment. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2025, 8, 1514409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shen, X.; Liu, J.; Liu, L.; Zeleke, K.; Yi, R.; Zhang, X.; Gao, Y.; Liang, Y. Effects of irrigation and nitrogen topdressing on water and nitrogen use efficiency for winter wheat with micro-sprinkling hose irrigation in North China. Agric. Agric. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 302, 109005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, J.; Pan, Y.; Wang, W.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, Z.; Cao, Q.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, X.; et al. Potential benefits of variable rate nitrogen topdressing strategy coupled with zoning technique: A case study in a town-scale rice production system. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 155, 127132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cai, S.; Zhao, X.; Pittelkow, C.M.; Fan, M.; Zhang, X.; Yan, X. Optimal nitrogen rate strategy for sustainable rice production in China. Nature 2023, 615, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, Y.; Chen, X.; Ren, H.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, B.; Ren, B.; Liu, P. Deep nitrogen fertilizer placement improves the yield of summer maize (Zea mays L.) by enhancing its photosynthetic performance after silking. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wakeel, A.; Qadeer, A.; Bano, Z.; Shahid, M.R.; Rizwan, M.; Kiran, A.; Sanaullah, M.; Aziz, T.; Rees, R.M.; Bhatia, A.; et al. Managing Fertilizer Rates and Tillage Depth to Improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Soil Health. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2025, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guo, J.; Yang, H.; Yuan, Y.; Yin, P.; Zhang, N.; Lin, Z.; Ma, Q.; Yang, Q.; Liu, X.; Wang, H.; et al. Blending of Slow-Release N Fertilizer and Urea Improve Rainfed Maize Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency While Reducing Apparent N Losses. Agronomy 2025, 15, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lam, S.K.; Wille, U.; Hu, H.-W.; Caruso, F.; Mumford, K.; Liang, X.; Pan, B.; Malcolm, B.; Roessner, U.; Suter, H.; et al. Next-generation enhanced-efficiency fertilizers for sustained food security. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Trenkel, M.E. Slow-and Controlled-Release and Stabilized Fertilizers: An Option for Enhancing Nutrient Use Effiiency in Agriculture; International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA): Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu, H.-W.; Chen, D.; He, J.-Z. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: Understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 729–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cantarella, H.; Otto, R.; Soares, J.R.; de Brito Silva, A.G. Agronomic efficiency of NBPT as a urease inhibitor: A review. J. Adv. Res. 2018, 13, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wang, C.; Song, S.; Du, L.; Yang, Z.; Liu, Y.; He, Z.; Zhou, C.; Li, P. Nutrient controlled release performance of bio-based coated fertilizer enhanced by synergistic effects of liquefied starch and siloxane. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 236, 123994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhao, Z.; Wu, D.; Bol, R.; Shi, Y.; Guo, Y.; Meng, F.; Wu, W. Nitrification inhibitor’s effect on mitigating N2O emissions was weakened by urease inhibitor in calcareous soils. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 166, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ju, X.; Xing, G.; Chen, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, X.; Cui, Z.; Yin, B.; Christie, P.; Zhu, Z.; et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 3041–3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, C.; Song, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, D.; Rees, R.M.; Ju, X. Using nitrification inhibitors and deep placement to tackle the trade-offs between NH3 and N2O emissions in global croplands. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 4409–4422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Qiao, Y.; Yue, G.; Mo, X.; Zhang, L.; Sun, S. Controlled-release urea derived from various coating materials on the impacts of maize production: A meta-analysis. Ind. Crops Prod. 2025, 225, 120485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, M.; He, P.; Fan, D.; Jiang, R.; Zou, G.; Song, D.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; He, W. Trade-offs between agronomic and environmental benefits: A comparison of inhibitors with controlled release fertilizers in global maize systems. Field Crops Res. 2025, 323, 109768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. LÜ, H.; Wang, X.; Pan, Z.; Zhao, S. Assessment of the crucial factors influencing the responses of ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions to controlled release nitrogen fertilizer: A meta-analysis. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, 22, 3549–3559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, C.; Pang, S.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Ma, R.; Lin, X.; Wang, D. Nitrogen losses trade-offs through layered fertilization to improve nitrogen nutrition status and net economic benefit in wheat-maize rotation system. Field Crops Res. 2024, 312, 109406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, P.; Liu, F.; Chen, G.; Wang, J.; Huang, F.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. Can deep fertilizer application enhance maize productivity by delaying leaf senescence and decreasing nitrate residue levels? Field Crops Res. 2022, 277, 108417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yao, Y.; Zhang, M.; Tian, Y.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, M.; Zeng, K.; Yin, B. Urea deep placement for minimizing NH3 loss in an intensive rice cropping system. Field Crops Res. 2018, 218, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Nie, L.; Ashraf, U.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, T.; Tian, H.; Hamoud, Y.A.; Tang, X.; et al. Deep placement of nitrogen fertilizer increases rice yield and energy production efficiency under different mechanical rice production systems. Field Crops Res. 2022, 276, 108359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharifi, S.; Shi, S.; Obaid, H.; Dong, X.; He, X. Differential Effects of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization Rates and Fertilizer Placement Methods on P Accumulations in Maize. Plants 2024, 13, 1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wu, P.; Wu, Q.; Huang, H.; Xie, L.; An, H.; Zhao, X.; Wang, F.; Gao, Z.; Zhang, R.; Bangura, K.; et al. Global meta-analysis and three-year field experiment shows that deep placement of fertilizer can enhance crop productivity and decrease gaseous nitrogen losses. Field Crops Res. 2024, 307, 109263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maaz, T.M.; Sapkota, T.B.; Eagle, A.J.; Kantar, M.B.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Majumdar, K. Meta-analysis of yield and nitrous oxide outcomes for nitrogen management in agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 2343–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dillon, J.L.; Anderson, J.G. The Analysis of Response in Crop and Livestock Production; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, P.; Liu, F.; Li, H.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. Suitable fertilizer application depth can increase nitrogen use efficiency and maize yield by reducing gaseous nitrogen losses. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 781, 146787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ren, B.; Huang, Z.; Liu, P.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, J. Urea ammonium nitrate solution combined with urease and nitrification inhibitors jointly mitigate NH3 and N2O emissions and improves nitrogen efficiency of summer maize under fertigation. Field Crops Res. 2023, 296, 108909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cui, P.; Sheng, X.; Chen, Z.; Ning, Q.; Zhang, H.; Lu, H.; Zhang, H. Optimizing One-Time Nitrogen Fertilization for Rice Production Using Controlled-Release Urea and Urease Inhibitors. Agronomy 2024, 14, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lan, T.; He, X.; Wang, Q.; Deng, O.; Zhou, W.; Luo, L.; Chen, G.; Zeng, J.; Yuan, S.; Zeng, M.; et al. Synergistic effects of biological nitrification inhibitor, urease inhibitor, and biochar on NH3 volatilization, N leaching, and nitrogen use efficiency in a calcareous soil–wheat system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 174, 104412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ni, K.; Vietinghoff, M.; Pacholski, A. Targeting yield and reducing nitrous oxide emission by use of single and double inhibitor treated urea during winter wheat season in Northern Germany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 347, 108391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Min, J.; Sun, H.; Kronzucker, H.J.; Wang, Y.; Shi, W. Comprehensive assessment of the effects of nitrification inhibitor application on reactive nitrogen loss in intensive vegetable production systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 307, 107227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peixoto, L.; Petersen, S.O. Efficacy of three nitrification inhibitors to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from pig slurry and mineral fertilizers applied to spring barley and winter wheat in Denmark. Geoderma Reg. 2023, 32, e00597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, G.-H.; Cheng, G.-G.; Lu, W.-P.; Lu, D.-L. Differences of yield and nitrogen use efficiency under different applications of slow-release fertilizer in spring maize. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 554–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thorup-Kristensen, K.; Dresbøll, D.B.; Kristensen, H.L. Crop yield, root growth, and nutrient dynamics in a conventional and three organic cropping systems with different levels of external inputs and N re-cycling through fertility building crops. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 37, 66–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, X.; Li, H.; Rengel, Z.; Whalley, W.R.; Li, H.; Zhang, F.; Shen, J.; Jin, K. Localized nutrient supply can facilitate root proliferation and increase nitrogen-use efficiency in compacted soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 215, 105198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, X.; Liu, P.; Zhao, B.; Zhang, J.; Ren, B.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z. Root physiological adaptations that enhance the grain yield and nutrient use efficiency of maize (Zea mays L) and their dependency on phosphorus placement depth. Field Crops Res. 2022, 276, 108378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cheng, Y.; Wang, H.; Liu, P.; Dong, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, B.; Ren, B. Nitrogen placement at sowing affects root growth, grain yield formation, N use efficiency in maize. Plant Soil 2020, 457, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, G.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Y.; Ren, L.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. How do different fertilization depths affect the growth, yield, and nitrogen use efficiency in rain-fed summer maize? Field Crops Res. 2023, 290, 108759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.; Guo, Q.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Cai, T.; Jia, Z. Sustainable nitrogen placement depth under different rainfall levels can enhance crop productivity and maintain the nitrogen balance in winter wheat fields. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 233, 105817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fan, D.; Liu, T.; Sheng, F.; Li, S.; Cao, C.; Li, C. Nitrogen deep placement mitigates methane emissions by regulating methanogens and methanotrophs in no-tillage paddy fields. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 711–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mi, G.; Chen, F.; Wu, Q.; Lai, N.; Yuan, L.; Zhang, F. Ideotype root architecture for efficient nitrogen acquisition by maize in intensive cropping systems. Sci. China Life Sci. 2010, 53, 1369–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Liao, Z.; Zeng, H.; Fan, J.; Lai, Z.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, F.; Wang, H.; Cheng, M.; Guo, J.; Li, Z.; et al. Effects of plant density, nitrogen rate and supplemental irrigation on photosynthesis, root growth, seed yield and water-nitrogen use efficiency of soybean under ridge-furrow plastic mulching. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 268, 107688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, P.; Chen, G.; Liu, F.; Cai, T.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. How does deep-band fertilizer placement reduce N2O emissions and increase maize yields? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, Y.; Guo, Q.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Cai, T.; Jia, Z. Optimizing urea deep placement to rainfall can maximize crop water-nitrogen productivity and decrease nitrate leaching in winter wheat. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guo, J.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F.; Yan, S.; Zheng, J.; Wu, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, X.; Liu, X.; et al. Blending urea and slow-release nitrogen fertilizer increases dryland maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency while mitigating ammonia volatilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148058. [Google Scholar]
  58. Chen, G.; Cai, T.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Ren, L.; Wu, P.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. Suitable Fertilizer Application Depth Enhances the Efficient Utilization of Key Resources and Improves Crop Productivity in Rainfed Farmland on the Loess Plateau, China. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 900352. [Google Scholar]
  59. Netzer, F.; Pozzi, L.; Dubbert, D.; Herschbach, C. Improved photosynthesis and growth of poplar during nitrogen fertilization is accompanied by phosphorus depletion that indicates phosphorus remobilization from older stem tissues. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 162, 421–432. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shu, Y.; Huang, G.; Zhang, Q.; Peng, S.; Li, Y. Reduction of photosynthesis under P deficiency is mainly caused by the decreased CO2 diffusional capacities in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 198, 107680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cheng, Y.; Elrys, A.S.; Wang, J.; Xu, C.; Ni, K.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Cai, Z.; Pacholski, A. Application of enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizers reduces mineral nitrogen usage and emissions of both N2O and NH3 while sustaining yields in a wheat-rice rotation system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 324, 107720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sunling, Y.; Shahzad, A.; Wang, M.; Xi, Y.; Shaik, M.R.; Khan, M. Urease and nitrification inhibitors with drip fertigation strategies to mitigate global warming potential and improve water-nitrogen efficiency of maize under semi-arid regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 295, 108750. [Google Scholar]
  63. Friedl, J.; Scheer, C.; Rowlings, D.W.; Deltedesco, E.; Gorfer, M.; De Rosa, D.; Grace, P.R.; Müller, C.; Keiblinger, K.M. Effect of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) on N-turnover, the N2O reductase-gene nosZ and N2O:N2 partitioning from agricultural soils. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Irigoyen, I.; Muro, J.; Azpilikueta, M.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.; Lamsfus, C. Ammonium oxidation kinetics in the presence of nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP at various temperatures. Soil Res. 2003, 41, 1177–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lan, T.; Huang, Y.; Song, X.; Deng, O.; Zhou, W.; Luo, L.; Tang, X.; Zeng, J.; Chen, G.; Gao, X. Biological nitrification inhibitor co-application with urease inhibitor or biochar yield different synergistic interaction effects on NH3 volatilization, N leaching, and N use efficiency in a calcareous soil under rice cropping. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 293, 118499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Batov, D.V.; Ivanov, E.V.; Smirnova, N.L.; Kustov, A.V. Temperature-dependent enthalpy parameters of the molecular interaction for urea and tetramethylurea as solutes in formamide, ethylene glycol and water. J. Mol. Liq. 2023, 370, 121026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, H.; Liang, H.; Xing, L.; Ding, W.; Geng, Z.; Xu, C. Cellulose-based slow-release nitrogen fertilizers: Synthesis, properties, and effects on pakchoi growth. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 244, 125413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fujii, S.; Yusa, S.-i.; Nakamura, Y. Stimuli-Responsive Liquid Marbles: Controlling Structure, Shape, Stability, and Motion. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2016, 26, 7206–7223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bi, S.; Luo, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, P.; Yu, C.; Liu, Z.; Peng, X.-L. Fate of fertilizer nitrogen and residual nitrogen in paddy soil in Northeast China. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, 22, 3535–3548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wu, P.; Yu, J.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Z.; Huang, H.; Wu, Q.; Ren, L.; Zhang, G.; Liu, E.; Bangura, K.; et al. Deep placement of controlled-release and common urea achieves the win–win of enhancing maize productivity and decreasing environmental pollution. Eur. J. Agron. 2025, 164, 127484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Xiong, Z.; Khalil, M.; Xing, G.; Shearer, M.J.; Butenhoff, C. Isotopic signatures and concentration profiles of nitrous oxide in a rice-based ecosystem during the drained crop-growing season. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2009, 114, 1573659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nan, W.; Yue, S.; Li, S.; Huang, H.; Shen, Y. Characteristics of N2O production and transport within soil profiles subjected to different nitrogen application rates in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 542, 864–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kuang, W.; Gao, X.; Tenuta, M.; Gui, D.; Zeng, F. Relationship between soil profile accumulation and surface emission of N2O: Effects of soil moisture and fertilizer nitrogen. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2019, 55, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, B.; Huang, W.; Elsgaard, L.; Yang, B.; Li, Z.; Yang, H.; Lu, Y. Optimal biochar amendment rate reduced the yield-scaled N2O emissions from Ultisols in an intensive vegetable field in South China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zhang, X.; Zou, T.; Lassaletta, L.; Mueller, N.D.; Tubiello, F.N.; Lisk, M.D.; Lu, C.; Conant, R.T.; Dorich, C.D.; Gerber, J.; et al. Quantification of global and national nitrogen budgets for crop production. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kim, D.-G.; Giltrap, D.; Sapkota, T.B. Understanding response of yield-scaled N2O emissions to nitrogen input: Data synthesis and introducing new concepts of background yield-scaled N2O emissions and N2O emission-yield curve. Field Crops Res. 2023, 290, 108737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lyu, X.; Wang, T.; Ma, Z.; Zhao, C.; Siddique, K.H.; Ju, X. Enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers maintain yields and mitigate global warming potential in an intensified spring wheat system. Field Crops Res. 2019, 244, 107624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lyu, X.; Wang, T.; Song, X.; Zhao, C.; Rees, R.M.; Liu, Z.; Xiaotang, J.; Siddique, K.H. Reducing N2O emissions with enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers (EENFs) in a high-yielding spring maize system. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 273, 116422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ma, Q.; Qian, Y.; Yu, Q.; Cao, Y.; Tao, R.; Zhu, M.; Ding, J.; Li, C.; Guo, W.; Zhu, X. Controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer application mitigated N losses and modified microbial community while improving wheat yield and N use efficiency. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 349, 108445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Guardia, G.; Abalos, D.; Mateo-Marín, N.; Nair, D.; Petersen, S.O. Using DMPP with cattle manure can mitigate yield-scaled global warming potential under low rainfall conditions. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 316, 120679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, P.; Yan, H.; Xu, S.; Lin, X.; Wang, W.; Wang, D. Moderately deep banding of phosphorus enhanced winter wheat yield by improving phosphorus availability, root spatial distribution, and growth. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 220, 105388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wu, P.; Liu, F.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chen, G.; Huang, F.; Ahmad, S.; Zhang, P.; et al. Suitable fertilization depth can improve the water productivity and maize yield by regulating development of the root system. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 271, 107784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, C.; Yan, H.; Wang, W.; Han, R.; Li, Z.; Lin, X.; Wang, D. Layered application of phosphate fertilizer increased winter wheat yield by promoting root proliferation and phosphorus accumulation. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 225, 105546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Guo, Q.; Zhang, P.; Cai, T.; Jia, Z. Adopting nitrogen deep placement based on different simulated precipitation year types enhance wheat yield and resource utilization by promoting photosynthesis capacity. Field Crops Res. 2023, 294, 108862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Duff, A.M.; Forrestal, P.; Ikoyi, I.; Brennan, F. Assessing the long-term impact of urease and nitrification inhibitor use on microbial community composition, diversity and function in grassland soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 170, 108709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fan, D.; He, W.; Smith, W.N.; Drury, C.F.; Jiang, R.; Grant, B.B.; Shi, Y.; Song, D.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; et al. Global evaluation of inhibitor impacts on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2022, 28, 5121–5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Volpi, I.; Laville, P.; Bonari, E.; o di Nasso, N.N.; Bosco, S. Improving the management of mineral fertilizers for nitrous oxide mitigation: The effect of nitrogen fertilizer type, urease and nitrification inhibitors in two different textured soils. Geoderma 2017, 307, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yang, R.; Yang, Z.; Yang, S.; Chen, L.; Xin, J.; Xu, L.; Zhang, X.; Zhai, B.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, W.; et al. Nitrogen inhibitors improve soil ecosystem multifunctionality by enhancing soil quality and alleviating microbial nitrogen limitation. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 880, 163238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ashiq, W.; Vasava, H.; Cheema, M.; Dunfield, K.; Daggupati, P.; Biswas, A. Interactive role of topography and best management practices on N2O emissions from agricultural landscape. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 212, 105063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, F.; Ma, X.; Gao, X.; Cao, H.; Liu, F.; Wang, J.; Guo, G.; Liang, T.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; et al. Innovative nitrogen management strategy reduced N2O emission while maintaining high pepper yield in subtropical condition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 354, 108565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Adeli, A.; Yan, H. Effects of application methods and urea rates on ammonia volatilization, yields and fine root biomass of alfalfa. Field Crops Res. 2018, 218, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, Y.; Gu, X.; Li, Y.; Fang, H.; Chen, P. Ridge-furrow mulching combined with appropriate nitrogen rate for enhancing photosynthetic efficiency, yield and water use efficiency of summer maize in a semi-arid region of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 287, 108450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 01103 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of studies using the enhanced efficiency fertilizer strategy and deep fertilization strategy included in the meta-analysis.
Figure 1. Distribution of studies using the enhanced efficiency fertilizer strategy and deep fertilization strategy included in the meta-analysis.
Agronomy 15 01103 g001
Agronomy 15 01103 g002
Figure 2. Percent change effects by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer management practices on yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Percent change effects by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer management practices on yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g002
Agronomy 15 01103 g003
Figure 3. Percent changes caused by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different climate conditions. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Percent changes caused by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different climate conditions. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g003
Agronomy 15 01103 g004
Figure 4. Percent changes caused by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different soil properties. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Percent changes caused by deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different soil properties. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g004
Agronomy 15 01103 g005
Figure 5. Percent changes due to deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different management practices. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 5. Percent changes due to deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilizer in the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under different management practices. “*” indicates the significance of the heterogeneity test between DF and EEF, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g005
Agronomy 15 01103 g006
Figure 6. Relationships between the climate factor and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 6. Relationships between the climate factor and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g006
Agronomy 15 01103 g007
Figure 7. Relationships between the soil properties and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 7. Relationships between the soil properties and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g007
Agronomy 15 01103 g008
Figure 8. Relationships between the management practices and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Figure 8. Relationships between the management practices and the ln R of the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices. “*” indicates its significance, where “*” represents p < 0.05, “**” represents p < 0.01, and “***” represents p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 01103 g008
Agronomy 15 01103 g009
Figure 9. Model selection analysis based on random meta-forest, which predicted the most important predictors that exceeded the 0.8 sum-of-Akaike-weights cutoff for the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices.
Figure 9. Model selection analysis based on random meta-forest, which predicted the most important predictors that exceeded the 0.8 sum-of-Akaike-weights cutoff for the yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), N2O emission, NH3 emission, yield-scaled N2O emission, and yield-scaled NH3 emission under deep fertilization and enhanced efficiency fertilization management practices.
Agronomy 15 01103 g009
Table 1. Specific classification and number of data pairs for each subgroup. MAT and MAP represent the mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation; TN and SOC represent the total soil nitrogen and soil organic carbon, respectively; UI, NI, and CRU represent urease inhibitor, nitrification inhibitor, and controlled-release nitrogen, respectively.
Table 1. Specific classification and number of data pairs for each subgroup. MAT and MAP represent the mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation; TN and SOC represent the total soil nitrogen and soil organic carbon, respectively; UI, NI, and CRU represent urease inhibitor, nitrification inhibitor, and controlled-release nitrogen, respectively.
Categorical VariablesGroups
Climate factorMAT (°C)<55–1010–1515–20>20
MAP (mm)<400400–800800–1200>1200
Soil factorTN (g·kg−1)<0.70.7–1.41.4–2.1>2.1
pH<66–77–8>8
SOC (g·kg−1)<1010–2020–30>30
Soil textureFineMediumCoarse
Management practice factorNitrogen rate (kg·ha−1)<150150–225225–300>300
Fertilizer typeUINIUI + NICRU
Fertilization depth (cm)<55–1515–25>25
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, Q.; Huang, H.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Z.; Pei, R.; Wen, G.; Feng, J.; Wang, H.; Zhang, P.; Gao, Z.; et al. Deep Fertilization Is More Beneficial than Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer on Crop Productivity and Environmental Cost: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051103

AMA Style

Wu Q, Huang H, Wang Q, Liu Z, Pei R, Wen G, Feng J, Wang H, Zhang P, Gao Z, et al. Deep Fertilization Is More Beneficial than Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer on Crop Productivity and Environmental Cost: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis. Agronomy. 2025; 15(5):1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051103

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Qi, Hua Huang, Qinhe Wang, Zeyu Liu, Runzhuo Pei, Guosheng Wen, Jinghui Feng, Hao Wang, Peng Zhang, Zhiqiang Gao, and et al. 2025. "Deep Fertilization Is More Beneficial than Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer on Crop Productivity and Environmental Cost: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis" Agronomy 15, no. 5: 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051103

APA Style

Wu, Q., Huang, H., Wang, Q., Liu, Z., Pei, R., Wen, G., Feng, J., Wang, H., Zhang, P., Gao, Z., Wang, C., & Wu, P. (2025). Deep Fertilization Is More Beneficial than Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer on Crop Productivity and Environmental Cost: Evidence from a Global Meta-Analysis. Agronomy, 15(5), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15051103

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop