Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Groundwater Microbial Community Composition and Environmental Response in the Yimuquan Aquifer, North China Plain
Previous Article in Journal
Identification and Distribution Characteristics of Odorous Compounds in Sediments of a Shallow Water Reservoir
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 3
10.3390/w16030457
water-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

Global Meta-Analysis of Nitrate Leaching Vulnerability in Synthetic and Organic Fertilizers over the Past Four Decades

by
Naila Sumreen Hina
ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Water 2024, 16(3), 457; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030457
Submission received: 8 September 2023 / Revised: 20 October 2023 / Accepted: 30 October 2023 / Published: 31 January 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The significance of nitrogen in agricultural ecosystems cannot be overstated; however, it can pose a threat to the environment when it leaches into groundwater. This comprehensive meta-analysis sheds light on the complex relationship between organic and inorganic fertilizers and nitrogen leaching, encompassing 39 years of data. The results indicate that the impact of fertilizers is dependent on crop type, soil properties, and fertilization practices. Vegetables treated with synthetic fertilizers were found to have the highest levels of nitrogen leaching, while grasses exhibited the lowest. Soil texture was also determined to be a significant factor, with coarser soils leading to higher levels of leaching than medium or fine soils. The meta-analysis showed that organic sources resulted in an average of 16% higher losses of nitrate-N, but there was no significant difference between organic and synthetic N fertilizers in terms of leaching overall. These findings provide valuable insights for the responsible management of nitrogen and to further our understanding of the impact of fertilizers on nitrate pollution.

1. Introduction

Nitrogen (N) is the most important fertilizer for crops, and its environmental impact cannot be ignored. Six billion people consume approximately 25 million tons of protein N each year; by 2050, this figure is expected to rise to 40–45 million tons [1]. N plays a crucial role in plant growth and development because it is a major component of chlorophyll, amino acids, and proteins, all of which are essential for various physiological processes in plants. When crops receive an adequate supply of N fertilizers, they tend to increase leaf and stem development, improve vegetative growth, and enhance photosynthesis. This ultimately leads to higher crop yields and improved agricultural productivity [2,3]. Therefore, nitrogen is considered as one of the most important fertilizers for crops, and its availability in the soil can significantly influence the success of agricultural systems worldwide.
However, inefficient use of chemical fertilizers in the agricultural ecosystem is a major contributor of diffuse N load in ground water [4]. Excessive concentrations of N in water sources can cause severe long-term environmental concerns and threaten both the economy and human health. In general, applying N fertilizers to crops is very cost-effective; the additional crop value obtained greatly exceeds the cost of the fertilizer. This has pushed farmers to use excessive N to assure a higher crop yield [5]. There is currently a high spatial and temporal variation in the global fertilizer application mean, which is approximately 133 kg N ha−1year−1 [6]. It should be noted that excess supplies of N can pollute the biosphere including soil, air, and water ecosystems. N contamination as nitrate (NO3−) can result in significant environmental and health issues. It leads to water pollution, disrupts aquatic ecosystems, and contributes to eutrophication. One of the most prevalent and detrimental effects of agriculture, connected to N fertilizers, is the deterioration of groundwater quality and contamination of drinking water supplies [7]. Furthermore, NO3− can cause methemoglobinemia in infants, linked to certain cancers (gastric and colorectal), and potential reproductive and developmental effects. Nitrate can accumulate in food crops, posing risks when consumed, and may exacerbate asthma and respiratory issues [8]. Agricultural soils contribute far more nitrate to surface water than semi-natural grasslands and forests due to enormous amounts of supplementary N applied as inorganic fertilizers and manures [9]. As a result, the nitrogen input-output balance is one of the main indicators for sustainable agricultural development, and it is also used to assess NO3−-N leaching in groundwater [10]. Effective management of nitrate sources, improved agricultural practices, and safe drinking water treatment are essential to mitigate these environmental and health concerns.
Over time, numerous spatially variable and interacting factors, including land-use, vegetation type, climate, soil properties, and total nutrient inputs, define the nitrate stocks, fluxes, and leaching at a farm or catchment level [11,12]. Most importantly, fertilizer N is considered to be strongly connected with NO3−-N leaching in groundwater and surface waters [13,14,15]. However, in addition to the well-documented leaching losses from N fertilizers, several studies have shown that organic N mineralization can also result in abundant N leaching [13,16].
Mineralization of organic nitrogen can cause loss of available nitrogen from the soil via leaching, most significantly during the fallow period after the crop harvest [17]. When comparing organic and inorganic fertilizers on a large scale, organic fertilizers usually have 30–40% lower leaching losses [18,19]. In contrast, few studies have reported 20% more leaching in organic fertilizers than in synthetic fertilizers [20,21]. However, the differences in leaching rates from organic and synthetic fertilizers are either non-significant [22,23] or in favor of synthetic fertilizers [24,25].
A meta-analysis is a technique for synthesizing information that employs a specific methodological process for gathering and evaluating data from several independent scientific investigations [26]. Due to the importance of the N source on N transfer from agricultural soils to water resources, the published meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1 demonstrated great strides in the subject matter. Among the published meta-analyses, Boy-Roura et al. [27] and Wang et al. [28] analyzed the maximum number of observations to see the effect of animal urine and fertilizer N rate on N leaching. The former did not report direct losses but calculated a N leaching and emission factor, and the latter one used the data collected only from New Zealand. In comparison, a recent published meta-analysis by Li et al. [29] used maximum factors to evaluate their effect on NO3−-N leaching and reported a significant decrease in NO3−-N leaching with crop residue incorporation, which was the focus of this meta-analysis. However, none of these have compared the leaching losses from organic and synthetic N inputs globally despite a significantly ambiguity and the issue is still debatable and important due to environmental concerns. Despite the widespread use of both organic and synthetic fertilizers, no meta-analysis has been conducted to assess the relative impact of each on NO3−-N leaching in agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to bridge the existing research gap by conducting a comprehensive global comparison of NO3−-N leaching losses from agricultural lands treated with organic and synthetic fertilizers. It seeks to answer critical questions about the relative impact of these fertilizers, including whether there are significant differences in leaching between them, and how crop types, fertilization sources, application methods, and soil properties interact with these differences. By addressing these questions, this study contributes valuable insights into the environmental implications of fertilizer choices in agriculture, which is vital for informed decision-making and sustainable farming practices worldwide. Furthermore, a meta-analysis is chosen as the methodology for this research because it offers advantages such as synthesizing a large volume of diverse studies, quantifying effect sizes, enhancing statistical power, and promoting objectivity, making it the most suitable approach to comprehensively address the research questions on NO3−-N leaching from agricultural lands treated with organic and synthetic fertilizers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Criteria through Online Research Databases and Study Selection

The metadata was collected in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines [35,36]. The PRISMA guidelines are a set of standardized guidelines designed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research publications. The purpose of these guidelines are to provide a structured framework for authors to report the methods, results, and findings of their systematic review or meta-analysis studies in a way to promote clarity and reliability in research reporting [37]. A thorough literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published before 6 July 2022 that mentioned fertilizer-induced NO3−-N leaching from soils. The SCOPUS® “http://www.scopus.com (accessed on 7 July 2022)” databases were searched for relevant articles using the search terms, (“nitrate leaching” OR “NO3 leaching”) AND “nitrogen fertilizer” AND “soil” AND (“chemical” OR “organic”). The search criteria were refined to peer-reviewed articles published only in English language. The steps involved from identification to selection for meta-analysis are reported in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1).
The database search yielded 1005 studies, and 307 duplicates were removed. The following selection criteria were used for the final selection of articles:
  • Chemical (synthetic) or organic fertilizers must have been used in each study.
  • At least one fertilizer application rate must have been mentioned.
  • NO3−-N leaching must have been monitored.
The inclusion criteria for selecting articles for meta-analysis mentioned above were followed to meet the aim to quantify NO3−-N leaching losses from agricultural lands treated with organic and synthetic fertilizers. Abstract and full article reading according to the selection criteria, 82 articles (both organic and synthetic fertilizers) comprising 211 individual studies, including 187 synthetic fertilizer and 24 organic fertilizer, from 22 countries (Figure 2) were selected for meta-analysis.
The selected papers spanned almost four decades (39 years) from 1983 to 2022 (Figure 3). The data extracted from each study includes the mean, number of observations and standard deviation (SD). In the studies where standard error (SE) was reported instead of SD, it was converted to SD using the equation ( S D = S E × N ). Data was extracted from graphs using the Web Plot Digitizer (version 2.26: “http://getdata-graphdigitizer.com/download.php (accessed on 29 October 2023)”. The data related to parameters influencing NO3−-N leaching irrespective of source were extracted from studies, including crop type (cereals, legumes, vegetables, grasses, and all other), soil texture (coarse, medium and fine), soil pH (acidic, neutral and alkaline), source of N (organic and synthetic), fertilization method, and leaching measuring method (porous cups and lysimeter).

2.2. Meta-Analysis

The use of log response ratios as the matrices of effect sizes is a commonly employed method in multiple studies when comparing treatments to a control. However, this study took a different approach by comparing synthetic and organic fertilizers directly, using single untransformed (raw) means with the metamean function of ‘dmetar’ package in the R environment (https://r-project.org/). This allows for a clearer and direct interpretation of the differences between the two fertilizers, without the potential biases of a control group as mentioned in Doing Meta-Analysis in R: A Hands-on Guide by Harrer et al. [37]. The generic inverse variance method was used to assign the weights using ‘meta’ [38] and ‘metafor’ [39] packages in R for NO3−-N leaching means of both organic and synthetic fertilizers’ observations. A heterogeneity test was performed before designing the meta-analysis model to identify whether a fixed or random/mixed effect model should be employed. The τ2 was estimated using restricted maximum likelihood method which represents the heterogeneity between studies. The value of τ2 (3938.39) was highly significant demonstrating the certainty of a random/mixed-effects approach. The Q profile method was also employed on a full dataset, including 623 observations, which was also significant (Cochran’s Q = 534916.83, df = 622, p < 0.001) and also confirmed the use of the random/mixed effect model [40]. In addition, Hartung–Knapp adjustment was used in this meta-analysis in order remove the biasness due to small number of studies and high values of heterogeneity [41]. The Hartung–Knapp adjustment provide a more accurate estimate when there was significant variability between studies. Traditional methods might underestimate this variability, giving false confidence in the pooled results. The Hartung–Knapp method corrects for this by often resulting in wider confidence intervals, thus reflecting a more realistic level of uncertainty. Its use is crucial when studies in the meta-analysis differ notably from one another, ensuring that the overall conclusions are more robust and reliable.
The estimated pooled means of NO3−-N leaching, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were shown in forest plots created using the ‘ggplot2’ package [42] in R. The impact of organic or synthetic fertilizers was deemed significant if the 95% CI did not overlap the zero line. Overlaps on the zero line show that synthetic/organic fertilizer had no meaningful effect and are denoted as ‘ns’ [43]. A positive number implies an increase in the NO3−-N leaching values, whereas a negative number suggests a reduction, as denoted by percent change (±%).

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Fertilizer Type on NO3−-N Leaching as a Function of Crop Type

In this meta-analysis, NO3−-N leaching from organic and synthetic fertilizers varied with crop type. The pooled means of all crops in Figure 4 shows that NO3−-N leaching from cereals were significantly less (p = 0.046, 40%, k = 358) with the application of synthetic fertilizers (40.9 kg N ha−1) as compared to the application of organic fertilizers (68.1 kg N ha−1). In addition, NO3−-N leaching from vegetables was significantly more (p = 0.043, 88%, k = 53) with synthetic fertilizers than with organic fertilizers. Among all crop types, the lowest NO3−-N leaching was recorded from grasses [17.8 kg N ha−1 (organic) and 32.5 kg N ha−1 (synthetic)] having significant difference (p = 0.047). On the other hand, NO3−-N leaching from legumes was 76.7 kg N ha−1 in synthetic fertilizers and 58.2 kg N ha−1 in organic fertilizers and was not significantly different. No significant differences were observed in overall NO3−-N leaching among type of fertilizers (synthetic vs. organic) applied, as shown in Figure 4.

3.2. Effect of Nitrogen Source on NO3−-N Leaching

All the organic and synthetic N materials used in the studies included in this meta-analysis are shown in Figure 5. In comparison to urea and all other ammonium-based synthetic fertilizers, calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) and complex fertilizers resulted in almost equal and maximum N losses. Among all organic N fertilizers, pig slurry was more vulnerable to N leaching (184.4 kg N ha−1) but a smaller number of observations (k = 7) were available for the analysis. The same was true for animal urine, where only two observations were available.

3.3. Effect of Fertilizer Type on NO3−-N Leaching as a Function of Soil Properties

In order to make the results more understandable, the soil pH was classified into three main classes as acidic (pH ≤ 6.5), neutral (pH 6.6–7.3), and alkaline (pH ≥ 7.4) as shown in Figure 6. Mean N leaching was significantly different in alkaline (p = 0.033) and neutral (p < 0.001) soils, with 99% more and 47% less leaching from synthetic fertilizers in neutral and alkaline soils, respectively, compared to organic fertilizers. NO3−-N leaching was higher from synthetic material only when the soil was comparatively neutral in terms of pH.
Irrespective of fertilizer types, maximum leaching losses were estimated from coarse-textured soils than fine soils (Figure 7), but no study of organic material on fine soil was found to be included in this meta-analysis. Aside from that, mean nitrogen leaching from organic fertilizers was always slightly higher in coarse (59.4 kg N ha−1) and medium-textured soils (49.7 kg N ha−1) compared to synthetic fertilizers, but not significantly different.

3.4. Effect of Fertilizer Type on NO3−-N Leaching as a Function of Measuring Method

The lysimetric method had a significant effect (p = 0.037) on NO3−-N leaching losses measured from synthetic and organic materials with 47% less from the former with 44.3 kg N ha−1 leaching losses compared to 82.2 kg N ha−1 from organic fertilizers (Figure 8). The N leaching measurement using the porous cup method had no significant effect on mean N leaching. However, the leaching losses from synthetic fertilizers were estimated 10% less (47.6 kg N ha−1) compared to organic fertilizers (52.7 kg N ha−1). All other methods (excluding the two mentioned earlier) also had a significant effect and showed 269% more leaching from inorganic material.

4. Discussion

The data identification and selection for this meta-analysis revealed the importance of NO3−-N leaching from agricultural soils. After 1995, more research on NO3−-N leaching was published, as shown in Figure 3, highlighting the significance of this environmental issue that started in the second half of the 20th century. Galloway et al. [44] reported that the second half of 20th century was the time when agriculture underwent significant changes and artificial nitrogen fertilization became a pillar in modern farming.
Although overall, leaching losses were 16% greater with the use of organic fertilizers compared to synthetic fertilizers, there was no significant difference between the two. However, Dahan et al. [45] have shown that nitrogen leaching is significantly higher from organic fertilizers, while others have found little to no differences between organic and conventional fertilizers [46,47]. The small differences in NO3−-N leaching between organic and conventional fertilizers, as estimated in this meta-analysis, could be due to the reason that organic fertilizers were applied to legume-based cover crops in most of the studies, which can increase both nitrogen input and crop dry matter production, leading to higher NO3−-N leaching due to a lack of synchronicity between mineralization and crop N demand [47,48]. The asynchrony between nutrient release from organic fertilizers and crop nitrogen demand can result in higher leaching rates. Slow-release organic fertilizers may supply nutrients when crops do not require them, increasing the likelihood of excess nitrogen in the soil. This excess nitrogen can then be susceptible to leaching into groundwater or surface water, contributing to higher leaching rates compared to chemical fertilizers, which release nutrients more synchronously with crop demand. In contrary, a number of studies have also found lower nitrogen leaching from organic fertilizers [49,50,51], possibly due to the slow release of nutrients from organic sources, which limits the available nitrogen in soil solution and reduces the risk of contamination of water sources [52]. Overall, it is important to carefully consider the potential impacts of different fertilizers on nitrogen leaching to protect the water quality.
The type of crops significantly impacted nitrogen leaching from both organic and synthetic fertilizers, except for legumes. The highest nitrogen leaching was observed from vegetables and cereals when using synthetic and organic fertilizers, respectively. A number of research has shown that the risk of nitrogen leaching increased from vegetables is due to the high fertilization rates (200 to >300 kg N ha−1) often used in their production, irrespective of the N source, e.g., in the studies reported by Zhang et al. [53], Jiang et al. [54], Wilson et al. [55] and a global meta-analysis by Qasim, Xia, Lin, Wan, Zhao and Butterbach–Bahl [33]. In fact, vegetables have been found to have the highest nitrogen leaching potential among all land uses, followed by arable cropping, pasture ploughing, grazed pasture, cut grassland, and finally, forests, which have the lowest risk of nitrogen leaching. To reduce nitrogen leaching losses in vegetable production, it is important to use the optimal amount of nitrogen, as applying excess nitrogen can lead to leaching without improving crop yields [53]. Apart from this, grasses had the lowest risk of nitrogen leaching among all land uses in the meta-analysis. This is likely due to the low fertilization rates used in grassland management, which reduces the amount of nitrogen available in the soil solution and lowers the risk of leaching. In addition, grasslands have a large pool of nitrogen in soil organic matter, which is slowly released over time due to the low net nitrogen mineralization rate (due to less disturbance of soil) and long residence time of nitrogen in soil organic matter contributing to the reduced risk of NO3−-N leaching in grasslands [56]. In conclusion, to minimize nitrogen leaching in crop production, farmers and agricultural planners should consider the specific crop type and its associated leaching potential. For high-leaching potential crops like vegetables, it is crucial to apply the optimal amount of nitrogen and avoid over-fertilization, as excess nitrogen can lead to leaching without enhancing crop yields. Furthermore, transitioning some areas to grasslands, which inherently have lower leaching risks due to lower fertilization rates and high soil organic matter, can be a strategic decision. In short, adopting crop-specific fertilization rates, enhancing soil organic matter, and integrating grasslands into the cropping system can be key strategies to protect water quality and ensure sustainable agriculture.
The use of lysimeters and ceramic suction cups (porous cups) for measuring NO3−-N concentration in leachate has been widely used in the literature, with lysimeters showing the highest levels of leaching in this meta-analysis, as shown in Figure 8. Both lysimeters and ceramic suction cups offer unique insights into NO3−-N concentration in leachate, yet they come with distinct limitations that are crucial when interpreting their results in the context of real-world conditions. Lysimeters provide a comprehensive understanding of both leachate volume and NO3−-N concentration, making it a reliable method for determining nitrate loss. However, they might not capture the heterogeneity of a broader field due to their smaller variants and potentially skewing results when scaled up [57]. Their installation often involves soil disturbance, which can inadvertently alter natural soil structure, thereby affecting water flow and nutrient leaching patterns [58]. On the other hand, suction cups, due to their specific point measurements, can potentially miss areas of high or low leaching, introducing biases. Furthermore, suction cups only measure the NO3−-N concentration in soil solution, requiring the calculation of drainage volume to determine total nitrate leaching loss, which may under or overestimate the cumulative NO3−-N leaching losses [59]. Despite the uncertainty associated with the use of porous ceramic cups to estimate NO3−-N leaching from soil solution to groundwater, a higher number of studies (k = 239) used this method for NO3−- N leaching measurement compared to the studies (k = 182) that used lysimeters. This might be because the installation and usage of porous ceramic cups is a simple and cost-effective way of extracting soil solution, making it a more convenient choice for on-site leaching measurements. While both methods have their strengths and limitations, and provide invaluable data, their inherent biases underscore the importance of careful interpretation. For practical applications, it is essential to weigh these limitations and, where possible, employ a combination of techniques to ensure a comprehensive and accurate understanding of nitrogen leaching potential.
Soil texture was found to have a significant impact on NO3−-N leaching, regardless of fertilizer type. In line with studies, such as those by Khodabin et al. [60] and Pandey, Li, Askegaard, Rasmussen and Olesen [47]), this meta-analysis has found that coarse-textured soils, like sand, are more prone to NO3−-N leaching due to their better aeration and lower water holding capacity. These properties of coarse soil leads to enhanced release of nitrates from added fertilizers and mineralized organic N, as well as increased loss of soluble nitrate with excess water movement below the root zone [61,62]. In contrast, fine-textured soils, like clay, have higher water retention and chemical reactions that inhibit NO3−-N leaching [47]. Therefore, the coarser the soil texture, the greater the risk of leaching from agricultural ecosystem.
NO3−-N leaching is much higher in alkaline soils with organic fertilizers compared to synthetic fertilizers and all other soil types (neutral and acidic). This difference can be ascribed to a variety of factors including the negative influence of high soil pH on root development, which limits plants’ ability to absorb excess nitrates, resulting in higher NO3−-N leaching [63]. Furthermore, the lower microbial activity in alkaline soils [64] reduces the conversion of nitrates to other forms of nitrogen that are less susceptible to leaching. As a result, the leaching of nitrates from alkaline soils due to the combined effects of high soil pH, slow N release for plant uptake, reduced microbial activity, and poor root development. These findings on the role of soil texture and pH in NO3−-N leaching underscore critical implications for soil management and agricultural practices. In agricultural settings dominated by coarse-textured soils like sand, it becomes crucial to recalibrate fertilizer application rates and timings to minimize nitrate losses. Strategies such as split nitrogen applications or the use of slow-release fertilizers can be employed to synchronize nutrient release with plant uptake, thus conserving nitrogen and safeguarding groundwater quality [9,65]. In addition, the estimated leaching in alkaline soils with organic fertilizers necessitates the careful selection of soil amendments. By optimizing soil pH through techniques like liming or the addition of sulfur, we can strike a balance between nutrient availability and reduced leaching [66]. Ultimately, these insights provide a roadmap for a more comprehensive approach to improve agriculture productivity and environmental conservation.

5. Conclusions

NO3−-N leaching from agricultural systems, particularly from fertilizer sources, is a challenging issue worldwide. This meta-analysis reveals that synthetic fertilizers, especially when applied to vegetables and grasses in neutral pH soils, tend to have higher NO3−-N leaching. In contrast, cereal crops grown in alkaline soils saw increased leaching with organic fertilizers. Harnessing this knowledge allows us to refine nitrogen management in agriculture, offering promising avenues for water quality preservation and broader environmental conservation. It is imperative for policymakers and farming communities to internalize these findings, adapting fertilizer use according to specific crop-soil configurations. A concerning revelation is the limited research on organic fertilizers’ impact, especially given the global shift towards organic farming practices. This research gap necessitates more in-depth studies, providing crucial data to ensure sustainable farming in the future. For researchers seeking to expand upon this work, exploring other factors like precision fertilizer application methods and the long-term results on soil health might be insightful. In conclusion, while our findings elaborated the crucial aspects, they also pave the way for future inquiries, ensuring agriculture remains productive without compromising on sustainability.

Funding

The APC was funded by ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be provided on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jenkinson, D.S. The impact of humans on the nitrogen cycle, with focus on temperate arable agriculture. Plant Soil 2001, 228, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Govindasamy, P.; Muthusamy, S.K.; Bagavathiannan, M.; Mowrer, J.; Jagannadham, P.T.K.; Maity, A.; Halli, H.M.; Sujayanand, G.K.; Vadivel, R.; Das, T.K.; et al. Nitrogen use efficiency—A key to enhance crop productivity under a changing climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1121073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Giordano, M.; Petropoulos, S.A.; Rouphael, Y. The Fate of Nitrogen from Soil to Plants: Influence of Agricultural Practices in Modern Agriculture. Agriculture 2021, 11, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ongley, E.D.; Xiaolan, Z.; Tao, Y. Current status of agricultural and rural non-point source Pollution assessment in China. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kitchen, N.R.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Shanahan, J.F. Chapter 15—Proven Practices and Innovative Technologies for On-Farm Crop Nitrogen Management. In Nitrogen in the Environment, 2nd ed.; Hatfield, J.L., Follett, R.F., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 483–517. [Google Scholar]
  6. FAOSTATS. FAOSTAT Statistics Database. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat (accessed on 2 August 2022).
  7. Schröder, J.J.; Scholefield, D.; Cabral, F.; Hofman, G. The effects of nutrient losses from agriculture on ground and surface water quality: The position of science in developing indicators for regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhai, Y.; Zhao, X.; Teng, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J.; Zuo, R. Groundwater Nitrate Pollution and Human Health Risk Assessment by using HHRA Model in an Agricultural Area, NE China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 137, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Di, H.J.; Cameron, K.C. Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: Sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2002, 64, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dalgaard, T.; Bienkowski, J.F.; Bleeker, A.; Dragosits, U.; Drouet, J.L.; Durand, P.; Frumau, A.; Hutchings, N.J.; Kedziora, A.; Magliulo, V.; et al. Farm Nitrogen Balances in six European landscapes as an Indicator for Nitrogen losses and Basis for Improved Management. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 5303–5321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nolan, B.T.; Stoner, J.D. Nutrients in Groundwaters of the Conterminous United States, 1992–1995. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1156–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, T.; Hao, X.; Kang, S. Spatial Variability of Grape Yield and Its Association with Soil Water Depletion Within A Vineyard of Arid Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cameron, K.C.; Di, H.J.; Moir, J.L. Nitrogen losses from the soil/plant system: A review. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2013, 162, 145–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Padilla, F.M.; Gallardo, M.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Global trends in nitrate leaching research in the 1960–2017 period. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 400–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sieling, K.; Kage, H. N balance as an indicator of N leaching in an oilseed rape—Winter wheat—Winter barley rotation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 115, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thomsen, I.K.; Lægdsmand, M.; Olesen, J.E. Crop growth and nitrogen turnover under increased temperatures and low autumn and winter light intensity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shrestha, R.K.; Cooperband, L.R.; MacGuidwin, A.E. Strategies to reduce nitrate leaching into groundwater in potato grown in sandy soils: Case study from North Central USA. Am. J. Potato Res. 2010, 87, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hansen, B.; Kristensen, E.; Grant, R.; Høgh-Jensen, H.; Simmelsgaard, S.E.; Olesen, J.E. Nitrogen leaching from conventional versus organic farming systems—A systems modelling approach. Eur. J. Agron. 2000, 13, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stopes, C.; Lord, E.I.; Philipps, L.; Woodward, L. Nitrate leaching from organic farms and conventional farms following best practice. Soil Use Manag. 2002, 18, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Torstensson, G.; Aronsson, H.; Bergström, L. Nutrient Use Efficiencies and Leaching of Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems in Sweden. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sapkota, T.B.; Askegaard, M.; Lægdsmand, M.; Olesen, J.E. Effects of catch crop type and root depth on nitrogen leaching and yield of spring barley. Field Crops Res. 2012, 125, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kirchmann, H.; Bergström, L. Do organic farming practices reduce nitrate leaching? Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 997–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mondelaers, K.; Aertsens, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1098–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Korsaeth, A. Relations between nitrogen leaching and food productivity in organic and conventional cropping systems in a long-term field study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Benoit, M.; Garnier, J.; Anglade, J.; Billen, G. Nitrate leaching from organic and conventional arable crop farms in the Seine Basin (France). Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2014, 100, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Quemada, M.; Baranski, M.; Nobel-de Lange, M.N.J.; Vallejo, A.; Cooper, J.M. Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 174, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boy-Roura, M.; Cameron, K.C.; Di, H.J. Identification of nitrate leaching loss indicators through regression methods based on a meta-analysis of lysimeter studies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 3671–3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Y.; Ying, H.; Yin, Y.; Zheng, H.; Cui, Z. Estimating soil nitrate leaching of nitrogen fertilizer from global meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Z.J.; Reichel, R.; Xu, Z.F.; Vereecken, H.; Brüggemann, N. Return of crop residues to arable land stimulates NO emission but mitigates NO leaching: A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gardner, J.B.; Drinkwater, L.E. The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: A meta-analysis of 15N field experiments. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 2167–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 1917–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xia, L.; Lam, S.K.; Yan, X.; Chen, D. How Does Recycling of Livestock Manure in Agroecosystems Affect Crop Productivity, Reactive Nitrogen Losses, and Soil Carbon Balance? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 7450–7457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qasim, W.; Xia, L.; Lin, S.; Wan, L.; Zhao, Y.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Global greenhouse vegetable production systems are hotspots of soil N2O emissions and nitrogen leaching: A meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 272, 116372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ren, F.; Sun, N.; Misselbrook, T.; Wu, L.; Xu, M.; Zhang, F.; Xu, W. Responses of crop productivity and reactive nitrogen losses to the application of animal manure to China’s main crops: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 850, 158064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339, b2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The, P.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Harrer, M.; Cuijpers, P.; Furukawa, T.A.; Ebert, D.D. Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide, 1st ed.; Chapman & Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwarzer, G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News 2007, 7, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  39. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010, 36, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cochran, W.G. The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments. Biometrics 1954, 10, 101–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hartung, J.; Knapp, G. A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Stat. Med. 2001, 20, 3875–3889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Augé, R.M.; Toler, H.D.; Saxton, A.M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis and osmotic adjustment in response to NaCl stress: A meta-analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Galloway, J.; Dentener, F.; Boyer, E.; Howarth, R.; Seitzinger, S.; Asner, G.; Cleveland, C.; Green, P.; Holland, E.; Karl, D.; et al. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future. Biogeochemistry 2004, 70, 153–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dahan, O.; Babad, A.; Lazarovitch, N.; Russak, E.E.; Kurtzman, D. Nitrate leaching from intensive organic farms to groundwater. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Demurtas, C.E.; Seddaiu, G.; Ledda, L.; Cappai, C.; Doro, L.; Carletti, A.; Roggero, P.P. Replacing organic with mineral N fertilization does not reduce nitrate leaching in double crop forage systems under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 219, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pandey, A.; Li, F.C.; Askegaard, M.; Rasmussen, I.A.; Olesen, J.E. Nitrogen balances in organic and conventional arable crop rotations and their relations to nitrogen yield and nitrate leaching losses. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 265, 350–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Doltra, J.; Olesen, J.E. The role of catch crops in the ecological intensification of spring cereals in organic farming under Nordic climate. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 44, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Haraldsen, T.K.; Andersen, U.; Krogstad, T.; Sørheim, R. Liquid digestate from anaerobic treatment of source-separated household waste as fertilizer to barley. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1271–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Karhu, K.; Kalu, S.; Seppänen, A.; Kitzler, B.; Virtanen, E. Potential of biochar soil amendments to reduce N leaching in boreal field conditions estimated using the resin bag method. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 316, 107452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Santos, A.; Fangueiro, D.; Moral, R.; Bernal, M.P. Composts Produced From Pig Slurry Solids: Nutrient Efficiency and N-Leaching Risks in Amended Soils. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Douds, D.; Seidel, R. Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. BioScience 2005, 55, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J.; He, P.; Ding, W.; Ullah, S.; Abbas, T.; Li, M.; Ai, C.; Zhou, W. Identifying the critical nitrogen fertilizer rate for optimum yield and minimum nitrate leaching in a typical field radish cropping system in China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jiang, Y.; Nyiraneza, J.; Khakbazan, M.; Geng, X.; Murray, B.J. Nitrate leaching and potato yield under varying plow timing and nitrogen rate. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2019, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wilson, M.L.; Rosen, C.J.; Moncrief, J.F. Effects of polymer-coated urea on nitrate leaching and nitrogen uptake by potato. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Valkama, E.; Rankinen, K.; Virkajärvi, P.; Salo, T.; Kapuinen, P.; Turtola, E. Nitrogen fertilization of grass leys: Yield production and risk of N leaching. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Puetz, T.; Schilling, J.; Vereecken, H. The influence of the lysimeter filling on the soil monolith inside. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 19–24 April 2009; p. 10089. [Google Scholar]
  58. Meissner, R.; Rupp, H.; Haselow, L. Use of lysimeters for monitoring soil water balance parameters and nutrient leaching. In Climate Change and Soil Interactions; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 171–205. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, Q.; Cameron, K.; Buchan, G.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, E.H.; Smith, N.; Carrick, S. Comparison of lysimeters and porous ceramic cups for measuring nitrate leaching in different soil types. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 55, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khodabin, G.; Lightburn, K.; Hashemi, S.M.; Moghada, M.S.K.; Jalilian, A. Evaluation of nitrate leaching, fatty acids, physiological traits and yield of rapeseed (Brassica napus) in response to tillage, irrigation and fertilizer management. Plant Soil 2022, 473, 423–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Defra. Diffuse Nitrate Pollution from Agriculture-Strategies for Reducing Nitrate Leaching; Defra: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zheng, J.; Qu, Y.; Kilasara, M.M.; Mmari, W.N.; Funakawa, S. Nitrate leaching from the critical root zone of maize in two tropical highlands of Tanzania: Effects of fertilizer-nitrogen rate and straw incorporation. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alam, S.M.; Naqvi, S.S.M.; Ansari, R. Impact of soil pH on nutrient uptake by crop plants. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 2, pp. 51–60. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cao, H.; Chen, R.; Wang, L.; Jiang, L.; Yang, F.; Zheng, S.; Wang, G.; Lin, X. Soil pH, total phosphorus, climate and distance are the major factors influencing microbial activity at a regional spatial scale. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wang, C.; Lv, J.; Coulter, J.A.; Xie, J.; Yu, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Tang, C.; Niu, T.; Gan, Y. Slow-Release Fertilizer Improves the Growth, Quality, and Nutrient Utilization of Wintering Chinese Chives (Allium tuberosum Rottler ex Spreng.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weil, R.; Brady, N. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 15th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Water 16 00457 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for this meta-analysis.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for this meta-analysis.
Water 16 00457 g001
Water 16 00457 g002
Figure 2. Locations of studies (Synthetic fertilizer and Organic fertilizer) included in the meta-analysis, the size of shape representing number of studies from the relevant country.
Figure 2. Locations of studies (Synthetic fertilizer and Organic fertilizer) included in the meta-analysis, the size of shape representing number of studies from the relevant country.
Water 16 00457 g002
Water 16 00457 g003
Figure 3. Number of research articles published yearly from 1983 to 2022 selected for meta-analysis.
Figure 3. Number of research articles published yearly from 1983 to 2022 selected for meta-analysis.
Water 16 00457 g003
Water 16 00457 g004
Figure 4. Effect of crop type on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Figure 4. Effect of crop type on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Water 16 00457 g004
Water 16 00457 g005
Figure 5. Effect of fertilizer type on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Figure 5. Effect of fertilizer type on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Water 16 00457 g005
Water 16 00457 g006
Figure 6. Effect of soil pH on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Figure 6. Effect of soil pH on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Water 16 00457 g006
Water 16 00457 g007
Figure 7. Effect of soil texture on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Figure 7. Effect of soil texture on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Water 16 00457 g007
Water 16 00457 g008
Figure 8. Effect of leaching measuring method on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Figure 8. Effect of leaching measuring method on the pooled NO3−-N leaching where organic (green color) and synthetic (blue color) fertilizers were applied as nitrogen source. The size of scatter point represents the number of studies. p value indicates the significant difference between organic vs. synthetic fertilizer (NS represents non significance) and the percentage represent the percent change in the significant difference. Variables were significant for nitrate leaching if the error bars did not overlap with zero line.
Water 16 00457 g008
Table 1. Summary of meta-analysis published on NO3− leaching.
Table 1. Summary of meta-analysis published on NO3− leaching.
Data SpanTreatmentsSub-GroupsNumber of Studies, ObservationsOutput ParametersObservations for N LeachingReference
38 years (1969–2007)Fate of N from grain cropsSoil order, soil texture, field plot size, soil organic C, and latitude and longitude of the experimental site217 studiesN pools and fluxes6 studies[30]
23 years (1990–2013)Urine application rate-12 studies, 82 observationsNO3−-N leaching-[27]
Published before March 2016Effect of N management on grain yield and N lossesFertilisers N management, and N rate376 studies, 1166 observationsGrain yield, NUE, NH3 and N2O emission and N leaching and runoff4 observations[31]
Published before August 2016Livestock manureManure type, crop type141Crop productivity,
NH3 emission, N leaching and N run off		61 observations[32]
Published before October 2018N fertilizer rateCrop type, fertilizer type, soil pH, total N, measuring method86 studies, 324 observationsSoil NO3−-N leaching emission factors-[28]
Published before 10 September 2020Effect of fertilizer types and application rate on vegetables Fertilizer types and application rates477 observationsN2O emission and N leaching220 observations[33]
Published before 11 January 2020Effect of crop residuesClimatic conditions, land use type, soil pH, soil texture, synthetic fertilizer application, crop residue type, tillage, and duration of experiment90 studies, 345 observationsNO3− leaching and N2O emission90 observations[29]
Published between 1990 and 2021Effect of animal manure on crop productivity and reactive N lossesReactive N, crop productivity, soil chemical properties, dissolve organic carbon334 studiesCrop productivity,
NH3 and N2O emission, N leaching		-[34]
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

Hina, N.S. Global Meta-Analysis of Nitrate Leaching Vulnerability in Synthetic and Organic Fertilizers over the Past Four Decades. Water 2024, 16, 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030457

AMA Style

Hina NS. Global Meta-Analysis of Nitrate Leaching Vulnerability in Synthetic and Organic Fertilizers over the Past Four Decades. Water. 2024; 16(3):457. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030457

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hina, Naila Sumreen. 2024. "Global Meta-Analysis of Nitrate Leaching Vulnerability in Synthetic and Organic Fertilizers over the Past Four Decades" Water 16, no. 3: 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030457

APA Style

Hina, N. S. (2024). Global Meta-Analysis of Nitrate Leaching Vulnerability in Synthetic and Organic Fertilizers over the Past Four Decades. Water, 16(3), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030457

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