Author(s):
Parada, Maria 
; Fonseca, Telmo ; Arrobas, Margarida ; Rodrigues, M.A.
Date: 2010
Persistent ID: http://hdl.handle.net/10198/2997
Origin: Biblioteca Digital do IPB
Document details
Nitrogen-use efficiency and economic efficiency of slow-release N fertilisers a...
Description
Urban forestry and urban greening are at the top of the political agenda, since they beautify the landscape and improve the health and well‐being of urban dwellers. They also bring several ecological benefits such as air cleansing, carbon sequestration and storm water retention. However, their social and ecological benefits can be reduced by an inappropriate management. An unbalanced N fertilization program, for instance, may lead to water and atmospheric pollution due to nitrate leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. In this work, the effect of three slow‐release fertilisers was compared with a conventional fertiliser in a turf of the Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Portugal. The fertilisers used were: Floranid 16‐7‐15 (slow‐release fertiliser, IBDU/Isodur); Basacote 9M 16‐8‐12 (controlled‐release fertiliser, copolymer ethylene acrylic); Nitroteck 20‐8‐10 (stabilized fertiliser, dicyandiamide + coating with polyterpene); and Nitrolusal (ammonium nitrate, 20.5% N) split into two fractions. Based on DM yield, N concentration in dry material and fertilisation costs, indices of N‐use efficiency and economic efficiency were estimated. The results showed that Basacote released less N than that required for an adequate plant growth in early spring. Moreover, the release period seemed to be negatively longer than that specified by the manufacturer. Nitroteck, Floranid and Nitrolusal showed similar N‐use efficiency. The indices of economic efficiency ordered the slow‐release fertilisers as Nitroteck > Floranid > Basacote.
Urban forestry and urban greening are at the top of the political agenda, since they beautify the landscape and improve the health and well‐being of urban dwellers. They also bring several ecological benefits such as air cleansing, carbon sequestration and storm water retention. However, their social and ecological benefits can be reduced by an inappropriate management. An unbalanced N fertilization program, for instance, may lead to water and atmospheric pollution due to nitrate leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. In this work, the effect of three slow‐release fertilisers was compared with a conventional fertiliser in a turf of the Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Portugal. The fertilisers used were: Floranid 16‐7‐15 (slow‐release fertiliser, IBDU/Isodur); Basacote 9M 16‐8‐12 (controlled‐release fertiliser, copolymer ethylene acrylic); Nitroteck 20‐8‐10 (stabilized fertiliser, dicyandiamide + coating with polyterpene); and Nitrolusal (ammonium nitrate, 20.5% N) split into two fractions. Based on DM yield, N concentration in dry material and fertilisation costs, indices of N‐use efficiency and economic efficiency were estimated. The results showed that Basacote released less N than that required for an adequate plant growth in early spring. Moreover, the release period seemed to be negatively longer than that specified by the manufacturer. Nitroteck, Floranid and Nitrolusal showed similar N‐use efficiency. The indices of economic efficiency ordered the slow‐release fertilisers as Nitroteck > Floranid > Basacote.
Document Type
Conference Object
Language English
Language English
| Financiadores do RCAAP | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||