It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Overuse of N fertilizers in crops has induced the disruption of the N cycle, triggering the release of reactive N (Nr) to the environment. Several EU policies have been developed to address this challenge, establishing targets to reduce agricultural Nr losses. Their achievement could be materialized through the introduction of fertilizing innovations such as incorporating fertilizer into soils, using urease inhibitors, or by adjusting N inputs to crop needs that could impact in both yields and environment. The Murcia region (southeastern Spain) was selected as a paradigmatic case study, since overfertilization has induced severe environmental problems in the region in the last decade, to assess the impact of a set of 8 N fertilizing alternatives on crop yields and environmental Nr losses. Some of these practices imply the reduction of N entering in crops. We followed an integrated approach analyzing the evolution of the region in the long-term (1860–2018) and considering nested spatial- (from grid to region) and systems scales (from crops to the full agro-food system). We hypothesized that, even despite reduction of N inputs, suitable solutions for the abatement of Nr can be identified without compromising crop yields. The most effective option to reduce Nr losses was removing synthetic N fertilizers, leading to 75% reductions in N surpluses mainly due to a reduction of 64% of N inputs, but with associated yield penalties (31%–35%). The most feasible alternative was the removal of urea, resulting in 19% reductions of N inputs, 15%–21% declines in N surplus, and negligible yield losses. While these measures are applied at the field scale, their potential to produce a valuable change can only be assessed at regional scale. Because of this, a spatial analysis was performed showing that largest Nr losses occurred in irrigated horticultural crops. The policy implications of the results are discussed.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details










1 CEIGRAM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid , Madrid, Spain
2 Department of Economic Analysis and Finances, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha , 45071 Toledo, Spain
3 SU CNRS EPHE, Umr Metis , Paris, France
4 Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences , Uppsala, Sweden
5 Hebei Key Laboratory of Soil Ecology, Center for Agricultural Resources Research, Institute of Genetic and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Shijiazhuang, Hebei, People’s Republic of China
6 Universitat Politècnica de València , Valencia, Spain
7 Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition, Joint FAO, IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture , Vienna, Austria
8 Department of Economic Theory and History, University of Granada , Granada, Spain
9 Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), CSIC , Madrid, Spain