Nitrogen-use efficiency and economic efficiency of slow-release N fertilisers applied to an irrigated turf in NE Portugal
Conference Paper
Overview
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
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.
