What is in this article?:
- Fertilizers bump crop yields, but may not be good for soil in the long run
- Treatment at Southwest Research Center plots
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln study indicates extended use of fertilizers may be good for the crops, but may adversely affect soil stability.
- Fertilizers are good for crops but not for soil.
- Result of the study “were somewhat surprising.
Treatment at Southwest Research Center plots
In the present study, he and co-author Alan Schlegel scrutinized a randomized and replicated experiment that was originally set up in 1961 at Kansas State University's Southwest Research-Extension Center in Tribune. The experimental plots of irrigated and disk-tilled continuous corn received six different rates of ammonium nitrate fertilizer (range 0 to 200 pounds per acre) for 50 years. The plots also received two rates of triple superphosphate fertilizer (0 and 18 pounds per acre) for 50 years, and a higher phosphorus rate (36 pounds per acre) for 19 years.
The study noted that growing corn continuously under conventional tillage and with high inputs of water and fertilizer may seem outmoded, but it points out that this management system is "not uncommon," as demand for corn grain and crop residues grow.
When Blanco and Schlegel tested soils from the experimental plots, they saw soil organic carbon concentrations rise gradually with increases in nitrogen fertilization at soil depths from 0 to 6 inches. Also, phosphorus fertilization increased soil organic carbon at depths of 0 to 3 inches and 6 to 12 inches.
But researchers observed a different trend in soil aggregate stability, especially when nitrogen and phosphorus were applied together at high rates. The study indicates that at a depth of three to 12 inches, adding more than 80 pounds of nitrogen per acre reduced the number of stable soil aggregates by 1.5 times when no phosphorus was applied, by 2.1 times at 18 pounds of phosphorus per acre, and by 2.5 times at 36 pounds of phosphorus per acre.
Blanco says he doesn’t know for certain why this occurred, but he has some hypotheses. He says some studies suggest that adding fertilizers rich in ammonium ions may cause soil particles to disperse rather than aggregate, thereby offsetting any positive effects of increased soil organic carbon content. Because tillage periodically disturbs the soil, it may also negate any benefits of fertilization.
Blanco is now testing these hypotheses in three additional long-term experiments in Nebraska that encompass a wider range of tillage practices and cropping systems.
"It's clear that we need inorganic fertilizers to meet the increasing demands for food production, so it's important to look at how the extensive use of inorganic fertilizers affects soil properties in the long term," Blanco concludes. "The hypothesis is that inorganic fertilization combined with conservation tillage—strip till, no-till, and others—may improve soil structural properties relative to conventional tillage systems."
The results of the study were highlighted this week by Phys.org and ScienceDaily.com. For the full study report, visit the May-June issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.