Muhammad Adil Rashid , Yun-Feng Duan , Jan Peter Lesschen , Piet Groenendijk , Sander Bruun , Lars Stoumann Jensen
{"title":"Evaluating the performance of biobased, recovered nitrogen fertilizers in European cropping systems using modelling","authors":"Muhammad Adil Rashid , Yun-Feng Duan , Jan Peter Lesschen , Piet Groenendijk , Sander Bruun , Lars Stoumann Jensen","doi":"10.1016/j.farsys.2025.100141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Biobased fertilizers (BBFs) are gaining attention for their potential to advance a circular economy. This study used the Daisy model to evaluate the performance of three BBFs—ammonium sulphate (AS), digestate (DIG), and liquid fraction of digestate (LFDIG)—compared to baseline fertilization (mineral and manure) across ten European cropping systems. BBFs replaced baseline fertilization under three scenarios: (i) full replacement with equivalent total N input, (ii) full replacement with higher total N input due to BBFs' lower (<100%) fertilizer replacement values (FRVs, relative substitution rate of BBF to synthetic fertilizer), and (iii) partial replacement (only manure-N) with equivalent total N input. Results indicated that under both partial and full replacement scenarios with equivalent total N input, AS, DIG, and LFDIG had minimal impacts (<5%) on crop N yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and total N losses (gaseous and leaching) compared to the baseline. The soil organic N (SON) stocks either decreased or changed more slowly with AS and LFDIG. In scenario ii (higher total N input), BBFs led to increased N yield (2–18%) and N losses (avg. 76%), and decreased NUE (2–25%) relative to the baseline. DIG was the most effective at improving SON stocks (average increase 4.9 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup>y<sup>−1</sup>) and reducing N losses, followed by LFDIG and AS. The impact on N leaching varied, with higher leaching observed in annual cereal-based compared to semi-perennial grass-based systems. Implications are that BBFs should be applied assuming a high FRV (∼100%), ensuring equivalent total N input when replacing baseline fertilization to prevent increasing N losses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100522,"journal":{"name":"Farming System","volume":"3 2","pages":"Article 100141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Farming System","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294991192500005X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
生物基肥料(BBFs)因其推进循环经济的潜力而备受关注。本研究使用 Daisy 模型评估了三种生物基肥(硫酸铵 (AS)、沼渣 (DIG) 和沼渣液态部分 (LFDIG))与基准施肥(矿物肥料和粪肥)在十个欧洲种植系统中的性能比较。在三种情况下,BBFs 取代了基准施肥:(i) 完全替代,总氮肥输入量相等;(ii) 完全替代,总氮肥输入量较高,因为 BBFs 的肥料替代值(FRVs,BBF 对合成肥料的相对替代率)较低(<100%);(iii) 部分替代(仅粪肥-氮),总氮肥输入量相等。结果表明,与基线相比,在部分替代和完全替代且总氮输入量相等的情况下,AS、DIG 和 LFDIG 对作物氮产量、氮利用效率(NUE)和总氮损失(气态和淋失)的影响极小(<5%)。土壤有机氮(SON)储量在 AS 和 LFDIG 的作用下要么减少,要么变化较慢。在情景 ii 中(总氮输入量增加),与基线相比,BBFs 增加了氮产量(2-18%)和氮损失量(平均 76%),降低了氮利用效率(2-25%)。DIG 在提高 SON 储量(平均每公顷每年增加 4.9 千克 N)和减少 N 损失方面最为有效,其次是 LFDIG 和 AS。对氮沥滤的影响各不相同,与半多年生草地系统相比,一年生谷物系统的氮沥滤更高。这意味着,在施用 BBF 时应假定较高的 FRV 值(∼100%),确保在替代基肥时氮的总输入量相等,以防止增加氮的损失。
Evaluating the performance of biobased, recovered nitrogen fertilizers in European cropping systems using modelling
Biobased fertilizers (BBFs) are gaining attention for their potential to advance a circular economy. This study used the Daisy model to evaluate the performance of three BBFs—ammonium sulphate (AS), digestate (DIG), and liquid fraction of digestate (LFDIG)—compared to baseline fertilization (mineral and manure) across ten European cropping systems. BBFs replaced baseline fertilization under three scenarios: (i) full replacement with equivalent total N input, (ii) full replacement with higher total N input due to BBFs' lower (<100%) fertilizer replacement values (FRVs, relative substitution rate of BBF to synthetic fertilizer), and (iii) partial replacement (only manure-N) with equivalent total N input. Results indicated that under both partial and full replacement scenarios with equivalent total N input, AS, DIG, and LFDIG had minimal impacts (<5%) on crop N yield, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and total N losses (gaseous and leaching) compared to the baseline. The soil organic N (SON) stocks either decreased or changed more slowly with AS and LFDIG. In scenario ii (higher total N input), BBFs led to increased N yield (2–18%) and N losses (avg. 76%), and decreased NUE (2–25%) relative to the baseline. DIG was the most effective at improving SON stocks (average increase 4.9 kg N ha−1y−1) and reducing N losses, followed by LFDIG and AS. The impact on N leaching varied, with higher leaching observed in annual cereal-based compared to semi-perennial grass-based systems. Implications are that BBFs should be applied assuming a high FRV (∼100%), ensuring equivalent total N input when replacing baseline fertilization to prevent increasing N losses.