Controlled-release urea improved cotton productivity and nitrogen use efficiency in China: A

meta-analysis

Tian Xiaofei, Fan Zhen, Zhao Youxin, Sun Shuchen, Li Tingting, Yu Na, Zhai Sheng *

Liaocheng Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil Environment and Pollution Prevention, School of Environment and Planning,

Liaocheng University, Liao’cheng 252059, China

ABSTRACT

The use of controlled-release urea (CRU) is recommended to improve crop productivity without

compromising environmental quality, but the overall effects on cotton growth are not well studied. A

meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and potential role of CRU in improving

cotton productivity in China. The results indicated that CRU increased cotton yield by 9.8% and

nitrogen (N) use efficiency (NUE) by 19.4% relative to urea at equal N rates, although the increase in

yield was not statistically significant. Cotton yield increases were greater in sandy-textured soil than

in loam or clay soil, and in experiments sustained for more than two years than in experiments

sustained for one year. In addition, the increase in NUE with CRU was enhanced at medium

(170˂N≤220 kg N ha-1) and high N rates (>220 kg N ha-1), at high CRU blending ratios (≥70%) and in

soils with pH>7.5. These results demonstrate that CRU should be more widely used for cotton

production in China, especially in sandy-textured soil with increased N application.

Key words: Controlled release urea; Cotton; Nitrogen use efficiency; meta-analysis

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through
the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences
between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/agj2.20702.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Chemical fertilizer is known to play an important role in improving crop productivity and maintaining

soil fertility. Increasing the inputs of mineral nutrients, especially nitrogen (N), has been a major

factor that significantly contributes to improvements in crop yield (Chen et al., 2014). However, the

complex nature of N transformation in soils, associated with inappropriate application methods and

excessive application amounts, has led to low N use efficiency (NUE) in China (Guo et al., 2017). In

particular, significant portions of N are lost, resulting in negative environmental impacts (Steffen et

al., 2015), increasing agricultural costs (Geng et al., 2016), and even raising questions about the

sustainability of agricultural plantations. Increasing crop production while alleviate the environment

compromise can be achieved by increasing NUE (Chen et al, 2017). Although multiple subsequent

fertilizations with N fertilizer improve NUE (Garcia et al., 2018), they are labor- and time-consuming

and reduce the economic benefits of cotton planting.

Many types of new N fertilizers, such as urease and nitrification inhibitors and slow/controlled-release

fertilizers have been developed as alternative measures to improve NUE (Yang et al., 2013; Fan et al.,

2020). Among these fertilizers, controlled-release urea (CRU) shows great potential for enhancing

NUE, reducing environmental pollution and decreasing labor/time inputs in China (Tian et al., 2017a).

Many studies conducted during the past decade have shown the effectiveness of CRU as principal

strategies for N management due to its controlled N release (Azeem et al., 2014). For example, a

global meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (2019) explored the effect of polymer-coated urea on yield and N

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

uptake in maize systems. These authors found that, on average, the use of polymer-coated urea

increased maize yield and NUE by 5.3% and 24.1%, respectively, while mitigating N2O emissions,

NH3 volatilization and NO3- leaching. However, whether the results from maize are relevant to other

crop systems has not been determined.

Cotton is one of the most economically important fiber crops, and it grows on approximately 3.9

million hectares in China (China Agriculture Press, 2018). Generally, cotton needs N supplied

continuously to grow, but cotton absorbs N at different speeds in different growth periods (Tian et al.,

2017b). In China, CRU use for cotton growth has greatly increased due to its lower labor cost, high

NUE and convenient application (Tian et al., 2018). However, the response of cotton growth to CRU

fertilization has been inconsistent. For instance, in comparison with urea, CRU enhanced cotton yields

by 5.3%-20.3% in some field environments (Yang et al., 2017) but did not affect or even decreased

cotton yields in other studies (Li et al., 2010). Furthermore, while the positive effect of CRU on cotton

yield has often been documented in the literature, overall assessments of cotton growth are difficult

due to the wide variation in experimental and management factors. Therefore, a quantitative

understanding of the effects of CRU on cotton growth across a wide range of conditions is important

to maximize their effectiveness.

The use of CRU has been recommended as a critical measure to enhance crop productivity while

minimizing environmental costs (Kiran, Khanif, Amminuddin, & Anuar, 2010). However, its use in

field crops, especially cotton, is still limited as the use of CRU can increase in the financial burden

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

and CRU does not always significantly augment economic benefits. Given the considerably high

manufacturing costs of CRU (Shaviv, 2001), understanding improved measures to maximize its

effectiveness is needed to determine how CRU should be applied to ensure cotton growth. Therefore,

our meta-analysis was conducted to integrate the overall effects of CRU on cotton growth and on

factors accounting for the differences in these effects. We aimed to draw robust conclusions to assist

in determining the appropriate fertilization level of CRU in cotton production and to investigate the

factors that affect CRU efficiency in China.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Data collection

The meta-analysis was based on published literature and unpublished data from our research group. A

comprehensive literature survey of published data was conducted using the China Knowledge

Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We searched literature

published before October 2020 using the following search terms and their variations:

controlled-release urea, polymer-coated urea, controlled-release N fertilizer, resin-coated urea,

enhanced-efficiency fertilizer, cotton, and nitrogen use efficiency.

To avoid bias in selecting studies, published papers were analyzed and included if they met the

following criteria: (1) the experiments were conducted in China with cotton yield and/or NUE

reported; (2) the experimental design included a control with urea for yield and without N fertilizer

application for NUE; and (3) N fertilizers were restricted to CRU (urea coated or with polyolefin,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

epoxy resin, bio-based polyurethane and thermoplastic, etc.). Slow-release fertilizers, stable fertilizers

and functional fertilizers were excluded. Overall, a total of 50 studies and 322 observations were used

for cotton yield, and 138 observations were used for NUE (Table S1).

2.2. Building the datasets

For each study, cotton yield and NUE data were collected. Generally, the NUE (%) was calculated as

the difference between the total N uptake by cotton from fertilized and unfertilized treatments

per unit N applied (Zhang et al., 2019). To determine the key drivers affecting the response of cotton

productivity and NUE, information on soil properties, N management and experimental conditions

was collected.

Generally, the influencing factors were grouped into two or three classes according to the data

distribution, FAO soil classification system and references (Chen et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019).

The experimental approach was as follows: conducted seasons, 1, 2 and ≥3 season; urea fertilization

times, 1, 2 and ≥3 per season; total N application rate of urea, <170, 170≤N˂220, and ≥ 220 kg N ha-1

season-1; blending N ratio (BR) of CRU to urea, 100%, 70%<BR<100%, and ≤70%; soil organic

matter content (SOM), ≤12.0, 12.0＜SOM≤15.0, and SOM＞15 g kg-1; pH value, <7.5, 7.5≤pH<8.0,

and pH＞8.0; and soil texture as sandy, loam and clay. A categorical random effects model was used

to compare the effect sizes among each categorical group (Ding et al., 2018).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2.3. Data processing and statistics

A meta-analysis was conducted to characterize the response of cotton productivity to CRU. Due to the

high variability in the responses between studies, the natural log-transformed response ratio (lnR) was

used as a measure to quantify the effect size of CRU on cotton productivity and NUE as follows

(Hedges, Gurevitch & Curtis, 1999):

( ) ( ) ( )

where XCRU and XU are the values of CRU and urea, respectively, for cotton productivity or NUE.

Standard deviations and the number of replicates were used as a measure of variance. In the case of

yield or NUE responses presented only in the figures, Get-Data Graph Digitizer 2.25 software was

used to extract the mean and standard deviation (SD). For the studies without SD, 10% of the mean

value was assigned as this provides a good approximation of the SD value (Liu et al., 2013;

Zhang et al., 2018). The weight for each effect size was considered its inverse variance. The results

were back-transformed and reported as percentage changes (Y) as follows: Y= (elnR-1) × 100%;

positive percentage changes (Y˃0) indicate an increase, while negative values (Y˂0) indicate a

decrease (Ding et al., 2018). Meta Win 2.1 were used to generate mean effect sizes for categories and

calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a bootstrapping procedure (4999 iterations).

Mean effect size indicated a significant difference between CRU and urea if the 95% CI did not

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

include 0 (Zhang et al., 2019). Means were considered significantly different from 0 if the 95% CIs

did not overlap zero and were considered significantly different from one another if their 95% Cis

were nonoverlapping (Liu et al., 2013).

3 Results

3.1. Overview of the dataset

The database included 64 field studies across all three major cotton-producing areas in China (Fig.

S1). Of these experiments, the majority of experiments (68.6%) were only conducted for 1 year, and

only 4.3% were conducted over 3 years (Fig. 1a). In addition, almost 86.8% of the experiments in this

meta-analysis were published after 2010 (Fig. 1b).

3.2. Effects of CRU on cotton productivity and NUE

Overall, the application of CRU is an effective strategy to increase cotton productivity, with a few

negative responses limited to specific circumstances (Table S3). Relative to urea, CRU increased

cotton yield by 9.8% at the same N amounts (Fig.2). Although only 75% or more of the N in CRU

was applied, the cotton yield of CRU was nearly the same as that with 100% conventional urea

(Fig.3), indicating that a decreased N rate is possible with CRU to maintain cotton productivity and

reduce fertilizer use. At the same time, the application of CRU increased the NUE, which was 28.5%

with urea and 34.0% with CRU at the same N rates; i.e., the effect size of CRU was 19.3%.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

3.3. Influencing Factors

3.3.1. Nitrogen fertilizer management

The effectiveness of CRU on cotton yield in the field experiment did not significantly differ among

the N application rates (Fig.2a), but the effects on NUE increased with the N application rate over 170

kg hm-2. Compared to one-time fertilization with urea, CRU increased cotton yield by 10.3%. In

addition, in comparison to split urea and increased fertilization applications, CRU achieved

approximately the same yield. The trends associated with N management for CRU-enhanced NUE

were similar to those for cotton productivity. In addition, greater responses of cotton yield and NUE

increase were observed in experiments sustained over 2 years than in those conducted for 1 season.

3.3.2. Soil properties

The response ratio of cotton productivity and NUE following fertilization with CRU was also affected

by soil properties (Fig. 4). Compared with urea, CRU increased cotton yield by 10.5%, 5.4%, and

1.7% for sand-, loam-, and clay-textured soil, respectively. At the same time, the cotton yield increase

was higher with CRU than with urea when the soil pH was >8.0, although the difference was not

statistically significant. The effect of CRU fertilization on cotton yield tended to decrease as the soil

organic matter contents and total N concentration increased, but the yield and NUE was not

significantly decreased.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

4 Discussion

4.1. General role of CRU in increasing cotton productivity

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the total N rate was reduced by 35.0% without yield loss by

applying CRU instead of 100% conventional urea (Fig.3). This approach is an effective alternative

measure to decrease the N inputs associated with mitigating environmental costs (Zheng et al., 2016).

The main reasons for the positive effects of CRU may involve NUE, which was 34.0% with CRU and

28.5% with urea. We attributed this superior performance to the advantages of CRU by supplying N

at rates that more closely correspond to cotton requirements while not wasting N fertilizer. In most

cases, cotton growth requires a continuous supply of N from rhizosphere soil, and synchronizing N

inputs with the needs of cotton is vital to yield formation (Geng et al., 2015). Therefore, the N

released from CRU at a controlled rate minimizes the inorganic N concentration when the N demands

of cotton plants are low and enhances the soil N supply when N uptake is high. In addition, decreased

early-season N availability is also helpful in reducing N loss to the environment; that is, the decrease

enhances the quantity and availability of N in the soil-cotton system.

Despite the noted explanations, one-time fertilization with CRU mitigated root and branch damage

during topdressing. Enhanced cotton productivity with CRU may also increase plant residues,

including fallen leaves, branches, and roots, consequently increasing soil organic matter (Zheng et al.,

2020) and ultimately changing other soil properties, such as water-holding and retention capacity (Fan

et al., 2020), soil porosity (Shaviv, 2001) and microbial activity (Fernández-Luqueño et al., 2009), as

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

well as slowing soil acidification (Zheng et al., 2016). Additionally, the vestigial excess N from

previous crops will also be released when needed (Tian et al., 2018). As a consequence, the cotton

with applied CRU, even with a reduced N rate, achieved a higher fiber yield than the cotton with

applied urea.

4.2. CRU’s effect on cotton productivity and NUE: management factors

Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated a convincing positive response of cotton productivity to

CRU, with a few negative responses limited to specific circumstances. In the current study, the effects

of CRU on cotton yield were similar among the N application rates (Fig.2a), but the effects of CRU

on NUE increased with the N application rate. This result was expected, as cotton productivity

generally increased while NUE decreased with increasing N application rate (Farmaha & Sims.,

2013). Excess N rates may have been above optimal, and as such, cotton may not have responded

positively to CRU fertilization (Linquist, Liu, Kessel, & Groenigen, 2013). In addition, since higher N

application leads to greater N losses (Abalos et al., 2014), the role of CRU in improving NUE would

be more pronounced for slower N-release behavior (Grant et al., 2012), which would better match the

N requirements of cotton at later stages. Therefore, a greater NUE increase with CRU fertilization was

found at higher N application rates.

The increase in cotton yield with CRU fertilization was greater with the one-time application of urea

than with split fertilization (Fig. 3a). This result could be expected, as a split application of urea

generally leads to higher cotton productivity (Wang et al., 2015). Cotton growth needs not only a high

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

supply of total N but also more importantly, a greater proportion of N from the first bloom stage to the

initial boll-opening stage (Geng et al., 2016). Therefore, the one-time fertilization of urea, which

hydrolyzes rapidly in soil solution, was not sufficient to meet the full N demands for cotton growth.

Although the split application of urea produced more fiber, it required more time and labor and was

thus associated with reduced economic profit (Garcia et al., 2018). Therefore, due to the gradual

release of CRU, which corresponds well to the full N requirement of cotton (Tian et al., 2017c), one

CRU application was appropriate to maintain cotton productivity.

In addition, relative to the same amount of urea applied alone, blended CRU and urea increased NUE

by 18.1-24.7% when controlled-release N accounted for more than 70% of the total N (Fig. 3).

Although the availability of early-season N is limited because the release of N from CRU delays and

thus mitigates reactive N loss (Wang et al., 2015), and retention of remaining debris from the previous

season also results in short-term N immobilization (Zheng et al., 2020). In addition, the manufacturing

costs of CRU are still considerably high (Yang et al., 2013), which are still 2–4 times those of

conventional urea, and despite being proposed, a government policy to subsidize fertilizer costs has

yet to be developed (Fan et al., 2021). As a result, adding a certain percentage of urea to cotton is

appropriate to address the short-term N immobilization and supply the N required earlier in the

growing season with relatively low N fertilizer inputs.

The effect CRU on cotton yield was higher for experiments sustained over 2 years than for those

conducted for one season (Fig. 3). Since CRU achieved increased biomass, the returned residues

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

(including roots, straw and branches) increased, and finally, the organic carbon content increased.

Similar results was also reported by Geng et al. (2015) that in comparison with the application of urea,

the application of CRU significantly increased the total N and organic matter contents in 0-20 cm soil

over 7 years of cultivation under a rice-oilseed rape rotation system. In addition, the CRU granule

shells still existed in soil even though all N was released and appeared to create a water reserve near

the root zone (Chen et al., 2017). The water stored inside the ball was released slowly as required by

the plant to improve growth under a limited water supply. As a result, CRU could act as a long-term

soil carrier and conditioner with benefits for improved soil structure and/or soil moisture regime,

which could favor cotton production (Ding et al., 2018).

4.3. CRU’s effect on cotton yield productivity and NUE: environmental factors

CRU resulted in a greater increase in cotton yield and NUE in sandy soils than in loam and clay soil

(Fig. 4). The increase could be attributed to the controlled N release of CRU, which could lead to a

decrease in reactive N loss to the environment. For instance, sandy soils generally have high gas

diffusivity and thus may decrease the reduction of N2O to N2 via complete denitrification (Hu, Chen,

& He, 2015). In addition, since sandy soil is often characterized by low nutrient levels and water

holding capacity, the N released from urea easily leaches into underground water though N

mineralization and nitrification (Fan et al., 2020), especially with intensive rainfall or irrigation after

fertilization. This result is consistent with that observed by Zhang et al. (2019) for a global maize

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

production system, where CRU resulted in a greater reduction in N2O emissions and N leaching in

loam- and sandy-textured soils than in clay-textured soils.

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that a greater increase in NUE with CRU can be achieved in soils

with higher pH (Fig. 4). It is well known that the concentration of H+ (i.e., pH) is a dominant factor

controlling NH3 emissions, with significant NH3 losses from fertilizers at pH values higher than 7.0

(Tilman, Balzer, Hill & Befort, 2011). Generally, the increase in soil pH was associated with the

increased NH3 rates of the liquid phase in soil, and ultimately, more NH3 volatilized. In China, cotton

is generally planted in soils with a pH>7.0 (data not shown). The hydrophobic coating material of

CRU effectively prevents the direct contact of urea and soil moisture; thus, CRU could maintain the

NH4+ concentration and ammonia partial pressure of the gaseous phase at a relatively lower level

relative to that of urea, delaying the NH3 volatilization peaks (Dong, Zhang & Liu, 2013). Therefore,

the potential of CRU to improve cotton yield and NUE was greater in soils with higher pH, likely due

to its gradual N release characteristic of CRU.

CRU had a greater effect on cotton yield and NUE for soils with lower levels of soil organic carbon

(<12.0 g kg-1) than higher levels of soil organic carbon (Fig. 4). Soil organic matter is a critical

component in both natural and managed ecosystems, providing organic substrate for nutrient release

and playing an important role in the maintaining soil structure and water holding capacity and in

reducing erosion (Chen et al., 2016). This could be expected, as soil with lower organic matter

generally has limited water and nutrient holding capacity. As a consequence, the N released from urea

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

easily leaches to the deep soil in addition to water, while the N leaching is mitigated because the N

from CRU is released slowly.

4.4. Information gaps and future implications

Relative to urea, CRU has been recommended as an environmentally friendly measure to reduce soil

reactive N losses to the environment (Galloway et al., 2015). However, most types of CRU are coated

with petroleum-based materials, such as resin, polyolefin, and thermoplastic materials, which can

accumulate in soil and possibly cause pollution during degradation. Therefore, a full life-cycle

assessment of CRU use needs to be evaluated more widely in future studies. In addition, the dominant

barrier to CRU use is its high cost, which is mainly caused by considerably high manufacturing costs

(Yang et al., 2013). Furthermore, more attention should also be given to improving the coating

materials and CRU technology to ensure it is eco-friendly and cost effective.

Our meta-analysis indicates that the use of CRU for cotton production should be encouraged,

especially for sandy soils or low organic matter soils. However, only 31.5% of experiments in the

database were conducted for more than 2 years (Fig. 3). It has been demonstrated that in comparison

to the use of urea, the use of CRU can increase the soil organic matter levels (Tian et al., 2018). In

addition, the unique advantages of CRU in enhancing soil N availability, maintaining soil fertility,

mitigating soil acidification and decreasing soil N loss relative to urea may cause a long-term residual

effect (Zheng et al., 2016). To date, there are limited reports on the long-term effect of CRU on field

crop growth, especially cotton, and soil properties. Thus, well-designed long-term field studies (>2

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

years) are critical to explore the long-term effects of CRU on soil properties, such as microbiological,

physical and chemical processes, which potentially affect soil quality and ultimately cotton yield

formation in China.

A well-controlled CRU N-release pattern associated with a reasonable soil N supply and application

of the full N requirement of specific crops are essential to improve the effectiveness of CRU (Wilson,

Rosen, &Moncrief, 2010). However, in most cases, N-release patterns were obtained in 25°C water.

There are insufficient studies focused on the release behavior of CRU under various environmental

conditions, such as different temperatures, moisture levels, soil types, microorganisms, and acidity

levels. A better understanding of the N-release mechanisms of CRU and the major environmental

factors that affect them is helpful for increasing the positive effects on cotton growth. Additionally, to

improve industrial quality control and farmer decision-making processes, the N-release mechanisms

and models of N release from CRU should be well predicted.

According to this meta-analysis, the use of CRU for cotton production should be encouraged, but the

synchronized relationships between the N-release rate of CRU and the N needs of cotton have not

been well studied. Although Geng et al. (2015) showed that there was a significant linear correlation

between the N-release rates of polymer-coated urea and the N requirements of cotton though a 2-year

field study, the complex nature of N transformation in soils makes these relationships indistinct. Thus,

studies focused on the induction of synergistic effects among N release from CRU, soil N supply and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

N requirements of cotton using isotope tracer techniques, such as 15N and 13C, should be conducted

under well-designed conditions.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that relative to conventional urea, CRU improved cotton yield by 9.8% and

NUE by 19.4% at the same N rate. However, the effects of CRU on the yield and NUE of cotton

depended on nitrogen management and environmental conditions. Further research is needed to

improve our understanding of mechanistic-mathematical models for predicting N release from CRU

under laboratory and field conditions. Additionally, long-term field studies across a wide range of

conditions are needed. Overall, the use of controlled-release urea for cotton growth should be

encouraged in China, especially for sandy soil or low organic matter soil with higher N rates.

Acknowledgements:

This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41807092 and

41701243), Project of Shandong Province Higher Educational Science and Technology Program

(KJ2018BAF034), and Startup Foundation for PhD of Liaocheng University (318051839).

References

Abalos, D., Jeffery, S., Sanz-Cobena, A., Guardia, G., & Vallejo, A., (2014). Meta-analysis of the

effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 189, 136–144.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Azeem, B., KuShaari, K., Man, Z.B., Basit, A., & Thanh, T.H., (2014). Review on materials &

methods to produce controlled release coated urea fertilizer. Journal of Controlled Release. 181,

11-21.

Chen, S., Lv, W.S., Bloszies, S., Shi, Q.H., Pan, X.H., & Zeng, Y.J., (2016). Effects of fertilizer

management practices on yield-scaled ammonia emissions from croplands in China: a meta-analysis.

Field Crop Research. 192, 118–125.

Chen, J., Lu, S., Zhang, Z., Zhao, X., Li, X., Ning, P., & Liu, M.Z., (2017). Environmentally friendly

fertilizers: a review of materials used and their effects on the environment. Science of the Total

Environment, 613-614.

Chen, X., Cui, Z., Fan, M., Vitousek, P., Zhao, M., Ma, W., … & Zhang, F. (2014). Producing more

grain with lower environmental costs. Nature (London), 514, 486–489.

China Agriculture Press. (2018). China agriculture yearbook. (In Chinese.) Beijing: China Agriculture

Press.

Ding, W., Xu, X., He, P., Ullah, S., Zhang, J., Cui, Z., & Zhou, W., (2018). Improving yield and

nitrogen use efficiency through alternative fertilization options for rice in China: a meta-analysis.

Field Crop Research, 227: 11-18.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fan, Z., Tian, X.F., Zhai, S., Liu, Z.L., Chu, P.F., Li, C.L., …& Li, T.T., (2020). Co-application of

controlled-release urea and a superabsorbent polymer to improve nitrogen and water use in maize.

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2020.1862803

Fan, Z., Chen, J.X., Zhai, S., Ding, X.H., Zhang, H.Z., Sun, S.C., & Tian, X.F., (2021). Optimal

blends of controlled-release urea and conventional urea improved nitrogen use efficiency in wheat and

maize with reduced nitrogen application, J. Soil Science and Plant Nutrtion.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00425-z

Farmaha, B. S., & Sims, A. L. (2013). The influence of polymer-coated urea and urea fertilizer

mixtures on spring wheat protein concentrations and economic returns. Agronomy Journal, 105,

1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0454

Fernández-Luqueño, F., Reyes-Varela, V., Martínez-Suárez, C., Reynoso-Keller, R., Méndez-

Bautista, J., Ruiz-Romero, E., …& Dendooven, L., (2009). Emission of CO2 and N2O from soil

cultivated with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) fertilized with different N sources. Science of

the Total Environment. 407, 4289–4296.

Garcia, P. L., González-Villalba, H. A., Sermarini, R. A., & Trivelin, P. C. O. (2018). Nitrogen use

efficiency and nutrient partitioning in maize as affected by blends of controlled-release and

conventional urea. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 64, 1944–1962.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Geng, J.B., Ma, Q., Zhang, M., Li, C.L., Liu, Z.G., Lyu, X.X., & Zheng, W.K., (2015). Synchronized

relationships between nitrogen release of controlled release nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen

requirements of cotton. Field Crops Research. 184, 9–16.

Geng, J.B., Ma, Q., Chen, J.Q., Zhang, M., Li, C.L., Yang, Y.C., … & Zhang, W.T., (2016). Effects

of polymer coated urea and sulfur fertilization on yield, nitrogen use efficiency and leaf senescence of

cotton. Field Crops Research. 187, 87–95.

Grant, C. A., Wu, R., Selles, F., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Bittman, S., … Lupwayi, N. Z.

(2012). Crop yield and nitrogen concentration with controlled release urea and split applications of

nitrogen as compared to non-coated urea applied at seeding. Field Crops Research, 127, 170–180.

Guo, J. M., Wang, Y. H., Fan, T. L., Chen, X. P., & Cui, Z. L. (2016). Designing corn management

strategies for high yield and high nitrogen use efficiency. Agronomy Journal, 108, 922–929.

Kiran, J.K., Khanif, Y.M., Amminuddin, H., & Anuar, A.R., (2010). Effects of controlled release urea

on the yield and nitrogen nutrition of flooded rice. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analyss.

41, 811–819.

Hedges, L.V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P.S., (1999). The meta-analysis of response ratios in

experimental ecology. Ecology, 80, 1150–1156.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Hu, H., Chen, D., & He, J., 2015. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation:

understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiology Review.

39, 729-749.

Li, X.G., Song, X.L., Sun, X.Z., Chen, E.Y., Zhang, M.L., Zhao, Q.L., & Liu, F., (2010). Effects of

controlled release N fertilizer on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of cotton. Journal of Plant

Nutrition and Fertilizers, 16(3): 656-662. (In Chinese)

Linquist, B.A., Liu, L., Kessel, C., & Groenigen, K.J., 2013. Enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers

for rice systems: meta-analysis of yield and nitrogen uptake. Field Crops Res. 154, 246–254.

Liu, X., Zhang, A., Ji, C., Joseph, S., Bian, R., Li, L., …& Paz-Ferreiro, J., 2013. Biochar's effect on

crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions a meta-analysis of literature data.

Plant Soil. 373, 583-594.

Shaviv, A., (2001). Advances in controlled-release fertilizers. Advances in Agronomy. 71, 1–49.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,..., & Sorlin, S.,

(2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347,

1259855.

Tian, X.F., Geng, J.B., Guo, Y.L., Li, C.L., Zhang, M., & Chen, J.Q., (2017a). Controlled-release urea

decreased ammonia volatilization and increased nitrogen use efficiency of cotton. Journal of Plant

Nutrition and Soil Science. 180: 667-675.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Tian, X.F., Li, C.L., Zhang, M., Lu, Y.Y., Guo, Y.L., & Liu, L.F., (2017b). Effects of

controlled-release potassium fertilizer on available potassium, photosynthetic performance, and yield

of cotton. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 180(5):505-515

Tian, X.F., Li, C.L., Zhang, M., Li, T., Lu, Y.Y., & Liu, L.F., (2018). Controlled release urea

improved crop yields and mitigated nitrate leaching under cotton-garlic intercropping system in a

4-year field trial. Soil Tillage Research. 175:158–167.

Tian, X.F., Li, C.L., Zhang, M., Wan Y.S., Chen, B.C, Xie, Z.H., & Li, W.Q., (2017c) Biochar

derived from corn straw affected availability and distribution of soil nutrients and cotton yield. PLoS

One. 2018, 13(1): e0189924

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable

intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America, 108, 20260–20264.

Wang, S.Q., Zhao, X., Xing, G.X., Yang, Y.C., Zhang, M., Chen, H.K., 2015. Improving grain yield

and reducing N loss using polymer-coated urea in southeast China. Agronomy for Sustainable

Development, 35, 1103–1115.

Wang, Y., Feng, G. Z., Zhang, T. S., Ru, T. J., Yuan, Y., & Gao, Q. (2015). Optimizing blending ratio

of controlled release N fertilizer for spring maize based on grain yield, N efficiency, and economic

benefit. Acta Petrologica Sinica, 52, 1153-1165. (In Chinese)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Wilson, M. L., Rosen, C. J.,&Moncrief, J. F. (2010). Effects of polymercoated urea on nitrate

leaching and nitrogen uptake by potato. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39, 492–499.

Yang, Y.C., Tong, Z.H., Geng, Y.Q., Li, Y.C., & Zhang, M., (2013). Bio-based polymer composites

derived from corn stover and feather meals as double-coating materials for controlled-release and

water-retention urea fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2013 61 (34), 8166-8174.

Galloway, J.N., Townsend, A.R., Erisman, J.W., Bekunda, M., Cai, Z., Freney, J.R.,…&Torbert,

H.A., (2015). Impacts of enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizers on greenhouse gas emissions in a

coastal plain soil under cotton. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44, 1699–1710.

Yang, X.Y., Li, C.L., Zhang, Q., Liu, Z.G., Geng, J.B., & Zhang, M., (2017). Effects of polymer

coated potassium chloride on cotton yield, leaf senescence and soil potassium. Field Crops Research.

212, 145–152.

Zhang, W.S, Liang, Z.Y., He, X.M., Wang, X.Z., Shim X.J., Zoum C.Q., & Chen, X.P., (2019). The

effects of controlled release urea on maize productivity and reactive nitrogen losses: A meta-analysis.

Environmental Pollution. 246:559–565.

Zheng, W., Sui, C., Liu, Z., Geng, J., Tian, X., Yang, X., Li, C. and Zhang, M. (2016), Long-term

effects of controlled-release urea on crop yields and soil fertility under wheat-corn double cropping

systems. Agronomy Journal, 108: 1703-1716.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Zheng, W.K., Wan, Y.S., Li, Y.C., Liu, Z.G., Chen, J.Q., Zhou, H.Y., & Zhang, M. 2020. Developing

water and nitrogen budgets of a wheat-maize rotation system using auto-weighing lysimeters: effects

of blended application of controlled-release and un-coated urea. Environmental Pollution. 263:114383

Fig.1. Distribution of publications in conducted seasons sequence (a) and published year (b)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fig.2. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer management on the percent changes in cotton yields (a), and
nitrogen use efficiency (b). The point and error line represent the effect sizes based on response
ratios and its 95% confidence interval respectively. The value in parentheses represents the
numbers of paired experimental observations.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fig.3. Effects of the overall and reduced N application rates of CRU on the cotton productivity as a

percentage changes relative to urea. N denotes the N application rate (kg N ha-1). The point and error

line represent the effect sizes based on response ratios and its 95% confidence interval respectively.

The value in parentheses represents the numbers of paired experimental observations.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Fig.4. Effects of controlled release urea addition on percent changes in cotton yields (a), and
nitrogen use efficiency (b). The point and error line represent the effect sizes based on response
ratios and its 95% confidence interval respectively. The value in parentheses represents the
numbers of paired experimental observations.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.