Methylene urea as a slow-release nitrogen source for processing tomatoes

• Published in: Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems Vol. 71; no. 2; pp. 177 - 190
• Main Authors: Koivunen, M.E, Horwath, W.R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Nature B.V 01.02.2005
• Subjects: Agricultural practices; Cover crops; Crop yield; Crops; Economic conditions; Efficiency; Environmental factors; Fertilizers; field experimentation; Leaching; Methylene; methylene urea; Mineralization; Nitrogen isotopes; nutrient uptake; nutrient use efficiency; Plant biomass; plant nutrition; slow-release fertilizers; Solanum lycopersicum var. lycopersicum; Tomatoes; Urea; urea fertilizers; urea formaldehyde; Wheat; Winter; California
• ISSN: 1385-1314; 1573-0867
• DOI: 10.1007/s10705-004-2214-7

The potential for improved fertilizer N use efficiency was tested using a slow release N fertilizer, methylene urea (MU), on processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in a 2-year field study in the Sacramento Valley, California. Fertilizer N use efficiency of urea and a (50:50, w:w) mixture of urea and MU (uMU) was determined in direct-seeded and transplanted tomato plots with winter cover crop (CC) or winter fallow (F) using 15N labeled fertilizers. Residual MU-N was estimated from tomato N uptake in the 15N microplots, and from residual 15N uptake of wheat grown after two tomato crops. No significant differences were found in the quantity and quality of tomato yields among fertilizer and management treatments during the first year. Total yields in transplanted FuMU plots were significantly lower in the second test year, suggesting slow mineralization of MU-N in the F treatment. On average, about 40% of added fertilizer N was taken up in both fertilizer treatments, and the recovery of 15N in plant biomass and soil was 75–96 and 50–74% in seeded and transplanted blocks, respectively. In the laboratory, mineralization of MU started faster in soils with past MU use, but the enhanced mineralization did not affect the plant N uptake in the field. MU is potentially an environmentally attractive fertilizer, but without an immediate increase in yield and N use efficiency compared to conventional fertilizers, its use on row crops may not be economically feasible unless the positive environmental factors like decreased leaching of N are considered.