Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors

Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors Volkan ATAV, Mehmet Ali GÜRBÜZ, Emel KAYALI, Elif YALINKILIÇ This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Nov, 2024 Read the published version in Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In conventional agriculture, nitrogen is essential for plant growth and is usually supplied through fertilization. However, nitrogen can be lost through various pathways, significantly affecting soils with distinct compositions. This study focused on examining the effects of split urea application, along with the application of fertilizers containing the nitrification inhibitor 3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) and the urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) at full (100%) and reduced (75%) levels of the standard application rate. Conducted over two years, the field trial aimed to assess the capacity of these treatments to mitigate nitrogen loss and meet the nitrogen requirements of maize effectively. The results of the study revealed that NBPT maintained the required nitrogen levels in the soil by meeting the nitrogen requirement of maize. On the other hand, DMPP caused nitrogen losses due to increasing ammonium levels in the soil during early plant growth stages. NBPT provided the best results in terms of plant yield and nitrogen content, whereas DMPP showed lower performance in these parameters. Reduced NBPT doses increased nitrogen use efficiency but were less effective in terms of yield compared to full doses. According to the result of the economic analysis, split urea treatment gave better results compared to all treatments. In conclusion, NBPT increased both yield and nitrogen use efficiency by providing nitrogen release by the nitrogen requirement of maize. maize nitrogen split urea yield nitrogen use efficiency Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Nitrogen (N) is an essential plant nutrient and the most important plant nutrient for crop production (Wang et al., 2013 ; Goloran et al., 2014 ; Sharma et al., 2017 ). N is one of the leading factors limiting yield in maize (Kün, 1985 ; Pasley et al., 2019 ), and is an important element that is used for protein and nucleic acid synthesis and must be present in sufficient quantities in the soil for plant development (Wang et al., 2020 ). Maize needs adequate and balanced N fertilization because they can produce high dry matter in a short period by evaluating light under wet conditions (Wu et al., 2021 ; Zhai et ali, 2022). In the absence of N, maize growth is retarded, the stem is stunted, and the leaves do not reach their normal sizes (Kacar and Katkat 1998 ; Bayram et al., 2004 ). Even if enough N is applied to the soil to meet the needs of the plant, factors such as ammonia (NH 3 ) losses due to the activity of the urease enzyme during the hydrolysis of urea (Ali et al., 2020 ), NO 3 − -N (nitrate) losses due to the mobility of soil water (Francisco et al., 2011 ), and NH 3 losses due to fixation (Mariano et al., 2019 ), can limit the amount of N in the soil and the NUE (nitrogen use efficiency) of plants. During N fertilization to increase the yield of maize, re-entering the field after weeding can damage the plant's root system. In addition, fertilization after the plant has passed the 4–6 leaf stage can lead to the accumulation of fertilizer in the leaves of conical maize and damage to the leaves due to this accumulation. NUE, the percentage recovery of applied fertilizer N at harvest, is defined as the amount of N taken up by the plant and used in growth and yield relative to the amount of N applied (Moll et al. 1982 ). The NUE of maize grown in developing and developed countries ranges from 29–42%, and it is necessary to increase this value to 33% or higher due to the rapidly increasing world population (Raun and Johnson 1999 ; Walsh et al. 2012 ). Maize plants only recover about 30–50% of the N applied traditionally (Herrera et al., 2016 ). In addition, Improving NUE by reducing the use of chemical fertilizers will contribute to reducing the negative effects of chemical fertilizers on the environment and human health (Rossmann et al., 2019 ; Dimkpa et al., 2020 ), and will allow for the production of more crops with less chemical fertilizer to meet the nutritional needs of the rapidly growing world population (Zhang et al., 2015 ). NUE is reduced due to the decreased efficiency of N fertilizers applied to the soil and the occurrence of N losses due to various factors (Abrol et al., 2012 ). Urea fertilizer is a major N source in crop production systems (Homme, 2016 ; Ali et al., 2020 ). However, the use of urea fertilizer can cause serious environmental impacts on the atmosphere and water systems (Dimkpa et al., 2020 ), which can disrupt ecosystem functions and harm human health (Van Grinsven et al., 2013 ; Kanter et al., 2015 ). There is an increasing emphasis on efficient, cost-effective, and resilient nutrient supply systems as essential for the sustainable use and management of agricultural soil (Tian et al., 2020 ; Paramesh et al., 2023 ). In recent years, there has been a focus on the development of nitrogen stabilizers (NSs) containing urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce these negative impacts and improve NUE (Trenkel, 2021 ; Durmaz and Öner, 2018 ; Qiong et al., 2021 ). The use of this fertilizer has the potential to balance environmental impacts and increase crop yields. Therefore, an integrated and comprehensive assessment of the agricultural and environmental impacts of NS is needed. These assessments will reveal how NS can play a role in addressing global food scarcity and the N dilemma. Urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) nitrogen fertilizers slow down the hydrolysis process of urea, while 3.4-dimethylepyrazole phosphate (DMPP) nitrogen fertilizers slow down the nitrification process of NH 4 + -N. In particular, during the summer months, NH 4 + -N is converted to NO 3 − -N in a short period, such as 1–14 days, resulting in N loss as well as pollution in groundwater. In addition, denitrifying bacteria in the soil convert NO 3 − -N to NO (nitrogen monoxide) and N 2 O (nitrous oxide) gases (Jungkunst et al., 2006 ; Angers et al., 2022 ), which are released into the atmosphere (Venterea et al., 2012 ). Furthermore in soils with high pH, the conversion of NH 4 + -N to NH 3 is accelerated, leading to increased N losses to the atmosphere in the form of NH 3 (Génermont and Cellier, 1997 ; Bussink and Oenema, 1998 ). These gases are greenhouse gases that cause global climate change problems (Wang et al., 2013 ), a critical issue that was addressed in terms of global commitments at COP26 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Hou, 2022 ). Depending on the use of DMPP and NBPT nitrogen fertilizers, the ratio of NH 4 + -N and NO 3 − -N in soils changes (Cantarella et al., 2005 ). To maintain the anion-cation balance, a molecule of H + (hydrogen) is released by plant roots for each NH 4 + -N that is adsorbed. This event leads to a decrease in the pH of the rhizosphere. Similarly, a molecule of OH − (hydroxyl) is released to maintain the anion-cation balance for each NO 3 − -N molecule that is adsorbed (Grendás et al., 1990). Different studies have shown the potential of this new approach to reduce environmental pollution and maintain crop yields (Geng et al., 2015 ). However, studies on the field performance of NS have shown different results depending on many factors (e.g., environmental conditions) (Wang et al., 2017 ; Tian et al., 2018 ). Nitrification and denitrification are thought to occur under aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions, respectively (Butterbach-Bahl et al., 2013 ), but the mechanisms by which NBPT and DMPP affect the relevant genes at different soil moisture levels remain unclear (Barrena et al., 2017 ; Castellano-Hinojosa et al., 2020 ). In addition, the high cost of NS (Zhang et al., 2017; Li et al., 2022 ) and the complex production process limit their widespread application in agricultural fields (Subbarao et al., 2006 ). The application of NS is crucial for reducing the negative environmental impacts caused by traditional urea use, as well as increasing economic returns and ensuring global food security. This research aims to investigate the effects of NS and their reduced doses on soil nitrogen release, maize nitrogen uptake, and yield compared to traditional urea applications. Additionally, this study targets the investigation of the effects of reduced doses of NBPT and DMPP to minimize chemical fertilizer usage. In this study, the impacts of NBPT and DMPP fertilizers on soil N release, maize plant N uptake, and yield are explored through a comparative analysis with split urea application. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Trial area and material The research took place at the Kırklareli Atatürk Soil, Water, and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute, situated at 41°42'11" N latitude and 27°12'29" E longitude, during 2021 and 2022. The region's mean annual temperature is 13.3°C, with an average total annual rainfall of 48.7 mm (MGM, 2022 ). Tables 1 and 2 provide some of the soil's physical and chemical characteristics. Although temperatures in 2021 and 2022 were similar, June 2021 experienced rainfall above the average (Fig. 1 ). The study utilized nitrification inhibitor 3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), and urea fertilizer (Table 3 ). The research employed DKC6630 grain maize seed, a common crop in the area, as plant material. The irrigation water was sourced from a deep well on the institute's property, which has a pH of 7.30 ± 0.03, EC of 1.10 ± 0.05 dS m − 1 , NH 4 + -N of 0.14 ± 0.001 mg kg − 1 , and NO 3 − -N of 0.68 ± 0.02 mg kg − 1 . Table 1 The experiment site soil properties in 2021 0–30 30–60 60–90 pH 8.10 ± 0.10 8.02 ± 0.10 8.03 ± 0.10 Organic matter (%) 0.98 ± 0.08 1.20 ± 0.09 1.05 ± 0.08 NH 4 + -N (mg kg − 1 ) 8.35 ± 2.00 9.13 ± 2.00 3.40 ± 1,10 NO 3 − -N (mg kg − 1 ) 2.47 ± 0.70 5.41 ± 1.30 14.75 ± 2.10 P (kg ha − 1 ) 22.17 ± 0.90 20.58 ± 0.90 20.24 ± 0.90 K (kg ha − 1 ) 220.08 ± 3.05 210.31 ± 3.02 238.62 ± 3.10 Texture (%) % 47.18 sand, % 30.52 silt, % 22.30 clay Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Table 2 The experiment site soil properties in 2022 0–30 30–60 60–90 pH 8.20 ± 0.10 8.08 ± 0.10 8.10 ± 0.10 Organic matter (%) 1.31 ± 0.08 1.12 ± 0.07 0.90 ± 0.06 NH 4 + -N (mg kg − 1 ) 7.65 ± 2.00 9.10 ± 2.30 4.17 ± 1.07 NO 3 − -N (mg kg − 1 ) 2.33 ± 0.70 6.54 ± 1.40 16.75 ± 3.60 P (kg ha − 1 ) 20.04 ± 0.90 20.35 ± 0.90 19.14 ± 0.88 K (kg ha − 1 ) 233.08 ± 3.10 198.00 ± 2.97 220.71 ± 3.10 Texture (%) %48.33 sand, %31.25 silt, %20.42 clay Data are presented as mean ± standard error. Table 3 Fertilizer materials Fertilizer N Source/Rate Inhibitor Urea % 46 urea - 3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) % 45 urea Nitrification inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) % 45 urea Urease inhibitor 2.2. Experiment set up and agricultural applications The research followed a randomized complete block design, featuring 5 different treatments, each replicated 3 times for a total of 15 experimental plots. Each 5.60 m by 9.00 m plot covered an area of 50.40 m 2 . Planting was done in 8 rows, with a 70 cm gap between rows and 20 cm spacing within rows. Following Yakan and Sağlam ( 1997 )'s findings, which recommended applying 210 kg ha − 1 of N to achieve the highest grain N rate in maize under local conditions, this amount was used as a baseline. The experiment involved various fertilization methods with NS (DMPP and NBPT): 210 kg ha − 1 of N (G2, G3) and a 25% reduced rate (G4, G5) applied before planting. The split urea method (G1) involved two urea applications: before planting and during hoeing (Table 4 ). Since the soil had adequate levels of P, K, and micronutrients for maize growth, no further fertilization was needed. A control setup without N was included to evaluate N use efficiency. Irrigation was done through furrow irrigation, adjusted according to the plants' water needs. Soil inorganic N levels were checked three times during the growing season. At the R6 maturity stage, harvest involved separating the grains from the cobs, measuring moisture levels, and collecting samples for nitrogen analysis. Grain weights from all plots were recorded, and raw yields were documented. A detailed description of the agricultural practices used during the study is in Table 5 . Table 4 Experiment design and N ratios App. N Rate (kg ha − 1 ) Fertilizers and N Management G1 210 Before planting urea (1/3) + during the hoeing urea (2/3) G2 210 Before planting %100 DMPP G3 210 Before planting %100 NBPT G4 157.5 Before planting %75 DMPP G5 157.5 Before planting % 75 NBPT Table 5 Agricultural practices App. Sequence Practices App. Sequence Practices 1 Soil treatment 6 Hoeing 2 Weeding 7 Sets for furrow irrigation 3 Fertilization 8 Second fertilization 4 Sowing 9 Weeding 5 Weedicide application 10 Harvesting 2.3. Analysis methods Soil pH and EC (Electrical Conductivity) values were determined in saturation paste (Soil Survey Lab. Staff, 1975 ). Organic matter content was determined by the modified Walkley-Black method (Jackson, 1979 ), while lime (% CaCO 3 ) contents were measured by the Scheibler calcimeter method (Loeppert and Suarez, 1996 ). Microelements were determined by DTPA (Diethylene Triamine Pentaacetic Acid) extraction (Lindsay and Norwel, 1978). Inorganic N includes NH 4 + -N and NO 3 − -N values extracted with 2M KCl solution (Bremner, 1965 ). Available P was determined by the Olsen method (Sims, 2000 ). Exchangeable P, Ca, and Mg were determined by extracting with 1 N ammonium acetate (Soil Survey Lab., 1975). Soil texture was determined by the hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986 ). Maize cobs were gathered from a 14 m 2 harvest area by removing two rows from the edges and two meters from the heads of the plot. For maize grains, yield calculations based on moisture were done at a moisture value of 15.5%. The N content in leaves and grains was analyzed using the Kjeldahl method (Apha et al., 2012). N use and uptake efficiencies were calculated with formulas provided by Moll et al. ( 1982 ). In these formulas, YF represents the subject to which fertilizer was applied, and YC stands for the control subject without fertilizer. $$Grain N uptake amount \left(NUA\right)=\%N*Yield \left(kg ha\text{-1}\right)$$ $$N use Efficiency \left(NUE\right)=N application amount \left(kg ha\text{-1}\right)*100$$ Based on the collected data, the costs of the applications were analyzed and economically evaluated. Gross production value, gross profit, net profit, and relative profits (Kıral, 1999) were calculated using formulas to assess the costs and revenues of each subject. $$Gross Production Value=Production Quantity * Product Price$$ $$Gross Profit=Gross Production Value - Variable Costs$$ $$Net Profit=Gross Production Value - Production Costs$$ 2.4. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis of the obtained data was carried out using SPSS software. The experimental design employed was a randomized complete block design, and the data were analyzed through variance analysis. To verify the assumption of homogeneity of variances among the treatment groups, Levene's test was conducted. Upon confirmation of homogeneity, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to examine the differences in mean values between the treatment groups. Potential differences between the resulting mean values were evaluated with the help of Duncan's multiple-range test (Gomez and Gomez, 1984 ). 3. Results 3.1. Soil Inorganic Nitrogen Levels In G2 (100% DMPP) and G4 (75% DMPP) applications, the initial soil NH 4 + -N values were above 100 mg kg − 1 . DMPP limited nitrification and slowed the conversion of NH 4 + -N to NO 3 − N, leading to NH 4 + -N accumulation. NBPT applications, on the other hand, prevented NH 4 + -N accumulation in the soil solution by slowing down urea hydrolysis. In G3 (100% NBPT) and G5 (75% NBPT) applications, the NH 4 + -N values showed a more balanced distribution throughout the period (Fig. 2). In general, the use of NS provided a higher amount of NH 4 + -N during the early growth period of the plant. In 2022, the G1 (split urea) application provided more NH 4 + -N to the soil than in 2021. This is likely because 2022 received 172% more rainfall than 2021. However, the opposite trend is seen in the amount of NO 3 − -N; in 2021, the G1 application provided as much NO 3 − -N to the soil as the other methods, while in 2022 it provided less NO 3 − -N. G3 and G5 applications were more successful in increasing the amount of NO 3 − -N in the soil. 3.2. Grain yield and plant N parameters In 2021, G3 provided the highest grain yield, while G2 provided the lowest yield, even below G1 (Table 6 ). In 2022, there was no significant difference between grain yields. In 2021, G3 provided the highest N rates in leaves and grains. Although it did not affect grain yield, NBPT application led to higher N rates in plants compared to DMPP. Table 6 Yield and nitrogen contents in plant Year Categories Yield N in Leaf N in Grain kg ha − 1 Grup (%) Grup (%) Grup 2021 G1 18620 B 2.76 B 1.07 B G2 16620 D 2.82 B 1.14 AB G3 19910 A 2.92 A 1.20 A G4 18080 BC 2.78 B 1.10 B G5 16920 CD 2.79 B 1.09 B F 13.27** 5.46* 4.17* 2022 G1 19430 - 3.04 A 1.16 B G2 19360 - 2.92 AB 1.07 D G3 19900 - 3.04 A 1.21 A G4 18860 - 3.02 A 1.11 C G5 19580 - 2.83 B 1.14 BC F 1.71 ns 5.39* 20.47** Grup : Duncan's Multiple Range Test (p < 0.05) was used to indicate groups that show statistical differences. Groups with the same letter do not have a statistically significant difference. F : result of the ANOVA test. *:<0.05, **:<0.01 , ns : not significance On average over the two years, G1 provided the plant with more N than reduced DMPP and NBPT applications (Fig. 3 ). The highest N rate was obtained in leaves and grains with the 100% NBPT application. Yield results also show a similar trend to N rates. The 100% NBPT application gave the best yield, while the 75% NBPT application resulted in a lower yield. In general, DMPP applications provided lower yields than G1. G3 was the subject in which the plant received the most N, with 239 kg ha − 1 , while the G2 resulted in lower nitrogen uptake than the optimum application (Fig. 4). The G3 increased the NUE value by 1,17 times compared to G1, while the G5 (75% NBPT) increased the NUE value by 1,28 times compared to G1. Reducing DMPP and NBPT led to less N uptake by the plants. However, this resulted in increased NUE due to less nitrogen being applied to the soil. G4 had the highest result with 46% N use efficiency, while G2 had the lowest result with 27%. NUA : Nitrogen Uptake Amount , NUE : Nitrogen Uptake Efficiency Figure 4. Nitrogen uptake in grain and nitrogen use efficiency 3.3. Economic Analysis NSs are more expensive than urea fertilizer and the application of split urea fertilizer requires re-entry to the field, which are among the factors that affect the results of economic analysis. The results of the economic analysis show that there are differences between the two years. In 2021, the highest profit was obtained from the G1 and G3, while in 2022, it was obtained from the G1. The lowest profit for both years was generated as a result of the G2. (Table 7 ). Table 7 Economic analysis of applications Year Categories Yield (kg ha − 1 ) Selling Price (USD t − 1 ) Cost (USD t − 1 ) Net Profit (USD t − 1 ) Net Profit (USD ha − 1 ) 2021 G1 18620 270 89 180 3360a G2 16620 270 109 161 2670c G3 19910 270 94 176 3500a G4 18080 270 95 175 3160b G5 16920 270 104 166 2810c F 53,97** 2022 G1 19430 310 90 220 4270a G2 19360 310 120 190 3680e G3 19900 310 105 204 4070b G4 18860 310 99 210 3970c G5 19580 310 111 199 3890d F 86,55** Grup : Duncan's Multiple Range Test (p < 0.05) was used to indicate groups that show statistical differences. Groups with the same letter do not have a statistically significant difference. F : result of the ANOVA test. *:<0.05, **:<0.01 , ns : not significance 4. Discussiıon 4.1. Soil NH 4 + -N and NO 3 - -N levels NSs (nitrogen stabilizers) release N slowly, allowing plants to access nutrients for a longer period (Shaviv and Mikkelsen, 1993 ). DMPP slows down nitrification, which slows down the conversion of NH 4 + -N to NO 3 − -N, but this leads to accumulation of NH 4 + -N in the soil after urea hydrolysis (Liu et al., 2015 ). This accumulation of NH4+-N was observed to cause nitrogen losses due to increasing ammonium levels in the soil during early plant growth stages, consistent with our findings (Rose et al., 2023 ). It has been reported that the addition of DMPP significantly increases the abundance of denitrifying bacteria (Barrena et al., 2017 ; Torralbo et al., 2017 ), indicating that DMPP applications result in soil NH 4 + -N values exceeding 100 mg kg − 1 , far surpassing other applications in the early period. Keeping NH 4 + -N in the soil for an extended period can increase NH 3 -N emissions (Castellano-Hinojosa et al., 2020 ; Qiao et al., 2015 ). NH 4 + -N losses in the form of NH 3 -N are increasing in soils with a pH of 7 or higher (Sigunga et al., 2002 ). The high pH value of the test soil (8.10–8.20) suggests that the NH 4 + -N accumulated in the soil could be converted to NH 3 -N, increasing N losses. However, Yang et al. ( 2021 ) stated that soil pH values also do not have a significant effect on the response of NH 4 + -N content to CRNF application. The effectiveness of NBPT is very robust against urea emission levels, which are dependent on soil properties, environmental and weather conditions, and the concentration of the inhibitor (Pan et al., 2016 ; Rose et al., 2018 ). NBPT application prevents the high concentration of NH 4 + -N in the soil solution by slowing down urea hydrolysis, which also reduces urea loss (Modolo et al., 2015 ). In the study, a balanced amount of NH 4 + -N and NO 3 − -N was determined throughout the plant growth period with NBPT applications (especially with 100% NBPT). In this respect, the results are in line with the mentioned literature. Akiyama et al. ( 2010 ) found that nitrification inhibitors reduced N 2 O emissions by an average of 38%, while Gilsanz et al. ( 2016 ) found that DMPP reduced N 2 O emissions by an average of 40%. These results indicate that nitrification inhibitors are an effective method for reducing N 2 O emissions. NSs were developed to prevent excessive N accumulation in the soil and reduce N loss by releasing N into the soil solution as needed by crops (Shoji et al., 2001 ). Compared to widely used urea fertilizer, CRNFs can control the amount of inorganic N in the soil and have a clear advantage in reducing N loss through pathways such as surface runoff and NH 3 -N volatilization (Li et al., 2017 ). A study by Zhu et al. ( 2020 ) showed that NSs significantly increased N levels, increasing by 5.93%, 3.89%, and 13.98%. Long-term application of NSs has the potential to reduce NO 3 − -N leaching in the soil (Zhang et al., 2022 ). In general, the study shows that the use of NS leads to higher NH 4 + -N levels in the early growth period of the plant. However, as time goes on, except for the amount of NO 3 − -N in 2022, the amount of soil inorganic N has decreased. Yang et al. ( 2021 ) stated that the effect of NS on NO 3 − -N content has a positive correlation with soil sand content, but a negative correlation with soil silt content. In particular, the amount of NO 3 − -N in the soil was determined to a greater extent by NS applications in 2022. The results align with the study by Yang et al. ( 2021 ) because the loam test soil exhibits trends that correlate with their findings. As a result of a single application of NS, the inorganic N in the soil was kept at high levels before combining, but it decreased significantly due to N deficiency in later growth stages (Ma et al., 2022 ). In the study, some differences were found between the years in the split urea application and NS applications. In 2022, the split urea application provided more NH 4 + -N to the soil than in 2021. In 2022, unlike 2021, a relatively large amount of NO 3 − -N was also detected in the soil in the final stages of plant development. This is probably because 2021 received 172% more rainfall than 2022. The high soil moisture content caused by rainfall can increase N loss in the soil (Ouyang et al., 2017 ). Although the temperature difference between the two years was not very large, the difference in rainfall amounts caused the soil temperature to vary between the years. Soil temperature is thought to be the main environmental factor affecting nutrient release from NSs (Zheng et al., 2016 ). However, some scientists (Trenkel, 2021 ; Farmaha and Sims, 2013 ) have not denied the effect of soil temperature on the release of nutrients from CRNFs but also stated that it affects the release of nutrients from NSs in combination with moisture. Regional climate, soil physicochemical composition, and differences in agricultural practices can affect the superiority of NS and split urea applications in terms of soil N content. (Ma et al., 2021 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). 4.2. Yield and N use efficiency NS has been shown to increase crop yield in many production systems (Otteson et al., 2007 ; Ma et al., 2021 ). Abalos et al. ( 2014 ), in their meta-analysis using datasets from 27 studies, observed an average of 7.5% yield increase when DMPP or NBPT were used compared to traditional N fertilizers without inhibitors. This literature are in line with the NBPT application used in the study, but not with the DMPP application. In the study, the 100% NBPT application significantly increased maize yield by 5% compared to split urea application. However, the 75% NBPT application did not show superiority over the split urea application. A study by Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) showed that NS increased maize yield by 4.9 to 11.1%. Additionally, another study conducted by Yang et al. ( 2021 ) reported a similar 7.0% increase in maize with a NS application compared to traditional urea application. Yang et al. ( 2016 ) reported that DMPP contributed to an average yield increase of 1.2% across 66 datasets, but the DMPP application fell short of the split urea application in the study. Many studies report that application of NS can increase NUE (Kondo et al., 2005 ; Ma et al., 2022 ). As a result of a meta-analysis, basal fertilizer NS yielded higher NUE than split urea application (Zhang et al., 2022 ). In the study, 100% NBPT application yielded 17% and 75% NBPT application yielded 28% higher NUE than split urea application. NBPT applications yielded 55 to 70% higher NUE than DMPP applications. A study by Zhu et al. ( 2020 ) showed that NS application significantly increased NUE by an average of 23.4%. Similarly, a study by Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported that it increased NUE in maize by 36.2 to 45.4%. NS application significantly increases crop yield with NUE (Geng et al., 2016 ). Ke et al. ( 2018 ) reported that NS significantly increased the yield of maize, potato, and rice, as well as NUE, compared to basal fertilizer. The mixture of NS and urea increases maize yield and NUE by optimizing N fertilizer release and N availability in the soil to meet the crop's N demand (Li et al., 2020b ). In general, the effectiveness of NS varies depending on soil type, but it has been observed to give better results in sandy soils (Li et al., 2020a ). The soil type covered in this study is loam. The substitution effect of NS on split urea can be significantly affected by the physical properties of soils (Zhang et al., 2022 ). 4.3. Economic benefits According to the economic analysis results of the study, differences were observed between the two years. In 2021, the highest profit in 2021 was achieved with the G3 (100% NBPT) application, which provided 4% more profit than G1 (split urea application), although it was not statistically significant. However, in 2022, the highest profit was obtained with the G1 application, and this difference was statistically significant, indicating a clear advantage of the G1 application in terms of income. Yang et al. ( 2021 ) reported that, as a result of their cost-benefit analysis, the cost of NS application exceeded the overall benefit, and a 6.4% increase in income was achieved with NS. It has also been reported that a single NS application can save more labor and time than the need for split fertilization with more traditional N fertilizers (Geng et al., 2015 ). Li et al. ( 2020a ) stated that NS offers significant agricultural, economic, and environmental advantages over split urea application. However, the high cost and complex process of NS production may limit the large-scale applications of NS in agricultural fields (Zheng et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2018 ). In contrast to the study by Geng et al. ( 2016 ), which found that the net farm profit was increased with a 30% reduction in N application rate with NS compared to urea, the NS with a 25% N reduction was behind the split urea application in terms of net profit. 5. Conclusion Urease inhibitor fertilizer has better met the nitrogen demand of maize throughout its entire growth season compared to ammonium inhibitor fertilizer. Using the same N application rates, Urease inhibitor fertilizer increased yield by 5%, nitrogen use efficiency by 17%, and net profit by 4% compared to split urea application under the conditions of 2021, a year with abundant rainfall. Nitrification inhibitor fertilizer, on the other hand, led to nitrogen losses and yield reductions by causing high ammonium levels in the soil during the early plant growth period. It has been observed that reduced-dose urease inhibitor fertilizer provides higher nitrogen use efficiency. While this result creates a positive environmental impact, it limits the sustainability of the reduced dose as it falls behind the full urease inhibitor fertilizer in terms of yield and economic gain. Soil, plant, and climate factors can affect the effectiveness of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers. In the research, urease inhibitor fertilizer increased maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency by reducing the labor required for the fertilization process by applying it in a single application. According to the results of the economic analysis, although split urea treatment gave better outcomes than all treatments, it was concluded that urease inhibitor fertilizers are crucial for meeting maize's nitrogen requirements more effectively while providing environmental benefits. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to TAGEM (General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies) for providing the necessary facilities for conducting this research. Funding : This study was supported under the TAGEM (General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies) project with the reference number TAGEM/TSKAD/2021/B/A9/P1/2342. Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Data Availability : The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.036 Abrol, Y., Pandey, R., Raghuram, N., & Ahmad, A. (2012). Nitrogen Cycle Sustainability and Sustainable Technologies for Nitrogen Fertilizer and Energy Management. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 92, 17-36. Akiyama, H., Yan, X., & Yagi, K. (2010). Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N 2 O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology, 16(6), 1837-1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02031.x Ali, M., Maqsood, M., Aziz, T., & Awan, M. (2020). Neem (Azadirachta indica) oil coated urea improves nitrogen use efficiency and maize growth in an alkaline calcareous soil. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57, 675-684. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/20.9850. Angers, D., Arrouays, D., Cardinael, R., Chenu, C., Corbeels, M., Demenois, J., ... & Six, J. (2022). A well‐established fact: Rapid mineralization of organic inputs is an important factor for soil carbon sequestration. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(3), e13242. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13242 Apha, Awwa, & Wef. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association. Barrena, I., Menéndez, S., Correa-Galeote, D., Vega-Mas, I., Bedmar, E., González-Murua, C., & Estavillo, J. (2017). Soil water content modulates the effect of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) on nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria.. Geoderma, 303, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2017.04.022. Bayram, G., Mevlüt, Türk., Budaklı, E., & Çelik, N. (2004). The Effects of the Defıcıency of Nıtrogen, Phosphorus, Potassıum and Zınc on the Development of the Root and Stem of the Corn Plant. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 18(33), 23-27. Bremner, J. T. (1965). Inorganic forms of nitrogen. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 9, 1179-1237. Bussink, D. W., & Oenema, O. (1998). Ammonia volatilization from dairy farming systems in temperate areas: a review. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 51, 19-33. Butterbach-Bahl, K., Baggs, E. M., Dannenmann, M., Kiese, R., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2013). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1621), 20130122. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122 Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J. A., Gallo, P. B., Bolonhezi, D., Rossetto, R., Martins, A. L. M., ... & Alcântara, P. B. (2005). Ammonia losses of NBPT-treated urea under Brazilian soil conditions. In Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA)-International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers (pp. 28-30). Castellano-Hinojosa, A., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Vallejo, A., & Bedmar, E. J. (2020). Effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on ammonia volatilization and abundance of N‐cycling genes in an agricultural soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 183(1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201900038 Dimkpa, C., Fugice, J., Singh, U., & Lewis, T. (2020). Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency - Trends and perspectives.. The Science of the total environment, 731, 139113 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139113. Durmaz, AH., Öner, N., (2018). A Research on the Determinationof the Effect of Slow Decomposition Fertilizer and Foliar Fertilizer Application on Yield and Oil Quality of Sunflower (Masters’ thesis), Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Farmaha, B. S., & Sims, A. L. (2013). Yield and protein response of wheat cultivars to polymer‐coated urea and urea. Agronomy Journal, 105(1), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0283 Francisco, S., Urrutia, O., Martin, V., Peristeropoulos, A., & García-Mina, J. (2011). Efficiency of urease and nitrification inhibitors in reducing ammonia volatilization from diverse nitrogen fertilizers applied to different soil types and wheat straw mulching.. Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 91 9, 1569-75 . https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4349. Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. (1986). W. Particle size analysis. Methods of soil analysis, Part, 1, 383-411. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c15 Génermont, S., & Cellier, P. (1997). A mechanistic model for estimating ammonia volatilization from slurry applied to bare soil. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 88(1-4), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(97)00044-0 Geng, J., Chen, J., Sun, Y., Zheng, W., Tian, X., Yang, Y., ... & Zhang, M. (2016). Controlled release urea improved nitrogen use efficiency and yield of wheat and corn. Agronomy Journal, 108(4), 1666-1673. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0468 Geng, J., Ma, Q., Zhang, M., Li, C., Liu, Z., Lyu, X., & Zheng, W. (2015). Synchronized relationships between nitrogen release of controlled release nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen requirements of cotton. Field Crops Research, 184, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.001 Gerendás, J., Ratcliffe, R. G., & Sattelmacher, B. (1990). 31P nuclear magnetic resonance evidence for differences in intracellular pH in the roots of maize seedlings grown with nitrate or ammonium. Journal of Plant Physiology, 137(1), 125-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)80023-4 Gilsanz, C., Baez, D., Misselbrook, T. H., Dhanoa, M. S., & Cardenas, L. M. (2016). Development of emission factors and efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors, DCD and DMPP. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 216, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.030 Goloran, J. B., Phillips, I. R., Xu, Z. H., Condron, L. M., & Chen, C. R. (2014). Effects of amendments and fertilization on plant growth, nitrogen and phosphorus availability in rehabilitated highly alkaline bauxite‐processing residue sand. Soil use and management, 30(2), 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12109 Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Herrera, J. M., Rubio, G., Häner, L. L., Delgado, J. A., Lucho-Constantino, C. A., Islas-Valdez, S., & Pellet, D. (2016). Emerging and established technologies to increase nitrogen use efficiency of cereals. Agronomy, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6020025 Homme, P. H. A. M. (2016). Short-term fertilizer outlook 2016–2017. IFA. Hou, D. (2022). Expediting climate‐smart soils management. Soil Use and Management, 38(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12781 Jackson, M. L. (1979). Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course. Dept. Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Jungkunst, H. F., Freibauer, A., Neufeldt, H., & Bareth, G. (2006). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural land use in Germany—a synthesis of available annual field data. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 169(3), 341-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521954 Kacar, B., Katkat, V., (1998). Plant nutrition. 3rd Edition. Uludağ University Empowerment Foundation Publication. No:127, P:168-175. Kanter, D., Zhang, X., & Mauzerall, D. (2015). Reducing Nitrogen Pollution while Decreasing Farmers' Costs and Increasing Fertilizer Industry Profits.. Journal of environmental quality, 44 2, 325-35 . https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.04.0173. Ke, J., He, R., Hou, P., Ding, C., Ding, Y., Wang, S., ... & Li, G. (2018). Combined controlled-released nitrogen fertilizers and deep placement effects of N leaching, rice yield and N recovery in machine-transplanted rice. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 265, 402-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.06.023 Kıral, T., Kasnakoğlu, H., Tatlldil, F., Fidan, H., & Gündoğmuş, E. (1999). Cost calculation methodology and database guide for agricultural products. TKB Agricultural Economics Research Institute Publications, (37). Kondo, M., Singh, C. V., Agbisit, R., & Murty, M. V. R. (2005). Yield response to urea and controlled-release urea as affected by water supply in tropical upland rice. Journal of plant nutrition, 28(2), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-200047601 Kün, E. (1985). Warm climate grains. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture publications, (953), 317. Li, C. L., Cao, Y. Q., Wang, Y., Li, X. Y., Li, Y. X., Zhu, L., ... & Gao, Q. (2020a). Effects of Mixed Controlled Release and Normal Urea on Maize (Zea Mays L) Growth, Grain Yield and Nitrogen Balance and Use Efficiency in Northeast China. Applied Ecology & Environmental Research, 18(4). Li, C., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Cao, Y., Zhao, X., ... & Gao, Q. (2020b). Mixture of controlled‐release and normal urea to improve nitrogen management for maize across contrasting soil types. Agronomy Journal, 112(4), 3101-3113. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20252 Li, J., Wang, W., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2022). The Ability of Nitrification Inhibitors to Decrease Denitrification Rates in an Arable Soil. Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112749. Li, P., Lu, J., Hou, W., Pan, Y., Wang, Y., Khan, M. R., ... & Li, X. (2017). Reducing nitrogen losses through ammonia volatilization and surface runoff to improve apparent nitrogen recovery of double cropping of late rice using controlled release urea. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 11722-11733. Lindsay, W. L., & Norvell, W. (1978). Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil science society of America journal, 42(3), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x Liu, L., Shen, T., Yang, Y., Gao, B., Li, Y. C., Xie, J., ... & Chen, J. (2018). Bio-based large tablet controlled-release urea: synthesis, characterization, and controlled-released mechanisms. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 66(43), 11265-11272. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b04042 Liu, TK., Fan, DJ., Zhang, XX., Chen, J., Li, CF., Cao, CG., (2015). Deep placement of nitrogen fertilizers reduces ammonia volatilizationand increases nitrogen utilization efficiency in no-tillage paddy fieldsin central China, Field Crops Research, 184, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.011 Loeppert, R. H., & Suarez, D. L. (1996). Carbonate and gypsum. Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 chemical methods, 5, 437-474. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c15 Ma, Q., Tao, R., Ding, Y., Zhang, X., Li, F., Zhu, M., ... & Sheng, H. (2022). Can split application of slow-release fertilizer improve wheat yield, nitrogen efficiency and their stability in different ecological regions?. Agronomy, 12(2), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020407n Ma, Q., Wang, M., Zheng, G., Yao, Y., Tao, R., Zhu, M., ... & Zhu, X. (2021). Twice-split application of controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer met the nitrogen demand of winter wheat. Field Crops Research, 267, 108163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108163 Mariano, E., Filho, C., Bortoletto-Santos, R., Bendassolli, J., & Trivelin, P. (2019). Ammonia losses following surface application of enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizers and urea. Atmospheric Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2019.02.003. MGM (2022), Turkish State Meteorology Services. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/ Modolo, L. V., de Souza, A. X., Horta, L. P., Araujo, D. P., & de Fátima, Â. (2015). An overview on the potential of natural products as ureases inhibitors: A review. Journal of Advanced Research, 6(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.09.001 Moll, R. H., Kamprath, E. J., & Jackson, W. A. (1982). Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization 1. Agronomy Journal, 74(3), 562-564. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400030037x Otteson, B. N., Mergoum, M., & Ransom, J. K. (2007). Seeding rate and nitrogen management effects on spring wheat yield and yield components. Agronomy journal, 99(6), 1615-1621. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0002 Ouyang, W., Xu, X., Hao, Z., & Gao, X. (2017). Effects of soil moisture content on upland nitrogen loss. Journal of Hydrology, 546, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.053 Özbek, O., Marakoğlu, T., Çıtıl, E., & Çarman, K. (2012). The Evaluation of Yield Parameters and Nitrogen Losses in Liquid Manure and Fertilizer Applications by a Prototype Seeding Machine. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science, 8(1), 83-90. Pan, B., Lam, S. K., Mosier, A., Luo, Y., & Chen, D. (2016). Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: a global synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 232, 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019 Paramesh, V., Kumar, R. M., Rajanna, G. A., Gowda, S., Nath, A. J., Madival, Y., ... & Toraskar, S. (2023). Integrated nutrient management for improving crop yields, soil properties, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Front. Sustain. Food Syst, 7(10.3389). Pasley, H., Cairns, J., Camberato, J., & Vyn, T. (2019). Nitrogen fertilizer rate increases plant uptake and soil availability of essential nutrients in continuous maize production in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 115, 373 - 389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-019-10016-1. Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global change biology, 21(3), 1249-1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802 Qiong, W. U., WANG, Y. H., DING, Y. F., TAO, W. K., Shen, G. A. O., LI, Q. X., ... & LI, G. H. (2021). Effects of different types of slow-and controlled-release fertilizers on rice yield. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(6), 1503-1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63406-2 Raun, W. R., & Johnson, G. V. (1999). Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agronomy journal, 91(3), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.00021962009100030001x Rose, T. J., Wood, R. H., Rose, M. T., & Van Zwieten, L. (2018). A re-evaluation of the agronomic effectiveness of the nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP and the urease inhibitor NBPT. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 252, 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.008 Rose, T. J., Kearney, L. J., Zeng, Y., Van Zwieten, L., & Rose, M. T. (2023). DMPP-urea restricts nitrification in the first month without improving agronomic N use efficiency. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 126(1), 115-125. Rossmann, A., Pitann, B., & Mühling, K. H. (2019). Splitting nitrogen applications improves wheat storage protein composition under low N supply. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 182(3), 347-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800389 Sharma, L., Zaeen, A., Bali, S., & Dwyer, J. (2017). Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Efficiency for Optimal Plant Growth and Yield. New Visions in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.72214. Shaviv, A., & Mikkelsen, R. L. (1993). Controlled-release fertilizers to increase efficiency of nutrient use and minimize environmental degradation-A review. Fertilizer research, 35, 1-12. Shoji, S., Delgado, J., Mosier, A., & Miura, Y. (2001). Use of controlled release fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors to increase nitrogen use efficiency and to conserve air andwater quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7-8), 1051-1070. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-100104103 Sigunga, D. O., Janssen, B. H., & Oenema, O. (2002). Ammonia volatilization from Vertisols. European Journal of Soil Science, 53(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1351-0754.2002.00454.x Sims, J. T. (2000). Soil test phosphorus: Olsen P. Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals, and waters, 20. Soil Survey Lab Staff, USDA. (1975). Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys (No. 436.4 So3). US Govt. Print. Off. Subbarao, G., Ito, O., Sahrawat, K., Berry, W., Nakahara, K., Ishikawa, T., Watanabe, T., Suenaga, K., Rondón, M., & Rao, I. (2006). Scope and Strategies for Regulation of Nitrification in Agricultural Systems—Challenges and Opportunities. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 25, 303 - 335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600794232. Tian, D., Li, Z., O'Connor, D., & Shen, Z. (2020). The need to prioritize sustainable phosphate‐based fertilizers. Soil Use and Management, 36(3), 351-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12578 Tian, X., Li, C., Zhang, M., Li, T., Lu, Y., & Liu, L. (2018). Controlled release urea improved crop yields and mitigated nitrate leaching under cotton-garlic intercropping system in a 4-year field trial. Soil and Tillage Research, 175, 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.08.015 Torralbo, F., Menéndez, S., Barrena, I., Estavillo, J. M., Marino, D., & González-Murua, C. (2017). Dimethyl pyrazol-based nitrification inhibitors effect on nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria to mitigate N2O emission. Scientific reports, 7(1), 13810. Trenkel, M.E. (2021). Slow-and Controlled-Release and Stabilized Fertilizers: An Option for Enhancing Nutrient Use Effiiency in Agriculture. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). Van Grinsven, H. J., Holland, M., Jacobsen, B. H., Klimont, Z., Sutton, M. A., & Jaap Willems, W. (2013). Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environmental science & technology, 47(8), 3571-3579. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303804g Venterea, R. T., Halvorson, A. D., Kitchen, N., Liebig, M. A., Cavigelli, M. A., Grosso, S. J. D., ... & Collins, H. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized cropping systems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(10), 562-570. https://doi.org/10.1890/120062 Walsh, O., Raun, W., Klatt, A., & Solie, J. (2012). Effect of delayed nitrogen fertilization on maize (Zea mays L.) grain yields and nitrogen use efficiency. Journal of plant nutrition, 35(4), 538-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.644373 Wang, L., Niu, X., Liu, S., & Bu, Y. (2020). Advances in Studies on Effects of Nitrogen Metabolism Pathways on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Plants. , 11. https://doi.org/10.5376/MSB.2020.11.0003. Wang, S., Shan, J., Xia, Y., Tang, Q., Xia, L., Lin, J., & Yan, X. (2017). Different effects of biochar and a nitrification inhibitor application on paddy soil denitrification: A field experiment over two consecutive rice-growing seasons.. The Science of the total environment, 593-594, 347-356 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.159. Wang, X., Wang, G., Guo, T., Xing, Y., Mo, F., Wang, H., ... & Zhang, F. (2021). Effects of plastic mulch and nitrogen fertilizer on the soil microbial community, enzymatic activity and yield performance in a dryland maize cropping system. European Journal of Soil Science, 72(1), 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12954 Wang, Z., Zheng, H., Luo, Y., Deng, X., Herbert, S., & Xing, B. (2013). Characterization and influence of biochars on nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soil. Environmental pollution, 174, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.003 Wu, X., Cai, X., Li, Q., Ren, B., Bi, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, D. (2021). Effects of nitrogen application rate on summer maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water–nitrogen use efficiency under micro–sprinkling irrigation in the Huang–Huai–Hai Plain of China. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 68, 1915 - 1929. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.1939867. Yakan, H., Sağlam, T., (1997). Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization on Grain Yield and Some Clite Characteristics of Hybrid Corn Grown in Kırklareli Conditions (Doctoral thesis), Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Yang, M., Fang, Y., Sun, D., & Shi, Y. (2016). Efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors (dicyandiamide and 3, 4-dimethypyrazole phosphate) on soil nitrogen transformations and plant productivity: a meta-analysis. Scientific reports, 6(1), 22075. Yang, M., Zhu, X., Bai, Y., Sun, D., Zou, H., Fang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Coated controlled-release urea creates a win-win scenario for producing more staple grains and resolving N loss dilemma worldwide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125660 Zhai, J., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., Xu, W., Xie, R., Ming, B., Hou, P., Wang, K., Xue, J., & Li, S. (2022). Effect of the Rate of Nitrogen Application on Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield Formation of Densely Planted Maize. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214940. Zhang, G., Zhao, D., Liu, S., Liao, Y., & Han, J. (2022). Can controlled-release urea replace the split application of normal urea in China? A meta-analysis based on crop grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Field Crops Research, 275, 108343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108343 Zhang, X., Mauzerall, D., Davidson, E., Kanter, D., & Cai, R. (2015). The economic and environmental consequences of implementing nitrogen-efficient technologies and management practices in agriculture.. Journal of environmental quality, 44 2, 312-24 . https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0129. Zheng, W., Liu, Z., Zhang, M., Shi, Y., Zhu, Q., Sun, Y., ... & Geng, J. (2017). Improving crop yields, nitrogen use efficiencies, and profits by using mixtures of coated controlled-released and uncoated urea in a wheat-maize system. Field Crops Research, 205, 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.009 Zheng, W., Sui, C., Liu, Z., Geng, J., Tian, X., Yang, X., ... & 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(4), 1703-1716. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0581 Zhu, S., Liu, L., Xu, Y., Yang, Y., & Shi, R. (2020). Application of controlled release urea improved grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency: A meta-analysis. PloS one, 15(10), e0241481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241481 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Nov, 2024 Read the published version in Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4455360","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":308976781,"identity":"0574147e-9c9a-429a-942c-c365cc19a3cc","order_by":0,"name":"Volkan ATAV","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Volkan","middleName":"","lastName":"ATAV","suffix":""},{"id":308976783,"identity":"9016a318-bb53-473c-9d1b-cc260e86e776","order_by":1,"name":"Mehmet Ali GÜRBÜZ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehmet","middleName":"Ali","lastName":"GÜRBÜZ","suffix":""},{"id":308976784,"identity":"4bf1084f-99c5-4b0f-be90-9498de42b6ce","order_by":2,"name":"Emel KAYALI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emel","middleName":"","lastName":"KAYALI","suffix":""},{"id":308976785,"identity":"bfffd14f-e91c-4830-962a-a45a6faa8bf0","order_by":3,"name":"Elif YALINKILIÇ","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Atatürk Soil Water and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elif","middleName":"","lastName":"YALINKILIÇ","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-21 13:55:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2024.2424236","type":"published","date":"2024-11-05T00:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":57631818,"identity":"0cc13926-3be0-4be5-a1bf-d11d17126781","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-06-03 15:02:25","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21356,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMonthly temperature and rainfall averages for the years\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4455360/v1/9ae26d42636776bd6cfa4336.png"},{"id":57632268,"identity":"91000ed2-2433-4a5a-a75c-41c3c7e7a239","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-06-03 15:10:25","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":422645,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4455360/v1/305db6841cf80f08b298b8bf.png"},{"id":57631819,"identity":"4cddf197-2955-4047-b173-d0898fbc1c76","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-06-03 15:02:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58945,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage yield and plant N content\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4455360/v1/4e0a3d346c7bed9450d2ad84.png"},{"id":57631820,"identity":"5a793b52-91db-4ee1-bdd1-c0dd1099936c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-06-03 15:02:25","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64033,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNitrogen uptake in grain and nitrogen use efficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cem\u003eNUA: \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003cem\u003eNitrogen Uptake Amount, \u003c/em\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cem\u003eNUE:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eNitrogen Uptake Efficiency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4455360/v1/9478d3080b5008e55aae867a.png"},{"id":68394603,"identity":"0412a9c1-c842-4357-b05c-102f1ebabb31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-06 21:17:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1392753,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4455360/v1/0c91d2ea-ae20-4e19-8d49-a8b54276c77b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNitrogen (N) is an essential plant nutrient and the most important plant nutrient for crop production (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Goloran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). N is one of the leading factors limiting yield in maize (K\u0026uuml;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e; Pasley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and is an important element that is used for protein and nucleic acid synthesis and must be present in sufficient quantities in the soil for plant development (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Maize needs adequate and balanced N fertilization because they can produce high dry matter in a short period by evaluating light under wet conditions (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhai et ali, 2022). In the absence of N, maize growth is retarded, the stem is stunted, and the leaves do not reach their normal sizes (Kacar and Katkat \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Bayram et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Even if enough N is applied to the soil to meet the needs of the plant, factors such as ammonia (NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e) losses due to the activity of the urease enzyme during the hydrolysis of urea (Ali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N (nitrate) losses due to the mobility of soil water (Francisco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e losses due to fixation (Mariano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), can limit the amount of N in the soil and the NUE (nitrogen use efficiency) of plants. During N fertilization to increase the yield of maize, re-entering the field after weeding can damage the plant's root system. In addition, fertilization after the plant has passed the 4\u0026ndash;6 leaf stage can lead to the accumulation of fertilizer in the leaves of conical maize and damage to the leaves due to this accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNUE, the percentage recovery of applied fertilizer N at harvest, is defined as the amount of N taken up by the plant and used in growth and yield relative to the amount of N applied (Moll et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). The NUE of maize grown in developing and developed countries ranges from 29\u0026ndash;42%, and it is necessary to increase this value to 33% or higher due to the rapidly increasing world population (Raun and Johnson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Walsh et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Maize plants only recover about 30\u0026ndash;50% of the N applied traditionally (Herrera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, Improving NUE by reducing the use of chemical fertilizers will contribute to reducing the negative effects of chemical fertilizers on the environment and human health (Rossmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Dimkpa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and will allow for the production of more crops with less chemical fertilizer to meet the nutritional needs of the rapidly growing world population (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNUE is reduced due to the decreased efficiency of N fertilizers applied to the soil and the occurrence of N losses due to various factors (Abrol et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Urea fertilizer is a major N source in crop production systems (Homme, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Ali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, the use of urea fertilizer can cause serious environmental impacts on the atmosphere and water systems (Dimkpa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which can disrupt ecosystem functions and harm human health (Van Grinsven et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Kanter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). There is an increasing emphasis on efficient, cost-effective, and resilient nutrient supply systems as essential for the sustainable use and management of agricultural soil (Tian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Paramesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In recent years, there has been a focus on the development of nitrogen stabilizers (NSs) containing urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce these negative impacts and improve NUE (Trenkel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Durmaz and \u0026Ouml;ner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Qiong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The use of this fertilizer has the potential to balance environmental impacts and increase crop yields. Therefore, an integrated and comprehensive assessment of the agricultural and environmental impacts of NS is needed. These assessments will reveal how NS can play a role in addressing global food scarcity and the N dilemma. Urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) nitrogen fertilizers slow down the hydrolysis process of urea, while 3.4-dimethylepyrazole phosphate (DMPP) nitrogen fertilizers slow down the nitrification process of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N. In particular, during the summer months, NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N is converted to NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N in a short period, such as 1\u0026ndash;14 days, resulting in N loss as well as pollution in groundwater. In addition, denitrifying bacteria in the soil convert NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N to NO (nitrogen monoxide) and N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO (nitrous oxide) gases (Jungkunst et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Angers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which are released into the atmosphere (Venterea et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore in soils with high pH, the conversion of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N to NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e is accelerated, leading to increased N losses to the atmosphere in the form of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e (G\u0026eacute;nermont and Cellier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Bussink and Oenema, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). These gases are greenhouse gases that cause global climate change problems (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), a critical issue that was addressed in terms of global commitments at COP26 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Hou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Depending on the use of DMPP and NBPT nitrogen fertilizers, the ratio of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N in soils changes (Cantarella et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). To maintain the anion-cation balance, a molecule of H\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e (hydrogen) is released by plant roots for each NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N that is adsorbed. This event leads to a decrease in the pH of the rhizosphere. Similarly, a molecule of OH\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e (hydroxyl) is released to maintain the anion-cation balance for each NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N molecule that is adsorbed (Grend\u0026aacute;s et al., 1990). Different studies have shown the potential of this new approach to reduce environmental pollution and maintain crop yields (Geng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). However, studies on the field performance of NS have shown different results depending on many factors (e.g., environmental conditions) (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Nitrification and denitrification are thought to occur under aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions, respectively (Butterbach-Bahl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), but the mechanisms by which NBPT and DMPP affect the relevant genes at different soil moisture levels remain unclear (Barrena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Castellano-Hinojosa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the high cost of NS (Zhang et al., 2017; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and the complex production process limit their widespread application in agricultural fields (Subbarao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe application of NS is crucial for reducing the negative environmental impacts caused by traditional urea use, as well as increasing economic returns and ensuring global food security. This research aims to investigate the effects of NS and their reduced doses on soil nitrogen release, maize nitrogen uptake, and yield compared to traditional urea applications. Additionally, this study targets the investigation of the effects of reduced doses of NBPT and DMPP to minimize chemical fertilizer usage. In this study, the impacts of NBPT and DMPP fertilizers on soil N release, maize plant N uptake, and yield are explored through a comparative analysis with split urea application.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Trial area and material\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research took place at the Kırklareli Atat\u0026uuml;rk Soil, Water, and Agricultural Meteorology Research Institute, situated at 41\u0026deg;42'11\" N latitude and 27\u0026deg;12'29\" E longitude, during 2021 and 2022. The region's mean annual temperature is 13.3\u0026deg;C, with an average total annual rainfall of 48.7 mm (MGM, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provide some of the soil's physical and chemical characteristics. Although temperatures in 2021 and 2022 were similar, June 2021 experienced rainfall above the average (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The study utilized nitrification inhibitor 3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), and urea fertilizer (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The research employed DKC6630 grain maize seed, a common crop in the area, as plant material. The irrigation water was sourced from a deep well on the institute's property, which has a pH of 7.30\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03, EC of 1.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 dS m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N of 0.14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N of 0.68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02 mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment site soil properties in 2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u0026ndash;90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.02\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.03\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic matter (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N (mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.13\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1,10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N (mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.47\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.58\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eK (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e220.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210.31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e238.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTexture (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% 47.18 sand, % 30.52 silt, % 22.30 clay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eData are presented as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard error.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment site soil properties in 2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u0026ndash;90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic matter (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N (mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N (mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.54\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eK (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e233.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e198.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e220.71\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTexture (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%48.33 sand, %31.25 silt, %20.42 clay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eData are presented as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard error.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilizer materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilizer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN Source/Rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInhibitor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% 46 urea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% 45 urea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNitrification inhibitor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% 45 urea\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrease inhibitor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Experiment set up and agricultural applications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research followed a randomized complete block design, featuring 5 different treatments, each replicated 3 times for a total of 15 experimental plots. Each 5.60 m by 9.00 m plot covered an area of 50.40 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Planting was done in 8 rows, with a 70 cm gap between rows and 20 cm spacing within rows. Following Yakan and Sağlam (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e)'s findings, which recommended applying 210 kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e of N to achieve the highest grain N rate in maize under local conditions, this amount was used as a baseline. The experiment involved various fertilization methods with NS (DMPP and NBPT): 210 kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e of N (G2, G3) and a 25% reduced rate (G4, G5) applied before planting. The split urea method (G1) involved two urea applications: before planting and during hoeing (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Since the soil had adequate levels of P, K, and micronutrients for maize growth, no further fertilization was needed. A control setup without N was included to evaluate N use efficiency. Irrigation was done through furrow irrigation, adjusted according to the plants' water needs. Soil inorganic N levels were checked three times during the growing season. At the R6 maturity stage, harvest involved separating the grains from the cobs, measuring moisture levels, and collecting samples for nitrogen analysis. Grain weights from all plots were recorded, and raw yields were documented. A detailed description of the agricultural practices used during the study is in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperiment design and N ratios\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN Rate (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilizers and N Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore planting urea (1/3)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;during the hoeing urea (2/3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore planting %100 DMPP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore planting %100 NBPT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore planting %75 DMPP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eG5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore planting % 75 NBPT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgricultural practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApp. Sequence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApp. Sequence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil treatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHoeing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeeding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSets for furrow irrigation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFertilization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond fertilization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSowing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeeding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeedicide application\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarvesting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Analysis methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSoil pH and EC (Electrical Conductivity) values were determined in saturation paste (Soil Survey Lab. Staff, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e). Organic matter content was determined by the modified Walkley-Black method (Jackson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e), while lime (% CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e) contents were measured by the Scheibler calcimeter method (Loeppert and Suarez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Microelements were determined by DTPA (Diethylene Triamine Pentaacetic Acid) extraction (Lindsay and Norwel, 1978). Inorganic N includes NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N values extracted with 2M KCl solution (Bremner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e). Available P was determined by the Olsen method (Sims, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Exchangeable P, Ca, and Mg were determined by extracting with 1 N ammonium acetate (Soil Survey Lab., 1975). Soil texture was determined by the hydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaize cobs were gathered from a 14 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e harvest area by removing two rows from the edges and two meters from the heads of the plot. For maize grains, yield calculations based on moisture were done at a moisture value of 15.5%. The N content in leaves and grains was analyzed using the Kjeldahl method (Apha et al., 2012). N use and uptake efficiencies were calculated with formulas provided by Moll et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). In these formulas, YF represents the subject to which fertilizer was applied, and YC stands for the control subject without fertilizer.\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$Grain N uptake amount \\left(NUA\\right)=\\%N*Yield \\left(kg ha\\text{-1}\\right)$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$N use Efficiency \\left(NUE\\right)=N application amount \\left(kg ha\\text{-1}\\right)*100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the collected data, the costs of the applications were analyzed and economically evaluated. Gross production value, gross profit, net profit, and relative profits (Kıral, 1999) were calculated using formulas to assess the costs and revenues of each subject.\u003cdiv id=\"Equc\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equc\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$Gross Production Value=Production Quantity * Product Price$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equd\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equd\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$Gross Profit=Gross Production Value - Variable Costs$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Eque\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Eque\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$Net Profit=Gross Production Value - Production Costs$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis of the obtained data was carried out using SPSS software. The experimental design employed was a randomized complete block design, and the data were analyzed through variance analysis. To verify the assumption of homogeneity of variances among the treatment groups, Levene's test was conducted. Upon confirmation of homogeneity, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to examine the differences in mean values between the treatment groups. Potential differences between the resulting mean values were evaluated with the help of Duncan's multiple-range test (Gomez and Gomez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Soil Inorganic Nitrogen Levels\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn G2 (100% DMPP) and G4 (75% DMPP) applications, the initial soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N values were above 100 mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. DMPP limited nitrification and slowed the conversion of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N to NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003eN, leading to NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N accumulation. NBPT applications, on the other hand, prevented NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N accumulation in the soil solution by slowing down urea hydrolysis. In G3 (100% NBPT) and G5 (75% NBPT) applications, the NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N values showed a more balanced distribution throughout the period (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). In general, the use of NS provided a higher amount of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N during the early growth period of the plant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn 2022, the G1 (split urea) application provided more NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N to the soil than in 2021. This is likely because 2022 received 172% more rainfall than 2021. However, the opposite trend is seen in the amount of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N; in 2021, the G1 application provided as much NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N to the soil as the other methods, while in 2022 it provided less NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N. G3 and G5 applications were more successful in increasing the amount of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N in the soil.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Grain yield and plant N parameters\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn 2021, G3 provided the highest grain yield, while G2 provided the lowest yield, even below G1 (Table \u003cspan\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). In 2022, there was no significant difference between grain yields. In 2021, G3 provided the highest N rates in leaves and grains. Although it did not affect grain yield, NBPT application led to higher N rates in plants compared to DMPP.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield and nitrogen contents in plant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN in Leaf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN in Grain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ekg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18080\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16920\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.27**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.46*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.17*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19430\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19360\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18860\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19580\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.71\u003csup\u003ens\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.39*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.47**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eGrup\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eDuncan\u0026apos;s Multiple Range Test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) was used to indicate groups that show statistical differences. Groups with the same letter do not have a statistically significant difference.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eF\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eresult of the ANOVA test.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*:\u0026lt;0.05, **:\u0026lt;0.01\u003c/em\u003e, \u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: \u003cem\u003enot significance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn average over the two years, G1 provided the plant with more N than reduced DMPP and NBPT applications (Fig. \u003cspan\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The highest N rate was obtained in leaves and grains with the 100% NBPT application. Yield results also show a similar trend to N rates. The 100% NBPT application gave the best yield, while the 75% NBPT application resulted in a lower yield. In general, DMPP applications provided lower yields than G1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG3 was the subject in which the plant received the most N, with 239 kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, while the G2 resulted in lower nitrogen uptake than the optimum application (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). The G3 increased the NUE value by 1,17 times compared to G1, while the G5 (75% NBPT) increased the NUE value by 1,28 times compared to G1. Reducing DMPP and NBPT led to less N uptake by the plants. However, this resulted in increased NUE due to less nitrogen being applied to the soil. G4 had the highest result with 46% N use efficiency, while G2 had the lowest result with 27%.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eNUA\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eNitrogen Uptake Amount\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eNUE\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eNitrogen Uptake Efficiency\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4.\u003c/strong\u003e Nitrogen uptake in grain and nitrogen use efficiency\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Economic Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNSs are more expensive than urea fertilizer and the application of split urea fertilizer requires re-entry to the field, which are among the factors that affect the results of economic analysis. The results of the economic analysis show that there are differences between the two years. In 2021, the highest profit was obtained from the G1 and G3, while in 2022, it was obtained from the G1. The lowest profit for both years was generated as a result of the G2. (Table \u003cspan\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomic analysis of applications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategories\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelling Price (USD t\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCost (USD t\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNet Profit (USD t\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNet Profit (USD ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3360a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16620\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e161\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2670c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3500a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18080\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3160b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16920\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2810c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53,97**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19430\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4270a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19360\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3680e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4070b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18860\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3970c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19580\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e199\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3890d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86,55**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eGrup\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eDuncan\u0026apos;s Multiple Range Test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) was used to indicate groups that show statistical differences. Groups with the same letter do not have a statistically significant difference.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"ItalicUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eF\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cem\u003eresult of the ANOVA test.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*:\u0026lt;0.05, **:\u0026lt;0.01\u003c/em\u003e, \u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003ens\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: \u003cem\u003enot significance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussiıon","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e-\u003c/sup\u003e-N levels\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNSs (nitrogen stabilizers) release N slowly, allowing plants to access nutrients for a longer period (Shaviv and Mikkelsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). DMPP slows down nitrification, which slows down the conversion of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N to NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N, but this leads to accumulation of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N in the soil after urea hydrolysis (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This accumulation of NH4+-N was observed to cause nitrogen losses due to increasing ammonium levels in the soil during early plant growth stages, consistent with our findings (Rose et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It has been reported that the addition of DMPP significantly increases the abundance of denitrifying bacteria (Barrena et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Torralbo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that DMPP applications result in soil NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N values exceeding 100 mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e, far surpassing other applications in the early period. Keeping NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N in the soil for an extended period can increase NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N emissions (Castellano-Hinojosa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Qiao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N losses in the form of NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N are increasing in soils with a pH of 7 or higher (Sigunga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The high pH value of the test soil (8.10\u0026ndash;8.20) suggests that the NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N accumulated in the soil could be converted to NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N, increasing N losses. However, Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) stated that soil pH values also do not have a significant effect on the response of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N content to CRNF application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of NBPT is very robust against urea emission levels, which are dependent on soil properties, environmental and weather conditions, and the concentration of the inhibitor (Pan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rose et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). NBPT application prevents the high concentration of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N in the soil solution by slowing down urea hydrolysis, which also reduces urea loss (Modolo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the study, a balanced amount of NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N and NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N was determined throughout the plant growth period with NBPT applications (especially with 100% NBPT). In this respect, the results are in line with the mentioned literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAkiyama et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) found that nitrification inhibitors reduced N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions by an average of 38%, while Gilsanz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that DMPP reduced N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions by an average of 40%. These results indicate that nitrification inhibitors are an effective method for reducing N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO emissions. NSs were developed to prevent excessive N accumulation in the soil and reduce N loss by releasing N into the soil solution as needed by crops (Shoji et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Compared to widely used urea fertilizer, CRNFs can control the amount of inorganic N in the soil and have a clear advantage in reducing N loss through pathways such as surface runoff and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N volatilization (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). A study by Zhu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) showed that NSs significantly increased N levels, increasing by 5.93%, 3.89%, and 13.98%. Long-term application of NSs has the potential to reduce NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N leaching in the soil (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In general, the study shows that the use of NS leads to higher NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N levels in the early growth period of the plant. However, as time goes on, except for the amount of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N in 2022, the amount of soil inorganic N has decreased. Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) stated that the effect of NS on NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N content has a positive correlation with soil sand content, but a negative correlation with soil silt content. In particular, the amount of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N in the soil was determined to a greater extent by NS applications in 2022. The results align with the study by Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) because the loam test soil exhibits trends that correlate with their findings. As a result of a single application of NS, the inorganic N in the soil was kept at high levels before combining, but it decreased significantly due to N deficiency in later growth stages (Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the study, some differences were found between the years in the split urea application and NS applications. In 2022, the split urea application provided more NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e+\u003c/sup\u003e-N to the soil than in 2021. In 2022, unlike 2021, a relatively large amount of NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/sup\u003e-N was also detected in the soil in the final stages of plant development. This is probably because 2021 received 172% more rainfall than 2022. The high soil moisture content caused by rainfall can increase N loss in the soil (Ouyang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Although the temperature difference between the two years was not very large, the difference in rainfall amounts caused the soil temperature to vary between the years. Soil temperature is thought to be the main environmental factor affecting nutrient release from NSs (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, some scientists (Trenkel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Farmaha and Sims, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) have not denied the effect of soil temperature on the release of nutrients from CRNFs but also stated that it affects the release of nutrients from NSs in combination with moisture. Regional climate, soil physicochemical composition, and differences in agricultural practices can affect the superiority of NS and split urea applications in terms of soil N content. (Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Yield and N use efficiency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS has been shown to increase crop yield in many production systems (Otteson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Abalos et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), in their meta-analysis using datasets from 27 studies, observed an average of 7.5% yield increase when DMPP or NBPT were used compared to traditional N fertilizers without inhibitors. This literature are in line with the NBPT application used in the study, but not with the DMPP application. In the study, the 100% NBPT application significantly increased maize yield by 5% compared to split urea application. However, the 75% NBPT application did not show superiority over the split urea application. A study by Zheng et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) showed that NS increased maize yield by 4.9 to 11.1%. Additionally, another study conducted by Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) reported a similar 7.0% increase in maize with a NS application compared to traditional urea application. Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) reported that DMPP contributed to an average yield increase of 1.2% across 66 datasets, but the DMPP application fell short of the split urea application in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany studies report that application of NS can increase NUE (Kondo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As a result of a meta-analysis, basal fertilizer NS yielded higher NUE than split urea application (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In the study, 100% NBPT application yielded 17% and 75% NBPT application yielded 28% higher NUE than split urea application. NBPT applications yielded 55 to 70% higher NUE than DMPP applications. A study by Zhu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) showed that NS application significantly increased NUE by an average of 23.4%. Similarly, a study by Zheng et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) reported that it increased NUE in maize by 36.2 to 45.4%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS application significantly increases crop yield with NUE (Geng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Ke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) reported that NS significantly increased the yield of maize, potato, and rice, as well as NUE, compared to basal fertilizer. The mixture of NS and urea increases maize yield and NUE by optimizing N fertilizer release and N availability in the soil to meet the crop's N demand (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn general, the effectiveness of NS varies depending on soil type, but it has been observed to give better results in sandy soils (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e). The soil type covered in this study is loam. The substitution effect of NS on split urea can be significantly affected by the physical properties of soils (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Economic benefits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the economic analysis results of the study, differences were observed between the two years. In 2021, the highest profit in 2021 was achieved with the G3 (100% NBPT) application, which provided 4% more profit than G1 (split urea application), although it was not statistically significant. However, in 2022, the highest profit was obtained with the G1 application, and this difference was statistically significant, indicating a clear advantage of the G1 application in terms of income. Yang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) reported that, as a result of their cost-benefit analysis, the cost of NS application exceeded the overall benefit, and a 6.4% increase in income was achieved with NS. It has also been reported that a single NS application can save more labor and time than the need for split fertilization with more traditional N fertilizers (Geng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Li et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020a\u003c/span\u003e) stated that NS offers significant agricultural, economic, and environmental advantages over split urea application. However, the high cost and complex process of NS production may limit the large-scale applications of NS in agricultural fields (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to the study by Geng et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), which found that the net farm profit was increased with a 30% reduction in N application rate with NS compared to urea, the NS with a 25% N reduction was behind the split urea application in terms of net profit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUrease inhibitor fertilizer has better met the nitrogen demand of maize throughout its entire growth season compared to ammonium inhibitor fertilizer. Using the same N application rates, Urease inhibitor fertilizer increased yield by 5%, nitrogen use efficiency by 17%, and net profit by 4% compared to split urea application under the conditions of 2021, a year with abundant rainfall. Nitrification inhibitor fertilizer, on the other hand, led to nitrogen losses and yield reductions by causing high ammonium levels in the soil during the early plant growth period. It has been observed that reduced-dose urease inhibitor fertilizer provides higher nitrogen use efficiency. While this result creates a positive environmental impact, it limits the sustainability of the reduced dose as it falls behind the full urease inhibitor fertilizer in terms of yield and economic gain. Soil, plant, and climate factors can affect the effectiveness of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers. In the research, urease inhibitor fertilizer increased maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency by reducing the labor required for the fertilization process by applying it in a single application. According to the results of the economic analysis, although split urea treatment gave better outcomes than all treatments, it was concluded that urease inhibitor fertilizers are crucial for meeting maize's nitrogen requirements more effectively while providing environmental benefits.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express their gratitude to TAGEM (General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies) for providing the necessary facilities for conducting this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e: This study was supported under the TAGEM (General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies) \u0026nbsp;project with the reference number TAGEM/TSKAD/2021/B/A9/P1/2342.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/em\u003e The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Availability\u003c/em\u003e: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbalos, D., Jeffery, S., Sanz-Cobena, A., Guardia, G., \u0026amp; Vallejo, A. (2014). Meta-analysis of the effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency. Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 189, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.036 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbrol, Y., Pandey, R., Raghuram, N., \u0026amp; Ahmad, A. (2012). Nitrogen Cycle Sustainability and Sustainable Technologies for Nitrogen Fertilizer and Energy Management. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, 92, 17-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkiyama, H., Yan, X., \u0026amp; Yagi, K. (2010). Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology, 16(6), 1837-1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02031.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, M., Maqsood, M., Aziz, T., \u0026amp; Awan, M. (2020). Neem (Azadirachta indica) oil coated urea improves nitrogen use efficiency and maize growth in an alkaline calcareous soil. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57, 675-684. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/20.9850.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAngers, D., Arrouays, D., Cardinael, R., Chenu, C., Corbeels, M., Demenois, J., ... \u0026amp; Six, J. (2022). A well‐established fact: Rapid mineralization of organic inputs is an important factor for soil carbon sequestration. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(3), e13242. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13242 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApha, Awwa, \u0026amp; Wef. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrena, I., Men\u0026eacute;ndez, S., Correa-Galeote, D., Vega-Mas, I., Bedmar, E., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Murua, C., \u0026amp; Estavillo, J. (2017). Soil water content modulates the effect of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) on nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria.. Geoderma, 303, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2017.04.022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayram, G., Mevl\u0026uuml;t, T\u0026uuml;rk., Budaklı, E., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;elik, N. (2004). The Effects of the Defıcıency of Nıtrogen, Phosphorus, Potassıum and Zınc on the Development of the Root and Stem of the Corn Plant. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 18(33), 23-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBremner, J. T. (1965). Inorganic forms of nitrogen. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 9, 1179-1237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBussink, D. W., \u0026amp; Oenema, O. (1998). Ammonia volatilization from dairy farming systems in temperate areas: a review. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 51, 19-33.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButterbach-Bahl, K., Baggs, E. M., Dannenmann, M., Kiese, R., \u0026amp; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2013). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: how well do we understand the processes and their controls?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1621), 20130122. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCantarella, H., Quaggio, J. A., Gallo, P. B., Bolonhezi, D., Rossetto, R., Martins, A. L. M., ... \u0026amp; Alc\u0026acirc;ntara, P. B. (2005). Ammonia losses of NBPT-treated urea under Brazilian soil conditions. In Proceedings of the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA)-International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers (pp. 28-30). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastellano-Hinojosa, A., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Vallejo, A., \u0026amp; Bedmar, E. J. (2020). Effect of urease and nitrification inhibitors on ammonia volatilization and abundance of N‐cycling genes in an agricultural soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 183(1), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201900038 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDimkpa, C., Fugice, J., Singh, U., \u0026amp; Lewis, T. (2020). Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency - Trends and perspectives.. The Science of the total environment, 731, 139113 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139113.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDurmaz, AH., \u0026Ouml;ner, N., (2018). A Research on the Determinationof the Effect of Slow Decomposition Fertilizer and Foliar Fertilizer Application on Yield and Oil Quality of Sunflower (Masters\u0026rsquo; thesis), Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarmaha, B. S., \u0026amp; Sims, A. L. (2013). Yield and protein response of wheat cultivars to polymer‐coated urea and urea. Agronomy Journal, 105(1), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0283 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancisco, S., Urrutia, O., Martin, V., Peristeropoulos, A., \u0026amp; Garc\u0026iacute;a-Mina, J. (2011). Efficiency of urease and nitrification inhibitors in reducing ammonia volatilization from diverse nitrogen fertilizers applied to different soil types and wheat straw mulching.. Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 91 9, 1569-75 . https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4349. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGee, G. W., \u0026amp; Bauder, J. (1986). W. Particle size analysis. Methods of soil analysis, Part, 1, 383-411. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c15 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026eacute;nermont, S., \u0026amp; Cellier, P. (1997). A mechanistic model for estimating ammonia volatilization from slurry applied to bare soil. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 88(1-4), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(97)00044-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeng, J., Chen, J., Sun, Y., Zheng, W., Tian, X., Yang, Y., ... \u0026amp; Zhang, M. (2016). Controlled release urea improved nitrogen use efficiency and yield of wheat and corn. Agronomy Journal, 108(4), 1666-1673. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0468 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeng, J., Ma, Q., Zhang, M., Li, C., Liu, Z., Lyu, X., \u0026amp; Zheng, W. (2015). Synchronized relationships between nitrogen release of controlled release nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen requirements of cotton. Field Crops Research, 184, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerend\u0026aacute;s, J., Ratcliffe, R. G., \u0026amp; Sattelmacher, B. (1990). 31P nuclear magnetic resonance evidence for differences in intracellular pH in the roots of maize seedlings grown with nitrate or ammonium. Journal of Plant Physiology, 137(1), 125-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)80023-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilsanz, C., Baez, D., Misselbrook, T. H., Dhanoa, M. S., \u0026amp; Cardenas, L. M. (2016). Development of emission factors and efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors, DCD and DMPP. Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 216, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.030 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoloran, J. B., Phillips, I. R., Xu, Z. H., Condron, L. M., \u0026amp; Chen, C. R. (2014). Effects of amendments and fertilization on plant growth, nitrogen and phosphorus availability in rehabilitated highly alkaline bauxite‐processing residue sand. Soil use and management, 30(2), 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12109 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGomez, K. A., \u0026amp; Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research (2nd ed.). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrera, J. M., Rubio, G., H\u0026auml;ner, L. L., Delgado, J. A., Lucho-Constantino, C. A., Islas-Valdez, S., \u0026amp; Pellet, D. (2016). Emerging and established technologies to increase nitrogen use efficiency of cereals. Agronomy, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy6020025 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomme, P. H. A. M. (2016). Short-term fertilizer outlook 2016\u0026ndash;2017. IFA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHou, D. (2022). Expediting climate‐smart soils management. Soil Use and Management, 38(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12781 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, M. L. (1979). Soil Chemical Analysis: Advanced Course. Dept. Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJungkunst, H. F., Freibauer, A., Neufeldt, H., \u0026amp; Bareth, G. (2006). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural land use in Germany\u0026mdash;a synthesis of available annual field data. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 169(3), 341-351. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521954 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKacar, B., Katkat, V., (1998). Plant nutrition. 3rd Edition. Uludağ University Empowerment Foundation Publication. No:127, P:168-175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanter, D., Zhang, X., \u0026amp; Mauzerall, D. (2015). Reducing Nitrogen Pollution while Decreasing Farmers\u0026apos; Costs and Increasing Fertilizer Industry Profits.. Journal of environmental quality, 44 2, 325-35 . https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.04.0173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKe, J., He, R., Hou, P., Ding, C., Ding, Y., Wang, S., ... \u0026amp; Li, G. (2018). Combined controlled-released nitrogen fertilizers and deep placement effects of N leaching, rice yield and N recovery in machine-transplanted rice. Agriculture, ecosystems \u0026amp; environment, 265, 402-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.06.023 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKıral, T., Kasnakoğlu, H., Tatlldil, F., Fidan, H., \u0026amp; G\u0026uuml;ndoğmuş, E. (1999). Cost calculation methodology and database guide for agricultural products. TKB Agricultural Economics Research Institute Publications, (37).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKondo, M., Singh, C. V., Agbisit, R., \u0026amp; Murty, M. V. R. (2005). Yield response to urea and controlled-release urea as affected by water supply in tropical upland rice. Journal of plant nutrition, 28(2), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-200047601 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026uuml;n, E. (1985). Warm climate grains. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture publications, (953), 317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, C. L., Cao, Y. Q., Wang, Y., Li, X. Y., Li, Y. X., Zhu, L., ... \u0026amp; Gao, Q. (2020a). Effects of Mixed Controlled Release and Normal Urea on Maize (Zea Mays L) Growth, Grain Yield and Nitrogen Balance and Use Efficiency in Northeast China. Applied Ecology \u0026amp; Environmental Research, 18(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, C., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Cao, Y., Zhao, X., ... \u0026amp; Gao, Q. (2020b). Mixture of controlled‐release and normal urea to improve nitrogen management for maize across contrasting soil types. Agronomy Journal, 112(4), 3101-3113. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20252 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, J., Wang, W., Wang, W., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2022). The Ability of Nitrification Inhibitors to Decrease Denitrification Rates in an Arable Soil. Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112749.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, P., Lu, J., Hou, W., Pan, Y., Wang, Y., Khan, M. R., ... \u0026amp; Li, X. (2017). Reducing nitrogen losses through ammonia volatilization and surface runoff to improve apparent nitrogen recovery of double cropping of late rice using controlled release urea. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 11722-11733.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindsay, W. L., \u0026amp; Norvell, W. (1978). Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil science society of America journal, 42(3), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, L., Shen, T., Yang, Y., Gao, B., Li, Y. C., Xie, J., ... \u0026amp; Chen, J. (2018). Bio-based large tablet controlled-release urea: synthesis, characterization, and controlled-released mechanisms. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 66(43), 11265-11272. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b04042 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, TK., Fan, DJ., Zhang, XX., Chen, J., Li, CF., Cao, CG., (2015). Deep placement of nitrogen fertilizers reduces ammonia volatilizationand increases nitrogen utilization efficiency in no-tillage paddy fieldsin central China, Field Crops Research, 184, 80\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.011 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoeppert, R. H., \u0026amp; Suarez, D. L. (1996). Carbonate and gypsum. Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 chemical methods, 5, 437-474. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c15 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, Q., Tao, R., Ding, Y., Zhang, X., Li, F., Zhu, M., ... \u0026amp; Sheng, H. (2022). Can split application of slow-release fertilizer improve wheat yield, nitrogen efficiency and their stability in different ecological regions?. Agronomy, 12(2), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020407n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, Q., Wang, M., Zheng, G., Yao, Y., Tao, R., Zhu, M., ... \u0026amp; Zhu, X. (2021). Twice-split application of controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer met the nitrogen demand of winter wheat. Field Crops Research, 267, 108163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108163 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMariano, E., Filho, C., Bortoletto-Santos, R., Bendassolli, J., \u0026amp; Trivelin, P. (2019). Ammonia losses following surface application of enhanced-efficiency nitrogen fertilizers and urea. Atmospheric Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2019.02.003. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMGM (2022), Turkish State Meteorology Services. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModolo, L. V., de Souza, A. X., Horta, L. P., Araujo, D. P., \u0026amp; de F\u0026aacute;tima, \u0026Acirc;. (2015). An overview on the potential of natural products as ureases inhibitors: A review. Journal of Advanced Research, 6(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.09.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoll, R. H., Kamprath, E. J., \u0026amp; Jackson, W. A. (1982). Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization 1. Agronomy Journal, 74(3), 562-564. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400030037x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtteson, B. N., Mergoum, M., \u0026amp; Ransom, J. K. (2007). Seeding rate and nitrogen management effects on spring wheat yield and yield components. Agronomy journal, 99(6), 1615-1621. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOuyang, W., Xu, X., Hao, Z., \u0026amp; Gao, X. (2017). Effects of soil moisture content on upland nitrogen loss. Journal of Hydrology, 546, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.053 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zbek, O., Marakoğlu, T., \u0026Ccedil;ıtıl, E., \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;arman, K. (2012). The Evaluation of Yield Parameters and Nitrogen Losses in Liquid Manure and Fertilizer Applications by a Prototype Seeding Machine. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science, 8(1), 83-90.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePan, B., Lam, S. K., Mosier, A., Luo, Y., \u0026amp; Chen, D. (2016). Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: a global synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 232, 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParamesh, V., Kumar, R. M., Rajanna, G. A., Gowda, S., Nath, A. J., Madival, Y., ... \u0026amp; Toraskar, S. (2023). Integrated nutrient management for improving crop yields, soil properties, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Front. Sustain. Food Syst, 7(10.3389). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePasley, H., Cairns, J., Camberato, J., \u0026amp; Vyn, T. (2019). Nitrogen fertilizer rate increases plant uptake and soil availability of essential nutrients in continuous maize production in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 115, 373 - 389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-019-10016-1. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., \u0026amp; Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global change biology, 21(3), 1249-1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiong, W. U., WANG, Y. H., DING, Y. F., TAO, W. K., Shen, G. A. O., LI, Q. X., ... \u0026amp; LI, G. H. (2021). Effects of different types of slow-and controlled-release fertilizers on rice yield. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(6), 1503-1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63406-2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaun, W. R., \u0026amp; Johnson, G. V. (1999). Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agronomy journal, 91(3), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1999.00021962009100030001x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, T. J., Wood, R. H., Rose, M. T., \u0026amp; Van Zwieten, L. (2018). A re-evaluation of the agronomic effectiveness of the nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP and the urease inhibitor NBPT. Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 252, 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.008 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, T. J., Kearney, L. J., Zeng, Y., Van Zwieten, L., \u0026amp; Rose, M. T. (2023). DMPP-urea restricts nitrification in the first month without improving agronomic N use efficiency. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 126(1), 115-125. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRossmann, A., Pitann, B., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;hling, K. H. (2019). Splitting nitrogen applications improves wheat storage protein composition under low N supply. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 182(3), 347-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201800389 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharma, L., Zaeen, A., Bali, S., \u0026amp; Dwyer, J. (2017). Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Efficiency for Optimal Plant Growth and Yield. New Visions in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.5772/INTECHOPEN.72214. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaviv, A., \u0026amp; Mikkelsen, R. L. (1993). Controlled-release fertilizers to increase efficiency of nutrient use and minimize environmental degradation-A review. Fertilizer research, 35, 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShoji, S., Delgado, J., Mosier, A., \u0026amp; Miura, Y. (2001). Use of controlled release fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors to increase nitrogen use efficiency and to conserve air andwater quality. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(7-8), 1051-1070. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-100104103 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSigunga, D. O., Janssen, B. H., \u0026amp; Oenema, O. (2002). Ammonia volatilization from Vertisols. European Journal of Soil Science, 53(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1351-0754.2002.00454.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSims, J. T. (2000). Soil test phosphorus: Olsen P. Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals, and waters, 20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoil Survey Lab Staff, USDA. (1975). Soil Taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys (No. 436.4 So3). US Govt. Print. Off.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSubbarao, G., Ito, O., Sahrawat, K., Berry, W., Nakahara, K., Ishikawa, T., Watanabe, T., Suenaga, K., Rond\u0026oacute;n, M., \u0026amp; Rao, I. (2006). Scope and Strategies for Regulation of Nitrification in Agricultural Systems\u0026mdash;Challenges and Opportunities. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 25, 303 - 335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600794232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTian, D., Li, Z., O\u0026apos;Connor, D., \u0026amp; Shen, Z. (2020). The need to prioritize sustainable phosphate‐based fertilizers. Soil Use and Management, 36(3), 351-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12578 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTian, X., Li, C., Zhang, M., Li, T., Lu, Y., \u0026amp; Liu, L. (2018). Controlled release urea improved crop yields and mitigated nitrate leaching under cotton-garlic intercropping system in a 4-year field trial. Soil and Tillage Research, 175, 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.08.015 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorralbo, F., Men\u0026eacute;ndez, S., Barrena, I., Estavillo, J. M., Marino, D., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Murua, C. (2017). Dimethyl pyrazol-based nitrification inhibitors effect on nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria to mitigate N2O emission. Scientific reports, 7(1), 13810.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrenkel, M.E. (2021). Slow-and Controlled-Release and Stabilized Fertilizers: An Option for Enhancing Nutrient Use Effiiency in Agriculture. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Grinsven, H. J., Holland, M., Jacobsen, B. H., Klimont, Z., Sutton, M. A., \u0026amp; Jaap Willems, W. (2013). Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environmental science \u0026amp; technology, 47(8), 3571-3579. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303804g \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVenterea, R. T., Halvorson, A. D., Kitchen, N., Liebig, M. A., Cavigelli, M. A., Grosso, S. J. D., ... \u0026amp; Collins, H. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized cropping systems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(10), 562-570. https://doi.org/10.1890/120062 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh, O., Raun, W., Klatt, A., \u0026amp; Solie, J. (2012). Effect of delayed nitrogen fertilization on maize (Zea mays L.) grain yields and nitrogen use efficiency. Journal of plant nutrition, 35(4), 538-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.644373 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, L., Niu, X., Liu, S., \u0026amp; Bu, Y. (2020). Advances in Studies on Effects of Nitrogen Metabolism Pathways on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Plants. , 11. https://doi.org/10.5376/MSB.2020.11.0003. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, S., Shan, J., Xia, Y., Tang, Q., Xia, L., Lin, J., \u0026amp; Yan, X. (2017). Different effects of biochar and a nitrification inhibitor application on paddy soil denitrification: A field experiment over two consecutive rice-growing seasons.. The Science of the total environment, 593-594, 347-356 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.159.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, X., Wang, G., Guo, T., Xing, Y., Mo, F., Wang, H., ... \u0026amp; Zhang, F. (2021). Effects of plastic mulch and nitrogen fertilizer on the soil microbial community, enzymatic activity and yield performance in a dryland maize cropping system. European Journal of Soil Science, 72(1), 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12954 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Z., Zheng, H., Luo, Y., Deng, X., Herbert, S., \u0026amp; Xing, B. (2013). Characterization and influence of biochars on nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soil. Environmental pollution, 174, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, X., Cai, X., Li, Q., Ren, B., Bi, Y., Zhang, J., \u0026amp; Wang, D. (2021). Effects of nitrogen application rate on summer maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water\u0026ndash;nitrogen use efficiency under micro\u0026ndash;sprinkling irrigation in the Huang\u0026ndash;Huai\u0026ndash;Hai Plain of China. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 68, 1915 - 1929. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.1939867. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYakan, H., Sağlam, T., (1997). Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization on Grain Yield and Some Clite Characteristics of Hybrid Corn Grown in Kırklareli Conditions (Doctoral thesis), Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, M., Fang, Y., Sun, D., \u0026amp; Shi, Y. (2016). Efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors (dicyandiamide and 3, 4-dimethypyrazole phosphate) on soil nitrogen transformations and plant productivity: a meta-analysis. Scientific reports, 6(1), 22075.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, M., Zhu, X., Bai, Y., Sun, D., Zou, H., Fang, Y., \u0026amp; Zhang, Y. (2021). Coated controlled-release urea creates a win-win scenario for producing more staple grains and resolving N loss dilemma worldwide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125660 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhai, J., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., Xu, W., Xie, R., Ming, B., Hou, P., Wang, K., Xue, J., \u0026amp; Li, S. (2022). Effect of the Rate of Nitrogen Application on Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield Formation of Densely Planted Maize. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214940.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, G., Zhao, D., Liu, S., Liao, Y., \u0026amp; Han, J. (2022). Can controlled-release urea replace the split application of normal urea in China? A meta-analysis based on crop grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Field Crops Research, 275, 108343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108343 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, X., Mauzerall, D., Davidson, E., Kanter, D., \u0026amp; Cai, R. (2015). The economic and environmental consequences of implementing nitrogen-efficient technologies and management practices in agriculture.. Journal of environmental quality, 44 2, 312-24 . https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0129. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZheng, W., Liu, Z., Zhang, M., Shi, Y., Zhu, Q., Sun, Y., ... \u0026amp; Geng, J. (2017). Improving crop yields, nitrogen use efficiencies, and profits by using mixtures of coated controlled-released and uncoated urea in a wheat-maize system. Field Crops Research, 205, 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZheng, W., Sui, C., Liu, Z., Geng, J., Tian, X., Yang, X., ... \u0026amp; Zhang, M. (2016). Long‐term effects of controlled‐release urea on crop yields and soil fertility under wheat\u0026ndash;corn double cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 108(4), 1703-1716. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0581 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu, S., Liu, L., Xu, Y., Yang, Y., \u0026amp; Shi, R. (2020). Application of controlled release urea improved grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency: A meta-analysis. PloS one, 15(10), e0241481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241481 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"maize, nitrogen, split urea, yield, nitrogen use efficiency","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn conventional agriculture, nitrogen is essential for plant growth and is usually supplied through fertilization. However, nitrogen can be lost through various pathways, significantly affecting soils with distinct compositions. This study focused on examining the effects of split urea application, along with the application of fertilizers containing the nitrification inhibitor 3.4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) and the urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) at full (100%) and reduced (75%) levels of the standard application rate. Conducted over two years, the field trial aimed to assess the capacity of these treatments to mitigate nitrogen loss and meet the nitrogen requirements of maize effectively. The results of the study revealed that NBPT maintained the required nitrogen levels in the soil by meeting the nitrogen requirement of maize. On the other hand, DMPP caused nitrogen losses due to increasing ammonium levels in the soil during early plant growth stages. NBPT provided the best results in terms of plant yield and nitrogen content, whereas DMPP showed lower performance in these parameters. Reduced NBPT doses increased nitrogen use efficiency but were less effective in terms of yield compared to full doses. According to the result of the economic analysis, split urea treatment gave better results compared to all treatments. In conclusion, NBPT increased both yield and nitrogen use efficiency by providing nitrogen release by the nitrogen requirement of maize.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) Using Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-06-03 15:02:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4455360/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2b60bb21-57fb-43de-b052-77bb71af3440","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 3rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-11-06T21:17:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4455360","link":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2024.2424236","journal":{"identity":"communications-in-soil-science-and-plant-analysis","isVorOnly":true,"title":"Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis"},"publishedOn":"2024-11-05 00:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 5th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-06-03 15:02:20","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1080/00103624.2024.2424236","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2024.2424236","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4455360","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4455360","identity":"rs-4455360","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}