Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Soil Science ·

Volume 6 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2026.1899806

Effects of one-time application of controlled-release compound fertilizer on peanut yield and nitrogen loss in sloping farmland

  • Jibiao Geng1
  • Hao Wang1
  • Jianbang Li1
  • Songge Gao1
  • Xingrui Wu1
  • Zeli Li1*corresponding author
  • Jinhua Gao1,2*corresponding author
  • Yan Song2
  • Hongbiao Xu3
  1. 1Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Water and Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection, College of Resources and Environment, Linyi University, Linyi, China
  2. 2Stanley Agricultural Group Co., Ltd, Linyi, China
  3. 3Linyi Hydrological Center, Linyi, China
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) loss via surface runoff is a critical issue in sloping farmland, contributing to non-point source pollution and limiting crop productivity. In peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production, improving nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) while minimizing environmental risks is essential for achieving sustainable agricultural development. Controlled-release compound fertilizers (CRF) may provide a promising approach to synchronizing N release with crop demand and reducing nutrient losses in runoff. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of one-time basal application of CRF on N runoff losses, NUE, and peanut yield in sloped peanut fields. A two-year field experiment was conducted in Linyi, Shandong Province, using the peanut variety ‘Huayu 25’. Treatments fertilizers included CRF and conventional compound fertilizer (CF), both with an N-P 2 O 5 -K 2 O ratio of 15-15-15, applied at two application rates (800 and 560 kg hm -2, representing 100% and 70% of the recommended rate) for both CRF and CF, along with a no-fertilizer control. Fertilizer release characteristics, peanut biomass and N uptake, and surface runoff nitrate (NO 3 − –N) and ammonium nitrogen (NH 4 + –N) concentrations and peanut yield were assessed. Compared with 100%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023, 100%CRF treatment significantly reduced NO 3 − –N and NH 4 + –N concentrations in runoff by 21.6%–38.1% and 7.7%–63.6%, respectively, while increasing dry matter accumulation by 10.9%–12.2%, N uptake by 5.9%–6.0%, and NUE by 39.9%–40.5%. Kernel yields of 100%CRF were 6.3%–13.8% higher than those under 100%CF. Notably, the 70% CRF treatment still outperformed the 100%CF treatment in terms of yield, with increases by 3.5%–7.1% across the two years. The results highlight the potential of CRF to improve NUE and sustain or even enhance yield under reduced N inputs, offering a viable strategy for environmentally responsible and productivity-enhancing fertilization in sloping agroecosystems. The findings indicate that CRF can simultaneously improve crop productivity and mitigate environmental pollution risks in sloping agroecosystems. Reduced-rate CRF application has strong potential as a sustainable fertilization strategy for peanut production, contributing to efficient nutrient management and environmentally responsible agriculture.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Peanut is an important oilseed and economic crop, and ensuring high-quality, high-yield peanut production plays an indispensable role in the oil and grain security of China (1). Shandong Province is the largest peanut production and export base in the country, with planting areas mainly distributed in the Jiaodong Peninsula, southern, and central-western regions. In the southwestern part of Shandong, hilly slopes are dominated by large areas of poor, thin farmland. Sandy sloping land is highly susceptible to erosion, with poor water and fertilizer retention capacity, which can lead to severe soil erosion (2). This not only directly results in soil degradation and fertility loss, but also exacerbates nutrient runoff, contributing to the eutrophication of regional water bodies and causing non-point source pollution (3, 4). Therefore, controlling nutrient loss at the source is beneficial to the sustainable development of agriculture. Moreover, the severe nutrient loss from sloping farmland results in insufficient nutrients available to peanuts, leading to decreased seed yield and quality (5, 6), which limits the development of local peanut farming and economic income.

Nitrogen (N) is an essential macronutrient for peanuts, and fertilization is the conventional method to address insufficient N supply in the soil (7). However, conventional chemical fertilizers have a short effective period, often leading to excessive N application in the early stages of peanut growth and insufficient N supply later on, which fails to meet the crop’s N requirements throughout the growing season. Additionally, the peanut’s “flowering above and fruiting below” growth habit complicates top-dressing fertilizer application (8). Controlled-release fertilizers (CRF), which regulate nutrient release rates according to crop demands, have been shown to significantly improve crop yield and nutrient use efficiency in legumes and other crops (9). Recent studies have further demonstrated that CRF can enhance nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) by synchronizing nutrient release with crop demand, while simultaneously reducing N runoff, ammonia volatilization, and runoff losses compared with conventional fertilizers (10). In sandy sloping farmland, controlled-release fertilizers have demonstrated notable benefits: in a field trial from Shandong, controlled-release fertilizers application increased peanut kernel yield by approximately 13.8%, improved N uptake by about 6%–7% (11). Furthermore, recent advances in sustainable fertilizer management have emphasized that the effectiveness of CRF depends not only on nutrient release characteristics but also on soil properties, climatic conditions, and field-scale nutrient transport processes (12). Studies have suggested that the interaction between fertilizer formulations and environmental conditions is critical for determining N retention and environmental benefits under different agroecosystems (13).

However, previous studies on CRF in peanut production have mainly focused on crop yield and NUE under relatively favorable soil conditions, while its performance in erosion-prone sandy sloping farmland remains poorly understood (14). Compared with flat or clay-rich soils, sandy sloping farmland has coarse texture, low organic matter, weak water- and nutrient-holding capacity, and frequent runoff, which may alter CRF nutrient release and N transport, thereby affecting the synchronization between N release and crop demand (15). Therefore, this study integrates fertilizer release dynamics, N losses through surface runoff, and peanut N uptake to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of CRF in sandy sloping farmland.

In this paper, we investigate the N runoff behavior of CRF in sandy sloping farmland through a field experiment conducted during different growth stages of peanuts. The objectives of this study were to (1) analyze the N runoff characteristics of CRF in sandy sloping farmland at various peanut growth stages; (2) examine the loss of N through surface runoff; and (3) assess the alignment between N release patterns of CRF in the soil and the N absorption patterns of peanuts, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for sustainable peanut farming and non-point source pollution management in sloping farmland. We hypothesized that (i) the distinctive hydrological processes of sandy sloping farmland would modify the N release kinetics of CRF compared with those reported for relatively flat or clay-rich soils; (ii) CRF would reduce N losses through runoff and surface runoff by providing a more gradual N supply; and (iii) the N release pattern of CRF would better synchronize with peanut N uptake, thereby improving NUE and contributing to stable peanut yield.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Experimental site and materials

The experiment was conducted in 2022 and 2023 at the Shuangheyu Experimental Base in Linyi City, Shandong Province (35°42′5″N, 117°57′51″E). The region belongs to the warm temperate monsoon climate zone, with rainfall concentrated from June to September. The average annual precipitation is 950 mm, and the average temperature is 14.3 °C. The rainfall and temperature variations during the peanut growing season (April to August) are shown in Supplementary Figure 1. Precipitation is low in April and May, with a concentration from June to August, while the temperature remains above 22 °C starting from late May.

The experimental soil is classified as brown soil with a sandy loam texture (16). The sand content is 70.8%, clay content is 3%, and silt content is 26.2%. The soil pH is 6.8, the total N and organic matter content are 0.7 g kg-1 and 8.2 g kg-1, respectively, and the ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N), available phosphorus, and available potassium are 12.9 mg kg-1, 19.4 mg kg-1, 14.0 mg kg-1, and 55.7 mg kg-1, respectively. Before treatment application, composite soil samples (0–20 cm) were collected from each experimental plot to determine the initial soil physicochemical properties. Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in soil pH, organic matter, total N, NH4+-N, NO3--N, available phosphorus, or available potassium among treatments before fertilizer application, indicating that the experimental plots had comparable initial soil conditions. The values reported above represent the mean initial soil properties of the experimental site.

The fertilizers used in the experiment include CRF and conventional compound fertilizer (CF). The CRF is coated with polyurethane and contains 15% N, 15% P2O5;, and 15% K2O. The initial dissolution rate in static water at 25 °C is 0.86%, with a release period of 3 months. The conventional compound fertilizer also contains 15% N, 15% P2O5;, and 15% K2O, and was provided by Shandong Jinyi Meng Ecological Fertilizer Co., Ltd.

2.2 Experimental design and field management

Peanuts were sown on April, 2022 and 2023, and harvested in August, 2022 and 2023. No artificial irrigation measures were applied throughout the growing season. The CRF and CF treatments included a single basal application of 800 kg hm-² and 560 kg hm-², corresponding to N-P2O5;-K2O application rates of 120-120–120 kg hm-² (100%CRF, 100%CF) and 84-84–84 kg hm-² (70%CRF, 70%CF), respectively, with an unfertilized control (CK). A randomized block design was used, with each treatment replicated three times. Within each block, treatments were randomly assigned to individual plots using a random allocation procedure to minimize the influence of spatial variability. To reduce border effects and prevent nutrient movement between adjacent treatments, buffer zones were maintained between plots, and all field management practices were applied uniformly across treatments. Both the controlled-release and conventional compound fertilizers had an N-P2O5;-K2O ratio of 15%-15%-15%.

Each experimental plot was 1.6 m wide and 10 m long, with a slope of 12° (Figure 1), and the planting density was 100,000 plants hm-². Each plot had two ridges, with a ridge height of 10 cm and a ridge width of 40 cm. Fertilizer was applied in the furrow during ridge preparation at a depth of about 8–10 cm. Peanuts were planted 5 cm from the fertilizer side of the ridge, and plastic film was applied until the crop reached maturity. The experimental area was enclosed with hard plastic boards, which were buried 15 cm into the soil, with the surface at a height of 10 cm, to prevent nutrient loss to surrounding areas. At the end of each plot, a collection ditch was excavated, aligning with the width of the plot and connecting to the runoff pool, where a 120 L plastic bucket was placed beneath the ditch to collect runoff samples from natural rainfall. Runoff was collected and measured separately after each rainfall event, resulting in a total of 10 runoff collection events during the peanut growing season. After each runoff event, the total runoff volume in the bucket was measured using a graduated container, and the runoff was thoroughly mixed before subsamples were collected for the determination of N concentrations. After sampling, the collection bucket was emptied and cleaned before the next rainfall event. Each plot contained two peanut ridges, one for plant and soil sampling and the other for yield measurement (17).

Field experimental plots of peanut on a 12° slope in Linyi, Shandong Province, showing runoff collection system. Runoff water generated after rainfall was directed through a channel into buckets for quantification and nitrogen (NO<sub>3</sub><sup>−</sup>–N and NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>–N) concentration analysis.
Figure 1. Field experimental plots of peanut on a 12° slope in Linyi, Shandong Province, showing runoff collection system. Runoff water generated after rainfall was directed through a channel into buckets for quantification and nitrogen (NO3−–N and NH4+–N) concentration analysis.

2.3 Sampling and chemical analyses

2.3.1 Plant dry matter accumulation and nitrogen uptake

At four growth stages—May 23 (seedling stage, 27 days after sowing), June 26 (flowering and podding stage, 60 days after sowing), July 24 (pod filling stage, 88 days after sowing), and August 28 (maturity stage, 123 days after sowing)—four representative plants with uniform growth were sampled from each plot. The plants were divided into aboveground (leaves, flowers, and stems) and underground (roots and pods) parts. The samples were brought back to the laboratory, killed at 105 °C for 30 minutes, and then dried at 65 °C until constant weight was achieved. The total peanut dry matter accumulation was determined by summing the dry weight of both aboveground and underground parts (18). At maturity, one ridge of peanuts from each plot was harvested, air-dried, weighed, and used to calculate the kernel rate, hundred-kernel weight, and yield. Total N content in the peanut plants was determined by digestion with concentrated sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and N was measured using a Kjeldahl N analyzer (19).

2.3.2 Inorganic nitrogen content in runoff

After each rainfall event that generated runoff, 250 mL plastic bottles were used to collect the runoff liquid, with each bottle receiving 1–2 drops of concentrated sulfuric acid to reduce ammonia volatilization loss, and the samples were then transported back to the laboratory, stored at 4 °C, and analyzed within one week, with a total of 10 runoff water samples collected throughout the growing season (20). The concentrations of NO3--N and NH4+-N in the runoff were measured using a continuous-flow injection analyzer. The total loss of NO3--N and NH4+-N during each runoff event was calculated by multiplying the concentrations in the runoff by the runoff volume, and the total N loss for each event was the sum of the losses of NO3--N and NH4+-N (21).

2.3.3 Nutrient release characteristics of controlled-release fertilizer

Before sowing, nylon mesh bags (12 cm × 10 cm) were prepared, each containing 10 g of CRF granules (the fertilizer granules were dried at 105 °C for 3 hours). A soil trench, 10–15 cm deep and 14 cm wide, was dug 10 cm to the side of the sowing row. Twenty fertilizer bags were placed at the bottom of the trench, and the fertilizer granules were evenly distributed over the soil in the trench, followed by soil coverage. To minimize the impact of the fertilizer bags on the results, plant and soil samples were collected away from the burial sites. On day 1, day 10, and at each growth stage, three fertilizer bags were collected, cleaned, and taken back to the laboratory. After retrieval, the fertilizer granules were gently rinsed with deionized water to remove adhering soil particles, blotted dry with filter paper, and oven-dried at 105 °C to constant weight. Fertilizer weight loss relative to the initial weight was used to calculate the cumulative nutrient release. The cumulative N release rate and stage N release rate were calculated using the following formulas (22):

Rc=(10−WD)/10*100

Rs=((10−WN)/10−(10−WD)/10))*100

Where Rc and Rs represent the cumulative and stage N release rates (%), respectively. Where WD is the dry weight (g) of fertilizer granules remaining in the fertilizer mesh bag at sampling day D, and WN is the dry weight (g) of fertilizer granules remaining at the subsequent sampling day N. The sampling times were D = 0, 1, 10, 27, 60, and 88 days, and N = 1, 10, 27, 60, 88, and 123 days.

The N uptake by plants in the unfertilized treatment was used as an estimate of soil N supply. Nitrogen accumulated by peanuts in the unfertilized treatment was assumed to originate from indigenous soil N, including initial mineral N and soil organic matter mineralization. Thus, soil N mineralization was inherently accounted for in the unfertilized treatment, and differences in N uptake between treatments were attributed primarily to fertilizer-derived N under the same field conditions. After the application of conventional compound fertilizer, it quickly dissolves into the soil, making it difficult to distinguish between the fertilizer release amount and the soil N supply. Therefore, the soil N supply curve after fertilization is considered as the total supply from both sources. The N release from controlled-release fertilizer in the soil is calculated using the following formula (23):

The N release from controlled-release fertilizer (kg hm-²) = (10 - dry weight of fertilizer granules collected from the fertilizer mesh bag on day M)/10 × N application rate of controlled-release fertilizer

Where M takes the values 0, 27, 60, 88, and 123 days. The dry weight of the fertilizer granules is expressed in grams (g).

Nitrogen use efficiency (%) = (Accumulated N amount in fertilized area - Accumulated N amount in unfertilized area)/N application rate*100.

The contribution rate of fertilizer to yield is calculated as follows (24):

Fertilizer contribution rate = (Peanut yield in fertilized area - Peanut yield in unfertilized area)/Peanut yield in fertilized area.

2.4 Statistical analyses

Statistical significance of the effects of the treatments on each response parameter was analyzed using SAS Version 9.2, (SAS, 2012). Prior to analysis of variance (ANOVA), the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test, respectively. When these assumptions were satisfied, one-way ANOVA was conducted, and treatment means were compared using Duncan’s multiple range test at the 0.05 significance level. Data were processed with Microsoft Excel 2010, and figures were prepared with SigmaPlot software (Version 12.0, MMIV, Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).

3 Results

3.1 Release characteristics of N from CRF under field conditions

Under laboratory conditions (in 25.0°C water), the release of CRF showed an early stage of slow release (0–20 days) up to 10.9%, then an accelerated release stage (20–100 days) up to 87.0% and ending with a stage of reduced N release (100–120 days) with 7.8% (Figure 2). The total rainfall was 950.0 mm and 961.4 mm in peanut season during the 2022 and 2023, respectively; and the average air temperatures were 14.3°C and 15.1°C, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1). Due to the difference between the laboratory and field conditions, the N release in the field showed an early stage of slow release (0–27 days) up to 30.9 and 34.7% release across two years, with 71.5 and 76.1% release for 27–88 days, across the two years, respectively. The cumulative N release of growing season was 89.6 to 91.39%, respectively, across the two years.

Nitrogen (N) release rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (CRF) in the laboratory (water, 25 °C, **A**) and in the field **(B)** in 2022 and 2023.
Figure 2. Nitrogen (N) release rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (CRF) in the laboratory (water, 25 °C, A) and in the field (B) in 2022 and 2023.

3.2 Characteristics of N release, soil N supply, and peanut N absorption from CRF

The N uptake of peanut plants exhibited an increasing trend with the progression of growth stages in 2022 (Figure 3), showing the most rapid accumulation from the flowering stage to the pod-setting stage. During the seedling stage, the maximum N uptake was observed in the 100%CF treatment, which was significantly higher than that in the 70%CRF and 70%CF treatments. At the flowering stage, N uptake in the 100%CF, 100%CRF, and 70%CRF treatments significantly exceeded that of the 70%CF treatment. At maturity, controlled-release compound fertilizer treatments (100%CRF and 70%CRF) demonstrated enhanced N uptake compared to conventional compound fertilizer treatments (100%CF and 70%CF), with increases of 5.9%–6.0% relative to 100%CF and 70%CF, respectively.

Characteristics of the N release (supply) rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (conventional compound fertilizer) and the N supply from the soil (N uptake by peanut plants in the no-fertilizer treatment) with the corresponding N uptake by peanut plants under 100%CRF **(A)**, 100%CF **(B)**, 70%CRF **(C)** and 70%CF **(D)** treatments in 2022. Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.
Figure 3. Characteristics of the N release (supply) rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (conventional compound fertilizer) and the N supply from the soil (N uptake by peanut plants in the no-fertilizer treatment) with the corresponding N uptake by peanut plants under 100%CRF (A), 100%CF (B), 70%CRF (C) and 70%CF (D) treatments in 2022. Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

The N uptake of peanut plants exhibited an increasing trend with the progression of growth stages in 2023 (Figure 4). At the flowering stage, compared with 100%CF treatment, the N uptake of peanut plants of the 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments were increased by 6.2% and 5.3%, respectively; the N supply from soil and fertilizer of 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments were increased by 173.2% and 149.3%, respectively. Additionally, at the maturity stage, compared with 100%CF treatment, the N uptake of peanut plants of the 100%CRF treatment was increased by 6.0%; the N supply from soil and fertilizer of 100%CRF treatment was increased by 144.4%.

Characteristics of the N release (supply) rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (conventional compound fertilizer) and the N supply from the soil (N uptake by peanut plants in the no-fertilizer treatment) with the corresponding N uptake by peanut plants under 100%CRF **(A)**, 100%CF **(B)**, 70%CRF **(C)** and 70%CF **(D)** treatments in 2023. Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.
Figure 4. Characteristics of the N release (supply) rate of controlled-release compound fertilizer (conventional compound fertilizer) and the N supply from the soil (N uptake by peanut plants in the no-fertilizer treatment) with the corresponding N uptake by peanut plants under 100%CRF (A), 100%CF (B), 70%CRF (C) and 70%CF (D) treatments in 2023. Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

3.3 Effects of CRF on runoff loss of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen in sloping farmland

The NO3--N and NH4+-N concentrations in runoff water across different treatments exhibited a trend of initially decreasing, then increasing, followed by a subsequent decrease in 2022 (Figures 5A, B). In the first runoff event, the 100%CF treatment recorded the highest NO3--N and NH4+-N concentration, significantly exceeding those of the 100%CRF and 70%CF treatments. At 49 and 51 days after fertilization, the 100%CF treatment again demonstrated the highest NO3--N and NH4+-N concentrations in runoff. A distinct peak in NO3--N concentration emerged at 63- and 66-days post-fertilization, where conventional compound fertilizer treatments under equivalent fertilization rates showed higher values compared to controlled-release compound fertilizer.

Content of nitrate nitrogen (NO<sub>3</sub><sup>--</sup>N) **(A, C)** and ammonium nitrogen (NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup>-N) **(B, D)** in runoff water under different treatments during the 2022 and 2023 seasons. In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.
Figure 5. Content of nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N) (A, C) and ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N) (B, D) in runoff water under different treatments during the 2022 and 2023 seasons. In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

Controlled-release compound fertilizer significantly affected the NO3--N and NH4+-N concentrations in runoff displayed in 2023 (Figures 5C, D). At the same N application rate, the NO3--N concentrations of 100%CRF treatment were 21.6-38.1% lower than those in the 100%CF treatment at 40 and 68 days after fertilization (Figure 5C); additionally, the NO3--N concentrations of 70%CRF treatment were 6.4-25.7% lower than those in the compared with 70%CF treatment at 40 and 65 days after fertilization. At the same N application rate, the NH4+-N concentrations of 100%CRF treatment were 7.7-63.6% lower than those in the 100%CF treatment at 40 and 119 days after fertilization (Figure 5D); the NH4+-N concentrations of 70%CRF treatment were 7.0-69.7% lower than those in the 70%CF treatment at 50 and 119 days after fertilization. Compared to conventional compound fertilizer, the application of controlled-release compound fertilizer significantly reduced runoff losses of NO3--N and NH4+-N.

Compared with the conventional fertilizer treatments, the CRF treatments consistently exhibited lower cumulative total nitrogen content (TN) losses in both years. Specifically, cumulative TN loss under the 100%CRF treatment was 10.8% and 18.5% lower than that under the 100%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023, respectively, while the 70%CRF treatment reduced TN loss by 10.6% and 19.6%, respectively (Table 1). Although these reductions were not statistically significant based on the multiple comparison test, they indicate a clear tendency for CRF application to mitigate N loss through surface runoff.

Table 1. Loss of total nitrogen content in runoff water under different fertilization treatments of each experimental section (mg).

YearDays after fertilizationCK2100%CRF70%CRF100%CF70%CF
20224188.7 b1106.8 b104.8 b139.9 a95.1 b
4931.8 a39.3 a39.9 a40.5 a37.1 a
5111.8 b21.3 b23.7 ab34.3 a30.3 ab
6316.2 b21.1 ab18.2 ab26.8 a24.6 ab
6627.0 a29.6 a30.2 a35.3 a36.3 a
6934.6 ab54.2 a54.5 a58.5 a57.2 a
9239.5 a41.0 a40.2 a40.7 a36.6 a
9549.5 a69.0 a71.0 a61.1 a54.8 a
996.7 a13.8 a13.8 a11.3 a12.9 a
11736.6 a49.7 a40.6 a39.9 a33.8 a
Total loss362.4 b435.6 a436.7 a488.3 a428.8 a
20234147.4 b46.4 b43.8 b78.4 a62.4 b
4927.8 b27.8 b31.9 b42.9 a36.7 ab
5138.7 bc32.3 c28.2 c45.2 b55.3 a
6312.0 b15.4 b18.7 a19.8 a19.5 a
6617.1 a21.3 a21.1 a19.7 a18.0 a
6921.0 a23.3 a23.7 a27.3 a26.1 a
9222.0 a24.2 a23.9 a26.5 a17.5 ab
9544.8 ab58.3 a54.5 a58.3 a58.7 a
994.5 b11.2 a11.5 a9.8 ab9.1 ab
11722.3 ab30.4 a29.3 ab28.7 ab20.6 ab
Total loss258.7290.7286.5356.5323.9

Means within each column followed by the same letters were not significantly different based on one-way ANOVAs according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05).

Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

3.4 Effects of CRF on the accumulation of peanut dry matter in sloping farmland

Peanut dry matter accumulation increased progressively across growth stages at all stages in 2022 (Figure 6A). At the seedling stage, the 100%CF treatment achieved the highest dry matter accumulation, significantly surpassing the 70%CRF treatment, though no significant differences were observed compared to the 100%CRF and 70%CF treatments. During the pegging stage, the 100%CRF and 100%CF treatments increased 12.2% and 13.6% over the 70%CF treatment. At the pod-filling stage, the 100%CRF treatment reached the maximum dry matter accumulation, significantly exceeding all other treatments.

Change characteristic of peanut biomass under different fertilization treatments in 2022 **(A)** and 2023 **(B)**. In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.
Figure 6. Change characteristic of peanut biomass under different fertilization treatments in 2022 (A) and 2023 (B). In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

Controlled-release compound fertilizer significantly affected the peanut dry matter accumulation in sloping farmland in 2023 (Figure 6B). Compared with 100%CF treatment, the dry matter accumulation of 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments were increased by 12.2% and 6.2%, respectively, at the pegging stage; the dry matter accumulation of 100%CRF treatments were increased by 5.0%, at the pod-filling; the dry matter accumulation of 100%CRF treatments were increased by 8.3%, at the maturity stage. Compared to the conventional compound fertilizer treatments, the controlled-release compound fertilizer treatments significantly enhanced dry matter accumulation in peanuts.

3.5 Effects of CRF on peanut yield, NUE and fertilizer contribution to peanut yield

The effects of fertilizer types and application rates on peanut yield and its components were statistically significant in 2022 and 2023 (Table 2). The 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments demonstrated significantly higher 100-kernel weights compared to the 70%CF treatment. Compared with the 70%CF treatment, the 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments significantly increased 100-kernel weight. The number of pods per plant was significantly greater under CRF than under CF, with the 100%CRF and 70%CRF treatments increasing pod number by 33.0% and 16.6%, respectively, in 2022, and by 33.2% and 14.7%, respectively, in 2023, compared with the 70%CF treatment. Kernel rate varied only slightly among treatments. Compared with the 70%CF treatment, the kernel rate increased by 2.9%–5.2% in 2022 and by 3.0%–7.1% in 2023 under the other fertilized treatments.

Table 2. Grain yields of peanut in different fertilizer treatments from 2022 to 2023.

YearTreatment2100-kernel weight (g)Pods per plantShelling(%)Pod yield(kg hm-2)Kernel yield(kg hm-2)Yield changed relative to 100%CF (%)
2022CK82.0 ab134.2 c74.7 a3881.1 c2899.9 c-8.6
100%CRF84.1 a48.0 a74.9 a4821.4 a3610.7 a13.8
70%CRF81.2 a41.8 b74.6 a4551.8 ab3396.5 ab7.1
100%CF81.1 ab36.5 c73.8 ab4304.5 b3171.5 bc--
70%CF76.6 b35.9 c71.2 b4240.1 b3022.3 c-4.7
2023CK74.3 ab35.1 c67.4 ab3312.5 c2229.0 d-18.1
100%CRF75.6 ab50.3 a70.8 a4062.5 a2895.4 a6.3
70%CRF79.1 a43.4 b70.3 ab3909.3 ab2819.1 ab3.5
100%CF74.9 ab38.6 c70.7 a3850.0 bc2723.5 bc--
70%CF72.5 b37.1 c66.1 b3583.3 bc2365.4 d-13.1

Means within each column followed by the same letters were not significantly different based on one-way ANOVAs according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05).

Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70%CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

Fertilization significantly improved pod yield, with the 100%CRF treatment outperforming the conventional fertilizer treatment in 2022 and 2023 (Table 2). Compared with the 100%CF treatment, the 100%CRF treatment significantly increased kernel yield by 13.8% in 2022 and 6.3% in 2023, resulting in the highest kernel yield among all treatments. The 70%CRF treatment demonstrated comparable kernel yield to the 100%CF treatment but showed a 12.4% and 19.2% significant improvement over the 70%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023. No significant differences were detected among the conventional fertilizer treatments and the control.

The CRF and its application rate significantly affected NUE during the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons (Figure 7). At the same fertilizer application rate, the NUE of the 100%CRF treatment was significantly increased 39.9% and 40.5% than for 100%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023. Similarly, the fertilizer contribution to peanut yield of the 100%CRF treatment was 102.0% and 10.0% higher than for 100%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023. Meanwhile, the NUE of the 70%CRF treatment was significantly increased 52.5% and 257.3% than for 70%CF treatment; the fertilizer contribution to peanut yield of the 70%CRF treatment was 74.8% and 229.0% higher than for 70%CF treatment in 2022 and 2023.

Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) **(A, C)** and fertilizer contribution to peanut yield **(B, D)** during the 2022–2023 season. In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70% CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm<sup>-2</sup> conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.
Figure 7. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (A, C) and fertilizer contribution to peanut yield (B, D) during the 2022–2023 season. In each graph, means with the same letters were not significantly different based on a one-way ANOVA according to Duncan’s multiple-range tests (P<0.05). Treatments: 100%CRF, and 70% CRF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 controlled-release compound fertilizer; 100%CF, and 70%CF represent one base application of 800, and 560 kg hm-2 conventional compound fertilizer; CK is no fertilization control.

4 Discussion

4.1 Correlation between nitrogen release from controlled-release fertilizer and peanut nitrogen uptake

Controlled-release fertilizers (CRF) utilize a coating process that allows nutrients to be released in a specific pattern during the growing season of crops. The release rate of CRF is primarily influenced by soil temperature and moisture content (25). The experimental soil in this study was a sandy loam with a high sand content (70.8%) and a very low clay content (3.0%), characteristics that strongly influence soil water and thermal dynamics. Compared with clay-rich soils, sandy soils generally exhibit greater hydraulic conductivity, faster water infiltration, and lower water-holding capacity, resulting in more pronounced fluctuations in soil moisture following rainfall events (26). In addition, the lower heat capacity of sandy soils causes larger daily soil temperature fluctuations. Because water penetration through the polyurethane coating and nutrient diffusion are regulated by soil moisture and temperature, these soil characteristics are likely to accelerate nutrient diffusion immediately after rainfall while also producing greater temporal variation in CRF release rates (27). Despite these fluctuations, the polyurethane coating effectively moderated N release, allowing CRF to maintain a relatively continuous nutrient supply throughout the peanut growing season.

In this study, 30.9% and 34.7% of the N from the CRF was released during the first 27 days (Figure 2). Although peanut N demand is relatively low during the seedling stage, this initial N release was substantially lower than that of conventional fertilizer, thereby avoiding an excessive early N supply while maintaining sufficient N availability for seedling establishment (28). This trend is supported by Figure 3, which shows that N uptake by peanuts in the CRF treatment was lower than that in the CF treatment during the seedling stage. Under field conditions, N release from CRF was also influenced by the temporal distribution of rainfall and the resulting fluctuations in soil moisture. Rainfall events increased soil water content, facilitating water penetration through the polyurethane coating and accelerating nutrient diffusion from the fertilizer granules (29). During relatively dry periods, however, reduced soil moisture slowed water diffusion into the granules and consequently decreased the N release rate. Therefore, unlike the relatively stable release pattern observed under laboratory conditions, N release in the field reflected the combined effects of the intrinsic controlled-release properties of the fertilizer and dynamic environmental conditions. Despite these fluctuations, the overall release profile remained well synchronized with peanut N demand throughout the growing season, demonstrating that the coating effectively buffered short-term environmental variability.

Between 27 and 88 days after fertilization, CRF released an additional 71.5–76.1% of its N (Figure 2), corresponding to the pod-setting and pod-filling stages, when peanut N demand increased markedly. Consistent with this release pattern, Figures 3 and 4 show that plant N accumulation and N uptake under CRF exceeded those under CF during the pod-setting and maturation stages. The pod-setting period is the most critical phase for both reproductive and vegetative growth, with the highest nutrient demand. During this period, controlled-release fertilizers peak in N release, which coincides with the highest N demand of peanuts. By the harvest period, the N release reached 90%, ensuring pod development, and the combined supply of soil N satisfied the N needs throughout the entire growing season (30). These results indicate that the controlled-release characteristics of CRF were maintained even under the highly permeable conditions of sandy sloping farmland, enabling a better synchronization between N release and peanut N demand.

Under the same fertilization rates, the N uptake by plants in the seedling stage was higher in the CF treatment than in the CRF treatment. However, the reverse trend was observed during the pod-setting and maturation stages. Conventional fertilizers dissolve rapidly in the soil, making it difficult to differentiate between fertilizer release and soil N supply (31). This imbalance results in an overabundance of N during the early growth stages and a subsequent deficiency in the later stages, ultimately diminishing NUE while simultaneously heightening the risk of water pollution (32).

4.2 Effects of controlled-release fertilizer on nitrogen loss through runoff in sloping farmland

Sloping farmland is typical of areas with relatively low agricultural development, where inappropriate fertilization exacerbates nutrient loss from the surface soil, leading to severe soil degradation and pollution, which reduces both crop yield and quality (33). Soil nitrate and ammonium N are directly absorbed by plants and serve as crucial nutrient indicators as well as environmental assessment indicators (34). Compared to the control treatment, fertilization significantly increased the NO3−-N content in all soil layers at different growth stages, with two peaks of NO3−-N concentration observed during the seedling and pod-setting stages. The high NO3−-N concentration during the seedling stage was primarily due to the hydrolysis of the applied fertilizer, while the high concentration during the pod-setting stage was influenced by high temperatures and rainfall, which promoted the mineralization of organic N (35). Additionally, the plant’s N fixation efficiency was high during the vigorous growth stage, which significantly increased the NO3−-N content (36). During the seedling stage, the soil NO3−-N content was higher in the conventional fertilizer treatment compared to the controlled-release fertilizer, as the peanut plants had a lower nutrient demand during this stage, potentially causing N surplus. This surplus N is prone to runoff or denitrification, leading to N loss from the crop-soil system and environmental pollution (37).

Soluble N is the main form of N loss from the soil, with NO3−-N, being negatively charged, not easily adsorbed by soil colloids, and contributing significantly to the loss of soluble N (38). In this study, the concentration of NO3−-N in runoff water was higher than that of NH4+-N, and during the first two runoff events, the total loss of NO3−-N and NH4+-N was higher in the conventional fertilizer treatment compared to the controlled-release fertilizer treatment. This indicates that controlled-release fertilizers effectively reduce the loss of surface N runoff during the early growth stages of peanuts. Conventional fertilizers dissolve rapidly in the soil, exceeding the N demand of peanuts, and surplus N is easily lost through runoff (39).

Throughout the growing season, there were no significant differences in the total N loss across different fertilizer treatments. This is likely due to several factors influencing nutrient loss from sloping farmland, such as rainfall characteristics, slope, vegetation cover, and tillage practices (40). In this experiment, fertilizers were applied before sowing and covered with mulch, partially isolating N from surface runoff. Additionally, as the plants grew, the effect of surface coverage increased, intercepting rainwater, while rainfall impact and plant growth contributed to increased surface compaction, reducing water infiltration (41). As a result, the N released from the topsoil into the runoff decreased in the mid to late stages of peanut growth, which led to a reduction and stabilization of N concentration in runoff water after 51 days post-sowing.

Importantly, the absence of significant differences in cumulative N loss does not indicate that CRF merely delayed N loss. Rather, CRF altered the temporal pattern of N release and loss by reducing N availability during the early growth stage, when runoff-induced N loss is typically greatest, while maintaining N availability during the later stages of crop growth. During these later stages, increased peanut N uptake reduced the amount of fertilizer-derived N remaining in the soil and therefore the potential for further N loss. Thus, the primary benefit of CRF was to improve the synchronization between N supply and crop demand, thereby reducing the risk of N loss during critical periods rather than simply shifting N loss to a later time.

4.3 Effects of controlled-release fertilizer on peanut yield in sloping farmland

High crop yield is primarily dependent on high biomass accumulation, where greater dry matter accumulation results in higher peanut yield (42). The rapid release of N during the flowering stage of peanuts with CRF increased the number of effective pods, which, in turn, enhanced the number of pods per plant. The application of CRF significantly increased the total dry biomass after the flowering stage, with the 100%CRF treatment showing significantly higher pod and seed yield than the conventional fertilizer treatment, and the difference between 70%CRF and 100%CF was not significant. Due to the low content of fine particles and clay in the experimental soil and the weak cementation between soil particles, water-soluble nutrients were prone to runoff. The CRF better coordinated the N demands during both early and late growth stages, creating favorable N conditions for achieving high peanut yield (43).

Previous studies have shown that peanuts can obtain a substantial proportion of their N through biological N fixation, particularly under nitrogen-limited conditions (44). Moderate N application may promote early plant growth and support nodule development, whereas excessive N input can inhibit rhizobial infection and nodule formation, thereby reducing biological N fixation (45). However, it should be noted that nodulation and biological N fixation were not directly measured in the present study. Therefore, these mechanisms are discussed only as potential explanations based on previous reports rather than as conclusions drawn from our experimental data. In the present study, the fertilizer N contribution to yield was low, especially for the 100%CF and 70%CF treatments, where the contribution was only 9.6%, 20.0% and 8.4%, 5.5% in 2022 and 2023, respectively. There was no significant difference in N contribution rates among different application amounts for the same type of fertilizer, but under equal fertilization rates, the controlled-release fertilizer showed significantly higher N contribution to yield compared to conventional fertilizers. The superior performance of the 70% CRF treatment suggests that fertilizer efficiency outweighed N input. Better synchronization between N release and peanut demand reduced early runoff losses, enhanced N uptake, and maintained higher yield despite a 30% reduction in N application. This result suggests that the improved temporal availability of fertilizer-derived N under CRF enhanced fertilizer utilization efficiency, rather than indicating changes in biological N fixation.

Overall, the advantages of CRF in sandy sloping farmland can be attributed to its improved synchronization between N release and crop demand. Compared with conventional fertilizer, CRF reduced the accumulation of mineral nitrogen, particularly NO3−–N, immediately after fertilization, thereby lowering the risk of runoff losses during early rainfall events. Its sustained N supply during the pod-setting and pod-filling stages enhanced N uptake, biomass accumulation, and pod development, resulting in higher NUE and peanut yield. From a practical perspective, although CRF has a higher initial cost than conventional fertilizer, its improved fertilizer efficiency, increased yield, reduced N loss, and simplified fertilizer management may offset the additional investment, especially in sloping farmland where field operations are difficult. However, its economic viability depends on local production conditions. As this study focused on agronomic and environmental performance, future research should include long-term cost–benefit analyses to evaluate the profitability and large-scale applicability of CRF.

5 Conclusions

The N release pattern of CRF in soil closely aligns with the N uptake dynamics of peanut plants. Compared with 100%CF treatment, a one-time basal application of 100%CRF significantly increased peanut kernel yield by 6.3% to 13.8% and effectively reduced the runoff losses of nitrate and ammonium N following sowing, thereby enhancing NUE by 39.9% to 40.5%. Under the same N application rate, 100%CRF demonstrated a significantly greater effect on improving peanut yield and N uptake than 100%CF. Notably, even with a 30% reduction in N input, 70%CRF treatments still outperformed the 100%CF treatment in terms of both yield and N uptake. These findings suggest that CRF not only contributes to substantial yield gains but also provides an effective strategy to mitigate N loss in sloping farmland, offering a sustainable fertilization approach for enhanced productivity and environmental protection. However, as this study was conducted at a single location over two growing seasons, further multi-location and long-term studies are needed to verify the stability and applicability of CRF under diverse environmental conditions.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoil.2026.1899806/full#supplementary-material

Meteorological data in this field after fertilization during the growing seasons for peanut [(A), 2022 and (B), 2023] at the experimental site. Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Frederic Gerard, Institut National de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), France

Reviewed by: Zheng Liu, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), China

Muhammad Akhtar, Institute of Crop Sciences (CAAS), China

Fen Zhang, University of Bonn, Germany

Statements

Conflict of interest

Authors JHG and YS were employed by the company Stanley Agricultural Group Co., Ltd.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The present study was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Shandong Province (2022SFGC0305, 2022SFGC0303), the Shandong Provincial Higher Education “Youth Innovation Team Program” (2023KJ218), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China – Young Scientists Fund (Grant No. 42407450).

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

JBG: Data curation, Writing - original draft. HW: Investigation, Writing - review & editing. JL: Investigation, Writing - review & editing. SG: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. XW: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. ZL: Writing - original draft, Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. JHG: Writing - review & editing. YS: Resources, Writing - review & editing. HX: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

References

  1. 1 Zhang JL, Geng G, Guo F. Research progress on the mechanism of improving peanut yield by single-seed precision sowing. J Integr Agric. (2020) 19: 1919–27. doi: doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62763-2
  2. 2 Xia R, Shi D, Ni S, Wang R, Zhang J, Song G. Effects of soil erosion and soil amendment on soil aggregate stability in the cultivated-layer of sloping farmland in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Soil Tillage Res. (2022) 223: 105447. doi: doi:10.1016/j.still.2022.105447
  3. 3 Rashmi I, Karthika KS, Roy T, Shinoji KC, Kumawat A, Kala S. Soil Erosion and sediments: a source of contamination and impact on agriculture productivity. In: Agrochemicals in Soil and Environment: Impacts and Remediation. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore (2022). p. 313–45. doi: doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9310-6_14
  4. 4 Ge X, Chen X, Liu M, Wang C, Zhang Y, Wang Y. Toward a better understanding of phosphorus nonpoint source pollution from soil to water and the application of amendment materials: Research trends. Water. (2023) 15: 1531. doi: doi:10.3390/w15081531
  5. 5 Gelaye Y, Luo H. Optimizing Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production: Genetic insights, climate adaptation, and efficient management practices: Systematic review. Plants. (2024) 13: 2988. doi: doi:10.3390/plants13212988
  6. 6 Deng K, Liu Z, Han X, Zhu Y, Sun G, Mo M. Effects of ridge tillage and peanut growth on the surface–subsurface runoff generation and soil loss in the red soil sloping farmland of southern China. J Soils Sediments. (2024) 24: 1431–46. doi: doi:10.1007/s11368-024-03734-9
  7. 7 Xia G, Wang Y, Hu J, Wang S, Zhang Y, Wu Q. Effects of supplemental irrigation on water and nitrogen use, yield, and kernel quality of peanut under nitrogen-supplied conditions. Agric Water Manage. (2021) 243: 106518. doi: doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106518
  8. 8 Gao Z, Bai X, Tang X, Zhi J, Liu Y, Wang G. Fertilizer application parameters for drip-irrigated peanut based on the fertilizer effect function established from a “3414” field trial. Open Life Sci. (2024) 19: 20220894. doi: doi:10.1515/biol-2022-0894
  9. 9 Lawrencia D, Wong SK, Low DYS, Goh BH, Goh JK, Ruktanonchai UR. Controlled release fertilizers: A review on coating materials and mechanism of release. Plants. (2021) 10: 238. doi: doi:10.3390/plants10020238
  10. 10 Akhtar M, Liuge W, Jian C, Yuxiao S, Yuntan Z, Yulun L. One-time double-layer placement of controlled-release urea enhances wheat yield, nitrogen use efficiency and mitigates N 2 O emissions. Front Plant Sci. (2025) 16: 1634174. doi: doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1634174
  11. 11 Meng C, Wu M, Wang X, Yang L, Liang H, Wu Q. Slow-release fertilisers increased microflora and nitrogen use efficiency and thus promoted peanut growth and yield. Plant Soil Environ. (2024) 70: 61 – 71. doi: doi:10.17221/266/2023-PSE
  12. 12 Ibahati SS, Taik KH, Egid M, Askwar H. Meticulous overview on the controlled release fertilizers. Adv Chem. (2024) 2014: 1 – 16. doi: doi:10.1155/2014/363071
  13. 13 Wang W, Li Y, Wang W, Ding K, Zhang K, Zhang Y. Global meta‐Analysis of individual and combined nitrogen inhibitors: enhancing plant productivity and reducing environmental losses. Global Change Biol. (2024) 30: e70007. doi: doi:10.1111/gcb.70007
  14. 14 Gu M, Luo L, Fang R, Liu F, Tan Z, Wu Z. Optimizing controlled-release urea and conventional urea ratios enhances nitrogen use efficiency and yield in peanut. Agriculture. (2025) 15: 1923. doi: doi:10.3390/agriculture15181923
  15. 15 Zha LS, Wang WJ, Zhong JH, Su YQ. Study on the main factors affecting soil fertility and improvement pathways in Henan province, CHINA. Appl Ecol Environ Res. (2025) 23: 10819–39. doi: doi:10.15666/aeer/2306_1081910839
  16. 16 Matus FJ. Fine silt and clay content is the main factor defining maximal C and N accumulations in soils: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. (2021) 11: 1 – 17. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-021-84821-6
  17. 17 Kim YS, Kim KH, Huh YS, Kim MJ, Kim IJ. Effect of ridge height on peanut growth and soil physicochemical properties of in paddy field. Korean J Soil Sci Fert. (2023) 56: 1 – 11. doi: doi:10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.1.001
  18. 18 Gao H, Zhang C, van der Werf W, Ning P, Zhang Z, Wan S. Intercropping modulates the accumulation and translocation of dry matter and nitrogen in maize and peanut. Field Crops Res. (2022) 284: 108561. doi: doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108561
  19. 19 Mohammed KA, Hussein HM, Elshamly AM. Monitoring plant responses in field-grown peanuts exposed to exogenously applied chitosan under full and limited irrigation levels. Sci Rep. (2024) 14: 6244. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-024-56573-6
  20. 20 Chen L, Liu X, Hua Z, Xue H, Mei S, Wang P. Comparison of nitrogen loss weight in ammonia volatilization, runoff, and leaching between common and slow-release fertilizer in paddy field. Water Air Soil pollut. (2021) 232: 132. doi: doi:10.1007/s11270-021-05083-6
  21. 21 Li T, Zhang Y, He B, Wu X, Du Y. Nitrate loss by runoff in response to rainfall amount category and different combinations of fertilization and cultivation in sloping croplands. Agric Water Manage. (2022) 273: 107916. doi: doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107916
  22. 22 Xu D, Zhu Y, Zhu H, Hu Q, Liu G, Wei H. Effects of a one-time application of controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer on yield and nitrogen accumulation and utilization of late japonica rice in China. Agriculture. (2021) 11: 1041. doi: doi:10.3390/agriculture11111041
  23. 23 Yu Z, Wang R, Yao Y, Wang X, He J, Yang Y. Effects of controlled-release nitrogen fertilizer at different release stages on rice yield and quality. Agronomy. (2024) 14: 1685. doi: doi:10.3390/agronomy14081685
  24. 24 Ma X, Hao X, Zhao Y, Peng X, Ji J, Liu S. Response of crop yield and productivity contribution rate to long-term different fertilization in Northeast of China. Plants. (2025) 14: 132. doi: doi:10.3390/plants14010132
  25. 25 Jariwala H, Santos RM, Lauzon JD, Dutta A, Wai Chiang Y. Controlled release fertilizers (CRFs) for climate-smart agriculture practices: a comprehensive review on release mechanism, materials, methods of preparation, and effect on environmental parameters. Environ Sci pollut Res. (2022) 29: 53967–95. doi: doi:10.1007/s11356-022-20890-y
  26. 26 Feifel M, Durner W, Hohenbrink TL, Peters A. Effects of improved water retention by increased soil organic matter on the water balance of arable soils: A numerical analysis. Vadose Zone J. (2024) 23: e20302. doi: doi:10.1002/vzj2.20302
  27. 27 Murad MT, Murad S, Akram W, Rais A, Qadir A, Atta D. Advances in coated fertilizers for sustainable agriculture. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. (2026) 18: 1 – 23. doi: doi:10.1007/s42729-026-03398-z
  28. 28 Farhan M, Sathish M, Kiran R, Mushtaq A, Baazeem A, Hasnain A. Plant nitrogen metabolism: balancing resilience to nutritional stress and abiotic challenges. Phyton. (2024) 93: 581. doi: doi:10.32604/phyton.2024.046857
  29. 29 Sarwar N, Akhtar M, Mahboob W, Sorecha EM, Wang Y. Superabsorbent biopolymers for climate-smart fertilizer technology: advancing nitrogen–water interactions for sustainable agriculture. Arch Agron Soil Sci. (2026) 72: 1 – 24. doi: doi:10.1080/03650340.2026.2620866
  30. 30 Mekdad AA, El-Enin MMA, Rady MM, Hassan FA, Ali EF, Shaaban A. Impact of level of nitrogen fertilization and critical period for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy. (2021) 11: 909. doi: doi:10.3390/agronomy11050909
  31. 31 Shahena S, Rajan M, Chandran V, Mathew L. “ Chapter 1 - Conventional methods of fertilizer release.” In: Lewu FB, Tatiana V, Thomas S, Rakhimol KR, editor. Controlled Release Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture. London: Academic Press (2021). p. 1 – 24. doi: doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-819555-0.00001-7
  32. 32 Mustafa A, Athar F, Khan I, Chattha MU, Nawaz M, Shah AN. Improving crop productivity and nitrogen use efficiency using sulfur and zinc-coated urea: A review. Front Plant Sci. (2022) 13: 942384. doi: doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.942384
  33. 33 Yin Y, Li G, Xia Y, Wu M, Huang M, Zhai L. How to effectively reduce sloping farmland nutrient loss and soil erosions in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Agric Water Manage. (2024) 304: 109084. doi: doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2024.109084
  34. 34 Barłóg P, Grzebisz W, Łukowiak R. Fertilizers and fertilization strategies mitigating soil factors constraining efficiency of nitrogen in plant production. Plants. (2022) 11: 1855. doi: doi:10.3390/plants11141855
  35. 35 Jin J, Hart M, Armstrong R, Sale P, Tang C. Physiological responses to subsoil manuring in crop species across high and medium rainfall regions. Field Crops Res. (2023) 302: 109068. doi: doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109068
  36. 36 Xu Y, Gao Q, Xue L, Zhang J, Wang C. Optimized nitrogen fertilizer management enhances soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merril.) yield and nitrogen use efficiency by promoting symbiotic nitrogen fixation capacity. Front Plant Sci. (2025) 16: 1604251. doi: doi:10.3389/fpls.2025.1604251
  37. 37 Govindasamy P, Muthusamy SK, Bagavathiannan M, Mowrer J, Jagannadham PTK, Maity A. Nitrogen use efficiency—a key to enhance crop productivity under a changing climate. Front Plant Sci. (2023) 14: 1121073. doi: doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1121073
  38. 38 Shafreen M, Vishwakarma K, Shrivastava N, Kumar N. Physiology and distribution of nitrogen in soils. In: Soil Nitrogen Ecology. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). p. 3 – 31. doi: doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71206-8_1
  39. 39 Oshunsanya SO, Samson VM, Yu H. Soil loss due to harvesting of peanut and cassava under traditional farming systems: Cost implications of soil nutrient loss. J Soil Water Conserv. (2022) 77: 240–8. doi: doi:10.2489/jswc.2022.00111
  40. 40 Wang L, Li Y, Wu J, An Z, Suo L, Ding J. Effects of the rainfall intensity and slope gradient on soil erosion and nitrogen loss on the sloping fields of miyun reservoir. Plants. (2023) 12: 423. doi: doi:10.3390/plants12030423
  41. 41 Tai P, Wu F, Chen R, Zhu J, Wang X, Zhang M. Effect of herbaceous plants on the response of loose silty sand slope under rainfall. Bull Eng Geol Environ. (2023) 82: 42. doi: doi:10.1007/s10064-023-03066-x
  42. 42 Liu Z, Nan Z, Lin S, Meng W, Xie L, Yu H. Organ removal of maize increases peanut canopy photosynthetic capacity, dry matter accumulation, and yield in maize/peanut intercropping. Front Plant Sci. (2023) 14: 1266969. doi: doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1266969
  43. 43 Li G, Guo X, Sun W, Hou L, Wang G, Tian R. Nitrogen application in pod zone improves yield and quality of two peanut cultivars by modulating nitrogen accumulation and metabolism. BMC Plant Biol. (2024) 24: 48. doi: doi:10.1186/s12870-024-04725-1
  44. 44 Hou L, Lin RX, Wang XJ, Li H, Zhao CZ, Zhu XJ. The mechanisms of pod zone nitrogen application on peanut pod yield. Russ J Plant Physiol. (2022) 69: 51. doi: doi:10.1134/S1021443722030050
  45. 45 Abd-Alla MH, Al-Amri SM, El-Enany AWE. Enhancing rhizobium–legume symbiosis and reducing nitrogen fertilizer use are potential options for mitigating climate change. Agriculture. (2023) 13: 2092. doi: doi:10.3390/agriculture13112092

Citation

Geng, J., et al. (2026). Effects of one-time application of controlled-release compound fertilizer on peanut yield and nitrogen loss in sloping farmland. Frontiers in Soil Science, Volume 6. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
6 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Geng, Wang, Li, Gao, Wu, Li, Gao, Song and Xu.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Zeli Li; Jinhua Gao

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchSiderophores and siderophore-associated metabolites from Antarctic Pseudomonas sp. ANT_H12B contribute to iron and phosphorus mobilization in soils with contrasting propertiesXiaomeng Chen, Marcin Musiałowski, Klaudia Dębiec-Andrzejewska, Robert Stasiuk, Luisella Celi, Michela Schiavon, Maria Martin, Silvia CellettiPerspectiveSoil contaminants at the environment-health interface require function-centered risk assessmentSylvester Chibueze Izah, Ebinyo Rebecca Aseibai, Vivian Ibienebakabobo Promise, Matthew Chidozie OgwuOriginal ResearchSoil organic carbon storage across Mediterranean mountain forests: a comparative assessment of forest ecosystem diversity and geological substrate in Ifrane and Talassemtane National Parks, MoroccoMohamed El Mderssa, Meysara ELMALKI, Fouad Malki, Taha Abdelhakim, Younes Abbas, Jamal Ibijbijen