4.7 Article

Reforming China's fertilizer policies: implications for nitrogen pollution reduction and food security

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 407-420

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11625-022-01189-w

关键词

Fertilizer manufacturing subsidy; Soil nitrogen uptake efficiency; Manure recycling; Nitrogen surplus; Food prices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses the MAgPIE model to assess the prospects of China's fertilizer policies, suggesting measures to improve soil nitrogen uptake efficiency and remove fertilizer subsidies. The results show that these measures can reduce nitrogen fertilizer use and losses, mitigate nitrogen pollution, and have significant impacts on the environment and food security.
Reactive nitrogen (N) is a requisite nutrient for agricultural production, but results in greenhouse gas and air and water pollution. The environmental and economic impacts of N fertilizer use in China are particularly relevant, as China consumes the largest amount of N fertilizer in the world to meet its soaring food demand. Here, we use an agro-economic land system model (MAgPIE) in combination with a difference-in-differences econometric model to provide a forward-looking assessment of China's fertilizer policies in terms of removing fertilizer manufacturing subsidies and implementing measures to improve agricultural nutrient management efficiency. Our model results indicate that enhancing soil N uptake efficiency and manure recycled to soil alongside fertilizer subsidy removal can largely reduce N fertilizer use and N losses and abate N pollution in the short and long term, while food security remains largely unaffected. Enhancing soil N uptake efficiency appears to be decisive to achieving China's national strategic target of zero growth in N fertilizer use. This study also finds that improving agricultural nutrient management efficiency contributes to higher land productivity and less cropland expansion, with substantial benefits for the environment and food security.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据