research paper on fertilizer industry in india

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Policy and practice reviews article, nitrogen challenges and opportunities for agricultural and environmental science in india.

• 1 School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
• 2 School of Biotechnology, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, India
• 3 School of Biotechnology, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, India
• 4 Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
• 5 ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
• 6 National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge, United Kingdom
• 7 Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, IITM, Pune, India
• 8 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Penicuik, United Kingdom
• 9 Division of Plant and Crop Sciences, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Loughborough, United Kingdom
• 10 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India
• 11 Indian Institute for Rice Research, Hyderabad, India
• 12 Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States
• 13 National Institute for Plant Biotechnology, New Delhi, India
• 14 National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, India
• 15 Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, United Kingdom
• 16 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
• 17 School of Biological Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
• 18 Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, India
• 19 Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal, India
• 20 Department of Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
• 21 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Animal Production and Health Division, Rome, Italy
• 22 Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands

In the last six decades, the consumption of reactive nitrogen (N r ) in the form of fertilizer in India has been growing rapidly, whilst the nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of cropping systems has been decreasing. These trends have led to increasing environmental losses of N r , threatening the quality of air, soils, and fresh waters, and thereby endangering climate-stability, ecosystems, and human-health. Since it has been suggested that the fertilizer consumption of India may double by 2050, there is an urgent need for scientific research to support better nitrogen management in Indian agriculture. In order to share knowledge and to develop a joint vision, experts from the UK and India came together for a conference and workshop on “Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Nitrogen Science in India.” The meeting concluded with three core messages: (1) Soil stewardship is essential and legumes need to be planted in rotation with cereals to increase nitrogen fixation in areas of limited N r availability. Synthetic symbioses and plastidic nitrogen fixation are possibly disruptive technologies, but their potential and implications must be considered. (2) Genetic diversity of crops and new technologies need to be shared and exploited to reduce N losses and support productive, sustainable agriculture livelihoods. (3) The use of leaf color sensing shows great potential to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use (by 10–15%). This, together with the usage of urease inhibitors in neem-coated urea, and better management of manure, urine, and crop residues, could result in a 20–25% improvement in NUE of India by 2030.

1. Introduction

The global nitrogen (N) cycle has been strongly altered by human intervention, leading to rapidly growing environmental concerns that increase in parallel with the rise in food demand fuelled by the expanding global human population. To feed humanity, N must be in a reactive form (N r ), such as ammonium and nitrate, which are essential to support crop production. However, such N r compounds are sparse in the environment. Therefore, to satisfy the global need for N r , large quantities of unreactive atmospheric nitrogen gas (N 2 ) is converted to N r as a base of fertilizers. A major step toward this goal was the invention of the Haber–Bosch process, producing ammonia (NH 3 ) from its elements (N 2 and hydrogen gas), doubling the world's N r flows since its invention in the early 20th century ( Galloway et al., 2003 ).

Although the production and usage of fertilizers provides N r to help feed the population, it poses a series of interconnected environmental issues. The root of the problem is that only a proportion of N r content in applied fertilizers is used effectively by crops and grasslands. Therefore, the “nitrogen use efficiency” (NUE) of the global food system integrating crop and livestock production systems is very low, being around 15% ( Sutton et al., 2017 based on Sutton et al., 2013 ). This means that 85% of N r applied is lost to air, groundwater or surface runoff, threatening the quality of air, soils, and fresh waters, driving climate change, and thereby endangering ecosystems and human-health ( Galloway J. N. et al., 2008 ; Aneja et al., 2009 ; Sutton et al., 2011 ; Fowler et al., 2013 ).

In India, fertilizer consumption shows a continuously growing trend, with a yearly increase of 6% since 1970 ( Sutton et al., 2017 based on FAO, 2016 ). This can be observed on Figure 1 , which shows the annual fertilizer consumption in India in comparison with population (showing a much weaker annual growth rate), and the annual GDP (showing a closer, but much clearer exponential growth over the years). This increased fertilizer consumption has resulted in growing losses of N r , of which one of the clearest indicators is the annual emission of ammonia (NH 3 )—the predominant fertilizer-related atmospheric N r loss—with a growing trend in the last six decades ( EDGAR, 2016 ). The environmental implications, as well as the health impacts of the increasing environmental losses of N r in India, have been subjects of growing scientific interest ( Aneja et al., 2006 ; Abrol et al., 2007 ; Bijay-Singh and Yadvinder-Singh, 2008 ; Galloway J. et al., 2008 ).

Figure 1 . The annual nitrogen fertilizer consumption in India (Mt; FAI, 2020 ) together with the annual GDP (10 9 current USD; World Bank, 2020a ) and population (10 6 people, World Bank, 2020b ) of India.

While the consumption of fertilizers has been increasing in India, the NUE of cropping systems (expressed here as N in harvested arable products divided by fertilizer inputs) has been gradually decreasing, dropping from about 55% to as low as 35% between 1960 and 2010 ( Bijay-Singh, 2017 based on Lassaletta et al., 2014 ). Although Figure 1 suggests that fertilizer consumption may have stabilized since 2010, the latest projections of the Food and Agriculture Organizations of United Nations ( FAO, 2018 ) suggests that India may double its fertilizer input by 2050. Based on this, it is evident that for further sustainable development, a better scientific understanding of N r flows and losses as well as improved technologies to increase NUE are needed.

A step toward this goal was taken when the BBSRC (Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council, UK), DBT (Department of Biotechnology, India), and NERC (Natural Environment Research Council, UK) agreed to fund virtual joint centers (VJCs) to investigate the ways of managing agricultural N, improving crop production while reducing energy inputs and N r losses to the environment. To achieve these goals, they identified three key options:

1) the enhancement of nitrogen-fixation in legumes and introducing its biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) potential to non-leguminous cropping systems,

2) the improvement of NUE at a plant level,

3) the improvement of NUE through agronomical practices.

To support and further implement these alternatives, four VJCs were established in 2016, linking the leading N research communities of India and the UK. These four virtual centers are:

• CINTRIN (Cambridge-India Network for Translational Research in Nitrogen), which aims to reduce the use of agricultural N by exploiting native variation and plant genetics and informing on-farm decision support;

• INEW (Indo-UK Center for The Improvement of Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Wheat), which investigates the genetic control and biochemical basis of NUE in wheat as well as precision application of N fertilizers;

• IUNFC (India-UK Nitrogen Fixation Center), which focuses on pigeon pea rhizobial N fixation and contribution of endophytes in N nutrition of rice; and

• NEWS India-UK (Newton-Bhabha Virtual Center on Nitrogen Efficiency of Whole-cropping Systems for improved performance and resilience in agriculture), which explores the options for increasing NUE and better planning of the whole crop rotation, and subsequently aims to apply the new biological and agronomic advances to the farm scale as well as to national scale.

In October 2017, a joint conference and workshop, entitled “Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Nitrogen Science in India” was organized at the National Agricultural Science Complex (NASC), in New Delhi. At the event, 85 experts came together (see the list of participants in Supplementary Table 1 ) from the four virtual joint centers to share findings in order to stimulate cooperation and to develop a long-term vision for N research and its policy applications in India. The primary aim of this paper is to summarize the outcomes of this conference and workshop.

The event was organized around three topics: BNF, biological NUE, and agronomic NUE including the environmental impacts. In the first part, at the conference, some of the latest results were presented. This was followed by a workshop where participants were working in three groups, corresponding to the three topics of the event. Each group had to discuss and report their answers to the same set of questions:

- What are the key findings?

- What are the common challenges?

- What are the future and science cooperation priorities?

- Are there key messages for the South Asian Nitrogen Assessment?

- What are the 2 or 3 best options emerging for better nitrogen management for your topic?

- How would you formulate a global goal for each option for 2030?

- What could each option realistically achieve (quantitatively) in terms of efficiency improvement or nitrogen saving by 2030?

- What are the main messages for current and future policies?

- What would be your group's vision statement?

The findings of each group were then reported in plenary to the other groups, allowing revision, and agreement by the conference as a whole. In this paper we firstly provide an overview of the main findings drawing on the findings of the groups according to the questions given. Secondly, we summarize the recommendations of the working groups for options for better N management in the Indian agriculture, and present a long-term vision for action. Each of these sections is organized around the three main topics of the conference. Finally, we conclude with the key vision statements agreed by the conference, encapsulating the core messages of the meeting.

NUE can be defined and measured in many different ways depending on the most accepted norms in each discipline ( Raghuram and Sharma, 2019 ) and each of these measurements are precise in their own way. As such, different projects and their partners approached NUE at different levels using different tools based on their expertise and approved within the work packages of their VJCs. While harmonizing these different approaches of NUE toward a universally accepted definition or measurement is highly desirable, it is beyond the scope of this manuscript. Therefore, where no detailed explanation is provided for the calculation of NUE, we use the term NUE here as a general concept, in which we consider a change as “increase” if the output N grows (total plant N, grain N; biomass yield or grain yield) or N loss decreases (via atmospheric emission or leaching of nitrogen compounds) at a given N input level (total N, soil N, or N-fertilizer applied). We consider a change in NUE as “decrease” if the opposite is true. Biological NUE and agronomic NUE should be understood generally, as NUE on plant level and on the level of an agronomic system, respectively.

2. Key Findings of the Virtual Joint Centers

2.1. biological nitrogen fixation (bnf).

The focus of this study was pigeon pea because it is the most important pulse crop in summer in the majority of India's drylands. It constitutes 15% of pulse area grown in 3.9 million ha, with an average grain yield of only 850 kg ha −1 (dry matter), fixing about 0.22 Tg N yr −1 out of a total legume BNF of 0.94 Tg yr −1 ( Rao and Balachandar, 2017 ). Since BNF is limited by drought and poor nodulation, improvement strategies were based on identifying tolerant pigeon pea genotypes and Rhizobium strains that have greater tolerance to environmental stresses in the field ( Trotman and Weaver, 1995 ). This strategy allowed us to identify the best combinations. Using standard agronomic practices, the principal objective was to improve nodulation and select for sustained nodulation since nodulation and N fixation in pigeon pea declines at early stages with little activity at flowering stage ( Kumar Rao and Dart, 1987 ). The improvement of soil biology by inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria and rhizobia, as well as quantitative assessment of BNF rates, are also a priority. Further research is also needed on the benefits of microbial inoculation of rice to increase BNF and other nutrient acquisition. Rice harbors several endophytes, including non-N fixing bacteria as well as rhizobia, and inoculation of these has been shown to improve rice growth ( Ladha et al., 2016 ; Chalk et al., 2017 ). Thus, there is a need to improve endophytic BNF and downstream assimilation of resulting N r by rice plants.

Within IUNFC, a number of rhizobial strains of nodulating pigeon pea in farmers' fields have been isolated from three different soil types in India where pigeon pea is widely cultivated: Inceptisols of North India, Vertisols of Central India, and Alfisols of Peninsular India. A broad range of mainly slow-growing and some fast-growing rhizobia were isolated, characterized for their nodulation efficiency ( Figure 2 ) and sequenced for the 16S rRNA gene. Nearly 25 species of rhizobia have been detected in three Indian soils belonging to six genera, Bradyrhizobium, Ensifer, Rhizobium, Neorhizobium, Burkholderia , and Cupriavidus .

Figure 2 . Screening of rhizobial strains for nodulation of pigeon pea in sterile sand microcosms (left); close up of a well-nodulated plant (right) (IUNFC).

The number of pigeon pea rhizobia in all the soils were counted using plant infection methods and the most probable number (MPN) counts were found to range from very low (10 2 cells/g) to low (10 3 cells/g) with very few exceptions where it was optimum (10 4 cells/g). Rhizobial numbers decrease drastically in dry hot summer lasting 2 months, reducing the numbers of rhizobia in the soil to <100 cells/g and causing a decline in diversity. Therefore, there is a need to select rhizobia that are symbiotically superior under stress ( Rao, 2014 ). Some very high performing rhizobia have already been identified and have been put back into the field for inoculation testing. These rhizobia are being further tested within the All-India Network of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) at multiple locations before their release for mass-scale biofertilizer production and subsequent supply to farmers. In addition, rhizobia with greater ability to solubilize phosphorous in the rhizosphere through enhanced secretion of 2-keto gluconic acid have been engineered and these will be tested in pigeon pea rhizobia.

Microbiome selection by plants in soils is highly conserved (i.e., plants select a largely common root microbiome) ( Sanchez-Canizares et al., 2017 ). A large number of rice genotypes, including some landraces, were selected and characterized for high secretion of dicarboxylic acids into the rhizosphere (e.g., malate and citrate secretion), which will support higher levels of fixation by diazotrophs (N fixing bacteria). Five promising genotypes are now being studied for changes in bacterial community in the rice rhizosphere. Four rice varieties that differ in efficiency in N assimilation have been characterized for the endophytic bacterial community that were represented by about six genera and nine species. These strains exhibit plant growth promoting (PGP) traits, such as N fixation and secretion of auxins, and are now being characterized for their ability to promote assimilation of nitrogen fixed as ammonia. Genome sequencing has been done for different bradyrhizobial strains isolated from peanut/rice intercropped field. Six bradyrhizobial strains were isolated from rice roots (WBOS01, WBOS02, WBOS04, WBOS07, WBOS08, and WBOS16), and another six bradyrhizobial strains were isolated from peanut (WBAH10, WBAH23, WBAH30, WBAH33, WBAH41, and WBAH42). Both WBOS or WBAH type strains are able to nodulate peanut, however only WBAH strains do it in an effective way. Furthermore, both groups of strains promote growth on peanut and rice plants under control conditions ( Guha et al., 2016 ).

Studies of genomes and phylogenetic structure of a large group of 96 elite rhizobial strains that infect pigeon pea are currently being conducted to understand the genetic structure of the bacteria and to mine for genetic determinants of competitiveness and effectiveness in nodulation. Alongside this, considerable progress has been made in understanding the mechanism of action of rice endophytes that are also able to nodulate peanut. These are novel strains whose genomes have been sequenced and their mechanisms of action are now being investigated. Considerable progress has also been made in screening lines for enhanced secretion of organic acids by rice which is capable of supporting elevated N fixation by endophytic diazotrophs.

2.2. Biological Nitrogen Use Efficiency

While agronomic measures help realize the innate genetic potential of the crop's NUE in the short term (see Section 2.3), biological crop improvement is necessary to break the agronomic barrier for further enhancement in the medium to long term ( Mandal et al., 2018 ; Raghuram and Sharma, 2019 ). The lack of detailed biological understanding of the crop phenotypes and genotypes required for good N response and NUE has been a major limitation in the development of genetic approaches to improve the efficiency of utilization of fertilizer N. A number of phenotypic characteristics have been reported to be associated with N response and NUE. These include plant height and the timing of the onset of post-anthesis senescence in wheat ( Subedi et al., 2007 ; Gaju et al., 2011 ), root length, root density and panicle density and form in rice ( Morita et al., 1988 ; Yang et al., 2012 ; Sun et al., 2014 ; Peng et al., 2015 ; Rogers and Benfey, 2015 ; Steffens and Rasmussen, 2016 ). N-responsive changes in root system architecture have been the main focus of studies on N response and NUE in rice ( Li et al., 2015 , 2016 ). More extensive characterization of the phenotypic traits and components conferring efficient NUE is required for different crops.

It is important to address biological NUE at different levels—morphological, physiological, genetic, genomic, proteomic, or bioinformatics—and using different approaches. Insights from Arabidopsis and rice indicate the value of identifying contrasting lines based on their N-sensitivity or responsiveness to the measured growth parameters. Some contrasting lines of Indica rice have already been identified and compared for their N-responsive germination, growth, and yield parameters at normal and low N doses using urea and/or nitrate ( Sharma et al., 2018 ). The lifelong evaluation of a few contrasting lines identified from the above study within NEWS enabled the shortlisting of additional traits for NUE in rice. While some of these parameters are commonly measured in relation to many agronomic traits, some are specific to NUE either individually or in combination. Further shortlisting of these parameters is necessary to screen germplasm on a large scale for crop improvement by selection or breeding. Work in CINTRIN is focussed on the branching response to N application which is well-defined in model species and could offer new avenues for manipulating crop N response.

Plants often modulate their root system architecture to compensate for the fluctuations of external N concentration in soil and the actual N demand to increase its N-uptake efficiency (Vidal and Gutiérrez, 2008 ; Krouk et al., 2010 ; Alvarez et al., 2012 ; Sinha et al., 2018 ). Therefore, for precise phenotyping of root system architecture traits (under optimum and NO 3 - starvation conditions), selected wheat genotypes were evaluated for modulation in root traits in hydroponics and N-free solid media (pot) at seedling stage under controlled conditions under the INEW VJC. Furthermore, in order to understand the genetic variability in nitrate-uptake capacity (considering both high and low affinity nitrate transporters in selected high and low yielding Indian and UK wheat genotypes), nitrate-flux were evaluated using 15 N stable isotope as N source through isotope ratio mass spectrometry. The program also included characterization of the contrasting genotypes (selected based on field evaluation) for N-utilization efficiency traits using carbon and N metabolizing enzymes and their corresponding genes ( Sinha et al., 2015 ; Gayatri et al., 2018 ). Results showed considerable genotypic variation for both the component traits, both at transcript as well as enzyme activity level. The practical relevance of these studies has been evaluated by growing selected genotypes in “precision nutrition” facilities, where fertilizer was applied in direct proximity to the roots by fertigation. Training of personnel was also carried out at the precision nutrition facility of the Borlaug Institute for South Asia, Ludhiana, India, to promote wider agronomic adoption, field validation, and use.

The establishment of diversity panels of rice, wheat, sorghum and millets, and the availability of associated genotyping or genomic information has provided a major resource for identifying significant marker-trait associations in available germplasm. Research conducted by NEWS found genotypic variation in NUE in 472 rice genotypes of Indian origin from the 3,000 sequenced accessions from the International Rice Research Institute ( Alexandrov et al., 2015 ) and the 260 strong Bengal and Assam Aus Panel ( Norton et al., 2018 ). These are being assessed at graded N levels at the Indian Institute for Rice Research (IIRR) as part of the NEWS VJC, and the data are being used for genome wide association mapping. Field studies with 10 rice genotypes indicated 50% variation in NUE between genotypes. In pearl millet, a total of 25 million whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are being tested by CINTRIN for association with NUE-related traits on the association mapping panel. Similar approaches are being pursued in sorghum and wheat in CINTRIN for exploiting natural/synthetic variation for NUE and mapping of the related traits.

Using the N-responsive genes identified in rice by microarray analysis and literature sources, activation-tagged transgenic rice lines have been identified by NEWS so far for over 50 N-responsive genes, including some G-protein regulated genes. Additional lines are expected from the ongoing screening of the remaining activation tagged lines. These lines need to be confirmed for the overexpression of the N-responsive gene(s) before assessing their impact on N-response and/or NUE. The identification of specific N-responsive genes/alleles that contribute to NUE will open opportunities for marker development toward marker-assisted selection and/or breeding, or gene-editing of the target genes in popular high yielding lines for in situ genetic manipulation of NUE. The CINTRIN VJC is modifying a number of candidate NUE ideotype genes by gene-editing and over-expression to confirm their role in modulating N-response in both Brachypodium and wheat.

Although all plant organs contain the same complement of genome, both the expression of genes and the accumulation of proteins varies widely and therefore, proteomics (a study of proteins) can provide us with a biological snapshot of a tissue, organ, or organelle at a particular point in time. At the Aligarh Muslim University, under NEWS, a stage-specific, cultivar-specific and N treatment-specific proteomic analysis of rice cultivars was conducted. The leaf proteome analysis reported 34 polypeptides that were affected by N treatments. Four polypeptides showed differential expression as a genotypic effect irrespective of N treatments. Expression of some proteins changed consistently at different developmental stages of rice. These proteins are yet to be identified. The identities of proteins that account for variation between treatments, genotypes, and stages of development are of crucial value for shortlisting the target genes/proteins for crop improvement, in view of earlier results from this group ( Hakeem et al., 2012 , 2013 ).

In INEW, work has focussed on relating the phenological crop growth development of wheat to NUE using nested associated mapping (NAM) of lines grown in replicate field trials on three sites in India and two sites in the UK. Most of the lines are from populations derived from crosses between accessions from the A. E. Watkins collection, a global collection of landraces originating from the 1920s and 1930s (to maximize genetic diversity), and a European spring wheat, developed at the John Innes Center, UK. The selection of related lines which are adapted for growth in India and the UK allows the datasets from the two countries to be combined, increasing the power of the analysis. In addition, spring types of a composite cross of European elite wheats are being studied in both countries, and a diversity panel of Indian genotypes in India only. All these accessions have been SNP genotyped and quantitative trait loci (QTLs) are being mapped. These studies are being underpinned by laboratory analyses of root phenotypes and gene expression analyses. The relationship with the timing of N application and NUE is also being studied using the precision agriculture facilities at the Borlaug Institute for South Asia (BISA).

2.3. Agronomic Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Environmental Impacts

An important step toward improving agronomic NUE is the development of crop genotypes with increased NUE under field conditions . The preliminary results from a major field experiment—conducted during the kharif season of 2016 at the research farm of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India, as part of the research program of NEWS—tested 10 rice genotypes for the most common NUE-related indices. Preliminary results from this analysis showed that the lines Nagina-22, Himdhan, and Taipe-309, could be considered as the most efficient N users. Compared to other genotypes, the values of grain yield were higher in these varieties with higher NUE ( Figure 3 ), while MTU-1010 had the highest harvest index. Furthermore, these efficient N user genotypes showed higher agronomic efficiency (AE), physiological efficiency (PE), and partial factor productivity (PFP) of applied N in rice ( Figure 4 , see the caption for the definition of AE, PE, and PFP). Further investigations are underway to quantify how much N can potentially be saved nationally by using such genotypes.

Figure 3 . Grain yield and harvest index of different rice genotypes during the 2016 kharif season (by IARI under NEWS).

Figure 4 . Agronomic efficiency (AE = [Grain yield (kg/ha) in N treated plot – Grain yield (kg/ha) in control plot]/N rate (kg/ha)), physiological efficiency (PE = [Grain yield (kg/ha) in N treated plot – Grain yield (kg/ha) in control plot]/[N uptake (kg/ha) in N treated plot – N uptake (kg/ha) in control plot]) and partial factor productivity [PFP = Grain yield (kg/ha)/N rate (kg/ha)] of applied N in different rice genotypes during the 2016 kharif season (by IARI under NEWS).

Another significant approach to improve agronomic NUE is to match fertilizer application rates to the actual needs of the plants. This can be identified by monitoring the color of the leaves (i.e., a proxy for chlorophyll content). For this purpose, one of the simplest and probably the cheapest option (costing about 100 Indian rupees or £1) is to use a leaf color chart (LCC). An LCC is a plastic color palette that can help farmers to determine the N needs of the plant based on the appearance of the crop. The concept of deciding fertilizer N application timings based on the greenness of the leaves was initially introduced for rice by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines ( IRRI, 1996 ). Figure 5 shows an LCC refined by the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) within CINTRIN, referred to as the “PAU-LCC.” In case of this LCC, farmers can access the decision support system based on the “PAU-LCC” recommendations at their smart phones through “PAU Urea Guide” application freely available both for Android and IOS users. Other versions of the LCC are available from the National Rice Research Institute (NRRI, India) and IIRR as well, where the colors are optimized for different crop contexts. The main advantage of the LCC approach apart from its low price, is that farmers can be easily trained to use the tool so that they can work out themselves the need-based N fertilizer dose, independently from the crop type, the season or soil type, without any analytical laboratory procedures or use of technology requiring a reliable power supply or calibration.

Figure 5 . Leaf color chart as implemented by the Punjab Agricultural University within CINTRIN (“PAU-LCC”).

The LCC technology has been demonstrated to produce potential yields with low N optimum dose in transplanted rice ( Varinderpal-Singh et al., 2007 , 2014 ), maize ( Varinderpal-Singh et al., 2011 , 2014 ), wheat ( Varinderpal-Singh et al., 2012 , 2017 ), direct seeded rice, basmati rice, and cotton ( PAU, 2018 ). Under CINTRIN, a village (Bassian, Ludhiana) has been developed as a role model village in the Indian state of Punjab with the active support of an NGO, the Atam Pargas Social Welfare Council. The farmers of the village harvested equivalent yields with the saving of an average of 75 kg N/ha for rice (2017) and 50 kg N/ha for wheat (2017–18) compared to conventional farmers' practice. The positive effects of the LCC approach were also highlighted by the findings of Bhatia et al. (2012) . In this study, when 120 kg/ha urea was applied to rice using the LCC approach, the yield was 12–24% (depending on the LCC scores used) larger than in the case when the same amount of fertilizer was applied in the conventional way, in three equal splits at fixed times.

Although the LCC approach is easily accessible for farmers, computer-based tools (so-called “microcontroller-based” tools) may provide a more accurate solution. These tools are currently relatively expensive (about £25); however, work is ongoing within NEWS to make these approaches more affordable to farmers, such as in the “Green-Check” crop health meter of IARI. In the case of all the mentioned tools, further research should investigate the social barriers of adaptation of such methods by farmers.

It is important to note that although the crop N supply mainly depends on the N requirement of the crop, climatic, and environmental factors can play an important role in influencing NUE ( Sharma and Bali, 2018 ). The amount of applied N that will be taken up by crops or lost from the soil-plant system depends not only on the soil (texture, pH, and moisture content) and the available water (amount, salinity) but also the atmospheric factors, such as temperature, rainfall, and wind speed ( Cameron et al., 2013 ; Fagodiya et al., 2020 ). Timing of rainfall and irrigation are key factors in determining NUE ( Abebe and Feyisa, 2017 ). If the N application coincides with a rainfall event, most of the applied N is lost as runoff, lowering NUE. In case of a sandy soil, the applied N fertilizer may be leached below the root zone with the rainfall or heavy irrigation, again reducing the NUE. If urea N is applied to dry soil with high pH, then much of the N applied may be lost as ammonia. Thus, for improving NUE, not only the crop (growth stage, variety), but also environmental factors need to be considered.

A method to improve agronomic NUE across the whole farm is by reducing losses of N through organic wastes (manures, urine, and crop residues), by promoting their uptake as key sources of plant nutrients. Within the NEWS VJC, work in the Mumtajpur village cluster (Pataudi Block in Haryana state) is experimenting to increase the quantity of N in organic wastes that is recycled to the soil, and to improve the quality of the organic fertilizers produced. This is being done by using a closed system to compost organic wastes instead of the traditional unlined pit or open manure heap. A polytex bag (3.7 × 1.2 × 0.6 m, Figure 6 ) is staked in the field and covered with a UV-protected transparent plastic sheet. The bag is layered with fresh cow dung, urine soaked bedding and soil, followed by single super phosphate, which helps reduce the loss of ammonia during decomposition. This sequence of layers is repeated until the bag is full, which usually takes about 30–35 days from three animals. Monitoring of greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions indicates lower emissions than in conventional practices ( Figure 7 —ammonia emission not shown). The organic fertilizer is ready to use after just 3 months of storage/preparation, and contains 0.82–0.89% N on a dry weight basis, compared to 0.35–0.5% N by traditional methods. Dry matter recovery is ~70% of the organic wastes, compared to 50–55% by conventional open manure storage. Organic fertilizers made by the improved and traditional methods are currently being trialed with vegetables, rice and wheat crops in farmers' fields.

Figure 6 . The conventional way of manure storage in a heap (on the left), and the improved way of farm yard manure making, using polytex bag at farmers' field in Mumtajpur, Pataudi Block, Haryana (on the right) (by IARI under NEWS).

Figure 7 . Measurement of N 2 O, CO 2 , and CH 4 fluxes at two villages of Mumtajpur village cluster, Lokra and Turkapur, in the case of two different farm yard manure storage methods: composting using the improved composting method, in polytex bags (“compost”) and storing in a traditional open manure heap (“general”) (by IARI under NEWS).

Related to the environmental impacts of agronomic practices, at the conference, regional-scale studies using several chemistry transport models were also presented. These demonstrate that the examination of NH 3 related atmospheric processes (emission, dispersion, chemical reactions, and deposition) over India is crucial. Figure 8 shows the average surface NH 3 concentration in the summer derived by three models for 3 different years as follows:

- Figure 8A : EMEP model ( Simpson et al., 2012 ) for 2015. The simulation was carried out by the global version of the EMEP model (version 4.10) with a resolution of 1°. The input meteorological data were derived by the WRF (Weather Research Forecast) weather forecast model ( Vieno et al., 2016 ), and the emissions originate from the EDGAR (Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research) database (for 2005).

- Figure 8B : UKCA model ( Bellouin et al., 2011 ; O'Connor et al., 2014 ) for 2008. To obtain these results, UKCA was run with the aerosol scheme CLASSIC. The meteorology was simulated by the UM climate model and driven by sea surface temperatures and sea ice climatologies. Anthropogenic emissions were from HTAP v2.2 year 2008. Fire emissions were from VUA 1.2 Global Biomass Burning Emissions year 2008.

- Figure 8C : MOZART model ( Emmons et al., 2010 ) for 2010. The input meteorological data set for driving the model was obtained from the MERRA (Modern Era Retrospective-analysis for Research and Applications) database of GEOS DAS (Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System) for the year 2010. For emissions, the HTAP_v2 (Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, Version 2) dataset was used.

Figure 8 . Average surface NH 3 concentration (ppb) for the summer (June-July-August) of 2015 (A) , 2008 (B) and 2010 (C) , using the EMEP model, the UKCA model, and the MOZART model, respectively. For the specifications of these atmospheric chemistry transport models, see the main text.

Although in Figure 8 , the different scales suggest very different surface concentration values, it is clear that all three models indicate greatly increased NH 3 concentrations over the Indo-Gangetic Plain during summer, which is in agreement with earlier satellite observations ( Clarisse et al., 2009 ). The difference between the models in the magnitude of concentrations could be caused by various model features, for example, the different heights of the surface layer, different dynamics, different chemistry schemes. The possible sources of differences in the resulting surface ammonia concentrations should be the scope of future model comparison studies, where the same emission datasets and the same input meteorological dataset should be used in order to avoid differences originating from the differences between these datasets. This comparison is important as satellite observations ( Clarisse et al., 2009 ) indicate that the Indo-Gangetic Plain has the highest regional NH 3 concentrations on Earth.

3. Options for Better N Management

3.1. biological nitrogen fixation.

The majority of Indian soils are low in soil organic matter (SOM) and soil N available for plants. A key way to increase SOM, and soil N, is to increase legume acreage and to encourage crop rotations with legumes, which also potentially improves soil biodiversity and ultimately, soil health. Planting a deep-rooted legume like pigeon-pea has potential to scavenge nitrate and phosphate and other nutrients from lower soil layers since its roots go as deep as 150 cm ( Sheldrake and Narayanan, 1979 ). When planted legumes are fixing nitrogen optimally, they reduce the requirements of N fertilizers of the subsequent cereals planted due to the residual effect of the fixed N ( Rao, 2014 ). The amount of nutrients in pigeon pea litter available as residual benefits to succeeding wheat crop have been estimated at about 40 kg N, 2 kg P, 7 kg K, and 2 kg S ha −1 , respectively, in North India ( Rao and Gill, 1995 ) which is known to farmers and the very reason for growing it to improve soil fertility.

In legumes, improving grain yields in tropical agriculture is best achieved by breeding genotypes under low-N conditions so as to select for high nodulators, employ best-bet agronomic practices and intercropping ( Vanlauwe et al., 2019 ). A positive N balance can occur when there are no abiotic constraints or nutritional deficiencies that limit legume growth. Due to various constraints N fixation can be very low and there is hence a big range in pigeon pea BNF from 7 to 235 kg/ha/crop ( Peoples et al., 1995 ) with the proportion of N fixation ranging from 10 to 81%. In a study in India, BNF by pigeon pea was low, 69 kg/ha and amounted to only 50% of plant N uptake ( Kumar Rao and Dart, 1987 ). Improvement of N fixation under drought stress depends as much on host genotype selection as on rhizobial selection and improving soil organic matter and repeated inoculation. Crop rotation with grain legumes, forage, and other green manures builds SOM content and protects microbial biomass and diversity, populations, and their activity ( Aparna et al., 2016 ). Such soil stewardship is essential to improve soil health and sustainability under intensive agriculture.

Currently, there is emerging enthusiasm among some farmers to avoid fertilizer entirely. A major regional example is the Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) system, which represents a system based on agroecological principles. One of the key features of the ZBNF movement of Andhra Pradesh is its rapid uptake by farmers, where the state policy aims that all six million farmers of Andhra Pradesh would practice ZBNF by 2024 ( RySS, 2018 ). This movement takes the name (“zero budget”) from its focus to avoid all purchased inputs, such as pesticides and fertilizers. It aims to regenerate soil health by increasing SOM with a full dependence on BNF (and atmospheric inputs) for all N r supply and thus make farming more profitable.

At present, the nitrogen performance of many different BNF-based farming systems, including ZBNF, remains to be quantified. Long-term nutrient budget studies are required to quantify nutrient inputs achieved through a mix of nitrogen fixing crops and intercrops in different contexts. For example, recent modeling assessment suggests that available nutrient sources in ZBNF examples maybe sufficient for extensive agricultural production but not sufficient to allow high output agricultural production, risking the potential for soil N depletion ( Smith et al., 2020 ). Farmers may also supplement N inputs on their own or adopt hybrid models ( Raghuram, 2020 ). Conversely, as BNF provides a gradual input of fixed N to the soil, it may be expected to lead to lower levels of surplus mineral N in the soil, suggesting that the fraction of N inputs that are lost to air and water pollution will be smaller than in fertilizer-based systems. However, this still needs to be tested, while plowing-in and decomposition of legume based green manures may nevertheless be associated with significant N leaching losses. Such knowledge would be useful in better understanding the system limitations and could guide further refinement of improved practices.

Under IUNFC, a strong focus of research has been given to understanding the controls in performance of pigeon pea. This crop is selected especially for its importance in dry land systems. There is a huge diversity of pigeon pea germplasm to exploit in various regions. Two hundred genomes of pigeon pea have been sequenced at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropic (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, which can be further studied. The translation of the findings described in Section 2.1, in terms of transferring the improved elite strains of pigeon pea rhizobia to farmers fields and similarly, the endophytes to rice farmers, are under testing in pan-India network field trials coordinated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Subsequently, these strains will be transferred to the inoculant industry for large scale multiplication and deployment.

India has a robust microbial inoculant industry ( FAI, 2018 ) and the improved strains can easily be transferred to farmers for coating legume seeds both as carrier inoculant and liquid inoculants. Post-planting inoculation with liquid formulations of rhizobia is also possible and compensates partially for yield losses due to not inoculating the seeds at sowing. Similarly, the elite endophyte strains isolated in rice will eventually be deployed by the inoculant industry to inoculate and benefit not only the rice, but even the subsequent crops grown in rotation.

Work on other projects funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and BBSRC/NSF may result in disruptive technologies for N utilization. BMGF has funded work on the expression of nitrogenase complexes in mitochondria and good progress has been made in the successful expression of the Fe protein in yeast mitochondria ( López-Torrejón et al., 2016 ). This is still a medium-long term project, but it deserves careful consideration as it could be a game changer in the N economy of cereals. Likewise, BBSRC/NSF funded work on developing synthetic symbioses has made good progress in establishing signaling between plants and microbes, which is a prerequisite for controlled interaction between cereals and N fixing endophytes. If nodulation can be established in cereals then work on synthetic symbioses and nodulating cereals would come together.

3.2. Biological Nitrogen Use Efficiency

There is evidence that excessive application of N fertilizers harms yield, and attracts pests and diseases ( Huber et al., 2012 ). This requires increased attention of future research programs. There are also major differences between crop types. For example it has been suggested that millets need relatively low levels of N input to fix carbon due to their physiological characteristics ( Wang et al., 2018 ) compared with other cereals, and are also healthier on other accounts ( Anuradha et al., 2017 ). Recognizing that it would require a re-design of supply chains, further investigation of the case to promote consumption of millets instead of rice and wheat is warranted to examine how this could contribute to increased NUE in the food chain. This is a major objective of the UK-India TIGR2ESS GCRF GROW project ( TIGR2RESS, 2019 ).

In order to exploit better the biological potential for improving NUE in crops, genetic diversity from outside the standard breeders' germplasm should be further explored. This is particularly true for those crops (like rice and wheat in India) that are generally bred/selected under high N input conditions ( Mandal et al., 2018 ; Raghuram and Sharma, 2019 ). Although significant steps have been made toward finding alleles that contribute to NUE (Section 2.2), some cultivars containing such alleles may either have been lost or screened out unintentionally in yield-centric screening programs that emphasized N-response over NUE ( Mandal et al., 2018 ; Raghuram and Sharma, 2019 ). Landraces, such as the A.E. Watkins collection utilized in the INEW VJC, and wild varieties may bring in the missing alleles and give important clues toward finding new genetic avenues for improving NUE, thereby providing agronomists with better genotypes on which they can further optimize N management.

Efficient procedures for timely access to promising crop germplasm with reduced N demand could be a critical driver in this regard, as sometimes it may take a year or more to obtain seeds, especially from overseas. Establishment of low N-input breeding programs for all major N-fertilizer-consuming cereal crops and a system for efficiently sharing information and plant material are important policy aspects for better N management and increased NUE. Further investments are also needed in research toward phenotype and genotype characterization, and identification of contrasting genotypes for NUE. Field phenomics, and remote sensing, gene-editing and other emerging technologies can improve research efficiencies in phenotyping and early breeding.

3.3. Agronomic Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Environmental Impacts

Based on the key findings mentioned in Section 2.3, one of the most promising options to improve agronomic NUE is to monitor crop color, and to decide on the amount and timing of N application according to the appearance of the crop, using for example, LCCs, or electronic sensors. There is an opportunity and a need to compare the performance and limitations of a variety of LCCs such as those used by several research institutes (like PAU, IIRR, NRRI, etc.).

The preliminary national-scale model results clearly highlight the role of NH 3 emission in atmospheric N pollution in India, especially in the context of worsening air quality across the Indo-Gangetic Plain. A possible option to reduce NH 3 emission from urea application, could be to combine neem-coated (i.e., urea coated with neem oil, a natural nitrification inhibitor) with a urease inhibitor (“Neem Plus”), which could potentially increase NUE and decrease N losses. Currently, only artificial urease inhibitors are available in India, such as N-(n-Butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT), phenylphosphorodiamidate (PPD/PPDA), and hydroquinone. However, a plant-based urease inhibitor, similar to the neem oil used as nitrification inhibitor, would be expected to increase social acceptance. Thus, the great challenge is to find molecules that are of natural origin, have low toxicity, are chemically stable, efficient at low concentrations, and are competitively priced. Some natural plant phenolic products, such as protocatechuic aldehyde and vanillin derivatives, have been reported as having soil urease inhibition properties ( Horta et al., 2016 ); however, this requires further investigation. Furthermore, future research should also examine the effectiveness of the usage of a urease inhibitor along with the neem coating of urea.

There are potential opportunities in integrating agronomic strategies (i.e., practice changes) with opportunities for increased biological NUE (i.e., plant genotypes with increased N efficiency). The extent of possible synergies between improved genetics and improved agronomy, and the extent to which agronomic changes need to be made to exploit the genetic potential are not yet known. In principle, there is a major opportunity to reduce the costs of agricultural production and levels of environmental pollution at the same time ( Fageria and Santos, 2014 ). Future research should focus on integrating outcomes from breeding for higher NUE into field studies in relation to agronomic practices that demonstrate how environmental sustainability can go hand in hand with reduced and more efficient use of fertilizers ( Ladha et al., 1998 ; Cheng et al., 2011 ).

Further work is also vital to improve recycling of organic wastes to the soil. This needs to consider crop residue, animal urine, and human excreta. The movement of produce to markets results in a year-on-year loss of N from the agricultural system, and leaves an excess of organic wastes in urban areas. Drying and pelletizing of composts, slurries from anaerobic digestion and biochar from pyrolysis of market wastes have a great potential to facilitate the return of N to agricultural areas. Development of technologies is also needed to avoid loss of NH 3 during drying of these products. There is ongoing work in upscaling nutrient recovery, such as by ammonia stripping from the liquid remaining following anaerobic digestion of organic material ( Buckwell and Nadeu, 2016 ), which may provide a major opportunity to include recycled N in new fertilizer products.

Finally, substantial improvements could be achieved in NUE by combining agronomic research with research on the environmental and health impacts of N pollution from agriculture in order to develop a more holistic perspective. Scaling up this approach from farm level to national and food system level, in tandem with modeling the economic impacts could demonstrate the opportunities for India, with potential policy benefit. For example, the interventions to improve NUE at crop level and the recycling of organic wastes can result in the overall increase of NUE for the overall food chain. These interventions must be coupled with other solutions to limit N losses from other stages of the food production systems, such as avoidance of post-harvest losses or reduction of food wastes and losses ( HLPE, 2014 ; Uwizeye et al., 2016 ).

4. Actionable Recommendations: Global Goals for 2030

Based on the latest research results and the possible options for better N management in Indian agriculture, the participants of the workshop identified a set of global goals related to all three topics for 2030.

For BNF, one of the most important goals is to extend knowledge on how legumes can be used to improve NUE. Firstly, the research has identified the need to establish a pan-Indian, virtual or physical center for legume research. As indicated in Section 2.1 pigeon pea has a large potential to enhance NUE. Currently, this crop has an average yield of 850 kg/ha. Secondly, the workshop agreed a goal for 2030 is to double or even triple this yield by 2030. Along with these aims, it is reasonable to set a third, more general goal, namely, by 2030, to provide a substantial amount of cereal N via synthetic N symbioses and/or plastidic N fixation (Section 3.1).

As mentioned in Section 2.2, numerous traits have been identified for NUE in rice, wheat, sorghum and millets. These promising results represent clear steps for the future. Based on this, one of the goals set in terms of improving biological NUE is to better define the biological signatures of crop N status, including some that are farmer-friendly. The findings presented at the conference clearly support the biological potential for NUE improvement and encourage information and germplasm exchange. As such, the goal set for 2030 is to increase biological NUE by at least 20–30%.

The latest research clearly shows the success of leaf color-based fertilizer application methods, especially that of the LCC approach (Section 2.3), in improving NUE on arable farms. Therefore, one of the main goals for 2030 is to ensure that all arable farmers use LCC or other sensor technologies to decide on N applications. In the first instance, the focus is on conventional farmers optimizing their use of fertilizer to avoid excessive and wasteful inputs. However, there may also be interest in considering the use of leaf color sensing technology in relation to organic farming. Such an approach would require a plant available source of organic fertilizer N that could provide rapid plant response following application, such as is provided by bioslurry. Conversely, an LCC could be used to test for N deficiency in BNF based cropping systems.

To meet the goal for leaf color sensing by 2030 such tools should be provided to every farmer in India, along with documented success stories. With these technologies, based on expert judgement, 20–25% N could be saved ( Lassaletta et al., 2014 ; Zhang et al., 2015 ). The positive outcomes of the presented research (Section 2.3) also allow a goal to be set for farms with livestock production. An important goal would be to re-use all manure and urine to maximize their fertilizer value, allowing reduced fertilizer inputs and subsidy savings. Future research should explore the social barriers of the application of these measures, building on the ongoing work of the UKRI GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub (SANH) and the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS). The expected increase in NUE using these approaches could be 5–10%, which could also lead to a proportional reduction in N fertilizer requirement. Large-scale social movements that focus on BNF rather than mineral fertilizers, may have a very important part to play in achieving the necessary transition to an India characterized by high NUE, low N pollution, and improved livelihoods.

Finally, the results (Section 2.3) highlight the role of NH 3 in the N pollution of India. In order to manage the high levels of NH 3 emissions it is recommended that, by 2030, all urea products should be both neem-coated and include a urease inhibitor (“Neem Plus”). This option is expected to offer a 5% N saving over neem-coated urea (which already achieves a 5–10% savings above uncoated urea). Since natural additives are culturally better accepted in India, the ultimate goal should be the development of viable plant-based urease inhibitors.

While we identified specific measures of key importance, we recognize for a wider nitrogen cycle perspective that there is a need to reduce overall nitrogen losses from agriculture, in addition to NH 3 loss, including N 2 O, NO, and N 2 emissions, as well as nitrate and other forms of nitrogen leaching. Each of these losses is driven by different processes. For example, ammonia loss is driven by immediate excess ammonium levels after fertilization with urea or organic sources (urine, manure, etc.). Conversely, losses of N 2 O, NO, and N 2 tend to be more driven by excess nitrogen availability in the soil (beyond plant needs), while nitrate leaching is substantially exacerbated during periods of bare soil. This means that there is a need for further research to develop coherent “packages of measures” that seek to reduce multiple forms of nitrogen loss (and their impacts) simultaneously, thereby also providing opportunities to improve NUE ( TFRN, 2020 ).

Altogether, this suite of changes would be expected to make a major contribution to the recently agreed commitment of the International Nitrogen Initiative “to support a global goal to halve nitrogen waste by 2030” ( NEWS, 2018 ). How the different elements fit together toward a coherent holistic N approach should be the subject of future research in interaction with farmers, policy makers and wider society. This should include identification of the barriers to the widespread adoption of the above solutions/measures at the social, economic and policy levels, as well as options for their mitigation. While the Indian Nitrogen Assessment has laid the ground for this work ( Abrol et al., 2017 ; Bhattacharya et al., 2017 ), further work can build on the ongoing work of SANH, INMS.

5. Conclusion

This paper brings together the main outcomes of the conference and workshop, “Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Nitrogen Science in India” organized in October 2017, in New Delhi, India. After sharing knowledge at the conference and working toward developing a joint vision on how agricultural nitrogen management could be made better in India at the workshop, the event concluded with three vision statements:

1. Stewardship is essential and legumes need to be planted in rotation with cereals. Synthetic symbioses and plastidic nitrogen fixation are possibly disruptive technologies; we must consider both their potential and implications.

2. Genetic diversity and new technologies need to be shared and exploited to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use for productive, sustainable agriculture livelihoods, and reducing the associated losses.

3. The use of leaf color sensing shows great potential to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use on-farm by 10–15%. This tool, together with the usage of urease inhibitors when using urea-based fertilizers, and better management of manure, urine and crop residues, could result in a 20–25% improvement in NUE of India by 2030.

Author Contributions

AM led the formulation, coordination, and writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript content and revision.

Funding was provided by NEWS India-UK (BB/N013492/1), with contributions from CINTRIN (BB/N013441/1), INEW (BB/N013360/1) and IUNFC (BB/N013387/1) – all supported through the Newton-Bhabha Fund, by the UKRI and the Indian Department of Biotechnology –, as well as UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of SANH (NE/S009019/1, supported through UKRI Global Challenges Research Fund), and SUNRISE (NE/R000131/1). The conference was supported by INMS (‘‘Targeted research for improving understanding of the global nitrogen cycle towards the establishment of an International Nitrogen Management System (INMS)'', 5400, supported by the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Environment Programme).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This paper is an outcome of the joint conference and workshop, Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural Nitrogen Science in India supported by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Indian Department of Biotechnology (DBT), and INMS (Toward the Establishment of an International Nitrogen Management System). The authors are grateful for all the support they received for this overview paper from the four VJCs, under the lead of NEWS India-UK (BBSRC BB/N013492/1), with contributions from CINTRIN, INEW, and IUNFC, as well as the UKRI GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub, RySS and SUNRISE (Sustainable Use of Natural Resources to Improve Human Health and Support Economic Development). The paper is a contribution to the work of the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI). The development of the village Bassian as a role model village for adoption of PAU-LCC was voluntarily supported by the Atam Pargas Social Welfare Council.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.505347/full#supplementary-material

Abebe, Z., and Feyisa, H. (2017). Effects of nitrogen rates and time of application on yield of maize: rainfall variability influenced time of N application. Int. J. Agron. 2017:1545280. doi: 10.1155/2017/1545280

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abrol, Y. P., Adhya, T. K., Aneja, V. P., Raghuram, N., Pathak, H., Kulshrestha, U., et al. (2017). The Indian Nitrogen Assessment: Sources of Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Policies . Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Google Scholar

Abrol, Y. P., Raghuram, N., and Sachdev, M. S. (2007). Agricultural Nitrogen Use and Its Environmental Implications . New Delhi: IK International.

Alexandrov, N., Tai, S., Wang, W., Mansueto, L., Palis, K., Fuentes, R. R., et al. (2015). SNP-Seek database of SNPs derived from 3000 rice genomes. Nucleic Acids Res . 43, D1023–D1027. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1039

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alvarez, J. M., Vidal, E. A., and Gutiérrez, R. A. (2012). Integration of local and systemic signaling pathways for plant N responses. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol . 15, 185–191. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2012.03.009

Aneja, V. P., Schlesinger, W. H., and Erisman, J. W. (2009). Effects of agriculture upon the air quality and climate: research, policy, and regulations. Environ. Sci. Tech . 43, 4234–4240. doi: 10.1021/es8024403

Aneja, V. P., Schlesinger, W. H., Nyogi, D., Jennings, G., Gilliam, W., Knighton, R. E., et al. (2006). Emerging national research needs for agricultural air quality. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87, 25–29. doi: 10.1029/2006EO030001

Anuradha, N., Satyavathi, C. T., Bharadwaj, C., Nepolean, T., Sankar, S. M., Singh, S. P., et al. (2017). Deciphering genomic regions for high grain iron and zinc content using association mapping in pearl millet. Front. Plant Sci . 8:412. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00412

Aparna, K., Rao, D. L. N., and Balachandar, D. (2016). Microbial populations, activity and gene abundance in tropical vertisols under intensive chemical farming. Pedosphere 26, 725–732. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60079-0

Bellouin, N., Rae, J., Jones, A., Johnson, C., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O. (2011). Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos . 116:D20206. doi: 10.1029/2011JD016074

Bhatia, A., Pathak, H., Jain, N., Singh, P. K., and Tomer, R. (2012). Greenhouse gas mitigation in rice-wheat system with leaf color chart-based urea application. Environ. Monit. Assess . 184, 3095–3107. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2174-8

Bhattacharya, S., Adhya, T. K., Pathak, H., Raghuram, N., and Sharma, C. (2017). “Issues and policies for reactive nitrogen management,” in The Indian Nitrogen Assessment: Sources of Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Policies , eds Y. P. Abrol, T. K. Adhya, V. P. Aneja, N. Raghuram, H. Pathak, U. Kulshrestha, et al. (Cambridge: Elsevier),491–512.

Bijay-Singh (2017). “Management and use efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in production of cereals in Indiad issues and strategies,” in The Indian Nitrogen Assessment: Sources of Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Policies , eds Y. P. Abrol, T. K. Adhya, V. P. Aneja, N. Raghuram, H. Pathak, U. Kulshrestha, et al. (Cambridge: Elsevier), 9–28.

Bijay-Singh and Yadvinder-Singh (2008). Reactive nitrogen in Indian agriculture: inputs, use efficiency and leakages. Curr. Sci . 94, 1382–1393. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24100495

Buckwell, A., and Nadeu, E. (2016). Nutrient Recovery and Reuse (NRR) in European agriculture. A Review of the Issues, Opportunities, and Actions . Brussels: RISE Foundation.

Cameron, K., Di, H., and Moir, J. (2013). Nitrogen losses from the soil/plant system: a review. Ann. Appl. Biol . 162, 145–173. doi: 10.1111/aab.12014

Chalk, P. M., He, J.-Z., Peoples, M. B., and Chen, D. (2017). 15N2 as a tracer of biological N 2 fixation: a 75-year retrospective. Soil Biol. Biochem . 106, 36–50. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.12.010

Cheng, J.-f., Jiang, H.-y., Liu, Y.-b., Dai, T.-b., and Cao, W.-x. (2011). Methods on identification and screening of rice genotypes with high nitrogen efficiency. Rice Sci . 18, 127–135. doi: 10.1016/S1672-6308(11)60018-8

Clarisse, L., Clerbaux, C., Dentener, F., Hurtmans, D., and Coheur, P.-F. (2009). Global ammonia distribution derived from infrared satellite observations. Nat. Geosci . 2, 479–483. doi: 10.1038/ngeo551

EDGAR (2016). Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research v4.3.1 . Available online at: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=431 (accessed February 15, 2018).

Emmons, L. K., Walters, S., Hess, P. G., Lamarque, J. F., Pfister, G. G., Fillmore, D., et al. (2010). Description and evaluation of the Model for Ozone and Related chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). Geosci. Model Dev. 3, 43–67. doi: 10.5194/gmd-3-43-2010

Fageria, N. K., and Santos, A. B. (2014). Lowland rice genotypes evaluation for nitrogen use efficiency. J. Plant Nutr . 37, 1410–1423. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2013.868482

Fagodiya, R. K., Kumar, A., Kumari, S., Medhi, K., and Shabnam, A. A. (2020). “Role of nitrogen and its agricultural management in changing environment,” in Contaminants in Agriculture , eds M. Naeem, A. Ansari, and S. Gill (Cham: Springer) 247–270.

FAI (2018). Biofertiliser Statistics 2017-18, 10th edn . New Delhi.

FAI (2020). Statistical Database: All-India Consumption of Fertiliser Nutrients - 1950-51 to 2018-19 . Available online at: https://www.faidelhi.org/statistics/statistical-database (accessed September 10, 2020).

FAO (2016). United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Statistics . Available online at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/ (accessed October 15, 2016).

FAO (2018). The Future of Food and Agriculture - Alternative Pathways to 2050 . Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Fowler, D., Coyle, M., Skiba, U., Sutton, M. A., Cape, J. N., Reis, S., et al. (2013). The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci . 368:20130164. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0164

Gaju, O., Allard, V., Martre, P., Snape, J. W., Heumez, E., Legouis, J., et al. (2011). Identification of traits to improve the nitrogen-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Field Crop Res . 123, 139–152. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.05.010

Galloway, J., Raghuram, N., and Abrol, Y. P. (2008). A perspective on reactive nitrogen in a global, Asian and Indian context. Curr. Sci . 94, 1375–1381. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2410049

Galloway, J. N., Aber, J. D., Erisman, J. W., Seitzinger, S. P., Howarth, R. W., Cowling, E. B., et al. (2003). The nitrogen cascade. BioScience 53, 341–356. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0341:TNC]2.0.CO;2

Galloway, J. N., Townsend, A. R., Erisman, J. W., Bekunda, M., Cai, Z., Freney, J. R., et al. (2008). Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320, 889–892. doi: 10.1126/science.1136674

Gayatri, Rani, M., Mahato, A. K., Sinha, S. K., Dalal, M., Singh, N. K., et al. (2018). Homeologue specific gene expression analysis of two vital carbon metabolizing enzymes-citrate synthase and NADP-isocitrate dehydrogenase-from wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) under nitrogen stress. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. Enzyme Eng. Biotechnol . 188, 569–584. doi: 10.1007/s12010-018-2912-2

Guha, S., Sarkar, M., Ganguly, P., Uddin, M. R., Mandal, S., and DasGupta, M. (2016). Segregation of nod-containing and nod-deficient bradyrhizobia as endosymbionts of Arachis hypogaea and as endophytes of Oryza sativa in intercropped fields of Bengal Basin, India. Environ. Microbiol . 18, 2575–2590. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13348

Hakeem, K. R., Chandna, R., Ahmad, A., Qureshi, M. I., and Iqbal, M. (2012). Proteomic analysis for low and high nitrogen-responsive proteins in the leaves of rice genotypes grown at three nitrogen levels. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol . 168, 834–850. doi: 10.1007/s12010-012-9823-4

Hakeem, K. R., Mir, B. A., Qureshi, M. I., Ahmad, A., and Iqbal, M. (2013). Physiological studies and proteomic analysis for differentially expressed proteins and their possible role in the root of N-efficient rice ( Oryza sativa L.). Mol. Breed . 32, 785–798. doi: 10.1007/s11032-013-9906-0

HLPE (2014). Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems . A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.

Horta, L. P., Mota, Y. C. C., Barbosa, G. M., Braga, T. C., Marriel, I. E., de Fatima, A., et al. (2016). Urease inhibitors of agricultural interest inspired by structures of plant phenolic aldehydes. J. Braz. Chem. Soc . 27, 1512–1519. doi: 10.21577/0103-5053.20160208

Huber, D., Römheld, V., and Weinmann, M. (2012). “Relationship between nutrition, plant diseases and pests,” in Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd edn , ed. H. Marschner (Beijing: Science Press), 283–298.

IRRI (1996). Use of leaf colour chart (LCC) for N management in rice . Crop Resource. Manage Network Technol Brief 2, Manila, PH.

Krouk, G., Crawford, N. M., Coruzzi, G. M., and Tsay, Y.-F. (2010). Nitrate signaling: adaptation to fluctuating environments. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 13, 265–272. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.12.003

Kumar Rao, J. V. D. K., and Dart, P. J. (1987). Nodulation, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen uptake in pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp) of different maturity groups. Plant Soil 99, 255–266. doi: 10.1007/BF02370872

Ladha, J. K., Kirk, G. J. D., Bennett, J., Peng, S., Reddy, C. K., Reddy, P. M., et al. (1998). Opportunities for increased nitrogen-use efficiency from improved lowland rice germplasm. Field Crop Res . 56, 41–71. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00123-8

Ladha, J. K., Tirol-Padre, A., Reddy, C. K., Cassman, K. G., Verma, S., Powlson, D. S., et al. (2016). Global nitrogen budgets in cereals: a 50-year assessment for maize, rice, and wheat production systems. Sci. Rep . 6:19355. doi: 10.1038/srep19355

Lassaletta, L., Billen, G., Grizzetti, B., Anglade, J., and Garnier, J. (2014). 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: the relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environ. Res. Lett . 9:105011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105011

Li, P., Chen, F., Cai, H., Liu, J., Pan, Q., Liu, Z., et al. (2015). A genetic relationship between nitrogen use efficiency and seedling root traits in maize as revealed by QTL analysis. J. Exp. Bot . 66, 3175–3188. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv127

Li, X., Zeng, R., and Liao, H. (2016). Improving crop nutrient efficiency through root architecture modifications. J. Integr. Plant Biol . 58, 193–202. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12434

López-Torrejón, G., Jiménez-Vicente, E., Buesa, J. M., Hernandez, J. A., Verma, H. K., and Rubio, L. M. (2016). Expression of a functional oxygen-labile nitrogenase component in the mitochondrial matrix of aerobically grown yeast. Nat. Commun. 7, 11426. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11426

Mandal, V., Sharma, N., and Raghuram, N. (2018). “Molecular targets for improvement of crop nitrogen-use efficiency: current and emerging options,” in Engineering Nitrogen Utilization in Crop Plants , eds A. Shrawat, A. Zayed, and D. A. Lightfoot (Cham: Springer), 77–93.

Morita, S., Suge, T., and Yamazaki, K. (1988). The relationship between root length density and yield in rice plants. Jpn. J. Crop. Sci . 57, 438–443. doi: 10.1626/jcs.57.438

NEWS (2018). INI Commits to Support a Global Goal to Halve Nitrogen Waste by 2030 . Available online at: http://news-india-uk.international/latest_news/our_ocean_conference_2018 (accessed February 11, 2019).

Norton, G. J., Travis, A. J., Douglas, A., Fairley, S., Alves, E. D. P., Ruang-areerate, P., et al. (2018). Genome wide association mapping of grain and straw biomass traits in the rice bengal and Assam aus panel (BAAP) grown under alternate wetting and drying and permanently flooded irrigation. Front. Plant Sci . 9:1223. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01223

O'Connor, F. M., Johnson, C. E., Morgenstern, O., Abraham, N. L., Braesicke, P., Dalvi, M., et al. (2014). Evaluation of the new UKCA climate-composition model - Part 2: the troposphere. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 41–91. doi: 10.5194/gmd-7-41-2014

PAU (2018). Package of Practices for Crops of Punjab . Ludhiana.

Peng, X., Yang, Y., Yu, C., Chen, L., Zhang, M., Liu, Z., et al. (2015). Crop management for increasing rice yield and nitrogen use efficiency in northeast China. Agron. J . 107, 1682–1690. doi: 10.2134/agronj15.0013

Peoples, M. B., Herridge, D. F., and Ladha, J. K. (1995). Biological nitrogen fixation: an efficient source of nitrogen for sustainable agricultural production? Plant Soil 174, 3–28. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-0053-3_1

Raghuram, N. (2020). Zeroing in on Farm Budgets or Zero Budget Natural Farming? A Perspective from India. Perspectives 37, UN Environment Programme . Available online at: https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/perspective-series/zeroing-farm-budgets-or-zero-budget-natural-farming-unep-perspective (accessed September 10, 2020).

Raghuram, N., and Sharma, N. (2019). “Improving crop nitrogen use efficiency,” in Comprehensive Biotechnology , Vol. 4, ed. M. Moo-Young (Pergamon: Elsevier), 211–220.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Rao, D. L. N. (2014). Recent advances in biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. 80, 359–378. doi: 10.16943/ptinsa/2014/v80i2/55114

Rao, D. L. N., and Balachandar, D. (2017). “Nitrogen inputs from biological nitrogen fixation in Indian agriculture,” in The Indian Nitrogen Assessment: Sources of Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Policies , eds Y. P. Abrol, T. K. Adhya, V. P. Aneja, N. Raghuram, H. Pathak, U. Kulshrestha, et al. (Cambridge: Elsevier),117–132.

Rao, D. L. N., and Gill, H. S. (1995). Biomass production and nutrient recycling through litter from pigeonpea ( Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). Bioresour. Technol . 54, 123–128. doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(95)00102-6

Rogers, E. D., and Benfey, P. N. (2015). Regulation of plant root system architecture: implications for crop advancement. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 32, 93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.015

RySS (2018). Andhra Pradesh: India's 1st Natural Farming State . Zero-Budget Natural Farming, Guntur.

Sanchez-Canizares, C., Jorrin, B., Poole, P., and Tkacz, A. (2017). Understanding the holobiont: the interdependence of plants and their microbiome. Curr. Opin. Microbiol . 38, 188–196. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2017.07.001

Sharma, L. K., and Bali, S. K. (2018). A review of methods to improve nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture. Sustainabiliity 10, 51. doi: 10.3390/su10010051

Sharma, N., Sinha, V. B., Gupta, N., Rajpal, S., Kuchi, S., Sitaramam, V., et al. (2018). Phenotyping for nitrogen use efficiency: rice genotypes differ in N-responsive germination, oxygen consumption, seed urease activities, root growth, crop duration, and yield at low N. Front. Plant Sci. 9:1452. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01452

Sheldrake, A. R., and Narayanan, A. (1979). Growth, development and nutrient uptake in pigeonpeas ( Cajanus cajan ). J. Agric. Sci . 92, 513–526. doi: 10.1017/S0021859600053752

Simpson, D., Benedictow, A., Berge, H., Bergström, R., Emberson, L. D., Fagerli, H., et al. (2012). The EMEP MSC-W chemical transport model; technical description. Atmos. Chem. Phys . 12, 7825–7865. doi: 10.5194/acp-12-7825-2012

Sinha, S. K., Rani, M., Bansal, N., Gayatri, Venkatesh, K., and Mandal, P.K. (2015). Nitrate starvation induced changes in root system architecture, carbon:nitrogen metabolism, and miRNA expression in nitrogen-responsive wheat genotypes. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. Enzyme Eng. Biotechnol . 177, 1299–1312. doi: 10.1007/s12010-015-1815-8

Sinha, S. K., Rani, M., Kumar, A., Kumar, S., Venkatesh, K., and Mandal, P. K. (2018). Natural variation in root system architecture in diverse wheat genotypes grown under different nitrate conditions and root growth media. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol . 30, 223–234. doi: 10.1007/s40626-018-0117-2

Smith, J., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P., and Nayay, D. R. (2020). Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nat. Sustain . 3, 247–252. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0469-x

Steffens, B., and Rasmussen, A. (2016). The physiology of adventitious roots. Plant Physiol . 170, 603. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01360

Subedi, K. D., Ma, B. L., and Xue, A. G. (2007). Planting date and nitrogen effects on grain yield and protein content of spring wheat. Crop Sci . 47, 36–44. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.02.0099

Sun, H., Qian, Q., Wu, K., Luo, J., Wang, S., Zhang, C., et al. (2014). Heterotrimeric G proteins regulate nitrogen-use efficiency in rice. Nat. Genet . 46, 652. doi: 10.1038/ng.2958

Sutton, M. A., Bleeker, A., Howard, C. M., Bekunda, M., Grizzetti, B., deVries, W., et al. (2013). Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food and Energy With Less Pollution . Global Overview of Nutrient Management. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative, Edinburgh.

Sutton, M. A., Drewer, J., Moring, A., Adhya, T. K., Ahmed, A., Bhatia, A., et al. (2017). “The Indian nitrogen challenge in a global perspective,” in The Indian Nitrogen Assessment: Sources of Reactive Nitrogen, Environmental and Climate Effects, Management Options, and Policies , eds Y. P. Abrol, T. K. Adhya, V. P. Aneja, N. Raghuram, H. Pathak, and U. Kulshrestha (Cambridge: Elsevier), 9–28.

Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W., Bealey, W. J., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., et al. (2011). “The challenge to integrate nitrogen science and policies: the European Nitrogen Assessment approach,” in The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives , eds M. A. Sutton, C. M. Howard, J. W. Erisman, G. Billen, A. Bleeker, and P. Grennfelt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 82–96.

TFRN (2020). Guidance Document on Integrated Sustainable Nitrogen Management. UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Geneva . Available online at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2020/AIR/WGSR/Final_For_submission_Draft_guidance_23_June.pdf (accessed September 10, 2020).

TIGR2RESS (2019). TIGR2ESS: Transforming India's Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable food Supplies . Available online at: https://tigr2ess.globalfood.cam.ac.uk/ (accessed April 25, 2019).

Trotman, A. P., and Weaver, R. W. (1995). Tolerance of clover rhizobia to heat and desiccation stresses in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J . 59, 466–470. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900020028x

Uwizeye, A., Gerber, P. J., Schulte, R. P. O., and de Boer, I. J. M. (2016). A comprehensive framework to assess the sustainability of nutrient use in global livestock supply chains. J. Clean. Prod . 129, 647–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.108

Vanlauwe, B., Hungria, M., Kanampiu, F., and Giller, K. E. (2019). The role of legumes in the sustainable intensification of African smallholder agriculture: lessons learnt and challenges for the future. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ . 284:106583. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106583

Varinderpal-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Thind, H. S., Yadvinder-Singh, Gupta, R. K., Satinderpal-Singh, et al. (2014). Evaluation of leaf colour chart for need-based nitrogen management in rice, maize and wheat in north-western India. J. Res. Punjab Agr. Univ. 51, 239–245.

Varinderpal-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Yadvinder-Singh, Thind, H. S., Buttar, G. S., Kaur, S., Meharban, S., Kaur, S., and Bhowmik, A. (2017). Site-specific fertilizer nitrogen management for timely sown irrigated wheat ( Triticum aestivum L. and Triticum turgidum L . ssp durum) genotypes. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 109, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10705-017-9860-z

Varinderpal-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Yadvinder-Singh, Thind, H. S., Gobinder, S., Satwinderjit, K., et al. (2012). Establishment of threshold leaf colour greenness for need-based fertilizer nitrogen management in irrigated wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) using leaf colour chart. Field Crop Res . 130, 109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.02.005

Varinderpal-Singh, Yadvinder-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Baldev-Singh, Gupta, R. K.Jagmohan, S., et al. (2007). Performance of site-specific nitrogen management for irrigated transplanted rice in northwestern India. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 53, 567–579. doi: 10.1080/03650340701568971

Varinderpal-Singh, Yadvinder-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Thind, H. S., Kumar, A., and Vashistha, M. (2011). Calibrating the leaf colour chart for need based fertilizer nitrogen management in different maize ( Zea mays L.) genotypes. Field Crop Res . 120, 276–282. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.10.014

Vidal, E. A., and Gutiérrez, R. A. (2008). A systems view of nitrogen nutrient and metabolite responses in Arabidopsis. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol . 11, 521–529. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2008.07.003

Vieno, M., Heal, M. R., Williams, M. L., Carnell, E. J., Nemitz, E., Stedman, J. R., et al. (2016). The sensitivities of emissions reductions for the mitigation of UK PM2.5. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 265–276. doi: 10.5194/acp-16-265-2016

Wang, J., Vanga, K. S., Saxena, R., Orsat, V., and Raghavan, V. (2018). Effect of climate change on the yield of cereal crops: a review. Climate 6:41. doi: 10.3390/cli6020041

World Bank (2020a). Data: GDP (current US$) . Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=IN (accessed September 3, 2020).

World Bank (2020b). Data: Population, Total . Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=IN (accessed September 3, 2020).

Yang, J.-c., Zhang, H., and Zhang, J.-h. (2012). Root morphology and physiology in relation to the yield formation of rice. J. Integr. Agric . 11, 920–926. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(12)60082-3

Zhang, X., Davidson, E. A., Mauzerall, D. L., Searchinger, T. D., Dumas, P., and Shen, Y. (2015). Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–59. doi: 10.1038/nature15743

Keywords: nitrogen, nitrogen use efficiency, Indian agriculture, nitrogen management, fertilizer

Citation: Móring A, Hooda S, Raghuram N, Adhya TK, Ahmad A, Bandyopadhyay SK, Barsby T, Beig G, Bentley AR, Bhatia A, Dragosits U, Drewer J, Foulkes J, Ghude SD, Gupta R, Jain N, Kumar D, Kumar RM, Ladha JK, Mandal PK, Neeraja CN, Pandey R, Pathak H, Pawar P, Pellny TK, Poole P, Price A, Rao DLN, Reay DS, Singh NK, Sinha SK, Srivastava RK, Shewry P, Smith J, Steadman CE, Subrahmanyam D, Surekha K, Venkatesh K, Varinderpal-Singh, Uwizeye A, Vieno M and Sutton MA (2021) Nitrogen Challenges and Opportunities for Agricultural and Environmental Science in India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:505347. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.505347

Received: 16 October 2019; Accepted: 08 January 2021; Published: 18 February 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Móring, Hooda, Raghuram, Adhya, Ahmad, Bandyopadhyay, Barsby, Beig, Bentley, Bhatia, Dragosits, Drewer, Foulkes, Ghude, Gupta, Jain, Kumar, Kumar, Ladha, Mandal, Neeraja, Pandey, Pathak, Pawar, Pellny, Poole, Price, Rao, Reay, Singh, Sinha, Srivastava, Shewry, Smith, Steadman, Subrahmanyam, Surekha, Venkatesh, Varinderpal-Singh, Uwizeye, Vieno and Sutton. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Andrea Móring, Andrea.Moring@ed.ac.uk ; Claudia E. Steadman, Claudia.Steadman@ed.ac.uk

• Our Approach
• Our Research
• Strategy 2020-2030
• News & Events
• Partnerships
• Annual Reports
• Our Initiatives
• Our Board of Directors
• Our History
• Ethics and Policies

Optimizing Policy, Technology, and Investment for India’s Fertilizer Sector

Fertilizers play a crucial role in the sustainability of global agriculture, providing the necessary nutrients to crops for optimum growth and yield. With the increasing global population and the need for food and nutritional security, the demand for fertilizers is rising.

The transformation of Indian agriculture to self-sufficiency, through a combination of a technology boost, investments in infrastructure, policy initiatives, and skilled human resources, has been successful over the past six decades. A more than sixfold increase in food grain production surpassed the country’s quadrupled population growth, but this came with a 464-fold increase in fertilizer consumption. India has become the second largest consumer and highest importer of fertilizers, with a more than a 6 percent average annual increase since the 1970s, and currently accounts for 16.1 percent of global fertilizer use.

Over the years, the Government of India has ensured the availability of fertilizer to farmers at subsidized prices, resulting in a huge financial burden of around U.S. $25 billion in 2022/23. While technology-led growth resulted in increased food production, it enhanced the agro-eco-environmental challenges of overexploitation of natural resources, such as soil, water, and biodiversity, decreasing nutrient use efficiency and factor productivity, depleting soil health, and increasing the effects of climate change. Low use efficiency results in a considerable waste of resources as well as a drain on foreign exchange, as the country imports almost 25, 90, and 100 percent of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) as finished products or as raw materials. The projections suggest that India may need to double its fertilizer use by 2050 to feed its booming, and increasingly affluent, population. Therefore, these problems are of utmost concern for industry, farmers, researchers, and policymakers.

The Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS) , a neutral think tank, and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) , in collaboration with IFDC, organized a stakeholder dialogue on “Enhancing Fertilizer Use Efficiency for Sustainable Soil Health” September 28-29 in New Delhi. More than 100 diverse stakeholders, including researchers, policy planners, development officials, representatives of the private sector, and progressive farmers, deliberated on this important issue and suggested pragmatic reforms in soil health and plant nutrient sources and technologies in India, as they realize the cost of inaction will be tremendous.

Dr. B.S. Dwivedi, member of the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) , noted that the government should focus on incentivizing the efficient use of fertilizers by linking them with soil health cards and the Prime Minister’s Program for Restoration, Awareness, Nourishment, and Amelioration of Mother Earth (PM-PRANAM). Dr. Himanshu Pathak, Secretary of the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) and Director General of ICAR, emphasized undertaking research on agroeconomic evaluation of specialty fertilizers by strengthening cooperation between public sector institutions and the fertilizer industry to move forward innovations from the lab to land aimed at commercialization.

The fertilizer industry must become more competitive and innovative in developing, testing, and manufacturing high-quality improved fertilizer blends, coatings, compounds, and organo-mineral products at different production scales to replace or modify the traditional fertilizer formulations, especially urea. Dr. Upendra Singh, IFDC Vice President of Research, suggested the mechanization of fertilizer deep placement integrated with regenerative agriculture is low-hanging fruit for promoting the “4R” concept for enhancing nutrient use efficiency and linking smallholder farmers with green credits/carbon farming.

“The country needs to double fertilizer and nutrient use efficiency by investing in fertilizer technology, innovation, research, and extension by 2030.” Dr. Raj Paroda, IFDC Board Member

Paroda also suggested that investment in efficient fertilizer products (organo-mineral fertilizers, multi-nutrient granules, slow-release fertilizers) and technologies will help decrease the subsidy budget by 50 percent and reduce the carbon footprint by 30 percent. During the deliberations, participants also mentioned:

• Creating a Center of Excellence on fertilizers in a public-private-producer partnership approach along with a pilot plant to promote scientific innovations in fertilizer technologies.
• Reorienting the current fertilizer subsidy policy into incentive-focused under the PM-PRANAM through a linkage with a soil health card for balanced nutrient application.
• Developing district-wise soil health maps every five years under the One Health initiative by establishing a soil conservation fund and incentivizing farmers to maintain the soil organic carbon above 0.5 percent.
• Revisiting the Fertilizer Control Order to expedite the registration process of new fertilizer carriers/molecules through a scientific data-backed system.
• Incentivizing nutrient recycling (organo-minerals) through industrial processing of wastes, such as sewage sludge, poultry manure, and distillery spent wash, with the goal of generating 1 metric ton per year of recyclable nutrients through indigenous or industrial processing of wastes for integrated nutrient management, targeting 75 percent mineral and 25 percent organic nutrients.
• Updating and revising the package of practices recommended for use in the country and intensifying efforts for promoting their wider adoption through the state agricultural universities for including climate-smart fertilizers (slow-release, water-soluble fertilizers, controlled-release fertilizers, organics).
• Concentrating efforts toward the mechanization of fertilizer deep placement by redesigning and innovating multi-crop, multi-utility machinery for deep placement of fertilizers to decrease losses and reduce the carbon footprint, with simultaneous improvement in fertilizer use efficiency.
• Developing protocols, through a collaboration between the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and ICAR, for the measurement, reporting, and verification of carbon farming/green credit practices, including enhanced fertilizer use and efficient technologies for smallholder farmers.
• Creating a new agribusiness model-oriented approach to understand fertilizer-based innovations from a business perspective, with scalable adoption and markets, to become self-sufficient in urea production, as there is a need to enhance recovery efficiency by upgrading the existing plants.

The recommendations put forth, ranging from incentivizing efficient fertilizer use to reorienting subsidy policies, underscore the need for strategic reforms. The emphasis on innovation, research, and collaboration to enhance fertilizer use efficiency aligns with the vision of a sustainable and resilient agricultural future and must be addressed.

Related Posts

Organizing National Technical Workshops to Effectively Implement Soil Values

Future Proofing: Unified Action for Soil Health and Food Security

Find IFDC at AFSH

Subscribe for updates.

46 David Lilienthal Dr, Muscle Shoals, AL 35661 1100 17th St NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036

research.rabobank.com uses cookies

By using cookies we ensure our website is safe and user-friendly. They also mean we can inform you better. The level of cookies and processing of personal information we apply is up to you.

An optimized customer experience, including videos, podcasts and information about relevant products and services on Rabobank.com and research.rabobank.com.

A functioning website only.

RaboResearch

Food & Agribusiness

• Agri Commodity Markets
• Animal Protein
• Consumer Foods
• Farm Inputs
• Fresh Produce
• Grains & Oilseeds
• Packaging & Logistics
• New Zealand
• North America
• South America
•   Food & Agri Home
•   Sectors
•   Farm Inputs

Forecasting India’s Fertilizer Volumes: Horizon 2030

This report forecasts fertilizer consumption volumes with the goal of establishing a horizon for the Indian fertilizer industry through 2030. The forecasts, which are made using statistical time series forecasting models, provide the industry with a reference for long-term planning, and offer corporate and government agencies a tool for making decisions that are in the best interests of India’s agriculture and fertilizer industries.

Where to go from here

• The Indian Agricultural Landscape and Its Impact on Agrochemical Consumption: A Look Toward 2030
• Farm Inputs Sector Team

Related Content

• New Zealand agribusiness May 2024: Loitering headwinds in China
• Australia agribusiness May 2024: Wet or dry, planting is underway
• Australian farmland price outlook 2024: Cooling down as rationality returns
• Semiannual fertilizer outlook: The quest for recovering lost demand

Advertisement

An overview of the global fertilizer trends and India’s position in 2020

• Original Paper
• Published: 07 January 2021
• Volume 34 , pages 371–384, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Kirtikumar Randive   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5275-8425 1 ,
• Tejashree Raut 1 &
• Sanjeevani Jawadand 1  

2945 Accesses

48 Citations

Explore all metrics

The growing world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, which will increase the present demand for food by ~ 70%. Consequently, to boost agrarian production and achieve food security, within limited arable land, the effective use of fertilizers becomes critical. However, the economic efficiency of mineral fertilizers has fallen dramatically as the price hike in fertilizers became dearer than food. The current winds of global climate change due to continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities have been posing unprecedented challenges before the agriculture sector and fertilizer industry. The limited geological resources of raw material for the manufacture of fertilizers and market fluctuations of fertilizer minerals initiate wide-reaching competition and raise challenge of food security. It is observed since the last century that the production of fertilizer minerals has risen almost constantly; however, consumption varied greatly from one region to another. It remained constant or declined in Western Europe and North America, but increased rapidly in East and South Asia especially in China and India. The Asian share of global fertilizer consumption is more than 60% and growing rapidly. This supply-demand pattern influences mineral fertilizers’ trade-flow and thereby global competition. Hence, there is a need to develop the fertilizer mineral sector and adopt policies and strategies to ensure materials security. The sustainable agricultural intensification and the agronomical proportions, timing, and placement with the right source are crucial factors which determine the sustainable utility of fertilizer minerals. In the wake of the above, we provide a critical appraisal of fertilizer minerals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Fertilizer consumption trend in developing countries vs. developed countries.

Efficient Use of Nitrogen Fertilizers: A Basic Necessity for Food and Environmental Security

Bibliometric and literature review of the development of mineral fertilizers

The planetary boundary (PB), a concept introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate (Steffen et al. 2015 ).

Abdulkarim AY, Abdulsalam S, Aliyu E-NU, Muhammad IM (2019) Bio-fertilizers via co-digestion: a review. Traektoriâ Nauki- Path Sci 5(6) ISSN 2413-9009

Arovuori K, Karikallio H (2009) Consumption patterns and competition in the world fertilizer markets. 19th Symposium of the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, June 20–21, 2009, Budapest, Hungary pp 1–15. https://www.ifama.org/resources/files/2009-Symposium/1035_paper.pdf

Arslan A, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A, Kokwe M (2015) Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. J Agric Econ 66(3):753–780

Article   Google Scholar  

Baffes J, Koh WC (2018) Fertilizer prices to rise in 2019 on supportive fundamentals. https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/fertilizer-prices-rise-2019-supportive-fundamentals . Accessed 20 Sep 2020

Baffes J, Koh WC (2020) Mixed results for fertilizers amid COVID-19 panic. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/mixed-results-fertilizers-amid-covid-19-panic . Accessed 25 July 2020

Baffeswee J, Koh C (2019) Fertilizer market outlook: potash prices to rise in 2019 but urea and phosphates remain subdued. https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/fertilizer-market-outlook-potash-prices-rise-2019-urea-and-phosphates-remain . Accessed 11 Mar 2020

Bindraban PS, Dimkpa CO, Pandey R (2020) Exploring phosphorus fertilizers and fertilization strategies for improved human and environmental health. Biol Fertil Soils 56:299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-019-01430-2

Brentrup F (2009) The impact of mineral fertilizers on the carbon footprint of crop production. Conference paper. International Plant Nutrition Colloquium XVI, University of California, Davis/US

Google Scholar  

Brentrup F, Lammel J (2011) LCA to assess the environmental impact of different fertilisers and agricultural systems. Proc. Int. Fertiliser Society, April 14, York, UK

Brentrup F, Palliere C (2008) GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser production and use. Proc. International Fertiliser Society, December 11, York, UK

Business Wire (2019) India’s Fertilizer Market: 2019–2024 Analysis & Outlook with a CAGR Projection of 12.3% - ResearchAndMarkets.com.  https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190701005584/en/Indias-Fertilizer-Market-2019-2024-Analysis-Outlook-with-a-CAGR-Projection-of-12.3---ResearchAndMarkets.com#:~:text=com%20%7C%20Business%20Wire-,India's%20Fertilizer%20Market%3A%202019%2D2024%20Analysis%20%26%20Outlook%20with%20a,of%2012.3%25%20%2D%20ResearchAndMarkets.com&text=The%20Indian%20fertilizer%20market%20was,12.3%25%20during%202019%2D2024 . Accessed 23 Sep 2020

Chand S (2016) Growth and distribution of fertilizers industry in India. www.yourarticlelibrary.com . Accessed 15 May 2019

Childers DL, Corman J, Edwards M, Elser JJ (2011) Sustainability challenges of phosphorus and food: solutions from closing the human phosphorus cycle. BioScience 61(2):117–124. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.6

Chun-Li W, Shiuan-Yuh C, Chiu-Chung Y (2010) Present situation and future perspective of bio-fertilizer for environmentally friendly agriculture. Environmental science.  https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Present-situation-and-future-perspectives-of-for-Chun-li-ShiuanYuh/74099737b73e45b3694018e7309d9238f703da3d

Cordell D, Drangert J-O, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Chang 19:292–305

Datta PS, Deb DL, Tyagi SK (1997) Assessment of groundwater contamination from fertilizers in the Delhi area based on 18O, NO3- and K+ composition. J Contam Hydrol 27:249–262

Dawson CJ, Hilton J (2011) Fertilizer availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36:14–22

Drescher A, Glaser R, Richert C, Nippes K (2011) Demand for key nutrients (NPK) in the year 2050: Draft Report. University of Freiburg. Department of Geography, pp 41–46.  https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/NPK/Documents/Freiburg_Demand_for_key_nutrients_in_2050_Drescher.pdf

ECOTECH Research and Consulting (2001) Final Report: Chapter 9: Fertilizer taxes. Study on Environmental Taxes and Charges in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/ch9_fertilisers.pdf . Accessed 17 July 2020

Factbook (2019) Nutrien Factbook 2019. https://www.nutrien.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2019-05/Nutrien%20Fact%20Book%202019.pdf . Accessed 20 September 2020

FAI (2016) Fertilizer Statistics 2015–2016. Fertilizer Association of India. http://www.krishijagran.com/farm-data/indian-fertilizer-sector-at-a-glance/ . Accessed 17 February 2020

FAO (2005) The state of food and agriculture 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome

FAO (2009) Resource STAT-Fertilizer. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/site/575/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=575#ancor . Accessed 12 March 2009

FAO (2012) The state of food and agriculture 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome, 165p

FAO (2016) World fertilizer trends and outlook to 2019. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome.  https://www.fao.org/publication . Accessed 25 October 2020

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. p 163. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf . Accessed 11 Oct 2020

FAO (2019) The state of food and agriculture 2019. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  http://ww.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf . Accessed 2 Nov 2020

FAO (2020a) World fertilizer trends and outlook to 2022. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome, 28p

FAO (2020b) Global trends, statistics and insights for fertilizer. Published by NationMaster. https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/sector/fertilizer . Accessed 28 Sep 2020

Fertilizer Canada (2018) Annual Report Value Add+. https://fertilizercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fc_annualreport2018_en_vf2-web.pdf . Accessed 20 Oct 2020

Garside M (2019) Distribution of global potash reserves by select country 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/604174/distribution-of-potash-reserves-worldwide-by-select-country/ . Accessed 5 Sep 2020

Geissler B, Mew MC, Steiner G (2019) Phosphate supply security for importing countries: developments and the current situation. Sci Total Environ 677:511–523

Gilbert N (2009) The disappearing nutrient. Nature 461:716–718

Grand View Research (2019) Nitrogenous fertilizer market size, share and trends analysis report by product (urea, ammonium nitrate), by application (cereals and grains, oilseeds & pulses), by region, and segment forecasts, 2019–2025. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/nitrogenous-fertilizer-market#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20key%20market ,Limited%2C%20and%20Coromandel%20International%20Ltd. Accessed 8 Oct 2020

Gupta U (2014) Fertilizer industry in India- challenges and way-forward. http://www.uttamgupta.com/fertilizers/fertilizer-industry-in-india-challenges-way-forward . Accessed 23 Mar 2020

Haldar SK (2018) Chapter 13 Mineral processing. In: Haldar SK (ed) Mineral exploration: Principles and Applications, Second edn. Elsevier, pp 259–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-00902-3

Hanlon MT, Ray S, Saengwilai P, Luthe D, Lynch JP, Brown KM (2018) Buffered delivery of phosphate to Arabidopsis alters responses to low phosphate. J Exp Bot 69(5):1207–1219. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erx454

IBM (2015a) Apatite and Rock Phosphate. 52nd Edition Potash (Advance Release) Ministry of Mines Govt. of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, p 21. http://ibm.nic.in/writereaddata/files/08172015131038Apatite%20and%20Rock%20Phosphate.pdf

IBM (2015b) Indian Minerals Yearbook 2013 (Part- III: Mineral Reviews) 52nd Edition Potash (Advance Release). Ministry of Mines Govt. of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur p 5. www.ibm.gov.in . Accessed 17 Apr 2020

IBM (2017) Indian Minerals Yearbook 2017 (Part- III: Mineral Reviews) 56th Edition. Ministry of Mines Govt. of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur. www.ibm.gov.in

IBM (2018) Indian minerals yearbook 2017 (part- III: mineral reviews) 56th Edition. Ministry of Mines Govt. of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur. www.ibm.gov.in . Accessed 25 Oct 2020

IBM (2020) Indian minerals yearbook 2019 (part- III: mineral reviews) 58th Edition. Ministry of Mines Govt. of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur. www.ibm.gov.in . Accessed 15 Oct 2020

IFA (2019) Fertilizer Outlook 2019–2023. Annual Conference, Montreal, 11–13 June 2019. PIT, Market Intelligence and Agriculture Services, IFA. https://api.ifastat.org/reports/download/12620 . Accessed 24 Oct 2020

IFIA (2000) Mineral fertilizer use and the environment. International Fertilizer Industry Association. Revised edition, Paris 53p

Isherwood KF (2000) Fertilizer use and the environment. International Fertilizer Industry Association. Revised edition, Paris

Japan Fertilizer Ammonia Association (2003) Japan Fertilizer & Ammonia Producers Association. http://www.jaf.gr.jp/en.html . Accessed 9 Mar 2020

Kotschi J (2013) A soiled reputation: adverse impacts of mineral fertilizers in tropical agriculture. Heinrich Böll Foundation, WWF Germany 58p

Kotschi J (2015) Adverse impacts of mineral fertilizers in tropical agriculture, a soiled reputation. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Germany, pp 37–42

MacDonald GK, Bennett EM, Potter PA, Ramankutty N (2011) Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(7):3086–3091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010808108

Mala P (2013) Fertilizer scenario in India. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research 2(1):62–72. https://dokumen.tips/documents/fertilizer-scenario-in-india-indian-journal-of-social-science-interdisciplinary.html . Accessed 19 Mar 2020

Mao H, Wang J, Wang Z, Zan Y, Lyons G, Zou C (2014) Using agronomic biofortification to boost zinc, selenium, and iodine concentrations of food crops grown on the loess plateau in China. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 14:459–470

Maximum Yield Inc (2018) What is a fertilizer? - definition from yield. https://www.maximumyield.com/definition/202/fertilizer . Accessed 19 Oct 2020

Mew MC (2016) Phosphate rock costs, prices and resources interaction. Sci Total Environ 542:1008–1012

Mew MC, Steiner G, Geissler B (2018) Phosphorus supply chain—scientific, technical, and economic foundations: a transdisciplinary orientation. Sustainability 2018(10):1087. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041087

Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (2015) Self sufficiency in fertilizer production. Press Info. Bureau, Govt. of India. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=121426 . Accessed 8 Jan 2019

Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (2019) Demand – production details of fertilizers. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1595328 . Accessed 25 Aug 2020

Moberg F, Höök K, Salomonsson L, Mastroianni K, Lundberg J, Karlberg L, Rundgren G (2015) How to feed nine billion within the planet’s boundaries: the need for an agroecological approach. Swedish International Agricultural network Initiative, Sweden. https://www.siani.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/siani_agroecology_brief_march_4.pdf . Accessed 22 Nov 2020

Mogollon JM, Beusen AHW, van Grinsven HJM, Westhoek H, Bouwman AF (2018) Future agricultural phosphorus demand according to the shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob Environ Chang 50:149–163

Nemecek T, Elie OH, Dubois D, Gaillard G, Schaller B, Chervet A (2011) Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production. Agric Syst 104:233–245

Nielsen, HØ (2010) Bounded rationality in decision-making: How cognitive shortcuts and professional values may interfere with market-based regulation. Manchester University Press, Mancheste, p 256

Oldham L (2019) Secondary plant nutrients: calcium, magnesium, and sulfur. Mississippi State University. http://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/information-sheets/is1039_web.pdf . Accessed 12 august 2020

Pistilli M (2020) 10 top phosphate countries by production. https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/agriculture-investing/phosphate-investing/top-phosphate-countries-by-production/ . Accessed 28 September 2020

Quinn R (2020) Global fertilizer outlook – 6 global fertilizer demand bright. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/01/03/global-fertilizer-demand-bright . Accessed 25 August 2020

Rajani A (2019) Complex fertilizers. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30561.25446 . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335716743_COMPLEX_FERTILIZERS . Accessed 20 September 2020

Rakesh S, Juttu R, Jogula K, Raju B (2020) Glauconite: an indigenous and alternative source of potassium fertilizer for sustainable agriculture. Int J Bioresour Sci 7(1):17–19. https://doi.org/10.30954/2347-9655.01.2020.4

Reuters (2010) China needs to cut use of chemical fertilizers: research. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-agriculture-fertiliser/china-needs-to-cut-use-of-chemical-fertilizers-research-idUSTRE60D20T20100114 . Accessed 12 march 2020

Roberts TL (1999) The role of fertilizer in growing the world’s food. https://www.topcropmanager.com/the-role-of-fertilizer-in-growing-the-worlds-food-10387/ . Accessed 23 February 2020

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32p

Roser Max (2020) Future population growth. Published online at https://OurWorldInData.org . Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth (Online Resource). Accessed 18 Nov 2020

Savci S (2012) An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer. Int J Environ Sci Dev 3(1):77–80

Savoy H (2012) Fertilizers and their uses. Agricultural Extension Service. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/ Accessed 21 Mar 2020

Scherer HW (2000) Fertilizers Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry 2000. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.a10_323.pub3

Book   Google Scholar  

Schröder JJ (2014) The position of mineral nitrogen fertilizer in efficient use of nitrogen and land: a review. Nat Res Forum 5:936–948. https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/3015ce1c-62a9-3429-a002-2ac7bf90b283/ Accessed 5 Oct 2020

Singh C (2017) Evaluation of soil fertility status in soils of Balodabazar Block under Balodabazar District of Chhattisgarh. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Raipur 221p

Skowroñska M, Filipek T (2014) Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: a review. Int Agrophys 28:101–110. https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0032

Smil V (2004) Enriching the earth. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p 135 ISBN 978-0-262-69313-4

Sönmez I, Kaplan M, Sönmez S (2007) An investigation of seasonal changes in nitrate contents of soils and irrigation waters in greenhouses located in antalya-demre region. Asian J Chem 19(7):5639–5646

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace G, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Tabatabai MA (1987) Physicochemical fate of sulfate in soils. JAPCA 37(1):34–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08940630.1987.10466197

TFI (2018) 2018 state of the fertilizer industry. The Fertilizer Institute. p 54. https://www.tfi.org/sites/default/files/tfi-stateoftheindustry-2018.pdf . Accessed 15 Aug 2020

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979) Mineral fertilizers. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mineral+Fertilizers . Accessed 28 August 2020

UN Industrial Development Organization (1998) Fertilizer manual (3rd ed). International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC). Kluwer Academic, Boston, p 46

UNEP (2016a) Frontiers 2016 report: emerging issues of environmental concern. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi p 77. www.unep.org . Accessed 18 Oct 2020

UNEP (2016b) Food systems and natural resources. A report of the working group on food systems of the international resource panel Westhoek H, Ingram J, Van Berkum S, Özay L and Hajer M p 164. https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/food_systems_summary_report_english.pdf

UNEP/IFA (2001) Environmental aspects of phosphate and potash mining. United Nations Environment Programme and International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris

USGS (2019) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2019. U.S. Geological Survey. https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/mcs2019_all.pdf . Accessed 24 Feb 2020

USGS (2020) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2020. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2020

Villalba G, Liu Y, Schroder H, Ayres RU (2008) Global phosphorus flows in the industrial economy from a production perspective. J Ind Ecol 12:557–569

Wakeel A, Farooq M, Qadir M, Schubert S (2011) Potassium substitution by sodium in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30(4):401–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.587728

Williams J (2019) The worldwide fertilizer market to 2024. https://www.worldfertilizer.com/environment/21032019/the-worldwide-fertilizer-market-to-2024/ . Accessed 20 July 2020

World Bank (2020) Fertilizer consumption (% of fertilizer production) https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search?search_api_views_fulltext_op=AND&query=fertilizer&nid=&sort_by=search_api_relevance&sort_order=DESC . Accessed 28 Sep 2020

Youssef MMA, Eissa MFM (2014) Biofertilizers and their role in management of plant parasitic nematodes. A review. J Biotechnol Pharm Res 5(1):1–6

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geology, RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur, India

Kirtikumar Randive, Tejashree Raut & Sanjeevani Jawadand

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirtikumar Randive .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Randive, K., Raut, T. & Jawadand, S. An overview of the global fertilizer trends and India’s position in 2020. Miner Econ 34 , 371–384 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-020-00246-z

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 01 December 2020

Published : 07 January 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-020-00246-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Fertilizer minerals
• Food security
• Sustainable development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Agriculture and Farming
• Pesticides and Fertilizers

India Fertilizer Market

India Fertilizer Market to Grow at a CAGR of 4.3% During 2024-2032, Aided by Advancements in Agricultural Techniques

India Fertilizer Market Size, Share, Price, Trends, Growth: By Type: Chemical Fertilizer, Biofertilizer; By Product: Nitrogenous Fertilizers, Phosphatic Fertilizers, Potash Fertilizers, Complex Fertilizers, Others; By Formulation: Liquid, Dry; By Application: Grains and Cereals, Others; Regional Analysis; Competitive Landscape; 2024-2032

• Report Summary
• Table of Contents
• Pricing Detail
• Request Sample

India Fertilizer Market Outlook

The India fertilizer market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 4.3% between 2024 and 2032, reaching a projected value of USD 14.9 billion by 2032. The market growth is being driven by increasing demand for food production and improvements in agriculture processes.

Read more about this report -   REQUEST FREE SAMPLE COPY IN PDF

News and Developments in the India Fertilizer Market

In September 2023, Coromandel International launched an organic product named Cumist Calcium at Hotel Novotel in Vijayawada. The new product includes specialty nutrients and improves efficiency and soil health.

In August 2023, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizer instructed all companies to employ the new brand name ‘Bharat’ and the logo of the subsidy scheme on the bags in order to convey the government's decision.

In August 2023, Gujrat Chief Minister introduced IFFCO Nano Urea Spraying Scheme. The Gujarat CM praised the farmers for employing drones to spray nano urea for the first time in the state as well as encouraged them to take benefit of the innovative drone technology scheme in agriculture which will further help them in saving time and energy. This technology is expected to help support the India fertilizer market.

In September 2021, Coromandel International launched GroShakti Fertilizer. This fertilizer features advanced technology and an enhanced complex fertilizer with EnPhos Technology as well as Zincated 14-35-14. This offers a high nutrient percentage along with less filler material, due to which it does not damage the soil mechanism.

Key Trends in the India Fertilizer Market

Fertilizers are composed of phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen compounds as well as trace components and are used in agriculture to help support growth of crops. The major components in fertilizers are nutrients that are considered essential for the growth of plants. Plants employ nitrogen in the synthesis of nucleic acids, hormones, and proteins.

• The growth of the India fertilizer market is driven by the rising demand for food in the country due to the growing population and limited land availability.
• The huge agricultural demands and the rising size of the potential consumer base are expected to drive the market demand for fertilizer in the region due to increasing consumption of fertilizer.
• India is considered home to several leading private as well as government fertilizer companies. Several fertilizer companies in India are expanding from fertilizers to seeds and fungicides. This is likely to be one of the primary aspects behind the fertilizer market growth in India. 
• The rise in agricultural production and several government initiatives to enhance credit availability along with increasing investments are supporting the India fertilizer market growth during the forecast period.
• With the India’s sustainable production of food grains, the consumption of fertilizer is expected to increase over the coming years in the country.

India Fertilizer Market Analysis 

Based on type, the market can be segmented into chemical fertilizer and biofertilizer. On the basis of product, the market can be divided into nitrogenous fertilizers, phosphatic fertilizers, potash fertilizers, and complex fertilizers, among others. Nitrogenous fertilizers are further divided by type into urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate, and anhydrous ammonia , among others, while phosphatic fertilizers are sub-divided by type into monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP), among others. Meanwhile, potash fertilizers are divided by type into muriate of potash (MOP), among others.

On the basis of formulation, the market is segmented into liquid and dry. Based on application, the market is segregated into grains and cereals, pulses and oilseeds, commercial crops, and fruits and vegetables, among others. The regional markets for fertilizers in India can be divided into North India, West India, South India, and East and Central India.

The comprehensive EMR report provides an in-depth assessment of the India fertilizer market based on the Porter's five forces model along with giving a SWOT analysis. The report gives a detailed analysis of the following key players in the India fertilizer market, covering their competitive landscape and latest developments like mergers, acquisitions, investments and expansion plans.

• Coromandel International Limited
• Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd
• Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd
• Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO)
• Rama Phosphates Limited
• ICL Group Ltd
• The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT)
• Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (DFPCL)
• Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited
• Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCFL)
• National Fertilizers Limited
• Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd

India Fertilizer Market Share by Formulation

The liquid segment is expected to gain momentum in the India fertilizer market as farmers have been spraying and sprinkling water-soluble fertilizers in the fields to accelerate the nutrient uptake of plants. Over the coming years, products that aid in sustaining the NPK nutrient balance are likely to be broadly adopted as they are consistent with all kinds of pesticides. Moreover, one of the key major advantages of liquid fertilizer is that the liquid penetrates the soil immediately, and plants are provided with faster access to nutrients.

India Fertilizer Market Share by product

The nitrogenous fertilizers segment is expected to witness growth in India fertilizer market on account of the high consumption of urea in the country. Urea fertilizer consists of superior nitrogen content along with low production cost, as the source is natural which is further expected to boost the segment growth in the market across the country. The various advantages of urea fertilizers like wide range of applications, storage that is non-flammable and risk-free, suitability for every type of soil and crop, neutral pH, and harmlessness for crops and soil, are likely to enhance the segment demand in the fertilizer market.

Competitive Landscape 

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd is an Indian agrochemicals manufacturing company. It has strengthened its position as a leading player in the India fertilizer market after the commissioning of the Gadepan III plant. The company is dedicated to its social duties and has invested in areas ranging from water harvesting and rural infrastructure, to healthcare, women empowerment, skill development, and education. 

Coromandel International Limited is India’s leading and pioneering agri-solutions supplier, providing various products and services all over the farming value chain. Its ‘Farmer First’ approach and quality focus, along with consumer connection initiatives have aided in gaining farmers’ trust and have founded ‘Gromor’ among the most trusted brands across the country.

Rama Phosphates Limited is a leading manufacturer of phosphatic fertilizers for the India fertilizer market, particularly Single Super Phosphate (SSP) fertilizers. It manufactures  SSP fertilizers in powder and granule form,  as well as mixed fertilizers such as NPK of different grades, fortified fertilizers such as boronated Single Super Phosphate, micronutrients such as magnesium sulphate, and chemicals like sulphuric acid and oleum. 

The Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. is a specialty chemicals and commodity chemicals manufacturing company. The company aims to maintain a healthy relationship with the environment, extend its responsibility to society, and prioritise sustainable development.

Other market players include Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), ICL Group Ltd, The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT), Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (DFPCL), Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCFL), National Fertilizers Limited, and Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd, among others.

Key Highlights of the Report

Read our best selling reports:.

India Mayonnaise Market

Latin America Ice Cream Market

Latin America Jewellery Market

Latin America Protein Supplement Market

Latin America PVC Pipes Market

Logistics Market

Machining Centres Market

Middle East Copper Rod and Busbar Market

Netherlands Rainwater Harvesting Market

Over The Top (OTT) Market

*At Expert Market Research, we strive to always give you current and accurate information. The numbers depicted in the description are indicative and may differ from the actual numbers in the final EMR report.

1    Preface 2    Report Coverage – Key Segmentation and Scope 3    Report Description     3.1    Market Definition and Outlook     3.2    Properties and Applications     3.3    Market Analysis     3.4    Key Players 4    Key Assumptions 5    Executive Summary     5.1    Overview     5.2    Key Drivers         5.3    Key Developments     5.4    Competitive Structure     5.5    Key Industrial Trends 6    Market Snapshot 7    Opportunities and Challenges in the Market 8    Global Fertilizer Market Overview     8.1    Key Industry Highlights     8.2    Global Fertilizer Historical Market (2018-2023)      8.3    Global Fertilizer Market Forecast (2024-2032)     8.4    Global Fertilizer Market Share by Region         8.4.1    North America         8.4.2    Europe         8.4.3    Asia Pacific         8.4.4    Latin America         8.4.5    Middle East and Africa 9    India Fertilizer Market Overview     9.1    Key Industry Highlights     9.2    India Fertilizer Historical Market (2018-2023)      9.3    India Fertilizer Market Forecast (2024-2032) 10    India Fertilizer Market by Type     10.1    Chemical Fertilizer         10.1.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         10.1.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     10.2    Biofertilizer         10.2.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         10.2.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032) 11    India Fertilizer Market by Product     11.1    Nitrogenous Fertilizers         11.1.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         11.1.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)         11.1.3    Breakup by Type             11.1.3.1    Urea             11.1.3.2    Ammonium Nitrate             11.1.3.3    Ammonium Sulphate             11.1.3.4    Anhydrous Ammonia             11.1.3.5    Others     11.2    Phosphatic Fertilizers         11.2.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         11.2.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)         11.2.3    Breakup by Type             11.2.3.1    Monoammonium Phosphate (MAP)             11.2.3.2    Diammonium Phosphate (DAP)             11.2.3.3    Others     11.3    Potash Fertilizers         11.3.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         11.3.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)         11.3.3    Breakup by Type             11.3.3.1    Muriate of Potash (MOP)             11.3.3.2    Others     11.4    Complex Fertilizers         11.4.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         11.4.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     11.5    Others 12    India Fertilizer Market by Formulation     12.1    Liquid         12.1.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         12.1.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     12.2    Dry         12.2.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         12.2.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032) 13    India Fertilizer Market by Application     13.1    Grains and Cereals         13.1.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         13.1.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     13.2    Pulses and Oilseeds         13.2.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         13.2.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     13.3    Commercial Crops         13.3.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         13.3.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     13.4    Fruits and Vegetables         13.4.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         13.4.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     13.5    Others 14    India Fertilizer Market by Region     14.1    North India         14.1.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         14.1.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     14.2    East and Central India         14.2.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         14.2.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     14.3    West India         14.3.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         14.3.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032)     14.4    South India         14.4.1    Historical Trend (2018-2023)         14.4.2    Forecast Trend (2024-2032) 15    Market Dynamics     15.1    SWOT Analysis         15.1.1    Strengths         15.1.2    Weaknesses         15.1.3    Opportunities         15.1.4    Threats     15.2    Porter’s Five Forces Analysis         15.2.1    Supplier’s Power         15.2.2    Buyer’s Power         15.2.3    Threat of New Entrants         15.2.4    Degree of Rivalry         15.2.5    Threat of Substitutes     15.3    Key Indicators for Demand     15.4    Key Indicators for Price 16    Value Chain Analysis 17    Trade Data Analysis (HS Code - 310520)     17.1    Major Importing Countries         17.1.1    By Volume         17.1.2    By Value     17.2    Major Exporting Countries         17.2.1    By Volume         17.2.2    By Value 18    Price Analysis 19    Competitive Landscape     19.1    Market Structure     19.2    Company Profiles         19.2.1    Coromandel International Limited             19.2.1.1    Company Overview             19.2.1.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.1.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.1.4    Certifications         19.2.2    Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd             19.2.2.1    Company Overview             19.2.2.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.2.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.2.4    Certifications         19.2.3    Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd             19.2.3.1    Company Overview             19.2.3.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.3.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.3.4    Certifications         19.2.4    Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO)             19.2.4.1    Company Overview             19.2.4.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.4.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.4.4    Certifications         19.2.5    Rama Phosphates Limited             19.2.5.1    Company Overview             19.2.5.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.5.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.5.4    Certifications         19.2.6    ICL Group Ltd             19.2.6.1    Company Overview             19.2.6.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.6.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.6.4    Certifications         19.2.7    The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT)             19.2.7.1    Company Overview             19.2.7.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.7.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.7.4    Certifications         19.2.8    Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (DFPCL)             19.2.8.1    Company Overview             19.2.8.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.8.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.8.4    Certifications         19.2.9    Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited             19.2.9.1    Company Overview             19.2.9.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.9.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.9.4    Certifications         19.2.10    Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCFL)             19.2.10.1    Company Overview             19.2.10.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.10.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.10.4    Certifications         19.2.11    National Fertilizers Limited             19.2.11.1    Company Overview             19.2.11.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.11.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.11.4    Certifications         19.2.12    Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd             19.2.12.1    Company Overview             19.2.12.2    Product Portfolio             19.2.12.3    Demographic Reach and Achievements             19.2.12.4    Certifications         19.2.13    Others 20    Key Trends and Developments in the Market

List of Key Figures and Tables

1.    Global Fertilizer Market: Key Industry Highlights, 2018 and 2032 2.    India Fertilizer Market: Key Industry Highlights, 2018 and 2032 3.    India Fertilizer Historical Market: Breakup by Type (USD Billion), 2018-2023 4.    India Fertilizer Market Forecast: Breakup by Type (USD Billion), 2024-2032 5.    India Fertilizer Historical Market: Breakup by Product (USD Billion), 2018-2023 6.    India Fertilizer Market Forecast: Breakup by Product (USD Billion), 2024-2032 7.    India Fertilizer Historical Market: Breakup by Formulation (USD Billion), 2018-2023 8.    India Fertilizer Market Forecast: Breakup by Formulation (USD Billion), 2024-2032 9.    India Fertilizer Historical Market: Breakup by Application (USD Billion), 2018-2023 10.    India Fertilizer Market Forecast: Breakup by Application (USD Billion), 2024-2032 11.    India Fertilizer Historical Market: Breakup by Region (USD Billion), 2018-2023 12.    India Fertilizer Market Forecast: Breakup by Region (USD Billion), 2024-2032 13.    Major Importing Countries by Volume 14.    Major Exporting Countries by Volume 15.    Major Importing Countries by Value 16.    Major Exporting Countries by Value 17.    India Fertilizer Market Structure

What is the growth rate of the India fertilizer market?

The market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.3% between 2024 and 2032.

What is the forecast outlook of the India fertilizer market for 2024-2032?

The market is estimated to witness healthy growth in the forecast period of 2024-2032, reaching a valuation of USD 14.9 billion by 2032.

What are the major drivers for the fertilizer market in India?

The major market drivers are the surging agriculture industry and increasing consumption of fertilizer.

What are the key trends in the fertilizer market?

The key India fertilizer market trends include rapid growth in technology along with growing awareness regarding the environment and increasing disposable income.

What are the major regions in the fertilizer market across India?

The major regions in the market are North India, West India, South India, and East and Central India.

What are the primary types in the fertilizer market?

The primary types in fertilizer market include chemical fertilizer and biofertilizer.

What are the various products in the fertilizer market?

The various products in the fertilizer market include nitrogenous fertilizers, phosphatic fertilizers, potash fertilizers, and complex fertilizers, among others.

What are the various formulations in the fertilizer market?

The various formulation in fertilizer market are liquid and dry.

What are the different applications of the fertilizer market?

The different applications of fertilizer market include grains and cereals, pulses and oilseeds, commercial crops, and fruits and vegetables, among others.

Who are the key market players in the fertilizer market in India, according to the report?

The major players in the market are Coromandel International Limited, Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO), Rama Phosphates Limited, ICL Group Ltd, The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT), Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (DFPCL), Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCFL), National Fertilizers Limited, and Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd, among others.

Purchase Options 10% off

Methodology  

Request Customisation

Report Sample

Request Brochure

Ask an Analyst

( USA & Canada ) +1-415-325-5166 [email protected]

( United Kingdom ) +44-702-402-5790 [email protected]

Mini Report

• Selected Sections, One User
• Printing Not Allowed
• Email Delivery in PDF
• Free Limited Customisation
• Post Sales Analyst Support
• 50% Discount on Next Update

Single User License

• All Sections, One User
• One Print Allowed

Five User License

• All Sections, Five Users
• Five Prints Allowed

Corporate License

• All Sections, Unlimited Users
• Unlimited Prints Allowed
• Email Delivery in PDF + Excel

Any Question? Speak With An Analyst

View A Sample

Did You Miss Anything, Ask Now

Right People

We are technically excellent, strategic, practical, experienced and efficient; our analysts are hand-picked based on having the right attributes to work successfully and execute projects based on your expectations.

Right Methodology

We leverage our cutting-edge technology, our access to trusted databases, and our knowledge of the current models used in the market to deliver you research solutions that are tailored to your needs and put you ahead of the curve.

Right Price

We deliver in-depth and superior quality research in prices that are reasonable, unmatchable, and shows our understanding of your resource structure. We, additionally, offer attractive discounts on our upcoming reports.

Right Support

Our team of expert analysts are at your beck and call to deliver you optimum results that are customised to meet your precise needs within the specified timeframe and help you form a better understanding of the industry.

Stay informed with our free industry updates.

We use cookies, just to track visits to our website, we store no personal details. Privacy Policy X

Press Release

Industry Statistics

India Biofertilizer Market SIZE & SHARE ANALYSIS - GROWTH TRENDS & FORECASTS UP TO 2029

The India Biofertilizer Market is segmented by Form (Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Mycorrhiza, Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria, Rhizobium) and by Crop Type (Cash Crops, Horticultural Crops, Row Crops). The report offers market size in both market value in USD and market volume in metric ton. Further, the report includes market split by form and various crop types.

INSTANT ACCESS

• India Biofertilizer Market Size

Key Players

Why buy from us, india biofertilizer market analysis.

The India Biofertilizer Market size is estimated at 10.63 million USD in 2024, and is expected to reach 16.50 million USD by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 9.20% during the forecast period (2024-2029).

10.63 Million

Market size in 2024 (usd), 16.50 million, market size in 2029 (usd), cagr (2017-2023), cagr (2024-2029), largest by form, value share, mycorrhiza, 2023.

The mycorrhizal association helps boost phosphorus, other nutrients, and water absorption from the soil, supporting plant growth and development and increasing yield.

Fastest by Form

Projected cagr, rhizobium, 2024-2029.

Rhizobium's symbiotic association with some species of legume crops can fix 200-300 kilograms of nitrogen per year and can reduce dependence on chemical nitrogen fertilizers.

Largest by Crop Type

Value share, row crops, 2023.

The dominance of row crops is mainly due to their large organic cultivation areain the country, which accounted for about 59.8% of the total organic crop area in 2022.

Fastest by Crop Type

Projected cagr, row crops, 2024-2029.

There is an increasing trend in the overall organic row crop area in the country, which has increased from 409.2 thousand hectares in 2017 to 424.4 thousand hectares in 2021.

Leading Market Player

Market share, indian farmers fertiliser cooperative limited, 2022.

The biofertilizer products offered by the company are compatible with all types of crops like cereals, horticultural crops and cash crops sold under the IFFCO brand name

• Biofertilizers are organic substances with living microorganisms that promote plant growth. The Indian biofertilizer market value increased by about 11.0% between 2017 to 2021, which can be attributed to various reasons like the increasing awareness among farmers, the increasing overall registered organic farms in India, and a shift in demand for organically or sustainably grown commodities. India ranks fifth in terms of world organic agriculture land and first in terms of the total number of producers as of 2021.
• Mycorrhizal-based biofertilizers dominated the market, which was valued at USD 5.8 million in 2022. This is mainly due to the mycorrhizal association holding the ability to boost phosphorus, other nutrients, and water absorption from the soil, supporting plant growth and development and increasing yield. It also helps the plant fight against adverse soil conditions. However, Rhizobium and Azospirillum-based biofertilizer market values are anticipated to grow at faster rates compared to other biofertilizers.
• The consumption of biofertilizers is dominant in the row, and it accounted for about 88.3% of the market value in 2022. The dominance of row crops is mainly due to their large cultivation area in the country, which accounted for about 59.8% of the total organic crop area in the same year.
• There is a huge demand for organic products both in domestic and international markets. The overuse of chemical fertilizers is one of the major challenges in the country. The Indian government is promoting sustainable or organic cultivation practices through various schemes or programs by providing incentives for biofertilizers, which would drive the market during the forecast period.
• India Biofertilizer Market Trends

Growing number of organic producers helping the increase in area under organic cultivation, primarily in row crops

• India is the largest country, in terms of the total number of certified organic producers in the world, with 1.3 million organic producers in 2019. Despite having a large number of organic producers, organic cultivation areas in the country account for around 2.0% of the total agriculture area in the country. In 2021, the organic area in the country was recorded as 711,094.0 hectares, which increased by about 3.4% compared to 2017.
• Organic farming in the country is concentrated in only a few states. The top ten organic farming states in the country account for about 80.0% of the total organic crop area. A few states have taken the lead in improving organic farming coverage, like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, which are the top three organic farming states in the country. Madhya Pradesh alone accounted for about 27.0% of India’s total organic cultivation area in 2019.
• Organic cultivation of row crops is dominant in the country, which accounted for about 59.7% of the total organic crop area in 2021. Cereal crop production is dominant rice, wheat, millet, and maize are the major cereals produced. Most cereal crops are grown in the kharif season (June - September). The crops grown in this season are mainly rain dependent or require more water, like rice, maize, cotton, and soybean.
• The overall organic cash crop cultivation area increased from 2.7 lakh hectares in 2017 to 2.8 lakh hectares in 2021. The major cash crops produced in the country are cotton, sugarcane, tea, and spices. There is a limited growth of organic horticultural crops currently in the country. The increasing demand for organic products and Indian government initiatives to go organic are anticipated to increase organic crop area during the forecast period.

Growing demand and their easy accessibility through e-commerce channels, rising the per capita spending on organic food

• India's per capita spending on organic products is relatively low at USD 0.23 compared to the average per capita spending on organic products in Asia-Pacific. However, in recent years, shifting consumer demand has increased toward organic products as more customers perceive these items offer better immunity, higher quality, and more accessibility through e-commerce channels. India is a promising and developing market for organic foods and beverages. India's domestic organic food and beverage industry is expected to be worth USD 138.0 million by 2024, rising at a compound annual growth rate of 13% between 2019 to 2024.
• In 2022, the total combined organic food and beverages worth USD 108.0 million consumed in the country. The consumption value of organic products in the country increased from USD 45 million in 2016 to USD 96.0 million in 2021. Organic food sales have seen an increasing trend mainly due to increasing consumer awareness, and high-income consumers are propelling organic food and beverage consumption. Categories that gained the most demand included essential foods, such as organic eggs, dairy, and fruits and vegetables.
• Organic beverage consumption dominated the market and accounted for about 85.2% of the total combined organic food and beverages market value in 2022. The organic beverages segment includes organic packaged food and beverages that are certified by the approved certification body. Organic beverage consumption value increased at a CAGR of 14% between 2020 to 2022. The price premium associated with organic products hampers lower-income consumer access and is the major limiting factor for organic food consumption. However, organic products' active promotion and advantages drive the organic food market during the forecast period.  

India Biofertilizer Industry Overview

The India Biofertilizer Market is fairly consolidated, with the top five companies occupying 74.08%. The major players in this market are Biostadt India Limited, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited and National Fertilizers Limited (sorted alphabetically).

India Biofertilizer Market Leaders

Biostadt India Limited

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited

Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited

National Fertilizers Limited

Other important companies include GrowTech Agri Science Private Limited, IPL Biologicals Limited, Madras Fertilizers Limited, Samriddhi Crops India Pvt. Ltd, T.Stanes and Company Limited.

*Disclaimer: Major Players sorted in alphabetical order.

India Biofertilizer Market News

• November 2019 : IPL Biologicals Limited launched four new biofertilizer products, including Nitrogcea, Phosphacea, Potacea, and Zinkaacea, in Maharashtra, India.

Free with this Report

Along with the report, We also offer a comprehensive and exhaustive data pack on Areas under organic cultivation, one of the key trends that affect the market size of agricultural biologicals. This data pack also includes areas under cultivation by crop types, such as Row Crops (Cereals, Pulses, and Oilseeds), Horticultural Crops (Fruits and Vegetables), and Cash Crops in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America and Africa.

India Biofertilizer Market Report - Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & KEY FINDINGS

REPORT OFFERS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Study Assumptions & Market Definition

1.2. Scope of the Study​

1.3. Research Methodology

2. KEY INDUSTRY TRENDS

2.1. Area Under Organic Cultivation

2.2. Per Capita Spending On Organic Products

2.3. Regulatory Framework

2.3.1. India

2.4. Value Chain & Distribution Channel Analysis

3. MARKET SEGMENTATION (includes market size in Value in USD and Volume, Forecasts up to 2029 and analysis of growth prospects)

3.1.1. Azospirillum

3.1.2. Azotobacter

3.1.3. Mycorrhiza

3.1.4. Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria

3.1.5. Rhizobium

3.1.6. Other Biofertilizers

3.2. Crop Type

3.2.1. Cash Crops

3.2.2. Horticultural Crops

3.2.3. Row Crops

4. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE

4.1. Key Strategic Moves

4.2. Market Share Analysis

4.3. Company Landscape

4.4. Company Profiles (includes Global Level Overview, Market Level Overview, Core Business Segments, Financials, Headcount, Key Information, Market Rank, Market Share, Products and Services, and Analysis of Recent Developments).

4.4.1. Biostadt India Limited

4.4.2. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited

4.4.3. GrowTech Agri Science Private Limited

4.4.4. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd

4.4.5. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited

4.4.6. IPL Biologicals Limited

4.4.7. Madras Fertilizers Limited

4.4.8. National Fertilizers Limited

4.4.9. Samriddhi Crops India Pvt. Ltd

4.4.10. T.Stanes and Company Limited

5. KEY STRATEGIC QUESTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL BIOLOGICALS CEOS

6. APPENDIX

6.1. Global Overview

6.1.1. Overview

6.1.2. Porter’s Five Forces Framework

6.1.3. Global Value Chain Analysis

6.1.4. Market Dynamics (DROs)

6.2. Sources & References

6.3. List of Tables & Figures

6.4. Primary Insights

6.5. Data Pack

6.6. Glossary of Terms

List of Tables & Figures

• Figure 1:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, AREA UNDER ORGANIC CULTIVATION, HECTARES, 2017 - 2022
• Figure 2:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, PER CAPITA SPENDING ON ORGANIC PRODUCTS, USD, 2017 - 2022
• Figure 3:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VOLUME, METRIC TON, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 4:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VALUE, USD, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 5:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, BY FORM, VOLUME, METRIC TON, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 6:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, BY FORM, VALUE, USD, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 7:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VOLUME SHARE(%), BY FORM, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 8:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VALUE SHARE(%), BY FORM, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 9:  
• Figure 10:  
• Figure 11:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VALUE SHARE(%), BY CROP TYPE, 2022 - 2029
• Figure 12:  
• Figure 13:  
• Figure 14:  
• Figure 15:  
• Figure 16:  
• Figure 17:  
• Figure 18:  
• Figure 19:  
• Figure 20:  
• Figure 21:  
• Figure 22:  
• Figure 23:  
• Figure 24:  
• Figure 25:  
• Figure 26:  
• Figure 27:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, BY CROP TYPE, VOLUME, METRIC TON, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 28:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, BY CROP TYPE, VALUE, USD, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 29:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VOLUME SHARE(%), BY CROP TYPE, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 30:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VALUE SHARE(%), BY CROP TYPE, 2017 - 2029
• Figure 31:  
• Figure 32:  
• Figure 33:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, VALUE SHARE(%), BY FORM, 2022 - 2029
• Figure 34:  
• Figure 35:  
• Figure 36:  
• Figure 37:  
• Figure 38:  
• Figure 39:  
• Figure 40:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, MOST ACTIVE COMPANIES, BY NUMBER OF STRATEGIC MOVES, 2017-2022
• Figure 41:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET, MOST ADOPTED STRATEGIES, 2017-2022
• Figure 42:  
• INDIA BIOFERTILIZER MARKET SHARE(%), BY MAJOR PLAYERS, 2023

India Biofertilizer Industry Segmentation

Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Mycorrhiza, Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria, Rhizobium are covered as segments by Form. Cash Crops, Horticultural Crops, Row Crops are covered as segments by Crop Type.

Market Definition

• AVERAGE DOSAGE RATE - The average application rate is the average volume of biofertilizers applied per hectare of farmland in the respective region/country.
• CROP TYPE - Crop type includes Row crops (Cereals, Pulses, Oilseeds), Horticultural Crops (Fruits and vegetables) and Cash Crops (Plantation Crops, Fibre Crops and Other Industrial Crops)
• FUNCTION - The crop nutrition function of agricultural biological consists of various products that provide essential plant nutrients and enhance soil quality.
• TYPE - Biofertilizers enhance soil quality by increasing the population of beneficial microorganisms. They help crops absorb nutrients from the environment.

Research Methodology

Mordor Intelligence follows a four-step methodology in all our reports.

• Step-1: Identify Key Variables: In order to build a robust forecasting methodology, the variables and factors identified in Step-1 are tested against available historical market numbers. Through an iterative process, the variables required for market forecast are set and the model is built on the basis of these variables.
• Step-2: Build a Market Model: Market-size estimations for the forecast years are in nominal terms. Inflation is not a part of the pricing, and the average selling price (ASP) is kept constant throughout the forecast period.
• Step-3: Validate and Finalize: In this important step, all market numbers, variables and analyst calls are validated through an extensive network of primary research experts from the market studied. The respondents are selected across levels and functions to generate a holistic picture of the market studied.
• Step-4: Research Outputs: Syndicated Reports, Custom Consulting Assignments, Databases & Subscription Platforms.

Please enter a valid email id!

Please enter a valid message!

India Biofertilizer Market Research FAQs

How big is the india biofertilizer market.

The India Biofertilizer Market size is expected to reach USD 10.63 million in 2024 and grow at a CAGR of 9.20% to reach USD 16.50 million by 2029.

What is the current India Biofertilizer Market size?

In 2024, the India Biofertilizer Market size is expected to reach USD 10.63 million.

Who are the key players in India Biofertilizer Market?

Biostadt India Limited, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited and National Fertilizers Limited are the major companies operating in the India Biofertilizer Market.

Which segment has the biggest share in the India Biofertilizer Market?

In the India Biofertilizer Market, the Mycorrhiza segment accounts for the largest share by form.

Which is the fastest growing segment in the India Biofertilizer Market?

In 2024, the Rhizobium segment accounts for the fastest growing by form in the India Biofertilizer Market.

What years does this India Biofertilizer Market cover, and what was the market size in 2023?

In 2023, the India Biofertilizer Market size was estimated at 10.63 million. The report covers the India Biofertilizer Market historical market size for years: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. The report also forecasts the India Biofertilizer Market size for years: 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029.

Our Best Selling Reports

• Novel Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS) Market
• Global Oncology Clinical Trials Market
• Thermoplastic Elastomers Market
• Medical Exoskeleton Market
• Global Smart Contact Lenses Market
• Clinical Laboratory Services Market
• Peptide Antibiotics Market
• Cell Lysis Market
• Global Expression Vectors Market
• Global Cell Line Development Market

India Biofertilizer Industry Report

Statistics for the 2023 India Biofertilizer market share, size and revenue growth rate, created by Mordor Intelligence™ Industry Reports. India Biofertilizer analysis includes a market forecast outlook to 2029 and historical overview. Get a sample of this industry analysis as a free report PDF download.

India Biofertilizer Market Report Snapshots

• India Biofertilizer Market Share
• India Biofertilizer Companies

India Biofertilizer Market Get a free sample of this report

Please enter your name

Business Email

Please enter a valid email

Please enter your phone number

Get this Data in a Free Sample of the India Biofertilizer Market Report

Please enter your requirement

Thank you for your Purchase. Your payment is successful. The Report will be delivered in 2 - 4 hours. Our sales representative will reach you shortly with the details.

Please be sure to check your spam folder too.

Sorry! Payment Failed. Please check with your bank for further details.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE NOW

Please enter a valid email address

You will receive the requested sample via email. Please be sure to check Your spam folder too.

Add Citation APA MLA Chicago

➜ Embed Code X

Get Embed Code

Want to use this image? X

Please copy & paste this embed code onto your site:

Images must be attributed to Mordor Intelligence. Learn more

About The Embed Code X

Mordor Intelligence's images may only be used with attribution back to Mordor Intelligence. Using the Mordor Intelligence's embed code renders the image with an attribution line that satisfies this requirement.

In addition, by using the embed code, you reduce the load on your web server, because the image will be hosted on the same worldwide content delivery network Mordor Intelligence uses instead of your web server.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• News & Views
• Published: 08 May 2024
• Agriculture

Fertilizer application improvements in China

• Yulong Yin 1 &
• Zhenling Cui 1  

Nature Food ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Environmental impact

Management practices including augmenting the ratio of organic to chemical fertilizers, implementing deep application techniques and reintegrating straw into fields can bolster food production while optimizing resource use efficiency and abating nitrogen pollution in China.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Global Report on Food Crises (Global Network Against Food Crises, 2023).

Sutton, M. A. et al. Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food & Energy With Less Pollution (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative, 2013).

Ren, C. et al. Nat. Food 4 , 294–304 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Duan, J. et al. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00953-8 (2024).

Cui, Z. et al. Nature 555 , 363–366 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Li, T. et al. Glob. Change Biol 24 , e511–e521 (2018).

Kang, J. et al. Nat. Food 4 , 751–761 (2023).

Liu, B. et al. Nat. Food 5 , 241–250 (2024).

Gu, B. et al. Nature 613 , 77–84 (2023).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yin, Y. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2106576118 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Nutrient Use and Management, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions, Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Low-carbon Green Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China

Yulong Yin & Zhenling Cui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhenling Cui .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Yin, Y., Cui, Z. Fertilizer application improvements in China. Nat Food (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00982-3

Download citation

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00982-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.