ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Sustain. Food Syst.
Sec. Climate-Smart Food Systems
This article is part of the Research TopicBuilding Resilience Through Sustainability: Innovative Strategies In Agricultural SystemsView all 32 articles
Optimizing productivity, profitability and the carbon–energy nexus of the mustard–mungbean cropping system with micronized sulphonated urea
Provisionally accepted- 1ICAR - Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
- 2ICAR National Bureau of Soil Survey & Land Use Planning, Nagpur, India
- 3Division of Agricultural Physics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
- 4ICAR - Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Widespread sulfur (S) deficiency in India is attributed to crop intensification, use of S free fertilizers, reduced sulfur dioxide deposition, etc which is one of the major factors for low oilseed productivity and quality. At present whatever conventional S fertilizers used by the farmers, exhibit low S recovery (~10%). However, the novel fertilizers like micronized sulfonated urea (MSU) such as Sulphonated urea II (US-II) contains 10% N and 75% S and Sulphonated urea I (US I) contain 40% N and 13% S with slow reales nature, have shown potential to improve nutrient use efficiency, soil health and productivity. Although, research on these novel fertilizers is limited, especially with regard to dosage and timing of application and its comparative assessment with conventional S fertilizers on productivity, profitability and/ or on energy, carbon footprints in mustard-mungbean cropping system (MMCS). Therefore, a study was conducted to evaluate MSU (US-I and II) with ammonium sulfate (AS), bentonite S (BNT) and SSP, applied 100% basal or split (50% basal + 50% as top dressing). The US II strategic application (15 kg S ha-1 at sowing and 15 kg S ha-1 at 30 days after sowing), significantly (P=0.05) improved system productivity (17.14%) followed by US I (16%), ammonium sulfate (6%) and bentonite S (5.14%) over NPK with no S. This treatment has also enhanced oil content (5.69%), protein content (1.81%-mustard; 1.29%- mungbean) and net returns (mustard; 28.13%; mungbean; 14.16%). Further, carbon output (CO2 e ha-1), carbon sustainability index, eco-efficiency index ($ kg-1 CO2e) and energy use efficiency (MJ ha-1) were higher under US-II, which were 15370, 4.27, 0.49 and 0.17, over S unfertilized plot, where the values of these parameters were 12706, 3.38, 0.39 and 0.14, respectively. The CO2 emissions intensity (1.06 CO2e kg-1 seed) is decreased under US-II strategic application over no S unfertilized plots (1.28 CO2e kg-1 seed). The study concluded that US-II (15 kg S ha-1 at sowing and 15 kg S ha-1 at 30 days after sowing) improved MMCS productivity, protein and oil content, profitability and carbon-energy-nexus of MMCS over conventional S fertilizers (ammonium sulfate, bentonite S, SSP) and S unfertilized plot
Keywords: Carbon Footprint, Eco-efficiency, Nitrogen, Sulfur, Sulphonated urea, sustainability index
Received: 30 Sep 2025; Accepted: 25 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kumar, Rathore, Shekhawat, Singh, Babu, Singh, Prasad, Kumar, Hasanain, PRAJAPATI, Kumar and Singh. 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) or licensor 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:
Sanjay Singh Rathore
Kapila Shekhawat
Mohammad Hasanain
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
