Relationship between soil profile accumulation and surface emission of N2O: effects of soil moisture and fertilizer nitrogen
A soil column experiment was conducted to examine the effects of fertilizer N source and depth of placement on soil profile N2O accumulation and surface emissions at 44% and 77% water-filled pore space (WFPS). The used N fertilizers were polymer-coated urea, stabilized urea with urease and nitrification inhibitors, and conventional granular urea. Conventional urea and stabilized urea were applied either uniformly at 0–65 cm or deeply at a 40- to 65-cm depth of 65 cm repacked soil columns, whereas polymer-coated urea was subsurface banded at a 10-cm depth to reflect fertilizer application practices at a field scale. Profile N2O concentrations at 5, 15, 30, and 60 cm and surface flux were monitored over 3 months. Compared to conventional urea, stabilized urea and polymer-coated urea generally reduced N2O accumulation in the column, but not cumulative emissions. Across fertilizer sources, compared with uniform addition, deep placement reduced column N2O accumulation at 44% but not at 77% WFPS. Deep placement also reduced emissions 56–71% than for uniform placement. Column N2O accumulation doubled at 77% than 44% WFPS, whereas cumulative emissions and applied N–based emission factors were lower at the former WFPS value. Cumulative N2O emissions increased exponentially with total accumulation at 44% but not 77% WFPS. Reduced N2O emissions at high WFPS were likely due to consumption and low diffusivity of the gas in the soil profile, rather than low production by denitrification. These results suggest fertilizer N leached down the profile is less prone to N2O loss while emission reductions by using more efficient fertilizers may be limited.
KeywordsDenitrification WFPS Deep placement Enhanced efficiency fertilizers N2O concentration Emission factor
We thank Nutrien Ltd. and Koch Fertilizer Ltd. for providing polymer-coated urea and stabilized urea used in this study. The assistance of Zhiwen Ma on gas sampling is greatly appreciated.
This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31570002, 31870499), the China 1000 Talent Program (Y472171), and China Scholarship Council (201704910732).
- Carter MR (1993) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Lewis Publ. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Cook WP, Sanders DC (1991) Nitrogen application frequency for drip-irrigated tomatoes. Hortic Sci 26:250–252Google Scholar
- Davidson EA (1992) Sources of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide following wetting of dry soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:95–102. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600010015x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Di H, Cameron KC, Podolyan A, Robinson A (2014) Effect of soil moisture status and a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide, on ammonia oxidizer and denitrifier growth and nitrous oxide emissions in a grassland soil. Soil Biol Biochem 73:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Granli T, Bockman OC (1994) Nitrous oxide from agriculture. Nor J Agric Sci 12(Suppl):1–128Google Scholar
- Guardia G, Cangani MT, Andreu G, Sanz-Cobena A, García-Marco S, Álvarez JM, Recio-Huetos J, Vallejo A (2017) Effect of inhibitors and fertigation strategies on GHG emissions, NO fluxes and yield in irrigated maize. Field Crop Res 204:135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Laville P, Lehuger S, Loubet B, Chaumartin F, Cellier P (2011) Effect of management, climate and soil conditions on N2O and NO emissions from an arable crop rotation using high temporal resolution measurements. Agric For Meteorol 151:228–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Loveland PJ, Whalley WR (1991) Particle size analysis. In: Smith KA, Mullins CE (eds) Soil analysis: physical methods. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 271–328Google Scholar
- Marsden KA, Marín-Martínez AJ, Vallejo A, Hill PW, Jones DL, Chadwick DR (2016) The mobility of nitrification inhibitors under simulated ruminant urine deposition and rainfall: a comparison between DCD and DMPP. Biol Fertil Soils 52(4):491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-016-1092-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pedersen AR (2011) HMR: flux estimation with static chamber data. R package version 0.3.1. [Online] Available: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/HMR/index.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2018
- Qin S, Ding K, Clough TJ, Hu C, Luo J (2017) Temporal in situ dynamics of N2O reductase activity as affected by nitrogen fertilization and implications for the N2O/(N2O + N2) product ratio and N2O mitigation. Biol Fertil Soils 53:723–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1232-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SAS Institute (2011) SAS for Windows. Release 9.3. SAS Inst. Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
- Stark JM, Firestone MK (1995) Mechanisms for soil moisture effects on activity of nitrifying bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:218–221Google Scholar
- Tiedje J (1982) Denitrification. In: A.L. Page (Ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison. p.1011–1026Google Scholar
- Wang Q, Zhang L, Shen J, Du S, Han L, He J (2016) Nitrogen fertiliser-induced changes in N2O emissions are attributed more to ammonia-oxidising bacteria rather than archaea as revealed using 1-octyne and acetylene inhibitors in two arable soils. Biol Fertil Soils 52:1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-016-1151-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wang Y, Hu C, Ming H, Zhang Y, Li X, Dong W, Oenema O (2013) Concentration profiles of CH4, CO2 and N2O in soils of a wheat–maize rotation ecosystem in North China Plain, measured weekly over a whole year. Agric Ecosyst Environ 164:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar