Next Article in Journal
Application of Density Plots and Time Series Modelling to the Analysis of Nitrogen Dioxides Measured by Low-Cost and Reference Sensors in Urban Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
Winter Malting Barley Growth, Yield, and Quality following Leguminous Cover Crops in the Northeast United States
Previous Article in Journal
Intra- and Inter-Annual Variability in the Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen in an Urbanized River before and after Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades: Case Study in the Grand River (Southwestern Ontario)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nitrogen
Volume 2
Issue 2
10.3390/nitrogen2020011
nitrogen-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Four Nitrification Inhibitors for Mitigating Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Three Different Textured Soils

by
Yafei Guo
,
Asif Naeem
and
Karl H. Mühling
*
Institute of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, Kiel University, Hermann-Rodewald-Strasse 2, 24118 Kiel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nitrogen 2021, 2(2), 155-166; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen2020011
Submission received: 23 March 2021 / Revised: 8 April 2021 / Accepted: 9 April 2021 / Published: 13 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Nitrogen Supply: Linking Plant Available N to Ecosystems Functions and Productivity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nitrification inhibitors (NIs) can be used to reduce both NO3−-N leaching and N2O-N emissions. However, the comparative efficacies of NIs can be strongly affected by soil type. Therefore, the efficacies of four nitrification inhibitors (dicyandiamide (DCD), 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), nitrogenous mineral fertilizers containing the DMPP ammonium stabilizer (ENTEC) and active ingredients: 3.00–3.25% 1, 2, 4-triazole and 1.50–1.65% 3-methylpyrazole (PIADIN)) were investigated in three different textured N-fertilized (0.5 g NH4+-N kg−1 soil) soils of Schleswig-Holstein, namely, Marsch (clayey), Östliches Hügelland (loamy) and Geest (sandy) under a controlled environment. Total CO2-C and N2O-N emissions were significantly higher from Marsch than Östliches Hügelland and Geest. In Marsch, DMPP showed the highest inhibitory effect on CO2-C emission (50%), followed by PIADIN (32%) and ENTEC (16%). In Östliches Hügelland, DCD and PIADIN showed the highest and equal inhibitory effect on CO2-C emission (73%), followed by DMPP (64%) and ENTEC (36%). In Marsch and Östliches Hügelland, DCD showed the stronger inhibitory effect on N2O-N emission (86% and 47%) than DMPP (56% and 30%) and PIADIN (54% and 16%). In Geest, DMPP was more effective in reducing N2O-N emission (88%) than PIADIN (70%) and DCD (33%). Thus, it can be concluded that DCD is a better NI for clay and loamy soils, while DMPP and PIADIN are better for sandy soils to inhibit soil nitrification and gaseous emissions.

1. Introduction

Nitrogen is an important element for plant growth in agro-ecosystems [1], but the effectiveness of applied fertilizer N in crops rarely exceeds 40% [2]. Chemical N fertilizer constitutes approximately 75% of the total EU input of reactive N [3], and between 40% and 70% of the fertilizer N applied is lost to the atmosphere or the hydrosphere [4]. The majority of applied N is lost from agriculture through ammonia (NH3) volatilization, gaseous emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and di-nitrogen (N2) and nitrate (NO3−) leaching [5]. Soil NO3−-N leaching and N2O emission are processes responsible for both N losses from agricultural soils as well as environmental pollution [6,7]. Beyond its powerful greenhouse effect, N2O is also a major ozone-depleting substance involved in the destruction of the protective ozone layer in the stratosphere [8].
The concentration of N2O, which is about 300 times more reactive a gas than CO2, has risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005 [9], primarily due to agricultural practices and increased use of industrial fertilizers [1,10]. It has been estimated that agricultural soils produce 2.8 (1.7–4.8) Tg N2O-N year−1 and contribute approximately 65% of the atmospheric N2O loading [8,9]. In Europe, N2O emissions from agricultural soils contribute about 70% of the total annual N2O emissions (European Environment Agency, 2015). Application of N to soils as chemical or organic fertilizers stimulates nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, mainly through the processes of denitrification and nitrification [11,12]. Nitrification is an aerobic process in which ammonium (NH4+) is first oxidized to nitrite (NO2−) and then nitrate (NO3−) [1], and it plays a key role in the soil N cycle [13]. During the oxidation of NH4+ to NO2−, N2O can be produced as an intermediate and liberated into the atmosphere [1]. Denitrification is an anaerobic microbial process in which organic carbon is used as an energy source and NO3− is reduced to gaseous N compounds, including N2 and N2O [14].
Nitrification inhibitors (NIs) are used to improve the efficiency of N fertilizers through decreasing both NO3− leaching and gaseous N emissions [14,15]. NIs can decelerate the rate of soil nitrification by deactivating the enzyme ammonia monooxygenase (AMO) responsible for catalyzing ammonia oxidation, the first and rate-limiting step of nitrification, which is produced by ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) [16]. As NO3− is the initial required substrate for denitrification, the use of NIs decreases N2O emissions from both processes (nitrification and denitrification) [1].
The production of N2O, and in turn CO2 emission, in soil and its inhibition by NIs are complex processes, which can be influenced by different factors such as physicochemical characteristics of the soil. Among these, texture is a major soil characteristic that governs various soil properties, and hence the relative effectiveness of NIs may be different in different textured soils. Soil texture can influence the effectiveness of NIs by affecting their stability/persistence and absorption in soils. Some NIs such as 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) have been shown to affect N2O emission by decreasing soil pH [17], which can also vary with soil texture. Some studies have tested the effectiveness of NIs to reduce N2O emissions but results varied considerably because the studies were carried out under different soil conditions [1]. Thus, it is difficult to draw any specific conclusions about the N2O mitigation potential of NIs in different textured soils.
This study investigates the effectiveness of four NIs, namely, dicyandiamide (DCD), 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), nitrogenous mineral fertilizers containing the DMPP ammonium stabilizer (ENTEC) and active ingredients: 3.00–3.25% 1, 2, 4-triazole and 1.50–1.65% 3-methylpyrazole (PIADIN) under three vastly different textured soils (clayey, loamy and sandy). We hypothesized that (i) clay contents would have a positive effect on soil N2O emissions; and (ii) DMPP would have a better performance than DCD, PIADIN and ENTEC in reducing soil CO2 and N2O emissions and the conversion of NH4+-N to NO3−-N under a range of soils with different textures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the variation in soil CO2 and N2O emissions, and NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations following the application of the abovementioned NIs in clayey (Marsch), loamy (Östliches Hügelland) and sandy (Geest) soils.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection, Preparation and Characterization of Soil

Three soils varying in soil texture were collected from the following three geological regions of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany: (1) the sandy outwash region (Geest, the outwash region is dominated by Brunic Arenosols or Cambisols, Podzols and Gleysols, as well as Histosols), (2) the Weichselian glacial region in the east (Östliches Hügelland, the Weichselian glacial deposits contain very fertile Luvisols, Cambisols, Anthrosols derived from colluvic material, Gleysols and Rheic Histosols), and (3) the marshland with alluvial deposits in the west (Marsch, the marshland includes different types of Fluvic Gleysols and Histosols) [18]. The selected soils represent the major soil types or climatic zones of the state of Schleswig-Holstein. The soils belong to three different natural grasslands of the state.
Soils from the upper 20 cm soil horizon were collected. Visible plant residues and stones were removed by passing soil through a 2 mm sieve. A representative subsample of each soil was analyzed for salient characteristics, namely, particle size distribution (clay, sand and silt), pH, total carbon (C) and N, NH4+-N and NO3−-N following standard methods (Table 1).

2.2. Incubation Experiment

Four NIs, namely, dicyandiamide (DCD), 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), nitrogenous mineral fertilizers containing the DMPP ammonium stabilizer (ENTEC) and PIADIN (active ingredients: 3.00–3.25% 1, 2, 4-triazole and 1.50–1.65% 3-methylpyrazole), were tested with the three different soil types (Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest). For comparison, a control without the addition of NI was also included for each soil type. The soils were packed into cylindrical pots (15 cm diameter and 33 cm length, sealed at the bottom) to achieve a bulk density of 1.4 g cm−3 with 20 cm depth. The experimental treatments, each having four replications, were arranged in a completely randomized design. All the pots were fertilized with 0.5g NH4+-N kg−1 soil using ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4) salt in solution form. The NIs were applied at 5% of applied NH4+-N (i.e., 25 mg kg−1 soil in solution form). The control treatment involved the application of N fertilizer and deionized water only. Deionized water was added each day to maintain the moisture content equivalent to the water-holding capacity of the soils. Following treatment application, pots were incubated for a period of 57 days in a climatic chamber adjusted to a consistent temperature (15 °C), soil moisture (80% soil water-holding capacity) and air humidity (50%).

2.3. Collection and Measurement of Emitted CO2 and N2O

The rate of CO2 and N2O emissions was calculated by measuring the concentration of these gases from each pot at different times. The CO2 and N2O samples were collected once a day during the first week, once after two days during the second week, and once after three days during the rest of the incubation period. For sampling, the pots were closed first and then gas samples were collected at 0, 20, 40 and 60 min. A 10-mL syringe with a hypodermic needle was used to collect the gas samples. The gas samples were stored in pre-evacuated Chromacol glass vials with chloro-butyl rubber lids that prevent the leakage of gas samples. Each gas sampling was carried out between 09:00 and 11:00 am. Except for the times when gas samples were collected, the pots were left open.
The concentrations of CO2 and N2O in the gas samples were measured by gas chromatograph (Agilent 7890A GC, Agilent, CA, USA). The rate of CO2 and N2O emissions from each pot (ppm/min) during lid closure was calculated using headspace volume of the pot and a linear relation between CO2 and N2O concentrations and time [19]. The flux of CO2-C (μg h−1 kg−1) and N2O-N (ng h−1 kg−1) was calculated with the following equation:
EN 2 - ON = R × 60 × V g a s × A R W s o i l × V m × 2 × 1000
ECO 2 - C = R × 60 × V g a s × A R W s o i l × V m
where ECO2/N2O is the flux of CO2-C (μg h−1 kg−1) and N2O-N (ng h−1 kg−1), R is the rate of CO2 and N2O emissions from each pot (ppm/min), Vgas is the gas volume in pot (L), Wsoil is the weight of dry soil in pot (kg), AR is the relative atomic mass of C and N, i.e., 12 and 14, respectively, and Vm is the molar volume of gas which is 23.7 L/mol at 15 °C. Total CO2 and N2O emissions during the experimental period were calculated from the daily emissions of the gases. The relative lowering of total N2O emission (%) from NI-treated soils as compared to control was regarded as the efficiency of NIs.

2.4. Analysis of NH4+ and NO3− in Soil

Soil samples (0–20 cm depth) were collected from the pots on day 1, 15, 29, 43 and 57 of incubation for the measurement of NH4+ and NO3− concentration. Each soil sample was divided into two subsamples; one was oven-dried at 105 °C for 8 h to calculate water content while the other was used for determination of NH4+ and NO3−. For the analysis of soil mineral N, 10 g of fresh soil was mixed with 40 mL of 0.0125 M CaCl2 solution (1:4) and shaken for 1 h. After centrifugation for 10 min, the extracts were filtered through Whatman filter paper No. 40 and stored at 4 °C. The extracts were analyzed for NH4+ and NO3− concentrations using a continuous flow analyzer (San++ Automated Wet Chemistry Analyzer—Continuous Flow Analyzer (CFA), Skalar, The Netherlands).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Soil CO2-C and N2O-N total emissions and NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations across different incubation times were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Treatment means for total CO2 and N2O emissions were compared using two-way ANOVA. The significance of differences between individual means and incubation times was determined using a Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test. The statistical analyses were performed by R statistical software (University of Auckland, Oakland, CA, USA) at a confidence level of 95% (p ≤ 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Fluxes of CO2-C and N2O-N

Marsch had the highest CO2-C flux, followed by Geest and the lowest in Östliches Hügelland (Figure 1). The flux of CO2-C progressively decreased with time in all the NI treatments under Marsch and Geest soils (Figure 1). In Marsch, DMPP had the lowest CO2-C flux during the incubation period (Figure 1, Table 2). CO2-C flux did not differ among the NI treatments during the incubation period in Geest soil (Figure 1). DCD, DMPP and PIADIN had the lowest CO2-C flux at 7 days of incubation in Östliches Hügelland soil (Figure 1).
Marsch had the highest N2O-N flux, followed by Östliches Hügelland and the lowest in Geest soil (Figure 2). Marsch and Östliches Hügelland soils with DCD and ENTEC applied had the lowest and the highest N2O-N flux, respectively, compared with the other NIs during the incubation period (Figure 2). In Geest, ENTEC showed the highest N2O-N flux during the incubation period while DMPP and PIADIN showed the lowest N2O-N flux (Figure 2).

3.2. Total Emissions of CO2-C and N2O-N

Total CO2-C emission during the incubation period was significantly higher from Marsch soil (274 mg kg−1) than Östliches Hügelland soil (54.6 mg kg−1) and Geest soil (60.3 mg kg−1) (Table 3). In Marsch soil, DMPP showed the highest inhibitory effect on CO2 emission (50%), followed by PIADIN (32%) and the lowest by ENTEC (16%). DCD did not influence CO2-C emission from Marsch soil (Table 3). In Östliches Hügelland soil, DCD and PIADIN showed the highest and equal inhibitory effect on CO2 emission (73%), followed by DMPP (64%) and the lowest by ENTEC (36%). The effect of the NIs on CO2 emission from Geest soils was nonsignificant.
Total N2O-N emission was also the highest from Marsch soil (8051 μg kg−1), followed by Östliches Hügelland soil (3516 μg kg−1) and the lowest from Geest soil (1313 μg kg−1) (Table 4). In Marsch and Östliches Hügelland soils, DCD showed the stronger inhibitory effect on N2O-N emission (86% and 47%, respectively) compared with DMPP (56% and 30%, respectively) and PIADIN (54% and 16%, respectively). In Geest soil, DMPP was more effective in reducing N2O-N emission (88%) than PIADIN (70%) and DCD (33%).

3.3. Soil NH4+-N and NO3−-N Concentrations

In Marsch soil, DCD, DMPP and PIADIN slowed down the nitrification process and maintained higher NH4+-N concentration and lower NO3−-N concentration as compared to control (Figure 3; Table 2). ENTEC did not affect NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations, which showed the same trend as that of control Marsch soil (Figure 3). NH4+-N concentration decreased and NO3−-N concentration increased progressively during the incubation period in control treatment of Östliches Hügelland soil, whereas DCD, DMPP and PIADIN maintained NH4+-N concentration at high levels and kept NO3−-N at lower levels as compared to control (Figure 3). Similarly, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN slowed down the decrease in NH4+-N and the increase in NO3−-N concentrations as compared to control in Geest soil (Figure 3). DMPP and PIADIN showed lower NO3−-N concentration as compared to DCD and ENTEC in Geest soil (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of Soil Type

Our results showed that CO2-C emission from Marsch soil was higher than from Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils (Figure 1, Table 3). This may be explained by the fact that Marsch soil had more organic matter and clay content than the other soils, and CO2 emission is positively linked to soil organic carbon (SOC) content [14]. Soil organic carbon content is linearly correlated to soil respiration [20]. Thomsen et al. [21] found that the emission of CO2 from the sandiest soil was lower than from the heavier textured soils due to a low content of potentially mineralizable native SOC. Moreover, CO2-C emissions from native SOC increased with increasing clay content but this relationship was ascribed to the different mineralogy of the soils [22].
Marsch soil showed the highest N2O-N emission, followed by Östliches Hügelland soil and the lowest by Geest soil (Table 4). Organic C and clay content of the three soils also followed the same decreasing order (Table 1). Microbial community structure of a soil plays an important role in defining the rate of nitrification and denitrification in soil [23], and a soil with higher microbial activity could result in higher N2O emissions [24]. Nitrogen mineralization and N2O emissions are influenced by soil organic matter [25] and microbial population [26]. Since nitrification is primarily an autotrophic process, with heterotrophic nitrification accounting for only 20% [27], C-substrate availability and N2O emissions from denitrification and nitrification are always positively related to each other [28,29]. Abbasi et al. [30] found that the process of denitrification and production of N2O were smaller in arable soil deficient in organic carbon compared with grassland soil with plenty of organic carbon. Cébron et al. [31] reported that the presence of organic carbon promoted the population of nitrifying bacteria in a clay-textured soil. Thus, higher organic carbon content in Marsch soil could be one possible reason for higher N2O emission from this soil. Moreover, higher N2O emission from Marsch than Geest soil may also be explained by the higher pH of this soil. Fan et al. [32] reported significantly higher N2O emission rates from three alkaline soils (pH 7.6–8.2) as compared to an acidic soil with a pH of 5.6.
Nitrification is also directly influenced by soil texture [25]. A fine-textured soil can retain more water and create more frequent and longer anaerobic conditions than a coarse- or medium-textured soil, and thus may result in faster denitrification and N2O emission [33]. Overall, the cumulative N2O-N emission from a clay soil was significantly higher than those from a loamy soil [33] and therefore N2O emissions increase with increasing clay content.

4.2. Effect of NIs

Except for CO2-C emission from Geest soil and N2O-N emission from ENTEC-treated soil, NIs significantly decreased CO2-C and N2O-N emissions in all other cases, but the magnitude of the inhibitory effect did not show any specific consistent trend with the soil texture (Table 3 and Table 4). Different results have been reported by previous researchers regarding the relative efficacy of NIs in varying textured soils. Barth et al. [18] found that NIs are more efficient in light soils than heavy soils, whereas Akiyama et al. [34] found that the effectiveness of NIs was relatively consistent across the various soil types. According to Fisk et al. [35], the efficacy of DMPP and DCD diminished with the addition of soil organic matter, and Marsden et al. [36] reported decreased efficacy with higher clay content. Volpi et al. [14] found that NIs were effective only in the soil with the highest nitrification activity and the lowest clay content.
In our study, we found that the comparative effectiveness of the NIs in inhibiting CO2-C and N2O-N emissions depended on soil type (Table 3 and Table 4). DCD had the highest inhibitory effect on soil nitrification in clay soil of Marsch, followed by loam soil of Östliches Hügelland and lowest in sandy soil of Geest (Table 4). Ernfors et al. [37] reported that the efficacy of DCD was soil-specific, whereas Wakelin et al. [38] found that the efficacy of DCD was not related to the soil type. The lowest efficacy of DCD in sandy soil as found in our study may be explained by the lowest decomposition of this NI in sandy soil as compared to heavy textured soils [1]. Moreover, McGeough et al. [7] found that DCD may not be an effective NI under heterotrophic nitrification, which is proportionally the dominant form of nitrification in sandy soil as compared to a heavy textured soil.
DMPP was reported to be highly specific and more effective in inhibiting nitrification as compared to DCD [39]. We found that the inhibitory effect of DMPP on N2O emission was more pronounced in the sandy soil of Geest than in the loamy and clay soils (Table 4). In short-term incubation experiments, Barth et al. [40] found that decreasing sand content reduced the efficacy of DMPP in retarding NH4+ oxidation. They found that the adsorption capacity of DMPP is positively correlated with clay content, and that a lower effectiveness of DMPP may be due to the adsorption of the NI on silt and clay particles. In their later study, the same group of researchers reported that DMPP had more pronounced inhibition of N2O emission in sandy than in loam soil [41]. The same explanation as given above for the effect of DMPP stands true for PIADIN, which showed the same trend of effectiveness in different textured soils as that of DMPP. DMPP has relatively low mobility [39,40,41,42,43], mineralizes slowly and thus has a longer-lasting inhibitory effect on nitrification than DCD [44,45].
Soil texture may affect organic carbon turnover by adsorption of organic carbon onto surfaces of clay or organic complexes [46]. Thus, the effect of different NIs on organic carbon decomposition could also be affected by soil texture. Our results showed that DCD did not influence the soil organic carbon decomposition in Marsch soil, and thus CO2-C emission from DCD-treated soil was the same as that from control soil (Table 3). DMPP had the best inhibitory effect on the organic carbon decomposition in Marsch soil. The NIs DCD, DMPP and PIADIN effectively inhibited the decomposition of organic carbon in Östliches Hügelland soil and resulted in the lowest CO2-C emissions (Table 3). ENTEC had the smallest inhibitory effect on the soil organic carbon decomposition in Östliches Hügelland soil.

5. Conclusions

CO2-C and N2O-N emissions were higher from N-fertilized clayey soils than from lighter textured loamy and sandy soils. DCD was proven the most effective NI in decreasing CO2-C and N2O-N emissions and inhibiting nitrification in the clayey and loamy soils. On the other hand, DMPP and PIADIN could decrease CO2-C and N2O-N emissions more effectively in the sandy soil. ENTEC remained the least effective in inhibiting CO2-C emission, whereas it did not inhibit N2O-N emission from the studied soils.
It is concluded that clayey soil has more gaseous emissions and NIs perform differently depending on the soil texture to inhibit soil nitrification and gaseous emissions. DCD is a better NI for clay and loamy soils while DMPP and PIADIN are better for sandy soil to inhibit soil nitrification and gaseous emissions. ENTEC is ineffective in all soil textures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H.M.; methodology, software, writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, A.N. and K.H.M.; supervision, K.H.M.; funding acquisition, K.H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Ph.D. project funding from the Society of Energy and Climate (EKSH) of Schleswig-Holstein, grant number 14/12-24, and by a George Forster Post-Doctorate Fellowship grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions.

Acknowledgments

K.H.M. and Y.G. acknowledge Ph.D. project funding from the Society of Energy and Climate (EKSH) of Schleswig-Holstein (14/12-24). A.N. is thankful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for a George Forster Post-Doctorate Fellowship grant.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gilsanz, C.; Báez, D.; Misselbrook, T.H.; Dhanoa, M.S.; Cárdenas, L.M. Development of emission factors and efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors, DCD and DMPP. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 216, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, D.; Suter, H.; Islam, A.; Edis, R.; Freney, J.R.; Walker, C.N. Prospects of improving efficiency of fertiliser nitrogen in Australian agriculture: A review of enhanced efficiency fertilisers. Soil Res. 2008, 46, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Van Grinsven, H.J.M.; Spiertz, J.H.J.; Westhoek, H.J.; Bouwman, A.F.; Erisman, J.W. Nitrogen use and food production in European regions from a global perspective. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 152, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sutton, M.A.; Howard, C.M.; Erisman, J.W.; Billen, G.; Bleeker, A.; Grennfelt, P.; van Grinsven, H.; Grizetti, B. The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu, R.; Hayden, H.L.; Hu, H.; He, J.; Suter, H.; Chen, D. Effects of the nitrification inhibitor acetylene on nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms of different agricultural soils under laboratory incubation conditions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 119, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Harrison, R.; Webb, J. A review of the effect of N fertilizer type on gaseous emissions. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001; Volume 73, pp. 65–108. [Google Scholar]
  7. McGeough, K.; Watson, C.; Müller, C.; Laughlin, R.; Chadwick, D. Evidence that the efficacy of the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) is affected by soil properties in UK soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 94, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ravishankara, A.R.; Daniel, J.S.; Portmann, R.W. Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century. Science 2009, 326, 123–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. IPCC. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hénault, C.; Grossel, A.; Mary, B.; Roussel, M.; Léonard, J. Nitrous oxide emission by agricultural soils: A review of spatial andtemporal variability for mitigation. Pedosphere 2021, 22, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hu, H.-W.; Chen, D.; He, J.-Z. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: Understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 39, 729–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, J.; Müller, C.; Cai, Z. Heterotrophic nitrification of organic N and its contribution to nitrous oxide emissions in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 84, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khalil, M.I.; Buegger, F.; Schraml, M.; Gutser, R.; Richards, K.G.; Schmidhalter, U. Gaseous Nitrogen Losses from a Cambisol Cropped to Spring Wheat with Urea Sizes and Placement Depths. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1335–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Volpi, I.; Laville, P.; Bonari, E.; o di Nasso, N.N.; Bosco, S. Improving the management of mineral fertilizers for nitrous oxide mitigation: The effect of nitrogen fertilizer type, urease and nitrification inhibitors in two different textured soils. Geoderma 2017, 307, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boeckx, P.; Xu, X.; Van Cleemput, O. Mitigation of N2O and CH4 Emission from Rice and Wheat Cropping Systems Using Dicyandiamide and Hydroquinone. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 72, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, L.-M.; Hu, H.-W.; Shen, J.-P.; He, J.-Z. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea have more important role than ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in ammonia oxidation of strongly acidic soils. ISME J. 2011, 6, 1032–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Barth, G.; Von Tucher, S.; Schmidhalter, U.; Otto, R.; Motavalli, P.; Ferraz-Almeida, R.; Sattolo, T.M.S.; Cantarella, H.; Vitti, G.C. Performance of nitrification inhibitors with different nitrogen fertilizers and soil textures. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2019, 182, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Horn, R.; Mordhorst, A.; Fleige, H.; Zimmermann, I.; Burbaum, B.; Filipinski, M.; Cordsen, E. Soil type and land use effects on tensorial properties of saturated hydraulic conductivity in northern Germany. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2020, 71, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Venterea, R.T.; Petersen, S.O.; De Klein, C.A.; Pedersen, A.R.; Noble, A.D.L.; Rees, R.M.; Gamble, J.D.; Parkin, T.B. Global Research Alliance N2O chamber methodology guidelines: Flux calculations. J. Environ. Qual. 2020, 49, 1141–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lou, Y.; Zhou, L. Soil Respiration and the Environment; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; p. 33. [Google Scholar]
  21. Thomsen, I.K.; Schjønning, P.; Olesen, J.E.; Christensen, B.T. C and N turnover in structurally intact soils of different texture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Parfitt, R.L.; Salt, G.J.; Saggar, S. Effect of leaching and clay content on carbon and nitrogen mineralisation in maize and pasture soils. Soil Res. 2001, 39, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Baggs, E.M.; Dannenmann, M.; Kiese, R.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: How well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 368, 20130122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schaufler, G.; Kitzler, B.; Schindlbacher, A.; Skiba, U.; Sutton, M.A.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from European soils under different land use: Effects of soil moisture and temperature. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stehfest, E.; Bouwman, L. N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: Summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2006, 74, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hart, S.C.; Nason, G.E.; Myrold, D.D.; Perry, D.A. Dynamics of Gross Nitrogen Transformations in an Old-Growth Forest: The Carbon Connection. Ecology 1994, 75, 880–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, R.; Suter, H.; Hayden, H.; He, J.; Chen, D. Nitrate production is mainly heterotrophic in an acid dairy soil with high organic content in Australia. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2015, 51, 891–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, C.; Frolking, S.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Carbon Sequestration in Arable Soils is Likely to Increase Nitrous Oxide Emissions, Offsetting Reductions in Climate Radiative Forcing. Clim. Chang. 2005, 72, 321–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wan, Y.; Ju, X.; Ingwersen, J.; Schwarz, U.; Stange, C.F.; Zhang, F.; Streck, T. Gross Nitrogen Transformations and Related Nitrous Oxide Emissions in an Intensively Used Calcareous Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abbasi, M.K.; Hina, M.; Tahir, M.M. Effect of Azadirachta indica (neem), sodium thiosulphate and calcium chloride on changes in nitrogen transformations and inhibition of nitrification in soil incubated under laboratory conditions. Chemosphere 2011, 82, 1629–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cébron, A.; Berthe, T.; Garnier, J. Nitrification and Nitrifying Bacteria in the Lower Seine River and Estuary (France). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 7091–7100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Fan, C.; Li, B.; Xiong, Z. Nitrification inhibitors mitigated reactive gaseous nitrogen intensity in intensive vegetable soils from China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Köster, J.R.; Well, R.; Dittert, K.; Giesemann, A.; Lewicka-Szczebak, D.; Mühling, K.H.; Herrmann, A.; Lammel, J.; Senbayram, M. Soil denitrification potential and its influence on N2O reduction and N2O isotopomer ratios. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2013, 27, 2363–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: Meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 16, 1837–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fisk, L.; Maccarone, L.; Barton, L.; Murphy, D. Nitrapyrin decreased nitrification of nitrogen released from soil organic matter but not amoA gene abundance at high soil temperature. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 88, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Marsden, K.A.; Marín-Martínez, A.J.; Vallejo, A.; Hill, P.W.; Jones, D.L.; Chadwick, D.R. The mobility of nitrification inhibitors under simulated ruminant urine deposition and rainfall: A comparison between DCD and DMPP. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2016, 52, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ernfors, M.; Brennan, F.P.; Richards, K.G.; McGeough, K.L.; Griffiths, B.S.; Laughlin, R.J.; Watson, C.J.; Philippot, L.; Grant, J.; Minet, E.P.; et al. The nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide increases mineralization–immobilization turnover in slurry-amended grassland soil. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 152, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wakelin, S.; Williams, E.; O’Sullivan, C.A.; Cameron, K.C.; Di, H.J.; Cave, V.; O’Callaghan, M. Predicting the efficacy of the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide in pastoral soils. Plant Soil 2014, 381, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dittert, K.; Bol, R.; King, R.; Chadwick, D.; Hatch, D. Use of a novel nitrification inhibitor to reduce nitrous oxide emission from15N-labelled dairy slurry injected into soil. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2001, 15, 1291–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barth, G.; Von Tucher, S.; Schmidhalter, U. Influence of soil parameters on the effect of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole-phosphate as a nitrification inhibitor. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2001, 34, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barth, G.; Von Tucher, S.; Schmidhalter, U. Effectiveness of 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole Phosphate as Nitriflcation Inhibitor in Soil as Influenced by Inhibitor Concentration, Application Form, and Soil Matric Potential. Pedosphere 2008, 18, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Di, H.J.; Cameron, K.C.; Shen, J.-P.; Winefield, C.S.; O’Callaghan, M.; Bowatte, S.; He, J.-Z. Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea grow under contrasting soil nitrogen conditions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 72, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Di, H.J.; Cameron, K.C.; Sherlock, R.R. Comparison of the effectiveness of a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide, in reducing nitrous oxide emissions in four different soils under different climatic and management conditions. Soil Use Manag. 2007, 23, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Weiske, A.; Benckiser, G.; Herbert, T.; Ottow, J. Influence of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) in comparison to dicyandiamide (DCD) on nitrous oxide emissions, carbon dioxide fluxes and methane oxidation during 3 years of repeated application in field experiments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2001, 34, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Irigoyen, I.; Muro, J.; Azpilikueta, M.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.; Lamsfus, A.C. Ammonium oxidation kinetics in the presence of nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP at various temperatures. Soil Res. 2003, 41, 1177–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oades, J.M. The retention of organic matter in soils. Biogeochemistry 1988, 5, 35–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nitrogen 02 00011 g001 550
Figure 1. The flux of CO2-C emission as affected by control, dicyandiamide (DCD), 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), nitrogenous mineral fertilizers containing the DMPP ammonium stabilizer (ENTEC) and active ingredients: 3.00–3.25% 1, 2, 4-triazole and 1.50–1.65% 3-methylpyrazole (PIADIN) treatments in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils. The data points are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4).
Figure 1. The flux of CO2-C emission as affected by control, dicyandiamide (DCD), 3, 4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), nitrogenous mineral fertilizers containing the DMPP ammonium stabilizer (ENTEC) and active ingredients: 3.00–3.25% 1, 2, 4-triazole and 1.50–1.65% 3-methylpyrazole (PIADIN) treatments in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils. The data points are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4).
Nitrogen 02 00011 g001
Nitrogen 02 00011 g002 550
Figure 2. The flux of N2O-N emission as affected by control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN treatments in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils. The data points are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4).
Figure 2. The flux of N2O-N emission as affected by control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN treatments in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils. The data points are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4).
Nitrogen 02 00011 g002
Nitrogen 02 00011 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes in NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soil with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied. The data values are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4). Incubation times indicated by the same lowercase (NH4+) or uppercase (NO3−) letter(s) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 3. Changes in NH4+-N and NO3−-N concentrations in Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soil with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied. The data values are means of four independent pot replicates, and error bars represent standard errors of the means (n = 4). Incubation times indicated by the same lowercase (NH4+) or uppercase (NO3−) letter(s) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05.
Nitrogen 02 00011 g003
Table
Table 1. Salient characteristics of the experimental soils.
Table 1. Salient characteristics of the experimental soils.
CharacteristicMarschÖstliches HügellandGeest
Silt (%)10.6 ± 3.922.3 ± 9.119.2 ± 7.8
Sand (%)44.3 ± 5.462.3 ± 8.775.0 ± 6.6
Clay (%)45.1 ± 3.815.4 ± 4.65.8 ± 2.3
Textureclayeyloamysandy
Total C (g kg−1)20.8 ± 0.3412.0 ± 0.5013.2 ± 0.19
Total N (g kg−1)1.37 ± 0.011.13 ± 0.051.11 ± 0.02
NH4+-N (mg kg−1)0.86 ± 0.021.39 ± 0.063.56 ± 0.06
NO3−-N10.9 ± 0.3213.47 ± 0.590.08 ± 0.02
pH6.00 ± 1.727.40 ± 2.455.50 ± 2.03
Values (mean ± SE, n = 4).
Table
Table 2. The F test values for CO2-C flux, N2O-N flux, NH4+-N and NO3−-N under different texture soils with four nitrification inhibitors applied.
Table 2. The F test values for CO2-C flux, N2O-N flux, NH4+-N and NO3−-N under different texture soils with four nitrification inhibitors applied.
Soil TypeTreatmentCO2-C FluxN2O-N FluxNH4+-NNO3−-N
MarschControl0.0010.0160.0000.000
DCD0.0030.0140.0000.000
DMPP0.0450.0210.0930.089
ENTEC0.0150.0400.0000.000
PIADIN0.0060.0320.0000.000
Östliches HügellandControl0.0130.1400.0000.000
DCD0.0850.0170.0080.007
DMPP0.1240.0030.0000.000
ENTEC0.0040.0010.0000.000
PIADIN0.0450.0170.0620.000
GeestControl0.0000.0040.0010.000
DCD0.0000.0040.0000.000
DMPP0.0010.0110.0000.000
ENTEC0.0000.0000.0000.000
PIADIN0.0010.0340.0000.002
Table
Table 3. Total CO2-C emission during the incubation period from Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied under controlled conditions.
Table 3. Total CO2-C emission during the incubation period from Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied under controlled conditions.
NIMarschÖstliches HügellandGeest
Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)
Control274 ± 1.3a-54.6 ± 2.3e-60.3 ± 0.4e-
DCD261 ± 11.5a514.8 ± 1.7g7364.4 ± 1.2e−6.8
DMPP136 ± 3.8d5019.8 ± 0.3g6459.6 ± 4.4e1.2
ENTEC231 ± 11.3b1635.1 ± 0.5f3665.8 ± 1.4e−9.1
PIADIN187 ± 8.4c3214.5 ± 1.0g7465.0 ± 3.3e−7.8
The values (mean ± SE) are means of four independent pot replicates. The values indicated with the same lowercase letter(s) are not significantly different at p = 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Total N2O-N emissions during the incubation period from Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied under controlled conditions.
Table 4. Total N2O-N emissions during the incubation period from Marsch, Östliches Hügelland and Geest soils with control, DCD, DMPP, ENTEC and PIADIN applied under controlled conditions.
NIMarschÖstliches HügellandGeest
Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)Emission
(mg kg−1)		Decrease (%)
Control8051 ± 279b-3516 ± 24d 1313 ± 19i-
DCD1157 ± 222i861861 ± 102g47879 ± 34j33
DMPP3533 ± 81d562467 ± 74f30157 ± 23k88
ENTEC9849 ± 280a−224169 ± 42c−181569 ± 17h−19
PIADIN3708 ± 408dc542960 ± 105e16387 ± 83k70
The values (mean ± SE) are means of four independent pot replicates. The values indicated with the same lowercase letter(s) are not significantly different at p = 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guo, Y.; Naeem, A.; Mühling, K.H. Comparative Effectiveness of Four Nitrification Inhibitors for Mitigating Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Three Different Textured Soils. Nitrogen 2021, 2, 155-166. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen2020011

AMA Style

Guo Y, Naeem A, Mühling KH. Comparative Effectiveness of Four Nitrification Inhibitors for Mitigating Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Three Different Textured Soils. Nitrogen. 2021; 2(2):155-166. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen2020011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Yafei, Asif Naeem, and Karl H. Mühling. 2021. "Comparative Effectiveness of Four Nitrification Inhibitors for Mitigating Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Three Different Textured Soils" Nitrogen 2, no. 2: 155-166. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/nitrogen2020011

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop