| Literature DB >> 24492201 |
Tao Huang1, Bing Gao1, Xiao-Kang Hu2, Xing Lu2, Reinhard Well3, Peter Christie2, Lars R Bakken4, Xiao-Tang Ju2.
Abstract
We combine field observations, microcosm, stoichiometry, and molecular and stable isotope techniques to quantifyEntities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24492201 PMCID: PMC3912618 DOI: 10.1038/srep03950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Cumulative N2O emissions in response to soil conditions in pot microcosm incubation experiments.
(a), N2O emission as a function of soil water filled pore space (WFPS). CK denotes control treatment. U denotes applied urea at a rate of 40 mg N kg−1. US denotes application of urea with comminuted wheat straw. (b), N2O emission as a function of NH4+-based fertilizer (ammonium sulfate) input rate at 70% WFPS. (c), Effect of nitrogen (urea), carbon source (comminuted wheat straw), and nitrification inhibitors (DMPP and DCD) on soil N2O emission at 70% WFPS. DMPP and DCD denote 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate and dicyandiamide, respectively. Error bars in plots (a–c) are standard deviation of the mean (n = 3 replicates).
Figure 2Stoichiometric relationships between N2O, CO2, O2 and urea-N input rate.
(a), N2O emission as a function of urea-N input rate. (b), CO2 emission as a function of urea-N input rate. (c), O2 consumption as a function of urea-N input rate. In plot (c), NN and ND denote nitrifier nitrification and nitrifier denitrification, respectively. Note that O2 consumption in the highest urea input treatment (U320) was not included due to the development of anaerobic conditions in the later stages of incubation and the units of x- and y-axis in plot (c) are different from plots (a & b).
Figure 3Kinetics of gaseous N2O, NO, N2, O2, and CO2 in robotized analytical/incubation systems.
(a), Control treatment (CK). (b), Ammonium sulfate (AS). (c), AS with nitrification inhibitor (AS + NI) 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP). (d), Calcium nitrate (CN). (e), CN with glucose (CN + C). (f), without oxygen from the system of treatment CN + C (CN + C-O2). Soils were incubated at 70% WFPS. Error bars in plots (a–f) are standard deviation of the mean (n = 4 replicates). Note that the right and left y axis scales have large differences. In some cases the error bars are smaller than the symbols.
Figure 4Isotopic fingerprints and emissions of N2O.
(a), δ18O. (b), δ15Nbulk. (c), δ15N site preference (SP). (d), δ18O (vs. SMOW) versus SP. (e), δ18O versus δ15Nbulk. (f), cumulative N2O emissions. AS, CN, CN + C, and CK denote amendment with ammonium sulfate, calcium nitrate, and calcium nitrate + glucose + compaction of soil, and control, respectively. Error bars in plots (a), (b), (c), and (f) are standard deviation of the mean (n = 4). Note that data points are individual observations of the treatments in plots (d) and (e).
Figure 5Conceptual model of N2O generation in the intensively managed calcareous Fluvo-aquic soil.