Gaseous nitrogen losses from urea applied to maize on a calcareous fluvo-aquic soil in the North China Plain

被引:70
作者
Cai, G [1 ]
Chen, D
White, RE
Fan, XH
Pacholski, A
Zhu, ZL
Ding, H
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Soil Sci, Nanjing 210008, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Melbourne, Sch Resource Management, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[3] Tech Univ Braunschweig, Inst Geoecol, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany
来源
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL RESEARCH | 2002年 / 40卷 / 05期
关键词
denitrification; maize; NH3; volatilisation; N2O emission;
D O I
10.1071/SR01011
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Gaseous nitrogen losses, by NH3 volatilisation and derntrification, are mainly responsible for the low recovery of N fertiliser applied to irrigated maize on the North China Plain. Two field experiments were conducted to measure NH3 volatilisation and nitrification-denitrification losses from urea applied to maize (Zea mays L.) grown on a calcareous fluvo-aquic soil (Aquic Inceptisol) in Fengqiu County, Henan Province. The first was carried out in June 1998 (urea applied at 75 kg N/ha 3 weeks after sowing), and the second in July 1998 (urea applied at 200 kg N/ha 6 weeks after sowing). Each experiment included 3 treatments-control, surface-broadcast (SB), and deep point placement (DP) or broadcast followed by irrigation (BI). NH3 loss was measured by a micrometeorological method (NH3 sampler). Denitrification (N-2+N2O) was measured by the acetylene inhibition-intact soil core technique, and N2O emission was also measured in the absence of acetylene. The recovery of applied N was measured by a N-15 balance technique. When urea was surface broadcast (SB) 3 weeks (75 kg N/ha) and 6 weeks (200 kg N/ha) after sowing, 44 and 48% of the applied N was lost by NH3 volatilisation, respectively. The corresponding losses from the BI and DP treatments were only 18% and 11%, respectively. Denitrification was a significant process in this well-drained sandy soil, with average loss rates of 0.26-0.43 kg N/ha.day in the controls (from resident soil N), compared with 0.52-0.63 kg N/ha.day in the surface fertiliser treatments. Deep placement of urea reduced the denitrification rate to an average of 0.3 kg N/ha.day. The net denitrification loss from the fertiliser was <2% of the applied N, except for the SB urea treatment in the second experiment. The application of N fertiliser as urea increased N2O emissions from e. 0.3 to c. 2.3 kg N/ha over 57 days in the second experiment, with average N2O emission rates in the control and SB treatment of 0.006 and 0.042 kg N/ha.day, respectively. The significantly lower ratio of N-2/N2O in the urea treatments compared with the control suggested that nitrification of applied N may have contributed to N2O production. Alternatively, the ratio of N-2/N2O during denitrification may have changed with the greater supply of NO3-.
引用
收藏
页码:737 / 748
页数:12
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]  
Bremner J.M., 1996, Nitrogen-total. Methods of soil analysis. Part, P1085, DOI DOI 10.2134/AGRONMONOGR9.2.2ED.C31
[2]  
Cai GuiXin, 1998, Pedosphere, V8, P45
[3]  
Cai GuiXin, 1997, Nitrogen in soils of China., P193
[4]   RELEASE OF DINITROGEN FROM NITRITE AND SULFAMIC ACID FOR ISOTOPE RATIO ANALYSIS OF SOIL EXTRACTS CONTAINING N-15 LABELED NITRITE AND NITRATE [J].
CHEN, D ;
CHALK, PM ;
FRENEY, JR .
ANALYST, 1990, 115 (04) :365-370
[5]  
CHEN D, 1996, RAISING PROFILE, V2, P41
[6]   DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NITRIFICATION AND DENITRIFICATION AS SOURCES OF GASEOUS NITROGEN-PRODUCTION IN SOIL [J].
DAVIDSON, EA ;
SWANK, WT ;
PERRY, TO .
APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, 1986, 52 (06) :1280-1286
[7]  
Denmead O. T., 1983, Gaseous loss of nitrogen from plant-soil systems, P133
[8]   DIRECT FIELD MEASUREMENT OF AMMONIA EMISSION AFTER INJECTION OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA [J].
DENMEAD, OT ;
SIMPSON, JR ;
FRENEY, JR .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1977, 41 (05) :1001-1004
[9]  
DENMEAD OT, 1998, VERIFYING CURRENT ES
[10]   EFFECT OF FERTILIZER SOURCE ON DENITRIFICATION AND NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS IN A MAIZE-FIELD [J].
DUXBURY, JM ;
MCCONNAUGHEY, PK .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1986, 50 (03) :644-648