% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Pfab:21322,
author = {Pfab, H. and Palmer, I. and Buegger, F. and Fiedler, S. and
Müller, T. and Ruser, R.},
title = {{I}nfluence of a nitrification inhibitor and of placed
{N}-fertilization on {N}2{O} fluxes from a vegetable cropped
loamy soil},
journal = {Agriculture, ecosystems $\&$ environment},
volume = {150},
issn = {0167-8809},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {PreJuSER-21322},
pages = {91 - 101},
year = {2012},
note = {This study was financed by the Deutsche Bundesstiftung
Umwelt (AZ 25420). We further want to thank for their
invaluable help: Hans Bucher, Heidi Zimmermann, Hinrich
Bremer and Maria Ruckwied, for assistance in the lab, the
University's Academic workshop for technical assistance, Dr.
Rudolf Schulz, Tobias Hartmann, our student assistants and
the crew of the experimental farm "Heidfeldhof".},
abstract = {Arable soils are a major source of the climate relevant
trace gas nitrous oxide (N2O). Although N2O emissions from
soils increase with the amount of N-fertilizer, there is
still a lack of data for intensively fertilized systems,
such as vegetable production. We investigated the effect of
an ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN) fertilization either
placed or broadcast applied combined with a nitrification
inhibitor (3,4-dimethylepyrazole phosphate (DMPP)) on soil
surface N2O fluxes as compared to conventional broadcast ASN
fertilization in a lettuce-cauliflower rotation over two
years of measurement. Except for a lower cauliflower yield
in the second experimental year with placed fertilization,
no differences in yields between the fertilized treatments
were observed. Annual cumulative N2O emissions of the
conventionally fertilized treatment were 8.8 and 4.7 kg
N2O-N ha(-1) yr(-1) for the first and second experimental
year, respectively, indicating a high inter-annual
variability.The addition of the nitrification inhibitor
significantly reduced N2O emissions during the cropping
season and also during the winter period, resulting in an
annual reduction of 45 and $40\%$ as compared to the
conventionally fertilized (CONV) treatment. The reason for
the lower N2O release in the DMPP treatment as compared to
the conventionally fertilized treatment remained unclear.
Since we did not find any significant differences in the
mineral N pools during periods with distinctive inhibition,
this can be ruled out as reason for the lower N2O release in
the DMPP treatment. We found lower soil respiration in the
DMPP treatment during several months starting about six
weeks after fertilizer application.In contrast to the
treatment with nitrification inhibitor, the placed
fertilization as an N-depot (fertilizer bands inserted into
the soil) did not reduce annual N2O emissions, although the
ratio of ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (NO3-) in the first
weeks after N-application indicate inhibition of
nitrification in the fertilizer depot. We assume that, even
though NH4+ concentrations in the depots were high, toxicity
was not sufficient for a complete inhibition of microbial
activity in the surrounding of the depots, resulting in
considerable N2O production. The emission factors calculated
for CONV treatment were 1.6 and $0.8\%$ for the first and
second experimental year, respectively. For the treatment
with nitrification inhibitor (NI), they were only 0.9 and
$0.5\%;$ for the treatment with placed fertilization as an
N-depot (DEPOT) 2.0 and $0.8\%.$ They were thus within the
range proposed by the guidelines of the IPCC (2006).However,
although the N-input related N2O emission factors were
within the range proposed by the guidelines of the IPCC, the
absolute N2O emissions from the intensively fertilized
vegetable field were high. For effective, but
environmentally sound vegetable production, a deeper
understanding of nitrification inhibitory strategies is
necessary. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {330},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Agriculture, Multidisciplinary / Ecology / Environmental
Sciences},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000302106900010},
doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2012.01.001},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/21322},
}