Fertilizer Nitrogen Management To Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions

Chapter 8

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 29, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): October 11, 2011 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1072.ch008

Fertilizer Nitrogen Management To Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions in the U.S. Robert L. Mikkelsen* and Clifford S. Snyder International Plant Nutrition Institute, 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 550, Norcross, GA 30092, U.S.A. *E-mail: [email protected]

Food, fiber, and fuel demands of a growing global population are resulting in increased fertilizer nitrogen use. Correct N management decisions, based on agronomic and environmental research, can improve crop production and help reduce GHG emissions. Residual soil nitrate and emissions of N2O may be minimized when best management practices for fertilizer N are implemented. Balanced fertilization with other essential nutrients also enhances N use efficiency. Emissions of N2O vary among fertilizer N sources, depending on cropping conditions. With intensive crop management, GHG emissions are not necessarily increased per unit of production. Such ecological intensification of crop production can help spare natural areas from conversion to cropland and preserve lands for GHG mitigation. Use of the right source, at the right rate, right time, and right place - termed 4R Nutrient Stewardship - is advocated, in combination with appropriate cropping and tillage practices, to achieve agronomic, economic, and environmental goals.

The three principal biogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) which contribute to global warming and climate change are: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). Atmospheric concentrations of these GHGs have increased greatly since the 18th century as a result of human activities. These GHG emissions have been associated with global average temperature increases of 0.6 oC (1 oF) in the 20th century and it has been projected that temperatures may increase 2 to 6 oC (3.6 to 10.8oF) during the 21st century (1). In © 2011 American Chemical Society In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

addition to these temperature changes, GHG effects on climate change may result in altered precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and other changes in physical and hydrological systems (2).


Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Agriculture’s Contributions The global increases in atmospheric CO2 are primarily due to fossil fuel use and land use changes. Increases in atmospheric N2O and CH4 are attributed primarily to agriculture (3). According to Le Quéré et al. (4), the current growth in CO2 emissions is closely linked to the growth in the world gross domestic product. It was estimated that agricultural production accounted for 10 to 12% of the total global GHG emissions in 2005 (5.09-6.19 Gt of CO2). Flynn and Smith (5) reported that approximately 60% of the global total N2O emissions and 50% of the global CH4 emissions are attributed to agriculture. Land use change, associated with the clearing of forests and the conversion of native lands for agricultural production, accounted for between 6 and 17% of the global total GHG emissions. The radiative forcing potential of N2O is 296 times greater than the radiative forcing potential of CO2. Radiative forcing refers to the capacity of the molecule to trap long-wave infrared radiation. Relatively small amounts of N2O emitted into the atmosphere will have a much greater effect on the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat than a similar amount of CO2. Further N2O has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years or more. A molecule of N2O emitted into the air today could persist for over a century. This chapter focuses on N2O because of its high radiative forcing potential and its close linkage to agricultural practices. Global fertilizer production and use has made it possible to provide 40 to 60% of the current global crop and food production (6, 7). Although fertilizers have had a tremendously beneficial impact on society, the environmental consequences should also be considered. Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (8) the world’s fertilizer N consumption caused the emission of 1.46 Mt of N2O or about 433 Mt of CO2 equivalent, approximately 7 to 9% of the global total GHG emissions in 2005 (5). Fertilizer N consumption in the U.S. has generally trended upward since the mid-1980s, and approached 12 million tonnes of N in the year ending June 30, 2007 (Figure 1). Agriculture contributes 6% of all U.S. GHGs (9), however agricultural soil management, which includes nitrogen fertilization, accounted for 68% of the N2O emissions in the U.S. in 2008 (Figure 2). There are many reasons for improving N fertilizer management. Fertilizer use has broad environmental, economic, and social implications, as well as a direct link with food. Fertilizers are estimated to be responsible for up to 50% of the current global food supply (6, 7). With strategic agricultural intensification on existing crop land, massive deforestation and land clearing could be avoided (10). Agricultural intensification and appropriate N fertilizer use also is responsible for limiting GHG emissions, compared with low-yielding food production (11).

136 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


Cropping System Management Interactions between cropping systems and specific management practices can directly affect GHG emissions by altering mineral N concentrations, or indirectly through impacts on the soil microclimate and effects on C and N cycling. Combined emissions of N2 and N2O (via denitrification) are usually greater in wetter soils, especially when the water-filled pore space exceeds 60% (12). Factors such as tillage practices, natural and artificial internal soil drainage, and winter cover crops may act independently or interactively to influence the frequency and duration of N2O emissions, as well as the cumulative growing season emissions (13). In a comparison of low input corn-soybean-wheat rotations with more intensively managed continuous corn or a corn-soybean rotation, Snyder et al. (13) found that the contrasting systems were rather comparable with respect to the global warming potential (GWP) per unit of food produced. However, the more intensively managed cropping systems produced more food per unit land area and were thus able to spare more natural lands (forest, wetlands, native grasslands) from agricultural production encroachment. This premise is supported with additional evidence by van Groenigen et al. (14) who stated that the true N2O efficiency of a cropping system can be expressed by relating N2O emissions per unit of above-ground N uptake or per unit of crop yield, and that “expressing N2O emissions as a function of land area or fertilizer application rate is not helpful and may even be counterproductive”. The goal of optimizing biological productivity must also be considered when restrictions on N2O are considered.

Figure 1. Annual consumption of fertilizer N in the U.S. (Source: Association of American Plant Food Control Officials and The Fertilizer Institute).



Figure 2. Trends in 1990-2008 total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and portion of total GHG emissions attributed to nitrous oxide (N2O) which are associated with agricultural soil management (9).

Fertilizer N Management and 4R Nutrient Stewardship The International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), the Canadian Fertilizer Institute (CFI), and the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) have advocated improved fertilizer management through a systematic 4R Nutrient Stewardship program (use of the Right source at the Right rate, Right time and Right place). This approach is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of fertilizer use while simultaneously protecting the environment (e.g. (15–17)). 1. Right N Source In a review of the effects of fertilizer N source, rate, timing, and placement on direct soil GHG emissions, Snyder et al. (13) reported a wide range in N2O emissions from a given fertilizer N source, as well as among sources. It is clear that there is no one “right N source” that will minize N2O emissions in all cropping conditions. For example, Bouwman et al. (18, 19) reported that N2O emissions were lower for nitrate-based fertilizers compared to organic, organic-synthetic, or ammonium-based fertilizers. However under different soil conditions Stehfest and Bouwman (20) showed that there was little difference in N2O emissions among fertilizer N sources after accounting for crop species, climate, soil organic carbon, soil pH, duration of the growing season, and the rate of fertilizer application. One might anticipate higher N2O loss when nitrate-N is abundant in soil systems, since NO3- and NO2- are essential for denitrification, although some quantity of N2O can also be emitted during nitrification (21, 22). Harrison and Webb (23) reported that relative N2O emissions from nitrate-based fertilizer 138 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


sources may be greater than those from ammonium-based sources, and that differences between sources may be greater with increasing soil wetness. Chen et al. (24) stated, “Since ammonia or ammonium-producing compounds are the main sources of fertilizer N, maintenance of the applied N in the ammoniacal form should result in lowered emissions of nitrous oxide from soils”. However, higher N2O emissions with anhydrous ammonia compared to other N sources has been observed in several studies (25–27). Higher N2O emissions with ammonium-based fertilizers may be related to potential nitrite (NO2–) accumulation or N2O production during nitrification (28). In contrast, no differences in N2O emissions between anhydrous ammonia and urea were found by Burton et al. (29) in Manitoba, Canada. It is possible that fertilizer source effects on N2O emissions may be less important than the size of the mineral N pool, and soil conditions conducive to rapid nitrification and denitrification. Mosier et al. (30) considered soil management and cropping systems to have a greater impact on N2O emissions than mineral N source. More recent evidence in the U.S. has shown that in certain environments, the proper selection of N source can significantly reduce N2O emissions. Venterea et al. (27) observed 50% lower emissions with urea compared to anhydrous ammonia applied in the spring for corn in Minnesota. Hyatt et al. (31) observed 39% lower emissions with a single pre-plant polymer-coated urea application versus conventional split applications of urea and ammonium nitrate in potato production in Minnesota. When comparing enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs) with traditional N fertilizers in an irrigated no-till corn study in Colorado, Halvorson et al. (32) found that EEFs significantly reduced cumulative N2O emissions by up to 53% compared with commonly used urea. The EEFs were ESN and Duration III (polymer-coated urea fertilizers), and two N fertilizers containing nitrification and urease inhibitors (Super U and UAN + AgrotainPlus) (Figure 3). The effects enhanced-efficiency fertilizers (EEF) with nitrification and/or urease inhibitors or various controlled-release fertilizers were recently reviewed by Snyder et al. (13), and will not be repeated in detail here. The potential benefit of EEF materials is largely through the control of the timing of N release and/or the supply of N in certain forms. These fertilizer characteristics can improve crop N recovery and potentially lessen environmental losses compared with traditional soluble N fertilizers. The use of new EEFs to improve crop N recovery and reduce environmental losses is an area of active research and scientific workshops. Shaviv (33) and Chien et al. (34) reported that controlled-release fertilizer technologies have potential to reduce leaching losses of nitrate, reduce volatile losses of N as NH3, and reduce N2O emissions by affecting the timing of N release from fertilizer. Urease inhibitors can reduce ammonia volatilization losses and nitrification inhibitors can help reduce the potential for nitrate losses via leaching and denitrification. Reductions in these N losses may improve crop N recovery and provide greater stability in fertilizer N performance. Use of a nitrification inhibitor (nitrapyrin) with fall-applied anhydrous ammonia did not reduce N2O emissions over two years of rainfed corn production in Iowa (35). Use of EEFs (ESN, Super U, UAN + AgrotainPlus) did not significantly reduce N2O emissions compared with UAN applications, and can 139 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


sometimes increase N2O emissions (personal communication, Tim Parkin, USDA ARS, April 2010). In a review of the effectiveness of EEFs to mitigate N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils, Akiyama et al. (36) reported that fertilizer N with nitrification inhibitors and polymer coated urea fertilizers significantly reduced N2O emissions compared to conventional N fertilizers (Table 1). The addition of a urease inhibitor to urea-containing fertilizer was not consistently effective in reducing N2O losses, but they only considered a limited number of studies and only two inhibitors were evaluated (n-butyl thiophosphoric triamide and hydroquinone). It is important to note that Akiyama et al. (36) made no attempt to standardize or partition the data by fertilizer N rates, methods of incorporation, or placement. Akiyama et al. (36) recognized limitations to their review of N sources which could qualify their findings. For example, fertilizer application rate, method, placement and timing may influence N2O emissions (18, 37, 38). Also, the effects of polymer-coated fertilizers showed mixed results among land-use types and soils, with significant N2O emission reductions in poorly drained soils but no reductions in well-drained upland soils. 2. Right N Rate Improper accounting of residual nitrate in the root zone can result in increased soil nitrate accumulation and leaching losses, especially where precipitation and irrigation exceeds evapotranspiration. Nitrogen management to minimize the presence of excessive nitrate during periods when there is a high risk of denitrification (warm and wet) may help limit losses of N2O. When other factors are held constant, increased fertilizer N rates considerably above the economic optimum N rate (EONR) may increase nitrate accumulation and the risk of N2O emissions (39). It is well recognized that N rates considerably above the EONR can raise the risk of nitrate leaching and increase the risk of direct N2O emissions and should be avoided (14, 38). Many environmental properties and management practices have a strong influence on biological processes, including nitrification and and denitrification. Nitrous oxide emissions do not always exhibit a strong linear correlation with increases in soil nitrate (40). The N2O emissions may be affected more by the biological N transformations rather than the mineral N pool size per se, which is in agreement with Mosier et al. (30). Measurement of residual nitrate and its calibration with crop response to additional N fertilizer has been attempted by many scientists, but the work has proven to be quite challenging because of large temporal and spatial variation, and the differences among agro-ecosystems. Successful nitrate measurement and N fertilizer calibration has been achieved in some regions, but wide ranges in crop response to residual nitrate or mineralizable N is common (41). Typically, there is a wide scatter of data points instead of a distinct calibration curve (42). Calibration of soil nitrate tests has generally been less successful in humid areas than in less humid areas. Nevertheless, where residual soil nitrate tests have been successfully calibrated through field research, they should be used as part of the 140 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


comprehensive nutrient management plan to optimize crop response to N and minimize the potential for nitrate loss. Indirect loss of nitrate to water resources can lead to N2O emissions off of the farm (43).

Figure 3. The effect of N fertilizer source on cumulative N2O-N emissions averaged for the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons (32). (Sources with different letters above the bars are significantly different at α = 0.05 probability level).

Table 1. The effect of nitrification inhibitor-treated N fertilizer, polymer-coated N fertilizer, and urease inhibitor-treated N fertilizer on relative N2O emissions in field experiments (36) Mitigating fertilizer technology

Number of observations (n)

Mean N2O emission mitigation (%)

95% confidence interval (%)

Nitrification inhibitor

85

-38*

-44 to -31

Polymer coating

20

-35*

-58 to -14

Urease inhibitor (NBPT)

6

+10NS

-4 to +35

*

Statistically significant reduction in N2O emission compared to conventional N fertilizers. NS Not significantly different from conventional urea-containing fertilizers.



3. Right N Time and Place The interactive effects of time and place of N application with fertilizer source and application rate make it difficult to isolate individual management decisions. Bouwman et al. (18) indicated that N2O emissions might be decreased by shortening the time in which ammonium-based fertilizers can undergo nitrification, or minimizing the time which nitrate-based fertilizers reside in the rootzone and are at risk for denitrification. Synchronizing the time of N application to coincide with plant physiological growth stages would be ideal. Such ideal timing is usually only economically and logistically practical under certain intensively managed fertigation systems. Uncertainty due to weather, unpredictable soil N release, labor constraints, and other management challenges cause many farmers to apply N in advance of when the plants need it in order to avoid agronomic and economic N deficiencies (44). On-the-go N–sensing technologies are being developed and calibrated for some major crops in the U.S. (corn, wheat, cotton) to adjust N fertilization practices to dynamic in-season crop demand (45, 46). Timing and placement of urea-containing N fertilizer to allow incorporation beneath crop residues and into the soil within a few days after application can help reduce ammonia volatilization losses, which can indirectly contribute to increased N2O emissions (43, 47) (since more N fertilizer is required to compensate for volatilized N). In drill-seeded rice culture in the southern U.S., Griggs et al. (48) reported that ammonia emissions can exceed 30% of the urea N applied if soil incorporation by field flooding does not occur within 14 days after the urea is broadcast on the surface. It is generally assumed that the proportion of N emitted as N2O is the same, whether the applied N stays available in the soil for crop uptake or it goes elsewhere as volatilized ammonia. For this reason, fertilizer N BMPs that reduce ammonia volatilization may also reduce N2O emissions in the same proportion as the amount of N in the system is conserved. Hultgreen and Leduc (49) reported that when urea was placed in a band below and to the side of the seed-row, lower N2O emissions resulted when compared to urea broadcast on the soil surface. In many small grain cropping systems, such as in Canada and the northern U.S., farmers commonly place N and P fertilizers beneath the soil surface to enhance crop nutrient recovery and to increase yields. Higher crop N recovery translates to improved N use efficiency and reduced risks of direct and indirect N2O emissions. Bouwman et al. (18) summarized data from over 800 studies and concluded that emissions of N2O were lower with subsurface injection of N compared to surface broadcast applications. Unfortunately, in many studies the placement of N is confounded with source of N, making it difficult to make interpretations about optimal N placement depth to maximize crop N recovery. Shallow applications of ammonium nitrate to corn as a side-dress application 2-cm deep resulted in lower N2O emissions compared to placement 10-cm deep in a study comparing tillage systems in Canada (50). Similarly, shallow injection (10 to 20 cm) of anhydrous ammonia in Iowa resulted in lower N2O emissions than with deeper (30cm) injection, possibly by avoiding placement of N in a zone with higher soil moisture, elevated denitrification, and a heightened risk of N2O loss (51). In contrast, Liu 142 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


et al. (52) found that shallow (5cm) placement of a fluid fertilizer containing urea ammonium nitrate in an irrigated no-till continuous corn production system in northeastern Colorado resulted in higher N2O emissions compared to placement at a 10 or 15 cm depth. Clearly there many site-specific factors that need to be considered when selecting the most appropriate placement of N fertilizer. Noellsch et al. (53) demonstrated that applications of different fertilizer N sources (including a polymer-coated urea) across undulating landscapes can result in improved crop N recovery and higher yields in some years, especially in the low-lying positions. Improved crop N recovery typically results in lower potential environmental losses of N, including lower N2O emissions. We are not aware of similar variable-rate and variable-source N studies elsewhere, and would note that this is an area in need of further research attention. It is clear that there is no “one size fits all” approach to N fertilizer management that can reduce emissions of N2O and maintain acceptable levels of agricultural production. Site-specific decisions to manage the N source, rate, time, and place for local conditions are necessary to achieve these goals. Instead of sweeping restrictions on N fertilizer useage that may not be appropriate for individual situations, well-trained crop advisors may be the most effective at guiding farmers in adopting the best available technology for specific fields.

Conclusion Crop recovery of applied N by annual cereal grain crops in the field is often below 40 to 50%, but can be raised to 60 to 70% or more through more intensive management (54). Because of relatively low crop N recovery, the heightened risks of N loss to the environment with increased N use, and the potential negative consequences of the losses, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Nitrogen Committee calls for a 25% improvement in N use efficiency over current levels (55). Carefully selecting the right source, rate, time, and place of fertilizer N applications can result in improved crop N recovery, increased crop yields, and lessen undesirable environmental impacts. As a result of improved management, significant gains in crop N recovery are within practical reach. Optimizing N management to minimize the surplus or residual N, can reduce the risks of N loss via the various N loss pathways, and minimize N2O emissions (14). Adoption of intensive crop production techniques resulting in higher yields (including appropriate fertilizer use) has spared the emissions of significant quantities of GHGs that would have otherwise been released, if less intensive crop production techniques had been used to sustain the global food supply (52). This intensification must be done with the use of locally adapted management practices to protect soil, water, and air. Appropriate intensification can also optimize food production in areas where it is best suited and spare fragile natural areas (such as forests, native grasslands, and wetlands) from development (10). Improving fertilizer management using the 4R nutrient stewardship approach has considerable potential for mitigating the impact of GHG emissions from agricultural land. 143 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

References 1. 2.


3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

IPCC. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. Levin, K.; Turpak, D. Climate Science 2008: Major New Discoveries. WRI Issue Brief, July 2009; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, 2009. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2008. Le Quéré, C.; Raupach, M. R.; Canadell, J. G.; Marland, G.; et al. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 831–836. Flynn, H. C.; Smith, P. Greenhouse gas budgets of crop production – current and likely future trends; International Fertilizer Industry Association: Paris, France, 2010. Stewart, W. M.; Dibb, D. W.; Johnston, A. E.; Smyth, T. J. The contribution of commercial fertilizer nutrients to food production. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1–6. Erisman, J. W.; Sutton, M. A.; Galloway, J.; Klimont, Z.; Winiwarter, W. 100 years of ammonia synthesis: how a single patent changed the world. Nat. Geosci. 2008, 1, 636–639. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. 2006. USEPA. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2008. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs: Washington, DC, 2010. Gockowski, J.; Sonwa, D. Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO2 emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea Rain forest of West Africa; Environmental Management. 2010. 10.1007/s00267-010-9602-3. Burney, J. A.; Davis, S. J.; Lobell, D. B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107, 12052–12057. Linn, L. M.; Doran, J. W. Effect of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide prodouction in tilled and nontilled soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 1267–1272. Snyder, C. S.; Bruulsema, T. W.; Jensen, T. L.; Fixen, P. E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 247–266. Van Groenigen, J. W.; Velthof, G. L.; Oenema, O.; Van Groenigen, K. J.; Van Kessel, C. Towards an agronomic assessment of N2O emissions; a case study for arable crops. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 903–913. Bruulsema, T. W.; Witt, C.; García, F.; Li, S.; Rao, T. N.; Chen, F.; Ivanova, S. A global framework for fertilizer BMPs. Better Crops 2008, 92 (2), 13–15. 144

In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


16. Snyder, C. S. Fertilizer Nitrogen BMPs to Limit Losses that Contribute to Global Warming; International Plant Nutrition Institute: Norcross, GA, June 2008; Ref. # 08057. 17. IPNI. The 4Rs: Right Source, Right Rate, Right Time, Right Place. Available online at http://www.ipni.net/4R. International Plant Nutrition Institute: Norcross, GA, 2010. 18. Bouwman, A. F.; Boumans, L. J. M.; Batjes, N. H. Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: summary of available measurement data. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16 (6), 1–13. 19. Bouwman, A. F.; Boumans, L. J. M.; Batjes, N. H. Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilized fields. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 28–1, 28–8. 20. 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. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2006, 74, 207–228. 21. Venterea, R. T. Nitrite-driven nitrous oxide production under aerobic soil conditions: kinetics and biochemical controls. Global Change Biology 2007, 13, 1798–1809. 22. Kool, D. M.; Wrage, N.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Pfeffer, M.; Brus, D.; Oenema, O.; Van Groenigen, J.-W. Nitrifier denitrification can be a source of N2O from soil: a revised approach to the dual-isotope labelling method. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 759–772. 23. Harrison, R.; Webb, J. A review of the effect of N fertilizer type on gaseous emissions. Adv. Agron. 2001, 73, 65–108. 24. Chen, D.; Freney, J. R.; Rochester, I.; Constable, G. A.; Mosier, A. R.; Chalk, P. M. Evaluation of a polyolefin coated urea (Meister) as a fertilizer for irrigated cotton. Nutr. Cycling. Agroecosyst. 2008, 81, 245–254. 25. Breitenbeck, G. A.; Bremner, J. M. Effects of various nitrogen fertilizers on emission of nitrous oxide from soils. Biol. Fert. Soils 1986, 2, 195–199. 26. Venterea, R. T.; Burger, M.; Spokas, K. A. Nitrogen oxide and methane emissions under varying tillage and fertilizer management. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1467–1477. 27. Venterea, R. T.; Dolin, M. S.; Oschner, T. E. Urea decreases nitrous oxide emissions compared with anhydrous ammonia in a Minnesota corn cropping system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 407–418. 28. Venterea, R. T.; Stanenas, A. J. Profile analysis modeling and modeling of reduced tillage effects on soil nitrous oxide flux. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1360–1367. 29. Burton, D. L.; Li, X.; Grant, C. A. Influence of fertilizer nitrogen source and management practice on N2O emissions from two Black Chernozemic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2008, 88, 219–227. 30. Mosier, A. R.; Duxbury, J. M.; Freney, J. R.; Heinemeyer, O.; Minami, K. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields: assessment, measurement and mitigation. Plant Soil 1996, 181, 95–108. 31. Hyatt, C. R.; Venterea, R. T.; Rosen, C. J.; McNeary, M.; Wilson, M. L.; Dolan, M. S. Polymer-coated urea maintains potato yields and reduces nitrous 145 In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

32.

33.


34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

oxide emissions in a Minnesota loamy sand. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 419–428. Halvorson, A. D.; Del Grosso, S. J.; Alluvione, F. Nitrogen source effects on nitrous oxide emissions form irrigated no-till corn. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 1554–1562. Shaviv, A. Advances in controlled release fertilizers. Adv. Agron. 2000, 71, 1–49. Chien, S. H.; Prochnow, L. I.; Cantarella, H. Recent developments of fertilizer production and use to improve nutrient efficiency and minimize environmental impacts. Adv. Agron. 2009, 102, 267–322. Parkin, T. B.; Hatfield, J. L. Influence of nitrapyrin on N2O losses from soil receiving fall-applied anhydrous ammonia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 136, 81–86. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhancedefficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. 2010, 16, 1837–1846. Halvorson, A. D.; Del Grosso, S. J.; Reule, C. A. Nitrogen, tillage, and crop rotation effects on nitrous oxide emissions form irrigated cropping systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1337–1344. Millar, N.; Robertson, G. P.; Grace, P. R.; Gehl, R. J.; Hopben, J. P. Nitrogen fertilizer management for nitrous oxide (N2O) mitigation in intensive corn (Maize) production: an emissions reduction protocol for US Midwest agriculture. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change 2010, 15, 185–204. McSwiney, C. P.; Robertson, G. P. Nonlinear response of N2O flux to incremental fertilizer addition in a continuous maize (Zea mays L.) cropping system. Global Change Biol. 2005, 11, 1712–1719. Adviento-Borbe, M. A. A.; Haddix, M. L.; Binder, D. L.; Walters, D. T.; Dobermann, A. Soil greenhouse gas fluxes and global warming potential in four high-yielding maize systems. Global Change Biol. 2007, 13, 1972–1988. Stanford, G. Assessment of soil nitrogen availability. In Nitrogen in Agricultural Soils; Stevenson, F. J., Ed.; Agron. Monogr. 22, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, 1982; Ch. 17, pp 651−688. Meisinger, J. J. Evaluating plant-available nitrogen in soil-crop systems. In Nitrogen in Crop Production; Hauck, R. A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America: Madison, Wisconsin, 1984; Chapter 26, pp 391−417. Crutzen, P. J.; Mosier, A. R.; Smith, K. A.; Winiwarter, W. N2O release from agrobiofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 389–395. Randall, G. W.; Goss, M. J. Nitrate losses to surface water through subsurface, tile drainage. In Nitrogen in the Environment: Sources, Problems, and Management; Follett, R. F., Hatfield, J. L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Chapter 5, pp 95−123. Raun, W. R.; Solie, J. B.; Johnson, G. V.; Stone, M. L.; Mullen, R. W.; Freeman, K. W.; Thomason, W. E.; Lukina, E. V. Improving nitrogen use 146

In Understanding Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Management; Guo, Lei, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.

46. 47.


48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

efficiency in cereal grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 815–820. Scharf, P. C.; Lory, J. A. Calibrating reflectance measurements to predict optimal sidedress nitrogen rate for corn. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 615–625. Del Grosso, S. J.; Parton, W. J.; Mosier, A. R.; Walsh, M. K.; Ojima, D. S.; Thornton, P. E. DAYCENT National-scale simulations of nitrous oxide emissions from cropped soils in the United States. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1451–1460. Griggs, B. R.; Norman, R. J.; Wilson, C. E., Jr.; Slaton, N. A. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen uptake for conventional and conservation tilled dry-seeded, delayed -flood rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 745–751. Hultgreen, G.; Leduc, P. The effect of nitrogen fertilizer placement, formulation, timing, and rate on greenhouse gas emissions and agronomic performance; Final Report, Project No. 5300G, ADF#19990028; Saskatchewan Dep. Agric. and Food, Regina, SK2003; Drury, C. F.; Reynolds, W. D.; Tan, C. S.; Welacky, T. W.; Calder, W.; McLaughlin, N. B. Emissions of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide: influence of tillage type and nitrogen placement depth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 570–581. Breitenbeck, G. A.; Bremner, J. M. Effects of rate and depth of fertilizer application on emission of nitrous oxide from soil fertilized with anhydrous ammonia. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1986, 2, 201–204. Liu, X. J.; Mosier, A. R.; Halvorson, A. D.; Zhang, F. S. The impact of nitrogen placement and tillage on NO, N2O, CH4 and CO2 fluxes from a clay loam soil. Plant Soil 2006, 280, 177–188. Noellsch, A. J.; Motavalli, P. P.; Nelson, K. A.; Kitchen, N. R. Corn response to conventional and slow-release nitrogen fertilizers across a claypan landscape. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 607–614. Kitchen, N. R.; Goulding, K. W. T. On-farm technologies and practices to improve nitrogen use efficiency. In Nitrogen in the Environment: Sources, Problems, and Management; Follett, R. F., Hatfield, J. L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Chapter 13, pp 335−370. USEPA. Hypoxia in the Northern gulf of Mexico; Environ. Protectionon Agency Science Advisory Board: Washington, DC, 2007. EPA-SAB-08003.


Fertilizer Nitrogen Management To Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions

Recommend Documents