You are on page 1of 15
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 Nitrous oxide fluxes from maize fields: relationship to yield,
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 Nitrous oxide fluxes from maize fields: relationship to yield,

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 Nitrous oxide fluxes from maize fields: relationship to yield,

Nitrous oxide fluxes from maize fields: relationship to yield, site-specific fertilization, and soil conditions

Ulrike Sehy , Reiner Ruser, Jean Charles Munch

GSF-National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Institute of Soil Ecology, Ingolstädter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany

Received 24 October 2001; received in revised form 19 March 2003; accepted 26 March 2003

Abstract

Nitrous oxide emissions and selected soil properties in a high and a low yielding area of a maize field were monitored weekly over a 1-year period. In both the high and the low yielding area, N 2 O emissions from a treatment subject to site-specific N-fertilization were compared to a conventionally fertilized control. Emission peaks were measured following N fertilization, rainfall, harvest, tillage and freeze-thaw cycles from all treatments in conditions favorable for denitrification. Between 80 and 90% of annual emissions were released between April and Septem- ber. A value of 60% WFPS was identified as a threshold for the induction of elevated N 2 O emissions (>50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ). A significant relationship (r 2 = 0.41) between N 2 O flux rates and WFPS was found when neither soil nitrate contents nor temperature were limiting for microbial denitrification. Mean cumulative N 2 O emissions from the control treatments in the high yielding area, located in a footslope position and thus receiving lateral water and nutrient supply, more than doubled those from the control treatments in the low yielding area in a shoulder position (8.7 and 3.9 kg N 2 O-N ha 1 , respectively). Higher average WFPS in the high yielding area was identified as responsible for this difference. The site-specific fertilized treatments in the low yielding area were supplied with 125 kg N fertilizer ha 1 as compared to 150 kg N fertilizer ha 1 (control treatments). This reduction resulted in 34% less N 2 O released in roughly 10 months following differentiated fertilization while crop yield remained the same. In the high yielding area, N fertilizer supply in the site-specific fertilized treatment was 175 kg N ha 1 as compared to 150 kg N ha 1 in the control. Neither crop yield nor N 2 O emissions were significantly affected by the different fertilizer rates. © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: N 2 O; Soil moisture; Soil nitrate; N fertilization; Site-specific fertilization; Precision farming

1. Introduction

Owing to human activities, the concentration of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N 2 O) in the troposphere has increased from 270 ppb in 1750 to a current con-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-89-544184-42; fax: +49-89-544184-49. E-mail address: sehy@oekom.de (U. Sehy).

centration of 314 ppb and continues to increase (IPCC, 2001b). In addition to its contribution to global warm- ing (IPCC, 2001b), nitrous oxide is involved in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer (Crutzen, 1981). Agriculture is estimated to contribute up to 80% to global anthropogenic N 2 O emissions, more

than half of which is released from agricultural soils (Mosier et al., 1998; Kroeze et al., 1999). The increase in anthropogenic N 2 O emissions is primarily the result

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00139-7

  • 98 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

of increased N input into agricultural soils (Mosier et al., 1998; IFA and FAO, 2001). Between 1930 and 1990, the total anthropogenic N input through syn- thetic and organic fertilizers, N 2 -fixation, and the in- put of plant residues rose from 44 to 180 Tg N a 1 (Kroeze et al., 1999). Nitrification and denitrification, microbial pro- cesses which rely on mineral N (ammonia and nitrate) as their substrate, are responsible for most of the N 2 O produced in soil (Firestone and Davidson, 1989; Hutchinson and Davidson, 1993; Bremner, 1997). Consequently, following N-fertilizer application, an increase in denitrification rates and/or N 2 O flux rates has been frequently found in field and laboratory experiments (Ryden, 1983; Jambert et al., 1997; Mulvaney et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1997; Kaiser et al., 1998; Simojoki and Jaakkola, 2000). However, high N 2 O emissions often only occurred when soil water content was high or immediately following rainfall (Aulakh et al., 1984; Skiba et al., 1992; Hansen et al., 1993; de Klein and van Logtestijn, 1994; Flessa et al., 1995; Smith et al., 1998; Dobbie et al., 1999; Ruser et al., 2001). Under these conditions, N 2 O emissions are mostly derived from microbial denitrification. It has been stated that worldwide, agricultural emis- sions can be most effectively reduced in high-intensity agricultural systems by minimizing N-surpluses (IPCC, 2001a). This can be achieved through the application of a range of measures aiming at synchro- nizing N application with crop demand, including the application of N-fertilizer taking into account soil- and plant-N contents (Eichner, 1990; van Kessel et al., 1993) and plant demand (Weier et al., 1993); the use of intercrops (Wagner-Riddle and Thurtell, 1998); the splitting of N-fertilizer input (Ruser et al., 2001) and the use of more sophisticated fertilization techniques (nitrification inhibitors, controlled release fertilizers) (Mosier et al., 1996; Smith et al., 1997). A comparatively new measure aimed at avoiding N-surplus in agricultural soils is precision farming, which, in practice, is mostly equivalent to site-specific fertilization (Auernhammer, 2001). Common agricul- tural practice in Germany is to apply N-fertilizer at equal rates within often arbitrarily drawn field borders irrespective of intrinsic heterogeneity. This may result in zones that receive insufficient amounts of fertilizer for maximum yield, and other areas that are oversup- plied with agrochemicals, thus imposing a threat to

the environment (Maidl et al., 1999). Site-specific fer- tilization, in contrast, takes into account that soil phys- ical, chemical and biological heterogeneity within a field may result in spatial and temporal variability in nutrient cycling which is likely to have an impact on crop yield as well as on gaseous N losses. With preci- sion farming, variations in soil or crop characteristics within a field are identified, mapped, and manage- ment actions are spatially and temporally adjusted to crop requirements in the respective areas (Dawson and Johnston, 1997; Mandal and Ghosh, 2000). To our knowledge, no investigations have been published on the effects of site-specific fertilization on N 2 O emissions based on field measurements. We present a study where, both in a high yielding area and in a low yielding area of a field, N 2 O emissions from a uniformly fertilized treatment and from an adjacent site specifically fertilized treatment were compared. The aims of the study were:

(I) to identify the regulating parameters for N 2 O emissions from the investigated agricultural soils; (II) to quantify the N 2 O emissions from a high and a low yielding area of an arable field based on year-round measurements depending on site characteristics; (III) to assess the potential of site-specific fertilization for reducing the emissions of nitrous oxide.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study site

The field experiment was carried out at the research station Scheyern of the Munich Research Alliance on Agroecosystems (FAM) between April 1999 and April 2000. The research station is located 445–498 m above sea level in a hilly landscape derived from tertiary materials and partly covered by loess, approximately 40 km north of Munich (48 N30.0 , 11 E20.7 ). Study site was a gently undulating field cropped to maize (Zea mays, L.) in 1999, followed by win- ter wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.). For soil character- istics refer to Table 1. Site-specific management on this field was introduced in 1999. For that purpose five classes of long-term stable crop yield were established

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

99

Table 1 Soil characteristics of the topsoil (0–20 cm) of the treatments a

High yielding area (HC, HP)

Low yielding area (LC, LP)

Soil classification (USDA taxonomy) pH (10 2 M CaCl 2 ) b

C org (%) b N t (%) b

Grain size fractions (%) c Clay < 2 m Silt 2–63 m Sand 63–2000 m

Typic

Udifluvent

5.9

1.7 b

0.17 b

15

49

36

Dystric

Eutrochrept

6.1

1.4 a

0.15 a

20

51

29

a Different letters indicate significant differences between treat- ments (t-test, P < 0.05). b Own measurements. c From Scheinost and Sinowski (1993).

(<85%, 85–95%, 96–105%, 106–115%, >115% of average yield) from maps integrating yield during 3 years. The yield potentials of the three highest and the three lowest yield classes were considered sufficiently similar to justify a subsequent reduction to two areas (J. Schächtl, pers. comm.)—a high yielding area con- taining classes with >96% of average yield (66% of total area) and a low yielding area containing classes with 95% of average yield (34% of total area). The field was then randomly subdivided into (a) strips that were site-specifically fertilized (precision farming (P)) and (b) strips that were uniformly fertil- ized (conventional farming (C)) in order to permit a comparison of the two fertilizer treatments (Fig. 1). Strips were 7.5 m wide. The treatments investigated were high yielding area, uniformly fertilized (HC); high yielding area, site specifically fertilized (HP); low yielding area, uniformly fertilized (LC); and low yield- ing area, site specifically fertilized (LP) (Fig. 1). The two treatments in the high yielding area were situated in a footslope position, corresponding to the highest yield class (>115% of average yield), whereas the two sites in the low yielding area were on a rounded hill- top, corresponding to the second lowest yield class (85–95% of average yield). We considered the lowest yield class not to be representative of the low yielding area, since it had included only a small proportion of the total field that corresponded exclusively to areas close to the field border. For the uniformly fertilized strips (C), the amount of N-fertilizer was determined from the average yield

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 99 Table 1 Soil

Fig. 1. Design of the field experiment. Dark gray: high yielding area; white: low yielding area; P: strips fertilized according to precision farming measures; C: strips fertilized according to con- ventional measures; HP, HC, LP, LC: location of the treatments; circles: location of gas flux measurement chambers.

potential (derived from yield maps) and the result- ing average plant demand. The calculated N-fertilizer amount of 150 kg N ha 1 corresponded to the aver- age plant demand minus the average N-supply from the soil (derived from grid sampling) (Scheinost and Sinowski, 1993). In the following, the uniformly fer- tilized strips (C) are referred to as the control. For the site specifically fertilized strips (P), the amounts of N-fertilizer were calculated so that in the high yielding area, maximum yield potential was expected to be 20% higher than field average. To satisfy the corresponding higher crop N demand, 20% more N-fertilizer should be applied (180 instead of 150 kg N ha 1 ). However,

  • 100 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

due to lateral supply and higher organic N-content (Table 1), the soil N-supply in the high yielding area is assumed to be 5 kg N ha 1 higher than field aver- age. Therefore, 175 kg N ha 1 were applied to the P strips in the high yielding area. In the low yielding area, yield potential was expected to be 20% lower than field average, resulting in 20% less N-fertilizer to be applied (120 instead of 150 kg N ha 1 ). The ac- tual amount of N-fertilizer applied was increased by a value of 5 kg N ha 1 (to 125 kg N ha 1 ), because soil N-supply in the low yielding area was expected to be 5 kg N ha 1 lower than field average. The investigation period was examined in total as well as subdivided into four periods as follows:

  • A. complete investigation period (23 April 1999–24 April 2000);

  • B. before differentiated fertilization of maize (23 April–31 May 1999);

  • C. from differentiated fertilization of maize to harvest of maize (1 June–18 September 1999);

  • D. from harvest of maize to first fertilization of winter wheat (19 September 1999–23 March 2000);

  • E. from first fertilization of winter wheat to end of investigation period (24 March–24 April 2000).

2.2. Determination of N 2 O fluxes

For each treatment (HC, HP, LC, LP) five polyvinyl chloride base rings (height 15 cm; inner diameter 30 cm) were permanently installed in the soil down to a depth of 10 cm and distributed across an area of 7.5 m × 15 m (Fig. 1). Each ring enclosed a sur- face area of 706.5 cm 2 . The base rings were installed between two rows of maize plants or enclosing the wheat plants. The rings were removed immediately prior to soil management operations, and immediately re-installed afterwards in the same location. Gas fluxes were measured at least 6 days after the base rings were installed so that the impact of the installation would have minimal impact on the gas fluxes. Since the first, uniform N application was banded to the seed row of maize (Table 2), measurement of N 2 O fluxes between two seed rows might have led to an underestimation of total flux. Therefore, additional measurements in the seed row were made, which showed that annual N 2 O flux might be underestimated by up to 28% if measurements are restricted to between the seed

Table 2 Management of the field a

8

August 1998

Harvest of winter wheat

14

August 1998

Sowing of mustard (intercrop)

4

May 1999

Sowing of maize Fertilizer AP (banded) 40 kg N ha 1 (all treatments)

1

June 1999

Fertilizer CAN (broadcast) HC: 110 kg N ha 1 HP: 135 kg N ha 1 LC: 110 kg N ha 1 LP: 85 kg N ha 1

19

September 1999

Harvest of maize

 

22

October 1999

Tillage (0–5 cm) and sowing of winter wheat

24

March 2000

Fertilizer ANU (broadcast) HC: 50 kg N ha 1 HP: 35 kg N ha 1 LC: 50 kg N ha 1 LP: 50 kg N ha 1

 

a CAN:

calcium-ammonium-nitrate;

AP:

ammonium-phos-

phate; ANU: ammonium-nitrate-urea solution (25/25/50% N).

rows (data not shown). Gas sampling was performed at least once a week beginning at 10 a.m. on each sampling day. During the sampling period, while the base rings were covered with dark closed chambers (height 10–15 cm) for 60–90 min, we withdrew four 100 ml samples into evacuated glass flasks. The first sample was taken immediately after chamber closure, subsequent samples at equal intervals (20–30 min de- pending on sampling period) during chamber closure. For a more detailed description of chamber design and sampling scheme refer to Flessa et al. (1995). Sam- ples were analyzed for CO 2 and N 2 O concentrations using an automated gas chromatographic system with a 63 Ni electron capture detector (ECD) as described in detail by Loftfield et al. (1997). Gas fluxes were calculated as rates of observed linear concentration change per time and surface area and expressed as arithmetic means (n = 5) with standard deviation.

2.3. Climate and soil variables

Soil temperature was measured at the same time as gas sampling at 10 cm depth in each treatment. Air temperature and precipitation data were supplied by the meteorological station of the research station (TU Munich, Chair of Bioclimatology and Immission Research).

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

101

During the gas sampling period, we took bulk soil samples from 0 to 10 cm depth by combining 5–10 soil cores. Samples were kept cool for transportation and processed on the same day. Soil moisture was deter- mined gravimetrically after drying for 24 h at 105 C. Water-filled pore space (WFPS) was calculated using the measured soil bulk density data (arithmetic means of four measurement dates) and assuming a particle density of 2.65 g cm 3 . Fresh soil was extracted with 10 2 M CaCl 2 (soil to solution ratio 1:2 (w/v)), shaken in a rotary shaker for 1 h, centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min, and filtered through a 0.45 m membrane filter. Extract solution was split and immediately analyzed for dissolved or- ganic carbon (DOC) in a TOC analyzer (Shimadzu TOC-5050A) or stored frozen until analyzed for NH 4 + and NO 3 in a continuous flow analyzer (Skalar An- alytical SA 20/40).

2.4. Statistical analysis

Relationships between variables were assessed us- ing stepwise linear regression analysis (P < 0.05). Normal distributions of flux rates and driving vari- ables were tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test at P > 0.05. Variables such as N 2 O flux rates, CO 2 flux rates and soil nitrate contents were log nor- mally distributed and were log 10 -transformed before statistical analysis. Since we used dark chambers for gas accumulation, CO 2 flux rates were only included for statistical analysis for periods where no plants were present in the soil covers (April—November

1999).

Cumulative fluxes were calculated for each of the five flux chambers per treatment assuming measured fluxes to be steady between two sampling dates. To assess significant differences between treatments, cu- mulative fluxes were subjected to pairwise multiple comparisons using the Student–Newman–Keuls test at a significance level P < 0.05. For each treatment (HP, HC, LP, LC) we calculated the quotient of cumulated N 2 O emissions (periods C and D) and maize yield as an environmental indicator. We obtained the quotients by randomly dividing cu- mulative N 2 O emissions from individual soil covers (n = 5) by yield data from individual plots (n = 5) and compared them using the Student–Newman–Keuls test at a significance level P < 0.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Temporal changes in N 2 O flux rates depending on regulating parameters

Average air temperature in the investigated year was 8.8 C, the sum of precipitation amounted to 937 mm. Both parameters surpassed the long-time averages— 7.4 C for temperature and 833 mm for precipitation— measured at the research station. The temporal course of N 2 O emissions from the four treatments (Figs. 2 and 3) is characterized by low flux rates (<50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ) for most sampling dates, interrupted by several high emis- sion periods. Differing in magnitude and duration, these distinct periods were observed both in the high and the low yielding area, indicating common controllers. Maximum emission rates were around 1400 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 in the high and around 1300 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 in the low yielding area. Generally, highest flux rates occurred in spring and summer following N fertilization and were associated with rainfall. After the first N application in May 1999, elevated N 2 O flux rates occurred after 25 mm rain had fallen within 6 days. Fluxes were very high from the high yielding area (up to 1400 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ) and lower and less persistent from the low yielding area (up to 250 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ) (Figs. 2 and 3). During 2 weeks following the second N-fertilization in early June, N 2 O flux rates were only slightly el- evated in both areas. These relatively low emission rates following N input can be attributed to low soil water contents, which fell below 50% WFPS during that period. According to Davidson (1991), the domi- nant process for N 2 O evolution under these conditions is nitrification. High N 2 O flux rates, in contrast, are usually associated with the process of denitrification (Firestone and Davidson, 1989), which becomes dom- inant for N 2 O production at WFPS values of 60% (Davidson, 1991). Strongly elevated flux rates in both areas did not take place until heavy rain in mid-July (66 mm within 4 days) resulted in WFPS values above 60% in all treatments (Figs. 2 and 3). Cumulative N 2 O emissions within 2 weeks following the onset of rain amounted to 30% (high yielding area) and 60% (low yielding area) of total annual N 2 O emissions. This underlines the importance of rainfall for N 2 O emissions, which has been frequently described for

  • 102 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

102 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 Fig. 2. N

Fig. 2. N 2 O flux rates, CO 2 flux rates, soil nitrate contents, soil WFPS and daily precipitation of the high yielding area treatments. Arrows with numbers indicate fertilizer amounts (kg N ha 1 ) applied to the respective areas.

agricultural soils (Cates and Keeney, 1987; Ball et al., 1999; Dobbie et al., 1999; Baggs et al., 2000; Scott et al., 2000; Ruser et al., 2001). In our study, 85% of all elevated flux rates (>50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ) were measured at soil water contents between 55 and 90% WFPS, with maximum emissions at 65% WFPS (cf. Fig. 4A). Similarly, Simojoki and Jaakkola (2000) measured highest N 2 O emissions at WFPS between 60 and 90% in agricultural soils and Dobbie et al. (1999) between 70 and 90% in agricultural soils and fertilized grassland. In the present study, flux rates above 50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 and at WFPS below 60% were only measured when WFPS was above this

value at the preceding measurement date. Under these conditions, inner aggregates are still waterlogged and sustain denitrification, even if a large share of pores between aggregates is already air-filled (Smith, 1980). We thus consider 60% WFPS the threshold value for the induction of elevated N 2 O flux rates through den- itrification in our soils, a value somewhat lower than the threshold of 65% WFPS found by Clayton et al. (1997). High CO 2 fluxes were measured during the pe- riod of highest flux rates in July and indicate substan- tial heterotrophic activity after rewetting of the dry soil as a result of increased carbon availability (Sexstone et al., 1988; Rudaz et al., 1991). Heterotrophic activity

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

103

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 103 Fig. 3. N

Fig. 3. N 2 O flux rates, CO 2 flux rates, soil nitrate content, soil WFPS and daily precipitation of the low yielding area treatments. Arrows with numbers indicate fertilizer amounts (kg N ha 1 ) applied to the respective areas.

enhances O 2 consumption and promotes anaerobic conditions; additional high soil nitrate and water contents favored high N 2 O losses through denitrifi- cation in that period (Firestone and Davidson, 1989; Hutchinson and Davidson, 1993; Granli and Bøckman,

1994).

Fig. 4A shows that WFPS and N 2 O emissions were not related when all data were considered. From a scatter plot of nitrate content versus N 2 O emissions, we identified a nitrate content of 5 kg NO 3 -N ha 1 (about 3.5 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt.) as the lower threshold for the induction of elevated N 2 O emissions above 50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 (data not shown). Us-

ing only N 2 O flux rates from dates where soil nitrate contents were above this value, a small, but signifi- cant relationship between N 2 O flux rates and WFPS was found (r 2 = 0.13) (Fig. 4B). This relationship improved to r 2 = 0.41 when additionally all data were excluded where soil temperature was below 7 C (Fig. 4C), reflecting that microbial nitrification and denitrification are usually limited at low soil tem- peratures (Granli and Bøckman, 1994). The findings presented here are in accordance with other studies, where no relationship between N 2 O emissions and WFPS was found when parameters like soil mineral N and/or C content or soil temperature were limiting

  • 104 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

104 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 Fig. 4. Scatterplots

Fig. 4. Scatterplots of N 2 O flux rates versus WFPS. Horizontal line denotes N 2 O flux rates >50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 , vertical lines delimit WFPS values between 55 and 90%. (A) All data (n = 233), (B) dates where soil nitrate contents were >5 kg N ha 1 , (C) dates where soil nitrate contents were >5 kg N ha 1 and soil temperature was >7 C.

N 2 O production (Ryden, 1983; Clayton et al., 1997; Dobbie et al., 1999; Conen et al., 2000). The thresh- old of 3.5 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. found in this study is somewhat lower than the values reported in the literature. In the studies by Ryden (1983) and Dobbie et al. (1999), denitrification and/or N 2 O flux rates tended to be small below 5 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt., however, no exact values for maximum N 2 O flux rates were given. Conen et al. (2000) reported a value

of 10 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. to limit N 2 O flux rates to below 42 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 . We applied a stepwise multiple linear regression to analyze the relationships between N 2 O emissions and the parameters soil nitrate content, DOC content, CO 2 flux, temperature, WFPS and the cumulated amount of precipitation within 1 week before each gas sampling (PP cum ) (Table 3). In periods B and C—during vege- tative growth—CO 2 flux and PP cum explained about 70% of the N 2 O flux variability in the high yield- ing area and in treatment LC in the low yielding area (Table 3). WFPS and temperature explained 83% of the N 2 O flux variability of treatment LP. Supporting the observed high influence of rain for the induction of flux peaks, PP cum generally had more influence on N 2 O flux than WFPS. In contrast to WFPS, the pa- rameter PP cum takes into account that on the one hand N 2 O emissions may be low at high soil water status, because nitrification is limited and/or denitrification proceeds rapidly to N 2 (Sahrawat and Keeney, 1986) and on the other hand that flux peaks are frequently in- duced by an abrupt change in soil water status whether or not soil water content is already above the threshold level (Mosier et al., 1991; Clayton et al., 1994). After the fertilizer-induced emission peaks in spring and summer, elevated N 2 O flux rates were again measured in September after harvest. Preceding the emission peaks, the soil had dried to the lowest water content during the investigated period and was well below 50% WFPS in all treatments (Figs. 2 and 3). High emissions were induced upon rewetting of the soil to values of 65% (low yielding area) and 75% WFPS (high yielding area). At the end of Oc- tober, after shallow tillage, sowing of winter wheat and with air temperatures rising to >10 C, high CO 2 emissions were accompanied by a distinct rise in N 2 O emissions in both areas (Figs. 2 and 3). This can be explained by the fact that tillage increases aera- tion and physically disturbs soil aggregates and crop residues, thus rendering additional substrates avail- able for microbial attack and promoting microbial activity (Granli and Bøckman, 1994; Kristensen et al., 2000). Emissions peaked after WFPS surpassed 60%, again indicating an increasing share of denitrification in N 2 O production (Davidson, 1991). By the end of January 2000, average daily tem- peratures rose from 14 C to +8 C. In the week before, the soil had remained slightly frozen to a

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

105

Table 3 Coefficients of determination (in brackets: r 2 ) for stepwise multiple linear regressions of N 2 O flux rates versus soil parameters differentiated according to the period of vegetative growth (periods B + C) and winter period (period D) (periods as defined in Section 2.1) a

Period

HP

HC

LP

LC

B + C (n = 23)

CO 2 (0.60) PP cum (0.73)

CO 2 (0.60) PP cum (0.69)

WFPS (0.65) T (0.83) NO 3 (0.86)

PP cum b (0.55) CO 2 (0.72)

D (n = 25)

n.s. c

T (0.36) NO 3 (0.53)

T (0.43) PP cum (0.55)

T (0.32) PP cum (0.46)

a Displayed are parameters that are included in the linear model at a F-to-enter-probability < 0.05 and F-to-remove probability > 0.1, numbers before parameters indicate the order of parameters as entered in the model. b Cumulated amount of precipitation within 1 week before each gas sampling. c Not significant.

depth of 10 cm. The thawing of a 20 cm snow cover as well as 14 mm rain on 30 January resulted in complete thawing of the soils and in very high soil water contents in all treatments. On 31 January, el- evated N 2 O flux rates were measured from all treat- ments. Emissions were three to six times higher than the background flux measured in the 2 months be- fore. They amounted to 120 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 and were comparable to values reported by Cates and Keeney (1987) for fertilized maize fields [150 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 (only soil surfaces thawed) and 200 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 (soils completely thawed)]. However, the freeze–thaw related flux rates reported in this study did not reach the magnitude previ- ously described from winter measurements at the same experimental station: Following freeze–thaw events, Ruser et al. (1998, 2001) measured 500 and >900 g N 2 O-N m 2 ha 1 , respectively, and Flessa et al. (1995) found >2000 g N 2 O-N m 2 ha 1 . We attribute the relatively low N 2 O emissions found in our study to the complete water logging during that period, since under conditions of very high water status gas exchange between soil and atmosphere is hindered and the complete reduction of N 2 O to N 2 is promoted (Granli and Bøckman, 1994). In the winter period D, N 2 O emissions were significantly related to soil temperature in three of the four treatments (HC, LP, LC) (Table 3). This relates to the observation that N 2 O emissions were generally low during winter, and that high flux rates in period D were associated with either: (a) rising temperatures after tillage, leading to enhanced substrate availability (at the end of Octo- ber) or (b) rising temperatures during thawing of the frozen soil.

3.2. Cumulative N 2 O emissions depending on site characteristics

In the complete investigation period A, signifi- cantly more N 2 O was released from the treatments in the high yielding area than from those in the low yielding area (Table 4). Although treatments HC and LC received the same amount of fertilizer, cumulative N 2 O emissions from HC more than doubled those from LC (8.7 and 3.9 kg N 2 O-N ha 1 ). One reason for the different emission levels between high and low yielding area sites may be the persistently higher soil water content in the former (Figs. 2 and 3). Since the soil textures of both high and low yielding areas are not strikingly different (Table 1), this parameter is not likely responsible for the difference in soil water content. We ascribe the higher soil water content in the high yielding area to the location in a footslope position, which results in lateral water supply and temporary reduced percolation. Corre et al. (1996) and Pennock and Corre (2001) also suggest that the higher WFPS in footslope positions is responsible for higher N 2 O evolution as compared to shoulder positions. In their investigations, different emission levels were constantly associated with certain landscape positions and topography was considered an indirect driving variable, influencing the processes and conditions that control microbial denitrification rates and N 2 O emis- sions (i.e. water and nutrient availability) (Pennock et al., 1992; van Kessel et al., 1993; Corre et al., 1996). In our study, a value of 60% WFPS was iden- tified as non-limiting for the induction of elevated N 2 O emissions (>50 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ). The key to higher N 2 O emissions from the high yielding area may

106

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

Table 4 Cumulative N 2 O emissions from the treatments a

Period

HP

HC

LP

LC

N 2 O emissions (kg N 2 O-N ha 1 )

Fertilizer (kg N ha 1 )

N 2 O emissions (kg N 2 O-N ha 1 )

Fertilizer (kg N ha 1 )

N 2 O emissions (kg N 2 O-N ha 1 )

Fertilizer (kg N ha 1 )

N 2 O emissions (kg N 2 O-N ha 1 )

Fertilizer (kg N ha 1 )

A

10.1 b ± 2.0

210

8.7 b ± 1.2

200

3.1 a ± 0.6

175

3.9 a ± 0.5

200

B

3.4 c ± 1.1 (38.7)

40

2.4 b ± 0.7 (30.0)

40

0.5 a ± 0.2 (19.3)

40

0.3 a ± 0.1 (7.2)

40

C

4.2 c ± 0.8 (47.2)

135

3.8 c ± 0.4 (48.7)

110

2.0 a ± 0.2 (70.4)

85

3.0 b ± 0.5 (81.4)

110

D

1.3 b ± 0.4 (14.2)

1.7 b ± 0.5 (21.3)

0.3 a ± 0.2 (10.4)

0.4 a ± 0.1 (11.4)

E

1.3 b ± 0.5

35

0.8 b ± 0.5

50

0.3 a ± 0.

50

0.2 a ± 0.1

50

a Data are shown as arithmetic means with standard deviation; data in parentheses: percent of maize-related emission (periods B and D: 23 April 1999–23 March 2000); different letters indicate significant differences between treatments.

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

107

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 107 Fig. 5. WFPS

Fig. 5. WFPS values of all treatments during periods B and C. Displayed are 25 and 75%-percentiles as vertical boxes, 10 and 90%-percentiles as whiskers and outliers as circles. Within individual boxes, the median is displayed as solid line and the arithmetic means as dotted line. The solid line across the figure represents 60% WFPS, a value which was identified as non-limiting for the induction of elevated N 2 O emissions.

be that during periods B and C WFPS was above this value on the majority of measurement dates (Fig. 5), whereas in the low yielding area, the majority of ob- servations showed WPFS values below 60%, indicat- ing that for most of the dates N 2 O production from denitrification was limited by low WFPS. Apart from soil water contents, treatments HC and LC differed in soil nitrate content. This was the case despite the same amounts of N applied in both treatments and probably is the result of higher organic N contents (Table 1) as well as lateral N supply from the surrounding slopes in the high yield- ing area. However, we assume that the different soil nitrate contents in the high and low yielding area were not responsible for different N 2 O emissions, since soil nitrate did not explain much of N 2 O flux variability in periods B and C (Table 3), although the results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis— strong positive relationships of N 2 O flux rates with CO 2 flux rates and soil water contents—point to

microbial denitrification as the dominant source for high N 2 O emissions. In the literature, values of 10 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. (Mosier et al., 1983) and 25 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. (Limmer and Steele, 1982) are given as thresholds above which denitrifica- tion rates are independent of soil nitrate contents. In our study, average soil nitrate contents in peri- ods B and C were 48 (HP), 36 (HC), 22 (LP) and 27 (LC) mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. and thus above the threshold value of 25 mg NO 3 -N kg 1 d.wt. except for treatment LP. This suggests that nitrate contents in treatments HP, HC and LC were mostly non-limiting for microbial N 2 O production. This is corroborated by the fact that only in treatment LP was soil nitrate content included in the multiple regression analysis. Supporting these results, the largest difference in N 2 O emissions between HC and LC occurred between May and the end of July, while at the same time N 2 O emissions were the same in HC and HP, although the difference in soil nitrate contents between HC and HP was much larger than between HC and LC (Figs. 2 and 3).

3.3. The influence of site-specific fertilization on cumulative N 2 O emissions and maize yield

In the high yielding area, during the approximately 10 months following N application (periods C and D), cumulative N 2 O emissions were not different between HP and HC (Table 5). Average N 2 O flux rates during that period were 80 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 from both treatments. In contrast, in the low yielding area, 34% less N 2 O was emitted from treatment LP (2.3 kg N 2 O-N ha 1 ) than from LC (3.5 kg N 2 O-N ha 1 ). Beginning with differentiated fertilization, flux rates from LC surpassed those from LP on nearly every measurement date until flux rates

Table 5 Cumulative N 2 O emissions (periods C and D), amount of N applied, maize yield and N 2 O loss per yield a

 

Treatment

HP

HC

LP

LC

N 2 O emissions (kg N 2 O-N ha 1 )

5.4 c ± 0.7

5.5 c ± 0.5

2.3 a ± 0.3

3.5 b ± 0.6

N-fertilizer (kg N ha 1 )

175

150

125

150

Yield (t d.wt. ha 1 ) N 2 O per yield (kg N 2 O-N t 1 d.wt.)

20.9 a ± 2.1 0.26 c ± 0.04

19.3 a ± 2.6 0.28 c ± 0.02

18.2 a ± 1.6 0.12 a ± 0.02

17.7 a ± 1.5 0.20 b ± 0.03

  • 108 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

in both treatments decreased to background levels (<5 g N 2 O-N m 2 h 1 ) in November. In treatment HP, the amount of N-fertilizer was in- creased by 25 kg N ha 1 as compared to the conven- tionally fertilized control HC. In treatment LP, the amount of N-fertilizer was reduced by 25 kg N ha 1 as compared to the control LC (Table 5). Accordingly, average soil nitrate contents were higher in HP than in HC (48 versus 36 kg N ha 1 in period C) and lower in LP than in LC (22 versus 27 kg N ha 1 ), especially in the period of vegetative growth. Above, we have ascribed the lack of correlation be- tween soil nitrate contents and N 2 O emissions to the fact that soil nitrate contents were above threshold values limiting microbial denitrification (Limmer and Steele, 1982). We suggest that this is also the reason for N 2 O emissions from both high yielding area treat- ments being the same despite different fertilizer rates and nitrate contents. Only in the low yielding area, where N 2 O emissions from treatment LP were a func- tion of soil nitrate contents (Table 3), we calculated a significant difference between conventional and pre- cision farming treatment. Maize yield was not affected by the three fertil- izer rates (125, 150, 175 kg N ha 1 ) (Table 5). This shows that soil N contents were not limiting crop yield. Similar results were reported by Chantigny et al. (1995), where an increase in N amounts from 120 to 180 kg N ha 1 hardly affected maize yield (no differ- ence in a sandy clay; a slight increase of 5–8% in a sandy loam). In a study by Isfan et al. (1995) the opti- mum N-fertilizer rate for maize was between 115 and 146 kg N ha 1 , which is lower than the amounts used in the C-treatments in this study. According to Liang and MacKenzie (1994), the N use efficiency of maize decreases with increasing amounts of N-fertilizer. This might explain why the difference in average soil nitrate contents between C and P treatments was 10 kg N ha 1 in the high yielding area and only 5 kg N ha 1 in the low yielding area. We related cumulated N 2 O losses (periods C and D) to maize yield (dry matter at harvest), in order to assess the environmental impact of the different treatments in relation to economic returns. Comparing high and low yielding areas, the ratio of N 2 O:yield was signifi- cantly higher in the HC treatment (0.28 kg N 2 O-N t 1 ) as compared to the LC treatment (0.20 kg N 2 O-N t 1 ) (Table 5). These results have to be assessed taking

into account the climatic conditions in the investigated year, which were characterized by higher temperatures and especially more precipitation than average. In our study year, maize yields were the same in both areas, although the yield areas had been previously identi- fied based on long-term differences in crop yield. In a drier year, location in a shoulder position (= low yielding area) is likely to result in water stress and lower crop yields. On the other hand, in a drier year, N 2 O emissions from the high yielding areas are likely to be lower, because soil moisture content will more frequently limit high N 2 O emissions through denitrifi- cation and thus the N 2 O:yield difference between the two areas is likely to be smaller. Comparing the C and P treatments, our data show that in the low yielding area the ratio of N 2 O:yield was significantly reduced in the LP treatment as compared to LC (Table 5), while in the high yielding area, this ratio was not affected by differentiated fertilization. We assume that these rela- tionships were not affected by the climatic conditions that deviated from average in the study year. In summary, in the low yielding area N surpluses could be avoided through the adoption of site-specific fertilization, resulting in significantly reduced N 2 O emissions and constant crop yield. In the high yield- ing area, our data suggest soil N contents in both treatments were on average above threshold levels for both maximum crop yield and maximum N 2 O emissions. The share of the low yielding area of the total field is 34% (2.04 ha). Based on the results obtained from the low yielding area treatments, a reduction of fertil- izer amounts by 25 kg N ha 1 in the low yielding area can result in a reduction of N 2 O emissions by—in total—2.44 kg N 2 O-N within 10 months after differ- entiated fertilization. Assuming unchanged N 2 O emis- sions from the high yielding area, the reduction of N 2 O evolved from the low yielding area corresponds to a reduction by 0.41 kg N 2 O-N ha 1 based on the total field.

4. Conclusions

Higher soil water contents in the high yielding area of a maize field resulted in significantly higher N 2 O emissions than in the low yielding area. The location of the high yielding area treatments in a

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

109

footslope position was responsible for the persis- tently higher WFPS, pointing to the importance of the landscape position for the quantification of N 2 O emissions. Through the application of site-specific fertiliza- tion, N input was increased by 17% in the high yield- ing area and reduced by 17% in the low yielding area as compared to the control. In the high yielding area, neither crop yield nor N 2 O emissions were affected by higher N input, presumably because soil nitrate contents were above levels limiting crop yield or N 2 O production. However, in the low yielding area, the lower precision based N input in LP as compared to LC resulted in 34% less N 2 O released in roughly 10 months following differentiated fertilization, while crop yield was not affected. We conclude that site-specific fertilization has the potential to reduce N 2 O emissions. However, our results clearly demon- strate that besides soil nitrate contents, lateral nutrient and water supply and annual variations in climate— especially rainfall patterns—have to be taken into account for spatially differentiated N-fertilizer recommendations. Maize yields were the same in both areas, although the areas had been previously differentiated based on long-term differences in crop yield. We attribute this to a relatively wet year, where water supply was sufficient and location in a shoulder position (= low yielding area) did not result in water stress and yield depression.

Acknowledgements

The scientific activities of the FAM Research Al- liance on Agroecosystems are financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology (BMBF). Rent and oper- ating expenses of the research station Scheyern are paid by the Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Culture, Science and Art. We thank Axel Berkenkamp and Karl Zeller for their help in the field and in the laboratory, Rolf Schilling and Brigitte Saueressig for skilled technical assistance, Martin Winterhalter for climate data as well as Josef Schächtl and Franz-Xaver Maidl for yield data. We also thank Heiner Flessa, Jens Dyckmans and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

Auernhammer, H., 2001. Precision farming—the environmental

challenge. Comput. Electr. Agric. 30, 31–43.

Aulakh,

M.S.,

Rennie,

D.A.,

Paul,

E.A.,

1984. Gaseous

nitrogen losses from soils under zero-till as compared with

conventional-till management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 13,

130–136.

 

Baggs, E.M., Rees, R.M., Smith, K.A., Vinten, A.J.A., 2000. Nitrous oxide emission from soils after incorporating crop residues. Soil Use Manage. 16, 82–87.

Ball,

B.C.,

Scott,

A.,

Parker,

J.P.,

1999.

Field N 2 O, CO 2

and

CH 4 fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil Till. Res. 53, 29–39. Bremner, J.M., 1997. Sources of nitrous oxide in soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 49, 7–16.

Cates

Jr., R.L., Keeney, D.R., 1987. Nitrous oxide production

throughout the year from fertilized and manured maize fields. J. Environ. Qual. 16, 443–447.

Chantigny,

M.H.,

Prévost,

D.,

Angers, D.A., Simard, R.R.,

Chalifour, F.P., 1995. Efficacité d’utilisation de l’azote de différents systèmes culturaux céréales-légumineuses afin de limiter les émissions d’oxyde nitreux (N 2 O). Contract no.

01396-3-C024/01-XSK. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Clayton, H., Arah, J.R.M., Smith, K.A., 1994. Measurement of nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised grassland using closed chambers. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 16599–16607. Clayton, H., McTaggert, I.P., Parker, J., Swan, L., Smith, K.A., 1997. Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilised grassland: a

2-year study of the effects of N fertiliser form and environmental conditions. Biol. Fert. Soils 25, 252–260.

Conen, F., Dobbie, K.E.,

Smith, K.A., 2000. Predicting N 2 O

emissions from agricultural land through related soil parameters. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 417–426. Corre, M.D., van Kessel, C., Pennock, D.J., 1996. Landscape and seasonal patterns of nitrous oxide emissions in a semiarid region. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 1806–1815. Crutzen, P.J., 1981. Atmospheric chemical processes of the oxides of nitrogen, including nitrous oxide. In: Delwiche, C.C. (Ed.), Denitrification, Nitrification and Atmospheric N 2 O. Wiley, New York, pp. 17–44. Davidson, E.A., 1991. Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems. In: Rogers, J.E., Whitman, W.B. (Eds.), Microbial Production and Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides and Halomethanes. American Society of Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp. 219–235. Dawson, C.J., Johnston, A.E., 1997. Aspects of soil fertility in the interpretation of yield maps as an aid to precision farming. In:

Stafford, J.V. (Ed.), Precision Agriculture’97. Bios Scientific Publishers, Warwick, pp. 87–94. de Klein, C.A.M., van Logtestijn, R.S.P., 1994. Denitrification in the top soil of managed grasslands in The Netherlands in relation to soil type and fertilizer level. Plant Soil 163, 33–44. Dobbie, K.E., McTaggart, I.P., Smith, K.A., 1999. Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems: variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 26891–26899.

  • 110 U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111

Eichner, M.J., 1990. Nitrous oxides emissions from fertilized soils:

Maidl, F.-X., Brunner, R., Sticksel, E., Fischbeck, G., 1999.

1644–1647.

summary of available data. J. Environ. Qual. 19, 272–280. Firestone, M.K., Davidson, E.A., 1989. Microbiological basis of NO and N 2 O production and consumption in soil. In: Andreae, M.O., Schimel, D.S. (Eds.), Exchange of Trace Gases Between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 7–21.

Ursachen kleinräumiger Ertragsschwankungen im bayerischen Tertiärhügelland und Folgerungen für eine teilschlagbezogene Düngung. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162, 337–342. Mandal, D., Ghosh, S.K., 2000. Precision farming—The emerging concept of agriculture for today and tomorrow. Curr. Sci. 79,

Flessa, H., Dörsch, P., Beese, F., 1995. Seasonal variation of N 2 O and CH 4 fluxes in differently managed soils in southern

Mosier, A.R., Parton, W.J., Hutchinson, G.L., 1983. Modelling nitrous oxide evolution from cropped and native soils. In:

Germany. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 23115–23124.

Hallberg, R. (Ed.), Environmental Biogeochemistry. Ecological

Granli, T., Bøckman, O.C., 1994. Nitrous oxide from agriculture. Norw. J. Agric. Sci. Suppl. 12, 1–128.

Bulletin, Stockholm, pp. 229–241. Mosier, A., Schimel, D., Valentine, D., Bronson, K., Parton, W.,

Hansen, S., Maehlum, J.E., Bakken, L.R., 1993. N 2 O and CH 4

1991.

Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in native, fertilised and

fluxes in soil influenced by fertilization and tractor traffic. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25, 621–630. Hutchinson, G.L., Davidson, E.A., 1993. Processes for production and consumption of gaseous nitrogen oxides in soil. In: Harper,

cultivated grasslands. Nature 350, 330–332. Mosier, A.R., Duxbury, J.M., Freney, J.R., Heinemeyer, O., Minami, K., 1996. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields: assessment, measurement and mitigation. Plant Soil 181,

L.A., Mosier, A.R., Duxbury, J.M., Rolston, D.E. (Eds.),

95–108.

Agricultural Ecosystem Effects on Trace Gases and Global Climate Change. ASA Special Publication. American Society

Mosier, A., Kroeze, C., Nevison, C., Oenema, O., Seitzinger, S., vanCleemput, O., 1998. Closing the global N 2 O budget: nitrous

of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 79–94. IFA and FAO, 2001. Global estimates of gaseous emissions of NH 3 , NO and N 2 O from agricultural land. International Fertilizer Industry Association, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle— OECD/IPCC/IEA phase II development of IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventory methodology. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 52, 225–248. Mulvaney, R.L., Khan, S.A., Mulvaney, C.S., 1997. Nitrogen-

United Nations, Rome. IPCC (Ed.), 2001a. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC (Ed.), 2001b. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.

fertilizers promote denitrification. Biol. Fert. Soils 24, 211–220. Pennock, D.J., Corre, M.D., 2001. Development and application of landform segmentation procedures. Soil Till. Res. 58, 151–162. Pennock, D.J., van Kessel, C., Farrell, R.E., Sutherland, R.A.,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1992.

Landscape-scale variations in denitrification. Soil Sci.

Isfan, D., Zizka, J., d’Avignon, A., Deschènes, M., 1995. Relationships between nitrogen rate, plant nitrogen concentration, yield and residual nitrate-nitrogen in silage corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26, 2531–2557. Jambert, C., Delmas, R., Serca, D., Thouron, L., Labroue, L.,

Soc. Am. J. 56, 770–776. Rudaz, A.O., Davidson, E.A., Firestone, M., 1991. Sources of nitrous oxide production following wetting of dry soil. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 85, 117–124. Ruser, R., Flessa, H., Schilling, R., Steindl, H., Beese, F., 1998.

Delprat, L., 1997. N 2 O and CH 4 emissions from fertilized agricultural soils in southwest France. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.

Soil compaction and fertilization effects on nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in potato fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62, 1587–

1595.

48, 105–114. Kaiser, E.-A., Kohrs, K., Kücke, M., Schnug, E., Heinemeyer, O., Munch, J.C., 1998. Nitrous oxide release from arable soil:

importance of N-fertilization, crops and temporal variation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1553–1563. Kristensen, H.L., McCarty, G.W., Meisinger, J.J., 2000. Effects of soil structure disturbance on mineralization of organic soil nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 371–378. Kroeze, C., Mosier, A., Bouwman, L., 1999. Closing the global N 2 O budget: a retrospective analysis 1500–1994. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycl. 13, 1–8. Liang, B.C., MacKenzie, A.F., 1994. Corn yield, nitrogen uptake and nitrogen use efficiency as influenced by nitrogen fertilization. Can. J. Soil Sci. 74, 235–240. Limmer, A.W., Steele, K.W., 1982. Denitrification potentials:

Ruser, R., Flessa, H., Schilling, R., Beese, F., Munch, J.C., 2001. Effect of crop-specific field management and N fertilization on N 2 O emissions from a fine-loamy soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 59, 177–191. Ryden, J.C., 1983. Denitrification loss from a grassland soil in the field receiving different rates of nitrogen as ammonium nitrate. J. Soil Sci. 34, 355–365. Sahrawat, K.L., Keeney, D.R., 1986. Nitrous oxide emission from soils. Adv. Soil Sci. 4, 103–148. Scheinost, A., Sinowski, W. (Eds.), 1993. Flächenhafte und punk- tverdichtete Erfasssung von Bodenparametern. Forschungsver- bund Agrarökosysteme München, Abschlußbericht Aufbau- phase 1990–1992. GSF—Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, Neuherberg, pp. 37–59.

measurement of seasonal variation using a short-term anaerobic incubation technique. Soil Biol. Biochem. 14, 179–184. Loftfield, N., Flessa, H., Augustin, J., Beese, F., 1997. Automated gas chromatographic system for rapid analysis of the atmospheric trace gases methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 560–564.

Scott, A., Ball, B.C., Crichton, I.J., Aitken, M.N., 2000. Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from grassland amended with sewage sludge. Soil Use Manage. 16, 36–41. Sexstone, A.J., Parkin, T.B., Tiedje, J.M., 1988. Denitrification response to soil wetting in aggregated and unaggregated soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20, 767–769.

U. Sehy et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (2003) 97–111 111

Simojoki, A., Jaakkola, A., 2000. Effect of nitrogen fertilization, cropping and irrigation on soil air composition and nitrous

oxide emission in a loamy clay. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 51, 413–

424.

Skiba, U., Hargreaves, K.J., Fowler, D., Smith, K.A., 1992.

Fluxes of nitric and nitrous oxides from agricultural soils in a cool temperate climate. Atmos. Environ. A 26, 2477–

2488.

Smith, K.A., 1980. A model of the extent of anaerobic zones in aggregated soils, and its potential application to estimates of denitrification. J. Soil Sci. 31, 263–277. Smith, K.A., McTaggart, I.P., Tsuruta, H., 1997. Emissions of

N 2 O and NO associated with nitrogen fertilization in intensive agriculture, and the potential for mitigation. Soil Use Manage. 13, 296–304.

Smith, K.A., Thomson, P.E., Clayton, H., McTaggart, I.P., Conen, F., 1998. Effects of temperature, water content and nitrogen fertilisation on emissions of nitrous oxide by soils. Atmos.

Environ. 32, 3301–3309. van Kessel, C., Pennock, D.J., Farrell, R.E., 1993. Seasonal variations in denitrification and nitrous oxide evolution at the landscape scale. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 988–995.

Wagner-Riddle, C., Thurtell, G.W., 1998. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields during winter and spring thaw as affected by management practices. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 52,

151–163.

Weier, K.L., Doran, J.W., Power, J.F., Walters, D.T., 1993. Denitrification and the dinitrogen/nitrous oxide ratio as affected by soil water, available carbon, and nitrate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 66–72.