Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

N2O emissions from urine-treated tropical soil: Effects of soil moisture and compaction, urine composition, and dung addition

Full text
Author(s):
Cardoso, Abmael da Silva ; Quintana, Bruna Giovani ; Janusckiewicz, Estella Rosseto ; Brito, Liziane de Figueiredo ; Morgado, Eliane da Silva ; Reis, Ricardo Andrade ; Ruggieri, Ana Claudia
Total Authors: 7
Document type: Journal article
Source: CATENA; v. 157, p. 325-332, OCT 2017.
Web of Science Citations: 5
Abstract

Increasing attention is being paid to the importance of N2O emissions due to livestock activities in tropical countries. Understanding the key variables driving N2O emission could help minimize impacts of N2O release and improve the accuracy of N(2)Oinventories. We aimed to investigate the effects of soil moisture, soil compaction, urine composition, urine volume, and dung addition on N2O emissions from a urine -treated tropical Ferralsol under controlled conditions. Manipulated soil conditions (e.g., moisture content, compaction, and dung addition) affected N2O emissions when varying quantities of urine-N (p = 0.02) were applied (urine volumes remained equal) and when varying urine volumes (p = 0.04) were applied (quantities of urine-N remained equal). When the amount of urine-N applied was varied, the estimated N2O emission factor (EF) was 3.14 +/- 0.70%, 2.29 +/- 1.25%, 3.90 +/- 0.64%, 4.73 +/- 0.88%, and 6.62 +/- 1.10% for moist soil, dry soil, compacted soil, plus dung, and plus dung and compacted soil treatments, respectively. While varying the volume of urine, the estimatedN(2)O EF was 4.96 +/- 1.66%, 4.27 +/- 1.42%, 3.99 +/- 1.19%, 6.50 +/- 0.35%, and 7.37 0.76% for moist, dry soil, compacted soil, plus dung, and plus dung and compacted soils treatments, respectively. The urine-N concentration influenced N2O emissions (p = 0.02) {[}which decreased linearly (p = 0.062)] as well the volume of urine (p < 0.01) {[}which increased linearly (p < 0.01)]. The chemical form of the applied urine-N (urea, nitrate, or ammonium) did not affect N2O emissions and the emissions factor averaged 1.40 +/- 0.38%. N(2)Oproduction was affected by the KCI concentration in the urine (p < 0.01), and the effect was curvilinear. The key driving factor affecting N2O emissions was soil moisture content. The N2O response varied when the urine volume differed (in both moist and dry soil conditions), and with the addition of dung. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 12/06718-8 - Nitrogen balance, emission of greenhouse gases and mitigation of N2O in the production of beef cattle grazing
Grantee:Abmael da Silva Cardoso
Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Doctorate
FAPESP's process: 11/00060-8 - GHG full account and mitigation strategies in Brachiaria pastures submitted to different management
Grantee:Telma Teresinha Berchielli
Support type: Research Projects - Thematic Grants
FAPESP's process: 13/00204-5 - Ammonia volatilization and N2O emissions due beef cattle excretion in grassland
Grantee:Serena Capriogli Oliveira
Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
FAPESP's process: 13/24782-8 - The effect of biochar on the contribution of nitrification and denitrification to the flux of N2O in tropical and temperate soil
Grantee:Abmael da Silva Cardoso
Support type: Scholarships abroad - Research Internship - Doctorate