Nitrification inhibitor addition to farm dairy effluent to reduce nitrous oxide emissions

ABSTRACT

Increasing the use of nitrogen (N) fertilizers will be necessary to enhance grain and pasture yields to satisfy the growing world demand for food. Organic amendments, such as farm dairy effluents (FDE), are an alternative to traditional synthetic fertilizers. However, part of the applied N could be lost as ammonia (NH₃) volatilization or nitrous oxide (N₂O) emission, decreasing N availability to plants. Nitrification inhibitors, such as dicyandiamide (DCD), suppress the microbial process of nitrification, decreasing soil nitrate concentration and, therefore, N₂O emission. Reducing N₂O losses from agricultural soils is a key subject for sustainable production. This research aimed to quantify the effect of DCD addition to the FDE on the emissions of N₂O and the volatilization of NH₃ from the soil. A field trial was carried out in which NH₃ volatilization and N₂O emission were measured over 49 days after applying FDE, FDE with DCD (DCD), and control (C, without N added) treatments. The amount of N applied as FDE was 120 kg of N ha^-1. Accumulated N₂O emission during the 49 days after the application was 526, 237, and 174 g N₂O-N ha^-1 from the soil in the FDE, DCD, and C treatments, respectively. No significant differences were observed in accumulated NH₃ volatilization. Pasture yield was higher in DCD treatment, followed by C and FDE. Under low temperatures and high soil moisture conditions, adding DCD to the FDE could be considered an effective alternative to increase pasture yields, decrease N₂O emissions, and maintain NH₃ volatilization, reducing total N losses to the atmosphere by about 14 %. Adding DCD to the FDE is a promising alternative for the more efficient N use of farm dairy effluents as fertilizer to mitigate N losses, tending to reduce N losses as N₂O emissions. More studies are necessary to verify the result of using FDE + DCD under different soils and climates.

Keywords
greenhouse gases; organic fertilizer; nitrogen; DCD

INTRODUCTION

For the next few years, the world population is expected to increase significantly, reaching 9.7 billion people in the year 2100, and that will be accompanied by an increase in food consumption (Koops and van Leeuwen, 2017). In the specific case of milk, it is expected that, by 2050, the demand will increase by 58 % compared to 2010 (Gerber et al., 2013). Increasing agricultural production is necessary to satisfy this growing demand. However, the intensification of livestock systems has severe consequences related to the increase in generation of effluents. Livestock effluents often do not have an alternative use, and dairy products do not escape this reality. Growing amount of farm dairy effluent (FDE) currently leads to the need to reuse them. A possible alternative is to use it as an organic amendment through modern technologies (Whalen et al., 2019).

In pastoral systems, each milking cow generates between 14 and 24 L of FDE per day (Taverna et al., 2007). Farm dairy effluent has a solid part comprising fecal matter, food remains, and mud; a liquid part comprises traces of milk, washing water, and urine (Charlón et al., 2007). Consequently, FDE has variable amounts of nutrients, which increases fertility when applied to the soil. Dairy systems are undergoing a process of rapid intensification (Lazzarini et al., 2019) accompanied by an increase in crop and pasture productivity, with a higher uptake of nutrients from soil.

When soil nitrogen (N) exceeds the uptake capacity of plants, N tends to be mobilized, causing negative environmental consequences (Fowler et al., 2013). In this sense, using slow-release organic fertilizers can minimize N losses to the environment, maintaining yields without increasing the application of synthetic fertilizers. In this context, the recovery of FDE as an N source for crops and pastures is undoubtedly a sustainable alternative. The recovery of FDE also provides a solution to the waste problem, contributing in turn to reducing synthetic fertilizer’s use.

When N fertilizers are applied to the soil, part of the N is lost as ammonia (NH₃) volatilization by hydrolysis of ammonium (NH₄⁺). In contrast, microbial processes quickly transform another part into nitrate (NO₃^-) (Huber et al., 1977). Most NO₃^- losses occur through leaching or production of nitrous oxide (N₂O) before plants can use it; this leads the system to have low efficiency in using N.

The N₂O has a global warming potential 273 times higher than CO₂ (Forster et al., 2021), and is one of the leading greenhouse gases emitted by the agricultural sector. The N₂O is mainly produced by the microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification. Nitrogen content of the soil, the temperature, and the soil moisture are the main regulatory factors (Steenwerth and Belina, 2008; Cosentino et al., 2013).

Nitrification inhibitors (NIs) are a group of chemical compounds that suppress the first step of nitrification by inhibiting enzymes from bacteria like Nitrosomonas, which oxidize NH₄⁺ to nitrite (NO₂^-), thus delaying the nitrification process (Huber et al., 1977; Zerulla et al., 2001). Nitrification inhibition can thus promote N retention in the NH₄⁺ form while reducing the content of NO₃^- in the soil. In addition, in the soil solution, the NH₄⁺ is less mobile, and the lower NO₃^- concentration decreases the substrate for potential denitrification with N₂O production (Di et al., 2014; Gonzatto et al., 2016). Therefore, the IPCC recommends using NIs as a possible mitigation option to reduce agricultural N₂O emissions (IPCC, 2014).

Dicyandiamide (DCD) is an NI that inhibits the enzyme ammonia monooxygenase in bacteria like Nitrosomonas, limiting the nitrification process. Dicyandiamide is used in several commercial formulations because it is relatively inexpensive, nonvolatile, water-soluble, and efficient for use with N fertilizers (Di et al., 2011). In addition, numerous studies have shown that adding an NI to a fertilizer decreases the loss of N₂O from the soil (Di and Cameron, 2012; Gonzatto et al., 2016). However, there is little information on applying NI with organic waste, especially with FDE. Knowing the effect of DCD on N₂O emissions and the volatilization of NH₃ from the soil with FDE will allow management strategies with greater productivity and less environmental impact. This research aimed to quantify the effect of the NI (DCD) addition to the FDE on the emissions of N₂O and the volatilization of NH₃ from the soil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The trial was carried out at the agricultural experimental station INTA AMBA (34° 37’ 21.13” S - 58° 40’ 12.44” W) from May 28 to July 15, 2019. Soil was classified as Typic Argiudoll, Las Cabañas series, with a silty-loam texture on the surface and clay-loam sub-surface (INTA, 2019). The experiment was carried out on a consociated pasture of fescue (Festuca sp.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), white clover (Trifolium repens), and cebadilla (Bromus sp.) implanted in 2016. The experiment had a randomized complete block design with three blocks (replications) and three treatments in each block: 1) farm dairy effluent (FDE); 2) FDE applied in conjunction with NI (DCD); and 3) control: soil without application of any product (C). The amount of 8.5 L m^-2 of FDE (equivalent to 120 kg of N ha^-1) was applied. An amount of FDE representative of this dose was applied in plots of 25 m² (5 × 5 m), inside each of the chambers for the determination of N₂O measurement and each tower for the determination of the volatilization of the NH₃. To treat FDE + DCD, 10 kg of DCD ha^-1 was mixed with the FDE just before application. The FDE was collected fresh five days before the soil application. The FDE composition was: 1.44 g kg^-1 of total N, 2.0 g kg^-1 of total C, 0.4 g kg^-1 of ammonium, non-detectable nitrate, a C/N ratio of 1.4, and dry matter content 14.69 g L^-1. During the test period, the average soil temperature was close to 12 °C, the average air temperature was close to 13 °C, and the accumulated precipitation was 93.6 mm.

N₂O emissions

Sampling of N₂O emissions was performed using closed-static chambers (surface 0.13 m², height 0.125 m) with an iron frame base and a PVC cover according to the criteria of Rochette and Eriksen-Hamel (2008). The chamber headspace was connected to the exterior by a two-way valve for gas sampling. Bases were inserted into the soil (0.05 m depth) 24 h before the beginning of the monitoring period, and they were not moved or rotated during the trial period (Alves et al., 2012). Gas samples were taken from the chamber headspace at 0, 15, and 30 min intervals after closing the chambers. A chamber was placed in each plot (replication), and N₂O emissions were measured in the first three days after the application (DAA) of the treatments, then three times a week until day 28, and once a week until the end of the trial. Nitrous oxide emissions over time were measured until no significant differences (p<0.05) were observed between the treatments and the control soil at 49 DDA of the treatments (Charteris et al., 2020). This sampling frequency enabled better capture of the changes in N₂O emissions and minimized the error.

The N₂O samples were collected with non-ventilated static chambers between 9 and 12 a.m. (Cosentino et al., 2012). Samples were taken from inside the chambers 0, 15, and 30 min after closing them. The N₂O was extracted with a vacuum pump and stored in 10 cm³ vials. The N₂O was measured with a GC 6890 Agilent Technologies Network gas chromatograph.

The N₂O fluxes (f ) were calculated according to equation 1:

$$f=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\times \frac{V}{A}\times \frac{n}{V_m}$$ Eq. 1

in which: ΔC is the change in the N₂O content throughout the incubation time (Δt), in a chamber of 16.7 dm³ (V) and an area of 0.13 m² (A); m is the molecular mass of N₂O; and V_m is the molar volume of N₂O. Change in the N₂O content over the incubation time is the emission rate.

Volatilization of NH₃ and total N emitted

A NH₃ measurement absorption system was placed in each plot. The NH₃ volatilization was measured with a semi-open static absorption system proposed by Nommik in 1973 and modified by Videla (1994). Ammonia volatilization was sampled daily during the first nine DAA until the volatilization of NH₃ reached the same level as treatment C (Videla, 1994). In each sampling, the polyurethane plate of the lower grid was rinsed with distilled water, and the content of NH₄⁺-N in the sponge washing solution was determined by the micro distillation method and subsequent titration (Bremner and Keeney, 1965). From the value of NH₄⁺-N, the concentration of NH₃-N volatilized by the surface covered by the NH₃ capture chamber was obtained according to equations 2 and 3. Finally, the NH₃ volatilization per hectare was calculated with equation 4.

$$\mathrm{N} \text{captured in the cylinder}=(\mathrm{Vm}-\mathrm{Vb})\times \text{Factor }$$ Eq. 2

in which: V_m is the volume of sulfuric acid spent per sample (cm³) and V_b is the volume of sulfuric acid spent per blank (cm³).

$$\text{Factor}=\mathrm{Nac}/(\mathrm{Vs}\times \mathrm{Vr}\times \mathrm{W})$$ Eq. 3

in which: Nac is the normality of sulfuric acid (meq cm^-3), Vs is the volume of the sample (cm³), Vr is the total sponge rinsing volume (500 cm³) and W is the weight of meq of NH₄⁺.

$$\mathrm{N}\text{ volatilized}=\mathrm{Nc}\times 10.000/\mathrm{Sc}$$ Eq. 4

in which: Nc is the N captured in the cylinder and Sc is the surface of cylinder.

Accumulated values were calculated for each repetition of each treatment, and an analysis of the daily rates accumulated during the nine days of monitoring was carried out. Videla (1994) reported that in the first six DAA, 80 % of the NH₃ volatilization is expected.

Linear interpolation method calculated the accumulated N₂O emissions during the first 49 DAA and the accumulated NH₃ volatilization during the first nine DDA of the treatments (Dorich et al., 2020). The fraction of N emitted (N₂O emission plus NH₃ volatilization) was obtained from the accumulated emission for each treatment. Nitrogen fraction was then calculated from the difference in the back-transformed total emitted from each treatment (MT) and the control treatment (MC), divided by the N applied, as described by equation 5.

$$NF=\frac{MT-MC}{\text{ Treatment N applied }}$$ Eq. 5

in which: NF is the N fraction emitted (N emitted as % of N applied); and Treatment N applied is the N applied (kg of total N ha^-1).

Supporting variables

Within each plot and for each sampling date, a composite soil sample (five soil subsamples) from 0.00-0.20 m soil layer was carried out to determine soil moisture and nitrate content (Cataldo et al., 1975). At the same time, soil temperature was measured at 0.10 m depth. Bulk density was calculated using the cylinder method (100 cm³ volume and 0.05 m diameter) (Blake, 1965).

The WFPS was calculated as described by equation 6.

$$\text{WFPS }\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\frac{(\text{Soil moisture }\times \text{ Bulk density }\times 100)}{\left[1-\left(\frac{\text{ Bulk density }}{2.65}\right)\right]}$$ (6)

Pasture yield was determined 90 days after treatment application. An area of 0.50 m × 0.50 m was collected in each replication. Collected samples were dried in an oven at 40 °C and weighed to obtain dry weight. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear regression with the InfoStat program (Di Rienzo et al., 2020).

RESULTS

Nitrous oxide emissions

Emission of N₂O showed a similar pattern for all treatments, presenting two peaks. The first peak occurred at the first DAA and the second at 21 DAA. The N₂O flux ranged from 0.44 to 1293 μg N₂O-N m² h^-1 with high variability between repetitions. The N₂O emission values showed significant differences (p<0.05) between the treatments on four of the 16 sampling dates (Figure 1a). The first N₂O emission peak presented the maximum N₂O emissions values. These values decreased over time up to 16 DAA. During the first N₂O emission peak, the soil with FDE application presented the maximum N₂O emission value, followed by DCD and C. The second N₂O emission peak was observed at 21 DAA and did not present significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments (Figure 1a). The second N₂O emission peak was related to rainfalls that occurred 18-28 DAA and increased WFPS of the soil to values above 90 % (Figure 1b). Figure 1b shows the evolution in the average value of the WFPS. The average value is presented since no significant differences (p<0.05) in the WFPS value between treatments were observed on any of the sampling dates (data not shown). Second N₂O emission peak also coincided with the moment of the highest soil temperature (Figure 1c). Starting at 21 DAA, a decrease in N₂O emission values was again observed until the end of the trial.

Figure 1
Evolution of (a) N₂O emission in the control soil (C), with an application of farm dairy effluent (FDE) and with farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD); (b) water-filled pore space (WFPS) and rainfall, and (c) soil temperature. Bars indicate standard error. *: significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments for each measurement day.

From peak 1 DAA, the FDE treatment showed higher N₂O emission (p<0.05) than treatments DCD and C, and this pattern was observed until the end of the trial (Figure 2) without significant differences (p<0.05) between the DCD and C treatments. At 49 DAA, the accumulated N₂O emission values were, on average, 526 ± 162.2 g N₂O-N ha^-1 from the soil with FDE application, 237.6 ± 89.5 g N₂O-N ha^-1 from the soil with DCD application and 174 ± 91.1 g N₂O-N ha^-1 from C. Therefore, N₂O emission from the soil with FDE application was approximately three times higher than the N₂O emission from C, while the N₂O emission from the soil with FDE plus DCD was 1.37 times greater than C (Figure 2). The fraction of N emitted as N₂O from the soil with FDE application was 0.35 (0.0013) %, a value significantly higher than that of 0.1 (0.0006) % obtained from the soil with DCD application.

Figure 2
Cumulative N₂O emissions from the control soil (C) and after the application of the farm dairy effluent (FDE) and farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD) at 49 DAA. Different letters correspond to significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments.

Ammonia volatilization and total N emitted

Fluxes of volatilization of NH₃ were low and did not differ (p<0.05) among treatments neither the accumulated volatilization (Figure 3). Finally, the total N emitted (N-N₂O plus N-NH₃) from the DCD treatment showed a trend (p<0.1) of lower total N emission than the FDE treatment (Figure 4), decreasing total N losses to the atmosphere by almost 14 %.

Figure 3
Accumulated volatilization of NH₃ from the control soil (C) and after the application of the farm dairy effluent (FDE) and farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD).

Figure 4
Total N emitted from the control soil (C) and after the application of the farm dairy effluent (FDE) and farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD).

Supporting variables

The NO₃^--N content in the soil presented significant differences (p<0.05) between the treatments on two of the eight sampling dates (Figure 5). The FDE treatment presented the highest value of NO₃^--N content at the beginning of the trial, which decreased over time. Treatments C and DCD did not show variations in the NO₃^--N content of the soil during the evaluated period (Figure 5). Pasture yield at 149 DAA was higher in the DCD treatment, followed by C and FDE (Figure 6).

Figure 5
Evolution of the NO₃- content in the control soil (C) and after the application of the farm dairy effluent (FDE) and farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD). Bars indicate the standard error of the mean SEM. *: significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments for each measurement day.

Figure 6
Pasture yield in the control soil (C) after the application of the farm dairy effluent (FDE) and farm dairy effluent plus the inhibitor (DCD) at 149 DAA. Different letters correspond to significant differences (p<0.05) between treatments.

DISCUSSION

Increase of N₂O fluxes immediately after applying the treatments was probably due to the incorporation of N readily available into the soil (Figures 1a and 4). Availability of NO₃^- for denitrifying bacteria is one of the main determinants in the denitrification process, which leads to the production of N₂O (Wang et al., 2021). These results agree with those of Li et al. (2015), who carried out a trial of FDE application at different times of the year. These authors found that N₂O emissions increased immediately after effluent application in all three seasons of application, and also observed that N₂O emission peaks occurred within the first 24 h post-application in all treatments for the spring and summer seasons. Previously, Li et al. (2014) observed the highest N₂O losses within the first day after applying the effluent in pastures during the winter. Studies with other effluents showed similar N₂O emission responses within a few hours after application (Sharpe and Harper, 2002; Luo et al., 2008).

During the first N₂O emission peak, the soil with FDE application presented the highest emission value, followed by DCD and C (Figure 1a). This maximum value of N₂O emission from the soil with FDE application coincided with the soil’s maximum value of NO₃^--N (Figure 5). These results agree with previous studies showing that NO₃^--N of the soil increased after adding organic amendments (Roig et al., 2012; Masaka et al., 2014). Low N₂O emission from C could be due to the lower NO₃^- content and soil moisture during the first DAA. On the other hand, because they are liquid, FDE and DCD treatments incorporate water at the time of application. The WFPS did not present significant differences (p<0.05) between the treatments for any sampling dates (data not shown). However, it is possible that the generation of anaerobic microsites with the incorporation of FDE (alone and applied in conjunction with DCD) led to an increase in the N₂O emission from the denitrification process (Bateman and Baggs, 2005). Lower N₂O emission from the DCD treatment compared to the FDE treatment was possibly due to the NO₃^- content. The NO₃^- content was lower in the treatment with DCD (Figure 5), possibly due to the inhibition of the nitrification process that slowed down the availability of NO₃^-, a substrate for the N₂O-producing denitrification process (Smith, 2017).

At 21 DAA, the second peak of N₂O emission was observed, probably related to the rainfalls that occurred between days 18-28 DAA, which raised the WFPS of the soil to values above 90 % (Figure 1b). The observed results do not align with the expected outcomes. According to Davidson (1991), when the WFPS values exceed 90 %, the denitrification process is complete, giving rise to N₂ emissions (Davidson, 1991). However, the WFPS value presented in our result corresponds to an average value. For this reason, it is possible that, due to the variability of the microrelief, some WFPS were at 100 % and, therefore, passed directly to N₂, while others were at 70-80 %, predisposing to the maximum emission. Water content in the soil plays a fundamental role in the availability of oxygen and, therefore, in the activity of anaerobic microorganisms. When the WFPS is low, the primary process by which N₂O is emitted is nitrification, while when the WFPS increases, the denitrification process begins to gain relevance (Davidson, 1991). The second N₂O emission peak also coincided with the moment of the highest soil temperature (Figure 1c). Soil temperature affects N₂O emission by directly influencing microbial communities’ reaction kinetics and growth (e.g., Pseudomonas) (Aguilera et al., 2013). Several authors observed a positive and significant correlation between temperature and N₂O flow (Meijide et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2009; Heller et al., 2010).

Accumulated N₂O emission at 49 DAA for the treatment with FDE application was approximately three times greater than that from C soil. In comparison, the emission from the soil with FDE plus DCD was only 1.37 times greater than C (Figure 2). These results coincide with what was observed by Li et al. (2015). After applying different residues to the soil, these authors observed DCD reduced the N₂O emission by 24-69 % in spring and 44-80 % in autumn. Also, Di et al. (2014) jointly applied 10 kg of DCD ha^-1 with cow urine and observed a 65 % decrease in N₂O emission. Finally, Merino et al. (2002) found that applying cattle manure to the soil by adding 25 kg of DCD per ha inhibited nitrification and reduced up to 60 % N₂O emission.

Nitrogen fraction emitted as N₂O from the soil with the application of FDE presented a value of 0.35 %. This value was significantly higher than that obtained from the soil with DCD application, with a value of 0.1 %. Cumulative N₂O emission and the fraction of N emitted from the soils with FDE application were higher than that from the soil with the joint application of FDE plus DCD. This was possibly due to the form in which the N was found in the soil, with a lower NO₃^- content available for soil microorganisms in the treatment with DCD application. Dicyandiamide inhibits NH₄⁺ oxidation by deactivating the activity of the ammonium monooxygenase enzyme (Di et al., 2009; Gonzatto et al., 2016). Low NO₃^- content in the soil can reduce adverse environmental effects such as deep N leaching or the emission of N₂O into the environment (Snyder, 2009).

Soil moisture content affects DCD effectiveness in reducing N₂O emissions (Di and Cameron, 2006). In this sense, Guo et al. (2022) investigated the efficacy of four NIs (including DCD) to reduce N₂O emissions from an N-fertilized and concluded that the efficiency in reducing N₂O emissions increased with increasing soil moisture. In the present trial, soil moisture was higher than 55 % WFPS (Figure 1b); therefore, a significant effect of the inhibitor is expected.

In the same sense, the effectiveness of DCD mitigating N₂O emissions depends strongly on the soil temperature. Bellow 15 °C, DCD has been reported to inhibit nitrification for up to 6 months, while above 15 °C, the efficacy decreases substantially (Guo et al., 2022). This is because the half-life of DCD decreases with increasing temperature (Kelliher et al., 2014). In this study the soil temperature never exceeded 17.3 °C (Figure 1c), this suggests a low DCD degradation rate and, therefore, a high DCD efficiency during this sampling period.

As of 35 DAA, the return of the N₂O emission to values similar to those of the control soil was observed. Similar values between treatments were maintained until the end of the trial at 49 DAA. These results show the importance of carrying out more frequent sampling in the first days after the application of the treatments to minimize the measurement error in the emission of N₂O from the soil.

How NIs affect NH₃ volatilization is widely discussed in the literature. Di et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis with 89 studies worldwide. It concluded that in most cases, the NI increased NH₃ volatilization by 35.7 % and increased indirect N₂O emission from NH₃ emission (and subsequent N deposition) by 2.9 %. However, these values strongly depend on the soil conditions under study. In the present study, the volatilization of NH₃ from the soil with the FDE and DCD treatments was similar (Figure 3). Thus, the application of DCD did not increase the loss of NH₃ by volatilization. The low volatilization of NH₃ from the soil with DCD application could be due to the high moisture of the studied soil. High moisture content in the soil makes it easier for NH₄⁺ to be absorbed as a cation in the exchange sites, minimizing its volatilization (Zaman et al., 2008).

Pasture yield at 149 DAA was higher for the treatment with DCD, followed by C and FDE (Figure 6). The highest yield observed in the treatment with DCD application coincided with the lowest loss of N, while the minimum yield coincided with the maximum values of N loss (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 6). Therefore, it is possible that the N that was not lost as N₂O or NH₃ remained available for pasture growth.

CONCLUSION

Using effluent plus dicyandiamide (DCD) can decrease nitrogen losses to the atmosphere under low temperature conditions and high soil moisture. Applying farm dairy effluent (FDE) plus DCD proved to be an effective strategy for reducing N₂O emissions without increasing NH₃ volatilization. Reduction in N losses, specifically N₂O and NH₃, positively impacts pasture yield by retaining more nitrogen for plant growth. Consequently, managing soil NO₃^- levels and synchronizing its availability with plant demand by including DCD emerges as a promising approach for enhancing the efficient use of farm dairy effluents as fertilizers and mitigating N losses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was partially supported by PD I518 Project “Aprovechamiento de residuos, descartes y subproductos agroalimentarios y agropecuarios: tecnologías para la obtención de alimentos y bioproductos para cadenas productivas” and PD I058 Project “Emisiones (GEI) en los sistemas agropecuarios y forestales. Medidas de mitigación” (INTA, Argentina). This was partially supported FONTAGRO and PROCISUR. This document has been prepared with the financial support provided by FONTAGRO, the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, and PROCISUR. The views expressed herein are exclusively those of the authors, and do not reflect the points of view of FONTAGRO, its Executive Board, the Bank, the Sponsoring Institutions, or of the countries they represent.

• How to cite: Cosentino VRN, Romaniuk RI, Mórtola NA, Estrada Otero E, Martinek N, Beltran MJ, Costantini AO, Imohff S, Taboada MA. Nitrification inhibitor addition to farm dairy effluent to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2024;48:e0230039 https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20230039

REFERENCES

• Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Sanz-Cobena A, Garnier J, Vallejo A. The potential of organic fertilizers and water management to reduce N₂O emissions in Mediterranean climate cropping systems. A review. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2013;164:32-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.09.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.09.006
• Alves BJR, Smith KA, Flores RA, Cardoso AS, Oliveira WRD, Jantalia CP, Urquiaga S, Boddey RM. Selection of the most suitable sampling time for static chambers for the estimation of daily mean N₂O flux from soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012;46:129-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.11.022
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.11.022
• Bateman EJ, Baggs EM. Contributions of nitrification and denitrification to N₂O emissions from soils at different water-filled pore spaces. Biol Fert Soils. 2005;41:379-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0858-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0858-3
• Blake G. Bulk density. In: Black CA, editors. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1 - Physical and mineralogical properties. Madison: American Society Agronomy; 1965. p. 374-90. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1.c30
  » https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1.c30
• Bremner JM, Keeney DR. Steam distillation methods for determination of ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite. Anal Chim Acta. 1965;32:485-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88973-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88973-4
• Cataldo DA, Haroon MH, Schrader LE, Youngs VL. Rapid colorimetric determination of nitrate in plant tissue by nitration of salicylic acid. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1975;6:71-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103627509366547
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00103627509366547
• Charlón V, Romero L, Cuatrín A, Taverna M. Utilización de residuos del tambo en un cultivo de sorgo forrajero para silaje. Rev Arg Prod Ani. 2007;27:216-7.
• Charteris AF, Chadwick DR, Thorman RE, Vallejo A, Klein CAM, Rochette P, Cárdenas LM. Global research alliance N₂O chamber methodology guidelines: Recommendations for deployment and accounting for sources of variability. J Environ Qual. 2020;49:1092-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20126
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20126
• Cosentino VRN, Fernandez PL, Figueiro SA, Taboada MA. N₂O emissions from a cultivated mollisol: Optimal time of day for sampling and the role of soil. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2012;36:1814-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832012000600015
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832012000600015
• Cosentino VRN, Aureggui SAF, Taboada MA. Hierarchy of factors driving N₂O emissions in non-tilled soils under different crops. Eur J Soil Sci. 2013;64:550-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12080
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12080
• Davidson EA. Fluxes of nitrous oxide and nitric oxide from terrestrial ecosystems. In: Rogers JE, Whitman W, editors. Microbial production and consumption of greenhouse gases: Methane, nitrógeno oxides, and halomethanes. Washington: American Society for Microbiology; 1991. p. 219-35.
• Di HJ, Cameron KC, Podolyan A, Robinson A. Effect of soil moisture status and a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide, on ammonia oxidizer and denitrifier growth and nitrous oxide emissions in grassland soil. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;73:59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.02.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.02.011
• Di HJ, Cameron KC, Shen JP, Winefield CS, O’Callaghan M, Bowatte S, He JZ. Methanotroph abundance not affected by applications of animal urine and a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide, in six grazed grassland soils. J Soils Sediments. 2011;11:1032-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-010-0318-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-010-0318-z
• Di HJ, Cameron KC, Shen JP, Winefield CS, O’Callaghan M, Bowatte S, He JZ. Nitrification driven by bacteria and not archaea in nitrogen rich grassland soils. Nat Geosci. 2009;2:621-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo613
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo613
• Di HJ, Cameron KC. How does the application of different nitrification inhibitors affect nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching from cow urine in grazed pastures? Soil Use Manage. 2012;28:54-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00373.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00373.x
• Di HJ, Cameron KC. Nitrous oxide emissions from two dairy pasture soils by different rates of a fine particle suspension nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide. Biol Fert Soils. 2006;42:472-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0038-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0038-5
• Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CK. InfoStat versión 2020. Argentina: Group InfoStat, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; 2020.
• Di W, Zhang Y, Dong G, Du Z, Wu Z, Chadwick D, Bol R. The importance of ammonia volatilization in estimating the efficacy of nitrification inhibitors to reduce N₂O emissions: A global meta-analysis. Environ Pollut. 2021;271:116365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116365
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116365
• Dorich C, Conant R, Grace P. Global Research Alliance N₂O chamber methodology guidelines: Guidance for gap-filling missing measurements. J Environ Qual. 2020;9:1186-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20138
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20138
• Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne J-L, Frame D, Lunt D, Mauritsen T, Palmer M, Watanabe M, Wild M, Zhang H. The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In: Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021. p. 923-1054.
• Fowler D, Coyle M, Skiba U, Sutton MA, Cape JN, Reis S, Sheppard LJ, Jenkins A, Grizzetti B, Galloway JN, Vitousek P, Leach A, Bouwman AF, Butterbach-Bahl K, Dentener F, Stevenson D, Amann M, Voss M. The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philos T Roy Soc B. 2013;368:20130164. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164
• Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderso B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Tempio G. Enfrentando el cambio climático a través de la ganaderia - Una evaluación global de las emisiones y oportunidades de mitigación. Roma: Organización de las naciones unidas para la alimentación y la agricultura – FAO; 2013.
• Gonzatto R, Stüker F, Aita C, Giacomini SJ, Lüdtke RC, Dessbesell A, Giacomini DA, Pujol SB. Dicyandiamide as nitrification inhibitor of pig slurry ammonium nitrogen in soil. Cienc Rural. 2016;46:802-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20141664
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20141664
• Guo Y, Naeem A, Becker-Fazekas S, Pitann B, Mühling K. Efficacy of four nitrification inhibitors for the mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions under different soil temperature and moisture. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2022;185:60-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000367
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000367
• Heller H, Bar-Tal A, Tamir G, Bloom P, Venterea RT, Chen D, Zhang Y, Clapp CE, Fine P. Effects of manure and cultivation on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from a corn field under mediterranean conditions. J Environ Qual. 2010;39:437-48. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0027
  » https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0027
• Huber D, Warren H, Nelson D, Tsai C. Nitrification inhibitors: New tools for food production. BioScience. 1977;27:523-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1297812
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1297812
• Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria - INTA. http://anterior.inta.gov.ar/suelos/cartas/2019.
  » http://anterior.inta.gov.ar/suelos/cartas/
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
  » https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
• Kelliher FM, van Koten C, Kear MJ, Sprosen MS, Ledgard SF, Klein CAM, Letica SA, Luo J, Rys G. Effect of temperature on dicyandiamide (DCD) longevity in pastoral soils under field conditions. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2014;186:201-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.026
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.026
• Koop SH, van Leeuwen CJ. The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environ Dev Sustain. 2017;19:385-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4
• Lazzarini B, Baudracco J, Tuñon G, Gastaldi L, Lyons N, Quattrochi H, Lopez-Villalobos N. Milk production from dairy cows in Argentina: Current state and perspectives for the future. Appl Anim Sci. 2019;35:426-32. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2019-01842
  » https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2019-01842
• Lee J, Hopmans JW, van Kessel C, King AP, Evatt KJ, Louie D, Rolston DE, Six J. Tillage and seasonal emissions of CO₂, N₂O and NO across a seed bed and at the field scale in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2009;129:378-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.012
• Li J, Luo J, Shi Y, Lindsey S, Houlbrooke D, Ledgard S. Nitrous oxide emissions from dairy farm effluent applied to a New Zealand pasture soil. Soil Use Manage. 2015;31:279-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12187
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12187
• Li J, Shi Y, Luo J, Zaman M, Houlbrooke D, Ding W, Ledgard S, Ghani A. Use of nitrogen process inhibitors for reducing gaseous nitrogen losses from land-applied farm effluents. Biol Fert Soils. 2014;50:133-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0842-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0842-2
• Luo J, Gar S, Bhandar R, Bolan N, Ledgard S, Lindsey S, Sun W. Effects of irrigating dairy-grazed grassland with farm dairy effluent on nitrous oxide emissions. Plant Soil. 2008;309:119-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9550-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9550-3
• Masaka J, Nyamangara J, Wuta M. Nitrous oxide emissions from wetland soil amended with inorganic and organic fertilizers. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2014;60:1363-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2014.890707
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2014.890707
• Meijide A, Díez JA, Sánchez-Martín L, López-Fernández S, Vallejo A. Nitrogen oxide emissions from an irrigated maize crop amended with treated pig slurries and composts in a Mediterranean climate. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2007;121:383-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.11.020
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.11.020
• Merino P, Estavillo JM, Graciolli LA, Pinto M, Lacuesta M, Munoz-Rueda A, Gonzalez-Murua C. Mitigation of N₂O emissions from grassland by nitrification inhibitor and Actilith F2 applied with fertilizer and cattle slurry. Soil Use Manag. 2002;18:135-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00231.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00231.x
• Rochette P, Eriksen-Hamel NS. Chamber measurements of soil nitrous oxide flux: Are absolute values reliable? Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2008;72:331-42. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0215
  » https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0215
• Roig N, Sierra J, Martí E, Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL. Long-term amendment of Spanish soils with sewage sludge: Effects on soil functioning. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2012;158:41-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.016
• Sharpe RR, Harper LA. Nitrous oxide and ammonia fluxes in a soybean field irrigated with swine effluent. J Environ Qual. 2002;31:524-32. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.5240
  » https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.5240
• Smith KA. Changing views of nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soil: Key controlling processes and assessment at different spatial scales. Eur J Soil Sci. 2017;68:137-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12409
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12409
• Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2009;133:247-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021
• Steenwerth K, Belina KM. Cover crops and cultivation: Impacts on soil N dynamics and microbiological function in a Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol. 2008;40:370-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.06.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.06.004
• Taverna M, Charlón V, Garcia K, Walter E. Manejo de efluentes de tambo “INTA Rafaela”. Rev IDIA XXI. 2007;9:86-92.
• Videla CC. La volatilización de amoníaco: Una vía de pérdida de nitrógeno en sistemas agropecuarios. Argentina: Istituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; 1994. (Boletim técnico, 131).
• Wang H, Chen N, Feng C, Deng Y. Insights into heterotrophic denitrification diversity in wastewater treatment systems: Progress and future prospects based on different carbon sources. Sci Total Environ. 2021;780:146521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146521
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146521
• Whalen JK, Thomas BW, Sharifi M. Novel practices and smart technologies to maximize the nitrogen fertilizer value of manure for crop production in cold humid temperate regions. Adv Agron. 2019;153:1-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.09.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.09.002
• Zaman M, Nguyen ML, Blennerhassett JD, Quin BF. Reducing NH₃, N₂O and NO₃ e N losses from a pasture soil with urease or nitrification inhibitors and elemental S-amended nitrogenous fertilizers. Biol Fert Soils. 2008;44:693-705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-007-0252-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-007-0252-4
• Zerulla W, Barth T, Dressel J. 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) - a new nitrification inhibitor for agriculture and horticulture an introduction. Biol Fert Soils. 2001;34:79-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740100380
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740100380

Edited by

Editors: José Miguel Reichert https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9943-2898

and Jeferson Dieckow https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3025-4402.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 Mar 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  21 Apr 2023
• Accepted
  17 Oct 2023