4.4 Article

Standard Extraction Methods May Underestimate Nitrate Stocks Captured by Field-Aged Biochar

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 1196-1204

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2015.10.0529

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan
  2. DFG [KA3442/1-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biochar (BC) has been shown to increase the potential for N retention in agricultural soils. However, the form of N retained and its strength of retention are poorly understood. Here, we examined if the N retained could be readily extractable by standard methods and if the amount of N retained varied with BC field ageing. We investigated soil and field-aged BC (BCaged) particles of a field experiment (sandy soil amended with BC at 0, 15, and 30 t ha(-1)) under two watering regimes (irrigated and rain-fed). Throughout the study, greater nitrate than ammonium retention was observed with BC addition in topsoil (0-15 cm). Subsoil (15-30 cm) nitrate concentrations were reduced in BC treatments, indicating reduced nitrate leaching (standard 2 mol L-1 KCl method). The mineral-N release of picked BCaged particles was examined with different methods: standard 2 mol L-1 KCl extraction; repeated (10x) extraction in 2 mol L-1 KCl at 22 +/- 2 degrees C and 80 degrees C (M-0); electro-ultrafiltration (M-1); repeated water + KCl long-term shaking (M-2); and M-2 plus one repeated shaking at 80 degrees C (M-3). Nitrate amounts captured by BCaged particles were several-fold greater than those in the BC-amended soil. Compared with M-0, standard 2 mol L-1 KCl or electro-ultrafiltration extractions retrieved only 13 and 30% of the total extractable nitrates, respectively. Our results suggest that nitrate capture by BC may reduce nitrate leaching in the field and that the inefficiency of standard extraction methods deserves closer research attention to decipher mechanisms for reactive N management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available