4.4 Article

Urease and nitrification inhibitors to reduce emissions of CH4 and N2O in rice production

Journal

NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS
Volume 64, Issue 1-2, Pages 203-211

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021188415246

Keywords

methane; nitrification inhibitor; nitrous oxide; rice; urea; urease inhibitor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Strategies used to reduce emissions of N2O and CH4 in rice production normally include irrigation management and fertilization. To date, little information has been published on the measures that can simultaneously reduce both emissions. Effects of application of a urease inhibitor, hydroquinone (HQ), and a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide (DCD) together with urea (U) on N2O and CH4 emission from rice growing were studied in pot experiments. These fertilization treatments were carried out in the presence and absence of wheat straw, applied to the soil surface. Without wheat straw addition, in all treatments with inhibitor(s) the emission of N2O and CH4 was significantly reduced, as compared with the treatment whereby only urea was applied (control). Especially for the U+HQ+DCD treatment, the total emission of N2O and CH4 was about 1/3 and 1/2 of that in the control, respectively. In the presence of wheat straw, the total N2O emission from the U+ HQ+ DCD treatment was about 1/2 of that from the control. The total CH4 emission was less influenced. Wheat straw addition, however, induced a substantial increase in emissions of N2O and CH4. Hence, simultaneous application of organic materials with a high C/N ratio and N-fertilizer (e.g. urea) is not a suitable method to reduce the N2O and CH4 emission. Application of HQ+DCD together with urea seemed to improve the rice growth and to reduce both emissions. The NO3-- N content of the rice plants and denitrification of (NO3- +NO2-)-N might contribute to the N2O emission from flooded rice fields.

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