4.4 Article

Evaluating chemical and physical indices of nitrogen mineralization capacity with an unequivocal reference

Journal

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 368-376

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2001.652368x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After decades of searching for a rapid method to estimate the N mineralization capacity of soil, there is still no consistent recommendation. It is legitimate to examine the causes for the often-conflicting results in literature. The efficacy of various references that have been used as benchmarks for assessing chemical and physical indices in the literature is critically reviewed in this paper. Gross N mineralization and consumption during waterlogged and aerobic incubations were estimated in a wide range of soils. It was found that equivalent to 17 to 90 and 23 to 59% of the mineralized N was consumed during the waterlogged and aerobic incubations, respectively. As net N production rate represents the balance between N-producing and N-consuming processes, it appears difficult to find a simple method that could be used to predict the net effect of several concurrent processes, We used the gross N mineralization as a reference criterion for N mineralization ability, Total organic N, water-soluble organic N, alkalihydrolyzable N, acid-hydroloyzable N, hot salt-hydrolyzable N and N in the light organic matter fraction were assessed against this reference criterion. All indices except light Traction N were significantly related to gross N mineralization, Water-soluble organic N had the highest correlation of all the indices tested, None of the chemically hydrolyzed N fractions consistently showed closer relationships with N mineralization than total organic N, suggesting that these chemical methods are ineffective in extracting a biologically labile fraction of soil organic N.

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