4.4 Article

Assessing Indices for Predicting Potential Nitrogen Mineralization in Soils under Different Management Systems

Journal

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
Volume 73, Issue 5, Pages 1575-1586

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2008.0303

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. LABEX-USA program
  2. USDK's Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
  3. Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA)
  4. ARS Office of International Research Programs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A reliable laboratory index of N availability would be useful for making N recommendations, but no single approach has received broad acceptance across a wide range of soils. We compared several indices over a range of soil conditions to test the possibility of combining indices for predicting potentially mineralizable N (N-0). Soils (0-5 and 5-15 cm) from nine tillage studies across the southern USA were used in the evaluations. Long-term incubation data were fit to a first-order exponential equation to determine N-0, k (mineralization rate), andN(0)* (N-0 estimated with a fixed k equal to 0.054 wk(-1)). Out of 13 indices, five [total C (TC), total N (TN), N mineralized by hot KCl (Hot_N), anaerobic N (Ana_N), and N mineralized in 24 d (Nmin_24)] were strongly correlated to N-0 (r > 0.85) and had linear regressions with r(2) > 0.60. None of the indices were good predictors of k. Correlations between indices and N-0* improved compared with No, ranging from r = 0.90 to 0.95. Total N and flush of CO2 determined after 3 d (Fl_CO2) produced the best multiple regression for predicting No (R-2 = 0.85) while the best combination for predicting Cold_N, and NaOH_N. Combining indices appears N-0(*) (R-2 = 0.94) included TN, Fl_CO2 promising for predicting potentially mineralizable N, and because TN and Fl_CO2 are rapid and simple, this approach could be easily adopted by soil testing laboratories.

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