4.7 Article

Impact of biochar on nitrous oxide emissions from upland rice

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 27-33

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.020

关键词

Oryza sativa; Pyrogenic carbon; Nitrification; Denitrification; Efficient use of nitrogen

资金

  1. National Council for Science and Technology (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development CNPq) [PQ1]
  2. biochar project II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this research was to assess the emission of nitrous oxide (N2O) from soil amended with biochar in the culture of upland rice. The experiment was conducted in the field in a Cerrado Haplic Plinthosol under randomized block experimental design. The treatments consisted of fertilization with 100 kg N ha(-1) split into two applications, 60% at sowing and 40% at 45 days after crop emergence, combined with four doses of biochar (0, 8, 16 and 32 Mg ha(-1)), with four replications. The application of N and the emission of N2O, moisture retention and soil temperature, respiration (C-CO2), microbial biomass carbon in the soil (C-SMB), total nitrogen (TN), pH and agronomic efficiency in N use (AENu) were evaluated five years after the application of biochar. There was a significant correlation of the application of biochar with moisture retention (r = 0.94**), N2O emission (r = 0.86**) and soil pH (r = 0.65*), and N2O emissions showed a positive correlation (p < 0.05) with soil moisture (r = 0.77**) and pH (r = 0.66*). Thus the highest N2O emissions were observed shortly after N fertilization and in the treatments with 32 Mg ha(-1) of biochar. Despite the higher N2O emissions from the application of 32 Mg ha(-1) of biochar, the emission factor was lower (0.81%) than the maximum recommended by the IPCC. The higher N2O emissions with application of biochar are offset by more efficient use of N and consequently the possibility of reduction of applied doses. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据