4.6 Article

Nitrous oxide and methane emissions as affected by water, soil and nitrogen

期刊

PEDOSPHERE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 146-155

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60020-4

关键词

anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM); dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA); greenhouse gasses; lysimeter; paddy soil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Specific management of water regimes, soil and N in China might play an important role in regulating N2O and CH4 emissions in rice fields. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from alternate non-flooded/flooded paddies were monitored simultaneously during a 516-day incubation with lysimeter experiments. Two N sources (N-15-(NH4)(2)SO4 and N-15-labeled milk vetch) were applied to two contrasting paddies: one derived from Xiashu loess (Loess) and one from Quaternary red clay (Clay). Both N2O and CH4 emissions were significantly higher in soil Clay than in soil Loess during the flooded period. For both soil, N2O emissions peaked at the transition periods shortly after the beginning of the flooded and non-flooded seasons. Soil type affected N2O emission patterns. In soil Clay, the emission peak during the transition period from non-flooded to flooded conditions was much higher than the peak during the transition period from flooded to non-flooded conditions. In soil Loess, the emission peak during the transition period from flooded to non-flooded conditions was obviously higher than the peak during the transition period from non-flooded to flooded conditions except for milk vetch treatment. Soil type also had a significant effect on CH4 emissions during the flooded season, over which the weighted average flux was 111 mg C m(-2) h(-1) and 2.2 mg C m(-2) h-(1) from Clay and Loess, respectively. Results indicated that it was the transition in the water regime that dominated N2O emissions while it was the soil type that dominated CH4 emissions during the flooded season. Anaerobic oxidation of methane possibly existed in soil Loess during the flooded season.

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

4.6
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