Cited by 215Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil and Unsaturated FlowSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

An incubation study investigating the mechanisms that impact N2O flux from soil following biochar application

Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B.P., Kimber, S.W.L., Murphy, D.V., Macdonald, L.M., Rust, J., Morris, S.·2014·Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Abstract

An incubation study with four contrasting soils (Vertosol, Ferrosol, Calcarosol and Tenosol) and three biochars (oil mallee [OM-], wheat chaff [W-]) and poultry litter [PL-] all produced at 550°C) applied at 1% w/w to each of the soils was conducted (n = 4). The soils were packed in cylindrical chambers and were subjected to five cycles of four weeks of wetting and four weeks of drying. The soils received 10 atom % 15N-KNO3− in the 1st and 5th wetting cycles. Two of the four soils (Ferrosol and Tenosol) were applied with labile carbon (C) between the 2nd and 5th wetting cycle, while the other two soils (Vertosol and Calcarosol) were amended with labile C in the 5th wetting cycle only. Peak nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in the Tenosol, Ferrosol and Calcarosol occurred within the 1st wetting cycle, whereas the Vertosol without labile C did not emit N2O. However, the co-application of labile C with 15N-NO3− to the Vertosol in the 5th wetting supported N2O emissions. The greatest reduction in N2O emissions following biochar amendment occurred due to the use of OM-biochar in the Tenosol; which decreased the emissions from 1.95 kg N2O-N ha−1 to 0.58 kg N2O-N ha−1 across the first 4 wetting/drying cycles. The majority of N2O emissions occurred during the first wetting cycle (85% water filled porosity). In contrast, application of PL-biochar did not result in a statistically significant reduction in emission of N2O. Assessing the source of emissions, the initial N2O from the Ferrosol and the Calcarosol was principally from native N-sources, while in the Tenosol between 31–57% of N2O originated from the added NO3−. While biochars reduced the overall emissions of N2O in the Tenosol, they also reduced the proportion of the N2O originating from the supplied NO3− during the first wetting cycle, possibly by limiting NO3− availability to denitrifers. Towards the end of the incubation period bacterial nitrifier gene abundance (amoA) in the unamended Tenosol was lower (p < 0.05) compared to the earlier wetting cycles, a trend which was not evident in the biochar amended Tenosol treatments. The nitric oxide reductase (norB) component of the denitrifier community was not significantly affected by biochar amendment but increased (p < 0.05) with labile C addition in all of the Tenosol treatments (± biochar) in the later stages of the incubation. The Tenosol had the lowest abundance of nitrous oxide reductase (nosZ) suggesting that its capacity to further reduce N2O to dinitrogen (N2) was lower than the other soils tested. We hypothesise that biochar amendment lowered emissions of N2O in the Tenosol by providing conditions suitable for nosZ such as increased soil pH and microbial respiration. This was evidenced by higher nosZ gene abundance in the Tenosol amended with biochar, relative to the nil-biochar control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.030

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Biochar application promotes the expression of nosZ gene of denitrifiers, leading to complete reduction of NO3- to N2 instead of N2O.

    “Biochar application is known to promote the expression of nosZ gene of the denitrifiers, leading to a complete reduction of ­ NO 3 -to ­ N 2 instead of ­ N 2 O (Harter et al. 2014; Lyu et al. 2022; Van Zwieten et al. 2014).”

    From Role of biochar toward carbon neutrality (2023) · cites this paper as Van Zwieten et al. 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B. P., Kimber, S. W. L., Murphy, D. V., Macdonald, L. M., Rust, J., & Morris, S.
Affiliations
  • New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Venue
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
191
Pages
53-62
ISSN
0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047820815
Cited by
215
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5
FWCI
25.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  • NSW Department of Primary Industries
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
nitrous oxide emissions, biochar amendment, soil incubation, 15N-labelled nitrate, labile carbon, poultry litter biochar, wetting-drying cycles, water-filled pore space, denitrification, soil nitrogen availability, Vertosol, Ferrosol

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review