Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input

Qiao, Chunlian, Liu, Lingli, Hu, Shuijin, Compton, Jana E., Greaver, Tara L., Li, Quanlin·2015·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities, and in particular the use of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer, have doubled global annual reactive N inputs in the past 50–100 years, causing deleterious effects on the environment through increased N leaching and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and ammonia (NH3) emissions. Leaching and gaseous losses of N are greatly controlled by the net rate of microbial nitrification. Extensive experiments have been conducted to develop ways to inhibit this process through use of nitrification inhibitors (NI) in combination with fertilizers. Yet, no study has comprehensively assessed how inhibiting nitrification affects both hydrologic and gaseous losses of N and plant nitrogen use efficiency. We synthesized the results of 62 NI field studies and evaluated how NI application altered N cycle and ecosystem services in N‐enriched systems. Our results showed that inhibiting nitrification by NI application increased NH3 emission (mean: 20%, 95% confidential interval: 33–67%), but reduced dissolved inorganic N leaching (−48%, −56% to −38%), N 2 O emission (−44%, −48% to −39%) and NO emission (−24%, −38% to −8%). This amounted to a net reduction of 16.5% in the total N release to the environment. Inhibiting nitrification also increased plant N recovery (58%, 34–93%) and productivity of grain (9%, 6–13%), straw (15%, 12–18%), vegetable (5%, 0–10%) and pasture hay (14%, 8–20%). The cost and benefit analysis showed that the economic benefit of reducing N's environmental impacts offsets the cost of NI application. Applying NI along with N fertilizer could bring additional revenues of $163 ha−1 yr−1 for a maize farm, equivalent to 8.95% increase in revenues. Our findings showed that NI s could create a win‐win scenario that reduces the negative impact of N leaching and greenhouse gas production, while increases the agricultural output. However, NI's potential negative impacts, such as increase in NH3 emission and the risk of NI contamination, should be fully considered before large‐scale application.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.12802

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-08
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
1249-1257
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2107657648
Cited by
417
References
33
FWCI
20.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.