Cited by 30Wastewater Treatment and ReuseConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Denitrification Rates in a Wastewater‐Irrigated Forest Soil in New Zealand

Barton, L., McLay, C. D. A., Schipper, L. A., Smith, C. T.·1999·Journal of Environmental Quality

Abstract

Denitrification is considered to be an important N removal process in land‐based wastewater treatment systems, although in situ denitrification rates have rarely been reported. We investigated the contribution of denitrification to N removal in a land treatment system by measuring in situ denitrification rates for 12 mo in a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata D. Don) forest irrigated with tertiary‐treated wastewater. The variability of denitrification rates was investigated using a nested field design that divided the land treatment system into four spatial components (irrigation block, topographic position, field site, and sample plot) and two temporal components (sample period, sample day). Denitrification was measured using undisturbed soil cores collected daily, for six consecutive days on 21 occasions throughout the year. Soil moisture content, NO 3 concentration, available C, denitrifying enzyme activity, and temperature also were measured. The annual denitrification rate in the irrigated soil was 2.4 kg N ha−1 yr−1, and only slightly higher than the unirrigated soil (1.7 kg N ha−1 yr−1). Temporal effects (i.e., seasonal and day‐to‐day variation) contributed more than spatial effects to the overall variation in denitrification rates. Multiple regression analysis showed that soil factors could only explain 29% of the variation in denitrification rates. Soil water‐filled porosity was low in the land treatment system, and less than the critical threshold value (74% water‐filled porosity) determined in a laboratory study. We concluded that denitrification in this land treatment system studied was limited by excessive aeration in the free‐draining soils.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800060042x

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 30

Metadata

Authors
Barton, L., McLay, C. D. A., Schipper, L. A., & Smith, C. T.
Affiliations
  • Scion (NZ)
  • University of Waikato (NZ)
  • Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
Corresponding author
Barton, L.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Quality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-11
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
2008-2014
ISSN
  • 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2537
OpenAlex
W2083589889
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Environmental Quality (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Keywords
denitrification, nitrogen removal, land treatment, wastewater irrigation, forest soils, Pinus radiata, tertiary treated wastewater, soil aeration, denitrification enzyme activity, seasonal variation, spatial variability, soil moisture, nitrate

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