Information on water absorption from the air by urea fertilizers and on NH3 loss when applied to grasslands is limited. Urea application to grassland is typically broadcast (Bcast), whereas urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) is applied either Bcast or in bands (dribble). This work was conducted to (1) evaluate water absorption from the air by Bcast granular urea, Bcast UAN, and dribble UAN under laboratory conditions, and (2) compare NH3 losses from Bcast urea, Bcast UAN, and dribble UAN when applied to a grassland. Six field studies were conducted from 2017 to 2019. In the laboratory, Bcast UAN exposed to 100% relative humidity absorbed water from air at a faster rate than dribble UAN and Bcast urea. In the field, all three fertilizers lost similar amounts of NH3 when applied to relatively wet soil (> −0.1 MPa). In contrast, when the fertilizers were applied to dry soil (≤ −1.2 MPa), Bcast UAN lost the most NH3 (17.3% and 19.8%) likely because of its capacity to absorb water from the air. Also, at −1.2 MPa, dribble UAN lost more NH3 than Bcast urea (15.3 vs. 10.7%, p < 0.05), probably because the low osmotic potential of UAN (−55 MPa) allowed it to absorb water from the soil at a faster rate than urea could absorb water from the air. In contrast, when the soil water potential was −5.7 MPa, dribble UAN lost less NH3 than Bcast urea (4.4 vs. 17.3%, p < 0.05), likely because the low soil water potential reduced its water absorption.
{"title":"Water absorption from air and ammonia loss from urea fertilizers applied to grassland in southeastern United States","authors":"Miguel L. Cabrera, Dorcas Franklin, David Kissel","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20778","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Information on water absorption from the air by urea fertilizers and on NH<sub>3</sub> loss when applied to grasslands is limited. Urea application to grassland is typically broadcast (Bcast), whereas urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) is applied either Bcast or in bands (dribble). This work was conducted to (1) evaluate water absorption from the air by Bcast granular urea, Bcast UAN, and dribble UAN under laboratory conditions, and (2) compare NH<sub>3</sub> losses from Bcast urea, Bcast UAN, and dribble UAN when applied to a grassland. Six field studies were conducted from 2017 to 2019. In the laboratory, Bcast UAN exposed to 100% relative humidity absorbed water from air at a faster rate than dribble UAN and Bcast urea. In the field, all three fertilizers lost similar amounts of NH<sub>3</sub> when applied to relatively wet soil (> −0.1 MPa). In contrast, when the fertilizers were applied to dry soil (≤ −1.2 MPa), Bcast UAN lost the most NH<sub>3</sub> (17.3% and 19.8%) likely because of its capacity to absorb water from the air. Also, at −1.2 MPa, dribble UAN lost more NH<sub>3</sub> than Bcast urea (15.3 vs. 10.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.05), probably because the low osmotic potential of UAN (−55 MPa) allowed it to absorb water from the soil at a faster rate than urea could absorb water from the air. In contrast, when the soil water potential was −5.7 MPa, dribble UAN lost less NH<sub>3</sub> than Bcast urea (4.4 vs. 17.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.05), likely because the low soil water potential reduced its water absorption.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"88 6","pages":"2266-2276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20778","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study investigates the utility of plant δ¹3C natural labeling in predicting the impacts of environmental shifts on carbon cycling within ecosystems, particularly focusing on paddy fields treated with maize (Zea mays L.) residues and biochar. Specifically, it examines how soil δ¹3C and the sources of soil organic carbon (SOC), respond in paddy fields (which cultivate C3 plants like rice) when amended with maize residues, maize biochar, and silica-enriched biochar (derived from C4 plants). Conducted in the Fuzhou paddy fields, the experiment included control groups and treatment groups with maize residue (4 t ha⁻¹), maize biochar (4 t ha⁻¹), and silicon-modified maize biochar (4 t ha⁻¹) during both the early and late rice growth periods. The results indicate that all soil treatments increased soil δ¹3C. The application of maize residues notably affected the δ¹3C of the upper soil profile (0–15 cm) differently from the deeper layers (15–30 cm), and it increased soil organic C more than biochar or silicon-modified maize biochar. Soil available P (AP) and pH emerged as significant factors linking δ¹3C, influencing rice yield through changes in soil physicochemical properties. Unlike maize residues, which reduced rice yields, applications of biochar and silicon-modified maize biochar increased rice yields. The latter, which was particularly effective in lowering SOC decomposition rates and addressing rice's silica needs, emerged as the preferred option. The study highlights maize biochar and silicon-modified maize biochar as sustainable alternatives to maize residues for rice cultivation, enhancing soil fertility, carbon pool stability, and yields.
{"title":"Effects of maize residue and biochar applications on soil δ13C and organic carbon sources in a subtropical paddy rice ecosystem","authors":"Qiang Jin, Weiqi Wang, Xuyang Liu, Shaoying Lin, Jordi Sardans, Yunying Fang, Tony Vancov, Akash Tariq, Fanjiang Zeng, Josep Peñuelas","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20773","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigates the utility of plant δ¹<sup>3</sup>C natural labeling in predicting the impacts of environmental shifts on carbon cycling within ecosystems, particularly focusing on paddy fields treated with maize (<i>Zea mays</i> L.) residues and biochar. Specifically, it examines how soil δ¹<sup>3</sup>C and the sources of soil organic carbon (SOC), respond in paddy fields (which cultivate C<sub>3</sub> plants like rice) when amended with maize residues, maize biochar, and silica-enriched biochar (derived from C<sub>4</sub> plants). Conducted in the Fuzhou paddy fields, the experiment included control groups and treatment groups with maize residue (4 t ha⁻¹), maize biochar (4 t ha⁻¹), and silicon-modified maize biochar (4 t ha⁻¹) during both the early and late rice growth periods. The results indicate that all soil treatments increased soil δ¹<sup>3</sup>C. The application of maize residues notably affected the δ¹<sup>3</sup>C of the upper soil profile (0–15 cm) differently from the deeper layers (15–30 cm), and it increased soil organic C more than biochar or silicon-modified maize biochar. Soil available P (AP) and pH emerged as significant factors linking δ¹<sup>3</sup>C, influencing rice yield through changes in soil physicochemical properties. Unlike maize residues, which reduced rice yields, applications of biochar and silicon-modified maize biochar increased rice yields. The latter, which was particularly effective in lowering SOC decomposition rates and addressing rice's silica needs, emerged as the preferred option. The study highlights maize biochar and silicon-modified maize biochar as sustainable alternatives to maize residues for rice cultivation, enhancing soil fertility, carbon pool stability, and yields.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"88 6","pages":"2254-2265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Researchers in urban environments sample where people live and work. However, there is limited extant guidance available to scientists engaging with community stakeholders to sample soils in urban settings. Leveraging our cumulative experiences, insights gained from community collaborations, and interdisciplinary literature, we present a community-engaged framework for urban soils research. Community-engaged research frameworks emerged over the past two decades to foster trust and respect between communities and researchers as a response to historical exploitation of communities by the academy. Today, these frameworks have become standard for social and public health researchers investigating the physical well-being of communities. However, there is no equivalent framework for scientists studying the soils that underpin the physical and ecological well-being of the same communities. Here, we present the first such framework for soil scientists that incorporates nuanced aspects that are often overlooked. Our proposed framework recognizes the iterative nature of collaboration with community stakeholders and highlights the significance of ethical considerations throughout the research process by emphasizing protection of community stakeholders from harm, involvement of all parties in decision-making processes, maintaining informed consent, and fostering mutual accountability among researchers throughout the research and sampling process.
{"title":"Toward a community-engaged framework for urban soil research","authors":"Tiffany A. Legg, Caitlin Hodges","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20776","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers in urban environments sample where people live and work. However, there is limited extant guidance available to scientists engaging with community stakeholders to sample soils in urban settings. Leveraging our cumulative experiences, insights gained from community collaborations, and interdisciplinary literature, we present a community-engaged framework for urban soils research. Community-engaged research frameworks emerged over the past two decades to foster trust and respect between communities and researchers as a response to historical exploitation of communities by the academy. Today, these frameworks have become standard for social and public health researchers investigating the physical well-being of communities. However, there is no equivalent framework for scientists studying the soils that underpin the physical and ecological well-being of the same communities. Here, we present the first such framework for soil scientists that incorporates nuanced aspects that are often overlooked. Our proposed framework recognizes the iterative nature of collaboration with community stakeholders and highlights the significance of ethical considerations throughout the research process by emphasizing protection of community stakeholders from harm, involvement of all parties in decision-making processes, maintaining informed consent, and fostering mutual accountability among researchers throughout the research and sampling process.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"88 6","pages":"1911-1918"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}