Dicyandiamide (DCD) effect on nitrous oxide emissions, nitrate leaching and pasture yield in Canterbury, New Zealand

Figures & data

Table 1 Top soil (0–75 mm) properties for the research areas on the Lincoln University Research Dairy Farm Canterbury, New Zealand (43^o38′11″ S, 172^o26′18″E) (Blakemore et al. 1987).

Physical property	2009–10	2010–11	2011–12
pH	6.0	5.8	6.2
Total N (g kg^−1)	3.0	3.0	2.6
Olsen P (mg kg^−1)	31	43	22
Sulphate S (mg kg^−1)	37	30	23
CEC (cmolc kg^−1)	14	15	12
Exchangeable Ca (cmolc kg^−1)	8.4	7.9	7.1
Exchangeable Mg (cmolc kg^−1)	0.56	0.58	0.41
Exchangeable K (cmolc kg^−1)	0.36	0.45	0.26
Exchangeable Na (cmolc kg^−1)	0.20	0.20	0.11
Base saturation (%)	66	62	66

Figure 1 Daily average soil temperature at 10 cm depth. A, 2009–10; B, 2010–11; C, 2011–12.

Figure 2 Daily water inputs (rainfall+irrigation) (bar) and cumulative water inputs (line). A, 2009–10; B, 2010–11; C, 2011–12.

Figure 3 Daily N₂O emissions from animal urine or dung and with or without DCD. A, 2009–10; B, 2010–11; C, 2011–12. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Table 2 Total N₂O emissions, emission factor values and reduction of the emission factor by DCD.

Treatment	Total N2O emissions (kg N2O-N ha^−1) (±SE)	EF3 (%)	Reduction of EF3 by DCD (%)
2009–10
Control	0.37 (0.09)	n.a.	n.a.
Urine	5.73 (0.54)	0.76	n.a.
Urine+DCD	1.35 (0.17)	0.14	82
Dung	2.05 (0.16)	0.17	n.a.
Dung+DCD	0.89 (0.13)	0.05	71
LSD (P < 0.05)	0.79
2010–11
Control	1.17 (0.17)	n.a.	n.a.
Control+DCD	0.79 (0.24)	n.a.	n.a.
Urine	14.78 (1.08)	1.94	n.a.
Urine+DCD	8.86 (0.78)	1.15	41
LSD (P < 0.05)	2.98
2011–12
Control	0.36 (0.037)	n.a.	n.a.
Urine	8.18 (1.00)	1.12	n.a.
Urine+DCD Apr, Jul	2.36 (0.27)	0.29	74
Urine+DCD Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug	2.21 (0.25)	0.26	77
LSD (P < 0.05)	1.57

EF₃, emission factor calculated as the amount of N₂O-N emitted as a percentage of the total N applied (de Klein et al. 2011); n.a., not applicable.

Figure 4 Nitrate-N concentration in the 0–10 cm soil. A, 2009–10; B, 2010–11; C, 2011–12. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Figure 5 DCD concentrations in the 0–10 cm soil. A, 2009–10; B, 2010–11; C, 2011–12. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Figure 6 Total nitrate-N leaching losses from urine with or without DCD. A, 2010–11; B, 2011–12. The vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Table 3 Spring and annual dry matter yields and yield responses in the mowing trials.

Treatments	Spring dry matter yield (kg ha^−1)^*	Spring dry matter response (%)	Annual dry matter yield (kg ha^−1)	Annual dry matter response (%)
2009–10
Control	2807	n.a.	4252	n.a.
Urine	6971	n.a.	8272	n.a.
Urine+DCD	6970	–	8365	1 (NS)
LSD (P < 0.05)	261		309
2010–11
Control	4717	n.a.	13,073	n.a.
Control+DCD	4886	–	12,989	–
Urea	6296	n.a.	14,919	n.a.
Urea+DCD	6128	1 (NS)	15,067	–
Urine edge	5298	n.a.	13,044	n.a.
Urine edge+DCD	5430	3 (P < 0.05)	13,569	4 (P < 0.05)
Urine	6301	n.a.	14,146	n.a.
Urine+DCD	7341	17 (P < 0.05)	15,086	7 (P < 0.05)
LSD (P < 0.05)
N-treatment	227		337
DCD treatment	160		238
DCD×N-treatment	321		476
2011–12
Control	4888	n.a.	13,963	n.a.
Urea	5868	n.a.	14,276	n.a.
Urea+3×DCD	6157	5 (NS)	15,115	6 (P < 0.01)
Urine	6812	n.a.	16,404	n.a.
Urine+1×DCD	7472	10 (P < 0.05)	16,180	–
Urine+2×DCD	7343	8 (P < 0.05)	15,980	–
Urine+3×DCD	7576	11 (P < 0.05)	16,075	–
Urine+5×DCD	7543	11 (P < 0.05)	16,461	–
LSD (P < 0.05)	304		620

n.a., not applicable.

^* Spring yields are the first four cuts or yields.

Table 4 Spring and annual dry matter yields and yield responses in the grazing trials.

Treatments	Spring dry matter yield (kg ha^−1)^*	Spring dry matter response (%)	Annual dry matter yield (kg ha^−1)	Annual dry matter response (%)
2009–10
Control	4678	n.a.	8302	n.a.
DCD	5354	15 (P < 0.001)	9147	10 (P < 0.01)
LSD (P < 0.05)	320		335
2010–11
Control	4859	n.a.	11,928	n.a.
DCD	5153	6 (P < 0.05)	12,307	3 (P < 0.05)
LSD (P < 0.05)	223		358
2011–12
N fertiliser	8341	n.a.	13,027	n.a.
N fertiliser+DCD Apr, July	8224	–	13,046	0.2 (NS)
N fertiliser+DCD Apr, July, Aug, Sept	8283	–	13,159	1 (NS)
N fertiliser+DCD Aug, Sept	8434	–	13,278	2 (NS)
LSD (P < 0.05)	277		458

n.a., not applicable.

^* Spring yields are the first four cuts or yields.

Table 5 Summary of published New Zealand trial data on effectiveness of DCD nitrification inhibitor in reducing nitrate leaching losses from animal urine patches.

Location of soil	Season	Soil	Rainfall/ Irrigation (mm/y)	Urine rate (kg N/ha)	DCD	Nitrate-N loss (kg N/ha)	Reduction (%)	Reference
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1360	1000	No	516	–	Di & Cameron (2002)
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1360	1000	Yes	128	75
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1360	1000	No	488	–
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1360	1000	Yes	112	77
Canterbury	Spring	Lismore	1360	1000	No	397	–
Canterbury	Spring	Lismore	1360	1000	Yes	230	42
Canterbury	Autumn	Templeton	1600	1000	No	85	–	Di & Cameron (2004a)
Canterbury	Autumn	Templeton	1600	1000	Yes	20	76
Canterbury	Autumn	Templeton	1600	1000	Yes	22	74
Canterbury	Autumn	Templeton	1200	1000	No	134	–	Di & Cameron (2005)
Canterbury	Autumn	Templeton	1200	1000	Yes	43	68
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	300	No	60	–	Di & Cameron (2007)
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	300	Yes	10	83
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	700	No	188	–
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	700	Yes	75	60
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	1000	No	255	–
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1260	1000	Yes	139	46
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1100	1000	No	400	–	Di et al. (2009a)
Canterbury	Autumn	Lismore	1100	1000	Yes	177	56
Southland	Autumn	Mataura	1100	1000	No	436	–
Southland	Autumn	Mataura	1100	1000	Yes	142	67
West Coast	Autumn	Harihari	1100	1000	No	123	–
West Coast	Autumn	Harihari	1100	1000	Yes	36	71
Southland	Autumn	Mataura	2200	1000	No	457	–
Southland	Autumn	Mataura	2200	1000	Yes	257	44
West Coast	Autumn	Harihari	2200	1000	No	68	–
West Coast	Autumn	Harihari	2200	1000	Yes	30	56
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	1100	1000	No	505	–	Shepherd et al. (2009)
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	1100	1000	Yes	233	54
Northland	Autumn	Waikere	1100	1000	No	293	–
Northland	Autumn	Waikere	1100	1000	Yes	182	38
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	2200	1000	No	578	–
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	2200	1000	Yes	388	33
Northland	Autumn	Waikere	2200	1000	No	365	–
Northland	Autumn	Waikere	2200	1000	Yes	241	34
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1138	Grazed plots	No	7.1	–	Monaghan et al. (2009)
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1139	Grazed plots	Yes	5.6	21
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1095	Grazed plots	No	11.6	–
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1096	Grazed plots	Yes	7.7	34
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1257	Grazed plots	No	15.5	–
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1258	Grazed plots	Yes	7	55
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1017	Grazed plots	No	14.2	–
Southland	Autumn	Pukemutu	1018	Grazed plots	Yes	6.2	56
Taupo district	Autumn	Kuratau	663	775	No	114	–	Menneer et al. (2008a)
Taupo district	Autumn	Kuratau	663	775	Yes	52	54
Rotorua district	Autumn	Te Ngai	1046	598	No	263	–	Menneer et al. (2008b)
Rotorua district	Autumn	Te Ngai	1046	598	Yes	218	17
Rotorua district	Winter	Te Ngai	1046	598	No	86	–
Rotorua district	Winter	Te Ngai	1046	598	Yes	32	62
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	1148	600	No	275	–	Sprosen et al. (2009)
Waikato	Autumn	Horotiu	1148	600	Yes	208	24
North Otago	Autumn	Timaru	–	580	No	300	–
North Otago	Autumn	Timaru	–	580	Yes	184	39	McDowell & Houlbrooke (2009)
North Otago	Autumn	Timaru	–	229	No	98	–
North Otago	Autumn	Timaru	–	229	Yes	82	16
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	635^*	700	No	306	–	Cameron et al. (2007)
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	635^*	700	Yes	213	30
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	563^*	700	No	289	–
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	563^*	700	Yes	195	33
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	486^*	700	No	133	–
Taupo	Autumn	Taupo	486^*	700	Yes	81	39
Canterbury	Winter	Templeton	–	300	No	147	–	Moir et al. (2010)
Canterbury	Winter	Templeton	–	300	Yes	45	70
						Mean	50.1
						SEM	3.4

SEM, standard error mean.

^* Drainage amount (mm).

Blakemore LC, Searle PL, Daly BK 1987. Methods for chemical analysis of soils. New Zealand Soil Bureau Scientific Report 80. 103 p.

 Google Scholar

de Klein CAM, Cameron KC, Di HJ, Rys G, Monaghan RM, Sherlock RR 2011. Repeated annual use of the nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) does not alter its effectiveness in reducing N2O emissions from cow urine. Animal Feed Science & Technology 166–167: 480–491. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.076

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di HJ, Cameron KC 2002. The use of a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide (DCD), to decrease nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions in a simulated grazed and irrigated grassland. Soil Use and Management 18: 395–403. 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00258.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di HJ, Cameron KC 2004a. Treating grazed pasture soil with a nitrification inhibitor, eco-nTM, to decrease nitrate leaching in a deep sandy soil under spray irrigation—a lysimeter study. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 47: 351–361. 10.1080/00288233.2004.9513604

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di HJ, Cameron KC 2005. Reducing environmental impacts of agriculture by using a fine particle suspension nitrification inhibitor to decrease nitrate leaching from grazed pastures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109: 202–212. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.03.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di HJ, Cameron KC 2007. Nitrate leaching losses and pasture yields as affected by different rates of animal urine nitrogen returns and application of a nitrification inhibitor—a lysimeter study. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 79: 281–290. 10.1007/s10705-007-9115-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di HJ, Cameron KC, Shen JP, He JZ, Winefield CS 2009a. Nitrate leaching from grazed grassland as affected by a nitrification inhibitor, dicyandiamide, and relationships with ammonia oxidizing bacteria and archaea. Soil Use and Management 25: 454–461. 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00241.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shepherd M, Welton B, Ledgard S 2009. Effectiveness of dicyandiamide in reducing nitrogen leaching losses from two contrasting soil types under two rainfall regimes—a lysimeter study. Proceedings of the Workshop: Farming's Future: Minimising Footprints and Maximising Margins. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre. Pp. 177–184.

 Google Scholar

Monaghan RM, Smith LC, Ledgard SF 2009. The effectiveness of a granular formulation of dicyandiamide (DCD) in limiting nitrate leaching from a grazed dairy pasture. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 145–159. 10.1080/00288230909510499

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Menneer JC, Ledgard SF, Sprosen MS 2008a. Soil N process inhibitors alter nitrogen leaching dynamics in a pumice soil. Australian Journal of Soil Research 46: 323–331. 10.1071/SR06180

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Menneer JC, Sprosen MS, Ledgard SF 2008b. Effect of timing and formulation of dicyandamide (DCD) application on nitrate leaching and pasture production in a Bay of Plenty pastoral soil. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 51: 377–385. 10.1080/00288230809510468

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sprosen MS, Ledgard SF, Lindsey SB 2009. Effect of rate and form of dicyandiamide application on nitrate leaching and pasture production from a volcanic ash soil in the Waikato New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 47–55. 10.1080/00288230909510488

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McDowell RW, Houlbrooke DJ 2009. The effect of DCD on nitrate leaching losses from a winter forage crop receiving applications of sheep or cattle urine. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 71: 117–120.

 Google Scholar

Cameron KC, Di HJ, Moir JL, Roberts AHC 2007. Reducing nitrate leaching losses from a Taupo pumice soil using a nitrification inhibitor eco-n. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 69: 131–135.

 Google Scholar

Moir JL, Wild MA, Cameron KC, Di HJ 2010. The effect of DCD on nitrogen losses from sheep urine patches applied to lysimeters in autumn. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 72: 197–202.

 Google Scholar