247
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Nationally Coordinated Evaluation of Soil Nitrogen Mineralization Rate using a Standardized Aerobic Incubation Protocol

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 257-268 | Received 10 Apr 2006, Accepted 02 Dec 2006, Published online: 31 Mar 2008
 

Abstract

Aerobic incubation methods have been widely used to assess soil nitrogen (N) mineralization, but standardized protocols are lacking. A single silt loam soil (Catlin silt loam; fine‐silty, mixed, superactive, mesic, Oxyaquic Arguidoll) was subjected to aerobic incubation at six USDA‐ARS locations using a standardized protocol. Incubations were conducted at multiple temperatures, which were combined based on degree days (DD). Soil water was maintained at 60% water‐filled pore space (WFPS; constant) or allowed to fluctuate between 60 and 30% WFPS (cycle). Soil subsamples were removed periodically and extracted in 2 M potassium chloride (KCl); nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4) concentrations in extracts were determined colorimetrically. For each location, the rate of soil organic‐matter N (SOMN) mineralization was estimated by regressing soil inorganic N (Ni) concentration on DD, using a linear (zero‐order) model. When all data were included, the mineralization rate from four datasets was not statistically different, with a rate equivalent to 0.5 mg N kg−1 soil day−1. Soil incubated at two locations exhibited significantly higher SOMN mineralization rates. To assess whether this may have been due to pre‐incubation conditions, time‐zero data were excluded and regression analysis was conducted again. Using this data subset, SOMN mineralization from five (of six) datasets was not significantly different. Fluctuating soil water reduced N‐mineralization rate at two (of four) locations by an average of 50%; fluctuating soil water content also substantially increased variability. This composite dataset demonstrates that standardization of aerobic incubation methodology is possible.

Notes

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 61.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 408.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.