Nitrogen leaching losses under crops fertilized with biowaste compost compared with mineral fertilization

Abstract

The effect of compost fertilization compared with mineral fertilization on N leaching to the groundwater was investigated in six plots of a long-term field experiment and a lysimeter station on a Molli-gleyic Fluvisol (WRB) near Vienna, Austria. The plots investigated included two treatments with compost fertilization (16 and 23 t ha -1 y -1 , respectively, on average of 11 y), two treatments with mineral N fertilization (41 and 56 kg N ha -1 y -1 , respectively), and two treatments with combined fertilization (9 t compost + 56 kg N ha -1 y -1 and 23 t compost + 22 kg N ha -1 y -1 , respectively). Nitrogen leaching to the groundwater as determined using ceramic suction cups was not increased after 11 y of compost fertilization with higher amounts than used in practical farming (23 t ha -1 y -1 , corresponding to an annual input of 205 kg N tot ha -1 ) as compared to mineral fertilization under the conditions of the experiment. Even intensive N mineralization during a 4-month period of bare fallow did not cause pronounced differences between the fertilization treatments. The results suggest that in the pannonic climate, compost fertilization does not pose a risk for groundwater eutrophication on the medium term.

Perdas de nitrogênio do solo e resposta do pessegueiro à adição de composto orgânico

“…Isso pode ser decorrente do valor de pH do composto (9,0), que estimulou a transferência de parte do N para a atmosfera na forma de N-NH 3 (VOUTSAS et al, 2005). Além disso, as precipitações foram pouco frequentes e, em geral, de baixa intensidade, o que diminui o fluxo descendente de solução e de formas de N no perfil do solo (ERHART et al, 2007 A quantidade volatilizada acumulada de N-NH 3 (kg ha -1 ) incrementou com a dose de composto aplicada na superfície do solo (Figura 1h). Assim, ao final de 478 horas, depois da aplicação das doses de composto, observaram-se perdas de aproximadamente 0,06; 0,17; 0,27; 0,53 e 1,15kg ha -1 de N-NH 3 .…”

“…Uma parte do N mineralizado e que não é absorvido pelos pessegueiros pode ser lixiviado na forma de N-NO 3 -por causa da sua baixa adsorção ao solo (ERHART et al, 2007), permanecendo em maior concentração na solução. Outra parte do N derivado da mineralização pode ser volatilizada na forma de N-NH 3 (MATTOS et al, 2003).…”

“…Outra parte do N derivado da mineralização pode ser volatilizada na forma de N-NH 3 (MATTOS et al, 2003). Porém, a quantidade de formas de N lixiviadas e de N-NH 3 volatilizada é dependente da composição do composto aplicado, da sua dose e de condições climáticas, como precipitações e temperatura do ar (ERHART et al, 2007). Alguns trabalhos relatam que parte do N do composto orgânico aplicado na superfície do solo em pomares pode ser transferida para a atmosfera e lixiviado no perfil; mas as quantidades transferidas são muito dependentes da dose de composto adicionada e do tipo de solo (ROSEN & ALLAN, 2007;BRAVO et al, 2012;LORENSINI et al, 2012).…”

Influence of agricultural utilization of sludge and compost from rural wastewater treatment plant on nitrogen passes in light soil

“…This has been inter alia shown by studies with using identical doses of nitrogen supplied in ammonium sulphate and composts. Nitrate concentrations and the amount of discharged nitrogen in the leachate in the fertilization of the soil with ammonium sulphate were much higher than with the same dose of nitrogen in the compost 27, 32, 33 . The greater fertilization dose the greater was the difference in the losses of applied nitrogen within fertilizer types.…”

Application of the Bayesian calibration methodology for the parameter estimation in CoupModel

“…An additional reason for an underestimation by the model "Büchter" is the failure of the suction cups methodology to capture the whole NO 3 nitrogen leachate in available soil pores. This sampling method for soil water solutions is widely used in unstructured soils, but it showed a tendency to underestimate N concentrations on an average of 8% compared to free drainage experiments (Erhart et al, 2007). Reasons for this deviation are possible anion absorption and the small cross-sectional area of the ceramic cups, which is maybe not representing spatial soil variability.…”