Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:58:49.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denitrification in soil. II. Factors affecting denitrification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Bremner  and
K. Shaw
J. M. Bremner
Affiliation:
Bothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
K. Shaw
Affiliation:
Bothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The factors affecting denitrification in soil have been studied by determining loss of nitrogen from soil under various conditions by total-N analysis.

2. It was found that the rate of denitrification of nitrate in soil was dependent upon various factors such as the pH, temperature and water content of the soil and that, under conditions conducive to denitrification, 80–86% of nitrate-N added to Rothamsted soils was lost by denitrification in 5 days.

3. The rate of denitrification was greatly affected by the pH of the soil. It was very slow at low pH (below 4·8), increased with rise in soil pH and was very rapid at pH 8·0–8·6.

4. The rate of denitrification increased rapidly with rise in temperature from 2° to 25° C. The optimum temperature for denitrification was about 60° C.

5. The degree of water saturation of the soil had a profound influence on the rate of denitrification. Below a certain moisture level practically no denitrification occurred; above this level denitrification increased rapidly with increase in moisture content. The critical moisture level was about 60% of the water-holding capacity of the soil.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1958 , pp. 40 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ampola, G. & Ulpiani, C. (1899). Gazz. chim. ital. 29, 49.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, F. E. (1951). Soil Sci. 72, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, F. E. & Stojanovic, B. F. (1952). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 16, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, F. M. (1955). Nature, Lond., 175, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, A. S. & Wooldridge, W. R. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsen, A. (1938). Bergens Mus. Aarb. no. 2.Google Scholar
Lloyd, B. (1931). J. R. Tech. Coll. Glasg. 2, 530.Google Scholar
Marshall, R. O., Dishburger, H. J., MacVicar, R. & Hallmark, G. D. (1953). J. Bact. 66, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meiklejohn, J. (1940). Ann. appl. Biol. 27, 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nömmik, H. (1956). Acta Agric. scand. 6, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skerman, V. B. D., Lack, J. & Millis, N. (1951). Aust. J. sci. Res. B, 4, 511.Google Scholar
Skerman, V. B. D. & MacRae, I. C. (1957). Canad. J. Microbiol. 3, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahhab, A. & Uddin, F. (1954). Soil Sci. 78, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelitch, I., Rosenblum, E. D., Burris, R. H. & Wilson, P. W. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 191, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar