article · Agronomy
Managing nitrogen release is essential for enhancing crop nutrient uptake and fertiliser efficiency. A laboratory incubation study evaluated nitrogen release patterns across acidic and charland soils treated with various organic amendments alongside chemical fertilisers under field capacity and continuous standing water regimes. Tested organic inputs included compost, poultry manure, cow dung, poultry manure biochar, and rice husk biochar. Ammonium dominated under standing water, while nitrate dominated at field capacity. Nitrogen release potential and rates were higher in acidic soil than in charland soil. Poultry manure and its biochar mineralised across all treatments, whereas rice husk biochar caused nitrogen immobilisation. Poultry manure biochar resulted in the lowest gaseous nitrogen losses, and all biochar treatments increased soil pH. Because biochar amendments risk causing nitrogen deficiency in short-duration crops, integrated systems combining chemical fertiliser with compost, poultry manure, or cow dung are recommended for effective nutrient supply.
Balancing organic amendments with mineral fertilisers helps optimise nutrient availability and reduces environmental losses. By demonstrating how soil moisture, soil acidity, and organic materials govern nitrogen availability, this research guides better fertiliser strategies. It reveals that while biochar offers benefits like raising soil pH and lowering gaseous nitrogen losses, its immobilisation of nitrogen can harm short-duration crops, highlighting the need to match fertiliser blends to specific crop timelines.
This laboratory incubation study is early-stage research that provides formulation guidelines for agronomic advisers, fertiliser manufacturers, and farm managers. The findings can inform the design of tailored organic-inorganic fertiliser blends for specific moisture regimes such as flooded paddies or upland fields. However, because the trial was conducted strictly in controlled laboratory conditions over 120 days, field-scale validation across commercial crop trials is necessary before these amendment strategies can be deployed commercially.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Understanding nitrogen (N) release patterns and kinetics is a key challenge for improving N use efficiency in any agroecosystem. An incubation experiment was done to study the N release pattern and kinetics of contrasting soils amended with compost (CO), poultry manure (PM), rice husk biochar (RHB), poultry manure biochar (PMB) and cowdung (CD) combined with chemical fertilizer (integrated plant nutrient system, IPNS approach) under two moisture regimes, viz. field capacity (FC) and continuous standing water (CSW) at 25 °C for 120 days. Our results revealed that NH4+-N was the dominant under CSW conditions, whereas NO3−-N was dominant under FC conditions. Net mineral N data fitted well to the first order kinetic model. Both N release potential (N0) and rate constant (k) were greater in acidic soil than those of charland soil. The maximum N release varied between 24.90–76.29% of input depending on soil type and moisture status. N mineralization was strongly correlated with urea N application. PM and PMB mineralized in all soil and moisture conditions whereas N immobilization was observed in the case of RHB. N mineralization was strongly correlated with urea N application. Gaseous N losses were different for the organic amendments exhibiting more gaseous N losses in PM, CD and CO based IPNS whereas the lowest gaseous N loss was observed in PMB based IPNS. Biochar based IPNS increased soil pH in all conditions. Thus, the present study suggests that N release depends on soil type, soil moisture and type of organic amendment. However, CO, PM and CD based IPNS can be recommended for both acidic and charland soils in terms of N release as short duration crops will suffer from N deficiency if biochar based IPNS is used in the field.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11112163
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
