Ammonia volatilization mitigation in crop farming: A review of fertilizer amendment technologies and mechanisms Tianling Li
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/ammonia-volatilization-mitigation-in-crop-farming-a-re view-of-fertilizer-amendment-technologies-and-mechanisms-tianling-li/
Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere
Ammonia volatilization mitigation in crop farming: A review of fertilizer amendment technologies and mechanisms
Tianling Li a, c , Zhengguo Wang a , Chenxu Wang a , Jiayu Huang a , Yanfang Feng b , Weishou Shen a , Ming Zhou c, * , Linzhang Yang b
a Collaborative Innovation Centre of Atmospheric Environment and Equipment Technology, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Environment Monitoring and Pollution Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210044, PR China
b Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in Downstream of Yangtze Plain, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Food Quality and SafetyState Key Laboratory Cultivation Base, Ministry of Science and Technology, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, 210014, PR China
c Centre for Clean Environment and Energy, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, QLD, 4222, Australia
HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
• A vital step in reducing emissions is to inhibit the conversion of fertilizer to NH3
• Enhanced efficiency fertilizers technique can mitigate over 54% of NH3 emissions.
• Low environmental impact biofertilizers provide more sustainable NH3 control.
• Biochar-based fertilizers can either promote or inhibit NH3 volatilization.
• Membrane/film-based mulching methods achieve NH3 mitigation via barrier effect.
ARTICLE INFO
Handling Editor: Dr Y Yeomin Yoon
Keywords:
Ammonia volatilization
Mitigation technology
Agriculture
Nitrogen fertilizer
Farmland
ABSTRACT
Good practices in controlling ammonia produced from the predominant agricultural contributor, crop farming, are the most direct yet effective approaches for mitigating ammonia emissions and further relieving air pollution. Of all the practices that have been investigated in recent decades, fertilizer amendment technologies are garnering increased attention as the low nitrogen use efficiency in most applied quick-acting fertilizers is the main cause of high ammonia emissions. This paper systematically reviews the fertilizer amendment technologies and associated mechanisms that have been developed for ammonia control, especially the technology development of inorganic additives-based complex fertilizers, coating-based enhanced efficiency fertilizers, organic waste-based resource fertilizers and microbial agent and algae-based biofertilizers, and their corresponding mechanisms in farmland properties shifting towards inhibiting ammonia volatilization and enhancing nitrogen use efficiency. The systematic analysis of the literature shows that both enhanced efficiency fertilizers technique and biofertilizers technique present outstanding ammonia inhibition performance with an average mitigation efficiency of 54% and 50.1%, respectively, which is mainly attributed to the slowing down in release and hydrolysis of nitrogen fertilizer, the enhancement in the adsorption and retention of NH4+/NH3 in soil, and the promotion in the microbial consumption of NH4+ in soil. Furthermore, a combined physical and chemical means,
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: ming.zhou@griffith.edu.au (M. Zhou).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134944
Received 1 March 2022; Received in revised form 7 May 2022; Accepted 9 May 2022
Availableonline13May2022
0045-6535/©2022ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
namely membrane/film-based mulching technology, for ammonia volatilization inhibition is also evaluated, which is capable of increasing the resistance of ammonia volatilization. Finally, the review addresses the challenges of mitigating agricultural ammonia emissions with the aim of providing an outlook for future research.
1. Introduction
With the foreseeable growth of the global population in the years ahead, the reliance on fertilizer is predictably increasing to meet the growing demand for crops (Li et al., 2019b). Due to the necessity of nitrogen for crop growth, nitrogen fertilizer is generally adopted as the mainstay of agriculture; hence, it is the most crucial nutrient being used in farming (De Campos Bernardi et al., 2016). The world agricultural nitrogen fertilizer consumption increased from 2015 to 118.7 million tons in 2020, with an average annual growth of 1.5% (Martínez-Dalmau et al., 2021; Swarbreck et al., 2019). However, as much as 40–70% of nitrogen losses result from ammonia volatilization, denitrification, runoff, leaching and other ways (Chien et al., 2009; Li et al., 2019a; Timilsena et al., 2015), leading to the accumulation of reactive nitrogen (i.e., organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen compounds exclude N2) in the natural systems, which further contributes to a series of environmental issues (Minoli and Carozzi, 2015). Ammonia volatilization accounts for a considerable amount (average of 10–14%) of total nitrogen loss (Bouwman et al., 2001; Pan et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2021a); it is, therefore, one of the main pathways of nitrogen loss. The volatile ammonia is not only an indispensable precursor of the atmospheric fine particulates (e.g., PM2.5) but also an incentive of water eutrophication and soil acidification after atmospheric deposition, causing detrimental effects on air, water and soil (Liu et al., 2020; Ti et al., 2019). Furthermore, some studies have revealed that ammonia volatilization is closely implicated with the emissions of greenhouse gases such as N2O emission from agriculture (David Ussiri, 2012; SN Behera et al., 2013), which is a crucial contributor to global warming. Therefore, many agricultural studies have taken ammonia volatilization as a necessary monitoring parameter for estimating agricultural systems, and the development of mitigation strategies has gained tremendous interest in both agronomic and environmental research.
The factors that can affect ammonia volatilization in agricultural
systems are the breakthroughs in developing ammonia control technologies. These factors could be natural factors, such as meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature, wind speed and water regime) (Gong et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2007; Peng et al., 2009), farmland properties (e.g., soil properties and crop features) (Corstanje et al., 2008; Griggs et al., 2007; Hayashi et al., 2006; Rochette et al., 2009), and factitious factors, such as fertilization and irrigation strategies (Barakat et al., 2016; Ding et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2015; Zhong et al., 2021), fertilizer amendments (De Campos Bernardi et al., 2016; Minoli and Carozzi, 2015; Shan et al., 2015; Timilsena et al., 2015), and other factors. Many studies have revealed that improved fertilizer technologyies can effectively inhibit the volatilization of ammonia on farmland, which have presented great development prospects and application potential. This review thus summarizes the recent advances in the mitigation strategies of ammonia volatilization through fertilizer amendments techniques, which is of the most critical significance for improving nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency and subsequently mitigating environmental pollution risks. Furthermore, this review also discusses the effects and mechanisms of the reuse of organic waste in agriculture on ammonia volatilization and the membrane/film-based mulching technology for ammonia volatilization inhibition and future development opportunities.
2. The mechanism of ammonia volatilization in farmland
Ammonia volatilization refers to the loss of nitrogen fertilizer to the atmosphere in the form of ammonia gas. After applying ammonium nitrogen fertilizer to the farmland, a series of biochemical and chemical processes related to ammonia formation occurs regardless in paddy field or dry field. As shown in Fig. 1, the hydrolysis of ammonium nitrogen fertilizer (e.g., urea) is a critical initial step. On the one hand, the hydrolyzed ammonium ion can dissolve in farmland surface water or soil water and further be converted into ammonia gas (i.e., NH3) and other
reactive nitrogen (e.g., NO and N2O) through nitrification and/or denitrification processes, ending up with volatilizing into the atmosphere. After that, part of the volatile ammonia returns to the farmland through atmospheric nitrogen deposition, and the rest reacts with atmospheric gaseous pollutants (such as VOCs, NOx, SO2, etc.) to accelerate the formation of PM2.5, threatening human health. On the other hand, chemical migration processes in soil allow part of hydrolyzed ammonium to leach into the surface and underground water, contributing to water eutrophication (Recio et al., 2018). As only nitrate and ammonium are “plant-available” , most of lost nitrogen fertilizers are no longer available to the crops, dwindling both fertilizer utilization efficiency and potential crops yields. Meanwhile, some ammoniums are retained in the soil through “exchange” (binding to soil particles or utilizing by microorganisms) that could be eventually available, indirectly reducing nitrogen loss.
The transformation of ammonium to ammonia is a reversible process, which strongly links to nitrogen fertilizer loss via volatilization; hence the conditions that stimulate the formation of ammonia promote the emission of ammonia. This insinuates that the emission of ammonia can be inhibited by restraint or control of ammonia volatilization promoting processes or conditions. Given this, this study reviews a variety of control technologies, mainly involving fertilizer amendments and barrier effects that are developed to suppress nitrogen fertilization loss through ammonia volatilization in various ammonia promotion related scenarios such as soil-water interface, water-air interface and soil-air interface. In addition, as the regional distribution pattern of ammonia emission also shows strong correspondence with local arable land areas and agronomic strategies that can be briefly sorted out into soil fertilization practices and irrigation practices (Barakat et al., 2016; SN Behera et al., 2013), agronomic strategies capable of reducing ammonia volatilization are systematically reviewed in the Supplementary Material.
3. Current fertilizer amendment technologies for mitigating ammonia volatilization
To date, nitrogen fertilizers used in the farmland are mostly quickacting fertilizers such as urea and ammonium bicarbonate. There are two potential problems with using this type of fertilizer. On the one hand, after fertilizer being applied to the soil, the concentration of soluble nitrogen ions (e.g., NH4+) in the soil will increase rapidly in a short time, thereby promoting the N loss through ammonia volatilization. On the other hand, the fertilizer release duration is also relatively short,
which cannot meet the nitrogen demand of crops throughout the whole growth period. Based on the above-mentioned problems, developing advanced fertilizer amendment technologies is an effective way to improve fertilizer utilization efficiency and reduce N loss through ammonia volatilization.
3.1. Clay mineral and inorganic additives-based complex fertilizer technology
As shown in Fig. 2, complex fertilizers are generally composed of soil additives and nitrogen fertilizer. Clay minerals and some inorganic substances are two major soil additives. The used clay minerals are usually crystalline hydrated aluminosilicates of alkali or alkaline-earth metals, structured in a three-dimensional rigid crystalline network with high-density pores, cavities and canals at the nanoscale. Such composition allows them to retain and release water content and exchange cations without changing the crystal structure (De Campos Bernardi et al., 2016). The high ion exchange capability and surface area of clay minerals (e.g., clinoptilolite zeolite and stilbite zeolite) for cations, such as ammonium, not only enhance fertilizer retention but also achieve slow-release to minimize the rate of converting ammonium to ammonia (Palanivell et al., 2015). Previous studies have shown that zeolite and bentonite can reduce ammonia volatilization by up to 50% and are beneficial to increase nitrogen fertilizer utilization and crop yields (Palanivell et al., 2016; Pratt et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019d). Moreover, total ammonia volatilization and NH4+-N and NO3 -N leaching loss decreased with increasing rates of zeolite amendment (Latip et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2019d). A 25.3% of ammonia loss reduction was achieved by using clinoptilolite zeolite to extend the retention of NH4+ and NO3 in waterlogged condition soil (Palanivell et al., 2015). Also, the ammonia loss reduction ratio was achieved 40–50% when applying zeolite with sago wastewater irrigation under waterlogged soil, attributing to the combined effects of high absorption ability of zeolite and acidifying capacity of the irrigation wastewater (Omar et al., 2010). Additionally, some inorganic substances can also be incorporated with a nitrogen fertilizer to mitigate ammonia volatilization due to their accessibility and low cost. The added inorganic substances retards the hydrolysis of urea by reducing the urease activities and increases NH4+ retention by changing soil properties, such as acidifying the soil and enhancing soil cation exchange capacity. Using this principle, Soaud et al. employed S0 to amend alkaline and calcareous soils and investigated the varying rates of S0 application in sandy calcareous soils. The
Mineral and inorganic additives for ammonia volatilization mitigation.
Type of additives
Ammonia mitigation efficiency
Clinoptilolite zeolite 25.3%
Clinoptilolite zeolite 33.2%
Cuban zeolite
Clinoptilolite zeolite 26%
Andosols 0.2%
Vermiculite + bentonite 50%
Zeolite + sago wastewater 40–50%
Clinoptilolite zeolite + alternate wetting and drying irrigation
Clinoptilolite + cellulose
35–37%
85–96%
Zeolite + triple superphosphate 34–49%
Zeolite + triple superphosphate + humic acid >30%
Gypsum 13%
Boric acid 11–16%
Calcium superphosphate 39.2%
Urea + pyrite + CuSO4 30.3%
Urea + KCl + CuSO4 24.6%
Urea + Cu + B 37%
Mitigation
Improve the retention of NH4+ and NO3 in soil.
Increase the cation exchange capacity of the amended soil due to the inclus ion of zeolite can maintain more NH4+ in the soil.
Allow NH4+ to enter the porous structure of zeolites so is held to convert into NH3
Increase the affinity of clinoptilolite zeolite for NH4+
1) Lower the soil pH;
2) Increase the effective cation exchange capacity;
3) Increase the nitrification potential for a high consumption rate of the applied ammonium.
Typic paleudults (Bekenu series) soil
Palanivell et al. (2015)
Tipik tualemkuts (Bekenu series) soil (Latip et al., 2011)
Fertilizer pellets in aqueous solutions
Typic paleudults (Bekenu series) soil
(Esp´ ecie Bueno et al. 2015)
Palanivell et al. (2016)
Volcanic ash soil with wheat Hayashi et al. (2011)
Improve the effectiveness of NH4+ adsorption/fixation to clays. Sandy sodosol soil Pratt et al. (2016)
1) Form channels in zeolites that effectively absorb ammonium ions and release them slowly;
2) Acidify the soil, and lower soil pH by introducing the sago wastewater, facilitating the formation of ammonium ions over ammonia.
Enhance soil adsorption capacity for NH4+ and more crystallized urea and urease being sequestered in the zeolite pores. Zeolite can retain NH4+ within a short time after N fertilization due to its high cation exchange capacity, which buffer the excessive N supply significantly and produce a better efficiency in reducing NH3 volatilization.
1) Increase NH4+ retention on cation-exchange sites;
2) Enhance microbial growth and activities.
Significantly increase soil-exchangeable Ca, K and Mg, and benefit the formation of NH4+ over NH3 compared with urea without additives.
1) Encourage the formation of NH4+ over NH3 via hydrolysis of superphosphate that can acidify the soil, lower soil pH;
2) Increase the retention of NH4+ on the humic acid and zeolite;
3) Promote the formation of metastable reaction products such as Ca (NH4)2(HPO4)2 would help to conserve NH4+
Decrease the pH.
Significantly slow down the rate of urea hydrolyzation, prolonging its half-life.
Alleviate the negative effect of pH of the flood water.
Induce a strong inhibitory effect on urease activity by using Cu2+ , and acidify alkaline urea microsites by using pyrite or KCl.
1) Block the enzyme site and reduce its activity in the soil through the Cu2+ produced by the reaction of the ion with the sulfhydryl group from urease, thus promoting N maintenance in amidic form;
2) Reduce the pH around the granules by introducing B.
results showed that the neutralization effect between alkaline urea and H2SO4 generated from S0 suppresses the conversion of NH4+ to NH3 In this way, up to 55% ammonia loss has been reduced (Soaud et al., 2011). A similar investigation focused on the effect of co-application of potassium chloride and copper sulfate on ammonia volatilization found that 25% of ammonia loss reduction was achieved due to the strong inhibitory effect of Cu2+ on urease activity and acidification of alkaline urea microsites by KCl (Damodar Reddy and Sharma, 2000). Moreover, there were other studies suggested that triple superphosphate and some acidic additives (such as boric acid and humic acid) possess good abilities for ammonia volatilization control and can be used as effective nitrogen fertilizer additives (Ahmed et al., 2006; He et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2020).
Table 1 summarizes some common mineral and inorganic additives for mitigating ammonia volatilization. It can be seen that in the investigated studies, the inhibition effect of a single additive on ammonia volatilization (average inhibition efficiency ca. 23%) is inferior to the combined effects of two or more additives (average inhibition efficiency ca. 42.8%), and the total average inhibition efficiency is about 33.5%. To sum up, clay mineral and inorganic additives-based complex fertilizers have the advantage of being low-cost, most indigenously available from natural minerals or industrial by-products. However, excessive application of such additives can induce soil acidification and compaction or damage the soil structure, which may cause secondary environmental
Mineral soil Omar et al. (2010)
Rice paddy soil Sun et al. (2019d)
Calcareous riviera fine sand He et al. (2002)
Sandy clay loam (Typic kandiudult)
Sandy clay loam (Typic kandiudult)
Coastal saline alluvial soil
Chernozem and red soil
Yellow-brown soil with cabbage
Haruna Ahmed et al. (2008)
Ahmed et al. (2006)
Zhu et al. (2020)
Gao et al. (2021)
Shan et al. (2015)
Alfisol soil (Typic haplustalf) with sunflower (Damodar Reddy and Sharma, 2000)
Dystrophic red latosols with maize (Eduardo Lopes Cancellier et al., 2016)
pollution and rise potential environmental risks (De Campos Bernardi et al., 2016).
3.2. Coating and inhibition-based enhanced efficiency fertilizer technology
Several attempts have been made to develop means for ammonia evolution controlling during urea hydrolysis. A prevalent strategy is using enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEF) with additional coating and urease/nitrification inhibitors. As demonstrated in Fig. 3, the added coating controls fertilizer nutrient release by suppressing one or more nitrogen transformation processes responsible for the N losses (Liu et al., 2020; Timilsena et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2020b).
The most used coated fertilizer, also known as controlled/slowrelease fertilizer, includes polymer coating, inorganic/organic additives coating, etc. The coating additives regulate the release rate of nitrogen fertilizer, thus maintaining a low level of ammonium nitrogen in the soil or field water and supporting the long-term supply of N for crop absorption, thereby reducing ammonia loss and boosting nitrogen utilization efficiency (Tang et al., 2018; Tian et al., 2017). In recent years, a wide variety of coated fertilizers have been developed. Compared with traditional urea, coated fertilizers have been proven to significantly reduce ammonia volatilization. The research conducted by Lam et al.
found that polymer-coated fertilizers can reduce ammonia volatilization by 80% in tenosol soil grown with perennial ryegrass (Lam et al., 2019). Later, Shan et al. suggested that sulfur-coated fertilizers can also reduce ammonia volatilization, with a reduction rate ranging from 60.7% to 68.8% in yellow-brown soil planted with cabbage (Shan et al., 2015). On this basis, Tian et al. collaboratively applied polymer-coated and sulfur-coated fertilizers to calcaric ochri-aquic cambosol soil planted with cotton, achieving an ammonia loss reduction of as much as 105% (Tian et al., 2017). Besides, the studies carried out by Sun et al. and Shan et al. revealed that bulk-blend controlled-release fertilizer performed different effects on ammonia volatilization inhibition under different farmland types, specifically, when being applied in hydroagric stagnic anthrosol planted with rice paddy and in yellow-brown soil planted with cabbage, this type of EEF can reduce ammonia loss by 22.8% and 77.7–83.1%, respectively (Shan et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2016). Lately, Pan et al. used meta-analysis to comprehensively analyze the effects of a variety of common coated fertilizers on ammonia volatilization. The analysis revealed that controlled/slow-release fertilizers can reduce ammonia volatilization by 68% on average. Among them, thermoplastic resin-coated urea, sulfur-coated urea, and polyfin-coated urea can mitigate ammonia loss by 82.7%, 78.4% and 69.4%, respectively (Pan et al., 2016).
Urease inhibitors are another important type of EEF for ammonia volatilization control. As a hydrolase that acts on amide bonds, urease can catalyze the conversion of urea and organic nitrogen, contributing to the formation of ammonium nitrogen. Since the urease activity can directly affect the ammonia volatilization process on the soil, urease inhibitors can be added to control the urease activity so that urea enters the deep soil before hydrolysis and forms an exchange complex with the soil, resulting in decreasing the NH4+ concentration produced by hydrolysis, and ultimately reducing the loss of ammonia volatilization (Sigurdarson et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2017). Many studies have suggested that the application of urease inhibitors has a critical effect on the reduction of ammonia volatilization in farmland. For example, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) is recognized as a high-efficiency urease inhibitor, which has been studied and applied in a variety of farmland types (Cantarella et al., 2018). Awale’s research found that applying NBPT in sandy loam soil and silty clay soil can effectively reduce the ammonia volatilization loss by 32.3% and 71.4%, respectively (Awale and Chatterjee, 2017), while Singh et al. also revealed that, in temperate pasture soil, NBPT could reduce ammonia volatilization losses by 22–47% and increase nitrogen uptake to 7.61 g
m 2 compared with 1.90 g m 2 in the application of urea only (Singh et al., 2013). The study conducted by Ahmed et al. showed that an even higher ammonia volatilization reduction efficiency (up to 90%) could be achieved by the combined use of NBPT and dicyandiamide, which significantly improved the utilization of nitrogen fertilizer (Ahmed et al., 2018). In addition, other urease inhibitors, such as Benzoylthiourea-type urease inhibitor (RTB68), Benzimidazole-type urease inhibitor (BZI1) and Limus®, have also been proven to be capable of controlling ammonia volatilization, reaching 10%, 22% and 55–60% loss reduction, respectively (Barberena, 2019; Li et al., 2017b). Table 2 summarizes some coated fertilizers and urease inhibitors for mitigating ammonia volatilization. It is observed that this type of fertilizer amendment technique shows a high ammonia volatilization inhibition performance with an average inhibition efficiency of 54.3%, among which the coated fertilizers can effectively hinder ca. 63.6% ammonia volatilization while urease inhibitors mitigate ca. 45.6%, in the investigated 37 studies. In general, such coating and inhibition-based EEF realize ammonia reduction and nitrogen fertilization efficiency enhancement by hindering the hydrolysis of nitrogen fertilizer and coordinating nitrogen supply pattern so that they usually present the characteristics of “long-acting, slow-release, energy-saving, and environmental-friendly” However, there are also some drawbacks, such as expensive price, vulnerable coating material, potential damage to the soil structure, and the inability of nutrient release characteristics to fully match the nutrient requirements of the crop during the growth period. Therefore, the solutions to these existing problems will be the future development directions of such ammonia volatilization mitigation technology.
3.3. Microbial agent and algae-based biofertilizer technology
Another critical practice already in use to minimize ammonia emissions is the application of biofertilizers (Fig. 4). This type of fertilizer is considered the alternative to chemical fertilizers, which can directly or indirectly improve soil structure, restore soil fertility, maintain rhizosphere microflora balance, and degrade toxic substances. Differ from synthetic fertilizer, microbial agent-based biofertilizers are approved to alleviate ammonia volatilization mainly by reducing the amount of NH4+-N that remained in the soil, including both reducing the accumulation of NH4+-N by inhibiting the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers into NH4+-N and increasing the consumption of NH4+-N, that is, accelerating nitrification of NH4+-N, which present more economical and
Table 2
Coated fertilizers and inhibitors for ammonia volatilization mitigation.
Type of additives
Polyaspartic acid (PASP) with a molecular weight of 7568
Sulfur-coated urea
Bulk-blend controlled-release fertilizer
Cyclohexyl phosphoric triamide
Ammonia mitigation efficiency
47.5%
60.7–68.8%
77.7–83.1%
22.8%
86.6%
Methylene urea 87.5%
Thermoplastic resin-coated urea 82.7%
Sulfur-coated urea
Polyfin-coated urea
Polyurethane-coated urea; degradable polymer-coated urea; water-based polymer-coated urea
Polymer-coated urea
Polyolefin-coated urea
59–91%
Controlled release polymer-coated urea 84.2% in sandy loam
Zinc sulfate (ZnSO4)-coated urea with Boron
Neem coated urea
58–81%
27.5%
Pine oleoresin (POR) coated urea 41.1%
A fertilizer mixture of sulfur-coated urea and polymer-coated urea
Polymer-coated urea (environmentally smart nitrogen [ESN] with methylene di-urea as conditioner, 44% N)
Oxamide
Phosphoric acid diamide-amended urea
Green UreaNV® (urea coated with the urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide, NBPT)
SuperU® (urea containing urease and nitrification inhibitors)
Urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT)
65–105%
5–6%
38.3–62.7%
50%
45–55%
44%
45%
58–63%
Mitigation mechanisms
Capture the NH4+ by the negative charge ions of PASP.
Prevent the direct contact of urea and soil water by the sulfur-coat and microcrystalline wax in this fertilizer, thus delaying the hydrolysis of urea.
Enhance the slow-release effect and promote N uptake to a greater extent.
Soil/crop type
Fluvo-aquic soil with maize
Yellow-brown soil with cabbage
Yellow-brown soil with cabbage
Delay the availability of nutrients. Hydroagric stagnic anthrosol with rice paddy
Inhibit urease activity by slowing down and minimizing urea hydrolysis.
Reference
Yang et al. (2019)
Shan et al. (2015)
Shan et al. (2015)
Sun et al. (2016)
A meta-analysis of 824 observations Pan et al. (2016)
Slow urea release from the fertilizer granules. Tenosol soil with perennial ryegrass Lam et al. (2019)
Maintain lower surface water pH and NH4+ concentration.
Ferralic cambisol soil with double-rice Xu et al. (2013)
Slow urea release by the polymer-coating. Ulen sandy loam (sandy, mixed, frigid aeric calciaquoll) Awale and Chatterjee (2017)
Temporarily inhibit urease enzyme activity by boron compounds and thus slowing urea hydrolysis and NH3 volatilization.
Inhibit the urease producing microbial activities via the presence of alkaloids in the neem oil, resulting in a low urea hydrolysis rate that reduces the NH3–N loss.
Change the antimicrobial properties and microsite pH through the POR-induced urea hydrolysis reduction by inhibiting ureaseproducing microbes.
Prevent the direct contact of urea and soil moisture, so slow down the rate of urea hydrolysis.
Slow down the rate of urea hydrolysis by using polymer-coated urea and induce different influences on NH3 emissions according to different cropping systems and the source of polymer-coated urea.
Inhibit Ammonia volatilization via the slow hydrolysis of oxamide achieved by its slight water solubility.
Crowley silt loam, mowata silt loam and kinder silt loam soil
Vertisol soil
Adotey et al. (2017)
Jadon et al. (2018)
Calcaric ochri-aquic cambosol soil with cotton
Tian et al. (2017)
Cancienne loam soil with cotton Tian et al. (2015)
Hydromorphic paddy soil with rice Tang et al. (2018)
Inhibit urease activity. Wheat Khalil (2011)
Inhibit urease activity and delay urease hydrolysis by the urease inhibitor, NBPT.
Delay the SuperU hydrolysis through the urease inhibitor.
Inhibit urea hydrolysis by using NBPT in different types of soil and cropping systems, and under different climate influences.
45% Weaken enzymatic activity to decrease the exchangeable NH4+ pool.
22–47%
32.3% in sandy loam and 71.4% in silty clay soil
1) Inhibit urea hydrolysis and the diffusion of non-ionic urea molecules in the presence of urea inhibitors;
2) Reduce diffusion of NH4+ ions in the absence of urea inhibitors.
Adsorb significant amounts of NH4+ and reduces NH4+ availability for NH3 production by high cation exchange capacity.
Tenosol soil with perennial ryegrass Lam et al. (2019)
Vertosol soil with bluegrass Lam et al. (2018)
Judith clay loam (fine–loamy, carbonatic, frigid typic calciustolls) (Keshavarz Afshar et al. 2018)
Cancienne loam soil with cotton
Calcaric fluvisol soil with sunflower crop
Temperate pasture soil
Temperate pasture soil ulen sandy loam (sandy, mixed, frigid aeric calciaquoll), and fargo silty clay (fine, smectitic, frigid typic epiaquert)
52% Delay urease hydrolysis by using NBPT. A meta-analysis of 121 observations
55–60%
Delay urease hydrolysis by using Limus®
Tian et al. (2015)
Sanz-Cobena et al. (2008)
Singh et al. (2013)
Awale and Chatterjee (2017)
Silva et al. (2017)
Li et al. (2017b)
(continued on next page)
Table 2 (continued ) Type
Limus® (a urease inhibitor consisting of 75% N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) and 25% N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT))
77–88%
Benzimidazole-type urease inhibitor (BZI1) 22%
Benzoylthiourea-type urease inhibitor (RTB68)
Urease inhibitor N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT)
Delay urease hydrolysis and increase fertilizer
Fluvo-aquic soil and alluvial soil with maize
N retention by the urease inhibitor. Agricultural soil with winter wheat Li et al. (2015)
(2019)
10%
81.9%
6.3–24.5%
Significantly delay urease hydrolysis. N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) + N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT)
Urea coated with potassium sulfate with N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT)
Urea coated with calcium sulfate with N(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT).
25.4–35.6%
24.1–35.1%
Inhibit urease enzyme activity by using NBPT/ NPPT.
Soil samples from 79 agricultural fields from various cropping systems, tillage practices, landscape positions, and soil textures throughout the United States
Inhibit urease hydrolysis by using NBPT. Wheeling silt loam soil
beneficial in mitigating ammonia volatilization, increasing crop productivity, enhancing fertilizer utilization efficiency, and protecting the ecological environment (Vassilev et al., 2015). Studies have shown that microbial agents-based biofertilizers, such as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens biofertilizer and Bacillus subtilis biofertilizer, can effectively inhibit ammonia volatilization by 68% and 44%, respectively (Sun et al., 2020a; Xue et al., 2021). Similar results were also found in several later representative works. For example, Wang et al. have found that both viable Trichoderma viride (T. viride) and nonviable T. viride biofertilizer can control ammonia volatilization from alkaline soil, achieving ammonia loss reduction by 42.21% and 32.42%, respectively (Wang et al., 2018). These advantages of biofertilizers are achieved via a unique mechanism promoted by various compounds in the fertilizer. Firstly, it avoids the high soil pH that is usually induced while using conventional urea-based fertilizer (Wang et al., 2018). Meanwhile, it enhances soil nitrification capacity by increasing the abundance of nitrifying microorganisms, which promotes the conversion of NH4+-N to NO3 -N and reduces the proportion of nitrogen loss in the form of ammonia volatilization (Wang et al., 2018). Recently, another hidden
Sunderlage and Cook (2018)
Frame et al. (2012)
mechanism of mitigating ammonia volatilization by using algae-based biofertilizers was revealed by Castro et al., who found out that the physical barrier forming on the paddy field water allowed it to hinder the ammonia exchange between water/soil and air phase, thus reducing volatilization (Castro et al., 2020). Free-floating algae in rice field has attracted researchers’ attention because, as a kind of nitrogen source to rice field, they can directly or indirectly change the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil and soil-water interface (Castro et al., 2020). In the study conducted by Castro et al., microalgal biofilm was confirmed to be capable of reducing ammonia volatilization by 75.6% through slow-release nitrogen from the degradation of microalgae organic matter (Castro et al., 2017). As a common hydrophyte, Azolla showed outstanding ammonia volatilization inhibition ability when applying to rice fields in both gleyi-stagnic anthrosolos and hydragric anthrosolos soils, contributing to the reduction of ammonia loss by 42–55.4% (Yang et al. 2020a, 2021; Yao et al. 2018a, 2018b). Another common alga in the paddy field, duckweed, was also validated for having ammonia volatilization mitigation capability (Li et al., 2009). When it is used in combination with sewage irrigation in rice fields, the
Table 3
Biofertilizers for ammonia volatilization mitigation.
Type of biofertilizers
Viable Trichoderma viride (T. viride) biofertilizer
Ammonia mitigation efficiency
42.2%
Nonviable T. viride biofertilizer 32.4%
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (BA) biofertilizer
68%
Bacillus subtilis biofertilizer 44%
Azolla biofertilizer 42%
Microalgal biofilm 75.6%
Paddy Azolla
52.2–55.4%
Duckweed (Lemna minor L.) 20–53.7%
Floating duckweed with irrigation with wastewater generated by livestock production
Paddy Azolla
Paddy Azolla combination with deep placement
55.2%
50.3%
47%
Mitigation mechanisms
1) Lower soil pH and NH4+-N concentration;
2) Promote the absorption of fertilizer nitrogen in sweet sorghum and increase the utilization rate of fertilizer;
3) Enhance nitrification by increasing the abundance of functional genes of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB).
Reduce the transformation of fertilizer nitrogen to NH4+-N, and simultaneously accelerate NH4+-N into the nitrification process.
Reduce the “source” and increase the “sink” of NH4+-N through the application of B. subtilis biofertilizer, contributing to reducing the retention of NH4+-N in alkaline soil and mitigating NH3 volatilization.
Prevent the rapid increase of the floodwater temperature and uptake of NH4+-N by the Azolla physical barrier that suppresses the algal growth.
Reduce NH3 loss via the slow N release nature of algal biomass resulting from organic matter degradation.
Soil/crop type Reference
Alkaline soil precultivated with two sorghum plants
Alkaline farmland soil with pakchoi
Alkaline fluvo-aquic soil with pakchoi
Gleyi-stagnic anthrosol soil with rice
Dystrophic red-yellow latosol soil
Lower the NH4+-N concentrations, pH, and temperature. Hydragric anthrosolos soil with rice
The duckweed cover lowers the total ammoniacal nitrogen concentration, pH, and temperature of the floodwater.
Duckweed takes in N and decreases the floodwater pH and temperature or provides a physical barrier to hinder NH3 volatilization.
Lower surface water ammonia concentration and pH.
1) Azolla cover can act as a physical barrier to trap liberated NH3;
2) More rice roots proliferate under the Azolla mat and even grow into the Azolla mat, which could promote the absorption of N released from Azolla
ammonia volatilization can be decreased by up to 55.2% (Sun et al., 2016). Some common biofertilizers for ammonia volatilization mitigation have been summarized in Table 3 The excellent average mitigation efficiency (ca. 50.1%) suggests it is a promising fertilizer amendment technique for ammonia inhibition. In recent years, biofertilizers development has emerged as a rising research direction for ammonia control technology. However, due to their strict requirements on environmental conditions, there is still a long way to go in developing biofertilizers with high-efficiency ammonia inhibition capabilities and fast adaptability to the environment. It is predicted to be the priority in the development of future ammonia volatilization control technology (Vassilev et al., 2015).
3.4. Organic waste-based resource fertilizer technology
As more and more innovative fertilizers have been developed to meet today’s requirement for low environmental impacts, using sustainable resources and introducing recycled waste as fertilizer sources are inevitable trends for resource conservation and sustainable development. The research on the reduction of ammonia emissions during the applications of these waste-based organic fertilizers has gained popularity (Erwiha et al., 2020). Organic fertilizer and organic waste-based fertilizers are usually processed from biological materials, animal and plant wastes, and plant residues. It plays a vital role in improving the physical and chemical properties and biological activity of the soil, providing comprehensive nutrition for crops and reducing the loss of N through runoff, ammonia volatilization and nitrogen leaching (Dai et al., 2021). It has been confirmed that the combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers can slow down the loss of nitrogen by delaying the process of organic nitrogen mineralization, thereby effectively reducing ammonia volatilization by 8.8–12.7% (Shan et al., 2015). In addition, organic fertilizers incorporated with a low application rate or deep placement, instead of inorganic fertilizers, could reduce ammonia volatilization loss by 24.6% and 89%, respectively, while ensuring crop yields (Shang et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017). Win et al. applied anaerobically digested cattle slurry and wood vinegar to a rice field and
Clayey blue-purple paddy soil with rice
Hydroagric stagnic anthrosol with rice paddy
Hydragric anthrosol with rice paddy
Gleyi-stagnic anthrosol with rice paddy
Wang et al. (2018)
Xue et al. (2021)
Sun et al. (2020a)
Yao et al. (2018a)
Castro et al. (2017)
Yang et al. (2020a)
Li et al. (2009)
Sun et al. (2016)
Yang et al. (2021)
Yao et al. (2018b)
found that compared with traditional fertilization, ammonia volatilization loss was reduced by 72–79%, mainly through the decrease of soil pH (Win et al. 2009, 2010). Moreover, Feng’s research also found that hydrothermal carbonization aqueous products (HCAP) could reduce ammonia loss by 7.6–11.2% by affecting the NH4+-N concentration in surface water, ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) abundance, pH and soil urease activity in rice paddy soil (Feng et al., 2021). Table S1 summarizes some organic and organic waste-based fertilizers for ammonia mitigation. It can be seen that the organic waste-based fertilizers are usually applied together with other agronomic measures, and the investigated average mitigation efficiency of ammonia volatilization is about 45.6%. It is advocated to use organic fertilizers to replace chemical fertilizers from the perspective of crop growth and environmental protection. However, since the research on organic waste-based fertilizers is still relatively limited, although they can reduce ammonia volatilization to a certain extent, their long-term impacts on crop growth and soil properties need to be further studied.
It is worth mentioning that biochar is a typical organic waste-based fertilizer. This carbon-rich solid material is obtained from thermochemical conversion of biomass under oxygen-limited or anaerobic conditions (Fidel et al., 2018). According to the pyrolysis carbonization method and the hydrothermal carbonization method, it can be divided into pyrolysis carbon and hydrothermal carbon, named hydrochar (Chu et al., 2020a). Biochar usually possesses high porosity, large specific surface area, rich in negatively charged functional groups, and good adsorption performance. These superior features support its widely used in farmland ecosystems to deal with resource utilization, soil improvement, environmental pollution, and other issues (Spokas et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2022). Attributing to biochar’s unique properties, it can change the physical and chemical properties of the soil after being applied to the soil, thereby directly or indirectly regulating the soil nitrogen cycle. However, agricultural practitioners should be careful when using biochar for reducing nitrogen loss via ammonia volatilization because it can either decrease or increase ammonia volatilization according to the biochar characteristics.
Fig. 5 demonstrates the mechanism of applying biochar for ammonia volatilization reduction. The main feature determining a biochar’s function in regulating ammonia release from farmland is its acid-base property. Specifically, neutral or acidic biochar can reduce ammonia volatilization. The mechanism is obvious. The low pH of neutral or acidic biochar can induce a neutralizing effect when applied to soil, which lowers the soil pH, thus inhibiting the conversion of NH4+ to NH3. In addition to this, studies have revealed other mechanisms that assist in cutting down nitrogen loss via ammonia volatilization: addition of biochar can i) promote nitrification process and then increases soil microbial nitrogen fixation capacity; ii) improve physical/chemical adsorption capacity through biochar’s large surface area and special functional groups; iii) enhance soil cation exchange capacity to increase soil nitrogen fixation capacity (Amin, 2020; Purakayastha et al., 2019; Sha et al., 2019). A representative work that was adapting these mechanisms in reducing ammonia volatilization was conducted by Mandal et al., who applied three kinds of biochar produced from 250 ◦ C to 700 ◦ C, they are, poultry manure biochar, green waste compost biochar and wheat straw biochar to calcareous soil and found all of them were capable of inhibiting ammonia volatilization, reducing ammonia loss by 53%, 38% and 35%, respectively (Mandal et al., 2018). Later, Amin et al. found that although applied to alkaline sandy soil, calotropis biochar, produced at 250 ◦ C with a low pH of 7.15, can still reduce ammonia volatilization by up to 71.5% by enhancing soil cation exchange capacity (Amin, 2020). In addition, many other studies also manifested that various biochar could increase crop yields while reducing ammonia volatilization (Chu et al., 2020c; Sun et al., 2019b). For example, poultry litter biochar, having a property of pH 8.66, surface area 12.8 m2 g 1 and pore volume 0.015 ± 0.15 cm3 g 1 , can not only reduce ammonia volatilization by 70.5% in wheat fields but also increase dry wheat weight by 24.24% and improves nitrogen uptake by 76.11% (Mandal et al., 2016). The work carried out by Sun et al. unveiled the effects of the combined use of wheat straw biochar and duckweed on ammonia volatilization, and the results suggested that ammonia volatilization could be reduced by 50.6–54.2%, while crop yield was increased by 0.1–0.3 t ha 1 , and the nitrogen utilization efficiency was promoted by 11.4–23.2% (Sun et al., 2019b). In the meanwhile, a more complex hydrochar derived from sewage sludge by Chu et al. was found to be capable of reducing the yield-scale ammonia loss by 20.3–41.2% in the rice field; While compared with the treatment without adding hydrochars, the dry grain weight was enhanced by 1.2–1.31 fold (Chu et al., 2020c).
On the other hand, some biochar can promote ammonia volatilization, alkaline biochar specifically, as it promotes a high soil pH, which favors the conversion of NH4+ to NH3 Other than this, alkaline biochar would also promote nitrogen loss via ammonia volatilization through different pathways: i) It inhibits the nitrification process, thereby increasing the accumulation of ammonium in soil; ii) It increases soil respiration, thereby increasing the exchange of soil gas (e.g., ammonia); iii) It enhances soil microbial activity, which accelerates the decomposition of soil organic nitrogen, thereby increasing the concentration of mineralized ammonium (Feng et al., 2017; Purakayastha et al., 2019; Sha et al., 2019). With these in mind, some studies have shown that applying fresh wheat straw biochar (pH 9.2, CEC 24.3 cmol kg 1 , and surface area 9.0 m2 g 1) to rice field can increase ammonia volatilization by 3.1–48% (Dong et al., 2019), and the amount of ammonia loss increases with the elevated temperature during the biochar pyrolysis due to a higher temperature leads to a higher biochar pH. The study revealed that rising the temperature from 500 ◦ C to 700 ◦ C led to ammonia volatilization loss increase from 40.8% to 70.9% (Feng et al., 2017). Interestingly, the study conducted by Wu et al. suggested that biochar produced from wheat straw with a pH of 9.42, total C content of 602 g kg 1 , total N content of 11.20 g kg 1 , and maximum NH+ 4 -N adsorption capacity of 2.68 g kg 1 , could increase ammonia volatilization (25.8%) while also increase rice yield by 26.5–35.3% (Wu et al., 2019). Similarly, Chu et al. added chlorella vulgaris-derived hydrochar made with water or citrate acid as the reaction medium to a rice field and found that they could increase ammonia volatilization by 53.8% and 72.9%, respectively, and also increased rice yield by 10.5–26.8% (Chu et al., 2020b). However, it is not always the case that hydrochar application improves crop yield. For example, a contrary finding was observed in Sun’s research, which demonstrated that biochar actually cut down crop yields by 12.6% and lower nitrogen utilization efficiency by 3.0–8.4%, along with increasing ammonia volatilization by 25.6–43.7% (Sun et al., 2019a). Due to the complex structure and properties of biochar produced from a variety of materials, its influence on farmland ammonia volatilization is related to many factors. Therefore, more studies are expected to provide insightful data to support scientific applications of biochar for reducing nitrogen loss and enhancing yields. Table 4 summarizes the effects of applying biochar on ammonia volatilization under different agricultural conditions. A quantitative analysis of nearly 20 studies on the inhibitory effect of biochar on ammonia volatilization realves that its extensive inhibitory efficiency (4.4%–82%) indicates that the inhibitory effect of biochar on ammonia volatilization is deeply
Table 4
Effects of adding biochar on ammonia volatilization.
Type of biochar Effect on ammonia volatilization Effect on crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE)
Wheat straw biochar
Increase the NH3 loss by 25.6–53.6%.
Increase the NH3 losses by 25.8%.
NH3 loss increase with the biochar application rate in moderately saline soil.
Increase the cumulative NH3 loss by 91.4–107% during the flooded rice season.
Increase the NH3 loss by 14.1% in the first rice season and decrease NH3 loss in the second rice growth season by 6.8%.
Increase the NH3 loss by 25.6–43.7%.
Wheat straw pyrolyzed at 500 ◦ C and 700 ◦ C
Sawdust biochar
Biochar-based fertilizer (BF)
Biochar
Calotropis biochar at 650
◦ C
Greenwaste biochar applied in the soil with different pH (5, 7, 8, 9)
Chlorella vulgaris-derived hydrochar employ water as the reaction medium
Chlorella vulgaris-derived hydrochar employ citrate acid solution as the reaction medium
Fresh wheat straw biochar
Aged wheat straw biochar
Wheat straw biochar
Chicken litter biochar
Poultry litter biochar
Macadamia nutshell biochar
Calotropis biochar at 250 ◦ C
Rice straw biochar
Aged acidic Eucalyptus Pilularis biochar (collected after 44 years from wildfire occurred in 1961)
Eucalyptus wood biochar
Rice straw biochar
Poultry manure biochar
Green waste compost biochar
Wheat straw biochar
Sewage sludge-derived hydrochars
Clay hydrochar composites derived from poplar sawdust via hydrothermal carbonization (BHTC) mixed with bentonite
Increase the NH3 losses by 40.8–70.9%.
Increase the NH3 loss by 26.7–43.2%.
Increase the NH3 loss by 0.41%.
Increase the total NH3 loss by 8.6–17.9%.
Increase the cumulative NH3 loss by 73.3%.
NH3 loss increase with the pH increase, and with the additional increase of biochar rate at the same pH.
Increase the total NH3 loss by 53.8%.
Increase the total NH3 loss by 72.9%.
Reduce the NH3 losses by 13.3–36.8%.
–
Total N concentrations of soil are maintained at the same levels under with or without biochar treatments.
Increase rice yield by 26.5–35.3%.
Soil/crop type Reference
Coastal saline soil
Rice paddy soil amendments with vermicompost
– Coastal saline alluvial soil
Lower rice yield and reduce fertilizer 15N use efficiency by 32.6–76%.
Increase rice yield by 7.4–16.5% and NUE from 29.4% to 42.5%.
Decrease the grain yield by 12.6% and lower NUE by 3.0–8.4%.
Homestead anthrosol with paddy rice-wheat rotation
Rice field
Hydragric anthrosol with rice paddy
– Rice paddy
Increase NH4+-N and total N content of top (0–15 cm) soil.
Significantly improve yield, plant N uptake, and NUE of water spinach and minimize N losses via leaching.
Increase rice yields by 4.2–5.2%.
Sun et al. (2017)
Wu et al. (2019)
Zhu et al. (2020)
Sun et al. (2019b)
He et al. (2018)
Sun et al. (2019a)
Feng et al. (2017)
Paddy rice soil
Vegetable crops (water spinach, ipomoea aquatica)
Gleyi-stagnic anthrosol with a wheat-rice rotation system
– Alkaline sandy soil
Bauxite residue sand
Increase the grain yield by 13.5–26.8%.
Increase the grain yield by 10.5–23.4%.
Increase the NH3 losses by 3.1–48%. Both field-aged and fresh biochar reapplication improve rice and wheat NUE but no significant increase in rice and wheat yields.
Reduce the NH3 loss by 17.6–29.4%.
Wood vinegar application alone or with biochar has no significant effect on total NH3 volatilization reduction, but yield-scale NH3 loss is reduced by 13.6%.
Reduce the NH3 losses by 6%.
Reduce the NH3 loss up to 70.5%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by 64.1%.
Reduce the cumulative NH3 loss by 71.5%.
Reduce the ammonia loss by 4.4%.
Reduce the NH3 losses by 82%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by 14%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by 10.8%–20.9%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by an average of 53%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by an average of 38%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by an average of 35%.
Reduce the yield-scale NH3 loss by 20.3–41.2%.
Reduce the NH3 loss by 41.8%.
Increase the wheat plant biomass, grain yield, and total N uptake by 10–21%, 5–15%, and 11–25%, respectively.
Increase rice grain yields up to 11.2% and increase the NH4+-N contents of topsoil by 10.9–17.8% and 16.1–36.2%.
–
Increase wheat dry weight and N uptake as high as by 24.2% and 76.1%, respectively.
–
Increase the grain yield from 6.6% to 32.5%.
The acidic biochar treatment can retain about 73% of N, compared with <25% in alkaline biochar treatments.
–
–
–
Enhance the dry grain weight by 1.20fold–1.31-fold.
Improve the rice yield by 18.8% and plant NUE by 37.4%.
Hydroagric stahnic anthrosol soil with rice paddy
Hydroagric stahnic anthrosol soil with rice paddy
Rice-wheat rotation system
Silt clay loam soil with wheat
Rice paddy soil amendment with wood vinegar
Typic paleudults acid soil under waterlogged condition
Wheat
Alkaline sandy soil
Rice field
Alkaline bauxite residue sand
Agricultural clay soil
cultivated with maize and sorghum
Deserted field of high salinity soil
Calcareous soil
Hydroagric stahnic anthrosol soil with paddy rice
Paddy rice
Feng et al. (2018)
Zhou et al. (2021b)
Wang et al. (2017)
Amin (2020)
Chen et al. (2013)
Chu et al. (2020b)
Chu et al. (2020b)
Dong et al. (2019)
Dawar et al. (2021)
Sun et al. (2020b)
Palanivell et al. (2017)
Mandal et al. (2016)
Amin (2020)
Sun et al. (2019c)
Esfandbod et al. (2017)
Puga et al. (2020)
Liu et al. (2021)
Mandal et al. (2018)
Chu et al. (2020c)
Chu et al. (2020a)
(continued on next page)
Table 4 (continued ) Type
Biochar mixed with calcium superphosphate
Wheat straw biochar with duckweed
Wheat straw biochar with coapplication of biofertilizer
Reduce the NH3 loss by 39.2%. – Rice paddy fields with Nrich wastewater generated by livestock irrigation
Reduce the NH3 loss by 50.6–54.2%.
Increase the grain yield by 0.1–0.3 t ha 1 and promote the NUE by 11.4–23.2%.
Hydragric anthrosol soil with rice paddy
Sun et al. (2016)
Sun et al. (2019a)
Reduce the NH3 loss by 12.3%. Biofertilizer and/or biochar increases rice grain yield by 16.5–38.3%. Rice paddy soil Sun et al. (2021)
affected by various factors such as biochar source type and soil type, with an average inhibitory efficiency of 36.6%.
3.5. Membrane/film-based barrier effect technology
Membrane/film-based mulching technology is a technique that uses membrane as a means to suppress ammonia volatilization from paddy fields. It (Fig. 6) inhibits ammonia loss through physical and chemical effects without changing the properties of nitrogen fertilizer and fertilization methods. Besides, the use of membrane/film can also reduce water evaporation, increase surface water temperature, inhibit the growth of algae, and improve nitrogen utilization efficiency, thereby saving fertilizer, water, and increasing yield. Table 5 summarizes some typical membrane/films for ammonia volatilization control that indicates the average mitigation efficiency of ammonia volatilization is ca. 29%.
To date, Polyethylene film and organic surface molecular membrane are two prominent ammonia suppression films commonly used for rice fields. Both Yang et al. and Li et al. have found that polyethylene film can control the ammonia volatilization rate by 50%, i.e., reduced ammonia loss of 1.09 kg N ha 1 on average, by restricting the exchange of ammonia between soil and the atmosphere (Li et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2015). There were also a few comparative researches have observed the same effect. A simulation experiment conducted by Yin et al. showed that compared with pure ammonium sulfate solution, the ammonia volatilization rate in the ammonium sulfate solution spraying with the octadecanol surface molecular membrane was greatly reduced, and the ammonia loss can be reduced by up to 90% (Yin et al., 1996). Meanwhile, Wang et al. compared the effects of three molecular membranes, i.e., Polylactic acid (PLA), Span60 and Zein, on ammonia volatilization
in a rice field, and the results demonstrated that the cumulative ammonia volatilization was reduced by 9.61%, 5.63% and 12.46%, respectively (Wang et al., 2019). Another comparative experiment on Polylactic acid (PLA) and Lecithin (LEC) also indicated that they could increase rice yields by 21% and 24.1% while reducing ammonia loss by 19.9% and 14.2% (Wang et al., 2020). It is expected that these membranes/films can be degraded naturally without causing secondary pollution, presenting good environmental and economic benefits. However, the existing membranes/films have problems such as unstable film formation, easy breakage, high cost and easy aggregation. Therefore, research on the property improvement and the appropriate application of these membrane/films will become one of the hotspots in future ammonia volatilization control technology research.
4. Conclusions and future outlooks
In general, all attempts that can inhibit the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers into ammonia can be breakthroughs in ammonia volatilization control. This study systematically reviews the inhibitory effects and inhibitory mechanisms of agricultural ammonia volatilization from the perspectives of fertilizer amendments. Specifically, various fertilizer improvement technologies can extend the process of nitrogen fertilizer release into the soil by changing soil structure and physicochemical properties, soil microbial activity, fertilizer properties, and hydrolysis rate so that more nitrogen fertilizers can be utilized by crops instead of loss via volatilization. Moreover, membrane/film-based mulching technology achieves ammonia volatilization mitigation by increasing the resistance of ammonia volatilization and reducing the gas exchange between the soil/water-air interface. In particular, among the studies investigated, enhanced efficiency fertilizer technology performs the
Table 5
Ammonia volatilization mitigation based on membrane/film technology.
Type of membrane/film Application rate/ application method
Cetyl alcohol molecular membrane Spread on the water, average in 13.7 kg ha 1
Octadecanol dissolved in water with film-forming material
High carbon alkanol molecular membrane
A mixture of 16–18-octadecanols emulsified with sodium dodecyl sulfate and polyalkoxylated polyolols surface film-forming material (SFFM)
Polylactic acid (PLA) molecular membrane
Span60 molecular membrane
Zein molecular membrane
Polylactic acid (PLA) molecular membrane
Lecithin (LEC) molecular membrane
Spread on the water.
Spread on the water, 3.5 g m 2
Spread on the water, 3.5–8 g m 2
Spread on the water, 8 g m 2
Spread on the water, 1 g m 2
Spread on the water, 2 g m 2
Spread on the water, 8 g m 2 .
Spread on the water, 8 g m 2
Polyethylene film Film mulching
Polyethylene film Film mulching
Ammonia mitigation
Ammonia flux densities exceed 0.66 kg N ha 1 h 1 on the control area but never exceeded 0.34 kg N ha 1 h 1 on the area treated with cetyl alcohol.
Reduce the accumulative loss of ammonia by 90%.
Reduce ammonia loss by 30%.
Reduce cumulative NH3 loss by 12.8 kg ha 1 in the rice field.
Reduce ammonia loss by 9.6%.
Decrease the rate constant and increase the half-life by more than five-fold.
Decrease the volatilization rate constant.
Reduce the gas exchange between gas and liquid phases.
Change the resistance of NH3 volatilizing from liquid to air.
Reduce pH in surface water.
Reduce ammonia loss by 5.63%. Reduce NH4+ concentration in surface water.
Reduce ammonia loss by 12.46%. Reduce both pH and NH4+ concentration in surface water.
Reduce ammonia loss by 19.9%.
Reduce ammonia loss by 14.2%.
Reduce ammonia loss by 1.09 kg N ha 1 on average.
Reduce average fertilizer ammonia loss rates in two growth seasons by ca. 50%.
most effective inhibition capacity of ammonia volatilization (ca. 54.3%), followed by biofertilizer technology (ca. 50.1%). The organic and organic waste-based fertilizers technology are often applied with various agronomic measures with an average ammonia mitigation efficiency of 45.6%, and typical biochar addition technology can either increase or decrease ammonia volatilization deeply depending on the biochar source types and soil properties. Traditional complex fertilizer technology can inhibit ammonia volatilization by 33.5%, while current membrane/film-based control technology can alleviate ammonia volatilization by 29%.
Although a number of technologies have been developed and successfully applied to achieve ammonia volatilization control, as the agriculture system is an open and complex ecosystem, there are still some future development prospects, including i) Improve the pertinence of fertilizer amendment technologies. This involves the classification of crops depending on their fertilizer requirements and customization of new fertilizer so that an optimized fertilizer nutrients release pattern can be achieved during the specified crop growth period and congruously meet the needs of crops. ii) Enhance the environmental friendliness of fertilizer amendment-based technologies, especially in the selection of fertilizer additives, coating materials and membrane/film materials. Besides, further development in minimizing the interference of added materials on the natural soil and its original material circulation and investigations into both short-term and long-term effects on the agroecological system. iii) Strengthen field-scale rather than laboratory-scale research. Specifically, future research should focus more on in situ verification of the ammonia volatilization inhibition performance of any developed technologies by comprehensive assessments of soil ammonia
1) Form a physical barrier to reduce ammonia volatilization;
2) Inhibit the algae growth to reduce the water pH.
1) Reduce pH in surface water;
2) Increase NH4+ concentration in soil.
Restrict the gas flow between the soil and the atmosphere to decrease ammonia emissions.
Mitigate ammonia volatilization through a physical barrier or blocking, which enhances the topsoil water content and soil temperature, mineral nitrogen (NH4+-N and NO3 -N).
Flooded rice field
Water solution containing 50 g N m 3 in the form of ammonium sulfate
Rice paddy and enhanced rice yield by 10%.
Cai et al. (1988)
(Yin et al., 1996)
Shunyao (2002)
Rice filed Zhuang and Wang (2009)
Rice-wheat rotation system (Wang et al., 2019)
Rice-wheat rotation system (Wang et al., 2019)
Rice-wheat rotation system (Wang et al., 2019)
Rice-wheat rotation system and enhance rice yield by 21%. (Wang et al., 2020)
Rice-wheat rotation system and enhanced rice yield by 24.1%. (Wang et al., 2020)
Wheat Yang et al. (2015)
Wheat Li et al. (2021)
volatilization loss in combination with crop yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency. iv) Comprehensively evaluate the cheapness, ease of operation, and feasibility of large-scale promotion of these developed fertilizer amendment-based technologies.
Overall, with continued developments and applications in tandem with emerging environmentally friendly materials and methods, the ammonia mitigation technology is developing in a more diverse, efficient and maintainable way. The advances in mitigation technologies of ammonia volatilization from agriculture not only contribute to reducing environmental pollution and maximizing agricultural yield but also generate new opportunities in nitrogen reuse, supporting resourcesaving sustainable agriculture development.
Credit author statement
Tianling Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Zhengguo Wang: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – editing. Chenxu Wang: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – editing. Jiayu Huang: Investigation, Data curation. Yanfang Feng: Investigation, Data curation. Weishou Shen: Investigation, Data curation. Ming Zhou and Linzhang Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 21806080); the Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Food Quality and Safety-State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base; Ministry of Science and Technology (No. 028074911709); and the Startup Foundation for Introducing Talent of NUIST (No. 2018r017).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134944
References
Adotey, N., Kongchum, M., Li, J., Whitehurst, G.B., Sucre, E., Harrell, D.L., 2017. Ammonia volatilization of zinc sulfate-coated and NBPT-treated urea fertilizers. Agron. J. 109 (6), 2918–2926. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.03.0153
Ahmed, O.H., Aminuddin, H., Husni, M.H.A., 2006. Reducing ammonia loss from urea and improving soil-exchangeable ammonium retention through mixing triple superphosphate, humic acid and zeolite. Soil Use Manag. 22 (3), 315–319. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00040.x
Ahmed, M.Y.W., Lei, M., Raza, S., Zhou, J., 2018. Mitigation of ammonia volatilization with application of urease and nitrification inhibitors from summer maize at the Loess Plateau. Plant Soil Environ. 64 (4), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.17221/46/ 2018-PSE
Amin, A.E.-E.A.Z., 2020. Carbon sequestration, kinetics of ammonia volatilization and nutrient availability in alkaline sandy soil as a function on applying calotropis biochar produced at different pyrolysis temperatures. Sci. Total Environ. 726, 138489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138489
Awale, R., Chatterjee, A., 2017. Enhanced efficiency nitrogen products influence ammonia volatilization and nitrous oxide emission from two contrasting soils. Agron. J. 109 (1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.04.0219.
Barakat, M., Cheviron, B., Angulo-Jaramillo, R., 2016. Influence of the irrigation technique and strategies on the nitrogen cycle and budget: a review. Agric. Water Manag. 178, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.09.027
Barberena, I.M., 2019. Use of urease inhibitors to reduce ammonia volatilization in Amazonian soils. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 54, e00253 https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00253
Rome (Italy) Bouwman, A.F., 2001. Land and water development div. Eng. In: Boumans, L.J.M., Batjes, N.H., et al. (Eds.), Global Estimates of Gaseous Emissions of NH3, NO and N2O from Agricultural Land. International Fertilizer Industry Association
Cai, G., Freney, J., Humphreys, E., Denmead, O., Samson, M., Simpson, J., 1988. Use of surface films to reduce ammonia volatilization from flooded rice fields. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 39 (2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9880177
Cantarella, H., Otto, R., Soares, J.R., Silva, AGdB., 2018. Agronomic efficiency of NBPT as a urease inhibitor: a review. J. Adv. Res. 13, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jare.2018.05.008
Castro, JdS., Calijuri, M.L., Assemany, P.P., Cecon, P.R., de Assis, I.R., Ribeiro, V.J., 2017. Microalgae biofilm in soil: greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia volatilization and plant growth. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 1640–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.08.205
Castro, JdS., Calijuri, M.L., Ferreira, J., Assemany, P.P., Ribeiro, V.J., 2020. Microalgae based biofertilizer: a life cycle approach. Sci. Total Environ. 724, 138138. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138138
Chen, C.R., Phillips, I.R., Condron, L.M., Goloran, J., Xu, Z.H., Chan, K.Y., 2013. Impacts of greenwaste biochar on ammonia volatilisation from bauxite processing residue sand. Plant Soil 367 (1), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1468-0
Chien, S.H., Prochnow, L.I., Cantarella, H., 2009. Chapter 8 Recent developments of fertilizer production and use to improve nutrient efficiency and minimize environmental impacts. Adv. Agron. 102, 267–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652113(09)01008-6 Academic Press.
Chu, Q., Xu, S., Xue, L., et al., 2020a. Bentonite hydrochar composites mitigate ammonia volatilization from paddy soil and improve nitrogen use efficiency. Sci. Total Environ. 718, 137301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137301
Chu, Q., Xue, L., Cheng, Y., et al., 2020b. Microalgae-derived hydrochar application on rice paddy soil: higher rice yield but increased gaseous nitrogen loss. Sci. Total Environ. 717, 137127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137127
Chu, Q., Xue, L., Singh, B.P., et al., 2020c. Sewage sludge-derived hydrochar that inhibits ammonia volatilization, improves soil nitrogen retention and rice nitrogen utilization. Chemosphere 245, 125558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chemosphere.2019.125558
Corstanje, R., Kirk, G.J.D., Pawlett, M., Read, R., Lark, R.M., 2008. Spatial variation of ammonia volatilization from soil and its scale-dependent correlation with soil properties. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 59 (6), 1260–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652389.2008.01087.x
Dai, X., Guo, Q., Song, D., et al., 2021. Long-term mineral fertilizer substitution by organic fertilizer and the effect on the abundance and community structure of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and bacteria in paddy soil of south China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 103, 103288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2021.103288.
Damodar Reddy, D., Sharma, K.L., 2000. Effect of amending urea fertilizer with chemical additives on ammonia volatilization loss and nitrogen-use efficiency. Biol. Fertil. Soils 32 (1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740000208
David Ussiri, R.L., 2012. The role of fertilizer management in mitigating nitrous oxide emissions. Soil Emission of Nitrous Oxide and its Mitigation 315–346. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-007-5364-8_10
Dawar, K., Khan, H., Zaman, M., et al., 2021. The effect of biochar and nitrogen inhibitor on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions and wheat productivity. J. Plant Growth Regul. 40 (6), 2465–2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-020-10283-1
De Campos Bernardi, A.C., Polidoro, J.C., de Melo Monte, M.B., Pereira, E.I., de Oliveira, C.R., Ramesh, K., 2016. Enhancing nutrient use efficiency using zeolites minerals a review. Adv. Chem. Eng. Sci. 6, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.4236/ aces.2016.64030
Ding, Z., Ali, E.F., Aldhumri, S.A., et al., 2021. Effect of amount of irrigation and type of P fertilizer on potato yield and NH3 volatilization from alkaline sandy soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 21 (2), 1565–1576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00462-8
Dong, N.M., Brandt, K.K., Sørensen, J., et al., 2012. Effects of alternating wetting and drying versus continuous flooding on fertilizer nitrogen fate in rice fields in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Soil Biol. Biochem. 47, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.soilbio.2011.12.028
Dong, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, X., Feng, L., Xiong, Z., 2019. Dynamic responses of ammonia volatilization to different rates of fresh and field-aged biochar in a rice-wheat rotation system. Field Crop. Res. 241, 107568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fcr.2019.107568
Eduardo Lopes Cancellier, D.R.G.S., Faquin, Valdemar, Bruno, de Almeida, Gonçalves, Lopes Cancellier, Leandro, Roberto Spehar, Carlos, 2016. Ammonia volatilization from enhanced-efficiency urea on no-till maize in brazilian cerrado with improved soil fertility. Cienc. E Agrotecnol 40 (2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1590/141370542016402031115
Erwiha, G.M., Ham, J., Sukor, A., Wickham, A., Davis, J.G., 2020. Organic fertilizer source and application method impact ammonia volatilization. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 51 (11), 1469–1482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1784919
Esfandbod, M., Phillips, I.R., Miller, B., et al., 2017. Aged acidic biochar increases nitrogen retention and decreases ammonia volatilization in alkaline bauxite residue sand. Ecol. Eng. 98, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.077
Esp´ ecie Bueno, S.C., Filho, M.B., de Almeida, P.S.G., et al., 2015. Cuban zeolite as ammonium carrier in urea-based fertilizer pellets: photoacoustic-based sensor for monitoring N-ammonia losses by volatilization in aqueous solutions. Sensor. Actuator. B Chem. 212, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2015.01.114.
Feng, Y., Sun, H., Xue, L., et al., 2017. Biochar applied at an appropriate rate can avoid increasing NH3 volatilization dramatically in rice paddy soil. Chemosphere 168, 1277–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.151
Feng, Y., Sun, H., Xue, L., et al., 2018. Sawdust biochar application to rice paddy field: reduced nitrogen loss in floodwater accompanied with increased NH3 volatilization. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (9), 8388–8395. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-017-1059-y
Feng, Y., He, H., Li, D., et al., 2021. Biowaste hydrothermal carbonization aqueous product application in rice paddy: focus on rice growth and ammonia volatilization. Chemosphere 277, 130233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130233
Fidel, R.B., Laird, D.A., Spokas, K.A., 2018. Sorption of ammonium and nitrate to biochars is electrostatic and pH-dependent. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 17627. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-018-35534-w
Frame, W.H., Alley, M.M., Whitehurst, G.B., Whitehurst, B.M., Campbell, R., 2012. In vitro evaluation of coatings to control ammonia volatilization from surface-applied urea. Agron. J. 104 (5), 1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0009
Gao, J., Luo, J., Lindsey, S., et al., 2021. Effects of boric acid on urea-N transformation and 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate efficiency. J. Sci. Food Agric. 101 (3), 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10719
Gong, W., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Luan, S., 2013. High-resolution measurement of ammonia emissions from fertilization of vegetable and rice crops in the Pearl River Delta Region, China. Atmos. Environ. 65, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. atmosenv.2012.08.027.
Griggs, B.R., Norman, R.J., Wilson, C.E., Slaton, N.A., 2007. Ammonia vvolatilization and nitrogen uptake for conventional and conservation tilled dry-seeded, delayedflood rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71 (3), 745–751. https://doi.org/10.2136/ sssaj2006.0180
Haruna Ahmed, O., Husin, A., Husni Mohd Hanif, A., 2008. Ammonia volatilization and ammonium accumulation from urea mixed with zeolite and triple superphosphate. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci 58 (2), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09064710701478271
Hayashi, K., Nishimura, S., Yagi, K., 2006. Ammonia volatilization from the surface of a Japanese paddy field during rice cultivation. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 52 (4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2006.00053.x
Hayashi, K., Koga, N., Fueki, N., 2011. Limited ammonia volatilization loss from upland fields of Andosols following fertilizer applications. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140 (3), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.01.015
He, Z.L., Calvert, D.V., Alva, A.K., Li, Y.C., Banks, D.J., 2002. Clinoptilolite zeolite and cellulose amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization in a calcareous sandy soil. Plant Soil 247 (2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021584300322
He, T., Liu, D., Yuan, J., et al., 2018. A two years study on the combined effects of biochar and inhibitors on ammonia volatilization in an intensively managed rice field. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 264, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2018.05.010
Jadon, P., Selladurai, R., Yadav, S.S., et al., 2018. Volatilization and leaching losses of nitrogen from different coated urea fertilizers. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 18 (4), 1036–1047. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162018005002903.
Keshavarz Afshar, R., Lin, R., Mohammed, Y.A., Chen, C., 2018. Agronomic effects of urease and nitrification inhibitors on ammonia volatilization and nitrogen utilization in a dryland farming system: field and laboratory investigation. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4130–4139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.105
Khalil, M.I., 2011. Physical and chemical manipulation of urea fertilizer to limit the emission of reactive nitrogen species understanding greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural management. ACS (Am. Chem. Soc.) Symp. Ser. 1072, 149–164. https:// doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1072.ch009 American Chemical Society.
Lam, S.K., Suter, H., Bai, M., et al., 2018. Using urease and nitrification inhibitors to decrease ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions and improve productivity in a subtropical pasture. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 1531–1535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.07.092
Lam, S.K., Suter, H., Bai, M., et al., 2019. Decreasing ammonia loss from an Australian pasture with the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 283, 106553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.012.
Latip, B.N., Osumanu, H.A., Make, J., Franklin, R.K., 2011. Ammonia volatilization from urea at different levels of zeolite. Inernational Journal of Physical Sciences 6 (34), 7717–7720. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS11.592
Li, H., Liang, X., Lian, Y., Xu, L., Chen, Y., 2009. Reduction of ammonia volatilization from urea by a floating duckweed in flooded rice fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73 (6), 1890–1895. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2008.0230
Li, Q., Yang, A., Wang, Z., et al., 2015. Effect of a new urease inhibitor on ammonia volatilization and nitrogen utilization in wheat in north and northwest China. Field Crop. Res. 175, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.005
Li, P., Lu, J., Hou, W., et al., 2017a. Reducing nitrogen losses through ammonia volatilization and surface runoff to improve apparent nitrogen recovery of double cropping of late rice using controlled release urea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (12), 11722–11733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8825-8
Li, Q., Cui, X., Liu, X., et al., 2017b. A new urease-inhibiting formulation decreases ammonia volatilization and improves maize nitrogen utilization in North China Plain. Sci. Rep. 7 (1), 43853. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43853
Li, T., Zhou, M., Fan, Z., et al., 2019a. Online conductimetric flow-through analyzer based on membrane diffusion for ammonia control in wastewater treatment process. ACS Sens. 4 (7), 1881–1888. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.9b00768
Li, T., Zhou, M., Qiu, Y., et al., 2019b. Membrane-based conductivity probe for real-time in-situ monitoring rice field ammonia volatilization. Sensor. Actuator. B Chem. 286, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2019.01.099
Li, H., Wang, L., Peng, Y., et al., 2021. Film mulching, residue retention and N fertilization affect ammonia volatilization through soil labile N and C pools. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 308, 107272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107272
Liu, G., Li, Y., Alva, A.K., 2007. High water regime can reduce ammonia volatilization from soils under potato production. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 38 (9–10), 1203–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620701328289
Liu, T.Q., Fan, D.J., Zhang, X.X., Chen, J., Li, C.F., Cao, C.G., 2015. Deep placement of nitrogen fertilizers reduces ammonia volatilization and increases nitrogen utilization efficiency in no-tillage paddy fields in central China. Field Crop. Res. 184, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.011
Liu, X., Chen, L., Hua, Z., Mei, S., Wang, P., Wang, S., 2020. Comparing ammonia volatilization between conventional and slow-release nitrogen fertilizers in paddy fields in the Taihu Lake region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (8), 8386–8394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07536-2
Liu, S., Li, Y., Xu, J., et al., 2021. Biochar partially offset the increased ammonia volatilization from salt-affected soil. Arch. Agron Soil Sci. 67 (9), 1202–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2020.1786537
Mandal, S., Thangarajan, R., Bolan, N.S., et al., 2016. Biochar-induced concomitant decrease in ammonia volatilization and increase in nitrogen use efficiency by wheat. Chemosphere 142, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.086
Mandal, S., Donner, E., Vasileiadis, S., Skinner, W., Smith, E., Lombi, E., 2018. The effect of biochar feedstock, pyrolysis temperature, and application rate on the reduction of ammonia volatilisation from biochar-amended soil. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 942–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.312
Martínez-Dalmau, J., Berbel, J., Ord ´ onez-Fern´ andez, R., 2021. Nitrogen fertilization. A review of the risks associated with the inefficiency of its use and policy responses. Sustainability 13 (10), 5625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105625
Minoli, S., Ma, Carozzi, M., 2015. NH3 emissions from land application of manures and N-fertilisers: a review of the Italian literature. Italian Journal of AgrometeorologyRivista Italiana di Agrometeorologia 20 (3), 5–24
Omar, O.L., Ahmed, O.H., Muhamad, A.M.N., 2010. Minimizing ammonia volatilization in waterlogged soils through mixing of urea with zeolite and sago waste water. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 5 (14), 2193–2197. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS.9000372
Palanivell, P., Ahmed, O.H., Susilawati, K., Ab Majid, N.M., 2015. Mitigating ammonia volatilization from urea in waterlogged condition using clinoptilolite zeolite. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 17 (1), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2015.1077229
Pratt, C., Redding, M., Hill, J., Brown, G., Westermann, M., 2016. Clays can decrease gaseous nutrient losses from soil-applied livestock manures. J. Environ. Qual. 45 (2), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.11.0569
Puga, A.P., Queiroz, MCdA., Ligo, M.A.V., et al., 2020. Nitrogen availability and ammonia volatilization in biochar-based fertilizers. Arch. Agron Soil Sci. 66 (7), 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1650916
Purakayastha, T.J., Bera, T., Bhaduri, D., et al., 2019. A review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: pathways to climate change mitigation and global food security. Chemosphere 227, 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.170
Recio, J., Vallejo, A., Le-Noe, J., et al., 2018. The effect of nitrification inhibitors on NH3 and N2O emissions in highly N fertilized irrigated Mediterranean cropping systems. Sci. Total Environ. 636, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.294
Rochette, P., Angers, D.A., Chantigny, M.H., MacDonald, J.D., Bissonnette, N., Bertrand, N., 2009. Ammonia volatilization following surface application of urea to tilled and no-till soils: a laboratory comparison. Soil Tillage Res. 103 (2), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.10.028
Sanz-Cobena, A., Misselbrook, T.H., Arce, A., Mingot, J.I., Diez, J.A., Vallejo, A., 2008. An inhibitor of urease activity effectively reduces ammonia emissions from soil treated with urea under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126 (3–4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.001
Sha, Z., Li, Q., Lv, T., Misselbrook, T., Liu, X., 2019. Response of ammonia volatilization to biochar addition: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 1387–1396. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.316
Shan, L., He, Y., Chen, J., Huang, Q., Wang, H., 2015. Ammonia volatilization from a Chinese cabbage field under different nitrogen treatments in the Taihu Lake Basin, China. J. Environ. Sci. 38, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.04.028
Shang, Q., Gao, C., Yang, X., et al., 2014. Ammonia volatilization in Chinese double ricecropping systems: a 3-year field measurement in long-term fertilizer experiments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 50 (5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0891-6
Shunyao, z, 2002. Study on Logistic model of surface molecular membrane reducing ammonia volatilization. SolIandEnvironmentai Sciences 11 (1), 3
Sigurdarson, J.J., Svane, S., Karring, H., 2018. The molecular processes of urea hydrolysis in relation to ammonia emissions from agriculture. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 17 (2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-018-9466-1
Silva, A.G.B., Sequeira, C.H., Sermarini, R.A., Otto, R., 2017. Urease inhibitor NBPT on ammonia volatilization and crop productivity: a meta-Analysis. Agron. J. 109 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.04.0200.
Singh, J., Kunhikrishnan, A., Bolan, N.S., Saggar, S., 2013. Impact of urease inhibitor on ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from temperate pasture soil cores receiving urea fertilizer and cattle urine. Sci. Total Environ. 465, 56–63. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.018
Sn Behera, M.S., Aneja, V.P., Balasubramanian, R., 2013. Ammonia in the atmosphere: a review on emission sources, atmospheric chemistry and deposition on terrestrial bodies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 20 (11), 8092–8131. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-013-2051-9
Soaud, A.A., Saleh, M.E., El-Tarabily, K.A., Sofian-Azirun, M., Rahman, M.M., 2011. Effect of elemental sulfur application on ammonia volatilization from surface applied urea fertilizer to calcareous sandy soils. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 5 (5), 611–619. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.280812805256218
Spokas, K.A., Novak, J.M., Venterea, R.T., 2012. Biochar s role as an alternative Nfertilizer: ammonia capture. Plant Soil 350 (1–2), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11104-011-0930-8
Sun, H., Zhang, H., Min, J., Feng, Y., Shi, W., 2016. Controlled-release fertilizer, floating duckweed, and biochar affect ammonia volatilization and nitrous oxide emission from rice paddy fields irrigated with nitrogen-rich wastewater. Paddy Water Environ. 14 (1), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-015-0482-2
Sun, H., Lu, H., Chu, L., Shao, H., Shi, W., 2017. Biochar applied with appropriate rates can reduce N leaching, keep N retention and not increase NH3 volatilization in a coastal saline soil. Sci. Total Environ. 575, 820–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2016.09.137
Sun, H., A D, Feng, Y., et al., 2019a. Floating duckweed mitigated ammonia volatilization and increased grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of rice in biochar amended paddy soils. Chemosphere 237, 124532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chemosphere.2019.124532
Sun, H., Zhang, H., Xiao, H., et al., 2019b. Wheat straw biochar application increases ammonia volatilization from an urban compacted soil giving a short-term reduction in fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency. J. Soils Sediments 19 (4), 1624–1631. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2169-y
Sun, X., Zhong, T., Zhang, L., Zhang, K., Wu, W., 2019c. Reducing ammonia volatilization from paddy field with rice straw derived biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 660, 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.450
Sun, Y., Xia, G., He, Z., et al., 2019d. Zeolite amendment coupled with alternate wetting and drying to reduce nitrogen loss and enhance rice production. Field Crop. Res. 235, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.004
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2015.1077229
Palanivell, P., Ahmed, O.H., Ab Majid, N.M., 2016. Minimizing ammonia volatilization from urea, improving lowland rice (cv. MR219) seed germination, plant growth variables, nutrient uptake, and nutrient recovery using clinoptilolite zeolite. Arch. Agron Soil Sci. 62 (5), 708–724.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2017.1406497
Palanivell, P., Ahmed, O.H., Ab Majid, N.M., 2017. Minimizing ammonia volatilization from urea in waterlogged condition using chicken litter biochar. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 48 (17), 2083–2092.
Pan, B., Lam, S.K., Mosier, A., Luo, Y., Chen, D., 2016. Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilizers and its mitigation strategies: a global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 232, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019
Peng, S., Yang, S., Xu, J., 2009. Ammonia volatilization and its influence factors of paddy field under water-saving irrigation. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 25 (8), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2009.08.007.
Sun, B., Bai, Z., Bao, L., et al., 2020a. Bacillus subtilis biofertilizer mitigating agricultural ammonia emission and shifting soil nitrogen cycling microbiomes. Environ. Int. 144, 105989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105989
Sun, H., Feng, Y., Xue, L., et al., 2020b. Responses of ammonia volatilization from rice paddy soil to application of wood vinegar alone or combined with biochar. Chemosphere 242, 125247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125247
Sun, H., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., et al., 2021. Effect of biofertilizer and wheat straw biochar application on nitrous oxide emission and ammonia volatilization from paddy soil. Environ. Pollut. 275, 116640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116640
Sunderlage, B., Cook, R.L., 2018. Soil property and fertilizer additive effects on ammonia volatilization from urea. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 82 (1), 253–259. https://doi.org/ 10.2136/sssaj2017.05.0151
Swarbreck, S.M., Wang, M., Wang, Y., et al., 2019. A roadmap for lowering crop nitrogen requirement. Trends Plant Sci. 24 (10), 892–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tplants.2019.06.006
Tang, Y., Li, X., Shen, W., Duan, Z., 2018. Effect of the slow-release nitrogen fertilizer oxamide on ammonia volatilization and nitrogen use efficiency in paddy soil. Agronomy-Basel 8 (4), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8040053
Ti, C., Xia, L., Chang, S.X., Yan, X., 2019. Potential for mitigating global agricultural ammonia emission: a meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 245, 141–148. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.124
Tian, Z., Wang, J.J., Liu, S., Zhang, Z., Dodla, S.K., Myers, G., 2015. Application effects of coated urea and urease and nitrification inhibitors on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a subtropical cotton field of the Mississippi delta region. Sci. Total Environ. 533, 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.147
Tian, X., Geng, J., Guo, Y., Li, C., Zhang, M., Chen, J., 2017. Controlled-release urea decreased ammonia volatilization and increased nitrogen use efficiency of cotton.
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 180 (6), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201600518
Timilsena, Y.P., Adhikari, R., Casey, P., Muster, T., Gill, H., Adhikari, B., 2015. Enhanced efficiency fertilisers: a review of formulation and nutrient release patterns. J. Sci. Food Agric. 95 (6), 1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6812
Vassilev, N., Vassileva, M., Lopez, A., et al., 2015. Unexploited potential of some biotechnological techniques for biofertilizer production and formulation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99 (12), 4983–4996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-0156656-4
Wang, S., Shan, J., Xia, Y., et al., 2017. Different effects of biochar and a nitrification inhibitor application on paddy soil denitrification: a field experiment over two consecutive rice-growing seasons. Sci. Total Environ. 593, 347–356. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.159
Wang, X., Xu, S., Wu, S., et al., 2018. Effect of Trichoderma viride biofertilizer on ammonia volatilization from an alkaline soil in Northern China. J. Environ. Sci. 66, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2017.05.016
Wang, M., Yu, Y., Yang, B., Xie, F., Hou, P., Yang, L., Xue, L., Sun, Q., 2019. Effect of different surface molecular membrane materials on inhibition of ammonia volatilization and the action pathways in paddy fields. Journal of Agro Environment Science 38 (8), 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.11654/jaes.2019-0657
Wang, M., Yu, Y., Yang, B., Hou, P., Yang, L., Xue, L.*, Sun, Q., 2020. Effects of interface barrier materials on rice yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and NH3 volatilization. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 28 (6), 803–812. https://doi.org/10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.200049
Win, K.T., Toyota, K., Motobayashi, T., Hosomi, M., 2009. Suppression of ammonia volatilization from a paddy soil fertilized with anaerobically digested cattle slurry by wood vinegar application and floodwater management. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 55 (1), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2008.00337.x
Win, K.T., Nonaka, R., Toyota, K., Motobayashi, T., Hosomi, M., 2010. Effects of option mitigating ammonia volatilization on CH4 and N2O emissions from a paddy field fertilized with anaerobically digested cattle slurry. Biol. Fertil. Soils 46 (6), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-010-0465-9
Wu, D., Feng, Y., Xue, L., et al., 2019. Biochar combined with vermicompost increases crop production while reducing ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from a paddy soil. Pedosphere 29 (1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60050-5
Xu, M., Li, D., Li, J., et al., 2013. Polyolefin-coated urea decreases ammonia volatilization in a double rice system of southern China. Agron. J. 105 (1), 277–284. https://doi. org/10.2134/agronj2012.0222
Xue, L., Sun, B., Yang, Y., et al., 2021. Efficiency and mechanism of reducing ammonia volatilization in alkaline farmland soil using Bacillus amyloliquefaciens biofertilizer. Environ. Res. 202, 111672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111672
Yang, Y., Zhou, C., Li, N., et al., 2015. Effects of conservation tillage practices on ammonia emissions from Loess Plateau rain-fed winter wheat fields. Atmos. Environ. 104, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.007
Yang, J., Liu, T., Liu, H., et al., 2019. Biodegradable PASP can effectively inhibit nitrification, moderate NH3 emission, and promote crop yield. Arch. Agron Soil Sci. 65 (9), 1273–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1562275
Yang, G., Ji, H., Sheng, J., et al., 2020a. Combining Azolla and urease inhibitor to reduce ammonia volatilization and increase nitrogen use efficiency and grain yield of rice. Sci. Total Environ. 743, 140799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140799
Yang, Y., Li, N., Ni, X., et al., 2020b. Combining deep flooding and slow-release urea to reduce ammonia emission from rice fields. J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118745. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118745.
Yang, G., Ji, H., Liu, H., et al., 2021. Nitrogen fertilizer reduction in combination with Azolla cover for reducing ammonia volatilization and improving nitrogen use efficiency of rice. PeerJ 9, e11077. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11077
Yao, Y., Zhang, M., Tian, Y., et al., 2018a. Azolla biofertilizer for improving low nitrogen use efficiency in an intensive rice cropping system. Field Crop. Res. 216, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.020
Yao, Y., Zhang, M., Tian, Y., et al., 2018b. Urea deep placement in combination with Azolla for reducing nitrogen loss and improving fertilizer nitrogen recovery in rice field. Field Crop. Res. 218, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.015
Yin, B., Shen, R.F., Zhu, Z.L., 1996. Use of new water soluble surface film-forming material to reduce ammonia loss from water solution. Pedosphere 6 (4), 329–334
Zhang, M., Yao, Y., Zhao, M., et al., 2017. Integration of urea deep placement and organic addition for improving yield and soil properties and decreasing N loss in paddy field. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 247, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2017.07.001
Zhang, Y., Jeyakumar, P., Xia, C., Lam, S.S., Jiang, J., Sun, H., Shi, W., 2022. Being applied at rice or wheat season impacts biochar’s effect on gaseous nitrogen pollutatns from the wheat growth cycle. Environ. Pollut. 306 (2022), 119409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119409
Zhong, X., Zhou, X., Fei, J., et al., 2021. Reducing ammonia volatilization and increasing nitrogen use efficiency in machine-transplanted rice with side-deep fertilization in a double-cropping rice system in Southern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 306, 107183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107183.
Zhou, M., Li, T., Liu, P., et al., 2021a. Real-time on-site monitoring of soil ammonia emissions using membrane permeation-based sensing probe. Environ. Pollut. 289, 117850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117850
Zhou, M., Ying, S., Chen, J., Jiang, P., Teng, Y., 2021b. Effects of biochar-based fertilizer on nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen losses via leaching and ammonia volatilization from an open vegetable field. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (46), 65188–65199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15210-9
Zhu, H., Yang, J., Yao, R., et al., 2020. Interactive effects of soil amendments (biochar and gypsum) and salinity on ammonia volatilization in coastal saline soil. Catena 190, 104527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104527
Zhuang, S.Y., Wang, M.K., 2009. Model estimation of ammonia volatilization from a paddy rice field after application of a surface film-forming material. J. Agric. Sci. 148 (1), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859609990293
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Dat sensus, auget vires, tollitque timorem338
Mortis, et ad martem corda parata facit.
In cruce libertas redit, et perit illa potestas, Hoste triumphato, que dedit ante mori:
In cruce religio, ritus cultusque venuste
Gentis concludunt omnia sacra simul:
In cruce porta patet paradisi, flammeus ensis
Custos secreti desiit esse loci:
Ecce vides quantis prefulgeat illa figuris, Pagina quam pulcre predicet omnis eam.
Mira quidem crucis est virtus, qua tractus ab alto
Vnicus est patris, vt pateretur homo.
Vi crucis infernum Cristus spoliauit, et illam, Perdita que fuerat, inde reuexit ouem:
Vi crucis in celum conscendit, et astra paterni
Luminis ingrediens ad sua regna redit:
Glorificata caro, que sustulit in cruce penas, Presidet in celo sede locata dei.
Sic virtute pie crucis et celestis amoris
Surgit in ecclesia gracia lege noua.
Hic dicit quod, exquo solus deus omnia creauit, solus est a creaturis adorandus, et est eciam magne racionis vt ipse omnia gubernet et secundum merita et demerita hominum in sua voluntate solus iudicet.
Capm xi
Semper id est quod erat et erit, trinus deus vnus;
Nec sibi principium, nec sibi finis adest: Principium tamen et finem dedit omnibus esse, Omnia per quem sunt, et sine quo nichil est.
Que vult illa potest vt sufficiens in idipsum; Iussit, et illico sunt que iubet ipse fore:
Cuius ad imperium famulantur cuncta creata, Hunc volo, credo meum celitus esse deum.
600
Dum sit aperta dei manus omnia replet habunde, Auertenteque se, vertitur omne retro.
Singula iudicio sapiens sic diuidit equo, Fallere seu falli quod nequit ipse deus.
Res est equa nimis, deus exquo cuncta creauit, Sint vt in arbitrio subdita cuncta suo.
Cum solo causante deo sint cuncta creata,
Num fortuna dei soluere possit opus?
Que nil principiis valuit, nec fine valebit, Estimo quod mediis nil valet ipsa suis.
Quis terre molem celique volubile culmen,
Quis ve mouere dedit sidera? Nonne deus?
Quis ve saporauit in dulcia flumina fontes, Vel quis amara dedit equora? Nonne deus?
Conditor orbis ad hoc quod condidit esse volebat, Vt deseruiret fabrica tota deo.
Terram vestiuit herbis et floribus herbas, Flores in fructus multiplicare dedit:
Invigilat summo studio ditescere terram, Et fecundare fertilitate sua:
610
620
Nec satis est mundus quod flumine, fontibus, ortis, Floribus et tanto germine diues erat;
Res animare nouas, varias formare figuras, Et speciebus eas diuaricare parat.
Diuersi generis animancia terra recepit, Ingemuitque nouo pondere pressa suo;339
Distribuitque locos ad eorum proprietates, Iuxta quod proprium cuilibet esse dedit, Montibus hiis, illis convallibus, hiis nemorosis, Pluribus in planis dans habitare locis:
Aera sumpsit auis, piscis sibi vendicat vndas, Planiciem pecudes, deuia queque fere.
Ars operi dictat formas, opifexque figurat, Artificis sequitur fabrica tota manum.
Fortune nichil attribuit, set solus vt ipse
Cuncta creat, solus cuncta creata regit: Est nichil infelix, nichil aut de sorte beatum,
Immo viri meritis dat sua dona deus.
Quicquid adest igitur, sapiens qui scripta reuoluit
Dicet fortunam non habuisse ream:
Hoc fateor vere, quicquid contingit in orbe, Nos sumus in causa, sint bona siue mala.
FOOTNOTES:
Hic dicit quod, exquo340 non a fortuna, set meritis et demeritis, ea que nos in mundo prospera et aduersa vocamus digno dei iudicio hominibus contingunt, intendit consequenter scribere de statu hominum, qualiter se ad presens habent, secundum hoc quod per sompnium superius dictum vidit et audiuit.
Incipit prologus libri tercii.
Cum bona siue mala sit nobis sors tribuenda
Ex propriis meritis, hiis magis hiisque minus, Fit mundique status in tres diuisio partes, Omnibus vnde viris stat quasi sortis opus, Et modo per vicia quia sors magis astat iniqua,
Ponderet in causis quilibet acta suis:
In quocumque gradu sit homo, videatur in orbe
Que sibi sunt facta, sors cadit vnde rea.
Non ego personas culpabo, set increpo culpas,341
Quas in personis cernimus esse reas.
A me non ipso loquor hec, set que michi plebis
Vox dedit, et sortem plangit vbique malam:
Vt loquitur vulgus loquor, et scribendo loquelam342
Plango, quod est sanctus nullus vt ante status.
Quisque suum tangat pectus videatque sequenter
Si sit in hoc talis vnde quietus erit.343
Nescio quis purum se dicet, plebs quia tota
Clamat iam lesum quemlibet esse statum.
Culpa quidem lata, non culpa leuis, maculauit
Tempora cum causis, nos quoque nostra loca:
Nil generale tamen concludam sub speciali,
Nec gero propositum ledere quemque statum.
Nouimus esse status tres, sub quibus omnis in orbe
More suo viuit atque ministrat eis.
Non status in culpa reus est, set transgredientes
A virtute status, culpa repugnat eis.
Quod dicunt alii scribam, quia nolo quod vlli
Sumant istud opus de nouitate mea.
Qui culpat vicia virtutes laudat, vt inde
Stet magis ipse bonus in bonitate sua:
Vt patet oppositum nigris manifestius album,
Sic bona cum viciis sunt patefacta magis:
Ne grauet ergo bonos, tangat si scriptor iniquos, Ponderet hoc cordis lanx pacientis onus:
Vera negant pingi, quia vera relacio scribi
Debet, non blandi falsa loquela doli.
Si qua michi sintilla foret sensus, precor illam
Ad cumulum fructus augeat ille deus:
Si qua boni scriptura tenet, hoc fons bonitatis
Stillet detque deus que bona scribat homo:
Fructificet deus in famulo que scripta iuuabunt,
Digna ministret homo semina, grana deus.
Mole rei victus fateor succumbo, set ipsam
Spes michi promittit claudere fine bono:
Quod spes promittit, amor amplexatur, vtrique
Auxiliumque fides consiliumque facit;344
Suggerit, instigat, suadet, fructumque laboris
Spondet, et exclamat, ‘Incipe, fiet opus.’
Quo minor est sensus meus, adde tuum, deus, et da,
Oro, pios vultus ad mea vota tuos:
Vt nichil abrupte s i b i p r esumat stilus iste,
Da veniam cepto, te, deus, oro, meo.
Non ego sidereas affecto tangere sedes, Scribere nec summi mistica quero poli;
Set magis, humana que vox communis ad extra
Plangit in hac terra, scribo moderna mala:
Vtilis aduerso quia confert tempore sermo,
Promere tendo mala iam bona verba die.345
Nulla Susurro queat imponere scandala, per que
Auris in auditu negligat ora libri:
Non malus interpres aliquam michi concitet iram, Quid nisi transgressis dum loquar ipse reis.
Erigat, oro, pia tenuem manus ergo carectam,
Vt mea sincero currat in axe rota:
Scribentem iuuet ipse fauor minuatque laborem,
Cum magis in pauido pectore p e rstat opus:
Omnia peruersas poterunt corrumpere mentes,
Stant tamen illa suis singula tuta locis:
Vt magis ipse queam, reliqui poterintque valere,346
Scit deus, ista mei vota laboris erunt.
Aspice, quique leges ex ipsis concipe verbis, Hoc michi non odium scribere suadet opus.
Si liber iste suis mordebitur ex inimicis, Hoc peto ne possint hunc lacerare tamen:
Vade, liber, seruos sub eo qui liberat omnes,
Nec mala possit iter rumpere lingua tuum;
Si, liber, ora queas transire per inuida liber,
Imponent alii scandala nulla tibi.
Non erit in dubio m e a v o x clamans, erit omnis
Namque fides huius maxima vocis homo.
Si michi tam sepe liquet excusacio facta, Ignoscas, timeo naufragus omne fretum.
O sapiens, sine quo nichil est sapiencia mundi, Cuius in obsequium me mea vota ferunt, Te precor instanti da tempore, Criste, misertus, Vt metra que pecii prompta parare queam;
Turgida deuitet, falsum mea penna recuset
Scribere, set scribat que modo vera videt.
In primis caueat ne fluctuet, immo decenter
Quod primo pon i t carmine seruet opus:347
Hic nichil offendat lectorem, sit nisi verum
Aut veri simile, quod mea scripta dabunt.
In te qui es verus mea sit sentencia vera,
Non ibi figmentum cernere possit homo:
Conueniatque rei verbum sensumque ministret, Dulce sit et quicquam commoditatis habens:
100
Absit adulari, nec sit michi fabula blesa,
Nec michi laus meriti sit sine laude tua.
Da loquar vt vicium minuatur et ammodo virtus
Crescat, vt in mundo mundior extet homo:
Tu gressus dispone meos, tu pectus adauge,
Tu sensus aperi, tu plue verba michi;
Et quia sub trino mundi status ordine fertur,
Sub trina serie tu mea scripta foue.
Hiis tibi libatis nouus intro nauta profundum, Sacrum pneuma rogans vt mea vela regas.
Hic tractat qualiter status et ordo mundi in tribus consistit gradibus, sunt enim, vt dicit, Clerus, Milicies, et Agricultores, de quorum errore mundi infortunia nobis contingunt. Vnde primo videndum est de errore cleri precipue in ordine prelatorum, qui potenciores aliis existunt; et primo dicet de prelatis illis qui Cristi scolam dogmatizant et eius contrarium operantur.
Incipit liber tercius.348
Capm . i.
Sunt Clerus, Miles, Cultor, tres trina gerentes,
S e t d e p r e l a t i s s c r i b e r e t e n d o
p r i u s .
S c i s m a p a t e n s h o d i e m o n s t r a t
q u o d s u n t d u o p a p e ,
V n u s s c i s m a t i c u s , a l t e r e t i l l e
b o n u s :
F r a n c i a s c i s m a t i c u m c o l i t e t s t a t u i t
v e n e r a n d u m ,
A n g l i a s e t r e c t a m s e r u a t v b i q u e
f i d e m .
E r g o m e i s s c r i p t i s s u p e r h o c
v b i c u m q u e l e g e n d i s
S i n t b o n a d i c t a b o n i s , e t m a l a
l i n q u o m a l i s .
I n t e r p r e l a t o s d u m C r i s t i q u e r o s e q u a c e s ,
R e g u l a n u l l a m a n e t , q u e p r i u s e s s e s o l e t .
C r i s t u s e r a t pauper, i l l i cumulantur in auro;
Hic pacem dederat, hii m o d o bella m o u e n t:
C r i s t u s e r a t largus, hii sunt velut archa tenaces;
Hunc labor inuasit, hos fouet aucta quies:
C r i s t u s e r a t mitis, hii sunt t a m e n i m p e t u o s i;
Hic humilis subiit, hii superesse volunt:
C r i s t u s e r a t m i s e r a n s, hii vindictamque sequntur;
Sustulit hic penas, hos timor inde fugat:
C r i s t u s e r a t virgo, s u n t i l l i r a r o p u d i c i;
Hic bonus est pastor, hii set ouile vorant:
C r i s t u s e r a t verax, hii blandaque verba requirunt;
C r i s t u s e r a t iustus, hii nisi velle vident:
C r i s t u s e r a t constans, hii vento mobiliores;
Obstitit ipse malis, hii magis i l l a sinunt:
Hii pleno stomacho laudant ieiunia Cristi;
C r i s t u s a q u a m peciit, hii bona vina bibunt:
As follows in CHGEDL,
*Capm . i.
Sunt Clerus, Miles, Cultor, tres trina gerentes;
Hic docet, hic pugnat, alter et arua colit.
Quid sibi sit Clerus primo videamus, et ecce
Eius in exemplis iam stupet omnis humus.349
Scisma patens hodie monstrat quod sunt duo pape,
Vnus scismaticus, alter et ille bonus:
Francia scismaticum colit et statuit venerandum,
Anglia sed rectam seruat vbique fidem.
Ergo meis scriptis super hoc vbicumque legendis
Sint bona dicta bonis, et mala linquo malis.
Delicias mundi negat omnis regula Cristi,
Sed modo prelati preuaricantur ibi.
Cristus erat pauper, illi cumulantur in auro;
Hic humilis subiit, hii superesse volunt:
Cristus erat mitis, hos pompa superbit inanis;
Hic pacem dederat, hii modo bella ferunt:
Cristus erat miserans, hii vindictamque sequntur;
Mulcet eum pietas, hos mouet ira frequens:350
Cristus erat verax, hii blandaque verba requirunt;
Cristus erat iustus, hii nisi velle vident:
Cristus erat constans, hii vento mobiliores;
Obstitit ille malis, hii mala stare sinunt:351
Cristus erat virgo, sunt illi raro pudici;
Hic bonus est pastor, hii sed ouile vorant:
Hii pleno stomacho laudant ieiunia Cristi;
Mollibus induti, nudus et ipse pedes:
Et que plus poterunt sibi fercula lauta parari,352
Ad festum Bachi dant holocausta quasi.
Esca placens ventri, &c. as 29 ff.
As follows in TH₂,
**Capm . i.
Sunt clerus, miles, cultor, tres trina gerentes;353
Hic docet, hic pugnat, alter et arua colit.
Quid sibi sit clerus primo videamus, et ecce
De reliquis fugiens mundus adheret eis.354
Primo prelatos constat preferre sequendos, Nam via doctorum tucior illa foret.
Morigeris verbis modo sunt quam plura docentes, Facta tamen dictis dissona cerno suis.
Ipse Ihesus facere bene cepit, postque docere, Set modo prelatis non manet ille modus.
Ille fuit pauper, isti cumulantur in auro;
Hic pacem dederat, hii quoque bella ferunt:
Ille fuit largus, hii sunt velut archa tenaces;
Hunc labor inuasit, hos fouet aucta quies:
Ille fuit mitis, hii sunt magis igne furentes;
Hic humilis subiit, hii superesse volunt:
Ille misertus erat, hii vindictamque sequntur;
Sustulit hic penas, hos timor inde fugat:
Ille fuit virgo, vix vnus castus eorum;
Hic bonus est pastor, hii set ouile vorant:
Ille fuit verax, hii blandaque verba requirunt;
Ille fuit iustus, hii nisi velle vident:
Ille fuit constans, hii vento mobiliores;
Obstitit ipse malis, hii magis ipsa sinunt:355
Hii pleno stomacho laudant ieiunia Cristi;
Hic limpham peciit, hii bona vina bibunt:
Et quotquot poterit &c., as 27 ff.
Et quotquot poterit mens escas premeditari
Lautas, pro stomacho dant renouare suo.
Esca placens ventri, sic est et venter ad escas,
Vt Venus a latere stet bene pasta gule.
Respuit in monte sibi Cristus singula regna,
Hiis nisi mundana gloria sola placet.
Moribus assuetus olim simplex fuit, et nunc
Presul opes mores deputat esse suos.
Creuerunt set opes et opum furiosa cupido,
Et cum possideant plurima, plura petunt.
Sunt in lege dei nuper magis hii meditati,
Numen eis vultum prestitit vnde suum:
Nunc magis intrauit animos suspectus honorum, Fit precium dignis, sunt neque cuncta satis.
In precio precium nunc est, dat census honores, Omneque pauperies subdita crimen habet.
Cum loquitur diues, omnis tunc audiet auris,
Pauperis ore tamen nulla loquela valet:
Si careat censu, sensus nichil est sapienti,
Census in orbe modo sensibus ora premit.
Pauper erit stultus, loquitur licet ore Catonis;
Diues erit sapiens, nil licet ipse sciat:
Est in conspectu paupertas vilis eorum
Cuiuscumque viri, sit licet ipse bonus;
Sit licet et diues peruerse condicionis,
Horum iudiciis non erit ipse malus.
Nil artes, nil pacta fides, nil gracia lingue,
Nil fons ingenii, nil probitas, sine re:
Nullus inops sapiens; vbi res, ibi copia sensus;
Si sapiat pauper, nil nisi pauper erit.
Quem mundus reprobat, en nos reprobamus eundem,
Vtque perit pereat perdicionis opus;356
Nos set eum laude nostra dignum reputamus,
Copia quem mundi duxit ad orbis opes:
Et sic prelatis mundus prefertur ab intus,
Hiis tamen exterius fingitur ipse deus.
Laudamus veteres, nostris tamen vtimur annis,
Nec vetus in nobis regula seruat iter:
Non tunc iusticiam facinus mortale fugarat,
Que nunc ad superos rapta reliquit humum.
Felices anime mundum renuere, set intus
Cura domos superas scandere tota fuit;
Non venus aut vinum sublimia pectora fregit,
Que magis interius concupiere deum.
Plura videre potes modo set nouitatis ad instans,
Que procul a Cristi laude superba gerunt:
Nunc magis illesa seruant sua corpora leta,
Set non sunt ista gaudia nata fide:
Sufficit hiis sola ficte pietatis in vmbra, Dicant pomposi, quam pius ordo dei.
Pro fidei meritis prelati tot paciuntur, Vnde viros sanctos nos reputamus eos.
Hic loquitur de prelatis illis qui carnalia appetentes vltra modum delicate viuunt.
Capm ii
80
90
Permanet ecce status Thome, cessit tamen actus,
Normaque Martini deperit alma quasi;
Sic qui pastor erat, nunc Mercenarius extat,357
Quo fugiente lupus spergit vbique gregem.
Non caput in gladio iam vincit, nec valet arto
Vincere cilicio deliciosa caro:
Ollarum carnes preponit fercula, porros,
Gebas pro manna presul habere petit.358
Prodolor! en tales sinus ecclesie modo nutrit,
Qui pro diuinis terrea vana petunt.
Ollarum carnes carnalia facta figurant,
Que velut in cleri carne libido coquit.
Est carni cognata venus, iactancia, fastus, Ambicio, liuor, crapula, rixa, dolus.
Ventre saginato veneris suspirat ad vsum
Carnis amica caro, carnea membra petens:
Et sic non poterunt virtutum tangere culmen,
Dum dominatur eis ventris iniqus amor.
Subuertunt Sodomam tumor, ocia, copia panis,
Impietasque tenax: presul, ad ista caue.
Set modo prelati dicant michi quicquid ad aures,
100
Lex tamen ex proprio velle gubernat eos:
Si mundo placeant carnique placencia reddant,
Ex anima virtus raro placebit eis.
Bachus adest festo patulo diffusus in auro,
Precellit calices maior honore ciphus;
Glorificans mensam non aurea vasa recondit,
Quo poterit vano vanus honore frui.
Aula patet cunctis oneratque cibaria mensas,
Indulgetque nimis potibus atque cibis:
Vestibus et facie longus nitet ordo clientum,
Ad domini nutus turba parata leues:
Sic modico ventri vastus vix sufficit orbis,
Atque ministrorum vocibus aula fremit.
Tantum diuitibus, aliis non festa parantur, Nec valet in festo pauper habere locum;
Vanaque sic pietas stat victa cupidine ventris;
Dum sit honor nobis, nil reputatur onus.
Sicque famem Cristi presul laudare gulosus
Presumit, simile nec sibi quicquid agit;
Quicquid et ad vicium mare nutrit, terra vel aer,
Querit habetque sibi luxuriosa fames:
Esuriens anima maceratur, et ipsa voluptas
Carnis ad excessum crassat in ore gulam.
Sic epulis largis est pleno ventre beatus
Luce, set in scortis gaudia noctis habet;
Cumque genas bibulas Bachus rubefecerit ambas,
Erigit ex stimulis cornua ceca Venus:
Sic preclara viri virtus, sic vita beata
Deliciis pastus cum meretrice cubat.
Frigida nulla timet Acherontis, quem calefactum
Confouet incesti lectus amore sui;
Sicque voluptatum varia dulcedine gaudet,
Et desideriis seruit vbique suis;
Sicque ioco, venere, vino sompnoque beatus,
Expendit vite tempora vana sue.
Nescit perpetuo quod torrem nutriat igni
Corpus, quod tantis nutrit alitque modis.
Hic loquitur de prelatis illis qui lucris
terrenis inhiant, honore prelacie gaudent, et
Nemo potest verus dominis seruire duobus,
Presul in officio fert tamen illa duo:
Eterni regis seruum se dicit, et ipse
Terreno regi seruit et astat ei:
Clauiger ethereus Petrus extitit, isteque poscit359
Claues thesauri regis habere sibi.
Sic est deuotus cupidus, mitisque superbus,
Celicus et qui plus sollicitatur humo:
Sic mundum sic et Cristum retinebit vtrumque, Mundus amicicior, Cristus amicus, erit.
Inter eos, maior quis sit, lis sepe mouetur,
Set quis erit melior, questio nulla sonat:
Si tamen ad mundi visum facies bonitatis
Eminet, hoc raro viscera cordis habent.
140 150 160 Capm . iii. non vt prosint set vt presint, episcopatum desiderant.
Hoc deus esse pium statuit quodcunque iuuaret,
Nos tamen ad nocuas prouocat ira manus:
Vti iusticia volo, set conuertor in iram,
Principiumque bonum destruit ira sequens:
Carnem castigo, miseros sustento, set inde
Nascens furatur gloria vana bonum.
Istud fermentum mundane laudis et ire
Absque lucro meriti respuit ira dei:
In vicium virtus sic vertitur, vt sibi mundus
Gaudeat et Cristus transeat absque lucris.
Vt presul prosit dudum sic ordo petebat,
Set modo que presit mitra colenda placet.
Presulis ex precibus populo peccante solebat
Ira dei minui nec meminisse mali;
Nuncque manus Moyses non erigit in prece noster,
Nos Amalech ideo vexat in ense suo.
Moyse leuante manus Iosue victoria cedit,
Dumque remittit eas, victus ab hoste redit:
Sic pro plebe manu, lacrimis, prece, sidera pulsans
Presul ab instanti munit ab hoste suos;
Ac, si dormitet victus torpore sacerdos, Subdita plebs viciis de leuitate cadit.
Quos habeat fructus suplex deuocio iusti,
In precibus Moysi quisque notare potest.
Qui bonus est pastor gregis ex pietate mouetur,
Et propriis humeris fert sibi pondus ouis;360
Qui licet inmunis sit ab omni labe, suorum
Membrorum culpas imputat ipse sibi.
Non in se Cristus crimen transisse fatetur,
Set reus in membris dicitur esse suis:
Non facit hic populum delinquere, set tamen eius
Suscepit culpas vt remoueret eas.
Nunc tamen, vt d i c u n t , e s t p r e s u l t a l i s in orbe,
Qui docet hoc factum, nec tamen illud agit:
Nam qui de proprio se ledit crimine, raro
Efficitur curis hic aliena salus:
Non valet ille deo conferre salubria voto, Ad mundi cultum qui dedit omne suum.
Presul in orbe gregem curare tenetur egentem,
Ipse videns maculas vngere debet eas:
Set si magnatos presul noscat maculatos, Illos non audet vngere, namque timet.
Si reliqui peccent, quid ob hoc dum soluere possunt?361
Torquentur bursa sic reus atque rea:
Ipse gregis loculos mulget, trahit in tribulosque
Cause quo lana vulsa manebit ei.
Quod corpus peccat peccantis bursa relaxat:
Hec statuunt iura presulis ecce noua.
Sic iteranda modo venus affert lucra registro;
Dum patitur bursa, sunt residiua mala:
Dum loculus pregnat satis, impregnare licebit;
Dat partus loculi iura subacta tibi.
Sic timor et lucrum sunt qui peccata relaxant,
Sub quorum manibus omne recumbit opus:
Sic lucri causa presul mulcet sua iura, Annuit et nostris fas adhibere malis:
Mammona sic nummi nobis dispensat iniqui, Non tamen eternas prestat habere domos.
Nunc furit en Iudex, si luxuracio simplex
Fiat, et incestum nescit habere reum:
Si coheat laicus resolutus cum resoluta,
Clamat in ecclesia clerus et horret ea;
Clerus et in cohitu si peccet, nil reputatur, Dum Iudex cause parsque sit ipse sue.
Sic modo dii gentis subuertunt cunctipotentis
Iura, que dant michi ius, sum magis vnde reus;
Sicque grauant alios duro sub pondere pressos, Inque suis humeris quam leue fertur onus.
Vxor adulterio deprensa remittitur, in quo
Exemplum venie Cristus habere docet;
Tale tamen crimen non aurea bursa redemit, Set contrita magis mens medicamen habet.
Non tamen est lacrima modo que delere valebit
Crimen, si bursa nesciat inde forum:
Bursa valet culpam, valet expurgareque penam,
Bursa valet quantum curia nostra valet.
Hic loquitur de l e g i b u s e o r u m
p o s i t i u i s , q u e q u a m u i s a d c u l t u m
a n i m e n e c e s s a r i e n o n s u n t ,
i n f i n i t a s t a m e n c o n s t i t u c i o n e s
q u a s i c o t i d i e a d e o r u m l u c r u m
n o b i s g r a u i t e r i m p o n u n t.362
Capm . iiii.
Num dat pre manibus sceleris veniam michi Cristus?
Non puto, set facto post miseretur eo:
Aut quod peccatum non est, numquid
prohibendum363
Hoc Cristus statuit? talia nulla facit.