Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Nitrogen Cycling and Soil Amelioration in Camellia oleifera Plantations

Written By

Bangliang Deng and Ling Zhang

Submitted: November 15th, 2019 Reviewed: April 8th, 2020 Published: May 9th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.92415

Chapter metrics overview

659 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Camellia oleifera Abel. is one of the four woody edible oil trees around the world, which is also an important economic species in subtropical China. It is mainly cultivated in subtropical region, where the soil constrains the yield of C. oleifera oil due to its low fertility and pH. Thereby, intensive management including fertilization practice, especially intensive nitrogen (N) input, has been developed as a vital way to enhance oil yield in C. oleifera plantations. However, excessive nitrogen input increases soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and soil acidification, limiting sustainable development of economic forests. As one of the important greenhouse gases, N2O is 265 times greater than carbon dioxide in global warming potential on 100-year scale. To mitigate soil N2O emissions and soil acidification, soil amelioration, including applications of biochar, nitrification inhibitors, and urease inhibitors, played an important role in sustainable management of C. oleifera plantations. This chapter reviewed soil nitrogen cycling, N2O emissions, and soil amelioration in C. oleifera plantations, which will benefit the sustainable management of C. oleifera plantations and hence the development of C. oleifera industries.


  • Camellia oleifera
  • biochar
  • nitrification inhibitor
  • soil amelioration
  • sustainable forest management
  • urease inhibitor

1. Camellia oleifera

Camellia oleifera Abel. as a native edible oil tree has a long cultivation history in subtropical China [1]. It is a perennial and evergreen species with synchronous flowers and fruits. The cultivation area and total product value of C. oleifera have reached 4.47 million ha and 102.4 billion Chinese yuan, respectively [2]. With rapid development, the C. oleifera oil accounted for 80% domestic high-end vegetable edible oils in 2018 from China. High habitat suitability area for C. oleifera cultivation in China has been up to 4.94% [3].

Specially, C. oleifera oil and oils derived from palm, olive, and coconut are the four major woody edible oils in the world [4]. The C. oleifera oil is characterized by remarkable antioxidant activity [5] and high content of unsaturated fatty acids (about 83%) [6].

Camellia oleifera can survive and adapt to low-fertility acid soil. Generally, it usually is used in the conservation of soil and water as well as afforestation in barren hill. Therefore, C. oleifera is an excellent species with both ecological and economic advantages. Development of C. oleifera industry would be beneficial for the safety of edible oil and the conservation of soil and water in China.

As a typical economic tree, intensification such as water management, fertilization, and trimming takes an important part in the management of C. oleifera plantations. Notably, organic matter, available phosphorus, and pH value was low in C. oleifera plantation soils [7], constraining the yield of C. oleifera oil. Therefore, intensive management with fertilization is often performed in C. oleifera plantations [1].


2. Challenges

Fertilization is the major way of intensive management, efficiently improving the yield of oil in C. oleifera plantations. However, a large amount of nitrogen (N) input increased the risk of soil N leaching and gaseous N (e.g., nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO), ammonia (NH3)) losing [8]. In addition, excessive N input induced soil acidification [9].

2.1 Nitrous oxide emissions

Nitrous oxide, as the major ozone-depleting substance [10], has been recognized to be an important greenhouse gas. Especially, the potential of N2O for global warming is 265 times than that of carbon dioxide [11]. The concentration of N2O is ranging from 270 ppb in pre-industrial period to 329.9 ppb in 2017 [12].

Soil systems contributed the largest source of N2O emissions (13 Tg N2O-N yr−1), of which human activities accounted for 54% [13]. Nitrogen input such as N deposition and N fertilization often increased N2O emissions and altered the process of N transformation [14, 15, 16, 17]. Generally, soil N2O emissions had a positive and linear relationship with N input [18]. About 120 Tg N was contributed by human activities per year [13]. Therefore, intensive N input often leads to high emissions of soil N2O [19].

2.1.1 Nitrification and denitrification

Nitrification and denitrification are the two main pathways of N2O emissions (Figure 1) [20, 21, 22], which produced global 70% soil N2O emissions [13].

Figure 1.

Nitrification- and denitrification-related pathways [20, 21, 22].

2.1.2 Influence factors

Soil N2O emissions can be influenced by soil environmental factors such as soil moisture, temperature, oxygen (O2), and pH condition [23, 24]. Soil moisture

Soil moisture is a vital factor that affects soil N2O emissions. Generally, soil N2O emission rates reached the peak when soil water-filled pore space (WFPS) was 60–70% [25]. For example, soil N2O emissions were significantly higher under 60% WFPS conditions than that under flooded conditions [26]. Soil temperature

Effects of soil temperature on N2O emissions were more complex than that of soil moisture. For example, warming increased soil N2O emissions from boreal peatland [27] and alpine meadow [28]. Soil N2O emissions had an exponential increased relationship with incubation temperatures [29]. A significant positive correlation was presented in N2O emissions and soil temperature from different soil types (paddy, orchard, forest, and mountain) [30]. Although warming did not affect soil N2O emissions from northern peatlands, it suppressed N2O emissions under N addition conditions [31]. By contrast, the effects of warming on soil N2O emissions from alpine meadow soil were not observed [32]. Consistently, no significant increase of soil N2O emissions was found with increasing incubation temperatures [33]. Previous study reported that soil moisture and temperature can explain 86% of soil N2O emissions [34]. Soil O2 concentration

Soil O2 concentration was closely related with soil moisture and soil mechanical composition. Generally, soil with higher water content and larger clay fraction had lower soil O2 concentrations. Lower soil O2 concentrations mainly promoted soil N2O emissions via denitrification [20, 35]. The production of N2O and NO was increased when O2 concentration decreased from 21% to 0.5% in a laboratory study [36]. Similarly, field study reported that soil N2O emissions increased with increasing soil O2 concentrations in wetland [37]. Soil pH

pH played an important role in the activity of microbes [38]. Indeed, soil acidification [39] and soil pH amelioration [40] significantly influenced soil N2O emissions. However, other researchers reported that there was no significant correlation between N2O emissions and pH [41].

pH influenced the activity of nitrification- and denitrification-related enzymes [42]. Generally, soil acidification increased N2O emissions [42]. Compared with ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB), ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) were higher in activity and resistance from acid soil [43]. However, the domination of AOB was increased by increasing soil pH [44]. Additionally, archaeal amoA genes had a wide pH range of about 3.7–8.65, which had high activity in extreme environments such as high temperature and extreme acid [45].

2.1.3 Nitrous oxide emissions from Camellia oleifera plantation soils

Our previous field study (1 year) found that soil N2O emissions were 92.14 ± 47.01 mg m−2 in control treatment and were 375.10 ± 60.30 mg m−2 in fertilization treatment (400 kg NH4NO3-N ha−1) from C. oleifera plantations [1].

2.2 Soil acidification

Acid soil (pH < 5.5) as a main soil type covers about 30% free ice land [46]. However, soil acidification has been becoming more and more serious [47]. Soil acidification should be taken into consideration due to its constraint in the sustainable development of agricultural sector [48]. In China, soil pH (except alkaline soils at pH 7.10–8.80) from crop fields reduced by 0.13–0.76 during the year 1980–2000 [49]. For example, soil pH (surface layer) decreased by 0.30 units from 1981 to 2012 in Sichuan Province, China [47].

With a long cultivation history, C. oleifera was widely cultivated in acid or strongly acid soil in subtropical China [7]. The optimum pH for the growth of C. oleifera is 5.5–6.5 [50]. However, acid deposition [51] and intensive N input [49] may stimulate soil acidification from C. oleifera plantations. Additionally, long-term N input may also increase the toxicity of aluminum (Al) [52], limiting the sustainable development of C. oleifera.

Soil acidification from C. oleifera plantations is mainly related to the following factors.

2.2.1 Precipitation

Long-term precipitation increased the loss of base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+, reducing the soil pH buffering capacity. In addition, long-term precipitation promoted the accumulation of Al3+ and Fe3+ in soil, which could further hydrolyze to Fe(OH)3 or Al(OH)3 and release 3H+.

2.2.2 Plant physiology

When plant roots absorb a NH4+ from soil, an H+ will release into soil; in turn, absorbing a NO3 from soil will release an OH into soil [53].

Organic acid (R▬COOH) from root exudates can release an H+ after hydrolysis. In addition, anions of organic acids (e.g., citric acid and malic acid) can chelate with Al3+ in the soil and inhibit the root system that absorbs Al3+, alleviating Al3+ toxicity to plant growth [48, 54, 55].

Plants such as C. oleifera [56] can uptake Al3+ by roots, promoting the accumulation of Al3+ in surface soil via litter decomposition [57]. The accumulation of Al3+ can replace the base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ and accelerate leaching, hence reducing the pH buffering capacity of top soil.

2.2.3 Microbial-mediated nitrification

For example, NH4+ transfers to NO3 along with the 2H+ release (NH4+ + 2O2 → NO3 + H2O + 2H+) [53]. AOB, AOA, and fungi can participate in the process of nitrification [20]. Nitrification includes the pathway of ammonia oxidation to hydroxylamine, the pathway of hydroxylamine oxidation to nitrite, and the pathway of nitrite oxidation to nitrate (Figure 1) [58]. Ammonia can be oxidized by AOA or AOB to hydroxylamine via ammonia monooxygenase (amo). Hydroxylamine can be oxidized to nitrite by hydroxylamine oxidoreductase. Nitrite can be oxidized to nitrate by nitrite oxidoreductase.

2.2.4 Oxidation of sulfur-containing organics

Oxidation of sulfur mineral, for example, oxidation of FeS2, will produce 2H+ (2FeS2 + 7O2 + 2H2O → 2Fe2+ + 4SO42− + 4H+).

Oxidation of sulfur-containing organics will release 4H+ (2Organic-S + 3O2 + 2H2O → 2SO42− + 4H+).

2.2.5 Intensive nitrogen fertilization

Intensive NH4+ input can replace the base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ and accelerate leaching, reducing the pH buffering capacity of top soil [59]. Hydrolysis of soil NH4+ will generate NH3 (gas) and consume an OH (NH4+ + OH = NH3↑ + H2O) [60].

Acidic fertilizers such as Ca(H2PO4)2 will gradually release H+, hence increasing soil acidification (Ca(H2PO4)2 → CaHPO4 + H3PO4, H3PO4 → H+ + H2PO4 → 2H+ + HPO42− → 3H+ + PO43−).

2.2.6 Acid deposition

Acid deposition (water-soluble acid gases such as CO2 and sulfur dioxide) and N deposition (especially NH4+-N) increased soil acidification [51]. Precipitation with H+ can replace the soil base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+, which directly reduce the soil pH buffering capacity [51].

2.2.7 Other factors

For example, deforestation and other land uses can reduce litter accumulation in surface soil, hence declining the accumulation of base cations such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and Na+ that generate from litter decomposition [61].

2.3 Effects of soil acidification on nitrous oxide emissions

Acid soils have been facing an increased risk of acidification due to human activities, especially intensive N fertilization [47, 49, 62]. For example, after 6 years of application of 600 kg Urea-N ha−1 yr−1, soil pH was significantly decreased (soil pH in control and fertilization treatment was 5.1 and 4.9, respectively) from a tea plantation in Yixing City, Jiangsu Province, China [63]. A meta-analysis of 1104 field data showed that a negative correlation between soil N2O emissions and pH (3.34–8.7) (N2O-N = −0.67x + 6.55, R = 0.22) is negatively related with N fertilization [9]. Moreover, deposition of sulfur dioxide increased soil acidification, stimulating soil N2O emissions [64].

The mechanism of soil acidification on the stimulation of soil N2O emissions is complex, which may include (but not limited to) the following points.

2.3.1 Chemical decomposition of nitrous acid

Under acidic conditions, pH < 5.5, NO2 (HNO2, pKa = 3.3) will naturally decompose into NO and/or NO2 (3HNO2 ⇌ 2NO + HNO3 + H2O or 2HNO2 ⇌ NO + NO2 + H2O) [65]. Soil NO can be further transformed to N2O with Fe2+ when it was not escaping soil [65].

2.3.2 Shifts in microbial communities and abundance

Generally, the abundance of AOB was lower in soil pH < 5.5 than that in neutral soil pH. Here, nitrification was weak and almost disappears at soil pH < 4 [66]. However, AOA could mediate the process of ammonia oxidation in extremely strong acidity soil (pH: 4.2–4.47) [43]. Another study reported that the abundance of AOB was positively correlated with pH (R2 = 0.2807), while the abundance of AOA was negatively correlated with pH (R2 = 0.2141) [67]. For example, AOA dominated in acid paddy soil (pH 5.6), while AOB dominated in alkaline soil (pH 8.2) [68]. Previous research indicated that fungi were the main microbial community that mediated N2O emissions in acid soil [69, 70]. Additionally, fungi-mediated denitrification accounted for 70% soil N2O emissions from a 100-year-old tea plantation (soil pH 3.8) [71].

In acid soils, the activity of N2O reductase was inhibited, leading to higher N2O emissions in lower soil pH [72]. Indeed, there was a positive correlation between the abundance of nirS, nirK, or nosZ and soil pH (4.0–8.0) and a negative correlation between N2O/(N2O + N2) and soil pH [73]. In agreement, N2O/(N2O + N2) was negatively correlated with soil pH (3.7–8.0) (R2 = 0.759, P < 0.001), and lime addition decreased N2O/(N2O + N2) [74]. The ratio of N2O/(N2O + N2) increased with decreasing pH (5.57–7.06) (R2 = 0.82) [75]. Consistently, soil pH was negatively correlated with N2O/N2 [76]. Intensive management consistently decreased soil pH and increased the ratio of N2O/(N2O + N2) [77]. Increasing dolomite dosage increased soil pH and hence increased the transcription of nosZ genes and reduced the potential of N2O production in acid soils [26].

2.3.3 Microbes increased resistance to soil acidification

Laboratory study showed that the potential of soil N2O emissions was increased with decreasing pH (soil pH ranging from 2.96 to 6.26) from tea plantations in Japanese [78]. In addition, higher soil N2O emissions and lower abundance of nosZ genes were observed in soil pH at 3.71 (control) than in pH at 5.11, 6.19, and 7.41 (lime amelioration) under NO3-N fertilization (50, 200, and 1000 mg kg−1) from a 100-year-old tea plantation [79]. Field study found a negative correlation between soil N2O emissions and pH (pH 3.6–5.9) (N2O-N = 636.6* e−0.8028 * pH, R = −0.93) from Betula pendula Roth forest [80]. Thus, denitrifying microorganisms may have been adapted extremely to acid soil environments, resulting in high N2O emissions when soil acidification happened.


3. Sustainable forest management

Soil amelioration (e.g., application of lime, biochar nitrification inhibitors, and urease inhibitors) plays an important role in mitigation of soil acidification and N2O emissions.

3.1 Lime

Lime as an ameliorant was often used to amend acid soils in southern China due to increasing soil pH. It can relieve the toxic effect of soil Al3+ on plant growth by reducing soil exchangeable H+ [81]. Lime addition increased soil pH and salt saturation [82]. In addition, application of lime can reduce soil N2O emissions [40]. For example, under 60% WFPS or flooded conditions, dolomite addition at medium- or high-dose levels (1 or 2 g kg−1 soil) can reduce N2O emissions and increase the transcription of nosZ genes (N2O → N2) by increasing acid soil pH from a rice-rapeseed rotation system [26]. However, lime addition reduced the content of soluble organic carbon in the soil layer 10–30 cm [83]. Consistently, long-term lime addition increased the soil pH but stimulated the decomposition of soil organic carbon [84].

3.2 Biochar

Biochar was stable in the soil from Amazon basin of Brazil, and biochar input improved soil fertility [85]. This discovery accelerated the development of technologies for biochar application in soil amelioration.

Biochar is a carbon (C)-rich solid material by pyrolyzing of organic biomass such as crop straw, forestry by-products, urban waste, industrial by-products, animal manure, and urban sludge at low oxygen and high temperature (250–700°C) condition [86]. Biochar has been characterized by a high pH, specific surface area, degree of aromatization, and porosity. In addition, biochar is rich in C-containing functional groups (e.g., C–H, C–O, C=C and C=O) and relatively stable organic C. The physicochemical properties of biochar were mainly determined by pyrolysis temperature [87].

Presently, biochar was widely used as a soil ameliorant in agriculture and forestry field. For example, our previous studies reported that C. oleifera fruit shells are ideal feedstock for producing biochar as they are rich in C and N [1, 88]. Biochar includes the following advantages:

  1. Carbon recalcitrance of biochar can increase soil C pool. The potential of biochar in mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions was 1.0–1.8 Pg CO2-Ceq yr−1 [89].

  2. Biochar had excellent physicochemical characteristics in soil nutrient retention and utilization [90, 91] and water conservation [92]. Additionally, biochar can increase the plant resistance to Al3+ toxicity [81], the clone of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and crop yield [93, 94]. It can decrease continuous cropping obstacles such as root-knot nematode [95] and Ralstonia solanacearum [96].

  3. Biochar is rich in macro- and microelements [97], which can reduce the dosage of fertilizer.

3.2.1 Effects of biochar on soil nitrous oxide emissions

The physicochemical properties of biochar and soil can interactively influence soil N2O emissions [98]. However, the effects of biochar on soil N2O emissions varied, including positive effects [99], negative effects [100], and no effects [101].

Biochar addition increased soil N2O emissions with the release of N from biochar [102]. By contrast, biochar reduced soil N2O emissions with (1) increased NO3-N immobilization [103]; (2) increased copy numbers of nosZ gene [104, 105]; and (3) increased toxic effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic substances (pyrolysis by-products) on N-cycle microorganisms [106].

3.2.2 Effects of biochar on soil pH buffer capacity

Biochar that increased soil pH buffer capacity may predominantly correlate with biochar riches in oxygen-containing functional groups in surface. The anions of weakly acidic functional groups can associate with H+, hence increasing soil pH. Meanwhile, exchangeable base cations can release into the solution, thus increasing soil pH buffer capacity [107, 108]. In addition, soluble silicon (Si) such as H3SiO4 (present at a high pH) can combine with H+ and generate H2SiO3 precipitation [107, 108].

3.3 Nitrification inhibitor

Nitrification inhibitors are a class of organic compounds that can inhibit the activity of nitrifying bacteria.

Nitrification inhibitors, especially synthetic nitrification inhibitors (e.g., dicyandiamide (DCD) and 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP)), were widely used in agriculture for improving N use efficiency. Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and AOA are the major microbial communities in nitrification and denitrification, and both contain amo enzyme that can catalyze ammonia oxidation (NH4+-N → NH2OH). Synthetic nitrification inhibitors such as DCD and DMPP mainly inhibit nitrification by suppressing the activity of amo enzyme (a Cu-copper cofactor enzyme). In addition, biological nitrification inhibitors also can inhibit soil nitrification [109, 110]. In the mid-1980s, researchers found that Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully (CIAT 679), a single community forage, had lower nitrification rates than a single legume community or bare land [111]. This phenomenon stimulated further studies on biological nitrification inhibitors. The first biological nitrification inhibitor (methyl 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate: MHPP) was identified from the root exudate of Sorghum bicolor in 2008, which mainly inhibited the activity of amo enzyme [112]. Subsequently, biological nitrification inhibitor (brachialactone) from the root exudate of Brachiaria humidicola was found to inhibit the activity of amo enzyme [113]. The Nanjing Soil Research Institute of China firstly found and identified a biological nitrification, 1,9-decanediol, from the root exudate of rice, which can inhibit the activity of amo enzyme [114].

Ammonium N can be adsorbed by soil colloids, while soil NO3-N (the end product of nitrification) easily can be leached to groundwater by precipitation. In addition, microbial-mediated nitrification is closely related with soil N2O emissions [20, 21, 22]. Nitrification inhibitors can effectively inhibit soil nitrification, slowing the transformation of NH4+-N to NO3-N and hence reducing the NO3-N leaching and N2O emissions.

An evaluation from 62 field studies showed that although nitrification inhibitors increased 20% NH3 emissions, they reduced 48% inorganic N leaching, 44% N2O emissions, and 24% NO emissions and increased 58% plant N utilization, 9% grain yield, 5% straw yield, and 5% vegetable yield [115]. Consistently, other studies evaluated that nitrification inhibitors decreased by 38% [116], 50% [117], or 73% [118] N2O emissions and decreased by 0.3 t CO2e ha−1 yr−1 [119]. Similarly, DCD did not increase crop yields but reduced 35% N2O emissions [120]. A meta-analysis showed that DCD rather than DMPP significantly increased 6.5% crop yield as well as DCD and DMPP decreased N2O emissions by 44.7% and 47.6%, respectively [121].

Therefore, application of nitrification inhibitors could reduce N2O emissions and mitigate environmental pollution after intensive N inputs.

3.4 Urease inhibitors

Urease inhibitors are a class of compounds that can slow soil urease activity (Figure 2). Addition of urease inhibitors after urea input can inhibit the hydrolysis of urea via inhibiting the activity of urease, hence reducing NH3 volatilizations and N2O emissions. Additionally, the application of urease inhibitors also contributes to increase N utilization efficiency and reduce NO3-N leaching. N-(n-butyl)thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) is one of the most wide and effective urease inhibitors.

Figure 2.

The chemical equation of urea hydrolysis with urease catalysis.

Urease, a Ni-copper enzyme, has two Ni−O bidentate ligands, specifically catalyzing urea into NH3 and CO2. Urea only can bind with one specific Ni−O ligand of urease, but NBPT can bind with two Ni−O bidentate ligands of urease and generate a tridentate ligand [122], hence inhibiting the activity of urease.

Presently, a meta-analysis reported that a nonlinear response was presented in soil NH3 volatilizations and N input [123]. Application of NBPT can effectively inhibit NH3 volatilizations. For example, 530 mg NBPT kg−1 urea treatment delayed NH3 volatilizations and decreased accumulation of NH3 volatilizations compared with the control treatment. NH3 volatilizations were linearly related with the NBPT dosage in the range of 0–1000 mg NBPT kg−1 Urea (0, 530, 850, 1500, and 2000 mg NBPT kg−1 Urea) [124]. Other study reported that NBPT increased 27% oat yield and 33% crop N uptake [120].

The effects of NBPT on N2O emissions were controversial. For example, NBPT can reduce 80% N2O emissions [117]. No effects of NBPT (0.07%, NBPT/Urea-N, w/w) on N2O emissions were observed [125]. Similarly, there was no change of N2O emissions with NBPT (250 mg NBPT kg−1 Urea) addition from urea-fertilized (50 kg Urea-N ha−1) soil [126].

Additionally, NBPT can reduce N2O emissions from alkaline soils but has no effects on acidic soils [127], which indicated that pH plays a key role in the regulation of NBPT effects on N2O emissions. Further laboratory study showed that NBPT inhibited nitrification, stimulating N2O emissions from alkaline soils (pH 8.05) but not affecting N2O emissions from acid soils (pH 4.85). This finding suggested that the effect of NBPT on soil N2O emissions is not only influenced by pH but also by other unknown factors [127].

Generally, urease inhibitors correlated with nitrification inhibitor could mitigate N2O emissions. A meta-analysis showed that urease inhibitors and nitrification inhibitors interactively reduced 30% N2O emissions [116]. For example, a field study reported that the combination of NBPT (0.3%, NBPT/Urea-N, w/w) and DCD (0.3%, DCD/Urea-N, w/w) reduced 32.1% soil N2O emissions with the addition of 519 kg Urea-N ha−1 from banana plantation, but did not affect the yield of banana [128].


4. Sustainable management in Camellia oleifera plantations

Our previous incubation study found that although biochar application increased N2O emissions, DCD addition decreased soil N2O emissions under urea fertilization from C. oleifera field [88]. Our field study showed that N2O emission rates were inhibited by biochar or DCD application and the effects of biochar application on mitigation of cumulative N2O were comparable to DCD addition in C. oleifera plantations [1]. Compared with control treatment, available N (NH4+-N and NO3-N) was not affected by NH4NO3, NH4NO3 + DCD, or NH4NO3 + biochar treatment [1]. In addition, the seed yield of C. oleifera was higher in NH4NO3 or NH4NO3 + biochar treatment than that in control or NH4NO3 + DCD treatment (Figure 3). Soil amelioration is necessary and improves N use efficiency and pH, mitigating N2O emissions. Soil amelioration plays an important role in the sustainable management of oil safety in C. oleifera plantations.

Figure 3.

The seed yield of Camellia oleifera with nitrogen fertilization, in combination with nitrification inhibitor (DCD) or biochar. Bars connected by different letters indicate significant difference in post-hoc tests at α = 0.05 (means ± se).


5. Conclusions

Soil acidification, especially induced by N fertilization, will inhibit the activity of N2O reductase and increase the abundance of N2O-producing fungi as well as the acid resistance of N2O-producing microorganisms, hence the ratio of N2O/(N2O + N2). In addition, NO2 will generate NO under soil pH < 5.5 condition, which will further transform into N2O. Under the background of global acidification, the soil from C. oleifera forest also suffers the potential risks of soil acidification and N2O emissions. Mitigation of soil acidification and N2O emissions by soil amelioration is necessary and improves N use efficiency and soil pH from C. oleifera plantations. Soil amelioration such as biochar and nitrification inhibitor plays an important role in sustainable forest management in C. oleifera plantations.



The National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 41967017 and 41501317), Jiangxi and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant number: 2017M106153 and 2017KY18), and Jiangxi Education Department (Project Number: GJJ160348) support this work.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. Deng B, Fang H, Jiang N, Feng W, Luo L, Wang J, et al. Biochar is comparable to dicyandiamide in the mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions from Camellia oleifera Abel. fields. Forests. 2019;10:1076. DOI: 10.3390/f10121076
  2. 2. Yuan Z, Liu Y. The national conference on the development of Camellia oleifera industries was held in Jiangxi province [Internet]. 2019. Available from: [Accessed: 20 January 2020]
  3. 3. Liu C, Chen L, Tang W, Peng S, Li M, Deng N, et al. Predicting potential distribution and evaluating suitable soil condition of oil tea Camellia in China. Forests. 2018;9:487. DOI: 10.3390/f9080487
  4. 4. Dong B, Wu B, Hong W, Li X, Li Z, Xue L, et al. Transcriptome analysis of the tea oil camellia (Camellia oleifera) reveals candidate drought stress genes. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0181835. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181835
  5. 5. Lee C, Yen G. Antioxidant activity and bioactive compounds of tea seed (Camellia oleifera Abel.) oil. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2006;54:779-784. DOI: 10.1021/jf052325a
  6. 6. Ma J, Ye H, Rui Y, Chen G, Zhang N. Fatty acid composition of Camellia oleifera oil. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit. 2011;6:9-12. DOI: 10.1007/s00003-010-0581-3
  7. 7. Liu J, Wu L, Chen D, Li M, Wei C. Soil quality assessment of different Camellia oleifera stands in mid-subtropical China. Applied Soil Ecology. 2017;113:29-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.01.010
  8. 8. Martins MR, Sant Anna SAC, Zaman M, Santos RC, Monteiro RC, Alves BJR, et al. Strategies for the use of urease and nitrification inhibitors with urea: Impact on N2O and NH3 emissions, fertilizer-15N recovery and maize yield in a tropical soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2017;247:54-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.021
  9. 9. Wang Y, Guo J, Vogt RD, Mulder J, Wang J, Zhang X. Soil pH as the chief modifier for regional nitrous oxide emissions: New evidence and implications for global estimates and mitigation. Global Change Biology. 2017;24:e617-e626. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13966
  10. 10. Ravishankara AR, Daniel JS, Portmann RW. Nitrous oxide (N2O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science. 2009;326:123-125. DOI: 10.1126/science.1176985
  11. 11. IPCC. Synthesis report, climate change 2014. In: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Geneva, Switzerland. 2014. pp. 1-164
  12. 12. WMO. WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2017. Geneva: Atmospheric Environment Research Division; 2018. pp. 1-8
  13. 13. Fowler D, Coyle M, Skiba U, Sutton MA, Cape JN, Reis S, et al. The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013;368:20130164. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0164
  14. 14. Hu Y, Zhang L, Deng B, Liu Y, Liu Q , Zheng X, et al. The non-additive effects of temperature and nitrogen deposition on CO2 emissions, nitrification, and nitrogen mineralization in soils mixed with termite nests. Catena. 2017;154:12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2017.02.014
  15. 15. Deng B, Li Z, Zhang L, Ma Y, Li Z, Zhang W, et al. Increases in soil CO2 and N2O emissions with warming depend on plant species in restored alpine meadows of Wugong Mountain, China. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2016;16:777-784. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-015-1307-z
  16. 16. Jiang L, Zhang L, Deng B, Liu X, Yi H, Xiang H, et al. Alpine meadow restorations by non-dominant species increased soil nitrogen transformation rates but decreased their sensitivity to warming. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2017;17:2329-2337. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-016-1488-0
  17. 17. Wang S, Luo S, Li X, Yue S, Shen Y, Li S. Effect of split application of nitrogen on nitrous oxide emissions from plastic mulching maize in the semiarid Loess Plateau. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2016;220:21-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.030
  18. 18. Shcherbak I, Millar N, Robertson GP. Global meta-analysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111:9199-9204. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1322434111
  19. 19. Syakila A, Kroeze C. The global nitrous oxide budget revisited. Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management. 2011;1:17-26. DOI: 10.3763/ghgmm.2010.0007
  20. 20. Pauleta SR, Dell Acqua S, Moura I. Nitrous oxide reductase. Coordination Chemistry Reviews. 2013;257:332-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.026
  21. 21. Hu H, Chen D, He J. Microbial regulation of terrestrial nitrous oxide formation: Understanding the biological pathways for prediction of emission rates. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2015;39:729-749. DOI: 10.1093/femsre/fuv021
  22. 22. Zhang L, Liu X. Nitrogen transformations associated with N2O emissions in agricultural soils. In: Amanullah K, Alexander M, editors. Nitrogen in Agriculture. London: IntechOpen; 2017. pp. 17-31. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.71922
  23. 23. Butterbach-Bahl K, Baggs EM, Dannenmann M, Kiese R, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: How well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013;368:20130122. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0122
  24. 24. Oertel C, Matschullat J, Zurba K, Zimmermann F, Erasmi S. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils—A review. Geochemistry. 2016;76:327-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemer.2016.04.002
  25. 25. Davidson EA, Keller M, Erickson HE, Verchot LV, Veldkamp E. Testing a conceptual model of soil emissions of nitrous and nitric oxides. BioScience. 2000;50:667-680. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0667,TACMOS]2.0.CO;2
  26. 26. Shaaban M, Wu Y, Khalid MS, Peng Q , Xu X, Wu L, et al. Reduction in soil N2O emissions by pH manipulation and enhanced nosZ gene transcription under different water regimes. Environmental Pollution. 2018;235:625-631. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.066
  27. 27. Cui Q , Song C, Wang X, Shi F, Yu X, Tan W. Effects of warming on N2O fluxes in a boreal peatland of Permafrost region, Northeast China. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;616-617:427-434. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.246
  28. 28. Shi F, Chen H, Chen H, Wu Y, Wu N. The combined effects of warming and drying suppress CO2 and N2O emission rates in an alpine meadow of the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Research. 2012;27:725-733. DOI: 10.1007/s11284-012-0950-8
  29. 29. Schaufler G, Kitzler B, Schindlbacher A, Skiba U, Sutton MA, Zechmeister-Boltenstern S. Greenhouse gas emissions from European soils under different land use: Effects of soil moisture and temperature. European Journal of Soil Science. 2010;61:683-696. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01277.x
  30. 30. Lin S, Iqbal J, Hu R, Ruan L, Wu J, Zhao J, et al. Differences in nitrous oxide fluxes from red soil under different land uses in mid-subtropical China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2012;146:168-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.10.024
  31. 31. Gong Y, Wu J, Vogt J, Le TB. Warming reduces the increase in N2O emission under nitrogen fertilization in a boreal peatland. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;664:72-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.012
  32. 32. Hu Y, Chang X, Lin X, Wang Y, Wang S, Duan J, et al. Effects of warming and grazing on N2O fluxes in an alpine meadow ecosystem on the Tibetan plateau. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2010;42:944-952. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.011
  33. 33. Zhang J, Peng C, Zhu Q , Xue W, Shen Y, Yang Y, et al. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions in mountain forest and meadow ecosystems in China. Atmospheric Environment. 2016;142:340-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.011
  34. 34. Schindlbacher A. Effects of soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO2, and N2O emissions from European forest soils. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2004;109:1-12. DOI: 10.1029/2004JD004590
  35. 35. Quick AM, Reeder WJ, Farrell TB, Tonina D, Feris KP, Benner SG. Nitrous oxide from streams and rivers: A review of primary biogeochemical pathways and environmental variables. Earth-Science Reviews. 2019;191:224-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.02.021
  36. 36. Zhu X, Burger M, Doane TA, Horwath WR. Ammonia oxidation pathways and nitrifier denitrification are significant sources of N2O and NO under low oxygen availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110:6328-6333. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1219993110
  37. 37. Burgin AJ, Groffman PM. Soil O2 controls denitrification rates and N2O yield in a riparian wetland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. 2012;117:1-10. DOI: 10.1029/2011JG001799
  38. 38. Levy-Booth DJ, Prescott CE, Grayston SJ. Microbial functional genes involved in nitrogen fixation, nitrification and denitrification in forest ecosystems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2014;75:11-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.021
  39. 39. Cuhel J, Simek M, Laughlin RJ, Bru D, Cheneby D, Watson CJ, et al. Insights into the effect of soil pH on N2O and N2 emissions and denitrifier community size and activity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2010;76:1870-1878. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02484-09
  40. 40. McMillan AMS, Pal P, Phillips RL, Palmada T, Berben PH, Jha N, et al. Can pH amendments in grazed pastures help reduce N2O emissions from denitrification? The effects of liming and urine addition on the completion of denitrification in fluvial and volcanic soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2016;93:90-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.10.013
  41. 41. Pilegaard K, Skiba U, Ambus P, Beier C, Brüggemann N, Butterbach-Bahl K, et al. Factors controlling regional differences in forest soil emission of nitrogen oxides (NO and N2O). Biogeosciences. 2006;3:651-661. DOI: 10.5194/bg-3-651-2006
  42. 42. Blum J, Su Q , Ma Y, Valverde-Pérez B, Domingo-Félez C, Jensen MM, et al. The pH dependency of N-converting enzymatic processes, pathways and microbes: effect on net N2O production. Environmental Microbiology. 2018;20:1623-1640. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.14063
  43. 43. Zhang L, Hu H, Shen J, He J. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea have more important role than ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in ammonia oxidation of strongly acidic soils. The ISME Journal. 2012;6:1032-1045. DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2011.168
  44. 44. Nicol GW, Leininger S, Schleper C, Prosser JI. The influence of soil pH on the diversity, abundance and transcriptional activity of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria. Environmental Microbiology. 2008;10:2966-2978. DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01701.x
  45. 45. Erguder TH, Boon N, Wittebolle L, Marzorati M, Verstraete W. Environmental factors shaping the ecological niches of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2009;33:855-869. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00179.x
  46. 46. von Uexküll HR, Mutert E. Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant and Soil. 1995;171:1-15. DOI: 10.1007/BF00009558
  47. 47. Li Q , Li S, Xiao Y, Zhao B, Wang C, Li B, et al. Soil acidification and its influencing factors in the purple hilly area of southwest China from 1981 to 2012. Catena. 2019;175:278-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.025
  48. 48. Kochian LV, Piñeros MA, Liu J, Magalhaes JV. Plant adaptation to acid soils: The molecular basis for crop aluminum resistance. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2015;66:571-598. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114822
  49. 49. Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, Zhang WF, et al. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science. 2010;327:1008-1010. DOI: 10.1126/science.1182570
  50. 50. Shu QL. Cultivation techniques of Camellia oleifera. Heifei: University of Science and Technology of China Press; 2013. pp. 1-201
  51. 51. Zheng S, Bian H, Quan Q , Xu L, Chen Z, He N. Effect of nitrogen and acid deposition on soil respiration in a temperate forest in China. Geoderma. 2018;329:82-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.05.022
  52. 52. Singh S, Tripathi DK, Singh S, Sharma S, Dubey NK, Chauhan DK, et al. Toxicity of aluminium on various levels of plant cells and organism: A review. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2017;137:177-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.01.005
  53. 53. Matson PA, McDowell WH, Townsend AR, Vitousek PM. The globalization of N deposition: Ecosystem consequences in tropical environments. Biogeochemistry. 1999;46:67-83. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006152112852
  54. 54. Delhaize E, Ryan PR, Randall PJ. Aluminum tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (II. Aluminum-stimulated excretion of malic acid from root apices). Plant Physiology. 1993;103:695-702. DOI: 10.1104/pp.103.3.695
  55. 55. Hue NV, Craddock GR, Adams F. Effect of organic acids on aluminum toxicity in subsoils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1986;50:28-34. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000010006x
  56. 56. Zeng QL, Chen RF, Zhao XQ , Wang HY, Shen RF. Aluminium uptake and accumulation in the hyperaccumulator Camellia Oleifera Abel. Pedosphere. 2011;21:358-364. DOI: 10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60136-7
  57. 57. Verstraeten G, Vancampenhout K, Desie E, De Schrijver A, Hlava J, Schelfhout S, et al. Tree species effects are amplified by clay content in acidic soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2018;121:43-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.02.021
  58. 58. Kuypers MMM, Marchant HK, Kartal B. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2018;16:263-276. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro.2018.9
  59. 59. Matschonat G, Matzner E. Soil chemical properties affecting NH4+ sorption in forest soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 1996;159:505-511. DOI: 10.1002/jpln.1996.3581590514
  60. 60. Kunhikrishnan A, Thangarajan R, Bolan NS, Xu Y, Mandal S, Gleeson DB, et al. Functional relationships of soil acidification, liming, and greenhouse gas flux. In: Sparks DL, editor. Advances in Agronomy. San Diego, USA: Academic Press; 2016. pp. 1-71. DOI: 10.1016/bs.agron.2016.05.001
  61. 61. Yue K, Yang W, Peng Y, Zhang C, Huang C, Xu Z, et al. Dynamics of multiple metallic elements during foliar litter decomposition in an alpine forest river. Annals of Forest Science. 2016;73:547-557. DOI: 10.1007/s13595-016-0549-2
  62. 62. Tian D, Niu S. A global analysis of soil acidification caused by nitrogen addition. Environmental Research Letters. 2015;10:24019. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/024019
  63. 63. Cheng Y, Wang J, Zhang J, Müller C, Wang S. Mechanistic insights into the effects of N fertilizer application on N2O-emission pathways in acidic soil of a tea plantation. Plant and Soil. 2015;389:45-57. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-014-2343-y
  64. 64. Cai Z, Zhang J, Zhu T, Cheng Y. Stimulation of NO and N2O emissions from soils by SO2 deposition. Global Change Biology. 2012;18:2280-2291. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02688.x
  65. 65. Cleemput O, Samater AH. Nitrite in soils: Accumulation and role in the formation of gaseous N compounds. Fertilizer Research. 1995;45:81-89. DOI: 10.1007/BF00749884
  66. 66. De Boer W, Kowalchuk GA. Nitrification in acid soils: Micro-organisms and mechanisms. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2001;33:853-866. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00247-9
  67. 67. Xiao H, Schaefer DA, Yang X. pH drives ammonia oxidizing bacteria rather than archaea thereby stimulate nitrification under Ageratina adenophora colonization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2017;114:12-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.06.024
  68. 68. Jiang X, Hou X, Zhou X, Xin X, Wright A, Jia Z. pH regulates key players of nitrification in paddy soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2015;81:9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.10.025
  69. 69. Rütting T, Huygens D, Boeckx P, Staelens J, Klemedtsson L. Increased fungal dominance in N2O emission hotspots along a natural pH gradient in organic forest soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2013;49:715-721. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-012-0762-6
  70. 70. Chen H, Mothapo NV, Shi W. The significant contribution of fungi to soil N2O production across diverse ecosystems. Applied Soil Ecology. 2014;73:70-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.08.011
  71. 71. Huang Y, Xiao X, Long X. Fungal denitrification contributes significantly to N2O production in a highly acidic tea soil. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2017;17:1599-1606. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-017-1655-y
  72. 72. Bergaust L, Mao Y, Bakken LR, Frostegard A. Denitrification response patterns during the transition to anoxic respiration and posttranscriptional effects of suboptimal pH on nitrogen oxide reductase in Paracoccus denitrificans. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2010;76:6387-6396. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00608-10
  73. 73. Liu B, Mørkved PT, Frostegård Å, Bakken LR. Denitrification gene pool, transcription and kinetics of NO, N2O and N2 production as affected by soil pH. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2010;3:407-417. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00856.x
  74. 74. Qu Z, Wang J, Almøy T, Bakken LR. Excessive use of nitrogen in Chinese agriculture results in high N2O/(N2O + N2) product ratio of denitrification, primarily due to acidification of the soils. Global Change Biology. 2014;20:1685-1698. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12461
  75. 75. Samad MS, Bakken LR, Nadeem S, Clough TJ, de Klein CAM, Richards KG, et al. High-resolution denitrification kinetics in pasture soils link N2O emissions to pH, and denitrification to C mineralization. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0151713. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151713
  76. 76. Simek M, Cooper JE. The influence of soil pH on denitrification: Progress towards the understanding of this interaction over the last 50 years. European Journal of Soil Science. 2002;53:345-354. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2389.2002.00461.x
  77. 77. Raut N, Dörsch P, Sitaula BK, Bakken LR. Soil acidification by intensified crop production in South Asia results in higher N2O/(N2 + N2O) product ratios of denitrification. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2012;55:104-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.06.011
  78. 78. Tokuda S, Hayatsu M. Nitrous oxide emission potential of 21 acidic tea field soils in Japan. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2001;47:637-642. DOI: 10.1080/00380768.2001.10408427
  79. 79. Huang Y, Long X, Chapman SJ, Yao H. Acidophilic denitrifiers dominate the N2O production in a 100-year-old tea orchard soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2015;22:4173-4182. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3653-6
  80. 80. Weslien P, Kasimir Klemedtsson Å, Börjesson G, Klemedtsson L. Strong pH influence on N2O and CH4 fluxes from forested organic soils. European Journal of Soil Science. 2009;60:311-320. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01123.x
  81. 81. Zhang K, Chen L, Li Y, Brookes PC, Xu JM, Luo Y. The effects of combinations of biochar, lime, and organic fertilizer on nitrification and nitrifiers. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2017;53:77-87. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-016-1154-0
  82. 82. Reid C, Watmough SA. Evaluating the effects of liming and wood-ash treatment on forest ecosystems through systematic meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2014;44:867-885. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2013-0488
  83. 83. Wang X, Tang C, Baldock JA, Butterly CR, Gazey C. Long-term effect of lime application on the chemical composition of soil organic carbon in acid soils varying in texture and liming history. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2016;52:295-306. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-015-1076-2
  84. 84. Aye NS, Butterly CR, Sale PWG, Tang C. Residue addition and liming history interactively enhance mineralization of native organic carbon in acid soils. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2017;53:61-75. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-016-1156-y
  85. 85. Sombroek WG. Amazon Soils: A Reconnaissance of the Soils of the Brazilian Amazon Region. Wageningen: Centre for Agricultural Publications and Documentation; 1966. pp. 1-292
  86. 86. Johannes L, Stephen J. Biochar for Environmental Management. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Routledge; 2015. pp. 1-944
  87. 87. Deng B, Shi Y, Zhang L, Fang H, Gao Y, Luo L, et al. Effects of spent mushroom substrate-derived biochar on soil CO2 and N2O emissions depend on pyrolysis temperature. Chemosphere. 2020;246:125608. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125608
  88. 88. Deng B, Wang S, Xu X, Wang H, Hu D, Guo X, et al. Effects of biochar and dicyandiamide combination on nitrous oxide emissions from Camellia oleifera field soil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2019;26:4070-4077. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3900-3
  89. 89. Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications. 2010;1. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1053
  90. 90. Sun HJ, Lu HY, Chu L, Shao HB, Shi WM. Biochar applied with appropriate rates can reduce N leaching, keep N retention and not increase NH3 volatilization in a coastal saline soil. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;575:820-825. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.137
  91. 91. Gul SM, Whalen JK. Biochemical cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar-amended soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2016;103:1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.08.001
  92. 92. Castellini M, Giglio L, Niedda M, Palumbo AD, Ventrella D. Impact of biochar addition on the physical and hydraulic properties of a clay soil. Soil and Tillage Research. 2015;154:1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2015.06.016
  93. 93. Zhang AF, Liu YM, Pan GX, Hussain Q , Li LQ , Zheng JW, et al. Effect of biochar amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions from a soil organic carbon poor calcareous loamy soil from Central China Plain. Plant and Soil. 2012;351:263-275. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-011-0957-x
  94. 94. Zhang AF, Bian RG, Pan GX, Cui LQ , Hussain Q , Li L, et al. Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: A field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles. Field Crops Research. 2012;127:153-160. DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.020
  95. 95. Huang W, Ji H, Gheysen G, Debode J, Kyndt T. Biochar-amended potting medium reduces the susceptibility of rice to root-knot nematode infections. BMC Plant Biology. 2015;15:267. DOI: 10.1186/s12870-015-0654-7
  96. 96. Gu Y, Hou Y, Huang D, Hao Z, Wang X, Wei Z, et al. Application of biochar reduces Ralstonia solanacearum infection via effects on pathogen chemotaxis, swarming motility, and root exudate adsorption. Plant and Soil. 2017;415:269-281. DOI: 10.1007/s11104-016-3159-8
  97. 97. Zhao Y, Zhao L, Mei Y, Li F, Cao X. Release of nutrients and heavy metals from biochar-amended soil under environmentally relevant conditions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;25:2517-2527. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-0668-9
  98. 98. He Y, Zhou X, Jiang L, Li M, Du Z, Zhou G, et al. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy. 2017;9:743-755. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12376
  99. 99. Deng B, Zheng L, Ma Y, Zhang L, Liu X, Zhang X, et al. Effects of mixing biochar on soil N2O, CO2, and CH4 emissions after prescribed fire in alpine meadows of Wugong Mountain, China. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-019-02552-8
  100. 100. Case SDC, McNamara NP, Reay DS, Stott AW, Grant HK, Whitaker J. Biochar suppresses N2O emissions while maintaining N availability in a sandy loam soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2015;81:178-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.012
  101. 101. Case SDC, McNamara NP, Reay DS, Whitaker J. Can biochar reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions from a Miscanthus bioenergy crop? GCB Bioenergy. 2014;6:76-89. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12052
  102. 102. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR. Organic carbon and nutrient release from a range of laboratory-produced biochars and biochar–soil mixtures. Geoderma. 2013;193-194:122-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.002
  103. 103. Case SDC, McNamara NP, Reay DS, Whitaker J. The effect of biochar addition on N2O and CO2 emissions from a sandy loam soil—The role of soil aeration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2012;51:125-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.017
  104. 104. Tan G, Wang H, Xu N, Liu H, Zhai L. Biochar amendment with fertilizers increases peanut N uptake, alleviates soil N2O emissions without affecting NH3 volatilization in field experiments. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;25:8817-8826. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-1116-6
  105. 105. Aamer M, Shaaban M, Hassan MU, Guoqin H, Ying L, Hai Ying T, et al. Biochar mitigates the N2O emissions from acidic soil by increasing the nosZ and nirK gene abundance and soil pH. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;255:109891. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109891
  106. 106. Hale SE, Lehmann J, Rutherford D, Zimmerman AR, Bachmann RT, Shitumbanuma V, et al. Quantifying the total and bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins in biochars. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;46:2830-2838. DOI: 10.1021/es203984k
  107. 107. Shi RY, Hong ZN, Li JY, Jiang J, Baquy MA, Renkou X, et al. Mechanisms for increasing the pH buffering capacity of an acidic ultisol by crop residue derived biochars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2017;65:8111-8119. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02266
  108. 108. Dai Z, Zhang X, Tang C, Muhammad N, Wu J, Brookes PC, et al. Potential role of biochars in decreasing soil acidification—A critical review. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;581-582:601-611. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.169
  109. 109. Subbarao GV, Sahrawat KL, Nakahara K, Ishikawa T, Kishii M, Rao IM, et al. Biological nitrification inhibition—A novel strategy to regulate nitrification in agricultural systems. Advances in Agronomy. 2012;114:249-302. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394275-3.00001-8
  110. 110. Coskun D, Britto DT, Shi W, Kronzucker HJ. Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nature Plants. 2017;3:17074. DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.74
  111. 111. Sylvester-Bradley R, Mosquera D, Méndez JE. Inhibition of nitrate accumulation in tropical grassland soils: Effect of nitrogen fertilization and soil disturbance. Journal of Soil Science. 1988;39:407-416. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1988.tb01226.x
  112. 112. Zakir HA, Subbarao GV, Pearse SJ, Gopalakrishnan S, Ito O, Ishikawa T, et al. Detection, isolation and characterization of a root-exuded compound, methyl 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate, responsible for biological nitrification inhibition by sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). New Phytologist. 2008;180:442-451. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02576.x
  113. 113. Subbarao GV, Nakahara K, Hurtado MP, Ono H, Moreta DE, Salcedo AF, et al. Evidence for biological nitrification inhibition in Brachiaria pastures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106:17302-17307. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0903694106
  114. 114. Sun L, Lu Y, Yu F, Kronzucker HJ, Shi W. Biological nitrification inhibition by rice root exudates and its relationship with nitrogen-use efficiency. New Phytologist. 2016;212:646-656. DOI: 10.1111/nph.14057
  115. 115. Qiao C, Liu L, Hu S, Compton JE, Greaver TL, Li Q. How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global Change Biology. 2015;21:1249-1257. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12802
  116. 116. Thapa R, Chatterjee A, Awale R, McGranahan DA, Daigh A. Effect of enhanced efficiency fertilizers on nitrous oxide emissions and crop yields: A meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2016;80:1121-1134. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0179
  117. 117. Sanz-Cobena A, Lassaletta L, Aguilera E, Prado AD, Garnier J, Billen G, et al. Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in Mediterranean agriculture: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2017;238:5-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.038
  118. 118. Gu J, Nie H, Guo H, Xu H, Gunnathorn T. Nitrous oxide emissions from fruit orchards: A review. Atmospheric Environment. 2019;201:166-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.046
  119. 119. Rees RM, Baddeley JA, Bhogal A, Ball BC, Chadwick DR, Macleod M, et al. Nitrous oxide mitigation in UK agriculture. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2013;59:3-15. DOI: 10.1080/00380768.2012.733869
  120. 120. Hube S, Alfaro MA, Scheer C, Brunk C, Ramírez L, Rowlings D, et al. Effect of nitrification and urease inhibitors on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from an oat crop in a volcanic ash soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2017;238:46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.040
  121. 121. Yang M, Fang YT, Sun D, Shi YL. Efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors (dicyandiamide and 3,4-dimethypyrazole phosphate) on soil nitrogen transformations and plant productivity: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:22075. DOI: 10.1038/srep22075
  122. 122. Manunza B, Deiana S, Pintore M, Gessa C. The binding mechanism of urea, hydroxamic acid and N-(N-butyl)-phosphoric triamide to the urease active site. A comparative molecular dynamics study. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 1999;31:789-796. DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00155-2
  123. 123. Jiang Y, Deng A, Bloszies S, Huang S, Zhang W. Nonlinear response of soil ammonia emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2017;53:269-274. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-017-1175-3
  124. 124. Mira AB, Cantarella H, Souza-Netto GJM, Moreira LA, Kamogawa MY, Otto R. Optimizing urease inhibitor usage to reduce ammonia emission following urea application over crop residues. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2017;248:105-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.032
  125. 125. Volpi I, Laville P, Bonari E, di Nasso NNO, Bosco S. Improving the management of mineral fertilizers for nitrous oxide mitigation: The effect of nitrogen fertilizer type, urease and nitrification inhibitors in two different textured soils. Geoderma. 2017;307:181-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.018
  126. 126. van der Weerden TJ, Luo J, Di HJ, Podolyan A, Phillips RL, Saggar S, et al. Nitrous oxide emissions from urea fertiliser and effluent with and without inhibitors applied to pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2016;219:58-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.006
  127. 127. Fan X, Yin C, Yan G, Cui P, Shen Q , Wang Q , et al. The contrasting effects of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on N2O emissions in arable soils differing in pH are underlain by complex microbial mechanisms. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;642:155-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.356
  128. 128. Zhu T, Zhang J, Huang P, Suo L, Wang C, Ding W, et al. N2O emissions from banana plantations in tropical China as affected by the application rates of urea and a urease/nitrification inhibitor. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2015;51:673-683. DOI: 10.1007/s00374-015-1018-z

Written By

Bangliang Deng and Ling Zhang

Submitted: November 15th, 2019 Reviewed: April 8th, 2020 Published: May 9th, 2020