DOCSLIB.ORG

Nitrification Inhibitors and Controlled Release Fertilizers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nitrification Inhibitors and Controlled Release Fertilizers Nitrification Inhibitors and Controlled Release Fertilizers Richard Smith UC Cooperative Extension, Monterey County Why Nitrogen Fertilizer Technology? • To improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency - NUE • Given that nitrate is so readily leachable, the use of technologies that can reduce the pool of nitrate, but still make N available in adequate quantities and at the right timing for crop growth could improve NUE Nitrification Inhibitors i' NlltOJIHI Sldlllm I w:; AGR Nitrapyrin (not registered on vegetables) Urease inhibitor + DCD nitrification inhibitor E TEC® DMPP (not available in the US) Nitrapyrin – low volatility formu lati ion ( not registered on vegetables) Nitrification Inhibitors NH4+ NO3- • These chemicals disrupt the activity of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria which are responsible for nitrification of ammonium to nitrate • If we can keep more of the appppli ed N as ammonium,,t there would be less leaching losses Impact of Dicyandiamide (DCD) on Nitrate Leaching 60 □ .so il 1 "'C 50 [:] .so il 1 + DCD GJ .c 2 u --.. ■ so il ra C 40 2 DCD so il ■ . + GJ E - :I ,z 30 I -0 m 0 ~ ,z t1D 20 .._.E -ra .. 10 I~ 0 2 4 6 Weeks of incubation Tim Hartz 2011 Controlled Release Fertilizers Duration. 5 cantro II @ d-Ralease Fertilizer ~ Coated----1 urea prills (polyurethane I and___ other coatings) _ -Sure® -----=---IChains or rings of urea molecules IL(can __be foliar applied) _ Controlled Release Fertilizer one example • The diffusion of nitrate out of the prill is controlled by the thickness of the coating and environmental conditions (temperature) • The coating meters the released nitrate rather Urea Polyurethane coated than allowing the release Urea of a large quantity that would build up a nitrate pool Other slow release fertilizers Calcium cyanamid 9=::~~::::::::::::~~===il I Dry organic materials: IL__ __ IL_meat, ___ fish, bone, feather meals _ And many others Factors Affecting NUE • Irrigation management . The key driver in nitrate losses • Shallow rooted crops . Narrow zone where the nitrate must remain in order to be used by the crop • Short‐term, high nitrogen demand . Difficult to supply large quantities of N for a short period of time without suffering some inefficiency in nitrate use Irrigation Impact on Nitrogen Use Efficiency • One inch of leached water carries 23 lbs of N/A . @ 100 ppm nitrate- NintheN in the soil solution Root Distribution of Lettuce - 60 days old Two feet Bed Width (inches) Drip line Drip line Plant Line Plant Line 5 10 1520 25 Root Nu 5 0 10 20 m 30 100ber cm / 40 50 10 60 70 2 15 pth (inches) ee D 20 25 Weaver and Brunner, 1927 Recent Trials Evaluating Nitrogen Fer tilizer TThechno logy in Lettuce Production 2011 Lettuce Yield (T/A) Nitrification Inhibitor Trial 10 150 100 100 + 100 + 4% 100 + 8% Agrotain DCD DCD Lbs N/A 2010 Nitrification Inhibitor Impact on Nitrate in Leachate 50 10 lbs N/A ---0-• 160 lbs N/A --D-- 60 lbs N/A -----£:r--- 110 lbs N/A 40 ······· ·• ········ 60 lbs N/A+Agrotain -1 110 lbs N/A+Agrotain .... 30 mg N l NN 20 NO3- 10 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 DAGWs DCD applied in drip is diluted in a greater volume of soil and may affect its efficacy 2012 Lettuce Fertilizer Trial Ti meli ne Deep Deep Deep Soil Soil Soil Mowed Apply Plant Germ Thin 1st 2nd Harvest CC CRF & anticrustant Water fertigation fertigation April June 21 June June July July Aug Aug 26 29 19 27 8 29 Over Over Irrigation Irrigation 2012 Lettuce Fertilizer Trial Treatment Total N/A • Standard received 65 lbs Untreated 25 N/A and all moderate Standard 155 treatments received 40 lbs Moderate 105 N/A in two fertigations with UN32 on 29 & 41 days Agrotain Plus 105 after planting G77 105 • D45+sidedress was treated DMPP 105 with 50 lbs N/A on 1st D45 105 fertigation D45 + sidedress 155 • N‐Sure was applied as a D45 155 50:50 mix with UN32 in N‐Sure 105 both fertigations Injection of fertilizer treatments: • Each treatment had its own main • Treatments were injected into the ports and each main delivered the N to the associated beds Excellent Response to Fer tilize r Untreated Standard Yield Evaluation 35.0 30.0 d d d d c cd 25. 0 b 20.0 /A ss a a a 15.0 Ton 10.0 5.0 0.0 Untreated 155 st 105 mod 105 + 105 + G77 105 + DMPP D45 105 D45 155 SD D45 155 N‐Sure Agrotain Nitrogen Uptake by Lettuce at Harvest 120.0 e e e 100.0 d c c 80.0 60.0 b N/A a Lbs 40.0 a a 20.0 0.0 Untreated 155 st 105 mod 105 + 105 + G77 105 + D45 105 D45 155 D45 155 N‐Sure Agrotain DMPP SD Applied N//pUptake N Ratio Does not account for soil N or leaching losses 3.0 2.5 2.0 151.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Untreated 155 st 105 mod 105 + 105 + G77 105 + DMPP D45 105 D45 155 SD D45 155 N‐Sure Agrotain Irrigation Events in Relation to Crop ET from Thinning to Harvest t.60 1,,.40 1,,.20 ■ App ied water 1, ,. 00 ■ Crop IET 0 ,. 80 0 ,. 60 0,.40 0 ,. 20 0 ,. 00 Nitrate‐ N in Soil on Four Dates 45.0 40.0 35.0 ....... Untreated 30.0 155 -....... 105 25.0 --++­105 + Agrotain ..... 105 + G77 20.0 105 + DMPP ---+-D45 105 D45 155 SD 15.0 D45 155 ....... N‐Sure 10.0 5.0 0.0 July 17 July 31 August 7 August 22 Nitrate‐N at 2 –3 Feet in Soil A ugust 15 Average at start of trial (July 2) = 1.6 ppm 20.0 b 18.0 b b 16.0 14. 0 b 12.0 ab 10.0 a 8.0 a 6.0 a a 4.0 a 2.0 0.0 Untreated Standard Moderate Agrotain G77 DMPP D45 105 D45 SD D45 155 Nsure Plus Irrigation Events in Relation to Crop ET from Thinning to Harvest t.60 1,,.40 1,,.20 ■ App ied water 1, ,. 00 ■ Crop IET 0 ,. 80 0 ,. 60 0,.40 0 ,. 20 0 ,. 00 Nitrate‐N at 2 ‐ 3 Feet in Soil Augusstt 31 8.0 b 7.0 b 6.0 5.0 b 4.0 3.0 a a 2.0 a a a a 1.0 a 0.0 Untreated Standard Moderate Agrotain G77 DMPP D45 105 D45 SD D45 155 Nsure Plus Summary • All nitrogen technologies showed great promise for improving nitrogen use efficiency • Moderate level of N fertilization had improved yield with Agrotian Plus, DMPP, D45 and N-Sure under the conditions in this trial Summary • Given the great NUE of the CRF, the rates should be examined to see if we can reduce the loss of nitrate beyond the rootzone observed in this trial Summary • The use of these technologies does not preclude the need for good irrigation management .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle
    What is Nitrogen? Human Alteration of the Nitrogen is the most abundant element in Global Nitrogen Cycle the Earth’s atmosphere. Nitrogen makes up 78% of the troposphere. Nitrogen cannot be absorbed directly by the plants and animals until it is converted into compounds they can use. This process is called the Nitrogen Cycle. Heather McGraw, Mandy Williams, Suzanne Heinzel, and Cristen Whorl, Give SIUE Permission to Put Our Presentation on E-reserve at Lovejoy Library. The Nitrogen Cycle How does the nitrogen cycle work? Step 1- Nitrogen Fixation- Special bacteria convert the nitrogen gas (N2 ) to ammonia (NH3) which the plants can use. Step 2- Nitrification- Nitrification is the process which converts the ammonia into nitrite ions which the plants can take in as nutrients. Step 3- Ammonification- After all of the living organisms have used the nitrogen, decomposer bacteria convert the nitrogen-rich waste compounds into simpler ones. Step 4- Denitrification- Denitrification is the final step in which other bacteria convert the simple nitrogen compounds back into nitrogen gas (N2 ), which is then released back into the atmosphere to begin the cycle again. How does human intervention affect the nitrogen cycle? Nitric Oxide (NO) is released into the atmosphere when any type of fuel is burned. This includes byproducts of internal combustion engines. Production and Use of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released into the atmosphere through Nitrogen Fertilizers bacteria in livestock waste and commercial fertilizers applied to the soil. Removing nitrogen from the Earth’s crust and soil when we mine nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. Discharge of municipal sewage adds nitrogen compounds to aquatic ecosystems which disrupts the ecosystem and kills fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Removal Training Program
    Nitrogen Removal Training Program Module 1 Nitrogen in the Aquatic Environment • Forms of Nitrogen and Nitrogen Transformations • Nitrogen in Surface Waters • Water Quality Impacts of Nitrogen Discharges • Nitrogen in Wastewater Module 1 Transparency 1 Nitrogen Removal Training Program Module 1 Forms of Nitrogen and Nitrogen Transformations Module 1 Transparency 2 Forms of Nitrogen in the Environment Unoxidized Forms Oxidized Forms of Nitrogen of Nitrogen Nitrite (NO -) • Nitrogen Gas (N2) • 2 + Nitrate (NO -) • Ammonia (NH4 , NH3) • 3 • Organic Nitrogen (urea, • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) amino acids, peptides, proteins, etc...) • Nitric Oxide (NO) • Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Module 1 Transparency 3 Nitrogen Fixation • Biological Fixation - Use of atmospheric nitrogen by certain photosynthetic blue-green algae and bacteria for growth. Nitrogen Gas Organic Nitrogen (N2) • Lightning Fixation - Conversion of atmospheric nitrogen to nitrate by lightning. lightning Nitrogen Gas + Ozone Nitrate - (N2) (O3)(NO3 ) • Industrial Fixation - Conversion of nitrogen gas to ammonia and nitrate-nitrogen (used in the manufacture of fertilizers and explosives). Module 1 Transparency 4 Biological Nitrogen Fixation Nitrogen Gas (N2) Bacteria Blue-green Algae Organic N Organic N Certain blue-green algae and bacteria use atmospheric nitrogen to produce organic nitrogen compounds. Module 1 Transparency 5 Atmospheric Fixation Lightning converts Nitrogen Gas and Ozone to Nitrate. Nitrogen Gas Nitrate Module 1 Transparency 6 Industrial Fixation N2 Nitrogen gas is converted to ammonia and nitrate in the production of fertilizer and explosives. NH3 - NO3 Module 1 Transparency 7 Ammonification and Assimilation Ammonification - Conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia-nitrogen resulting from the biological decomposition of dead plant and animal tissue and animal fecal matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Phosphorus on Nitrification Process in a Fertile Soil Amended
    agriculture Article Effects of Phosphorus on Nitrification Process in a Fertile Soil Amended with Urea Jianfeng Ning 1,2,*, Yuji Arai 2 , Jian Shen 1, Ronghui Wang 1 and Shaoying Ai 1,* 1 Institute of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer in South Region, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nutrient Cycling and Farmland Conservation, Guangzhou 510640, China; [email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (R.W.) 2 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (J.N.); [email protected] (S.A.) Abstract: While the effects of carbon on soil nitrogen (N) cycle have been extensively studied, it is not clearly understood how co-existing macronutrients, such as phosphorus (P), affect the N cycle in agroecosystems. In this study, P amendment effects on nitrification in a fertile agricultural soil were investigated under a typical N-P amendment rate. In a laboratory incubation study, soils were amended with urea, monopotassium phosphate and a mixture of urea and monopotassium phosphate at the same rate. In soils that received no amendments (control), P only, urea only, and urea plus P amendment, nitrification occurred within the first five days, with an average net nitrification rate of 5.30, 5.77, 16.66 and 9.00 mg N kg−1d−1, respectively. Interestingly, nitrification in urea-treated soils was retarded by P addition where a N:P ratio seemed to be a key factor impeding nitrification.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrification 31
    NITROGEN IN SOILS/Nitrification 31 See also: Eutrophication; Greenhouse Gas Emis- Powlson DS (1993) Understanding the soil nitrogen cycle. sions; Isotopes in Soil and Plant Investigations; Soil Use and Management 9: 86–94. Nitrogen in Soils: Cycle; Nitrification; Plant Uptake; Powlson DS (1999) Fate of nitrogen from manufactured Symbiotic Fixation; Pollution: Groundwater fertilizers in agriculture. In: Wilson WS, Ball AS, and Hinton RH (eds) Managing Risks of Nitrates to Humans Further Reading and the Environment, pp. 42–57. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Addiscott TM, Whitmore AP, and Powlson DS (1991) Powlson DS (1997) Integrating agricultural nutrient man- Farming, Fertilizers and the Nitrate Problem. Wallingford: agement with environmental objectives – current state CAB International. and future prospects. Proceedings No. 402. York: The Benjamin N (2000) Nitrates in the human diet – good or Fertiliser Society. bad? Annales de Zootechnologie 49: 207–216. Powlson DS, Hart PBS, Poulton PR, Johnston AE, and Catt JA et al. (1998) Strategies to decrease nitrate leaching Jenkinson DS (1986) Recovery of 15N-labelled fertilizer in the Brimstone Farm experiment, Oxfordshire, UK, applied in autumn to winter wheat at four sites in eastern 1988–1993: the effects of winter cover crops and England. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge unfertilized grass leys. Plant and Soil 203: 57–69. 107: 611–620. Cheney K (1990) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rate on soil Recous S, Fresnau C, Faurie G, and Mary B (1988) The fate nitrate nitrogen content after harvesting winter wheat. of labelled 15N urea and ammonium nitrate applied to a Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114: winter wheat crop.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nitrogen Cycle
    The Nitrogen Cycle Almost 80% of our atmosphere is made up of the element nitrogen bonded together as N2. This represents most of the nitrogen available on Earth. Ni- trogen is an important element used by all living things to make proteins, amino acids and the nucleic acids of DNA. Yet its gaseous form, N2, found – + in the atmosphere is not usable. It must be “fixed” into nitrates (NO3 ), ammonium (NH4 ) or urea (NH2)2CO to be taken up by plants. Animals can get their nitrogen by eating those plants and so it moves through the food webs. When nitrogen is fixed, it is absorbed by plants and then eaten by animals, who then expel it in their waste and eventually die and decompose (releas- ing more). The nitrogen is then released into the soil and then back into atmosphere – this is the Nitrogen Cycle. The Nitrogen Cycle can be broken down into 4 processes: Nitrogen fixing – Decay – Nitrification – Dentrification 1. Nitrogen Fixing is when gaseous nitrogen is “fixed” by either lightning (only up to about 8%), bacteria in the soil, or nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the root nodules of leguminous plants (like soy beans). 2. Decay - The nitrogen in plants is eaten by animals and broken down and expelled in the animals’ waste. Microorganisms further break it down into ammonia. 3. Nitrification - Some ammonia is absorbed by plants through their roots, but most is converted by nitrifying bacteria into nitrites and then nitrates. 4. Dentrification moves the nitrogen in the other direction back into the atmosphere. Dentrifying bacteria reduce nitrites and nitrates into nitrogen gas, releasing it back to the atmosphere to complete the cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Fertilization: Inhibitors
    Infinitenutrient stewardship Nitrogen fertilization: Inhibitors Fertilizer application Food & nutrition Nutrient recycling INFINITE FERTILIZERS Continuing to feed the world An inhibitor is a compound added to a nitrogen-based fertilizer to reduce losses when the fertilizer has been applied to the crop. By extending the time the active nitrogen component of the fertilizer remains in the soil as either urea-N or ammonium-N, an inhibitor can improve nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and reduce environmental emissions. There are two main types of inhibitor that are added to nitrogen fertilizers: Urease inhibitors (UI), which inhibit the hydrolytic action of the urease enzyme on urea. Nitrification inhibitors (NI), which inhibit the biological oxidation of ammonium to nitrate. 2 Urease inhibitors ON A GLOBAL SCALE, UREA IS THE MOST WIDELY PRODUCED AND USED NITROGEN FERTILIZER. IT IS COMPARATIVELY EASY TO MANUFACTURE AND HAS A HIGH NITROGEN CONTENT. AS A RESULT, PER UNIT OF NITROGEN ITS TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE COSTS ARE LOW. It is hard, however, for a urea fertilizer to be Although ammonia losses of up to 80% have directly absorbed by crops. Before it can been recorded in laboratory trials, an average be used as a source of nitrogen, it must first ammonia loss by volatization of 24% (20% + 1 be converted into ammonium (NH4 ) and ammonia-N) is assumed (EEA, 2013) . _ nitrate (NO3 ). Urease enzymes in the soil are responsible for the first step of the conversion process. FIG. 1: CONVERSION OF UREA IN THE SOIL Urea is unstable in the presence of water, NH NH + CO so the transformation process usually starts 3 3 2 immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Factors of the Marine Nitrogen Cycle
    Control factors of the marine nitrogen cycle The role of meiofauna, macrofauna, oxygen and aggregates Stefano Bonaglia Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geochemistry at Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Wednesday 29 April 2015 at 13.00 in Nordenskiöldsalen, Geovetenskapens hus, Svante Arrhenius väg 12. Abstract The ocean is the most extended biome present on our planet. Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in the number and gravity of threats impacting the ocean, including discharge of pollutants, cultural eutrophication and spread of alien species. It is essential therefore to understand how different impacts may affect the marine realm, its life forms and biogeochemical cycles. The marine nitrogen cycle is of particular importance because nitrogen is the limiting factor in the ocean and a better understanding of its reaction mechanisms and regulation is indispensable. Furthermore, new nitrogen pathways have continuously been described. The scope of this project was to better constrain cause-effect mechanisms of microbially mediated nitrogen pathways, and how these can be affected by biotic and abiotic factors. This thesis demonstrates that meiofauna, the most abundant animal group inhabiting the world’s seafloors, considerably alters nitrogen cycling by enhancing nitrogen loss from the system. In contrast, larger fauna such as the polychaete Marenzelleria spp. enhance nitrogen retention, when they invade eutrophic Baltic Sea sediments. Sediment anoxia, caused by nutrient excess, has negative consequences for ecosystem processes such as nitrogen removal because it stops nitrification, which in turn limits both denitrification and anammox. This was the case of Himmerfjärden and Byfjord, two estuarine systems affected by anthropogenic activities, such as treated sewage discharges.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Notes: Nitrification
    Nitrogen NUMBER 4 NOTES Nitrification Nitrification is a two-step conversion of + - ammonium (NH4 ) to nitrate (NO3 ) by soil bacteria. In most soils, it is a fairly rapid process, generally occurring within days or weeks following application of a source of ammonium. mmonium in the soil comes from a variety of sources, Second Step: including animal wastes, composts, decomposing crop The second step of the nitrification process is the conver- residues, decaying cover crops, or fertilizers containing sion of nitrite to nitrate by bacteria in the genus Nitrobacter. Aurea or ammonium. Regardless of the source, the soil bacteria This group of soil bacteria obtain their energy from the nitrite will convert it to nitrate if conditions are favorable. oxidation process. Other soil bacteria can also be involved in these transformations, but their contribution is generally less Nitrosomonas Nitrobacter + → - → - important. Nitrite can be toxic to plants, so it is important NH4 NO2 NO3 Ammonium Nitrite Nitrate that nitrite completely converts to nitrate. 2NO - + O → 2NO - + energy First Step: 2 2 3 Ammonium is initially oxidized to nitrite by a variety of Nitrate is generally the dominant form of plant-available “chemoautrophic” bacteria. These bacteria derive energy from nitrogen (N) in soils and it requires careful management to changing ammonium into nitrite while using CO as their car- 2 keep it in the root zone of the growing plant. Most agricultural bon source. Although there are a variety of soil microorganisms plants are adapted to utilize nitrate as their primary source of N that oxidize ammonium, most attention is given to bacteria in nutrition.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeal Nitrification Is Constrained by Copper Complexation with Organic
    The ISME Journal (2020) 14:335–346 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0538-1 ARTICLE Archaeal nitrification is constrained by copper complexation with organic matter in municipal wastewater treatment plants 1 2 1 1 3 4 Joo-Han Gwak ● Man-Young Jung ● Heeji Hong ● Jong-Geol Kim ● Zhe-Xue Quan ● John R. Reinfelder ● 5 5 2,6 1 Emilie Spasov ● Josh D. Neufeld ● Michael Wagner ● Sung-Keun Rhee Received: 23 July 2019 / Revised: 24 September 2019 / Accepted: 27 September 2019 / Published online: 17 October 2019 © The Author(s) 2019. This article is published with open access Abstract Consistent with the observation that ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) outnumber ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) in many eutrophic ecosystems globally, AOB typically dominate activated sludge aeration basins from municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In this study, we demonstrate that the growth of AOA strains inoculated into sterile-filtered wastewater was inhibited significantly, in contrast to uninhibited growth of a reference AOB strain. In order to identify possible mechanisms underlying AOA-specific inhibition, we show that complex mixtures of organic compounds, such as yeast extract, were highly inhibitory to all AOA strains but not to the AOB strain. By testing individual organic compounds, 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: we reveal strong inhibitory effects of organic compounds with high metal complexation potentials implying that the inhibitory mechanism for AOA can be explained by the reduced bioavailability of an essential metal. Our results further demonstrate that the inhibitory effect on AOA can be alleviated by copper supplementation, which we observed for pure AOA cultures in a defined medium and for AOA inoculated into nitrifying sludge.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Cycle of Life" in Ecology
    The “Cycle of Life” in Ecology: Sergei Vinogradskii’s Soil Microbiology, 1885-1940 by Lloyd T. Ackert Jr., Ph.D. Whitney Humanities Center Yale University 53 Wall Street P.O. Box 208298 New Haven, CT 06520-8298 Office (203)-432-3112 [email protected] Abstract Historians of science have attributed the emergence of ecology as a discipline in the late nineteenth century to the synthesis of Humboldtian botanical geography and Darwinian evolution. In this essay, I begin to explore another, largely-neglected but very important dimension of this history. Using Sergei Vinogradskii’s career and scientific research trajectory as a point of entry, I illustrate the manner in which microbiologists, chemists, botanists, and plant physiologists inscribed the concept of a “cycle of life” into their investigations. Their research transformed a longstanding notion into the fundamental approaches and concepts that underlay the new ecological disciplines that emerged in the 1920s. Pasteur thus joins Humboldt as a foundational figure in ecological thinking, and the broader picture that emerges of the history of ecology explains some otherwise puzzling features of that discipline—such as its fusion of experimental and natural historical methodologies. Vinogradskii’s personal “cycle of life” is also interesting as an example of the interplay between Russian and Western European scientific networks and intellectual traditions. Trained in Russia to investigate nature as a super-organism comprised of circulating energy, matter, and life; over the course of five decades—in contact with scientists and scientific discourses in France, Germany, and Switzerland—he developed a series of research methods that translated the concept of a “cycle of life” into an ecologically- conceived soil science and microbiology in the 1920s and 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantification of Archaea-Driven Freshwater Nitrification
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.22.453385; this version posted July 22, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Quantification of archaea‐driven freshwater nitrification: from 2 single cell to ecosystem level 3 4 5 Franziska Klotz1, Katharina Kitzinger2, David Kamanda Ngugi3, Petra Büsing3, Sten Littmann2, Marcel 6 M. M. Kuypers2, Bernhard Schink1, and Michael Pester1,3,4* 7 1. Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstrasse 10, Konstanz, D‐78457, Germany 8 2. Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Celsiusstrasse 1, D‐28359 Bremen, Germany. 9 3. Leibniz Institute DSMZ – German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Inhoffenstr. 7B, D‐38124 10 Braunschweig, Germany 11 4. Technical University of Braunschweig, Institute for Microbiology, Spielmannstrasse 7, D‐38106 12 Braunschweig, Germany 13 14 15 16 Short title: Archaeal nitrification in lakes 17 18 19 20 Keywords: freshwater lake | hypolimnion | nitrification | growth rate | cell‐specific rate | gene 21 transcription | AOA | ammonia oxidation 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 *Corresponding author: Michael Pester, Mail: [email protected], Phone: +49 531 2616237 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.22.453385; this version posted July 22, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Archaeal nitrification in lakes 30 Abstract 31 Deep oligotrophic lakes sustain large archaeal populations of the class Nitrososphaeria in their 32 hypolimnion.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrification
    _____________________________________________________________________ Office of Water (4601M) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Distribution System Issue Paper Nitrification August 15, 2002 PREPARED FOR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Standards and Risk Management Division 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington DC 20004 Prepared by: AWWA With assistance from Economic and Engineering Services, Inc Background and Disclaimer The USEPA is revising the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and is considering new possible distribution system requirements as part of these revisions. As part of this process, the USEPA is publishing a series of issue papers to present available information on topics relevant to possible TCR revisions. This paper was developed as part of that effort. The objectives of the issue papers are to review the available data, information and research regarding the potential public health risks associated with the distribution system issues, and where relevant identify areas in which additional research may be warranted. The issue papers will serve as background material for EPA, expert and stakeholder discussions. The papers only present available information and do not represent Agency policy. Some of the papers were prepared by parties outside of EPA; EPA does not endorse those papers, but is providing them for information and review. Additional Information The paper is available at the TCR web site at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/regulation_revisions.html Questions or comments regarding this paper may be directed to [email protected]. Nitrification 1.0 Introduction The goal of this document is to review existing literature, research and information on the potential public health implications associated with Nitrification.
    [Show full text]