The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the effects of land use change on N oxide fluxes from soil in seasonally dry, eastern Amazonia and (2) evaluate the “hole‐in‐the‐pipe” model in a field setting where N availability varies among land uses and soil moisture varies among seasons. We measured N oxide flux from an old‐growth forest, a 20‐year‐old secondary forest, an active pasture, and a degraded pasture. We also measured soil water content, soil inorganic N stocks, net N mineralization and nitrification potential. To determine the effects of pasture age on N oxide flux, we measured gas fluxes at a chronosequence of pastures (0‐13 years). In the land use study, N 2 O fluxes followed the order: primary forest (2.4 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ) > secondary forest (0.9 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ) > active pasture (0.3 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ) ≥ degraded pasture (0.1 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ), and NO fluxes followed the order: primary forest (1.5 kg N ha y −1 1) > degraded pasture (0.7 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ) > active pasture (0.5 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ) ≥ secondary forest (0.3 kg N ha −1 yr −1 ). In the chronosequence study, no trend in N oxide emissions with pasture age was apparent, but emissions from pastures were lower than from the forest.Total N oxide flux correlated with a laboratory measure of nitrification potential ( r 2 = 0.85).The ratio N 2 O:NO correlated with soil water content ( r 2 = 0.56). Parameterization of the model accounted for variability in N oxide emissions across land uses and seasons and the model application revealed the importance of studying both N oxide gases simultaneously. Model predictions for six independent sites agreed well with observed fluxes, suggesting that the model may be applicable at a broader scale. The consistently low annual emissions of N 2 O estimated for all of the Amazonian pastures that we studied suggest that conversions of tropical forests to cattle pastures may not in the long term cause a significant increase in the contribution of soil emissions to atmospheric N 2 O or NO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verchot et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: