Methane fluxes in aerobic soils

Aerobic soils are an important sink for methane (CH₄), contributing up to 15% of global CH₄ destruction. However, the sink strength is significantly affected by land management, nitrogen (N) fertilizers and acidity. The rates of uptake from the atmosphere of both enhanced (10 ppmv) and ambient (2 ppmv) concentrations of CH₄ were measured in laboratory incubations of soil cores under controlled conditions taken from sites in the U.K. and Germany. The most rapid rates of uptake were measured in soil from deciduous woodland at pH 4 (measured in water). Extended (150 years) cultivation of land for arable crops reduced uptake rate by 85% compared to that in the same soil under an adjacent woodland. The long-term application of ammonium (NH₄)-based fertilizer, but not nitrate (NO₃)-based fertilizer, completely inhibited CH₄ uptake, but the application for the same period of farmyard manure (FYM) that contained more N than the fertilizer had no inhibitory effect. Where a combination of FYM and inorganic fertilizer was applied there was a reduction in methane uptake rate compared to plots receiving solely FYM.Autoclaving showed that the uptake of CH₄ was microbially mediated. The most likely causes of the inhibitory effects seen are (i) insufficient concentrations of CH₄ in situ to activate methane monooxygenase; (ii) the direct inhibition of CH₄ oxidation by NH _inf4 ^sup+ ions; (iii) the suppression of methanotrophs by NH₄-based fertilizers; (iv) the requirement of methanotrophs for a stable soil architecture which is incompatible with the disturbance caused by regular arable cultivation.     

When does nitrate become a risk for humans?

Is nitrate harmful to humans? Are the current limits for nitrate concentration in drinking water justified by science? There is substantial disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of evidence on the issue. There are two main health issues: the linkage between nitrate and (i) infant methaemoglobinaemia, also known as blue baby syndrome, and (ii) cancers of the digestive tract. The evidence for nitrate as a cause of these serious diseases remains controversial. On one hand there is evidence that shows there is no clear association between nitrate in drinking water and the two main health issues with which it has been linked, and there is even evidence emerging of a possible benefit of nitrate in cardiovascular health. There is also evidence of nitrate intake giving protection against infections such as gastroenteritis. Some scientists suggest that there is sufficient evidence for increasing the permitted concentration of nitrate in drinking water without increasing risks to human health. However, subgroups within a population may be more susceptible than others to the adverse health effects of nitrate. Moreover, individuals with increased rates of endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds are likely to be susceptible to the development of cancers in the digestive system. Given the lack of consensus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive, independent study to determine whether the current nitrate limit for drinking water is scientifically justified or whether it could safely be raised.     

Carbon sequestration in European soils through straw incorporation: limitations and alternatives

We compared alternate uses of cereal straw (4.25t dry matter ha(-1) containing 1.7t carbon (C)) for their effectiveness in relation to climate change mitigation. The scenarios were (1) incorporation into soil to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) content ("carbon sequestration") and (2) combustion to generate electricity. The Rothamsted Carbon Model was used to estimate SOC accumulation in a silty clay loam soil under the climatic conditions of north-west Europe. Using straw for electricity generation saved seven times more CO2 than from SOC accumulation. This comparison assumed that electricity from straw combustion displaced that generated from coal and used the mean annual accumulation of SOC over 100yr. SOC increased most rapidly in the early years, but then more slowly as a new equilibrium value was approached. We suggest that increased SOC from straw incorporation does not represent genuine climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. In Europe, most straw not already incorporated in the field where it is grown is subsequently returned elsewhere, e.g., after use for animal bedding and production of manure. Only additional retention of C in soil compared to the alternative use represents sequestration. Maintenance of SOC for soil functioning is a more appropriate rationale for returning straw to soil than climate change mitigation. This analysis shows that considerably greater climate change mitigation is achieved through saved CO2 emissions by burning straw for electricity generation, replacing some use of fossil fuel.