The agricultural industry has made impacts on the nitrogen cycle, which will pose a long
term effect on climate change. The agriculture industry is responsible for nitrogen losses
as they get dissipated through processes during plant growth. It is dissipated through
synthetic nitrogen fertilizers used in farming, which in turn will have environmental
implications due to leaching, volatilization and/or denitrification. Therefore, the use of
Nitrogen Inhibitors (NI) in agriculture is introduced to inhibit nitrification processes and
mitigate Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions. In this essay, the uses of NI will be evaluated
alongside the considerations of consequences of its use towards livestock, sustainable
agriculture and the climate.
Agriculture contributes to environmental problems. Soil degradation is a direct result of
agriculture due to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. This will end up affecting the soil, but
also cause nutrient depletion and affect water. Based on Qiao et al. (2015), he argues that
to prevent these implications of agriculture, we can introduce NI to reduce nitrogen
leaching, nitrous oxide and nitric emissions. NIs delay the nitrification process, allowing
for better retention of nitrogen in the soil in the less mobile ammonium (NH4+) form.
The argument made by Qiao et al. (2015) holds up as it mentions that NIs are
recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a potential
mitigation option for reducing N2O emissions. The outcome of NI is determined by many
factors such as soil characteristics and plant species which highlights the complexity of
NI and will call for careful considerations upon its application. That being said, the
results of the use of NI can definitely outweigh the costs through the meta-analysis done
(Qiao et al., 2015). For example, soil pH was increased by 0.23 units, hinting that the use
of NI can possibly overcome soil acidification.
In order to highlight the effectiveness of NIs, Qiao et al. (2015) has collected data and
conducted analysis to prove their aim. In the meta-analysis conducted, 6 categories were
assessed including soil chemistry, nitrogen leaching, greenhouse gas emissions etc. In
terms of soil chemistry, many considerations had to be made towards the data selected as
the meta-analysis model required independence between observations. For instance for
soil pH and concentration, average values of crop rotations for NH4+, and NO3 were
used as opposed to individual values and only cumulative values for a crop rotation were
taken for variables with seasonal variability. Moreover, the total heterogeneity among
categorical groups was also analyzed using chi-square distributions. From the methods
here, several strengths/weaknesses were identified. The strengths are that the dataset
collected has offered a wide range of insight that can be used to address the effects of NI
in different factors. The heterogeneity analysis is also helpful as it can assist in
highlighting variations in the impact of NI in different conditions which can provide
insight into the factors that may influence the effectiveness of NIs. However, there are
limitations to the meta-analysis. Since the dataset must be digitized (from graphics), there
is a possibility of human error that can affect the overall reliability of the result. To add,
the cost-benefit-analysis is not applicable as Qiao et al. (2015) only uses 1 American
case-study. This makes the sampling regime for the cost-benefit-analysis to be reliable,
however not representative of other regions due to economic context and environmental
conditions. Overall, it can be observed that Qiao et al. (2015) has utilized secondary data
in their methods and the results are discussed below.
As a whole, the results by Qiao et al. (2015) have shown positive results of NI on soil
chemistry, greenhouse gas emissions, N-leaching and more. It is important to consider
factors like concentration and ecosystem types as the effectiveness of NI may vary. For
instance, NI produced different results for NO3- and NH4+ of varying concentrations.
The effects of NI on crop production also varied among different soil texture classes
where NI application significantly increased grain productivity by 9%, straw by 15%,
vegetable by 5%, and pasture hay by 14%. There are also uncertainties within the
research such as how different conditions affect N loss factor under NI application. While
the applications of NI are scientifically proven, it is important to consider ethical/cultural
applications of NI. For example, Lu et al. (2019) argues that NI is a costly measure that
not all regions can sustain. This cultural difference must be considered in order to apply
NI globally. Developing nations may also be reluctant to shift to newer technology
because of cost. Moreover, Lu et al. (2019) also mentions that uncontrolled NI use may
also pose a threat to food safety and produce. This is a serious ethical concern that must
be considered and reinforced.
Overall, the aim of the research by Qiao et al. (2015) is proven as the benefits of NI
application outweigh costs. To conclude, the use of NI is a step in the right direction for
agriculture although many cultural and environmental factors should be considered along
with proper regulation. Lastly, as a farmer that will implement the use of NI-type
fertilizers, it is crucial that research is conducted prior to identifying the appropriate
fertilizer for the appropriate crop/produce.
References
Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification
affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global
Change Biology, 21(3), 1249–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802
Lu, Y., Zhang, X., Jiang, J., Kronzucker, H. J., Shen, W., & Shi, W. (2019). Effects of the
biological nitrification inhibitor 1,9-decanediol on nitrification and ammonia oxidizers in
three agricultural soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 129, 48–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.008