Nitrous Oxide and Dinitrogen: The Missing Flux in Nitrogen Budgets of Forested Catchments?Nitrous Oxide and Dinitrogen: The Missing Flux in Nitrogen Budgets of Forested Catchments? Eric M. Enanga,† Nora J. Casson,†,‡ Tarrah A. Fairweather,† and Irena F. Creed*,†
†Department of Biology, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, Ontario Canada, N6A 5B7 ‡University of Winnipeg, Department of Geography, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2E9
*S Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: Most forest nitrogen budgets are imbalanced, with nitrogen inputs exceeding nitrogen outputs. The denitrification products nitrous oxide (N2O) and dinitrogen (N2) represent often-unmeasured fluxes that may close the gap between explained nitrogen inputs and outputs. Gaseous N2O and N2 effluxes, dissolved N2O flux, and traditionally measured dissolved nitrogen species (i.e., nitrate, ammonium, and dissolved organic nitrogen) were estimated to account for the annual nitrogen output along hillslope gradients from two catchments in a temperate forest. Adding N2O and N2 effluxes to catchment nitrogen output not only reduced the discrepancy between nitrogen inputs and outputs (9.9 kg ha−1 yr−1 and 6.5 or 6.3 kg ha−1 yr−1, respectively), but also between nitrogen outputs from two catchments with different topographies (6.5 kg ha−1 yr−1 for the catchment with a large wetland, 6.3 kg ha−1 yr−1 for the catchment with a very small wetland). Dissolved N2O comprised a very small portion of the annual nitrogen outputs. Nitrogen inputs exceeded nitrogen outputs throughout the year except during spring runoff, and also during autumn storms in the catchment with the large wetland. Failing to account for denitrification products, especially during summer rainfall events, may lead to underestimation of annual nitrogen losses.
INTRODUCTION
The global nitrogen (N) cycle has undergone great alterations during the past century that have resulted in an increase in global reactive N.1−3 Atmospherically deposited reactive N is currently estimated at 280 Tg of N yr−1,.4 Several potential fates await this atmospherically deposited N in forest ecosystems (Figure 1): (1) it may be assimilated by organisms (micro- organisms and higher); (2) it may undergo transformations that
include nitrification and denitrification, with nitrous oxide (N2O) as an obligate intermediate and dinitrogen (N2) as the final product;5,6 or (3) it may be lost to aquatic systems in hydrologic flows. The potential fate of atmospherically deposited N is important because of its potential to become an ecosystem disservice or service.7 For example, on the one hand, denitrification of reactive N to N2O is linked to global warming8 and ozone depletion9 (an ecosystem disservice), but on the other hand, it is linked to removal of dissolved nitrate (NO3
−) from water exiting catchments, thereby shielding receiving aquatic ecosystems from the effects of NO3
− loading10
(an ecosystem service). A predictive understanding of catchment N transformations
at different spatial and temporal scales remains a major scientific challenge.2,11−13 Partitioning N within ecosystems into its different species based on inputs and outputs is an essential first step toward quantifying the different forms of N in the system.14 However, our ability to account for the fate of N in catchments is incomplete.2,13 There remains a portion of atmospherically deposited N that cannot be accounted for that is often referred to as the “missing N” in catchment N budgets.2,15
Received: July 25, 2016 Revised: April 13, 2017 Accepted: May 3, 2017 Published: May 3, 2017
Figure 1. Conceptual model showing the different fates of atmospherically deposited nitrogen: (1) assimilated by organisms (microorganisms and higher); (2) nitrification and denitrification, with N2O as an obligate intermediate and N2 as the final product; or (3) lost to aquatic systems via hydrologic flows.
Article
pubs.acs.org/est
−
and ammonium (NH4 +) output, but more dissolved organic
nitrogen (DON) output than catchments with little or no wetlands.17 However, gaseous N output to the atmosphere provides another important pathway through which N can leave the catchment.11,18 There have been relatively few catchment- scale determinations of N gas outputs in forests as N gas effluxes are not routinely integrated into forest N budgets. Recent studies have observed that rain induced bursts of N2O and N2 efflux during the snow-free period19 and N2O efflux beneath a snowpack20 are significant sources of N gas in forests. Not considering this pathway may contribute to the failure to close N input-output budgets in catchments.15
The central premise of this paper is that improved estimates of soil N2O and N2 efflux from forested landscapes require consideration of topographic controls on N cycling and routing processes. Topography influences N transformations by controlling soil temperature, moisture, and redox conditions, and regulates dissolved organic carbon and NO3
− availability while helping create redox conditions required for N transformations including denitrification and nitrification to occur. We test the following hypotheses: (1) the major difference in N output among catchments is due to variations in the flux of gaseous N (N2O + N2); and (2) factoring gaseous and dissolved N outputs narrows the gap in catchment input- output N budgets. We test these hypotheses in catchments located in a temperate forest, and expect that the findings will help assess the ability of temperate forests to process the reactive loads of N, understand the relative importance of dissolved vs gaseous effluxes from catchments N budgets, and close the N input vs output N budget of catchments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area. The Turkey Lakes Watershed is a 10.5 km2
watershed located near the eastern shore of Lake Superior in the Algoma Highlands of Central Ontario (47°03′00″N, 84°25′00″W), 60 km north of Sault Ste. Marie in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region (Figure 2). The watershed receives an average annual precipitation of
1189 mm with an average annual temperature of 4.6 °C (1981−2010). The bedrock of the watershed is greenstone with small outcrops of granite.21 A thin discontinuous till of varying depth overlays the bedrock with depths ranging from <1 m at high elevations, 1−2 m at lower elevations, and occasionally up to 65 m in depressions. Dispersed pockets of Ferric Humisols are found in bedrock-controlled depressions and adjacent to streams and lakes, and Orthic Ferro-Humic and Humo-Ferric podzolic soils are dominant.22 The watershed contains uneven- aged, mature- to overmature, old-growth forest. The temperate forest is dominated (90%) by sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), with yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton), white pine (Pinus strobus L.), white spruce (Picea glauca Moench Voss), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch), and red oak (Quercus rubra L.) in the upland areas. Sugar maple also dominates in the wetland areas where it is mixed with eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.), black ash (Fraxinus nigra Marsh.), and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.).23
Watershed monitoring was established in 1980 to study the effects of atmospheric deposition on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.24,25 While there has been a significant decline in sulfur deposition since the 1980s, N deposition has remained relatively stable up to and including the period of this study.26
Catchment 38 (C38) and catchment 35 (C35) are two north- facing catchments in the Turkey Lakes Watershed in close proximity (∼1 km apart) that receive similar N inputs. Topography is the main difference between the two catch- ments: a large wetland (1.58 ha) covers 25% of the 6.33 ha area of the more gently sloped C38 (13.5° average slope), while a very small wetland (0.03 ha) covers <1% of the 3.12 ha area of
Figure 2. Map of the Turkey Lakes Watershed in Central Ontario, Canada with the two catchments used in the present study (C38 and C35). (Maps created in Creed laboratory).
Environmental Science & Technology Article
the relatively steeper C35 (19.1° average slope) (Figure 2). This work builds on previous studies that reported differences in dissolved N output among catchments in the forested landscape of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region at the northern edge of the temperate forest biome of North America.16,27−29
Experimental Design. Total (wet and dry) N inputs were collected at the Canadian Air and Precipitation Monitoring Network (CAPMoN) site located closest to the catchments. Total (gaseous and dissolved) N outputs were sampled in C35 and C38 from 2005 to 2010 water years (June 1 to May 30). In c38, soil N2O efflux measurements were collected along hillslope gradients of inner wetland (IW), outer wetland (OW), lowland (LOW), and upland (UP) positions derived from a LiDAR-based 5 m digital elevation model using digital terrain analysis methods.30 Soil N2O efflux measurements were collected between 64 and 72 times per position during the snow-free season (June to September) from 2006 to 2010 using ground-based static chambers.19 Soil N2O efflux measurements were collected between 36 and 40 times per position during the snow season (October to May) in 2006/2007 from sampling ports attached at different depths along 1.25 m PVC tubes inserted into the snowpack.20 Daily soil N2 efflux was estimated using the acetylene-inhibition technique in the IW and OW positions for 1 day during the snow-free season of 2010. Dissolved NH4
+, NO3 −, and DON concentrations were
measured from water samples collected at weirs at the outlets of both C38 and C35 in the 2005 to 2010 water years, and dissolved N2O concentrations were measured from water samples collected at weirs at the outlets of both catchments in the 2006 water year. The median and 25th and 75th percentiles of estimates of N2O and N2 in the snow and snow-free seasons in C38 are given in Table 1. Dissolved NH4
+, NO3 −, DON, and
N2O fluxes were calculated by multiplying concentrations by stream discharge. Sampling and analytical methods have been described fully in other publications19,20,31 and are summarized in the Supporting Information (SI). Data Analyses. Daily outputs estimated from flux measure-
ments taken at irregular intervals were summed to generate monthly and annual N outputs for the 2005 to 2010 water years. Daily soil N2O effluxes were measured in the IW, OW, LOW, and UP positions in C38 at daily to monthly intervals during the snow-free (June to September) season and at daily to bimonthly intervals during snow season (October to May) in the 2005 to 2010 water years. Dissolved stream NO3
−, NH4 +,
and DON fluxes were measured in C35 and C38 at daily to biweekly intervals in the 2005 to 2010 water years. Several methods were applied to derive daily soil and
dissolved N flux estimates on all days for the 2005 to 2010 water years from measured values. Regressions using daily precipitation as the independent
variable were used to model daily soil N2O effluxes for rain days during the snow-free season (i.e., when (1) effective precipitation (same day plus previous day, in order to capture rainfall that may have fallen during the night) exceeded 3 mm,32
and (2) when the water table depth was less than 10 mm) at the IW and OW positions. Separate models were developed for each of the IW and OW positions based on 14 rain day observations of N2O efflux from each position.19,33
No significant relationships were observed between environ- mental drivers (temperature or precipitation) and soil N2O effluxes at the IW or OW positions on nonrain days or at the LOW or UP positions. Soil N2O effluxes at the IW and OW positions on nonrain days in the snow-free season were infilled on days with no measurements using median values from the distributions of measured snow-free season N2O effluxes on nonrain days at each position. Soil N2O effluxes at the LOW and UP positions on both rain and nonrain days in the snow- free season were infilled on days with no measurements using median values from the distributions of measured snow-free season N2O effluxes on both rain and nonrain days at each position. Soil N2O effluxes at all positions in the snow season were infilled on days with no measurements by using median values from the distributions of measured snow season N2O effluxes at each position. Daily N2 effluxes at the IW and OW positions on rain days in
the snow-free season were calculated using measured snow-free season rain day N2:N2O ratios at each position which were then multiplied by the daily estimated N2O efflux (if estimated N2O efflux was negative, N2 efflux was given as zero). N2 efflux was not estimated during nonrain days in the IW and OW or in the UP and LOW as minimal denitrification was assumed under the dry conditions that these days and positions represent.19
Daily dissolved N2O fluxes were estimated using median values derived from the distribution of measured dissolved N2O concentrations multiplied by daily discharge. Missing dissolved NH4
+, NO3 −, and DON were infilled using linear interpolation.
Daily soil N2O and N2 efflux estimates were multiplied by the respective areas of the IW, OW, LOW, and UP positions in each catchment (Figure 2) and summed to estimate daily catchment N2O and N2 output estimates. Monthly and annual
Table 1. Medians and the 25th and 75th Percentiles of Distributions of Soil N2O and N2 (mg ha−1 d−1) Effluxes Across a Hillslope Gradient and Stream N2O Fluxes at the Catchment Outlet in C38
snow-free season (no rain) snow-free season (rain >3 mm and WTD
<10mm) snow season
soil N2O 25th percentile median 75th percentile 25th percentile median 75th percentile 25th percentile median 75th percentile IW 4044 5496 8391 4368 7703 18 009 683 1139 2252 OW 5552 8145 14 507 10 816 25 915 54 809 706 1293 2736 LOW 2880 5487 9773 2442 4216 5458 986 1214 2310 UP 2350 5133 7248 1129 2841 3911 733 1315 2160
soil N2
IW 85 611 150 986 352 981 13 382 22 315 44 109 OW 109 237 261 738 553 575 7104 13 007 27 528
stream N2O 0.00003 0.00018 0.00425 0.00001 0.00140 0.00266 2.96 7.56 34.95
Environmental Science & Technology Article
− + NH4 +) and
DON for each year. Differences in measured daily N2O and total gaseous N (N2O + N2) effluxes at different positions were assessed using ANOVAs on ranks with Post-Hoc Dunn’s tests. Data analyses were performed using SigmaPlot 12 (Systat Software, San Jose, CA).
RESULTS Atmospheric N inputs were much greater than N outputs, particularly when only DIN and DON output sources were considered (Figure 3). Dissolved N outputs were smaller in
C38 than in C35, primarily due to less DIN output from C38 (Figure 3). Dissolved N2O export in the stream was extremely small during both the snow-free and snow seasons and therefore not considered further (Figure 4), and the differences in dissolved N outputs were maintained when gaseous N2O + N2 efflux was included for the IW and OW positions (Figure 4, bottom). Average monthly sums of daily efflux estimates revealed
peaks in DIN and DON outputs in spring and, to a lesser extent, autumn (Figure 5). These peaks coincided with periods of high catchment discharge during spring snowmelt and autumn storms. In contrast, peaks in N2O and N2 outputs were revealed in the summer (Figure 5). Catchment 38 generated more dissolved organic N and gaseous N2O + N2 output, whereas C35 generated more inorganic N output, dominated by NO3
−. Total soil N2O efflux during the snow-free season was similar
for the two catchments (0.8 kg N ha−1 yr−1 in C38 vs 0.6 kg N ha−1 yr−1 in C35), whereas N2 efflux estimates were much greater in C38 (1.5 kg N ha−1 yr−1) than in C35 (0.06 kg N ha−1 yr−1). Similarly, total soil N2O efflux during the snow season was similar for the two catchments (0.3 kg N ha−1 yr−1
in C38 and C35), whereas total soil N2 efflux was greater in C38 (1.0 kg N ha−1 yr−1) than in C35 (0.04 kg N ha−1 yr−1). There was considerably more output of DON and DIN in the snow season compared to the snow-free season. Furthermore,
there was considerably more output of DON, less output of NO3
−, but similar output of NH4 + in C38 compared to C35.
The average annual N output from the two catchments was similar when gaseous N2 and N2O were added to the dissolved N output (Figure 3). The average annual N input was 9.9 kg N ha−1 yr−1, and the average annual N output was 6.5 kg N ha−1
yr−1 from C38 (66% of N input) vs 6.3 kg ha−1 yr−1 from C35 (64% of N input). The composition of the average annual N output differed, with N2O + N2 comprising 55% of N output from C38, but only 16% from C35. The NO3
−, NH4 +, and
DON comprised the remaining 45% of N output from C38 and 84% of N output from C35.
DISCUSSION Estimates of catchment N inputs vs N outputs are important because they provide insights on the functioning of a forest ecosystem. This is particularly important when considering the ecosystem effects of atmospheric N deposition that has been elevated since the industrial revolution12,34 and the potential fate of this elevated atmospheric N deposition on forests35 and associated downstream waters.7,36,37 Yet most studies have reported catchment N inputs that have often far exceeded N outputs, leaving in question the fate of the “missing” N in these catchment N budgets. This paper examined the role of gaseous N2O and N2 effluxes
in N budget estimates in a temperate forest. Nitrogen output was compared in two catchments, one with 25% wetland (C38) and one with <1% wetland (C35). When considering DIN and DON output only, 2.9 kg N ha−1 yr−1 was exported from C38, whereas 5.3 kg N ha−1 yr−1 was exported from C35. This represented only 30% (C38) and 54% (C35) of the 9.9 kg N ha−1 yr−1 that was atmospherically deposited onto the catchment. However, when gaseous N2O and N2 effluxes were incorporated in the N budgets, the N outputs were similar; this represents a reduction of 90% of the difference between the two catchments. Although the difference in N output between the catchments was diminished, the proportion of different N species that comprised these N budgets was different due to the different area proportions of wetlands, suggesting differences in the predominance of N transformation processes within the catchments.
The Missing Nitrogen of Nitrogen Budgets. Incorpo- rating gaseous and dissolved N species had two effects on the N budgets: (1) it closed the gap in N output between C38 and C35 as indicated above; and (2) it narrowed the gap between N input and N output in both catchments. Gaseous N2O efflux contributed 17% in C38 and 14% in C35
to the total N output, and gaseous N2 efflux contributed an additional 38% in C38 and 2% in C35 to the total N output. The combined gaseous N2O + N2 output represented 36% in C38 and 10% in C35 of the total atmospherically deposited N, within reasonable range of Bouwman et al.4 who estimated N2O + N2 output as 40% of atmospherically deposited N. Wetlands are a considerable source of N2O and N2, highlighting the importance of wetlands in mitigating the accumulation of atmospherically deposited N during late summer, but not during winter. Dissolved N2O efflux was less than 1% of the total N2O efflux in both catchments, consistent with observations made by Davidson and Swank,38 suggesting that dissolved N2O efflux to streams may not be a substantial pathway of N output in forested catchments. There was less NO3
− output from C38 (15% of total N output) than C35 (76% of total N output), which suggests that
Figure 3. Average annual N budget for 2005 to 2010 in the C38 and C35 catchments in the Turkey Lakes Watershed showing traditionally measured N species, including dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN, nitrate-N + ammonium-N) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), as well as gaseous and dissolved nitrous oxide (N2O) and dinitrogen (N2) efflux. Error bars represent the standard deviations of N outputs with the gray shaded area representing the standard deviation of N inputs.
Environmental Science & Technology Article
NO3 − is not being hydrologically flushed from C38,28 but
rather is stored in the wetland and then transformed to other forms of N.17 The NO3
+
output from both catchments (0.06 kg ha−1 yr−1 or 1% of total N output in C38 and 0.07 kg ha−1 yr−1 or 1% of total N output in C35). There was more DON output in C38 (29% of the total N output) than C35 (8% of the total N output). These observations are consistent with those made in other catchments of the Turkey Lakes Watershed.14 While most of the dissolved N output coincided with spring melt, interception of the drainage waters by the wetland in C38 likely resulted in the retention and conversion of N to other forms (e.g., DON).41 Dissolved inorganic and organic N that accumulates during the winter can then be converted to gaseous N2O and N2 during warmer conditions in the summer.41,42
Topography influences the atmospheric vs aquatic fate of N. The catchment with the large wetland (C38) had much greater gaseous N2O and N2 output than the catchment with a small wetland. During the snow season, N2O and N2 efflux occurred continuously, while during the snow free season, bursts of N2O efflux occurred in response to rain events.19 However, these differences between the catchments were mitigated by considerable N2O efflux beneath the snowpack, where there was no observed difference in N2O efflux among the different positions.20 Therefore, both C38 and C35 produced substantial amounts of N2O during the snow season (0.5 kg ha−1 yr−1).
Total annual gaseous N2O efflux estimates from the two catchments for the years 2005 to 2010 ranged from 0.8 to 1.7 kg N ha−1 yr−1 in C38 and from 0.5 to 1.6 kg N ha−1 yr−1 in C35; these estimates are reasonably similar to the values reported for a temperate forest in the United States (0.3−1.4 kg N ha−1 yr−1)15 and a temperate forest in Germany (0.2−7.1 kg N ha1 yr−1).43 Previous studies showed that topographic indicators of hydrologic storage potential (i.e., effects of topographic flats and depressions on water storage) were the best predictors of DON output in catchments of the Turkey Lakes Watershed, and topographic indicators of both hydro- logic storage potential and hydrologic flushing potential (i.e., the effects of topographic slopes on the potential for variable source areas to expand and tap into previously untapped areas) were the best predictors of NO3
− output.16,17 Hydrologic flushing potential may not be a good predictor of dissolved N2O and N2 output, because large precipitation events promote the formation of N2O and N2 and rapid off-gassing of N before it can reach the catchment outlet.19 However, hydrologic storage potential might also be a good predictor of gaseous N2O and N2 output.
Remaining Missing Nitrogen in Nitrogen Budgets. Incorporating gaseous N2O and N2 narrowed the gap between N inputs and outputs, but the average annual N input was still approximately 3.5 kg N ha−1 yr−1 greater than average annual N output. Neither the shallow soil, the partially decomposed leaf matter
litter nor the tree biomass is likely to be a significant long-term
Figure 4. Daily measured N2O (top) and N2 (bottom) efflux estimates across a hillslope gradient in C38 during the snow-free season (June to September) from 2005 to 2010 (left) and during the snow season in October 2006 to May 2007 (right). N2 was not measured in stream and at the LOW and UP positions. Different letters indicate significant differences among topographic positions (p < 0.05).
Environmental Science & Technology Article
sink for N in this temperate forest ecosystem. For shallow soil, repeated sampling of the upper soil horizons over the past 25 years has shown that, while there is significant variability both year-to-year and across the landscape, total N content in these pools has not increased significantly.44−46 For litter, Morrison and Foster47 observed an increase in litter N pools over a 15- year period, but attributed it to immobilization from upper soil layers and therefore not an absolute increase in the litter-soil pool. The low carbon:nitrogen (C:N) and high nitrification rates in soils associated with sugar maple forests mean that most of the N is converted to NO3
− which is a mobile form of N that is either exported to the stream or converted to gaseous forms through denitrification,14 reducing likelihood of N retention in these soils. Tree biomass may also be a significant long-term sink for N. However, while N pools in tree biomass have not been reported at the Turkey Lakes Watershed since the 1980s, reports from mature temperate forests in eastern North America suggest that N pools in forest biomass are not likely to be significant sinks at this late stage of forest development.15,48
There are several uncertainties in our N budget calculations. First, dry deposited N that falls on leaf surfaces may not reach the forest floor, but may be processed on the leaf surface.49
Second, gaseous N might evade to the atmosphere via a pathway not measured, including transpiration of dissolved N2O in soil water,50 volatilization of NH4
+, or off-gassing of dissolved N2O from the stream.51 Third, N might be sequestered in deeper soil horizons not captured in the soil surveys.52 Soils in the Turkey Lakes Watershed are typically shallow, but pockets of deeper soils exist, particularly in the wetlands, where anaerobic conditions promote accumulation of organic N and NH4
+, which may act as a long-term sink for N.
There are also factors that could increase the discrepancy between inputs and outputs in our calculations. We did not account for N fixation as a possible input. Published rates of N fixation in temperate forests suggest that this is a minor input,53
but measurements are sparse and uncertain.52 Furthermore, we did not estimate N2 efflux from upland positions or from wetland positions on nonrain days during the growing season. While N2O efflux numbers for these positions during these time periods suggest that denitrification rates are likely low, this could mean that our estimate of N2 efflux is conservative. Finally, we did not account for significant N storage in the soil. However, if N storage did occur, it likely occurred at a similar rate within each of the two catchments, and therefore the effect of N storage on the N budget would have been similar in the two catchments. While there remains some missing portion of atmospherically
deposited N, accounting for N2O and N2 narrowed the observed differences in N outputs between catchments with and without wetlands. The presence of wetlands contributes gaseous N products (N2O and N2) to the composition of N outputs from catchments due to the presence of reducing conditions (lower redox potentials). These gaseous N products account for substantial amounts of both atmospherically deposited N (10−36% of N input) and N in discharge waters (16−55% of N output). While these results demonstrate the importance of gaseous N products to N budgets in temperate forests, scaling this process up across the region remains a significant challenge.12 A process-based understanding that considers topographic influences on N transformations is key to estimating these elusive fluxes. Future work on resolving N budgets in forested catchments can use the topographic framework presented here to help constrain this highly heterogeneous process.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT *S Supporting Information The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03728.
Detailed methods for atmospheric N input and gaseous and dissolved N output measurements (PDF)
AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author *Phone: 1-519-661-4265; fax: 1-519-661-3935; e-mails: icreed@uwo.ca. ORCID Irena F. Creed: 0000-0001-8199-1472 Notes The authors declare no competing financial interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by an NSERC Discovery grant to Irena Creed (217053-2009 RGPIN). Data are available by contacting Irena Creed (icreed@uwo.ca). The Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, provided discharge and chemistry data (Fred Beall), and Environment Canada and Climate Change, provided meteorological data (Dean Jeffries) and atmospheric nitrogen deposition data (Robert Vet).
REFERENCES (1) Vitousek, P. M.; Aber, J. D.; Howarth, R. W.; Likens, G. E.; Matson, P. A.; Schindler, D. W.; Schlesinger, W. H.; Tilman, D. G.
Figure 5. Monthly total N outputs for the C38 and C35 catchments from 2005 to 2010 in the Turkey Lakes Watershed.
Environmental Science & Technology Article
Technical report: Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 737−750. (2) Galloway, J. N.; Dentener, F. J.; Capone, D. G.; Boyer, E. W.; Howarth, R. W.; Seitzinger, S. P.; Asner, G. P.; Cleveland, C. C.; Green, P. A.; Holland, E. A.; et al. Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 2004, 70, 153−226. (3) Rockstrom, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F. S., III; Lambin, E. F.; Lenton, T. M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472−475. (4) Bouwman, A. F.; Beusen, A. H. W.; Griffioen, J.; Van Groenigen, J. W.; Hefting, M. M.; Oenema, O.; Van Puijenbroek, P. J. T. M.; Seitzinger, S.; Slomp, C. P.; Stehfest, E. Global trends and uncertainties in terrestrial denitrification and N2O emissions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2013, 368, 20130122. (5) Gambrell, R. P.; Patrick, Jr., W. H. Chemical and microbiological properties of anaerobic soils and sediments, In Plant Life in Anaerobic Environments; Hook, D. D., Crawford, R. M., Eds.; Ann Arbor Sci. Pub. Inc.: Ann Arbor, MI, 1978. (6) Fowler, D.; Pilegaard, K.; Sutton, M. A.; Ambus, P.; Raivonen, M.; Duyzer, J.; Simpson, D.; Fagerli, H.; Fuzzi, S.; Schjoerring, J. K.; et al. Atmospheric composition change: Ecosystems-atmosphere interactions. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5193−5267. (7) Burgin, A. M.; Lazaar, J. G.; Groffman, P. M.; Gold, A. J.; Kellog, D. Q. Balancing nitrogen retention ecosystem services and greenhouse gas disservice at the landscape scale. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 56, 26−35. (8) IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T. F. et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2013. (9) Ravishankara, A. R.; Daniel, J. S.; Portmann, R. W. Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The dominant Ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 2009, 326, 126. (10) Mosier, A. R.; Kroeze, C.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S.; van Cleemput, O. Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 1998, 52, 225−248. (11) Groffman, P. M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Fulweiler, R. W.; Gold, A. J.; Morse, J. L.; Stander, E. K.; Tague, C.; Tonitto, C.; Vidon, P. Challenges to incorporating spatially and temporally explicit phenomena (hotspots and hot moments) in denitrification models. Biogeochemistry 2009, 93, 49−77. (12) Davidson, E. A.; David, M. B.; Galloway, J. N.; Goodale, C. L.; Haeuber, R.; Harrison, J. A.; Howarth, R. W.; Jaynes, D. B.; Lowrance, R. R.; Nolan, B. T.; et al. Excess nitrogen in the U.S. environment: Trends, risks, and solutions. ESA Issues Ecol. 2012, 15, 1−16. (13) Duncan, J. M.; Groffman, P. M.; Band, L. E. Towards closing the watershed nitrogen budget: Spatial and temporal scaling of denitrification. J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosci. 2013, 118, 1105−1119. (14) Foster, N.; Spoelstra, J.; Hazlett, P.; Schiff, S.; Beall, F. D.; Creed, I. F.; David, C. Heterogeneity in soil nitrogen within first-order forested catchments at the Turkey Lakes Watershed. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35, 797. (15) Yanai, R. D.; Vadeboncoeur, M. A.; Hamburg, S. P.; Arthur, M. A.; Fuss, C. B.; Groffman, P. M.; Siccama, T. G.; Driscoll, C. T. From missing source to missing sink: Long-term changes in the nitrogen budget of a northern hardwood forest. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11440−11448. (16) Creed, I. F.; Beall, F. D. Distributed topographic indicators for predicting nitrogen export from headwater catchments. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, 1−12. (17) Mengistu, S. G.; Creed, I. F.; Webster, K. L.; Enanga, E.; Beall, F. D. Searching for similarity in topographic controls on carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus export from forested headwater catchments. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 3201−3216. (18) Goodale, C. L.; Fredriksen, G.; Weiss, M. S.; McCalley, C. K.; Sparks, J. P.; Thomas, S. A. Soil processes drive seasonal variation in retention of 15N tracers in a deciduous forested catchment. Ecology 2015, 96, 2653−2668.
(19) Enanga, E. M.; Creed, I. F.; Casson, N. J.; Beall, F. D. Summer storms trigger soil N2O efflux episodes in forested catchments. J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosci. 2016, 121, 95−108. (20) Enanga, E. M.; Creed, I. F.; Fairweather, T.; Casson, N. J.; Beall, F. D. Snow covered soils produce N2O that is lost from forested catchments. J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosci. 2016, 121, 2356−2368. (21) Jeffries, D. S.; Kelso, J. R. M.; Morrison, I. K. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the Turkey Lakes Watershed, central Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1988, 45, 3−13. (22) Canada Soil Survey Committee. Canadian System of Soil Classification; Department of Agriculture: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1978. (23) Wickware, G. M.; Cowell, D. W. Forest ecosystem classification of the Turkey Lakes Watershed, Ontario. Environ. Cons. Serv., Lands Dir., Eco. Land. Class. Ser. 1985, 18, 33. (24) Kelso, J. R. M. Preface. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1988, 45, 2. (25) Jeffries, D. S. Foreword, The Turkey Lakes Watershed Study after two decades. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.: Focus 2002, 2, 1−3. (26) Mengistu, S. G.; Quick, C. G.; Creed, I. F. Nutrient export from catchments on forested landscapes reveals complex nonstationary and stationary climate signals. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 1−18. (27) Creed, I. F.; Band, L. E.; Foster, N. W.; Morrison, I. K.; Nicolson, J. A.; Semkin, R. S.; Jeffries, D. S. Regulation of nitrate-N release from temperate forests: A test of the N flushing hypothesis. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32, 3337−3354. (28) Creed, I. F.; Band, L. E. Exploring functional similarity in the export of nitrate-N from forested catchments: A mechanistic modeling approach. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 3079−3093. (29) Creed, I. F.; Band, L. E. Export of nitrogen from catchments within a temperate forest: evidence for a unifying mechanism regulated by variable source area dynamics. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 3105− 3120. (30) Webster, K. L.; Creed, I. F.; Beall, F. D.; Bourbonniere, R. A. A topographic template for estimating soil carbon pools in forested catchments. Geoderma 2011, 160, 457−467. (31) Sirois, A.; Vet, R. Detailed analysis of sulphate and nitrate atmospheric deposition estimates at the Turkey Lakes Watershed. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1988, 45, 14−25. (32) Kulkarni, M. V.; Groffman, P. M.; Yavitt, J. B.; Goodale, C. L. Complex controls of denitrification at ecosystem, landscape and regional scales in northern hardwood forests. Ecol. Modell. 2015, 298, 39−52. (33) Snedecor, G. W., Cochran, W. G. Statistical Methods, 8th ed.; Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, 1989. (34) Galloway, J. N.; Townsend, A. R.; Erisman, J. W.; Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.; Freney, J. R.; Martinelli, L. A.; Seitzinger, S. P.; Sutton, M. A. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 2008, 320, 889−892. (35) Yanai, R. D.; Tokuchi, N.; Campbell, J. L.; Green, M. B.; Matsuzaki, E.; Laseter, S. N.; Brown, C. L.; Bailey, A. S.; Lyons, P.; Levine, C. R.; Buso, D. C.; Likens, G. E.; Knoepp, J.; Fukushima, K. Sources of uncertainty in estimating stream solute export from headwater catchments at three sites. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 1793− 1805. (36) Kliewer, B. A.; Gilliam, J. W. Water table management effects on denitrification and nitrous oxide evolution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1995, 59, 1694−1701. (37) Vidon, P.; Hubbard, L. E.; Soyeux, E. Seasonal solute dynamics across land uses during storms in glaciated landscape of the US Midwest. J. Hydrol. 2009, 376, 34−47. (38) Davidson, E. A.; Swank, W. T. Nitrous oxide dissolved in soil solution: An insignificant pathway of nitrogen loss from a southeastern hardwood forest. Water Resour. Res. 1990, 26, 1687−1690. (39) Davidson, E. A.; Chorover, J.; Dail, D. B. A mechanism of abiotic immobilization of nitrate in forest ecosystems: the ferrous wheel hypothesis. Glob. Change Biol. 2003, 9, 228−236. (40) Wrage, N.; Velthof, G. L.; van Beusichem, M. L.; Oenema, O. Role of nitrifier denitrification in the production of nitrous oxide. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 1723−1732.
Environmental Science & Technology Article
(41) Farquharson, R.; Baldock, J. Concepts in modelling N2O emissions from land use. Plant Soil 2008, 309, 147−167. (42) Holtan-Hartwig, L.; Dorsch, P.; Bakken, L. R. Low temperature control of soil denitrifying communities: kinetics of N2O production and reduction. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1797−1806. (43) Brumme, R.; Borken, W.; Finke, S. Hierarchical control on nitrous oxide emission in forest ecosystems. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1999, 13, 1137−1148. (44) Morrison, I. K. Organic matter and mineral distribution in an old-growth Acer saccharum forest near the northern limit of its range. Can. J. For. Res. 1990, 20, 1332−1342. (45) Creed, I. F.; Trick, C. G.; Band, L.; Morrison, I. K. Characterizing the spatial pattern of soil carbon and nitrogen pools in the Turkey Lakes Watershed: a comparison of regression techniques. Water, Air, Soil Pollut.: Focus 2002, 2, 81−102. (46) Webster, K. L.; Creed, I. F.; Bourbonniere, R. A.; Beall, F. D. Controls on the heterogeneity of soil respiration in a tolerant hardwood forest. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, 1−15. (47) Morrison, I. K.; Foster, N. W. Fifteen-year change in forest floor organic and element content and cycling at the Turkey Lakes Watershed. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 545−554. (48) Watmough, S. A.; Dillon, P. J. Major element fluxes from a coniferous catchment in central Ontario, 1983−1999. Biogeochemistry 2004, 67, 369−399. (49) Uscola, M.; Villa-Salvador, P.; Oliet, J.; Warren, C. R. Foliar absorption and root translocation of nitrogen from different chemical forms in seedlings of two Mediterranean trees. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 104, 34−43. (50) Mosier, A. R.; Mohanty, S. K.; Bhadrachalam, A.; Chakravorti, S. P. Evolution of dinitrogen and nitrous oxide from the soil to the atmosphere through rice plants. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1990, 9, 61−67. (51) Baulch, H. M.; Schiff, S. L.; Maranger, R.; Dillon, P. J. Nitrogen enrichment and the emission of nitrous oxide from streams. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2011, 25, GB4013. (52) Johnson, D. W.; Turner, J. Nitrogen budgets of forest ecosystems: A review. For. Ecol. Manage. 2014, 318, 370−379. (53) Roskoski. Nitrogen fixation in hardwood forests of the northeastern United States. Plant Soil 1980, 54, 33−44.
Environmental Science & Technology Article