Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen

William H. Schlesinger
  1. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS January 6, 2009 106 (1) 203-208; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810193105
William H. Schlesinger
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: schlesingerw@ecostudies.org
  1. Contributed by William H. Schlesinger, October 16, 2008 (received for review September 7, 2008)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This article provides a synthesis of literature values to trace the fate of 150 Tg/yr anthropogenic nitrogen applied by humans to the Earth's land surface. Approximately 9 TgN/yr may be accumulating in the terrestrial biosphere in pools with residence times of ten to several hundred years. Enhanced fluvial transport of nitrogen in rivers and percolation to groundwater accounts for ≈35 and 15 TgN/yr, respectively. Greater denitrification in terrestrial soils and wetlands may account for the loss of ≈17 TgN/yr from the land surface, calculated by a compilation of data on the fraction of N2O emitted to the atmosphere and the current global rise of this gas in the atmosphere. A recent estimate of atmospheric transport of reactive nitrogen from land to sea (NOx and NHx) accounts for 48 TgN/yr. The total of these enhanced sinks, 124 TgN/yr, is less than the human-enhanced inputs to the land surface, indicating areas of needed additional attention to global nitrogen biogeochemistry. Policy makers should focus on increasing nitrogen-use efficiency in fertilization, reducing transport of reactive N to rivers and groundwater, and maximizing denitrification to its N2 endproduct.

  • biogeochemistry
  • denitrification
  • nitrogen cycle

Numerous papers have documented the current human impacts to the global nitrogen cycle; humans have approximately doubled the input of available nitrogen to the Earth's land surface, largely through the industrial production of nitrogen fertilizer (1–3). Some environmental effects are obvious, including the expanding summertime hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico (4) and rising concentrations of nitrous oxide in Earth's atmosphere (5). Other consequences, such as the health impacts of nitrate in drinking water are less clear (6).

This paper provides some composite estimates of the fate of nitrogen applied to the Earth's land surface, focusing on four sinks—the biosphere, groundwater, fluvial transport to the sea, and denitrification. An additional movement of terrestrial nitrogen—atmospheric transport of NHx, NOy, and other forms to the oceans—is also considered using recent literature values. The residence time of reactive nitrogen in vegetation and soils can vary over a wide range of values, depending on vegetation and its age, affecting the permanence of the biospheric sink. None of these fluxes can be estimated precisely; the goal is to provide preliminary estimates of their relative role, which can indicate potential policy solutions to the global nitrogen problem.

Providing a balanced global nitrogen budget is not easy: the element has numerous valence states and gaseous forms that escape notice and travel long distances in the atmosphere. We have little understanding of the fate of the applied nitrogen, except to note that mass-balance studies of agricultural fields indicate that a lot of it must escape from the local point of application (7, 8).

The Biosphere.

Nitrogen limits net primary production over much of the Earth's land surface (9), and to a large extent, the human impact on the global nitrogen cycle stems from our attempt to alleviate nitrogen deficiencies in agriculture by the application of fertilizer (10). Globally, ≈10% of applied nitrogen is contained in food (11); most nitrogen remaining is lost to the environment during food production and after human ingestion. There is some long-term retention of nitrogen applied to agricultural soils (8, 12–14), but much is lost to runoff, to situ denitrification, and to gaseous forms of nitrogen (e.g., NH3 and NOx) that are deposited downwind (15). Combined with emissions of NOx from fossil fuel combustion, the latter produce a chronic nitrogen enrichment of natural ecosystems, with documented effects on forests (16), deserts (17), grasslands (18, 19), coastal ecosystems (20, 21), and oceans (22).

Anthropogenic nitrogen indirectly delivered to forests can accelerate their growth, resulting in greater biomass (23, 24). The results from fertilizer trials in forestry are instructive, indicating that ≈25–30% of the applied nitrogen is retained in biomass (25) and a similar amount retained in forest soils (Table 1). Generally, coniferous forests retain more nitrogen than deciduous forests. Anthropogenic nitrogen deposited from the atmosphere may allow for the apparent acceleration of forest growth in response to rising carbon dioxide concentrations in Earth's atmosphere (41) and explain the limited evidence for progressive nitrogen limitation in CO2-enrichment studies (42). Humans have increased the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on land by ≈46 TgN/yr (43), with about one-third of that deposited in forests (18 TgN/yr) (44), where trees provide a potential long-term sink for nitrogen in biomass. If ≈50% of nitrogen deposition is stored within the ecosystem, then ≈9 TgN/yr might be sequestered in terrestrial biomass until harvest or natural mortality. Some of this nitrogen is returned to the atmosphere as NOx or N2 when woody biomass is burned (pyrodenitrification) (45) and eventually nitrogen is released from decomposition, but a net sink for nitrogen on land is consistent with the apparent sink for carbon in terrestrial biomass. Goodale et al. (46) suggest that the retention of atmospheric nitrogen by forests in the eastern U.S. may be as high as 73%, consistent with the current sink for carbon—0.3 to 0.58 PgC/yr—in U.S. forests, many of which are recovering from agricultural land abandonment a few decades ago (47).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Fate of exogenous nitrogen applied to forest ecosystems, including studies that recorded changes in plant, litter, and soil organic matter.

Runoff and Fluvial Losses.

A large number of studies have examined nitrogen losses in surface runoff. Most of these focus on dissolved NH4+ and NO3−, but forms of dissolved organic nitrogen increasingly are recognized to contribute to the total (48). Compiling data from watersheds in the northeastern United States, Van Breemen et al. (49) found that rivers transported ≈23% of the nitrogen applied to their watersheds (cf. 26%; 15% for nitrate only) (50, 51). Recent work by Schaefer and Alber (52) suggests that transport from watersheds in warm temperate regions may be lower than in colder regions, but globally, if 23% of applied N (150 TgN/yr) is lost to riverflow, I estimate that the flux in rivers has increased from a preindustrial value of 27 TgN/yr (43) to a current value of 61.5 TgN/yr, for a net sink for anthropogenic N of 34.5 TgN/yr. Independent estimates of the recent anthropogenic riverine flux (19 TgN/yr) (53) and the total transport of N in the world's rivers, 59 TgN/yr (54) and 54 TgN/yr (55), are roughly compatible with these estimates. Much of the reactive N in rivers is denitrified in the coastal zone, returning N2 to the atmosphere (56). As fertilizer use expands globally, increases in the fluvial transport of nitrogen are likely to occur worldwide (57).

Groundwater.

Public health agencies have long recognized that excessive nitrate in water leads to the sometimes fatal condition in infants known as methemoglobinemia (58) and that regions of intensive agriculture and fertilizer use often have high concentrations of NO3− in groundwater (59, 60). Inasmuch as the nitrate concentrations in groundwater in many remote areas show near-zero values, the high nitrate concentrations found in agricultural areas are likely to be of anthropogenic origin. Compiling the results of several surveys, Spalding and Exner (61) found nitrate-N > 3 mg/L in 9.4% to 23.6% of wells in domestic areas of the rural United States. Similarly, Nolan et al. (62) compiled nitrate concentrations reported from 1,280 wells across the continental United States, calculating a median value of 8.3 mgNO3 per liter (1.9 mgN/L; cf. 3.4 mgNO3/L; ref. 63). The field sampling in these studies may be biased toward problematic regions, but the value of 1.9 mgN/L can be used to provide a lower-limit estimate of the anthropogenic impact on the annual flux of nitrogen to groundwater, if we assume that it might otherwise be nitrogen-free.

Groundwater flux (i.e., the new inputs to the saturated zone) is estimated at 1016 liters annually (64), ≈10% of global terrestrial precipitation and roughly compatible with the traditional assumption that the base flow of rivers carries ≈10% of precipitation to the sea (65). If we assume that the groundwater flux in North America is proportional to the global surface runoff generated there (14%) (66), then the input of nitrate to groundwater in North America is ≈3 TgN/yr (1.9 mgN/L × 0.15 × 1016L/yr; equivalent to ≈1.15 kgN/ha/yr for North America). This analysis does not consider additional nitrate that is transported to and denitrified in the saturated zone, which is included (44 TgN/yr) as part of the global estimate of denitrification (see below; 56). Anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen in North America are ≈20% of the world's total (67), so the global flux of nitrogen to groundwater may be as large as 15 TgN/yr. Because the mean residence time of groundwater is often thousands of years (68), it offers a long-term sink for nitrogen. Among comparative estimates, Lin et al. (69) developed a model to predict nitrate leaching of 12 TgN/yr to groundwater, adding to a preindustrial background flux of 14 TgN/yr. Van Drecht et al. (55) suggest that 10% (≈5 TgN/yr) of the nitrogen transport in rivers stems from groundwater, where N is largely derived from historical fertilizer use.

Some recent studies report large nitrogen accumulations in the vadose zone of desert ecosystems, totaling ≈3,000 to 15,000 TgN globally (70, 71). This nitrate has accumulated over an unknown period, so the pool is difficult to relate and probably not relevant to the fate of a large fraction of the anthropogenic nitrogen emitted during the past 100 years. The rate of accumulation of this nitrate in deserts (≈1 kgN/ha/yr) (72) may indicate a lower limit for the transport of nitrate to groundwater, with higher values expected in more mesic regions.

Denitrification.

Environmental scientists are increasingly realizing the complexity of microbial transformations of nitrogen in soils and sediments (73, 74). Whereas many early textbooks of microbiology recognized nitrate and N2 gas as the sole products of nitrification and denitrification, respectively, we now realize that a small percentage of the nitrogen passing through these biochemical pathways is released as NO and N2O (75). N2O is of particular interest, because it is a powerful greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere and destroys stratospheric ozone. Studies of the stable isotopes of nitrogen have sharpened our perceptions of nitrogen biogeochemistry; accumulations of the heavier isotope of nitrogen (15N) in soils (76) suggest that denitrification is more widespread and of greater significance than we realized just a few years ago. For one wet tropical forest, Houlton et al. (77) attribute 24 to 53% of ecosystem losses of nitrogen to denitrification. Losses of nitrogen to the atmosphere via denitrification on the land surface result in a global mean residence time for nitrogen on land of ≈100 years (68).

Seitzinger et al. (56) compiled data for denitrification from a variety of ecosystems, estimating the current global rate of 573 TgN/yr, with 22% (124 TgN/yr) stemming from the land surface and 110 TgN/yr from wetlands. These high values are somewhat difficult to reconcile with estimates nitrogen inputs to the land surface, especially if we assume that the nitrogen cycle was in steady-state in the preindustrial era. For comparison, Galloway et al. (43) suggest global denitrification of 389 TgN/yr, with ≈100 TgN/yr derived from upland and freshwater environments. Some of this flux is natural, but at least a portion is stimulated by anthropogenic additions of nitrogen fertilizer to the land surface, thus representing a sink for applied nitrogen. Globally, N2O comprises ≈2.6–3.9% of the denitrification flux, calculated by using the global N2O flux from soils, wetlands, and the sea surface (5) and global denitrification from Seitzinger et al. (56) or Galloway et al. (43), respectively.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a byproduct of nitrification and denitrification and is increasing in Earth's atmosphere by ≈0.3%/yr (5). The approach to estimating recent changes in global denitrification is to divide the observed increase in N2O in Earth's atmosphere (≈4 TgN/yr) by an estimate of the ratio of N2O to the total of N2+N2O produced by soil microbes. Table 2 (see also Table S1)includes values for the N2O to (N2+ N2O) ratio in the efflux from a variety of ecosystems under natural and N-fertilized conditions. As noted in many earlier reports (78), there is considerable range in these values. For wetlands, including stream and lake sediments, the values are always low; N2 dominates the efflux in anerobic environments (79–81). For upland ecosystems, a significant percentage of the efflux occurs as N2O, with an unknown proportion of this derived from nitrification rather than denitrification. The mean ratios N2O/(N2 + N2O) for upland, agricultural, and wetland soils are 0.49, 0.37, and 0.082, respectively. To provide an estimate of the human impact on terrestrial denitrification, assume that the rise in N2O in Earth's atmosphere is solely from denitrification on land. If 53% of denitrification occurs in the upland soils, dominated by agriculture, with a ratio of 0.37, and 47% occurs in wetlands with a ratio of 0.08 (57), then the weighted mean ratio is 0.23, and the calculated total rate of denitrification is now 17 TgN/yr greater than in preindustrial times. Any contributions of N2O from nitrification would reduce this value, because it would not be associated with the production of N2. An identical estimate for the human-induced change in terrestrial denitrification is given by Galloway et al. (43).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Mean N2O-yield values from various laboratory and field studies of denitrification

Seitzinger (82) compiled data showing a wide range of values for the N2O/(N2+N2O) mole fraction in the gaseous efflux from coastal marine ecosystems. Most values were very low, but see ref. 83. Near-shore denitrification may be as large as 79 TgN/yr (56), of which 21 TgN/yr may derive from human distribution of available nitrogen (43). Thus, a substantial fraction of the nitrogen leaving the land surface is likely to be denitrified in coastal waters. In this analysis, changes in pelagic denitrification are assumed to be minor (43), potentially with a significant fraction contributed by the anammox reaction that produces no N2O (73).

Xu et al. (84) report significant correlations in the flux of CO2 and N2O from soils (cf. ref. 85). Soil denitrification and N2O flux may increase globally as future, rising atmospheric CO2 stimulates plant growth, accumulation of carbon in soils, and greater denitrification. Kammann et al. (86) report large increases in the loss of N2O from a grassland grown under Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) conditions. In contrast, Phillips et al. (87) found only small changes in the flux of N2O from soils in a forest grown at ambient +200 μl/L atmospheric CO2.

Atmospheric Transport of Available Nitrogen to the Marine Environment.

Atmospheric transport of reduced and oxidized nitrogen trace gases and various forms of organic nitrogen to marine ecosystems represents an additional sink for anthropogenic nitrogen applied to the land surface. Duce et al. (22) indicate that the flux of these constituents to the ocean surface has increased by 48 TgN/yr from preindustrial times to 2000, representing a net sink for anthropogenic nitrogen from the land surface. Nearly 70% (33 TgN/yr) is derived from inorganic forms—NHx and NOy—and the rest is organic N. For the 1990s, comparable values for the inorganic portion are 25 TgN/yr (43) and 39 TgN/yr (88). Of course, the atmospheric transport of reactive nitrogen from land to sea via the atmosphere is recognized as a major source of nitrogen causing environmental degradation in coastal waters and perhaps also in the open ocean (22).

Conclusions

The sum of these preliminary, generally upper-limit estimates of sinks for anthropogenic nitrogen applied to land is ≈124 TgN/yr—slightly less than the current estimate of the industrial production of available nitrogen by humans (150 TgN/yr; 125 Tg from industrial production plus 25 Tg from fossil fuel combustion; Table 3). Thus, the budget for the terrestrial portion of the modern nitrogen cycle is nearly balanced, although a number of the “sinks” (e.g., surface and groundwater pollution) are associated with serious environmental problems. Further work will be needed to refine these estimates and identify other sinks for anthropogenic nitrogen applied to the land surface. Studies of nitrogen retention in fertilized agricultural soils (12) and of submarine discharges of nitrogen to coastal marine environments (83, 90, 91) are worthy of examination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Budgets for nitrogen on the global land surface

The comparative magnitude of these fluxes gives some indication of where better environmental management might reduce human impacts on natural and managed ecosystems. All efforts to minimize human impacts on the global nitrogen cycle will benefit from improved efficiency in the application of nitrogen fertilizer (92). With the era of cheap energy now ending, economics alone may dictate a greater efficiency of fertilizer use. However, policy makers should consider future regulations on losses of nitrogen to runoff and perhaps even to institute a cap-and-trade system to reduce wasteful inputs to the global nitrogen cycle.

The loss of applied nitrogen in rivers causes substantial disruption to estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems (93). To minimize such transport, land-use planning should encourage the maintenance and expansion of wetland ecosystems that convert nitrate to N2 (Table 2 and Table S1). Considering the large human inputs of available nitrogen to the Earth's land surface, humans appear to have caused a surprisingly small change in the flux of N2 to the atmosphere from denitrification (17 TgN/yr). The efficiency of denitrification in streams appears to decrease as nitrate concentrations increase (94). Efforts to increase the rate of denitrification, while minimizing the byproduct flux of N2O, may be effective ways to reduce the environmental impact of fertilizer nitrogen (95, 96). Clearly even the modest flux of nitrogen to groundwater is problematic in regions depending on this resource for drinking water. More efficient use of fertilizer and efforts to increase vadose-zone denitrification may protect groundwater resources for future generations.

The sink for nitrogen in trees and soils appears modest (9 TgN/yr), but large enough to support a significant, simultaneous global sink for carbon in these ecosystem components. In contrast, on fertilized agricultural lands, the enhanced sink for carbon in soil organic matter is often substantially discounted by the CO2 emissions during fertilizer production (97). Inadvertent nitrogen deposition in natural ecosystems has important adverse consequences (16, 98), but it may alleviate progressive nitrogen limitation to forest growth under high CO2.

The largest net sink for anthropogenic nitrogen, atmospheric transport from the terrestrial to the marine realm, reflects the importance of airborne pathways and transformations of nitrogen compounds, much of which is derived from combustion sources. Many of the deposited compounds impact the productivity and health of coastal and continental shelf ecosystems. Better management of emissions from agriculture will help preserve the integrity of coastal ecosystems and their fisheries.

Overall, our understanding of the nitrogen cycle and the development of effective policies to reduce inadvertent losses of anthropogenic nitrogen to the environment is analogous to our understanding of the carbon cycle in the late 1960s. Humans are adding nitrogen to the Earth's surface; we do not know where it all goes, but we do know that increasing concentrations of nitrogen in unexpected places will cause significant environmental damage that we will all learn to regret.

Acknowledgments

This article derives from the author's presentation of the Michel T. Halbouty Lecture at the 2007 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver, Colorado. The author thanks many colleagues for stimulating discussions on this topic during the past few decades and Amy Burgin, Jim Galloway, Peter Groffman, and Peter Vitousek for helpful reviews of the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • 1E-mail: schlesingerw{at}ecostudies.org
  • Author contributions: W.H.S. designed research, performed research, contributed new reagents/analytic tools, analyzed data, and wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0810193105/DCSupplemental.

  • Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.

  • © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

References

  1. ↵
    1. Vitousek PM,
    2. et al.
    (1997) Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecol Applic 7:737–750.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Galloway JN,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320:889–892.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Gruber N,
    2. Galloway JN
    (2008) An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451:293–296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Rabalais NN,
    2. Turner RE,
    3. Wiseman WJ
    (2002) Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: AKA, “The Dead Zone.”. Ann Rev Ecol System 33:235–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Solomon S,
    2. et al.
    1. Denman KL,
    2. et al.
    (2007) in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed Solomon S, et al. (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 499–587.
  6. ↵
    1. Powlson DS,
    2. et al.
    (2006) When does nitrate become a risk for humans? J Environ Qual 37:291–295.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Wollast R,
    2. MacKenzie FT,
    3. Chou L
    1. Isermann K
    (1993) in Interactions of C, N, P and S in Biogeochemical Cycles and Global Change, eds Wollast R, MacKenzie FT, Chou L (Springer, Berlin) NATO SAI Series Vol I-4, pp 79–121.
  8. ↵
    1. Stevens WB,
    2. Hoeft RG,
    3. Mulvaney RL
    (2005) Fate of nitrogen-15 in a long-term nitrogen rate study: II. Nitrogen uptake efficiency. Agronomy J 97:1046–1053.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. LaBauer DS,
    2. Treseder KK
    (2008) Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89:371–379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Smil V
    (2001) Enriching the Earth (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
  11. ↵
    1. Galloway JN,
    2. Cowling EB
    (2002) Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio 31:64–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Schindler FV,
    2. Knighton RE
    (1999) Fate of fertilizer nitrogen applied to corn as estimated by the isotopic and difference methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:1734–1740.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Fritschi FB,
    2. Roberts BA,
    3. Rains DW,
    4. Travis RL,
    5. Hutmacher RB
    (2004) Fate of nitrogen-15 applied to irrigated Acala and Pima cotton. Agronomy J 96:646–655.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Jagadamma S,
    2. Lal R,
    3. Hoeft RG,
    4. Nafziger ED,
    5. Adee EA
    (2007) Nitrogen fertilization and cropping systems effects on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen pools under chisel-plow tillage in Illinois. Soil Tillage Res 95:348–356.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Aneja VP,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Workshop on agricultural air quality. State of the science. Atmos Environ 42:3195–3208.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Aber JD,
    2. et al.
    (2003) Is nitrogen deposition altering the nitrogen status of northeastern forests? Bioscience 53:375–389.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Brooks M
    (2003) Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the Mojave desert. J Appl Ecol 40:344–353.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Stevens CJ,
    2. Dise NB,
    3. Mountford JO,
    4. Gowing DJ
    (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Clark CM,
    2. Tilman D
    (2008) Loss of plant species after chronic low-level nitrogen deposition to prairie grasslands. Nature 451:712–715.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Boulart C,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Atmospherically-promoted photosynthetic activity in a well-mixed ecosystem: Significance of wet deposition events of nitrogen compounds. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 69:449–458.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Scavia D,
    2. Bricker SB
    (2006) Coastal eutrophication assessment in the United States. Biogeochemistry 79:187–208.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Duce RA,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Impacts of atmospheric anthropogenic nitrogen on the open ocean. Science 320:893–897.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Pregitzer KS,
    2. Burton AJ,
    3. Zak DR,
    4. Talhelm AF
    (2008) Simulated chronic nitrogen deposition increases carbon storage in northern temperate forests. Global Change Biol 14:142–153.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Hyvonen R,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Impact of long-term nitrogen addition on carbon stocks in trees and soils in northern Europe. Biogeochemistry 89:121–137.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Nadelhoffer KJ,
    2. et al.
    (1999) Nitrogen deposition makes a minor contribution to carbon sequestration in temperate forests. Nature 398:145–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Magill AH,
    2. et al.
    (2000) Long-term nitrogen additions and nitrogen saturation in two temperate forests. Ecosystems 3:238–253.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Nadelhoffer KJ,
    2. Colman BP,
    3. Currie WS,
    4. Magill A,
    5. Aber JD
    (2004) Decadal-scale fates of 15N tracers added to oak and pine stands under ambient and elevated N inputs at the Harvard Forest (USA) Forest Ecol Manage 196:89–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Preston CM,
    2. Mead DJ
    (1994) Growth response and recovery of 15N-fertilizer one and eight growing seasons after application to lodgepole pine in British Columbia. Forest Ecol Manage 65:219–229.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Mead DJ,
    2. Pritchett WL
    (1975) Fertilizer movement in a slash pine ecosystem. II. N distribution after two growing seasons. Plant Soil 43:467–478.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Neilsen WA,
    2. Pataczek,
    3. Lynch T,
    4. Ryrke R
    (1992) Growth response of Pinus radiata to multiple applications of nitrogen fertilizer and evaluation of the quantity of added nitrogen remaining in the forest system. Plant Soil 144:207–217.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Heilman PE,
    2. Dao TH,
    3. Cheng HH,
    4. Webster SR,
    5. Christensen L
    (1982) Comparison of fall and spring application of N-15-labelled urea to douglas fir. 2. Fertilizer nitrogen recovery in trees and soil after two years. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:1300–1304.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Koopmans CJ,
    2. Tietema A,
    3. Boxman AW
    (1996) The fate of 15N enriched throughfall in two coniferous forest stands at different nitrogen levels. Biogeochemistry 34:19–44.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Melin J,
    2. Nommik H,
    3. Lohm U,
    4. Flowerellis J
    (1983) Fertilizer nitrogen budget in a Scots pine ecosystem attained by using root-isolated plots and N-15 tracer technique. Plant Soil 74:249–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Proe MF,
    2. Dutch J,
    3. Miller HG,
    4. Sutherland J
    (1992) Long-term partitioning of biomass and nitrogen following application of nitrogen fertilizer to Corsican pine. Can J For Res 22:82–87.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Buchmann N,
    2. Gebauer G,
    3. Schulze ED
    (1996) Partitioning of 15N-labled ammonium and nitrate among soil, litter, below- and above-ground biomass of trees and understory in a 15-year old Picea abies plantation. Biogeochemistry 33:1–23.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Schleppi PL,
    2. et al.
    (1999) Simulation of increased nitrogen deposition to a montane forest ecosystem: Partitioning of the added 15N. Water Air Soil Poll 116:129–134.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Tietema A,
    2. Emmett BA,
    3. Gundersen P,
    4. Kjonaas OJ,
    5. Koopmans CJ
    (1998) The fate of 15N-labelled nitrogen deposition in coniferous forest ecosystems. Forest Ecol Manage 101:19–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Nadelhoffer KJ,
    2. et al.
    (1995) The fate of 15N-labelled nitrate additions to a northern hardwood forest in eastern Maine, USA. Oecologia 103:292–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Christ M,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Likens GE,
    4. Driscoll CT
    (1995) Nitrogen retention capacity of a northern hardwood forest soil under ammonium sulfate additions. Ecol Applic 5:802–812.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Zak DR,
    2. Pregitzer KS,
    3. Holmes WE,
    4. Burton AJ,
    5. Zogg GP
    (2004) Anthropogenic N deposition and the fate of 15NO3− in a northern hardwood ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 69:143–157.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Magnani F,
    2. et al.
    (2007) The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature 447:848–850.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Finzi AC,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Progressive nitrogen limitation of ecosystem processes under elevated CO2. Ecology 87:15–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Galloway JN,
    2. et al.
    (2004) Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Hudson RJM,
    2. Gherini SA,
    3. Goldstein RA
    (1994) Modeling the global carbon cycle-nitrogen-fertilization of the terrestrial biosphere and the missing CO2 sink. Global Biogeochem Cycles 8:307–333.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Kuhlbusch TA,
    2. Lorbert JM,
    3. Crutzen PJ,
    4. Warneck P
    (1991) Molecular nitrogen emission from denitrification during biomass burning. Nature 351:135–137.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Goodale CL,
    2. Lajtha K,
    3. Nadelhoffer KJ,
    4. Boyer EW,
    5. Jaworski RA
    (2002) Forest nitrogen sinks in large eastern U.S. watersheds: Estimates from forest inventory and an ecosystem model. Biogeochemistry 57:239–266.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Pacala SW,
    2. et al.
    (2001) Consistent land- and atmosphere-based US carbon sink estimates. Science 292:2316–2320.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Perakis SS,
    2. Hedin LO
    (2002) Nitrogen loss from unpolluted South American forests mainly via dissolved organic compounds. Nature 415:416–419.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Van Breemen N,
    2. et al.
    (2002) Where did all the nitrogen go? Fate of nitrogen inputs to large watersheds in the northeastern U.S.A. Biogeochemistry 57:267–293.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Howarth RW,
    2. et al.
    (2006) The influence of climate on average nitrogen export from large watersheds in the northeastern United States. Biogeochemistry 79:163–186.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Caraco NF,
    2. Cole JJ
    (1999) Human impact on nitrate export: An analysis using major world rivers. Ambio 28:167–170.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Schaefer SC,
    2. Alber AM
    (2007) Temperature controls a latitudinal gradient in the proportion of watershed nitrogen exported to coastal ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 85:333–346.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Green PA,
    2. et al.
    (2004) Pre-industrial and contemporary fluxes of nitrogen through rivers A global assessment based on topology. Biogeochemistry 68:71–105.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Boyer EW,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Riverine nitrogen export from the continents to the coasts. Global Biogeochem Cycles 20:GB1S91.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Van Drecht G,
    2. Bouwman AF,
    3. Knoop JM,
    4. Beusen AHW,
    5. Meinardi CR
    (2003) Global modeling of the fate of nitrogen from point and nonpoint sources in soils, groundwater, and surface water. Global Biogeochem Cycles 17:1115.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Seitzinger S,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Denitrification across landscapes and watersheds. Ecol Applic 16:2064–2090.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Bouwman AF,
    2. Van Drecht G,
    3. Knoop JM,
    4. Beusen AHW,
    5. Meinardi CR
    (2005) Exploring changes in river nitrogen export to the world's oceans. Global Biogeochem Cycles 19:GB1002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. Knobeloch L,
    2. Saina B,
    3. Hogan A,
    4. Postle J,
    5. Anderson H
    (2000) Blue babies and nitrate-contaminated well water. Environ Health Perspec 108:675–678.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Almasri MN,
    2. Kaluarachchi JJ
    (2004) Assessment and management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in agriculture-dominated watersheds. J Hydrol 295:225–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. McMahon PB,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Source and transport controls on the movement of nitrate to public supply wells in selected aquifers of the United States. Water Resour Res 44:W04401.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. ↵
    1. Spalding RF,
    2. Exner ME
    (1993) Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater—a review. J Environ Qual 22:392–402.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Nolan BT,
    2. Hitt KJ,
    3. Ruddy BC
    (2002) Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the coterminous United States. Environ Sci Tech 36:2138–2145.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Rupert MG
    (2008) Decadal-scale changes of nitrate in ground water of the United States, 1988–2004. J Environ Qual 37(5 Suppl):240–S248.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Zektser IS,
    2. Loaiciga HA
    (1993) Groundwater fluxes in the global hydrologic cycle: Past, present, and future. J Hydrol 144:405–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Alley WM,
    2. Healy RW,
    3. LaBaugh JW,
    4. Reilly TE
    (2002) Flow and storage in groundwater systems. Science 296:1985–1990.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Berner EK,
    2. Berner RA
    (1996) Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
  67. ↵
    1. Schlesinger WH
    1. Galloway JN
    (2004) in The Treatise on Geochemistry, ed Schlesinger WH (Elsevier, Amsterdam), Vol 8, pp 557–583.
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Schlesinger WH
    (1997) Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change (Academic, San Diego).
  69. ↵
    1. Lin B-L,
    2. Sakoda A,
    3. Shibasaki R,
    4. Suzuki M
    (2001) A modeling approach to global nitrate leaching caused by anthropogenic fertilization. Water Res 35:1961–1968.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Walvoord MA,
    2. et al.
    (2003) A reservoir of nitrate beneath desert soils. Science 302:1021–1024.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Graham RC,
    2. Himas DR,
    3. Wood YA,
    4. Amrhein C
    (2008) Large near-surface nitrate pools in soils capped by desert pavement in the Mojave desert, California. Geology 36:259–262.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Hartsough P,
    2. Tyler SW,
    3. Sterling J,
    4. Walvoord M
    (2001) A 14.6-kyr record of nitrogen flux from desert soil profiles as inferred from vadose zone pore waters. Geophys Res Lett 28:2955–2958.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Arrigo KR
    (2005) Marine microorganisms and global nutrient cycles. Nature 437:349–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Leininger S,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Archaea predominate among ammonia-oxidizing prokaryotes in soils. Nature 442:806–809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Davidson EA,
    2. Keller M,
    3. Erickson HE,
    4. Verchot LV,
    5. Veldkamp D
    (2000) Testing a conceptual model of soil emissions of nitrous and nitric oxides. Bioscience 50:667–680.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. ↵
    1. Amundson R,
    2. et al.
    (2003) Global patterns of the isotopic composition of soil and plant nitrogen. Global Biogeochem Cycles 17:1031.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Houlton BZ,
    2. Sigman DM,
    3. Hedin LO
    (2006) Isotopic evidence for large gaseous nitrogen losses from tropical rainforests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8745–8750.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Weier KL,
    2. Doran JW,
    3. Power JF,
    4. Walters DT
    (1993) Denitrification and the dinitrogen/nitrous oxide ratio as affected by soil water, available carbon, and nitrate. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 57:66–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. ↵
    1. Focht DD
    (1974) The effect of temperature, pH, and aeration on the production of nitrous oxide and gaseous nitrogen—a zero-order kinetic model. Soil Sci 118:173–179.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Riley WJ,
    2. Matson PA
    (2000) NLOSS: A mechanistic model of denitrified N2O and N2 evolution from soil. Soil Sci 165:237–249.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. ↵
    1. Kralova M,
    2. Masscheleyn PH,
    3. Lindau CW,
    4. Patrick WH
    (1992) Production of dinitrogen and nitrous oxide in soil suspensions as affected by redox potential. Water Air Soil Poll 61:37–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. ↵
    1. Seitzinger S
    (1988) Denitrification in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: Ecological and geochemical significance. Limnol Oceanogr 33:702–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Tobias CR,
    2. Macko SA,
    3. Anderson IC,
    4. Canuel EA,
    5. Harvey JW
    (2001) Tracking the fate of a high concentration groundwater nitrate plume through a fringing marsh: A combined groundwater tracer and in situ isotope enrichment study. Limnol Oceanogr 46:1977–1989.
    OpenUrl
  84. ↵
    1. Xu X,
    2. Tian H,
    3. Hui D
    (2008) Convergence in the relationship of CO2 and N2O exchanges between soil and atmosphere within terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol 14:1651–1660.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. ↵
    1. Mathieu O,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Emissions and spatial variability of N2O, N2 and nitrous oxide mole fraction at the field scale, revealed with 15N isotopic techniques. Soil Biol Biochem 38:941–951.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. ↵
    1. Kammann C,
    2. Muller C,
    3. Grunhage L,
    4. Jager H.-J
    (2008) Elevated CO2 stimulates N2O emissions in permanent grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2194–2205.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Phillips RL,
    2. Whalen SC,
    3. Schlesinger WH
    (2001) Influence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on nitrous oxide flux in a temperate forest ecosystem. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:741–752.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    1. Krishnamurthy A,
    2. Moore JK,
    3. Zender CS,
    4. Luo C
    (2007) Effects of atmospheric inorganic nitrogen deposition on ocean biogeochemistry. J Geophys Res 112:G02019.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. ↵
    1. US Geological Survey
    (2008) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2008, 118–119.
  90. ↵
    1. Slomp CP,
    2. Van Cappellen P
    (2004) Nutrient inputs in the coastal ocean through submarine groundwater discharge: Controls and potential impact. J Hydrol 295:64–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. ↵
    1. Leonte C,
    2. Ibanhez JS,
    3. Rocha C
    (2008) Submarine groundwater discharge as a nitrogen source to the Rio Formosa studied with seepage meters. Biogeochemistry 88:185–194.
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Matson PA,
    2. Naylor R,
    3. Ortiz-Monasterio I
    (1998) Integration of environmental, agronomic and economic aspects of fertilizer management. Science 280:112–116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. ↵
    1. Beman JM,
    2. Arrigo KR,
    3. Matson PA
    (2005) Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature 434:211–214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Mulholland PJ,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Stream denitrification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading. Nature 452:202–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Hefting MM,
    2. Bobbink R,
    3. de Caluwe H
    (2003) Nitrous oxide emission and denitrification in chronically nitrate-loaded riparian buffer zones. J Environ Qual 32:1194–1203.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Bernhardt ES,
    2. Band LE,
    3. Walsh CJ,
    4. Berke PE
    (2008) Understanding, managing, and minimizing urban impacts on surface water nitrogen loading. Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:61–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Schlesinger WH
    (2000) Carbon sequestration in soils: Some cautions amidst optimism. Agric Ecosyst Envrion 82:121–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. ↵
    1. Fenn ME,
    2. et al.
    (1998) Nitrogen excess in North American ecosystems: Predisposing factors, ecosystem responses, and management strategies. Ecol Applic 8:706–733.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen
William H. Schlesinger
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2009, 106 (1) 203-208; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0810193105

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen
William H. Schlesinger
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2009, 106 (1) 203-208; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0810193105
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Geology
  • Biological Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 106 (1)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490