Biol Fertil Soils (2001) 34:7984

DOI 10.1007/s003740100380

O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Wolfram Zerulla Thomas Barth Jrgen Dressel

Klaus Erhardt Klaus Horchler von Locquenghien
Gregor Pasda Matthias Rdle
Alexander Heinrich Wissemeier

3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) a new nitrification inhibitor

for agriculture and horticulture
An Introduction
Received: 17 April 2000 / Published online: 7 June 2001
Springer-Verlag 2001

Abstract 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) is a
new nitrification inhibitor with highly favourable proper-
ties. It has undergone thorough toxicology and ecotoxi-
cology tests and application-technology experiments, and
has been shown to have several distinct advantages com-
pared to the currently used nitrification inhibitors. Appli-
cation rates of 0.51.5 kg ha1 are sufficient to achieve
optimal nitrification inhibition. DMPP can significantly
reduce NO3 leaching, without being liable to leaching it-
self. DMPP may reduce N2O emission, apparently with-
out a negative effect on CH4 oxidation of the soil. The
use of DMPP-containing fertilizers can improve yield.
This offers the possibility of saving mineral fertilizer N,
reducing the number of N-application rounds, and obtain-
ing higher crop yields with current fertilizer-N rates.
Keywords DMPP Nitrification inhibitor Nitrogen
losses 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate Nitrogen-use
efficiency
Introduction
N plays an essential role in plant production, in regard to
both its economic and ecological aspects. On the one
hand, N affects yield level and quality like no other plant
nutrient, and on the other hand, nitrogenous compounds in
the hydrosphere (NO3 accumulation in groundwater) and
atmosphere (release of nitrous greenhouse gases) may
have numerous unwanted effects on the environment.
Even in intensively managed cash crop production, the
utilization rate of mineral fertilizer N is only 5070% of
that applied (Wiesler 1998), so that, for economic and
ecological reasons, an increase in fertilizer-N efficiency
continues to be the main objective of N-related research
(Trenkel 1997). Results relevant to this are expected from
site-specific crop management (Auernhammer 1997),
from the use of sensors for N-application monitoring
(Wollring et al. 1998), and from the introduction of so-
called N-efficient varieties (Spanakakis and Viedt 1990).
A further possible means of increasing fertilizer-N
utilization rates is the improvement of the fertilizer itself,
e.g. by the addition of a nitrification inhibitor (Knig
1983), particularly together with N in a granulated form
(Trenkel 1997).
Nitrification inhibitors are compounds that delay the
bacterial oxidation of NH4+ to NO2 in the soil (first step of
nitrification) for a certain period of time (Fig. 1) by de-
pressing the activities of Nitrosomas bacteria in the soil.
The second step of nitrification normally is not influenced.
Advantages of nitrification inhibitors
Guiraud and Marol (1992) found that the amount of
NO3 present in the soil during the inhibition period due

W. Zerulla () T. Barth J. Dressel K. Erhardt K. Horchler

von Locquenghien G. Pasda M. Rdle A.H. Wissemeier
BASF Aktiengesellschaft,
BASF Agricultural Center Limburgerhof, P.O. Box 120,
67114 Limburgerhof, Germany
e-mail: wolfram.zerulla@basf-ag.de Fig. 1 Specific influence of a suitable nitrification inhibitor on the
Fax: +49-621-6027260 first step (nitritation) of nitrification
80
to the addition of nitrification inhibitors was significant-
ly reduced compared to a control without a nitrification
inhibitor. Since NO3 is considered to be the source of
major processes of N losses (leaching, denitrification),
nitrification inhibitors can help to reduce the environ-
mental problems which stem from N application, while
increasing fertilizer-N efficiency.
Practical advantages of nitrification inhibitors for agri-
culture and horticulture, as well as for the environment, are:
1. A significant reduction in the risk of NO3 leaching
losses from N fertilizers, compared to conventional N
fertilizers (Scheffer and Bartels 1998).
2. A decrease in the emission of nitrous greenhouse
gases, especially of N2O (Bremner and Yeomans
1987; Michel and Wozniak 1998; Linzmeier et al.
2001; Weiske et al. 2001).
3. Smaller N losses and the temporary NH4+ nutrition of
crops, often leading to yield increases (Prasad and
Power 1995).
4. Better N utilization by plants (Timmermann and
Schtig 1984; Zerulla and Lutz 1992).
5. A reduction in the work-load of growers due to more
flexible timing of fertilizer application, and the possi-
bility of combining or saving application rounds
(Munzert 1984; Dachler 1993).
Nitrification inhibitors used worldwide
Worldwide, hundreds of nitrification inhibitors are known,
which show more or less specific action (Slangen and
Kerkhoff 1984; Prasad and Power 1995; McCarty 1999).
Thus various workers, e.g. Domsch and Paul (1974),
Hauck (1980, 1984), or Winley and San Clemente
(1971), have described the nitrification inhibiting effect
of various plant-protection products. Wilson (1977a,
1977b) reports on this effect for certain heavy metals.
Bremner and McCarty (1993) evaluated the potential of
natural plant residues to inhibit nitrification. A nitrificide
action is also attributed to a high biuret concentration in
urea (Bhargava and Ghosh 1979). However, the practical
use of these unspecific nitrification inhibitors is ques-
tionable, due to their insufficient activity period, their
phytotoxic characteristics, or for environmental reasons.
The directed search for specific nitrification inhibitors
started in the late 1950s. As early as 1962, nitrapyrin
[2-chloro-6(trichloromethyl)pyridine] was introduced as
a nitrification inhibitor to the US market (Goring 1962a,
1962b). Dicyandiamide (DCD) gained importance
predominantly in Europe (Solansky 1982). Numerous
other, mainly heterocyclic, N compounds, though some-
times with excellent nitrification-inhibiting properties
(McCarty and Bremner 1989; McCarty 1999), have so
far failed to achieve any commercial importance as nitri-
fication inhibitors under practical conditions. The same
applies to S compounds (Prasad and Reddy 1977), to
urea derivatives (Jung and Dressel 1978) or to acetylene
and its derivatives (McCarty 1999).
On a global scale, only two nitrification inhibitors
have so far gained importance for practical use; these are
DCD in Europe and, to a limited extent, in the US and
exclusively in the US nitrapyrin.
Disadvantages of DCD and nitrapyrin
Besides the advantages specified above, both compounds
also have significant disadvantages. DCD is just too ex-
pensive for large-scale use in agriculture and horticul-
ture. Also, its efficiency is comparatively low, so that
high application rates are needed for sufficient nitrifica-
tion inhibition [e.g. 1530 kg DCD ha1 (independent of
the amount of slurry applied) together with a slurry ap-
plication; Solansky (1982)]. As DCD is highly water sol-
uble, intensive precipitation may lead to its translocation
within the soil profile (Teske and Matzel 1988), resulting
in the spatial separation of the nitrification inhibitor from
the NH4+ to be stabilized. In addition, under certain agro-
climatological conditions, DCD use may cause phyto-
toxicity problems [visible plant damage (Reeves and
Touchton 1986)] which, though not leading to reduced
yields, affect marketability, e.g. of leaf vegetables.
Nitrapyrin has a relative high vapour pressure which
excludes its addition to solid fertilizers. Therefore, nit-
rapyrin is almost exclusively used as an additive to anhy-
drous NH3 for pre-winter application, as practiced in
large areas of the USA.
Moreover, this substance belongs to the group of or-
ganic chlorine compounds, the release of which into the
environment faces increasing opposition. Finally, it is
corrosive and explosive and it poses certain toxicology
problems (Trenkel 1997).
3,4-Dimethylpyrazol-phosphate a new
nitrification inhibitor
In the framework of a joint research project, BASF, in
cooperation with universities and other research insti-
tutes, developed a new nitrification inhibitor highly spe-
cific in inhibiting nitrification at low concentrations of
0.51.0 kg active compound ha1 (Table 1). This new ni-
trification inhibitor is 3,4-dimethylpyrazol phosphate
(DMPP; ENTEC). For physical and chemical properties
the reader is referred to Table 1.
According to European legislation, DMPP is recog-
nized as a new substance, and as such has been submit-
ted to extensive standard toxicology and ecotoxicology
tests (Andreae 1999; Roll 1999). None of these assays
have revealed toxicological or ecotoxicological side-
effects so far. Consequently, neither DMPP-containing
fertilizers nor liquid DMPP formulations as additives for
urea ammonium nitrate solution or slurry need to be
marked as hazardous substances (Andreae 1999; Roll
1999). DMPP has both been declared under the Chemi-
cals Act and been internationally registered according to
fertilizer law.

Table 1 Chemical structure, physical and chemical properties of
3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP)
81
Table 3 Inhibiting effect of DMPP compared to dicyandiamide
(DCD) (residual NH4+-N, relative to 8.7 mg NH4+-N in the form
of liquid pig manure; incubation experiment with Limburgerhof
soil: loamy sand; pH (CaCl2) 6.8; CEC 7.0 mEq 100 g soil1; Ct
0.8%; total N (Nt) 0.09%. For other abbreviations, see Tables 1
and 2

WAT DMPP DCD

0 0.385 0.77 0.96a 0 5 10 12.5a

(%)b

0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 68 93 100 100 68 79 83 93
2 1 39 73 76 3 18 37 47
3 0 0 54 52 0 0 18 22
4 0 0 15 32 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 4 16 0 0 0 0
a Application rate of mg DMPP 100 g soil1 projected to kg DMPP
ha1
b 8.7 mg NH +-N=100%
4

Thus, compared to DCD, a comparable if better inhi-

Table 2 Content of NH4+-N and NO3-N in soil (030 cm) after bition effect is achieved with less than one-tenth of the
application of ammonium sulphate nitrate (ASN) with DMPP com- application rate (Table 3). Therefore, mineral fertilizers
pared to ASN without DMPP [field trial in 1996 near Karlsruhe:
annual precipitation 740 mm year1; average air temperature
with DMPP contain only 1% active ingredient, based on
10.1C; sandy loam; pH (CaCl2) 6.5; total C (Ct) 0.8%; NH+4-N their NH4+-N or carbamide-N content.
and NO3-N before N application 11 kg ha1 and 13 kg ha1, re- As could be expected, the intensity of nitrification in-
spectively; N application 100 kg N ha1]. WAT Weeks after treat- hibition depends on environmental conditions. The peri-
ment od of time over which nitrification inhibitors are effec-
WAT Without N ASN ASN+DMPPa tive strongly depends on soil temperature (Vilsmeier
1980; Slangen and Kerkhoff 1984; Guiraud and Marol
NH4+-N NO3--N NH4+-N NO3-N NH4+-N NO3-N 1992). This also applies to DMPP.
Incubation studies at constant soil temperatures, using
(kg N ha1)
a loess loam without plants, have shown that at 5C there
2 9 9 52 40 142 47 was practically no nitrification of the NH4+ from ammo-
4 25 14 73 63 135 30 nium sulphate nitrate to which DMPP had been added,
6 10 12 73 70 96 33 whereas for the control fertilizer without DMPP nitrifi-
8 7 18 64 56 70 45 cation was completed within approximately 140 days. At
a 1% according to the NH +-N content of the basic fertilizer ASN
4
20C, and under otherwise unchanged conditions, nitrifi-
(18.5% NH4+-N, 7.5% NO3-N) cation for ammonium sulphate nitrate was completed
within 721 days, compared to 40 days with DMPP
(Table 4).
Properties of DMPP Independent of the results cited above, there are indi-
cations that several soil parameters directly influence the
DMPP is effective at very low rates. An application of efficiency of DMPP. However, a monocausal approach
0.51.5 kg DMPP ha1 (depending on the amount of ap- cannot give an explanation for the varying intensity of
plied N) is sufficient under field conditions to securely the inhibition effect of DMPP and other nitrification in-
inhibit nitrification over a period of 410 weeks hibitors. Only the simultaneous observation of several
(Table 2). The duration of action depends on climatic con- soil parameters can explain the intensity of inhibition of
ditions (Pasda et al. 2001), site characteristics (Barth et al. nitrification by DMPP. Barth et al. (2001) showed with
2001; Pasda et al. 2001) and probably the cultivated crop. multiple regression that the sand content, proton concen-
DMPP is formulated on fertilizer granules (average tration as well as microbiological parameters of soil,
diameter 3.03.6 mm) of straight N fertilizers (e.g. am- such as catalase activity, and the potential nitrification
monium sulphate nitrate: 18.5% NH4+-N, 75% NO3-N) capacity, seem to have a significant influence on the effi-
and multi-nutrient complex fertilizers (e.g. NPK, ciency of DMPP in soils (R2=0.70).
14:3.8:14.1 with 8.5% NH4+-N, 5.5% NO3-N) with an It could be shown, both in model experiments as well
NH4+ content >5560% of total fertilizer N. Granules are as in Mitscherlich pots (Table 5) and in lysimeter experi-
dissolved easily by rain, giving rise to a mosaic of NH4+ ments conducted under adverse environmental condi-
and DMPP concentrations in the topsoil. tions in Spain (Serna et al. 2000), that DMPP offers a
82
Table 4 Effect of DMPP on the amount of NH4+-N and NO3-N
in soil incubated at different temperatures (incubation experiment
with Hannover soil: loam; pH (CaCl2) 6.4; CEC 11.8 mEq 100 g
soil1; Ct 1.2%; Nt 0.14%; N application 10 mg 100 g soil1).
DAT Days after treatment; for other abbreviations, see Tables 1
and 2
Table 5 NO3 leaching under spinach after application of different
nitrification inhibitors [pot trial (four replicates) with Ruchheim soil:
loam; pH (CaCl2) 7.6; CEC 14 mEq 100 g soil1; Ct 1.2%; Nt 0.1%;
N application 0.75 g N pot1]. Values in a row followed by the same
letter do not differ significantly (Duncan's test, =5%). DAF Days
after fertilization; for other abbreviations, see Tables 1 and 2

Temperature DAT ASN ASN+DMPPa Irrigation Sampling ASN ASN+DMPPa ASN+DCDb

before date
NH4+-N NO3-N NH4+-N NO3-N sampling DAF (% of fertilized N)
(mm)
(mg pot1)
20 7 10.7 a 4.5 a 12.1 a
5C 7 4.7 3.2 5.2 2.6 10 18 8.3 a 2.6 b 3.5 b
5C 21 3.9 3.3 3.1 2.5 10 22 2.7 a 0.5 b 0.5 b
5C 42 2.8 3.6 4.3 3.1 40 21.7 a 7.6 b 16.1 ab
5C 63 2.9 5.0 3.7 2.9
5C 91 1.8 7.3 4.8 4.0 a 1.6% according to the NH +-N content of the basic fertilizer ASN
4
5C 140 0 9.1 4.1 4.1 (18.5% NH4+-N, 7.5% NO3-N)
10C 7 5.6 2.6 6.6 2.6 b 13% according to the NH +-N content of the basic fertilizer ASN
4
10C 21 4.1 5.2 5.1 3.2 (18.5% NH4+-N, 7.5% NO3-N)
10C 42 2.4 7.2 4.6 4.3
10C 63 0.9 7.1 3.8 4.1
10C 91 0 8.9 3.6 4.6
20C 7 2.5 7.1 4.9 3.8 emission of N2O considerably more than DCD, without
20C 21 0 10.2 4.4 5.1 having a negative effect on CH4 oxidation of the soil
20C 42 0 11.9 2.9 9.5 (Weiske et al. 2001). A decrease in C mineralization, as
20C 63 0 10.9 0.6 10.9
20C 91 0 11.7 0 10.2 was observed in these field experiments, could not be
confirmed in model experiments.
a1% according to the NH4+-N content of the basic fertilizer ASN Because of an effective and specific inhibition of ni-
(18.5% NH4-N, 7.5% NO3-N) tritation by DMPP, NH4+ was stabilized for a period of
several weeks of nitrification, but the addition of this ni-
trification inhibitor did not lead to higher NH3 losses
better protection against the risk of NO3 leaching than when compared to the control (Linzmeier et al. 1999).
does DCD. These results, however, may depend on soil properties
Pasda et al. (2001) found that the yield-increasing and the soil pH in particular.
effect of DMPP was stronger the lighter the soil and As the choice of a fertilizer is primarily a question of
the higher the amount of precipitation in the period cost, a nitrification inhibitor should offer practical ad-
JanuaryJuly. This relationship gives an indication of the vantages for the farmer in addition to the advantages
risk of potential NO3 leaching at a site. The higher this specified above.
risk, the greater the chance that the addition of a nitrifi- Frequently claimed advantages for the use of a fertil-
cation inhibitor will result in improved N efficiency and izer with nitrification inhibitors are increases in yields,
thus in a yield increase. the possibility of saving fertilizer N and reducing the
DMPP is not translocated within a slightly pseudo- number of fertilizer applications (Trenkel 1997; Wozniak
gleyic brown earth (FAO Gleyic Cambisol); only me- et al. 1997). These advantages have also been obtained
chanical incorporation into the ploughed soil layer by with the use of DMPP-containing fertilizers in numerous
soil tillage has been observed (Fettweis et al. 2001). experiments under western and southern European con-
Thus, there seems to be only little spatial separation of ditions (Ebertseder and Kurpjuweit 1999; Pasda et al.
the nitrification inhibitor from the fertilizer NH4+. The 1999, 2001; Hhndel and Zerulla 2000). For most crops,
risk of DMPP being leached into the groundwater seems significant yield increases compared to the control fertil-
to be very low. However, more research is required. In izer without nitrification inhibitor were obtained when
lysimeter studies, set up according to the guidelines of averaging the results of application-technology experi-
the German Federal Biological Research Centre for ments. The number of application rounds could always
Agriculture and Forestry (1990), using a slightly pseudo- be decreased. In many experiments with vegetables, the
gleyic brown earth from aeolic sand, conducted at the use of DMPP resulted in a reduced NO3 concentration
Jlich Research Centre over a 3-year period, no DMPP in the fresh matter, and plants frequently had a more in-
concentrations above the detection limit of 0.5 g l1 tense green colour. The positive effects of a DMPP ap-
could be found in the leachate (Fettweis et al. 2001). plication could be found even in perennial crops such as
An additional important environmental advantage of citrus fruits (Serna et al. 2000).
nitrification inhibitors can be seen in the repeatedly doc- DMPP proved to be highly plant compatible (no phy-
umented reduction of N2O losses after a N application totoxic damage). So far, there have been no reported
(Skiba et al. 1993; Anonymous 1996). It seems that field experiments in which the application of DMPP
DMPP is especially effective in this respect. At a loamy caused a phytotoxic reaction. Even an overdose of
soil site near Giessen, Germany, DMPP reduced the DMPP, achieved by applying eightfold the recommended

Fig. 2 Photograph showing compatibility of DCD and DMPP
with lettuce plants. Left DCD dose eightfold the recommended
concentration, right DMPP dose eightfold the recommended con-
centration
application rate, did not lead to any symptoms in the
plants, whereas an overdose of DCD caused pronounced
symptoms (Fig. 2). When residues were analysed with
extremely rare exceptions only traces of DMPP could
be detected in plants such as winter wheat, potatoes, let-
tuce and red cabbage, while DCD seems liable to be tak-
en up by plants at higher concentrations (Reeves and
Touchton 1986). More broad-scale research is required
with a great variety of crops in order to confirm the re-
sults obtained so far.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Federal
Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology, Bonn,
Germany, for supporting the project "koeffiziente Dnger Ent-
wicklung zur Minimierung von Stickstoffemissionen in Wasser
und Luft.
References
Andreae M (1999) ENTEC (DMPP) ein neuer Ammonium-
stabilisator: kotoxikologische Bewertung. In: BASF AG (ed)
Dngen mit einer neuen Technologie Innovation in der Dn-
gung ENTEC. Proceedings of a scientific colloquium, 1718
May 1999, BASF Agricultural Center Limburgerhof. BASF,
Limburgerhof, pp 4549
Anonymous (1996) Erfahrungen mit dem Einsatz von Nitri-
fikationsinhibitoren bezglich ihres mglichen Einflusses auf
die Vitalitt von Bodenorganismen und auf die Bildung klima-
relevanter Spurengase wie N2O. Drucksache 239/96 des
Bundesrates der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bundesanzeiger
Verlagsgesellschaft, Bonn
Auernhammer H (1997) Precision agriculture: European concepts
and realities. International Fertilizer Industry Association
Agro-Economics Commitee on Plant Nutrition in 2000. Inter-
national Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris
Barth, G, Tucher S von, Schmidthalter U (2001) Influence of soil
parameters on the effect of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate as
nitrification inhibitor. Biol Fertil Soils (in press)
Bhargava BS, Ghosh AB (1979) Effect of biuret content in urea on
its nitrification in soil. Indian J Agron 21:7677
Bremner JM, McCarty GW (1993) Inhibition of nitrification in
soil by allelochemicals derived from plants and plant residues.
83
In: Bollag JM, Stotzky G (eds) Soil biochemistry, vol 8.
Dekker, New York, pp 181218
Bremner JM, Yeomans JC (1987) Effects of nitrification inhibitors
on denitrification of nitrate in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 2:173179
Dachler M (1993) Die Wirkung dicyandiamidhaltiger Stickstoff-
dnger zu Hackfrchten. 2. Mitteilung: die Wirkung bei
Krnermais und Kartoffeln. Bodenkultur 44:119125
Domsch KH, Paul W (1974) Simulation and experimental analysis
of the influence of herbicides on soil nitrification. Arch Micro-
biol 97:283301
Ebertseder T, Kurpjuweit H (1999) Bewertung der Arbeits-
ersparnis durch den Einsatz von ENTEC-Dngern. In: BASF
AG (ed) Dngen mit einer neuen Technologie Innovation in
der Dngung ENTEC. Proceedings of a Scientific Colloquium
1718 May 1999, BASF Agricultural Center Limburgerhof.
BASF, Limburgerhof, pp 8387
Federal Biological Reserch Centre for Agriculture and Forestry
(1990) Richtlinie fr die Prfung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln
im Zulassungsverfahren, Teil IV 43, Lysimeteruntersuchungen
zur Verlagerung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln. Saphir, Ribbes-
bttel, Germany
Fettweis U, Mittelstaedt W, Schimansky C, Fhr F (2001) Lysime-
ter studies on the translocation of the 14C-labelled nitrification
inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole-phosphate in a gleyic ambisol.
Biol Fertil Soils (in press)
Goring CAI (1962a) Control of nitrification by 2-chloro-6-
(trichloromethyl)-pyridine. Soil Sci 93:431439
Goring CAI (1962b) Control of nitrification of ammonium fertiliz-
ers and urea by 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)-pyridine. Soil Sci
93:211218
Guiraud G, Marol C (1992) Influence of temperature on mineral-
ization kinetics with a nitrification inhibitor (mixture of dicy-
andiamide and ammonium thiosulphate). Biol Fertil Soils 13:15
Hhndel R, Zerulla W (2000) Wirkung auf Ertrag und Qualitt
von Gemse bei ENTEC-Dngung. Gemse 36(3):1316
Hauck RD (1980) Mode of action of nitrification inhibitors. In:
Stelly M, Meisinger JJ, Randall GW, Vitosh ML (eds) Nitrifi-
cation inhibitors potentials and limitations. Special publica-
tion no. 38. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis.,
pp 1932
Hauck RD (1984) Nitrification inhibitors potentials and limita-
tions. VDLUFA-Schriftenr 11:921
Jung J, Dressel J (1978) Umsetzungsvorgnge und Inhibie-
rungsmglichkeiten bei Boden- und Dngerstickstoff. Land-
wirtsch Forsch Sonderh 34(II):7489
Knig O (1983) Nitrifizide Mittel zur Steigerung der Effektivitt
der Stickstoffdngung. Spez Agrochem 12:15
Linzmeier W, Schmidhalter U, Gutser R (1999) Wirkung von
DMPP auf Nitrifkation und N-Verluste (Nitrat, NH3, N2O) von
Dngerstickstoff im Vergleich zu DCD. VDLUFA-Schriftenr
Kongressband 1999 52:485488
Linzmeier W, Gutser R, Schmidhalter U (2001) Nitrous oxide
emission from soil and from a 15N-labelled fertilizer with the
new nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate
(DMPP). Biol Fertil Soils (in press)
McCarty GW (1999) Modes of action of nitrification inhibitors.
Biol Fertil Soils 29:19
McCarty GW, Bremner MB (1989) Inhibition of nitrification in
soil by heterocyclic nitrogen compounds. Fert Res 8:204211
Michel HJ, Wozniak H (1998) Dngung, Nitrifikation und Deni-
trifikation aus der Sicht klimarelevanter Gasemissionen ein
berblick. Agribiol Res 51:311
Munzert M (1984) Freilandversuche mit Alzon zu Kartoffeln.
VDLUFA-Schriftenr 11:231238
Pasda G, Zerulla W, Hhndel R, Knittel H (1999) Einflu von
DMPP auf Ertrag und Qualitt verschiedener land-
wirtschaftlicher und grtnerischer Kulturen auf unterschied-
lichen Standorten Europas. VDLUFA-Schriftenr Kongress-
band 1999 52:497500
Pasda G, Hhndel R, Zerulla W (2001) Effect of fertilizers with
the new nitrification inhibitor DMPP (=3,4-dimethylpyrazole
phosphate) on yield and quality of agricultural and horticultu-
ral crops. Biol Fertil Soils (in press)
84
Prasad R, Power JF (1995) Nitrification inhibitors for agriculture,
health and the environment. Adv Agron 54:233281
Prasad R, Reddy RNS (1977) Effects of sulpha drugs on nitrifica-
tion of urea in the soil. Plant Soil 48:1118
Reeves DW, Touchton JT (1986) Relative phytotoxicity of dicyan-
diamide and availability of its nitrogen to cotton, corn, and
grain sorghum. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:13531357
Roll R (1999) Zur Toxikologie von DMPP. In: BASF AG (ed)
Dngen mit einer neuen Technologie Innovation in der
Dngung ENTEC. Proceedings of a Scientific Colloquium
1718 May 1999, BASF Agricultural Center, Limburgerhof.
Scientific, pp 3944
Scheffer B, Bartels R (1998) Kann durch Einsatz stabilisierter
N-Dnger der Nitrataustrag aus einem Sandboden verringert
werden? VDLUFA-Schriftenr Kongressband 1998 49:633636
Serna MD, Nanuls J, Quinones A, Primo-Millo E, Legaz F (2000)
Evaluation of 3,4-dimentylphyrazole phosphate as a nitrifica-
tion inhibitor in a Citrus-cultivated soil. Biol Fertil Soils
32:4247
Skiba V, Smith KA, Fowler D (1993) Nitrification and denitrifica-
tion as sources of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide in a sandy
loam soil. Soil Biol Biochem 25:15271536
Slangen JHG, Kerkhoff P (1984) Nitrification inhibitors in agri-
culture and horticulture: a literature review. Fert Res 5:176
Solansky S (1982) N-Stabilisator SKW-DIDIN verbessert die
Stickstoffwirkung der Glle. Blickfeld 61:14
Spanakakis A, Viedt A (1990) Performance of winter wheat culti-
vars under reduced nitrogen conditions. In: El Bassam N,
Dambroth M, Loughman BC (eds) Genetic aspects of plant
mineral nutrition. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 465473
Teske W, Matzel W (1988) Die Beeinflussung der nitrifikations-
hemmenden Wirkung von Dicyandiamid durch Abbau und
Verlagerung im Boden. Arch Acker Pflanzenbau Bodenkd
32:241246
Timmermann F, Schtig H (1984) Einflu von Nitrifikationsinhibi-
toren auf Umsetzung, Verlagerung und Aufnahme von Stick-
stoff nach Dngung mit verschiedenen Gllen. VDLUFA-
Schriftenr 11:258271
Trenkel M (1997) Improving fertilizer use efficiency controlled-
release and stabilized fertilizers in agriculture. International
Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris
Vilsmeier K (1980) Dicyandiamidabbau im Boden in Abhngig-
keit von der Temperatur. Z Pflanzenernaehr Bodenkd 143:
113118
Weiske A, Benckiser G, Herbert T, Ottow JCG (2001) Influence
of the nitrification inhibitor 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate
(DMPP) in comparison to dicyandiamide (DCD) on nitrous
oxide emissions, carbon dioxide fluxes and methane oxidation
during 3 years of repeated application in field experiments.
Biol Fertil Soils (in press)
Wiesler F (1998) Comparative assessment of efficacy of various
nitrogen fertilizers. J Crop Prod 1:81114
Wilson DO (1977a) Nitrification in soil treated with domestic and
industrial sewage sludge. Environ Pollut 12:7382
Wilson DO (1977b) Nitrification in three soils amended with zinc
sulphate. Soil Biol Biochem 9:277280
Winley CL, San Clemente CL (1971) The effect of two herbicides
(CIPC and eptam) on oxidative phosphorylation by Nitrobac-
ter agilis. Can Microbiol 17:4751
Wollring J, Reusch S, Karlsson C (1998) Variable nitrogen appli-
cation based on crop sensing. The International Fertilizer Soci-
ety, York, UK, Proceed 423, 28 p
Wozniak H, Fuchs M, Michel HJ (1997) N-Stabilisierung
Untersuchungn zum Einsatz von Nitrifikationshemmern in
landwirtschaftlichen Kulturen. VDLUFA-Schriftenr Kongress-
band 1997 46:807810
Zerulla W, Lutz HJ (1992) Impact of different N-forms on yield,
N-recovery, N-balance and the Nmin-content in the soil after
harvest in long-term field trials. In: Francois E, Pithan K,
Bartiaux-Thill N (eds) Nitrogen cycling and leaching in cool
and wet regions of Europe. Proceedings of a workshop, 2223
October 1992, Gembloux, Belgium. European Cooperation in
the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST), Brus-
sels, pp 7778