Advertisement

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 75, Issue 1–3, pp 15–27 | Cite as

Crop 15N recovery course affected by spatial distribution of animal slurries in soils

  • J. Petersen
Article

Abstract

Crop response to applied nitrogen in animal slurry as affected by distribution pattern and slurry type was examined in spring barley using two slurries enriched with isotopic nitrogen (15N). The slurries differing in immobilisation potential were either fully incorporated in the soil or injected in concentrated bands in two fields of low and high fertility caused by the preceding crop. Band-injection of slurry was combined with furrow type formed by different injector tines as well as the distance between the slurry band and seed row. Spring barley was sampled nine times during the season for determination of dry matter (DM) accumulation, total nitrogen (N) uptake and crop recovery of applied nitrogen (15N recovery). A sigmoid growth function was fitted to the recorded crop 15N recovery. A slurry band to crop row (SB-CR) distance of 4 cm clearly promoted crop 15N recovery by 6–12 days and increased total N-uptake and DM accumulation compared with a SB-CR distance of 12 cm. In contrast, the furrow type neither affected the crop 15N recovery course, total N-uptake, nor DM accumulation. An elevated immobilisation potential in the slurry slowed the 15N recovery course. In contrast, crop 15N crop recovery was unaffected by the residual effect of the preceding crop. The elevated immobilisation potential of the slurry also reduced the DM accumulation, but the mineralisation potential of the preceding crop clearly increased total N-uptake and DM accumulation. As the SB-CR distance had a significant effect, this should be taken into account in agroecological systems using application of animal slurry in bands by direct injection.

Keywords

Immobilisation Soil fertility 15N recovery Direct injection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the technical team at the department lead by head laboratory assistant Karin Dyrberg for invaluable assistance during the experiment and for preparing the samples for analysis. Linguist M. Schacht has contributed with valuable comments to the manuscript. The experimental work was funded by the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agro Business (project BÆR98–5).

References

  1. Carter M.R., Rennie D.A. (1984). Crop utilization of placed and broadcast 15N-urea fertilizer under zero and conventional tillage. Can. J. Soil Sci. 64:563–570Google Scholar
  2. Christensen B.T. (2004). Tightening the Nitrogen Cycle. In: Schønning P., Elmholt S., Christensen B.T. (eds) Managing Soil Quality – Challenges in Modem Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 47–67Google Scholar
  3. Bennie A.T.P. (1996). Growth and mechanical impedance. In: Waisel Y., Eshel A., Kafkafi U. (eds) Plant Roots: The Hidden Half, 2nd ed. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 453–470Google Scholar
  4. Hartman M.D., Nyborg M. (1989). Effect of early growing season moisture stress on barley utilization of broadcast-incorporated and deep-banded urea. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69:381–389Google Scholar
  5. Huhtapalo Å. 1982. Scandinavian principles for fertilizer placement. Utilization of fertilizer-N. The 9th Conference of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization, ISTRO, Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Osijek 1982. pp. 669–674.Google Scholar
  6. IAEA (1976). Tracer manual on crops and soils. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. Iqbal M., Marley S.J., Erbach D.C., Kaspar T.C. (1998). An evaluation of seed furrow smearing. Trans. ASAE 41: 1243–1248Google Scholar
  8. Jensen E.S. (1991). Evaluation of automated analysis of 15N and total N in plant material and soil. Plant Soil 133:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirchmann H., Lundvall A. (1993). Relationship between N immobilization and volatile fatty acids in soil after application of pig slurry and cattle slurry. Biol. Fertil. Soils 15:161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lancashire P.D., Bleiholder H., Boom T. van den, Langelüddeke P., Stauss R., Weber E., Witzenberger A. (1991). A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann. Apple Biol. 119: 561–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lyngstad L. 1977. Radgjødsling til korn. Forsøk i perioden 1966–1975. Norges landbrukshøgskole, Institutt for jord-kultur, Melding nr. 89. Forskning og forsøg i landbruket 28: 159–177. (In Norwegian only)Google Scholar
  12. Malhi S.S., Nyborg M. (1991). Recovery of 15N-labelled urea: influence of zero tillage, and time and method of application. Fert. Res. 28:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malhi S.S., Nyborg M., Solberg E.D. (1989). Recovery of 15N-labelled urea as influenced by straw addition and method of placement. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69:543–550Google Scholar
  14. Malhi S.S., Nyborg M., Solberg E.D. (1996). Influence of source, method of placement and simulated rainfall on the recovery of 15N-labelled fertilizer under zero tillage. Can. J. Soil Sci. 76:93–100Google Scholar
  15. Olsen H.J. (1988). Electronic penetrometer for field tests. J. Terramech. 25: 287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petersen J. (2001). Recovery of 15N-ammonium−15N-nitrate in spring wheat as affected by placement geometry of the fertilizer band. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 61:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petersen J. (2005a). Inter-row crop competition for band-injected ammonium nitrate. Plant Soil 270: 83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petersen J. (2005b). Competition between weeds and spring wheat for 15N-labelled nitrogen applied in pig slurry. Weed Res. 45: 103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petersen S.O., Nissen H.H., Lund I., Ambus P. (2003). Redistribution of Slurry Components as Influenced by Injection Method, Soil, and Slurry Properties. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 2399–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rasmussen K., Rasmussen J., Petersen J. (1996). Effects of fertilizer placement on weeds in weed harrowed in spring barley. Acta Agric. Scand. Sec. B, Soil Plant Sci. 46: 192–196Google Scholar
  21. Sommer S.G., Husted S. (1995). The chemical buffer system in raw and digested animal slurry. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 124: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sommer S.G., Hutchings N.J. and Carton O.T. 2001. Ammonia losses from field applied animal manure. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Report no. 60, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Søgaard H.T., Sommer S.G., Hutchings N.J., Huijsmans J.F.M., Bussink D.W., Nicholson F. (2002). Ammonia volatilization from field-applied animal slurry – the ALFAM model. Atmos. Environ. 36: 3309–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sørensen P. (1998). Carbon mineralization, nitrogen immobilization and pH change in soil after adding volatile fatty acids. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49: 457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sørensen P., Jensen E.S. (1995). Mineralization-immobilization and plant uptake of nitrogen as influenced by the spatial distribution of cattle slurry in soils of different texture. Plant Soil 173: 283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sørensen P., Jensen E.S. (1998). The use of 15N labelling to study the turnover and utilization of ruminant manure N. Biol. Fert. Soils 28: 56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomar J.S., Soper R.J. (1981). Fate of Tagged Urea N in the Field with Different Methods of N and Organic Matter Placement. Agron. J. 73: 991–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tomar J.S., Soper R.J. (1987). Fate of 15N-labeled urea in the growth chamber as affected by added organic matter and N placement. Can. J. Soil Sci. 67: 639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams A.G. (1983). Organic Acids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Chemical Oxygen Demand in the Soluble Fraction of Piggery Slurry. J. Sci. Food Agric. 34: 212–220Google Scholar
  30. Yin X., Goudriaan J., Lantinga E.A., Vos J., Spiertz H.J. (2003). A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth. Ann. Bot. 91: 361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AgroecologyDanish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre FoulumTjeleDenmark

Personalised recommendations