4.5 Article

Nitrous oxide emissions in a winter wheat - summer maize double cropping system under different tillage and fertilizer management

期刊

SOIL USE AND MANAGEMENT
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 98-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sum.12170

关键词

Conventional tillage; no-tillage; nitrous oxide emission; urea; straw retained; manure

资金

  1. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [40471110, 41171390, 41401591]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB417004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate estimation of nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from 110 million ha of upland in China is essential for the adoption of effective mitigation strategies. In this study, the effects of different tillage practices combined with nitrogen (N) fertilizer applications on N2O emission in soils were considered for a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) - summer maize (Zea mays L.) double cropping system. Treatments included conventional tillage plus urea in split application (CTF1), conventional tillage with urea in a single application (CTF2), no-tillage with straw retained plus reduced urea in a split application (NTSF1) and no-tillage with manure plus reduced urea in a split application (NTMF1). The amounts of N input in each treatment were 285 and 225kg N/ha for wheat and maize, respectively. Both NTSF1 and NTMF1 were found to reduce chemical N fertilizer rates by 33.3% (wheat) and 20% (maize), respectively, compared to CTF1 and CTF2. N2O emissions varied between 3.2 (NTSF1) and 9.9 (CTF2) kg N2O-N/ha during the wheat season and between 7.6 (NTFS1) and 14.0 (NTMF1) kg N2O-N/ha during the maize season. The yield-based emission factors ranged from 21.9 (NTSF1) to 60.9 (CTF2) g N2O-N/kgN for wheat and 92.5 (NTSF1) to 157.4 (NTMF1) g N2O-N/kgN for maize. No significant effect of the treatments on crop yield was found. In addition to reducing production costs involved in land preparation, NTSF1 was shown to decrease chemical fertilizer input and mitigate N2O emissions while sustaining crop yield.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据