4.7 Article

How do different nitrogen application levels and irrigation practices impact biological nitrogen fixation and its distribution in paddy system?

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 467, 期 1-2, 页码 329-344

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-021-05093-7

关键词

Biological nitrogen fixation; nifH gene; N-15 direct labelling; Nitrogen fertilizer; Irrigation practices

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31870500, 41501273]
  2. Special Project on the Basis of the National Science and Technology of China [2015FY110700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that high nitrogen application levels significantly reduced the amount of biological nitrogen fixation in paddy systems, while intermittent irrigation promoted the utilization of fixed nitrogen.
Background and aims Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in paddy systems is impacted by nitrogen application levels and irrigation strategies, but the extent to which these factors influence BNF and its distribution in soil and rice is largely unclear. This study investigates this influence. Methods An airtight, transparent growth chamber based N-15-labelling system was used to investigate how different nitrogen application levels (0, 125, 187.5 and 250 kg N ha(-1)) and irrigation strategies (flooding irrigation or intermittent irrigation) impact the amount of BNF and its distribution in soil and rice. Results Nitrogen application at 125-250 kg N ha(-1) reduced the amount of BNF by 81-86%. The inhibition effect of nitrogen application on BNF at a soil depth of 1-15 cm was greater than that at 0-1 cm. Relative to the continuous flooding irrigation, intermittent irrigation enhanced rice growth and promoted the transfer of fixed nitrogen from 0-1 cm soil layer to rice, but it did not change the total amount of BNF. Conclusions This study indicated that BNF supplied little nitrogen for rice production at the high nitrogen application levels, but the intermittent irrigation could promote utilization of biologically fixed nitrogen.

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

4.7
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