4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Predicting the site specific soil N supply under winter wheat in Germany

期刊

NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS
卷 110, 期 1, 页码 71-81

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10705-017-9850-1

关键词

Soil; Recommendations; Management; Nitrogen; Economic optimum; Net N mineralization

资金

  1. Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt'' (German Federal Environmental Foundation), Osnabruck

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The expected amount of plant nitrogen (N) at harvest which originates from soil N supply is of high relevance for N fertilization planning. Due to mineralization-immobilisation turnover processes, soil N supply is influenced by N fertilization which complicates its assessment. The soil N supply consists of two components: the soil mineral N measured at early spring and the 'effective' N mineralization (Min(eff)) under winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Min(eff) was defined as the difference between crop N uptake (N-crop) at harvest and N supply. Our aim was the identification and quantification of climate and site-related factors in order to achieve an improved assessment of the site-specific (long term average) Min(eff). We used N rate experiments from 411 collective seasons, carried out at 98 sites across Germany in order to analyze the impact of climate and site-related factors on Min(eff). Quadratic curves were fitted in order to describe the grain N uptake as a function of N supply. A fixed marginal N efficiency was defined in order to analyze Min(eff) at a reasonable N supply. Starting with estimates for Min(eff) as function of preceding crop, we found that climate (average temperature during May, annual rainfall) and site-related factors have a significant influence on Min(eff). In order to ensure that the regression model is transferable to unknown sites, a leave one site out cross validation was carried out. Compared to considering preceding crop only (reference), the regression model reduced the RMSE by 9.5 (calibration) or 8.3 (cross validation) kg N/ha.

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

4.4
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