4.7 Article

Optimizing nitrogen input to reduce nitrate leaching loss in greenhouse vegetable production

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 53-59

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.05.003

关键词

Nitrate leaching; Environmental consequence; Nitrogen fertilizer; Lysimeter method; Nitrogen management; Intensive production

资金

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201003014-1]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China-Japan Science and Technology Agency (NSFC-JST) Major International Joint Research Project [30821140542]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overuse or misuse of nitrogen (N) fertilizers in intensive greenhouse vegetable production regions has been recognized as a non-point source pollution to environmental quality. The objectives of this study were to study the potential of N leaching in intensive greenhouse vegetable systems of southern China and to investigate strategies in minimizing the impact of N loss on water quality. A consecutive four-year field experiment was conducted with five N (manure + urea) application rates (234 + 0, 234 + 348, 234 + 522, 234 + 696, and 234 + 870 kg N ha(-1) a(-1)) in a tomato, cucumber, and celery annual rotation system. The results demonstrated that the amount of N leached was 181.6-276.9 kg N ha(-1) a(-1) under traditional N rates of 1104 kg N ha(-1) a(-1) used by local farmers; this leaching loss mainly occurred during the open-field (the polyethylene-cover was not in use) periods. The leached water flux and the total N concentration in the leachates determined by a lysimeter were 205.1-288.4 mm a(-1) and 36.6-171.1 mg L-1 under the traditional N rate, respectively; the flux produced during the open-field was 40.9-58.9% of that for the whole year. By decreasing traditional N rate of synthetic fertilizer by 40%, N leaching loss was reduced by 39.6% without any yield loss in intensive greenhouse vegetable production systems. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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