4.5 Article

Nitrogen fertilization and nitrate leaching into groundwater on arable sandy soils

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 169, 期 2, 页码 185-195

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.200521765

关键词

N fertilization; soil N-min; nitrate leaching; nitrate concentrations; catch crops

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrate leaching depending on N fertilization and different crop rotations was studied at two sites with sandy soils in N Germany between 1995 and 2000. The leaching of NO3- was calculated by using a numerical soil-water and N model and regularly measured N-min values as input data. Also the variability of N-min values on the sandy soils was determined along transects. They reveal the high variability of the N-min values and show that it is not possible to confirm a significant N-min difference between fertilizer treatments using the normal N-min-sampling intensity. Nitrate-leaching calculations of five leaching periods showed that even strongly reduced N-fertilizer applications did not result in a substantially lower NO3- leaching into the groundwater. Strong yield reductions of even more than 50%, however, were immediately measured. Mean NO3- concentrations in the groundwater recharge are > 50 mg L-1 and are mainly due to mineralization from soil organic matter. Obviously, the adjustment of the N cycle in the soil to a new equilibrium and a reduced NO3--leaching rate as a consequence of lower N inputs need a much longer time span. Catch crops are the most efficient way to reduce the NO3- concentrations in the groundwater recharge of sandy soils. Their success, however, strongly depends on the site-specific development possibilities of the catch crop. Even with all possible measures implemented, it will be almost impossible to reach NO3- concentrations < 50 mg L-1 in sandy soils. The only way to realize this goal on a regional scale could be by increasing areas with lower nitrate concentrations in the groundwater recharge like grassland and forests.

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