4.7 Article

Quantifying the effect of nitrogen on productivity of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) pastures

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 63-69

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2008.07.008

关键词

Cocksfoot; Dactylis glomerata L.; Nitrogen; Nitrogen nutrition index; Orchardgrass; Radiation use efficiency; Thermal time; Water use efficiency

类别

资金

  1. AGMARDT
  2. Lincoln University
  3. Cocksfoot Growers Association
  4. Meat & Wool New Zealand Ltd

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inorganic nitrogen fertilisers are commonly applied to crops and pastures to increase or maintain productivity. The benefits of N application must be balanced with the potential for environmental damage. At Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand a split plot experiment with two irrigation levels (irrigated and dryland) and two N fertiliser application rates (0 and 800 kg N/ha/y (2003/2004) or 1600 kg N/ha/y (2004/2005) was established on a 9-year-old cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) dominant pasture to validate the N dilution curve for temperate grass species. The extent of N deficiency of pastures which had suboptimal N was quantified by calculation of a ratio between measured N% of herbage and optimum N% from the N dilution Curve. The N dilution curve had the form N% = 4.8 DM-0.35 (R-2 = 0.65) and the NNI ranged from a maximum of 1.2, which indicated luxury uptake, to a minimum of 0.2, which has been proposed as the minimum NNI required to result in net growth. When moisture was adequate for growth, the main cause of yield differences between +N and -N pastures was radiation use efficiency with -N pastures producing 0.54 g DM/MJ PAR in spring or less than half that of +N pastures (1.16g DM/MJ PAR). The intrinsic link between water availability and N uptake in dryland and irrigated pastures was explained (R-2 = 0.88) by the relationship between the water use efficiency and N uptake ratio. Periods of low N uptake (N deficiency) were associated with low water use efficiency. (C) 2008 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