Furrow Irr Igation and N Management Strategies to Protect Water Quality

Lehrsch, G.A.; Sojka, R.E.; Westermann, D. T.

doi:10.1081/css-100104102

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding was consistent across both row spacings because row spacing did not significantly alter this interaction (Table 2). Lehrsch et al (2001) found that NO 3 –N in soil profiles to a depth of 0.9 m under corn rows was least in 1989 where N was banded, rather than broadcast, and where the nonfertilized furrow was irrigated, also suggesting a greater N use efficiency under these conditions. Where N was broadcast into the N‐depleted profile in 1989 and the same furrow was irrigated, the root development (and to a limited degree, the N uptake via mass flow) may have been inhibited in relatively dry soil under the nonirrigated furrow.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…From these N‐depleted profiles in 1989, soil N may not have been scavenged efficiently in 0.56‐m plots because the roots were likely concentrated under each pair of 0.56‐m rows, and thus were relatively sparse between each pair of 0.56‐m rows (Fig. 2) Alternatively, the closer proximity of the irrigation furrows to the N fertilizer in 0.56‐m rows may have led to more leaching of both the fertilizer and limited residual soil N in the 1989 profiles (Lehrsch et al, 2001) The generally 35% larger irrigations in 1989 than in 1988 (Fig. 3) may have sufficiently increased NO 3 –N leaching under the 0.56‐m rows to reduce the yield in 1989 but not in 1988 (Table 4).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were 119 kg ha −1 NO 3 –N in the upper 0.45 m shortly before planting in 1988, but in 1989, there were 66 kg ha −1 NO 3 –N in the plots that were fertilized the year before and only 31 kg ha −1 NO 3 –N in those that were not fertilized the year before. Also, fertilizer and soil N was leached from the developing corn's root system (Lehrsch et al, 2001) by the two relatively large, early season irrigations in 1989 (Fig. 3) The soil N data will soon be reported in more detail (Lehrsch et al, 2001)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, fertilizer and soil N was leached from the developing corn's root system (Lehrsch et al, 2001) by the two relatively large, early season irrigations in 1989 (Fig. 3) The soil N data will soon be reported in more detail (Lehrsch et al, 2001)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

gation management can also lessen NO 3 -N leaching (Robbins and Carter, 1980). Irrigation must be managed Furrow irrigation often leaches NO 3 -N. We hypothesized that carefully to maximize N fertilizer use efficiency and banding and sidedressing N fertilizer on a nonirrigated side of a minimize NO 3 -N leaching, particularly where N fertilcorn (Zea mays L.) row would maintain yield and decrease NO 3 -N leaching. In a 2-yr field study in southern Idaho on a Portneuf silt izer at nominal, economic rates is sidedressed near corn loam (coarse silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Durinodic Xeric Haplo- (Russelle et al., 1981). For irrigated corn production in calcid), we evaluated the effects of (i) N placement (broadcast vs. eastern Nebraska, sidedressing N at the eight-leaf banded), (ii) row spacing (0.76 m vs. a modified 0.56 m), and (iii) growth stage held mineral N (NO 3 -N ϩ NH 4 -N) in irrigation water positioning (applying water to the same side or alterthe upper portion of an irrigated, fertile silty clay loam nating sides of a row with successive irrigations) on field corn yield (Russelle et al., 1981). It may be possible to band and and N uptake. We irrigated every second furrow nine times in 1988 and later sidedress N fertilizer on a nonirrigated, or dry seven times in 1989. Compared with broadcasting, banding maintained furrow, side of a corn (or other crop) row and then grain yield in 1988 and increased it by 11% in 1989. Where N was irrigate the other side (Fig. 1) to reduce leaching by banded in 0.56-m rows in 1989, silage yield when only the nonfertilizedminimizing the contact between the applied N and the furrow was irrigated was 22.9 Mg ha Ϫ1 , which was 22% greater than when alternating furrows were irrigated. Compared with 0.56-m rows,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the spatial separation of water and fertilizer can reduce N leaching (Kemper et al, 1975; Xing et al, 2002). Lehrsch et al (2001) and Skinner et al (1998, 1999) have demonstrated that N leaching can be reduced by applying N fertilizer to the unirrigated furrow under fixed partial root‐zone irrigation. Computer simulations by Benjamin et al (1997) predicted that less N movement into deeper soil layers would occur if alternate furrow irrigation was managed with N fertilizer placement in the unirrigated furrow.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Furrow Irrigation and Nitrogen Application on Summer Maize

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficient use of water and N represents a primary concern to agricultural production in Northwest China. The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of irrigation and fertilization on water and N use, soil volatilized NH 3 , soil NO 3 leaching, and NO 3 transfer in soil profiles. A 2-yr field experiment was conducted to assess the separation of N fertilizer and water with alternating furrow irrigation (SNWAFI) and conventional irrigation and fertilization (CIF) in a maize (Zea mays L.) production system. The yields with SNWAFI were 10 to 16% greater than with CIF. Compared with CIF, SNWAFI increased water use efficiencies (WUEs) by 13 to 33%, agronomic efficiency of fertilizer N by 36 to 56%, and NO 3 --N in the upper soil layers (0-60 cm) by 30 to 60%. However, SNWAFI reduced NO 3 --N in the deeper soil layers (60-200 cm) by 8 to 44% compared with CIF. The use of SNWAFI also decreased soil NH 3 emission with the combination with lower irrigation (40 mm) and N rate (100 kg N ha -1 ), which indicated that SNWAFI emitted less soil NH 3 than CIF. Therefore, compared with CIF, SNWAFI increased maize yield WUE and N use efficiency, reduced N leaching, and curtailed soil NH 3 loss with appropriate irrigation and N rates. The use of SNWAFI, leading to better spatial management of irrigation water and N application, can provide both agronomic and environmental benefits.

show abstract

Separating nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water application in an alternating furrow irrigation system for maize production

Han

Zhou

et al. 2013

Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Furrow Irr Igation and N Management Strategies to Protect Water Quality

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

Management of Furrow Irrigation and Nitrogen Application on Summer Maize

Separating nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water application in an alternating furrow irrigation system for maize production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About