Nitrogen recovery and agronomic efficiency of forages with nitrogen fertilization under flooded condition

Sigua, Gilbert C.; Williams, M. J.; Chase, C. C.; Grabowski, Janet; Kongchum, Manoch

doi:10.4236/as.2013.43021

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In treatments that received no rescue N applications, waterlogging reduced ARE by 21% compared to non-waterlogged treatments in 2013 ( Figure 6). Previous studies have observed a decrease in ARE due to waterlogging [54,55]. Sigua et al (2013) found that ARE was reduced for two of three forage species studied in a greenhouse due to continuous waterlogging for 84 days [55].…”

Section: Apparent N Recovery Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Previous studies have observed a decrease in ARE due to waterlogging [54,55]. Sigua et al (2013) found that ARE was reduced for two of three forage species studied in a greenhouse due to continuous waterlogging for 84 days [55]. Similarly, Ren et al (2017) reported that waterlogging for six days at V3 reduced corn N use efficiency by 19% which resulted in lower corn yields due to inhibition of N transport and assimilation [22].…”

Section: Apparent N Recovery Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early-Season Soil Waterlogging and N Fertilizer Sources Impacts on Corn N Uptake and Apparent N Recovery Efficiency

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil waterlogging resulting from extreme precipitation events creates anaerobic conditions that may inhibit plant growth and increase N losses. A three-year (2013)(2014)(2015) field experiment was conducted in poorly-drained claypan soils to assess the effects of waterlogging [0 or 7-days waterlogging at V3 growth stage of corn (Zea mays L.)] and pre-plant application of different N fertilizer sources and post-waterlogging rescue N application (0 or 84 kg N ha −1 of urea plus urease inhibitor (NCU + UI) at V7) on chlorophyll SPAD meter (CM) readings, stomatal conductance, ear leaf and silage N concentrations, N uptake and apparent N recovery efficiency (ARE) of two corn hybrids with varying amounts of flood tolerance. Pre-plant N fertilizer sources included a non-treated control (CO), urea (NCU), urea plus nitrification inhibitor (NCU + NI) and polymer coated urea (PCU) applied at 168 kg N ha −1 . In 7-days waterlogged plots, rescue N applications increased N uptake in PCU treatments 33% and 40% in 2013 and 2014, respectively, as well as in NCU by 48% in 2013. In 7-days waterlogged plots which received rescue N applications, NCU and PCU in 2013 resulted in higher N uptake than CO and NCU + NI by 47 to 77 kg ha −1 . PCU had higher N uptake than NCU and NCU + NI by 78 and 72 kg ha −1 in 7-days waterlogged plots that received rescue N applications in 2014. Corn hybrid showed no differences in N uptake and ARE in our study. Our results indicate combining pre-plant N fertilizer source selection and rescue N applications may be a strategy to reduce possible decreases in corn N uptake caused by early season soil waterlogging in average rainfall years.

show abstract

Section: Apparent N Recovery Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Apparent N Recovery Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 91%

Early-Season Soil Waterlogging and N Fertilizer Sources Impacts on Corn N Uptake and Apparent N Recovery Efficiency

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computation of water and nitrogen productivity (WP and NP): Water productivity [WP (kg mm -1 )] was calculated by the dividing the linseed yield by the total water used (sum of applied water and effective rainfall), whereas, irrigation water productivity [IWP (kg mm -1 )] was calculated by the dividing the linseed yield by the irrigation water used. Nitrogen productivity [NP (seed yield kg ha -1 per kg N ha -1 applied)] or agronomic efficiency (AE) is the economic yield per unit of N applied are calculated by following formula used by Siqua et al (2013): NP (kg, kg -1 N) = Seed yield in fertilized plot (kg ha -1 ) -Seed yield in control plot (kg ha -1 ) / N applied (kg ha -1 )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of irrigation scheduling and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and water productivity of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) under Vertisols

Patel

Tomar

Dwivedi

2017

JANS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field experiment was conducted during Rabi season of 2015-16 at the Instructional cum Research Farm, IGKV, Raipur to study the effect of different irrigation scheduling and nitrogen levels on growth, yield attributes, yield, water and nitrogen productivity of linseed (Linum usitatissimumL.). The experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping four irrigation schedules viz., come-up (I1), one (I2), two (I3) and three irrigation (I4) in main plots and four levels of nitrogen viz., control (N0), 30 kg (N1), 60 kg (N2) and 90 kg N ha-1 (N3) in sub plots with three replications. Results revealed that highest seed yield was obtained with linseed provided two irrigations (1683 kg ha-1) and application of 90 kg N ha-1 (1604 kg ha-1). Moreover, crop supplied with two irrigations in combination with 90 kg N ha-1 (I3×N3) gave significantly (P=0.05) highest seed yield (2097 kg ha-1) compared to rest of the treatment combinations. The excessive use of irrigation and fertilizers also affects farmer’s economy, as the crop is relatively low yielder. Two irrigations are better than three irrigations in terms of seed yield and water productivity; and application of 60 kg N is better than 90 kg N ha-1 in view of nitrogen productivity. The WP and IWP were decreasing as increasing the number of irrigation, but increasing with increasing the levels of nitrogen, while NP was highest with two irrigations (11.09 kg, kg-1 N) and application of 60 kg N ha-1 (8.90 kg, kg-1 N).

show abstract

“…Transient N deficiency occurred in wheat due to waterlogging stress, even when the plants were supplied with N at the time of planting (Robertson, Zhang, Palta, Colmer, & Turner, 2009). Reduction in N uptake, N recovery, and agronomic efficiency due to waterlogging was also observed in cotton and Bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ; Hodgson & MacLeod, 1988; Sigua, Williams, Chase Jr, Grabowski, & Kongchum, 2013). The decrease in the greenness (17–27 SPAD units) of corn leaves (as measured with chlorophyll leaf meter) with an increase in flooding duration from 1 to 7 d at the V6 growth stage of corn (Figure 6) was observed by Kaur et al.…”

Section: Effects Of Waterlogging On Soil and Nitrogen Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 88%

Impacts and management strategies for crop production in waterlogged or flooded soils: A review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, flooding is one of the most damaging abiotic stresses, besides drought, that affects 17 million km 2 of land surface annually. Recent research indicates that climate change is resulting in more extreme weather events, such as flooding or soil waterlogging, that negatively affect crop production. Therefore, it is imperative to understand how flooding stress affects crops and to develop improved production practices that make cropping systems more resilient and able to cope with extreme weather events. This review paper summarizes the current state of knowledge on the impacts of flooding or soil waterlogging on crop production losses, nitrogen (N) losses, and provides potential management strategies to reduce these losses. The factors affecting the extent of flooding injury in plants as well as plant adaptations under waterlogging stress are also discussed briefly. For the purpose of this review, "flooding" refers to the situation when all or part of the plant is submerged under water, whereas "soil waterlogging" refers to the situation where soil pores are saturated with water. Soil waterlogging also promotes soil N losses through runoff, leaching, and denitrification. Potential management practices that can be used to mitigate soil waterlogging stress include the use of flood-tolerant varieties, adjusting management practices, improving drainage, and practicing adaptive nutrient management strategies. However, these might be site-or crop-specific management practices and they should be validated for their economic viability before developing future management plans that promote sustainable crop yields from waterlogged soils.Abbreviations: BMP, Best Management Practice; CDSI, controlled drainage and subirrigation; EEF, enhanced efficiency fertilizer; ET, evapotranspiration; Fv/Fm, ratio of variable fluorescence to material fluorescence; GIS, Geographic Information System; NBPT, N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide; NI, nitrification inhibitor; NUE, nitrogen use efficiency; PCU, polymer-coated urea; UI, urease inhibitors.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Nitrogen recovery and agronomic efficiency of forages with nitrogen fertilization under flooded condition

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Cited by 5 publications

References 51 publications

Early-Season Soil Waterlogging and N Fertilizer Sources Impacts on Corn N Uptake and Apparent N Recovery Efficiency

Early-Season Soil Waterlogging and N Fertilizer Sources Impacts on Corn N Uptake and Apparent N Recovery Efficiency

Effect of irrigation scheduling and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and water productivity of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) under Vertisols

Impacts and management strategies for crop production in waterlogged or flooded soils: A review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About