Response of maize to three short-term periods of waterlogging at high and low nitrogen levels on undisturbed and repacked soil

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

“…As observed, agronomic efficiency of forage species in our study was positively affected by N fertilization despite the anoxic environment and these results may be explained by sufficient nutrients that compensated for the negative effect of waterlogging ( Table 4). This observation is consistent with the findings of Meyer et al [23] who reported that plants with high levels of N under waterlogged condition had more efficient photosynthetic mechanism with increase stomatal function. Earlier findings of Chapin [44] also showed that nutrient-rich environments, root systems can satisfy plant nutrient requirements resulting in normal metabolic activities of plants.…”

“…The uptake of N by plants under waterlogged conditions is consequence of the effect of aeration on the physiological processes, such as decrease in root permeability, respiratory activity of the plants, and the chemical changes in the soil [30]. Flooding of the soil surface caused an immediate increase in volumetric water content at the cost of displacing air and therefore O 2 from the soil profile [23]. The decrease in O 2 following flooding could be expected to reduce the rate of root growth.…”

“…Forage species could be negatively affected by extended flooding and N application could offset the detrimental effect of flooding on N use efficiency and agronomic efficiency. While application of N to waterlogged plants decrease the deleterious effects, they do not fully overcome them [20,21], probably because of the reduced ability of roots to accumulate nitrate at low O 2 levels [22,23]. A two-year greenhouse study was conducted in 2008 and 2009 to determine i) the effect of flooding duration on N recovery and agronomic efficiency of bahiagrass compared with two flooding tolerant forages, limpograss, and maidencane and ii) if N fertilization could mitigate the negative effect of flooding.…”

Least limiting water range indicators of soil quality and corn production, eastern Ontario, Canada

“…), wheat (Triticum spp. ), and corn, indicated that roots cease to grow at O 2 concentrations below 0.01 kg O 2 m −3 soil; aeration constraints were likely restrictive around values of 0.02 kg O 2 m −3 soil (Meyer et al, 1987;Meyer and Barrs, 1991). For each treatment in this study, the highest observed growing season AFP (0.10 m depth), associated with O 2 concentrations (at 0.10 m depth) less than 0.02 kg O 2 m −3 soil, was assumed to represent an aeration limiting AFP.…”

The dynamics of cultivation and floods in arable lands of Central Argentina

“…Even the lowest of these values is higher than those typically reported for annual crops with unlimited water supply (Carcova et al, 2000;Gardiol et al, 2003), suggesting that pond evaporation could become a more effective vapour evacuation pathway than transpiration to remove water once flooding expands. This contrast between pond evaporation and transpiration may be even more dramatic if the effects of waterlogging, curtailing water consumption by crops are considered (Meyer et al, 1987). In this case, water level raises may trigger a positive feedback on flooding in a first stage, caused by transpiration inhibition, but a negative feedback on a second stage, motorized by the high evaporation rates achievable under tank conditions.…”