| Literature DB >> 24741349 |
Yupu He1, Shihong Yang1, Junzeng Xu1, Yijiang Wang2, Shizhang Peng1.
Abstract
The effect of controlled drainage (CD) onpan> pan> class="Chemical">ammonia volatilization (AV) losses from paddy fields under controlled irrigation (CI) was investigated by managing water table control levels using a lysimeter. Three drainage treatments were implemented, namely, controlled water table depth 1 (CWT1), controlled water table depth 2 (CWT2), and controlled water table depth 3 (CWT3). As the water table control levels increased, irrigation water volumes in the CI paddy fields decreased. AV losses from paddy fields reduced due to the increases in water table control levels. Seasonal AV losses from CWT1, CWT2, and CWT3 were 59.8, 56.7, and 53.0 kg N ha(-1), respectively. AV losses from CWT3 were 13.1% and 8.4% lower than those from CWT1 and CWT2, respectively. A significant difference in the seasonal AV losses was confirmed between CWT1 and CWT3. Less weekly AV losses followed by TF and PF were also observed as the water table control levels increased. The application of CD by increasing water table control levels to a suitable level could effectively reduce irrigation water volumes and AV losses from CI paddy fields. The combination of CI and CD may be a feasible water management method of reducing AV losses from paddy fields.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24741349 PMCID: PMC3972839 DOI: 10.1155/2014/417605
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Water table control levels for CWT1, CWT2, and CWT3.
Time and amount of fertilization.
| Time (month-day) | DAT (d) | N (kg ha−1) | P2O5 (kg ha−1) | K2O (kg ha−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base fertilizer I | 6-27 | 45 | 45 | 45 | |
| Base fertilizer II | 7-2 | 4 | 64.5 | ||
| Tillering fertilizer | 7-20 | 22 | 121.8 | ||
| Panicle fertilizer | 8-10 | 43 | 87 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 318.3 | 45 | 45 | ||
Figure 2Automatic water table control system.
Figure 3Typical pond water depth, soil water content, and irrigation for CWT1, CWT2, and CWT3.
Figure 4Ammonia volatilization rates from (a) CWT1, (b) CWT2, and (c) CWT3.
Ammonia volatilization losses from CWT1, CWT2, and CWT3.
| Treatment | AV losses (kg N ha−1) | Ratio of AV losses to applied | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During a week after fertilization | Seasonal | During a week after fertilization | Seasonal | |||||
| BF II | TF | PF | BF II | TF | PF | |||
| CWT1 | 14.5 (0.4)ab | 17.4 (1.1)a | 7.6 (0.1)a | 59.8 (2.5)a | 22.4 (0.6)ab | 14.2 (0.9)a | 8.7 (0.1)a | 18.8 (0.8)a |
| CWT2 | 15.1 (0.4)a | 15.2 (2.1)a | 7.0 (1.1)a | 56.7 (3.1)ab | 23.4 (0.6)a | 12.4 (1.8)a | 8.0 (1.3)a | 17.8 (1.0)ab |
| CWT3 | 13.0 (1.5)b | 15.7 (1.6)a | 4.9 (0.7)b | 53.0 (1.3)b | 20.2 (2.4)b | 12.9 (1.3)a | 5.7 (0.8)b | 16.3 (0.4)b |
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by LSD.
Numbers in parenthesis are standard deviation.