HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hargrove, W. L. Articles by Kissel, D. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hargrove, W. L. Articles by Kissel, D. E. Agricola Articles by Hargrove, W. L. Articles by Kissel, D. E.

Ammonia Volatilization from Surface Applications of Urea in the Field and Laboratory¹

ABSTRACT

Few attempts have been made to directly measure ammonia losses from surface applications of urea under field conditions. The objective of this research was to measure NH₃ volatilized from urea in the field and to compare these losses to (i) losses measured in the laboratory, and (ii) losses estimated by crop response in the field. Direct field measurements were made using an automated apparatus designed to collect NH₃ lost without significantly altering environmental conditions on the treated area. Laboratory measurements were made using an apparatus similar to systems described previously by other workers. Ammonia losses were estimated from crop response in the field by measuring N uptake by Coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.).

Losses of NH₃ in the field measured directly were small (0 to 9% of the applied N) compared to those obtained in the laboratory (13 to 31% of the applied N) and those estimated in the first year of the N uptake study (0 to 39% of the applied N). However, in the second year of the field plot study, N uptake by forage from several urea fertilizer treatments was greater than from Ca(NO₃)₂. When the results were combined for both years, N uptake by forage was similar from Ca(NO₃)₂ and urea treatments. Considering the small ammonia losses measured directly in the field, differences in crop response between urea and Ca(NO₃)₂ may have been due to some factor other than NH₃ volatilization.

Results indicate that losses of N by NH₃ volatilization under field conditions may not be as severe as previously thought, at least under the soil and environmental conditions of this study. Results also demonstrate the importance of directly measuring NH₃ losses in the field.

¹ Contribution from the Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Texas A & M Univ.

² Former Graduate Assistant. Dept. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A & M Univ., College Station, TX 77843; and former Assoc. Professor, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., P.O. Box 748, Temple, TX 76501, respectively. Present addresses of authors are Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506; and Dept. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506, respectively. This research was supported in part by the Allied Chemical Corporation.

Received for publication June 5, 1978. Accepted for publication October 18, 1978.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. C. Knight, E. A. Guertal, and C. W. Wood Mowing and Nitrogen Source Effects on Ammonia Volatilization from Turfgrass Crop Sci., July 30, 2007; 47(4): 1628 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]