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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Whalen, S.C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Whalen, S.C. Agricola Articles by Whalen, S.C.

Nitrous Oxide Emission from an Agricultural Soil Fertilized with Liquid Swine Waste or Constituents

Dep. of Environmental Science and Engineering, C.B. #7400, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400 USA

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Location of North Carolina's "Hog Belt" and the study site

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Treatment effects on N2O emission from fertilized plots (n = 3, each treatment) in Exp. 1. Treatment codes are as follow: CT, control; H2O, deionized water; C, glucose-C; NH4, NH4–N; NC, NH4–N plus glucose-C; W, liquid swine waste. The CT treatment received no nutrient addition, while all other treatments consisted of a liquid phase application of 2.5 cm. Error bars represent ±1 SD. Fluxes followed by the same letter on each sampling date do not differ significantly by Tukey's HSD

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Time course for change in NO3–N and NH4–N concentrations in the 0- to 20-cm soil zone in Exp. 1 for (a) control plots (CT) with no nutrient addition; and (b) plots amended with liquid swine waste (W) or NH4 plus glucose (NC). Each data point represents the mean (±1 SD) for triplicate plots for each treatment. Error bars fall within the symbols in (a). Ordinal scales are similar in (a) and (b) to facilitate comparison

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Time course for change in (a) percentage water-filled pore space (% WFPS) in control (CT; no addition) and liquid swine waste-amended plots (W); and (b) average soil temperature at a central reference station. All data are for the 0- to 20-cm soil zone in Exp. 1. Each data point in (a) is the mean (±1 SD) for triplicate plots for each treatment

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Treatment effects on N2O emission from fertilized plots (n = 3, each treatment) in Exp. 2. Treatment codes are; CT, control; NH4H, high NH4; NH4L, low NH4; NO3H, high NO3; NO3L, low NO3. CT plots received no nutrient addition to Day 11, while all other treatments consisted of a liquid phase application of 2.5 cm. High and low fertilization levels are 150 and 75 kg N ha-1, respectively. Following N2O flux determinations on Day 11, all plots (including CT) were amended with 2.5 cm of deionized water and N2O emission was assessed at Day 11.12. Error bars represent ±1 SD. Fluxes followed by the same letter on each sampling date do not differ significantly by Tukey's HSD

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Time course for change in NO3 and NH4 concentrations in the 0- to 20-cm soil zone for plots fertilized with: (a) NH4–N; and (b) NO3–N. Treatment codes are as follow: NH4H, high NH4; NH4L, low NH4; NO3H, high NO3; NO3L, low NO3. Each data point represents the mean (±1 SD) for triplicate plots amended with high (150 kg N ha-1) or low (75 kg N ha-1) concentrations of nutrient

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Time course for change in (a) percentage water-filled pore space (% WFPS) in control (CT) plots (no addition) and plots amended with liquid NH4–N fertilizer at 150 kg N ha-1 (NH4H); and (b) average soil temperature at a central reference station. All data are for the 0- to 20-cm soil zone in Exp. 2. Each data point in (a) is the mean (±1 SD) for triplicate plots for each treatment