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 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 Ball Coelho, B. R. Articles by Bruin, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ball Coelho, B. R. Articles by Bruin, A. J. Agricola Articles by Ball Coelho, B. R. Articles by Bruin, A. J. Related Collections Best Management Practices Nutrient Management Animal Waste

Nitrogen Recovery and Partitioning with Different Rates and Methods of Sidedressed Manure

^a Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Southern Crop Protection & Food Research Centre, 1391 Sandford St., London, ON, N5V 4T3 Canada
^b R.C. Roy (deceased), Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Southern Crop Protection & Food Research Centre, Delhi, ON, N4B 2W9 Canada

View larger version (76K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Experimental design where liquid swine manure was injected (INJ) or topdressed (TD) at different rates (m3 ha–1) from 2000–2002, with location of the drainage tile access for each of the 16 plots overlain on photo taken 18 Jul. 2001.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Postharvest soil NO3–N concentrations in the top 20 cm (1999–2002 geometric means except at 110 kg N ha–1) and end of season stalk NO3–N concentration in 2002 for five sidedressed liquid swine manure (LSM) N application rates and two application methods (inject [INJ] and topdress [TD]). Total N in LSM is the average of 1999–2002 (soil data) or 2002 (stalk data) values. Within a dependent variable, means with the same letter are not different at P 0.05 as determined by the protected LSD test.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Rainfall and tile water NO3–N concentrations throughout 2000 to 2002 with three or five liquid swine manure sidedress rates, averaged over method (inject and topdress) of application. Concentrations are averaged over groups of sampling events (November 2000–June 2001, and 19 Jun.–30 Jul. 2002) when the rate effect did not vary with time. Bars are standard error, with only the largest standard error shown for each sampling event.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Tile water NO3–N concentrations following sidedress of liquid swine manure (LSM) at different rates by injection or topdress, averaged over all sampling events between 19 Jun. 2001 and 19 Jun. 2002.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Tile water NO3–N concentrations from 19 Jun. 2001 to 19 Jun. 2002 for two liquid swine manure sidedress application methods (injection and topdress), average of 37.4 and 56.1 m3 ha–1 application rates. Within boxed areas, means for the two methods are different at P 0.05 as determined by the protected LSD test.