SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 16 May 2007
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:944-951 (2007)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0160
© 2007 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ding, W.
Right arrow Articles by Zheng, X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ding, W.
Right arrow Articles by Zheng, X.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Ding, W.
Right arrow Articles by Zheng, X.
Related Collections
Right arrow Carbon Sequestration
Right arrow Soil Biochemistry

Soil Respiration under Maize Crops: Effects of Water, Temperature, and Nitrogen Fertilization

Weixin Dinga,*, Yan Caia, Zucong Caia, Kazuyuki Yagib and Xunhua Zhengc

a State Key Lab. of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Inst. of Soil Science Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
b National Inst. for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan
c Inst. of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China


Figure 1
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Diagram of a specially designed chamber for sampling gases: 1, PVC tube; 2, PVC pipe; 3, silicone grease; 4, stainless steel chamber base; 5, stainless steel chamber; 6, plastic foam; 7, fan; 8, thermometer; 9, silicon septum; 10, rubber seal; and 11, maize.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Comparison of mean maize aboveground biomass between the PVC tubes and the plots among the three treatments (N0 = no N fertilizer, N150 = 150 kg N ha–1, and N250 = 250 kg N ha–1. Vertical bars denote the standard error of the averages (n = 3).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. Seasonal pattern of soil CO2 fluxes in an arable loamy sand soil fertilized with no (N0), 150 (N150), or 250 kg N ha–1 (N250) cropped with maize or bare soil fertilized at 150 kg N ha–1 (CK). Vertical bars indicate the standard error of the averages (n = 3). Means labeled with different letters among the four treatments on the same measurement day are significantly different at P = 0.05.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 4. Seasonal variation of soil moisture and temperature during the maize growth season under four treatments: no (N0), 150 (N150), or 250 kg N ha–1 (N250) cropped with maize or bare soil fertilized at 150 kg N ha–1 (CK). Vertical bars indicate the standard error of the averages (n = 12).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 5. Dynamics of precipitation and air temperature at a meteorological station about 100 m away from the field experimental site during the growth season.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 6. Contribution of maize rhizosphere respiration (Rrh) to total soil respiration (Rt) during the maize growth season measured using the root-exclusion technique.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2007 by the Soil Science Society of America.