4.4 Article

Nutrient cycling in an agroforestry alley cropping system receiving poultry litter or nitrogen fertilizer

期刊

NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 167-179

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10705-014-9667-0

关键词

Agroforestry; Poultry litter; Nutrient cycling; Eastern black walnut; Pecan; Northern red oak; Orchardgrass

资金

  1. U.S. Forest Service
  2. Natural Resources Conservation Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal utilization of animal manures as a plant nutrient source should also prevent adverse impacts on water quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term poultry litter and N fertilizer application on nutrient cycling following establishment of an alley cropping system with eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra L.), pecan [Carya illinoensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch], and northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) trees and orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.). One half of a 4.25-ha site in northwestern Arkansas USA received broadcast applications of 3.9-6.7 Mg ha(-1) fresh poultry litter and the other half 50-76 kg ha(-1) N as NH4NO3 fertilizer each spring from 2001 to 2008. Macronutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S) and micronutrient (Na, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) concentrations in soil, forage, and tree leaf tissue were monitored along with NO3-N in soil water and groundwater. Poultry litter application resulted in significantly increased concentrations of each macronutrient except S with increases from 6.3 (N) to 121 % (P). Nitrogen fertilizer application resulted in decreased concentrations from 2.1 (N) to 60.9 % (S) for all macronutrients except Ca. Patterns of nutrient content in forage and tree leaf tissue did not generally follow patterns of soil nutrient concentrations suggesting nutrient sufficiency in most years and that climate and plant growth had a greater effect on nutrient uptake. Soil P with litter application increased 41.3 mg kg(-1) over 7 years (from 34.1 to 75.4), which may necessitate a lower litter application rate to avoid excessive P runoff.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据