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 Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed 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 (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Akiyama, H. Articles by Tsuruta, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Akiyama, H. Articles by Tsuruta, H. Agricola Articles by Akiyama, H. Articles by Tsuruta, H. Related Collections Animal Waste Nutrient Cycling Air Pollution Nitrogen

Nitrous Oxide, Nitric Oxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide Fluxes from Soils after Manure and Urea Application

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences (NIAES), 3-1-1 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Seasonal variation in the N2O flux (daily mean) from soil after the application of manure or urea. The treatments were poultry manure (PM; broken line), swine manure (SM; solid line), and urea (dotted line). F = fertilizer or manure application, H = harvest.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Seasonal variation in the NO flux (daily mean) from soil after the application of manure or urea. The treatments were poultry manure (PM; broken line), swine manure (SM; solid line), and urea (dotted line). F = fertilizer or manure application, H = harvest.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (a) Soil NO-3 and (b) NH+4 during the cultivation period. The treatments were poultry manure (PM; triangle), swine manure (SM; square), and urea (circle). F = fertilizer or manure application, H = harvest, DS = dry soil.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Seasonal variation in the NO2 flux (daily mean) from soil after the application of manure or urea. The treatments were poultry manure (PM; broken line), swine manure (SM; solid line), and urea (dotted line). F = fertilizer or manure application, H = harvest.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Representative example of the relationship between (a) the NO-N flux and NO-N concentration and (b) the NO2–N flux and NO2–N concentration just after the chamber was closed. Measurements were made between 21 June 1998 and 30 Apr. 1999. The treatment was poultry manure (PM). Solid line: regression (a) y = -0.149x + 0.974, R2 = 0.62, p < 0.01; (b) y = -0.29x + 0.087, R2 = 0.560, p < 0.01.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (a) Air temperature (solid line) and rainfall (vertical bars) from 7 to 13 June 1998. Representative example of diel variations during peak emission period in (b) N2O and (c) NO fluxes. Treatment was urea.

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Seasonal variations in water-filled pore space (WFPS) at 2 cm (broken line; daily mean), 5 cm (solid line; daily mean), and rainfall (vertical bars; daily mean).

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Relationships between the flux ratio of NO-N to N2O-N and water-filled pore space (WFPS) during the peak emission period (from 7–15 June 1998) (daily mean). The treatments were (a) poultry manure (PM), (b) swine manure (SM), and (c) urea. Solid line: regression (a) y = -0.0046x + 0.238, R2 = 0.453, p < 0.05; (c) y = -0.659x + 33.4, R2 = 0.441, p < 0.05.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Seasonal variation in soil temperature at 5 cm (broken line; daily mean) and air temperature (solid line; daily mean).