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


     


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 Related articles in JEQ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Master, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Shaviv, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Master, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Shaviv, A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Master, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Shaviv, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Water Quality
Right arrow Water Content
Right arrow Nitrogen
Right arrow Other Environmental Contamination
Right arrow Air Pollution

Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions and Mineral Nitrogen Transformations as Affected by Reclaimed Effluent Application

Y. Master*,a, R. J. Laughlinb, U. Shavita, R. J. Stevensb and A. Shaviva

a The Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Technion-IIT, Haifa 32000, Israel
b Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural and Environmental Science Division, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Northern Ireland, UK



View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. The N2O flux from the Grumosol lysimeters irrigated with fresh water (FW) or reclaimed effluent (RE) and labeled either with 15NO3 or 15NH4. Data represent means and standard deviations (n = 3).

 


View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. The fraction of the flux attributed to either nitrification or denitrification, the apparent enrichment of the denitrifying pool (ap), and the N2O atom % excess at each sampling time in lysimeters labeled with 15NO3 and irrigated with (a) fresh water (FW) and (b) reclaimed effluent (RE). Data represent means and standard deviations (n = 3).

 


View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. The (a) N2 and (b) N2O fluxes from the Grumosol soil during the laboratory experiment. The N2O fluxes are shown for both field-capacity and saturation moisture contents, whereas the N2 fluxes are shown for 15N labeled NO3 saturated treatment. Data represent means and standard deviations (n = 3 and 6 for N2 and N2O, respectively).

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. The NH4, NO3, and N2O enrichments in soil incubated under saturated conditions with (a) fresh water (FW) labeled with 15NO3, (b) FW labeled with 15NH4, (c) reclaimed effluent (RE) labeled with 15NO3, and (d) RE labeled with 15NH4. Error bars represent the standard deviations (n = 3) or are smaller than symbols.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. The NO2 concentrations in fresh water (FW)– and reclaimed effluent (RE)–irrigated soil at field-capacity and saturation moisture contents. Data represent means and standard deviations (n = 6).

 





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
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.