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 (18)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Easton, Z. M.
Right arrow Articles by Petrovic, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Easton, Z. M.
Right arrow Articles by Petrovic, A. M.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Easton, Z. M.
Right arrow Articles by Petrovic, A. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Surface Water Quality
Right arrow Nitrogen
Right arrow Phosphorus
Right arrow Nutrients
Right arrow Turfgrass
Right arrow Nutrient Management

Fertilizer Source Effect on Ground and Surface Water Quality in Drainage from Turfgrass

Zachary M. Easton* and A. Martin Petrovic

Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853



View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Soil infiltration rate and runoff depth as a function of turfgrass shoot density. *Significant at the {alpha} = 0.05 probability level.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Fertilizer source effects on nitrate concentrations in runoff from turfgrass. Natural organic (swine and dairy compost and biosolid) and synthetic organic (readily available and controlled-release) sources were averaged. Analysis indicates that there was a significant difference between NO–3–N concentrations in runoff by solubility at the {alpha} = 0.05 level.

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Fertilizer source effect on phosphate concentrations in runoff from turfgrass. Natural organic (swine and dairy compost and biosolid) and synthetic organic (readily available and controlled-release) sources were averaged. Analysis indicates that there was a significant difference between PO3–4–P concentrations in runoff by solubility at the {alpha} = 0.05 level.

 


View larger version (46K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Mass balance for (A) phosphorus and (B) nitrogen. The percent shown above each bar is the nutrient recovered rate in runoff, leachate, and clippings as a percent of applied after correcting for losses from the unfertilized control. The N rate shown for each source was the single application rate; total yearly N rate was 200 kg N ha–1. *Percentages followed by the same letter are not significantly different at {alpha} = 0.05. CR, controlled-release; RA, readily available.

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Phosphate (A) and nitrate (B) mass losses in leachate from turfgrass as a function of fertilizer source over time.

 




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 © 2004 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.