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 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 (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Little, J. L. Articles by Miller, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Little, J. L. Articles by Miller, J. J. Agricola Articles by Little, J. L. Articles by Miller, J. J. Related Collections Tillage Animal Waste Surface Water Quality Nutrients Runoff

Nutrient and Sediment Losses Under Simulated Rainfall Following Manure Incorporation by Different Methods

^a Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Irrigation Branch, 100, 5401–1st Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4V6
^b Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403–1st Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Mean soil characteristics in the upper 2.5 cm after annual manure application and tillage and before rainfall simulations. Mean values for each parameter followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). Differences in each parameter among years were not significant, except for total P. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Mean runoff rates from the four tillage methods for the (a) control and (b) manure treatments.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Mean (a) runoff volume and (b) time to runoff for tillage and manure treatments. Mean values for each parameter followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Mean (a) dissolved reactive phosphorus flow-weighted concentration (DRP FWMC), (b) DRP load, and (c) total phosphorus flow-weighted concentration (TP FWMC) for the tillage and manure treatments. Mean values for each parameter followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationships between soil test phosphorus and dissolved reactive phosphorus flow-weighted mean concentration (DRP FWMC) for the (a) control and (b) manure treatments.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Relationship between total suspended solids and total phosphorus flow-weighted mean concentration (TP FWMC) during runoff from the control treatments.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Mean concentration of nitrate N (NO3–N) and total nitrogen (TN) in lysimeters in 2001 and 2002. Mean values for each parameter followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). The error bars represent the standard error of the mean.