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 PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zotarelli, L. Articles by Muñoz-Carpena, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zotarelli, L. Articles by Muñoz-Carpena, R. Agricola Articles by Zotarelli, L. Articles by Muñoz-Carpena, R. Related Collections Vegetable Crops Nitrogen Ground Water Quality

Monitoring of Nitrate Leaching in Sandy Soils

Comparison of Three Methods

^a Univ. of Florida, IFAS, Agronomy Dep., 304 Newell Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611
^b Univ. of Florida, IFAS, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Dep., 120 Frazier Rogers Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Weekly and cumulative NO3–N fertilizer applied as CaNO3 by weekly fertigation for (A) pepper and tomato, and (B) zucchini crops.

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Overview of instrumentation used for collecting leaching samples, (B) drainage lysimeter layout, and (C) top view of instrumentation distribution.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Cumulative irrigation, calculated cumulative crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and cumulative leaching of drainage lysimeters. Different letters indicate differences at the 95% confidence level for cumulative leachate (error bars represent ± 1 SE from the mean, n = 4).

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Cumulative NO3–N leaching for pepper (P) for different volumes of irrigation and two N rates measured by soil samples (60–90 cm), drainage lysimeters (75 cm), and ceramic suction cups (90 cm). Percentage values indicate the percentage difference in cumulative nitrate leached compared with values obtained by drainage lysimeter method.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Cumulative NO3–N leaching for tomato (T) for different volumes of irrigation and two N rates measured by soil samples (60–90 cm), drainage lysimeters (75 cm), and ceramic suction cups (90 cm). Percentage values indicate the percentage difference in cumulative nitrate leached compared with values obtained by drainage lysimeter method.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Cumulative NO3–N leaching for zucchini (Z) for different volumes of irrigation and two N rates measured by soil samples (60–90 cm), drainage lysimeters (75 cm), and ceramic suction cups (90 cm). Percentage values indicate the percentage difference in cumulative nitrate leached compared with values obtained by drainage lysimeter method.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Correlation between calculated cumulative nitrate leaching across cropping systems as calculated by (A) soil core sampling vs. drainage lysimeters; (B) ceramic suction cups vs. drainage lysimeters; and (C) ceramic suction cups vs. soil core sampling. **, *** Significant at P 0.01 and P 0.001, respectively.