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 Livesley, S. J. Articles by Grierson, P. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Livesley, S. J. Articles by Grierson, P. F. Agricola Articles by Livesley, S. J. Articles by Grierson, P. F. Related Collections Nitrogen Microbial Processes Nutrient Cycling Soil Chemistry Municipal Waste

Soil Water Nitrate and Ammonium Dynamics under a Sewage Effluent–Irrigated Eucalypt Plantation

^a School of Forest and Ecosystem Science, The Univ. of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Blvd., Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia
^b School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The Univ. of New South Wales, Biological Sciences Bdg., Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
^c Ecosystems Research Group, School of Plant Biology, The Univ. of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy., Crawley WA 6009, Australia

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Monthly rainfall, mean drip- and sprinkler-irrigated effluent rates, and effluent total N concentration during 2001 at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Monthly soil water NO3–N concentrations at 30 cm under two rates of effluent and water irrigation and for two modes of application with and without harvest residues at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia, during 2001.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Monthly soil water NO3–N concentrations at 100 cm under two rates of effluent and water irrigation and for two modes of application with and without harvest residues at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia, during 2001.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Monthly soil water NH4–N concentrations at 30 cm under two rates of effluent and water irrigation and for two modes of application with and without harvest residues at the Albany effluent irrigation treatment farm, Albany, Western Australia, during 2001.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Monthly soil water NH4–N concentrations at 100 cm under two rates of effluent and water irrigation and for two modes of application with and without harvest residues at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia, during 2001.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. The spatial distribution of soil NO3–N (mg kg–1) with depth and distance along a drip line (A and B) and from a dripper to the mid-row (A–C) in drip-irrigated effluent treatments with and without harvest residues at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia. Treatments with harvest residue have a layer above the soil surface to represent NO3–N in the harvest residue.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The spatial distribution of soil NH4–N (mg kg–1) with depth and distance along a drip line (A and B) and from a dripper to the mid-row (A–C) in drip-irrigated effluent treatments with and without harvest residues at the Albany Effluent Irrigation Treatment Farm, Albany, Western Australia. Treatments with harvest residue have a layer above the soil surface to represent NH4–N in the harvest residue.