Assessment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets
Assessment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0378-3774(00)00090-1
复制
发表时间：
2001-01-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Zhang, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sharmasarkar, EC;Sharmasarkar, S;Zhang, R
氮肥管理不善在美国西部的许多洪水灌溉地区造成了严重的硝酸盐(NO3)污染。低量灌溉方法，如滴灌，可以为控制N3淋失和农业用水提供一种替代方法。本研究的目的是比较甜菜生产中硝态氮在罩下土壤和滴灌措施中的运移，并评价实施滴灌的农学可行性。在甜菜(Beta vallgaris L.)1996年和1997年怀俄明州东南部的生长季节，那里的3号污染是一个持续令人担忧的问题，甜菜是主要的经济作物。比较了滴灌和漫灌三种灌溉方式，分别对应于田间持水量的20%、35%和50%的耗水量(分别记为D1、D2和D3)。灌区施氮量分别为112、168和224 kg ha(-1)(分别记为F-0、F1和F-2)。甜菜(SB)产量和含糖率滴灌高于漫灌(3-28%)，滴灌产量和含糖量顺序为：d1>；d2>；d3。在所有灌溉条件下，随着施肥量的增加，产量都有增加的趋势。与洪涝措施相比，滴灌制度导致1996年和1997年两个季节的3号土壤残留量都较大。两年的RSN值均呈现出如下趋势：F-2>、F-1>、F-0、N3三种滴灌方式的土壤RSN值均高于漫灌处理(1.6-2.4倍)。在整个根区，D1和D2之间的NO3浓度相当，但这两个水平都低于D3。在所有深度都观察到随着D3的增加，NO3浓度增加。滴灌系统的灌水量低于漫灌系统。滴灌的农艺水分利用效率(WUE)和肥料利用效率(FUE)始终高于大水漫灌。1996年，WUE和FUE维持了D1D2和D3的订单。FUE值随施肥量的增加呈下降趋势。总体结果表明，在低水肥用量的条件下，采用滴灌方式可以维持玉米的富硒产量。基于F检验(p(F))和双尾学生t检验(p(T))得到的p值(10.05)表明，滴灌和漫灌的产量平均值之间存在显著差异。与大水漫灌相比，D1处理的P值最小，D2次之，D3次之，从而确定了D1是最有效的处理。比较化肥处理和相同滴灌处理下SB产量的P值差异不显著，表明在维持滴灌目标产量的同时，使用较低的施肥量是可行的。对大水漫灌和滴灌排水损失的比较估计表明，滴灌减少了根区外的水分淋失量。在三种滴灌处理中，D1的排水量最低，这是因为其灌溉频率较高，每次施水量较少。(C)2001 Elsevier Science B.V.保留所有权利。
Mismanagement of nitrogenous fertilizers has caused serious nitrate (NO3) contamination in many flood-irrigated regions of the western US. Low-volume irrigation practices, such as drip irrigation, can offer an alternative approach for controlling NO3 leaching and agricultural water use. The objectives of this study were to compare NO3 movement through soils under hood and drip irrigation practices for sugarbeet production, and to evaluate the agronomic feasibility of implementing drip irrigation. A field experiment was conducted during the sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) growing seasons of 1996 and 1997 in southeastern Wyoming, where NO3 contamination is a continued concern and sugarbeet is a major cash crop. Three drip irrigation regimes, corresponding to 20, 35, and 50% water depletion of field capacity (designated as D1, D2, and D3, respectively), were compared against flood irrigation. The irrigation plots were treated with 112, 168, and 224 kg N ha(-1) (designated as F-0, Fl, and F-2, respectively). Sugarbeet (SB) yields and sugar contents under drip irrigation were higher (3-28%) than those with flood irrigation, yields and sugar contents for the drip systems were in the order of D1>D2>D3. For all of the irrigation applications, there was an increasing trend in yields with increasing fertilizer rates. Drip regime resulted in greater residual soil NO3 (RSN) for both 1996 and 1997 seasons as compared to flood practices. Values of RSN in both years followed the trend: F-2>F-1>F-0 Soil NO3 in all three drip regimes was higher (1.6-2.4 times) than that with flood irrigation. In the overall root zone, NO3 concentrations between D1 and D2 were comparable, whereas both of those levels were lower than D3. Greater NO3 concentrations with D3 were observed at all depths. The amount of applied irrigation water with the drip system was lower than that for flood irrigation. Agronomic water use efficiency (WUE) and fertilizer use efficiency (FUE) for drip irrigation were always higher than those for flood irrigation. In 1996, WUE and FUE maintained an order of D1>D2>D3. There was a decreasing pattern in FUE values with increasing fertilizer rates. The overall results indicated that SE production could be sustainedwith lower water and fertilizer use by using drip irrigation. The p-values (10.05), based on both F-test (p(f)) and two-tailed student's t-test (p(t)), suggested a significant difference between the yield means obtained under drip and flood irrigation practices. As compared to the flood irrigation, the least p-values were obtained with D1 followed by D2 and D3, respectively, thus, confirming that D1 was the most effective treatment. The p-values for SB yields under comparative fertilizer treatments and same drip application showed no significant difference between the means, thus, suggesting the feasibility of using lower fertilizer rate while sustaining the targeted yield under drip irrigation. The comparative estimation of water losses by drainage between flood and drip irrigation suggested that the later practice reduced the quantity of water leaching beyond the root zone. Among the three drip treatments, the lowest drainage amount was observed with D1 as a result of its higher irrigation frequency and smaller quantity of water input during each application. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.