Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Swine Effluent Applied to Soil by Different Methods

被引:43
作者
Sistani, K. R. [1 ]
Warren, J. G. [2 ]
Lovanh, N. [1 ]
Higgins, S. [3 ]
Shearer, S. [3 ]
机构
[1] USDA ARS, Anim Waste Management Res Unit, Bowling Green, KY 42104 USA
[2] Oklahoma State Univ, Dept Plant & Soil Sci, Stillwater, OK 74078 USA
[3] Univ Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546 USA
关键词
NITROUS-OXIDE FLUXES; CATTLE SLURRY; SURFACE APPLICATION; INJECTION; FERTILIZER; GRASSLAND; AMMONIA; TILLAGE; METHANE; FIELD;
D O I
10.2136/sssaj2009.0076
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Greenhouse gas (CO(2), CH(4), and N(2)O) emissions were measured in a field experiment evaluating preplant swine effluent application methods for no-till corn (Zea mays L.) grain production. The treatments included a control, an inorganic fertilizer treatment receiving 179 kg N ha(-1) as urea-NH(4)NO(3) (UAN), and three effluent application methods that received a target rate of 200 kg N ha(-1). The effluent treatments included surface application, direct injection, and application in combination with soil aeration. Gas emission measurements were initiated after application and collected throughout the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons using a vented chamber technique. There were no significant differences in CO(2) losses, which averaged 738 and 718 g CO(2) m(-2) in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Placement of effluent below the soil surface by injection or aeration resulted in elevated CH(4) emissions compared with the control. Injection emitted significantly more CH(4) than surface applications, with emissions of 0.26 and 0.80 g CH(4) m(-2) from the injection treatments in 2007 and 2008, respectively. In 2007, N(2)O emissions were similar for the UAN, surface effluent, and aeration effluent treatments, emitting an average of 0.72 g N(2)O m(-2). In contrast, the injection treatment emitted 0.47 g N(2)O m(-2). In 2008, this trend was reversed, with the injection treatment emitting 0.82 g N(2)O m(-2) and the remaining N source treatments emitting an average of 0.36 g N(2)O m(-2). These differences between years probably resulted from differences in rainfall distribution. These results demonstrate that climatic conditions and application method need consideration when evaluating the impact of liquid manure management on greenhouse gas emissions.
引用
收藏
页码:429 / 435
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
Chen Y, 2001, APPL ENG AGRIC, V17, P489
[2]   Phosphorus runoff: Effect of tillage and soil phosphorus levels [J].
Daverede, IC ;
Kravchenko, AN ;
Hoeft, RG ;
Nafziger, ED ;
Bullock, DG ;
Warren, JJ ;
Gonzini, LC .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2003, 32 (04) :1436-1444
[3]   Injection of pig slurry and its effects on dynamics of nitrogen and carbon in a loamy soil under laboratory conditions [J].
Dendooven, L ;
Bonhomme, E ;
Merckx, R ;
Vlassak, K .
BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS, 1998, 27 (01) :5-8
[4]  
Ding G, 2002, SOIL SCI SOC AM J, V66, P421, DOI 10.2136/sssaj2002.0421
[5]  
DORAN JW, 1980, SOIL SCI SOC AM J, V44, P764
[6]   Laboratory estimates of trace gas emissions following surface application and injection of cattle slurry [J].
Flessa, H ;
Beese, F .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2000, 29 (01) :262-268
[7]   IMPROVED SOIL COVER METHOD FOR FIELD MEASUREMENT OF NITROUS-OXIDE FLUXES [J].
HUTCHINSON, GL ;
MOSIER, AR .
SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 1981, 45 (02) :311-316
[8]   Greenhouse gas emissions from two soils receiving nitrogen fertilizer and swine manure slurry [J].
Jarecki, Marek K. ;
Parkin, Timothy B. ;
Chan, Alvarus S. K. ;
Hatfield, Jerry L. ;
Jones, Raymond .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2008, 37 (04) :1432-1438
[9]   Effect of treatment and application technique of cattle slurry on its utilization by ley: I. Slurry properties and ammonia volatilization [J].
Mattila, PK ;
Joki-Tokola, E .
NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 2003, 65 (03) :221-230
[10]   Surface application and shallow injection of cattle slurry on grassland: Nitrogen losses, herbage yields and nitrogen recoveries [J].
Misselbrook, TH ;
Laws, JA ;
Pain, BF .
GRASS AND FORAGE SCIENCE, 1996, 51 (03) :270-277