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 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 (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Amos, B. Articles by Doran, J. W. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Amos, B. Articles by Doran, J. W. Agricola Articles by Amos, B. Articles by Doran, J. W. Related Collections Carbon Sequestration Global Change Soil Biology

Soil Surface Fluxes of Greenhouse Gases in an Irrigated Maize-Based Agroecosystem

^a University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
^b USDA-ARS Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit, Lincoln, NE 68583-0934

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Soil surface CO2 flux measured in continuous maize at three plant populations (P1 = 69200–76600 plants ha–1, P2 = 86400–98800 plants ha–1, and P3 = 108700–116100 plants ha–1) under the M2 (intensive) fertility treatment during the 1999 growing season. Also shown are soil temperature at the 0.1-m depth and water-filled pore space in the top 0.1 m of soil.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Soil surface CO2 flux measured in continuous maize for the P2 (86400–98800 plants ha–1) plant population at the two fertility treatments (M1 = recommended best management; M2 = intensive) and in the unfertilized control at the P3 (108700–116100 plants ha–1) plant population during the 27-mo study. Also shown is soil temperature at the 0.1-m depth and water-filled pore space in the top 0.1 m of soil.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Soil surface CO2 flux measured at the between row and within row locations on all sampling dates during the 27-mo study. Also shown are soil temperature at 0.1 m and water-filled pore space in the top 0.1 m of soil at the between row and within row locations. All treatments sampled for soil surface CO2 flux are included in this comparison.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Comparison of measured soil surface CO2 flux with predicted values. The empirical equation was fit to data collected from fertilized continuous maize plots from 11 June 1999 through 9 Sept. 2000. Predicted daily average values are compared with daily average flux measurements made from 26 Sept. 2000 through 18 Aug. 2001 on fertilized continuous maize plots.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Mean nitrous oxide flux measured on 23 May, 12 July, and 24 Aug 2000 for the two fertility treatments (M1 = recommended best management; M2 = intensive) plotted against the difference between treatment means for field-measured electrical conductivity (EC) and mean EC measured in unfertilized control areas on the same sampling days.