美国上中西部地区牧场放牧方法对地表径流和养分流失的影响

Nitrogen Pub Date : 2023-11-16 DOI:10.3390/nitrogen4040025
E. Young, J. Sherman, Brooke R. Bembeneck, Randall D. Jackson, J. Cavadini, Matthew S. Akins
{"title":"美国上中西部地区牧场放牧方法对地表径流和养分流失的影响","authors":"E. Young, J. Sherman, Brooke R. Bembeneck, Randall D. Jackson, J. Cavadini, Matthew S. Akins","doi":"10.3390/nitrogen4040025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Grazing and hay forage crops reduce erosion compared to annual crops, but few studies have compared soil and nutrient loss among grazing systems compared to a control. We evaluated runoff water quality and nutrient loss among three grazing systems and a hay crop production field with manure application (control) using a paired watershed design. Four edge-of-field sites at a research farm in central Wisconsin were managed as hay during calibration (2013–2018) followed by a grazing treatment phase (2018–2020). Grazing treatments of different stocking methods included continuous stocking (CS), primary paddock stocking (PPS), and adaptive multi-paddock stocking (AMPS). Runoff, sediment, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) loads were monitored year-round. Grazing increased average runoff volume by as much as 1.7-fold depending on stocking method and tended to decrease event mean N and P concentrations. CS had larger mean sediment (2.0-fold), total N (1.9-fold), and total P loads (1.2-fold) compared to the control and had the lowest average pasture forage mass. AMPS had lower N and P loss as a percentage of that applied from manure application/livestock excretion (1.3 and 1.6%, respectively) compared to the control (2.5 and 2.1%), PPS (2.5 and 2.6%), and CS (3.2 and 3.0%). Stocking method had a marked impact on nutrient loss in runoff from these systems, suggesting water quality models should account for pasture management, but nutrient losses from all perennial forage systems were small relative to previous data from annual cropping systems.","PeriodicalId":509275,"journal":{"name":"Nitrogen","volume":"6 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Pasture Stocking Method on Surface Runoff and Nutrient Loss in the US Upper Midwest\",\"authors\":\"E. Young, J. Sherman, Brooke R. Bembeneck, Randall D. Jackson, J. Cavadini, Matthew S. Akins\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/nitrogen4040025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Grazing and hay forage crops reduce erosion compared to annual crops, but few studies have compared soil and nutrient loss among grazing systems compared to a control. We evaluated runoff water quality and nutrient loss among three grazing systems and a hay crop production field with manure application (control) using a paired watershed design. Four edge-of-field sites at a research farm in central Wisconsin were managed as hay during calibration (2013–2018) followed by a grazing treatment phase (2018–2020). Grazing treatments of different stocking methods included continuous stocking (CS), primary paddock stocking (PPS), and adaptive multi-paddock stocking (AMPS). Runoff, sediment, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) loads were monitored year-round. Grazing increased average runoff volume by as much as 1.7-fold depending on stocking method and tended to decrease event mean N and P concentrations. CS had larger mean sediment (2.0-fold), total N (1.9-fold), and total P loads (1.2-fold) compared to the control and had the lowest average pasture forage mass. AMPS had lower N and P loss as a percentage of that applied from manure application/livestock excretion (1.3 and 1.6%, respectively) compared to the control (2.5 and 2.1%), PPS (2.5 and 2.6%), and CS (3.2 and 3.0%). Stocking method had a marked impact on nutrient loss in runoff from these systems, suggesting water quality models should account for pasture management, but nutrient losses from all perennial forage systems were small relative to previous data from annual cropping systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nitrogen\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nitrogen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen4040025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nitrogen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen4040025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与一年生作物相比,放牧和干草饲料作物可减少水土流失,但很少有研究比较放牧系统与对照组的土壤和养分流失情况。我们采用配对流域设计,评估了三种放牧系统和施用粪肥的干草作物生产田(对照组)的径流水质和养分流失情况。威斯康星州中部一个研究农场的四个田边地点在校准期间(2013-2018 年)作为干草管理,随后进入放牧处理阶段(2018-2020 年)。不同放养方式的放牧处理包括连续放养(CS)、主要围场放养(PPS)和适应性多围场放养(AMPS)。全年监测径流、沉积物、氮(N)和磷(P)负荷。根据放养方式的不同,放牧使平均径流量增加了 1.7 倍之多,并有降低事件平均氮和磷浓度的趋势。与对照组相比,CS 的平均沉积物(2.0 倍)、总氮(1.9 倍)和总磷负荷(1.2 倍)更大,平均牧草质量最低。与对照组(2.5% 和 2.1%)、PPS(2.5% 和 2.6%)和 CS(3.2% 和 3.0%)相比,AMPS 的氮和磷损失量占粪肥施用量/牲畜排泄量的百分比较低(分别为 1.3% 和 1.6%)。饲养方式对这些系统径流中的养分损失有显著影响,这表明水质模型应考虑牧场管理,但与以往一年生作物系统的数据相比,所有多年生牧草系统的养分损失都很小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Influence of Pasture Stocking Method on Surface Runoff and Nutrient Loss in the US Upper Midwest
Grazing and hay forage crops reduce erosion compared to annual crops, but few studies have compared soil and nutrient loss among grazing systems compared to a control. We evaluated runoff water quality and nutrient loss among three grazing systems and a hay crop production field with manure application (control) using a paired watershed design. Four edge-of-field sites at a research farm in central Wisconsin were managed as hay during calibration (2013–2018) followed by a grazing treatment phase (2018–2020). Grazing treatments of different stocking methods included continuous stocking (CS), primary paddock stocking (PPS), and adaptive multi-paddock stocking (AMPS). Runoff, sediment, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) loads were monitored year-round. Grazing increased average runoff volume by as much as 1.7-fold depending on stocking method and tended to decrease event mean N and P concentrations. CS had larger mean sediment (2.0-fold), total N (1.9-fold), and total P loads (1.2-fold) compared to the control and had the lowest average pasture forage mass. AMPS had lower N and P loss as a percentage of that applied from manure application/livestock excretion (1.3 and 1.6%, respectively) compared to the control (2.5 and 2.1%), PPS (2.5 and 2.6%), and CS (3.2 and 3.0%). Stocking method had a marked impact on nutrient loss in runoff from these systems, suggesting water quality models should account for pasture management, but nutrient losses from all perennial forage systems were small relative to previous data from annual cropping systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hemp (Cannabis salvia L.) Cultivation: Chemical Fertilizers or Organic Technologies, a Comprehensive Review Machine-Learning Approaches in N Estimations of Fig Cultivations Based on Satellite-Born Vegetation Indices Gas-Phase Photocatalytic Transformations of Nitric Oxide Using Titanium Dioxide on Glass Fiber Mesh for Real-Scale Application Evaluating the Effects of Reduced N Application, a Nitrification Inhibitor, and Straw Incorporation on Fertilizer-N Fates in the Maize Growing Season: A Field 15N Tracer Study Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Carbon and Nitrogen in Subtropical Urban Streams (Santo André, SP, Brazil)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1