Eric Harmsen, Joel Colon, Carmen Lis Arcelay and Dionel Cadiz
description
Transcript of Eric Harmsen, Joel Colon, Carmen Lis Arcelay and Dionel Cadiz
EVALUATION OF PERCOLATION AND EVALUATION OF PERCOLATION AND NITROGEN LEACHING FROM A SWEET NITROGEN LEACHING FROM A SWEET
PEPPER PEPPER CROP GROWN ON AN OXISOL SOIL IN CROP GROWN ON AN OXISOL SOIL IN
NORTHWEST PUERTO RICONORTHWEST PUERTO RICO
Eric Harmsen, Eric Harmsen, Joel Colon, Joel Colon,
Carmen Lis Arcelay and Dionel Carmen Lis Arcelay and Dionel CadizCadiz
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department University of Puerto Rico – Mayagüez Campus
This Material Is Based on Research Supported byUSDA/CSREES Grant No. CBAG-82 in
Tropical/ Subtropical Agriculture Research
BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND
NNitrate leaching through the soil profile can itrate leaching through the soil profile can result in a significant loss of fertilizer N, and result in a significant loss of fertilizer N, and may be a source groundwater contamination.may be a source groundwater contamination.
Highly weathered soils may exhibit Highly weathered soils may exhibit substantial anion exchange capacity (AEC), substantial anion exchange capacity (AEC), which retards the movement of anions such which retards the movement of anions such as NOas NO33
-- through the profile. through the profile.
However, AEC decreases as soil pH increases However, AEC decreases as soil pH increases by agronomic practices such as liming.by agronomic practices such as liming.
OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of liming and To evaluate the effects of liming and fertigation on the leaching of fertigation on the leaching of nitrogen through a highly weathered nitrogen through a highly weathered tropical soiltropical soil
Study Area – NW Puerto Study Area – NW Puerto RicoRico
Field StudyField Study 2002 and 2003 at the UPR Experiment Station at Isabela, PR, 2002 and 2003 at the UPR Experiment Station at Isabela, PR,
using sweet peppers (using sweet peppers (Capsicum annuumCapsicum annuum, “Biscayne”) as the , “Biscayne”) as the test crop.test crop.
2 lime levels (Lime or No lime); 2 fertigation frequencies 2 lime levels (Lime or No lime); 2 fertigation frequencies (Weekly or Bi-weekly).(Weekly or Bi-weekly).
Soil samples collected every two weeks at 20 cm increments, Soil samples collected every two weeks at 20 cm increments, down to 80 cm.down to 80 cm.
Analyzed for NHAnalyzed for NH44++ and NO and NO33
-- concentrations by steam distillation concentrations by steam distillation (Mulvaney, 1996). (Mulvaney, 1996).
Road USDA TARS Facility
F1 F2
NL-F2L-F1
L-F1L-F2
L-F2
NL-F1
NL-F1 L-F1
NL-F2
NL-F1
L-F2
L-F2
NL-F1
NL-F2
L-F1NL-F2
North
Block 2
Block 1
Block 4
Block 3
@
@
Experimental LayoutExperimental Layout
Estimating Nitrogen LeachingEstimating Nitrogen Leaching
LLNO3NO3 = 0.01 ρ = 0.01 ρbb NO NO33 PERC / PERC / θθvolvol
LLNH4NH4 = 0.01 = 0.01 ρρbb NH NH44 PERC PERC / θθvolvol
Water BalanceWater Balance
Perc = (R-RO)+Irr-ETPerc = (R-RO)+Irr-ETcc + + SS
Perc = Perc = Deep percolationDeep percolation(R –RO) = (R –RO) = Rainfall – RunoffRainfall – RunoffIrr Irr = = Irrigation based on ETIrrigation based on ETpanpan
ETETc c = = Evapotranspiration based on Evapotranspiration based on
Penman-Monteith method.Penman-Monteith method.
S = S = Change in stored waterChange in stored water
IRR = ETIRR = ETpan pan = K= Kcc K Kpp E Epanpan
IRR = ETIRR = ETpan pan = =
Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration based on panbased on pan
KKcc = = Crop coefficientCrop coefficient
KKpp = = Pan coefficientPan coefficient
EEpan pan = = Pan evaporationPan evaporation
ETETc c = K= Kcc ET EToo
ETETc c = = Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration
based on Penman-based on Penman- Monteith method.Monteith method.
KKcc = = Calibrated crop coefficientCalibrated crop coefficient
ETETo o = = Reference Reference
evapotranspiration evapotranspiration
Calibration of the Water Balance Calibration of the Water Balance Equation Equation
• Calibration variables: (RO/R) Calibration variables: (RO/R)
• Calibration target: average soil Calibration target: average soil
moisture contentmoisture content
RESULTSRESULTS
Depth % Sand1 % Silt1 % Clay1
Soil Classification
Bulk Density Porosity
0-20 cm 35.10 19.35 45.55silty clay
1.36 0.49
20-40 cm 28.72 1.85 69.43
clay1.36 0.49
40-60 cm 22.50 5.00 72.50
clay1.31 0.51
60-80 cm 20.00 5.80 74.20
clay1.29 0.51
Depth
Hydraulic Conductivity
(cm/day)
In-Situ Field
Capacity Year 1
Site
In-Situ Field
Capacity Year 2 Site
Moisture Content at 0.33 bar Pressure
Moisture Content at
15 bar Pressure
Available Water
Holding Capacity (AWHC)
0-20 cm 1210.06 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.39 0.05
20-40 cm 316.99 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.27 0.10
40-60 cm 70.10 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.05
60-80 cm 12.19 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.08
Properties of the Coto ClayProperties of the Coto Clay
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
1/28/2003 2/27/2003 3/29/2003 4/28/2003 5/28/2003
Date
ET
(m
m/d
ay
)
ETo
Eto (long-term avg.)
ETpan
Evapotranspiration – 2003 SeasonEvapotranspiration – 2003 Season
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
3/27 4/11 4/26 5/11 5/26 6/10 6/25 7/10Date
Mo
istu
re C
on
ten
t (V
ol)
Estimated
Field Capacity
Measured
Measured Min
Measured Max 0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
1/28 2/17 3/9 3/29 4/18 5/8 5/28
Date
Mo
istu
re C
on
ten
t (V
ol)
Calibrated Soil Moisture ContentCalibrated Soil Moisture ContentRO/R = 0.25RO/R = 0.25
2002 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
3/27/2002 4/16/2002 5/6/2002 5/26/2002 6/15/2002 7/5/2002Date
PE
RC
(m
m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
1/30/2003 3/1/2003 3/31/2003 4/30/2003 5/30/2003Date
PE
RC
(m
m)
Estimated PercolationEstimated Percolation
2002 2003
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
3/27 4/16 5/6 5/26 6/15 7/5Date
Nit
ria
te C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
(m
g/k
g) LF1
LF2
NLF1
NLF2
Soil Nitrate Concentration at 60-80 cm DepthSoil Nitrate Concentration at 60-80 cm Depth20022002
Nitrate, ammonium and nitrate plus ammonium (Total) Nitrate, ammonium and nitrate plus ammonium (Total) leached during Year 1 and 2 for the four experimental treatmentsleached during Year 1 and 2 for the four experimental treatments
2002 2003
Units LF1 LF2 NLF1 NLF2 LF1 LF2 NLF1 NLF2
NO3 kg/ha 36 50 47 42 34 32 34 24
NH4 kg/ha 10 13 21 11 2 3 2 3
Total kg/ha 46 63 67 54 36 35 36 27
Total % 21 28 30 24 16 16 16 12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
LF1 LF2 NLF1 NLF2Treatment
Le
ac
he
d N
Re
lati
ve
to
N A
pp
lied
(%
) 2002
2003
Percent of Nitrogen Leached Percent of Nitrogen Leached Relative to AppliedRelative to Applied
How much N was leached How much N was leached during the flooding events?during the flooding events?
The estimated amount of nitrogen lost The estimated amount of nitrogen lost (average of all treatments) on April 6, (average of all treatments) on April 6, 2002 and April 10, 2003 was 19.6 kg/ha 2002 and April 10, 2003 was 19.6 kg/ha and 20.1 kg/ha, respectively. and 20.1 kg/ha, respectively.
For years 1 and 2 this represented 34% For years 1 and 2 this represented 34% and 60% of the total N lost by leaching and 60% of the total N lost by leaching during the two seasons, respectively. during the two seasons, respectively.
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
29 41 54 66 79 91 104 116 129 142
Julian Date
Dar
cy V
elo
city
(cm
/day
)The method used in this study may The method used in this study may
underestimate nitrogen losses, because the underestimate nitrogen losses, because the contribution of unsaturated flow contribution of unsaturated flow
to the percolation was not consideredto the percolation was not considered
2003
ConclusionsConclusions
• No clear difference in nitrogen leaching No clear difference in nitrogen leaching was observed for the lime and no-lime was observed for the lime and no-lime treatments. treatments.
• No clear difference in nitrogen leaching No clear difference in nitrogen leaching was observed between the fertigation was observed between the fertigation treatments.treatments.
• The average percent of nitrogen (nitrate The average percent of nitrogen (nitrate plus ammonium) leached during the 1st plus ammonium) leached during the 1st and 2nd season, relative to the amounts and 2nd season, relative to the amounts applied, were 26% and 15%, respectively. applied, were 26% and 15%, respectively.
Conclusions cont.Conclusions cont.
• Leaching events were associated with large Leaching events were associated with large rainstorms, suggesting that leaching of N would rainstorms, suggesting that leaching of N would have occurred regardless of the irrigation have occurred regardless of the irrigation scheduling method used.scheduling method used.
• During the first and second seasons, During the first and second seasons, respectively, 34% and 60% of the total N lost by respectively, 34% and 60% of the total N lost by leaching occurred during a single day (April 6 in leaching occurred during a single day (April 6 in 2002 and April 10 in 2003) when flooding was 2002 and April 10 in 2003) when flooding was observed in the study areas. observed in the study areas.
• The N leaching results from this study may be The N leaching results from this study may be underestimated because the contribution of underestimated because the contribution of percolation from unsaturated flow was not percolation from unsaturated flow was not considered.considered.
Future WorkFuture Work
• Estimate N leaching rates using the Darcy Estimate N leaching rates using the Darcy velocity results, estimated from the tensiometers.velocity results, estimated from the tensiometers.
• Calibrate and validate a numerical model Calibrate and validate a numerical model (HYDRUS-2D) to simulate water and nitrogen (HYDRUS-2D) to simulate water and nitrogen movement.movement.
• Use the numerical model to develop best Use the numerical model to develop best management practices in terms of maximizing N management practices in terms of maximizing N uptake and minimizing N leaching.uptake and minimizing N leaching.