It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Maximizing grain yields with effective fertilization technologies and minimizing nitrogen losses is essential in agroecosystems. In this research, we conducted a two-year field experiment to explore whether dripline spacing and fertilization rate would affect maize grain yield. Two dripline spacings (i.e., one drip line per row of maize with a row space of 60 cm and one drip line per two rows of maize) and two fertilization rates (i.e., high fertilization level: N, 180 kg ha−1; P2O5, 90 kg ha−1; and K2O, 90 kg ha−1 and low level: N, 139.5 kg ha−1; P2O5, 76.5 kg ha−1; and K2O, 76.5 kg ha−1) were employed in this research. The results showed that maize yield was significantly affected by both dripline spacing and fertilization rate. The maize yield was 10.2% higher in the treatment with one drip line per two rows than that in the treatment with one drip line per row. Maize yield increased by 10.9% at the high fertilization level compared to that at the low fertilization level. The quantity of cumulative ammonia volatilization was reduced by 15.1% with one drip line per two rows compared to that with one drip line per row, whereas it increased by 26.9% at the high fertilization level compared with that at the low fertilization level. These results indicated that one drip line per two rows with a high fertilization rate increased the yield and could reduce the environmental burden, which may be economically beneficial and environmentally sound for maize fertigation for green agricultural development.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/ Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Beijing, People’s Republic of China (GRID:grid.410727.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0526 1937)
2 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Beijing, People’s Republic of China (GRID:grid.410727.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0526 1937)