Study

Pig slurry residual effects on maize yields and nitrate leaching: A study in lysimeters

  • Published source details Yagüe M. R. & Quílez D. (2015) Pig slurry residual effects on maize yields and nitrate leaching: A study in lysimeters. Agronomy Journal, 107, 278-286

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Crop production: Add slurry to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Add slurry to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Add slurry to the soil

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Crop production: Add slurry to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in an irrigated maize field in Spain found higher crop yields in plots with added pig slurry, compared to plots without it. Crop yield: Higher maize yields were found in plots with added pig slurry (16–18 vs 10 Mg/ha). Implementation options: Similar crop yields were found in plots with different amounts of added slurry (30, 60, 90, 120 Mg/ha) (16–18 Mg/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had pig slurry (30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg/ha) or no fertilizer (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Lysimeters (2.6 x 2 m; 1.5 m depth), were installed in each plot, five years before the study. Each lysimeter was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May to mid-September, with 7–12 intervals). Soil samples were collected after harvest (0–120 cm depth).

     

  2. Water: Add slurry to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in an irrigated maize field in Spain found that more nitrate was lost through leaching and runoff from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. Nutrients: More nitrate was lost through leaching (105–208 vs 10 kg/ha) and runoff (in three of four comparisons: 74–81 vs 3 mg/L) from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. Implementation options: Less nitrate was lost through leaching (208–226 vs 105 kg/ha) and runoff (34 vs 74–81 mg/L) from plots with less slurry, compared to more slurry (30 vs 60–120 Mg slurry/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had pig slurry (30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg/ha) or no slurry (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Lysimeters (2.6 x 2 m, 1.5 m depth) were installed in each plot, five years before the study. Each plot was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May–September, with 7–12 intervals). Water samples were collected after each irrigation or rainfall event in 50 L containers.

     

  3. Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in irrigated arable farmland in Spain found that more nitrate was lost from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients: More nitrate was found in runoff from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in 12 of 16 comparisons (74–81 vs 3–24 mg/ha). More nitrate was found in leachate from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in 14 of 16 comparisons (105–226 vs 10–54 kg/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had organic fertilizer (pig slurry: 30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg/ha) or inorganic fertilizer (0, 180, 240, or 300 kg N/ha) (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Lysimeters (2.6 x 2 m; 1.5 m depth), were installed in each plot, five years before the study. Each lysimeter was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May to mid-September, with 7–12 intervals). Soil samples were collected after harvest (0–120 cm depth). Water samples were collected after each irrigation or rainfall event in 50 litre containers.

     

  4. Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in an irrigated maize field in Spain found higher crop yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Crop yield: Higher crop yields were found in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in four of 12 comparisons (16–18 vs 14 Mg/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had organic fertilizer (30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg slurry/ha) or inorganic fertilizer (0, 180, 240, or 300 kg N/ha) (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Each plot was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May to mid-September, with 7–12 intervals). Barley was harvested at the end of 2004.

     

  5. Soil: Add slurry to the soil

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in an irrigated maize field in Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in plots with different amounts of added slurry. Implementation options: Similar amounts of nitrogen were found in plots with different amounts of added slurry (21–80 kg N/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had pig slurry (30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg/ha) or no fertilizer (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Lysimeters (2.6 x 2 m; 1.5 m depth) were installed in each plot, five years before the study. Each lysimeter was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May to mid-September, with 7–12 intervals). Soil samples were collected after harvest (0–120 cm depth).

     

  6. Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganic

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in an irrigated maize field in Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients: Similar amounts of nitrogen were found in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer (21–80 vs 13–37 kg N/ha). Methods: Plots (30 x 40 m) had organic fertilizer (pig slurry: 30, 60, 90, or 120 Mg/ha) or inorganic fertilizer (0, 180, 240, or 300 kg N/ha) (three plots for each). Slurry was immediately covered after application. Lysimeters (2.6 x 2 m; 1.5 m depth) were installed in each plot, five years before the study. Each lysimeter was drip-irrigated, simulating flood irrigation (May to mid-September, with 7–12 intervals). Soil samples were collected after harvest (0–120 cm depth).

     

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust