4.7 Article

Manure and sorbent fertilisers increase on-going nutrient availability relative to conventional fertilisers

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 569, Issue -, Pages 927-936

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.068

Keywords

Nutrient uptake; Nitrogen; Phosphorus; Fertiliser; Sorbent; Manure

Funding

  1. Australian Government
  2. Queensland State Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The key to better nutrient efficiency is to simultaneously improve uptake and decrease losses. This study sought to achieve this balance using sorbent additions and manure nutrients (spent poultry litter; SL) compared with results obtained using conventional sources (Conv; urea nitrogen, N; and phosphate-phosphorus; P). Two experiments were conducted. Firstly, a phosphorus pot trial involving two soils (sandy and clay) based on a factorial design (Digitaria eriantha/Pennisetum clandestinum). Subsequently, a factorial N and P field trial was conducted on the clay soil (D. eriantha/Lolium rigidum). In the pot trial, sorbent additions (26.2 g of hydrotalcite [HT] g P-1) to the Conv treatment deferred P availability (both soils) as did SL in the sandy soil. In this soil, P delivery by the Conv treatments declined rapidly, and began to fall behind the HT and SL treatments. Addition of HT increased post-trial Colwell P. In the field trial low HT-rates (3.75 and 7.5 g of HT g P-1) plus bentonite, allowed dry matter production and nutrient uptake to match that of Conv treatments, and increased residual mineralN. The SL treatments performed similarly to (or better than) Conv treatments regarding nutrient uptake. With successive application, HT forms may provide better supply profiles than Conv treatments. Our findings, combined with previous studies, suggest it is possible to use manures and ion-exchangers to match conventional N and P source productivity with lower risk of nutrient losses. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available