4.5 Article

The response of finely textured and organic soils to lime and phosphorus application: Results from an incubation experiment

期刊

SOIL USE AND MANAGEMENT
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 368-384

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sum.12825

关键词

metallic ions; P fixation; soil pH; soil phosphorus; water quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The soil's response to phosphorus input depends on its chemical composition. Current phosphorus application recommendations do not consider soil variability, and a targeted soil-specific approach is needed to optimize phosphorus efficiency and availability.
A soil's responses to phosphorus (P) input differs based on its chemical composition. Soil acidity and the presence of metallic cations dictate a soil's chemical composition. Currently, soil P application recommendations are universal and do not account for differing soil composition. A targeted soil-specific approach is required to optimize P efficiency and availability. A pot incubation experiment was established to explore the effects of contrasting lime and P application rates across a range of soils (25), characterized by fine particle size and high levels of soil organic matter. Three contrasting rates of P were applied (0, 50, and 150 kg P ha(-1)) both with and without ground lime (CaCO3) at 5 tonne ha(-1) over a 140-day incubation period. The addition of lime buffered the soil, increasing nutrient availability and reducing P fixation. The 50 kg P ha(-1) treatment rate was required to achieve sufficient plant available P in both mineral soil textural classes. Current legislative recommendations however do not allow the application of such rates, which has an impact on agronomic performance. Loam soils experienced a greater increase in M3 soil P in comparison to clay and organic soils. Organic soils posed a major threat to water quality due to poor P retention. A re-evaluation of P recommendations is required to account for soil variability as current P allowances are insufficient on these particular soils.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据