4.7 Article

Soil solution phosphorus turnover: derivation, interpretation, and insights from a global compilation of isotope exchange kinetic studies

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 105-114

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-15-105-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021_162422]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_162422] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The exchange rate of inorganic phosphorus (P) between the soil solution and solid phase, also known as soil solution P turnover, is essential for describing the kinetics of bioavailable P. While soil solution P turnover (K-m) can be determined by tracing radioisotopes in a soil-solution system, few studies have done so. We believe that this is due to a lack of understanding on how to derive K-m from isotopic exchange kinetic (IEK) experiments, a common form of radioisotope dilution study. Here, we provide a derivation of calculating K-m using parameters obtained from IEK experiments. We then calculated K-m for 217 soils from published IEK experiments in terrestrial ecosystems, and also that of 18 long-term P fertilizer field experiments. Analysis of the global compilation data set revealed a negative relationship between concentrations of soil solution P and K-m. Furthermore, K-m buffered isotopically exchangeable P in soils with low concentrations of soil solution P. This finding was supported by an analysis of long-term P fertilizer field experiments, which revealed a negative relationship between K-m and phosphate-buffering capacity. Our study highlights the importance of calculating K-m for understanding the kinetics of P between the soil solid and solution phases where it is bioavailable. We argue that our derivation can also be used to calculate soil solution turnover of other environmentally relevant and strongly sorbing elements that can be traced with radioisotopes, such as zinc, cadmium, nickel, arsenic, and uranium.

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

4.7
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