4.5 Article

Correlation of extractable soil phosphorus (P) with plant P uptake: 14 extraction methods applied to 50 agricultural soils from Central Europe

期刊

PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 192-201

出版社

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/70/2018-PSE

关键词

soil testing; macronutrient; long-term experiment; Triticum aestivum L.; plant growth; resin P

类别

资金

  1. BoWaSan/Bodenkalk e. Gen., Graz, Austria
  2. Karner Dungerproduktion GmbH, Neulengbach, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to test different soil phosphorus (P) extraction methods in relation to plant P uptake. A greenhouse pot experiment was conducted with spring wheat. The soils were extracted with the following methods/extractants: H2O, CaCl2, LiCl, iron oxide impregnated filter papers (Fe-oxide Pi), Olsen, calcium-acetate-lactate (CAL), cation and anion exchange membranes (CAEM), Mehlich 3, Bray and Kurtz II (Bray II), citrate-bicarbonatedithionite, organic P, HCl, acid ammonium oxalate, total P. Plant P uptake was in the range of the P extracted by neutral salt solutions (CaCl2, LiCl). P extracted with H2O, CaCl2 and CAEM correlated best with plant P uptake over one growing season, while several established soil P test methods, including CAL, Mehlich 3 and Bray II, did not show significant correlations. When grouping the soils according to pH, the weaker extraction methods (H2O, CaCl2, LiCl) showed significant correlations with plant P uptake only for the low and intermediate pH groups (pH in 1 mol/L KCl <= 6.6), while some of the stronger extraction methods (CAL, Mehlich 3, Bray II, dithionite, oxalate, total P) showed significant correlations only for the high pH group (> 6.6) comprised of calcareous soils. It was concluded that weaker P extraction methods, especially neutral salt solutions best predict plant-available P in the short term. However, they do not perform well for calcareous (and clayey) soils and do not account for P that may become available beyond one growing season.

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