4.2 Article

Influence of soil texture on fertilizer and soil phosphorus transformations in Gleysolic soils

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
卷 83, 期 4, 页码 395-403

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.4141/S02-073

关键词

P fractions; clay content; fertilizer P; plant P uptake; soil texture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zheng, Z., Parent, L. E. and MacLeod, J. A. 2003. Influence of soil texture on fertilizer and soil phosphorus transformations in Gleysolic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83: 395-403. The P dynamics in soils should be quantified in agricultural soils to improve fertilizer P (FP) efficiency while limiting the risk of P transfer from soils to water bodies. This study assessed P transformations following FP addition to Gleysolic soils. A pot experiment was conducted with five soils varying in texture from sandy loam to heavy clay, and receiving four FP rates under barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)-soybean (Glycine max L.) rotations. A modified Hedley procedure was used for soil P fractionation. Soil resin-P and NaHCO3-P-i contents were interactively affected by texture and FP. The NaHCO3-P-o, NaOH-P, HCl-P and H2SO4-P were only affected by soil texture. Proportions of 78 and 90% of the variation in labile and total P were, respectively, related to soil clay content. The FP addition increased resin-P, NaHCO3-P-i and NaOH-P-i and -P-o contents in coarse-textured soils, but the amount added was not sufficient to mask the initial influence of soil texture on the sizes of soil P pools. Plant P uptake was proportional to FP rate but less closely linked to clay content. The average increase in labile P per unit of total FP added in excess of plant exports was 0.85, 0.82, 0.73, 0.55 and 0.24 for the sandy loam, loam, clay loam, clay and heavy clay soil, respectively. The results of this study stress the important of considering soil texture in Gleysolic soils when assessing P accumulation and transformations in soils, due to commercial fertilizers applied in excess of crop removal.

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

4.2
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