Abstract
Soil phosphorus drives food production that is needed to feed a growing global population. However, knowledge of plant available phosphorus stocks at a global scale is poor but needed to better match phosphorus fertiliser supply to crop demand. We collated, checked, converted, and filtered a database of c. 575,000 soil samples to c. 33,000 soil samples of soil Olsen phosphorus concentrations. These data represent the most up-to-date repository of freely available data for plant available phosphorus at a global scale. We used these data to derive a model (R2 = 0.54) of topsoil Olsen phosphorus concentrations that when combined with data on bulk density predicted the distribution and global stock of soil Olsen phosphorus. We expect that these data can be used to not only show where plant available P should be boosted, but also where it can be drawn down to make more efficient use of fertiliser phosphorus and to minimise likely phosphorus loss and degradation of water quality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Background & Summary
Soil phosphorus drives food production required to feed an increasing global population that is projected to reach 10 billion people by 20501. It has been estimated that an additional 500 million hectares of arable land will be required to feed this increased population unless phosphorus can be either better utilised by plants or applied more efficiently2. Much of this efficiency will arise from local management solutions that only apply phosphorus fertilisers where they are needed3. However, knowledge of plant-available soil phosphorus stocks is poor, globally.
Some estimates have been made of global soil total phosphorus but only considers soils in their natural state, that is without the addition of fertilisers4,5. Similarly, regional estimates exist of plant available soil phosphorus stocks using measured data6,7,8. However, global estimates of plant available soil phosphorus stocks using measured data do not exist. Instead, global stocks have been estimated using models of factors such as plant uptake, weathering and global lithology data9,10,11,12 or via mass balance approaches2,13. It is important to know where available soil phosphorus concentrations are adequate or deficient for optimal crop growth. This knowledge enables us to better match phosphorus fertiliser supply to crop demand and to suggest where excess plant available soil phosphorus can be drawn down11,14. Here we present the first global database of freely available data on plant available soil phosphorus concentrations and use these data to create a global map and calculate the global stocks of plant available soil phosphorus stocks. We chose bicarbonate-extractable Olsen phosphorus15 as the measure of plant available soil phosphorus as it is the most widely used form, globally.
Methods
Data filtering and evaluation
Data (n = 574,375) of available soil phosphorus were obtained from 19 regional or global databases and published studies. These were chosen for their geographic spread and representativeness of a mix of developed and developing nations and where there was a clear process in place to ensure that data were of good quality (Table 1). Prior to modelling the data to estimate global Olsen phosphorus stocks, we adopted a multi-step process (Fig. 1) to produce a globally consistent dataset. The steps comprised (1) inspecting the data and filtering it for consistent analytical methods, units, and a limit of detection (set as 2 mg kg−1); (2) filtering data to remove points lacking correct geo-referencing and those falling outside an acceptable time span (from 2000–2019); (3) converting values into Olsen phosphorus concentrations via established equations (Table 2), if necessary; and 4) filtering data to remove points from depths >20 cm and eliminating any duplicate values.
Step 1 Inspect data
When examining data, we determined that the soil extraction method was recorded, and that the phosphorus extraction relied on acceptable procedures. Measurements of phosphorus based on molybdenum blue colorimetry or ion chromatography were considered comparable and acceptable. Measurements obtained with the stannous chloride method were excluded from the database. We also inspected the data for irregularities such as different units or different detection limits. The units were restricted to mg kg−1, and volumetric data (mg L−1) were excluded. Where detection limits were reported (2 mg kg−1), minimum values were expressed as half the detection limit (1 mg kg−1). Where detection limits were not reported, we inspected each data source for repeated low concentrations and assigned detection limits equivalent to half of the values that were repeatedly reported. Values at or below the detection limit comprised < 0.1% of the final database.
Step 2 Correct for space and time
We determined whether data points were correctly geo-referenced and occurred within an acceptable time span. To increase the likelihood that data points were correctly geo-referenced we excluded any data that were incorrectly reported or located in aquatic systems, glaciers, or permanent snowpacks. To generate an acceptable and consistent time span we restricted our data to the period from 2000 to 2019, except for three datasets relating to areas with unchanged land use. The first dataset was a global metanalysis dataset of soils under native land use (largely forestland)5 with a mean sampling year of 1992. As these samples were obtained from natural land uses, they were not expected to be influenced by anthropogenic phosphorus inputs. The second dataset involved 25 sites in Sahel and West African countries sampled in 199016. Despite increases in green vegetation, land use intensification in these areas was very limited17. We therefore considered these soils to be representative of current practices. The third dataset included 17,920 values from the Second National Soil Farm Survey of China18 collected between 1980 and 1996. Major changes occurred in both the land use and land use intensity in eastern China, but not in western China, from 1986 to 201019,20,21. To account for likely changes in the soil Olsen phosphorus concentration, we excluded data from the second survey prior to 1995 along with data pertaining to eastern provinces (Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shandong, Sichuan, and Tianjin). We retained data originating from the remaining provinces where no land use change or intensification was noted22,23,24.
Step 3 Convert the data
We converted all data into soil Olsen phosphorus concentration data using regression equations suitable for Bray-I phosphorus, Resin-phosphorus, Kirsanov-phosphorus, AB-DPTA-phosphorus and for calcareous and non-calcareous soils25 considering Mehlich-3 phosphorus (Table 2). The slopes and coefficients of these equations were weighted according to the number of data points in each dataset. We note that pH can strongly affect these conversions especially if soil tests are used inappropriately; for example, using the Bray-I phosphorus test will dissolve calcium phosphates that are sparingly available to plants. We excluded Bray-I P data from soils ≥ pH 7 from our database. Moreover, while pH was found to have a minimal effect on conversions of Mehlich-3 phosphorus to Olsen phosphorus26, nevertheless we used separate equations for calcareous and non-calcareous soils (Table 2). The proportions of the total sites converted from Bray-I, Resin, Kirsanov, AB-DPTA and Mehlich-3 phosphorus at this stage were 50.7%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.1% and 4.8%, respectively, but after step 4, the proportions changed to 37.4%, 0.5%, 0.4%, 0.2%, and 4.7%, respectively. Nearly 57% of all the samples required no conversion (please refer to the filtering and conversion tabs in Final_Filtered_Raw_OlsenP_Plus_Predictors.xls or Steps_1_to_4.csv27).
Step 4 Adjustment to a consistent sampling depth and removal of duplicate values
Sites sampled at multiple depths were averaged to the top 20 cm, considering the proportion of a given sample within the top 20 cm and any variance in the bulk density at a certain depth25 (n = 11,756). For instance, if a sample was collected at depths from 15–25 cm, the sample influenced the mean value only within the 0–20 cm depth interval by a quarter (assuming all the soil samples exhibited the same bulk density). We did not make any adjustment for stratification of Olsen phosphorus concentrations in the deeper soil sample. However, much less stratification of Olsen phosphorus occurs with depth owing to strong sorption of phosphorus by the topsoil28. Where there were multiple concentrations for the same coordinates, we adopted the mean value (n = 176). Deeper samples and any duplicate values at a specific site and date were removed (n = 15,791).
Our final global dataset contained 33,102 values distributed across 89 countries, with a mean concentration of 26 mg kg−1. Over our sampling period, the mean sampling year was 2009 (Table 1). The percentage of major outliers (calculated as 1.5 times the interquartile range plus the upper fence of each database) varied from zero to seven (Fig. 2). However, when examining the whole database, the percentage of major outliers was <1%. We therefore did not remove outliers from the final database.
Box plots showing the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles (top, middle and bottom of each box), the upper and lower fences (the 75th and 25th percentiles plus and minus 1.5 times the interquartile range, respectively) and minor (>75th percentile but <upper fence) and major (>upper fence) Olsen P concentrations for each database. The values at the top indicate the number (and percentage in parentheses) of major outliers in each database.
Modelling
The filtered data (n = 32,941) were paired with predictor variables obtained from a wide variety of sources (Table 3). These predictor variables were chosen due to their high likelihood of influencing soil Olsen phosphorus stocks and included catchment characteristics, hydrological and climate parameters, land use, population, and ecological classifications6,29. We extracted data for each predictor variable from the sources outlined in Tables 3, 4 at a resolution of 1 km2, resulting in 933,120,000 points per variable considering the global land mass.
Prior to statistical analysis, log-transformed Olsen phosphorus concentrations were confirmed as approximately normally distributed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. A range of models was trialled to predict Olsen phosphorus concentrations. However, to minimise the likelihood that models were being overfitted we conducted a principal components analysis on 17 variables that were likely autocorrelated, being produced on a monthly timestep (e.g., EVI, NDVI, precipitation, mean temperature, mean maximum temperature, and mean minimum temperature). These components explained 96.9% of the variance in the set of variables and were all highly significant (P < 0.001) in the first model tried (a simple linear model) and so were included in all our models. Following the simple linear model, we developed a mixed effects model, then a random forest model, followed by generalised additive model (GAM) fitted with the mgcv30 procedure in R. Although the random forest model developed explained most of the most variance in the data, the computational requirements were too high for it to be applied on a global scale. We chose the implement the generalised additive model to predict log Olsen phosphorus concentrations, globally (Table 5).
During modelling we used 70% of the data to train the models, while the remaining 30% was reserved to evaluate model performance. However, after finding little difference in predictive power between models using 70% or all the data, we chose to create the final model based on all the data.
It was not possible to predict values for the countries not included in the training data (representing 27.8% of global area). However, through the modelling process, country (geopolitical boundary) was an important predictor (see: R_model_outputs.docx27). To predict Olsen P concentrations for countries with no data, we randomly sampled 5% of each country in the dataset and renamed the country for those observations as “other” before rerunning the model. Thus, the “other” countries represented a weighted average of the countries present in the training data. This procedure may have biased the predictions for the “other” countries, as the model would be weighted towards countries with more training data, which may not be representative of those countries not represented in the training data. Users should be aware of this modelling fix and are advised to consult Country_counts.csv to judge the number of data points for each country.
Once models were run, predicted concentrations were back-transformed and corrected for the retransformation bias with the smearing estimate method31:
where εi denotes the residuals of the regression models. The correction factor (S) is applied over the whole range of predictions, as it is assumed that the residuals are homoscedastic.
The back-transformed predictions of Olsen phosphorus concentrations in topsoil were projected globally in ArcGIS. Raster grids were created at a spatial resolution of 0.025 degrees (ca. 1 km2 near the equator), which corresponds to the coarsest grid cells associated with the input data, as listed in Tables 3 and 4.
Post-processing adjustments
Our preliminary modelling established that the biome and development status of a given country were important factors influencing the projection of Olsen phosphorus concentration in that country (see: R_model_outputs.docx27). However, most of the data used to generate our global model were derived from developed regions and productive biomes. To determine if large areas were being modelled with a paucity of data, we split the database into biomes and whether a data point pertained to a developing or underdeveloped country. After inspecting the data, we found that five biomes suffered from a paucity of data (n < 100): deserts (within the desert and xeric shrubland biome); flooded grasslands and savannas and mangroves (developed); tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests, and montane grasslands and shrublands (underdeveloped). These biomes represented 12.6%, 0.9%, <0.1%, 3.7% and 0.5%, respectively, of the global land area, but are all largely unproductive. As previous studies have identified lower but stable soil phosphorus concentrations in unproductive biomes than in productive biomes, we used literature data to replace our modelled estimates of soil Olsen phosphorus. These biomes were assigned Olsen phosphorus concentrations (mg kg−1) of 2.032, 5.433, 3.534, 3.135 and concentrations between 1 and 3 depending on slope and elevation36 (see: Final_Filtered_Raw_OlsenP_Plus_Predictors.xlsx; post modelling processing tab or Steps_1_to_4.csv27).
Few data were available for South Africa. However, a prior spatial model of the mean soil available phosphorus (Bray-I phosphorus) in South Africa was available at the provincial level37. This model was generated from >10,000 data points and performed better (for South Africa) than our model (r2 = 0.68 cf. 0.54). Hence, we converted the modelled South African Bray-I phosphorus concentrations at a provincial level into Olsen phosphorus concentrations and applied it instead of ours.
Calculation and soil Olsen phosphorus stocks
To predict soil Olsen phosphorus stocks, the predicted concentration data (Fig. 3) were multiplied by bulk density data25. Predicted Olsen concentration and bulk density data were assumed to cover 1-km2 land parcels with a topsoil thickness of 20 cm. The mass in each pixel was calculated in kilotons. The predicted global stock (across 136 M km2 of land) is estimated to be 318,618 kt (±21,985 kt), while continental stocks are estimated to be: 47,847 (±3,301), 86.474 (±4,483), 84,401 (±7,279), 60517 (±4,176), 13,374 (±951), and 26,005 kt (±1,795 kt), for Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America, respectively. Variation in stocks were calculated as the coefficient of variation using \({\widehat{cv}}_{raw}=\sqrt{{e}^{{s}_{ln}^{2}}-1}\) for each estimate in the dataset38 and the “metrumrg” package in R39 (see also R_code_output.docx). The mean coefficient of variation was 0.069 or 6.9%. The stocks and area calculated for each continent (and country) are given in Stats_by_Continent.xlsx. The mean stock for countries was 1356 kt, ranging from <1 for small Caribbean Island nations to 39267 kt for the US.
Global topsoil Olsen phosphorus concentration (mg kg−1). The mapped land parcels are plotted at a resolution of 1-km2 and were calculated from a database containing ca. 575,000 soil samples of freely available data with a wide geographic coverage. An interactive version of this map, allowing users to discover predicted concentrations at selected points is available at: https://world-olsen.agr.nz/.
On average the percentage difference between the predicted and observed data (i.e., residuals) was 14.9%. We classed the percentage differences into 0–2, 2.1–5, 5.1–10, 10.1–25 and >25%. The percentage of our predictions that were in each class was 14, 19, 20, 30 and 18%, respectively (see Final_Filtered_Raw_OlsenP_Plus_Predictors.xlsx Residuals by continent tab or Residuals_by_continent.csv27). A map of the percentage differences is given in Fig. 4.
Technical Validation
Validating conversions to Olsen phosphorus
The conversions from Mehlich-3 P or Bray-I P to Olsen phosphorus were validated against the National Cooperative Soil Survey database, which contains observations of both Olsen phosphorus and Mehlich-3 P or Bray-I P for 97 samples. With the use of equations for either Bray-I P (Olsen phosphorus = 0.49 × Bray-I P + 3.1) or Mehlich-3 P (Olsen phosphorus = 0.47 × Mehlich-3 P + 2.4 for non-calcareous soils and Olsen phosphorus = 0.41 × Mehlich-3 P + 1.1 for calcareous soils), we predicted Olsen phosphorus concentrations and compared these estimates to measured Olsen phosphorus concentrations. The regression outputs (P < 0.001) indicate that the slope between the measured and predicted values approaches 1 (0.998 for Bray-I P and 0.928 for Mehlich-3 P; Fig. 5), suggesting that the equations are suitable for general use as a conversion tool.
Validation of Olsen phosphorus (P) predictions via the equations for Bray-IP and Mehlich-3P in Table 2 and independently sourced data from the NCSS. In addition to a significant fit (P < 0.001), and slope approaching 1, the Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency was >0.7 for each regression.
Validating soil Olsen phosphorus stocks
We compared our estimate of the topsoil Olsen phosphorus stock in sub-Saharan Africa to the previously modelled and published phosphorus stock in Sub-Saharan Africa. These published stocks were expressed as Mehlich-3 phosphorus6, so we converted Mehlich-3 phosphorus stocks to Olsen phosphorus stocks for 1-km2 parcels of calcareous and non-calcareous soils using the equations provided in Table 2. Excluding the Saharan Desert23, our modelled estimate was 36,875 kt of Olsen phosphorus for the 0–20 cm depth. After converting the published stock of Mehlich-3 phosphorus (estimated for the 0–30 cm depth) into Olsen phosphorus by the equations in Table 2, the Olsen phosphorus stock was 28,890 kt; our estimate was 27% greater, but 1% greater if the stock for the forested land was also removed.
Usage Notes
These data and the estimated global distribution of soil Olsen phosphorus stocks can be used to estimate where soil Olsen phosphorus is deficient or more than required for optimal crop growth. This can guide more efficient use of fertiliser stocks and can also indicate the potential for phosphorus loss from land to water, for example via erosion, which can impair water quality through eutrophication12. However, it should be noted that such assessments are best done at a continental scale or at most a country or basin scale owing to the paucity of data in some regions, leading to high variability in the modelled stocks. It is advised that work requiring soil Olsen phosphorus stocks for policy at smaller scales therefore be supported by more localised sampling.
Code availability
The following code and outputs are available on-line27:
• The R code and outputs of the efficacy and performance of the models employed to estimate the global Olsen phosphorus concentration from the predictor variables.
• Python code describing the filtering and post-processing steps involved in the use and analysis of the raw data and predictor variables to estimate global soil Olsen phosphorus concentration values and stocks.
References
Lee, R. The Outlook for Population Growth. Science 333, 569–573 (2011).
Mogollón, J. M. et al. More efficient phosphorus use can avoid cropland expansion. Nature Food 2, 509–518 (2021).
Haygarth, P. M. & Rufino, M. C. Local solutions to global phosphorus imbalances. Nature Food 2, 459–460 (2021).
He, X. et al. Global patterns and drivers of soil total phosphorus concentration. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 2021, 1–21 (2021).
Hou, E., Tan, X., Heenan, M. & Wen, D. A global dataset of plant available and unavailable phosphorus in natural soils derived by Hedley method. Scientific Data 5, 180166 (2018).
Hengl, T. et al. Soil nutrient maps of Sub-Saharan Africa: assessment of soil nutrient content at 250 m spatial resolution using machine learning. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 109, 77–102 (2017).
Ballabio, C. et al. Mapping LUCAS topsoil chemical properties at European scale using Gaussian process regression. Geoderma 355, 113912 (2019).
Tóth, G., Guicharnaud, R.-A., Tóth, B. & Hermann, T. Phosphorus levels in croplands of the European Union with implications for P fertilizer use. European Journal of Agronomy 55, 42–52 (2014).
Yang, X., Post, W. M., Thornton, P. E. & Jain, A. The distribution of soil phosphorus for global biogeochemical modeling. Biogeosciences 10, 2525–2537 (2013).
Ringeval, B. et al. Phosphorus in agricultural soils: drivers of its distribution at the global scale. Global Change Biol. 23, 3418–3432 (2017).
Sattari, S. Z., Bouwman, A. F., Giller, K. E. & van Ittersum, M. K. Residual soil phosphorus as the missing piece in the global phosphorus crisis puzzle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 6348–6353 (2012).
Alewell, C. et al. Global phosphorus shortage will be aggravated by soil erosion. Nature Communications 11, 4546 (2020).
Zhang, J. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of soil phosphorus and crop uptake in global cropland during the 20th century. Biogeosciences 14, 2055–2068 (2017).
Ros, M. B. H. et al. Towards optimal use of phosphorus fertiliser. Scientific Reports 10, 17804 (2020).
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanbe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. in United States Department of Agriculture. Circular No. 939 19 (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1954).
Manu, A., Bationo, A. & Geiger, S. C. Fertility status of selected millet producing soils of West Africa with emphasis on phosphorus. Soil Sci. 152, 315–320 (1991).
Olsson, L., Eklundh, L. & Ardö, J. A recent greening of the Sahel—trends, patterns and potential causes. J. Arid Environ. 63, 556–566 (2005).
Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. The second national soil survey farm fertility database (1980–1996), http://soil.geodata.cn/data/datadetails.html?dataguid=159793232590769&docId=24 (2019).
Deng, X., Huang, J., Rozelle, S. & Uchida, E. Cultivated land conversion and potential agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy 23, 372–384 (2006).
Fan, Y. et al. Entropies of the Chinese Land Use/Cover Change from 1990 to 2010 at a County Level. Entropy 19, e19020051 (2017).
Bai, Z. et al. China’s livestock transition: Driving forces, impacts, and consequences. Science Advances 4, eaar8534 (2018).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Di Miceli, C., Carroll, M., Sohlberg, R., Kim, D. & Townshend, J. MOD44B MODIS/Terra Vegetation Continuous Fields Yearly L3 Global 250m SIN Grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD44B.006 (2015).
U.S. Department of the Interior & NASA. Global Food Security-support Analysis Data 30 meter (GFSAD30) Cropland Extent, https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/news/release-of-gfsad-30-meter-cropland-extent-products/ (2017).
Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLOS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).
Steinfurth, K., Hirte, J., Morel, C. & Buczko, U. Conversion equations between Olsen-P and other methods used to assess plant available soil phosphorus in Europe – A review. Geoderma 401, 115339 (2021).
McDowell, R. W., Pletnyakov, P., Noble, A. & Haygarth, P. M. A Global Database of Soil Plant Available Phosphorus. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14241854 (2023).
Sharpley, A. N. Depth of surface soil-runoff interaction as affected by rainfall, soil slope, and management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 1010–1015 (1985).
Stutter, M. I. et al. Land use and soil factors affecting accumulation of phosphorus species in temperate soils. Geoderma 257, 29–39 (2015).
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. 2nd Edition edn, 496 (CRC Press, 2017).
Duan, N. Smearing Estimate: A Nonparametric Retransformation Method. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78, 605–610 (1983).
Issaka, R. N., Masunaga, T., Kosaki, T. & Wakatsuki, T. Soils of inland valleys of West Africa. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 42, 71–80 (1996).
Lavado, R. S. & Jorge, O. S. & Patricia, N. H. Impact of Grazing on Soil Nutrients in a Pampean Grassland. Journal of Range Management 49, 452–457 (1996).
Boto, K. G. & Wellington, J. T. Soil Characteristics and Nutrient Status in a Northern Australian Mangrove Forest. Estuaries 7, 61–69 (1984).
Liu, X. et al. Available Phosphorus in Forest Soil Increases with Soil Nitrogen but Not Total Phosphorus: Evidence from Subtropical Forests and a Pot Experiment. PLOS ONE 9, e88070 (2014).
Bhandari, J. & Zhang, Y. Effect of altitude and soil properties on biomass and plant richness in the grasslands of Tibet, China, and Manang District, Nepal. Ecosphere 10, e02915 (2019).
Khuthadzo, M. Phosphorus status. ARC-ISCW, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development http://daffarcgis.nda.agric.za/portal/home/item.html?id=f62859757f4249a8bc71292083b18a2d (2003).
Koopmans, L. H., Owen, D. B. & Rosenblatt, J. I. Confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation for the normal and log normal distributions. Biometrika 51, 25–32 (1964).
Bergsma, T. T. et al. Facilitating pharmacometric workflow with the metrumrg package for R. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 109, 77–85 (2013).
Batjes, N. H. Overview of soil phosphorus data from a large international soil database. 56 (Wageningen and ISRIC - World Soil Information, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011).
Toth, G., Jones, A. & Montanarella, L. LUCAS Topsoil Survey methodology, data and results. 141 (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2013).
National Cooperative Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database. (2020).
Shangguan, W. et al. A China data set of soil properties for land surface modeling. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5, 212–224 (2013).
Chinese Ecosystem Research Network 1998–2010. Soil nutrient data of major farmland ecosystems in China (1990–2006) http://soil.geodata.cn/data/datadetails.html?dataguid=118007709206684&docId=31 (2019).
Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. United State Register of Soil Resources of Russia Version 1.0, http://egrpr.esoil.ru/ (2019).
McKenzie, N. J., Jacquier, D. W., Maschmedt, D. J., Griffin, E. A. & Brough, D. M. The Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) Technical Specifications. Revised Version 1.6, June 2012. (CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, 2012).
Taylor, M. D., Kim, N. D., Hill, R. B. & Chapman, R. A review of soil quality indicators and five key issues after 12 yr soil quality monitoring in the Waikato region. Soil Use. Manage. 26, 212–224 (2010).
Talpur, N. A. et al. Soil fertility mapping of chilli growing areas of Taluka Kunri, Sindh, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal (Science Sries) 48, 547–552 (2016).
Buerkert, A., Bationo, A. & Piepho, H.-P. Efficient phosphorus application strategies for increased crop production in sub-Saharan West Africa. Field Crops Res. 72, 1–15 (2001).
Tsado, P. A., Osunde, O. A., Igwe, C. A., Adeboye, M. K. A. & Lawal, B. A. Phosphorus sorption characteristics of some selected soil of the Nigerian Guinea Savanna. International Journal of AgriScience 2, 613–618 (2012).
Panday, D., Maharjan, B., Chalise, D., Shrestha, R. K. & Twanabasu, B. Digital soil mapping in the Bara district of Nepal using kriging tool in ArcGIS. PloS one 13, e0206350–e0206350 (2018).
Tin Maung, A. Developing sustainable soil fertility in southern Shan State of Myanmar: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Soil Science at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) thesis, Massey University, (2001).
Guppy, C., Win, S. S., Win, T., Thant, K. M. & Phyo, K. N. in Myanmar soil fertility and fertilizer managemnt 101–107 (International Fertilizer Development Center and the Division of Soil Science, Water Utilization and Agricultural Engineering, Departmnt of Agricultural Reseach, Minisry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, Yezin, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, 2017).
Khan, S., Khan, Q. U., Khan, M. J., Khatak, S. G. & Khan, A. A. Soil phosphate sorption characteristics of selected calcareous soil series of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Environmental Science and Management 21-1, 1–7 (2018).
Shil, N., Saleque, M. A., Islam & Jahiruddin, M. Soil fertility status of some of the intensive crop growing areas under major agroecological zones of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 735–757 (2016).
Ginzburg, K. E. in Agrochemical methods for soil research (ed A. V. Sokolov) 106–191 (Nauka, 1975).
Ulen, B., Djodjic, F., Buciene, A. & Masauskiene, A. in Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Agriculture 1: Sustainable Agriculture (ed C. Jakobsson) Ch. 9, 82–101 (The Baltic University Programme, 2009).
Wolf, A. M. & Baker, D. E. Comparisons of soil test phosphorus by Olsen, Bray I, Mehlich I and Mehlich III methods. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis 16, 467–484 (1985).
Mallarino, A. P. in Proceedings of the twenty-fifth North Central extension-industry soil fertility conference (ed G. Rehm) 96–101 (Potash & Phosphate Institute, Manhattan, KS 1995).
Buondonno, A., Coppola, E., Felleca, D. & Violante, P. Comparing tests for soil fertility: 1. Conversion equations between Olsen and Mehlich 3 as phosphorus extractants for 120 soils of south Italy. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23, 699–716 (1992).
Malo, D. D. & Gelderman, R. H. Portable soil test laboratory results compared to standard soil test values. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis 15, 909–927 (1984).
Malathi, P. & Stalin, P. Evaluation of AB - DTPA extractant for multinutrients extraction in soils. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7, 1192–1205 (2018).
Mallarino, A. P. & Atia, A. M. Correlation of a Resin Membrane Soil Phosphorus Test with Corn Yield and Routine Soil Tests. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 266–272 (2005).
Nesse, P., Grava, J. & Bloom, P. R. Correlation of several tests for phosphorus with resin extractable phosphorus for 30 alkaline soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19, 675–689 (1988).
Zbíral, J. & Němec, P. Comparison of Mehlich 2, Mehlich 3, CAL, Egner, Olsen and 0.01 M CaCl2 extractants for determination of phosphorus in soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33, 3405–3417 (2002).
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
United States Department of the Interior - United States Geological Survey. HydroSHEDS. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Washinton D.C., 2008).
Didan, K. MOD13A3 MODIS/Terra vegetation Indices Monthly L3 Global 1km SIN Grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13A3.006 (2015).
Ghiggi, G., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I. & Gudmundsson, L. GRUN: an observation-based global gridded runoff dataset from 1902 to 2014. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1655–1674 (2019).
The World Bank. Table 3.2 World Development Indicators: Agricultural Inputs, http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.2 (2015).
Ryan, J. et al. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 114 (ed D. L., Sparks) 91–153 (Academic Press, 2012).
Dinerstein, E. et al. An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank those individuals who supplied the data in published reports and journal articles or stored data in open repositories. These individuals are cited in the Supplementary Data files. R.W.M., P.P. and A.N. thank the New Zealand Our Land and Water National Science Challenge for the support provided while generating the data and writing this manuscript (Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment contract C10X01507).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.W.M. and P.M.H. conceived the idea and wrote the manuscript. P.P. conducted the geographic analysis. A.N. and R.W.M. developed and performed the statistical analysis. R.W.M. sourced and collated the raw data.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
McDowell, R.W., Noble, A., Pletnyakov, P. et al. A Global Database of Soil Plant Available Phosphorus. Sci Data 10, 125 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02022-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02022-4
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Phosphorus applications adjusted to optimal crop yields can help sustain global phosphorus reserves
Nature Food (2024)
-
A global dataset on phosphorus in agricultural soils
Scientific Data (2024)
-
Impact of Rhizospheric Microbiome on Rice Cultivation
Current Microbiology (2024)
-
Agricultural input shocks affect crop yields more in the high-yielding areas of the world
Nature Food (2023)
-
The untapped potential of legacy soil phosphorus
Nature Food (2023)