Plant and Soil

, Volume 159, Issue 2, pp 219–225 | Cite as

Phytoavailability of phosphate adsorbed on ferrihydrite, hematite, and goethite

  • G. Guzman
  • E. Alcantara
  • V. Barron
  • J. Torrent
Research Article

Abstract

Iron (hydr)oxides are important phosphate adsorbents in soils. However, the dependency of phytoavailability of adsorbed phosphate on mineral type and properties has not been established. To examine the influence of mineralogy, one ferrihydrite, two hematites, and two goethites were prepared. They differed widely in morphology (from euhedral crystals to granular aggregates), specific surface area (15–266 m2 g−1) and microporosity (0–87% of total surface area). Their relative affinity for phosphate, which is inversely related to the concentration exponent in the Freundlich equation, b, decreased in the order goethite (b=0.11, 0.09)> hematite (b=0.13, 0.17)> ferrihydrite (b=0.21). Phytoavailability of the adsorbed phosphate was studied by growing sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in pots containing suspensions of the phosphated Fe (hydr)oxides in equilibrium with a concentration of 1 mg P L−1. The fraction of the adsorbed phosphate that was phytoavailable, B1, (1) was lower for goethite (B1=0.43, 0.38) than for hematite (B1=0.73, 0.49) and ferrihydrite (B1=0.79), (2) was not negatively affected by microporosity, and (3) decreased, in general terms, with increasing relative affinity for phosphate. Similar trends were observed for the production of dry matter. These results, together with previous reports showing that goethites usually have higher relative affinity for phosphate than hematites, suggest that phosphate could be more available to plants in hematitic than in similar goethitic soils.

Key words

adsorption availability ferrihydrite goethite hematite phosphate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrón V, Heruzo M and Torrent J 1988 Phosphate adsorption by aluminous hematites of different shapes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 647–651.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow N J 1983 A discussion on the methods of measuring the rate of reaction between soil and phosphate. Fertil. Res. 4, 51–61.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow N J and Shaw T C 1975 The slow reactions between soil and anions: 2. Effect of time and temperature on the decrease in phosphate concentration in the soil solution. Soil Sci. 119, 167–177.Google Scholar
  4. Cabrera F, Arambarri Pde, Madrid L and Tocca C G 1981 Desorption of phosphate from iron oxides in relation to equilibrium pH and porosity. Geoderma 26, 203–216.Google Scholar
  5. Colombo C 1993. Adsorción y desorción del fosfato en hematites de differentes propiedades morfológicas y cristalinas. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain. 118 p.Google Scholar
  6. Colombo C, Buondonno A, Violante A and Torrent J 1991 The contrasting effect of goethite and hematite on phosphate sorption and desorption by Terre Rosse. Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bodenkd. 154, 301–305.Google Scholar
  7. Eggleston C M and HochellaJr M F 1992. The structure of hematite {001} surfaces by scanning tunneling microscopy: Image interpretation, surface relaxation, and step structure. Am. Miner. 77, 911–922.Google Scholar
  8. Gregg S J and Sing K S W 1982 Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity, 2nd ed. Academic Press, London 303 p.Google Scholar
  9. Madrid L and Arambarri Pde 1985. Adsorption of phosphate by two iron oxides in relation to their porosity. J. Soil Sci. 36, 523–530.Google Scholar
  10. Manceau A and Drits V A 1993. Local structure of ferrihydrite and feroxyhite by EXAFS spectroscopy. Clay Miner. 28, 165–184.Google Scholar
  11. Murphy J and Riley J P 1962 A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 27, 31–36.Google Scholar
  12. Parfitt R L 1978 Anion adsorption by soils and soil materials. Adv. Agron. 30, 1–50.Google Scholar
  13. Parfitt R L 1979 The availability of P from phosphate-goethite bridging complexes. Desorption and uptake from ryegrass. Plant and Soil 53, 55–65.Google Scholar
  14. Parfitt R L 1989 Phosphate reactions with natural allophane, ferrihydrite and goethite. J. Soil Sci. 40, 359–369.Google Scholar
  15. Schwertmann U 1964 Differenzierung der Eisenoxide des Bodens durch Extraktion mit Ammoniumoxalat-Lösung. Z. Pflanzenernaerhr. Dueng. Bodenkd. 105, 194–202.Google Scholar
  16. Schwertmann U and Taylor R M 1989 Iron oxides. In Minerals in Soil Environments, 2nd ed. Eds. B Dixon and S B Weed. pp 378–438. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Sposito G 1989 The Chemistry of Soils. Oxford University Press, New York, UK. 277 p.Google Scholar
  18. Stanjek H and Weidler P G 1992 The effect of dry heating on the chemistry, surface area, and solubility of synthetic 2-line and 6-line ferrihydrites. Clay Miner. 27, 397–412.Google Scholar
  19. Teo Y H, Beyrouty CA and Gbur E E 1992 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium influx kinetic parameters of three rice cultivars. J. Plant Nutr. 15, 435–444.Google Scholar
  20. Torrent J 1991 Activation energy of the slow reaction between phosphate and goethites of different morphology. Aust. J. Soil Res. 29, 69–74.Google Scholar
  21. Torrent J, Barrón V and Schwertmann U 1990 Phosphate adsorption and desorption by goethites differing in crystal morphology. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 1007–1012.Google Scholar
  22. Torrent J, Schwertmann U and Barrón V 1992 Fast and slow phosphate sorption by goethite-rich natural materials. Clays Clay Miner. 40, 14–21.Google Scholar
  23. Willett I R, Chartres C J and Nguyen T T 1988 Migration of phosphate into aggregated particles of ferrihydrite. J. Soil Sci. 39, 275–282.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Guzman
    • 1
  • E. Alcantara
    • 2
  • V. Barron
    • 1
  • J. Torrent
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias y Recursos Agrícolas y ForestalesUniversidad de CórdobaCórdobaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de AgronomíaUniversidad de CórdobaCórdobaSpain

Personalised recommendations