Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 139, Issue 3, pp 307–320 | Cite as

In situ phosphorus dynamics in soil: long-term ion-exchange resin study

  • Karolina Tahovská
  • Petr Čapek
  • Hana Šantrůčková
  • Jiří Kopáček
Article

Abstract

Phosphorus (P) availability to soil biota is commonly determined using soil extraction methods, which can mobilise unclearly specified and stable soil P fractions. Alternatively, natural P availability can be estimated using in situ exposition of ferrous-oxide impregnated resin that continually removes P from soil solution. Over 10 consecutive years, we measured phosphate dynamics using such resin in soils of two catchments, differing in their bedrocks (P-poor mica-schist and P-rich granite), P-sorption characteristics (different Al- and Fe-hydroxide pools) and terrestrial P export to receiving waters. The catchment with granitic bedrock loses P in the long-term, while soils on mica-schist permanently accumulate P from atmospheric deposition. We observed substantially higher soil P availability in the organo-mineral horizons along with higher terrestrial P export in the granitic catchment rather than in the mica-schist one. These results indicate that soils developed on the P-rich bedrock, and concurrently with lower P sorption capacity, have high in situ P availability. We further evaluated the main factors affecting soil P availability, using data on long-term environmental and edaphic variables. Soil P availability was partly controlled by abiotic factors such as throughfall chemistry, precipitation amount and the C-to-P ratio of litter. However, we assume that high losses of P in the granitic catchment can also be driven by microbial processes since decomposition activity was the most influential variable of available soil P in this catchment.

Keywords

Phosphorus availability P leaching Ion-exchange resin Granite Spruce forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was financed by Czech Science Foundation (Project 17-15229S) and from MEYS (Projects LM2015075, EF16_013/0001782: SoWa Ecosystems Research). We thank Eva Kaštovská and Jiří Kaňa for the inspiring discussion about data, to Gabriela Scott Zemanová and Ryan A. Scott for the language corrections, to Jiří Kaňa, Michal Choma, Jiří Bárta, and Daniel Vaněk for the field assistance throughout the years, Gabriela Prášilová for the laboratory assistance, and the authorities of the Šumava NP, who enabled us to conduct the study.

Supplementary material

10533_2018_470_MOESM1_ESM.tif (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 35 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (16.2 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 16611 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM3_ESM.tif (245 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 244 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM4_ESM.tif (167 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 167 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM5_ESM.tiff (552 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 551 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM6_ESM.docx (38 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOCX 37 kb)
10533_2018_470_MOESM7_ESM.xlsx (809 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (XLSX 808 kb)

References

  1. Achat DL, Bakker MR, Morel C (2009) Process-based assessment of phosphorus availability in a low phosphorus sorbing forest soil using isotopic dilution methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:2131–2142.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achat DL, Morel C, Bakker MR, Augusto L, Pellerin S, Gallet-Budynek A, Gonzalez M (2010) Assessing turnover of microbial biomass phosphorus: combination of an isotopic dilution method with a mass balance model. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2231–2240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Achat DL, Bakker MR, Augusto L, Morel C (2013) Contributions of microbial and physical–chemical processes to phosphorus availability in Podzols and Arenosols under a temperate forest. Geoderma 211:18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Achat DL, Pousse N, Nicolas M, Bredoire F, Augusto L (2016) Soil properties controlling inorganic phosphorus availability: general results from a national forest network and a global compilation of the literature. Biogeochemistry 127:255–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-015-0178-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin AT, Vitousek PM (1998) Nutrient dynamics on a precipitation gradient in Hawai’i. Oecologia 113:519–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binkley D, Matson P (1983) Ion-exchange resin bag method for assessing forest soil-nitrogen availability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1050–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Čapek P, Kotas P, Manzoni S, Šantrůčková H (2016) Drivers of phosphorus limitation across soil microbial communities. Funct Ecol 30:1705–1713.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edzwald JK, Toensing DC, Leung MCY (1976) Phosphate adsorpion reactions with clay-minerals. Environ Sci Technol 10:485–490.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es60116a001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elser JJ, Urabe J (1999) The stoichiometry of consumer-driven nutrient recycling: theory, observations, and consequences. Ecology 80:735–751.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0735:tsocdn]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elser JJ et al (2003) Growth rate-stoichiometry couplings in diverse biota. Ecol Lett 6:936–943.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00518.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frossard E, Condron LM, Oberson A, Sinaj S, Fardeau JC (2000) Processes governing phosphorus availability in temperate soils. J Environ Qual 29:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallardo A, Schlesinger WH (1994) Factors limiting microbial biomass in the mineral soil and forest floor of a warm-temperate forest. Soil Biol Biochem 26:1409–1415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(94)90225-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galloway JN et al (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galloway JN et al (2008) Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320:889–892.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardenas AI et al (2011) Knowledge gaps in soil carbon and nitrogen interactions—from molecular to global scale. Soil Biol Biochem 43:702–717.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerke J (2010) Humic (organic matter)–Al(Fe)–phosphate complexes: an underestimated phosphate form in soils and source of plant-available phosphate. Soil Sci 175:417–425.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ss.0b013e3181f1b4dd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giesler R, Petersson T, Hogberg P (2002) Phosphorus limitation in boreal forests: effects of aluminum and iron accumulation in the humus layer. Ecosystems 5:300–314.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0073-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holford ICR (1997) Soil phosphorus: its measurement, and its uptake by plants. Aust J Soil Res 35:227–239.  https://doi.org/10.1071/s96047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutchison KJ, Hesterberg D (2004) Dissolution of phosphate in a phosphorus-enriched ultisol as affected by microbial reduction. J Environ Qual 33:1793–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jan J, Borovec J, Kopáček J, Hejzlar J (2013) What do results of common sequential fractionation and single-step extractions tell us about P binding with Fe and Al compounds in non-calcareous sediments? Water Res 47:547–557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.10.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaňa J, Kopáček J (2006) Impact of soil sorption characteristics and bedrock composition on phosphorus concentrations in two Bohemian Forest lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut 173:243–259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-005-9065-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaňa J, Tahovská K, Kopáček J (2013) Response of soil chemistry to forest dieback after bark beetle infestation. Biogeochemistry 113:369–383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9765-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaňa JSH, Kopáček J, Peroutkova M, Matejickova I (2014) Chemical and biochemical characteristics of soils in the catchments of Čertovo and Plešné Lakes (Bohemian Forest) in 2010. Silva Gabreta 20:97–129Google Scholar
  24. Kaňa J, Tahovská K, Kopáček J, Šantrůčková H (2015) Excess of organic carbon in mountain spruce forest soils after bark beetle outbreak altered microbial N transformations and mitigated N-saturation. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134165 Google Scholar
  25. Khan KS, Joergensen RG (2012) Relationships between P fractions and the microbial biomass in soils under different land use management. Geoderma 173:274–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.12.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kopáček J, Cudlin P, Svoboda M, Chmelikova E, Kaňa J, Picek T (2010) Composition of Norway spruce litter and foliage in atmospherically acidified and nitrogen-saturated Bohemian Forest stands, Czech Republic. Boreal Environ Res 15:413–426Google Scholar
  27. Kopáček J, Hejzlar J, Vrba J, Stuchlik E (2011) Phosphorus loading of mountain lakes: terrestrial export and atmospheric deposition. Limnol Oceanogr 56:1343–1354.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kopáček J et al (2015) Dynamics and composition of litterfall in an unmanaged Norway spruce (Picea abies) forest after bark-beetle outbreak. Boreal Environ Res 20:305–323Google Scholar
  29. Kopáček J, Hejzlar J, Kaňa J, Porcal P, Turek J (2016) The sensitivity of water chemistry to climate in a forested, nitrogen-saturated catchment recovering from acidification. Ecol Indic 63:196–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kopáček J, Fluksova H, Hejzlar J, Kaňa J, Porcal P, Turek J (2017) Changes in surface water chemistry caused by natural forest dieback in an unmanaged mountain catchment. Sci Total Environ 584:971–981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lüdecke D (2018) ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J Open Source Softw.  https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772 Google Scholar
  32. Maclean DA, Wein RW (1978) Weight-loss and nutrient changes in decomposing litter and forest floor material in New-Brunswick Forest stands. Can J Bot 56:2730–2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manzoni S, Trofymow JA, Jackson RB, Porporato A (2010) Stoichiometric controls on carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus dynamics in decomposing litter. Ecol Monogr 80:89–106.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0179.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marklein AR, Houlton BZ (2012) Nitrogen inputs accelerate phosphorus cycling rates across a wide variety of terrestrial ecosystems. N Phytol 193:696–704.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03967.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matejka K (2015) Disturbance-induced changes in the plant biomass in forests near Plešné and Čertovo Lakes. J For Sci 61:156–168.  https://doi.org/10.17221/109/2014-jfs CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGechan MB (2002) Sorption of phosphorus by soil, Part 2: measurement methods, results and model parameter values. Biosyst Eng 82:115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1006/beng.2002.0068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mooshammer M et al (2012) Stoichiometric controls of nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in decomposing beech leaf litter. Ecology 93:770–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 26:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newman EI (1995) Phosphorus inputs to terrestrial ecosystems. J Ecol 83:713–726.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2261638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olander LP, Vitousek PM (2000) Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry 49:175–190.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006316117817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Penuelas J, Sardans J, Rivas-Ubach A, Janssens IA (2012) The human-induced imbalance between C, N and P in Earth’s life system. Glob Change Biol 18:3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02568.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porder S, Ramachandran S (2013) The phosphorus concentration of common rocks—a potential driver of ecosystem P status. Plant Soil 367:41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1490-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson AE, Simpson RJ (2011) Soil microorganisms mediating phosphorus availability. Plant Physiol 156:989–996.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.175448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SanClements MD, Fernandez IJ, Norton SA (2010) Phosphorus in soils of temperate forests: linkages to acidity and aluminum. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:2175–2186.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt SK et al (2007) Biogeochemical consequences of rapid microbial turnover and seasonal succession in soil. Ecology 88:1379–1385.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sims JT, Edwards AC, Schoumans OF, Simard RR (2000) Integrating soil phosphorus testing into environmentally based agricultural management practices. J Environ Qual 29:60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spohn M, Widdig M (2017) Turnover of carbon and phosphorus in the microbial biomass depending on phosphorus availability. Soil Biol Biochem 113:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.05.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tahovská K, Kopáček J, Šantrůčková H (2010) Nitrogen availability in Norway spruce forest floor—the effect of forest defoliation induced by bark beetle infestation. Boreal Environ Res 15:553–564Google Scholar
  50. Tahovská K, Čapek P, Šantrůčková H, Kaňa J, Kopáček J (2016) Measurement of in situ phosphorus availability in acidified soils using iron-infused resin. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 47:487–494.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2015.1123721 Google Scholar
  51. Turek J, Fluksova H, Hejzlar J, Kopáček J, Porcal P (2014) Modelling air temperature in catchments of Čertovo and Plešné Lakes in the Bohemian Forest back to 1781. Silva Gabreta 29:1–24Google Scholar
  52. Turner BL, Chudek JA, Whitton BA, Baxter R (2003) Phosphorus composition of upland soils polluted by long-term atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Biogeochemistry 65:259–274.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026065719423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turrion MB, Schneider K, Gallardo JF (2008) Soil P availability along a catena located at the Sierra de Gata Mountains, Western Central Spain Forest. Ecol Manag 255:3254–3262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vitousek PM, Porder S, Houlton BZ, Chadwick OA (2010) Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions. Ecol Appl 20:5–15.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0127.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vrede T, Dobberfuhl DR, Kooijman S, Elser JJ (2004) Fundamental connections among organism C:N:P stoichiometry, macromolecular composition, and growth. Ecology 85:1217–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walker TW, Syers JK (1976) Fate of phosphorus during pedogenesis. Geoderma 15:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(76)90066-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yanai RD (1998) The effect of whole-tree harvest on phosphorus cycling in a northern hardwood forest. For Ecol Manag 104:281–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(97)00256-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zechmeister-Boltenstern S, Keiblinger KM, Mooshammer M, Penuelas J, Richter A, Sardans J, Wanek W (2015) The application of ecological stoichiometry to plant–microbial–soil organic matter transformations. Ecol Monogr 85:133–155.  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0777.1.sm CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zheng MH, Huang J, Chen H, Wang H, Mo JM (2015) Responses of soil acid phosphatase and beta-glucosidase to nitrogen and phosphorus addition in two subtropical forests in southern China. Eur J Soil Biol 68:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2015.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem Biology & SoWa, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Biology Centre CASInstitute of HydrobiologyČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations