Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Comparing of the difference and balance methods to calculate percent recovery of fertilizer phosphorus applied to soils: a critical discussion

  • S. H. Chien
  • F. J. Sikora
  • R. J. Gilkes
  • M. J. McLaughlin
Review Article

Abstract

This article presents a critical discussion comparing the traditional method and a newly proposed balance method to calculate percent recovery of fertilizer P applied to soils. The traditional difference method is defined as P uptake from the soil treated with fertilizer P minus P uptake from a control with no P added divided by the amount of fertilizer P applied. The balance method simply considers the ratio of P uptake from the P fertilized soil to the amount of fertilizer P applied and does not use a control to discount P taken up from soil without fertilizer application. The percentage recovery of fertilizer P calculated by the difference method normally ranges from 10 to 25% for a given crop in a given season and is always lower than that by the balance method which ranges from 50 to 90% and is sometimes over 100%. The balance method is inappropriate to calculate percentage recovery of current fertilizer P applied due to its overestimation and the invalidity of the mathematical equation used. The difference method is superior to the balance method to estimate percentage recovery of fertilizer P applied. The balance method is suitable for determining a percent soil P balance to evaluate if fertilizer P applications are building up, depleting, or maintaining soil P reserves.

Keywords

Percentage recovery of fertilizer P Difference and balance methods Initial and residual P effects Percentage of soil P balance P use efficiency 

References

  1. Bolan NS, Robson AD, Barrow NJ (1983) Plant and soil factors including mycorrizal infection causing sigmoidal response of plants to applied phosphorus. Plant Soil 73:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chien SH, Menon RG, Billingham KS (1996) Phosphorus availability from phosphate rock as enhanced by water-soluble phosphorus. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:1173–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chien SH, Prochnow LI, Tu S, Synder CS (2011) The agronomic and environmental aspects of phosphate fertilizers varying in source and solubility: an update review. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 89:229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Johnston AE, Syers JK (2009) A new approach to assessing phosphorus use efficiency in agriculture. Better Crops 93(3):14–16Google Scholar
  5. Mahisarakul J, Siripaibool C, Claimon J, Pakkong P (2002) Field assessment of the relative agronomic effectiveness of phosphate rock materials in a soybean-maize crop rotation using 32P isotopic techniques. In: Assessment of soil phosphorus status and management of phosphatic fertilizers to optimize crop production. IAEA-TECDOC-1272, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, pp 265–274Google Scholar
  6. Mattingly GEG (1968) Evaluation of phosphate fertilizers. II: residual value of nitrophosphates, Gafsa rock phosphate, basic slag and potassium metaphosphate for potatoes, barley and swedes grown in rotation, with special reference to changes in soil phosphorus status. J Agri Sci 70:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Prochnow LI, Chien SH, Carmona G, Henao J (2004) Greenhouse evaluation of phosphorus sources produced from a low-reactive Brazilian phosphate rock. Agron J 96:761–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Selles F, Campbell CA, Zentner RP, James DC, Basnyat P (2011) Phosphorus use efficiency and long-term trends in soil available phosphorus in wheat production systems with and without nitrogen fertilizer. Can J Soil Sci 91:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Syers JK, Johnston AE, Curtin D (2008) Efficiency of soil and fertilizer phosphorus use. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 18, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. H. Chien
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. J. Sikora
    • 3
  • R. J. Gilkes
    • 4
  • M. J. McLaughlin
    • 5
  1. 1.International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)Muscle ShoalsUSA
  2. 2.FlorenceUSA
  3. 3.University of Kentucky, PSSLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Soil Science and Plant NutritionUniversity of Western, AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  5. 5.CSIRO, Land and WaterGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations