Plant and Soil

, Volume 284, Issue 1–2, pp 217–227

Phosphorus intensity determines short-term P uptake by pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) grown in soils with differing P buffering capacity

  • Pieter Pypers
  • Josefien Delrue
  • Jan Diels
  • Erik Smolders
  • Roel Merckx
Research Article

Abstract

Phosphorus (P) uptake by plant roots depends on P intensity (I) and P quantity (Q) in the soil. The relative importance of Q and I on P uptake is unknown for soils with large P sorption capacities because of difficulties in determining trace levels of P in the soil solution. We applied a new isotope based method to detect low P concentrations (<20 µg P l−1). The Q factor was determined by assessment of the isotopically exchangeable P in the soil (E-value) and the I factor was determined by measurement of the P concentration in the pore water. A pot trial was set up using four soils with similar labile P quantities but contrasting P buffering capacities. Soils were amended with KH2PO4 at various rates and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) was grown for 25 days. The P intensity ranged between 0.0008 and 50 mg P l−1 and the P quantity ranged between 10 and 500 mg P kg−1. Shoot dry matter (DM) yield and P uptake significantly increased with increasing P application rates in all soils. Shoot DM yield and P uptake, relative to the maximal yield or P uptake, were better correlated with the P concentration in the pore water (R2 = 0.83–0.90) than with the E-value (R2=0.40–0.53). The observed P uptakes were strongly correlated to values simulated using a mechanistic rhizosphere model (NST 3.0). A sensitivity analysis reveals that the effect of P intensity on the short-term P uptake by pigeon pea exceeded the effect of P quantity both at low and high P levels. However, DM yield and P uptake at a given P intensity consistently increased with increasing P buffering capacity (PBC). The experimental data showed that the intensity yielding 80% of the maximal P uptake was 4 times larger in the soil with the smallest PBC compared to the soil with the largest PBC. This study confirms that short-term P uptake by legumes is principally controlled by the P intensity in the soil, but is to a large extent also affected by the PBC of the soil.

Keywords

P buffering capacity P intensity P quantity P uptake Pigeon pea 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amato, M 1983Determination of 12C and 14C in plant and soilSoil Biol Biochem15611612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, SA 1995Soil nutrient bioavailability2John Wiley & Son IncNew York414Google Scholar
  3. Barraclough, PB, Tinker, PB 1981The determination of ionic diffusion coefficients in field soils I. Diffusion coefficients in sieved soils in relation to water content and bulk densityJ Soil Sci32225236Google Scholar
  4. Barrow, NJ 1967Relationship between uptake of phosphorus by plants and the phosphorus potential and buffering capacity of the soil—An attempt to test Schofield’s hypothesisSoil Sci10499106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, RW, Edwards, DG, Asher, CJ 1990Growth and nodulation of tropical legumes in dilute solution culturePlant Soil122249258Google Scholar
  6. Claassen, N, Barber, SA 1976Simulation model for nutrient uptake from soil by a growing plant root systemAgron. J68961964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day, PR,  et al. 1965

    Particle fractioning and particle size analysis

    Black, CA eds. Methods of soil analysisPart 1 ASAMadison, WI545562
    Google Scholar
  8. FAO-ISRIC-ISSS (1998) World reference base for soil resources. World soil resources report nr. 84. FAO, Rome, pp 88.Google Scholar
  9. Hinsinger, P 2001Bioavailability of soil inorganic P in the rhizosphere as affected by root-induced chemical changes: a reviewPlant Soil237173195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holford, ICR, Mattingly, GEG 1976Phosphate adsorption and availability plant of phosphatePlant Soil44377389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (1982) Automated and semi-automated methods for soil and plant analysis. Manual series no. 7. IITA, Ibadan. pp 33.Google Scholar
  12. Jungk, A, Asher, CJ, Edwards, DG, Meyer, D 1990Influence of phosphate status on phosphate-uptake kinetics of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max)Plant Soil124175182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mendham, DS, Smethurst, PJ, Holz, GK, Menary, RC, Grove, TS, Weston, C, Baker, T 2002Soil analyses as indicators of phosporus response in young eucalypt plantationsSoil Sci Soc Am J66959968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Menzies, NW, Kusumo, B, Moody, PW 2005Assessment of P availability in heavily fertilized soils using the diffusive gradient in thin films (DGT) techniquePlant Soil26919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maertens, E, Thijs, A, Smolders, E, Degryse, F, Cong, PT, Merckx, R 2004An anion resin membrane technique to overcome detection limits of isotopically exchanged P in P-sorbing soilsEur J Soil Sci556369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moody, PW, Haydon, GF, Dickson, T 1983Mineral nutrition of soybeans grown in the South Burnett region of south-eastern Queensland. 2. Prediction of grain yield response to phosphorus with soil testsAust J Exp Agr233842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moody, PW, Aitken, RL, Compton, BL, Hunt, S 1988Soil phosphorus parameters affecting phosphorus availability to, and fertilizer requirements of, maize (Zea mays)Aust J Soil Res26611622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moody, PW, Dickson, T, Aitken, RL 1997Soil phosphorus tests and grain yield responsiveness of maize (Zea mays) on FerrosolsAust J Soil Res35609613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, J, Riley, HP 1962A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural watersAnal Chim Acta273136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nye, PH, Tinker, PB 1977Solute movement in the soil–root systemBlackwell Scientific PublishersOxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Probert, ME, Moody, PW 1998Relating phosphorus quantity, intensity and buffer capacity to phosphorus uptakeAust J Soil Res36389393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute Inc1999SAS User’s Guide: StatisticsSAS Institute, IncCary, NCGoogle Scholar
  23. Schenk, MK, Barber, SA 1979Phosphate uptake by corn as affected by soil characteristics and root morphologySoil Sci Soc Am J43880883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Syring KN, Claassen N (1996) Model of nutrient uptake © NST 3.0. http://www.gwdg.de/uaac/.
  25. Tennant, D 1975A test of a modified line intersection method of estimating root lengthJ Appl Ecol639951001Google Scholar
  26. Vanlauwe, B, Diels, J, Sanginga, N, Carsky, RJ, Deckers, J, Merckx, R 2000Utilization of rock phosphate by crops on a representative toposequence in the Northern Guinea savanna zone of Nigeria: response by maize to previous herbaceous legume cropping and rock phosphate treatmentsSoil Biol Biochem3220792090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raij, B 1998Bioavailable tests: alternatives to standard soil extractionsCommun Soil Sci Plant Anal2915531570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Veldhoven, PP, Mannaerts, GP 1987Inorganic and organic phosphate measurements in the nanomolar rangeAnal Biochem1614548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, RF 1948The effect of phosphorus supply on the rates of intake of phosphorus and nitrogen upon certain aspects of phosphorus metabolism in gramineous plantsAust J Sci Res1333361Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Pypers
    • 1
  • Josefien Delrue
    • 1
  • Jan Diels
    • 1
  • Erik Smolders
    • 1
  • Roel Merckx
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Soil and Water Management, Department of Land Management and EconomicsK.U.LeuvenHeverleeBelgium

Personalised recommendations