Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 30, pp 30547–30556 | Cite as

Phosphorus availability changes in acidic soils amended with biochar, fly ash, and lime determined by diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) technique

  • Can Hong
  • Yuan Su
  • Shenggao Lu
Research Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

The lime, biochar, and fly ash are widely used to ameliorate acidic soils. The purpose of our pot experiment was to understand whether these soil amendments affected the availability of phosphorus in soils using diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) technique. Three soil amendments, biochar (B), fly ash (F), and lime (L), were applied alone or combined to Ultisol and Alfisol at the rate of 40, 40, and 6 g/kg, respectively. The DGT and chemical extraction techniques were used to quantify the soil available (phosphorus) P dynamic in the rice growth period. The addition of amendments can effectively increase the phosphorus content extracted by 0.01 M KCl solution. The biochar amendment showed the best effect on increasing the contents of DGT-P and Olsen-P in the soil. Combined with the DGT-induced fluxes in sediments (DIFS) model, it was found that soil amendments mainly increased the adsorption rate (k) and desorption rate (k−1), and reduced soil reflect time (Tc) of phosphorus released to the pore water. The P contents accumulated in rice grains correlated more closely with the effective P concentration measured by DGT technique, compared with those with soil total P, pore water P, and Olsen-P. These results suggested that the DGT technique had significant advantage over conventional chemical extraction techniques when assessing the bioavailability of phosphorus to rice growth. Application of soil amendments increased the contents of Al-P and Ca-P of both Ultisol and Alfisol, and decreased the content of Fe-P in soils. The addition of amendments could change the affinity of Fe and phosphorus decreasing the phosphorus fixation in soils. The increase of available phosphorus in soil is mainly due to the change of pH value and the direct diffusion of phosphorus in the amendments (biochar and fly ash). In conclusion, soil amendment can affect the availability and adsorption ability of phosphorus in soil, and biochar has the best effect on the availability of soil phosphorus.

Keywords

Acidic soil Amendment Phosphorus Olsen-P Diffusive gradients in thin films 

Notes

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Key Research & Development Program of China (2016YFD0200302).

References

  1. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2011) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake L, Mercik S, Koerschens M, Moskal S, Poulton PR, Goulding KWT, Weigel A, Powlson DS (2000) Phosphorus content in soil, uptake by plants and balance in three European long-term field experiments. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 56:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Curtin D, Syers JK (2001) Lime-induced changes in indices of soil phosphate availability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Degryse F, Smolders E, Zhang H, Davison W (2009) Predicting availability of mineral elements to plants with the DGT technique: a review of experimental data and interpretation by modelling. Environ Chem 6:198–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ding SM, Xu D, Sun Q, Yin HB, Zhang CS (2010) Measurement of dissolved reactive phosphorus using the diffusive gradients in thin films technique with a high-capacity binding phase. Environ Sci Technol 44:8169–8174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding SM, Jia F, Xu D, Sun Q, Zhang L, Fan C, Zhang CS (2011) High-resolution, two-dimensional measurement of dissolved reactive phosphorus in sediments using the diffusive gradients in thin films technique in combination with a routine procedure. Environ Sci Technol 45:9680–9686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ding S, Chen M, Cui J, Wang D, Lin J, Zhang C, Tsange DCW (2018) Reactivation of phosphorus in sediments after calcium-rich mineral capping: implication for revising the laboratory testing scheme for immobilization efficiency. Chem Eng J 331:720–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Enders A, Hanley K, Whitman T, Joseph S, Lehmann J (2012) Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour Technol 114:644–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biol Fert Soils 35:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper MP, Davison W, Tych W (2000) DIFS–a modelling and simulation tool for DGT induced trace metal remobilisation in sediments and soils. Environ Model Softw 15:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedley MJ, Stewart JWB, Chauhan BS (1982) Changes in inorganic and organic soil phosphorus fractions induced by cultivation practices and by laboratory incubations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:970–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holland JE, Bennett AE, Newton AC, White PJ, McKenzie BM, George TS, Pakeman RJ, Bailey JS, Fornara DA, Hayes RC (2018) Liming impacts on soils, crops and biodiversity in the UK: a review. Sci Total Environ 610-611:316–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong C, Lu SG (2018) Does biochar affect the availability and chemical fraction of phosphate in soils? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:8725–8734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jala S, Goyal D (2006) Fly ash as a soil ameliorant for improving crop production–a review. Bioresour Technol 97:1136–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koutika LS, Mareschal L, Epron D (2016) Soil P availability under eucalypt and acacia on ferralic Arenosols, Republic of the Congo Geoderma Regional 7:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mason S, McNeill A, McLaughlin MJ, Zhang H (2010) Prediction of wheat response to an application of phosphorus under field conditions using diffusive gradients in thin-films (DGT) and extraction methods. Plant Soil 337:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menzies NW, Kusumo B, Moody PW (2005) Assessment of P availability in heavily fertilized soils using the diffusive gradient in thin films (DGT) technique. Plant Soil 269:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Ana Chim Ac 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy PNC, Stevens RJ (2010) Lime and gypsum as source measures to decrease phosphorus loss from soils to water. Water Air Soil Pollut 212:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nawara S, Van Dael T, Merckx R, Amery F, Elsen A, Odeurs W, Vandendriessche H, Mcgrath S, Roisin C, Jouany C, Pellerin S, Denoroy P, Eichler-Lobermann B, Börjesson G, Goos P, Akkermans W, Smolders E (2017) A comparison of soil tests for available phosphorus in long-term field experiments in Europe. Euro J Soil Sci 68:873–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parvage MM, Ulen B, Eriksson J, Strock J, Kirchmann H (2013) Phosphorus availability in soils amended with wheat residue char. Biol Fertil Soil 49:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Six L, Smolders E, Merckx R (2013) The performance of DGT versus conventional soil phosphorus tests in tropical soils–maize and rice responses to P application. Plant Soil 366:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010) A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. Adv Agron 105:47–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soinne H, Hovi J, Tammeorg P, Turtola E (2014) Effect of biochar on phosphorus sorption and clay soil aggregate stability. Geoderma 219–220:162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Solomon D, Lehmann J, Mamo T, Fritzsche F, Zech W (2002) Phosphorus forms and dynamics as influenced by land use changes in the sub-humid Ethiopian highlands. Geoderma 105:21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Speirs SD, Scott BJ, Moody PW, Mason SD (2013) Soil phosphorus tests II: a comparison of soil test-crop response relationships for different soil tests and wheat. Crop Past Sci 64:469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tandy S, Mundus S, Yngvesson J, de Bang T, Lombi E, Schjoerring J, Husted S (2011) The use of DGT for prediction of plant available copper, zinc and phosphorus in agricultural soils. Plant Soil 346:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vogel C, Sekine R, Steckenmesser D, Lombi E, Steffens D, Adam C (2017) Phosphorus availability of sewage sludge-based fertilizers determined by the diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) technique. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 180:594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yunusa IAM, Loganathan P, Nissanka SP, Manoharan V, Burchett MD, Skilbeck CG, Eamus D (2012) Application of coal fly ash in agriculture: a strategic perspective. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42(6):559–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang H, Davison W (1995) Performance characteristics of diffusion gradients in thin films for the in situ measurement of trace metals in aqueous solution. Anal Chem 67:3391–3400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang G L, Gong Z T (2012) Soil survey laboratory methods (in Chinese). Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang H, Davison W, Gadi R, Kobayahsi T (1998a) In situ measurement of dissolved phosphorus in natural waters using DGT. Ana Chim Acta, 370;29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang H, Davison W, Knight B, McGrath S (1998b) In situ measurements of solution concentrations and fluxes of trace metals in soils using DGT. Environ Sci Technol 32:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang C, Ding S, Xu D, Tang Y, Wong MH (2014) Bioavailability assessment of phosphorus and metals in soils and sediments: a review of diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT). Environ Monit Assess 186:7367–7378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Environmental and Resource SciencesZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations