Phosphate Sources and Their Placement Affecting Soil Phosphorus Pools in Sugarcane

Abstract

Phosphate fertilizer placement at sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) establishment can strongly influence the distribution of soil P pools over crop cycles, and has a great influence in the availability of this nutrient to plant uptake. Our main objective was to evaluate sugarcane yield as well as changes in the distribution of soil P pools, under phosphate fertilizer sources and their management, over two years of sugarcane cultivation. The experiment was established in August 2013 with two phosphate sources (TSP (triple superphosphate) and RP (Bayovar rock phosphate)) and three application methods: as broadcast, at planting furrow and combining half broadcast/half plant furrow, all at the rate of 180 kg ha−1 soluble P2O5 being applied at crop establishment. Sugarcane yield and P uptake was evaluated, and soil was sampled after harvest in August 2015 to analyze P fractions. Substantial amounts of P derived from fertilizers were accumulated as inorganic and/or organic moderately labile P. Broadcast application of TSP was not able to enhance total P in 0–40 cm layer compared to control treatment. In general, TSP was more effective to supply P for sugarcane and keep more of this nutrient in all labile fractions in the soil. However, the potential residual effect of RP (Ca-P) is expected in the following years, slowly solubilizing over the time.

Phosphate bacterial solubilization: A key rhizosphere driving force enabling higher P use efficiency and crop productivity

“…Similarly, under both greenhouse and the field conditions, growth, nutrient uptake, and grain yield of soybean increased under different P fertilization supplies including TSP and RP [72] . Furthermore, yield of sugarcane and Solanum tuberosum increased in response to different P fertilizers (e.g., DAP, SSP, TSP and RP) [68] , [73] , [74] . It is noted that application of P fertilizers improves soil fertility and increase P availability in soils, thereby plant P uptake will simultaneously increase leading to a better plant growth and yield.…”

Long‐term phosphate fertilization strategies evaluation in a Brazilian Oxisol

“…However, this practice has generated controversies regarding its efficiency due to the low mobility of P in soil. Short-term experiments usually support these controversies (Hansel, Ruiz Diaz, Amado, & Rosso, 2017b;Lu et al, 2019;Rosendo dos Santos et al, 2018), which contributes to further fuel the doubts of farmers. In long-term experiments, with adequate soil P levels and a well-established production system, results generally point to similar crop yields in both application methods (Coelho, Diaz, Hettiarachchi, Hansel, & Pavinato, 2019;Nunes, de Sousa, Goedert, & Vivaldi, 2011;Preston, Ruiz Diaz, & Mengel, 2019).…”

Corrective and maintenance phosphorus fertilization on sugarcane yield in Oxisols

“…This is explained, not only by the higher total rate of applied phosphorus, but also by phosphorus use efficiency in terms of higher cane yields when granular superphosphate or finely ground magnesium thermal phosphate (nearly 100% soluble in 2% citric acid, 1:100 w/v ratio) are exclusively broadcast-incorporated instead of traditionally applied in the planting furrow, as shown in experiments with sandy soils (Reis & Caballa-Rosand, 1986;Morelli et al, 1987Morelli et al, , 1991Rossetto et al, 2002) and a very clayey Oxisol (Rein & Sousa, 2013). However, Santos et al (2018b) did not find any significant difference in cane yield between broadcast-incorporation and furrow application of phosphorus.…”

“…Both phosphate rocks, with a solubility in 2% citric acid higher than 30%, are classified as "reactive" by Brazilian regulations (Brasil, 2018). These and other reactive phosphate rocks have actually been evaluated for sugarcane, broadcast and incorporated in soils responsive to phosphorus fertilization, and shown to be equivalent or slightly inferior for plant cane, when compared with watersoluble sources (Rossetto et al, 2002;Tomaz, 2009;Caione et al, 2013;Rein & Sousa, 2013;Sousa et al, 2015;Santos et al, 2018b).…”