Total extractable phosphorus in flooded soil as affected by struvite and other fertilizer‐phosphorus sources

Anderson, Ryder; Brye, Kristofor R.; Kékedy‐Nagy, László; Greenlee, Lauren F.; Gbur, Edward E.; Roberts, Trenton L.

doi:10.1002/saj2.20237

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The consistent similarities in plant response from the two struvite materials (ECST and CPST) suggest that the difference in physical form applied (i.e., crystalline for ECST and prill for CPST) between the struvite sources had little to no effect on P release and behavior of the materials. Anderson et al (2021b) reported a similar incremental increase from the initial value of water-soluble and Mehlich-3 soil P concentrations between ECST-and CPSTtreated soil in a silty clay loam and two silt-loam soils under flooded condition after 1, 2, 3, and 4 mo of a plant-less soil incubation study.…”

Section: Source Of Variationsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Thus, fertilizer-P sources commonly used in agriculture tend to be substantially more soluble than struvite. Consequently, the solubility characteristics make struvite a potentially ideal, slow-release P source for many types of plants, including agricultural crops, in upland, well-drained (Achat et al, 2014;Anderson et al, 2021a;Thompson, 2013) and lowland, poorly drained soils (Anderson, Anderson, Brye, Greenlee, & Roberts, 2021;Anderson et al, 2021b).…”

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the accumulation of soil P from the excess fertilizer-P application can result in off-site transport in agricultural runoff, which can cause eutrophication and the creation of hypoxic zones in freshwaters from P contamination (Correll, 1998;MacDonald et al, 2016). Thus, matching soil-P availability with the timing of plant-P need through innovative fertilizer technology would provide both agronomic benefits and environmental protection (Massey et al, 2009;Talboys et al, 2015), such as through the use of struvite (Anderson, Brye, Greenlee, & Roberts, 2021;Rech et al, 2019;Anderson et al, 2021aAnderson et al, , 2021b.…”

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of electrochemically precipitated struvite as a fertilizer‐phosphorus source in flood‐irrigated rice

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phosphorus (P) is a major contaminant in many wastewater sources and has gained interest due to the role P has in eutrophication of receiving waters. Recycling P from wastewater as the mineral struvite (MgNH 4 PO 4 • 6H 2 O) could be a promising option to reduce P discharge into receiving waters and could potentially provide an alternative fertilizer-P source for crop production. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two struvite materials (i.e., electrochemically precipitated struvite [ECST] and chemically precipitated struvite [CPST]) relative to several other common fertilizer-P sources (i.e., triple super phosphate [TSP], monoammonium phosphate [MAP], diammonium phosphate [DAP], and rock phosphate [RP]) on the response of a pureline rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar grown under flood-irrigation in a P-deficient, silt-loam soil (Typic Glossaqualfs) in eastern Arkansas. In 2019, rice grain yield did not differ (P > .05) among fertilizer-P sources, whereas in 2020, rice grain yield was greater from TSP (13.1 Mg ha −1 ) than that from ESCT (11.0 Mg ha −1 ) or CPST (12.7 Mg ha −1 ). Rice aboveground dry matter, aboveground and belowground tissue and grain P and N concentrations, aboveground and grain tissue P uptake, and aboveground tissue N concentration from ECST and CPST did not differ (P > .05) from those from TSP, MAP, DAP, RP, or an unamended control. The similarities in rice responses compared with other commonly used, commercially available fertilizer-P sources suggest that struvite materials have the potential to be an alternative fertilizer-P source option for flood-irrigated rice production.

show abstract

Section: Source Of Variationsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Core Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of electrochemically precipitated struvite as a fertilizer‐phosphorus source in flood‐irrigated rice

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to Anderson et al (2020), Anderson, Brye, Kekedy-Nagy, et al (2021), for each fertilizer material, five subsamples were used for chemical analyses. Soil pH was measured potentiometrically in a 1:2 fertilizer mass/water volume ratio (Sikora & Kissel, 2014).…”

Section: Fertilizer-p Sources and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After procedures and the same soils used in Anderson et al (2020), Anderson, Brye, Kekedy-Nagy, et al (2021) and procedures used for fertilizer material analyses, triplicate soil subsamples were characterized for physical (i.e., particle-size distribution) and chemical analyses (i.e., pH, EC, soil organic matter [SOM], total C, total N, and WS and M3 elemental concentrations [P, Ca, Mg, and Fe]). Soil subsamples were also extracted with 2 M KCl in a 1:5 soil mass/extractant volume ratio and analyzed spectrophotometrically to determine initial NO 3 -N and NH 4 -N concentrations by the cadmium-reduction and salicylate methods, respectively (Mulvaney, 1996).…”

Section: Soil Collection and Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrochemically precipitated struvite effects on extractable nutrients compared with other fertilizer‐phosphorus sources

Anderson

Brye

Kékedy‐Nagy

et al. 2021

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery of struvite, or magnesium ammonium phosphate (MgNH4PO4 · 6H2O), from wastewater streams may provide an alternative to traditional P fertilizers. Little research has assessed the behavior of struvite relative to other commercially available, fertilizer‐P sources in historically row‐cropped soils in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate total extractable P and other nutrients from electrochemically (ECST) and chemically precipitated struvite (CPST) compared with triple superphosphate (TSP), diammonium phosphate (DAP), monoammonium phosphate (MAP), and rock phosphate (RP) in a moist‐soil incubation without plants using varying soil textures (loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). A uniform application rate of 24.5 kg total P ha–1 was used for each fertilizer‐P source. Soil sampling occurred six times over a 9‐mo period (0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 mo) to examine the change in soil pH and water‐soluble (WS) and Mehlich‐3‐extractable nutrient concentrations (P, Ca, Mg, and Fe) from their initial levels over time. After 0.5 mo, WS‐P concentrations increased the most in the ECST treatment (41.6 mg kg–1), which did not differ from that of DAP. Throughout the remaining 8.5 mo of incubation, WS‐P concentrations generally decreased in most treatments but were still greater than the initial level by 9 mo and were often similar among ECST, CPST, MAP, DAP, and TSP treatments. Comparable WS‐P concentrations among ECST and MAP, DAP, and TSP under soil conditions near field capacity (∼0.2 g g–1) support struvite's potential as a sustainable fertilizer‐P source, thus warranting further investigation of the plant response to struvite use as an alternative fertilizer‐P source.

show abstract

Soil profile distribution of nutrients in contrasting soils amended with struvite and other conventional phosphorus fertilizers

Simms,

Brye,

Roberts

et al. 2024

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phosphorus (P) can be recovered from wastewater and used as an alternative fertilizer, namely, struvite [MgNH4PO4·6(H2O)]. However, the soil mobility of wastewater‐derived P and other nutrients needs to be evaluated. The objective of this study was to compare the vertical distribution of water‐soluble (WS) soil P and other nutrients from a synthetic‐wastewater‐derived electrochemically precipitated struvite (ECST) to that from a chemically precipitated struvite (CPST), triple superphosphate (TSP), monoammonium phosphate (MAP), and a control in six soils from Arkansas (AR; loam [L] and silt loam [SiL]), Missouri (MO; SiL 1 and SiL 2), and Nebraska (NE; sandy loam [SL] and SiL). A column‐leaching experiment was conducted with the six soils and five fertilizer‐P treatments. Water‐soluble (WS) P from the two struvite materials generally did not differ (p > 0.05) and was similar to that of MAP in the depths of 0–3, 3–6, and 6–10 cm, but was greater than that of TSP in the top 6 cm in four of the six soils. WS P from CPST in the MO‐SiL 2 and NE‐SL soils (6.6 and 12.7 mg kg−1, respectively) was larger than that from ECST, MAP, and TSP. In the AR‐L and MO‐SiL 1 soils, TSP was the only fertilizer‐P source that had increased WS P concentrations in the top 6 cm relative to the other fertilizer‐P sources. Results showed that ECST‐derived, WS P had similar soil profile distributions in the top 10 cm, suggesting that ECST will be equally protective of environmental health and leachate quality across multiple soil textures as other common fertilizer‐P sources.

show abstract

Total extractable phosphorus in flooded soil as affected by struvite and other fertilizer‐phosphorus sources

Cited by 16 publications

References 55 publications

Evaluation of electrochemically precipitated struvite as a fertilizer‐phosphorus source in flood‐irrigated rice

Evaluation of electrochemically precipitated struvite as a fertilizer‐phosphorus source in flood‐irrigated rice

Electrochemically precipitated struvite effects on extractable nutrients compared with other fertilizer‐phosphorus sources

Soil profile distribution of nutrients in contrasting soils amended with struvite and other conventional phosphorus fertilizers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About