ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/est
Bioavailable Phosphorus in Animal Waste Amended Soils: Using Actual Crop Uptake and P Mass Balance Approach Mustafa N. Shafqat*,†,‡ and Gary M. Pierzynski‡ † ‡
Department of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502, United States
bS Supporting Information ABSTRACT: Animal manure amended soils often contain large amounts of bioavailable phosphorus (P) and constitute high risk for the deterioration of surface water quality through eutrophication. Current standards set for the safe disposal of animal manure through soil application are based on the assumption that phosphorus in all P sources would behave similarly. The primary objective of this study was to understand the influence of P from several manure and mineral fertilizer sources applied at 0, 50, and 150 mg P kg1 on two measures of bioavailable P to six soils of different initial soil test P levels using corn (Zea mays L.) P uptake and an iron oxide strip method for soil analysis (FeO-P). Total net bioavailable P (TNBP) was calculated by subtracting total P uptake by corn after seven consecutive harvests in control treatments that did not receive P from the P uptake from P-amended treatments. Net biovavailable P after the first harvest (NBP1) was calculated in a similar fashion but only using data from the first harvest. Significant differences in TNBP and NBP1 were found when comparing P sources. The hog (Sus scrofa) manure had the greatest P bioavailability while turkey (Meleagris gallopava) litter had the lowest among the animal P sources across all soils and levels of P application. Significant differences were also found between soils with the highest amounts of TNBP and NBP1 found in the Woodson soil and lowest detected in the Crete soil for most P sources. The FeO-P method was useful in predicting TNBP from most P sources.
’ INTRODUCTION Animal manure and biosolids are generally applied to soil on the basis of crop nitrogen (N) needs and are considered a valuable resource to agriculture and crop production. However, the problem is that the N:P ratio is narrower in the manures than that taken up by crops, and thus repeated application will eventually build soil P to the levels where most crops might show little yield response to the added P.1 Recent soil P analysis data from the United States confirmed that the majority of such soils contained P levels in the excessive or high categories and constituted a high risk for offsite P movement and may be responsible for the accelerated eutrophication of surface waters.25 Phosphorus in animal manure and biosolids is influenced by the digestion system of the animal, diet, and waste processing methods.68 Monogastric animals, such as pig, broiler, and turkey lack phytase in the digestive system and depend upon feed additives for adequate P nutrition.9 More than 50% of the ingested P is subject to fecal excretion.10 The formation of biogenic phosphate minerals (Ca and Mg phosphate) of low solubility in poultry manure was found to control soil solution P concentrations while such minerals were not detected in dairy manure.11 Most of the organic P (Po) was tied up in phosphomonoesters in broiler litter as well as in swine manures while sugarphosphomonoesters and phosphodiesters were the dominant constituents of cattle manures.12,13 It is more difficult to r 2011 American Chemical Society
hydrolyze phosphomonoesters than phosphodiesters in the soil environment and thus the majority of Po will contribute little toward bioavailable P in soils amended with manure from monogastric animals. The treatment of biosolids with salts of aluminum, iron, or calcium produces less soluble P than in untreated biosolids.14,15 Similarly, poultry litter treated with calcium carbonates, alum, iron chloride, or iron sulfate showed a decrease in water-soluble P levels from >2000 mg L1 to TL > CM1 > CM2. The maximum amount of P release in the time scale of the study was 8.4 g kg1 and the lowest was 1.31 g kg1 for SS and CM2, respectively. The Pmax values also suggested that SS, 8221
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es200517y |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8217–8224
Environmental Science & Technology
ARTICLE
Figure 1. (A) Phosphorus release from organic P sources using FeO-strip method on equal P basis. (B) Effect of P source at 150 mg P kg1 on P release from Eram-Lebo soil at T0 using FeO-strip method. (C) Effect of P source at 150 mg P kg1 on P release from Ulysses soil at T0 using FeO-strip method. (D) Relationship between Pmax (mg P kg1) determined using FeO-strip method and TNBP for both cattle manures, TL, and SS plotted together for both Eram-Lebo and Ulysses soils, as well as for individual soils.
Table 5. Phosphorus Release from Different P Sources on Equal P Basis and Parameter Estimates of Equation 1 waste material
k (1/h)
Pmax (g kg1)
CM1
0.08
3.6
CM2
0.07
1.31
TL HM
0.22 0.27
5.40 6.90
SS
0.16
8.40
HM, and TL, released relatively more P than cattle manures. The order of release constant (k) was HM > TL > SS > CM1 > CM2 indicating that HM released P much faster (k = 0.27 h1) than other P sources. However, the nature of P in CM2 was such that k was the lowest (k = 0.07 h1) among all P sources included in the study. Moreover, HM, SS, and TL not only released more P (high Pmax) but they also released that P much faster than the both cattle manures when tested without soil amendment. The P release from various P sources in the Eram-Lebo and Ulysses soil amended at 150 mg P kg1 at T0 is presented in Figure 1B and C, respectively, and P release after seventh harvest is presented in Figures S1 and S2 (Supporting Information). The control treatments (Table 6) in both soils released only 7.5 mg P kg1 which constituted only 1/3 of the actual P uptake (21 mg P kg1). The order of Pmax in the Eram-Lebo soil at T0 was TSP >
Table 6. Interactive Effect of P Source, Time, and Soil on Pmax (Parameter Estimate of Equation 1) Using FeO-strip Methoda mg P kg-1 Eram-Lebo soil
Ulysses soil
treatment
T0
T7
T0
T7
CM1-150
39 ef
9 ijk
57 c
8.6 ijk
CM2-150
43 e
10 ji
65 b
8.4 ijk
TL-150
31 g
7.2 ijk
32 fg
8.0 ijk
HM-150
42 e
11 hi
53 cd
10 ijk
SS-150
30 g
11 hij
46 ed
8.5 ijk
TSP-150 control
46 ed 7.4 ijk
18 h 2.8 k
77 a 7.5 ijk
11 ji 3.8 jk
a
Means with same letter/letters across all soils, treatments, and time combinations are not significant at P < 0.05.
CM2 > HM > CM1 > TL > SS, while the order of TNBP was HM > CM2 = CM1 = TSP > SS = TL. The trends in FeO-P in this soil agree well with the order of TNBP. Because Pmax values for TSP, CM2, HM, and CM1 were statistically at par with each other in this method, both methods indicated a similar pattern in P release in this low P soil. 8222
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es200517y |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8217–8224
Environmental Science & Technology In case of the Ulysses soil, prior to crop P removal (T0), the order of Pmax was TSP > CM2 > CM1 > HM > SS > TL while TNBP was HM > SS > CM2 > CM1 > TL > TSP in decreasing order, respectively (Table 6). There were a number of discrepancies in the Ulysses soil; TSP had the largest value of Pmax at T0 but this was not supported by TNBP results. In reality, TSP might undergo reactions with soil constituents and contributed the least amounts of TNBP in the Ulysses soil. This was also evident in NBP1, where HM, CM2, and SS had contributed significantly more P than the TSP treatment (Table 4). The HM and SS treatments were releasing significantly lesser amounts than both cattle manures in this method but in reality, HM released significantly more than both cattle manures while SS also released more but was statistically at par with both cattle manures. Despite the discrepancies, this method also shared common trends with the TNBP data for some P sources (Table 3). For example, TL released identical amounts in both soils that also agreed well with the TNBP data though 1/3 less than the latter one; second, SS released more P in Ulysses soil than in Eram-Lebo, and finally, significantly more P released for all animal P sources in the Ulysses soil than in Eram-Lebo soil. The relationship between Pmax at T0 and TNBP using both cattle manures along with TL and SS had a tight fit when both soils were plotted together, and 78% of the variation in Pmax was explained by TNBP (Figure 1D) with slopes very close to unity. Moreover, rate of change was close to unity for both soils. Therefore, calculating Pmax by using FeO-method could prove useful in predicting TNBP from cattle manures and broiler litter, as well as from SS in some soils. The Ulysses soil released P faster (larger k values) while all P sources had identical values of k in the EramLebo soil but this parameter seemed to be of limited use based on the study of using just two soils (Tables S3 and S4, Supporting Information). In concluding remarks, we saw not only significant different amounts of TNBP in manures from monogastric and ruminant animals but significant differences were found within each group of manures as well, thus contradicting the conventional wisdom that assumes that P in all manures behaves identically. Among the animal P sources, HM had the highest amounts of TNBP and TL had the lowest across all soils and levels of P application. Both cattle manures and SS contributed intermediate amounts of TNBP in most soils. This order in the amounts of TNBP from animal manures was also supported by sum of the P fractions extracted with mild extractants (0.01 M CaCl2 and 0.5 M NaHCO3). Most animal manure treatments had TNBP that was comparable to TSP. In fact, those soils (Ulysses and Harney) where TSP was contributing significantly lesser amounts toward TNBP, most animal manures had significantly more amounts of TNBP. More than 50% of the total P in the HM was approximately making up part of NBP1 in most soils, while TL had significantly lesser amount during the first harvest. The Crete soil with its highest crop P uptake in the control treatment also had the lowest values of NBP1 with all P sources and at both levels of P application. The FeO-P method proved useful in predicting TNBP from P sources such as cattle manures, TL, and SS. We believe findings from this study will add new information regarding better utilization of P in animal manures from the perspective of both crop production and protecting environment.
’ ASSOCIATED CONTENT
bS Supporting Information. Tables S1S25 and Figures F1 and F2. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.
ARTICLE
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected] or
[email protected]; phone: (92) 992-383591; fax: (92) 992-383441.
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Partial support of this project was provided by Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan and Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, USA. I am extremely thankful to Mr. Rustin Kimmel, Kurt Zimmer, and my wife Tahira Khatoon in collection and grinding of soil and plant samples. ’ REFERENCES (1) Toth, J. D.; Dou, Z.; Ferguson, J. D.; Galligan, D. T.; Ramberg, C. F., Jr. Nitrogen- vs. phosphorus-based dairy manure applications to field crops. J. Environ Qual. 2006, 35, 2302–2312. (2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory; EPA 841-R-02-001; Office of Water, U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, 2002 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/305b) (3) Sims, J. T.; Edwards, A. C.; Schoumans, O. F.; Simard, R. R. Integrating soil phosphorus testing into environmentally-based agricultural management practices. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 60–71. (4) Ketterings, Q. M.; Kahabka, J. E.; Reid, W. S. Trends in Phosphorus fertility of New York agricultural lands. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2005, 60, 10–20. (5) Carpenter, S. R.; Caraco, N. F.; Correll, D. L.; Howarth, R. W.; Sharpley, A. N.; Smith, V. H. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, 559–568. (6) Barnett, G. M. Phosphorus forms in animal manure. Bioresour. Technol. 1994, 49, 139–147. (7) Hinedi, Z. R.; Chang, A. C.; Lee, R. W. Mineralization of phosphorus in sludge amended soils monitored by phosphorus 31 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 1593–1596. (8) Hristov, A. N.; Hanzen, W.; Ellsworth, J. W. Efficiency of the use of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium and potential for reducing phosphorus imports on Idaho dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 3702–3712. (9) Maguire, R. O.; Sims, J. T.; McGrath, J. M.; Angel, C. R. Effect of Phytase and Vitamin D Metabolite (25Oh-D3) in Turkey Diets on Phosphorus Solubility in Manure-Amended Soils. Soil Sci. 2003, 168, 421–433. (10) Poulsen, H. D. Phosphorus utilization and excretion in pig production. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 24–27. (11) Cooperband, L. R.; Good, L. W. Biogenic phosphate minerals in manure: Implications for phosphorus loss to surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 5075–5082. (12) Turner, B. L.; Leytem, A. B. Phosphorus compounds in sequential extracts of animal manures: Chemical speciation and a novel fractionation procedure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6101–6108. (13) Shafqat, M. N.; Pierzynski, G. M.; Xia, K. Phosphorus source effects on soil organic phosphorus: A P31 NMR study. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2009, 40, 1722–1746. (14) Maguire, R. O.; Sims, J. T.; Cole, F. J. Phosphorus solubility in biosolids-amended farm soils in the Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 1225–1233. (15) McCoy, J. L.; Sikora, L. J.; Weil, R. R. Plant availability of phosphorus in sewage compost. J. Environ. Qual. 1986, 15, 404–409. (16) Moore, P. A.; Miller, D. M. Decreasing phosphorus solubility in poultry litter with aluminum, calcium, and iron amendments. J. Environ. Qual. 1994, 23, 325–330. (17) Maguire, R. O.; Mullins, G. L.; Brosius, M. Evaluating long term nitrogen versus phosphorus based nutrient management of poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1810–1816. 8223
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es200517y |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8217–8224
Environmental Science & Technology
ARTICLE
(18) Van der Zee, S.; Fokkink, L.; Van Riemsduk, W. H. A new technique for assessment of reversibly adsorbed phosphate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1987, 51, 599–604. (19) Myers, R. G.; Pierzynski, G. M.; Thien, S. J. Iron oxide sink method for extracting soil phosphorus: Paper preparation and use. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 1400–1407. (20) Raven, K. P.; Hossner, L. R. Soil phosphorus desorption kinetics and its relationship with plant growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1994, 58, 416–423. (21) Lookman, R.; Freese, D.; Merckx, R.; Vlassak, K.; Van Riemsdijk, W. H. Long-term kinetics of phosphate release from soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1995, 29, 1559–1575. (22) Maguire, R. O.; Sims, J. T.; Foy, R. H. Long-term kinetics of phosphorus sorption and desorption by high phosphorus soils from Ireland and the Delmarwa peninsula, USA. Soil Sci. 2001, 166 (8), 557–565. (23) Murphy, J.; Riley, J. P. Modified single solution method for the determination of phosphorus in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta. 1962, 27, 31–36. (24) SAS Institute Inc. SAS Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release 9.12; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, 2009.
8224
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es200517y |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8217–8224
