Next Article in Journal
Promoting the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies for Sustainable Farming: A Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Changes in Innovative Management of Global Insurers in the Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Eras
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/su14169973
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Different Types of Phosphate Fertilizer on Phosphorus Absorption and Desorption in Acidic Red Soil of Southwest China

by
Long Zhou
1,2,
Lizhen Su
2,
Lianya Zhang
2,
Lu Zhang
2,
Yi Zheng
2 and
Li Tang
1,2,*
1
College of Plant Protection, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
2
College of Resources and Environmental Science, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 9973; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169973
Submission received: 9 June 2022 / Revised: 7 August 2022 / Accepted: 9 August 2022 / Published: 12 August 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effects of different types of phosphate fertilization on the phosphorus (P) adsorption-desorption in low-P red soil remain unclear. A field plot location test was carried out, and fifteen red soil samples were collected at depths of 0–20 cm from five phosphate fertilizers (CK—no-phosphate, SSP—single superphosphate, CMP—calcium magnesium phosphate, MAP—monoammonium phosphate, and DAP—diammonium phosphate) after the maize was harvested to evaluate the soil physicochemical properties, P adsorption, and desorption characteristics. The structural equation model (SEM) and adjacent tree method (ABT) were used to quantitatively analyze the relative contribution of P adsorption and desorption. The yield, P accumulation, and the P use efficiency of maize were the highest under SSP and CMP treatments. The P adsorption amount was CK > DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP, and the P desorption amount was DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP > CK. Compared with the CK treatment, P adsorption of other P treatments reduced by an average of 21.4%, while P desorption increased by 154.8%. The effect of different types of phosphate fertilizers on soil P adsorption was mainly through regulation of soil organic matter (SOM) and Olsen P, and the effect on soil P desorption was mainly through regulation of SOM and CaCO3. Al2O3 had the greatest effect on P adsorption with a relative contribution rate of 31.52%, and SOM had the greatest effect on P desorption with a relative contribution rate of 53.04%. SSP and CMP treatments had an optimal matching with acidic red soil, which can promote P adsorption, effectively slow down P loss, improve P utilization, and increase crop yield.

1. Introduction

As one of the three important nutrients for plant growth, P is an important nutrient element for crop growth and is an important factor that causes water pollution [1,2]. The application of mineral P fertilizer has been a conventional way to enhance the crop yield over the past three decades [3]. However, excessive use of P fertilizers in intensive agricultural systems has led to P accumulating in soil and the release of P to surface water, resulting in eutrophication of water bodies [4]. P adsorption and desorption by soils plays a crucial role in both crop production and environmental protection, with adsorption limiting the P availability to the plant, while desorption results in P loss from soil [5,6]. In the farmland soil of China, due to the strong adsorption and fixation ability of soil to P, the availability of soil P and the utilization rate of crops to P fertilizer is low, which is only 10%~25% in the current season [7]. Crop yield is often limited by low availability of P in soils, mainly due to the adsorption and precipitation reactions of both indigenous soil P and fertilized P with iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), or calcium (Ca) [8].
P adsorption and desorption behavior is an important part of P migration and transformation process in soils, which has a profound impact on P availability and the environment [9,10]. Many studies have confirmed that soil pH, Fe–Al oxides, and SOM are the main factors effecting P adsorption and desorption in soils [7,10,11,12,13]. In addition, a great deal of research has shown that soil properties such as particle size and cation exchange capacity are also important factors affecting the adsorption–desorption of soil P [14,15,16].
Most of the P will be fixed or adsorbed by SOM, soil clay particles, amorphous Fe, Al oxide, and other soil minerals after being applied to the soil. Especially in acidic red soil with strong absorbability, due to the enrichment of Fe and Al in the formation process of red soil, inorganic P is dominated by Fe-P in a closed storage state, accounting for more than 80%, while soluble-state and organic P are less than 20% [7,17]. Zhang et al. [18] studied the P adsorption and desorption characteristics of five tidal soils of different textures after long-term fertilization and found that clay particles, powder particles, SOM, and free-Fe oxides are the main factors affecting P adsorption. Debicka et al. [19] also proved that SOM in sandy soil is the most important factor affecting P adsorption and desorption, and soil pH and Ca2+ are also the main factors affecting P adsorption and desorption. Arai et al. [20] also showed that factors affecting soil P adsorption include pH, types and quantities of clay minerals, SOM, Fe and Al oxide content, etc.
Richard et al. [21] showed that removal of Al and Fe oxides had a larger effect in reducing P sorption and increasing P desorption relative to the fraction of P previously adsorbed. At present, the P adsorption and desorption characteristics mainly focus on different soil types [22,23,24], fertilization treatment [25,26,27,28], soil textural fluvo-aquic [18], land-use patterns [29], and cropping systems [30]. The relationship between adsorption–desorption characteristic parameters and soil properties is compared mainly through simple correlation analysis. The matching of different types of phosphate fertilizer with soil is helpful to improve crop yield and increase P utilization efficiency, which has been studied extensively by predecessors. However, there are few reports on the equilibrium effect of P adsorption and desorption in soil under different types of P fertilizers, especially the intrinsic mechanism of P adsorption and desorption.
This paper aim to investigate the differences of P adsorption and desorption characteristics in red soils under different phosphate fertilizer treatments. At the same time, the causal relationship between P adsorption and desorption under different phosphate fertilizers treatments was described by SEM, and the relative contributions of P adsorption and desorption were quantitatively analyzed by the adjacent tree method. Through this study, we aimed to (1) characterize the soil physical and chemical properties; (2) investigate the soil P adsorption and desorption characteristics within different phosphate fertilizers treatments; and (3) analyze how the phosphate fertilizers treatments affect P adsorption–desorption behaviors based on soil physicochemical properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The field trial began in May 2019 on the experimental farm of Xiaoshao, Kunming, Yunan Province (102°41′ E, 24°54′ N), China. This region has a north subtropical monsoon climate, and the altitude, average annual temperature, and rainfall were 1820 m, 14.4 °C, and 850 mm, respectively. The soil was a typical low-phosphoric plateau red soil (Ferralsols, based on USDA); the soil basic chemical properties of the trial start year (2017) included organic matter content of 4.50 g kg−1, total phosphorus (TP) of 0.19 g kg−1, nitrate nitrogen of 2.19 mg kg−1, available phosphorus (Olsen P) of 4.02 mg kg−1, bulk density of 1.36 mg cm−3, and pH 4.53.

2.2. Experiment Design

The maize (Zea mays L.) variety was “Yunrui 88” in this experiment. The plot experiment was designed with randomized block design, and each block had five treatments; thus, three blocks totaled 15 plots (Figure 1). The five P application treatments were no P application (0, CK), single superphosphate (SSP, P2O5 16%), calcium magnesium phosphate (CMP, P2O5 12%), monoammonium phosphate (MAP, P2O5 50%), and diammonium phosphate (DAP, P2O5 46%). Nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers in equal nutrient contents were applied at the local conventional fertilization rates as 250 kg ha−1 N, 90 kg ha−1 P2O5, and 75 kg ha−1 K2O, respectively. All the tested fertilizers were provided by Yunnan Yuntianhua Co., Ltd. Yunnan, China. Phosphate and potassium fertilizers (50% potassium sulfate) were applied as base fertilizers before sowing, while nitrogen fertilizers (46% urea) were applied at base fertilizers, topdressing at trumpet stage, and topdressing at big trumpet stage, accounting for 40%, 25%, and 35% of the total nitrogen application rates, respectively. The plot area was 26 m2 (4 m × 6. 5 m), the row spacing of maize was 25 × 50 cm with 25 cm edge distance, and the planting density was equal to 75,000 plants ha−1.

2.3. Sampling

At the time of maturity, the central rows of each experimental block of maize was manually harvested. Then, these sampled plants were dried to a constant weight. The dried maize plants were threshed manually, weighed to determine maize seeds yield and dry matter of every plant, and then converted into kg ha−1. The P2O5 content of maize plant samples was determined by using the vanadomolybdate procedure (UV759CRT spectrophotometer, Tianjin Shunuo Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China) [31], and the P accumulation was measured by multiplying the total dry matter and the P content.
Soil samples were collected at 0–20 cm topsoil from each plot after the maize harvest. We picked out gravel, straw, and other sundries in the soil; put them in transparent plastic bags; and brought them back to the laboratory. Soil samples were air-dried, gently crumbled, passed through 0.25 and 1 mm nylon sieves, and then stored for analysis of physiochemical properties and the adsorption and desorption of phosphorus.

2.4. Physicochemical Analysis

The soil pH was measured in a 1:2.5 soil/deionized water ratio with a glass electrode pH meter [32]. SOM was analyzed using the potassium dichromate oxidation method with 0.167 M K2Cr2O7 [33]. Soluble soil P was extracted based on air-dried soil with 0.5 mol dm−3 NaHCO3 at pH 8.5, then determined by ascorbic acid–molybdophosphate blue method [34]. The TP was determined by performing a sulfuric acid–perchloric acid digestion followed by ascorbic acid–molybdenum phosphate blue method [33]. Determination of free iron (Fe2O3) and aluminum oxides (Al2O3) was done using the sodium dithionite–sodium citrate–sodium bicarbonate (DCB) method [35], and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) was determined by weight loss on ignition methods [36].

2.5. P Sorption Isotherm Experiment

In the adsorption experiment, 1.25 g of the soil sample was placed in 50 cm3 plastic centrifuge tube and then of 25 cm3 of P working solution with P concentrations (prepared by KH2PO4) of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 60, 75, and 100 mg dm−3 was added. They all contained 0.01 mol dm−3 NaCl, and each series was repeated three times [37], and three drops of chloroform were added to inhibit microbial activity, with the soil:water ratio being controlled at 1:20 [26], shaking the mixture intermittently using an orbital shaker at a constant temperature of 25 °C at 180 rpm for 24 h. Then, the mixture was centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 10 min and filtered, and 5 cm3 of supernatant was transferred to a 25 cm3 tube, measuring the concentration of phosphorus in the equilibrium solution by molybdenum blue spectrophotometry. The amount of P adsorbed was defined as the difference between the initial amount of P added and the amount in the equilibrated solution [38].

2.6. P Desorption Experiment

The desorption experiment was performed immediately after the adsorption experiments. After the adsorption test, the centrifugation was poured, and the soil samples used in the adsorption experiment were washed twice with saturated NaCl solution and then centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 5 min. After removal of the supernatant, 25 cm3 of 0.01 mol dm−3 NaCl was added to the solution, and three drops of phenol were added to each soil sample, followed by shaking at 25 °C for 24 h (180 rpm). After centrifugation at 8000 rpm for 10 min, we took 5 cm3 of supernatant to measure the P concentration by molybdenum blue spectrophotometry as the amount of desorbed phosphorus [39].

2.7. Modeling of P Adsorption and Desorption

The Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin models are most commonly used to quantitatively describe the adsorption properties of P on the soil particles surfaces [40]. The three adsorption isotherm models are expressed as
C/Q = C/Qm + 1/(K1Qm)
Q = K2C1/n
Q = a + K3lnC
where C means the P concentration in solution at equilibrium (mg cm−3), Q means the P adsorption capacity (mg kg−1), and Qm means the maximum P adsorption capacity (mg kg−1), which is related to the number of phosphate adsorption sites on the soil surfaces colloids; K1 means the soil P adsorption intensity factor, for which the larger the value, the greater the P adsorption intensity [22]; K2 and K3 mean the capacity parameter, which represents the adsorption capacity of soil for phosphorus (mg kg−1); and n means a heterogeneity constant related to adsorption intensity, and a is the adsorption strength coefficient.
The maximum buffer capacity of soil P (MBC, mg kg−1) is a comprehensive parameter combining P adsorption capacity (Qm) and intensity (K). It describes the resistance of soil to changes in solution P concentration [41] and is expressed as
MBC = K1 × Qm
The standard phosphorus requirement (SPR, mg kg−1) of soil is denoted by the amount of phosphorus adsorption when the mass concentration of phosphorus in the equilibrium solution is 0.2 mg dm−3 in the adsorption test.
The P sorption index (PSI) is used to characterize the possibility of soil solid-phase phosphorus release to liquid phase, reflecting the soil phosphorus sequestration or release potential. It was defined as the ratio between the adsorbed P content and the logarithm of the P concentration at equilibrium when a soil:solution ratio of 1:10 at the P concentration of 1.5 mg g−1 [40,42] is reached, which is expressed as
PSI = Q/logC
The degree of P saturation (DPS, %) represents P-adsorbed content by soil and predicts the P release capacity [43], which is expressed as
DPS = Olsen − P/Qm × 100%
The P activation coefficient (PAC), defined as the ratio of Olsen P to TP, is an important indicator to measure soil fertility. The higher the coefficient, the higher the difficulty of the available P to promote plant growth [44].
PAC= Olsen − P/TP
The soil P desorption rate (PDR, %) refers to the proportion of soil P desorption to soil P adsorption, which represents the P-supply capacity of soil. The formula of PDR is expressed as
PDR= Qde/Qad × 100%
where Qde is the desorption P content (mg kg−1), and Qad is the adsorption P content (mg kg−1).
The hysteresis coefficient (HI) of soil P desorption is an irreversible quantitative index of adsorption degree; the larger of hysteresis coefficient, the greater the regularity of difference between adsorption and desorption processes [45]. The expression of HI is
HI = (Qad − Qde)/Qad

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM-SPSS Version 24.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Curve fitting and charting were performed using the Origin 2018 software. Pearson correlation was performed to determine the relationship between P adsorption–desorption parameters and the soil properties. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was run by IBM-SPSS Amos 24.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), which can effectively integrate factor analysis, regression analysis, path analysis, and other methods to reveal causality [46]. The “gbmplus” package in R language carries out aggregated boosted tree (ABT) analysis to characterize the individual interpretation of a certain factor by multiple factors [47].

3. Results

3.1. Yield and P Accumulation of Maize

The application of different phosphate fertilizer treatments significantly increased the yield and P accumulation of maize, which increased by 369.4% and 291.6% compared with CK treatment (Figure 2). The yield of SSP, MAP, DAP, and CMP increased by 472.0%, 241.4%, 297.6%, and 466.6% relative to CK, and the P accumulation of maize increased by 411.3%, 227.7%, 205.7%, and 321.5%, respectively. The yield and P accumulation of maize under different P fertilizer treatments were also different: the maize yield and P accumulation of SSP and CMP treatments were the highest and were significantly higher than those of the MAP and DAP treatments. SSP treatment compared with MAP and DAP treatments improved grain by 67.5% and 43.9% and P uptake by 56.0% and 67.3%, respectively. Relative to MAP and DAP treatment, CMP treatment increased maize yield by 66.0% and 42.5% and P accumulation by 28.6% and 37.9%, respectively.

3.2. P Uptake and Utilization Efficiency

Phosphate fertilizer partial productivity (PFPP), phosphate fertilizer utilization rate (PUTE), phosphate fertilizer physiological utilization rate (PFPUTE), and phosphorus agronomy efficiency (PAE) characterize the phosphate fertilizer effect and P utilization in plants from different angles. Under the condition of equal P nutrient application, the application of phosphate fertilizers of different types can reflect the response of crops and soil to phosphorus. It can be seen from Table 1 that SSP treatment has the highest PFPP and PUTE of different phosphate fertilizer treatments, reaching 50.0 kg kg−1 and 41.3%, respectively, and all indices were significantly higher than MAP and DAP treatments. The PFPUTE was the highest in CMP and DAP treatment by 172.5 kg kg−1 and 172.9 kg kg−1, but there was no significant difference under different phosphate fertilizer treatments. It can be seen from this that SSP treatment and CMP treatment have strong response to phosphorus in acidic red under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.

3.3. Characteristics of P Adsorption in the Soils

The P adsorption isotherms were similar of red soil under different phosphate fertilizer treatments, and the P adsorbed increases rapidly first and then slowly with the P concentration increase from 0 to 200 mg dm−3 (Figure 3). The adsorption capacity of soil increased rapidly when the initial (equilibrium) solution P concentration was less than 20 mg dm−3, and the slope of isotherm of each treatment was the largest. With the continuous increase of equilibrium solution P concentration, the P adsorption curve changed gently and tended to saturation.
The amount of soil P adsorption in all phosphate fertilizer treatments was lower than that in the no-phosphorus application treatment, and the difference of soil P adsorption gradually increased with the increase of initial (equilibrium) solution P concentration. Under the treatment of equal nutrient P application, the adsorption of soil P by different phosphate fertilizer treatments was different, and the overall performance was CK > DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP.
To further understand the adsorption process of P in acidic red soil, the adsorption data were fitted by the Langmuir, Freundlich, and Temkin models (Table 2). All correlation coefficients R2 was extremely significant correlations, the adsorption characteristics of the five phosphate fertilizer treatments could be well described, and the Langmuir model had a better overall fit.
Based on the Langmuir model, the Qm values of red soil under the different phosphate fertilizer treatments ranged from 494.5 to 634.9 mg kg−1. The highest value of Qm was observed in MAP treatment, while DAP treatment had the lowest Qm, and the order of the five treatment was MAP > CK > SSP > CMP > DAP (Table 3). In general, the DPS of P application increased by 280.9% compared with CK. The Qm, K1, MBC, SPR, and PSI decreased by 8.3%, 74.1%, 78.0%, 77.1%, and 22.8%, respectively. P application significantly affected the K1, MBC, SPR, and DPS, which increased DPS by 173.9~431.7% compared with CK and decreased the K1 by 35.1~91.3%, MBC by 48.7~91.9%, and SPR by 47.5~91.4%, respectively.
There were also some differences in soil P Qm, K1, MBC, SPR, PSI, and DPS among different phosphate fertilizer treatments. Mainly, the DAP treatment was lower than others in Qm but was higher than other treatments in other indices, and no significant difference was identified between SSP and CMP treatments (Table 3).

3.4. Characteristics of P Desorption in the Soils

Soil P desorption as the reverse process of adsorption can reuse the immobilized P in soil, which is more important compared with the P adsorption [48]. Figure 4 shows that for the isothermal desorption curve of phosphate fertilizer treatments, the amount of P desorption of all treatments increased gradually with the increase of soil P adsorption. Compared with the CK, the application of different types of phosphate fertilizer significantly increased the P desorption in the soil, and the difference of P desorption between the treatment with P application and the treatment without P application gradually increased with the increase of the P adsorption.
Soil P desorption rate refers to the percentage of soil P desorption amount to soil P adsorption amount, which indicates the soil P supply. The greater the value, the stronger the soil P supply, and the more P content available for plants to uptake and utilize and vice versa [49]. Figure 4 shows the change characteristics of soil P desorption rate under different treatments. With the increase of P mass concentration added into the soil, the P desorption rate of red soil increases gradually under different P-application treatments. P-application treatment significantly increased the P desorption rate, and with the increase of P mass concentration in red soil, the difference of P desorption rate between P-application treatment and no-P application treatment gradually increased.

3.5. Adsorption and Desorption Efficiency

Table 4 shows the P adsorption, desorption, desorption rate, and HI of five different phosphate fertilizer treatments. In general, P application increased P desorption and desorption rate and decreased P adsorption and HI. Compared with CK treatment, P adsorption and HI decreased by 21.4% and 16.8%, and P desorption and desorption rate increased by 154.8% and 228.9%, respectively. Compared with CK, the adsorption capacity of SSP and CMP treatments decreased by 36.1% and 26.4%, and the HI of SSP, CMP, MAP, and DAP treatments decreased by 17.6%, 17.0%, 16.9%, and 15.5%, respectively. The desorption capacity increased by 115.2%, 142.1%, 165.6%, and 196.2%, and the desorption rate increased by 237.5%, 227.4%, 240.6%, and 210.0%, respectively.
The P adsorption and desorption by different phosphate fertilizer treatments were different. The P adsorption amount in different phosphate fertilizer treatments were DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP, and DAP treatment was significantly increased by 50.3% compared with SSP, and the P desorption amount were DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP, while DAP was significantly increased by 80.5% compared with SSP, and the desorption rate of soil were MAP > SSP > CMP > DAP, with no significant difference among different treatments. There was no significant difference in the HI of P among different phosphate fertilizer treatments (Table 4). P HI was the difference value between P adsorption and desorption in soil at a certain temperature and concentration divided by adsorption. As a quantitative index of irreversible adsorption degree, the larger the difference, the greater the regularity of adsorption and desorption processes [46]. P application significantly reduced the HI of soil P, indicating that the P application increased the activity of P in soil and was beneficial to P desorption.

3.6. Soil Physicochemical Properties

The physical and chemical properties of red soil are shown in Table 5. As can be seen from that table, P application affected pH, SOM, Olsen P, TP, PAC, Fe2O3, Al2O3, and CaCO3 of acidic red soil. Compared with CK, pH increased by 2.1~4.6% and an average of 4.3%, SOM increased by 30.4~151.3% and an average of 68.5%, Olsen P increased by 177.5~319.6% and an average of 241.7%, TP content increased by 128.6~176.2% and an average of 148.8%, PAC increased by 18.9~83.6% and an average of 38.2%, Fe2O3 decreased by 7.4~12.4% and an average of 10.4%, Al2O3 decreased by 10.1~25.3% and an average of 16.5%, and CaCO3 increased by 38.3~100.6% and an average of 68.0%. Compared with CK, the pH of CMP treatment increased by 6.6%; the SOM of MAP and DAP treatment increased by 58.8% and 151.3%; the Fe2O3 of SSP, CMP, and MAP treatment decreased by 11.1%, 10.8%, and 12.4%; the Fe2O3 of SSP and MAP treatment decreased by 25.3% and 20.6%; and the CaCO3 of SSP, MAP, and DAP treatment increased by 53.1%, 100.6%, and 80.0%, respectively. In addition, under the condition of equal nutrient content, the SOM of DAP treatment is higher than that of other treatments, and the soil properties do not change much in general under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.

3.7. Relationship between Soil Properties and P Adsorption-Desorption Content

In order to clarify the effect of soil properties on P adsorption and desorption, the correlation analysis between soil indexes and P adsorption–desorption in red soil was carried out. The results showed that (Table 6) soil P adsorption was significantly positively correlated with Al2O3 content (p < 0.05) and was extremely significantly positively correlated with SPR and PSI (p < 0.01). The P desorption was significantly negatively correlated with the content of Fe2O3 and DPS; extremely significantly positively correlated with the SOM, CaCO3, Olsen P, and TP; and extremely significantly negatively correlated with the SPR, and the correlation of other indices is not significant.
In order to explore the interaction of various physicochemical factors on P adsorption and desorption under different phosphate fertilizer treatments, we used SEM to effectively integrate factor analysis, regression analysis, and path analysis of various indices under different sources of phosphate fertilizer treatments, revealing the causal relationship between P adsorption and desorption (Figure 5). The SEM model fitted the network interaction diagram of soil pH, SOM, Fe2O3, Al2O3, CaCO3, Olsen P, and TP to regulate soil P adsorption and desorption under different P application treatments, which was very consistent (χ2 = 71. 38, df. = 24, p < 0.001). As can be seen from that figure, SOM, Fe2O3, Al2O3, Olsen P, and TP all significantly affected soil P adsorption; SOM, Fe2O3, and CaCO3 all significantly affected the soil P desorption. Among them, the influence of different phosphate fertilizers on P absorption was mainly through the regulation of SOM and Olsen P, and the influence on P desorption was mainly through the regulation of SOM and CaCO3.
In order to further quantify the relationship between soil physical and chemical indexes and P adsorption/desorption under different phosphate fertilizer treatments, the relative importance of soil physiochemical indexes to P adsorption and desorption in red soil was analyzed by ABT (Figure 6). It can be seen from Figure 6 that the main factors affecting the P adsorption of maize under different P application treatments were Al2O3, TP, SOM, Fe2O3, pH, Olsen P, and CaCO3, and the relative contribution rates to P adsorption were 31.52%, 19.29%, 15.6%, 11.8%, 11.1%, 5.68%, and 4.97%, respectively. The main factors affecting P desorption were SOM, Al2O3, Fe2O3, pH, CaCO3, TP, and Olsen P, and the relative contribution rates to P desorption were 53.04%, 12.51%, 11.05%, 10.82%, 4.29%, 4.21%, and 4.05%, respectively. In general, P adsorption and desorption in red soil were mainly affected by Al2O3, TP, SOM, Fe2O3, pH, and Olsen P under different P application treatments, of which Al2O3 had the greatest effect on P adsorption, and SOM had the greatest effect on P desorption.

4. Discussion

4.1. P Application Effect P Adsorption and Desorption

P adsorption and desorption determine the P availability in soil, and the conversion results of the two directly affect the supply capacity of P in soil [50]. The soil P adsorption is regarded to be a multi-stage kinetic process involving an initial fast adsorption stage, followed by a slower adsorption stage and possibly more stages [5]. In this study, the variation law of P isothermal adsorption curves for different P application treatments is consistent, and the soil P adsorption increases rapidly first and then slowly with the increase of P concentration in equilibrium solution and tends to be saturated (Figure 3). The Langmuir isothermal adsorption equation can well fit the P adsorption characteristics of acidic red soil, which is consistent with most research results [18,51]. At the same time, when the P concentration of equilibrium solution in the soil is less than 20 mg dm−3, the isotherm slope of each treatment is the largest, and the P adsorption amount increases rapidly. With the continuous increase of the P concentration in the equilibrium solution, the P adsorption curve changes smoothly and tends to be saturated. Similar results were found in the previous studies [50,51]. This may be because with the progress of the adsorption reaction, the adsorption sites on the soil surface gradually tend to be saturated, thus reducing the P adsorption rate and gradually balancing the adsorption reaction [52].
The amount and intensity of soil P adsorption are greatly affected by the P application. Continuous fertilization could affect the capacity of the soil to adsorb P through change the soil properties, including SOM, pH, and some biological properties [53]. In this study, P-application treatment reduces the amount of soil P adsorption. The result is similar to the study [28,54]. This is related to the increase of Olsen P content in the soil and the gradual occupation of P adsorption sites on the surface of soil colloid, thus weakening the P adsorption by the soil [55].
The desorption process of soil P is the reverse process of P adsorption. The soil P desorbed can be converted into different forms of inorganic P for plants to uptake and utilize. P desorption is more important than adsorption at low P level, while P adsorption at high P level is more critical. The P desorption amount and desorption rate are usually used to characterize the P desorption characteristics in soil [5,48]. In this study, with the increase of soil P adsorption, soil P desorption increased gradually under different phosphorus application treatments. P application increased P desorption in soil under different types of phosphate fertilizer, which was consistent with the results of [25]. This could be mainly due to the competition of soil Olsen P for P adsorption sites, which effectively reduces the adsorption potential of soil mineral colloid to phosphate ions, thus improving the P desorption characteristics [55]. In addition, the average P desorption rate under different treatments in this experiment is less than 25% compared with the research results of Gong et al. [51], which indicates that the P adsorption–desorption by soil is obviously lagging behind.

4.2. P Types Affects the Absorption and Desorption

Soil adsorption and desorption characteristics of P are not only affected by many factors such as soil type, fertilization method, and fertilization amount [56,57] but also by different types of phosphorus fertilizers. In this study, the yield and P accumulation of maize were different under different types of phosphate fertilizer. Soil P adsorption was in the order of DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP, and DAP was significantly increased by 50.3% compared with SSP. In addition, the soil P desorption was in the order of DAP > MAP > CMP > SSP, and DAP was significantly increased by 80.5% compared with SSP. The matching of different types of phosphate fertilizer and soil was the main reason for the difference of P adsorption and desorption among different treatments. Indeed, our research found that there were also differences in yield and P accumulation of maize under different P application treatments. SSP and CMP treatments had the highest yield and P accumulation and was significantly higher than MAP and DAP. At the same time, SSP and MAP treatments have higher P fertilizer effect and P utilization in plants than MAP and DAP treatments. PFPP, PUTE, and PAE in SSP and CMP treatments were higher than those in MAP and DAP treatments, which further confirmed that the matching of different types of phosphate fertilizer with soil affected the absorption and utilization of phosphorus and better explained the difference of P adsorption and desorption in soil under different P treatments.

4.3. Soil Properties Effect P Adsorption and Desorption Capacity

Numerous previous studies have confirmed that soil pH value, type, and quantity of clay minerals, SOM, and Fe2O3 and Al2O3 content are the factors affecting soil P adsorption [18,19,20]. The P adsorption and desorption by soil have significant correlation with soil properties (such as soil pH value, clay content, Fe2O3 and Al2O3, and SOM content, etc.) [5,58,59]. In this study, soil P adsorption was significantly positively correlated with Al2O3 (p < 0.05) and was extremely significantly positively correlated with SPR and PSI (p < 0.01). The P desorption is significantly negatively correlated with Fe2O3 and DPS; extremely significantly positively correlated with the content of SOM, CaCO3, Olsen P, and TP; and extremely significantly negatively correlated with the SPR. Debicka et al. [19] also proved that SOM in sandy soil is the most important factor affecting P adsorption and desorption, and soil pH and CaCO3 are also the main factors affecting P adsorption and desorption [60]. Arai et al. [20] also showed that the factors affecting P adsorption in soil include pH value, type and quantity of clay minerals, SOM, Fe2O3 and Al2O3, etc.
The SEM model fitted the network interaction diagram of soil pH, SOM, Fe2O3, Al2O3, CaCO3, Olsen P, and TP to regulate soil P adsorption and desorption under different phosphorus application treatments, which is very consistent (χ2 = 71. 38, df. = 24, p < 0.001). In acid red soil, SOM, Fe2O3, Al2O3, Olsen P, and TP all significantly affected soil P adsorption; SOM, Fe2O3, and CaCO3 all significantly affect the soil P desorption. Among them, the influence of different sources phosphate fertilizer on soil P adsorption is mainly through the regulation of SOM and Olsen P, and the influence on soil P desorption is mainly through the regulation of SOM and CaCO3. ABT analysis showed that the P adsorption and desorption in red soil were mainly affected by Al2O3, SOM, and Fe2O3 under different phosphorus application treatments, of which Al2O3 had the greatest effect on P adsorption, and SOM had the greatest effect on P desorption. Ma et al.’s [61] research showed that in latosol and paddy soil, Fe2O3, Al2O3, and SOM in the soil are the main factors affecting P adsorption, which is consistent with our research results. In addition, hydrogen ions released from organic acids generated by decomposition of organic matter in soil can protonate mineral surface groups and increase P adsorption sites; furthermore, the adsorption capacity of soil to phosphorus is promoted [62,63]. On the other hand, SOM has obvious gel characteristics and is coated on Fe-Al oxide in the form of gel film, which reduces the adsorption capacity of soil colloid for phosphorus [64].

5. Conclusions

In this study, application of different types of phosphate fertilizer in acidic red soil changed crop yield and P accumulation, and the yield, P accumulation, and P use efficiency of maize under SSP treatment were the highest. With increase of P concentration in equilibrium solution, the soil P adsorption showed a trend of rapid increase and then slow increase towards saturation. P application reduces P adsorption and increases P desorption and desorption rate, and the matching of phosphate fertilizer types with soil affects soil P adsorption and desorption. Al2O3 had the greatest influence on P adsorption with a relative contribution rate of 31.52%, while SOM had the greatest influence on P desorption with a relative contribution rate of 53.04%. The matching of different types of phosphate fertilizer with soil can promote P adsorption to effectively slow down the loss of P, improve the P utilization, and increase crop yield.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z. and L.T.; methodology, L.Z. (Long Zhou), L.S., L.Z. (Lianya Zhang) and L.Z. (Lu Zhang); formal analysis, L.Z. (Long Zhou), L.S., Y.Z. and L.T.; statistical analyses, L.Z. (Long Zhou), L.S., Y.Z. and L.T.; writing—original draft, L.Z. (Long Zhou), Y.Z. and L.T.; writing—review and editing, L.Z. (Long Zhou), Y.Z. and L.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.31760615), the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No.2017YFD0200200), and the Science and Technology Talent and Platform of Yunnan Province (Grant No.2019IC026).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, S.; Meng, J.; Jiang, L.L.; Yang, X. Rice husk biochar impacts soil phosphorous availability, phosphatase activities and bacterial community characteristics in three different soil types. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 116, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grant, C.; Bittman, S.; Montreal, M.; Plenchette, C.; Morel, C. Soil and fertilizer phosphorus: Effects on plant P supply and mycorrhizal development. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 85, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miao, Y.X.; Stewart, B.A.; Zhang, F.S. Long-term experiments for sustainable nutrient management in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. van der Salm, C.; van Middelkoop, J.C.; Ehlert, P.A.I. Changes in soil phosphorus pools of grasslands following 17 yrs of balanced application of manure and fertilizer. Soil Use Manag. 2017, 33, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, L.Q.; Liang, T. Effects of exogenous rare earth elements on phosphorus adsorption and desorption in different types of soils. Chemosphere 2014, 103, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lair, G.J.; Zehetner, F.; Khan, Z.H.; Gerzabek, M.H. Phosphorus sorption-desorption in alluvial soils of a young weathering sequence at the Danube River. Geoderma 2009, 149, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Quesada, C.A.; Liovd, J.; Andeson, L.O.; Fyllas, N.M.; Schwarz, M.; Czimczik, C.I. Soils of Amazonia with particular reference to the rain for sites. Biogeosciences 2011, 6, 1415–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khiari, L.; Parent, L.E. Phosphorus transformations in acid light-textured soils treated with dry swine manure. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 85, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pizzeghello, D.; Berti, A.; Nardi, S.; Morari, F. Phosphorus forms and P sorption properties in three alkaline soils after long-term mineral and manure applications in northeastern Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pizzeghello, D.; Berti, A.; Nardi, S.; Morari, F. Relationship between soil test phosphorus and phosphorus release to solution in three soils after long-term mineral and manure application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 233, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boparai, H.K.; Sharma, K.N. Phosphorus adsorption and desorption characteristics of some soils as affected by clay and available phosphorus content. Investig. Ophth. Vis. Sci. 2006, 54, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fang, H.W.; Cui, Z.H.; He, G.J.; Huang, L.; Chen, M.H. Phosphorus adsorption onto clay minerals and iron oxide with consideration of heterogeneous particle morphology. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bornø, M.L.; Müller-Stöver, D.S.; Liu, F.L. Contrasting effects of biochar on phosphorus dynamics and bioavailability in different soil types. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 963–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Boers, P. The influence of pH on phosphate release from lake sediments. Water Res. 1991, 25, 309–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gao, Y.; Mucci, A. Individual and competitive adsorption of phosphate and arsenate on goethite in artificial seawater. Chem. Geol. 2003, 199, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ye, H.; Chen, F.; Sheng, Y. Adsorption of phosphate from aqueous solution onto modified palygorskites. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2006, 50, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, B.L.; Sheng, J.D.; Jiang, P.A.; Liu, Y.G. Study on characteristics of phosphorus adsorption and desorption of cotton field with different soil textures. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 41, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, Y.H.; Huang, S.M.; Guo, D.D.; Zhang, S.Q.; Song, X.; Yue, K.; Zhang, K.K.; Bao, D.J. Phosphorus adsorption and desorption characteristics of different textural fluvo-aquic soils under long-term fertilization. J. Soil Sediment. 2019, 19, 1306–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Debicka, M.; Kocowicz, A.; Weber, J.; Jamroz, E. Organic matter effects on phosphorus sorption in sandy soils. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2015, 62, 840–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aeai, Y.; Sparksd, L. Phoshpate reaction dynamics in soils and soil components: A multiscale approach. Adv. Agron. 2007, 94, 135–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Richard, M.D.; Leo, C. Influence of soil constituents on soil phosphorus sorption and desorption. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 2531–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bache, B.W.; Williams, E.G. A phosphate sorption index for soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1971, 22, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yu, W.; Ding, X.; Xue, S.; Li, S.; Liao, X.; Wang, R. Effects of organic-matter application on phosphorus adsorption of three soil parent materials. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 2013, 13, 1003–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gou, X.M.; Cai, Y.; Wang, C.Q.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Tang, X.Y.; Sheng, J.; Cai, Z.H. Effects of different long-term cropping systems on phosphorus adsorption and desorption characteristics in red soils. J. Soil Sediment. 2020, 20, 1371–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Varinderpal, S.; Dhillon, N.S.; Brar, B.S. Influence of long-term use of fertilizers and farmyard manure on the adsorption-desorption behaviour and bioavailability of phosphorus in soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2006, 75, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lv, H.Y.; Yang, H.T. Effects of long-term fertilization on the form of inorganic phosphorus and the characteristic of adsorption and desorption in black soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fekri, M.; Gorgin, N.; Sadegh, L. Phosphorus desorption kinetics in two calcareous soils amended with P fertilizer and organic matter. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 64, 721–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pratap, B.; Nayak, A.K.; Shahid, M.; Tripathi, R.; Mohanty, S.; Kumar, A.; Raja, R.; Panda, B.B.; Lal, B.; Gautam, P.; et al. Effects of 42-year long-term fertilizer management on soil phosphorus availability, fractionation, adsorption–desorption isotherm and plant uptake in flooded tropical rice. Crop J. 2015, 3, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Susanta, K.P. Phosphorus sorption-desorption characteristics of soils under different land use patterns of eastern India. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2011, 57, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fink, J.R.; Inda, A.V.; Bavaresco, J.; Barrón, V.; Torrent, J.; Bayer, C. Phosphorus adsorption and desorption in undisturbed samples from subtropical soils under conventional tillage or no-tillage. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2016, 179, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Johnson, C.M.; Ulrich, A. Analytical Methods for Use in Plant Analysis; Bulletin of the California Agricultural Experiment Station: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1959; Volume 766, pp. 25–78. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303918692_Analytical_methods_for_use_in_plant_analysis (accessed on 5 June 2022).
  32. Soil Survey Staff. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report 42. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255947599_Soil_Survey_Laboratory_Method_Manual (accessed on 5 June 2022).
  33. Schollenberger, C.J. Determination of soil organic matter. Soil Sci. 1931, 31, 483–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olsen, R.S.; Sommer, L.E. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis (Part 2); Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 403–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fu, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.H.; Huang, W.; Hu, H.Q.; Chen, D.Q.; Yang, C. Remaining dynamics of Cry1Ab proteins from transgenic Bt corn in soil. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2007, 10, 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wagner, S.C.; Hanson, D.J.; Olness, A.; Voorhess, W.D. A volumetric inorganic carbon analysis system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1998, 62, 690–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pierzynski, G.M. Methods of Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, Sediments, Residuals, and Waters. North Carolina State University. 2000. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284634711_Methods_of_soil_phosphorus_analysis_for_sediments_residuals_and_waters (accessed on 5 June 2022).
  38. Habte, D.; Kebede, F.; Bedadi, B.; Wogi, L. Phosphorus sorptiondesorption properties of Luvisols and Vertisols, sorption kinetics and models comparison. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lu, H.; Yang, L.; Shabbir, S.; Wu, Y. The adsorption process during inorganic phosphorus removal by cultured periphyton. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 8782–8791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Campos, M.D.; Antonangelo, J.A.; Alleoni, L.R.F. Phosphorus sorption index in humid tropical soils. Soil Till. Res. 2016, 156, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Holford, I.C.R. Evaluation of soil phosphate buffering indices. Soil Res. 1979, 17, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Y.T.; Zhang, T.Q.; O’Halloran, I.P.; Tan, C.S.; Hu, Q.C. A phosphorus sorption index and its use to estimate leaching of dissolved phosphorus from agricultural soils in Ontario. Geoderma 2016, 274, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kleinman, P.J.A.; Sharpley, A.N.; Moyer, B.G.; Elwinger, G.F. Effect of mineral and manure phosphorus sources on runoff phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 2026–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Zhu, P.; Huang, S.; Wang, B.; Zhao, L.; Xu, M. Characterizing differences in the phosphorus activation coefcient of three typical cropland soils and the influencing factors under long-term fertilization. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, W.; Weber, W.J. A distributed reactivity model for sorption by soils and sediments. 10. Relationships between desorption, hysteresis, and the chemical characteristics of organic domains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 2562–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Du, Y.; Han, H.Y.; Wang, Y.F.; Zhong, M.; Hui, D.; Niu, S.; Wan, S. Plant functional groups regulate soil respiration responses to nitrogen addition and mowing over a decade. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 1117–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. De’ath, G. Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology 2007, 88, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sharpley, A.N.; McDowell, R.W.; Kleinman, P.A. Phosphorus loss from land to water: Integrating agricultural and environmental management. Plant Soil. 2001, 237, 287–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Balemi, T.; Negisho, K. Management of soil phosphorus and plant adaptation mechanisms to phosphorus stress for sustainable crop production: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 2012, 12, 547–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, Q.; Zhan, X.Y.; Zhang, S.X.; Peng, C.; Gao, H.J.; Zhang, X.Z.; Zhu, P.; Cilles, C. Phosphorus adsorption and desorption characteristics and its response to soil properties of black soil under long-term different fertilization. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2019, 52, 3866–3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gong, Z.P.; Du, T.T.; Yan, C.; Ma, C.M.; Dong, S.K.; Sun, H.H.; Li, H.R. Effects of corn straw returning and phosphorus application rate on phosphorus adsorption and desorption characteristics of black soil. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 35, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lai, D.Y.F.; Lam, K.C. Phosphorus sorption by sediments in a subtropical constructed wetland receiving storm water runoff. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vu, D.T.; Tang, C.; Armstrong, R.D. Changes and availability of P fractions following 65 years of P application to a calcareous soil in a Mediterranean climate. Plant Soil. 2007, 304, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yan, X.; Wang, D.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G.; Wei, Z. Organic amendments affect phosphorus sorption characteristics in a paddy soil. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 175, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Barrow, N.J.; Debnath, A. Effect of phosphate status on the sorption and desorption properties of some soils of northern India. Plant Soil. 2014, 378, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, M.; Hou, Y.L.; Zhu, B. Phosphorus sorption-desorption by purple soils of China in relation to their properties. Soil Res. 2007, 45, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Djodjic, F.; Börling, K.; Bergström, L. Phosphorus leaching in relation to soil type and soil phosphorus content. J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33, 678–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Yang, X.Y.; Chen, X.W.; Yang, X.T. Effect of organic matter on phosphorus adsorption and desorption in a black soil from Northeast China. Soil Till. Res. 2019, 187, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, R.; Guo, S.L.; Li, N.N.; Zhang, Y.J.; Jiang, J.S.; Wang, Z.Q.; Liu, Q.F.; Wu, D.F.; Sun, Q.Q.; Du, L.L.; et al. Phosphorus Accumulation and sorption in calcareous soil under long-term fertilization. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Casson, J.P.; Bennett, D.R.; Nolan, S.C. Degree of phosphorus saturation thresholds in manure-amended soils of Alberta. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 2212–2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ma, L.; Xu, R.K. Effects of regulation of pH and application of organic material on adsorption and desorption of phosphorus in three types of acid soil. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2010, 26, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xia, H.P.; Gao, Z.Q. Mechanisms of competitive adsorption and desorption of phosphate in soils. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 1993, 4, 89–93. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, E.L.; Wang, S.Q.; Wang, D.H. Effect of different organo-mineral complexes on adsorption characteristic of phosphorus on sandy soil. Acta Sci. Circumst. 2013, 33, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gan, H.H.; Xu, S.R. Study on P adsorption-desorption characteristics of red soil and organic-inorganic aggregates. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 1994, 25, 264–266. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 09973 g001 550
Figure 1. Field plot experiment design diagram. CK is no-phosphate fertilizer, SSP is single superphosphate (90 kg ha−1), CMP is calcium magnesium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), MAP is monoammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), and DAP is diammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1).
Figure 1. Field plot experiment design diagram. CK is no-phosphate fertilizer, SSP is single superphosphate (90 kg ha−1), CMP is calcium magnesium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), MAP is monoammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), and DAP is diammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1).
Sustainability 14 09973 g001
Sustainability 14 09973 g002 550
Figure 2. Yield and P accumulation of maize under different phosphate fertilizer treatments. The data presented are mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Mean values followed by different letters indicate statistical differences between treatments (p < 0.05). CK is no-phosphate fertilizer, SSP is single superphosphate (90 kg ha−1), CMP is calcium magnesium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), MAP is monoammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), and DAP is diammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1); the same applies below.
Figure 2. Yield and P accumulation of maize under different phosphate fertilizer treatments. The data presented are mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Mean values followed by different letters indicate statistical differences between treatments (p < 0.05). CK is no-phosphate fertilizer, SSP is single superphosphate (90 kg ha−1), CMP is calcium magnesium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), MAP is monoammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1), and DAP is diammonium phosphate (90 kg ha−1); the same applies below.
Sustainability 14 09973 g002
Sustainability 14 09973 g003 550
Figure 3. Adsorption isotherm of phosphate in soil.
Figure 3. Adsorption isotherm of phosphate in soil.
Sustainability 14 09973 g003
Sustainability 14 09973 g004 550
Figure 4. Isothermal desorption curve and characteristics of desorption rate of P in soil.
Figure 4. Isothermal desorption curve and characteristics of desorption rate of P in soil.
Sustainability 14 09973 g004
Sustainability 14 09973 g005 550
Figure 5. SEM analysis of causal relationships among soil properties and P adsorption and P desorption. Note: Thin lines, thick lines, and the dotted arrows indicate significant (p < 0.05), very significant (p < 0.01), and no significant (p > 0.05) path; χ2 = 71.38, df. = 24, p < 0.001.
Figure 5. SEM analysis of causal relationships among soil properties and P adsorption and P desorption. Note: Thin lines, thick lines, and the dotted arrows indicate significant (p < 0.05), very significant (p < 0.01), and no significant (p > 0.05) path; χ2 = 71.38, df. = 24, p < 0.001.
Sustainability 14 09973 g005
Sustainability 14 09973 g006 550
Figure 6. Relative importance of soil physicochemical properties for P absorption and desorption under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.
Figure 6. Relative importance of soil physicochemical properties for P absorption and desorption under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.
Sustainability 14 09973 g006
Table
Table 1. P uptake and utilization efficiency of maize under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.
Table 1. P uptake and utilization efficiency of maize under different phosphate fertilizer treatments.
TreatmentsPPFP (kg kg−1)PUTE (%)PFPUTE (kg kg−1)PAE (%)
SSP50.0 a30.7 a134.8 ab41.3 a
CMP49.5 a24.0 b172.5 a40.8 b
MAP29.9 b17.0 c125.1 b21.1 b
DAP34.8 b15.3 c172.9 a26.0 a
Note: Means followed by different letters indicate significant differences within a column (p < 0.05; n = 3).
Table
Table 2. Equations of adsorption isotherm of P in soil.
Table 2. Equations of adsorption isotherm of P in soil.
TreatmentsLangmuir EquationFreundlich EquationTemkin Equation
C/Q = C/Qm + 1/K1QmR2Q = K2C1/nR2K21/nQ = a + K3lnCR2a
CKC/Q = 0.0016C + 0.00430.990Q = 73.682C0.5110.99373.6820.511Q = −58.744 + 151.846lnC0.971−58.744
SSPC/Q = 0.0017C + 0.02290.990Q = 31.421C0.6000.98631.4210.600Q = −48.210 + 97.3087lnC0.883−48.210
CMPC/Q = 0.0017C + 0.05320.990Q = 50.386C0.4890.96750.3860.489Q = −106.318 + 118.431lnC0.987106.318
MAPC/Q = 0.0016C + 0.04240.970Q = 55.839C0.5030.96255.8390.503Q = −101.507 + 129.425lnC0.961−01.507
DAPC/Q = 0.0020C + 0.00840.990Q = 161.931C0.2630.963161.9310.263Q = 142.185 + 78.725lnC0.989142.185
Note: C means P content at equilibrium solution; Q means P adsorbed capacity; Qm is P maximum adsorbed capacity; K1 is adsorption affinity constant; K2 and K3 are adsorption capacity indexes; 1/n, a are adsorption strength coefficients.
Table
Table 3. Soil P content and isothermal adsorption parameters.
Table 3. Soil P content and isothermal adsorption parameters.
TreatmentsQm
(mg kg−1)		K1MBC
(mg kg−1)		SPR
(mg kg−1)		PSIDPS
(%)
CK626.5 a0.37 a232.9 a43.4 a16.7 a0.5 c
SSP588.4 ab0.07 c43.6 c8.6 c11.1 b1.7 ab
CMP579.1 ab0.03 c18.8 c3.7 c12.3 b1.5 b
MAP634.9 a0.04 c23.6 c4.7 c13.9 ab1.2 b
DAP494.5 b0.24 b119.4 b22.8 b14.4 ab2.4 a
Note: Qm is P maximum adsorbed capacity; K1 is adsorption affinity constant; MBC means maximum buffer capacity, SPR means standard P requirement, PSI means P sorption index, and DPS means degree of P saturation. Means followed by different letters indicate significant differences within a column (p < 0.05; n = 3).
Table
Table 4. Absorption, desorption, and desorption hysteresis coefficient of P in soil.
Table 4. Absorption, desorption, and desorption hysteresis coefficient of P in soil.
TreatmentsAbsorption
(mg kg−1)		Desorption
(mg kg−1)		Desorption Rate
(%)		HI
CK343.0 a23.7 c6.9 b0.93 a
SSP219.1 c51.0 b23.5 a0.77 b
CMP252.5 bc57.4 ab22.8 a0.77 b
MAP277.8 abc63.0 ab23.7 a0.77 b
DAP329.3 ab70.2 a21.5 a0.79 b
Note: Means followed by different letters indicate significant differences within a column (p < 0.05; n = 3).
Table
Table 5. Physical and chemical properties of red soil.
Table 5. Physical and chemical properties of red soil.
TreatmentspHSOM
(g kg−1)		Olsen-P
(mg kg−1)		TP
(g kg−1)		PAC
(%)		Fe2O3
(g kg−1)		Al2O3
(g kg−1)		CaCO3
(g kg−1)
CK4.4 b4.3 c2.9 b0.21 b1.4 b146.7 a31.6 a1.75 d
SSP4.6 ab5.5 bc10.1 a0.54 a1.9 ab130.4 b23.6 c2.68 bc
CMP4.7 a5.7 bc9.0 a0.58 a1.5 b130.9 b28.4 ab3.51 a
MAP4.5 ab6.8 b7.9 a0.49 a1.6 b128.5 b25.1 bc2.42 cd
DAP4.6 ab10.7 a12.0 a0.48 a2.5 a135.9 ab28.4 ab3.15 ab
Note: Means followed by different letters indicate significant differences within a column (p < 0.05; n = 3).
Table
Table 6. Relationship between soil properties and adsorption–desorption parameters. ** Represents significant correlation at 0.01 level; * represents significant correlation at 0.05 level.
Table 6. Relationship between soil properties and adsorption–desorption parameters. ** Represents significant correlation at 0.01 level; * represents significant correlation at 0.05 level.
IndexpHSOMFe2O3Al2O3CaCO3Olsen-PTPSPRPSIDPS
Absorption−0.1900.1920.1840.636 *−0.151−0.282−0.5010.660 **0.910 **−0.132
Desorption0.4650.703 **−0.563 *−0.3150.669 **0.709 **0.658 **−0.610 **−0.281−0.667 *
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, L.; Su, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Tang, L. Effect of Different Types of Phosphate Fertilizer on Phosphorus Absorption and Desorption in Acidic Red Soil of Southwest China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169973

AMA Style

Zhou L, Su L, Zhang L, Zhang L, Zheng Y, Tang L. Effect of Different Types of Phosphate Fertilizer on Phosphorus Absorption and Desorption in Acidic Red Soil of Southwest China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):9973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169973

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Long, Lizhen Su, Lianya Zhang, Lu Zhang, Yi Zheng, and Li Tang. 2022. "Effect of Different Types of Phosphate Fertilizer on Phosphorus Absorption and Desorption in Acidic Red Soil of Southwest China" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 9973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169973

APA Style

Zhou, L., Su, L., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Zheng, Y., & Tang, L. (2022). Effect of Different Types of Phosphate Fertilizer on Phosphorus Absorption and Desorption in Acidic Red Soil of Southwest China. Sustainability, 14(16), 9973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169973

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop