It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Soil phosphorus (P) fertility arising from historic P inputs is a major driver of P mobilisation in agricultural runoff and increases the risk of aquatic eutrophication. To determine the environmental benefit of lowering soil P fertility, a meta-analysis of the relationship between soil test P (measured as Olsen-P) and P concentrations in agricultural drainflow and surface runoff in mostly UK soils was undertaken in relation to current eutrophication control targets (30–35 µg P L−1). At agronomic-optimum Olsen P (16–25 mg kg−1), concentrations of soluble reactive P (SRP), total dissolved P (TDP), total P (TP) and sediment-P (SS-P) in runoff were predicted by linear regression analysis to vary between 24 and 183 µg L−1, 38 and 315 µg L−1, 0.2 and 9.6 mg L−1, and 0.31 and 3.2 g kg−1, respectively. Concentrations of SRP and TDP in runoff were much more sensitive to changes in Olsen-P than were TP and SS-P concentrations, which confirms that separate strategies are required for mitigating the mobilisation of dissolved and particulate P forms. As the main driver of eutrophication, SRP concentrations in runoff were reduced on average by 60 µg L−1 (71%) by lowering soil Olsen-P from optimum (25 mg kg−1) to 10 mg kg−1. At Olsen-P concentrations below 12 mg kg−1, dissolved hydrolysable P (largely organic) became the dominant form of soluble P transported. We concluded that maintaining agronomic-optimum Olsen-P could still pose a eutrophication risk, and that a greater research focus on reducing critical soil test P through innovative agro-engineering of soils, crops and fertilisers would give long-term benefits in reducing the endemic eutrophication risk arising from legacy soil P. Soil P testing should become compulsory in priority catchments suffering, or sensitive to, eutrophication to ensure soil P reserves are fully accounted for as part of good fertiliser and manure management.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, United Kingdom; Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
2 ADAS UK Ltd, Boxworth, Cambridge, CB23 4NN, United Kingdom
3 ADAS UK Ltd, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire NG20 9PF, United Kingdom
4 Environment Agency, Red Kite House, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BD, United Kingdom
5 Sustainable Soils and Grassland Systems Department, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton EX20 2SB, United Kingdom
6 School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
7 ADAS UK Ltd, Starcross, Devon EX6 8PF United Kingdom