Impact of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Application on Water Quality in a Coastal Plain Soil

Torbert, H. Allen; Watts, Dexter B.

doi:10.2134/jeq2012.0422

Cited by 46 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increases in maize yields with gypsum rates up to 12.0 Mg ha -1 were reported by Pauletti et al (2014) even under normal precipitation. An increase in nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) associated to gypsum input, as reported by Torbert and Watts (2014) and Caires et al (2015), may be an explanation for the maize yield increase, since a deeper root system provided by soil chemical improvement favors nitrate uptake in subsurface layers, in years with high precipitation. In a meta-analysis, Pittelkow et al (2015) reported that continuous no-tillage management can decrease maize yields up to 7.6 % and in tropical regions this value could be even doubled.…”

Section: Experimental Area Imentioning

confidence: 95%

Modern High-Yielding Maize, Wheat and Soybean Cultivars in Response to Gypsum and Lime Application on No-Till Oxisol

Nora

Amado

Nicoloso

et al. 2017

Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern maize, wheat, and soybean cultivars are usually characterized by a short cycle, high shoot-root ratio, and high responsiveness to nutrient input. Continuous no-tillage management (NTS) frequently leads to a steep gradient in soil chemical quality with depth, thus decreasing yield under conditions of acid subsoil and water stress. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of gypsum, applied separately or in combination with lime, on the yield of cultivars used in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The study consisted of four experiments conducted on a typic Hapludox under NTS. The experiment was arranged in a randomized block design with three replications. Experiments I and II were carried out on soils with a satisfactory chemical soil quality and tested treatments of gypsum applications ranging from 0.0 to 6.5 Mg ha -1 . The other experiments were carried out on acid soil (experiment III) and a soil with an abrupt drop in chemical quality (experiment IV). Experiment III was arranged in a split plot design, where plots corresponded to gypsum rates between 0.0 and 5.0 Mg ha -1 , and subplots to two lime rates (0.0 and 2.0 Mg ha -1 ). Experiment IV was conducted in a split plot design, with plots consisting of gypsum rates from 0.0 to 6.0 Mg ha -1 and subplots of lime rates from 0.0 to 4.8 Mg ha -1 . Of a set of 17 harvests investigated during the experimental period, 82 % responded with yield increases to gypsum and lime inputs. The gypsum rate that induced the highest grain yield was high (4.7 Mg ha -1 ) and similarly, the maximum technical efficiency of lime was higher than the currently recommended. Furthermore, the combined application of lime and gypsum increased yield. There was a correlation between grain yield with the chemical quality of the soil layer 0.25-0.40 m in experiment I, 0.00-0.40 m in experiment II, and the 0.00-0.25 m in experiment IV. Only in experiment III, where the surface layer was acidic, the diagnostic layer usually sampled (0.00-0.10 m) was correlated with grain yield. Therefore, the use of the 0.00-0.25 m soil layer with critical base saturation values of 65 % and maximum Al saturation of 5 % could improve the current recommendations for soil correction. To exploit the yield potential of modern grain cultivars on dystrophic Oxisol, the formation of a thicker layer with high chemical quality is an efficient strategy.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Area Imentioning

confidence: 95%

Modern High-Yielding Maize, Wheat and Soybean Cultivars in Response to Gypsum and Lime Application on No-Till Oxisol

Nora

Amado

Nicoloso

et al. 2017

Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At only one of those sites was a further reduction in WSP seen with higher rates of FGD gypsum application. Others have similarly seen beneficial effects of FGD gypsum at low rates (Buckley and Wolkowski, 2014; Torbert and Watts, 2014). At the other three sites with a significant effect, the 1120‐kg ha −1 rate expressed the highest concentration of WSP among the four treatments in collected soil samples.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In addition to use as a fertilizer source or the reclamation of sodic soils (DeSutter and Cihachek, 2009), other uses of FGD gypsum to improve soil health have increased, including use in mitigating subsoil acidity (Shainberg et al, 1989), improving soil physical properties (Norton, 2008; Buckley and Wolkowski, 2014), and reducing runoff losses of P (Torbert and Watts, 2014). In light of these findings, the NRCS now accepts application of gypsum as a Conservation Practice Standard (Code 333) to improve soil health and surface water quality (USDA‐NRCS, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Water‐Soluble Phosphorus in Soil through Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Application: Year of Application Effects at Multiple Sites in Wisconsin

Sindelar

Wolkowski

2019

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phosphorus runoff from agricultural land to surface water bodies, such as the Great Lakes, is an important environmental concern. Soil amendments, such as gypsum, may alter the chemistry of the soil solution to reduce the amount of water‐soluble P (WSP) available for loss to runoff, and as such, the NRCS now recommends gypsum application as a Conservation Practice Standard (Code 333) for improving water quality. Interest in gypsum use has also increased as availability has increased from production of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum at many coal‐burning power plants throughout the United States. This study tested three rates of unincorporated, surface‐broadcast FGD gypsum application at 23 field sites in Wisconsin. The optimal rate for reducing WSP concentration and the relationship between selected soil properties and the beneficial effect of FGD gypsum application were evaluated. The FGD gypsum reduced WSP (P < 0.0001), with a significant effect compared with the control at the lowest tested rate of 1120 kg ha−1 at 5 of the 23 sites. Few other sites saw a significant benefit. Correlation indicated that sites showing a beneficial reduction of WSP from FGD gypsum application were those with greater soil test P (P = 0.0002) and lower cation exchange capacity (P = 0.0087) values. Core Ideas Not all sites benefit from flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum application. FGD gypsum is useful in reducing water‐soluble P in soil and the potential for P in runoff. Sites with high soil test P and low cation exchange capacity benefit more from FGD gypsum.

show abstract

“…Improved rooting of many crops Farina and Channon, 1988, Sumner M.E., 1993, Alcordo and Rechcigl, 1993Shainberg et a., 1982;Wendell and Ritchey, 1996; 6. Control of soluble phosphorus runoff from fields Norton, 2008;Watts and Torbert, 2009;Bryant et al, 2012;Torbert and Watts, 2014;Endale et al, 2014. been conducted using mined gypsum. Given FGD gypsum's availability and its smaller and more uniform particle size than commercially mined gypsum, this synthetic source may provide greater soil improvement benefits.…”

Section: Objective and Rationale For The Special Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One approach being studied to reduce nutrient losses from manure-treated fields is to treat either the manure or soil with chemical amendments such as gypsum. Torbert and Watts (2014) used rainfall simulations to examine the impact of FGD gypsum on runoff nutrient losses from a U.S. Coastal Plains soil (Luverne sandy loam; fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults). Four rates of FGD gypsum (0, 2.2, 4.4, and 8.9 Mg ha -1 ) were applied to plots of Coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) receiving 13.4 Mg ha -1 of poultry litter.…”

Section: Water Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Uses of FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Systems: Introduction

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest in using gypsum as a management tool to improve crop yields and soil and water quality has recently increased. Abundant supply and availability of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, a by-product of scrubbing sulfur from combustion gases at coalfired power plants, in major agricultural producing regions within the last two decades has attributed to this interest. Currently, published data on the long-term sustainability of FGD gypsum use in agricultural systems is limited. This has led to organization of the American Society of Agronomy's Community "By-product Gypsum Uses in Agriculture" and a special collection of nine technical research articles on various issues related to FGD gypsum uses in agricultural systems. A brief review of FGD gypsum, rationale for the special collection, overviews of articles, knowledge gaps, and future research directions are presented in this introductory paper. The nine articles are focused in three general areas: (i) mercury and other trace element impacts, (ii) water quality impacts, and (iii) agronomic responses and soil physical changes. While this is not an exhaustive review of the topic, results indicate that FGD gypsum use in sustainable agricultural production systems is promising. The environmental impacts of FGD gypsum are mostly positive, with only a few negative results observed, even when applied at rates representing cumulative 80-year applications. Thus, FGD gypsum, if properly managed, seems to represent an important potential input into agricultural systems.

show abstract

Impact of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Application on Water Quality in a Coastal Plain Soil

Cited by 46 publications

References 19 publications

Modern High-Yielding Maize, Wheat and Soybean Cultivars in Response to Gypsum and Lime Application on No-Till Oxisol

Modern High-Yielding Maize, Wheat and Soybean Cultivars in Response to Gypsum and Lime Application on No-Till Oxisol

Reducing Water‐Soluble Phosphorus in Soil through Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Application: Year of Application Effects at Multiple Sites in Wisconsin

Sustainable Uses of FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Systems: Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About