Phosphorus Use Efficiency of Bio-Based Fertilizers: Bioavailability and Fractionation

Abstract

Although to date some technologies producing bio-based phosphorus (P) fertilizers have been proposed and implemented, the efficient use of the recovered products is still limited due to legislative constraints, lack of insights in their P release with time, and in the corresponding mechanisms. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the fertilizer performance in terms of P release and use efficiency of recovered struvite, iron phosphate (FePO4) sludge, digestate, and animal manure as compared to fossil reserve-based mineral triple superphosphate (TSP). First, product physicochemical characteristics and P fractionations in the context of European fertilizer legislation were assessed. Next, a controlled greenhouse experiment was set up to evaluate plant reactions as well as changes in P availability on sandy soils with both high and low P status. P soil fractions were determined in extracts with water (Pw), ammonium lactate (PAl), CaCl2 (P-PAE), and in soil solution sampled with Rhizon soil moisture samplers (Prhizon). Based on all results, long-term field trials evaluating the P release effect of struvite and digestate as compared to animal manure and TSP on different soil types with varying P status appear to be worthwhile. These products show promise as sustainable substitutes for conventional P fertilizers and could contribute to a more efficient use of P in agriculture. A refined classification of P application standards/recommendations in terms of soil P status, texture, and fertilizer characteristics, next to the crop P demand, is recommended. Moreover, the additional use of Rhizon samplers for determination of direct available P, including dissolved organic P, is proposed for better understanding and categorization of different P fertilizers in environmental and fertilizer legislations.

Field‐Scale Evaluation of Biosolids‐Derived Organomineral Fertilizers Applied to Winter Wheat in England

“…An earlier study by Antille et al (2014b) showed that relative extractability (Leytem et al, 2004) of OMF P was between 3 and 12%, which suggested only a small proportion of total P applied as OMF is released in plant-available form (Olsen P) within the first season. The remaining OMF P may be released over several years following soil application, as shown in related studies involving biosolids P (e.g., Kelling et al, 1977;Vaneeckhaute et al, 2016). The slow release rate of OMF P may provide greater opportunities for improved crop uptake.…”

New perspectives for the design of sustainable bioprocesses for phosphorus recovery from waste

“…To assess the fertilizing potential and efficiency of new fertilisers, obtaining insights in their P release over time is of crucial importance (Vaneeckhaute et al, 2015). Since there are several methods to measure the efficiency of plant nutrient use, the interpretation of the recovery and efficient use of P applied to the soil is dependent on the definitions adopted and whether crop yield, P uptake or soil data are used in the calculation, (Syers et al, 2008).…”

“…Since there are several methods to measure the efficiency of plant nutrient use, the interpretation of the recovery and efficient use of P applied to the soil is dependent on the definitions adopted and whether crop yield, P uptake or soil data are used in the calculation, (Syers et al, 2008). In general, the performance of a fertiliser can be evaluated by (i) product fractionation, (ii) biological plant response assessment and/or (iii) chemical extractions of soil-fertiliser mixtures (Vaneeckhaute et al, 2015). The fractionation of fertiliser products (i) based on the solubility of P uses different solvents with a variety of strength and C E-mail address: f.delvigne@ulg.ac.be (F. Delvigne).…”

Optimizing Bacillus circulans Xue-113168 for biofertilizer production and its effects on crops

“…PUE refers to the increment in soil P status by applying bio-based fertilizers compared to the increment caused by applying chemical fertilizer (Vaneeckhaute et al, 2016). The microbial analyses showed important differences for all treatments (Table 6).…”