Removal of phosphorus and potassium from the soil in wheat and barley straw

Withers, P. J. A.

doi:10.1017/s002185960006531x

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There can also be variation in nutrient contents of straws between sites and across years (Withers 1991).…”

Section: Nutrient Substitution Penaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is suggested that N requirements increase if straw is incorporated, due to immobilisation of N during straw decomposition (Limon-Ortega et al 2008), therefore it is inappropriate to include N substitution (Kindred et al 2008). Databases listing the nutrient content of straw suggest that it is responsible for K recycling, rather than P or N (Agro Business Consultants Ltd 2011; PDA n.d.; Withers 1991).…”

Section: Nutrient Substitutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The renewable energy directive and cereal residues

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phone number: (+44) 01225 385 164 KeywordsRenewable energy directive, second generation biofuels, cereal straw, greenhouse gas emissions, straw removal Research Highlights There is a high uncertainty in the range of possible GHG implications of removing straw. GHG emission savings for bioethanol from wheat straw are 90-92% compared to gasoline. GHG implications of straw removal can reduce the GHG savings to -43 to 84%. The GHG benefits of straw removal for bioethanol production exceed benefits from incorporation. Further research is required to understand SOC losses due to straw removal. AbstractThe Renewable Energy Directive (RED) specifies that biomass feedstocks should be sustainable and are not directly implicated with conversion of areas of high carbon stock and biodiversity. There are concerns that first generation biofuels from food-based crops will lead to negative indirect impacts on food prices and place pressure on agricultural land.The RED incentivises the use of non-food and land biomass resources by awarding them with financial credits and assigning them a zero greenhouse gas (GHG) 'cost'. This paper questions whether there are any GHG implications with straw removal from soil that should be accounted for. The results are placed in context with the emissions from wheat strawbased bioethanol, which can achieve GHG savings of 90-92%. The direct GHG implications of straw removal from soil are highly dependent on changes in SOC and replacement of nutrients removed in straw. The results indicate that they have the potential to either be minimal (90% savings) or compromise the emission saving targets of straw-based bioethanol (-25% savings). The alternative option of incorporating straw into the soil could sequester between 3.6 and 26.5 tonnes CO2 eq./ha over a 20 year period, whereas substitution of fossil fuels would avoid 35.6 tonnes CO2 eq./ha. Understanding the full implications of straw removal relies on further research into the residue removal limitations and the impact that losses of SOC has on soil quality.

show abstract

“…There can also be variation in nutrient contents of straws between sites and across years (Withers 1991).…”

Section: Nutrient Substitution Penaltymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nutrient Substitutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The renewable energy directive and cereal residues

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assuming that this increase in uptake was mainly due to the K released from the previous barley crop (which contained c 90 kg K ha~1), the efficiency of K transfer was c 45È50%. Using average straw yield data (Nix 1995) and typical K contents (ARC 1976 ;Withers 1991) it is suggested that, in the absence of soil analysis, K fertiliser input to beet should be reduced by 20 kg K ha~1 when there has been a history of straw incorporation. This estimate assumes that the K supply in the unincorporated soil was adequate, and that the excess K uptake observed in the straw incorporated plots was due to luxury consumption.…”

Section: Modiðcations To K Fertiliser Inputs When Straw Is Incorporatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potassium, Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium and Phosphate Nutrition of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Grown on Soils Containing Incorporated Straw

Allison¹,

Chapman²,

Garat³

et al. 1997

J. Sci. Food Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 1990 and 1992, a series of three experiments compared the effects of incorporating or removing straw from a total of five preceding cereal crops on the nutrient concentration, uptake and processing quality of sugarbeet. Incorporated straw increased K concentrations in tops and roots and increased total K uptake by c 40 kg ha‐1. Conversely, incorporated straw reduced Na concentrations and reduced total Na uptake by c 10 kg ha‐1. Straw incorporation had little effect on root processing quality, because whilst K impurities increased in the straw incorporated treatments, Na impurities were reduced. Generally, any effects of straw disposal method on concentration and uptake of phosphorus, calcium and magnesium were small and of little agronomic or economic significance. In the absence of regular soil analysis it is recommended that when straw has been incorporated that K fertiliser rates for beet are reduced by c 20 kg ha‐1. This is less than the allowance made for cereals. Also, contrary to the current cereal recommendation, there was no evidence for reducing P inputs when straw had been incorporated. © 1997 SCI.

show abstract