2010
DOI: 10.1097/ss.0b013e3181e16168
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sulfur Distribution and Transformations in Everglades Agricultural Area Soil as Influenced by Sulfur Amendment

Abstract: Nutrient export from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) has been implicated in causing sulfur (S) enrichment of Everglades wetlands. However, quantification of the S budget and transformations in EAA soils is inadequate. The objective of this study was to quantify various S fractions and investigate how elemental S amendment affects S dynamics in EAA soils. Reduced S compounds were not detected in soil before elemental S application. Organic S was the major form of S, comprising 87% of total S, followed by… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Management challenges with implementing the CERP 1 mg/L measure, or one similar, are as follows: (1) The Everglades is underlain by ground water that is higher in sulfate [20–58 mg/L (Bates et al 2002 )] and surrounded by seawater [~2,700 mg/L (28.93 mM) (Pilson 1998 )] that can interact with the fresh water Everglades through atmospheric deposition, seepage, tidal effects, and surface water-groundwater interaction; (2) The Everglades receives continuous drainage from Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) soils that contain sulfur from legacy applications and natural processes (Schueneman 2001 ; Ye et al 2010 ; Orem et al 2011 ) and drainage from STAs that contain sediments which at times and locations have high-oxidized sulfur levels; and (3) Approximately 25 % of the water entering the Everglades originates from Lake Okeechobee (30–40 mg/L surface water sulfate) by way of canal delivery (James and McCormick 2012 ). Despite the surrounding influence of groundwater and atmospheric deposition, current evidence shows neither are major sulfur sources to the Everglades system (Orem et al 2011 ; James and McCormick 2012 ), at least currently.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Management challenges with implementing the CERP 1 mg/L measure, or one similar, are as follows: (1) The Everglades is underlain by ground water that is higher in sulfate [20–58 mg/L (Bates et al 2002 )] and surrounded by seawater [~2,700 mg/L (28.93 mM) (Pilson 1998 )] that can interact with the fresh water Everglades through atmospheric deposition, seepage, tidal effects, and surface water-groundwater interaction; (2) The Everglades receives continuous drainage from Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) soils that contain sulfur from legacy applications and natural processes (Schueneman 2001 ; Ye et al 2010 ; Orem et al 2011 ) and drainage from STAs that contain sediments which at times and locations have high-oxidized sulfur levels; and (3) Approximately 25 % of the water entering the Everglades originates from Lake Okeechobee (30–40 mg/L surface water sulfate) by way of canal delivery (James and McCormick 2012 ). Despite the surrounding influence of groundwater and atmospheric deposition, current evidence shows neither are major sulfur sources to the Everglades system (Orem et al 2011 ; James and McCormick 2012 ), at least currently.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the EAA, sulfur (S) has a long history of being used as soil amendments, fertilizers, and fungicides (Orem et al, ). Large‐scale S application increased the SO 4 2− concentration in the EAA soils, with the soil extractable SO 4 2− concentrations of 376, 129, and 21 mg SO 4 2— S kg −1 at 2, 6, and 9 months after S application (Ye et al, ). Methane emission has been found under suppression with SO 4 2− addition higher than 15 mg SO 4 2 –S kg −1 (Ro et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, most researchers reported a much higher value (>90%) of organic S in soils. This happened because they computed the value of organic S indirectly by deducting the available S from the total S (Wang et al, 2006;Ye et al, 2010) thereby including nonsulphate S with the organic pool. On the other hand, those who separately estimated organic S and nonsulphate S, obtained results similar to ours (Ghodke et al, 2016;Rai & Singh, 2018).…”
Section: Sulphur In Soilsmentioning
confidence: 99%