Next Article in Journal
Fueling Pro-Environmental Behaviors with Gamification Design: Identifying Key Elements in Ant Forest with the Kano Model
Previous Article in Journal
Concreteness Fading Strategy: A Promising and Sustainable Instructional Model in Mathematics Classrooms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/su12062212
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fertilizer Potential of Struvite as Affected by Nitrogen Form in the Rhizosphere

by
Andrea Danaé Gómez-Suárez
1,2,
Cécile Nobile
1,
Michel-Pierre Faucon
1,
Olivier Pourret
1 and
David Houben
1,*
1
UniLaSalle, AGHYLE, 60026 Beauvais, France
2
Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad La Salle, Mexico City 06140, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(6), 2212; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062212
Submission received: 14 February 2020 / Revised: 6 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 March 2020 / Published: 12 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Earth Critical Zone: Influence of Anthropogenic Practices)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Struvite is increasingly considered a promising alternative to mined phosphorus (P) fertilizer. However, its solubility is very low under neutral to alkaline pH while it increases with acidification. Here, we investigated whether supplying ammonium to stimulate rhizosphere acidification might improve struvite solubility at the vicinity of roots and, ultimately, enhance P uptake by plants. Using a RHIZOtest design, we studied changes in soil pH, P availability and P uptake by ryegrass in the rhizosphere and bulk soil supplied with either ammonium or nitrate under three P treatments: no-P, triple super phosphate and struvite. We found that supplying ammonium decreased rhizosphere pH by more than three units, which in turn increased soluble P concentrations by three times compared with nitrate treatments. However, there was no difference between P treatments, which was attributed to the increase of soluble Al concentration in the rhizosphere, which subsequently controlled P availability by precipitating it under the form of variscite-like minerals (predicted using Visual MINTEQ). Moreover, although ammonium supply increased soluble P concentration, it did not improve P uptake by plants, likely due to the absence of P deficiency. Further studies, especially in low-P soils, are thus needed to elucidate the role of nitrogen form on P uptake in the presence of struvite. More generally, our results highlight the complexity of manipulating rhizosphere processes and stress the need to consider all the components of the soil-plant system.

1. Introduction

Phosphorus (P) is a major nutrient limiting crop production of many agroecosystems [1]. Currently, P fertilization mainly relies on the use of chemical fertilizers which are derived from phosphate rocks [2]. However, this resource is finite and is located in only a few places on Earth [3]. Developing sustainable fertilization practices based on the reuse of P is thus crucial to achieve the high yields required to feed an ever-increasing human population [4,5]. In this context, it has been increasingly suggested to replace conventional fertilizer with P-rich materials originating from waste materials [6], especially to achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [7].
Considerable interest in the P removal from effluent and recovery in the form of struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate hexahydrate, MgNH4PO4·6H2O) has arisen in recent years worldwide [8,9,10]. Struvite production has been considered a promising alternative to conventional P removal technologies (e.g., metal precipitation with Fe or Al salts) in which P precipitates are virtually impossible to recycle in an economical manner [11,12,13]. Once applied to soil, struvite may act as a “slow-release fertilizer”, providing a longer-term source of P for crop growth than readily soluble forms of P while preventing P from sorption on soil constituents or loss by leaching or runoff [14,15]. However, the use of struvite might also result in an insufficient supply of P to crops, especially at the early stage of growth, if the release is slower than the plant requirements for P [15,16,17]. Struvite solubility is predominantly controlled by pH [9]. High pH favors the formation of struvite crystals (pH range of 7 to 11), whereas low pH favors its solubilization [18]. As a result, unlike the highly soluble commercial P fertilizers such as potassium phosphate, which are bioavailable over a broad pH range, uptake of P from struvite can be low at neutral to alkaline pH [19].
Rhizosphere processes such as root-induced changes in pH or redox potential and root exudate release play a key role in nutrient acquisition [20]. It has long been known that rhizosphere chemistry can be significantly changed according to the form of N taken up. Ammonium (NH4+) supply may decrease rhizosphere pH by promoting H+ release, whereas nitrate (NO3−) supply may increase rhizosphere pH through releasing OH− [21], which can in turn affect the availability of sparingly soluble P compounds [22]. For instance, supplying plants with NH4-N could increase the solubility of sparingly soluble P compounds such as apatite, resulting in higher P availability compared with the supply of NO3-N [23,24]. Since struvite solubility is strongly dependent on pH, such observation raises the question of whether manipulation of rhizosphere processes by stimulating rhizosphere acidification through NH4-N supply might be an effective approach to improve struvite solubility at the vicinity of roots. On the other hand, root-induced acidification in the rhizosphere of NH4-fed plants may increase the concentration of Al in solution [25], potentially resulting in toxicity for plants [26] and P precipitation as variscite, AlPO4·2H2O [27].
In order to optimize the use of more sustainable P sources, the objective of this study was therefore to gain a better insight on how the N form affects P availability in the presence of struvite. We hypothesize that adding NH4-N would acidify the rhizosphere, resulting in higher P uptake as compared to the supply of NO3-N.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

The studied soil was sampled in Beauvais (Northern France; Figure 1) and was classified as a Haplic Luvisol [28]. A total mass of 100 kg was obtained by composite sampling (0–10 cm depth; five random samplings) in a long-term (>20 years) cropland field with an oilseed rape–winter wheat–winter barley rotation and organic and mineral fertilization based on soil tests, crop requirements and timed to crop uptake [5,29].
After sampling, the soil was air-dried, crushed and sieved at 2 mm for further use at the laboratory. Particle size analysis using the pipette method revealed that the soil was a silt loam (USDA classification) with 16% sand, 67% silt, and 17% clay. Organic C, total N, available concentrations as assessed using the acetate ammonium-ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (AA-EDTA), pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) are presented in Table 1.
At the laboratory, the soil was amended with an appropriate amount of powder of struvite or triple superphosphate (TSP) corresponding to 50 mg P kg−1 soil, as recommended by Bonvin et al. [16]. Struvite was produced from wastewater and provided by a French fertilizer company. Struvite was crushed to reach a particle size <250 µm prior to use. Untreated (hereafter called “0P”) soil was also part of the experimental design. Amended soils were thoroughly homogenized in large plastic containers and individually prepared immediately prior to use. The mixtures were then placed in a climate-controlled dark room and equilibrated during two weeks at field capacity.
We used the RHIZOtest device (MetRHIZlab, France) described in Bravin et al. [30]. The principle of this device consists in separating plant roots from soil with a 30-µm polyamide mesh to facilitate the collection of roots and rhizosphere [31,32]. In a first step, 0.27 g of ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) was grown (preculture period) for 14 days in hydroponics in a cylinder closed at the bottom with a 30 µm polyamide mesh allowing the development of a dense, planar root mat with nutrient solution: Ca(NO3)2 (2 mmol L−1), MgSO4 (0.5 mmol L−1), K2SO4 (0.7 mmol L−1), KCl (0.1 mmol L−1), KH2PO4 (0.1 mmol L−1), MnSO4 (0.5 µmol L−1), CuSO4 (0.5 µmol L−1), ZnSO4 (0.5 µmol L−1), (NH4)6Mo7O24 (0.01 µmol L−1) and Fe-EDTA (100 µmol L−1). In a second step (culture period), the plants were pressed down firmly onto a thin layer (2-mm thick) of equilibrated soil for a period of 12 days. Soil layers were connected to 1-dm3 of nutrient solution with a filter paper wick. The composition of this nutrient solution was the same as that used for the preculture period except that P was not added and N was added as either Ca(NO3)2 (2 mmol L−1) or (NH4)2SO4 (2 mmol L−1). To make the amounts of Ca equal between the treatments of NO3-N and NH4-N, CaCl2 was supplemented to the NH4-N treatment. Similarly to Houben and Sonnet [31], unplanted control treatments, in which the soil had been incubated in similar devices without plants (thereafter called bulk soil), were carried out. In total, 48 such devices were implemented: 3 P treatments (0P, TSP and struvite) × 2 N forms (NO3-N and NH4-N) × 2 crop conditions (ryegrass and bulk soil) × 4 replicates.

2.2. Plant and Soil Analyses

At harvest, shoots and roots were separated and roots were gently rinsed with deionized water. Shoots and roots were then dried at 60 °C, weighed and crushed. The concentration of P in shoots and roots was determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS, Thermo Scientific XSERIES 2) after mineralization by HNO3 and aqua regia digestion. As described in Lange et al. [33], quantitative analyses were carried out by external calibration (eight points) by using a mono-element standard solution (Accu Trace Reference, USA). Indium was used as an internal standard at a concentration of 100 μg.L−1 in order to correct for instrumental drift and matrix effects. Total P uptake by plants was calculated by summing P uptake by roots (i.e., P concentration in roots multiplied by root dry mass) and P uptake by shoots (i.e., P concentration in shoots multiplied by shoot dry mass).
At the completion of the RHIZOtest experiment, cropped soils (rhizosphere) and uncropped soils (bulk soil) were collected and dried at ambient temperature. According to the scheme proposed by DeLuca et al. [34], each sample of soil was subjected to a CaCl2 (0.01 mol L−1) extraction which extracts soluble and weakly adsorbed inorganic P and emulates P accessed by root interception and diffusion. One g of soil was transferred to a polypropylene centrifugation tube in which 20 mL of 0.01 mol L−1 CaCl2 was added and then shaken for 3 h in a reciprocal shaker at 200 rev min−1 at 20 °C. After shaking, the pH (pH-CaCl2) was measured in the suspension and the extract was separated from the solid residue by centrifugation at 3000g for 15 min. In the extract, P concentrations were analyzed colorimetrically [35] using a spectrophotometer (712 nm). As an indicator of potential Al toxicity [36], Al concentration in 0.01 mol L−1 CaCl2 extracts was also measured, using ICP-MS.

2.3. Modeling

Equilibrium modeling was performed with Visual MINTEQ 3.1 software to identify possible precipitates that may control P solubility [37]. The input data included pH and concentration of P and Al in the 0.01 mol L−1 CaCl2 extract. The saturation index (SI) representing the degree of saturation with respect to a specific P solid phase is defined as
SI = log IAP − log Ksp
where IAP is the ion activity product and Ksp is the solubility product constant.
If SI > 0, the solution is supersaturated with respect to the mineral phase; if SI < 0, the solution is undersaturated; if SI is near zero, this suggests that saturation is reached and that equilibrium exists between the mineral and the aqueous solution.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All recorded data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean ± standard error) and normality was determined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The data were then subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test to compare treatments. To determine the effect of each variable as well as the interaction between P treatments (0P, TSP and struvite), N forms (NO3-N and NH4-N) and the presence of plants (planted vs. unplanted), a two-way ANOVA (P treatment × N form) and a three-way ANOVA (P treatment × N form × Planted/Unplanted) was conducted. As recommended by Schabenberger and Pierce [38], the results of ANOVA were presented by showing the degree of freedom (Df), F-ratio (F, i.e., the between-group variance divided by the within-group variance) and p-value (i.e., the lowest probability level at which the means are considered significant). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 3.5.0 [39] and the package Rcmdr [40].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Bulk Soil and Rhizosphere pH

It has been long known that plants may significantly affect soil pH, especially due to nutrient uptake in the rhizosphere [21]. Here, unlike the P treatment, the N form, the presence of plants and their interaction had a significant effect on soil pH (Table 2), confirming that the effect of plants on soil pH is impacted by the form of N supplied to plants. In the bulk soil, except for the struvite treatment in which pH was slightly increased in the presence of NO3-N, which is due to struvite dissolution [14], the N form had no significant effect soil pH (Figure 2). Therefore, changes in the rhizosphere pH between N treatments can be predominantly attributed to root activity. As expected, supplying NH4-N to plants lowered rhizosphere pH compared to the treatments supplied with NO3-N, which is predominantly due to the release of H+ by roots to compensate for the excess of positive charges following NH4+ absorption [21,22]. The range of the pH drop following NH4-N supply was similar [25,41] or higher [42] than that reported for ryegrass by other authors, which is likely due to the differences of pH buffering capacity between the studied soils [31,43,44].

3.2. Root-induced Mobilization of P

Concomitantly with the decrease of rhizosphere pH, PCaCl2 concentration significantly increased in the NH4-supplied rhizosphere (Figure 3). Concentrations of PCaCl2 were predominantly impacted by the presence of plant, the N form and their interactions while P treatment had surprisingly only a minor effect (Table 2). In the bulk soil, struvite was as efficient as TSP to increase PCaCl2 concentration. Compared with the NO3-N treatment, the NH4-N treatment had lower PCaCl2 concentration. As shown by Talboys et al. [14], this is likely due to the counter-ion effect of NH4+ in the nutrient solution which had a negative effect on the equilibrium P concentration. In the rhizosphere, although PCaCl2 concentrations were higher with NH4-N than with NO3-N, there was no difference among the P treatments for a given N form. This suggests that P solubility was primarily controlled by root-induced changes in the rhizosphere while P treatment played a minor role. As found by many studies [23,24,26], acidification of the rhizosphere of the NH4-fed plants increased P solubility. However, in the present study, PCaCl2 concentration in the 0P control was as high as those in the TSP or struvite treatments, which suggests that root-induced acidification increased solubility of legacy soil P, likely due to desorption of (hydr)oxide surfaces and weathering [27]. As shown in Figure 4, the pH decrease in the NH4-supplied rhizospheres led to an increase of soluble Al concentration which is consistent with previous findings (e.g., review by Zhao et al. [45]). As reported by other researches [27,46], the release of Al into the soil solution may promote the precipitation of variscite, AlPO4·2H2O, especially in P-fertilized agricultural soils. In the present study, irrespective of the P treatment, NH4-supplied rhizospheres were saturated with variscite (SI was very close to zero; Table 3). This suggests that variscite, or most likely a precursor metastable amorphous phase (amorphous AlPO4) since the rate of variscite formation is known to be very slow [47], controlled the equilibrium level of Al and P in solution. Thus, by increasing soluble Al concentration, root-induced acidification in NH4-supplied rhizosphere promoted the formation of amorphous AlPO4 phase (i.e., variscite-like phase), thereby hindering the effect of P fertilizer on the soluble P concentration. This is consistent with previous studies [48,49] which demonstrated a predominant role of Al phosphates on P solubility in acidic fertilized soils.

3.3. Effect of N Forms on P Uptake

Similar to soluble P concentration in the rhizosphere, total P uptake by plants was primarily controlled by N forms whereas P treatments had no significant effect (Table 4). Overall, the average total P uptake was slightly higher (p < 0.01) in plants supplied with NH4-N than with NO3-N (2.53 ± 0.06 mg kg−1 and 2.26 ± 0.06 mg kg−1, respectively; p < 0.01), which can be related to the higher P solubility. However, in the presence of NH4-N, there was no significant difference between P treatments (Figure 5). As for soluble P concentration in the rhizosphere, this is most likely due to the precipitation of an amorphous AlPO4 phase (i.e., variscite-like phase) under low pH which in turn controlled P influx towards the roots [46,50], thereby hindering the effect of P fertilizer. It is also likely that the increased soluble Al concentration brought about by root-induced acidification restricted P uptake by plants grown under NH4-N supply due to Al toxicity [51]. The lower root biomass under NH4-N supply (Table 5; Table 6) is consistent with the well-reported inhibition effect of aluminum toxicity on root growth [52] and may in turn impair P uptake by plants. For instance, in the rhizosphere of NH4-N fed maize, Bradáčová et al. [43] found that the pH decrease from 6.1 to 4.6 resulted in a 60% reduction in root growth, which in turn limited P uptake by plants.
For the struvite treatment, P uptake was similar regardless of the N form (p > 0.05), which might reflect that P uptake was not dependent on soil pH. In a previous study [31], we have shown that ryegrass might release significant amounts of carboxylates into the rhizosphere. As suggested by Robles-Aguilar et al. [53], these exudates can promote the release of P from struvite in either NH4-N or NO3-N supplied rhizosphere, which could therefore explain the lack of P uptake improvement in the presence of NH4-N. Interestingly, in the presence of NO3-N, struvite was more efficient than TSP to improve P uptake by roots compared to the 0P control. This is consistent with Robles-Aguilar et al. [53] who found that P uptake by maize under NO3-N supply was greater in the presence of struvite than TSP as a result of the slow-release fertilizing effect of struvite. In addition, it is likely that the lack of significant impact of N form and P treatment on P uptake by plants was partially related to the absence of P deficiency in soil (AA-EDTA extractable P = 72 mg kg−1; Table 1), as reported by other authors for e.g., ryegrass and oat [54,55]. According to Robles-Aguilar et al. [56], the response of plants with high needs for P (e.g., legume and some brassicaceae species) to N form and P treatment could be more sensitive in such a P-rich context.

4. Concluding Remarks

Moving toward more sustainable sources for managing the P nutrition in agroecosystems, struvite is increasingly considered a promising alternative to mineral P fertilizers on a worldwide scale. In the present study, we investigated whether the manipulation of rhizosphere processes by stimulating rhizosphere acidification through NH4-N supply might be an effective approach to improve struvite solubility at the vicinity of roots and, ultimately, enhance P uptake by plants. Our findings showed that despite increasing soluble P concentrations in the rhizosphere, supplying NH4-N did not improve P uptake by plants. This was partially attributed to the increase of soluble Al concentration in the rhizosphere, which subsequently controlled P availability by precipitating it under the form of an amorphous AlPO4 phase (i.e., variscite-like phase). Thus, our results did not support our hypothesis that root-induced acidification of the rhizosphere by supplying NH4-N instead of NO3-N would result in higher P uptake. More generally, they highlight the complexity of manipulating rhizosphere processes and stress the need to consider all the components of the soil-plant system. The perspectives of this work are (1) to test a partial substitution of NO3-N by NH4-N in order to acidify rhizosphere but without reaching pH values at which Al3+ is soluble (i.e., pH < 5.5), and (2) to investigate the ability of plants with contrasted P mobilization/acquisition traits to mobilize and uptake P from struvite.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.H., O.P. and M.-P.F.; methodology, A.D.G.-S., D.H. and C.N.; investigation, A.D.G.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H. and A.D.G.-S.; review and editing, O.P. and M.-P.F; supervision, D.H.; funding acquisition, D.H., O.P., M.-P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the GoLaSalle 2019 program (UniLaSalle).

Acknowledgments

We thank Laure Lemal (MetRHIZlab) for providing the RHIZOtest devices.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elser, J.J.; Bracken, M.E.S.; Cleland, E.E.; Gruner, D.S.; Harpole, W.S.; Hillebrand, H.; Ngai, J.T.; Seabloom, E.W.; Shurin, J.B.; Smith, J.E. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.-O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reijnders, L. Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 93, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Faucon, M.-P.; Houben, D.; Reynoird, J.-P.; Mercadal-Dulaurent, A.-M.; Armand, R.; Lambers, H. Advances and perspectives to improve the phosphorus availability in cropping systems for agroecological phosphorus management. Adv. Agron. 2015, 134, 51–79. [Google Scholar]
  5. Houben, D.; Michel, E.; Nobile, C.; Lambers, H.; Kandeler, E.; Faucon, M.-P. Response of phosphorus dynamics to sewage sludge application in an agroecosystem in northern France. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 137, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dawson, C.J.; Hilton, J. Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 2011, 36, S14–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Keesstra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. SOIL 2016, 2, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Le Corre, K.S.; Valsami-Jones, E.; Hobbs, P.; Parsons, S.A. Phosphorus recovery from wastewater by struvite crystallization: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 39, 433–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tansel, B.; Lunn, G.; Monje, O. Struvite formation and decomposition characteristics for ammonia and phosphorus recovery: A review of magnesium-ammonia-phosphate interactions. Chemosphere 2018, 194, 504–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chrispim, M.C.; Scholz, M.; Nolasco, M.A. Phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater treatment: Critical review of challenges and opportunities for developing countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Parsons, S.A.; Smith, J.A. Phosphorus removal and recovery from municipal wastewaters. Elements 2008, 4, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Egle, L.; Rechberger, H.; Krampe, J.; Zessner, M. Phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater: An integrated comparative technological, environmental and economic assessment of P recovery technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 571, 522–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Li, B.; Boiarkina, I.; Yu, W.; Huang, H.M.; Munir, T.; Wang, G.Q.; Young, B.R. Phosphorous recovery through struvite crystallization: Challenges for future design. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Talboys, P.J.; Heppell, J.; Roose, T.; Healey, J.R.; Jones, D.L.; Withers, P.J.A. Struvite: A slow-release fertiliser for sustainable phosphorus management? Plant Soil 2016, 401, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rech, I.; Withers, P.J.A.; Jones, D.L.; Pavinato, P.S. Solubility, diffusion and crop uptake of phosphorus in three different struvites. Sustainability 2019, 11, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bonvin, C.; Etter, B.; Udert, K.M.; Frossard, E.; Nanzer, S.; Tamburini, F.; Oberson, A. Plant uptake of phosphorus and nitrogen recycled from synthetic source-separated urine. Ambio 2015, 44, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. do Nascimento, C.A.C.; Pagliari, P.H.; Faria, L.D.A.; Vitti, G.C. Phosphorus mobility and behavior in soils treated with calcium, ammonium, and magnesium phosphates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2018, 82, 622–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bhuiyan, M.I.H.; Mavinic, D.S.; Beckie, R.D. A solubility and thermodynamic study of struvite. Environ. Technol. 2007, 28, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Massey, M.S.; Davis, J.G.; Ippolito, J.A.; Sheffield, R.E. Effectiveness of recovered magnesium phosphates as fertilizers in neutral and slightly alkaline soils. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-12-384906-9. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hinsinger, P.; Plassard, C.; Tang, C.X.; Jaillard, B. Origins of root-mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: A review. Plant Soil 2003, 248, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Riley, D.; Barber, S.A. Effect of ammonium and nitrate fertilization on phosphorus uptake as related to root-induced pH changes at the root-soil interface. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1971, 35, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hinsinger, P.; Gilkes, R.J. Mobilization of phosphate from phosphate rock and alumina–sorbed phosphate by the roots of ryegrass and clover as related to rhizosphere pH. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1996, 47, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, X.; Guppy, C.N.; Watson, L.; Sale, P.W.G.; Tang, C. Availability of sparingly soluble phosphorus sources to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) with different forms of nitrogen as evaluated by a 32P isotopic dilution technique. Plant Soil 2011, 348, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gahoonia, T.S. Influence of root-induced pH on the solubility of soil aluminium in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 1993, 149, 289–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ruan, J.; Zhang, F.; Wong, M.H. Effect of nitrogen form and phosphorus source on the growth, nutrient uptake and rhizosphere soil property of Camellia sinensis L. Plant Soil 2000, 223, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gustafsson, J.P.; Mwamila, L.B.; Kergoat, K. The pH dependence of phosphate sorption and desorption in Swedish agricultural soils. Geoderma 2012, 189–190, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. FAO. IUSS Working Group WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015 International Soils Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2015; p. 192. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yacoumas, A.; Honvault, N.; Houben, D.; Fontaine, J.; Meglouli, H.; Laruelle, F.; Tisserant, B.; Faucon, M.-P.; Sahraoui, A.L.-H.; Firmin, S. Contrasting response of nutrient acquisition traits in wheat grown on bisphenol A-contaminated soils. Water. Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bravin, M.N.; Michaud, A.M.; Larabi, B.; Hinsinger, P. RHIZOtest: A plant-based biotest to account for rhizosphere processes when assessing copper bioavailability. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 3330–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Houben, D.; Sonnet, P. Impact of biochar and root-induced changes on metal dynamics in the rhizosphere of Agrostis capillaris and Lupinus albus. Chemosphere 2015, 139, 644–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lambrechts, T.; Couder, E.; Bernal, M.P.; Faz, A.; Iserentant, A.; Lutts, S. Assessment of heavy metal bioavailability in contaminated soils from a former mining area (La Union, Spain) using a rhizospheric test. Water. Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 217, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lange, B.; Faucon, M.-P.; Meerts, P.; Shutcha, M.; Mahy, G.; Pourret, O. Prediction of the edaphic factors influence upon the copper and cobalt accumulation in two metallophytes using copper and cobalt speciation in soils. Plant Soil 2014, 379, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. DeLuca, T.H.; Glanville, H.C.; Harris, M.; Emmett, B.A.; Pingree, M.R.A.; de Sosa, L.L.; Cerdá-Moreno, C.; Jones, D.L. A novel biologically-based approach to evaluating soil phosphorus availability across complex landscapes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 88, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Murphy, J.; Riley, J. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 1962, 27, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Conyers, M.K.; Conyers, M.K.; Poile, G.J.; Poile, G.J.; Cullis, B.R.; Cullis, B.R. Lime responses by barley as related to available soil aluminium and manganese. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1991, 42, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gustafsson, J.P. Visual MINTEQ, Version 3.1. KTH, Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm. 2014. Available online: http://vminteq.lwr.kth.se (accessed on 1 October 2019).
  38. Schabenberger, O.; Pierce, F.J. Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2017; ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 1 October 2019).
  40. Fox, J. The R Commander: A Basic-Statistics Graphical User Interface to R. J. Stat. Softw. 2005, 14, 141489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dijkshoorn, W.; Lampe, J.; Van Broekhoven, L. The effect of soil pH and chemical form of nitrogen fertilizer on heavy-metal contents in ryegrass. Fertil. Res. 1983, 4, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gahoonia, T.S.; Claassen, N.; Jungk, A. Mobilization of phosphate in different soils by ryegrass supplied with ammonium or nitrate. Plant Soil 1992, 140, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bradáčová, K.; Sittinger, M.; Tietz, K.; Neuhäuser, B.; Kandeler, E.; Berger, N.; Ludewig, U.; Neumann, G. Maize inoculation with microbial consortia: Contrasting effects on rhizosphere activities, nutrient acquisition and early growth in different soils. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 329. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nye, P.H. Changes of pH across the rhizosphere induced by roots. Plant Soil 1981, 61, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhao, X.Q.; Shen, R.F. Aluminum–nitrogen interactions in the soil–plant system. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Penn, C.J.; Camberato, J.J. A critical review on soil chemical processes that control how soil pH affects phosphorus availability to plants. Agriculture 2019, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lindsay, W.L.; Peech, M.; Clark, J.S. Solubility criteria for the existence of variscite in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1959, 23, 357–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hetrick, J.A.; Schwab, A.P. Changes in aluminum and phosphorus solubilities in response to long-term fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992, 56, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pierzynski, G.M.; Logan, T.J.; Traina, S.J.; Bigham, J.M. Phosphorus chemistry and mineralogy in excessively fertilized soils: Quantitative analysis of phosphorus-rich particles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990, 54, 1576–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gessa, C.E.; Mimmo, T.; Deiana, S.; Marzadori, C. Effect of aluminium and pH on the mobility of phosphate through a soil-root interface model. Plant Soil 2005, 272, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rout, G.; Samantaray, S.; Das, P. Aluminium toxicity in plants: A review. Agronomie 2001, 21, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kochian, L.V.; Piñeros, M.A.; Hoekenga, O.A. The physiology, genetics and molecular biology of plant aluminum resistance and toxicity. Plant Soil 2005, 274, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Robles-Aguilar, A.A.; Schrey, S.D.; Postma, J.A.; Temperton, V.M.; Jablonowski, N.D. Phosphorus uptake from struvite is modulated by the nitrogen form applied. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fan, M.-S.; Li, Z.; Wang, F.-M.; Zhang, J.-H. Growth and phosphorus uptake of oat (Avena nuda L.) as affected by mineral nitrogen forms supplied in hydroponics and soil culture. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paredes, C.; Menezes-Blackburn, D.; Cartes, P.; Gianfreda, L.; Luz Mora, M. Phosphorus and nitrogen fertilization effect on phosphorus uptake and phosphatase activity in ryegrass and tall fescue grown in a Chilean Andisol. Soil Sci. 2011, 176, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Robles-Aguilar, A.A.; Pang, J.; Postma, J.A.; Schrey, S.D.; Lambers, H.; Jablonowski, N.D. The effect of pH on morphological and physiological root traits of Lupinus angustifolius treated with struvite as a recycled phosphorus source. Plant Soil 2019, 434, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 02212 g001
Figure 1. Location of the sampling site.
Figure 1. Location of the sampling site.
Sustainability 12 02212 g001
Sustainability 12 02212 g002
Figure 2. pH in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the bulk soil and lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the rhizosphere (p < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences between bulk soil and rhizosphere for each treatment (*, ** and ***: p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively). Error bars indicate standard error.
Figure 2. pH in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the bulk soil and lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the rhizosphere (p < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences between bulk soil and rhizosphere for each treatment (*, ** and ***: p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively). Error bars indicate standard error.
Sustainability 12 02212 g002
Sustainability 12 02212 g003
Figure 3. CaCl2-extractable P concentration in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the bulk soil and lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the rhizosphere (p < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences between bulk soil and rhizosphere for each treatment (*, ** and ***: p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively). Error bars indicate standard error.
Figure 3. CaCl2-extractable P concentration in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the bulk soil and lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments in the rhizosphere (p < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences between bulk soil and rhizosphere for each treatment (*, ** and ***: p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively). Error bars indicate standard error.
Sustainability 12 02212 g003
Sustainability 12 02212 g004
Figure 4. Relationship between pH (pH-CaCl2) and soluble (0.01 mol L-1 CaCl2) concentration of Al.
Figure 4. Relationship between pH (pH-CaCl2) and soluble (0.01 mol L-1 CaCl2) concentration of Al.
Sustainability 12 02212 g004
Sustainability 12 02212 g005
Figure 5. Phosphorus uptake by root and shoot. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments for P uptake by root, shoot and the whole plant (p < 0.05). Error bars indicate standard error.
Figure 5. Phosphorus uptake by root and shoot. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments for P uptake by root, shoot and the whole plant (p < 0.05). Error bars indicate standard error.
Sustainability 12 02212 g005
Table 1. Soil characteristics.
Table 1. Soil characteristics.
Organic C
(%)		Total N
(%)		CaAA-EDTA
(mg kg−1)		MgAA-EDTA
(mg kg−1)		KAA-EDTA
(mg kg−1)		PAA-EDTA
(mg kg−1)		pHCEC
(cmolc kg−1)
1.540.183869101292727.812.5
Table 2. Three-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, triple superphosphate (TSP) or struvite), N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) and plant (unplanted or planted) on pH and CaCl2-extractable P.
Table 2. Three-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, triple superphosphate (TSP) or struvite), N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) and plant (unplanted or planted) on pH and CaCl2-extractable P.
pHPCaCl2
DfFp-ValueDfFp-Value
P treatment20.040.9623.99<0.05
N form1594.6<0.001126.48<0.001
Planted/Unplanted1694.8<0.001140.88<0.001
P treatment × N form20.620.5421.730.19
P treatment × Plant20.640.5321.390.26
N form × Plant1403.3<0.001168.30<0.001
P treatment × N form × Plant21.490.2421.540.23
Table 3. Saturation Index of variscite in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Results are mean ± standard error.
Table 3. Saturation Index of variscite in bulk soil and rhizosphere. Results are mean ± standard error.
Saturation Index of Variscite
Bulk SoilRhizosphere
NO3-N + 0P−9.46 ± 2.26−11.46 ± 0.07
NO3-N + TSP−9.71 ± 2.46−11.30 ± 0.12
NO3-N + struvite−9.80 ± 2.46−10.80 ± 0.53
NH4-N + 0P−12.28 ± 3.980.02 ± 0.06
NH4-N + TSP−9.48 ± 2.550.34 ± 0.12
NH4-N + struvite−1.89 ± 0.360.33 ± 0.20
Table 4. Two-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, TSP or struvite) and N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) on total P uptake by plant (i.e., P uptake by root + P uptake by shoot).
Table 4. Two-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, TSP or struvite) and N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) on total P uptake by plant (i.e., P uptake by root + P uptake by shoot).
P uptake by the Whole Plant
DfFp-Value
P treatment21.240.32
N form113.84<0.01
P treatment × N form25.57<0.05
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, TSP or struvite) and N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) on root and shoot biomass.
Table 5. Two-way ANOVA results testing the effects of P treatment (No-P, TSP or struvite) and N form (NO3-N or NH4-N) on root and shoot biomass.
Root BiomassShoot Biomass
DfFp-ValueDfFp-Value
P treatment20.760.4821.660.22
N form138.06<0.00116.65<0.05
P treatment × N form23.000.0820.500.61
Table 6. Biomass of root, shoot and the whole plant (root + shoot biomasses). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Results are mean ± standard error.
Table 6. Biomass of root, shoot and the whole plant (root + shoot biomasses). Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Results are mean ± standard error.
Root Biomass (g)Shoot Biomass (g)Total Biomass (g)
NO3-N + 0P0.36 ± 0.01 b0.96 ± 0.04 a1.32 ± 0.05 a
NO3-N + TSP0.34 ± 0.02 ab1.08 ± 0.06 a1.42 ± 0.07 a
NO3-N + struvite0.40 ± 0.02 b1.06 ± 0.05 a1.46 ± 0.04 a
NH4-N + 0P0.30 ± 0.01 a1.11 ± 0.02 a1.41 ± 0.01 a
NH4-N + TSP0.30 ± 0.02 a1.16 ± 0.06 a1.46 ± 0.05 a
NH4-N + struvite0.29 ± 0.01 a1.08 ± 0.04 a1.37 ± 0.05 a

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gómez-Suárez, A.D.; Nobile, C.; Faucon, M.-P.; Pourret, O.; Houben, D. Fertilizer Potential of Struvite as Affected by Nitrogen Form in the Rhizosphere. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062212

AMA Style

Gómez-Suárez AD, Nobile C, Faucon M-P, Pourret O, Houben D. Fertilizer Potential of Struvite as Affected by Nitrogen Form in the Rhizosphere. Sustainability. 2020; 12(6):2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gómez-Suárez, Andrea Danaé, Cécile Nobile, Michel-Pierre Faucon, Olivier Pourret, and David Houben. 2020. "Fertilizer Potential of Struvite as Affected by Nitrogen Form in the Rhizosphere" Sustainability 12, no. 6: 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062212

APA Style

Gómez-Suárez, A. D., Nobile, C., Faucon, M.-P., Pourret, O., & Houben, D. (2020). Fertilizer Potential of Struvite as Affected by Nitrogen Form in the Rhizosphere. Sustainability, 12(6), 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062212

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop