Next Article in Journal
Effects of the Combined Application of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Under Drip Irrigation on the Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat
Previous Article in Journal
Straw Retention Enables the Yield and Quality Benefits of Reduced Tillage in Winter Wheat and Spring Barley: A Long-Term Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/agriculture16090989
agriculture-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

The Effects of Two Land Creation Processes Using Modified Phosphogypsum on Soil Properties and Potato Yield and Quality

by
Xiang Wang
1,2,
Jianyang He
1,2,
Yingmei Li
1,2,3,
Xiuling Peng
1,2,
Ke Yang
1,2,
Lijuan Wang
1,2,
Shundi Zhu
1,2,
Muxi Bai
1,2,
Yongxiang Zhou
4 and
Naiming Zhang
1,2,*
1
College of Resources and Environment, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, China
2
Yunnan Soil Fertility and Pollution Remediation Engineering Research Center, Kunming 650201, China
3
College of Biology and Chemistry, Pu’er University, Pu’er 665000, China
4
Kunming Chuan Jin Nuo Chemical Co., Ltd., Kunming 654100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2026, 16(9), 989; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16090989
Submission received: 1 April 2026 / Revised: 28 April 2026 / Accepted: 28 April 2026 / Published: 30 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainability and Innovation in Agriculture for the Food Production of Tomorrow)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Addressing the environmental challenges posed by the massive stockpiling of phosphogypsum (PG) has become a global concern, highlighting the urgency of developing large-scale, low-cost and resource-efficient utilization approaches for PG. This study was conducted in the rocky desertification areas of southwestern China, where land and water resources are scarce. Two land creation techniques—layered reconstruction (GA) and integrated construction (GB)—were adopted with modified PG to systematically investigate their impacts on soil properties and potato growth, yield and quality. The results showed that both techniques significantly improved soil conditions and enhanced potato yield and quality, with each presenting distinct characteristics in soil improvement. Specifically, the GA technique showed relatively better performance in soil nutrient enrichment, while the GB technique was more conducive to enhancing soil enzyme activity. Compared with the local red soil control, both techniques reduced heavy metal accumulation in potato tubers; however, Pb and Cd contents still exceeded national food safety limits, indicating potential food safety risks. In summary, land creation using modified PG can effectively increase arable land area, improve soil quality in rocky desertification regions, and simultaneously promote potato yield and quality. Nevertheless, as the current results are based on a single-season field trial, they cannot reflect the long-term patterns of heavy metal migration and accumulation. Therefore, for large-scale application, it is necessary to strengthen the monitoring of heavy metal levels in imported soil and long-term regional environmental impacts so as to ensure the quality and safety of agricultural products from reclaimed land.

1. Introduction

The phosphate chemical industry serves as a cornerstone of global food security, yet the massive stockpiling of its by-product—phosphogypsum (PG)—has emerged as a global environmental challenge, impeding the industry’s sustainable development. According to statistics, the cumulative global PG production has reached 7 billion tonnes [1], with an annual output exceeding 3 × 108 tonnes. As the world’s largest phosphate fertilizer producer, China has accumulated over 820 million tonnes of PG, with an annual increase of more than 70 million tonnes [2]. This waste is primarily concentrated in regions including Yunnan, Hubei, Guizhou, Sichuan and Anhui, with an overall utilization rate currently below 40% [3]. Long-term open-air stockpiling of large PG quantities not only occupies valuable land resources, but also leads to the continuous release of acidic substances, fluorides and associated heavy metals through natural weathering. This process has caused soil acidification and heavy metal accumulation around stockpiles, posing a serious threat to soil, water bodies and ecosystems [4]. Meanwhile, in southern China—especially in the southwest—problems such as soil acidification, salinization and heavy metal pollution are becoming increasingly prominent. These issues have severely hindered regional agricultural productivity and the quality and safety of agricultural products [5,6]. On the one hand, PG stockpiling induces localized soil degradation; on the other hand, the decline in regional soil quality also demands urgent attention. This dual challenge underscores the urgency of PG resource recovery, which can simultaneously address solid waste disposal and soil remediation needs.
To relieve PG stockpiling pressure, early studies mainly explored its utilization in building materials (e.g., road construction and plasterboard) [7,8], soil conditioners [9,10], carbon sequestration and rare element extraction [11]. Nevertheless, considering the enormous annual output of PG, current recycling approaches cannot fundamentally solve its massive accumulation, highlighting the demand for large-scale, low-cost resource utilization technologies. In agriculture, the application of PG as a soil amendment has received increasing attention [12]. PG can effectively ameliorate acidic soil. Rich in Ca2+ and SO42−, it displaces active Al3+ from soil colloids and alleviates aluminum toxicity [13,14,15], while supplementing calcium, sulfur and other essential nutrients [16,17]. Furthermore, PG has been adopted for saline-alkali land improvement. Based on the cation exchange principle, Ca2+ can replace excessive Na+, optimize soil aggregate structure and reduce soil alkalinity [18,19]. In recent years, research has further extended to combined pollution remediation. Existing evidence indicates that PG can lower the bioavailability of cadmium, lead and other heavy metals via precipitation and immobilization, thereby restraining heavy metal absorption by crops [20,21]. Some researchers have also explored the feasibility of using PG and red mud, other industrial solid wastes, to produce artificial soil through co-processing, thereby offering new ideas for the ecological restoration of degraded land [22]. However, most previous studies have concentrated on short-term soil physicochemical responses to PG amendment. Engineered land creation practices based on large-scale PG application remain insufficiently documented. In particular, systematic evaluation concerning the long-term stability of reclaimed soil and crop adaptability under different land creation modes is still lacking.
In recent years, new research has been conducted on the resource utilization of PG [23]. Using buckwheat as the test crop, the feasibility of different PG land creation techniques was preliminarily verified. It was found that artificial soil made from modified PG can improve soil physicochemical properties, increase crop yields, and effectively limit the accumulation of heavy metals in grains; the Nemero index indicated that all treatments fell within the ‘clean and safe’ category. However, buckwheat is a shallow-rooted grain crop, and its root characteristics, soil structure requirements, and heavy metal accumulation patterns differ significantly from those of tuberous food crops. Building on this, the present study further extended the PG land creation process to the potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cropping system. As the world’s fourth largest food crop, the annual potato planting area in Yunnan Province has remained stable at approximately 4933.33 ha, accounting for 10% of the national total and ranking fifth in China [24,25], thus showing strong regional representativeness. Compared with buckwheat, potatoes—as tuberous crops—have a deeper root system and higher requirements for soil structure. Their underground tubers are in direct contact with soil heavy metals, making the associated food safety risks and accumulation patterns far more complex than those of grain crops. This renders the research more practically significant for guiding agricultural production. Therefore, a systematic evaluation of the effects of PG land creation on potato growth and product safety is crucial for promoting its large-scale application.
This study employed two technical approaches—a layered reconstruction process and an integrated process—to conduct land creation trials using PG. In an innovative approach, the study selected the potato, a major tuberous crop, as the test crop. It conducted a comparative analysis of the changes in soil physicochemical properties, enzyme activity and nutrient status under different processes, as well as the response patterns of potato yield, nutritional quality, biomass and heavy metal accumulation. The study aims to clarify the differences between the two land creation processes in terms of soil improvement efficacy and crop safety, along with their respective conditions of applicability; it seeks to fill the research gap regarding large-scale PG-based land creation projects and the safe cultivation of tuberous staple crops in areas affected by rock desertification, thereby providing technical support for regional solid waste disposal, the expansion of arable land and the high-quality, sustainable development of agriculture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area Overview

The experimental site is located near Lvmao Village, Tongdu Town, Dongchuan District, Kunming City, Yunnan Province (26°13′ N, 103°8′ E), at an altitude of 1583.8 m. With an average annual temperature of 20.5 °C and annual precipitation of 650 mm, the area is suitable for growing crops such as maize and rice. This study selected areas within the region where stone desertification is particularly severe as the study sites.

2.2. Main Materials

The experiment used PG and local soil as raw materials; the PG was a by-product of the production of feed-grade calcium phosphate by Kunming Chuanjinnuo Co., Ltd. (Kunming, China), whilst the local soil consisted of the zonal topsoil (0–20 cm) found in the vicinity of the experimental site. The basic chemical properties of the soil were as follows: pH 7.2; EC 254.67 μS·cm−1; AN 12.75 mg·kg−1; AP 41.00 mg·kg−1; AK 184 mg·kg−1; the concentrations of heavy metals were as follows: Pb 62.3 mg·kg−1; Cd 0.36 mg·kg−1; Cr 89.6 mg·kg−1; As 38.6 mg·kg−1; Hg 1.11 mg·kg−1; The basic chemical properties of PG are as follows: pH 3.6; EC 7620 μS·cm−1; AN 20.12 mg·kg−1; AP 183.20 mg·kg−1; AK 37 mg·kg−1; the concentrations of heavy metals are as follows: Pb 57.4 mg·kg−1; Cd 0.29 mg·kg−1; Cr 78.4 mg·kg−1; As 40.3 mg·kg−1; Hg 1.14 mg·kg−1.

2.3. Experimental Design

Two land creation modes, GA and GB, were applied in the experimental plots (Figure 1). The detailed material ratios for each treatment are described below. For the GA mode, a single layer of modified PG was laid as the impermeable and water-retention layer at a dosage of 1500 kg·m−3. In the transition layer, the application rates of modified PG and imported soil were 1050 kg·m−3 and 480 kg·m−3 per unit volume, respectively. Both the plow layer of GA and the overall GB treatment adopted a unified PG dosage of 750 kg·m−3, with the imported soil dosage set at 800 kg·m−3. The field experiment was carried out in a typical rocky desertification area of southwest China, adopting a randomized block design. The experimental region was divided into three replicate blocks, and three treatments (CK, GA, GB) were randomly arranged. This layout minimized systematic errors derived from soil heterogeneity, light conditions and topographic variation and guaranteed reliable comparability among different treatments. Specific plot areas are listed in Table 1. Variations in plot size were mainly attributed to fragmented terrain in rocky desertification zones and different construction characteristics of the two land creation techniques. Nevertheless, all plots reserved adequate space for field operations. Planting density, fertilization dosage and daily field management were uniformly controlled per unit area, which reduced the interference of plot area difference and ensured the scientific rationality of the experimental design. Potatoes (cv. Marco) were cultivated with a local double-row planting pattern, with 35 cm plant spacing and 60 cm row spacing. Before sowing, base fertilizer was applied at 80 kg per mu (compound fertilizer, N:P2O5:K2O = 16:7:12). Field management, including irrigation, weeding and pest prevention, remained consistent with local conventional cultivation. Sowing was conducted in September 2023, and potatoes were harvested in December 2023.
Due to constraints imposed by the topographical conditions of the trial area and the scale of the land creation works, the field layout was based on treatment plots within blocks. Data analysis employed a ‘repetition of analysis (n = 3)’ design rather than a fully independent field replication design, which may impose certain limitations on the statistical robustness of the conclusions. To mitigate this effect, this study minimized systematic error through a randomized block design, standardized field management and standardized laboratory parallel determinations; the generalizability of the findings will be further validated through multi-year, multi-site field trials.

2.4. Preparation of Modified PG

The PG undergoes 2–3 cycles of industrial-scale water purification to reduce soluble contaminants (such as fluoride and heavy metals). Following washing, 0.4–0.6% (w/w) of lime is uniformly added to the PG slurry to neutralize the acidity (target pH: 6–8). The mixture is left to cure for 3–5 days to stabilize the pH and precipitate residual impurities, thereby producing modified PG.

2.5. Sample Collection and Analysis

2.5.1. Soil and Plant Sample Collection

Soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–20 cm using the five-point grid method, both before planting and after harvest. The first sampling was conducted in August 2023, after the completion of land creation and before fertilization; the second sampling was carried out in December 2023, following potato harvest. All soil samples were air-dried under contamination-free conditions, sieved through 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.149 mm sieves sequentially, and stored in sealed plastic bags for subsequent analysis. Plant samples were also collected using the five-point grid method. The samples were separated by vegetative organs, rinsed thoroughly with deionized water, blanched at 105 °C for 30 min, and then dried at 65 °C to a constant weight. After drying, the samples were ground through a 100-mesh nylon sieve, bagged and reserved for testing. Prior to plant sampling, key growth parameters—including plant height, stem diameter, single tuber weight, biomass and tuber number—were recorded. Whole plants were harvested, placed in mesh bags and transported back to the laboratory. After removing adhering soil, the plants were weighed, and the theoretical yield per mu of each plot was calculated to evaluate the yield-increasing effect of different treatments.

2.5.2. Soil and Plant Sample Analysis

Soil analysis parameters include bulk density, porosity (ring knife method), moisture content (oven-drying method), pH (soil-to-water ratio 1:2.5), electrical conductivity (soil-to-water ratio 1:5), organic matter (potassium dichromate external heating method), alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (alkali diffusion method), available phosphorus (molybdenum blue colorimetric method), available potassium (flame photometric method); soil urease, soil neutral phosphatase and soil catalase are measured using colorimetric kits; heavy metals (lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, mercury) are analyzed using ICP-MS and AFS methods. Crop quality: total soluble sugars (acid hydrolysis-copper reduction titration method), soluble proteins (Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 colorimetric method), proteins (sulfuric acid–potassium sulphate–copper sulphate–selenium powder digestion method), vitamin C (2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine colorimetric method), proline (acidic indanone colorimetric method), organic acids (acid-base titration method) and heavy metal content in crops (lead, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, mercury) were analyzed in the same manner as for soil. Refer to the national standard limits specified in the ‘National Food Safety Standard: Maximum Limits for Contaminants in Food’ (GB 2762-2022) (Cr ≤ 1.0 mg·kg−1, As ≤ 0.5 mg·kg−1, Hg ≤ 0.02 mg·kg−1, Pb ≤ 0.2 mg·kg−1, Cd ≤ 0.1 mg·kg−1). For the specific analytical methods, please refer to Supplementary Material Text S1.

2.6. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a key indicator of heavy metal accumulation in crops and is used to assess the ability of different plant parts to accumulate heavy metals. The higher the BCF, the greater the capacity for heavy metal accumulation [26,27]. A BCF greater than 1 indicates that the crop has a strong capacity to accumulate heavy metals. The transport coefficient (TF) represents the capacity for the transport and distribution of heavy metals between different parts of the crop. The higher the TF, the greater the capacity for transporting heavy metals. The calculation method is described in Supplementary Material Text S2.
Statistical analysis of the data was conducted in Excel 2010 and SPSS 25, while all figures were plotted using Origin 2021. Before statistical testing, normality and homogeneity of variance were examined for all datasets. No data transformation was needed, as all measured indicators satisfied the criteria for normal distribution and homogeneous variance. All experimental data were expressed as the mean of three replicates. Multiple comparisons were performed via the least significant difference (LSD) method. The LSD test is well-suited for randomized block field experiments with limited replicates. It provides high sensitivity for identifying inter-treatment differences and has been widely adopted in agricultural field research, which further supports its selection in this study. All data in tables and figures are presented as mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD), and differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil

The effects of different land creation methods on soil physicochemical properties are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Overall, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in soil BD, MC and EC among treatments, while no significant differences existed in POR and pH. These trends were consistent across all observation stages.
All land creation treatments significantly reduced soil BD and increased MC, but their ameliorative effects varied by process. Both GA and GB treatments had significantly lower BD than CK, with the greatest reduction observed in GB (Table 3, 12.69% lower than CK), followed by GA (Table 2, 10.44% lower than CK). This indicates that both processes effectively alleviate soil compaction and optimize soil structure. A similar trend was found for MC, with the most significant improvements in GB (Table 2, 25.25% increase vs. CK) and GA (Table 3, 8.36% increase vs. CK), which are closely associated with the water-retention capacity of modified PG.
The most notable difference between land creation treatments and CK was in EC, with all land creation treatments showing significantly higher EC values than CK: GA and GB treatments were 6.06-fold and 6-fold higher than CK in Table 2, and 1.94-fold and 1.87-fold higher in Table 3, respectively. This is mainly due to the mineral ions (e.g., Ca2+ and SO42−) introduced by modified PG application. Notably, despite significant EC differences, soil pH across all treatments remained stable between 7.16 and 7.43, indicating that land creation did not alter soil pH balance and thus maintained suitable conditions for crop growth.

3.2. Soil Nutrient Status

The effects of different land creation methods on soil nutrient content are presented in Figure 2. Overall, SOM, available nutrients and AN showed distinct response patterns among treatments.
No significant differences in SOM content were observed among treatments before planting; however, SOM increased significantly in all treatments after planting, with the GA treatment achieving the highest levels (55.35–68.48% increase). This indicates that both land creation methods promote SOM accumulation, which is closely associated with soil structure optimization induced by modified PG. For AK, significant differences existed among treatments prior to planting, with the order of AK content being GA > GB > CK. After planting, AK increased significantly by 36.08% (GA) and 31.33% (GB) compared to the initial stage. AP exhibited a similar trend: pre-planting AP followed the order GA > GB > CK, and post-planting increases were 55.70% (GA), 58.42% (GB) and 30.80% (CK), respectively. AN showed no significant differences before planting but increased markedly after planting, with the GA treatment reaching the highest values (38.80–57.28% increase). These results suggest that modified PG can improve soil nutrient availability by releasing ions such as Ca2+ and SO42−, thereby activating insoluble soil phosphorus and potassium, facilitating nitrogen transformation, and ultimately enhancing available nutrient contents.

3.3. Soil Enzyme Activity

Soil enzyme activities under different land creation treatments are summarized in Figure 3. Three enzymes presented distinct responses to modified PG amendment.
Both S-UE and S-NP activities were markedly higher in GA and GB than in CK, with GB showing a relatively stronger promoting effect. In comparison with CK, S-UE increased by 16.95% (GB) and 11.84% (GA), while S-NP increased by 96.00% (GB) and 67.00% (GA). This demonstrates that modified PG land reconstruction effectively activates soil enzymes responsible for nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. In comparison, S-CAT activity was the highest in the CK group (0.27 U·g−1) and decreased significantly under GA and GB treatments, indicating that the application of modified PG exerted a certain inhibitory effect on S-CAT. This variation may be related to the increased soil electrical conductivity and other environmental changes induced by land creation. Meanwhile, it also suggests that the influences of modified PG land creation on soil antioxidant enzyme activity require further attention in subsequent studies.

3.4. Potato Yield and Biological Characteristics

Potato yield and agronomic traits under different treatments are summarized in Table 4, with all indices showing significant differences among groups (p < 0.05). Both GA and GB treatments markedly promoted potato yield, presenting more than twofold higher production than CK, and the overall yield ranked as CK < GA < GB. Modified PG can optimize soil pore structure and soil quality, continuously supply calcium and sulfur elements, and boost the availability of soil nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. To a certain extent, it relieves the barren soil conditions and weak water and nutrient retention capacity in rocky desertification areas, which is conducive to potato growth and yield improvement. For agronomic performance, the two land creation treatments generally enhanced both above-ground and below-ground growth parameters. Plant height, stem diameter, root length, tuber weight, biomass and tuber number were all obviously higher than those of CK. In addition, the two modes showed differentiated advantages: GA contributed more to the increase in plant height, whereas GB exhibited a better promotion effect on single tuber weight, biomass and tuber quantity.

3.5. Nutritional Quality of Potatoes

Different land creation practices distinctly affected potato nutritional quality (Figure 4). Overall, GA and GB treatments significantly elevated the contents of protein, proline and organic acid, while total soluble sugar, soluble protein and vitamin C remained relatively stable. This indicates that land creation treatments can specifically improve key nutritional indicators of potatoes without affecting the stability of their basic nutritional components. The two land creation treatments displayed differentiated advantages in quality regulation. GA exerted a relatively stronger promotion on potato protein and organic acid accumulation, whereas GB was more conducive to proline enrichment. All the above differences reached significant levels. These results illustrated that the present land creation modes could selectively optimize partial nutritional traits of potato without disturbing the basic nutritional composition stability.

3.6. Heavy Metal Transfer Coefficients and Bioaccumulation Factors

Heavy metal accumulation in potato tubers differed significantly among treatments (Figure 5a, p < 0.05). According to the limit standard of GB 2762-2022, tuber Cr, As and Hg contents in all groups were within the national safe thresholds. By contrast, Pb and Cd showed obvious over-standard risks. Tuber Pb and Cd contents in each treatment exceeded the corresponding limit to varying degrees. Specifically, Pb in CK and GB, as well as Cd in all three groups, failed to meet the food safety standard. Nevertheless, both GA and GB greatly reduced tuber Pb and Cd accumulation compared with CK. Overall, the two phosphogypsum-based land creation methods exhibited obvious mitigation effects on heavy metal enrichment, with tuber Cd content following the order: GB < GA < CK.
Bioaccumulation factors (BCF) and root-to-tuber transfer factors (TF) of heavy metals differed significantly among treatments (p < 0.05, Figure 5b,c). In general, Pb, Cr, As and Hg presented extremely low accumulation and translocation capacities, with their BCF and TF far below 1. In comparison, Cd showed a relatively higher BCF, representing the main heavy metal accumulation concern in this study. Both GA and GB treatments effectively reduced Cd bioaccumulation and tuber translocation compared with CK, reflecting an obvious passivation effect of modified PG. Limited heavy metal migration to tuber tissues further illustrated that the two land creation approaches could restrict heavy metal enrichment in edible potato tissues. Such variation characteristics are basically in line with the regular heavy metal uptake pattern of tuber crops.

3.7. The Correlation Between Potato Tubers and Heavy Metal Concentrations in Soil

There is a certain correlation between the heavy metal content in potato tubers and the heavy metal content in the soil, as shown in Figure 6. The contents of Pb, As and Hg in potato tubers were markedly correlated with soil heavy metal levels. Tuber Pb showed extremely significant positive correlations with soil Cd and As (R2 = 0.95 and 0.97) and extremely significant negative correlations with soil Pb and Hg (R2 = −0.95 and −0.92). Tuber As presented positive correlations with soil Pb and Hg (0.88 and 0.90), while exhibiting negative correlations with soil Cd, Cr and As. Tuber Hg was positively correlated with soil Pb and Hg (0.77 and 0.6) and negatively correlated with soil As. In contrast, no statistically significant correlations were observed between tuber Cd, Cr contents and any of the five soil heavy metal elements.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Land Creation Using Modified PG on Soil Properties

The application of modified PG obviously improved soil physical properties. Relative to the control, soil BD declined by 10.44% (GA) and 6.72% (GB), while soil MC increased by 8.36% and 25.25%, respectively. These findings are in line with previous reports [28,29]. The improved soil physical conditions may be attributed to two factors. On the one hand, abundant Ca2+ derived from PG facilitates soil colloid flocculation, promotes the formation of water-stable aggregates, and optimizes soil pore characteristics. On the other hand, PG possesses a relatively low BD (approximately 0.8–1.0 g·cm−1), and its incorporation can moderately lower the BD of reconstructed soil, which helps enhance soil water-retention capacity. It should be noted that soil graded pore structure was not determined in the present study. Therefore, the microscopic mechanism responsible for the improved water-holding performance, despite stable total porosity, still needs further exploration in future research.
Soil EC increased markedly under different land creation treatments, which could be largely attributed to soluble salts (mainly CaSO4) introduced by modified PG [30,31]. After one potato growing season, including crop nutrient uptake, natural leaching and soil ion exchange, EC decreased obviously by the harvesting stage. The final EC increment relative to the control was reduced to less than twofold, which greatly lowered the potential risk of salt accumulation. A moderate rise in soil EC can enhance ionic strength and improve nutrient availability. Nevertheless, long-term and large-scale continuous application requires prudent management to prevent secondary soil salinization [32]. Correspondingly, reasonable strategies, such as optimizing soil layered structure, adding organic amendments to buffer ionic variation, and regulating PG application ratio, should be adopted to relieve salt enrichment. Soil pH remained stable at 7.16–7.43 across all treatments, indicating that the modification process effectively neutralized the residual acidity of the PG, thereby minimizing the risk of soil acid-base imbalance. Combined with scientific field management, this approach can sustain a favorable physicochemical environment in the reconstructed soil over the long term.
After planting, the contents of SOM, AK, AP and AN were significantly elevated in all treatments. The two land creation methods presented differentiated performances in nutrient accumulation and enzyme regulation. Overall, GA was more favorable for the sustained accumulation and retention of soil nutrients (Figure 2). This improvement may derive from two aspects: PG contains inherent phosphorus, sulfur and calcium nutrients [33], and the increased activities of S-UE and S-NP can promote organic matter mineralization and nutrient cycling via enhanced microbial metabolism [34]. The GB treatment exhibited a relatively more pronounced activating effect on hydrolytic enzymes related to nitrogen and phosphorus cycling (Figure 3). Meanwhile, both treatments showed a reduction in S-CAT activity. Such variation may be partly associated with the altered soil ionic environment after land creation. The obvious rise in soil EC and soluble salt accumulation could change soil redox conditions. In addition, the speciation transformation of trace components introduced by PG might restrain the metabolism of redox-sensitive microorganisms, which further contributed to the decrease in S-CAT activity [35,36]. Long-term monitoring of soil redox properties is therefore recommended to avoid sustained low oxidoreductase activity, which may adversely affect soil health and ecological stability.

4.2. Effects of Land Creation Using Modified PG on Potato Growth and Quality

Modified PG land creation greatly facilitated potato growth and development. Compared with CK, tuber yield in GA and GB increased by 107.23% and 110.84%, respectively. Plant height, single tuber weight, biomass and tuber number were also markedly improved. Such growth promotion can be explained by multiple factors. First, the optimized soil physical structure, including reduced BD and higher MC, creates a loose and humid rhizosphere environment that benefits tuber expansion. Second, PG-derived calcium, sulfur, silicon and other mineral elements participate directly in crop physiological metabolism [37,38]. Relevant studies have indicated that silicon possesses the potential to regulate crop sugar metabolism and enhance plant stress tolerance; based on this, it is speculated that the silicon components associated with PG may also participate in regulating potato physiological metabolic processes, a role that requires further verification through subsequent experiments on element uptake [39]. Third, improved nutrient availability guarantees adequate nutrient supply for reproductive growth [40,41,42,43]. In terms of nutritional quality (Figure 4), GA distinctly increased potato protein (10.66%) and organic acid contents (100%), while GB achieved a prominent rise in proline accumulation (66.67%). The elevation of protein may be partly associated with improved nitrogen utilization, and organic acid accumulation might reflect crop adaptive responses to mild salt stress, which deserves further exploration [44,45]. As a key osmotic regulator, proline was most enriched under GB, implying relatively stronger salt stress in this treatment, which is consistent with its higher soil EC level [46,47,48]. In addition, total soluble sugar, soluble protein and vitamin C remained stable among all groups. It suggests that PG amendment exerts a targeted regulatory effect on potato nutritional components without disrupting overall nutritional homeostasis. Nevertheless, long-term ecological and quality effects still need to be clarified via multi-year field trials.

4.3. Heavy Metal Accumulation and Food Safety Assessment

Heavy metal risk assessment is essential for the agricultural application of modified PG. Although GA and GB markedly decreased tuber Cd content by 23.3% and 32.6% relative to CK, Cd concentration in all treatments still exceeded the safety threshold specified in GB 2762-2022, and Pb over-standard phenomena were also observed in partial groups. Under the current experimental conditions, the harvested potatoes cannot fully satisfy the circulation requirements of commercial products, with potential food safety risks existing in practical utilization. The present results show partial discrepancies with previous literature [2], while being in good agreement with other relevant reports [49,50]. It is hypothesized that the relatively high background levels of heavy metals in the experimental plot soil may be the primary cause of the excessive levels in the tubers. This hypothesis requires further verification through soil traceability analysis. However, a key finding is that, despite exceeding the limits, the Cd and Pb concentrations in the GA and GB treatments were still significantly lower than those in the CK, indicating that modified phosphogypsum has a certain passivating effect on heavy metals. This may be due to Ca2+ competing with heavy metal ions for adsorption sites, SO42− forming insoluble precipitates with heavy metals, and the pH stabilizing and reducing the reactivity of heavy metals [51]. The BCFs were all less than 1 (Pb, Cr, As and Hg < 0.01), and the TFs were all less than 0.1, indicating that potato tubers have a relatively weak capacity for both the accumulation of heavy metals and their transfer to edible parts. This is consistent with the findings from studies on other crops (such as wheat and maize) [52,53], namely that the edible parts have a significantly lower capacity for heavy metal accumulation than the vegetative organs. This phenomenon may be related to the plant’s protective mechanisms for its reproductive organs, including the screening action of vascular bundles, the chelation and immobilization by metallothioneins, and the compartmentalized isolation by vacuoles [54,55]. The specific causes require further investigation.
Correlation analysis showed that tuber Pb, As and Hg contents were significantly correlated with their corresponding soil elemental concentrations (Figure 6), while no significant correlation was observed for Cd and Cr. Such discrepancies can be partly attributed to the distinct geochemical characteristics of different elements. Cadmium possesses high soil mobility, and its absorption by crops is co-regulated by soil pH, organic matter and other environmental factors. In contrast, chromium mainly exists as trivalent fractions with relatively low bioavailability [56,57,58,59,60]. From a comprehensive food safety perspective, although both land creation methods can effectively immobilize heavy metals and reduce the risk of crop accumulation, the issue of Pb and Cd exceeding regulatory limits remains a concern, and current treatment measures are insufficient to ensure that agricultural products fully comply with national food safety standards. Future engineering applications must strictly control the background thresholds of heavy metals in imported soil, optimize the proportion and layered structure of PG, rationally combine soil-improving and immobilizing materials, breed low-accumulation varieties, and optimize field cultivation practices. A multi-pronged approach is required to ensure the long-term food safety of agricultural products from reclaimed farmland.

5. Conclusions

This field experiment was carried out on degraded rocky desertified land to explore the soil improvement benefits and agricultural safety of modified PG combined with two land creation modes (GA and GB). The results demonstrated that both approaches effectively ameliorate the degraded soil structure of rocky desertified land. The two treatments presented differentiated improvement characteristics: GA showed relative advantages in soil nutrient retention and accumulation, whereas GB was more conducive to stimulating soil enzyme activity. Both modes distinctly increased potato yield and optimized tuber comprehensive quality. Although the enrichment and translocation capacity of heavy metals in edible tuber tissues was generally weak, Pb and Cd still exceeded the official safety limits. Hence, the potential risks of such land creation require comprehensive evaluation concerning multi-source input factors. Given that the current research was limited to a single-season trial, long-term variations in soil salinity, the sustained stability of heavy metal passivation, and soil ecological succession remain unclear. The molecular regulatory mechanisms of crop heavy metal absorption and transport also require further verification through long-term field experiments. In conclusion, modified PG-based land creation provides a feasible approach for ecological restoration and agricultural utilization in rocky desertified regions. For large-scale popularization and application, it is necessary to select appropriate construction modes, strictly control the background quality of foreign soil, and implement standardized safety management strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture16090989/s1. Figure S1. Contents of Pb, As, Cd, Cr and Hg in each part of potato; Figure S2. BCF of Pb, As, Cd, Cr and Hg in different parts of potatoes; Figure S3. TF of Pb, As, Cd, Cr and Hg in different parts of potatoes [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]; Text S1: Sample Collection and Analytical Methods; Text S2: Specific calculation method.

Author Contributions

X.W.: Writing—original draft, Visualization, Methodology. J.H.: Investigation, Formal analysis. Y.L.: Validation, Investigation. X.P.: Validation, Investigation. K.Y.: Validation, Investigation. L.W.: Validation, Investigation. S.Z.: Validation, Investigation. M.B.: Validation, Investigation. Y.Z.: Validation, Investigation. N.Z.: Writing—review and editing, Writing—original draft, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the ‘Innovation Guidance and Technology-based Enterprise Cultivation Programme’ (202404BI090011).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require ethical approval.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Yongxiang Zhou was employed by the company Kunming Chuan Jin Nuo Chemical Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lv, X.; Xiang, L. Investigating the novel process for thorough removal of eutectic phosphate impurities from phosphogypsum. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 5980–5990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guan, Q.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, F.; Yu, W.; Yin, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Chi, R.A.; Zhou, J. The Impurity Removal and Comprehensive Utilization of Phosphogypsum: A Review. Materials 2024, 17, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, X.; Hu, M.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Xiao, D.; Lian, B. Safety risk analysis of high dosage of phosphogypsum in limestone soil and yellow soil: A case study of potted amaranth. Sci. Rep. 2026, 16, 6214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Akfas, F.; Elghali, A.; Aboulaich, A.; Munoz, M.; Benzaazoua, M.; Bodinier, J.L. Exploring the potential reuse of phosphogypsum: A waste or a resource? Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 908, 168196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, Q.; Li, S.; Xiao, Y.; Zhao, B.; Wang, C.; Li, B.; Gao, X.; Li, Y.; Bai, G.; Wang, Y. Soil acidification and its influencing factors in the purple hilly area of southwest China from 1981 to 2012. CATENA 2019, 175, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, C.; Zou, X.; Yang, H.; Liang, J.; Zhu, T. Bioaccumulation and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements in Soil-Rice System in Karst Area, Southwest China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 866427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xiao, Y.; Ju, X.; Li, C.; Wang, T.; Wu, R. Research on Recycling of Phosphorus Tailings Powder in Open-Graded Friction Course Asphalt Concrete. Materials 2023, 16, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, J.; Cui, K.; Chang, J.; Wang, L. Phosphogypsum-based building materials: Resource utilization, development, and limitation. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 91, 109734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jin, C.; Liu, X.; Chen, B.; Qu, G.; Tian, Y.; Wu, F.; Yang, J.; Xu, R.; Ning, P. Improvement of ecological structure and function in phosphorus tailings-based soils through phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria inoculation and magnetic field treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 115239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Qi, J.; Zhu, H.; Zhou, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, S.; Yang, D.; Li, B. Application of phosphogypsum in soilization: A review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 10449–10464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, F.; Ren, Y.; Qu, G.; Liu, S.; Chen, B.; Liu, X.; Zhao, C.; Li, J. Utilization path of bulk industrial solid waste: A review on the multi-directional resource utilization path of phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 313, 114957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kalinitchenko, V.; Nosov, V. Phosphogypsum: P Fertilizer By-Product and Soil Amendment. Better Crops Plant Food 2019, 103, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Takahashi, T.; Ikeda, Y.; Nakamura, H.; Nanzyo, M. Efficiency of gypsum application to acid Andosols estimated using aluminum release rates and plant root growth. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2010, 52, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alves, L.A.; Fontoura, S.M.V.; Tiecher, T.; Pesini, G.; Flores, J.P.M.; Filippi, D.; Moraes, R.P.D.; Pias, O.H.D.C.; Bayer, C. Long-term soil acidity dynamics and crop yield response to phosphogypsum and limestone with different reactivities in a no-till Oxisol. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 171, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yin, Y.-P.; Shu, Y.-Z.; Dong, W.-N.; Huang, L.; Sun, W.-L.; Song, L.-F.; Liang, Q. Effect of Phosphorus Gypsum Application for Three Consecutive Years on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Red Soil. China J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 29, 2187–2192. [Google Scholar]
  16. Belyuchenko, I.; Dobrydnev, E.; Muravev, E. Ecological features of phosphogypsum and appropriateness of its use in agriculture. In Proceedings of the II All-Russian Scientific Conference “Problems of Reclamation of Household, Industrial and Agricultural Production Wastes”, Krasnodar, Russia, 18–19 March 2010; pp. 18–19. [Google Scholar]
  17. Outbakat, M.B.; Bouray, M.; Choukr-Allah, R.; El Gharous, M.; El Omari, K.; El Mejahed, K. Phosphogypsum as Fertilizer: Impacts on Soil Fertility, Barley Yield Components, and Heavy Metals Contents. Plants 2025, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Peng, X.; Deng, Y.; Liu, L.; Tian, X.; Yue, K. The addition of biochar as a fertilizer supplement for the attenuation of potentially toxic elements in phosphogypsum-amended soil. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, L.; Liu, Y.; Ferreira, J.F.; Wang, M.; Na, J.; Huang, J.; Liang, Z. Long-term combined effects of tillage and rice cultivation with phosphogypsum or farmyard manure on the concentration of salts, minerals, and heavy metals of saline-sodic paddy fields in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 215, 105222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rodriguez-Jorda, M.P.; Garrido, F.; Garcia-Gonzalez, M.T. Potential use of gypsum and lime rich industrial by-products for induced reduction of Pb, Zn and Ni leachability in an acid soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 762–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mahmoud, E.; Abd El-Kader, N. Heavy metal immobilization in contaminated soils using phosphogypsum and rice straw compost. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 819–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Chen, L.; Xue, B.; Wang, G.; Zhu, G.; Gou, W.; Yang, D. Potential of artificial soil preparation for vegetation restoration using red mud and phosphogypsum. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 941, 173553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gao, L.; Li, R.; Yang, D.; Bao, L.; Zhang, N. Phosphogypsum improves soil and benefits crop growth: An effective measure for utilizing solid waste resources. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 11827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goffart, J.-P.; Haverkort, A.; Storey, M.; Haase, N.; Martin, M.; Lebrun, P.; Ryckmans, D.; Florins, D.; Demeulemeester, K. Potato production in northwestern Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Belgium): Characteristics, issues, challenges and opportunities. Potato Res. 2022, 65, 503–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, H.; Fen, X.; Yu, W. Progress of potato staple food research and industry development in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 2924–2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shan, X.; Dou, F.; Li, D.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C. Cadmium accumulation and translocation in maize cultivars on contaminated soils in southern China. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wright, P.B.; Steven, J.C. Accumulation of heavy metals in Conyza canadensis. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2024, 64, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, P.; Liu, Q.; Fan, S.; Wang, J.; Mu, S.; Zhu, C. Combined application of desulfurization gypsum and Biochar for improving saline-alkali soils: A strategy to improve newly reclaimed cropland in coastal mudflats. Land 2023, 12, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, C.H.; Ha, B.Y.; Lee, Y.B.; Kim, P.J. Effect of alkalized phosphogypsum on soil chemical and biological properties. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2009, 40, 2072–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Naseem, H.; Ahsan, M.; Shahid, M.A.; Khan, N. Exopolysaccharides producing rhizobacteria and their role in plant growth and drought tolerance. J. Basic Microbiol. 2018, 58, 1009–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Al-Oudat, M.; Arslan, A.; Kanakri, S. Physical and chemical properties, plant growth, and radionuclide accumulation effects from mixing phosphogypsum with some soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 2515–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Outbakat, M.B.; Choukr-Allah, R.; EL Gharous, M.; EL Omari, K.; Soulaimani, A.; EL Mejahed, K. Does phosphogypsum application affect salts, nutrients, and trace elements displacement from saline soils? Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 964698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xue, B.; Chen, L.; Wang, G.; Wang, J.; Wan, H.; Lin, X.; Zhu, G. Simulation of red mud/phosphogypsum-based artificial soil engineering applications in vegetation restoration and ecological reconstruction. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 951, 175656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rousk, K.; Michelsen, A.; Rousk, J. Microbial control of soil organic matter mineralization responses to labile carbon in subarctic climate change treatments. Glob. Change Biol. 2016, 22, 4150–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Azadi, N.; Raiesi, F. Salinization depresses soil enzyme activity in metal-polluted soils through increases in metal mobilization and decreases in microbial biomass. Ecotoxicology 2021, 30, 1071–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, C.; Dong, Y.; Yi, Y.; Tian, J.; Xuan, C.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Y.; Cao, J. Effects of phosphogypsum on enzyme activity and microbial community in acid soil. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 6189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Al-Karaki, G.N.; Al-Omoush, M. Wheat response to phosphogypsum and mycorrhizal fungi in alkaline soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2006, 25, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alva, A.; Sumner, M. Amelioration of acid soil infertility by phosphogypsum. Plant Soil 1990, 128, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Artyszak, A. Effect of silicon fertilization on crop yield quantity and quality—A literature review in Europe. Plants 2018, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Smaoui-Jardak, M.; Turki, M.; Zouari, M.; Kallel, M.; Ben Abdallah, F.; Elloumi, N. Effect of phosphogypsum amendment on saline soil and on growth, productivity, and antioxidant enzyme activities of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). J. Environ. Integr. 2024, 9, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, S.; Singh, S. Use of indigenous sources of sulphur in soils of eastern India for higher crops yield and quality: A review. Agric. Rev. 2016, 37, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bossolani, J.W.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Merloti, L.F.; Moretti, L.G.; Costa, N.R.; Tsai, S.M.; Kuramae, E.E. Long-term lime and gypsum amendment increase nitrogen fixation and decrease nitrification and denitrification gene abundances in the rhizosphere and soil in a tropical no-till intercropping system. Geoderma 2020, 375, 114476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gorbunov, A.; Frontasyeva, M.; Gundorina, S.; Onischenko, T.; Maksjuta, B.; Pal, C.S. Effect of agricultural use of phosphogypsum on trace elements in soils and vegetation. Sci. Total Environ. 1992, 122, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Al-Enazy, A.A.R.; Al-Oud, S.S.; Al-Barakah, F.N.; Usman, A.R. Role of microbial inoculation and industrial by-product phosphogypsum in growth and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays L.) grown in calcareous soil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 3665–3674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koyama, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kobayashi, Y. Organic acid metabolism and release in stress tolerance of plant. Jpn. J. Germfree Life Gnotobiol. 2009, 39, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  46. Elloumi, N.; Zouari, M.; Chaari, L.; Abdallah, F.B.; Woodward, S.; Kallel, M. Effect of phosphogypsum on growth, physiology, and the antioxidative defense system in sunflower seedlings. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 14829–14840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bossolani, J.W.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Moretti, L.G.; Garcia, A.; Portugal, J.R.; Bernart, L.; Vilela, R.G.; Caires, E.F.; Amado, T.J.C.; Calonego, J.C. Improving soil fertility with lime and phosphogypsum enhances soybean yield and physiological characteristics: Improving soil fertility with lime and phosphogypsum enhances soybean yield and physiological characteristics. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khalifa, T.; Elbagory, M.; Omara, A.E.-D. Salt stress amelioration in maize plants through phosphogypsum application and bacterial inoculation. Plants 2021, 10, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ben Chabchoubi, I.; Bouguerra, S.; Ksibi, M.; Hentati, O. Health risk assessment of heavy metals exposure via consumption of crops grown in phosphogypsum-contaminated soils. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 1953–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Enamorado, S.; Abril, J.M.; Delgado, A.; Más, J.L.; Polvillo, O.; Quintero, J.M. Implications for food safety of the uptake by tomato of 25 trace-elements from a phosphogypsum amended soil from SW Spain. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 266, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shi, Y.-X.; Wu, S.-H.; Zhou, S.-L.; Wang, C.-H.; Chen, H. Simulation of the absorption, migration and accumulation process of heavy metal elements in soil-crop system. Huan Jing Ke Xue Huanjing Kexue 2016, 37, 3996–4003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, Z.-F.; Zhao, Y.; Gu, L.; Hu, H.-X.; Tian, Q. Pb Accumulation and Its Health Risk in Soil-wheat System of Beijing City Based on Agricultural Location Theory. Geogr. Sin. 2012, 32, 1142–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, F.; Zhang, S.; Cheng, P.; Zhang, S.; Sun, Y. Effects of soil amendments on heavy metal immobilization and accumulation by maize grown in a multiple-metal-contaminated soil and their potential for safe crop production. Toxics 2020, 8, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Uraguchi, S.; Mori, S.; Kuramata, M.; Kawasaki, A.; Arao, T.; Ishikawa, S. Root-to-shoot Cd translocation via the xylem is the major process determining shoot and grain cadmium accumulation in rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2677–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cobbett, C.; Goldsbrough, P. Phytochelatins and metallothioneins: Roles in heavy metal detoxification and homeostasis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, H.; Dong, C.-Y.; Yang, H.-C.; Sun, S.-J.; Han, Y.; Huang, Z.-Z.; Zhang, N.-M.; Bao, L. Analysis of Heavy Metal Pollution Evaluation and Correlation of Farmland Soil and Vegetables in Zhaotong City. Huan Jing Ke Xue Huanjing Kexue 2024, 45, 1090–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deng, Q.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Yang, J.; Sun, G.; Lu, C. Transport characteristics of heavy metals in the soil-atmosphere-wheat system in farming areas and development of multiple linear regression predictive model. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 17322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, Q.; Han, Z.; Tian, Y.; Xiao, H.; Yang, M. Risk assessment of heavy metal in farmlands and crops near Pb–Zn mine Tailing Ponds in Niujiaotang, China. Toxics 2023, 11, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kubier, A.; Wilkin, R.T.; Pichler, T. Cadmium in soils and groundwater: A review. Appl. Geochem. 2019, 108, 104388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kotaś, J.; Stasicka, Z. Chromium occurrence in the environment and methods of its speciation. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 107, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. ISO 11272:2017; Soil Quality—Determination of Dry Bulk Density. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  62. ISO 11274:2019; Soil Quality—Determination of Soil Moisture Content—Gravimetric Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  63. ISO 10390:2021; Soil Quality—Determination of pH. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  64. ISO 11265:2021; Soil Quality—Determination of Electrical Conductivity. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  65. ISO 17294-2:2016; Soil Quality—Determination of Trace Elements—Part 2: Digestion for Subsequent Determination by Flame and Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  66. ISO 17378-1:2014; Soil Quality—Determination of Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, Nickel and Selenium—Part 1: Digestion with Aqua Regia. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
  67. Bai, Z.; Wu, F.; He, Y.; Han, Z. Pollution and risk assessment of heavy metals in Zuoxiguo antimony mining area, southwest China. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2023, 35, 2156397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. ISO 14240-1:2019; Soil Quality—Determination of Soil Organic Carbon—Wet Oxidation Method with Potassium Dichromate. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  69. ISO 14235:1998; Soil Quality—Determination of Alkali-Hydrolyzable Nitrogen—Alkaline Diffusion Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
  70. ISO 11263:2021; Soil Quality—Determination of Available Phosphorus. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  71. ISO 17297:2013; Soil Quality—Determination of Exchangeable Potassium. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  72. ISO 17294-2:2021; Water Quality—Application of Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  73. Pothuraju, N.; Pogula, H.K.; Jagdale, R.; Vadla, U.K.; Gajbhiye, R.L.; Parihar, V.K.; Velayutham, R.; Peraman, R. Impact of microwave-assisted acid extraction (MW-AAE) methods on simultaneous ICP-MS analysis of multi-elements in edibles besides associated greenness and human health risk assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2025, 197, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. ISO 20483:2020; Cereals and Pulses—Determination of Crude Protein Content—Kjeldahl Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  75. ISO 6557-2:2017; Food Products—Determination of Ascorbic Acid Content—Part 2: Colorimetric Method with 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  76. ISO 5377:1981; Starch Hydrolysis Products—Determination of Reducing Power and Dextrose Equivalent—Lane and Eynon constant Titre Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1981.
  77. ISO 20483:2021; Cereals and Cereal Products—Determination of Protein Content. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  78. ISO 750:2019; Fruit and Vegetable Juices—Determination of Titratable Acidity. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  79. ISO 18422:2021; Fruit and Vegetable Products—Determination of Free Amino Acids and Proline. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
Agriculture 16 00989 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of different land construction processes.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of different land construction processes.
Agriculture 16 00989 g001
Agriculture 16 00989 g002
Figure 2. Changes in soil nutrient content in dryland fields under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Changes in soil nutrient content in dryland fields under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 16 00989 g002
Agriculture 16 00989 g003
Figure 3. Soil enzyme activity in dryland fields under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Soil enzyme activity in dryland fields under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 16 00989 g003
Agriculture 16 00989 g004
Figure 4. Contents of nutrient components in potato under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Contents of nutrient components in potato under different treatments. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 16 00989 g004
Agriculture 16 00989 g005
Figure 5. Heavy metal content in tubers and characteristics of BCF and TF. (a) Heavy metal content in tubers (mg kg−1); (b) Tuber Heavy Metal BCF; (c) Root-Tuber Heavy Metal TF. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Heavy metal content in tubers and characteristics of BCF and TF. (a) Heavy metal content in tubers (mg kg−1); (b) Tuber Heavy Metal BCF; (c) Root-Tuber Heavy Metal TF. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Agriculture 16 00989 g005
Agriculture 16 00989 g006
Figure 6. Correlation between potato tubers and soil heavy metal content. * and ** denote significant differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01.
Figure 6. Correlation between potato tubers and soil heavy metal content. * and ** denote significant differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01.
Agriculture 16 00989 g006
Table 1. Experimental treatments and design.
Table 1. Experimental treatments and design.
Process NamesProcessing Area(m2)Construction Technology and Proportion (Mass Ratio)
Dry Farmland
CK177100% locally imported soil
GA323Layered Reconstruction Process A
GB300Integrated process B, PG:imported soil = 5:5
Table 2. Soil physicochemical properties of dryland fields under different treatments (initial).
Table 2. Soil physicochemical properties of dryland fields under different treatments (initial).
ProcessBD g·cm−3MC%POR%pHEC μS·cm−1
CK1.34 ± 0.026 a11.93 ± 0.69 b50.87 ± 0.43 a7.37 ± 0.13 a254.67 ± 21.45 b
GA1.2 ± 0.045 b13.34 ± 2.20 ab46.47 ± 2.36 a7.38 ± 0.2 a1798.00 ± 32.12 a
GB1.26 ± 0.079 ab15.96 ± 1.54 a49.81 ± 3.04 a7.43 ± 0.18 a1782.67 ± 98.98 a
Note: BD (bulk density), MC (moisture content), POR (porosity), EC (electrical conductivity). Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Soil physicochemical properties of dryland fields under different treatments (end).
Table 3. Soil physicochemical properties of dryland fields under different treatments (end).
ProcessBD g·cm−3MC%POR%pHEC μS·cm−1
CK1.34 ± 0.025 a1.71 ± 0.233 c51.66 ± 0.78 a7.16 ± 0.07 a654.00 ± 62.43 b
GA1.27 ± 0.058 ab3.14 ± 0.128 a45.95 ± 2.51 a7.41 ± 0.37 a1925.33 ± 6.51 a
GB1.17 ± 0.053 b2.95 ± 0.198 b49.68 ± 1.84 a7.20 ± 0.05 a1876.00 ± 53.86 a
Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Biological traits and yield of potatoes under different treatments.
Table 4. Biological traits and yield of potatoes under different treatments.
ProcessH (cm)ST (mm)RL (cm)TW (g)B (g·plant−1)NT (Piece)Yield (t·ha−1)
CK38.00 ± 2.94 b7.89 ± 1.69 a14.00 ± 6.08 a55.33 ± 7.54 b115.82 ± 6.46 c5.00 ± 0.82 b16.60 ± 1232.88 b
GA54.00 ± 3.74 a8.02 ± 1.02 a19.33 ± 3.97 a65.69 ± 5.33 ab156.06 ± 4.84 b9.33 ± 1.25 a34.40 ± 1131.37 a
GB53.00 ± 2.45 a9.00 ± 1.16 a16.83 ± 3.62 a77.74 ± 11.04 a189.75 ± 13.91 a9.67 ± 2.62 a35.00 ± 1232.88 a
Avg48.338.3016.7266.25153.888.3328.67
CV6.30%15.54%27.25%12.03%5.46%18.77%4.18%
Note: H (plant height), ST (stem thickness), RL (root length), TW (tuber weight), B (biomass), NT (number of tubers), Avg (mean), CV (coefficient of variation). Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate that the difference in the same indicator between different treatments is statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; He, J.; Li, Y.; Peng, X.; Yang, K.; Wang, L.; Zhu, S.; Bai, M.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, N. The Effects of Two Land Creation Processes Using Modified Phosphogypsum on Soil Properties and Potato Yield and Quality. Agriculture 2026, 16, 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16090989

AMA Style

Wang X, He J, Li Y, Peng X, Yang K, Wang L, Zhu S, Bai M, Zhou Y, Zhang N. The Effects of Two Land Creation Processes Using Modified Phosphogypsum on Soil Properties and Potato Yield and Quality. Agriculture. 2026; 16(9):989. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16090989

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xiang, Jianyang He, Yingmei Li, Xiuling Peng, Ke Yang, Lijuan Wang, Shundi Zhu, Muxi Bai, Yongxiang Zhou, and Naiming Zhang. 2026. "The Effects of Two Land Creation Processes Using Modified Phosphogypsum on Soil Properties and Potato Yield and Quality" Agriculture 16, no. 9: 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16090989

APA Style

Wang, X., He, J., Li, Y., Peng, X., Yang, K., Wang, L., Zhu, S., Bai, M., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, N. (2026). The Effects of Two Land Creation Processes Using Modified Phosphogypsum on Soil Properties and Potato Yield and Quality. Agriculture, 16(9), 989. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16090989

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