Author
Listed:
- Paul C. Bartley
(Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)
- Landon B. Erbrick
(Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)
- Michael J. Knotts
(Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA)
- Dexter B. Watts
(USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL 36832, USA)
- Henry A. Torbert
(USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL 36832, USA)
Abstract
Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, a byproduct of coal-fired electrical utility plants, has been shown to effectively reduce phosphorus (P) leaching in many agricultural systems. However, its applications in horticultural production systems have been insufficiently researched resulting in limited industry adoption. To evaluate the efficacy of FGD gypsum to reduce P leaching in horticultural media, pine bark substrates were amended with FGD gypsum at 2.5, 5, and 10% ( v / v ). In accordance with industry practice, controlled release fertilizer (19N-3P-10K) was amply incorporated into all potting media treatments to support primary nutrient sufficiency of transplanted stock. The greatest P leaching occurred in the control substrates containing only pine bark and fertilizer. The standard pine bark substrate treatment, containing lime and micronutrients, reduced total P leaching by 35% and should be considered a best management practice. The addition of FGD gypsum at 2.5, 5, and 10% ( v / v ) reduced the total P collected in leachate by 47, 59, and 70%, respectively. Gypsum amendments increased potassium leachate concentrations but elevated potassium levels normalized after ~20 days. With little to no effect on substrate physical properties or pH, pine bark substrates can be amended with FGD gypsum to effectively reduce P leaching in short-term crops.
Suggested Citation
Paul C. Bartley & Landon B. Erbrick & Michael J. Knotts & Dexter B. Watts & Henry A. Torbert, 2023.
"Influence of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum on Phosphorus Loss in Pine Bark Substrates,"
Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:283-:d:1045623
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:283-:d:1045623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.