Uncertainty in phosphorus fluxes and budgets across the US long‐term agroecosystem research network

Author:

Welikhe Pauline12,Williams Mark R.2ORCID,King Kevin3,Bos Janae2,Akland Mark4,Baffaut Claire5ORCID,Beck E. Glynn6ORCID,Bierer Andrew7ORCID,Bosch David D.8ORCID,Brooks Erin S.9ORCID,Buda Anthony R.10,Cavigelli Michel11,Faulkner Joshua12,Feyereisen Gary W.13ORCID,Fortuna Ann‐Marie14ORCID,Gamble Joshua.15ORCID,Hanrahan Brittany R.3ORCID,Hussain Mir Zaman16,Kovar John L.17,Lee Brad4,Leytem April B.7,Liebig Mark A.18ORCID,Line Daniel19,Macrae Merrin L.20ORCID,Moorman Thomas B.17ORCID,Moriasi Daniel14,Mumbi Rose12,Nelson Nathan21ORCID,Ortega‐Pieck Aline9ORCID,Osmond Deanna19,Penn Chad2,Pisani Oliva8ORCID,Reba Michele L.22ORCID,Smith Douglas R.23ORCID,Unrine Jason424,Webb Pearl25,White Kate E.11,Wilson Henry26ORCID,Witthaus Lindsey M.27

Affiliation:

1. Department of Agronomy Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana USA

2. USDA‐ARS, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory West Lafayette Indiana USA

3. USDA‐ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit Columbus Ohio USA

4. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA

5. USDA‐ARS, Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research Unit Columbia Missouri USA

6. Kentucky Geological Survey Henderson Kentucky USA

7. USDA‐ARS, Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory Kimberly Idaho USA

8. USDA‐ARS, Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory Tifton Georgia USA

9. Department of Soil and Water Resources University of Idaho Moscow Idaho USA

10. USDA‐ARS, Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit University Park Pennsylvania USA

11. USDA‐ARS, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory Beltsville Maryland USA

12. Department of Plant and Soil Science University of Vermont Burlington Vermont USA

13. USDA‐ARS, Soil and Water Management Unit St. Paul Minnesota USA

14. USDA‐ARS, Grazinglands Research Laboratory El Reno Oklahoma USA

15. USDA‐ARS, Plant Science Research Unit St. Paul Minnesota USA

16. W.K. Kellogg Biological Station Michigan State University Hickory Corners Michigan USA

17. USDA‐ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment Ames Iowa USA

18. USDA‐ARS, Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory Mandan North Dakota USA

19. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA

20. Department of Geography and Environmental Management University of Waterloo Waterloo Ontario Canada

21. Department of Agronomy Kansas State University Manhattan Kansas USA

22. USDA‐ARS, Delta Water Management Research Unit Jonesboro Arkansas USA

23. USDA‐ARS, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory Temple Texas USA

24. Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute Lexington Kentucky USA

25. Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville Arkansas USA

26. Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, Science and Technology Branch Brandon Research and Development Centre Brandon Manitoba Canada

27. USDA‐ARS, National Sedimentation Laboratory Oxford Mississippi USA

Abstract

AbstractPhosphorus (P) budgets can be useful tools for understanding nutrient cycling and quantifying the effectiveness of nutrient management planning and policies; however, uncertainties in agricultural nutrient budgets are not often quantitatively assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate uncertainty in P fluxes (fertilizer/manure application, atmospheric deposition, irrigation, crop removal, surface runoff, and leachate) and the propagation of these uncertainties to annual P budgets. Data from 56 cropping systems in the P‐FLUX database, which spans diverse rotations and landscapes across the United States and Canada, were evaluated. Results showed that across cropping systems, average annual P budget was 22.4 kg P ha−1 (range = −32.7 to 340.6 kg P ha−1), with an average uncertainty of 13.1 kg P ha−1 (range = 1.0–87.1 kg P ha−1). Fertilizer/manure application and crop removal were the largest P fluxes across cropping systems and, as a result, accounted for the largest fraction of uncertainty in annual budgets (61% and 37%, respectively). Remaining fluxes individually accounted for <2% of the budget uncertainty. Uncertainties were large enough that determining whether P was increasing, decreasing, or not changing was inconclusive in 39% of the budgets evaluated. Findings indicate that more careful and/or direct measurements of inputs, outputs, and stocks are needed. Recommendations for minimizing uncertainty in P budgets based on the results of the study were developed. Quantifying, communicating, and constraining uncertainty in budgets among production systems and multiple geographies is critical for engaging stakeholders, developing local and national strategies for P reduction, and informing policy.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Pollution,Waste Management and Disposal,Water Science and Technology,Environmental Engineering

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3