Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Jan 14;54(2):410–419. doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20673

Blended soil amendments: A viable strategy to reduce soluble phosphorus in soils

Darshani Kumaragamage 1,✉, Haven Soto 1, Emily Van 1, Douglas Goltz 2, Inoka Amarakoon 3,1
PMCID: PMC11893284  PMID: 39807011

Abstract

Phosphorus (P) loss from soils can contribute significantly toward P enrichment in water bodies, impairing water quality. Application of soil amendments is a viable strategy to decrease soluble P in surface soils. Since soluble P is reduced through different mechanisms that are amendment‐specific, blended amendments could be a better approach than single amendment applications; however, very little information is available on blended amendment effects in reducing P loss from soils. We compared the effectiveness of gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), Epsom salt (MgSO4·7H2O), and alum [Al2(SO4)3·18H2O] applied singly or blended in different ratios in reducing water‐extractable P (WEP) and Mehlich‐3 P of two soils (0‐ to 15‐cm depth) with contrasting P status (Mehlich‐3 P of 7.1 mg kg−1 and 202 mg kg−1) from the Red River Valley region in MB, Canada. Ten treatments used for the laboratory incubation study were unamended control, gypsum or Epsom salt at 2.5 or 5 Mg ha−1, alum at 2.5 Mg ha−1, and four blended treatments of gypsum: alum or Epsom salt: alum at 1:1 or 2:1. Treated soils were saturated and incubated for 2 weeks and analyzed for WEP (an indicator of risk of P loss) and Mehlich‐3 P (plant‐available P) concentrations. All amendments significantly reduced the WEP concentrations compared to control in both soils. The blended amendments, particularly gypsum–alum blends, performed better than unblended amendments in reducing the potential risk of P loss. Mehlich‐3 P concentration was not influenced by amended treatments, suggesting no significant decrease in plant‐available P with amendments in both soils.

Core Ideas

  • Potential P loss risk measured as water‐extractable P (WEP) was significantly reduced by blended and unblended amendments in both soils.

  • Blended amendments were more effective than unblended amendments in reducing WEP, notably in high‐P soils.

  • Plant‐available P measured as Mehlich‐3 P was not significantly influenced by amendments, blended or unblended.

Abbreviation

WEP

water extractable P

1. INTRODUCTION

Phosphorus (P) released from agricultural soils can greatly contribute to P enrichment in nearby water sources (Kleinman et al., 2015; Kröger et al., 2013), stimulating algae growth that impairs water quality (Binding et al., 2018; Schindler et al., 2012). In cold climatic regions such as the Canadian prairies, P runoff loss primarily occurs during spring snowmelt, with dissolved reactive P being the dominant form of P loss (Liu et al., 2020; Rattan et al., 2017). During the snowmelt period, agricultural lands may get flooded for up to several weeks (Buttle et al., 2016), with multiple freeze‐thaw events. Anaerobic conditions developed with flooding have exacerbated P losses to overlying floodwater in previous studies (Amarawansha et al., 2015; Kumaragamage et al., 2020; Weerasekara et al., 2021). The risk of P loss to snowmelt is greater with high legacy P soils that have received frequent applications of manure (Concepcion et al., 2021; Lasisi, Kumaragamage, et al., 2023).

In regions where snowmelt runoff is the dominant mechanism of P loss from agricultural fields, best management practices targeted to reduce sediment and particulate P losses (e.g., conservation tillage, buffer strips) have been ineffective and often enhanced losses of the more bioavailable, dissolved forms (Jarvie et al., 2017; Joose & Baker, 2011; Liu et al., 2019), emphasizing the need for better management of near‐surface soil P (Wilson et al., 2019). The application of soil amendments (e.g., gypsum, alum, MgSO4, FeCl3) is an effective strategy to decrease soluble P in surface soils. Typically, aluminum (Al)‐ and iron (Fe)‐rich soil amendments have been evaluated for acidic soils, whereas calcium (Ca)‐based amendments have been evaluated for alkaline soils (Kleinman, 2017). Reduction in P loss from soils with amendments has been attributed to numerous mechanisms. Application of Ca‐based amendments may induce Ca phosphate precipitation, depending on the soil pH and P concentration (Cox & Jacinthe, 2023; Uusitalo et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2016). The increased ionic strength with the application of amendment containing higher valent ions (e.g., Ca2+, Mg2+, Al3+, SO4 2−) may promote the adsorption of P onto metal (hydr)oxide surfaces and silicate clay minerals (Uusitalo et al., 2012). The application of Fe‐, manganese (Mn)‐, and/or Al‐containing amendments can stabilize soil P through precipitation of poorly crystalline metal oxyhydroxides and subsequent adsorption of P (Attanayake, Dharmakeerthi, et al., 2022, Attanayake, Kumaragamage, et al., 2022). In addition to stabilizing P, amendments may result in decreased microbial activity and delayed microbial‐mediated reductive dissolution reactions (Kumaragamage et al., 2022; Vitharana et al., 2021), all of which influence soil P dynamics. Since a range of soil‐ and amendment‐specific mechanisms are responsible for reducing P loss from flooded soils (Attanayake, Dharmakeerthi, et al., 2022; Dharmakeerthi, Kumaragamage, Indraratne, & Goltz, 2019; Kumaragamage et al., 2022; Lasisi, Weerasekara, et al., 2023; Vitharana et al., 2021), the application of blended amendments could be a better approach than the application of single amendments. Co‐blending Al‐based water treatment residual with Ca–magnesium (Mg)‐based amendments has been shown to reduce soluble P loss with leaching more than the application of amendments singly (Miyittah et al., 2011). However, to our knowledge, the effectiveness of blended amendments in reducing P loss from saturated/flooded soils has not been investigated to date.

In the above context, this research was conducted to compare applications of single (unblended) and blended amendments to soils under saturated moisture conditions in reducing water‐extractable P (WEP), which is an indicator of P loss risk from soils to runoff. We hypothesized that the application of blended amendments of Al‐based and Ca/Mg‐based materials would be more efficient in reducing the potential P loss from saturated soils than single amendment applications. We also evaluated the effect of single and blended amendments on plant‐available P (as Mehlich‐3 P) and the soil pH.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Soil collection and characterization

Two surface composite soil samples (0‐ to 15‐cm depth) were collected from a long‐term manured (>15 years) field and an organically farmed field. The manured field collected from Randolph, MB, belongs to the Osborne series (Rego Humic Gleysol) according to Canadian soil classification (Canadian Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee, 1998) with US soil taxonomy equivalent of Mollic Gleysol (Soil Survey Staff, 2014). The organically farmed soil collected from Libau, Manitoba, belongs to the Dencross series (Gleyed Rego Black Chernozem in the Canadian soil classification) with US soil taxonomy equivalent of Mollic Gleysol.

Soil samples were analyzed for texture (Gee & Bauder, 1986), pH in 1:2 (w/v), soil water suspension, electrical conductivity in 1:2 (w/v) soil water suspension, Olsen P (Olsen et al., 1954), Mehlich‐3 P (Mehlich, 1984), cation exchange capacity (calculated as the sum of exchangeable Ca, Mg, sodium (Na), and potassium (K); ammonium acetate method), and organic matter (loss‐on‐ignition; Dean, 1974).

2.2. Laboratory incubation study

A laboratory incubation study was conducted using two soils with 10 amendment treatments in triplicates. The treatments were unamended control, lower rate of either gypsum (Gy1), alum (Al1), or Epsom salt (M1), higher rate of either gypsum (Gy2), or Epsom salt (Mg2), blended alum–gypsum or alum–Epsom salt at a ratio of 1:1 (Al1Gy1 and Al1Mg1), and 1:2 (Al1Gy2 and Al1Mg2). The lower rate used for amendments (Al1, Gy1, or Mg1) was 0.125% (w/w), which is equivalent to 2.5 Mg ha−1, assuming a soil depth of 20 cm and a bulk density of 1.0 g cm−3. The higher rate (Gy2 or Mg2) used was 0.25% (w/w), which is equivalent to 5 Mg ha−1. These rates were decided based on previous studies conducted in soil from the region that showed the effectiveness of amendments in reducing P loss to flooding‐induced P loss from soils (Dharmakeerthi, Kumaragamage, Goltz, & Indraratne, 2019; Kumaragamage et al., 2022; Lasisi, Weerasekara, et al., 2023; Vitharana et al., 2021).

Each soil was mixed with amendments (unblended or blended) depending on the treatment, and 50 g of treated soil was incubated in vessels (100 mL) in triplicates at saturated moisture conditions achieved by adding ultrapure water (Milli‐Q; 18 MΩ cm) at 22 ± 1°C for 2 weeks. The amount of water added was calculated as the difference between saturated water content and field water content for each soil. At the end of 2 weeks, soil samples from each vessel were extracted for WEP (soil: water of 1:10 (w/v); shaken for 1 h and filtered through Whatman No.40) and Mehlich‐3 P (Mehlich, 1984). The P concentration in the extracts was determined by the molybdate blue color method (Murphy & Riley, 1962) with a UV‐visible spectrophotometer (Ultraspec 500 pro; Biochrom) at 882 nm wavelength. Soil samples were analyzed for pH (1:2, soil: water) using an Accumet AB15 pH meter (Fisher Scientific Canada Ltd.). Analysis of variance was performed using PROC GLIMMIX with SAS software, Version 9.4 to determine the significant effect of treatments on WEP, Mehlich‐3 P, and pH. Amendment treatment was considered a fixed effect, and replicates were treated as a random effect. Mean comparisons were performed with the Tukey–Kramer test at a significance level of α = 0.05.

Core Ideas

  • Potential P loss risk measured as water‐extractable P (WEP) was significantly reduced by blended and unblended amendments in both soils.

  • Blended amendments were more effective than unblended amendments in reducing WEP, notably in high‐P soils.

  • Plant‐available P measured as Mehlich‐3 P was not significantly influenced by amendments, blended or unblended.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Soil characteristics

The two soils had similar physical and chemical properties except for the available P content. Both soils belonged to the clay textural class (>45% clay) and had alkaline pH (7.7–7.9), high organic matter contents (>61 g kg−1), and high cation exchange capacities (43–70 cmolc kg−1; Table 1). The manured Osborne series was a saline soil (EC of 8.6 dS m−1) and had very high Olsen and Mehlich‐3 P concentrations (80 and 202 mg kg−1, respectively) and herein referred to as high‐P soil, whereas organically farmed Libau soil had low Olsen P and Mehlich‐3 P concentrations (6.4 and 7.1 mg kg−1, respectively) and herein referred to as low‐P soil.

TABLE 1.

Important physical and chemical properties of the two soils.

Soil property High‐P soil Low‐P soil
Soil series Osborne series Dencross series
pH (1:2, soil: water) 7.7 7.9
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1; 1:2, soil:water) 8.6 1.0
Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg−1) 70 43
Organic matter (g kg−1) 75 61
Olsen P (mg kg−1) 80 6.4
Mehlich‐3 P (mg kg−1) 202 7.1
Exchangeable Ca (mg kg−1) 8000 6200
Exchangeable Mg (mg kg−1) 2300 1500
Sand (%) 22 27
Silt (%) 24 28
Clay (%) 54 45
Textural class Clay Clay
Open in a new tab

3.2. Changes in water‐extractable P in unamended and amended soils

The WEP concentrations in amended and unamended treatments ranged from 0.39 to 1.33 mg kg−1 in low‐P soil and from 3.09 to 8.72 mg kg−1 in high‐P soil (Figure 1). As expected, the high‐P soil, which had received manure applications for over 15 years had significantly greater WEP, suggesting the greater potential for P loss in dissolved forms with runoff and leaching. The WEP provides an estimate of the fraction of P that can potentially be lost with runoff after desorbing from the soil and was found to be strongly correlated with the dissolved P concentration in runoff and leachate (Maguire & Sims, 2002; Pote et al., 1999). In the high‐P soil, the mean WEP concentration in the unamended treatment was 8.7 ± 0.50 mg kg−1, which is close to, or greater than, the different environmental threshold concentrations suggested by various researchers, ranging between 3.7 and 9.7 mg kg−1 (Benjannet et al., 2018; Maguire & Sims, 2002; Pellerin et al., 2006; Pöthig et al., 2010; Van Bochove et al., 2012). It is possible that the WEP increased over the incubation period as the soils were kept under saturated conditions, which likely created anaerobic conditions (Kumaragamage et al., 2021), resulting in reductive dissolution reactions that increased soluble P concentrations (Ajmone‐Marsan et al., 2006; Amarawansha et al., 2015). The mean WEP in unamended low‐P soil, which did not receive manure or P fertilizer for the last 15 years, was 1.3 ± 0.15 mg kg−1, which is three to sevenfold less than the suggested environmental threshold concentrations for WEP. Thus, the results suggest a very high risk of dissolved P loss from the manured high‐P soils during runoff events, whereas the potential risk of dissolved P loss from organically farmed low‐P soil could be considered negligible.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Mean water‐extractable P concentrations in unamended control and amended treatments in (a) high‐P Osborne series soil and (b) low‐P Dencross series soil. Al‐alum, Gy‐Gypsum, and Mg‐Epsom salt; subscript 1 after Al, Gy, and Mg refers to the lower rate of 2.5 Mg ha−1 and subscript 2 after Gy and Mg refers to the higher rate of 5 Mg ha−1. Vertical bars represent the standard errors of the means. Within a graph, the same letter above the bars indicates means do not differ statistically based on the Tukey–Kramer test (α = 0.05).

Highly significant differences in WEP were observed among soils (p < 0.0001) and treatments (p < 0.0001) with a highly significant soil × treatment interaction (p < 0.0001). In both soils, the greatest WEP was observed in the unamended control treatment (Figure 1). The application of unblended or blended amendments decreased the WEP concentration by about two fold. In the high‐P soil, all amended treatments, irrespective of the type and the rates, had significantly lower WEP concentrations than the unamended control (Figure 1a). However, the four blended treatments (Al1Gy1, Al1Mg1, Al1Gy2, and Al1Mg2) had significantly lower WEP concentrations than unblended alum, gypsum, or Epsom salt at the lower rate (Al1, Gy1, Mg1) but were not significantly different from the gypsum or Epsom salt applied at the higher rate (Gy2 and Mg2). Among the unblended amendment treatments, WEP concentrations were not significantly different with alum, gypsum, or Epsom salt applied at the lower rates (Al1, Gy1, and Mg1), but the higher rates of gypsum and Epsom salt (Gy2 and Mg2) were more effective than the lower rates (Gy1 and Mg1) in reducing WEP concentrations. Differences between the higher and lower rates were significant with gypsum, which was not expected as the concentration of Ca applied far exceeded the concentration of P in the soil. It should be noted that while the application rates (w/w) were consistent for all amendments (0.125 or 0.25% depending on the rate), the amount of cation (Ca2+, Mg2+, or Al3+) added to soil with amendments and cation concentration that would be maintained in solution would be different based on the molecular formula and solubility. In the low‐P soil, all amended treatments had lower WEP than the unamended treatment. The differences, however, were significant only with the higher rate of gypsum (Gy2), blended treatments of alum with both gypsum rates (Al1Gy1 and Al1Gy2), and a higher Epsom salt rate (Al1Mg2). The differences among these treatments were not significant.

Applications of gypsum and alum as single amendments have been previously shown to reduce soluble P in soil (Codling et al., 2000; Cox & Jacinthe, 2023; Udeigwe et al., 2011) and P loss with runoff (Kaur et al., 2022; Watts & Torbert, 2016) and leaching (Cox & Jacinthe, 2023; Favaretto et al., 2012). Moreover, single applications of gypsum, alum, and Epsom salt reduced P loss from flooded soils to overlying floodwater under room temperature/summer conditions (Ann et al., 2000; Dharmakeerthi, Kumaragamage, Goltz, & Indraratne, 2019; Dharmakeerthi, Kumaragamage, Indraratne, & Goltz, 2019) as well as under simulated and field snowmelt conditions (Kumaragamage et al., 2022; Lasisi, Kumaragamage, et al., 2023; Vitharana et al., 2021); however, the effectiveness varied depending on the soil, rate of amendment, and flooding temperatures. Under simulated snowmelt flooding conditions, Vitharana et al. (2021) reported that the lower rate of Epsom salt (2.5 Mg ha−1) was more effective in reducing P release than the higher rate (5 Mg ha−1) in some of the studied soils. The decrease in floodwater P concentration from gypsum‐ or Epsom salt‐amended flooded soils was attributed to P stabilization through adsorption and precipitation reactions, as well as through delaying the development of reduced conditions and thereby not favoring the redox‐induced P release (Dharmakeerthi, Kumaragamage, Goltz, & Indraratne, 2019; Vitharana et al., 2021). Results of the current study showed that single applications of all three amendments were effective in reducing the water‐soluble P; however, blending Ca/Mg amendments with alum showed enhanced effectiveness in reducing water‐soluble P, which represents the fraction of P that can potentially contribute to runoff and leachate (Maguire & Sims, 2002). Similar results were reported in a manure‐amended spodosol with low P retention capacity, where co‐blending Al and Ca–Mg‐based materials retained different forms of total P at any given pH and thereby reduced soluble P loss to the environment than using sorption materials independently (Miyittah et al., 2011). Simultaneous retention of soil P as Ca/Mg–P and Al–P fractions using a combination of amendments, therefore, has a greater potential to immobilize soil P and reduce P loss to the environment from agricultural fields.

3.3. Changes in Mehlich‐3 extractable P in unamended and amended soils

The initial Mehlich‐3 P concentrations in amended and unamended treatments ranged from 6.4 to 7.5 mg kg−1 in low‐P soil and from 192 to 225 mg kg−1 in high‐P soil (Figure 2). As with WEP, the high‐P soil that received manure applications for over 15 years had significantly greater (p < 0.0001) Mehlich‐3 P, suggesting a greater pool of plant‐available P than that of the low‐P soil. A Mehlich‐3 P value of 45–50 mg P kg−1 is generally considered optimum for plant growth and crop yields (Sims, 2009; Sims et al., 2002), and often Mehlich‐3 P of 50 mg kg−1 soil is used as the agronomic threshold (McDowell et al., 2001). The low‐P soil, therefore, had below‐optimum or deficient levels of plant‐available P where crop response to P application is likely (Sims et al., 2002). On the other hand, the high‐P soil had excessive levels of Mehlich‐3 P and is above the suggested environmental threshold values ranging from 150 to 190 mg kg−1 (McDowell et al., 2001; Sims et al., 2002).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Mean Mehlich‐3 extractable P concentrations in unamended control and amended treatments in (a) high‐P Osborne series soil and (b) low‐P Dencross series soil. Al‐alum, Gy‐Gypsum, and Mg‐Epsom salt; subscript 1 after Al, Gy, and Mg refers to the lower rate of 2.5 Mg ha−1 and subscript 2 after Gy and Mg refers to the higher rate of 5 Mg ha−1. Vertical bars represent the standard errors of the means. The treatment effect was not significant.

The application of amendments, either unblended or blended, did not reduce the Mehlich‐3 P in both low‐P and high‐P soil (Figure 2). The treatment effect and the soil × treatment interaction were not significant. Results imply that the application of amendments may not impact the plant‐available P negatively, even though the WEP, or the potential risk of P loss, was significantly reduced by all amendments in the high‐P soil and some amendment treatments in the low‐P soil. Thus, using amendment blends to reduce P loss from P‐laden soils shows promise as the potential risk of P loss can be reduced more effectively. In addition, the amendments did not significantly reduce the plant‐available P, and thus, may not negatively impact crop yields. In a previous study using gypsum, similar results were reported where gypsum amendment consistently resulted in 1.8‐fold lower WEP compared to control treatments but had little or no effect on plant‐available P measured as Olsen‐P (Cox & Jacinthe, 2023). In the current study, the application of these amendments appears to maintain a lower P concentration in soil solution but with a greater buffering ability. Thus, the soils have a lower risk of P loss but are able to replenish the solution P concentration more effectively when P gets depleted by plant removal or runoff/leaching losses.

3.4. Changes in soil pH in unamended and amended soils

Soil pH changes were measured in this study since pH influences P dynamics in soils. Low‐P soil had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower pH than the high‐P soil (Figure 3a). In both soils, all amendment treatments except the unblended alum significantly decreased the soil pH (Figure 3b), while the soil × treatment interaction was not significant. The Al3+ ions from dissolved alum are complexed by water molecules that are hydrolyzed, resulting in the release of H+ and lowering of the pH of the aqueous solution to which it is added. In saturated or submerged soil systems, however, the alum addition showed no significant impact on soil pH (Malecki‐Brown et al., 2007; Kumaragamage et al., 2022). Even though a pH decrease was initially observed with alum addition, the effect was transitory, and with time, pH increased to values similar to those of the unamended control treatment (Kumaragamage et al., 2022). Except for alum, all unblended or blended amendment treatments in the current study reduced soil pH significantly and approximately by 0.6 units compared to the unamended control. The decrease in soil pH with gypsum has been previously reported (Brautigan et al., 2014; Kumaragamage et al., 2022) and has been attributed to the exchange of Ca with acidic cations in the exchangeable complex and subsequent reaction with sulfate. The decrease in pH with any of the treatments, however, was <1 unit and may not have a significant impact on P dynamics and loss.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Soil pH in (a) high‐P Osborne series soil and low‐P Dencross series soil (pooled means across treatments) and (b) unamended control and amended treatments (pooled means across two soils). Al‐alum, Gy‐Gypsum, and Mg‐Epsom salt; subscript 1 after Al, Gy, and Mg refers to the lower rate of 2.5 Mg ha−1 and subscript 2 after Gy and Mg refers to the higher rate of 5 Mg ha−1. Vertical bars represent the standard errors of the means. Within a graph, the same letter above the bars indicates means do not differ statistically based on the Tukey–Kramer test (α = 0.05).

4. CONCLUSION

Unblended and blended amendments were effective in reducing the potential risk of dissolved P loss measured as WEP. For the soil with a low level of WEP, blended amendments performed similarly to unblended amendments in reducing the WEP. In the soil with high WEP, blending the amendments, particularly the gypsum–alum blends, performed better than the unblended amendments in reducing the potential risk of P loss. Increasing the amount of gypsum from 2.5 to 5 Mg ha−1 seemed to have a noticeable effect, which was not expected as the concentration of Ca applied far exceeded the concentration of P. The results suggest that mechanisms other than precipitation may play a role in reducing soluble P, such as stronger adsorption of P promoted by increased ionic strength when gypsum is applied at a higher rate. Since the P stabilization with amendments can be a result of different mechanisms, our observations suggest that the mode of action of blended amendments for reducing P may be different than with unblended amendments. It is interesting to note that although the amendments decreased the water‐soluble P, they had little or no impact on the Mehlich‐3 P, suggesting no significant negative impact on plant‐available P. Simultaneous retention of soil P as Ca/Mg and Al P fractions using a combination of amendments, therefore, has greater potential to immobilize soil P and reduce P loss to the aquatic environment from agricultural soils. Since these findings were from a laboratory‐replicated study, further validation is needed with field replicates, ideally under multi‐site‐year field conditions before a recommendation on their feasibility/use can be made.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Darshani Kumaragamage: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; supervision; visualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Haven Soto: Data curation; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing—review and editing. Emily Van: Formal analysis; investigation; methodology; validation; writing—review and editing. Douglas Goltz: Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; project administration; resources; supervision; validation; writing—review and editing. Inoka Amarakoon: Formal analysis; investigation; methodology; resources; supervision; validation; writing—review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC; Discovery Grant to Kumaragamage). The authors thank Chris Randall, Dr. Martin Entz, and Dr. Joanne Thiessen Martens for helping select the field sites and providing access, Dr. Geethani Amarawansha, Viranga Weerasinghe, Clair Signatovich, Losari Vaishnavi, Douaa Dasuki, and Kanishk Kulhari for coordinating and helping with soil collection and Jossa Kumaragamage for helping with the statistical analysis.

Kumaragamage, D. , Soto, H. , Van, E. , Goltz, D. , & Amarakoon, I. (2025). Blended soil amendments: A viable strategy to reduce soluble phosphorus in soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 54, 410–419. 10.1002/jeq2.20673

Assigned to Associate Editor Jian Liu.

REFERENCES

  1. Ajmone‐Marsan, F. , Côté, D. , & Simard, R. R. (2006). Phosphorus transformations under reduction in long term manured soils. Plant and Soil, 282, 239–250. 10.1007/s11104-005-5929-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amarawansha, E. A. G. S. , Kumaragamage, D. , Flaten, D. , Zvomuya, F. , & Tenuta, M. (2015). Phosphorus mobilization from manure‐amended and unamended alkaline soils to overlying water during simulated flooding. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44, 1252–1262. 10.2134/jeq2014.10.0457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ann, Y. , Reddy, K. R. , & Delfino, J. J. (2000). Influence of chemical amendments on phosphorus immobilization in soils from a constructed wetland. Ecological Engineering, 14, 157–167. 10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00026-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Attanayake, C. P. , Dharmakeerthi, R. S. , Kumaragamage, D. , Indraratne, S. P. , & Goltz, D. (2022). Flooding‐induced inorganic phosphorus transformations in two soils, with and without gypsum amendment. Journal of Environmental Quality, 51, 90–100. 10.1002/jeq2.20319 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Attanayake, C. P. , Kumaragamage, D. , Amarawansha, G. , Hettiarachchi, G. M. , Indraratne, S. P. , & Goltz, D. M. (2022). Phosphorus release and speciation in manganese (IV) oxide and zeolite‐amended flooded soils. Environmental Science & Technology, 56, 8082–8093. 10.1021/acs.est.2c01185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjannet, R. , Khiari, L. , Nyiraneza, J. , Thompson, B. , He, J. , Geng, X. , Stiles, K. , Jiang, Y. , & Fillmore, S. (2018). Identifying environmental phosphorus risk classes at the scale of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 98, 317–329. 10.1139/cjss-2017-0076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Binding, C. E. , Greenberg, T. A. , McCullough, G. , Watson, S. B. , & Page, E. (2018). An analysis of satellite‐derived chlorophyll and algal bloom indices on Lake Winnipeg. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44, 436–446. 10.1016/j.jglr.2018.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brautigan, D. J. , Rengasamy, P. , & Chittleborough, D. J. (2014). Amelioration of alkaline phytotoxicity by lowering soil pH. Crop and Pasture Science, 65, 1278–1287. 10.1071/CP13435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buttle, J. M. , Allen, D. M. , Caissie, D. , Davison, B. , Hayashi, M. , Peters, D. L. , Pomeroy, J. W. , Simonovic, S. , St‐Hilaire, A. , & Whitfield, P. H. (2016). Flood processes in Canada: Regional and special aspects. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 41, 7–30. 10.1080/07011784.2015.1131629 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Canadian Agricultural Services Coordinating Committee . (1998). The Canadian system of soil classification (3rd ed.). NRC Research Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Codling, E. E. , Chaney, R. L. , & Mulchi, C. L. (2000). Use of aluminum‐ and iron‐rich residues to immobilize phosphorus in poultry litter and litter‐amended soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 29, 1924–1931. 10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900060027x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Concepcion, A. , Kumaragamage, D. , Akinremi, O. O. , Dharmakeerthi, R. S. , Goltz, D. , & Indraratne, S. (2021). Phosphorus release from intact soil monoliths of manure‐amended fields under simulated snowmelt flooding. Journal of Environmental Quality, 50, 252–263. 10.1002/jeq2.20179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cox, K. H. , & Jacinthe, P. A. (2023). Phosphorus mobility in gypsum‐amended soils in relation to soil type and timing of P fertilizer application. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 234, Article 368. 10.1007/s11270-023-06388-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dean, W. (1974). Determination of carbonate and organic matter in calcareous sediments and sedimentary rocks by loss on ignition. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 44, 242–248. 10.1306/74D729D2-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dharmakeerthi, R. S. , Kumaragamage, D. , Goltz, D. , & Indraratne, S. P. (2019). Phosphorus Release from unamended and gypsum‐ or biochar‐amended soils under simulated snowmelt and summer flooding conditions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 822–830. 10.2134/jeq2019.02.0091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dharmakeerthi, R. S. , Kumaragamage, D. , Indraratne, S. P. , & Goltz, D. (2019). Gypsum amendment reduces redox‐induced phosphorous release from freshly manured, flooded soils to floodwater. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 127–135. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30640341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Favaretto, N. , Norton, L. D. , Johnston, C. T. , Bigham, J. , & Sperrin, M. (2012). Nitrogen and phosphorus leaching as affected by gypsum amendment and exchangeable calcium and magnesium. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76, 575–585. 10.2136/sssaj2011.0223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gee, G. W. , & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle‐size analysis. In Klute A. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis (pp. 383–411). America Society of Agronomy. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jarvie, H. P. , Johnson, L. T. , Sharpley, A. N. , Smith, D. R. , Baker, D. B. , Bruulsema, T. W. , & Confesor, R. (2017). Increased Soluble Phosphorus Loads to Lake Erie: Unintended Consequences of Conservation Practices? Journal of Environmental Quality, 46, 123–132. 10.2134/jeq2016.07.0248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Joosse, P. J. , & Baker, D. B. (2011). Context for re‐evaluating agricultural source phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 91, 317–327. 10.4141/cjss10005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaur, H. , Williard, K. W. J. , Schoonover, J. E. , & Singh, G. (2022). Impact of flue gas desulfurization gypsum applications to corn‐soybean plots on surface runoff water quality. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 233, Article 72. 10.1007/s11270-022-05552-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kleinman, P. J. A. (2017). The persistent environmental relevance of soil phosphorus sorption saturation. Current Pollution Reports, 3, 141–150. 10.1007/s40726-017-0058-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kleinman, P. J. A. , Church, C. , Saporito, L. S. , McGrath, J. M. , Reiter, M. S. , Allen, A. L. , Tingle, S. , Binford, G. D. , Han, K. , & Joern, B. C. (2015). Phosphorus leaching from agricultural soils of the Delmarva Peninsula, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44, 524–534. 10.2134/jeq2014.07.0301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kröger, R. , Dunne, E. J. , Novak, J. , King, K. W. , McLellan, E. , Smith, D. R. , Strock, J. , Boomer, K. , Tomer, M. , & Noe, G. B. (2013). Downstream approaches to phosphorus management in agricultural landscapes: Regional applicability and use. Science of The Total Environment, 442, 263–274. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kumaragamage, D. , Concepcion, A. , Gregory, C. , Goltz, D. , Indraratne, S. , & Amarawansha, G. (2020). Temperature and freezing effects on phosphorus release from soils to overlying floodwater under flooded‐anaerobic conditions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 49, 700–711. 10.1002/jeq2.20062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kumaragamage, D. , Warren, J. , & Spiers, G. (2021). Soil Chemistry. In Krzic M., Walley F. L., Diochon A., Paré M. C., & Farrell R. E. (Eds.), Digging into Canadian soils: An introduction to soil science (pp. 176–227). Canadian Society of Soil Science. https://openpress.usask.ca/soilscience/chapter/soil‐health‐and‐management/ [Google Scholar]
  27. Kumaragamage, D. , Weerasekara, C. S. , Perry, M. , Akinremi, O. O. , & Goltz, D. (2022). Alum and gypsum amendments decrease phosphorus losses from soil monoliths to overlying floodwater under simulated snowmelt flooding. Water, 14, 559. 10.3390/w14040559 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lasisi, A. , Kumaragamage, D. , Casson, N. , Amarakoon, I. , Indraratne, S. , Wilson, H. , & Goltz, D. (2023). Evaluating fall application of soil amendments to mitigate phosphorus losses during spring snowmelt. Catena, 223, 106908. 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106908 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lasisi, A. , Weerasekara, C. S. , Kumaragamage, D. , & Akinremi, O. O. (2023). Alum reduced phosphorus release from flooded soils under cold spring weather conditions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 52, 718–729. 10.1002/jeq2.20469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, J. , Han, C. , Zhao, Y. , Yang, J. , Cade‐Menun, B. J. , Hu, Y. , Li, J. , Liu, H. , Sui, P. , Chen, Y. , & Ma, Y. (2020). The chemical nature of soil phosphorus in response to long‐term fertilization practices: Implications for sustainable phosphorus management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 123093. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, J. , Macrae, M. L. , Elliott, J. A. , Baulch, H. M. , Wilson, H. F. , & Kleinman, P. J. A. (2019). Impacts of cover crops and crop residues on phosphorus losses in cold climates: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 850–868. 10.2134/jeq2019.03.0119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Maguire, R. O. , & Sims, J. T. (2002). Soil testing to predict phosphorus leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31, 1601–1609. 10.2134/jeq2002.1601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Malecki‐Brown, L. M. , White, J. R. , & Reddy, K. R. (2007). Soil biogeochemical characteristics influenced by alum application in a municipal wastewater treatment wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36, 1904–1913. 10.2134/jeq2007.0159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. McDowell, R. W. , Sharpley, A. N. , Beegle, D. B. , & Weld, J. L. (2001). Comparing phosphorus management strategies at a watershed scale. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56, 306–315. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mehlich, A. (1984). Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 15, 1409–1416. 10.1080/00103628409367568 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Miyittah, M. K. , Stanley, C. D. , Mackowiak, C. , Rhue, D. R. , & Rechcigl, J. E. (2011). Developing a remediation strategy for phosphorus immobilization: Effect of co‐blending, Al‐residual and Ca‐Mg amendments in a manure‐impacted spodosol. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 20, 337–352. 10.1080/15320383.2011.571310 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Murphy, J. , & Riley, J. P. (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 31–36. 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Olsen, S. , Cole, C. V. , Watanabe, F. S. , & Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (USDA Circular No. 939). US Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pellerin, A. , Parent, L.‐É. , Fortin, J. , Tremblay, C. , Khiari, L. , & Giroux, M. (2006). Environmental Mehlich‐III soil phosphorus saturation indices for Quebec acid to near neutral mineral soils varying in texture and genesis. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 86, 711–723. 10.4141/S05-070 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pote, D. H. , Daniel, T. C. , Nichols, D. J. , Sharpley, A. N. , Moore, J. P. A. , Miller, D. M. , & Edwards, D. R. (1999). Relationship between phosphorus levels in three Ultisols and phosphorus concentrations in runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28, 170–175. 10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800010020x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pöthig, R. , Behrendt, H. , Opitz, D. , & Furrer, G. (2010). A universal method to assess the potential of phosphorus loss from soil to aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 17, 497–504. 10.1007/s11356-009-0230-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rattan, K. J. , Corriveau, J. C. , Brua, R. B. , Culp, J. M. , Yates, A. G. , & Chambers, P. A. (2017). Quantifying seasonal variation in total phosphorus and nitrogen from prairie streams in the Red River Basin, Manitoba, Canada. Science of The Total Environment, 575, 649–659. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schindler, D. W. , Hecky, R. E. , & McCullough, G. K. (2012). The rapid eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg: Greening under global change. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 38, 6–13. 10.1016/j.jglr.2012.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Sims, J. T. (2009). Soil test phosphorus: Principles and methods. In Kovar J. L. & Pierzynski G. M. (Eds.), Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals and waters (2nd ed., Vol. 408, pp. 9–19). Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 408. Southern Extension and Research Activity (SERA). [Google Scholar]
  45. Sims, J. T. , Maguire, R. O. , Leytem, A. B. , Gartley, K. L. , & Pautler, M. C. (2002). Evaluation of Mehlich 3 as an agri‐environmental soil phosphorus test for the Mid‐Atlantic United States of America. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 2016–2032. 10.2136/sssaj2002.2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Soil Survey Staff . (2014). Keys to soil taxonomy (12th ed.).USDA‐NRCS. [Google Scholar]
  47. Udeigwe, T. K. , Eze, P. N. , Teboh, J. M. , & Stietiya, M. H. (2011). Application, chemistry, and environmental implications of contaminant‐immobilization amendments on agricultural soil and water quality. Environment International, 37, 258–267. 10.1016/j.envint.2010.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Uusitalo, R. , Ylivainio, K. , Hyväluoma, J. , Rasa, K. , Kaseva, J. , Nylund, P. , Pietola, L. , & Turtola, E. (2012). The effects of gypsum on the transfer of phosphorus and other nutrients through clay soil monoliths. Agricultural and Food Science, 21, 260–278. 10.23986/afsci.4855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Bochove, E. , Thériault, G. , Denault, J.‐T. , Dechmi, F. , Allaire, S. E. , & Rousseau, A. N. (2012). Risk of phosphorus desorption from Canadian agricultural land: 25‐year temporal trend. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41, 1402–1412. 10.2134/jeq2011.0307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vitharana, U. W. A. , Kumaragamage, D. , Balasooriya, B. L. W. K. , Indraratne, S. P. , & Goltz, D. (2021). Phosphorus mobilization in unamended and magnesium sulfate‐amended soil monoliths under simulated snowmelt flooding. Environmental Pollution, 287, 117619. 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117619 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Watts, D. B. , & Torbert, H. A. (2016). Influence of Flure Gas Desulfurization gypsum on reducing soluble phosphorus in successive runoff events from a coastal plain Bermudagrass pasture. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45, 1071–1079. 10.2134/jeq2015.04.0203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Weerasekara, C. , Kumaragamage, D. , Akinremi, W. , Indraratne, S. , & Goltz, D. (2021). Phosphorus mobilization from intact soil monoliths flooded under simulated summer versus spring snowmelt with intermittent freeze–thaw conditions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 50, 215–227. 10.1002/jeq2.20182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, H. , Elliott, J. , Macrae, M. , & Glenn, A. (2019). Near‐surface soils as a source of phosphorus in snowmelt runoff from cropland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 921–930. 10.2134/jeq2019.04.0155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, H. , Liu, R. , & Lal, R. (2016). Optimal sequestration of carbon dioxide and phosphorus in soils by gypsum amendment. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 14, 443–448. 10.1007/s10311-016-0564-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Environmental Quality are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES