Search

The gradual accumulation of phosphorus from historical fertilization can contribute to the eutrophication of surface waters by increasing the potential for subsurface leaching losses. Grazing lands areas are a priority for concern, and phytoremediation efforts in grazing lands have prioritized grasses that may be used as forage for cattle. This study investigated the influence of three different forage species—Paspalum notatum, Hemarthria altissima, and Cynodon nlemfuensis—on the loss of phosphorus in leachate from surface soils. The experiment used a nested pot mesocosm design that allowed us to monitor leachate volume and concentration biweekly over the course of 3 months. Pots containing P. notatum plants leached significantly more phosphorus than pots containing C. nlemfuensis or empty pots with no plants growing in them, despite losing an equivalent amount of water. H. altissima lost equivalent amounts of phosphorus in leachate water, but each H. altissima plant removed approximately 33.6 mg of phosphorus, approximately 2.5× that removed by P. notatum (13.4 mg). C. nlemfuensis had lower average leachate phosphorus concentrations at each biweekly sampling than either plant species (C. nlemfuensis‐P. notatum, padj = 0.001; C. nlemfuensis‐H. altissima, padj = 0.02), averaging only 0.110 ppm in leachate relative to 0.175 ppm and 0.200 ppm in pots beneath H. altissima and P. notatum, respectively. This, combined with C. nlemfuensis' slightly higher‐than‐average aboveground P content and overall aboveground biomass expression suggest it is the best possible phytoremediation candidate. As even minor leachate P loads can be critically threatening to neighboring oligotrophic water bodies, if the conservation of downstream environments is the priority, the short‐term threat of increased leachate must be considered. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms and field‐scale implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The accumulation of soil legacy phosphorus (P) due to past fertilization practices poses a persistent challenge for agroecosystem management and water quality conservation. This study investigates the spatial distribution and risk assessment of soil legacy P in subtropical grasslands managed for cow-calf operations in Florida, with two pasture types along the intensity gradient: improved vs semi-native pastures. Soil samples from 1438 locations revealed substantial spatial variation in soil legacy P, with total P concentrations ranging from 11.46 to 619.54 mg/kg and Mehlich-1 P concentrations spanning 0.2-187.27 mg/kg. Our analyses revealed that most of the sites in semi-native pastures may function as P sinks by exhibiting positive Soil P Storage Capacity (SPSC) values, despite having high levels of soil total P. These locales of higher SPSC values were associated with high levels of aluminum, iron, and organic matter that can adsorb P. In addition, our results from spatial random forest modelling demonstrated that factors including elevation, soil organic matter, available water storage, pasture type, soil pH, and soil order are important to explain and predict spatial variations in SPSC. Incorporating SPSC into the Phosphorus Index (PI) spatial assessment, we further determined that only 3% of the study area was considered as high or very high PI categories indicative of a significant risk for P loss. Our evaluation of SPSC and PI underscores the complexity inherent in P dynamics, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to assessing P loss risk. Insights from this work not only help optimize agronomic practices but also promote sustainable land management, thus ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of grass-dominated agroecosystems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jiangxiao Qiu reports financial support was provided by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)