W E S T E R N C A N A DA

Improving Fertilizer Phosphorus Use Efficiency

B y S . S . M a l h i , L . K . H a d e r l e i n , D . G . P a u l y, a n d A . M . J o h n s t o n

he efficiency of fertilizer P use by with nitrogen (N), potassium (K), and sulfur crops ranges from 10 to 30% in the (S). Treatments included a no P control, year that it is applied. The remaining uncoated MAP, thin and thick polymer coat70 to 90% becomes part of the soil P pool ed MAP (Agrium Fertilizers, Redwater, which is released to the crop over the follow- Alberta), and a mixture that included 25% ing months and years. While this pool thin coated MAP, 50% thick coated MAP, contributes to future crop and 25% uncoated MAP. production, increasing the The P rate evaluated was Polymer coating of monoefficiency of fertilizer by equivalent to 21 lb P2O5/A. ammonium phosphate (MAP) improving crop recovery in Barley plants were harvested improved plant recovery of the year of application could at 45 days after planting, and fertilizer phosphorus (P) and potentially improve crop biomass and P concentration provided a modest barley yields and economic returns. were determined. grain yield advantage relaCoating P fertilizer Field studies were contive to uncoated MAP. could limit the contact of ducted at sites in Alberta applied P with soil, possibly reducing its pre- and Saskatchewan with malting barley. The cipitation and/or adsorption on soil colloids, treatments involved a no P control, uncoated and increase its availability to developing MAP, and MAP with a polymer coating simiplant roots. One of the perceived advantages lar to the thin coated MAP described in the of matching fertilizer P release with crop greenhouse study. Rates of P evaluated were demand is that it could increase yield and 0, 13, 26, and 39 lb P2O5/A; however, only recovery of applied P. However, this may not the average response is reported here. The be as easily achieved as it sounds, since dif- MAP was seed row applied in 1995 and side ferent crops have varying patterns of P banded in 2000. The N, K, and S were preuptake. In fact, slow release of fertilizer P plant banded in 1995 and side banded at could result in early season deficiencies for seeding in 2000. Plots were harvested and crops like wheat, a symptom which has been grain yield determined. With the exception of the no P control, observed to severely limit crop yield potential (see Better Crops with Plant Food, 2001, all greenhouse grown barley plants were headed when harvested at 45 days after seedVol. 85, 2:18-23). The development of thin polymer coat- ing. While not significant, dry matter yield ings has improved the opportunity to coat (DMY) tended to be higher with P addition fertilizer granules and increased the pre- (Table 1). Addition of MAP increased total dictability of when nutrients become avail- P uptake (TPU) over the no P control. Use of the thin coated MAP, alone or in the mixture, able from the controlled-release product. Greenhouse experiments were conduct- improved plant P uptake relative to the ed at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, uncoated P fertilizer. To estimate the contriAlberta. Barley was grown in a P-deficient bution of fertilizer P to total P uptake, the net soil medium that had been supplemented P uptake (NPU) was calculated as the portion
8 Better Crops/Vol. 86 (2002, No. 4)

of P uptake in excess of the no P control for the critical early season period. This delicate each of the fertilizer treatments. Once again, balance appears to have been met by the thin the advantage in plant P recovery with the coated P product in the greenhouse and some thin coat polymer and mixture treatment is of the field trials. The proportion of P coming shown by the increase in plant P recovery. from the MAP was improved with coating, Did the polymer coating improve the reducing the plants dependence on soil P recovery of fertilizer MAP? To determine this supply. However, there were a few occasions we calculated the estimated fertilizer P effi- when the polymer coating did not release P ciency (EFPE), by dividing the NPU by the P quickly enough, usually when a thick coating rate applied and multiplying by 100. From was applied. Continued field research using the results in Table 1, it appears that the a blend of uncoated and coated MAP may EFPE was increased substantially in the open doors to improving both short- and greenhouse by the coating, or use of a mix- long-term fertilizer P efficiency. ture of coated and uncoated fertilizer MAP. Field trials comparing uncoated and Dr. Malhi (e-mail: mahlis@em.agr.ca) is a soil ferthin coated MAP were set out at locations tility researcher with the Agriculture and Agriwhere pre-seeding soil analysis indicated Food Canada Research Farm at Melfort, that a response to P was likely. The increased Saskatchewan, Canada. Mr. Haderlein is a crop response to uncoated MAP ranged from research agronomist with Agrium Inc., Redwater, 3 to 121% over the no P control, with only Alberta. Mr. Pauly is an extension agronomist with one site showing a yield reduction (Table 2). Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Similarly, the controlled-release P (CRP) had in Stettler, Alberta. Dr. Johnston is PPI/PPIC one negative response, while the remaining Western Canada Director, located at Saskatoon, sites had yield increases ranging from 6 to Saskatchewan. 192%. Relative to uncoated MAP, use of thin coat CRP improved the response of barley to P fertiliz- TABLE 1. Barley DMY, TPU, NPU, and EFPE from greenhousegrown plants harvested 45 days after planting er addition in five of the seven (average of two soils). trials. On average, the CRP increased barley yield by 3 DMY, TPU, NPU, EFPE, bu/A, or 4%, over the uncoated Treatment g/pot mg P/pot % MAP. Control, no P 9.70 23.02 In order for a coated phosUncoated MAP 11.70 25.61 2.59 16.5 phate product to work, it must Thin coated MAP 12.55 28.14 5.12 32.6 reduce short-term P fixation by Thick coated MAP 11.68 26.99 3.97 25.3 the soil, yet provide adequate MAP mixture 12.49 27.79 4.77 30.3 NS 1.74 1.69 LSD0.05 release for rapid P uptake in
TABLE 2. Response of barley to added MAP and CRP.
No P control Year 1995 Site Humbolt Asquith Neerlandia Calmar Bruderheim Birch Hills Lamont Mean 74.1 84.4 103.9 70.1 13.6 49.0 77.1 67.5 MAP bu/A 79.9 89.8 107.4 68.9 30.0 52.6 81.0 72.8 CRP 85.0 88.4 112.6 74.1 39.7 56.4 74.7 75.8 Response over no P control, % MAP CRP 8 6 3 -2 121 7 5 8 15 5 8 6 192 15 -3 12

2000

Better Crops/Vol. 86 (2002, No. 4)