See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264264465

Using a Simple Soil Column Method to Evaluate

Soil Phosphorus Leaching Risk
Article in CLEAN - Soil Air Water November 2013
DOI: 10.1002/clen.201200372

CITATIONS

READS

136

7 authors, including:
Yuyuan Li

Yong Li

Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chines

Chinese Academy of Sciences

24 PUBLICATIONS 438 CITATIONS

101 PUBLICATIONS 1,072 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Heai Xiao
Chinese Academy of Sciences
7 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Yuyuan Li

Retrieved on: 11 October 2016

1
Yuyuan Li1
Ru Gao1,2
Rui Yang1,3
Hongan Wei1,3
Yong Li1
Heai Xiao1
Jinshui Wu1
1

Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological

Processes in Subtropical Region,
Institute of Subtropical Agriculture,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Hunan, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of
Science, Beijing, China
3
Xian University of Architecture and
Technology, Xian, China

Research Article
Using a Simple Soil Column Method to Evaluate
Soil Phosphorus Leaching Risk
The impacts of soil P leaching on water eutrophication have widely been concerned.
However, there is no dependable method to quantitatively estimate the P leaching risk
of soils. In this study, a simple soil column method was developed using two calcareous
Fluvisols, silt loam and loam. The soil column was 20 cm in length and 5 cm in diameter,
and distilled water was continuously supplied from the top. The volume and dissolved
reactive P (DRP) concentrations of leachate were measured. Results showed that DRP
concentrations in leachate increased slowly for the low soil Olsen-P levels but rapidly
for the high Olsen-P levels. According to these two-phase changes in the DRP versus soil
Olsen-P contents, the thresholds of P leaching risk were estimated to be 41.1 and
62.3 mg P kg1 (Olsen-P) for silt loam and loam, respectively. The P leaching intensity
of soils increased by 3- to 540-fold if the soil Olsen-P contents accumulated from 6.6 to
155.5 mg P kg1. The outcomes derived from this study regarding the determination of
P leaching threshold and intensity by the soil column method also need a further
verification on more soils with a wide range of physical and chemical properties.
Keywords: Calcareous fluvisol; Change-point method; P accumulation; P leaching intensity
Received: July 19, 2012; revised: October 31, 2012; accepted: November 21, 2012
DOI: 10.1002/clen.201200372

1 Introduction
Nonpoint source losses of phosphorus (P) are of environmental
concern due to their negative role in accelerating the eutrophication
of fresh water [1, 2]. In China, the surplus of soil P balance in farmland has occurred since the 1990s in six southern provinces [3].
Soil extracted P concentrations were reported as high as up to
400 mg P kg1 (Olsen-P) in a number of soils that grew vegetables
and other cash crops [46]. The annual rates of P fertilizer applications were up to 180300 kg P2O5 ha1 in the vegetable-growing
areas around most of the large cities in China [7]. Eutrophication of
water bodies in recent years have increased 60 times compared
to the 1970s (see www.chinanews.com/cj/cj-hbht/news/2009/11-05/
1948982). Although most studies dealing with P losses from soil
to surface water concentrate on surface runoff [8, 9], P leaching
has also been implicated as a main contributor to surface water
eutrophication, mainly through field drainage, in many countries
worldwide [1012]. P leaching has been reported in some P-rich or
coarse texture soils in China [6, 13]. In the Dongting Lake region,
the total dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentration in soil solution
at the depth of 90 cm was up to 0.20.4 mg L1 during the cotton

Correspondence: Dr. Y. Li, Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes

in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Mapoling, Furong District, Changsha City
410125, Hunan Province, China
E-mail: liyy@isa.ac.cn
Abbreviations: CaP, 0.01 M CaCl2 extractable phosphorus; DRP, dissolved
reactive phosphorus; LI, leaching intensity; SOM, soil organic matter;
WHC, water holding capacity

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

growing season, indicating that the soil P downward leaching had

occurred [14].
P leaching is mainly caused by P accumulation in soils, although
a traditional soil science belief was that most soils have intense
phosphate absorbability and the movement of P was negligible
through the soil profile [15, 16]. However, an increasing number
of studies in the recent two decades have shown that the mobilization of soil P in soil profiles was detectable in a range of soils
worldwide [10, 17, 18], particularly in sandy or structured clay soils
with apparent P accumulation [19]. Heckrath et al. [10] found that the
leaching of soluble P increased more rapidly when soil Olsen-P
concentration was over a threshold of 60 mg P kg1 soil (termed
the change-point) in calcareous soils (pH 7.9) of the Broadbalk
continuous wheat experiment at Rothamsted, UK. Hesketh and
Brookes [20] also found that the change-point varied with soils,
ranging from approximately 10119 mg P kgS1 soil. Subsequent
studies verified that there existed critical values for P mobilization
in many soils [6, 21]. Besides, some studies revealed that soil
water extracted P (H2O-P) concentration, which is considered to be
directly related to P leaching, increased more rapidly when the
degree of soil P saturation (DPS) was >25%. Thus, the DPS 25% could
be used as a threshold for assessing P leaching risk [12, 22, 23].
Wang et al. [18] reported that there was a threshold of
60 mg P kg1 soil for the change-point in Bray1-P and H2O-P
relation in acid red soils. In general, thresholds were found in
most soils worldwide using the change-point method [6, 21, 24],
which could indicate the P loss from the plow layer to the drainage
flow in agricultural fields. However, a variation of thresholds was
observed when different P indices were used for the same soil [21, 24].
Moreover, some tested soils did not show thresholds for P leaching at
all [25, 26]. These implied that the change-point method may have

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Y. Li et al.

some drawbacks in P leaching risk assessment because the factors to

influence soil P leaching are complicated and not well explored.
Some studies also reported that soil P leaching was influenced not
only by the absolute tested P concentrations, but also by many soil
physicochemical properties, such as soil texture, structure, water
conductivity, or permeability, pH, soil organic matter (SOM) content,
and soil iron, aluminum, and calcium contents [8, 9, 21, 26]. Manure
applications have also been reported to significantly reduce soil P
adsorption capability and to increase P leaching risk [17, 27].
Obviously, these change-point (extraction) methods provided a
few vital and valid approaches in evaluating the soil P leaching risk.
However, such methods were indirect and represented the less
qualitative estimation of soil P leaching risk. In fact, few studies
have been carried out to perform the quantitative evaluation of soil P
leaching intensity [26, 28]. Soil column leaching experiment is a
widespread laboratory method in the study on soil solute movement
[29]. It might be adapted to the quantitative estimation of P
leaching risk using repacked soil column, which is between the
large quantitative lysimeter in the field and qualitative extraction
method in the laboratory.
The ultimate objective of this study is to explore a simple
but robust soil column method for the quantitative evaluation of
soil P leaching intensity instead of the indirect extraction methods
regardless of soil properties.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Soil sampling
The soil samples were collected at a depth of 020 cm from Huarong
County in Hunan Province in southern China, which is located in
the central alluvial plain around the Dongting Lake (298100 1800
298480 2700 N, 1128180 300 113810 3200 E, average elevation 34 m). The
studied region has a typical subtropical humid climate with a mean
annual precipitation of 1380 mm (19602008) and a mean annual air
temperature of 17.88C [30]. The runoff ratio in the alluvial plain
around the Dongting Lake is 0.450.50, and correspondingly the soil
infiltration rate is 610680 mm [31].
Soil sampling was carried out in June, 2009. The 020 cm topsoil
was taken from two cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.) fields, which had
two representative types of soil textures, i.e., silt loam and loam in
the region. One composite soil sample made from ten replicates was
obtained for each soil. Soil samples were air-dried, sieved (<2 mm),
homogenized, and analyzed to obtain their basic physical and chemical properties (Tab. 1). Both the studied soils were calcareous purple
Fluvisols (USDA Soil Taxonomy) [32]. The Olsen-P contents of the silt

loam and loam soils were 6.72 and 14.90 mg P kg1 soil, respectively
(Tab. 1).

2.2 Soil column experiment

To study the characteristics of soil P leaching, a laboratory soil
column experiment was conducted by adding P fertilizer into soil
at different P accumulation levels. The P addition rates with three
replications were set at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, 300, and
500 mg P kg1 soil (on an oven-dried basis). As a result, a total of
54 soil columns were set up for the two soils. The detailed procedure
was described by the following five steps. Firstly, three kilograms of
air-dried soil and quantified P fertilizer allotments (KH2PO4) (by
calculation in advance) were prepared. Secondly, P fertilizer was
dissolved into distilled water; the P solution was sprayed onto the
soils; and meanwhile the soils were homogenized. The soil moisture
was finally adjusted to 45% of the soil water holding capacity (WHC).
Thirdly, each soil sample was moved into a plastic bag, and the bag
was incubated in a temperature-controlled incubator at 258C for
four days. Fourthly, the incubation was stopped, and soils were airdried. Lastly, steps 14 were repeated three times in total to simulate
the natural wettingdrying alternative conditions in soils. However,
only distilled water instead of the P fertilizer solution in step 2 was
added after the first wettingdrying cycle.
After the last-loop incubation, soil samples were taken out from
bags and divided into two parts. One part was air-dried, re-sieved
(<2 mm), and used for the soil P content test. The other part was used
for the P leaching experiment. A plexiglass tube with 50 mm inner
diameter and 24 cm height as the soil column was used to fill soils.
One end of this tube was enclosed with perforated plexiglass board
( 1 mm and 10 holes cm2). To prevent fine particles from leaching
out, the tube bottom was covered by two layers of cheese cloth prior
to filling soil. To keep a comparable leaching condition, the soil
in each soil column was repacked to a depth of 20 cm at a bulk
density of 1.2 g cm3, which is similar to the field bulk densities
of 1.23 g cm3 for silt loam and 1.18 g cm3 for loam. A portion of
incubated soil with soil moisture content at 45% WHC, equivalent to
480 g of dry-based soil, was weighed and divided into eight parts.
Then, they were subsequently filled into a soil column, and each of
eight parts was repacked to a 2.5-cm height. The soil column was
installed onto a stand, and distilled water was continuously supplied
from the top using a Marriot bottle to keep a constant hydraulic
head of 30 mm (see Fig. 1). The leachate was late collected by a
container under the soil column, and its volume was recorded. To
observe the dynamics of the DRP concentrations in leachate, we

Table 1. The physical and chemical properties of the soils

Soil sample

pH
(H2O)

SOMa)
(g kg1)

TSNb)
(g kg1)

TSPc)
(g kg1)

NO3N
(mg kg1)

NH4N
(mg kg1)

Olsen-P
(mg kg1)

Silt loam
Loam
Soil sample

8.4
8.3
Exch. Ca
(mg kg1)
2726
1958

10
16
Exch. Mg
(mg kg1)
194
184

0.66
0.79
Free Fe2O3
mg kg1
20.2
28.9

0.80
1.16
Free Al2O3
(mg kg1)
1.4
2.4

7.7
12.2
Sand%
(>0.05 mm)
35.6
35.8

8.5
16.7
Clay%
(<0.002 mm)
11.1
20.7

6.7
14.9
Texture

Silt loam
Loam
a)
b)
c)

Silt loam
Loam

SOM indicates soil organic matter.

TSN indicates total soil nitrogen.
TSP indicates total soil phosphorus.

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Soil Column Method Evaluating Soil P Leaching Risk

Marriote bottle for water

head control

Distilled water supply

3.0 cm water head
Soil column, 20.0 cm height, 5.0
cm diameter, and bulk density
1.2 g cm-3
Perforated plexiglass board,
covered by two layers of
cheese cloth
Container for leachate

Figure 1. Schematic of the apparatus used for soil P leaching experiment.

normally collected 20 samples of leachate for each soil column, and

each sample contained 100 mL leachate in volume regardless of
leaching time. However, the leachate sample numbers of soil columns varied from 4 to 20 due to the difference in hydraulic conductivity of soil columns. The P leaching experiment was conducted
in the laboratory at 25  28C.

(ha). Considering the natural rainfall and infiltration amounts of a

precipitation event usually <50 mm, the DRP concentrations in the
first leachate samples of soil columns were used in estimating the P
leaching amount.
According to the nonlinear changes in 0.01 M CaCl2-extracted P
(CaP) in soil and DRP in leachates versus soil Olsen-P contents, the
change-points, indicating that significant amount of P begins to be
leached out from soil to water, could be calculated principally based
on the method as described in literatures [20, 39]. A scatter diagram
of CaP in soil or DRP in leachate versus log-transformed soil Olsen-P
contents was made, and then two split linear regression lines for low
and high Olsen-P levels were individually best-fitted. Thereby, such
two lines in the scatter diagram intersected at a common point, the
change-point. To verify the reliability of this column method, different DRP concentrations, including the first, maximum, and mean
values of DRP during the leaching process, were used in the calculation of threshold. However, for a fair comparison among different
treatments, we used the smallest sample number (hereit is 4) of
leachate to calculate the average values of DRP.
Analysis of one-way variance (ANOVA) was conducted using SPSS
11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) for all the data in this paper, and a
multiple comparison of means was performed using the Duncans
procedure, if the ANOVA result was significant ( p < 0.05). The nonlinear regression analysis for DRP and cumulative infiltration
amount was also performed using Sigmaplot 2001 (SPSS, Chicago,
IL, USA).

3 Results
3.1 P leaching dynamics

2.3 Sample test and data analysis

Soil basic properties and DRP in leachates were determined using the
methods listed in Tab. 2. DRP was determined within 24 h after
the leachate samples were collected, or were stored at 188C until
the batch analysis. If the leachate was turbid, the centrifugation was
performed at 12 000 rpm for 10 min to obtain the supernatant.
The leaching intensity (LI, kg P ha1) of DRP was calculated using
the following equation:
CV
LI
A

(1)

where C is the average concentration of DRP in leachate (kg m3); V

the total volume of leachate (m3); A the section area of soil column

The tendency of dynamic changes in DRP concentrations in the

leachates of all treatments was similar regardless of the variety of
soil Olsen-P levels (Fig. 2). Briefly, DRP rapidly increased in the early
period (water infiltration amount <150 mm), reached a peak (150
200 mm), and declined (>200250 mm). The relationship was nonlinear and could be best-fitted using a three-parameter log normal
function ( p < 0.01):



x=x0 2
DRP a exp 0:5 ln
b

(2)

where DRP is the dissolved reactive P concentrations in leachate

(mg L1); x the cumulative infiltration amount (mm); and a, b, and x0
indicate the regression parameters, which are listed in Tab. 3.

Table 2. The test methods for soil basic properties and leachate

Item
Soil organic matter
pH
Total soil N
Total soil P
NH4N and NO3N
Olsen-P
CaCl2-P
Free Fe2O3 and Al2O3
Exchangeable Ca and Mg
Soil particle composition
DRP in leachate

Test method

Reference

Potassium dichromate oxidation method

Automatic glass electrode method
Kjeldahl method
HClO4 digestion molybdate-blue method
1 M KCl extraction and flow injection analysis method
0.5 M NaHCO3 extraction and molybdate-blue method
0.01 M CaCl2 extraction (soil solution ratio 1:10) and molybdate-blue method
Dithionite-citrate-extraction and inductively coupled plasma atomic-emission
spectrophotometer (ICP) method
Ammonium acetate extraction and atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) method
The hydrometer method
Molybdate-blue method

[33]
[33]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[34]

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.clean-journal.com

[34]
[33]
[38]

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Y. Li et al.

Figure 2. The dynamic changes in leachate DRP concentrations as a function of cumulative infiltration amount (mm).

Statistical analysis showed that a values were significantly ( p < 0.05)

influenced by soil Olsen-P levels with R2 values of 0.96 and 0.97 for silt
loam and loam, respectively, while the tendencies of b and x0 were
not significant.

of no P fertilizer addition with 0.13 and 0.18 kg P ha1 for silt loam
and loam, respectively.

3.2 P leaching intensity

3.3 Soil test P contents, chemical properties, and

thresholds of P leaching risk

In the study region, the average daily storm intensity is 70 mm d1,

which is approximately equivalent to the 40 mm infiltration. Thus,
we estimated the changes in P loss intensities through leaching as a
function of P accumulation levels during a single rainfall event and
annual total ones using the DRP concentrations in the early 50-mm
infiltration. Results showed that, with the increasing soil P accumulation, LI of P under single rainfall infiltration event significantly
( p < 0.05) and nonlinearly increased from 0.01 to 5.89 kg P ha1 y1
for silt loam, and from 0.02 to 4.06 kg P ha1 y1 for loam (Tab. 4). The
annual estimated values of LI, ranging from 0.91 to 70.7 kg P ha1 y1
for silt soil, were significantly ( p < 0.05) greater than those in loam
soil, ranging from 0.50 to 48.4 kg P ha1 y1, except for the treatment

The soil P contents and other chemical properties are summarized in

Tab. 1 and the changes in CaP and DRP as a function of soil Olsen-P
contents in the two observed soils are shown in Fig. 3. The changepoints of 37.1 mg P kg1 for silt loam and 60.9 mg P kg1 for loam
in this study were estimated using soil extraction method (Tab. 5).
Our results of soil column experiment showed that DRP in
leachate (including the first, maximum, and average values in the
early 200-mm leachates) increased with a similar two-phase pattern
to CaP versus logarithmic values of soil Olsen-P contents. Table 5
shows that the thresholds of the two soils estimated using the soil
column method (41.1 and 62.3 mg P kg1) were close to those using
the extraction method. The coefficients of variance of thresholds

Table 3. Parameters of fitted regression equations (Eq. 2) of the dissolved reactive phosphorus concentrations in leachate for the two types of soil

Silt loam
Soil Olsen-P
(mg P kg1)
6.6
12.9
20.4
26.2
31.7
41.1
62.0
104
156
a)

Loam
a)

x0

Soil Olsen-P
(mg P kg1)

x0

Na)

0.07
0.33
0.92
1.75
3.47
6.20
12.1
44.2
69.9

1.53
1.77
1.93
2.01
1.58
1.42
1.19
0.90
1.30

364.7
371.6
494.9
510.8
328.7
248.6
221.7
272.4
325.3

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

13.2
19.4
27.6
32.7
37.9
45.7
66.3
83.2
108

0.10
0.22
0.46
0.89
1.61
2.31
5.19
24.0
33.6

2.03
1.51
1.58
1.49
1.20
1.32
1.19
0.82
0.68

660.4
286.3
277.8
379.4
321.9
356.2
262.5
187.8
157.1

20
16
17
19
19
19
18
12
4

N indicates the number of leachate samples in the soil column experiment.

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Soil Column Method Evaluating Soil P Leaching Risk

Table 4. Estimated single and annual P leaching intensity (LI) for the two types of soil

Silt loam (kg P ha1)

Loam (kg P ha1)

Soil Olsen-P
(mg P kg1)

Single event
(50 mm)

Annual
(600 mm)

Soil Olsen-P
(mg P kg1)

Single event
(50 mm)

Annual
(600 mm)

6.6
12.9
20.4
26.2
31.7
41.1
62.0
104
156

0.01  0.00a
0.08  0.02a
0.18  0.01a
0.32  0.00ab
0.62  0.02b
1.54  0.32c
1.98  0.14d
4.76  0.23e
5.89  0.53f

0.13  0.02a
0.91  0.02a
2.12  0.09a
3.85  0.03ab
7.41  0.19b
18.5  3.86c
23.7  1.69d
57.1  2.73e
70.7  6.38f

13.2
19.4
27.6
32.7
37.9
45.7
66.3
83.2
108

0.02  0.00a
0.04  0.00a
0.12  0.03b
0.14  0.00b
0.23  0.00c
0.33  0.01d
0.69  0.03e
2.49  0.10f
4.06  0.07g

0.18  0.06a
0.50  0.01a
1.40  0.31b
1.72  0.04b
2.72  0.04c
3.98  0.09d
8.33  0.37e
29.9  1.18f
48.4  0.71g

The rainfall infiltration amounts used for LI estimation of DRP are 50 mm for single infiltration event and 600 mm for annual values,
respectively. The early value of DRP was used in the calculation of LI.
ag
Data signed by the same letter in the same column indicates that their differences are not significant at p 0.05 level.

Figure 3. Two-phase changes in soil CaP and DRP concentrations in the leachates as a function of soil Olsen-P contents. a) CaP; b) DRP in initial 50 mm
leachate; c) max DRP in 200 mm leachate; d) mean DRP in 200 mm leachate.

were <2.1%, indicating that the precision of soil column method was
approximate to that of extraction method in the determination of
threshold. Table 5 also showed that the loam soil had significantly
higher threshold than the silt loam soil, implying an impact of soil
properties on the thresholds of P leaching.

4 Discussion
4.1 Threshold and P leaching risk
Threshold of soil P leaching is a vital parameter for P risk assessment
and P practice management. Our study revealed that the estimated
thresholds using the soil column method were consistent with those

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

using the extraction method, suggesting that the soil column

method might be a reliable method for the P leaching risk assessment. In fact, most reported thresholds had not been verified by field
observations [18, 21], even though very few results had been supported by tile-drainage or lysimeter tests [21]. Previous studies have
demonstrated that preferential flow was a precondition to allow the
downward movement of P through the soil profile [10, 20, 40].
Therefore, the column method, as proposed in this study, is closer
to such a precondition, and thus possibly more superior than the
extraction method.
In this study, the loam soil showed a relatively higher threshold
of 62.3 mg Olsen P kg1 soil than that of the silt loam soil
(41.1 mg Olsen P kg1 soil), indicating that the P leaching risk of

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Y. Li et al.

Table 5. The thresholds of soil Olsen-P contents (mg P kg1) calculated

using extraction and soil column methods

Soil

Extraction
method

Silt loam
Loam
a)

b)

Soil column methoda)

Th1

Th2

Th3

Th4

37.1
60.9

41.1
62.3

43.9
60.4

43.2
60.7

Cv%b)

4.3 P leaching intensity and P accumulation

2.1
0.3

Th1, Th2, Th3, and Th4 indicate the thresholds calculated using
the data of soil CaCl2-P content, early, maximum, and average
DRP concentrations in leachates during the early 200-mm infiltration amounts, respectively.
Cv indicates the coefficient of variance.

the loam soil was relatively lower than that of the silt loam soil
(Tab. 5). This is consistent with the findings reported in other studies
that positive relationships exist between the change-points and soil
clay, exchangeable iron and aluminum contents [21, 41]. The impact
of SOM on thresholds from our results (see Tabs. 1 and 5) was also
shown positive, consistent with the finding by Zhao et al. [21], but
different from Fortune et al. [41]. The positive SOM impact on the
thresholds could be explained by the enhanced soil P sorption
capability by SOM [42].

4.2 P leaching dynamics

A skewed dynamic feature of P concentration during the leaching
process was found at all levels of P accumulation (see Fig. 2), indicating a typical peak delay of DRP. The rapid increase of P concentration in the early phase was probably associated with the travel
time of the dissolved P in soil solution and P desorption of soil
extractable P during leaching process. Brock et al. [26] reported a
similar trend of DRP with the leaching time, described as a quadratic
time effect, for P leaching losses after manure application on
Southern New York soils (pH 5.47.1, SOM 5287 g kg1). Ga
chter
et al. [43] also found that the highest DRP concentrations in agricultural drainage lagged to the discharge volume. They hypothesized
that longer residence time of water in soil would lead to greater P
desorption and thus higher P concentrations in leachate. Xue et al.
[44] reported that the desorption rate of phosphate on calcareous
loessial soils (pH 6.98.5, SOM 5.516.3 g kg1) showed three distinct
phases: fast, moderate, and slow, under a continuous liquid current.
They also found that P desorption rate was negatively correlated
with soil clay content ( p < 0.05), SOM and free Fe2O3 content
( p > 0.05), but positively ( p < 0.05) related to Olsen-P and CaCO3
content. Our results on two calcareous soils primarily revealed that
the relationship between P leaching risk and soil properties was
generally consistent with the finding of Xue et al. [45], but needed
further verification on more soil types. The differences among the
maximum DRP, ranging from 0.1 to 70 mg P L1 (see Fig. 2), during
leaching process as a function of soil Olsen-P levels, were probably
attributed to the composition and proportion of soil calcium phosphates, which are the dominant constituents of P forms in the
studied soil (pH 8.28.5). The solubility of calcium phosphates,
e.g., monocalcium phosphate [Ca(H2PO4)2], dicalcium phosphate
(CaHPO4), and octacalcium phosphate [Ca8H2(PO4)6  5 H2O] in soil
usually ranged from 4.8 to 0.02 mg P L1 [45]. Therefore, the P leaching risk could be mitigated by reducing soil P accumulation, particularly on coarse-textured soils, and by shortening water-logging time.

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Increasing SOM by straw incorporation [46] rather than by manure

application (it has high P loss risk) [47] could also reduce the P
leaching risk in the investigated soils.

The column method could provide a quantitative estimate to the

leaching risk of P under a variety of P accumulation levels even
though its procedure was relatively more complicated than the
extraction method. Our results showed that the annual LI ranged
from 0.13 to 70.7 kg P ha1 y1 corresponding to soil Olsen-P levels
from 6.6 to 155.5 mg P kg1 for the two soils, with an annual infiltration amount of 600 mm (equivalent to annual rainfall of
1200 mm). They are greater than those observed on intact soil columns reported in other studies [26, 48], where LI ranged from below
detection limit to 0.49 kg P ha1 y1, corresponding to the soil P
status from 16 to 2440 mg P kg1 (Mehlich-3 P) and water applied.
The high DRP concentrations in leachates observed in our study were
probably associated with the short P travel distance (20 cm) in soil
columns. The soil depth to reflect the impact of P leaching on
groundwater quality is usually >100 cm [20]. Thus, the excessive
estimation of LI in our experiment could be primarily attributed
to the lack of soil P adsorption in sub-soils [25].
At the same P accumulation levels, the significantly ( p < 0.05)
greater LI of the silt loam soil than that of the loam soil (see
Tab. 4) indicated that the P leaching risk on coarse-textured soils
was more severe than that on fine-textured soils. This was attributed
to the low physical retention of particulate P and chemical retention
of dissolved P on coarse-textured soils [47], and subsequently resulted
in low thresholds [21]. The high saturated hydraulic conductivity of
coarse-textured or structured soils also induced large P leaching [19].
Therefore, soil texture is often regarded as one of the main influencing factors for P leaching.

5 Conclusions
Our soil column experiment primarily revealed that P leaching
dynamics was in a similar lowhighlow tendency for DRP concentrations in leachate, which was associated with the characteristics of
soil P desorption and not with soil Olsen-P levels. P leaching risk
could be mitigated by reducing soil P accumulation and by shortening water-logging time. Our study provided a simple and robust
method to the threshold determination and the quantitative assessment of P leaching risk. However, due to the simplified experimental
conditions such as the neglected lateral movement of soil water,
repacked soil condition and small column size, uncertainty existed
inevitably. The outcomes derived from this study regarding the
determination of P leaching thresholds and intensities by the soil
column method also need a further verification process on more
soils with a wide range of physical and chemical properties.

Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the Chinese Academy of
Sciences (Knowledge Innovation Program KZCX2-SW-437, Creative
Research Teams Program KZCX2-YW-T07 and 100-Talents Program)
and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41171396).
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Soil Column Method Evaluating Soil P Leaching Risk

References
[1] D. W. Schindler, Evolution of Phosphorus Limitation in Lakes, Science
1977, 195, 260262.
[2] S. R. Carpenter, N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N.
Sharpley, V. H. Smith, Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with
Phosphorus and Nitrogen, Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, 559568.
[3] R. K. Lu, Z. Y. Shi, J. P. Shi, Nutrient Balance of Agro-Ecosystem in
Six Provinces in Southern China, Sci. Agric. Sin. 2000, 33, 6367
(in Chinese with English abstract).
[4] Y. P. Zhang, X. Y. Lin, Y. S. Zhang, S. J. Zheng, G. D. Zhou, Investigating
on the Nutrient Status and Plant-Limiting Factors of Vegetable
Garden Soils in the Suburb of Hangzhou, J. Zhej. Univ. Agric. Life
Sci. 2003, 29, 244250 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[5] A. F. Li, M. K. Zhang, Accumulation and Environmental Risk of
Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Vegetable Soils with Different
Plantation History in Northern Zhejiang, J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2010,
29, 122127 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[6] H. L. Qin, Z. Quan, X. L. Liu, M. D. Li, Y. Zong, J. S. Wu, W. X. Wei,
Phosphorus Status and Risk of Phosphate Leaching Loss from
Vegetable Soils of Different Planting Years in Suburbs of
Changsha, China, Agric. Sci. Chin. 2010, 9, 16411649.
[7] J. S. Wu, The Theory and Practice of Suburb Agriculture for Environmental
Conservation, Science Press, Beijing 2011 (in Chinese).
[8] D. H. Pote, T. C. Daniel, A. N. Sharpley, D. J. Nichols, Relating
Extractable Soil Phosphorus to Phosphorus Losses in Runoff, Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996, 60, 855859.
[9] H. A. Torbert, T. C. Daniel, J. L. Lemunyon, R. M. Jones, Relationship
of Soil Test Phosphorus and Sampling Depth to Runoff Phosphorus
in Calcareous and Noncalcareous Soils, J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31,
13801387.
[10] G. Heckrath, P. C. Brookes, P. R. Poulton, K. W. T. Goulding,
Phosphorus Leaching from Soils Containing Different Phosphorus
Concentrations in the Broadbalk Experiment, J. Environ. Qual. 1995,
24, 904910.
[11] S. Beauchemin, R. R. Simard, D. Cluis, Forms and Concentration of
Phosphorus in Drainage Waters of 27 Tile-Drained Soils, J. Environ.
Qual. 1998, 27, 721728.
[12] G. F. Koopmans, M. E. van der Zeeuw, P. F. A. M. Romkens,
Identification and Characteristics of Phosphorus-Rich Sandy Soils,
Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 2001, 49, 369384.
[13] M. K. Zhang, Effects of Soil Properties on Phosphorus Subsurface
Migration in Sandy Soils, Pedosphere 2008, 18, 599610.
[14] H. A. Wei, C. X. Pan, R. Yang, R. Gao, Y. Y. Li, H. Shi, P. Q. Peng, Impacts
of Reducing N and P on Cotton Growth and N and P Transportation
in Embankment Upland of Dongting Lake Area, Res. Agric. Modern
2010, 31, 621625 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[15] Z. X. Zhu, Soil Science, Agricultural Press, Beijing 1983 (in Chinese).
[16] W. J. Gburek, A. N. Sharpley, L. Heathwaite, Phosphorus Management
at the Watershed Scale: A Modification of the Phosphorus Index,
J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 130144.
[17] M. B. McGechan, D. R. Lewis, P. S. Hooda, Modeling Through-Soil
Transport of Phosphorus to Surface Waters from Livestock
Agriculture at the Field and Catchment Scale, Sci. Total Environ.
2005, 344, 185199.
[18] C. R. Wang, Z. Y. Hu, L. Z. Yang, Y. M. Gao, J. L. Lu, Risk of Phosphate
Leaching Loss from Soil of Vegetable Plot in the Typical Region of
Taihu Lake, Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2005, 25 (1), 7680 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
[19] A. Sapek, Impact of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on water
and atmosphere quality in Poland, in Proceedings of 11th International
World Fertilizer Congress, Vol. III, Gent, Belgium 1997.
[20] N. Hesketh, P. C. Brookes, Development of an Indicator for Risk of
Phosphorus Leaching, J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 105110.
[21] X. Zhao, X. Zhong, H. Bao, H. Li, G. Li, D. Tuo, Q. Lin, P. C. Brookes,
Relating Soil P Concentrations at which P Movement Occurs to Soil
Properties in Chinese Agricultural Soils, Geoderma 2007, 142, 237
244.

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

[22] O. F. Schoumans, P. Groenendijk, Modeling Soil Phosphorus Levels

and Phosphorus from Agricultural Land in the Netherlands,
J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 111116.
[23] P. J. A. Kleinman, A. N. Sharpley, Estimating Soil Phosphorus
Sorption Saturation from Mehlich-3 Data, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 2002, 33, 18251839.
[24] J. P. Casson, D. R. Bennett, S. C. Nolan, B. M. Olson, G. R. Ontkean,
Degree of Phosphorus Saturation Thresholds in Manure-Amended
Soils of Alberta, J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 22122221.
[25] F. Djodjic, K. Borling, L. Bergstro
m, Phosphorus Leaching in Relation
to Soil Type and Soil Phosphorus Content, J. Environ. Qual. 2004, 33,
678684.
[26] E. H. Brock, Q. M. Ketterings, P. J. A. Kleinman, Phosphorus
Leaching through Intact Soil Cores as Influenced by Type and
Duration of Manure Application, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 77,
269281.
[27] A. K. Ghosh, J. Barbosa, I. R. da Silva, An Environmental Threshold of
Soil Test P and Degree of P Saturation of Brazilian Oxisols, Clean
Soil Air Water 2011, 39, 421427.
[28] G. F. Koopmans, R. W. McDowwel, W. J. Chardon, O. Oenema, J.
Dolfing, Soil Phosphorus QuantityIntensity Relationships to
Predict Increased Soil Phosphorus Loss to Overland and
Subsurface Flow, Chemosphere 2002, 48, 679687.
[29] J. G. Li, S. F. Huang, J. R. Li, W. B. Zang, Spatial-Temporal
Characteristics of Precipitation in the Lake Dongting Basin from
1960 to 2008, J. Chin. Inst. Water Resour. Hydropower Res. 2010, 8, 275
280 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[30] I. Porro, P. J. Wierenga, Transient and Steady-State Solute Transport
through a Large Unsaturated Soil Column, Ground Water 1993, 31,
193200.
[31] Commission of Natural Resources in China (CNRC), CAS & SPC,
Handbook of Natural Resources in China, Science Press, Beijing 1990
(in Chinese).
[32] Soil Survey Staff, Soil Taxonomy, USDA-NRCS, US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 1975.
[33] J. B. Jones, Jr., Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant
Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton 2001.
[34] R. K. Lu, Analysis Methods of Soil Agrochemistry, China Agricultural
Science and Technology Press, Beijing 2000 (in Chinese).
[35] M. R. Carter, E. G. Gregorich, Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis,
CRC Press, Boca Raton 2004.
[36] S. R. Olsen, C. V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe, L. A. Dean, Estimation of
Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate,
USDA, Washington, DC 1954, p. 939.
[37] H. A. Sissingh, Analytical Technique of the Pw Method Used for the
Assessment of the Phosphate Status of Arable Soils in the
Netherlands, Plant Soil 1971, 34, 483486.
[38] J. Murphy, J. P. Riley, A Modified Single Solution Method for
Determination of Phosphate in Natural Waters, Anal. Chim. Acta
1962, 27, 3136.
[39] X. Y. Zhong, X. R. Zhao, H. J. Bao, H. H. Li, G. T. Li, Q. M. Lin, The
Evaluation of Phosphorus Leaching Risk of 23 Chinese Soils, I.
Leaching Criterion, Acta Ecol. Sin. 2004, 24, 22752280 (in Chinese
with English abstract).
[40] D. Thomas, G. Heckrath, P. C. Brookes, Evidence of phosphorus
movement from Broadbalk soils by preferential flow, in
Phosphorus Loss from Soil to Water (Ed.: H. Tunney), CAB,
Wallingford, UK 1997, pp. 369370.
[41] S. Fortune, J. Lu, T. M. Addiscott, P. C. Brookes, Assessment of
Phosphorus Leaching Losses from Arable Land, Plant Soil 2005,
269, 99108.
[42] R. N. Sah, D. S. Mikkelsen, Effects of Anaerobic Decomposition of
Organic Matter on Sorption and Transformations of Phosphate in
Drained Soils: 1. Effects on Phosphate Sorption, Soil Sci. 1986, 142,
267274.
[43] R. Gachter, S. M. Steingruber, M. Reinhardt, B. Wehrli, Nutrient
Transfer from Soil to Surface Water: Differences between Nitrate
and Phosphate, Aquat. Sci. 2004, 66, 117122.

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18

Y. Li et al.

[44] Q. H. Xue, Q. F. Wei, X. L. Xue, Kinetics of Phosphate Adsorption

Desorption of Loessial Soils under Continuous Liquid Current,
Acta Pedol. Sin. 1995, 32, 142150 (in Chinese with English
abstract).
[45] L. Wang, G. H. Nancollas, Calcium Orthophosphates: Crystallization
and Dissolution, Chem. Rev. 2008, 108, 46284669.
[46] H. H. Zhu, J. S. Wu, D. Y. Huang, Q. H. Zhu, S. L. Liu, Y. R. Su, W. X. Wei,
et al., Improving Fertility and Productivity of a Highly-Weathered

2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Upland Soil in Subtropical China by Incorporating Rice Straw, Plant

Soil 2010, 331, 427437.
[47] N. Gla
sner, C. Kjaergaard, G. H. Rubak, J. Magid, Interactions
between Soil Texture and Placement of Dairy Slurry Application:
II. Leaching of Phosphorus Forms, J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 344351.
[48] R. O. Maguire, J. T. Sims, Soil Testing to Predict Phosphorus
Leaching, J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 16011609.

www.clean-journal.com

Clean Soil, Air, Water 2013, 00 (0), 18