Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:25:28.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fate of 35S-labelled urine sulphate in urine affected areas of pasture soil under field conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. H. Williams
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research, Canterbury Agriculture and Science Centre, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch, New Zealand
R. J. Haynes
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research, Canterbury Agriculture and Science Centre, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch, New Zealand

Summary

The fate of 35S-labelled sheep urine sulphate in the soil and its plant uptake were measured in field experiments over a 12 month period in 1990/91 in Canterbury, New Zealand. Urine was applied in either summer or winter. After the summer application, there was a marked increase in pasture growth and S uptake which lasted for a period of c. 90 days. Plant uptake of applied 35S was very rapid and c. 11% was recovered in the pasture herbage within 65 days of application. By the end of the experiment, c. 80% had been recovered in the herbage. A portion of applied 35S was incorporated into soil organic forms mainly as C-bonded S. After 86 days, 30% of the applied 35S was in the C-bonded form but during the rest of the experiment this declined to 17% as the 35S was remineralized and absorbed by the growing pasture plants.

Following the winter urine application, the increase in pasture dry matter production and 32S uptake was much less marked than that for the summer application. Twenty five percent of the applied 35S was recovered in pasture herbage within 65 days and this increased to 70% by the end of the experiment. Some of the applied S was incorporated into soil organic forms and, by 83 days, 20% of the applied 35S was present in C-bonded form. Through mineralization this declined to 7% by the end of the experiment. Over the initial 41 days of the experiment, c. 25% of the 35S was lost due to leaching.

Type
Crops and Soils
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barrow, N. J. (1987). Return of nutrients by animals. In Managed Grasslands (Ed. Snaydon, R. W.), pp. 181186. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boswell, C. C. (1983). An assessment of phosphorus and sulphur interactions on aspects of the sulphur cycle in pasture. PhD thesis, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Catchpoole, D. W. & Blair, G. J. (1990). Forage tree legumes. 111. Release of nitrogen from leaf, faeces and urine derived from Leucaena and Gliricidia leaf. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 539547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, I. S. & Sinclair, A. G. (1984). Fertiliser and Lime Recommendations for Pastures and Crops, 2nd edn.Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.Google Scholar
Cox, J. E. (1978). Soils and agriculture of part Paparua County, Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 34, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
During, C. & Martin, D. J. (1968). Sulphate nutrition, movement, and sorption, with special reference to a gley podzol, West Coast, South Island. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 665676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. W. & Andrew, T. L. (1984). Mineralization of methionine sulphur in soils and forest floor layers. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 16, 565570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freney, J. R., Melville, G. E. & Williams, C. H. (1975). Soil organic matter fractions as sources of plant-available sulphur. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 7, 217221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghani, A., McLaren, R. G. & Swift, R. S. (1988). The incorporation and remineralisation of 35S in soil organic fractions. In Towards the More Efficient Use of Soil and Fertiliser Sulphur (Eds White, R. E. & Currie, L. D.), pp. 3246. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Haynes, R. J. & Williams, P. H. (1993). Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Advances in Agronomy 49, 119199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. P. & Till, A. R. (1981). The distribution in soil and plant of 35S from sheep excreta. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 339351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quin, B. F. & Woods, P. H. (1976). Rapid manual determination of sulfur and phosphorus in plant material. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 7, 415426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. M. H. (1984). Mineral composition of soil and pasture from areas of grazed paddocks, affected and unaffected by dung and urine. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 27, 405412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A. G. (1983). Problems in modelling sulphur requirements in New Zealand pastures. In Proceedings of the Technical Workshop on Sulphur in New Zealand Agriculture (Eds Gregg, P. E. H. & Syers, J. K.), pp. 106117. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Tabatabai, M. A. (1982). Sulfur. In Methods oj Soil Analysis (Eds Page, A. L., Miller, R. H. & Keeney, D. R.), pp. 501538. Madison: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Williams, P. H. & Haynes, R. J. (1990 a). Cycling of P and S through the soil-plant-animal system under intensively grazed grass-clover pastures. Transactions of the Nth International Congress of Soil Science IV, 276281.Google Scholar
Williams, P. H. & Haynes, R. J. (1990 b). Influence of improved pastures and grazing animals on nutrient cycling within New Zealand soils. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 14, 4957.Google Scholar
Williams, P. H. & Haynes, R. J. (1992). Transformations and plant uptake of urine-sulphate in urine-affected areas of pasture soil. Plant and Soil 145 167175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, Y., Rasmussen, H. P., Bukovac, M. J. & Wittwer, S. H. (1966). Binding sites for inorganic ions and urea on isolated cuticular membrane surfaces. American Journal of Botany 53, 170172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar