Effects of clinoptilolite zeolite on phosphorus dynamics and yield of Zea Mays L. cultivated on an acid soil

Hasbullah Nur Aainaa; Osumanu Haruna Ahmed; Nik Muhamad Ab Majid

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204401

Abstract

Efficient management of P fertilizers ensures good yield of crops and adequate food supply. In the acid soil of the tropics, soluble P is fixed by Al and Fe. Exploitation of the high CEC and pH of Clinoptilolite zeolite (CZ) could mitigate low soil pH and P fixation in acid soils. This study was undertaken to determine the effects of amending a weathered acid soil with CZ on: (i) soil P availability and other related soil chemical properties, and (ii) nutrient concentration, nutrient uptake, above-ground biomass, agronomic efficiency, and yield of Zea mays L. on a tropical acidic soil. Triple superphosphate (TSP), Egypt Rock phosphate (ERP), and Christmas Island Rock phosphate (CIRP) were used as P sources. The treatments evaluated were: (i) soil alone, (ii) 100% recommended fertilizer rate (NPK), and (iii) 75% fertilizer rate + Clinoptilolite zeolite. Selected soil chemical properties and P availability were determined before and after field trials. Zea mays L. above-ground biomass, nutrient concentration, nutrient uptake, agronomic efficiency, and fresh cob yield were also determined. Results revealed that the effects of treatments with and without CZ treatments on soil pH, P fractions, soil acidity, dry matter production, yield of maize, nutrient uptake, and agronomic efficiency were similar. Hence, suggesting CZ inclusion in the fertilization program of Zea mays L is beneficial in terms of reducing excessive or unbalanced use of chemical fertilizers due to reduction of fertilizers usage by 25%.

Citation: Nur Aainaa H, Haruna Ahmed O, Ab Majid NM (2018) Effects of clinoptilolite zeolite on phosphorus dynamics and yield of Zea Mays L. cultivated on an acid soil. PLoS ONE 13(9): e0204401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401

Editor: Kurt O. Reinhart, USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, UNITED STATES

Received: November 23, 2017; Accepted: September 7, 2018; Published: September 27, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Nur Aainaa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia for the collaborative research (ERGS grant number 5525019). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The global demand for food is increasing with the ever increasing human population. However, deprived soil fertility could impede the effort to achieve global food production and food security. Phosphorus is important in plant metabolic function, and it is one of the essential nutrients required for lucrative crops production. Phosphorus deficiency in soils does not only limit N uptake but it also leads to poor yield of crops [1,2]. Efficient uptake of P however, is related to the interactions of P with soils (sorption, desorption, and precipitation processes). Phosphorus loaded in soluble form is rapidly converted to less soluble form by adsorption and precipitation with iron and aluminium oxides thus, rendering it unavailable for crop uptake [3]. Improving P use efficiency is not only anticipated for effective crops production but it also reduces the potential of environmental pollution in surface water resulting in eutrophication and hypoxia, processes which are related to high soil P levels [4]. Non-renewable P minerals conservation is an additional long-term concern. More alarming and worrying are reports that the existing reserves of phosphate rock may last for only 50–120 years [5–7]. The responses to P scarcity due to its depletion may include increased cost, more efficient P use, P recovery, and P re-use.

Malaysia agricultural sector which contributed approximately 8.4% of national gross domestic products in 2017 [8] depends on mineral fertilizers to sustain crops productivity. The fertilizer import bills was USD$ 2.96 billion in 2008 and the bill is estimated to increase yearly [9].The use of rock phosphates is preferable in acidic conditions, because they are cheaper and their dissolution is favourable [10,11] compared with the soluble P fertilizers such as Triple superphosphate. There are many types of rock phosphate (RP) available in the market and they are: CIRP (Christmas Island Rock Phosphate), Tunisia or Gafsa (TRP), Jordan (JRP), North Carolina (NCRP), and China (CRP). These P fertilizers vary in P content. Compared to phosphate rocks, triple super phosphate (TSP) is more soluble. The choice for RP fertilizer is commonly based on market price and availability.

Phosphorus availability in acid soils can be improved by reducing P fixation in soils through chelation of metal ion oxides (Fe and Al) and competing for P adsorption site by organic acids with the use of organic amendments. The use of inorganic amendment such as zeolites to remediate P fixation is however different. Zeolites are porous crystalline, hydrated alumino-silicate minerals that form in nature as a result of a chemical reaction between volcanic lava and saline water. Zeolites have significant contribution in agriculture particularly in soil management. It is characterized as having large sorption and ion-exchange capacity, ion-exchange selectivity, properties of a molecular sieve, catalytic activity, and structural thermal stability at temperatures of up to 700–750°C. Zeolites do not easily break down over time and therefore, they remain in the soil to improve nutrients retention [12]. Besides, their hydrated amorphous silica skeleton are able to retain water and beneficial nutrients in the root zone and significantly reduce water and fertilizer costs [13]. Inclusion of clinoptilolite zeolite in agriculture also promotes N retention in soils as it improves use of NH-N and NO-N by reducing leaching losses of exchangeable cations [13–15]. Zeolites as amendment also improve nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency of Zea mays cultivated on acid soils [16–19]. Zeolites application on a sandy soil effectively ameliorated salinity stress and nutrient balance [20]. In combination with chemical fertilizers, zeolites also acted as slow-release fertilizer [21,22]. In terms of economic cost, zeolites are relatively cheap due to their abundance. Though imported from Indonesia, CZ is reasonably affordable in Malaysia and may be incorporated into fertilization programs of maize cultivation on acid soils [16]. The total production cost incurred is reduced with zeolite adoption due to elimination of liming cost and also due to reduction of fertilizers usage by 25%.

There are more than 50 natural and 150 synthetic types of zeolites. This present study used natural Clinoptilolite zeolite (CZ) which is the most widely used type not only due to abundance and low price, but also due to breadth of its physico‐chemical properties [23]. Theoretically, CZ properties, such as it being alkaline and having negative charges, can be used to improve P availability through amelioration of soil pH, reduction of soil acidity, soil exchangeable Al, and soil exchangeable Fe. This will result in less P being fixed by metal oxyhydroxides. In addition, CZ incorporation into crop fertilization programs may trigger induce-exchange dissolution mechanisms that release P through uptake of nutrients by the plant. Phosphorus release demonstrated by exchange-induced dissolution system is as follows [24]:

Isomorphous substitution of Al for Si in CZ framework provides exchange sites onto which cations are held. Plant uptake of cations from CZ leads to vacant exchange sites onto which cations are attracted. This process lowers the activity of exchangeable bases such as Ca²⁺ from soil solution thereby inducing further dissolution of rock phosphate (RP) [24–26]. Dissolution of RP is also partly related to rhizosphere acidification [27]. Crops also regulate root exudation of organic acids into soils [28,29], and it is well documented that many organic acids (such as citrate, malate, and oxalate) are the most common and effective way to mobilize poorly soluble mineral nutrients [30,31]. Their ability to reduce P precipitation [32] and even to solubilize poorly soluble phosphates [33] could be valuable in meeting crop P demands.

A prior pot experiment of an acid soil amended with P fertilizers and CZ failed to report appreciable plant response effects (above-ground biomass and nutrient recovery). However, it is worth noting that CZ incorporation in the fertilization programme is beneficial and could be used to reduce the use of N, P, and K fertilizers of Zea mays cultivated on acid soils [16,17,34–35]. We retested the effect of CZ amendments on maize but under field conditions and at a larger scale than the aforementioned pot experiment. Thus, field trials (2 cycles of maize cultivation) were undertaken to determine the effects of amending acidic tropical soil with CZ on: (i) dynamics of soil P availability and other related soil chemical properties, (ii) nutrient uptake, agronomic efficiency, above-ground biomass, and yield of Zea mays L.

Materials and methods

Experimental site description

A field experiment was conducted at Universiti Putra Malaysia Bintulu Sarawak Campus (latitude 03° 21.516’ N and longitude 113° 094.181’ E). The climate is humid tropical with an annual precipitation of 4042 mm, and the average monthly precipitation is 336.85 mm, and the relative humidity is 85.6%. The highest and the lowest temperatures are 32.1°C and 23.6°C, respectively. These climatic data (S1 Fig) were obtained from the Malaysian Meteorological Department report [36].

Experimental design and treatments

The experimental design was randomized complete block design with three blocks. The treatments evaluated are summarized in Table 1.

Download:

Table 1. Treatments evaluated.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.t001

Plot establishment, planting, and maintenance

Before planting, the experimental site was cleared and sprayed with herbicide (Glyphosate). Afterwards, the site was ploughed, and rotovated before 21 raised beds were constructed to accommodate seven treatments with three replicates. The size of each plot (bed) was 1.5 m (width) x 4.5 m (length) to accommodate 30 plants. A 1 m alley (distance between beds) was maintained between plots to prevent the influence of lateral water movement. Within each plot, six rows were constructed with 70 cm buffer in between. The spacing between maize plants per row was 30 cm.

The test crop used was Zea mays L. F1 hybrid. Five seeds were sown in each planting hole and were thinned to one at seven days after seeding. The recommended rates of the fertilizers were: urea (130 kg ha^-1), Egypt rock phosphate (ERP) (214 kg ha^-1), Christmas Island rock phosphate (CIRP) (200 kg ha¹), triple superphosphate (TSP) (130 kg ha^-1), and muriate of potash (MOP) (67 kg ha^-1) [37]. These rates were reduced to per plant basis and were equivalent to 4.85 g urea plant^-1, 7.95 g ERP plant^-1, 7.42 g CIRP plant^-1, 4.84 g TSP plant^-1, and 2.47 g MOP plant^-1 from the existing standard fertilizer recommendation [37]. Half the fertilizer was applied at 10 days after seeding (DAS) and the remainder at 28 DAS. This method of fertilization was used to determine the maize plants’ response to treatments (Table 1). Weeding was done manually with hoe to keep the plots free from weeds.

Crop data collection procedures and nutrient analysis

Plants were monitored, harvested at 83 DAS and above-ground biomass was partitioned into cobs, stem, leaf, and tassel. Fresh weight of cobs were recorded using a weighing balance whereas the dry matter of stem, leaf, and tassel were determined after they were oven dried at 60°C in an oven. Each maize plant part was ground and analyzed for total N, P, and K. The dry ashing method [38] was used to extract P and K from the plant parts. The extracts were analysed for K using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAnalyst 800, Perkin Elmer Instruments, Norwalk, CT) whereas P was determined following the blue development [39]. Total N was determined following the micro-Kjeldahl method [40]. Nitrogen, P, and K uptake of plant parts were determined by multiplying their concentrations with their respective dry weight, whereas N, P, and K agronomic efficiency were determined using the formula shown below [41–43]:

Where:

Y_F = Yield of fertilized (kg ha^-1),

Y_o = Yield of unfertilized (kg ha^-1), and

F = Rate of fertilizer applied (kg ha^-1).

Determination of mineral soil, P fertilizers, and CZ properties

Before the onset of the experiment and a day before harvesting of maize fresh cobs and maize, we collected 21 soil subsamples per plot with an auger (0–20 cm depth) which were combined into one composite soil sample per plot. The 21 samples were air dried and ground to pass a 2-mm sieve for selected physicochemical characterization. Grounding is needed to reduce subsampling error as soil samples may contain clods or large aggregates. Soil samples were analyzed for pH in distilled water (at ratio of 1:2.5 soil:water) using a digital pH meter [44]. Soil particle distribution (sand, silt, and clay) was determined using the hydrometer method whereas soil bulk density was determined by the method described in the Soil Survey Staff [45]. Soil total carbon was determined using loss-on-ignition method [46]. Soil total P was extracted using aqua regia [47] whereas P concentration was measured using spectrophotometer (Lambda 25, Perkin Elmer) after blue color development [39]. Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined using the ammonium acetate method [38] whereas CEC of the CZ was determined using the CsCl method [48]. The CsCl method was used because it avoids underestimation of CEC of the zeolites as this method does not lead to entrapment of ammonium ions in the channels of zeolites. Exchangeable cations of soil, CZ (K, Ca, Mg, and Fe), and available P were extracted using double acid as extractant following the method of Mehlich No.1 [49] after which, the cations were determined using atomic absorption spectrometer (AAnalyst 800, Perkin Elmer Instruments, Norwalk, CT). Available P was determined using the Blue Method [39]. Total titratable acidity was extracted using 1 M KCl (1:10 soil/solution) after which it was determined using the colorimetric method (acid base titration) [50]. The inorganic P associated with Al, Fe, and Ca in the soil were fractionated and determined following the method described by Kuo [51]. Series of extractants were used to extract different pools of soil P. Loosely soluble-P (Sol-P) using 1 M NH₄Cl, Aluminium bound P (Al-P) using 0.5 M NH₄F at pH of 8.2, Iron bound P (Fe-P) using 0.10 M NaOH, and Reductant soluble P (Red-P) using 0.3 M sodium citrate and 1 M NaHCO_3. Calcium bound P (Ca-P) was extracted using 0.25 M H₂SO₄, and occluded P (Occl-P) was extracted with 1 M NaOH. Extracted P fractions were measured after blue color development [39] using UV-visible Spectrometer (Lambda 25, Perkin Elmer) at 882 nm.

Mineral soil properties

The soil physicochemical characteristics of the experimental site before planting are shown in Table 2. The soil used in this study was typical of Typic Paleudults (Bekenu series) which has an argillic horizon with fine sandy clay loam textures. This soil texture suggests possible leaching of exchangeable bases and the inherent low fertility whereas medium to coarse sub angular blocky soil structure indicates that it is generally weak and friable in nature [52]. The soil is acidic with a pH value of 4.93. Soil total Fe is 1.71 cmol(+)kg^-1 whereas exchangeable Al in the native soil is 0.36 cmol(+)kg^-1). This indicates that Fe is the major contributor to the acidity of this soil. The soil is also low in CEC (5.7 cmol(+)kg^-1), total N (0.03%), total P (3.76 mg kg^-1), and total K (2.87 cmol(+)kg^-1). However, exchangeable K, Ca, Mg, and Na were slightly higher than the standard range reported for this type of soil [52]. Available P of this site is approximately 33% of soil total P. This relatively high level of available P is likely due to residual P from previous plantings at the site. A related study, however, reported 85 to 90% of applied P was unavailable to plants in the year of application [53].

Download:

Table 2. Selected soil physical-chemical properties of soil before planting of maize seeds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.t002

The distribution of soil inorganic P (Pi) at the experimental site before planting was in the order of Fe-P > Red-P > Occl-P > Ca-P > Al-P and Sol-P (S2 Fig). Negligible Sol-P in soils indicates the need for fertilization for maize cultivation. Approximately 70% of the Pi fractions comprised active Pi (Fe-P, Al-P, and Ca-P) with 64% of it being immobilized within the crystalline and secondary minerals (associated with Fe and Al). These forms of Pi are essentially non-labile. The low Ca-P indicates low P and Ca availability in the soil, and this is because our site’s weathered soil has high levels of Fe-oxides, low pH, as well as being in advanced stage of weathering [54]. This finding is consistent with a report that Fe-P are dominant in Malaysian soils as they constitute 79% of inorganic P fractions of mineral soils [55].

Phosphorus fertilizers and Clinoptilolite zeolite properties

The CZ (granular form) used in this study was obtained from MB Plus Sdn. Bhd. Johore, Malaysia. The selected chemical properties of TSP, ERP, CIRP, and CZ are shown in Table 3. The pH and CEC of the CZ were relatively high. The detailed information on the surface morphology and elemental composition of the CZ used in this present study can be found in one of our papers published in Geoderma [56]. The elemental content of the P fertilizers used in this present study shows that total P₂O₅ of TSP, CIRP, and ERP were 41%, 24%, and 27%, respectively. The Ca of the TSP, ERP, and CIRP were 4%, 47%, and 51%, respectively. The higher amount of Ca in ERP and CIRP is due to the parent materials of these fertilizers. High Ca of the apatite of the phosphates rock contributes to alkalinity of these phosphate fertilizers compared to the acidulated TSP.

Download:

Table 3. Selected chemical properties of phosphorus fertilizers and Clinoptilolite zeolite.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.t003

Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test significant effect of treatments and followed by pairwise comparison using Tukey’s test at P = 0.05. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.2 was used for the statistical analysis.

Results & discussion

Selected soil chemical properties

Apart from the effort to improve P availability, understanding the transformation of added water-soluble P into various P pools and the effects of the soil properties to the P transformation process in these tropical acid soils will clarify CZ contribution on P management strategies.

Results of the selected soil chemical properties of the first planting cycle are presented in Table 4. In general, the soil pH of the two planting cycles of maize significantly increased regardless of the type of P fertilizer. The pH increased partly because of H₂PO₄^- addition caused removal of H⁺ in the soil solution of the soil with pH below 7.2 [57,58]. In the first planting cycle, the pH of the soil with 75% fertilizer and CZ (T2, C2, and E2) was lower than the recommended rate. This observation conflicts with reports that zeolites application in agriculture improves soil pH through exchange of H⁺ ions from solution with the exchangeable cations in zeolite structure [19,59]. This is related to the relatively higher Al and Fe contents in the native soil (Table 2). Because the treatments with CZ had 25% less P fertilizer, more anions were needed to saturate the sorption sites of the soil. Besides, reactivity of soil pH ranges below 5.5 is governed by Al hydrolysis. Therefore, changes of soil pH were buffered.

Download:

Table 4. Selected soil chemical properties at 83 days after seeding maize seeds.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.t004

Irrespective of treatment, soil exchangeable Al in both planting cycles significantly decreased to negligible whereas exchangeable Fe reduction was inconsistent (Table 4). Such observation is due to the strong sorption of P that was governed by the soil pH and also reactivity of different types of P fertilizer used. Strong P sorption by Al occurred at pH of soil <5.5 whereas at the pH <4.5, P is strongly sorbed by Fe [60]. Besides, although CZ inclusion in this present study was not very effective in increasing soil pH compared to the recommended rate, the slight effect on pH might have contributed to Al reduction. Similar to our findings, Basak and Biswas [61] study on liming effect of low grade rock phosphates revealed low increase in acid soil pH. However, the reduction in available Al played significant role in improving plant growth environment in the strong acid soils. Moreover, the presence of H⁺ partially alleviates the phytotoxic effect of Al by competing with Al³⁺ at the root cell plasma membrane [62]. At higher pH values, where monomeric hydroxyl Al species predominates, the activity of H⁺ is reduced such that its competitive effects are significantly reduced. This explains the insignificant difference of H⁺ in the soil regardless of the rate and type of P fertilizer applied.

Phosphorus availability

Relative to control, significant P availability is noted in all P fertilizer treatments regardless of the rate and type of P fertilizer applied. The addition of CZ to the treatments with 75% fertilizers rate (T2, E2, and C2) showed comparable total P and available P with the recommended rate in both the first and second planting cycles (Table 4). Inclusion of CZ in these treatments mitigated soil pH besides reducing Al, and soil acidity. Hence, resulting in lesser amount of P being fixed to the soil colloid and metal ion oxyhydroxides although lesser amounts of P fertilizers were applied. Moreover, the comparable soil total P, exchangeable P, and soil exchangeable Ca contents (Table 4) obtained was possible due to enhanced dissolution of the PRs as affected by induce-exchange mechanism of the CZ mediated by maize plant uptake. Adequate supply of moisture, protons (H⁺), and exchange site by CZ could have provided a sink for removal of reactive products such as Ca²⁺ and H₂PO₄^-. Thus, suggesting the dissolution reaction from left to right to increase P availability .

With the exception of ERP, the use of other RPs as P source regardless of rate increased soil P availability above the critical level (10 mg kg^-1) for maize plants [63]. The higher available P recovered in E2 (25% less fertilizer) compared with E1 suggests that it is possible to reduce ERP use in maize cultivation. The finding also indicates that co-application CZ and less soluble RP unlike highly soluble P (TSP) optimizes P fertilizers use in maize production on acid soils.

Dynamics of phosphorus speciation

Phosphorus bioavailability relates to the speciation of P in the soil solution. Commonly, free orthophosphate is not the dominant P species in the soils solution, especially in soil rich in Al/Fe oxides. In these soils, mobile colloidal P could potentially contribute to P availability.

In the first and second planting cycles, the 70 to 80% of Pi in the soil without CZ and fertilizers (T0) were primarily three active fractions, namely Fe-P, Al-P, and Ca-P (S2 Fig). The distribution of the Pi fractions was in the order of: Fe-P > Ca-P > Occl-P > Red-P > Al-P > Sol-P of first planting cycle whereas Fe-P > Red-P > Ca-P > Occl-P > and Al-P was the order for the second planting cycle. The dominance of Fe-P pre- and post-treatment (S2 Fig) indicates that Fe controls the dynamics of P especially P sorption in agricultural soils [64–66] and served as sink for applied P [67,68]. The changes in the order of Pi fractions is due to the dynamics transformations of applied P fertilizers which are different in terms of mobility, bioavailability, and chemical behavior under different conditions [69].

The Sol-P levels were low regardless of fertilization and planting cycle (Fig 1). Following TSP application (highly soluble P), Sol-P was low not only due to uptake by the maize plants and leaching but also due to its conversion to less available forms following P release from P fixation. The low Sol-P of RPs was due to its slow release which was facilitated by soil chemical properties (soil pH, concentration of Ca, and P in soil solution). In addition, availability of P is not only governed by parent material and weathering stage, but also by biological processes such as plant uptake, microbial uptake, immobilization, and mineralization.

Download:

Fig 1. Percentage of inorganic phosphorus speciation in soil after two cycles of maize cultivation.

Sol-P: loosely soluble-P, Al-P: aluminium-P, Fe-P: Iron-P, Red-P: reductant-P, Ca-P: calcium-P, and Occl-P: occluded-P.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.g001

In the second planting cycle, the increase in Red-P was more pronounced regardless of the rate and type of P fertilizer applied. Saturation levels of the P in soils could have increased due to the previous cultivation. This finding corroborates those of Kolachi and Jalali [70] and Zhang and Mackenzie [71,72] who also found that this moderately labile P species also serve as P sink. Unlike in the first planting cycle, the recommended P rates (regardless of P fertilizer type) consistently reduced Red-P in the second planting cycle. The observations about Red-P are related to drainage conditions of the soils during cultivation of the maize. This is because, solubilization of Fe-P complexes in Red-P through reduction of Fe (III) minerals of a tropical soils require prolonged anaerobic conditions for P to become available [73,74].

The low content of Ca-P (Fig 1) in two planting cycles is in line with soil acidity and advanced pedogenesis, indicating significant amount of native apatite had been weathered [75]. This observation corroborates findings by Melese et al. [76] and Adhami et al., [77] but contradicted those reported for less weathered soils. However, the contrary observation of Ca-P following application of ERP treatments in this study could be due to the undissolved rock phosphate. The use of ERP consistently resulted in the highest Ca-P throughout the two planting cycles of maize compared to TSP and CIRP because of slower dissolution of ERP.

Regardless of fertilizer reduction and CZ inclusion, fixation of P in Occl-P was similar to the recommended fertilization of RP treatments (Fig 1). This suggests that P adsorption was reduced by CZ application and this is evident in the comparable P availability (Table 4) and P adsorbed such as Al-P, Fe-P, and Ca-P, (Fig 1) despite 25% less fertilizer. The similar levels of P fixed in Occl-P may also be due to competition of organic acids with phosphate ions for adsorption site produced from soil microbial activity and saturation of soil sorption sites by P added to the soil [78]. Besides, root exudation produces various organic acids (citrate, malate and oxalate) [28,29] that help to mobilize poorly soluble mineral nutrients and P [30,31]. These exudates enable reduction of P precipitation [32] and solubilization of poorly soluble phosphates [33] which could be valuable in meeting plants’ demand for P.

Maize yields and dry matter production

In spite of 25% reduction of fertilization in the first and second planting cycles, the treatments with CZ showed similar cobs yield compared to the existing fertilizer recommended rate (Fig 2). The maize plant dry matter production is shown in Table 5. Regardless of P fertilizer type, 75% fertilizer amended with CZ resulted in comparable dry matter production as the fertilizer recommended rate. This result is consistent with those reported in our pot studies [17,34,35] thus, indicating the beneficial effects of CZ as a slow release fertilizer. Therefore, CZ addition along with 25% reduction of fertilization in the planting cycles suggests a need for reduction in the existing fertilization especially for long term maize cultivation.

Download:

Fig 2. Cobs yield after two cycles of maize cultivation.

Means with different letter indicates significant differences using Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.g002

Download:

Table 5. Zea mays L. plant dry matter production in two cycles of cultivation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.t005

Nutrient uptake and agronomic efficiency

Uptakes of N, P, and K by maize plants of the first cycle are summarized as total uptake of respective nutrients in Fig 3. Total N and K uptake in the maize plant show that CZ with 75% fertilization and the recommended fertilization rate had similar effect on N and K uptake. This is possible because of the high CEC and affinity of CZ for NH₄⁺ and K⁺. For NH₄⁺ in particular, it is possible the affinity of CZ for NH₄⁺ might have not only reduced nitrification but it also might have facilitated slow release of NH₄⁺ to prevent it from being lost through leaching. Furthermore, the presence of CZ reduced microsite pH by inhibiting ureolytic activity of microorganisms to minimize ammonia volatilization from NH₄⁺ [18,79–81]. Additionally, the cation selectivity of the CZ which is in the order of K⁺ > NH₄⁺ > Na⁺ > Ca²⁺ > Mg²⁺ [82,83] relates to the aforestated observation. With the exception of ERP treatment (75% of recommended), other treatments at 75% of recommended showed similar N, P, and K agronomic efficiencies as compared to the treatments at recommended fertilization levels (1^st planting cycle) (Fig 4). Total P uptake of the plants of the first planting cycle shows that the use of TSP in the treatments resulted in significant reduction of P uptake for 75% fertilization amended with CZ (T2) whereas the use of RP fertilizers showed no significant difference. The higher P uptake in the TSP treatments was due to the higher solubility of the TSP compared with the RPs as the dissolution of this RPs depends on soil acidity and concentrations of Ca and P ions present in the soil solution. The agronomic efficiency of the CZ with 75% fertilization was similar to those of the recommended rates of TSP and CIRP, whereas in the ERP treatments, P agronomic efficiency significantly increased with 75% fertilization and CZ (Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 3. Total N, P, and K uptakes after two cycles of maize cultivation.

Means with different letter indicates significant differences using Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05. The error bars are the ± standard error.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.g003

Download:

Fig 4. Agronomic efficiency of N, P, and K after two cycles of maize cultivation.

Means with different letter indicates significant differences using Tukey’s test at p ≤ 0.05. The error bars are the ± standard error.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.g004

In the second planting cycle, N uptake in the treatments with lower TSP and ERP were comparable to the 100% fertilization except for CIRP (Fig 3). Phosphorus uptake was similar regardless of the rate of P (Fig 3). For the TSP treatments, K uptake was similar, whereas in the RPs treatments, K uptake was significantly lower than the recommended rate (Fig 3). The higher nutrient uptake in the second planting cycle in addition to the similar N, P, and K agronomic efficiencies (Fig 4) explain the higher cobs yield attained in the second planting cycle (Fig 2). This finding is in agreement with that of Cassman et al. [84] who also observed that nutrient use efficiency is greatly affected by the amount of nutrients used and by synchronization between demand and supply of the nutrients.

Although the effects of CZ inclusion in the fertilization program of Zea mays were not significantly different (in terms selected soil chemical properties, cobs yield, uptake and agronomic efficiency of N, P, and K), the comparable results relative to those of the recommended rate suggest the need to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers to avoid losses and environmental pollution. The similarity in the nutrient uptake and use efficiency was due to the ability of the CZ to temporarily retain the nutrients and timely release of cations. Besides, the lack of significant effect was due to the amounts of CZ and fertilizer used in this present study were lower (for economic reasons) than those reported in other studies [14,22,19,85]. Probably, in long term application, significant results could be obtained as noted in other studies where inorganic fertilizers were mixed with zeolite [17,19,21]. Inclusion of zeolite in fertilization programmes is reported to cause a phenomenal growth of microorganisms in soils, increase in nutrient intake by plants, ameliorate negative effects of soil acidity, prevention of soil erosion, increase cations storage capacity of soils, and building of precious humus complexes [86,87].

Conclusion

By amending a weathered acid soil with CZ, the existing fertilizer use in maize cultivation can be reduced by 25% as with and without CZ treatments showed similar effects on soil pH, P availability, basic cations, soil acidity, soil exchangeable Al, dry matter production, yield of maize, nutrient uptake, and agronomic efficiency. Amending tropical mineral acid soils with CZ is a potential approach to reduce the need for chemical fertilizers in maize cultivation. For economic and environmental considerations, the use of CZ in agriculture is beneficial as it can be used to reduce the unbalanced use of N, P, and K fertilizers of Zea mays L. and related crops cultivated on acid soils besides minimizing environmental pollution due to excessive use of chemical fertilizers.

Recommendation

Results from two cycles of maize cultivation may not be conclusive enough to confirm the findings. Actual remedial and conditioning effects of Clinoptilolite zeolite perhaps require more time. Therefore, several more cycles of maize cultivation at different locations and at a larger scale will be needed. Climatic factors such as temperature and rainfall distribution between planting cycles should also be taken into consideration to confirm the findings of this study.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Initial percentages of inorganic P speciation in Typic Paleudults.

Sol-P is loosely soluble P, Al-P is aluminium bound P, Fe-P is iron bound P, Ca-P is calcium bound P, Red-P is reductant P, and Occl-P is occluded P.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Mean monthly rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperatures of the study area (Source:Malaysian Meteorological Department, 2014).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Mechanism of P uptake and efficient use with zeolite intervention in an acid soil.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204401.s003

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support (Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, FRGS) from the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia for the collaborative research.

References

1. Delve RJ, Probert ME, Cobo JG, Ricaurte J, Rivera M, Barrios E, Rao IM. Simulating phosphorus resepose in annual crop using APSIM; model evaluation on contrasting soil types. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 2009; 84:293–306.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Bundy LG, Tunney H, Halvorson AD. Agronomic aspects of phosphorus management. In: Phosphorus: Agriculture and the Environment. Sims JT, Sharpley AN (eds). ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2005. p. 685–728
3. Xavier FA, da Silva, Almeida EF, Cardoso IM, de Mendonça ES. Soil phosphorus distribution in sequentially extracted fractions in tropical agroecosystems in the Atlantic forest biome, southeastern Brazil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 2011; 89:31–44.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Sharpley AN, Daniel TC, Sims JT, Lemunyon J, Stevens R, Parry R. Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication 2nd edition. ARS 149. USDA, Washington, DC. 2003.
5. Cordell D, Drangert J, White S. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environment Change, 2009; 19: 292–305.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Fixen PE. World fertilizer nutrient reserves–a view to the future. Better Crops. 2009; 93: 8–11.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Smit AL, Bindraban PS, Schröder JJ, Conjin JG, Van der Meer HG. Phosphorus in Agriculture: Global Resources, Trends and Developments. Plant Research International, Wageningen. 2009. Report 282.
8. Central Intelligence Agency. Malaysia. In The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html. May 1, 2018
9. Sabri MA, “Evolution of fertilizer use by crops in Malaysia: recent trends and prospects,” in IFA Crossroads Asia-Pacific 2009, p.40, Fertilizer Industry Association Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2009.
10. Akande MO. Adediran JA. Oluwatoyinbo FI. Makinde E.A. Adetunji M.T. Suitability of poultry manure amended Sokoto rock phosphate on growth, nutrient uptake and yield of chilli pepper (Capsicum fruitscens L). Niger. J. Soil Sci., 18 (2008), pp. 167–174
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Nnadi L.A and Haque I. 1998. Agronomic effectiveness of rock phosphate in an Andept of Ethiopia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 19: 79–90.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Yangyuoru M., Boateng E., Adiku S.G.K., Acquah D., Adjadeh TA., and Mawunya F. 2006. Effects of Natural and Synthetic Soil Conditioners on Soil Moisture Retention and Maize Yield. West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology, 9: 1–8.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Polat E., Mehmet K., Halil D, Onus A.N. Use of natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) in agriculture. Journal of Fruit Ornamental Plant Research, 2004, 12:183–189.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. Enhancing nitrogen availability from urea using clinoptilolite zeolite. Geoderma, 2017; 306: 152–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.012
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. He Z.L., Calvert D.V., Alva A.K., Li Y.C., and Banks D.J. 2002. Clinoptilolite zeolite and cellulose amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization in a calcareous sandy soil. Plant Soil. 247: 253–260.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Ahmed OH, Aainaa H.N, and Majid NMA. Zeolites to unlock phosphorus fixation in agriculture. Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang, Malaysia. 2017; Pp 188.
17. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Reducing Egypt Rock Phosphate Use in Zea mays Cultivation on an Acid Soil Using Clinoptilolite Zeolite. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 2015; 4(1):56–66. http://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n1p56
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. 2011. Effect of mixing urea with zeolite and sago waste water on nutrient use efficiency of maize (Zea mays L.). African Journal of Microbiology Research, 5(21): 3462–3467.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Ahmed OH, Sumalatha G, Majid NMA. Use of zeolite in maize (Zea mays) cultivation on nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus uptake and use efficiency. International Journal of the Physical Science, 2010;5(15):2393–2401.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Al-Busaidi A., Yamamoto T., Inoue M., Eneji A.E., Mori Y., and Irshad M. 2008. Effects of zeolite on soil nutrients and growth of barley following irrigation with saline water. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 31:1159–1173.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Rabai KA, Ahmed OH, Kasim S. Use of formulated Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium compound fertilizer using clinoptilolite zeolite in Maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 2013; 25(9): 1–5.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Lija M, Ahmed OH, Susilawati K. Maize (Zea mays L.) nutrient use efficiency as affected by formulated fertilizer with Clinoptilolite zeolite. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture; Al-Ain, 2014; 26(3): 284–292.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Pitcher S.K. Slade R.C.T, Ward N.I. 2004, Heavy metal removal from motorway stormwater using zeolites. Science of the Total Environment, 334–335,161–166. 26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Allen E, Hossner L., Ming D, Henninger D. Solubility and cation exchange in phosphate rock and saturated clinoptilolite mixtures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993;57, 1368–1374. pmid:11537990
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Pickering HP, Menzies NW, Hunter MNC. Zeolite/rock phosphate—a novel slow release phosphorus fertilizer for potted plant production. Scientia Horticulture, 2002; 94: 333–343.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Allen E, Ming D. Recent progress in the use of natural zeolites in agronomy and horticulture. In: Ming D.W., Mumpton F.A. (Eds.), Natural Zeolites’93: Occurrence, Properties, Use. International Committee on Natural Zeolites, Brockport, New York. 1995. p. 477–490.
27. Zhang F, Kang S, Kang J, Zhang R, Li F. Nitrogen fertilization on uptake of soil inorganic phosphorus fractions in the wheat root zone. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2004; 68: 1890–1895.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Grierson PF. Organic Acids in the Rhizosphere of Banksia integrifolia L. Plant and Soil, 1992; 44: 259–265.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Zhang FS, Ma J, Cao YP. Phosphorus deficiency enhances root exudation of low- molecular weight organic acids and utilization of sparingly soluble inorganic phosphates byradish (Raphanus sativus L.) and rape (Brassica napus L.) plants. Plant and Soil, 1997; 196: 261–264.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Hoffland E. Quantitative Evaluation of the Role of Organic Exudation in the Mobilization of Rock Phosphate by Rape. Plant and Soil, 1992; 140: 279–289.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Oburger E, Kirk GJD, Wenzel WW, Puschenreiter M, Jones DL. Interactive effects of organic acids in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2009; 41: 449–457.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Grossl PR, Inskeep WP. Precipitation of dicalcium phos- phate dihydrate in the presence of organic acids. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1991; 55: 670–675.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Singh CP, Amberger A. Organic acids and phosphorus solubilization in straw composted with rock phosphate. Bioresource Technology, 1998; 63: 13–16.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Use of clinoptilolite zeolite on selected soil chemical properties, dry matter production, nutrients uptake and use efficiency of Zea mays cultivated on an acid soil. International Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014b;9(3):136–148. http://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2014.136.148
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Use of clinoptilolite Zeolite to reduce Christmas Island rock phosphate use in Zea mays cultivation on an acid soil. International Journal of Soil Science. 2014a;9(2):55–66. http://doi.org/10.3923/rjss.2014.55.66
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Malaysian Meteorological Department, “10-Day Agrometeorogical Bulletin,” 2014, http://www.met.gov.my/. Retrieved 25 December, 2014.
37. Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Jagung Manis Baru, Masmadu [New Sweet Corn, Masmadu]. Institute of Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Serdang, Malaysia. 1990. p. 3–5.
38. Cottenie A. Soil testing and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendation. FAO Soils Bulletin, 1980; 38: 70–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Murphy J, Riley JI. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 1962; 27: 31–36.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Bremner JM. Total Nitrogen. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Black CA, Evans DD, Ensminger LE, White JL, Clark FE, Dinauer RD, (eds). American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconcin, USA. 1965. p. 1149–1178.
41. Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW. Nutrient use efficiency and effectiveness in North America: Indices of agronomic and environmental benefit. Norcross, GA: International Plant Nutrition Institute. 2007. Reference # 07076.
42. Dobermann A. Nitrogen use efficiency: State of the art. Proceedings of the IFA International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers, June 28–30, 2005, Frankfurt, Germany. 2005. p. 1–16.
43. Mengel K, Kirkby EA. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 5th Ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. 2001.
44. Peech M. Hydrogen-ion Activity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Black CA, Evans DD, White JL, Ensminger LE, Clark FE (Eds.). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. USA. 1965. p. 914–925. ISBN-10: 0891180729.
45. Soil Survey Staff. Soil survey of Larimer County, CO, U.S. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. United States of America. 2014.
46. Piccolo A. Humus and Soil Conservation. Humic Substances in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Piccolo A. (Ed.). Elseiver, Amsterdam. 1996. p. 225–264. ISBN: 978-0-444-81516-3.
47. Gupta PK. Soil, Plant, Water and Fertilizer Analysis (2nd ed.). Joghpur, India: Agrobios. 2009; p. 350.
48. Ming DW, Dixon JB. Clinoptilolite in South Texas soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1986; 50: 1618–1622.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Mehlich A. Determination of P, K, Na, Ca, Mg and NH₄. Soil Test Division Mimeo, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC USA. 1953.
50. Rowell DL. Soil Science: Methods and Applications. Longman Publishers Ltd., London, UK. 1994. Pages: 169. ISBN: 0-582-087848.
51. Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods. Sparks DL (ed.) Agronomy 9. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis, USA. 1996. p. 869–920.
52. Paramananthan S. Soils of Malaysia: Their Characteristics and Identification. Vol. 1. Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2000. ISBN: 9839445065, pp. 11–125.
53. Gichangi EM, Mnkeni PNS, Brookes PC. Effects of goat manure and inorganic phosphate addition on soil inorganic and microbial biomass phosphorus fractions under laboratory incubation conditions. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2009; 55(6): 764–771.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Paulos D. Availability of phosphorus in the coffee soil of Southwest Ethiopia. In: Soil the Resource Base for Survival: Proceeding of the 2nd Conference of Ethiopian Society of Soil Science (ESSS ‘93), AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 23–24 September 1993. Tekalign M, H. Mitiku H. (Eds.) 1996. p. 119–129.
55. Bidin A. Phosphorus utilization in rainfed agriculture in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the second IMPHOS Regional Seminar: Southern Asia, Fertility Association of India, New Delhi. 1986. p. 161–172.
56. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. Enhancing nutrients use efficiency and grain yield of Zea mays L. cultivated on a tropical acid soil using paddy husk compost and clinoptilolite zeolite. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 2017; 23(3): 418–428.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Cerozi SD., Fitzsimmons K. 2016. The effect of pH on phosphorus availability and speciation in an aquaponics nutrient solution. Bioresour. Technol. 219: 778–781. pmid:27575336
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Schachtman DP, Reid RJ. Ayling SM. Phosphorus uptake by plants: From soil to cell. Plant Physiol. 1998; 116:447–453. pmid:9490752
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Leinonen H, Letho J. Purification of metal finishing waste waters with zeolites and activated carbons. Waste Management and Research, 2001; 19: 45–57 pmid:11525475
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Harter RD. "Acid soils of the tropics," Echo Technical Note 48, 2012; 1–7,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Basak BB, Biswas DR. Potentiality of Indian rock phosphate as liming material in acid soil. Geoderma. 2016;263: 104–109
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Kochian KV. Cellular mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance in plant. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 1995; 46: 237–260.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Okalebo JR, Gathua KW, Woomer PL. Laboratory Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis. 2nd edn. KARI, SSSEA, Moi University and SACRED Africa. 2002.
64. Vaananen R, Hristov J, Tanskanen N, Hartikainen H, Nieminen M, Ilvesniemi H. Phosphorus sorption properties in podzolic forest soils and soil solution phosphorus concentration in undisturbed and disturbed soil profiles, Boreal Environment Research, 2008; 13: 553–567.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Gasparatos D, Haidouti C, Haroulis A, Tsaousidou P. Estimation of phosphorus status of soil Fe-enriched concretions with the acid ammonium oxalate method, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2006; 37: 2375–2387.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
66. Hamon RE, McLaughlin MJ. Interferences in the determination of isotopically exchangeable P in soils and a method to minimise them, Australian Journal of Soil Research, 2002; 40: 1383–1397
- View Article
- Google Scholar
67. Duputel M, Devau N, Brossard M, Jaillard B, Hinsinger P, Gérard F. Citrate adsorption can decrease soluble phosphate concentration in soils: Result of theoretical modeling. Applied Geochemistry, 2013; 35: 120–131.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
68. Pavinato PS,Merlin A, Rosolem CA. Phosphorus fractions in Brazilian Cerrado soils as affected by tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 2009; 105: 149–155.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. Jalali M, Ranjbar F. Aging effects on phosphorus transformation rate and fractionation in some calcareous soils. Geoderma. 2010; 155: 101–106.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
70. Kolahchi Z., Jalali M. Speciation of Phosphorus in Phosphorus-Amended and Leached Calcareous Soils Using Chemical Fractionation. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 2012; 21(2); 395–400.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
71. Zhang TQ., Mackenzie AF. Changes of soil phosphorous fractions under long-term corn monoculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997a; 61, 485,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
72. Zhang TQ., Mackenzie AF. Changes of phosphorous fractions under continuous corn production in a temperate clay soil. Plant Soil, 1997b;192, 133,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
73. Chacon N, Silver WL, Dubinsky EA, Cusack DF. Iron reduction and soil phosphorus solubilization in humid tropical forests soils: The roles of labile carbon pools and an electron shuttle compound. Biogeochemistry, 2006;78:67–84.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
74. Liptzin D, Silver WL. Effects of carbon additions on iron reduction and phosphorus availability in a humid tropical forest soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2009; 41(8): 1696–1702,
- View Article
- Google Scholar
75. Cross AF, Schlesinger WH. A literature review and evaluation of the Hedley fractionation: Applications to the biogeochemical cycle of soil phosphorus in natural ecosystems. Geoderma, 1995; 64: 197–214.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
76. Melese A, Gebrekidan H, Yli-halla M, Yitaferu B. Phosphorus Status, Inorganic Phosphorus Forms, and Other Physicochemical Properties of Acid Soils of Farta District, Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2015. Article ID 748390, 11 pages.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
77. Adhami E, Owliaie HR, Molavi R, Rashti MR, Esfandbod M. Effect of soil properties on phosphorus fractions in subtropical soils of Iran. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2013;13:11–21.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
78. Iyamuremye F, Dick RP. Organic amendments and phosphorus sorption by soils. Advances in Agronomy, 1996; 56: 139–185.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
79. Fan MX, Mackenzie AF. Urea and phosphate interactions in fertilizers microsites: ammonia volatilizations and pH changes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1993; 57: 839–845.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
80. Fenn LB, Tatum G, Horst G. Ammonia loss from surface-applied mixtures of urea-calcium-potassium salts in the presence of phosphorus. Fertilizer Research, 1990; 21: 125–131.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
81. Fenn LB, Richards J. Ammonia loss from surface applied urea-acid products. Fertilizer Research, 1989; 9: 265–275.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
82. Goto I, Ninaki M. Studies on the agriculture utilization of natural zeolites as soil conditioners, III: Determination of the ion-exchange selectivity coefficients of natural zeolites. Journal of Agriculture Science, Tokyo Nogyo, Daigaku. 1980; 25:164–168.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
83. Rahmani AR, Mahvi AH, Mesdaghinia AR, Nasseri S. Investigation of ammonia removal from polluted waters by clinoptilolite zeolite. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2004; 1: 125–133
- View Article
- Google Scholar
84. Cassman KG, Dobermann A, Walters D. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 2002; 31(2):132–140.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
85. Kavoosi M. Effects of Zeolite Application on Rice Yield, Nitrogen Recovery, and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2007; 38(1): 69–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/00103620601093652
- View Article
- Google Scholar
86. Grant C, Bittman S, Montreal M, Plenchette C, Morel C, Transfert T, Cycle S. Soil and fertilizer phosphorus: Effects on plant P supply and mycorrhizal development. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2005; 85: 3–14
- View Article
- Google Scholar
87. Beqiraj E, Gjoka F, Muller F, Baillif P. Use of zeolitic material from munella region (Albania) as fertilizer in the sandy soils of Divjaka region (Albania). Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2008;3: 33–47.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Delve RJ, Probert ME, Cobo JG, Ricaurte J, Rivera M, Barrios E, Rao IM. Simulating phosphorus resepose in annual crop using APSIM; model evaluation on contrasting soil types. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 2009; 84:293–306.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Bundy LG, Tunney H, Halvorson AD. Agronomic aspects of phosphorus management. In: Phosphorus: Agriculture and the Environment. Sims JT, Sharpley AN (eds). ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 2005. p. 685–728

[ref3] 3. Xavier FA, da Silva, Almeida EF, Cardoso IM, de Mendonça ES. Soil phosphorus distribution in sequentially extracted fractions in tropical agroecosystems in the Atlantic forest biome, southeastern Brazil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 2011; 89:31–44.
View Article
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Sharpley AN, Daniel TC, Sims JT, Lemunyon J, Stevens R, Parry R. Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication 2nd edition. ARS 149. USDA, Washington, DC. 2003.

[ref5] 5. Cordell D, Drangert J, White S. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environment Change, 2009; 19: 292–305.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Fixen PE. World fertilizer nutrient reserves–a view to the future. Better Crops. 2009; 93: 8–11.
View Article
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Smit AL, Bindraban PS, Schröder JJ, Conjin JG, Van der Meer HG. Phosphorus in Agriculture: Global Resources, Trends and Developments. Plant Research International, Wageningen. 2009. Report 282.

[ref8] 8. Central Intelligence Agency. Malaysia. In The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html. May 1, 2018

[ref9] 9. Sabri MA, “Evolution of fertilizer use by crops in Malaysia: recent trends and prospects,” in IFA Crossroads Asia-Pacific 2009, p.40, Fertilizer Industry Association Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2009.

[ref10] 10. Akande MO. Adediran JA. Oluwatoyinbo FI. Makinde E.A. Adetunji M.T. Suitability of poultry manure amended Sokoto rock phosphate on growth, nutrient uptake and yield of chilli pepper (Capsicum fruitscens L). Niger. J. Soil Sci., 18 (2008), pp. 167–174
View Article
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Nnadi L.A and Haque I. 1998. Agronomic effectiveness of rock phosphate in an Andept of Ethiopia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 19: 79–90.
View Article
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Yangyuoru M., Boateng E., Adiku S.G.K., Acquah D., Adjadeh TA., and Mawunya F. 2006. Effects of Natural and Synthetic Soil Conditioners on Soil Moisture Retention and Maize Yield. West Africa Journal of Applied Ecology, 9: 1–8.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Polat E., Mehmet K., Halil D, Onus A.N. Use of natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) in agriculture. Journal of Fruit Ornamental Plant Research, 2004, 12:183–189.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. Enhancing nitrogen availability from urea using clinoptilolite zeolite. Geoderma, 2017; 306: 152–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.07.012
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. He Z.L., Calvert D.V., Alva A.K., Li Y.C., and Banks D.J. 2002. Clinoptilolite zeolite and cellulose amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization in a calcareous sandy soil. Plant Soil. 247: 253–260.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Ahmed OH, Aainaa H.N, and Majid NMA. Zeolites to unlock phosphorus fixation in agriculture. Universiti Putra Malaysia: Serdang, Malaysia. 2017; Pp 188.

[ref17] 17. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Reducing Egypt Rock Phosphate Use in Zea mays Cultivation on an Acid Soil Using Clinoptilolite Zeolite. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 2015; 4(1):56–66. http://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n1p56
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. 2011. Effect of mixing urea with zeolite and sago waste water on nutrient use efficiency of maize (Zea mays L.). African Journal of Microbiology Research, 5(21): 3462–3467.
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Ahmed OH, Sumalatha G, Majid NMA. Use of zeolite in maize (Zea mays) cultivation on nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus uptake and use efficiency. International Journal of the Physical Science, 2010;5(15):2393–2401.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Al-Busaidi A., Yamamoto T., Inoue M., Eneji A.E., Mori Y., and Irshad M. 2008. Effects of zeolite on soil nutrients and growth of barley following irrigation with saline water. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 31:1159–1173.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Rabai KA, Ahmed OH, Kasim S. Use of formulated Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium compound fertilizer using clinoptilolite zeolite in Maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 2013; 25(9): 1–5.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Lija M, Ahmed OH, Susilawati K. Maize (Zea mays L.) nutrient use efficiency as affected by formulated fertilizer with Clinoptilolite zeolite. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture; Al-Ain, 2014; 26(3): 284–292.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Pitcher S.K. Slade R.C.T, Ward N.I. 2004, Heavy metal removal from motorway stormwater using zeolites. Science of the Total Environment, 334–335,161–166. 26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Allen E, Hossner L., Ming D, Henninger D. Solubility and cation exchange in phosphate rock and saturated clinoptilolite mixtures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993;57, 1368–1374. pmid:11537990
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Pickering HP, Menzies NW, Hunter MNC. Zeolite/rock phosphate—a novel slow release phosphorus fertilizer for potted plant production. Scientia Horticulture, 2002; 94: 333–343.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Allen E, Ming D. Recent progress in the use of natural zeolites in agronomy and horticulture. In: Ming D.W., Mumpton F.A. (Eds.), Natural Zeolites’93: Occurrence, Properties, Use. International Committee on Natural Zeolites, Brockport, New York. 1995. p. 477–490.

[ref27] 27. Zhang F, Kang S, Kang J, Zhang R, Li F. Nitrogen fertilization on uptake of soil inorganic phosphorus fractions in the wheat root zone. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2004; 68: 1890–1895.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Grierson PF. Organic Acids in the Rhizosphere of Banksia integrifolia L. Plant and Soil, 1992; 44: 259–265.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Zhang FS, Ma J, Cao YP. Phosphorus deficiency enhances root exudation of low- molecular weight organic acids and utilization of sparingly soluble inorganic phosphates byradish (Raphanus sativus L.) and rape (Brassica napus L.) plants. Plant and Soil, 1997; 196: 261–264.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Hoffland E. Quantitative Evaluation of the Role of Organic Exudation in the Mobilization of Rock Phosphate by Rape. Plant and Soil, 1992; 140: 279–289.
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Oburger E, Kirk GJD, Wenzel WW, Puschenreiter M, Jones DL. Interactive effects of organic acids in the rhizosphere. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2009; 41: 449–457.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Grossl PR, Inskeep WP. Precipitation of dicalcium phos- phate dihydrate in the presence of organic acids. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1991; 55: 670–675.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Singh CP, Amberger A. Organic acids and phosphorus solubilization in straw composted with rock phosphate. Bioresource Technology, 1998; 63: 13–16.
View Article
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Use of clinoptilolite zeolite on selected soil chemical properties, dry matter production, nutrients uptake and use efficiency of Zea mays cultivated on an acid soil. International Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014b;9(3):136–148. http://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2014.136.148
View Article
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Aainaa HN, Ahmed OH, Kasim S, Majid NMA. Use of clinoptilolite Zeolite to reduce Christmas Island rock phosphate use in Zea mays cultivation on an acid soil. International Journal of Soil Science. 2014a;9(2):55–66. http://doi.org/10.3923/rjss.2014.55.66
View Article
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Malaysian Meteorological Department, “10-Day Agrometeorogical Bulletin,” 2014, http://www.met.gov.my/. Retrieved 25 December, 2014.

[ref37] 37. Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Jagung Manis Baru, Masmadu [New Sweet Corn, Masmadu]. Institute of Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Serdang, Malaysia. 1990. p. 3–5.

[ref38] 38. Cottenie A. Soil testing and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendation. FAO Soils Bulletin, 1980; 38: 70–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Murphy J, Riley JI. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 1962; 27: 31–36.
View Article
Google Scholar

[99] View Article

[100] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Bremner JM. Total Nitrogen. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Black CA, Evans DD, Ensminger LE, White JL, Clark FE, Dinauer RD, (eds). American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconcin, USA. 1965. p. 1149–1178.

[ref41] 41. Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW. Nutrient use efficiency and effectiveness in North America: Indices of agronomic and environmental benefit. Norcross, GA: International Plant Nutrition Institute. 2007. Reference # 07076.

[ref42] 42. Dobermann A. Nitrogen use efficiency: State of the art. Proceedings of the IFA International Workshop on Enhanced-Efficiency Fertilizers, June 28–30, 2005, Frankfurt, Germany. 2005. p. 1–16.

[ref43] 43. Mengel K, Kirkby EA. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 5th Ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. 2001.

[ref44] 44. Peech M. Hydrogen-ion Activity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Chemical and Microbiological Properties, Black CA, Evans DD, White JL, Ensminger LE, Clark FE (Eds.). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. USA. 1965. p. 914–925. ISBN-10: 0891180729.

[ref45] 45. Soil Survey Staff. Soil survey of Larimer County, CO, U.S. USDA-NRCS Soil Survey. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. United States of America. 2014.

[ref46] 46. Piccolo A. Humus and Soil Conservation. Humic Substances in Terrestrial Ecosystems, Piccolo A. (Ed.). Elseiver, Amsterdam. 1996. p. 225–264. ISBN: 978-0-444-81516-3.

[ref47] 47. Gupta PK. Soil, Plant, Water and Fertilizer Analysis (2nd ed.). Joghpur, India: Agrobios. 2009; p. 350.

[ref48] 48. Ming DW, Dixon JB. Clinoptilolite in South Texas soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1986; 50: 1618–1622.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Mehlich A. Determination of P, K, Na, Ca, Mg and NH₄. Soil Test Division Mimeo, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC USA. 1953.

[ref50] 50. Rowell DL. Soil Science: Methods and Applications. Longman Publishers Ltd., London, UK. 1994. Pages: 169. ISBN: 0-582-087848.

[ref51] 51. Kuo S. Phosphorus. In: Methods of soil analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods. Sparks DL (ed.) Agronomy 9. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis, USA. 1996. p. 869–920.

[ref52] 52. Paramananthan S. Soils of Malaysia: Their Characteristics and Identification. Vol. 1. Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2000. ISBN: 9839445065, pp. 11–125.

[ref53] 53. Gichangi EM, Mnkeni PNS, Brookes PC. Effects of goat manure and inorganic phosphate addition on soil inorganic and microbial biomass phosphorus fractions under laboratory incubation conditions. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2009; 55(6): 764–771.
View Article
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Paulos D. Availability of phosphorus in the coffee soil of Southwest Ethiopia. In: Soil the Resource Base for Survival: Proceeding of the 2nd Conference of Ethiopian Society of Soil Science (ESSS ‘93), AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 23–24 September 1993. Tekalign M, H. Mitiku H. (Eds.) 1996. p. 119–129.

[ref55] 55. Bidin A. Phosphorus utilization in rainfed agriculture in Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the second IMPHOS Regional Seminar: Southern Asia, Fertility Association of India, New Delhi. 1986. p. 161–172.

[ref56] 56. Latifah O, Ahmed OH, Majid NMA. Enhancing nutrients use efficiency and grain yield of Zea mays L. cultivated on a tropical acid soil using paddy husk compost and clinoptilolite zeolite. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 2017; 23(3): 418–428.
View Article
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Cerozi SD., Fitzsimmons K. 2016. The effect of pH on phosphorus availability and speciation in an aquaponics nutrient solution. Bioresour. Technol. 219: 778–781. pmid:27575336
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Schachtman DP, Reid RJ. Ayling SM. Phosphorus uptake by plants: From soil to cell. Plant Physiol. 1998; 116:447–453. pmid:9490752
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Leinonen H, Letho J. Purification of metal finishing waste waters with zeolites and activated carbons. Waste Management and Research, 2001; 19: 45–57 pmid:11525475
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Harter RD. "Acid soils of the tropics," Echo Technical Note 48, 2012; 1–7,
View Article
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Basak BB, Biswas DR. Potentiality of Indian rock phosphate as liming material in acid soil. Geoderma. 2016;263: 104–109
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Kochian KV. Cellular mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance in plant. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 1995; 46: 237–260.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Okalebo JR, Gathua KW, Woomer PL. Laboratory Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis. 2nd edn. KARI, SSSEA, Moi University and SACRED Africa. 2002.

[ref64] 64. Vaananen R, Hristov J, Tanskanen N, Hartikainen H, Nieminen M, Ilvesniemi H. Phosphorus sorption properties in podzolic forest soils and soil solution phosphorus concentration in undisturbed and disturbed soil profiles, Boreal Environment Research, 2008; 13: 553–567.
View Article
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Gasparatos D, Haidouti C, Haroulis A, Tsaousidou P. Estimation of phosphorus status of soil Fe-enriched concretions with the acid ammonium oxalate method, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2006; 37: 2375–2387.
View Article
Google Scholar

[150] View Article

[151] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Hamon RE, McLaughlin MJ. Interferences in the determination of isotopically exchangeable P in soils and a method to minimise them, Australian Journal of Soil Research, 2002; 40: 1383–1397
View Article
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Duputel M, Devau N, Brossard M, Jaillard B, Hinsinger P, Gérard F. Citrate adsorption can decrease soluble phosphate concentration in soils: Result of theoretical modeling. Applied Geochemistry, 2013; 35: 120–131.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Pavinato PS,Merlin A, Rosolem CA. Phosphorus fractions in Brazilian Cerrado soils as affected by tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 2009; 105: 149–155.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Jalali M, Ranjbar F. Aging effects on phosphorus transformation rate and fractionation in some calcareous soils. Geoderma. 2010; 155: 101–106.
View Article
Google Scholar

[162] View Article

[163] Google Scholar

[ref70] 70. Kolahchi Z., Jalali M. Speciation of Phosphorus in Phosphorus-Amended and Leached Calcareous Soils Using Chemical Fractionation. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 2012; 21(2); 395–400.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Zhang TQ., Mackenzie AF. Changes of soil phosphorous fractions under long-term corn monoculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997a; 61, 485,
View Article
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. Zhang TQ., Mackenzie AF. Changes of phosphorous fractions under continuous corn production in a temperate clay soil. Plant Soil, 1997b;192, 133,
View Article
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Chacon N, Silver WL, Dubinsky EA, Cusack DF. Iron reduction and soil phosphorus solubilization in humid tropical forests soils: The roles of labile carbon pools and an electron shuttle compound. Biogeochemistry, 2006;78:67–84.
View Article
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Liptzin D, Silver WL. Effects of carbon additions on iron reduction and phosphorus availability in a humid tropical forest soil, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2009; 41(8): 1696–1702,
View Article
Google Scholar

[177] View Article

[178] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. Cross AF, Schlesinger WH. A literature review and evaluation of the Hedley fractionation: Applications to the biogeochemical cycle of soil phosphorus in natural ecosystems. Geoderma, 1995; 64: 197–214.
View Article
Google Scholar

[180] View Article

[181] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Melese A, Gebrekidan H, Yli-halla M, Yitaferu B. Phosphorus Status, Inorganic Phosphorus Forms, and Other Physicochemical Properties of Acid Soils of Farta District, Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2015. Article ID 748390, 11 pages.
View Article
Google Scholar

[183] View Article

[184] Google Scholar

[ref77] 77. Adhami E, Owliaie HR, Molavi R, Rashti MR, Esfandbod M. Effect of soil properties on phosphorus fractions in subtropical soils of Iran. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 2013;13:11–21.
View Article
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] Google Scholar

[ref78] 78. Iyamuremye F, Dick RP. Organic amendments and phosphorus sorption by soils. Advances in Agronomy, 1996; 56: 139–185.
View Article
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] Google Scholar

[ref79] 79. Fan MX, Mackenzie AF. Urea and phosphate interactions in fertilizers microsites: ammonia volatilizations and pH changes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1993; 57: 839–845.
View Article
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] Google Scholar

[ref80] 80. Fenn LB, Tatum G, Horst G. Ammonia loss from surface-applied mixtures of urea-calcium-potassium salts in the presence of phosphorus. Fertilizer Research, 1990; 21: 125–131.
View Article
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] Google Scholar

[ref81] 81. Fenn LB, Richards J. Ammonia loss from surface applied urea-acid products. Fertilizer Research, 1989; 9: 265–275.
View Article
Google Scholar

[198] View Article

[199] Google Scholar

[ref82] 82. Goto I, Ninaki M. Studies on the agriculture utilization of natural zeolites as soil conditioners, III: Determination of the ion-exchange selectivity coefficients of natural zeolites. Journal of Agriculture Science, Tokyo Nogyo, Daigaku. 1980; 25:164–168.
View Article
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] Google Scholar

[ref83] 83. Rahmani AR, Mahvi AH, Mesdaghinia AR, Nasseri S. Investigation of ammonia removal from polluted waters by clinoptilolite zeolite. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2004; 1: 125–133
View Article
Google Scholar

[204] View Article

[205] Google Scholar

[ref84] 84. Cassman KG, Dobermann A, Walters D. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 2002; 31(2):132–140.
View Article
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] Google Scholar

[ref85] 85. Kavoosi M. Effects of Zeolite Application on Rice Yield, Nitrogen Recovery, and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2007; 38(1): 69–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/00103620601093652
View Article
Google Scholar

[210] View Article

[211] Google Scholar

[ref86] 86. Grant C, Bittman S, Montreal M, Plenchette C, Morel C, Transfert T, Cycle S. Soil and fertilizer phosphorus: Effects on plant P supply and mycorrhizal development. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2005; 85: 3–14
View Article
Google Scholar

[213] View Article

[214] Google Scholar

[ref87] 87. Beqiraj E, Gjoka F, Muller F, Baillif P. Use of zeolitic material from munella region (Albania) as fertilizer in the sandy soils of Divjaka region (Albania). Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2008;3: 33–47.
View Article
Google Scholar

[216] View Article

[217] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Experimental site description

Experimental design and treatments

Plot establishment, planting, and maintenance

Crop data collection procedures and nutrient analysis

Determination of mineral soil, P fertilizers, and CZ properties

Mineral soil properties

Phosphorus fertilizers and Clinoptilolite zeolite properties

Statistical analysis

Results & discussion

Selected soil chemical properties

Phosphorus availability

Dynamics of phosphorus speciation

Maize yields and dry matter production

Nutrient uptake and agronomic efficiency

Conclusion

Recommendation

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Initial percentages of inorganic P speciation in Typic Paleudults.

S2 Fig. Mean monthly rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperatures of the study area (Source:Malaysian Meteorological Department, 2014).

S3 Fig. Mechanism of P uptake and efficient use with zeolite intervention in an acid soil.

Acknowledgments

References