% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Koch:864339,
      author       = {Koch, Maximilian and Guppy, Christopher and Amelung, Wulf
                      and Gypser, Stella and Bol, Roland and Seidel, Sabine and
                      Siebers, Nina},
      title        = {{I}nsights into 33phosphorus utilisation from {F}e- and
                      {A}l-hydroxides in {L}uvisol and {F}erralsol subsoils},
      journal      = {Soil research},
      volume       = {57},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {1838-675X},
      address      = {Collingwood, Victoria},
      publisher    = {CSIRO},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-04135},
      pages        = {447 - 458},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {There is currently relatively little available information
                      on subsoil phosphorus (P) use for crop production as a
                      function of soil order. In this study, a rhizobox experiment
                      was performed using subsoils of two reference soil groups,
                      an Orthic Ferralsol and a Haplic Luvisol. To evaluate the
                      immediate P uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) from
                      different subsoil P pools during 14 days of growth, subsoil
                      bands were spiked with KH2PO4 solution associated to
                      Fe-hydroxide (33P-Fe), to Al-hydroxide (33P-Al), in free
                      form (33P-OrthoP), or in trace amounts without any
                      additional 31P (33P-NoP). At the beginning of the
                      experiment, the soil water content was set at $75\%$ of
                      water-holding capacity, corresponding to an initial soil
                      matric potential of −12 ± 1 kPa. During plant growth,
                      soil moisture decreased in both soils, but soil matric
                      potentials in both soils did not drop below field capacity
                      (−33 kPa; pF 2.5). The shoot dry weights of the Ferralsol
                      were 1.2 to 1.8 times those of the Luvisol. Despite elevated
                      soil P availability in the Luvisol, shoot P concentrations
                      did not differ between the two soils. The amount of 33P
                      taken up by the shoots from the oxide phases was $15\%$ to
                      $40\%$ greater in the Ferralsol treatments than in those in
                      the Luvisol treatments. It was concluded that the more
                      favourable physical soil conditions facilitated 33P uptake
                      from both oxidic phases from the Ferralsol subsoil relative
                      to the Luvisol subsoil, despite better P phytoavailability
                      in the latter.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {640},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
                      (POF3-255)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000475314600002},
      doi          = {10.1071/SR18223},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/864339},
}