Mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus with different P sources: results from three long-term field experiments

Mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus with different P sources: results from three long-term field experiments | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus with different P sources: results from three long-term field experiments Pablo Raguet, Sabine Houot, Denis Montenach, Alain Mollier, Noura Ziadi, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Phosphorus (P) is a major nutrient for crops, and its application to agricultural soils as inorganic or organic fertilizer is crucial for optimising P availability to plants to sustain and ensure food production. The mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus (SOP) may play a significant role in supplying plant-available P. This study aimed to determine the SOP mineralisation rate in soils cropped under contrasting agropedoclimatic conditions. The rate was determined by applying to SOP the modelling approach developed by Hénin and Dupuis in 1945 for soil organic carbon. We used three French long-term field experiments (LTFEs) on P fertilisation combining different P rates (0–112 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ), applied for decades as superphosphate or various organic waste products (OWPs), on different soil types, and different annual crop successions. These databases include long time-series data of topsoil SOP and soil inorganic phosphorus (SIP) contents and annual crop measurements. For the three LTFEs, the initial SOP stocks were 446, 595, and 1145 kg P ha -1 , the P amounts exported during harvest were 26.5, 26.6, and 25.3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 , and the P remaining in the topsoil as crop residues were 15.0, 14.4, and 11.5 kg P ha -1 yr -1 with significant differences across yields, plant organs, and fertilisation treatments. During the post-harvest year, 2.5, 7.9, and 11.0 kg P ha -1 yr -1 were incorporated into SOP by the decomposition of crop residues and OWPs. The rates of SOP mineralisation, 2.1, 5.4, and 11.2 kg P ha -1 yr -1 , differed significantly across the LTFEs. The SOP stocks did not change significantly with the years of cropping and fertilisation, irrespective of P fertilisation. The SIP stocks closely corresponded to the cumulative P budget (i.e., cumulative sum of applied P – exported P). Agroecosystems long-term field experiment organic waste fertilizers phosphorus soil-plant cycling Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1 Introduction Agricultural systems face crucial issues regarding phosphorus (P) management. Previous studies have highlighted i) the risk of shortage of rock phosphate reserves, the raw materials used to produce synthetic P fertilisers, because of increasing consumption over the next decades due to growing demand for food, and ii) the risk of geopolitical tension on this resource (Cordell & White, 2011 ; Cordell et al., 2009 ; Tilman et al., 2002 ). Alternative P sources for mineral P fertilisers, such as organic waste products (OWPs) (urban composts) and animal manure, can help avoid a possible future shortage of P fertilisers. Environmental risks are another major issue in P management in agricultural soils (Némery & Garnier, 2007 ; Pinay et al., 2018 ; Sharpley et al., 2016 ). The runoff of particulate and dissolved P from fields towards water bodies can contribute to the alteration of water quality during eutrophication. Therefore, improving the management of plant-available soil P and our understanding of the soil P cycling processes in agroecosystems is crucial. Using OWPs instead of synthetic fertilisers is a common practice that can replenish soil P pools and potentially replace industrial inorganic fertilisers (Diacono & Montemurro, 2011 ). Indeed, repeated OWP applications in agriculture are based on the addition of carbon (C) or nitrogen (N) to agricultural soils or their role in improving soil stability, soil C, or organic matter storage (Annabi et al., 2007 ; Gopinath et al., 2008 ; Paetsch et al., 2016 ). However, the C:N:P ratio of OWPs is highly variable owing to its origin, composting parameters, and storage methods. Therefore, using these products can lead to a highly variable P supply (Fuchs et al., 2014 ). Phosphate ions in the soil solution (H 2 PO 4 - and HPO 4 2- for the range of cropped soil pH) are the P compounds absorbed by plants and microorganisms. Phosphate ions absorbed by plants can be converted into organic P compounds or stored as inorganic P compounds (Noack et al., 2012 , 2014 ). Therefore, crop residues and OWPs contain organic and inorganic forms of P. Their decomposition in soil via biogeochemical processes supplies soil inorganic phosphorus (SIP) and soil organic phosphorus (SOP) stocks (Arenberg & Arai, 2019 ; Giles et al., 2018 ; He et al., 2011 ). The mineralisation of SOP is worth a potential source of phosphate ions for plants and might play a significant role in plant nutrition. The same is true for crop residues and OWPs: the decomposition and mineralisation of their organic P compounds by enzymatic hydrolysis (i.e., by phosphatases; Dodd and Sharpley, 2015 ; Nannipieri et al., 2011 ) released phosphate ions into solution and increased the inorganic P pool. However, limited information exists on the mineralisation rate of SOP and the incorporation of P into SOP during the decomposition of crop residues and OWPs, as well as phosphate ions release in the SIP pool. The purpose of this study was to determine SOP mineralisation rates in different soil types under various management practices and climates. Recently, Raguet et al. ( 2023 ) adapted a two-compartment model to describe long-term soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics and assess the SOP mineralisation rate and residence time. We applied this modelling approach using databases containing time-series of data on soils and plants from three long-term field experiments (LTFEs) conducted in France for 18, 17, and 14 years on superphosphate or OWP applications in contrasting agro-pedoclimatic situations characterised by various soil types and textures, different cropping systems, and climatic conditions. 2 Materials and methods 2.1 Long-term field experiments description Three French LTFEs conducted by the INRAE ( Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement ) were selected (Table 1 ). Each LTFE was organised in a completely randomised block design with four replicates per treatment. Treatment abbreviations are combined with the average P application rate per year in the subscripts. The first field trial (LTFE1) was part of the French network on P fertilisation (Boniface & Trocmé, 1988 ) and was created in the 70s to study the effects of mineral P fertilisers under various agropedoclimatic conditions. Additional information to Table 1 , including irrigation and lime management, can be found in Morel et al. ( 2021 )⁠. Table 1 Site characteristics and cropping practices. Site designation LTFE1 LTFE2 LTFE3 Municipality Mant Feucherolles Colmar Site coordinate 43°35’N ; 0°30’W 48°53’N; 1°58’E 48°04’N; 7°21’E Altitude (m) 188 177 205 Climate Oceanic sub-humid Oceanic sub-humid degraded Semi-continental Annual rainfall (mm) 917 572 556 Annual temp. (°C) 13.2 11 10.9 Width (m) × length (m) 6 × 30 10 × 45 9 ×10 Crop succession a maize monoculture maize/wheat b maize/wheat/barley/ sugar beet Experiment dates (duration) 1975–1992 (18 year) 1998–2016 (17 year) 2000–2014 (14 year) Soil class ( FAO 2014 ) Luvic arenosol Glossic luvisol Calcaric cambisol Soil texture Silt loam Silt loam Silt loam Treatments 1 control and 2 doses triple superphosphate (TSP): [Ca(H 2 PO 4 ) 2 ·2H 2 O, 2 % P] 1 control, 4 OWP c applied at: 1998–2013: 4 t C ha -1 2 year- 1 2015: 2t C ha -1 yr -1 2014: AXE-NP-BIO d , control 2016: AXE-NP-BIO d , all plots 1 control, 5 OWP e applied at 170 kg N yr -1 Average annual P fertilisation (kg P ha -1 yr -1 ) 0 (CON 0 ) 27 (TSP 27 ) 79 (TSP 79 ) 3 (CON 3 ) 24 (MSW 24 ) 40 (FYM 40 ) 46 (BIOW 46 ) 112 (GWS 112 ) 8 (CON 8 ) 17 (BIOW 17 ) 21 (FYM 21 ) 21 (FYMC 21 ) 36 (SLU 36 ) 45 (GWS 45 ) Additional TSP fertilisation (kg P-TSP ha -1 ) - No mineral P fertilisation 2007: 46, all plots 2011: 11 on FYMC, 31 on BIOW, 72 on CON N fertilisation (kg N ha -1 yr -1 ) Optimal rate f sowing: 20–50 May: 180–200 Up to 2013: optimal rate g 80–140 Adjusted for optimal N supply: twice year as urea and ammo-nitrate K fertilisation (kg K ha -1 yr -1 ) Optimal rate (as KCl) 80–100 No K fertilisation 2007 and 2007: potassium sulfate a details on crop succession are in supplementary information, section B. b spring barley were cropped in 2007 due to local infestation by chrysomela . c total of 10 applications. d new source for applying optimal N rate was used: a mixture of meat and bone powder and blood flour; AFNOR standardised product according to NF U42-001, containing 6% of N and 2.2% of P. CON received 47 kg P ha -1 in 2014. All plots received 16 kg P ha -1 in 2015. e application twice lower than the European Nitrates Directive. f ammo-nitrate NH 4 NO 3 (33.5% N). g 1:1 urea and ammo-nitrate solution (39% N). The second (LTFE2) and third field trial (LTFE3) form part of the SOERE-PRO network ( Système d’Observations et d’Expérimentations pour la Recherche en Environnement sur les Produits Résiduaires Organiques ). In LTFE2, the fertilisation treatments studied were three composts with municipal solid waste compost (MSW), biowaste compost (BIOW), green waste and dehydrated urban sewage sludge compost (GWS), and cattle dairy farmyard manure (FYM), and a control without any OWPs (CON). Further details on the origin of OWPs and composting parameters can be found in the Supplementary Information (Table 1 -SI) and (Annabi et al., 2007 , 2011 ). In 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013, 71%, 75%, 70%, 75%, and 84% of wheat and barley straw were exported, respectively. The remaining aboveground residue returned to the soil for the entire maize stem. Details of crop succession and management have been described by Chalhoub et al. ( 2013 ) and Paetsch et al. ( 2016 ). For the LTFE3, we used one of four experimental set-ups (Chen et al. 2022 ). The treatments included a control (CON) without any OWP application and five different types of OWP supplemented with mineral N fertilisation. The OWP types included BIOW, FYM, FYM after composting (FYMC), dehydrated urban sewage sludge (SLU), and GWS. The OWP applied to the soil was buried the day after application. Details of the OWPs, crop species, soil sampling dates, dates of OWP application, amounts of applied OWP, and mineral fertiliser are provided by Chen et al. ( 2022 ). Further information on the OWP origin and composting parameters is provided in the Supplementary Information (Table 2 -SI). 2.2 Characteristics of OWPs The main characteristics of the compost, farmyard manure, and dehydrated sewage sludge in LTFE2 and LTFE3 are listed in Table 2 . The OWPs were sampled before application, air-dried, and ground (< 250 µm) for analysis. Samples were analysed at the Laboratoire d'Analyses des Sols INRAE (Arras, France) using normalisation techniques (AFNOR, 1999 ). Dry matter content was determined after heating at 105°C. The pH water was measured in an OWP:water suspension with a volumetric ratio of 1:5 according to NF ISO 10390. The total N and organic C concentrations were determined by combustion according to NF ISO 10694 and NF ISO 13878, respectively. CaCO 3 was determined by measuring the CO 2 from HCl (NF ISO 10693) sample digestion. Total P concentrations (TP HF ) were determined after wet digestion with concentrated fluorhydric (HF) and perchloric (HClO 4 ) acids (NF X 31–147). The organic P concentrations in the OWP were determined using the ignition method of Saunders and Williams ( 1955 ). Inorganic P concentrations were calculated as the difference between the TP HF and organic P in the OWP. 2.3 Plant analysis In the LTFE1, plants were collected annually from the two central rows of maize to avoid edge effects. Grains were dried at 105°C to determine crop yield (t DM ha -1 ). The P content in the harvested grains was measured each year using the colorimetric method after wet digestion of sub-samples in H 2 SO 4 and H 2 O 2 solutions, according to Murphy and Riley ( 1962 ). The amount of P returned to the soil-laying maize aboveground residues was not measured in the LTFE. We computed P for all years of cropping using the equation proposed for maize monoculture by Raguet et al. ( 2023 ), in which belowground P depends on P in the harvested grain, on P harvest index and on cumulative P budget (Bcum). In both LTFE2 and LTFE3, grains and aboveground residues were sampled each year. Samples were weighted and oven-dried at 40°C. The grains and aboveground residues P contents were analysed at the central plant-testing laboratory (USRAVE, INRAE). Plant sub-samples were ground and then calcinated at 480°C for 5 h, then solubilized in nitric and hydrofluoric acids to determine TP HF content by radial ICP-AES (Masson et al., 2010 ). The annual exported P in harvest was calculated by multiplying grain yield or aboveground residues biomass by their respective P content. Table 2 Main properties of organic waste product (OWP), applied repeatedly at LTFE2 and LTFE3. Values are means ± std. err. of 10 and 7 applications, sampled over years, at LTFE2 and LTFE3, respectively. MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: bio-waste compost. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha -1 yr -1 . Values between parentheses are organic P proportions within total P (TP HF ). Different lower case letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among treatments within LTFEs ( α = 0.05). LTFE Organic product Dry matter (%) pH water Organic C (g kg -1 DM) Total N (g kg -1 DM) TP HF (g kg -1 DM) Organic P (g kg -1 DM) LTFE2 MSW 24 87 ± 4 7.6 ± 0.2 b 311 ± 13 a 17 ± 1 c 3.6 ± 0.2 b 0.32 ± 0.03 (9) b FYM 40 78 ± 8 9.1 ± 0.1 a 324 ± 20 a 22 ± 1 ab 5.8 ± 0.4 b 2.08 ± 0.15 (34) a BIOW 46 90 ± 3 8.1 ± 0.2 b 219 ± 17 b 18 ± 1 bc 4.7 ± 0.5 b 0.35 ± 0.05 (8) b GWS 112 86 ± 4 7.5 ± 0.2 b 267 ± 13 ab 23 ± 1 a 12.8 ± 1.0 a 2.10 ± 0.17 (16) a P -value 0.45 < 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 LTFE3 BIOW 17 60 ± 5 a 8.5 ± 0.1 b 245 ± 20 b 20 ± 1 c 4.4 ± 0.3 d 0.31 ± 0.02 (7) c FYM 21 19 ± 1 b 9.5 ± 0.1 a 395 ± 21 a 26 ± 1 b 6.6 ± 0.7 cd 2.39 ± 0.24 (36) b FYMC 21 19 ± 1 b 9.4 ± 0.1 a 356 ± 30 a 26 ± 1 b 7.5 ± 0.5 c 2.71 ± 0.17 (36) b SLU 36 18 ± 1 b 7.2 ± 0.3 c 371 ± 33 a 61 ± 2 a 29.2 ± 0.6 a 4.96 ± 0.10 (17) a GWS 45 56 ± 3 a 7.6 ± 0.2 c 294 ± 55 b 25 ± 1 bc 13.6 ± 1.3 b 2.17 ± 0.17 (16) b P -value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 For all LTFEs, the annual P budget was calculated as the difference between P applied as triple superphosphate (TSP) or OWP and the annual P exported, Bcum, by compounding successive annual budgets. The amount of P in root residues (except sugar beet) was calculated considering the amount of P in aboveground residues and average values of root-to-shoot parameters previously published, that is, 0.18, 0.38, and 0.49 for maize, wheat, and barley, respectively (Amanullah, 2014 ; Amanullah et al., 2015; Bolinder et al., 1997 ; Rajala & Peltonen-Sainio, 2001 ; Yu et al. 2015 )⁠. We assumed that 3% of the grain yield was lost at harvest and returned to the soil (Wang et al., 2021 ). 2.4 Main soil properties The main soil properties (Table 3 ) were assessed according to French AFNOR and ISO standards (AFNOR, 1999 )⁠. Sedimentation analyses to determine the soil particle size were carried out according to the NF X 31–107 and ISO 11277 standards. Total soil carbonate concentration was determined according to NF ISO 10693. In LTFE1, the pH water was measured in a soil suspension with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:2.5 (m:v) (NF ISO 10390). SOC was determined by sulfochromic oxidation using an excess potassium dichromate solution and sulphuric acid (NF ISO 14235). Total nitrogen was measured using a modified Kjeldahl method (NF ISO 11261). In LTFE2, pH water was measured in a soil suspension with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:5 (v:v) (NF ISO 10390). The SOC was determined by combustion (NF ISO 10694). Total nitrogen was measured using total elemental analysis (NF ISO 13878). In LTFE3, the pH water was measured using the same method as that for LTFE2. SOC was determined according to NF ISO 14235, and total nitrogen was measured according to NF ISO 13878. For all LTFEs, the cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations were evaluated using cobaltihexamine (NF ISO 23470). Table 3 Main soil physico-chemical properties of the plough layer at the three studied LTFEs. Values are means ± std. dev. For LTFE1, values are means (n = 4) for soils sampled in TSP 27 treatment in march 1992. For LTFE2 and LTFE3, values are means for all experimental plots and years of soil sampling (n = 140 and n = 144, for LTFE2 and LTFE3 respectively). LTFE LTFE1 LTFE2 LTFE3 Bulk density (g cm -3 ) 1.40 1.32 1.34 Plough layer depth (cm) 25 25 28 Clay [< 2 µm] (%) 12 ± 1 15 ± 7 21 ± 1 Silt [2–50 µm] (%) 52 ± 1 78 ± 5 70 ± 1 Sand [50–2000 µm] (%) 36 ± 1 7 ± 4 9 ± 1 CaCO 3 (g kg -1 ) < 1 < 1 114 ± 13 TP HF (mg kg -1 ) 429 ± 78 697 ± 135 1148 ± 51 SOP (mg kg -1 ) 129 ± 13 172 ± 42 322 ± 35 Total N (g kg -1 ) 1.0 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.2 1.4 ± 0.1 Organic C (g kg -1 ) 9.3 ± 0.9 12.5 ± 2.0 14.6 ± 1.0 pH water 7.3 ± 0.4 7.2 ± 0.3 8.3 ± 0.1 CEC (cmol c kg -1 ) 5.9 ± 0.8 9.8 ± 0.9 16.9 ± 0.5 Ca (cmol c kg -1 ) 7.1 ± 1.5 9.1 ± 1.0 16.7 ± 0.6 Mg (cmol c kg -1 ) 0.4 ± 0.1 0.59 ± 0.15 0.98 ± 0.10 K (cmol c kg -1 ) 0.3 ± 0.1 0.50 ± 0.21 0.63 ± 0.14 2.5 Soil phosphorus analysis The plowed soil layers were sampled using the NF X 31–100 standard in each experimental plot after crop harvest and before OWP application. At LTFE1, the soils were sampled (0–25 cm depth) in 1975 (before the onset of the experiment), 1982, 1987, and 1992. At LTFE2, soils were sampled (0–25 cm depth) in 1998 (before the onset of the experiment), 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. At LTFE3, the soil was sampled (0–28 cm depth) in 2000 (before the onset of the experiment), 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. Each soil sample was obtained by mixing 10–12 randomly collected cores from each plot and avoiding edge effects. Mixed samples were air-dried at 40°C before being ground to pass through a 2 mm mesh sieving. SOP concentrations were determined for each sample using the ignition and acid extraction method described by Saunders and Williams ( 1955 ). The TP HF in all soil samples was determined according to the NF X 31–147 standard. Soils were ground (< 0.150 mm) and ignited (450°C), then digested in concentrated fluorhydric (HF) and perchloric (HClO 4 ) acids. After filtration, the P content of the digested solution was determined using ICP-OES. The SIP value is the difference between the TP HF and the SOP. 2.6 Modelling SOP dynamics Raguet et al. ( 2023 ) described the long-term SOP dynamics in cropped soils by adapting the two-compartment model developed by Hénin and Dupuis ( 1945 ) to simulate SOC dynamics. They applied this modelling approach to determine the coefficient k of gross SOP mineralisation in a long-term field experiment on superphosphate applications over 28 years. We applied the same modelling approach to determine the k coefficient and assessed the resulting rate of gross SOP mineralisation in three other agropedoclimatic situations (i.e., LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3), which covered a wider range of fertiliser applications (superphosphate or OWP), soil types, climates, and crop rotations. Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of the model describing soil organic P stock and P fluxes and processes that drives its dynamics. The P inputs as crop residues and total P in OWP are either released (1-h fraction) in solution as phosphate ions or incorporated (h fraction) into the soil organic P stock (SOP). The SOP stock mineralizes according to the k mineralization constant. The SOP dynamic model considered only two P compartments (Fig. 1 ): P applied as organic materials (i.e., aboveground residues, including grains lost at harvest, belowground residues, or OWPs) and SOP compartments. This SOP compartment was supplied by a fraction (incorporation coefficient h, dimensionless) of organic inputs and was subjected to mineralisation according to first-order kinetics with the k (yr -1 ) decay constant (where 1/k is the residence time in years). The remaining (1-h) was released into the solution as phosphate ions and easily degradable inorganic and organic P compounds. The SOP dynamic model computed the SOP stock at a yearly time step with the following equation: $${SOP}_{t+1}=\left(\frac{\sum \left({P}_{j}\times {h}_{j}\right)}{k}\right)\times \left(1-{e}^{-k}\right)+{SOP}_{t}\times {e}^{-k}$$ 1 where SOP t and SOP t+1 stocks are the SOP stock (kg ha -1 ) in years t and t + 1, respectively; SOP t=0 is the stock at the onset of the experiment; P j (kg P ha -1 yr -1 ) is the annual P input j as crop residues and OWPs, and h j (dimensionless) represents the fraction of P j incorporated into SOP over one year. The input data sets needed to run the model were P j and h j (Table 4) from plant residue and OWP applications, SOP t=0 and k values. As P j and SOP t=0 have been determined experimentally and h j is assessed from the literature (Table 4). Eq. ( 1 ) was used to calculate the k value for each experimental plot iteratively by minimising the residual sum of squares between the simulated SOP stocks and the time-series of field-observed SOP stocks. Table 4 Average of published values of the h incorporation coefficient (dimensionless) of crop residues to the stock of soil organic phosphorus (SOP) across crops and types of organic products. Data on N and C decomposition were used when P data were not available. The h coefficients were set for each plant part, crop, and OWP according to the literature on crop residues and urban composts, farmyard manure, or dehydrated urban sewage sludge decomposition. Data on N and C decomposition were used when P data were not available. Parameter Value Reference(s) Maize h ag 0.14 Buchanan & King, 1993 ; Linères & Lubet, 1990 ; Mubarak et al., 2002 h bg 0.17 Singh & Shekhar, 1989 h gr 0.40 Doolette et al., 2010 ; Noack et al., 2012 , 2014 ; Steffens et al., 2010 Root-to-Shoot 0.18 Raguet et al., 2023 Wheat h ag 0.40 Jalali & Ranjbar, 2009 ; Lupwayi et al., 2007 ; Soon & Arshad, 2002 h bg 0.38 Martin & Cunninghamt, 1973 ; Soon & Arshad, 2002 h gr 0.19 Noack et al 2012 ; Noack et al 2014 ; Steffens et al 2010 ; Doolette et al 2010 Root-to-Shoot 0.38 Bolinder 1997; Amanullah et al 2014; Amanullah 2014 ; Rajala and Peltonen 2001 Barley h ag 0.15 Christensen, 1986 ; Gioacchini et al., 2016 ; from publication on N h bg 0.38 supposed similar to wheat h gr 0.22 Noack et al 2012 ; Noack et al 2014 ; Steffens et al 2010 ; Doolette et al 2010 Root-to-Shoot 0.49 Bolinder 1997; Amanullah et al 2014; Rajala and Peltonen 2001 Sugar beet h ag 0.77 Thomsen & Christensen, 1996 , 1998 ; based on nitrogen residues decomposition Dehydrated urban sewage sludge h OWP 0.46 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model Compost of green waste and urban sewage sludge h OWP 1 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model Biowaste compost h OWP 1 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model Cattle dairy farmyard manure h OWP 0.99 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model Compost of cattle dairy farmyard manure h OWP 0.71 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model Municipal solid waste compost h OWP 0.81 Levavasseur et al 2020 , based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model 2.7 Statistical analysis All statistical analyses and modelling were performed using the free software R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team, 2021 )⁠. Data residue normality and variance homogeneity were tested beforehand using Shapiro and Bartlett tests, respectively. The effects of fertilisation treatments on yield, exported P, applied P (as crop residues and OWPs), and P incorporated into SOP were investigated using one-way ANOVA for a given LTFE and tested using linear mixed effect models fitted by a restrictive maximum likelihood method with the lme function from the nlme R package (Pinheiro et al., 2021). Fertilisation treatment, year, and their interactions were the fixed effects tested. Random effects were blocked to account for spatial pseudoreplication (4 repetitions). Years were used as the continuous time variable used to fit a first-order autoregressive variance structure to consider non-independent measurements within the plots. When effects were significant, differences between treatments or years were investigated with a post-hoc Tukey test at a significance level of α = 0.05. The coefficients (intercept and slope) of the linear regressions describing the SOP and SIP stocks versus Bcum values were estimated using the lm function. The k values were determined iteratively for each experimental plot with the optim function and the ‘‘L-BFGS-B’’ method (allows to bound k between 0.001 and 1 year- 1 ) to minimise the residual sum of squares of time-series of simulated compared to observed SOP values. We used the standardised major axis regression (SMA) proposed by Correndo et al. ( 2021a ) to evaluate the adequacy between the observed and predicted data sets, as they showed that SMA is the most appropriate approach to fit a symmetric line describing the predicted-observed scatter. In addition, the SMA procedure allows the decomposition of the model error into percentage lack of accuracy (PLA) and percentage lack of precision (PLP). Model accuracy refers to the closeness between simulated and observed SOP values and is related to systematic bias. Model precision refers to the dispersion between the simulated and observed values and is related to an unsystematic (or random) bias. Several statistical criteria of adequacy between observations and simulations were used and calculated using the R-code tutorial proposed by Correndo et al. ( 2021b ): the coefficient of determination (R²) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The relative root-mean-squared error (RRMSE) of the model was used to compare the dispersion of the simulated values with the coefficient of variation of the observed SOP values. 3 Results 3.1 Crop yield, harvest phosphorus content, and exported phosphorus In LTFE1, the average maize grain yield was 8.4 ± 0.3 t ha -1 and ranged from a minimum of 4.8 ± 0.1 t ha -1 in 1977 to a maximum of 11.4 ± 0.3 t ha -1 in 1989 (Fig. 2 ), without differences among treatments ( P = 0.85). With OWP fertilisation, the yields in LTFE2 were not significantly different despite the discrepancies in P inputs among the different organic products ( P = 0.65). Without adding P fertilisation (except a low rate in 2014, 16 years from the start of the trial), yields (average: 7.5 ± 0.4 t ha -1 ) have decreased significantly than those in the other treatments (8.4 ± 0.1 t ha -1 ; P = 0.002). In LTFE3, average crop yields were 8.8 ± 0.4 t ha -1 . Despite the difference in P input through OWP and the control, no difference was observed in yield among the treatments ( P = 0.99). For the LTFE1 experiment, the average maize grains P content was 3.2 ± 0.1 g P kg -1 and was significantly affected by P rate ( P = 0.02), with a maximum for TSP 79 in 1984 (4.0 g P kg -1 ) and a minimum for CON 0 in 1992 (2.6 g P kg -1 ). The control treatment differentiated between the two TSPs in 1988 and remained significantly lower ( P = 0.003; Fig. 2 ). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, average harvest P contents were 3.1 ± 0.1 g P kg -1 , and no differences were observed among treatments ( P = 0.43 and 0.99 for LTFE2 and LTFE3, respectively). In LTFE1, the average exported P in harvest was 26.5 ± 0.8 kg P ha -1 , and all treatments presented a positive increase over time. However, this increase was lower for CON 0 , which began to differentiate from the other two treatments in 1984 (Fig. 2 ). In LTFE2, the exported P in CON 3 was slightly lower (23.0 ± 1.2 kg P ha -1 ) than the four other treatments (OWP average: 27.5 ± 0.7 kg P ha -1 ; P < 0.0001). Conversely, no difference among treatments was observed in LTFE3 with an average of 25.3 ± 0.6 kg P ha -1 ( P = 0.70). Figure 2 Annual yield, its P concentration and annual P exported as affected by fertilization treatments and years for the three studied LTFE. Values are means ± std. err. (n = 4). CON: no P applied; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha -1 yr -1 . 3.2 The OWP main composition On average, OWP applied at LTFE2 contained 280 ± 10 g C kg -1 , 20 ± 1 g N kg -1 and 6.7 ± 0.6 g P kg -1 . In LTFE3, OWPs were in the same concentration range with 332 ± 11 g C kg -1 , 32 ± 3 g N kg -1 , and 12.3 ± 1.6 g P kg -1 . In LTFE2 and LTFE3, the C, N, and P contents were significantly different from the OWPs (Table 2 ). The C:P ratios of the OWPs applied at LTFE2 were 1060 (MSW 24 ), 117 (FYM 40 ), 706 (BIOW 46 ), and 135 (GSW 112 ). At LTFE3, the N:P ratios were 65 (BIOW 17 ), 11 (FYM 21 ), 10 (FYMC 21 ), 12 (SLU 36 ), and 12 (GWS 45 ). Because of the highly different C:N:P ratios and fertilisation reasoning based on C or N, P inputs were highly variable among OWPs. Cumulative over 17 years of trial (LTFE2), ten OWP applications of 420, 699, 819, and 2008 kg P ha -1 were added to the soil for MSW 24 , FYM 40 , BIOW 46 , and GSW 112 . Cumulative organic P inputs (% of TP HF ) were respectively 37 (9%), 241 (34%), 64 (8%), and 325 (16%) kg P ha -1 . In LTFE3, the cumulative TP HF inputs were 250, 317, 317, 545, and 667 kg P ha -1 for BIOW 17 , FYM 21 , FYMC 21 , SLU 36 , and GWS 45 , respectively, including 18 (7%), 114 (36%), 114 (36%), 93 (17%), and 107 (16%) kg P ha -1 of organic P. 3.3 P incorporation to SOP and the release of phosphate ions in solution On average for all sites, years, and treatments, 39 ± 2 kg P ha -1 was applied to the soil through crop residues and OWPs, with significant differences between sites ( P < 0.0001), i.e., 15 ± 1 (LTFE1), 57 ± 7 (LTFE2), and 35 ± 4 (LTFE3) kg P ha -1 yr -1 . At all sites, the sum of all P inputs (i.e., aboveground, belowground, grain residues, and total P in OWPs) was significantly different among treatments (LTFE1, P = 0.02; LTFE2, P < 0.00001; LTFE3, P < 0.0001). Details on the average values, significant differences across treatments, and P inputs across years, treatments, and LTFEs are shown in SI: Tables 4-SI to 6-SI and Fig. 3 -SI. In LTFE1, aboveground residues represented the most important P flux from maize returned to the soil (average of 7.8 ± 0.3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ; 52%). Average P returned to aboveground and belowground residues increased significantly with increasing P addition (14.2 ± 0.5; P = 0.02), while P returned to grain residues was homogeneous among P fertilisation rates (0.8 ± 0.1 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ; P = 0.11). Therefore, cumulative P return within TSP 79 crop residues was higher than in TSP 27 or CON 0 (315 ± 2, 267 ± 5, and 224 ± 9 kg P ha -1 , respectively). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, the most important P input was P applied as OWP (44 ± 7 and 23 ± 3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ; 77% and 66%, respectively). Within crop residues, belowground residues represented the main P input flux (8.8 ± 0.5 and 7.4 ± 0.5 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ; 63% and 60%, respectively for LTFE2 and LTFE3). In the LTFE2 grain residues, FYM 40 was slightly higher than CON 3 ( P = 0.02); otherwise, no discrepancies were observed among treatments, regardless of the site or residue type. Therefore, cumulative crop residues P input in LTFE2 were 201 ± 6 (CON 3 ), 232 ± 6 (MSW 24 ), 256 ± 3 (FYM 40 ), 241 ± 6 (BIOW 46 ), and 257 ± 5 (GWS 112 ). In LTFE3, the cumulative P input in crop residues were 164 ± 3 (CON 8 ), 168 ± 1 (BIOW 17 ), 182 ± 4 (FYM 21 ), 180 ± 1 (FYMC 21 ), 176 ± 2 (SLU 36 ), and 175 ± 1 (GWS 45 ). On average, decomposition of crop residues and OWPs over one year released 12.5 ± 0.5, 46 ± 6, and 27 ± 3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 as phosphate ions in solution for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, i.e., 83% (LTFE1), 80% (LTFE2) and 71% (LTFE3) of P applied as OWPs and crop residues. Rates of P incorporated to SOP stock were 2.5 ± 0.1, 11.0 ± 1.4, and 7.9 ± 0.7 kg P ha -1 yr -1 for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively. 3.4 Multiannual evolution of SOP and SIP stocks compared to the cumulative P budget Averaged over treatments and years, TP HF stocks were 1500 ± 74, 2577 ± 89, and 4307 ± 27 kg P ha -1 in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, whose 451 ± 7, 635 ± 14, and 1209 ± 16 kg P ha -1 were SOP stocks and the remainder were SIP stocks (1048 ± 73, 1941 ± 85, and 3104 ± 30 kg P ha -1 ). In the LTFE1 treatment, 487 and 1448 kg P ha -1 were cumulatively applied to TSP 27 and TSP 79 , respectively. Therefore, SIP stock dynamics were significantly affected by treatments at all sites (Fig. 3 ; Table 3 -SI); SIP stock decreased when no P was applied, and increased significantly in LTFE1 and LTFE2 for treatments with the highest P inputs. Figure 3 Evolution of soil inorganic P (SIP, dotted line) and soil organic P (SOP, solid line) stocks in the ploughed layer as affected by plot cumulative P budget (Bcum). Values are means ± std. err. (n = 4). Lines are linear regressions and grey areas are confidence interval (95%) of the linear regressions. CON: no P input; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: biowaste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatments abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha-1 year-1. The initial SOP stocks varied significantly between sites ( P < 0.0001; Table 5 ; Fig. 3 ). In LTFE1, the SOP stocks remained stable over the 17 years of cropping (Fig. 3 ) because there were no significant differences among treatments and years (ANOVA: treatment P = 0.64; year P = 0.97). The SOP stocks in LTFE2 increased significantly (Fig. 3 ), regardless of the OWP treatment ( P = 0.30). LTFE2 and LTFE3 showed a significant positive increase in SOP stocks (Fig. 3 ). No treatment differences were observed ( P = 0.13). The average SOP mineralisation k coefficient, was 0.005 ± 0.001 year- 1 , 0.018 ± 0.004 year- 1 and 0.004 ± 0.001 year- 1 for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively. The corresponding average SOP residence times (1/k) were 217, 56, and 227 years, respectively. $${SOP}_{t+1}=\left(\frac{\sum \left({P}_{j}\times {h}_{j}\right)}{k}\right)\times \left(1-{e}^{-k}\right)+{SOP}_{t}\times {e}^{-k}$$ The k value at LTFE2 was significantly higher than that at the other two sites ( P < 0.0001), with a residence time of less than 100 years. LTFE2 was also the only site where the fertilisation treatment affected k optimisation, with MSW 24 at the lower limit set for optimisation (Table 5 ). Thus, the SOP residence time in the GWS 112 treatment was much shorter than the other treatments (approximately 30 years). However, the k differences in LTFE2 were not reflected in the gross annual rate of SOP mineralisation, and none of the sites had a treatment effect on this variable. On average, rates of SOP mineralisation were 2.1 ± 0.1, 11.2 ± 0.5, and 5.4 ± 0.3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 , for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, with significant differences between sites (Table 5 ). Table 5 Main features of the mineralisation of soil organic P (SOP) stocks (kg P ha -1 yr -1 ) in the plough layer of the three studied LTFEs. Parameters (± std. dev.) of initial stock; coefficient of SOP mineralisation: k (yr -1 ); 1/k: residence time (yr); annual rates of SOP mineralisation and incorporation (kg P ha -1 yr -1 ). Values are means ± std. err. Different lower-case letters (a, b, c) indicate significant ( α = 0.05) differences between treatments within a given LTFE. Different upper-case letters (A, B, C) indicate significant ( α = 0.05) differences between LTFEs. CON: no P input; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: cattle dairy farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: biowaste compost, TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha -1 yr -1 . Treatment Initial SOP stock Coefficient k 1/k Mineralisation rate Incorporation rate (OWP and residues) Decomposition rate (OWP and residues) kg P ha -1 yr -1 yr kg P ha -1 yr -1 kg P ha -1 yr -1 kg P ha -1 yr -1 LTFE1 CON 0 446 ± 13 B 0.0046 ± 0.0011 B 217 2.1 ± 0.1 C 2.1 ± 0.1 b 10.4 ± 0.4 b TSP 27 2.5 ± 0.1 ab 12.4 ± 0.7 ab TSP 79 2.9 ± 0.2 a 14.6 ± 1.0 a Treatment effect P -value 0.59 0.81 0.81 0.02 0.02 Mean over Treatments 2.5 ± 0.1 C 12.5 ± 0.5 C LTFE2 CON 3 595 ± 28 B 0.011 ± 0.006 ab 91 11.2 ± 0.5 A 3.1 ± 0.4 b 8 ± 1 c MSW 24 0.001 ± 0 b 1000 5.3 ± 0.8 b 31 ± 5 bc FYM 40 0.030 ± 0.003 a 33 17.8 ± 3.6 a 35 ± 6 b BIOW 46 0.015 ± 0.008 ab 67 6.9 ± 1.2 b 52 ± 10 b GWS 112 0.031 ± 0.011 a 32 21.8 ± 4.7 a 104 ± 22 a Treatment effect P -value 0.93 0.03 0.10 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Mean over Treatments 0.018 ± 0.004 A 56 11.0 ± 1 A 46 ± 6 A LTFE3 CON 8 1145 ± 22 A 0.0044 ± 0.0009 B 227 5.4 ± 0.3 B 3.6 ± 0.5 c 7 ± 1 c BIOW 17 4.9 ± 0.5 c 23 ± 5 b FYM 21 11.6 ± 2.3 a 22 ± 4 bc FYMC 21 9.4 ± 1.6 ab 24 ± 5 b SLU 36 6.8 ± 0.9 bc 41 ± 10 a GWS 45 11.0 ± 2.1 a 45 ± 11 a Treatment effect P -value 0.22 0.48 0.52 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Mean over Treatments 7.9 ± 0.7 B 27 ± 3 B LTFE effect P -value < 0.0001 0.0009 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 3.5 Model precision and accuracy In the three study sites, model precision and accuracy were high, with a regression slope line of the SMA of the simulated versus observed SOP close to 1 (Fig. 4 ) and an RMSE of 129 kg P ha -1 . The PLA was 7% and the PLP was (93%). Therefore, the apparent model with low precision and high accuracy was attributed to the initial SOP stocks, which were highly variable among and within sites (Table 5 ), limiting model precision. This statement was supported by an RRMSE (15%) that was twice as low as the coefficient of variation of the observed SOP (40% across all sites) but higher than the AMG model applied to C (approximately 5%) (Clivot et al., 2019 ). However, the model was still accurate because its predicted SOP values remained the same magnitude as the observed SOP values. The management history of the plots may explain the origin and difference among the initial SOP stocks, but this could not be verified. Figure 4 Simulated vs observed SOP stocks in the ploughed soil layer by the Hénin and Dupuis ( 1945 ) model transposed to SOP. The solid line is the standardized major axis regression line (SMA). The dashed line is the 1:1 line. CON: no P input, MWS: municipal solid waste compost, FYM farmyard manure, FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU: SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1 year-1). Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1 year-1). LTFE1: n = 48, LTFE2: n = 140, LTFE3: n = 144. 4 Discussion 4.1 Crops yields response to fertilisation across several decades The observed yields in all sites were in the same range as the recorded yields in the annual report on France agronomy (Agreste, 2022 ), which were an average of 9.3, 7.0, and 6.2 t DM ha -1 for non-irrigated maize, wheat, and barley between 2020 and 2021. Comparable yields have also been reported for maize (Denoroy et al., 2004 ) and in previous studies (Dodd & Mallarino, 2005 ; Eghball et al., 2004 ; Herencia et al., 2007 ). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, applying OWPs had no effect on annual yields. However, in LTFE2, the decreased yield in the control was significant compared to other treatments and represented 10.7% average yield losses with OWP application. This loss is consistent with previous studies, where the yield declined only after several decades without applying P (Dodd & Mallarino, 2005 ; Gallet et al., 2003 ). Our P concentrations in crop harvests were consistent with the literature in different experiments but similar situations (Cadot et al., 2018 ; Tang et al., 2008 ). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, no significant differences were observed in grain P concentrations across the OWPs, regardless of the crop type. In contrast, in LTFE1, the maize grain P content was significantly affected by the absence of TSP fertilisation, as reported in another long-term field experiment (Raguet et al., 2023 ). Without P application, maize grains contained less P than situation with optimal or excessive P fertilisation (Colomb et al., 2007; Messiga et al., 2010 ; Morel et al., 2021 ). 4.2 Multiannual dynamics of SOP The multiannual dynamics of the SOP were analysed using time-series data from the three sites: over 18 years for LTFE1, 17 years for LTFE2, and 14 years for LTFE3. In LTFE1, the SOP remained stable for almost two decades. Additionally, the P return in maize residues (on average: 14.9 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ) was in the same magnitude as the SOP standard deviation (13 kg P ha -1 yr -1 , with the SOP coefficient of variation of 10%). Raguet et al. ( 2023 ) also reported no significant SOP variation over 28 years of cropping in a close, long-term field experiment. However, while a minor increasing trend emerged in Raguet et al. ( 2023 ), no trend was highlighted in the present study, probably because of an insufficient time scale (18 compared to 28 years). Despite the variable SOP data (coefficient of variation: 24% in LTFE2 and 11% in LTFE3), LTFE2 and LTFE3 showed significant SOP stock increases according to the years of cropping. This dynamic could be due to higher P incorporation into SOP through crop residues and OWPs than through gross SOP mineralisation. However, without P application, the control treatments did not differ from the fertilised treatments, and SOP increased significantly over almost two decades. Additionally, the SOP dynamics results over the years were difficult to compare, as only a few studies have calculated SOP dynamics under field conditions by monitoring SOP stocks over time. The results were highly variable among the studies. Song et al. ( 2011 ) reported no significant change in SOP stock after 14 cropping cycles (a maize–soybean–wheat rotation) under three P fertilisation rates. Similarly, Chater and Mattingly ( 1980 ) reported limited or no stock decrease over 10–45 years of cropping (Rothamsted and Saxmundham experiments). In contrast, Zhang and MacKenzie ( 1997 ) highlighted significant SOP decreases from − 16 to − 29 kg P ha -1 yr -1 over five years of continuous maize cropping on Canadian clayed soil (71% clay). 4.3 Annual rate of SOP mineralisation During post-harvest decomposition (< 1 year), the P in the crop was split according to the h parameter (Table 4) between P incorporated into SOP and P released into the soil solution as phosphate ions or easily degradable organic compounds, which are available for plants (He et al., 2009 ; Noack et al., 2014 ). The P residue of 17%, 37%, 35%, and 77% of the maize, wheat, barley, and sugar beet, respectively, were incorporated into the SOP. Considering that a maximum of 20% of released P was recovered by the next crop (Johnston et al., 2014 ), the remaining crop P residues represented a maximum of 6% (2.5 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ), 5% (1.9 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ), and 4% (1.5 kg P ha -1 yr -1 ) of absorbed P (sum of exported P and P return in residues) in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively. The inorganic P values in the OWPs were 93%, 91%, 84%, 83%, and 64% for BIO, MSW, GWS, SLU, and FYM, respectively. These results corresponded to previous studies, i.e., the majority of P in applied products was inorganic and directly contributed to the plant-available P supply (Cabeza et al., 2011 ; Glæsner et al., 2019 ). Some studies reported fertilisation capacities similar to industrial inorganic fertilisers, especially for dehydrated sewage sludge (Morel et al., 2002 ). With the same assumptions as for crop residues (i.e., 20% of released P recovered by the next crop), the absorbed P from OWP decomposition were 7.3 kg P ha -1 yr -1 (17%) in LTFE2 and 3.9 kg P ha -1 yr -1 (12%) in LTFE3. Because there are few studies on crop residue or OWP P decomposition, some h values were set according to the N or C results based on the literature (Table 4). Those parameters assumed a homogeneous coupling dynamic between C, N, and P, which was altered by intensive management (Bertrand et al., 2019 ; Recous et al., 2019 ). By running the model and fitting simulated to observed SOP values, the annual rates of mineralisation were 2.1 (LTFE1), 11.2 (LTFE2), and 5.4 (LTFE3) kg P ha -1 yr -1 . The SOP mineralisation rate in LTFE1 was comparable to another long-term field experiment, which obtained 1.7 kg P ha -1 yr -1 (Raguet et al., 2023 ). In addition, the phosphate ions release through OWPs and crop residues decomposition was six times higher than that through SOP mineralisation for LTFE1, four times higher for LTFE2, and five times higher for LTFE3. Considering a maximum of 20% of P recovered by the next crop, SOP could contribute up to 0.4 (1%), 3.4 (6%), and 2.1 (3%) kg P ha -1 yr -1 to the absorbed P for LTFE1, LTFE2, LTFE3, respectively. SOP only plays a minor role in plant P nutrition, whereas OWP could represents 20% of the absorbed P. Although the gross annual rates of SOP mineralisation did not differ significantly among treatments at a given site, the SOP residence time was affected by OWP in LTFE2 and ranged from 30 years (FYM 40 and GWS 112 ) to more than one millennium (MSW 24 ). The observed differences in the calculated k values could be due to the amount and speciation of applied P. The P inputs represented 325 kg ha -1 of cumulative organic P incorporation in GWS 112 , whereas MSW 24 represented a cumulative incorporation of 30 kg P ha -1 (Fig. 4 -SI). As the SOP stock did not differ, P under GWS 112 fertilisation should cycle faster than that in MSW 24 . In addition, the shortest SOP residence time in MSW 24 was comparable to the upper range of residence times found in the active SOC pool using either the Hénin-Dupuis model or AMG model (derived from the Hénin-Dupuis model). The C residence time in the SOC pool averages 20 years and ranges from 6 to 50 years, depending on the agropedoclimatic conditions (Andriulo et al., 1999 ; Boiffin et al., 1986 ; Clivot et al., 2019 ; Plénet et al., 1993 ; Saffih-Hdadi & Mary 2008 ). The low annual rate of mineralisation, long residence time, and low contribution of SOP to plant nutrition, despite substantial stock, can be linked to several factors. The first is the composition and speciation of the added P in the crop residues and OWPs. Organic P contains a wide range of compounds, of which orthophosphate monoesters are the most important group, and mainly include myo -inositol hexakisphosphate (i.e., phytate) (Cade-Menun, 2017 ; Condron et al., 2005 ; Menezes-Blackburn et al., 2018 ). This compound is the main form of P stored in plant seeds and is likely to be released into the soil after residues return (Noack et al., 2012 , 2014 ). Although phytate can be rapidly mineralised, it can also bind tightly to the soil solid phase by sorption via its highly-phosphorylated inositol structure (Liu et al., 2022 ), and remains unavailable for enzymatic mineralisation (McKercher & Anderson, 1989 ; Steffens et al., 2010 ). Second, the high phosphate ions concentration in soil solution (0.86, 1.03, and 0.52 mg P L -1 in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively) can inhibit phosphatase synthesis and activity. As a result, SOP mineralisation is limited (Manzoor et al. 2022 ; Nannipieri et al., 2011 ; Olander & Vitousek, 2000 ). 5 Conclusion Three long-term field experiments were conducted to determine SOP stock mineralisation over almost two decades in contrasting agroecosystems. According to model calculations, the SOP residence times exceeded two centuries for LTFE1 and LTFE3 and varied from 30 years (GWS 112 ) to more than a millennium (MSW 24 ) LTFE2. With these values, SOP can only contribute to a maximum of 1% (LTFE1), 6% (LTFE2), and 3% (LTFE3) to the P absorbed by plants, which is low compared to the potential contributions of crop residues and OWPs (LTFE1:6%; LTFE2:24%; LTFE3:15%). The OWPs in LTFE2 and LTFE3 contained highly variable amounts of P, essentially in inorganic forms. OWPs are more likely to behave as inorganic fertilisers than SOPs. Further studies are required to extend the range of application of the model to determine SOP mineralisation driving factors, considering the SOP, crop P residue, and OWP speciation, as well as phosphatase enzymatic assays. Abbreviations Bcum: plot cumulative P budget (kg P ha -1 ); BIOW: composted biowaste; CON: control; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: composted farmyard manure; GWS: compost of green waste and urban sewage sludge; h agr , h bgr , and h grr : incorporation coefficients (dimensionless) to SOP of P in aboveground, belowground residues, and grains returned to the soil during the annual crop cycle, respectively; k: coefficient of gross SOP mineralization (yr -1 ); 1/k is the residence time (yr); LTFEs: long-term field experiments; MSW: municipal solid waste; OWP: Organic waste products (i.e. urban composts and animal manures); P agr , P bgr , and P grr : P amount in aboveground and belowground residues, and in grains that returned to soil during the annual crop cycle (kg ha -1 yr -1 ), respectively; SIP: soil inorganic P, determined as the difference between TP HF and SOP; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; SOC: soil organic carbon; SOP: soil organic P determined using the Saunders and Williams ignition method; TP: soil total P, with TP HF determined using concentrated hydrofluoric and perchloric acid digestion (NF X 31-147); TSP: triple superphosphate. Declarations Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge all our colleagues from the INRAE research centers Ile-de-France – Versailles-Saclay, Grand Est – Colmar, and Nouvelle-Aquitaine – Bordeaux, who contributed to the three long-term field experiments by obtaining all plant data, climatic data, and soil samples. The QualiAgro (LTFE2) and PROspective (LTFE3) field experiments form part of the SOERE-PRO (network of long-term experiments dedicated to the study of impacts of organic waste product recycling) certified and funded in 2013 by ALLENVI ( Alliance Nationale de Recherche pour l’Environnement ) and integrated as a service of the Investment for Future Infrastructure AnaEE-France, overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-INBS-0001). The QualiAgro research program is conducted in collaboration by the INRAE ( Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement ), Grignon and Veolia Environment Research and Innovation since 1997. The authors thank Coralie Chesseron for help with laboratory analyses. Funding Pablo Raguet was financially supported by a doctoral contract from the National Research Agency under the program "Investissements d'avenir" within the framework of the IdEx Bordeaux n°ANR-10-IDEX-03-02. This work was jointly supervised by the Universities of Bordeaux (FR) and Laval (CA). References AFNOR. (1999). Qualité des sols. tome 1 et tome 2. Agreste. (2022). Chiffres et données, statistique agricole annuelle 2021. Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire. https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/disaron/Chd2215/detail/ Amanullah. (2014). Wheat and rye differ in drymatter partitioning, shoot-root ratio and water use efficiency under organic and inorganic soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 37(11), 1885–1897. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.911888 Amanullah, Stewart, B. A., & Ullah, H. (2015). Cool season C3-grasses (wheat, rye, barley, and oats) differ in shoot: Root ratio when applied with different NPK sources. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 38(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.881877 Andriulo, A., Mary, B., & Guerif, J. (1999). Modelling soil carbon dynamics with various cropping sequences on the rolling pampas. Agronomie, 19(5), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:19990504 Annabi, M., Houot, S., Francou, C., Poitrenaud, M., & Bissonnais, Y. L. (2007). Soil aggregate stability improvement with urban composts of different maturities. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71(2), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0161 Annabi, M., Le Bissonnais, Y., Le Villio-Poitrenaud, M., & Houot, S. (2011). Improvement of soil aggregate stability by repeated applications of organic amendments to a cultivated silty loam soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 144(1), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.005 Arenberg, M. R., & Arai, Y. (2019). Uncertainties in soil physicochemical factors controlling phosphorus mineralization and immobilization processes. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (pp. 153–200, Vol. 154). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.11.005 Bertrand, I., Viaud, V., Daufresne, T., Pellerin, S., & Recous, S. (2019). Stoichiometry constraints challenge the potential of agroecological practices for the soil c storage. a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0599-6 Boiffin, J., Zagbahi, J. K., & Sebillotte, M. (1986). Systèmes de culture et statut organique des sols dans le noyonnais : Application du modèle de hénin-dupuis. Agronomie, (6), 437–446. https://hal.science/hal-00884894/document Bolinder, M. A., Angers, D. A., & Dubuc, J. P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 63(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01121-8 Boniface, R., & Trocmé, S. (1988). Enseignements fournis par des essais de longue durée sur la fumure phosphatée et potassique. essais sur la fumure phosphatée. In L. Gachon (Ed.), Phosphore et potassium dans les relations sol-plante: Conséquences sur la fertilisation (INRA edition, pp. 279–401). Buchanan, M., & King, L. D. (1993). Carbon and phosphorus losses from decomposing crop residues in no-till and conventional till agroecosystems. Agronomy Journal, 85(3), 631–638. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030021x Cabeza, R., Steingrobe, B., Römer, W., & Claassen, N. (2011). Effectiveness of recycled P products as P fertilizers, as evaluated in pot experiments. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 91(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-011-9454-0 Cade-Menun, B. J. (2017). Characterizing phosphorus forms in cropland soils with solution 31P-NMR: Past studies and future research needs. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 4(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-017-0098-4 Cadot, S., Bélanger, G., Ziadi, N., Morel, C., & Sinaj, S. (2018). Critical plant and soil phosphorus for wheat, maize, and rapeseed after 44 years of P fertilization. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 112(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-018-9956-0 Chater, M., & Mattingly, G. E. (1980). Changes in organic phosphorus contents of soils from long- continued experiments at rothamsted and saxmundham. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report, 1979 pt 2, 41–61. Chen, H., Levavasseur, F., Montenach, D., Lollier, M., Morel, C., & Houot, S. (2022). An 18-year field experiment to assess how various types of organic waste used at european regulatory rates sustain crop yields and C, N, P, and K dynamics in a french calcareous soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 221, 105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105415 Chalhoub, M., Garnier, P., Coquet, Y., Mary, B., Lafolie, F., & Houot, S. (2013). Increased nitrogen availability in soil after repeated compost applications: Use of the PASTIS model to separate short and long-term effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 65, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.05.023 Christensen, B. T. (1986). Barley straw decomposition under field conditions: Effect of placement and initial nitrogen content on weight loss and nitrogen dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 18(5), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(86)90010-6 Clivot, H., Mouny, J. C., Duparque, A., Dinh, J. L., Denoroy, P., Houot, S., Vertès, F., Trochard, R., Bouthier, A., Sagot, S., & Mary, B. (2019). Modeling soil organic carbon evolution in long-term arable experiments with AMG model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 118, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.04.004 Colomc, B., Debaeke, P., Jouany, C., & Nolot, J. M. (2007). Phosphorus management in low input stockless cropping systems: Crop and soil responses to contrasting P regimes in a 36-year experiment in southern France. European Journal of Agronomy, 26, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.09.004 Condron, L. M., Turner, B. L., & Cade-Menun, B. J. (2005). Chemistry and dynamics of soil organic phosphorus. In J. Thomas Sims, A. N. Sharpley, & D. T. Westermann (Eds.), Phosphorus: Agriculture and the environment (American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, pp. 87–121). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr46.c4 Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009 Cordell, D., & White, S. (2011). Peak phosphorus: Clarifying the key issues of a vigorous debate about long-term phosphorus security. Sustainability, 3(10), 2027–2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3102027 Correndo, A. A., Hefley, T. J., Holzworth, D. P., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2021a). Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets. Agricultural Systems, 192, 103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194 Correndo, A. A., Hefley, T., Holzworth, D., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2021b). R-code tutorial: Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EJS4M0 Denoroy, P., Dubrulle, P., Villete, C., Colomb, B., Fayet, G., Schoeser, M., Marin-Laflèche, A., Pellerin, S., & Boiffin, J. (2004). Regifert: Interpréter les résultats des analyses de terre. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. Diacono, M., & Montemurro, F. (2011). Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. In E. Lichtfouse, M. Hamelin, M. Navarrete, & P. Debaeke (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 2 (pp. 761–786). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_34 Dodd, J. R., & Mallarino, A. P. (2005). Soil-test phosphorus and crop grain yield responses to long-term phosphorus fertilization for corn-soybean rotations. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69(4), 1118–1128. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0279 Dodd, R. J., & Sharpley, A. N. (2015). Recognizing the role of soil organic phosphorus in soil fertility and water quality. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.001 Doolette, A. L., Smernik, R. J., & Dougherty, W. J. (2010). Rapid decomposition of phytate applied to a calcareous soil demonstrated by a solution 31P-NMR study. European Journal of Soil Science, 61(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01259.x Eghball, B., Ginting, D., & Gilley, J. E. (2004). Residual effects of manure and compost applications on corn production and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 96(2), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.4420 FAO. (2014). World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification systems for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps (update 2015). http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-classification/world-referencebase/en/ Fuchs, J., Génermont, S., Houot, S., Jardé, É., Mollier, A., Ménasseri, S., Mollier, A., Morel, C., Parnaudeau, V., Pradel, M., & Vieublé, L. (2014). Chapitre 3 : Effets agronomiques attendus de l’épandage des mafor sur les écosystèmes agricoles et forestiers. In S. Houot, M.-N. Pons, M. Pradel, A. Tibi, C. Aubry, L. Augusto, R. Barbier, P. Benoît, H. Brugère, M.-A. Caillaud, M. Casellas, A. Chatelet, P. Dabert, S. De Mareschal, I. Doussan, C. Etrillard, J. Fuchs, S. Génermont, L. Giamberini, . . . C. Viguié (Eds.), Valorisation des matières fertilisantes d’origine résiduaire sur les sols à usage agricole ou forestier (INRA-CNRS-IRSTEA, pp. 364–567). Gallet, A., Flisch, R., Ryser, J.-P., Frossard, E., & Sinaj, S. (2003). Effect of phosphate fertilization on crop yield and soil phosphorus status. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 166(5), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200321081 Giles, C. D., Richardson, A. E., Cade-Menun, B. J., Mezeli, M. M., Brown, L. K., Menezes-Blackburn, D., Darch, T., Blackwell, M. S., Shand, C. A., Stutter, M. I., Wendler, R., Cooper, P., Lumsdon, D. G., Wearing, C., Zhang, H., Haygarth, P. M., & George, T. S. (2018). Phosphorus acquisition by citrate- and phytase-exuding Nicotiana tabacum plant mixtures depends on soil phosphorus availability and root intermingling. Physiologia Plantarum, 163(3), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12718 Gioacchini, P., Montecchio, D., Gnudi, E., Terzi, V., Stanca, A. M., Ciavatta, C., & Marzadori, C. (2016). Fate of n in soil amended with 15N-labelled residues of winter cereals combined with an organic n fertiliser. Soil Research, 54(2), 182. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15055 Glæsner, N., van der Bom, F., Bruun, S., McLaren, T., Larsen, F. H., & Magid, J. (2019). Phosphorus characterization and plant availability in soil profiles after long-term urban waste application. Geoderma, 338, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.046 Gopinath, K. A., Saha, S., Mina, B. L., Pande, H., Kundu, S., & Gupta, H. S. (2008). Influence of organic amendments on growth, yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during transition to organic production. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 82(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-008-9168-0 He, Z., Mao, J., Honeycutt, C. W., Ohno, T., Hunt, J. F., & Cade-Menun, B. J. (2009). Characterization of plant-derived water extractable organic matter by multiple spectroscopic techniques. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45(6), 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-009-0369-8 He, Z., Olk, D. C., & Cade-Menun, B. J. (2011). Forms and lability of phosphorus in humic acid fractions of hord silt loam soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75(5), 1712–1722. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0355 Hénin, S., & Dupuis, M. (1945). Essai de bilan de la matière organique du sol. Annales agronomiques, 11, 17–29. Herencia, J. F., Ruiz-Porras, J. C., Melero, S., Garcia-Galavis, P. A., Morillo, E., & Maqueda, C. (2007). Comparison between organic and mineral fertilization for soil fertility levels, crop macronutrient concentrations, and yield. Agronomy Journal, 99(4), 973–983. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0168 Jalali, M., & Ranjbar, F. (2009). Rates of decomposition and phosphorus release from organic residues related to residue composition. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172(3), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800032 Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., Fixen, P. E., & Curtin, D. (2014). Phosphorus: Its efficient use in agriculture. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (pp. 177–228, Vol. 123). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420225-2.00005-4 Levavasseur, F., Mary, B., Christensen, B. T., Duparque, A., Ferchaud, F., Kätterer, T., Lagrange, H., Montenach, D., Resseguier, C., & Houot, S. (2020). The simple AMG model accurately simulates organic carbon storage in soils after repeated application of exogenous organic matter. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 117(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-020-10065-x Linères, M., & Lubet, E. (1990). Maize residue management: Organic matter decomposition and nutrient losses. In S. Lookman (Ed.), 1st congress of European Society of Agronomy. ESA Colmar. Liu X., Han R., Cao Y., Turner B. L., & Ma L. Q. (2022). Enhancing phytate availability in soils and phytate-P acquisition by plants: a review. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(13), 9196–219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00099 Lupwayi, N. Z., Clayton, G. W., O’Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Turkington, T. K., & Soon, Y. K. (2007). Phosphorus release during decomposition of crop residues under conventional and zero tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.01.007 Manzoor A., Dippold M. A., Loeppmann S., & Blagodatskaya E. (2022). Two-phase conceptual framework of phosphatase activity and phosphorus bioavailability. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 935829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.935829 Martin, B. J. K., & Cunninghamt, R. B. (1973). Factors controlling the release of phosphorus from decomposnig wheat roots. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 26(4), 715–727. Masson, P., Dalix, T., & Bussière, S. (2010). Determination of major and trace elements in plant samples by inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 41(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620903460757 McKercher, R., & Anderson, G. (1989). Organic phosphate sorption by neutral and basic soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 20(7), 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628909368112 Menezes-Blackburn, D., Giles, C., Darch, T., George, T. S., Blackwell, M., Stutter, M., Shand, C., Lumsdon, D., Cooper, P., Wendler, R., Brown, L., Almeida, D. S., Wearing, C., Zhang, H., & Haygarth, P. M. (2018). Opportunities for mobilizing recalcitrant phosphorus from agricultural soils: A review. Plant and Soil, 427(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3362-2 Messiga, A. J., Ziadi, N., Plénet, D., Parent, L.-E., & Morel, C. (2010). Long-term changes in soil phosphorus status related to P budgets under maize monoculture and mineral P fertilization. Soil Use and Management, 26(3), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00287.x Morel, C., Linères, M., Guivarch, A., & Kvarnström, E. (2002). Phytodisponibilité et valeur fertilisante du phosphore de déchets urbains. Dossier de l’environnement de l’INRA, 25, 35–44. Morel, C., Plénet, D., & Mollier, A. (2021). Calibration of maize phosphorus status by plant-available soil P assessed by common and process-based approaches. is it soil-specific or not? European Journal of Agronomy, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126174 Mubarak, A. R., Rosenani, A. B., Anuar, A. R., & Zauyah, S. (2002). Decomposition and nutrient release of maize stover and groundnut haulm under tropical field conditions of malaysia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 33(3), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120002767 Murphy, J., & Riley, J. (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters (A.-L. Müller & W. Reichmann, Eds.). Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5 Nannipieri, P., Giagnoni, L., Landi, L., & Renella, G. (2011). Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. In E. Bünemann, A. Oberson, & E. Frossard (Eds.), Phosphorus in action (pp. 215–243, Vol. 26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15271-9_9 Némery, J., & Garnier, J. (2007). Origin and fate of phosphorus in the seine watershed (France): Agricultural and hydrographic p budgets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 112. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JG000331 Noack, S. R., McLaughlin, M. J., Smernik, R. J., McBeath, T. M., & Armstrong, R. D. (2012). Crop residue phosphorus: Speciation and potential bio-availability. Plant and Soil, 359(1), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1216-5 Noack, S. R., McLaughlin, M. J., Smernik, R. J., McBeath, T. M., & Armstrong, R. D. (2014). Phosphorus speciation in mature wheat and canola plants as affected by phosphorus supply. Plant and Soil, 378(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-2015-3 Olander, L. P., & Vitousek, P. M. (2000). Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry, 49(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006316117817 Paetsch, L., Mueller, C. W., Rumpel, C., Houot, S., & Kögel-Knabner, I. (2016). Urban waste composts enhance OC and N stocks after long-term amendment but do not alter organic matter composition. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 223, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.008 Pinay, G., Gascuel, C., Ménesguen, A., Souchon, Y., Le Moal, M., Levain, A., Etrillard, C., Moatar, F., Pannard, A., & Philippe, S. (2018). L’eutrophisation : Manifestations, causes, conséquences et prédictibilité. Synthèse de l’Expertise scientifique collective CNRS - Ifremer - INRA - Irstea. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team. (2022). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme Plénet, D., Lubet, E., & Juste, C. (1993). Évolution à long terme du statut carboné du sol en monoculture non irriguée du maïs (Zea mays L.) Agronomy, 13(8), 685–698. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00885586 R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/ Raguet, P., Cade-Menun, B., Mollier, A., Abdi, D., Ziadi, N., Karam, A., & Morel, C. (2023). Mineralization and speciation of organic phosphorus in a sandy soil continuously cropped and phosphorus-fertilized for 28 years. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 108938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108938 Rajala, A., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2001). Grain and oil crops: Plant growth regulator effects on spring cereal root and shoot growth. Agronomy Journal, 93(4), 936–943. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.934936x Recous, S., Lashermes, G., Bertrand, I., Duru, M., & Pellerin, S. (2019). C–N–P decoupling processes linked to arable cropping management systems in relation with intensification of production. In Agroecosystem diversity (pp. 35–53). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811050-8.00003-0 Saffih-Hdadi, K., & Mary, B. (2008). Modeling consequences of straw residues export on soil organic carbon. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40(3), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.022 Saunders, W. M. H., & Williams, E. G. (1955). Observations on the determination of total organic phosphorus in soils. Journal of Soil Science, 6(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1955.tb00849.x Sharpley, A., Kleinman, P., Jarvie, H., & Flaten, D. (2016). Distant views and local realities: The limits of global assessments to restore the fragmented phosphorus cycle. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 1(1), 160024. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2016.07.0024 Singh, K. P., & Shekhar, C. (1989). Concentration and release patterns of nutrients (N, P and K) during decomposition of maize and wheat roots in a seasonally-dry tropical region. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 21(1), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(89)90015-1 Song, C., Han, X., &Wang, E. (2011). Phosphorus budget and organic phosphorus fractions in response to long-term applications of chemical fertilisers and pig manure in a mollisol. Soil Research, 49(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10169 Soon, Y., & Arshad, M. (2002). Comparison of the decomposition and N and P mineralization of canola, pea and wheat residues. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 36(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0518-9 Steffens, D., Leppin, T., Luschin-Ebengreuth, N., Min Yang, Z., & Schubert, S. (2010). Organic soil phosphorus considerably contributes to plant nutrition but is neglected by routine soil-testing methods. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 173(5), 765–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000079 Tang, X., Li, J., Ma, Y., Hao, X., & Li, X. (2008). Phosphorus efficiency in long-term (15 years) wheat-maize cropping systems with various soil and climate conditions. Field Crops Research, 108(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.05.007 Thomsen, I. K., & Christensen, B. T. (1996). Availability to subsequent crops and leaching of nitrogen in 15N-labelled sugarbeet tops and oilseed rape residues. Journal of Agricultural Science, 126(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859600073135 Thomsen, I. K., & Christensen, B. T. (1998). Cropping system and residue management effects on nitrate leaching and crop yields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 68(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00134-5 Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014 Wang, K., Xie, R., Min, B., Hou, P., Xue, J., & Li, S. (2021). Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20211401.6034 Yu, P., Li, X., White, P. J., & Li, C. (2015). A large and deep root system underlies high nitrogen-use efficiency in maize production. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126293 Zhang, T. Q., & MacKenzie, A. F. (1997). Changes of phosphorous fractions under continuous corn production in a temperate clay soil. Plant and Soil, 192(1), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004232417658 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SIRAGUET.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 10 Mar, 2024 Reviews received at journal 04 Feb, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Feb, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Feb, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 02 Feb, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Feb, 2024 First submitted to journal 31 Jan, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3914588","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":271005408,"identity":"16c43485-3a92-4a04-bec1-0892b9ef9348","order_by":0,"name":"Pablo Raguet","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INRAE, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, UMR ISPA","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pablo","middleName":"","lastName":"Raguet","suffix":""},{"id":271005409,"identity":"23c162c3-94d6-4195-8706-c73deb80a71a","order_by":1,"name":"Sabine Houot","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INRAE, UMR ECOSYS","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sabine","middleName":"","lastName":"Houot","suffix":""},{"id":271005410,"identity":"4a65ad97-69e6-4747-a7bd-0979c98ffa9c","order_by":2,"name":"Denis Montenach","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INARE, Centre Grand-Est, Colmar","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Denis","middleName":"","lastName":"Montenach","suffix":""},{"id":271005411,"identity":"5c9e841a-ec61-4ae7-96cb-0c862099782c","order_by":3,"name":"Alain Mollier","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INRAE, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, UMR ISPA","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alain","middleName":"","lastName":"Mollier","suffix":""},{"id":271005412,"identity":"7741cdaf-217d-4528-b65d-6a775acd507f","order_by":4,"name":"Noura Ziadi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Quebec Research and Development Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Noura","middleName":"","lastName":"Ziadi","suffix":""},{"id":271005413,"identity":"6a138113-5c1b-4c05-81a3-b8424cb78dc3","order_by":5,"name":"Antoine Karam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Université Laval","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Antoine","middleName":"","lastName":"Karam","suffix":""},{"id":271005414,"identity":"da36b183-26a8-41b9-a4a5-4e9172fe8d4d","order_by":6,"name":"Christian Morel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"INRAE, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, UMR ISPA","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christian","middleName":"","lastName":"Morel","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-31 17:04:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10377-2","type":"published","date":"2024-09-20T15:57:11+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":50677358,"identity":"8516c684-bc88-4c3c-bd2b-3dc831e18d91","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:42:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":556783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual diagram of the model describing soil organic P stock and P fluxes and processes that drives its dynamics. The P inputs as crop residues and total P in OWP are either released (1-h fraction) in solution as phosphate ions or incorporated (h fraction) into the soil organic P stock (SOP). The SOP stock mineralizes according to the k mineralization constant.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/c220093c4aeaf1aa790430e5.png"},{"id":50677357,"identity":"89b21a38-daab-42b4-a166-fb986bbc14f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:42:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":427822,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAnnual yield, its P concentration and annual P exported as affected by fertilization treatments and years for the three studied LTFE. Values are means ± std. err. (n=4). CON: no P applied; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/13565352279665dd17d35a41.png"},{"id":50677356,"identity":"9ebc0ed1-4004-4d3f-b59f-48d44e3c5212","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:42:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140900,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEvolution of soil inorganic P (SIP, dotted line) and soil organic P (SOP, solid line) stocks in the ploughed layer as affected by plot cumulative P budget (Bcum). Values are means ± std. err. (n=4). Lines are linear regressions and grey areas are confidence interval (95%) of the linear regressions. CON: no P input; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: biowaste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatments abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha-1 yr-1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/3d6a52e5fd3d7a512f0a6e84.png"},{"id":50677359,"identity":"922e6e8c-cdc3-444e-a669-821be4c03716","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:42:24","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":717335,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSimulated vs observed SOP stocks in the ploughed soil layer by the Hénin and Dupuis (1945) model transposed to SOP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe solid line is the standardized major axis regression line (SMA). The dashed line is the 1:1 line. CON: no P input, MWS: municipal solid waste compost, FYM farmyard manure, FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU: SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1 yr-1). Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1 yr-1). LTFE1: n = 48, LTFE2: n = 140, LTFE3: n = 144.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/5214b632b50d8118a33c023b.png"},{"id":65431723,"identity":"4a1fb275-fef9-4e56-963d-15de7f4ab244","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-27 11:59:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3359909,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/ccbb2e7d-6f59-43b4-a9bc-37c7f6e05dec.pdf"},{"id":50677360,"identity":"6d990b72-ec7e-46a8-abad-7ce70ba23367","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:42:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1104856,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SIRAGUET.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3914588/v1/fe3f364cd4e68704a7564367.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus with different P sources: results from three long-term field experiments","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAgricultural systems face crucial issues regarding phosphorus (P) management. Previous studies have highlighted i) the risk of shortage of rock phosphate reserves, the raw materials used to produce synthetic P fertilisers, because of increasing consumption over the next decades due to growing demand for food, and ii) the risk of geopolitical tension on this resource (Cordell \u0026amp; White, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Cordell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Tilman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Alternative P sources for mineral P fertilisers, such as organic waste products (OWPs) (urban composts) and animal manure, can help avoid a possible future shortage of P fertilisers. Environmental risks are another major issue in P management in agricultural soils (N\u0026eacute;mery \u0026amp; Garnier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Pinay et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sharpley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The runoff of particulate and dissolved P from fields towards water bodies can contribute to the alteration of water quality during eutrophication. Therefore, improving the management of plant-available soil P and our understanding of the soil P cycling processes in agroecosystems is crucial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing OWPs instead of synthetic fertilisers is a common practice that can replenish soil P pools and potentially replace industrial inorganic fertilisers (Diacono \u0026amp; Montemurro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, repeated OWP applications in agriculture are based on the addition of carbon (C) or nitrogen (N) to agricultural soils or their role in improving soil stability, soil C, or organic matter storage (Annabi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Gopinath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Paetsch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, the C:N:P ratio of OWPs is highly variable owing to its origin, composting parameters, and storage methods. Therefore, using these products can lead to a highly variable P supply (Fuchs et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhosphate ions in the soil solution (H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e-\u003c/sup\u003e and HPO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2-\u003c/sup\u003e for the range of cropped soil pH) are the P compounds absorbed by plants and microorganisms. Phosphate ions absorbed by plants can be converted into organic P compounds or stored as inorganic P compounds (Noack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, crop residues and OWPs contain organic and inorganic forms of P. Their decomposition in soil via biogeochemical processes supplies soil inorganic phosphorus (SIP) and soil organic phosphorus (SOP) stocks (Arenberg \u0026amp; Arai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Giles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The mineralisation of SOP is worth a potential source of phosphate ions for plants and might play a significant role in plant nutrition. The same is true for crop residues and OWPs: the decomposition and mineralisation of their organic P compounds by enzymatic hydrolysis (i.e., by phosphatases; Dodd and Sharpley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Nannipieri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) released phosphate ions into solution and increased the inorganic P pool. However, limited information exists on the mineralisation rate of SOP and the incorporation of P into SOP during the decomposition of crop residues and OWPs, as well as phosphate ions release in the SIP pool.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study was to determine SOP mineralisation rates in different soil types under various management practices and climates. Recently, Raguet et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) adapted a two-compartment model to describe long-term soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics and assess the SOP mineralisation rate and residence time. We applied this modelling approach using databases containing time-series of data on soils and plants from three long-term field experiments (LTFEs) conducted in France for 18, 17, and 14 years on superphosphate or OWP applications in contrasting agro-pedoclimatic situations characterised by various soil types and textures, different cropping systems, and climatic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Long-term field experiments description\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree French LTFEs conducted by the INRAE (\u003cem\u003eInstitut National de Recherche pour l\u0026rsquo;Agriculture, l\u0026rsquo;Alimentation et l\u0026rsquo;Environnement\u003c/em\u003e) were selected (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Each LTFE was organised in a completely randomised block design with four replicates per treatment. Treatment abbreviations are combined with the average P application rate per year in the subscripts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first field trial (LTFE1) was part of the French network on P fertilisation (Boniface \u0026amp; Trocm\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e) and was created in the 70s to study the effects of mineral P fertilisers under various agropedoclimatic conditions. Additional information to Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, including irrigation and lime management, can be found in Morel et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)⁠.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite characteristics and cropping practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite designation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMunicipality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeucherolles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColmar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSite coordinate\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43\u0026deg;35\u0026rsquo;N\u0026nbsp;; 0\u0026deg;30\u0026rsquo;W\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48\u0026deg;53\u0026rsquo;N; 1\u0026deg;58\u0026rsquo;E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48\u0026deg;04\u0026rsquo;N; 7\u0026deg;21\u0026rsquo;E\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAltitude (m)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e188\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e205\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClimate\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOceanic sub-humid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOceanic sub-humid degraded\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-continental\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnnual rainfall (mm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e917\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e572\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e556\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnnual temp. (\u0026deg;C)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWidth (m) \u0026times; length (m)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 \u0026times; 30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 \u0026times; 45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 \u0026times;10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCrop succession\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emaize monoculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emaize/wheat \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emaize/wheat/barley/\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003esugar beet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExperiment dates (duration)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1975\u0026ndash;1992 (18\u0026nbsp;year)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1998\u0026ndash;2016 (17\u0026nbsp;year)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2000\u0026ndash;2014 (14\u0026nbsp;year)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSoil class (\u003c/b\u003eFAO \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLuvic arenosol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlossic luvisol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalcaric cambisol\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSoil texture\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilt loam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilt loam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilt loam\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTreatments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 control and 2 doses triple superphosphate (TSP):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[Ca(H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026middot;2H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO, 2 % P]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 control, 4 OWP \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e applied at:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1998\u0026ndash;2013: 4 t C ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e 2\u0026nbsp;year-\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2015: 2t C ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2014: AXE-NP-BIO \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, control\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2016: AXE-NP-BIO \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, all plots\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 control, 5 OWP \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ee\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e applied at 170 kg N yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage annual P fertilisation (kg P ha\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eyr\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (CON\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e27 (TSP\u003csub\u003e27\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e79 (TSP\u003csub\u003e79\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (CON\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e24 (MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e40 (FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e46 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e46\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e112 (GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (CON\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e17\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e21 (FYM\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e21 (FYMC\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e36 (SLU\u003csub\u003e36\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e45 (GWS\u003csub\u003e45\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdditional TSP fertilisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(kg P-TSP ha\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo mineral P fertilisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2007: 46, all plots\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2011: 11 on FYMC, 31 on BIOW, 72 on CON\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eN fertilisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(kg N ha\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eyr\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimal rate \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ef\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003esowing: 20\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMay: 180\u0026ndash;200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUp to 2013: optimal rate \u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003eg\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u0026ndash;140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted for optimal N supply: twice year as urea and ammo-nitrate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eK fertilisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(kg K ha\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eyr\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimal rate (as KCl)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u0026ndash;100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo K fertilisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2007 and 2007: potassium sulfate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e details on crop succession are in supplementary information, section B.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e spring barley were cropped in 2007 due to local infestation by \u003cem\u003echrysomela\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e total of 10 applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e new source for applying optimal N rate was used: a mixture of meat and bone powder and blood flour; AFNOR standardised product according to NF U42-001, containing 6% of N and 2.2% of P. CON received 47 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in 2014. All plots received 16 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003ee\u003c/sup\u003e application twice lower than the European Nitrates Directive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003ef\u003c/sup\u003e ammo-nitrate NH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003eNO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e (33.5% N).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003csup\u003eg\u003c/sup\u003e 1:1 urea and ammo-nitrate solution (39% N).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second (LTFE2) and third field trial (LTFE3) form part of the SOERE-PRO network (\u003cem\u003eSyst\u0026egrave;me d\u0026rsquo;Observations et d\u0026rsquo;Exp\u0026eacute;rimentations pour la Recherche en Environnement sur les Produits R\u0026eacute;siduaires Organiques\u003c/em\u003e). In LTFE2, the fertilisation treatments studied were three composts with municipal solid waste compost (MSW), biowaste compost (BIOW), green waste and dehydrated urban sewage sludge compost (GWS), and cattle dairy farmyard manure (FYM), and a control without any OWPs (CON). Further details on the origin of OWPs and composting parameters can be found in the Supplementary Information (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e-SI) and (Annabi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013, 71%, 75%, 70%, 75%, and 84% of wheat and barley straw were exported, respectively. The remaining aboveground residue returned to the soil for the entire maize stem. Details of crop succession and management have been described by Chalhoub et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and Paetsch et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the LTFE3, we used one of four experimental set-ups (Chen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The treatments included a control (CON) without any OWP application and five different types of OWP supplemented with mineral N fertilisation. The OWP types included BIOW, FYM, FYM after composting (FYMC), dehydrated urban sewage sludge (SLU), and GWS. The OWP applied to the soil was buried the day after application. Details of the OWPs, crop species, soil sampling dates, dates of OWP application, amounts of applied OWP, and mineral fertiliser are provided by Chen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Further information on the OWP origin and composting parameters is provided in the Supplementary Information (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e-SI).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Characteristics of OWPs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main characteristics of the compost, farmyard manure, and dehydrated sewage sludge in LTFE2 and LTFE3 are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The OWPs were sampled before application, air-dried, and ground (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;250 \u0026micro;m) for analysis. Samples were analysed at the \u003cem\u003eLaboratoire d'Analyses des Sols\u003c/em\u003e INRAE (Arras, France) using normalisation techniques (AFNOR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Dry matter content was determined after heating at 105\u0026deg;C. The pH\u003csub\u003ewater\u003c/sub\u003e was measured in an OWP:water suspension with a volumetric ratio of 1:5 according to NF ISO 10390. The total N and organic C concentrations were determined by combustion according to NF ISO 10694 and NF ISO 13878, respectively. CaCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e was determined by measuring the CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e from HCl (NF ISO 10693) sample digestion. Total P concentrations (TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e) were determined after wet digestion with concentrated fluorhydric (HF) and perchloric (HClO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e) acids (NF X 31\u0026ndash;147). The organic P concentrations in the OWP were determined using the ignition method of Saunders and Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e). Inorganic P concentrations were calculated as the difference between the TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e and organic P in the OWP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Plant analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the LTFE1, plants were collected annually from the two central rows of maize to avoid edge effects. Grains were dried at 105\u0026deg;C to determine crop yield (t DM ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e). The P content in the harvested grains was measured each year using the colorimetric method after wet digestion of sub-samples in H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e and H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e solutions, according to Murphy and Riley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). The amount of P returned to the soil-laying maize aboveground residues was not measured in the LTFE. We computed P for all years of cropping using the equation proposed for maize monoculture by Raguet et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), in which belowground P depends on P in the harvested grain, on P harvest index and on cumulative P budget (Bcum).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn both LTFE2 and LTFE3, grains and aboveground residues were sampled each year. Samples were weighted and oven-dried at 40\u0026deg;C. The grains and aboveground residues P contents were analysed at the central plant-testing laboratory (USRAVE, INRAE). Plant sub-samples were ground and then calcinated at 480\u0026deg;C for 5 h, then solubilized in nitric and hydrofluoric acids to determine TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e content by radial ICP-AES (Masson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The annual exported P in harvest was calculated by multiplying grain yield or aboveground residues biomass by their respective P content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain properties of organic waste product (OWP), applied repeatedly at LTFE2 and LTFE3. Values are means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. err. of 10 and 7 applications, sampled over years, at LTFE2 and LTFE3, respectively. MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: bio-waste compost. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. Values between parentheses are organic P proportions within total P (TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e). Different lower case letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among treatments within LTFEs (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic product\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry matter (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epH water\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic C\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e DM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal N\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e DM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e DM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic P\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(g kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e DM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMSW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e311\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03 (9) \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYM\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e324\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eab\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15 (34) \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBIOW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e46\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e219\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;17 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ebc\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 (8) \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGWS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e112\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e267\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13 \u003cb\u003eab\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 (16) \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.45\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.0002\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.0002\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBIOW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e245\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 \u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02 (7) \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYM\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e395\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;21 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 \u003cb\u003ecd\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.24 (36) \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYMC\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e356\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;30 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.71\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 (36) \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSLU\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e371\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;33 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.6 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.96\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10 (17) \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGWS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e45\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e294\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;55 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ebc\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.3 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 (16) \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor all LTFEs, the annual P budget was calculated as the difference between P applied as triple superphosphate (TSP) or OWP and the annual P exported, Bcum, by compounding successive annual budgets. The amount of P in root residues (except sugar beet) was calculated considering the amount of P in aboveground residues and average values of root-to-shoot parameters previously published, that is, 0.18, 0.38, and 0.49 for maize, wheat, and barley, respectively (Amanullah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Amanullah et al., 2015; Bolinder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Rajala \u0026amp; Peltonen-Sainio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)⁠. We assumed that 3% of the grain yield was lost at harvest and returned to the soil (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Main soil properties\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main soil properties (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) were assessed according to French AFNOR and ISO standards (AFNOR, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e)⁠. Sedimentation analyses to determine the soil particle size were carried out according to the NF X 31\u0026ndash;107 and ISO 11277 standards. Total soil carbonate concentration was determined according to NF ISO 10693. In LTFE1, the pH\u003csub\u003ewater\u003c/sub\u003e was measured in a soil suspension with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:2.5 (m:v) (NF ISO 10390). SOC was determined by sulfochromic oxidation using an excess potassium dichromate solution and sulphuric acid (NF ISO 14235). Total nitrogen was measured using a modified Kjeldahl method (NF ISO 11261). In LTFE2, pH\u003csub\u003ewater\u003c/sub\u003e was measured in a soil suspension with a soil-to-water ratio of 1:5 (v:v) (NF ISO 10390). The SOC was determined by combustion (NF ISO 10694). Total nitrogen was measured using total elemental analysis (NF ISO 13878). In LTFE3, the pH\u003csub\u003ewater\u003c/sub\u003e was measured using the same method as that for LTFE2. SOC was determined according to NF ISO 14235, and total nitrogen was measured according to NF ISO 13878. For all LTFEs, the cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations were evaluated using cobaltihexamine (NF ISO 23470).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain soil physico-chemical properties of the plough layer at the three studied LTFEs. Values are means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. dev. For LTFE1, values are means (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4) for soils sampled in TSP\u003csub\u003e27\u003c/sub\u003e treatment in march 1992. For LTFE2 and LTFE3, values are means for all experimental plots and years of soil sampling (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;140 and n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;144, for LTFE2 and LTFE3 respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLTFE3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBulk density (g cm\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePlough layer depth (cm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eClay [\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2 \u0026micro;m] (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSilt [2\u0026ndash;50 \u0026micro;m] (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSand [50\u0026ndash;2000 \u0026micro;m] (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCaCO\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e(g kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e114\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTP\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003eHF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e(mg kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e429\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e697\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;135\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1148\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSOP (mg kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e129\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e172\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e322\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal N (g kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOrganic C (g kg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003epH\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ewater\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCEC (cmol\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003ekg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCa (cmol\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003ekg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMg (cmol\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003ekg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.59\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eK (cmol\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003ekg\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e-1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cb\u003e)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Soil phosphorus analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe plowed soil layers were sampled using the NF X 31\u0026ndash;100 standard in each experimental plot after crop harvest and before OWP application. At LTFE1, the soils were sampled (0\u0026ndash;25 cm depth) in 1975 (before the onset of the experiment), 1982, 1987, and 1992. At LTFE2, soils were sampled (0\u0026ndash;25 cm depth) in 1998 (before the onset of the experiment), 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. At LTFE3, the soil was sampled (0\u0026ndash;28 cm depth) in 2000 (before the onset of the experiment), 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. Each soil sample was obtained by mixing 10\u0026ndash;12 randomly collected cores from each plot and avoiding edge effects. Mixed samples were air-dried at 40\u0026deg;C before being ground to pass through a 2 mm mesh sieving. SOP concentrations were determined for each sample using the ignition and acid extraction method described by Saunders and Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e). The TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e in all soil samples was determined according to the NF X 31\u0026ndash;147 standard. Soils were ground (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.150 mm) and ignited (450\u0026deg;C), then digested in concentrated fluorhydric (HF) and perchloric (HClO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e) acids. After filtration, the P content of the digested solution was determined using ICP-OES. The SIP value is the difference between the TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e and the SOP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Modelling SOP dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaguet et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) described the long-term SOP dynamics in cropped soils by adapting the two-compartment model developed by H\u0026eacute;nin and Dupuis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1945\u003c/span\u003e) to simulate SOC dynamics. They applied this modelling approach to determine the coefficient k of gross SOP mineralisation in a long-term field experiment on superphosphate applications over 28 years. We applied the same modelling approach to determine the k coefficient and assessed the resulting rate of gross SOP mineralisation in three other agropedoclimatic situations (i.e., LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3), which covered a wider range of fertiliser applications (superphosphate or OWP), soil types, climates, and crop rotations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e Conceptual diagram of the model describing soil organic P stock and P fluxes and processes that drives its dynamics. The P inputs as crop residues and total P in OWP are either released (1-h fraction) in solution as phosphate ions or incorporated (h fraction) into the soil organic P stock (SOP). The SOP stock mineralizes according to the k mineralization constant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SOP dynamic model considered only two P compartments (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e): P applied as organic materials (i.e., aboveground residues, including grains lost at harvest, belowground residues, or OWPs) and SOP compartments. This SOP compartment was supplied by a fraction (incorporation coefficient h, dimensionless) of organic inputs and was subjected to mineralisation according to first-order kinetics with the k (yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) decay constant (where 1/k is the residence time in years). The remaining (1-h) was released into the solution as phosphate ions and easily degradable inorganic and organic P compounds. The SOP dynamic model computed the SOP stock at a yearly time step with the following equation:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Equ1\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e \u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equ1\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$${SOP}_{t+1}=\\left(\\frac{\\sum \\left({P}_{j}\\times {h}_{j}\\right)}{k}\\right)\\times \\left(1-{e}^{-k}\\right)+{SOP}_{t}\\times {e}^{-k}$$\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"EquationNumber\"\u003e1\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere SOP\u003csub\u003et\u003c/sub\u003e and SOP\u003csub\u003et+1\u003c/sub\u003e stocks are the SOP stock (kg ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) in years t and t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1, respectively; SOP\u003csub\u003et=0\u003c/sub\u003e is the stock at the onset of the experiment; P\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e (kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) is the annual P input j as crop residues and OWPs, and h\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e (dimensionless) represents the fraction of P\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e incorporated into SOP over one year. The input data sets needed to run the model were P\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e and h\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e (Table\u0026nbsp;4) from plant residue and OWP applications, SOP\u003csub\u003et=0\u003c/sub\u003e and k values. As P\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e and SOP\u003csub\u003et=0\u003c/sub\u003e have been determined experimentally and h\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e is assessed from the literature (Table\u0026nbsp;4). Eq.\u0026nbsp;(\u003cspan refid=\"Equ1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) was used to calculate the k value for each experimental plot iteratively by minimising the residual sum of squares between the simulated SOP stocks and the time-series of field-observed SOP stocks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;4 Average of published values of the h incorporation coefficient (dimensionless) of crop residues to the stock of soil organic phosphorus (SOP) across crops and types of organic products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData on N and C decomposition were used when P data were not available.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The h coefficients were set for each plant part, crop, and OWP according to the literature on crop residues and urban composts, farmyard manure, or dehydrated urban sewage sludge decomposition. Data on N and C decomposition were used when P data were not available.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReference(s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaize\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eag\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuchanan \u0026amp; King, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Lin\u0026egrave;res \u0026amp; Lubet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Mubarak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003ebg\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingh \u0026amp; Shekhar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003egr\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDoolette et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Noack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Steffens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoot-to-Shoot\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaguet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWheat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eag\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJalali \u0026amp; Ranjbar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Lupwayi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Soon \u0026amp; Arshad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003ebg\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMartin \u0026amp; Cunninghamt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e; Soon \u0026amp; Arshad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003egr\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoack et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Noack et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Steffens et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Doolette et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoot-to-Shoot\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBolinder 1997; Amanullah et al 2014; Amanullah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Rajala and Peltonen 2001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarley\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eag\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChristensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Gioacchini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; from publication on N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003ebg\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esupposed similar to wheat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003egr\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoack et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Noack et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Steffens et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Doolette et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoot-to-Shoot\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBolinder 1997; Amanullah et al 2014; Rajala and Peltonen 2001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSugar beet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eag\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThomsen \u0026amp; Christensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; based on nitrogen residues decomposition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDehydrated urban sewage sludge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost of green waste and urban sewage sludge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiowaste compost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle dairy farmyard manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost of cattle dairy farmyard manure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMunicipal solid waste compost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eOWP\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevavasseur et al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, based on h values of carbon incorporation determined with AMG model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses and modelling were performed using the free software R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)⁠. Data residue normality and variance homogeneity were tested beforehand using Shapiro and Bartlett tests, respectively. The effects of fertilisation treatments on yield, exported P, applied P (as crop residues and OWPs), and P incorporated into SOP were investigated using one-way ANOVA for a given LTFE and tested using linear mixed effect models fitted by a restrictive maximum likelihood method with the \u003cem\u003elme\u003c/em\u003e function from the \u003cem\u003enlme\u003c/em\u003e R package (Pinheiro et al., 2021). Fertilisation treatment, year, and their interactions were the fixed effects tested. Random effects were blocked to account for spatial pseudoreplication (4 repetitions). Years were used as the continuous time variable used to fit a first-order autoregressive variance structure to consider non-independent measurements within the plots. When effects were significant, differences between treatments or years were investigated with a post-hoc Tukey test at a significance level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05. The coefficients (intercept and slope) of the linear regressions describing the SOP and SIP stocks versus Bcum values were estimated using the \u003cem\u003elm\u003c/em\u003e function.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe k values were determined iteratively for each experimental plot with the \u003cem\u003eoptim\u003c/em\u003e function and the \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;L-BFGS-B\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; method (allows to bound k between 0.001 and 1\u0026nbsp;year-\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e) to minimise the residual sum of squares of time-series of simulated compared to observed SOP values. We used the standardised major axis regression (SMA) proposed by Correndo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e) to evaluate the adequacy between the observed and predicted data sets, as they showed that SMA is the most appropriate approach to fit a symmetric line describing the predicted-observed scatter. In addition, the SMA procedure allows the decomposition of the model error into percentage lack of accuracy (PLA) and percentage lack of precision (PLP). Model accuracy refers to the closeness between simulated and observed SOP values and is related to systematic bias. Model precision refers to the dispersion between the simulated and observed values and is related to an unsystematic (or random) bias. Several statistical criteria of adequacy between observations and simulations were used and calculated using the R-code tutorial proposed by Correndo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e): the coefficient of determination (R\u0026sup2;) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The relative root-mean-squared error (RRMSE) of the model was used to compare the dispersion of the simulated values with the coefficient of variation of the observed SOP values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Crop yield, harvest phosphorus content, and exported phosphorus\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn LTFE1, the average maize grain yield was 8.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and ranged from a minimum of 4.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in 1977 to a maximum of 11.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in 1989 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), without differences among treatments (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85). With OWP fertilisation, the yields in LTFE2 were not significantly different despite the discrepancies in P inputs among the different organic products (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65). Without adding P fertilisation (except a low rate in 2014, 16 years from the start of the trial), yields (average: 7.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) have decreased significantly than those in the other treatments (8.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002). In LTFE3, average crop yields were 8.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 t ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite the difference in P input through OWP and the control, no difference was observed in yield among the treatments (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the LTFE1 experiment, the average maize grains P content was 3.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and was significantly affected by P rate (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02), with a maximum for TSP\u003csub\u003e79\u003c/sub\u003e in 1984 (4.0 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) and a minimum for CON\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e in 1992 (2.6 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e). The control treatment differentiated between the two TSPs in 1988 and remained significantly lower (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, average harvest P contents were 3.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, and no differences were observed among treatments (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.43 and 0.99 for LTFE2 and LTFE3, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn LTFE1, the average exported P in harvest was 26.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.8 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, and all treatments presented a positive increase over time. However, this increase was lower for CON\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, which began to differentiate from the other two treatments in 1984 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In LTFE2, the exported P in CON\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e was slightly lower (23.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.2 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) than the four other treatments (OWP average: 27.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Conversely, no difference among treatments was observed in LTFE3 with an average of 25.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.6 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.70).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e Annual yield, its P concentration and annual P exported as affected by fertilization treatments and years for the three studied LTFE. Values are means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. err. (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4). CON: no P applied; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 The OWP main composition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn average, OWP applied at LTFE2 contained 280\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 g C kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, 20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 g N kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and 6.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.6 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. In LTFE3, OWPs were in the same concentration range with 332\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11 g C kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, 32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 g N kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, and 12.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6 g P kg\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. In LTFE2 and LTFE3, the C, N, and P contents were significantly different from the OWPs (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe C:P ratios of the OWPs applied at LTFE2 were 1060 (MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e), 117 (FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e), 706 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e46\u003c/sub\u003e), and 135 (GSW\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e). At LTFE3, the N:P ratios were 65 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e17\u003c/sub\u003e), 11 (FYM\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e), 10 (FYMC\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e), 12 (SLU\u003csub\u003e36\u003c/sub\u003e), and 12 (GWS\u003csub\u003e45\u003c/sub\u003e). Because of the highly different C:N:P ratios and fertilisation reasoning based on C or N, P inputs were highly variable among OWPs. Cumulative over 17 years of trial (LTFE2), ten OWP applications of 420, 699, 819, and 2008 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e were added to the soil for MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e, FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e, BIOW\u003csub\u003e46\u003c/sub\u003e, and GSW\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e. Cumulative organic P inputs (% of TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e) were respectively 37 (9%), 241 (34%), 64 (8%), and 325 (16%) kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. In LTFE3, the cumulative TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e inputs were 250, 317, 317, 545, and 667 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e for BIOW\u003csub\u003e17\u003c/sub\u003e, FYM\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e, FYMC\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e, SLU\u003csub\u003e36\u003c/sub\u003e, and GWS\u003csub\u003e45\u003c/sub\u003e, respectively, including 18 (7%), 114 (36%), 114 (36%), 93 (17%), and 107 (16%) kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e of organic P.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 P incorporation to SOP and the release of phosphate ions in solution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn average for all sites, years, and treatments, 39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e was applied to the soil through crop residues and OWPs, with significant differences between sites (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), i.e., 15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 (LTFE1), 57\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7 (LTFE2), and 35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4 (LTFE3) kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. At all sites, the sum of all P inputs (i.e., aboveground, belowground, grain residues, and total P in OWPs) was significantly different among treatments (LTFE1, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.02; LTFE2, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.00001; LTFE3, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Details on the average values, significant differences across treatments, and P inputs across years, treatments, and LTFEs are shown in SI: Tables\u0026nbsp;4-SI to 6-SI and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e-SI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn LTFE1, aboveground residues represented the most important P flux from maize returned to the soil (average of 7.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; 52%). Average P returned to aboveground and belowground residues increased significantly with increasing P addition (14.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02), while P returned to grain residues was homogeneous among P fertilisation rates (0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11). Therefore, cumulative P return within TSP\u003csub\u003e79\u003c/sub\u003e crop residues was higher than in TSP\u003csub\u003e27\u003c/sub\u003e or CON\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (315\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2, 267\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5, and 224\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn LTFE2 and LTFE3, the most important P input was P applied as OWP (44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7 and 23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; 77% and 66%, respectively). Within crop residues, belowground residues represented the main P input flux (8.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 and 7.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e; 63% and 60%, respectively for LTFE2 and LTFE3). In the LTFE2 grain residues, FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e was slightly higher than CON\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02); otherwise, no discrepancies were observed among treatments, regardless of the site or residue type. Therefore, cumulative crop residues P input in LTFE2 were 201\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6 (CON\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), 232\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6 (MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e), 256\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 (FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e), 241\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e46\u003c/sub\u003e), and 257\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5 (GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e). In LTFE3, the cumulative P input in crop residues were 164\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 (CON\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003e), 168\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 (BIOW\u003csub\u003e17\u003c/sub\u003e), 182\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4 (FYM\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e), 180\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 (FYMC\u003csub\u003e21\u003c/sub\u003e), 176\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 (SLU\u003csub\u003e36\u003c/sub\u003e), and 175\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 (GWS\u003csub\u003e45\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn average, decomposition of crop residues and OWPs over one year released 12.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5, 46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6, and 27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e as phosphate ions in solution for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, i.e., 83% (LTFE1), 80% (LTFE2) and 71% (LTFE3) of P applied as OWPs and crop residues. Rates of P incorporated to SOP stock were 2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1, 11.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.4, and 7.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Multiannual evolution of SOP and SIP stocks compared to the cumulative P budget\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAveraged over treatments and years, TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e stocks were 1500\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;74, 2577\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;89, and 4307\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;27 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, whose 451\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7, 635\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14, and 1209\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;16 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e were SOP stocks and the remainder were SIP stocks (1048\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;73, 1941\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;85, and 3104\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;30 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the LTFE1 treatment, 487 and 1448 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e were cumulatively applied to TSP\u003csub\u003e27\u003c/sub\u003e and TSP\u003csub\u003e79\u003c/sub\u003e, respectively. Therefore, SIP stock dynamics were significantly affected by treatments at all sites (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e-SI); SIP stock decreased when no P was applied, and increased significantly in LTFE1 and LTFE2 for treatments with the highest P inputs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e Evolution of soil inorganic P (SIP, dotted line) and soil organic P (SOP, solid line) stocks in the ploughed layer as affected by plot cumulative P budget (Bcum). Values are means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. err. (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4). Lines are linear regressions and grey areas are confidence interval (95%) of the linear regressions. CON: no P input; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; BIOW: biowaste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatments abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha-1\u0026nbsp;year-1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe initial SOP stocks varied significantly between sites (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In LTFE1, the SOP stocks remained stable over the 17 years of cropping (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) because there were no significant differences among treatments and years (ANOVA: treatment \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.64; year \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97). The SOP stocks in LTFE2 increased significantly (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), regardless of the OWP treatment (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30). LTFE2 and LTFE3 showed a significant positive increase in SOP stocks (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). No treatment differences were observed (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average SOP mineralisation k coefficient, was 0.005\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u0026nbsp;year-\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e, 0.018\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.004\u0026nbsp;year-\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e and 0.004\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u0026nbsp;year-\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively. The corresponding average SOP residence times (1/k) were 217, 56, and 227 years, respectively.\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$${SOP}_{t+1}=\\left(\\frac{\\sum \\left({P}_{j}\\times {h}_{j}\\right)}{k}\\right)\\times \\left(1-{e}^{-k}\\right)+{SOP}_{t}\\times {e}^{-k}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe k value at LTFE2 was significantly higher than that at the other two sites (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), with a residence time of less than 100 years. LTFE2 was also the only site where the fertilisation treatment affected k optimisation, with MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e at the lower limit set for optimisation (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the SOP residence time in the GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e treatment was much shorter than the other treatments (approximately 30 years). However, the k differences in LTFE2 were not reflected in the gross annual rate of SOP mineralisation, and none of the sites had a treatment effect on this variable. On average, rates of SOP mineralisation were 2.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1, 11.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5, and 5.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, for LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively, with significant differences between sites (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain features of the mineralisation of soil organic P (SOP) stocks (kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) in the plough layer of the three studied LTFEs. Parameters (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. dev.) of initial stock; coefficient of SOP mineralisation: k (yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e); 1/k: residence time (yr); annual rates of SOP mineralisation and incorporation (kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e). Values are means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;std. err. Different lower-case letters (a, b, c) indicate significant (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05) differences between treatments within a given LTFE. Different upper-case letters (A, B, C) indicate significant (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05) differences between LTFEs. CON: no P input; MWS: municipal solid waste compost; FYM: cattle dairy farmyard manure; FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU; SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: biowaste compost, TSP: triple superphosphate. Subscript values in treatment abbreviations are the average annual rate of P application, in kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitial SOP stock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoefficient k\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1/k\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMineralisation rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncorporation rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(OWP and residues)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecomposition rate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(OWP and residues)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eyr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ekg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCON\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e446\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;13 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0046\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0011 \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e217\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003eC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTSP\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e27\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 ab\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 ab\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTSP\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e79\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTreatment effect\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.59\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.81\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.81\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.02\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.02\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMean over Treatments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u003cb\u003eC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u003cb\u003eC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCON\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e595\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.011\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.006 \u003cb\u003eab\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMSW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0 \u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.8 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5 bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYM\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.030\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.003 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.6 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBIOW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e46\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.015\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.008 \u003cb\u003eab\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.2 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGWS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e112\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.031\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.011 \u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.7 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e104\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTreatment effect\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.93\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.03\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMean over Treatments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.018\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.004 \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6 \u003cb\u003eA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCON\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1145\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0044\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0009 \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e227\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1 \u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBIOW\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYM\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.3 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4 bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFYMC\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6 ab\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5 b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSLU\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.9 bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGWS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e45\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.1 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11 a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTreatment effect\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.22\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.48\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.52\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMean over Treatments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 \u003cb\u003eB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLTFE effect\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eP\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e-value\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e0.0009\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Model precision and accuracy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the three study sites, model precision and accuracy were high, with a regression slope line of the SMA of the simulated versus observed SOP close to 1 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) and an RMSE of 129 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. The PLA was 7% and the PLP was (93%). Therefore, the apparent model with low precision and high accuracy was attributed to the initial SOP stocks, which were highly variable among and within sites (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), limiting model precision. This statement was supported by an RRMSE (15%) that was twice as low as the coefficient of variation of the observed SOP (40% across all sites) but higher than the AMG model applied to C (approximately 5%) (Clivot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). However, the model was still accurate because its predicted SOP values remained the same magnitude as the observed SOP values. The management history of the plots may explain the origin and difference among the initial SOP stocks, but this could not be verified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e Simulated vs observed SOP stocks in the ploughed soil layer by the H\u0026eacute;nin and Dupuis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1945\u003c/span\u003e) model transposed to SOP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe solid line is the standardized major axis regression line (SMA). The dashed line is the 1:1 line. CON: no P input, MWS: municipal solid waste compost, FYM farmyard manure, FYMC: FYM compost; GWS: compost of green waste and SLU: SLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge; BIOW: bio-waste compost; TSP: triple superphosphate. Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1\u0026nbsp;year-1). Numbers in treatments names are P annually applied on average (kg P ha-1\u0026nbsp;year-1). LTFE1: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48, LTFE2: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;140, LTFE3: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;144.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Crops yields response to fertilisation across several decades\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed yields in all sites were in the same range as the recorded yields in the annual report on France agronomy (Agreste, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which were an average of 9.3, 7.0, and 6.2 t DM ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e for non-irrigated maize, wheat, and barley between 2020 and 2021. Comparable yields have also been reported for maize (Denoroy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) and in previous studies (Dodd \u0026amp; Mallarino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Eghball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Herencia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, applying OWPs had no effect on annual yields. However, in LTFE2, the decreased yield in the control was significant compared to other treatments and represented 10.7% average yield losses with OWP application. This loss is consistent with previous studies, where the yield declined only after several decades without applying P (Dodd \u0026amp; Mallarino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Gallet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur P concentrations in crop harvests were consistent with the literature in different experiments but similar situations (Cadot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Tang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In LTFE2 and LTFE3, no significant differences were observed in grain P concentrations across the OWPs, regardless of the crop type. In contrast, in LTFE1, the maize grain P content was significantly affected by the absence of TSP fertilisation, as reported in another long-term field experiment (Raguet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Without P application, maize grains contained less P than situation with optimal or excessive P fertilisation (Colomb et al., 2007; Messiga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Morel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Multiannual dynamics of SOP\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe multiannual dynamics of the SOP were analysed using time-series data from the three sites: over 18 years for LTFE1, 17 years for LTFE2, and 14 years for LTFE3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn LTFE1, the SOP remained stable for almost two decades. Additionally, the P return in maize residues (on average: 14.9 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) was in the same magnitude as the SOP standard deviation (13 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, with the SOP coefficient of variation of 10%). Raguet et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) also reported no significant SOP variation over 28 years of cropping in a close, long-term field experiment. However, while a minor increasing trend emerged in Raguet et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), no trend was highlighted in the present study, probably because of an insufficient time scale (18 compared to 28 years).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the variable SOP data (coefficient of variation: 24% in LTFE2 and 11% in LTFE3), LTFE2 and LTFE3 showed significant SOP stock increases according to the years of cropping. This dynamic could be due to higher P incorporation into SOP through crop residues and OWPs than through gross SOP mineralisation. However, without P application, the control treatments did not differ from the fertilised treatments, and SOP increased significantly over almost two decades.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the SOP dynamics results over the years were difficult to compare, as only a few studies have calculated SOP dynamics under field conditions by monitoring SOP stocks over time. The results were highly variable among the studies. Song et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) reported no significant change in SOP stock after 14 cropping cycles (a maize\u0026ndash;soybean\u0026ndash;wheat rotation) under three P fertilisation rates. Similarly, Chater and Mattingly (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e) reported limited or no stock decrease over 10\u0026ndash;45 years of cropping (Rothamsted and Saxmundham experiments). In contrast, Zhang and MacKenzie (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted significant SOP decreases from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;16 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;29 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e over five years of continuous maize cropping on Canadian clayed soil (71% clay).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Annual rate of SOP mineralisation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring post-harvest decomposition (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1 year), the P in the crop was split according to the h parameter (Table\u0026nbsp;4) between P incorporated into SOP and P released into the soil solution as phosphate ions or easily degradable organic compounds, which are available for plants (He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Noack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The P residue of 17%, 37%, 35%, and 77% of the maize, wheat, barley, and sugar beet, respectively, were incorporated into the SOP. Considering that a maximum of 20% of released P was recovered by the next crop (Johnston et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), the remaining crop P residues represented a maximum of 6% (2.5 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), 5% (1.9 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), and 4% (1.5 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) of absorbed P (sum of exported P and P return in residues) in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inorganic P values in the OWPs were 93%, 91%, 84%, 83%, and 64% for BIO, MSW, GWS, SLU, and FYM, respectively. These results corresponded to previous studies, i.e., the majority of P in applied products was inorganic and directly contributed to the plant-available P supply (Cabeza et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Gl\u0026aelig;sner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies reported fertilisation capacities similar to industrial inorganic fertilisers, especially for dehydrated sewage sludge (Morel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). With the same assumptions as for crop residues (i.e., 20% of released P recovered by the next crop), the absorbed P from OWP decomposition were 7.3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (17%) in LTFE2 and 3.9 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (12%) in LTFE3. Because there are few studies on crop residue or OWP P decomposition, some h values were set according to the N or C results based on the literature (Table\u0026nbsp;4). Those parameters assumed a homogeneous coupling dynamic between C, N, and P, which was altered by intensive management (Bertrand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Recous et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy running the model and fitting simulated to observed SOP values, the annual rates of mineralisation were 2.1 (LTFE1), 11.2 (LTFE2), and 5.4 (LTFE3) kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e. The SOP mineralisation rate in LTFE1 was comparable to another long-term field experiment, which obtained 1.7 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (Raguet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the phosphate ions release through OWPs and crop residues decomposition was six times higher than that through SOP mineralisation for LTFE1, four times higher for LTFE2, and five times higher for LTFE3. Considering a maximum of 20% of P recovered by the next crop, SOP could contribute up to 0.4 (1%), 3.4 (6%), and 2.1 (3%) kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e to the absorbed P for LTFE1, LTFE2, LTFE3, respectively. SOP only plays a minor role in plant P nutrition, whereas OWP could represents 20% of the absorbed P.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the gross annual rates of SOP mineralisation did not differ significantly among treatments at a given site, the SOP residence time was affected by OWP in LTFE2 and ranged from 30 years (FYM\u003csub\u003e40\u003c/sub\u003e and GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e) to more than one millennium (MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e). The observed differences in the calculated k values could be due to the amount and speciation of applied P. The P inputs represented 325 kg ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e of cumulative organic P incorporation in GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e, whereas MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e represented a cumulative incorporation of 30 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e-SI). As the SOP stock did not differ, P under GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e fertilisation should cycle faster than that in MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e. In addition, the shortest SOP residence time in MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e was comparable to the upper range of residence times found in the active SOC pool using either the H\u0026eacute;nin-Dupuis model or AMG model (derived from the H\u0026eacute;nin-Dupuis model). The C residence time in the SOC pool averages 20 years and ranges from 6 to 50 years, depending on the agropedoclimatic conditions (Andriulo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Boiffin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Clivot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Pl\u0026eacute;net et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Saffih-Hdadi \u0026amp; Mary \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe low annual rate of mineralisation, long residence time, and low contribution of SOP to plant nutrition, despite substantial stock, can be linked to several factors. The first is the composition and speciation of the added P in the crop residues and OWPs. Organic P contains a wide range of compounds, of which orthophosphate monoesters are the most important group, and mainly include \u003cem\u003emyo\u003c/em\u003e-inositol hexakisphosphate (i.e., phytate) (Cade-Menun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Condron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Menezes-Blackburn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This compound is the main form of P stored in plant seeds and is likely to be released into the soil after residues return (Noack et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Although phytate can be rapidly mineralised, it can also bind tightly to the soil solid phase by sorption via its highly-phosphorylated inositol structure (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and remains unavailable for enzymatic mineralisation (McKercher \u0026amp; Anderson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Steffens et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Second, the high phosphate ions concentration in soil solution (0.86, 1.03, and 0.52 mg P L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in LTFE1, LTFE2, and LTFE3, respectively) can inhibit phosphatase synthesis and activity. As a result, SOP mineralisation is limited (Manzoor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nannipieri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Olander \u0026amp; Vitousek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThree long-term field experiments were conducted to determine SOP stock mineralisation over almost two decades in contrasting agroecosystems. According to model calculations, the SOP residence times exceeded two centuries for LTFE1 and LTFE3 and varied from 30 years (GWS\u003csub\u003e112\u003c/sub\u003e) to more than a millennium (MSW\u003csub\u003e24\u003c/sub\u003e) LTFE2. With these values, SOP can only contribute to a maximum of 1% (LTFE1), 6% (LTFE2), and 3% (LTFE3) to the P absorbed by plants, which is low compared to the potential contributions of crop residues and OWPs (LTFE1:6%; LTFE2:24%; LTFE3:15%). The OWPs in LTFE2 and LTFE3 contained highly variable amounts of P, essentially in inorganic forms. OWPs are more likely to behave as inorganic fertilisers than SOPs. Further studies are required to extend the range of application of the model to determine SOP mineralisation driving factors, considering the SOP, crop P residue, and OWP speciation, as well as phosphatase enzymatic assays.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBcum: plot cumulative P budget (kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBIOW: composted biowaste;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCON: control;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFYM: farmyard manure;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFYMC: composted farmyard manure;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGWS: compost of green waste and urban sewage sludge;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eh\u003csub\u003eagr\u003c/sub\u003e, h\u003csub\u003ebgr\u003c/sub\u003e, and h\u003csub\u003egrr\u003c/sub\u003e: incorporation coefficients (dimensionless) to SOP of P in aboveground, belowground residues, and grains returned to the soil during the annual crop cycle, respectively;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ek: coefficient of gross SOP mineralization (yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e); 1/k is the residence time (yr);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLTFEs: long-term field experiments;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMSW: municipal solid waste;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOWP: Organic waste products (i.e. urban composts and animal manures);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003eagr\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eP\u003csub\u003ebgr\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eP\u003csub\u003egrr\u003c/sub\u003e: P amount in aboveground and belowground residues, and in grains that returned to soil during the annual crop cycle (kg ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), respectively;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSIP: soil inorganic P, determined as the difference between TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e and SOP;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSLU: dehydrated urban sewage sludge;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSOC: soil organic carbon;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSOP: soil organic P determined using the Saunders and Williams ignition method;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTP: soil total P, with TP\u003csub\u003eHF\u003c/sub\u003e determined using concentrated hydrofluoric and perchloric acid digestion (NF X 31-147);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTSP: triple superphosphate.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe gratefully acknowledge all our colleagues from the INRAE research centers Ile-de-France \u0026ndash; Versailles-Saclay, Grand Est \u0026ndash; Colmar, and Nouvelle-Aquitaine \u0026ndash; Bordeaux, who contributed to the three long-term field experiments by obtaining all plant data, climatic data, and soil samples. The QualiAgro (LTFE2) and\u0026nbsp;PROspective\u0026nbsp;(LTFE3)\u0026nbsp;field experiments form part of the SOERE-PRO (network of long-term experiments dedicated to the study of impacts of organic waste product recycling) certified and funded in 2013 by ALLENVI (\u003cem\u003eAlliance Nationale de Recherche pour l\u0026rsquo;Environnement\u003c/em\u003e) and integrated as a service of the Investment for Future Infrastructure AnaEE-France, overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-INBS-0001).\u0026nbsp;The QualiAgro research program is conducted in collaboration by the INRAE (\u003cem\u003eInstitut National de Recherche pour l\u0026rsquo;Agriculture, l\u0026rsquo;Alimentation et l\u0026rsquo;Environnement\u003c/em\u003e), Grignon and Veolia Environment Research and Innovation since 1997.\u0026nbsp;The authors thank Coralie Chesseron for help with laboratory analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePablo Raguet was financially supported by a doctoral contract from the National Research Agency under the program \u0026quot;Investissements d\u0026apos;avenir\u0026quot; within the framework of the IdEx Bordeaux n\u0026deg;ANR-10-IDEX-03-02.\u0026nbsp;This work was jointly supervised by the Universities of Bordeaux (FR) and Laval (CA).\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAFNOR. (1999). Qualit\u0026eacute; des sols. tome 1 et tome 2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgreste. (2022). Chiffres et donn\u0026eacute;es, statistique agricole annuelle 2021. Minist\u0026egrave;re de l\u0026rsquo;Agriculture et de la Souverainet\u0026eacute; alimentaire. https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/disaron/Chd2215/detail/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmanullah. (2014). Wheat and rye differ in drymatter partitioning, shoot-root ratio and water use efficiency under organic and inorganic soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 37(11), 1885\u0026ndash;1897. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.911888\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmanullah, Stewart, B. A., \u0026amp; Ullah, H. (2015). Cool season C3-grasses (wheat, rye, barley, and oats) differ in shoot: Root ratio when applied with different NPK sources. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 38(2), 189\u0026ndash;201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.881877\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndriulo, A., Mary, B., \u0026amp; Guerif, J. (1999). Modelling soil carbon dynamics with various cropping sequences on the rolling pampas. Agronomie, 19(5), 365\u0026ndash;377. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:19990504\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnabi, M., Houot, S., Francou, C., Poitrenaud, M., \u0026amp; Bissonnais, Y. L. (2007). Soil aggregate stability improvement with urban composts of different maturities. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71(2), 413\u0026ndash;423. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0161\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnabi, M., Le Bissonnais, Y., Le Villio-Poitrenaud, M., \u0026amp; Houot, S. (2011). Improvement of soil aggregate stability by repeated applications of organic amendments to a cultivated silty loam soil. Agriculture, Ecosystems \u0026amp; Environment, 144(1), 382\u0026ndash;389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArenberg, M. R., \u0026amp; Arai, Y. (2019). Uncertainties in soil physicochemical factors controlling phosphorus mineralization and immobilization processes. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (pp. 153\u0026ndash;200, Vol. 154). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2018.11.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertrand, I., Viaud, V., Daufresne, T., Pellerin, S., \u0026amp; Recous, S. (2019). Stoichiometry constraints challenge the potential of agroecological practices for the soil c storage. a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0599-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoiffin, J., Zagbahi, J. K., \u0026amp; Sebillotte, M. (1986). Syst\u0026egrave;mes de culture et statut organique des sols dans le noyonnais : Application du mod\u0026egrave;le de h\u0026eacute;nin-dupuis. Agronomie, (6), 437\u0026ndash;446. https://hal.science/hal-00884894/document\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolinder, M. A., Angers, D. A., \u0026amp; Dubuc, J. P. (1997). Estimating shoot to root ratios and annual carbon inputs in soils for cereal crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 63(1), 61\u0026ndash;66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01121-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoniface, R., \u0026amp; Trocm\u0026eacute;, S. (1988). Enseignements fournis par des essais de longue dur\u0026eacute;e sur la fumure phosphat\u0026eacute;e et potassique. essais sur la fumure phosphat\u0026eacute;e. In L. Gachon (Ed.), Phosphore et potassium dans les relations sol-plante: Cons\u0026eacute;quences sur la fertilisation (INRA edition, pp. 279\u0026ndash;401).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuchanan, M., \u0026amp; King, L. D. (1993). Carbon and phosphorus losses from decomposing crop residues in no-till and conventional till agroecosystems. Agronomy Journal, 85(3), 631\u0026ndash;638. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030021x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCabeza, R., Steingrobe, B., R\u0026ouml;mer, W., \u0026amp; Claassen, N. (2011). Effectiveness of recycled P products as P fertilizers, as evaluated in pot experiments. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 91(2), 173\u0026ndash;184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-011-9454-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCade-Menun, B. J. (2017). Characterizing phosphorus forms in cropland soils with solution 31P-NMR: Past studies and future research needs. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 4(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-017-0098-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCadot, S., B\u0026eacute;langer, G., Ziadi, N., Morel, C., \u0026amp; Sinaj, S. (2018). Critical plant and soil phosphorus for wheat, maize, and rapeseed after 44 years of P fertilization. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 112(3), 417\u0026ndash;433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-018-9956-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChater, M., \u0026amp; Mattingly, G. E. (1980). Changes in organic phosphorus contents of soils from long- continued experiments at rothamsted and saxmundham. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Report, 1979 pt 2, 41\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, H., Levavasseur, F., Montenach, D., Lollier, M., Morel, C., \u0026amp; Houot, S. (2022). An 18-year field experiment to assess how various types of organic waste used at european regulatory rates sustain crop yields and C, N, P, and K dynamics in a french calcareous soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 221, 105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105415\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChalhoub, M., Garnier, P., Coquet, Y., Mary, B., Lafolie, F., \u0026amp; Houot, S. (2013). Increased nitrogen availability in soil after repeated compost applications: Use of the PASTIS model to separate short and long-term effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 65, 144\u0026ndash;157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.05.023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristensen, B. T. (1986). Barley straw decomposition under field conditions: Effect of placement and initial nitrogen content on weight loss and nitrogen dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 18(5), 523\u0026ndash;529. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(86)90010-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClivot, H., Mouny, J. C., Duparque, A., Dinh, J. L., Denoroy, P., Houot, S., Vert\u0026egrave;s, F., Trochard, R., Bouthier, A., Sagot, S., \u0026amp; Mary, B. (2019). Modeling soil organic carbon evolution in long-term arable experiments with AMG model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 118, 99\u0026ndash;113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.04.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColomc, B., Debaeke, P., Jouany, C., \u0026amp; Nolot, J. M. (2007). Phosphorus management in low input stockless cropping systems: Crop and soil responses to contrasting P regimes in a 36-year experiment in southern France. European Journal of Agronomy, 26, 154\u0026ndash;165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.09.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCondron, L. M., Turner, B. L., \u0026amp; Cade-Menun, B. J. (2005). Chemistry and dynamics of soil organic phosphorus. In J. Thomas Sims, A. N. Sharpley, \u0026amp; D. T. Westermann (Eds.), Phosphorus: Agriculture and the environment (American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, pp. 87\u0026ndash;121). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr46.c4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., \u0026amp; White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292\u0026ndash;305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCordell, D., \u0026amp; White, S. (2011). Peak phosphorus: Clarifying the key issues of a vigorous debate about long-term phosphorus security. Sustainability, 3(10), 2027\u0026ndash;2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3102027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrendo, A. A., Hefley, T. J., Holzworth, D. P., \u0026amp; Ciampitti, I. A. (2021a). Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets. Agricultural Systems, 192, 103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103194\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrendo, A. A., Hefley, T., Holzworth, D., \u0026amp; Ciampitti, I. A. (2021b). R-code tutorial: Revisiting linear regression to test agreement in continuous predicted-observed datasets. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EJS4M0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenoroy, P., Dubrulle, P., Villete, C., Colomb, B., Fayet, G., Schoeser, M., Marin-Lafl\u0026egrave;che, A., Pellerin, S., \u0026amp; Boiffin, J. (2004). Regifert: Interpr\u0026eacute;ter les r\u0026eacute;sultats des analyses de terre. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiacono, M., \u0026amp; Montemurro, F. (2011). Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. In E. Lichtfouse, M. Hamelin, M. Navarrete, \u0026amp; P. Debaeke (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture, Volume 2 (pp. 761\u0026ndash;786). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_34\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDodd, J. R., \u0026amp; Mallarino, A. P. (2005). Soil-test phosphorus and crop grain yield responses to long-term phosphorus fertilization for corn-soybean rotations. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69(4), 1118\u0026ndash;1128. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0279\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDodd, R. J., \u0026amp; Sharpley, A. N. (2015). Recognizing the role of soil organic phosphorus in soil fertility and water quality. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 282\u0026ndash;293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoolette, A. L., Smernik, R. J., \u0026amp; Dougherty, W. J. (2010). Rapid decomposition of phytate applied to a calcareous soil demonstrated by a solution 31P-NMR study. European Journal of Soil Science, 61(4), 563\u0026ndash;575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01259.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEghball, B., Ginting, D., \u0026amp; Gilley, J. E. (2004). Residual effects of manure and compost applications on corn production and soil properties. Agronomy Journal, 96(2), 442\u0026ndash;447. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.4420\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. (2014). World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification systems for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps (update 2015). http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-classification/world-referencebase/en/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuchs, J., G\u0026eacute;nermont, S., Houot, S., Jard\u0026eacute;, \u0026Eacute;., Mollier, A., M\u0026eacute;nasseri, S., Mollier, A., Morel, C., Parnaudeau, V., Pradel, M., \u0026amp; Vieubl\u0026eacute;, L. (2014). Chapitre 3 : Effets agronomiques attendus de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;pandage des mafor sur les \u0026eacute;cosyst\u0026egrave;mes agricoles et forestiers. In S. Houot, M.-N. Pons, M. Pradel, A. Tibi, C. Aubry, L. Augusto, R. Barbier, P. Beno\u0026icirc;t, H. Brug\u0026egrave;re, M.-A. Caillaud, M. Casellas, A. Chatelet, P. Dabert, S. De Mareschal, I. Doussan, C. Etrillard, J. Fuchs, S. G\u0026eacute;nermont, L. Giamberini, . . . C. Vigui\u0026eacute; (Eds.), Valorisation des mati\u0026egrave;res fertilisantes d\u0026rsquo;origine r\u0026eacute;siduaire sur les sols \u0026agrave; usage agricole ou forestier (INRA-CNRS-IRSTEA, pp. 364\u0026ndash;567).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGallet, A., Flisch, R., Ryser, J.-P., Frossard, E., \u0026amp; Sinaj, S. (2003). Effect of phosphate fertilization on crop yield and soil phosphorus status. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 166(5), 568\u0026ndash;578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200321081\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiles, C. D., Richardson, A. E., Cade-Menun, B. J., Mezeli, M. M., Brown, L. K., Menezes-Blackburn, D., Darch, T., Blackwell, M. S., Shand, C. A., Stutter, M. I., Wendler, R., Cooper, P., Lumsdon, D. G., Wearing, C., Zhang, H., Haygarth, P. M., \u0026amp; George, T. S. (2018). Phosphorus acquisition by citrate- and phytase-exuding Nicotiana tabacum plant mixtures depends on soil phosphorus availability and root intermingling. Physiologia Plantarum, 163(3), 356\u0026ndash;371. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12718\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGioacchini, P., Montecchio, D., Gnudi, E., Terzi, V., Stanca, A. M., Ciavatta, C., \u0026amp; Marzadori, C. (2016). Fate of n in soil amended with 15N-labelled residues of winter cereals combined with an organic n fertiliser. Soil Research, 54(2), 182. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15055\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGl\u0026aelig;sner, N., van der Bom, F., Bruun, S., McLaren, T., Larsen, F. H., \u0026amp; Magid, J. (2019). Phosphorus characterization and plant availability in soil profiles after long-term urban waste application. Geoderma, 338, 136\u0026ndash;144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.11.046\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGopinath, K. A., Saha, S., Mina, B. L., Pande, H., Kundu, S., \u0026amp; Gupta, H. S. (2008). Influence of organic amendments on growth, yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during transition to organic production. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 82(1), 51\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-008-9168-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, Z., Mao, J., Honeycutt, C. W., Ohno, T., Hunt, J. F., \u0026amp; Cade-Menun, B. J. (2009). Characterization of plant-derived water extractable organic matter by multiple spectroscopic techniques. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45(6), 609\u0026ndash;616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-009-0369-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe, Z., Olk, D. C., \u0026amp; Cade-Menun, B. J. (2011). Forms and lability of phosphorus in humic acid fractions of hord silt loam soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75(5), 1712\u0026ndash;1722. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0355\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026eacute;nin, S., \u0026amp; Dupuis, M. (1945). Essai de bilan de la mati\u0026egrave;re organique du sol. Annales agronomiques, 11, 17\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerencia, J. F., Ruiz-Porras, J. C., Melero, S., Garcia-Galavis, P. A., Morillo, E., \u0026amp; Maqueda, C. (2007). Comparison between organic and mineral fertilization for soil fertility levels, crop macronutrient concentrations, and yield. Agronomy Journal, 99(4), 973\u0026ndash;983. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0168\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJalali, M., \u0026amp; Ranjbar, F. (2009). Rates of decomposition and phosphorus release from organic residues related to residue composition. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172(3), 353\u0026ndash;359. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston, A. E., Poulton, P. R., Fixen, P. E., \u0026amp; Curtin, D. (2014). Phosphorus: Its efficient use in agriculture. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (pp. 177\u0026ndash;228, Vol. 123). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420225-2.00005-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevavasseur, F., Mary, B., Christensen, B. T., Duparque, A., Ferchaud, F., K\u0026auml;tterer, T., Lagrange, H., Montenach, D., Resseguier, C., \u0026amp; Houot, S. (2020). The simple AMG model accurately simulates organic carbon storage in soils after repeated application of exogenous organic matter. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 117(2), 215\u0026ndash;229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-020-10065-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin\u0026egrave;res, M., \u0026amp; Lubet, E. (1990). Maize residue management: Organic matter decomposition and nutrient losses. In S. Lookman (Ed.), 1st congress of European Society of Agronomy. ESA Colmar.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu X., Han R., Cao Y., Turner B. L., \u0026amp; Ma L. Q. (2022). Enhancing phytate availability in soils and phytate-P acquisition by plants: a review. Environmental Science \u0026amp; Technology, 56(13), 9196\u0026ndash;219. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLupwayi, N. Z., Clayton, G. W., O\u0026rsquo;Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Turkington, T. K., \u0026amp; Soon, Y. K. (2007). Phosphorus release during decomposition of crop residues under conventional and zero tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1), 231\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.01.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManzoor A., Dippold M. A., Loeppmann S., \u0026amp; Blagodatskaya E. (2022). Two-phase conceptual framework of phosphatase activity and phosphorus bioavailability. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 935829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.935829\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, B. J. K., \u0026amp; Cunninghamt, R. B. (1973). Factors controlling the release of phosphorus from decomposnig wheat roots. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 26(4), 715\u0026ndash;727.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasson, P., Dalix, T., \u0026amp; Bussi\u0026egrave;re, S. (2010). Determination of major and trace elements in plant samples by inductively coupled plasma\u0026ndash;mass spectrometry. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 41(3), 231\u0026ndash;243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620903460757\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKercher, R., \u0026amp; Anderson, G. (1989). Organic phosphate sorption by neutral and basic soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 20(7), 723\u0026ndash;732. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628909368112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMenezes-Blackburn, D., Giles, C., Darch, T., George, T. S., Blackwell, M., Stutter, M., Shand, C., Lumsdon, D., Cooper, P., Wendler, R., Brown, L., Almeida, D. S., Wearing, C., Zhang, H., \u0026amp; Haygarth, P. M. (2018). Opportunities for mobilizing recalcitrant phosphorus from agricultural soils: A review. Plant and Soil, 427(1), 5\u0026ndash;16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3362-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMessiga, A. J., Ziadi, N., Pl\u0026eacute;net, D., Parent, L.-E., \u0026amp; Morel, C. (2010). Long-term changes in soil phosphorus status related to P budgets under maize monoculture and mineral P fertilization. Soil Use and Management, 26(3), 354\u0026ndash;364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00287.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorel, C., Lin\u0026egrave;res, M., Guivarch, A., \u0026amp; Kvarnstr\u0026ouml;m, E. (2002). Phytodisponibilit\u0026eacute; et valeur fertilisante du phosphore de d\u0026eacute;chets urbains. Dossier de l\u0026rsquo;environnement de l\u0026rsquo;INRA, 25, 35\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorel, C., Pl\u0026eacute;net, D., \u0026amp; Mollier, A. (2021). Calibration of maize phosphorus status by plant-available soil P assessed by common and process-based approaches. is it soil-specific or not? European Journal of Agronomy, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126174\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMubarak, A. R., Rosenani, A. B., Anuar, A. R., \u0026amp; Zauyah, S. (2002). Decomposition and nutrient release of maize stover and groundnut haulm under tropical field conditions of malaysia. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 33(3), 609\u0026ndash;622. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120002767\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurphy, J., \u0026amp; Riley, J. (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters (A.-L. M\u0026uuml;ller \u0026amp; W. Reichmann, Eds.). Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 31\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNannipieri, P., Giagnoni, L., Landi, L., \u0026amp; Renella, G. (2011). Role of phosphatase enzymes in soil. In E. B\u0026uuml;nemann, A. Oberson, \u0026amp; E. Frossard (Eds.), Phosphorus in action (pp. 215\u0026ndash;243, Vol. 26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15271-9_9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eN\u0026eacute;mery, J., \u0026amp; Garnier, J. (2007). Origin and fate of phosphorus in the seine watershed (France): Agricultural and hydrographic p budgets. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 112. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JG000331\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoack, S. R., McLaughlin, M. J., Smernik, R. J., McBeath, T. M., \u0026amp; Armstrong, R. D. (2012). Crop residue phosphorus: Speciation and potential bio-availability. Plant and Soil, 359(1), 375\u0026ndash;385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1216-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoack, S. R., McLaughlin, M. J., Smernik, R. J., McBeath, T. M., \u0026amp; Armstrong, R. D. (2014). Phosphorus speciation in mature wheat and canola plants as affected by phosphorus supply. Plant and Soil, 378(1), 125\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-2015-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlander, L. P., \u0026amp; Vitousek, P. M. (2000). Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry, 49(2), 175\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006316117817\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaetsch, L., Mueller, C. W., Rumpel, C., Houot, S., \u0026amp; K\u0026ouml;gel-Knabner, I. (2016). Urban waste composts enhance OC and N stocks after long-term amendment but do not alter organic matter composition. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 223, 211\u0026ndash;222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinay, G., Gascuel, C., M\u0026eacute;nesguen, A., Souchon, Y., Le Moal, M., Levain, A., Etrillard, C., Moatar, F., Pannard, A., \u0026amp; Philippe, S. (2018). L\u0026rsquo;eutrophisation : Manifestations, causes, cons\u0026eacute;quences et pr\u0026eacute;dictibilit\u0026eacute;. Synth\u0026egrave;se de l\u0026rsquo;Expertise scientifique collective CNRS - Ifremer - INRA - Irstea.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., \u0026amp; R Core Team. (2022). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePl\u0026eacute;net, D., Lubet, E., \u0026amp; Juste, C. (1993). \u0026Eacute;volution \u0026agrave; long terme du statut carbon\u0026eacute; du sol en monoculture non irrigu\u0026eacute;e du ma\u0026iuml;s (Zea mays L.) Agronomy, 13(8), 685\u0026ndash;698. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00885586\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaguet, P., Cade-Menun, B., Mollier, A., Abdi, D., Ziadi, N., Karam, A., \u0026amp; Morel, C. (2023). Mineralization and speciation of organic phosphorus in a sandy soil continuously cropped and phosphorus-fertilized for 28 years. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 108938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108938\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRajala, A., \u0026amp; Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2001). Grain and oil crops: Plant growth regulator effects on spring cereal root and shoot growth. Agronomy Journal, 93(4), 936\u0026ndash;943. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.934936x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRecous, S., Lashermes, G., Bertrand, I., Duru, M., \u0026amp; Pellerin, S. (2019). C\u0026ndash;N\u0026ndash;P decoupling processes linked to arable cropping management systems in relation with intensification of production. In Agroecosystem diversity (pp. 35\u0026ndash;53). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811050-8.00003-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaffih-Hdadi, K., \u0026amp; Mary, B. (2008). Modeling consequences of straw residues export on soil organic carbon. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40(3), 594\u0026ndash;607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.08.022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaunders, W. M. H., \u0026amp; Williams, E. G. (1955). Observations on the determination of total organic phosphorus in soils. Journal of Soil Science, 6(2), 254\u0026ndash;267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1955.tb00849.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharpley, A., Kleinman, P., Jarvie, H., \u0026amp; Flaten, D. (2016). Distant views and local realities: The limits of global assessments to restore the fragmented phosphorus cycle. Agricultural \u0026amp; Environmental Letters, 1(1), 160024. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2016.07.0024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, K. P., \u0026amp; Shekhar, C. (1989). Concentration and release patterns of nutrients (N, P and K) during decomposition of maize and wheat roots in a seasonally-dry tropical region. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 21(1), 81\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(89)90015-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong, C., Han, X., \u0026amp;Wang, E. (2011). Phosphorus budget and organic phosphorus fractions in response to long-term applications of chemical fertilisers and pig manure in a mollisol. Soil Research, 49(3), 253\u0026ndash;260. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoon, Y., \u0026amp; Arshad, M. (2002). Comparison of the decomposition and N and P mineralization of canola, pea and wheat residues. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 36(1), 10\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0518-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteffens, D., Leppin, T., Luschin-Ebengreuth, N., Min Yang, Z., \u0026amp; Schubert, S. (2010). Organic soil phosphorus considerably contributes to plant nutrition but is neglected by routine soil-testing methods. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 173(5), 765\u0026ndash;771. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000079\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTang, X., Li, J., Ma, Y., Hao, X., \u0026amp; Li, X. (2008). Phosphorus efficiency in long-term (15 years) wheat-maize cropping systems with various soil and climate conditions. Field Crops Research, 108(3), 231\u0026ndash;237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.05.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomsen, I. K., \u0026amp; Christensen, B. T. (1996). Availability to subsequent crops and leaching of nitrogen in 15N-labelled sugarbeet tops and oilseed rape residues. Journal of Agricultural Science, 126(2), 191\u0026ndash;199. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859600073135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomsen, I. K., \u0026amp; Christensen, B. T. (1998). Cropping system and residue management effects on nitrate leaching and crop yields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 68(1), 73\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00134-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., \u0026amp; Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671\u0026ndash;677. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, K., Xie, R., Min, B., Hou, P., Xue, J., \u0026amp; Li, S. (2021). Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 14(1), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20211401.6034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu, P., Li, X., White, P. J., \u0026amp; Li, C. (2015). A large and deep root system underlies high nitrogen-use efficiency in maize production. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126293\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, T. Q., \u0026amp; MacKenzie, A. F. (1997). Changes of phosphorous fractions under continuous corn production in a temperate clay soil. Plant and Soil, 192(1), 133\u0026ndash;139. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004232417658\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nutrient-cycling-in-agroecosystems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"fres","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems](http://link.springer.com/journal/10705)","snPcode":"10705","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10705/3","title":"Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Agroecosystems, long-term field experiment, organic waste fertilizers, phosphorus, soil-plant cycling","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePhosphorus (P) is a major nutrient for crops, and its application to agricultural soils as inorganic or organic fertilizer is crucial for optimising P availability to plants to sustain and ensure food production. The mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus (SOP) may play a significant role in supplying plant-available P. This study aimed to determine the SOP mineralisation rate in soils cropped under contrasting agropedoclimatic conditions. The rate was determined by applying to SOP the modelling approach developed by H\u0026eacute;nin and Dupuis in 1945 for soil organic carbon. We used three French long-term field experiments (LTFEs) on P fertilisation combining different P rates (0\u0026ndash;112 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003eyr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), applied for decades as superphosphate or various organic waste products (OWPs), on different soil types, and different annual crop successions. These databases include long time-series data of topsoil SOP and soil inorganic phosphorus (SIP) contents and annual crop measurements. For the three LTFEs, the initial SOP stocks were 446, 595, and 1145 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, the P amounts exported during harvest were 26.5, 26.6, and 25.3 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003eyr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, and the P remaining in the topsoil as crop residues were 15.0, 14.4, and 11.5 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003eyr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e with significant differences across yields, plant organs, and fertilisation treatments. During the post-harvest year, 2.5, 7.9, and 11.0 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003eyr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e were incorporated into SOP by the decomposition of crop residues and OWPs. The rates of SOP mineralisation, 2.1, 5.4, and 11.2 kg P ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e yr\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e, differed significantly across the LTFEs. The SOP stocks did not change significantly with the years of cropping and fertilisation, irrespective of P fertilisation. The SIP stocks closely corresponded to the cumulative P budget (i.e., cumulative sum of applied P \u0026ndash; exported P).\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mineralisation of soil organic phosphorus with different P sources: results from three long-term field experiments","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-05 15:42:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3914588/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-03-10T10:49:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-02-05T02:42:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"b44ae9c5-f2bc-40f7-ab3a-fbbd076cc044","date":"2024-02-04T23:10:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-02-04T20:10:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-02-02T14:15:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-02-02T14:15:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems","date":"2024-01-31T16:55:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"nutrient-cycling-in-agroecosystems","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"fres","sideBox":"Learn more about [Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems](http://link.springer.com/journal/10705)","snPcode":"10705","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10705/3","title":"Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"86be1119-0923-41a2-b500-67ed55fa1ad0","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-27T10:46:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3914588","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10377-2","journal":{"identity":"nutrient-cycling-in-agroecosystems","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-20 15:57:11","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 20th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-05 15:42:20","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10705-024-10377-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10377-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3914588","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3914588","identity":"rs-3914588","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"CiT4i_kKBbxQbnFL0ufpk","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}