Phosphorus uptake from green manures and phosphate fertilizers applied in an acid tropical soil

Quantifying the relative contribution of different phosphorus (P) sources to P uptake can lead to greater understanding of the mechanisms that increase available P in integrated P management systems. The P-32-P-33 double isotope labeling technique was used to determine the relative contribution of green manures (GMs) and P fertilizers to P uptake by Setaria grass (Setaria sphacelata) grown in an amended tropical acid soil (Bungor series) in a glasshouse study. The amendments were factorial combinations of GMs (Calopogonium caeruleum , Gliricidia sepium and Imperata cylindrica) and P fertilizers [phosphate rocks (PRs) from North Carolina (NCPR), China (CPR) and Algeria (APR), and triple superphosphate (TSP)]. Dry matter yield, P uptake, and P utilization from the amendments were monitored at 4, 8, and 15 weeks after establishment (WAE). The GMs alone or in combination with P fertilizers contributed less than 5% to total P uptake in this soil, but total P uptake into Setaria plants in the GM treatments was three to four times that of the P fertilizers because the GMs mobilized more soil P. Also, the GMs markedly increased fertilizer P utilization in the combined treatments, from 3% to 39% with CPR, from 6-9% to 19-48% with reactive PRs, and from 6% to 37% with TSP in this soil. Both P GM and the other decomposition products were probably involved in reducing soil P-retention capacity. Mobilization of soil P was most likely the result of the action of the other decomposition products. These results demonstrate the high potential of integrating GMs and PRs for managing P in tropical soils and the importance of the soil P mobilization capacity of the organic components. Even the low-quality Imperata GM enhanced the effectiveness of the reactive APR more than fourfold.

No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror

Is the use of torture ever justified? This article argues that torture cannot be justified, even in so called ticking bomb cases, but that in such extreme situations it may be necessary. In those situations, judgements about whether the use of torture is legitimate must balance the imminence and gravity of the threat with the need to prevent future occurrences of torture and maintain a normative environment that is hostile to its use. The article begins by observing that the use of torture and/or cruel and degrading treatment has become a core component of the global war on terror. It tests the claim that the use of coercive interrogation techniques does not constitute torture, showing that similar arguments were levelled by both the British and French governments in relation to Northern Ireland and Algeria respectively and found wanting. It then evaluates and rejects Dershowitz's claim for the legalization of torture and the more limited claim that torture may be permissible in ticking bomb scenarios. In the final section, the article questions how we might maintain the prohibition on torture while acknowledging that it may be necessary in some hypothetical cases.