Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:15:56.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertility Studies on a Sandy Loam in Semi-Arid Tanzania

II. Effects of Phosphorus, Potassium and Lime on Yields of Groundnuts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. D. Anderson
G. D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Tanzania*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Initial and residual effects of phosphorus, lime and potassium were studied on Natal Common and Dodoma Bold groundnuts. Double superphosphate (D.S.P., 42% P2O5) considerably increased yields of the first two crops. Lime was noticeably beneficial on Dodoma Bold but less so on Natal Common, while K depressed yields of both when applied without P. The LPK treatment yielded best with each variety, but initially P alone was most economic. Comparing D.S.P., Tororo superphosphate (T.S.P., 21% P2O5, 13% S) and Minjingu phosphate (M.P., 15% citric soluble P2O5), T.S.P. gave the best response (625 lb/acre over 3 years), more than double that of equivalent P2O5 as D.S.P. T.S.P.'s superiority is attributed mainly to its sulphur content. Though initially inferior, M.P. proved as good as D.S.P. over 3 years. 224 lb/acre T.S.P. in alter-nate years is recommended. After two or three crops, light applications of lime and potassium together would be beneficial.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1970 , pp. 213 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. D. (1965). E. Afr. agric. For. J. 30, 206.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. (1969). E. Afr. agric. For. J. 34, 382.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. (1970). Expl Agric. 6, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, W. & McIntyre, G. A. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 785.Google Scholar
Ashrif, M. I. & Thoronton, I. (1965) Expl Agric. 1, 145.Google Scholar
Bunting, A. H. & Anderson, B. (1960). J. agric. Sci. 51, 1.Google Scholar
Elmer, J. L., Gosnell, J. M. & Smith, R. G. (1963). E. Afr. agric. For. J. 28, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. C. (1963). E. Afr. agric. For. J. 28, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evelyn, S. H. & Thornton, I. (1964). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32, 153.Google Scholar
Goldin, E. & Hartzook, A. (1966). Wld Crops 18, 68.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, P. R. (1964). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32, 231.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, P. R. & Heathcote, R. (1963). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 31, 351.Google Scholar
Hava, K. (1964). Rhod. J. agric. Res. 2, 79.Google Scholar
Lanchover, D. (1963). Oléagineaux 7, 475.Google Scholar
Lea, J. D. (1961). Trop. Agric. Trin. 38, 93.Google Scholar
Le Mare, P. H. (1959). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 27, 197.Google Scholar
Martin, G. (1964). Oléagineaux 3, 161.Google Scholar
Meredith, R. M. (1964). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32, 136.Google Scholar
Ofori, C. S. (1965). Agnon. Trop. 5, 489.Google Scholar
Phillips, L. J. & Norman, M. J. T. (1965). Aust. J. exp. Agric. & Anim. Husb. 5, 470.Google Scholar
Pigott, C. J. (1960). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 28, 109.Google Scholar
Smartt, J. (1964). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32, 343.Google Scholar
Thornton, I. (1963). Oléagineaux, 12, 781.Google Scholar
Thornton, I. (1964). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32, 235.Google Scholar