Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:12:30.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biological aspects of soil fertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Neilson-Jones
Affiliation:
Bedford College, University of London

Extract

1. These researches were undertaken in order to analyse and define with precision the causes of infertility in a heath soil at Wareham Forest, Dorset.

2. The presence of substances actively inimical to growth has been confirmed and the origin of the resulting toxicity established.

3. A new technique for biological analysis, the nutrient-agar-film method, makes it possible to estimate the relative degree of toxicity in any given sample, thus facilitating development of methods of laboratory control for elimination and redistribution of the factor or factors responsible.

4. It has been proved that the toxic substances are of biological origin and that they operate directly by inhibiting fungal growth. The resulting biological inertia is exemplified by almost complete cessation of cellulose decomposition. Following upon this inertia are indirect effects of a secondary character on growth of the higher plants, in the case of trees restricting root growth, impeding mycorrhiza formation, and curtailing supply of nutritive requirements.

5. Justification for the use of organic composts for relieving the observed infertility under field conditions has been provided by laboratory experiments proving that removal of toxicity and profound alteration of the organic substrate and soil bionomics follow addition of compost. Changes so induced are self-propagating and the effects on growth persistent.

6. The bearing of these results on fertility in other natural soils and in cultivated soils is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1941

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

Baker, F. A. & Martin, Rollo (1937). Zbl. Bakt. II. Abt. 97, 201–21.Google Scholar
Falck, R. (1923). Myhol. Untersuch. 2, 1171. (Reviewed in Forestry, 1927, 1, 113–16.)Google Scholar
Forbes, A. C. (1938). New Zealand Jour. of Forestry, 4, 148–57.Google Scholar
Hatch, A. B. (1934). Svensk bot. Tidskr. 28, 369–83.Google Scholar
Hatch, A. B. (1937). Black Rock For. Bull. 6.Google Scholar
Howard, , Sir, Albert (1940). An Agricultural Testament. Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Howard, A. & Wad, Y. D. (1931). The Waste Products of Agriculture: their Utilisation as Humus. Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Meldst, E. (1923). Mykol. Untersuch. u. Ber. v. R.Falck. 2. Cassel.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. L. (1934). Black Rock For. Bull. 5.Google Scholar
Neilson-Jones, W. (1935). Nature, Lond., 136, 554.Google Scholar
Neilson-Jones, W. (1940). Nature, Lond., 145, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklewski, B. (1935). Z. PflErnähr. Düng. 37, Heft 1/2, 92112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, M. C. (1934). Forestry, 8, 96–.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, M. C. (1935). Forestry, 9, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, M. C. (1936). Forestry, 10, 122.Google Scholar
Rayner, M. C. (1939). Forestry, 13, 1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, M. C. (1941). Forestry, 15. (In the press).Google Scholar
Waksman, S. A. (1931). Principles of Soil Microbiology. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Waksman, S. A. (1936). Humus. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Waksman, S. A., Umbreit, W. W. & Cordon, T. C. (1939). Soil Sci. 47, 3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar