Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:30:57.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relative Effect of Lime as Oxide and Carbonate on Certain Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Henry Brougham Hutchinson  and
Kenneth MacLennan
Henry Brougham Hutchinson
Affiliation:
(Carnegie Research Scholar).
Kenneth MacLennan
Affiliation:
(Carnegie Research Scholar).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Caustic lime is found to have two distinct effects on the soil:

1. A partial sterilisation effect,

2. A chemical action, decomposing some of the soil organic matter.

The amount of caustic lime necessary to induce specific changes in the flora and fauna of the soil depends very largely on the character of the soil. The light sandy Millbrook soil, poor in organic matter and in carbonate, reacted sharply with 0·2 to 0·3 per cent. caustic lime; the Rothamsted clay soil, poor in organic matter but rich in carbonate, was found to react to 0·3 to 0·4 per cent.; the acid Woburn soil required an amount between 0·5 and 1·0 per cent., as did also the rich Chelsea garden soil, which already contained carbonate; the Craibstone soil, with a high organic and a low carbonate content, failed to react even to applications of 1·0 per cent, caustic lime.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1914 , pp. 302 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1914

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.Hutchinson, , This Journal, 1913, 5, 320.Google Scholar
2.Schulze, , Chemie für Landwirte, 1846, 1, 677.Google Scholar
3.Peterson, , Landw. Versuch. Stat., 1871, 13, 160.Google Scholar
4.Ebermayer, , Forsch. Agrik. Phys., 1890, 15.Google Scholar
5.Hilgard, , Forsch. Agrik. Phys., 1892, 400.Google Scholar
6.Wheeler, , Sargent, and Hartwell, , Journ. A mer. Chem. Soc., 1899, 21, 1032.Google Scholar
7.Chester, , Rep. Delaware Exp. Stat. 1901, 50.Google Scholar
8.Fabricids, and von Feilitzen, , Svenska Mosskulturför. Tidskr., 1905, 19, 84.Google Scholar
Fabricids, and von Feilitzen, , Cent. Bakt. Par., II, 1905, 14, 161.Google Scholar
9.Engberding, , Cent. Bakt. Par., II, 23, 603.Google Scholar
10.Fischer, , Landw. Jahrb., 1909, 38, 358.Google Scholar
Fischer, , Landw. Vers. Stat., 1909, 70, 335.Google Scholar
11.Wolf, , Landw. Jahrb., 1882, 11, 411.Google Scholar
12.Jenkins, and Britton, , Conn. Stat. Rep. 1899, 211.Google Scholar
13.Withers, and Fraps, , Journ. Amer. Chem. Soc., 1902, 24, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Wohlthann, , Fischer, and Schneider, , Journ. Landw. 1904, 52, 97.Google Scholar
15.Christensen, and Larsen, , Cent. Bakt. Par., II, 1911, 29, 347.Google Scholar
16.Krüger, , Diss. Königsberg, 1908.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, , Landw. Jahrb., 1904, 33, 15.Google Scholar
Lipman, and Brown, , New Jersey Exp. Stat. Rep. 1907.Google Scholar
Brown, , Cent. Bakt. Par., II, 1912, 35, 234.Google Scholar
17.Ritter, , Bied. Zentr., 1913, 42, 239.Google Scholar
18.Densch, Landw. Jahrb., 1913, 44, 331.Google Scholar