Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:20:01.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Repressive Effect of Lime and Magnesia upon Soil and Subsoil Potash

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. H. MacIntire ,
W. M. Shaw  and
J. B. Young
W. H. MacIntire
Affiliation:
(The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.)
W. M. Shaw
Affiliation:
(The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.)
J. B. Young
Affiliation:
(The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Standard English and American texts teach that liming effects a liberation of soil potash through ionic interchange. As examples we have the statement of Hall(8): “The action of lime upon potash compounds in the soil is equally marked: as the soil water carries down the dissolved calcium bicarbonate it attacks the zeolitic double silicates in the clay and some of their soluble bases, potash among them, change place with the lime and come into solution.” Similar statements, “One of the most important effects of calcium compounds is the conversion of insoluble into soluble forms of potassium…” by Van Slyke(25) and “but it also has some power to increase the solubility of phosphorus and potassium…” by Hopkins(9), have been accepted as authoritative.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1930 , pp. 499 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

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

(1)Ames, J. W. and Boltz, G. E. Tobacco-influence of fertilisers on composition and quality. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. (1915), Bull. 285.Google Scholar
(2)Anderson, P. J. and Swanback, T. R.Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta., Report of the Tobacco Sub-station (1928, 1929), p. 197.Google Scholar
(3)Bledsoe, R. P.Lime, potash, and alfalfa on Piedmont soils. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1929), 21, 792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Briggs, L. J. and Breazeale, J. F.Availability of potash in certain orthoclasebearing as affected by lime or gypsum. J. Agric. Res. (1917), 8, 21.Google Scholar
(5)Buie, T. S., Currin, R. E., Kyzer, E. D. and Warner, J. D. Fertiliser rotation experiments at the Pee Dee Station. South Carolina Exp. Sta. (1929), Bull. 262, p.25.Google Scholar
(6)Fraps, G. S.The effect of additions on the availability of soil potash, and the preparation of sugar humus. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. (1916), Bull. 190; 5, 29.Google Scholar
(7)Gaither, E. W.The effect of lime upon the solubility of soil constituents. J. Ind. and Eng. Chem. (1910), 2, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Hall, A. D.Fertilizers and Manures (1929), p. 280.Google Scholar
(9)Hopkins, C. G.Soil Fertility and Permanent Agriculture (1910), p. 162. Ginn and Co., N.Y.Google Scholar
(10)Lipman, J. G., Blair, A. W. and Prince, A. L.Effect of lime and fertilizers on the potash content of soil and crop. Internat. Rev. Sci. and Pract. Agric. (Rome), (1926), 4, 546–53.Google Scholar
(11)Lipman, J. G., Blair, A. W. and Prince, A. L.The influence of manure, commercial fertilizers, and lime on the chemical composition of field soils. First International Congress of Soil Sci. (June 13–22, 1927), 3, 1–11.Google Scholar
(12)Lyon, T. L. and Bizzell, J. A.Calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium in the drainage water from limed and unlimed soil. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1916), 8, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Lyon, T. L. and Bizzell, J. A.Lysimeter experiments. Records for tanks 1–12 during the years 1910–14, inclusive. N.Y. (Cornell) Agric. Exp. Sta. (1918), Mem. 12, 54–61.Google Scholar
(14)MacIntire, W. H. The influence of fertilisers upon the composition of wheat. Penn. Sta. College Ann. Report, 1910–11 (1911), p. 190.Google Scholar
(15)MacIntire, W. H.Results of thirty years of liming. Penn. State College Annual Report 1911–12 (1912), p. 64.Google Scholar
(16)MacIntire, W. H.The carbonation of burnt lime in soils. Soil Sci. (1919), 7, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)MacIntire, W. H.The liberation of native soil potassium induced by different calcic and magnesic materials, as measured by lysimeter leachings. Soil Sci. (1919), 8, 337–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)MacIntire, W. H. and Young, J. B.The calcium, magnesium and potassium content and the reaction of rainfall at different points in Tennessee. Soil Sci. (1923), 15, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)MacIntire, W. H. and Sanders, K. B.The fixation of the potash of a green manure by liming materials. Soil Sci. (1930), 29, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)MacIntire, W. H., Shaw, W. M. and Young, J. B.A 5-year lysimeter study of the supposed liberation of soil potassium by calcic and magnesic additions. Soil Sci. (1923), 16, 217–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)MacIntire, W. H., Shaw, W. M. and Sanders, K. B.The influence of liming on the availability of soil potash. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1927), 19, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Plummer, J. K.The availability of potash in some common soil-forming minerals. The effect of lime upon absorption by different crops. J. Agric. Res. (1918), 14, 297–315.Google Scholar
(23)Ramann, E. and Junk, H.Acid calcium carbonate as a regulator of soil transformations. Deut. Landw. Presse (1921), 48, 612–13. (E.S.R. 46, 821.)Google Scholar
(24)Schreiner, O. and Failyer, G. H.Colorimetric, titration, and turbidity methods. U.S. D.A. Bur. Soils (1906), Bull. 31, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
(25)Van Slyke, L. L. (1927). Fertilizers and Crops (1927), p. 374. Orange Judd Publ. Co., N.Y.Google Scholar
(26)See also Lagatu, H. and Maume, L.Antagonism of lime to the absorption of potassium in grape vines. Prog. Agric. Vit. (1928), 90, 492–7. (Chem. Abs. 24, 910.)Google Scholar