Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:31:55.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual value of superphosphate and rock phosphate on an acid soil II. Soil analysis and greenhouse experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. E. G. Mattingly
G. E. G. Mattingly
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Analyses and a greenhouse experiment on soils taken from a field experiment to estimate residual values of phosphates were used to show changes in the amount and distribution of residual phosphate in the soil.

2. Total and NaHCO2-soluble P were large in the top 0–3 in. of soil after applying superphosphate. Total P was large, but NaHCO3-soluble P much less, where rock phosphate had been applied in the field. Ploughing distributed total and NaHCO3-soluble P more uniformly through the 0–6 in. layer of soil.

3. Soil analysis and crop yields in the greenhouse showed that the residual value of equal amounts of P2O5 as rock phosphate and superphosphate, three years after application, were very similar.

4. At the end of the field experiment the sand fraction of the soil (2000–75 μ) contained about 80% of the phosphate that was applied as rock phosphate in this particle-size range.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , May 1963 , pp. 409 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Agricultural Education Association (1928). Agric. Progr. 5, 137.Google Scholar
Aslyng, H. C. (1954). The Lime and Phosphate Potentials of Soils; the Solubility and Availability of Phosphates. Bulletin of the Hydrotechnioal Laboratory, Copenhagen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, L. O. & Bartholomew, R. P. (1946). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 11, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, W. C. (1950). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 1, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matttngly, G. E. G. (1961). Rep. Rothamst Exp. Sta. 1960, p. 63.Google Scholar
Mattingly, G. E. G. & Widdowson, F. V. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moschler, W. W., Krebs, R. D. & Obenshain, S. S. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. (1954). U.S.D.A. circ. no. 939.Google Scholar
Ozanne, P. G., Kirton, D. J. & Shaw, T. C. (1961). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar