Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:37:00.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sodium and Potassium Fertilizer in Relation to Soil Physical Properties and sugar-beet yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. P. Draycott ,
M. J. Durrant ,
D. B. Davies  and
L. V. Vaidyanathan
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
D. B. Davies
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge
L. V. Vaidyanathan
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Despite much experimental evidence showing that sodium fertilizer increases sugar–beet yield and decreases need for potassium, there is resistance to its use on some soil types through fears of deterioration in soil structure. Twelve field experiments with sugar beet were made in Eastern England, testing all combinations of autumn and spring applications of 0, 150 and 300 kg Na/ha and 0, 83 and 333 kg K/ha. Fields were chosen with soils of loamy very fine sand, very fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam and clay loam textures. Micro–plot and controlled environment studies were also made with the same soils to examine effects of sodium on seedling emergence and growth.

Visual assessments of soil physical state following sodium application revealed no effect in the year sugar beet was grown nor in the following spring when cereals were grown. Measurements of physical properties of soils treated with sodium suggested that applications of several times the recommended amounts of sodium fertilizer would not damage soil structure. However, sodium fertilizer increased the osmotic suction of soil solution which, under some circumstances, e.g. dry springs or giving the fertilizer close to the time of sowing, decreased germination and seedling growth. For this reason and not because it has a detrimental effect on soil physical condition, sodium fertilizer best given in the autumn or some weeks before sowing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , December 1976 , pp. 633 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Agricultural Development And Advisory Service (1971). Report to the soil examination committee. Techniques for measuring soil physical properties. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Agricultural Development And Advisory Service (1973). Fertilizer recommendations. Technical Bulle–tin No. 209. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. A., Garner, H. V. & Haines, W. B. (1957). The fertilizer requirements of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 48, 464–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. W. & Dregne, H. E. (1955). Effect of exchangeable Na on soil properties and on growth and cation content of Alfalfa and Cotton. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of America 19, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1967). The Control of Soil Fertility. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. (1947). The use of salt for sugar beet. British Sugar Beet Review 16, 19–22.Google Scholar
Davies, D. B., Eagle, D. J. & Finney, J. B. (1972). Soil Management. Suffolk: Farming Press Ltd.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Russell, G. E. (1974). Varietal response by sugar beet to nitrogen, sodium and potassium fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 181–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Draycott, A. P. & Boyd, D. A. (1974a). The response of sugar beet to potassium and sodium fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 427–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Draycott, A. P. & Payne, P. A. (1974b). Some effects of sodium chloride on germina–tion and seedling growth of sugar beet. Annals of Botany 38, 1045–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, R. F. (1972). Report of the Rothamsted Experi–mental Station for 1971, p. 285.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C., Lang, R. W. & Hunter, E. A. (1973). The effect of method and rate of application of com–mon salt and muriate of potash on sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 239—44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peerlkamp, P. K. (1959). A visual method of soil structure evaluation. Meded. V.D. Landbouwho–geschool en Opzoekings–stations van Staat te Gent. 24, 216–21.Google Scholar
Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 60.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1973). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, p. p758. 10th ed.London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967). A comparison of the properties of sodium and potassium in the soil. Chilean Nitrate Agricultural Service No. 97.Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, L. V. (1974). Effects on soil physical properties and sugar beet germination of sodium chloride applied to the seedbed. A.D.A.S. Experi–ments and Development in the Eastern Region. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, L. V. & Davies, D. B. (1974). Visual assessment of top soil structure in relation to field experiments. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 25, 1195–6.Google Scholar