Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:32:40.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of fixed ammonium in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Bremner
J. M. Bremner
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A method of determining fixed ammonium in soil based on estimation of the difference in the amounts of ammonium released on treatment with N-HF:N-HC1 and with N-KCI has been investigated and compared with the hydrofluoric acid method of Rodrigues and the alkaline distillation method of Barshad.

2. Results obtained by the N-HF:N-HCl procedure with profile samples of various soils indicated that 3–8% (average, 5·6%) of the nitrogen in the surface soils and 9–44% (average, 21·5%) of the nitrogen in the subsoils examined was in the form of fixed ammonium. Rodrigues's method gave much higher values and Barshad's method gave much lower values.

3. Studies on the forms of nitrogen in soil profiles showed that the proportion of soil nitrogen released by acid hydrolysis as total-N and α-amino-N decreased with depth in the profile, whereas the proportion liberated as ammonium by acid hydrolysis increased with depth. They also showed that a considerable amount of the ammonium released by acid hydrolysis was derived from fixed ammonium in clay minerals.

4. It was found that the proportion of soil nitrogen dissolved by N-HF:N-HCl increased with depth in the profile, whereas the proportion dissolved by neutral and alkaline reagents used to extract soil organic matter decreased with depth. On the average, 23·2% of the nitrogen in the surface soils and 47·4% of the nitrogen in the subsoils was dissolved by a single treatment with N-HF:N-HCl at room temperature for 24 hr.

5. The reliability and significance of the results obtained by the N-HF:N-HCl method are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1959 , pp. 147 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Allison, F. E., Roller, E. M. & Doetsch, J. H. (1953). Soil Sci. 75, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, F. E. & Roller, E. M. (1955). Soil Sci. 80, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, F. L. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attoe, O. J. (1947). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 11, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bal, D. V. (1925). J. Agric. Sci. 15, 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barshad, I. (1948). Amer. Min. 33, 655.Google Scholar
Barshad, I. (1950). Amer. Min. 35, 225.Google Scholar
Barshad, I. (1951). Soil Sci. 72, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barshad, I. (1954 a). Soil Sci. 77, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barshad, I. (1954 b). Soil Sci. 78, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Harada, T. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1957). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 8, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaminade, R. (1940). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 210, 264.Google Scholar
Hanway, J. J. & Scott, A. D. (1956). Soil Sci. 82, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanway, J. J., Scott, A. D. & Stanford, G. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmsen, G. W. & Van Schreven, D. A. (1955). Advanc. Agron. 7, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, R. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, S. & Koutler-Andersson, E. (1941). Lantbr Högsk. Ann. 9, 57.Google Scholar
Mattson, S. & Koutler-Andersson, E. (1943). LantbrHögsk. Ann. 11, 107.Google Scholar
Nash, V. E. & Marshall, C. E. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nömmik, H. (1957). Acta agric. Scand. 7, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, C. (1929). C.R. Lab. Carlsberg, 17, no. 15.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, G. (1954). J. Soil Sci. 5, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, A. D., Hanway, J. J. & Stickney, E. M. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, A. (1932). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2, 525.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. (1954). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 18, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. (1956). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 20, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, J. (1950). Trans. 4th Int. Congr. Soil Sci. 1, 101.Google Scholar
Van Slyke, D. D., Dillon, R. T., MacFadyen, D. A. & Hamilton, P. (1941). J. Biol. Chem. 141, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkley, A. (1935). J. Agric. Sci. 25, 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar