Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:42:34.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of potassium salts on the anatomy of Dactylis glomerata1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. N. Purvis
O. N. Purvis
Affiliation:
(Post-graduate and Gilchrist Scholar, Royal Holloway College, University of London, and Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Stems of Dactylis glomerata were collected from grass-plots which had received different manurial treatment as regards potash.

The yield of hay from these plots was in close agreement with the average which shows that the season during which the work was done was not abnormal.

The thickness of the wall, the diameter of the lumina and the ratio of the lumen to the wall were measured both in sclerenchyma and metaxylem elements.

It was found that in the early stages the sclerenchyma walls were thinner where potash had been supplied, but that this effect was lost as the season progressed.

The lumina were larger in plants which had received potash, when nitrogenous fertilisers had not been added, but in the presence of ammonium salts, this effect was reversed.

In the xylem the thickness of the walls was unaltered whether potassic fertiliser were added or not. When no nitrogenous manures were added the diameter of the lumen was decreased in the presence of potash, but when ammonium salts had been applied, the diameter was increased by the application of potassic fertilisers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , October 1919 , pp. 338 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1919

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)Patterson, H. J.. Maryland Experiment Station, Bulletin 89, 06, 1903.Google Scholar
(2)Loew, . U.S. Dep. Agr. Bur. Plant Ind., Bull. 45.Google Scholar
(3)Weight, R. P.. Report of West of Scotland Agric. College, 1896, p. 31.Google Scholar
(4)Close, White and Ballard. Maryland Stat. Bull. 127, pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
(5)Copeland. Bot. Oaz. 1897, pp. 399–416.Google Scholar
(6)Kissel, . Ber. oberhess. Gesell. Nat. u Heilk., Giessen n.. ser., Naturw. Abt. I. 1904–1906, pp. 43–85.Google Scholar
(7)Vogeler and Thiele. Review by Kissel in Rev. Sci. Paris, 48 (1910), No. 14, pp. 438–439.Google Scholar
(8)Dassonville. Revue geénérale de Botanique, 10, 1898.Google Scholar
(9)Kissel, . Loc cit.Google Scholar