Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:47:39.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative efficiency of rock phosphate and superphosphate for forage legumes and residual effects on succeeding wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. Prasad  and
A. Singh
R. Prasad
Affiliation:
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India
A. Singh
Affiliation:
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A field experiment was made at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi to compare the efficiency of Mussoorie rock phosphate with ordinary superphosphate for two forage legumes, cowpea (Vigna sinensis Savi) and cluster beans (Cyamopsis tetragononoloba L.) and residual effects were studied in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). For both the forage legumes Mussoorie rock phosphate was only 22% as effective as ordinary superphosphate (on soil of pH 7·1) and it had no significant residual effects on wheat even when the application rates supplied three times as much P as was supplied by ordinary superphosphate.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , August 1980 , pp. 199 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Awasthi, P. K., Luthra, K. L. & Jaggi, T. N. (1977). Use of Indian rock phosphate for direct application as phosphatio fertilizers. Fertilizer News 22 (12), 48–54.Google Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1956 a). The value of rock phosphate for direct application. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 24, 295–306.Google Scholar
Cooke, G. W. (1956 b). Field experiments on phosphate fertilizers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 48, 74–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1964). Phosphorus in Australian agriculture. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 30, 75–105.Google Scholar
Govil, B. P. & Prasad, R. (1972). Growth characters and yield of sorghum (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) as affected by contents of water-soluble P in triple superphosphate/dicalcium phosphate and triple superphosphate/rock phosphate mixtures. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79, 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehr, J. R. & McLean, G. (1969). A Revised Laboratory Relativity Scale for Evaluating Phosphate Rock for Direct Application. Muscle Shoals, Alabama, U.S.A.: Tennessee Valley Authority.Google Scholar
McLean, E. O. (1956). Factors affecting yields and uptake of phosphorus by different crops. II. Rock phosphate and superphosphate, separate and in combination, under extended cropping. Soil Science 82, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloth, S. & Prasad, R. (1976). Relative efficiency of rock phosphate and superphosphate for cowpea fodder. Plant and Soil 45, 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, G. E. G. (1971). Residual value of phosphate fertilizers on neutral and calcareous soils. In Residual Value of Applied Nutrients, Technical Bulletin, no. 20, pp. 1–15. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Singh, D., Mannikar, N. K. & Srivas, N. C. (1976). Phosphate fertilizer value of indigenous rock phosphates and superphosphates for lucerne and their residual effect on guar. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 24, 186–191.Google Scholar