Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:38:51.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Release of non-exchangeable potassium from some British soils cropped in the glasshouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. W. Arnold  and
B. M. Close
P. W. Arnold
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
B. M. Close
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Continuous cropping with perennial ryegrass in the glasshouse was used to measure the release of non-exchangeable potassium from twenty soils representative of a wide variety of soil series.

2. Releases of non-exchangeable potassium ranged from almost none to > 2000 lb. K/acre.

3. The main reason for the variations in the potassium-releasing powers of the soils was traced to differences in the amount and potassium content of the finer clay fractions. Small potassiumcontents in the fine clay and small contents of fine clay were associated with small releases of nonexchangeable potassium.

4. Accumulated potash fertilizer residues or the presence of such minerals as glauconite can be responsible for the good potassium-releasing powers of some soils.

5. Some of the limitations of glasshouse work for assessing the potash status of soils are discussed.

6. Evidence was obtained for the existence in many soils of at least two categories of useful nonexchangeable potassium.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 1961 , pp. 295 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Arnold, P. W. (1960 a). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 11, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, P. W. (1960 b). Nature., Lond., 187, 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barshad, I. (1948). Amer. Min. 33, 655.Google Scholar
Fancher, G., Oliphant, S. C. & Houssiere, C. R. (1942). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal.), 14, 552.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. L., Hseung, Y., Corey, R. B., Evans, E. J. & Vanden Heuvel, R. C. (1952). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 16, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitemeier, R. F. (1951). Advanc. Agron. 3, 113.Google Scholar
Reitemeier, R. F., Brown, I. C. & Holmes, R. S. (1951). U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. no. 1049.Google Scholar
Rouse, R. D. & Bertramson, B. R. (1950). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 14, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. A. & Matthews, B. C. (1957). Canad. J. Soil Sci. 37, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar