Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:09:24.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responses of cotton to ammonium sulphate and superphosphate, and relationships between yield and some soil constituents in Tanzania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. H. Le Mare
Affiliation:
Research and Training Institute, Ukiriguru, Tanzania

Summary

In 92 field experiments in Tanzania's major cotton-growing area south and east of Lake Victoria mean yield without fertilizer was nearly 900 kg/ha of seed cotton. The mean direct effect of 224 kg/ha of single superphosphate with 202 kg/ha of ammonium sulphate was 380 kg/ha of seed cotton; with twice as much fertilizer the increment was 525 kg. First and second residual responses made important contributions to the total effect of superphosphate. In most zones the response to each fertilizer was large but in Nassa response to superphosphate was small; in Nzega yields were small and there was no response to ammonium sulphate, perhaps because Calidea dregei caused abscission of bolls; on the acid soils of Ukerewe Island yields and responses to superphosphate were small.

Data are given to show the average amounts of plant nutrients in the soils most used for cotton. Correlations of yields with soil chemical data suggest that some soils lack enough calcium for large yields. A long-term experiment at the Ukiriguru research farm (Le Mare, 1972) showed that productivity of impoverished soil growing cotton every year was recovered and improved by lime with phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers: the experiments throughout the cotton area indicated that those results were widely relevant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Addiscott, T. M. (1969). A method for measuring the phosphate potential of a Tanzanian soil. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 35, 21–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, .K.J. (1963). Rainfall, tie ridging and crop yields in Sukumaland, Tanganyika. Empire Cotton Growing Review 40, 3440.Google Scholar
Calton, W. E. (1963). Some data on a Tanganyika catena. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 29, 173–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Mare, P. H. (1972). A long term experiment on soil fertility and cotton yield in Tanzania. Experimental Agriculture 8, 299310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Mare, P. H. & Samki, J. K. (1969). Progress Reports from Experiment Stations, Season 1967–8. Tanzania Western Cotton Growing Area pp. 30–5.Google Scholar
Milne, G. (1947). A soil reconnaissance journey through part of Tanganyika Territory, December 1935 to February 1936. Journal of Ecology 35, 192265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. B., Watanabe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular No. 939, 19 pp.Google Scholar
Peat, J. E. & Brown, K. J. (1962). The response of raingrown cotton at Ukiriguru in the Lake Province of Tanganyika. I. The use of organic manure, inorganic fertilizer and cotton seed ash. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 30, 215–31.Google Scholar
Peat, J. E., Munro, J. M. & Arnold, M. H. (1954). Progress Reports from Experiment Stations, Season 1952–3, Tanganyika Territory Lake Province pp. 911.Google Scholar
Reed, W. & Le Mare, P. H. (1972). Progress Reports from Experiment Stations, Season 1969–70, Tanzania, pp. 40–2.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1962). In The Natural Resources of East Africa. Nairobi: D. A. Hawkins & East African Literature Bureau.Google Scholar
Truog, E. (1930). The determination of readily available phosphorus in soils. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 22, 874–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). The Design and Analysis of Factorial Experiments. Technical Communication 35, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, Harpenden.Google Scholar