Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:01:19.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The uptake of magnesium under exhaustive cropping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

1. A range of soils were cropped exhaustively by perennial rye-grass for up to eleven months in the glasshouse; some were also cropped with Dutch white clover.

2. At least 100 lb./acre of magnesium was taken up from most soils, and some soils supplied more than 200 lb./acre. The amounts of magnesium taken up decreased with successive harvests, suggesting that the available magnesium was progressively depleted. Although the ‘exhaustion’ magnesium (Mg taken up by crops+residual exchangeable magnesium) was greater than the initial exchangeable magnesium, these two measurements were closely correlated (r = 0·99). If non-exchangeable magnesium was released during cropping, the releases were proportional to the initial exchangeable magnesium contents. However, the exchangeable magnesium measurements may have extracted only a proportion of the magnesium available naturally.

3. Any releases of magnesium were small compared with the amounts available from the outset, and the crops obtained magnesium mainly from the exchangeable form. Rye-grass and white clover gave similar results.

4. The exchangeable magnesium in some exhausted soils was increased by wetting and drying. This effect may occur in the field, where the magnesium lost in cropping could be replenished by only small releases of non-exchangeable magnesium.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , November 1963 , pp. 421 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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. & Close, B. M. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barshad, I. (1960). Trans. 7th. Int. Congr. Soil Sci. (Madison), 2, 246.Google Scholar
Coleman, N. T. & Craig, D. (1961). Soil Sci. 91, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, W. P. (1948). Cation Exchange in Soils, p. 79. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
Longstaff, W. H. & Graham, E. R. (1951). Soil Sci. 71, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, W. H. (1929). Soil Sci. 27, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, G. & Schilling, G. (1957). Z. PflErnähr. Düng. 79, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osthaus, B. (1956). Clays and clay minerals. Bull. Nat. Res. Coun., Wash., 456, 301.Google Scholar
Reith, J. W. S. (1962). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 30, 27.Google Scholar
Russell, E. J. & Watson, D. J. (1940). Tech. Commun. Bur. Soil Sci., Harpenden, no. 40.Google Scholar
Salmon, R. C. (1962). Ph.D. thesis, London University.Google Scholar
Scott, R. O. & Ure, A. M. (1958). Analyst, 83, 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlberg, S. (1960). Acta agric. Scand. 10, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar