Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:08:28.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of limestone, N, K and Mg fertilizers on Mg absorption by oats and barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. M. Alston
A. M. Alston
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Oats grown in a pot experiment on two sandy loams were sampled at four stages of growth. Neither KC1 nor MgSO4.7H2O had any effect on yield but % Mg and total Mg uptake were consistently decreased by applying K and increased by applying Mg.Ca(NO3)2 increased % Mg more than did (NH4)2SO4, but yield and total Mg uptake were higher where (NH4)2SO4 was applied. The effects of fertilizers were similar on both soils.

The effects of applying (NH4)2SO4 and NaNO3 to the soil on % Mg in barley were compared in a field experiment on an acid loam to which several rates of limestone had been applied. Treatments had no effect on the % Mg in grain or straw at maturity. At four earlier stages of growth (NH4)2SO4 increased % Mg in the plants more than did NaNO3. Limestone slightly increased % Mg. Nitrification of NH4 in the soil was rapid.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1966 , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Arnon, D. I. (1937). Soil Sci. 44, 91.Google Scholar
Collins, G. C. & Polkinhorne, H. (1952). Analyst, Lond. 77, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkshoorn, W. (1957). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 5, 81.Google Scholar
Halstead, R. L., MacLean, A. J. & Nielsen, K. F. (1958). Canad. J. Soil Sci. 38, 85.Google Scholar
Hemingway, R. G. (1961). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 16, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A. S. (1949). Soil Sci. 67, 53.Google Scholar
Itallte, T. B. Van (1938). Soil Sci. 46, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, B. (1961). Pl. Soil 15, 74.Google Scholar
Jones, E. (1963). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 18, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, E. G. (1956). Pl. Soil 7, 341.Google Scholar
Naptel, J. A. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 526, 537.Google Scholar
Peech, M. & English, L. (1944). Soil Sci. 57, 167.Google Scholar
Reith, J. W. S. (1963). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 417.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. B. D., Allen, M. de V. & Gacoka, P. (1959). Analyst, Lond. 84, 635.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Wood, M. (1960). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 11, 137.Google Scholar
Wadleigh, C. H. & Shive, J. W. (1939). Soil Sci. 47, 273.Google Scholar
Welte, E. & Webner, W. (1963). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 180.Google Scholar
Will, G. M. (1961). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 4, 151.Google Scholar
Wolton, G. M. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr.(Reading), 544.Google Scholar
Yien, C. H. & Chesnin, L. (1953). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 17, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, E. T. Jnr, Bradfield, R. & Peech, M. (1954). Soil Sci. 77, 53.Google Scholar
Young, H. Y. & Gill, R. F. (1951). Analyt. Chem. 23, 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar