Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:23:47.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of nitrogen fertilizers on total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen and soluble carbohydrate contents of grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. Z. Nowakowski
T. Z. Nowakowski
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Italian rye-grass given ammonium sulphate or sodium nitrate at 56 or 112 lb. N/acre was analysed for total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen (non-protein-nitrogen) and soluble carbohydrates.

Ten days after applying fertilizer the differences in total-N between the grass receiving 56 and grass receiving 112 lb. N/acre were very small. Total-N in grass decreased with growth, but the effect of the rate of nitrogen on total-N increased. At first the grass given sodium nitrate contained more soluble nitrogen than grass given ammonium sulphate, the difference being greater at 56 lb. N/acre; soluble nitrogen decreased with increasing growth. Ten days after applying fertilizer, the nitrate-N content of grass was very high (ranging from 0·1 to 0·9% in the D.M.) and it gradually decreased. At both levels of nitrogen application, grass given sodium nitrate contained much more nitrate-N than grass given ammonium sulphate. Forty days after applying nitrogen the nitrate-N contents of grass which received 56 and 112 1b. N/acre as ammonium sulphate were 0·039 and 0·222% of the dry matter, respectively; the grass supplied with sodium nitrate gave values of 0·082 and 0·438%.

Total soluble carbohydrates in the grass were small early in growth and gradually increased. Nitrogen dressings had little effect on the content of soluble sugars (glucose + fructose + sucrose) but greatly decreased the fructosan. The pattern of changes in the total soluble carbohydrate content followed that in fructosan content. Early in growth, the total soluble carbohydrate/crude protein ratio was very small in grass from all treatments except the ‘control’. This ratio increased with growth and at the last sampling was 2·13 in grass receiving no nitrogen, and in grass supplied with 56 and 112 lb. N/acre as ammonium sulphate it was 1·44 and 0·72 respectively; the corresponding figures for grass receiving sodium nitrate were 1·13 and 0·66. The total soluble carbohydrate carbon/soluble nitrogen ratio in grass with no nitrogen was 18 at the first sampling and it increased gradually, reaching 70 at the last sampling. This ratio was considerably less with all nitrogen treatments than with ‘control’. The values obtained with 112 lb. N/acre were less than those obtained with 561b./acre, irrespective of the form of nitrogen used.

The relationship between the soluble carbohydrate carbon content and the soluble nitrogen in grass is illustrated graphically and discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , November 1962 , pp. 387 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Alberda, T. (1961). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr., Reading, 1960, 612.Google Scholar
Annison, E. F., Chalmers, M. I., Marshall, S. B. M. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archbold, H. K. (1938). Ann. Bot. N.S., 2, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, C., Burroughs, W., Gerlaugh, P. & Bethke, R. M. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bathurst, N. O. & Mitchell, K. J. (1958). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 1, 540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, W. B., Epsom, H. F. & Beath, O. A. (1940). Bull. Wyo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 241.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1960). Rep. Rothamsted Exp. Sta. for 1959, p. 59.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, E. J. & O'Malley, E. (1942). Biochem. J. 36, 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M. J. & Rook, J. A. F. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M. J. & Rook, J. A. F. (1957). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 16, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskins, J. L. (1944). Analyst, 69, 271.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, R. A. & Reid, S. G. (1952). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luria, S. E. (1960). In The Bacteria, vol. 1 (ed. by Gunsalos, & Stanier, ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, I. W. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Man, T. J. de & Heus, J. G. de (1949). Rec. Trav. Chim. Pays-Bas, 68, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Biochem. J. 42, 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. P. (1958). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 9, 714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, A. G. (1939). Biochem. J. 33, 1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, R. M. & Smith, J. A. B. (1943). Biochem. J. 37, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phellipson, A. T., Dobson, M. J. & Blackburn, T. H. (1959). Nature, Lond., 183, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R. (1958). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 9, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waksman, S. A. & Starkey, R. A. (1931). The Soil and the Microbe. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinmann, H. (1952). Proc. 6th Int. Orassl. Congr., 1952, 1, 655.Google Scholar