Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:34:40.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of varying static and changing moisture contents during incubation on ammonia and nitrate levels in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Ekpete  and
A. H. Cornfield
D. M. Ekpete
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, S.W. 7
A. H. Cornfield
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, S.W. 7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effects of varying static and changing moisture contents on mineralization of nitrogen after incubation (28° C.) for 3, 6 and 12 weeks were studied.

Mineral-nitrogen, accounted for entirely by nitrate, increased with increasing static moisture content up to 40-50% water-holding capacity (W.H.C). With further increasing moisture up to waterlogging, both mineral-nitrogen and nitrate decreased, the latter to negative values, indicating disappearance of nitrate originally present in the soil. Ammonia accumulated only at moisture contents above 50 % W.H.C. and its extent of accumulation increased with moisture content.

When soils with moisture contents of 10-50% W.H.C. during an initial 6-week period were changed to waterlogging for a second 6-week period, mineralnitrogen and nitrate accumulation decreased with increasing initial moisture in comparison with soils left at initial moisture contents for the second period.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 125 - 129
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

Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, E. A. (1957). J. Soil Sci. 8, 60.Google Scholar
Cornfield, A. H. (1961). Plant & Soil, 14, 90.Google Scholar
De, P. K. & Sarkar, S. N. (1936). Soil Sci. 42, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekpete, D. M. & Cornfield, A. H. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 64, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, D. J. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 58, 227.Google Scholar
Justice, J. K. & Smith, R. L. (1962). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 26, 246.Google Scholar
Miller, R. D. & Johnson, D. D. (1964). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 28, 644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D. T. & Larson, W. E. (1962). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 26, 238.Google Scholar
Patrick, W. H., Jun, . & Wyatt, R. (1964). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 28, 647.Google Scholar
Richards, L. A. (1941). Soil. Sci. 51, 377.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. B. D. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 100.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1961). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. London: Longmans, Green & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Wijler, J. & Delwiche, C. C. (1954). Plant & Soil, 5, 155.Google Scholar