Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:22:16.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of the amount and the origin of calcium carbonates on the isotopically exchangeable phosphate in calcareous soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. Talibudeen  and
P. Arambarri
O. Talibudeen
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Eperimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
P. Arambarri
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Eperimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The kinetics of the isotopic exchange of phosphate ions in soils with and without phosphate added in the laboratory were examined in relation to the amount and origin of the CaCO3 they contained. The isotopic exchange index, ‘Pr/Pe’, and the recovery of added phosphate were inversely proportional to carbonate content in soils containing carbonates of similar geological origin; soils from the Lower Lias showed the biggest change in Pr/Pe with carbonate content.

In soils from the Cretaceous Chalk, the first-order rate of isotopic exchange of the ‘slow’ phosphate fraction was constant. It increased to a larger but constant value in the soils incubated for 6 months after adding phosphate in the laboratory. This rate constant is therefore specific to the calcium phosphates in a group of soils derived from the same calcareous parent material and with similar phosphate manuring.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 93 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Arambabbi, P. & Talibudeen, O. (1959). Plant & Soil 11, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boischot, P., Coppenet, M. & Hebert, J. (1950). Plant & Soil, 2, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boischot, P. & Hebert, J. (1947). Ann. Agron. 17, 521.Google Scholar
Cole, C. V., Olsen, S. B. & Scott, C. O. (1953). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17, 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, K. B. (1955). Biochem. J. 60, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. W. & Walker, B. A. (1950). Trans. Faraday Soc. 46, 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouineau, G. (1942). Ann. Agron. 12, 441.Google Scholar
Elphick, B. L. (1954). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. 36A, 137.Google Scholar
Falkenheim, M., Underwood, E. & Hodge, H. (1951). J. Biol. Ghem. 188, 805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagin, J. (1952). Bull. Res. Counc. Israel, 2, 138.Google Scholar
Jueinak, J. J. & Bauer, N. (1956). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, G. W. (1952). Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 3, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, K. S. & Whittaker, C. W. (1954). J. Agric. Fd Chem. 2, 1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, G. E. G. & Close, B. (1962). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1961, p. 53.Google Scholar
Newman, A. C. D. (1959). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1958, p. 50.Google Scholar
North, F. J. (1930). Limestones, their Origins, Distribution and Uses. London: Thomas Murby.Google Scholar
Rosenquist, I. T. (1954). Proc. 2nd Radioisotope Conference, Oxford, vol. 1, 412. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Talibudeen, O. (1958). J. Soil Sci. 9, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaalon, D. H. (1957). Plant & Soil, 8, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar