Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:34:26.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nitrogen cycle in grassland soils: with especial reference to the Rothamsted Park grass experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. L. Richardson
H. L. Richardson
Affiliation:
Chemistry Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. In an examination of Park Grass soils extending over 3 years, and in shorter studies of other grassland soils, the fresh soil always contained more ammonia than nitrate nitrogen. The levels of both were low, and in spite of minor fluctuations were sufficiently constant to suggest the existence of equilibrium conditions in the nitrogen cycle. Climatic factors had no appreciable influence except on one very acid plot; here frost or drought, severe enough to kill the herbage, allowed ammonia to accumulate. Otherwise, treatment had little effect, but liming tended to give higher ammonia and lower nitrate levels. The equilibrium levels of both ammonia and nitrate were higher in old grassland soils than in land newly put down to grass.

2. “Mineralizable” nitrogen, produced by incubating the fresh soils under standard conditions, showed a seasonal rhythm the opposite of the annual temperature rhythm, tending to a maximum in winter and early spring and a minimum in summer and early autumn. This was related to the addition and decay of organic residues in the soil. An abnormally dry summer caused a temporary rise, especially on the more acid plots. An extremely acid plot, on which a mat accumulated in the field, produced as much mineralizable nitrogen on incubation as more normal soils.

3. Ammonia and nitrate production on incubation differed greatly with different treatments, apparently as a result of the influence of treatment on soil reaction. The more acid soils, with pH less than 6.0, produced chiefly ammonia, while the less acid soils produced chiefly nitrate. There was a significant correlation between reaction and percentage nitrification.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1938 , pp. 73 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

(1)Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1885). J. chem. Soc. 47, 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Lawes, J. B. (1889). J. R. agric. Soc. (2nd Ser.), 25, 1.Google Scholar
(3)Richardson, H. L. (1934). J. agric. Sci. 24, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1880). Philos. Trans. B, 171, 289.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B., Gilbert, J. H. & Masters, M. T. (1882). Philos. Trans. B, 173, 1181.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B., Gilbert, J. H. & Masters, M. T. (1900). Philos. Trans. B, 192, 139.Google Scholar
(5)Brenchley, W. E. (1924). The Manuring of Grassland for Hay. London.Google Scholar
(6)Brenchley, W. E. (1935). Ann. appl. Biol. 22, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tables of botanical analysis in Roth. Rep. (1934), 142.Google Scholar
(7)Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1871). J. R. agric. Soc. (2nd Ser.), 7, 91.Google Scholar
(8)Hall, A. D., Miller, N. H. J. & Gimingham, G. T. (1908). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 80, 196.Google Scholar
(9)Crowther, E. M. (1925). J. agric. Sci. 15, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Brenochley, W. E. (1930). J. Minist. Agric. 37, 663.Google Scholar
(11)Lee, L. L. Unpublished Soil Map of the Rothamsted Farm, 1931, in the Rothamsted Library.Google Scholar
(12)Aiyar, S. P. (1934). London Univ., Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
(13)Salminen, A. (1937). Soil Sci. 43, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Crowther, E. M. & Richardson, H. L. (1932). J. agric. Sci. 22, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Norman, A. G. & Richardson, H. L. (1937). Biochem. J. 31, 1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Orchard, L. R. (1933). London Univ., Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
(17)Eggleton, W. G. E. (1934). J. agric. Sci. 24, 416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggleton, W. G. E. (1935). Ann. appl. Biol. 22, 419.Google Scholar
Eggleton, W. G. E. (1935). Biochem. J. 29, 1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Hall, A. D. (1905). The Book of the Rothamsted Experiments. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Jenny, H. (1930). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. 152.Google Scholar
Jenny, H. (1931). Soil Sci. 31, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Robinson, G. W., Maclean, W. & Williams, R. (1929). J. agric. Sci. 19, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Powers, W. L. & Bollen, W. B. (1935). Soil Sci. 40, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Bates, G. H. (1933). Welsh J. Agric. 9, 195.Google Scholar
(23)Morris, H. M. (1927). Ann. appl. Biol. 14, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)Thompson, M. (1924). Ann. appl. Biol. 11, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(25)Baweja, K. D. (1937). London Univ., Ph.D. Thesis.Google Scholar
(26)Kay, E. F. (1934). Bull. Fac. Agric. Univ. Reading, 48.Google Scholar
(27)Penman, F. (1931). J. Dep. Agric. Vict. 29, 439.Google Scholar
(28)Lyon, T. L. & Bizzell, J. A. (1918). Mem. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. 12.Google Scholar
Lyon, T. L. & Bizzell, J. A.(1930). Mem. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. 134.Google Scholar
Bizzell, J. A. (1909). Proc. Amer. Soc. Agron. 1, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, T. L. & Wilson, B. D. (1928). Mem. Cornell agric. Exp. Sta. 115.Google Scholar
Jones, L. G. (1928). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 20, 1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29)Stremme, H. & Schroedter, E. (1933). Ernähr. Pfl. 29, 333.Google Scholar
(30)Savvinov, N. I.W Williams, W. R. (1935). Jubilee Vol., Moscow, 296.Google Scholar
(31)Ziemiecka, J. (1932). J. agric. Sci. 22, 797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar