Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:30:48.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant growth with nutrient solutions. IV. The influence of culture solutions of varying phosphate content on the growth of the turnip in fen and gravel soil.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Rowland Marcus Woodman  and
Delphine Ainslie Johnson
Rowland Marcus Woodman
Affiliation:
Horticultural Research Station, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Delphine Ainslie Johnson
Affiliation:
Horticultural Research Station, School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Statistical experiments were made to ascertain the effect of variations in applied soluble phosphate on the growth of Milan Strap-leaved Purple Top Turnips in a light gravel soil already containing sufficient available phosphate, and in a fen soil possessing an inadequate supply of available phosphate, as aggregates for growth.

No adverse effect on yield, calculated as fresh or dry matter of tops, roots, or whole plants, was suffered in either soil at any of the stages of growth considered at the highest concentrations of soluble phosphate, unlike the behaviour of this turnip when grown in a pure sand containing no clays or humates, where there was a narrow optimum range of phosphorus at a low concentration. The gravel soil occupied an intermediate position, however, between sand with its low optimum range of soluble phosphorus, and fen soil, where positive response to increasing concentrations of soluble phosphorus approached the ‘normal’, and thus there was a range of phosphorus at low concentration tending to a maximum yield followed generally by a greater numerical yield at the highest concentrations of phosphorus.

At the seedling stage in gravel soil variation in applied phosphate had absolutely no statistical effect on yield, moisture content of tops, roots and whole plants, and the ratios, for fresh or dry matter, Top/Root, Root/(Whole plant) and (Whole plant)/ Top.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 1947 , pp. 163 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Gabner, H. V. (1934). Bull. Minist. Agric. no. 36, 6th ed.; also quotes Kirton, Extension Leaflet, no. 5.Google Scholar
Hall, A. D. (1945). The Soil, 5th ed., revised by Robinson, G. W., p. 221; pp. 138–56. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Williams, R. F. (1946). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S., 10, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolkoff, M. (1918). Soil Sci. 5, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1936). Sands, Clays and Minerals, 3, 22.Google Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1941). Ann. Appl. Biol. 28, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1943 a). Ann. Appl. Biol. 30, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1943 b). Ann. Appl. Biol. 30, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. (1944). Ann. Appl. Biol. 31, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. & Johnson, D. A. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. & Johnson, D. A. (1946 a). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. & Johnson, D. A. (1946 b). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. M. & Johnson, D. A. (1946 c). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar