Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:37:14.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The potassium status of barley in relation to yields of grain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. J. D. Nicholas
D. J. D. Nicholas
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Research Station, Long Ashton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Various portions of barley plants were made available for chemical tests from manurial experiments which were designed to test the effects of K treatment (broadcast and placed with the seed) on grain yield.

2. The experiments were located at three centres differing in soil characters and K status. Centre A was severely deficient in K; centre B was moderately deficient and at centre C, K was adequate.

3. A comparison was made between the results of the following tissue test methods for K, Mg, Ca, P and Mn: (a) diffusion method, using young leaf, mid-stem leaf, and internode respectively; (b) Waring blendor, and (c) ash analysis. Mn was not determined by the blendor method.

4. The coefficients of variation for the quick tests compared favourably with those of ash analysis for K, Mg, Ca, P and Mn respectively. Variations in results in tissue tests for Ca were, however, significantly greater than those of ash analysis, at centre A (second sampling).

5. Correlation coefficients between results of ash analysis and the tissue test methods for K, Mg, Ca, P and Mn were positive and significant for totals, treatment and treatment × sites, except for Mn in young leaf by diffusion method. The error term for P was also significant for the quick methods, thus decreasing the value of the correlations for this nutrient.

6. Correlation coefficients of yields with ash analyses, Waring blendor and diffusion method (mid-stem leaf) analyses respectively were significant and positive for K and negative for Mg, Ca, P and Mn. This confirms an interaction of K with the other nutrients.

7. Minimum K levels, determined 5 weeks after seeding, above which no further increase in yields may be expected at the three centres, were: by diffusion method, using young leaf, mid-stem leaf and internode, 700, 500 and 600 μg. extracted per. g fresh weight respectively; by Waring blendor using ‘tops’, 2000 μg. extracted per g. fresh weight; by ash analysis of tops 1·5% K in dry matter. There is evidence that these critical levels fall later in the season, especially in mid-stem leaves, presumably through translocation of K to the ears.

8. Minimum levels of K required for optimum yields are above those associated with the onset of deficiency symptoms of the element. Thus chemical methods only can determine suboptimal levels of nutrients in relation to final yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 1952 , pp. 468 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

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

Atterberg, A. (1888). Kalmar. Kent. Sta. Tio-årsberätt, 1877–1887, Beil 2, 13.Google Scholar
Atterberg, A. (1901). J. Landw. 49, 97.Google Scholar
Brown, D. S., Robinson, R. R. & Browning, G. M. (1938). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 10, 652.Google Scholar
Carolus, R. L. (1937). Amer. Potato J. 14, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carolus, R. L. (1938). Bull. Va. Truck Exp. 98.Google Scholar
Emmert, E. M. (1932). Plant Physiol. 7, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godlewski, E. (1901). Z. landw. VersWes. Ost. 4, 479.Google Scholar
Goodall, D. W. & Gregory, F. G. (1947). Chemical composition of plants as an index of their nutritional status. Tech. Commun. Imp. Bur. Hort. Pl. Crops, no. 17.Google Scholar
Goodall, D. W. (1948). Ann. Appl. Biol. 35, no. 4, 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, D. W. (1949). Ann. Appl. Biol. 36, no. 1, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinmch, R. (1882). Wbl. Ann. Landw. for 1867, 299. Quoted in Jber. Fortschr. AgrikChem.Google Scholar
Hellriegel, R. (1867). Wbl. Ann. Landw. for 1867, 299. Quoted in Jber. Fortschr. AgrikChem. 10, 117.Google Scholar
Hill, H. & Cannon, H. B. (1948). Sci. Agric. 28, no. 5, 185.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. (1949). 1st Int. Congr. Biochem., Camb. (Abstract of Communications), 251/11.Google Scholar
Kitson, K. B. & Mellon, M. G. (1944). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 16, 379.Google Scholar
Liebscher, L. & Wilms, J. (1898). J. Landw. 46, 367.Google Scholar
Lorenz, O. A. (1944). Amer. Potato J. 21, 179.Google Scholar
Lundegårdh, H. (1932). Die Nährstoffaufnahme der Pflanze. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Translated by R. L. Mitchell (1951), Hilger and Watts, London.Google Scholar
Lundegårdh, H. (1941). LantbrHögsk. Ann. 9, 127.Google Scholar
Maume, L. & Dulac, J. (1934). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 198, 199.Google Scholar
Maume, L. & Dulac, J. (1935). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 200, 1245.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. L. (1948). The spectrographic analysis of soils, plants and related materials. Tech. Commun. Bur. Soil Sci. no. 44.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1946). Nature, Lond., 157, 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1948 a). J. Hort. Sci. 24, 3, 72.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1948 b). Rep. Agric. Hort. Res. Sta. Bristol, p. 98.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1949). J. Hort. Sci. 25, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. & Fisher, D. J. (1950). Rep. Agric. Hort. Res. Sta. Bristol, p. 115.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1951 a). Special mimeographed publication of Long Ashton Research Station, Bristol.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1951 b). Soils and Fertilisers, 14, 3, 1.Google Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. & Fisher, D. J. (1951 c). Rep. Agric. Hort. Res. Sta. Bristol, p. 77.Google Scholar
Nicholson, M. N. (1952). Private communication.Google Scholar
Richards, M. B. (1930). Analyst, 55, 554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, W. A. (1946). J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Lond., 65, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl-Schröder, M. (1904). J. Landw. 52, 31.Google Scholar
Thornton, S. F., Conner, S. D. & Fkaser, R. R. (1934). Circ. Ind. Agric. Exp. Sta. 204, 1 (revised 1939).Google Scholar
Wallace, T. (1951). The Diagnosis of Mineral Deficiencies in Plants by Visual Symptoms. A colour atlas and guide, 2nd ed.London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Weeks, M. E. & Todd, J. R. (1943). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 15, no. 4, 297.Google Scholar
Wolff, E. (1876). Jber. Fortschr. AgrikChem. 18/19, 250.Google Scholar
Wolff, E. (1877). Landw. VersSta. 20, 395.Google Scholar