Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:39:50.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative proportions of exchangeable bases in some Scottish soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. M. Smith
A. M. Smith
Affiliation:
(Ministry of Agriculture Research Scholar, Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The relative proportions of exchangeable bases in nine soils from the east of Scotland area and the changes effected by dilute chloride solutions have been examined.

2. The changes due to N/50 solutions are large, and magnesium is displaced to a greater extent by calcium than by potassium.

3. The changes due to N/500 solutions are very small, comparable to what might be expected in manurial practice, and not greater than field sampling error.

4. The content of exchangeable bases and their relative proportions, therefore, seem to be fairly permanent for any soil under normal conditions, but vary considerably from soil to soil, and should prove useful as an additional characteristic of soil type as distinguished in the field.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1928 , pp. 68 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

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)Bouyoucos, G. J. (1926). Soil Sci. 21, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Burd, J. S. and Martin, J. C. (1924). Soil Sci. 18, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Daikuhara, G. (1914). Bull. Imp. Cent. Agric. Expt. Slat., Japan, 2, 1.Google Scholar
(4)Gedroiz, K. K. (1916). Zhur. Opit. Agron. 17, 472.Google Scholar
Gedroiz, K. K. (1919). Zhur. Opit. Agron. 20, 31.Google Scholar
(5)Gedroiz, K. K. (1925). Nossov. Agric. Expt. Stat., Paper No. 38, Leningrad.Google Scholar
(6)Hissink, D. J. (1922). Intern. Mitt. Bodenkunde, 12, 81.Google Scholar
(7)Kelley, W. P. and Brown, S. M. (1924). California Agric. Expt. Stat., Tech. Paper 15.Google Scholar
(8)Kelley, W. P. and Cummins, A. B. (1921). Soil Sci. 11, 139.Google Scholar
(9)Lemberg, J. (1876). Z. Deut. geol. Ges. 28, 519.Google Scholar
(10)Niklas, H. and Vogel, F. (1925). Z. Pflanz. Düng. B, 4, 375.Google Scholar
(11)Von Nostitz, A. (1924). Landw. Versuchs. Stat. 103, 159.Google Scholar
(12)Page, H. J. and Williams, W. (1925). Trans. Faraday Soc. 20, Part 3.Google Scholar
(13)Page, H. J. and Williams, W. (1926). Journ. Agric. Sci. 16, 551.Google Scholar
(14)Ramann, E. (1924). Soil Sci. 18, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Robinson, G. W. and Lloyd, W. E. (1915). Journ. Agric. Sci. 7, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Smith, A. M. (1925). Journ. Agric. Sci. 15, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Spurway, C. H. and Austin, R. H. (1926). Soil Sci. 21, 71.Google Scholar
(18)Stewart, G. R. (1918). Journ. Agric. Res. 12, 311.Google Scholar
(19)Tuorila, P. (1926). Journ. Peat Cultivation Soc. (Finland), 30, 95.Google Scholar
(20)Wiegner, G. (1925). Zsigmondy Festschrift, p. 341.Google Scholar