Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:27:31.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The uptake of initially available soil potassium by ryegrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. M. Addiscott
T. M. Addiscott
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The potassium potential which limits uptake of K by ryegrass, ‘the uptake potential’, was derived from the uptakes of K and from the quantity/potential relationships of a number of soils by a method which avoids exhausting the soil by cropping. This potential was – 5600 cal/equiv in Rothamsted soils, but the method was unsuitable for Woburn soils. In Rothamsted soils uptake of K was more closely related to quantity than to potential of K, but in Woburn soils it was equally well related to both. From 28 days until 82 days, when the initially available K had been used in most soils, diffusion in the soil seemed to control rate of uptake of K. On longer cropping, much initially nonavailable K was released, the grass still grew and the mean K potential had fallen to only –5189 cal/equiv in Rothamsted and –5336 cal/equiv, in Woburn soils.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 1970 , pp. 123 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Addiscott, T. M. (1970 a). Use of quantity/potential relationship to provide a scale of the abilities of extractants to remove soil K. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addiscott, T. M. (1970 b). The potassium Q/I relationships of soils given different K manuring. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, P. W. (1962 a). The potassium status of some English soils considered as a problem of energy relationships. Proc. Fertil. Soc. 72, 25–43.Google Scholar
Arnold, P. W. (1962 b). Soil potassium and its availability to plants. Outl. Agric. 3 (6), 263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, P. W. & Close, B. M. (1961). Potassium releasing power of soils from the Agdell rotation assessed by glasshouse cropping. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 57, 381–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, B. W. (1964). The soils and land use of the district round Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead. Mem. Soil Surv. Gt Br.Google Scholar
Barrow, N. J. (1966). Nutrient potential and capacity. II. Relation between K potential and buffering capacity and supply of K to plants. Aust. J. agric. Res. 17, 849–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, N. J., Asher, C. J. & Ozanne, P. G. (1967). Nutrient potential and capacity. III. Minimum value of potassium potential for availability to trifolium subterraneum in soil and in solution culture. Aust. J. agric. Res. 18, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crank, J. (1956). The Mathematics of Diffusion, pp. 30–31. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Drew, M. C, Vaidyanathan, L. V. & Nye, P. H. (1966). Can soil diffusion limit the uptake of potassium by plants? Trans. Comms II and IV Int. Soc. Soil Sci., Aberdeen, pp. 335–44.Google Scholar
Graham-Bryce, I. J. (1963). Self-diffusion of ions in the soil. I. Cations. J. Soil Sci. 14 (2), 188–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, R. K. (1947). A ratio law governing the equilibrium of cations in the soil solution. Proc. 11th Int. Cong, pure appl. Chem., London 3, 257–61.Google Scholar
Talibudeen, O. & Dey, S. K. (1968). Potassium reserves in British soils. I. The Rothamsted classical experiments. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71, 95–104.Google Scholar
Woodruff, C. M. (1955). The energies of replacement of calcium by potassium in soils. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 19, 167–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, C. M. & Mackintosh, J. L. (1960). Testing soil for potassium. Trans. 7th int.Congr.SoilSci. 3, 80–5.Google Scholar