Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:24:44.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of several ways of measuring soil phosphorus availability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Hagin ,
J. Hillinger  and
A. Olmert
J. Hagin
Affiliation:
The National and University Institute of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
J. Hillinger
Affiliation:
The National and University Institute of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
A. Olmert
Affiliation:
The National and University Institute of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory indices of P availability were compared for six soils. Phosphorus soluble in sodium bicarbonate, ammonium fluoride and citric acid solutions, and in water was determined. Maximum P adsorption capacity was calculated from data by a batch method obtained from equations using the Langmuir isotherm. Adsorbed P values were derived from the same equations. Measurements of P adsorption obtained by leaching soil samples with a phosphate solution yielded asymptotic curves which also allowed the maximum adsorption capacity to be calculated. Results obtained by the two methods were very similar. Leaching of soil samples by water was the basis for calculating maximum P desorption values; these agreed well with the adsorbed P values obtained from the Langmuir isotherm.

Phosphorus uptake by plants, determined in a greenhouse experiment, was correlated with the various data and parameters obtained in the laboratory; there were no significant correlations with the P values from extraction methods, but there were good correlations with some of the parameters from the equilibration and leaching experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1963 , pp. 245 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Bray, R. H. & Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Soil Sci. 59, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dan, J. & Koyumdjisky, H. (1959). Agric. Res. Sta. Rehovot, Special Bull. 24.Google Scholar
Fried, M. & Shapiro, R. E. (1956). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 20, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Shapiro, R. E. (1960). Soil Sci. 90, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagin, J., Ravikovitch, S. & Halevy, J. (1959). Ktavim, Records of the Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot, Israel, 9, 209.Google Scholar
Hagin, J. & Shmueli, E. (1960). Ktavim, Records of the Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot, Israel, 10, 43.Google Scholar
Moser, U. S., Sutherland, W. H. & Black, C. A. (1959). Plant and Soil, 10, 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. (1954). U.S.D.A. Circ. no. 939.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. R. & Watanabe, F. S. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 21, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennie, D. A. & McKercher, R. B. (1959). Canad. J. Soil Sci. 39, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, R. E. & Fried, M. (1959). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 23, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. J., Oliveira, A. L. F., Moser, U. S. & Black, C. A. (1960). Plant and Soil, 13, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar