Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T05:36:05.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of initial phosphate intensity and sorption or buffering capacity of soil on fertilizer requirements of different crops grown in pots or in the field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. C. Salmon
R. C. Salmon
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Rhodesia, Box MP 167, Salisbury, Rhodesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Rates of added P required for maximum yields of ryegrass grown in pots and of field tobacco and maize were related to functions of P intensity (I) and capacity (AQ/AI, or C) in soils. It was found that log I alone was negatively correlated with optimum fertilizer for ryegrass and tobacco, but not for maize. Capacity alone had little relationship with P requirements of tobacco but was significantly correlated, although having opposite effects, with those of ryegrass (positive) and maize (negative). Optimum fertilizer rates for all crops were best accounted for by multiple regressions including intensity and a capacity term together, using log C when P requirements were increased (ryegrass in pots, R2 = 0.94) or √C when they were decreased by increasing capacity (field tobacco, R2= 0.96; and maize, R2 = 0.98). Inclusion of both capacity terms with log I in regression was of no advantage with ryegrass and tobacco, but with maize all three terms contributed significantly to the correlation, log C tending to increase and √C to decrease fertilizer needs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 1973 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Barrow, N. J. (1967). Relationship between uptake of phosphorus by plants and the phosphorus potential and buffering capacity of the soil — an attempt to test Sehofield's hypothesis. Soil Sci. 104, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldovinos, F. & Thomas, G. W. (1967). The effect of soil clay content on phosphorus uptake. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 31, 680–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. L. & Kamprath, B. J. (1970). Phosphate sorption isotherms for evaluating the phosphate requirements of soils. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 34, 902–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hisiop, J. & Cooke, I. J. (1968). Anion exchange resin as a means of assessing soil phosphate status: a laboratory technique. Soil Sci. 105, 8–11.Google Scholar
Mahtab, S. K., Godfrey, C. L., Swoboda, A. R. & Thomas, G. W. (1971). Phosphorus diffusion in soils: I. The effect of applied P, clay content and water content. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 35, 393–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, P. H. (1966). The effect of the nutrient intensity and buffering power of a soil, and the absorbing power, size and root hairs of a root, on nutrient absorption by diffusion. PI. Soil 25, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. R. & Watanabe, F. S. (1963). Diffusion of phosphorus as related to soil texture and plant uptake. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 27, 648–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozanne, P. G. & Shaw, T. C. (1968). Advantages of the recently developed phosphate sorption test over the older extraetant methods for soil phosphate. Trans. 9th int. Congr. Soil Sci. 2, 273–80.Google Scholar
Salmon, R. C. (1966). Relations between intensity level and quantity of soil phosphate and its availability. Soil Sci. 101, 450–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunder, D. H. & Metelerkamp, H. R. (1962). Use of an anion-exchange resin for determination of available soil phosphorus. Trans. 8th int. Congr. Soil Sci. Comm. IV and V, pp. 847–9.Google Scholar
Tobacco Research Board of Rhodesia (1968). Handbook of Recommendations, TRB 1968/3, C.3.Google Scholar