Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:35:30.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fractionation of the organic matter, including nitrogen, of certain soils and its relation to their quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. R. F. Ashworth
M. R. F. Ashworth
Affiliation:
The Macaulary Institutefor Soil Research, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The proximate analysis of a number of widely differing soil profiles has been carried out, employing a slight modification of the scheme used by Waksman and Shewan. This included a nitrogen fractionation with water and acid, similar to that of Waksman and of Shewan. It was supplemented by ammonia and nitrate estimations. The data are expressed on the basis of total organic matter.

2. The soils ranged in quality from peat and forest soils to grassland profiles. This gradation of quality was brought out by many of the figures of the proximate analysis. The better quality soils are associated with:

(a) a lower average content of fats and waxes, hemicelluloses and cellulose;

(b) a rapid decrease in cellulose with increasing depth;

(c) higher total nitrogen and various fractions, including higher ammonia and nitrate and a higher ratio of nitrate to ammonia;

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , October 1942 , pp. 349 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

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

Aaltonen, (1926). Inst. Forest. Finn. 10.Google Scholar
Bornebusch, (1930). The Fauna of the Forest Soil. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Christiansen, (1915). Zbl. Bakt. II, 43, 1.Google Scholar
Glomme, (1932). Med. Norske Kogforsoks, 14, 37.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, (1931). Süddeuts. Forst. Jagdz. 33.Google Scholar
Hesselmann, (1926). Med. Stat. Skagsforsoks, 22, 169.Google Scholar
Lane, & Eynon, (1923). J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 42, 32T.Google Scholar
Maliutin, (1928). Red. Sci. Peat Inst. Moscow, 1, 58.Google Scholar
Nemec, & Kvapil, (1926, 1927). Z. Forst. Jagdw. 58, 1, 25; 59, 321, 385.Google Scholar
Olsen, (1928). C.R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, 17, 1.Google Scholar
Robertson, & Shewan, (1935). J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 54, 35T.Google Scholar
Shewan, (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 324.Google Scholar
Smolik, (1933). Czechoslovak. Akad. Agric. 9, 304, 526.Google Scholar
Stadnikoff, (1930). Neueve Torfchemie. Dresden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 317.Google Scholar
Waksman, (1928–39). Humus. London (1936).Google Scholar
Waksman, & Hutchings, (1935). Soil Sci. 40, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waksman, & Stevens, (1928, 1930). Soil Sci. 26, 113, 239; 27, 271, 389; 30, 97; Amer. J. Sci. 19, 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weis, (1929, 1932). Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Copenhagen, 7, 9; 10, 3.Google Scholar