Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:49:54.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study of the effects of fertilizers and rainfall on yields of crops grown in rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. A Cowie
G. A Cowie
Affiliation:
Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An analysis of the data from the continuous manurial experiment in Woodlands Field, Craibstone Experimental Farm, Aberdeen, has demonstrated the effects of fertilizers and of rainfall on the yields of various crops grown on a six-course rotation plan with a basal application of dung to the roots. The soil is a dark brown medium loam of which the parent material is ‘drift’ from the grinding down of granite and metamorphic rocks and is typical of a large class of glacial soils in the north-east of Scotland.

Of the three major nutrients nitrogen gave the largest mean response on every crop except hay. The hay yield was benefited least by nitrogen and most by potash. The effect of nitrogen was to depress slightly, but not significantly, the total production of the ley for the 3 years. Potash, on the other hand, significantly improved the yield of hay as well as of the aftermath and the following ‘pastures’. The phosphate and potash responses were approximately equal in respect of barley, oats and potatoes. Turnips, swedes and potatoes responded similarly to potash, but in terms of dry matter the response was markedly higher for potatoes.

Superphosphate proved more effective than ground mineral phosphate on every crop except turnips. Further study of the data revealed interesting differences between the crops in respect of their capacity for utilizing ground mineral phosphate. Oats gave negligible responses to mineral phosphate throughout the experiment.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , October 1945 , pp. 197 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

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

Arland, A. (1931). Ernähr. Pfl. 27, 445–9.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1935). J. Agric. Sci. 35, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, G. A. (1942). Ann. Appl. Biol. 29, 333–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1921). J. Agric. Sci. 2, 107–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1924–1925). Philos. Trans. B, 213, 85.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1936). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1938). Statistical Tables for Biological Agricultural and Medical Research. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Haley, E., Street, O. E., Farrell, M. A. & Reid, J. J. (1944). Bull. Pennsylvania Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 440.Google Scholar
Hendrick, J. & Newlands, G. (1923). J. Agric. Sci. 13, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, J. & Newlands, G. (1925). J. Agric. Sci. 15, 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, J. & Newlands, G. (1926). J. Agric. Sci. 16, 584–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, J.Ogg, W. G. (1916). J. Agric. Sci. 7, 458–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunath, A. (1931). Pflanzenbau, 6, 597–637.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, W. A. (1923). J. Agric. Sci. 14, 434–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, W. G. & Hendrick, J. (1920). J. Agric. Sci. 10, 333–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, W. G. & Hendrick, J. (1920). J. Agric. Sci. 10, 343–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, G. (1930–1931). Wiss. Arch. Landw. A, Pflanzenbau, 5, 247–503.Google Scholar
Rothamsted Experimental Station (1936). Ann. Rep. p. 34, and other reports.Google Scholar
Russell, E. J. & Watson, D. J. (1940). Tech. Commun. Imp. Bur. Soil Sci. no. 40, pp. 87–9.Google Scholar
Wishart, J. & Mackenzie, W. A. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar