Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:39:14.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urea as a fertilizer. Ammonia evolution and brairding of wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Mees  and
T. E. Tomlinson
G. C. Mees
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Billingham Divison, Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berkshire
T. E. Tomlinson
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Billingham Divison, Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Moderate percentages of urea are widely and successfully used in compound fertilizers but the use of large proportions may be accompanied by two disadvantages:

(a) the loss of nitrogen as ammonia from surface applications,

(b) the occurrence of toxic effects when urea and seeds are drilled together in soil. This paper shows that both these effects are consequences of the rapid hydrolysis of urea to ammonia and carbon dioxide.

2. The effect on brairding of the presence of urea and of ammonium sulphate drilled with wheat seeds, and the loss of ammonia from top-dressings of the compounds on bare soils have been studied on a range of soils. Phytotoxicity was most pronounced in those conditions in which ammonia evolution was greatest. Thus, in a sandy soil, from which about 75% of the nitrogen of a top-dressing of urea was evolved as ammonia in our conditions, more than 15 lb. nitrogen as urea per acre reduced the braird of wheat seeds; while in a clay soil, from which only 10% of a top-dressing was lost as ammonia, up to 60 lb. nitrogen as urea per acre could be added before braird was reduced. Intermediate results were obtained with three more soils and ammonia evolution and brairding were always closely parallel.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 199 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Bartholomew, W. V., Cadby, F. B. & Brown, J. M. (1960). Abstr. Pap. Amer. Chem. Soc. 138, 7J.Google Scholar
Buage, B. L., Zioh, W. B. & Fine, L. O. (1960). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 24, 294.Google Scholar
Cookk, I. J. (1962). Nature, Lond., 194, 1262.Google Scholar
Coubt, N. M., Stephen, R. C. & Waid, J. S. (1962). Nature, Lond., 194, 1263.Google Scholar
Low, A. J. & Piper, F. J. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogata, T. & Yamada, R. (1959). Soil and Plant Fd (Tokyo), 30, 23.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1950). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, 8th edition, p. 297. Longmans Green and Co.Google Scholar
Volk, G. M. (1959). Agron. J. 51, 746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahhab, A., Khan, M. & Ishaq, M. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, L. G. & Piland, J. R. (1931). Soil Sci. 31, 5.Google Scholar