Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T23:45:43.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The presence of root-inhibiting substances in cow urine and the cause of urine burn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. W. Doak
B. W. Doak
Affiliation:
Grasslands Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A study has been made of the cause of urine burn in pasture.

2. It has been shown that urine burn could occur under dry soil conditions due to the osmotic pressure effects of the urine.

3. All seeds present in the urine-affected soil are killed.

4. An inhibitor of root growth, to which clover roots are especially sensitive, is present in the urine of cows and sheep.

5. This inhibitor, which is not heteroauxin, is acid in character and is destroyed in soil in a few days.

6. It is suggested that the inhibitor is an inhibitor-auxin complex, of which the auxin portion might be heteroauxin. The possibility that the inhibitor is an auxin precursor is discussed.

7. It is contended that the reduction of clover growth relative to grass growth in a urine patch is not simply the result of shading due to increased grass growth.

8. The root inhibitor, the temporarily high pH, the presence of free ammonia, and the high concentration of ammonium ions may be important factors in the reduction of clover growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 133 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Bennett Clark, T. A., Tambiah, M. S. & Kefford, N. P. (1952). Nature, Lond., 169, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doak, B. W. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenari, M. (1949). Bot. Rev. 15, 153.Google Scholar
Funke, H. & Soding, H. (1948). Planta, 36, 341.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R. M. Private communication.Google Scholar
Holley, R. W., Boyle, F. P., Durfee, H. K. & Halley, A. D. (1951). Arch. Biochem. 32, 192.Google Scholar
Holt, P. F. & Callon, H. J. (1943). Analyst, 68, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linser, H. (1951). Planta, 39, 377.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. (1950). Planta, 38, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truninger, E. & Keller, E. (1934). Landw. Jb. Schweiz, 48, (35).Google Scholar
White, E. P., Sewell, O. K. & Bassett, E. G. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar