Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:56:41.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on soil phosphorus. II. The nature of native and residual phosphorus in some South Australian soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Colin H. Williams
Colin H. Williams
Affiliation:
Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide, South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A study of residual phosphorus in soils resulting from the use of phosphate fertilizers has been made, using a simplification of Ghani's method for the fractionation of soil phosphorus.

In cultivated soils all the residual phosphorus was extractable by successive extractions with 2·5% acetic acid-1% 8-hydroxyquinoline and 0–1 N-sodium hydroxide, and practically all had remained in the inorganic form; very little, if any, change in organic phosphorus was recorded as a result of the application of superphosphate.

In pasture soils (uncultivated) the application of phosphatic fertilizers brought about an increase in both inorganic and organic phosphorus and, in addition, some of the applied phosphate may have entered a form not extractable by the two extractants. The increase in organic phosphorus was not directly proportional to the amount of phosphate applied, as were the increases in the extractable inorganic fractions. It tended to approach a constant value, irrespective of amount and nature of the phosphate applied.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 1950 , pp. 243 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Auten, J. T. (1922). Soil Sci. 13, 119.Google Scholar
Brown, L. A. (1935). Soil Sci. 39, 277.Google Scholar
Dean, L. A. (1937). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 2, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, L. A. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 234.Google Scholar
Heck, A. F. (1934). Soil Sci. 37, 343.Google Scholar
Hutton, J. T. (1948). Personal Communication.Google Scholar
Midgley, A. R. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, R. W. & Simonson, R. W. (1939). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 4, 162.Google Scholar
Piper, C. S. (1938). Trans. Boy. Soc. S. Aust. 62 (1), 53.Google Scholar
Piper, C. S. (1942). Soil and Plant Analysis, p. 140. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
Prescott, J. A. & Piper, C. S. (1932). Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Aust. 54, 118.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. T., Pearson, R. W. & Pierre, W. H. (1940). Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 5, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, R. E. & Chapman, H. D. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 759.Google Scholar
Williams, C. H. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. (in the press).Google Scholar