Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:26:33.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The significance of certain “single value” soil constants1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. W. Russell
Affiliation:
(Soil Physics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.)

Summary

The conclusions that have been arrived at from the foregoing statistical examination of the available data on the physical properties of the Natal soils used by Coutts are:

(1) The base exchange capacity of the soil, as measured by Schofield's potassium phosphate buffer method, appears to be of predominant importance for predicting several of the soil properties, as for example the sticky point and the moisture content at 50 per cent. relative humidity. On the other hand, the clay content seems to be of quite minor importance in predicting these soil properties.

(2) The information from the data supplied by the Keen-Raczkowski box indicates that ω, the weight of water held per gram of soil in the box is very closely correlated with the base exchange capacity of the soil, while the swelling and pore-space parameters are more complex. The swelling υ seems to be dependent on the base exchange capacity of the soil and a term probably representing the structure of the soil, while the pore space p seems to be dependent on the clay content and a soil structure term. By choosing an appropriate definition of the pore space practically all the structure information given by the swelling parameters is contained in it.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

(1)Charlton, J.Indian J. Agric. Sci. (1932), 2, 62.Google Scholar
(2)Coutts, J. R. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1929), 19, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Coutts, J. R. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1930), 20, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Coutts, J. R. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1932), 22, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Fisher, E. A.J. Agric. Sci. (1924), 14, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Fisher, R. A.Statistical Methods for Research, Workers (Oliver and Boyd).Google Scholar
(7)Haines, W. B.J. Agric. Sci. (1923), 13, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Hines, H. J. G.Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland (1931), 43, No. 7, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Keen, B. A. and Coutts, J. R. H.J. Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Keen, B. A. and Raczkowski, H.J. Agric. Sci. (1921), 11, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Lebedeff, A. F.Proc. 1st Intern. Soc. Soil Sci. (Washington), (1927), 1, 551.Google Scholar
(12)Marchand, B. De C.J. Agric. Sci. (1924), 14, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Patrick, W. A. Dissertation, Göttingen (1914), see also McGavack, J. and Patrick, W. A. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1920), 42, 946.Google Scholar
(14)Schofield, R. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1933), 23, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar