Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:44:47.450Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of fertilizers and dung on potatoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. W. S. Reith  and
R. H. E. Inkson
J. W. S. Reith
Affiliation:
Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen
R. H. E. Inkson
Affiliation:
Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Field experiments were carried out in north-east Scotland on potatoes to measure the responses to, and the two-factor interactions between, nitrogen, phosphate, potash and dung, and have given the following results:

1. The responses to nitrogen, phosphate and potash are quite variable from centre to centre, but the mean results show moderately large increases to all three nutrients.

2. The mean responses to both nitrogen and phosphate are the same in the presence as in the absence of dung. The response to potash is reduced by two-thirds in the presence of dung.

3. There is a general trend for both nitrogen and potash to increase the linear component of the response to phosphate and vice versa. Nitrogen and potash show practically no interaction effects.

4. Dung produces a considerably larger increase in yield in the absence than in the presence of fertilizers.

5. The nitrogen and potassium contents of the tubers show appreciable effects of the nitrogen, potash and dung treatments.

6. Suitable fertilizer dressings are suggested for potatoes grown in the absence and presence of dung.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , October 1958 , pp. 218 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Cooke, G. W. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, G. A. (1941). Nature, Lond., 148, 285.Google Scholar
Cowie, G. A. (1943). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 11, 23.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. (1948). Pamphlet Bath W.S. Co. Soc., no. 13, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. & Yates, F. (1941). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 9, 77.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. H. A., Watkins, J. E. & Webber, J. (1956). Exp. Husbandry, no. 1, 25.Google Scholar
Findlay, W. M. (1928). J. Scot. Agric. 11, 339.Google Scholar
SirRussell, E. J. & Garner, H. F. (1941). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 9, 195.Google Scholar
Smith, A. M. & Simpson, K. (1957). Scot. Agric. 36, 301.Google Scholar
Wallace, T. (1951). The Diagnosis of Mineral Deficiencies in Plants by Visual Symptoms. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Williams, E. G., Scott, N. M. & McDonald, M. J. (1958). J. Sci. Fd Agric. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). Tech. Commun. Bur. Soil Sci., Harpenden, no. 35.Google Scholar