Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:23:52.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between exchangeable soil magnesium and response by sugar beet to magnesium sulphate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. P. Draycott  and
M. J. Durrant
A. P. Draycott
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Fifty-three experiments made between 1959 and 1968 tested the response to magnesium sulphate by sugar beet on fields where magnesium deficiency symptoms were expected. Soil samples, taken before applying fertilizers, were analysed for exchangeable magnesium by four methods. Sodium, potassium and calcium in the soil extracts were also measured to determine whether they influenced response to magnesium.

Results of different methods of analysing soil for magnesium were related to each other and to the percentage yield-response to magnesium fertilizer. The concentration of other soil cations did not affect response to magnesium fertilizer, but giving other cations, especially sodium, as fertilizer decreased the concentration of magnesium in the crop. Nevertheless, even on fields deficient in magnesium, the largest yield was from plots given sodium and posassium fertilizer together with a dressing of magnesium.

Sugar beet grown on soils containing less than 20 p.p.m. Mg extracted with ammonium nitrate usually gave a profitable response to magnesium fertilizer. When soil magnesium was 20–35 p.p.m., yield of sugar beet on some fields was increased slightly. Plants in some experiments had poorly developed root systems and response to magnesium was then always larger than expected from soil analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 1970 , pp. 137 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Arnold, P. W. (1967). Magnesium and potassium supplying power of soils. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 39–47.Google Scholar
Batey, T. (1967). The ratio of potassium to magnesium in the soil in relation to plant growth. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 143–6.Google Scholar
Bolton, J. (1967). The distribution and availability to plants of sodium and other cations in soils. Ph.D. Thesis. London University.Google Scholar
Bolton, J. & Penny, A. (1968). The effect of potassium and magnesium fertilizers on yield and composition of successive crops of ryegrass, clover, sugar beet, potatoes, kale and barley, on sandy soils at Woburn. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70, 303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, R. R. (1967). The effect of applied magnesium on the uptake of magnesium by, and on the yield of, arable crops. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 110–24.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1968). Magnesium uptake. Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn for 1967, p. 286.Google Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1969 a). The effects of magnesium fertilizers on yield and chemical composition of sugar beet. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, A. P. & Durrant, M. J. (1969 b). Magnesium uptake. Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn for 1968, p. 288.Google Scholar
Dunning, R. A. & Cooke, D. A. (1967). Docking disorder. Br. Sug. Beet Rev. 36, 23–9.Google Scholar
Hale, J. B., Watson, M. A. & Hull, R. (1946). Some causes of chlorosis and necrosis of sugar beet foliage. Ann. appl. Biol. 33, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrod, M. F. & Caldwell, T. H. (1967). The magnesium manuring of sugar beet on light sandy soils of East Anglia. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 127–42.Google Scholar
Holmes, M. R. J. (1962). The magnesium requirements of arable crops. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 13, 553–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, L. J. (1967). The uptake of magnesium by herbage and its relationship with soil analysis data. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 160–73.Google Scholar
Jacob, A. (1958). Magnesium, the Fifth Major Plant Nutrient. London: Staples Press.Google Scholar
McConaghy, S. & McAllister, J. S. V. (1967). The determination in soils of potassium and magnesium and their uptake by crops. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd, no. 14, 63–77.Google Scholar
Reith, J. W. S. (1963). The magnesium contents of soils and crops. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 417–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, R. C. (1962). Magnesium relationships in some British soils. Ph.D. Thesis. London Univ.Google Scholar
Salmon, R. C. (1963). Magnesium relationships in soils and plants. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 605–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, R. C. & Arnold, P. W. (1963). The uptake of magnesium under exhaustive cropping. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61, 421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinker, P. B. H. (1967). The effects of magnesium sulphate on sugar beet yield and its interactions with other fertilizers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, A. (1961). Plant analysis in sugar beet nutrition. In Plant Analysis and Fertilizer Problems, pp. 190–211. Washington: Am. Inst. Biol. Sci.Google Scholar
Williams, T. R., Wilkinson, B., Wadsworth, G. A., Barter, D. H. & Beer, W. J. (1966). Determination of magnesium in soil extracts by atomic absorption spectroscopy and chemical methods. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 17, 344–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar