Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T19:51:57.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analysis of factors contributing to the determination of saturation capacity in some tropical soil types (With One text-figure.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. E. Turner
P. E. Turner
Affiliation:
The Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, B.W.I.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The limitations of the “constant” saturation capacity as a factor in the characterisation of types of soils, rather than individual soils, are discussed. An attempt has been made to overcome these limitations by distinguishing between the contributions made to saturation capacity by the organic and inorganic colloidal components of three widely different tropical soil types.

1. Numerical evidence is given which shows that saturation capacity is very closely related to the content of clay and organic matter of soil (irrespective of the proportions in which they are present), but not to the fine silt fraction. Nevertheless, the correlation between saturation capacity and (a) organic matter, and (b) clay, is significantly greater for the tropical type containing the smallest amounts of these components than for the type containing the largest amounts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1932 , pp. 72 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

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)Bradfield, R.J. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1923), 15, 2669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Fisher, R. A.Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1928). London.Google Scholar
(3)Gedroiz, K. K.Nosovka Agricultural Experiment Station, Agrochemical Division (1925), Paper No. 38, Leningrad.Google Scholar
(4)Hardy, F.Minutes and Proceedings of the Froghopper Investigation Committee (1929), 15, 243.Google Scholar
(5)Hissink, D. J.Trans. Faraday Soc. (1925), 20, 551.Google Scholar
(6)Hissink, D. J.Trans. Second Comm. Internat. Soc. Soil Sci. (1926), A, 72, 199.Google Scholar
(7)Hissink, D. J.Proc. First Internat. Cong. Soil Sci. (1927), 1, 170.Google Scholar
(8)Kerr, S. S.Soil Sci. (1928), 26, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Odén, S.Ber. Deut. Chem. Gesell. (1912), 45, 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Odén, S.Kolloid Z. (1914), 14, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Odén, S.Int. Mitt. Bodenkunde (1916), 6, 81.Google Scholar
(12)Odén, S.Trans. Faraday Soc. (1922), 17, 289.Google Scholar
(13)Page, H. J.Trans. Faraday Soc. (1922), 17, 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Page, H. J. and Williams, W.Trans. Faraday Soc. (1925), 20, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Robinson, G. W.Trans. Second Comm. Internat. Soc. Soil Sci. (1926), A, 170.Google Scholar
(16)Schlösing, Th.Compt. rend. (1872), 74, 1408; (1874), 78, 1279; (1902), 135, 601.Google Scholar
(17)Sub-Committee of the Agricultural Education Association. J. Agric. Sci. (1926), 16, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Thiessen, G. and Engelder, C. J.Ind. Eng. Chem. (1930), 22, 1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Tiulin, A. T.Proc. Internat. Soc. Soil Sci. (1929), 4, 38.Google Scholar
(20)Turner, P. E.J. Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Turner, P. E.Soil Sci. (1930), 30, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Williams, R.J. Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23)Williams, R.J. Agric. Sci. (1929), 19, 589.Google Scholar