Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T22:37:57.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of soil after fifty years of wheat or barley cropping, especially of soil made acid with sulphate of ammonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Harold H. Mann  and
T. W. Barnes
Harold H. Mann
Affiliation:
Woburn Experimental Station, Aspley Guise, Bletchley
T. W. Barnes
Affiliation:
Woburn Experimental Station, Aspley Guise, Bletchley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Monthly aqueous extracts of soils which have been under wheat and barley cropping on the Woburn light sandy loam soils, with various manuring show very great similarity in the amount and character of the materials extracted in the wheat and the barley soils.

2. Water-soluble phosphoric acid and potash are in extremely small amount where these manures have not been applied during the fifty years’ treatment, but, in spite of this, the amount of these constituents does not appear to be a limiting factor in determining the yield of either wheat or barley. The phosphoric acid is much higher in the plots treated with phosphatic manures, and the potash is slightly higher in those treated with potash manures, but these facts do not seem to have secured a seriously higher yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 1940 , pp. 345 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

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

Crowther, E. M. (1932). J. roy. agric. Soc. 93, 199. (Summary.)Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. (1936). In E. J. Russell and J. A. Voelcker, Fifty Years of Field Experiments at the Woburn Experimental Station, Part IV, p. 315.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. & Basu, J. K. (1931). J. agric. Sci. 21, 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. D., Miller, N. H. J. & Gimingham, C. T. (1908). Proc. roy. Soc. B, 80, 196.Google Scholar
Hardy, G. (1926). J. agric. Sci. 16, 616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, D. R., Martin, J. C. & Stewart, G. R. (1921). J. agric. Res. 20, 381.Google Scholar
Ligon, W. S. & Pierre, W. H. (1932). Soil Sci. 34, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magistad, O. C. (1925). Soil Sci. 20, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H. H. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, F. W. & Fudge, J. F. (1927). Soil Sci. 24, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, W. H., & Parker, F. W. (1927). Soil Sci. 23, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, W. H., Pohlman, G. G. & McIlvaine, T. C. (1932). Soil Sci. 34, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, W. H. & Stuart, A. D. (1933). Soil Sci. 36, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlman, G. G. (1933). Soil Sci. 36, 47.Google Scholar
Voelcker, J. A. (1903). J. roy. agric. Soc. 64, 357.Google Scholar
Voelcker, J. A. (1923). J. roy. agric. Soc. 84. 115. (Summary.)Google Scholar