2005
DOI: 10.1097/00010694-200502000-00004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of Standard Soil Tests for Assessing Potassium Availability in Sand Rootzones

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rapid laboratory procedures are used to assess K availability. These tests involve the extraction of soil K, with each soil testing procedure extracting a different proportion of the total soil K. An evaluation of six soil extraction methods (1 M NH 4 OAc, Mehlich 3, Morgan, 0.01 M CaCl 2 , 0.01 M SrCl 2 , and water) for their ability to quantify extractable K showed that the methods differed in total extracted K but were equally effective in detecting K fertilization‐induced changes in extractable soil K (Woods et al, 2005). Because methods differ in soil:solution ratio, pH, ionic composition, and shaking time, different testing methods extract different pools of soil K. Plant‐available K and the pools from which soil K is extracted are discussed in detail in McClean and Watson (1985) Laboratories select a particular extraction method on the basis of convenience, cost, and effectiveness.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rapid laboratory procedures are used to assess K availability. These tests involve the extraction of soil K, with each soil testing procedure extracting a different proportion of the total soil K. An evaluation of six soil extraction methods (1 M NH 4 OAc, Mehlich 3, Morgan, 0.01 M CaCl 2 , 0.01 M SrCl 2 , and water) for their ability to quantify extractable K showed that the methods differed in total extracted K but were equally effective in detecting K fertilization‐induced changes in extractable soil K (Woods et al, 2005). Because methods differ in soil:solution ratio, pH, ionic composition, and shaking time, different testing methods extract different pools of soil K. Plant‐available K and the pools from which soil K is extracted are discussed in detail in McClean and Watson (1985) Laboratories select a particular extraction method on the basis of convenience, cost, and effectiveness.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conventional soil testing methods for K in sand rootzones are also difficult to interpret (16), but the extracted K for a particular method and K fertilizer rate appears to be less variable (17) than does the K supply rate at a given K fertilizer rate.…”
Section: A Feasible Methods Of Measuring K?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Twenty-four rectangular plots (91 cm by 328 cm) were laid out on an L-93 creeping bentgrass research putting green (pH 8.3) at the Cornell University Turfgrass and Landscape Research and Education Center in Ithaca, NY. A detailed description of the chemical and physical properties of this sand can be found in Woods et al (16). The 1 M ammonium acetate extractable K in June 2002 was 36 mg/kg, which is classified as low (1).…”
Section: Potassium Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison of different soil tests for K extraction is often done among soil scientists (Salomon 1998;Armesto, and Sotres 1993;Csathó 1998;Øgaard and Krogstad 2005;Sardi and Fuleky 2002;Schindler, Woodard, and Doolittle 2002;Woods, Ketterings, and Rossi 2005). Some of them compared the AL K test (Salomon 1998;Csathó 1998;Øgaard and Krogstad 2005;Sardi and Fuleky 2002) or AA K test (Armesto and Sotres 1993;Csathó 1998;Øgaard and Krogstad 2005;Schindler, Woodward, and Doolittle 2002;Woods, Ketterings, and Rossi 2005) to each other or to other tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of them compared the AL K test (Salomon 1998;Csathó 1998;Øgaard and Krogstad 2005;Sardi and Fuleky 2002) or AA K test (Armesto and Sotres 1993;Csathó 1998;Øgaard and Krogstad 2005;Schindler, Woodward, and Doolittle 2002;Woods, Ketterings, and Rossi 2005) to each other or to other tests. They mostly detected very strong or good correlation among soil K tests (Salomon 1998;Armesto and Sotres 1993;Csathó 1998), but in some cases, the correlation can be very low (Sardi and Fuleky 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%