1953
DOI: 10.1097/00010694-195307000-00004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of Sodium on Yield and Quality of Cotton Lint and Seed

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

1956
1956
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The similar yields for each soil type and the generally small growth responses found to added K or Na enable the relative abilities of lucerne and white clover to accumulate Na from both soil and fertiliser sources to be compared simply and directly, without the need to consider any dilution effects resulting from yield differences. By the same token, however, the seemingly adequate supply of soil K, evidenced by the generally small growth responses resulting from the addition of K fertiliser, would be expected to minimise plant responsiveness to added Na, which often tends to be greatest when K supplies are low (Henkens 1965;Lancaster et al 1953;Truog et al 1953;Wallace et al 1948) . …”
Section: Results Yieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The similar yields for each soil type and the generally small growth responses found to added K or Na enable the relative abilities of lucerne and white clover to accumulate Na from both soil and fertiliser sources to be compared simply and directly, without the need to consider any dilution effects resulting from yield differences. By the same token, however, the seemingly adequate supply of soil K, evidenced by the generally small growth responses resulting from the addition of K fertiliser, would be expected to minimise plant responsiveness to added Na, which often tends to be greatest when K supplies are low (Henkens 1965;Lancaster et al 1953;Truog et al 1953;Wallace et al 1948) . …”
Section: Results Yieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many of the studies on beneficial effects have focused on the partial to near-complete replacement of potassium by sodium, typically in the concentration range of several millimolar, reporting either no negative, or indeed palpably positive, effects on plant growth and yield. In many of the cases, growth was particularly stimulated when K + supply was low, and plants suffered at least partial K + deprivation (Mullison and Mullison 1942;Wallace et al 1948;Lehr 1950;Cope et al 1953;Lancaster et al 1953;Lehr 1953;Gammon 1953;Truog et al 1953;Ulrich and Ohki 1956;Flowers and Läuchli 1983;Subbarao et al 2001;Subbarao et al 2003). Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize a substantial body of studies that have reported such beneficial effects, listing the species examined, the parameters reported, and the Na + concentrations at which effects were seen.…”
Section: Sodium As a Nutrientmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct effects of Na on sugar beet growth in field experiments have been reported for muck soils by Harmer and Benne (9) and Harmer et al (10), for sand cultures by Tullin (32), and for table beets in pot experiments with soils by Larson and Pierre (18). Sodium deficiency symptoms have been reported (32) or described (9) in only a few instances and so far no specific function of Na, not performed by K, has been recorded (17,19). Yet for the beet, "sodium may almost be deemed an indispensable nutrient element, approaching potassium in importance" (19).…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…As an indirect factor of growth the beneficial effects of Na applications to the soil have been explained frequently as a release of K from the soil, or as promoting better root development (5). These phenomena have been considered of special importance in meeting the K requirements of plants on soils low in K. Quite often too the growth of plants has been increased by the addition of Na salts to soils (4,5,8,17,36) or to nutrient solutions low in K (12,24,35). When plants are high in K, Na responses have been observed (12,18,31) but most often these are much reduced or not at all in evidence (4,17,18,22,35).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation