2002
DOI: 10.1081/css-120002376
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimization of a method for soil sulphur extraction

Abstract: Numerous methods for the determination of soil sulphur (S) have been developed and tested in field conditions, but so far none of them have shown a satisfying relationship to crop yield. Therefore, these methods are not suitable to be used to evaluate the sulphur supply or to determine the sulphur fertilizer demand. In this paper a successful approach was adapted and optimized for routine analysis in soils in humid conditions. Modifications included a comparison of soil incubation with shaking, changes in the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because of high pH of SBC (pH 8.5), it could extract a part of organically bound S, particularly from the ester sulphate (Kilmer & Nearpass, 1960) extractability of CC was attributed to its extraction of only soluble sulphate, not even the adsorbed part (Tabatabai, 1982). Similar extractability of the extractants for S in soils was reported from soils of Germany (Bloem et al, 2002), USA (Ketterings et al, 2011(Ketterings et al, , 2014 and in terai soils of India (Paul & Mukhopadhyay, 2014). The decrease in S content with an increase in depth (by CC, MR, HCl and SBC) was associated with a decrease in organic C content of the soils, as evidenced by the existence of significant positive correlations between the extractable S and the soil organic C (Table S1).…”
Section: Sulphur In Soilssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Because of high pH of SBC (pH 8.5), it could extract a part of organically bound S, particularly from the ester sulphate (Kilmer & Nearpass, 1960) extractability of CC was attributed to its extraction of only soluble sulphate, not even the adsorbed part (Tabatabai, 1982). Similar extractability of the extractants for S in soils was reported from soils of Germany (Bloem et al, 2002), USA (Ketterings et al, 2011(Ketterings et al, , 2014 and in terai soils of India (Paul & Mukhopadhyay, 2014). The decrease in S content with an increase in depth (by CC, MR, HCl and SBC) was associated with a decrease in organic C content of the soils, as evidenced by the existence of significant positive correlations between the extractable S and the soil organic C (Table S1).…”
Section: Sulphur In Soilssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The method of Blair et al (1991) modified by Bloem et al (2002) was used to determine S concentration of soil samples. According to the method modified by Bloem et al (2002) , 10 g of soil passed through a 2 mm sieve and 50 ml of 0.025 M KCl solution was added to it. Afterwards soil-KCl suspension was shaken at 100 rpm in a horizontal shaker for 3 h at room temperature.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A greenhouse experiment was conducted with a bread wheat (Bezostaja), three different soils ((0.025 M KCl extractable S: Harran:14.7 mg SO 4 -S kg -1 , Eskişehir :12.2 mg SO 4 -S kg -1 and Konya: 18.3 mg SO 4 -S kg -1 ; (Bloem et al,2002)); three different sulphur sources (K 2 SO 4 , CaSO 4 .2H 2 O and Elemental-S) and four different sulphur doses (0, 25, 50 and 100 mg S kg -1 ). Some physical and chemical properties of the soils used in the experiment are given in table 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%