Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T06:56:49.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil-sampling errors and advisory analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. G. Hemingway
R. G. Hemingway
Affiliation:
Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Twenty-four sampling units from 50 fields of differing soil type and past manurial history have been examined separately for pH and 1% citric soluble phosphorus and potassium to determine the errors which can occur in obtaining a representative sample for analysis.

2. Soils which had received lime and fertilizers within 3 years of the sampling date showed appreciably greater sampling errors than those which had not.

3. The sampling errors were greater than the analytical errors and were such that the common practice of classifying soils into six fertility groups was not justified. Three major groups are more reasonable and practical for routine advisory purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , June 1955 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Advisory Chemists Conference (1951). National Agricultural Advisory Service. Report on a Soil Sampling Investigation.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1945). Official and Tentative Methods of Analysis, 6th ed. p. 1.Google Scholar
Breh, F. & Gaebler, O. H. (1930). J. Biol. Chem. 67, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cline, M. G. (1945). Soil Sci. 58, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. M. (1950). Farming, 4, 265.Google Scholar
Frear, W. & Erb, E. S. (1920). J. Ass. Off. Agric. Chem. 4, 98.Google Scholar
Hall, Sir A. D. (revised Robinson, G. W.) (1945). The Soil, 5th ed. pp. 290–300. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Kerr, H. W. & Stieglitz, C. R. von (1938). Tech. Oommun. Bur. Sug. Exp. Stas. Qd, 10, 205.Google Scholar
Knowles, F. & Watkin, J. E. (1947). A Practical Course in Agricultural Chemistry, 2. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leather, J. W. (1902). J. Chem. Soc. 81, 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, A. H. & Marmoy, F. B. (1933). J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Land., 52, 177.Google Scholar
Lunt, H. A., Swanson, C. L. W. & Jacobson, H. G. M. (1950). Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 541.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Advisory Service (1948). Soil Report Form. H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Piper, C. S. (1947). Soil and Plant Analysis. Waite Agric. Res. Inst. Monograph, 1.Google Scholar
Pizer, N. H. (1945). Agriculture, 52, 271.Google Scholar
Reid, J. F. & Rigney, J. A. (1945). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 10, 257.Google Scholar
Reid, J. F. & Rigney, J. A. (1947). J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 39, 26.Google Scholar
Riehm, H. (1943). Bodenk. PflEhrnähr. 29, 275.Google Scholar
Robinson, G. W. & Lloyd, E. W. (1915). J. Agric. Sci. 7, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truog, E. & Meyer, A. H. (1929). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 1, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, B. (1943). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal, ed.), 15, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar