4.7 Article

Boron availability in soils and its nutrition of crops under long-term fertility experiments in India

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 351, 期 -, 页码 116-129

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.022

关键词

Boron balance; Long-term experiment; Nutrient management; Plant tissue boron; Soil boron extraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using 12 long-term (of 15 to 42 years duration) experiments with different cropping systems under various soils and agro-climatic conditions, we studied how different (inorganic and integrated) nutrient management practices influenced boron (B) availability in soils, and its nutrition of nine crops. To this end, four nutrient management practices viz., NPK (recommended dose of N, P and K), NPK + FYM (farmyard manure), control and fallow, which were common in all the experiments, were selected and their effects on B availability in soils were tested using four commonly used methods viz., hot-CaCl2 (HCC), KH2PO4 (PDP), mannitol-CaCl2 (MCC) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) in relation to B nutrition of wheat, rice, cowpea, sorghum, sesame, mustard, groundnut, soybean and lentil. Amounts of B extracted by the four different methods followed the order HCC = HCl > MCC > PDP across the tested soils. Averaged over the extractants, long-term nutrient management practices with NPK + FYM resulted in 15% increases in available B in soil over the control, which produced 20% increase in plant tissue B concentration. Such increases with integrated (NPK + FYM) nutrient management practices maintained available B in soils and plant tissues above its critical limits that supplied adequate amounts of B for nutrition of all the tested crops grown intensively for so many years. A B balance study in six experimental sites showed a net B accumulation over time as irrigation water contained and supplied (130-296 g B ha(-1) year(-1)) more B than removed by harvested crops. Of the four methods used, HCC was the best for assessment of availability of B in soils under long-term cultivation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据