Return to search

Predicting Maize Yield, Nutrient Concentration and Uptake in P and K Fertilized Soils: Pressurized Hot Water and Other Alternatives to Mehlich I Extraction in Guatemala Soils

The inaccessibility and cost of soil testing reduce effectiveness of fertilizer use on small-scale subsistence farms, and inadequate funding promotes adoption of soil tests in developing countries with minimal validation. For example, Mehlich-I extraction of phosphorus (P) currently used extensively in Guatemala may not be suitable for its broad range of soils. At least four alternatives are available but are relatively untested [Bray 1, Mehlich III, Olsen and pressurized hot water (PHW)]. Pressurized hot water is relatively simple and inexpensive, but is not yet tested against other extraction methods under variable P or potassium (K) fertilization levels. To determine whether PHW-extracted nutrients could be used to predict maize yield, as nutrient content and uptake, soil, plant tissue and grain samples were obtained from a multiple-site field study and calibration studies were conducted using five rates of P and three rates of K on soils incubated without plants or cropped with maize in greenhouse and field conditions. In the multiple-site field study, maize yield related significantly to PHW-extractable P (r2=0.36) and to leaf P concentration (r2=0.23), but Mehlich I did not. In the two soils used in the greenhouse study, maize yield, vegetative P concentration and total P uptake by maize were predicted by PHW extractable P (R2=0.72, 0.75 and 0.90, respectively). In the field experiment, grain yield was not improved by P or K application, but P content of maize leaf tissue did relate significantly with PHW-extracted P (R2=0.40), but Mehlich I did not. There were no yield responses to K application in any experiment, but relationships defined between extractable K for all five K-extraction procedures and soil applied K were similarly significant. In comparing P extraction methods, PHW was as good as or better than Olsen, Bray 1 and Mehlich III for relating soil P extraction to the parameters measured in these experiments, and these four alternative extraction methods were consistently better than Mehlich I. Mehlich I extraction should be replaced by one of the four alternatives tested, and PHW is the least expensive and, thus, most viable for use in Guatemala soils.

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:BGMYU2/oai:scholarsarchive.byu.edu:etd-1940
Date26 July 2006
CreatorsHunsaker, Heather Mae
PublisherBYU ScholarsArchive
Source SetsBrigham Young University
Detected LanguageEnglish
Typetext
Formatapplication/pdf
SourceTheses and Dissertations
Rightshttp://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/

Page generated in 0.0027 seconds