.. mm... .4 .. V . . . mW
_ :Vuer. .. ._ .2 Win.
.Mm _ . . . EM,“
ms .. . . “firm
y T E ‘ . . . . ‘ . “A. ,.. MNMH
_, _R R. ‘ . firm C...
mm . . mm ...‘ ,
A .U. . ,, 4
ms . m .
P 0..
w .
w
M . . q
”13a ,h . . . . ..:HV_::.. ..-. v .. M. ., . .V .. . v 1.. .n.‘ K_ T . A . .._.......MA.{‘.... ‘. .:.J....3......J.1...........1
. . : . . _... .e.__.3‘..é..ah3=zy
Tl ll 5|! [III llllll' \

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PHOSPHORUS TEST EVALUATIONS OF
SUGARCANE SOILS IN TAIWAN

presented by

6119044 -C’Lla.q WAA/Gf

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PI? 0 Soil .5696on

" .‘.A m-_--
. _ .. .

degree in

 

 

 

 

     
 

BINEING «BY ‘5:
. ~ mm & sons'
‘BOOK amnm mc.

' 355m amosns

 
    

 

 

ii!

“I IXIJ‘I T‘Ill‘ld-" 4"II'I‘.”‘.I‘ “I. in El lwh\k§flvl\41»
.. l. l . . .. . .

I’I..

.J-jl¥'lxllli.lrrrr'. ‘gti‘lqvnwmwfluk .
, I. .. l v. I . .

k la .1.

.-- :41}

3
M I ‘ ABSTRACT

PHOSPHORUS TEST EVALUATIONS OF
SUGARGANE SOILS IN TAIWAN

13!
Chwan.Chau.Wang

A total of 64 sites covering six widely distributed
major soil groups were selected for soil phosphorus (P) test
evaluations as related to sugarcane production in Taiwans

One 15-month sugarcane pot culture and two crop years of
field experimonts were conducted in 1970-1972 to deternbne
the distribution pattern of the forms of phosphate in soil
before and after cropping. The study was designed to evaluate
the forms of phosphate removed troa.the soil by sugarcane. to
measure the yield response of sugarcane to phosphate fertiliser:
to determine a suitable extractant for P from sugarcane soils;
and to discover optimum P recommendations for sugarcane grown
on.TSC's (Taiwan Sugar Corporation) plantations.

Ll-P was the form removed by one sugarcane harvest in_the
lowest quantity and with the least variation irrespective of
soil group. However. if the amount or Al-P removed by cropping
was expressedgon a.$ basis of the original level it became the
highest and averaged 25.hfi‘varying from.a high of 37.9fi in
thessn soil group to a low or 20.05 in the ASo soil group.

Chwan Chau Wang

The sugarcane crop removed 20.h$ of the Fe-P. 13.2% of the
Ga-P and 13.5% of the Red-P.

Fe-P and Ga-P are the most common forms removed by sugar
cans in acid soils and in calcareous soils. respectively if
the amounts of these two forms used by crop are expressed as
the f of total P removed.

Apparently. all four forms of P in the soil were avai-
lable to sugarcane. The Al-P and Fe-P were the major sources
of P utilized by sugarcane.

High correlation between soil P extracted with Bray's
No.1 in a 1:50 soil: solution ratio and sugarcane yields were
found on pet cultures and field experiments with a statistical
significance at the 0.1fi and 1% levels.respectively. There-
fore it was recommended that Bray's No.1 extractant with a
soil to solution ratio of 1350 be used on the soils of TSC's
plantations.

0f the total P added approximately one-third of the P in
acid soils and one-quarter of the P in alkaline soils were
rapidly adsorbed by the soil.

P recommendations for sugarcane production on TSC's
plantations have been proposed on the basis of soil test

methods and the natural moisture conditions of the soil.

PHOSPHORUS TEST EVALUATIONS OF
SUGARCANE SOILS IN TAIWAN

BY
than Chau Wang

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

1975

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to:

His major professor.Dr.L. S. Robertson for his constant
and unfailing guidance throughout the course of this study
and the preparation of the thesis.

Dr. R. L. Cook. for his motivationg and kindly help.

Dr. E. P. Whiteside. for his constructive comments and
suggestions on the thesis and for arranging for some financial
support.

Dre. B. G. Ellis. B. D. Knezek. E. H. Kidder. and C. M.
Spooner for their valuable criticism and advices.

The National Science Council of The Republic of China.
for its first year financial support to the author's study.

His co-workers. Misses I. J. Fang. C. S. Shen. and C. F.
Lee of Taiwan Sugar Research Institute. for their willing
assistance in conducting this investigation.

His wife. Tsunging. for her encouragement and sacrifice

during his study.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ v
INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................... #
Water soluble P ................................... 5
Dilute acid P ..................................... 6
Alkaline extracting or bufferred salt solutions ... 8
Chemical forms of P in the soil ................... 9
Fate of fertilizer P in the soil .................. 12
MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................. 16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................. 18
Forms of P and availability to sugarcane .......... 18

Correlations between extractable P and
sugarcane yields eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1+1

Leaf analysis as an indication of the N. P.
and K status of sugarcane grown in pot tests ...... 55

Relatively rapid P fixation capacity of
SeleCted sails ......OIOOOOOOOOI.0.0.0....0.0.00... 60

P recommendations for sugarcane on TSC's
plantations ....00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOO0.00.000 61+

SUI’HMRYAND CONCLUSIONS O.....IIIIOOIOIOOOOOIOOOCOCOOOOO68
LITERATURE CITED .........00.000000000000000...000......72

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Locations. soil management groups and pH levels
of soil in field experiments ....................... 23

2. Sugarcane yields (T/ha) as affected by 4 rates
of P fertilizer .................................... 27

3. Locations. yields and soil characteristics of
samples used in pot tests .......................... 30

4. Chemical forms of P(ppm) in soil materials before
and after cropping to sugarcane eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 33

5. Average forms and amounts(ppm) of P present
and removed from soil groups by sugarcane .......... 35

6. Forms of P as % of total P removed by sugarcane .... #0

7. Soil P(ppm) extracted with various methods from
$011 materials used in POt teStS eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee #3

8. Soil P(ppm) extracted with various methods from
soil at sites used for field experiments ........... #8

9. Correlations coefficients of extracted P by various
methOdS With sugarcane Yields eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 51

10. Leaf analysis of sugarcane in pot tests ............ 56

11. Locations. pH and relatively rapid P-fixing
capacity of selected soils ......................... 62

12. P recommendations for sugarcane on TSC's
plavrltations OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO...0.0.0.000....0000.... 67

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1. Locations of 47 field experiments ................... 22

2. Relationship between % yield of sugarcane and

extractable P by Bray's P1 extractant at a 1:50
Sail to SOlutj-on ratio OOOOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOI0.00.0.0 54

INTRODUCTION

Chemical soil testing has frequently been used for soil
fertility evaluations for a long time. Great volumes of data
on soil testing as related to fertilizer use have accumulated.
particularly in the area of soil science.

Soil analysis methods developed more rapidly in the tem-
perate climate zone than elsewhere. Good correlations with
crop yields and with responses from fertilizer additions have
been obtained particularly on acid soils.

In the tropics. however. soil testing has been only par-
tially effective in defining the fertilizer needs of crops.
especially sugarcane. There is one notable exception to this.
In Hawaii. soil analysis has served for many years as a basis
for P. K and lime recommendations for sugarcane. Soil testing
has been tried in almost all parts of the world. but many
sugarcane growing countries were not entirely satisfied with
the results. They had little confidence in the fertilizer and
lime recommendations that were made on the basis of soil test-
ing.

Chao(19u8) studied the soil P and K status of the Taiwan
soils for sugarcane. After he left for the United States in
195M. soil testing studies were suspended for some time.

An extensive soil testing program by TSC(Taiwan Sugar
Corporation) was initiated in 1962 as suggested by Dr. R.L.Cook

of Michigan State University during his visit to Taiwan.

1

By 1968. Juang and Fong suggested that Bray's No.2 ex-
tractant be used., In 1970 the TSC revised the fertilizer
recommendations that were based on Bray's tests.

The recommendation made by TSC were momentarily accepted
as being valid but in a short time evidence accumulated which
suggested that yield responses from fertilizer were actually
less than predicted. The intuitive reason was that more than
65% of the total sugarcane acreage was on soils which had a
pH above 7.0.

Soil analysis for P is considered to be especially impor-
tant since this nutrient needs to be applied to the soil prior
to planting. At the present time. fertilization costs in
Taiwan's sugarcane production still amounts to about one-third
of the total cost of production for one crop year. In trying
to make the highest return per dollar invested in fertilizer.
a program for improving soil testing for P continues to be an
integral part of TSC's research project.

The supply of nutrients to sugarcane as well as to the
other plants in the soil involves a series of bio-physio-chemi-
cal processes which may be represented as follows (Lai. 1970):

P(solid)‘:--P(solution)‘1—-P(root surface)‘5--P(plant tissue)

\h/ /—7

P(microorganism)
When this system is applied to soil testing. there are

three parameters that need to be recognized--the intensity or

concentration of P supply to roots. the capacity or total
supply. and the rate of supply factors. Unless these three
parameters can be well defined with a soil testing program
under field conditions. it is not logical to expect a high
correlation between the test values and crop responses to
fertilization. It seems that soil testing programs conducted
in the past emphasized the intensity and capacity factors.
but little attention had been paid to the rate factor.

Lai in Hawaii (1970) showed that the P uptake by sugarcane
varied greatly and was closely related to the ion diffusion
rates in the soil studied. Thus P uptake was a function of
the combined influence of all three factors.

Two ways of improving soil test correlation with plant
growth seem obvious. One is to correlate the "available” P
test with other factors such as test levels for other nutrients
or soil properties. The other is to group soils based upon
natural characteristics such as water holding capacity. In
this way. P tests could be related to soil groups under various
climatic conditions. This would not be easy to do but cor-
relation with plant growth should be improved.

The general goal of this study was to establish a practi-
cal method for evaluating P levels for TSC's 112.000 acres of

sugarcane soils.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Tisdale and Nelson (1956) reported that as early as 1833.
Hilgard used acids to extract nutrients from soils in an
effort to evaluate fertility levels. Liebig studied soil
testing between 18d0 and 1850. At a later date. Dyer (1894)
extracted P with citric acid. The acid concentration used
varied between 0.5 and 2.0%. In the early 1900's. Whitney
and Hopkins contributed much to the development of soil fer-
tility investigations in the United States. From Liebig's
time(1850) until the early 1920's. little progress was made on
soil testing. During the late 1920's and early 1930's signi-
ficant contributions to soil testing were made by Bray(1929).
Truog(1930). Morgan(1932). Spurway(1933) and Hester(1934).

With time. new instruments as well as test procedures
were developed. As a result. numerous papers were published
on soil phosphorus evaluations. Reviews on soil P have been
reported every few years when new concepts were developed.
Representative literature reviews have been given by Hemwell
(1957). Wild(1959). Bradfield(1961). Larson(1967). and
Mattingly & Talibudeen(1967). More recently. Chao(1972) made
a comprehensive review of the significance and importance of
Al and Fe oxides as related to soil P.

Today. available P in the soil is usually extracted by

water. dilute acids. dilute alkali or buffered salt solutions.

1.

Comparisons of the amount of P removed from soil by various
extractants have been reported in many investigations (Anderson
& Noble. 1973: Cho & Caldwell. 1959; Breland & Sierra. 1962;
and Chang 8c Juo. 1963).

Water soluble P

In some studies. distilled water was used as an extrac-
tant. The form of P extracted naturally is referred to as
”water soluble P". In most soils the level of water soluble
P is low and plant growth increases up to a limit with the
concentration of P in the soil solution.

Bingham(1949). Martin & Buchanan(1950). and Martin &
Mikklesen(1960) found that when more than 0.13 ppm P occurred
in a water extract. crops failed to respond to P fertilization
Thompson et al (1960) found a high correlation between P up-
take by sorghum and water soluble P on 22 soils. most of which
were acid.

Fried and Shapiro (1956) obtained a low correlation
between water soluble P and P uptake on 8 acid soils for the
initial extract. but a higher correlation for the 14th succes-
sive extract. Therefore they point out that the level of P
in the initial water extract was not a good indication of
plant-available P.

Apparently. both the intensity of soil P supply and the

capacity of the soil to rapidly renew this supply must be
evaluated in order to adequately define plant-available soil
P. Pens and Guthrie's (19h6) isobutyl alcohol method was
considered to be relatively precise. because values of spe-

32

cific activity. which was defined as P activity divided by

31P concentration in an aliquot of the soil solution. were
constant as the soil/water ratio increased. Watanan & Olsen
(1962) concluded that the isobutyl alcohol method of Pens and
Guthrie was reasonably accurate for water soluble P evalua-
tions. Beckwith (1964) found that the P concentration in soil
solution must be maintained at 0.2 ppm if optimum plant growth
is to occur. Fox,et al (1970) found that the yield of millet
approached 95% maximum when the concentration of P in solution
was adjusted to 0.2 ppm. Ozanne & Shaw (1968) suggested a
value of 0.3 ppm in studies involving wheat and rates of P

fertilizer. This value varied some depending upon soil mois-

ture levels which influenced phosphate diffusion rates.

Dilute acid P

Soil P extracted by dilute acids has been widely studied.
Truog(1930). Dickman & Bray(1940). Peech(19bh). Bray & Kurtz
(19h5). Nelson(1953) developed such methods. The details of
these methods as well as other methods involving saturated

carbonic acid(Daubeny. McGeorge. Smith. Ensminger and Larson);

and 1% citric acid (Dyer. Wiley) have been discussed by Jackson
(1958).

The combination of dilute HCl acid and NHuF was used by
Bray & Kurtz (1945) to extract available P. The inclusion of
an acid resulted in the dissolution of the more active calcium
phosphate. It also prevented its precipitation. This extract
dissolve some tricalcium phosphate. but the amount was consi-
dered to be small. The NHuF was employed to dissolve Al and
Fe phosphate. Melsted (1967) stated that this dilute acid-
fluoride extractant removes approximately equal parts of the
sorbed and Al phosphate plus the water soluble P. A number
of studies have shown that Bray's No.1 solution is about as
good a universal soil extractant for available P as is avai-
lable today.

Smith. Ellis and Grava (1957) working with Kansas soils
compared NHuF-H01 at a wider soil: extractant ratio of 1:50
with NaHCO3 (Olsen) at the standard ratio. They found the rank
correlation between plant response and extractable P was great-
er for NHuF-HCl than for NaHOO3. They also pointed out that
the inclusion of fluoride in relatively dilute acids appeared
to serve two opposite roles. In calcareous soils. and in acid
soils to which rock phosphate has been added. it served to
repress the solubility of certain forms of P. With acid soils.

where no rock phosphate had been added. it apparently dissolved

some additional P that was not removed by extraction with
dilute acids alone. In general. Bray's No.1 method has been
most successful on acid soils. but if a wider soil-solution
ratio is used. it is likely to be satisfactory on calcareous
soils. The problem was how wide a soil—to-solution ratio
should be used on soils with a wide pH range.

Nelaon. et a1 (1953) selected a combination of dilute
HCl and H2504 for extracting available P from soils which fix
P strongly. Relative greater amounts of Fe-P were removed by
this mixed acid solution than by H01 alone.

Truog (1930) used dilute H2804 (0.002N) to extract avai-
lable P. A modified Truog method is being used by the Hawaii

Sugar Experiment Station.
Alkaline extracting or bufferred salt solutions

An alkaline extracting solution such as 1% K2003. (NHu)2CO3.
or Na2CO3 was used by Dee. 19338 Hockensmith,et al 1933c and
Whitney and Gardner. 1936. The most commonly used method in-
volving dilute alkaline solutions was developed by Olsen
(1954). With this method P is extracted with 0.5M NaHCO3 at
a nearly constant pH of 8.5. This method is now used exten-
sively on calcareous. alkaline or neutral soils. Evidence that
NaHC03 extracts CaHPOu and Al-P in a quantitative manner was
observed by Susuki. et al (1963). They also found that the P

removed from soil by the Truog method and by cropping was
represented by both Ca-P and Al-P.

The Morgan extractant (1935). which is sodium acetate-
acetic acid bufferred at pH 4.8. has been commonly used to
represent a bufferred salt extractant for P. Griffin and
Lorton (1970) found that the Morgan and modified Morgan pro-
cedures gave reliable predictions of soil P availability to
alfafa. The ammonium lactate-acetic acid method. originally
developed by Egner and Riehm has been used in western Europe
(Semb & Uhlen. 1955. Egner. 1932. Riehm. 1942. 1948.

Lemmermam. 1946. Finck & Schlichting. 1955--also see references
of "Soil-plant System" by Fried and Broeshart. 1967).

Isotopic dilution of 32F and resin adsorption methods were
used to evaluate surface adsorbed P by Caro & Hill (1956);
McAuliffe. et al (1948). Olsen (1952). Russell et a1 (1954).
Talibudeen (1957). and Amer. et al (1955). Although this
method does not give much information concerning the source and
nature of phosphate bonds. good agreement with other conven-

tional extraction methods has been obtained.
Chemical forms of P in the soil
The chemical forms of P in the soil greatly influence the

amount of P available to plants. Therefore. it seems that a

knowledge of the distribution of soil P among discrete chemical

10

forms should be useful in diagnosing the supplying power of a
soil.

The idea of fractionation of inorganic P in the soil was
proposed as early as 1938 by Dean.

Bray & Dickman (1941); Chirkov & Volkova (1945): and
Bhangoo & Smith (1957) studied methods of fractionation of
inorganic P in soils. In 1957. Chang and Jackson developed a
method to fractionate inorganic soil P discretely into Ca-P.
Al-P. Fe-P and occluded phosphates. This method. however. was
modified by Fife (1959). Chang & Liaw (1962). Petersen & Corey
(1966). and Williams (1967). Since this soil P fractionation
system has been developed. numerous papers have been published
on available soil P which involved this method.

Al-Abbas & Barber (1964) also studied a P soil test based
upon the fractionation of P. They believed that a soil test
should provide a quantitative measure of the degree to which
each soil fraction is related to plant P availability. The
relationship between each soil P form and plant availability
was used as a basic criteria for P soil test. They reported
that the quantity of Fe-P in the soil indicated a degree of P
availability to corn. . .

By using a radioisotopic technique. Yuan. et al (1960);
Dunbar & Baker (1965): and Smith (1965) all pointed out that

the most active form of phosphate in soils was Al-P which can

11

be extracted with NHuF. Chiang stated that if the dominant
phosphates in soil are Al-P and Fe-P. Ca-P will be taken up
most rapidly by rice. When Ca-P is present in relatively
large amounts there is a tendency for Al-P and Fe-P uptake to
increase.

Many Japanese workers found (1967) that the form of phos-
phate utilized by naked barley was related to the phosphate
materials used and to soil pH. They also observed that Al-P
and Fe-P were the major sources of P.

Martens. et al (1969) reported that Al-P was most closely
correlated with NHuF-HCl extractable P for all soil types in-
vestigated whereas Ca-P in some soils and Al-P in other soils
apparently controlled the P extracted by HCl-stoh. Mackenzie
(1962) reported that the most active P fraction in the soil
was Al-P which was extracted with NHuF. Henley (1962) gave
much significance to Al-P as a source of P to various crops.

Khanna's (1967) studies showed that the Bray's No.2 solu-
tion extracted significant amounts of Ca-P while Bray's No.1
extracted more of the Fe-P and saloid-bound P (loosely held
soil P).

Since fluoride-extractable soil P is recognized as an
important source of P for plants. a series of papers by Fife
(1959. 1962. 1963) evaluated NH4F as a selective extractant for
Al-bound soil phosphate. He found that dilution had a small

12

effect on the solubility of Fe-bound phosphate in the soils be
examined. He used direct extraction with an alkaline reagent
(pH 8.2 to pH 8.5). Tandon (1969. 1970) reported that Al ex-
tracted by 0.5N NHQF (pH 8.2) was highly correlated (r=0.924)
with P retained as NHuF-extractable (Al-P) for 28 widely dif-
fering soils. Susuki. et al (1963) also found that P removed
from soil by Bray. Olsen. resin and surface P methods was prin-

ciplly from the Al-P fraction.

Fate of fertilizer P in the soil

The fate of fertilizer P in soils has been investigated.
Ghani & Islam (1946) and Volk & McLean (1963) reported that 90%
or more of the applied P was accounted for as Al-P and Fe-P.
Volk & McLean also found that the application of soluble P to
soils with high P fixing capacities decreased the availability
of the native P (Bray's No.1 extractable). While P added to
soils with low fixing capacities tended to increase the avai-
lability of the native P. They also found that they were able
to recover more than half of the applied P as FeP04 in soils
with high P fixing capacities and more than half of the P as
AlPOu in those with low fixing capacities.

The inorganic P transformation proved to be a complicated

problem. Fiskell & Spencer (1964) studied the forms of phos-

13

phate in soils after six years of heavy phosphate and lime use.
They found that without lime P accumulated in the soil as Al-P.
Lime with the lowest rate of P used resulted in the formation
of Al-P as 50% of that applied. with the remainder being Fe-P
and Ca-P. Lime with highest rate of P resulted in the forma-
tion of Al-P with 35% of the P being in this form and 7% as
Fe-P. with the remainder as Ca-P.

Shelton & Coleman (1968) showed that fertilizer P was ra-
pidly converted into Al-P and Fe-P when large amounts of P were
applied to a high P fixing soil. Over an 8 year period. a de-
crease in Al-P and an increase in Fe-P occurred. They found
that soil test P (0.05N HC1+0.025N H2804) was highly correlated
with Al-P.

Juo and Ellis (1968) reported that when soluble P was
applied to an.acid upland soil or when Ca-P was dissolved during
the process of chemical weathering. the soluble P was precipi-
tated rapidly to form colloial Al-P and Fe-P. which were read-
ily available to plants because of their small particle size.
greater surface area and amorphous structure. As the colloidal
phosphate crystalized to form hydrated compounds. they were
less available to plants. Fe-P crystallized at a much faster
rate than Al-P. The native Al-P fraction in the soil seemed
always to be more available to plants than the Fe-P fraction.

The forms of P in the soils of Taiwan were investigated

by Chu & Chang (1960). and Chang & Juo (1963). They discovered

14

that the distribution of inorganic P was likely to be charac-
teristic of a soil group. There were three different distri-
bution patterns of Ca—P. Al-P and Fe-P in the soils of Taiwan.
Soils dominating in Fe-P were latosols: in Ca-P. calcareous
alluvial soils: in Ca-P and Fe-P. acid sandstone and shale
alluvial soils. A comparison study of various P extracting
solutions was made by Chang & Juo to determine the source of
the P in 26 soils. They found that apparently the Olsen and
Bray No.1 extracting agents evaluate well Al-P but not Ca-P.

Most of the correlation work involving soil test methods
and crop yields has been done in the greenhouse or in growth
chambers. Relatively little information is available from
out door pot tests and field tests where a large number of
different kinds of soil are involved.

In regard to P. no extracting method has been universally
adopted. All methods apparently are well suited for some soils.
but less suited for others.

In conclusion. Fried & Broeshart (1967) summarized the
situation well when they stated:

”Most of the present chemical methods are not independent
of soil types because they do not measure the capacity. the
intensity. or both of plant nutrient supply in the soil. 0n
the other hand. unless the future soil-testing methods are
directed toward the development of techniques for the deter-

lnination of the capacity and intensity factors. there is less

15

chance that a soil testing method will be developed in the
future that is independent of soil type. Methods that can
determine the capacity or intensity factor or both in the soil
(e.g.. simple isotope dilution techniques or resin extraction)
are probably the most valid. but not necessarily ideally suited
for routine testing. The decision of whether the increased

accuracy is worth any extra effort is a local one".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Soils for this project represented well the major sugarcane
growing areas of Taiwan.

Field experiments involving the use of P fertilizer were
scattered on six major types of soil at 47 locations during the
1970-71 crop years.

Outdoor pot tests involved the use of 41 soils from.TSC's
. plantations. Twenty four of the locations from which soil was
collected represented sites used for field experiments.

Ten acid samples and 14 alkaline samples were chosen from
both field experimental plot locations and from fields not re-
presenting research area for relatively rapid P fixation capa-
city determination.

The field experiments were designed as a 4x4 Latin square.
The plots measured 8 rows x 8m which is equal to 80 m2.

Nitrogen was used on all plots at the equivalent rate of
250 kg/ha. The rate for K20 was 150 kg/ha. P205 was used at
four rates 0. 50. 100 and zoo kg/ha.

Autumn cane was planted at the rate of 25.000 to 30.000
cuttings per hectare between August and December of both 1969
and 1970. These were harvested in November and December in
1970 and 1971. Spring cane was planted in January and February
of 1970 and 1971 and harvested in January and February of 1971
and 1972.

16

17

The variety of cane grown varied. but all varieties repre-
sented highly recommended varieties. While F160 was used at
most locations. F146. F155. F153. F157. F162 and N:Cc310 were
involved in these studies.

Large (70cm diameter-75cm high) cement pots which contained
300 kg of soil were used in the pot test research. Two repli-
cations of treatments were placed at random outdoors. Also 2
F160 cuttings-4 buds-per pot were planted in September of 1969
and harvested in December of 1970. No P was used on these soils
which were otherwise treated with the equivalent of 300 kg of
N and 150 kg of K20 per ha.

The fractionation of the P in the soil was done with Chang
and Jackson's method as modified by Peterson and Corey (1966)
on samples collected both prior to planting and after harvest.

The available P levels were evaluated by Bray's No.1 test
(1945) at various soil to extractant ratios (1:7. 1:10. 1:20.
1:30. 1:40. and 1:50) and by Bray’s No.2 test (1945). Amer,et
al (1955) resin adsorption method. and by extraction with 0.5n
NH“! solution adjusted to pH 7.2 and 8.2.

The pH measurements were made in a 1:1 soil water mixture
using a glass electrode.

The leaf analyses were made at 3 month intervals after
planting by the method described by Hutton.& Nye (1958).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forms of P and availability to eggarcane

While sugarcane is grown to some extent in most of the
nonmountainous areas of Taiwan. production is concentrated in
the western one third.and the southern one half of the country.
This also represents the area where most of the field exper-
imental plots were located as well as the origin of the soil
used in this research (Fig. 1).

The pertinent information for identifying the location of
the field plots as well as the broad soil groups represented
at each location are shown in Table 1. The pH value for each
site are included in the Table to assist in interpreting the
character of the soil at each location.

The soil in the plot areas represented a typical range in
pH as might be predicted from the non-saline areas (pH 5.0-8.5).
Attempts to produce profitable sugarcane crops have been made
on soils that are both more acid and more alkaline than the
soils used in these studies. In Table 1. under the ”sample
number" heading the letter 'B' represents the subsoil.

In these studies. the soils have been grouped as follows:
1. H: Low humic gley soil (Vertisole).

2. 15¢: Sandstone alluvial soil. calcareous (Inceptiscls).
3. ASH: Sandstone alluvial soil. non-calcareous (Inceptiscls).
4. ATL: Slate alluvial soil (Inceptiscls).

18

19

5. RI: Red yellow podzolic soil (Ultisols).
6. R: Red soil (Oxisols).

The following is a brief description of the soil manage-
ment groups involved in these studies.
1. H.1a2c-h2:

Fine textured low humic gley soils. These soils are
well drained in the dry season and the ground water supply is
inadequate. These soils are poorly drained in the wet season.
A compacted subsoil is usually found at 25-500m.

2. Ascg3alb-h1:

Medium textured calcareous sandstone alluvial soils which
are well drained during the dry season. The ground water
supply is fairly adequate in the dry seasons. These soils are
somewhat poorly drained in the wet season. A relatively compact
layer is usually found at a depth of approximately 25-50cm.

3. ASc.5a2:

Droughty coarse textured. calcareous sandstone alluvial
soils with good internal drainage and poor ground water supply
in both dry and rainy seasons.

1:. ASn.3a1b-h1:

Medium.textured. non-calcareous sandstone alluvial soils.
The natural drainage. ground water supply and compactness of
these soils are equivalent to those in soil management group
#2 described above.

5 e Ash I 332-111 S

20

Medium textured. non-calcareous sandstone alluvial soils
with good natural drainage and poor ground water supply in
both dry and wet seasons. A compact subsoil is usually found
at approximately 25-50cm.

6. ATL.4a.b:

Medium textured well drained alluvial soils with a good
ground water supply in.dry seasons. During wet season they
are somewhat poorly drained.

7. And/Seam

Two-story soils of medium textured materials in the upper
25cm and of coarse textured materials in the lower 25-800m
layer. They are well drained with a good ground water supply
condition during the dry seasons but become poorly drained
during the rainy season.

8. ATL.3a1b-h1:

Slate alluvial soils. The natural drainage. ground water
supply condition and compactness of these soils are equivalent
to those in soil management group #2 described above.

9. R!.5a2:

Coarse textured droughty red yellow podzolic soils with
good drainage and a poor ground water supply in both dry and
wet seasons.

10. RY.3/2a2-h2:

Two-story red yellow podzolic soils with medium textured

materials in the upper 25cm. and fine textured materials in

21

the lower 25-80cm layer. They are well drained and inadequate-
ly ground water supplied in both dry and wet seasons. A com-
pact subsoil is frequently found in the subsoil (25-50cm).
11. 3.2a2-h23

Fine textured red soils. The natural drainage. ground
water supply and compactness of these soils are equivalent to
those in soil management group #10. A compact subsoil is usu-
ally found in subsoil (25-50cm).
12. n.3/2a2-h2.

Red soils. The texture of the profile. natural drainage
condition. ground water supply and compactness of these soils

are equivalent to those in soil management group #10.

(1) Field experiments

The yields of sugarcane produced in the field experiments
are shown in Table 2. The data have been grouped so that the
soils within a given soil group are together in one part of
the Table.

In the 47 field experiments. the use of P fertiliser in-
creased yields in only 8 experiments and in 2 of the soil
groups. Yield responses to P fertiliser were obtained at 6
locations in the ATL soil group and at 2 locations in the H
soil group.

The experimental results are in good agreement with the
observations of TSG's field men. Many of these men feel that

22

 

 

Pengchiayu d9
Mienhuayu a
.0

Huapingyu

   
    

Keelung

 

' o Taichung

 

o O T011111). ° Hualin

Pescadores Huwei
Islands £2)

0

9
O
0.5“
.0
Tainan
Kaohsiung ° OLutao
O 50 100 km ' Lanhsu
BEBE:— 9

 

Fig. 1. Locations of #7 field experiments

 

 

23

 

 

Table 1. Locations. soil management groups and pH
levels of soil in field experiments

Sample -Sugar Plantation & Soil management pH
number mill field No. group (SMG)

F-i-A* Hsinying Taikong 11 'H.1a2c-h2 8.1
F-l-B " ” ” 8.0
F-Z-A* Annei Hsinchung 18 ” 8.3
F-Z-B ” ” ” 8.3
F-3-A* Hsiaokong Yenshuikong 24 " 7.8
F-B-B ” ” ” 8.1
F-h-A Shanhua Shanhua 10 " 7.8
F-n-B " " " 8.0
F-5~A Chiayi Houliao 5 ” 7.9
F-S-B ” ” " 7.9
F-6-A Suantou Machouhou #0 " 6.9
F-6-B ” " " 7.2
F-7-A Annei Hsinchung 19 " 8.0
F-7-B " " ” 8.1
F-8-A Kaohsiung Penchou 34 " 7.9
F-B-B ” ” ” 8.1
F-9-A Hsiaokong Fengkong 24 “ 8.1
F-9-B ” ” ” 8.2
F-lO-A* Shanhua Liufenliao 1h ASc.3a1b-h1 8.2
F-lO-B ” ” ” 8.3
F-ll-A* Shanhua Tsengwen h Asc.5a2 8.0
F-ll-B* " " " 8.1

 

Table 1. cont'd

.F-12-A* (Machia

F-lZ-B
F-lB-A
F-13-B
F-14-A
F-lU-B
F-lS-A
F-lS-B
F-16-A
F-16-B

F-17-A*

F-17-B

F-18-A*
F-18-B*

F-19-A
F-19-B
F-ZO-A
F-20-B
F-21-A
F-21-B
F-ZZ-A
F-22-B

F-23-A*

F-23-B

F-2u.A*

F-zu-B

Chiayi

Suantou

Annei

Wushulin

Wushulin

Taichung

Touliu

Taichung

Hsinying

Touliu

Huwei

2h

Hsinchia

Nanching

Suantou

Chichou

Anchi

Kantzutou

Wantouliu

Nantzu

Fantzuliao

Hsintso

Nantzu

Mahsi

Hsinhsing

19

23

20

33

22

16

22

31

ASn.3a1b-h1

Asng331b-h1

ASn . 38.2-11

ATL.4aob

ATL.3/5aoc

7.8
v.9
7.9
7.8
7.2
7.7
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2

6.9
7.3
5.9
6.5
7.8
7.9
5.0
5.9
5.0
5.1
6.6
7.0

8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4

 

 

 

‘Table 1 cont'd

25

 

F-ZS-A
F-25-B
F-26-A
F-26-B
F-27-A*
F-27-B
F-28-A*
F-28-B
F-29-A*
F-29-B
F-30-A*
F-30-B
F-31-A*
F-31-B
F-32-A*
F-32-B
F-33-A*
F-33-B
F-34-A
F-3u-B
F-BS-A
F-BS-B
F-36-A
F-36-B
F-37-A
F-37-B

Chihu

Chishan

Nanchou

Chishan

Pintung

Chihu

Peikong

Pintung

Chishan

Chihu

Erhlin 57

Yuanpu 19

Shouchinliao 85

Kanting 4

Chiehyang 102

Chunglan 99-1

Yuanan 19

Tsaitso 24-1

Fantzukou 172

Pengtso 26
Tuku 59
Erhlin 46
Shuiwei 9

ATL.3a1b-h1

ATL.4/6a1c

ATL ’ Balb‘hl

ATL.2&1b-h2

ATL.5/3a1b-h1

ATL.3/2a1b-h2

ATL. 3a1b-h1

ATL.5/'6a2a1

ATL.3a1b-h1

8.1
8.4
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.4
8.4
8.0
8.2
7.8
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.3

 

 

Table 1. cont'd

Ag

F-38-A Huwei
F-38-B ”
F-39-A Jente
F-39-B "
F-flO-A* Kaohsiung
F-no-B* "
F-#1-A* Touliu
F-hl-B* "
F-hZ-A Chishan
F-hZ-B ”
F-hB-A* Yuehmei
F-hB-B "
F-hh-A Touliu
F-44-B "
F-fiS-A Talin
F-hS-B '
F-46-A Touliu
F-46-B ”
F-h7-A Talin
F-47-B '

26

*Achuan

Shalun

Chiuchiawei

Kanting

Yuehmei

Chihsing

36

8

82

51

Shangkanchueh 31

Tapumei

Kancheuh

Tapumei

6O

1“

68

ATL.#aob

RY.5a2

RY.3/'2a2-h2

R . 23.2-th

R . 3/282-h2B

R.2a2-h2B

8.4
8.5

5.7
6.1
6.0
5.8
8.3#
8.2#
6.7
6.8

5.3
5.u
8.1#
7.3#
5.u
5.2
7.0#
7.2#
6.9#
7.1#

 

* soil materials also
A: surface soils.
B: subsoils.

#u limed.

used for pot

tests.

2?

'Table 2.- Sugarcane yields(T/ha) as affected by 4
rates of P fertilizer

 

Sample Treatment(P205.k€/ha) & yield Yield :1 ificance

 

 

23i1& 0 50 100 200 % (Tgha)

group
F-1A. H 109.5 107.8 109.1 108.1 100.0 ns_
F-ZA. " 94.5 97.6 104.2 101.2 90.7 ns
F-3A. " 94.8 98.6 96.0 104.8 90.5 ns
F-4A. " 84.1 90.6 80.1 83.8 92.9 ns
F-5A. " 103.7 98.0 101.5 107.7 96.3 ns
F-6A. " 94.0 101.4 105.4 101.7 89.2 ns
F-7A. " 62.6 69.8 71.6 60.6 87.4 ns

F-8A. " 114.2 122.7 127.2 135.0 84.6 5%.10.0
F-9A. " 104.2 107.2 115.5 117.5 93.6 1%.5.4

F-10A.ASC 125.2 127.1 127.1 128.5 97.5 ns
F-11A. " 95.4 103.1 105.1 99.8 90.8 ns
F-12A. ” 94.2 95.7 98.1 103.7 90.9 ns
F-lBA. " 102.0 103.2 106.2 105.2 96.0 ns
F-14A. " 106.2 113.7 108.9 118.4 89.7 ns
F-15Ao " 94.7 95.0 97.2 96.0 97.4 ns
F-16A. " 101.2 98.2 106.0 107.7 94.0 ns

F-17A.ASn 130.6 139.0 145.4 153.6 85.1 ns
F-18A. " 116.5 122.7 117.7 112.9 94.9 ns
F-19A. " 157.8 155.4 145.3 151.9 100.0 ns
F-ZOA. " 109.2 109.6 108.1 107.8 99.6 ns
F-21A. " 94.0 111.7 107.5 105.0 84.1 ns
F-ZZA. " 138.5 127.2 134.5 132.7 100.0 ns

 

 

 

 

Table 2. cont'd

28

 

F-23A.ATL

F4241 .
F-25A.
F-26A.
F-27A.
F-28A.
7-291.
F-BOA.
F-31A.
2-321.
F-33A.
F-34A.
F-35A.
F-36A.
F-37A.
F-38A.

F-39A.RY

F-40A.
F-41A.
p-421.

F-43A.
F-44A.
F-45A.
F-46A.
F-47A.

 

92.2
113.5

97.4
127.8
146.0
121.1
115.6
125.7
133.2
117.9
138.4
119.0
110.2
125.2
134.0

71.5

61.0
143.7
127.1
116.7

121.4
134.8
84.4
131.0
92.0

105.1
112.4
104.2
125.6
151.7
168.5
115.2
137.2
145.2
117.1
128.0
130.5
123.5
130.2
131.0

77.5

61.5
157.5
150.8
119.2

115.4
134.6
84.8
123.0
89.3

105.3
116.7
104.4
134.0
149.6
160.7
124.7
170.7
148.7
108.9
125.8
134.2
120.5
137.7
138.0

79.0

59.7
155.5
153.9
108.7

121.7
134.0
83.1

123.5
88.6

102.5
116.1
107.4
128.4
149.2
162.1
122.1
158.2
156.0
123.1
137.9
128.2
109.2
133.7
139.0

79.5

66.5
150.0
163.6
134.2

118.1
132.0
80.6
130.2
91.0

 

87.9
97.3
90.7
95.4
96.2
71.9
92.7
73.6
85.4
95.8
100.0
88.6
89.2
89.8
96.4
89.9

91.7
91.3
77.7
86.9

99.8
100.0
99.6
100.0
100.0

 

ns
ns
5%.3.5
ns
ns
1%.19.3
ns
5%.28.5
5%.14.6
ns
ns
ns
ns
5%.4.0

ns

5%05e0

ns
ns
ns

ns

ns
ns
HS
ns

ns

 

29

the response of sugarcane to P fertilisers is not significant
for the first two years unless the P level in the soil is un-
usually low. Thus the problem of knowing where and how much
P fertiliser to use becomes evident.

Prior to 1969. 30 to 50 kg/ha of P205 was used on TSC's
farms. After the extensive soil testing program was initiated.
up to 70 kg/ha was tentatively recommended. Now it is believed
that it is unlikely that in most fields yield responses were

obtained where such rates were recommended.

(2) Outdoor pot tests

In order to obtain a better understanding of the P status
in sugarcane soils. pot tests were established in 1969-1970 to
study the availability of soil P as related to forms in the
soil. This approach to the problem hopefully would provide a
basis for interpreting a soil test for available P.

The yields produced as well as the mechanical analysis of
the soil. the percent organic matter and the pH of the soil
are shown in Table 3. Yields varied greatly. between 3.3 and
17.9 kg/pot. Wide variation in yield was also evident for soils
within a soil group.

Since no fertiliser P was used in this study. and it was
assumed that other essential nutrients were not limiting. theo-
retically the yields reflect two situations. One physical and

the other chemical.

30

Locations. yields and soil characteristics of

Table 3.
, samples used in pot tests

 

 

 

gaggle No! :::?:a;:on & PH 0.M. Mech.analysis.% Eggt- Yield
group ' % sand silt clay kS/pot
P-l. H Tiaochilin 12 8.3 0.51 69.0 22.6 8.4 81* 6.1
P-2. " " (subsoil) 8.1 1.30 7.8 43.0 49.2 Sic 11.4
P-3. " Taikong 11 8.0 1.26 6.6 50.0 43.4 Sic 14.1
P-4. ” HsinChung 18 8.3 1.24 7.4 57.6 35.0 $101 12.4
P-5. ” Yenshuikong 24 8.0 1.30 27.8 33.2 39.0 01 10.7
P-6.ASc Tsengwen 4 7.6 0.92 54.0 33.8 12.2 51 17.7
P-7. " " (subsoil) 7.9 0.49 73.4 17.4 9.2 81 11.9
P-8. " Nanching 35 8.1 1.29 21.4 63.6 15.0 Sil 15.3
P-9. " " (subsoil) 8.2 0.93 19.0 64.0 17.0 Sil 15.0
P-10." Liufenliao 14 8.0 1.20 13.0 67.0 20.0 Sil 15.2
P-ll." Tungshihliao 13 7.5 1.35 21.0 56.0 23.0 Sil 14.8
P-12.“ Hsinchai 2 6.8 0.55 44.6 45.4 10.0 L 15.8
P-13." Fantzutien 16 6.7 1.35 33.0 55.0 12.0 Sil 16.4
P-14.ASn Nantzu 23 7.2 0.87 30.2 57.4 12.4 Sil 17.3
P—15. ” " (subsoil) 7.5 0.74 30.6 53.6 15.8 Sil 16.9
P-16. " Wantouliu 35 5.5 1.24 32.6 41.6 25.8 L 15.8
P-17. " " (subsoil) 5.6 0.89 18.2 52.0 29.8 Sil 14.2
P-18. " Kantsutou 20 6.5 0.91 36.7 46.0 16.4 L 15.4
P-19.ATL Yuanan 19 8.1 0.87 6.2 61.4 32.4 $101 3.3
P—20. ” Erhlin 17 8.0 0.78 48.2 34.4 17.4 L 11.9
P-21. " Chunglan 99-1 7.8 0.83 48.6 40.0 11.4 L 9.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* guesting sand

 

Table 3.00nt'd

31

 

P-22.ATL

P-23.
P-24.
P-25.
P-26.
P-2?:
P-28.
P-29o
P-30.

P-31.RY

2-32.
P-33."
P-34.
P-35.
P-36.
P-37.
P-38.

P-39s
3.3-40.
P-41.

 

Tsaitso 24-1
Fantzukou 172

Wanhsing 5
Yuanpu 19

Shouchinliao 85

Chiehyang 102
Kanting 4
Mahsi 31
Hsinhsing 7
Yuehmei 24
" (subsoil)

Kanting 82

" (subsoil)
Chiuchiawei 8

” (subsoil)

Shalun 116
" (subsoil)

Lintso 14
Tapumei 27
Chihsing 3

 

8.0
8.0
8.1
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.1

5.7
5.8
8.3#
8.2#
6.3
6.1
6.6
6.7

6.2

5.6
6.2

 

0.77
1.02

0.44
0.88
0.92
0.96
0.81
0.94
0.77

0.89
0.74
0.79
0.63
0.19
0.04
0.62
0.42

1.15

0.75
1.00

 

76.2

7.2
84.8
69.0
44.8
24.6
28.4
32.2
36.8

35.0
31.8
36.6
34.6
76.2
78.6
68.6
58.2

23.0
34.8
36.8

14.4
55.8
11.0
19.6
46.8
74.2
60.4
53.6
50.0

42.6
45.2
42.0
34.4
16.4
14.8
26.0
28.6

52.2
47.6
37.0

9.4
37.0
4.2
11.4
8.4
11.2
11.2
14.2
13.2

22.4
23.0
21.4
31.0
7.4
6.6
5.4
13.2

24.8
17.6
26.2

 

Sl
Sicl
Le
81

Sil
Sil
Sil
Sil

Cl
Ls
Ls
$1
81

Sil

 

7.1
11.1
5.8
14.6
14.1
10.8
6.0
11.0
6.5

12.6
10.8
10.7
10.0
15.4
13.1
14.9
13.7

17.9
16.4
14.7

 

# limed

 

 

32

It was not possible to regulate the physical condition of
the soil within the pots because this seemed to be a natural
characteristic of each soil. Therefore. the yields reflect
both the physical condition of the soil as well as the levels
of available P.

Samples of soil were taken from each pot both before and
after cropping. Differences in Al-P. Pe-P. Ca-P. and Red-P
are shown in Table 4. Again great differences even within soil
groups characterise the data.

The data in Table 4 serve as a basis for calculating both
the forms and the amounts of mineral P utilised by the sugar-
cane crop. The average levels of Al-P. Fe-P. Ca-P and Red-P
in the soil before cropping. the amounts of P removed by the
crop and the percent of each form removed as related to soil
group are shown in Table 5.

In the R and RI soils. Red-P and Pe-P were the most abun-
dant. These soils were also the lowest in total P due to ex-
tensive leaching that occurred in the soil formation process.

The usually acid is“ soils contained much Ga-P (iOOppm)
than the usually acid R and RI soils (18 ppm) but far less
than did the calcareous soils (300 ppm). However. the differ-
ence in amount of the other three forms of P. Al-P. Pe-P. and
Red-P in these three acid soil groups was small. This indicated
that the Asn soil was in an intermediate stage of development
between the highly weathered R and RY soils and the less

 

33

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Chemical forms of P (ppm) in soil materials
before and after cropping to sugarcane

28:31; NO- Al-P Fe-P Ca-P Red-P
€r°uP B0 A0 B0 AC BC AC BC AC
P-1. H 9.5 7.5 25.0 19.8 229.5 209.5 34.0 32.0
P-2. " 12.2 10.5 72.8 55.3 235.0 232.5 76.0 76.3
P-3. " 23.3 15.7 69.8 69.5 170.0 192.5 85.0 73.5
P-4. " 15.4 11.1 57.5 56.0 281.3 325.0 115.0 99.3
P-S. " 17.6 13.7 41.0 37.6 156.3 132.5 57.5 57.4
13.6.15c 27.9 20.6 62.8 52.5 288.0 260.3 45.0 44.5
P-7. " 15.5 14.6 47.8 23.8 295.0 270.0 39.0 22.0
P-8. " 57.5 47.1 32.5 30.0 421.0 400.0 130.0 118.2
P-9. " 48.3 44.9 44.0 39.5 395.3 375.0 142.7 119.3
P-10." 26.7 15.0 48.0 38.7 435.5 409.5 61.0 56.0
P-ll." 35.9 24.8 102.3 86.8 99.0 89.5 77.5 73.8
P-12." 18.5 14.6 91.0 54.0 294.5 242.3 73.5 40.0
P-13." 24.1 19.0 105.0 78.8 68.5 53.5 71.0 62.5
P-14.Asn 23.1 17.9 50.8 49.8 50.3 40.8 79.8 79.2
P-15." 19.6 12.8 68.8 62.5 35.3 39.0 81.2 76.0
P-l6." 31.5 16.2 113.0 84.3 206.0 185.8 105.0 107.4
P-17." 13.4 11.4 73.8 55.8 197.5 192.5 112.2 72.5
P-18." 18.0 7.5 74.3 62.0 13.5 7.8 61.0 53.5
P-19.ATL 9.1 5.3 18.0 12.6 425.5 416.3 58.3 55.0
P-20.“ 16.9 11.7 21.5 20.5 332.5 320.0 47.5 41.5
P-21." 8.2 5.1 23.5 22.0 456.5 447.5 32.4 28.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

Table 4. cont'd
P-22.ATL 13.5 8.9 27.5 22.2 302.5 302.5 28.0 24.3
P-23.“ 14.1 10.5 40.0 38.3 401.0 394.8 79.5 69.8
P-24." 11.3 7.9 18.5 15.4 368.8 355.0 18.7 11.0
0.25." 27.7 26.4 42.0 13.0 391.0 367.5 35.9 32.9
2-26.“ 22.9 15.4 39.0 31.0 413.8 394.0 35.0 35.0
P427." 15.3 13.0 35.5 29.5 459.8 443.5 35.0 33.9
P-28." 13.4 11.6 26.5 20.8 493.0 478.0 26.0 24.0
P-29." 17.4 14.6 15.8 15.0 391.5 381.5 49.3 38.3
0-30." 10.8 9.5 18.9 11.4 384.0 377.5 44.0 32.3
P-31.RY 19.0 15.0 115.0 86.0 20.0 17.5 173.4 125.3
P-32.” 15.3 14.4 114.0 86.8 20.0 18.5 137.4 141.0
P-33.” 19.2 15.4 55.8 41.0 25.0 15.8 67.5 42.0
P-34.” 17.0 13.3 65.8 55.5 12.5 10.0 44.5 48.2
P-35.“ 19.7 14.8 134.5 102.3 25.5 16.5 125.0 127.0
P-36.” 20.3 15.3 119.0 94.5 28.8 20.0 137.5 136.7
0-37." 22.2 12.0 82.8 67.5 15.3 6.1 61.5 68.8
P-38." 12.3 6.9 59.8 44.5 9.8 7.9 68.3 53.5
2.39, R 30.1 25.6 96.3 67.5 20.0 12.0 107.5 78.8
p-4o.n 15.8 11.2 81.3 56.3 15.0 12.0 70.8 54.5
P-41." 21.7 16.1 90.0 67.5 14.3 7.9 83.0 68.0

 

 

 

 

 

BC: before cropping

A01 after cropping

35

co

>osom R

.m &

eo>osea emmmo>m .m.o><
emmme>m ..me><

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.ma m.ma :.o~ s.mm .R.ue>osea emmae><
m.m~ o.om H.5m e.mm m.m 3.8H m.m~ e.mm «.mm m.am a.e m.- m m
o.Ha N.«H m.HOH o.wm w.m w.md 0.NN H.HN m.nm o.wN 5.: «.m« m Hm
«.ma e.m m.oe m.~ m.aa o.aoe m.m~ m.» ~.a~ n.mm e.m H.ma NH qa<
a.ma 8.6a m.am a.m H.w m.ooa m.aa m.ma “.85 a.am o.m H.a~ n ama
”.ma a.md 0.0m c.m 0.3N «.mmm m.dm N.©H m.ww o.«N h.w w.fln m omd
o.m m.m m.mu n.¢ m.m :.:am m.aa m.n w.m: o.mm m.m w.ma m m
m & m.o>< .mo>< m & m.o>< .ne>< m R m.o>< .mo>< m & m.o>< .Ho>¢ moansmm macaw
mluom msmo mush m1H< Ho .oz Hwom
easememsm hp museum
Hwom Beam eo>osea use snowman m Ho Asnavmpssoss use msmom ewmmo>< .n oanma

36

weathered calcareous soils (Ase. ATL. and H).

One other observation should be made. The average level
of Al-P was not only the lowest among all forms of P in any
soil group but also showed the least variation ranging from
15.6 ppm to 31.8 ppm.

In the less weathered ATL soils. Ca-P was present at the
highest level accounting for more than 80% of the total P.
The other three forms of P. Al-P. Fe-P. and Red-P always re-
presented the lowest values in this soil group.

Apatite is the most wide spread P containing mineral in
igneous rock. In this young slate alluvial soil. apatite was
probably still in its original form. In addition to this.
the relatively high calcium levels in this calcareous soil
group probably resulted in the formation of more Ca-P when P
containing fertilisers were used.

The quantity of each form of P removed by cropping with
sugarcane varied with the soil group. As indicated in Table
5. the average quantity of Al-P removed by sugarcane was al-
ways less than the amounts of Fe-P. Ca-P. or Red-P. Further-
more. there was less variation in the amount of Al-P removed
than with any other phosphate. The average amount of Al-P
that was removed by one sugarcane crop ranged between 3.4 ppm
in the ATL soils and 8.0 ppm in the ASn soils. If the amount
of Al-P removed from the soil is expressed as a f of the
amount present. a different interpretation is possible. With
this interpretation Al-P becomes a major source of P utilised

37

by sugarcane. It is interesting that on a % basis there was
not much difference among the six soil groups. The percentage
of Al-P removed from all soils by cropping averaged 25.4% and
varied from a high of 37.9% for the ASn soil to a low of 20.0%
for the ASc soil. A possible explanation to this situation
is that Al-P is a most active form of P in the soil. and the
solubility of Al-P in the soil increases with an increase in
pH. Above pH 7.0. the concentration of Al-P is likely to be
higher than Ca-P. In 27 out of 41 pet tests. the soils had
pH levels greater than 7.0. Thus the availability of Al-P
would be higher than any of the other forms of P in the soils
considered giving sugarcane a better chance for utilisation.

A relatively high % removal of Fe-P was also found in the
R soil (28.5%). The H soil had the lowest fl removal values
for Pe-P (11.85). The calcareous ATL soil had the lowest
average Fe-P test but also it had a relatively high 5 removal
value (23.2%). For all of the soils. the average % removal
of Pe-P was equal to 20.4fi. This value is less than that for
Al-P. It is likely that Al-P was more soluble in these soils
than was the Fe-P.

The test values for Ca-P varied between 16.4 ppm for the
R soils and 401.6 ppm for the ATL soils. The R and R! soils
averaged 16.4 ppm and 19.6 ppm of Ca-P. respectively. which
were the lowest values found. Interestingly much of this

Ca-P was utilised by the sugarcane crop and the % removal

38

values were the highest. 35.4 and 28.6% respectively.

The pH values of R and RY soil groups in this study
ranged from 5.6 to 6.7. The concentration of Ca-P in solu-
tion in soils within this pH range would be higher than in
these soils with a more alkaline reaction. Thus the Ca-P
was more readily available to sugarcane in the R and RI soil
groups than.that in those less weathered Asa. 13°. ATL and H
soils.

Higher average amounts of Ca-P in the soil does not
necessarily imply a higher % removal of Ca-P by sugarcane.
The less weathered high Ca-P containing soils (ATL. Ase. ASn
and H) were able to supply larger amounts of Ca-P than the
more weathered R and R! soils. The opposite was the case
when the figures were expressed on a % removal basis. The f
of Ca-P removed by one sugarcane crop averaged 13.2’ which
was much less than the amounts of Al-P and Pe-P removed.

The Red-P in the soil was no doubt of secondary origin.
Little information is available which suggests that Red-P can
be utilised by plants. Sugarcane is a perennial crop and the
uptake of P is not limited to the early six months of growth
but lasts through the next year. Theoretically. there is a
possibility that Red-P can be used by sugarcane when soil con-
ditions are favorable as they must have been in these experi-
ments. The average i of Red-P removed by one sugarcane crop

was 13.5% which was about equal to that of Ca-P. The

 

39

dissolution and precipitation of iron oxides due to alternate
reduction and oxidation seem to favor the uptake of Red-P.

A few soils (Table 4) showed a slight increase in Ca-P
and Red-P after cropping. This was probably due to a trans-
formation of organic P to inorganic P. This situation did
not develop with the Al-P and Fe-P.

Little variation in average % removal of all four forms
of phosphate was observed in the R soils. Values ranged be-
tween 21.8% and 35.4%. This was also the situation for the
R! soil except in regard to Red-P. As stated above. the
effect of pH on P availability seemed to play an important
role in the uptake of each form of P in the R and RI soils.

But. if the amounts of Al-P. Fe-P. Ca-P and Red-P removed
are expressed as the f of the total P removed by sugarcane
crop. the data are shown in Table 6.

In the calcareous H. 13.. and ATL soil groups. Ca-P is the
most common form removed averaging 37.4fi. 40.7%. and 43.9% of
the total P removed. respectively. While in the acid Asn.

RI. and R soil groups. Pe-P represents the most common form
of the P removed by the sugarcane crop averaging 33.2fi. 49.5%.
and 45.3‘ of the total P removed. respectively.

Clearly. all of the four forms of P in the soil are impor-
tant in plant nutrition. The Al-P and Fe-P are no doubt the
main forms of P taken up by sugarcane irrespective of soil
group. Ca-P and Red-P can also be removed to a certain extent

by sugarcane.

 

 

40

 

.nsoaw Haom man» seam osmommwsm an uo>osem Have» one me & m4 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0m 0.00 0.m a.mm 0.0m m.m0 0.00 0.0 0.0 m

0.~0 0.00 0.m 0.0m «.00 0.m0 a.a~ 0.0a a.e mm

0.0m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.m 0.00 0.0 0.0a 0.0 nae

0.00 n.0m a.0 n.0m 0.0a m.nm m.ma 0.0a 0.0 :04

0.00 n.00 0.0m 0.a~ 0.~H 0.00 0.00 «.00 5.0 04

0.0a 0.mm «.0 0.00 m.m 0.- 0.m 0.ma 0.0 m
Asmmvco>osen m R m .o>< m K m .m>< m R m .o>< em % m.o>< macaw
m Hopes muse mneem mush mua< Haom

 

 

 

 

osmonmwsm an ce>oson m Have» Ho R mm m we mahom .m oases

41

In interpreting these data. it should be remembered they
were obtained from tests in pots where soil moisture conditions
and root distribution patterns would be different than in the
field. This would influence the removal pattern of the differ-
ent forms of P. Nevertheless. the method used should provide
some useful information on the forms of P in the soil and the
uptake of P by sugarcane. This information is essential in
selecting an extractant that can be used in a soil testing pro-
gram.involving the growth of sugarcane in Taiwan.

Correlations between extractable P and sugarcane yield

Now that information on the levels of P available in the
soils of Taiwan and on the forms of P utilised by sugarcane are
available. theoretically it should be possible to formulate a
suitable extractant for P. Most certainly. the extractant
should remove considerable Al-P and Pe-P and a limited quantity
of both Ca-P and Red-P.

The P extracted by various methods from 41 soils used in
the pot tests are shown in Table 7. As expected. there were
wide ranges with any given extractant and soil to solution
ratios used. The ranges in extractable P are reported in ppm
as follows:

1. 0.5K NH4P at pH 7.2 10.8-69.9 PPm
2. 0.5" NH“F at pH 8.2 8.2-57.5 PPm
3. Bray's #1 117 soil: solution ratio 2.3-27.9 PPm

42

4. Bray's #1 1110 30111 solution ratio 2.8-25.2 ppm
5. Bray's #1 1120 soil1 solution ratio 3.6-34.6

6. Bray's #1 1130 soil1 solution ratio 6.2-35.7

7. Bray's #1 1140 soil1 solution ratio 5.1-41.6

8. Bray's #1 1150 soil: solution ratio 5.5-47.6

9. Bray’s #2 22.6-180

10. Olson 3.3-21.2

11. Resin adsorption 3.0-44.0

Essentially the same ranges were found when the same
extractants were used on the field soil samples. Basically
where the range was narrow for the samples from the pot tests.
the range was also narrow for samples from the field tests.
The ranges for the surface samples of the field plots are

reported as follows:

1. 0.SN Nfiu? at PH 7.2 7.3- 58.0 PPIII
2. 0.514 101.11 at pH 8.2 3.7- 41.1
3. Bray's #1 117 80111 solution ratio 0.8- 33.7
4. Bray's #1 1110 80111 solution ratio 1.5- 34.4
5. Bray's #1 1120 soil: solution ratio 5.8- 41.6
6. Bray's #1 1130 soil1 solution ratio 5.1- 44.7
7. Bray's #1 1140 soil1 solution ratio 9.0- 48.0
8. Bray's #1 1150 soil1 solution ratio 9.0- 57.0
9. Bray's #2 7.7-180.0

10. 013” 203' 27e3

43

 

 

 

 

 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..0010
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00-0
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..0010
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..0010
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..010
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.01m
0.00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..0.0
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000.010
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..010
0.00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..010
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..010
0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..010
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.010
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 mm 0.0 00 00000

sowpmnomom :emHo ~.oz Haom a
00000 0.0000 00000 0080000»00.0000 0000000 00 0.0z 0.0000 0002 z 0.0 .02 000800

 

 

 

 

 

 

mpmep won :0 com: masanovss 0000 Song escapes msoaum> £903 oeposapxo Asmmvm Adam .0 00909

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..00-0
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 =.00-0
0.00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00-0
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00-0
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..00-0
0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 ..00-0
0.0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00-0
0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 3.00-0
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 2.00-0
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 00<.00-0
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-0
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 =.00-0
0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 =.00-0
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000.00-0
0000000000 00000 0.02 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 m0 0mwm0w
500m 0.0.0.5 0.3.0.0 Pfipoanvxo 1280 0003.090 #0 0.02 0.00700— m0mz z 0.0 .oz 0.300.000

 

0.0000 .0 0000a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 «.m «.9: n.o~ n.na m.ma m.o« u.m a.m n.am m.am . .Hdlm

m.: a.ma o.mm o.n« m.m n.m n.» «.0 n.w m.mH m.m~ x .oéum

023 54; 0.50 N.mm Arum m.ma .....m." NJ: at: ion «.mn m .thm

~.o m.n 0.0m o.o« w.m :.w o.m m.m o.m« m.ma w.ma : .mmum

o.na m.oH m.om o.m« m.oa “.5” m.md :.~« m.am ~.~m n.om = .umum

:.m m.m« «.mm o.ma m.da «.5 m.m m.o o.oH n.om m.wm : .mnnm

o.m o.«a m.:n m.¢« :.Ha n.w m.n m.m ”.ma n.a« n.:~ =.mmsm

M.) 0.9" m6 w.~n m5." o.ma m.N.H m5 +~.m 06." 0.5..” o.m« .. Banana
m.md a.w o.Ha m.:« 0.3” :.fl« n.m “.5 a.m ~.ad m.nfl . .mnum

m.ofi 0.: e.~m «.mH ~.oH m.u «.m m.: o.m n.nd o.ma = .mnum

m.w n.“ n.0m n.ma m.ofi m.a H.m m.o 0.0” o.ma «.md am .Hnum

3.0 «.3 o.mm n.0a m.o n.m o.m :.m w.~ m.o« o.mH :.onum

a.m v.3 n.5o 0.0a m.oa m.m« m.u m.: 3.: 3.5a w.ma qa<.m~um
nowvmuomua condo ~.oz on.« o:.« om.H om.“ o«.« u.“ ~.m mm «.5 mm amwmnw
camem m.amnm cavmn vcapoaupxc.aaou msoaud> Pu H.0z m.hunm mamz z m.o .oz oagawm

 

v.9:oo .n manna

#6

Table 8 shows the P extracted by varies methods from the
47 sites used in the field experiments.

The NHgF-P extracted at pH 7.2 was always higher than that
extracted at pH 8.2. The explanation to this is related to the
form of P soluble at different pH levels. An appreciable
amount of Fe-P was extracted at pH 7.2. while at pH 8.2. most
of the extractable P was Al-P (Fife. 1959). The values of ex-
tractable P by Bray's No.1 methods were usually increased with
an increase in soil-to solution ratio. The wider soil/solution
ratio provided sufficient H+ to react with CaCOB. Thus more
Ca-P was extracted (Smith et al. 1957). Bray's No.2 solution
is a strong acid-fluoride extractant which extracted much more
P from the soils than occurred with the other extractants.

Table 9 shows the coefficients of correlation between the
P extracted by various methods and sugarcane yields in both
the pot tests and the field experiments. Of the #1 pct tests
soils. the extractable P by any of the methods were highly
correlated with sugarcane yield at the 0.1% level of signifi-
cance. except for Bray's No.2 test. The highest correlation
r-0.7#38. was obtained with the Olsen extractant. The second
highest correlation was obtained with Bray's No.1 extractant.
at a soil/solution ratio of 1:10. These results were antici-
pated because 65$ of the soils were alkaline in reaction.

When the soils in the 41 pct tests were grouped into four
pH classes (<7.0.37.0. < 7.5.} 7.5) different coefficients

were obtained. The results can be summarised as follows:

1.

2.

3.

5.

4?

The highest correlation between soil extractants and
yield were obtained with the Olsen method irrespective
of pH level.

With the Bray's No.1 test. the correlation coefficients
were increased somewhat when the soil to solution ratios
were increased. especially for those soils with a pH
greater than 7.5. This agrees with the work of Smith

et a1 (1957). The coefficients. however were not as
high as those involving the Olsen extract. For soils
with a pH of less than 7.0. the highest correlation
coefficient was obtained with a 1:10 soil: solution
ratio with Bray's No.1 extract.

Bray's P2 extractant was significantly correlated with
sugarcane yields in the pot tests, but the coefficients
were lower than some of those obtained with the P1 ex-
tract and lower than all of those obtained with the
Olsen extract.

The resin adsorption-P was correlated best with yield
response on soils with a pH level in excess of 7.0.
Reasonably high and statistically significant correlation
coefficients were obtained with the NH4P solutions. Re-
gardless of soil pH. the highest correlation coefficients
were obtained with the NHnF adjusted to pH 7.2. This is
probably due to the fact that an alkaline fluoride so-
lution extracts more Al-P and Fe-P at pH 7.2 than at 8.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.« 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 . .555.5
5.5 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 . .555.5
5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.55 5.5« 5.«« 5.5« 5.55 . .555.5
5.55 5.555 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.55 . .<«5-5
5.5 5.555 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.55 5.5« . .<55n5
5.55 5.555 5.55 5.55 «.5« «.5« 5.55 5.« 5.55 5.55 555.455um
5.5 5.«55 5.«5 5.55 5.5« «.55 5.55 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .<5-5
5.« 5.55 5.«« 5.55 5.55 «.5 5.5 5.5 «.5 5.«5 . .45.5
5.5 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.5« . .45:5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .45.5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.«~. 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .45.5
5.5« 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.55 «.5 5.5 5.«« 5.5« . .45.5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.« 5.55 5.5« . .45.5
5.55 5.555 5.5« «.5« 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.«« 5.5« . .<«-m
«.5 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« «.55 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.5« m .45.5

«.52 55.5 55.5 55.5 5«.5 55.5 5.5 «.5 ma «.5 55 55555
55555 5.5555 5.5z 5.5555 555z z 5.5 .oz mwmmum

3:25.398 305.... no.“ 555: 53.55
95 H.555 scum 5595ch 5585.535 53...: 5305.533 253 A flow .5 canes

 

 

 

 

 

5.5 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 = .555.5
5.5 5.«5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 «.5 5.55 . .<55u5
«.5 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.« 5.« 5.55 5.55 . .<5«-m
5.5 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.« 5.« 5.5 5.55 . .<5«-5
«.5 5.55 5.5« 5.«« 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .<5«um
5.5 5.555 5.55 5.«5 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.«5 5.55 5.5« . .<5«um
5.5 5.555 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.« 5.«« 5.55 . .<5«-5
5.5 5.555 5.55 5.55 5.55 «.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 : .<5«-m
5.5 5.555 5.5« 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 55<.<5«-5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.5« «.5« 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .<««-5
5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.5« «.5« 5.55 5.«5 5.55 5.5« . .<5«-5
5.5« 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.«5 5.55 . .<5«-5
5.«5 5.55 5.55 5.55 «.5« 5.«« 5.5« 5.55 5.5« 5.55 . .455.5
5.55 5.555 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.5« = .555.5
5.5 5.555 5.«« 5.5« «.55 5.55 «.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 nm<.<55a5_
5.«5 5.555 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 555.555um
« .oz 55.5 55.5 55.5 5«.5 55.5 5.5 «.5 55 «.5 55 55555
5.8550 5.55.5m 5 .oz 5.55st .552 z 5.0 .oz MMMMEM

 

 

 

 

 

5.5555 .5 55555

50

 

 

 

 

all. .15!
5.«« 5.55 5.«5 5.55 «.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .555-5
5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.5 «.5 5.5« 5.55 = .555.5
«.55 5.55 5.5« 5.«« «.55 5.55 «.5 «.5 5.55 5.55 = .555.5
5.5« «.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.«5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .555-5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5« 5 .555-5
5.« 5.5 5.55 5.«5 5.55 5.55 5.« 5.5 5.5 «.5 . .<«5u5
5.5 5.5« 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.«5 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .555-5
5.5 5.55 5.5« 5.5« 5.55 «.55 5.55 5.55 5.5« 5.5« . .555.5
5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 «.5« 5.5« 5.55 5.5« 55 .555-5
5.5 5.«5 5.5« 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 . .555.5
5.5 5.55 5.«5 5.5« 5.55 5.«5 «.5 5.5 «.55 5.55 . .555-5
5.5 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.55 . .455u5
5.5 5.5« 5.«5 5.5« 5.«« 5.55 5.55 «.5 «.5 5.55 g .555-5
5.« 5.55 5.5« 5.55 5.«5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 . .555-5
5.5 5.555 5.5« 5.55 5.55 «.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 . .555.5
5.5 5.55 5.«« 5.5« 5.55 5.55 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.55 555.5«5um

55555 « .oz 55.5 55.5 55.5 5«.5 55.5 5.5 «.5 55 «.5 55 55555

5.5555 5 .55 5.5555 555z z 5.5 .oz wwmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

5.»:00 .5 05959

15
(J

H5>od 55.0 x

55555 55 55 55555555555 55

Ho>ca 55
55555 555 55 55555555555 5

s a.

 

*twm:m.o

##tNm55.0

*tmamw.0

*ssm0m5.0

*ammmm.0

*se:n:m.0

55555.5

itsNaM5.0

*MHN©.0

teamma5.0

*Hmdm.o

ssedmmm.0

5555.5

assoowo.0

*5w00.0

assmmn5.0

*Ndom.o

eammm&.0

5555.5

assimM5.0

*momm.o

atsmdm5.0

s:oom.0

ses35do.0

«555.5

*atmdmm.0

asammw.0

ess5mwo.0

saonm.o

essnmnw.0

N¢50.0

*smmwm.o

ammm.0

*somm:.0

NHmN.0

sssmdow.0

mnc.55:onmeh
m 5553055
.5555 55555
scum madam

\ RN":
0. 5 Ammévnop
pom scum mawom

Jan—H
0. 5 V5.3. 5953.
won Bonn 555cm

MNIC
5. 5 \Axmmavmop
van 5055 555cm

m5us
95an.59ch
you scan 5550M

55us.5»5cv
van 5055 555cm

 

0w55

03.5

05.5

0N.H

05.5

5.5

5559355 no .02

 

5595a psdpo5upxc.naom 555555> p5 5.oz 5.55am

 

555 55 .55555

 

555555 5:5055555 5953 55onvca

550555> an m 555055955 no 5v55505555oc 520595555500

.m 05959

52

55555 55.5 55 55555555555 55*
55555 55 55 55555555555 55

55555 55 .
55555 555 55 55555555555 5

8 t.

 

*ttdimn.0

5503.0

*ttoaom.o

55555.5

*ttnomm.0

5555.5

tttofimh.0

ttommn.0

*ttmmmm.0

55555.5

555mm&m.0

m:mo.0

*ONw#.0

*mow:.0

t:*~nmo.0

*0N0¢.0

«055.0

5mmm5.o

*ttNmmw.0

tnomm.o

*¢*N005.0

55555.5

*ttmmmm.0

fiwamw.0

tttmmww.0

*tHthno

tttHNnn.0

#mmém.0

*5thamm.o

mu:.omConmou
m mewsogm
.5955 55555
3555 555cm

5555
5.55555 .55555
van 8555 madam

#HHG
0. u V5.55... 5553.
won 505% 55505

MNIG
5. 5. A55. 55555
Pom Baum madam

QHHC
5.55v55.55555
von 5055 uaaom

5&un .55555
509 £055 maaom

 

nonvmuomua

55555

55550

N.oz

5.555m

 

«.0 mm

N.n mm

 

55mz z 5.5

 

5055855 no .oz

and mm .mddom

 

5.5555 .5 55555

53

In summary, an analysis of the #1 pot tests suggests

that Olsen's test and Bray's No.1 test with a soil/solution

ratio of 1:10 are most reasonably correlated with the avai-

lable P levels in the soils of TSC's plantations.

Similar correlations were made between the extractable

P from field soil and the percent yield of sugarcane (Table 9).

The correlation coefficients are calculated for only those

8 sites which showed statistical significance between P appli-

cation and % yield. The results are summarised as follows:

1.

5.

Though the pH range of the soil at the 8 sites ranged
between 7.8 and 8.#, the Olsen extraction was not highly
correlated with 5 yield as was the case with pot tests.
Increasing the soil to solution ratio with the Bray's
P1 extractant greatly improved the correlation coeffi-
cients for soils with pH values greater than 7.5.
Bray's P1 extractant at a 1:50 soil to solution ratio
produced the highest correlation coefficient (r'0.8h36)
with a significance at the 1% level.

With the NH“? extraction. the coefficients from field
tests were decreased slightly as compared to those pot
tests with pH greater than 7.5.

Bray's P1 extractant at a 1:? soil to solution ratio
and Bray's P2 extractant showed extremely low correla-

tion coefficients.

The f yield and the extractable P with Bray's P1 solution

5:.

at a 1:50 soil to solution ratio have been plotted in graph
for: (Fig. 2).

In summary, the correlation analysis of extractable P
with f yield in the field experiments showed that Bray's P1
extractant at a soil to solution ratio of 1:50 would be the
best choice for evaluating soil P that is available to
sugarcane. As discussed previously. this solution extracts
Al-P. Fe-P and Ca-P which are all used by sugarcane. This
extractant and soil to solution ratio should be well adapted
for evaluating the P status of soils use for sugarcane in

Taiwan.

100’

     

l'=0.8436

I70

 

o :o 20 so 40 so mm

Fig. 2. Relationship between i yield of sugarcane and
extractable P by Bray's P extractant at a
1:50 soil to solution rat 0.

55

Leaf analysis as an indication of the N. P and K status of
sugarcane ggown in pot tests

 

Since no P was added to the soil in the pot tests. an
evaluation of N. P and K status of the vegetation was attempt-
ed. Leaf analyses were made by the methods currently used by
the Taiwan Sugar Research Institute. Tests were made after
3. 9. and 12-months of growth. Table 10 shows the results of
the analysis of sugarcane leaves grown in the pot tests.

For N. no samples were found to indicate a nitrogen defi-
ciency in three month old sugarcane grown in the pots. At nine
months of age there were 8 samples that tested below the ori-
tical level of 1.7. With two or possibly three exceptions the
N levels were only slightly below the standard critical level.
If the standards are realistic. nitrogen was not a limiting
factor at nine months. At 12 months. 12 samples tested below
the critical level although most samples only slightly below
the standard.

In these tests. 50% more N was used than would be recom-
mended under field conditions. also in these tests the F 160
variety was grown. It is known that this variety is able to
utilize more N than other varieties (Humbert. 1955) so that it
is likely that not enough N was used in all instances. N de-
ficiency developed primarily in sugarcane grown in those soils
with lower organic matter contents.

Remembering that no fertiliser P was used in the pot

56

 

 

 

 

00.0 50.0 50.0 00.0 0m.0 00.0 mm." 00.0 an.~ em<.0aum
00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 «0.0 Hm.~ ..naum
0H.” 00.0 «5.0 mo.“ 00.0 «5.« 00.0 50.0 5«.5 ..mfium
am.“ 0m.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 ..Haum
00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 «0.0 50.H 00.0 00.0 50.0 ..0aum
00.0 mm.0 00.H “0.0 00.0 05.“ 55.0 00.0 «0.0 a .mum
5~.a 00.0 00.0 00.“ «0.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 g .0.0
5a.a 00.0 00.“ 50.0 00.0 05.0 05.0 00.0 no.0 a .5um
60.0 00.0 00.“ «0.0 «0.0 «0.H 00.0 «0.0 «0.0 om<.0um
00.“ 00.0 00.H 00.0 «0.0 00.0 «0.0 mm.0 mate . .mum
00.0 50.0 «5.« NH.H 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 . .0um
mm.« 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 05.“ 05.0 00.0 00.0 . .num
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 55.“ 05.0 00.0 50.0 . .mum
00.0 00.0 mm.“ 00.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 50.0 00.“ m .Ham
00m “000 2 00m momm z 00m momm z macaw new
news mgpsos Na meme masses a meme mnvsoa n e .02 ea asm

 

 

 

 

Amv mvmep pom ca osmonsmsm no mamhadcm Mesa .o« canes

57

 

 

 

 

05.5 05.0 00.5 00.0 50.0 55.5 00.0 00.0 50.5 . .05um
55.5 50.0 00.5 00.5 55.0 05.5 00.0 00.0 00.5 . .55.5
55.5 50.0 50.5 00.0 50.0 00.5 50.0 50.0 00.5 . .05.5
55.5 50.0 50.5 05.5 00.0 55.5 00.0 05.0 05.5 . .05um
00.5 00.0 00.5 05.5 00.0 00.5 00.0 00.0 05.5 . .05um
05.5 50.0 50.5 50.0 50.0 05.5 00.0 00.0 00.5 a .05:5
55.5 00.0 05.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 00.0 50.0 05.5 . .55sm
00.5 05.0 00.5 00.0 00.0 05.5 05.5 50.0 05.5 . .55um
00.5 00.0 00.5 00.5 00.0 05.5 50.0 05.0 00.5 . .05.0
00.0 05.0 50.5 50.0 55.0 00.5 00.0 00.0 50.5 594.05um
50.5 50.0 00.5 05.5 05.0 00.5 55.5 50.0 50.5 . .05nm
50.5 50.0 00.5 00.5 00.0 55.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 . .55um
55.5 00.0 55.5 50.5 50.0 05.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 . .05sm
05.5 00.0 50.5 50.5 05.0 00.5 55.5 50.0 50.5 004.05:m
050 0055 z 050 0055 z 050 0055 2 00055 5500
news nausea 55 moms masses 0 some mapses m 0 .oz eamssm

 

 

 

 

0.5000 .05 05000

58

 

 

00.5 00.0 50.5 55.5 00.0 50.5 55.5 00.0 00.5 . .50:m
55.5 00.0 05.5 55.5 00.0 00.5 05.5 50.0 00.5 . .0eum
05.5 00.0 50.5 05.5 00.0 50.5 00.5 00.0 50.5 0 .00:0
55.5 50.0 00.5 00.5 00.0 00.5 50.0 50.0 50.5 . .0num
05.5 00.0 00.5 00.0 00.0 00.5 00.5 00.0 50.5 . .5mum
00.5 50.0 00.5 00.5 50.0 50.5 05.0 00.0 55.5 g .00:5
05.5 50.0 00.5 00.5 50.0 00.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 g .00:5
00.5 50.0 55.5 50.0 00.0 00.5 50.0 00.0 50.5 . .0num
55.5 00.0 00.5 50.5 00.0 05.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 . .mmum
05.5 05.0 50.5 50.0 00.0 05.5 50.5 00.0 00.5 . .5num
05.5 00.0 05.5 00.5 05.0 55.5 50.5 50.0 05.5 50 .50:0
00.5 05.0 05.5 05.5 50.0 05.5 05.5 00.0 00.5 . .00:m
00.0 05.0 50.5 50.5 00.0 05.5 50.0 50.0 50.5 505.05um
050 0050 z 050 0050. z 050 005m 2 00005 5500

 

meme mnvsoa N5

 

mama masses m

 

mews mapsoa m

 

0 .oz edgesm

 

U.P:oo .OH sands

59

tests. it is interesting to note the supplying power of these
soils. The P supply was sufficient in all of the soils to

take care of the needs of the sugarcane for the first three
months of growth. At the end of nine months. leaf analysis

for P suggested that 30 out of #1 soils were still supplying
adequate amounts of P. Apparently. the P supplying power of
the soils studied was fairly adequate. At the end of 12 months.
leaf analysis for P showed that 33 of the soils were still

able to supply adequate amounts of P. Most of the P deficiency
occurred in the ATL and RY soil groups. Heavy applications of f
P fertiliser to the R soils apparently had resulted in a build
up of P so that adequate levels were available to the sugarcane
crops.

An unexpected K deficiency was observed with the 3-month
sampling. Approximately 70% of the samples contained deficient
levels of K. less than 1.0%. The majority of the deficient
samples represented sugarcane grown on the H. Ase. ATL. and RI
soils. At a later date the sugarcane out grew the K deficiency
and at 9 months only one sample suggested a K deficiency. At
the time of the 12 months sampling. none of the sugarcane was
considered to be deficient in potassium.

The K deficiency early in the season could be attributed
to the high K-fixation capacity of the soils involved in this
study. Lai and Lee (19h1) reported that the K-fixation capa-

city of 12 representive Taiwan sugarcane soils was highest in

60

these soils with high clay contents. high pH levels. and where
weathering of the soils was not great. Thirty out of the bi
soils studied were either high in clay (H soil group). high in
pH (Ase. ATL. soil groups). or not intensively weathered (Ase.
ASn. and ATL soil groups). The K-fixation capacity of the soils
involved in this research would be expected to be high. It
appears likely that K-deficiency could develop during the early
stage of growth if significant amounts of K fertilizer were‘
fixed. At a later date as K was released from the colloidal
complex. deficiency would disappear.

In summary. while every effort was made to supply ample
N and K in this experiment. on occasion and on some soils de-
ficiencies as indicated by leaf analysis did occur. In gener-
al. the deficiencies probably were not severe enough to in-
validate the results as they pertained to P.

Relatively rapid P fixation capacity of selected soils

Twenty four soil samples were selected from the TSG's
plantations (19 samples were also used for the pot tests and
field experiments already described) for evaluating the rela-
tively rapid P-fixing capacity of soils.

Bass and Sieling (1950) pointed out that there is no
absolute value for the P-fixing capacity of a soil. because
changes in conditions of determination could possibly change
the value obtained. They developed an indirect method for

 

61

determing the relative phosphate-fixing capacity of acid soils
based on an extraction of the Fe and Al under controlled con-
ditions. Rennie and McKercher (1959) indicated that the fix-
ation of P may proceed at two rates: a rapid one(being complet-
ed within a few hours) and a much slower one. They found that
a shaking time of 6 hours was preferable for the completion of
the adsorption reaction and for the elimilating of complicating
secondary reactions. Olsen 0 Watanabe (1957) made use of the
Langmuir isotherm to calculate a P adsorption maxima in soils.
Singh (1969) indicated that the Langmuir adsorption equation
may be used to predict P concentrations in soil solutions.

In the acid soils 33.7% of the P added was rapidly adsorb-
ed (Table 11). The same value for the alkaline soils was 25.0.
In other words. on the average approximately 5 to 1/3 of P
fertiliser was rapidly adsorbed on the soils studied. The acid
soils adsorbed more P than the alkaline soils because of the
higher Fe and Al contents. The exposed Fe and Al atoms of the
crytal lattice were responsible for the activity of the clay
in the P-fixation process. Due to the lower surface reactivity
of adsorbed P in alkaline soils it appeared that the amount
of soluble P taken up by plants would be higher in alkaline
soils than in acid soils under equal soil conditions.

The clay as well as organic matter contents appeared to
be equally important to the P adsorption capacity of soils.
In nine soil samples taken from pot tests (soils with two

62

 

 

Antsgule-
0.05 0.055 .0000000 05500 00550550
0.05 0.505 0.00 0.0 0 000000 *0-500
5.55 0.505 0.00 5.0 5-00 00500000 005-500
0.55 0.00 5.00 5.0 5-05 0055000 000-500
0.55 0.055 5.00 5.0 50 055000 00-500
0.05 0.50 0.00 0.0 55 0005005055 0-500
0.55 0.00 0.00 0.0 50 0500 *0-500
0.55 0.055 5.00 5.0 0 5035000 05-500
5.05 0.05 0.00 0.5 05 000000 005-500
0.05 0.555 0.00 5.0 00 00500000 005-000
0.55 0.005 0.00 0.0 0 0030000 005-000
0.00 0.505 0.05 5.5 00 00000000: *5-0
0.05 0.505 0.00 0.0 05 00055000000 000-0
0.50 0.005 0.50 5.0 55 0005500 .05-0
5.55 0.505 0.00 0.0 00 0000000 *5-0
memwww Awwmwmvm 0050000MMM0W5 0 00 0 00wmm0wmmwm .02 050000

 

 

 

 

 

 

05500 00000500 no 05500500 ms5x5m:m 05500 050>520505 0:0 mm .msoav0coq .55 05500

63

.mpmop pom now 000: 0050 05500 0* .0
.05000550500 05055 mom 0000 0050 055cm 0 .5
.050000 5500 0000 you 00000 003 A Eng 05.0: .5 .mopoz

 

 

 

5.00 5.005 .0005000 05500 0500
0.50 0.005 5.50 5.0 05 0050500 *5-000
0.00 0.005 5.55 0.0 00 05500500: 005-000
0.00 0.505 0.05 0.0 00 005000 00-55
0.05 0.00 5.00 0.0 55 000500 0-50
5.00 0.505 0.05 0.0 05 5000005 00-50
0.05 0.50 0.50 5.0 55 0000500 .3 5-50
0.05 0.00 5.50 5.0 0 0550002 5-50
0.05 0.505 0.00 5.0 0 00500500 000-0
0.00 0.000 5.05 0.0 05 0055050500 5-0
0.00 0.505 0.05 0.0 00 5000000 05-5
M0mw00 AMWAwwvm 005000%umm005 0 50 0 WmM5WMNWW50 .02 050000

 

 

 

 

 

it

 

0.5000 .55 05000

6h

asterisks in Table 11) the P adsorption increased with an in-
crease in clay and organic matter levels (Table 3).

In summary. the fixation capacity appears to be an essen-
tial and significant facts to consider when making P fertiliser

recommendations.

P recommendations for sugarcane on TSC's plantations

P fertilizer recommendations are discussed and proposed
on the basis of the previously discussed studies including:
1. Soil P test values with Bray's No.1 extractant at a soil/
solution ratio of 1:50 from pot culture experiments and
from field trials.

2. Sugarcane yield data of #7 field experiments conducted in
1970-1972 (Table 2).

3. Natural soil moisture condition as indicated by soil ma-
nagement groups which was proposed by the author.

h. Relatively rapid P fixation capacity of the soils.

The ranges and average values of P extracted from the
surface soil of pot tests and field experiments of each soil
group with Bray's No.1 solution at a soil/solution ratio of

1150 are as follows:

Soil group No. of sample Range Average (ppm)
H0 13 42.3-11.8 25.2
Ase. 13 55.u-16.1 36.1

As“. 9 5700‘ 7.1 27.8

65

Soil group No. of sample Range Average (ppm)
ATL: 28 56.5- 5.5 22.5
BY! 8 43.0-14.5 21.0
RI 8 “2.6-17.0 29.2

As indicated above. the average values of Bray's No.1
extractable P at a soil/solution ratio of 1:50 varied from a
high of 36.1 ppm for the ASc soil group to a low of 21.0 ppm
for the R! soil group. On the basis of these data. and the
regression analysis of the 8 field experiments which showed
response to P application. it seem logical to reduce the amount
of P that is currently recommended. Fifty to 75 kg/ha of P205
may well serve as a middle of the range recommendation.

The % of P rapidly adsorbed on the R soil averaged h6.1$
(Table 11). The values of the other soil groups studied were
much less than in the R soil. Thus it appears likely that
more P should be added to an R soil for optimum growth. An
upper limit of 100-125 kg/ha P205 is recommended.

Soil moisture condition will influence the rate of P
difussion to plant roots. In order to make P use more effi-
cient on these soils with favorable ground water supplies.
more P should be applied to the soils with a good natural
moisture condition. The ATL soil group was the lowest in
available P and the f of P rapidly adsorbed. Therefore the
high rate of 100-125 kg/ha of P205 is recommended for the ATL
soil with natural moisture conditions in the aob and aoc classes.

66

 

The proposed P fertiliser recommendations for sugarcane
on TSC's plantations are summarized in Table 12.

Symbols used in Table 12 denoting natural moisture con-
ditions of Taiwan sugarcane soils are proposed by the author
as an important parameter for classifying TSC's soils into

soil management groups. It may be summarized as follows:

Coarse ledium, Pine
texture texture texture Sygbol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ground (good 80-100 100-140 120-150 on so
J ...... J
(good fair 100-130 140-180 150-200 a1
supply
(condition kpoor > 130 > 180 >200 a2
{ground (good 60-90 80-120 100-130 b
Natural
water
drainage fair< (fair - - - -
supply
condition
.condition~poor - - - -
[ground (good < 60 < 80 < 100 c
water
poor< Jfair - - - -
\ supply
Loondition poor - - - -

‘__

67

WW OM‘Q 0.0 **

om.a mo caves soavsaom 0» Adam a pm wasvomapxe «.02 m.»snm no women a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...... .3 A 3.3 manna om V «a .m
0
1|! I I 0 d
RA me e... we 3 3 v To. 5.:
m. :2
3A mmuem 3-3 3 V ...... new”
one .qa<
Odd
3A oeufln 8.8. cm V ...... we a
n m . m4
--unu-------Hmum-------mmume------menmm------mmmw--- em.
an ant; glow MN ...... A DH” .03
3 A 3.3 onus... om V 3.. emu .m
*smfioavdvcoo
ensvmaos a
cane mmuom omuma mmuoofl oofi-m~a Aeg\mav

   

    

  

escapee

N *Aaggvom
fiICEESOOOH mo m

Hacm

 

 

 

 

macavmpsmaa m.oma so osmoaswsm new meowpmumcESocoa m .N« canoe

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Fourty one soil samples. representing six major soil
groups were selected from TSC's plantations for a 15 month
sugarcane pot culture experiment. The purpose was to inves-
tigate the availability of P in the soil as related to forms
of P. P fractions were determined before and after cropping.
Except in the R soils. Al—P represented the smallest quantity
of P considered in these studies. The Al-P in the R group of
soils also was present in the narrowest range-~15.6 to 31.8
ppm. The quantity of each form of P removed from the soil by
sugarcane varied with the soil group. Al-P was the form removed
in the least amount ranging from 3.b ppm to 8.0 ppm. However.
if the amount of Al-P removed is expressed in f of the ori-
ginal Al-P content. Al-P becomes the greatest amount removed
by cropping with sugarcane. The averaged value for the six
soil groups was 25.4%.

A secondary important source of P taken up by sugarcane
was Fe-P which averaged 20.4% for the six soil groups. The
Fe-P was most abundant in the RY soil. the highest removable
fl occurred in R soils.

Ca-P was also removed by cropping and averaged 13.2f.
Although the average levels of Ca-P in R and RY soil groups
were lower than in the other soil groups. the percentage of
Ca-P removed by cropping was highest in the two strongly

68

69

weathered soil groups.

In the RI soils. the Red-P was most abundant. The high-
est 5 of Red-P removed by sugarcane occurred in the R soil
group. On the average. 13.5% of the Red-P was removed by one
cropping.

If the amounts of Ca-P and Fe-P are expressed as a fi of
total P removed. the Ca-P was removed in largest amount from
the calcareous soils and the Fe-P from the acid soil.

Clearly. all of the four forms of P are important in
sugarcane production. The Al-P and Fe-P are no doubt the most
important sources of P utilised by sugarcane.

Two crop years of field experiments at #7 locations in-
volving six widely distributed major soil groups were studied
from 1970 to 1972 in order to correlate extractable soil P
with sugarcane yields. The extractants used in this study
were:

(1) 0.5N NH“? at pH 7.2

(2) 0.5N NH“? at pH 8.2

(3) Bray's No.1 at soil/solution ratios of 1:7. 1:10.

1:20. 1:30. 1:40. and 1050

(h) Bray's No.2

(5) Olsen

(6) Resin adsorption (not in use for the soils of field

experiments).

Correlation analysis demonstrated that the Bray's No.1

7O

extractant at a soil/solution ratio of 1:50 was highly cor-
related with sugarcane yield or % yield at the 0.1% and 15
levels of significance in pot tests and field experiments.
respectively. The results of these investigation are in
agreement with previous work which suggested that when a
dilute acid-fluoride solution is used at a high extraction
volume ratio. it extracts Al-P. Pe-P as well as Ca-P. This
improved the correlation between extractable P and yield
responses. Therefore. the Bray's No.1 extractant at a soil/
solution ratio of 1:50 is proposed as the best testing method
for evaluating the P status in the soil of Taiwan's sugarcane
fields. This is important because not all soils are deficient
in P. Of those #7 field experiments. only 8 showed a sta-
tistically significant yield response to P fertilisation.
(Twenty four soil samples from TSC's farms (including 19
samples which were also used for pot tests and field experi-
ments) were selected to determine the relatively rapid P-
fixing capacity of soils. For the acid soils 33.7fi of the
total P added as fertiliser was rapidly adsorbed. The same
value for the alkaline soils was 25.0%. The R soil group had
the highest P-fixing capacity. The ATL soil group had the
lowest. ‘An adjustable rate of P fertilisation has been re-
commended for these soils with high rapid P-fixing capacity.
P fertiliser recommendations for sugarcane on TSC's

plantations are proposed on the basis of three factors. Soil

71

test levels for P represent the intensity factor. The ma-
tural moisture condition of the soils are related to P
availability represents the rate factor. And the rapid P-
fixing capacity of soils represents the capacity factor. In
order to produce the best P fertiliser recommendations. all

three factors should be recognised.

LITERATURE CITED

Al-Abbas. A.R. and S.A. Barber. 196#. A soil test for
phosphorus based upon fractionation of soil phosphorus:
I. correlation of soil phosphorus fraction with plant-
available phosphorus. SSSAP 28:218-221.

Amer. P.. D.R. Bouldin. C.A. Black and P.R. Duke. 1955.
Charaterisation of soil phosphorus by anion exchange
resin adsorption and P z-equiiibration. Plant .5 Soil
VI. 110391-6108.

 

Anderson. l.S. and W.N. Noble. 1937. Comparison of various
ggemiggl quick tests on different soils. U.S.D.A. Misc.
b. 9.

Avnimelech. 1.. and J. Hagin. 1965. Phosphorus fixation as
a transfer controlled phenomenon. SSSAP 29:394-396.

Baker. 0.3. and J.K. Hall. 1967. leasurements of phosphorus
availability in acid soils of Pennsylvania.
SSSAP 31:662-667. .

Bass. G.B. and 0.3. Sieling. 1950. Method for determining
relative phosphate-fixing capacity of acid soils.
Soil Sci. 69:269-280.

Beckwith. P.A.. 196k. Sorbed phosphate at standard superna-
‘tant concentration as an estimate of the phosphate needs
of soils. Aust. J. Expt. Agr. and An. Hush. 5:52-58.

Bhangoo. M.S. and F.W. Smith. 1957. Fractionation of phos-
phorus in Kansas soils and its significance in response
of wheat to phosphate fertilisers. Agron. J. h9:35h-358.

Binghgm. F.T. 19h9. Soil test for phosphate. Calf. Agr.
8

Bradfield. R. 1961. A quarter century in soil fertility re-
search and a glimpse into the future. SSSAP 25:“39-hh2.

Bray. R.H. and S.R. Dickman. 19fll. Adsorbed phosphates in
soils and their relation to crop responses.
SSSAP 6:312-320.

Bray. R.H. and L.T. Karts. 1945. Determination of total.

organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils.
$011 $01. 59139-“5.

72

73

Bray. R.H. 1929. A field test for available phosphorus in
soils. Illinois Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 33?.

Breland. H.L. and F.A. Sierra. 1962. A comparison of the
amounts of phosphorus removed from different soils by
various extractants. SSSAP 26:348-350.

Caro. J.H. and W.L. Hill. 1956. Cetermination of surface
area of dicalcium phosphate by isotope exchange.
J. Agr. Food Chem. u.u36.u33.

Chang. 8.0. and M.L. Jackson. 1957. Fractionation of soil
phosphorus. Soil Sci. 89:133-1hu.

Chang. 8.0. and S.R. Juo. 1963. Available phosphorus in
rglatiog to forms of phosphate in soils. ‘Soil Sci.
9 .91-? e ,

Chang. 8.0. and P.H. Liaw. 1962. Separation of.Al-P from
Pe-P in soils. Science 136:386. ,

Chao. T.T. 1952. Studies on the soil fertility of Taiwan
sugarcane fields II Soil fertility survey of sugarcane
fields. Rep. Taiwan Sugar Exp. Sta. 8:83-132.

Chao. T.T. 1972. The significance and importance of alu-
rmimum and iron oxides in the soils to the soil chemistry
and soil fertility. Agr. Sci. 20 (1.2):137-197. Taipei.
Ta wan.

Chiang. C.C. 1965. Unpublish data in Chinese.

Chirikov. F.V. and V.V. Volkova. 19#5. The availability to
plants of different forms of soil phosphate. (Abstract)
Soils & Fertilisers 8:78-79.

Cho. C.M. and A.C. Caldwell. 1959. Forms of phosphorus and
fixation in soils. SSSAP 23:#58-#60.

Chu. W.K. and 8.0. Chang. 1960. Forms of phosphorus in the
.soils of Taiwan. J. of the Society of Chinese Agron.
Vol. 30:1-12. .

Das. S. 1933. An improved method for determhnation of avai-
lable phosphoric acid of soil. Soil Sci. 30:33.

Dean. L.A. 1938. An attempted fractionation of the soil
phosphorus. J. Agr. Sci. 28:23h-2h6.

74

Dean. L.A. 1938. Distribution of the forms of soil phos-
phorus. SSSAP 2:223-228.

Dickman. S.R. and R.H. Bray. 1990. Colorimetric determi-
nation of phosphate. Ing. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed.
12:665-668.

Dunbar. A.D. and D.E. Bake. 1965. Use of isotopic dilution
in study of inorganic phosphorus fractions from differ-
ent soils. SSSAP 29:259-262. '

Ellis. B.G. 1973. The soil as a chemical filter. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. J. Artical No. 6020.

Fife. C.V. 1959. An evaluation of ammonium fluoride as a
selective extractant for Al-beund soil phosphate I.
greléménary studies on non-soil system. Soil Sci.

7.1 " 1e .

Fife. C.V. 1959. An evaluation of ammonium fluoride as a
selective extractant for Al-bound soil phosphate.
II.Preliminary studies on soils. Soil Sci. 87:83-88.

Fife. C.V. 1962. An evaluation of ammonium fluoride as a
selective extractant for Al-bound soil phosphate.
III. Detailed studies on selected soils. Soil Sci.

93:113-123.

Fife. C.V. 1963. An evaluation of ammonium fluoride as a
selective extractant for Al-bcund soil phosphate.
IV. Detailed studies on soils. Soil Sci. 96:112-120.

Fiskell. J.G.A. and W.F. Spencer. 196k. Forms of phosphate
in Lakeland fine sand after six years of heavy phos-
phate and lime application. Soil Sci. 97:320-327.

Fox. R.L. and E.J. Kamprath. 1970. Phosphate sorption
isotherms for evaluating the phosphate requirements of
soils. SSSAP 39:902-907.

Fried. M. and R.E. Shapiro. 1256. Phosphate supply of vari-
ous soils. SSSAP 20:471- 75.

Ghani. M.0. and M.A. Islam. 1996. Phosphate fixation in
acid soils and its mechanism. Soil Sci. 62:293-306.

Griffin. G.F. and R.E. Lorton. 1970. Phosphorus availabi-
lity on two soils as determined by several methods.
Agron. J. 62:336-341.

75

Henley. K. 1962. Soil phosphorus forms and their availa-
bility to plants. Irish J. Agr. Res. 1:192-193.

Hemwell. J.B. 1957. The fixation of phosphorus by soils.
Adv. Agron. 9:96-112.

Hester. J.B. 1934. Micro-chemical soil tests in connection
with vegetable crop production. 'Virginia Truck Exp.
8“. 3m. 82.

Hockensmith. R.D.. R. Gardner. and J. Goodwin. 1933. Com-
parison of methods for estimating available phosphorus
in alkaline calcareous soils. Colo. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Tech. Bull. 2:3-2h.

Hsu. P.H. 1964. Adsorption of hosphate by aluminum.and
iron in soils. SSSAP 28:”? -h78.

Humbert. R.P. 1955. Field experimentation to correlate soil
and plant analysis with yields of cane and sugar.
Hawaiian Planter's Record. 55:129-136.

Hutton. R.G. and P.H. Nye. 1958. The rapid determination of
the 1major nutrient elements in plants. J. Sci. Food Agr.
9.7- e

Jackson. H.L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall
Inc. «

Juo. A.S.R. and B.G. Ellis. 1968. Chemical and physical pro-
perties of iron and aluminum phosphates and their relation
to phosphate availability. SSSAP 32:216-221.

Khanna. P.K. 1967. Inorganic soil phosphate fractions as
related to soil test values by common methods. Plant and
Soil XXVI No.2 277-284.

Lai. T.M. and F.W. Lee. 1991. The mechanisum of K fixation
in some Taiwan sugarcane soils. Res. Rep.. Taiwan

Sugar Exp. Sta. 5:109-120.

Lai. T.H. 1970. A new approach to our phos horus problel.
Ann. Rep. Hawaiian Sugar Technologists 1970).

Larson. S. 1967. Soil phosphorus. Adv. Agron. 19:151-210.

Liebig. J. Von. 1890. Organic chemistry in its application
to agriculture and physiology. Playfair. London. England.

76

Mackenzie. A.F. 1962. Inorganic soil phosphorus fractions
of some Ontario soils as studied using isotopic exchange
and solubility criteria. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 92:150-15 .

Manning. P.B. and M. Salomon. 1965. Forms of phophorus in
soil after long-continued fertilisation. SSSAP 29:921-h23.

Martin. W.E. and J.R. Buchanan. 1950. Phosphate test for
grain land. Calif. Agr. 4:7-12.

Martin. W.E. and 0.8. Mikkelsen. 1960. Grain fertilisation
in California. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 775.

Matt . G.E.G. and 0. Talibudeen. 1967. Progress in che-
m stry of fertility and soil phosphorus. In "Tropics in
phosphorus chemistry“ (M. Graysen and E.J. Griffin. Ed).
V01. ”8157-290.

Mehlich. A. 1953. Determination of phosphorus. calcium.
magnesium. potassium. sodium and ammonium.by North Caro-
lina soil test laboratories. North Carolina State
Uni.. Raleigh. mimeo report)

Melsted. S.R. 1967. Growth curves and soil test correlation.
Uni. of Illinois (mimeo)

Morgan. M.F. 1932. Microchemical soil tests. Connecticut
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 333.

Morgan. M.F. 1935. The universal soil testing system.
Trans. 3rd. Intern. Congr. Soil Sci. 1:103.

Nelson. N.L.. A. Mehlich and E. Winters. 1953. The develop-
ment. evaluation and use of soil tests for phosphorus
availability. Agron. #:153-188.

Olsen. S.R. 1952. Measurement of surface phosphate on hydro-
xy-apatite and phosphate rock with radiophosphorus.

Olsen. S.R.. C.V. Cole. F.S. Watanabe and L.A. Dean. 1959.
Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction
with sodium biocarbonate. U.S.D.A. Ciro. 939.

Olsen. S.R. and F.S. Watanabe. 1957. A method to determine
a phosphorus adsorption maximum of soils as measured by
the Langmuir isotherm. SSSAP 21:1hh-149.

Osanne. P.G. and T.C. Shaw. 1968. Advantages of the recently
developed phosphate sorption test over the older extrac-
tant methods for soil phosphate. Int. Cong. Soil Sci..
Trans. 9th. 2:273-280.

77

Peech. M. and L. English. 1999. Rapid micro-chemical soil
test. Soil Sci. 57:167-195.

Petersen. G.W. and R.B. Corey. 1966. A modified Chang and
Jackson procedure for routine fractionation inorganic
phosphates. SSSAP 30:563-565.

Pons. W.A. and J.D. Guthrie. 1946. Determination of inor-
ganic phophorus in plant materials. Ind. Eng. Chem.

Pratt. T.R. and M.J. Gerber. 196k. Correlations of phos-
phorus availability by chemical test with inorganic
phosphorus fractions. SSSAP 28:23-26.

Rennie. D.A. and R.B. Meckercher. 1959. Adsorption of
phosphorus by four Saskatchewan soils. Can. J. Soil
$01. 39 . “-750

Russell. R.S.. J.B. Rickson and S.N. Adams. 1959. Isotopic
equilibria between phosphates in soil. and their signi-
f canoe in the assessment of fertility by tracer methods.
J. Soil Sci. 5:85-105.

Shelton. J.E. and N.T. Coleman. 1968. Inorganic phosphorus
fractions and their relationship to residual value of
large application of phosphorus on high phosphorus fix-
ing soils. SSSAP 32:91-9 .

Singh. D. 1969. Equilibrium concentrations of inorganic
phosphorus and adsorbed phosphorus in soils. Ph.D.
Thesis. Dept. of Soil Science. MSU.

Smith. A.N. 1965. The supply of soluble phosphorus to wheat
géagtnfgog inorganic soil phosphorus. Plant and Soil
. 1 - 1 0

Smith. A.N. 1965. Aluminum and iron phosphates in soils.
J. Ast. Inst. Agri. Sci. 31:110-126.

Smith. F. W.. B.G. Ellis and J. Grava. 1957. Use of acid
fluoride solutions for the extraction of available
phosphorus in calcareous soils and in soils to which
rock phosphate has been added. SSSAP 21:900-h09.

Spurway. C.H. 1933. Soil testing: a practical system of
soil diagnosis. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 132.

78

Susuki. A.. K. Lawton and E.O. Dell. 1963. Phosphorus up-
take and soil tests as related to forms of phosphorus in
some Mich. soil. SSSAP 27:401-403.

Tandon. H.L.S. 1969. Fluoride-extractable aluminum in soils:
1. Its relation to fluoride-extractable phosphorus.
$011 $01. 108:397-401.

Tandon. H.L.S. 1970. Fluoride-extractable aluminum in soils:
II. As an index of phosphate retention by soils. Soil
$01. 109.13-18e

Talibudeen. 0. 1957. Isotopically exchangeable phosphorus
in soils. J. Soil Sci. 8:86-96.

Taylor. A.W. and E.L. Gurney. 1962. Phosphate equilibria in
an acid soil. J. of Soil Sci. Vol.13 No.2 187-197.

Thompson. E.J.. A.L.F. Oliveira. U.S. loser. and C.A. Black.
1960. Evaluation of laboratory indexes of absorption of
soil phosphorus by plants. II. Plant and Soil 13:28-38.

Tisdale. S.L. and W.L. Nelson. 1956. Soil fertility and
fertilisers. The Macmillan Company. N.T.

Truog. E. 1930. The determination of the readilg available.
phosphorus in soils. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 22: 74-882.

Turner. R.C. and H.M. Rice. 1952. Role of the fluoride ion
in release of phosphate adsorbed by aluminum and iron
hydroxides. Soil Sci. 74:141-148.

Volk. V.V. and E.O. McLean. 1963. The fate of applied phos-
phorus in four Ohio soils. SSSAP 27:53-57.

Watanan. F.S. and S.R. Olsen. 1962. Colorimetric determina-
téonegflggosphorus in water extracts of soil. Soil Sci.
9 ' " e

Nelch. L.F. and C.M. Wilson. 1957. The correlation of soil
Shongoggg with yields of Ladino clover. SSSAP
. "' e

Whitney. R.S. and R. Gardner. 1936. Notes on estimating
available phosphorus by extracting soils with a potassium
carbonate solution. Soil Sci. 41:33.

Wild. A. 1950. The retention of phosphate by soil. A review.
J. 5011 $61. 1.221-238.

79

Williams. J.D.H.. J.K. Syers. and T.R. Walker. 1967.
Fractionation of soil inorganic phosphate by a modi-
fication of Chang and Jackson procedure. SSSAP
31:736-739.

Woodruff. J.R. and E.J. Kamprath. 1965. Phosphorus
adsorption maximum as measured by the Langmuir isotherm
33d igs1§elationship to phosphorus availability. SSSAP

'1 "' 0e

Yuan. T.L.. W.K. Robertson. and J.B. Neller. 1960. Form of
newly fixed phosphorus in three acid sandy soils.
SSSAP 24:447-450.