HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sharpe, R. R. Articles by Parks, W. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Sharpe, R. R. Articles by Parks, W. L. Agricola Articles by Sharpe, R. R. Articles by Parks, W. L.

A Comparative Evaluation of Three Tests for Determining Plant-Available Manganese in Soils¹

Amounts of manganese extracts from soil by three well-known methods were compared to each other and to soil levels of Ca, P, Fe, and K and soil pH. Seventy-one soil samples, representing seven soil series, which are members of either the Ultisol or Alfisol orders, were used in the comparisons of soil extraction procedures. The average amount of soil Mn extracted by each procedure was determined for each soil series. The correlations among extractants were very high and the Mehlich-1 procedure extracted three to four times more Mn than the DTPA procedure and five to six times more than the NH₄0Ac procedure. As the pH of a soil decreased, the amount of extractable Mn increased. The relationship between the Mehlich-1 procedure and pH was less than between the other extractants and pH.

Plant samples were collected in conjunction with the soil samples and soil Mn as determined by each method was correlated with plant concentrations. Correlations between plant Mn and soil Mn indicates that the Mehlich-1 extractant may not be as reliable as the NH₄0Ac or DTPA extractants because the correlations between Mehlich-1 extractable Mn and Mn in cotton and corn plants were poor.

Key Words: Mehlich-1 • DTPA • Ammonium acetate • pH

² Formerly graduate research assistant and professor, respectively, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37916.

Received for publication January 25, 1982.