SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 4 August 2005
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1507-1515 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0285
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kimsey, M.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kimsey, M., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, J.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kimsey, M.
Right arrow Articles by Moore, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Forest Soils
Right arrow Sulfur
Right arrow Volcanic Soils

Fate of Applied Sulfate in Volcanic Ash-Influenced Forest Soils

Mark Kimsey, Jr.a,*, Paul McDanielb, Dan Strawnb and Jim Moorea

a Dep. of Forest Resources, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1133
b Soil and Land Resources Division, Dep. of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339



View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Locations of 19 plots investigated for andic properties and SO4 adsorption–desorption patterns within the Inland Northwest, USA.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. NaF pH dependence on poorly crystalline minerals (%Alo + 0.5%Feo) in sampled regional forest soils. Solid symbols represent research plots and open symbols represent comparison soils. The line shown is the best-fit linear relationship to the research plot data.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Sulfate adsorption isotherms for initial solution concentrations of 0.52, 1.04, 2.08, 4.17, and 8.33 mmol SO4 L–1. Closed symbols distinguish selected research soils and open symbols comparison soils.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Sulfate adsorption as a function of the andic parameter %Alo + 0.5%Feo for sampled soils. Initial SO4 concentration was 2.08 mmol L–1. Solid lines represent the best-fit linear relationship for the two separate data populations, accompanied by their respective coefficient of determination.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Sulfate adsorption as a function of PO4 retention capacity based on the New Zealand P retention test. Initial solution concentrations for SO4 and PO4 were 2.08 mmol L–1 and 10.53 mmol L–1, respectively. Solid lines represent the best-fit linear relationship for the two separate data populations, accompanied by their respective coefficient of determination.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Sulfate adsorption as a function of NaF pH for sampled soils. Initial solution concentration was 2.08 SO4 mmol L–1. Solid lines represent the best-fit linear relationship for the two separate data populations, accompanied by their respective coefficient of determination.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Sulfate quantities adsorbed and desorbed for selected soils. Values are the mean of three replicates. Letters indicate significant differences in quantities of SO4 retained and released ({alpha} = 0.05).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2005 by the Soil Science Society of America.