Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T21:43:36.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further insights into why potassium fertility is a paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2015

S.A. Khan ,
R.L. Mulvaney  and
T.R. Ellsworth
S.A. Khan*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
R.L. Mulvaney
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
T.R. Ellsworth
Affiliation:
West Hills Community College District, Coalinga, CA 93210, USA.
*
* Corresponding author: potassiumparadox@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For many years, crop potassium (K) availability has been estimated by soil testing the plow layer for exchangeable K, in conjunction with potassium chloride fertilization widely promoted as an essential prerequisite for ensuring crop yield and quality. As rigorously documented in our paper, both components of chemical-based K management are seriously flawed by the lack of a scientific basis. Under the pretext of providing economic benefit for the producer and a healthy food supply for the public at large, the real purpose is to generate revenue for the fertilizer industry.

Keywords

soil K testingKClpotash fertilizerprofitabilityCd bioaccumulation

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 120 - 123
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Bar-Yosef, B., Magen, H., Johnston, A.E., and Kirkby, E.A. 2014. Potassium fertilization: Paradox or K management dilemma? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (submitted).Google Scholar
2 Khan, S.A., Mulvaney, R.L., and Ellsworth, T.R. 2014. The potassium paradox: Implications for soil fertility, crop production and human health. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29:3–27. Available at Web site http://journals-cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9158313&fileId=S1742170513000318 (verified June 30, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Johnston, A.E., Warren, R.G., and Penny, A. 1970. The value of residues from long-period manuring at Rothamsted and Woburn V. The value to arable crops of residues accumulated from potassium fertilisers. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1969. Part 2. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Harpenden, Herts, England. p. 69–90.Google Scholar
4 Li, G.D., Helyar, K.R., Conyers, M.K., Cregan, P.D., Cullis, B.R., Poile, G.J., Fisher, R.P., and Castleman, L.J.C. 2001. Potassium deficiency and its management in a long-term rotation experiment in the south-western slopes New South Wales. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41:497–505.Google Scholar
5 Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J.A. 2012. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature (London) 490:254–257.Google Scholar
6 Chen, Y., Banin, A., and Borochovitch, A. 1983. Effect of potassium on soil structure in relation to hydraulic conductivity. Geoderma 30:135–147.Google Scholar
7 Levy, G.J. and Torrento, J.R. 1995. Clay dispersion and macroaggregate stability as affected by exchangeable potassium and sodium. Soil Science 160:352–358.Google Scholar
8 Quirk, J.P. and Schofield, R.K. 1955. The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil permeability. Journal of Soil Science 6:163–178.Google Scholar
9 Elgabaly, M.M. and Elghamry, W.M. 1970. Water permeability and stability of kaolinite systems as influenced by adsorbed cation rato. Soil Science 110:107–110.Google Scholar
10 Levy, G.J. and van der Watt, H.v.H. 1990. Effect of exchangeable potassium on the hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate of some South African soils. Soil Science 149:69–77.Google Scholar
11 Bray, R.H. 1944. Soil–plant relations I. The quantitative relation of exchangeable potassium to crop yields and to crop response to potash additions. Soil Science 58:305–324.Google Scholar
12 Peck, T.R. 1995. Spatial variability of soil pH, phosphorus and potassium in two Illinois fields in relation to crop yields. In Hoeft, R.G. (ed.). 1995 Illinois Fertilizer Conference Proceedings. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. p. 1–15. Available at Web site http://frec.ifca.com/1995/report1/index.htm (verified June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
13 Fernández, F.G. and Hoeft, R.G. 2009. Managing soil pH and crop nutrients. In Nafziger, E. (ed.). Illinois Agronomy Handbook. 24th ed. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. p. 91–112. Available at Web site http://extension.cropsci.illinois.edu/handbook/pdfs/chapter08.pdf (verified June 30, 2014).Google Scholar
14 Brown, W.W. 1950–1963. Commercial Fertilizer Year Book. Walter W. Brown, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
15 Illinois Department of Agriculture. 1964–2012. Illinois Commercial Fertilizer Tonnage Report. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Springfield, IL. Available since 2004 at Web site http://www.agr.state.il.us/programs/fert2/ (verified July 9, 2014).Google Scholar
16 Mengel, K. 2007. Potassium. In Barker, A.V. and Pilbeam, D.J. (eds). Handbook of Plant Nutrition. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL. p. 91–120.Google Scholar
17 United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov (verified July 9, 2014).Google Scholar
18 Illinois Agricultural Statistics. 2014. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Available at Web site http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu/aces_dli/statistics/index.html (verified July 9, 2014).Google Scholar