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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (33) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alva, A.K. Articles by Paramasivam, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Alva, A.K. Articles by Paramasivam, S. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Alva, A.K. Articles by Paramasivam, S.

Soil pH Affects Copper Fractionation and Phytotoxicity

^a USDA-ARS-PWA, 24106 N. Bunn Rd., Prosser, WA 99350 USA
^b Institute of Soil Science, Academia Sinica, Nanjing, 210008, People's Republic of China
^c Univ. of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Citrus Research and Education Center, 700 Experiment Station Rd., Lake Alfred, FL 33850 USA

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Concentrations of different chemical forms of Cu in three soils with different rates of Cu amendments as CuSO4 · 5H2O. Readily soluble fraction = (exchangeable + sorbed) forms

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Relative distribution of total Cu into different chemical forms. The similar letters on the top of histograms for each Cu rate within each Cu form indicate that the mean values are not significantly different according to Duncan Multiple Range test at P 0.05. Readily soluble fraction = (exchangeable + sorbed) forms

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Relationship between the concentration of precipitate Cu and rates of Cu. The r2 value followed by *** indicates significance of the regression at P 0.001

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Dry weights of leaves, stem, and roots of Swingle citrumelo seedlings as influenced by various rates of Cu additions. The significance of the regression at P 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 is shown by *, **, and ***, respectively

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Relative dry weights of Swingle citrumelo rootstock seedling tops or roots in relation to concentration of readily soluble Cu. The significance of the regression at P 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 is shown by *, **, and ***, respectively

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Copper concentrations in the leaves of Swingle citrumelo rootstock seedlings as a function of total Cu measured in three soils with different pH which received various rates of Cu amendment. The significance of the regression at P 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 is shown by *, **, and ***, respectively

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Copper concentrations in the roots of Swingle citrumelo rootstock seedlings as a function of total Cu measured in three soils with different pH which received various rates of Cu amendment. The significance of the regression at P 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 is shown by *, **, and ***, respectively

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8 Relative dry weights of tops and roots as a function of Cu concentration in the leaves and roots, respectively, of Swingle citrumelo rootstock seedlings. The significance of the regression at P 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 is shown by *, **, and ***, respectively