Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: Distribution of macro and micro elements in some soils of peninsular Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015108/00001
 Material Information
Title: Distribution of macro and micro elements in some soils of peninsular Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 31 p. : map ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Rogers, L. H ( Lewis Henry ), 1910-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1939
 Subjects
Subject: Soils -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 23-24).
Statement of Responsibility: by L.H. Rogers ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00015108
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA7560
ltuf - AEN5198
oclc - 18214784
alephbibnum - 000924571
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Full Text


December, 1939


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
WILMON NEWELL, Director






DISTRIBUTION OF

MACRO AND MICRO ELEMENTS

IN SOME SOILS OF

PENINSULAR FLORIDA


By

L. H. ROGERS, O. E. GALL,
L. W. GADDUM and R. M. BARNETTE






TECHNICAL BULLETIN






Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 341










EXECUTIVE STAFF
John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of
the University3
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Directors
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asst. Dir., Research
V. V. Bowman, M.S.A., Asst. to the Director
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor'
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, Business Managers
Rachel McQuarrie, Accountant3


MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
AGRONOMY
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist1
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist3
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Associate2
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Assistant
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman' 3
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
L. M. Thurston, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Asso. in An. Nutrition
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman3
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husbandmans
R. M. Crown, M.S.A., Asst. in An. Hush."
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Assistant Dairy
Husbandman3
L. L. Rusoff, M.S., Asst. in An. Nutritions
CHEMISTRY AND SOILS
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Chemist a3
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologists
G. Volk, M.S., Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
J. Russell Henderson, M.S.A., Associate3
L. H. Rogers, M.S., Asso. Biochemist
Richard A. Carrigan, B.S., Asst. Chemist
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist'
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant
ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist1
Ruth Overstreet. R.N., Assistant
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist1
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturists
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Specialist, Fumigation
Research
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist1 3
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologists
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Assistant Botanist


BOARD OF CONTROL
R. P. Terry, Chairman, Miami
Thomas W. Bryant, Lakeland
W. M. Palmer, Ocala
H. P. Adair, Jacksonville
Chas. P. Helfenstein, Live Oak
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee

BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist Acting in
Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent
V. E. Whitehurst, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
Michael Peech, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Asso. Entomologist
W. W. Lawless, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
Frederick Boyd, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asst, An. Husbandman
W. T. Forsee, Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Engineers
SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Horticulturist Acting in
Charge
S. J. Lynch, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
W. CENTRAL FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
W. F. Ward, M.S., Asst. An. Husbandman
in Charge2

FIELD STATIONS
Leesburg
M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Pant Pathologist in
Charge
K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Cocoa
A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Monticello
Samuel O. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2
Bradenton
Jos. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Truck Horticul-
turist in Charge
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
Sanford
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge,
Celery Investigations
W. B. Shippy, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Lakeland
E. S. Ellison, Meteorologist2
B. H. Moore, A.B., Asst. Meteorologist2
'Head of Department.
2In cooperation with U.S.D.A.
3Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
'On leave.









DISTRIBUTION OF MACRO AND MICRO ELEMENTS
IN SOME SOILS OF PENINSULAR FLORIDA

By
L. H. ROGERS, O. E. GALL,
L. W. GADDUM and R. M. BARNETTE1

CONTENTS
PAGE
LOCATION OF AREAS SAMPLED ... ............................. .............................. 6
SoIn TYPES SAM PLED ................................................................................... 7
M ETHOD OF SAMPLING ............................... ......... ........................... ............ 7
PREPARATION OF SAMPLES .................................. ............ ... --.. ............ 8
M ETHODS OF ANALYSIS .......................................... ............ ............. 9
Chemical Procedure ................................ ......... ........... 9
Spectrographic Procedure -..............................................................- 10
ANALYTICAL RESULTS ...................................... ---..................... ----........- 11
DISCUSSION OF MACRO ELEMENTS .................................................. 11
DISCUSSION OF M ICRO ELEMENTS ......................... ..................... ........... 17
GENERAL D ISCUSSION ................................................................................... 21
SU M M ARY .................................................................. ................................... 22
L ITERATURE C ITED .......................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX (TABLES OF INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES) ................................... 25

INTRODUCTION
The analysis of soils has developed hand in hand with the
advances made in chemistry. Thus chemical analysis was used
at an early date to assist in the characterization of soils as well
as in the study of that elusive but, to the agriculturist, practical
property, soil fertility. Various means of approach and ana-
lytical methods have been used with different degrees of success
in these studies.
It was long thought that the essential nutrients which plants
obtained from either the air or the soil were carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, mag-
nesium and iron, and it is for certain of these macro elements2
that soil analyses are usually made.
However, the occurrence of other elements in plant and animal
organisms has been noted from time to time, and up to the
present 55 of the 92 known elements have been detected (19)3.
It appears fairly well established that certain of the micro
elements, particularly boron, copper, manganese and zinc, are
indispensable for the normal growth of some if not all plants (3).
Of the other elements which have been detected in plant tissues,
such as strontium, titanium, cobalt, and others, it has not been

'Gall, formerly assistant in Department of Chemistry; Gaddum, form-
erly biochemist; Barnette deceased, formerly chemist-all at this Station.
2Macro elements are arbitrarily defined as those elements which were
determined chemically and micro elements as those determined spectro-
graphically in the work reported here.
'Italic figures in parentheses refer to "Literature Cited" on page 23.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


fully determined whether their occurrence is purely adventitious
or whether it is indicative of a physiologic role.
The importance of micro elements in Florida agriculture has
been repeatedly indicated by favorable responses obtained in
treatments with boron, manganese, copper, zinc and cobalt under
practical conditions. Whether or not these plant and animal
responses indicate actual deficiencies of these elements in the
soil has not as yet been fully established. If the micro elements
are properly to be considered in the formulation of economic
fertilizer programs for specific soils and crops, it would there-
fore seem pertinent to learn something of the micro element
content of Florida soils. Studies at the Florida Experiment
Station on the function of the micro elements in plant and animal
metabolism have very definitely indicated that a more thorough
knowledge of the composition of soils, soil amendments,- plants
and animals might be of considerable assistance in attacking
the many problems of plant and animal nutrition.
Furthermore, total analyses are of value for the characteriza-
tion of the soil and for furnishing something of an inventory
of the total plant nutrients present. In this latter connection
it is of course important to keep clearly in mind the difference
between "total" and "available" elements as they exist in
the soil.
Accordingly, as a preliminary step in the study of the prob-
lems referred to above, the work reported in this bulletin was
undertaken to supply data on the distribution of various macro
and micro elements in certain virgin and cultivated soils of
central Florida.
Standard methods of chemical analysis are suited for the
determination of the total amounts of elements such as nitrogen,
silicon, calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, iron, alum-
inum, and others, in the soil, but have not been so widely used
for the determination of the micro elements (sometimes called
trace or minor elements). This is due to the fact that the
chemical separations usually necessary for their identification
and estimation frequently involve possibilities either of con-
tamination from the reagents and apparatus employed, or loss
of the element in the course of the procedure. Moreover, since
the procedures involved in micro-chemical methods are often
time-consuming, the element of cost becomes an important
factor.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


The spectrographic method for the determination of the micro
elements in agricultural and other materials has received im-
petus in recent years through constructive research in the field
of spectrography. At the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station several studies (6, 13, 14, 15) have been conducted using
this method to detect, estimate or determine the micro elements
in agricultural materials.
Since spectrographic methods offer certain advantages over
chemical methods for the detection and estimation of the micro
elements, they have been used in this study in the examination
of soil samples for zinc, strontium, barium, vanadium, chromium,
manganese, titanium, copper, tin, lead, boron, thallium, lithium,
caesium, yttrium, tungsten, lanthanum, cobalt, zirconium, nickel,
silver, cadmium, molybdenum, beryllium, bismuth, antimony, and
arsenic. Where these elements were detected an estimation of
the total amounts present in the sample was made.
The results of the chemical and spectrographic determinations
of the total quantities of the elements which are now known
to be essential for healthy plant growth, or which may later
be found to be either essential or detrimental to plant growth,
must be considered (along with other factors) as a means of
characterizing the soil and as an inventory of their distribution
in the soil. Such analyses, as already noted, cannot be con-
sidered, without reservations, as representing the quantities of
the elements available to the plant. In other words, a soil may
contain a relatively large supply of a given element and yet
because of some physical or chemical factor the element may
be unavailable to the plant. The elements in the active as well
as the inactive portions of the soil mass are included in these
total analyses. Thus the main value of these analyses must
lie in the characterization of the soils as to the number and
amounts of the elements which they contain. The analyses
reported in this study should be considered only as preliminary
and exploratory for these purposes, and are not intended to
represent a comprehensive analysis of the soils of the state.
The literature on micro elements in other soils has been ade-
quately summarized elsewhere (18, 20, 21) and consequently
a comprehensive resume need not be given here. Relatively
few other studies of micro elements in Florida soils have been
reported; analyses for the macro elements have been numerous,







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


although only a few representative studies are cited here (2, 5,
7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17).

LOCATION OF AREAS SAMPLED

Soil samples for this study were collected in Lake, Polk,
Pinellas, Orange, Manatee, St. Lucie, Indian River, DeSoto and
Hillsborough counties of central peninsular Florida. In all, the
soil was sampled at 77 locations. The distribution of these
locations, by counties, is shown in Figure 1. The soils of 54
locations were growing citrus trees which were 10 or more years
old. The remaining 23 locations were virgin areas. Samples
of the surface soil at 77 locations were collected, together with
the "subsoil"4 of 55 corresponding locations. This made a total
of 132 samples. The subsoils of 19 locations in citrus groves
and three locations in virgin areas were not sampled.


Fig. 1.-Map showing loca-
tions from which soil samples
were taken, and number taken
at each place.


'The term "subsoil" as here used has reference to subsurface material
from the depth specified in each case and not necessarily to the actual
"B" horizon, as for example, in the case of the open sandy soils.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


SOIL TYPES SAMPLED
The soils sampled included 10 of the most important soil types
of peninsular Florida: Norfolk fine sand, Norfolk sand, Eustis
fine sand, Lakewood fine sand, Orlando fine sand, Blanton fine
sand, Scranton fine sand, Parkwood fine sandy loam, Parkwood
fine sand, and Portsmouth fine sand.
The Norfolk, Eustis, Lakewood, Orlando, and Blanton soils
are all well drained. The Norfolk soils have gray or yellowish-
gray surface layers, 3 to 5 inches thick, over yellow subsurface
layers. The Blanton soils are similar to Norfolk soils but have
pale yellow to yellowish-gray subsurfaces. The Orlando soil
differs from the Blanton in that the surface layer is dark gray
and extends to depths of 12 to 18 inches. The Eustis contains
considerable red which imparts a brownish-gray or grayish-
brown color to the surface and a reddish-yellow or yellowish-
red color to the subsurface. The Lakewood soil has a light
gray surface layer about 3 inches thick over a white subsurface
which changes abruptly to yellow at depths of 12 to 24 inches.
The Portsmouth, Scranton, and Parkwood soils all have poor
natural drainage. The Portsmouth soil has a dark gray or black
surface layer 8 to 12 inches thick over a light gray to white
subsurface. The Scranton soil differs from the Portsmouth in
that the subsurface is yellowish-gray to yellow. The Parkwood
soils have dark gray or gray surface layers of variable thick-
ness over light gray or yellowish-gray subsurfaces, which grade
into yellow, gray, and brown sandy clay subsoils or directly
into marl at depths usually within four feet of the surface.
More extensive information on these soils has been presented
by Henderson in a separate bulletin (10).

METHOD OF SAMPLING
Samples of soil were collected from citrus groves 10 years
of age or older, and from virgin areas of a similar soil as near
as possible to the point where the groves were sampled. In many
instances it was not possible to locate virgin soils comparable
with the grove soils.
After a preliminary examination, four partial soil profiles
were exposed by digging holes approximately two feet deep.
These holes were located at or near the periphery of the trees
in the area where the major portion of the fertilizer is applied.
The sites for sampling the virgin areas were selected for the







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


uniformity of the soil profile and resemblence to the cultivated
soils, both usually being collected within an area of approxi-
mately one-eighth acre.
A special brass sampling tube was used for collecting samples.
This tube was six inches long and four inches in diameter. A
cutting edge at one end and a heavy brass collar at the other
facilitated the sampling. Samples of the surface six inches of
soil of the profiles exposed at each location was composite.
The composite sample was thoroughly mixed on a canvas cloth,
halved and quartered and a quart cardboard carton filled with
the resulting sample and taken to the laboratory. Paraffined
cardboard cartons were used to reduce the possibility of con-
tamination to a minimum. The subsoil samples were collected
in like manner at a depth of approximately 18 inches or when
a change occurred indicating a definitely different soil horizon.

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES
The samples when received at the laboratory were thoroughly
dried at 1100 C. in Pyrex trays, pulverized and mixed on clean
Kraft wrapping paper, screened through a two millimeter, round-
holed aluminum sieve to remove gravel, roots, and other debris
and then halved and quartered. The resulting laboratory sam-
ples were ashed at 4500 C. in silica dishes and then thoroughly
homogenized for at least one hour in an automatic agate mortar.
The homogenized material was stored in dry, acid-leached glass
bottles.
In the preparation of the samples certain possibilities of con-
tamination arise. The sampler, the cartons, the wrapping paper,
the aluminum sieve, the drying oven, the muffle furnace, the
ashing dishes and the agate mortar are the most likely sources
of such contamination.
Spectrographic tests have shown that no detectable con-
tamination is introduced by the use of the brass sampler, the
aluminum sieve or the wrapping paper. To prevent foreign
materials from falling into the samples during the drying pro-
cess, a clean porcelain plate was suspended above the samples.
To protect against contamination by the muffle furnace, the
samples were covered with watch glasses at all times during
the ashing process. During the homogenization in the agate
mortar some small amount of agate is necessarily introduced
into the sample. To determine the extent of this contamination,
clean white sand was ground in the mortar for three hours.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


Spectrograms of the original sand and the pulverized sand
showed no differences. Also, the agate mortar and pestle were
weighed before and after the entire set of 132 samples was
ground. The calculated average loss in weight of the mortar
and pestle per sample was 0.042 grams. Since the average
weight of each sample was greater than 20 grams, this con-
tamination would amount to less than 0.2%. Agate consists
largely of silica, and a spectrographic analysis of a portion of
the pestle used showed the total trace element content to be less
than 0.075% with the largest proportion of any trace element
being approximately 0.05%. The contamination introduced into
the sample by the grinding was thus undetectable by the spectro-
graphic procedure employed. The canvas cloth on which the
field samples were mixed was carefully dusted between each
sample and laundered frequently. Any contamination intro-
duced by this procedure is considered unavoidable.
It has been noted in this laboratory that contamination of
glassware by chromium from "cleaning solution" is very per-
sistent and difficult to correct. Consequently, "cleaning solu-
tion" was never used on any glassware with which the samples
for the spectrographic analyses came into contact; pure hydro-
chloric and nitric acids were substituted for the "cleaning
solution".
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
CHEMICAL PROCEDURE
Ash from five grams of soil ignited at 450 degrees C. was
extracted with 25 milliliters of aqua regia. Because of the large
percentage of silica in most of the samples, this extraction
method was preferred to one of the fusion methods.
The extracts were diluted and filtered, and the soluble silica
was removed. The soluble silica and insoluble matter were com-
bined and ignited to give sand and silica. Analyses were made on
the extracts for calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus,
iron and aluminum by regular A. O. A. C. (1) methods. Alum-
inum was determined by difference in the R203 precipitate.
Original samples were used in determining pH, loss on igni-
tion, and total nitrogen. The pH determinations were made
by use of an L&N glass electrode apparatus, loss on ignition by
igniting at 7500 C., and total nitrogen by the Hibbard-Gunning
method.
The results are expressed in percentage of the element in
the dry soil.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


SPECTROGRAPHIC PROCEDURE
A small portion of the homogenized material (about 10 mgs.)
was volatilized in a 220 volt arc using a current of 9 to 10
amperes. Specially purified graphite was used for electrodes;
repeated spectra of the graphite electrodes were made to insure
a control of electrode impurities. In taking the spectrum of
the sample, the arc was maintained until the sample was com-
pletely volatilized. Incomplete volatilization would permit
fractionation, involving a possible retention of the higher boil-
ing elements in the residue. This might vitiate estimates of
the amounts of the elements present.
A Littrow spectrograph with linear dispersion of about 30
inches between 2,250 and 5,500 A. was used. Two prisms were
used with this instrument-a glass prism for lines of wave
length greater than 3,800 A. and a quartz prism for the shorter
wave lengths. To make use of the sensitiveness of the 2,138
A. zinc line, a quartz Cornu type spectrograph with linear
dispersion of about nine inches between 2,100 A. and 8,000 A.
was used for the zinc determinations.
Three standard mixtures of silicic acid differing from each
other only in their trace element proportions were spectro-
graphed in juxtaposition on either side and between duplicate
spectra of each sample. Visual interpolations of the proportions
of the elements in the sample could then be made by judging
the density of lines on the photographic plate using a small hand
magnifier simultaneously with the qualitative detection of the
elements. Identifications and estimations were based on the
most sensitive arc lines (16). Where close checks were obtained
with duplicate determinations, these results were considered
sufficient; where any ambiguity existed, however, four and
sometimes more determinations were used.
The data thus obtained are not intended as precision deter-
minations, but are indicative of the "order of magnitude" of
the proportions of the elements present. For most of the trace
elements involved, determinations of much greater precision
could have been attained by the use of "internal standard"
methods. In view of the sampling errors involved, greater pre-
cision in the analysis would have been not only superfluous but
probably misleading.
The approximate lower limits of detectability of the method
are: for silver, cobalt, chromium, copper and nickel, 0.0001 per-







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


cent; for barium, beryllium, boron, manganese, molybdenum,
lead, tin, strontium, titanium, vanadium and zinc, 0.001 percent;
for zirconium, bismuth, cadmium, lanthanum, antimony, thallium
and yttrium, 0.01 percent; for arsenic, caesium, lithium and
tungsten, 0.1 percent.
In the spectrographic analyses, no effort was made to increase
the proportions of the elements in the samples by precipitation
or other chemical methods. By concentration methods, it prob-
ably would have been possible to detect the presence of some
elements which are reported "not found"; this procedure, how-
ever, might have vitiated to some extent the advantages of the
spectrographic method. The dangers of loss of material in
chemical procedures where micro quantities are concerned are
too well known to need elaboration. These features have been
discussed previously (14) in connection with the micro-deter-
mination of zinc. Moreover, if an element is not detectable by
the spectrograph except through concentration, the quantity
present in many cases would be so minute as to make the
possible contamination from chemical procedures a decidedly
significant factor. Accordingly, it seemed best to base the study
of the trace elements on proportions detectable spectrograph-
ically in the original sample.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The detailed results of these analyses are presented in the
appendix. The data for the micro elements, it will be noted,
are reported in "range" form. This is done to 'avoid misunder-
standing as to precision, but still to retain a legitimate basis
for comparison. For example, 0.01-0.05 percent recorded in the
table should be understood to mean that the proportion of the
element in the sample lies between 0.01 percent and 0.05 percent.
The notation "0.1+" signifies that the element was present in
a proportion of -more than 0.1 percent. The spectrographic
standards were not made to include percentages greater than
0.1 percent, consequently no estimations could be made for pro-
portions greater than this percentage.

DISCUSSION OF MACRO ELEMENTS
The average results of the determinations of the macro
elements in the soils are given in Table 1. In this table the
soils are grouped into series rather than types. Furthermore,
















TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF MACRO ELEMENTS IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA SOILS. "
ILoss on Insoluble Mag-e Phos- Number of
Soil Condition H Inition Nitrogen I Matter Calcium nesium Potassium phorus Iron Aluminum Samples
Series i S S2 S SsI S Ss S SI S Ss S I Ss S I Ss S Ss S Ss I Ss S I Ssl S S
Lakewood Cultivated 5.70 4.70 1.31 0.78 0.038 0.007 98.00 98.75 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.14 2 2
Norfolk .... Cultivated 5.48 4.89 1.71 0.57 0.049 0.011 96.77 98.34 0.13 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.20 30 22
Virgin 5.26 5.22 1.65 0.71 0.033 0.012 97.37 98.25 0.11 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.18 11 10
Eustis ...... Cultivated 5.55 2.06 0.041 95.00 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.62 3
Virgin 6.30 3.31 0.087 94.00 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.32 0.45 1
Orlando.... Cultivated 5.06 4.91 2.00 1.07 0.054 0.015 95.87 97.57 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.53 0.55 4 3
Virgin 5.42 5.07 1.83 0.90 0.035 0.016 97.25 97.90 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.28 4 4
Blanton .... Cultivated 5.58 4.65 2.19 0.93 0.063 95.80 97.101 0.26 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.27 1 1
Scranton. Cultivated 5.04 4.59 5.15 1.18 0.088 0.010 93.00 96.651 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.60 0.93 2 2 t
I I I | I
Parkwood Cultivated 6.89 7.59 11.55 7.69 0.357 0.229 73.65 81.96 198 1.39 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.07 1 0.26 1 0.22 0.57 0.72 1.96 1.27 10 5
Virgin 6.81 7.66 10.61 13.46 0.182 0.276 79.12 67.251 2.09 7.21 0.11 0.22 0.07 0.10 I 0.11 0.10 0.88 1.03 1.27 1.18 4 4
Ports- Cultivated 6.91 3.07 0.063 92.85 I 0.35 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.13 0.47 2
mouth Virgin 4.94 4.92 3.38 0 0.052 0.012 96.23 98.55 0.091 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 04 0. 0.03 0.15 0.24 3 2

'The loss on ignition is a fairly reliable measure of the organic matter content of sandy soils. No correction has been made for the carbonates
in the Parkwood samples.
2"S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil.
All data (except pH) are reported as percentage of the air-dried sample.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


the series have been arranged in the table in the order of their
drainage. Lakewood soils are usually excessively drained;
Norfolk and Eustis soils are well drained to excessively drained;
Orlando and Blanton soils are well to medium drained, and the
Scranton, Parkwood and Portsmouth soils poorly drained. Thus
the results may be discussed on the basis of this natural soil
characteristic. In addition, suggestions of the effect of cultiva-
tion and fertilization on the content of the macro elements in
the Norfolk, Orlando and Parkwood series may be obtained by
a study of the results.
Soil Acidity.-The pH values show that all the surface soil
samples were acid with the exception of the Parkwo6d series
and the cultivated Portsmouth soils which had been heavily
limed. These latter samples were near neutral. The subsoil
samples were all acid except the Parkwood soils which were
above pH 7.00. With the Parkwood exception, the subsoils are
slightly more acid than the surface soils. There is no consistent
variation between the pH values of the samples collected from
the citrus groves and those from virgin areas.
With the exception of the Parkwood series and the limed
Portsmouth soil the samples from poorly drained soils were
slightly more acid than those from medium to excessively
drained soils.
The lowest and highest pH values for the three soil series
with the largest number of samples were as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil ......................... 4.90-6.20 4.76-5.85
Subsoil ........ .................... 4.44-5.95 4.57-5.65
Orlando Series
Surface soil ....................... 4.95-5.23 5.00-6.08
Subsoil .......................... -. 4.72-5.15 4.76-5.55
Parkwood Series
Surface soil ......................... 5.86-8.30 5.03-8.30
Subsoil .....................-..- ... 6.83-8.07 6.91-8.72
Organic Matter and Nitrogen.-The loss on ignition is a satis-
factory index of the organic matter content of sandy soils if
carbonates are not present. Thus the loss on ignition may be
used to obtain an idea of the organic matter content of these
samples with the exception of those collected from the Park-
wood areas.
The surface samples of the excessively drained to well drained
soils (Lakewood, Norfolk and Eustis series) are lower in organic
matter content than the well drained to medium drained soils








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


(Orlando and Blanton series), which are in turn lower than
the poorly drained soils (Scranton, Parkwood and Portsmouth
series). The conditions under which the Parkwood soils have
developed are especially favorable for the accumulation of or-
ganic matter in the soil profile.
The subsoil samples are materially lower in organic matter
content than those from the surface soil. In general, the same
relationship found between drainage and the organic matter
content of the surface soil was observed in the subsoil samples.
No consistent variation in the organic matter content was
noted between comparable cultivated and virgin samples.
The lowest and highest percentages of organic matter for
two of the more important soil series with the largest number
of samples were as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil .......... ....... ... 0.73-3.98 0.74-3.98
Subsoil ................................ 0.26-0.85 0.34-2.42
Orlando Series
Surface soil ......................... 1.42-3.32 0.67-4.23
Subsoil ............................... 0.48-2.25 0.16-2.15
SThe nitrogen content of the surface soils followed the same
general trend as the organic matter content. The poorly drained
soils are much higher in nitrogen than the excessively drained
soils. The Parkwood soils are the highest in nitrogen, contain-
ing approximately seven times as much as the Norfolk sands.
With the exception of Parkwood, the subsoils are very low in
nitrogen, ranging from 0.007 percent in the excessively drained
Lakewood soils to 0.016 percent in the Orlando series. No con-
sistent trends in the nitrogen content are found between com-
parable cultivated and virgin soil samples.
The lowest and highest percentages of nitrogen for the Nor-
folk, Orlando and Parkwood soils were as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil --...................- 0.018-0.148 0.007-0.067
Subsoil ...... ......................... 0.007-0.021 0.005-0.026
Orlando Series
Surface soil ................... 0.033-0.097 0.021-0.064
Subsoil ............................... 0.006-0.029 0.007-0.022
Parkwood Series
Surface soil .......................... 0.158-0.656 0.046-0.365
Subsoil ................................. 0.013-0.472 0.061-0.852
Calcium, Magnesium and Potassium.-Of these three "base"
elements, calcium occurs in the largest quantities in the soils
of Florida. Except for the Parkwood series, which has been







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


formed in close proximity to marl, Florida soils are, neverthe-
less, inherently deficient in calcium. This relationship is em-
phasized by the pH values previously discussed. Aside from the
high calcium content of the Parkwood series there is no definite
correlation of the calcium content and other soil characteristics.
Possible exceptions are the organic matter content and the
degree of calcium saturation which is reflected in the hydrogen-
ion concentrations (pH values) of the soil suspensions. The
subsoil samples as a rule contain less calcium than those taken
from the surface with the exception of the virgin Parkwood
and Norfolk soils. The virgin Parkwood soils contain marl or
disintegrated limestone and, in some instances shells, in the
subsoil. The differences between the calcium content of the
virgin Norfolk surface and subsoil samples are not significant.
Cultivation also appears to have had no definite effect on the
calcium content of either surface or subsoil. An application of
limestone to the Portsmouth soil has definitely increased the
calcium content of the surface soil.
The range in percentage of calcium in the Norfolk, Orlando
and Parkwood soils was as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil ......................... 0.04-0.28 0.07-0.14
Subsoil ................................. 0.01-0.24 0.07-0.17
Orlando Series
Surface soil .... ............ .... 0.07-0.24 0.08-0.29
Subsoil .......- ....................... 0.04-0.09 0.03-0.13
Parkwood Series
Surface soil .... ... ...... ....... 0.35-8.56 0.51- 4.57
Subsoil .............................. 0.50-3.26 1.46-19.10
The magnesium content of the surface and subsoils of both
the cultivated and virgin samples of the Lakewood, Norfolk,
Eustis, Orlando, Scranton and Portsmouth soils was very low.
The Parkwood series and the one sample of cultivated Blanton
soil contained appreciably more magnesium than the other soils
in both depths.
The range in percentage of magnesium in the Norfolk, Orlando
and Parkwood soils was as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil .......................... 0.01-0.11 0.01-0.10
Subsoil ................................. 0.01-0.08 0.02-0.10
Orlando Series
Surface soil........................ 0.01-0.04 0.03-0.07
Subsoil ............................... 0.02-0.06 0.02-0.11
Parkwood Series
Surface soil ........................ 0.05-0.21 0.03-0.14
Subsoil ................................ 0.05-0.12 0.05-0.46








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The potassium content of the soils in all series and in both
cultivated and virgin samples, surface soils and subsoils, is low
throughout. The Parkwood series contained the highest quan-
tities of potassium and are without doubt more retentive of
applied potassium than the other soils included in this study.
The range in percentage of potassium in the samples collected
from Norfolk, Orlando and Parkwood areas was as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil ....................... 0.01-0.09 0.02-0.08
Subsoil ---....................... .- 0.01-0.09 0.01-0.05
Orlando Series
Surface soil ....................... 0.03-0.05 0.03-0.10
Subsoil ............................. 0.02-0.04 0.04-0.06
Parkwood Series
Surface soil ....................... 0.04-0.28 0.05-0.08
Subsoil ................... .............. 0.03-0.10 0.06-0.23
Phosphorus.-The phosphorus content of the surface and sub-
soil samples collected from the virgin areas is very low, except
in the Parkwood soils. On the other hand, the cultivated surface
samples have a phosphorus content from two to seven times
as great as the virgin samples of the same series. Thus a
definite accumulation of phosphorus in the surface soil by the
annual application of fertilizers with a high phosphorus content
is indicated. This has been previously indicated by Bryan (4).
The actual availability of this accumulated phosphorus remains
to be proven.
In the subsoil samples, only the Scranton and Parkwood series
show a relatively high percentage of phosphorus. Scranton is
mapped mainly in the phosphate-bearing area of Hillsborough
County, while the Parkwood series, which is largely derived
from limestone or marl, may be expected to be high in phos-
phorus due to its organic matter content and its origin. The
influence of fertilization with high phosphorus-containing mix-
tures on the phosphorus content of the soils appears to be quite
pronounced.
The range in percentage of phosphorus in the Norfolk, Orlando
and Parkwood soils was as follows:
Norfolk Series Cultivated Virgin
Surface soil ...........-.......... 0.02-0.24 0.01-0.05
Subsoil ........- ...................... 0.01-0.09 0.01-0.06
Orlando Series
Surface soil ......................... 0.03-0.19 0.02-0.06
Subsoil ............................. 0.02-0.11 0.03-0.07
Parkwood Series
Surface soil ....................... 0.07-0.85 0.06-0.16
Subsoil .................:.......... 0.07-0.56 0.02-0.18







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


Iron and Aluminum.-With the exception of the high iron
content of the Eustis and Parkwood samples there is no correla-
tion between the iron content and the different soil series.
The aluminum content of the Parkwood series is also distinctly
higher than that of the other soils. Otherwise there is no definite
correlation of the content of the element and other soil character-
istics.
DISCUSSION OF MICRO ELEMENTS
Certain elements are reported in the footnotes of the tables
in the appendix as not found in any of the samples analyzed.
It should be noted that certain of these elements, for example,
arsenic and antimony, if present, might be lost in the ashing
process employed. It should be recalled, also, that the sensitivity
of the method for some of these elements is not great (see
page 10).
S The data show a wide dissemination of certain micro elements,
particularly copper, boron, zinc and titanium. Strontium, barium,
chromium, manganese and zirconium were detected frequently,
although with less consistency than the four elements mentioned
above. The frequent presence of these elements in soils is par-
ticularly interesting, since spectrographic analyses of a variety
of plant ashes at this laboratory revealed the frequent occurrence
of copper, manganese, boron, chromium, barium, strontium,
titanium and zinc (13, 15). Zirconium, nickel, vanadium, silver,
tin and lead which were occasionally detected in the soils were
sometimes found to occur in the plant ash as well.
On examination of the data for the micro elements, it appears
that most of the series are fairly homogeneous as regards their
content of certain elements; in some cases, considerable varia-
tion exists within the series as regards the proportions of certain
trace elements present. In the former cases some preliminary
comparisons may be made among the series; in the latter cases
it is difficult to formulate any generalizations. Thus, in the case
of the manganese content of the virgin Norfolk subsoil series,
the average for the entire group lies in the range 0.008 to 0.03
percent. Yet five out of the 10 samples had no detectable
manganese. To facilitate a comparison of the various soil series
with respect to their content of micro elements, the analyses
for the various series have been averaged wherever it seemed
permissible and a system of numbers is used to denote the range
in which the approximate mean value of a given series lies. The









TABLE 2.-SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF MICRO ELEMENTS IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA SOILS.


Condition Strontiuml Barium Chromiuml Manga
__ St ISstl S I Ss I S_ S Ss I

Cultivated ** 0 ** 0 0 0 0

Cultivated 0* 0* 2* 0* 0* ** 6*
Virgin O* 0* 1* 1* 1* 1 7*


Soil Series


Lakewood ......

Norfolk ..........


Eustis ............


Orlando ..........


Blanton .......... Cultivated

Scranton ........ Cultivated


Parkwood ......


Portsmouth


Cultivated
Virgin

Cultivated
Virgin


IZirconium Titanium I Copper


Ss

3

11
11




11*


6

11

11
11


11


Ss

**

1*
1




1
1

1

1

1
1


1


*This range number indicates a qualified mean value obtained by omitting one or more exceptional values.
**Indicates that the data were too non-homogeneous to permit the determination of any reasonable mean value.


Range Approx. mean value
Number of range (percent)
0 ................Not Found
1 .......... less than .001
2 ................... ... .001
3 ..................... .003
4 ..................... .005
5 ..................... .007
t"S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil.


Range Approx. mean value
Number of range (percent)
6 ........................ .01
7 ........................ .03
8 ........................ .05
9 ........................ .07
10 ........................ .10
11 ........................ .10+


Cultivated
Virgin

Cultivated
Virgin


Boron I


Zinc
S_ Ss

3 2

411 4
1* I1*


--





,


---


' '







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


average results of the determination of the micro elements in
the soil samples are given in Table 2. In Table 2 as in Table 1,
the series are arranged in the order of their drainage.
Strontium and Barium.-Strontium occurred erratically or not
at all in most of the cultivated soils having good to fair drain-
age; from Table 2 it is seen that the data for the Lakewood
and Orlando surface series are too variable to permit the assign-
ment of a reasonable mean value. In the surface soils of the
cultivated Eustis, Blanton, Scranton and Parkwood series, its
proportions averaged consistently as much as or greater than
0.01 percent. In view of the fact that many of these latter
samples were taken from areas having appreciable lime content
or groves which had been heavily limed, this is to be expected,
since calcium and strontium are chemically similar, and there-
fore strontium occurs frequently in liming materials.
Strontium was "not found" rather consistently in several of
the virgin soil series. Thus, the Norfolk, Orlando, Blanton
(subsoil) and Portsmouth series in general had no detectable
strontium. Again, however, in the Parkwood soils the occur-
rence of this element was consistent, and the proportions ap-
preciable.
No consistent variation in the strontium content is noted
between comparable cultivated and virgin samples nor between
the surface and subsoils.
Barium occurred with somewhat greater consistency in the
cultivated soils than did strontium. In only one case, that is,
the Lakewood surface soils, were the data for barium considered
too variable to assign a reasonable mean value. Barium, like
strontium, shows a tendency toward small proportions in the
soils with good drainage, with greater proportions in the soils
with poor drainage.
Barium occurred sporadically in the virgin Orlando series,
hence, no mean value could be assigned in this case; a mean
value of "not found" is assigned to the Portsmouth surface
series of the soils having poor drainage. The mean proportion
of this element in the samples of other soils having poor drain-
age, namely, the Parkwood soils, lies above 0.01 percent.
Manganese and Chromium.-Manganese occurred with reason-
able regularity in nearly all the cultivated soils. Only in the
instance of the Portsmouth soils were the data too variable
to permit the assignment of a reasonable mean value. As dis-
tinguished from the elements discussed above, manganese does







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


not appear in appreciably greater proportions in the Parkwood
samples.
Very little correlation with drainage conditions seems per-
missible in the manganese contents of the virgin soils. In the
case of the Norfolk and Orlando subsoils, no mean value can be
assigned. It is to be noted that the Norfolk surface, Orlando
surface and Parkwood soils all contain approximately the same
mean value of manganese. These series represent all three types
of drainage that have been used as a basis for a natural group-
ing of the soils examined in this study.
Chromium, like manganese, occurred rather consistently in
the cultivated surface soils with the exception of the Lakewood
and Norfolk series. It was not possible to average the analyses
for the Orlando and Norfolk subsoils. No correlation in the
mean chromium content with the natural conditions of drainage
is apparent from Table 2. The Parkwood soils have the same
mean value as the Orlando surface soils, which is slightly higher
than the other series, but whether this is a significant increase
may be open to question.
In the virgin series, in the case of the Orlando and Ports-
mouth subsoils, no mean value could be assigned for chromium.
Again, chromium behaves like manganese in that little or no
correlation with drainage conditions seems permissible. The
Portsmouth and Norfolk soils have approximately the same
mean value and a wide diversity of drainage conditions is rep-
resented by these series.
Zirconium and Titanium.-Zirconium occurred consistently
and in uniform proportions in all the cultivated series except
in the Orlando surface soils. In the virgin soils, zirconium also
occurs rather consistently and in nearly equal proportions.
Titanium occurred quite consistently in proportions greater
than 0.1 percent in nearly all the cultivated and virgin series.
No generalizations seem permissible, therefore, in these cases.
Copper.-Copper was detected with great consistency in all
the cultivated soils. Only in the case of the Scranton, Parkwood
surface and Portsmouth surface soils, however, was the mean
value above 0.001 percent. Although the mean for none of these
series is greater than 0.03 percent, it is significant that drainage
seems to be an important factor in the retention of copper by
these cultivated soils, since these three series all have poor
drainage.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


Copper occurred consistently in the virgin series, but in prac-
tically all cases to an extent of less than 0.001 percent. From
this it would appear that while the virgin soils examined here
are quite uniform in their copper content, continued fertilization
of these soils combined with the heavy rainfall in the state
apparently produces a small residual effect, tending to increase
the copper content only in soils having poor drainage.
It should be recalled that the quantity determined here is
"total" copper, and does not necessarily indicate "available"
copper. Allison, Becker and others in Florida as well as workers
elsewhere have shown that certain soils, among which are some
Florida soils, do not normally supply sufficient copper for the
proper growth of many plants and animals. Consequently,
supplemental copper must be employed in these cases. The
factors involved here are so complex, however, that it has not
been determined whether there is an actual deficiency of copper
in such soils or whether there is involved only a question of its
availability.
It should be noted that the spectrographic standards did not
extend below 0.001 percent and that copper occurs in nearly all
of these soils here analyzed to a less extent than this value.
Hence, there may be significant differences in the copper con-
tent of the various series which do not appear.
Boron and Zinc.-The consistent occurrence of boron and zinc
in both cultivated and uncultivated soils does not permit of any
generalization, with respect to either drainage conditions or state
of cultivation. The smallest mean value of boron was 0.001 per-
cent in the case of the Blanton subsoils and the greatest was
0.01 percent for several series. The mean proportions of zinc
vary between 0.001 percent for the virgin Norfolk soils and 0.03
percent for the cultivated Eustis soil.
It must be emphasized that micro elements reported as "not
found" are not necessarily absent from these soils, but only
that if present they are in proportions undetectable by the
method employed.

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Certain generalizations regarding the macro and micro ele-
ment content of these soils seem permissible from a comparison
of Tables 1 and 2.
There is a definite correlation between the proportions of
strontium and calcium contained in the soils examined in this








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


study. Soils containing small proportions of calcium contained,
in general, small proportions of strontium (or strontium was
"not detected"), while soils containing appreciable proportions
of calcium likewise contained appreciable strontium.
There is also a correlation between the proportions of man-
ganese and iron in the soils. For example, in Table 1, the lowest
proportion of iron reported is in the Lakewood cultivated sub-
soil; in Table 2, the average proportion of manganese is reported
as not detected for this series. Similarly, the soils containing
the highest average proportions of iron are the Parkwood virgin
subsoils (Table 1). In Table 2 this same series is reported as
averaging approximately 0.05 percent manganese, the highest
proportion of any of the series analyzed. This agreement is
in accord with the known chemical similarity of behavior of
these two elements.
Reasoning analogously, aluminum, zinc and chromium should
exhibit corresponding variations in their proportions. While this
relationship does exist between the aluminum and chromium
proportions, the zinc proportions apparently show no such corre-
lation with the proportions of the other two elements, at least
in the cultivated soils. Perhaps this may be explained in part
as being due to the fact that the use of zinc as a soil amendment
has become rather widespread throughout the cultivated areas
sampled in this study, thus tending to offset any natural varia-
tions in these soils. A relationship is observed, however, when
the virgin surface soils of the Norfolk and Parkwood series are
compared, as shown in the following abstract from Tables 1
and 2. Zn. Cr. Al.
Norfolk .................... ......... 1* 1* 0.23
Parkwood ...................... 4 3 1.27
These tables (pages 12 and 18, respectively), as well as page 17,
should be consulted for an explanation of these values. Although
additional data are needed on this point, it appears from the
above comparison that small proportions as well as large pro-
portions of these elements may occur simultaneously.

SUMMARY
Chemical and spectrographic analyses for 7 macro elements
and 27 micro elements as well as pH, loss on ignition, and in-
soluble matter are reported for 89 cultivated and 43 virgin soils

*This range number indicates a qualified mean value obtained by
omitting one or more exceptional values.







Distribution of Macro and Micro Elements


representing eight different series occurring in Central Florida.
The subsoils of a large proportion are included.
Soils of the several series were analyzed chemically for nitro-
gen, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, aluminum, phosphorus
and insoluble matter (sand and silica).
An increase in organic matter was found as the drainage of
soil decreased. The pH was lower in the poorly drained soils
with the exception of the Parkwood series. No correlation was
noted in well and poorly drained soils nor in the top and subsoils
of the various series in calcium, magnesium and potassium con-
tents with the exception of the Parkwood series; here consider-
ably greater percentages were noted in all three elements. No
correlation was noted between the iron and aluminum content
of the various series except in the Parkwood where these two
elements ran considerably higher.
Of the elements studied none showed as retentive properties
as did phosphorus. In all cultivated soils there was found an
increased percentage of phosphorus over that found in the
corresponding virgin soil.
Of the micro elements, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, cadmium,
thallium, cobalt, tin, molybdenum, lithium, caesium, yttrium,
tungsten, lanthanum and beryllium were detectable in none of
the samples by the spectrographic procedure employed here;
nickel, silver, vanadium, and lead were detected in a few sam-
ples; titanium, copper, boron and zinc were detected in practically
all samples; while strontium, barium, chromium, manganese and
zirconium were detected frequently.
The micro elements were detected more consistently in the
soils having poor drainage than in those having good drainage.
Also, the proportions of the micro elements occurring in soils
having poor drainage were, in general, greater than or equal to
the proportions of the micro elements occurring in the soils
having good drainage.

LITERATURE CITED
1. ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS. Official and tenta-
tive methods. 1935.
2. BELL, OLIN G. A preliminary report on the clays of Florida. Florida
Geological Survey, Fifteenth Ann. Rept.: 53-258. 1924.
3. BRENCHLEY, W. The essential nature of certain minor elements for
plant nutrition. Botanical Review 2: 173. 1936.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


4. BRYAN, O. C. The accumulation and availability of phosphorus in old
citrus grove soils. Soil Sci. 36: 245. 1933.
5. BRYAN, O. C., and RALPH STOUTAMIRE. The soils of Florida and their
utilization. Florida Dept. of Agri. Bul. 42. 1930.
6. GADDUM, L. W., and L. H. ROGERS. A study of some trace elements
in fertilizer materials. Florida Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 290. 1936.
7. HARPER, ROLAND M. Geography and vegetation of Northern Florida.
Fla. Geological Survey, 6th Ann. Rept.: 163-343. 1914.
8. HARPER, ROLAND M. Geography of Central Florida. Florida Geological
Survey, 13th Ann. Rept.: 71-289. 1921.
9. HARPER, ROLAND M. History of soil investigation in Florida and
description of new soil map. Fla. Geological Survey, 17th Ann.
Rept.: 21-40. 1926.
10. HENDERSON, J. R. The soils of Florida. Florida Agri. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 334. 1939.
11. PEECH, M. The chemical composition of Florida citrus soils. Citrus
Ind. 19(6): 5. 1938.
12. PERSONS, A. A. A chemical study of some typical soils of the Florida
peninsula. Florida Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 43. 1897.
13. ROBERTS, J. A., and L. W. GADDUM. Composition of citrus fruit juices.
Ind. and Eng. Chemistry 29: 574. 1937.
14. ROGERS, L. H., and 0. E. GALL. Microdetermination of zinc; compari-
son of spectrographic and chemical methods. Ind. and Eng. Chem-
istry, Anal. Ed. 9: 42. 1937.
15. RUSOFF, L. L., L. H. ROGERS and L. W. GADDUM. Quantitative deter-
mination of copper and estimation of other trace elements by
spectrographic methods in wire grasses from "salt sick" and
healthy areas. Jour. Agri. Res. 55: 731. 1937.
16. RYDE, J. W., and H. G. JENKINS. Sensitive arc lines of fifty elements.
Adam Hilger, Ltd. 1930.
17. SELLARDS, E. H. The soils and other surface residual materials of
Florida. Fla. Geological Survey, 4th Ann. Rept.: 1-79. 1910-11.
18. SLATER, C. S., R. S. HOLMES and H. G. BYERS. Trace elements in the
soils from the Erosion Experiment Stations, with supplementary
data on other soils. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bul. 552. 1937.
19. WASICKY, R. Biological Role of the microelements. Pharm. Monatsh.
18: 89-90. 1937.
20. WILLIS, L. G. Bibliography of references to the literature on minor
elements, Third Ed. Chilean Nitrate Educational Bureau. 1939.
21. YOUNG, R. S. Certain rarer elements in soil and fertilizer, and their
role in plant growth. Cornell Univ. Agri. Exp. Sta. Memoir 174.
1935.








APPENDIX

CHEMICAL ANALYSES*

Sample I I Sample
No. pH Loss on Nitrogen Insol. Calcium I Magnesium Potassium Phosphorus I Iron Aluminum No.
Surface County Type Grove I __Ignition | I Matter I I Subsoil
Soil (S)I I S I Ss S S I S Ss S S I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I I S )
LAKEWOOD SOILS (Cultivated)
-1514 Manatee Valencia or. 5.93 I 4.18 I 1.27 0.78 0.040 0.009198.00 97.80 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.02 1 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.14 1515
1516 Manatee Marsh grf. 5.48 5.23 1.35 0.037- 0.006 98.00 99.70 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 1517


NORFOLK SOILS (Cultivated)


Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Valencia or.
Lake Temple or.
Lake Valencia or.
Lake Valencia or.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Valencia or.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Marsh grf.
Lake Valencia or.
Lake Temple or.
Polk Grapefruit
Polk Temple or.
Polk RubyBloodor.
Polk Valencia or.
Polk Valencia or.
Polk Sweet Seed-
ling orange
Pinellas Common &
Marsh grf.
Pinellas Common grf.
Pinellas Early orange
Pinellas Pineapple or.
Pinellas Valencia or.
Pinellas Marsh grf.
Pinellas I Valencia or.
Orange
Orange


5.50 4.63 1.08 0.41 0.025 | 0.007 97.50 98.70 0.05
5.96 5.00 1.31 0.60 0.029 0.008 97.30 98.40 0.10
S 97.10 98.40 0.07
5.33 4.44 1.10 0.46 0.027 0.007 97.80 96.90 0.08
4.88 0.39 0.008 97.80 98.80 0.07
97.90 98.50 0.04
97.00 98.60 0.26
4.90 1.06 0.023 97.80 0.07
5.30 1.14 0.029 97.50 0.06
5.16 1.14 0.018 98.00 0.05
5.60 1.09 0.026 97.20 0.06
5.71 4.76 1.06 0.48 0 023 0.009 97.40 98.30 0.08
5.76 4.60 0.73 0.51 0.044 0.010 96.70 98.40 0.07
5.63 4.66 1.43 0.75 0.043 0.010 96.90 98.20 0.17
97.40 98.40 0.10
5.32 5.03 1.90 0.76 0.055 0.014 96.50 98.40 0.14
4.46 4.86 1.58 0.60 0.044 0.011 96.70 98.00 0.09
5.72 5.05 1.44 0.046 0.007 97.20 98.50 0.14
5.32 5.03 1.73 0.60 0.085 0.012 95.10 98.30 0.28
5.95 3.98 0.85 0.148 0.021 94.30 98.30 0.24

6.20 5.95 1.85 0.68 0.047 0.013 97.10 97.60 0.26
5.46 2.41 0.049 95.40 0.13
5.43 2.54 0.055 95.90 0.14
96.00 0.07
5.36 1.65 0.041 97.00 0.11
5.32 4.63 1.51 0.57 0.044 0.013 97.60 98.20 0.16
5.73 4.85 3.44 0.55 0.101 0.009 94.60 98.00 0.16
5.08 14.93 2.80 0.72 0.072 0.011 194.50- 98.60 0.09
4.93 4.58 | 1.65 | 0.56 0.055 0.010 96.70 98.50 0.22
5.46 5.20 1.51 0.26 0.056 0.011 I 97.40 99.50 0.21


NOTE: "S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil.
*All data (except pH) are reported as percentage of the oven-dried sample.


0.02 0.01
0.04 0.03
0.02 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.03
0.01
0.03 0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.03
0.11 0.08
0.04 0.05
0.04 0.05
0.06 0.05
0.03 0.04
0.11 0.08
0.04 0.03

0.03 0.04
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.07
0.10 0.06
0.03 0.01
0.03 0.03
0.01 0.03
0.01 0.02


1428
1432
1470
1482
1472
1525
1527
1415
1416
M 1417
1419
1420
1426
1434
1469
1742
1743
1744
1752
1766
1767

1157

1161
1162
1166
1498
1500
1502
2238
2250


0.05 0.03
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0.04 0.03
0.03 0.02
0.03 0.01
0.06 0.03
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.04 0.04
0.06 0.04
0.07 0.06
0.05 0.02
0.08 0.04
0.05 0.04
0.09 0.09
0.12 0.06
0.08 0.05
0.24 0.04

0.19
0.21
0.09
0.10
0.08 0.08
0.09 0.04
0.05 0.03
0.11 0.03
0.08 0.02


0.19 0.24
0.21 0.25
0.09 0.21
0.25 0.12
0.13 0.05
0.30 0.28
0.16 0.29
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.15
0.07 0.27
0.11 0.26
0.23 0.39
0.16 0.18
0.13 0.03
0.16 0.16
0.07 0.29
0.16 0.26
0.17 0.11

0.17
0.33
0.22
0.36
0.03
0.11 0.23
0.21
0.07 0.04
0.21 0.12
0.24


1429
1433
1471
1483
1473
1526
1528



1418
1427
1435
1457
1759
1758
1773
1761
1748

1741




1499
1501
1503
2239
2251











CHEMICAL ANALYSES-Continued

Sample I Sample
No. PH Loss on Nitrogen Insol. Calcium Magnesium Potassium Phosphorus Iron Aluminum No.
Surface County Type Grove Ignition Matter I I Subsoil
Soil (S) S S I SS S I Ss I Ss SS S Ss S Ss S Ss I S Ss S Ss S Ss I(Ss)

NORFOLK SOILS (Uncultivated)
1430 Lake 5.71 5.61 1.06 0.63 0.022 0.010 97.70 97.80 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.17 0.30 0.23 1431
1436 Lake 5.73 5.60 0.77 0.45 0.021 0.016 98.40 99.00 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.13 1437
1529 Lake 5.65 1.53 0.50 0.030 0.005 97.60 98.50 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.26 1530
1533 Lake 5.25 5.08 1.02 0.50 0.015 0.006 98.50 98.80 0.14 0.17 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.14 0.12 1534
1531 Lake 5.06 4.85 0.74 0.44 0.007 0.006 98.10 98.60 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.26 0.18 1532
2377 Polk 0.96 0.40 0.021 0.009 98.40 99.10 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 2378
1163 Pinellas 5.85 3.35 0.067 98.40 0.16 0.10 0.28 0.39
1496 PinellasI 4.82 4.57 2.47 0.78 0.050 0.023 96.20 98.20 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.26 0.26 1497
1504 Pinellas 4.76 5.13 3.98 2.42 0.064 0.026 92.00 94.60 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.27 0.18 1505
2240 Orange 5.03 5.12 1.06 0.61 0.023 98.00 98.50 0.07 0.09. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.22 2241
2252 Orange 5.12 5.38 1.22 0.34 0.042 0.011 97.80 99.40 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 2253

EUSTIS SOILS (Cultivated)
1194 Lake Pineapple or. 5.46 2.06 0.037 95.00I 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.44 0.53
1195 Lake Pineapple or. 5.70 1.99 0.039 95.00 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.41 0.70
1198 I Lake Pineapple or. 5.50 2.14 0.048 1 95.00 0.16 0.04 0.02 | 0.10 0.37 0.64

EUSTIS SOILS (Uncultivated)
1196 ILake || 6.30 3.311 1 0.087 1 194.00 1 0.13 1 | 0.03 | 1 0.021 1 0.04 1 0.32 0.451 I
ORLANDO SOILS (Cultivated)
1425 Lake Marsh grf. 5.23 1.72 0.047 95.10 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.60
1478 Lake Valencia or. 5.05 5.15 1.56 0.48 0.033 0.006 97.20 99.00 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 1479
1480 Lake Marsh grf. 5.03 4.85 1.42 0.47 0.039 0.010 97.80 98.80 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 1481
2262 Orange Seedling or. 4 95 4.72 3.32 2.25 0.097 0.029 93.40 94.90 0.24 0.09 C.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.19 0.11 0.05 0.12 0.96 1.09 2263


1421 Lake I
1423 Lake
1476 Lake
2379 Orange


ORLANDO SOILS (Uncultivated)
5.55 0.67 0.16 0.024 0.018 98.70 99.60 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.03S 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.03 1422
5.00 1.25 0.86 0.030 0.017 98.40 97.40 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.43 1424
4.98 1.16 0.42 0.021 0.007 98.20 98.90 0.29 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.08 1477
4.76 4.23 2.15 0.064 0.022 93.70 95.70 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.58 0.57 2380


5.58 1 4.65 I 2.19 1 0.93 I 0.063


BLANTON SOILS (Cultivated)
S95.80 97.10 | 0.26 I 0.06 I 0.14 I 0.08 1 0.05 I 0.04 I 0.06 T


I 0.11 I 0.08 I 0.27 I I 1757


NOTE: "S' denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil.
All data (except pH) are reported as percentage of the oven-dried sample.


1754 I DeSoto I Valencia or. I


,


--





CHEMICAL ANALYSES-Continued
SISample
SNo.e pH Loss on Nitrogen Insol. Calcium Magnesium Potassium Phosphorus Iron Aluminum No.
Surface County Type Grove Ignition Matter Subsoil
Soil (S)F I | S I Ss S Ss S Se S I Se S I Ss | S I Ss I S F Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I (Se)
BLANTON SOILS (Uncultivated)
1756 I DeSoto 5.48 | 5.66 1.00 1.06 | 0.015 0.020 98.20 97.90 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 I 0.05 j 0.0 I 0.05 I 0.05 0.21 0.08 1772
SCRANTON SOILS (Cultivated)
1901 rough 4.82 4.73 4.48 1.S2 0.068 0.011 93.80 96.20 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.59 0.99 1902
1903 Hills-
1 rough 5.26 4.45 5.82 1.05 0.108 0.009 92.20 97.10 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.61 0.88 1 1904
PARKWOOD SOILS (Cultivated)
1506 Manatee 6.08 7.13 | 4.56 1.68 0.158 0.013 84.80 88.10 1.38 1.12 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.03 F 0.85 0.56 0.35 0.41 2.17 1.99 1507
1296 Ind.Riv. 7.70 7.98 11.12 9.29 0.355 0.271 77.40 76.50 2.81 3.26 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.3 0.12 0.52 0.55 0.94 1.10 1320
1298 Ind.Riv. 6.55 15.83 0.638 70.10 1.15 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.59 2.43
1307 Ind.Riv. 6.48 6.83 18.33 6.90 0.656 0.224 48.30 85.80 0.87 0.50 0.12 0.05 0.014. 0.0 07 1.02 0.96 7.69 0.94 1319
1321 Ind.Riv. 7.25 7.957..87 13.57 0.266 0.472 72.50 70.90 0.56 1.33 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.0 .18 0.18 0. 0.85 1.00.85 1.06 0.71 1.94 1308
1322 Ind.Riv. 8.07 6.6 7.00 0.205 0.167 88.20 88.50 0.61 0.76 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.12 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.39 1318
1339 St.Lucie 8.30 12.77 0.207 69.20 8.56 0.21 0.07 0.11 0.47 0.99
1340 St.Lucie 7.50 8.98 0.356 82.20 1.95 0.12 0.23 0.37 0.92
1342 St.Lucie 5.86 23.41 0.416 55.00 1.55 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.57 2.30
1344 St.Lucie 6 6.2 6.29 0.318 F 88.80 0.35 0.05 F 0.04 0.07 0.36 0.87
PARKWOOD SOILS (Uncultivated)
1512 Manatee] 5.03 7.35 1 4.49 3.18 0.134 0.063 89.40 89.80 1.08 1.46 0.14 0.29 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.23 0.96 1.24 1513
1309 Ind.Riv. 6.55 6.91 6.15 22.20 0.181 0.852 82.40 57.30 0.51 1.62 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.16 1.78 2.21 1.77 2.05 1312
1317 Ind.Riv. 8.30 8.72 9.93 8.85 0.365 0.127 80.60 73.50 2.20 6.66 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 1.20 1.27 0.99 0.74 1316
1324 | Ind. Riv. 7.36 21.89 19.62 0.046 0.061 64.10 48.40 4.57 19.10 0.14 0.46 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.39 0.42 1.35 0.69 1294
PORTSMOUTH SOILS (Cultivated)
1158 Pinellas I Jaffa & Va-
lencia or.
Marsh &
Commongrf. 7.08 2.92 0.067 92.70 0.35 0.09 0.07 0.22 0.11
1159 Pinellas Marsh &
Commongrf. 6.75 3.22 0.060 93.00 0.36 0.09 0.06 0.36 0.15 0.47
PORTSMOUTH SOILS (Uncultivated)
1160 iPinellasl 5.48 3.38 \ 0.068 96.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.22
1763 Polk 4.90 5.12 2.23 0.90 0.048 0.015 97.20 98.70 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.09 1750
1899 Hills-
borough 4.43 4.72 4.53 0.71 0.041 0.010 95.50 98.40 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.39 | 1900

NOTE: "S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil.
All data (except pH) are reported as percentage of the oven-dried sample.









SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES
Sample Sample
No. I Strontium] Barium VanadiumlChromiumI Man- IZirconiuml Nickel I Silver Titanium I Copper I Boron I Zinc No.
Surface County I Type Grove I I I ganese I I I I ,Subsoil
Soil (S)I C uI I ITye G e Ss I Ss Ss S Ss ISss Ss S S |__ISI S | Ss S Ss I S | S (Sa)

LAKEWOOD SOILS (Cultivated)


1514 Manatee Valencia or. .00 08" .08 *
15-.003 .003
1516 Manatee Marsh grf. C C C C C


1428

1432

1470

1482

1472

1525

o0 1527

1415

1416

1417

1419

1420

1426

1434

1469

1742

1743


Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Polk

Polk


Marsh grf.

Valencia or.

Temple or.

Valencia or.

Valencia or.

Marsh grf.

Valencia or.

Marsh grf.

Marsh grf.

Marsh grf.

Marsh grf.

Marsh grf.

Marsh grf.

Valencia or.

Temple or.

Grapefruit

Temple or.


S.0008 *
-.003
*

.0008 .0008
-.003 -.003
.0008 .0008
-.003 -.003

.0008 *
-.003
.008
-.003
.0008
-.003
.0008
-.003
*

.003 *
-.008
.0008 *
-.003

*

.0008 .008 .0008
-.003 -.03 -.003
.0008 .0008
-.003 -.003


"S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil; "*"


*

*


NORFOLK
*.008 .008
-.03 -.03
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03
.0001 .008
-.001 -.03
.0001 .01
-.001 -.05
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03

.008
-.03
.008
-.03
.008
-.03
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03
.0008 .008
-.003 -.03
.0008 *
-.003
.005
-.01
.0008 .0008 .008
-.003-.003 -.03
.0001 .003
-.001l -.008
denotes "not found".


S. 001 *

.008 .0008 *
-.03 -.003

SOILS (Cultivated)
.01 .1+ .1+ *
-.05
.00 .03 .1+ *
.03 -.08
.01 .008 .08 *
.05 -.03 -.3
.008 .1+ .0008 *
.03 -.003
.008 .03 .008 *
.03 -.08 -.03
.0008 .0008 *
.003 -.003
.01 .03 *
-.01 -.08
.008 *
.03
.0008
-.003
.08
-.3
.0008 *
.003
.005 .008 .08
-.01 -.03 -.3
.1+ .08 *
-.3
.00008 .1+
-.003 -.3
.0008 .008 .0008 *
-.003 -.03 -.003
.003 .1+ .08 *
.008 -.3
.0008 .+ .03 *
-.003 -.08


See text, page 11, for explanation of ranges.
NOTE: Arsenic, antimony, bismuth, cadmium, silver, thallium, lithium, caesium, cobalt, tin, molybdenum,
found in these samples.
All data are reported as percentage of the ignited (4500 C.) sample.


* .0001.08 0 .008 .08.001 .0 05 .003 .0008 1515
-.001 -.0.03 03 -.00-.001 -.01 01 .1 -.008-.003
.08 .0008 .0001 .00 3 008.0008 1517
-.3 -.003 -.001 -.008 -.008 -.003 -.003


* .1+ .1+


.0008.0001 .03 .01
-.003 -.001 -.08 -.05
.0001 .0001.01 .01
-.001 -.001 -.05 -.05
.0001 .008 .008
-.001-.03 -.03
.0001 .00011.008 .008
-.001 -.001 -.03 -.03
.0001 .0001 .008 .008
-.001 -.001 -.03 -.03
.0001 .008 .005
-.001 -.03 -.01
.0001 .0001 .005 .008
-.001 -.001 -.01 -.03
.0001 .03
-.001 -.08
.0001 .008
-.001 -.03
.0001 .008
--.001 -.03
S.008
-.03
.0008 .008 .01
-.003 -.03 -.05
.0001 .0001 .01 .01
-.001 -.001 -.05 -.05
.0001 .0001 .008 .005
-.001 -.0011-.03 -.01
.03 .0001 .008 .008
.08 -.001 -.03 -.03
.005 .0008 .008 .005
-.01 -.00 -.03 .01
.0008 .000 .008 .003
-.003 -.0011-.03 -.008


yttrium, tungsten, lead, lanthanum, and beryllium were not


''







Sample I
No.m Strontiuml Barium V
Surface County Type Grove I
Soil (S) I S Ss I S | Ss I


1744

1752

1766

1767

1157

1161

1162

1166

1498

1500
t0
S 1502

2238

2250



1430

1436

1529

1533

1531

2377

1163

1496

1504


Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Lake

Polk

Pinellas

Pinellas I

Pinellas


Polk RubyBlood or.

Polk Valencia or.

Polk Valencia or.

Polk Sweet Seed-
ling orange
Pinellas Common &
I Marsh grf.
PinellasI Common grf.

Pinellas I Early orange

Pinellas Pineapple or.

I Pinellas Valencia or.

SPinellas Marsh grf.

Pinellas Valencia or.
SOrange

Orange I


.008 .0008 .003
-.03 -.003 .008
.003 .003
-.008 -.008
.008 .008 .008
. -.03 .03
.008 .008
-.03 .03
.0008
.003
.0008
.003
.008 .003
-.03 -.008
.0008
-.003


.03 -.003
*-

.008 .0008


.08 .008 .0008
-.3 -.03 -.003
.008 .003
S-.03 -.008


.0008 .0008
.003 -.0033

.0008
-.003
| *



.0038 .0008
-.003 -.003

0008
-.003
S-.003
-,* I *


.0008
-.003
*

.0008
-.003
.0008
.003












.0008
-.003
.0008 .
-.003
.008.


SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES-Continued
I I I I I
anadiumlChromiumI Man- )Zirconiuml Nickel I Silver
n Ih mi ganese I I I
S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss 1 S I Ss
NORFOLK SOILS (Cultivated)-Continued
S .0008 .003 .003 .1+ .08 *
-.003 -.008 008 -.3
.008 .0008 .03 .008 *
-.03 .003 -.08 .03
* .001 .003 .008 08.08 .1+ *
.005-.008 -.03 -.03 -.3
.0008 .003 .001 .1+ .1 *
-.003 -.008 .005
.0001 .0008 *
-.001 -.003
.03 *
-.08
.0008 .003 .1+ .003 *
-.003 -.008 .008
S .03 *
-.08
.001 .0008 *
-.01 -.003
* *1 .08 .03 *
-.3 -.08
.008 008 *
-.03 -.08
.000 .0008 .008 .003 .1+ 1 I *
-.003-.003 -.03 -.008
1008 .003 .008 .03 .01 .1+ .003 .0008 *
.00 .003 -.00 .03 .08 -.05 -.008 .003
NORFOLK SOILS (Uncultivated)
S .0008.008 .008 .03 .1+ .1+ *
-.003-.03 -.03 -.08
.0001 .0008 .08 001 *
0-0001 -.003 -.3 .01
1.0001.0001 .003 .03 *
-.001 -.001 -.008 .08
.0001 .0001 .005 .005 .1+ .08 *
-.001-.001 -.01 .01 -.3
.0001 .001 .001 *
-.001 -01 -.01
1.0008 .0001 .003 .0008 .03 .08 I *
1-.003 -.001 -.008 -.003 -.08 .3
|.0001 .008 *
-.001 -.03
.0008.0008 0008 .08 .08 .008 *
-.003-.003 -.003 -.3 -.3 -.03
.0001.0001 .008 .008 *
-.001 -.001 -.03 -.03 |


.1+ .003 .0001
-.008 -.001
.08 .008 .0001
-.3 -.03 -.001
.1+ .008 .001
-.03 -.005
.1+ .0008.0001
-.003 -.001
.0001
-.001
.0001
-.001
.001
-.005
.0001
-.001
.08 .0001 *
.3 -.001
.1+ .0001.0001
-.001-.001
.1+ .0001
-.001
.1- .001 .0008
-.005 -.003
.1+ .008 .003
-.03 -.008


.1+ .1-

.1+ .08
.3
.08.08
-.3 -.3
.1- .14-I

.08 .08
-.3 -.3
.1 .1+

.08
-.3
.08 .08
-.3 -.3
.1+ .08
-.3


.00011.0001 .008
-.001 -.001 -.03
.0008.0001.003
-.003 -.001 -.008
.0001 .0008 005
.001 -.003 -.01
.0001.0001 .005
-.001 -.001-.01
.0001.0001.003
-.001 -.001 -.008
.0001 .0008 .008
-.001 -.003 -.03
.0001 .003
-.001 -.008
.0001 .0001 .008
-.001 -.001 -.03
.0001.00011.003
-.001 -.001 -.008


.008 .001
-.03 -.005
.0008 .0008
-.003 -.003
.003 .003
-.008.008
.005 .0008
-.01 -.003
.01
-.05
.003
-.008
.0008
-.003
.003
-.008
.008 .0008
-.03 -.003
.008 .003
-.03 -.008
.003 .003
-.008-.008
.003 .0008
-.008 -.003
.008 .008
-.03 -.03


.008 1.003 .003
-.03 -.008-.008
.001 .0008 .0001
-.005 -.003 -.001
.003 .0001.0001
-.008 -.001 -.001
.0008 .0001.0001
-.003 -.001 -.001
.005 .0001 .0001
-.01 -.001 -.001
.003 .0008 .003
-.008 -.003 -.008
.0008
-.003
.005 *
-.01
.005 .0001 .0001
-.01 -.001-.001


"S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil; "*" denotes "not found". See other footnotes page 28.


II I I
Titanium Copper Boron Zinc I

I S I Ss S | Ss I S Ss I S I Ss I


Sample
No.
Subsoil
(S)


1773

1761

1748

1741








1499

1501

1503

2239

2251



1431

1437

1530

1534

1532

2378


1497

1505








SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES-Continued


Sample
No.
Surface County Type
Soil (S)


I I I I Io I I
Strontium Barium VanadiumlChromium,l Man- JZirconium| Nickel I Silver Titanium Copper Boron Zinc
Grove I SI SI S I T I ganese I | I
SS | Ss I S I S I S Ss I S ISsI S I SS Ss IS Ss S I Ss S I Ss S I Ss I S S S S I SS


Sample
No.
Subsoil
(Ss)


NORFOLK SOILS (Uncultivated)-Continued
2240 Orange 0008.0008003 .0008 .0008.0008 .01 .008 1+ + .0001.00081 .0001 1+ 03 01 .800 3 00 05 008 2241
-0Orange -.003-.003-0 -.003 -.003 -.0003 -.0 3 .- .1-{-
-.03 03003 -.003 -.05 .03-.01 00 -.001 008005-.03 -.008-01 -03
2252 Orange .0008.0008 0008.03 03 .08 .05 .1+ .1+ .0008 .003 .1 .1 .001 .008 .03 .01 .01 .008 2253
S-.003 -.,03 1-.003 -.008 -.008 -.3 -.1 -.003 -.008 -.001-.003-.08 -.05 -.05 -.03 |
EUSTIS SOILS (Cultivated)
1194 Lake .008 .003 .0008 003 .01 .1+ .0008 1+ .000 .005 .03
-.03 -.008 -.003 008 .05 -.003 .001 -.01 -.08
1195 Lake .005 .001 .0008 .01 .1+ .0008 .1+ .0001 .008 .008
-.01 -.005 .003 .05 .003 .001 -.03 -.03
1198 Lake .08 .005 .0008 .005 .03 .0008 0008 005 .008
.3 -.01 003 -.01 -.08 .003 .003 .01 -.03
EUSTIS SOILS (Uncultivated)
1196 ake .008 .008 .00081 1.001 .03 .1+ *+ 00011 .008 1 .0038
S.03 1I-.03 -.003 -.005 I .08 I I I I 1 1001 -.03 -.008


C 1425 Lake IMarsh grf. .008 .0008 *
S I .03 -.003
1478 I Lake Valencia or. .0008 .003 .0008 *
-.003 -.00 -.003
1480 I Lake Marsh grf. .001 .0008 *
S-.05.00 .00
2262 IOrange Seedling or. .1+ .03 .01 .008 *
S -.08 -.05 -.03

1421 Lake *
1423 I Lake .0008 *
I -.005 -.003
1476 Lake *
2379 Orange .1+ .1+ .03 .03 *
S I I I _-.08 -.08

1754 |DeSoto Valencia or. .008 I .0038 *
__ -.03 -.0081 I


1901
1903


IHills- I .008 .03 0 .008.
borough -.03 -.08 -.003-.03
Hills- .01 .01 .003 .003
borough -.05 -.05 -.008 08


ORLANDO SOILS (Cultivated)
.01 .005 .0008 *
-.05 -.01 -.003
.0001.0001 .008 .005 .1+ .0008 *
-.001-.001 -.03 -.01 -.003
.003 .0008.008 .0008 *
-.008 -.003 -.03 -.003
.008 .003 .03 .01 .1+ .08 .0008.0008
-.03 -.008 -.08 -.05 -.3 -.0031-.003
ORLANDO SOILS (Uncultivated)
| .001 .001 .* *
-.01 .01 I
.03* .03 .01
.0008 .008 .08 .001 .0008
-.003 -.03 .3 -.01 -.003
.0008 .001 .001 *
-.003 -.01 -.01
.005 .003 .03 03 .1+ .008 *
-.01 -.008 -.08 -.08 -|.03
BLANTON SOILS (Cultivated)
.0008 .008 .08 1.00081 *
1-.003 -.03 -.3 -.003
SCRANTON SOILS (Cultivated)
1.001 .003 .0008 .0008 .1+ .1+ ]
-.005 -.008 -.003 -.003
1 .1.003 .0008.0008 .08 .1+ *
-.005 -.008 -.003 -.0031-.3


.08 .0001 .01 .008
-.3 -.001 -.05 -.03
.1+ .1+ .001 .0001 .008 .00005005 .001
-.005 -.001-.03 -.01 -.01 -.00
.08 .03 .0008 .008 .003 .008 .008
-.3 .08 .003 -.03 -.008-.03 -.03
1+ .1+ .0008 .0001 .008 ..0 .008 .005
i-.003-.001-.03 -.03 -.03 -.01


* .008 .008 .0001 .0001 .005 .008 .0008.0008 1422
.03 .03 -.001-.001 -.01 -.03 -.003-.003
* .1 .008 .001 .0001.003 .008 .01 .0008 1424
.03 .005-.001-.008-.03 -.05 -.003
* *.008 .0008.0001.000.0010 .003 .0008.0008 1477
-.03 .003 -.001 -.001 -.005 -.008 -.003-.003
* .1+ .0001.0001 ..003.003 .0008.003 2380
-.001 -.001 -.008 -.008 -.003 -.008

* |* .8 .008 .0001.0001.001 .0008.00081.00011 1757
I -.3 -.03 -.001 -.001 -.005 -.003 -.003 -.001

* .1 .1+ .0008 .0001 .008 008 .008 .005 1902
-.003-.001-.03 -.03 -.03 -.01
* .1+ .1 .01 .0001.003 .005 .005 .005 1904
-.05 -.001-.008-.01 -.01 -.01


"S" denotes surface soil; "Ss" denotes subsoil; "*"


denotes "not found". See other footnotes page 28.






SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES-Continued


Sample
No. I
Surface County
Soil (S) |

1506 Manatee1
1296 Indian
River
1298 Indian
SRiver
1307 Indian
I River I
1321 Indian
IRiver
1322 Indian
River
1339 St.
Lucie
1340 | St.
SLucie
1342 | St.
I Lucie
1344 I St.
SLucie


Strontium. Barium Vanadium Chromium Man- Zirconiun
Type Grove I ganese I


I S I Ss I S I Ss I S Ss I S


.1+ 1.1+-

.05 .1+
-.1
.08
-.3
.08 .08
-.3 -.3
.08 .03
-.3 -.08
.08 .08
-.3 -.3
.1+
.08
-.3
.1+

.05
-.1


.01
-.05
.000
-.00
.008
-.03
.008
-.03
.008
-.03
.003
-.00
.008
-.03
.000
-.00
.00o
-.03
.003
|-.00


I Ss I S I Ss I S I Ss I S Ss
PARKWOOD SOILS (Cultivated)
.008 .1 .05 .1+ .1+ *
-.03 .1
8 .005 .03 .01 .03 .1+ *
3-.01 -.08 -.05 -.08
.03 .1+ .0008
8 .08 -.003
.008 .01 .01 .08 .1+ .0008
-.03 -.05 .05 .3 -.003
.008 01 .01 .1+ .1+ *
-.03 -.05 .05
.0008 .03 .01 .03 .1 *
8 -.003 -.08 -.05 -.08
.008 .08 *
-.03 -.3
8 .08 .1+ .0001
3 .3 -.001
8 .008 .03 .0008
S-.03 -.08 -.003
.01 .08 .0001
08 -.05 -.3 -.001


PARKWOOD SOILS (Uncultivated)
Manatee .08 .1+ 03 .08 0008.001 .03 03 .08 *
-.3 -.08 -.3 -.003-005 -.08 -.8 -.3
Indian I .03 .+ .0008.008 .008 .001 .08 .01 1+ .1+ 0008
River -.08 .003-.03 -.03 .005-.3 -.05 .003
I Indian .08 .1+ .008 .0008 .003 .008 0008 .03 8 *
I River I-.3 -.03 -.003 -.008-03 .003-.08 .3
SIndian 1.1+ .1+ .008 .003 .003 .008 0 + .008 .0008 *
SRiver -.03 -.008 -.008-.03 -.03 -.08 -.03 .003
PORTSMOUTH SOILS (Cultivated)


1158 I Pinellas Jaffa & Va-
I ] lencia or.
Marsh &
S Common grf.
1159 I Pinellas Marsh &
| Commongrf

1160 I Pinellas

1763 Polk ]

1899 Hills- |
I borough
"S" denotes surface soil;


.08 .1+ .001 .003 .003 .008 .003 .0008
.3 -.005 .00 -.008 -.03 -.008-.003
.+ .1+ .0001.0001 .003 .008 .008 .008
-.001 -.001 -.008-.03 -.03 -.03
.08 .08 0001 .0001 .008 .008 .005 .0008
-.3 -.3 -.001 -.001 -.03 -.03 -.01 -.003
1+ .08 .0001 .0001 .008 .003 .0008 .0001
-.3 001 -.001 -.03 -.008 -.003 -.001


.0008 .0008 .0008 .1+ .1+ .03 .008 .008
-.003 -.003 .003 -.08 -.03 -.03

.000.0 .0008 .0001 .0008 .08 ..0 .008 08 .008
.1 -.003 -.003 -.001 -.003 -.3 | .03 -.03 -.03
PORTSMOUTH SOILS (Uncultivated)
1 .0008 .003 008 .08 .0001 .005 .0008
1-.003 -.008 -.3 -.3 -.001 -.01 -.003
0008 0001 .003 .008 .03 .08 .0001 .00 00080.0008 1750
-003 -001 .08 03 -.08 .3 -.001 01 .003 -.003 -.003 .003
1 .008 .0008 .000 .0008 .1+ 0001 .0001 .008 .0 03 .0008 .001 1900
I -.03 -.003 -.00 -.0.03 .001 -.001 .03 .008 -.003 -.005
"Ss" denotes subsoil; "*" denotes' "not found". See other footnotes page 28.


'


I I I Sample
Silver Titanium I Copper Boron Zinc No.
I I i I Subsoil
S i Ss S I Ss I S I Ss S I Ss I S Ss (Ss)

* + .1+ .0008 .0001 .005 .008 .008 .005 1507
-.003-.001-.01 -.03 -.03 -.01
*.0001 .08 .1+ .0008 .0008.003 .008 .003 .008 1320
-.001 -.3 -.003 -.003 -.008 -.03 -.008 -.03
.1+ .003 .001 .0008
-.008 -.005 -.003
* .1-- .1+ .0008 .008 .008 .008 .003 1319
-.003-.03 -.03 -.03 -.008
S .1 .1+ .008 .0001.008 .01 .008 .008 1308
-.03 -.001-.03 -.05 -.03 -.03
.1 .1+ .03 .0001.008 .008 .0008.0008 1318
-.08 -.001 -.03 -.03 -.003-.003
.08 .0001 .005 .0008
-.3 -.001 -.01 -.003
.1F- .08 .003 .003
-.3 -.008 -.008
.1 .008 .008 .008
-.03 -.03 -.03
.1+ .003 .00 .005
-.008 -.01 -.01




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs