Evaluation of Manganese Fertility of Upland Cotton in the Lower Colorado Valley

Similar documents
Interpreting Plant Tissue and Soil Sample Analysis

What s new with micronutrients in our part of the world?

Soil Testing Options in High Tunnels. Bruce Hoskins University of Maine anlab.umesci.maine.edu

Objectives: 1. Determine the effect of nitrogen and potassium applications on sugar beet root yield and quality.

5. Plant Physiology/Chemistry Section

Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management. Hailin Zhang. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences

in Cotton Dr. Steve Phillips Director, Southeast USA

Pomegranate Irrigation and Nutrient Management

Potassium and Phosphorus as Plant Nutrients. Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients. Potassium is required in large amounts by many crops

USE OF OCEANGROWN PRODUCTS TO INCREASE CROP YIELD AND ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CONTENT. Dave Franzen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

1101 S Winchester Blvd., Ste. G 173 San Jose, CA (408) (408) fax Page 1 of 2

Protein and Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer and Variation of Plant Tissue Analysis in Wheat

INTERPRETING SOIL & LEAF ANALYSIS

Quick Tips for Nutrient Management in Washington Berry Crops. Lisa Wasko DeVetter Assistant Professor, Small Fruit Horticulture March 16, 2016

Raymond C. Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE

Interpreting Soils Report. Beyond N P K

Tim Mundorf Fall 2016

Understanding a Soil Report

Understanding Your Soil Report. Michael Cook 2018

Specialists In Soil Fertility, Plant Nutrition and Irrigation Water Quality Management.

REMEMBER as we go through this exercise: Science is the art of making simple things complicated!

2009 Elba Muck Soil Nutrient Survey Results Summary, Part III: Calcium, Magnesium and Micronutrients

Use of Soil and Tissue Testing for Sustainable Crop Nutrient Programs

Soil Composition. Air

Lime Fertilizer Interactions Affecting Vegetable Crop Production' Delbert D. Hemphill, Jr., and T. L. ABSTRACT

May 2008 AG/Soils/ pr Understanding Your Soil Test Report Grant E. Cardon Jan Kotuby-Amacher Pam Hole Rich Koenig General Information

Enclosed are the tissue analysis results for the samples from the greens at Golf Club.

Roses with Vitazyme application

FACT SHEET. Understanding Cation Exchange Capacity and % Base Saturation

Project: TopCal for sodium management during leaching at Mission Viejo Country Club

Research Report Forage Sorghum Hybrid Yield and Quality at Maricopa, AZ, 2015

Short Staple Regional Cotton Variety Trial, Safford Agricultural Center, Abstract. Introduction. Materials and Methods

Nutrient Recommendations Agronomic Crops Last Updated 12/1/16. Grain Corn. Crop Highlights Target ph: 6.0

Plants, soil, and nutrients. Created in partnership with Alex Lindsey, Ph.D., The Ohio State University

SOIL TEST INTERPRETATION JIM FASCHING Technical Field Representative

BOTANY AND PLANT GROWTH Lesson 9: PLANT NUTRITION. MACRONUTRIENTS Found in air and water carbon C oxygen hydrogen

Fertilization Programming

Monitoring & Maintaining the ph and EC of the Root Environment. Bill Fonteno Horticultural Substrates Laboratory NC State University

SOILS AND PLANT NUTRITION

Plant, Soil, and Nutrients

Determination of available nutrients in soil using the Agilent 4200 MP-AES

Managing Micronutrients with Soil (Plant) Testing and Fertilizer

Greenhouse Horticulture

Soil Nutrients and Fertilizers. Essential Standard Explain the role of nutrients and fertilizers.

Interpretation of Soil Tests for Environmental Considerations

Cultivar Specific Nitrogen Management Profiles For Irrigated Process Varieties Inkster, ND 2009

Supplying Nutrients to Crops

Corn and soybean yield responses to micronutrients fertilization

Rainfall impact on sodium leaching at Denver Country Club. Doug Brooks, Denver Country Club, Larry Stowell, Ph.D., PACE Turf LLC

Developing your Fertilizer Management Program. Outline. 2/6/2018. Other factors Species Correct site Weather Weed control. Soil physical properties

Almond Nitrogen Nutrition

Multi-K. Potassium Nitrate Products For Healthy Crops

RELIABILITY OF SOIL AND PLANT ANALYSES FOR MAKING NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Potash Phosphate Nitrogen

12. ZINC - The Major Minor

Nutrition. Grain Legume Handbook

INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF POOR SUGARBEET AREAS. D.W. Franzen, D.H. Hopkins, and Mohamed Khan North Dakota State University INTRODUCTION

Keywords: hydroponic, media, soilless culture, zeolite

DAFFODILS ARE WHAT THEY EAT: NUTRITIONAL ASPECTS OF SOILS

Evaluation of integrated nutrient diagnosis techniques to enhance productivity and quality in greenhouse rose crops

Soil Conditions Favoring Micronutrient Deficiencies and Responses in 2001

Trace Yet Substantial

Nutrition in Container Crops. Dr. James Altland

Soil 4234 Guest Lecture

Fertility management in soybean

INFLUENCE OF DAIRY MANURE APPLICATIONS ON CORN NUTRIENT UPTAKE

Importance of Water Quality: ph, buffering, and effects on nutrient availability

Larry Stein, Texas A & M AgriLife Extension Service. Nitrogen fertilization materials, rates and timing

A Guide to Citrus Nutritional Deficiency and Toxicity Identification 1

Terry Richmond s Fertilizer Package mentioned in the panel discussion March 14, 2013.

FERTILIZATION. Roland D. Meyer, Daniel B. Marcum, and Steve B. Orloff ESSENTIAL PLANT NUTRIENTS

Plant Nutrients in Mineral Soils

Advanced Liner Nutrient Management

Soil Testing and Interpretation

LECTURE 12 NUTRIENT DEFICIENCY AND TOXICITY. Causes and Symptoms. Nitrogen

Objective: How it Was Done:

Biosolids Nutrien Management an Soil Testing. Craig Cogger, Soil Scientis WSU Puyallup

MAGIC RECIPES? Strawberry Fertigation in the UK. John Atwood Senior Horticultural Consultant.

Micronutrient Disorders

ALP Program Report Fall - Cycle 34

Technical Guide on Nutritional recommendations for SWEETPEPPER For Open-field, Nethouse, Tunnels and Polyhouse

Introduction to Wolf Trax

FERTIGATION 24 FERTIGATION WITH DRIPPERS

FACTORS AFFECTING WATER QUALITY

Soils and Soil Fertility Management

Citrus Greening Symposium Bartow, April 7, 2009

Animal, Plant & Soil Science. D3-7 Characteristics and Sources of Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients

AZOMITE and Coffee & Cacao

INSECTICIDE EFFICACY TRIAL FOR THRIPS CONTROL IN DRY BULB ONIONS

ORGANIC ROMAINE HEARTS LATE SUMMER 2017 SALINAS, CA

How to Select the Right Fertilizer for Hydroponics

Soil Program Recommendation

Trends in Micro-Nutrient Soil Test Levels in Saskatchewan Pat Flaten, PAg 1, Brandon Green, PAg 2, Paul Routledge, PAg 3

Limitations to Plant Analysis. John Peters & Carrie Laboski Department of Soil Science University of Wisconsin-Madison

MICRONUTRIENT PRINCIPLES

Citrus Fertilization for Cold-Tolerant Varieties. Tom Obreza

Controlled Release Fertilizer Evaluations 1998

In mid-october, all plots were again soil sampled to determine residual nutrients.

Using Tissue and Soil Tests Together Helps Make Better Decisions. John Lee Soil Scientist AGVISE Northwood, ND

Trends in Soil Management for Turf. David C. Smith P.Ag DCS Agronomic Services

Transcription:

Evaluation of Manganese Fertility of Upland Cotton in the Lower Colorado Valley J.C. Silvertooth and. Galadima bstract field experiments was conducted during the 2001 growing season to evaluate the effect of Manganese (Mn) fertility on growth, development, and yield of a commonly grown upland cotton variety in the Yuma Valley of rizona. This project also provided an evaluation of the University of rizona (U) critical level for Mn fertility for cotton (1.0 ppm Mn). The study consisted of two treatments, which included an untreated control and a treatment receiving two foliar applications each of a pint of the product 3-0-0-27.4 using 18gal./acre carrier. Plant growth and development measurements, including estimates of fruit retention (FR) levels and height to node ratios (HNR s) were similar for both treatments during the season. There was not a significant difference in lint yield between the control (untreated) and the treated plots. These results support the current U Mn fertility guideline for cotton on not applying Mn when soil test levels exceed 1.0 ppm. Introduction Fertility management in a cotton (Gossypium spp.) production system is critical for healthy plant growth and the maintenance of profitability. In rizona soils, Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) are the most commonly applied nutrients in cotton production systems. Nutrient management is essential for optimizing plant response and yield, and should be based upon guidelines obtained from soil and plant tissue analyses. These guidelines and nutrient management recommendations should be established through soil test and plant tissue correlation and calibration procedures. The purpose of soil test calibration is to describe the soil test results in easily understood terminology and to simplify the process of making fertilizer recommendations by placing soils in response categories (Dahnke and Olson, 1990). method which involves plotting relative yield against soil test values can effectively provide visual indication of the reliability of a specified soil test and its correlation to plant response or to the uptake of a specific nutrient (Dahnke and Olson, 1990). ased on the outcome of such correlation studies, effective fertilizer recommendations have been made. For example, a DPT extractable level of Manganese (Mn) greater than 1.0 ppm is usually considered sufficient for cotton production, and a level below 1.0 ppm are indicative of possible deficient levels of Mn (Silvertooth and Norton, 1998; Servi Tech Crop File fertilizer recommendations on cotton). In the absence of adequate levels of Mn, it is typical for the upper and the young leaves of cotton to become yellowish gray or reddish gray in color with green veins. In contrast, excessive amounts of the nutrient (usually found in acidic soil environments) can cause crinkle leaf (Neal, 1937; Lovett, 1938). Other toxicity symptoms include appearance of abnormal leaves, which are puckered, mottled, partially chlorotic and distorted in early stages, with necrotic lesions appearing between the veins. However, in rizona where soil ph is typically alkaline in nature (ph 8.0), toxic levels should not occur. There are no extensive reports regarding Mn fertilization to cotton. This fact necessitates additional study to evaluate Mn and micronutrient requirements by cotton in relation to growth, development and yield. Hence, the This is a part of the 2002 rizona Cotton Report, The University of rizona College of griculture and Life Sciences, index at http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1283

objective of this study was to determine the effect of Mn application on growth, development, and yield of a commonly grown upland cotton variety in rizona. Materials and Methods Mn fertility field experiment was conducted in the lower Colorado River Valley of the southwestern rizona during the 2001growing season. The Mn experiment was located in the Yuma Valley on a Gadsden clay loam soil. The two treatments included a control plot (0 Mn fertilizer) and a treated plot receiving two in-season applications of 3-0-0-27.4 fertilizer as a Mn source. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots consisted of 80, 42 inch rows and extended the full length of the irrigation run (620 ft.). gronomic information for this study is presented in Table 1 and preseason soil chemical analysis results are presented in Table 2. Dates and rates of applied fertilizer for the treated plots are summarized in Table 3. The Mn treatments were applied foliarly at the rate of 1pt. of the fertilizer to the acre using 18 gal./acre carrier. asic plant measurements were collected from all plots at significant phenotypic stages of the study. These measurements included plant height, number of mainstem nodes, node of the first fruiting branch, number of aborted or missing fruit, and the number of nodes above the top white flower (NWF). This information was collected to track crop growth and development over the season. Final lint yield for both treatments in the experiment was determined by harvesting each plot into a separate module that was subsequently weighed and ginned to determine lint yield. Lint yield data was subjected to analysis of variance according to procedures outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984) and the SS Institute (1996) to determine if there was a significant difference in lint yield due to the fertilizer Mn treatment. Results and Conclusions asic plant measurements revealed no differences between the fertilized and the control plots. Fruit retention and HNR estimates for the fertility study indicated strong vigor (HNR) and high FR levels over the entire season for both treatments (Figure 1). Though both treatments exhibited HNR within the optimum growth thresholds, a slight difference in HNR was detected between the two treatments towards the end of the season (Fig 1). The increase in HNR for the untreated plots however did not result in a significant increase in yield over the treated plots. No differences with respect to lint yield were detected between the untreated control and the fertilized treatment (Table 4). The results of the plant measurements and lint yield are in agreement with U fertility guidelines for cotton, that positive cotton response to Mn fertilization is unlikely when soil Mn levels exceed 1.0 ppm. Soil test Mn levels for this site greatly exceeded the 1.0 ppm U critical level (Table 2). Summary The soil test results, crop growth, and lint yield results from this study reinforce the current U Mn fertilization guidelines for irrigated cotton in relation to soil nutrient levels. cknowledgments The authors wish to thank the grower, Mr. James F. Platt who cooperated on this project. IS Labs conducted the laboratory analysis. The soil samples and plant measurement data for this project could not have been accomplished without the valuable help from the University of rizona Cotton Research ssistants. References Dahnke, W.C., and R.. Olson. 1990. Soil test correlation, calibration, and recommendation. p. 45-71. In R.L. Westerman (3rd ed.) Soil Testing and Plant nalysis. SSS, Madison, Wisconsin 1990.

Gomez, K.. and.g. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for gricultural Research. (2nd ed.) John Wiley & Sons. New York. Neal, D. C. 1937. Crinkle leaf, a new disease of cotton in Louisiana. Phytopathology XXVII 12. p. 1171-1175. Neal, D. C. and H.C. Lovett. 1938. Further studies of crinkle leaf, a disorder of cotton plant prevalent in Louisiana and Olivier silt loam soils of Louisiana. Phytopathology. XXVIII. 8. p. 582-587. SS Institute. 1996. SS/STT: Procedures. Release 6.03 ed. SS Inst., Cary, NC. Servi Tech. Inc. 1985. Cotton: Fertilizer recommendation. Crop File 1.02.270. Dodge City, KS. Silvertooth, J.C. and E.R. Norton. 1998. Cotton monitoring and management system. Publication No. Z1049, University of rizona, College of griculture, Tucson, Z.

Table 1. gronomic information for Mn fertility study, Yuma Valley, Z, 2001. Planting Date 3 March Variety DP 5415 RR Termination Date 8 ugust Harvest Date Table 2. Pre-application soil test result for Mn fertility study (1 foot depth), Yuma Valley, Z, 2001. Sampling Location North End Middle South End Unit Content *ph 8 8.2 8.1 ECe ds/m 1.4 1.8 1.5 **Ca ppm 7000 6800 7100 Mg ppm 1000 120 120 Na Ppm 240 260 210 K ppm 240 260 210 NO 3 -N ppm 18 24 30 PO 4 -P ppm 13 11 12 Zn ppm 1.0 1.0 0.9 Cu ppm 0.29 0.29 0.25 Fe ppm 9.3 9.5 9.3 Mn ppm 5.4 5.4 5.0 ppm 0.30 0.32 0.36 SO 4 -S ppm 14 13 13 *PH and EC e obtained from 1:1 water extract **Exchangeable cations using neutral molar ammonium acetate NO 3 -N and PO 4 -P from Olsen bicarbonate extract Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn from DPT extract and SO 4 -S from hot water extract Table 3. Treatments for the Mn fertility study, Yuma Valley, Z, 2001. Treatment Product* Rate (lbs. Mn/acre) 1-0 2 3-0-0-27.4 0.5 *1pt of material applied foliarly on 4 June and 15 June using 18 gal./acre carrier (4 lb 2.81 oz Mn/gal.).

Table 4. Lint yield results for Mn fertility study, Yuma Valley, Z, 2001. Lint Yield Treatment (lbs. lint/acre) 1 1577 2 1551 LSD 94 OSL 0.4428 C.V. (%) 2.7 2.5 120 Height (in.)/node Ratio 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 % Fruit Retention 100 80 60 40 20 0.0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Heat Units ccumulated fter Planting 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Heat Units ccumulated fter Planting Treatment 1 (No Mn) Treatment 2 (Mn dded) Fig. 1. 2001 Manganese Fertility Study, Yuma Valley, Z.