.w
W

t

n
(I‘

H‘
1
V

«Ht

\
\

r
W

t
t

a

A

l

t
I

.1ku

\

l

}

(l

144

fi
>

 

EFFECTS 0F VAMOUS MINERAL
ELEMENTS ON THE GRSWTHA
EEVELGPMENT AND YIELD OF

WHITE [EARS ON A CQNOVER

LOW 50%

Thai: {m #1510 Ma 0f M. 5‘
MI‘CE‘i'mH STATE COLLE‘EEE
Qanaia‘ A. E‘ownay
39’43

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

"Effects of Various Mineral Elements
on the Growth, Development and Yield
of White Beans on a Conover Loam Soil"

presented by
Donald A. Downey

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Soil Science

 

a .
LLclegree 1n

CE?«;ED%)g¥i£ZéQDg#_M

Major professor

DateW._

11-796

EFFECTS OF VARIOUS MINERAL ELEMENTS ON THE
GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND‘YIELD 0F WHITE
‘ BEANS ON A CONOVER LOAM SOIL

by

Donald A. Denney
“-

A THESIS

Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Soil Science

1948

THESIS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude
to Dr. R. L. Cook and Prof. J. Q. Lynd for their
guidance in the research reported in this paper

and for their many helpful suggestions.

216966

I.
II.
III.
IV.

V.

VI.
VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

PLAN OF STUDY

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL USED

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

A.

B.

C.

D.

Characteristics of Soil

1. Physical Properties

2. Chemical Preperties
Description of Greenhouse Experiments
1. Experiment 1.

2. Experiment 2.

Results of Greenhouse Experiments
1. Experiment 1.

2. Experiment 2.

Field Experiments

1. Procedure

2. Results

SUMMARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"U

Q
co N H

0

10
ll
11
11
11
13
13
15
16
16
21
25
25
27
28
31

INTRODUCTION

The great volume of literature that has been published
in recent years concerning the role of minor elements in
crOp production is indicative of the importance attributed
to these elements. Investigations into the mechanism by
which the minor elements effect changes in the plant have
been more successful in recent years due to the perfection
of technique, the use of more highly purified chemicals,
and to the use of new materials, such as radioactive ele-
ments, in tracing the progress of a particular element
through the plant.

The experimental work presented in this thesis was
undertaken to obtain results which might explain the reason
for the consistently low yields of beans in a portion of
southwest Huron County, Michigan. Since fertilizers con-
taining nitrOgen, phosphorus and potassium had been used in
this area without greatly increasing the yields, it was sus-
pected that the solution to the problem might lie in the use
of minor elements. Thus, greenhouse and field experiments

were conducted to determine if this was actually the case.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature available on the role of minor elements
in the growth and development of various plants is so vol-
uminous as to preclude the possibility of an exhaustive
review. Therefore only the more recent investigations per-
taining to magnesium, manganese, iron and copper nutrition
in plants will be touched on here.

I}

Shive (In), in his work on trace elements, stated \WKV\

,_.

that there were reciprocal relationships between manganese
and iron in their effects on plants. He stated that the
theoretical role of manganese is based on the fact that the
active, functional iron in the tissues is in a reduced
state and that the oxidizing potential of manganese is high»
er than that of iron. If the iron is in the ferric state
when absorbed it is reduced to the ferrous form.unless re-
strained by a counterreactant. If such a reactant is not
present a very low concentration of iron may be toxic.
This would result in iron toxicity or manganese deficiency
symptoms. He also demonstrated that an iron to manganese
ratio of about 2, both in the tissue and in the external
media, was necessary to give normal growth without toxicity
or deficiency symptoms showing up in the plant. ”0
Some later investigations by Somers and Shive (ET),

enlarge on and clarify these iron-manganese relationships

and bring out the fact that the symptoms of iron toxicity

as-

and manganese deficiency were identical in the plants

studied. These writers also concluded that phosphorus was ’&§iey‘
a factor in the precipitation of ferric and ferrous ions. 1

An increase of phosphorus brings about an increase in the

percent of insoluble iron in the leaf tissues.

Leeper £21 discusses the chemistry of manganese and
thinks that it is of great importance in the consideration
of plant growth because: 1) on some neutral or alkaline
soils manganese is insufficiently available to plants for
healthy growth, 2) on some acid soils plants absorb mangan-
ese in toxic amounts, and 3) the distribution of various
forms of the element is closely connected with soil form-
ation.

L11,

McHargue 699, in some of the earlier work done with
regard to manganese as a plant nutrient, found that in an
acid soil only a small amount of the total manganese was
soluble in water and an addition of manganese sulfate alone
decreased yields of craps, but when supplemented with cal-
cium carbonate increased the yield. He suggested that the
presence of manganese in an acid soil may be toxic and this
toxicity may be remedied by adding calcium carbonate.

Cook and Miller d3; found that soils deficient in
manganese for beans were those which were neutral to alka-
line. Treatment at different rates of application on var-
ious soils resulted in increased yields and the deficiency
symptoms either wholly disappeared or were considerably

reduced in intensity.

A
Piper (£i) shows that soil reaction and the oxidation-

reduction equilibrium acting in intimate association affect

-4.

the availability of manganese. He found that additions of
sucrose to a water logged soil increased the water soluble
manganese because of the greater bacterial activity which
deve10ped anaerobic conditions in the soil which led to the
reduction of the manganese dioxide to soluble manganous com-
pounds. He concluded that manganese is evidently reduced
and rendered soluble in water 10gged soils with as high a
pH as 8.0. In other experiments he showed that manganese
added as manganese sulfate was almost all converted to

manganese dioxide. ‘{w\

/7/

Lucas L55, in his studies on the effect of the add- gi~"
itions of capper, zinc and manganese, showed that the
addition of cepper did not affect the manganese content of
the plants growing in soils with a sufficient supply of
capper. He also showed that small applications of capper
sulfate were as beneficial as large applications. .He be-
lieved that zinc accentuated cOpper deficiency in plants
because the zinc was not injurious in the presence of capper.
Sherman and Harmer (£93, in their studies on the man-
ganous-manganic equilibrium of soils, concluded, as did N¢fiy\e
others before them, that the availability of the manganese
in a soil was the important consideration, and that the
total quantity present was not of such great importance.
The availability of manganese was found to vary with the
acidity of the soil. The addition of sulfur, which re-
sulted in increased acidity, retarded the oxidation to the

manganic form. A neutral or alkaline condition favored the

manganic form, and explained partly why plants grown in

-5-

alkaline soils are likely to show manganese deficiency
symptoms. These workers also showed that soil moisture
and temperature conditions influenced the manganese equil-
ibrium, the exchangeable manganese decreasing markedly
during July, August and September. Tests showed that exa
changeable manganese was higher in the spring (before man-
ganese was added) than in the fall (after the crop was
removed.)

In a discussion of the iron nutrition of plants \ ‘
Lindner and Harley €g§7mention four ways in which iron
.nutrition may be affected to cause chlorosis: 1) True
iron deficiency, which is not common in the field, 2) a
disturbed P04/Fe balance which causes chlorosis, 3)_a dis-
turbed Mn/Fe ratio, and 4) a lime induced chlorosis. Further
tests with oats showed that increasing the acidity of the
soil greatly increased the availability of manganese, and
they also showed that yields of cats grown on a manganese
deficient soil were greatly increased by a high water sat-
uration, by dressings of manganese sulfate or by waterlogging
the soil before seeding.

Hann.tk9, in tests with soybeans on several acid
soils, has shown that liming decreased the solubility of
soil manganese, and that the manganese became relatively
insoluble with applications greater than 5,000 pounds of
lime per acre. He also showed that the solubility of iron
was increased by moderate liming, but was decreased at the

higher rates. Soybeans grown on certain of these soils

-6...

responded to applications of fertilizer and moderate app-
lications of lime, but larger amounts of calcium carbonate
decreased yields from the maximum. The application of
larger amounts of magnesium carbonate were found to be
toxic. He showed that the quantities of manganese absorbed
by the plants followed closely the solubility of manganese
in the soil and also that absorption decreased at the point
of maximum yield. A chlorosis which appeared in soybeans
grown on a soil of pH 8.4 was remedied by applications of
manganese sulfate to theqsoil or to the leaves as a spray.

Schollenberger (1%) found that calcite crystals mixed
with an acid soil caused a precipitation of manganese, the
calcite crystals becoming coated with a deposit of manganese
dioxide. “j A

Piper 931) also stated that manganese as manganese
dioxide was not available to plants until it had been re-
duced to the manganous form, perhaps by biological re-
duction. 1 A

Wain, et al (20), in work to determine the length of
time it would take to render added manganese insoluble in
the soil, found that much of the soluble manganese added
became insoluble in a few days, but due to a water lOgging
effect in this particular soil, the extractable amounts in-
creased with time. These workers also confirmed the work
of Piper (EI) and Robinson (fig), that water lagging in-
creases the availability of manganese in the soil.

Truog, Goates, Gerloff, and Berger (fig) worked with
the magnesium/phosphorus relationships in plant nutrition

and tried to correlate the supply of available magnesium to

-7.-

the phosphorus content of peas in field and nutrient culture
experiments in which the supply of phosphorus and magnesium
was varied. The results of chemical analyses revealed a
consistent increase in phosphorus content with increasing
supplies of available magnesium, and an increase of magnesium
resulted in a greater increase in phosphorus than did an
increase of phosphorus itself in the media. These results
supported the theory that magnesium functions as a carrier
of phosphorus and indicated a need for considering the
possibility of a limited supply of available magnesium when
phosphorus deficiency was evident in plants. These workers
also stated that the quantity of potassium in the soil in-
fluences the uptake of magnesium.and if an abundance of
potassium.is at the plant's disposal, then the amount of

magnesium in the plant will be relatively low.

-8-

PLAN OF STUDY

This study was begun with the idea of using a complete
fertilizer plus various minor elements in an effort to show
what treatments might be used to increase yields of white
beans on the soil in question. It was thought at the be-
ginning that negative results in the greenhouse and field
experiments would indicate that the trouble lay in cultural
practices which affected the physical condition of the soil.
Thus the study could conceivably narrow down the conditions
which could be Operative in causing the reduced yields of
beans in the area. Since climatic conditions had not been
too unfavorable, it was probable that the climatic effects
were not of prime importance in the problem. Special
attention was given to magnesium, manganese, cepper and iron
in the treatments used in the greenhouse and field experi-
ments. .

The plan of study included the following:

1. Physical prOperties of the soil used.
a. Particle size distribution.

2. Chemical prOperties of the soil used.
a. Base exchange capacity.
b. Spurway soil test.

3. Greenhouse Experiments.
a. Soil treatments. (See Table 5.)
b. Yield data.

4. Field Experiments
a. Soil treatments. (See Table 5.)

-9-

b. Yield data.
c. Statistical Analysis.

The field experiments were conducted during the summer of
1948. Thus it is possible to compare the results obtained

with field and greenhouse experiments.

-10..

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL USED

The soil used in these experiments was from the Lloyd
Albrecht farm, & mile west of Owendale in Huron county. The
field had produced sugar beets in 1947 and barley in 1946.

various amounts and analyses of fertilizer were app-
lied to this field during past years, but the fertilizer
never included manganese, magnesium, iron or cOpper.

The soil is classified as a Conover loam. It occupies
level, low lying, poorly drained areas in the section in
question. The surface soil is a greyish to greyish-brown
loam, grading into a lighter colored grey clay loam horizon
at a depth of seven to nine inches. This is in turn under-
lain by a tight impervious clay horizon with distinct yellow-
ish and reddish yellow mottling. AThe samples used in the
mechanical and chemical tests were taken on September 13,
1948. At that time the subsoil layers were so hard that
it was difficult to get a good subsoil sample even by using
a spade.

The soil is poorly drained internally and externally,
and difficulty is experienced in preparing a seed bed during
a wet or even moderately wet spring. The barley crOp in
1946 was planted when the soil was very wet and it is con-
ceivable that, if such practices have been followed for
several years, the reason for the low yields may be due.to
a destruction of favorable physical conditions in the soil.

' The pH of the surface soil, as determined with a Beck-

man pH meter, was between 7.8 and 7.9.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS
Soil Characteristics

Physical Properties:

 

In order to get a better idea of the characteristics
of the soil used several of its physical and chemical prop-
erties were determined.

The particle size distribution of the Conover soil
used is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Mechanical Analysis of Conover loam
from the Albrecht fags

 

 

 

Pirticle size (imfi) Percent
Lo - 776: 1760
0.5 - 1.0 2.50
0.25 -0.5 15.70
0.10 - 0.25 14.00
0.05 - 0.10 17.70
0.002 - 0.05 31.80
less than 0.002 18.90

 

3—DEterminedby wet sieve and hydrometer method:

It is seen that the soil contains 18.9 percent clay,
31.8 percent silt and 49.3 percent sand, and thus it falls
in the loam textural class. A suitable sample for the

determination of water stable aggregates was not available.

Chemical Properties; .
Fifty grams of air dry soil was weighed out and

added to an Erlenmeyer flask, to which 100 ml. of l N.
ammonium acetate and 100 ml. of distilled water was added.
This was shaken thoroughly in a mixing rack for thirty
minutes. Contents of the flask were transferred to a
Buchner funnel and washed with 250 ml. of distilled water,
100 ml. of ethanol and another 100 ml. of distilled water.
The washings were discarded. All the soil in the funnel

-12..

was added to an Erlenmeyer flask and 200 ml. of 4% KCl was
added. This was shaken in the mechanical shaker for thirty
minutes. The contents of the flask were transferred to a
Buchner filter and the soil was washed with 100 m1. of dis-
tilled water. The filtrate was placed in a large Kjeldahl
flask, and a little NaOH and phenolphthalein was added.
The flask was then put on a distillation rack, heat was
applied, and about 250 ml. of the filtrate was distilled
into 100 ml. of a 4% boric acid solution. This solution
was titrated back with a .0968 N. solution of sulfuric acid,
using brom thymol blue as an indicator.

The base exchange capacity of the soil was 6:56 m.e.

per 100 grams of soil.

The results of quick tests made on the soil by the
method of Spurways are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. The results of analyses made on the Conover loam
by the Spurwa Sim.lex Methods.

 

 

 

_5 Sample No. l. \ Samp e No. 2.
Nitrate 4 ppm. 4 ppm.
Phosphorus Blank Blank
Potassium. 10 ppm. 10 ppm.
.Calcium. 200 ppm. 200 ppm.
Magnesium 5 ppm. 5 ppm.
Iron Blank Blank

 

The Spurway reserve test indicated that the soil contained
approximately 2.5 ppm. of phosphorus and 15 ppm. of potassium.
* Spurway, C. H.

1944. Soil Testing: A practical system of soil fertility
diagnosis. Mich. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 132 (3rd rev.)

 

GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS

Fifty one three gallon pots were each filled with
twelve kilograms of soil in the greenhouse. Seventeen
different treatments were arranged in replications of three.
They are shown in Table 3. The fertilizer was applied at
a rate equivalent to 1000 pounds per acre. Chemically pure
compounds of ammonium sulfate, monocalcium phosphate, potass-
ium.chloride, manganese sulfate, iron sulfate and cOpper

sulfate were used to prepare the fertilizers.

Experiment Number 1. Growth and Appearance.

Michelite white beans were planted in the greenhouse
on April 14, 1948 and harvested on June 4. The fertilizer
was placed at a depth of two inches in a trench 5% inches in
diameter. The seeds were planted one inch deep in a trench
7 inches in diameter. This method of planting was used
because field experiments have shown it to be the best
method of planting for this crOp.

The beans made rapid early growth and no marked
differences were noted for the first 2 to 3 weeks, except
that the plants in the check pots and in the pots receiving
only potassium were somewhat smaller than those in the other
pots. By the end of the fifth week more definite changes
were apparent. The plants in the check pots and the pots
receiving only potassium were noticeably smaller, but
differences in size among the plants in the other treat-
ments were of small magnitude. The leaves of the check
plants were somewhat lighter green, but no obvious P or K

deficiency symptoms were noted, and if the lighter color-

-14..

ation was due to N deficiency, it was not severe. However,
the older leaves of the plants receiving P, K, and P-K
fertilizer showed yellowing and abscission of the older
leaves, and since the tissue test indicated an absence or
nitrate, it was thought that these were N deficiency symp-
toms .

The plants which received treatment 6 (Mg, Mn,Cu), 7
(Mg,Mh), 8 (Mg,Cu), 10 (Mg,Mn,Fe), and 11 (ng5,Mn,Fe)s
were very uniform and showed no visible deficiency symp-
toms. The older leaves of plants which received treatment
9 (Mn,Cu) were of lighter color, however. The plants which
received treatment 12 (Mg,Mnx5,Fe) were extremely stunted
with yellowing and abscission of the older leaves and with
extreme curling of the newer leaves being evident. There
were red spots along the veins of the leaves and the lighter
color along the veins gave symptoms as described for man-
ganese deficiency. Plants which received treatment 13
(ng5,Mnx5,Fe) did not show these extreme symptoms and the
most noticeable effect was a yellowing and abscission of the
older leaves with red spots develOping along the veins of the
leaves. Plants which received treatment 14 (ng5) appeared
to be normal with no leaf fall. The appearance of plants
which received treatment 15 (Mnxs) was similar to those
which received treatment 13 (ng5,Mnx5,Fe) in that there
was considerable abscission and yellowing of the older
leaves with the area along the veins also being lighter
colored, but the condition was not as extreme as in those

a (ng5 and Mnx5 indicates that Mg and Mn applied at rate
equivalent to 500 Pounds per acre. Fe was applied at

rate equivalent to 100 pounds per acre and Cu at 10 pounds)

[V

-15..

plants which received treatment 12 (Mg,Mnx5,Fe). The
plants which received treatment 16 (Fex5) showed slight
yellowing of the older leaves. The plants which received
treatment 17 (Nx2,P,K) were very dark green, healthy look-
ing plants.

Experiment Number 2. Growth and Appearance.

Following the bean harvest the soil in the pots was
thoroughly mixed and the procedure followed in experiment
1 was repeated. These beans were planted on June 26, 1948
and harvested on August 20. Twelve beans were planted and
these were thinned to six plants 2 weeks later.

The early growth of plants was rapid. The difference
in appearance between plants receiving different treatments
was not as noticeable in this experiment as it was in the
previous experiment. The most striking differences were
between the check and plants receiving treatment 5 (K) as
compared to the plants receiving the other treatments.

Plants which received treatment 6 (Mg,Hn,Cu), 7
(Mg,Mn) and 8 (Mg,Cu), made much better growth than did the
plants which received only K or those which were not treated.
Treatment 9 (mn,Cu) had an adverse effect on plant growth
in this experiment, with decided browning and chlorosis of
older leaves. Plants which received treatments 10 through
17 made about the same amount of growth. Plants which re-
ceived treatment 12 (Mg,Mnx5,Fe) showed a mottling of the
newer leaves, but this was not pronounced. The growth of
tendrils and the amount of twining were much more pronounced

on plants which received additions of minor elements.

-16..

RESULTS OF GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENTS
Experiment 1.

The results comparing green and dry weights graphic-
ally for experiment 1 are shown in Figure l. The results
compare closely through treatment 6. The green and dry
weights of the check plants are taken as a base point and
comparative percentage yields were determined for the other
16 treatments. It is evident that the complete fertilizer
(treatment 2) caused higher yields than did phosphorus or
potassium alone or a combination of the two. In fact, the
potassium fertilizer alone caused dry yields which were
actually lower than those obtained from untreated pots.

A study of the remaining results where minor elements
were introduced shows many variations. The steady increase
in green weight of plants in treatment 6 (Mg,Mn,Cu), 7
(Mg,Mn), and 8 (Mg,Cu), are not duplicated in their dry
weights. This is also true for the weights of plants in
treatments 13 (ng5,Mnx5,Fe) and 14 (ng5) and also for
plants in treatments 10 (Mg,ln,Fe) and 11 (ng5,Mn,Fe).
In fact, from the green weights one might conclude that
Mg had caused increases in yield greater than had any of the
other minor elements. From the dry yields this is not so
evident. This greater loss of weight for those weighing
more in the green state is not readily explainable by the
treatment and may be due to morphological differences in the
plants themselves. d

The yield in terms of dry matter for the different

treatments compares very well with differences in growth

c.17-

 

2931'

-18..

noted during the growing season and also with the symptoms
exhibited by the plants. The poor growth of plants in the
untreated pots and in those which received treatment 3 (P,K),
4 (P), and 5 (K), in the later stages of development is

borne out by the lower dry weights and green weights of these
plants. The chlorosis of the older leaves of the plants
which received treatment 9 (Mn,Cu) was in contrast to the
healthier, greener color of plants which received treatments
containing lesser amounts of Mg and Mn. The effect of the
stunted growth of plants which received the high Mn treat-
ment is shown when the dry weight of the plants so treated

is compared to the yields of others in the minor element
series. However, in spite of the unfavorable appearance of
plants which received the heavy rate of manganese the dry
yields were only slightly less than that obtained as a result
of treatment with complete fertilizer. Plants which received
treatment 15 (Mnx5) showed symptoms similar to those of plants
which received treatment 12 (Mg,Mnx5,Fe), and the correspond-
ing decrease in dry weight is evident. The healthy appear-
ance of the plants which received treatment 16 (Fex5) seems
to be in variance with the results, since their weight was
almost as low as the plants which received treatments 12

and 15. The plants which received the higher nitrOgen treat-
ment produced the highest green and dry weight yield in the
experiment. The increased amount of nitrOgen was evidently
enough to supply the needs of the plant during the entire
growing season, as green tissue tests showed that these

plants were the only ones giving positive tests for nitrate

 

‘a.Ill< s.w I 3 “III. )PllusIUOIIs-sl I It... Innis!!! sulvslldiill mils) \U..Jli-l

scape a. are @363 0». awesome? 3535053 0.89 mognmufia #03553. 059 medeusw 500s
awesome: on «We 9.0mm aopmwa on women 9.018 as man 0555.00 00 008043. vows mow“...

 

 

 

; . ; 56.38». H. 56.3.85 e.
:meeeu weaned" oases Menace"
5.8.9.3 and: 3. same. on
E amoeba El
w. 9.0." 3.... 50 Km.» So
N. form 58 . «Po 50L as.“ were
a. curve 58. 5.. 5.8 use.» 5»...
a. 0.5.0 58 .5... were rare 5r.
a. 0.8.5 58 8.. 5... 5: 8.“.
o. .155 58 a. .58. .x .58. 50 x 98. 5 8.0 are 89p 50.5
. a. +5.5 58 a. 58. 50 a. 58. 5o 2.. mass. use.» 5?.
mm _ a. farm 58 x .58. 50 a. 9.8. 5 8.. m8... 59p 5.“.
e. fees 58 .1. 58. 5o .6 9.8. 5 8.0 «on.» an; “8.0
5. .155 58 .1. 58. 5o .1. .58. 50 ea :8. 5o 8.. 8.: Ba.» 5.5
5. f5... 58 a 58. m8 .a 58. 5o .. n.8,. 5o 3.. no... 50L are
5. .251 58 a. .58. 50 a. 58. 80 a. 58. 5o 8.. 8?“. 5.9 we...
5.. 9.51. 58 x. 2.8. m8 .1. 58. 80 a. 38. 5o 8... m.e.. 8a.. para
S. .155 58 a. £8. 80 5.0 8?... 5..“ ~55
5. .155 58 a, .58. 8° 8.. use... 5.3.. 5a..
5. the 58 a. :8. 80 8.4 EH... SE. 5P5
E Pro! :IIIE

 

 

emphases Hopped-pun “035:8. ewe-suns pages: page men. Dene.

-20..

megs .3 amp @3004. 0». 253mm? 3.035025 .50. woawempg H603: no». 0.09 8403.... x55...
awesome. on $5 can seem... 0a wees. 9.0.6 5. mo... 00.5.5.0. on 000042. H.095 mos.

P

 

 

94 messes. new menace...
339.825 1.3%.... on :0» mm... on
25 900K 25 .5

H. on..." 5.0 50 a... 50
m. 9.5.. 58 . 5.0 50 5.. 5.
a. 0.5... 58 5.0 50 a... 5.
.. 0.5.0 58 5... 5. a... 5.
a. 0:0... 58 e... o. a... 8
.. 1...... 58 .. 11.8. 50 .. 5.8. 50 .1. 9.8. 5 5.0 50 5.. 5.
.. 115.. 58 .1. 5.8. 50 .1 .58. 50 5.0 50 a... 5.
a. fume 58 .1. E8. 50 1. 0.8. 5 5.0 50 5.. .8
e. .15... 58 x 5.8. 50 .1. 38. 5 5.. 5. 5.. 5.
5. .15... 58 .1. .58. 50 .1. 5.8. 50 .1. 58. 50 5.0 50 5.. 50
5. f5... 58 .. E8. 80 .1. 5.8. 50 .1 58. 50 5.. 5. .5... 5m
5. .151. 58 .. E8. 50 .1. 5.8. 80 .1. 11.8. 50 5.. 5. 1.... 5.
5. f5... 58 .. E8. 80 .. 5.8. 80 .1. 58. 50 5.. 5. 5.. 5...
5. f5... 58 .x .58. 80 5.. 5. 5.. 5.
5. f5... 58 m 5.8. 80 p... 5. .5... 5m
5. f5... 58 .1 58. 80 . 5.. 5. 5.. 5.
5. THE E 5. 6.. 5m

 

e flashes Hen—H0155 Honour—sen. ewesesaa ”Earns 80.1.59- 83. Dene.

-21.

at harvest time.

Experiment 2.

The green and dry weights of plants in experiment 2
were greater than in experiment 1. The magnitude of the in-
crease or decrease in dry weight due to treatment as compared
to the check was less than experiment 1, as indicated by
Figure 3.

The configuration of the curves obtained for treat-
ments without the addition of minor elements closely follow
the curves obtained for experiment 1, but the additions of
minor elements gave results which are not comparable.

The more uniform growth of plants under the treatments
in experiment 2 makes it difficult to compare the yield in
dry and green weight to differences noted in growth during
the growing season. The favorable effects of the additions
of minor elements as reflected in dry weight increases over
the check are less marked in this experiment than they were
in experiment 1.

As in the first experiment, phosphorus alone, potass-
ium alone and a combination of phosphorus and potassium did
not result in satisfactory yields of plants. In both ex-
periments the dry yields resulting from the applications of
0-0-8 fertilizer were lower than were obtained from plants
not fertilized. This indicates a need for ”balance” in
nutrient availability to the plant.

The extremely poor growth and mottled appearance which
was evident in plants receiving treatments 12 and 15 in ex-

periment l was not noted in experiment 2.

-22..

 

-23.

 

-24 ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . .. 1 4.. 1 . . 1.4.1 H... . 1 1. w... ..1.1.11. 11 1 41 1111 1 1
...1.... .. ... . . .1. . .1 .1 +1.1 . .. .. .. t 1." .. .
o. ... .. <1.v ... ..... .. . 1. . .. .1. 1 . H.y. . ..117+14|. M......1 . 1. . 1 1 . .. 1 .. . .-
. ..1awhumwm new ......Hod Hm... . .. ... . .. . ..
.1. . . . ‘1'... . ....... .1. ..1. . v . .a . . ... 4 . ... . .. ~ . .x
....o.... .1... . . .. ... .. .. . 1. 1 .. .4 . 1 1.”. .. . .. . . .
.......o. ...... . 4.. ..... . . . .. . H .. . . 1 . . ... . 1 . .... , .
.......... .... . o .. . . . .. 1. ._ .1 ... . ._ . 1 . . .- .
. . . , 1 4 . 11 W. 1, 4 1 1 11f111..111!11.1- 111111 111.11 1.
.........1. ..x... ....1 ........ ... 1 . . .. .1 ... . . . . . .. . .
.......... ......1.. . ..... ......1. . .. .... .g. .. . w 1.. ._ ... ...
...«a... .....1. .. . ...... .... . 1 . . .1.11. .4... . . . _ . .. .. .. 1
......a.. ........ . H..... 11... . . ......111.. ...... ..1 .. . . — . .. . _. ..111
........ . ..-.....1.l.w..... .1.1.1.o . ... . 1 ......11 1.. .. 1 . . . . 1 4 ,1 1
......... .-.-1.1.1. ....... . .11" 1.. . ......11... .. . .. 1.1... _ 1. .. . 1. -.
. . o . . . u . . . . . 11¢ . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 . . . . . . . .1111. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 . . 1 . 1 . 4 . 1 .L
........ . . 1 1 .... . . . . . ...1... 4 1 . .. 4 . . . . 1 1.1
m 1}»
...v1..... . ....1... ......v . 1.....1011. ... . .. ...1..... ... ..... . . ‘ .... .. ... . , .. . . 1 . - . M . ..
. . o . . . . 4 . v . . 4 .I. . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . .1101. 1 . . . . . . . . .1. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . _ . . v . . . . . 1 1 . . . . 1 1 . . . 1 1 1 1 1
....1...«. ...-1.11.. ........ .1..o1.|91.. ...- . ... ..1....“.. . ...... ..H ..11 ...... . .4”. .1 .- ..... .. . . . .. .. ._ . . . . ..-i
......4. ...14..V1 ......... . . v1.1... .... . . .11.. .... .. . ... .m... 1.1.. .¥.. .. .... .1 .7. . . . . .. .. . . .. _ ...1.
....1..... .4... .1... ......... ... . .9 .1. ...... .v... .o .i. .11.. on._.. .1 1.x . ..1..1 v . . .. . . . _ .1 .. ... . ..41
4 . «1e . . . . . . V1.19 :1. .. ¢ . a .1. . . . o . . . . o. . . . . . . . .1. . . . . .x . 1 . . . q . . .. . 1 d . . . i . .. i A . . v x . . . . 1 . _ . . 1 . _ . . . . i . . . . ..
4191.1... .+ 791.14.... .9.._.... . 0.. . .. ....p...h ...... 1 .. .1 rah .v ......1 1 .V1. . .. . l. .. .. . _ .. 1 ..~ . . ..L
111....... .1.1H11.._ 14...... .. .1 . .. ........ .W..4...1 .. ...WL. 4. ... . a. 4. . . . . ..4— 1 $ ..111
. 11 . m . .7 . .. w 4 151.11 _11. 1' ..111
.a a ...... .. .. ... .. . a. .. .... ...... .. . . . .. .4 . .
.4 . H+1....1... _+ ...v. a. ....y .. ...1a1. . ...... . . .1. . . . —. . 1 . _ . . 1'1
. t ...wo..1. .. . .. . ...a .1117. 1 .....1. . .. .. . . . .. .. ~ . 101
...1.... ... .... .. ...... . ..1..1 . .....11- .. . .1 . . . . 1111.
.«....1.1. .1. . . . ..... . .11.1.. . .. 111 1 . . .. . . .1 . ....111
.H... 19.1... ... .. .... .1...4.. 1 .....111 . .. . . ... .. _ ....1ol
..M.....111-.. . .. .. .... 1... .1 .....11. . . .1. 1. .. ,_ .11.1.
........11 .. .....1. .... .111..1.. ....1111. .. .4 . . . _.... , . . .. 1 .L
. . . I141
1111- .... 1 11.... 1 . .. . . . . . 1 1.
. 1.... .. ....... 411...". ...1.. .41 . . ‘ _ 1111.
o . ......o... 1 .....11. _. . ...11 . . .... 1 . . . . .. .— . .. ..1
. .......... ... .... .- .. . 1 . .1 . .. _ .114
. . .....1.1..,... ‘.,...141... . ... 1 .. . . . . . .. 1. . .l ...
......T... . .1.1-11141.. ...... . .. . . .. . . .... . 1..-.1
1......" --.... 1 111.1... . . .1 . .. _ . - F .1.1
1 1 . . V .1 . 411 1 +1 «.11-.1011»! .11 I .9. fl .11.-.1.1:
.au1...41 ..1..w... M .... “...1. . a . 11.. . _ .. .. . . .41
.....14... ..1........ .11.... .. .. +. . q .. .. 1 . . .i v 1 _ . . .11.1«|
.44...... 4....._J.14... . ...1... "a .4. . ... .. N . .11 1 . .. 1.1.1.
....._.i.1 ......... ... 1... ...1.-... a. .fi . . . .. a. ...
.... ...... ..u.. .. a... 1..... .1. ... . .. 1 ......_ . I .. ..
..W...-.1.. ........1..1 ... . ..1.11.4..q. «.1 ... . . .. Iv... . . . w . ..l
......1... ...d....- ....... 1 .m ... .. i. . . . .... . . .. . . ..J
. d..1.,. ......... .... .111. .... .. . . . .. . * .. .L
_
. 11.1
14 . 4. . . .1
_
.. .1 fl. .. . . .1“
., . 1 ... . . .
M
1 11 , 1-1.1.1 1 -1 1-1-M
1 .... . ... .. . ._
1. . . ,. . 1 m .
wa .1 . . 41 111
v1... _ .111 . . . u. 1 1..
To... . 11 . . . ..
1. . . . . fl. 1
r1 .. . .1“ .. .. . . . .1 _ V
13 fl ..vl! .-‘11Jnllailw 1111111... 11:.1
Y... 1. 4. .1 —.. . 11... . . . ,, .. . . 1
.... «...1.—.... . ... .11.1w “f... . 4.. .. .... . .. . 1
l.... ... 1 .11.. .1 . .. 1. .... .. .1 _ 1
v.1 .. «0. .. .. .. 1. . ... ... .w .1.1; .. . . ... . .-
..o .1 . . . _. . .. 1. _ 1
v1. .. _ .1. .. ..... - . . . . . _ . J
1.1 o .1 1.1.1 1111.111. 1 1111I.I1 .11 ..I... 1111.1 1 1 1111101. ..l 1‘1 . .711 1 p .1! 1.1.1111
. .... .. 1 . . . w .1 1...... .. .. H.
.. ....~ . .... .. .... . . .. .. ... .. 1.1.1. .1 . . ..
.. . . .1.1 . ._ .1... .1._ . .... . .
..... v ..11 ... _ . 1.. . .1. . n..L ... 1 F 1. ..l
.... I11... 1... 1. 1,1 17.... .1111]! ...1..
. .1. . .. . . -. .. . u . -
v.1. .. ....1. ...... ....1.1.. . .... . ... .. .. ..L
.... .. ......... .... ......1 ..... . 1... . .. ....l
.. ......1.....1. ....... .1... ......... ...1.... .. ... .. .1
v. .1.... .. ..,.. ...... .. ........ ...1...1 . ..1-111. .. . .. ... .. .N.
... ...... .... .......1.v. . . .. .. ..1... . . . .1.1
.. .... .....-11. .. .... . .. , ..1. .11...1 1... . .1
r.. .. .. . .. ..... . ... .-1 W. .... .. _ .. . ...l.
a. w .iue . oat. .. . 1 .414.. < . 7.. ...7- ... . .. w _.\Qi
a. . . . . a . .. ..." . . .1 . 1.1. . . .r . .9 . fl . 1... . . . . . . . 1..»;
.4 «...... 1.1 .fl...... 11....... . . ....111.11.. .. 4.. . . .. .i
r.-. .. ... ......... . . .11......... . .. ....h...1.
... ... -. . ...11.1 . .....111. . .. ... ....1i.
.. ...... .. .1..._. 1.1... . . .....1. a .. ...1....)
.. .. . . .. .11. . . ..1
. 1
1.. .... . . .. .1
..1. ...H.. .....11. . .1... . ..1... ._ 1 1 .. 1 ..1.
... ...... . .. . . . ... . ~11..L
.. . .. .. . . . . . -1... .. . .. . ..L
1 . . 1 . .. .. . . .. 1 . _. L
.4 . . .. .. . .. . . _ ..
.. ...... ..1v1. . .... .... . ....I.
.. ...... .111... . . . _ .. .11.1.
... . ....“ .......1 _ - . .. . .. a. ...1.
fl .. Ila-111 . . 1 71.110111}
1.. H.. .1 . .1 ..W .....‘ ..... .. ... .. .. ... a . .._W 1“ 4.... .i a .H
Y... ..... .....w .. .1... ....1»... g 1 . . ., .H. .. . . .. . o 1 . .
1... A..... ...1. ...... ...-1..V 1.. 1.. _ "A . _ . . . .. . 1 . .... u.
1.. ... .. .m.......i ...._.. ......:..... .... .. .. .1.1—... 1 ..H . _.-. .. . ..
.. v. ._1.1.1. ...... . ....... h_. ..1.. .‘ .... . 1. .x . .n. . ... ..1
7.1. ...... ......W. .... ...“...11. ”H n.. . ....~.1.. . i .1 .. .. .— 1 ... .. .1 .l
... .. ...11 ....._. ... ... ..fl.. .......".._..-. i. . .1 .. ... .. . .. 1. . 11
.. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .1 a. .1........ ... . . . . . . .. . ..
.... . _. - . . .. ..» .. ..1 . ..11 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-25..

FIELD EXPERIMENTS

The field experiments were conducted on the Lloyd
Albrecht farm in Huron County, Michigan. The seed bed was
well prepared and Michelite beans were planted on June 11,
1948. The different treatments were randOmized and each
treatment was applied to four rows of beans which ran the
length of the field. The yield measurements were taken
from each plot and since each treatment was run in duplicate,
four replications were actually obtained.

The fertilizer was placed in a band one inch.below and
one inch to the side of the seed at the rate of 300 pounds
per acre. Where minor elements were applied they were in
addition to the 300 pounds of the 3-12-12 fertilizer. On
July 12 one half of the rows in two of the treatments in
one replication were side dressed with 170 pounds of ammon-
ium sulfate per acre. The additions of minor elements were
as follows: Manganese sulfate- 50 pounds per acre, magnes-'
ium sulfate- 100 pounds per acre, and iron sulfate- 50 pounds
per acre.

The various treatments are given in Table 5.

Observations of Field Experiments
The plots were observed twice during the growing
season. One observation was made on June 18, shortly
after planting time, and another was made on July 12, at
which time the ammonium sulfate side dressing was made.
On June 18, one week after planting, the only notice-
able difference was that the addition of fertilizer had

and“... a. are Manson om 53.82». muonuwonfiu £5 wear-apgdoufifinou 25 madcap 53a
“3283- ou go «no: on menu. 9.2:» up :0: Managing. ou 9343. Hon... mo»?

 

 

...:

m.
a.
a:
a.
m.

q.

m crook m» 0 on:
...... 5.882. 85035 noun»: now. Loss»: :33: 8959. 63.. 98...

 

Ea rt
9.3K _

9.5.5 8° ..

TEL» 8o * can; So * 58+ 8 x. 28» 8
85.5 80 v. .58.. 8 $ :8... 8

$5.5 8o * E8.» woo x. 2.8» 8

«.53 80 x .58» 8o * .58.. 8

9.5.5 8o * 58» 8 * 38+ 8 ampaofioumoe

uHooK .

p re m 1%;
H9. Ho H... a HH. m Hm. 0 Ha. N
Hm. é H90 H? 0 H? H HP m
HPO Hm. a H? 0 H? m HQ. 0
H». 0 HP 4 H90 NH. 9 H90
HH. 4 H9 q 5. 0 Ho. 0 H? h
Ha. H H90 HNom Hwow HmoH
Ha. H 3.0 ..III 1...... H? a

[Hr—fa IE ......I cl... IFQ

 

... «Ho: Ha. gown: wan moan.

 

 

apparently retarded emergence.

On July 12 comparisons were made between the plots
and the bean field to the north of the plots. Tissue
tests were made in the bean field to the north of the plots
on plants which showed evidence of potassium deficiency.
These tests were made on plants with dead areas on the lower
leaves. The results of tissue tests of plants in treatment
2 (N,P,K), as compared to results of tissue tests of plants
showing deficiency symptoms in the field to the north are
given in Table 6.

 

 

Table 60
Sample __9 N05_ P K
1. Field N of plots (apparently K deficient) H ' M -
2. Field N of plots (dead areas on lower leaves} H I L
3. Treatment No. 2. H I VH

 

The field experiments were harvested on September 12
and beans from the various treatments were bagged and brought
to East Lansing where they were threshed. The yield results
of the field experiments are shown in Table 5.

Results of Field Experiments

It is to be noted from the data in Table 5 that side-
dressing treatment number 4 with ammonium sulfate resulted
in the highest yield per acre of any of the treatments,
whereas the check plots gave the lowest yield. The analysis
of variance for this data indicates that the difference
required for significance is 2.90 bushels per acre. The F
value obtained is 2.07 bushels per acre. Thus, the differ-
ence in yield between block and treatment is found not to

be significant.

.28..

SUMMARY

The objective of this investigation was to determine
the cause or causes of the comparatively low yield of beans
on a Conover loam in an area in Huron County, Michigan.
Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in order
to obtain more complete information on the subject and to
suggest possible treatments which might help to increase
the yield of beans in this area. Since various analyses of
N, P, and K fertilizers had been used without raising the
yields appreciably, it was thought that the addition of
various minor elements at different rates might increase
the yields appreciably. The soil in question is alkaline,
and since various minor element deficiencies have long been
known to occur on alkaline soils, the additions of minor
elements was thought to be a possible solution to the problem.

The plants in the check pots in both greenhouse ex-
periments showed no Mn or Mg deficiency symptoms and this in
itself was an indication that the additions of minor elements
may not be the solution to the problem. The increases in
the green and dry weights of plants in the greenhouse ex-
periments receiving minor elements (Mg,Mn,Fe and Cu) were
undoubtedly due in part to the complete fertilizer which
was added to all minor element treatments. Symptoms which
appeared to be exactly the same as Mn deficiency symptoms
appeared on plants receiving heavy applications of Mh in
the first greenhouse experiment.

various combinations and amounts of Mn, Mg, and Fe

were applied to beans in the field experiment. The yield

-29-

results of the field experiment showed an increase in the
minor element treatments over the check plot, but when
these results were analyzed statistically they were found
not to be significant. Since the additions of minor ele-
ments resulted in no significant increases in the yield of
beans, the comparatively low yields of beans in this area
are evidently not due to a nutrient element deficiency.
Several other explanations can be suggested. Cultural
practices prevalent in the area may be causing an undesir-
able physical condition in the soil. The soil is poorly
drained and often tillage Operations are performed while
the soil is too wet. It is conceivable that if these prac-
tices were carried out over a period of time, the detriment-
al effects might be reflected in decreased yields. The cash
crap system often practiced in this area could also be a
factor in reduced yields of beans. Another possibility is
that the balance of plant nutrients has been disturbed and
it is possible that applications of minor elements in
various ratios might result in the discovery of a ratio
which would increase the yield of beans consistently.
As a result of these studies the following statements
can be made:
1. Under greenhouse conditions the addition of Mg,
Mn, Fe, and Cu resulted in no consistent increase
of dry matter in bean plants when compared to
plants grown in pots receiving additions of 4-
16-8 fertilizer only.
2. Under greenhouse conditions the additions of the

higher rates of Mn proved detrimental to the vigor

-50-

and the growth of beans.

3.

4.

5.

Under greenhouse conditions the addition of an
8-16-8 fertilizer resulted in the largest dry
weight production of any of the treatments

used.

Under field conditions, additions of minor ele-
ments resulted in increased yields of beans, but
these increases were not significant when ana-
lyzed statistically.

The relatively low yield of beans in the area in
question is evidently not caused by a nutrient

element deficiency.

1)

2)

:5)

4)

5)

6)

'7)

s)

9)

10)

-31-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Garner, W. W. and Allard, H. A.

1920. Effect of the relative length of day and night
and other factors of the environment on growth
and reproduction in plants. Jour. Ag. Res.
18: 553-606.

Garner, W. W.

1933. Comparative response of long day and short day
plants to relative length of day and night.
Plant Phyae 8: 347-356e

Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I.

1945. Physiological aspects of availability of nut-
rients for plant growth. Soil Sci. 55: 431-
444.

Leeper, G. W.
1947. The forms and reactions of manganese in the
soil. Soil Sci. 63: 79-94.

Lindner, R. C. and Barley, C. P.
1944. Nutrient interrelations in lime induced chlor-
osis. Plant Phys. 19: 420-459.

Lucas, Re Ee

1947. The effects of cOpper applied to organic soils,
alone and in association with manganese and
zinc, on composition of crOps and reactions in
the soil. Thesis, Michigan State College, East
Lansing, Michigan.

Mann, H. B.

1950. Availability of manganese and iron as affected
by applications of calcium and magnesium car-
bonates. Soil Sci. 50: 117-141.

Millar, C. E. and Cook, R. L.
1941. Manganese for oats and white beans in Michigan.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 6: 224-227.

McHargue, J. S.

1925. Effect of different concentrations of manganese
sulfate on growth of plants in acid and neutral
soils and necessity of manganese as a plant
nutrient. Jour. Agr. Res. 24:781-794.

Peech, M. and Bradfeld, R.
1945. Effect of lime and magnesium on potassium.
Soil Sci. 55: 37-48.

11)

12‘)

‘ 15)

14)

15)

16)

17)

18)

19)

20)

21)

-32.-

Piper, C.S.
1951. The availability of manganese in the soil.
Jour. Agr. Sci. 21: 762-779.

Pepp, H. W.

1926. Effect of light intensity on growth of soy
beans and its relation to the autocatalyst
theory of growth. Bot. Gas. 82: 506-519.

Robinson, W. 0.
1950. Some chemical phases of submerged soil con-
ditions. Soil Sci. 50: 197-202.

Schollenberger, C. J.
1928. Manganese as an active base in the soil. Soil
. Sci. 25: 557-558.

Sherman, G. D. and Harmer, P.M.
1942. The manganous-manganic equilibrium in soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 7: 598-405.

ShiVO, Je We
1941. Significant roles of trace elements in the
nutrition of plants. Plant Phys. 16: 455-445.

Somers, I. I. and Shive, J. W.
1942. Iron-manganese relationships in plant nutrition.
Plant Phys. 17: 582-602.

Truog, E., Goates, R. 6., Gerloff, G. C. and Berger, K.C.
1947. Magnesium-phosphorus relationships in plant
nutrition. Soil Sci. 65: 19-25.

mmn, Ee So

1946. The iron-manganese balance and its effect on
the growth and deve10pment of plants.
The New Phytologist 45: 18-24.

W811), Re In, 811k, Be Je and '111., Be Ce
1945. The-fate of manganese sulfate in alkaline
soils. JOur. Agr. Sci. 55: 18-22.

Zimmerman, M.
1947. Magnesium in plants. Soil Sci. 65: 1-12.

DEC 12 Mu 6"

.- i“ .

if . I ,i
I . , . , m
‘ - -'\

. Q

‘ , n
‘ ‘ g ". .--‘ - 1 V
( "..' ‘ ‘7" I‘: -'-~ "
‘\ , -‘ v '
" . “\

ROOM USE ONLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N TAT

III fm

1293

NIVERSITY LIBRARIES

30 5

713 84

MIC HIGA
3

ii
0