2.; :2. ‘ 5‘2- ' tyry.) car. QR?!)
:UE :flu‘tz'Q’hE’é‘ESu {Jua- kh‘lk

REE... «V’Qfi 1' ’3 22.32

““5L‘KIS Ex 52%!

6 'mt;

rightf-JJ’W fir?"

fie; 32.132 \p saw! L”.1\2.!¢a

22523 {422* {’32: Qagma 222" M. 5.
2'2'iECH EGAN" :2 722232? £3 CC LE EEGE
Res-22M 22:22 2 Higdm

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

,2. 2 5.2.2

’44- degree in__2___-

. .- t”‘/’
./I I c/L5‘f '
- 2.

.2. 3.41 LL

Major professor

 

 

 

RELATION OF TISSUE ANALXSIS TO SOIL ANALYSIS
IN MICHIGAN ORCHARDS

By

Roscoe John Higdon

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE

Department of Horticulture

1951

THESIS

Acknowledgment

The writer wishes to express his appreciation
to Dr. A. L. Kenworthy for guidance in the work
reported in this paper, and for constructive
criticism in the preparation of this manuscript.
He also wishes to acknowledge his gratitude to
Dr. W. W. Aldrich, Department of Horticulture,
to Dr. L. M. Turk and Dr. A. E. Erickson, Soils
Department, for their help in the preparation

of this manuscript.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review of Literature
Materials and Methods
Results
Apples
Peaches
Montmorency cherry

Correlation between Soil and Leaf
Analysis

Discussion
Summary
Literature Cited
Appendix
Table 1: Leaf analysis

Table 2: Soil analysis

Page

\lflmwrl‘

00

ll
13. 112

LEAF ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO SOIL ANALYSIS IN
MICHIGAN ORCHARDS

by
Roscoe John Higdon

A survey of some Michigan orchards was conducted in
19L8. One of the objectives of this survey was to de-
termine the relationship of leaf composition and soil
analysis. This comparison was essential because of the
widespread use of soil analysis as a diagnostic tool.
Experiences indicate that when used as a diagnostic tool,
soil analysis did not furnish reliable information for
formulating fertilizer suggestions for orchards.

In recent years many attempts have been made to fur-
ther progress in the field of plant nutrition. Various
efforts (1) (2) (5) (6) (ll) have been made to correlate
the nutrient-element content of plant tissue with that of
the soil in which the plant grew. This paper presents the
results of such a study made on some deciduous fruit

varieties in Michigan.
Review of Literature

Lilleland and Brown (9) have shown that analyses of
leaf samples from adjacent peach trees show large dif-

ferences and that there are definite seasonal variations

in the analysis of leaves from peach trees. These workers
also found that high soil nitrogen content was associated
with low phosPhorus content of the leaves and that pro—
longed drought would have the same effect. They state fur-
ther that peach trees which are making good growth on a
soil that is very low in phosphorus have a phosphorus con-
tent which approximated that found in many of the best
orchards on the more fertile soils included in the survey.

Beattie and Ellenwood (1) working on apple tree nutri-
tion in Ohio found that where nitrogen fertilizers were
used, leaf nitrogen was higher and leaf potassium was lower
than where no nitrogen was applied. There was an indication
of a trend for leaf magnesium to be higher where nitrogen
was applied.

Epstein and Lilleland (6) after some work on the
manganese content of the leaves of some deciduous fruit
trees, found that the total manganese content of the soil
could not be correlated with the manganese content of the
peach leaf.

Beckenbach, Robbins, and Shiva (2) working with corn
found that the magnesium content of the tissue was directly
related to variation in the nitrate and calcium contents
of the substrate. The calcium content of the tissue was
directly affected by the nitrate content of the substrate,
while the potassium content was inversely affected by the

soil concentration of nitrate.

Carolus (5) working with vegetables in Virginia
found that nitrogen deficiency in the presence of ade-
quate supplies of other soil nutrients resulted in
extremely high concentrations of phosphorus and low con-
centrations of nitrogen in the tissues. A low concentration
of phosphorus in the presence of adequate supplies of other
essential nutrients resulted in an extremely low concentra—
tion of phosphorus and usually in a very high concentration
of nitrogen in the tissues. When potassium was deficient
in the soil a high concentration in the tissues of nitro-
gen, magnesium, and calcium resulted. Low soil concentra-
tions of magnesium resulted in low concentrations of
magnesium and nitrogen and a high concentration of potassium
in the tissues.

Lundegardh (10) states in a paper on soil conditions
and nutrient requirements of plants that the total soil
manganese has no great influence on the uptake of manganese
by plants.

Ulrich (17), working with grapes found that there was
a correlation between yields and petiole analysis for
potassium, but no correlation existed between leaf ana-
lysis and the potassium content of the vineyard soil. He
states that the failure to correlate soil analysis with
cr0p responses may be caused by a difference in the
ability of the grape varieties to absorb potassium from the
soil.

Materials and Methods

Between July 15 and August 15, leaf samples of
100 or more leaves were collected from 100 blocks of
fruit trees growing in Michigan. The following five
varieties were included in the sampling: Jonathan and
McIntosh apples, Elberta and Halehaven peaches, and
Montmorency cherry. The number of samples of each variety
varied according to the occurrence of the variety in the
orchards visited. The orchards visited were of good vigor
and showed no known symptoms of nutrient-element
deficiency.

In each variety block, four adjacent trees were
selected at random on the basis of unifonmity for sampling.
The leaves were collected at random from the lower limbs
of the trees. Not over two leaves were taken from one
shoot and shoots of average vigor for the trees were
selected for sampling. The leaves collected were free of
disease, insect or mechanical injury whenever possible.
After the leaves were collected, all visible spray resi-
dues were removed by wiping the leaf surfaces with a
damp cheesecloth. The leaves were dried at room temppra-
ture and ground with a Wiley mill, using a 20-mesh screen.
The samples were sent to the National Spectrographic
Laboratories, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, to be analyzed for
potassium, phOSphorus, calcium, magnesium, manganese,

and iron.

At the time the leaf samples were taken, 300 soil
samples were also collected. The soil samples included
samples from the surface soil under the spread of the
limbs, the surface soil between the trees, and the subsoil
between the trees, respectively (See Figure l). The sub-
soil sample was taken at the B horizon. The B horizon was
found at variable depths because of variations in soil
types and erosion.

The soil samples were air dried and screened to remove
large fragments of foreign matter such as wood, trash, and
stones. The determinations for the nutrient-elements
considered in this study, as well as pH determinations
were made in the horticultural laboratories, using a modi-
fication of the Spurway method (15). The principal modi-
fication was in the use of an electric colorimeter rather

than the color charts for making the color determinations.
Results

The averages in composition for six nutrient-elements
in leaves and soils from.Michigan orchards are presented

in Table 1.

Apples

The leaves of Jonathan had higher concentrations of
potassium (1.66%) and calcium (1.58%) than McIntosh which
had 1.58 percent potassium and 1.37 percent calcium.

However, the soil from the McIntosh blocks had greater

To accompany Page 5

X—-Trees’sampled

a--Surface sample
under trees

b--Surface sample
between trees

c--Subsoil sample
a between trees

Fig. 1. Diagram of where soil samples
were taken in relation to trees

from which leaf samples were
taken

To accompany Page 5

 

 

 

Table 1. The Average in Composition for Six Nutrient-
Elements in Leaves and Soil Samples from
Michigan Orchards
Nutrient Leaf Soil Samples
Variety Element Analysis A B 0 Average
% ppm ppm ppm ppm
McIntosh K 1.581 20.87 23.75 13.87 19.hh
P 0.283 6.25 5.25 5.20 5.hh
Ca 1.370 h5.7h h8.39 51.00 h8.39
Mg 0.h39 1.8h 1.88 1.L7 1.71
MD. 00011 2.85 3914‘5 1001 2.121
Fe 0.027 18.h9 11.23 9.19 11.36
PH 4-50 2.92 b.79 h.7h
Jonathan K 1.660 18.30 17.65 10.25 15.h0
P 0.232 3.73 3.20 2.36 3.09
Ga 1.580 33.69 h5.60 L2.00 L0.hh
Mg 0.Lh3 1.52 1.62 2.79 1.98
Mn 0.011 2.29 2.91 1.05 2.08
Fe 0.021 5.08 2.36 3. A3 3.67
Elberta K 1.590 h7.30 39.20 28 30 38.25
P 0.2h9 11.57 12.hh 8. 37 10.79
Ca 1.915 28.60 26.10 758 £3.50
Mg 0.697 2,h5 2,39 2. 29 2.35
Mn. 0.017 h.50 3.71 1.58 3.26
Fe 0.022 13.86 13.3h 9.5h 12.17
PH 5.19 5oh3 5.51 5.37
Halehaven K 1. 5L0 h1.70 hh.10 25.70 37.17
P 0.293 9.65 9.712 3.61. 7.67
Ca 1.98013.10 21.70 12.80 17.53
Mg 0.633 1.h0 1.h6 1.33 1.39
Mn, 0.013 h.h2 3.58 0.92 2.97
Fe 0.015 1h.10 13.97 13.8h 13.9h
pH 5.02 5.23 5.27 5.22
Montmorency K l.h67 31.65 27.23 18.79 2h.53
. P 0.267 21.18 15.67 7.70 1h.85
Ca 1.878 39.09 h1.32 108.59 62.92
Mg 0.73h 2.26 2.19 3.05 2.h9
Mn 0.011 3.02 2.L8 1.18 2.23
Fe 0.026 9.62 7.88 6.87 8.09
PH 5.37 5.57 5.65 5.53

 

amounts of both potassium and calcium than the soil from
the Jonathan blocks.

Both varieties contained approximately the same
amounts of magnesium (0.L0%), and there was no marked dif-
ference in soil analysis for the two varieties.

Phosphorus ranked next in order as the most abundant
element in the leaves. McIntosh leaves contain slightly
more of this element (0.28% compared to 0.23%) than
Jonathan leaves, while the soil from the McIntosh blocks
contained almost two times (5.Lh ppm) the amount of
phosphorus in the soil from the Jonathan block (3.09 ppm).

Leaves of both varieties had comparable amounts of
iron (0.02%) and manganese (0.01%). The soil from the
McIntosh blocks had an extremely high average content of
iron (11.36 ppm) as compared to an average content of
3.67 ppm for the soil from the Jonathan blocks. The
greater concentration of iron in the soil from the McIntosh
blocks may be associated with soil acidity. The soil from
the McIntosh blocks was more acid in reaction, having a
pH of h.7 as compared to an average pH of 5.2 for the soil
from the Jonathan blocks. The manganese concentration
(2.hl ppm) in the more acid soil from the McIntosh blocks
is higher than the manganese content (2.08 ppm) of the
soil from the Jonathan blocks.

The leaf analysis of both apple varieties show fairly

constant amounts of each of the nutrient-elements, while
the concentration of potassium, phosphorus, calcium, and

iron varies considerably in the soil.

Peaches and Montmorency Cherry

The leaves of Halehaven and Elberta contained approxi-
mately equal amounts of all of the nutrient-elements
considered. Peach leaves differed from apple leaves in
having a higher calcium than potassium content. The apple
varieties had more potassium than calcium in the leaves.
Both Montmorency and peach leaves contained appreciably
more magnesium than apple leaves. Peach leaves have a
smaller iron-manganese ratio than either apple or
Montmorency leaves .

The soils for both Halehaven and Elberta show fairly
constant concentrations of each of the nutrient-elements,
while the soil for Montmorency contains more phosphorus,
Calcium, and magnesium, and less potassium and iron than
does the soil for peaches.

The iron content of all soils was rather high due,
possibly, to the acid reaction of the soils. Also the
glacial origin of these soils would probably result in
the presence of large amounts of iron.

Phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium content of the soil
was somewhat low, and may in some instances where unusually
low, be limiting factors in tree growth, and fruit

production.

The average manganese content of the subsoils was
lower than in the surface soils. This relationship was
true for all soils.

The soil was slightly more acid under the trees than
between the trees. The accumulation of spray residues and
the addition of acid commercial fertilizers under the

trees may be the cause of this lower pH under the trees.

Correlation between Spy; gig l_L_e_a_f_ Analysis

Correlation analysis were made on the results obtained
in the soil and leaf analyses. The correlation coefficients
obtained are presented in Table 2.

There was only an occasional significant correlation
coefficient (Table 2). There would appear to be a signifi-
cant correlation between the manganese content of
Montmorency cherry leaves and the manganese content of the
soil. The other correlation coefficients were erratic in
occurrence. This would indicate that, perhaps, all of the
significant correlation coefficients occurred by chance and
that actually there was no correlation between soil ana-

lysis and leaf composition.

Discussion

The results of this study are in general agreement
with those obtained in similar studies by other workers.
Very few significant correlations have been found to exist

between leaf and soil analysis for fruit trees (1) (2)

To accompany Page 8

 

 

 

Table 2. Correlation between Leaf Analysis and Analysis
of Soil Samples in.Michigan Orchards
No. of Nutrient Soil Samples
Variety Samples Element A _B 0 Average
McIntosh 13 K .OOL .190 -.087 .068
CS. "'e 170 -0 261 -0 215 -e 247
P -.2ut -.213 -.895** -.223**
Mg -.Ahl* .100 -.162 -.157
Mn -.081 .221 .1L2 .020
Jonathan 13 K .119 -.05h .091 .030
P -0317 -025“ 00h6 -0257
Mg .537 .010 .270 .293
Mn -.019 -.02h -.033 -.026
Fe .318 .671 .021 .L16
Elberta 10 K .291 .h88 .hll .h50
Ca .032 .277 .269 .257
P .h20 .197 .219 .521
Mg .03h .309 .155 .032
Mn .120 .583 .568 .058
Fe .262 .253 .060 .216
Halehaven 10 K .008 .05h .ih6h .178
Ca 0 005 0 21+]. 0 566 e 337
P .317 .07A .590 .019
Mg .168 .3h8 .237 .0L5
Mn .11A .136 .236 .10?
Fe .307 .600 .51A .539
Montmorency 22 K .hl9 .367 .207 .355
Ca .b09 .371 .0A8 .162
P .002 .031 .17A .036
Mg .009 .003 .002 .032
Mn .59L** .681** .259 665**
Fe .063 .09A .315 .002

 

* Significant

** Highly significant

(5) (6) (9) (11), and (16). Significant correlations
between leaf and soil analysis cannot be expected for
most fruit varieties when such conditions as: nutrient-
element levels in the soil, climate, and rootstocks are
not controlled.

The recent concept of nutrient-element balance by
Shear, Crane, and Meyers (12) indicates that balance of
soil nutrients whether or not total concentrations is high
or low plays a dominant role in the nutrient-element con-
tent of plants. This theory states that the concentration
of a nutrient-element in the soil must be considered in
relation to the concentration of the other nutrient-
elements in the soil.

Sudds (l3), and Sudds and Yerkes (1h) have shown that
apple rootstocks have an influence on the performance of
apple varieties. Hayward and Long (8) showed that three
rootstocks commonly used in commercial peach prOpagation
differ widely in the amounts of some of the nutrient-
elements they withdrew from the soil. Thomas and White (16)
report large differences in the ability of four different
peach rootstocks to take up minerals from the soil.

Rootstocks for fruit tree pr0pagation are obtained
largely by growing seedlings of the Species desired. This
results in all of them being genetically unlike. Wide
variations are to be expected in genetically unlike seed-
lings. Some of the easily observed variations are: type

and amount of top growth, as well as size and density of

10

root system. Sax (11), after experiments with apple
rootstocks, states that clonal rootstocks are more uni-
form than are sexually reproduced seedlings and that
greater uniformity of trees pr0pagated on clonal stock may
be expected.

Leaf analysis has been shown by Lilleland and Brown (9)
to vary throughout the growing season. Goodall (7) showed
that the position of the leaves on the trees has an in-
fluence on the leaf content of some nutrient-elements. He
reports that iron and potassium concentration was greater
in leaves from flowering spurs than in leaves from non-
flowering spurs.

The influence of climate may be greater than that of
soil on nutrient-element uptake by plants, as demonstrated
by LeClerc and Yoder (h) in tri-local soil exchange experi-
ments with wheat. They found that wheat grown on Maryland
soil in Kansas contained 6.13 per cent more protein, and
5.01 per cent more potassium in its ash than wheat grown
on Maryland soil in.Maryland, while wheat grown on Kansas
soil in Kansas had 7.88 per cent more protein, and 5.96
per cent more potassium in its ash than the wheat grown in
Kansas soil in Maryland. Borden (A), working with sugar
cane in 1935 showed that the influence of cleate may
prevail over the soil influence in localities only a few

miles apart.

11
Summary

Leaf and soil samples from some deciduous fruit or-
chards were collected and analyzed for six nutrient-ele-
ments. No significant correlation between leaf and soil
analysis was found for the elements under consideration.

The order of greatest concentration is reversed for
potassium and calcium in the foliage of the drupe and pome
varieties; apple foliage had more calcium than potassium,
while the Montmorency cherry and peach foliage had more
potassium than calcium.

The results of this study indicate that the nutrient-
element content of fruit tree leaves from Michigan orchards
is not directly related to, or affected by, the total con-
centration of the nutrient-elements in the orchard soils.

No definite indication of an inter-relation or inter-
action of one nutrient-element upon another is shown by
the data compiled in this study.

The various biological, physiological and chemical
factors involved in the absorption of nutrient-elements has
as great, if not a greater, influence upon leaf analysis
than the availability of the elements in the soil.

Factors which were not controlled such as climate,
rootstock, and response to fruiting, which influence the
uptake of nutrient-elements by fruit trees in the field,
possibly cause the failure of leaf analysis to reflect,

element for element, the level of each in the soil.

12

Boynton and Compton (3) after some experiments at
Cornell with fruit trees, cohcluded that the chemical
analysis of leaves cannot, as yet, take the place of care-
ful observations of plant behavior and appearance, of the
development of visible leaf or fruit symptoms, and of
past climatic and management conditions, but that when
coupled with such observations the chemical analysis of
leaves makes diagnosis possible, which neither alone would
have permitted.

The relation of mineral nutrition of fruit trees to
growth and yields is of a complex nature. New tissue
growth in early spring is largely at the expense of stored
reserves, while yields are the result of fruit bud forma-
tion, fruit setting, and subsequent develOpment. It is
known that relatively larger amounts of potassium and
phosphorus are required for fruit production than for
vegetative growth alone, and that more of these two
nutrient-elements enters the fruit than falls with the
leaves. The magnitude of this influence in relation to

studies in foliar diagnosis requires investigation.

l.

13

Literature Cited

Beattie, James M. and Ellenwood, C. W.
A survey of the nutrient status of Ohio apple trees.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 55: h7-55. 1950.

Beckenbach, J. R., Robbins, W. R., and Shive, J. W.
A statistical interpretation of the relation be-
tween the ionic concentration of the culture
solution and the element content of the tissues.
Soil Sci. #5: LOB-h26. 1938.

Boynton, D., and Compton, O. 0.
Leaf analysis in estimating the potassium, magnesium,
and nitrogen needs of fruit trees. Soil Sci. 59:
339. 19h5.

Browne, 0. A.
Some relationships of soil to plant and animal nutri-
tion-~The major elements. Soils and Men. Yearbook,
Uniged States Department of Agriculture. 788-792.
193 .

Carolus, R. L.
The use of rapid chemical plant nutrient tests in
fertilizer deficiency diagnosis and vegetable crop
research. Va. Truck Sta. Bul. 98: 1527-1556. 1938.

Epstein, Emanuel and Lilleland, Omund
A preliminary study of the manganese content of the
leaves of some deciduous fruit trees. Proc. Amer.

Goodall, D. W.
The mineral composition of different types of leaf on
apple trees in early summer. Jour. Pomology Hort.
Sci. 21: 103-107. 19h5.

Hayward, H. E. and Long, E. M.
Vegetative responses of the Elberta peach on Lovell
and Shalil rootstocks to high chloride and sulfate
solutions. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. bl: 1&9-
155. l9h2.

Lilleland, Omund and Brown, J. G.
The phosphate nutrition of fruit trees IV. The
Phosphate content of peach leaves from 130 orchards
in California and some factors which.may influence it.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Al: 1-10. l9h2.

10.

11.

12.

13.

1A.

15.

16.

17.

1h

Lundegardh, H.
Soil conditions and nutrient requirements of plants.
Kgl. Landtbruks--Akad. Handl. Tid. 73: 225-289.
l93h.

Sax, Karl.
The use of Malus species for apple rootstocks. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 53: 219-220. 19h9.

Shear, C. 3., Crane, H. L., and Meyers, A. T.
Nutrient-element balance; application of the concept
to the interpretation of foliar analysis. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 51: 319-326. l9h8.

Sudds, R. H.
Sixteen years results of orchard tests with apple
trees on selected rootstocks. Kearneysville, West
Va. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 5h: lhh-th. 19A9.

and Yerkes, G. E.

Influence of the stocks on the performance of cer-
tain a ple varieties. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
36: 11 -120. 1938.

 

Spurway, C. H. and Lawton K.
Soil testing. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 132
(hth revision). 19h9.

Thomas, Frank B. and White, David G.
Foliar analysis of four varieties of peach rootstocks
grown at high and low potassium levels. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 55: 56-60. 1950.

Ulrich, Albert.
Potassium content of grape leaf petioles and blades
contrasted with soil analysis as an indicator of the
potassium status of the plant. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. L1: 20h-212. 19h2.

Appendix Table 1.

Leaf Analysis in Per cent Dry Weight

 

 

 

No. of
Sample P K Ca Mgfi Mn Fe
McIntosh Apple
h .270 2.31 1.h9 .635 .017 .063
6 .205 1.38 2.6h .L60 .008 .008
9 .173 1.01 1.30 .3h3 .OOL .OOL
18 .585 2.00 2.32 .335 .009 .025
22 .199 0.68 1.11 .h23 008.009
23 .7A9 2.07 1.67 .7h5 019 .006
26 .h61 1.63 2.00 .hh5 .009 .018
29 .267 1.h6 1.00 .317 006 .026
33 .18h 1.30 1.12 .385 008 .039
#5 .340 1.18 1.67 .h80 012 .0h9
LS .687 2.61 2.28 .522 .017 .058
57 .315 1.56 2.16 .33h 01h .036
6b .515 1.95 1.57 .523 013 .0h7
73 .250 2.38 1.29 .557 015 .0h6
76 .135 1.19 0.96 .h35 .008 .022
77 .1L3 1.23 0.76 .150 015 .OAO
79.120 1.31 0.73 .110 012 .011
82 .1h0 1.86 0.81 .th .010 .025
85 .097 1.92 0.81 .h51 .005 .013
89 .160 1.61 0.97 .355 .009 .015
96 .th 1.36 0.97 .h26 .007 .016
100 .117 1.39 0.90 .278 .006 .025
Jonathan Apple

2 .113 1.19 1.77 .395 .017 001.
19 .2h0 1.33 1.1h .320 .005 .009
31.268 1.0h 1.36.292 .010 .026
52.315 1.51 2.0h .585 .012 .0u8
55 .139 0.60 1.25 .393 .00h .005
58 .120 2.58 2.67 .435 .Olh .025
62 .538 1.9L 2.21 .h78 .013 .0h9
63 .h03 1.71 2.h5 .5h0 .017 .033
66 .350 2.82 1.89 .619 .019 .078
81 .152 1.68 0.8L .382 .010 .031
83 .19h 2.30 1.2h .520 .015 .027
88 .100 1.91 0.92 .367 .007 .010
97 .090 0.88 0.80 .382 .OOA .009

 

Appendix Table 1 Cont'd.

 

 

 

 

 

No. of .
Sample P K Ca mg Mn Fe
Elberta Peach

8 .116 1.h2 1.88 .th .00h .001
20 .170 1.29 2.h0 .730 .002 .012
AB .2h0 0.83 2.L7 .920 .010 .00h
A7 .h95 1.89 1.89 .600 .080 .0h3
51 .A87 1.39 2.71 .870 .019 .Ohh
59 .271 2.35 1.58 .hh3 .012 .022
65 .382 2.25 2.00 .145 .022 .05h
93 .1h0 1.48 1.61 .676 .007 .009
9A .092 1.3h 1.37 .h50 .007 .009
99 .095 1.66 1.2h .h30 .009 .011

Halehaven Peach

1 .350 1.32 2.65 .610 .009 .OOA
7 .100 1.10 1.83 .h30 .OOL .003
10 .275 1.82 2.38 .576 .005 .006
2h .720 2.07 1.68 .750 .019 .006
27 .310 1.16 1.90 .720 .020 .021
32 .367 1.08 2.10 .550 .007 .OOA
7h .228 1.38 1.50 .631 .Olh .029
75 .227 1.75 1.75 .650 .027 .038
92 .125 1.07 1.39 .511 .007 .010
98 .227 2.63 2.67 .900 .015 .031

Montmorency Cherry

3 .117 1.21 2.13 .63 .005 .002

5 .115 1.25 2.50 .65 .006 .002
11 .155 0.96 1.3h .48 .003 .002
21 .293 1.33 1.63 .67 .008 .009
25 .670 1.33 1.08 .51 006 .006
30 .310 0.11 1.56 .5h .013 .026
AA .523 1.56 2.93 .78 .021 .008
A6 .366 1.A6 2.37 .61 .011 .039
A9 .389 1.09 2.59 .98 .010 .0h9
53 .620 2.39 3.00 1.13 .011 .073
5b .203 0.7A 1.h8 .75 .006 .030
60 .200 2.56 2.65 1.03 .013 .026
67 .169 l.h9 1.35 .5h .015 .051
68 .365 2.57 2.39 1.02 .028 .073
69 .267 1.65 2.03 .83 .013 .0A1
70 .h03 2.82 2.L5 .88 .017 .07h

Appendix Table 1 Cont'd.

 

 

 

No. of
Sample P K Ca Mg, Mn, Fe
Montmorency Cont'd

so .115 1.19 0.91 3.15 .009 .009
86 .112 1.29 l.h7 .78 .012 .010
87 .165 1.21 1.69 .82 .010 .005
90 .091 1.31 1.05 .LO .007 .011
91 .093 .9L 1.35 .57 .005 .009
95 .102 1.22 1.37 .66 .006 .010

 

 

Soil Analysis in ppm

Appendix Table 2.

 

pH

Fe

Mn

ME.

Ca

P

 

Sample No.

McIntosh Apples

 

 

856
Bul.:

0142

385

Lia/1+
220

 

5092
00.

1455

163
O O O
070

513
e o e
220

 

856
e e e
hhli

 

 

788

 

 

.00
141+)».

 

7:h.1
O O O
“#11

008
200

112
O O O
110

 

591
e e e
555

0:50

 

 

619
#51».

.1400

O O C
03092
122

132
230

 

575
hhhi

 

#89
141*]...

B
C

L8 Soil A

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

 

Mg Mn Fe pH

P Ca

Sample No.

 

McIntosh Apples Cont'd

95..)
12.4.1.»J

 

7AJVL
O O O
[45.4

6A

 

 

335
1.74).:

 

123
o e 0
14h.“

000
000

 

222
o e e
“.41“.

 

228
O O O
.1461».

B
C

82 Soil A
I!
N

 

615
566

75.0 360
h3.0 370
36.0 540

 

393
000

Spa/j

022
O O O
610

851».
e e e
320

220
222

29
76
10

75.0
22.0
17.0

000

e o e
273
1 1

ABC

in"
S

 

Stun:
I451...

 

800/
O O 0
145)...

29
29
18

32 O
31.0
30.0

B 22.0
C 5.0

100 5011 A 22.0
fl
'1

 

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

 

Mg Mn Fe ApH

P Ca

Sample No.

 

Jonathan Apples

286
.455

831
2mm

0 O
100

 

 

0:17.
1455

232
O O O
901

1).»..IW
200v.

 

062
.00

SSJ

655
O O O
300

 

662
O O O
14.45

60L.
0 O O
1120

 

360.
Amie...)

602
321

 

098
55.1..L

8Awlm.
23).“.

 

.1488
[4141+

0A6

16L

oflnl
O O O
.1470

 

537
.417h

97622
021:4

8702
000

 

n27kl
Gregg

8148
O O 0
60/0

.1462
e o e
110

 

614.4
678

0:411
ofunv

Inwrhwz
332

 

88 Soil A

B
C

N
H

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

 

pH

Fe

Mn

Mg

Ca

P

 

Sample No.

Jonathan Apples Cont'd

IDVLB
hfuh.

 

 

Elberta Peach

 

7A/:/
0 . O
819:4

LfHO
RTHOR

 

Onfloz
:zfifk

Ibfluo

 

,ORu2

nv9ZU
nvozu
l 1;
:zo;o
A0110

 

6707a
Lfflh.

29
29
20

7.2 kl.0
B 1206 [+100
1-7 45

C

3011 A
n
1!

A7

 

 

29
29
10

9.h .3h-5

B 20.1 h2.5

C

59 8011 A 20.1 22.0
n
n

 

0442

GOAL

0 O O
On¢01
1:61
7245w
[Onwz

RjUnfl
2n¢9~

 

 

qzozj
c2870

OAUO

1tl1l

 

L§$0
.DAYO

0:#0

21¢l

29
20
29

B 13.0 37.0
C 15.0 3h.0

99 Soil A 18.0 5h.0
fl

 

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

 

Sample No.

l

10

2h

27

32

7h

75

92

98

Soil
'1
'9
Soil
'9
fl
8011
N
fl
Soil
1!
'1
Soil
1'
9'
Soil
t!
11
Soil
C!
N
Soil
'1
'1
Soil
1!
1'
Soil
11

fl

ow» am» am» ow» om» ow» ow» 0w» ow> ow»

bus
0 O
«ecu:

H
0
WOW

0
\ONN

End
0

0
“Q0

H
O 0
000

o
DWI-J

FHA
rmo ow? ONH omr rro wow er Hoq wor mow
O O O O

cnoc> Luz-ox cnan» mud;-

PM
00

K Ca Mg

Halehaven Peach

lh.0 20
18.0 5
26.0 10

5h.5 18
87. 29
35. 10

80. 27
68. 29
3h. 5

28.0 10
51.0 5
41.0 .2

39.0 5
h3.0 l8
3A.O 10

000 OUT
0 o o o o o o
NWH \nwm WU‘O‘ OO‘P LOP?

h2.0 20
22.0 18
15.0 10

{.8}.

32.0 28
37.0 29
29

5
28
10

30
29
29

18

27
10

NW
.0. on
o .00

o o 0
000 000 “WC 0
o o o

HHH HHH HPH HHH HHH HHH HHH HHH HHH HHH

omw \Hul-d NBC? N
O
0
(fl-”ox \nxow \IQO\ N\J1\1

l??? Fur-u:

Cl—‘H l-‘NO‘ CPU'I l—‘NVI CNN I—‘WN CUTO‘ CNN PPM») N\}\}

\OV'IO HQC ##N CPU! U’ICO omen oovun PrN HO\O\ OHO‘

Fe

20.0
30.0
20.0

27.0
30.0
3&0

FHH
\m(n
O

on
o

O‘CD Iowan FCC (DON 000 000‘ O‘CC

an»
nac>ax

l-‘Nw

H
0 MIN NOCN CO‘C O\N\O \ICVI

 

 

*3:

b no.

NCXLP" CV‘l-P' NU’H-J moor-I PQQ O\O\-P' HO‘N 000‘ 000 Kooovu

vnmxn o“n\n kmxnvw \n\nu1 \n\n#- 4??“t- \nt-t- Ch0“m Chaum :wr:~

Mg Mn Fe 15

Ca

Montmorengy Cherrz
22.0 18

hh.0 29

 

h0.0 29

15.0
16.0
10.0

 

 

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

Sample No.

230/
O O O
221
790/
222

7A29~
duos!

18.0
12.0
6.1

B
C

Soil A
n
I!

5

 

27
29

6.7 29

7.5
7.2

13.0
13.0
13.0

B
C

Soil A
H
n

 

 

11

8.5.1..L
“5'2

 

 

868

008

022

15.0
12.0

B
C

30 Soil A
1'
fl

 

 

 

 

905
O O 0
“51».

53.0 29
h6.0 18
16.5_ 28

18.0
15.0
2.2

B
C

53 Soil A
"
fl

 

566
555

#66
O O O
873

628
O O O
220

2.2
2.2
2.1

h8.0 29
h2.0 28
22.0 20

5h Soil A

 

51.0 30
h5.0 28
26.0 28

3h.0
3h.0
12.0

B
C

60 Soil A
N
N

 

Appendix Table 2 Cont'd

 

Mg Mn Fe PH

Ca

P

Sample No.

 

Montmorency Cherrx Cont'd

 

8.42
1455

Oho
O O O
862

.uRTA

 

555

 

Soil A
fl
'1

69

 

 

560

80

 

27
29
31.0 500 1

36 0
h6.0

2h 0
2h.0
0 5

B
C

n
n

 

86 Soil A

h
1
0

2
2
2

29
29
2740 600 l .

51.0
39.0

0
0
5

2h
21
0

B
C

87 5011 A
fl
'1

 

 

B
C

91 Soil A
fl
'1

 

nIUnu
407A!

277

852
o e o
111

2
.5
5

2
2
2

L7.0 30
3h.0 29
29.0 ADD

0
2
0

9
30
10.

B
C

95 Soil A
n
H

 

 

_._.
VI“
m
«M
“u ..
.0.
0
“

_.. I.
u . .arfl

f. . . 1..
LVJtrer .

9.. ...
. n K. \

t ‘
, 0

ti

2

n1

‘
a

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ll

 

H llll | llll llll lllllfilTlfilTl'Es
3 1193 03015 2317