d'“' ‘v— -‘

\ \

in!“
IN. I“

. ~ w» 'u‘r
I“ ‘ W ‘

l

'l

\

1!‘ ‘v1

5
>

I

l

’7

\
1

l

lI‘
H

“L f
a (‘5

H
)

K ‘
A1, I

HUD-3 I
ION A
(BLOOD

 

THE EFFECT OF VARKEJS MULCHES
AND 5ERT£L31§R$ ON THE GROWTH
AND PR‘SfiUfi‘EWI?{ OF McENTOSH
APPLE “€333 AND 0% THE NOTMFYMG
CfiPACWY OF WT SANDY
LOAM 30%

WE; fear- i'ha am“ a? M. 5.
MECHCGAN 5TATE COLLEGE
him Sméth Tii'us

1-943

  
  
 
   
  
 
  
  
   
 
   

. .. '_ ~13‘ {ii}: p... ’r . ‘r, 1.

. ' ' ' I .5 tap, '-..\‘. -. -

c O J - ‘. e. I

- r'e -.-s M ”ful. .
- v‘- “Id-www-

s, 0, . '
“(-1???"

.
0"

a. ',-‘ .q

.I‘.

D

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effect of Various lulchee and Fertilizers on

the Growth and Productivity of McIntosh Apple Trees

and on the Nitrifying Capacity of fillet Sandy Loan
8011

presented by
John Smith Titus

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

I. S. degree in Soil Science

 

 

{y
I 4"

Major professor

Date J 1 14 1948

 

t
I
1

- _ . '5 '3. _ .'_'
. ‘l£* $431,?» ’ I_. ',_

—~._.—.—— -w— p - —_T- -.—,—.- .V.- _-'V-
c

i - -'- r

__ _.—‘—v _
.

' ——.—.- -

1‘: {Ill}: .. 1 I'lllls<lo1llltl\1't

I‘ll-cl.

4'Illlnll .IOrllIItcfllla-lll {(14 allitlll.rl.alllul1ltlo( .

THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS MULCHES AND FERTILIZERS
ON THE GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY OF MCINTOSH
APPLE TREES AND ON THE NITRIFYING CAPACITY

OF EMMET SANDY LOAM SOIL

by
John Smith Titus

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
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

‘t‘ HE'S-“S

 

 

The author is indebted to Dr. L. V Turk of

..o

9 Soil Science Department and to “r U B. Tukey

$1-. ‘-.

th

of the Department of Horticulture for their assist-
.nce in planning the work and for their helpful
criticiem and to Dr. E. J. Benne of the Department

F

of Agricultural Chemistry of the Fxperiment Station

for the use of the leaf analysis data.

'1')

203|92

"we Tf’ww hr.

I;‘\‘_-FCI‘;V-l~ 1v.9.eeeeeeoeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee].
‘27"? ”—"7 (77"- *fl"?: "‘7?"

J'L'Ij..u kg“ ___,".‘_.‘.[\1- I."g..oooooeeoeeeeeeeeeeeo?
1“ “’11—“ Tray-1 71 vsjmrvpn"

P5CUI-JLPL C: L....a.'_.".'k= Doeeeeeeeeeeeoooeoeooeog

Plan of the EXperinent..............6
Xeasurement of Peenonse.............8

Nitrifying Catacity..

.
I
.
\o

:‘naL-vULTSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeell

arov‘ftheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeoooll

I
/

Size Of Fr‘K-lit0000000000.0..........1)+

0 Color of Fruit.....................l§

Lea-f finals/81800.0 0.0.00.00000000017
Nitrifyin: Capacity................21

Tiffl" Q (‘1.
DLKVUSVI\);\IQQ.....eeeeoeeee

STTF,"Z"CV '38
a--- -.hggeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeL
7" v. Ile- A..:'Y“
:3 I 3 LJ. 0 JI‘I‘c- I

bod-.0.000......00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

APPETDIX................... 3h
Tables A-l through A-S

-1-

The production of apples in Lichigan is frequently
limited by moisture and nutritional deficiencies, and as
a consequence, methods of correcting these conditions which
are unfavorable to maximum production of high quality fruit
have grown in importance as the industry has expanded.

For many years it has been common knowledge that on
most hichigen soils, limited supplies of available nitro-
gen in the soil prevent profitable apple production and as
a consequence most commercial apple growers have profited
by supplementing the soils' supply of available nitrogen
with commercial fertilizers high in nitrogen content. The
addition of nutrient elements, other than nitrogen, has
been of doubtful value as a general practice in the state.
However, there have been suggestions of nutrient deficiencies
other than of nitrogen in several orchards in different 10—
calities.

The question of moisture conservation in many Elohigan
apple orchards is of prime importance, since orchards are
frequently situated ontvell drained soils, with low moisture
holding capacities. In seasons in which the rainfall during
the summer months is low or infrequent, tree growth and apple
size are considerably reduced. With an increasing number
of orchards in permanent sod, to prevent erosion losses and
maintain soil organic matter, the moisture problem has been
aggrevated and an increasing interest as to the effective-

ness of different mulching materials has developed.

203193

till [I .\ rillll llllll {Ill 1||| ‘

 

 

The purpose of this exneriment was to study the effect
of certain fertili7ers and different mulching materials on
the performance of Kclntosh apple trees and to evaluate this

performance in terms of the niirifying

capacity of the soil.

PZVISH C? TEE LITSDATUZZ
Several workers (8) have reported that the application
of nitrogen carrying fertilizers to apple orchards has re-
sulted in an increase in vegetative growth, in blossom bud
formation, and in percentese of fruit set. Increasing the

.—

anount of available nitrogen beyond the optimum concentration

cf

(Which varies with environmental and acne

‘

ic factors) may re-

'h

(

suit in poorly colored fruit (4) and greater susceptibility to
Winter injury (9). It is desirable, .herefore, to control the
amount of nitrogen available to the tree by mean. of nitrogenous
fertilizers, mulches, irrigation, and other cultural practices
in order to insure optimum production both in the total amount
and the merret quality of the fruit.

”he addition of fertilizers containing phosphorus and pot—
assium has net generally resulted in consistent benefit, except
in those areas where a deficiency or unbalance has been reported
(6). Lilleland (11), after study n5 the phosphorus requirements
of apple trees found that"... the failure of deciduous fruit
trees to respond to phoSphorus in a soil very deficient in this
particular element and in which other crons show marhed increase
in growth suggests that phosphorus fertilisation of orchard
crOps may be of questionable value". Chandler (7), after study-

ing tPe effect of potassium carryinf fertilisers on prowth-and

yield of apples concluded that these fertili7ers bed no consis—
tent effect on growth or yield of souls trees in T'srylsrri and
that weatrer conditions from season to season and different

locations influenced the fer “fornence of tne trees more than

"5

did added potassium-carrying fertilizers. Potte and Fisher
(13) tho compared tne effects of nitrogenous fertilizers, with
and without oboe 3cornq and potessiun in s sod mulch orcbsrd

in Yew Hampshire found no resnonse to comolete fertiliyer which
would justify it as a standard recommendation. We eu Mb

noted that the trees receiving 2 c molete fertiliyer bore fe ener ,
but better colored fruit then those trees fertilized with nitro—
gen alone. The writers suggest that less nitrogen was avail-
able who en ootassium end phosnhorus were sdled.

Fertilizers, other than nitrogen, are often important
Where a cover crob is used or where sod is being es teblisbed
(12). The benefit in this case is indirect in that the ground
cover is more adequate and the benefits from the cover crop
or sod may be increased.

The effects of mulc nes on the performance of sople trees
are diverse because of t‘e wide differences in the comoosition
of materials used for mulching, (which very from inert materials
such as gravel and sless wool to re’cily decomposable materials
such as legume bays and manure) the different rates of sunli—

catio en vbich have been use 5, end the interaction between mulcbes
and different soil types on which tress eXperiments have been

conducted.

Tn a mulehinr eXperitent oonfiuoteo by J. Y. Skew (1A)
in Kassachusetts using hay mulch, it was founfl that Tclntosh
and Wealthy apple trees which were rulorefl definitely produce”
more apples one also had a more vigorous spoesrnnoe than simi—

CTOWH under a~cleeo cultivation system of maoegement.

b-
bl

lar trees
Letimer 9nd Percival (10) in comparing the effent of

‘

several mulchin? materials on the yield of IeIntosh Boole trees

founfi thst seaweed and nesfiow hey increased the yield anfi size
of apples over the sawsust mulcheo ens unmulohed trees, but“
that the red color of the soples was reduced by additions of
tre seaweed ens ray mulohes.

murk anfl Fertridse (15) in a lysifieter stufly usinf diff-
erent mulckin; meterifils on three regresertetive Niohigfin
ororero soils oonolufled that straw, corn stover, alfalfa,
wooo shavin s, gravel, enfl sawdust were all sneerior to pest
in reducing evaporation losses from the soil. Alfalfa tensed
to increase the amount of exchangeable bases in the soil, wrile
wood shavings, sawdust, and pest oeereesefl tre bases in com-
parison with unmulehed soil.

Wander and Gourley (€O) after comosrinj the effert of a
system of clean cultivation and cover crepoiny‘with a system

of sod and straf mulch found that potassium, cwlcium, magnesium,

phospkorus, and boron were increased in the surface soil Where

mulch was added and that available potassium was increased

to a depth of 21 inches as compared with the clean cultiva-
tion cover crop system. In addition, these workers found

a higher potassium and phOSphorus content in the leaves and
the fruit of the mulched trees.

C. E. Baker (3) studying the effects of fertilizer con—
taining nitrogen, phOSDhorus, and potassium and a number of
different mulches (both organic and inorganic) on the potas-
sium content of Grimes apple leaves, found that straw and
manure mulches were more effective in raising the potassium
content of the leaves than additions of muriate of potash
fertilizer. In another plot of trees where various mulches
were correlated with potassium content of the leaves, the
same worker found that inorganic as well as organic mulches
had much the same effect as the manure mulch in increasing
the potassium content of the leaves as compared with trees
to which potassium carrying fertilizers were added. mhe
conclusion was that this increase resulted from a more favor-
able physical environment for the release of potassium from
the soil coupled with an increased soil eXploitation by the
tree roots under the mulch.

The value of the nitrifying capacity has long been re-
coynized by Workers dealing with varied soil and production
_roblems (17, 18, 19). Albrecht (1) found that the nitri-
fying capacity of the soils in Sanborn Field in Missouri

had been definitely altered both by different cropping systems

and by soil treatments, such as applications of fertilizer

and manure. Alicante (2) in making such determinations
on soils taken from various locations in the Philippine
Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and the United States found
the nitrifying capacity to be a good index of crop pro-
duction in citrus soils and also found a correlation be-
tween clay content, climate, and the capacity of the soil
organisms to convert organic matter into nitrates. Turk
and Partridge (15) measured the nitrate production under
different mulches in a lysimeter study by measuring the
nitrate content of the percolate over a period of 4 years

and found definite differences among various materials.

Twenty-five, 30-year-old Xclntosh apple trees were used
in the eXperiment. These trees are located on $nmet sandy
loam soil in Grand Traverse County, Cichigan. Five ferti-
lizer plots, each containing trees mulched with peat, straw,
legume hay (alfalfa brome mixture), sawdust, and an unmulched
tree were established in the Spring of lQMA. Two different
fertilizer treatments with a replicate, in addition to one
unfertilized check plot were included in the plan. The an—
nual fertilizer treatments were nitrogen alone (7 pounds of
ammonium nitrate) and nitrogen plus phosphorus and potassium
(7 pounds of ammonium nitrate plus 25 pounds of O-Q-d7).

The field plan indicating the plot arrangements is shown in

Figure l.

-7-
Figure l. - Ciagram of the eXperiment, shovinf location
of the fertili7er plots and the trees mulched
With neat (P), straw (S), legume hay (L),
and sawdust (D), and the unmulched, chec”, trees

A
a?
V

 

r31
’1}
Fl
L‘l
|-4
'U
t )J
.F:
TI
3‘
‘\l
ii;- 9'1
.0
H
i)
t—J
,_J
H
' \)
H
)J
H
:3;
H
m

 

i i_ "D,

I a I -I.
b. X I: P X X P X x P 2: X a -( X P
c 5 x s C X s c X s c X s C ‘< s c

X X L X X L Y X L X Y L Y X

"\10‘
Kt“

. ' f 1
X D X X D k X D X V X ’ X “

—.

[’1

x: 7 pounds of NH4 N02 rer'tree annually
: 7 pounds of KH4 KO: plus 95 pounds of 0-0-27
per tree annually
C¥ECKz no fertili7er

An aporoximate 45 91099 ran from west to east in this
part of the orchard.

.

3n examination of the soil profile under each of the

trees revealed considerahle variation in the soil, esnecially
with regard to the depth of the A horizon, the development

ndurated layers, and the accumulation of materials which
had been carried down into the orchard by sheet erosion from
an adjacent field which had been clean cultivated for many
years. These soil differences were reflected in the tree
growth and the distribution of roots. The trees at the lower

part of the slone

,-
-}
._

ulched With peat, straw, and the unmulched
trees appeared to be more vigorous and were generally larger
than those higher up the lepe mulched with legume hay and
With saWdust. However, these differences are not always
consistent because tie variations in the soil are somewhat

:gulir.' As a result of tiese differences, the data

collected are somethat linited in sifnificance and are

rather difficult to interpret.

Yeasurement of Feseonse
In order to measure the annual linear growth of the

trees, 100l lirhs were selected from P3 of the trees in-

“ (‘7 .F'“ ”Wu ‘rgj' ;' ‘n/
vclveo in the erperinent. The l9~f, lfiss, lasg, an‘ 1040

Wth of each of these limhs was measured to the nearest

-

{P

O

' ' a "r I‘ r“ ‘- r- 1‘ ,.. , , ‘
1/3 inst. These C67: mere then avers an or ea?n tree to

find the annual growth of each tree for each of the'above

Yield records 0; the trees were gathered for the fears

.—

1944, 19am, lgué, and 1947 and are eXpressed in terms of

bushels of fruit.

The quality of the fruit was measured in 1946 by selects
in: at random, five bushels of fruit from each tree, Which
were taken to the packing house and graded for si7e. ”he
apples from each size FPOUp were counted and classified
accordin» to the percent of the surface shoring solid red
coloration. The size groups consisted of those havine a
disaster of less than 9 1/4 inches, 2 1/4 - 2 1/? inches,
9 1/2 - 2 3/4 inches, and greater than 2 3/4 inches. rnhe
color classes were: I (less than 1/3 of the surface fully
colored), II (1/3 to 2/} fully colored), and III (2/3 to

full y colored).

 

l n ‘

Two 0: the trees had made so little EPOWth that less
than 100 limbs could be found which were suitable for
neasurement and fewer limbs had to be uses,

Leaf samples were collected during the 1945 and 1946
growing seasons from fifteen of the trees (one sample from
each treatment). These samples were collected soon after
the terminal buds had formed. The samples were air dried,
ground and analysed in the laboratory of the Department of
Agricultural Chemistry of the EXperiment Station under the

direction of Dr. E. J. Benne (for the purposes of a separate

project).

Nitrifying Capacity

In September of 1946 four soil samples of approximately
one half pound each, were gathered fromthe surface soil
directly beneath the mulch (or in the case of the unmulched
trees, from beneath the drip of the trees) of each of the 25
trees involved in the experiment. These were taken to the
laboratory, air dried and stored.

In December of that year, the soil samples from each
tree were composited and six 100 gram subsamples were weighed
out from each composite sample. To two of these samples was
added 1 gram of "Filorganite" as a source of organic matter.
One gram of calcium carbonate was added to the samples to be
incubated in order to eliminate excess acidity as an inhi-
biting factor to nitrification. Four of these subsamples
from each treatment were brought up to 10 percent moisture
content and incubated at room temperature for eight weeks.
additional water was added as required to maintain the mois-

ture content at the 10 percent level:

-10-

The ammonia content of the unincubated samples was
determined by leaching with a u percent KCl solution, making
alkaline with NaOB, distilling into a .1? solution of H2 804
and titrating with . N NaOH solution. After the ammonia had
been driven off and titrated, DeVarda's alloy was added to
the solution to reduce the nitrates to ammonia and a similar
determination was made for the nitrates. Ammonia and nitrates
(which will be designated as "nitrogen" for the purposes of
this paper) are eXpressed in milligrams of nitrogen.

At the end of the eight weeks incubation period, nitro-
gen was determined on the samples which were incubated with
and without organic matter.

The results of this work are shown in Table A-8 (summ-
arized in Table VI). This shows the original soil nitrogen
content (column B , the amount of nitrogen released due to
the decomposition of the soil organic matter (column E) and
the nitrogen formed from the decomposition of the added or-
ganic matter (column F). By subtracting the amount of nitro-
gen in the unincubated soil (column B) from the nitrogen
yield of the soil incubated with Kilorganite (column A) it
is possible to determine the amount of nitrogen released by
microbial breakdown of the soil organic matter, plus the
tilorganite. When the amount of original nitrogen in the
soil (column B) is subtracted from the nitrogen released by
the breakdown of the soil organic matter (column D, sample

incubated without Eilorganite), a value (column E) is obtained

-11...

representing the net amount of nitrogen released from the
organic matter in the soil. The final calculation is the
subtraction of this latter value from the total nitrogen
released from the soil organic matter plus the amount re-
leased from the Milorganite (column C) which leaves the
value (column F) designating the nitrifying capacity of

the soil, as represented here, and which measures the capa-
city of the organisms in a given amount of soil to decompose
and release nitrogen from an equal amount of homogenous or-

ganic matter.

RESULTS
Growth:

In order to facilitate the expression of the reaponse
by the trees to the eXperimental treatments, the growth made
by each tree for the year prior to the beginning of the ex-
periment (1943) and for the year in which the final growth
measurements were made (1946) is given an index number by
expressing the growth made in inches during a particular
year by the tree in question as a percentage of the growth
made by the most vigorous tree during the same year.

The "Peeponse" column (see Table A-1) represents the
difference, either positive + or negative —, between the
1943 index and the 1946 index and should be an expression
of direction as well as magnitude of the response by the

tree to a given treatment. Where duplicate treatments were

-12..

used in the experiment, the average of the two trees is
given in this taole

From Table I, below, which is a summary of the averages
shown in Table A-1, it is apparent that in most cases the
treatments were beneficial, since the reSponse for 1946 is
positive in all treatments where mulches were used in con-

junction with fertilizer applications.

Table I

 

The effect of different fertilizer treatments ard
mulch applications on the growt h of NcIntosh ap.p1e trees
as meas sured hv the averac :e difference between t e r“row h
indexes of 19 3 and 1946, exyressed here as "Teapons e Num-

 

 

bers". (see Anoer dix Table A-1)

PEPTILIZ as N NPK csTCK AVERAGE

IZAT +14.s7 +15. an -e;.s5 +1.29
u traw +16.64 +10. 86 -15.22 +7. 09
U cmscx +27.5s +2fi. 29 ~23.sa -6. 87
L Legume +ee.ss +16.7o +16.9& +18. 84
c Sawdust +29.5o +29.38 -34.32 +8.19
s

svTem GT +22.29 +1o.90 —16.70

 

The growth rate appeared to be accelerated most by

nitrogen alone which produced an average positive reaponse

number of 22.2

\D

and least by the NPK combination which
correSponds to an average positive response number of only
10.90, while the omission of nitrogen resulted in a decrease
in growth as indicated by the negative response number of
16.70.

When the effect of the mulch is considered, regardless
of fertilizer treatment, the outstanding effect of the legume

mulch is seen wi th an average positive reSponse number of

-13-

“.84 contrasted with the average minimum reSponse of nega—
tive 6.87 in the case of the unmulched trees. The sawdust
and straw treatments appear to be nearly equivalent in their
general effect upon the growth of the trees, while the use
of peat mulch has done little to improve the growth rate

during 1946.

Yield:
Unfortunately, more data on production are not available,
since production reSponse is the principal determinant of
any recommended practice. Because no measurements of this
nature were made prior to the beginning of the eXperiment,
and high correlations are not evident (see Table A~4) it is
believed tiat tne best measure of this response is the aver-
age yield of these trees during the years, 1944, 1945, 1946,

and 1947. These yields are summarized in Table II.

Table II

 

The effect of different fertilizer treatments and mulch
applications on the avera;e yield of E.cIntosh apple trees

 

 

for the years 1944,1945, 1946, and 1947. (see Appendix .
Table A- 4) -
FEFTILIZEP N NPK CFTCK AVERAGE

h Peat 12. 96 cu. 19.96 bu. 13.16 bu. 15.357

U Straw 18.97 16.49 " 15.31 " 16.9?

L sleek . 17. j " 1s.09 " s. an H 14.75

c Leaume 1s.4e " 12.89 " 12.19 " 11.so

H Sawdust 11.34 " 10.63 " 5.71 " 9.?3

AvTaAGE 16.20 " 16.61 ",1, 11.04 "

 

The relative effectiveness of the mulches is indicated
in the right hand column of Table II. According to these
averages, straw appears to be the most effective mulch with
peat being ranked second, followed by the check trees, and
legume and sawdust respectively. However, when the yields
on the check trees which received no fertilizer are consider-
ed, the value of the legume mulch over the no mulch treat-
ment is indicated.

Size of Fruit:

The effects of the treatments on the size of the fruit
are summarized in Table III. It is observed thfit some rather
large differences were brought about by some of the treat-
ments. Probably the most outstanding difference is the de-
pressing effect of nitrogen upon the size of the fruit. Those
trees which received neither fertilizer nor mulch bore the
fruit which averaged the greater size (Table III, part A)
while those trees receiving nitroren fertilizer and the legume
mulch bore the highest percentage of small fruit (Table III,

).

LU

part

Table III

 

The effect of different fertiliver treatments and mulch
applications on the size of YcIntosh apples. The average
percentage of fruits falling into two extreme diameter cate-
gories are shown here. (see Appendix Table A-9)

'4‘.-

‘f... ”-"-‘ n “ \ . 1
A- Percentage 01 fruits greater teen 2 3/4 inches diameter

 

 

 

 

futurfii‘“

TTDTILIZ?R N NDK CVVCK AVTPAfiE
Tea 10.45 10.14 16.17 19.25

Straw 14.94 8.84 13.52 ' 12.43

Check 8.87 6.66 37.94 17.8?

Legume 4.55 4.96 '6.97 3.50

Sawdust 6.43 6.55 30.75 14.59

szaacz 9.06 7.43 21.07

Table III continued:

 

 

 

 

3- Percentage of fruits less than 2 1/4 inches diameter
FETTILIZEP N 12K 0370K AVTDATE

1 Peat 14.35 1<.52 lb.17 16.37?L

U Straw 14.24 18.78 l3.T2 15.h1

L Check 15.46 23.7? 4-15 “4.47

C Legume 23.12 29.33 21.?5 24.43

H Sawdust 20.30 22.72 1.55 14.?6
AVTDAGE 17.49 29.42 11.51 .

 

The difference between the effect of nitrogen alone

and KPH on the size of fruit is not rent and may not be

(a

significant, but when these treatments are compared with
the check (no fertilizer) the data indicate a marked de-
pressing effect of nitrogen on the size of fruit.

In regard to the mulches, there appears to be sore
difference between the effect of the sawdust and the no
mulch treatments when only the percent of large apples is
considered (Table III, part A) but when the percent 0’
small apples is considered (Tart B) the difference appears
insignificant. The average response to the peat and straw
mulch appears nearly equal in both cases. The greatest
differences among the various mulches on fruit size is the

outstanding drpressing effect of the legume mulch.

Color of the Fruit:
From the data presented in Table IV, it is apparent
that there is a marked effect of both the fertilizers and

the mulches on the color of the fruit. Part A of this table,

which is computed 0n the basis of poorly colored fruit, indi-

cates that the lowest percent of poorly colored fruit was
found on the check trees which received no fertilizer.

The highest percent of poorly colored fruit was found on
those trees which received nitrogen on y, while the trees
which received NP? bore a elirhtly smaller percent of poorly
colored apples than did the trees which received nitrogen
alone.

The highest percentage of poorly colored fruit, in
comparing the mulching treatments, was found on those trees
mulched with legume hay. the check trees were next in order
followed by peat and straw respectively, while the smallest
percentage of poorly colored apples was found on the trees

mulched With saWdust.

(1

Par‘ E of Table IV, listiné the average percent of
glass III, or highly colored apples, indicates a rather
consistent inverse relation to the data in Part A of this
table. From this latter section, it is evident that the
check trees (no fertilizer) produced the highest percentage
of well colored apples, while the lowest percentace was
produced by the trees receiving nitrogen alone and again

the NPK trees are in the intermediate position.

Table IV

 

“he effect of different fertilizer treatments and
mulch applications on the color of FcIntosh apples. mhe
.averaye‘percentaee of fruits falline into the two extreme
color categories are shown here. (see Appendix Table A-blp
I: Percent of I (poorly coloredT fruit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F7221LTZTQ K NPK 0223K AVEdAflE
K Peat 7.4% 9.97 1.54 6.33
U Straws 5.35 4.50 4.54 4.80
L Check 1o.uo 9.35 2.20 7.32
C egume 11.82 7.71 3.39 7.64
H Sawdust 3.57 1.82 0.00 1.82
AveaAGs 551.12 6.67 2.35
2; Percent of III ( ell coloredyifruit
Feat 19.95 27.53 51.99 33.02
Straw 14.50 25.4s 31.99 23.32
Check 14.fl9 13.71 36.23 21.b1
Legume 4.75 11.58 32.55 16.31
Sawdust 34.97 45.44 73.29 52.90
AVEFAGE 17.82 24.35 ue.14

 

Vi he n the

colored apples is considered,

effect of the mulches on the percent of well

it is observed that the saw—

dust mulch had a marked effect on the color of the fruit,
With over 50 percent of the fruits falling into the III
class. Peat appeared to follow in second place with straw
and the check trees third and fourth, while the legume
mulched trees produced the smallest percent of well colored
fruit.
Leaf Analysis:
The data on the results of the chemical analysis of

the leaves for the six elements considered are presented

in summary form in Table V, parts A through F, while the

-185...
more detailed data, by individual trees and for tre separate
seasons, 1945 and 1946, are presented in Table A-7.

Part A of Table V, gives the percent of total nitrogen
in the leaves. Those trees receiving WDK fertilizer had
the highest nitrogen content, while nitrogen alone averages
slightly lower and the trees receiving no fertilizer had
the smallest percent of nitrogen in their leaves. When the
mulches are considered, the trees receiving legume mulch had
the highest leaf nitrogen content while the trees mulched
with sawdust had the lowest nitrogen content and the remain-
ing two mulches were essentially the same as the unmulched
trees.

The data presented in Part B of this table, dealing
With the phosphorus content indicate that the phosphate
fertilizer (of the NPK mixture) did not increase the phos—
phorus content of the leaves. The legume mulch increased
the phoSphorus content of the leaves, while the trees mulched
with straw had the lowest phosnhorus content with the remain-
ind mulch treatments in the intermediate position.

Fart C of this table shows the leaf content of potassium
as affected by the different treatments. “hose trees receiv-
ing NPK had a slightly higher potassiun content in their
leaves than did the trees receiving no fertilizer. The
trees which received nitrogen alone ha the lowest average
potassium content. shen the effect of the mulches on the

potassium content is compared, it is observed that the trees

-19...

receiving the legume mulch had the highest potassium content
while the trees mulched with sawdust had the lowest potassium
content. The unmulched trees averaged slivhtly higher in
potassium content than the sawdust trees, while th, peat and
straw trees were nearly equal in their potassium level, rating
slightly higher than the unmulched trees.

the calcium content of the leaves, as summarized in
Part D, tends to have an inverse relationship to the potassium
content, although the differences are not pronounced and the
\relationship is not entirely consistent. The NPK fertilizer
,treatments and the legume mulch treatment resulted in the
lowest content of calcium. The no fertilizer treatment rated
only slightly higher than the nitrogen treatment while the
no mulch treatment rated slightly higher than the sawdust
mulch. '

The magnesium content of the leaves, as sumnarized in
Part E, varies considerably with the fertilizer treatments,
being higher when NPK fertilizer was applied than where no
fertilizer was used and lower when nitrogen alone was added.'
The average differences between the mulch treatments is re-
latively small, with straw mulch giving the highest magnesium
content and the peat correSponding to the owest leaf content
of this element.

when Part F of this table is considered, P and K apparent—

ly increased the manganese content over the no fertilizer

treatment, while nitrogen alone resulted in a decrease.

.coapmpm pcosaumaxm Hasspasoaum< cassava: we» so
hppmwamzo Hmuzpasowum< no newsphwmoa map mo occmm .0 .m .uo an nmzmfiuazu mm: numb mammamcw mmma one AHV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000. m4w©0¢1i mmmoo. moq. H<4.- 0mm. mo¢mm><
manoo. maoo. Hmoo. ,wmmoo. nos. owe. ewmi Nmm. emamzsm :
Nomoo. 0500. mmwoo. 0m000. mom. 40m. MmJ. mom. MEDUMA 0
oomoo. mmqoo. mooo. mmmoo. mom. 0H4. Ham. mmm. xomzo A
mmmoo. >000. @000. ma¢00. 0H4. N04. HOm. 4mm. 3<mem D
m0m00. maqoo. wmoo. mmmoo. Nam. m04. mo4. 00m. e«mm z

m0¢mm>w MJMmQ xmz z mw<ma>w moazo xmz z mMNHAHbmmm
mmmcmmcwa mo usmfimk hub & um Ezwmmcmws Mo pcmwmz muo & tm

NNN.H ¢N0.H Namwa Hm.H cw.H N~.H m0<mz>¢

sma.a mm.H Hoo. HH.H mm.a Haws sw.a lea Hmaassm I
mm0.H >40.H >m0.H m00.H m0.m JN.N NH.N mm.H mxpumq 0
0HN.H na.a ba.a 00m. mm.a >>.H mn.a oq.a momio A
_ MmH.H mH.H 0H.H 0NH.H 00.H ob.a m>.H Om.a zqmsw 0
mi Hso.H mH.H Odo. smo.a sm.a as.a mo.m Hw.H am; 2

_ qumm>< xcmzo xmz z qumw>< momzo xmz z mmNHqummm
Esfioamo mo ynmwmz hub w I0 Edwmmwpom mo psmwmz hub w :0

msa. Xmas. Wmflw 4m.a Hm.m mH.~ mo<me>a

IANH. owa. was. sea. mm.H mn.a sa.~ mo.m amzmzam I
had. 40m. - mod. mad. mm.N NN.N 04.N om.m azacmq 0
maa. me. moa. mmH. mo.m mw.a oa.m oa.m sauna A
eta. «ma. sea. HmH. oo.m mm.a oa.~ mH.~ 3<mem :
sea. owa. mud. mud. mo.m m>.H ma.m 5H.N s<ma z

mo¢mm>< xommo xmz z mw¢mm>« xcmmo xmz z mMNHAHsmmm
mzposmmozmimo pzmwmziNuU & um :mw0hpfi: mo pzmwmz who & I<

Aav mammamc< mama .

Asua magma

xfiocmaaa 80pm smxma mmmmpw>mv .mo>mma mango anQCHoz mo pampcoo mmmcmwcma cam .Edwmocwma .adwoawo .Eswmumpon
.mshozmmonm .comouuwc ommpm>m mzp :0 acoapmowaaqm sodas new mucoapmmup nouwaappmm unsymmmwn no pommmm one

 

> mamas

-21-
In comparing the effect of the mulches, it is seen that
the legume hay mulch greatly increased the manganese content
in the leaves. The lowest manganese content, in comparing
the mulching treatments, was with the peat mulch, although
the difference was small. The remaining mulchec were simi-

lar to the no mulch treatment.
Hitrifying Capacity:

The results listed in Table A-8, column 7, are summarized
in Table VI, which indicates the nitrifying capacity of the
average of two trees (four determinations) in the plots re-
ceiving nitrogen and NPK respectively and the average of the

two determinations under each of the five trees in the check

(no fertilizer) plot.

Tszile ‘II

 

The effect of different fertilizer treatments and
mulch applications on the nitrifyina capacity of Emmet
Ffirdy loam soil. (averages taken from Asfisnaix Table A-Si

(xgm. N / 100 s. Soil)

 

 

FERTILIZER N KPH 03201 AV?F;eE

h Peat 11.8 9.1 3.3 9.7

U Straw 13.0 10.9 6.0 10.0

L Check 13.7 10.7 8.6 11.0

C Legume 10.3 12.8 16.0 13.0

H Sawdust 10.2_ 8.9 13.0 10.q
AVE sea ll.3 1c.5 io.E'

 

While the differences are not large, it is felt that
they do indicate a trend which would be eXpected to be more
pronounced if the mulch and fertilizer treatments had been
carried on for longer than three growing seasons prior to

the time the determinations were made.

-22-

then the averages of the mulch treatments are considered,
it is seen that the legume hay mulch correSponds with the
highest nitrifying capacity figure. The check (no mulch)
would be placed next in order, followed by sawdust, straw,
and peat respectively. However, the straw and peat are so
nearly similar that no importance can be attached to this
difference.

When the average of the fertilizer treatments are com-
pared, the differences are not greet, but nonetheless inter-
esting. The nitrifying capacity of the unfertilized (check)
plot is the lowest, the nitrogen plots the highest, and the
HPK plots intermediate. The averare nitrifying capacity of
the soil fertilized with nitrogen alone is comparatively
higher than the other two treatments, indicating that under
the conditions of the eXperiment, nitrogen alone is superior

to the applications of NPK.

DISCUSSION

Perhaps the most interesting and significant data col-
lected were the measurements made on the linear growth of
the trees. The significance lies in the fact that this is
the only data available which would indicate the performance
of the trees prior to the differential treatments since no
annual record was previously kept of individual tree pro—
duction, quality of the fruit or the several other factors

which were measured at the conclusion of the eXperiment.

PO
‘ M
I

It was possible to make measurements of the SPOWth of the
previous years by counting the bud scale scars and measuring
the distance between them.

The importance of nitrogenous fertilizers to the growth
of apple trees on this soil is represented by the great
difference between the average response numbers of the check
(unfertilized) trees and the response numbers of the average
nitrogen and FPK trees. The average number for the N trees
is more than double that for the NPK trees. The unfertilized
trees which received peat, straw, sawdust, and no mulch are
all drpressed in their growth rates, While those unfertilized
trees which received a legume mulch made a positive growth
response. mhis effect of the mulches could be reasonably
attributed to the difference in the amount of nitrogen avail-
able to the trees beneath them.

The average reaponse of the trees to NPK is difficult
to eXplain, but it is noted that the unmulched tree receiving
hPK has lowered the avercge of the group considerably, since
it is the only tree receiving fertilizer which had a nega-
tive reaponse number. A possible reason for this uneXpected
figure is indicated in the 1943 data in table A-E. In 19M}
this unmulched NPR tree made the outstanding growth for the
year with an index of 100. mable A-3 indicates that the
frequency of the trees approaching the maximum (100) was much
lower in 1943 than in the years 19L5 and 19U6. ConseQUPntIY,

it is suggested that this tree was unusually favored in its

-2h-

grOWing environment during the 19%} season (possibly it re-
ceived more fertilizer or was better protected from insects
and diseases than any of the other trees). As a re ult of.
this, when the tree was treated in a comparable manner With
the others in the NPK group (see Table A-l), its growth rate
was reduced to their level but did not compare with its orisi—
n81 l9&3 grthh index.

Apple production by an individual tree is governed by
many physiological factors, but the capacity of a tree to
produce is ultimately limited by the size of the tree. As
was suggested in the presentation of "The Plan of the Experi-
ment" the trees which received the peat and straw mulches
as well as the unmulched trees were generally larger and
therefore capable of being more productive at the onset of
the eyperiment. Consequently, the results on yield must be
considered in relation to the conditions as they exist in
the field and perhaps the differences in yield corresponding
only to treatment are not as important as is indicated by
these data. The outstanding difference correSponding to
treatment is the apparent increase in yield where fertilizers
containing nitrogen were used. This effect is fairly con-
sistent as would be expected on this soil.

The effect of the different treatments on the size of
the fruit is masked by the much stronger effect of yield
or number of fruit set on the average size of the fruits.

This is in accordance with the findings of Tukey and Ander-

-25-

son (15) who reported a marked depression in size of fruit
With an increase in yield.

The data on color as affected by the different treat—
ments indicate very clearly that the fertilizers containing
nitrogen decreased the amount of red color develOpment at
the time the fruit was harvested in comparison to those
trees which received no nitrofen fertilizer. This trend
is verified by th mulchins results which show that the
poorest color develOpnent corresponds with the legume mulch
While the best colored apples were found on those trees
Which were mulched with sawdust. This effect could be rea—
sonably attributed to the amount of nitrogen available to
the trees under the different mulches.

The interpretation and eXplanation of the leaf analysis
results is difficult due to the many factors which affect
the leaf content of mineral elements, such as, time of
sampling, the size and stage of develOpment of the fruit
on the trees and soil variations. However, the data pre—
sented in Table V indicate some rather wide variations in
the leaf content of different elements which appear to be
influenced by the various treatments.

The nitrogen content of the leaves, While approximately
the same for the nitrogen alone and the NPK treatments was
'iefinitely lower in the case of the unfertilized trees.
”his condition was apparent in the field as the leaves on

most of the unfertilized trees were definitely a much lighter

green than the leaves of those which received nitrogen

fertilizer or a legume mulch. The leaf content of nitro—

TD
()1

g n ifln't fluctuate greatly with-the mulch treatments
since it was found to be similar for the pea t and straw

mulches as the unmulched trees and only slightly lower

.40

971 4—). 4.‘
V} U‘. .’ U

i8 sawdust mulch. Forever, the lesume mulch was an
exceptio n becaus se it arrar.r tly supplied enouch nitrogen
to brinf the leaf content of this elemen up to the ranie
of the highest nitrosen content produced by the fertilizer
trea nts.

rnhe phosphorus content of the leaves was not increased

0'
“4'
Q)
3
H
F"
('3
ED
C“?
H
O
:3
U)
0
b
4
’D
‘5
d
|._»
H
.1-
N
D
“.3

»59 i 3,- i,” containirfi this element. there
are several possible evwlar‘tions of this behavior. In the

a —

first )lace the adced phosphorus may have been utilized or
stored in 08 rts of the tree other than the leaves or perhaps
it was tied up in an unavlila'le form in the soil. however,

it is interesting to note that as was the case with n troéen

tr e le; ume mulch appeared to be a better source of phosphorus
than fertilizer con Mini ? this element.

’he potassium content in the leaves was also increased
by additions of a lefume mulch, but was apparently depressed
by the sawdust mulch. The fertilizer containing pot s sium

was apparently effective in raisins the amount of this ele-

gant in the leaves. ”hi S conlfl be 8t? rib1‘ted fiO the fECt

that potassium is genera y more soluble and less apt to
become fixed in the soil than is phOSphorus. Part C of

-27-

Table V indicates that less potassium entered the leaves
of those trees to which nitrogen was supplied than those
trees receivins no nitroeen. This could be due to the re-
pressive action of nitrogen on potassium as reported by
'Brown (5) in his study of nutrient accumulation in peach
seedlings.

The calcium, magnesium, and manganese content of the
leaves tended to vary with the different treatments, but
perhaps the leaf content of these elements was regulated
to.sone extent by the amounts of nitrogen, phOSphorus and
potassium in the leaves.

The nitrifying capacity studies were undertaken in
the hOpe that the results would serve to eXplain the res-
ponse of the trees to the different fertilizer and mulch
treatments. But, due to the variations in the soil and
the relatively short length of time the treatments had
been in place prior to the nitrifying capacity study the
results were not as fruitful as was heped.

However, some rather interesting relationships were
found. The fertilizer containing nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium apparently did not increase the nitrifying capa—
city over the unfertilized plots, while nitrogen alone
correSponds to the highest average nitrifying capacity of
the fertilized treatments. Possibly the addition of phos-
phorus and potassium was reaponsihle for decreasing the
nitrifying capacity under the conditions of this experi-

ment.

The effect of the mulches on the nitrifying capacity
of the soil corresponds approyinetely with the production
of nitrates under similar mulches as reported by Turk and
Partridfe (16) who found that nitrates were most abundant
under alfalfa (legume) mulch followed by the check, with

peat,sewdust and straw listed in ,he deecending order of

the nitrate content of the percolate.

SUKInFY

“he effect of different mulching materials and ferti-
lizers on the performance of XcIntosh apple trees end on
the nitrifying capacity of Emmet sandy loam soil was studied
in an attempt to evaluate these cultural practices.

The mulches used included pent, straw, legume hey, and
sawdust in contination with nitrogen fertilizer; nitrogen,
phOSphorns, and potassium; and no fertili7er§ tech plot con-
tained four unmulched trees, from one of which records were

takerL

The plots were established in the Spring of 194k. Veesure-
ments of the annual linear growth for the years l9u3, 1944,
1945, and 1946 were made in September of 1946.

Yield records were ohtained for l9flu, 1945, 19kb, and

1947. Size and color determinations were made during the

19“6 harvest.
Leaf samples Were collected durinc the 1945 end 19u6

growing seasons and taken to the laboratory for chemical

determinations on N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Vn content.

At the end of the 1?46 grOVin¢ senson soil samples
were taken from beneath the trees to the laboratory where
nitrifying capacities were determined.

The results when summarized accordinc to treatment
indicate that:

l. Nitrogen fertilizer slone produced the most vigorous
growth, among the highest yields and the highest nitrifyin:
capacity of any of the fertilizer treatments, but it also
correSponds with the poorest fruit color and intermediate
fruit size. Leaf analysis results indicate that nitrogen
fertilizer alone produced the highest leaf content of ph08~
phorus and the lowest leaf content of potassium, mafnesium,
and manganese.

2. The complete fertilizer {FPK) treatment rented with the
above fertilizer for yield, correSponded with intermediate'
color and linear growth, but proauced the smallest size
apples. This treatment resulted in an average nitrifying
capacity in the range of the no fertilizer treatment, but
gave the highest leef content of nitrogen, potassium, mag-
nesium, and manganese, and the lowest content of phnsphorus
and calcium.

3. The 70 fertilizer treatment was associated with the
smallest yield, and growth, but the best color development
and the largest size fruit. The nitrifying capacity under

4—1..

this treatment was in the range of that of the complete

-30-

fertilizer treatment, lower than the nitrogen alone ferti-
lizer. The calcium content of the leaves was highest with
this treatment, but nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
average the lowest in comparison with the two fertilizer
treatments.

4. Peat, in comparison With the other mulch treatments,

was associated with the intermediate growth, yield, color,
and size of fruit and with an intermediate nitrifying capa-
city of the soil. Whe leaves of these trees average lowest
in content of magnesium and manganese.

E. Straw as a mulch appeared to increase the yield of fruit,
but correSponded to intermediate grOWth, color, size, and
nitrifying capacity. This treatment tended to increase the
magnesium content of the leaves by decreasing the phosphorus
content.

s. The unmulched trees produced the largest sized apples,
the smallest amount of linear growth, and intermediate yields,
fruit color, and size, and soil nitrifying capacities. The
calcium content of the leaves was higiest under this treat-
ment. l

7. The legume hay mulch was associated with the greatest
amount of linear growth and the highest soil nitrifying capa-
city, but also produced the smallest and the most poorly
colored apples, while the yields under this treatment were

intermediate. This mulch Was associated with the highest

leaf content of ‘hOSphOPUS, nitrogen, and manganese, but

-31-

appeared to depress the magnesium and calcium content in
comparison with the other mulching treatments.

8. Sawdust as a mulch increased the color of the fruit, but
reduced the yield and soil nitrifying capacity, while growth
of the trees and size of the fruit tended to be intermediate.
This treatment depressed the leaf content of most of the ele-

ments determined, especially nitrogen and potassium.

ll).

11.

Poynt

r 1
F 0171‘»
n.
DOC .

Brown,

in S?

I! . \_ ("a

Burrs
to P0
Soc.
(N I:‘ '75?

,.
';A"‘L

:/
Pot? s
of Ar;
07- 7O,

Gardn

The *urCanent ls c

I'ill,

uardn

“

cIn osh
rort. Sci.

:o—a

. 3

nd Cul
A a

L

11, 0L1. 8.
tash ir t
Fort. Sci

Siuri CE} 1413
ples and
1930.

ler, F a

D
o —.0

er, V

E)’Zr‘;__ 23'

er, V P

O ‘ O

The Fundamenta

Hill,

LP tih.’
c lid.

0
AliiFf'I‘.

Lillelani, O. ,
Eeficiencies v.
Soc. Fort. Sci.

”d Soil r"re

'n

., hitrate

.
2., Nitrify
I". C’f 501.

and Purrell,
lizer on Leaf Yitrogen,

.QnolD CPCfl:

L4: 25 :o,

The Grthh
9 ill 2:91.: ti

V "‘4- 7‘
.(1). 31.9. 1:11

, and Cain,
>2e Ciaumélai

o, bTro, A S
yin; Fertil
Peaches. P

IWadj‘ord

’ 1.1.5 _I- ,
f ‘ruit

19 y.
, trad:ord,

is of Fruit

305, 1939.

O
x.

L. P.

P,
eaoow Hay
Soc. For

as Iuloh f

Fruit

Production in Soils

atme. nts. Yo. agri. a

r P e
.P 1- P7, 1997.

A. O ’
Color, and Yi
vac, 1 9

L

and Confosition of
on to hutrition 1"ls
l. 7?? lth.

/ ’ 3

a .' ~.- ,
J. 4., a nesnonse

n Valley of Yew York. @ro

t. Sci. 4fl:u9-V?, 19MU.

:rqaerirtuit

T
as ;n

Xp. Sta

.ults of the Effect of 31-1
‘reatmeuts upon the Potes.i
cc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

Peach T
rent Ea

of 5007

Tff ects of Nitroren
eld in

Fr'a. lfigj.

Two
Proc.

:3
O
’D
AJJ

1)
C')
o

r of no"0 Philippine Soils,

7erti-
New

Amer.

tudy of the E1 Tfect of Various
iyers upo the Crovt? and Yield
'roc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 30:
F. C., and ?ooker, H. D., Jr.,
Production. Second Ed. VcireW-
F. 0., and UCO'er, F. D. Jr.,
Prodwctio“. Second Ed. T'cC-raw
, and Percival, G. P., SaWdust, neavaed,‘
or IcIntosh Apple Trees. Proc.
s in otassium and Phosphorus
n the Fiell. Proc. Aver.

D

1th Fruit Trees 1
no ”"3 '3

2)- P/L- 7b: 9

12.

13.

14.

15.

15

18.

19.

20.

\JJ

Ferrill, T. A., Crcherd Fertilization. rich. Bgri. Exp.
Sta. Ext. Bul. 205, 19HO.

Potter, G. F., and Fisher, E. C., Phosphorus and Potassium
as Supplements to Nitrogen in Sod Yulch Crchards in New
Hampshire. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 36: hl-AH.

Shaw, J. K., Hay Kulches in Apple Orchards Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 42: 30-32, 19L3. .
Tukey, H. B. , and Anderson, L. C., Five Years Pesults
With Fertilizers in Three Hudson Fiver. Apple Orchards.
Lew York Agri. Exp. Sta. Eul. 57A, 1929.

Turk, L. M., and Partridge, N. L., Effect of Various

7" " m I,
rulchine haterials on Orchard Soils. Soil Sci. out 111-
125, 19h7.

taksman, S. A.,I icrobiclo: ical Analysis of Soils as an
Index of Soil Fertility, Iv’. An Accumulation (ammoni-
ficetion). Soil Sci. : 49- 65 , 19?}.

Wake ma an, S. A., licrobiological Analysis of Soils as an
Index of Soil Fertility, V. Methods for the Study of
Nitrification. Soil Sci. 15: 241-260, 1923.

Waksman, S. A., "icrobiological Analysis of Soils as an
Index of Soil Fertility, VI. Nitrification. Soil Sci.
16: 5—67, 1927.

'1, 1v!

ander, I. a., and Gourley, J. H., Effect of Heavy Vulch
in an Apple Orchard upon Several Soil Constituents and
the Hinere 1 Content of Foliage and Fruit. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. A2: 1-6, 19A 3.

-28-
/

Table A91

The effect of different fertilizer treatments and mulch applications
on the growth of McIntosh apple trees as measured by the 1943 and 1946
growth indexes and the difference between these indexes expressed as the

"Response Numbers“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE ROW TREATMENT 1943 1946 Response
Index Index
3 1+ N Peat 80.84 8]..“3 0059
12 4 N Peat 220.84 100.00 29.16
AVERAGE 275.84 90.71. 14.87
2 5 N Straw 50.00‘ 77.14 27.14
11 5 N Straun_ 65.28 71.42 6.14
gyssses 257.64 74.28 216.64
.3, 5. E.Checg 65.28 92.86 27.58
3 6 N Legume 51.38 74.29 22.91
12 6 N Leggge 50.00 72.86 22.86
AVERAg§__ 50.69 73.57 22.88
2 7 N Sawdust 61.11 80.00 18.89
11 7 5§:Sawdn§t 54.17 ._94.29 40.12
AVERAQE 457.64 82.14 29.50
15 4 9§2§_Eeat 77.27 91.43 13.66
AV GE 74.30 87.14 12.84
5 5 NPR Straw 55.55 70.00 14.45
.AXERAGE 44.42, 64.28 19.86
6 5 NPKVChecg. 100.00 75.71 24.29
6 6 NPR Legume 76.39 84.29 7.90
15 6 EEK Legggg» 43.06 68.57 25.51
AVERAGE 259.72 76.43 .16.?0
5 7 NPK Sawdust 52.77 90.00 37.23
14 .2 HPK Sawdggtr. 54.17 75.71 21.54
AVERAGE 53.47 82.85 29.38
9 4 Check Pe§§_ 65.28 41.43, 23.85
8 5 Check Straw 62.36 47.14 15.22
9 5 Check Check 63.895._ 40.00 23.895
9 6 Check Leggge_ 43.06 60.00 16.94
8 ,7 Check Sawdust 48.61 14.29 34.32

 

Table A—2

The effect of different fertilizer treatments and mulch applications
on the annual linear growth of McIntosh apple trees. in inches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE ROW TREATMENT 1946 1945 1944 1943
3 4 N Peat 5.7 1001'" 702 5.8
12 4 N Eeat 7.0 10.5 6.1 _5.1.
AVERAGE _6.3 10.5 6.6 5.5

2 5 N Straw 5.4 8.2 4.1 3.6
11 5 :N.Straw 95.0 8.8 4.0 4.2
AVFRAGE 5.2 8.5 4.1 4.1

3 5 N Check 6.5 10.0 4.0 4.7
3 6 N Legume 5.3 9.7 3.1 3.?
AVERAGE 5.2 10.5 4.5, 3.6

2 7 N Sawdust 5.6 9.0 3.6 4.3
11 7 N Sawdust 6.6 8.4 2.6 3.9
AVIEAQE 6.0 2.8.2. 3.1 4.1

6 4 NEH Peat 5.8 11.0 4.8 5.1
15 4 NPKpfiggt 6.4 12.0 .7.6 7.2
AVERAGE 6.1 11.5, 6.2 6.2

5 5 NEE Straw 5.0 9.6 6.7 4.0
14 5, NYE Straw 4.1 17.6 4.5_ 2.4
AVERAGE 4.5. .13.6 5.5 3.2

6 5 {1K Check 5.3 12.0 7.6 7.2
6 6 NPK Legume 5.9 11.8 7.1 5.5
15 6 NFK Lesuye 4.8 9.5 4.3 3.1
AVFHAGH 5.3 10.6 _5.7 4.3

5 7 NPK Sawdust 6.2 10.5 3.8 3.8
14 7 NIX Sawdust _5L3 8.3 3.3 3.9
AVFHAGR .5.8 .9.4 _3.6 3.9

_.9 4 Check Peat 2.9 4.5 4.1 4.7
8 J Cheek: Straw 3.3 6.4 49.6 4.5
_9 5 Check Check 2.8 3.4 4.4 4.6
9 6 Check Iggune 4.2 12.6 4.0 43.1

8 7 Check ngdust 1.0 1.6 2.9 .1.

 

 

Table Ap3
Distribution frequency by vigor classes.

Frequency by years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glass Range* 1943 1945 1946
0 - 10 0 O 0
10 - 20 Q 1 1
O - 20 O 1. 1
20 — 30 0 1 0
30 - 40 1 1 0
20 - 40 1 2 0
4O - 50 3 O 3
5O - 6O 2. ._1 , 1
4O - 6O 10 1 4
60 - 7O 6 5 2
70,- 8O 4 5 7
6Q_9 8O 10 10 .9
80 - 9O 1 6 4
90 -.100 1 .51 5
80 - 100 2 9 9

 

’Index numbers.

Table A~4

-37..

The effect of different fertilizer and mulch applications on the
yield of McIntosh apple trees in bushels of fruit for the years 1944,
1955._1946. and 1947.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREE 210w TPEtTI-IE‘LTT 1944 1945 1946 1947 AVERAGE
3 4 N Peat 11.75 12.00 21.75 16.33
12 4 N Peat 7.75, 10.25_ 16.25. 7.75.
AVERAGE 9.75 11.12 19.00 12.04 12.98
2 5 N Straw 4.00 14.25 27.25 26.87
11 5 N Straw 13.25 13.25 25.50 27.00
AVE-PAGE 8.82 13.75 26.37 26.93. 18.97
3 5 N Check 9.50 13.50 20.50 17.80
12 5, N Check 8.5 17.00 25.50 26.20
AVERAGE 9.00 15.25 23.00 22.00 17.31
3 6 N Legume 4.00 14.50 13.25 14.50
12 6 N Leanne 16.50 11.00 24.50 26.00
AVRRAG- 10.25 12.25 18.87 20.25, 15.53
2 7 N Sawdust 13.25 8.50 16.00 7.50
AVERAGE 9.25 8.12 17.00 9.87 11.34
6 4 NPK Peat 12.00 15.50 25.25 22.20
AVEPAGE 12.62 17.25 25.37 24.60 19.96
5 5 NPK Straw 14.00 12.25 21.25 27.20
14 5 NPK.§traw 9.00 13.00 19.50 15.75
AVFRAGE 11.50 12.62 20.32 21.47. 16.49
6 5 NPK Check* 15.00 13.50 25.50 18.00
15, .5 NPK Check* 5.25. 15.00 22.50 30.00
AVERAGE 10.12, 14.25 24.00 24.00 18.09
6 6 NPK Legume 7.75 9.00 16.75 14.12
15 6 ::NPK Legume 10.00 11.50 16.00 18.00
AVERAGE 8.87 10.25 16.37 16.06 12.89
5 7 NPK Sawdust 1.50 9.00 16.50 11.50
14 7 NPK Sawdugg. 2.10 14.00 18.25 .13.25
AEERAGE 1.80 11.00 17.37 12.37 10.63
9 4 Check Peat 6.50 7250 15.00 23.62 13.15
8 .5. Check Straw 7.50 .9.00 20.25 24.50 15.31
9 5 Check: ChBCk 1.50 6.76 7150 19062 8L8”
9 5 Check Lemma 1.75 10.25 18.50 18.25 12.19
8 7 Check.§ag§u§t_, .2.00 ,3.00 2.50 15.35 5.71._

 

 

—38-

 

 

K‘
R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IL... 605 . .
”nah“ “N03 0 0
mm.Mfi 1mm.rm . .
“HOfi “MGR O O
.Mmmw enum, . .
0:0“ :OHM O o
gnaw Dflfiw . JMW plaiammfiw h m
L... thl 8.4 BB1 aflwnfifi
~H.m mafia 3.9 $29 3 mm: 0 ma
mp. hmmw gnaw. Hrmud~ naainEEHer m
8.6 E E E EA
23H 8.0m 3.0m N13” 3028 MAE . m m."
fluwnl 3.? 43.3 532nm no: m P
.5.» E. E1 b5: LE
Ada 3:3 3.? 3.3" Baum E m 1.:
am.» HHHPM bm.fl~ SSH 5.3m BET m m
HEB“ Ram HRH? 3.5 E
13.4: 3.5 main Quad 30m E a ma
nllllubuw .gmwml. lihmnmmll mwuwwr, egyfimww, : 6
page _anuhw hxmmm .munbmu. \mflufisn
40.5 m: cm 31m: .228 Pawn-um z p ._H
Lmhm E Ever E 93ng h 1..
.mm.:, aw.aww, ,MHAN: NH.mm ommWMWPH
8.4 3 mm «we—”m om.om z 0 NH
mp5 mama“ £307 .Rerl Eamon? o W
L5? 3 RF Ea $5.? E
R4. ma an 3.3 3.3” #028 z m «H
L» {E 1&3”: E 16E m n
IE 6m mm Em E E
45$ 8.3 3.3 8.3 5.3m 2 m 3
fiwfii E marsh warn—V gm 2 m m
13.9 19.8 03% Hmflfi E
-.m no.4m mm.H: mm.oa «mom 2 4 «a
mw.~.n «mfim mm.mm «Wad 3 z 9 m
.3 m m 9383.? 5 588.8 5.. 93883 5
as» A335 aén m .. «\H N am)” N .. a}. w .3} m ads... 30H .5242 box E
aquwIPMWLm .xzumu .. .. man QSREU

  

 

 

 

 

5388.? no not do .53 5 gamma no 3325933 05. 60.93.! as «madam
€358. «6 .5. 8... 66 83.838. .32. 3. 3858.3 8.39.8 6.2883 no 988.. .5

mid and."

-59...

Table 1-6

The effect of different fertiliser treat-onto and such application.
on the color of llqutoeh apples, on mounted by the distribution of apples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the three color categories.
THE M W FRUIT WITH FRUIT WITH FRUIT WITH
I COLOR * II COLOR! III com
3 h 3 Peat 10.78 6h.17 25.05
12 u N Peat 11.18 81.17 Ilka;
Hm 3.53 I 506' gegg
lumm 5. 015— $056
3 5 W961: 378% 61:57:: 21.39 "'
W m W571 .
3 6 Y legum- 3.157 72.1.7 was
12 64 “fl 20.57 71:33 5.10
A :58? 887116 $.78
T—T—TSawdmt 1‘35 (51¢.69~ 30‘3"" ' "
m 3.57 SEEK 31257
f E Mai T76. 6633 5215—”.
117m 95f 64 56 .
5 5 mm he 3 e e
1!; 5 m Straw h.97 75.7h 19.29
m 1.96 . 2'me
6 1; “firmed: TESS 69.??? 18.52 ' "'
15 5 RP! Check 7.12 83098 8090
Am §.3§ 757971 i2.7I
6 6 Wm e 35.35 . :egg
15 6 %m 14.06 80087 15.06
1 7:71“ $6.76 if 58
Im— TB? . 153M:
“‘9 1; West 1751: R6266 .
8 5 ChBCk Stm 14.514 6301‘? 31.99
9 5 Check Check 2.20 61.5? 36.23
9 6 Check 1081“ 3e39 aleOB 32o“
8 Check Sawdust .00 21.71 80”

o e an ace o so re colore on.
-l- II 33-66% of the surface of the fruits showing solid red coloration.
* III 66-10% of the eurtece of the fruits showing solid red oolorttion.

at
«R

reun9197

-40-

The effect of different fertilizer treatments snd.mulch applications
on the calcium, phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, snd.msngsnese
cnnunu;of1un.huwescflflennmdhtqmue'umnm thSMSadeBm6.
(enmnmmfifssgnranm

afar dryniéht)

 

‘43.!-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rflflr '0" 13" “34" a '. ° '. . . 61". '1:
EH; 3 h N ie‘t e9" e207 0 1e? e .. em
19116 3 h N Peat 1.18 .1113 1.99 1.65 .333 .0052
A .0 .1 e e e .00 '
19115 7 5 WSW r. . . . .1119 W
191.6 2 5 N Strut 1.18 .135 1.89 1.70 .290 .0013
A . . . . .35h *fiiUUEIE'
ER; 3 y meek loll e e e 0 e e
1926 3 5 N Check 1.50 .117 1.95 1.28 .333 .0051
O O O 1. .3 0
19h; 3 6 fl Lem e99 e238 2.65 2.69 .515 emu
1.9116 3 6 N 1%? 1.02 .153 2.07 1.67 .297 .0082
I 0 O O O O 0
Must m 1.61. W
1916 2 7 N Sawdust 1.15 .163 1.90 1.38 .291 .0059
A O O O l. O 0
19115 6 It MK r535 e825 em 2e}; Eel! e535 em:
19116 6 h NPK Peat .996 .136 1.92 1.87 .281 .0027
Afifim 09m 01:2 203 2.52 OW .665:
191‘; 5 15 “SE SE?" 10% e38 §e35 «Lego 0658 CW
19116 5 5 :PK Straw 1.21 .131: 1.97 1.57 .3115 .0063
”BEE 10m Om ZOE I. :3 Ow! .656
”1‘6 6 5 NPK Cheek 1.28 .132 1.88 1.67 03166 .0056
Afifim IOI: Om 20E 10:; .3 I Om;
19h5’ ‘6’ 6* NPR ISgu-e .975 .235 2.75 2.29 .655 .55§3
19h6 6 6 NPK Le 1.10 .150 2.23 1.96 .301 .0082
AMMB . . . 3153 .0097?
19165 5 O 0 O O O O
1916 5 7 NPR Sawdust .923 .127 1.93 1.511 .289 .0052
iafififi .§ 01 CE: 20:: EOE Om OWSi
191.6 9 1. Check Peat 1.30 .181 1.79 1.70 .329 .0015
1 1.19 .186 1. . .103 RE?
19115 B 15 C a e e 1e 1e .5117; em—
19u6 8 S ,Qheck Strsl1.2h .132 1.8h 1.60 .260 .0067
A . . 2 1. 1.76 .1102 .0067
191.5 9 5 Weekld3 .1 1. 1. . . .
19h6 9 5 Check Checki.21 .%§1 2.07 1.67 .271 .0051
A . . 63* 1.33 1.77‘_.hlo .OOE95
19h5 *9 6* ‘Ufigflcleg. . . . . . .
191.6 9 6 Check Leg. 1.22 .167 2.23 1.96 .301 .0070
loo 1 e e e .fih .0070
1915 8 7 cc us 1.53 5 .192 1.119 1.135 .551 .1578—
19h6 8 7 Check Saw. 1.67 .LhB 1.62 1.52 .322 .0066
___ . .1 0 1.55’ 1.51 .h35'

 

-41-
Table A-8

The effect of different fertilizer treatments and mulch applica-
tions on the nitrogen content of Emmet sandy loam soil during the sev-
eral steps involved in making the nitrifiying capacity determinations.

(mgms. nitrate and ammonia nitrosen in 100_gms. of soil)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s t e a t is

T PSI: TI‘IIEPIT 'H G.) C. *H +3 CI ct;

3 +3 ea : E.p C c

m L * w c m.a m

'U ,0 s 'U 8; L a g) L.

Q) :1 "O Q; 5-. “-1 ft CC

15* o 1 0 0,0 0

m e c 'o era 'U-H 5

.0 +3 -H 0) C .D "'1 CU C. O C".

5-H m c 2:: m a c c

0 C1 .13 m -H 0 :j {Ll-d -r'-|

c t o m.p 2-9 m L :e

.H (10 C: r-4 6" "-1 2" H (3- Lu,- 50—.

n 0.0 o m c .H

,4 c .4 L s .4.L L.4.a p

-H.4 -H o -~.p .a p +-

O "-1 O 0 S: C -r-l o O :5 0rd

Ulla tn 2:m+ tn 3 :a m'c 2'

A B C D E F
N & Peat 10.90 .91 9.99 1.82 .91 9.08
N & Straw 12.00 el+2 12.18 01+2 .0 12.18
N & Check 16.45 .91 15.54 .98 .07 15.47
N & Legume 10.92 .49 10.43 1.96 1.47 8.96
N & Sawdust 14.28 .28 14.00 1.96 1.68 12.32
N & Peat 18.06 .77 17.29 3.50 2.73 14.56
N & traw 15e89 0169 lSel-FO 2.10 1.61 13.79
N & Check 14.28 .28 14.00 2.38 2.10 11.90
N & Legume 14.35 .63 13.72 2.80 2.17 11.55
N & Sawdust 11.83 .38 11.45 2.38 2.00 9.45
NPK % Peat 8.96 .28 8.68 .56 .28 8.40
NPK & Straw 12.25 .56 11.69 2.94 2.38 9.31
NPK & Check 11.41 .28 11.13 2.38 2.10 9.03
NPK & Legume 13.79 .49 13.30 1.12 .63 12.67
NPK & Sawdust 11.48 149 10.22 1.26 .77 10.22
NPK & Peat 11.97 .45 11.52 2.10 1.65 9.87
NPK & Check 14.70 .24 14.46 2.34 2.10 12.35
KPK & Legume 15.19 .71 14.48 2.34 1.63 12.85
NPK & Sawdust 9.247 .21 9.03 1.82 1.61 7.42
Check & Peat 10.29 .35 9.94 1.96 ~l.6l 8.33
Check & Straw 6.52 .49 6.03 .14 0 6.03
Check & Check 9.89 .28 9.61 1.26 .98 8.63
Check & Legume 19.67 .42 19.25 3.64 3.22 16.03
Check & Sawdust 15.54 .56 14.98 2.52 1.96 13.02

 

*A- Includes original nitrogen in soil, in addition to that released by
decomposition of soil organic matter and Milorganite.

43- Original nitrogen in soil.

*0- Nitrogen released by decomposition of Milorganite plus soil organic
matter. Computed by substracting column B from column A.

*D- Nitrogen released from decomposition of soil organic matter plus
oricinal nitrogen in soil.

*E- Ni+ro¢en released from orianic matter during incubation.
by substracting column B from column D.

*F- “gm. nitrogen released from 1 g. Nilorganite during eifiht weeks of
incubation. Computed by subtracting column E from column C.

Computed

’l a '3 M. u
. ' ' ‘«
.: "

{3851 $9
. .Q ‘.'i “
H-ilk‘ll‘

«5‘
N';

7

 

 

- -__‘. n. ‘1.- A

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII'I

3 1293 3177 8727

I I

I