x u 1
r .\ r\ W .0
.1. . 5.3» 2.2..
OI . o— p
.m ... 3
4', rg‘w .fi.. “on..."
{21‘ p .m». W‘s-N. ...
...v .- L o u
w .51.. .11...- .. .x
. a . . S a .3.
1!“ HQ, “- r \
. .. . . s a
,...<.,\ u “3 i. a r g
._ _ _ k
n. 2. . Anzw «a
Pin. . km... .w\u q..1 1:.
(0” .5. \ Mow c ..
12. - .. v. 3 ... a
....I\\ o .n . L “.V- d* nd‘ 0
. . 1J\ m. .
0—3 H J .o .w
__ . .. x a (u
.‘ q is \U . . ”1.
‘4. w...” a...“ v.42 o .\
r x .1 L ’1‘. .. .
. nu. J\_ a .. 1:.
Q . I 0'! 0
r b t aux ‘t J 1‘ .fi 3..
.‘\b.o. s?“ f \ 0.0.... ’5“
s) P'\.. 4h n . ..
f .x . V« i... . 7.
O - § I -~ o.
34,.“ Hr .... . w.
.,Ӣ0 6 q u- I A
. E.

g.2__:_E_E__:__E_::_¥

 

3'. .4

(a.

 

w \
‘hE5l3\
l ,-'. -
x '- 0-169
g" ’ q 4--
. ’ )-
')
1

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

'l '»\'!" Tz‘ ‘ wa ;-, a 1-. ‘r‘ 1“ T':‘~\“r*-."3(v
IX '-'ll()l'. F- _; |d |‘,'~A\/Vll_\\_,1i C ‘-".g(‘)\.t41* LP

1

Hatfirials to Organic F3115"
presented hg

“ab" - f‘ r--I‘~, .7
i'!_'_' L): 111’ f1. ‘JI‘VJ' UT -‘

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

TIr-srir-r oi‘ Science degree in Soil Science

£212. 241$

Major professor

Date

 

 

 

 

 

2.1“, v _

2..

, ~—~9.---._—.A—__--.- r-‘I—‘firi'?

.‘ —-—"—._.¢.._4_ 1 O -

 

 

 

\fi-c "“"

 

 

 

KETHODS OF APPLICATICN

‘2'" 7‘“:~-. {1’er " . ‘:r'“‘:"
kuflnlmt.» TU Oman-AI

CRAWFORD

M

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate
State College of Agriculture and

in partial fulfillment of the

for the degree of

SCIEHCE

OF

MASTER

CF mm G23: sun,

(3
(3
C
1,.
ll“
(1)

Studies of Michigan
Applied Science
requirements

Department of Soil Science

TH ES?S

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGELENT

The writer is sincerely grateful to Dr. J. F. Davis
for generously devoting his time and experience throughout
the course of this problem and for his constructive criti-
cisms in the preparation of this manuscript. He wishes
also to eXpress appreciation to Dr. L. M. Turk for making
provision for he awarding of an assistantship to make
this study possible. In addition, he desires to thank
Dr. Kirk Lawton and Dr. E. J. Benne for their helpful

suggestions in the more technical phases of this problem.

“some

*;;4 ‘.4, ‘>

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTICN

LITERATURE CITED

PROCEDURE

DIS‘USSICH CF EXPERIhEKTAL RESULTS
Sugar Beets
Onions

SUEMARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

rraoou CTION

The essential role of manganese in the nutrition of
plants is widely recognized. fiillis (Bl) stated that manga-
nese can be considereda true plant nutrie 11t in the sense
that it regulates important plysiological processes. Further,
he postulated that iron is reduced in the organism by the
process of photosynthesis and that manganese serves to re-
oxidize it. That manganese is essential for the normal
growth of most plants, eSpecially in organic soils, has been
definitely established. In muck and peat soils where
applications of minor elements are a necessity for practic ally
all crops, the characteristic chlorotic condition (mottled
appearance and accentuated veination) of plants grown in
manganese deficient soil is commonly observed.

Various methods have been devised in an attempt to
counteract the condition of manganese deficiency in soils.
Gilbert (6) found that the deficiency was readily corrected
in onions either by Spraying the plants With manganese sulphate
or by mixing it with fertilizer. HoweVer, little research has
been conducted in the way of adding manganese materials in the
form of a dust-foliar application. No real attempt has been
made to determine the extent of mang anese intake throug h the
foliage of pla ats dusted pith a me ateri al conta inirm the

element. The question arises - What counteracting value does

O
u

a manganese dust disilay on the deficiency symptoms? In
addition, does the dust produce any toxic effects when
applied to the foliage, and if so, at what percentage level?
These and other questions which arise prompted an '
investigation concerning the validity of the use of dusts
applied to crops grown in manganese deficient organic soils.
Several dust application treatments were set up and compared
with the conventional methods of manganese application, to
ascertain the differences, if any, in response to the minor
element. Laboratory tests for manganese were conducted both
on the foliar tissue of the crOps grown and on the soil, in
an attempt to correlate the quantity of the element present

with the type and rate of application.

-5-
LITERATLAE CITED

Manganese as observed by Vlasyuk (28), improves the
assimilation of fertilizers, facilitates the decomposition
of organic substances and increases the content of nutritive
elements in the soil. Stoklasa (27) reported that manganese
is tied up in carbon assimilation processes and promotes
rapid photosynthesis in the chlorophyll apparatus. Mcdargue
(17) presented data in agreement with Stoklasa and postulated
his theory on the presence of large nounts of manganese in
the leaves and lower concentrations in the roots of various
plants. Remington and Shiver (22), in examining a number
of different vegetables, found from three to eight times as
much manganese in the leafy parts as in the roots.

According to Salomone (24), manganese salts stimulated
the formation of nitrogenous compounds in the plant. Meyer
and Anderson (19) agreed somewhat with Salomone in that they
stated that manganese is related in some way to chlorophyll
synthesis, and that it plays a part in the oxidation-reduction
phenomena of the physiologically active parts of plants.

The first applications of manganese sulfate were made
on rice plantations in Japan in 1902 by Aso (l) and in 1905
by Nagoaka (20). The first application of manganese to
organic soil probably was made in Sweden by von Feilitzen (29)

in 1907.

-4-

Russell (23) stated that the soils of England in
which manganese deficiency diseases have been found have
usually been of the same general type, namely reclaimed
peats rich in organic matter and made alkaline by lime.

In Michigan, according to data presented by Harmer
(IO), manganese deficiency appears on high-lime organic
soils which have been burned; on those which are fed by
alkaline spring water; on those which have a marl deposit
near the surface and on those which originally were acid
but have been made alkaline by the application of lime.

According to McGeorge (l6), lime-induced chlorosis
was not caused by a deficiency of the micro-nutrient elements
in the soil but rather was due to a physiplogical deficiency
in which the calcium carbonate content of the soil and its
accompanying alkalinity are influencing factors whereby the
micro-nutrient elements, eSpecially iron, are rendered in-
active in the roots of the plant. Leeper (14), on the other
hand, has suggested an hypothesis in which he holds that
manganese exists in an equilibrium in the soil as expressed
by the following equation: Manganous Lin: Colloidal
Hydrated 123102: Inert MnOg. Manganese deficiency is
supposedly caused by a reversion of the manganous form of
manganese to the inert form of Mnog. Mellor (18) had sub-

stantially the same theory based on experiments in which he

-5-

showed that hydrated manganous oxide is precipitated in a
very fine state of subdivision when a manganous salt is
added to neutral or alkaline solutions. Colloidal hydrated
manganous oxide is rapidly oxidized to the hydrated dioxide,
eSpecially in the presence of alkaline earth hydroxides.
This hydrated oxide is easily reduced.

Conner (2) stated that manganese of soils kept under
reducing conditions tends to be more soluble than the manga-
nese of soils exposed to oxidizing influences. This follows
in line with the thinking of Piper (21) who stated that the
availability of manganese is influenced by at least two
facto"s, soil reaction and the oxidation-reduction equi-
librium, acting in intimate association. Sherman and harmer
(26) have shown that neutral and alkaline soils possess a
great capacity for fixing added soluble manganese. On the
other hand, soluble manganese added to strongly acid soils
has been found to remain in a very available form. Reducing
conditions, however, according to their findings, increase
the divalent manganese in the soil.

Cook (5) applied manganese sulfate as a side dressing
and Spray in early summer to sugar beets at dosages of ICC
and 5 pounds per acre reSpectively. Harked differences in
leaf color were noticeable within 10 days. deHaan (5)

obtained large increases in yields of sugar beets showing

-6-

manganese deficiency either by Spraying with a 1.9% MnSO4
Spray at the rate of 13.5 pounds per acre or by applying
linSO4 mixed with sand at the rate of 54 pounds per acre at
planting time. However, results obtained by Gregoire,
Hendrick and Carpiaux (8), in experiments with the same crOp
using sulfate of manganese applied at planting time in
quantities varying from 9 to 45 pounds per acre, were not

in agreement with deHaan in that the use of the manganese
compound slightly lowered the yield of beets but their sugar
content was apparently raised in the same prOportion. On
unproductive alkaline mucks, an annual application of 100
to 200 pounds per acre of manganese sulfate mixed with the
fertilizer and added to muck soil crops supplies their need
for manganese according to Harmer (9).

Harmer (ll) also has shown that manganese sulfate
applied in solution as a stream or as a Spray on the leaves
will produce as good or better results with a much lower rate
of application than when the mazganese sulfate is applied in
the fertilizer. According to Mann (l5) the corrective effect
of manganese solutions applied to the leaves was evident at
dilutions as great as one part of manganese sulfate in one-
hundred thousand of water. Davis (4) advocated that four
pounds of manganese sulfate per 100 gallons of Spray are

adequate for crOps to show a reSponse to manganese.

-7-

Gilbert and thean (7) found that freedom from
chlorosis and increased yields of onions were secured
when manganous sulfate was applied especially in the
solution form and at a rate of eight pounds per acre.
Knott (lb), on the other hand, working with the same
crOp observed striking increases in growth resulting
from the addition of 100 pounds of manganese sulfate
per acre applied at planting time.

Very little has been done experimentally in this
country in the way of adding manganese as a foliar dust.
However, according to Klougart (12) a 25% MnSO4 dust has
been used as a standard practice for application to any
manganese deficient crop in Denmark.

Wilson (32) asserted that the use of the common
tales with dust formulas affords little danger of injury

from the diluent fraction.

PROCB“URE

In the fall of 195 0, much was obtained from an un-
reclaimed area south of the experimental plots at the hichigan
State College muck nxberiJc. al Farm. The soil obtained
taken from the upper 12 inches of the profile and later

re it was allOJed to di y doan to

(I)

removed to the greenhouse wh
apparent optimum moisture conditions for the crops to be

grown. Koisture and pH determinations were taken as soon as
these conditions prevailed.

One- hundred and twent y-two gc‘lon pots were filLed with
a uniform weight of soil which had passed through a 1/4 inch
screen. To the soil in each pot were added the equivalent of
10 tons per acre of calcium carbonate and 5000 pounds per
acre of a 3—9-18 fertilizer mixture, with the exception of

pots which were to be used as check pots.

Sixty pots were seeded to sugar beets (Variety Blh x 216)
and the remaining sixty to onions (Variety Erie ha m's Yellow
Globe). Approximately 20 sugar beet seeds were planted per
pot, and in the case of onions 20- 50 seeds per pot were used.
The seeds of both crops were treated with Arasan to prevent
da dnage from soil- borne organis L5. The sugar beets were
thinned to 6, later to 5 and finally to 2 plants per pot.

The onions were thinned to 6 plants per pot.

-9-
The sixty pots for each crop included 15 treatments,
each replicated four times. The following treatments were

applied:

1. hn804l (Spray grade) 100% dust
H H II

2 o . . n 7 0%

:5 . II H II 4 0% ll
4 . u u u l 0720' u
5. Talc check

6. Nu-n2 100% dust
7 . ll 7 0% II
a. " 40% "
9. " ' 10% "

10. No dust

11. ruse 1.5% Spray

12. MnSO mixed with the fertilizer and applied at the rate
of 400 pounds per acre at planting time. ,

15. Mn804 applied as a side-dressing at the rate of 400
pounds per acre.

14. No limed

15. Nu-M mixed with the fertilizer and applied at the rate
of 400 pounds per acre at planting time.

In treatments 1 to 11 inclusive, with the exception
of treatment 10, the soils of replications 5 and 4 were
covered to prevent dust or Spray from coming in contact with
their surfaces. These treatments were applied at 2 week

intervals.

 

lTecmangam, a product of Tennessee Eastman Corporation,
was the source of all Mn504 used in the eXperiment. It con-
tains 65m soluble mn804, other ingredients being ammonium
sulphate and magnesium sulphate.
2 ”q-" also 4 rrocluc‘t' or Funessee EdSTMd'“ Cort-LT
is d usic mun dues: sulfd'hz. -c¢rbo-n¢‘rc. coWTEu‘I-u‘n",
417. mequlic M¢n7qnese.
With the exception of treatment 14, all treatments
received the equ'valent of 10 tons of lime per acre in order
to create a manganese deficiency.

-10-

Treatments 1 to 9 inclusive were applied at the rate
of 50 pounds per acre for the first three applications to
the sugar beets. ubs guent applications for this crop were
applied at the rate of 150 pounds per acre. In the case of
onions, the same treatments were applied at the rate of 50
pounds per acre for the first application. The next 5 appli-
cations were added at the rate of 150 pounds per acre, while
the last 5 applications were at the rate of 50 pounds per acre.

All dust treatments were applied by means of a dusting
tower (Fig. 1 and 2)*. A known quantity of dust was intro-
duced into the T-tube at the tOp of the chamber and discharged
manually with the aid of an atomizer bulb. The dust descended
through a long cylinder and by the time it reached the plant
at the bottom it was diSpersed evenly over the water-moistened
exposed leaf surface. A 1/4 inch wire screen was used to wrap
around the plants in order to confine all the leaves within
the cylinder.

In treatment 11 the spray was applied to the plants
by a hand sprayer until complete leaf coverage was obtained

(approximately 200 gals. of Spray per acre).

 

fiDr. G.H.R. Jervey, Dept. of Entomology, New York
Agr. Exp. Sta. supplied dusting tower plans which were later
modified by Dr. J. F. Davis of the michigan State College
Soil Sci. Department.

-ll-

 

Fig. l - Dusting tower showing wire-enclosed plant in
position for dust treatment discharged from
T-tube at tOp by means of atomizer bulb. Note
movable cylinder in "down" position.

 

 

Fig. 2 - Dusting tower showing wire-enclosed plant in position
for removal after treatment. Note movable cylinder
in “up" position. ‘

-19-

DJ

The manganese materials used in treatments 12 and 15
were applied at planting time. The Specified amounts of
hn804 or Nu-K were thoroughly incorporated with the soil
before seeding.

AS regards to treatment 15, the material was Sprinkled
on the soil surface and incorporated into the top inch of
the soil.

During the early growth of the crOps, copper was added
to all pots at the rate of 100 pounds of CuSO4 per acre. In
later stages of growth, a total of 600 pounds per acre of
ammonium nitrate were added at different intervals to the
sugar beets in an attempt to counteract an apparent nitrogen
deficiency.

One week following the application of each dust and
Spray treatment, notes on the degree of counteraction of the
manganese deficiency symptoms were taken for all treatments.

At harvest time, both leaves and roots of the sugar
beets, and in the case of onions, tOps and bulbs, were
analyzed for total manganese. Ln attempted correlation of
these results was made with the yields of the same crOps.

Soil samples from limed and unlimed pots were taken
‘ad analyzed for exchangeable, easily-reducible, and total

manganese.

-13-

Leaves from sugar beets in separate field treatments
of 1% Ensoé spray; 50$ HnSO4 dust; 5 i Nu-M dust, and Check,
all grown at the Muck Experimental Farm on a soil to which
had been applied 9 tons of limestone per acre, were taken at
various intervals during the growing season and analyzed for
total manganese. These results were compared with those
obtained under greenhouse conditions.

Exchangeable Manganese (25): Exchangeable manganese is the
manganese which can be replaced in the soil complex by cation
exchange. The exchangeable medium used was a normal neutral
ammonium acetate solution adjusted to pH 7.0.

To the 5 gram soil sample from which a moisture sample
was taken was added 250 ml. of neutral normal ammonium
acetate. The flask was tightly stoppered and then shaken at
frequent intervals. At the end of 24 hours it was assumed
that equilibrium had been attained. The mixture was filtered
through a Buchner funnel, the soil washed with portions of
ammonium acetate solution and the soil again returned to the
original flask. The filtrate was evaporated to a small
volume and it then transferred to crucibles and evaporated
to dryness. After the filtrate had reached dryness, the
residue was taken up with concentrated HN05, after which was
added 10 drops of 85% phosphoric acid, 2-3 drops of concen-

trated sulfuric acid and 0.3 gram of potassium periodate.

-14-
The solution was then heated until full color of the
permanganate develOped. It was then cooled and compared

in a colorimeter with previously prepared standards. The
manganese content was reported in parts per million.
Easily-Reducible hanganese Dioxide (25): Easily-reducible
manganese is the quantity of manganese dioxide that can be
reduced by a 0.2 per cent solutioncaf hydroquinone in a
buffered solution of ieutral, normal ammonium acetate after
the water-soluble and exchangeable manganese have been
extracted.

To the soil sample from which the exchangeable manga-
nese was extracted was added 850 ml. of normal ammonium
acetat solution containing 0.2% hydroquinone and buffered
to the pH 7.0. The flask was tightly stoppered and shaken
at frequent intervals. At the end of 24 hours the content
was filtered through a Bfichner funnel and the filtrate
treated in the same manner as the filt‘ate in the exchange-
able manganese determination.

Tptal Hanganese (50): A 5 gram sample of air-dry soil or
tissue, from which a moisture sample was taken, was weighed
into a crucible and ignited over night at 5000-63000 0.
Three to 5 ml. concentrated nitric acid were added to the
ash and boiled for l minute. Approximately 25 ml. of

distilled water wenethen added and filtered through a

-15-
Buchner funnel. The residue was washed with hot water until
the washings came through free of nitrates (test with

diphenylamine). The filtrate was evaporated to a volume of

10-40 ml. and treated in the same manner as that for the

exchangeable manganese determination.

-15-
DISCUSSIOH 0F EXPERIEERTAL RESULTS

 

Fig. 5 - Two sugar beet leaves comparing a healthy leaf
on the left with a severely chlorotic one on
the right due to a deficiency of manganese.

. .

. ' .-
. ‘ ’ ‘v RAP.“
I

 

‘ . _,.‘p

Fig. 4 - Sugar beets l4 weeks of age. 0 - no lime;
l - 10 tons lime per acre. Notice the chlorosis
of the plants which had received lime.

-17-
The legend used for manganese deficiency symptoms
of sugar beets is:

h — healthy
v sl - very slightly chlorotic
sl - slightly chlorotic
m - moderately chlorotic
m sev - moderately severely chlorotic
sev - severely chlorotic

Table l. rangane e deficiency symptoms one week followirlg
second ap :lication of manganese dusts and Spray
to sugar beets.

 

 

 

Total En applied

 

 

 

 

Replication to plants or soil
Treatment 1 2 5 4 gilb./A)
Mn804l l00% dust v 51 m sev m h 25.4
70% " 51 h h v 51 16.4
" 403% " m v 51 51 v 51 9.4
" 10% “ v 51 m sev 51 m 2.5
Talc check m sev Sl m sev 51 none
Nu-ng 100% dust m sev sev m m sev 40
" 70% m m sev m 28
“ 40% “ sl sl m v 31 16
" 10% " m sev m sev sev sev 4
No dust v 31 51 m sev sev none
rnso43 1.5% Spray h 51 v 51 h 12.2
4 P.T. h sl h v 51 93.6
n 5 5.1). m v 51 h h 95.6
No lime v 81 v 31 h h none
Nu-h P. T. v 51 v 51 v 51 v sl 160
l

hn804 Spray grade contains 25.4% Mn.
vu-M contains approximately 40% En.

2"" \ o
“mn604 spray applied at approximately 200 gals. per acre.

'P

MnSO4 P.T. - Nn804 appli.ed at pla ing time.

C)‘

M304 8. D. - Mn504 side-dressed.

O)

-l

From Table 1 it is observed that the least amount of
chlorosis at this stage was present in plants that received
soil application of manganese, either at planting time or
as a side—dressing. There was no definite correlation
between the amount of manganese applied and the symptoms
observed in plants receiving dust treatments at this stage
although a slight trend could be detected.
Table 2. manganese deficiency symptoms one week following

third application of manganese dusts anr spray
to sugar beets.

Total Ln applied

 

 

 

_‘ Replication to plants or soil
Treappept__ l 2 5 4 (lbL/A)

Kn804 loci dust h v 51 v sl 51 55

" 7-% “ 51 h h s 24.6

" 4 Z “ v 51 v 31 m m 14

" 10% " m m sev m m 5.5
Talc check m sev h sev m sev none
Nu-m 100$ dust sev sev m sev sev 60

" 70g " m sev m sev sev 42

" 40% " m m sev m sev m 24

" lfifl. " m sev m sev m sev 6
No dust sev m sev sev sev none
£n804 1.5% Spray h h h h 18.5

" P.T. h v 51 h v sl 95.6

" S.D. v sl h h h 95.6
No lime h h h h none
Nu-h P.T. h v sl v sl v Si l60

__

Table 2 shows the increaSing effectiveness of the

manganese in those plants growing in pots where it was

-19-
appl lied to the soil. Treatments of HnSO4 P.T., MnSO4 S.D.
and Hi-K P.T. are rapi dly overcoming the manganese deficien-
cies while t1e trortmcnts of nnSO4 spray and the unlimed
treatment have already resulted in a healthy appearance of
the plants. It is interesting to note that plants receiving
the Spray treatment gave a fin reSponse as qu'ckly as those
to which no lime was applied although no deficiency symptoms
were expected in the latter case. The pronounced symptoms
diSplayed by plants treated with the hnS04 dust could be
readily observed where increased amounts of the element were
applied. The converse could be noted in the treatments
involving the Nu-M dust. Plants receiving the Talc and No

Dust treatments responled as eXpected.

Table 5. Manganese deficiency symptoms one week following
fourt? 1 a11p1ication of ma n:anese dusts and Spray
to suga r beets.

 

Total Mn applied

 

 

Replication to plants or soil
Treatment 1 S 5 4 (1bg/A)_
LinSO4 100m dust h v 51 h v 51 70.2
70% " v 51 h h v 51 49.1
" 4&3 " h 11 v 51 11 SS
" 10% " 51 m s m 7
Talc check m h m sev m none
Nu-m 100% dust m sev m sev m m sev 180
" 70% " m 51 sev sev 84
" 40% " sl sev m sev m sev 4S
" 10$ " sev sev m sev 12
No dust sev m sev sev sev none
HnSO4 l. % Spray h h h h 24.4
" P. T. h h h h 95.6
" S.D. h El 11 h 95.6
No lime h h h h none
Nu-m P.T. h v sl v 51 h 160

-20..

Table 5 shows that the last five treatments generally

resulted in the growth of healthy sugar beet plants.

Increasing amounts of EnSO4 dust, with the exception of the

10% treatment, quickly improved the appearance of the plants.

The Nu-H dust treatments appeared to be adding little in to

the plants involved and the chlorotic symptoms of the plants

remained practically unchanged.

Similarly no changes

occurred in the chlorotic condition of the sugar beet plants

receiving the Talc or "no dust" treatments.

Table 4. Kanganese deficiency symptoms one week following
fifth application of manganese dusts and Spray
to sugar beets.

 

 

 

 

Total Lin applied

 

Replication to plants or soil
Treatment 1 2 5 4 (lbt/A)

LinSO4 100% dust h h h h 105.5

" 70% " h h h h 75.7

" 40% " h h h h 48.1

' 10% " h 51 h sl 10.5
Talc check m h m sev m none
Nu-M 100% dust h v 51 51 m 180

” 70% " v s 31 m m sev 126

” 4Ge " El m.sev h m sev 72

” 1 h " sev m m sev 18
No dust sev m sev sev sev none
HnSO4 1. % spray h 51 h h 50.6

" P.T. h h }1 h 95.6

" S.D. h h v 51 h 95.6
No lime h h h h none
Nu-M P.T. h h h h 160

 

 

-21-

Table 4 shows that the unso4 dust treatments, in

general, have resulted in the production of healthy plants.

Plants receiving the Nu-M dust treatments gradually overcame

the severe manganese deficiency symptoms.

The effectiveness

increased as the amount of manganese applied was

Table 5. hanganese deficiency symptoms one week

the sixth application of manga.
Spray, compared with average yields of sugar

beets.

increased.

following
ese dusts and

 

Total in applied Average

 

 

Replication to plants or soil yield
Trea ment 1 2 5 4 (1b./A) (gms.)_
Hn804 100% dust h h h h 140.4 550
" 70h " h h h h 98.5 555
" 40:3 " h h h h 56.2 289
" 1 A " h v 31 h h 14 521
Talc check v 51 v sl m m none 550
Nu-M 100% dust h h h h 240 520
" 7 m " h h h h 168 299
" 40% “ h v 51 h m 96 528
" 10x " 51 h h v 51 24 282
No dust sev m sevwnsev sev none 258
Mn3041.5% Spray h v 81 h h 56.7 552
“ P.T. h h h h 95.6 528
" S.D. h h h h 95.6 299
No lime h h h 31 none 288
Nu-M P.T. h ‘ h h 160 528

 

”—_—o~~—u

Table 5 shows the rapid disappearance of the

manganese

deficiency symptoms of the beets receiving the Nu-K dust

treatments and their effects on yields.

This

table

may be

compared with the detailed yield results shown in Table 6.

-22-
From the foregoing tables it is noticed that the plants
giving the quickest reSponse to manganese applications were
those growing on soil treated with manganese either at plant-
ing time, as a side-dressing, or as a foliar Spray application.
Plants treated with Kn804 as a foliar dust were Slower to
reSpond with the 100% and 70% treatments giving the quicker
reSponses in this case. The slowest reSponse to manganese

application was observed in plants on which Nu-M was applied

3—4

as a foliar dust. Jone of the foliar applications, regardless
of the dilution, caused an injury to the plants thus treated.
Critical levels of manganese are evident in the
various methods of application. Chlorosis disappeared when
approximately 15 pounds of an per acre were added as a Spray.
With the use of unso4 dusts the same results appeared only
after 50-40 pounds per acre of Mn had been applied. However,
it required about 175 pounds per acre of Mn applied as a
Nu-M dust to give the desired healthy condition of the plants.
The amount of manganese added in the soil applications
evidently was sufficient as normal healthy growth was quickly

attained after treatment.

-25-

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. The effect of methods of application of two
manganese materials on the yield of sugar
beets grown in the greenhouse.
Grams per pot
Treat. Replication
Treatmgnt No. 1 2 5 4 mean

HnSO4 100? dust 1 540 255 452 562 550

” 7 % " 2 518 541 542 541 555

" 402 " 5 269 556 256 295 289

" 10% " 4 295 267 555 267 521
Talc check 5 92 292 515 524 550
Nu-m 100% dust 6 501 552 275 575 as

" 7 2 " 7 294 285 285 556 299

" 0% " 8 525 580 292 517 52'

" 10% " 9 214 266 519 529 282
No dust 10 508 255 250 22 258
1111804 1.5% Spray 11 416 290 see 501 532

" P.T. 12 562 267 550 555 529

" S.D. 15 559 296 52 254 500
No lime 14 282 270 514 289 289
Ru-h P.T. 15 555 516 512 550 528
Table 7. Final analysis of variance table of yield data

obtained from sugar beets grown in the greenhouse.

 

Source of Degrees of

 

variance freedom Sum of squares Mean square F
Total 59 118882.98

Block 5 6468.51 2156.10
Treatments 14 55965.75 2568.84 1.41
Error 42 76450.94 1820.26

 

F at 5% level 1.94

Failure of F to reach level of 5% point signifies that no
significance existed between treatments.

-34-
Although no significance existed between treatments,

’1‘“!

a definite trend was in evidence. lne hithest yield was
obtained from plants treated with 100% Kn804 dust and the
lowest yield from those receiving no dust treatment. Second
and third highest yields were obtained from plants receiving
the 70% EnSO4 dust and hnSO4 Spray treatments reSpectively.
The average yield of all hnSO4 dusted plants was 524 grams

as compared to 507 and 519 grams for those receiving the
Nu-E dust treatments and soil application treatments
reapectively.

With reference to Table 6 it is noticed that the
covering of the soil surfaces in replications 5 and 4 of the
dust and Spray treatments had no influence on yield of beets.
Table 8. Quantities of exchangeable, easily-reducible,

and total manganese in limed and unlimed
organic soils.

 

 

 

Limed soil Unlined soil
__Form of ma (Kn in p.p.m.) (Kn in pip.m.)
Exchangeable 14 45
Easily Reducible 45 100
Inert 114 52
Total 175 177

 

Table 8 demonstrates the effect of lime in changing

the amounts of manganese present in the various forms. The

0

initial pH of the soil before liming was 6.0 but was raised

to a pH of 8.1 after the equivalent of 10 tons of lime per
acre had been added. Undoubtedly the high alkalinity
influenced the manganese equilibrium within the soil causing

a reversion of the more soluble forms to forms which were

more highly oxidized and as such were more unavailable to

the plant. This unavailability was evidenced by the chlorotic
condition of sugar beets and retarded growth in onions on
soils treated with lime.

Table 9. The effect of manganese applications on total
manganese in sugar beet tissue and on yields.

 

 

T

[l

 

 

Total Ln. Total an Average
in leaves in roots yield
Treatment (p.p.m.) (pap.m.) (gms.)__
inSO4 10t% dust 1125 80 550
" 7C% " 875 25 555
" 40¢ " 52 BO 289
” 10% " 22 10 521
Talc check 50 5 550
Nu-M’100% dust 165 15 520
" 7G; " 150 10 299
" 4&t " 100 5 528
" 16% " 115 10 282
No dust 58 5 258
hnSO4 1.55 Spray 1185 10 552
" P.T. 65 15 529
“ S.D. 75 15 500

No lime 100 55 289
Nu-h P.T. 100 40 528

 

~26-

Table 9 shows that applications of manganese resulted
in an increased manganese content in the plant tissue. It
is interesting to note the differences in the amount of manga-
nese absorbed into the leaves by the variuus foliar appli-
cations. The Kn804 dust was absorbed to a much greater
extent than Nu-M dust regardless of the concentration of
manganese applied. It should be pointed out that the Nu-M
contains 40% En as compared to or y 25.4% in the soray grade
LnSO4. On the other hand, Nu-m was absorbed better through
the roots than KnSO4. Noteworthy also is the observation

that where high amounts of manganese were adplied to the

.L‘

foliage, correSpcnding_y high amounts were found in the roots.

Translocation of mang

anese, then, was definitely in evidence.
There was no correlation between the quantity of
manganese found in the leaves and yields. This suggested
that other factors along with ma ganese, and not the latter
alone, determined the yields obtained. zlthough no correlation
existed, a trend could be detected. fihere the largest amounts
of manganese were present in the leaves the yields were also
quite high. The lowest yield was obtained where the least

amount of manganese was present in the foliage.

-27-

Table 10. The total manganese content of sugar beet leaves
and the comparative deficiencies of manganese as
indicated by leaf symptoms at two growth inter-
vals* at the Kichigan State College muck
Experimental Farm.

 

 

 

Deficiency Total in in
Rate of $7 symptoms leaves (p.p.m.)
*pplication interval Interval Interval—Interval
Treatment aper acre 1 2 l 2
No manganese none severe moderate 15 55
Ln804 P.T. 100 pounds slight healthy 19 40
13211804 S.D. 100 pounds slight very 51 5O
slight
Kn804 502 dust 55 pounds healthy healthy 51 500

Nu-h 50% dust 55 pounds very healthy 58 525
slight
HnSO4 1% Spray 200 gallons healthy healthy 575 458

 

*Interval l - one week following second Spray application and
2 weeks following first dust application; Interval 2 - two
days following third dust application and one week following
third Spray application.

The data in Table 10 illustrate the relative efficiency
of the absorption of manganese by plants receiving the various
manganese treatmen s. Hanganese sulfate, applied either as
a dust or as a Spray, was absorbed through the leaves more
readily than the Lu-E dust. The table also demonstrates the
relatively low amounts of manganese found in leaves of sugar
beets grown on soil treated with manganese either at the

'7‘

time of planting or as a Side-dressing. The low figures,

' l

.35.

however, do not necessarily mean that poor growth resulted.
The largest beet plants at Interval 2 were growing on plots
treated either with manganese at planting time or as a
side-dressing. Poorest growth and severest leaf deficiency
symptoms were observed in plants on plots which had not
received manganese in any form.

In the early stages of growth, plants on plots treated
with manganes a planting time were the most advanced of
any p an s in the experiment. Later, as other treatments
were applied, the line of demarcation was not as pronounced.
In addition, chlorotic leaf symptoms gradually disappeared

from plants in all plots recei'ing manganese.

Onions

Legend: lime - 10 tons lime per acre; P.T. - planting
time; S.D. - side-dressed.

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 5 - Relative he ght of onions lO we eks after planting.

5 - lime, 400 pounds per acre MnSO4, P.T.; 5 - lime,
400 pounds per acre hnSO4, S.D.; O - no lime;
4 - lime, 400 pounds per acre Nu-u, P.T.

   
   
 

 
 
  

    
  
 

       
    
   

 

   
  
      

 

 

\‘LV’F;

.7
(1)”; ‘ 4’" .

3 E u E u

I .
-wmaa.;r““ ._

"N-

Relative height of onions 10 weeks after planting
and one wee1{ following third application of dusts
and Spray. A - lime, 10071. L-ZnSO4 dust; Q - lime,

100% Nu- M dust; O - no lime; 2 - lime, l-5% EnSO4
Spra~ ; 1 - lime.

 

 
  

 

3 {1.2"
,.

~.J-_‘.-'

Fig. 6 -

 

 

Fig. 7 - Relative height of onions 14 weeks after planting.

5 - lime, 400 pounds per acre hn304 S.D.; O - no
lime; 4 - lime, 400 pounds per acre Nu-m P.T.

 

 

_ -T——o.—-.- -

i

L

 

;
o - _l
or.» -..__-

- --—-+'

Fig. 8 - Relative height of onions 1i weelzs after planting

and one vzeek iollo.inr.g fifth application of Spra.y
2 - lime, 1.5% mnso4 Spray; 0 - no lime; 5 - lime,
400 pounds per acre MnSO4 P.T.

-31-

 

 

     

JJ - a .I ‘1 c
Fig. 9 - Relative height of onions 14 weeks after planting

and one week following fifth application of dusts.
+>- lime, 100% MnSO4 dust; 0 - no lime; o{- lime,
40% Mn804 dust.

 

_____ _ “M”

 

Fig. 10 - Relative height of onions 14 weeks after planting
and one week following the fifth application of
dusts. 9 - lime, 100% Nu-M dust; 0 - no lime;

7 - lime, 40% Nu-M dust.

 

 

 

Fig. ll - Relative height of onions 14 weeks after planting
and one week following fifth application of dusts.
6 - lime, 10% Nu-M dust; 0 - no lime; l - lime.

 

L"; i

Fig. 12 - Relative height of onions 14 week after planting
and one week following fifth application of dusts.
_4- lime, 10% Mn804 dust; 0 - no lime;|1)- lime,
talc dust.

 

I.’ 1:1 - -l

Fig. 13 - Relative height of onions 14 weeks after planting
and one week following fifth application of dusts
and Spray. 5 - lime, 400 pounds per acre S.D. (1460,);
0 - no lime; 4 - lime, 400 pounds per acre Nu-M
P.T.; ‘f'- lime, 100% Mn804 dust; 1 - lime;
6 - lime, 10m Nu-H dust; 2 - lime, 1.5% mnso4 Spray.

The accompanying figures (5-13 inclusive) illustrate
the relative height of onions under various treatments at
10 and 14 weeks after planting.

In the early stages of the eXperiment the onions in
pots that had not been limed made the best growth. As the
season progressed, onions on soils treated with manganese
at planting time or as a side-dressing showed a marked growth

response to manganese. The final yields, however, for the

three treatments were in the following order of decreasing

-34-

magnitude: no lime, manganese at planting time and side-
dressed (Fig. 14). Manganese sulfate applied as a dust
increased the growth of onions in order of the strength
applied. The Nu-H, even though containing a higher

percentage of an, was not as effective as the manganese
sulfate in increasing the growth and when applied without

a diluent resulted in a reduction in yield as compared to
yield from plants receiving a 70% dust application. manganese
sulfate applied as a lJEESpray was very effective in supplying
manganese to the onion crop. Poorest growth was obtained in
onions dusted with talc and in those which received no manga-
nese treatment.

The most prominent manganese deficiency symptom in the
onions during the first 14 weeks after planting was retarded
growth. Some dying-back of the tips was observed but this
was not of major consequence. Neither of the above symptoms
was exhibited by the onions growing on the unlined soil.

The comparative yields of onions at harvest time
obtained from pots of the various treatments are illustrated

by the accompanying figures (14-18 inclusive).

-35-

.aahgm eomen am.a .maaa - m m.e.m .eomga
meow Rom mUQSom 00¢ .mafla u m m.o.m.womnz meow mom mwmdom 00¢
.oafia n m ”mafia on u o W.H.m .uusz meow mom amazon 00¢ .oafia n d u ea .mfim

 

.mefia

 

"have 2-52 mos .mafla . m M.

11.

E

.pmse 3:22 ads .oaaa u a
m .aomqu whoa ham Waggon ooe

m ”mafia on u o n.B.m .musz meow mom mezzom 00¢ .oaHH n w

 

- ma .mha

 

-37..

5.96 H.352 «OOH .mSHH u m 3.36 woman-H no .95 :7.
396 woman map .33” -2 $23 on - o 326 wow-Q, meow Jana” - 4 - 3 .maa

 

8
ho

”page “-752

0.x)
.\\\.;IL

3 , 0‘. a l MU.HH I H
.836 aéa s3 man” e km.
3 ram-2 - m 654, on .. o ”pm-,6 eons..- wi 2,3 -I

Ira.

 

 

 

f‘" 4* ’"

Fig.18 - l - lime; 0 - no lime; m - lime, talc dust.

-40-

'l'll

 

 

 

 

 

am ms om am moa Ham Ham mam eam oom ma .s.m 3-53
flea mo meg mm aoa smm mam sea woe mam ea aged oz
mm as woa one as and mad ooa mma mma ma .o.m eems.-
am as we mad sad Asa mam and som Had ma .s.m eomqa
mm moa Ho mm sm «ma oma maa Aha maa Ha magma mm.a aong
mm om N am sa as as ea we ma OH page 0a
se am mm mm sa as an mma oe as m = med =
mm mm ow no on me am om oe sm a = woe g
ss as as ms ms Hma mm sea oma‘ wed s : mos =
me an om am as no ss om we see a page Read a-sz
ma Ha ow as am ms sma «a me an m momma odes
an me me as aw mm cad sea on we a = moa =
so no es Ho ms «Ha moa and mad mm m = mow =
as ss mm as woe sea one sea sea mag m = was =
we ooa we we am sad sea and mma mma a page aooa aowe:
Gama ¢.mmm m.mmm m.wvm Humvm mama «.mom mummm m.gmm Hnmwm .oa pumapmmee
awoe mQHJW, .pmmma

 

pom pea mamas

.omSonammam 03p 2H macaw mmop use mnasn moano Mo Gama»
map so mawfiaopha omaswmqsa cap Mo Qoflpaoflammm Mo mwompoe Mo pooMMm one .HH magma

-41-

Table 12. Analysis 3i variance of yield data of onion
tops aid bulbs.

-.- —---- -m- -4.“ .4— --. -..- ---- .._.- ‘----.—_
A ..—- .-o —o «'1- d
‘1:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deg. .EE;_§._l-----.._ Tops
Source of of Sum of nean Sum of Kean
yariance afree. squares sguare F sgugres saggre F
Total 59 192028.98 59093.18
Blocks 3 1578.05 857.51
e.e: 5.9:
Treat- 14 155578.75 10969.77 12.45 25558.95 1809.92 5.89
ment 5
Error 42 57074.2 882.72 12915.74 507.52

 

Least significant difference:

Bulbs 5% level 2.4 grams
1% level 56.7 gram

TOps 51 level 25.0 gram
1% level 55.5 grams

%%Significart at 1% level.

As indicated by the data in Table 11 the decreasing
order of magnitude of yields of bulbs by treatments was as
follows: 14, 15, 12, l, 15, 2, ll, 7, 5, 4, 6, 5, 9, 8 and
10. In general the soil applica tio were more effective
than the foliar treatments. 0f the foliar treatments the
higher Lblcelt ge levels of the hn804 dust gave highest
yields followed by yields obtained from plants treated with
the Hn804 Spray and finally those treated with the Nu-h dust.

The talc dust treatmei 1t rave yields compara ble to those

I
k
U

obtained from plants tre- ated vith the lo..er percent a;e levels

of the Nu-M ust. All treatments, with the exception of

-42-
Treatm ents 5, 8 and 9 produced significantly better yields
than Treatment 10.

The decreasing order of magnitude of yields of tops
by treatments was as follows: 14, 12, 15, 5, 11, l, 2, 7,
5, 6, 8, 4, 9, 5 red 10. dere again the soil applications
of manganese were generally more effective than the foliar
treatm nt 8. The trend for yields of teps produced by the
manganese foliar treatments generally followed the same
pattern as that for yields of bulbs. Plants growing in the
unlimed soil gave the highest yields of tOps whereas lowest
yields of tOps were obtained from plants which had received
no ma 11tanese treatment.
Table 15. otal ma 1 anese in onion tissue compared with

uantity of manganese applied and average
Eields of tOps and blle

Total hn
applied
to plants Total Mn Total Mn
Treat. or soil in tops in bulbs Ayerage_yield

 

 

___Treatment No. (1b./A) Qp.p.m.) (p.p.m.) Tops Bulbs
Mn504 100% dust l 152 400 90 84 147
7070 u 2 106.5 400 50 78 127

" 40% " 5 60. 8 5535 25 67 114

" 10% u 4 15.2 175 15 51 96
Talc check 5 none 75 10 45 75
Nu-l'i 1003'5; dust 6 260 165 85 65 95
" 707-; " 7 182 ass as 77 121

" 40% " 8 104 258 25 55 65

" 10% ” 9 8 158 20 47 71
No dust 10 none 50 15 59 40
1:11.504 1.57. Spray 11 251.14 soc so as 124
" P.T. B 95.6 25 15 99 171

" S.D. 15 95.6 15 15 90 156
NO lime 14 none 65 15 101 227

‘-

 

-43-

Several trends are exhibited in Table 15. In the
first place, it is apparent that where large amounts of
manganese were applied as a fin804 foliar dust, corresponding-
ly large amounts were found in the tissue of both tOps and
bulbs of onions. This would suggest efficient absorption
of the micro-nutrient element on the part of the plant and
also the capacity to translocate it to the bulb. Increased
percentages of manganese applied in this form gave correSponding-
1y increased yields of both tOps and bulbs.

Although the 100% Hn804 dust produced the highest yield
of all foliar treatments without apparent injury to the plants,
the author suggests that a diluent fraction be added whenever
a manganese sulfate - sulfur mixture is used,to prevent fire
hazard.

The application of Nu-M as a foliar dust gave somewhat
varied results in that where high amounts of manganese were
applied, correSpondingly high amounts were not necessarily
found in thetissue of the onions. Yields of tops and bulbs
were highest in plants treated with the 70% dust, demonstrating
that a diluent was necessary to give maximum results.

The Kn504 Spray treatment, as in the sugar beets, showed
extremely high efficiency in the absorption of the element.
This good reSponse was borne out at har est time also in that

reasonably high yields were obtained from the treated plants.

-44-
han ganese added to the soil produced results that
differed a great deal from those obtained from the foliar

‘lications of the element. Plants treated with MnSO4

r
a.-

at planting ime and those receiving t11€ side- dressing
treatment both received the same total amount of the element,
however, it is obvious that those pla11ts obtaining mangaiese
at the outset of their growth gave higher yields of bulbs.
Although plants from both treatments contained the same amount
of man anese in the bulb, those receiving Mn at planting time
contained more in the tops which reflects the length of time
they had to absorb the element. Nu-M applied at planting
time gave better results than when used as a dust. Although
plants treated with the Nu-h received much more Kn than those
in the other soil treatments, higher yields were obtained in
the bulbs and larger amounts of Mn were detected in the tissue.

Onions growing in the unlimed soil produced highest
yields in both tops and bulbs. Although no manganese was
applied to either the soil or folia<£ the amount of manganese
found in the tissue was about the same as in the plants of
the other soil treatments.

Treatments 5 and 13 produced the lowest yields of
onions, although the amount of manganese detected in the
tissue of plants thus treated did not differ greatly from

the quantity found in the tissue of plants growing in soil

-45-
treated with manganese. The author cannot eXplain the
circumstances influencing these results.

A correlation study was made between quantity of
manganese in the tOps versus yield, with unsatisfactory
results. Evidently one cannot "pin-point" manganese as the
individual factor influencing the yields obtained although

it no doubt played a major role.

Two manganese materials, comnercial grade manganese
sulfate (Tecmangam), 25.4 per cent fin, and Nu-K, 40 per cent
Kn, were applied in the form of foliar dusts (lO, 40, 70 and
100 per cent), as a soil application at planting time, as a
side-dressing and as a 1.5 per cent manganese sulfate Spray
to Brigham's Yellow Globe onions and 215 x 816 sugar beets
growing in the greenhouse on a virgin organic soil obtained
from the Iichigan State College muck Experimental Farm.

Ten tons of lime (C.P. calcium carbonate) per acre
were added to the pots for the purpose of inducing manganese
deficiency.

Data were obtained on the effect of the various treat-
ments on the yield and manganese content of teps and bulbs
of onions and leaves and roots of sugar beets grown in the
greenhouse and the manganese content of sugar beet leaves
from plants produced at the Luck Experimental Farm.

The following results were noted:

1. The addition of ten tens of lime per acre to the
orgsaic soil investigated increased the pH from 6.0 to 8.1
and induced a chlorotic leaf condition that could be

corrected with man an>se supplements.

.~n
a

-47-

2. The amount of exchangeable and easily-reducible
manganese in unlined soils was much greater than that found
in soils treated with 10 tons of lime per acre.

3. The most effective method of treatment for the
onions and sugar beets was the application of manganese to
the soil at planting time, the side-dressihr method being
next most effective.

4. Manganese applied in the form of a 1.5 per cent
manganese sulfate Spray was comparatively more effective in
correcting manganese deficiency symptoms in sugar beets than
in onions.

5. Manganese sulfate applied as a dust was more
effective in correcting manganese deficiency synptoms than
was the Nu-h form with both onions and sugar beets. hanga-
nese sulfate applied without a diluent caused nc noticeable
adverse effects on plant develOpment whereas the application
of Ku-K without a diluent resulted in a yield reduction of
onions.

6. The amounts of manganese found in the tissue of
sugar beets and onions generally increased with the percentage
of the material Cantained in the dust mixtures with the highest
amount associated with the mangal se sulfate dusts. Lowest
amounts of manganese were found in the tissue of plants

receiving no manganese treatment.

-48-

7. Highly significant differences were observed
between yields of onions with the highest yield being
obtained from slants growing on the unlimed soil followed
by yields obtained from plants growing on soil to which
Had been applied manganese at planting time. No significant
differences between yields of sugar beets were noted although
the higlest yield was obtained from the 100 per cent manganese

sulfate dust.

10.

-A9-
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aso, K., 1902. On the ahysiological influences of
manganese compounds in plants. Bul. Coll. Agr.
Tokyo Imp. Univ. 5: 177-155. From minor element
abstracts, Chilean Nitre te Educational Bureau,
Inc., new York.

Conner, S. D., 1952. Factors affecting msnrancsc
avail bility in soils. Jour. Amer. Soc Agron.
24: 72 6- 755.

Coon, R. L., 1946. Hanganese sulfate and bo
for sugar beets. Sugar meet Jour. 2: 197
Rev. of Applied Lycology 25: 450.

“x
rCLX
~195;

D5 V15: J. F., 1950. Luck soils when properly
fertilized produce high yields. Amer. Plant
Food Jour. 4: 5-11,

deHaan, K., 1954. Observations on practical sugar
beet c 1tivat tion. Lededeel. Inst. Suimerbietenteelt
5: 125-127. I‘rom minor element abstracts, Chile an
Nitrate Educational Bureau, Inc., New Yorm.

Gilbert, 5. 3., 954. Kormal crops and the supoly
of availai Jle soil man:snese. R. I. Sta. 33u1.
246: 15.

 

and F. T. KcLean, 1938. A "deficiency
disease": the lack of available manranese in a lime-
induced chlorosis. Soil Sci. 26: 27-51.

Gregoire, A., I. Hendrick and E. Carniaux, 1907.
The action of man:anese on the potato and sugar
beet. Eul. Agr. (Lrussels) 25, No. 5: 558-594.
From minor element abs t'a Lcts, Chilean Kitrate
Educational Bureau, Inc., New York.

Harmer, P. h., 1941. The nutrition of muck crons.
neurint from better Croys With Plant Food magazine,
amer. Potash inst. Inc.

. Unpublished data.

ll.

14.

16.

17.

.R0_

, 1941. The much soils of Kichigan
their mana cm5nt and us . Lich. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Sp”c. £51. 514: 57--1.

Elongart, A. V. Ly personal communication.
Knott, J. E., 1940. The re S5cnse of oniors to manganese

on unproductive peat soils. Lroc. Amer. Soc. Mort.
Sci. 57: 550-856.

Leeper, G. W., 1955. 'an;-nc e deficiency of cereals,
plot eXperiments and a at hypothesis. Froc. noyal
Soc. Victoria 47: 225 -261.

Lani” r1. 3., 1950. Availability of manganese and of
iron as affected by applications of calcium and
magnesium carbonates to the soil. Soil Sci. 50:
117-151.

L cGeorje, W. T., 1951. Lime-induced chlorosis on
western crOps. Ariz. Agr. EXp. Sta. Eul.: 17.

LcHargue, J. 3., 1922. The role of manganese in plants.
Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. 44: 1592.

Lellor, J.N.A., 1952. A comprehensive teatise on
inorganic and theoretical chemistry. New York:
Longmans, Green and 00., Vol. 12.

Layer, B. S. and D. B. Anderson, 1959. Utilization
of mineral salts.P1.Physiol., pp. 415-457.

aaoalia, 1.1., 1905. The stimulating; action of manganese
upon rice. Eul. Coll. Agr. Tokyo Imp. Univ. 5:
467-472.

Piper, C. S., 1951. The availability of manganese in
the soil. Jour. Agr. Sci. 21: 762-769.

fierineton. 3- E. and d. E. Skiiver, 1950. Iron, copper
and mang anese content of some COMIOH vegetable: oods.
Jour. Assoc. Off. agr. Chem. 15: 12

Russell, Sir E. J., 1955. Linor elemeits in plant
nutrition - manganese. Jour. Royal Agr. Soc.
England 99: 555. rrom minor element abs tracts,
Chilean Nitrate Educational Bureau, Inc., Lew Yo K.

N)
C?)

(‘0

()3

El-

Salomone, G., 1907. The action of manganese on plants.
Sta . Spar. Agr. Stal. 40, No. 2: 97-117. From
minor element abstracts, Chilean Nitrate Educational
Bureau, Inc., new York.

Sherman, G. D., 1940. Activation of iron in plants by
manganese and other chemicals in a lime-induced
chlorosis. A Ph. D. Thesis, Rich. State College,
East Lansing, Mich.

 

and P. E; Harmer, 1942. The manganous-
manganic equilibrium of soils. Soi Sc. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 7: 398-405.

Stoklasa, J., 1911. Catalytic fertilizers for sugar
beets. El. Zuckerrubenbau 18, No. 11: 190-197.
From minor element abstracts, Chilean Nitrate
Educational Bureau, Inc., New YO‘K.

Vlasyuk, P. A., 1937. Utilization of the waste products
of the manganese ore industry for fertilizing sugar
beets. Osnovnege Vyvody Nauch. - Issledovatel.

Rabot V313: 161-173. From minor element abstracts,
Chilean Nitrate Educational Bureau, Inc., New York.

von Feilitzen, H., 1907. The stimulating effect of
manganese salts on crops. Jour. Landev. 55:

289-292. From minor element abstracts, Chilean
nitrate Educational Bureau, Inc., New York.

Hilliard, H. H. and L. H. Greathouse, 1917. Colormetric
determination of manganese using periodic acid as
oxidizing agent. Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. 59: 2366.

Willis, L. G., 1932. The effect of liming soils on
the availability of manganese and iron. Jour. Amer.
Soc. Agron. 24: 716-726.

Wilson, J. D., 1943. Comparative injury to tomato
plants by ingredients of fungicidal spray and dust
mixtur 5. Ohio agr. Ext. Sta. Bul. 222: 120-155.

F.
S
u
M
O
0
R

 

 

.395}; J.

.
_ n
. ..
I
‘ t v
I a a I
t V y g f
.\4 l J
.. .
- A .. 4 ,
A n. v I ~
. t i _. .
o n .4 .J ..,
.l a -
a . . .
.

 

NICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIE

llLllllLll llIlllHllllllllmllm Ill IHIHIIWI WI

 

31293100467103