IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII I III III r% f. U“ 293 01067 4173 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL SULFUR APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD AND SULFUR CONTENT OF MICHIGAN FIELD CROPS presented by Anne Marie Grates has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mas ters degree in Science I Major professor Date 94% /9/, /?XZ 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES BEIURNING MATERIAL§: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. THE EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL SULFUR APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD AND SULFUR CONTENT OF MICHIGAN FIELD CROPS BY Anne Marie Grates A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Crap and Soil Sciences 1982 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL SULFUR APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD AND SULFUR CONTENT OF MICHIGAN FIELD CROPS By Anne Marie Grates Field experiments were conducted in 1981 in seven counties in Duchigan to determine the response to supplemental sulfur by field crops. The sources of sulfur used in this study were gypsum, ammonium sulfate and ammonium thiosulfate. Craps treated in the investigation included corn, soybeans, navy beans and cranberry beans. Prospective sites were first analyzed for sulfate-sulfur in the surface soil in order to characterize them as potentially sulfur deficient. Desirable characteristics of the experimental site also included sandy soil and low organic matter content. No significant yield increases were obtained at any of the experimental sites although yield differences were observed. Significant differences in.p1ant sulfur content due to increased sulfur rates were observed at six out of eight sites. SignificantIdifferences between fertilizers were observed at three sites. This thesis is affectionately dedicated to my father, Robert J. Grates whose example was a great inspiration. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Theiauthor wishes to thank the members of her committee, Dr. Darryl Warncke, Dr. Boyd Ellis and Dr. Dean KrauskOpf, for their guidance, patience and friendship during the course of this study. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Vernon Meints for acting as her major professor. His aid during all phases of this investigation was invaluable. The assistance provided to the author by Dr. Charles Cress and Teresa Hughes concerning the statistical analysis involved in this study is most sincerely appreciated. Special thanks is extended to Jim Jenkins for his aid in preparing the graphs contained in this thesis. iAlso gratefully accepted and deeply appreciated were the efforts of the harvest crews who made the day go faster. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ' LIST OF TABLES................................................... LIST OF FIGURES.................................................. INTRODUCTION..................................................... LITERATURE REVIEW................................................ EXPERIMENTAL METHODS............................................. Field Studies............................................... Laboratory Studies.......................................... RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................... Soils...................................................... Yields..................................................... Plant S Content............................................ SUMMARYOOOOOO.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO APPENDIX A.........Ana1ytical Methods............................ APPENDIX B.........Yie1d Data.................................... APPENDIX C.........P1ant S Content Data.......................... BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................... GENERAL! REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0... iv PAGE vii 14 14 18 21 21 23 24 37 38 41 45 49 SS TABLE Bl B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 LIST OF TABLES Location of sites, soil series and cr0p(s) grown. Plant tissue sampling and harvest dates. Soil analysis data for each experimental site. Summary of significant differences at LSD.05 in plant content data. Yield data for soybeans in Barry County. Yield data for corn in Branch County. Yield data for navy beans in Ionia County. Yield data for corn in Jackson County. Yield data for cranberry beans in Montcalm County. Yield data for corn in Saginaw County. Yield data for soybeans in Saginaw County. Yield data for corn in Washtenaw County. Leaf tissue S content for soybeans in Barry County. Ear leaf S content for corn in Branch County. Leaf tissue S content for navy beans in Ionia County. Ear leaf S content for corn in Jackson County. Leaf tissue S content for cranberry beans in Montcalm County. Ear leaf S content for corn in Saginaw County. V PAGE 15 19 22 35 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 C7 C8 Leaf tissue S content for soybeans in Saginaw County. Ear leaf S content for corn in Washtenaw County. vi 48 FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES Effect of N and N plus S application on leaf tissue 8 content of soybeans in Barry County. Effect of S application on ear leaf S content of in Branch County. corn Effect of N and N plus S application on leaf tissue S content of navy beans in Ionia County. Effect of 8 application on ear leaf 8 content of in Jackson County. Effect of S application on leaf tissue S content cranberry beans in Montcalm County. Effect of 8 application on ear leaf 8 content of in Saginaw County. Effect of S application on leaf tissue S content soybeans in Saginaw County. Effect of 8 application on ear leaf S content of in Washtenaw County. vii corn of corn of corn PAGE 25 26 28 29 3O 32 33 34 I NTRODUCT ION Sulfur (S) is essential for protein synthesis and is involved in the activation and/or formation of enzymes including those involved in photosynthesis and other metabolic processes. Sulfur is also involved in chlorOphyll deve10pment and is a constituent of essential vitamins. Sulfur research has been performed since the 1700's, then why does S research continue today? The answer can be found in changing trends in farming and changing attitudes in general. To begin with, look at the sources of 8 available for plant growth. The soil, crop residues (organic matter), manure, irrigation water, rain, the atmosphere, pesticides, fertilizers and various other soil amendments all can provide 8 which plants utilize for their growth. Arguments can be made which indicate why each of these sources no longer provide the amount of 8 they once did. Cultivation and crop uptake have decreased the amount of S originally present in the soil. In some soils, the amount of organic matter is being reduced and crop residues may not be left in the soil to decompose. Many farms have converted their Operations to cash crops so no livestock manure is available to spread on the soil. Concern for the environment has led to restrictions on S emissions to the atmosphere which in turn have decreased the amount of S in rain and irrigation water. Increased use of low S fuels has played an important part in reducing S from these sources. Many of the pesticides being used today contain less 8 than those used in the past. Changes in fertilizers have had a great influence on the amount of S provided to plants. Normal superphosphate (0-20-0) was the major source of P for many years. Concentrated superphosphate (0-46-0) has now emerged as the major P source in an effort to reduce transportation costs. The 8 content of normal superphosphate is 12% whereas the 8 content of concentrated superphosphate is 32. This trend has also occurred in N fertilizers. The use of ammonium sulfate (212 N) dropped sharply when ammonium nitrate (34% N) was introduced. Ammonium nitrate contains no S while ammonium sulfate is 242 8. Another factor contributing to the increased S requirement is the great increase in crop yields which have occurred over the years. Increasing yields place an increasingly greater demand for essential nutrients. Higher rates of high analysis fertilizer with additional attention to the micronutrients seem to solve the problem. However, S is slighted again. With these thoughts in mind, additional S research was undertaken in Michigan. The objectives of this study were: (1) To determine the yield response of craps to S application. (2) To compare various S sources in their ability to provide S to crap plants. (3) To determine the effect of S application on the 3 content of craps o LITERATURE REVIEW , Sulfur has long been known to be an essential element. Initial work with S began in France using gypsum. Alway (1940) reviewed the results of this early work. Pierre, in 1768, treated clover with land plaster and was rewarded with dark green color and vigorous growth. His subsequent lecturing on these results spread the practice of plastering to England and Germany and eventually overseas. Inspired by Pierre's work, Boussingault experimented with gypsum on clover, wheat, oats and rye during the years 1841-1843. His conclusion was that Paris plaster acts usefully by adding lime to the soil. Benjamin Franklin brought the idea of plastering back to the United States after serving as Ambassador to France. In a clover field outside Washington, D. C., dark green growth spelled out ”THIS LAND HAS BEEN PLASTERED”. Sufficient amounts of S were considered to be present in the soil for crap growth up to this time. Dry ashing plant material was a common practice. Comparisons of soil analysis with crop uptake always indicated more S was present in the soil than the crop would use. Recommendations for gypsum were ignored and the use of gypsum drOpped. Brown and Kellogg (1915) using the Osborne method of plant analysis for their work in Iowa found that up to 902 of the S in plant material was lost by ashing. Once again the question returned. Was there adequate S in the soil to meet the requirements of the crop? Brown and Kellogg analyzed and compared a number of Iowa soils with regard to S content. All of the soils had a higher total 8 content in the subsurface than in the surface and four out of five were higher in the subsurface than in the subsoil. They compared the total S values of the soil to the amount of S taken up by various crOps and determinedthat S was sufficient for a number of years but not indefinitely. When comparing virgin to cultivated soils, they found that constant cultivation without manuring resulted in a loss of S from the soil. This agreed with work done on Kansas soils (Swanson and Miller, 1917) where cropped soils contained 402 less 8 than native sod. Brown and Kellogg also looked at S added to the soil by rain and lost from the soil by drainage. They agreed with previous work which said the loss of S by drainage at least equalled and probably exceeded that added to the soil in the form of rain. They recommended the application of livestock manure to insure an adequate amount of S in the soil. In the absence of manure, acid phosphates should be applied. Duley (1916) experimented with three S sources on red clover in Missouri. A nutrient solution with MgSO4, flowers of S or CaSOa (gypsum) as the 8 source provided all nutrients for sand culture experiments. Growth of the gypsum treated plot was initially slower but at harvest time was the best. Using soil cultures, a treatment of flowers of 8 alone increased the yield of clover by 502 over no treatment and when added to a complete fertilizer increased the number of nodules by 7002. A surge of interest in the application of S to crop land occurred in the western states. Crocker (1923) reviewed work done in the previous decade in Oregon, Washington and adjoining states where increases in alfalfa yield were commonly in the range of 50 to 5002 in response to 8 application. Percent N and percent protein also increased. In California (Lipman and Gericke, 1918), adding S and N instead of N alone greatly increased the number of stalks and heads produced on barley. The most profound effects were the result of treatment with ammonium sulfate where 14 times more total dry matter was produced compared to the control. Varied results were obtained on Idaho soils (Neidig, £31., 1923). Sulfur applications produced yield increases in alfalfa on soils from the non-irrigated part of the state but had no effect when applied to irrigated arid soils. However, application of S increased the percent S in the plant in all cases. Work with S was also occurring sporadically in other states during this time. Kansas researchers (Swanson and Miller, 1917) delved into the movement of sulfate (804'2) in the soil. They concluded that 504-2 leached more readily than any other soil component. Their explanation of this was that $04-2 tends to dissolve whereas other nutrients, such as phosphate, tend to precipitate. The detrimental effects of excessive 8 application became evident in research performed in New Jersey (Lipman, _e_£ 31., 1921). All barley plots germinated but injury became evident as the season progressed on plots that received 1000 lb/acre or more of S. Most of the plants on the 4000 lb/acre plot died before harvest. Soybeans planted after the barley showed depressed germination starting at the 1000 lb/acre rate. These adverse effects might have been related to decreased pH. Erdman (1923) found that gypsum favorably affected the growth of clover, small grains and alfalfa in Iowa. Greaves and Nelson (1925) looked at the effect of irrigation water on S content of wheat, oats and barley. Analysis of the grain indicated that increasing the amount of irrigation water increased the S content of wheat but had varied effects on oats and barley, which in general showed a decline in S content. These results were tentatively attributed to the infill on.oats and barley. Researchers in Utah (Greaves and Gardner, 1929) conducted a complete inventory of the sources of 8 available for plant use. Soil, rainfall and irrigation waters were analyzed in additon to plant samples. It was determined that S may become a limiting factor in crOp production with time. Beginning in the 1940's, research on S increased throughout the United States. In order to better indicate the areas of S response, this discussion will continue according to individual geographical areas beginning in the forties and continuing to the present. The Pacific states have all shown a response to S fertilizers but investigators in California have performed an extensive amount of research in this area. Conrad (1941) investigated the ability of soil to retain S. He found that compounds containing reduced forms of S were retained by soils whereas compounds containing oxidized forms of S were not. However, all but two sources of S, sodium thiocyanate and thiourea, gave a significant yield response. Extremely large yield responses were found by Conrad, ££_gl, in 1947; three to four fold increases in legumes the first year and doubled yields of nonlegumes in the following years resulted from an application of ammonium sulfate. Conrad (1950) continued his work with S by establishing plots in five different localities distributed throughout the state. Fifty per cent yield increases occurred in all instances and doubling of yields was not uncommon. Rendig (1956) fertilized alfalfa with gypsum. This treatment increased yields for all five successive cuttings. Analysis of plant tissue indicated that most of the increase in 8 content could be attributed to 804-2. Jones (1964) found winter forage yield could be significantly increased by applying 20 lb of S per acre. Moreover, residual effects of the 80 1b of 8 per acre treatment gave yields the following year comparable to an application of 20 lb of S. Jones and Ruckman (1966) found that 40 lb of S per acre as gypsum was sufficient for only one year whereas an equal amount of S as elemental S was sufficient for two years. Their final assessment of 6 years of data showed consistent yield increases due to S application (Jones and Ruckman, 1973). Investigators in neighboring states obtained similar results with S application. Yield increases in alfalfa and wheat were obtained in Idaho (Jordan and Baker, 1959). Yield responses were also obtained on 11 of 16 Oregon soils (Harward, 2531:, 1962). Ulrich, 3531. (1967) grew alfalfa in solution culture with unfiltered and smog-free filtered air as the sources of S. Significant growth increases resulted from the absorption of air-borne S. WOrk in Washington involving 302 injections into the soil resulted in significant yield increases in wheat (Roberts and Koehler, 1965). Sulfur from this source compared favorably to S from gypsum when applied at the same rate. A number of southern states have experienced growth responses due to 8 application. Research results in the Carolinas included increased yield of cotton seed in North Carolina (Kamprath, 3511., 1957) and significant yield increases for corn and soybeans in South Carolina but only when P was also applied (Jones, £2 _a_l_., 1982). Similar results with cotton in Georgia were obtained but only on a lighter, loamy sand soil (Anderson and Webster, 1959). Two Florida locations, 100 miles apart, gave significant yield increases with 8 application to cotton and led to speculation of widespread S deficiency (Harris, 3321., 1945). Bardsley and Kilmer (1963) determined that the best indicator of maximum crOp yields was the concentration of S in the top one foot of soil. Cotton was also studied in Arkansas (Younge, 1941). Six of 10 soil types showed significant yield reduction where S was not applied. In Alabama, it was determined that S was a necessary supplement to high analysis fertilizers caused in part by the low amounts of S brought down in rain in rural areas (Volk, gt _a_l_., 1945). Gypsum and elemental S were found to be equally effective as S sources. However, Burmester, _e_t_ 8—1. (1981) failed to elicit a growth response to 8 applications even at high rates of N. Research on S application in Mississippi covered a wide range of crops. Intensive work by Bardsley and Jordan (1957) and Jordan and Bardsley (1958) demonstrated yield increases in clover, cotton and tobacco at a number of locations. Corn and grasses were generally less responsive to S applications. Work by Bardsley (1960) indicated that gypsum was a very good source of S althOugh cystine and methionine in solution culture also performed well. Sulfur studies in the midwest states were generally over short term periods and in some cases failed to demonstrate a need for supplemental S. In Indiana, alfalfa did not respond to S fertilizer (Bertramson, _e_t__al_., 1950). Ohio researchers received a 102 increase in sugar beets and alfalfa with gypsum applications (Barnes, 1956). They also determined that after 6 or 7 years of applying high analysis fertilizer, supplemental S was needed for optimum growth. Six of 8 Wisconsin soils gave a significant increase in alfalfa yield when treated with K2804 and gypsum (Rand, 321., 1969). The two sources were equally effective in providing 8. Rehm and Caldwell (1968) determined that only the north central and northeastern sections of Minnesota have a low S supplying capacity as determined by plant uptake. Statewide applications of S were not necessary. Sulfur treatment tripled the yield of alfalfa (Seim, st 31., 1969) while increasing the S and N content of corn and alfalfa but decreasing the P content (Caldwell, gE_§l., 1969). Initial work in Michigan by McCool (1920) and McCool and Millar (1924) failed to demonstrate a need for supplemental S. Slight yield increases occurred but were negligible. Cressman and Davis (1962) did not find a yield response from S applications however, potatoes and red clover did exhibit an increase in S content. Beaton and Fox (1971) performed field trials and conducted a tissue survey in southern Michigan. They concluded that many of the soils contained inadequate amounts of S for tap corn production. 0f the soil samples analyzed, 79% were rated as S deficient with another 132 declared borderline. Extensive research by Robertson and Vitosh (1974) failed toidemonstrate a significant yield increase after 8 application even where soil tests indicated S was low. Janssen and Vitosh (1974) determined that S increased N fixation by almost 60%. The only yield response from 8 application in Michigan, from dark red kidney beans, was reported in this work. Robertson, 35 El. (1975) conducted a survey of 804'2 levels in the plow layer of soils throughout the state. Unexpectedly low levels in some instances led to the suggestion of the need for additional research on the use of S containing fertilizers. Plant response to S fertilizers was not the only facet of 3 research occurring in the 1900's. During the same time that gypsum began to lose some of its popularity as a soil amendment, interest began 10 to rise in regard to air pollution. Sulfur dioxide is a component of air and it was known that rainfall captured some of this S and deposited it on the soil. Research was‘ conducted on the ability of plants to absorb 802 from the air and the amount of S deposited by rainfall. It was known that pollution centered around industrialized areas and its main source was the burning of coal. Pollution was most severe downwind from the source. Crowther and Stewart (1913) identified 302 as the component of air pollution causing damage to vegetation near the industrial city of Leeds, England. Rainwater analysis indicated that S concentrations were heaviest to the east of the city due to the prevailing westerly winds but were not as high in rural areas where no damage to vegetation was observed. The scientific community was deluged with reports of S in rainwater during the 1920's. Ithaca, New York began monitoring S in rainwater in 1918 (Wilson, 1921). Over two years, an average of 26 lb of S/acre/year was supplied to the soil through rainwater. Subsequent publications by Wilson (1923, 1926) provided additional data on S in rainfall. In 1923 it was found that a higher concentration of S in rainfall during the winter months provided 60% of the total addition to soil. A slight but consistent increase in the concentration of S in rainwater over a five year period had increased the average yearly deposition to 29 lb of S/acre. The 1926 data showed an increase in the 8 concentration in rainwater reflecting the Opening of a heating plant. Similar experiments were conducted in other states during this time although without the dedication of Wilson. Erdman (1922) collected precipitation at the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and concluded that monthly depositions of S were fairly constant and that in general, 11 S supplied to rural communities through rainfall was about 15 lb/acre/year. In Tennessee (MacIntire and Young, 1923), ten locations were monitored to determine the amount of S in rainfall. Yearly averages ranged from 232 lb/acre to 13 lb/acre of soluble 804-8. Distance and direction from industrialized areas played an important role in the amount of S collected. In Kentucky (Johnson, 1924), the average annual amount of S in rainfall was 35 lb/acre. Seasonal variation of the S content of rain indicated that winter rainfall has a higher S content than summer, agreeing with previous reports. After a ten year lull, the next paper to be published on atmospheric S indicated that only a small area of Minnesota was in need of supplemental S (Alway, 3331., 1937). They maintained that cr0ps received adequate 8 due to rainfall and direct absorption of 802 from the air based on calculations of crop uptake and measurements of S in rainfall and 802 in the air. Even when crop uptake exceeded the amount of S supplied by these sources, supplemental S did not result in a yield increase. They concluded that atmospheric S was sufficient for even maximum crop yields. An extensive study by Eriksson (1952) monitored precipitation in 14 states. The amount of S deposited annually by rain ranged from a high of 260 kg/ha (232 lb/acre) in Tennessee to a low of 3.2 kg/ha (2.9 lb/acre) in Alabama. The average of the midwest states excluding Chicago, Ill. and Gary, Ind. was 29 kg/ha (26 lb/acre). Again, the increase in winter deposition due to increased coal consumption was noted. A number of states have since monitored rainfall individually. Leland, in 1952, released data from New York covering 18 years. Average 12 yearly depostion of S was 48 lb/acre. This was an increase of 22 lb/acre when compared to earlier work and was attributed to an increase in rainfall. Kentucky reported a statewide annual average of 12.6 lb/acre of S from precipitation (Seay, 1957).. Wisconsin researchers measured an overall average of 30 kg/ha (27 lb/acre) of S deposited from precipitation annually (Hoeft, ESE" 1972). They noted that 3 emissions from industrial sources could not be measured beyond 10 km (6.2 mi) from the source. Although this amount of S would be sufficient for cr0p growth, it was possible that some of it was lost since much of the S deposition occurred in the winter and was subject to runoff if spring rains came before the soil thawed. Tabatabai and Laflan (1976) determined that 12 to 15 kg/ha (11 to 13 lb/acre) was deposited annually in Iowa. This was the same amount as was measured 50 years ago. Cressman (1961) analyzed precipitation in five counties in Michigan over a two year period. Depositions of elemental S ranged from 7.5 to 13.1 lb/acre annually. Richardson and Merva (1976) in Michigan determined that rural areas received an average of 18 kg/ha (l6 lb/acre) of S annually and urban areas received 68 kg/ha (61 lb/acre). Sulfur content of Michigan river water ranged from 4.5 to 75.6 lb/acre foot (Robertson, g 31., 1976). The average of 13 rivers was 33.5 lb of S/acre foot. The Sulphur Institute analyzed river water in the western United States (1975). The average S content was 50 lb/acre foot. The S content was lowest at the source while drainage from agricultural areas increased the S content downstream. Sulfur in precipitation is an important source of this essential element however, 802 in the atmosphere is also available for plant use. Attempts have been made to determine the amount of 802 in polluted and l3 unpolluted environments. Measurements in Hawaii and Florida detected 0.7 mg/m3 (.266 ppm) of S as $02 in an unpolluted atmosphere (Eriksson, 1963). Junge (1960) measured up to 3 mg/m3 (1.14 ppm) Of S in a polluted atmosphere. Fried (1948) used radioactive S as a tracer to determine the fate Of atmospheric S in the plant. He concluded that 802 from the atmosphere can be taken up by plants and converted to organic S compounds. The amount of 802 utilized is dependent on the 8 status Of the plant (Olsen, 1957). Healthy cotton plants obtained 30% Of their S from the atmosphere whereas S deficient plants absorbed 50% Of their S as $02 from the atmosphere. Other researchers reported that plants in the greenhouse obtained as much as 732 Of their total S from the atmosphere (Hoeft, 35 El“, 1972). Maugh (1979) also came tO this conclusion but 802 in the atmosphere was inadequate as the sole source Of S. Sulfur dioxide can enter leaf stomata directly or be absorbed by moisture on the leaves .(Terman, 1978). However, the primary factor controlling $02 absorption by plants is the degree Of stomatal Opening (Spedding, 1969). High humidity will Open the stomata more to allow increased respiration. Other factors increasing the absorption Of atmospheric.302 by vegetation include increased wind velocity above the plants, height Of the canOpy and temperature (Hill, 1971). EXPERIMENTAL METHODS. Field Studies Sites for the field studies were chosen on the basis Of a preliminary analysis of the surface soil for sulfate-sulfur (804-8). In addition to having the surface soil contain less than 8 ppm SO4-S, most Of the sites also fulfilled the additional requirements Of being sandy and low in organic matter. Sites were selected in seven counties in Michigan (Table 1). A randomized complete block experimental design with four to six replications per site was used. The three sources Of 3 used were ammonium thiosulfate (122 N, 262 S), ammonium sulfate (21% N, 242 S) and gypsum (162 S). Additional nitrogen fertilizer was added in order to prevent nitrogen from being a variable. All experiments were performed in 1981. A short description Of each site and the treatments applied to them follows. Soybeans in Barry County were planted with a drill in seven inch rows. Ammonium sulfate was the S source and the treatments were 0, 15, 30 and 45 pounds Of 8 per acre and was not incorporated. TO distinguish between an N response and an S response, nitrogen only plots were established with rates Of N equal to that provided from the S source. Ammonium nitrate (34% N) was used at 0, 13, 26 and 39 pounds Of N per acre with no additional N fertilizer provided by the farmer. NO 14 15 Table 1. Location of sites, soil series and crOp(s) grown. County Location from Lansing, MI Soil series- CrOp grown Barry 35 miles west -- soybeans Branch 70 miles southwest -- corn Ionia 25 miles northwest Miami-Owosso navy beans Jackson 35 miles south Arkport . corn Montcalm 40 miles northwest MontcalmrMcBride cranberry beans Saginaw 45 miles northwest Charity corn, soybeans Washtenaw 30 miles southwest Spinks corn 16 irrigation was used. The experiment was replicated six times at this site but yields were harvested from only two replications. Corn at the Branch County site was planted in thirty inch rows and was irrigated with a center pivot system. Gypsum and ammonium sulfate were applied as 0, 15, 30 and 45 pounds of S per acre and was plowed down. Urea (46% N) was added to the gypsum treatments to provide N at the same rate as provided to the ammonium sulfate treatments. Where ammonium sulfate was used at the rate of 45 pounds Of S per acre, 39 pounds per acre Of N was added. All treatments were brought to this level Of N by the addition Of ammonium nitrate. The farmer supplied an additional 220 lb/acre of actual N. The experiment was replicated five times. Navy beans at the Ionia County site were planted in thirty inch rows and were irrigated with a center pivot system. Ammonium sulfate was applied at O, 15, 30 and 45 pounds of S per acre and was not incorporated. Nitrogen only plots were again used at rates Of 0, 13, 26 and 39 pounds Of N per acre from ammonium nitrate to compensate for the N added from ammonium sulfate. The farmer supplied an additional 50 lb/acre Of actual N. The experiment was replicated six times. Jackson County corn was supplied with S from both ammonium sulfate and gypsum at 0, 15, 30 and 45 pounds Of S per acre and was incorporated only by the action Of the planter. Ammonium nitrate and urea were added to establish a uniform rate Of N Of 39 pounds per acre as was discussed for Branch County. The farmer supplied an additional 131 1b/acre Of actual N. The row spacing was thirty inches and no irrigation was used. The experiment was replicated six times. Cranberry beans in Montcalm County were planted in twenty-eight 17 inch rows. Sulfur was provided as gypsum and ammonium sulfate at 0, 15, 30 and 45 pounds Of S per acre and was incorporated with secondary tillage implements. Ammonium nitrate was added to the plots to provide uniform N application over the entire site.- The farmer supplied an additional 100 lb/acre Of actual N. Irrigation was provided through a travelling gun system. The experiment was replicated six times. Corn in Saginaw County was planted in twenty-eight inch rows and received applications Of gypsum and ammonium sulfate at 0, 15, 30 and 45 pounds Of S per acre and was incorporated with a harrow. Ammonium nitrate and urea were used to standardize the N rate. A total Of 150 lb/acre of actual N was applied. No irrigation was used. The experiment was replicated four times. Soybeans in Saginaw County were planted in twenty-eight inch rows. The source Of S was ammonium thiosulfate with rates of 0, 5, 10 and 20 pounds Of S per acre. A nitrogen solution (28% N) was used to make the N rates constant across the site. An additional 25 lb/acre of actual N was supplied to the crOp in a band to the side and below the seed. Irrigation was not used. The experiment was replicated four times. Washtenaw County corn was planted in thirty-eight inch rows. Ammonium sulfate and gypsum were applied at O, 15, 30 and 45 pounds Of 8 per acre and was not incorporated. Urea and ammonium nitrate were used tO make the N rates uniform over the entire site. The farmer supplied an additional 185 lb/acre actual N. A center pivot irrigation system was used. The experiment was replicated five times. Sulfur fertilizer was hand broadcast at all locations except at the Saginaw County site where soybeans were planted. Application was made either shortly before or shortly after planting. Soybeans in 18 Saginaw County received a banded application Of ammonium thiosulfate to the side and below the seed at planting time. Plots were Observed throughout the growing season. Visual differences among the plots were noted on only.two occasions. On August 20, 1981 it was possible to pick out the zero pounds per acre Of S plots (check plots) at the Branch County site. Husks and stalks were yellow and the leaves showed a mild striping. When the Jackson County plots were visited to collect tissue samples (July 24, 1981) it was noted that the check plots exhibited a general yellowing with some striping. However, these differences had disappeared by the time the plots were checked on August 20, 1981. Plant tissue samples were collected and analyzed for total S. The leaf below the ear leaf Of corn (referred tO as ear leaf in figures and tables) was sampled at tasselling. Bean crOps were sampled during early flowering, taking the most recently matured trifoliate. Yield data was collected at the end Of the growing season. Dates at which plant tissue samples were collected and harvest occurred are found in Table 2. Laboratory Studies Once the site had been characterized as potentially sulfur deficient, soil samples were collected to a depth Of 40 to 42 inches at all locations except Saginaw County. Samples were dried in a forced air dryer and crushed to pass a 10 mesh sieve. Sulfate-S analysis was performed by extracting the soil with a solution of 500 ppm phosphorus in 2 N acetic acid (Liegel, ESE" 1980). Charcoal was added tO the soil-extract mixture tO clear the solution. After filtering the mixture, equal volumes of the filtrate and a barium chloride-gum 19 Table 2. Plant tissue sampling and harvest dates. County CrOp Plant tissue Yield Barry soybeans 7/31/81 10/31/81 Branch corn 7/24/81 10/29/81 Ionia navy beans 7/15/81 9/23/81 Jackson corn 7/24/81 10/13/81 Montcalm cranberry beans 7/14/81 9/9/81 Saginaw corn 7/20/81 10/7/81 Saginaw soybeans 7/9/81 10/11/81 Washtenaw corn 7/17/81 10/8/81 20 arabic-acetic acid solution were transferred to a test tube. Air was bubbled through the solution to assure uniform mixing. The turbid solutions were analyzed on a Bausch and Lamb spectrOphotometer at 420 nm (millimicrons) and compared to standard solutions. Surface samples were analyzed for organic matter (0. M.) content on a Leco carbon analyzer. Soil pH was determined from a 1:1 soil to water solution on a Sargent-Welch pH meter. A nitric-perchloric acid digest was used to analyze the plant samples for total S (Blanchar, st 31., 1965). An aluminum heating block 'with a fume hood and scrubber was used for the digestion. .After digestion, an aliquot Of a salt buffer solution was added to the sample and brought tO a constant volume. Barium chloride crystals were added and the solution was stirred. The turbid solution was analyzed on a spectrOphotometer as above. For complete analytical procedures, see Appendix A. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9.91.12 Results Of the soil analyses are displayed in Table 3. All the experimental sites except Branch County have higher SO4-S concentrations in the subsurface than in the surface. Humid region soils may contain large amounts Of hydrated oxides Of iron and aluminum. Sulfates are adsorbed by these oxides and may accumulate in the illuviated horizon (Beaton, 3331., 1974). However, this situation is found more Often in trOpical soils and may not be a factor in the soils involved in this study. Also, 804 is a very mobile ion and may easily leach from the surface soil since most Of the sites were sandy. Both Of these factors can contribute tO an increased 804-8 concentration in the subsurface. Use Of a soil 304-8 analysis as a reliable index Of S available for plant growth has been questioned. This uncertainty ranges through all phases Of the analysis, from sampling the soil to the actual chemical reaction that occurs during the analysis. TO begin with, how deep should the sample be taken? Plant roots are not restricted to the upper eight inches Of soil, a common sampling depth for soil analysis. Roots may tap the SO), reserves Of the subsurface to fulfill the S requirements Of the plant. The 804 ion is also very mobile; its concentration in the soil is dependent on the relative amounts Of rainfall and evapotranspiration. Sampling the surface Of a sandy soil shortly after a heavy rain will not accurately reflect the S status Of 21 22 Table 3. Soil analysis data for each experimental site. County Depth ppm 804-8 1 pH ZO.M. (inches) Barry 0-9 6 6.1 3.02 9-18 9 6.9 18-27 23 7.9 27-40 12 7.5 Branch 0-8 2 6.6 3.72 8-16 2 5.9 18-27 1 5.6 27-40 2 5.5 Ionia 0-9 4 5.9 1.95 9-18 14 5.6 18-27 10 6.0 27-40 11 5.9 Jackson 0-8 4 6.0 1.88 8-18 8 5.8 18-30 14 5.6 30-42 12 5.2 Montcalm 0-9 3 6.3 1.95 9-18 8 5.8 18-27 12 5.6 27-40 10 5.6 Saginaw corn 0-8 3 7.7 4.30 soybeans 0-8 0 7.7 4.30 Washtenaw 0-9 2 6.4 1.48 9-18 2 6.2 18-27 3 6.2 27-40 5 5.9 23 that soil. Analysis involves extracting the soil with a calcium phosphate extraction solution. Sulfate 1; not as strongly bound as P04 and is replaced by P04. However, P04 is present in excess and the extent tO which it interferes with the BaClz reaction is not known. The BaSO4 precipitate which is formed results in the solution turning milky, a condition referred to as turbid. Variations in temperature are known to affect the amount of turbidity produced. Retaining homogeneity Of the turbid solution also may be difficult as the BaSO4 precipitate eventually settles out Of solution. The problems and technique involved in analysis Of soil samples for 804-8 resulted in a colleague describing the analysis as more Of an art than a science. Yields Statistical analysis Of the yield data determined that no significant yield increases were Obtained at the 51 level at any experimental site. Tables Of means for the interactiOn effects between rate Of 8 applied and source of S are presented in Appendix B. Although yield differences between treatments were Observed, neither the main effects nor the interaction effects were significant. There were a number Of instances where the zero treatments had the highest yield or had only one yield unit less than the highest yield for that site. This situation was observed for both gypsum and ammonium sulfate in Montcalm County, gypsum on corn and ammonium thiosulfate on soybeans in Saginaw County and ammonium sulfate in Washtenaw County. These sites were four Of five which tested the lowest in 804-8 concentration. This is additional evidence pointing to the lack Of a reliable soil test for S. 24 Plant S Content Figures 1 through 8 are graphical representations Of the effect of increasing rates Of S or N plus S on the S content Of the plant. Tables Of the plotted data are presented in Appendix C. Before beginning the discussion of each site, it should be pointed out that none of the recorded plant S content values for corn, navy beans or soybeans indicate a deficiency in the plant. Sufficiency ranges have been established for these three crOps (University Of Wisconsin, 1980). The sufficiency range for corn is from .16 to .50 ZS and for soybeans and navy beans, the range is .21 to .40 28. NO data was available for cranberry beans. There was nO significant difference in plant 8 content due to application Of ammonium sulfate when compared to ammonium nitrate in Barry County (Figure 1). Only at the highest rate Of ammonium sulfate did plant S content exceed that of plants treated with ammonium nitrate. Significant differences were Observed in plant S Content due to the increasing rate of application when averaged over both fertilizers. With no differences between fertilizers, this response seems to be due to increasing N rate. There were no significant differences in plant S content when comparing S sources in Branch County (Figure 2). Gypsum and ammonium sulfate are essentially equal in their ability to provide S tO the plant. There is an increase in S content at the 45 lb Of S/acre rate averaged over both sources however this increase is not statistically significant. Even with low 804 levels to a depth of 40 inches, S application had no effect on plant S content. The site was sandy and low in organic 25 .auczou accmm c_ mcmmnxdm mo pcopcoo m mammpp weep co cowuoo__aam m mz—Q z ecu 2 mo pummem mm mu _ whcmzz razozzcmlé what-Sm 5.3202th 1 Hana mm... ou—mmmc 2 mo wozaom mu mom. mom. c—m. N—m. v—m. m—m. mam. own. .H mczmwm LUKUUZH (DD—H.530: 26 we .auczoo nocmcm cw :Loo mo ucoucoo m temp new co acreage—mam m eo powemm wmuc mum ow~4mmc znquw mo mozzom on w— o _ _ 3:52.. 2: m 2925. min =3wm>¢arlh .N acumen own. new. on“. m n mam. 4 q— w emu. » m. 8“. o x w com. m mom. cum. 27 matter so leaching and lack of mineralization would be expected to contribute to a S response. Two factors may play a part in explaining the lack Of response. This site was irrigated. Sufficient S may have been provided through the irrigation water. .This site was also in a northeasterly direction from Gary, Ind., a highly industrialized city. Winds from the southwest may have blown S emissons from Gary toward Branch County. High levels of sulfur dioxide ($02) in the air and high 804 levels in rainfall could have contributed sufficient amounts Of S for adequate plant growth. The presence Of S in ammonium sulfate did significantly increase the S content Of navy beans when compared to ammonium nitrate in Ionia County (Figure 3). Although there was an increase in 8 content, this did not result in a significant yield increase. An increase of the S content Of the plant without a corresponding increase in yield is indicative Of luxury consumption, which is known to occur with S in plants. Increasing the rate of fertilizer did not have a significant effect on the 8 content Of the plant. Both gypsum and ammonium sulfate showed significant increases in plant S content with increased rates Of S application in Jackson County' (Figure 4). Ammonium sulfate was consistently a better source of S than gypsum. Again there was not a yield increase even though the plant content increased. Significant increases in plant 8 content due to increasing rates Of S application were evident in Montcalm County (Figure 5). Although there were differences between gypsum and ammonium sulfate as sources Of S, these differences between sources were not significant. IAgain there was nO yield increase even though there was an increase in plant S 28 .xpcsou mwcoH c? meson >>me mo “coucoo m mammwu asap :0 cowpmowpaaw m mz~a 2 use 2 mo uommmm uzuc mum ou~4mm¢ 2 mo mozzom mm ON — mu . ‘---‘- --‘--- SSSOSDS we. am; ‘3 O'DSSSUQ abuzz: zazczzcfilfi uhquaw :auzozzm—I I emu. mmN. com. mom. o—m. mum. ‘ on»: .m mczmwm QUKQUZI- (DD—ILLDK 29 .xpcsou comxome cw area we ucmucoo m vamp cam co :o_pmo_—aam m mo pommmu .e mc:m_m mxuc mum emuammc mammam me mezaem w¢ on ma e _ _ eeu. euu. euu. emu. ewu. emu. QUKQUZU- congress: 33.5w .==_zo=§a.-.u 1 8w. \\\ :D”L>°I 1 ehu. 3O ucuc mum ew~4mmc mameew me wezeem m. 8 B o b _ b1 r. x we 8.. lids HES” 5.22.531... r .5231 .xpczoe armoucoz cw memos accmncmau mo pcmucoo m mammwp emwp co co_umowpaqm m we pummem mmu. emu. weu. emu. mhu. eeu. .m acumen mUKUUZI— (DD—llLDK 31 content. Corn in Saginaw County showed significant increases in plant S content due to increased rate Of S application (Figure 6). From the graph it can be seen that neither gypsum nor ammonium sulfate was significantly better in providing S for plant use. Again there is no connection between increased plant S content and increased yield. Increased rates of ammonium thiosulfate on soybeans in Saginaw County resulted in a significant increase in plant S content (Figure 7). Although analysis of the surface soil indicated that no SO4-S was present, the soil was heavy and contained 4.32 organic matter. Adsorption Of $04 to the clay at greater depths and mineralization Of the organic matter are possible sources Of S in addition tO the fertilizer. Significant differences between gypsum and ammonium sulfate were Observed in Washtenaw County (Figure 8). Gypsum was a consistently better 3 source than ammonium sulfate. A significant increase in plant S content was Observed for each successive increment Of S applied. These dramatic increases however, did not result in a yield increase. A summary of the information provided above can be found in Table 4. The lack Of yield response was disappointing although not entirely unexpected. Only once in the history of S research in Michigan has a yield response occurred. Sulfur contained in the supplemental fertilizer may not have been the only source Of 8 available to the plant. Fertilizer applied by the farmer may have contained S as an inpurity. A number Of sites were irrigated. Significant amounts of S may have been provided by the 32 we .xoczoe zmcwmmm cw ccoo mo ucmpcou m emwp Lao co coaumow_qqo m mo pomemm wee: cum ew—mmm: mangee me wezeem on mu m _ h-----:..:-:-.. --..--......-a .. 8.3.. uhcufiam. z: _ zezzc azim— r sewn—re I .e mcsmwm euu. w—u. n euu m 4 e e euu. h z w OmN. z u m emu. ewu. 33 cu .xpcaoe emcwmmm cw mcmwnxom mo ucmpcoo m mammwu weep co cowumuwpaam m mo pummem mun: mum eu~4mm¢ mammee me mezaem e— _ m _ whcmqemeurh zeuzezzccrlh .N mcamwm emu. eeu. n emu m .4 e m emu. h z w can. a u m men. age. 34 .xpcsou zmcmpcmmz er :coo mo pcmpcou m asap Lem co cowpmo__aam m mo pummeu uzuc mum ewuqmmc memdem me eezeem we 8 2 o _ — p1 SSSSU| 8.8.. LESS zazozzc min 1 genie I .m meamwm euu. evu. A emu m .4 e m emu. h z w 00m. x u m eum. eve. 35 Table 4. Summary Of significant differences at LSD.05 in plant 8 content data. County Source Rate+ Barry n.s. * Branch n.s. n.s. Ionia * n.s. Jackson * * Montcalm n.s. * Saginaw corn n.s. * soybeans -- * Washtenaw * * + Rate is significant over both sources. 36 irrigation water during the growing season. Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere also provides S to the plant. It has been shown in previous work that the 8 status of the soil will determine the amount Of $02 utilized by the plant. Depressed soil levels enhance the use Of $02 by plants until the soil supply has been replenished. The combination Of $04 in the 8011, $02 in the atmosphere and $04 in rainfall and irrigation water may combine to provide adequate S for the plant, making the application Of supplemental S unnecessary. SUMMARY Significant yield increases were not Obtained at any of the eight experimental sites in Michigan when supplemental S was applied although yield differences were Observed. Differences in plant S content due to increasing rate Of fertilizer application were Observed in Barry, Jackson, Montcalm, Saginaw and Washtenaw Counties. Differences in the ability of fertilizers to provide S to the plant were significant in Ionia-J, Jackson and Washtenaw Counties. Branch County, which had the lowest soil analysis for S, did not produce a significant difference in either category. Research in 1981 failed to demonstrate a need for supplemental S application to corn, soybeans and dry edible beans in Michigan. 37 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Analytical Methods Soil Analysis (Liegel, £5 21., 1980) Extracting Solution (500 ppm P in 2.N_acetic acid): Dissolve 2.03 g Of Ca(H2PO4)2'H20 in 800 ml Of distilled water. Add 115 ml of glacial acetic acid and dilute to one liter. BaClz-Gum Arabic-HOAc: Dissolve 5 g Of gum arabic in 500 ml Of hot water. Filter if cloudy. Add 50 g Of BaClz°2H20 and 450 ml of glacial acetic acid and dilute tO one liter. Activated Charcoal: B011 20 g Of charcoal in 200 ml 6 N HCl for 10 ininutes. Filter under suction and wash until free Of chloride. Dry in an oven. Standard S Solution (100 ppm S): Dissolve 0.544 g Of oven-dried K2304 in 500 ml of water. Add 10 ml Of glacial acetic acid as a preservative and dilute tO one liter. P Solution for Standards (2000 ppm P in 8 N HOAc): Dissolve 8.12 g Of Ca(H2PO4)2'H20 in 500 m1 Of water. Add 460 ml Of glacial acetic acid and dilute to one liter. Working S Standards (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ppm 8): Transfer 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ml Of standard S solution to 100 ml volumetric flasks. Add 25 ml Of the P solution for standards and dilute to 100 ml. Procedure: Weigh 10 g of soil into a 50 ml flask. Add 25 ml Of extracting solution and 0.1 g of activated charcoal. Shake for 15 38 39 minutes and filter through Whatman NO. 2 filter paper. Transfer 10 ml Of filtrate to a 50 ml test tube. Add to this 10 ml of the BaClz-Gum Arabic-HOAc solution and bubble for 5 seconds. Read the turbid solution on a spectrOphotometer at the 420 nm setting. A set Of standards must be run with each batch Of samples. Pour 25 ml Of each standard into an extraction flask and add charcoal. Throughout the rest Of the procedure, treat the standards the same as the samples. Plant Analysis (Blanchar, £231., 1965) Buffer Solution: In turn dissolve 40 g of MgCl2'6H20, 4.1 g Of CH3COONa and 0.83 g Of KNO3 nitrate in 800 ml of distilled water. Add 28 ml Of 952 ethanol and dilute to one liter. Standard S Solution (1000 ppm S): Dissolve 5.44 g of oven-dried K2804 in water and dilute to one liter. Working S Standards (10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 ppm S): Transfer 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 ml of Standard S Solution to one'liter volumetric flasks. TO each flask add 500 ml of water, 200 ml of buffer solution and 20 ml of perchloric acid and dilute to one liter. Procedure: Dry the plant tissue and grind it to pass a forty mesh screen. Weigh 0.50 g of sample into a digestion tube. Add two glass beads and 3 ml Of nitric acid. Put a glass funnel in the mouth of the tube and allow to stand overnight. Add 2 ml Of 60 to 702 perchloric acid through the funnel. Preheat the digestion block to 150C and digest for one hour. Remove the tubes from the holes and place them on top Of the block beside the holes in contact with the hot block. Raise the temperature to 235C and insert the tubes in the block. Digest for two hours. Remove the tubes from the block and allow them to cool. Remove 40 the funnels. Add 1 ml of HCl and digest for 20 minutes at 1500. Remove the tubes from the block and allow them to cool. Add 35 ml Of distilled ‘water and.10 ml Of buffer solution. Bring the sample to a final volume of 50 ml with distilled water. Filter into glass bottles through Whatman NO. 2 filter paper. A single sample is placed on a magnetic stirrer and allowed to come tO a constant state. Add 0.30 g of 20 to 30 mesh BaC12 crystals and stir for one minute. Remove the solution from the stirrer and read the turbid solution on a spectrOphotometer set on 420 nm exactly two minutes after adding the BaClz. Readings are compared to standard solutions which are run with each group Of samples. APPENDIX B Yield Data 41 Table Bl. Yield data for soybeans in Barry County.* N Rate Ammonium Sulfate .Ammonium Nitrate (lb N/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 0 51 49 13 52 53 26 52 54 39 53 52 * Average Of 2 replications. Table B2. Yield data for corn in Branch County.* 8 Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) O 138 125 15 145 142 30 149 137 45 135 139 * Average of 5 replications. 42 Table B3. Yield data for navy beans in Ionia County.* N Rate Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate (lb N/acre) (cwt/acre) ' (cwt/acre) O 26.8 25.2 13 27.3 27.8 26 29.3 26.7 39 25.5 27.4 * Average Of 6 replications. Table B4. Yield data for corn in Jackson County.* 8 Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 0 123 121 15 118 119 30 128 124 45 124 122 * Average of 6 replications. 43 Table BS. Yield data for cranberry beans in Montcalm County.* S Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (cwt/acre) ' (cwt/acre) 0 21.7 22.0 15 20.4 20.5 30 20.3 19.9 45 19.7 20.0 * Average Of 6 replications. Table B6. Yield data for corn in Saginaw County.* S Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 0 133 122 15 134 127 30 126 130 45 134 128 * Average of 4 replications. 44 Table B7. Yield data for soybeans in Saginaw County.* S Rate Ammonium Thiosulfate (lb S/acre) (bu/acre) 0 63 5 61 10 60 20 58 * Average of 4 replications. Table B8. Yield data for corn in Washtenaw County.* 8 Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 0 83 85 15 85 81 30 83 86 45 87 83 * Average Of 5 replications. APPENDIX C Plant Sulfur Content Data 45 Table Cl. Leaf tissue S content for soybeans in Barry County.* N Rate Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate (1b N/acre) (ZS) (ZS) 0 .309 .311 13 .308 .312 26 .311 .311 39 .318 .316 LSD,05 .009 * Average Of 6 replications. Table C2. Ear leaf S content for corn in Branch County.* S Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (ZS) (IS) 0 .282 .286 15 .278 .290 30 .284 .284 45 .307 .290 LSD.05 .024 * Average Of 5 replications. 46 Table C3. Leaf tissue 8 content for navy beans in Ionia County.* N Rate Ammonium Sulfate Ammonium Nitrate (lb N/acre) (ZS) ‘ (ZS) 0 .300 .303 13 .313 .295 26 .307 .299 39 .312 .300 LSD.05 .010 * Average Of 6 replications. Table C4. Ear leaf 8 content for corn in Jackson County.* S Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (ZS) (ZS) 0 .201 .209 15 .223 .230 30 .239 .249 45 .245 .270 LSD,05 .017 * Average Of 6 replications. 47 Table C5. Leaf tissue S content for cranberry beans in Montcalm County.* S Rate Gypsum I Ammonium Sulfate (1b S/acre) (ZS) (ZS) O .257 .259 15 .258 .266 30 .266 .274 45 .268 .267 * Average Of 6 replications. Table C6. Ear leaf 8 content for corn in Saginaw County.* 8 Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (ZS) (ZS) 0 .219 .211 15 .222 .225 30 .230 .225 45 .231 .237 LSD,05 .012 * Average Of 4 replications. 48 Table C7. Leaf tissue S content for soybeans in Saginaw County.* S Rate Ammonium Thiosulfate (lb S/acre) ' (ZS) 0 .287 5 .295 10 .294 20 .303 LSD.05 .009 * Average Of 4 replications. Table C8. Ear leaf 8 content for corn in Washtenaw County.* S Rate Gypsum Ammonium Sulfate (lb S/acre) (ZS) (ZS) 0 .236 .233 15 .263 .249 30 .302 .270 45 .332 .288 LSD.05 .029 * Average Of 5 replications. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alway, F. J., A. W. Marsh and W. J. Methley. 1937. Sufficiency Of atmospheric sulfur for maximum crop yields. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 2:229-238. Alway, F. J. 1940. A nutrient element slighted in agricultural research. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 32:913-921. Anderson, 0. E. and R. H. Webster. 1959. The availability Of sulfur in NOrfOLd.loamy sand and Leadvale silt loam as measured by cotton growth. Agron. J. 51:675-677. Bardsley, C. E. and H. V. Jordan. 1957. Sulfur availability in seven southeastern soils as measured by growth and composition of white clover. Agron. J. 49:310-312. Bardsley, C. E. 1960. Absorption Of sulfur from organic and inorganic sources by bush beans. Agron. J. 52:485-486. Bardsley, C. E. and.V3 J. Kilmer. 1963. Sulfur supply of soils and crop yields in the southeastern United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:197-199. Barnes, E. E. 1956. S-U-L-F-U-R is an important plant food element. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Farm Home Res. 8111. 41:86-87. Beaton, J. D. and R. L. Fox. 1971. Production, marketing, and use of sulfur products. pp. 335-380. In R. A. Olson, T. J. Army, J. J. Hanway and V. J. Kilmer (eds.). Fertilizer Technology and Use. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Madison, Wisc. Beaton, J. D., D. W. Bixby, S. L. Tisdale and J. S. Platou. 1974. Fertilizer sulphur, status and potential in the U. S. Tech. Bul. NO. 21. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D. C. Bertramson, B. R., M. Fried and S. L. Tisdale. 1950. Sulfur studies of Indiana soils and crops. Soil Sci. 70:27-40. 49 50 Blanchar, R. W., G. Rehm and A. C. Caldwell. 1965. Sulfur in plant materials by digestion with nitric and perchloric acid. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29:71-72. Brown, P. E. and E. H. Kellogg. 1915. Sulfur and permanent soil fertility in Iowa. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 7:97-108. Burmester, C. 11., F. Adams and R. L. Haaland. 1981. Effects Of nitrogen and sulfur fertilizers on sulfur content Of tall fescue and phalaris. Agron J. 73:614-618. Caldwell. A. C., E. C. Seim and G. W. Rehm. 1969. Sulfur effects on the elemental composition Of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and corn (Zea mays LO). Agron. JO 61:632-634. Conrad, J. P. 1941. Retention by soils of the sulfur Of various compounds as revealed by subsequent plant growth. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 33:37-46. Conrad, J. P., H. L. Hall and B. A. Chaugule. 1947. Sulfur fertilization of legumes in the Upper Ojai Valley, California, and the resulting effects on the following nonlegumes. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 12:275-277. Conrad, J. P. 1950. Sulfur fertilization in California and some related factors. Soil Sci. 70:43-54. Cressman, H. K. 1961. Sources of sulfur for crop plants in Michigan and its effects on their growth and composition. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University. Cressman, H. K. and J. F. Davis. 1962. Sources of sulfur for crop plants in Michigan and effect Of sulfur fertilization on plant growth and compostion. Agron. J. 54:341-344. Crocker, W. 1923. The necessity of sulfur carriers in artificial fertilizers. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 15:129-141. Crowther, C. and D. W. Steuart. 1913. The distribution Of atmospheric impurities in the neighbourhood of an industrial city. J. Agric. 8C1. 5:391‘4070 Duley, F. L. 1916. The relation Of sulfur to soil productivity. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 8:154-160. Erdman, L. W. 1922. The sulfur content of rainwater. Soil Sci. 14:363-367. 51 Erdman, L. W. 1923. The effect of gypsum on Iowa soils. Soil Sci. 15:137-155. Ekiksson, E. 1952. Composition of atmospheric precipitation. Tellus 4:280-296. Eriksson, E. 1963. The yearly circulation of sulfur in nature. J. Geophys. Res. 68:4001-4008. Fried, M. 1948. The absorption of sulfur dioxide by plants as shown by the use Of radioactive sulfur. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 13:135-138. Greaves, J. E. and D. H. Nelson. 1925. The iron, chlorine, and sulfur contents of grains and the influence Of irrigation water upon them. Soil Sci. 19:325-330. Greaves, J. E. and W. Gardner. 1929. Is sulfur a limiting factor of crop production in some Utah soils? Soil Sci. 27:445-457. Harris,li. C., R. W. Bledsoe amd P. W. Calhoun. 1945. Responses Of cotton tO sulfur fertilization. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 37:323-329. Harward, M. E., T. T. ChaO and S. C. Fang. 1962. The sulfur status and sulfur supplying power Of Oregon soils. Agron. J. 54:101-106. Hill, A. C. 1971. Vegetation: A sink for atmospheric pollutants. J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 21:341-346. Hoeft, R. G., D. R. Keeney and L. M. Walsh. 1972. Nitrogen and sulfur in precipitation and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere in Wisconsin. J. Environ. Qual. 1:203-208. Janssen, K. A. and M. L. Vitosh. 1974. Effect Of lime, sulfur, and molybdenum on N2 fixation and yield Of dark red kidney beans. Agron. J. 66:736-740. Johnson, E. M4 1924. Sulfur in rainfall in Kentucky. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 16:353-356. Jones, M. B. 1964. Effect of applied sulfur on yield and sulfur uptake Of various California dryland pasture species. Agron. J. 56:235-247. Jones, M. B. and J. E. Ruckman. 1966. Gypsum and elemental sulfur as fertilizers on annual grassland. Agron. J. 58:409-412. 52 Jones, M. B. and J. E. Ruckman. 1973. Long-term effects Of phosphorus, sulfur, and molybdenum on a subterranean clover pasture. Soil Sci. 115:343-348. Jones, U. S., H. P. Samonte and D. M. Jariel. 1982. Response of corn and inoculated legumes to urea, lime, phosphorus and sulfur on Guadalupe clay. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 46:328-331. Jordan, H. V. and C. E. Bardsley. 1958. Response Of crOps to sulfur on southeastern soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:254-256. Jordan, J. V. and G. 0. Baker. 1959. Sulfur studies in north Idaho soils using radiosulfur. Soil Sci. 88:1-6. Junge, C. E. 1960. Sulfur in the atmosphere. J. GeOphys. Res. 65:227-237. Kamprath, E. J., W. L. Nelson and J. W. Fitts. 1957. Sulfur removed from soils by field crOps. Agron. J. 49:289-293. Leland, E. 11. 1952. Nitrogen and sulfur in the precipitation Of Ithaca, NO YO Agron. JO 44:172-175. Liegel, E. A., C. Rm Simson and E. E. Schulte, editors. 1980. Wisconsin procedure for soil testing, plant analysis and feed and forage analysis. NO. 6 Soil Fertility Series, pp. 16-18. Department Of Soil Science, The University Of Wisconsin-Extension.. Lipman, C. B. and W. F. Gericke. 1918. The significance of the sulfur in sulfate of ammonia applied to certain soils. Soil Sci. 5:81-86. Lipman,.J. G., A. L. Prince and A. W. Blair. 1921. The influence of varying amounts Of sulfur in the soil, on crOp yields, hydrogen-din: concentration, lime requirement and nitrate formation. Soil Sci. 12:197-207. MacIntire, W. H. and J. B. Young. 1923. Sulfur, calcium, magnesium and potassium content and reaction Of rainfall at different points in Tennessee. Soil Sci. 15:205-227. Maugh, T. H. 1979. $02 pollution may be good for plants. Science 205:383. McCOOl, M. M. 1920. The use Of sulphur on soils. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Quaro BUlO 3:26-280 McCOOl, M. M. and C. E. Millar. 1924. Fertilizers-what they are and how to use them. Mich. Agr. Coll. Expt. Sta. Spec. Bul. NO. 133, pp. 4. 53 Neidig, R. E., G. R. McDOle and H. P. Magnuson. 1923. Effect of sulfur, calcium and phosphorus on the yield and compostion Of alfalfa on six types Of Idaho soils. Soil Sci. 16:127-136. Olsen, R. A. 1957. Absorption of sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere by cotton plants. Soil Sci. 84:107-111. Rand, E. E., D. R. Keeney and L. M. Walsh. 1969. Availability of and crap response to sulfur in Wisconsin. Wisc. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Rep. 52. Rehm, G. W. and A. C. Caldwell. 1968. Sulfur supplying capacity of soils and the relationship tO soil type. Soil Sci. 105:355-361. Rendig, V. V. 1956. Sulfur and nitrogen composition Of fertilized and unfertilized alfalfa grown on a sulfur deficient soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:237-240. Richardson, C. J. and G. E. Merva. 1976. The chemical composition Of atmospheric precipitation from selected stations in Michigan. Water, Air, Soil Poll. 6:385-393. Roberts, S. and F. E. Koehler. 1965. Sulfur dioxide as a source of sulfur for wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29:696-698. Robertson, L. S. and M. L. Vitosh. 1974. Recent field research an cash crOp yields as affected by supplemental sulfur. Mich. State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. R88. REP. 2650 Robertson, L. S., D. L. Mokma and D. D Warncke. 1975. Plant-available calcium, magnesium and sulfur levels in soils used for corn production in Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Rep. 286. Robertson, L. S., M. L. Vitosh and D. D. Warncke. 1976. Essential secondary elements: Sulfur. Mich. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bul. E-997. Seay, W. A. 1957. Sulfur contained in precipitation in Kentucky. Agron J. 49:453-454. Seim, E. C., A. C. Caldwell and G. W. Rehm. 1969. Sulfur response by alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) on a sulfur-deficient soil. Agron. J. 61:368-371. Spedding, D. J. 1969. Uptake Of sulphur dioxide by barley leaves at low sulphur dioxide concentrations. Nature 224:1229-1230. 54 Swanson, C. O. and R. W. Miller. 1917. The sulfur content Of some typical Kansas soils, and the loss of sulfur due to cultivation. Soil Sci. 3:139-148. Tabatabai, M. A. and J. M. Laflan. 1976. Nutrient content of precipitation over Iowa. water, Air, Soil Poll. 6:361-373. Terman, G. L. 1978. Atmospheric sulphur-The agronomic aspects. Tech. Bul. NO. 23. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D. C. The Sulphur Institute. 1975. Sulphur-the essential plant nutrient. Washington, D. C. Ulrich, A., M. A. Tabatabai, K. Ohki and C. M. Johnson. 1967. Sulfur content of alfalfa in relation to growth in filtered and unfiltered air. Plant Soil 26:235-252. University Of Wisconsin. 1980. Personal communication to V. W. Meints. Guidelines used by Univ. Wisc. Ext. Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory. VOlk, N. J., J. W. Tidmore and D. T. Meadows. 1945. Supplements to high-analysis fertilizers with special reference to sulfur, calcium, magnesium, and limestone. Soil Sci. 60:427-435. Wilson, B. D. 1921. Sulfur supplied to the soil in rainwater. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 13:226-229. Wilson, B. D. 1923. The quantity Of sulfur in rain water. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 15:453-456. Wilson, B. D. 1926. Nitrogen and sulfur in rainwater in New York. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 18:1108-1112. Younge, O. R. 1941. Sulfur deficiency and its effect on cotton ' production on coastal plain soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proca 6:215-218. GENERAL REFERENCES Beaton,.J. D., S. L. Tisdale and J. Platou. 1971. Crop responses to sulphur in North America. Tech. Bul. NO. 18. The Sulphur Institute. Washington, D. C. Crocker, W. 1945. Sulfur deficiency in soils. Soil Sci. 60:149-155. Gilbert, F. A. 1951. The place of sulfur in plant nutrition. Bot. Rev. 17:671-691. Mengel, K. and E. A Kirkby. 1979. Principles Of Plant Nutrition. International Potash Institute. Berne, Switzerland. Mortvedt, J. J. 1981. Identifying and correcting sulfur deficiencies in crOp plants. CrOps Soils, June-July, pp.11-14. 55 "IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII