. t ’
'? 2 ‘
'vf-9o
V ‘ ‘ Y-‘
eJ -
'5
?
, .
. , u. .A
V "1 4v;

v-3..-
‘1
-2

14‘ s.
. 2.3... my. ..
“Ravi...” V sf: .
.V fixwiuuuflmt V»? v .V A A V . A .
er.%....£_.aw. a. . A. . A AA V VA V A . V.
1 . xfl. A? I.» . u . VV . . .. A. A.A. V A . V ‘Vnn-u«fiv.|a.vt.n(
A i. . . V _ VA . . ....u.._....... V 2.... .

.

2.3:
w, A
r!

,.

. .
f" .

3:

’5

.7

.r
y»
I p . . I...
1 7:42..
1

1!
3s.

..

2ft.
sf; .
3.
.w.A

II “I a .-'

.g

u
I. r .
.. . 1
_ 0%.
vs\.‘ \zA Vttt .
. t. ..L “by...” u. a... 1R.
.«Vh I.-. 6......

‘8 .

l
O

..
V ...
V V Rummy:
A V .V

;'
55

I .L

daurhwu~$RV
£31)... v...

v3.33: 50.: . .

, v- .
:‘nr
9'9
12;-

§
as.

.
52
.Q

. ..
ifihuhe .

3

c

’E
"I.
5

i: {21‘ ‘
r
:3}:
.‘é

i

.g.

V ingrv, Affilcv 3L.
Tru‘rxivu oh.t§r.$vvea only
.5. . .V.. (X..- I-
.36 . v01... . ‘

‘ I

+
baht“? » LAX.

L§VFFF3%V.C3%G¥Z .. . .AVVHA... »

fab
«a v
' :r‘.

b

0*

1
ii

I:
‘5

A
m

a

$ri9vlvro'l .. V V V .
V72... ~Vttl+pavu§Jurll I; .. if! V A v u. .
.2 ..A m
~ . I w .. .
r. .1 . finne. ... vizflkr y... . .. .. n.3, w
3.9 I I f . .
13.3.1.2; . I». trauma"! 1K1. . _
.. .V $.th
v7.1.5 . cup.» 3.? n... V . ~ v Q . “MW“? V A . A V .. Vtizkyl «3413).- .. .
.7.£i . . . .. V . V .t V l. u . V . A
V V V. thumbnz. ..V $3. {£sz gm» . V .. «.43; $4§$szr
Vt 3.....3“... 7.... ..V .4 -
A. s . . V .
fit... A . :aflkflififidxumwehfik Emma e
4.3.5.3.. V. J». -21. . .VVV. .3 a... .
i... by. A .A V VVV .....p...mmw $3M“... g... .a A. {1.5. u. x t
. V 99 3 r .3 7.“ .
.3 . . Vilma ..4 a... $6. Vn._¥fiu‘nm.5.l w .33.. 13.4%... 5...: if .V
. 5V 5.3. 0.. Va. mwwupdmmué ..
V V. a. 2A
kn..§
A3. r: . . A
$3 $3“... w. . .A V . V. V A
.. . via—A. } ‘9a v..TITOL.Qs2 $3.;
fiflfifinafii ‘ V In». .{nuumuflflmfazfi
I . . . . tuit‘ liofiwa t. . . . I .w.‘ 06..» $545
42.4...

hrrvvrri‘.fifnflt.m
h A .21....
25- .AV? 111' I: v . . re
VI! .11. v. .x. 3...?kfl 50v AV.- \ u . A V
V 3h... V... a»... V... V... VVmfi«.Aa.m.VV.VVVAVMAVV.VAVVm.V.4.V .V. A A a?
. . , A ‘ v‘ . '... i n l ‘
. .5. 3. 33...“. Luna. t . HF: u§$fiwy .. .1. rhummm. ”avg. _
N f. . . 39“.“. r? v.11. u. . “Al V V 5:9!sz m o
A...‘ T . . 9? V ?A .
3»er u... (V13. V 14.5; . V i» finfifi} .1 V :A v . pl _ .V . . A 5 .~ V
ikritifattoéf i Q gypsum UP kw )0 . “9..“ I“! i
«til '46 Xflg‘e truth)“. 6 u. Vkume .rworuuu t: v A . V V v ‘ £40.54}. .- V.
n‘ ‘Ll . . V . . v ‘ V .
L . .7... $56... «33%.? . .V V tamntwt _ . A . new?
a. N .A: $7 . . . . «Ewfikmiv‘vflguo .
Jun... 1.“..- fioal. Q .oQXX 3.70 ‘11:! =
- .v I. 4..
9...... V .. have... V . V ...
v 3 A 2m . . A . A . an n: .Lu
mgfin V . V. V 29mm. :2»...
t 9 .A L to: i 3U‘cho
. V98... 4&9 . fir. .okg “.7. if: .'
12V .4 ..< . 7.1 )5 73.1. I. .‘V. N.
. rm$~£mf .zE. . A. 33w. .33... .22. V. . V.
9. Z . a... .. . l b.» $ 9V .|
. » V V I a 1.. V“
. L. .A.A V! 13%.. .A $14.15*
lh’u'miclv ..Vt‘i¢0~n§ V I r! A.L.I.rl~k V 969*. £0 viNmia .
. '1“; cl. V \ Oink...‘ A . . V 51. Aqua: . tm-Oo V1.9
. v :3 23.1.2: . .. . . A .A. ”Law“ a #591. v.3.kmfar fifiyfiv
JR. 5%. . gifiy. VV.

definVIPVI£V$ that: v.61.
. _ rt; .52. o... A
.. .efifi? nan; 29.5%.... .uwkvms .. V . twat? .heuhufi
of: . . .2. . V i»...y.1.t I. A
C [u .(vnr hurl.” ! .1... gab. . . . . é.flwfihfiwmtmvw tiniuhtibfi AM.
lt.§l§-fl§fl.fi V ”Walnut. .. V A 1m“: Qt «CmqV .rK {pédttv . "MV‘Nw-i
w. V .2 . . V r u” . . r.
.{uwsmwiamufi RWqfiu $5.955: . V . V V . I. V...A I. .v::. . «. ¢Y?u..umzm
gunefisz. 29%.... titaiiii V. «36:411.. awn“. . A V V . .A . A V . u $1-...
.44.? :2 A. . 3:3... . A A .A .A . V .. A . A V. s.
V a. 53.3.... .gfixmzifiwitfi ..:V.V.m...u.kt Am... A . A V A ifiiAVAéfiVVVV:
1... f. . V . A
.33 fink? 3...? VVwVAnms. a. V.
V x“ V; $.V.v.fi.2‘v:19§.uww?7r9rl.p 1 1.5
Ivtlv-v‘vz. In . n a N. . A! .
4. i..1VuHL.MWwQNYJL. hamfli vrasrvnrs..V.9-I‘VR. . CL 9!.
ZVV A. w
V . h ‘
fin“. 5.90... 9? ‘.r¥v..VWAAtOIev‘ A V A “59...!
wr‘v...5:§ 0...: . V . A J“... V. .. .11.. V .
V. . Y0"? V. A I.NT§¢LAMXMW‘§ 11L“? figsufiru‘! Why. . 0*
1-0. V . . . . A .II
I... V .9 .v ten. 1N»:- .. II. R? 151
gymfigfv. .1 V .V . . .‘m rt. 1 ‘Iiekv turn. . :11}? Vtuixc
. .~L~.Ll..mvhvv?vt hug V \‘rr: ‘51..» aW-PEA .33... H y L
1%. .0 '1! V A . qfidtknw 1‘. like: ntlfln‘ +
f. 1 v9 A T? . 515% 0.2 {3 gr. h
. 9.. V .gfiég. .42.», \«....k {gin-2C» r!
. . 9 . V... 011...? Ikibt u?¢&¢fimvfilfié up...
. . V “-9 T; Ira... .$ 11“... gm~f§oV
V A Juana? . . . V NE»... A V 2%.. « ..
I‘Lfltlcfli . .. . . A V . 2. h
. 9...: .. . . t~ . 91$”...
’3. $8,. . . #9.. V.
.9. fl..v.: . . 547.....7-55... A . A
.V. .Z . 9k row-anusfi..?3. . Qfim . d V . . .
fin~d§=fi.ti . A .‘fibfiévo 9i Lifdfrfrt. .h L23... Athflflflé V V V V .S
979... It”... .197”: 1...». . . awn-3.? .kkrflmnfiuvui re V‘uunufituvbt an"... obav‘nxgdbrf . a
v. V L 3!. A V. A A .5 56.3.. etifiatspalfyfvfluleafihzbn 3...}! .uHfiAWiV. 2...:
.Vyéxtxitlugkvfit s‘fib‘ 3v: .7: .12 ‘ .. 9 5; 5&3 A nil. .
IV. «nutlfio O’Halséuléc.fl.flm;hi}.l V».\§.<A..fiml..qn if. i. .Au
:2 it. 5.: éétl‘kth . . A 54.
:5.kusz V2”. . .L ia\:|6t§ .Bkliti‘QlL..I Li A g.
Nun”... .thmmuug 32.1.»..3... 25243.5?” V V 6......
Sun v: V V . ' Bu .. . V niprnla . i. “hull 5L. AVA
xvi-.33.?” It: . i ffiUw-flWWurh. mmvdxfitcvfififllévt‘. VA V. Lg... & I
I.” "um V {.EEI'; 0.th V b;2§.k. I
.grz‘al ‘Ntitlilfi
V 6t}: - Oil

..
f

’1 .n In. «*V
.hnHNvahfldflvxotf.)XHfi . Irv-:5 .3.
V . ...!|. {xiv V V I... 1:51. It! .
. . . #910,332.- L‘ufliz . . .
. . . . A flu“! KL. .‘l‘; pit.» lb
.V i CL 87.. rt .rrlk;:§r.
31.3 i. .2... .2; hmnnvz. 3.1.. :fi!2.2§..
Pitt’s. v: I I. A t. V . . A
a "ha-g. Iii... 1.93 . .V. V $3.. .5. 61in. 20g... . V V V A é: . I.“
u . xifis‘fizlpfis 33.8.0? 28.2.3. :2 5.11.1 . .. {It}
~. ”.58. V. V A 2!: Eu“. .. A . V (afttLrAAA
. A V V v I . v .
. . :kuMV-vmv‘vfl
00.9.9“. . V. %§
fillfifiifiv’vfiué1 fl».-
.. . if a. .
$2.3... 1.1.rvzigg

V .‘l... _
hi. Agflb ?fl_+zt

. V .. . AA . 2 v n. to..." {Afr‘ r4 9‘
. .. 105.1. #1 v1.4". 9 Va “'1 C? t .29.... O V
.et?.1ffivu.0am\wh~d.'avuh.l.¢»r¥7e vvfmmofilumfimvmki V :1 hLMmQ “Wraittic
V .9. w 7‘. . 9f!» .5. V A V I V
- “B . A 1 . IL u TD v ~
yAvsfivvltgvufl .17er 1.! 92103:..130vt‘v V l u .v {van ”Mt. .. . 621...... I. 9 hi: - 5?: a.
1..T..ovo.~.v(9. .V.AA 31.....évJ VV . . V. A V .. A...V...-V To}... 2.1.21.5: A . V 1...4:..A...?l\.f‘....

 

THESE;

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Effect of Rate and Placement of Phosphorus
and Potassium Fertilizers on Yield and Nutrient
Content of Beans, Cabbage, Carrot and Lettuce

presented by

Dario Ramon Alvarado

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. Soil Science

degree in

 

 

 

9

August 10, 1983

Major professor

Date

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE.RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

c»
a)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

EFFECT OF RATE AND PLACEMENT OF PHOSPHORUS
AND POTASSIUM FERTILIZERS ON YIELD AND NUTRIENT
CONTENT OF BEANS, CABBAGE, CARROT AND LETTUCE

by

Dario Ramon Alvarado

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Soil Science

1983

(y
9

(/7

ABSTRACT

The effects of rate and placement of phOSphorus and
potassium fertilizer application on field and composition
of snap beans, cabbage, carrot and lettuce were studied in
field and greenhouse experiments.

The field study was established on a Washtenaw silt
loam soil high in P and K. The soil used for the greenhouse
experiment was a P and K deficient Marlette fine sandy loam.

For both field and greenhouse experiments and for each
of the four crops, two rates of fertilization and three methods
of fertilizer placement were used. The fertilizer rates were:
one hundred percent of the recommendation based on soil
analysis and fifty percent of the recommendation. Fertilizer
placements used were: band, broadcast and plane.

In the field experiments, one-half of the fertilizer
rate applied in a plane was the most effective method and rate
for bean and carrot yields. This same rate applied banded
‘was the most effective treatment for cabbage.

Generally, the rates of fertilizer slightly increased
‘the concentration of K and tended to decrease the concentra—

1;ions of Ca and Mg in the leaves. No effects were observed

le P concentrations.

In the greenhouse experiments, plane placement of the

fertilizer at the recommended rate resulted in greatest

 

yields of cabbage and lettuce. The best yields of snap

beans and carrots were produced by the recommended rate «vch
applied in a band. For all the crops the band placement at

one—half rate produced only slightly lower yields than the

best treatments.

Generally, fertilizers increased the concentrations of
P and K and decreased the concentration of Ca and Mg in
shoots and roots. Phosphorus and potassium uptake was in-
creased by all rates of fertilizer application. Banded and
planed fertilizers produced higher P and K uptake than
broadcast.

One-half the recommended rate slightly increased the
soil P level in the soil. The recommended rate increased
the available P level by about one—fourth the amount of P
added by the fertilizer. Generally soil P in the checks
decreased after cropping.

The level of exchangeable K was increased by each level

of fertilizer application.

To my wife Susy.

To my children, Dario

DEDICATION

_Xavier, Juan Diego and Claudia Susana.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to his major professor Dr. D. D. Warncke for his interest and
patient guidance during the course of this investigation.

I Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. R. C. Herner and
Dr. V. W. Meints for assistance as guidance committee members
and their critical review of the manuscript.

The author's stay at Michigan State University was made
possible through financial assistance from the Instituto
Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias from Ecuador. Their

continuous support is gratefully acknowledged.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Phosphate fertilizers behavior in soils

Factors influencing phosphate°availability

Phosphorus deficiency symptoms . . . .

Pattern of nutrient uptake . . . . . .

Rates of fertilizer phosphorus and potassium

Placement of nitrogen with phosphorus
Placement of phosphorus with potassium

Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fertilizer potassium in the soil . . .
Deficiency symptoms . . . . . . . . .
Fertilizer Placement for vegetable crOps .
METHODS AND MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Field Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plant material . . . . . . . . . . . .

Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plant analyses . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

16
16
l8
18

19

Tables of Content.-—Cont.

Soil Analyses . . . . . . . . . . .
Greenhouse Procedure . . ... . . . . . .
Methods of Fertilizer Application .
Statistical Analyses . . . . . . .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .
Field Experiments . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Treatment on Yield . . .
Phosphorus Concentrations in Leaves
Potassium Concentrations in Leaves
Calcium Concentrations in Leaves .
Magnesium Concentrations in Leaves
Greenhouse Experiments . . . . . . . . .
Effect of Treatments on Yield . . .
Bean Tops . . . . . . . . . .
Fresh Weight . . . . . .
Dry Weight . . . . . . .
Cabbage Tops . . . . . . . . .
Fresh Weight . . . . . .
Dry Weight . . . . . . .

Lettuce Tops
Fresh and Dry Weight . .
Carrot Tops . . . . . . . . .
Fresh Weight . . . . . .

Dry Weight . . . . . . .

Page

19
20
20
23
24
24
24
28
3O
30
34
34
36
36
36
36
36
36

38

38
39
39

39

pl".

Table of Contents.--Cont.

Dry Roots . .
Beans .
Cabbage
Lettuce

Carrot .

Phosphorus Concentrations

Roots .

Bean Shoots

Bean Roots .

Cabbage
Cabbage
Lettuce

Lettuce

Shoots

ROOtS

Shoots

Roots

Carrot Shoots

Carrot Roots

Potassium Concentrations in

Roots .

Bean Shoots

Bean Roots

Cabbage
Cabbage
Lettuce

Lettuce

Shoots

Roots

Shoots

Roots

Carrot Shoots

Carrot Roots

Page

4C
40
40
4O

4O

42
42
42
42
42
42
45
45

45

45
45
45
52
52
52
52
52

53

Table of Contents.—-Cont.

Calcium Concentrations in Shoots

Roots . . . .

Bean Shoots and Roots .

Cabbage Shoots

Cabbage Roots

Lettuce Shoots and Roots

Carrot Shoots and Roots

Magnesium Concentrations in Shoots

Roots . . . .
Bean Shoots .
Bean Roots .
Cabbage Shoots
Cabbage Roots
Lettuce Shoots
Lettuce Roots
Carrot Shoots
Phosphorus Uptake . . . . .
Beans . . . .
Cabbage . . .
Carrot . . .
Lettuce .p. .
Potassium Uptake . . . . . .
Beans . . . .
Cabbage . . .

Lettuce . . .

Page

53
53
53
53
53

53

54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
57
57
58
58
58

58

 

Table of Contents.—-Cont.

Page

Carrot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Changes in Soil P and K Resulting from Broadcast
Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Soil Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . 61
Soil Potassium . . . . . . . . . . 61
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Field Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

 

Yields . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Greenhouse Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Top Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Root Yields . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Phosphorus Concentration . . . . . . . . . . 67
Potassium Concentration . . . . . . . . . . 68
Magnesium Concentration . . . . . . . . . . 68
Phosphorus and Potassium Uptake . . .'. . . 69

Effects of Fertilization on Available Soil P
and K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Influence of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on beans, cabbage and carrot
yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Influence of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on percentage of forked carrots

Influence of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on phOSphorus concentrations in
leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Influence of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on potassium concentrations in
leaves (dry weight basis). . . . . . . . .

Calcium concentration in the leaves (dry weight

basis) as influenced by fertilizer rate and
placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Magnesium concentration in the leaves (dry
weight basis) as influenced by fertilizer
rate and placement . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on fresh top weights . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on dry top weights . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on dry root weight . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on phosphorus concentration
in the shoots . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on phosphorus concentration in
the roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of
application on potassium concentration of
shoots (dry weight basis) . . . . . . .

Page

25

27

29

31

32

33

35

37

41

43

44

46

List of Tables.—-Cont.

Table

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement of

application on potassium concentration of

roots (dry weight basis) . . . . . .

ffect of fertilizer rate and placement
application on calcium concentration
shoots (dry weight basis) . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement
application on calcium concentration
roots (dry weight basis) . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement

015
of

of
of

of

application on concentration of shoots

(dry weight basis) . . . . . . . . .

Effect of fertilizer rate and placement

application on magnesium concentration of

roots (dry weight basis) . . . . . .

Total phosphorus uptake as influenced by

fertilizer rate and placement . . .

Total potassium uptake as influenced by
fertilizer rate and placement . . .

of

Soil phosphorus level after harvesting as

influenced by fertilizer rate . . .

Soil potassium level after harvesting as in-

fluenced by fertilizer rate . . . .

O

Page

47

48

49

50

51

56

59

62

62

INTRODUCTION

It has been well known that as native soil
fertility leve1s are lowered and yield goals are raised,
farmers become more dependent upon supplemental fertilizers
to supply nutrients for plant growth. This is also true in
Ecuador where the rapid growth of population and the demand
for a higher standard of living in the rural areas make it
imperative to rapidly increase the production of farmers.

The world average use of total N—PZOS-KZO per hectare
in 1969 was 39.95 kg/ha (FAO 1969). The Ecuatorian average
was less than third of this with 11.0 kg/ha, less than one
tenth of Europe's at 138.6 kg/ha. In the majority of situa-
tions on the highlands of Ecuador, where land is limited
fertilizers are not used. The main reason for this is
economic.

For Ecuador, as a developing country, fertilizers tend
to be more expensive to the farmer than in develOped countries
and the price received by the farmer for his produce lower;
so that one of the essential tasks of the research agronomist
in Ecuador is to learn how to maximise fertilizer response.

Net returns from investments in phosphate and potash

fertilizers depend largely upon the prOportion of the

fertilizer which enters the plant. If it is assumed that
only five to fifteen percent of fertilizer phosphorus
(Draycott 1972) and about fifty percent of potassium (DeMent
and Stanford 1959) applied to the soil are removed by a crop
the first year after application: the efficiency of uptake
should be affected by placement (Barber 1959).

On soils testing low in available P, band placement is
generally very efficient and often produces larger yield
increases than an equivalent broadcast rate (Welch et al 1966).

Banding near the seed in the row, or placing the
fertilizer in the furrow with the seed and using only a
fraction of the amount of fertilizer recommended, are some of
theamethods that small farmers of the Ecuatorian Andes use
to reduce the fertilizer bill. For making fertilizer recom-
mendations in this area, the grower's financial situation is
an important consideration.

The efficiency of rates and placement of fertilizer

on beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cabbage (Brassica olera—

 

 

ceae var. capitata), carrot (Daucus carota L.) and lettuce

 

Lactuca sativa L.) are of prime concern on the highlands of

 

Ecuador, because: (1) these are the principle areas of cool
season vegetable production and; (2) much evidence has been
accumulated to show that P deficiencies are common in this
horticultural producing region.

The objectives of this study were:

1. Determine the influence of rate and placement of
phosphorus and potassium fertilizer application on yield and

composition of beans, cabbage, carrot and lettuce.

2. To gain experience with fertilizer placement

experimentsijivegetable crops.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

Phosphorus
Phosphate fertilizer:behavior in soils
When granulated fertilizers containing a high percentage

Of monocalcium phosphate (triple superphosphate) are added

to moist soils, water moves into the granule dissolving the
phosphate and producing a concentrated phosphate solution;

as; phosphate moves out of the granules, it interacts with the
SCXlid phase of the soil (Fox, 1981 and Tisdale and Nelson,
19'75). Lehr et a1 (1959) observed that upon formation of
tlie liearly saturated solution in and around the fertilizer
gitaliule or band, an osmotic potential gradient is established
kaetnveen the concentrated fertilizer solution and the soil water.
‘Hiififinan and Taylor (1963) demonstrated that the process of
invnard movement of water and outward movement of solution
ccnrtinues to produce a nearly saturated solution so long as

anyr of the original salt remains.

Lindsay and Stephenson (1959) added superphosphate
granules to an acid mineral soil and observed that the solu—
tion emerging from the granule had a pH of 1.0 to 1.5, a P
concentration of 4 to 4.5 M and a Ca concentration of about

1.4 Dd. As successive increments of soil are contacted by the

 

 

 

moving front of the fertilizer solution, increasing amounts
of Fe, Al and Mn dissolved in acid soils and Ca and Mg in 2;"‘~
calcareous soils; in time the phosphate of these ions are

precipitated.

Factors influencing phosphate availability

 

Many authors have indicated that the effectiveness of
applied fertilizer phosphorus depends on P source, soil type,
crOp grown, application method and weather.

Olsen and Watanabe (1963) have observed that diffusion
rate of P is less in sandy soils than in clay soils. There—
fore, soil solution P in a sandy soil has to be higher than
a clay soil in order to supply the same amount of P to the
plant. They have also stated that the P buffering capacity

of sandy soils is less than that of clay soils.

Phosphorus deficiency symptoms

 

Phosphorus deficiency results in a decreased rate of
respiration before photosynthesis is slowed. When respiration
slows dOWn sugars start to accumulate in the tissues. As a
result of that accumulation, a purple pigment develops and
gives leaves and lower stems one of the characteristics of
phosphorus deficiency (Follet et al, 1981).

On vegetables it is usually typified by stunting of the
plant and often by dark green and/or purple leaves and stems.
The stems are thin and shortened in growth. Poor growth and
retarded development are often the only symptoms of P de-

ficiency. In cabbage and lettuce, under severe deficiency

leaf veins may become reddish or purplish (Lorenz and Vittum,
1980). Follet et al (1981) reported that phosphorus deficiency
in carrots is best characterized by poor root systems. For
beans Vitosh et al (1978) have related that the first symptom
of P deficiency is slow growth, later the leaves turn yellow
and die. This occurs first on the older leaves.
Maturity is usually delayed in plants which are P—

deficient. Lorenz and Vittum (1980) stated that in cabbage

(Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and lettuce (Lactuca

 

sativa L.), P—deficient plants often reach harvestable size
as much as several weeks later than plants receiving optimum
quantities of P. Applications of P beyond those required for

Optimum growth do not further hasten maturity.

Pattern of nutrient uptake

The vegetables studied are usually grown for a relatively
short time and harvested before full maturity.

Zink and Yamaguchi (1962) found that lettuce which was
harvested 80 days after seeding was still growing and was
rapidly absorbing P at the time of harvest. Similar demand
patterns would be exhibited by foliar vegetables such as
cabbage (Peck and Stamer, 1970). Peck(1975a) found that snap

beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) which were harvested 56 days

 

after seeding showed the greatest rate of P accumulation in

the last two weeks before harvest.

Rates of fertilizer phosphorus and potassium

 

The yield level determines largely the amount of w?
phosphorus and potassium taken up by the vegetables. It
is evident that recommendations for P and K fertilization
should be related to the amount of P and K in soil as de—
termined by a soil test. Foliar analysis is, however,
useful for evaluating the adequacy of a fertilizer prOgram.
Warncke and Christenson (1981) established soil response

values for many vegetables.

Placement of nitrogen with phosphorus

 

Grunes (1959), Miller and Ohlrogge (1958) and Olson and
Dreir (1956), demonstrated that fertilizer P uptake by a
number of crops was enhanced by application of nitrogen
fertilizer in a band with phosphorus. Stimulation of fer-
tilizer P uptake was less when the N was applied separately
(e.g. broadcast) from the banded P or when N and P were
both mixed throughout the soil Also, NO3 was less effective

than NH4 in stimulating P uptake.

Placement of phosphorus with potassium

 

Since potassium is readily absorbed on the exchange
complex and as observed by many workers alternate wetting
and drying of the soil tends to promote fixation of
K, there seems to be little reason to separate the placement

of K from that of P, at least in soils with high exchange

capacity (Follet et a1, 1981). On coarser textured

soils with low exchange capacity, movement of K with moisture
would be more pronounced and should be similar to that of the
ammonium cation (Rich, 1968). On such soils it would appear

logical to place K and N similarly.

Potassium

 

Fertilizer potassium in the soil

 

Bray and DeTurk (1939) proposed that soils have an
equilibrium value for exchangeable potassium. If cropping
lowers the exchangeable potassium level, potassium is re-
leased with time to the original level; whereas if an excess
is applied, potassium is fixed so that the level tends to
be maintained.

It appears that in most soils plant availability of
potassium fertilizers is influenced by the type and amount
of clay mineral present, the soil pH, soil temperature, soil
moisture and soil aeration (Volk 1934, Weir 1965, Barshad

1954, Rich and Black 1964).

Deficiency symptoms

 

The subject of potassium deficiency has been reviewed
by many authors (HeWitt 1963). Because the potassium
ion is mobile and moves to the younger leaves where the supply
is short, the symptoms are more severe on the older than the
younger leaves. Vegetables have a high requirement for po—
tassium and deficiency symptoms develop easily. In cabbage

and lettuce under severe deficiency, the leaves develop

 

marginal chlorosis rendering the quality inferior. Carrots
show marked changes in growth habit; the plant that normally
grows a crown without an extended stem, develops an acute or
pointed rosette habit when they are deficient in potassium.
Symptoms of K—deficiency in snap beans were described by
Cummings and Wilcox (1968) as an intervenal chlorosis of the
leaves that progresses from the older to the younger leaves.

In cases of extreme K—deficiency, the entire leaf dies.

Fertilizer Placement for Vegetable CrOps

 

Research over the past several decades has found proper
methods of placement to be especially important to insure
efficiency of fertilizer use, high yields, earliness of
harvest and good quality.

Phosphorus is one of the key elements of concern in
improving practices of fertilizer placement. The main
reason is the general observation that a considerable
portion of the fertilizer phosphate after application
is not recovered in the crOp that is immediately planted.

On the other hand, there apparently is little data on
the effect of placement of K as related to these vegetables.
The explanation for this situation is that K moves enough
in most soils so that positionally it is available and that
while fixation may be a problem on some soils, it is not a
great one on many soils.

In considering the selection of the rate and placement of

fertilizer some variables are involved: the crop characteristics,

10

soil characteristics, expected yield, climatic conditions
and the cost of the fertilizer in relation to the sale price
of the crop.

Cummings (1943) has said that "the most efficient and
most effective placement of fertilizer is that which provides
for an adequate supply of soluble nutrients in a well
aerated zone of moist soil occupied by actively absorbing
plant roots at the period Of growth when the demands of the
plants for nutrients are most acute." This has been one of
the objectives of most of the work on fertilizer placement;
the other major objective has been concerned with the
avoidance of injury to the germinating seed and the young
seedling.

Since early 1925 until 1967 the National Joint Committee
on Fertilizer Application had been studying methods of apply-
ing fertilizers. This Committee had been responsible for
leadership in experimentation in this area. Suggestions
made by this organization are based on experiments conducted
in virtually every section of the United States. The 1958
report of that Committee stated that restricted contact of
fertilizer with soil lessens fixation of phOSphate and potash.
It was assumed that lessened fixation would result in greater
uptake of phosphorus and potassium by the plant and a cor-
responding increase in efficiency of fertilizer use. In
1958 the Committee made the following recommendations: for

beans, cabbage and lettuce it was recommended to apply P in

11 ,

a band 5 to 8 cm to the side and 3 to 5 cm below the seed
level; for carrots in a band below the row. Some of the K
and a small fraction of the N was advised to be applied in
the band with P.

Samman (1963) working on soils with levels of residual
P below 3 kg/ha found that yields of beans were improved
by applying superphosphate in a band at up to 67 kg/ha.
Applying phosphatic fertilizers in a band 5 cm below and 5
cm to the side of bean seeds was superior to row placement
in increasing plant growth and yields.

Cooke and Widdowson (1953) reported that beans given
a simple side dressing of placed fertilizer in a band 7.5
cm below the soil surface and 5 cm to the side of the seed
were equal to, or greater than, those of plants given double
dressings of broadcast fertilizer. No advantage was gained
by placing fertilizer at the side of the seed in the case of
carrots.

Hipp (1969) in a clay soil with a relatively high
initial P level demonstrated the early growth of carrot tops
was increased with P placement 7.5 cm directly below the
seed but was not increased if P was placed 7.5 cm below and
10 cm to the side of the seed. P placed below the seed
slightly reduced the Mn concentration but increased that of
P in the plant top. The yield of marketable carrots or
carrot size was not influenced by the treatments.

The placement of fertilizer in a narrow strip (plane)

below the seed, with the fertilizer coming in contact with

12

10—30% of the top soil volume, was found effective in low
fixing soils by Barber (1974).

A study by Geissler (1966) showed that applications of
phosphate, magnesium phosphate and superphosphate at 50 kg
PZOS/ha around newly planted cabbage and lettuce on a phos-
phate—fixing lowland marshy soil increased yields and
fertilizer utilization as compared with broadcast applications
of equal or double quantities. Superphosphate gave the best
reSults.

Research by Cooke (1955) in England showed that P—K
fertilizer placed near the seed produced higher yields
of beans than the same quantity broadcast. Higher yields
were obtained from placed than from broadcast complete
fertilizer in experiments on lettuce and cabbage; a further
advantage in placement was that it induces earlier maturity.
Root growth of most crops was stimulated by side dressings
of mixed fertilizers placed near the seed. Cooke
(1956) also found that placement of complete fertilizer in
bands 5 cm to the side of the seed gave higher yields of
cabbage and lettuce than broadcasting. Placing fertilizer
at a low rate (112 kg/ha) gave higher yields than broad—
casting at a high rate (124 kg/ha). Fertilizer placement
made most of the crops grow more rapidly in the early stages
than broadcasting, and this often resulted in earlier
maturity.

In a summary prepared by a Russian researcher Zurbicki

(1966) the best methods of fertilizer placement were

 

13

established in application of 10% of N P K in a band 3 cm
below and 5 cm to the side of the seeds and the rest in a
band between the rows. The coarser the soil, the greater
was the amount of soil with which the fertilizer should be
mixed, In a coarse soil a ratio of one part fertilizer to
50 parts soil was found satisfactory.

Several experiments conducted by Laws Agricultural
Trust (1951) from Rothamsted England reported that granular
fertilizer containing 14% P205 and 14% K20 banded for beans
resulted in higher yields than when broadcast. In 1951 the
same institution demonstrated that granulated P—K fertilizer
placed beside beans gave higher yields than broadcasting.

In two experiments with beans conducted by Amaral (1971)
in Brazil, the following methods of fertilizer placement were
compared: (a) as a top dressing in two bands at the sides
of the rows, (b) incorporated in the soil in the rows, (c)
below the seeds, but not in contact with them, (d) in direct
contact with the seeds, (e) above the seeds, but not in con—
tact with them, (f) below and to the side of the seeds in
two bands, and (9) below and to the side of the seeds in one
band. Method (f) and (g) were the best. Both experiments
were carried out on an alluvial soil high in P and K, of dif-
ferent textures: loamy sandy and clayey sandy soil respectively.

Peck (1975b) in New York reported the results of nine
field experiments which were high in both P and K, the

average yield of snap beans, without P fertilizer was 5040

 

14

kg/ha whereas with 39 kg P20 /ha banded 5 cm to the side and

5
5 cm below seed level, the average yield was increased to
5610 kg/ha.

Lucas and Vittum (1976) in a recent investigation
summarized the information available on fertilizer placement
for vegetable crops. This summary reflects the well—known
fact that plants require more nutrients at early stages of
growth. They recommend that most of the P and some of the N
and K (up to 336 kg/ha of 10—40—10, 10—30-10, 8-32—16 or 10—34—0)
be placed in bands 3 to 6 cm to the side and 5 cm below the
seed level of cabbage and lettuce; for snap beans 5 cm to the
side and 7.5 cm below the seed; for carrots they suggested
a straight phosphorus fertilizer such as 0-46—0 (up to 34 kg

of P per hectare) near or in direct contact with the seed.

205
If more fertilizer is needed it is recommended to plow down
the remainder of the phosphate/potassium fertilizer and
sidedress one or two times with nitrogen.

The trOpical literature offers examples indicating that
banded P is not always the most efficient placement. Accord—
ing to Sanchez (1976) in soils with moderate fixation capacity,
small annual amounts of superphosphate broadcast or banded
once a year are normally the best placement. Kamprath (1967)
working with corn and Yaptenco, (Fox, 1981) have demonstrated
that banded P applications are more efficient than broadcast
in certain high—fixing soils. In acid soils with high phos—

phorus fixation capacity the way to cope with high P fixation

15

has been to apply the fertilizer in bands in order to satisfy
the fixation capacity in a small soil volume.

On extremely P deficient soils the results are-different.
Studies by Kratky and Tamimi (1974) in Hawaii in an extremely
high fixation capacity soil indicated that banded phosphorus
was an ineffecient use of fertilizer for potatoes. Work with
corn by Yost et a1 (1979) on a Brazilian oxisol lead to the
same conclusion. In this work Yost indicated that the very
limited root development around the bands caused the plants
to be less resistant to periods of moisture stress. Sanchez
and Uehara (1980) have postulated that the best alternative for
these soils is a combination of an initial broadcast applica-
tion followed by small annual banded maintenance applications.

It has been shown that the advantage of localized
placement diminishes as the plants age and may disappear by
the time the plant reaches maturity. Most of the above data
for trOpical soils were obtained with corn which is notable
for being able to overcome, during later stages of growth an
initial phosphorus deficiency. The vegetables that are in—
volved in this investigation are harvested at an immature
stage of growth and are still growing actively and rapidly
absorbing P at the time of harvest (Peck 1975 b, Zink and

Yamaguchi 1962) and do not behave as corn does.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Field and greenhouse experiments were designed to
determine the most effective method of fertilizer applica—
tion for profitable production of green snap beans

(Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cabbage (Brassica oleracea var.

 

capitata), carrots (Daucus carota L.) and leaf lettuce

(Lactuca sativa L.).

Field Procedures

A field study was established on a Washtenaw silt loam
soil (Aeric Fluvaquents; fine—loamy, mixed, nonacid, mesic)
at the Michigan State University Horticulture Research Farm.
For each crop the experiment consisted of a comparison of
three methods of fertilizer placement and two rates of
fertilizer application at each placement. These six treat—
ments were arranged in a randomized block experiment replicated
four times. Two additional no fertilizer treatments were
included to show the basic fertility level of this soil.

Soil in the experimental area had the following
properties: pH — 5.9; Bray 1 extractable phosphorus (P)-110
kg/ha; exchangeable potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and mag—
nesium (Mg) Of 412, 3024 and 454 kg/ha respectively. Only
the rates of P and K were varied. The rates of fertilizer P

and K used were the rates recommended based on soil analysis

16

 

17

and one half the recommended rate. The recommended fertilizer
rates for the four crops Were: beans — 225 kg of 8—32—16 plus

110 kg of 45—0—0 per ha (N—68; P205—72; K O-36 kg/ha); carrots —

2

280 kg of 8-32—16 plus 200 kg 45-0—0 per ha (N—112; P20 -90;

5
K20—45 kg/ha); cabbage - 335 kg 8—32-16 plus 200 kg 45-0—0 per
ha (N—117; P205—107; K20—54); lettuce — 280 kg 8-32—16 plus

260 kg 45—0—0 per ha (N-139; P205—90; K O—45 kg/ha). Nitrogen

2
(N) was applied sidedress uniformly to all treatments.

After fertilizer application the soil was formed up into
raised beds or ridges approximately 30 cm across the top.

The three different methods of applying fertilizer which were
compared in this experiment were as follows.

1. Band — After the soil was formed into ridges the
fertilizer was applied in a narrow band approximately 4 cm
wide and 8 to 10 cm deep.

2. Broadcast — The fertilizer was applied uniformly
over the soil surface in the plot area and incorporated into
the top 15 to 20 cm of soil before ridging.

3. Plane — The fertilizer was uniformly applied on the
soil surface in a 0.30 m wide band. When the soil was thrown
up to form the ridge the fertilizer remained undisturbed
forming a horizontal plane of fertilizer 8 to 10 cm deep.

Each plot consisted of one row 0.76 m apart and 7.2 m long.

Plant rows were placed over the center of the fertilizer
bands; banded and plane fertilizer was placed approximately
5 to 8 cm below the seed.

Beans were planted 2.5 cm deep and 7 cm apart. Cabbage,

carrots and lettuce were seeded about 1 cm deep; one seed

18

of cabbage and lettuce and two of carrots were planted each
five centimeters.
Planting conditions: A light rain the previous night of

the first seeding made the conditions of planting excellent.

Plant material

Beans: A snap bean variety Bush Blue Lake 274 that is
grown for the edible immature pod.

Cabbage: Hybrid variety Headstart

Carrots: Spartan Fancy 80

Lettuce: A leaf lettuce variety, Tania

Care during growth: Mechanical removal was the method
for controlling weeds, cutting off the weeds just below the
Isurface with a sharp hoe. Diseases and insects were con-
trolled as necessary with fungicide and insecticide sprays.

Plant samples for chemical analyses were taken at the
following stages of growth: beans——first pod set, cabbage—-
just prior to initiation of heading, lettuce—-the plants were
large enough for use, at sixty eight, seventy four and forty
days respectively after seeding.

Ten to fifteen of the youngest fully developed leaves
were sampled at random from each plot, dried at 600C and

ground in a Wiley mill.

Harvest
Snap beans were harvested when the pods were still young.
At this time the plant was pulled up, the pods were removed

and the tops and the pods weighed separately.

"W

19

Cabbage heads were harvested after the heads had become
firm. The twenty largest heads of each plot were weighed.
Carrots were harvested as soon as the roots were 2 to 3
cm in diameter at the upper end. Tops were removed before
weighing the tap roots; the number of well formed carrots
as well as forked carrots were recorded and weighed separately.
Leaf lettuce was allowed to develop to full size before

being harvested. Lettuce and cabbage were cut with a knife.

Plant analyses

 

For the determination of phOSphorus and cations in the
leaves, 0.5 gram samples of material were ashed in a muffle
furnace which was maintained at 4500C for eight hours. The

ash was dissolved in 5.0 m1 of 6 N HNO transferred and

3!
filtered into a ten ml volumetric flask and made up to volume
with deionized water. For P analysis an aliquot was diluted
50:1 and the P content determined using the ammonium nolybdate—

ascorbic acid procedure. The K, Ca and Mg content was deter-

mined using a Technican autoanalyzer.

Soil analyses

 

Soil samples were collected from the experimental area,
air—dried and ground to pass a 10 mesh sieve. Exchangeable
cations (K, Ca and Mg) were extracted with 1N neutral
ammonium acetate method.

Available P was extracted for five minutes using the
Bray-1 reagent (0.025 N HCl + 0.03 N NH4F) at a 1:8 soil: solu-

tion ratio.

 

 

20

Soil pH was determined in a 1:1 soilzwater suspension,

using a glass electrode potentiometer.

Greenhouse Procedure

 

The soil used for this study was collected from the Ap
horizon (0-15 cm depth) of a P and K deficient soil. This
was a Marlette fine sandy loam (Glossoboric Hapludalfs;
fine-sandy, mixed, mesic).

This soil had the following properties: pH - 5.6;
Bray 1 extractable P - 18 kg/ha; exchangeable K, Ca and Mg
equal 85, 1296 and 192 kg/ha respectively.

For each of the four crops, two rates of fertilization
and three methods of fertilizer placement were used, making
a total of six treatments, as described for the field experi—
ments, one additional treatment namely a check was added making
a total of seven treatments which were arranged in a complete—
ly randomized design replicated four times. The fertilizer
rates were: (1) one hundred percent of the recommendation
based on soil analyses, 150 and 200 kg/ha of P O and K O

2 5 2

respectively and (2) fifty percent of the recommendation.

Methods of fertilizer application

 

Broadcast: The granulated fertilizer was thoroughly mixed
into soil. Enough soil for four experiments, 16 pots, were
prepared by mixing in sufficient fertilizer for one hundred
percent of the recommendation as it rotated in a cement mixer
for five minutes. The same procedure was followed for fifty

percent of the recommendation.

21

Three kilograms of soil was placed in appropriate pots.
This mixed or broadcast placement would simulate broadcasting
and disking into the soils under field conditions.

Plane and Band: Two kilograms of soil was added to
the pots and the fertilizer was then applied uniformly to the
leveled surface of the soil in each pot. For the band place-
ment, the fertilizer was applied in a thin band approximately
0.4 cm wide across the middle of the pot, seeds were later
placed following the same direction as the fertilizer band.
For the plane placement the fertilizer was applied uniformly
over the surface. Finally the remaining one kilOgram of soil
was added to the pots.

Fertilizers: Sources of N, P and K were respectively
urea 45—0-0, superphosphate 0—46-0 and potassium chloride 0—0—60.

Beans, carrots and cabbage were grown in a rectangular
3025 cc plastic pots, having an inside length of 17.75 cm,
a width of 14.95 cm and a height of 11.4 cm. Clay pots of
16 cm diameter and 19 cm height were used for lettuce. All
tflie pots received 3000g of air dry soil and were arranged
rtandomly in different areas of a greenhouse bench for each
Crxop. Pots were re—randomized weekly.

Plant material: The same varieties were used as in
tflieafield experiment.

Seeding: After the surface soil was leveled, twelve
Exaeds of beans, sixteen of cabbage and twenty two each of
carrots and lettuce were sown, by punching them into the soil

to a depth of one centimeter for the bean seeds and about one

 

22

half centimeter for the rest of the vegetable seeds, the seeds
were placed in two rows four centimeters apart.

After emergence the seedlings were thinned to six plants
for beans and lettuce; eight for cabbage and ten for carrots.
One half of the plants were in each row. The soil was then
wetted to near the point of saturation.

Pots were watered daily with deionized water, using 50
to 100 ml of water for plastic pots and 100 to 150 ml for
clay pots. Pots were weighed weekly and watered to the
original moisture content. Thus the pots were watered when
approximately fifty percent of the available moisture had
been used.

Plant root and tops were harvested 55, 106, 116, and 80
days after planting, respectively, for beans, cabbage, carrots
and lettuce. The bean plants were grown to bloom stage, the
rest of the crops were at a stage where further development
was not evident.

Shoot and root fresh and dry weights were measured.
.Roots were rinsed free of soil in deionized water. The
Efllants were dried at 600C. The dried samples were ground in
a. Wiley mill to pass through a 40~mesh screen and analysed
ftar phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium. The same
Hmathods as in the field experiment for both plant and soil
alialyses were used.

Soil analyses after harvesting: After harvesting soil

Samples were taken from each of the broadcasted fertilizer

23

IpOtS as well as from the check pots. These samples were

aanalyzed for P, K, Ca and Mg.

Statistical Analyses

Data were statistically analysed utilizing the statistical
foregram of the Vector graphic computer in the Soil Science
IBuilding of Michigan State University.

The field experiment data were analysed in a randomized
cxomplete block design with four replications per treatment.
[Mata from the greenhouse experiment were analysed in a com-
plxately randomized design with four replications per treatment.

The Duncan multiple range test was calculated from the

rensults of the analyses of variance from both the field and

thee greenhouse experiment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSS ION

Field Experiments

ngect of treatments on yield

 

The yield data expressed in kg/ha as an average of four
:replications is shown in Table 1. For the purposes of this
(discussion, the rates of fertilizer appliacation will be
rieferred to as "recommended" and "one—half rate," for the
rtates recommended based on soil analyses and one—half the
rracommended rate, respectively. Due to severe damage from
hraavy rains and runoff on the lettuce plots that resulted in
vexry poor stands in almost all the plots and deer damage
menaningful data was not collected.

Snap Bean pods: Fertilizer rate and placement had no
eflEEect on yield of bean pods, however, the yields were
silightly higher with one-half the fertilizer rate than with
the recommended rate. Plane placement performed slightly
better than the other placements compared at the same rates.
All fertilizer treatments produced higher yields than the
checks, but the differences were not significant. It is
apparent from the high yields obtained on the check plots
that the soil was fertile.

Bean plants: The highest yield of bean plants was
Obtained from plots where one—half rate was applied in a

Plane. The next two best yields were obtained from the plots

24

25

.ma Hod claims as com msaa saummna mo ma\ax mmm
“as you ouonms ax com mead salamia no aa\ax saw
“an uma claims no or oaa msam maummua no ma\ax mam

"mums Howaaapuow mo mopmu cmocoEEooom

"memento
"pouumo

”match

a

.am>ma am one am saocmoaoacaam batman poa on aoaaz

mpcoEumoHp mo mosaosoum momma mamauasfi m_cmocso opmoaoca msoppoa aamEm one

.mcoaumoaaooa boom mo ommuo>m so ma Hones: boom

 

 

 

 

w ammmm on ooonv m vsooa m mmoam ocmam toocoEEooom x
Q mmmam hm nmmom m mmmma m osmom madam coocoEEooom
hm novmm ohm mmwmv m nmnma m maoam ammoomoum coocossooom r
em omnwm chm nmmme m mamma m «meow ammoomoum totcoEEooom
hm mhmmm on omamv m mmwea m amosa II o
no mamam m mmsmm m smmaa a mmaom acmm movemesoomm x
no mmaom hm ooaom m mmmva m mmema comm aootcoEEooom
no nmanm o mmvvv m mmmva m mmoma II o
ma\mx
mpcmam moon Homaaauumm
.mmmmmw mmmmmmw mmmmm pcoEoomam

mo whom

 

 

.mcmom co QOapmoaammm mo bcoewomam cam opmm Homaaapumm mo oocozamca

mcaoaw pounce can ommnnmo

.a magma

26

on which fertilizer was applied broadcast at recommended and

one—half rate respectively. There were no statistical dif-

ferences between treatments. The lowest yields were obtained

from the checks.

Cabbage: One—half rate applied in a band produced the
highest cabbage yield followed closely by plane and band at
recommended rate. Cabbage yields were lowest in the check
plots and were statistically different from the treatments
mentioned, however, only slightly lower than the rest of
the treatments.

Carrots: As shown by data presented in Table 1, one-
half rate applied in a plane was signifiCantly better than
the check and had a slight yield advantage over the rest of
treatments.

Forked carrots: It may be noted by the data presented
in Table 2 that the percent of forked carrots tended to
increase with increasing rates of fertilizer. The average
from the two checks, 7.1 percent, was significantly lower
than 14.4 percent of forked carrots that was produced where
the recommended rate was applied in a band. There was no

consistent difference among methods of placement.

Summarizing the results of the yield experiments, it
appears that for snap beans and carrots, one—half of ferti-
lizer rate applied in a plane was the most effective treat-
ment. This same rate applied banded was the most effective

treatment for cabbage. It would appear that the difference

27

Table 2. Influence of Fertilizer Rate and Placement of

Application on Percentage of

Forked carrots

 

 

Rate of Forked
Fertilizer Placement %

0 —- 6.96 b
Recommended Band 14.40 a
% Recommended Band 8.05 b

0 —- 7.20 b
Recommended Broadcast 11.03 ab
% Recommended Broadcast 8.80 ab
Recommended Plane 10.16 ab
% Recommended Plane 7.63 b

 

The small

letters indicate Duncan's multiple range

groupings of treatments which do not differ signifi—
cantly at the 5% level.

lCalculated as a percent of total yields

28

in response between these two groups of vegetables could be
due to the differences in root systems habits. Carrots and
beans have a deeper, more extensive root system and better
foraging capacity than cabbage.

The slightly greater effectiveness of band applied
fertilizer compared to broadcast might be attributed to the
less contact of fertilizer with soil when applied in a band.
This reduces fixation reactions and loss of available P and
K. When the fertilizer was broadcast it was at once in con—
siderable surface contact with soil and thus some of the
phosphate and potassium could become fixed more readily.

Plane placement which is a compromise between banding
and broadcasting is probably the best alternative of appli—
cation for carrots and snap beans. In soils with low fixing
capacity, Barber (1974) found plane applications very effec-
tive. It should be pointed out that these experiments were

located on soil of fairly high fertility.

Phosphorus concentrations in leaves

 

The phOSphorus concentrations of beans, cabbage and
lettuce leaves are reported as percentage of phosphorus on
a dry weight basis (Table 3). Carrot leaves were not sampled.
With all treatments in the three crops, the concentration of
phosphorus in leaves tended to be at high levels. Even leaf
samples from the check plots contained adequate levels of
phosphorus according to Geraldson et al (1973), indicating

phosphorus was not limiting. No significant differences

.Amo.o.xm name magma maaapasz
m.cmocsov pcouommao hapcmoamacoam poc mum Hoppma oEMm esp he toBOaaom memo:

29

a

 

 

 

m aom.o m mma.o m omm.o ocean emacmaaooom m
m sem.o m sas.o m mam.o mamam omecmesooom
m maa.o a oma.o a amm.o ammooaoum amagoEEOUmm m
m mam.o m amm.o m omm.o ommoemoum amacmesoomm
a omm.o m oao.o a mam.o I: o
m oam.o m mmm.o m mem.o acam emocoesooom m
a osm.o m amm.o m moa.o ecam smegmasooom
m mma.o a amm.o am mam.o I- a
ma
wosppma ommnbmo mcmom pcoEoomam Homaaauaom
wo whom

 

ow®>MOQ CH WQOH#MHU«C®OQOU

masonmmonm co coaamoaammm mo pcoEmomam cam mpmm Howaaapuom mo mucosawca .m magma

30

were observed among treatments.

Potassium concentrations in leaves

 

Potassium, calcium and magnesium concentrations are
reported as percentage of the element on a dry weight basis
(Tables 4, 5 and 6).

Beans: The potassium content in the leaves was in—
creased by each succeeding level of fertilizer application.
When fertilizer was banded, K in the leaves tended to be higher
than when planed or broadcast, but this difference was not
statistically significant.

Cabbage: Potassium concentration was the greatest in
the plots where the recommended rate of fertilizer was applied.
The concentration tended to be higher in those plants grown
with band placement at both rates of fertilizer. However the
level of leaf K in the band treatment was significantly greater
than the plane treatment only at the recommended rate.:

Lettuce: The level of K in the leaves from the un-
fertilized plots were already sufficient according to the
data reported by Knott (1957). No concentration differences

were observed among treatments.

Calcium concentrations in leaves

 

Beans: As shown by data presented in Table 5 the calcium
content in the leaves were slightly reduced as fertilization
increased. There were not significant differences.

Cabbage and Lettuce: The calcium concentration of

these two crops were not affected by any of the rates or

31

.Amo.o.Ad .ommu m2
m.cmocsov pcmmommap maucmoamacoaw no: one umppoa dawn esp an omBOaa0m mnmoza

 

 

 

m ma.m o ea.m so as.a mamam aoaamesooom m

m om.m on mm.m gm ao.m mamam amaamesoomm

m mm.m o om.m eon am.a ammoemonm ameamssoomm m

m Na.m be oa.m be so.m ammoamoum amacmesoomm

a sa.m o mm.m con ma.a I: o

m sa.m on mm.m one so.a aamm easemeaoomm w

a ms.m m ss.m a aa.m ecmm easemeaoomm

m mm.m o mm.m as as.a u: Q

Ma

moopuma oombbmu mcmom pcmEoomam Homaaauuom

no mama

 

.Amammm psoamz maov

mo>mwa ca mcoapmupcmocoo

Esamprom so coapmoaammm mo onEoUMam pcm whom Homaaapumm we mucoSamca .w canoe

. AmoéAd :53. m2
m.cmocsov ucwummmat >apgmoamacmam uo: mum Hobpoa oEMm esp Sb toBOaa0m memoZa

 

 

 

 

m sa.m m mo.m m mm.m ocmam toocoEEooom m
m ma.m m mv.m m mm.m mamam popcossoomm
m no.m m om.m m ov.m ammocmoum cotcoEEooom m
m ma.m m oa.m m mm.m ammoomoum oocnmEEooom
m ma.m m ma.m m mm.m II o

m na.m m so.m m mv.m tcmm coccossooom w
m na.m m sa.m m om.m ocmm tmccoEEooom
m no.m m ma.m am mm.m it o

MOW

mosppoa mmmnnmo memom ucoEmoMam Homwwawwwm

 

pcmEmomam one whom nomaaapuom
mg owocosamca mm Amammm unoamz muov mo>moa esp Ca coapmupcoocoo Esaoamo .m canoe

 

 

 

J.

 

33

. $0.0 Ad .ummu m2
m.cmocsov pcmummmat mapcmoamacoam won out umppoa oEmm esp we cozoaaow mcmea

 

 

 

 

n mmm.o a mma.o m mmm.o ocean emaamaaoomm m
n mma.o m moa.o m mam.o ocean amacmEEOUmm
n mom.o m ome.o a mmm.o ammoomoum amacmssoomm m
n mma.o m moe.o a mam.o ammoomoum aoacmssoomm
gm mam.o m mma.o m msm.o in o
n mom.o a aoe.o a mam.o ecam omecmesooom m
n mmm.o m maa.o m mem.o esmm amocmeaoomm
m mam.o m moe.o a Nmm.o a: Q
was
cooppma oomnnmo memom pcoemomam Howaaapumm
mo opmm

 

an twocmSamQH mm

Amammm broads shoe

psoEmomam tam mpmm Howaaauuom
mo>moa obs ca coaumupcmocoo Edamocomz .m canoe

34

fertilizer placement. The levels found were extremely uniform.

Magnesium concentration in leaves

 

Beans and Cabbage: The magnesium concentration in
cabbage and bean leaves was not affected by rate or placement
of fertilizer (Table 6).

Lettuce: Magnesium concentration of the two checks were
definitely higher than the concentration when fertilizer was

applied.

It has been frequently reported that increasing the
supply of one cation in the soil can depress the levels of
other cation species in the plant (Lucas and Scarseth 1947,
Rains et a1 1964).

In the results shown in these experiments the Ca and
Mg concentration in plant leaves were not consistently de-
pressed by applications of fertilizer containing K (8—24—16).
This could be due to the fact that P plays a key role in the
supply of these cations. Peck CUlNkfl has demonstrated that
concentrated superphosphate decreased the concentration of
K and increased the concentration of Mg in snap bean plants.

The same was true in cabbage (Peck and Stamer 1970).

Greenhouse Experiments

 

The soil chosen for this experiment was a fine sandy
loam deficient in phosphorus and potassium. The low fer—
tility level of the soil used in this experiments is apparent

from the low yield of pots receiving no fertilizer (Table 7).

35

.Amo.o.nm .nmme magma madaoasz

 

 

 

 

 

m_cmossov hcmnommao mahsmoamacmam hos ohm Hohhoa oEmm mhh ah coBoaaom mcmoza
on as.ma h mo.s h so.am o ma.em mamas ammcmesoomm m
m ma.mm hm ma.m m ma.ov hm mm.ae ogmam coccoEEooom
a me.oa hm me.s o mm.em o Ne.am nmmoamOHm momcmssoomm m
hm on.mm hm mm.s oh vm.mm hm on.a< hmmotmOHm coocoEEooom
o mm.>a hm om.n hm v¢.mm oh mm.nm ocmm omosoEEooom m
hm so.vm m nv.m h ma.mm m ma.mv ocmm pothoEEooom

o no.m o ma.v t aa.ma o m.am II o

hom\Wli
oOShhma hOMHmO momhhmu mammm hcoEoomam homaaahhom
wo mhmm
.whhmawz

mos hmohm ho coahmoaamm< mo hcmEoomam ohm ohmm howaaahhom mo hoommm .s mahme

36

Effect of treatments on yield

 

Yields of beans, cabbage, carrot and lettuce are

reported as grams per pot.
Top Yields

Bean Tops

Fresh weight: As shown by the data presented in Table 7
the yields increased with each additional increment of ferti—
lizer. All fertilized treatments at recommended rate pro—
duced significantly higher yields than the treatments at one-
half rate, compared at the same placements. Band placement
resulted in greater yields at both rates, however the dif—
ferences among the different placements at the same rate of
fertilizer were not significant. All fertilized treat-
ments produced significantly higher yields than the check.

Dry weight: As was the case with fresh weight, dry weight
yields tended to increase with increasing rates of fertilizer
application. Again all fertilizer treatments produced sig-
nificantly higher yields than the no fertilized treatments

(Table 8).

Cabbage Tops

Fresh weight: The highest yield resulted from the
recommended rate applied in a plane and this yield was
significantly higher than the rest of the treatments, except
as compared with one~half recommended rate applied in a band.
Band at one—half rate which produced the second highest yield

was considerably better than the rest of treatments but only

37

.Amo.o A.m .omme magma mamapasz

 

 

 

 

m.cmocsov uhohommao hahcmoamacoam hog ohm sophoa oEmm ohh Sh coBOaaoa mammz
Oh mm.m o em.m oh mm.v m em.m ohmam coocoEEoomm m
m am.v h wm.m m mm.m m am.o ohmam toosoEEooom
t nm.a o aa.m o an.m m am.© hmmoomOHm pothoEEooom w
hm mw.v m ww.m oh mv.v m mw.m hmmotmOMm coocmEEooom
o mm.m oh am.m hm ma.m m mv.m ohmm pothoEEooom w
hm mm.v oh mm.m ohm am.v m on.o osmm toocoEEoomm
o mv.o o ma.a o mo.m h am.v it o
hom\m
moshhma hounmo oomhhmo mcmom hcosoomam Homaaahaom
mo ohmm

 

mhhmamz mom who so c0ahmoaamQ< mo hcoEmomam ohm ohmm homaaahhom mo hoommm .m mahms

38

significantly better than broadcast at one-half rate.
Broadcast at high and moderate rates produced the lowest
yields among the fertilized pots (Table 7).

Dry weight: Data in Table 8 shows that plane application
of the fertilizer resulted in greater yields when the recom-
mended amount of fertilizer was applied. At one—half the
fertilizer level band application was superior. A signifi—
cant difference was evident when comparing the band and plane
treatments to broadcast at the same one—half rates of ferti—
lizer application.

There were significant differences in the yields (fresh
and dry), obtained as a result of the two rates of fertili-
zer application. In both fresh and dry weights the recom-
mended rate was significantly better than one-half rate when
the plane placement fertilizer were compared. The prominent
observation is that, one—half rate applied in a band produced
consistently higher yields than the same placement at recom—
mended rate, in both fresh and dry weights, but this
difference was not significant. All fertilized treatments
significantly increased fresh and dry yields as compared

with the checks (Tables 7 and 8).

Lettuce Tops

Fresh and dry weight: There was a definite influence
of rate and placement on yields of fresh and dry top weights.
Fresh and dry weights increased with each additional incre-
ment of applied fertilizer. All treatments at recommended

rate produced significantly higher yields compared with the

39

same placement at one-half rate. The best yields, fresh and
dry were produced by plane placement at the recommended rate,
followed by band and broadcast at the same rate. At one—half
rate the best yield was produced by plane placement followed
by band placement. Broadcast at one-half rate, was signifi—
cantly lower than plane and band placements at the same
moderate rate of fertilizer application.

Fresh weight increased from 2.67 to 26.14 g/pot while
dry weight increased from 0.46 to 4.81 g/pot. The lowest
yields were always from the checks while the largest yields
were from the recommended rate applied in a plane (Tables 7

and 8).

Carrot Tops

Fresh weight: As shown in Table 7 the recommended rate
of fertilizer applied in a band produced the highest carrot
fresh top yields followed closely by the same rate applied
in a plane. However at the moderate rate of application the
plane placement performed poorly and was significantly lower
as compared with the rest of the fertilized pots. Top yields
were lowest in the check pots.

Dry weight: Contrary to the results shown with the
other vegetable crops fertilizer applied broadcast gave the
best yield at the higher rate of application. However at
the moderate rate this method yielded the lowest among the
fertilized pots. The reason for the difference from the

fresh top data is not readily apparent. All fertilized

40

treatments significantly increased yields as compared with the

check.

Dry Roots:

 

Beans: Pots fertilized in a plane at both rates, gave
the highest yields followed closely by the band treatments.
However only the plane placement at the recommended rate pro—
duced a yield significantly higher than broadcast treatments
at both rates and the check (Table 9).

Cabbage: An inspection of the data in Table 9 reveals
that the weight of cabbage roots increased as the rate of
fertilizer increased. Plane placement at high and moderate
rates performed better than the other placements compared at
the same rates; broadcast was lowest at both rates. The
broadcast treatment at one—half rate was only slightly higher
than the check.

Lettuce: All fertilized pots produced significantly
higher quantities of roots than the unfertilized pot. Broad-
cast fertilizer at both rates and plane applied fertilizer
at one—half rate were the lowest among fertilized pots.
Differences were not significant.

Carrot: At the recommended rates banded fertilizer
produced more roots than plane placed fertilizers and
significantly better yields than broadcast fertilizer. At the
one-half rate banded fertilizer was significantly better than
the other placement methods. The outstanding observation is
the good results obtained from banding one—half the recom-

mended rate (6.1 g/pot). The yield of the unfertilized pot

.Amo.o A_m .nmme magma maaauasz
m.cmoa3ov hcohommac wahcmoamacoam hos ohm Hohhoa oEmm mhp mh cmBOaaom mcmoz

 

41

 

 

 

m om.H. O om.v m vm.m Qm mm.a mcmam pmpcmfifioowm m
a oa.a hm em.m m am.a a am.a mamam mmacmasooom
m am.a o aa.a on ma.a n ao.a ammoaaonm amacmssoomm m
m am.a on am.m a am.m n ma.a ammoemonm emaamEEoomm
m vv.H no mo.w Qm mm.N Qm mm.a Ucmm Umpcmfigoomm m
m mm.a m mm.a a ma.m am sa.a aamm amacwasoomm
Q mo.o U mm.a O om.a Q Ho.a II o
hom\© _
oozuuoa poshmo momhhmo mcmom psoEmomam homaaahhom
mo mpmm

 

whoaoz hoom who so coahmoaamm< mo hcmfimomam ohm ohmm Hmwaaahhom mo hoommm

.a magma

42

was only 1.52 g/pot.

Phosphorus Concentrations in Shoots and Roots

 

As for the field experiment the phosphorus concentrations
are reported as percentage of phosphorus on a dry weight basis
(Tables 10 and 11).

Bean shoots: Concentrations of P in bean shoots increased
as the rate of applied fertilizer increased. Concentrations
of P in broadcast applications are considerably lower when
compared to plane and band applications. All fertilized pots
gave significantly higher P concentrations over the check.

Bean roots: Phosphorus concentrations increased slightly
as the rate of fertilizer increased. Band and plane treat-
ments resulted in higher concentration than broadcast fer—
tilizer (Table 11).

Cabbage shoots: The concentration of P increased from
0.79 percent in the check to 0.97 percent when the one-half
rate was applied in a plane or the recommended rate was banded.
Broadcast fertilizer resulted in lowest P concentration
among the fertilized pots (Table 10).

Cabbage roots: Fertilizer caused a slight increase in
the percentage of P in the cabbage roots. Band and plane
placement when applied at the recommended rate produced the
highest concentrations. Applying one-half the recommended
rate in a band did not affect the level.

Lettuce shoots: The concentration of P in all the
fertilized pots were significantly higher than the check,

and tended to increase with increasing rates of fertilizer

43

m.hmocsov

.Amo.o A m .nmoe omcmm maaahasz
hcohommao mahcmoamacoam ho: ohm awhhoa oEmm ohh wh coBOaaow mcmoz

 

 

 

a mam.o m aam.o a mea.o on mma.o mamas emmamssoomm m
m maa.o m ama.o he omm.o a ama.o mamas emaamssoomm
a mas.o m Nam.o o asa.o o ase.o nmmomaonm amecmasoomm m
m aom.o m mma.o one amm.o on oam.o ammoamonm amenaEEoomm
m msm.o a Gmm.o on ama.o on oaa.o acam emacmssoomm m
a mam.o m 0am.o a asm.o he moa.o ecmm amaamesoomm
n Nss.o n moa.o a ame.o a mam.o u: o
moshhma poshmo momhhmu mcmom onEoomam homaaahhom
mo mama

 

mSHOhomOhm co hoapmoaamm< mo hcmEoomam ohm mhmm Hmnaaahhom mo hoommm

thOLm ohh ca coahmhhhmOhoo

.oa mahmB

44

.Amo.o A a .pmme wacam maaanasz

m.cmocsav hcmhmmmao mahcmoamacmam hos mum Hohhoa mEmm mhh ah thOaaow mammz

 

 

 

Oh v5m.o hm Nmm.o hm mmn.o hm oam.o mcmam Umpcmfifioomm m
hm aam.o m aom.o m mam.o m wmm.o mamam UmtcmEéoomm
Oh me.o hm mwm.o hm moh.o h mom.o hmmOUmOHm popcmfiEoomm m
hm omm.o m oom.o Ohm vv>.o hm ham.o hmeUmOhm UmmeEfioomm
o mmm.o oh mam.o o mmm.o m svm.o oqmm omthmEEoomm m
m vmm.o hm omw.o m mam.o m amm.o UGmm Umtcmfifioomm

U oma.o O omh.o Oh ©m©.o h vow.o II o
moshhma hoahmu mmmhhmu mammm hcoEmomam hmmaaahhom
mo mama

 

mSHOhmmOhm co COahmoaamm< mo hquoomam ohm ohmm hwwaaauhmm mo hoomwm

munoom OED. CH mGOHu.MHu.G®UQOU

.aa magma

45

application. There were no significant differences among the
fertilized treatments.

Lettuce Roots: Data presented in Table 11 again show
that P cencentration in the roots increased with each ad-
ditional increment of applied fertilizer.

Carrot Shoots: The concentration of phOSphorus in
carrot shoots grown in fertilized pots were appreciably
higher (level 0.05) than when no fertilizer was used.

Carrot roots: Increasing rates of P showed a trend to—
ward higher P concentrations in the roots. Broadcast
fertilizers produced the highest concentrations, when
compared with the other placement methods, at both recommended
and one-half rates. As always the no fertilized pot showed

the lowest P concentration.

Potassium concentrations in shoots and roots

 

Potassium as well as calcium and magnesium concentrations
are reported as percentage of the element on a dry weight
basis (Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17).

Bean shoots: Apparently plants took up less K from
broadcast applications of fertilizer. Broadcast at the one-
half rate contained significantly less K than all the other
fertilized treatments. All fertilized treatments produced
Significantly higher K concentrations than the check (Table 12).

Bean roots: Broadcast placement at recommended rate
showed the highest concentration of K, followed by banded
at the same rate. Fertilizer application, however, reduced

K content in some pots as compared to the check level of K.

46

. 30.0 A a .33. magma 63332

m.cmocsav hcmhmmmao mahcmoamacoam hos ohm hmhhma mEmw mhh ah pmsoaaow mummz

 

 

 

m ao.m m ob.m h om.m m am.N mamam Umpcmfifioowm m
m mm.m m mm.m m an.m m mN.m mamam UmUGmEfioomm
m mm.m h mm.m h mw.m h am.m hmmoomOMm omtcmEEoomm m
m Hm.m m mo.m h vb.m m ao.m hmmOUmOhm UmpcmEEoomm
m mm.m h mm.m h m>.m m oa.m ohmm ommhmEEoomm m
m mm.m m mo.m m mm.m m oa.m ocmm UmpcmEEoomm

m bv.m h ho.m h mh.m O hh.a II. o
mOShhma hOHHmO ommhhmo wcmmm hcmEmomam hmwaaahhmm
we mhmm

 

Esammmhom co coahmoaammm mo hhmEmomam chm mhmm hmmaaahhmm mo hommmm

Awammm hhmamz mhov

thOhm mo whoahmhhcmocoo
.NH mahmB

47

m.cmocsov

.Amo.o.A m .nmme momma mamanasz

hcmhmmwam mahcmoahacmam hos ohm hohhoa oEmm mhh mh omsoaaow mcmoz

 

 

 

n ma.a a as.a n am.o o mo.a mamam amecwfifioomm m
am oa.a gm am.a he ma.o on ea.a mamaa emacmeaoomm
hm am.a o mm.a am mm.o on am.a nmaomMOHm smegmasoomm x
mm oe.a n ms.a hm oa.o a ma.a ammoamonm easemeaoomm
gm me.a he mm.a hm sm.o on ao.a acam amaamEEoomm m
am ma.a m mo.m m ma.o hm aa.a acam mmaemasoomm
m ao.m o am.a am am.o on am.a in o

moshhma hOhhmu momhhmo mcmmm hcoEmomam homaaahhmm

mo.mhmm

 

Amammm hhmamz whov

whoom mo whoahmhhcmocou
Esamwmhom so coahmoaammm mo thEmomam ohm mhmm homaaahhmm mo hommmm

.ma mahmB

48

.Amo.o A m .hmme mmcmm mamahasz
m.cmocsov ucmhmmmao xahcmoamacmam hos ohm hmhhma mEmm mhh mh meoaaom mammZa

 

 

 

 

h mm.o m mm.m oh ma.a m mn.a mhmam tmocmEEoomm m
h aw.o m mm.m UOh mo.a hm no.a mamam omtcmEEoomm
h mm.o m mv.m hm am.a h mm.a hmmOUmOhm Umpcmfifioomm m
h nv.o m mv.m o am.o h mm.a hmmoomOHm poocmEEoomm
hm mm.o m SN.N Oh ma.a hm mm.a pcmm UmpcmEfioomm w
h No.0 m oa.m co mm.o hm mm.a ocmm cmocmEEooom
m mm.o m mm.m m am.a hm ma.a II o
mow

moshhma hOHHmO ommhhmo mammm phoEmomam homaaahhom

mo mnmm

 

Amammm phoamz whov

thOhm mo whoahmhhsmocoo
Esaoamu co coahmoaammm mo humemomam ohm mhmm Homaaahhmm mo hommmm

.va mahmB

49

.Amo.o Ana .hmme magma maaauasz
m_cmocsov hcwhmmmao mahcmoamacmam hos mam Hohhoa mEmm mhh mh meOaaom mammz

 

 

 

 

h mm.o m mm.o a mm.o m mm.o mcmaa mmmcmasoomm m

h mm.o m mm.o h am.o m mm.o mamam mmmamsEoomm

h mm.o m mm.o n ma.o m ma.o ummommOHm mmmmmesoomm m

h aa.o m mm.o a mm.o m ma.o pmmommOMm mmmcmesoomm

a mm.o m sm.o n mm.o m mo.a mcmm mmmmaEEoomm m

h am.o m am.o h mm.o m mo.a mcmm mmmcmasoomm

m mm.o m mm.o m am.a m am.o in 0

mo

moshhma hOHth mmmhhmu mammm hcmEmomam Hmmaaahhmm

mo mumm

 

Amammm hhmamz mHQv

whoom mo whoahmhhcmo
thou Esaoamo co coahmoaammm mo hhmemomam mam mhmm Hmmaaahhmm mo pommwm

.ma mahmB

50

.Am0.0 Ana .umme macmm maaahasz

m_cmo::ov hcmnmmmat mahcmoamacmam hon ohm hmhhma mEmm ohh hh omBOaaom mcmoz

 

 

 

 

Ohm a00.0 hm 000.0 on 000.0 m 0a0.0 mamam mmmcmeaoomm m
onm 000.0 mm 000.0 on 000.0 nm a00.0 mamas mmmamsEoomm
on a0a.0 m a00.0 hm 000.0 m 0a0.0 ammommonm mmmmmEEoomm m
o ama.0 m 000.0 m 000.0 m s00.0 ammommOHm mmmamseoomm
hm 000.0 nm 000.0 on 000.0 mm 000.0 mcmm mmmamEEoomm m
ohm 000.0 h 000.0 00 000.0 hm 000.0 mmmm mmmmmssoomm
m 000.0 nm 000.0 m 0s0.0 hm am0.0 I- 0
a:
mosauma uoaamo mmmhhmu mammm hcmEoomam homaaahhmm
mo ohmm

 

Amammm whoamz whov

thOhm mo Emammsmmz mo
whoahmhhcoocoo so soahmoaammm mo hcosmomam chm ohmm homaaahhom mo hommwm

.ma mahmE

51

.Amo.o.A m .hmmB mmqmm mamahasz

 

 

 

 

m.cmocsov phohomwam mahcmoamacmam hos ohm hmhhoa oEmw mhh mh omBOaaom mammz
hm a00.0 hm 0aa.0 m 000.0 hm 000.0 mcmam mmmcmesoomm m
h 000.0 hm aaa.0 m 00a.0 h 0a0.0 mamam 06000580600
m 000.0 h 000a.0 m 0aa.0 hm 000.0 ammommoum mmmcmssoomm m
hm 000.0 hm 0aa.0 m 0aa.0 hm 000.0 ammommOhm mmmmmssoomm
hm 000.0 m 00a.0 m 000.0 hm 000.0 mcmm mmmcmesoomm m
hm a00.0 hm aaa.0 m 00a.0 h 000.0 mamm mmmcmesoomm
hm 000.0 hm 0aa.0 m 00a.0 m. 00.0 in 0
0:
mosppma houhmo oomhhmo mammm hhoEmomam homaaahhmm
we mhmm

 

Amammm hhmamz xhov

whoom mo whoahmhhcmo
thou Esammhmmz so coahmoaammm mo hcmEmomam mam ohmm homaaahhmm mo hommmm

.ha mahmB

52

This reduction may have been caused by a dilution effect
(Table 13).

Cabbage shoots: Potassium concentrations in cabbage
shoots were not affected when fertilizer was applied at one—
half rate regardless of placement or when fertilizer was
broadcast at the recommended rate. Potassium concentrations
increased significantly as the rate of either banded or
planed fertilizer was increased.

Cabbage roots: Potassium concentrations were slightly
higher when the recommended rate of fertilizer was used re-
gardless of placement. Concentrations from the check were
slightly greater than the treatments with one-half of the
fertilizer application.

Lettuce shoots: There was no difference in potassium
concentration among treatments. The high concentration shown
by the check may have been caused by a high uptake of potas-
sium compared with its very low fresh weight yield shown in
Table 12.

Lettuce roots: As described in lettuce shoots and
probably for the same reason, the check showed again the
highest K concentration. No detectable effect of rate and
placement on potassium concentration of lettuce roots was
observed.

Carrot shoots: The potassium concentration in carrot
shoots increased as the rate of K increased. When fertilizer
was applied at the recommended rate regardless of placement
and in a plane at one—half rate the concentrations were con-

sistently higher (level 0.05) than the rest of treatments.

53

The check showed the lowest concentration.

Carrot roots: The concentration of K in carrot shoots,
grown in fertilized pots were appreciably higher than when
broadcast at one—half rate or where no fertilizer was used

(Table 13).

Calcium concentrations in shoots and roots

 

Bean shoots and roots: As shown in Tables 14 and 15
bean shoots and roots calcium levels were not affected by
either rate or placement of fertilizer.

Cabbage shoots: All fertilizer treatments significantly

 

reduced the concentration of Ca in cabbage shoots. Treatments
that received the highest rate of fertilizer resulted in the
least amount of calcium in the shoots. The dry weight

percent of Ca in the plant tissue was decreased from 1.5 to
0.8 by increased rates of fertilizer applied broadcast.

Cabbage roots: The Ca concentration in the check was
consistently higher (level 0.05) than those of the fertilized
pots. There were no difference among the fertilized treat—
ments (Table 15).

Lettuce shoots and roots: The results of calcium con-
centrations in both shoots and roots clearly show a decrease
in calcium content in the fertilized pots as compared with
the checks. There were no consistent differences among the
fertilized treatments in the calcium concentrations of either
shoots or roots.

Carrot shoots and roots: Data of calcium concentration

in shoots and roots (Tables 14 and 15) showed no Significant

 

 

54

effect of the treatments on either shoot or root calcium

concentration.

Magnesium concentrations in shoots and roots

 

Bean shoots: There were no differences in magnesium
concentrations among treatments (Table 16).

Bean roots: The Mg content was lower in shoots of
plants grown in pots to which fertilizer was applied than in
the unfertilized pots. However, only banded and planed both
at the recommended rate, were significantly lower (Table 17).

Cabbage shoots: The Mg concentration in cabbage shoots
decreased as the rate of fertilizer increased. Percent Mg
decreased from 0.48 in the check to 0.33 and 0.30 percent in
pots fertilized at the recommended rate in band and broadcast
treatments respectively.

Cabbage roots: The Mg concentration of cabbage roots
was not affected by rate or placement of fertilizer.

Lettuce shoots: The magnesium concentration of lettuce
shoots was definitely higher in the plants from the unferti—
lized pots. However this difference was significant only
compared with the broadcast placement at both
rates.

Lettuce roots: As shown by data presented in Table 17
lettuce root Mg levels were not affected by treatments..

Carrot shoots and roots: The Mg concentration in carrot
shoots and roots was not affected by rate or placement of

fertilizer (Tables 16 and 17).

55

Phosphorus Uptake

 

Total phOSphorus uptake by both shoots plus roots of each
of the vegetable creps are given in Table 18. The uptake is
reported as milligrams of phOSphorus per pot.

Beans: The uptake of P increased as the rates of ferti—
lizer increased. The highest uptake resulted when the recom—
mended rate was applied in a plane, followed by the same rate
applied in a band. However at the moderate rate of application,
P uptake at the band placement was the best and was a signifi-
cantly higher than the rest of the one—half fertilized pots.
Broadcast was lowest at both rates. All treatments signifi—
cantly increased P uptake compared with the check (Table 18).
The highest uptake occurred with both the recommended
rate applied in a plane and the same rate applied in a band
because these treatments were outstanding in dry matter
yields and in P content (Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11).

Cabbage: As shown in Table 18 the P uptake was increased
by all levels of applied fertilizer. The recommended rate of
fertilizer applied in a plane produced the highest P uptake;
the same amount of fertilizer applied in a band produced the
second largest uptake. Planed fertilizer at high and moderate
rates produced significantly higher P uptake than broadcast
compared at the same rates of fertilizer application.
Broadcast at one—half rate, was significantly lower than
planed and banded at the same one—half rate of fertilizer

application. Phosphorus uptake was lowest in the check pots.

56

m.cmocsov hcmhmmmao mahcmoawacmam

.A00.0 An0.ummh ms

ho: ohm hmhhma oEmm mhh 0h thOaaom mammZa

 

 

 

 

m.m0 h a.0m h 0.00 to a.00 mamam tothmEEoomm w
m.mm m 0.00 m 0.00 m 0.00 mhmam ompnoEEoomm
0.00 h 0.00 o 0.00 p a.0m hmmomeHm omUGmEEoomm m
0.00 m 0.00 h 0.00 0h 0.00 hmmoomOHm omthmeaoomm
0.0m m 0.a0 h 0.00 ohm 0.00 ohmm tmccmEEooom m
0.00 m 0.00 hm 0.00 hm 0.00 ocmm . twosmEEoomm

0.0 o 0.0a 0 0.00 am 0.00 in . 0

m hom\ofil

oughhma whoahmo mmmhhmo mammm hcmEmomam hmmaaahhmm
mo mhmm

 

hamEmomam ohm ohmm thaaahhmm 0h omocmSamcH mm mxmhma mDHOhmmOhm amhoe .ma mahms

57

It appeared that the phosphorus uptake by cabbage plants
was more a function of the dry weight of both shoots and roots
than of the phosphorus content since phosphorus content showed
less change than dry shoot and root weights (Tables 8, 9, 10
and 11).

Carrots: The amount of P taken up by carrot plants in-
creased with each additional increment of fertilizer applica—
tion. Band application of the fertilizer resulted in greater
P uptake at both recommended and one—half rate than the other
fertilizer placement when comparing at the same rates of
fertilizer application. Broadcast at high and moderate rates
produced the lowest P uptake among the fertilized pots. The
no fertilized treatment showed the lowest P uptake (Table 18).

As can be seen from the Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11 carrot
root and shoot weights are the most important factors that
influenced the total uptake of P.

Lettuce: All levels of fertilizer application caused
an increased phosphorus uptake. The uptake was increased from
2.43 mg/pot produced by the check to a maximum of 55.35 g/pot
that was produced by plane placement at the recommended rate.
The second best uptake was obtained when the fertilizer was
broadcast at the recommended rate. However at the moderate
rate the broadcast application performed poorly and produced
the lowest P uptake among the fertilized treatments. All
fertilized treatments produced significantly higher P uptake

than the non-fertilized pots (Table 18).

58

In this case the P uptake was especially a function of
shoot and root weights (Tables 8 and 9), and secondly, a

function of P concentration (Tables 10 and 11).

Potassium Uptake

 

Potassium uptake is reported as milligrams of K per pot
(Table 19).

Beans: The uptake of K by bean plants increased as the
rates of fertilizer increased. Band placement resulted in
greater K uptake at both rates, however this difference was
significant only if compared with broadcast at the one—
half rate. All fertilized treatments resulted in higher K
uptake than the checks (Table 19).

Cabbage: The K uptake was increased by all rates of
fertilizer application. Plane application of the fertilizer
resulted in significantly greater K Uptake when the recommended
amount of fertilizer was applied. At one half the fertilizer
level band application was more effective. Uptake of K by
plants grown with broadcast applications are considerably
less when compared to band and plane applications, however,
this difference was significant only at the recommended rate.
The uptake of K in all the fertilized pots was Significantly
higher than the check.

Lettuce: The data in Table 19 reveals that K uptake by
lettuce plants was definitely influenced by rates and placement

of fertilizer application. Plane placement resulted in

.A00.0 An0.hmoh m2
m.cmocsov hcmhmmmao mahcmoamacmam hos mam hmhhma mEmm mhh 0h meoaaow mammZa

 

59

 

 

 

hm 0.00a o 0.00a o 0.00a hm 0.00a mamam mmmcmssoomm m
m a.00a hm 0.00a m 0.000 m 0.000 mamas momcmsaoomm
o 0.00 m 0.00a o 0.0aa h 0.00a ammommOHm mmmcmssoomm m

hm 0.00a h 0.00a o 0.00a m 0.0a0 ammommOHm . mmmcmssoomm
h a.maa h 0.00a oh 0.a0a m 0.0a0 thmm toohoEEoomm m
m 0.a0a m 0.0a0 h 0.00a m a.000 00mm mmmcmssoomm
m 0.00 m 0.00 m a.a0 ao 0.00 in 0

s hom\0s

mosauma hoahmo mmmhhmu mammm hhmamomam hmmaaahhmm

mo mhmm

 

usmEmomam mam mpmm hmmaaahhmm 0h pmothamga mm mxthD Edammmhom amhoe .ma mahmB

 

greater K uptake at both rates. Band placement at the recom-
mended rate resulted in significantly greater K uptake than
the same band placement at the moderate rate of fertilizer
application. Broadcast resulted in the lowest K uptake at
both rates. All fertilized treatments significantly in—

creased K uptake as compared with the check.

Carrots: Data in Table 19 shows a definite influence of
rate and placement of fertilizer on K uptake by carrot plants.
Band placement at both rates was more efficient than the
other placement methOds compared at the same rates. At one-
half rate of fertilizer application each placement was sig-
nificantly different from the other placements. Broadcast
fertilizers always produced the lowest uptake when compared
with the other placement methods. The check showed signifi-
cantly lower K uptake than the rest of the pots.

The inspection of the bean shoot and root weights and
potassium concentration, reveals that the K uptake by bean
plants was a function of both plant weight and K concentra—
tion in plant parts in approximately equal perortions. On
the other hand as can be seen from Tables 8, 9, 12 and 13 it
is evident that K uptake by cabbage, carrots and lettuce was

primarily a function of their shoot and roOt weights.

61

Changes in Soil P and K Resulting
From Broadcast Fertilization

 

 

Soil samples taken in September '82 prior to fertilizer
application contained 18 kg/ha of Bray l extractable P and 85,
1296 and 192 kg/ha of exchangeable K, Ca, and Mg, respectively.
After harvesting, samples from the broadcast and check pots
were analyzed for available Bray 1 P and exchangeable K, Ca'
and Mg.

Soil phosphorus: Effects of fertilizer application on
soil phosphorus test are presented in Table 20. The "build
up" of the soil P level was apparent from the rates of
fertilizer applied in all the experiments.

In the cabbage and carrot pots the soil test value re—
sulting from additions of fertilizer, increased with each
rate of fertilizer application. Each level was significantly
different from the other levels.

In the bean and lettuce pots each addition of fertilizer
increased the soil P level consistently, however, this in-
crease was significant only when comparing the one—half
recommended rate with the recommended rate.

Soil phosphorus in the checks decreased from 18 kg/ha
prior to cropping to 12 kg/ha for beans and cabbage pots and
to 14 kg for carrot pots. Soil P in lettuce pots did not
change at the end of the experiment. It would appear that
the difference in response could be due to the differences
in P uptake from the check pots (Table 18), this comparison

reveals that the uptake of lettuce was meager whereas the

62

Table 20. Soil Phosphorus Level After Harvesting as
Influenced by Fertilizer Ratel

 

 

 

 

Rate of
Fertilizer Beans Cabbage Carrot Lettuce
kg/ha P
0 13.2 b2 14.5 c 15.4 c 20.3 b
% Recommended 20.9 b 23.0 b 22.6 b 24.3 b
Recommended 35.8 a 33.6 a 36.0 a 35.4 a

 

lFertilizer was applied broadcast

2Means followed by the same letter are not significantf

Table 21. Soil Potassium Level After Harvesting as Influenced
by Fertilizer Ratel

 

 

 

Rate of

Fertilizer Beans Cabbage Carrot Lettuce
o 118 b2 72 c 86 c 110 b

% Recommended 141 b 93 b 113 b 165 a

Recommended 183 a 146 a 143 a 167 a
1

Fertilizer was applied broadcast

2Means followed by the same letter are not significant

63

uptake was considerably higher in beans, cabbage and carrot.
When one—half the recommended rate of fertilizer con-
taining phosphorus (32 kg/ha P) was applied the soil P level
increased slightly in all the experiments. Whereas when the
recommended rate of fertilizer was applied (64 kg/ha P), the
P level increased slightly more than one—fourth the amount of
P added by the fertilizer. This change in soil P is higher
than the values obtained by Rouse (1968), whose data revealed
that 5 to 6 kg/ha was requried to raise the extractable P
l kg/ha in a sandy loam soil. However similar increases to
those reported in this investigation were reported by Peck
et a1 (1971) working with medium textured Alfisols.
Soil Potassium: The effect of fertilizer on the con-
centration of potassium in the soil after harvesting is
shown in Table 21. It is readily seen in the data from the
four experiments that the level of exchangeable K was in-
creased significantly by each rate of fertilizer application.
The effect of cropping on the level of exchangeable po—
tassium may be noted by comparing the initial exchangeable
K (85 kg/ha K) with the check levels of potassium (Table 21).
Three experiments showed equal or higher exChangeable values
than the initial K level; only in the cabbage experiment was
the level of K in the check lower than before planting. The
total K uptake by cabbage shoots and roots when no fertilizer
was applied (Table 19) was 49 kg/ha which is a greater value
than the decrease in exchangeable K during the cropping

period (13 kg/ha). This suggests that in the check pots of

64

all the experiments considerable amounts of non—exchangeable
K was released during the growing time.

When one—half the recommended rate of fertilizer con-
taining K was applied (83 kg/ha K), soil exchangeable K
(Table 21) was increased by 56, 8, 28 and 80 kg/ha for beans,
cabbage, carrot and lettuce plots, respectively, and the
plant uptakes(Table 19) were 130, 93, 82 and 54 kg/ha in the
same order. This indicates that in all pots variable amounts
of non—exchangeable K were released during the season.

When the recommended rate was applied (166 kg/ha K), soil
exchangeable K was increased by 98, 61, 58 and 82 kg/ha and
shoots and roots (Table 19) contained 178, 112, 144 and 115

kg/ha K for beans, cabbage, carrot and lettuce.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The effects of rate and placement of phosphorus and
potassium fertilizer application on yield and composition of
snap beans, cabbage, carrot and lettuce were studied in field
and greenhouse experiments.

The field study was established on a Washtenaw silt
loam soil high in phosphorus and potassium. The soil used

for the greenhouse experiment was a phosphorus and potassium

‘——

deficient Marlette fine sandy loam.

For both field and greenhouse experiments and for each
of the four crOps, two rates of fertilization and three
methods of fertilizer placement were used. The fertilizer
rates were: one hundred percent and fifty percent of the re—
commendation based on soil analysis. Fertilizer placements
used were: band-—the fertilizer was applied in a narrow band
below the seeds; broadcast—-the fertilizer was thoroughly mixed
into soil; p1ane—-the fertilizer was uniformly applied in a

wide strip and covered with 8—10 cm of Soil.

The results from this investigation are summarized as

follows:

Field Experiments

 

Yields: For snap beans and carrot yields, one—half of the

fertilizer rate applied in a plane was the most effective

65

1 66

method. This same rate applied in a band was the most effec—
tive treatment for cabbage.

Nutrient concentrations: The concentration of phosphorus
in leaves was neither significantly or consistently affected
by the rate or placement of fertilizer.

Rates of fertilizer application increased slightly but
consistently the concentration of K in beans and cabbage
leaves. No consistent differences in K concentrations were
observed in lettuce leaves.

When fertilizer was banded the K content of bean and
cabbage leaves tended to be higher. No concentration dif—
ferences were observed in lettuce leaves due to placement
of fertilizer.

Calcium concentration in bean leaves was slightly
reduced as fertilization increased. Calcium concentrations
of cabbage and lettuce leaves were not affected by rates or
placement of fertilizer.

Fertilizer rate and placement had no effect on bean and
cabbage leaf magnesium concentration. Fertilization de—

creased the concentration of magnesium in lettuce leaves.

Greenhouse Experiments

 

Tgp yields:

Plane placement of the fertilizer at the recommended
rate resulted in greatest yields of cabbage, lettuce and
carrots, whereas the best yield of snap beans was produced

by the recommended rate applied in a band. In beans,

67

cabbage and carrot the band placement at one—half rate pro—
duced only slightly lower yields than the best treatment. ,
In lettuce the next two best yields were obtained from the
pots on which the recommended rate was applied in a band or

broadcast.

Root Yields

In beans and cabbage,p1ane placement of the fertilizer
resulted in greater root weights when applied at the
recommended and the suboptimum rates. With both crops the

root weights produced by the one—half and recommended ferti—

lizer rates were not significantly different when plane
placed.

Band placement of the fertilizer resulted in greater
carrot and lettuce root weights when applied at both the
recommended and moderate rates. These two treatments pro—

duced the largest root weights of both carrot and lettuce.

Phosphorus concentrations:

 

The moderate rate of fertilizer application increased
the concentration of carrot and cabbage shoots, no further
increases were evident with the‘higher rate of fertilizer.

Concentrations of P in bean and lettuce shoots in—
creased with each rate of fertilizer application.

Phosphorus concentrations in the roots of the four
vegetables tended to increase with increasing rates of fer—
tilizer application. Band application at the recommended

rate produced the highest P concentrations in bean, lettuce

68 .

and cabbage roots. In carrot roots the largest P concen—

tration was produced by broadcast at the recommended rate.

Potassium concentration:

 

The potassium concentration in carrot, cabbage and bean
shoots increased as the rate of fertilizer increased. In all
the crops the broadcast placement produced equal or lower K
concentrations than plane and band at both rates. In lettuce
shoots, and probably due to a concentration effect, the highest
K concentration was shown by plants from the check pot.

Increasing rates of K showed a trend toward higher K
concentrations in carrot roots. Band and plane placements
resulted in greater K concentration than broadcast at both
recommended and one—half rates. Generally high rates of
fertilizer increased the concentration of K in bean roots.

At the moderate rate no effect was found. Fertilizer rate
and placement had no definitive effect on K concentration

in lettuce and cabbage roots.

Calcium concentration:

Carrot and bean shoot and root calcium levels were
not affected by either rate or placement of fertilizer.
Fertilization reduced the concentration of Ca in cabbage and

lettuce shoots and roots.

Magnesium concentration:

 

The Mg concentration in cabbage and lettuce shoots de—

creased as the rate of fertilizer increased. Generally, no

69

significant effects of the treatments were observed on root
Mg cencentration of cabbage, lettuce and carrots. The

Mg concentration of bean roots decreased as the rate of
fertilizer increased. This decrease tended to be greater

when fertilizer was banded or planed than when broadcast.

Phosphorus and Potassium uptake

 

In the four crOps studied the P and K uptake was in-
creased by all rates of fertilizer application. Banded
and planed fertilizer at high and moderate rates produced
consistently higher P and K uptake than broadcast fertili—

zer compared at the same rate of fertilizer application.

Effects of fertilization on available soil P and K

When one-half the recommended rate of fertilizer was
applied the soil P level increased slightly in all the ex—
periments. When the recommended rate was applied, the P
level increased slightly more than one—fourth the amount of
P added by the fertilizer. Generally soil phosphorus in the
checks decreased after cropping.

The level of exchangeable K was increased significantly

by each rate of fertilizer application.

 

LITERATURE C ITED

Amaral, F.A. 1971. Nota sobre efeitos do modo de localizacao
de fertilizantes na cultura do feijae. Revista Ceres,
Brazil 18: 502-507.

Barber, S.A. 1959. Relation of Fertilizer Placement to
Nutrient Uptake and Crop Yield: II. Effects of Row
Potassium, Potassium Soil Level, and Precipitation,
Agron. I., 51: 97:99.

Barber, S.A. 1974. A program for increasing the effici-
ency of fertilizers. Fert. Solutions 18: 24-25.

Barshad, I. 1954. Cation exchange in micaceous minerals II.
Replaceability of ammonium and potassium from vermiculite,
biotite and montmorillonite. Soil Sci. 78: 57-76.

Bray, R.H. and E.E. DeTurk. 1939. The release of potassium
from non—replaceable forms in Illinois soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer Proc. (1938) 3: 101—106.

Cooke, G.W. 1955. Recent advances in fertilizer placement.
II. Fertilizer placement in England. J. Sci. Food
Agric., 5: 429—440.

Cooke, G.W. 1956. Fertilizer placement for horticultural
crOps. J. Agr. Sci., 47: 249—256.

Cooke, G.W. and Widdowson, F.V. 1953. Placement of ferti—
lizers for row crops. J. Agric. Sci. 43: 348—357.

Cummings, G.A. and G.E. Wilcox. 1968. Effect of potassium
on quality factors——Fruits and vegetables. In V.J.
Kilmer et al (ed.) The role of potassium in—agriculture.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am.

Cummings, R.W. 1943. Principles determing where fertilizer
should be placed for greatest efficiency.. p. 27-30. In
Natl. Plant Food Inst., Washington, D.C.

DeMent, J.D. and G. Stanford. 1959. Potassium availability
of fused potassium phosphates. Agron. J. 51: 282—285.

Draycott, A.P. 1972. Sugar—beet nutrition. John Wiley and
Sons, New York. 250 p.

70

 

71

FAQ. Fertilizers. 1969. An annual review of world production,
consumption, trade and prices. 185 p.

Follet, R.H., Murphy, L.S. and Donahue, R.L. 1982. Fertili-
zers and soil amendments. Prentice—Hall, Englewood Cliffs
New Jersy.

Fox, R.L. 1981. Fertilizer placement-phosphorus. In 14th
Hawaii fertilizer conference proceedings. Research ex—
tension series. Kapaa, Hawaii.

Geissler, T. 1966. The suitability of different phosphate
fertilizers for the root-ball fertilization of vegetables.
Arch. Gartenb., 14: 73—77.

Geraldson, C.M., G.R. Klacan, and O.A. Lorenz. 1973. Plant
analysis as an aid in fertilizing vegetable crOps.
p. 365—379. In L.M. Walsh and J.D. Beaton (ed.) Soil
testing and plant analysis. Rev. ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.,
Madison, Wis.

Grunes, D.L. 1959. Effect of nitrogen on the availability of
soil and fertilizer phosphorus to plants. Adv. Agron.
11: 369—396.

Hewitt, E.J. 1963. The essential nutrient elements: Require-
ments and interactions in plants. F.C. Steward (ed.) Plant
physiology, a treatise. Inorg. Nut. of plants III:
176—192.

Hipp, B.W. 1969. Influence of rate and placement of phospho-
rus on growth, yield and nutrient concentration in carrots.
J. Rio Grande Valley hort. Soc. 23: 84-87.

Huffman, E.O., and A.W. Taylor. 1963. The behavior of water-
soluble phosphate in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 11:
182—187.

Kamfrath, E.J. 1967. Residual effects of large applications
of phosphorus on high fixing soils. Agron J. 59: 25—27.

Knott, J.E. 1957. Handbook for begetable growers. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.

Kratky, B.A. and Y.N. Tamimi. 1974. Response of potatoes to
phosphorus and windbreak. Hawaii Farm Science 22: 10—12.

Laws Agricultural Trust. 1951. Report of Rothamsted Experi—
mental Station for 1950, Harpeden pp. 184.

Laws Agricultural Trust. 1952. Report of Rothamsted Experi—
mental Station,for 1951, Iarpeden pp. 212.

 

72

Lehr, J.R., W.E. Brown, and E.H. Brown. 1959. Chemical be-
havior of monocalcium phosphate monohydrate in soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23: 3-7.

Lindsay, W.L., and H.F. Stephenson. 1959. Nature of the
reactions of monocalcium phosphate monohydrate in soils:
I. The solution that reacts with the soil. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 23: 12—18.

Lorenz, O.A., M.T. Vittum. 1980. Phosphorus nutrition of
vegetable crops and sugar beets. In. F.E. Khasawneh
et al (ed.) The role of phosphorus in agriculture.
Soil Sci. Am., Madison, Wis.

Lucas, R.E. and G.D. Scarseth. 1947. Potassium, calcium
and magnesium balance in plants. Agron. J. 39: 887—896.

Lucas, R.E., and M.T. Vittum. 1976. Fertilizer placement
for vegetables. p. 75—88. In G.E. Richards (ed)
Phosphorus fertilization——princip1es and practices of
band application. Olin Corp., St. Louis, Mo.

Miller, M.H., and A.J. Ohlrogge. 1958. Principles of
nutrient uptake from fertilizer bands: I. Effect of
placement of nitrogen fertilizer on the uptake of band—
placed phosphorus at different soil phosphorus levels.
Agron. J. 50: 95—97.

National Joint Committee on Fertilizer Application. 1958.
Methods of applying fertilizer. Natl. Plant Food Inst.,
Washington, D.C.

Olsen, S.R., and F.S. Watanabe. 1963. Diffusion of phosphorus
as related to soil texture and plant uptake. Soil Sci.
Am. Proc. 27: 648-653.

Olson, R.A., and A.F. Dreir. 1956. Nitrogen a key factor in
fertilizer phosphorus efficiency. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 20: 509—514.

Peck, N.H. 1975 a. Plant response to concentrated superphos—
phate and potassium chloride fertilizers. V. Snap beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris var. humilis). SEARCH Agric. 5(2)
New York Agric. Exp. Stn., Geneva.

Peck, N.H. 1975 b. Vegetable crop fertilization. New York's
Food and Life Sci. Bull. no. 52. New York Agric. Exp.
Stn., Geneva, N.Y.

Peck, N.H., and J.R. Stamer. 1970. Plant response to concen-
trated superphosphate and potassium chloride fertilizers.
III. Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata). New York
Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 830, Geneva, N.Y.

73

Peck, T.R., L.T. Kurtz, and H.L. Tandon. 1971. Changes in
Bray P—l soil phOSphorus test values resulting from
applications of phOSphorus fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 35: 595-597.

Rains, B.W., W.E. Schmid, and E. Epstein. 1964. Absorption
of cations by roots. Effects of hydrogen ions and es-
sential role of calcium. Plant Physiol. 39: 274—278.

Rich, C.I., and W.R. Black. 1964. Potassium exchange as
affected by cation size, pH, and mineral structure.
Soil Sci. 97: 384-390.

Rich, C.I. 1968. Minerology of soil potassium. In V.J.
(ilmer et al (ed.) The role of potassium in agriculture.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wis.

Rouse, R.D. 1968. Soil test theory and calibration for
cotton, corn, soybeans and coastal bermuda grass.
Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 375.

Samman, Y.S. 1963. Effect of methods of phosphate and lime
placement on dry matter content and yield of dry bean.
Diss. Abstr. 24: 18.

Sanchez, P.A. 1976. Properties and Management of soils in
the TrOpics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Sanchez, P.A. and Uehara, G. 1980. Management considerations
for acid soils with high phosphorus fixation capacity.
In.The role of phosphorus in agriculture. American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis.

Tisdale, S.L. and Nelson, W.L. 1975. Soil Fertility and
Fertilizers. Macmillan_Publishing Co., New York.

Vitosh, M.L., Christenson, D.R. and Knesek, B.D. 1978. Plant
nutrient requirements. In.Dry Bean, Production princi—
ples and practices. Mich. St. Univ. Ext. Bull. E—1251.

Volk, N.J. 1934. The fixation of potash in difficulty avail-
able forms in soils. Soil Sci. 37: 267—287.

Warncke, D.D. and Christenson, D.R. 1981. Fertilizer Recom—
mendations Vegetable and Field CrOps in Michigan. Mich.
St. Univ. Ext. Bull. E-550.

Weir, A.H. 1965. Potassium situation in montmorillonite.
Clay Minerals 6: 17-22.

Welch, L.F., D.L. Mulvaney, L.V. Boone, G.E. McKibben, and
J.W. Pendleton. 1966. Relative efficiency of broadcast
versus banded phosphorus for corn. Agron. J. 58: 283-
287.

 

74

Yost, R.S., E.J. Kamprath, E. Lobato, and G.C. Naderman, Jr.
1979. Phosphorus reSponse of corn on an oxisol as in-
fluenced by rates and placement. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
43: 338—343.

Zink, F.W., and M. Yamaguchi. 1962. Studies on the growth
rate and nutrient absorption of head lettuce. Hilgar-
dia 32: 47l~500.

Zurbicki, Z. 1966. Investigations on methods of fertilizing
vegetable crops. Roczn. Nauk rol., Ser. A, 91: 525-
545.

N

{Illlllflllflll‘ljfllllflilfll1|