. . . V V.. V
V .V . A .
.. V . .V V
. . V . _. ... .
... . . . V.
..
. V V V .. ...
. . . .
a _ . V . .
A V V V.. .V
V . V .
. .
. 4
V V V
.
V .V . v. . . V
. V V . .- ... . . V
. V . . E .. _ V . . .
V V .. .. V. . .
. . . .
V. . .. . . V
.V .. _ .n . . V
. . .V.. .V . . V . .
. V V .. V . V
t . .. .
. V. . .. .

 

1E):

 

IA ‘

 

 

A
0. ED
Ph. D

m

UVNWERS

"39%?
’1‘."

0M
: Z
ee of

'Wt-A‘RD JU DY

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 

  
 

 

     

 

 

 

V V . .. Wm NAM . . V. V e. .TrIIL . 6
V . V . QM .AMVfo Em. c :V. V
. . _ W ...E Mug. T. mn ,
. . V I.‘ . VAV t S. M V
V . .1 .L . r N A
V, N . l
m .
V Z,
. . . . ....Vwrnmww“
F . . V . b V V~ . . .. .. V . V. . A. ..V‘r..r.u. ”.....V‘i. .vmwmahflflflrV‘VanlVJr
WWW” .»>V H.V..Mv DWI. .V . .H V...” .V. .... . .. VJ“ A.“ 2...? .VEHHMV... VI...I.V..'.T . V ...V q. . V .. V A. ..I.. V V. ... . LIA. ..v.~ VG ....V V :7 J... . A. J. V .3355»; V I .iV . - .V

 
 

-" ‘.I’|l I

I."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I

|\\\\\

3 1293 10504 895

ThESIiS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Zinc Availability from Soil Applied
Zinc Sulfate and Zinc EDTA

presented by

William Howard Judy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Soil Science

 

MW 7
Major professor

Date Homer 13 196'?

0-169

If mrjflufiu— __ ... ...-W “fr-rm
:1.

“9' 0 in"; '.'.V . ‘ .' '
1..- l' A?) RA 64. Y
Michigan 5" .325:

University

 

O .
4

and

    
   

ABSTRACT

ZINC AVAILABILITY FROM SOIL APPLIED
ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA

by WILLIAM HOWARD JUDY

Liming, pH of the growth medium, and application of phos-
phorus are some conditions commonly associated with zinc deficient
plants. Crops such as beans, corn, hops, lima beans, and flax have
been treated for zinc deficiency with various carriers of zinc.
Zinc from inorganic carriers is reported to be rapidly fixed
in the soil. Chelated zinc carriers have been utilized with vary-
ing success to supply zinc and their effect and fate in soils and
plants are not completely understood.

This research was designed to investigate the availability

of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA1

to pea beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) on mineral soils. The effect of soil applied phos-
phorus, soil type, and time on zinc availability was also investi-
gated.

Five field experiments were conducted in Michigan in l963
and l964 at l2 locations where the effect of zinc carrier,
phOSphorus application, and time on zinc uptake by plants and
yield of dry beans was determined. Soils were included which were
both calcareous and non-calcareous at the surface, high and low

in available phosphorus, and variable in acid extractable zinc.

Four greenhouse pot experiments were designed to investigate the

uptake and distribution of zinc in plants and yield of pods as
affected by zinc carrier, soil type, phosphorus application, and
time. A calcareous soil which was high in available phosphorus was
incubated with each zinc carrier and with phosphorus application
for 90, l80, and 270 days. The incubated soil was extracted by
a fractionation procedure with water (water soluble zinc), neutral
normal ammonium chloride (exchangeable zinc), and tenth normal
hydrochloric acid (acid soluble zinc).

In the field experiments where zinc EDTA was applied at rates
as high as 1.6 pounds of zinc per acre and zinc sulfate at 3.0
and 4.0 pounds per acre, the zinc uptake and yield of dry beans
by plants were higher. more often than not, on zinc EDTA treatments.
As the rate of additional applied phosphorus was increased from
0 to 696 pounds per acre, the zinc concentration in plants and
bean yield were reduced less on zinc EDTA plots than on zinc sulfate
plots. Zinc uptake by plants and yield of beans increased with each
increment of applied zinc EDTA.

In the greenhouse experiments where zinc was applied at
rates from 0.5 to 48.0 pounds per acre, more zinc was taken up
and more zinc was in the youngest growth portions of plants grown
on zinc EDTA treated pots than in plants on zinc sulfate treated
pots. The pod yield on the chelated zinc treatments was greater
except when the zinc concentration in the above-ground plant
exceeded 50 parts per million.

When zinc was not applied, the yield of pods and dry beans

was reduced, but the zinc concentration in plants was not

materially affected as the rate of soil applied phosphorus was
increased.

More water soluble and exchangeable zinc could be extracted
from incubated soil which was treated with zinc EDTA than from
zinc sulfate treated soil. At higher rates of applied zinc, more
zinc could be recovered from zinc EDTA treated soil. When 1000
pounds of phosphorus per acre were applied, the recovery of all
three forms of soil zinc was increased, except for exchangeable
zinc from zinc EDTA; disprOportionately more zinc from zinc sulfate

than from zinc EDTA could be recovered.

 

1Disodium zinc ethylenediamine tetraacetate dihydrate.

ZINC AVAILABILITY FROM SOIL APPLIED
ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA

By

William Howard Judy

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Soil Science

1967

ACKNDWEEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistance and
encouragement of his major professor, Dr. John C. Shickluna, and
of the members of the guidance committee, Dr's. Lynn S. Robertson,
Boyd G. Ellis, Paul E. Rieke and Robert S. Bandurski. Appreciation
is extended to Dr. Ray L. Cook and other members of the Soil
Science Department and Dr. M. Wayne Adams who provided many
Opportunities for intellectual growth.

Special acknowledgment is extended to the Tennessee Valley
.Authority, American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Company, and Geigy
Chemical Cdrporation who provided partial financial support for
this research and whose representatives tendered advice and
encouragement.

The author has an especially warm memory for those persons
who created and helped maintain the intellectual and cultural
‘(flimate of Michigan State University.

The author acknowledges his eternal gratitude to his wife

Barbara for her continuous support and encouragement.

ii.

Tapic

II.
III.
IV.

VI.
VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Page number
INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................. 2
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES ............................... 10
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ................................ 12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ 36
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY ............................... 127
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... ................................ 139

iii.

LIST OF TABLES

 

Description Page number

 

 

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table

Table

Table

Table

Trable

Table

Table

Arable

Table

Previous crop grown and physical characteristics of
the soils used in the field experiments ............ 14

Chemical analysis of the soils used for field
experiments ........................................ 15

Chemical and physical analyses of the soils used in
the greenhouse and incubation experiments .......... l7

Placement, analysis, and rate of application of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and manganese
fertilizer used in the field experiments ........... 23

Source and rate of nutrients (except zinc) applied
to the soils used in the greenhouse experiments....

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)
and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment 1,
location 1, l963) ................................... 33

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Gratiot)
and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment l,
location 2, 1963) ................................... 39

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)
and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment l,

location 3, 1963) ................................... 40

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)
and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment 1,
location 4, l963) ................................... 41

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var.

Mehlfeldt) and yield of dry beans as affected by
carrier and rate of zinc application. (Field
Experiment l, location 5, I963) .................... 42

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sani-

lac) and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier

and rate of zinc application. (Field EXperiment 1,
location 6, 1963) .................................. 43

iv.

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

12:

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

19:

20:

21:

iv-l.

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants and yield of
dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of zinc
application. (Field Experiment 1, combination of
locations 1 through 6,1963) .......................

Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sani-

lac) as affected by carrier and rate of zinc appli-
cation and rate of phosphorus application. (Field
Experiment 2, location 7, 1963) ....................

Yield of dry beans from pea bean plants (var.
Sanilac) as affected by carrier and rate of zinc
application and rate of phOSphorus ap lication.
(Field Experiment 2, location 7, 1963 .............

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plants (var. Sanilac) and yield of dry beans
as affected by carrier and rate of zinc appli-
cation. (Field Experiment 3, location 8,1964)..

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plants (var. Sanilac) and yield of dry beans
as affected by carrier and rate of zinc appli-
cation. (Field Experiment 3, location 9,1964)..

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plants (var. Sanilac) and yield of dry beans
as affected by carrier and rate of zinc appli-
cation. (Field Experiment 3, location 10, 1964)...

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plants and yield of dry beans as affected by
carrier and rate of zinc application. (Field
Experiment 3, combination of locations 8 through
10,1964) ..........................................

Weight of ten pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) as
affected by carrier and rate of zinc-application
and rate of phOSphorus ap lication. (Field Experi-
ment 4, location 11, 1964) .........................
Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sani-
lac) as affected by carrier and rate of zinc
application and rate of phOSphorus application.
(Field Experiment 4, location 11, 1964) ............

Zinc content of ten pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)

as affected by carrier and rate of zinc application
and rate of phosphorus ap lication. (Field Experi-
ment 4, location 11, 1964 .........................

44

47

48

51

52

53

54

56

57

58

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

22:

23:

24:

25:

26:

27:

28:

29:

30:

31:

iv-2.

Yield of dry beans from pea bean plants (var. Sani-
lac) as affected by carrier and rate of zinc appli-
cation and rate of phosphorus a plication. (Field
Experiment 4, location 11, 1964) ...................
Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sani-

lac) and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier
and rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment

5, location 12, 1964) .............................

Weight of pea bean plant parts and zinc concentra-
tion and zinc content of the total above-ground
pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) as affected by rate
of zinc and phosphorus a plication and soil type.
(Greenhouse Experiment 1) ..........................
Differences between means required for significance
at the five and one per cent levels obtained by
analysis of varianCe of the data reported in Table
24. (Greenhouse Experiment 1) .....................

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plant parts (var. Sanilac) as affected by
carrier and rate of zinc application. (Green-
house Experiment 2) ................................

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of the
total above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)

as affected by carrier and rate of zinc application.

(Greenhouse Experiment 2) ..........................

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plant parts (var. Sanilac) as affected by
nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium-manganese and EDTA
application. (Greenhouse Experiment 3) ............

Height, zinc concentration, and zinc content of the
total above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)
as affected by nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium-
manganese and EDTA application. (Greenhouse
Experiment 3) .....................................

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plant parts (var. Sanilac) as affected by
carrier and rate of zinc application on a Nisner
clay loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) .........

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of pea
bean plant parts (var. Sanilac) as affected by

carrier and rate of zinc application on a Kawkawlin
loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ..............

59

61

63

64

66

67

73

74

76

77

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

32:

33:

34:

35:

36:

37:

38:

39:

40:

iv-3.

Differences between means required for signifi-

cance at the five and one per cent levels obtained

by analysis of variance of the data reported in

Tables 30 and 31. (Greenhouse Experiment 4). ...... 78

Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of the
total above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)

at two sampling dates as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application on a Nisner clay loam

soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ................... 79

Weight, zinc concentration,and zinc content of the

total above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)

at two sampling dates as affected by carrier and

rate of zinc application on a Kawkawlin loam soil.
(Greenhouse Experiment 4) .......................... 80

Differences between means required for significance

at the five and one per cent levels obtained by
analysis of variance of the data reported in Tables

33 and 34. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) .............. 81

Water, lfl_neutra1 NH Cl, and 0.lfl_HCl extractable

zinc obtained from a Nisner clay loam soil incubat-

ed 90 days at 30 degrees Centigrade as affected by
carrier and rate of zinc application and rate of
phOSphorus application. (Incubation Experiment)... 97

Water, lN neutral NH4C1, and 0.1N HCl extractable

zinc obtained from a Wisner clay_ loam soil incubat-

ted 180 days at 30 degrees Centigrade as affected

by carrier and rate of zinc application and rate of
phosphorus application. (Incubation Experiment). 98

Water, 1N neutral NH Cl, and O. lN HCl extractable

zinc obtained from a Nisner clay loam soil incubat-

ed 270 days at 30 degrees Centigrade as affected

by carrier and rate of zinc application and rate

of phOSphorus application. (Incubation Experi-

ment) .............................................. 99

Differences between means required for signifi-

cance at the five and one per cent levels obtained

by analysis of variance of the data reported in

Tables 36 through 38. (Incubation Experiment) ..... 100

The per cent of applied zinc recovered by water

plus lfl_neutral NH4C1 plus D.lfl_HCl extraction from

a Wisner clay loam soil incubated 90 days as

affected by carrier and rate of zinc application

and rate of phosphorus application. (Incubation
Experiment) ........................................ 120

Table 41:

iv-4.

The per cent increase in zinc extractable by water,
1N_neutral NH Cl, and D.lN_HCl from a Wisner clay
loam soil incfibated 90 days which had received
applied phosphorus over soil which had not received
phosphorus as affected by carrier and rate of zinc

application. (Incubation Experiment) ..............

122

Description

 

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8;

F1°Slure 9:

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Page number

 

The relationship between rates of zinc applied

as zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc con-

tent of leaves of pea bean plants grown on a

Nisner clay loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 2). 59

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
stems of pea bean plants grown on a Wisner clay

loam soi. (Greenhouse Experiment 2) .............. 70

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

'zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content

of vines of pea bean plants grown on a Nisner
clay loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 2) ........ 71

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
the total above-ground pea bean plants grown on a
Nisner clay loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 2). 72

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
leaves of pea bean plants grown on a Nisner clay

loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ............. 84

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
stems of pea bean plants grown on a Nisner clay

loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ............. 85

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
pods of pea bean plants grown on a Nisner clay

loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ............. 86

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
the total above-ground pea bean plants grown on a
Nisner clay loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4). 87

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
leaves of pea bean plants grown on a Kawkawlin

loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ............. 88

V.

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

10:

11:

12:

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

v-l.

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
stems of pea bean plants grown on a Kawkawlin loam
soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ..................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
pods of pea bean plants grown on a Kawkawlin loam
soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4) ..................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and the zinc content of
the total above-ground pea bean plants grown on a
Kawkawlin loam soil. (Greenhouse Experiment 4)...

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and the zinc concentration in leaves,
stems, pods, and total above-ground pea bean

plants grown on a Nisner clay loam soil. (Green-
house Experiment 4) ...............................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc EDTA and the zinc concentration in leaves,
stems, pods, and total above-ground pea bean
plants grown on a Wisner clay loam soil. (Green-
house Experiment 4) ...............................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and the zinc concentration in leaves,
stems, pods, and total above-ground pea bean
plants grown on a Kawkawlin loam soil. (Green-
house Experiment 4) ...............................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc EDTA and the zinc concentration in leaves,
stems, pods, and total above-ground pea bean
plants grown on a Kawkawlin loam soil. (Green-
house Experiment 4) ...............................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water extractable
zinc on a Hisner clay loam soil incubated for 90
days. (Incubation Experiment ) ...................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water plus 1N_neu-
tral NH Cl extractable zinc on a Nisner clay loam
soil)in3ubated for 90 days. (Incubation Experi-

ment .............................................

89

90

91

93

94

95

96

102

103

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

19:

20:

21:

22:

23:

24:

25:

26:

27:

v-2.

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water plus lN neu-
tral NH Cl plus 0.1N HCl extractable zinc on a
Nisner glay loam so1l incubated for 90 days.

(Incubation Experiment) ...........................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water extractable
zinc on a Hisner clay loam soil incubated for 90
days; phos horus was also applied. (Incubation

Experiment)

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water plus 1N neu-
tral NH Cl extractable zinc on a Nisner clay loam
soil ingubated for 90 days, phos horus was also

applied. (Incubation Experiment?

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and water plus 1N neu-
tral NH Cl plus 0. lN HCl extractable zinc on a
Wisner Slay loam so1l incubated for 90 days;
phosphorus was also applied. (Incubation Experi-

ment) .............................................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and water extractable zinc on a His-
ner clay loam soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270

days. (Incubation Experiment) ....................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and water extractable zinc on a Nis-
ner clay loam soil incubated for 90,180, and 270
days; phosphorus was also applied. (Incubation

Experiment) .......................................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc EDTA and water extractable zinc on a Wisner
clay loam soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270

days. (Incubation Experiment) ....................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc EDTA and water extractable zinc on a Nisner
clay loam soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270
days; phOSphorus was also applied. (Incubation
Experiment) .......................................

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as
zinc sulfate and water plus 1N neutral NHC
extractable zinc on a Hisner clay loam $0111 incu-
bated for 90, 180, and 270 days. (Incubation
Experiment) .......................................

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

28:

29:

30:

31:

32:

33:

34:

35:

36:

v-3.

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc sulfate and water plus 1N neutral NH Cl ex-
tractable zinc on a Nisner clay loam soil incubat-

ed for 90, 180, and 270 days; phosphorus was also
applied. (Incubation Experiment) ................. 113

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc EDTA and water plus 1N_neutra1 NH Cl extract-
able zinc on a Wisner clay loam soil ificubated for

90, 180, and 270 days. (Incubation Experiment)... 114

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc EDTA and water plus 1N_neutral NH Cl extract-
able zinc on a Wisner clay loam soil iflcubated

for 90, 180, and 270 days; phOSphorus was also
applied. (Incubation Experiment) ................. 115

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc sulfate and water plus 1N_neutra1 NH Cl plus
0.1N_HC1 extractable zinc on a Wisner clay loam

soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270 days. (Incu-
bation Experiment) ................................ 116

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc sulfate and water plus 1N neutral NH Cl plus

0.1N HCl extractable zinc on a Wisner clay loam

soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270 days; phospho-

rus was also applied. (Incubation EXperiment).... 117

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc EDTA and water plus 1N neutral NH Cl plus
O.1N_HC1 extractable zinc on a Hisner glay loam

soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270 days. (Incu-
bation Experiment) ............ A .................... 118

The relationship between rates of zinc applied as

zinc EDTA and water plus 1N_neutral NH Cl plus
0.1N_HC1 extractable zinc on a Wisner élay loam

soil incubated for 90, 180, and 270 days; phos-

phorus was also applied. (Incubation Experiment). 119

The relationship between the pH of the 0.1N_HC1

soil extract and the pounds of applied zinc as

zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA remaining after extrac-
tion with water plus 1N NH Cl plus 0.1N_HC1 in a
Nisner clay loam soil incugated 90 days. (Incu-
bation Experiment) ................................ 124

The relationship between the pH of the 0.1N_HC1
soil extract and the pounds of applied zinc as

.zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA remaining after extrac-

tion with water plus 1N_NH4C1 plus 0.1N_HC1 in a

v-4.

Nisner clay loam soil incubated 90 days; phos-
phorus was also applied. (Incubation EXperiment). 125

I. INTRODUCTION

 

The value of zinc for growth of some plants has been
recognized since 1863. The essentiality of this element for
plants was not identified until the period 1914 to 1919 and not
generally accepted until about 1928. Zinc was recommended for
annual field crops in 1927 and for tung and fruit trees in 193283.
Beans, soybeans, corn, hops, lima beans, flax, and castor beans
are all very sensitive to zinc deficiency87.

Zinc deficiency of pea beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) when
grown on mineral soils has been diagnosed in Michigan and zinc

treatments were applied27’84.

There are approximately 600,000
acres of pea beans grown annually in Michigan and a large per-
centage of these are planted on soils on which a response to zinc
treatment has been observed.

Pea beans have responded to a wide variety of soil applied
zinc carriers while foliar applications of this element have
been less successful in permanently alleviating zinc deficiency.
Inorganic carriers which have been investigated include the sulfate,
chloride, carbonate, nitrate, oxide, oxysulfate, and phosphate
compounds of zinc, and blast furnace slag, frits, and stripping
acid residues containing this element. Organic carriers of zinc
which have been applied include polyaminecarboxylic chelates and
organic extracts such as polyflavanoids.

The purpose of this research was to investigate the uptake of

. *
z1nc by pea beans from zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA .

*Disodium zinc ethylenediamine tetraacetate dihydrate.

1.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 

The availability of micro-nutrients to plants is affected
by several factors. Depending on the ionic Species, availability
is influenced by low net content, low exchangeable content,
organic matter and calcite complexes, anion precipitation,

ageing and recrystallization, and competition among species46

II-A. Zinc in Plants

 

Zinc is active in enzymatic systems in plants, primarily for

53

some enzyme cofactors The zinc concentration in plants where

deficiency symptoms occurred was usually in the range from 15 to

33,62,86

20 parts per million Often, deficient plants contained

a concentration of zinc equal to or in excess of that in zinc

sufficient plants33’88.

Shaw et al73 found that zinc did not readily redistribute in

plants. Foliar applied zinc was intermediately mobile, but less

mobile than phOSphOFUSIG. Seatz et a171

analyzed parts of plants
near early bloom stage and found an equivalency of bases in each

part.

Beans took up less native zinc and phosphorus than other
cr0p587. Nearpass59 assumed that native soil zinc was not
affected by added zinc since the plant took up the added form.

Epstein and Stout28

reported that exchangeable soil zinc was
available to plants, but Boawn et al11 proposed that plant roots
obtained this element from acid soluble as well as ammonium
acetate forms. The per cent utilization of soil applied zinc by
Plants was shown to be inversely related to the rate of appli-

2.

. 3.
cation73. Only five per cent of applied zinc was recovered by

plants in eXperiments conducted by Leyden and Toth47.

Smith74 proposed that zinc was taken up by sour orange seed-
ling roots as a non-vital process and he likened it to that of

soil absorption of zinc.

II-B. Zinc in the Soil

Inorganic zinc is rapidly fixed in the soil. Alben1

found inorganic zinc to be readily fixed. The work of Shaw et a173

indicated that there was no difference in plant uptake of zinc from
zinc sulfate, zinc carbonate, plant residue, and residual soil zinc.
Zinc sulfate did not move readily in acid sandy soils, except

Lakeland fine sand, and a surface application of this form was

3,60 79

not utilized by tung trees However, Stewart and Leonard

obtained good uptake of zinc when zinc sulfate plus calcium

chloride was applied. Broadcast zinc was found to be more effec-

tive than banded zinc67’73.

On the other hand, chelated zinc is less readily inactivated.
A relatively small amount of chelated metal was needed to supply

plants on some soils]. More zinc was taken up from zinc EDTA

11,21,48

than from inorganic carriers Zinc65 EDTA penetrated and

moved more readily in the soil than zinc65 chloride97. However,

78

Stewart and Leonard found zinc EDTA to have few advantages over

zinc sulfate and to be effective only when mixed with zinc sulfate
in piles or in soda ash under citrus trees. The work of other

23

researchers indicated that plants in solution culture took up

zinc more readily as an ion than as the EDTA chelate.

4.

Very little exchangeable or inorganic forms of zinc were found

in 14 soils whose pH values ranged from 4.5 to 7.285. Nelson

64

and Melsted determined that (a) in a hydrogen saturated soil, all

applied zinc was recovered by ammonium acetate, (b) in a calcium
saturated soil, part of the applied zinc was recovered by ammonium
acetate and part by tenth normal hydrochloric acid, and (c) the
acid soluble zinc increased and exchangeable zinc decreased with

time in both soils. Zinc was rapidly converted to a form not

extractable with hydrochloric acidlz.

26

Elgabaly called the fraction of zinc that was non-exchange-

able with ammonium acetate fixed zinc and proposed that zinc

occupied aluminum- or magnesium-vacant sites in layer silicates.

24

By infrared procedures, DeMumbrum and Jackson determined that

zinc reacted with the octahedral hydroxide in layer silicates but
did not react with kaolinite. Jurinak and Thorne4] preposed that
the unavailability of zinc was a result of its chemical nature in
that numerous chemical and strong clay absorption complexes were
formed as well as zinc hydroxide. Dolomite absorbed more zinc

than magnesite which absorbed more than calcite; ten per cent of

the available exchange sites on calcite were occupied by zinc40.

Liming and pH status are both reported to have an effect on

zinc availability. The critical range for zinc availability was

stated to be from pH 6.0 to 6.519. Liming reduced zinc uptake by

68 100 72

oats , sorghum , and beans Zinc deficient soils were those

with the higher pH value587. Increased uptake was obtained when
the pH was decreased72. Increasing the pH in New Jersey soils

decreased the quantity of zinc absorbed from fertilizer zinc and

5.

increased absorption from native soil zinc with the net result

47

that zinc uptake of tomato plants was lower More zinc could

be leached from soil with a low pH value (4.0) than from a soil

with a high value (7.4)75. Both pH value and absorption were pro-

26 104

posed to affect zinc uptake . Woltz et al found more zinc

fixed by limestone than phosphate. Working with sodium, potassium,

4] showed that zinc

and calcium hydroxides, Jurinak and Thorne
solubility increased with sodium and potassium but decreased with
calcium; they theorized that these effects were because of the
differential solubility of proposed metal zincates. The minimal
solubility of the calcium zincate was at pH 7.6.

The effect of phOSphorus on zinc availability has been debated

considerably in the literature. Jamison36

proposed that soil phos-
phates were not reSponsible for zinc fixation. Soluble phosphorus
in the soil did not cause zinc deficiency88. Boawn et al10 repor-

ted that twice as much phosphorus in bean tissue did not cause zinc
I deficiency or reduction in dry matter weight. Up to 436 pounds of
phosphorus per acre were applied without effect on zinc response72.
Soluble zinc was increased when potassium, hydrogen, ammonium, and
calcium phosphates were applied at rates up to 900 pounds of phos-
phorus per acre5. Zinc uptake by citrus increased as more phospho-
rus was applied4.

The association of phosphorus with zinc deficiency appeared

often. The zinc concentration in oats grown on a Lakeland fine
sandy loam decreased to a constant level with increasing phospho-

6 . . .
rus 8. Z1nc concentrat1on 1n potato leaves and stems decreased

70

when phOSphorus was applied8. Seatz applied up to 2180 pounds of

6.
phosphorus per acre as tri-calcium phOSphate before a response to
zinc was observed and proposed that the acidifying effect of
monocalcium phosphate reduced response to zinc fertilizer when
this form of phosphorus was applied. A large amount of phosphorus

was applied before yield was reduced6

; later experiments indicated
a relationship between a particular soil and phosphorus-induced
zinc deficiencyS. Burleson et a117 observed not only a decrease
in absorption of phOSphorus when zinc was applied and zinc when
phosphorus was applied, but also found a mutual reduction in
phosphorus and zinc uptake when both were applied to corn, toma-
toes, and kidney beans. This inverse zinc-phosphorus relationship
has been reported in corn, and low rates of phosphorus applied in
the row aggravated zinc deficiency, especially on limed soil45’98.
Millikan56 proposed that the depression in plant growth was not
because of low zinc concentration in the plant but of high ph05phorus
concentration.

Zinc seems to be essential to phosphorus utilization in the

56 82

plant , and both were distributed similarly through pea plants .

The demand for zinc was shown to be dependent on the age of the

56 17

plant . Burleson et a1 suggested a phosphorus-zinc antagonism

in the root, but Bingham4 concluded that a reaction outside the
root contributed to this deficiency and the plant was not exclu-
sively involved. Zinc deficiency was attributed to a nutrient

14

imbalance in the soil , complexing of zinc in a water soluble

form which is unavailable to the plant4, and the presence of the
mono-valent phosphate ion in the substrates.

Researchers agreed that generally there was a maximum cation

7.

content in the plant. Magnesium has been reported to increase the

70 2,54

zinc uptake of bean plants Other workers have preposed a

mutual substitution effect between zinc and magnesium. Potassium

and phosphorus tended to accumulate in zinc deficient corn plant588,

and applied zinc decreased the phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and

magnesium content of plants72.

Nitrogen application adversely affected zinc uptake by sub-
terranean clover65, which effect was attributed to zinc-protein

complexing in the root. Increased uptake of native soil zinc by

61

soybeans was obtained with applied nitrogen A favorable effect

on zinc uptake was attributed to a change in the pH value of the

soil caused by applied nitrogen‘z.

Organic matter has been proposed as a causative factor in

zinc deficiency, probably through chelation of this element20’24’43.

58

Mortensen concluded that soil organic matter complexed zinc by

ion exchange,surface absorption, chelation, and peptidization.

II-C. Plant Available Zinc in the Soil

 

Determination of that quantity of zinc in the soil which is
available to the plant has been attempted by chemical extraction

of the soil and by measurement of biological response to available

soil zinc83. Water, pH adjusted alkali salts, hydrochloric acid,

and chelates have been utilized in soil extraction. Tucker

85

and Kurtz were able to recover about one-fifth of the total soil

zinc with repeated acid extraction. The titratable alkalinity pro-
cedure was an adaptation of the acid extraction procedure63.

Zinc deficient soils were determined to be lower in ammonium

8.

acetate, dithizone, or tenth normal hydrochloric acid extractable

zinc87. No satisfactory correlation could be found among soil pH

value, acid extractable zinc, and crop response63. A plant response

to applied zinc was obtained when tenth normal hydrochloric acid

extractable zinc was 1.6 parts per million or less in the 5011]].

II-D. Chelates in the Soil and Plant

 

Factors affecting the stability of the chelate and metal in-

clude the fbrmation, dissociation, and equilibrium constants of

the ligand and metal, and the solubility of metal compounds49. For

example, the stability constants for iron+++ EDTA in reference to

. +++ . . ++~
selected metals were found to be 1ron >copper >z1nc >1ron

50

>manganese >ca1cium >magnesium A comparable competetive

effect among similar cations for the chelate has been determined

15

by Brown et a1 Iron was removed from iron EDTA and percipi-

tated in calcareous 5011594. It was predicted that zinc would be

diSplaced from zinc EDTA by iron but this does not occur, probably

because iron usually exists in the soil in an insoluble formgl.

Zinc65 from zinc65 EDTA and soil zinc were found to interchange

readily93.

Metal chelates were less effective on clay or silt than on

sandy loam soils]. Zinc was removed from zinc EDTA by clay in the

soil, according to Butler and Bray18, but zinc EDTA did not readily

92,96

fix on clay However, calcareous soils fixed high amounts

of this chelated zinc compound77.
Chelates have been applied without the cation in an attempt

to increase native cation uptake. Up to 5000 pounds per acre of

9.

the sodium salt of EDTA increased extractable iron but had no

effect on the soil pH value66. Both stimulation and depression

25

of growth were obtained by chelates , and increased translocation

of zinc from root to top in beans was observed in a loam soil of

91

pH 7.8529. Wallace concluded that chelates applied without zinc

were not effective in correcting zinc deficiency. Toxic levels of

sodium EDTA ranged from 200 to 400 pounds per acre95.

Chelate molecules are probably absorbed and translocated in

90,95,101

plants In a split root experiment where iron was sup-

plied to one side and EDTA to the other, Weinstein et a1102 con-

cluded that EDTA or a decomposition product migrated from one side
of the root to the other and increased iron uptake. Both metal
and chelate were traced to the foliage93, and, in later experi-

ments, EDTA or a decomposition product was shown to move freely

32

to all parts of bean plants Uptake of the chelate itself was

dependent on the pH value and concentration of the ligand77.

Competition between the chelate and the enzymes for metals

102 and between chelate and root for cations77

49

within the plant
have been cited by researchers. Martell also noted competition
between hydrogen and metal ions for the ligand. The ratio of

zinc to chelate became wider moving from the roots to the top of

the plant, and this phenomenon was attributed either to other cations
replacing zinc, or to a separation of zinc from the chelate with

subsequent more rapid translocation of the chelate93.

III. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

 

Zinc from chelated carriers was rapidly inactivated in the
soil. The fate and effect of chelated zinc carriers applied to
the soil are not completely understood. Zinc sulfate and zinc
EDTA were selected for investigation. The effect of phOSphorus,
soil type and time on the availability of zinc from these two
carriers was considered. The crop selected to indicate zinc
availability was pea beans.

The following hypotheses were then proposed.

III-A. Hypothesis 1

 

Uptake of zinc and yield of beans by pea bean plants are
greater when zinc is applied to the soil as zinc EDTA than when

applied as zinc sulfate.

III-B. Hypothesis 2

 

Uptake of zinc and yield of beans by pea bean plants are
reduced more by high soil phosphorus content when zinc is

applied to the soil as zinc sulfate than when applied as zinc EDTA.

III-C. Hypothesis“;

 

More soil applied zinc remains available over a longer time
when zinc is applied to the soil as zinc EDTA than when applied

as zinc sulfate.

10.

ll.
III-D. Hypothesis 4
Extractable soil zinc is reduced more by high soil phosphorus

content when zinc is applied as zinc sulfate than when applied as

zinc EDTA.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

 

Experiments were conducted in the field, greenhouse, and
incubation chamber in order to test the hypotheses stated in

Section III. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES.

 

Zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA were applied to a soil. Then,
the relative availability of zinc from these two carriers was
measured either by determining the zinc uptake by pea bean plants
or by chemically extracting zinc from the soil. The variables of
phOSphorus, soil type, and time were introduced so that their
effect on the availability of zinc from both carriers could be
determined.

Selected physical and chemical characteristics of the soils

were also identified.

IV-A. Description of Field Experiments

 

The purpose of the five field experiments was to study zinc
uptake by pea bean plants and yield of dry beans as affected by:

1. soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA,

2. soil applied phosphorus in excess of planting time

phOSphorus.

Experimental fields were chosen within areas where zinc
deficiency had been observed in the lake plain region of East
Central Michigan. These soils were deposited under a glacial

103. These soils

lake which left the surface with a gentle slope
are imperfectly to poorly drained and therefore drainage tile has
been installed. The soil profiles are calcareous, often to the

surface. Textures of the plow layer include loams to silty clay

12.

13.
loams. Twelve areas were selected for field experiments in 1963
and 1964 which were of minimal slope and tiled. The pH value of
the plow layers ranged from 7.3 to 7.7. Four of the soils were cal-
careous in the plow layer. Seven different soil types were
represented. Eight of the locations had had a cr0p of sugar beets
the previous year. Extractable soil phosphorus as determined by
hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride extraction ranged from 17
to 82 pounds of phosphorus per acre. None of the 12 areas had
received any application of zinc previously, except location 7.
The results from the residual zinc plot at location 7 were not
included in the data reported here. The physical and chemical
characteristics of the soils are given in Tables 1 and 2.

The zinc carriers for the field experiments included zinc
sulfate and zinc EDTA. Zinc sulfate was a 36 per cent zinc granular
or powdered material and was applied at rates of 2.0 to 8.0 pounds
of zinc per acre. Zinc EDTA was applied at rates of 0.3 to 1.6
pounds of zinc per acre. The zinc EDTA used in the 1963 experiments
was a 6.3 per cent zinc sequestered material; in the 1964 experi-
ments, the sequestered material contained 14.2 per cent zinc. Both
granular chelated materials were manufactured by the Geigy Chemical
Corporation. The zinc materials were mixed with the planting time
fertilizer and banded in the soil.

PhoSphorus fertilizer above the planting time phosphorus was
broadcast as a commercial 0-46-0 material and disced in or plowed
down on five experimental areas. These phosphorus applications are
referred to as "additional phosphorus" to differentiate them

fronlthe planting time phOSphorus applications which were banded

14.

.AHPmLm>w== «gnaw cmmm;8wz .uszpgmamn mucmwum
Fwom .mcwmmuwcz .a.m Lommmmocm An umwwwpcmu? azogm “cmsmmmcms tea mama pmom “my

 

u-um.~ Emop ampu cmcmmz mumma cmmsm ¢mm— ~—
u-nm.~ swap cwpzmxzmg muomn gmmam wom— —_
u-am.~ soap cmath mammn can ¢om~ cp
umwGPucmuw poz vmmmpucmum uoz mummn Lamam ema— m
um.~ smop woozpou mumun Luann emm— m
0-5m.P sac, =P_zaxzmx mpamn Laaam mmm_ A
um._ swap »a_u warm econ "cap 8
om.~ swap mayo mswm mumon gmmam mmm— m
om.~ swap »m_u F.25xema gzou mmmp e
um._ snap ampu msmm mummn camam meap m
um._ saoF »a_u mewm m»¢-gamgz mam, N
unnp Eco, amFU auFPm ugmauam mumwa Luann mmmp _

 

Lam» comumuoa

 

gzosm
acwmwmmcms czogm aogu
Fmom AmvaAH Fwom mzop>osm acosmgwaxw upmwu

 

.mucmswgmaxm upmmw
mg» cw umm: mpwom mgu mo momummgmuumcmgo quwmzzq use czogm nose mzom>mcm up «peak

15.

.FUMZVEocw m2 An umum55mm Amy

.ucmuumgpxmupwom-wup mmpamuomcwxm.lzzoou :u pmgymm: 25 Auv
.pcmuumchmu_wom1mnp ”mpnmpumcuxm u :z zmo.o new 5o: zmmc.o Auv
.pcmpuacumeFPOm1oF P mapnmpumcuxm _o: z_.o Any
.Lmuw3HFFom1mup Amv

 

 

5.e_ cow acme amp mpamwgm> 4.5 5.5 comp N5
5.0N coop eemm com 5m ~.5 5.5 comp 55
5.55 cvm mmpm mom 5N ¢.m 5.5 comp o5
m.op owe moem Nap mm m.op ¢.5 comp m
N.o_ o¢m moem mmp Ne m.m 5.5 comp m
-1 -1 11 - anmwgm> o.m 5.5 momp 5
11 11 11 11 e5 c.55 m.5 momp m
11 - 11 - mm o.¢_ m.5 momp m
11 - 11 11 cm o.e~ m.5 mmm_ e
1- 1- 11 11 on «.55 o.5 mmmp m
11 11 1- 11 mm m.¢~ m.5. mmmp N
1- -1 11 1- 55 «.05 «.5 momp 5
a we a m :
armmmsw E z E a is. 3.. E N
A mecmzoxm
cowumu mgum can muczoa Amvmq Lam» savanna;

 

mwmapmcm Paupsmgu Prom newswgmaxm upmwm

 

.mucmswgmaxm upmwm Low umma m5_om may we mwmxpmcm Paupsmgu "N mpam5

16.
with the other plant nutrients. The pea beans and fertilizer were
placed in the soil with a tractor and an adapted commercial planter
which was calibrated to within five per cent. The certified
varieties of pea beans which were planted included Sanilac, Saginaw,
Gratiot, and Mehlfeldt. One bushel of seed per acre was planted
to insure an adequate plant population. The commercial macro-
nutrient fertilizer, which contained two per cent manganese, was
banded one inch to the side and two inches below the seed line in
such quantity that zinc, when deficient, was the only known growth-
limiting nutrient element for pea beans. The analysis and rate of
application of fertilizer are given in Table 3.

Precautions were taken during hand-mixing of the fertilizer
and zinc material and throughout the planting process to handle
low zinc materials first and to clean the equipment. The commercial
fertilizers were analyzed for zinc content and found to contain
less than 0.02 per cent zinc. Weeds were controlled by hoeing;
no chemicals were applied for any pests.

Plant tissue samples were collected at random from each plot
for zinc analysis. Stainless steel collecting and grinding
equipment and paper bags were utilized to minimize contamination37.
The first tissue samples, taken three weeks after planting in 1963,
consisted of 10 to 12 of the total above-ground plants per plot.
The second sample that year was composed of 10 to 12 of the upper-
most mature trifoliate leaves collected at pre-bloom stage. One
tissue sampling was made in 1964. This sample was composed of ten

total above-ground plants removed at pre-bloom stage.

.m:5_ comm ms“ zepmn mmgucw oz“ can muwm mgu op 58:5 mco umucmm Amv

 

17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cmm.mem.¢55.5m _.ON ammoumogm omN N 5.o5 m.o5 m umucmm N—
11 11 11 com N 5.o5 m.o5 o umucmm 55
com 5.0N ammuumogm com N 5.o5 m.o_ m cannon op
com 5.oN ummoumogm oom N 5.o5 m.o— m cmucmm a
com P.ON ummuumogm com N _.op m.o5 m umucmm m
omo.mem.e55.5m _.oN pmmuumocm omN N 5.05 m.o_ o umucmm 5
11 11 -1 omN N 5.o5 m.op m. noccmm o
11 11 11 omN N _.o5 m.o_ m cwccmm m
11 11 1- omN N 5.o5 m.o5 o umucmm q
11 11 11 omN N 5.o5 m.o_ m umucmm m
11 11 11 omN N 5.o5 m.o_ o umucmm N
11 11 11 omN N 5.o_ m.o5 m nmucmm 5
LmNNPPucmm c: x a z
Amcum5a5v :5 a Amcumxapv
mgmm acme can ucmsmumpa «gum gmNPpwagmm cw pcmo gm; Amvpcmsmumpm
mscogamogg Pacowumcu< gm~wpmugmm we?» mcpucmpa
cowumoo_
ucmswcmaxm
Lm~555ugmw meugmeeoo we acmsmumpa new mama upmmm

 

.mucmsmcmaxm u5m55 may :5 umm: LmNPPwpgm5 mmmcmmcms
use .Esmmmmuoa .magogamosn .cmmoguwc 5o :omumuPpnam.5o mum; can .mwmxpmcm .pcmsmuum ”m m_am5

18.

Soil samples for chemical testing were composites of a
minimum of 20 cores to plow depth from the sampling area. All
soil samples from field experimental areas were taken before the
area was planted. The non-galvanized equipment used for collecting
soil samples was cleaned and used only for zinc experimental work.
Except for zinc analyses, the chemical tests were performed by the
University Soil Testing Laboratory.

The yield of dry beans from pea bean plants was obtained
from bushes pulled by hand at maturity. After drying in a stack,
the bushes were threshed in an experimental thresher. The size of

yield area on each plot was at least 0.002 acre.

IV-A-l. Description of Field Experiment l,_19§§_

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the
zinc concentration in pea bean plants and on the yield of dry
beans was studied on three soil types at six field locations in
Field Experiment 1 which was conducted in 1963.

The soil type on locations 2, 3, 5, and 6 is a Sims clay loam.
0n location 1, the soil is a calcareous Rudyard silty clay loam
and on location 4, a Parkhill clay loam.

The experiment was designed as a randomized block with four
replications. Zinc sulfate was applied at 4.0 pounds of zinc pert
acre and zinc EDTA at 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 pounds of zinc per acre.
Sanilac variety pea beans were planted on locations 1, 3, 5, and 6.

Gratiot beans were planted on location 2 and Mehlfeldt beans on

location 4.

19.
IV-A-2. Description of Field Experiment 2, 1963

 

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and
level of additional soil applied phOSphorus on the zinc concen-
tration in pea bean plants and on the yield of dry beans was
studied in Field Experiment 2 which was conducted on location 7
in 1963.

The soil type on location 7 is a calcareous Kawkawlin loam
soil complexed with some calcareous Wisner clay loam soil.

The experiment was designed as a randomized split block with
three replications. The blocks were split by levels of phosphorus.
In the fall of 1959, phOSphorus was broadcast at the rates of O,
87, 174, and 348 pounds of phosphorus per acre and plowed down.

In the fall of 1961, a second application of phosphorus at the
same rate was broadcast on half of these split plots and plowed
down to give ph05phorus levels of O, 174, 348, and 696 pounds of
phOSphorus per acre. Zinc sulfate was applied at 4.0 pounds of
zinc per acre and as zinc EDTA at 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 pounds of zinc

per acre. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted.

IV-A-3. Description of Field Experiment 3, 1964

 

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the
zinc uptake of pea bean plants and on the yield of dry beans was
studied on three soil types in Field Experiment 3, which was con—
ducted on locations 8, 9, and 10 in 1964.

The soil types on location 8 and 10 are Hettinger silty clay
loam and a calcareous Tappan loam, respectively. The soil type on

location 9 was not identified.

20.

The experiment was designed as a randomized block with eight
replications. Three hundred pounds of additional phosphorus per
acre were broadcast and disced into the soil on each area before
planting. Zinc sulfate was applied at 3.0 pounds of zinc per
acre and zinc EDTA at 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 pounds of zinc per
acre. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted on all three

locations.

IV-A-4. Description of Field Experiment 4,pl964

 

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and
level of additional soil applied phosphorus on the zinc uptake of
pea bean plants and the yield of dry beans was studied in Field
Experiment 4, which was conducted on location 11 in 1964.

The experiment was designed as a randomized split block with
three replications. Location 11 is adjacent to location 7,
and the soil type is the same calcareous Kawkawlin loam soil. The
blocks were split exactly as described for location 7 in 13:5;2,

Field Experiment 2, 1963, except that the second application of

 

phOSphorus was applied in the fall of 1962, rather than in 1961.
This gave the same levels of phosphorus: O, 87, 174, 348, and 696
pounds of phosphorus per acre. Zinc sulfate was applied at 3.0
pounds of zinc per acre and zinc EDTA at 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2

pounds of zinc per acre. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted.

IV-A-S. Description of Field Experiment 5, 1964
The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the

zinc concentration in pea bean plants and the yield of dry beans

21.
was studied in Field Experiment 5, which was conducted at location
12 in 1964.

The soil type at location 12 is a calcareous Wisner clay
loam. Severe zinc deficiency on pea beans had been observed in
this field the past four years.

The experiment was designed as a randomized block design with
four replications. Zinc sulfate was applied at 2.0,14.0, and 8.0
pounds of zinc per acre and zinc EDTA at 0.4, 0.8, and 1.6 pounds

of zinc per acre. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted.

IV-B. Description of Greenhouse Experiments

The purpose of the four greenhouse pot experiments was to
study zinc uptake, dry matter weight, and pod yield of pea bean
plants as affected by:

...-l
0

soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA,

2. level of soil applied phosphorus,

3. soil type. .

Three soil types were chosen from locations where zinc
deficiency had been observed during field experiments. The
Wisner clay loam soil utilized in all four greenhouse experiments
was collected from the area of Field Experiment 5 at location 12.
The Kawkawlin loam soil used in Greenhouse Experiment 4 came from
the area of Field Experiment 2 at location 7. The Bach silt loam
soil used in Greenhouse Experiment 1 came from Lessman's field
experiment at location H38. These soils, which came from plots

which had not received any zinc, were collected with nongalvanized

equipment, air dried, sieved through a stainless steel screen,

22.
and stored in covered bins. The physical and chemical character-
istics of the soils are reported in Table 4.

Both zinc carriers were banded in the soil with the other
plant nutrients at levels from 0.5 to 48.0 pounds of zinc per acre.
The zinc sulfate source was a chemically pure grade zinc sulfate
with seven water molecules of hydration. The zinc EDTA material
was the 14.2 per cent sequestered product described under I!:A,..
Description of Field Experiments.

All nutrients were placed in a ring one-half inch to the
side and one inch below the seed ring. The sources of these
elements were chemically pure grade materials which were analyzed
for zinc content. Plant nutrients were supplied in such quantity
that zinc, when deficient, was the only known growth-limiting
nutrient for pea beans. Calculation of the rate of nutrients
was based on the soil weight, using the value of 2,000,000 pounds
. of soil per acre. Thirty-six hundred grams of soil were potted
in double plastic lined cans. The analysis, rate, and method
of application of all elements except zinc are reported in
Table 5. '

A common source of Sanilac variety pea bean seed was used in
all experiments. Fifty per cent more seeds were planted than the
papulation desired and the excess plants were removed. The vines
were staked and tied for coherence.

The pots were randomized on greenhouse benches. Artificial
light was provided to lengthen the day to 14 hours. Deionized

water was used for all watering. Pots were maintained at the 20

3
2

.»u_mco>_== mumum comwgowz .ueasuemamo au=m_um _Pom .aepmmuwgz .a.m Lammmeoza ma cavewpcmufi

A
.Amvm—v gmucmxmp< can cmeppx mo nocums gmamsogu»: A

.A¢m¢pv gua_m new ma_¥sz 4o tongue .cowummawu «a: A
._umzesoee mz 52 cauapemm A

.ucmuumcume—pom1mn— ”mpnmuumgwxm 1:zoou :u Pagymm: 25 M
.ucmuumeuxmupwom1mup umpnmuumguxm u :z zmo.o new Pu: szo.o
.—o: umpmgucwwcou A
.ucouumcuxmu—_om1o—up mmFaouuoguxm pu: z—.o M
.cmumznpmom-an

 

 

 

 

 

Iuo— ae—u sugar: NM mt mN ¢.N —.oN cccp ecmo NON mm c.mw N._ m.5 11 savannaucH
Ine— :m—rmunmu NN Nm o¢ a.— 5.m~ Nmm eNmm ew— mp o.mm ¢.5 m.5 e mmzogcmmcw
150— upmm sum: 11 11 11 11 11 11 1- 1- m5 o.mo N.m 5.5 _ mmaoccomco

slop hm—u swamp: Nm mv mN ¢.N —.oN oco— eemm moN mm o.mm N.5 5.5 e ucm.m.N._ mmaoccmmcu

:N

.8 \ 2 E5 E...

as o 1 one x

“Erna 3 33 ES. 3.. L s c m.

»«_u »__m age» ACVomcaguxa
Aucuu sway copumu meow Lon mezzo; m In Lonsaz ucpx
mvueoucou A v
Aucou Lung A Louua:

«pvonxu —mam AsymmmA—mca —~Um:e:uo: umcamgc mwmxpmcm qumsmcu 55cm acmewsmaxm

 

.mwculmumaxu companaucp was musescmmgm use =_ new: m—_Om as» we mmmapmcm paupmxga ucm Pouremzu

50:3

24.

._._.om Cw “~0wa LMNSZSLmL. n— :_. z :0 acmficmamfi m_. Uwficmn LO team—... 2 mo mwmm Amy

 

 

 

 

-- o.oN .- o~z.¢om=z =2
11 o.ON5 11 m wax x
1- 5.55 11 oz :2 z
11 m.Nm 11 a
-- «.mm 1- eoamzezz z e
.- o.o~ -1 om=.¢om=z c:
11 o.om 11 m «ox x
11 m.5 1- oz :2 z
1- m.No 11 a
.. «.mN -- eoauzexz z m use N
.- o.o~ .- o~=.¢om=z =2
c.NON o.mN 11 m ox x
o.NN_ 11 - oz :2 z
11 o.em o.ooo— e N e a
11 ¢.m5 co c.5me o.Nm¢ go c on I :z Amvz 5
Ameua\npv AmLUM\nPV Aaeua\npv
cowpapom pwom :5 55cm :5 mugzom
:5 cmuu< umucmm vmxwz “cmwguzz acmwggzz
Lungs:
Newswgmaxm
mucmwguac 5o copumuppnnm 5o cosume use .mumg .mugzom mmaoncmmew
.mpcmewgqum mmaogcmmgu
mg“ :5 van: mFVom use op cmwpaam Au:_~ ugmoxmv macmwepac mo mum; can mugaom “m m5am5

25.
per cent moisture level by periodic weighing.

Plant tissue samples were collected by cutting off the plant
near the soil surface with a stainless steel knife. Tissue samples
were placed in paper bags, dried, weighed, ground, and analyzed
for zinc concentration. The yield of pods was obtained by removing
the complete pod. The pods were then dried, weighed, ground, and

analyzed for zinc concentration.

IV-B-l. Description of Greenhouse Experiment 1

The effects of two levels each of soil applied zinc sulfate
and additional phosphorus and two soil types on the dry matter
weight and zinc concentration in pea bean plants were studied in
Greenhouse Experiment 1.

Wisner clay loam and Bach silt loam soils, both calcareous,
were utilized in this experiment.

The experiment was designed as a 23 factorial, completely
randomized. One thousand pounds of additional phosphorus per
acre as monammonium phOSphate were mixed in half of both soils
before potting. Zinc sulfate at 8.0 pounds of zinc per acre was
applied in half of the pots. Sanilac variety pea beans were plant-
ed and thinned to four plants per pot. _

The plants were sampled 97 days after planting which was near
maturity but before any leaves fell. The pods were removed, and
the balance of the above-ground plant constituted the leaf and

stem sample. These two portions were weighed and then combined for

 

26.
zinc analysis.

IV-B-2. Description of Greenhouse Experiment 2

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on
the dry matter weight and on the uptake and distribution of
zinc in pea bean plants was studied in Greenhouse Experiment 2.

The Wisner clay loam soil was used in this experiment.

The experiment was designed to include five treatments,
completely randomized, and had four replications. Zinc sulfate
and zinc EDTA were applied at levels of 4.0 and 20.0 pounds
of zinc per acre. The control did not receive any zinc treat-
ment. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted and thinned to four
plants per pot.

The plants were sampled at early bloom stage 29 days
after planting. Plants were separated into leaf, stem, and vine
portions for weighing and zinc analysis. The leaf portion
included the petiole. The vine portion included all of the

stem and leaves above the axil of the uppermost mature trifoliate.

IV-B-3. Description of Greenhouse Experiment 3

The effect of soil applied EDTA and nitrogen-phosphorus-
potassium-manganese on the dry matter weight and on the uptake
and distribution of zinc in pea bean plants was investigated in
Greenhouse Experiment 3, which was conducted concurrently with
Greenhouse Experiment 2.

The Wisner clay loam soil was used in this experiment.

27.

The experiment included three treatments completely randomized
with four replications. One set of pots did not receive any
treatment. The second treatment was the same rate of nitrogen-
phosphorus-potassium-manganese nutrients as was applied in the
control for Greenhouse Experiment 2. The third treatment was
100 pounds of 99 per cent pUre EDTA (manufactured by the Geigy
Chemical Corporation) banded alone. Sanilac variety pea beans
were planted and thinned to four plants per pot.

The plants were sampled at early bloom stage 29 days after
planting and separated into plant parts for zinc analysis as

described in IV-B-Z. Description of Greenhouse Experiment 2.

 

IV-B-4. Description of Greenhouse Experiment 4

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and of
soil type on the dry matter weight and on the uptake and distri-
bution of zinc in pea bean plants was studied in Greenhouse Experi-
ment 4.

The Wisner clay loam soil and the Kawkawlin loam soil were
utilized in this experiment.

The experiment was designed to include 15 treatments and
completely randomized with four replications. Six hundred pounds
of phosphorus as dicalcium phosphate were mixed into all of the
soil before potting. Zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA were applied on
each soil type at rates of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 16.0, and 48.0
pounds of zinc per acre. The control did not receive any zinc
treatment. Sanilac variety pea beans were planted and thinned to

six plants per pot.

28.
Four plants were removed near the soil surface 28 days after
planting and dried, weighed and analyzed for zinc concentration.
The second sampling was made 56 days after planting, near
maturity, but before any leaves fell. The remaining two plants
per pot were separated into leaves, stems, and pods, and then
dried, weighed, and analyzed for zinc concentration. The leaf

portion included the petiole.

 

IV-C. Description of Incubation Experimegt

The purpose of the incubation experiment was to study soil
zinc as affected by:

1. soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA,

2. level of soil applied phOSphorus,

3. length of incubation.

The Wisner clay loam soil was collected from the area of
Field Experiment 5 at location 12. The soil was air dried and
sieved through a 5/16 inch stainless steel screen.

Maximum water holding capacity was determined with disturbed
soil cores. The soil cores were prepared with filter paper and
cheesecloth on the bottom. They were water saturated for 12 hours
and drained for 30 minutes on a paper towel; this condition was
considered to be water saturation. The soil cores were placed
on a tension table at 60 centimeters of tension for 24 hours;
this condition was considered to be the maximum water holding
capacity of the soil. The amount of water added to the soil

during incubation was 70 per cent of the maximum water holding

29.

capacity. For the Wisner clay loam soil used in this experiment,
this value was 15 per cent water.

The experiment was designed to include 11 treatments
and completely randomized with two replications. One thousand
pounds of phosphorus per acre as monocalcium phosphate with one
water molecule of hydration were mixed into half of the soil
Zinc sulfate as the chemically pure grade of zinc sulfate with
seven water molecules of hydration and zinc EDTA as the 14.2
per cent sequestered material were each applied to the soil at
levels of 2.0, 6.0, 18.0, 54.0, and 162.0 pounds of zinc per
acre. The control did not receive any zinc treatment.

The zinc treatments were sprayed on the soil. The appro-
priate quantity of zinc stock solution was mixed into part of the
deionized water and sprayed over 200 grams of soil which was
agitated in a large beaker. Washings from this beaker subsequent
to zinc treatments indicated that less than 0.5 per cent of the
amount of zinc applied was retained on the beaker. The treated
soil was placed into 250 milliliter griffin beakers and the
balance of the water was added by weight to bring the soil to
70 per cent maximum water holding capacity. Any addition of
water was trickled down the side of the beaker to avoid puddling
and crusting of the soil surface.

The beakers were covered with a single sheet of 0.001
millimeter thick polyethylene which was secured by a rubber
band. Each soil treatment was brought to weight at three week

intervals by adding deionized water. The usual water deficit was

30.
ten to twenty per cent per beaker.

Three separate samples of each treatment were prepared for
incubation at 90, 180, and 270 days at 30 degrees centigrade in
a controlled environment incubation chamber.

When incubation was complete, the plastic was removed from
the beakers, and the samples were covered loosely with paper
and air dried at room temperature. Each soil sample was crushed
by a glass roller on an individual paper sheet, handling the
lowest zinc treated samples first.

The incubated soil samples were extracted with deionized
water (water soluble zinc), neutral normal ammonium Chloride
(exchangeable zinc), tenth normal hydrochloric acid (acid soluble
zinc), and normal hydrochloric acid. All four soil extracts
were analyzed for zinc concentration. The pH value was determined

for all soil extracts, except the normal hydrochloric acid extracts.

IV-D. Methods of Chemical Analysis

 

Chemical analyses were performed on soil and plant samples.
The available phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, and
the cation exchange capacity were obtained for soils used in all
experiments. Acid extractable zinc, total zinc, organic matter
content, and mechanical analysis were obtained for selected soils.
Total zinc was determined in plant samples.

Precautions were taken in the laboratory during zinc analyses

37

to avoid contamination The weighing and handling equipment

were composed of stainless steel or glass. Glass containers were

31.
utilized for extracting soil and ashing tissue. All laboratory
handling, storage, and dispensing equipment was made of glass or
plastic.

Equipment was cleansed by washing two times in two normal
hydrochloric acid and rinsing three times in deionized water.
The deionized water was prepared by filtering distilled water
through cation exchange resin which was periodically cleaned by
hydrochloric acid.

Standard plant tissue and soil samples were periodically

analyzed as checks during analyses for zinc content.

IV-D-l. Chemical and Physical Analyses of Soils

 

Soil samples were stored until air dry in loosely covered
paper boxes and then crushed with a glass or wooden roller on
paper sheets.

Acid extractable zinc was determined by a modified procedure

of Tucker and Kurtz85

. Duplicate five gram (1 0.01 gram)

samples were weighed into erhlenmeyer flasks. Fifty milliliters
of tenth normal hydrochloric acid were added and the sample was
shaken for one hour on a rotary shaker. After the sample was
filtered through number 2 Whatman filter paper, the zinc concen-
tration in the extract was determined by atomic absorption
spectrOphotometryf. A blank sample of the extractant was carried
through the procedure concurrently with each lot of soil samples.

The analysis of the soil samples from the incubation experi-

ment was carried out using a fractionation procedure. Duplicate

 

*Perkin Elmer 303 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer.

32.
samples were run for each replicate. Five grams (3 0.01 gram) of
soil were weighed into a 100 milliliter centrifuge tube. Fifty
milliliters of deionized water were added and the sample was
agitated on a reciprocating shaker at 290 cycles per minute for
one hour. The sample was centrifuged for 15 minutes and filtered.
The centrifugate was resuspended in 50 milliliters of neutral
normal ammonium chloride (modified procedure of Bingham et a17),
shaken for one hour, centrifuged for 12 minutes, and filtered.
The centrifugate was resuspended in 50 milliliters of tenth normal
hydrochloric acid (modified procedure of Tucker and Kurt285),
shaken for one hour, centrifuged for 12 minutes, and filtered.
The centrifugate was resuspended in normal hydrochloric acid,
shaken for one hour, centrifuged for 12 minutes, and filtered.
All extracts were analyzed for zinc content with the atomic
absorption unit. The speed of the centrifuge was 3300 revolutions
per minute. Number 2 Whatman filter paper was used for all separa-
tions. The pH values of all except the normal hydrochloric acid
soil extracts were measured to within 3 0.02 of a pH unit. Check
samples consisting of the extractants only were run with each lot
of 25 soil extracts.

Various extraction sequences for several zinc rates and both
zinc carriers indicated that the amount of zinc extractable by
normal hydrochloric acid from a soil sample could be considered
essentially equivalent to that amount of zinc obtained by the
fractionation procedure using water plus neutral normal ammonium

chloride plus tenth normal hydrochloric acid plus normal hydro-

chloric acid; also tenth normal hydrochloric acid extractable

33.

zinc could be considered equivalent to water plus neutral normal
ammonium chloride plus tenth normal hydrochloric acid extractable
zinc; and, neutral normal ammonium chloride extractable zinc,
equivalent to water plus neutral normal ammonium chloride extract-
able zinc. The normal hydrochloric acid extraction was employed
in an attempt to recover all of the zinc which had been applied
to a soil sample. The sum of the zinc extracted by water plus
neutral normal ammonium chloride plus tenth normal hydrochloric
acid plus normal hydrochloric acid was equivalent to 95 to 100
per cent of the zinc applied.

Total zinc in selected soils was determined by boiling the
soil sample in concentrated hydrochloric acid for eight hours.*

The soil pH was determined using a soil to water ratio of
1:2. For available phosphorus, the soil was agitated one minute
with twenty-five thousandth normal hydrochloric acid and three
hundredth normal ammonium fluoride using a soil to extractant
ratio of 1:8. Available potassium, calcium, and magnesium were
determined by agitating the soil one minute with neutral normal
ammonium acetate, using a soil to extractant ratio of 1:8. The
exchange capacity was determined by displacement of cations
with sodium chloride and subsequent measurement of displaced
sodium.

Soil organic matter and mechanical analysis were determined
on the Wisner clay loam and Kawkawlin loam soils only. Organic
matter was determined according to the method of Walkley and

* Unpublished procedure and data by James R. Melton, Soil
Science Department, Michigan State University.

34.

Black89. Mechanical analysis was performed according to Kilmer

and Alexander44.

The type of the soils at each of the field experimental
areas was identified by on-site investigation. The soil manage-
ment group identification is defined according to soil character-
istics.*

The physical and chemical characteristics of the soils are

reported in Tables 1, 2, and 4.

IV-D-2. Chemical Analysis of Plant Tissue Samples

 

All plant tissue samples were analyzed for total zinc
concentration. For the samples which were weighed, the total
zinc content has been calculated.

Plant tissue samples were placed in paper bags and dried at
70 degrees centrigrade in a forced air oven, weighed, and ground
in a zinc-free Wiley mill. Duplicate one gram (3 0.001 gram)
samples were ashed for four hours at 500 degrees centrigrade in
an electric oven, taken up in ten milliliters of normal hydrochlo-
ric acid, filtered through a number two Whatman filter, brought
to volume by deionized water, and analyzed for zinc content. One
blank sample of the normal hydrochloric acid solvent was included
with each group of fifty tissue samples. Also, standard pea

bean tissue samples were run periodically as checks.

 

* Soil type and soil management group identified by Professor
E. P. Whiteside, Soil Science Department, Michigan State
University.

35.

Zinc concentration in tissue samples is reported in parts
per million of zinc by dry matter weight. Zinc content is
reported in milligrams of zinc which was calculated for each
replicate by multiplying the dry matter weight of the tissue

sample by the zinc concentration.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The objective of the field, greenhouse and incubation chamber
experiments was to examine the relative availability of zinc from
soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA by determining the zinc
uptake and bean yield of pea bean plants and by chemically
extracting the soil. The effect of the variables of soil applied
phosphorus, soil type, and time on zinc availability was also
studied.

Extensive field and greenhouse work had indicated that
correction of the abnormal growth described on pea beans planted
on inorganic soils in Michigan could be accomplished by appli-

cation of zinc to the 501127.

The plants grown in the field
and greenhouse experiments conducted in this research exhibited
zinc deficiency symptoms. When zinc was applied to the soil in
sufficient quantity, the uptake of zinc by the plant increased and
symptoms of zinc deficiency were not observed on plants.

Zinc deficiency symptoms on pea bean plants varied in
intensity, but were alike on both field and greenhouse plants
and were similar to those described by Thorne83. Pale green
plants in the early stages of growth were evidence of mild zinc
deficiency; plants subsequently recovered and often yielded a
normal harvest of beans. More severe symptoms included small
and deformed leaves with chlorotic areas. More drastically
affected plants had shortened petioles and stems and necrotic
areas appeared on the leaf, usually beginning with those leaves
at the lower part of the plant and progressing up the stem

affecting more and more leaves. The most severe symptoms

36.

37.
appeared on plants during early growth, usually within 10 to 25

days after emergence; these plants rarely grew taller than six
inches and many died without blossoming or fruiting. 0n plants
with moderate to severe deficiency, the date of blossoming was
frequently delayed. Pods would form but drop off or not develop
fully. Maturity was delayed and frost or early mandatory harvest
further depressed yields. A few severely affected plants would-
suddenly recover and produce a near normal yield.

The data were analyzed according to analysis of variance

techniques30’76.

V-A. Field Experiment Results

The purpose of the field experiments was to study zinc uptake
by pea bean plants and yield of dry beans as affected by soil
applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and additional soil applied
phosphorus. In all of the field experiments except Field Experi-
ment 5, zinc treatments other than zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA were
included. The results of these other treatments are reported

elsewhere38’39.

V-A-l. Results of Field Experiment l,_l963

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the
zinc concentration in pea bean plants and on the yield of dry
beans is reported for locations 1 through 6 in Tables 6 through 11.
The data from these six locations are summarized in Table 12.

On the 1.2 pound zinc EDTA treatment, the plant population

38.

Table 6 : Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of

zinc application.

(Field Experiment 1, location 1, 1963)

 

Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)

 

 

 

 

Treatment
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield(d)
applied carrier (Ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)
lst 2nd
samplihg(b) sampling(c)
0 -- 19.0 16.0 28.2
4.0 ZnSO4 56.0 34.0 28.0
0.4 ZnEDTA 23.0 16.0 32.7
0.8 ZnEDTA 50.0 24.0 32.7
1.2 ZnEDTA 54.0 26.0 29.4

 

LSD, P=.05(9)
Zinc treatment

4.1

 

(a) Average of four replications.

(b Sampled 24 days after planting.
(c Sampled 42 days after planting.
(d) Harvested 98 days after planting.
(e) Analysis of 12 treatments.

39.

Table 7': Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Gratiot) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of
zinc application. (Field Experiment 1, location 2, 1963)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beahs(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield(d)
applied carrier (ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre) _p
lst 2nd
sampling(b) sampling(c)
0 -- 15.0 22.0 30.9
4.0 ZnSO4 26.0 26.0 33.0
0.4 ZnEDTA 30.0 28.0 34.9
0.8 ZnEDTA 28.0 27.0 38.1
1.2 ZnEDTA 24.0 24.0 35.8
LSD, P=.05(9)
Zinc treatment 4.4

 

(a; Average of four replications.

b Sampled 27 days after planting.

(c) Sampled 43 days after planting.

(d) Harvested 98 to 100 days after planting.
(e) Analysis of 12 treatments.

40.

Table £3: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of
zinc application. (Field Experiment 1, location 3, 1963)

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield(d)
applied carrier (ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)
lst 2nd
sampling( ) sampling(c)
0 -- 15.0 12.0 25.8
4.0 ZnSO4 40.0 22.0 26.3
0.4 ZnEDTA 28.0 12.0 29.9
0.8 ZnEDTA . 36.0 . 15.0 38.6
1.2 ZnEDTA 48.0 16.0 27.3
LSD, P=.05(9)
Zinc treatment 8.6

 

(a) Average of four replications.

(b Sampled 27 days after planting.
(c Sampled 43 days after planting.
(d) Harvested 90 days after planting.
(e) Analysis of 12 treatments.

41.

Table 9: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of
zinc application. (Field Experiment 1, location 4, 1963)

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield(d)
applied carrier (Ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)
lst 2nd
sampling( ) sampling(c)
0 -- 14.0 15.0 31.6
4.0 ZnSO4 50.0 31.0 32.1
0.4 ZnEDTA 20.0 20.0 31.8
0.8 ZnEDTA 32.0 24.0 32.4
1.2 ZnEDTA 36.0 26.0 31.3
LSD, P=.05(e)
Zinc treatment 3.9

 

(a) Average of four replications.

(b; Sampled 36 days after planting.

‘(c Sampled 50 days after planting.

(d; Harvested 93 to 102 days after planting.
e Analysis of 12 treatments. '

42.

Table 10: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Mehlfeldt) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of
zinc application. (Field Experiment 1, location 5, 1963)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield(d)
applied carrier (ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)
lst 2nd
sampling(b) sampling(c)
0 -- 20.0 13.0 20.5
4.0 ZnSO4 74.0 26.0 27.4
0.4 ZnEDTA 26.0 16.0 24.9
0.8 ZnEDTA 39.0 14.0 25.7
1.2 ZnEDTA 45.0 17.0 25.9
LSD, P=.05(3)
Zinc treatment 2.3

 

(a; Average of four replications.

b Sampled 22 days after planting.

(c) Sampled 40 days after planting.

(d; Harvested 83 to 89 days after planting.
(e Analysis of 12 treatments.

43.

Table 11: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) and
yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and rate of

zinc application.

(Field Experiment 1, location 6,1963)

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yie1d(d)
applied carrier (ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)

lst 2nd

sampling(b) sampling(c)
O -- 24.0 17.0 46.7
4.0 ZnSO4 48.0 40.0 45.3
0.4 ZnEDTA 30.0 26.0 41.7
0.8 ZnEDTA 28.0 21.0 42.2
1.2 ZnEDTA 38.0 24.0 46. 7

 

LSD, P=.05(9)
Zinc treatment

115

 

(a) Average of four replications.

(b) Sampled 23 days after planting.

(c) Sampled 48 days after planting.

Ed; Harvested 94 to 104 days after planting.
Analysis of 12 treatments.

44.

Table 12: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants and yield of dry
beans as affected by carrier and rate of zinc application.
(Field Experiment 1, combination of locations 1 through

 

 

 

 

 

6, 1963)
Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc concentration Yield
applied carrier (ppm) (bu/acre)
(lb/acre)
lst 2nd
sampling sampling
0 -- 17.84 15.8 30.6
4.0 ZnSO4 49.0 29.8 32.0
0.4 ZnEDTA 26.2 19.7 32.7
0.8 ZnEDTA 35.5 20.8 35.0
1.2 ZnEDTA 40.8 22.2 32.7

 

(a) Averages from six locations.

45.

was reduced about 25 per cent and some leaf damage was observed
soon after emergence; however,the yield level was maintained at
or exceeded the yield level of beans on plots which did not
receive zinc.

Zinc deficiency symptoms appeared and persisted until harvest
on pea bean plants grown on plots which did not receive zinc on
locations 1, 2, 3, and 5. 0n location 6, symptoms appeared early
but disappeared after about two weeks.

On all locations except 6, the yield of dry beans was lower
from plants grown on plots which did not receive zinc.

The zinc concentration in plants was higher at both sampling
times when zinc was applied as either carrier (Table 12). The
yield of dry beans was also higher.

When 4.0 pounds of zinc per acre as zinc sulfate were applied,
the zinc concentration in plants was increased from 17.8 to 49.0
parts per million at the three week sampling and from 15.8 to 29.8
parts per million at the pre-bloom sampling (Table 12). The yield
of dry beans was increased from 30.6 to 32.0 bushels per acre when
the sulfate zinc carrier was applied.

When 1.2 pounds per acre of zinc as zinc EDTA were applied, the
zinc concentration in plants was increased to 40.8 parts per million
at the first sampling and to 22.2 parts per million at the pre-
bloom sampling (Table 12). The yield of beans with this chelate
treatment was 32.7 bushels per acre. Zinc concentration in plants
increased with each increment of zinc EDTA but the yield of beans
increased only from the 0.4 to the 0.8 zinc EDTA treatment.

The zinc concentration in plants was lower at the second

46.

sampling. Plants grown on the zinc sulfate plots decreased 39.2
per cent in concentration between samplings and the plants on the

1.2 pound zinc EDTA plots decreased 45.6 per cent (Table 12).

V-A-2. Results of Field Experiment 2, 1963

 

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and of
additional soil applied phosphorus on the zinc concentration in
pea bean plants and on the yield of dry beans is reported in Tables
13 and 14. The data from the plots which received 87 pounds of
additional phosphorus in both 1959 and 1961 were compared with the
data from the plots which received 174 pounds of additional phos-
phorus in 1961; comparison was also made for data from the plots
which received 174 pounds of additional phosphorus in both 1959
and 1961 and from those which received 348 pounds of additional
phOSphorus in 1959. Since there was no difference in data from
the plots which received the same total amount of additional
phOSphorus, the results were combined and are reported according
to additional phOSphorus levels of O 187, 174, 348, and 696 pounds
per acre.

Zinc deficiency symptoms appeared on plants soon after emergence
and persisted until harvest on plots which did not receive zinc.
As the level of applied phOSphorus increased, the deficiency
symptoms became more severe and, on the 348 and 696 pound phosphorus
plots, some symptoms also appeared on plants grown on low levels
of applied zinc.

On plots which did not receive zinc or phosphorus, the concen-

tration of zinc in plants was 20.0 parts per million (Table 13).

47.

.Femp to ..me :5 emuewmeme

new mmme to __me cw a co 55m; um>wmuae meopa a a. 0mm new meopa a a, mum ecu e5_ 40 au=a_mm
.mmm_ Lo _Fme :5 a co _Fm um>emume meoFa a a, mem new 55, Lo epm; use muopa a n_ 5m Any
.mcowumUVFng mmssu mo wmmgm>< Auv
.mcowpmuPFch xwm 5o mamem>< Any
.ucwuce55 gmuwm mxmu 5e umpasmm Amy

 

 

 

 

 

o.mm o.mm o.o¢ o.mm o.wm <5och N._

o.oN o.5N o.om o.¢N o.om <homc~ m.o

o.mN o.mN o.5N o.m5 o.mN <Homc~ ¢.o

o.mm o.5m o.mm o.mm c.5m eomc~ o.¢

o.¢_ o.m5 o.¢5 o.ep o.ON 11 o
AUVAUV AeVAnv AUVAQV AeVAuV AUVAQV

wgue55 pp meum55 n5 mgum\a n— mgum\a n— a Amgum5npv

5m:o_u5ucm chowuwuum 5mco595unm chowpwncm Paco5pwnum cmwggmu umwpaqm

mam men e55 5w oz ucPN uc_N

Asaav Amvmucmpa coma c5 cowumgpcmucou ucPN acmsumme5

Anem—

.5 cowaeuop .N ucwewgmaxm upmwuv .cowumuwpaam mucosamosa me man; ecu cowuouppqae uc5~
we mum; ecu smwgemu 5n umuummmm we AcaFPcmm .Lm>v mucmra :mmn mun cw copgmgucmucou ucmN um_.m—nm5

48.

.5om5 50 55mm :5 emucweemg

use mmm_ mo ppme :_ a 50 55m; nm>5mumg mac—a a n5 moo use mpopa a a_ mem wee e55 5o mucmpem
.mmmp yo 55mm :5 a 50 55m um>5momc muopa a n5 wem new e55 5o 55m; new muopa a n5 5m Auv
.mcowamUNPQme ewes» 5o momem>< Auv
.mcompmuwpgwe xwm 5o mmmgmz< An
.mcwucmpa seams mane 5m on em umpmm>emz 5m

 

 

 

 

 

e.mN w.5N e.m~ o.eN m.om <5am=N N._

m.Fm e.eN m.mN e.eN 0.4m <pom=N m.o

o.mN o.em m.mN m.5N F.mm <pom=N e.o

e.em P.mm m.mm 5.0e F.mm e85 0.4

m.m 5.e_ o.o~ _.eN m.om 1- o
AUVAUV AuVAnv “evanv AUVAJV AeVAnv

mLUM\a a. acum\a n_ meue\a a. meum\a a, a Ameua\n_v

.mcoeeeuum choeeeuum chowuwuem Facoeueuum choeuwuem Laeeeau emepaam

emu men 455 he oz ueeN u=_~

AmLUM\=nv Amvmcmwn Ace 5o upww> “seguemgh

Anew,

.5 cowumuop .N ycmememaxm umegv .copumuwpaam msgognmoga 5o mum; ucm comumuquam ucwu
50 mum; new cmwgcmu 5n umuummwm mm Aumppcmm .gm>v mucmpa sewn men 5095 mcmmn zen 5o u5m5> u¢_ mpnm5

49.
With the first increment of phOSphorus, the concentration decreased
to 14 parts per million, but remained constant for all other phos-
phorus treatments. However, the yield of beans decreased from
30.8 to 8.8 bushels per acre as the rate of applied phosphorus
increased from 0 to 696 pounds per acre (Table 14).

When zinc was applied with either carrier on any phosphorus
plot,the concentration of this element in plants and the yield of
beans both increased.

0n the 4.0 pound zinc sulfate treatment, the zinc concentration
in plants increased from 15 to 36 parts per million and the yield
from 20.1 to 37.5 bushels per acre over all phosphorus treat-
ments. The concentration in plants was constant except for a 10
per cent decrease on the 174 and 348 pound plots (Table 13). The
yield decreased from 40.7 to 34.6 bushels of beans as the level of
applied phosphorus increased from 87 to 696 pounds per acre
(Table 14).

When zinc EDTA was applied at 1.2 pounds of zinc per acre,
the zinc concentration in plants was the same or higher than in
plants from the zinc sulfate plots (Table 13). Over all phos-
phorus treatments, the yield was 27.4 bushels per acre. There
was a decrease in yield from 29.4 to 25.6 bushels per acre with
this chelate treatment, as the rate of applied phosphorus increased

from 174 to 696 pounds per acre (Table 14).

V-A-3. Results of Field Experiment 3,,1964
The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the

zinc uptake of pea bean plants and on the yield of dry beans is

50.
reported for locations 8 through 10 in Tables 15 through 17.
The data from these three locations are summarized in Table 18.

All three locations were affected at blossoming time by hot,
dry weather which affected pod set and thus reduced yield of beanszz.
The yield on location 9 was also reduced by late maturity and frost
damage.

Zinc deficiency symptoms appeared and persisted until harvest
on plants grown on plots which did not receive zinc.

Application of zinc with either carrier tended to decrease
the dry matter weight of plants, to increase zinc concentration
and zinc content in plants, and to increase yield of beans (Table
18).

When 3.0 pounds of zinc as zinc sulfate were applied, the zinc
concentration in plants increased from 24.8 to 39.8 parts per
million and the bean yield from 19.0 to 20.5 bushels per acre
(Table 18).

When 1.2 pounds of zinc as zinc EDTA were applied, the plants
increased in zinc concentration to 45.7 parts per million and the
yield of beans was 23.6 bushels per acre (Table 18). Zinc uptake
by plants and bushels of beans harvested increased with each

increment of zinc applied in the chelated form.

V-A-4. Results of Field Experiment 4, 1964
The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA and of

additional soil applied phosphorus on the zinc uptake of pea bean

.meemEpwweu mp mo mwmxpwe< Anv
.mzwn no aw nwumm>ewz Auv

.mmwum scope-men pw nmpaswm Aev
.meowpwowpnme weave 5o mmwem>< va

 

 

51.

 

 

 

me NN.o n.n m.n Hemeuwmeu ue_N
Afivm01Na new;
n.nm No.0 m.nN o.mm <homeN N.p
m.mm m_.A n.5N m.Nn <pome~ m.o
5.0m nP.A m.mN m.mm <Home~ 0.0
5.nm mo.A m.mN m.mn <hgme~ m.o
92 85 EN www 485 ow
m.mN mo.p m.NN _.mn 11 o
Asmsv Aanv Aav Ameuw\e—v
Ameuw\:nv muewpn emu emu A veowuweuemueoo muewpa emu emweewu nmwpqu
Auvnpmw> Any pemueou uewN e oewN Aavema “some: uewN uewN
vamewmn 5o npmwx new .mxwua: ue5~ .uemwwz uemEuwme»

 

Anna, .m eowuwuop
.m nemewemaxm npmwmv .eowuquAaew uePN 5o wuwe new emweewu 55 nmpuweww mw mewme xen 5o

npmwx new Auwpwewm .ew>v muewpa ewmn wen we pewueou uew~.new .eowuweuemueoo uePN .wempmz “m— m—pw5

 

1'“? .p'. . ..-IL 5 the.

1 _

.mpemsuwmep mp 5o mwmwae< Anv
.man cop aw nmmmm>ewz on

.mmwum son—n1mea aw nmpeEwm Any
.meowpwuwpame mempm mo mmwem>< va

 

 

52.

 

 

 

me ON.o N.m m-A uemsuwmep uemN
Atvm01ua .qu
m.mp n_.p «.mm m.mp <home~ N.F
5.mA mm.o N.mn m.oN <homeN m.o
m.np A5.o w.mm N._N <5ome~ o.o
m.mp n5.o m.nm _._N <5oue~ m.o
E: 8; 53 SN «85 ow
m.NA mm.o m.nN 5.PN 11 o
Asmev Asaev Amy Ameuw5apv
Ameuw53ev muewAe emu emu A eowuweuemueou muewpa emu emweewm nmwpgaw
Amvnpmm> Any uemueou uewN av mewN Aevemw uemwmz oePN oemN
vamewmn mo nme» new .mxwwen uePN .memwmz uemEuwmeh

Anomp .m eowmwuop
.m pemsmemexm npmwuv .eowuwuppaaw uem~ mo muwe new emweewu an nmmomwmw mw mewme 5en 5o

npmw» new Auwpwewm .ew>v muewpe ewme wme 5o memueou uePN new .eowuweuemoeou ueAN .uemwmz ”oA mpewh

.muemsuwmeu mu mo mumxuwe< Any
.mawn mop uw nmumm>ewx Amy

.mmwum sooue-mee uw nmueEwm Any
.meouuwuuueme uemum 4o mmwem>< va

 

 

53.

 

 

 

me mN.o n.m 5.N uemsuwmeu uewN
Anvmo an own
o.wu Nn.u N.em n.nN <hame~ N.u
N.mu em._ u.nn 5.NN <home~ m.o
m.5u mm.u m.Ne m.um <Hnme~ m.o
n.5u —_.u m.wm o.mN <houeN m.o
N.eu An.u m.mn m.mN eomeN o.m
m.m_ 55.o o.5N m.mN 11 o
Asmsv AEeev Amy Ameuw5euv
Ameuw53ev muewue emu eme Veouuweuemueou muewue emu emueewu nmuueew
Auvnumu> Anv uemueom ueuN An ueuN Anveme uemumz meuN ueuN
mewme 5o numuz new .mxwue: ueum .uemumz uemsuwmeu

A3

 

Anmmu .o— eouuwoou
.m uemeuemexm numuev .eouuwuuueew ueu~ 5o muwe new emueewu 53 nmummwww mw mewma men we

numux new Auwuuewm .ew>v muewue ewme wme 50 uemueou meu~ new .eouuweuemueou ueu~ .uemumz "5F mpewh

..mmwum scope-meu uw nmuuewm Auv
.meouuwuou mmeeu Eoee mmmwem>< va

 

54.

 

 

 

n.mN mu._ 5.me n.mN <uumeN N._
N.NN Nu.u m.mm n.om <humeN m.o
o.mN 5o._ N.mm 5.om <uumeN m.o
5.NN om.o N.Nm m.um <uomeN m.o
m.uN u_.u w.mw w.uN enmeN o.w
o.mu N5.o w.eN 5.um -1 o
AEmev Asuuv Amy Amemw5uuv
Ameow53nv muewuu emu emu eouuweuemueou muewuu emu emueewu nmuuuuw
numu> Auv uemueou ueuN Aev ueuN Anvemu uemumz ueuN meuN
vamewmu we numu» new .mxwuu: ueu~ .uemumz uemsuwme»

 

Aewmu .ou euzoeeu w meouuwuou
5o eouuweueeou .m uemsuemuxm numuuv .eouuwuuuuuw ueuN eo muwe new emueewu xu nmummeew

mw mewmn 5en mo npmu» new muewuu ewma wmu we uemueou ueuN new .eowuweuemueou oePN .uemumz "mu mpnwh

55.

plants and on the yield of dry beans is reported in Tables 19
through 22. The data from plots which received the same total
amount of phosphorus between 1959 and 1962 were compared as in

V-A-2. Results of Field Experiment 2, 1963. Since there was no

 

difference in data from comparable phosphorus plots, the results
were combined and reported according to additional phosphorus
levels of 0, 87, 174, 348, and 696 pounds per acre.

Zinc deficiency symptoms appeared on plants soon after
emergence and persisted until harvest on plots which did not
receive zinc. The symptoms became more severe as the level of
applied phosphorus increased and, on the 348 and 696 pound plots,
some symptoms appeared on plants receiving low levels of applied
zinc.

0n the plots which did not receive zinc, there were 19.4 parts
per million of zinc in the plant at the pre-bloom sampling (Table
20) and 27.7 bushels of beans were harvested (Table 22). As the
rate of applied phosphorus increased from 87 to 696 pounds per
acre, the plant weight, zinc concentration in plants, and zinc
content of plants tended to increase; however, the yield of beans
decreased from 30.9 to 10.2 bushels per acre (Table 22).

When 1.2 pounds of zinc as zinc EDTA were applied. there was
a higher concentration of zinc in plants (Table 20) and more beans
were harvested (Table 22) than when 3.0 pounds of zinc as zinc
sulfate were applied. However, the dry matter weight of plants on
the zinc sulfate plots was higher (Table 19) and thus the zinc

content in plants from these two treatments was comparable

(Table 21).

56.

.muemEuwmeu NN eo mumxuwe< Amy

.Nomu mo uuwe eu emneuweme

new mmmu eo uuwe eu u we euwe nm>umume muouu u u— can new muouu u nu mum new n5u mo muewuwm
.mmmu eo uuwe eu u we uuw nm>ummme mun—u u nu New new e5u mo muwe new muouu u up 5m Anv
.meouquuuume mmeeu we mmwem>< Amv
.meouuwuuuume xum mo mmwem>< Any
.mmwum scope-meu uw nm—uswm va

 

me u x N
we Auv uemEuwmeu mueoeumoeu
m.o . ANV uemeuwmeu ueuN

Awumw 1a emu

 

 

 

 

N. em o.Nm e.uN m.5~ m.w~ euumeN N..

m. mm m. em m.mN _.mN o.om <HuueN m.o

e. nm N. um o.om o.um m.Nm <uuue~ m.o

m.mm u. mm o.om o.mN o.mN <uumeN m.o

A.ew m.wm m.uw e.um m.mw enmeu o.w

o.um m.mN 5.mN 5.MN m.5N 11 o
2.13 A32: ABE ABA: 3:3

meuw\u nu meuwxu up memw\u e— meuw5u up u Ameuw\nuv

Aweouuunnw uweouuunnw uweouuunnw uweouuunnw Aweouuunnw emueewu nmuuuuw

mum wen e5— 5w oz meuN ueuN

Amy vamuewuu ewme emu we uemumz uemsuwmeu

 

Anmmu. up eouuwuou .e uemsuemuxm numuuv .eouuwuuuuuw mueoeumoeu eo muwe new eouuwuuuuuw
ueu~ 5o muwe new emueewm he nmuumeew mw Auwuuewm .ew>v muewuu ewmu wmu emu eo uemumz ”mu muuwu

57.

.muemeuwmeu NN eo mumauwe< Amv

.Nmmu mo uuwe eu emneuwsme

new mmmu we uuwe eu u we euwe nm>umume muouu u nu can new muouu u up mum new n5u we muewuwm
.mmm— eo uuwe eu u we uuw nm>umume muouu u e— mum new e5— eo muwe new muouu u up 5w Anw
.meouuwmuuume mmeeu mo mmwem>< Au
.meouquuuume xum yo mmwem>< Any
.mawum scope-meu uw nmuuewm va

 

me u x N
we Auy uemsuwmeu maeoeumoeu
m.N ANV uemsuwmeu oeuN

Amvmu.1e .umu

 

m.mN a.Pm o.~m m.¢m c.mm <hom=N

 

 

 

 

N.u

m.um m.mN N.—m N.Nm 5.om <hnme~ m.o

N.NN m.mN N.um N.mN u.mN <homeN n.o

N.wN m.mN m.mN m.oN m.Nm <homeN m.o

m.mN m.mN . c.om m.em o.mm nomeN o.m

5.Nu N.Nu m.5u m.5u ¢.m_ -1 o
AquUV AnuAuM-w AnuAuu AquUV Awuuwu

meuw5u a. meuwxu up meuw\u up meuwxu up u Amemw\euv

uweouuunnw uweouuunnw uweouuunnw Aweouuunnw uweouuunnw emueewm nmuuuuw

mum wen e5— 5w oz meuN ueuN

AEuuv vamuewpu ewmn eu eouuweuemueou meu~ uemsuwmeh

Aewmu._u

eouuwuou .n uemeuemuxm numuuv .eouuwouuuuw mueoeumoeu mo muwe new eouuwmuuuuw ueu~
5o muwe new emueewu he nmuumeew mw Auwuuewm .ew>v muewuu ewmu wmu eu eouuweuemueou ueuN ”0N mpuwu

58.

.muemsuwmeu NN we mums—we< Amv

.Nomu we uuww ew emnewwsme

new mmmu we Auww ew u we wuwe nm>wmeme mueuu u up can new mueuu u up mum new n5u we meewuwm
.mmm_ we uuww ew u we uuw nm>wmeme mue—u u up men new e5u we wuwe new mueuu u nu 5w Anv
.meewuwuwuume mmeeu we mmwem>< Amy
.meeuuwuuuume xwm we muwem>< Aev
.mmwum seeps-meu uw nmquwm va

 

me u x N
we Auy uemsuwmeu maeeeumeeu
mu.o ANV uemsuwmeu eewN

vamcwflm .QmA

 

 

 

 

 

ou.u No.u wane eu.u mueu euuueu N.u

wu.u wu._ uu.o Nu.o N_.u euumeu. m.u

Nu.u wu.u cu.e uu.u wu.w euuwew w.o

mu.o mw.u ww.u me.e ou.o euumew m.u

cu.u mo.u . eu.u o... o~.u womeu o.w

em.u ue.u we.u we.u wm.w -- o
AnVAuV AnVAeV AnVAuv AnVAuV AnVAeV

meowNe nu meowNe nu meowNe uu meowNu up a Ameuweuuv

uweowu_www .weouuwwww uweowuwwww uweowuwwww Aweo_u_www eaweewu wmuuuuw

wow wen eeu Aw . oz uewN uewN

Asmsv vamuewuu ewme emu ew uemueeu eewN uemEuwmew

Aewuu .uu

eewuweeu .n uemeemuxN numwuv .eewquwpuuw maeeeumeeu we muwe new eewuwewuuuw eewN
we muwe new emueewu an nmuumwww mw Auwuwewm .ew>v muewuu ewme wmu emu we uemueee eewN "PN mueww

59.

.Nomu we uuww ew emnewweme

new mmmu we uuww ew u we wuwe nm>wmeme mueuu u nu mum new mueuu u nu mum new e5u we meewuwm
.ewe_ we uuew eu e we uue eeeueeee mueue e e_ wee wee euu we wuee wee eueue e e_ 5e Aeu
.meewuwewuume mmeeu we mmwem>< Aev

.meewuwewuume xwm we mmwem>< nu

.mhwn mm eu om uw nmumm>ewz M

 

 

 

 

 

e.nN m.5N N.mN m.mN . N.5N <womeN N.u

N.oN m.5N o.om N.NN o.mm <womeN m.o

N._N u.mN m.mN N.eN w.mN <woNeN o.o

N.n_ —.uN m.mN N.eN N.5N <wumeN m.o

o.mu N.5N, 5.NN o.5N o.mN eomeN o.m

N.ou F.5u N.AN m.om 5.5N 1- o
AeVAeu AwVAeu AeuAeu AeVAeu Aqueu

meew\u up meowNu nu meew\u up meew\u nu u Ameewxeuv

uweewuwnnw uweowuwnnw uweewuwnnw uweeuuwnnw uweewuwnnw emweewe nmwuuuw

new New e5u 5m, ez uewN eewN

("H
Ameew\:ev vamewme hen we numww uemEuwmew
Aeeeu .uu

eewuweeu .n uemswemuxm numwuv .eewuwewuuuw mueeeumeeu we muwe new eewuwewuuuw eewN we
muwe new emueewe he nmuemwww mw Aewuwewm .ew>v muewuu ewmu wmu Eeew mewme hen we numww ”NN muuww

60.

As the rate of applied phosphorus increased, the zinc concen-
tration in plants was reduced more on the 3.0 pound zinc sulfate
plots than on the 1.2 pound zinc EDTA plots (Table 20). The yield
of beans was lower on the 0, 87, and 174 pound phosphorus plots
but higher on the 348 and 696 pound phosphorus plots with this
zinc chelate treatment than with the zinc sulfate treatment (Table
22).

Zinc concentration in plants increased as the rate of applied
zinc EDTA increased; bean yields also tended to increase with

each increment of the chelated zinc.

V-A-5. Results of Field Experiment 5, 1964

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on
the zinc concentration in pea bean plants and on the yield of dry
beans is reported in Table 23.

Zinc deficiency symptoms appeared after emergence and persisted
until harvest on plants on all except the 1.6 pound zinc EDTA treat-
ment. The symptoms increased in severity as the rate of applied
zinc decreased. Only slight symptoms appeared on the 8.0 pound
zinc sulfate plot.

There was a significant increase in zinc concentration in
plants due to zinc treatment on the 4.0 and 8.0 pound zinc sulfate
plots and on the 0.8 and 1.6 pound zinc EDTA plots (Table 23). Zinc
concentration increased as rate of applied zinc increased. All
zinc treatments significantly increased the yield of beans.

Even though the same zinc concentration was in the plants on

the 2.0 pound zinc sulfate plot as on the plot which did not

61.

Table 23: Zinc concentration in pea bean plants (var. Sanilac)
and yield of dry beans as affected by carrier and
rate of zinc application. (Field Experiment 5,
location 12, 1964)

 

 

 

 

Treatment Zinc concentration and yield of beans(a)
Zinc Zinc Zinc (b) Yield(c)
applied carrier concentration (bu/acre)
(lb/acre) (pm)
0 -- 19.6 7.6
2.0 ZnSO4 19.4 23.3
4.0 ZnSO4 31.9 30.5
8.0 ZnSO4 36.0 37.4
0.4 ZnEDTA 24.1 A 32.5
0.8 ZnEDTA 28.5 38.7
1.6 ZnEDTA 31.7 39.1
LSD, P=.05 —
Zinc treatment 5.3 5.3

 

(a) Average of four replications.
(b) Sampled at preébloom stage.
(c) Harvested at I01 days.

62.

receive any zinc, the bean yield increased from 7.6 to 23.3 bushels
per acre (Table 23).

When 1.6 pounds of zinc as the chelate were applied, the
concentration of this element in the plants was equivalent to
that in plants on the 2.0 and 4.0 pound zinc sulfate plots and
the yield of beans was higher than the yield on the 2.0, 4.0 and
8.0 pound zinc sulfate plots (Table 23).

V-8. Greenhouse Experiment Results

 

 

The objective of the greenhouse experiments was to observe the
availability of zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA as indicated by the
uptake and distribution of zinc in the plant, the dry matter weight,
and the yield of pods.

In all experiments, zinc deficiency symptoms were observed on

plants grown on pots which did not receive zinc.

V-B-l. Results of Greenhouse Experiment 1

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate, soil applied phospho-
rus, and soil type on dry matter weight of plant parts, pod yield,
and zinc uptake of the above-ground plant is reported in Table 24.

When zinc was applied, the dry matter weight of plant parts
and zinc content of plants tended to increase.

The yield of pods, weight of above-ground plants and zinc
content of plants were significantly reduced when phOSphorus was
applied on the Wisner clay loam soil.

Zinc content in plants and yield of plant parts was greater on

63.

.mewuewuu emuww mhwn 5m nmumm>ewx .meewuwuwuume euow we muwem>< va

 

 

 

m5w.o o.mp O5.pp mN.5 me.¢ omN.c m.mp mm.ep mN.m wN.m o.m

mom.o m.mp mm.mp mm.m mm.m ¢m~.o 5.op mp.¢p.. mp.m oo.m a
snow u—wm euwm

omN.o 5.~N mm.pp m5.m ww.m m-.o 5.5p ,m5.~P o—.5 we.m o.m

50p.o N.mp o¢.m mm.o m5.¢ 5oN.c m.mp o¢.op mo.o mm.¢ o

 

Ewe— hwuu ememw:

 

 

 

 

 

Es Es
Asmev eewuweu Asasv eewuweu
uemueem -emeeee Amy uemueeu -emueee Amy
8: 8e: 23% 3 8e: we: 232. A3
Amv memum new Amy memum new
mneu we mm>wmu we mneu we mm>wmu we
muewuu neueem1m>eew uwuew uemwmz uemwm: muewuu neueem1m>eew uwuew uemwm: uemwm:
meuwNu uweewuwnnw eu coop u uweewuwnnw ez Ameuw\eN euv
uemEuwmeu
muwwuum
vamuewu uewuu we mxwuu: uew~ new uemwm: uewN

 

Au uemewemuxu mmaeeemmeuv .muhu uwem new eewuwuwuuuw mueeeumeeu new eew~ we muwe he nmuemwww mw Auwuwewm .ew>v
muewuu ewme wmu neueem1m>eew uwueu meu we uemueeu eew~ new eewuweuemueeu eewN new muewu uewuu ewme wmu we uemwmz ”eN mueww

64.

 

 

 

we we we we «e N x u x m
me me me me me N x u
.3. m: .3. m: .3. N x m
me me me e w u x m
5_.o.mu.o me 5o.e.em.e me mm.m.5e.N ANV um>mu eewN
5_.o.mu.o me 5o.m.em.e me em.m.5e.N Auv um>mu mueeeumeeu
5u.o.mu.o me 5o.m.em.e me em.m.5e.N Amv muhu uwem
Ea
Asmsv eewuweu
uemueee 1emeeee Amy
eewN eewN ueewez Aeu
Amy memum new
mneu we mm>wmu we
muew—u neueem1m>eew uwuew uemwmz uemumz

 

mum>mu ueme emu mee new m>ww uw mmeuw> emu uemEuwmew

 

Au uemswemuxm mmueeemmecv
.eN m—eww ew nmueeume wuwn meu we meewwew> we mwmhuwew he nmewwuee
mum>mu ueme emu mee new m>ww meu uw meewewwwemwm eew nmewueme mewme emmzume mmuememwwwu "mN mueww

65.
the Bach silt loam than on the Wisner soil.
Although the 467.4 pounds of nitrogen per acre were a rela-
tively large quantity to apply, it was necessary to apply over 400
pounds of nitrogen per acre before the zinc concentration in

field-grown Bermuda grass was affectedss.

V—B-2. Results of Greenhouse Experiment 2

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the
dry matter weight and zinc uptake in parts of pea bean plants is
reported in Table 26. The data for weight and zinc uptake of plant
parts on each pot were arithmetically combined and are reported as
the total above-ground plant in Table 27.

There was a significant increase in dry matter weight, zinc
concentration and zinc content in the leaf, stem, vine, and total
above-ground plant on pots which received any zinc treatment (Tables
26 and 27).

Plants grown on pots which had not received any zinc were
growing very slowly and the petiole, stem, and vine were not as
long as those on zinc treated pots. The zinc concentration in
the vine was 33.70 parts per million compared to 15.34 and 35.89
parts per million in the vine of plants grown on the 4.0 pound
zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA treatments,respectively (Table 26).

This relatively high zinc concentration in zinc deficient plants
is in agreement with observations of other researcher552’69.

The zinc concentration and zinc content in the leaf, stem,

vine, and total above-ground plant were all significantly higher

66.

.mewuew—u emuww mhwn mN nmumm>ewz .meewuwuwuume euew we mowem>< va

 

 

 

 

 

 

«a. .3. m: «a. «.1 .14. .11 are. m: A”: Lat-emu 0::
«11 we. a. .3. .3. m: .11 ...-w. m: A1: pm>up 0::
nuo.o eN.n o¢.o moo.c Nm.w mo.c «No.c um.o— «N.o

.ouo.o .mn.e .mN.o .moo.o .mm.m .mo.o .5uo.o .mn.5 .5u.o uemEuwmew
uo. new me.uu .amu

nmc.o uo.mm Nm.o mme.o oN.oo mm.e nwp.o un.e5 cm.N <«uueN c.oN
muo.o mo.um no.9 mec.o m5.¢p on.c 5nc.o un.oN om.N cmeN o.cN

mNo.c mm.mm Nm.c uuo.o mm.m— N5.o mmc.c N¢.¢N mm.N <«nNeN o.¢

5oo.c em.mu n¢.o woe.o om.uu mo.o 5mc.o um.nu m¢.N omeN o.e

noc.c o5.mm Nu.c noo.o m—.u— mm.o m~o.o mo.mu Ne.N 11 o

Es e is is
Aemsv eeuuweu Asesv eewuweu Asmsv eewuweu
uemueeu 1emueeu Auv uemueee 1emueee Auv uemueee 1emueee Amy
ee: ee: 23.... ee: eeww 22»: we: 8: 23m:

AmeewNepu
emweewe nmwuuuw

mmew> msmum mm>wmu eewN eewN
vamuewu uew—u ewme we mxwuu: eewm new uemwma uemEuwmew

AN uemswemuxu mmeeeemmewv .eewuwuwuuuw eewu we muwe new

emweewu he nmuumwww mw Auwuwewm .ew>v muewu uewuu ewme wmu we uemueeu eewN new .eewuweuemueeu eewN .ueuwm: unN m—eww

67.

Table 27: Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of the total
above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) as affected
by carrier and rate of zinc application.

Experiment 2)

(Greenhouse

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Weight and zinc uptake of bean plants
Zinc Zinc Weight Zinc Zinc
applied carrier (9) concentration content
(lb/acre) (ppm) (mgm)
0 -- 2.69 13.53 0.036
4.0 ZnSO 3.60 14.24 0.051
4.0 ZnEDTA 4.09 25.08 0.103
20.0 ZnSO 3.52 21.26 0.075
20.0 ZnEDTA 4.00 68.84 0.275
LSD, P=.05 and .01
Zinc treatment 0.34.0.47 5.81,8.15 0.022,0.031
Zinc level (L) ** ** **
Zinc carrier (C) ns ** **
L x C ns ** **

 

'(a) Average of four replications.
planting.

Harvested 29 days after

68.

in the plants grown on zinc EDTA treated pots than in those plants
grown on zinc sulfate treated pots.

The zinc concentration in the most recent growth portion of
the plant, the vine, was significantly higher on zinc EDTA treat-
ments than on zinc sulfate treatments.

As the rate of applied zinc was increased, more zinc was
taken up by plants grown on zinc EDTA treatments than by plants
grown on zinc sulfate treatments. When applied zinc was increased
by a factor of 5, the zinc uptake by plants was increased 1.5
times on zinc sulfate treated pots and 2.7 times on zinc EDTA

treated pots (Table 27).
The zinc content in parts of the plant is related to soil

applied zinc in Figures 1 through 4.

There was a higher correlation obtained between zinc applied
as zinc EDTA and the zinc content of the leaf (Figure l), stem
(Figure 2), vine (Figure 3), or total above-ground plant (Figure 4)
than was obtained between zinc applied as zinc sulfate and the zinc

content of these plant parts.

V-B-3. Results of Greenhouse Experiment 3

The effect of soil applied nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium-
manganese and EDTA on the dry matter weight and zinc uptake in parts
of pea bean plants is reported in Table 28. The data for weight and
zinc uptake of plant parts on each pot were arithmetically combined
and are reported in Table 29.

The plants grown on the EDTA treatment contained a significantly

2111c CONTENT OF PEA BEAN LEAVES
(HILLIGRAMS)

69.

 

 

0.200 1.
- LEGEND: V
'1 = 2114: SULFATE (a)
L 12 = ZINC EDTA (in
” ‘v
1—
0.160 1"
1- °1
Q9
0
(
>- @+‘
°m
b %.
Q59
0
1- \IL
0.110 -
V
V
0.070 -
e 111
D
1. 71 C]
V ‘ 1 . 0.029 + 0-°°“- ' ' 0'
1 B
1.
9 I
*- I
I
0.020 "'
J L l I l l l l l J_ l l l 1 l l l L l l 4
O 5.0 10 o 15.0 20.0

POUNDS or ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 1: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED As ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF LEAVES OF
PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A uISAER CLAY LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 2)

ZINC CONTENT or PEA 8EAN STENS
(NILLIORANS)

0.040

0.031

0.022

0.013

0.004

70.

 

 

 

 

LEGEND:
T — v
Y1 : 2m: SULFATE (n)
P 'V
112 = ZINC EDTA (17)
P
h
)-
b
V’
e . 0.49
v 111 = 0.006 + 0-0001’1- ' "u
1. n D
U
_ i;;" [J
- Cl
1 1 1 1 l 1 l L 1 l A | 1 1 1 1 1 l L 1
O 5 0 15.0 20 0

10.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 2: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF STENS 0F
PEA BEAN PLANTS GROWN ON A WISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 2)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN VINES
(HILLIGRAHS)

0.064

0.049

0.034

0.018

0.003

 

71.

- LEGEND:

Y1 = ZINC SULFATE 0:)

72 = 2m: EDTA (7)

J

L

10.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

15.0

 

20.0

FIGURE 3: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF VINES 0F

PEA BEAN PLANTS GROWN ON A WISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL.

(GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 2)

ZINC CONTENT OF TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS
(NILLIGRANS)

72.

 

 

 

0.300 -
- LEGEND; V
VI = zmc SULFATE (D)
12 = ZINC EDTA (v) V
V
0.230
0.170
0.100
0.030 1
l l 1 l l l l 1 l A I 1 1 1 1 L 1 l 1 1 i
0 5.0 10 o 15.0 20.0

POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 4: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF THE TOTAL
ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A WISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 2)

73.

.aewuew—u emuww mhwn oN nmumm>ewz

.meewuwewuume euew we mmwem>< va

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo.o nm.ow Nm.o eoo.o mpc.o e5.m
.moo.o .m_.5 .AN.o .Noe.c me me .moc.o .Ne.n me uemEuwmew
Ac. new mo.uu .ume
. o—o.o mm.uN mn.o moo.o mn.ep om.o 5no.o um.mN mm.u ecu <wow
noc.o o5.mm Nu.o noo.o mu.u— mm.o nNe.c mo.mu No.N oN1oe1mo1nm ez1x1u1z
woo.o om.NN 5m.o noo.o Am.o— 5m.c nNo.o mN.m— mm.u - -1
Es Es Es
AEuEv eewuweu Asasv eewuweu Asmev eewuweu
uemueee 1emueeu Amv uemueem 1emueeu Amv uemueeu 1emeeee Amy
8: 8.5 23% 6e: 25 22.5 0e: 6e: 22......
Ameuwxe—V
mmew> mEmum mm>wme muwe muemweuez
vamuewu uewuu ewme we mxwuu: uewN new uemwm: uemEpwmew
Am uemewemuxm mmueeemmewv .eewuwuwuuuw <weu new mmmewmews-e:wmmwueu1mseeeumeeu
1emmeeuwe he nmuemwww mw Auw—wewm .ew>v muewu uew—u ewme wmu we uemueeu eeww new .eewuweuemueeu meww .uemwm: "NN m—eww

74.

Table 29: Weight, zinc concentration, and zinc content of the total
above-ground pea bean plants (var. Sanilac) as affected
by hitrogen-phosphorus-potaSSium-manganese and EDTA
application. (Greenhouse Experiment 3)

 

 

 

Treatment Weight and zinc uptake of bean plants(a)
Nutrients Rate Weight Zinc Zinc
(lb/acre) (9) concentration content
(ppm) (mgm)
-- -- 2.91 13.82 0.040
N-P-K-Mn 36-63-60-20 2.69 13.53 0.036
EDTA 100 3.00 21.76 0.065

 

LSD, P=.05 and .01
Treatment 0.29,ns 4.08.6.18 0.011,0.017

 

(a) Average of four replications. Harvested at 29 days after
planting.

75.

higher zinc concentration and zinc content in the leaf, stem, vine,
and total above-ground plant.

The plants grown without any treatment tended to be taller,
to have a greater dry matter weight, and to take up more zinc than
those plants grown on the nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium-manganese
treatment. I

A quantity of 116.5 pounds of zinc EDTA is equivalent to
100 pounds of EDTA and 16.5 pounds of zinc. The zinc concentration
of 21.76 parts per million in the total above-ground plant grown on
the 100 pound EDTA treatment (Table 29) compared favorably with the
21.26 parts per million of zinc in plants grown on the 20.0 pound
zinc sulfate treatment and the 25.08 parts per million of zinc in

plants grown on the 4.0 pound zinc EDTA treatment (Table 27).

V-B-4. Results of Greenhouse Experiment 4

The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on the
dry matter weight and zinc uptake in parts of pea bean plants is
reported for the Wisner Clay loam soil in Table 30 and for the
Kawkawlin loam soil in Table 31. The data for weight and zinc
uptake of plant parts on each pot were arithmetically combined
and are reported as the total above-ground plant along with the
data for zinc uptake by plants at the first sampling in Table 33
for the Wisner soil and in Table 34 for the Kawkawlin soil.

Moderate zinc deficiency symptoms were Observed on plants
grown on the 0.5 and 1.0 pound zinc treatments. Symptoms were

less severe on plants on the Kawkawlin loam soil.

76.

.mewuewuu emuww mhwn om nmumm>ewz
.uwem euew nmxwe meuw emu mueeeumeeu uweewuwnnw we mneeeu nmeneue xwm va

.meewuwuwuume euew we mmwem>< Aev

 

 

 

 

NNN.o e.om um.n wNN.o m.m5 NN.N o5u.o m.mmu mo.m <+uNeN e.mn
me—.o _.om eo.m uo—.o m.mm no.N m5_.o N.NN we.m omeN o.me
mwu.o 5.5m mm.n mmu.o N.Nn. mN.m enm.o N.Nn 5o.m <+umeN o.eu
m5o.o o.ON um.m O5o.o m.VN NN.N emu.o ¢.5N oo.m omeN o.ou
5mu.o N.em mm.e mNA.o w.un cm.N moN.o —.mm nm.m <+uNeN o.m
5no.o m.NN o—.m mno.o m.pN ON.m uuu.o N.NA 5n.m omeN o.m
muu.o N.NN mu.m ecu.o m.mm ¢—.m mmu.o o.mN N5.m <+oNeN o.n
5no.o e.o_ m5.N moo.o 5.nu no.e mnu.o 5.NN mm.m omeN c.e
m—u.o N.uN nm.m meo.c N.NN mm.N mu_.o m.uN 5¢.m <+uueN o.N
uno.o N.mu 5u.m mno.o o.oN en.m —_—.o N.oN om.m omeN o.N
mmo.o 5.mu em.n uno.o 5.—N mm.N eu_.o . 5.oN um.m <+omeN o.—
nno.o N.NN mm.— mmo.o u.wu no.N em_.o N.NN mm.m omeN o._
umo.o n.mN mc.N mmo.c m.N_ n—.m mou.o e.wu mm.m <+umeN m.o
Nmo.o N.NN Nn._ . uee.o 5.mu Nu.m N¢—.o m.eN um.m omeN m.o
ooo.o m.m— um.o mmo.o N.5— 5N.N 55o.o 5.m_ ee.n -1 c
Asuuv Asuuv AEuuV
Aemsv eewuweu Aeasv eewuweu Aeuev eewuweu
uemueeu -emueeu Amv uemueeu 1emueeu Amy uemueee 1emueeu Amy
eewN eewN uemwmz eewN mewN uemwm: eewN eewN ueuwmz
Ameuw5epv
emweewe nmw—uuw
mneu memum mm>wmu eewN eewN
Aevmuewu uewuu we mxwuu: ueww new uemwm: vauemsuwmew

 

An uemewemuxu mmeeeemmeuv .uwem Ewe— hwuu ememwz w ee eewuwuwuuuw eeww we muwe new
emweewu he nmuemwww mw Aewuwewm .ew>v muewu uewuu ewme wmu we uemueeu eew~ new .eewuweuemueeu eewu .uemwmz ”om mueww

77.

.mewuewuu emuww mhwn om nmumm>ewx
.Awem euew nmxwe meow emu meeeeemeeu Aweewuwnnw we mneeeu nmeneee xwm va

.meewuwuwuume eeew we mmwem>< Aev

 

 

 

 

wmu.o N.Nm wm.N am—.o N.ee mw.N e5u.o 5.NN— mN.m <+uNeN o.mw
wNu.o _.nm Nw.m 5Nu.o o.nw Nm.N umN.o w.um Nm.m omeN o.mw
5m_.o F.5w mu.m 5_u.o w.mw mm.N ouw.o e.e5 Aw.m <+umeN o.nu
nmo.o 5.mN mN.m 5eo.o 5.wN N5.N mo_.o w.NN nm.w omeN o.nu
mm_.o N.em Nm.m Nou.o n.5m N5.N oeN.o o._w mo.m <+uNeN o.m
umo.o N.AN mN.N neo.o 5.uN mo.m mmo.o m.5u mm.m omeN o.m
nmo.o A.em mw.m woo.o c.nm 55.N mm—.o 5.NN wu.m <+omeN o.w
N5o.o m.oN om.m nmo.o u.uN mm.N m5o.o m.ou N5.w omeN o.n
uNu.o _.mN Ne.n m5o.o m.5N mm.N mmo.o w.mu mu.m <wemeN o.N
neo.o 5.NN ca.N 5mo.o w.—N o5.N wN—.o u.mN N—.m cmeN o.N
oo—.o w.nN No.m N5o.c w.NN wm.N oou.c 5.oN um.w <+oNeN o.—
Noo.o m.oN __.m mmo.o w.m— mw.N ewc.o n.5u wm.w omeN o.—
mmo.e N.m_ uw.N o5c.o 5.NN mu.m no—.o m.N_ um.m <+umeN m.o
m5o.o m._N ew.m mmo.o N.NN oo.~ oeu.o u.uN om.w omeN m.o
wwo.o m.uN oo.w mno.o w.mN mm.N ouo.o 5.m— om.w 11 0
Es E: E:
Aemev eewuweu AEmsv eewuweu Aemev eewuweu
uemueeu 1emeeeu Amy uemueeu 1emueeu Amy uemueee -emeeee Amv
we: 6e: 232. 6e: 6e: 222.. 6e: 6e: 232.
AmeuwNeuv
emweewe nmwuuuw
mneu memum mm>wmu eewN mewN
Aekuewu uewuu we mxwuu: ueww new uemwmz vauemsuwmew

 

Aw uemewemuxu mmaeeemmewv .uwem eweu ewuzwxzwx w ee eewuwuwuuw eewn we muwe new
emweewu he nmuumwww mw Aewuwewm .ew>v muewu uew—u ewme wmu we uemueee eewn new .eewuweuemeeeu eeww .uemwm: "um mueww

 

 

 

 

me me me «A e me me we we m x u x e
e me A e me me me me we m x u
a w A w A me me me me m x e
«i he. .1 .1, «a. m: «a. ..E m: u x 1—
me m._u.5.m me me we NN._.Nm.o me we wm.u.wN.— Amy muhu Awem
. ch.o.Nno.o m.uu.5.m Nm.N.ON.N nmo.o.5No.o w.Nu.w.m me N5N.o.ouN.o n.Nm.m.am me Auv emweewu eewN
mm 5wo.o.nmo.o 5.n.o.m mo.o.5N.u uNo.o.ouo.o N.5.w.m me weu.o.AN—.o m.om.m.NN me Aev pm>mu eewN
uNo.o.e—o.o m.m.m.N m5.o.5m.o moo.o.5oc.o m.m.m.N Nm.o.wN.o N5o.o.nmo.o m.mu.N.oA ww.o.mm.o uemeuwmeu eewN
Asuuv Aeuuv Asuuv
Asmsv eewuweu AEaEV eewuweu AEmEV eewuweu
uemueee -emeeeu Amy uemueee 1emeeeu Amy uemueee -emeeee Amy
8: 2.: ueewmz 2: 0e: 23% ee: 8: ueewez
mneu msmum mm>wme
mum>mu uemu emu mee new m>ww uw mmuuw> owe uemsuwmew

 

Aw uemswemuxm mmueeemmewv .um new on mmueww ew nmueeume wuwn meu we meewwew> we mwmhuwew
he nmewwuee mum>mu ueme emu mee new m>ww meu uw meewewwwemwm eew nmewueme mewms emmzume mmuememwwuu ”Nm mueww

IIII‘ I ‘ I'll.
‘ I
‘4 1:11. 1
III 1111.1".- 1"

.meeuew—e emuww mAwn om nmpeewm n

.mewuew—e emu+w mawn mu nmpeewm M w

.meopuwuw—eme ewme mo mmwem>< Any

.Pwom oue_ nmxms meow eme meeoeemoee pweopuwnnw we mneeoe nmeneee xpm Awe

 

I79.

 

 

 

pme.p «.mp— ~m.~— mmm.o ~.mm cw.m <+ome~ o.m¢
m~¢.o ~.~m mp.mp wmm.o c.5m mm.m omeN o.me
_mo.o e.om om.mp mmm.c ¢.mm po.m <+oue~ o.op
mm~.o n.n~ m~.- omp.o m.m~ hm.m omeN o.o—
mm¢.o o.mm vm.~p po~.c m.nm em.m <+eme~ o.w
~n~.o m.o~ om._— ao—.o m.ap ~m.m omeN o.m
~mm.o m.- ew.~— Pmp. m.m~ mm.m <+nmeN o.¢
mm~.o ~.o~ m~.~p omc.o v.5— -.m omeN o.c
oom.o o.- mo.m— p_—.o m.—~ m~.m <+oue~ o.~
pw~.o m.m~ pp.~p umo.o p.m— om.v omeN o.~
om~.o m.o~ o~.~— mwo.o ¢.~_ ~_.m (*omeN o.p
-~.o o.- nm.c— moo.o m.ep mm.o omeN o.p
mp~.c o.mp _p.—— muc.c n.np m~.v <+ame~ m.o
m-.o . m.p~ mm.o— moo.o m.mp mm.w ome~ m.o
_~_.o e.wp ~n.o mmc.c m.m— Nw.m .. o
Aseev Aenev
eemee coewwe» eemee coeuwew
uemueou -emueou Amy uemweou -emueou Amv
anew meew memem: meew meew “enema
Ameuw\n_v
empeewm nmw—eew
me eswm me. eswm m me me
Any m— new Amy .p u _ _N VN
A£353 ewme mo mxwuee uepw new «eupmx vauemsuwmeh

 

An «emevemexu mmeoeemmewv
.pvom Ewo— xw—u ememwz w eo eowuwuepeew mepu eo muwe new em'eewm an nmuumeew mw mmmwn wee—eswm oz» uw
Auwpwewm .ew>v muewpe ewme wme neeoemnm>onw pwuou me» mo uemueom me.~ new .eowuweuemueom me_~ .uememz "mm anwe

80.

 

 

 

 

.mewuewpe emuww mawn cm nmpeEwm Any

.mewuew—e emuww man mm nmpeswm Amy

.meewwawpeme eeew we mmwem>< flee

.Pwem eeew nmst memw eme meeeeemeee —weewuwnnw we mneeee nmeneee xwm va

m—m.— p.w—— No.~— mmo.o n.~w~ ww.w <¢eme~ o.we

~—m.o m.¢¢ nn.- mvm.o m.mo mm.m omeN o.we
eco.o m.mm mw._w mmn.o m.mw mo.m <+eme~ o.op
om~.e m.¢~ mm.op omp.e o.oM ow.m omeN o.mp
s¢¢.o m.mm wm._~ ewm.o e.mm w~.m <+ewe~ o.m
ep~.c ¢.a— om.pp pmw.o m.m~ wm.m omeN o.m
wem.c —.~m op.—p ¢o~.o o.mm n~.m <+eme~ o.v
mo~.o c.m— mm.o— -—.e m.m~ m~.m omeN o.n
¢a~.c ~.m~ «N.N— mop.o w.m~ mw.m <+ewe~ o.~
c¢~.c N.NN nm.op mmo.o n.m~ m~.m omeN o.~
mw~.c —.¢~ wm.—p mm_.c m.m~ o¢.m <+eue~ o.—
wmp.c —.m— oe.o~ mmo.o ¢.op o~.m omeN o.~
om~.c o.o~ m—._— oop.o m.pm mm.n <+emeN m.o
mm~.c m.—~ om.ow Nmo.o m.m_ ¢¢.e omeN m.o
ww~.e v.p~ m~.~_ oep.e e.mp we.m .. o

:13 £9:
Asmav eewuweu Aeeev eewuweu
uemaeem nemueeu Amy uemueee -emmeee Amv
2: 2.: 23m: 8: 2.: 23m:

Ameuw\e—v

emweewe nmw_eew

aep eswm e me eEwm m mew me,

any .p n N Amv wp u _ .N .N

A£353 ewme we mewpee eew~ new peawm: vaeemEuwmew

 

Ac uemswemexm mmeeeemmewv
.pwem awe— ew—zwxxwx w ee eewuwuwpeew eeww we muwe new emweewu we nmemmwww mw mmuwn mew_eswm ezw ew
wow—wewm .ew>v muew—e ewme wme neeeem-m>eew pwueu me» we eemueeu eewN new.eewuweuemeeeu mew~.eemwmz "em m_eww

81.

 

me me me me «« me m x u x 4
m: m: m: «L, «:4 .1 m x u
me me me me we « m x e
*« «* we *« «t me u x A
m: m: Nw.m.wm.w woe.e.¢ee.o e.we.w.~_ m: ewe mean eeom
mom.o.mm~.o ¢.e~._.e_ N¢.m.em.w wee.o.¢eo.e e.we.w.~e m: eew emeeewu ucew
wee.e.¢me.e ¢.~_.m.m m=.me._ eme.e.m¢e.e e.m.m.e ee.e.wm.e eev em>me ocee
mee.e.ewo.o m.m.~.e mm.o.mw.e mNe.e.meo.e m.¢.~.m mm.e.w~.o pcmEewmep oceN
Asmav eewuwee flamsu eewuwee
Hemeeee -emueem “my uemueee -emmeee Amy
ocew ocew peeve: anew uch enmemz

 

mewweswm new

mewpeewm pm—

 

 

mpm>m— uemm eme mee new m>ww aw mmeww> ewe eemEewmew
An pemewemexm mmeeeemmewv
.nm new mm mmpeww ew nmueeeme wuwn mee we muewwew> we mwmzwwew we nmewwuee
mwm>mw ueme eme mee new m>ww mee aw mmewmwwwemwm eew nmeweeme mewms emmzume mmmememwwwe "mm mweww

82.
Between 28 and 56 days, the above-ground plant quadrupled in

dry matter weight. The weight of the plants grown on the Wisner
clay loam soil was lower when zinc was not applied (Table 33).

On the Kawkawlin soil, the plants contained more zinc at
both sampling times than did plants grown on the Wisner soil,
whether zinc was applied or not (Tables 33 and 34). The zinc
concentration in plants remained constant over time on the lower
levels of applied zinc but concentration tended to decrease on
the higher zinc treatments.

The plants grown on the Wisner clay loam soil increased in
zinc concentration between sampling times (Table 33).

The plants grown on zinc EDTA treatments were higher in zinc
concentration and zinc content than were plants grown on zinc
sulfate treatments (Tables 33 and 34). Up to 16.0 pounds of zinc
as zinc sulfate were applied before there was a response in zinc
uptake by plants; there was an increase in zinc uptake on the 1.0
pound zinc EDTA treatment.

The per cent of the quantity of applied zinc which was
recovered by the plant decreased as the amount of applied zinc
was increased. More zinc was recovered by plants on zinc EDTA
treatments than by plants on zinc sulfate treatments. On the
Wisner soil, as the rate of applied zinc as zinc sulfate was
increased by a factor of 3, the content of zinc in plants increased
1.4; for the same three-fold increase in applied zinc EDTA, the
zinc content in plants increased 2.1 (Table 33).

In the most recent growth portion of the plant, the pod, the

zinc concentration increased as the level of applied zinc EDTA

83.
increased (Tables 30 and 3]). 0n zinc sulfate treatments, zinc
concentration in the pods did not increase until l6.0 pounds or more
of zinc had been applied on the Kawkawlin soil and 48.0 pounds of
zinc had been applied on the Wisner soil. At the highest treatments
of zinc EDTA, the pod yield tended to decrease, whereas pod yields
tended to increase with each increment of applied zinc sulfate.

The accumulation of zinc in plant parts on zinc sulfate treat-
ments was indiscriminate on all levels of applied zinc on either
soil (Tables 33 and 34). When the level of applied zinc EDTA was
increased, zinc tended to accumulate first in the stem and next in
the leaf.

The zinc content of plant parts and of the total above-ground
plant was related to applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA for plants
grown on the Wisner clay loam soil in Figures 5 through 8. This
Isame relationship for the Kawkawlin loam soil is shown in Figures
9 through l2.

Higher correlations were obtained between applied zinc EDTA
and the zinc content of leaves (Figures 5 and 9), stems (Figures
6 and lO), and total above-ground plants (Figures 8 and 12) than
between applied zinc sulfate and zinc content of these plant parts.
The higher correlations between zinc sulfate treatment and zinc
content of pods (Figures 7 and ll) was the reflection of the
increase in pod weight with increase in applied zinc; the pod
yields on zinc EDTA treated pots varied from medium to high to
medium (relative to pod yields on the zinc sulfate treatments)

with the increase in applied zinc.

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN LEAVES
(NILLIGRANS)

.50

.14

 

LEGEND:

v = zmc SULFATE (:1)

Y ' ZIM‘. EDTA

(V)

84.

 

 

l I l l l l A l A l A J 1

10.0 15.0 20.0
POUNDS OF ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 5: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF LEAVES OF
PEA BEAN PLANTS GROWN ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN STENS
(NILLIGRAHS)

0.26

0.20

0.15

0.09

0.03

85.

      

 

 

v
- £690:
Y1 = 21M: SULFATE (a)
72 = In: EDTA (V)
p
h
l-
p—
y-
l-
l-
I
I.
J 1 I I I I L L I I L l I L L J I I I l I
O 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 6: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF STEHS 0F

PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A HISNER CLAl‘ LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT A)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN PODS
(NILLIGRAMS)

86.

 

 

 

0.30 *
V
' LEGEND:
Y1 = ZINC SULFATE (ED
v2 = zmc EDTA (v)
p-
h
0.23 P
e
P
0.15 ”
b
p
p
0.08 b
r
b
(u a
0 ll
1 l l L l l J l I l A; l l l I l 1 l 1 4+
0 5.0 15.0 20.0

pouuus or me APPLIED m ACRE

FIGURE 7: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF PODS 0F
PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

ZINC CONTENT OF TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS
(NILLIGRAHS)

'8

0
vs
\4

 

87.

ESE
V1 :

V2:

ZIM: SULFATE (ID
ZIFI EDTA

(V)

  
   

, . 0.7a

 
 
 
 

 

. 0.203 ~ 0-005"
'1

 

’ I
¢°
_ I
J I n 1 n I I I I l A 1 1 I I I I l I A I
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 8: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF THE

TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GRDHN ON A NISNER CLAV LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN LEAVES
(NILLIGRANS)

88.

 

 

1.50 e
e LEGEND:
v
vl = zmc SULFATE CD)
v2 = Inc EDTA (V)
b-
1-
1.14 -
p-
p
v
P
0.78 e
a.
o-9
O
(
b q*‘
Q\
\ ' Q.
QQ'Q
‘1
F o
__ v
v
0.41 r
F v
..
. 0.61
v 0 v . 0.082 , 0-003“. r
— l
9 D V B
- '5 ° 0
-‘ v .
., .1 I a
0.05 b I. '
I l l l L I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I
0 5.0 10 0 15.0 20.0

POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 9: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF LEAVES OF
PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A KAHKAHLIN LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

(mutants)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN STENS

89.

0.26 F
r m;
'1 s m: WAT! (ID
72 = IINC EDTA (V)
v
0.20 -
v

 

 

 

0.I5

0.09

0.03 b
I I .1 I I J I I I444, I I, I I I I I I, I 44L. I I
0 0.0 ".0 10.0

10.0
M! W EIIC APPLIED PER ACNE

FIGURE 10: THE RELATIONSHIP BEMEN RATES 0P ZINC APPLIED A! EIM SULFATE AID EIK E A ND THE ZINC ”(TENT 0F STENS OP
PEA BEAN PLANTS m 04 A WIN CW SOIL. (NEWE EAPERIKNT A

(HILLIWNS)

ZINC CONTENT OF PEA BEAN PODS

90.

LEGEM):

.(

= ZIM Su.FATE (a)

<

= ZIPC EDTA

(V)

 

 

 

.— a
" D
.— V
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 5.0 10.0 I5.D 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE II: THE RELATIONSHIP BETNEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SILFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CMTENT 0F PODS 0F

PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A KAHKAHLIN LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE ElPERINENT 4)

91.

 

 

2.03 r-
l- mom;
Y1 = zmc SULFATE (a)
P
v2 = 2m: EDTA (v)
v
1.54 .-
V, v
P- I—
E
a‘
z I—
<
:3 v
at
if r-
3
§ 1.06 »- ‘09"
I? E
: 0"”.
8 "' k 0' v
< 153
.JA L 0.
(In 0
8% ‘1.
.— 9 o
{LI-I
0.4
.J b
p—u—
2!
an v
z
3 +-
B
N 0.57 L
_ . 0.76 o
0 205 + °~°°6" r
v ‘1‘ ' ' o
r v 9 0
L v . a
-I ' Z a
L .I I . a U
a
0.08 L
l I I l I l I L l l l l l l l 1 I l l l
0 5.0 l5.0 20.0

10.0
POWDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 12: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZIINZ APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONTENT OF THE
TOTAL ABOVE~GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GRWN (N A KANKANLIN LON! SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

92.

The zinc concentrations for the leaf, stem, pod, and total
plant were all plotted on one figure for those plants grown on
one of the soil types which received treatment by one of the
zinc carriers. These relationships for zinc sulfate or zinc EDTA
when applied to either the Wisner clay loam soil or the Kawkawlin
loam soil are shown in Figures 13 through 16.

The correlations between zinc concentration in the plant
portions and applied zinc were higher for zinc EDTA treatments
than for zinc sulfate treatments on both the Wisner and Kawkawlin
soils (Figures 13 through 16). The highest correlations for zinc
EDTA treatments were obtained with the data for zinc concentration
in the above-ground plant (Figures 14 and 16); for zinc sulfate
treatments, the highest correlations were obtained with the data
for zinc concentration in the stem (Figures 13 and 15). There
was no consistent relationship between zinc concentration in the
. above-ground plant and zinc concentration in the leaf, stem, or

pod of plants grown on soil treatments of either zinc carrier.

V-C. Incubation Experiment Results_

The objective of the Incubation Experiment was to study the
availability and form of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA
as affected by soil applied phosphorus and length of incubation.
Water, neutral normal ammonium chloride and tenth normal hydro-
chloric acid were utilized to extract zinc from the soil.

In Tables 36 through 38, extractable zinc in pounds per acre
is reported according to extractant, phOSphorus treatment, and

length of incubation. The relationship between the zinc applied

ZINC CONCENTRATIM IN PEA BEAN PLANT PARTS
(PARTS PER NILLION)

l20.0

90.0

.8

T5
O

93.

 

 

 
 
   

 

LEGEND:
YI = m ZIM LEAF (U)
L
v2 = m4 zmc STEH (v)
’- '3 = PM ZIPC POO (X)
VI. = PM ZIK MT (+)
I—
D
L
T v
u 03‘
f ' D
_ °_M5i- o-
, . \7.\63 ‘ 6“. r - “-53
+ 2 ‘9 953 ~ “-2 r . 0.35
— u ‘I ' .533 + 0.129"
‘ ‘I I 1:9. 0m . 01‘5“"
1- 3 I
" X
I I I I I I I I I 4| J; I I I I I I I I I;
o 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
mums 0F zmc APPLIED m ACRE
nouns IS:

05. AND TOTAL ABOVE-GROWN) PEA BEAN PLANTS GROW ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL.

(GREENHOUSE EXPERINENT A)

gE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND THE ZINC CONCENTRATION IN LEAVES. STENS.

ZINC CONCENTRATION IN PEA BEAN PLANT PARTS
(PARTS PER MILLION)

240.0

l80.0

I20.0

60.0

- LEGEPO:

v1 = Pm zmc LEAF (a)
Y = PPM ZINC STEM (90
- v = PPM 210: Pa) (>0

v“ = sznc PLANT (+)

 

94.

 

b D
P-
“ O
\
.. ,9
o
e ‘I °
I- 3"
at?"
- \3.
o
'A\ *
...
1' .036
+
\ 917:!" V
(3 . 9.‘ V
I- ‘N * . 0.93
I.
F- 3 ‘1
4 .
P 32:. r ’ 0‘8
F + - v . 22 928 * ° 6
" "/ I
I. . r 1 .
.-r -
)- X
I I I I I I I I L I I I I 4 I # I I
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 14: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONCENTRATION IN LEAVES. STENS,

PODS. AND TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A NISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL.

(GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

ZINC CONCENTRATION IN PEA am PLANT mus
(mus PER MILLION)

120.0

90.0

 

95.

 

D
)- LEGEND:
Yl PPM ZINC LEAF (m
Y2 Pm Zlm STEH (V)
- Y3 PM ZIPC Pa) 00
Y“ PM ZIP(2 PLANT (+)
P
+
V
. 05"
6561. 0 50
‘ 1 20° ,Iw- 0 m V
3 9 0‘5 . D'A69P‘ g 85
I- N ‘ o 013 0 3‘5,”
‘2 0 899 . ¥
1- ‘3
D
E! I.
L v D 5
b "-X ' ‘ ' ’I” I
..‘m ’6"
e I
. -- ”’ E
00 ° * I
O
1- o 0
P-
I I I I I I I I I eeI LLIL, I I I, I, I, I I I LEI I
0 5.0 I0.0 I5.0 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE IS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETNEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND THE ZINC CONCENTRATION IN LEAVES. STENS.

PODS, AND TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A XAHXAHLIN LOAN SOIL. (GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

ZINC CONCENTRATION IN PEA BEAN PLANT PARTS
(PARTS PER NILLION)

240.0

180.0

120.0

60.0

T

 

LEGEND:

Y1=PPMZIPC LEAF (D)

96.

 

* a
v2 = PPM zmc STEM (90
e r} = PER ZINC P00 (x)
a
Y“ = PPM ZINC PLANT (+)
L a
1-
g‘ D
< 4%. +
L .
out
3?)
1"
r \
\‘D:L "’
0
e *\
a
B 03"“
t
- 9'51
9 \'
‘0
_ v
T 2
o . 0.9 8
I- 57" r
a . 27.357 * 0'8
T 77
2 0 625x ' ’ 0'
.. 2 + . ‘
g Y . 26.69 x
D /
r' 0 i U I
~ "‘4 i
‘ " a
." I:
I- . o
X
I. I J I I I I 1 I j I I I I I I I I
O 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 16: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND THE ZINC CONCENTRATION IN LEAVES, STEHS.

PODS, AND TOTAL ABOVE-GROUND PEA BEAN PLANTS GROHN ON A KAHXAHLIN LOAN SOIL.

(GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT 4)

97.

.Auezz _~Lu=a=.m_ Any
.mco_umumpamg oxu mo mmmgm>< Amy

 

O
I

 

 

 

m.o~P ~.eoF O on m «N m.om N.om m.m o.m m.~m m.p~ <+omc~ o.~m_
m.~m m.¢m o.om «.mm m.m ~.p m.~ N._ ¢.o o och o.~o_
m.- m.e~ m.FF m.op “.mp p.vp m.~ ~.~ ~.m_ e.—F <+om=~ c.em
p.m~ m.mP N.e~ m.m~ e.o m.o ¢.o m.o o o och o.¢m
v.m e.~ m.o o.m m.~ e.~ m.o ~.o p.~ ~.p <+am=~ o.m—
~.~ o.m «.5 m.m o o o o. o o omc~ c.mp
~.m m.~ ~.m m.~ o o o o o o <+am=~ o.m
n.m F.m ~.m p.m o o o o o o cch o.o
¢.m m.— c.m m.p o o o o o o («och o.~
o.m 5.N o.m N.~ o o o o o c och o.~
o.~ m.~ o.~ o.~ o o o o o o u- o
«Coax; a usu~\a a ouuaxm a mgua\m a oguuxa a
ap ooo— oz AP coop oz np ooo— oz n— coop oz a— coop oz
puz.m«.o v Auguaxa—v
+A Vpu I. A Vpu :z e Lowggmu no_—anm
m Lupus .9: z_.o m Emu“: AnVFu I: Ewan: u=_~ u=_N
Amgum\apv A3oz: m—nmuumguxm ucmsummgh

 

Aucws_gwqu :o_uma:u:~v
.cowumuppaqm magozamoga we was; new cowumuppanm ucpn wo was; van Lawggmu xn umwwmymm ma wvmgawucmu mmm+mmo on «a
mxmu om umumnzucp pwom Emop Ampu gmgmwz m sou; vmcwmuno ucw~ mPnauumprm Fuz zp.o new .puexz puguam: z— .Lmumz ”om m_noh

983.

.puezz _~Lu=u=.m_ EV
.mcopuauwpamg or» we omusm>< av

 

 

 

 

~.m~F e Pop m.e¢ A.m~ m.¢m N.NN m.“ e.m a.o~ m.¢m <+am=~ c.~o_
m.o~ m.em o.m~ ~.mm m._ P._ a._ F.F o o cm=~ o.~m_
m.mm a.m~ m.F~ A.¢P m.¢P ~.¢_ ~.~ m.~ P.~F e... <*om=~ o.em
e.om ~.op o.om w.m_ ¢.c ¢.o ¢.c e.o o o cmgN °.¢m
o.a o.m o.“ A.¢ o.~ m._ «.o a o.P m._ <+am=~ o.mp
m.o. m.m m.a m.m ¢.o o ¢.o o o o och c.mp
m.m e.m m.m ¢.m c o c a o o <+am=~ o.m
m.m 5.N m.m 5.N c o c o o o och o.m
5.N o.~ A.~ o.~ c o c o o o <*am=~ o.~
P.m P.~ _.m ..N o o o c o o och o.~
F.m o.~ _.m o.P o o o o o o -- o
usua\a a mguu\a a ugum\a a mgum\a a mgum\m a
n. coop oz 3p soc. O: a. oocP oz n_ coo. oz DP ace. oz
_u=.m*.o ¢ Auguu\a_v
+A V.u_z .. A v_u :2 q Eamgguu um__gn~
m Luau: _u: z_.o m Luau: Aa._u :2 guy»: uEPN u=_N
Amgum\npv A38.—N m_nnuu~guxm acmsumugh

 

Aucmspgoaxm :omuunzucmv
.copuou_pna~ magognmonn we «as; sea cowuouP—nqm ucp~ mo mum; new Lowggmu An vopwmwmo no mvomm_ucmu mmmxmmu on an
mama cap umuoaaucp pwom snap hapu Locum: a Eon» vmcwouno ucp~ apnouunguxm —u: zp.o ucm .pu :z —ugu=mc zp .Louoz "mm m_nm»

..oozz Poooooo.mp zoo
.mcozuouwpams oz» mo mmagu>< Amy

 

99.

 

 

 

m.m_P N No o.om o.m~ o.Fm o.oo A.“ ~.o ~.o~ p.oo <+omo~ o.~o_
m.oo m.oo m.mo ~.wo o._ o.P o.p o.o o A.o omoN o.~o_
p.m~ ~.o~ m.mz ~.mp m._p m... ~.~ m.~ o.o o.o <+ouoN o.om
..NN o.op o._N o.o~ m.o o m.o o .o o omoN o.om
m.o o.o o.o o.o o.p A.— m.o m.o m.F ~._ <+ouo~ o.o_
m.m o.m m.o o.m o o o o o o omoN o.mp
m.o ..m m.o _.m o o o o o o <+ouo~ o.o
o.m o.m o.m o.m o o o o o o omoN o.o
o.m o.~ o.m o.~ o o o o o o <+ouo~ o.~
~.m ..m ~.m ..m o o o o o o omoN o.~
o.~ o.~ o.~ o.~ o o o o o o -- o
msuu\¢ a ogua\o a uguu\n a usuo\a m usua\a a
o. 82 oz £ 82 oz 2 So. oz 5 82 oz £ 82 oz
poz..*.o
+z V_u zz u. o zoooo\opv
m Loon: _oz zz.o A v_o zz o Lo_oooo oo._ooo
m Luau: zoo—o zz Loooz ooo~ oo_~
Auguo\a—v A38.3 «pompousuxm acoEuumLh

 

Auguswguaxu :ovuaoauc~v
.cozuuup_gan masozamogn mo man; can :owuauzpnnu u=¢~ $0 mung van sowsgou ha umywmmma mo acnuawucau mmo+muv on an
«mac onw nouonaucp pzom soap mopu Locmpz a son» uuczauaa ucPN u—auuuoguxm Pu: z—.c uco .Fu :2 poguaoc zp .Loua: "an «Pooh

 

100.

 

 

_oozz Poooooo z. zoo
m: m: m: m: m: u x a x u x a
m: m: m: m: m: H x a x u
m: m: m: . m: m: n x o x a
m: {:1 .11 m: t H X U K n—
m: «.... to «a. 1.. a x u x .—
mc m: a m: m: H x a
m: fit. it. w: it. H X U
m: or: «a it .. a8. .— x u
to is c m: to. H x .—
3. «c. is m: z a x .—
21 «a a5 «a. «a u x ._
«.m.m.~ m.p.o.p ¢.m.o.~ m: N.p.a.o Maw cowuoaau:~
N.m.m.m m.F.v.~ w.¢.c.m m: o.—.~.p .m masocnmogm
N.m.¢.m m.p.v.p m.v.o.m o.o.m.o @.—.N.p Auv Lawssau ucpN
o.~.o.~ m.o.n.o ¢.~.m.— m.o.~.c a.o.m.° Adv pu>up och
¢._..o.— m.o.~.o. e.—.o.— Too—6v m.o.~.c ”Eu-53.5 ocpN
Auguo\opv
uan Aosuoxopv Ausuoxn—V
opoouoosuxo econ new" Auguoxnpv Ausuoxapv
Pu:.m*.o opoouuozuxo «pompous x0 ocw~ ucpn
+ AoVFu :z lbw: AmVpo :z a—nnuums x0 «pamuumguxu
+ Luna: zfio + Luau: Any PU I: swab:
mpm>op acme Lao woo ecu o>_$ no mo=~o> om; «cusuoagh

 

Aucmsvsmoxm cozuooauouv
.mm smooszu mm mmpooh or omugooog cast as» oo oucozso> wo mpmxpuca so ooczouoo
mpo>mp Home Loo ago new u>zm age as mucoupmzcmpm so; oogooomg «cows coozuoo moucosmwmpa "an o—ou»

lOl.

to the soil and the zinc extracted by water (water soluble zinc),
neutral normal ammonium chloride (exchangeable zinc), and tenth
normal hydrochloric acid (acid soluble zinc) is shown according
to zinc carrier and phosphorus treatment in Figures 17 through 22.
In Figures 23 through 34, the zinc removed from the soil by the
extractant for all three incubation intervals was plotted on one
figure according to the zinc carrier, phosphorus treatment, and
extractant.

The amount of zinc which could be extracted from the soil
increased with the increase in applied zinc, regardless of the
zinc carrier or phosphorus treatment (Figures 17 through 22).
DisprOportionately more zinc could be recovered as additional
amounts were applied (Table 40).

The quantity of zinc which could be extracted from the soil
varied with the length of incubation but this effect was inconsis-
’ tent among zinc and phosphorus treatments and extractants (Figures
23 through 34). The quantity of exchangeable zinc was not affected
by length of incubation (Tables 36 through 38).

Virtually none of the zinc applied as zinc sulfate remained
water soluble. Only 1.0 to 2.0 pounds as exchangeable zinc could
be recovered from soil which received the highest, or 162.0 pound
zinc sulfate treatment (Tables 36 through 38). None of the zinc
applied in the 2.0 and 6.0 pound zinc EDTA treatment remained water
soluble or exchangeable.

The amount of soil zinc which was water soluble, exchangeable,
or water soluble and exchangeable, decreased with time (Tables 36

through 38). Acid soluble zinc in zinc EDTA treated soil increased

HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

 

102.

LEGEM):
Yl = zmc SULFATE (ED
Y2 : zmc EDTA (V)

 

 

ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90 DAYS. (INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

I I, I I III J_ I I I I I I I J4, I I I I I
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS OF ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 17: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC

_ 4C1 EXTRACTABLE zxnc
(pouuos PER ACRE)

HATER + 1N NH

68.1

.
U"
.

32.3

 

103.

 

 

 

 

- LEGEND:
Yx = 21“: SULFATE (D) V
Y2 : ZIPC EDTA (V)
)-
I-
b
h-
p-
b
I.
V Y1 I -O.DI4 + 0.004x, r 3 0.89
V .3
’ III>~:: I; E}
I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
0 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 18: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS 1N NEUTRAL

NH‘CI EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90 DAYS.

(INCUDATION EXPERIMENT)

4C1 + 0.1N HCI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER + 1N NH

129.2

96.9

64.6

I»
N
w

 

LEGEND:

v = ZINC SULFATE (D)

I

104.

 

PLUS 0.1! HCI EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUDATED FOR 90 DAYS.

(INCUBAT ION‘EXPER IHENT)

v2 = zIAc EDTA ((7)
v
v
q
99
6
(
*Q
q}
Q?
q a
(P o
l\‘
O
M.
o
99
g.
55‘" I ’
\
o'l ‘ 0'
¢ 0'6
‘\
V
o
a
o
I J 4L I L I I I I I L I I I I I I A I;
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162 0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE T9: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED As ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS 1N NEUTRAL NH4C1

HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

84.0

63.0

42.0

N
o—a
O

105.

 

 

 

 

ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED. (INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

P
v
- Leone:
'1 ZINC SULFATE (a)
p-
Y2 ZIPC EDTA (V)
b
h
h
h
b
y-
b
b
h
b
b
y r] - -0.016 + 0.001x. r . 0.64

- It : : : 3

I I I I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I # fiI

O 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0

POUNDS or ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 20: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC

4C1 EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER + 1N NH

90.8

45.4

N
N
\l

106.

 

 

 

 

* V
b LEGEND:
Yl ZINC SULFATE 03)
b
Y2 ZINC EDTA (9)
p
p
I-
I"
I-
I-
I'
P y . -0.066 + 0.007x. r - 0.96
l .13
P IN! II :2 E!
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 21: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS lN NEUTRAL NHACl

EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED.
(INCUBATIDN EXPERIMENT)

4C1 0 0.1! HCI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER + 1N NH

129.2

64.6

L.)
N
u

 

107.

 

LEGEND: 9
v
71 ZINC SULFATE (D)
72 ZINC EDTA m
o
09
Q.
0
(
*Q
«9" o
0'
I
q\‘
IQ.
O
*‘L
g
o9
9
'(
5°”
N 0.1L
1‘9
¢ 0.
M
o
8
I
I L I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I—
O 40.5 31.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS OF ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 22: THE RELATIONSHIP DETNEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS 1N NEUTRAL NH C1

PLUS O.1N HCl EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPL ED.
(INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

HATER ExTRACTAaLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

63.0

42.0

N
d
O

 

108.

 

 

*' LEGEND
11 90 DAY IncuaATIm (CD
h
Y2 180 DAY IPCUBATIGJ (l)
'- v3 270 DAY TNCUBATION (V)
p-
L
F-
F-
p
P
)-
i-
y-
p-
Y2 = -0.029 + 0.002x, r - 0.64
P Y] I 0, r I 0
Y3 - 0. r - 0 x
I- H fi m
I I I I I I I I I I I_ I I I L I I I I I___
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 23: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY

LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. 180. AND 270 DAYS. (INCUBATIDN EXPERIMENT)

HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

63.0

42.0

N
.-
o

 

109.

v1 = 90 DAY INcuaATICN (0)
Y2 = no DAY INCUDATIm (a)
v3 = 270 DAY INCURATION (V)

Y] I -0.0I6 + 0.001x. r I 0.64

 

 

Y2-0.r-0

Y3 I 0. r - D
III-1P----1I ””_1lzz "TII
I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I A I I I I i
0 40.5 81 0 121.5 162.0

POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 24: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY
LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. 180, AND 270 DAYS; PNOSPNORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED. (INCUBATIDN EXPERIMENT)

HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POINDS PER ACRE)

 

110.

 

84.0 1)-
P LEGEND:
Y1 = 90 MY INCUBATIGN CU)
)-
v2 = 180 DAY TPCUBATION 00 D
- v3 = 270 DAY INCUDATIDN (V) 9
63.0 -
X
'- X
‘6
9°? ‘9
'- ( .6. 9%
+6 ‘ Q.
'11P" ~ ‘
)- Q' -<\ (
I: Q} .v.‘
or" >9
42.0 P- ‘3' I:
‘\
*\ 9' >‘\
I- *3 O
*‘L
I"
P
21.0 '-
,'/
- O
V
D
__ X
I
0 u- “ -
I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I_ J I I I L IjL
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 25: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY

LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90, 180. AND 270 DAYS. (INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

84.0

42.0

 

111.

a
m:
v1 = 90 DAY INCUMTIGN (m I
V? = 180 DAY INCUBATICN (x)

x

V =

270 DAY IPCLMTIM (V)

 

 

l I I I I I I I I I I I 4L I I I I I I I I
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS DE ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 26: THE RELATIONSHIP BENEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY

LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. 180. AND 270 DAYS: PMSPIDRUS IS ALSO APPLIED. (INCUBATIUI EXPERINEN’T)

_ 4C1 ExTRACTAaLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER 4 IN NH

68.1

45.4

22.7

112.

 

 

 

ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. 180, AND 270 DAYS.

(INCUBATION EXPERINEN

F LEGEICH
v1 = 90 DAY INCUBATION (ED
72 = 180 DAY INCUlATION (x0
- v3 = 270 DAY INCUIATIaN (V)
I-
F-
b
b
v2 - -0.065 + 0.005x. r - 0-88
_ v, - -0.014 + 0.004x. r - 0.89
113 - -0.017 + 0.004x. r - 0.84
)- u-o——a_ + I
L I I L L I I L I I I I_ I L I I I L
o 40.5 ,81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS OF ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 27: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER PLUS 1N NEUTRAL NH C1 EXTRACTABLE

- 4C1 EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER P IN NH

 

 

113.

 

 

 

90.8 -
" LEGEND
Y, = 90 DAY [NCUBATION (o)
T, : Iao DAY INCUBATION (x)
P Y, = 270 DAY INcuaATIoN 00)
h-
68.1 -
b
)-
b
45.4 ~
22.7 F
r-
F-
” v1 = -0.oee + 0.007.. r = 0.96
v3 - -0.007 + 0.006x. r . 0.92
b Y2 I -0.006 + 0.003x. r = 0.75
0 (III-Ir----4Ize 4__"1|lIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIll!!!!lllllllllllllk::::fi
I I I I I I 1 l I I l . l l
0 “0'5 ‘21-5 152.0

81.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 28: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER PLUS 1! NEUTRAL NH C1 EXTRACTABLE
ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90, 180, AND 270 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO AP LIED.
(INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

HATER + 1N NH‘CI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

90.8

45.4

22.7

 

114.

.. E9952;
v1 = 90 DAY INCUIATICN (CD a
72 = 180 DAY INCUDATIaN (x) v
1- v3 = 270 DAY INCUIATIaN (V)

 

I
p-
x
Q' c9
(o .9' c9
b ‘ ( '0'
Q1. m‘sb. .<
’ e“. °' 0"
' o
:v e9
h . "L. %@
\\ o >-
‘35 o
b '\1r
’ a
II

b ./
III]! II

I I I I I I I I L L I I I I I I I I I LI I

O 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0

POUNDS OF ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 29:

THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS 1N NEUTRAL NHACI EXTRACTABLE

ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUOATED FOR 90. 180. AND 270 DAYS. (INCUDATION EXPERI ENT)

_ ‘0 EXTRACTABLE zmc
(POUNDS pea ACRE)

HATER + IN NH

.
0'0
b

22.7

 

115.

 

o

LEGEND: V

VI = 90 DAY INCUBATION (D) V

v2 : 180 DAY INCUBATION (x)

Y} = 270 DAY INCUBATION (V)

.°' ‘9
( W 4’
3+. ( .Q
"5’ .543 <
Q. 1L6 +§
It . h
P '1.
$99,?" ~°
.' a} '95
\\ o :1,
«'5 o
\‘L
o
I
II I
I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
PMDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 30: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS IN NEUTRAL NH4CI EXTRACTABLE

ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INClBATED FOR 90. 180. AND 270 DAYS; PMSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED.
(INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

)

CI 4» 0.IN HCI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE

4

HATER 6 IN NH

I29.0

64.6

 

 

116.

 

chao:

vl = 90 my mcuanlm (D)
v2 = um DAV [PCIBATIIN (x)
v = :70 DAY mcuaanon (V)

D

1

l

 

I 1 1 I l l 1 I I 1 n | l 1
D 40.5 81.0 IZT.5 162.0
POWDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE
FIGURE 31: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER PLUS I! NEUTRAL NHACI PLUS 0.IN HCI

(INClBATION EXPERIMENT)

EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INClBATED FOR 90. I80. AND 270 DAYS.

PER ACRE

C! + 0.IN nu EXTRACTABLE zxnc
)

‘(Pouuos

UTER + IN IN

 

117.

 

129.2
LEGEND:
v1 = 90 cm mauunou (:1)
v2 = no my mcuunou on)
v, = :70 DAY INCLMTION (V)
”l9
0
a
v
o9
64.6 ‘0 “99
Q <0
.1 .
0\ ' “fig“; I .
001 ‘31 u 0196
8 u
‘\ ," *8
‘3 .0
*1,
32.3 '
a
x
5.
o
I I I I I I I I I J I I I I Vg
o 40.5 121.5 162.0

81.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 32: THE RELATIONSHIP BEMEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC SULFATE AND HATER PLUS IN NEUTRAL NH4CI PLUS 0.IN HCI
EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. I80. AND 270 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED.
(INCUBATION EXPERIMENT)

‘CI + 0.IN HCI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER 0 IN NH

129.2

Ci
5
G

U
N
w

 

H8.

 

 

EXTRACTABLE ZINC ON A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL INCUBATED FOR 90. 180. AND 270 DAYS. (INCUBATION EXPERINENT)

LEGEND:

v1 90 DAY mcuunou (:1)

Y2 no DAY INCUBATION OI)

v3 270 DAY Imnm (v) a

I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_'L__
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POUNDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 33: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS IN NEUTRAL NH4CI PLUS 0.IN HCI

4CI + 0.IN KI EXTRACTABLE ZINC
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

HATER + IN NH

I29.2

64.6

L»
N
w

 

LEGEI‘D:

119.

 

v1 90 DAY mcuaAnou (D) 8
Y2 IBD DAY IPCLBATICN 00
Y, 270 DAY INCLBATION (V)
09
0Q.
< ,w 9‘"
*fi-T ( .Q.
:54?" ‘
" w '9.
«'9 G <9
9' «I ~
9 ’9' 9%
«'5 0 Q
*\ 0
V»
O
O
x
I!

I I I I I I I L L I I I I I I I L I I I +
0 40.5 81.0 121.5 162.0
POWDS 0F ZINC APPLIED PER ACRE

FIGURE 34: THE RELATIMSNIP BETHEEN RATES OF ZINC APPLIED AS ZINC EDTA AND HATER PLUS TN NEUTRAL NN4CI PLUS 0.IN NCI

EXTRACTABLE ZINC on A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL IICIBATED FOR 90. I80. AND 270 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO-APPLIED.
(INCUDATION EXPERIMENT)

120.

Table 40: The per cent of applied zinc recovered by water plus

lN neutral NH Cl plus 0.IN HCl extraction from a Wisner
cTay loam soiI incubated 5D days as affected by carrier
and rate of zinc application and rate of phosphorus
application. (Incubation Experiment)

 

 

 

 

Treatment Per cent of applied zinc recovered(a)
Zinc Zinc N0 P 1000 lb P/acre
applied carrier
(lb/acre)

2.0 ZnSO 55.0 50.0

2.0 ZnEDTA 10.0 70.0

6.0 ZnSO 25.0 28.3

5.0 ZnEDIA 20.0 20.0

18.0 ZnSO 22.2 28.9

18.0 ZnEDIA 32.2 41.1

54.0 ZnSO 32.8 42.8

54.0' ZnEDTA 43.2 47.5
152.0 ZnSO 32.7 49.5
162.0 ZnEDTA 53.5 73.3

 

(a) Average of two replications. The amount of zinc extracted

from soil which had not received any zinc treatment was
subtracted from the amount of zinc extracted from soil
which had received zinc treatment.

IZI.

with time; this form of zinc in zinc sulfate treated soil decreased
with time.

The correlation coefficients obtained between zinc applied
as zinc EDTA and water soluble zinc (Figures l7 and 20)
or water soluble plus exchangeable zinc (Figures 18 and 2l)
were higher than those obtained between the zinc sulfate treat-
ment and comparable forms of soil zinc. Comparable coefficients
were obtained between zinc applied with either carrier and water
soluble plus exchangeable plus acid soluble zinc (Figures 19 and
22).

The per cent of zinc applied to the soil which could be
recovered by any of the three extractants increased as the rate
of applied zinc increased from 6.0 to l62.0 pounds per acre
(Table 40). More zinc could be recovered from zinc sulfate treated
soil than from zinc EDTA treated soil when 2.0 and 6.0 pounds of
zinc were applied (Tables 36 through 38), but this relationship
was reversed as additional increments of zinc were applied. This
increase in extractable zinc from higher levels of applied zinc
EDTA was due primarily to an increase in water soluble and exchange-
able zinc. Zinc applied as zinc sulfate was found in the acid
soluble rather than water soluble or exchangeable fractions.

When TODD pounds of phosphorus were applied to the soil, the
amount of zinc which could be recovered by any extractant from
soil treated with either zinc carrier was increased except for
exchangeable zinc when zinc EDTA was applied (Table 4l). This
increase in extractable zinc due to ph05phorus treatment was

greater for zinc sulfate treated soil samples than for zinc EDTA

122.

._oe=z Fugu=o=.m_ any

.cm mpnmh cm mmapm> sag; Amy

 

 

 

m.—p ~.m_ m.ep <+och o.~mp
m.om o.~m .. om=~ o.~m_

m.op m.FF m.m_ <+ou=~ o.em

m.om mmmogumo -- och o.em

o.- w.c~ m.m~ <+ouc~ c.m_

m.m~ -- .. om:~. o.mp

m.¢_ -- .. <+au=~ o.m

¢.m— -- -- och o.o

m.mw -- .. <+ach o.~

p.pp -- -- och c.~

c.m~ -- -- -u c

ucm~
opanuuamuxm u=w~

—u: z~.c mpauuums xo ocm~ Amsuu\a—V
+A V—u :z A Vpu :z «Pamuuaguxo gmvggmu umwpnnm
m Lana: m Loam: Laue: u=_N ucw~
A38.5 mpnmuuaguxa :_ mmmocucw acmu Ema «cosumogh

 

Aucms_swnxm copumgzuc_v

.cowumuF—anm u=m~ mo mums can Lamsgau x: cmuummwm mm managamoga um>_mumL no: um; cups;

ppom Lm>o ngo:nmoga vmwpaau vo>mmumg was gums: wuwn om umumnzucm —mom Emop hm—u Locmm: a
505$ pu:.m_.o van .—u :z pmsusoc.mp .Luumz z: opnauumguxm ucw~ cm mmmogucm acme Lug ugh ”—v m—amh

123.

treated samples.

The pH of the water extracts of the soil samples ranged from
7.4 to 7.9. The pH of the neutral normal ammonium chloride extracts
ranged from 7.0 to 7.2.

The relationship between the pH of the tenth normal hydro-
chloric acid soil extract and the amount of applied zinc remaining
in the soil at 90 days is shown according to zinc carrier for samples
which did not receive phosphorus in Figure 35 and for samples which
received ph05phorus in Figure 36. The amount of applied zinc remain-
ing in the soil is a calculated value. The quantity of zinc
extracted from the soil by water plus neutral normal ammonium
chloride plus tenth normal hydrochloric acid was subtracted from
the amount of zinc originally applied; to this value, was added
the quantity of zinc extracted by tenth normal hydrochloric acid
from those soil samples which did not receive any zinc treatment.

The pH of the tenth normal hydrochloric acid soil extract
from soil samples which received l000 pounds of phosphorus per
acre exhibited a lower pH. The median pH for samples which
received ph05phorus was 4.27 compared to 4.38 for samples which
did not receive phosphorus (Figures 35 and 36). When phosphorus was
applied, 30.2 per cent of the extracts had a pH below 4.1, and
7.0 per cent, above pH 4.5; when no phosphorus was applied, only
20.9 per cent of the extracts had a pH below 4.1, and 25.6 per
cent above pH 4.5.

There was poor correlation between the pH of the tenth normal
hydrochloric acid extract and the amount of zinc extractable by

water plus neutral normal ammonium chloride plus tenth normal

APPLIED ZINC REMAINING IN SOIL
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

II8.2

58.7

29.0

-0.8 1

 

124.

LEGEND: B
Y1 = ZIPC SULFATE (D)

Y, = me an m

 

 

3.20

FIGURE 35:

3.60 4.00 4.40
pH OF SOIL EXTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN THE pH OF THE 0.IN HCI SOIL EXTRACT AND THE POUNDS OF APPLIED ZINC AS ZINC SULFATE
AND ZINC EDTA REMAINING AFTER EXTRACTION HTTH HATER PLUS I! NH4CI PLUS 0.IN HCI IN A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL
INCUBATED 90 DAYS. (INCUBATION EXPERIIENT)

4.80

 

APPLIED ZINC REMAINING IN SOIL
(POUNDS PER ACRE)

I25.

 

  
        

 

 

101.4 F :1

.. LEGEND:

Y1 : 21M: SULFATE (a)
v2 = zmc eon (v)

)-
75.9 e

)- 0 U

y-

D
50.4 .
v
v
v
)- v
- 0
0
b C! ' ‘V
V v
v
24.9 I Y, - 16.854 - I.838x, r . -0.”
u
. 0-32
F 8.22\" r :3
I -26-5‘9 1.. D P
)- ‘2 vV v
v v
. 1:1 0 5
v n 0 o I: V :1
-0.6 L v P 1:10
I I I I I I_ J I I P I I I J I I_ I I I J +
3.20 3.60 4.40 4.80

4.00
pH 0F SOIL EXTRACT

FIGURE 36: THE RELATIONSHIP BETHEEN THE pH OF THE 0.IN HCI SOIL EXTRACT AND THE POUNDS OF APPLIED ZINC AS ZINC SULFATE
AND ZINC EDTA REMAINING AFTER EXTRACTION HITH HATER PLUS IN NH Cl PLUS 0.IN HCI IN A HISNER CLAY LOAN SOIL
INCUBATED 90 DAYS; PHOSPHORUS HAS ALSO APPLIED. (INCUBATION EIPERINENT)

l26.
hydrochloric acid. Correlations ranged from a low of -0.03 to a

high of 0.32 (Figures 35 and 36).

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY 1

 

Zinc deficiency symptoms were observed on pea bean plants
where zinc was not applied at 10 of the l2 locations in the five
field experiments and on plants in all four greenhouse experiments.
Symptoms of zinc deficiency either were not observed on plants
when zinc was applied to the soil with either carrier or the
symptoms decreased as the rate of applied zinc increased. Dry
matter weight of plants and yield of pods increased in the
greenhouse experiments and more dry beans were harvested in the
field experiments when zinc was applied. Zinc concentration in
plants was higher when zinc was applied and the concentration
also increased as the rate of soil applied zinc increased. There-
fore, it is concluded that zinc deficiency did occur on pea bean
plants in these experiments and that the deficiency was alleviat-

ed by soil applications of sufficient zinc with either carrier.

VI-A. Conclusion Concerning Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis l: Uptake of zinc andyield of beans bypea beangplants
areggreater when zinc is applied to the soil as zinc EDTA thag__
whengapplied as zinc sulfate.
Zinc uptake by pea bean plants grown in the field on treat-
ments of soil applied zinc EDTA exceeded or was only slightly
less than the zinc uptake by plants grown on a higher quantity of
zinc applied as zinc sulfate. The same results were obtained for
yield of dry beans harvested from plants grown on zinc EDTA plots.
No field experiments were conducted with equivalent levels of

127.

l28.
zinc applied as zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA. However, over the
range of quantities of zinc EDTA applied in these field experi-
ments, zinc uptake by plants and yield of beans increased with
each increment of zinc.

Lessman38

obtained greater zinc uptake and bean yields from
field grown plants on 1.6 pounds of zinc as zinc EDTA than from

plants grown on 2.0 pounds of zinc as zinc sulfate at two loca-

tions (pages 399 and 400, Tables 9 and l0).

When zinc EDTA was applied in field plots, the zinc concen-
tration in therlants decreased slightly more between samplings
than did the concentration in plants grown on plots receiving
more zinc as zinc sulfate. The lower zinc concentration in new
growth of plants with both zinc carriers is consistent with the
report of Viets et al87.

The zinc concentration in field grown plants was higher on
four of the five calcareous soil types and the yield of dry
beans was higher on three of these five soil types when a lower
quantity of zinc as zinc EDTA than as zinc sulfate was applied to

35

the soil. Zinc EDTA was reported by Holden and Brown to be

six times as effective as zinc sulfate in supplying zinc to alfalfa

on calcareous soil. Hodgson et al34

found that very little zinc
was complexed in calcareous soils and proposed that the lack of
zinc mobility contributed to deficiency. The protection
afforded zinc in the chelated form may explain the increased
availability of zinc as zinc EDTA to plants grown on the

calcareous soils in these experiments.

w .Il‘l‘. III IIIIIINII
Ill-III!

 

l29.

Zinc uptake by plants on zinc EDTA treated pots always exceed-
ed that uptake obtained on zinc sulfate treatments in the greenhouse
experiments. More zinc was found in the most recent growth of the
plant when zinc EDTA was applied. The pod yield by plants grown
on chelated zinc treatments exceeded the yield obtained with zinc
sulfate except when zinc concentration in the total above-ground
plant exceeded 50 parts per million.

!I II . 1 . 1 I l l I I .

Soil applied zinc, zinc concentration and zinc content of
pea bean plants, and the yield of pods and dry matter weight of
plants were not always directly interrelated. At high rates of
soil applied zinc EDTA in Greenhouse Experiment 4, the yield of
pods decreased as zinc concentration in the above-ground plant
exceeded 50 to 60 parts per million. The reduction in plant
weight and pod yield could be explained either by an imbalance
of cations in the plant caused by excess zinc or by the inter-
ference of EDTA with plant metabolism96’102.

When zinc was applied at rates from 0.5 to 8.0 pounds per
acre as zinc sulfate, no response in zinc uptake was observed,
although yield of pods increased when 2.0 or more pounds of zinc

was applied. Chesnin21

postulated that, although more zinc was
taken up by plants as the chelate, the plant was able to
utilize the zinc sulfate form of zinc more effectively than the

chelated form.

VI-B. Conclusion Concerning Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2: Uptake of zinc and yield of beans bygpea bean_p]ants

l30.
are reduced more by high soil phosphorus content when zinc is
applied to the soil as zinc sulfate than when applied as zinc EDTA.

Data from the field and greenhouse experiments conducted in
this research indicated that soil applied phosphorus had a
variable effect on zinc uptake. When zinc was not applied, zinc
uptake by plants remained constant or was only slightly reduced
as the level of applied phosphorus increased. When zinc with
either carrier and additional phOSphorus were both applied, the
zinc concentration in the plant was reduced but the zinc content
of the plant was not markedly affected. 0n five of the six loca-
tions where residual available phosphorus exceeded 30 pounds per
acre, the zinc concentration in plants grown on zinc EDTA treat-
ment was higher than in plants receiving more zinc as zinc sulfate.

The quantity of dry beans harvested was reduced by soil
applied phosphorus but yields were much higher when zinc and
phosphorus were applied. This is consistent with the findings
of Brown and Krantz‘B. On three of the six field locations
where residual available phosphorus exceeded 30 pounds per acre,
the yield of dry beans by plants grown on zinc EDTA treatments
exceeded the yield obtained from plants which received a higher
rate of zinc as zinc sulfate.

When 600 pounds of phosphorus were mixed into the soil for
one greenhouse experiment, the zinc uptake by plants was higher
in both the early and late tissue samples and in the most
recent growth when the chelated rather than the sulfated form

of zinc was applied to the soil. The pod yield was higher on

{W‘summw

l3l.
all zinc EDTA treatments except when the zinc concentration in the
above-ground plant exceeded 50 parts per million.
In two field experiments where 300 pounds of phosphorus per

38 obtained a higher zinc concentration

acre were applied, Lessman
and yield of beans from plants when 1.6 pounds of zinc as zinc

EDTA were applied than when 2.0 pounds of zinc as zinc sulfate were
applied (pages 399 and 400, Tables 9 and 10).

Hypothesis 2 is concluded to be true.

VI-C. Conclusion Concerning_Hypothesis 3

 

Hypothesis 3: More soil applied zinc remains available over a
longer time when zinc is applied to the soil as zinc EDTA than

when applied as zinc sulfate.

 

A higher zinc concentration was found at both early and late
times of sampling in plants grown on zinc EDTA treated pots in
the greenhouse than was found in plants grown on zinc sulfate
treatments. More zinc was concentrated in the most recent plant
growth, the vine and the pod, when zinc EDTA was applied on both
soil types.

When zinc EDTA was applied to the soil in field experiments
at a lower rate of zinc than zinc sulfate, the zinc concentration
- in the plants was comparable and the yield of dry beans higher
at seven of the 12 locations.

More zinc remained in the water soluble and exchangeable
forms from applied zinc EDTA than from zinc sulfate when the
soil was incubated for 90, 180, and 270 days. This calcar-

eous soil contained a large quantity of residual available

I32.

phosphorus and only 1.2 pounds of tenth normal hydrochloric acid
extractable zinc.

Hypothesis 3 is concluded to be true.

 

VI-D. Conclusion Concerning Hypothesis 4

 

Hyppthesis 4: Extractable soil zinc is reduced more py_high soil

 

phosphorus content when zinc is applied as zinc sulfate than

 

when applied as zinc EDTA.

Water soluble and acid soluble forms of soil zinc from both
chelated and sulfated zinc treatments increased when phosphorus
was applied to the soil; the exchangeable form of zinc from zinc
sulfate treatment also increased. The pH value of the tenth
normal hydrochloric acid soil extracts from phosphorus treated
soil tended to be more acid, but the correlation between the pH
of this soil extract and the total zinc recovered by three
extractants was low.

When phosphorus was applied, a greater increase in recover-
able zinc was obtained from zinc sulfate treated soil than from
zinc EDTA treated soil.

More water soluble and exchangeable zinc could be extracted
from zinc EDTA treated soil than from zinc sulfate treated soil.

Hypothesis 4 is concluded to be not true.

 

Extractable zinc from soil treated with either zinc carrier
is not reduced by soil applied phosphorus. Although more zinc
could be extracted from zinc EDTA treated soil, proportionately
more zinc could be extracted from zinc sulfate treated soil when

ph05phorus was applied.

133.

VI-E. Discussion of Results

 

Zinc EDTA was more effective than zinc sulfate in increasing
zinc concentration and bean yield of pea bean plants in the field
and greenhouse, whether phosphorus had been applied to the soil
or not, and on soils which were calcareous, high in residual avail-
able phosphorus, and low in tenth normal hydrochloric acid
extractable zinc.

More zinc from soil applied zinc EDTA than from zinc sulfate
could be extracted from incubated soil as water soluble and
exchangeable zinc whether phosphorus had been applied or not.

When chelated zinc is applied to a soil, several factors may
be operative which keep this form of zinc more available. The
chelate may prevent percipitation as the hydroxide of zinc7. It

13

may increase mobility of zinc ,or it may maintain solubility in

calcareous soils in a complexed form34.

The reSponse by pea bean plants to zinc applied to the Wisner
clay loam soil did not correspond to the amount and forms of zinc
extractable from the same soil after incubation. ‘In the incubated
samples, no water soluble or exchangeable zinc could be extracted
from soil treated with comparable levels of zinc at which zinc
uptake, growth, and yield response by pea beans were observed in
field and greenhouse experiments. Either the conditions in the
incubation experiment did not approach field and greenhouse condi-
tions, or the plant utilized acid soluble rather than water soluble

or exchangeable zinc. The closer relationship between acid soluble

zinc and plant growth response in these experiments is inconsistent

134.

with results reported by Miller et al
5l

55 and Stewart and Berger80.

Martens et al also reported that much of the zinc extracted from
the soil by hydrochloric acid was not extracted by plants.

If the plant utilizes water soluble, exchangeable, and acid
soluble forms of soil zinc, the results of this soil incubation
experiment indicated that no water soluble or exchangeable zinc
was available to the plant and that an equivalent amount of acid
soluble zinc was available from soil applied zinc sulfate or zinc
chelate when 2.0 and 6.0 pounds of zinc were applied. Yet, when
comparable amounts of zinc EDTA were applied to the soil, the
results of two greenhouse pot experiments indicated that more
zinc was in the above-ground plant and that the zinc taken up by
the plant was utilized more effectively for growth than when
comparable amounts of zinc sulfate were applied. Apparently, zinc
from zinc EDTA was more easily taken up by the plant roots, more
effectively translocated within the plant, or assimilated more
readily into the metabolic processes. Since phosphorus appli-
cation increased extractable zinc in soil treated with zinc
sulfate more than in soil treated with zinc EDTA, the solubility
of zinc in the soil must not have been the factor controlling
plant growth. Also, a higher zinc concentration was observed in
plants grown on treatments of both zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA
than was found in plants when zinc Was not applied, even when
up to 696 pounds of additional phosphorus were applied to the
soil. Thus, the zinc which the plants took up from zinc EDTA
treated soil must have been in a form more easily assimilatable

into the metabolic processes of the plant. This interpretation

I :‘ HAT—Iv O LL‘1

 

135.

is consistent with that of both Boawn and Leggett8 and Watanabe et

99 who postulated that phosphorus did not reduce zinc solubility

al
or interfere with zinc movement but that a high phosphorus to
zinc ratio in the plant was'more closely associated with zinc
deficiency than was low zinc concentration. Stuckenholtz et al81
proposed that phosphorus interferes with zinc in the physiological
activity of the plant.

Improved translocation within the plant probably had some

significance. Khadr and Wallace42

attributed more significance
to translocation effects in the plant than to uptake effects.
Millikan and Hanger57 were able to increase zinc mobility in the
plant by injecting EDTA into leaves on which zinc had been applied.
Haertl3] proposed that synthetic chelates may create an effi-
cacious metal balance within the plant.

If residual magnesium in the soil substitutes for zinc or
increases uptake of zinc by plants, this phenomenon should have
occurred on the Wisner clay loam soil which contained nearly
twice as much available magnesium as the other soils. However,

plants grown on this soil were more severely zinc deficient than

were the plants grown on any other soil.

VI-F. Summary

 

The zinc uptake by pea bean plants and the yield of pods
or beans were increased when zinc sulfate or zinc EDTA was
applied to the soil in field and greenhouse pot experiments.

Plants grown in the field on zinc EDTA treated plots more

136.

often than not contained a comparable or higher zinc concen-
tration and zinc content and yielded more dry beans than did
plants grown on plots which received more zinc as zinc sulfate.
The zinc uptake and yield of beans by plants increased with
each increment of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA.
When additional ph05phorus was applied to field plots,
the zinc concentration and zinc content of plants were affected
but little; however, the yield of dry beans was severely reduced.
When additional ph05phorus and zinc with either carrier were

applied to field plots, the zinc concentration in plants and

 

yield of beans were reduced as the rate of phosphorus increased,
but the reduction in zinc uptake and yield was less by plants
grown on the zinc EDTA treated plots than by plants grown on
plots receiving more zinc as zinc sulfate.

In greenhouse pot experiments, the zinc concentration and
zinc content in plants and the yield of pods were always higher
when zinc EDTA was applied than when zinc sulfate was applied.
The pod yield by plants grown on zinc EDTA treated pots was
reduced when the zinc concentration in the total above-
ground plant exceeded 50 parts per million.

When zinc EDTA was applied to greenhouse pots, more zinc
was in the plant at two times of sampling and more zinc was
in the most recent plant growth, the pod and the vine, than in
plants grown on zinc sulfate treated pots.

More zinc could be extracted by water (water soluble zinc)
and neutral normal ammonium chloride (exchangeable zinc) from

soil incubated 90, 180.0r 270 days with zinc EDTA than from

137.

soil incubated with zinc sulfate, whether l000 pounds of phos-
phorus had been applied before incubation or not.
Virtually none of the applied zinc sulfate remained water
soluble or exchangeable after incubation in the soil, but part
of the applied zinc was recovered from the acid soluble fraction.
More water soluble, exchangeable, or acid soluble zinc
(except for exchangeable zinc from zinc EDTA) could be recovered
when phosphorus and zinc with either carrier were applied to the
soil and incubated. A greater increase in zinc was obtained from
the zinc sulfate treated soil.

The per cent recovery of zinc by chemical extraction from

I__' ”L. #169me Ema

incubated soil increased as the rate of applied zinc increased,
but the per cent recovery of applied zinc by plants decreased
as the rate of applied zinc increased.

The median pH value of the tenth normal hydrochloric acid
soil extracts from incubated soil which received applied phos-
phorus and zinc with either carrier was 0.l unit more acid than
was the median of extracts from soils which had not received
phosphorus. However, the correlation was very low between the
pH value of the tenth normal hydrochloric acid soil extract and
the sum of zinc recovered by water plus neutral normal ammonium
chloride plus tenth normal hydrochloric acid.

As the rate of applied zinc sulfate was increased in the
greenhouse pot experiments, a plant growth response was obtained
without an appreciable increase in zinc concentration in the
plant. A greater growth response and an increased zinc uptake

by plants were observed at comparable rates of applied zinc EDTA.

138.

The increased growth response, zinc uptake, and yield of
pods and beans by pea bean plants to lower rates of zinc EDTA
than zinc sulfate were attributed to the increased solubility
of zinc in the chelated form in calcareous soils and to the
increased translocation and greater availability of the chelated
form of zinc in the plant to the metabolic system, even when

plants were grown on soil high in ph05phorus.

VI-G. Implications for Further Research

Additional research is indicated to identify: .

 

l. The form of the zinc in the plant which is taken up from i—
soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA.

2. The mechanism of translocation of zinc in the plant,
especially in relation to ph05phorus translocation.

3. The fate of low levels of zinc EDTA in the soil.

4. The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on
the solubility of phosphorus in the soil.

5. The effect of soil applied zinc sulfate and zinc EDTA on
phosphorus uptake by plants. I

6. The reason for the favorable growth response by the plant
when additional zinc as zinc sulfate is applied to the
soil but the zinc concentration in the plant remains
constant.

7. The form of the zinc in the soil when soil applied
phosphorus increases the solubility of soil applied zinc
sulfate and zinc EDTA.

VII: BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

l. Alben, A.0. l955. Preliminary results of treating rosetted
pecan trees with chelated zinc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc.
66:28-30.

2. Barrows, H.L., and Nathon Gammon, Jr. l960. Effect of soil
type and zinc concentration on growth, nutrient uptake, and

magnesium translocation of seedling Tung trees. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. Proc. 76:287-299.

3. , M.S. Neff, and N. Gammon, Jr. l960. Effect of
soiTtype on mobility of zinc in the soil and on its avail-

ability from zinc sulfate to Tung. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
24: 367- 372.

 

4. Bingham, F.T. l963. -Relation between phosphorus and micro-
nutrients in plants. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:389-39l.

5. , and M.J. Garber. l960. Solubility and avail-
ability 0f micronutrients in relation to phosphorus fertiliza-
tion. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 24:209-2l3.

 

6. , J.P. Martin, and J.A. Chastain. l958. Effects
of ph05phorus fertilization of California soils on minor
element nutrition of citrus. Soil Sci. 86:24-3l.

 

7. , A.L. Page, and J.R. Sims. l964. Retention of
Cu and Zn by H-montmorillonite. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
28:351-354.

 

8. Boawn, L.C., and G.E. Leggett. l963. Zinc deficiency of
the Russet Burbank Potato. Soil Sci. 95:l37-l4l.

9. , and . l964. Phosphorus and zinc
concentrations in RussetB Burbank potato tissues in relation
to development of zinc deficiency symptoms. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 28:229-232.

l0. ,F. G. Viets, Jr., C. L. Crawford. 1954. Effects
of phoSpha te fertilizers on nutrition of field beans. Soil
Sci. 78: l- 7.
ll. , and . 1957. Plant

 

 

utilization of zinc from various types of zinc compounds and
fertilizer materials. Soil Sci. 83: 2l9- 227.

12. , and J. L. Nelson. 1960.
Effect of nitr09en carrier, nitrogen rate, zinc rate, and

soil pH on zinc uptake by sorghum, potatoes, and sugar beets.
Soil Sci. 90:329-337.

139.

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

140.

Brown, A. L. and B. A. Krantz. l966. Source and placement of
zinc and ph05phorus for corn (Zea mays L. ). Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 30: 86- 89.

Brown, J.C., and L.0. Tiffin. 1962. Zinc deficiency and
iron-chlorosis dependent on the plant Species and nutrient-
element balance in Tulare clay. Agron. J. 54:356-358.

, and R. S. Holmes. 1960. Competition
bétween chelating agents and roots as factor affecting absorp-
tion of iron and other ions by plant species. Plant Phys. .
35:878-886. E

 

Bukovac, M.J., and S.H. Wittwer. l957. Absorption and
mobility of foliar applied nutrients. Plant Phys. 32:428-
435.

Burleson, C.A., A.D. Dacus, and C.J. Gerard. l96l. The
effect of phOSphorus fertilization on the zinc nutrition of

several irrigated crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 25:365-
368.

 

Butler, P.C., and R.H. Bray. 1956. Effect of the zinc
chelate of ethlenediaminetetraacetic acid on plant uptake of

zinc and other heavy metals. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
20:348-35l.

Camp, A.F. l945. Zinc as a nutrient in plant growth. Soil
Sci. 60:l57-l64.

Chandler, W.H., D.R. Hoagland, and J.C. Morten. 1946.
Little-leaf or rosette of fruit trees. VIII.Zinc and copper
deficiency in corral soils. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc.
47:15-l9.

Chesnin, L. l963. Chelates and the trace element nutri-
tion of corn. J. Agr. Food Chem. ll:ll8-l25.

Davis, J. F. 1945. The effect of some environmental factors
on the set of pods and yield of white pea beans. Jour. Agr.
Res. 10 (7): 237- 249.

DeKock, P.C., and R.L. Mitchell. l957. Uptake of chelated
metals by plants. Soil Sci. 84:55-62.

DeMumbrum, L.E., and M.L. Jackson. 1956. Infrared absorption
evidence on exchange reaction mechanism of copper and zinc
with layer silicate clays and peats. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 20:334-337.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

141.

DeRemer, E.D., and R.L. Smith. 1961. The effect of chelates
and chelated cations in increasing the availability of phos-

phorus from insoluble sources. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc.
77:513-519.

Elgabaly, M.M. 1950. Mechanism of zinc fixation by
colloidal clays and related minerals. Soil Sci. 69:167-173.

Ellis, R. Jr., J.F. Davis, and D.L. Thurlow. 1964. Zinc
availability in calcareous Michigan soils as influenced by
phosphorus level and soil temperature. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 28:83-86. r

Epstein, E., and P.R. Stout. 1952. The micronutrient cations
iron, manganese, zinc and copper: Their uptake by plants
from the absorbed state. Soil Sci. 72:47-65.

Essington, E., H. Nishita, and A. Wallace. 1962. Influence l
of chelates on availability of fission products to plants 1
grown in a contaminated soil. Soil Sci. 94:96-105. *

 

Goulden, C.H. 1952. Methods of statistical analysis. 2nd.
Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York. 467 p.

Haertl, E.J. 1963. Metal chelates in plant nutrition. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 11:108-111.

Hale, V.Q., and A. Wallace. 1961. Translocation and retrans-
location of C14 - labeled chelating agents in plants. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 78:597-604.

Hiatt, A.J., and H.F. Massey. l958. Zinc levels in relation
to zinc content and growth of corn. Agron J.
50:22-24.

Hodgson, J.F., W.L. Lindsay, and J.F. Trierweiler. 1966.
Micronutrient cation complexing in soil solution. II. Complex-
ing of zinc and copper in displaced solution from calcareous
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 30:723-726.

Holden, E.R., and J.W. Brown. 1965. Influence of slowly
soluble, soluble, and chelated zinc on zinc content and
yield of alfalfa. J. Agric. Food Chem. 13:180-184.

Jamison, V.C. 1944. The effect of particle size of copper
and zinc source materials and of excessive phosphate on 501-
ubility of copper and zinc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
8:323-326.

Johnson, C.M., and A. Ulrich. 1959. Analytical methods for
use in plant analysis. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 766:25-78.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

142.

Judy, W., G. Lessman, T. Rozycka, L. Robertson, and B. Ellis.
1964. Field and laboratory studies with zinc fertilization
of pea beans. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bull. 46:386-400.

Judy, W., J. Melton, G. Lessman, 8. Ellis, and J. Davis. 1965.
Field and laboratory studies with zinc fertilization of pea
beans, corn, and sugar beets in 1964. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Research Report 33. 8 p.

Jurinak, J.J., and Norman Bauer. 1956. Thermodynamics of
zinc absorption on calcite, dolomite, and magnesite-type
minerals. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:466-471.

, and 0.w. Thorne. 1955. Zinc solubility under 1*

 

alkaline conditions in a zinc Bentonite system. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 19:446-448. ‘

Khadr, A., and A. Wallace. 1964. Uptake and translocation
of radioactive iron and zinc by trifoliate orange and rough
lemon. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 85:189-200.

 

Khanna, 5.5., and F.J.Stevenson. 1962. Metallo-organic 4—
complexes in soil. I. Potentiometric titration of some soil
organic matter isolates in the presence of transition metals.
Soil Sci. 93:298-305.

Kilmer, V.J., and L.T. Alexander. 1949. Methods of making
mechanical analyses of soils. Soil Sci. 68:15-24.

Langin, E.J., R.C. Ward, R.A. Olsen, and H.F. Rhoades. 1962.
Factors responsible for poor reSponse of corn and grain
sorghum to phosphorus fertilization. II. Lime and P place-
ment effects on P-Zn relations. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
26:574-578.

Leeper, G.W. 1952. Factors affecting availability of inor-
ganic nutrients in soils with special reference to micronutrient
metals. Ann. Rev. Plant Phys. 3:1-16.

Leyden, R.F., and S.J. Toth. 1960. Behavior of zinc sulfate
as foliar applications and as soil applications in some New
Jersey soils. Soil Sci. 89:223-228.

Lingle, J.C., and D.M. Holmberg. 1957. The response of sweet
corn to foliar and soil zinc applications on a zinc deficient
soil. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 70:308-315.

Martell, A.E. 1957. The chemistry of metal chelates in plant
nutrition. Soil Sci. 84:13-26.

, and M. Calvin. 1952. Chemistry of the metal

 

chelate compounds. Prentice Hall, Inc., New York.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

143.

Martens, D.C., G. Chesters, and L.A. Peterson. 1966. Factors

controlling the extractability of soil zinc. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 30:67-69.

Martin, W.E., J.G. McLean, and J. Quick. 1965. Effect of
temperature on the occurrence of phosphorus induced zinc
deficiency. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29:411-413

McElroy, W.D., and A. Mason. 1954. Mechanism of action of
micronutrient elements in enzyme systems. Ann. Rev. Plant
Phys. 5:1-30.

Merrill, 5. Jr., G.F. Potter, and R.T. Brown. 1953. ReSponses
of lung trees on Lakeland fine sand to less common elements.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 62:94-102.

Miller, W.J., W.E. Adams, R. Nussbaumer, R.A. McCreery, and
H.F. Perkins. 1964. Zinc content of Coastal Bermudagrass
as influenced by frequency and season of harvest, location
and level of N and lime. Agron. J. 56:198-201. 4

 

Millikan, C.R. 1963. Effects of different levels of zinc and E-
phosphorus on the growth of subterranean clover (Trifolium'
subterraneum L.). Austr. J. Agric. Res. 14:180-205.

, and B.C. Hanger. 1965. Effects of chelation

 

and of various cations on the mobility of foliar-applied
Zn65 in subterranean clover. Austr. J. Biol. Sci. 18:953-
957.

Mortensen, J.L. 1963. Complexing of metals by soil organic
matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:179-186.

Nearpass, D.C. 1956. Estimation of available zinc in soils

Iggm yield-of-zinc curves. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:482-

Neff, M.S., and H.L. Barrows. 1957. Influence of level,
source, and placement on effectiveness of zinc applied to
Tung trees. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 69:176-182.

Nelson, C.D., S. Roberts, and G.D. Nelson. 1962. Yields
and plant responses of six soybean varieties to nitrogen and
zinc fertilization. Wash. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 642. 12 p.

Nelson, Lyle E. 1956. Response of soybeans grown in the
greenhouse to zinc applied to a black belt soil. Soil Sci.
82:271-274.

Nelson, J.L., L.C. Boawn, and F.G. Viets, Jr. 1959. A method
for assessing zinc status of soils using acid-extractable
zinc and "titratable alkalinity" values. Soil Sci. 88:275-283.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

144.

, and S.W. Melsted. 1955. The chemistry of zinc
added to soils and clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 19:439-
443.

 

Ozanne, P.G. 1955. The effect of nitrogen on zinc deficiency
in subterranean clover. Austr. J. Bio. Sci. 8:47-55.

Perkins, H.F., and E.R. Purvis. 1954. Soil and plant studies
with chelates of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Soil
Sci. 78:325-330.

Pumphrey, F.V., F.E. Koehler, R.R. Allmaras, and S. Roberts.
1963. Method and rate of applying zinc sulfate for corn on
zinc-deficient soil in Western Nebraska. Agron. J.
55:235-238.

Rogers, L.H., and C. Wu. 1948. Zinc uptake as influenced
by application of lime and ph05phate. Agron. J. 40:563-566.

Rosell, R.A., and Albert Ulrich. 1964. Critical zinc concen-
trations and leaf minerals of sugar beet plants. Soil Sci.
97:152-167.

Seatz, L.F. l960. Zinc availability and uptake by plants
as affected by the calcium and magnesium saturation and
phosphorus content of the soil. Int. Congr. Soil Sci.,
Trans. 7th (Madison, Wis.) 3: 271-280.

, T.R. Gilmore, and A.J. Sterges. 1956. Effects
of potassium, magnesium, and micronutrient fertilization on

snap bean yields and plant composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 20:137-140.

 

, A.J. Sterges. and J.C. Kramer. 1959. Crop
reSponse to zinc fertilization as influenced by lime and phos-
phorus application. Agron J. 51:457-459.

 

Shaw, E, R. G. Menzel, and L. A. Dean. 1954. Plant uptake
of zinc65 from soils and fertilizers in the greenhouse.

Soil Sci. 76: 205- 214.

Smith, Paul F. 1953. Heavy-metal accumulation by citrus
roots. Bot. Gaz. 114:426-436.

, G.K. Rasmussen, and G. Hrnciar. 1962. Leaching
studies with metal sulfates in light sandy citrus soils in
Florida. Soil Sci. 94:235-238.

 

Snedecor, G.W. 1956. Statistical methods applied to experi-
ments in agriculture and biology. 5th Ed., Iowa State College
Press. Ames, Iowa. 534 p.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

l45.
Stewart, Ivan. l963. Chelation in the absorption and trans-
location of mineral elements. Ann. Rev. of Plant Phys.
l4:295-3lO.

, and C.D. Leonard. l957. Use of chelates in

 

citrus production in Florida. Soil Sci. 84:87-97.

, and . 1963. Effect of various salts

 

 

on the availability of zinc and manganese to citrus. Soil
Sci. 95:l49-l54.

Stewart, J.A., and K.C. Berger. 1965. Estimation of avail-
able zinc using magnesium chloride as extractant. Soil Sci.
l00:244-250.

Stuckenholtz, D.D., R.J. Olsen, G. Gogan, and R.A. Olsen.
l966. On the mechanism of phosphorus-zinc interaction in
corn nutrition. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 30:759-763.

Sudia, T.W., and A.J. Linck. l963. The absorption and trans-
location of zinc65 in Pisum sativum in relation to fruit
devel0pment. Plant and Soil l9:249-254.

Thorne, Wynne. l957. Zinc deficiency and its control.
Advance Agron. 9:3l-65.

Thurlow, D.G., G. Nichol, and J.F. Davis. l963. The effect
of phosphate application on soil tests and subsequent yield
of field beans and wheat. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech.
l2:284-287.

Tucker, T.C., and L.T. Kurtz. l955. A comparison of several
chemical methods with the bio-assay procedure for extracting
zinc from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. l9:477-48l.

Viets, F. G. Jr. , L. C. Boawn, and C. L. Crawford. l954. Zinc
content of bean plants in relation to zinc deficiency and
yield. Plant Phys. 29: 76- 79.

, and . l954. Zinc contents

 

 

 

and deficiency symptoms of 26 crops grown on a zinc- -deficient
soil. Soil Sci. 78: 305- 3l6.

. . , and C. E. Nelson. l953.

Zinc deficiency in corn in Central Washington. Agron. J.
45: 559- 565.

 

Walkley, A., and I.A. Black. l934. An examination of the
Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and

a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method.
Soil Sci. 37:29-38.

90.

9].

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

146.

Wallace, Arthur. l963. Review of chelation in plant nutri-
tion. J. Agr. Food Chem. ll:lO3-lO7.

l963. Role of chelating agents on the avail-

 

ability of nutrients to plants. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
27:l76-l79.

, and O.R. Lunt. l956. Reactions of some iron,

 

zinc, and manganese chelates in various soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:479-482.

, and R.T. Mueller. l959. Responses of plants
to zinc and manganese chelates. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
23:79.

 

, , O.R. Lunt, R.T. Ashcroft, and L.M.
Shannon. l955. Comparison of five chelating agents in soils,

in nutrient solutions and in plant responses. Soil Sci. 80:
lOl-l08.

 

 

, C.P. North, R.T. Mueller, L.M. Shannon, N. Hemaidan.
l955. Behavior of chelating agents in plants. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. Proc. 65:9-l6.

, L.M. Shannon, O.R. Lunt, and R.L. Impey. l957.

 

Some aspects of the use of metal chelates as micronutrient
fertilizer sources. Soil Sci. 84:27-42.

Wallihan, E.F., and L. Heymann-Herschberg. l956. Some
factors affecting absorption and translocation of zinc in
citrus plants. Plant Phys. 30:294-299.

Ward, R.C., E.J. Langin, R.A. Olson, and 0.0. Stukenholtz.
1963. Factors responsible for poor response of corn and
grain sorghum to phosphorus fertilization. III. Effects of
soil compaction, moisture level, and other properties on
P-Zn relations. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27:326-330.

Watanabe, F.S., W.L. Lindsay, and S.R. Olsen. 1965. Nutrient
balance involving ph05phorus, iron, and zinc. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 29:562-565.

Wear, J.I. l956. Effect of soil pH and calcium on uptake of
zinc by plants. Soil Sci. 8l:3ll-3l5.

Weinstein, L.H., A.H. Meiss, R.L. Uhler, and E.R. Purvis.
1956. Effect of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on nitrogen

metabolism and enzyme patterns in soybean plants. Nature
l78:ll88.

, W.R. Robbins, and H.F. Perkins. 1954. Chelating
agents and plant nutrition. Science 120:41-43.

 

 

103.

104.

147.

Whiteside, E.P., I.P. Schneider, and R.L. Cook. l963.
Soils of Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Spec. Bull..402. 52p.

Woltz, S., S.J. Toth, and F.E. Bear. l953. Zinc status
of New Jersey soils. Soil Sci. 76:ll5-122.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
illll"NIWW"IWITIHIHHHWIIN“l"lHlllHHllWl
31293105048957