GROWTH, LEAF COMPOSITION AND NUTRIENT-ELEMENT BALANCE OF
MONTMORENCY C H E E R Y (Frunus c e r a s u s , L.)— Effect of
Varying Concentrat ions of Ten Nutrient-Elements

py
Roy Kenneth Simons

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Apolied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Horticulture

1951

Table of Contents

Page
Acknowledgments
Introduction

---

1

Review of Literature ----------------------------

3

Materials and M e t h o d s ---------------------

9

Results — ----------------------------------- - - - —
Growth ---------------------------------Leaf Composition and NutrientElement Balance
---------------------Di s c ussion
Summary

---------------------------------

-------------------------------------

Literature Cited

----

Aooendix
Table 1-10,

Inclusive--Growth

13
13
21
33
24I4.
I4.7

Acknowledgments

The author expresses anrjreciatlon to Dr.
A. L. K e n worthy who spent m uch time and assisted
in P l a n n i n g the experiment, and in the preparation of the manuscrint;
G. E. Steinbauer,

to Dr. K. B. Tukey, Dr.

and to Dr.

L. M. Turk for

their consultation and editorial assistance in
the p r e p a r a t i o n of the manuscript.
assistance of Mr.

Also the

E. L. Froebsting, Jr.

in m a i n ­

taining the nutrient solution applications when
it was necessary for the author to be absent was
appreciated.
The auth o r is grateful to the Institute of
Nutrition, M i c h i g a n State College, for its
financial assistance during the course of this
study.

GROWTH, LEAF COMPOSITION AND NUTRIFNT-ELEMENT BALANCE OF
MONTMOR E N C Y CHERRY (Prunus c e r a a u s , L . )— Effect of
V a r y i n g Concentrations oi* Ten Nutrient-Elements
R oy Kenneth Simons

Introduction
Several workers have investigated critical levels of
certain nutrient-elements in relation to the appearance of
deficiency s y m p t o m s .

Goodall and Gregory ( H 4.) brought

together the various leaf composition values reported to be
associated w ith the occurrence of deficiency symptoms for
certain nutrient-elements in various crops.

'They also

summarized leaf composition values reported to be associat­
ed with plants not showing symptoms.

The range In leaf

composition for plants showing deficiency symptoms frequent­
ly Included a p o r t i o n of the range In leaf composition for
olants not showing symptoms.
Field surveys in commercial cherry orchards show con­
siderable variation In leaf composition.

Many of the

values correspond to those found for plants showing defi­
ciency symptoms (17)-

Recent concepts and Interpretations

of nutrient-element balance (1 5 # 16# 2 5 # 26) point out that
a nutrient-element can be considered to be deficient only in
relation to the other n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t s .
element balance intensities vary,
for normal plants likewise vary.

Thus, as nutrient-

leaf composition values

2
Concentrations of nutrient-elements have been found
to influence plant growth significantly without causing
visible symptoms of shortages or excesses.

This influence

may be considered to be associated w ith the balance or
relationships of nutrient-elements or intensity of nutrient
elements, w h ich m a y be called h i d d e n deficiency or excess.
According to these concepts,

growth,

leaf composition, and

nutrient-element balance should be affected by varying con­
centrations of essential nutrient-elements.
Most of the investigations of this nature have been
conducted on crops other than Montmorency cherry (Frunus
cerasus, L . ) and have dealt with only a few of the essen­
tial nutrient-elements.
show very low vigor.
ciated,

M any commercial cherry orchards

This low vigor is believed to be asso

in part, with h i d d e n deficiencies,

or with excesses

of one or more nutrient-elements.
This study was initiated to determine the extent to
which growth, leaf composition and nutrient-element balance
might be affected by variations of individual nutrientelements in nutrient solutions supplied Montmorency cherry
trees.

3
Literature Review
The influence on growth of various concentrations
of certain nutrient-elements has been reported by several
workers.

Brown (5), C u llinan and Batjer (9) and

Waltman (2 8 ), w o r k i n g w ith peaches reported that nitrogen
had a greater Influence on growth than phosphorus.

Brown

(9) considered phosphorus to have less effect on growth
than nitrogen, potassium,

calcium or magnesium, while

potassium and calcium were second to nitrogen.

Waltman (28)

found the peach to be more sensitive to phosphorus defi­
ciency than was the atrple •
Apple tree growth was increased as the nitrogen con­
centration Increased to 168 npm by Batjer and D e g m a n (1)*
and Cullinan and Eatjer (9)»

There was no significant d if­

ference in growth between 60 and 168 p p m (1).

Cullinan,

Scott and Waugh (10) obtained best peach tree growth at 60
oom of nitrogen.

Erown (E>) found that a concentration of

1000 nom of nitrogen produced less peach tree growth than
did 100 o nm of nitrogen.

The effect of this high concentra­

tion of nitrogen was reduced by increasing the concentration
of phosphorus, potassium,

or calcium.

Chapman and Liebig (7) found 6-7 P p m of nitrogen would
maintain vigorous citrus tree growth.

However, I4.2 O ppm of

nitrogen was not harmful to terminal growth, but reduced
top/root ratio.

W i l l c o x (29) stated that application of

phosphorus and p o t assium to agronomic crops relieved
nitrogen toxicity.

k
Phosphorus concentrations from Ij. to 1+0 p p m did not
affect apple tree growth a c c ording to Batjer and Degm an
(1 ), while concentrations of 0 and 2 n p m reduced growth.
Cullinan,

Scott and Wau^h (10) found neach growth not to be

affected by phosphorus concentrations above 1+ ppm.

Cullinan

and Batjer (9) stated that terminal growth of peaches was
not reduced at 2 ppm if the levels of nitrogen and p h o s ­
phorus were maintained.

Brown (£) found with peaches that

increasing phosphorus f rom 2 to 20 p p m resulted in increased
growth, but further increase of phosphorus to 200 ppm did
not increase growth.

Increasing the concentration of nitro­

gen or potassium increased bhe growth produced by the higher
concentrations of phosphorus.
Edgerton (12) found that growth of McIntosh apples in­
creased as the p o t a s s i u m concentration Increased to 200 ppm,
while Delicious apple tree growth Increased as potassium was
increased to 100 ppm.

Batjer and D e g m a n (1) reported apple

tree growth to decrease as the potassium concentrations were
reduced below 117 ppm.

A p o t assium concentration of 10 ppm

resulted in the greatest growth of p e a c h trees In a study
by Cullinan,

Scott a n d Waugh (10).

Brown (5) found that a

concentration of 800 p p m of p o t a s s i u m did not reduce growth
except w hen calcium was high, or phosphorus or nitrogen
was low.
Cullinan a n d Batjer (9) found that terminal growth of
peach trees was not reduced by using 2 ppm of p o t a s s i um if

5

a oroper level of nitrogen and phosphorus was maintained,
itfhen p o t a s s i u m was high, D a v i d s o n and Blake (11) found
that increased calcium concentrations would increase growth,
but would not prevent calcium deficiency symptoms.

Boynton

and Burrell (3), and Cain (6 ) found a reciprocal relation­
ship between the concentration of p o t assium and ma g n e sium
in that h i g h concentrations of one would result in defi­
ciency symptoms of the other.
were reported by Nightingale

Balanced multiple deficiencies
(23) to result in a normal a p ­

pearing pineapple plant of reduced size.
Ma n y relationships have been reported to exist be­
tween nutrient-elements contained in the leaves.
stated that fundamentally,

each nutrient-element is antag­

onistic, at least potentially,
of the other elements.

Brown ($)

to the accumulation of each

This would imply that as one ele­

ment increased in the leaves there is a corresponding in­
crease or decrease in the other nutrient elements.
Boynton and Com p t o n (1+), Cain (6 ) and Kenworthy and
Penne (1 8 ) found that applications of nitrogen fertilizers
Increased leaf nitrogen, cal c i u m and magnesium, but de­
creased leaf phosphorus and potassium.

Beeson (2) found

that concentrations of nitrogen would reduce the concentra­
tions of other e l e m e n t s •
Brown (5) found that increasing the nitrogen content
of the nutrient solution resulted in decreased absorption
of phosphorus, potassium, and calcium, but increased

6
magnesium absorption*

Leaf analysis for potassium, however,

was reported by Batjer and Degm a n (1 ) not to be influenced
by nitrogen concentration of the nutrient solution*

Cha p ­

man and Liebig (7) found that Increased nitrogen concentra­
tions did not denress phosphorus absorption, but that de­
creased nit r o g e n concentrations resulted in increased
phosphorus absorption.

Cullinan,

Scott and Waugh (10) also

found that Phosphorus absorption was highest with low nitro­
gen c o n c e n t r a t i o n s •

Nightingale

(23) reported that low

nitrate absorp t i o n resulted in free absorption of phosphorus
by pineapple plants in soils low in phosphorus.

Lilleland

and Brown (22) found poor growth (which m a y be due to low
nitrogen) was frequently associated with low p h o s p h o r u s ,and
many good orchards were low in phosphorus.

Kenworthy and

Gilligan (19) found a positive relationship between leaf
nitrogen and leaf Phosphorus w h e n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of p hos­
phorus was very low, but w ith high phosphorus availability
this relationship was negative.
Increasing the phosphorus concentration in the nutrient
solution ac c ording to Brown (£), had little affect upon
nitrogen absorption,

but decreased the absorption of potas­

sium, calcium, and magnesium.

The decreased absorption of

potassium caused by increased phosphorus was eliminated by
increasing n itrogen and p o t assium concentrations.

Evans,

Lathwell, and Nederski (13) in w ork with soybeans found
that phosphorus deficiency Increased potassium and calcium

7
absorption, but h a d little effect upon the absorption of
the m i nor elements.
Kenworthy and Benne

Phosphorus applications were found by
(18) to increase nitrogen, potassium,

and manganese absorption, while calcium and m a g nesium ab­
sorption decreased.
Increasing the notassium concentration did not influence
the leaf analysis for potassium In the work reported by
^atjer and D e g m a n (1) and Cullinan,

Scott and Waugh (10),

Brown (£) found that Increasing potassium concentrations had
little effect u n o n nitrogen absorption, but decreased the
absorption of calcium and magnesium.

Increasing the calcium

concentration did not relieve the reduced calcium absorp­
tion associated w i t h h i£h potassium.

Chapman and Liebig

(7 ) found that Increasing calcium and potassium simultaneous­
ly resulted In decreased calcium and increased potassium
absorption.

W h e n D a vidson and Blake (11) increased p o t a s ­

sium concentrations from U+O to £90 p p m there resulted in
only a slight increase in p o t assium absorption, but decreased
absorption of calcium a n d magnesium.

Nightingale (23) found

that additional potassium was needed for nitrate absorp­
tion if both carbohydrates and nitrates were high*

Reeve

end Shive (2lf.) reported that as p o t assium supply was In­
creased boron accumulation increased,

A deficiency of potas­

sium resulted in Increased absorption of calcium and p h o s ­
phorus, and decreased absorption of manganese, copper,
and boron, according.to Evans,

iron?

Lathwell and Mederski (13)*

e
K enworthy and Eenne

(18) found that p o t a s s i u m applications

to reach trees, w h e n p o t a s s i u m was deficient, resulted In
increased a b s o r p t i o n of potassium,

calcium,

and manganese,

and decreased a b s o r p t i o n of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
magnesium.
Increased c a l c i u m concentration,
end Blake (11),

ac c o r d i n g to D a v i d s o n

caused a slight decrease in p o t a s s i u m and

Increased phosphorus absorption.

Reeve and Shive

(2J+)

found that cal c i u m tended to check b o r o n Injury o n tomatoes,
and that hi g h a b s o r p t i o n of c a l c i u m a n d
requirement for each other.

Evans,

boron increased the

Lathwell, and Mederski

(1 3 ) reported that w i t h soybeans a cal c i u m deficiency r e ­
sulted in increased analysis for magnesium, phosphorus,
potassium,

and boron,

ganese, copper,

but decreased the analysis for m a n ­

iron, a n d calcium.

T h e i r w o r k also showed

that a de f i c i e n c y of m a g n e s i u m increased potassium, and de ­
creased phosph o r u s a n d boron absorption; while m a g n e sium
excess resulted in decreased a b s o r p t i o n of potassium, and
calcium.

Boron d e f i c i e n c y Increased cal c i u m and magnesium.

Manganese defici e n c y increased phosphorus, potassium, and
boron, but h a d no effect on m i n o r element absorption.

Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted at the Horticultural
farm at M i c h i g a n State College during the summer of 191*9.
The trees were grown from M a y 26 to September l£.

The experi­

mental lay-out is shown in Figure 1*
One-year-old Montmorency cherry trees were used.

The

trees were selected in the nursery for uniformity in size
and growth, and small sizes were taken in order to reduce the
carry-over of nutrients.
The containers were £0-oound berry cans, h a v i n g a dia­
meter of 12 3/8 inches, and a height of 13 inches, with a
capacity of approximately one cubic foot.

They were enamel

coated on the inside, and before use were painted with a
water-proof asphalt emulsion.

A drainage outlet was made on

the side of the container near the bottom to facilitate
drainage of any excess water or nutrient solution.
Each tree was washed free of soil before planting.

The

shoots were pruned to approximately 12 Inches or higher if
necessary so as to leave a m i n i m u m of three leaf buds.
broken roots were removed.

All

Each tree was then weighed and

planted in an Oshtemo sand--a soil of low fertility.
The trees were planted w i t h the bud union at, or Just
below, the soil level, and immediately watered.

Deionized

water (20, 21) obtained by the use of synthetic resins
(Amberlite I-R U E and I-R 120*) was u sed throughout the
^Manufactured by R o h m and Maas bompany,

Philadelphia 5# M a •

9

Figure 1

Experimental Layout at the Horticultural Farm.
Trees used in this study are located in the back portion
of the foreground.

Figure

To accompany Pago 9

10

e x p e riment.

A set of de-ionizing towers, using ij.-inch

olexiglas tubes was constructed, and the water passed
through I-H 120 to absorb all cations, and on through 1-R
!(. B to absorb all anions.

The anion exchange resin was r e ­

generated with 1+ ner cent sodium carbonate, and the cation
exchange resin regenerated w i t h 1*. ner cent hydrocloric acid
when the de-ionized water contained more than 6 p p m soluble
salts.
All leaf buds were left on the tree after nlanting until
arnrcximately I4. cm of growth was made.

At this stage all

but three shoots were removed.
Five replicate trees were planted for each treatment.
Also, twenty-one additional trees were used to calculate the
dry weight of the trees planted.

This was accomplished

by determining the p e r cent moisture of the twenty-one
additional trees, and using this as a n index of the m oi s ­
ture content of the planted trees.
Ten nutrient-elements were used with five different
levels for each.

A m e d i a n level, or so-called "optimum"

concentration was u sed as a basis for comparison.

This

median level was determined f r o m published work concerning
nutrient solutions for fruit trees (5)

(28).

Each nutrient-

element was varied f r o m this "optimum" concentration by in­
creasing or decreasing the amount used.

The optimum con­

centration contained twice the amount of the 1/2X optimum
level, and the 2X optimum level contained four times the

11

amount of the 1/2X optimum; while the fourth level, ipt
optimum, contained eight times that of the 1/2X optimum.
A zero level was used in which the nutrient-element was omit
ted.

This arrangement provided for nutrient-element levels

corresponding to the ratios 0 , 1 , 2 , I4., and 8 .
This olan for each of the ten nutrient-elements made a
total of 1+1 treatments, using one m e d i a n level, or ootimum
treatment,

for all nutrient-elements.

A n additional treat­

ment was nlanted which received only de-ionizea water.
Stock solutions of chemically cure NH^NO^,
KC1, CaCl2 , MgSC^, H 3 FO3 , KnSO^, CuSC^, ZnSO^, and F e S 0|j
were prepared Individually for each of the nutrient-elements
Prom these stock solutions a dilute solution for each treat­
ment was prepared In which the elements were combined in
definite rroportions.

The dilute solutions were kept in

5-gallon bottles, and the solutions were replaced w hen algae
growth became evident.

The initial pH of the solutions was

approximately 1^..5- 5 -0 , but no attempt was made to adjust
this value.

The concentration of the nutrient-elements at

the different levels is shown in Table 1.
One quart of nutrient solution was apolied each day
throughout the growing season.

Late in the season when the

weather was cooler, nutrient solutions were not aoolied as
frequently as earlier in the season.

Since the rain was

not kept out of the cans, an application of nutrient solu­
tions was made after each rain in order to maintain the
desired concentration.

Table 1.

Concentration of the Various Mutrient-Llevents T’sed in the
Nutrient Solutions for t^e Different Treatments

nh4no3

Nitrogen

0

112.0

22k.0

448.0

696.0

p 3f °^

Phosphorus

c

34-0

68.0

136.0

272.0

PCI

Potassium

0

43.0

66.0

172.0

31A.0

CaCl2

Calcium

0

88.0

176.0

352.0

70l|..0

mci±

Magnesium

0

29.0

58.0

116.0

232.0

MnSOl^

Manganese

0

2.5

5.0

10.0

20.0

H3EO3

Boron

0

1.5

3.0

6.0

12.0

accompany

FeSO^

Iron

0

1.0

2.0

k.o

8.0

ZnSO^

Zinc

0

1.0

2.0

4 .0

8.0

CuS0|^

Cooper

0

1.0

2.0

I4.O

8.0

Page

NutrientElement

To

Nutrient-Element Concentration or Level
Omitted
2X optimum I4.X optimum
1/2X optimum Optimum
ppm
ppm
nnm
ppm
ppm

Compound
used

11

12

The experiment was
September 15* l9i|-9 *

terminated during the week of

The three most uniform trees were

selected to obtain growth records and leaf analysis.

Two

trees from each treatment were carried throughout the winter
for additional observations.

Each of the three selected

trees was harvested as follows:
shoots;

leaves removed from the

shoots severed from the m a i n trunk, and the trunk

separated from the roots; roots then washed carefully;
shoots,

trunk and roots cut into smaller nieces to facili­

tate drying; various parts of each tree placed separately
in a paper bag, and put immediately in the forced draft dehydrator regulated to 60 degrees centigrade.

After the

samples had been in the dehydrator for several days, each
sample was weighed.
The leaves were ground w i t h a Viley mill, using a lj.0mesh screen.

The various replications were composited,

mixed thoroughly, and then divided into duplicate samples.
One sample was sent to the chemical laboratory for nitrogen
analysis, u s ing the Kjeldahl method, and bhe other sample
sent to the National Spectrographic Laboratories, Cleveland,
Ohio, for spectrographic analysis for P, K, Ca, Mg, Pe,
Cu, B, and Mn.

13
Presentation or results
G-rowth
Altering the concentration or any one nutrientelement and keening all other nutrient-elements at the op­
timum concentration resulted in a considerable variation
in growth.

The results of growth measurements are presented

in Tables 2 to 11,

inclusive*

Dry weight

increase and shoot

growth in relation to varying concentrations of nutrientelements are presented in Figures 2 and 3*
Maximum growth was obtained w hen the nutrient-solution
contained the m e d i a n or optimum concentration of all nu ­
trient elements.

Significantly less tree growth, as measured

by dry weight increase of the entire tree
various

dry weight of the

tree parts, and length of terminal growth, was ob­

tained when the concentration of a nutrient-element was
reduced £0 p e r cent (1/2X optimum),
cent from optimum (2X optimum).

or increased 100 per

Omitting the nutrient-

element, or increasing the concentration to !j.X optimum
usually resulted in less tree growth than reducing the con­
centration of the nutrient-element to 1/2X optimum, or in­
creasing the concentration to 2X optimum.

This reduction

in growth, however, was not significant.
Wet increase in dry weight of shoots and length of
terminal growth was influenced significantly by varying the
concentration of any one of the ten nutrient - e l e m e n t s •

Table 2.

Influence of Varying Nitrogen Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

entire tree
Dry we ight of <
Nitrogen
When” After -- Ref ”
concentration planted growth increase
gm
gm
m

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth
Boots "trunk Shoots leaves
gm
gm
gm
gm

Omitted

35.3*

71.6

36.3#*

44.7

12.3#*

5.2*#

1/2X optimum

45-4

95.5

49.8#

52.1

18.1

9.6*#

Optimum

48.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

2X optimum

48.2

84.0

35*7##

42.1

17.8

8.2*#

15.8

ipC optimum

46.9

77.2

30.3*#

38.1

14.9*

10.6##

13.4

124.1#

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

5.4
7.2

4.5
6.0

11.2
14.8

46.7
62.0

15.6
21.6

66.3**
79.6**
179.7
92.6##

To
accompany
Page

Least significant difference
*
13•2
--## — it
17.5

16.5

9.4*

Terminal
growth
cm

13

1

Table 3*

Influence of Varying Thosphorus Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Farts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weiriit of entire tree
Phosphorus
When
After
fret
concentration planted
growth
increase
gm
gm
gm

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth
ftoots Trunk
Shoots
Leaves
gm
gm
gm
gm

Terminal
growth
cm

Omitted

U0.2

68.3

28.1*#

39.2

12.9##

£.2**

11.0

61.£##

1/2 optimum

£0 .1

91.8

1*1.7#*

1(8.7

20.0

7.9##

15.2

86•6**

Optimum

1*8.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

2X optimum

1(1*.6

88.1

1(3•£##

1(6.6

16.1

8 .9**

16.£

9 £•1**

I4.X optimum

1(1.0

87.3

1*6.2*

1*1**3

16.6

9.1*#*

16.8

9 8.6**

20.0
26.£

30.0
39.9

5-1*
7.2

1*.5
6.0

11.2
11*.8

1(6.7
62.0

21.6

179.7
To
accompany
Page

Least significant difference
* — 5i
13-2
*# — 1<
17.5

16.£

13

Table 1.

Influence of Varying Fofcassium Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree
Potassium
When
After
Het
increase
growth
concentration planted
gm
gm
gm

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth_____
Hoots
leaves
Trunk Shoots
gm
gm
gm
gm

Omitted

1*5.0

71.0

26.0##

38.9

15.5

9.9##

10.6

81.3**

1/2 optimum

1*6.2

83.1

36.9*#

id*.7

16.5

7.6##

11.2

110.8**

Ootimum

1*8.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

16.5

21.6

179.7

2X optimum

1*6.1*

96.9

50.5*

50.1*

18 4

10.2**

17.9

118.5**

IX optimum

1*1.2

81.0

39.8#*

1*1**7

14.7*

7.i|.**

11.2

111.0*#

20.0
26..9

30.0
39.9

7.2

54

1*5
6.0

11.2
11.8

16.7
62.0

Terminal
growth
cm
To
accompany
Page
13

Least significant difference
» — $i
13.2
** — it
17.5

Table

Influence of Varying Calcium Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Farts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree
UKen
After
$et
Calcium
growth
increase
concentration Dianted
gm
gm
m

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth
Roots' Trunk
Snoots
EeJ
gm
gm
gm
gm

Omitted

Ul.2

79.0

37.8**

1*1.1*

15.0

7.3**

15.2

97•1#*

1/2 optimum

44*7

67.7

43*0**

1*9.2

15.8

8.2**

14.4

81.8**

Optimum

W.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

2X optimum

33.5»

79.7

46 •2*

43.1

12.6-::-*

ipC optimum

38.1

81.0

1*2.9*#

1*4.8

13.3**

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

5.4
7.2

cm

8 .9**

14.8

113.8**

6 .3**

14.6

111.6**

4.5
6.0

11.2
14.8

46.7
62.0

Page

179.7
accompany

21.6

16.5

To

Least significant difference
---13.2
*
--5%
ttS— 1%
17.5

Terminal

13

Table 6.

Influence of Varying Magnesium Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry height of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry we ight of entire tree
After
?fet
When
Magnesium
concentration planted
growth
increase
gm
gm
gm

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth
Roots
Trunk
Snoots
Leaves
gm
gm
gm
gm

Terminal
growth
cm

36.9

87.0

50.0*

49.5

14.0*

8 .3*#

15.1

1/2 optimum

U3-3

89.7

46.4*

48.9

16.3

10.2-:;-*

1^.3

123.0*

Optimum

48.5

119.?

71.0

60.7

20.7

16.5

21.6

179.7

2X optimum

41.6

116.3

74.7

58.3

39.5

15.8

22.7

141.3

IpC optimum

464

101.3

54-9

56.6

18.3

9.9**

16.5

116.3*

20.0
26.?

30.0
39.9

5-4
7.2

4-5
6.0

23

88•3**

accompany
Page

46.7
62.0

To

Least significant difference
*
--$%
13.2
** — 1i
17.5

CM CO
• •

Omitted

13

Table 7*

Influence of Varying Manganese Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry height, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree
Manganese
4ien
After
Jfet
increase
concentration nlanted
growth
gm
gm
gm

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth______
Roots
Shoots
Leaves
Trunk
gm
gm
gm
gm

Omitted

55.0

18.4

42.6

17.6

71.0

60.7

20.7

1034

$9.0

Optimum

48.5

119.5

2X optimum

U3.6

90.6

47 .0*

49.8

16.4

4X optimum

51.?

104.5

53.0

59.4

17.1

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

5.4
7.2

Least significant difference
*
—
13.2
— ** — 1i
17.5
—

8 .7*-# 13.7

73.1*#

21.6

179.7

15.1

111.3**

10.5*

17.4

100.1**

4*5
6.0

11.2
14.6

46,7
62.0

16.5
9.3**

Page

82.7

129.7#

accompany

37.8

18.6

To

1/2 optimum

11.4*

Terminal
growth
cm

13

Table 8.

Influence of Varying Boron Concentration in Nutrient Solution
uoon Net Increase in Dry height, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree

Dry weight of various tree

Boron
When
concentration planted
gm

After
growth
gm

Net
increase
gm

Omitted

52.9

111*-3

61.3

63.6

20.6

1/2 ootimum

ipO.U

90.0

1*9.6#

1*7.7

16.3

Optimum

1*8.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

16.5

21.6

179.7

2X optimum

42.1

105.8

63.6

50.5

23.1

13.0

19.0

150.0

1*X optimum

1*6.1

81.1*

35.2##

1*24

17.6

7.9##

13.1*

106.6#*

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

1*.5
6.0

11.2
11*.8

1*6.7
62.0

parts after growth
Hoots
Trunk
Shoots
Leaves
gm
gm
gm
m
11.3*
9 .9*#

Terminal

growth
cm

18.5

102.1##

16.0

96.0*#
To
Page

5.1*
7.2

accompany

Least significant difference
*
— 5%
13.2
*#
— 1^
17,5

13

Table 9.

Influence of Varying Iron Concentration in Nutrient Solution
uoon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree
Dry weight of various tree
Iron
When
After
Set""
parts after growth
Terminal
concentration planted
growth
Increase____ Roots
flruhk Shoots
Leaves growth
gm
gm
gm
gm
cm
gm
gm
m
43*3

65.1

1/2 optimum

36.2

88.9
119.5

Optimum

14-9.1

lh.6

7.3**

4.0

83.3**

52.7

14-7.0

16.3

9 .t o

16.0

101. t o

71.0

60.7

20.7

21.6

179.7

16.5

To

Omitted

77.5

l|.2.to

39.8

154

8. 0*#

4*2

91.t

o

i|.X optimum

35*9

72.6

36.7*#

14-0.3

13.0

7.1#*

12.2

97.t

o

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

54
7.2

I4-. 5

11.2
4 4

fc6.7
62.0

6.0

13

Least slgnifleant difference
#
— 5?
13*2
■JHt --l1
^
17*5
—

Page

35.5

Accompany

2X optimum

Table 10.

Influence of Varying Copper Concentration In Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry Weight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry weight of entire tree
Cooper
When
After
Net
growth
Increase
concentration planted
gm
gm
gm

Roots
gm

Omitted

35.lt

79.6

l|it.lt*«

1/2 optimum

32.3*

75.9

Optimum

ite.5

119.5

2X optimum

39.1;

1|X optimum

ia .9

Dry weight of various tree
Terminal
growth
cm

154

7.3*#

12.8

07.3**

lt3.6ftft

36.1

15.1

7 .8##

4-9

104.3**

71.0

60.7

20.7

21.6

179.7

69.lt

50.0*

49.2

16.1

4.9

112.5**

91t>2

52.3

44-5

20.7

10.7*

18.2

46.6

20.0
26.S

30.0
39.9

54
7.2

4.5
6.0

11.2
4.8

46.7
62.0

Least significant difference
£
13*2
**
— ii
17.5

16.5
9.1**

Page

4*3

Leaves
gm

accompany

Shoots
gm

To

Trunk
gm

13

i

Table 11.

Influence of Varying Zinc Concentration in Nutrient Solution
upon Net Increase in Dry Weight, Dry veight of Various Tree
Parts, and Length of Terminal Growth

Dry we ipjit of entire tree
When
Zinc
After
Net
concentration planted
growth
increase
gm
gm
gm

Dry weight of various tree
parts after growth
Hoots
Trunk
Shoots
Leaves
gm
gm
gm
gm

Terminal
growth
cm

39.8

94.7

a -6

45.2

20.4

11.3*

17.6

121.3*

l/2 optimum

32.8.

92.8

60.0

43.1

17.7

12.3

19.6

132.5*

Optimum

48.5

119.5

71.0

60.7

20.7

16.5

21.6

179.7

2X optimum

35.7

69.7

54.0*

45.2

16.8

10.6*

17.0

117.0**

lj.X optimum

43.6

63.3

39.7*#

42.3

19.3

8 .0**

13.6

84 •3-“*

20.0
26.5

30.0
39.9

5.4
7.2

4.5
6 .0

11.2
14.8

46.7
62.0

To

Omitted

accompany
Page

Least significant difference
*
--st
13.2
**
~r£
17.5

13

Figure 2.

Length of Shoot Growth and Dry Weight Increase for Varying
Concentrations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium,
and Kagnesium.

To accompany Pag© 3-3

*t

*

1

Figure 3.

Length of Shoot Growth and Dry Weight Increase for Varying
Concentrations of Manganese, Eoron, Iron, Zinc, and
Cooper.

•wet m

w

w-i

wtm w t i —

£l O^Bd XUBUUIOOOB OJ,

m v

«

m n t m m w a

M 'i m

m

Poot or trunk growth, or dry weight of leaves produced, was
not affected significantly by altering the concentration of
any one of the various n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t s .
A number of excentions were found from the above gen­
eralizations.

Net increase in dry weight was not signifi­

cantly below m a x i m u m when iron and zinc were 1/2 optimum or
when manganese,
trient solution.

boron, or zinc were omitted x'rom the n u ­
Pet increase in dry weight produced by a

concentration 2X ontimum for magnesium or boron was not
significantly below maximum.
for magnesium, manganese,

Concentrations ipC optimum

or Conner did not reduce the net 1

increase in dry weight significantly below maximum.
D r y weight of shoots was significantly below maximum
when all of the nutrient-elements except zinc were used in
concentrations 1/2X ootimum.

A significant reduction in

dry weight of shoots resulted with the omission of any one
of the nutrient-elements.

Concentrations 2X ontimum of

m a gnesium or boron did not nroduce shoot growth signifi­
cantly less than maximum.

Concentrations ipC optimum for

each nutrient-element produced shoot growth significantly
below m a x i m u m .

Terminal growth signif icantly below m a x i m u m was p r o ­
duced when any one of the nutrient-elements was 1/2X optimum
or omitted.

Concentrations 2X optimum produced terminal

growth significantly below m a x im um except for magnesium and
boron*

Concentrations I4X optimum produced terminal growth

significantly below m a x i m u m in all cases, except for cooper*

None of* the variations in nutrient-element concentration
resulted in a significant variation in dry weight of roots
or leaves,

except where nitrogen was omitted.

Trunk growth,

however, was significantly below maximum in the following
cases:

nitrogen omitted or lj.X optimum, phosphorus omitted,

potassium ipt optimum,

calcium 2X, or ij_X optimum, magnes.ium

omitted, and iron IpC optimum.
Dry height I n c r e a s e :

Table 12 shows the relative

effects of the ten nutrient-elements upon dry weight increase,
shoot crrowth and the other measurements of growth.
Potassium,

when omitted, resulted in less dry weight

increase than obtained w hen any one of the other nine n u ­
trient-elements were omitted.

The other nine, when omitted,

produced dry weight increases in the following increasing
order:
sium,

phosphorus, nitrogen,

calcium,

zinc, manganese, and boron.

iron, Conner, ma gne­

This order of nutrient-

elements was rearranged as follows when the concentration
was 1/2X optimum:

potassium, phosphorus, calcium,

manganese, magnesium,

boron, nitrogen,

cooper,

iron, and zinc.

Nutrient-element concentrations above optimum showed that
the effect of the different elements was dependent upon con­
centration.

Nitrogen resulted in less dry weight increase

at both 2X optimum and
other elements.

optimum than produced by the

The other nutrient elements, w he n used at

concentrations 2X of optimum, produced dry weight in the
following increasing order:

iron, phosphorus, calcium*

Table 12.

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several NutrientElements Dnon Increase in Dry height

Nutrient-element

Omitted
Dry wt.
increase
Rank
gm

1/2X optimum
Dry wt.
increase
Rank
gm

2X optimum
Dry wt.
increase
Rank
gm

1*X optimum
Dry wt.
increase
Rank
gm

36.3

3

1*9.8

8

35-7

1

30.3

1

Phosnborus

26.1

2

1*1.7

2

43-5

3

1*6.2

7

Potassium

26.0

1

36.9

1

50.5

7

39.6

5

Calcium

37.8

i*

1*3.0

3

46.2

1*

1*2.9

6

Magnesium

50.0

7

lj6.lt

6

74-7

10

51*.9

10

Manganese

59.0

9

44-8

5

47.0

5

53.0

9

Boron

61.3

10

49.6

7

63*6

9

35.2

2

Iron

1*1.8

5

52.7

9

1*2.0

2

36.7

3

Conner

10*4

6

1)3.6

k

50.0

6

52.3

8

Page

Zinc

51*.8

8

60.0

10

51*.0

8

3^.7

1*

1£

To

Nitrogen

accoirmany

Dry weight increase at optimum concentration— 71.0 grams

16

manganese,

corner, potassium,

Concentrations I4X

zinc,

boron, and. magnesium*

oobimum resulted in the f ol lowing order

in regard to increasing dry weight production:
boron,

iron,

manganese,

zinc, potassium,

nitrogen,

calcium, phosphorus,

copper,

and magnesium.

Shoot G r o w t h :

Table 13 shows the relative effects of

various concentrations of several nutrient-elements upon
shoot growth.

The amount of shoot growth nroduced when each

element was omitted fell into a very narr ow range.

The

same amount of shoot growth was nroduced when either nitro­
gen or phosphorus was omitted; however, when no ta s si um was
omitted,

slightly more shoot growth was nroduced.

Calcium,

iron, and corner ranked third in shoot growth production.
M a g n e s i u m ranked fourth, while boron, and zinc ranked fifth
in the p r o d u c t i o n of shoot growth.
As the concen tr at io n of the nutrient-elements was re ­
duced to 1/2X optimum, cooper h a d the greatest effect in
s unpressing shoot growth.

The other nutrient-elements may

be arranged in the following order with regard to their
suopressing shoot growth:
manganese, nitrogen,

potassium, phosphorus,

iron, boron, magnesium,

calcium,

and zinc.

W hen u sed at concentrations of 1/2X optimum, n itrogen and
iron resulted in the same amount of shoot growth.
When the concentration was 2X optimum, nitrogen pro­
duced less shoot growth than pr oduced w h e n the other nutrient-

Table 13.

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several Nutrient
Elements unon Shoot Growth

Nutrient-element

Omitted
Shoot
Rank
growth
gm

1/2X optimum
Shoot
Rank
growth
gm

2X optimum
Shoot
growth
Rank
gm

1*X optimum
Shoot
growth
Rank
gm

5.2

1

9.6

6

8.2

1

10.6

9

Phosphorus

5.2

1

7.9

3

8.9

3

94

6

Potassium

5.9

2

7.6

2

10.2

7

74

2

Calcium

7.3

3

£.2

k

8.9

3

8.3

5

Magnesium

8.3

h

10.2

8

15.8

9

9.9

7

Manganese

11.1*.

6

8.7

5

9.3

5

10.5

8

Eoron

11.3

5

9.9

7

13.0

8

7.9

3

Iron

7.3

3

9.6

6

8.0

2

7.1

1

Cooper

7.3

3

7.8

1

9.1

k

10.7

10

Page

11.3

5

12.3

9

10.6

6

8.0

k

16

Shoot growth at optimum— 16.5 grams

accompany

Zinc

To

Nitrogen

nts were u sed et the 2X opti mu m concentration.

The

lng nutri e nt -e le me nt s m ay be arranged in the following
1 of sunore ss in g effects:
manganese,

iron, p h o s p h o r u s , calcium,

zinc, potassium, and boron,

h e greatest d ep ressing effect u n o n shoot growth, reg f r o m in cr ea si ng the concentration of the nutrientits to

ontimum, was associated with iron and the

e ffec t was associa t ed with corner.

The depressing ef-

of the r e m a in in g elements m a y be arranged in the fol; order:

potassium,

slum, manganese,
T er mi n a l Growth:
I*- by the var io us

boron,

zinc, calcium, phosphorus,

nitrogen, and corner.
Terminal growth was affected differconcentrations of the nutrient-ele-

studied (Table 11+ and Figures Ij. to 8, inclusive),
p h o s p h o r u s n roduced less terminal growth than the
nut ri e nt -e le me nt s w h e n the various nutrient-elements
1omitted.

The other nutrient-elements nroduced ter-

growth w h e n omitted in the f o l l ow i ng increasing
nitrogen, ootasslum,
p- boron,

iron, corner, magnesium,

zinc, and manganese.

cal-

W h e n the concentration of

'i

n u tr i e n t - e l e m e n t was reduced to 1/2X optimum, the
ftsest re duction in terminal growth was associated with
pr

panese, nitrogen, and calcium.

The remaining nutrient-

g§:

a©nts had the following order of decreasing effects:
phorus, boron, calcium, iron, conper, potassium, zinc,
magnesium.

17

elements were used et the 2X opt im um concentration.

The

remaining nutrient-e le me nt s m a y be arra ng ed in the fo llowing
order of s un or essing effects:
Conner, manganese,

iron, phosphorus,

calcium,

zinc, potassium, and boron.

The greatest depressing effect unon shoot growth, re­
sulting from increasing the concentration of the nutrientelements to I4X optimum, was associated with iron and the
least effect was associated with Conner.

The depressing ef­

fects of the remaining elements may be arranged in the fol­
lowing order:

potassium, boron, zinc, calcium, phosphorus,

magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, and copper.
Term in al G r o w t h :

Terminal growth was affected differ­

ently by the various concentrations of the n u t r i e nt -e le ­
ments studied (Table 11+ and Figures I4. to 8 , inclusive).
Fhosphorus p ro du c e d less terminal growth than the
other nutrient- el em en t s w h e n the various nutrient-elements
were omitted.

The other nutrient-elements pr od uc ed ter­

minal growth w h e n omitted in the f o l l ow in g increasing
order:

nitrogen, potassium,

cium, boron,

iron, copper, magnesium,

zinc, and manganese.

cal­

W h e n the concentration of

each n u t r i e n t- el em en t was reduced to 1/2X optimum,

the

greatest reduction in terminal growth was associated w it h
manganese, nitrogen,

and calcium.

The re ma in in g nutrient-

elements h a d the f o l l ow in g order of d e c r e as in g effects:
phosphorus,

boron,

and magnesium.

calcium,

iron, copper, potassium,

zinc,

Table

14.

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several NutrientElements unon Terminal Growth

Nutrient-element
Nitrogen

Omitted
Terminal
Rank
growth
cm
2
68.3

1/2X optimum
Terminal
Bank
growth
cm
2
79.6

2X optimum
Terminal
growth
Rank
cm
2
92.8

4X ontimum
Terminal
growth
Rank
cm
124,1
9

61.5

1

86.6

4

95.1

3

98.6

3

Potassium

61.3

3

110.8

8

lie.5

7

114.0

7

Calcium

97.1

7

81.6

3

113.8

6

111.6

6

Magnesium

88.3

6

123.0

10

141.3

9

116.3

6

Manganese

129.7

10

73.1

1

111.3

4

100.1

4

Eoron

102.1

8

96.0

5

150.0

10

108.6

5

Iron

63.3

4

101.0

6

91.0

1

97.0

2

Cooper

87.3

5

101.3

7

112.5

5

11*6.6

10

121.3

9

132.5

9

117.0

8

84-3

1

accomnany
Page

Zinc

To

Phosphorus

17

Terminal growth at ootimum--179.7 centimeters

Figure lj..

Growth in Relation to Varying Concentrations of Nitrogen
(above) and Fhosphorus (below).

(Center--Ootimum;

Increasing Concentration from Left to Right).

Figure

To accompany Page 17

Figure 5

Growth in Relation to Varying Concentrations of Potassium
(above) and Calcium (below).

(Center — Optimum;

Increasing Concentration from Left to Right).

To aecomoany Page 17

Figure 6

Growth in Relation to Varying Concentrations of
Magnesium (above) and Manganese (below).

(Center —

Optimum: Increasing Concentration from Left to Right).

Figure

To accompany Page 17

Figure 7

Growth in Relation to Varying Concentrations of Boron
(above) and Iron (below).

(Center —

Optimum;

Increasing Concentration from Left to Bight).

To accompany Page 17

W

Figure

\ .f+.u:

r

Figure P

Growth In Relation to Varying Concentration of 7inc
(above) and Conner (below).

(Center — Ontiinuin;

Increasing Concentration from Left to Fdght).

To accomoany Page 17

18

Increasing the concentration of Iron to 2X ontimum
resulted In less terminal growth than produced for she
other nutrient-elements.

Other nutrlent-elements produced

terminal growth in the increasing following order:
nhosnhorus, manganese,
magnesium,

copper, calcium, potassium,

nitrogen,
zinc,

and boron.

’.-/hen bhe concentration of the nutrient-elements was
increased to 2|X optimum,
growth.

zinc produced the least terminal

The other nutrlent-elements produced terminal growth

in the following Increasing order:

Iron, phosphorus, m a n ­

ganese, boron, calcium, potassium, magnesium, nitrogen, and
Conner.
Root G r o w t h :

Although root growth (Table I?) was not

affected significantly by the various concentrations of the
different nutrient-elements,

there were some differences

shat should be noted.
As the optimum concentration of each element was re­
duced to 1/2X optimum,
sulted f r om conper.

the least amount of root growth re­

The other nutrlent-elements produced

progressively increased root growth in the following order:
manganese,

zinc, potassium,

sium, calcium, and nitrogen.

iron, boron, phosphorus, m a gne­
The amount of root growth pro­

duced with magnesium, manganese, boron,

iron, copper, and

zinc at 1/2X optimism was less than when these nutrientelements were omitted from the nutrient solution.

Table l£.

Nutrient-element

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several NutrientElements uoon hoot Growth

Omitted
Root
growth
Rank

m

1/2X optimum
Root
growth
Hank
gm

2E optimum
Root
growth
Rank
gm

4X ootimum
Root
Rank
growth

m

44-7

5

$2 .1

10

42.1

2

36.1

1

Fhosohorus

39.2

2

48-7

7

46.6

5

44.3

6

Potassium

38.9

1

44.7

b

50.4

6

44.7

7

Calcium

Ui-U

3

49.2

9

43.1

3

44.8

e

Magnesium

49.5

e

48.9

6

58.3

10

56.6

9

To

Manganese

55.0

9

42.6

2

49.6

7

59.4

10

Boron

63.6

10

47.7

6

50.5

9

42.4

4

Iron

49.1

7

47.0

5

39.8

1

40.3

2

accompany

Copoer

44*3

4

38.1

1

49-2

6

44*5

5

Zinc

45.2

6

43.1

3

45.2

4

42.3

3

Page

Nitrogen

18

Root growth at optimum— 60.7 grams

As the nutrient-elements were increased to the 2X
optimum concentration,

iron produced the least root growth.

The other nutrient-elements produced root growth in the fol­
lowing increasing order:

nitrogen,

calcium,

zinc, phosphor­

us, corner, manganese, potassium, boron, and magnesium.
At IpC optimum level all nutrient-elements decreased
root growth in relation to optimum.

The nutrient-elements

produced root growth in the following ascending order:
gen,

iron,

zinc, boron, corner, phosphorus, potassium,

cium, magnesium, and manganese.

nitro­
cal­

Increasing the concentra­

tion to IpC optimum, as compared to the rate of 2X optimum,
resulted in a reduction of root growth for the following
n u t r i e n t- el em en ts :

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, m a gn e­

sium, boron, copper, and zinc.

A slight increase

in root

growth followed the use of calcium and iron, and there was a
marked increase for manganese.
Trunk G r o w t h :

As the elements were omitted Individual­

ly, trunk growth (Table 16) was produced In the following
ascending order:

nitrogen, phosphorus, magnesium.

Iron,

calcium, copper, potassium, manganese, zinc, and boron.
W h e n the concentration of each nutrient-element was reduced
to 1/2X optimum, trunk growth occurred in the following in­
creasing order:

copper, calcium,

potassium, manganese,

iron, magnesium, boron,

zinc, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

W h e n the concentration of the nutrient-elements was
Increased to 2X optimum, calcium produced the least trunk

Table 16.

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several Nutrient
Elements upon Trunk Growth

Nutrient-element

Omitted
Trunk
growth
Rank
gm

1/2X optimum
Trunk
growth
gm

Rank

2X optimum
Trunk
growth
gm

Rank

[|.X optimum
Trunk

growth

Bank

gm

12.3

1

18.1

9

17.B

6

4.9

k

Phosphorus

12.9

2

20.0

10

16.1

3

16.6

5

Potassium

15.5

7

16.5

6

lfi.lt

7

4-7

3

Calcium

15.0

5

15.8

2

12.8

1

13.3

2

Magnesium

4.0

3

16.3

k

19.5

8

16.3

8

Manganese

184

8

17.6

6

164

k

17.1

6

Boron

20.8

10

16.3

5

23.1

9

17.6

7

Iron

4.6

k

16.3

3

154

2

13.0

1

Copper

154

6

15.1

l

16.1

3

20.7

10

Fage

Zinc

204

9

17.7

8

16.6

5

19.3

9

19

accompany

Trunk growth at optimum— 20.7 grams

To

Nitrogen

20

growth.

The other nutrlent-elements produced trunk growth

In the following increasing order:
manganese,

iron, p h o s p h o r u s , copper,

zinc, nitrogen, Potassium, magnesium, and boron.

As the concentration of the nutrient-elements was In­
creased to IpC optimum,

Iron produced less trunk growth than

the other nutrient-elements.

Trunk growth increased progres­

sively for the other nutrient-elements as follows:
potassium,

calcium,

nitrogen, phosphorus, manganese, boron, m agne­

sium, zinc, and copper.
Leaf G r o w t h :

For treatments in which the nutrient-

elements were omitted Individually, nitrogen resulted In the
least pr od uc ti on of leaves, while phosphorus and potassium
ranked next (Table 17)•

The remaining elements produced in­

creasing amounts of leaf growth as follows:
magnesium, calcium,

copper,

zinc, boron, and manganese.

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,

iron, c o m e r ,

iron,

Omitting
and zinc p r o­

duced less leaf growth than w he n used at 1/2X optimum,
while calcium, magnesium, manganese, and boron increased leaf
growth.
W h e n the optimum concentration was reduced to 1/2X
optimum, manganese produced the least leaf growth, while zinc
showed the greatest amount*

The other elements produced

increasing amounts of leaves as follows:

potassium, ma gne­

sium, calcium, copper, phosphorus, nitrogen, boron, and iron.
As the concentrations were increased to 2X optimum,
iron pr od uc ed less leaf growth than the other nutrient-

Table 17*

Relative Effect of Various Concentrations of Several NutrientElements upon Leaf Production

Nutrient-element

Omitted
leaf
growth
Rank
gm

1/2X optimum
Leaf
growth
Rank
gm

2X optimum
leaf
growth
Bank

gm

L.X optimum
Leaf
growth
Rank

gm

1

15.6

7

19*8

9

134

2

Phosphorus

11.0

3

15*2

6

16.9

6

16.8

7

Potassium

10.6

2

4 .2

2

17*9

8

4*2

Calcium

19*2

7

k

4.8

2

4.6

9

Magnesium

19*1

6

3

22.7

10

16.9

6

Manganese

ie.6

10

1

19*1

h

174

8

Eoron

i e .9

6

19.0

9

134

2

Iron

4 .0

9
5

8

4*2

1

12.2

1

Copper

12.8

k

44
4-3
13*7
16.0
16.0
4*9

9

4*9

3

18.2

9

Page

Zinc

17*6

e

19*6

9

17.0

7

13.6

3

20

accomoany

Leaf growth at optimum— 21.6

To

94

Nitrogen

21

elements, while calcium ranked next In leaf production.
The other nutrient-elements resulted in increased leaf pro­
duction in the following order:
gen, nhosphorus,

Conner, manganese, nitro­

zinc, potassium, boron, and magnesium*

\nhen the concentration was Increased to

optimum,

iron had

the same magnitude of effect as when the concentration was
increased to 2X ontimum.

Nitrogen and boron produced the

next lowest amount of leaf growth, while the other elements
h a d the f ol lowing increasing order in regard to their leaf
production:

zinc, potassium,

phorus, manganese,

calcium, magnesium, p hos­

and copper.

Leaf Composition and Nutrlent-Element Halance
The analysis of the leaves from those trees making
maximum growth was considered to represent ootimum leaf
composition and nutrient-element balance.
Any deviation of a nutrient-element from the optimum
concentration resulted in considerable variation In leaf
analysis and a corresponding variation In the nutrientelement balance.

Some nutrlent-elements showed a definite

relationship between nutrient solution concentration and
leaf analysis.

Cther nutrient-elements, however, exhibited

no definite relationship between nutrient solution concen­
tration and leaf analysis.

Also, certain nutrient-elements

h a d an influence on nutrient-element balance and interrela­
tionships proportional to concentration.

22

ft^itrogen;

The influence of varying the concentration

of n i t ro ge n in the nutrient solution is shown in Table 15
and figure 9.

Phosphorus and. iron, as well as nitrogen,

creased while calcium, magnesium,

de ­

and boron increased in the

leaves when the n i t r og en content of the nutrient solution
was r educed below optimum.

Potassium decreased w h e n the

nitrogen co nc e n t r a t i o n was 1/2X optimum,
nitrogen was omitted.

but increased when

U s i n g a 1/2X optimum concentration

of nitr og en in the nutrient solution resulted in an increase
in the analysis of cooper and manganese,
creased

but Conner d e ­

to the ontimum level w he n nitrogen was omitted,

while m a n g a ne se decreased below ontimum.
Phosnhorus, potassium, magnesium,

iron, and manganese

decreased, w h i le boron, and cooper, as well as nitrogen,
i ncreased w h e n the n i t r o g e n co nc entration of the nutrientsol ut i on was increased above ontimum.

C a l c iu m increased

as the n i t r o g e n co nc en tr a ti on was increased to 2X optimum,
but decreased w h e n the n itrogen c on ce nt r at io n was IjJt
optimum.
D e c r e a s i n g the n i tr o g e n concent ra ti on in the nutrient
s olution resulted in greater total deviations from optimum
balance than increasing nitrogen.

There was a general

trend f o r the p ositive deviations from optimum balance to
decrease w i t h o u t m u c h change in the negative deviations as
the n i t r o g e n concen tr at io n was increased.

A lj.X optimum

c on c e n t r a t i o n of nit ro ge n r e sulted in the negative devia-

Table IB.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Element falance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Nitrogen in the Nutrient Solution

Nitrogen
concentration
Omitted

84
100

1.00
81
87

1.73
138

0.93
150

62

0.008
61

100

100

100

100

100

0.011
84

0.0008 0.012 0.016
160
300
123

8l

62

138

91

61

100

0.013
100
100

0.0008 0,007
160
17$

0.012
92

Chart index 137

So

96

76

120

17S

Deviation of chart index from optimum balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total

259
371
0
189
132

146
87
0
113
199

+ 113
♦ 284
0
+ 76
- 67

405
458
0
302
331

76

22

Omitted
1/2 ontimum
Ontimum
2X ontimum
4X optimum

72

Page

Concentration

31

accompany

i Dry weight lj.47 0.05 0.88 0.63 0.60 0.010 0.0006 0.007 0.010

lo

4 Dry weight 3.80 0.13 0.76 1.73 0.57 0.006
Chart Index 116

4X ontimum

120

0.78 0.006 0.0005 0.011
100
61
125
27$

Mn

i Dry weight 3.26 0.16 1.22 1.25 0.62 0.013 0.0005 0.004
Chart index

2X ontimum

47

E

1.74
139

i Dry weight 2*76 0.14
Chart index

Ontimum

Ca

K

i Dry weight 1.54 0.10 1.47
Chart index

1/2 ontimum

F

H

Leaf Composition
Pe
Cu
Mg

igure 9*

Nutrient-lilement Faience in delation to
Varying the Concentration of nitrogen in
the Nutrient Solution.
Upper left - omitted, un per right - 1/2X
optimum, center - optimum, lower left 2X optimum, lower right - i+X optimum.
The
various bands on each chart (from the edge
toward center) represent excess, a p p r o a c h ­
ing excess, optimum, h i d d e n deficiency and
deficiency.

To accompany Page 22

i

o

23

tlons exce ed in g the positive deviations from optimum
balance*

Apparently, wh e n the n itrogen co nc entration was

1/2 opt im um the n u tr ie n t- el em en t c om po sition d eviated more
f r om o n t im u m balance than w h e n nit r og en was omitted*
wit h the 1/2 ontimum nitrogen concentration,

Also,

the nositive

deviations exceed the negative deviations f rom ontimum
balance m u c h more t h a n w he n n i t r o g e n was omitted from the
nutrient solution*
Phosphorus:
tion of phosphorus
cooper, boron,
potassium,

The influence of v a r y i n g the concentra­
is shown in Table 19, Figure 10*

Iron,

and m a g n e s i u m increased in the leaves, while

calcium, manganese decreased w he n the phos­

phorus content of the nutrient sol ut io n was reduced below
optimum*

Phosphorus reduced in leaf compos it io n along with

a simultaneous re du c ti on in nitrogen.

By om itting p h o s ­

phorus f ro m the n utrient solution, n itrogen Increased to
ontimum level, and phosphorus decreased to a v er y low level,
but corner encroached the ontimum level, while iron, m a n ­
ganese, cotassium, magnesium,

and calcium were decreased

below ontimum.
Iron a n d p o t a s s i u m decreased while phosphorus, copper,
boron, calcium, and m a g n e s i u m increased w h e n the phosphorus
concentrations of the nutri e nt -s ol ut io n were increased
above optimum*
ontimum level*

N i t r o g e n a n d man ga ne se remained at the

Table 19.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Bilement H-alance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Fhosnhorus in the Nutrient Solution

Phosphorus
concentration

N

P

K

Ca

Leaf Composition
Cu
Fe
Kg

B

Mn

3*35
102

0.06
37

0.92
75

1.11
88

0.1+9
79

0.008
61

0.0006
120

0.007
175

0.008
61

l/2 optimum

^Dry weight
Chart index

2.89
88

0.09
%

1.06
86

0.95
76

0.73
117

0.016
123

0.0008
160

0.008
200

0.008
61

Optimum

^Dry weight
Chart index

3.26
100

0.16
100

1.22
100

1.25
100

0.62
100

0.013
100

0.000<
100

0.001+
100

0.013
100

2X ontimum

^Dry weight
Chart index

346
106

0.19

1.39
111

0.76
122

0.010
76

0.0009

lie

0.9U
77

180

0.008
200

0.013
100

$Dry weight
Chart index

3.61
110

0.22
137

1.07
87

1.87

0.61+
135

0.011
ft}

0.0007
li+0

0.008
200

0.018
138

I4
.X optimum

97
200
0
237
309

199
133
0
1+7
29

- 102
+ 67
0
+ 190
+ 280

296
333
0
28k
338

23

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Ontimum
2X ontimum
1+X ontimum

Deviation of Chart Index from Ontimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total

Page

Concentration

11+9

accompany

^Dry weight
Chart index

To

Omitted

gnjre 10.

wutrient-Fle^ent Balance in Relation to
Varying the Concentration of Fhosnhorua
in the Nutrient Solution.
IJnner left - omitted, u n n e r righ t - 1/2X
ontimum, c e n t e r - ontimum, l o we r left 2 X ontimum, lower r i g h t ’ - i|X ontimum.
The v a r i ou s hands on each chart (from
the edcre toward center) r e p r es en ts
excess, a p p r o a c h i n g excess, ontimum,
h i d d e n de fi ci en c y, and d eficiency.

To ac co mp a ny Page 23

2i+

W h e n the phosphorus concen tr at i on was increased to i*X
ontimum, phosphorus,

Conner,

boron, calcium, manganese,

and m a g n e s i u m increased, while

iron and ootassium decreased.

There was a slight increase in nitrogen.
D e c r e a s i n g the rhosrhorus c o nc entration in the nutrient
solution resulted in deviations from ontimum which are c o m­
parable to the increase of nhosnhorus above the ontimum
level.
ontimum,

As the nhosnhorus concentration was increased to IpC
the n u t r i e nt - el em en t balance deviated more from

ontirrum than w h e n nhosnhorus was omitted.
tive deviations

However, p o s i ­

exceeded negative deviations exceot when

nhosnhorus was omitted.
Potasslum:

The influence of varying the concentration

of o o t a s s i u m in the nutrient solution is shown in Table 20,
figure 1 1 .

Fhosphorus and iron, as well as potassium, de­

creased and bo ron and Conner increased w h e n the potassium
c o nc e nt ra ti on of the nutrient solution was reduced to 1/2X
ontimum.

Nitrogen, manganese, a nd calcium remained at the

ontimum level, while there was a n Increase in magnesium.
As compared to the 1/2X onti mu m concentration, potassium,
and phosph or us continued to decrease, manganese decreased,
while Conn e r incr ea se d wh e n p o t a s s i u m was omitted from the
nutrient solution.
Eoron and m a g n e s i u m increased, while iron and ohosnhorus d e creased w he n the p o t a s s i u m concentration of the
nutrient sol ut io n was increased above optimum.

Nitrogen,

calcium, an d m an ganese remained near the optimum level.

Table 20.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-element balance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Potassium In the Nutrient Solution

Potassium
concentration

F

K

Omitted

itDry

3.29 0.08 0.71
50
100
58

1/2 optimum

€ Dry

3.53

0.13 0.84
81
68

weight
Chart index
weight
Chart index

108

Ca

Leaf Composition
?e
Cu
Mg

t
:i.
*

Mn

0.009
225

0.007
53

1.25 0.84 0.009
100
69
135

0.0006 0.008
120
200

0.013
100

1.14
91

0.76
122

0.010
76

0.0007
140

3.26
100

0.16
100

1.22
100

1.25 0.62
100
100

0.0005
100

0.004
100

0.013
100

2X optimum

cl Dry

3.38 0.14
87
103

0.97
79

1.20 0.97 0.008 0.0007
96
156
61
140

0.006
150

0.012
92

4X optimum

^ Dry weight
Chart Index

3.80
116

1.69
138

0.98
78

0.006 0.014
150
107

weight
Chart index
weight
Chart index

0.009
69

0.0004
80

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
ffotal
187
163
0
149
135

172
82
0
85
92

+ 10
+ 8l
0
+ 64
+ 43

359

2.1+5
0
234
227

2l+

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
4X optimum

0.77
124

Fag©

Concentration

0.13
81

0.013
100

accompany

t Dry

To

Optimum

igure 11.

Nutrient-element Ealance in helation to
Varying- the Concentration of Potassium
in the Nutrient Solution.
U p per left - omitted, u p pe r right - 1/2X
optimum, center - optimum, lower left 2X optimum, lower rig ht - IpC optimum.
The various bands on each chart (from
the edge toward center) represent
excess, a p p r o a c h i n g excess, optimum,
h i d d e n d e f i c i e n c y and deficiency.

To accompany Page 22j.

Figure 11

Fotassium Increased when the concentration was J[X
ontimum,

but showed a decrease at 2X optimum.

Cooper in­

creased when the potassium concentration was 2X optimum,
but decreased when the concentration was i+X optimum.

M a g ne ­

sium was lower wh e n the potassium concentration was ipC opti­
mum than w hen the concentration was 2X optimum.
Decreasing the potassium concentration in the nutrient
solution resulted In greater total deviations from ontimum
balance than Increasing potassium.

Fositive deviations from

the ontimum balance were nrevalent for all levels of ootas­
sium.

Greater total deviations from the optimum balance

were observed with 0 ontimum concentration.

Nutrient ele­

ment comoosition deviated less from ontimum when the p otas­
sium concentration was 1/2X optimum than w hen ootassium was
omitted.
Calcium:

The Influence of varying the concentration of

calcium in the nutrient-solutlon is shown In Table 21,
Figure 12.

Copper and boron increased, and all other nutrient-

elements decreased except nitrogen and magnesium when the
calcium content of the nutrient solution was reduced below
ontimum.

Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and iron were

higher when calcium was omitted than when the calcium con­
centration was 1/2X optimum.

However, cooper was lower when

calcium was omitted than when at 1/2X optimum.

Omitting

calcium from the nutrient solution caused the calcium to con­
tinue to decrease.

M

Table 21.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-? lement Balance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Calcium in the Nutrient Solution

Calcium
concentration
Omitted

N

t Dry weight

3.36
Chart index
103

3.12
1/2 optimum % Dry weight
Chart index
95

Leaf Composition
Cu
Fe
n

B

Mn

0.62 0.60
96
1*9

0.011
0*

0.0006
120

0.006
150

0.009
70

0.11 1.04 0.83 0.59
68
66
85
95

0.009
70

0.0007
1U0

0.010
250

0.009
70

0.62
100

0.013
100

F

t

0.12 1.13
92
75

Ca

0.16 1.22
100
100

1.25
100

0.0005
100

0.001* 0.013
100
100

2X optimum

t Dry weight

0.15 0.95
93
77

1.25 0.51* 0.010 0.0005
100
100
76
87

0.009 0.010
76
225

l^X optimum

% Dry weight

0.17 0.92
106
75

1.78 0.66
11*2 106

0.008
200

3.76
Chart index 115
3.23
Chart index
99

Concentration

0.0006
120

Deviation of Chart Index from Ontimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total
13U
l5l
0
91
65

- 61
+ 39
0
+ 1*9
+109

207
31*1
0
231
239

25

73
190
0
II4.O
17l*

0.012
92

Fage

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Ontimum
2X optimum
i*X ontimum

0.009
69

accorrroany

3.26
^ Dry weight
Chart index
100

‘To

Optimum

Figure 12.

Nutrient-Element Balance in Relation to
Varying: the Concentration of Calcium in
the Vutriont Solution.
TJ-oper left - omitted, unoer right - 1/2X
optimum, center - optimum, lower left 2X optimum, lower right - hX optimum.
The various bands o n e ach chart (from the
edge toward center) rep re se nt excess,
aTDoroaching excess, optimum, h i d d e n de ­
fic ie n cy and deficiency*

To accomnany Page 2 5

26

Fotassium,

iron, and manganese decreased and boron in­

creased when the calcium concentration was increased, while
nitrogen, nhosnhorus, magnesium, and Conner remained near
the ontimum level.
Calcium increased in the leaves as the concentration
was increased i|X ontimum.
and c o m e r

Fhosnhorus, maenesium, manganese,

increased, while nitrogen,

iron and boron de­

creased in the leaves when the IjJC concentration is comrared
to the 2X concentration of calcium.
D ec reasing the calcium concentration in the nutrient
solution nroduced greater total deviations from optimum
balance than increasing calcium.

There was a general trend

Tor the positive deviations from optimum balance to increase
and the negative deviations
concentration was increased.

to decrease as the calcium
Negative deviations from ooti-

mum balance exceeded the positive deviations only when
calcium was omitted.
Magnesium:

The influence of varying the concentration

of magnesium in the nutrient solution is shown in Table 22,
Figure 13.

Fhosnhorus, ootassium,

as well as magnesium decreased,

calcium,

iron, manganese,

corner increased, and

nitrogen remained near the ontimum level as the magnesium
content of the nutrient solution was reduced below optimum.
Conner remained within the limits of the optimum level at

Table 22.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Klement Palance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Magnesium in the Nutrient Solution

Magnesium
concentration
Omitted

i Dry weight
Chart index

IjJC optimum

i Dry weight

Mn

67

0.92
73

0.52 0.010
76
83

0.0008
160

0.006
150

0.008
61

3.25 0,10
62
99

1.01
62

1.22
97

0.61* 0.011 0.0005
81*
100
103

0.008
200

0.011
8i|-

3.26 0.16
100
100

1.22 1.25 0.62 0.013
100
100
100
100

O.OOii 0.013
100
100

3.21
Chart index
98

0.13
61

1.21
99

0.76
122

0.011 0.0006
120
85

0.010
250

0.010
76

3.0^
Chart index
93

o.ih

1.04 1.00 0.81
60 130
65

0.007 0.0007
u*o
53

0.007
175

0.010
76

67

1.16
9U

0.0005
100

Concentration

11^
103
0
192
lij.5

Negative

139
92
0
67
126

Difference

+

25
11
0
+ 125
+ 19

Total

253
195
0
259
271

26

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
hX optimum

Positive

Page

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Ealance

accompany

i Dry weight

E

To

2X optimum

o.lk

K

Leaf Composition
Pe
Cu
Mg

1.00
81

^ Dry weight
3.1|2
104
Chart index

1/2 optimum i Dry weight
Chart index
Optimum

$

N

6a

Pi g-ure 13*

Nutrlent-elerent Balance In Relation to
Varyinp the Concentration of Magnesium
in the Nutrient Solution.
TJorer left - omitted, u o o e r r^dit - 1/2X
ootimum, cen te r - ootimum, lower left 2X optimum, lower right - lj_X ontimum.
The various bands on each chart (from
the edge toward center) represent
excess, a n n r o a c h i n g excess, optimum,
h i d d e n defici e nc y and deficiency.

To accoTrmany Fage 26

Figure 13

27

l/2X optimum, but increased w hen magnesium was omitted.
Also boron tended to decrease slightly when none of the
element was added as compared to 1/2X optimum.
Phosphorus,

iron, and manganese were reduced when a con­

centration of 2X optimum level was used.
crease of Conner,

boron,

However, an in­

and m agnesium was noted, although

nitrogen, Potassium, and calcium remained near the optimum
level.
U s i n g m ag nesium concentrations [|.X ootimum, magnesium
continued to increase, while there was only a slight reduc­
tion in calcium.

Potassium, manganese,

iron, and p h o s ­

phorus were likewise reduced, while cooper and boron in­
creased when the ma gnesium concentration of the nutrient
solution was increased to the I4.X optimum level.
Dec reasing the ma gnesium concentration of the nutrientsolution resulted in less total deviations from optimum
balance than increasing magnesium.
The greatest total deviations from optimum balance was
obtained with the ma gnesium concentration of the nutrientsolution at UX optimum.

Total deviations from optimum bal­

ance w h en calcium was omitted were essentially the same as
at the i+X optimum concentration.

Negative deviations from

optimum balance exceeded the positive deviations only when
mag nesium was omitted from the nutrient-solution.
Manganese:

The influence of varying the manganese

concentration in the nutrient-solution is shown in Table 23#

26
and Figure lLf.

Fhosphoras, potassium,

iron, and manganese

decreased w hen the manganese concentration was below opti­
mum, while copter,

and boron increased.

However, nitrogen

remained near the optimum level when the manganese con­
tent of the nutrient solution was reduced below optimum.
Fhosohorus, calcium,

and manganese were higher when mang an ­

ese was omitted than when manganese was 1/2X optimum, but
potassium, magnesium,

iron, Conner, and boron were lower

when manganese was omitted than when used at 1/2X ontimum
concentration.
Using manganese concentrations 2X optimum,
phosnhorus, potassium,

iron,

calcium, and manganese decreased,

while boron, and magnesium increased.

Nitrogen and conper

continued to remain near the optimum level.
Fith amplications of manganese at the ipC optimum level,
iron was the only element that was decreased significantly.
Uanganese, copper, and boron continued to increase in the
leaves at this very high level.

Nitrogen, phosphorus, potas

sium, calcium, and magnesium were near the optimum level
w hen the manganese concentration was IpL optimum.
D ec reasing the manganese concentration in the nutrientsolution resulted in less total deviations from optimum
balance than increasing manganese to the I4JC optimum concen­
tration which resulted in the greatest positive and total
deviations from the optimum.
Negative deviations fr o m optimum balance exceeded
positive deviations w h e n manganese was omitted from the

Table 23.

Leaf Composition and Vutrient-Element Falance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Manganese in the Mutrient Solution

Manganese
concentration
Omitted

N
Dry weight
3.50
Chart index
107

it
0.1J+ 0.98
80
67

Leaf Composition
Mg
Fe
<5"a
Cu

p

Mn

1.28 0.1*8 0.007 0.0006
120
102
77
53

0.006
150

0.010
76
0.009
69

i Dry weight

1.01
62

1.13
90

0.72
116

0.010
76

0.0007 0.008
11*0
200

Optimum

i> Dry weight

1.22
100

1.2? 0.62
100
100

0.013
100

0.000?
100

0.001* 0.013
10c
100

2X optimum

fo Dry weight

3.29 0.0?
100
Chart index
31

1.00 1.12 0.83
81
89
133

0.010
76

0.0005
100

0.005
125

0.011
85

1*X optimum

3.22 0.1?
v? Dry weight
Chart index
98
93

1.11* 1.32 0.72
10? 116
93

0.010
76

0.0007 0.009
11*0
22?

0.02?
192

3.1*8 0.08
Chart index
106
50
3.26 0.16
Chart index
100
100

79

127

-

1*8

206

162

133

+

39

29?

0
?8
276

0
136
1*0

0
- 60
+ 236

0
196
318

28

Omitted
1/2 ootimum
Optimum
2X ontimum
i*X ontlmum

Page

Concentration

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total

accompany

1/2 optimum

Figure lij .

Mutrient-tler-ent balance in Relation to
Varying the Concentration of Fanganese
in the Nutrient Solution.
inner left - omitted, uoper right - 1/ 2X
orttimum, center - ootimum, lower left 2-X ontimum, lower right - Ij-X ootimum.
The various bands on each chart (from
the edge toward center) represent excess,
aorjroechinp excess, ootimum, h id d e n
deficiency and deficiency.

To aeconroany P a g e 2 8

Figure H4.

29

nutrient so lution and where applied at the rate of 2X
optimum concentration.

Positive deviations from optimum

balance were very nronounced,

and the negative deviations

were v ery low for the ipC optimum concentration.
Boron:

The influence of var yi ng the concentration of

boron in the nut ri en t solution is shown in fable 21},
Figure 15>.

Phosphorus,

iron, potassium,

and manganese d e ­

creased while copper and boron increased when the boron c o n ­
tent of the nutrient solution was reduced below ontimum.Nitrogen, however,

remained near the optimum level.

The in­

crease in corner at 1/2X optimum was decreased w h en boron
was omitted from the nutrient solution.

W h e n boron was o mi t ­

ted, there was an increase of calcium, manganese,

and m a g n e ­

sium as compared to us ing boron at 1/2X optimum.
Iron, phosphorus,

copper, potassium,

calcium, m a n g a n ­

ese and m a g n e s i u m decreased while boron increased when the
b oron c on ce nt ra ti on of the nutrient solution was increased
above optimum.

Nitrogen was decreased slightly, but remained

near the optimum level.
cium, manganese,

Iron, phosphorus, potassium, c a l­

and m a g n e s i u m decreased more at the ijJC

optimum than at the 2X optimum concentration of boron.
the b o r on co nc entration was increased IpC optimum,

W hen

boron r e ­

mai ne d at a v e ry h i g h level, and copper increased as the
b o r o n concentration increased.

Nitrogen decreased slight­

ly, but remained w i t h i n the optimum range.
D e c r e a s i n g the b o r o n concentration in the nutrientsolution resulted in less total deviations from optimum

Table 21*. Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Element pelance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Poron in the Nutrient Solution

Boron
concentration
Omitted

% Dry weight

3.03
Chart Index
92

1/2 optimum i Dry weight
Chart index
Optimum

P

K

i Dry weight
Chart index

V

Ca

Leaf Composition
Fe
Cu
M?

P

T*n

0.12 1.11
90
75

1.67
133

0.66
106

0.010
76

0.0006
120

0.007
175

0.011
85

0.1*5 0.009
72
69

0.0009
160

0.007
175

0.006
1*6

1.07
87

1.09
87

3.26
100

0.16
100

1.22
100

1.25 0.62
ICO
100

0.013
100

0.0005 0.001* 0.013
100
100
100

0.009
69

0.0001* 0.015
80
375

2X optimum

% Dry weight

1 .1U
91

i*.X optimum

i Dry weight

0.85 0 . 1*1 0.006
68
66

3.10 0.09 0.90
Chart index
56
95
73

3.00 0.06 O.78
Chart index
92
63
37

0.50
80

0,0007 0.019 0.001*
11*0
30
1*75

13b
155
0
275

1*15

Negative

^2
173
0
210
298

Total

52
18
0

216

29

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
1|lX optimum

Positive

Page

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Ealance
Concentration

0.006
1*6

accompany

0.11
68

To

3.22
98

+ 65
+ 117

1*85

Difference

+
-

328
0
713

Figure lN.

Nutrient-ile^ent Ealance in elation to
Varying the Concentration of Eoron
in the Nutrient Solution.
TTnper left - omitted, unner right - l/2X
optimum, center - optimum, lower left
2X ontimum, lower right - J4X optimum.
The various bands on each chart (from
the edge toward center) represent excess,
anproaching excess, optimum, hi dd e n
deficiency and deficiency.

To accompany Fage 29

Flgur© i9

30

balance than Increasing boron.
exceeded optimum,

there appears to be a general Increase

in positive, negative,
t imum balance.

W h e n the concentrations

and total deviations f rom the op­

Positive,

negative, and total deviations

f rom ooti mu m balance decreased as the boron concentration
was reduced.

Negative deviations only exceeded oositlve

deviations from opti m um balance w he n the boron concentra­
tion was l/2X optimum.
Iron:

The influence of v a r y in g the concentration of

iron in the nutrient so lution is shown in Table 25?, Figure
16.

I ron and p o t a s s i u m decreased while o h o s p h o r u s , copper,

and b o r o n increased in the leaves w h e n the iron content of
the nutrient so lution was red uc e d below optimum.
and c a l ci um r e mained near the optimum level.

Nitrogen

W h e n iron

was omitted m a g n e s i u m and manganese decreased sharply, but
iron Increased slightly as compared to 1/2X optimum.
As iron was increased to the 2X optimum level,

iron,

calcium, and p o t a s s i u m were the only elements that d e ­
creased.

Phosphorus,

copper, boron, a n d magnesium increased

while nitrogen, and m a nganese remained near the optimum
level.
Iron, potassium, a n d phosphorus were at v e r y low levels,
while there was an increase in conper,

boron, calcium, and

m a g n e s i u m w h e n the iron concent ra ti on was increased to ipC
optimum.

N itrogen and manganese r emained near the optimum

Table 25*

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Element Balance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Iron In the Nutrient Solution

Iron

Leaf Composition

E

% Dry weight
Chart index

307
103

0.10
62

1.03

1/2 optimum % Dry weigjit
Chart index

3.33
102

0.20
125

t Dry weight
Chart index

3.26
100

2X optimum
1*X optimum

Optimum

Fe

Mn

0.50

0.85
69

1.22
97

0.68
109

0.16
100

1.22
100

1.25
100

0.62 0.013
100
100

100

100

% Dry weight
3.61
Chart index 110

0.20
125

0.86
70

1.15
92

0.80
129

0.009
69

0.0007 0.009
Uj.0
225

0.013
100

$ Dry weight
Chart index

0.13
81

0.73
59

1.61
128

0.72
116

0.008
61

0.0006
120

0.009
69

0.008
200

0.004 0.013

0.009
225

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total

1*13
219
0
229
196

131
80
0
69
130

+ 282
+ 139
0
+ 160
+ 66

0.016
123

510*
299
0
298
326

30

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
i*X optimum

0.007 0.0008
160
51*

0.018 0.009
i*5o
70

Fage

Concentration

3.50
10?

0.0008
160

B

1.22
81*
97

80

0.010
76

Cu

o
•
o
»
•
o
oo
OVA

Omitted

Mg

accompany

f>

To

If

concentration

Ca.

Figure 16.

Nutrient-Element Balance in Relation to
Varying the Concentration of Iron in
the Nutrient Solution.
Throe r left - omitted, urmer right 1/2X ootimum, center - ootimum, lower
left - 2X ootimum, lower right - Lpt
ootimum.
The various bands on each
chart (from the edge toward center)
represent excess, approaching excess,
optimum, h i d d e n deficiency and
deficiency.

To a c c o m p a n y Page 30

F ig u r e 16

31

O m i t t i n g ir o n f r o m the n u t r i e n t - s o l u t i o n resu lt ed in
g reater total d e v i a t i o n s fr o m o p t im um balance than increas­
ing iron.

Total de vi ations f r o m opt im um balance were h i g he r

T o r the ij.X t ha n the 2X c o n c e n t r a t i o n of iron.

Negative

d e v i at io ns f r o m o o t i m u m did not e x c ee d the po sitive d e ­
viations

at any c oncentration.

creased w i t h each
c on ce nt ra ti on .

Negative deviations in­

increment of increased or d e c r e a s e d iron

Pos it iv e de vi at io n s from optimum increased

at the l o w es t concentration,

w h i le the positive deviations

were lox^er f or the 1+X o p t i m u m than for the 2X optimum con­
centre tion.
Zinc:

The

influence of v a r y i n g the c on c e n t r a t i o n of

zinc in the n u t r i e n t - s o l u t i o n is s h o w n in Table 26, Figure
17.

Conner, p o t a s si um ,

nitrogen,

iron,

and m a g n e s i u m were reduced, and

calcium, a n d m a n g a n e s e rem ai ne d near the

o p t i mu m level w h e n zinc c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of the n u t r i e n t - s o l u ­
tion w e re r e d u c e d to 1/2X optimum*

‘
T here was an increase

for ph o s p h o r u s an d boron.
Iron, pho sp ho ru s, potassium,

copper, a nd man ga ne se were

r e d u ce d and m a g n e s i u m i nc reased as zinc was omitted f r o m the
nutrient-solution.

Boron,

calcium,

and m a g n e s i u m w e re above

the o p t i m u m l evel w h e n zinc was omitted.
I n c r e a s i n g zinc to the 2X o p t i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n r e ­
sulted I n nitrogen,

Iron, ph os phorus,

copper, manganese,

and

m a g n e s i u m r e m a i n i n g n e a r the o p t i m um level, w h i l e p o t a s s i u m
was decreased*

Eo ron and c a l c i u m w er e Increased*

Table 26.

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Element Ealance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Zinc in the Nutrient Solution

Zinc
concentration

N

f>

K

Leaf Composition
Ca
Pe
Cu
ms

0.81
130

6

0.007 O.OOOlj. 0.007 0.008
81
61
175
53

Omitted

^ Dry weight
Chart index

3.32
101

0.13
81

0.83
68

1.70
136

1/2 optimum

^ Dry weight
Chart index

3-57
109

0.19
118

1.03

1.32 0.51 0.013
100
82
105

O.OOOif 0.008
81
200

Ootimum

^ Dry weight
Chart index

3.26 0.16 1.22
100
100
100

1.25 0.62
100
100

0.013
100

0.0005
100

2X optimum

^ Dry weight
Chart index

3*76 0.17
1D6
115

0.70
57

0.61
98

0.012
92

0.0005 0.009
100
225

ip( optimum

i Dry weight

345

0.72 1.31 0.85 0.009
10J+ 137
59
69

0.013 0.010
76
325

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Ealance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total

156
53
0
53
96

4
+ 79
0
+ 120
+ 213
-

298
185
0
226
1+0?

31

42
132
0
173
309

0.013
100

Page

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
IpC optimum

O.OOij. 0.013
100
100

accompany

Concentration

105

0.0006
120

0.013
100

To

Chart Index

0.19
118

1.59
127

Mn

Figure 17 •

Nutrient-Element Ealance in Relation to
Varying- the Concentration of Zinc in
the Nutrient Solution.
Tinner left - omitted, unper right 1/2X ontimum, center - optimum, lower
left - 2X ontimum, lower right - Ipt
ontimum.
The various bands on each
chart (from the edge toward center)
represent excess, anproaching excess,
ontimum, h i d d e n deficiency and
deficiency.

To a c c o m p a n y Page 31

Figure 17

32

Phosphorus,

copper, bo ron and m a g n e s i u m were above

optimum w h e n zinc was applied at the rate or I4X optimum
concentration,

but a decrease occurred for calcium, m a n ­

ganese, and iron w h e n compared to 2X concentration*

Potas­

sium did not change appreciably when the concen tr at io n of
the n utrient sol u ti on was increased f r o m 2X to ipt optimum.
Inc re as in g the zinc co nc en tr at io n in the nutrients olution res ul t ed in larger total deviations from optimum
balance than d e c r e as in g zinc.

’.ilhen none of the element was

added, negative deviations exceeded positive deviations, but
were not intense.

The 1/2X optimum concentration resulted

in positive deviations from optimum balance exceeding the
negative deviations.

As the concentration of zinc in the

nutrient s olution was increased 2X and J+X optimum,
positive deviations
Conner;

the net

increased.

The influence of varying the concentration of

copper in the nutrient so lu ti on is shown in Table 27* Figure
18.

W h e n the copper concentration was reduced to 1/2X o p­

timum, nitrogen,

iron, phosphorus, manganese, as well as

copper, remained near the opt im um level range, but potassium
decreased.
h i g h levels.

Boron, calcium, and m a g n e s i u m were at relatively
As coop e r was omitted f r om the nutrie nt - so lu ­

tion nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, manganese, and m a g n es i um
were reduced, while calcium increased as compared to 1/2X
optimum.
W h e n cooper was increased to the 2X ootimum concentra­
tion, all of the nutrient-elements were about the same

Table 27*

Leaf Composition and Nutrient-Element Balance as Influenced by
Varying Concentrations of Copper in the Nutrient Solution

Leaf Composition

Copper
concentration

N

P ■

Omitted

% Dry

2.93 0.11
68
89

1/2 optimum

i Dry weight

3.55

weight
Chart index

Chart index
Optimum

t Dry

weight
Chart index

K

0.87 2.02
161
71

0.16 0.87
100
71

106

3.26 0.16
100
100

Ca

1.22 1.25 0.62
100
100
100

3.63
111

0.13
81

0.79 1.67
6*1- 133

IpC optimum

^ Dry weight
Chart index

3.61
116

0.13
61

0.62
67

0.013 0.0005 0.009 0.012
100
100
92
225
0.013 0.0005
100
100

0.87 0.014
lij.0
107

1.25 0.51* 0,008
100
61
87

O.OOi*

100

0.013
100

0.010
250

0.014
107

0.0008 0.00P
160
225

0.010
76

0.0009
180

Deviation of Chart Index from Optimum Balance
Positive
Negative
Difference
Total
111
37
0
55
126

+ 69
+ 173
0
+ 273
+ 73

291
2^7
0
363
329

32

180
210
0
326
201

0.006
61

Page

Omitted
1/2 optimum
Optimum
2X optimum
4X optimum

0.006
150

Mn

accompany

weight
Chart index

E

Cu

To

% Dry

Fe

0.60 0.013 0.0007
100
140
129

1.58 0.94
126
151

2X optimum

Concentration

Mg

Figure IF.

Nutrient-Flement Faience in Felation to
Var?ring the Concentration of Conner in
the Nutrient Solution.
Unner left - omitted, unner right 1/2X ontimum, center - ontimum, lower
left - 2X ontimum, lower right - IpC
ontimum.
The various bands on each
chart (f rcn the edge toward center)
renresent excess, anoroaching excess,
optimum, h i d d e n deficiency and
def ic iency .

To a c c ompany Page 32

Figure 18

33

as u s i n g concentrations of 1/2X optimum,
crease

in copper.

except for an in­

Increasing the c on centration of Conner

to IpC ontimum r e s ul te d in below optimum values for iron,
manganese,
level.

and magnesium, while calcium was near the optimum

The r e m a i n i n g nutrient-elements were about the same

as found for the 2X ontimum concentration,
slight Increase

excent for a

In nitrogen.

Increasing the c on centration of Conner In the nutrients o l u ti on n r o d u c e d greater total deviations from ontimum
balance than by de cr e as in g corner.

Positive deviations ex­

ceeded negative deviations from optimum balance in all c o n ­
centrations of copper.

The greatest nositive deviations

o ccurred at 2X optimum concentration.

Corresrondingly,

the

next largest p o sitive deviations f rom optimum balance o c ­
curred at 1/2X optimum c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .

Discussion
Growth of Mo n t m o r e n c y cherry trees anpears to be signi­
fic an t ly affected by either shortages or excesses of all
the nutrient-elements more com mo nl y used as fertilizers b e ­
fore visible symotoms of shortages or excesses appear.
Nightingale (23) indicated that a r ed uction in size of
otherwise normal olant a nd fruit was brought about by v a r y ­
ing the nutrient-elements.

Nightingale believed that this

c o n d it io n was the result of bala nc ed m ultiple deficiencies*

34

Also Shear, Crane and Meyers

(25) believe that at any

level of nutritional intensity,

there exists a nutritional

balance at wh ich optimum growth for that intensity will r e ­
sult, and that at any given level of nutritional intensity,
■provided all nutrient-elements are in proper balance,

it is

possible to obtain plants that appear normal in every re­
spect,

and in which all metabolic processes are normal.

They

also state that plants m ay be grown at an apparen tl y high
level of intensity of nu trition which,

in the absence of

more vigorous or h i g h e r yielders for comparison, m a y appear
to be m a k i n g m a x i m u m growth and yield, and yet the plants
m a y be capable of greater yields

if a more favorable

balance at a lower intensity is brought about.
W h e n the amount of growth, as m easured by dry weight
increase, produced by using the various concentrations of a
n utri e nt -e le me nt are added together, nitrogen is found to
restrict growth more pr of oundly than the other nutrientelements.

Potassium, phosphorus,

mentioned,

restrict growth less than nitrogen.

elements,

and calcium,

iron, copper, and manganese,

in the order
The minor

zinc, and boron re­

strict growth less than nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
calcium.
growth.

or

M a g n e s i u m appears to have the least effect on
This w o u ld indicate that a listing of nutrient-ele­

ments in order of their influence up o n growth resulting from
variations
follows:

in nutrient-solution concentration would be as
nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus,

copper, manganese,

calcium,

zinc, boron, and magnesium.

iron,

35

The characteristic annearances of deficiency and
excess symotoms, however,

would indicate that this arrange­

ment of nutrient-elements would be changed if vlsable
symntoms were present.
The results of this study show (Table 12) that the ef­
fectiveness of a given de viation from optimum concentration
depends u o o n the nutrient-element.

For example, nitrogen

r estri ct ed growth at high concentrations more than any of
the other nutrient-elements, while at the lowest concentra­
tions, pot as s iu m and phosphorus produced less growth than
the other nutrient-elements.

However,

growth was not as

p ro po r t i o n a t e l y reduced as at hig he r concentrations.
F rom these studies no one ranking,

that would a r r l y to

b ot h shortages and excesses of nutrient-elements may be
made in rega r d to their influence on growth when out of
balance in the nutrient solution.

The order of listing

given above w o ul d apply to combined effects of shortages and
excesses.

The listing,

in ascending order for growth, which

would a p p l y to the combined shortages
sium, phosphorus, nitrogen,
sium, manganese,
excesses,

boron, and zinc.

cooper,

pot as ­

iron, m a g n e ­

In regard to combined

the listing in ascending order for growth would be

as follows:
zinc,

calcium,

is as follows:

nitrogen,

boron, manganese,

iron, phosphorus,
cooper,

calcium, potassium,

and magnesium.

This would

36

indicate that or the ten nutrient-elements studied,

a

shortage of p o t a s s i u m w ould more adversely affect growth than
a shortage of any of the others, while an excess of nitro­
gen would more a d v e r s e l y affect growth than an excess of
any of the other nutrient-elements.
F o l l o w i n g T h a t c h e r ’s classification of mineral ele­
ments

(2 7 )* those nutrient-elements classified as energy

storers, n itrogen and phosphorus, h a d the greatest effect
in red uc i ng growth.

Those nutrient-elements classified as

t ra nslocation regulators, potassium,

calcium,

and magnesium,

had less effect u po n growth than the energy storing ele­
ments.

The oxid at io n- re d uc tl on regulators, which are iron,

manganese,
growth.
cesses,

zinc, and copper, h a d the least effect upon

These generalizations would anoly to shortages, ex­
and combined shortages and excesses.

At concentrations below optimum, p h o s p h o r u s , of those
nutrient-elements classified as energy storers, was more
effective than nitrogen in re duction of growth, but as con­
centrations were increased above optimum, nitrogen reduced
growth more than phosphorus.

When the overall effect of

deviations below a n d above optimum are combined, nitrogen
was m ore effective than phosphorus.

Of those nutrient-ele­

ments classified as translocation regulators, potassium was
more effective than calcium, and calcium m or e effective than
magnesium.
In general,

Iron was m ore effective In restricting

growth than the other nutrient-elements classified as oxi­

37

d a t i o n - r e d u c t i o n regulators.
greater than manganese,
greater than zinc,
m u m where

The effect of cooper was

and the effect of manganese was

except with concentrations above opti­

the order was reversed.

A c c o r d i n g to Cooper (6), the influence on growth is
directly related to the s t a n d a r d electrode potential.

The

results of the experiment indicate that for the transloca­
tion regulators, as classified by Th atcher (27)# growth had
a p ositive re lationship to standard electrode potential.
However,

those nutrient-elements classified as oxidation-

red uc t io n regulators showed a negative relationship.

Since

the standard electrode potential for ammonia was not avail­
able,

this relationship could not

be determined for those

nut ri e nt -e le me nt s cl as sified as energy storers*
If, however,
nitrates,

all the nitrogen h a d been supplied as

there would be no appreciable difference between

n i t r o g e n and phosphorus In r elation to growth, because their
standard electrode potential Is essentially equal.

The work

of Brown (5) indicates that n itrogen h a d a greater effect
u p o n growth than the other elements.

The results of this

study indicate that ni trogen h a d a greater influence upon
growth than phosphorus at h i g h concentrations.
There is considerable evidence that nit ro g en will a f ­
fect the a b s o r p t i o n of the other elements and indirectly
Influence growth.

Several factors would br ing about this

v a r i a t i o n in growth.

Such variations m a y depend u p o n the

f or m in which the element would be oresent in the substrate
w i t h i n the nlant.

Also growth variations would result from

cationic or anionic unbalances after the elements have been
a b s o r b e d and tr anslocated to various parts of the plant.
Con ti nu ed applications of nitrogen increased the nitrogen
a cc u m u l a t i o n in the leaves, acco r di ng to Shear,

Crane, and

I’yers (26), and a functional unbalance exists between
n i t r og en and some other element.
If a nu tr itional unbalance
excesses of an element,

is created by shortages or

this unbalance will affect growth

as the specific relationships of these various elements are
disrupted.

The effects of n itrogen u po n phosphorus, p ho s­

phorus u p o n nitrogen, cal ci u m upon magnesium, po tassium uoon
copper,

etc. are examples.

element relationships,

W ith these various nutrient-

the intensity and balance of the

nutrients would be af fected w i t h i n the plant.

A n y variation

f r o m opti mu m balance would b r in g about changes that would
a lter the metabolic and Physiological processes with in the
plant•
Leaf analysis, however,

In m a n y instances failed to

correlate with n u tr ie nt -s ol ut i on concentration.
lysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,

Leaf a na ­

calcium, magnesium,

and manganese showed a good relationship to the concentra­
tion of these nutrient-e le me nt s in the nutrient-solutioni
w hile the leaf analysis f or iron, boron, and copper failed
to s how a n y direct relationship to the concentration in the
nutrient solution.

App ar en tl y the distortion of the bal-

J&j

39

ance of nutrient-elements within the leaves had a greater
influence uron the absorption of iron, Conner, and boron
than the concentration in the nutrient solution,

Nutrient-

element balance in the leaves was also seriously altered
with various concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, potas­
sium, calcium, magnesium, and manganese, tut here the absorotion of one of these nutrient-elements apparently is in­
fluenced more by concentration in the nutrient-solution than
by the distortion of nutrient-element balance,
N ut rient-element balance was disturbed more at the
1/2X optimum than w he n nitrogen, phosphorus,
ganese,

or boron was omitted.

calcium, m a n ­

This would indicate that for

these nutr ie nt elements nutrient-element balance w o u ld be
easily d i s tu rb e d by a shortage of a nutrient-element,

but

w h e n the shortage becomes more acute, the distrubance in
nutrient-e le me nt balance is reduced because of the lack of
sufficient quantities of the nu tr ient-element to seriously
influence the a b s o r p t i o n of the other nutrient-elements.
F o r the other nutrient-elements
corner,

(potassium, magnesium,

iron,

zinc) there would appear to be a direct relation­

ship between the shortage of the nutrient-element and its
disturbance of nutrient-element balance.
C o n v ersely ,

n u trie n t-elem en t

b a la n c e was d i s t u r b e d

m o r e a t 2X o p t i m u m t h a n a t ijX o p t i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
p o ta ssiu m ,
siu m ,

and c o p p e r .

and c o p p e r ,

the

A p p a ren tly w ith e x c e s s e s
d istru b a n ce

o f b a la n ce

is

for

of p otas­
more n e a r l y

ko
a s s o c i a t e d with n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t i nt er -r elationships than
w i t h a n excess or the n ut rient-element.

The disturbance or

n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t balance by excesses or nitrogen, phosphorus,
calcium, m a g n es iu m, manganese,

iron,

boron, a nd zinc wo uld

a p p e a r to be m o r e de pe nd en t u o o n the excess quan ti ty or the
n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t than u p o n n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t i n t e r- re l a­
tionships.
M a n y w o r k e r s h a v e r eported c e r t a i n relationships b e­
t w ee n nu t r i e n t - e l e m e n t s .

K e n w o r t h y and Gi ll ig an (19) showed

a posi ti ve r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we en lear n i t r o g e n and lear p h o s ­
phorus, w h e n p h o s p h o r u s was low.

However,

Boynton and

C o m o t o n (ij.) r ound a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between nitrogen
a n d ph o sp horus,

but this relatio ns h ip existed at h i g h e r

levels or phospho ru s .

As indi ca te d by the data in Table 18,

the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n n i t r og e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n a nd p h o s ­
p h o r u s a b s o r p t i o n is pos it iv e w h e n the n i t r o g e n c o n c e n t r a ­
t i on is b e l o w optimum,

and negative w h e n n i t r o g e n c o n c e nt ra ­

tions were above optimum.
Similarly,

Shear, Crane a nd M y er s

(26) have r eported

that a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p exists b e t w e e n p o t a s s i u m and
m a n g a n e s e w h e n m a n g a n e s e is above 200 ppm.

K e n w o r t h y (18)

h a s r o u n d a posi ti ve relati on sh ip b e t w e e n p o t a s s i u m and
m a n g a n e s e w h e n m a n g a n e s e was b elow 200 ppm.

The data in

T a bl e 23 s h o w this r el a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m a n g a ne se and
p o t a s s i u m is p o s i t i v e w h e n the m a n g a n e s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n is
b e l o w optimum, a n d negative w h e n m a n g a n e s e c o n c e nt ra ti on is
above optimum.

kl
Several workers h a v e reported many such.relationships
b e t w e e n nutrient-elements.

For the most part, these re ­

lationships h av e be e n reported to be either positive or
negative, but not of such a nature as indicated above,
is, w here the type of relationship changes

that

in regard to

shortages and excesses of a nutrient-element#
As indicated by the data of this study, the r elation­
ships b e t w ee n nu trient-element a b s o rp ti on and concentration
m a y be different for concentrations bel o w optimum than for
concentrations above optimum#

In this respect,

there are

p ot en ti al ly nine different types of relationships which m a y
occur.

These nine types of relationships m a y be outlined

as f o l l o w s :
1*

A po sitive c or re la ti on b e t we en nutrient-element
a bs or pt io n and nutrient-element concentration
w h e n the c on ce nt ra ti o n is either below or above
optimum.

2.

A negative co rr el at io n betw ee n nutrient-element
a bs o r p t i o n and nutrient-element concentration
w h e n the co n ce nt ra ti on is either below or above
optimum#

3*

A positive co rr el at io n between nutrient-element
a b s o rp ti on and n ut rient-element concentration
w h en the c on ce nt r at io n is b e l ow optimum, and a
negative correl a ti on b etween nutrient element

a b­

s orption a n d nutrient-element concentration w h e n
the co nc entration is above optimum.

A negative correlation between nutrient-element
absorption and nutrient-element concentration
w hen the concentration is below optimum, and a
positive correlation between nutrient-element a b ­
sorption and nutrient-element concentration when
the concentration is above optimum.
No correlation between nutrient-element absorp­
tion and nutrient-element concentration when the
concentration is below optimum, and a negative
correlation between nutrient-element absorption
and nutrient-element concentration w hen the con­
centration is above optimum.
No correlation between nutrient-element absorption
and nutrient-element concentration w h e n the con­
centration is below optimum,

and a positive cor­

relation between nutrient-element absorption and
nutrient-element concentration when the concentra­
tion is above optimum.
Positive correlation between nutrient-element a b ­
sorption and nutrient-element concentration when
the concentration is below optimum, and no correla­
tion between nutrient-element absorption and
nutrient-element concentration when the concentra­
tion is above optimum.
Negative correlation between nutrient-element a b ­
sorption and nutrient-element concentration when

k3

the concentration is below optimum,

and no corre­

lation between nutrient-element absorption and
nutrient-element concentration when the concentra­
tion is above ortimum.
9.

No correlation between nutrient-element absorption
and nutrient-element concentration when the concen­
tration is either below or above optimum.

The general trends of the relationships between the c o n ­
centration of a given nutrient-element and the absorption of
other nutrient-elements are shown in Tables 18 to 27* inclu­
sive.

These relationships m a y be classified in regard to

the above types as presented in Table 28.
The relationshin between the a bs o rption of a nutrientelement and the concentration of nutrient-elements,
cases, appears
ment.

in many

to be a characteristic of the nutrient-ele-

Nitrogen absorption does not appear to be influenced

by the concentration of other nutrient-elements,
high corner.

Phosohorus, potassium,

excepting

iron, and manganese,

in

general, fall in Class 3, indicating that the absorption of
these nutrient-elements is decreased when the concentration
of any one of the other nutrient-elements is either above
or below optimum.

Conner and boron appear to be in Class l\.t

indicating that the absorption of these nutrient-elements
is increased w h e n the concentration of any one of the other
nutrient-elements is either below or above optimum.

Calcium

To accompany Page 1+3

Table 28.

Nutrient
element varied
in the- solution

Relative Tyne of Relationship:- Between
Various Concentrations of a NutrientElenent and Nutrient-Blement Absorption
as Measured by Leaf Analysis.

___
N

f

Nitrogen

1

3

2

ip

8

3

Phosohorus

9

1

3

l

1

3

Potassium

9

3

1

5

k

3

Calcium

9

7

3

l

9

Magnesium

9

3

3

3

Iron

9

3

3

Conner

9

3

Boron

9

Manganese
Zinc

# See Page 1+1

Nutrient-Element Absorbed _____
~K ' Ca
Kg
fte
Cu
£
Mn
of Relationship#
ip

2

1+

1

U

ip

7

3

ip

ip

3

1

3

ip

ip

3

6

1

3

ip

ip

3

3

ip

ip

5

ip

ip

3

3

S

2

3

3

ip

ip

3

9

3

3

9

1

3

ip

ip

1

9

9

3

ip

ip

3

1

ip

3

li-

UU

and m agnesiu m do n o t T i t
the
sh io

a b so rp tio n
to

of

these

an y one c l a s s ,

w h ich

in d ica tes

th at

n u trien t-elem en ts has a r e la tio n -

co n cen tra tio n o f

o t h e r n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t s w hich i s

d e o en d en t unon t h e n u t r i e n t - e l e m e n t whose c o n c e n t r a t i o n

is

being- v a r i e d .

Summary
O n e - y e a r - o l d M ontm orency c h e r r y
n u tr ie n t-so lu tio n s,
trie n t-e lem en ts.

u sin g f iv e

trees

d iffer en t

G r o w th w a s m e a s u r e d i n

were

le v e ls

^rown i n
of

t e n nu­

term s o f dry w e ig h t

in crea se.

L e a f c o m n o s i t i o n was d e t e r m i n e d f o r n i t r o g e n ,

■ potassium ,

c a l c i u m , m agnesiu m ,

iro n ,

b oron , m anganese,

and

corner.
Maximum g r o w t h
when a l l

of

the

Any d e v i a t i o n s ,
ance r e s u lt e d

o f M ontm orency c h e r r y

n u trie n t-ele m e n ts
as a sh ortage

the annearance

o f v isa b le

was o b t a i n e d

w e r e a t optim um b a l a n c e .

or e x c e s s ,

in a s ig n ific a n t

trees

r e d u ctio n

f r o m optim um b a l ­
in

grow th w it h o u t

sym ptom s o f a d e f i c i e n c y

or

to x ic ity .
R ed u cin g th e

co n cen tra tio n s

r e d u c e d g ro w th m ore

than th e

e le m e n ts o ro d u c e d grow th i n
nhosnhorus,
m anganese,

n itr o g en ,
boron,

In cr ea sin g
reduced

b e lo w ootim u m , p o t a s s i u m

o th e r elem en ts*
the fo llo w in g

ca lciu m ,

cooper,

The r e m a i n i n g

in c r e a sin g order:

i r o n , m agnesiu m ,

and z i n c .

the

c o n ce n tra tio n s

g r o w th more t h a n t h e

a b o v e optim um , n i t r o g e n

oth er elem en ts.

The r e m a i n -

45

ing elements produced growth in the following increasing
order:

iron, p h o s p h o r u s , calcium, potassium,

manganese,

zinc, boron,

copper, and magnesium.

Combining the growth produced at all concentrations
(below and above optimum), varying the concentration of ni tro­
gen reduced growth more than the other elements.

The re­

m aining elements produced growth in the following increas­
ing order:
manganese,

potassium, phosphorus, calcium,

iron, copper,

zinc,, boron, and magnesium.

In regard to their influence on growth,

the various

nutrient-elements group themselves according to Physiologi­
cal function.

The energy storing elements, nitrogen, and

phosphorus, had the greatest influence on growth.
location regulators, potassium,

The trans-

calcium, and magnesium, had

less effect uo o n growth than the energy stor in g elements.
The oxidation-reduction regulators,

Iron, manganese,

zinc,

and Conner, had the least effect upon growth.
At concentrations below optimum, p h o s p h o r u s , of those
elements calssified as energy storers, was more effective
than nitrogen In reduction of growth, but as concentrations
were Increased above optimum, nitrogen reduced growth more
than phosphorus.
Of those elements classified as translocation regula­
tors, po tassium was more effective than calcium, and
calcium was more effective than magnesium.

ke

Iron was more effective in restricting growth than
the other nutrient-elements classified as oxidation-reduc­
tion regulators.

The effect of copper was greater than

manganese; manganese was greater than zinc when the concentra­
tion was below optimum.

Above optimum,

the order was re­

versed for copper, manganese, and zinc.
Leaf analyses for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
calcium, magnesium,

and manganese showed a positive rela­

tionship to the concentration of these nutrient-elements
In the nutrient-solution.
W ith concentrations below optimum,

there was a direc.t

relationship between the shortage of a given nutrient-ele­
ment and the disturbance of nutrient-element balance for
potassium, magnesium,

iron, copper, and zinc.

Nutrient-element balance was disturbed more at 1/2X
optimum for nitrogen, phosphorus,

calcium, manganese, and

boron than wh e n omitted.
Excesses of nitrogen, Phosphorus, calcium, magnesium,
manganese,

iron, boron, and zinc disturb nutrient-element

balance in propor ti o n to the excess quantities.

Nutrient-

element balance is disturbed more at 2X optimum than at JpC
optimum concentration of potassium, and copper.

U7

Literature Cited

(1)

Bather, L. P., and Degman, E. S. Effects of Various
amounts of Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorus on
Growth and Assimilation in Young Annie Trees. Jour.
Agr. ^ a . 60 (2): 101-116.
19U0.

(2)

Beeson, Kenneth C. The Effect of Mineral Sunnly on
the Mineral Concentration and Nutritional Cualitv of
Plants.
Eot. Rev. 12 (7): I42I4-I499 . 19U6.

(3)

Boynton, D., and ^urrell, A. P. Fotassium-induced
v agnesium Deficiency in the T'clntosh Annie Tree.
Soil Sci. 98 (6): i4lj.l-lj.9i4-. I9 I4-I+*

(I4.)

Boynton, D., and Compton, 0. C. The Influence of
Differential Fertilization with Ammonium- Sulfate on the
Chemical Composition of McIntosh Apple Leaves. Proc.
Amer. S oc. Port. Sci. ij.9: 9-17I9I4I4 .

( 9)

Brown, D. S.

The Growth and Composition of the Tops

of Peach Trees in Sand Culture in helation to Nutrientelement Balance. W. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Eul. 322. 19149*
(6)

Cain, John C.
Some Inter-relationships Between Calcium,
Magnesium, and Potassium in One-year-old McIntosh Apple
Trees Grown in Sand Culture.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Fort.
Sci. 91: 1-12.
I9 Z46.

(7) . C h a p m a n , H. TD. , a n d L i e b i g ,

G e o r g e P., J r .
N i t r a t e C o n c e n t r a t i o n and I o n E a la n c e i n R e l a t i o n
C itru s N u tr itio n .
F i l g a r d i a 13: llf.1-173* 19140.

to

(8)

C o o p e r , F . P . , E f f e c t s o f E n e r g y P r o p e r t i e s o f Some
P l a n t N u t r i e n t s on A v a i l a b i l i t y , o n P a t e o f A b s o r p t i o n ,
and on I n t e n s i t y o f C e r t a i n O x i d a t i o n - r e d u c t i o n
R ea ctio n s.
S o i l S c i . 69: 7-39.
1990.

(9)

Cullinan, F. P., and Batjer, L. P. Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
and Potassium Inter-relationships in Young Peach and
Apple Trees.
Soil Sci. 99: 14-9-60. 19U3*

(10)

Cullinan, F. P., Scoot, D. PT., and Waugh, J. G. The
Effects of Varying Amounts of Nitrogen, Fotassium, and
Phosphorus on the Growth of Young Peach Trees. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Fort. Sci. 36: 61-68.
1939.

48

(11)

Davidson,
C. W., and Elake, M. A. Nutrient Deficiency
and Nutrient balance with the Peach.
Proc. Amer. Soc*
Fort. Sci. 35: 339-346.
1937.

(12)

Edgerton,
L. J. The Effect of Varying Amounts of
Potassium on the Growth and Potassium Accumulation of
Young Apple Trees.
Plant Fhys. 23: 112-122.
1948.

(13)

Evans, C. Z., Lathwell, D. J., and Mederski, E. J.
Effect of Deficient or Toxic Levels of Nutrients in
Solution on Foliar Symptoms and Mineral Content of Soy­
bean Leaves as Measured by Soectrographic Methods.
Agronomy Jour. 42: 25-32.
1950.

(14)

Goodall, D. V., and Gregory, F. G. Chemical Comoosition of Plants as an Index to Their Nutritional
Status.
Imn. Eur. Fort, and Flant Crons. Tech. Comm.
No. 17.
1947.

(15)

Kenworthy, A. L.
A Nutrient-element Balance Chart.
M ich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bui. 33 (1): 17-19.
1949.

(16)

Kenworthy, A. L.
Wheels of Nutrition:
A. Method of
Demonstrating Nutrient-element Balance.
Froc. Amer.
Soc. Fort. Sci. 54: 47-52.
1949.

(17)

K e n w o r t h y , A. L .
L e a v e s from F r u i t

55: 41-46.

N u tr ie n t-e le m e n t C o m o o sitio n o f
T rees.
Proc. A m e r . S o c . I l o r t . S c i .

1950.

(18)

K e n w o r t h y , A. L. a n d B e n n e , E. J.
F e r t i l i z e r s uron L eaf C o m p o sitio n .
Mich. S t a t e A g r . E x p . S t a .
1950.

The I n f l u e n c e o f
U n p u b lish ed D a ta .

(19)

Kenworthy, A. L., and Gilligan, G. K.
Inter-relationshio between the Nutrient Content of Soil, leaves, and
Trunk Circumference of Peach Trees.
Proc. Amer.
S o c . F o r t . S c i . 51: 209-215*
1948.

(20)

K e n w o r t h y , A. L. a n d H o w a r d , J. N.
P u r ifica tio n of
W ater by u s e o f S y n t h e t i c io n - e x c h a n g e R e s i n s , U s in g
pH as a C o n tro l.
S o i l S c i . 57: 293-297*
1944*

(21)

Liebig, George F . , Jr., and Vanselow, Albert P., and
Chapman, F. D. Resins for the Growing of Plants In
Controlled Nutrient Cultures.
Soil Sci. 55: 371-376.
1943*

h9

(22)

Lilleland, G., and Brown, J. C.
The Fhosphate Nu­
trition of Fruit Trees.
IV.
The Fhosnhate Content of
Feach Leaves from 130 Orchards in California and Some
Factors which may Influence It. Proc. Amer. Soc. Fort.
Sci. JLj.1r 1-10.
19U2 .

(23)

Nightingale, G. P. Fotassium and Fhosnhate Nutrition
of Fineannle in helation to Nitrate and Carbohydrate
reserves.
Hot. Gaz. lOlj (2): 191-223*
19l|2*

(2 I4.)

Reeve, P. and Shive, John N. Fotassium-boron and
Calcium-boron Pelationshins in Plant Nutrition.
Soil
Sci. 97: 1-lU* 19U4*

(29)

S h e a r , C. F.,
C r a n e , F. L., a n d wy e r s , A. T.
N u trien telem en t B alan ce:
A F undam ental C oncent in P la n t
N u tritio n .
I r o c . Amer. S o c . ^ o r t . S c i . £;7: 239-21+8.

19U6.
(26)

Shear, C. F.,
Crane, F. L. , and *'yers, A. T. Nutrientelement Falance: Amplication of the Concept to the
Internretation of Foliar Analysis.
Proc. Amer. Soc.
u ort. Sci. 91: 319-326.
19^8*

(27)

Thatcher, R. V/. A Proposed Classification of the
Chemical Elements with Respect to their Function in
Plant Nutrition.
Science 79: 1+63-1^66* 1931+*

(28)

Valtman, C. S. The Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
on the Growth of Apple and Feach Trees in Sand Culture.
Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 1+10. I9 I4O.

(29)

V i l l c o x , 0 . V/.
Y ield -d e p r essio n E ffe c t of F e r t iliz e r s
and i t s M easurem en t I I I A g r o - r B io lo g ic a l A n a l y s i s o f
C e r t a i n M u l t i p l e F a c t o r F i e l d T e s t s S h ow in g D e p r e s s i o n
by N i t r o g e n .
J o u r . A m e r . S o c . A g r o n . 37 (8): 622-

6314 •

19l| 9•

APPENDIX

Table 1*

Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, trunk, hoots, Entire tree, and Increase in
Dry /eight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Nitrogen in NutrientSolut ions*— grams

Nitrogen
free
concentration number
ppm
0
43
85
169
Total
Average —
112.0

221*.0

1*8.0

696.O

Leaves

When Harvested
Shodts
Roots
frunk

Tree

When
planted

Net
increase

94
11.0
7.8
28.2
94

It.3
54
5.8
15.6
5.2

10.7
13.0
134
37.1
12.3

28.0
52.1*
61.8
91.3
4.3
71.3
131*.1 215.0
•1*4.7 71.6

26.k
a* .8
3k-9
106.1
35-3

26.0
1*6*5
36.1*
108.9
36.3

hk
86
128
Total
Average —

16.1
13.6
17.3
47-0
15.6

10.8
8.0
10.1
28.9
9.6

16.6
17.5
20.3
51*4
18.1

95.2
51.7
82.5
1*34
109.0
61.3
156.1* 286.7
52.1
95.5

kk-7
37.1
51)..5
136.3

50.5
1*54
53.5
49 4
1*9.8

3
87
129
Total
—
Average —

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
ll*.l
16.8
1*9.5
16.5

17.8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

51*.6
1*7.2
80.3
I82.I
60.7

112.1
100.7
45.9
358.7
119.5

1)0.6
1)2.7
62.3
11)5.6
1)8.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

Total
Average—

16.8
10.9
19.9
47 *6
15.8

7.3
5.3
12.0
21*.6
8.2

19.8
16.8
16.9
53.5
17.8

1*1.6 85*5
1*5.6 78.6
39.1
87.9
126.3 252.0
1*2.1 81*.0

1)8.9
63.8
32.0
11)1j..7
1)8.2

36.6
li*.8
55-9
107.3
35*7

L7
69
131
Total
Average—

12.9
12.8
4.7
1*04
134

6.5
7.8
17.6
31.9
10.6

12.1
15.7
17.1
4.9
4.9

1*3.2 74*7
75.0
38.7
32.1* 81.8
14.3 231.5
38.1
77.2

1)7.2
1)7.1
1)6.1)
11)0.7
1)6.9

27.5
27.9
354
90.8
30.3

88
130
172

* All other nutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

k$-k-

Table 2.

Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Entire Tree, and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Potassium in NutrientSolution#— grams

Phosphorus
Tree
concentration number
Dom
0
1*8

90
m

Total
—
Average —

3 M

91
133
175
Total
Average —

66.0

3
87

129
Total
Average -136.0

7.3
13.5
12.3
33.1
11.0

2.3
7.0
6.3
15.6
5.2

B.i
ie.6

13.7
16.2
15.7
h5*6
15.2

6.9
.9.2
7.6
23.7
7.9

17.6
22.6
19.8
60.0

21.1
21.1
22.6
65.0
21.6

18.6

17.8
18.3

£0

9.8

92

23.0

176
Total
Average —
272.0

Leaves

When Harvested
Shoots
Trunk Roots

9
51

177
Total
—
Average —

16.8
49.6
16.5
18.3
22.0

H.l
16.8
49.5
16.5
5.0
12.8
8.9
26.7
8.9
12.5
11.5

16.8

20.0

hi.o
23.3
95.0 94.1
39.1* 70.0
117.7 209.1
68.3
39.2
93.6 91.8
1*7-3 99.3
1*5-3 88.4
11*6.2 275-5
1*8.7 91.8

20.3
130.5

88.1

44.6

h3.5

96.5
50.7 103.7
34-4 61.7
133.1 261.9
...44*3 67.3

37.4
47.7
36.1
123.2

59.1
56.0

63.8

9.4

125.1

h3-5
h6.7
43*7
133.9

36-7

16.6

1504

i|9.7

71.5
58.0
63.6
213.1
71.0

12.3

28.3

hh«h

35.5
h5.6
hh.o

56.3

ho. 6
h2.7
62.3
lh5.6
h8.5

145.9
358.7
119.5

11*-4
1*8.3
16.1

38.6

120.8
i|,0.2

15.9
37.0
31.h
eh .3
28.1

hi.7

26.0
62.1
20.7
21.6

25.1
57.1

Set
increase

50.1

91*.6
1*7-2
80.3
ie2.1
60.7

17.7
19.5
12.7
1*9.9

10.3
50.6

12.0
38.7
12.9

Tree

When
danted

112.1
100.7

58.9 116.3
1*4.2 84-3
139.8 264.4
46.6
48.0

* Ail other nuirient-elemenfcs constant fn nutrient solution

41.0

69*6

ho.6

23.6

138.7
h6.2

Table 3*

Dry height of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Entire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Potassium in NutrientSolutiona— grams

Fotassium
concentration
npm

0

Tree
number

94
136
178
Total
Average

43*0

53
95
137
Total
Average

86.0

3
87
129
Total
Average

172.0

12

%

138
Total
Average

344*0

13
97
l8l

Leaves

When Harvested
Roots
Shoots
Trunk

Tree

When
planted

Net
increase

12.5
9*9
9*5
31*9
10.6

7*0
6.7
4.0
17*7
5*9

16.5
15.0
15*2
46*7
15*5

31.6
54-4
30.9
116.9
38.9

67*6
86.0
59*6
213*2
71.0

38.3
60.7
36.1
135.1
45.0

29.3
25.3
23.5
78.1
26.0

12.1
15*3
15*2
42.6
14*2

5*6
9*3
8.1
23.0
7*6

11.8
16.5
21.2
49.5
16.5

76.0
46.5
36.8
77*9
51.0 95*5
134*3 249.4
83.1
44*7

45.5
39.8
534
138.7
U6.2

30.5
38.1
42.1
110.7
36.9

21.1
21.1
22.8
65*0
21.6

18.6
14*1
16.8
49*5
16.5

17*8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54*6 112.1
47*2 100.7
80.3 145*9
182.1 358.7
60.7 119*5

1*0.6
1*2-7
62.3
11*5.6
1*8.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

15*1
15*0
23.6
53*7
17*9

7*7
7*9
15*1
30.7
10.2

13*1
16.6
25*5
55*2
18.4

Ul.2 77*1
58.5 98.0
51*5 115*7
151*2 290.8
50.4 96.9

1|2.1
1*9.5
1*7.6
139.2
1*6.1*

35.0
1*8.5
66.1
151.6
50.5

11.6
19*0
12 •0
42.6
14*2

4*8
10.7
6.7
22.2
7.4

10.7
22.7
10.8
44.2
14*7

38.0
53*9
42.2
134*1
44-7

31*.7
53.8
35.1
123.6
1*1.2

30.1*
52.5
36.6
119.5
39.6

65.1
106.3
71.7
2k3.1
81.0

Total
Average
* n r other nutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

Table 4*

Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Entire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Calcium in NutrientSolution#— grains

Tree
Calcium
Concentration number
nom
0
56
98
182
Total
Average
88,0

57
99
183

176.0

3
87
129
Total
Average

352.0

16
58
184
Total
Average

701^.0

17
101
185
Total
Average

Tree

.i/hen
olanted

Net
increase

66.6
48.3
42.6
77.1
71.2
33.3
124.4 237.1
79.e
41.4

47.7
43.0
33.0
123.7
41.2

41.1
34.1
36.2
H3*4
37.8

147.7
49.2

99.6
70.9
92.8
263.3
87.7

43.0
46.8
42.5
134.3
44.7

56.6
22.1
50.3
129.0
43.0

17.8
18;3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54*6
47.2
60.3
162.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
145.9
358.7
119.5

40.6
42.7
62.3
145.6
48.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

9.6
7.9
9.4
26.9
8.9

11.3
14.5
12.6
38.k
12.8

48.0
83.O
Pi.7
43.7
37.8
74.6
129.5 239.3
79.7
43.1

34.7
33.6
32.3
100.6
33.5

48.3
48,1
42.3
138.7
46.2

9.6
10.3
5.2
25.1
8.3

14.2
14.4
11.3
39.9
13.3

57.3 97.4
46.2
89.3
56.6
26.9
134.4 2k3.3
44.5
81.O

44-5
41.6
28.1
114.4
3?.l

52.9
47.5
28.5
128.9
42.9

17.9
12.6
15.2
45.7
15.2

7.5
5.5
9.0
22.0
7.3

15.1
16.2
13.7
45.0
15.0

19.0
7-3
l?.l
43.4
14.4

10.6
4.8
9.2
24.6
5.2

16.5
16.5
11'..6
47.6
15.8

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
14'.1
16.8
49.5
16.5

14.1
15.6
14.8
44*5
14.8
16.3
16.4
11.2
43.9
14.6

53.5
42.3

*A11 othernutrient-elements constant In nutrient solution

AFFENDIX

Total
Average

Leaves

When Harvested
Shoots
Trunk
E00 ■Es

Table

Dry height of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Hoots, Entire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Magnesium in Nutrient
Solution*— grams

Tree
Magnesium
concentration number
pnm
0
18
60
186
Total
Average —

Leaves

When Harvested
Trunk
Shoots
Hoots

Tree

When
planted

Wet
Increase

16.0
16.2
13.2
US.4
15.1

8.3
10.8
5.8
2k.9
8.3

13.6
14.9
14.0
42.1
14.0

73.6
35.7
64.4 105.9
48.5
61.5
146.6 261.0
87.O
49.5

32.3
43.9
34.6
110.8
36.9

41.3
62.0
46.9
150.2
50.0

29.0

103
1W
187
Total
—
Average —

10.8
16.2
13.9
42-9
14.3

7-2
16.1}
7*1
30.7
10.2

10.8
24.4
13-7
46.9
16.3

47.1
95.8
43.6
146.7
46.9

75.9
114.6
78.5
269.2
89-7

41.2
49.0
39.8
130.0
43.3

34-7
65.8
38.7
139.2
46.4

se.o

3
87
129
Total
—
Average —

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
14.1
16.8
49.5
16.5

17.8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54-6
47.2
80.3
182.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
145.9
358.7
119.5

40.6
42.7
62.3
145.6
48.5

71.5
58.0
63.6
213.1
71.0

116.0

20
62
11*6
Total
—
Average —

23.5
21.2
23.5
68.2
22.7

15.1
16.5
15.8
47.4
15.6

17.3
16.6
24.6
58.5
19.5

53.4
49.6
72.0
175.0
58.3

109.3
103.9
135.9
349.1
116.3

27.1
37.4
60.4
124-9
41.6

82.2
66.5
75.5
224.2
74-7

232.0

21
63
147
Total
Average —

16.7
17.1
1?.8
49.6
16.5

10.1
11.1
8.6
29.8
9.9

13.3
19.0
22.6
54.9
18.3

54-3 94-4
51.5 98.7
64.0 111.0
169.8 304.1
56.6 101.3

41.2
40.6
57.3
139.3
46.4

53.2
57.9
53.7
164.8
54.9

*All othernutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

Table 6. Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Kntire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Manganese in NutrientSolution*— grams
Manganese
concentration
ppm

Tree
number

0
46
190
Total
Average

2.5

3
e?
129
Total
Average

10.0

—

2l|
150
192
Total
Average

20.0

—

—

109
151
193
Total
Average

—

Tree

107.2
109.9
93.2
310.3
1034

20.3
16.2
19.3
55.8
16.6

11.9
10.7
11.6
3h-2
114

18.6
174
19.3
55.3
184

56.1)
65.6
1)3.0
165.0
55.0

10.6
19.2
ll.il
hi.2
13.7

7.6
10.3
84
26.3
8.7

4 4
21.2
17-3
52.9
17.6

21.1
21.1
22.6
65.0
21.6

18.6
lil.l
16.8
49.5
16.5

4-7
15.8
4.8
h5.3
15.1

10.7
9.6
7.7
28.0
9.3

19.7
194
13.1
52.2
17-4

44
9.7
7.6
31.7
io,5_

When
planted

Met
increase

i|0.i|
57.7
35.2
133.3
144

66.8
52.2
58.0
177.0
59.0

65.0
324
52.7 1034
1)2.7 79.6
127.8 2L8.2
1)2.6 82.7

31.2
£2 .6
39.8
113.6
374

33.8
60.8
1)0.0
13l).6
i4.8

17.8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

51).6
1)7.2
80.3
182.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
45.9
358.7
119.5

1)0.6
1)2.7
62.3
11)5.6
1)8.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

174
11).3
17.5
1)9.2
164

52.3 95.1
59.5 99.2
37.6
77.6
11)94 271.9
1)9.8 90.6

1)5.2
1)7-8
37.8
130.8
1)3.6

1)9.9
514
39.6
11)1.1
1)7-0

13.6
21.9
16.0
51-5
17.1

674 115.1
59.2 110.2
88.h
51.7
178.3 313.7
594 10li.5

l)e.l)
59.7
1)6.5
151).6
51.5

66.7
50.5
£1.9
159.1
53.0

APPENDIX

23
65
191
Total
Average

5.0

«

Leaves

When Harvested
Shoots
Trunk
Roots

Table 7. Dry Weipbt of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Lntire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Boron in hutrientSolution#--grams

Boron
Tree
concentration number
pom
0
26
68
152
Total
Average —

Leaves

li/hen harvested
Shoots
Trunk
Roots

Tree

When
planted

.

-^Tet
increase

174
16.2
22.0
5^.6
18.5

12.1*
9.7
11.9
34.0
11.3

19.4
19.9
23.1
624
20.8

57.7
65.0
68.2
190.9
63.6

106.9
110.8
125.2
342.9
114.3

46.6
52.9
59.3
158.8
52.9

60.3
57.9
65.9
184.1
61.3

16.9
4.6
16.6
1*8.1
16.0

11.3
9.3
9.2
29.6
9.9

15.5
144
19.2
49.1
16.3

95.1
51.4
54.6 92.9
82.1
37.1
143.1 270.1
90.0
47.7

35.5
43.9
41.9
121.3
40.4

59.6
49.0
40.2
148.8
49.6

Total
Average —

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

16.6
14.1
16.8
49.5
16.5

17.8
16.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54.6
47.2
80.3
182.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
145.9
358.7
119.5

40.6
42.7
62.3
145.6
48.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

6.0

112
15*1
196
Total
Average —

16.9
21*.1
11*.2
57.2
19.0

16.1
15.7
7.3
39.1
13.0

25.5
28.0
16.0
69.5
23.1

53.0 113.5
60.1 127.9
38.6
76.1
151.7 317.5
50.5 105.8

40.2
52.3
34*0
126.5
42.1

73.3
75.6
42.1
191.0
63.6

12.0

29
155
197
Total
Average —

11.1
164
12.8
40.3
134

5.7
10.9
7.1
23.7
7.9

18.2
23.6
11.2
53.0
17.6

40.7
45.2
41.4
127.3
42.4

49.5
53.7
35.3
138.5
46.1

26.2
42.4
37.2
105.8
35.2

1.5

69
153
195
Total
Average

3.0

—

3
87
129

75.7
96.1
72.5
244 .3
81.4

*All other nutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

Dry Height of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, Roots, Lntire Tree and Increase in
Dry Height as Influenced by Varying Levels of Iron in MutrientSolutions*— grains

Iron
concentration

Ppm
0

Tree
number

30
156
198
Total
Average

1 .0

73
115
199
Total
Average

2 .0

3
87
129
Total
Average

4.0

74
116
200
Total
Average

8.0

75
159
201
Total
Average

Leaves

When Harvested
Shoots
Trunk
Roots

Tree

When
planted

Net
increase

15.3
13*3
13.5
42.1
14.0

7.6
6.8
7.5
21.9
7.3

13.0
154
154
43.8
14.6

68.2
52.3
97.8
62.3
32.9
69.3
147.5 255.3
85.1
49.1

42.6
5l*.9
324
129.9
1*3-3

45.6
42.9
36.9
125-4
41.8

20.5
111-•2
13.3
46.0 .
16.0

12.1
9.1
7.6
28.8
9.6

18.1
15.3
15.6
49.0
16.3

54.4
51.4
35.3
141.1
47.0

105.1
90.0
71.6
266.9
86.9

3? 4
35.2
35.2
10?.8
36.2

66.7
54.8
36.6
158.1
52.7

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
U 4..I
16.8
49.5
16.5

17.8
16.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54*6
47.2
80.3
182.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
145.9
358.7
119.5

1*0.6
1*2.7
62.3
11*5.6
1*8.5

71.5
56.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

11.5
12.1
1911
42*7
14.2

14.3
64
11.5
24.2
6.0

14.1
11.3
20.9
46.3
154

42.0
71.9
64.2
32.4
96.6
45.1
119.5 232.7
39.8
77.5

39.1*
29.9
37.2
106.5
35-5

32.5
34.3
59.4
126.2
42.0

11.9
16.2
8.5
36.6
12.2

6.8
9.7
4-9
21.4
l-i

9.7
14.3
15.1
39.1
13.0

64.8
36.4
61.9 102.1
22.6
51.1
218.0
120.9
72.6
40.3

27.8
52.3
27.8
107.9
35-9

37.0
49.8
23.3
110.1
36.7

*Ail othernutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

xiamiciv

Table 8.

Table 9.

Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, L’runk, Roots, hntire Tree and Increase in
Dry /eight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Zinc in TJutrientSolutiontf— grams

Zinc
Tree
concentration number
ppm
0
lie
160
202
Total
Average —

Leaves

When Harvested
Shoots
Trunk
Roots

Tree

When
planted

Net
increase

12.5
14. 1
7.5
34.1
11.3

21.2
24.5
15.7
61.4
20.4

4 6 .0
43.5
48.3
135.8
45.2

9714
102.0
84*7
284.1
94.7

370
42.3
39.9
119.5
39.8

60.1
59.7
44*8
164.6
54.8

18.0
21.7
19.2
58.9
19.6

9.6
4 .2
13.2
37.0
12.3

15.7
22,2
15.2
53.1
17.7

44.6
45.5
39.3
129.4
43.1

87.9
103.6
86.9
278.4
92.8

40.4
28.9
29.1
98.4
32.8

47.5
74.7
57.8
180.0
60.0

—

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
14.1
16.8
49.5
16.5

17.8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54.6
47.2
80.3
182.1
60.7

112.1
100.7
145.9
358.7
119.5

40.6
42.7
62.3
145.6
48.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

4*0

?8
120
204
Total
Average ~

17.0
13.5
20.6
51.1
17.0

8.9
9.2
13.9
32.0
10,6

16.8
15.5
18.1
5°.4
16.8

83.6
41.1
83.5
45.3
49.4 102.0
135.8 269.3
45.2
89.7

35.4
29.1
42.6
107.1
35.7

48.4
54.4
59.4
162.2
54.0

8.0

37
163
205
Total

154
11.1
14.5
41.0
13.6

8.9
4.9
10.4
24.2
6.0

19.4
21.0
17.6
58.0
19.3

42.7
86.4
86.1
49.1
77.6
35.1
126.9 250.1
63.3
42.3

43.5
53.1
34.3
130.9
43.6

42.9
33.0
43.3
119.2
39.7

1,0

2.0

77
119
203
Total
Average —
3
87
129
Total
Average

Average

—

*All other nutrient-elements constant in nutrient solution

APPENDIX

17.7
19*9
15.2
52.6
17.6

Table 10*

Dry Weight of Leaves, Shoots, Trunk, hoots, Entire Tree and Increase in
Dry Weight as Influenced by Varying Levels of Conner in NutrientSolutiontf— Grains

Conner
concentration
oom

Tree
number

0

36
80
122
Total
Average

1.0

Total
Average

2.0

3
87
129
Total
Average

4 .0

--

--

82

8.0

9.7
2 .1
10.1
21.9
7.3

16.9
7.7
21.8
464
154

95.1
52 4
30.2
44.7
99.6
50.3
132.9 239.6
79.8
44.3

47*1
28.6
30.6
106.3
354

4 8 .0
16.1
69.2
133.3

III-.2
13.3
17.2
44-7
1^.9

7.1
6.7
9.6
234
7.8

111•6
4 4
164
454
15.1

43.6
79.5
70.1
35.7
78.2
35.0
114.3 227.8
36.1
75.9

33.5
31.3
32.2
97.0
32.3

46.0
38.8
46.0
130.8
43.6

21.1
21.1
22.8
65.0
21.6

18.6
4 .1
16.6
49.5
16.5

17.8
18.3
26.0
62.1
20.7

54.6 112.1
47.2 100.7
60.3 45.9
162.1 358.7
60.7 119.5

40.6
42.7
62.3
145.6
48.5

71.5
58.0
83.6
213.1
71.0

13.0

7.5
7.2
12.6
27.3
9.1

12.5
15.0
21.0
48.5
16.1

80.5
47.5
42.2
75.9
58.0 112.0
147.7 268.4
49.2
69.4

34.0
36.5
47.7
116.2
39.4

46.5
394
64.3
150.2
50.0

9.0
13.5
9.7
32.2
10.7

19.6
24.3
18.3
62.2
20.7

42.0
84.6
50.2 112.1
85.9
414
133.6 282.6
. 44-^ 94.2

36.8
49.2
39.7
125.7
41.9

47.8
62.9
46.2
156.9
52.3

3*

166

204
14.9
4.9

41
167
209
Total

Average

--

Net
Increase

16.1
4*7
17.6
38 4
12.8

12k
Total
Average

Tree

'/hen
nlanted

4 .0
2i[.l

16.5
54.6
18.2

♦Allotbernutrient-elements constant In nutrient solution

444

APPENDIX

39
123
207

Leaves

When Farvested
Roots
Trunk
Shoots

QBOWTF, L*AF COMPOSIT10W A HD NUTFIPWT-BLFMEWT PA LAWOK OF
MOlfTMCPEWCY CHERRY fPrunua o m i u i . L. )— Effect of
Varying Conetntratloni of fan Wutrient»Elementa

By

Boy Kenneth Simone

An Abetreet of
A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Oreduete Studlee of Michigan
State College of Agriculture end Applied Science
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Horticulture

1951
Appro v e d

GROWTH* LEAF COMPOSITION AND JttfTF11‘NT-ELEMENT BALANCE OF
MONTMORENCY CHERRY (Frunuc etrtiu»» L*)— Effect of
Varying Cone antra tIona of Ton Nutrient-Elements
By
Roy Kenneth Simona
ABSTRACT
One-year-old Montmorency cherry traaa (Prunua cerasus
L.) ware grown In aand culture for ona aaaaon to atady their
response to tan different nutrient-elementa when ona ele­
ment waa varied at a time while the remaining elemente ware
kept constant*
Stock aolutlona of chemically pure HB4 NO3 # I^FO^* KC1,
CaClg* MgSO(|» H 3 BO3 , MnSOjj.* CuSQ^* Z&SQ^i and Pe8 Q^ ware
prepared Individually for eaeh of the nutrient*elaaianta*
From theae atook aolutlona a dilute aolutlon for eaeh treat­
ment waa prepared in Which the elemente ware combined In
definite proportions*
the optimum concentration* aa determined from the

1 1 tore•

ture* was Ca follows:
Ititrogen

224

Ft**

Manganese

5*0 ppm

Phosphorus

68*0

ppm

Boron

3*0 ppai

Potass lust

66*0

ppm

Iron

2*0 ppm

Zinc

2*0 ppm

Oonper

2*0 ppm

Calcium
Magnesium

176*0 ppm
58*0

ppm

Baeh nutr lent-element waa varied individually from this
optimum concentration co aa to provide# for eedb nutrientelament* levelc corresponding to omitted* 1/2X* 2X* and
kX optimum*

Roy Kenneth Slmosis
Growth R*«iup«nenti were recorded Tor dry v«ight incr«*»t or tree parts and length of terminal grovtii*

Lear

analysis for nitrogen was determined by the KJeldahl method,
and speetrograohlc analysis was used ror the determination
or P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, E, and Mn,
The results show that maximum growth was obtained when
all the nutrlent-elements were at optimum concentration.
Any deviations, as a shortage or an excess, from optimum con­
centrat ion resulted In a significant reduction in growth
without the appearance of visible symptoms of a deficiency
or toxicity*
Reducing the concentration below optimum, potassium re­
duced growth more than did the other elements which produced
growth In the following increasing orders
Mg, Mn, B, and Zn*

F, H, Ca, Fe,

As concentrations were increased above

optimum, nitrogen reduced growth more than the other nu­
trient elements whleh produced growth in the following in­
creasing orders

Fe, P, Ca, K, Zn, B, Mn, Cu, and Mg*

The nitrogen concentration, when varied below and above
optimum, resulted in less total growth for the five levels
than the other nutrlent-elements•

The remaining elements

produced growth in the following Increasing orders

K, ?,

Ca, Fe, Cu, M b , Zn, B, and Mg*
Leaf analysis for !f, p, K, Ca, Mg, and Mn showed a
positive relationship to the concentration of these nutrlentelements in the nutrlent-solutlon*

-3-

Poy Kenneth Simons
With concentrations below optimum, there is * direct
relationship between the extent of the shortage of a given
nutrient-clement and the disturbance of nutrlent-element
balance for K, ?fgv Fe, Cu, and Zn,

However, nutrlent-

element balance was disturbed more at 1/2X optimum for If,
F , Ca, Mn, and

5,

than when these nutrlent-elements were

omitted.
Excesses of R, F, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fa, B, and Zn disturb
nutrlent-element balance in proportion to the extent of the
excess•
The manuscript Includes a discussion of the factors
Involved and the relationship between concentration of the
nutrlent-solutlon and absorption of the different nutrlentelements by the plant.

t