D IF F E R E N T IA L . C A T IO N A B S O R P T IO N A N D Y IE L D R E S P O N S E B Y V E G E T A B L E C R O P S GROW N A T V A R IO U S L E V E L S O F C A L C IU M , P O T A S S IU M , A N D SO D IU M By JO SEPH D E M PSE Y C A M PB E L L A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements * for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1953 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to e x p re s s His sincere appreciation for the support and encouragement of D r . H. B. L. Carolus, for his guidance and a c tiv e course of this investigation. Thanks Tukey, and to Dr. R. assistance throughout the a r e due Professor C. D. Ball, Dr s. G. P. Steinbauer, S. H . Wittwe r , L. M. Turk, and Kirk Law- / ton, members of the author's G uidance Committee. He is indebted to Messrs. F. M. Isenberg and S. Windham, graduate research assistants, each of whom c o -o p e ra te d in the growing of the crops and the subsequent preparation of th e samples for chemical anal­ ysis . Special thanks are due to D r. Wilma D. Brewer and Dr. E. J. Benne, of the Foods and N u tritio n and the Agricultural Chem­ istry Departments, respectively, who space and the use of their flame spectrophotom eters. The author is grateful to the Inc., for financial assistance during gations . made available laboratory A m erican Potash Institute, the course of these investi­ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3 ......................................................................... Factors Influencing Ion Absorption ................................. 3 Selective A b so rp tio n.................................................................................... 11 Interrelationships in Cation A bsorption.................................... 12 Effect of Calcium on Yield and Absorption .......................... 13 Effect of Potassium on Yield and A bsorption...................... 15 Effect of Sodium on Yield and A bsorption ............................. 18 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ...................................................................... PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS 24 ........................................................... 27 Field Experimentation................................................................................ 27 Plant Analysis ............................................................................................... 31 Statistical Interpretation of the D a ta ............................................ 34 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS......................................................................... 35 The Average Yields at All Levels of Calcium, Potassium, and S o d iu m ............................................................................. 35 The Influence of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium on the Yield of the Seventeen C r o p s ............................................ 37 iv Page Summary of Yield R e s u lts ....................................................................... ✓ 63 The Differential Accumulation of Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Sodium by Seventeen Vegetable Crops ......................... 68 The Interactive Influence of the Application of Different Quantities of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium to the Soil on the Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium Contents of the Crops ................................................. 78 The Influence of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium Application on Total Cation Removal by Some Vegetable Crops ....................................................................... 87 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 92 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ 109 LITERATURE CITED 112 APPENDIX .............................................................................................. ......................................................................... LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. n. Page Soil Fertility Values Found in and Fertilizer Materials Added to Hie Experimental P l o t s .................................................................................... 29 Yield of Seventeen Vegetable Crops Grown Under All Levels of Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Sodium .................................. 36 Tbe Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Onion Bulbs and T o p s ........................................................................................................ 39 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Cabbage H e a d s ............................................................................................................... 40 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Cauliflower H e a d s ............................................................................................................... 42 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Pea F r u i t .......................... 43 HIE. The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Lima Bean Fruit .............................................................................................................. 44 ILIA. QIB. IIIC. HID. Vi TABLE H1F. IIIG. TITH. III I. IIU. IIIK- 1IIL. IILM. Pag* The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Snap Bean Fruit .................................. . . 46 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield ofBeet P l a n t s .......................... 47 • The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Spinach P l a n t s .............................................................................................................. 49 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Celery P l a n t s ............................................................................................................ 51 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Carrot P l a n t s ............................................................................................................. 52 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Sweet Corn E a r s ................................................................................................................. 54 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Tomato Fruit ............................................................................................................. 55 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Potato Tubers .......................................................................................................... 56 vii TABLE UIN. IIIO. HIP. HIQ. IV. V. VI. VII. YIII. Page The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Muskmelon Fruit .................................................................................................................... 58 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Cucumber Fruit .................................................................................................................... 59 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Squash Fruit . . . ......................................................................................................... 60 The Interactive Influence of Various Levels of Lime, Potassium, and Sodium Applications on the Yield of Lettuce P l a n t s .................................................................................................................... 62 The Summarized Influence of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium on the Relative ....................................... Yields of Seventeen VegetableCrops 64 Crops Arranged According to Their Yield Response to SoilR eaction................................................... 66 Composition of Vegetable Crops Grown Under Varied Levels of Calcium, Potas­ sium, Magnesium, andS o d iu m ...................................................... 70 Relative Composition of Vegetable Crops Grown Under Varied Levels of Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Sodium ....................................... 77 The Relative Calcium Content of Seven­ teen Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Various Levels of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium ..................................................................................................... 80 » viu TABLE IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. Page The Relative Potassium Content of Seventeen Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Various Levels of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium ..................................................................................................... 81 The Relative Sodium Content of Seventeen Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Various Levels of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium ...................................................................... The Influence of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium Application to the Soil on the Total Cation Removal by Nine VegetableC r o p s .............................................................................................. 88 A Comparison of Potassium-to-Sodium Ratios in Plants Grown Under Different C onditions........................................................................................................ 100 Comparison of Cation Concentration and Yield of Vegetable Crops Between Treat­ ments Containing Maximum and Minimum Quantities of the Four C a tio n s..................................................... 104 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. A comparison of the yield and total cation concentration ratios obtained from crops on plots receiving the maximum and mini­ mum cation application................................................ 106 IN T R O D U C T IO N The study of plant nutrition can be traced back to Aristotle (3), who believed that plants, like animals, took in food "already elaborated." As recent as the seventeenth century. Van Helmont (63), due to an erroneous interpretation of his classic tree experi­ ment, attempted to prove that all the substances of plants are formed from water alone. It remained for de Saussure, in 1804 (52), and Ldebig (37), a few years late,r, to establish scientifically the inorganic requirements of plants. Lawes and Gilbert (34) demonstrated that plant-nutrient composition could be varied by the application of "chemical ma­ nures." It was later realized that composition was affected by many factors, such as the physiological age of the plant and cli­ matic, soil, and moisture conditions. Collander (11) showed that / different species of plants grown under identical well-controlled conditions exhibited rather dramatically the property of selective absorption. Fertilizer recommendations have been based largely on the results of empirical information which is of significance for a 2 relatively limited locality. The work done by Collaader (11), while of wider application, failed to consider the colloidal properties of the soil, since the plants were grown in nutrient solutions. A study of the yield response, along with the cation contents of vegetable crops, produced under field conditions involving v aria­ tions in fe rtilise r additions of these cations should give some indi­ cation of the extent to which composition is related to plant require­ ments. Does a high content of a particular cation in a crop re ­ flect a need for a large application of fertilizer containing the / element to promote optimum growth, or an inherent ability of that crop to accumulate the ion in large amounts? It is quite conceivable that knowledge of this type could be useful in devising more-efficient fertilizer and crop-rotation p rac­ tices for vegetables. With an expanding population and a practically static crop acreage, the need for greater efficiency in fertilizer use becomes obligatory. In addition, the necessity of learning more about composition control for the improvement of human diet is becoming more apparent. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The cations which are accumulated in plant tissues are usually first absorbed by the roots. Theories propounded by many workers seeking to explain this mechanism of absorption will be discussed. Since the investigation is concerned with the effect of single cations, as well as their interactive influence on composi­ tion and yield of various vegetable crops, the literature covering * these subjects will be reviewed. Factors Influencing Ion Absorption Hoagland and Davis (28) demonstrated that nutrient absorp­ tion may take place against a concentration gradient of the nutrient under consideration. Steward (39), using potato slices, showed that absorption and accumulation of solutes is accomplished by living plant cells and that the greatest accumulations occur in areas of high metabolic activity. Lunderg&rdh and Burstr6m (41) proposed that accumulation of solutes is dependent on anion respiration. Other workers preferred to use the term "salt respiration" in order to avoid attributing the effect specifically to the anion. The 4 two terms are now used interchangeably. Discussing the quanti­ tative relation between respiration and salt absorption, Lundergtrdh (40) recognized two types of respiration other than anion (or salt) respiration. The cyanide-stable primary respiration, which has been recognized for a long time, is not thought to participate in salt accumulation, but to be associated' with a system not contain­ ing cytochrome, and possibly with oxidations involving manganese. The other type recognized by Lundergft-rdh is present only in the lower 30 millimeters of the root and is inhibited by 0.001M hydro­ cyanic acid, but not by 0.001M alkali potassium cyanide. L Z R + H ), in which Z the cation and HR is the c a rrie r substance. is 7 In this reaction, it is assumed that HR, the c a rrie r sub­ stance, is produced on the outer side of the connecting link, and that the connecting link is permeable to ZR, but not to Z+. The complex ZR is broken down on the inner side of the connecting link and the ion Z+ is again liberated to the vacuole in the form of ions which quickly form soluble salts or acids. This theory differs from LundergfLrdh's in that it assumes the same model for the absorption of both anions and cations. Jacobson et al. (32) suggested that HR might represent a single compound or family of compounds, each possessing a high degree of selectivity for a particular cation. In order to critically evaluate the above theory, it would be important to study the competitive effect between two ions. If competition is assumed, the necessity for separate binding sub­ stances would be indicated. Epstein and Hagen (19) compared the absorption processes with enzyme reactions, and considered that the reaction of an ion with a binding substance is combination of a substrate with an enzyme. analogous to the In their interpreta­ tion, interfering ions assume the role of either inhibitors or al­ ternate substrates. In this work they found that K fered competitively with Rb and Cs inter­ absorption, and concluded that these 8 three ions were fixed at the same binding site pr reactive* center. These authors noted, on the other hand, that Na+, except at high Rb+ or Na+ concentrations, did not interfere competitively with Rb* absorption. Cooper (13) suggested the usefulness of a physical-chemical approach to the question of absorption. He proposed that energy be expressed by two values, representing capacity and intensity, which might be compared to volume and pressure in gas relations. In regard to the question of acidity, the capacity could be compared to tit ratable acidity, and intensity, to the pH value. He pointed out the significance of pH value in biological studies, and by analogy, the desirability of a similar concept in comparing the potential energy of absorbing ions. The methods he used for measuring their relative intensity were the standard oxidation-reduction poten­ tial and the ionization potential. Since the latter is not affected by concentration and energy of hydration, it should give a better measure. He arranged the ions in the following order, according to their relative strength: Cs, Rb, K, Na, H , Ba, Sr, Ca, H, Mg, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Be, and Cu. In further experiments he observed a very close correla­ tion between the intensity of the removal of cations by 9 electrodialysis from soil colloidal complexes and the standard electrode potentials. Electrodialysing fresh samples of cotton, corn, and soybean, he observed that the intensity of removal of the ions was comparable to that found in soil. Fairly good agree­ ment was found between the compiled average composition of many plants and the relative strength of the same ions. Some plants did not follow this relationship in that they tended to selectively accumulate relatively large quantities of certain ions and exclude others. The low concentration of sodium in most plants, as com­ pared to the relative strength of this ion, was the most obvious exception. He considered that this exception could possibly be explained on the basis of some inherent character. Selective accumulation of calcium in legumes, as aided by the formation of organic compounds such as oxalates of relatively low solubility and energy value, according to Cooper, may be a possible mechanism that protects the plant from excessive accumu­ lation of calcium. This phylogenetic tolerance mechanism may result in an inadequate absorption of some nutrients from solu✓ tions in which it is in relatively low concentration. He pointed out that the low content of calcium in seeds, fruits, and tubers. 10 as examples of this mechanism, may be related to some ontogenetic characteristic of the plants. Breaxeale et al. (7) proposed a theory that ion absorption by plants is an electrical phenomenon. All ions possess a definite half-wave potential at which their conductance and diffusion reach a maximum. Using a polarograph with voltages of 2 to 3 volts .3 and currents of 10 .6 to 10 amperes, with electrodes attached to die plant and substrate, they determined for each ion that the max­ imum deflection was close to the ences. ^^f z 8*ven *n standard refer­ When the plant was attached to the negative pole and the substrate CafNO^^* t° the positive pole with an applied voltage of -2.23 volts, they obtained an increase in calcium absorption. When the electrodes were reversed, there was no difference from the check plant, which was unattached to the electrode. Similar results were obtained with potassium and sodium, which led to the conclusion that ions are mobile and are probably absorbed and accumulated in response to an electrical impulse generated by die plant. 11 Selective Absorption Although it had been known for about a hundred years that plants vary in their ability to absorb specific elements under sim­ ilar circumstances, Newton (45) and Collander (11) drew particular attention to this phenomenon. The latter grew* twenty species rep- resenting different ecological types in complete nutrient solutions containing several cations in equivalent amounts. He noted that the concentration of sodium and manganese, in species containing maximum values, were twenty to sixty times greater than in those with minimum values; for Li, Mg, Ca, and Sr, three to six times greater than the minimum; for K, Rb, and Cs, only two to three times greater than the minimum. In further experiments, in which he found a constancy in these concentration differences between species, he concluded that they were fairly specific for the species. Similar phenomena were found in soil studies, except that the variations were wider. These results agree with the work reported by Newton (45), Van Itallie (64), and Elgabaly and Wiklander (18). In addition, Drake et al. (17) showed that roots with low exchange capacity, such as barley, absorbed more monovalent than divalent cations, whereas pea roots with high exchange capacity tended to absorb relatively more divalent than monovalent cations. 12 Interrelationships in Cation Absorption In the evolution of plant species, it might be assumed that mechanisms persisted which assisted the plants in obtaining c er­ tain essential elements in short supply and of repelling or exclud­ ing certain ions which might not be desirable. Because cultivated plants have often been transferred from their natural habitats in order to obtain satisfactory results, conditions similar to those under which they formerly existed should be simulated. Until recently, it was considered unnecessary to lime to­ matoes. Carolus (9), however, showed that when lime was applied in conjunction with increased amounts of potassium fertilizers, t highly significant increases in yield resulted. By comparing the, absorption of potassium and calcium, as well as yield, in the case of tomatoes and spinach he noted »ome interesting relationships, and proposed the following hypothesis. The tomato, during its early evolution, grew under conditions in which calcium was dif✓ ficultly and potassium easily absorbed. As a consequence, those plants which had a strong mechanism for extracting their calcium requirements persisted. If now it is grown under high calcium and low potassium conditions, a disproportionate amount of calcium 13 would be absorbed, and not enough potassium. If plants are grown under conditions in which adequate quantities of both are added, potassium will tend to depress excessive calcium absorption and ensure the plant its potassium requirements. Spinach, with quite a different phylogenetic background, tends to absorb potassium in excessive amounts unless adequate calcium is present to repress this characteristic. Recently, much thought has been given to the cation balance concept proposed by such workers as Pierce and Appleman (48), and Shear et ail. (54). The latter stated that, all other factors be­ ing constant, plant growth is a function of two variables: and balance of nutrients. intensity Lucas and Scarseth (38) pointed out that different cations may perform equally well in some plant functions, such as the regulation of salt concentrations. This property was given the name "mutual mechanical replacement." Effect of Calcium on Yield and Absorption '■0 Since calcium in most soils is the predominant ion and oc­ cupies the greatest proportion of the base exchange on soil col­ loids, it has the strongest influence on soil reaction. Truog (62) showed the relation between pH and nutrient availability. Bear 14 and Toth (6), reporting on an eight-year study involving twenty important New Jersey soils and using alfalfa roots as cation-ex­ tracting agents, concluded that the ideal soil would contain the fol­ lowing proportions of the major cations: Ga, 65 per cent; Mg, 10 per cent; K, 5 per cent; H, 20 per cent. Allaway (2) pointed out that, in addition to considering the total amounts of available ions present in the soils, one must also consider the nature of clay minerals. Marshall (43), in a study of this problem, con­ cluded that kaelimite clay has a higher calcium activity than montmorilllnite. Elgabaly and Wiklander (18) found that soil colloids with a high exchange capacity, as compared to those of a low ex­ change capacity, released monovalent cations more readily than divalent ions. Thorne (61) found that soil colloids saturated with less than 35 per cent calcium resulted in a shortage in the plant. In view of the many functions calcium has, both in the soil and in the plant, it would be difficult to say what particular role might be most important, but certainly a deficiency of this element would have an adverse effect on plant growth, vigor, and crop production. As for its effect on absorption of other cations, Chu and Turk (10) showed that a relatively low percentage of calcium on the exchange complex generally had a repressive effect depending on the nature 15 of the clay. Results of a n investigation, by Mehlich and Reed (44) showed that there was a greater absorption of calcium and potas­ sium at higher degrees of calcium saturation, but was reversed at still higher levels. The importance of calcium in relation to soil microorgan­ isms has been stressed by Wynd (68). Hewitt (27) was of the opin­ ion that potassium, along with calcium in a complimentary fashion, helps maintain cell organization, hydration, and permeability, and directly or indirectly influences many enzyme reactions such as the condensation or hydrolysis, which was also inferred by Cooil and Slattery (14). Calcium is apparently a direct activator for certain phosphatase enzymes identified by Kalckar (31) and Krishnan (33) in potato tubers. These enzymes catalyzed both the dismuta­ tion of two molecules of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) to give ATP and adenylic acid, and the removal of two phosphate radicles from ATP to give adenylic acid. Effect of Potassium on Yield and Absorption The exact role of potassium in plant growth is not com­ pletely understood. Without sufficient potassium in the soil, plants lose vigor, are more susceptible to disease, and fail to develop 16 normally. Hewitt (27) believed that potassium, like calcium, helps to maintain cell organisation, hydration, and permeability, and in­ fluences many plant processes. Steinberg et al. (58), in reporting accumulation of free amino acids in potassium-starved tobacco, suggested a function of potassium in protein synthesis. The uptake and loss of potassium by E. coli was studied under various con­ ditions of carbohydrate metabolism by Roberts et a l. (51). Their data showed that although the cell membrane is completely per­ meable to ionic potassium, potassium complexes which are not diffusible are formed during carbohydrate metabolism. In the presence of hexose sugar there is a rapid accumulation of these compounds giving an initial net increase in the quantity of bound potassium. As metabolism proceeds, an equilibrium is reached at which level potassium is released as rapidly as it is bound. The uptake by and release of potassium from the root cells is dependent on various conditions, including internal glucose concen­ tration, external potassium concentration, temperature, pH, aera­ tion, and the presence of metabolic poisons and other substances. According to Gilbert (22), the general opinion is that a high po­ tassium content of the soil, when not in balance with other essen­ tial elements, especially calcium, tends to produce a plant 17 especially high in carbohydrates. Albrecht (1) and Cooper (13) suggested that high-order plants (those developed last in the evo­ lutionary process) contain higher concentrations of the monovalent cations and produce more carbonaceous material than some of die lower-order plants, which tend to accumulate divalent cations and produce more proteinaceous m aterials. An element of such im­ portance to plant growth and organization as potassium would be expected to be closely related to yield. i Potassium exists in the three forms, water-soluble, ex­ changeable, and difficultly available or nonavailable. The latter forms part of the primary or secondary soil minerals. Attoe and Truog (5) grew com and oats in a silt loam soil which had been deprived of the water-soluble fraction of potassium, yet the yield was 62 per cent as much as from the intact soil. However, when the exchangeable fraction was extracted, the yield decreased to about one-fifth of die normal, indicating that the exchangeable fraction is rather readily available to some plants. In conformity with the balance and reciprocal relationships in plants described by Lucas and Scarseth (3 8), where one cation is increased relative to the others, the absorption of the cation is ✓ increased and others depressed, as calculated on an equivalent 18 b u it. In studying cation absorption from solutions of equal con* centration, Cooper (13) noted the order of intensity of absorption was potassium, sodium, and calcium. i Effect of Sodium on Yield and Absorption Since earliest recorded history, harmful and beneficial effects on plant growth have been noticed following the application of com­ mon salt (NaCl) to the soil. Selman (53) related that the Jews were said to have spread salt over the fields of their enemies to make the soil barren, and Pliny, in 23 to 79 A.D., recorded that pastures of a saline nature were preferred by cattle. Osterhout (46) established that sodium is an essential ele­ ment for marine plants, as well as animals. De Candolle (15) described the native habitat of a few wild ancestors of the most salt-responsive plants. of salt water. In every case they originated near bodies He found that the native habitat of celery is in the damp places from Sweden to Algeria, and parts of Asia. It is probable that the many varieties in use today originated in more than one p art of the world. It would be logical to suppose, as Harmer (23) found, that celery varieties would vary in their response to sodium. Collander (11), in his study of twenty-one different species, showed that the highest sodium accumulators contained more than sixty times as much sodium as the lowest. Kearney (32) reported that the Injurious effects of sodium on closely related species were similar. Hurd-Karrer (29) noted that injury varied with age, environmental factors, and the species. Hayward (26), in an experiment in which he varied the concentra­ tions of base salts, found the damage more related to increasing concentrations than the kind of salt. Positive responses to sodium fertilisation have been reported many times on various crops, especially when potassium was low. Lehr (35), working with beets on "artificial soil" in which he varied calcium, potassium, and sodium, reported increased yields from sodium. He noted that there was relatively more sodium in the leaves, while in the roots potassium was predominant. This is in agreement with results found in several other storage organs, one of which, the potato, was reported by Albrecht (1). Arnon and Hoagland (4) reported relatively higher concentrations of potassium in tomato fruit. Hartwell and Damon (25), reporting on work done with many crops, concluded that when potassium was insufficient, sodium was generally useful, but the improvement was not great enough to warrant its use over potassium. Lunt and Nelson (42) 20 Investigated the effect of sodium in the mineral nutrition of cotton, and found that yield increased 25 p er cent when potassium was at deficient levels. was adequate. No increase resulted, however, when potassium They found no influence on fibre o r seed quality from sodium, as occurred with potassium. H a m e r and Bexme (24) studied tie effect of sodium on vegetable crops grown on Michigan organic soil. They divided the crops into those which were benefited by sodium in deficiency of potassium, and those e •which were benefited in sufficiency of potassium, and suggested that in the latte r crops, sodium had a specific unknown function. In many crops they found that sodium improved yield, color of foliage, and vigor of the plants. It should be stressed that these results were found on organic soils, normally low in potassium. Dorph-Peter son and Steenbjerg (16) investigated the effect of sodium on some crops, using pot cultures as well as field experiments, and observed increases in yield when potassium was deficient. From an economic standpoint, they concluded that since beets are one of the few crops which do respond, it would not be practical to use sodium in preference to potassium, since, in an average ro­ tation, the needs of all crops must be considered when applying fertilizer. 21 Considering the wldt d U ftv n c t in sodium absorption already mentioned, thsro is evidence to Indicate that many crops tsnd to exclude this element. While it has been amply demonstrated that in certain crops, such as sugar beets, sodium can to some extent replace potassium, it has not been shown to be superior to it. Harmer and Beane (24) found that upon adding sodium to organic soils, celery showed less wilting in hot weather. They suggested that, in adding sodium, the osmotic pressure increased, resulting in a decrease in transpiration. Richards (50) proposed that crops which respond to sodium do so because it prevents a toxic accumu­ lation of calcium. The author listed the crops which Harmer and Benne (24) had rated in relation to sodium response, according to their position in the evolutionary scale, as given by Pool (49). It was found that the crops listed as sodium responsive were lower in the evolutionary scale which, according to Lewis and Eisenmenger (36), require relatively less calcium than high-order plants. Gauch and Wadleigh (21) suggested that sodium accumulation is related to greater permeability of the cell to salts. Steinbach (57), however, suggested that the term "permeability" is too in­ c l u s i v e , and should be broken down into more-specific processes such as secretion and absorption. Dorph-Peterson and Steenbjerg m 22 (16) stated that, with extremely email amounts of potassium, no increase in yield resulted from the addition of sodium. With the application of some potassium, sodium caused an increase in yield, after which greater amounts resulted in a decrease. Their con­ clusion was that sodium could not replace potassium in all of its functions, and that a certain amount of the essential element, po­ tassium, must necessarily be present if the plant is to live and grow, after which it is able to utilise sodium in certain functions in which either element could perform equally well. This is in agreement with the c&tion-balance theory suggested by Lucas and Scarseth (38). The work done by Epstein and Hagen (19) showed that po­ tassium and sodium act quite differently in absorption by barley roots, and suggested that they are not bound at the same site. Cowie at al. (14) made a study of the absorption of radioactive sodium and potassium through the cell membrane of E. coli. They showed that there was no indication that sodium became part ✓ of any compound within the cells, even during high metabolic ac­ tivity. This contrasts with potassium, which they found to be con­ centrated in the cells in nondiffusable potassium compounds during m 23 c e l l u l a r m e t a b o li s m , in d ic a t in g a g r e a t e r p h y s i o lo g ic a l s ig n if ic a n c e of potassium in comparison to sodium. Some cations are, by their physical nature, more easily removed from soil colloids, and each cation exerts an Influence over the removal of others. However, in the evolution of species, mechanisms influencing this phenomenon were developed which made •# possible their survival under a great variety of conditions. The seemingly contradictory evidence concerning plant nutrition is prob­ ably due to the fact that species have developed quite different processes to meet their own peculiar needs and situations. The answer to many problems would appear to be through a more in/ timate knowledge of the plants, themselves. By including several species in nutrition experiments, perhaps plants can be classified into groups which have similar mechanisms and requirements from a nutritional standpoint. Certainly, the present botanical arrange­ ment of crops by families leaves much to be desired in this re ­ spect. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM There is a need, as suggested in the Review of Literature, for a more intimate knowledge of plants in order to group them an the basis of nutritional habits and requirements. This problem revolved around that general premise. Collander (11) studied the selective absorption of cations by about twenty species of plants, representing a variety of ecological types, in complete nutrient solutions containing several different cations in equivalent amounts. His results showed striking com­ parisons in die ability of different kinds of plants to selectively absorb cations. Harmer and Beane (24) made a similar study of ten vegetable crops grown on organic soil. In order to further clarify this problem, work of the same general nature was under­ taken on mineral soil. This investigation consisted of a study involving seventeen vegetable crops representing nine botanical families grown under similar environmental conditions. The influences of three levels of calcium, three of potassium, two of magnesium (not dealt with in this thesis), and two of sodium, on absorption and yield were determined. The essential difference between this and Collander1s work was that the plants chosen were of economic significance and were grown under natural field conditions. It differed from work done by Harm er and Benne (24), chiefly because of its wider scope, and in being grown on mineral soil as compared to organic or '•muck1' soil. Relating the yield data obtained to the concentration and total accumulations of the different cations, as influenced by tre a t­ ment, should result in making it possible. 1. To determine the effect of the application to die soil of each of the cations (Ca, K, and Na) on their differential absorp­ tion by die seventeen crops and the interactive effect of the various levels of these ions on absorption. 2. To evaluate the effect of each cation applied to the soil on the total and individual cation removal by some of die crops. 3. To ascertain the relationship existing between either concentration or total accumulation of the cations (Ca, K, Mg, and Na) by each of the seventeen crops, and improvement in growth of the plant, as measured by yield. 4. To attempt the grouping of crops that behave sim ilarly under the various treatm ents. 26 la addition, tho results of this investigation should suggsst practical coas ids rations for tho moto effective uso of fortiliaors on the various crops. PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS Field Experimentation This experiment was conducted on a plot whicH was approx­ imately one acre in area. The treatm ents, consisting of three levels of calcium, three of potassium, two of magnesium, and two of sodium, were laid out as a factorial experiment in randomised blocks of Ca x K treatm ents, in which magnesium and sodium were superimposed as split plots. The ultimate size of each of the thirty-six plots was 58 feet by 22 feet. Each of the seventeen crops was planted across the 22-foot width in adjacent rows, with variation in widths between the rows depending on the nature of the crop. This experiment was conducted on a plot of Hillsdale sandy loam, a soil widely distributed in Michigan. Veatch (65) described it as being a light brownish and yellowish surface soil underlain by yellowish friable, but moderately retentive, sandy loam and gritty clay of only an intermediate rating in fertility. In the spring of both 1950 and 1951 a uniform application of fertilizer was applied: phosphorus in the form of double s up*rphosphate (42 to 45 per c«nt ^ 2^ 5^ at pouadi per acre, 200 pounds per acre of nitrogen in the form of NH^NO^, and 30 pounds per acre of potassium (K^O), equally divided between KC1 “ d K2S° 4 the 1950 season. CaUOn “ ldl‘i0n* mad* prlo r to In Some of the young seedlings died, presumably from excessive concentrations of fe rtiliser. Consequently, in 1951, the fertiliser was applied in two applications, tin f ir s t soon after the crop became established, and the second, four to six weeks later. In addition, as a result of pH determinations, as well as chemical analysis of the soil, the amount of lime necessary to achieve the desired pH values was calculated on a more precise basis than was the case in the f ir s t season. Table I indicates the fertility status of tills plot according to the various treatments at the end of the f ir s t year (1950), as well as the fertilizer materials applied in order to provide the desired treatment levels. The crops grown in each of the thirty-six plots, arranged according to botanical family in the order of the evolutionary de­ velopment, as taken from Pool (49), are listed on page 30, with pertinent data in respect to spacing and variety. 29 TABLE I SOIL FERTILITY VALUES FOUND IN AND FERTILIZER MATERIALS ADDED TO THE EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS A. The Average Values for Various Soil Chemical Properties as Determined on Soils from the Experimental Plots* Treatment Level High Medium Low B. „ pH * ® "e Satura_. tion 6.6 6.1 5.2 95.9 68.9 43.0 Exchangeable Cations (m.e./lOO gm. soil) Total 5.2 5.5 5.3 Ca K Mg Na 4.5 3.4 2.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.03 0.1 0.01 Quantities and Sources of Materials Applied for the Various Treatments (in both 1950 and 1951) Cation Application Source High Ca Ca(OH)2 to produce a pH of 6.5 Ca(OH) Me dium Ca Ca(OH)2 to produce a pH of 6.0 Ca(OH) Low Ca Ca(OH)2 to produce a pH of 5.5 Ca(OH) High K2 330 lbs. K20 per acre Medium K2 180 lbs. K20 per acre Low K 30 lbs. K^O pe r ac re 2 2 2 and KC1 K2S° 4 K2S°4 and KC1 Mg3 100 lbs. MgO per acre K2S04 MgS04 Na 200 lbs. Na20 per acre NaCl and KC1 O *7H2 From samples of surface 6 inches taken at the end of the first year. 2 The 30 lb s./acre general application is included in these figures. 3 Not dealt with in this thesis. 30 C ro p S p a c in g {ft) Botanical Family V a r ie ty Evolu­ t io n a r y O rder Onion 2 Brigham Yellow Qlobe L iliac eae Low Cabbage 3 Racine Market Cruciferae Low Cauliflower 3 Snow Ball Cruciferae Low Pea 3 P ro gress Legumiaosae Low Lima Bean 2.5 Fordhook 242 Leguminosae Low Snap Bean 2.5 Topcrop Leguminosae Low Beet 2 Detroit Dark Red Chenop odiac c ae Medium Spinach 3 Long Standing Blooms dale Chenopodiaceae Celery 4 Summer Pascal Umbelliferae Medium Carrot 2 Supreme Half Long Umbellif e rae Medium Sweet Com 4 Golden Cross Bantam Gram ineae Medium Tomato 4.5 Stokes dale Solanaceae High Potato 3 Chippewa Solanaceae High Muskmelon 5 Delicious Cucurbitaceae High Cucumber 5 National Pickling Cucurbitaceae High Squash 5.5 Golden Delicious Cucurbitaceae High Lettuce 2 Great Lakes Compositae High « , 31 In w««ki following & precipitation of loss thsn 1 inch, sup­ plementary molstaro was applied, using a portable irrigation sys­ tem. Conventional cultural practices such as cultivation and insect and weed control were followed. As crops reached marketable maturity, yield data were re ­ corded and samples fo r chemical analysis were taken from the center 10-foot portion from each of the 612 plots. Representative samples were obtained of all p arts of the plant above the soil. However, where root, bulb, and tuber crops were involved, the entire plant was used. In some cases, which will be indicated in the analytical results, separate samples were taken of the fruit. Plant Analysis Well-brushed samples of plant m aterial were cut into pieces, thoroughly mixed, and a 100-gram aliquot was dried in a perforated paper bag, at approximately 70° F. The dried m aterial was ground in a Wiley m ill to pass through a 20-mesh screen. Duplicate 1-gram aliquots were taken for wet ashing, using the method described by Toth et al. (60), with some modifications. The samples were placed in a 125-m illiliter beaker, to which 10 m illiliters of concentrated nitric acid were added and heated c a r e f u lly ’ « n am e l e c t r i c H ot p la t e u n t il o x id a t io n w a s n e a r l y c o m ­ p le te . In o r d e r t o a v o id l o s s o f m a t e r i a l f r o m w e r e c o v e r e d w it h w a tc h g l a s s e s . s p a t t e r in g , b e a k e r s T o th e lig h t - b r o w n liq u id 2 .5 m i l l i l i t e r s o f 70 p e r c e n t p e r c h l o r i c a c i d w a s a d d e d , a n d t h e te r n p e r a t u r e o f h e a t in g I n c r e a s e d u n t il d e n s e w h ite f u m e s a p p e a r e d . The beakers were removed when the contents were almost color­ less, and usually became perfectly clear upon cooling. The con­ tents of the beaker were transferred, using about 25 m illiliters of hot water to a number 30 Wattman filter paper, and the paper was washed thoroughly with hot dilute (1:19) HC1 and the filtrate collected in a 100-m illilite r volumetric flask. F o r the analysis of calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium, the Beckman Model DU Flame Spectrophotometer was used. Procedure outlined by Brown et al. (8) was followed, with modifications. Hydrogen was used as a source of fuel in order to increase- the accuracy of the magnesium determination. Standard solutions for comparative purposes were made to include varying concentrations of one cation, but with a fixed amount of the re­ maining three cations, the fixed amounts being: Mg, 75; and Na, 20 p.p.m. Ca, 200; K, 150; These fixed amounts represent the approximate concentrations of calcium, potassium, magnesium. 33 and sodium found in vegetable crops* and* according to Broom et ' al. (8)* have too offset of largely overcoming toe interference arising from too presence of these cations. Due to wide v aria­ tions in composition between crops and treatm ents, tria l runs were necessary to ascertain toe top standard in order to utilise toe maximum portion of a standard curve fo r each crop. The wave lengths and photo tubes found most suitable for toe instrument used were: Ca Wave Length 556 Photo Tube Blue K Mg Wa 771.5 371 592 Red Blue Blue After the instrument was set at 100 per cent transmission with the top standard, it was balanced by adjusting the slit width to cause toe needle to r e s t at aero. The other solutions necessary to give a smooth curve were determined and tested until toe instrument was giving reproducible results. The readings of toe plant-sample solutions were then observed, with frequent rechecking of toe in­ strument with the standards. If variations in toe standard values were observed, the hydrogen p ressure was adjusted to cause the needle to settle at zero. 34 O r d b u ir y g r a p h p a y a r w u u s e d to p l o t p e r c a n t t r a n s m i s s i o n a g a in s t p a r t s p o r m i l l i o n o f fits o lo m o n t u n d s r s tu d y . B«cause of inconsistent results with some of the erops in 1950, only the 1951 data are included for analysis. Statistical Interpretation of the Data The significance of the yield results and composition data was evaluated by the analysis of variance method for a factorial experiment involving a split plot, as described by Yates (69). Inasmuch as the influence of magnesium was not a p a rt of this work, tiie two levels of magnesium were treated as replicates. Included in " e r r o r b " was the second order interaction between calcium, potassium, and sodium. The " t 1' values were those given by F ish e r (20), and the " F " values were taken from Snede­ cor (55). EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The Average Yields a t All Levels of Calcium, Potassium , and Sodium The average yield of th irty -six plots fo r each crop, ex­ pressed in pounds p e r plot and tons p e r a c re , as well as in com­ m ercial units, and arranged in the o rd er of the evolutionary de­ velopment of plants, is presented in Table were obtained fo r m ost crops: H. Satisfactory yields irreg u lar stands of carro ts and peas make the information obtained from some treatm ents of doubt­ ful value. The cucumber yield was extremely low, but this ap­ peared to be due to the unfavorable growth response of the crop to many of the treatm ent combinations. The following figures show the average yield of both the fresh and dry weights, respectively, of the crops arranged accord­ ing to their position in the evolutionary scale, as listed in Table I. ° rd e r _________ Low Medium High C r°P* '_______________ Onion - Snap Bean (incl.) Beet —Sweet Com (incl.) Tomato - Lettuce (incl.) Avg. Y ie ld (ton./acre) ' 8.4 9.1 11.6 ^ - “ 7 (. Wel«ht , (tons /acre) 0.9 1.‘3 1.0 36 TABLE n YIELD OF SEVENTEEN VEGETABLE CROPS GROWN UNDER . ALL LEVELS OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, MAGNESIUM, AND SODIUM (average of thirty-six plots) Yield Crop Onion (plants) Cabbage (heads) Cauliflower (heads) Pea (fruit) Lima Bean (fruit) Snap Bean (fruit) Beet (plants) Spinach (plants)Celery (plants) Carrot (plants) Sweet Corn (ears) Tomato (fruit) Potato (tubers) Muskmelon (fruit) Cucumber (fruit) Squash (fruit) Lettuce (heads) Lb. p er Linear 10 ft. Tons p er Acre Coznme rciai Uniti per Acre* 6.3 27.6 17.8 2.1 7.8 5.1 16.0 5.0 15.8 4.1 11.8 57.0 26.8 16.8 2.7 49.6 7.0 6.7 20.0 12.6 1.7 5.6 3.7 17.4 3.6 11.8 3.8 8.5 16.5 19.4 7.6 1.2 17.1 7.8 248.2 bu. (54 lb.) 20.0 tons 646.1 crates (39 lb.) 113.3 bu. (30 lb.) 350.0 bu. (32 lb.) 246.6 bu. (30 lb.) 17.4 tons 400.0 bu. (18 lb.) 363.1 crates (65 lb.) 152.0 bu. (50 lb.) 8.5 tons 16.5 tons 646.6 bu. (60 lb.) 202.7 crates (70 lb.) 50.0 bu. (48 lb.) 17.1 tons 208.0 crates (75 lb.) * Taken from Agricultural Statistics, 1947. i 37 Although the "high o rd e r" pleats produced the highest fresh-weight yield, apparently their g reater succulence offset this advantage when calculated in term s of the dry weight. Tables which follow in the thesis are divided into p arts A and B. The form er shows the independent effects of pH, potas­ sium, and sodium, as well as- tile interactive influence of pH with r- potassium and pH with sodium. of potassium with sodium. The la tte r shows the Interaction All significant or highly significant re ­ sults are indicated in the discussion, and also by means of a s­ terisks in the Tables. Since the soil analysis indicated the close relationship of pH and calcium, for the sake of simplicity, these two term s will be considered as synonymous. All tables show the precise levels of the various treatm ents, but in the discussions tofollow, high, medium, and low levels may be used to indicatethese fo r pH and potassium; and for the levels of sodium, high and low may be used. The Influence of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium on the Yield of the Seventeen Crops Onions. Yield was significantly increased by high calcium and significantly decreased by high potassium, whereas sodium 38 very significantly reduced it (Table IHA). Although the interaction between calcium and potassium failed to reach significance, it is of interest to note that the yield with high calcium and low potas­ sium was almost three times that from low calcium and high po­ tassium. When calcium and potassium were both at either the high or die low level, better-than-average yields occurred, indi­ cating that this crop is sensitive to calcium-potassium levels. Based on these results, it appears that onions respond to calcium as compared to potassium, which would agree with die theory Cooper (13) and others have proposed, that die "low o rd er" plants do better when the divalent cations are relatively more abundant than the monovalent cations. However, the beneficial influence of calcium may be due in p a rt to the indirect effects associated with an increased pH. Cabbage. No yield differences of significance resulted from the independent influence of calcium, potassium, or sodium; how­ ever, the interaction between calcium and potassium resulted in highly significant results (Table QIB). As in the case of onions, the lowest yield occurred with low calcium and high potassium, ✓ but the best yields were with either high calcium and medium 39 T A B L E I11A T H E IN T E R A C T I V E I N F L U E N C E O F V A R IO U S L E V E L S O F L I M E , P O T A S S IU M , A N D S O D IU M A P P L IC A T IO N S O N T H E Y IE L D O F O N IO N B U L B S A N D T O P S ( e x p r e s s e d i n p o u n d s p e r 10 l i n e a r f e e t o f ro w ) sssssB aB nB H B B B n^^^^E B sanM sanB sssaE B aB B ssaB aasaB aH naB SH B B ssssaM B M H aaM B s& s^ss^^s A. S o d iu m a n d P o t a s s i u m • P o ta s s iu m ( lb , K zO p er acre) S o d iu m (lb . N a z O p er acre) 330 180 30 200 200 200 A v g . 200 6.5 5.5 • 0 1 2.9 4.9 6.1 4.6 4.0b 5.3 6.3 5.3** 9.8 5.1 4.6 7.5 5.7 3.6 7.4 8.2 6.4 6.0 7.1 8.9 7.3** 7.0° 8.7 9.0 4.6 3.8 6.9 3.2 6.1 7.1 4.9** 6.2 7.7** 8 .2 ^ * 5.1** 5.5 6.3 9.2* 9.3 A v e r a g e f o r e a c h pH 6.0 S o d iu m E f f e c t a t T h r e e P o t a s s i u m 200 0 L e v e ls Potassium (lb. l^ O p e r a c r e ) Sodium (lb. Na^O p er acre) A verage 4.1 3.0 6.4 4.5 6*5b 6.7 A v g . 330 A v g . 180 A vs. 30 B. A t p H V a lu e s R e s u lt in g f r o m G a (O H )2 T r e a t m e n t 4.9a 8.1 330 180 30 0 0 0 E ffe c t a t T h re e pH L e v e ls 3-30 3.9 5.9 180 5.3 7.1 30 6.5 8.9 Ca and K, 1.8; Na, 0.9. Ca and K, 2.7; Na, 1.3. a, b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, 4, and 12 plots, respectively. * Only significant or **Highly significant extremes in yield values for effects or in te r­ actions are indicated. L . S. D. at 5%: L . S. D. at 1%: 40 TABLE XIXB THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF CABBAGE HEADS (expr««sed in pounds per 10 linear feet of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) Potassium (lb. KzO p e r acre) 200 200 200 Avg. 200 0 0 0 Avg. L. L. a, ** 5.5 33.0 21.7 26.2 26.9 17.2 25.5 33.1 25.2 24.2b 27.4 26.7 26.2 330 180 30 52.4* 35.6 24.8 30.9 33.3 26.0 25.0 28.1 19.5 26.7 37.1 27.7 28.4 29.4 29.0 28.9 27.4* 35.2** 22.8 33.1 23.8 25.6 18.4** 26.1 35.1 26.5 28.4 27.8 28.7d 27.5 26.5 27.5 Average for each pH 200 0 6.0 22.4* 34.9 20.7. 26.5 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.5 Average 330 180 30 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from C&(OH)2 Treatment Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels '*# Potassium (lb. K.O per acre) 330 24.7 28.4 S. D. at 5%: (Ca x K), 5.4. S. D.at 1%: (Ca x K), 7.8. b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, 4, Highly significant. 180 27.3 29.4 30 26.6 28.9 and 12 plots, respectively. 41 potassium o r low calcium sad low potassium. Sodium dsprsss the yield, but not as markedly as with the onion. Cauliflower. tendsd to As indicated in Table IHC, the independent influence of potassium at the high rate was to significantly depress the yield. Although the independent effect of sodium was practically nil, when potassium was low, the application of sodium tended to increase the yield over the average. Pea. In Table KID, no consistent trend was to befound, and this is borne out by a lack of significance in any of the tr e a t­ ments or interactions. tioned e a rlie r. This may be due to uneven stands, men­ Of in terest is the observation that sodium had no appreciable influence on the yield. Lima beans. As revealed in Table IKE, there was very little difference in yield response, irrespective of treatment, indi­ cating that this crop has a wide range of tolerance for variable levels of the three cations under study. This is in striking con­ tra s t to the snap bean, in spite of the close botanical relationship. Snap bean. An important difference between snap beans and lima beans, as shown in this study, was that snap beans showed 42 TABLE IUC THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF CAULIFLOWER HEADS (expressed in pounds per 10 linear feet of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO p er acre) Potas slum (lb. k 2o p er acre) 200 200 200 Avg. 200 0 0 0 Avg. 200 0 6.0 5.5 15.0* 18.8 20.1 17.9 14.8 22.1 16.3 17.7 16.2 19.9 18.8 18.3 15.3b 20.3 18.4 18.0 330 180 30 15.0* 19.4 137b 16.0 19.4 17.0 14.8 17.1 14.3 24.2 21.4 20.0 16.2 20.2 16.6 17.7 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 15.0° 19.1 16.9 17.1 19.5 15.6 15.3 22.0 20.1 15.8* 20.2* 17.5 17.0d 17.4 19.1 17.8 Average for each pH Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.5 Average 330 180 30 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH)2 Treatment Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K, 0 per acre) i 330 15.3 16.2 180 20. 2 20. 2 L. S. D. at 5%: K, 3.2. L. S. D. at 1%: K, 4.7. a, b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, 4, and 12 plots, * Significant. 30 18.4 16.6 respectively. 43 TABLE m D THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THfc YIELD OF PEA FRUIT (expressed in pounds p e r 10 linear feet of row) ■ ■ '■ g w a s w A. — PM ■ — — — ii — ■ mmm , ■■ , n« i — ■— — a n p' mm. n . Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) Potassium (lb. KzO p e r acre) 200 200 200 Avg. 200 0 0 0 Ayg». ii 200 0 a, b, c, d: 6.0 5.5 3.6a 1.7 1.9. 2.4 1.1 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.4b 1.9 2.2 2.1 330 180 30 3.5a 1.1 2*5b 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.1 2 .2 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 3.5C 1.4 2.2 1.2 1.9 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.9 2 .2 2.4d 1.7 2.5 2.2 Average for each pH Sodium (lb. NazO pe r ac re) 6.5 Average 330 180 30 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH>2 Treatment Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K-O per acre) 330 2.3 2.6 180 1. 9 1. 8 30 2.2 2.1 A verages of 2, 6, 4, and 12 p lots, resp ectiv ely . ** # 44 TABLE IZXE THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS O r LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF LIMA BEAN FRUIT (expressed in pounds p e r 10 lin e a r fe et of row) A. Sodium and P otassium Effect at Three pH Levels Potas slum (lb. K20 p e r acre) Sodium (lb. Na.O » 1 p ar acre) 6.5 0 1 Average for each pH B. Sodium (lb. Na£0 per acre) 200 0 a, b, c , d: ,b o 8.3 7.8 8.1 8.0 6*3b 7.0 8 .8 8.0 7.3 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.1 7.6 7.9° 7.7 6.7 8 .8 8.2 8.3 7.6 7.5 7.8 8.1 7.8 7.6 7.5d 8.5 7.6 7.9 7.1* 7.7 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 5.5 7.2 7.0 7.8 7.3 7Zb 330 180 30 Average 8 .8 8.5 9.4 8.9 7.9 0 0 0 6.0 8.8 * 7.8 330 180 30 200 200 200 Avg. 200 At pH Values Resulting from Ga(OH) 2 Treatm ent . Sodium Effect: at Three P otassium Levels Potassium (lb. K 'O p e r acre) '330 8.2 8.0 180 7.7 7.9 30 8.1 7.1 A vera g es of 2, 6, 4, and 12 p lo ts, r e sp e c tiv e ly . 45 extreme s e n f i t l T e M i s to sodium, and, as is s e e n in Table IETF, yield was vary significantly depressed by sodium addition. Although no interaction reached a significant level, nevertheless, the yield with high calcium and low potassium produced only about half the yield that was obtained from high calcium and high potassium. The low-yielding combination of high calcium and low potassium re ­ sulted in stunted necrotic plants, and the visible symptoms appeared to be more noticeable when sodium was high. dition observed gave evidence of boron toxicity. The necrotic con­ An analysis for this element, using a method described by Windsor (67), was made, and boron was found to be excessively high in the necrotic plants. An identical cation combination had been e a rlie r reported by Shear et al. (54) to give rise to boron toxicity. Beet. This crop is the f ir s t to be considered in the in­ termediate group according to the evolutionary scale, and one might expect it to react somewhat differently from the preceding crops. As Table IIIG reveals, calcium application caused a sig~, nificant increase in yield. Potassium and sodium applications tended to increase yield, which is a reversal of the trend found in the previously reported 46 TABLE XIXF TH E IN T E R A C T IV E IN F L U E N C E O F V A R IO U S L E V E L S O F L IM E , P O T A S S IU M , A N D SO D IU M A P P L IC A T IO N S O N T H E Y IE L D O F S N A P B E A N F R U I T ( e x p r e s s e d in p o u n d s p e r 10 l i n e a r f e e t o f row ) A. S o d iu m a n d P o t a s s i u m Sodium P o t a s s iu m ( lb . K zO p er acre) (lb . N a z O per a c r e ) 330 180 30 200 200 200 Avk. 200 B L. L. a, ** 4.7b 4.6 4.5 4.6** 5.3 6.3 6.3 5.6 6.1 5.0 6.0 6.6 5.8 5.8 6.4 5.1 5.7** 6 .0 C 5.5 3.1 5.2 5.7 5.9 4.5 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.4 4.8 4.9d 5.6 5.0 5.2 3 ‘° b Average for e a c h pH 5.5 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0 6 . 1* 6.8 0 6.0 A verage 4.2 5.2 6.3 5.2 3 *3 b A v g . 330 A v g . 180 A vg. 30 200 0 6.5 6 .0 * 4.3 330 180 30 Sodium (lb. Na^O per acre) A t p H V a lu e s R e s u lt in g f r o m C a ( 0 H) , T r e a t m e n t 4.5 0 0 0 Avk. E ffe c t a t T h ree pH L e v e ls S o d iu m E f f e c t a t T h r e e P o t a s s i u m L e v e l s P o ta s s iu m (lb . K 20 p e r a c r e ) 180 330 4.6 6.3 4.7 5.8 S. D. at 5%: Na, 0.7. S. u * at 1%: Na, 0.9. b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6 Highly s ignificant. V 30 4.5 5.1 ’• # J 4 »# and 12 plots, respectively. 47 TABLE ICQ THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF BEET PLANTS (expressed in pounds per 10 linear feet of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) , 200 200 200 Avg. 200 0 0 0 Avg. 5.5 17.9 13.4 16.5 15.9 11.8 17.4 19.1 16.1 16.3b 14.7 18.6 16.5 330 180 30 22.4a 16.6 16.9. 18.6 20.4 11.5 10.4 14.1 13.2 15.8 11.9 13.6 18.7 14.6 13.1 15.4 2 0 . 8°** 14.9 18.5 19.1 12.4 13.4 12.5** 16.6 15.5 17.5 14.6 15.8 18.1d* 15.0 14.9* 16.0 Average for each pH 200 0 6.0 19.3a 13.2 20.2 17.6 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.5 Average 330 180 30 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH) 2 Treatment Potassium (lb. K£0 pe r ac re) Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K-O per acre) 330 16.3 18.7** L. S. D. at 5%: Ca, 2.5; (Ca L. S. D. at 1%: Ca, 3.7; (Ca a, b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, * Signif ic ant. ** Highly significant. 180 14.6 14.,6 30 18.6 13.1** x K), 4.5; (Na x K), 2.4. x K), 6 .6 ; (Na x K), 3.4. 4, and 12 plots, respectively. "low o rd e r" crops. Although tho independent effects of these two elements failed to reach significance, the interactions of both c a l­ cium with potassium and sodium with potassium were statistically significant. With both high and medium calcium and high p o tas­ sium, the maximum yield responses were obtained, whereas, with low calcium and low potassium , the poorest yield occurred. As L.ehr (35) and H a n n e r (23) have observed, beet yields increase signifi­ cantly from sodium application when potassium is low, but not when potassium is adequate. Sim ilar results are to be observed in Table IQG. Spinach. The yield of spinach was increased significantly by potassium and highly significantly by calcium (Table IIIH), which is in agreem ent with e a rlie r work done by Carolus (9)The effect of calcium is very m arked and may be due in p a rt to the indirect influence resulting from an increase in pH associated with high calcium. There was a significant interaction between sodium and potassium, and, as with beets, yield was increased as a resu lt of the application of sodium when potassium was low. However, when potassium was high, sodium had little effect. Harmer and Benne (24), on the other hand, concluded that spinach 49 TABLE IXXH THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF SPINACH PLANTS (expressed in. pounds p e r 10 linear feet of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) Potassium (lb. KzO p e r acre) 200 200 200 Avar. 200 0 0 0 • 200 0 L. Li. a, * ** Average 5.5 6 .0 7.2 4.7 5.4 5.8 2.4 1.0 3.5 2.3 6 .0b 4.2 4.$ 5.0 4‘6b 7.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.4 2.5 5.1 1.0 2,9 5.5 6.0 3.4 5.0 9.0C 7.7 5.1 5.8 4.5 4.9 2.4 3.1 2.2 5.7* 5.1 4.1* 7.3d** 5.1 2 .6 ** 5.0 8.3*“ 6 .8 110 180 10 9.6* 8.7 Avg. 110 Avg. ''180 Avg. 30 55b 6.9 o ! Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.5 100 180 10 Average for each pH B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH) 2 Treatment Sodium Effect: at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K_0 p er acre) 330 5.9 5.5 180 . 4.2 6 .0 ** S. D.at 5%: Ca and K, 1.1; (Na x K), 1.7. S. D. at 1%: Ca and K, 1.7; (Na x K), 2.4. b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6 , 4, and 12 plots, respectively. Significant. Highly significant. 30 4.8 3.3** 50 was vary little affected by the addition of sodium when potassium was deficient. Celery. The yield of celery varied widely, as indicated in Table III I, although consistent trends were lacking. The effect of calcium was highly significant, but best yields were at the medium and high levels, dropping off sharply at the low level. a significant interaction between calcium and potassium. There was The yield from high potassium and high calcium was four times that with high potassium and low calcium. Although the interaction between sodium and potassium did not reach significance, it is interesting to note that, at low potassium, sodium gave a 50 per cent increase in yield, showing a similar response to that of beets. This is in agreement with the findings of Harmer and Benne (23), who listed celery as being responsive to sodium. Carrot. The values for carTots, shown in Table HU, indi­ cate a highly significant independent response of this crop to cal­ cium and sodium, as well as a significant interaction between cal­ cium and potassium. The response to sodium was negative; this is in marked contrast to the influence of sodium on beets, especially at low potassium levels. 51 \ TABLE m I THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF CELERY PLANTS (expressed in pounds pur 10 linear fuut of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) Potassium (lb. KzO per acre) 200 200 200 Avg. 200 Avg. 200 0 5.5 21-°b 18.7 3.7 17.2 12.8 11.2 14.9b 17.9 18.0 16.9 330 180 30 20.4* 12.7 ll.L 14.7 21.4 21.8 11.0 18.1 5.8 12.6 14.8 11.1 15.9 15.7 12.3 14.6 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 21.2° 12.8 16.1 20.1 22.6* 15.6 4.7* 14.9 13.8 15.3 16.8 15.2 16.7d 19.4** 11.1** 15.8 Average for each pH Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.0 Average 18.9 23.4 20.3 20.8 0 B. 6.5 22.1* 13.0 330 180 30 0 0 0 At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH) 2 Treatment Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K-O per acre) 330 14.9 15.8 180 17.8 15.7 30 18.0 12.3 * L. S. D. at 5%: Ca, 4.2; (Ca x K), 7.2. L. S. D. at 1%: Ca, 6.0; (Ca x K), 10.5. a, b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, 4, and 12 plots, respectively. * Significant. ** Highly Significant. TABLE HU THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF CARROT PLANTS ( t^ p r ta itd In pounds per 10 linear feet of row) A. Sodium and Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) Potassium (lb. KzO per acre) 200 200 200 Avk. 200 0 0 0 Avg. 4.0* 6.0 330 180 30 7.5 7.0* Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 200 0 6.0 Average 5.5 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.8 2.9 1.4 4.0 2.8 2.9b 3.2 3.7 3.3** 5*3b 6.6 4.4 3.1 4.3 3.9 4.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 5.5 4.6 4.5 4.9** 5.7° 6.5* 5.5 3.2 2.6* 2.9 3.8 2.6* 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.1 5.9*** 2.9** 3.5 4.1 5' 7b 5.2 Average for each pH Sodium (lb. Na£0 per acre) 6.5 330 180 30 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH)2 Treatment Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K-O per acre) 180 330 2.9 5.5 • 3.1 4.6 30 3.7 4.5 L. S. D. at 5%: Ca, 0.5; (Ca x K) , 0.9; Na, 1.1. L. S. D. at 1%: Ca, 0.7; (Ca x K), 1.3; Na, 1.5. a, b, c, d: Averages of 2, 6, 4, and 12 plots, respectively. * Significant. ** Highly significant. 53 Sweet com. Results shown in Table IIHC indicate that this * •# crop does not show decided trends in yields as related to tre at­ ment. However, with calcium at a low level, sodium very signif­ icantly reduced the yield. Tomato. The data in Table m L reveal that the addition of lime resulted in a significant yield increase, whereas sodium very significantly reduced it. There was a significant interaction between calcium and potassium; the highest yields resulted from high cal­ cium and medium or high potassium, whereas the lowest yield re ­ sulted from the combination of low calcium and high potassium. This is in accord with work reported by Carolus (9). Potato. Table HIM indicates that the application of either calcium, potassium, or sodium failed to influence tuber yield sig­ nificantly, although, in the case of the medium level of potassium, it approached significance. However, there Was a significant inter­ action between calcium and potassium. The highest yield resulted with medium calcium and medium potassium, and the lowest yield was with high calcium and low potassium, indicating that the potato is sensitive to an unbalanced condition in relation to these two ele­ ments . m 54 TABLE mK THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF LIME, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATIONS ON THE YIELD OF SWEET CORN EARS (expressed in pounds per 10 linear feet of row) s E S 3 B a a B B B B S B a B a B B a B a B M A. Potassium (lb. KzO per acre) 200 200 200 Avg. 200 0 0 0 6.0 5.5 12.3 13.1 11.0 12.1 3.2 11.3 11.4 8.6** 9.9b 12.3 12.1 11.4 330 180 30 17.1* 12.0 12.2 13.8** 11.7 8.8 13.3 11.3 11.7 14.4 8.8 11.6 13.5 11.7 11.4 12.2 15.6° 12.2 13.0 12.0 10.9 12.1 7.4 12.8 10.1 11.7 12.0 11.7 13.6d 11.7 10.1 11.8 ' Average for each pH Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 6.5 Average * ■ # 14.2* 12.4 13.8 13.5 0 B. At pH Values Resulting from Ca(OH)2 Treatment 330 180 30 Arg. 330 Avg. 180 Avg. 30 200 0 B ^ ^ s B S B B s x s a B s a a H B B a E a B S 3 s a Sodium end Potassium Effect at Three pH Levels Sodium (lb. Na.O per acre) Aye. a B a B B & Sodium Effect at Three Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K. t « d in p o u n d s p e r 10 l i n e a r f e e t o f row ) A. S o d iu m a n d P o t a s s i u m E f f e c t a t T h r e e p H L e v e l s S od iu m (lb . N a zO per a c r e ) P o ta s s iu m (lb . K z O p er acre) 200 200 200 Avs. 200 330 Ay*. 330 180 30 0 Avg. 330 Avg. 180 Avar. 30 Average for e a c h pH Sodium (lb. NazO per acre) 200 0 6 .5 A verage 5 .5 6.0 5.7 5.6 7.5 6.2 6.6b 8.0 7.2 6.3 7.1 6.8 10.7* 8.1 4.9. 7.9 7.5 7.0 6.2 6.9 6.6 6.5 5.9 6.3 8.3 7.2 5.7 7.0 8.8C 10.3** 4.7** 7.3 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.0 6.7 7.4 7.6 6.0 7.9d 6.8 6.3 7.0 4 .6 30 B. C a(O K )Z 7.0* 12.6 ISO 0 0 0 A t pH V a lu e s R e s u lt in g 8 .2 6 .4 7.0 Sodium Effect a t T h r e e Potassium Levels Potassium (lb. K ,0 pe r ac re) 2 330 6.6 8.2 180 8.2 7.2 30 • 6.4 5.6 L, S. D> at 5%: (Ca x K), 2.9. L. S. D. at 1%: (Ca x K), 4.3. a, b, c, d: Averages of 2;, 6, 4, and 12 plots, respectively. * Significant . 63 S u m m a r y o f Y ie ld R e s u lt s The summarised yield data, Table IV, expresses In relative numbers, as compared to the average yields, the differential r e ­ sponses of seventeen crops to various cation treatments. Sin crops of the seventeen were significantly benefited by the application of calcium under the conditions of this experiment. The yields of five other crops were improved by calcium additions, but the dif­ ferences were not statistically significant. Yields of the remaining six crops were decreased by calcium applications, but not signifi­ cantly. On the basis of the yield data, it is impossible to deter­ mine whether the results were due to the direct effect of calcium or to the indirect influence of liming. Considered on the basis of response to pH, as indicated in this study, the crops have been grouped in Table V. As Indicated in Table V, nine of the crops correspond to the grouping given by Watts and Watts (66). Of the eight remaining crops, only tomatoes differed widely from the rating given by these authors. It has been shown by Carolus (9) that lime is beneficial to tomatoes when potassium is adequate. In this work, the application of potassium significantly in­ creased the yield of spinach and significantly decreased the yield 64 TABLE XV THE SUMMARIZED INFLUENCE OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM ON THE RELATIVE YIELDS OF SEVENTEEN VEGETABLE CROPS Crop „ „ , ,_ . pH Value (Ca) r ' ' Potassium ... __ . . (lb. K O p e r acre) 6.5 6.0 5.5 F 330 180 30 Onion Cabbage Cauliflower 131 104 95 81 100 98 87 96 107 aa 79 96 88 99 103 113 122 101 98 Pea Lima Bean Snap Bean 111 95 95 76 108 109 113 97 96 114 103 101 86 100 106 100 97 93 Beet Spinach Celery 113 146 106 94 102 123 93 52 71 a aa aa 109 116 97 91 102 107 99 82 96 C arrot Sweet Corn Tomato 145 115 119 70 99 88 85 86 93 aa 104 99 97 95 102 113 101 99 90 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber 95 114 73 101 102 112 104 84 115 102 112 109 110 98 83 88 90 107 Squash Lettuce 107 113 101 97 92 89 90 106 115 109 95 85 Average : Na^O/acre) 200 0 F 96 104 89 111 103 97 98 102 99 89 112 ** 92 101 107 98 86 116 88 85 127 104 96 101 99 87 113 ** 95 105 97 94 85 97 89 102 109 ** 87 97 116 ** 95 102 103 96 103 101 92 108 * 87 113 ** 98 102 104 96 96 97 82 88 ** 97 96 107 98 89 113 95 102 103 96 100 104 98 100 100 96 102 100 100 104 103 102 104 97 98 96 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber Squash 99 102 111 112 Lettuce Pea F ruit Tomato F ru it 123 88 101 106 86 163 89 93 51 Average 106 100 94 * 98 103 99 95 88 117 *♦ 125 75 100 96 96 108 98 102 * Significant differences between two or more values. ** Highly significant differences between two or more values. 81 TABLE IX THE RELATIVE POTASSIUM CONTENT OF SEVENTEEN VEOE TABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BY VARIOUS LEVELS OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM (based on m.e./lOO g m . dried material; average of 12 samples for Ca sad K, aad 18 samples for Na) pH Value (Ca) Potassium {Vb- Crop 8.5 6.0 5.5 F Sodium (lb. K2 ° /a *r *) 330 180 30 F Na20 /acre) 200 0 Onion Cabbage Cauliflower Pea 98 106 96 102 97 101 99 109 91 ♦* 101 105 94 136 114 120 108 101 110 106 102 63 ** 76 ee 74 ♦* 90 *♦ 95 105 100 100 100 100 101 99 Lima Bean Snap Bean Beet Spinach 102 94 104 102 93 105 ** 98 105 97 103 109 88 *-* 118 110 124 119 106 106 109 114 76 ♦* 84 ** 67 ee 67 ** 103 97 100 100 88 112 101 99 Celery Carrot Sweet Com Tomato 99 106 95 91 106 103 ♦* 88 102 110 ♦ 100 94 107 131 103 115 116 127 99 137 99 66 69 74 64 ** ** *♦ ♦♦ 101 99 96 104 99 101 97 103 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber Squash 99 104 97 106 104 90 107 92 101 86 105 109 121 141 138 131 101 119 100 111 78 e 40 *♦ 62 ** 58 ** 98 102 95 105 101 99 104 96 Lettuce Pea Fruit Tomato Fruit 103 100 97 97 94 109 108 97 95 124 106 147 113 114 109 70 *♦ 40 ** 77 ** 104 96 101 99 100 100 99 101 100 125 107 68 Average 99 100 * Significant differences between two or more values. ** Highly significant differences between two or more values. F •* * 82 TABLE X THE RELATIVE SODIUM CONTENT OF SEVENTEEN VEGETABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BT VARIOUS LEVELS OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM (based on m.e./lOO gm. dried material; average of 12 samples for Ca and K, and 18 samples for Na) Crop Potassium (lb* K^O/acre) ' pH Value (Ca) 6.5 6.0 5.5 F 330 180 30 Sodium (lb. Na^O/acre) F 200 0 F 82 80 138 ee 68 76 156 ** 64 103 133 *♦ 123 89 88 ■ 147 149 150 153 53 51 50 47 ee ** ee ** no 110 117 * 164 ** 109 125 159 178 91 ** 75 e 41 ** 22 ee 67 107 126 60 78 162 ** 113 102 85 44 83 173 ** 168 144 110 159 32 ** 56 ** 90 * 41 ** 106 99 95 67 67 166 * 134 82 84 ** 110 117 73 98 102 171 29 ** 171 29 ** 142 58 * Onion Cabbage Cauliflower Pea 93 111 96 100 102 98 97 84 119 115 73 112 Lima Bean Snap Bean Beet Spinach 113 88 99 121 91 88 99 101 100 118 79 103 Celery Carrot Sweet Com Tomato 87 102 111 108 102 90 127 89 84 87 103 110 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber Squash 108 102 90 114 85 101 121 74 105 130 92 78 Lettuce Pea Fruit Tomato Fruit 92 98 110 118 100 82 91 99 110 65 90 65 79 156 ** 91 119 77 158 ** ** 155 45 1 114 86 * 149 51 ** Average 107 93 100 82 89 129 145 e e 98 102 88 48 ♦ • e 92 88 95 88 55 * Significant differences between two or more values. ♦* Highly significant differences between two or more values. 83 Table VOX indicates that potassium application to tbs soil was mors sffsctiys than calcium in altering calcium content in tbs plant; however, the influence was to reduce the calcium content in the plant. The calcium content of lima beans, celery, car rets, and pea pods was highly significantly reduced by the addition of potassium to the soil on which these crops were grown. Since the potassium addition was not related to yield (Table IV), appar­ ently the depressing effect of potassium application on calcium accumulation was not injurious. The calcium content in beets, celery, and carrots was de­ pressed (Table V1H) as a result of sodium application to the soil in which the crops were grown, but only in carrots was this de­ crease associated with a depression of yield (Table IV). Table IX reveals that the application of calcium to the soil significantly affected the potassium content of cauliflower, snap beans, spinach, sweet corn, and tomato. With cauliflower, spinach, and carrots, the highest potassium content occured at the medium level of calcium application, while with snap bean and sweet com, the highest potassium content occured at the low level of calcium appli­ cation to the soil. The increased potassium content in spinach, which resulted from the application of calcium, was associated 84 with a significant Increase in yield. It is of Interest to note that, whereas calcium application re suited in en increase in potassium content in spinach, the reverse situation occurred in carrots in which calcium application to. the soil was also associated with a yield increase (Table IV). This certainly indicates an inherent difference in the ability of plants to accumulate ions, as influenced by their application to the soil. Table IX discloses that the application of potassium sig­ nificantly increased the potassium content of every crop. The range of increase in potassium content with potassium additions varied among the crops from a low of 18 per cent in pea vines, through 101 per cent in muskxnelon, to 107 per cent in pea fruits. However, in no instance except with spinach was an increase in potassium related to an increase in yield, and with onion and cauli­ flower it was even associated with a significant reduction in yield. As indicated earlier, there is a strong probability that the appli­ cation of potassium at the highest level resulted in a "luxury consumption" of this element by most crops. The application of sddium resulted in the significant reduction of potassium content in only two crops, beets and maskmelon, which, however, did not significantly influence yield. 85 The highest application of calcium to the a«U significantly increased the sodium content (Table X) in the pea, lima bean, sweet corn, and cucumber, and with the same crops the intermediate application of calcium resulted in a decrease of the element. The average sodium values for all crops indicate a decline in'the so­ dium content with the intermediate level of calcium application, and an increase with the addition of the highest level of calcium. Evi­ dently, at the higher pH associated with higher calcium applica­ tions and a more completely saturated base exchange, sodium is more accumulable, which is in agreement with several workers (18, 10). It is difficult to explain the fact that a higher sodium content is associated with the low level of calcium, rather than with the medium level of application. Because of the doubt cast / by some workers (19, 14) concerning the nature and essentiality of sodium, as compared to potassium, in plant nutrition, it is not surprising that these two elements respond so differently. For example, in sweet corn, squash vine, and pea and tomato fruit, the calcium level in the soil that promoted the highest potassium accumulation in the plant resulted in the lowest sodium accumula­ tion. 86 In t l t m of tiw ainitiCB crops, lbs application of potassium to the soil slgnificaady depressed the sodium content of the crop (Table X). However, in the cucumber, the application of potassium resulted in an increase of the sodium content of 4m plant. Al- thought potassium application to the soil significantly reduced the sodium content of onion and cauliflower, its application also resulted in significantly lower yields in these two crops. these crops tbm Evidently, in increased sodium content at the higher potassium levels was not in Itself directly related to the yield decrease. Spinach, on the other hand, was benefited in yield from the appli­ cation of potassium, and since it likewise depressed sodium content, these two facts may be related.. However, since sodium applica­ tions had no effect on yield (Table IV), it would appear that spinach selectively absorbs potassium over sodium when die form er is available, but that when it absorbs sodium, die effect of this ion is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the crop. In every crop except the potato, the application of sodium increased the sodium content of die crops (Table X); however, in no instance was this increase in sodium content beneficial in r e ­ spect to yield. In the case of onion, snap bean, carrot, tomato, and cucumber, the increase in sodium content resulting from sodium 87 application appeared to ba datrimantal to yiald (Tabla IV), and an the baaia of the above reaulta, theae cropa could ba termed aa aodium aanaitive. Although in many caaaa the application of an alamant in­ creased yiald significantly, but not composition, and in other caaaa affected compoaition aignificantly, but not yield; however, it ia prob­ able that the addition of thoae mate rial a to the aoil had physiol ogical effecta on the plant which, poaaibly could be related to quality ' value a. Tha h f i a a n t of Calcium, Potassium, and Sodium Application on Total Cation Removal by Some Vegetable Cropa The yielda, aa well aa tha influence of calcium, potaaaium, and sodium applieationa on toe total cation removal by aome cropa, were determined. Total green weight of the whole mature plants for a 10-foot row was obtained from onion, cabbage, pea, lima bean, beet, spinach, celery, carrot, and lettuce. The total cation *•# accumulation was determined for each of the nine crops in which toe total growth and yield could be conveniently obtained in a single harvest, as shown in Table XI. The results were based on the total green weight of plants from a 10-foot section of row. •a TABLE XI THE INFLUENCE OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, AND SODIUM APPLICATION TO THE SOIL ON THE TOTAL CATION REMOVAL BY NINE VEGETABLE CROPS (rtlatiY« figures bused on total cation [Ca, K, Mg, It Na] removal) pH Value (Ca) Crop 6.5 6.0 5.5 Onion 127 86 87 Cabbage 107 102 91 Pea 113 Lima Bean F 330 180 91 30 84 121 76 103 97 103 97 100 90 117 95 88 Beet 118 Spinach 129 106 65 ** 124 102 74 Celery 103 135 62 aa 112 109 79 Carrot 141 74 85 a 109 103 88 Lettuce 150 75 75 97 Average 120 95 85 109 * 92 F 93 110 98 93 Sodium (lb. NagO/acre) 200 0 * 99 101 99 101 102 98 99 101 a 96 104 108 92 77 123 aa 105 95 97 103 Significant differences between two or more values* ** Highly significant differences between two or more values. F 86 114 aa 95 114 106 110 75 112 94 109 Potassium (lb. ^ O /a c r e ) 0 89 In o rd e r to determ ine if tee yield of these crops was c o r­ related with tee total cation re moval under averages of all levels of treatm ent, correlation coefficients w ere calculated from the th irty -six comparisons* and a re indicated in the resu lts given below. Crop C orrelation Coefficient Crop Correlation Coefficient Onion 0.87** Spinach 0 . 88* * Cabbage 0.89** Celery 0 . 90* * Pea 0.92** C arro t 0 . 96 * * Lima Bean 0.67** Lettuce 0.14 Beet „ 0.83** ** Significant a t tee 1% level. As might have been expected, with the exception of lettuce, there was a highly significant positive correlation between total cation removal and crop yield. Data in Table VI indicate that lettuce is a crop with a relatively low total cation concentration, and in addition, has the lowest p e r cent dry weight. The low average values for the two factors would probably account for the incon­ sistency in the correlative ability of yield with composition in this crop. 9° Although the resu its a re comparable to the yield results shown In Table IV, the values have been accentuated by those treatm ents which promoted cation accumulation. The average for all crops indicates that either yield or accumulation was enhanced by the additions of the higher levels of calcium and potassium, whereas sodium application probably reduced the yield to such an extent that accumulation was decreased (Table XI). ba studying the effect an accumulation of the cations by tilt various calcium applications, there seems to be a d irect relation between cation removal by the plant and the calcium level of the soil, except in celery, where the highest crop yields which influenced total cation accumulation were obtained at the intermediate calcium level. This is in agreement with the work done by Chu and Turk (10), who observed that plants accumulate la rg e r quantities of cation as the level of base saturation of the soil increases. Except for onions and lettuce, potassium application to the soil tended to increase the cation removal by the crops. The fact that applications of sodium resulted in an increase in its own concentration in the plant, but reduced the total cation removal, indicates the relative unimportance of this cation to the nutriton of m ost vegetable crops. Figures in Table VII indicate 91 that average relative sodium composition for these nine crops is only 9.0 p e r cent* whereas for potassium It is 45.7 p e r cent of the total. The ability of the different species to accumulate cations has been shown to vary with the levels of application of these ions; however* it is probable that under lower natural levels of soil fe r­ tility, these differences would probably have been accentuated. DISCUSSION In the presentation of the results, yield data have been dealt with in considerable detail. Since yield is, in general, di­ rectly related to plant growth, it is a useful measure in evaluating the differential response of the crops to cation absorption. In considering all the crops in this investigation, the appli­ cation of lime resulted in increasing yield, whereas potassium ap­ plication had little effect, and the application of sodium in most cases reduced yield. Both the application of lime and of potassium resulted in an increase in the total cation removal, whereas the application of sodium had the opposite effect. In order to evaluate the relationship between the growth r e ­ sponses and cation absorption, the effect of each ion was considered independently, followed by the interactive influences of the other ions under study. Although calcium was the most influential ion in relation to growth response and total cation removal, this influence did not appear to be in any way related to the absorption of calcium, as reflected in composition. Further, in the squash foliage and 93 tomato fruit, 'although the application of lime markedly influenced the concentration of calcium, based on dry matter content, this was not associated with yield. These results indicate that, even at the lowest calcium level, these plants had sufficient calcium to meet their requirements, and that the beneficial effects from the application of this element are of an indirect nature. The fact that calcium did not tend to be absorbed beyond the plant's requirements is probably associated with the fact that more energy is required for its absorption (13, 7) than for the more mobile cations such as potassium and sodium. One of the indirect effects resulting from the application of lime was an increase in both the yield and the potassium content of spinach. The increase in the per cent of base saturation result­ ing from the addition of lime presumably increased the availability of potassium. * A significant increase in yield of carrots was obtained as a result of a high application of lime and an intermediate appli­ cation of potassium to the soil, which significantly lowered the sodium content of the crop. With the beet, a high application of both lime and potassium resulted in a significantly higher yield than the average, as well as a reduction in the sodium content. 94 Th« fact that high yield in b e e t s is associated with a reduced ab­ sorption of sodium when both calcium and potassium are high is worthy of emphasis, in view of the published work on the beneficial effects of the application of sodium to the sugar beet (35). The striking difference between crop response to various cation balances is illustrated by the cucumber, which produced significantly higher yields than the average when both lime and potassium applications were at the minimum levels, which combina­ tion resulted in a significantly lower sodium content. Perhaps this relationship between high yields and low sodium content with the various calclum-potas sium combinations is related to species, and under conditions resulting in an optimum balance of calcium to potassium for the particular species, maximum growth occurs, which is associated with a reduction in sodium accumulation by the crop. A further analysis of the interactive influence of calcium and potassium reveals that the most advantageous combinations, from the standpoint of improved growth, generally occur when cal­ cium and potassium are at comparable levels. With beets, carrots, and cucumbers, in which a significant interaction between the ef­ fect of calcium with potassium was observed, yields were highest 95 whan the two cations had been applied at comparable levels, and die sodium contents of the plants were reduced. A different situation occurred in die tomato, where an ap­ plication to the soil of low calcium with high potassium signifi­ cantly lowered die yield and significantly increased the potassium content of the plant. The only crop which produced a significandy higher yield as a resu lt of the application of potassium to the soil was spinach; however, in all crops, with the exception of lettuce, the application of potassium resulted in a significant increase in potassium content. With the exception of spinach, die re was no association between * potassium application, yield, and potassium content, indicating an adequacy of that element in the soil used in this experiment. In addition to strongly influencing potassium absorption, the applica­ tion of potassium to soil had a fairly marked and consistent influence in depressing the absorption of both calcium and sodium, but this also was not related to yield. In no case did die application of sodium to the soil result in any significant beneficial effects to the crops in this study, but the onion, snap bean, c a rro t, tomato, and cucumber crops were adversely affected, as indicated in yield depressions. The snap 96 f bean showed extrem e sensitivity towards this element, as evidenced by a yellowing and browning of the leaves of this crop on the plots which had received an application of 200 pounds of sodium p e r acre. In the case of beets, the combination of a low sodium and high potassium application to the soil resulted in both a signifi­ cantly higher yield and potassium content than the average. In connection with beets, it is worth noting that the combination of calcium and potassium application which resulted in highest yield likewise resulted in a reduction in sodium absorption, whereas the combination of sodium and potassium applications which was most beneficial to yield resulted in a significantly higher potassium ab­ sorption than the average. It would appear that fo r optimum growth of beets, potassium should be adequately supplied; it is only when potassium is in short supply that sodium is beneficial, which is in agreement with other workers (25, 42). Crops such as cauliflower, pea, and lettuce appeared to be little affected by the high application of sodium, in spite of their high sodium contents. From yield data it was shown that the beet responded about equally well when either sodium or potassium was high, under all levels of calcium. However, in relating the significant interactions f l 97 of calcium with potassium, as well as sodium with potassium, in relation to both yield and composition, it was exhibited that the combinations resulting in highest yields in these crops were r e ­ lated to low sodium and high potassium content, respectively. These data point out that even the beet, in its physiological functions, p re ­ fers potassium to sodium. Recent work done by Cowie et al. (14) and Roberts et a l. (51) in connection with cation absorption through the semipermeable plant root membranes presents evidence which indicates that potassium is taken into the plant and soon bound, presumably in complex metabolic compounds, whereas sodium did not become bound, implying that for the plants they studied, so­ dium could not replace potassium in most plant functions. Perhaps this would provide an explanation for the opposite behavior of these two elements, especially the more beneficial responses by several crops to potassium, compared to sodium, with the various combina­ tions of the cation applications. Cooper (13) proposed a theory concerning the relative 'strength of ions, in which he listed from the strongest to the weakest: tassium, sodium, and calcium. po­ In equivalent amounts it would be expected that potassium would exert the strongest influence on its own absorption. This is certainly brought out by the results in 9* this investigation.. Potassium most strongly affected its own ab­ sorption, followed closely by sodium, with calcium having the least % influence on its own absorption. In most crops the application of potassium resulted in reducing the absorption of calcium and so­ dium; tee application of sodium to the soil resulted in a decreased absorption of calcium and potassium in only a few instances. The effect of tee addition of lime, however, resulted in little change in potassium absorption and a slight increase in sodium absorption. The theory of cation balance and reciprocal relationships discussed by Lucas and Scarseth (38) and Shear et al. (54) would appear to be operating in tee case of potassium, which tended to induce its own absorption with a concomitant depression in tee absorption of calcium and sodium. From these observations, the possibility is suggested that this difference in accumulative ability for the ions is not only re ­ lated to the difference in relative strength of absorption of the ions, but also to their relative usefulness, as reflected in the uni­ formly high content of potassium found in plants, as compared to the other ions. Plants which persisted during the evolutionary de­ velopment were those that developed mechanisms which facilitated a relatively high potassium accumulation. This may be related to 99 the observation made by Lswii sad Eiim in«ng«r (34) that with increasing evolutionary development, plants show an increasing ability to acquire potassium. Perhaps a study of the potasslum-to-sodium ratios of the crops might offer some indication of the ability of sodium to re* place potassium in some of the le tte r's functions, as has been sug­ gested by Lehr (35). The calculated ratios from average concen­ trations in term s of milliequivalents found in die crops are arrayed in Table XII, as well as values reported by Collander (11) and Harmer and Beane (24). In making comparisons between the ratios calculated from the chemical analysis reported by the above invest!* gators, and from those obtained in this work (Table XII), obvious differences could be related to differences in the culture of crops. Collander (11) grew his plants in nutrient solutions and made his analysis on immature plants, whereas Harmer and Beans (24) produced their crops on organic soil and analysed mature plants. The calculated values obtained under the three different conditions show sim ilar trends in their relative potassium-sodium ratios. The ratio of potassium to sodium concentrations varied widely, with the potassium being only 1.83 times as high as sodium in beets, to snap beans, in which the potassium content is 76 times 100 TABLE X n A COMPARISON OF POTASSIUM-TO-SODIUM RATIOS IN PLANTS GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS (b&std on m.e./lOO gxn. of dry m aterial) Crops Arranged in De­ scending O rd er of Potassium-to-Sodium Ratios (mature plants) Beet (Beta vulsaris) Celery (Apium graveolens) MuskmeUm (Cucifjmis melo Onion (Allium ceps) * C arrot (Daucus c a rota)* Tomato (Lycopersicon e s c ulentum) * Cauliflower (Braasica ole race a) Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)* Cabbage (B rassica oleracea) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) P ea (Pisum sativum) Lima Bean (Phaeseolus limensis) Sweet Corn (Zea Mays) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Squash (Cucurbita maxima) Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) ♦ Ratio K/Na Ratio (K/Na) Found by Collande r (11) (immature plants) Ratio (K/Na) Found by H arm er and Benne (24) (mature ' plants) 1.83 1.90 0.91 0.78 3.77 4.08 4.71 12.60 4.73 4.29 4.74 6.07 7.77 9.95 11.54 16.41 4.21 5.00 16.43 19.50 32.86 44.29 3.21 44.75 60.00 76.00 * Crops in which additional sodium, under Ate conditions of this investigation, reduced yield. 101 as high as sodium, and indicates te a t the relative potassium -tosodium content in plant composition does not provide a simple m easure of tee sensitivity of a crop to sodium. In o rd er to get a c le a re r picture of the influence of sodium on crops, they have been classified with respect to th eir sodium content, and on th e ir yield responses to sodium applications. A. Crop accumulating comparatively large quantities of sodium - • g re a te r than 0.25 p e r cent of dry weight. 1. No apparent injury and frequently with favorable results on yield: beets and celery. 2. No apparent effect on yield: cauliflower and spinach. 3. With some apparent injury and no yield response: c a r­ rot,* muskmelon, cabbage, tomato,* and cucumber.P B. Crops teat accumulate very low quantities or show some mechanism for excluding sodium—less than 0.25 p e r cent. 1. Those not injured: 2. Those injured: lettuce, pea, and lim a bean. onion,* squash, potato, sweet corn, and snap bean.* * Yields depressed significantly. s 10 2 It is probably of significance that, with the exception of oaiens, all the crops with a ratio lower than eight-contained m ore th 0. 25 p e r cent sodium, and that all the crops with a ratio higher than eight, with the exception of spinach, contained le ss than 0.25 p e r cent. It is interesting to note that, in this connection, onion was injured by sodium application, whereas spinach was not. This may be related to the relatively low potassium content of the onion and the relatively high potassium cont ent of spinach. In this classification, the crops that were significantly in­ jured by sodium application were tomato and cucumber, each con- _ 0.28 p e r cent of the dry weight as sodium, and onion, with 0.22 p e r cent sodium, whereas the snap bean contained only 0,02 p e r cent of the dry weight as sodium. This indicates that crops with above-average sodium content were not significantly injured by sodium, but crops with both interm ediate and low sodium con­ tent were injured from sodium. From these groupings one could postulate that the injurious effect of sodium on those crops that were injured and which contained an interm ediate level of sodium might be due to internal factors, and that the injurious effects on snap bean might be associated with some perm eability relationships, either at the interface I 103 between the root and the te ll, o r jus't inside the re el hair cells. To determine the -variability between the effeetiveneia of maximum and minimum applications of the four cations en yield and its relation to total cation concentration, ratios between these two values have been calculated. The yields of the plots receiving maximum additions of the four cations were divided by the yields of the plots receiving minimum applications of the cations, and the crops were arranged In Table XIII, according to the descending magnitude of these ratios. Similar ratios were calculated in r e ­ spect to the cation concentrations, and facilitate a ready compari­ son between the two ratios (Table XIII). Yield-ratio variations were of a magnitude of forty-four, whereas variations in concen­ tration ratios were much le s s, showing a maximum magnitude in variation of only three—cauliflower, with a ratio of 2.4, compared to snap bean, with a ratio of 0.8. It is of significance to note that in these comparisons, very wide variations in yield response are associated with maximum cation additions, but that these additions are not usually associated with wide variations in concentration. On the other hand, in those crops in which maximum cation additions resulted in a reduction 104 TABLE XXII COMPARISON OF CATION CONCENTRATION AND YIELD OF VEGETABLE CROPS BETWEEN TREATMENTS CON­ TAINING MAXIMUM (H) AND MINIMUM (L) QUANTITIES OF THE FOUR CATIONS ConcentraCrops Arranged in Descending O rder of H /L Yield Ratio Yield (tx* iJ! ... . s./iw tt.) , High Low Spinach Beet Muskmelon Celery C arro t Sweet Com Potato Lima Bean Snap Bean Squash Tomato P ea Cauliflowe r Cabbage Lettuce Onion Cucumber 8.0 20.7 27.6 18.9 4.3 12.5 28.2 9.2 5.7 44.3 51.8 2.0 13.1 22.9 3.0 2.5 0.6 1.8 13.0 18.5 14.7 4.4 12.7 28.7 9.8 6.2 53.7 65.4 2.8 22.6 38.8 9.9 9.9 5.1 A verage 16.2 18.6 Ratio h /L *1°® (•** pro sso d as m.o./lOO gms. dried m aterial) H/L ' 4.4 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 High Low 340 306 545 225 151 110 472 265 184 1204 421 165 237 154 216 118 768 293 263 629 185 159 88 423 244 219 1279 400 161 100 140 113 129 625 346 321 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 2.4 1.1 1.9 0.9 1.2 105 in the yield ratios, the concentration of cations increased in most cases, and frequently in quantities detrimental to their growth and development. Figure I shows graphically the data presented in Table Xm, and indicates that crops appear to fall into three groups. The firs t includes spinach through celery, in which greatest yield in­ creases occurred from high cation applications over low. The second group, including carro ts through peas, showed little response in either yield or concentration to soil application of the cations. a The la s t group, including cauliflower through cucumber, comprised those which were reduced in yield by high cation applications which, however, generally resulted in an increase in total concentration of these cations in the plants. The growth of some crops is apparently benefited by con­ centrations of cations in the soil that prove entirely too high for other crops. tolerate It might be hypothesized that the reason some crops even do better under high cation applications, in con­ tr a s t to those which appear sensitive, is that they have developed a successful mechanism for malntalnlng the concentrations of various ions below toxicity levels. igure x , a Compaqjuewh ojl w«j ,yj.cxu euiv. wuuaj. uavxuii vvimuxxva *» -• v« from crops on p lots receivinc the maximum and minimum cation application. 43 YIELD MA. RATIO 4.0 t• -~-CATiON (CA+K+M9+NA) CONCENTRATION H/L RATIO 33 3.0 23 2.0 ------------ i 107 This might have & practical application in the care used in applying fertilisers to vegetable crops. The results of this ex­ periment Indicate that in the crops, spinach, beet, muskmelon, and celery, high applications of fertilisers are not generally associated with toxic concentrations in the plant, but Increase in yield, whereas high applications to such crops as cucumber, onion, lettuce, and cauliflower result in high concentrations in the plant, which were associated under the conditions of this experiment with reduction in yield. This indicates that care should be exercised to provide a satisfactory balance in fertiliser constituents to the last-mentioned crops in order to avoid bringing about excessive accumulations which, in this experiment, resulted in greatly reducing the yield. Although the results of this experiment contribute to a better understanding of the influence of potassium, calcium, and sodium nutrition of the crops with respect to yield, the effect of the ap­ plication of these ions on composition at different stages of growth and on different organs of the plant might lead to more definite conclusions. Furthermore, other nutrients would alter the effects shown in this experiment, and differences in the physical and chem­ ical properties of the soil would undoubtedly modify the phenomena observed. Certainly, the effect of the application on composition 1Q8 should also be related to variations in. physiological responses which might a lte r such factors as quality, drought, disease, and insect resistance. i SUMMARY Seventeen vegetable crops were grown in adjacent rows in a factorially designed field experiment in which three levels of both calcium and potassium and two levels of both magnesium aqd sodium were attained through the application of lime, equal parts of potassium chloride and potassium sulphate, magnesium sulphate and sodium chloride to the soil. As the crops reached the market­ able stage, yields were recorded and samples were taken from each of tee thirty-six treatments for chemical analysis of the cations involved. With tee exception of magnesium, which was used as a replicate in the statistical analysis, the effects of the other treatments were analyzed in order to determine the differ­ ential response by tee various crops to the absorption of these four cations. Averaging all crops, it was found that the milliequivalent percentages of the four cations were 36, 36, 24, and 5 for potas­ sium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium, respectively. Sodium absorption varied most widely, with a maximum of 19.6 per cent of the total for squash, and a low of 0.2 per cent of the total 110 for snap beans, which resulted in a ratio of 98 between the maximum wand minimum percentages of sodium. With the other nutrients the ratios between the maximum and minimum percentages of the crops for the relative calcium, potassium, and magnesium absorption were 19, 14, and 6, respectively. Crops, in addition to showing wide v a r­ iations in absorption, exhibited great differences in the concentra­ tions found in thei'ir foliage and fruit, as observed in pea and tomato. The relative ability of the cations to influence absorption of tee four cations was of tee order potassium, sodium, and cal­ cium. The application of relatively large quantities of potassium significantly increased the accumulation of potassium by all crops, significantly influenced tee accumulation of sodium by eleven crops, and reduced tee calcium accumulation by lima beans, celery, and pea fruit. The addition of sodium significantly increased tee ac­ cumulation of sodium in all crops except tee potato, and reduced potassium accumulation by beets and muskmelon, as well as the calcium accumulation by beet, celery, and carrot. The applica­ tion of calcium significantly increased calcium accumulation in only two crops, squash and tomato fruit, and influenced the accumu­ lation of potassium by cauliflower, snap beans, spinach, carrot, Ill and sweat com, and generally increased sodium accumulation by peas, lima beans, sweet com, and cucumber. For eight of the nine crops tested, it was found that die total cation removal was positively correlated with plant growth, as measured in term s Of yield. Crops varied widely in the benefit they derived from high cation applications, and those that were most benefited showed an ability to maintain a fairly constant cation composition. There was mot only a wide difference in the tolerance of crops to sodium, but also in the concentration of this element in the plant. Some crops, especially "halophytes,11 absorbed die element when potassium was low, with apparently beneficial results. Other crops absorbed die element with no apparent effect on growth. Still other crops tended to exclude the absorption of sodium, thus / preventing deleterious effects. Snap bean tended to exclude sodium, but, in spite of the very small amount absorbed, the effect of sodium application was injurious. When the optimum balance of calcium to potassium was ob­ tained by certain plants, the plant increased in growth and its ability to exclude sodium. LITERATURE CITED Albrecht, W. A. Calcium - potassium - phosphorus relation as a possible factor in ecological a rra y of plants. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron., 32:411-18. 1940. Allaway, W. H. Availability of replaceable calcium from different types of colloids as affected by degrees of calcium saturation. Soil Sci., 59:207-17. 1945. Aristotle. De partibus animalis. (Trans, by Ogle.)11, Cap. 3,250a. Cited in Mineral Nutrition, Gilbert, F. A. p. 5 Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma P re s s. 1948. Amon, D. I., and D. R. Hoagland. Composition of tomato plant as influenced by nutrient application in relation to fruiting. Bot. Gaz,, 104:576-90. 1943. Attoe, O. J., and E. Truog. Exchangeable and acidsoluble potassium as regards availability and reciprocal re la ­ tionships. Soil Sci. Amer. Proc., 10:81-86. 1946. Bear, F. E., and S. J. Toth. Influence of calcium on availa­ bility of other soil cations. Soil Sci., 65:69-74. 1948. Breazeale, E. L., W. T. McGeorge, and J. F. Breazeale. Nutrition of plants considered as an electrical phe­ nomenon - a new approach. Soil Sci., 71:371-75. 1951. Brown, J. S., O. Li 11eland, and R. K. Jackson. Further notes on the use of flame methods for the analysis of plant m aterial for potassium, calcium, magnesium and. sodium Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 56:12-22. 1950. Carolus, R. L. Calcium and potassium relationships in to­ matoes and spinach. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 54: 281-85. 1949. 113 10. Chu, T. S., and JL. M. Turk. Growth and nutrition of plants aa affected by degree of base saturation of different types of clay m inerals. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bui. 214. 1947. 11. Collander, R. plants. 12. Cooil, B. J., and M. C. Slattery. Effects of potassium de­ ficiency and excess upon certain carbohydrates and nitrogenous constituents in guayule. Plant Physiol., 23: 425-42. 1948. 13. Cooper, H. P. Effects of energy properties of some plant nutrients on availability, on rate of absorption, and on intensity of certain oxidation-reduction reactions. Soil Sci., 69:7-39. 1950. 14. Cowie, D. B., R. B. Roberts, and I. Z. Roberts. Potassium metabolism in Escherichia coli. Permeability to sodium and potassium ions. J. Cellular and Comp. Physiol., 34:243-57. 1949. 15. De Candolle, A. Origin of cultivated plants. Appleton fc Co. 1914. 16. Dorph-Petersen, K., and F. Steenbjerg. Investigation of the effect of fertilisers containing sodium. Plant and Soil, 2:283-300. 1950. 17. Drake, M., J. Vengris, and W. G. Colby. Cation-exchange capacity of plant roots. Soil Sci., 72:139-47. 1951. 18. Elgabaly, M. M., and L. Wiklander. The effect of exchange capacity of clay mineral and acidoid content of plant on uptake of sodium and calcium by excised barley and pea roots. Soil Sci., 67:419-24. 1949. 19. Epstein, E., and C. E. Hagen. A kinetic study of the absorp­ tion of alkali cations by barley roots. Plant Physiol., 27:457-74. 1952. Selective absorption of cations by higher Plant Physiol., 16:691-720. 1941. New York: D. 114 20. Fisher, R. A.Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburough, Scotland: Oliver fc Boyd. 1936. 21. Gauch, H. G., and C. H. Wadleigh. The influence of saline substrate upon the absorption of nutrient by bean plants. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 41:365-69. 1942. 22. Gilbert, F. A. Mineral nutrition of plants and animals. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma P re ss. 1948. 23. Harmer, P. M. The muck soils of Michigan, ment and uses. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. 1943. 24. Harmer, P. M., and E. J. Benne. Sodium as a crop nutrient. Soil Sci., 60:137-48. 1945. •- 0 their manage­ Spec. Bui. 314. i 25. Hartwell, B. L., and S. C. Damon. The value of sodium when K is insufficient. Rhode Island Sta. Bui. 177, pp. 4-32. 1919. 26. Hayward, H. E., and E. H. Long. Anatomical and physiologi­ cal response of the tomato to varying concentrations of sodium chloride, sodium sulphate, and- nutrient solution. Bot. Gaz., 102:437-62. 1941. 27. Hewitt, E. J. trition. 28. Hoagland, D. R., and A. R. Davis. The composition of the cell sap of the plant in relation to the absorption of ions. Jour. Gen. Physiol., 5:629-46. 1923. 29. Hurd-Karrer, A. M. Comparative susceptibility of crop plants to sodium chlorate injury. USDA Tech. Bui. 648. 1940. 30. Jacobson, L., R. Overstreet, H. M. King, and R. Handley. study of potassium by barley roots. Plant Physiol., 25:639-47. 1950. The role of the mineral element in plant nu­ Ann. Rev. of Plant Physiol., 2:25-52. 1951. A 4 115 31. Kalckar, H. M . Adenylpyrophosphatase and myokinase. Biol. Cham.. 153:355. 1944. 32. Kearney. T. H., and L. L. H arter. Comparative tolerance of various plants for the salts common in alkali soil. USDA Bur. Plant Indus. Bui. 113. 1907. 33. Krishnan, P. S. Studies on apyrases. II. Some properties of potato apyrase. Arch. Biochem.. 20:272-75. 1949. 34. Lawes, J. B.. and J. H. Gilbert. On the composition of the ash of wheat grain and wheat straw, grown at Rothamsted, in different seasons, and by different manures. Chem. Soc. Jour., 45:305-407. 1884. 35. Lehr, J. J. The importance of sodium for plant nutrition. III. The equilibrium of cations in the beet. Soil Sci., 53:399-411. 1942. J. 36. Lewis, C. C., and W. S. Eisenmenger. Relationship of plant development to the capacity to utilize potassium in orthoclase feldspar. Soil Sci., 65:495-500. 1948. 37. Liebig, J. Die Chemie in ih re r Anwendung auf Agrikultur and Physiologie. Braunschweig, 1864. Cited in Mineral Nutrition, F. A. Gilbert. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma P re s s. 1948. 38. Lucas, R. E., and G. D. Scarseth. K, Ca and Mg balance and reciprocal relationship in plants. Journ. of Amer. Soc. of Agron., 39:887-96. 1947. 39. Lundeg&rdh, H. Mechanism of absorption and transport of inorganic nutrients in plants. Arkiv. Botan., 32:1-139. 1945. 40. . Quantitative relations between respiration and salt absorption. Ann. Royal Agr. Coll. of Sweden, 16:372403. 1949. 116 41. Lundeg&rdh, H., and H. Bur atr Am. Bioch. Z., 261:233-51. 1933. Cited in R. N. Robertson. Mechanism of absorption and transport of inorganic nutrients in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 2:1-24. 1951. 42. Lauit, O. R., and W. L.. Nelson. Studies on the value of sodium in the mineral nutrition of cotton. North Carolina Agr. Expt. Sta. Paper 364. 1950. 43. Marshall, C. E. Ionization of calcium from soil colloids and its bearing on soil-plant relationships. Soil Sci., 65: 57-68. 1948. 44. Mehlich, A., and J. F. Reed. The influence of degree of saturation, K level and Ca additions on removal of Ca, Mg and K. Soil Sci. Amer. Proc., 10:87-93. 1945. 45. Newton, J. D. The selective absorption of inorganic elements by various crops. Soil Sci., 26:85-91. 1928. 46. Osterhout, W. J. V. Plants which require sodium. 54:532-36. 1912. 47. Overstreet, R., and L. Jacobson. Mechanisms of ion absorp­ tion by roots. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 3:189-206. 1952. 48. Pierce, E. G., and G. O. Appleman. Role of ether soluble organic acids in the cation-anion balance in plants. Plant Physiol., 18:224-38. 1943. 49. Pool, R. J. Flowers and flowering plants. McGraw-Hill. 1929. 50. Richards, F. J. The mineral nutrition of plants. Biochem., 13:611-30. 1944. 51. Roberts, R. B., I. Z. Roberts, and D. B. Cowie. Potassium metabolism in Escherichia coli. J. Cellular and Comp. Physiol., 34:259-91. 1949. Bot. Gaz., New York: Ann. Rev. 117 52. Saussure, T. de. Chemische Untersuchungen uber die Vegeta­ tion, 2. German Translation by A. Wieher, Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, Germany. 1890. 53. Selman, I. W. The use of common salt as a fertilizer. Min. Agr. (Eng.). 45:237-46. 1938. 54. Shear, C. B., H. L. Crane, and A. T. Myers. Nutrient-element balance: A fundamental concept in plant nutrition. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 47:239-48. 1946. 55. Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods. State College P ress. 1946. 56. Spiegelman, S., and J. M. Reiner. A kinetic analysis of potas­ sium accumulation and sodium exclusion. Growth, 6: 367-89. 1942. Permeability. 1951. Ames, Iowa: Jour. The Iowa 57. Steinbach, H. B. 2:323-42. Ann. Rev. of Plant Physiol., 58. Steinberg, R. A., J. D. Bowling, and J. E. McMurtrey. Accumu­ lation of free amino acids as a chemical basis for morphological symptoms in tobacco manifesting frenching and mineral deficiencies. Plant Physiol., 25:279. 1950. 59. Steward, F. C. The absorption and accumulation of solutes by living plant cells. 1. Experimental condition which de­ termines salt absorption by storage tissue. Protoplasm, 15:29-58. 1932. 60. Toth, S. J., A. L>. Prince, and D. S. Mikkelsen. Rapid quanti­ tative determination of eight mineral elements in plant tissue by a systematic procedure involving the use of a flame photometer. Soil Sci., 66:459-66. 1948. 61. Thorne, D. W. Growth and nutrition of tomato plants as in­ fluenced by exchangeable sodium, calcium and potassium. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer., 9:185-89. 1944. 118 62. Truog, Emil. trients. 63. Van Helmont, Jean B. Workes (Trans, by J. Chandler). London, 1664. Cited in F. A. Gilbert. Mineral Nu­ trition, p. 6. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma P ress. 1948. 64. Van Itallie, Th. B. The rate of sodium in the cation balance of different plants. Trans. Third Internat. Congr. Soil Sci., 1:191-94. 1935. 65. Veatch, J. O. Agricultural land classification and land types of Michigan. Mich. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bull. 231 (First Rev.). 1941. 66. Watts, R. L., and G. S. Watts. The vegetable growing business. New York: Orange Judd. 1949. 67. Winsor, H. W. Boron micro determination in fresh plant tissue. Annal. Chem., 20:176-81. o Lime in relation to availability of plant nu­ Soil Sci., 65:1-7. 1948. 68. Wynd, F. L. Feed the soil. Sci. Monthly, 74:223-29. 1952. 69. Yates, F. The design and analysis of factorial experiments. Imp. Bur. of Soil Sci. Tech. Comxnun., 35. 1937. APPENDIX Complete Data for Plant Weight or Yield, Percentage Dry Weight and P e r Cent Calcium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Sodium in the Plant and F ru it from Each of the Seventeen Crops Grown with the Thirty-six F ertilizer Treatments 120 Table 1. Tbe plant weight or yield of onion, cabbage, cauliflower, pea, lima bean, and snap bean, as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilizer treatments (expressed in pounds per 10 linear feet). Crop Treatment* Cab­ bage (head) Cauli­ flower (head) - Pea (fruit) Lima Bean (fruit) Snap Bean (fruit) 13.1 15.3 16.8 2.0 2.9 5.2 9.2 7.7 8.3 5.7 6.4 6.2 28.0 34.8 40.5 14.7 17.8 23.0 4.0 2.8 1.8 6.4 9.1 6.7 5.8 3.8 6.2 8.1 11.2 7.2 34.9 30.6 16.8 19.7 15.8 15.0 0.6 0.4 2.0 6.4 8.7 6.2 4.8 7.3 1.1 1 2 1 12.7 6.8 9.2 27.4 24.6 22.2 12.2 25.1 15.1 2.0 1.8 3.0 5.3 8.1 7.3 1.1 5.4 4.9 2 2 1 2 1 2 4.1 6.1 4.0 35.6 36.1 30.3 15.1 18.8 14.4 0.6 1.0 1.5 8.6 9.9 9.0 3.6 6.6 4.7 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.5 3.8 30.5 20.2 26.4 20.0 22.2 12.9 1.6 2.2 2.1 7.7 8.3 8.7 5.9 5.1 6.5 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3.5 5.4 7.5 23.1 25.5 27.2 21.9 21.1 18.2 1.8 1.4 3.2 8.6 7.3 9.7 5.2 6.1 6.1 Onion (plant) Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2.5 7.3 7.3 22.9 36.7 24.8 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 11.0 8.0 7.3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 121 Table 1 (Continue d) Crop Tjrealtment* Cab­ bage (bead) Cauli­ flower (head) Pea (fruit) Lima Bean (fruit) Snap Bean (fruit) Ca K Mg Na Onion (plant) 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 7.6 5.2 7.3 25.9 25.1 24.0 14.7 14.4 14.9 1.9 1.1 1.2 8.1 9.0 6.4 4.8 6.4 6.4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3.2 2.9 2.5 17.6 16.7 16.8 12.8 13.8 19.6 2.5 2.9 2.2 7.3 8.3 7.0 3.5 4.9 4.4 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4.2 4.7 7.4 22.3 29.7 21.8 14.8 19.6 28.6 2.9 2.7 2.4 7.7 7.3 9.4 5.0 6.0 6.4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 5.0 7.3 6.4 21.2 31.5 29.8 20.2 19.7 20.9 1.4 2.6 2.6 6.7 6.4 6.3 2.4 5.5 3.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6.4 5.7 9.9 35.3 36.3 38.8 20.2 16.7 22.6 1.8 2.3 2.8 5.7 9.2 9.8 7.0 4.6 6.2 6.3 27.6 17.8 2.1 7.8 5.1 Ave rage * Ca (3) * pH 6. 5; (2) * pH 6.0; (1) « pH 5.5. K (3) * 330; (2) * 180; (1) * 30 lbs. per acre. Mg (2) * 100; (1) * 0 lbs. MgO per acre. Na (2) * 200; (1) * 0 lbs. Na^O per acre. 122 Table 2. The plant weight or yield of beet, spinach, celery, carrot, sweet com, and tomato, as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtilis e r treatments (eaq>ressed in pounds per 10 linear feet). Crop Treatment1 *1 Beet (plant) Spin­ ach (plant) Cel­ ery (plant) 2 1 2 20.7 23.2 17.9 8.0 10.2 8.6 18.9 18.0 25.3 1 2 2 1 2 1 21.5 17.2 20.8 9.0 6.3 10.8 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 9.2 12.3 20.5 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 C ar­ rot (plant) Sweet Corn (ears) To­ mato (fruit) 4.3 7.0 3.6 12.5 18.2 15.8 51.8 93.4 77.8 . 22.7 15.9 12.9 8.0 4.9 6.7 16.0 14.2 12.7 71.6 69.8 79.5 7.2 6.6 5.6 10.0 12.4 18.8 7.0 7.2 6.5 10.6 11.3 17.6 69.6 77.0 52.8 18.2 19.8 15.6 4.5 5.4 4.7 10.0 23.2 12.2 4.9 4.9 5.7 8.7 10.0 15.7 52.0 58.8 60.7 2 1 2 17.3 19.1 18.4 7.4 4.1 6.9 20.6 24.3 17.1 1.6 3.2 2.2 10.8 15.0 13.8 40.0 71.4 44.8 1 2 2 1 2 1 21.7 16.1 12.2 4.9 4.4 3.8 18.5 20.1 19.3 5.6 3.6 3.7 8.4 8.3 7.2 68.3 52.1 67.6 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.6 10.8 18.1 5.0 4.7 6.3 26.6 24.5 20.3 0.5 2.4 1.1 17.8 10.4 10.7 52.5 54.8 55.4 Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 123 Table 2 (Continued) Crop Treatment* Beet (plant) Spin­ ach (plant) Cel­ ery (plant) Car­ rot (plant) Sweet Corn (ears) To­ mato (fruit) Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9.3 14.8 11.5 4.9 4.5 4.0 12.0 20.2 9.9 2.8 1.8 5.7 16.2 11.2 10.3 35.5 41.8 19.8 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 11.3 13.7 12.3 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.0 5.9 5.3 2.3 4.0 3.5 2.6 12.6 3.7 28.6 48.5 24.8 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.7 19.8 15.2 2.4 0.3 3.4 5.6 18.3 13.8 5.4 1.4 2.9 10.8 7.7 16.3 44.8 44.4 59.8 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 14.9 16.3 22.4 1.7 6.8 4.3 16.1 11.4 5.0 1.3 4.7 4.4 14.8 12.5 11.3 48.8 95.6 73.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 10.7 15.8 13.0 0.1 2.7 1.8 14.9 20.5 14.7 3.4 3.6 4.4 4.8 11.5 12.7 67.7 33.1 65.4 16.0 5.0 15.8 4.1 11.8 57.0 Average * See Table 1. 124 Table 3. The plant weight or yield of potato, muikmelan, cue am­ ber, squash, and lettuce, as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilizer treatments (expressed in pounds per 10 linear feet). Crop Treatment* Ca K Mg Na Potato (tu­ bers) Muskmelon (fruit) Cu­ cum­ ber (fruit) Squash (fruit) Let­ tuce (head) 3 3 3 3 3 ' 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 28.2 29.3 34.3 27.6 21.1 26.8 0.6 1.5 0.8 44.3 51.5 74.3 3.0 13.1 10.9 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 30.3 27.9 22.3 28.5 37.8 18.1 7.4 2.9 3.4 40.5 62.2 85.3 8.3 14.1 7.6 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 24.1 29.3 13.1 10.9 12.2 4.1 2.3 2.7 0.2 35.5 64.5 41.8 11.1 8.5 4.7 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 18.3 18.8 28.3 6.7 18.2 18.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 44.4 54.3 40.5 5.5 4.4 4.3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 26.7 35.3 26.8 11.9 20.0 17.7 4.5 4.7 2.6 23.0 53.4 41.6 5.7 5.3 8.6 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 24.0 25.9 35.8 23.4 12.8 17.4 6.6 0.6 2.7 57.3 40.0 55.8 9.6 6.2 8.3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 30.6 34.6 25.0 14.4 12.0 18.5 1.1 1.6 1.3 57.5 64.6 57.7 6.4 5.6 6.5 125 Table 3 (Continued) Crop Treatment* Potato (tu­ bers) MuskMelon (fruit) Cu­ cum­ ber (fruit) Squash (fruit) Let­ tuce (head) Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 21.1 21.7 17.0 21.8 22.5 12.6 2.7 1.7 5.5 33.8 43.9 73.8 5.4 7.6 6.9 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 23.9 29.6 19.1 13.6 5.9 12.5 0.7 2.4 0.2 32.2 3 8.0 47.4 5.6 5.7 5.7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 20.7 29.8 33.4 16.5 12.9 16.8 2.9 0.8 1.9 30.5 75.7 41.3 7.4 5.6 4.2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 27.1 32.2 30.5 12.7 18.6 8.2 1.3 5.3 2.9 47.7 54.0 42.5 5.5 8.8 10.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 34.8 26.0 28.7 23.8 8.9 18.5 4.4 8.8 5.1 52.5 29.8 53.7 4.3 4.4 7.4 26.8 16.8 2.7 49.6 7.0 Average 126 Table 4. Tbe p e r cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of onion (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtilise r treat ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 14.0 12.5 14.0 0.88 0.58 0.99 1.73 2.12 1.73 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.26 0.11 0.24 3.09 3.06 3.16 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 12.0 15.0 0.94 0.70 0.28 1.93 1.40 1.65 0.26 0.21 0.32 0.12 0.15 0.09 3.25 2.46 2.34 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 16.0 14.0 15.0 0.66 1.10 0.84 1.60 1.73 1.13 0.18 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.10 0.38 2.67 3.16 2.56 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 19.0 16.0 1.07 0.79 1*41 1.33 1.18 0.87 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.34 0.27 2.80 2.45 2.73 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 16.0 15.0 17.0 0.79 0.55 0.93 2.39 2.40 2.02 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.14 0.26 3.62 3.28 3.43 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 16.0 18.0 15.0 1.09 0.86 1.03 2.43 1.53 1.91 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.12 0.34 0.13 3.89 2.98 3.30 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 16.0 16.0 16.0 0.70 0.60 1.05 1.55 1.99 0.99 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.26 0.11 0.65 2.68* 2.87 2.94 127 Table 4 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 16.0 15.0 14.0 0.34 0.82 1.15 0.89 0.92 0.82 0.15 0.17 0.29 0.11 0.58 0.11 1.49 2.49 2.37 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 16.0 18.0 15.0 0.58 0.99 0.92 1.99 3.10 1.92 0.17 0.31 0.20 0.25 0.09 0.35 2.99 4.49 3.39 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 16.0 16.0 16.0 1.04 0.89 0.94 1.70 1.21 1.67 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.25 0.08 3.00 2.54 2.89 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 12.5 13.5 14.0 1.18 0.69 0.73 1.40 1.27 1.20 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.34 0.08 0.27 3.11 2.19 2.40 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 12.5 18.0 15.0 1.03 1.03 1.64 0.78 0.93 0.92 0.32 0.16 0.24 0.09 0.61 0.10 2.22 2.73 2.90 15.2 0.88 1.56 0.21 0.22 2.89 30.61 54.20 7.40 7.78 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 1 28 Table 5. The per cent dry -weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of cabbage (head), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilize r tre a t­ ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Tots Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 6.0 6.0 5.0 0.46 0.59 0.45 4.04 4.13 5.27 0.34 0.35 0.47 0.31 0.07 0.34 5.15 5.14 6.53 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6.0 6.0 5.0 0.52 0.48 0.49 4.65 4.60 4.58 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.06 0.33 0.14 5.66 5.81 . 5.56 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.52 0.40 0.47 4.35 4.10 2.52 0.36 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.0 8 0.72 5.50 4.93 4.02 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.90 0.42 1.14 3.04 2.77 2.94 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.61 0.28 4.59 4.08 4.64 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 '6.0 6.0 6.0 0.50 0.40 0.49 3.76 4.22 4.28 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.07 0.29 4.90 5.01 5.38 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.38 0.55 1.10 4.30 4.35 4.20 0.29 0.45 0.42 0.09 0.27 0.09 5.06 5.62 5.81 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.43 0.84 0.50 4.49 4.00 3.05 0.33 0.42 0.40 0.22 0.27 0.76 5.47 5.53 4.71 129 Table 5 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.50 0.71 0.87 2.50 2.68 3.11 0.33 0.38 0.30 0.17 0.70 0.37 3.50 4.47 4.65 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.56 0.43 0.35 4.16 4.65 4.35 0.47 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.11 0.28 5.61 5.53 5.29 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.36 0.35 0.48 4.60 4.80 3.94 0.32 0.28 0.30 0.07 0.40 0.09 5.35 5.83 4.81 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.46 0.42 0.24 3.84 3.71 2.64 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.42 0.08 0.65 5.03 4.49 3.80 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 6.0 5.0 0.51 0.84 0.60 2.96 3.51 3.50 0.36 0.30 0.26 0.14 0.56 0.24 3.97 5.21 4.60 5.7 0.55 3.85 0.34 0.29 5.03 10.87 76.54 6.84 5.77 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. m 130 Table 6. Th* per cant dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of cauliflower (head), as influenced by each of the thirty-six ferti­ lis e r treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Tota: Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.37 2.00 0.97 4.46 3.47 3.50 0.40 0.41 0.23 0.50 0.10 0.23 6.73 5.98 4.93 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 9.5 9.0 8.0 0.79 2.09 1.76 3.63 4.46 4.09 0.18 0.34 0.30 0.05 0.93 0.31 4.65 7.82 6.46 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 9.0 7.5 8.0 1.75 1.59 1.69 3.48 3.76 2.01 0.17 0.18 0.26 0.62 0.18 1.36 6.02 5.71 5.32 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 8.5 10.0 8.5 1.17 1.69 1.81 1.64 2.14 2.14 0.14 0.18 0.13 0.15 1.01 0.21 3.10 5.02 4.29 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 8.0 9.5 7.0 3.00 1.77 1.72 4.09 4.81 3.63 0.52 0.29 0.18 0.70 0.L3 0.34 8.31 7.00 5.87 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 8.5 8.0 8.0 1.98 0.84 1.29 4.34 3.16 3.98 0.23 0.19 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.12 6.71 4.37 5.63 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 7.0 9.0 7.0 2.11 1.48 1.63 3.55 3.63 2.60 0.50 0.32 0.46 0.37 0.30 0.99 6.53 5.73 5.68 131 Table 6 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 10.0 11.5 0.70 1.71 1.63 3.45 2.96 2.76 0.18 0.34 0.22 0.09 0.49 0.25 4.42 5.50 4.86 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 8.0 6.5 8.0 1.72 1.20 1.68 3.76 4.00 3.90 0.35 0.19 0.20 0.45 0.05 0.33 6.28 5.44 6.11 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 9.5 8.0 8.0 1.52 2.23 £.57 3.74 2.90 2.88 0.22 0.41 0.54 0.08 0.65 0.27 5.56 6.19 6.26 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 8.0 9.0 9.0 1.91 2.14 0.93 3.09 2.76 2.53 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.92 0.18 0.99 6.24 5.37 4.72 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 8.0 8.5 8.0 1.34 1.18 1.80 2.30 2.63 1.89 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.43 0.82 0.60 4.26 4.81 4.50 8.5 1.63 3.28 0.28 0.43 5.62 29.03 58.37 4.92 7.68 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. ✓ 132 Table 7. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of pea (foliage), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertiliser treat ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 16.5 15.5 15.5 1.72 1.19 1.47 1.85 1.75 1.99 0.32 0.26 0.27 0.12 0.02 0.05 4.01 3.22 3.78 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 18.0 16.5 19.5 1.68 1.05 1.12 1.83 1.45 1.62 0.26 0.72 0.67 0.02 0.08 0.03 3.79 3.30 3.44 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 17.5 14.5 20.5 1.51 2.06 1.66 1.54 1.78 1.19 0.59 0.31 0.21 0.0 8 0.02 0.17 3.72 4.17 3.23 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 20.0 18.5 19.5 1.62 1.74 2.48 1.42 1.32 1.52 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.13 0.06 3.25 3.40 4.27 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 16.5 18.5 15.5 1.51 1.59 1.46 1.68 1.88 1.63 0.19 0.29 0.23 0.06 0.04 0.04 3.44 3.80 3.36 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 18.5 18.5 20.0 1.63 1.40 1.69 1.52 1.60 1.33 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.03 0.05 0.01 3.42 3.30 3.27 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 20.5 17.5 15.5 1.60 1.49 1.56 1.64 1.87 1.83 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.04 0.05 3.55 3.69 3.73 133 Table 7 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.5 15.0 16.5 1.23 1.90 1.57 1.81 1.84 1.39 0.24 0.27 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.06 3.30 4.07 3.23 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 20.0 21.5 20.5 1.79 1.26 1.62 1.77 1.48 1.68 0.28 0.21 0.24 0.10 0.01 0.10 3.94 2.96 3.64 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 17.5 15.0 16.5 1.73 1.92 1.45 1.68 1.66 1.67 0.24 0.34 0.26 0.02 0.10 0.02 3.67 4.02 3.40 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 15.5 16.0 18.5 1.67 1.51 1.31 1.93 1.49 1.21 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.12 0.02 0.15 3.98 3.22 2.93 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.5 17.5 18.5 1.95 1.67 2.22 1.28 1.11 1.14 0.33 0.21 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.02 3.58 3.07 3.62 17.5 1.61 1.59 0.29 0.06 3.55 45.35 44.79 8.17 1.69 100.00 Ave rage Relative % * See Table 1. 134 Table 8. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of lima bean (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilizer treat­ ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 20.0 22.0 20.0 2.78 2.84 2.88 2.20 1.83 2.10 0.82 0.66 0.50 0.06 0.06 0.07 5.86 5.39 5.55 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 20.0 22.0 23.0 2.48 1.78 1.68 2.58 2.03 2.13 0.61 0.71 0.99 0.07 0.06 0.07 5.74 4.58 4.87 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 24.0 22.0 22.0 2.98 2.04 3.61 2.08 2.79 1.80 0.68 0.58 0.86 0.07 0.06 0.10 5.81 5.47 6.37 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 22.0 22.0 20.0 3.88 5.26 2.84 1.78 1.57 1.91 0.89 0.85 0.61 0.07 0.08 0.06 6.62 7.76 5.42 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 21.0 21.0 20.0 2.62 3.72 3.20 2.54 2.38 2.48 0.82 0.83 0.79 0.05 0.05 0.05 6.03 6.98 6.52 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.84 2.30 3.38 2.13 2.18 1.57 0.86' 0.74 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.05 5.89 5.28 5.78 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 3.24 3.30 2.77 1.73 2.18 1.71 0.69 0.78 0.68 0.05 0.05 0.06 5.71 6.31 5.22 135 Table 8 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 23.0 23.0 22.0 3.11 3.62 3.75 0.94 1.90 1.16 1.00 0.69 0.82 0.05 0.06 0.06 5.10 6.27 5.79 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 20.0 20.0 19.0 2.98 2.46 3.60 2.47 2.37 2.92 0.86 0.70 0.82 0.07 0.05 0.08 6.38 5.58 7.42 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 18,0 20.0 20.0 3.28 3.53 2.20 2.83 2.54 2.60 0.74 0.88 0.63 0.05 0.06 0.05 6.90 7.01 5.48 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 22.0 20.0 22.0 2.87 2.88 2.95 1.89 1.97 1.68 0.70 0.74 0.82 0.05 0.05 0.11 5.51 5.64 5.56 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 23.0 19.0 20.0 2.48 3.02 2.95 1.00 1.73 1.42 0.79 0.60 0.71 0.05 0.06 0.05 26.3 3.00 2.03 0.76 0.06 5.85 51.28 34.70 12.99 1.03 100.00 Average Relative % / * See Table 1. ' 4.32 5.41 5.13 136 Table 9. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of snap bean (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtilise r treat­ ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Tota] Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 10.0 10.0 1.81 1.30 2.51 2.03 2.12 2.17 0.50 0.48 0.55 0.02 V . 0.01 0.04 4.36 3.91 5.27 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.5 10.5 16.0 2.08 1.92 1.71 2.36 2.14 1.82 0.54 1.63 1.80 0.01 0.02 0.01 4.99 5.71 5.i4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.5 14.0 13.0 2.68 3.02 2.07 2.26 1.83 1.92 0.85 0.79 0.60 0.03 0.01 0.05 5.82 5.65 4.64 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.0 11.5 11.5 2.55 2.42 2.43 1.88 1.61 1.81 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.90 4.49 4.70 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 11.0 12.0 2.22 2.50 2.41 2.01 2.09 1.98 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.79 5.12 4.92 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.0 11.6 15.0 1.98 3.48 1.85 2.21 1.76 1.96 0.62 0.75 0.50 0.02 0.02 0.01 4.83 6.01 4.32 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.6 11.0 12.0 2.88 2.90 3.02 1.73 2.07 1.51 0.50 0.46 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.01 5.12 5.44 5.21 137 Table 9 (Continued) Treatment Ca K Mg Na % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total 0.78 0.48 0.55 0.02 0.03 0.01 4.61 5.13 4.60 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 10.0 12.0 2.49 2.89 2.65 1 1.32 1.73 1.39 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 12.5 11.0 2.10 2.54 1.90 2.07 2.23 2.27 0.48 0.49 0.39 0.03 0.01 0.01 4.68 5.27 4.57 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 11.0 11.0 2.69 2.34 1.74 2.22 2.18 2.31 0.52 0.56 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.01 5.44 5.09 4.59 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.0 10.5 12.0 1.53 2.42 2.60 2.38 2.49 1.64 0.44 0.42 0.64 0.02 0.02 0.02 4.37 5.35 4.90 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 12.0 11.0 12.0 2.91 1.91 2.45 1.57 1.70 1.73 0.90 0.61 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.02 5.39 4.23 4.83 11.7 2.36 1.96 0.63 0.02 4.97 47.48 39.44 12.68 0.40 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 138 Tabic 10. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, end sodium composition of beet (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtiliser treatments. Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 ' 15.0 11.5 0.89 1.59 1.1*3 4.60 6.56 5.10 0.85 1.13 0.86 1.70 0.64 1.84 8.04 9.92 8.93 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.5 13.5 14.0 1.20 0.37 0.69 6.56 4.95 6.65 0.92 0.99 2.88 0.49 1.54 0.61 9.17 7.85 10.83 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 13.0 16.0 13.0 0.86 1.36 2.33 5.35 5.43 2.45 0.86 0.72 2.73 2.30 0.42 4.15 9.37 7.93 11.66 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 16.0 12.0 12.0 2.01 1.35 2.09 3.37 3.70 3.57 1.60 0.95 0.78 0.95 3.74 0.47 7.93 9.74 6.91 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 11.5 12.0 11.5 1.14 1.16 0.81 5.88 7.55 5.41 1.36 1.16 0.86 1.88 0.54 2.28 10.26 10.41 9.36 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 14.0 13.5 1.35 1.16 1.46 7.37 4.56 6.36 1.18 1.03 1.13 0.52 2.35 0.64 10.42 9.10 9.59 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 12.5 12.0 12.0 1.35 1.50 1.02 4.25 7.33 3.70 1.17 1.61 0.79 2.81 1.35 2.70 9.58 11.79 8.21 Table 10 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 12.0 14.0 1.32 1.08 1.59 2.95 3.35 3.25 1.23 0.77 0.99 0.41 2.02 1.68 5.91 7.22 7.51 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 13.5 14.0 13.5 1.30 1.35 1.04 4.35 7.19 5.81 1.35 1.46 0.94 2.79 0.72 2.68 9.79 10.72 10.47 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 13.0 12.5 13.0 1.69 0.81 0.89 7.35 4.36 5.60 1.45 0.99 1.03 0.76 2.62 0.43 11.25 8.78 7.95 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 12.0 14.0 12.0 1.04 1.23 0.53 3.92 5.90 3.52 0.81 1.0 8 0.86 2.68 0.41 2.44 8.45 8.62 7.35 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 12.0 12.0 16.0 1.0 8 1.21 1.62 3.70 2.91 3.10 1.45 0.87 1.0 8 0.46 2.84 0.33 6.69 7.83 6.13 13.0 1.24 4.94 1.11 1.59 8.94 13.87 49.43 11.09 15.89 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 100.00 140 Table II. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of spinach (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertiliser treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 8.5 6.5 8.0 0.68 0.45 0.78 8.70 9.43 8.30 0.85 0.93 0.70 0.31 0.04 0.20 10.54 10.85 9.98 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 8.0 6.5 7.5 0.62 0.62 0.66 9.08 8.75 8.50 0.69 1.53 1.54 0.03 0.42 0.07 10.42 11.32 10.77 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 7.0 7.0 9.5 0.97 0.53 0.71 8.50 6.30 4.83 0.84 0.45 0.56 0.33 0.03 1.47 10.64 7.31 7.57 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 9.0 11.5 0.70 1.30 1.26 4.15 3.78 5.34 0.46 0.65 0.60 0.07 2.02 0.06 5.38 7.75 7.26 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 5.5 8.5 8.5 0.93 1.30 1.15 10.15 9.13 8.90 0.96 1.07 0.90 0.10 0.08 0.34 12.14 11.58 11.29 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 9.5 11.0 12.0 0.63 1.09 1.41 8.15 6.90 8.60 0.82 0.82 1.17 0.05 0.65 0.06 9.65 9.46 11.24 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 9.5 11.5 8.5 0.55 0.79 0.71 7.05 7.45 6.88 0.46 0.58 0.65 0.21 0.14 0.92 8.27 8.96 9.16 141 Table 11 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 10.5 8.5 10.0 0.72 0.49 0.78 4.24 6.25 6.63 0.43 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.50 0.30 5.44 7.76 8.23 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 11.5 12.0 12.5 1.02 1.25 0.63 6.92 7.23 5.71 0.75 0.82 0.45 0.46 0.05 0.36 9.15 18.50 7.15 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 8.0 11.0 0.79 1.46 0.62 7.23 9.08 8.06 0.59 1.27 0.67 0.05 1.16 0.09 8.16 12.97 9.44 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 8.5 7.5 . 10.5 0.60 0.56 0.92 6.75 8.70 4.43 0.63 0.85 0.93 0.51 0.09 1.22 8.49 10.20 7.50 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 7.5 11.5 14.0 2.47 2.05 2.74 1.88 4.24 3.35 1.60 0.83 0.81 0.07 2.34 0.10 6.02 9.46 7.00 9.4 0.97 6.93 0.83 0.42 9.38 10.34 73.88 8.85 4.48 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 142 Table 12. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potaatium, magnesium, and sodium composition of celery (plant), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertiliser treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Tota] Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 15.0 11.2 0.70 1.50 1.66 4.82 5.07 5.19 0.40 0.49 0.51 0.78 0.24 1.36 6.70 7.30 8.72 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 13.0 15.0 1.57 1.28 1.45 5.59 3.23 3.35 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.23 2.01 0.30 7.90 7.02 5.59 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 13.0 15.0 15.0 1.58 2.49 1.81 3.56 3.48 2.60 0.45 0.43 0.26 1.91 0.28 0.4* 7.50 6.68 5.11 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.0 13.0 12.0 1.71 1.72 2.34 1.68 1.62 1.85 0.37 0.38 0.26 0.31 * 3.25 0.27 4.07 6.97 4.72 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 12.0 12.0 1.44 1.35 1.30 4.85 4.85 5.23 0.43 0.39 0.42 1.50 0.37 1.30 8.22 6.96 8.25 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 16.0 13.0 13.0 1.61 1.30 1.50 4.47 4.00 4.22 0.40 0.48 0.38 0.31 1.69 0.31 6.79 7.47 6.41 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 13.0 13.0 11.0 2.10 1.74 1.07 4.21 3.97 4.00 0.48 0.32 0.36 2.11 0.89 1.54 8.90 6.92 6.97 143 Table 12 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.0 14.0 16.0 1.65 2.08 2.16 1.76 1.78 1.71 0.25 0.39 0.26 0.28 2.68 0.27 3.94 6.93 4.40 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 15.0 13.0 14.0 1.24 1.11 2.07 3.11 4.47 2.26 0.49 0.38 0.20 1.84 0.28 0.24 6.68 6.24 4.77 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 14.0 13.0 14.0 1.54 1.18 1.47 5.70 4.10 4.09 0.51 0.46 0.35 0.32 1.88 0.25 8.07 7.62 6.16 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 14.0 13.0 15.0 1.59 2.04 1.18 2.01 3.37 0.65 0.35 0.32 0.58 2.08 0.27 3.43 6.03 6.00 5.84 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 12.0 12.0 17.0 1.94 1.26 2.14 1.50 1.55 1.62 0.60 0.40 0.33 0.97 2.88 0.22 5.01 6.09 4.31 13.5 1.61 3.38 0.41 1.09 6.49 24.81 52.08 6.32 16.80 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 100.00 144 Table 13. The per cent dry weight and die calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of carro t (plant), as Influenced by each of the thirty— six fe rtilise r treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Tota] Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 14.5 14.5 14.0 0.72 0.96 0.42 3.51 4.36 3.91 0.23 0.34 0.28 0.37 0.14 0.39 4.83 5.79 5.00 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 14.0 13.5 14.0 0.74 0.66 0.89 4.50 4.00 4.54 0.34 0.53 0.65 0.17 0.49 0.09 5.75 5.68 6.17 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 14.5 14.5 14.0 0.79 1.40 1.11 3.92 3.93 2.25 0.37 0.46 0.41 0.49 0.18 1.42 5.57 5.97 5.19 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 14.5 14.5 1.14 0.90 1.60 2.25 1.97 2.48 0.42 0.29 0.47 0.46 1.38 0.53 4.27 4.54 5.08 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 14.5 14.0 14.5 0.80 0.75 0.77 4.28 4.56 3.90 0.43 0.51 0.46 0.42 0.12 0.48 5.93 5.94 5.61 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 13.5 14.5 14.5 1.06 0.90 0.82 4.57 3.96 6.16 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.16 0.57 0.23 6.27 5.89 7.69 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 15.0 14.5 14.5 0.81 1.29 1.08 3.96 4.86 2.86 0.32 0.47 0.46 0.68 0.24 1.03 5.77 6.86 5.43 145 Table 13 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 13.5 14.5 14.5 1.10 1.06 1.18 2.87 3.55 2.36 0.38 0.29 0.38 0.40 0.67 0.75 4.75 5.57 4.67 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 14.5 14.5 14.5 0.68 1.02 0.72 4.22 4.80 4.96 0.43 0.51 0.34 0.48 0.12 0.35 5.81 6.45 6.37 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 14.5 13.5 14.5 0.99 0.91 0.64 4.49 4.74 4.32 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.20 0.58 0.15 5.97 6.61 5.49 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 14.5 14.5 14.0 0.75 0.94 0.50 3.91 4.16 2.47 0.31 0.31 0.43 0.55 0.18 1.11 5.52 5.59 4.51 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.0 14.5 14.5 1.30 0.95 1.04 2.85 2.67 3.08 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.80 0.28 4.93 4.80 4.78 14.3 0.93 3.78 0.40 0.47 5.58 16.67 67.74 7.17 8.42 100.00 Average Relative % ♦ See Table 1. 146 Table 14. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of sweet corn (leaves and stems), of the thirty-six fertilizer treat­ ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 20.2 20.2 20.5 0.64 1.01 0.52 2.33 2.20 2.32 0.19 0.31 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.06 3.22 3.56 3.09 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 20.5 23.0 23.5 0.70 0.55 0.28 2.03 2.18 1.82 0.22 0.50 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.05 3.00 3.28 2.53 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 20.0 21.5 21.5 0.94 1.34 1.04 2.51 2.23 1.80 0.39 0.49 0.36 0.06 0.05 0.04 3.90 4.11 3.24 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 21.0 23.5 22.0 0.55. 0.93 0 .92 0.80 0.79 1.33 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.04 0.03 0.04 1.68 2.06 2.57 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 20.0 22.2 23.0 0.88 0.87 0.75 2.54 2.64 2.37 0.37 0.36 0.26 0.05 0.04 0.04 6.41 3.91 3.42 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 22.5 23.2 22.5 0.67 0.45 0.46 1.98 1.97 2.50 0.19 0.22 0.31 0.02 0.04 0.03 2.86 2.68 3.30 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 22.0 24.0 26.0 0.90 0.90 0.41 2.17 3.11 1.50 0.34 0.40 0.23 0.04 0.03 0.03 3.45 4.44 2.17 J 147 Table 14 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 27.0 24.0 24.0 1.18 0.78 0.43 2.08 1.70 1.42 0.59 0.28 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.03 3.87 2.79 2.08 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 22.0 22.0 21.5 0.33 0.45 0.47 3.04 3.59 3.39 0.26 0.30 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.06 3.68 4.36 4.19 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 22.0 22.2 26.0 0.71 0.79 0.52 3.85 1.57 1.92 0.38 0.35 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 4.96 2.73 2.71 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 26.0 23.0 23.2 0.70 0.79 0.77 1.57 1.49 1.98 0.60 0.62 0.24 0.03 0.04 0.03 2.90 2.94 3.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 26.0 24.2 22.2 0.51 0.61 0.58 1.90 2.08 1.42 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.02 0.04 2.71 2.97 2.30 0.70 2.11 0.33 0.04 3.25 21.63 65.01 10.01 1.15 100.00 Average 22.7 Relative % * See Table 1. , 148 Table 15. The p e r cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of tomato (leaves and stems), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtiliz e r treatm ents (expressed as p er cent dry weight). Treatment41 % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 13.5 12.0 11.5 5.55 5.46 5.48 2.58 2.47 2.70 1.66 2.29 1.25 0.23 0.02 0.23 10.02 10.24 9.66 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.5 12.5 12.0 5.39 4.10 5.01 3.23 2.35 1.88 1.86 2.59 4.56 0.02 0.41 0.07 10.50 9.45 11.52 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 14.0 15.0 13.5 7.05 5.64 5.98 2.02 2.83 1.54 1.76 1.54 2.42 0.43 0.03 0.59 11.26 10.04 10.53 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 13.0 13.0 15.5 4.90 6.46 6.00 1.80 2.26 1.68 1.78 1.36 1.62 0.17 0.44 0.29 8.65 10.52 9.59 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 12.5 14.0 5.20 5.47 5.58 2.86 2.82 2.58 1.90 1.93 1.79 0.15 0.03 0.29 10.11 10.25 10.24 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 13.0 11.0 15.0 4.97 5.86 5.04 3.29 1.99 2.0 8 1.63 2.06 1.94 0.07 0.42 0.07 9.96 10.33 9.13 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.5 12.5 10.5 4.85 5.95 5.49 2.67 2.55 0.88 1.88 1.51 1.90 0.23 0.13 0.82 9.63 10.14 9.09 149 Table 15 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 15.0 12.0 14.5 4.24 6.78 4.25 1.32 1.27 1.49 2.14 1.59 1.16 0.13 0.67 0.48 7.83 10.31 7.38 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 13.0 12.5 4.62 4.72 4.62 3.36 3.35 4.20 1.70 1.87 1.26 0.17 0.06 0.18 9.85 10.00 10.26 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 12.5 12.5 4.65 5.15 5.21 4.05 2.42 2.44 0.94 1.71 1.39 0.03 0.32 0.0 8 9.67 9.60 9.12 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 12.0 12.0 10.0 6.07 6.28 5.04 2.24 1.75 0.86 0.96 1.48 2.75 0.51 0.13 0.87 9.78 9.64 9.52 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 14*0 15.0 3.83 5.90 5.79 2.00 1.00 1.58 2.02 1.22 1.59 0.12 1.09 0.13 7.97 9.21 9.09 12.8 5.35 2.29 1.81 0.28 9.72 23.53 18.57 2.89 100.00 Average • Relative % 55.01 * See Table 1. m 150 Table 16. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of potato (leaves and stems), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilizer treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 10.0 12.0 3.03 3.01 3.02 4.34 2.20 4.09 2.52 4.82 2.82 0.06 0.03 0.04 9.95 10.06 9.97 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 11.0 14.0 3.06 2.49 2.48 3.74 3.12 5.10 1.60 2.12 2.28 0.09 0.05 0.05 8.49 7.78 9.91 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.0 13.0 14.0 3.32 3.15 2.61 2.97 2.18 2.63 3.48 1.55 2.21 0.05 0.06 0.04 9.82 6.94 7.49 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 15.0 14.0 3.29 3.59 2.92 1.78 2.93 4.35 3.42 1.75 1.96 0.04 0.02 0.06 8.53 8.29 9.29 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 12.0 14.0 12.0 3.16 2.88 3.02 4.71 4.37 4.85 2.24 2.22 1.89 0.06 0.03 0.06 10.17 9.50 9.82 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 14.0 12.0 14.0 2.47 2.96 2.71 4.11 3.25 3.73 1.68 5.96 4.52 0.03 0.06 0.03 8.29 12.23 10.99 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 12.0 12.0 14.0 2.93 2.58 3.40 4.00 2.96 3.01 2.10 2.72 4.14 0.05 0.03 0.07 9.08 8.29 10.62 151 Table 16 (Continued) Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 12.0 16.0 3.75 4.11 3.95 1.95 1.80 2.72 5.24 1.48 1.56 0.03 0.08 0.03 10.97 7.47 8.26 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 13.0 12.0 11.0 2.64 3.09 2.92 4.15 3.09 4.44 2.41 2.43 0.99 0.03 0.07 0.03 9.23 8.68 8.38 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 13.0 12.0 12.0 2.94 3.24 3.24 4.19 2.90 3.99 1.63 1.96 1.96 0.05 0.03 0.06 8.81 '8.13 9.25 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.0 12.0 11.0 2.81 2.66 2.62 1.96 4.08 1.84 1.09 1.24 10.60 0.02 0.05 0.02 5.38 8.03 15.08 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 14.0 16.0 2.42 2.98 3.10 3.45 1.80 2.88 6.28 4.14 2.34 0.04 0.03 0.06 12.19 8.95 8.38 12.8 3.02 3.32 2.87 0.05 9.26 32.58 35.91 31.02 0.49 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 152 Table 17. The p er cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of muskmelon (leaves and stems), as influenced by each of the thirtysix fertilizer treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 11.5 10.0 5.86 8.38 8.28 3.22 3.11 3.23 1.82 5.52 1.55 0.47 0.04 0.73 11.37 17.05 13.79 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 11.0 10.0 12.5 6.98 5.91 5.25 3.70 2.83 3.66 1.88 2.21 1.62 0.0 8 0.45 0.06 12.64 11.40 10.59 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11.5 13.5 10.0 5.73 6.08 10.05 2.41 3.58 1.00 1.39 0.80 1.82 0.79 0.07 1.54 10.32 10.53 14.41 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 14.0 11.5 13.0 7.90 10.07 8.58 1.33 1.41 1.80 1.66 1.24 1.21 0.18 0.64 0.28 11.07 13.36 11.87 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 10.0 12.0 7.03 7.17 6.59 4.00 3.68 3.91 3.40 1.93 1.36 0.41 0.05 0.40 14.84 12.85 12.26 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.0 11.5 12.0 5.70 6.49 8.58 3.74 2.81 2.47 1.28 2.20 5.40 0.06 0.33 0.05 10.78 11.83 16.50 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.5 12.0 11.5 7.24 5.83 8.89 2.81 3.88 0.88 1.61 1.45 3.72 0.24 0.11 0.84 11.90 11.27 14.33 153 Table 17 (Continued) Treatment1 * 1 % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total 1 2 1 10.0 12.0 12.5 8.63 7.92 8.06 0.66 1.02 0.79 6.80 1.45 1.52 0.10 0.85 0.54 16.19 11.24 10.91 Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 11.5 10.5 10.0 8.04 6.65 7.16 2.67 3.53 3.03 3.72 2.86 1.40 0.37 0.04 0.44 14.80 13.08 12.03 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 12.0 10.0 12.0 7.75 6.65 6.35 3.72 2.61 3.36 1.52 1.87 2.20 0.05 0.45 0.11 13.04 11.58 12.02 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.5 13.5 10.0 7.42 6.40 5.45 2.18 2.32 0.92 1.34 1.25 4.75 0.41 0.07 0.71 11.35 10.04 11.83 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 13.5 11.5 12.0 7.24 6.33 9.01 0.60 0.78 0.52 7.00 1.26 1.97 0.07 1.90 0.10 14.91 10.27 11.60 11.5 7.27 2.45 2.39 0.39 12.50 58.16 19.60 19.12 3.12 100.00 Ave rage / Relative -% * See Table 1. 154 Table 18. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of cucumber (leaves and stems), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtiliz e r treatm ents (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 9.0 10.5 5.00 5.25 3.35 4.24 3.96 5.86 4.69 5.62 1.46 0.65 0.50 1.04 14.58 15.33 11.71 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.5 11.5 11.0 3.58 3.26 4.63 4.35 2.13 3.09 1.95 1.54 2.44 0.03 0.25 0.02 9.91 7.18 10.18 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.5 11.5 11.0 4.91 2.76 3.22 2.74 1.88 2.36 1.72 0.83 1.48 0.35 0.02 0.49 9.72 5.49 7.55 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9.5 9.5 11.5 4.00 4.01 5.49 2.88 2.42 2.08 2.22 1.33 1.63 0.27 0.43 0.05 9.37 8.19 9.25 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 9.5 9.0 9.0 3.47 5.00 2.92 3.34 3.08 2.99 1.68 2.23 0.89 0.25 0.06 0.32 8.74 10.37 7.12 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.0 9.0 8.5 2.64 3.65 3.48 4.97 2.75 3.24 0.89 5.12 2.59 0.05 0.59 0.03 8.55 12.11 9.34 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 9.5 10.0 12.0 4.56 4.73 4.25 2.87 4.21 1.24 2.21 2.07 2.82 0.11 0.13 0.47 9.75 11.14 8.78 0 155 Table 18 (Continued) Treatment41 % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 12.0 12.0 11.5 3.70 4.76 4.19 1.43 1.19 1.38 4.56 1.40 1.27 0.04 0.41 0.06 9.73 7.76 6.90 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 9.5 10.0 9.5 3.66 2.00 2.81 4.01 3.76 4.85 3.20 1.19 1.44 0.87 0.05 0.70 11.74 7.00 9.80 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 8.5 9.5 8.0 2.60 3.82 2.85 3.78 2.97 2.63 1.12 4.66 2.17 0.03 0.48 0.03 7.53 11.93 7.68 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.67 3.00 2.90 4.34 2.51 1.75 2.29 1.44 2.92 0.72 0.03 0.30 11.02 6.98 7.87 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 9.0 10.0 8.0 2.44 2.03 4.89 1.52 2.04 1.69 2.31 0.85 4.08 0.03 0.25 0.04 6.30 5.17 10.70 10.0 3.71 2.96 2.29 0.28 9.24 40.15 32.03 24.78 3.04 100.00 Ave rage Relative % * See Table 1. i 156 Table 19. The per cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of squash (leaves and stems), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtiliz e r treatm ents (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 9.0 12.5 8.0 8.92 9.55 13.37 2.93 4.12 4.12 8.30 12.20 9.76 0.04 0.03 0.13 20.19 25.90 27.38 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.5 12.0 10.0 8.19 7.89 11.01 3.92 4.03 3.18 3.80 7.90 19.45 0.02 0.07 0.04 15.93 19.89 33.68 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 9.0 9.0 12.0 12/20 10.10 10.10 1.97 2.26 1.11 4.65 2.55 8.45 0.22 0.04 0.04 19.04 14.95 19.70 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 10.0 8.5 12.97 15.92 13.60 1.33 1.29 1.30 9.80 8.16 2.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 24.12 25.41 16.93 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 11.0 9.0 8.0 9.83 10.79 8.85 3.91 3.72 4.10 16.35 14.00 2.50 0.11 0.03 0.03 30.20 28.54 15.48 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 10.5 8.0 11.0 13^80 11.06 12.21 4.07 4.14 2.79 8.45 13.10 11.10 0.04 0.05 0.03 26.36 28.35 26.13 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10.0 10.5 11.0 9.27 10.99 7.42 4.06 3.91 2.69 5.70 7.91 7.15 0.04 0.02 0.07 19.07 22.83 17.33 157 Table 19 (Continued) Treatment41 % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.0 13.0 14.0 8.24 10.37 7.00 1.91 1.82 1.67 24.00 5.52 1.68 0.02 0.05 0.02 34.17 17.76 10.37 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 10.0 9.5 10.0 6.52 7.94 8.68 4.89 3.71 3.98 5.99 3.77 4.30 0.03 0.02 0.10 17.43 15.44 17.06 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 9.0 10.2 10.0 8.48 6.52 9.42 4.76 4.51 3.40 4.03 7.10 15.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 17.30 18.17 27.84 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 8.0 11.5 11.0 8.87 9.42 7.89 3.53 3.10 2.20 4.52 4.48 23.50 0.06 0.02 0.03 16.98 17.02 33.62 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11.5 9.0 14.0 11.20 8.98 11.05 1.54 2.36 2.12 22.50 4.65 8.18 0.03 0.03 0.02 35.27 16.02 21.37 10.3 9.96 3.07 8.96 0.05 22.03 45.21 13.94 40.67 0.20 100.02 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 158 Table 20. The p e r cent dry weight and the calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium composition of lettuce (plant), as Influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilize r tre a t­ ments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4.7 4.5 4.5 0.46 0.44 0.59 5.60 3.88 5.02 0.50 0.31 0.42 0.19 0.05 0.23 6.75 4.68 6.26 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6.2 4.7 5.0 0.39 0.24 0.29 4.03 3.55 3.64 0.31 0.36 0.44 0.05 0.11 0.05 4.78 4.26 4.42* 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 4.5 5.3 5.9 0.78 0.76 0.64 4.02 3.64 2.91 0.54 0.49 0.50 0.28 0.04 0.54 5.62 4.93 4.59 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3.8 4.8 4.9, 0.52 0.53 0.64 3.55 2.27 1.93 0.48 0.34 0.30 0.07 0.59 0.14 4.62 3.73 3.01 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4.6 5.1 4.6 0.29 0.32 0.42 4.40 3.88 3.08 0.46 0.31 0.54 0.21 0.05 0.14 5.36 4.56 4.18 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4.5 5.5 4.2 0.45 0.39 0.46 4.70 3.94 4.04 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.07 0.31 0.08 •5.73 5.17 5.11 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 4.7 5.7 5.1 0.35 0.43 0.57 3.93 3.81 2.85 0.50 0.49 0.54 0.21 0.10 0.53 4.99 4.83 4.49 159 Table 20 (Continued) Treatment1 *1 % Dry Weight Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5.9 4.9 4.8 0.33 0.26 0.22 1.95 2.31 1.57 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.07 0.21 0.53 2.61 3.04 2.61 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 5.8 5.2 5.9 0.34 0.32 0.46 3.24 4.15 3.90 0.44 0.20 0.40 0.22 0.06 0.34 4.24 4.73 5.10 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 4.7 5.0 5.8 0.53 0.37 0.51 4.81 3.92 3.61 0.48 0.43 0.45 0.06 0.33 0.09 5.88 5.05 4.66 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 4.7 5.8 5.1 0.45 0.26 0.30 3.81 3.14 3.22 0.40 0.24 0.38 0.34 0.07 0.42 5.00 3.71 4.32 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5.5 6.0 5.4 0.19 0.48 0.37 2.52 2.56 2.55 0.32 0.36 0.30 0.07 0.19 0.11 3.10 3.59 3.33 5.1 0.43 3.50 0.41 0.20 4.53 9.49 77.26 9.05 4.42 100.00 Average Relative % * See Table 1. 160 Table 21. The calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium com­ position of pea (fruit), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fe rtiliz e r treatm ents (expressed as per cent dry weight). S Treatment* Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2.68 2.41 2.52 4.96 5.16 5.60 1.58 1.58 1.12 0.03 0.03 0.02 9.25 9.18 9.26 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2.47 2.06 1.63 4.58 3.92 2.74 1.36 3.43 5.12 0.03 0.03 0.04 8.44 9.44 9.53 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2.55 2.72 3.31 3.75 4.04 1.52 1.73 1.55 3.13 0.04 0.02 0.03 8.07 8.33 7.99 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3.14 3.87 4.41 2.14 0.97 1.49 2.55 2.15 1.65 0.03 0.08 0.03 7.86 7.07 7.58 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2.50 3.14 3.31 5.34 4.23 4.35 1.80 2.00 2.23 0.03 0.03 0.04 9.67 9.40 9.93 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2.79 3.27 2.52 5.17 4.33 3.22 1.32 2.02 1.23 0.02 0.04 0.03 9.30 9.66 7.00 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3.02 2.70 2.65 3.86 4.29 1.77 1.88 1.42 1.94 0.02 0.03 0.04 8.78 8.44 6.40 161 Table 21 (Continued) - - i---------- Treatment* Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.70 3.20 3.78 0.85 1.09 0.90 2.27 1.77 1.82 0.02 0.04 0.03 5.84 6.10 6.53 1 1 1 3 3 3 2' 2 1 2 1 2 2.48 2.73 2.46 5.34 5.35 5.64 1.62 2.02 1.35 0.03 0.03 0.03 9.47 10.13 9.48 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2.21 2.46 1.97 6.10 3.96 4.75 1.48 1.89 1.65 0.02 0.03 0.02 9.81 8.34 8.39 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2.45 2.30 2.73 4.38 4.28 0.98 1.33 1.48 4.62 0.02 0.02 0.04 8.18 8.0 8 8.37 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.69 3.54 3.14 1.17 2.32 1.82 5.65 1.98 1.96 0.03 0.04 0.03 9.54 7.88 6.95 Average 2.79 3.51 2.10 0.03 8.44 Relative % 33.06 41.59 24.88 0.36 100.00 * See Table 1. 162 Table 22. The calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium com­ position of tomato (fruit), as influenced by each of the thirty-six fertilizer treatments (expressed as per cent dry weight). Treatment* Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.15 0.23 0.16 5.04 5.00 4.75 0.38 0.41 0.34 0.10 0.03 0.10 5.67 5.67 5.35 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.15 0.05 0.03 5.20 5.29 4.81 0.40 0.35 0.32 0.02 0.11 0.02 5.77 5.80 5.18 S 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 0.13 0.06 0.16 4.57 4.50 3.35 0.30 0.32 0.24 0.08 0.02 0.12 5.08 4.90 3.87 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.09 0.22 0.30 3.00 3.99 4.78 0.22 0.28 0.37 0.05 0.13 0.08 3.36 4.62 5.53 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.23 0.06 0.11 4.76 4.81 4.81 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.08 0.02 0.08 5.42 5.22 5.35 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.10 0.01 0.16 4.76 4.69 4.30 0.37 0.35 0.28 0.03 0.07 0.03 5.20 5.12 4.77 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 0.03 0.03 0.01 4.67 4.61 3.17 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.06 0.04 0.18 5.04 4.97 3.62 163 Table 22 (Continued) Treatment* Ca K Mg Na Total Ca K Mg Na 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.01 0.11 0.05 2.69 3.83 2.95 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.14 2.95 4.36 3.35 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.03 0.03 0.01 4.60 4.80 4.50 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.02 0.07 4.99 5.13 4.86 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0.06 0.11 0.03 4.39 4.61 4.40 0.28 0.34 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.03 4.75 5.14 4.75 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 0.05 0.10 0.01 4.34 4.65 3.03 0.32 0.34 0.22 0.12 0.06 0.21 4.83 5.15 3.47 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0.01 0.08 0.02 2.87 3.36 3.10 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.04 0.29 0.04 3.11 3.95 3.36 Average 0.09 4.25 0.30 0.08 4.71 Relative % 1.87 90.23 6.37 1.70 100.00 * See Table 1.