THE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF CALCIUM, POTASSIUM, AND MAGNESIUM IN THE SOIL ON THE ABSORPTION AND YIELD RESPONSE TO POTASSIUM AND MAGNESIUM BY SEVENTEEN VEGETABLE CROPS BY. STEVE LEE WINDHAM 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 express his sincere appreciations for the support and encouragement of Dr. H. B. Tukey, and to Dr. R. L. Carolus, for his stimulating suggestions, active guidance and valuable criticisms during the course of this study. Thanks are due Drs. K. Lawton, H. M. Sell, L. M. Turk, S. H. Wittwer, and F. L. Wynd, members of the author's Guidance Committee. He is indebted to Dr. J. D. Campbell and Mr. 0. N. Hinsvark for their assistance and suggestions « in regards to the analytical procedures used in this study. The financial assistance of the International Minerals and Chemical Corporation which made this study possible is gratefully acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 . Selective Absorption of Potassium and M a g n e s i u m ............................. 3 Influence of Various Cations at Different Concentrations on Potassium Absorption ....................... 6 Influence of Cation Relationships on Absorption of Magnesium ................. 9 Yield Responses to Potassium and M a g n e s i u m ................................. 10 STATEMENT OF P R O B L E M ........................... 13 PROCEDURES AND M A T E R I A L S ....................... 15 Field Experimentation" ..................... 15 Analytical Procedures .......... 19 Methods of Presenting Results RESULTS ............ ............................... 21 • ■ ' 23 Potassium and Magnesium Concen­ trations in Plant T i s s u e ................... 23 Influences of Potassium, pH and Magnesium Applications on Potas­ sium Concentration ......................... 25 The Influence of Soil Application of Magnesium, Potassium and pH on Magnesium Concentration ................... 31 iv Page Influence of potassium on Crop Y i e l d ..................................... 35 Influence of Magnesium on Yields . . . . . 39 Total Potassium and Magnesium Removal by Certain C r o p s ................ i*5 DISCUSSION .................................... Potassium and Magnesium Con­ centration Relationships in P l a n t s ............ . .. .................. 55 The Influence of Potassium, pH and Magnesium on Potassium Con­ centrations in C r o p s ..................... 58 The Influence of Magnesium, Potas­ sium and pH on Magnesium Concen­ trations in Plant Tissues . .............. 62 The Influence of Potassium and Magnesium on Marketable Yields 63 .......... Total Potassium and Magnesium R e m o v e d ................ 65 SUMMARY AND CONCLU S I O NS .............. 68 LITERATURE C I T E D ................ 73- APPENDIX 79 ....... ........ . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. II. Page Base Exchange Status and Cation Applications to the S o i l ................... 17 Families, Crops and Varieties Represented in the S t u d y ................... 18 III. Marketable Yields of Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Potassium Appli­ cations ........................ IV. Interactive Influence of Potassium and pH on Yields of Vegetable Crops ... 37 V . Marketable Yields as Influenced by Magnesium Applications ..................... VI. VII • VIII. IX. X. 40 Interactive Influence of Magnesium and pH on Marketable Yields . 42 Interactive Influence of Magnesium and Potassium on Marketable Yields . . . . 4^ Total Pounds of Potassium Removed Per Acre by Different Vegetable Crops as Influenced by potassium Applications• • 47 Total pounds of Potassium Removed Per Acre by Different Vegetable Crops drown at Various pH L e v e l s .......... 49 Total pounds of Magnesium Removed Per Acre by Different Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Magnesium Applications. . 5° X I . Total pounds of Magnesium Removed per Acre by Different Vegetable Crops Grown at Various pH L e v e l s .................... 51 vl TABLE XII* XIII. Page Total Pounds of Magnesium Removed Per Acre by Different Vegetable Crops as Influenced by Potassium Applications........................ Relative Potassium Concentration as Influenced by Different Potassium Applications ................ 53 60 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. 2. 3* 4. 5• 6. 7« 8. 9* 10. 11. 12. Page Average per cent potassium and m a g n e s i u m .................................. 24 A comparison of potassium and magnesium concentration variations in plant tissue as influenced by 36 fertilizer treatments . . . . . 26 The influence of potassium appli­ cations on potassium concentration . . . . 28 The Influence of pH on potassium concentration .............................. 29 The influence of magnesium appli­ cation on potassium concentration .... 30 The influence of magnesium appli­ cation on magnesium concentration .... 32 The .influence of potassium appli- ... cation on magnesium concentration .... 33 The influence of pH concentration 34 on magnesium ............ Celery leaves showing chorosis as a result of unbalance cation conditions in the s o i l ............................. 44 Celery plants showing chlorosis as a result of unbalance cation conditions in the s o i l ............................. 44 Total crop removal of potassium and magnesium from the soil ........... ' 46 A comparison of relative per cent potassium and calcium magnesium ........ 56 INTRODUCTION The phenomena occurring during the changing of a life­ less appearing seed to a vigorous growing plant have Interest ed thoughtful men for thousands of years. One of the impor­ tant considerations during this change has been the nutrient requirements for optimum growth of the plant to the desired maturity. Our present day conception of these requirements is by no means a recent development but has been acquired over a period of many years. Aristole's philosophy that the four "elements" fire, earth, water and air being the units com­ posing all matter could be considered as the turning .point toward our modern conception of plant nutrition. Francis Home (26) in 1757 stated that the nourishing of plants is the one point around which the art of agriculture centers and the more that is known about the effects of the dif­ ferent bodies on plants, the greater the chance there is to discover the nourishment of plants. Today x*ith our every increasing population, with a relative decrease in the agricultural acreage, and the number of people actually growing food crops, there is an increasing demand for a more fundamental understanding of the nutritional needs of plants for more efficient crop 2 production. To be able to cope with problems as they arise, we must have an Intimate knowledge of the crops with which we work. Since there are such great variations in soil types, between species, as well as between varieties within a single specie and in climatic conditions with respect to location and from year to year at a specific location no single diagnosis can be suggested as a solution for a .problem. Not only is it necessary to use the most adaptable variety, and all the nutrient elements essential for crop growth but also the interactions which occur between these factors must be considered. Fortunately the information gained from a study of a given crop under various conditions if correctly intrepreted, maybe used to help solve related problems. These interactions between the various factors of pro­ duction point toward the need for broader nutritional re­ search programs over a wider range of crops and treatments. This study was concerned with several aspects of this general problem. LITERATURE REVIEW Selective Absorption of Potassium and Magnesium There is a marked difference in the intensity of absorp­ tion and assiraulation of different nutrients by plants. Prob­ ably the most Important single factor that influences the effect of one cation on the absorption of another is the plant species. Trinchinetti (^7) confirmed in 18^3 the conclusions of De Saussure (^1) that plants do not absorb indifferently what they find in the soil solution and added that plants of various species growing in the same soil do not absorb the mineral constituents in the same ratio. According to Pierre and Bower (38) many of the conflicting results that have been noted could, be explained if more data were available con-‘ cerning the nutrition of different plants. In general, plants which are botanically related, absorb elements in the same proportion, however, plants in the same botanical family but that developed in different areas may absorb nutrient elements in an entirely different manner. Newton (35) noted that the sunflower contained 1.5 times as much magnesium as wheat and corn, wheat and barley contained considerably more potassium than corn and sunflower, and that the concentration of all elements analyzed was less In corn than in sunflower, wheat, barley and oats. Daniels (17) analyzed composited samples of 162 mature grasses and legumes and found that the legumes contained 2.^3 times as much magnesium as the grasses. Collander (13) grew twenty plant species representing different ecological types and several taxonomic groups in the same nutrient solutions and showed that different species varied in their accumulation of cations. He demonstrated that the members of the Chenopodiaceae were always rich in magnesium, whereas, Pisium, Vicia, and Avena were relatively poor. Maximum absorption of magnesium for certain species was 5 times the amount absorbed by the poor accumulators of magnesium. Potassium in general was absorbed to a greater extent than any other cation by all species, the maximum values among crops were approximately two to three times greater than the minimum values. The results of Bower and Pierre (7) indicated that sorghum and corn had a high K:Mg* Ca ratio, sweet clover and buckwheat had a low K:Mg+Ca ratio and flax, oats and soybeans could be classified as in­ termediate when grown on a high lime soil. Similar results were noted by Marshall (33) with blue grass and sweet clover. The Ca:K ratio for blue grass was considerable lower than for sweet clover. The potassium concentration in both crops » showed the least variation, with the magnesium concentration being more constant than the calcium concentration. Carolus (1 2 ) reported that spinach plants had a higher concentration of potassium than tomato plants when grown in the same soil with the same nutrient treatment. He suggested that spinach plants would be able to absorb greater quantities of potas-. sium from soil solutions of lower K concentrations of this nutrient. With the exception of certain members of the Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae families, Eisenmenger (21) was able to correlate the magnesium needs of plants with their relative standing in the evolutionary order. His data indicated that the families of seed plants in the lower evolutionary order had a higher magnesium requirement than plants in the higher evolutionary scale, with the domesticated species showing chlorosis from magnesium deficiency first. clusions were reported by Prince (40) . Similar con­ His data showed that okra, a low order crop, responded to magnesium to greater extent than Irish potatoes, snap beans, or sweet potatoes. Selective accumulation seems not only to exist among plants but within organs of the same plant. Cooper (16) suggested that some type of exclusion mechanism may exist to prevent the accumulation of specific ions in roots, tubers and seeds of certain plants. Arnon and Hoagland (3) reported that the concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P and N were constant in tomato fruits and are not easily Influenced by flucuatlons of elements in the external media unless a outright deficiency occurred. G-auch and Wadleigh (2*0 reported that the red kidney bean has a remarkable mechanism to prevent the accumu­ lation of sodium in its leaves. Varying sodium chloride 6 from low to high concentrations in the nutrient media had little effect on the sodium concentration in the leaf tissue, resulted in a moderate increase in sodium in stem tissue and a high accumulation of sodium in the root tissue. Influence of Various Cations at Different Concentrations on Potassium Absorption The influences of cations upon the absorption of other cations are very complex phenomena and many plant-catlons relationships have been proposed. Almost thirty-five years ago Ehrenberg (20) suggested that the poor growth of certain crops on heavily limed soils was due to a decrease in the absorption of potassium. He believed that calcium had a depressing effect on potassium absorption and this relation­ ship has been referred to as nEhrenberg*s potash-llme law” . Lagatu and Maume (3°) working with grapes found that liming reduced yields and the quantity of potassium absorbed. Carolus (12) reported similar findings on the tomato. When plants were grown with adequate quantities of potassium, liming the soil gave increased yields. However, if the cal­ cium content of the soil was very high in relation to the potassium content, a calcium Induced potassium deficiency occurred. Swanback (^5) reported that calcium would decrease the potassium concentration in tobacco plants when calcium concentrations in the soil solution exceeded those of potas­ sium. However, in these experiments high calcium (10-5 millimole per liter) increased total plant growth four times that produced with medium calcium (3-5 millimole per liter), and reductions in potassium concentration in the plant tissue analyzed was less than 10 per cent. Others reporting similar findings with different crops were Salter and Ames (42), and Lipman ejfc al. (31) . Certain investigators have reported little or no effect from Increased calcium concentrations in the soil on potas­ sium absorption. Van Itallie (28) grew Italian rye grass on soils with variable cation concentrations. Calcium had little or no effect on potassium absorption, whereas, mag­ nesium distinctly depressed the absorption of potassium. He stated that the replacement values for the cations in Italian rye grass plants were in the following order: K > N a > M g > C a . In some instances increasing the calcium concentration in the soil was found to increase the absorption of potassium by plants. Cooper (14) reported that carpet grass contained a higher concentration of potassium on limed than on unlimed soils. Albrecht and Schroeder (2, 43) reported that the per­ centage of potassium and the total potassium found in spinach and potato tops from plants grown in collodlal clay cultures increased with additions of Ca-clay to a constant amount of K-clay. Overstreet ^t al. (36) reported that very small amounts of calcium could stimulate the absorption of potas­ sium by barley roots in nutrient cultures. The addition of 8 calcium increased the absorption of potassium by barley roots when potassium content of nutrient solutions ranged from 0.002 N to 0.02 N potassium chloride. Viets (^9) has also reported that calcium stimulates the absorption of potassium by barley roots. Some of the above'contradictory data may be explained by the species used in the different experiments as indicated by the data of Bender and Eisenmenger (5)* These investi­ gators found by liming an acid soil with CaCOHDg, which resulted in a change in pH from k to 7*3, caused a marked reduction in potassium concentration in wheat and oats, a slight decrease in barley, sweet clover and cow peas, and an increase in per cent potassium in peanut, tomato, Kentucky blue grass, timothy, and red top. Cooper (16) indicated that the effect of sodium on the potassium absorption of plants usually depends upon the amounts of sodium absorbed, and that this variation in sodium uptake determines the significance of the interaction between sodium and potassium. According to Epstein and Hagen (22) sodium .should not interfere with the absorption of potassium. These Investigators concluded that potassium and sodium act differently because they are bound at different absorption sites within the plant. Van Itallie (28) found upon in­ creasing the per cent sodium in the soil from 1 to 26 per cent of the exchange capacity decreased the content of potas— slum in rye grass from 133*5 to 78*5 mllli-equlvalents per 100 grams dry weight while the sodium content Increased from 11.5 to 97 milli-equivalents per 100 grams. • Influence of Cation Relationships on Absorption of Magnesium Carolus (10) reported that a magnesium deficiency was not always associated with a low magnesium concentration in the plant but may be the result of unproportional absorption of cations. His results showed that magnesium deficiency could occur when a high K+ Ca:Mg condition existed in the soil and that magnesium toxicity may occur when the Mg:K ratio was extremely high. Magnesium toxicity has also been reported by Wadleigh and Bower (50) on tomato plants in cal­ cium deficient nutrient solutions. Walsh and Clark (51) noted that the K:Mg ratio in the soil determined the degree of magnesium uptake by tomatoes. If thet K:Mg ratio was suf­ ficiently high, chlorosis developed even when the nutrient medium had a relatively large content of available magnesium. Cooper (15) reported that the application of calcitlc lime to an acid soil aggravated magnesium deficiency. He suggested that this might be caused by: (1 ) the affect of the basic calcium compounds in reducing the hydrolysis of magnesium complexes in the soil and (2 ) the selective ab­ sorption of the stronger calcium ion. Parker et; al. (37) 10 observed that magnesium was absorbed to a greater extent at a low pH and was replaced by calcium at higher pH, while Bender and Eisenmenger (5) reported that plants grown on basic soils accumulated more magnesium than crops grown on acid soils. McG-regor and Rost (32) reported that potato tops grown on naturally high Ca and Mg carbonate soils were higher in magnesium than plants grown on low carbonated soils. Van Itallie (28) observed that increasing the soil potassium depressed the magnesium content of rye grass to a greater extent than did sodium. Mehlich and Reed (3^) in a study of the effects of cation exchange properties of soils on cation content of plants observed that Increased potassium content in the soil at all magnesium and calcium levels resulted in an increase in the potassium and a decrease in the magnesium and calcium concentration in the plants. When the calcium contents of the soil were increased, the calcium concentrations in the plants were increased, with little or no effect on potassium concentrations, while the magnesium concentrations were de­ creased. Increasing the magnesium in the soil increased the magnesium concentration in the plant, decreased potassium slightly, and decreased appreciably the calcium concentration Yield Responses to Potassium and Magnesium Since potassium and magnesium are essential elements for plant growth, it is imperative that these elements be 11' present in an available form and in the correct proportions to other nutrient elements for maximum yields. Hartwell (25) classified certain crops according to their yield response to applications of potassium on a potassium deficient soil. He classified tomatoes, mangels, and onions as high; ruta­ baga, cabbage and parsnip as medium; and found no vegetable crop that, could be classified as giving a loxir response to magnesium. Winters (5*0 reported that little or no increase' in yields of potato tubers- was obtained from addition of po­ tassium when 200 pounds per acre of available KgO were present in the soil. When soil tests indicated less than 200 pounds of available KgO per acre, applications of 50 and 150 pounds K2 O increased yields by 4? and 62 per cent, respectively. Drake and Scarseth (18) concluded that yield response of plants to potassium applications were inversely pro­ portional to their ease of absorption of potassium. Their conclusions were based on results obtained for 13 crops in­ cluding spinach and carrot. Carrots were able to obtain potash from other than exchangeable and soluble potassium sources in the soil, whereas, spinach plants were never able to remove even 50 per cent of the exchangeable potassium. When applications of potassium were made, increases in spinach yields were significantly higher than increases obtained with carrots. Ware (52) and Jenkins (29) found that snap beans 12 gave little or no response to potassium applications. Jenkins reported that snap beans from plots receiving 70 and 100 pounds of K2 0 per acre yielded significantly less than plots where no potassium was added, while applications of 50 pounds of K2 0 had no affect. Barnes (4-) found that Irish potatoes grown on acid sandy soils showed no yield response to potassium unless adequate magnesium was present in the soil. Wheeler and Hartwell (53) were able to substantially increase yields by adding magnesium salts to magnesium deficient soils in Rhode Island and on these soils additions of dolomitic limestone became a standard soil treatment. Carolus (9 ) studied the effects of applications of dolomitic limestone on yields and composition of 1^ vegetable crops grown on sandy coastal plain soils. Yield increases varying from 20 to 92 per cent were obtained for 9 of the 1^ crops grown and increases in magnesium concentrations of the foliage were of the order of 29 to 1900 per cent. Blair jet a l . (6 ) reported that yields of crops a.s influenced by magnesium applications depended not only on the individual crop but also upon the soil type on which they were grown. Snap bean, tomato, and cabbage yields were increased on sandy soils by the additions of magnesium while on heavier soils little, no increase, or even a decrease in yield occurred. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM This Investigation is concerned with a study involving seventeen vegetable crops representing nine botanical fami­ lies grown under as nearly as possible the same environmental conditions. Three levels of calcium and potassium, and two levels of magnesium and sodium were applied. Results with sodium have been reported by Campbell1 * By relating yield to cation concentrations in the soil and total cation removal from the soil, as Influenced by soil nutrient treatments utilized; the following objectives were established. 1. To determine which crops require relative high applications of potassium and magnesium for maximum pro­ ductivity . 2. To evaluate increased potassium and magnesium con­ centrations in plant tissue as an index of crop response. 3• To ascertain the yield responses and cation con­ centration in plants as influenced by interactions occurring between calcium, potassium, and magnesium. 1 Campbell, J. D. Differential'cation absorption and yield response by vegetable crops grown at various levels of calcium, potassium, and sodium. 1953* Doctor's thesis. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 14 4. To attempt to associate yield response and cation concentration in plant tissue as a means of evaluating the ease with which crops remove exchangeable cations from soil. 5- To ascertain that differences in cation concen­ trations occurring in plant tissue were actual and not an indirect effect of flucuation in plant growth. PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS Field Experimentation A field experiment located on the Horticultural Farm at East Lansing, Michigan, was conducted during 1951 and 1952 on an are of Hillsdale sandy loam soil. As described by Veatch (48) this soil is a light brownish and yellowish surface soil underlain by a yellowish friable, moderately retentive sandy loam and gritty clay of only medium fertility. The first six inches of the soil used had an average total exchange capacity of $ .k milli-equivalents per 100 grams of soil. The treatments, consisting of three levels of calcium, three of potassium, two of magnesium and two of sodium were arranged in a factorial design in randomized blocks of the calcium and potassium treatments. The magnesium and sodium treatments were superimposed as split plots on the calcium and potassium blocks. This gave a total of thirty-six plots, each with outside dimensions of 22 feet by 58 feet. Each of the seventeen crops grown were planted across the plots in adjacent rows. The width between rows varied with the space required for the individual crop. All plots received annually a uniform application of phosphorus and nitrogen at rates of 120 pounds of P £ a n d 16 60 pounds of N respectively. to celery and cabbage. Additional nitrogen was applied Table I portrays the cation status of the soil at the beginning of the 1951 season and the quantities and sources of the fertilizer materials applied during the 1951 and 1952 seasons. All fertilizer materials were applied in split applications, with one-half the amount applied prior to planting and the balance applied after the individual crops became established in the field. The in­ itial application was broadcast uniformly over the entire plot after plowing, and the fertilizer was subsequently mixed with the surface soil by disking and harrowing. The second application was applied in bands about four to six inches from the row and at a depth of two inches. Supplementary irrigation was employed to maintain satisfactory moisture conditions. applying This was accomplished by approximately one inch of water when the previous week's rainfall was less than one inch. Conventional cul­ tural practices and recommended insect and disease controls were followed. The crops considered in this study as well as the varieties and distance between rows are listed in Table I I . As each crop attained marketable maturity, it was harvested and yield data were recorded and samples for chemical anal­ yses were taken from the center ten foot section of the row in each of the thirty-six plots. Representative samples 17 TABLE I base -e x c h a n g e status and cation applications to the 1 Soil Chemical Properties Observed Early Spring 1951 A. Treatment pH Level High ^Base Satura­ tion Cations Exchangeable i (m.e ./100 gm . soil) Total Ca K Mg . 6.6 95-9 5-2 4.5 0.3 0.2 Medium 6 .1 68.9 5-5 3-4 0.2 — Low 5-2 4 3 .0 5-3 2.4 0.2 0 .1 B. soil Na 0.03 — 0 .01 Quantities and Sources of Materials Applied. Treatment Application Rate Source High Ca to produce pH 6-5 Ca(OH )2 Medium Ca to produce pH 6.0 Ca(OH )2 Low Ca to produce pH 5 *5 Ca(0H )2 High K 220 lbs. K per acre K2 S0^ and KCl2 Medium K 120 lbs. K per acre K2 SO4 and KCl 12 lbs. K per acre K2 S0i|. and KCl Low K Mg . 50 lbs. Mg per acre MgSOi,. • 7H20 Na 100 l bs. Na per acre NaCl 1 2 From samples of surface 6 inches. K2 S0l and KC1 in equal equivalents to give desired K. 18 TABLE II FAMILIES, CROPS AND VARIETIES REPRESENTED IN THE STUDY Botanical Family Crop Variety Spacing (feet) Liliaceae Onion Brigham Yellow Globe 2 Cruciferae Cabbage Resistant Detroit 3 Cruciferae Cauliflower Snow Ball X 3 Leguminosae Pea Progress No. 9 3 Leguminosae Lima Bean Fordhook ZhZ 3 Leguminosae Snap Bean Topcrop 3 Chenopodiaceae Beet Detroit Dark Red 2 Chenopodiaceae Spinach Long Standing Bloomsdale 3 Umbelliferae Celery Summer Pascal 3 Umbelliferae Carrot Chantenay 2 Gramineae Sweet Corn Golden Cross Bantam 3-5 Solanaceae Tomato Stokesdale Solanaceae Potato Chippewa 3 Cu curbit ace ae Muskmelon Delicious ^•5 Cucurbitaceae Cucumber National Pickling Cucurbitaceae Squash Golden Delicious 6 Compositae Lettuce Great Lakes 2 19 with a fresh weight of approximately one kilogram were obtain­ ed from the above ground portion of the plants with the ex­ ception of root, bulb and tuber crops. the entire plant was considered. In the latter cases After the samples were cleaned, cut into small pieces, and thoroughly mixed, a 100gram aliquot was taken and dried at 70°C in a perforated paper bag. The dried material was then ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 20-mesh screen. Analytical Procedures Duplicate one-gram aliquots were taken for analyses. The method used for wet ashing was similar to that described by Toth ejt ad. (k6 ) • Each one-gram aliquot was placed in a 125-*milliliter beaker, 10-mllliliters of concentrated nitric acid was added and the beaker was covered with a watch glass. After initial oxidation had occurred, the beakers were placed on an electric hot plate and maintained at a temperature just below boiling until oxidation neared completion. Then 2 .5 - milliliters of 70 per cent perchloric acid was added and the temperature increased slightly. When the solution became colorless and dense white fumes were present, the solution was allowed to cool and the contents, with the use of 25“ milliliters of hot distilled water, were transferred to a 100-milliliter volumetric flask through a number 30 What­ man filter paper. The paper and silica was washed thoroughly 20 with hot dilute (1:19) HC1 and finally with hot distilled water. The Beckman Model DU Flame Spectrophotometer was used for the analyses of using the procedure similar to that out­ lined by Brown _et al. (8). The source of fuel for the flame was hydrogen burned in the presence of oxygen. The wave lengths and photo-tubes found to give the best reproducible results were: Ca __K__ Mg Na Wave Length(m/\) 556 771 371 589 photo Tube Blue Red Blue Blue The slit width used for the different elements varied with both the sensitivity and concentrations of the element in solution. At a given concentration of the standard solu­ tion, the smallest slit width possible to center the galva­ nometer needle at zero was used. The sensitivity knob was placed to the complete counter clockwise position for mag­ nesium and at the midpoint position for calcium, potassium and sodium. Standards consisted of carbonate salts neutralized with perchloric acid. The cations present in the standards were thus in the same state as those in the unknown samples. In­ terferences of associated ions at various concentrations on 21 the readings of a specific cation were determined and cor­ rection curves were derived for each cation over the range of concentrations employed. For each crop the top standard used was determined in order to establish a curve over which a maximum portion could be utilized. After the top standard was determined, the additional points were plotted. The points on the curve were reproduced within a 0.2 per cent variation. Plant- sample solution readings were frequently rechecked against the standards. When variations occurred from the original standard values, adjustments were made by increasing or de­ creasing the hydrogen pressure in order to maintain accuracy. The per cent transmission was plotted in the usual manner against parts per million of the element. Methods of Presenting Results Experimental results are presented as total marketable yields, as potassium and magnesium concentrations in the crops grown and as total pounds of potassium and magnesium removed by the crops per acre- All data presented, with the exception of beet yields and beet, tomato fruit and potato tuber composition, represents combined averages of 1951 and 1952 results. Data for beet yields and beet and tomato fruit composition were for 1951 while composition data for potato tubers were for 1952. In all tabular data the crops are 22 listed from low to high with reference to their evolutionary order, as designated by Pool (39)- The portions of the plants considered in the plant composition data are designat­ ed by the symbols P (all above ground parts),'V (vines only), F (fruit), T (tuber), and PR (tops and enlarged roots or bulbs). As Ca(0H)2 was applied in sufficient amounts to give the appropriate pH, the terms pH and calcium are used inter­ changeably. For simplicity the potassium applications are referred to as high (220 pounds K per acre), medium (120 pounds K per acre), and low (12 pounds K per acre) potassium. The significance of the yield results and plant com­ position data was evaluated by the analysis of variance method for a factorial experiment with a split plot as de­ signed by Yates (55)* The "t" values were those given by, Fisher (23) and the "FM values were taken from Snedecor (*M+) . RESULTS Potassium and Magnesium Concentrations in Plant Tissue Data presented in Figure 1 represents average potas­ sium and magnesium concentration (percentages) found in the plants analyzed. In every crop the potassium concentration exceeded that of magnesium. The potassium:magnesium ratio in muskmelon, cucumber, squash, tomato and potato vines varied from one to three, in spinach, beet, lettuce, carrot, cabbage, celery, cauliflower, snap bean, sweet corn, pea and onion it varied from seven to nine, and in potato tubers and tomato fruits the potassium:magnesium ratios were 12 and lty. The highest potassium concentration was found in spinach. (7.31 per cent) and the lowest in onion (1 .5 ^ per cent).. Other crops in which relative high potassium concentrations occurred were beet, tomato fruit, lettuce, cucumber vine, carrot, cabbage, celery and cauliflower. Magnesium concen­ trations varied from a high of 1.99 per cent in potato vines to a low of 0.20 per cent in potato tubers and onions. Other crops in which magnesium concentrations were relatively high were potato, cucumber, muskmelon, tomato, and squash vines, and beet and spinach plants. Onion(PR) J - Pea(P) _ M ‘melon(7) K \ 3. Corn(P) point represent 24 S. Bean(P) Potato(V) Squash (7) 'y. 0'flower(p) I i_ Celery(P) Cabbage (P) Carrot(PR) Cucumber(7) Lettuce (P) 1 Tomato (F) Beet (PR) Spinach(P) 00 CM rH Per cent of the dry matter Average per cent potassium and magnesium. the average of 72 values.) Potato(T) Figure 1. Tomato(7) (Each L. Bean(P) 25 As shown in Figure 2 magnesium concentrations were influenced by treatment to a far greater extent than potas­ sium concentrations in the plant tissues analyzed. In only three crops did the coefficient of variation for potassium concentrations exceed those for magnesium in the same crop. There was a highly significant positive congelation (R - .775) between the concentrations in crops and the coefficient of variations for magnesium. Crops with a high average mag­ nesium content varied more widely as results of treatment than those that contained lower magnesium content. This suggests a lack of stability in magnesium concentration in those crops that had high average magnesium content. There was no significant correlation between the coefficient of variations and the potassium concentrations in the plants. However, there was a highly significant positive correlation (R =. 7 3 7 ) between the coefficients of variation for magnesium and potassium in the crops. This suggests that the Instability of accumulated potassium and magnesium as influenced by treatment is characteristic of certain crops. Influences of potassium, pH and Magnesium Applications on Potassium Concentration Figures 3 through 5 portray the influences of different levels of potassium, pH and magnesium on the potassium con­ centration in plants. Potassium applications had a greater 26 Squaah(V) Onion(PR) Celery(P) Carrot(PR) Cabbage(P) Lettuce(P) Pea(P) S. Bean(P) C 1flower(P) L. Bean(P) Spinach(P) S. Corn(P) Tomato(V) Cucumber(V) M'melon(V) Potato(V) Beet(PR) o o o\ o o 00 o o VO o o o o o o CM o o Coefficient of variation (CsS/X) Figure 2. Tomato(F) A comparison of potassium and magnesium concentration variations in plant tissue as influenced by 36 different fertilizer treatments. Potato(T) 27 influence on potassium concentration in the plant than the other cations. In Figure 3 the crops are listed from high to low with respect to potassium concentration as influenced by the high potassium applications. In every instance, the potassium concentrations in the crops grown on high or medium potassium plots were significantly greater than in crops* grown on low potassium plots and with six exceptions (tomato fruit, carrot, cabbage, lettuce, lima bean, and snap bean) the potassium concentration in crops grown at the high potas­ sium level was significantly greater than in crops grown on medium potassium plots. Data presented in Figure k show a significant influence of the pH level on the potassium concentration in only four of the seventeen crops. Potassium concentrations were significantly increased in spinach and celery and tomato fruits, while they were significantly decreased in carrots by the addition of lime to attain a pH of 6.5* However, these differences in potassium concentration as influenced by pH were of low magnitude, and the largest difference re­ corded in spinach was only 10 per cent. In all other crops various pH levels had little or no affect on the potassium concentration. Figure 5 indicates that magnesium application had no significant influence on the potassium concentration of any crop. in tomato fruits, cucumber and potato vines the addi­ tion of magnesium tended to reduce the potassium concentration. 10 Per cent High K Medium K K of the Low K dry matter CO H* 3 P o sr GO CD CD ct »d o c o d o' CD o CD H CD H3 O B P ct O *d O P 4 O ct SJ o & o’ CD It* CD ct ct c o CD CO vQ C P CD &r o H O s CD *d CD P 00 ct ct 0 < —' *d Figure 3 ►d o • CD P 3 ■— ■* *d •-3 o B *on a— to • * P tu O O o 0 GJ d The influence of potassium applications on potassium concentration. (Each point represents average of 2k values.) • w co 29 Pea(p) S. Corn(P) M'raelon(V) (Each point Onlon(PR) Potato(T) 8. Bean(P) Potato(V) VO Squash(V) C 'flower(P) Carrot(PR) Cabbage (P) Celery(p) Cucumber(V) Lettuce(P) Tomato(F) Beet(PR) Spinach(P) vo v r\ o~v cvi Per cent K of the dry matter Figure k. Tomato(V) The influence of pH on potassium concentration. represents average of Zk values.) L. Bean(P) 8 Per 7 cent 6 K of the 5 k dry 3 matter 2 l L CD *d H3 P O h w 0 0 ct 3 iu *w* ' Figure 5- I 0 ' Ct ct C O 0 i-3 O 3 P ct O • •’d 0 P 0 ct /-v 0 c 0 c 3 O' 0 3 *—» < O 0 H 0 << o p o' o' P 0*5 0 o CO ►Q Hi 3 H P O CD s: 3* 4 *n o CD ct P ct O *13 O ct W P P O 0 3 ct •3 O 3 P ct O CO w 0 p 3 o o 3 a flj H O 3 *xt p P^ o 3 HO 3 3 The influence of magnesium applications on potassium concentration. (Each point represents average of 36 values.) o 31 The Influence of Soil Application of Magnesium, Potassium and pH on Magnesium Concentration Data in Figure 6 show that the concentration of mag­ nesium was Increased significantly in vines of crops of the Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae families and for entire plants of the Chenopodlaceae and Legumlnosae families by the addition of magnesium to the soil. In other crops such as lettuce, celery, carrot, cabbage, cauliflower and pea, the magnesium concentration was increased to a lesser extent by treatment. The accumulation of magnesium in tomato fruit, potato tuber, and sweet corn was not appreciably altered by its applica­ tion. As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 the data indicate that concentration of magnesium in potato vines can be signi­ ficantly influenced by additions of either magnesium or potas­ sium. When magnesium is added, potato vines show larger in­ creases in magnesium than any other crop and in turn when potassium is added potato vines show the greatest decrease of any of the crops studied. Other crops in which high potas­ sium application significantly decreased magnesium concen­ trations were muskmelon, cucumber, tomato, beet, squash, snap bean, lima bean and cauliflower. High pH had less in­ fluence than potassium on magnesium concentration in the cropB (Figure 8) and fewer crops were significantly influ­ enced. At pH 6*5 significant Increases in magnesium concen- Potato(V) 2 a a> H 0 P < o c o c a o' (D P < w Figure 6. ►3 O a p ct O < w (0 rt> ct 3 W CO JO c p 09 tJ* •< CO H* P P O P* 4 ^ S CQ * tri fl) P P^ r o • td P P ^~s H fl> V! O P P 4 o ct It4 o» ct ct p O O P O' O' P Cjt} (V o — H O < a> w w a £ «w * H3 O CO p ct 0 *>-» o o p p «*-•% a hfl 9 o p H0 p •a ■vx The influence of magnesium application on magnesium concentration. (Each point represents average of 36 values.) 0 ct P ct 0 h3 Low K High f K 1.20 Pi * 0.80 | ct ct 0.1*0 CD *XJ o S o c ffl CD ,10 !q It* CO o o o o CO o ct Figure 7. I The Influence of potassium application on magnesium concentration. (Each point represents average of 2k values.) Per cent 2.^0 pH 5-5 2.00 pH 6.5 Mg 1.60 of the 1.20 dry 0.80 a_ _L *0 O o p ct o P C+ O p 3 O' <6 4 3 (!) H O P •-3 O 3 P ct O 03 (D (D ct »d to CO P CO 43" P P m O tr P* #■"** •d HO hi CO • . to (1) p r • to a> P P ► O 0 (0 H a> P 0 P o' o' p ' era (!) t(1) ct ct p 0 (!) O P 4 O ct *0 (D 0 a t3 O CD • P M> *0 O s: (!) 3 P ct 0 p H- O 0 O p hJ H P *0 "— O p *0 V-'P *0 to Potato(T) matter 0.i+0 *0 VjJ •p- Figure 8. I The influence of pH on magnesium concentration. represents average of 2k values.) (Each point 35 tration occurred in tomato vines, beet and snap bean and significant decreases were observed for cucumber, spinach and squash. Influence of Potassium on Crop Yield The Influence of potassium on marketable yields of the 17 crops are shown in Table III. The majority of crops fail­ ed to respond to high potassium application. The only crops with significant yield response to the high potassium appli­ cation were members of the Chenopodlacae family. Beet yields harvested from high potassium plots were significantly greater than yields from the medium or low potassium plots and spinach yields from high potassium plots were greater than those from low potassium plots. Celery, tomato, potato and muskmelon yields from plots receiving either'a high or a medium potassium application were significantly higher than those from plots receiving the low application. Onion, cauliflower and squash yields pro­ duced on medium potassium plots were significantly greater than those from the high potassium plots, while snap bean yields from medium potassium plots were significantly greater than those for the low potassium plots. Significant yield Interactions for pH x potassium are recorded in Table IV for 11 of the 17 crops. With the ex­ ception of onion, cauliflower, celery, squash and lettuce, 36 TABLE .III MARKETABLE* YIELDS OF VEGETABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BY POTASSIUM APPLICATIONS (Pounds per 10 linear feet of row. Crop Avg. of 24 values.) Lb. of K per acre 220 Onion 120 L• S. D. 12 5% 7-5 9-1 8.9 1.22 Cabbage ■3-0-5 32.0 30.6 NS Cauliflower 16.0 18.6 16.2 2.00 Pea 2 .8 2-5 2.7 NS Lima Bean 9-8 9-8 9-3 NS Snap Bean 6.7 7-1 6.4 .55 17-5 14.6 15.8 1.34 4.1 3 *6 Celery 21.9 23 .1 18.3 2.89 Carrot 14.8 16 .1 15.1 NS Sweet Corn 12.5 12-9 12.6 NS Tomato 63 -2 69.2 57.0 6 .45 Potato 28.2 30.4 23-9 2 .08 Muskmelon 29-9 28 .0 19 -8 6 .61 6 .1 5.7 5-1 NS Squash 46 .0 54.8 47.5 7-89 Lettuce 8.5 9.0 7.7 NS 20 .3 17.8 Beet1 Spinach Cucumber Meam 19 .2 1Avg. of only 12 values (I95 I). .2.8 .80 37 TABLE IV INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF POTASSIUM AND PH ON YIELDS OF VEGETABLE CROPS (Pounds per 10 linear feet of row. Avg. of 8 values.) pH Level 6-5 12 . 220 L b s . of K per acre 220 120 Onion 9 -3 11.1 8.8 7-5 Cabbage 35-2 30.3 29 .1 31.7 Cauliflower 16 .1 17.7 16 .7 16 .1 3.2 3.2 Pea 3 *4 Lima Bean 9-9 8.4 9-2 8.7 Snap Bean 7-9 7.2 5-1 5.8 18.6 19 -2 14.8 Spinach 5.9 5.2 4.0 4.3 Celery ' 22.1 24.3 21.5 26 .8 Carrot 17 .8 17.6 17-9 14.3 Sweet Corn 13-9 12.6 12.9 12.7 Tomato 72.1 70.7 58.3 66 .0 Potato 31.0 28.2 23.9 28.2 Muskmelon 30.3 26 .3 20 .0 26.7 6 .2 5.8 4 .8 5-8 50.6 54.1 48.3 39-4 9 .4 10.5 8.1 7.5 21.3 20 .4 15.7 19 .1 ro CD 2.3 0 Beet1 Cucumber Squash Lettuce Me an ^ A v g . of only 4 values (1951). 38 TABLE IV (Continued) 6 .0 120 L. S. D. 5*5 12 220 120 12 5% 8-9 2 .11 8.5 8.6 7*5 9*1 29 .8 31*3 24.6 35*8. 31*4 • NS 18.2 19 *8 15*9 19 *8 17*5 NS 3-0 1-7 3.0 2*3 2.3 *95 10.6 9*9 10.7 10.4 8.7 1.90 7*4 6.8 5*8 7.4 6.8 *96 12.4 13 *4 15 -6 16 .6 14.4 2.57 3*5 2.8 2.1 2.0 1-7 NS 24-3 20.9 11.9 20.6 12.5 5 .00 15*9 12 .6 .12.4 14.8 14.7 1.56 12.5 13 .1 10.9 13 .4 11.8 3.05 62.2 52.4 51*3 74.5 59*9 11.16 31.1 19.9 25*3 31*9 27.9 3 .61 32.1 16.9 32.6 25*5 22.5 9 .72 5-4 4.1 6 .2 6 .4 6.4 NS 53*4 49 .7 47*9 56*9 44.3 NS 9-5 6.1 8*5 7*0 9*0 2 .60 19-9 17*2 17-2 20.8 17*6 39 high potassium application resulted in higher yields than either medium or low potassium applications on plots at pH 6.5* Snap bean, beet, tomato, potato and muskmelon yields from high potassium plots at pH 6.5 were significantly great­ er than those from low potassium plots. High potassium applications also produced significantly greater yields for tomato and beets at pH 6.0, while snap bean, lima bean, potato and muskmelon yields were significantly greater from medium potassium plots. At pH 5*5 snap bean yields from high potas­ sium plots were significantly lower than yields from low po­ tassium plots. When the yields of various pH and potassium levels are averaged, it is observed that there is considerable increase ' for either the medium or high potassium levels at pH 6.5At pH 6.0 the increase for potassium added is considerably less and at the low pH the high potassium gave average yields lower than those observed with the low potassium application. Influence of Magnesium on Yields As revealed in Table V, magnesium application had little effect on yield, with significant differences observed for only two of the seventeen crops grown. In beet, the yield was increased, while in carrot the yield was decreased by magnesium application. However, in comparisons of the influ­ ence of magnesium at different pH and potassium levels some 1+0 TABLE V MARKETABLE YIELDS AS INFLUENCED BY MAGNESIUM APPLICATION (Pounds per 10 linear feet of row. A v g . of 36 values.) Crop L. S. D. 50 0 8.5 8.6 Cabbage 31.3 30.8 NS Cauliflower 16 .? 17.1 NS Pea 2-7 2.7 NS Lima Bean 9.8 9.5 NS Snap Bean 6.6 6.8 NS 17.0 15 -0 H U) O L b . of Mg - per acre 3.6 3 .^ NS Celery 20 .9 21.3 NS Carrot 1^.3 16 Sweet Corn 12.5 12 .8 . NS Tomato 65-0 61.2 NS Potato 27-8 27.3 NS Muskmelon 27-5 26 .3 NS 5*2 6 .2 NS Squash ^■8 .9 50.0 NS Lettuce '7-9 8-9 NS Mean 19 .1 19 .1 Onion Beet'1' Spinach Cucumber ^Avg. of only 18 values (1 9 5 1 )* 5% NS . 1.28 41 additional responses were observed.for magnesium appli­ cation. Yields of onion and carrot were significantly de­ creased and beet yields were significantly increased by magnesium application at pH 6-5, whereas, at pH 6.0 and 5 »5 the differences were not significant (Table VI). of the four crops where significant potassium x For three magnesium interactions were found, they occurred where magnesium was applied to low potassium plots (Table VII). applications significantly Magnesium decreased yields of snap beans and cucumbers and Increased yields of tomatoes at the low potassium level. These results were in variance with those reported by other Investigators, Walsh and Clark (51), and Barnes (4) who observed that the magnesium requirement of crops was Increased at high potassium levels. In this ex­ periment magnesium application had a tendency to decrease yields which might Indicate adequate available magnesium in the soil. Celery was the only crop grown where chlorosis of the older leaves could be associated with a possible magnesium unbalance in the soil. When celery plants were grown on high potassium plots at pH 6-5 and 6.0 with no magnesium addition, a chlorosis in the older leaves appeared (Figure 9 and 10). No chlorosis appeared in comparable treatment with 50 pounds of magnesium per acre or at pH 5 *5 regardless of potassium level. influence yield. However this chlorotic condition did not TABLE VI INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF MAGNESIUM AND PH ON MARKETABLE YIELDS (Pounds per 10 linear feet of row. Avg. of 12 values.) 6.0 6 -5 pH Level Lbs. Me per acre 5° 0 50 0 Onion Cabbage Cauliflower 8.9 10.5 32.4 16.5 30.6 8.4 31.3 16.5 8.1 30.4 15.9 Pea Lima Bean Snap Bean 2.8 ' 9.1 6.1 3-1 9.3 7.3 2.2 10.2 6.8 Beet^1 Spinach Celery 20.0 5.3 24.4 16.0 4.7 24.2 Carrot Sweet Corn Tomato 16.0 19*5 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber 13.2 68.9 26.9 29-3 4.5 17.1 50 . 0 .. il 1.60 30.1 17.2 7.0 31.1 18.2 2.2 9-3 6.8 2.9 10.0 6.9 2.8 9*9 6.4 NS NS NS 15.4 3.6 23-7 17.6 3.4 15.6 24.2 1.8 14.4 14.1 2.0 15-5 1.68 NS NS 13.6 15.0 13.0 13-3 11.6 2.10 NS NS 8.1 NS NS 13.0 65 *4 12.6 63.2 57-2 62.9 14.6 12.5 60.8 28.6 25-7 6.6 27.2 25.6 25.8 5-1 26.7 5.1 29.1 27.3 5-8 27.6 26.4 6.9 NS NS NS 46.7 7-1 48.3 8.3 49.1 50.2 7.4 9.0 NS NS 18.8 18.7 18.4 18.5 Squash Lettuce 50.6 9.2 51.4 9.5 Mean 20.2 20.1 1. L. S . D . 5.5 • _ . ,--------------------------------------------- --Avg. of only 6 values (1951). TABLE VII INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF MAGNESIUM AND POTASSIUM ON MARKETABLE YIELDS (Pounds per 10 linear feet of row. Avg. of 12 values.) 220 Lbs. K per acre Lbs. Mg per acre 120 50 0 50 0 50 2.7 9.0 5.9 2.7 9-6 6.9 NS NS •75 16.6 15.0 NS NS NS 18.7 2.4 9.9 6.7 3-1 2.8 9.6 10.3 7.3 2.3 9.2 Beet1 Spinach Celery 17.6 17.4 4.1 21.7 16.8 Carrot Sweet Corn Tomato 13-3 16.3 12.4 6 3 .I 15.4 16.8 12.3 Pea Lima Bean Snap Bean 4.1 22.1 12.6 6 3 .I 6.7 3*5 23-7 690 6.8 13.4 3-5 22.4 3-1 2.5 16.8 19.8 13.4 68.9 14.2 12.5 62.4 15.9 12.7 51.3 NS 8.90 30.9 24.6 6.0 24.3 21.6 4.0 23.5 23.9 6.2 NS NS 2.20 4 7.3 7.5 47.6 8.0 NS NS 17.8 17.7 Potato Muskmelon Cucumber 29 .O 27.3 29.8 29-4 5.7 30.1 6.4 31.3 5-7 Squash Lettuce 43.9 55.3 7-2 48.1 9.7 9.0 5^.3 9.0 Mean 18.9 19.4 20.7 20.1 1Avg • for only 6 values (1951). 9.0 16.3 8.8 30.2 7.2 5% 31.0 16.0 29.8 16.6 9.2 31.4 7.6 31.1 15.4 0 NS NS NS 9.0 32.5 ,18.5 Onion Cabbage Cauliflower > L. S. D• 12 2.10 Figure 9• Figure 10. Celery leaves showing chlorosis as a result of unbalance cation conditions in the soil * Celery plants showing chlorosis as a result of unbalance cation conditions in the soil. LC*HKM»ii* »5 Total Potassium and Magnesium Removal by Certain Crops Total plant weights and analytical data were available for 13 of the 17 crops grown. For these crops the total quantity of potassium and magnesium removed are presented in Figure 11 and Tables VIII through XII. In Figure 11 average amounts of potassium and magnesium removed on an acre basis are shown graphically. The crops are arranged in order from high to low according to their potassium content. On the basis of these data the crops may be grouped according to the amounts of potassium removed; those crops removing more than 200 pounds per acre were carrot, beet, potato and cauliflower; those removing between 100 and 200 pounds were sweet corn, celery, cabbage and lima bean; and those removing less than 100 pounds were snap bean, lettuce, onion, pea and spinach. A classification may also be made for removal of magnesium by the crops, with beets removing more than 50 pounds per acre; carrot, potato, cauliflower, sweet corn and lima bean more than 25 but less than 50 pounds; cabbage, snap bean and celery more than 12.5 but less than 25 pounds; and onion, pea, spinach and lettuce removed less than 12.5 pounds per acre. The data in Table VIII indicate that crops grown with a high or medium potassium application removed more potas— 260 240 to o P 3 200 Pi CO 4 CD 160 pi 120 5 o <5 a> Mg *0 CD 4 80 P O 4 CD 40 * I » 1 • l 0 to to 0 CO O CD H CD 4 V3 4 4 O c+ CD ' CD c+ 0 c+ P c+ 0 — 4i H O •s : CD 4 Figure 11. • O Ov 4 3 *<1 ..... 1 » 1 O P O' o' to • CO • to to p era CD CD p 3 CD P 3 ~ to cb eh ci P O CD r -------- f ------0 3 H* 0 3 to CD JO co p. to 3 JP 0 & Total crop removal of potassium and magnesium from the soil. (Each point represents average of 36 values.) ON I 47 TABLE VIII TOTAL POUNDS OF POTASSIUM REMOVED PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT VEGETABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BY POTASSIUM APPLICATIONS (Avg- of 12 values) Crop Lb. of K applied per acre 220 120 45-0 Cabbage Cauliflower L• S• D. 12 5% **7-** 21.1 5-93 188-5 155-7 89-9 19 -02 316.** 275-3 162.9 49 .48 33-9 30-8 24.0 6.74 Lima Bean 1*1-6.8 l**9-6 106 .9 12.47 Snap Bean 106.0 102-3 55-6 11.45 Beet 296.3 228.6 146.8 35-58 29-2 24.1 13-8 4.70 Celery 20** .1 156-7 82-7 18.41 Carrot 316.** 296.3 183-5 35-79 Sweet Corn 206.6 188.1 153 -3 25-36 Potato 2*1-6 .1 273-3 144.2 43-56 67-3 61 -6 37-5 13-29 115-9 101.5 64.3 Onion Pea Spinach Lettuce Mean i j 1*8 slum than crops that were grown on low potassium plots . The amounts of potassium removed by cabbage, beet and celery from high potassium plots were significantly greater than the quantities removed by these crops from medium potassium plots. As shown in Table IX, the pH level of the soil signi­ ficantly influenced the amount of potassium removed by lima bean, beet, spinach,, celery and carrot. The amount of po­ tassium removed at pH 6 -5 by beet and spinach was signi­ ficantly greater than at pH 6.0 or 5*5, while in celery and carrots more potassium was removed at pH 6.5 than at pH 5*5, and in lima bean plants grown on plots at pH 5 -5 more potas­ sium was removed than was removed at pH 6-5• Crop removal of magnesium from the soil was influenced to a greater extent by magnesium and pH than by potassium. Comparative data shown in Table X indicate that the mag­ nesium application significantly Increased the total pounds of magnesium removed per acre by onion, lima bean, beet, spinach, celery and potato plants. The influence of pH and potassium level on crop removal of magnesium from the soil are presented in Tables XI and XII. As shown in Table XI, the total magnesium removed was significant greater for beet, spinach, celery and carrot at pH 6-5 than at lower pH values, while lima beans removed significantly less mag­ nesium at pH 6-5 than at pH 5 *5• Other data (Appendix 49 TABLE IX TOTAL POUNDS OF POTASSIUM REMOVED PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT VEGETABLE CROPS GROWN AT VARIOUS PH LEVELS (Avg. of 12 values) Crop pH Level L. S. D* 6.5 6.0 5.5 40.9 40 .1 32.5 NS Cabbage 147.3 136.3 150.7 NS Cauliflower 231.1 235.6 287*8 NS 28 .4 29 .4 31.0 NS Lima Bean 121.6 136 .4 146.8 12.47 Snap Bean 93-2 79.7 91.1 NS 275.5 213.3 200 .6 35-58 31.1 22.6 14.0 4 .70 Celery 176 .2 162.4 104.8 18 .41 Carrot 301.6 273 *2 238.1 35-75 Sweet Corn 176.1 181.7 190 .2 NS Potato 226-7 197.8 239.1 NS 53*7 47 -4 65-3 NS 146 .4 135.1 137.8 Onion Pea Beet Spinach Lettuce Mean 5% 50 TABLE X TOTAL POUNDS OF MAGNESIUM REMOVED PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT VEGETABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BY MAGNESIUM APPLICATION (Avg. of 18 values) Crop Lb- Mg applied per acre L. S. D. 50 0 5% 6.9 5 .4 1.43 Cabbage 22.0 19 -8 NS Cauliflower 34.1 30.8 NS 7-2 6.7 NS Lima Bean 36 .4 21.1 3-07 Snap Bean I 8.3 15 0 Beet 66 .4 40 .6 16 .66 4.0 2.8 .82 Celery 22.7 16 .1 3 *60 Carrot 32.1 31.0 NS Sweet Corn 25 .4 25.5 NS Potato 34.5 27.3 6 .74 5-1 5.5 1:3 16 .6 13.1 Onion Pea Spinach Lettuce Mean NS 51 TABLE XI TOTAL POUNDS OF MAGNESIUM REMOVED PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT VEGETABLE CROPS GROWN AT VARIOUS PH LEVELS (Avg. of 12 values) Crop L. S. D. 5# Onion 6-3 6 .2 5.9 NS Cabbage 22.7 19.8 21.9 NS Cauliflower 3*K2 28.8 34.4 NS 6.8 6.1* 7.7 NS Lima Bean 32.8 31 -5 37-2 3*89 Snap Bean 18.9 15 .6 16 .0 NS Beet 70.7 ^5 *8 19*83 Pea Spinach 4.6 3.0 2.6 .82 Celery 2^-3 18.8 15 .1 5 .11 Carrot 35.^ 30.8 28 .1* k .5 0 Sweet Corn 26 .7 2^.2 25 •** NS Potato 35.0 25 3A.0 8.18 NS Lettuce Mean 5-3 4.A 6.1 2^.9 19-9 21.6 52 Table 5) suggest that the increase in magnesium removed by lima beans at pH 5 *5 resulted from increased vine growth at this pH value, while the increased removal of magnesium by potato plants at the low potassium level as indicated in Table XII was a result of a lower magnesium concentration in the plants caused by a high potassium application. Total removal of magnesium by lima beans was also greater at the low potassium than at the high potassium level. 53 TABLE XII TOTAL POUNDS OF MAGNESIUM REMOVED PER ACRE BY DIFFERENT VEGETABLE CROPS AS INFLUENCED BY POTASSIUM APPLICATIONS (Avg. of 12 values.? Crop Lb. K per acre 220 L. S. D. 120 12 5-4 6.9 6.1 NS 20.8 23.4 20.0 NS 33-^ 35.0 29 .1 NS 6 .9 7-1 6.9 NS Lima Bean 30.3 34.0 37*1 3*89 Snap Bean .14-9 18.7 16 .9 NS Beet 53 *2 53-2 54.3 NS 3*1 3.4 3-7 NS Celery 19.3 21.0 17.9 NS Carrot 31.4 34.0 29 .2 NS Sweet Corn 22.6 26.8 26 .9 NS Potato 24.8 37.8 37-6 8.18 Lettuce 5.4 5.5 5.0 NS 20.9 23.6 22.4 Onion Cabbage Cauliflower Pea Spinach Me an . 5% DISCUSSION Data presented for 17 crops grown at three pH and po­ tassium levels and two magnesium levels indicated that these treatments affected the composition of most crops, but onlyinfluenced the yield in a few cases. This suggests that wide variations in plant composition are necessary to in­ fluence yields of most crops. Perhaps concentrations above the minimum can be altered significantly and materially with little influence on the growth and development of the crop. The results of soil tests shown below, which were made at the end of the second season tend to substantiate this view. Lb. exchangeable cations Ca K Mg High 2008* 3^0 138 Medium 1^50 .131 850 78 1*0 6 6 9 Treatment Level Low N o . Determinations * L b s . per acre six inches These tests suggest that the potassium content in both the medium and low potassium plots, and the magnesium con­ tent in plots where no magnesium was applied were generally 55 above deficiency levels. Therefore the yield and com­ position results obtained from high potassium plots and plots which magnesium application was made were responses to levels of these ions that exceeded those normally occurring in vegetable soils. Potassium and Magnesium Concentration Relationships in Plants Potassium was the dominant ion and was found in greater concentrations than magnesium in the crops analyzed. These differences in the magnitude of potassium and magnesium con­ centrations may in part be explained by the relative strength and availability of the ions in the soil, and the nature of the crop. Based on physical-chemical characteristics potassium has a greater relative activity, and consequently is absorb­ ed with less difficulty than magnesium. The mass action phenomena of the large number of potassium ions in the soil would also increase the tendency for potassium to be absorb­ ed in larger quantities than magnesium. The ratio of ex­ changeable potassium to magnesium in the soil and the total quantities of these ions removed by crops indicated that there was an average of 1*5 times as much potassium in the soil as magnesium. Data in Figure 12 Indicate that an increase in the relative per cent of magnesium and calcium in plants was 56 _ M'melon(V) Tomato(V) Potato (V). J L. Bean(P) Cucumber(V) - S. Bean(P) Celery(P) hQ C 1flower(P) o S . Corn(P) Beet(P) Celery(P) Cabbage(P) Carrot(PR) Spinach(P) Lettuce(P) I — o 00 o o o o o CM Relative- per cent of dry matter Tomato(F) 12. _ potato(T) Figure ^ A comparison of relative per cent potassium and calcium+ magnesium. (Based on per cent Ca, K, Mg and Na of dry weight. _ Spinach(P) 57 associated with a decrease in potassium. The narrower range of magnesium than potassium concentrations within a botanical family suggests the possibility that the mechanism for mag­ nesium absorption may, be a family characteristic, while the mechanslm for potassium absorption is more a characteristic of the species. The high magnesium concentrations in the plants of the Solanaoeae, Cucurbitacea, Legumlnosce and Chenpodlaceae families as compared to other crops grown indicate that these crops have certain biochemical or biophysical charac­ teristics in their roots which facilitate the absorption of the weaker magnesium ion. Drake ejt al. (19) and Cooper (16) reported that the root base exchange capacity of legumes was twice that of grasses and certain other crops. If this is true in respect to the plants in which greater magnesium concentrations occurred in this experiment, it suggests that the roots of these plants probably contain compounds that would offer a better source of hydrogen ions, thus facili­ tating the absorption of the bi—valent weaker magnesium ion. In such crops as lettuce, cabbage and sweet corn, a different group of compounds would probably be present that were poor donors of hydrogen ions and the weaker magnesium ion would therefore be absorbed to a lesser extent than the stronger potassium ions. Thus these plants would have a relative higher potassium concentration and relative lower magnesium than snap beans, cucumber, beet and certain other crops. 58 Furthermore It was found that crops that contained a relatively large concentration of magnesium fluctuated more widely in their magnesium concentration as influenced by any treatment than those that contained lower percentages of mag­ nesium. This may indicate that Influence of other ions on the absorption of magnesium may be controlled to some extent by differential crop absorption. At lower levels of magnesium in the soil these obser­ vations may be of significance in relation to magnesium requirement and the influence of other ions on the magnesium requirement of crops. However, the evidence indicates that with relatively high levels of soil magnesium, neither the botanical characteristics or the influence of other ions has a marked affect on yield. The Influence of Potassium, pH and Magnesium on Potassium Concentrations in Crops The results herein suggest that the order in which cation applications Influence potassium concentrations in plant tissue are potassium > calcium> magnesium. The significant increases in potassium with each in­ crease of applied potassium in 12 of the 17 crops suggest that potassium concentrations may be readily increased in many crops as the potassium level in the soil is increased. However, the comparisons between the relative amounts of 59 potassium in plant tissue (Table XIII) indicates that the most pronounced increase in potassium uptake as influenced by soil applications of this nutrient occurred between the low and medium potassium levels. The large increases of potassium in crops in which the vines alone were analyzed were the results of a movement of potassium from the leave and stem to the fruit as observed in the tomato. potassium addition to the soil resulted in larger increases in the vine than in the fruit . The slight increases of potassium concentration in lettuce, carrot, lima bean, snap bean and cabbage grown on high potassium plots suggest that these crops were, able to absorb potas­ sium about as effectively when grown at the medium as at the high potassium level* The lack of any marked increase in potassium concentration at the high as compared to the medium.level also suggest a regulatory mechanism in these crops for potassium uptake. Arnon and Hoagland (3)* Cooper (16) and Gauch and Wadlelgh (2*0 indicated that excluding mechanisms that existed in certain plants regulated the accumulation of certain i o n s . The results Indicated that at pH 6-5 the potassium con­ centrations were significantly increased in spinach and celery plants, and tomato fruits and decreased in carrots. These were the only crops in which the potassium concen­ tration was Influenced by other io n s. The significant in— 60 TABLE XIII RELATIVE POTASSIUM CONCENTRATION AS INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT POTASSIUM APPLICATIONS Cro£ Tomato (Vine) Celery (plant) Onion (Plant) Sweet Corn (Plant) Potato (Vine) Cucumber (Vine) Muskmelon (Vine) Spinach (Plant) Beet (Plant) Cauliflower (plant) Pea (plant) Squash (Vine) Potato (Tuber) Lb. K applied per acre Ratio 120 220 220 X 20 14 01 192 164 129 174 158 186 244 204 159 133 127 124 212 123 122 122 121 310 194 376 163 163 187 186 150 172 13 A 114 114 114 113 195 149 111 119 173 131 170 Cabbage (Plant) Snap Bean (Plant) Lima Bean (Plant) Carrot (Plant) Tomato (Fruit) Lettuce (Plant) 156 149 137 165 156 161 148 172 143 144 Mean 161 186 138 "''All figures based on per cent K in crops grown at low K level equal 100. 112 108 108 108 104 103 93 114 61 creases in potassium concentration in spinach and celery plants were not the result of a reduction in yield con­ centrating the potassium in the plants as both were in­ creased. Since potassium concentration was not increased in other plants by liming and was increased by additional potassium in most crops, it would appear that increases in potassium concentrations as influenced by pH are specific phenomena that occur in some crops as was suggested by Overstreet e_t al. (36) and Viets (^9). Potassium concentrations in carrots grown at pH 6.5 as compared to those grown at pH 5 *5 were significantly decreased. However, results indicated that total potassium removed by carrot plants on these plots was significantly greater at this level than at pH 5 *3 resulting from an in­ crease in yield. This may explain the increased potassium requirements at high pH levels for some crops in this ex­ periment, and the results reported by Swanback (*K5) and Salter and Ames (^2). EVen in crops where potassium percentages were signi­ ficantly affected by pH, the differences were of no great magnitude. These results indicate that pH and magnesium have little Influence on potassium uptake where adequate amounts of potassium are available for normal growth, and lime and magnesium applications are limited to the amounts normally applied. Under such conditions potassium uptake 62 by crops Is probably dependent almbst entirely on potasBium concentration In the soil, which is in agreement with the findings of Collander (13), Van Itallie (28), Mehllck and Reed (3*0, Carolus (11) and Hunter at al. (27). These re­ sults suggest that calcium and magnesium would influence potassium uptake by plants as suggested by Ehrenberg (20), Allaway and Pierre (1) and others, only when potassium was critically low in the soil or the potassium supplying ca­ pacity of the soil was depleted by increased yields as in­ fluenced by calcium applications. Excessive amounts of calcium or magnesium added to extremely sandy soils as re­ ported by Carolus (10) may also influence the absorption of potassium to a much greater extent than was observed in this experiment. The Influence of Magnesium, Potassium and pH on Magnesium Concentrations in Plant Tissues As demonstrated earlier, the influence of fertilizer application on magnesium concentrations In plants appeared to be related to a greater extent to differential absorp­ tion by different species than to the influence of other ions. This is indicated by the constancy of the percentage of magnesium in some crops while varying to a much greater extent in other crops with similar fertilizer variables. 63 The marked Influence of added potassium on plant mag­ nesium as compared to the Insignificant influence of added magnesium on the potassium concentrations indicates the dominant influence of potassium on the accumulation of other ions. The results of these experiments suggest that in soils where magnesium occurs in adequate amounts, magnesium con­ centrations could be altered considerably without reduction in yield. The variation in the per cent of magnesium as influenced by other ions in potatoes, rauskmelons, cucumbers, beets and spinach where adequate magnesium appeared to be in the soil, would suggest that applications of lime and potassium to soils low in magnesium may induce magnesium deficiencies in plants. These results would also suggest that under extreme conditions as reported by Barnes (4), Carolus (10), Cooper (15) and Walsh and Clark (51) that high potassium:magnesium or calciumimagneslum ratios in certain soils may be detri­ mental to crop growth. The Influence of Potassium and Magnesium on Marketable Yield It is suggested that certain vegetable crops have a high potassium and magnesium requirement for maximum yields. In spinach and beets extremely high concentrations of potas­ sium in the plant tissue were associated with maximum yields. 64 Spinach and beet yields were significantly higher when grown with high potassium than with low potassium, even though the potassium concentrations in these plants grown with low potassium were greater than for most other crops grown with high potassium. This indicated that spinach and beet plants * were able to absorb greater quantities of potassium than other crops at a low level, but because of their high potas­ sium requirement these crops still responded to additional potassium. This appears to be contradictory to results re­ ported by Drake and Scarseth (18), who reported that spinach plants removed exchangeable potassium with less ease than carrots and certain other crops. This may be explained by the fact that the time required for spinach plants to reach maturity is much less than for carrots, and the total potas­ sium removed by an acre of spinach was approximately onetenth of that removed by carrots. The yields of onion,, cauliflower, snap bean, celery, tomato, potato, muskmelon and squash were increased by medium potassium additions, but were not increased at the highest potassium level. This suggests luxury absorption of potassium in these crops where high potassium applications Increased potassium concentration but failed to Increase yield. Snap bean, tomato, potato, beet, and muskmelon yields at pH 6-5 and tomato and muskmelon yields at pH 6.0 were in­ creased by high potassium application with no appreciable 65 changes in concentration. This apparently resulted from increased growth which increased the potassium requirement for maximum yields. Significant decreases in snap bean at pH 5 *5 with high potassium application as compared to low potassium application would indicate that the potassium re­ quirement was less at the lower pH level. Magnesium application significantly increased beet yields, significantly decreased carrot yields and had little affect on yields of other crops. The association of a rela­ tively high percentage of magnesium in beets and increased yields from magnesium application suggests that this crop has a rather high magnesium requirement for maximum yield. The decreased carrot yield appears to be directly influenced by magnesium application, as yields were reduced regardless of potassium or pH levels in the soil. The decrease in onion and snap bean yields at pH 6 .5 , a-nd of snap beans and cu­ cumber yields at low potassium levels suggests magnesium toxicity for certain crops at the high magnesium level. Total Potassium and Magnesium Removed A clearer perspective of nutrient uptake is gained when plant analysis data are evaluated on total removal. The high potaBslum concentrations in spinach and lettuce are not in­ dict ive of the quantities of potassium removed by these crops because of the low relative and total dry matter produced. 66 Although the per cent potassium in the tissues of these crops was twice the amount found in sweet corn and about the same as for carrots and beets, spinach and lettuce removed approximately one-tenth as much potassium from the soil. A similar relationship exists between potato tubers and tomato fruits. The higher potassium concentration and the greater yields of tomatoes might suggest that they have a higher potassium requirement than potatoes. However, the potato contains almost three times the dry matter as the tomato and since these results were calculated on dry matter basis, the potassium concentrations were not reflected in total removal. The results indicated that a potato crop removes approximately the same amount of potassium as a tomato crop. As indicated previously the reduction of potassium in carrot plants grown at pH 6.5 was shown to be associated with increased yields, which indicates that large reductions in the per cent of potassium in plant tissue at higher pH levels may frequently be associated with increases in yield. This is more likely to occur with potassium than with many other ions because of a luxury absorption of potassium. Such might also be the case where calcium decreased or increasedthe per cent magnesium in plant tissue and also resulted in an increased or decrease in the yield. These associations 67 between crop yields and percentages of ions in plant tissue may lead to a clearer interpretation of nutrient utilization by plants. This indicates that all factors should be con­ sidered and evaluated when plant composition data are used as a basis for fertilizer recommendations. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Seventeen vegetable crops were grown on each of 36 treatment combinations involing three pH and potassium levels and two magnesium levels- The various cation levels were attained by applications of calcium hydroxide, equal amounts of potassium chloride and potassium sulphate, and magnesium sulphate. The crops were grown on a Hillsdale sandy loam soil under similar environmental conditions in a factorially designed experiment. Marketable yields and total plant growth were recorded and samples were collected for chemical analyses as each crop reached maturity. The percentages of potassium and magnesium as influenced by treatment were determined for each crop and the quantities of these two constituents removed from the soil were cal­ culated . The inherent differential absorption of crops and the relative strength of the ions influenced plant, composition and yield response to treatment. The maximum potassium concentration found in spinach was almost five times the minimum concentration determined in onions. Magnesium con­ centrations showed wider variations among the crops of different botanical families than potassium. However, variations in magnesium concentrations among crops of the 69 same botanical family were not as great as for potassium. The maximum magnesium concentration in potato vines was ten times the minimum in onion plants and potato tubers. The potassium:magnesium ratios varied from one in muskmelon vines to fourteen in potato tubers. Additions of potassium to the soil Influenced its absorption to a greater extent, and potassium in plant tissues was altered less by applications of other ions than was observed with magnesium. In all crops the addition of 120 pounds of potassium per acre to the soil resulted in relatively larger Increases in potassium concentrations in the plants than were obtained by further potassium additions. The reduction in the rate of increased potassium concen­ trations in the crops grown at the high potassium level suggests that the amount of potassium in the soil is not the only factor affecting, potassium concentration. The differential absorption of crops at the different levels of potassium is indicated by the very low relatively increase in concentrations found in lettuce, carrot, cabbage, lima bean and snap bean for the high potassium additions. At pH 6-5 potassium concentrations and yields were significantly Increased in spinach and celery. However, in carrots al­ though the potassium concentrations were significantly de­ creased the yields were increased. Magnesium had no signi­ ficant influence on the potassium concentration in the crops used in this study. 70 Relative fluctuations in the percentage of magnesium aa influenced by cation treatment were greater with crops having high average concentrations. Magnesium application significantly increased magnesium concentrations in 15 crops, while a high potassium application significantly decreased magnesium in nine crops, and pH significantly influenced magnesium in only four crops. The marked affect of potas­ sium on magnesium concentration as compared to the insigni­ ficant influence of magnesium on the potassium concentration indicates the dominant influence of potassium on the accumu­ lation of other ions. High potassium application significantly increased spinach and beet yields and high potassium concentrations in these crops were associated with maximum yields. At pH 6-5 high potassium applications significantly Increased snap bean, potato, tomato and muskmelon yields and at pH 5 *5 high potassium significantly decreased the yield of snap beans. Yields of celery, tomato, potato, muskmelon, snap bean, squash and onion were significantly greater when grown on medium potassium than on low potassium plots. In only two of seventeen crops did magnesium significantly in­ fluence y i e ld s . Beet yields were increased, while carrot yields were decreased. The total quantity of potassium removed by carrots was approximately 10 times that removed by spinach and 71 lettuce plants and was three times the quantity removed on an average of all crops. Cabbage, beet and celery removed significantly more potassium from high than from medium potassium plots, and the potassium removed by all crops grown on high potassium plots was slgnificantly greater than from low potassium plots. The total quantity of potas­ sium found in lima bean, beet, spinach, was significantly influenced by pH. celery and carrot Beets removed 11 times as much magnesium from the soil as spinach and four times the average quantity removed by all crops. Magnesium appli­ cation significantly increased the magnesium accumulation by lima bean, beet, spinach, carrot. celery, onion, cabbage and The quantity of magnesium removed from the soil by lima bean, beet, spinach, celery, carrot and potato plants were significantly influenced by pH. A high potassium appli­ cation significantly reduced the accumulation of magnesium by lima bean and potato plants. Tolerance to wide variations in magnesium and potas­ sium concentrations in the crops as reflected in slight observable yield differences indicates that toxicity of a large concentration of either is minimized by a rather high average quantity of both in the soil. The potassium jmag­ nesium ratio in the plant can be varied widely without in­ fluencing yield under conditions that normally result in a relatively high absorption of both. The large variations 72 in the magnesium content as a result of an application of calcium and potassium indicate that these ions may depress magnesium uptake in certain instances to such an extent that growth and, yield would be reduced. Such conditions may appear in sandy soil in which magnesium is extremely low, or in soils with a very high base exchange capacity with a relatively low magnesium content. Under such conditions in­ herent differences in absorption characteristics of different crops as reflected in alterations in their composition as found in this study would be intensified and would be re­ flected in greater yield differences than were realized in these experiments. LITERATURE CITED 1. Allaway, H., and W. H. Pierre. 1939- Availability, fixation and liberation of potassium on high lime soils. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 3 1 :9 ^ 0-9 5 3 . 2. Albrecht, >/. A., and R. S. Schroeder. I9 A 2 . Plant nutrition and the hydrogen ion. I. Plant nutrients used more effectively in the presence of a signi­ ficant concentration of hydrogen ions. Soil S c i . 53:313-32?. 3* Arnon, D. I., and D. R. Hoagland. 19^3* Composition of tomato plant as influenced by nutrient application in relation to fruiting. B o t . Gaz. 10A:5?6-590. L. Barnes, W. C. 19^3* Effect of soil acidity and some minor elements on the growth of Irish potatoes. S. C- Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. R p t . 27 - 1 3 2 . 5• Bender, W. H., and W. S. Eisenmenger. I9 A I . Intake of certain elements by calciphlllc and calciphoblc plants.grown on soils differing in pH. Soil Sci. 52:297-307. 6 . Blair, A. W., A. L. Prince and L. E. Eisenmenger. 1939Effect of applications of magnesium on crop yields and on the percentages of calcium and magnesium oxide 8 in plant material. Soil Sci. ^+8:59-73* 7. Bower, C. A., and W. H. Pierre. 1 9 ^ Potassium re­ sponse of various crops on a higher lime soil in relation to their contents of potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium. Jour. Amer. Soc- Agron. 3 6 :608 — 6 l L . 8. Brown, J. S., 0. Lllleland, and R. K. Jackson. 195°• Further notes on the use of flame methods for analysis of plant material for potassium, calcium, magnesium and sodium. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 5 6 :12- 2 2 . 9. Carolus, R. L. 193^- Effects of magnesium deficiency in the soil on the yield, appearance and com­ position of vegetable crops. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci- 32 :610-6liJ-. 7b 10. _. 1935* The relation of potassium, cal­ cium, and sodium to magnesium deficiency. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 33:595-599* 11. 1938. Effect of certain ions, used singly and in combination, on the growth and potassium, calcium, and magnesium absorption of the bean plant. Plant Phys . 13:3^9-363. 12.______________. 19^9* Calcium and potassium relationsH'ips in tomatoes and spinach. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci, 5^:281-285* 13. Collander, R. 1941. Selective absorption of cations by higher plants. Plant Physiol. 23 :425~442 . 14. Cooper, H. P. 1937* Chemical composition of carpet grass from pasture plots receiving various ferti­ lizer treatments. Proc. Soil Sci. Amer. 2:353-358 15* 16. _____ 19^5. Certain factors affecting the availability and utilization of magnesium by plants. Soil Sci. 60:107-114. .1950. Effects of energy properties of some plant nutrients on availability, on rate of absorption, and on intensity of certain oxldationreduction reactions. Soil Sci. 69:7-39* 17. Daniel, H. A. 1935* The Mg content of grasses and legumes and ratios between this element and the total Ca, P and N in these plants. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 27:922-927* 18. Drake, M., and G . D. Scarseth. 1940. Relative abili­ ties of different plants to absorb potassium and the effects of different levels of potassium on the absorption of calcium and magnesium. Proc. Soil Sci. Amer. 4:201-204. 19. 20. ., J. Vengles, and W. C* Colby. 1951* Cation exchange capacity of plant roots. Soil Sci. 72:139-1^7* Ehrenberg, P. 1919* Das kalk-kali Gesetz. Jahrb. 5^:1-159* Landw. 75 21. Eisenmenger, W. S. 1 9 4 7 . Relationship of seed plant developement to the need of magnesium. Soil Sci. 6 3 :13-17• 22. Epstein, E., and C. E. Hagen. 1952. A kinetic study of the absorption of alkali cations by barley roots. Plant physiol. 27:457-474. 2 3 . Fisher, R. A. workers. 1936. Statistical methods for research Edinburough, Scotland. Oliver & Boyd. 24. Gauch, H. G., and C- H. Wadleigh. 1945Effect of high concentrations of sodium, calcium, chloride and sulphate on ionic absorption by bean plants. Soil Sci. 59:139-153- 25* Hartwell, B. L. 1927* Relative response to potash. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 19:479-482. 26. Horae, Francis. 1757* The principle of agriculture vegetation. Edinburg. Orglnial not seen. Cited Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. E. J. Russell. Longman. New York. 27. Hunter, A- S., S. J. Toth, and F. E. Bear. Calcium-potassium ratios for alfalfa. 55:61-72. 28. Itallie, T h . B. Van. 1 9 3 8 . Cation equilibria in plants in relation to the soil. Soil Sci. 46: 175-186 . 29. Jenkins, J. M . Jr. 1936. Some effects of potassium on yields of snap beans. Amer. Soc- Hort. Sci. 34:471-473- 30. Lagatu, H., and L. Maume. 1924. Etude, par 1'analyse periodlque des feurlles de 1 'influence des engrals de chaux, de magnesie, et de potasse sur la vlgnl. C. R- Acad. Sci. Paris. 179:923“9 3 4 . 31. Lipman, J. G-, A. W. Blair, and A. L. Prince. 1926. The effect of lime and fertilizer on the potash content of soil and crop. Internatl. Rev. Sci. and proct. A g r . (Rome) 4:546-553* I9 A 3 . Soil Sci. ?6 32. Mae Gregor,, J. M-, and C- O- Rost-1946- Effect of soil eharacterfsties and fertilization on potatoes as re-garde yield and tissue* composition. Jour. A m e r . Soc - Agron - 38 ■636 —646 - 33- Marshall, G. E- 1944. The exchangeable bases of two Missouri soils in relation to composition of four pasture species. Mo. Agr. Exp- St a. Res- Bull- 385 34- Mehliek, A-, and J- F- Reed. 1945 * The influence of degree saturation, K level and calcium additions on removal of Ca„ Mg, and K. Proc. Soil Sci. A m e r - 10: 8 ?—93 * 35- Newton, J- B . 1928. The selective absorption of in­ organic elements by various crop plants. Soil Sci. 26:85-91- 36. Overstreet, R., L. Jackson, and R. Handley. 1952. The effect of calcium on the absorption of potassium. Plant Physiol. 27:583-590. 37- Parker, M. M . , J. B. Hester, and R. L. Carolus. The effect of soil conditions on the growth and composition of certain vegetable crop plants as influenced by soil reaction. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sci. 30:452-457- 38. Pierre, W. H-, and C. A- Bower. 1943- Potassium absorption by plants as affected by cationic re­ lationships. Soil Sci. 55l23“36. 39- Pool, R. J. 1 9 2 9 . Flowers and Flowering Plants. McGraw-Hill- New York- 40 . Prince, A. L. 1951- Magnesium economy in coastal plain soils of New Jersey. Soil Sci. 71:91—98. 41. Saussure, T- d e . 1890. Chemische Untersuchungen uber die Vegetation, 2. German Translation by A- Wieher, Wilhelm Engelmann. Leipzig, Germany. 42. Salter, P. M-, and J. W. Ames. 1928. Plant composition as guide to availability of soil nutrients. Jour. Amer. Soc- Agron. 20:808—836- 77 ^3 • Schroeder, R. A., and Wm. A. Albrect. 1942. Plant nutrition and the hydrogen ion. II. Potato scab. Soil Sci. 53:^81-488. 44. Snedecor, G. W. 1946. Statistical Methods. State Press. Ames, Iowa. 45. Swanbock, T. R. 1941. Further experiments on the re­ lation of calcium to growth of tobacco. Conn. (New Haven) Agr. Exp. Sta- Bull, 444. 46. Toth, S. J., A. L. Prince, and D. L. Mikkelson. 1948. Rapid quanitiative determinations of eight mineral elements in plant tissue by systemic procedure in­ volving the use of a flame phytometer. Soil Sci. 66:459-466 . 47 • Trlnchinetti. 1843. Original not seen. Cited in A Short History of Plant Sciences. H. S. Reed. Chronica Botanica Co. Waltham, Mass. 48. Veatch, J. 0* 1941. Agriculture land classification and land types of Michigan. Mich. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bull. 231 (First Rev.) 49 . Viets, F. G. Jr. 1942. Effect of calcium and other divalent ions on the accumulation of mono-valent ions by barley root cells. Science 95:486-487• 50. Wadleigh, C. H., and C. A. Bower. 1950. The influence of calcium ion activity in water cultures on the Intake of cations by bean plants. Plant Physiol. 2 5 :1- 1 2 . 51. Walsh, T., and E. J. Clark. 1945- Chlorosis of tomatoes with particular reference to the potas­ sium—magnesium relations. Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. 503:245-263- 52- Ware, L. M. 1937Influence of the major fertilizer elements on earliness and yield of snap beans. Proc* Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:^99—703- 53- Wheeler, H. J., and B. L. Hartwell. 191^- Magnesium as manure• R • I - A g r . E x p . St a . A n n . R p t . 221- 26 0 . The Iowa 78 5 ^. Winters, E. 19**5 - Crop response to potassium fertilization. Proc. Soil Sci. Amer. 10:162-167- 55. Yates, F. 1937- The design and analysis of factorial experiments. Imp. Bur. of Soil Sci. Tech. Commun. 35- APPENDIX Complete data are listed for plant weight, yield, per­ centage of dry weight and per cent calcium, potassium, mag­ nesium, and sodium in tissue analyzed from each of the seven­ teen crops grown with the 36 fertilizer treatments. Treat­ ments are designated by the symbols H (pH 6-5, 220 pounds of potassium, 50 pounds of magnesium or 100 pounds of sodium applied per acre), M (pH 6.0 or 120 pounds potassium applied per acre) and L (pH 5-5, 12 pounds of potassium, no magnesium or sodium applied per acre)- All values represent averages of 1951 and 1952 with the exception of crops where market­ able yields and total plant growth are separated. For these crops marketable yields represents average values for 1951 and 1952 and total plant growth is for 1 9 5 2 .only. 80 Table 1. Onion. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Total plant wt. 6 .5 9.9 8.3 Ca H H H H K Mg Na H H H H H L H L H H L L H H H H M M M K E H L L H L H L 9.1 11.3 12.7 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 6.7 9.7 9*1 9.5 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 7*8 8.8 M M M M M M M M H K L L M M M M L L L L L L L L 12.2 11.2 Per cent dry w t . 12 .2 12.5 12 .0 12.1 11*5 13*7 13 .4 12 .7 13.0 12.7 14-5 12.2 6.3 13*5 13 .2 13*7 7*2 13 .0 H L H L 6.3 10.3 7*7 9*7 13.9 13 .0 H H L L H L H L 7*9 9*2 8 .2 9-1 13 .2 12.7 12 .7 12 .0 H H H H H H L L H L H L 6.2 5*7 13*1 14.0 4.5 13.0 5*2 14.0 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L 7.4 9*7 7*1 6.8 13*7 13*5 12.5 11.2 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 8.3 10.6 8 .2 10 .0 12.9 11*7 13-7 12 .2 *See page 79• 13*5 14.0 Per cent of dry w t . Ca 0.58 0 .42 0.64 0.67 0.45 0 .24 0 .48 0.71 0.62 0 .86 0 .68 1.04 0.54 0 .40 0 .68 0.70 0.61 K 1.67 1*91 1*97 1.87 1 .47 1*59 1.59 1.58 1.22 1.42 1.09 1.04 2.01 2 .12 1.90 2 .43 0.71 0.56 1*77 1*79 1.83 0.51 1.92 0.71 0.37 0.61 0.78 0.93 0.90 0.82 0.66 0.41 0.66 0.65 0.71 1-97 2 .68 2 .08 . 1-93 0.59 1.33 1-59 1.63 1.21 0.63 0.71 0 .46 0.55 0.72 0-75 1.11 1.09 0.83 1.08 0 .87 Mg 0 .22 Na 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.07 0 .24 0.25 0.08 0.2 6 0.31 0.19 0.12 0.06 0 .18 0 .22 0.07 0 .22 0.25 0.18 0 .20 0.31 0 .24 0 .20 0.23 0.2 6 0.18 0.38 0.19 0.17 0.08 0.22 0.09 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.22 0 .20 0.22 0.08 0.23 0.22 0.20 0 .26 0 .62 0 .12 0.62 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.29 0.23 0 .06 0 .20 0.31 0.07 0.73 0 .22 0.20 0 .06 0.17 0.06 0.26 0.36 0.34 0.21 0 .26 0.27 0.32 0 .08 0 .62 0 .11 Table 2. Cabbage. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K % Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Head Wt. 34 .4 39.8 33-0 33-2 Total Plant Wt. 61.1 53-8 43-5 48 .9 Per cent dry w t . 6 .5 6.7 6.2 6.2 Per cent Ca K 0 .87 3-87 0.93 4.17 1 .21 4.81 1.20 4.79 0.47 of dry w t . Na Mg 0.38 0.29 0.43 0 .41 0.07 O .32 0.07 32.9 27 -2 28 .8 4 1 .2 35.4 29 .8 35-9 6.0 5-7 6 .2 7.0 0.86 0.94 0.84 1.18 4.26 4 .05 4.08 3*89 0 .54 0 .66 0 .44 0.51 0.2 6 0 .11 H L H L 26 .2 28 .9 33-6 27 .6 47 .8 4 1 .7 53.7 42 .8 6 .5 5-5 5 .2 6 .5 0 .84 1.34 2.20 2.28 2.35 2 .62 0.39 0.91 0.45 0.37 0.33 0.32 1.07 H H L L H L H L 28 .9 32 .4 44 .4 47.5 43.5 6 .5 6.2 6 .0 6.7 1.19 0.69 0.88 0.47 0 .40 0.29 0.37 0.31 0 .74 3*85 4.05 4.02 4.08 M M M M H H L L H. L H L 27.9 30 .2 31 .1 29 •6 46 .4 44.6 0.69 1.17 0 .81 1.04 4.02 3 .82 3*91 3*37 0.43 0.32 0.49 45.8 5-7 6 .5 6 .0 6 .2 0.38 0 .42 0.10 .0.32 0 .22 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L 34.1 32.5 55-2 50 .6 52.7 38.3 6 .5 6.7 5.7 6 .0 1 .24 2 .67 0.52 0.71 2.25 2.48 2 .58 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.73 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 24 .1 25 -2 23 .1 25.7 43 .4 0.72 0.71 0.33 0.59 0.70 4.21 4.47 4.2 5 4 .43 0 .48 45 .8 42 .3 41.0 6 .5 6.0 6 .2 7.0 0.37 0.42 0 .10 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L 38.1 33 -5 33 -2 38 .4 60.1 56.9 57-2 56.9 5-7 5-7 6 -5 6 .5 0.77 0.66 1.12 1.28 3 .84 3 .64 3*89 3*66 O .36 0.35 0 .41 0.41 0 .44 0.10 0.53 0 .10 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 26 .1 33 -2 33 *7 30.5 6 .2 6.0 6 .2 5*7 0 .64 2.18 2.63 2 .89 2.89 0.43 0.37 0 .40 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 32.2 H H H H L L L L H H L L M M M M H H H H M M M M 34.2 32.5 30.9 31.6 26 .7 32.5 50.6 39-8 40 .9 36 .1 *See page 79• 0.92 0.68 0 .87 0.85 0.76 1.09 1.26 0.43 0.43 0.30 0.09 0 .26 0 .08 0.32 0 .11 0 .85 0 .19. 0.30 0.13 0.30 1.07 0.19 0 .81 0 .18 82 Table 3* Cauliflower. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Head wt . 14 .8 17*8 17-1 plant wt . 63 *4 . 84 .6 13-8 4.8.4 15 .4 62.1 80.8 62.1 38.9 9*0 1.34 8.0 1.18 1.24 1.17 45 .4 8.0 58-3 77-9 51.3 10 .0 43.3 8.0 71.6 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 20.0 19-9 15 -6 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 15 .4 15.3 19 -6 16 .2 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 14.6 17 .6 15.1 16 .9 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 18.1 20 .2 L L L L H H L L H L H L 17 .1 14 .7 12-5 12.7 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 11.4 15.7 19 .4 17 -8 47 .4 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L M M M M . Per cent dry w t . 8 .0 8.0 8.0 9-5 9.0 7*5 8.5 8.5 Per cent Ca K 1.04 4 .48 1.52 3 .86 1.13 3 .82 0.63 3 *66 4.18 3 .80 3*36 3.45 of dry w t . Na Mg 0.45 0 .44 0.47 0.09 O .36 0 .28 0.27 0.07 0.57 0.51 0.28 O .32 0*53 0.21 0.48 0.14 1.10 I .36 1.04 1.89 1.33 2.26 1.96 1.98 2 .31 O .34 0.27 O .32 4.30 4 .36 3 *81 4.20 0.55 0.35 0.29 0.34 0.14 0 .24 0.19 1*35 0.22 54.1 6 3 .0 73-3 9*5 7*0 8.5 2 .09 O .96 1.25 1.46 69 .8 59.6 84.4 58.5 8 .0 8.0 7-0 9-0 0 .88 0.99 1.44 1.20 3-53 4 .24 3*71 3 .60 0.31 0 .34 0.45 0 .36 0.29 0 .10 0*35 0 .20 37.7 7*0 11.0 10 .0 11.5 1.20 2.62 2.64 2.54 2.22 0 .48 0.93 0 .14 0.61 75.6 70.9 79-6 8.0 6.5 8.0 9*5 1.25 1 .03 19 -8 21.0 20 .7 17.5 59-0 78.9 82.8 67-9 18 .6 16 .4 1 7*7 17 .2 87-7 57.3 20 .8 13 .8 40.3 45 .8 37-0 50.3 62.6 0.72 1*35 1.21 0.27 0.38 0 .28 0 .62 0.11 0.31 0.26 0 .44 0 .40 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.07 O .38 1.18 4 .25 4.00 4 .09 4.18 '8.0 8.0 8.0 9-0 1 -58 1.65 3*33 0 .47 3 .06 1.32 1.31 3.29 3*19 9.0 8.0 8.5 8.0 0 .82 1.17 1.11 1.21 2.67 2.28 2.80 2 .21 1.30 0 .48 0-35 0-33 0.36 O .38 0.30 0 .28 0 .08 0.59 0 .21 0.63 0.14 1.00 0.25 0 .12 0 .41 *See page 79• m 83 Table 4. Pea. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Pod wt. Total Plant wt . Per cent dry w t . 1.6 2.2 16 .0 3-5 ^•5 3*8 7-3 7.1 15.5 15.7 17.8 Per cent of dry w t . Ca Mg Na K 1 .34 2 .12 0.41 0.15 1.11 1.94 0.37 0 .02 1.18 2.14 0 .40 0.05 0.36 0.02 1-39 2.13 16.5 15.7 16 .2 I .03 1.04 1.25 16-2 1.61 18 .0 1.50 1 .43 1.63 6.9 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 3*2 2.5 2.3 1.3 6.7 6 .1 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 3*2 3-0 8.4 8.5 3.0 8.2 3-6 8.5 19 .0 16 .7 1 7 .8 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 1.2 4.9 17 .0 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 2.9 3*2 6 .9 2.8 M M M M L L L L H H L L L L L L H H H H L L L L L L L L 7.2 4.8 - 1 -92 1.66 0.58 1.80 1-75 1.73 0.50 1.38 1.50 1.37 1.48 0-39 0 .08 0 .02 0 .10 0 .02 0.31 0.30 0.32 0 .28 0.17 0 .10 0 .18 0.05 0-33 0 .40 O .32 O .33 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.37 0.07 0.02 0 .08 0.03 0.12 0 .02 0 .10 0.15 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.58 1.22 1 .40 1 .27 2.12 2.02 19.0 1-33 1.99 1.10 1 .34 1.50 1.74 1-59 1.88 2.7 8.0 8.1 17-7 18.5 18.7 17 -2 1-35 1-91 H L H L 1-9 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.6 2-3 3-1 5-0 16.7 16 .2 16 .2 16 .7 1 .38 1.81 1.22 1-55 1.48 1.60 I .67 1.42 0 .38 0.37 0.33 0.31 H H L L H L H L 2.7 3-2 2.7 3-3 6 .0 6.7 6 .3 6 .6 15 -7 1-3? 1.15 1.40 1.29 2 .09 2.04 1.89 2 .04 0.39 0.37 0 .34 0.33 M M M M H H L L H L H L 2-5 2-5 1.9 2.4 4.2 4 .8 4.6 4 .2 17.0 1.44 1 .21 1.28 1 .71 0 .41 1 .83 0 .40 1.32 1-97 1.68 0 .32 0.32 0 .11 0 .02 0 .14 0 .02 L L L L H H L L H L H L 3 -3 7-3 7-7' 6 .9 6.6 16-7 16 .0 1.28 1.60 1.44 1.80 1.41 1-33 1.46 1.46 0 .47 0 .45 0.33 0.38 0 .16 0 .02 0.15 0 .02 2-3 2.5 2.0 3.0 3-1 3-2 6-9 6 .6 6 .8 8.5 *See page 79• 16 .7 15.5 16 .5 18 .2 15 -2 17.5 16 .? 16 .5 17 .0 I? -2 1.89 0.05 Table 5* Lima bean. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* --------Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L , Pod Wt . Total Plant Wt. Per cent dry w t . p6r cen^ 0f &Ty w-t;. ----Ca Na Mg K 0 .66 0.04 2 .18 2.29 0.04 2 .04 2 .03 0.58 1.90 2 .22 0 .46 0.05 1.62 2.57 0.52 0.05 10.1 10 .0 25 .2 27 .8 10.4 9-2 29-3 25 *6 8-3 8.7 7-7 17.3 21.4 20 .0 19 .2 8.6 18.4 20 .2 21.5 1.41 8.6 2 .47 3 .O3 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 11.6 10 .6 10 .5 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L 11.4 9-7 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 10.6 . 10 .8 10.0 11.2 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 19.0 19.5 17 .2 18 .0 18.7 1.18 1.14 2.22 8.5 22.6 26 .1 10 .6 27-5 21.7 19 .1 20 .7 9.0 22 .0 19 .0 2.55 8.0 18. 7 24.8 21.4 20.2 .20 .0 18.7 1.63 2 .52 2.16 21.3 19.0 2 .05 31 -2 27.1 17-7 18.2 18.5 1.91 2 .34 2.42 2 .24 1.98 2 .04 2 .38 9-9 9-9 7-9 9-6 10.1 8-5 26 .3 26 .4 30.7 26 .2 31.2 25.9 20 .0 18.0. 20.4 20.1 19 -2 2.75 2.31 2.43 2.172 .46 0 .06 0.05 0.05 0 .04 0.67 0.61 0.66 2 .25 0.65 0.04 1.76 2.11 0.62 0.60 0 .61 0.03 0.03 0.03 2.04 0.59 0.71 0.6 0 0 .68 0 .04 0.03 2.59 1.36 1 .94 1 .44 0 .04 0 .68 0.63 0 .66 0.58 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 2.50 O .72 0.59 1-99 1-99 0 .58 0 .62 0 .04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.77 0.69 0.57 0 .60 1.84 2.10 2.52 11.7 10 .9 35-9 31-5 18 .0 19 .2 2.51 1.63 2.40 8.8 10 .0 29 .1 20 .1 19 -2 2.03 21.2 21.2 2 .34 1.90 2.38 1-55 2.14 1.56 *See page 79 * 0.76 0 .81 2.19 2.38 2 .40 2.35 2.61 17.7 19.1 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.85 2.39 7-8 9-5 9-5 0.48 0.63 26 .1 30 .6 22.0 21.2 20.8 20.2 0.05 0.05 2.32 2.50 8.0 0 .86 0 .60 0.76 0 .60 1 -98 33-8 0.04 -1.60 1.71 1-57 1.60 18.7 19 .1 17.5 17.7 29.5 28.6 0.62 2.25 1.20 1.61 0.04 0 .06 0.03 0.04 0.03 85 Table 6. Snap bean. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K Mfi Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L pod wt . 6*7 8.5 8.2 8.0 plant wt. 13.8 18 .9 19 .1 18.2 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 6.4 7*8 7-3 7-0 16.4 17.9 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L M M M M H H H H H H L L M M M M M M M M M M M M Per oent dry w t . 11.0 12.5 11.5 11.2 12.2 Per cent Ca K 1.60 3-07 1.16 2.97 1.81 2.85 1.74 3.15 of dry wt ■ Na Mg 0.58 0 .02 0.01 0.52 0.49 0.03 0.01 0-55 1.47 1.3^ 2.99 2.88 2.75 2.37 1.28 2.05 2 .09 1.77 1.81 0.62 O .54 0.53 O .51 0.02 0 .01 0.02 0.01 19 .0 13 -2 11.5 11.8 13-5 2.15 3*6 3 *6 6 .6 6 .4 11.3 11.1 14.5 14.6 13.0 14.5 12.7 12.7 1.83 2 .02 2.45 2.21 H L H L 5-9 7.7 11.5 11.0 11.7 11.5 1.83 1.80 2 .02 1.54 2 .98 O .58 2.67 3 .06 3*33 0.50 O .54 5.4 15 .1 15 -1 15.9 8.7 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 H H L L H L H L 5 -4 8.0 6 .1 6.8 10.6 16.2 12.6 12.6 11.3 14.5 12.8 12.0 1.44 1.53 2.11 2.05 3 .10 2.45 2 .7 ^ 2.54 0.68 O .52 O .52 0.49 0.01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 L L L L H H L L H L H L 7.2 6 .6 7-5 7-9 14.7 13.9 16 .0 16 .0 12.2 12.5 11.7 14 .0 2.24 1.99 2 .50 2 .27 2.39 0.67 0.75 0.60 0.6 0 0 .01 0 .01 0 .02 0.01 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 4 .9 6 .2 5 -3 6 .5 12.2 I3.3 11.4 14.8 12 .7 13 .2 12 .0 12.7 1.64 1.84 1.50 1-95 3 .06 O .56 0.57 0.47 0.53 0.02 0 .01 0.01 0.01 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L 7-8 8 .4 5-9 7.5 18 .0 17.9 16 .5 18 .5 12 .0 22 .0 12.2 12 .7 1-79 2.94 0.59 0.55 1.45 0.50 0 .01 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.01 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 6 .0 8.2 5 -9 7.0 16 .0 15 .4 12.0 12.7 11.7 2 .00 1-97 ' 1.68 0.66 0.77 0.57 0.01 0 .01 0.01 0 .01 6.3 12 .3 13.0 * See page 79* 13 .0 2.09 1.32 1.90 1.76 1.56 1.87 I .37 3-21 3.03 3-35 2.92 3 .02 3.03 1.93 1.76 2 .08 1.94 1.50 0.69 0.66 0.56 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 86 Table 7- Beet. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* __________ Ga K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L H H H H M M M M H H L H H H H L L L H L L H L. H L M M M M H H H H H H L L M M M M M M M M M M M M ' plant wt . 20 .7 23 .2 17*9 21 -5 H _ . Per cent of dry wt Per cent __________________ dry wt .______Ca_____ K______ Mg_____ Na 1 2 .0 4.60 1.70 0 .89 0 .85 0 .64 6 . 3 6 15 -0 1.13 1.59 1 .13 1.84 0.86 5 .10 11.5 1 .20 0 .49 0 .92 12 .5 6 .56 17 -2 20 .8 9 .2 12 .3 13.5 14.0 0-37 13 .0 16 .0 0 .86 1.36 20 .5 13 .0 18 .2 19 -8 15 -6 16 .0 12 .0 12 .0 2.33 2 .01 1 -35 H L H L 17.3 19 .1 18 .4 11 .5 H H L L L L L L L L L L L H L L H L 0 .69 1.54 4.95 6 .65 5 -35 5.43 0.99 2 .88 0 .86 2 .45 3-37 2.73 1.60 0-95 0 .78 4 .15 0.95 3-74 3 .70 0 .72 0 .61 2 .30 0 .42 2 .09 3 .57 5 -88 7-55 5 .41 7 -37 1.88 1 .16 0 .86 1.18 2 .28 21 .7 1.14 1.16 0 .81 1-35 1.36 12 .0 11.5 12 .0 H L H L 16 12 10 10 .1 .2 .6 .8 14 .0 13.5 12 .5 12 .0 1.16 1 .46 1-35 1 .50 4.56 6 .36 1.03 1.13 4.2 5 7-33 1.17 1.61 2.35 0 .64 2 .81 1-35 H H L L H 18 .1 9.3 14 .8 12 .0 14.0 12 .0 14 .0 1.02 1 .32 1 .08 1-59 3 -70 2.95 3-35 3 *25 0.79 1.23 0.77 0 .99 2 .70 0 .41 2 .02 1 .68 H H H H H H H L 1 .30 1-35 1.04 13 .0 1.69 4-35 7-19 5-81 7-35 1-35 1.46 0 .94 1.45 2.79 H L 13.5 14 .0 13.5 L 11.3 13.7 12.3 12 .7 L L L L M M M M H H L L H Li H 19 -8 15 -2 14 .9 12 .5 0 .81 0 .89 -1.04 L 16 .3 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 22 .4 10.7 15 -8 L L H L . 11.5 13 -0 *See page 79 * 13 .0 12 .0 14 .0 12.0 12.0 12 .0 16 .0 1.23 0.53 1 .08 1 .21 1.62 0.47 0 .54 0.52 0.72 2 .68 0.76 0.99 2 .62 5 .60 3.92 5.90 1.03 0.43 0 .81 1.08 2.68 0 .41 3.52 3.70 2 .91 0.8 6 1.45 0 .87 1.08 2 .44 0 .46 2 .84 0.33 4.36 3 .10 I 87 Table 8. SpinachInfluence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. „ Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Total nlant wt . 5.5 6.8 5 -6 5.7 Per cent dry wt . 7.4 7*0 7-1 7.8 Per cent of dry w t * Ca K Na Mg 0.24 1.00 0.63 9.79 0.52 0 .02 9 .86 1.02 0.74 0 .43 1.36 9.13 0 .02 9 .82 0 .65 0.95 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 4 .6 6.9 5.0 4.1 7.9 7-5 8.4 7-7 H H H H L L L L H H L H L H L 4 .2 3-7 4 .2 3-7 9-2 9-2 9-1 10.7 2.10 M M H H L L H L H L 4 .8 3 *6 4.5 4 .4 6-7 7 .2 7-5 8 .0 0 .81 0.93 0 .88 M H H H H M M M M M M M M H H L L H 9-3 H L 3-9 2.9 3-5 3-4 M M M M Ir H L H L L L L H L H L 3*5 2-9 2.6 2.0 L L L L H H H H H •H H L L H L L 2.0 2.1 • 1.8 2-7 9 .6 9.5 10 .2 9 .0 L M M M M H H H L B 0 .6 2.0 1*3 3-9 7 -7 L L L L H H L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L H L H L 3 .1 l.o 1.6 1.0 *See page 79• 8.84 8.13 7.67 7.15 1-37 1.48 5.36 4 .56 5 .25 0.92 0 .41 0 .04 0.61 0.67 0.02 1.78 4.97 0.96 0 .96 0.79 0 .76 1.02 0.99 0 .88 0 .94 0 .28 0.65 9 .93 9 .24 8.79 9 -06 0.83 1.00 0.59 0 .80 7.57 8 .72 8.29 7-87 1.01 1.18 0 .72 0 .04 0.76 0 .43 0 .84 0 .11 8.2 0.77 0.23 0.92 0.72 1.15 6 .24 4 .34 5-97 6.35 1.03 10.3 1.12 0 .86 1.02 0 .04 8 .44 8.52 8.15 8.72 1.01 1.26 0 .88 0 .81 1 .43 0.93 0 .64 9.25 6 .76 7 .06 7-7 8 0.73 1.66 1.54 1-99 4.77 2 .84 4.10 3 .64 1.22 1 .80 0 .89 1.13 1.62 10.3 8.7 10.7 8.2 11.0 ■ 10.5 7-9 7-7 9-5 8.7 10.7 13 -o 0.53 0.59 0 .88 0.54 0 .85 1.20 1.36 0.79 0.91 0 .61 0 .69 1.25 0 .65 0.63 0.92 0.63 0.67 o .15 1.76 0 .08 0 .05 0 .49 0 .10 0 .74 0.18 0.33 0.03 0.2 5 0.03 0.05 0.52 0 .06 0.33 1.82 0.0 6 88 Table 9* Celery. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* ---------. K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Total plant wt. 28 .0 24 .8 28.6 26 -9 Per cent dry w t . 11.2 13.0 10.6 11.0 per cen-(; of dry w t . ---------------------Na Ca K Mg . 0 .74 0 .44 4 .82 1.08 1.11 0.52 5 .16 0.23 0.49 • 1.22 5 -22 1-51 1.07 0 .20 0 .46 5-29 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 28.7 25-2 25 -2 18.1 11-5 12 .5 12.5 0.99 1.13 1 .00 1-57 H K H H L L L L H H L L H L H' L 24 .4 15 .2 28-5 17 -8 13 .2 14.0 11-5 12 .0 1.16 1 .29 1.18 1.80 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 30.1 26.0 10 .0 11.0 27 .2 23 .6 10.5 13-2 1.07 0 .84 1.21 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 25 .0 11-5 0.83 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L L L L L ' H H H H L H L L L L L M M M M L L L L L L L L 0.91 3.70 2.19 1*95 0 .66 0.59 0 .44 0 .44 1-55 0.24 1.92 0 .22 0.38 1.28 0.30 1.67 0 .40 0.39 2 .03 0.32 2.79 O .35 4.77 4.95 4.62 4.89 0 .44 0 .44 1.23 0.31 0.43 0.43 1.26 0.34 0.49 0 .42 0 .46 O .32 1.81 0.27 1.72 0 .61 0.41 0 .40 0.39 0.33 1.59 0.24 2 .22 0.27 4.13 4.36 3-99 4.02 12.5 11.5 11.5 1.01 1.37 1.12 27 -0 15-5 26 .7 14.4 10.5 14.5 12.5 0.73 1.45 1 .31 3-31 2 .02 2 .25 14.0 1.60 2.23 H L H L 10.8 13 .0 13.5 12 .5 12.0 12.7 0 .86 0 .88 1.28 1.07 4 .02 4 .54 3.52 0.50 1.42 0 .42 0.31 0.23 O .58 5 .20 0 .44 0.24 H H L L H L H L 28 .2 15-9 22.3 15-7 10.5 1.13 1.40 1.11 0 .44 0 .41 0.37 2.03 12.5 12 .0 12 .2 3-56 3*75 2.46 3-39 H H L L H L H L 9-7 8-9 12.0 14-7 11.0 16 .0 0.87 1-38 1.17 1.38 1.76 1.45 0.55 0 .64 0 .44 0 .40 h 18.8 10.5 3-95 3-98 3.72 30.6 24.7 12.3 11.4 20 .7 10.7 *See page 79 • . 1.51 0.91 1.46 0.38 0.25 1.89 0 .22 2.59 0.57 2.61 0.32 89 Table 10. Carrot. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Root wt . 15-5 14 .6 17 .4 24 .3 Total Plant wt . 13-7 16 .2 16 .8 24 .1 Per cent dry *wt . 13.7 13 -2 13.5 13 *2 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 14 15 19 17 .2 -5 .4 15-1 16 .8 20 .8 17 .4 12 .5 13 .2 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 16 .8 12 .8 19 -8 17 .0 18 .5 •15 *2 20.0 17.9 13 .0 13 .0 13 .2 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 12 14 16 13 .1 .2 .2 -4 12 .1 14.4 15-7 13 -2 13 *2 15.0 12.7 M M M M K M M M H H L L H L H L 15 .1 13.0 15-1 15.3 18.3 15.1 14.8 M M M M L L L L H H • 9-3 H L 9-6 L. H 14.5 L L 13*7 10 .2 11.1 14.6 14.4 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 11.6 9-9 14.2 11.1 10.8 12 .4 13 .4 12 .8 12 .7 13 .0 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L 13 -6 13 .4 15 .6 15 .1 13 .2 12 .5 13 .4 15.5 13 .2 12.2 17 .0 13 .0 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 14 .8 12 .1 12-5 12.5 16 .0 13.9 13.5 15 .1 13 .0 .7 18 .0 17-2 *See page 79• 12.2 13-5 14 .0 13.0 13.7 13 .0 12 .5 13.5 13.5 13.0 13 .2 12 .7 13 -2 13.5 12.7 13 .2 Pe r cent l Da K 0 •67 3-73 0 .80 4.46 0 •59 4.08 0 *78 4.67 of dry w t . Na Mg 0.48 0-35 0 .44 0 .18 0 .40 0.39 0 .4 3 ' 0.18 0 *59 3*95 4.41 4 .43 3*95 0.47 0 *72 0 *70 1 .11 0 •83 0 .88 0 .70 1 .02 2 .60 2 .45 2.33 2 .49 0 .42 0 .42 O .35 0 .40 0 .66 0 .68 0 .64 0 *85 4.61 0 .43 0.50 4.65 0.59 0.41 0.47 0 .64 0.15 0.59 0.14 I .34 0.43 1.03 0 .42 0.49 0 .12 4.27 4.82 0 .44 0.50 0.47 0 .20 0 •73 0 *71 0 •78 0 •91 4.30 5 *20 4 .36 4.81 0.49 0.47 0.56 0 .42 0.69 0.47 0.24 0 •87 0 .88 0 .94 0 •91 3 .19 2 .44 3 -06 2 .41 0. US 0 .42 O .39 0 .41 1.08 0.40 1.14 0.57 0 .62 0 *78 0 .62 0 .74 4 .36 5.05 5.45 4.72 0.45 0.51 0.47 0 •70 0 .61 0 .60 0 •77 4.77 4 .28 3-98 3-99 0 .48 0 .46 0 .45 0 .90 0 .62 0 .85 2.13 2 .69 2 .80 3 -18 0 .40 0.36 0 .21 0.14 0.39 0 .24 0.36 0.71 0.17 0.70 0 .40 0 .24 0.43 1.36 0.47 O .39 0.29 1-59 0.43 0 .26 90 Table 11. Sweet corn. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Ear wt . 11.5 15 *3 1 *+.4 14.2 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 13 .2 13 .0 12 .2 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 15 .2 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 12 .0 M M M M M M M M H H L L M M M M L L L L L L L L 11.9 11.1 1 1 .4 13 .6 wt . 31.9 34 .2 40 .3 3 4 .0 37-3 35-2 39.7 34 .2 35.4 33-4 33-6 33.1 per pent dry w t . 20 .2 20 .2 20.5 20-5 23.0 23.5 20 .0 21.5 Per cent Ca K 0.50 2 .18 2. 1 6 0.59 0.34 2 .24 0 .44 2 .14 of dry wt ■ Na Mg 0 .04 0 .22 0.30 0 .21 0.2 5 0.03 0 .04 0.37 0.36 0.34 O.3 I 0.36 0.03 0 .04 0 .04 0.03 0-33 0.27 0 .28 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 .02 0.24 0.56 0.76 2 .08 1.85 2 .34 2 .03 0.03 21.0 0.63 0.38 23-5 0.59 1.12 1.21 22.0 0.56 1.31 0.52 0.52 2 .45 2 .27 0.46 0.42 2 .00 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.21 1 .92 1.88 1.96 2 .41 0 .22 0 .28 0 .26 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 1.49 21.5 1.71 14.1 36 .8 . 32 .6 13 .6 11.0 34.7 20 .0 22 .2 23.0 36 .8 22.5 H L H L 11.5 10 .0 34 .4 31.0 36.0 11.0 23.2 24.0 0.54 0.53 H H L L H L H L 13 .0 26.0 27.0 0.59 0.67 1.76 0.23 0 .44 11.9 42.5 3-3-2 37.5 35.3 24.0 24.0 0 .49 0.31 1-71 1.45 0.23 0.03 0 .02 0 .03. 0.03 H H H H H H L L H L H L 8.9 39.9 22 .0 22.0 21.5 22 .0 0.25 0.30 0.32 0 .45 2.52 2 .88 3.03 3 .10 0 .24 0 .26 0.25 0.32 0.03 0 .02 0 .04 0 .02 L L L L M M M M H H L L H L H L 22.2 26 .0 26 .0 23.0 0.49 0.35 1.91 1.85 1.61 1-71 0.30 0 .24 0 .46 0 .02 0.03 0 .02 0.03 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 1.61 1-53 1-93 1 .45 0.29 0.29 0 .24 0.25 0 .02 0 .02 . 0.02 0.03 15-5 13 .0 14.8 12.2 13 .4 8-3 38-6 31.8 12 .9 37-7 11 .3 36 .2 14.7 14 .8 30.9 33-8 22.5 22 .0 12 .8 38.1 11 .6 33-4 33-4 33-0 23 .2 • 26 .0 36 .6 22.2 9 .4 12 .6 13 .6 # See page 79• 24.2 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.50 0 .48 0-35 0 .41 0-37 2 .15 0.27 0.39 91 Table 12. Tomato foliage. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Total vine wt. 28.1 27 .1 34.8 2 6 Per cent dry w t . 13.5 12 .0 11.5 12.5 Ca H H H H K Mg Na H H H H H L H L H H L L H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 23 .4 17-9 17.7 18 .1 12.3 12.0 14.0 H PI H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 36.5 30.9 13.5 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 24-3 26 .5 27 .6 39*7 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 43*7 11.0 26.0 36 .2 13 -0 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L L L L L H H H H H H L L .H L H L 44 .0 36.3 L L L L M M M M H H L L L L L L L L L L H H L L 30.0 27.0 15 -0 13.0 13.0 15-5 12.0 12.3 14.0 Per cent of dry w t . Ca 4.03 3-98 3.94 4 .03 K 2 .69 2.38 3.17 3 .14 0.02 0 .16 0 .02 0.13 3 .26 3 *48 3 .02 4 .12 2 .23 2.19 2 .19 2.18 3 .11 0.2 3 0 .04 1.30 0.26 2.62 1.10 0.02 4.24 3-95 3 *08 4 .30 1.48 1.60 1.29 1.18 1 .22 0.47 0.13 0.30 1.41 1-37 1.27 1.20 0 .11 0.02 0.18 1.91 2 .10 1.36 3-99 4.12 4.21 3-9.8 3 .02 11.3 12.3 4 .34 3 .61 3*92 4 .24 2.12 2.21 2 .44 2.42 4 o .3 20 .4 10.3 4.30 1 .30 13 .0 30.2 31.8 12.0 14.3 3.15 5 .31 3-34 29 .0 10.0 13.0 Na Mg 1.19 1.34 0 .88 1.28 2.77 3 .01. 2 .49 0.18 0.0 3 1.48 1.37 0.29 1.32 0.20 1.13 0.09 0.33 1.63 1-36 1-57 1.41 1.46 1.19 O .98 38.0 3.29 2 .98 3-58 3 *46 1-33 1.39 1.04 0 .83 0.16 12 -3 12.0 3 .46 3.50 3.84 3-83 H L H L 44 .3 34 .4 52.5 34 .4 12.3 12.3 12.0 12 .0 4 .22 4.03 4.83 4.36 2 .13 2 .21 2 .08 2.21 1-37 1.26 0.93 0.26 1.09 0.09 H L H L 39.8 30 .4 32 .2 31.4 10 .0 14.0 14.0 3 .88 2 .70 4 .44 3-99 1.07 1.72 2 .01 1.31 0.97 1.16 0 .74 31.7 *See page 79 • 13.0 13-0 1-37 1.78 0.0 3 0.10 0.31 0.29 0 .04 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.37 0.11 0.77 0.10 92 Table 13* Tomato fruit. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and compositions. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Fruit wt . 63 .8 84.0 74 .1 66 .5 Ca 0.15 0.23 0.16 4.57 4.50 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.32 0 .08 0 .02 0 .08 0 .02 0 .24 0 .22 0 .28 0.37 0.12 0.30 3.35 3 .00 3.99 4 .78 0.23 4.76 0 .06 4.81 4.81 4.76 0.35 0.33 0.35 O .37 0 .08 0.02 0 .08 0.35 0 .28 0 .28 0.07 0.03 M 70.3 75.3 65-5 71-5 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 59-2 59.5 56 .4 5 8.2 M M M H H H H H H H L L L H L 57-4 77 *6 58.9 M M M H H L L H L H L 62.6 M L L L L H H L L H L H L 71.5 47.2 57.4 33-5 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 4o .9 55-2 45 -5 63-5 0.03 0.03 L L L L M H L H L 65 •2 79 -4 65 -5 88 .0 0 .11 M M H H L L L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 78 .2 58 .8 44.2 58.4 0 .01 0.01 0 .08 0.02 H M M M M M M M M M M M 0.0 5 0.03 0.13 0 .06 0 .16 0.09 0 .22 0 .11 4.75 5 .20 5.29 4.81 0.34 70.1 0 .10 64 .7 61.0 60 .5 0 .01 0 .16 4 .69 0.03 0.03 4.67 4 .61 0.29 0 .01 0.01 0.11 3.17 2.69 3.83 2.95 0 .26 0 .20 0.24 0.21 'n'See page 79 • 0 .10 0.03 0 .10 0 .02 H L H L M M Na 0.40 0.15 H H L L H H H Per cent of dry w t . K Mg 5 .04 0.38 5 .00 0 .41 0.05 0 .01 0 .06 0 .03 0.05 0 .10 4.30 4.60 4.80 4.50 0 .05 0.13 0 .08 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.05 0 .18 0.14 0.29 0.07 0 .02 4.39 0 .28 0 .28 0 .28 4.61 4 .40 4 .34 4 .65 0.34 0.29 0 .32 0 .34 3 .O3 0 .22 0.19 0 .22 0 .20 2.87 3-36 3 .10 0.0 7 0 .02 0 .08 0.03 0 .12 0.06 0 .21 0 .04 0.29 0 .04 93 Table 14. Potato foliage. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and compositions. Treatment* Total ---------------- vine wt . Ca K Mg Na 11.5 H H H H 10 .9 L H H H 11.6 H H L H H H L L 7-2 Per cent dry w t . 10 .0 10.7 11.2 12 .7 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H 9 .6 L 10.0 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 11.7 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 4 .5 10 .0 6 .4 6 .9 12 .0 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 11.5 9.9 M M M M L L H L H L 4 .1 L H H L L L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L L L L L M M M M H H L L L L L L L L L L H H L L L 8 .2 7*2 10 .5 6 .1 8.4 10 .2 9 *2 11-7 14.2 11-5 12 .7 13 13 15 15 .0 .2 .0 .0 Per cent of dry w t . -------- -------------Ca Na K Mg 4 .17 2 .21 0 .04 1 .66 . 2 .23 2 .36 2 .46 1 .83 1.56 2.52 2 .47 2 .24 4.12 3.52 2 .89 1.76 1.29 0.03 0.03 0.05 3 .09 3.53 1.86 2 .31 2 .14 0.03 0.02 0 .02 0.03 2 .60 3 .61 2 .49 1 .94 2 .26 2.99 1.56 0 .04 0 .02 0.03 0 .02 4.12 12 .7 2 .28 2 .34 11.0 13 .0 2.28 2 .17 4.32 3-87 1.53 1.52 1.34 1 .32 0.03 0 .01 0.03 0 .02 11.7 14 .5 11.2 2 .15 3.54 3.29 3 -61 2.99 3.45 2.79 1 .47 1.83 0 .04 0 .02 0 .04 0 .02 2 .87 0 .04 0.03 0.05 0 .02 2 .20 3 .60 2.35 2 .17 2.55 2 .6 6 .2 15 -2 14 .0 2 .62 1.71 1.36 13.0 4.4 15 .5 2 .85 2-97 1-59 1.74 6 .1 11.7 .91 .15 .14 4.43 9-9 12 .0 6 .8 10 .1 11.7 12.7 H L H L 11.2 13 .0 8.7 14 .0 14 .2 13.5 H L H L 14 .6 5-7 13.5 15.5 14.5 *See page 79 • 1.24 2.39 1.39 2.51 2.77 2.53 1.87 1.27 12.7 5 *2 3 -8 ..... 12 .5 13.5 17 .0 1 2 2 2 .10 3.47 1.34 1.33 3 -62 1 .62 1.62 4.60 4 .34 0.81 1.16 1.59 1.46 2 2 2 2 .51 .24 .17 2.75 3-35 2 .86 1.01 .00 2-73 0.93 2 1 2 2 .05 .82 .54 2.18 2 .13 1.40 4 .09 .62 1.76 1.77 6 .10 2 .68 0 .02 0 .04 0 .02 0.03 0 .02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0 .02 0 .02 0.03 94- Table 15- Potato tuber. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and compositions. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Tuber wt . 29 -2 31 .2 3 4.6 29 .1 per cen£ dry w t . 15-5 16 .0 16 .0 Per cent of dry w t . Na Ca Mg K 3 .00 0 .20 0.03 2 .92 2.75 2.84 0 .20 0.02 0.19 0.03 15 .0 0 .10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 .20 0.02 0.03 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 30 .8 16 .5 0.09 25 -8 27 .1 28 .8 18 .0 0 .08 19.0 0.09 18 .0 0 .21 2 .92 2.59 . 0 .21 0 .20 2.65 0 .08 2 .50 0.19 0.02 0 .04 0 .02 H H H H L .H L H L L L L H L H L 19-9 24 .1 18 .0 18 .0 0 .02 17 *0 15 -0 2.01 1-97 1-95 1.87 0.18 0 .20 20.5 31 .2 0 .08 0 .08 0.08 0 .08 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 26 .4 33 -7 28 .1 24 .5 15 .0 0 .10 16 .0 0 .09 0.09 0.09 3-15 2-74 3-02 2.75 0 .22 0 .20 0 .21 0 .20 M M M M M M M M H H L L H 27 -0 0.03 H L 2 .74 2.57 2.77 2 .56 0.19 34.8 31 -2 31-3 18 .0 18 .0 18 .0 16 .5 0.09 L 0 .20 0 .20 0 .20 0 .02 0 .02 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L 23-9 17-5 21.3 16 .9 16 .0 22 .0 18.5 20 .0 0 .08 0 .08 0 .08 0.17 0.17 0.03 0 .18 0.18 0.02 0 .01 L L L L H H H H H H L H L H L 24 .3 29 .4 20 .8 26 .6 14 .0 16 .0 16 .0 16 .0 0 .10 0 .22 0 .21 0.03 L L L L M M M M H H L L H 30.3 30.1 18 -0 32.9 34.0 17-5 16 .0 L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L 29 -9 14 .5 17-5 16 .0 19-5 L L H L • 30 .6 25 -4 25 -8 *See page 79• . 15-0 14.5 15 .0 0 .08 0.09 0.08_. 0 .07 2 .05 1.90 2 .14 1-97 0.17 0 .18 0 .10 3-53 2-95 3 .22 0.23 0.09 3 .00 0 .21 0.09 0.09 0.09 2.77 0 .20 0 .20 0 .20 0.09 0 .08 2 .19 2.87 2.40 0.19 0 .08 0.08 0 .08 2 .31 2 .10 2.29 0.18 0 .18 0 .07 2 .02 0.17 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 .02 0 .02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 .02 0.02 0 .02 0 .01 0 .02 0.01 0 .02 0 .01 0 .02 0 .01 0 .02 0.01 95 Table 16. Muskmelon. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Frult wt. 33-8 3^-8 27-2 25-0 pl£mt wt. 54.7 61.1 38.7 38 .1 per oent dry w t • 10.0 11.5 10.0 11.0 Per cent of dry w t . Ca 4.87 6.37 6 .47 5 *66 10.0 12.5 11.5 13.5 K 2 .66 2.63 Mg 1.63 3-56 Na 0.35 0 .02 0.57 2.46 1.34 3.00 1.60 4 .66 3-99 4.96 4.57 2.36 2.52 2.04 2.57 2.02 1.63 1.22 0.96 0.05 0 .74 0.05 1.63 1.51 1-59 1.06 1.15 0.24 0.05 H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 37-1 29 .2 19 -8 19 .1 49 .1 H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H L 26 .1 14 .9 34 .1 28 .7 65 .4 30.1 62.3 50 .6 10 .0 14 .0 11.5 8 .19 7-23 13 .0 6 .98 0.71 0.88 1.00 1.25 M M M M H H H H H H L L H L H L 20 .0 38.9 10.0 3.10 2.14 26 .3 43.5 5.03 1.52 0.38 0.07 42 .? 71.4 . 2.91 23-7 36 .8 10 .0 12 .0 10 .0 5-33 5.23 4.47 2.72 1.21 1.17 0 .41 0 .11 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 38-5 28 .0 28 .1 34 .2 91.5 55-8 58-7 76.9 11.5 12 .0 4.70 6 .30 10.5 12.0 5-89 4 .72 1.62 3.3^ 1.41 1.25 0.34 0.05 0.32 0.09 M M M M L L L L H H L L H L H L 22 .4 19 -2 20.2 17 .0 35-3 21.2 26 .2 27 .6 11.5 10 .0 12 .0 12 .5 6 .60 6 .10 6.06 6 .12 2.56 4.21 1.25 1.34 0.19 1.37 L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 28 .6 37-8 30 .1 38.9 58.8 80.6 67 .2 81.8 11.5 5 .40 2.29 10.5 4.70 10 .0 12.0 5.08 5-56 3.10 2.79 L L L L M H M 'H M L M L H L H L 29 .8 25-7 17 .1 29 -2 72 .2 4.63 4 .43 4.91 52.5 10.0 12.0 10.5 13-5 L L L L L L L L H L H L 26 .9 17-2 40.6 37.4 42 .4 44 .4 10 .0 13.5 11.5 12.0 H H L L 19.7 25 -4 5 8.8 37-5 32 .2 46 .8 32.0 *See page 79• 7.49 4.58 4.32 4.92 4.72 6 .05 3.25 2.31 1-99 2.27 2.84 0.77 O .53 0.70 0.59 2.99 2.30 2.63 2.06 1.07 0.65 0.59 0.84 0.61 0.54 0.91 0 .28 0 .89 0.42 2.46 2.07 1.12 1.28 0.43 0.05 1.49 1.69 1 .10 1.07 0.38 0 .08 0 .48 0.08 3 -22 0 .88 O .36 0 .04 4.39 0.19 1.11 1-57 1.58 0.15 96 Table 17* Cucumber. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. T r e a t m e n t 1** Ca K Mg Na Fruit wt . 5-0 6.9 • H H H H H H H H H H L L H L H L H H H H M M M M H H L L H L H L 5-1 4 .8 H H H L L L L H H L L M H M H M M M M M M 12 .0 12 .0 12.2 ' Per cent Ca K 3-76 4 .90 3 .44 5.73 2.55 5-71 2 .54 5 .04 11 .7 6.8 6 .7 14 .1 13 .1 16.4 18 .8 13 .2 12 .5 14 .2 15.2 H L H L 3*3 1-9 7 .4 6 .4 13 .0 8.8 23 .6 21.3 13 .0 3 .44 12 .7 13.5 13.7 H H H H H L H- L L 5 5*8 13 -6 15 .4 9 -6 L 3 -6 8 .2 10 .2 11 .6 12 .0 17.5 H H L L H L 3 -6 7 -8 H 5-1 5 .1 H H H L H L 4.1 3 -9 3-9 4 .5 H L H L H L M M M M M L L L H H L L L H H H u L L L M M M M H H L L L L L L L L L L H H L L L 21.9 Per cent dry w t . 17 -4 13 -8 L L L L M M M 4.9 Total plant wt. 18 .6 X - L L K L H L H L H L 7*9 of dry w t . Na Mg 2 .91 0 .40 0.27 3*33 0 .60 1.15 1.45 0.03 0.24 3-78 4 .01 3-83 3.92 1.33 1.89 1.28 1.40 2.59 3 .10 2 .88 3 .88 5 .18 3.09 3.32 1-35 1.35 13.5 2 .54 3 .62 2 .32 2 .34 4.97 5 .18 4 .74 5 .53 14 .5 25 -3 17.7 17 .4 13-5 11-7 2.83 12 .2 12 .0 2.75 4 .02 3 -76 4.62 3-79 4.61 3 .07 2 .76 1.61 0.39 0 .04 0.15 1.52 0 .10 13 -8 12.0 13.0 12 -5 3.74 3 -20 1 .54 1.58 2 .4-0 11.0 10.2 6-7 12 .7 3-51 3 .28 1.73 1.48 0.45 0 .11 0.51 0 .07 5 •2 5-8 5-0 8.9 18 .0 18 -5 12 .7 2 .91 4 .51 2 .20 11 .5 16 .7 28 .4 13 -7 10 .7 2.17 2 .19 2.7^ 4.32 1.19 1-33 0.99 0.57 0.05 0 .47 0.03 6 .3 6 .7 5 -3 7 .2 26 .6 20 .6 17-1 17.6 12 .2 11 .0 12 .0 12 .0 3-35 2 -32 3 -42 2.93 1 .69 0 .04 2.33 4.33 4 .20 4.87 4 .05 1.16 0 .02 2.8 8.1 7 -3 7-3 7.3 19-3 12 .6 21 .8 12 .0 11 -5 10.5 11 .0 2 .57 2 .14 2 .76 3.59 3 -38 2.58 3.52 3*07 2 .29 2 .08 1.11 2 .71 0.29 0.05 0.50 #See page 79• 2.58 3 -54 3 -62 2.59 4.93 5.29 0.98 2 .32 1.31 1.65 0 .87 0 .87 1.88 3 -07 1.29 1.12 1.65 0.02 0.34 0.03 0 .41 0 .12 0.36 0 .08 0.2 5 0.0 5 0.30 0.05 0.37 0.51 0 .04 97 Table 18. Squash. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. . 44. x y-t u x. Treatment* Ca K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L Fruit wt . 52 .2 40.2 65.3 44 .2 plant wt. 79-4 46 .9 93-7 80.3 Per cent dry w t . 9-0 12.5 8.0 10.5 H L H L 48.6 75 *6 37-6 55 -2 93-8 53.1 72.4 12.0 10.0 9.0 9-0 6 .21 7 .3^ 7.25 7 *67 4 .16 0.94 3-19 . 1.46 2.79 0-57 2 .36 0.73 67.5 12.0 11.0 10.0 8.5 7*44 8.07 9 .60 9.29 1.83 1.98 H H H H M M M M H H L H H H H L L L L H H L L H L H 42 .5 4 4 .3 65 -2 L 41.5 M M M M H H H H H H L 31.7 48 .7 41.6 35 -6 60.0 77.0 11.0 L H L H L 64.1 35*6 M M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 48.5 54.5 57-0 53-6 M K M M L L L L H H L L H L H L 60.3 36.6 47.5 L L L L H K H H H H L L H L H L 43.7 L L L L M M M M H H L L L L L L L L L L H H L L L 54.7 59-3 46.2 Per cent Ca K 7.95 3-19 7.70 3-73 9.74 4.19 6 .29 4 .05 0 .04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0 .98 0.03 0.02 2 .19 0 .88 0.79 1.99 0.56 0 .02 8.0 10.5 7-85 8 .70 7.27 9*69 3 .80 4.23 4 .54 4 .24 1.58 1.46 0 .67 0.93 91.2 84.1 92 .2 83 .2 8.0 11.0 10.0 10.5 7-85 9.32 6 .02 8.72 4.38 3.13 3-96 3-58 1.22 1.17 0 .60 0.95 95 -9 62 .6 6 9-9 52.1 11.0 11.0 7 .04 5-79 7-53 5*99 2.16 1.16 1.69 0.59 0.67 76.5 104.6 74 .0 9.0 13.0 14.0 5.03 10.0 9.5 10.0 51.0 96.3 . 7 6 .4 86.2 99-0 9.0 5.45 7-47 6.58 H L H L 59.3 45 .1 60.8 62.0 75-3 76.5 113 -2 105.9 10.2 10.0 8.0 11-5 4.80 6.73 5.57 6 .54 H L H L 44 .0 56 .2 33-8 42 .9 80 .2 92 .2 56.8 5 0.2 11.0 11.5 9.0 14.0 6 .82 7-75 6.35 6 .24 50.7 of dry w t . Mg ... Na 1.11 0.04 1.21 0.03 0.98 0.07 0.69 0 .02. *See page 7 9 . 2.30 2 .54 1.56 0.03 0.07 0 .02 0.03 0 .03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0 .02 0.04 0 .02 4.29 4.00 3-95 4.79 0 .80 0.61 0.75 4.37 3-73 4.07 0.76 1.19 0.54 0.03 3 .26 0.68 0 .02 2.10 2 .16 1.74 0.79 0.77 0 .02 0.02 1.97 2.45 2.13 0.70 0.03 0 .02 0‘.06 0 .02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0 .02 98 Table 19♦ Lettuce. Influence of cation applications on plant growth and composition. Treatment’ 1* Da K Mg Na H H H H H H H L H H L H H H L L H H H Total plant wt. 4 .4 12 .8 10 .6 9*9 1 2 .? Per cent dry w t . 5 .1 5 -2 ^ .7 5 .1 H L 10 .6 H L 9-9 8.5 if.3 if.5 5 -2 5 -6 H L 5 -9 8-5 8 .2 9 .8 6 .2 if.if 5 .4 5.^ 5 .3 if.8 if.8 if.5 5 .2 Per cent of dry wt . Na Ca Mg K 0.54 0.23 6 .06 0 .if9 0 .04 O .32 0.37 3-93 0.52 0 .46 5.27 0.17 0 .ifl 0 .40 0.05 4 .79 H M M M M H H H H L L L L M M M M H H H H H H H L L L H L 6 .2 5-0 10.0 8 .6 M M M M M M M H H L L H L H L 7-8 11.7 10 .2 8.1 if.8 5 .1 5-3 0 .61 0.37 H H L H L H L 6 .5 5-3 6.0 6 .5 6 .0 6 .if if.7 5-3 0 .ifif 0 .ifif M L L L L L L L L H H H H H H L L H L H L 8 .2 0 .if3 0.37 10.3 5 -9 5 -6 5-7 5-8 L L L L M H H L L H L H L 5.1 7-9 9-1 5.5 if.9 0.36 M M M L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L H M M M M H L L H H L L L H L 6 .5 8 .9 6.0 10.9 7.6 6 .9 10.5 ’ •‘‘See page 79 * 6.3 0 .44 0 .48 0 .04 0 .62 4.91 4.27 4 .29 4 .00 0.45 0.47 0.27 0.03 0.53 0 .if7 3 .09 3-58 0 .48 0.45 0.51 0.0 9 0 .51 0.51 2.92 2.37 0.35 0.35 0 .44 0 .11 0.49 O .37 0 .45 0 .18 0.03 0.13 0 .48 0 .06 0.49 0.29 0 .if2 0.54 0.39 0 .38 0.35 0 .if3 0.39 0.36 0.27 0 .if'if 0 .ifl 0.54 0 .46 0.39 6 .2 0 .40 if.8 5-7 5 *2 5*7 0.32 0 .42 0.47 0.38 5.13 4 .71 4.21 5 .29 0.13 4 .60 4 .65 4.64 4.11 0 .58 0.23 0.05 3.03 2 .26 2 .58 2 .26 0.34 0.32 0.36 0.43 0.31 5 .26 5 .44 5.15 5-69 0.51 0.34 0 .43 0.52 0.05 0 .26 0.05 4.79 4 .34 4 .38 4.15 0 .44 0.39 O .37 3.07 2 .78 3 .41 2.73 0.47 0 .14 0 .42 0.06 0 .44 0 .48 0 .04 0 .43 0 .41 0.47 0 .42 2 .32 0 .24 0.31 0.07 0 .34 0.05 0 .49 0.09 0.29 0.10