Hll llHlll l‘l \ ‘ l i 4 l E lhl SONEE CHEMCAL STUDES OF SOELS EN RELATSON "F0 SATSS?ACTGR":’ ANS UNSATESFACTORY GROWTH OF iiEACE-i 33-2333 Thesis fur tits Dagme of M, 3: kiECHlG-AN 93533 C ~LLEGB m m as, g guufitfifig K4133 3946 THESIS lull-DI. Jill. I" :I ‘I III. .lllll.‘.l.tv I. ,i. .f .IUI? .5 ti IITI-tEmrrllvu‘L-u \l..lpu... ~51! I’l’ .I III. ‘tIIAS‘IQVILI {I '5' This is to certifg that the thesis entitled Some Chemical Studiev of 90113 in Relation to Satisfactory and fiv.atisfactory Growth of Peach Trees. presented bg Tsu Siang Chu has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ., mfsfwdegree iII-M:§W . ,Cvfi y’x’) \ ‘7? l ' (f / I / . J " 5;", A Major professor M—795 SOME CHEMICAL STUDIES OF SOILS IN RELATION TO SATISFACTORY AND UNSATISFACTORX GROWTH OF ' PEACH TREES Br 'TSU-SIARC CHU_. 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 MASTER OF SCIENCE Department.of Soil Science 1946 Acknowledgement The writer is grateful to Dr. C. E. Miller for guidance in the work reported in this paper. He wishes also to express appreciation to the other members of the Department of Soil Science,parti— cularly Dr. l. S. Hall and Dr. K. Lawton,for their help during the course of investigation. Sincere gratitude is extend to Mr. T. C. Stebbins of the County Agriculturist's Office and to Mr. A. w. Irvine of Soil Conservation Service, Benton Harbor, for the collection of soil samples. TABLE OF CONTENTS gage. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II;.REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2 III'.. EXPERILERTAL 6.. Methods of Soil Sampling 6 Methods of Chemical Analysis 7 Measurement of pH: Determination of Total Adsorbed and Acid- - Soluble PhoSphorus Determination.of Base Exchange Capacity Determination Of Exchangeable Potassium Determination of Exchangeable Calcium and Magnesium IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10 pH Values . i ' 11 General Consideration In Relation to the Growth Conditions of the ‘ Peach Trees Available PhosphorusContents 14 Vertical Distribution in the Soil In Relation to the Growth Conditions of the Peach Trees Relative Availability of the Adsorbed and - Acid-soluble Phosphorus Zone of Active Root Absorption Amount of Exchangeable Bases 16. Base Exchange Capacity and Degree of Base Saturation ' ‘17 General Consideration In relation to the Growth Conditions of the Peach Trees Relationship Between Percent Base Saturation and Soil pH 22 Relationship Between Total Exchangeable Bases and Hygroscopic Moisture 23 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 25 VI .. LITERATURE CITED" " i 28 SOME CHEMICAL STUDIES OF SOILS IN RELATION TO SATISFACTORI AND UNSATISFACTORY GROWTH OF PEACH TREES TSU-SIANG CHU I. Introduction In Michigan, the safest areas for growing peaches,accord-. ing to Johnston(l9)y are those which experienced a minimum tem- perature of -l2OF. not more than seven times during the thirty years(l9lO-1940). On the western side of the state this area begins in southern Berrien County and extends in a belt of vary- ing width north to the proximity of Ludington in Mason County. On the eastern side of the state a narrow belt having the most favorable winter temperatures for peach growing extends from the southeastern part of Monroe County to a point approximately half way between port Huron and Harbor Beach. For best results, the peach tree requires a resonably fertile soil that is well drained. Generally sandy loam soils produce the finest fruits, although clay soils are suitable, provided they are well drained. Some of the peach trees in or- chards within the peach region along the shore of Lake Michigan, have not been growing satisfactorily. Sometimes the injury is apparent the first year, again the trees will grow well until three or four years of age. Very often in one part of the or- chard the trees may grow very well,while in another they will grow so weakly that they cannot produce profitable crops. It was suspected that tho poor growth resulted from unfavorable soil sonditions or properties. p.l Although it is true that chemical analysis of orchard soil sometimes fails to evaluate many factors which might eons tribute to the abnormal growth of the fruit tree, yet as far as physiological and nutritional factors of plants are concern- ed, it is still an important diagnostic aid. The present paper presents a laboratory chemical study of soils which has arisen from an investigation of satisfactory and unsatisfactory growth conditions in peach trees along the lake shore of the lower Michigan Pennisula. II. Review of Literature Peaches differ from apples and pears in respect to seve- ral features which bear upon plant-food supply(34). Compared on the acre basis, peach crops are larger consumers of plant- food. They use about one-third more N,P and K than do apples and twice as much calcium and considerably more magnesium..Also they use two to three times as much of each of these constituents A as pears do. Several years ago, a definite case of calcium deficiency in a young peach orchard planted on a light sandy soil in New Jersey was reported by Davidson(13). An examination of the soil revealed a very low but normally adequate amount of available calcium together with an abnormally high concentration of avail— able potassium. A detailed sand culture experiment was later made by the same author to study the importance of nutrient ba- lance to the growth of peach trees. According to this study(13) ,high calcium with low potassium induced potassium deficiency symptoms in the leaf. The pH value of the soil under trees p.2 showing the most.acute potassium deficiency symptoms ranged from 5.8 in the.first foot to 4.8 in the third foot. Waugh et al found in their sand culture experiments(36) that increasing the potassium level from low(3.33 p.p.m.) to in- termediate (lO p.p.m.)significantly increased growth at the high- er levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. It was also shown with peach trees in sand culture by Cullinan et al(lO) that when ni- trate was high and potassium low in the nutrient solution,leaf deficiency symptoms Of potassium were more acute on the rapidly growing high nitrogen peach trees, Since light,sandy soils low in organic matter have much in common;with sand cultures the sig- nificance.of nutrient balance as reported by Davidson and Culli- nan et-al is worthy of consideration when dealing with such soils. Van Slyke(35) found the ash of a single peach tree to contain nearly halfas much potash as in the ash of a single. apple tree,although the total ash of the apple trees averaged nearly eight times as much as the total ash of the peach trees. Mbre recently Thompson(32) reported that,with nine-year old trees ,peach contained four times as much potash.as apples. This heavier use of potassium by peach trees would lead us to expect greater responses by peaches to potash fertilization. marked response of peach trees to potassium fertilizer under field conditions was observed in light loamy soils by Cullinan and Naugh(ll)(37),Boynton(3),Rawl(30) and many others. Two particular cases Of potassium deficiency in peach orchards in South Central Pennsylvania were reported by Dunbar and Anthony (15). In one seven-year-old orchard consisting of a mixed plant- P-3 ing of Elberta peaches and several varieties of apples,approxi- mately a third of the peach trees were clearly abnormal and had no crop; in the rest of the orchard,growth and yield Deemed to be normal. The peach trees in the affected area did not show marginal leaf scorch or the bluish-green leaf color so commonly described as potassium deficiency symptoms in the apple..Analysis of leaves showed potassium very low and nitrogen also low. The differences in tree growth did not appear until two years after the orchard was planted. A treatment of three pounds of pota- ssium sulfate broadcast in a circle under the outer-branches and worked into the ground to a depth of about.2 inches resulted in quick recovery of the trees. Nitrate fertilizer,however,had an. inhibitive effect to potassium response by the trees. Symptoms of some mineral deficiencies of young peach trees were described according to the ebservations made in sand culture experiment by Davidson and Blake (l2),and Weinberger and Cullinan (38). The symptoms,however,will vary to a marked degree under varying environmental conditions and according to their heredi- tary factors. A review of literatures shows that in the United States very little work has been done regarding the chemical properties of the orchard soils,particularly those of peach orchards. Ana- lysis of soils of peach orchards at Vineland,Canada, by Lilleland and Brown(2l) found thatasymptoms of scorch or unsatisfactory growth and early death of peach trees occureed on soils contain- ing as little as 1.8 p.p.m. pf water-soluble potassium (1:1 water- soil ratio),35-36 p.p.m. of replaceable potassium and 60-97 p.p.m. p.4 of Neubauer potassium, while soils in which peaches have grown successfully for 100 years contained 5.2 p.p.m. of water-soluble potassium, 72 p.p.m. of replaceable potassium and 228 p.p.m..of Neubauer potassium. Studies on root.distribution of four-—to five-year-old peach trees in sandy clay loam by Savage and Cowart(51) shows that horizontal distribution of roots less than 2 mm..in dis-— meter is mostly within the distance between 1 to 4 feet from the trunk, and that over 90 percent of the total tree roots.and about 75 percent of the roots less than 2 mm. in diameter are located within 18 inches of the soil surface. With younger trees, an even greater percentage of the total tree roots are located within this depth(9). Hinricks and Cross(l7) assumed that in order to produce a.well developed root system of peach trees, the pore space of soil should be above 40 percent;. Davidson(l4) concluded from his pot experiment that po- tassium absorbed by roots in the surface soil may be made avail- able to roots in the subsoil by translocation through the root systems of trees. In fact, Davidson even suggested that orchard cultural practices which favored the development of extensive and active root.growth in the surface soil should lead to econo- my.and efficiency in the use of potash fertilizers. Judging from his experiment, the distribution of root system in.soil, might not be so important in regard to the absorption of nutrients by peach trees, but it is certainly important in water absorption. Failure of normal growth of some of the replanted peach orchards leads to the common belief that.peach trees should ne- ver be planted on land that has grown peach trees within three Pk5 years.. Some ascribed the detrimental effect to the diseases carried over from the preceding planting(l9), while Proebsting (29) found it was the root bark of the Old tree which was toxic to the young peach trees. It seems quite possible that exhaus- tion of plant nutrients by the preceding trees is very probably one of the main causes. III. Experimental Soil Sampling: Soil samples used in the present study were from an im- portant peach producing district in Berrien County, Michigan. The peach orchard from which the soil samples were taken was on the Clarence Butzbach Farm of Bainbridge Township. The soil in this orchard is a well drained sandy loam. The trees (Elberta) are now five years of age. Field Observations made in the pre- vious year by farmers and horticulturists showed some of the trees were in a poor and abnormal growth condition while others were making good and normal growth. However, no detailed des- cription of the appearance or abnormality which might aid in diagnosing the trouble was repohted.. Soil samples were taken near two representative trees.. One of which was in poor growth condition, while the other sur- vived normally. The trees were free from crotch,trunk, crown and any other mechanical injury. They were not far apart. Nei- ther pathological infection of fungiumr insect-injury was evident. Samples were taken at different locations and to different depths around the tree trunk. The first location was at a dis- tance of three feet from the tree trunk, the second was under p.6 the leaf-drip, and the third one,about in the middle between tree rows, all being dn.one side of tree trunk. To the opposite side of tree trunk, the fourth, fifth and sixth lOcations were chosen in the same manner.. At each location, four samples were taken from four different depths. Thus for each tree, wenty four soil samples were collected for analysis.“ Samples thus collected were numbered according to the following system. The first figure of the sample number de- notes the tree number;;no..5 is the peach tree showing abnormal and poor growth, while no. 10 is the tree showing normal and good growth. The second figure denotes the location of samples Ground the tree trunk.. The third figure represents the depth of sampling, the first.depth being 0-5 inches, the second,5-lO inches, the third, 10-20 inches and the fourth, about 40 inches from the surface. Thus, for illustration, soil number 10-2-2 is the soil sample taken under the leaf-drip of tree no.lO(nor- mal growth) at a depth of 5-10 inches from the surface of the Soil. Figure 1 shows the location and numbering of the soil samples around the tree trunks., All samples were air dried and passed through a 20 mesh sieve. NO grinding other than that ie-necessary to break up ' lumps was practiced. All analysis were made on air-dried soil sample and the.results of analysis are expressed on oven dry soil basis. methods of Apalysis:: measurement of pH value: The pH value of soil was measured by a Beckmann pH meter(glass electrode) with an appro- p-7 ()9 O O O O O '3"; leak-n of SAMp'Jng .me ”54‘ 0 C9 0 O O O ,em e5+h $6“: 0 0 CD 0 O O 13:4;na 145* O O O 0 ('9 W 0 Each circle represents a peach 4“ 5,“ tree. No. Stabnormal and poor as", growth; No. lO:normal and good growth. 0 WA\\_ A ‘ /’ \ i '3 / I E 6 'Fee: No 5 f§ § § i / I cg _S c \’ c“ '9 x if -°t xi. W/'-39 39- Y :0 is“ ° 8“ 2": :3 1-: ‘ 3% it 1/ F‘K) AMPLE Na. 5-3-1 5-24 5-H 5-4-1 S‘S‘i 5"5‘l ‘5 -..---.-_--..-------.....--+——-.---—--—J.§t£'££*1'.—s '1 5‘3‘1 5'1". 54-2 5+7. 5°5‘2 5‘6'2 204 a --¢----4~----x- --------- t---a----u- ------------- :o ., ,. 5-3-3 5-2-3 5+3 54-3 5-525 “'3 3" " —-x»----t~---l-—----—--1--——s——-!— ------------- 42.0 --!----u----* -------- 4---r---k ------------ 1140 Fig. l. Diagrams showing the location of samples around peach tree and the system of the numbering of the samples. (upper: plane view; lower:cross-sectional view. p.8 InvokiES» ximate soil water ratio of 1.5 to 1. After the addition of water to the air dry soil sample, ituwas well stirred to form a medium paste,and allowed to stand for half an hour, then stirred again. Immediately after stirring the pH meter reading was taken. Total adsorbed and acid soluble phosphorus: Bray's method for the determination of total adsorbed and acid soluble phosphorus, as very recently described by him(5),was used. In this method, neutral ammonium fluoride was used asareagent for removing the adsorbed forms of phosphate, and any phosphates extracted by 0.1 N HCl were considered to be acid soluble. In developing the molybdenum blue color for photoelectric colori- meter measurement, the following order of adding reagentswaS‘ practiced(7)..TTO,the 10 ml. Of ammonium molybdate reagent in a. test tubs; 15ml. of 0.8 M H3B03 was added. It was diluted with water and then a 10 ml. aliquot of clear soil extract added. With this modification, the reproducibility of the results is better, possibly because in so doing the interference of silica- which is quite soluble in ammonium fluoride solution becomes practically insignificant(7).. Base exchange capacity: Chapman and kelly's neutral ammonium acetate method(8) was used for the determination of ‘- base exchange capacity. 50 grams of air dry soil were used for each determination. After leaching with 1000 ml. neutral N NHhAc solution in a Buchner funnel, 500 ml. of ethyl alcohol was used to wash the ammonium-saturated soil.. The adsorbed am- monium was determined by distillation after extraction with 450 ml. 15 % KCl solution(24). p.9 Exchangeable potassium: Determination of exchangeable potassium was made in the ammonium acetate leachates according to Lawton's method(20). It is an indirect procedure in which a definite amountof the intensely colored reagent,lithium dipi- crylaminate is used as a precipitating reagent for potassium. Precipitation of potassium is allowed to take place at near 00 C., after organic matter and ammonium have been removed from- the soil extract and the residue taken up in water. The concen- tration of the precipitating reagent remainingTsolution is de- termined in a photoelectric dolorimeteriFilter number 420). Exchangeable calcium and magnesium: Determinations of exchangeable calcium and magnesium were made in the 0.5 N acetic acid soil laachate according to the Williams Method(39) . After the removal of sesquioxide by adding ammonium hydroxide,calcium and magnesium were determined gravimetrically(l) as usual. Total exchangeable bases: Half the amOunt of the ace- tic acid soil leachate(500 ml.) was evaporated to dryness to expel the acetic acid. It was then ignited in muffle furnace to convert the replaced bases into oxides and carbonates, the value of which was determined by titrating with a standard acid (37). IV. Results and Discussion On the supposition that there wouldbe a difference in the chemical characteristics of soils that supported good and poor peach tree growth,soil samples hear the good and Poor peach trees in the same orchard were analyzed for exchangeable calcium, mag- nesium, potassium, available phosphorus, base exchange capacity p.10 and reaction. The results of these analysts are listed in Table 1.. pH values: A general survey Of the pH values shows that regardless of the condition of the growth Of peach trees, all soil samples taken from the.Orchard are acid. The pH value varies from 4.49 to 5.79.. Generally speaking, soil samples taken around the good peach tree have higher pH values.. They range from 4.69 to 5.79, while soil pH values fromTpoor tree range from 4.49 to 4.82.. For both trees, the.average pH values of the subsoils(lO-20,and 40 inches) seem to be higher than those of the surface soils(0- 5, and 5-lO inches). The difference, however, is not great * enough to show any significance statistically. In table 2 are presented the average pH values of the two soils at different. depths.. In calculating the averages ,all the pH values were first converted into hydrogen ion concentrations to get the ave-~ rages of hydrogen ion concentrations which were then converted back again into the pH scale‘. *For the convenience of calculating the average pH value of a series of pH determinations, the writer suggests the use of the following formula:- Average pH=M +log N - log[l+$'antilog(M-X)] where M=the maximum pH value in the series, N=number of indi- vidual pH determinations of the series,i.e. number of samples to be averaged, and Xs=pH values of individual samples smaller than the maximum pH,M. p.11 Table 1. Chemical analysis of orchard soils as related to - growth conditions of peach trees(on dry soil basis); Soil :depth of: pH :Available P p.p.m.):Exchange:§xchangeable bases * No..;§ampl;ngt :adsorbed:acid-solu.:capacigygtotal: Ca gggg32K 5-1-1::0- sungj4.80§row§g cofidif2$n Of the9fgge-tp$365:1.07z.48zt08 88 5-1-2: 5-10 1;:4.67:- 37 : 125 : 11.52 : 1.75:1.55:.28:.11 521-3zlo-2O H:4.79: 47 : 116 : 9.67 : 2.05:1.75:.24:.07 5-1-4: 40 11:4.65: 26 : 28 3 12.54 : 3.45:2.66:.43:.15 5-2-1: 0- Sin.:4:51: 44 :. 121 : 11.40 : 1.83:1.12?.53:114 5-2-2: 5-10 u :4.59: 37 : 126 : 10:93 ::2.29il.86:.351t04 5-2-3:10-20 u :4.73: 37 : 132 : 8.49 : 2;49:2.10:.22é.13 5-2-4: 40 n 24.63: 26 : 39 : 16.87 : 3.45:2.63:.55i.20 5-3-1: 0- 51n.:4.58: 36- z 103 :: 9.96 :1.66 :l.O6:.50:.O9 5-3-2: 5-10 n :4.61: 32 z: 105 :.11.84 : 2.50:2.01:.35:.11 5-3-3010-20 n :4.76: 38 :: 53 : 11.64 : 3.52:2.82:.40:.O7 5-3-4: 40 n :4.73:' 25 :: 61 : 12.91 : 3.67:2.69:.61:.23 5-4-1: 0- 5in.é4.55? *47 E 124 E 10.64 $2.01 él.24:.50£.11 5-4-2: 5-10 n :4.52: 47' :z 109 ::11.24 ::1.40:1.07:.20:.06 5-4-5:10-20 u :4.82:: 33 167 :: 8.68 2.01:1.65:.21:;12 .0 5-4-4: 40 11:4.74: 22 66 11.67 : 5.58:2.69:.65:.20 5-5-1i 0- 5in,:4.49: 51 : 149 : 11.30 : 1.75:1.20:.40:.08 53-5-2: 5—10 .. :4.59: 53 1247 2.66:1.88:.52:.07 .01 . 115 5-5-4: 40 v::4.60: 29 : 70 : 16.39 : 3.89:3.00:.50:.29 5-6-1: 0- 51n.:4.62: 45 : 163 :; 9.89 : 2.53:1.66:.73:.12 5-6-2: 5-10 se:4.72: 41 :. 117. : 9.53 : 1.83:1.16:.50:.09 164 77 5-6-3zlo-2O :u:4.75: 19 13.40 : 3.32:2.17:.6o:.22 5-5-4: 40 ..§4;62: 52 :15.10 : 3.58:2.04:.86:.3 p.12 Table-l (Concluded) Soil :depth of: pH :Available P(p5p.m.I:ExchangesExchangeable bales * No. :gampling: :adsgpped:acid-solu.:capacityitotal; Ca : Egg: K 10-1-1: 0- sin.:4.SI?Wth180nd§tion9gf th: t4?:4-83021.01:1.42: .40: .10 10-1-2: 5-10 " :5.01: 28 : 106 : 5.60 : 2.71:2.09: .43: .07 10-1-3:10-20 " :5.18: 28 : 96 : 7.89 : 4.49:3.37: .82: .13 10-1-4: 40 " :5.51: 33 : ' 74 : 8.42 : 5.59:4.33: .68: .18 10-2-1: 0- 51n.:5.lO: ‘39 : 193 : 4.22 : 1.77:1.29: .38: .06* 10-2-2: 5-10 " :5.46: 28 : 122 : 4.63 : 3.13:2.16: .50: .10 10-2-3:10-20 " :5.56: 24. : 65 :' 7.10 : 4.45:3.54: .45: .14 10-2-4: 40 4 :5.79: 31 : 112 : 3.o1 : 2.31:1.61: .63: .05 10-3-1: 0- 51n.:4.84: 39 :- t101- : 5.93. : 1.75:1.24: .40: .07 10—3-2: 5-10 " :5.l8: 28 : 52 : 3.98 : 1.27: .97: .18: .08 10-3-3:10-20 " :5.01: 20 : 52 : 7.20 : 3.67:3.00: .42: .23 10-3-4: 40 " :5.12: 24 : 80 : 6.49 : 4.36:2.83: .85: .24 10-4-1: 0- 5in.:4i84: 28 : 107 :: 4.59 : 1.44:1.08: .22: .L6 10-4-2: 5-10 " :4.69: 14 : 52 : 6.86 : 2.21:1.53: .48: .09 10-4-3:10-20 " :5.11: 21 : 42 : 13.88. : 8.04:6.47:1.06: .30 10-4-4: 40 " :4.89: 23 : 23 : 24.48 : 5.46:4.52: .63: .28 10-5-1: 0- 51n.:4.9l: 26* : 98' : 4.14 : 1.70:1.07: .40: .11 10-5-2: 5-10 " :4.69: 26 : 63 : 5.89 : 1.75:1.27: .28: .09 10-5-3:10-20 " :4.71: 25 : 51 : 11.56 :3.62 :2.02: .83: .34 10-5-4:.r 40.." :4.70: 19 : 50 : 11.83 : 3.972.39: .94: .34 10 -1: O--51ni: . .30 : 109 : 5.10 : 1.99:1.31: .51: .09 10-6-2: 5-10." :4.745 21 :: 55 : 5.25. : 2.23:1.24: .82: .07 10-6-3:10-20 “ :4.75: 25 : 51 : 9.46 : 4.43:2.80:..92: .27 10-6-4: 40 4 :4.74: 31 : 55 : 9.02 : 2.97:1.46: .77: .29 Exchange capacity and exchangeable bases are eXpressed in terms of m.e. per 100 grams Of dry soil. p.13 Table 2. Average pH of orchard soils as related to depths of sampling and growth conditions of peach trees.. Depth of : Growth conditions of peach trees sampling_: good - : poor Inches : Average pH values 10-20 : 4.96 : 4.77 40 : 4.98 ; 4.66 Availablepphosphorus contents: The available phosphorus contents are.relative1y high in both soils. Generally speaking in every location the amount of adsorbed and acid-soluble phosphorus present in the soil decreases with the depth. .Apparently a large portion of the available phosphorus in the surface ahd subsurface soil comes from the addition of fertilizers.and the incorporation of organic matters. They tend to be adsorbed by the soil colloidal complexes or fix- ed with other soil constituents in the form of acid-soluble com- pounds in the surface layers. The average values of adsorbed and acid-solible phosphorus of six different soil samples of the same depth around each tree are presented in table 3. With the exception of the soil from Table 3. Averages of adsorbed and acid-soluble phosphorus contents in relation to the growth conditions of peach trees. (Average P‘in p.p.m., on.dry soil basis). Depth of: Adsorbed phosphorus : Acid soluble phosphorus samplin : good : poor :diffeflen-t good : poor :differen- (inches : growth : growth : ce 3 growth : growth : ce; 0- 5 -: 30*7.37 : 4444.92 : 14*8.86:ll7134.5 : 131119.5 : 14139T6 5-10 : 2415.16 : 4lt6.97 : 17I8.67 t 75i28.2 : 1161 9.9 : 41129.9 10-20 1 2412.70 : 3448.62 : 1019.03 : 60I17.7 : 126:38.9 : 66:41.8 40 : 2745513 : 2743.15 : 0:16.03 :66432.8 : 57:5;75 : 9137.1 1‘The difference is statistically significant at P =.10(t=1.81). a depth of 40 inches from the surface, all soil samples taken around p.14 the good tree generally contain less (though statistically usual- ly not significant) adsorbed and acid-soluble phosphorus than those taken around the poor tree. The contrast is especially noticiable in:comparing the samples of 5-10 and lO-2O inch depths. From the standpoint.of soil and plant growth relationships, the difference is possibly due to the different.growth conditions of the tree.. Withsnormal growth, the tree consumes more phos- phorus and.other nutrients. Consequently they absorbs more available nutrients from the 3611 around the active r00t.regione AnOther interesting point is that the difference in acid soluble, phosphorus is much greater than that in adsorbed phosphorus.. This can be explained by the different availability of the two forms of phosphorus to the plant- Thus, Bray and Dickman(4) concluded that when present in small amounts adsorbed and acid soluble forms of phosphorus were somewhat-similar in effective- ness for plant growth, while Burd and Mhrphy(6) considered the adsorbed forms more unavailable to plants than acid-soluble forms. The results shown here seem to support the conclusion of Burd and Nurphy.. The average differences of total adsorbed and acid-soluble phosphorus contents between the soil samples of the same depth around the two trees are 28 p.p.m. for the 0-5 inches layer, 58p.p.m for the 5-10 inches layer, 76 p.p.m. for the lO-2O inches layer and 9 p.p.m. for the 40 inches layer. If these differences are due to the difference in4the root absorption as mentioned before, it follows that the peach trees in question have active root ab- sorption in the soil depths from 5-20 inches, and less so from p.15 0-5 inches. The zone of least absorption is at 40 inches. Such a distribution of root activity of peach trees checks very well with the results reported by Savages and Cowaflt(3l). It seems that there might be some relationship between the amount of acid-soluble phosphorus and the amount of exchaige- able calcium in the soil. The relationship, however, is not statistically significant- Its correlation with the pH value also does not exiSt. Amount of Exchgpgeable Bases: The amount.of total exchangeable bases is low in both soils. Although the soil supporting good tree growth seems to Contain some more exchangeable bases, particularly in the deep layers, yet the difference between the two soils is in general only very slight.. In fact, in some cases the soil that fails to grow good trees contains even more exchangeable;bases and exchangeable cal- cium in the surface two layers.. Generally speaking the situation_of total exchangeable bases and exchangeable calcium is muohcthe same,and with.only few exceptions they increase with the depth. . No correlation with other chemical properties thus far studied has been found. The anounts of exchangeable magnesium and potassium present.in the soil samples also vary with the depth of sampling. They, however, do not show a constant increase or decrease with the depth. In case of the poor tree, the amount of exchangeable magnesium is generally less in-the 5-10 and 10-20 inches soil layers. The exchangeable potassium content of both soils is extremely low. It ranges from 0.35 m.e. per 100 grams soil in p.16 the deep layer to only 0.04 m.e. in the sub-surface layer(5-1o_ inches).. The vertical distribution in.the:soil is irregular. In most cases, the least amount is found in the 5-10 inches soil layermwhere root.absorption for minerals is presumed to be.most active. Base exchange capacity and degree of base saturation: One of the most.important,results of the present study is perhaps the significance of base exchange capacity of the soil in relation to the growth conditions of peach trees. In- spite of the factlthat,the two soils supporting trees of.differ- ent.vigor contain nearly the same amount.of total exchangeable bases, exchangeable calcium, magnesium and potassium, the base exchange capacity of the two soils varies greatly. Soils around the poor tree all have the base exchange capacity above 8.49 m.e. per 100 grams of soil, whereas soils around the good tree with exceptions of the six soil samples(out of twenty-four) taken from the deeper layers all have the base exchange capacity below 8.42 m.e. With the same amount of exchangeable bases, this dif- ference will mean different degree of base saturation. From the data available, the percent of total base saturation and also the percentage saturation of individual bases were calculated. The results are shown in Table 4.. From the data, it is apparent that the soil supporting the good tree has much higher degree of saturation of total ex- changeable bases as well as individual bases.. In case of the total exchangeable bases the degrees of saturation for samples near the good tree runs all above 30%, while for those near the p.17 Table 4. Degree of base saturation of the soil in relation to the growth conditions of peach trees. Soil : Depth of : Percentage saturation of bases No. 3 sampling : Total 3 Ca : IQ; : K 5.1-1 181m? i 1$r§{“h.°°§if§%°n if tfilémeipfi‘; 5-1-2 5-10 : 15.19 : 11.72 : 2.43 : .95 5-1-3 : 10—20 : 21.20 : 18.10 x 2.48 : .72 5-1-4 : 40 : 27.83 : 121.23 i 3.43 a 1.20 5-2-1 : 0- 5 2 16.05 : 9.82 z 4.65 : 1.23 5-2—2 : 5-10 : 20.95 a 17.02 : 3.29 z .37 5-2-3 : 10-20 :: 29.33 : 24.73 g 2.59 z 1.53 5-2-4 : 40 i; 20.45. :A_15,60 : 53.26 i 51,20 5-3-1 : 0- 5 é 16.67 é 10.64 : 5.02 : .90 5-3-2 : 5-10 : 21.11 : 16.98 8 2.96 : .93 5-3-3 : 10-20 : 28.52 : 24.23 x 3.44 : .60 5-3-4 : ' 40 : 28.43 : 20.74 s 4.73 : 1.78 5-4-1 : 0- 5 : 18.89 : 11.65 : 4.70 x 1.03 5-4-2 : 5-10 2 12.46 : 9.52 z 1.78 a .53 5-4-3 : 10-20 : 23.16 : 18.78 s 2.52 : 1.38 5-4-4 : 40 : 30.68 a 23.05 : 5.57 : 1. 1 5-5-1 : 0- 5 : 15.49 2 10.62 s 3.54 g .71 5-5—2 : 5-10 : 21.33 : 15.08 : 4.18 :- .61 5—5-3 : 10-20 : 19.78 : 22.60 : 3.52 s 1.49 5-5-4 3 40 : 25.73. 9 118.50 : 3.06 : 1,11___ 545-1 2 ‘0- 5 : 25.58 : '16.78‘ : f 7.38 Q 1.21 5-6-2 é 5-10 : 19.20 : 12.17 : 5.25 : .94 5-6-3 : 10-20 : 24.78 . -16.19 3 4.48 z 1.64 5-6-4 : 40 2 23.71 i 13.61 ;_5.:'zg_ 1 2.32 Table 4 (Concluded) Soil 8 Depth of : ;_§ercentage saturation of bases No. a sampling : Total, : Ca : Mg :- K 10-1-1 83h? 4873381130338?“ if “91.987978387 10-1-2 : 5-10 3 48.39 : 37.14 i 7.68 : 1.25, 10-1-3 : 10—20 : 56.91 : 42.71 : 10.39 : 1.65 1921-4 : 40 : 66.39 2 51.43_ 3 8.17 : 2,14 10-2-1 : 0- 5 : 41.94: e 30.57 5 9.00 t 1.42 10-2-2 : 5-10 : 67.60 : 46.65 ' : 10.80 s 2.16 10-2-3 : 10-20 : 62.68 : 49.86 : 6.34 z 1.97 10-2-4 .: 40 : 76.74 a 53.49 : 20.93 : _;£§6 10-3-1 é 0- 5 : 29.51 g 20.91 : 6.75 z 1.18 10-3-2 : 5-10 : 31.91 : 24.37 : 4.52 : 2.01 10-3-8 : 10-20 : 50.97 : 41.67 : 5.83 z 3.19 10-3-4 i 40 : 67.18 9 43.61 i 1 .10 é 13.70 10-4-1 : 0- 5 : 31.37 : 23.53 2 4.79 x 3.49 10-4-2 : 5-10 : 32.22 a 22.30 : 7.00 : 1.31 10-4-3 : 10-20 : 57.93 i 46.61 : 7.64 : 2.17 10-4-4 i 40 : 37.71, : 31.22 : 4.35 s 1.94 10-5-1 : 0- 5 : 41.06 é 25.85 : 9.66 : 2.66 10-5-2 : 5-10 : 29.71 : 21.75 s 4.75 : 1.52 10-5-3 : 10-20 : 31.31 : 17.56 : 7.18 : 2.94 10-5-4 2 40 3 33.56 : 20.21__ 9 7.95 a 2.87 10-691 : 0- 5 : 39.02 : 25,69 : 10.00 : 1.76 10-6-2 : 5-10 : 42.48 : 23.62 : 15.61 : 1.33 10-6-3 : 10-20 3 46.78 : 29.57 : 9.71 : 2.85 é 40 : 432.93 é 22119 : 8.54 : 3.22___ 10-6-4 p.19 poor tree they all run below 30 % (No..5-4-4 has a value of 30.68 fl). The average values of the degree of base saturation of soils are tabulated in Table 5 in connection with the growth conditions of the trees and depths of the soils. Table 5. Averages of the degree of base saturation in relation to the depths of sampling and growth conditions of the trees. Exch.8 Growth 8: Depth of sampling _—' 8conditions: ' 0- 5 8 5-10 8 10-20 8 40 base88of trees 8 inches 8: pinches 8 inches. 8 inches- 2 Good 2 38.78 6.72 2 42.05 13.20 2.51.10 10.19 2 52.42 18.05 Total 8 Poor 8 18.32p3.39 “i18.37 3.40 8 24.46 4.54 8 25.81 3.43 8H:- * 88* 8Difference8 20.40 7.53 8 23.68_;3.62 8 26.64_10.79 8 26.62 18.37 2 Good 2 26.95 4.68 2 29.31 9.34 38.00 11.09 2 36.03 14.54 ca. 2% Poor 2 11.78 2.30 2 13.75 2.80 2 20.77 3.25 2 18.76 3.26 8Diggernece8 152:; 5.212 15.56 9.75 2 17.23 11.53 2_17.27 14.89 f 2 Good 2 8.35 1.932 8.39 3.66 2: 7.85 1.66 2 10.51 5.30 M6 8 Poor 8 5.05 1.14 8: 3,32 1.12 8 3.17 0.73 8 4.29 1.10 8Differance8 3.30 2.24 2 5.07 3.83 2 4.68 1.81 2 6.22 5,41 K 2 Good 2 2.16 .80 2 1.60 0.34 2 2.46 0.57 2 2.59 0.71 2- Poor 2 .99 .16 2 .72 0.24 2 1.23 0.40 2 1.66 0.40 8Difference8 1.15 .82 8 .88 0.42 8 1.2; 0.70 8 .93 0.81 *The difference is statistically significant at P=n10(t==l.8l). **The difference is statistically significant at P=505(t==2.23). ***The difference is statistically significant at P=aOl4rry 8. 14f.— 1. LL11 >h . w L 8 8 F > , 44bb 8P8. 88> _ 8 r. 8» . 8 1 . >4 8 Percentage hygroscopic moistureXl.22::m.e. base exchange capacity+0.08 The relationship is presented in Figure 3. (With a view to save space, the data for hygroscopic moisture have not been presented in the present text). Since both hygroscopic moisture and the total base exchange capacity of soil are primarily functions of soil colloids, the existance of linear correlation between them is quite Justifiable.. V. Summary and Conclusions Chemical analyses of soil samples taken from different depths and at the different-locations around good and poor peach trees suggest the following points:- 1. Generally speaking, soil samples from near the good tree are higher in pH, total exchangeable bases, and exchangeable, calcium than those from near the poor tree. The differences, however, are slight and are presumed not to be the main cause of the different growth conditions ofthe peach trees. 2. The adsorbed and acid-soluble phosphorus contents are relatively high in both soils. In the soil supporting the good tree growth, the.contents are lower than in the soil where the peach tree does not.grow well. The difference, presumably due to the.different growth vigor of the peach trees isremarkable in the depths from 5-10 and 10—20 inches, where the absorption of nutrients by the roots is the most active. The acid-soluble phosphorus seems to be more available thgn the adsorbed phos- phorus. 3. Both soils are nearly equally low in exchangeable po- tassium. In most cases, the least amount is found in the 5—10 P825 a 56% 9:85 oo~\.o.§\ ..XflBQKVIv 03.3.? 92an 9IJOJS‘ W m. m a J % ( inch soil layer“ 4..A great difference in the base exchange capacity is found between the soils from the two trees. In every case, soil samples around the poor peach trees all have the greater base exchange capacity, regardless of the location and depth of the samples. With the same amount of exchangeable bases, 'this difference will mean great differences in the degree of total base saturation as well as the degree of saturation of individual bases. In case of the total exchangeable bases, the degrees of saturation.for samples near the good tree run.all above 30%, while for samples near the poor tree they all run below 30 %. Since the power of the soil to hold bases on the surface of its colloilal particles increases with the base exchange capacity, it follows that the degree of base satura- tion can also serve as a measure of the availability of the bases or their absorbability by plant roots. Whether 30 % will be the critical percentage of total base saturation to feed the Elberta peach of five years of age is to be confirm- ed by further research. 5. There are positive correlations between the soil pH and the percentage of base saturation and also between the hygroscopic moisture contents and the total exchangeable bases. 6. The adsorbed and acid soluble phosphorus contents of the soils decrease with the depth, while the total exchangeable bases, the exchangeable calcium and the base exchange capacity increase with the depth. No definite significant differences in the horizontal distribution of soil nutrients and pH are p.27 found around each tree.. 7.According to the data presented there seems to be no definite ratio existing between individual exchangeable bases that may have some significance in relation to the growth of peach trees. VI.Literature,Cited 1.A.0.A.C. methods ochnalysis (1935 ed.)p.6-7. 2.Ayres,,A.S. 1941 Sorptionhof potassium and ammonium by_soils as influenced by concentration and the degree of base satura- r”tion. Soil Sci. 51:265-272. 3.Boynton,D. 1944 Reaponses of young Elberta peach,and ment- morency cherry trees to potassium fertilization in New York.. Proc. Amer..Soc..Hort..Sci.44:31-33. 4.Bray, R. H..and Dickmant.s..R.. 1941 Adsorbed phosphates in soils and their relation to crop responses.. Frock Soil Sci. Soc..Amer. 63312-320. 5.Bray,_R. H. and Kurtz, L. T. 1945. Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci.59:39-453- 6.Burd, J. S. and Murphy, H. F. 1939 The use of chemical data in.the prognosis of phosphorus deficiency of soils. Hilgardia, 12:323r340. 7.Chapman,H. D. The blue colorimetric method for the determi— nation of phosphorus in soils and plants. (Mimeographed). Univ. Calif..Citrus Expt..Sta.. ‘ P 8.Chapman, H. D. and Kelly, N. P. 1930 The determination of the replaceable bases and the base-exchange.capacity of soils. p.28 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Soil Sci. 30:391-406. Cowart, I. F. 1939 Root.distribution and root and top growth of peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 36: 1452149. Cullinan, F. P.,Scott, D.H. and Waugh, J..G. 1939 The effect of varying amounts of N, K and P on the.growth of young peach trees.. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.36:6l-68.. Cullinan, F. P. and Waughm J. G. 1940 Response of Peach trees to potassium under field conditons. Proc..Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.37:87-94.. Davidson, D. W., and Blake, M.A. 1937 Responses of young peach.trees to nutrient deficiencies. Proc..Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 34:247-248. Davidson, 0. W., and Blake, M.A.. 1938 Nutrient deficiency and.nutrient balance with.the peach. Proc$.Amer..Soc. Hort. Sci.35:338-346. Davidson, 0.W.. 1944 The translocation of potassium among peach roots. Soil Sci. 58:51-59. Dunbar, C. 0., and Anthony, R. D. 1937 Two cases of potas- sium deficiency in peach orchards in South Central Pennsyl- vania. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hor. Sci. 35:320-325. Ensminger, L. E., and Gieseking, J. E. 1941 The absorp- tion of proteins by montmorillonitic clays and its effect on base-exchange capacity. Soil Sci. 51:125-132. Hinrichs, H.,and Cross, F. B. 1943 The relationship of . compact subsoil to root distribution of peach trees. Proc. Amer. Hort. Sci. 42:33-38. p.29 18. 21. TO I 0 27. Jenny, H., and Ayres, A. D. 1939 The influence of the de- gree of saturation of soil colloids on the nutrient intake by roots. Soil Sci. 48:443-459. Johnston, S. 1941 Peach culture in Michigan. Mich..Agri. Expt. Sta.(Cir. ), Bu1.177. Lawton, K. 1946 The determination of exchangeable po- tassium in soils using hexa-nitrodiphenylamine. Proc. Amer. Soil Sci. Soc. 10.(In Press). Lilleland, 0., and Brown, J. G. 1937 The potassium nutri- tion of fruit trees-I.Soil analyses. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:327—334. ‘ Peech, d. 1939 Chemical studies in soils from Florida Citrus Groves. Fla. Agri. Exp. Sta.,Bul 340. Peech, M. 1941 Availability of ions in light sandy soils as affected by soil reaction. Soil Sci. 51:473-485. Peech, M., Reed, J. F.,and Alexander, L. T., and Dean, L.A. 1945 methods of soil Analysis for soil fertility investi- gations,pp.10-11. Mehlich, A. 1942 Base saturation and pH in relation to soil type. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.,Proc. 6:150-156. Mehlich, A. 1943 The significance of percentage base satu- ration and pH in relation to soil type and plant growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc. 7:167-173. Eehlich, A. 1943 Base saturation and pH in relation to liming and nutrient conservation.of soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Pro. 7:353-361. p.30 28..Pierre, W. H. 1939 Hydrogen ion concentration. aluminium concentration in the soil solution, and percent base satura- tion as factors affecting plant growth on acid soils.. Soil Sci.l3l:183-207. 29. Proebsting, E. L. 1941 The relation of peach root toxicity to the re-establishing of peach orchards.. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort..Sci. 38:21-26. 30. Rawl, E. H. 1940 Peach tree fertilizer demonstration re- sults. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 37:85-86. 31. Savage,.E. F., and Cowart, F. F. 1942 The effect of prun- ing upon the root distribution of peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 41:67-70. 32. Thompson, R. D. 1916 The relation of fruit growing to soil fertility. Ark. Agri. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bul. 123. 33..Van Slyke, L. Lo, Taylor, 0. M., and Andrews, W. H. 1905, Plant-food constituents used by bearing fruit.trees. N. Y. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul..265. 34. Van Slyke, L. L. 1937 Fertilizers and Crop production.p. 454. Orange Judd Publishing Co}, New York. 35. Volk, G. M., and Bell, C. E. 1944 Soil reaction(pH), Some critical factors in its determination, control and sig- nificance. Fla. Agri. Exp. Sta., Bul 400. KM C\ o Waugh, J. G.,Cullinan, F. P., and Scott, D. H. 1940 Response of young peach trees in sand culture to varying amounts of N, K and P. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 37:95- 96.. 37. Waugh, J. G., and Cullinan, F. P. 1941 The.N, P, and K p.31 contents of peach leaves as influenced by soil treatments. Proc..Amer. SOC. Hort..Sci. 38:13-16. 38. Weinberger, J. H., and Cullinan, F. P. 1937 Symptoms of some mineral deficiencies 1n.one-yeafluE1berta peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort..Sci. 34:249-254.. 39. Williams, R.. 1928 The determination of exchangeable calcium in carbonate—free soils.. Jour..Agr..Sci. 18:439-445.. p.32 ..o’J \\\\\\ yrip ill-I multilr. I I'll. ... . :1: .1 7.3.3.. .. -..lgrul vllnon771vkurn‘ ..I‘ .... , .- . . ., ., 7".“ - ' . 4Nv V ‘ —-- -j' v v .-.,. . v v' -‘-| .1 l ' 1" - .‘ ' - _ “k"; . . M (“MA Hutu; ~ -= For.» .. M F? tut-«NJ ~ {”43" '1' ' ’ I d"! ‘ w‘l 4" ' " ‘ " ' u " .~ ' "‘ " ' -"~ ‘ n l ' \, A I ‘ 1 .1 l . ' " "'l I ‘ “ ‘ ' J J * ‘ ‘ ‘ ' "1 ." . .'-" .' " ‘11 " M -‘ 3' """ ' ' “.m’ . 7 ' 4“ -."r 3"?! .1 ‘ . . . 'l '4. g 'l ‘ x 0 "4| \' 1‘ s . ’4‘“ ~ 4 A .' I ‘1 . . . ‘H J . ‘ I : ' v I I . ‘ .‘ “ r ~ .‘f n II 0 h |' '1 - '1'. ”"1?" I " it ) l ' 4 v ’ . . ' ' ’ "i " J‘k " I ' f . ‘ ‘ u“ . If '31,. l, ' '.I:t""" ' ‘ ‘ r— ‘ I I‘. ' ‘ | ‘ J I . O‘u If} ‘IIIY‘.’ a l | ' ‘ l . 1 I ‘ y‘. .“ I ‘ ' . . I A” n g , ..'I . " e I. 'J .v I . l ' ‘ " .-. ' \ v ‘ \- . ‘ , . . .v \ ' P . . .. .. | | a ‘ v .‘I ‘ . n 'I ' . \I ' . “on” "SE ONL . I . Y . I r . " 1 . I ’ ..I .. .9 . ' I O . _ . . ‘ I C ' I I 1 I . \ '. . p . v. I : . ' l . b I X . , . l C v x ' I 1 ' l I .: . . ' I I Q . I . I l . l ‘ n I . ‘ O f . O l r l I I: I‘- I ! l I TATE UNIVERSITY LIB IIIHIIIIIII O 3046 3925 ARIES III I 12 93 MICIHIIGADIN“ . 3