• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited
 Appendix
 Back Cover






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations ; No. 725
Title: Nutrient deficiency effects on yield and chemical composition of plants grown on Leon fine sand
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027220/00001
 Material Information
Title: Nutrient deficiency effects on yield and chemical composition of plants grown on Leon fine sand
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 39 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Harris, Henry C ( Henry Clayton ), 1898-
Schroder, V. N
Gilman R. L
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1968
 Subjects
Subject: Deficiency diseases in plants   ( lcsh )
Plants -- Composition   ( lcsh )
Sandy soils -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 20-21.
Statement of Responsibility: Henry C. Harris, V.N. Schroder, and R.L. Gilman.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027220
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929575
oclc - 18367950
notis - AEP0363

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Materials and methods
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Results and discussion
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Literature cited
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Appendix
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Back Cover
        Page 40
Full Text


Bulletin 725 (Technical) May 1968



\ / A













Nutrition made the difference.



Nutrient Deficiency Effects on Yield

and Chemical Composition of Plants
Grown on Leon Fine Sand


Henry C. Harris, V. N. Schroder, and R. L. Gilman






Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
J. W. Sites, Dean for Research








Contents


Page
Introduction .........3.......... 3
Materials and Methods 3
Results and Discussion .
Deficiency Symptoms ......... .... 5
W inter Kill ... ........ 5
Seed Production ....6....
Major Element Effects on Yield and Composition ........ 6
Micronutrient Effects on Yield and Composition.... 11
Yield and Composition as Related to Cutting ..... .... 14
Correlations ...... 15
Discussion of Nitrogen and Mineral Analyses 15
Summary and Conclusions ........ 18
Literature Cited ..... 20
Appendix ...22













Cover Picture
Growth response of oats to fertilization on Leon fine sand showing complete
fertilization (including micronutrients) and single element deficiencies. Left to
right, no S, no N, complete fertilization, no Cu, and no K.






Nutrient Deficiency Effects on Yield
and Chemical Composition of Plants
Grown on Leon Fine Sand
Henry C. Harris, V. N. Schroder, and R. L. Gilman'

INTRODUCTION
Leon fine sand is typical of the soil found on the extensive
flatwoods area in Florida. Results from tests with lime and
fertilizer applications to this soil on the yield and composition
of plants grown on it should be useful information, not only in
formulating recommendations, but possibly suggestive of results
that might be obtained on related flatwoods soils. For this rea-
son a set of 16 greenhouse-type experiments was conducted to
evaluate the effect of the treatments on the crops grown. A
low available supply in the soil of several major elements and
micronutrients was demonstrated for a variety of crops, and
the effects of the deficiencies on the percentage content of nitro-
gen and certain minerals of the crops grown were also deter-
mined. Because of the extensive data only part of the results
has been incorporated into the text and the balance of the
results given in the Appendix.
At the time these experiments Were started, little informa-
tion about the nutrient status of this soil was available. Soil
tests and visual observations indicated shortages of nitrogen,
potassium, calcium and other elements, but only limited research
(1, 2, 19, 21)2 had been undertaken, and in general the results
were fragmentary. After these experiments were begun results
which have some application were published (3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14, 20, 22, 24). Even so, the available information is still
incomplete and makes it desirable to have a well-rounded evalua-
tion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The soil used in these experiments was Leon fine sand from
the Agronomy Area of the Beef Research Unit, Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Gainesville. This area was cleared
of trees and shrubs, but no lime or fertilizer was applied. Limited
plowing and cultivation had been done. Therefore, it was con-
sidered virgin soil. In the 16 experiments conducted, six batches
of surface soil, taken to a depth of approximately 6 inches, were

Agronomist and Assistant Agronomist, Gainesville, and former Assistant
in Agronomy (now located at Balboa, Canal Zone).
2Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.






Nutrient Deficiency Effects on Yield
and Chemical Composition of Plants
Grown on Leon Fine Sand
Henry C. Harris, V. N. Schroder, and R. L. Gilman'

INTRODUCTION
Leon fine sand is typical of the soil found on the extensive
flatwoods area in Florida. Results from tests with lime and
fertilizer applications to this soil on the yield and composition
of plants grown on it should be useful information, not only in
formulating recommendations, but possibly suggestive of results
that might be obtained on related flatwoods soils. For this rea-
son a set of 16 greenhouse-type experiments was conducted to
evaluate the effect of the treatments on the crops grown. A
low available supply in the soil of several major elements and
micronutrients was demonstrated for a variety of crops, and
the effects of the deficiencies on the percentage content of nitro-
gen and certain minerals of the crops grown were also deter-
mined. Because of the extensive data only part of the results
has been incorporated into the text and the balance of the
results given in the Appendix.
At the time these experiments Were started, little informa-
tion about the nutrient status of this soil was available. Soil
tests and visual observations indicated shortages of nitrogen,
potassium, calcium and other elements, but only limited research
(1, 2, 19, 21)2 had been undertaken, and in general the results
were fragmentary. After these experiments were begun results
which have some application were published (3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14, 20, 22, 24). Even so, the available information is still
incomplete and makes it desirable to have a well-rounded evalua-
tion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The soil used in these experiments was Leon fine sand from
the Agronomy Area of the Beef Research Unit, Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Gainesville. This area was cleared
of trees and shrubs, but no lime or fertilizer was applied. Limited
plowing and cultivation had been done. Therefore, it was con-
sidered virgin soil. In the 16 experiments conducted, six batches
of surface soil, taken to a depth of approximately 6 inches, were

Agronomist and Assistant Agronomist, Gainesville, and former Assistant
in Agronomy (now located at Balboa, Canal Zone).
2Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







utilized. The average pH and available nutrients in pounds per
acre (one acre of soil was assumed to weigh 2,000,000 pounds)
by chemical tests were as follows: pH, 4.5; P, 5; K, 30; Ca, 260;
and Mg, 85. Values for different batches were not the same,
but all batches tested similarly.
The containers were made from soft glass (low boron) bot-
tles, and the manner of making and utilization has been published
(13, 16, 17). For most experiments containers held 34 pounds of
soil, but in some experiments they held one-fourth of this amount.
Either distilled water or distilled water which was passed
through an ion exchange demineralizer was used in connection
with these experiments. At times, of course, rain provided water.
Fertilizers and lime for the treatments were from reagent grade
chemicals. Treatments for the 16 different experiments are
given in the Appendix and will not be repeated here except to
give a general idea of how the treatments varied. Each experi-
ment had a control treatment which was complete fertilization
and included N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S and the group of micronutrients.
Other treatments of an experiment were variations of the con-
trol. A minus sign with treatments (-Zn, for example) indicates
that the treatment was the same as the control except zinc was
not applied. A plus sign (+) shows that the element was added
to the control. The nutrient sulfur, in the no-sulfur treatment,
was eliminated from the treatment by substituting chemicals.
In the earlier studies 14 different treatments per experiment in-
volving both major and micronutrients were used. In some of
the later ones six treatments relating only to micronutrients
were applied. Treatments in each experiment were randomized
in a block and replicated four or five times.
Corn, oats, grass, clover, lupine, and alfalfa were grown in
these experiments. The varieties are indicated in the tables of
the Appendix. All plants were grown in the open air on a plat-
form except bermudagrass grown in 1957 inside the green-
house. In the system used any leachate from a heavy rain was
caught and returned to the pot when water was needed so that
leaching loss of nutrients did not occur. Pangolagrass and ber-
mudagrass were grown from sprigs set in the soil but all other
crops from seed. The 1956 pangolagrass and bermudagrass
experiments were started in the greenhouse in winter and
then moved in the spring to the platform. Observations of crop
growth were made frequently, and deficiency symptoms were
scrutinized.
Grasses, clovers, and similar crops were cut two or three







times and the weight of the dry forage per pot obtained. Corn
and some other crops could only be harvested one time. Forage
on the cultures was cut and dry weights obtained after the
treatments appeared to have had substantial effect. The age of
the plants can be determined by difference in seeding and cutting
dates given in the Appendix. The amount of seed produced was
determined only in the Louisiana white clover experiment in
1957. The second and third cutting had many seed heads, and
the weights of air-dry seed were obtained.
Nitrogen and mineral analyses were made of the plant mate-
rial from many of the experiments as indicated in the tables.
Nitrogen was determined by the Kjeldahl-Gunning method, and
calcium, potassium and sodium by flame-photometry. Phosphorus
was evaluated by an adaptation of the molybdenum blue method
in which 1,2,4-aminonaphthol sulfonic acid was used (23, p. 660-
670), while magnesium was evaluated by an adaptation of the
thiazole yellow procedure (6). Sulfur was determined by the
magnesium nitrate method (18, p. 114).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Deficiency Symptoms
Plants which received the control treatment grew normally,
but frequently plants which received treatments deficient in a
nutrient exhibited marked abnormality. In most cases size
difference was the first symptom observed. Pictures and in-
formation about the deficiency symptoms developed in these
experiments have been published (12), and some of the descrip-
tions given in other publications (15, 16) have application to
these experiments. Published explanations will not be repeated
here. However, some other symptoms were noted. Sulfur or
molybdenum deficiencies caused the plants to be a lighter green
or yellow color, copper deficiency of corn caused a marginal
chlorosis of the leaves which was similar to copper deficient oats,
and a shortage of phosphorus caused clover to be small and the
leaves to appear darker in color.
Winter Kill
Cold damaged the stand of a Louisiana S-1 white clover test
(not listed in the Appendix) in 1962, and it was discontinued.
The survival results are given in Table 1. Cold damaged plants
in all treatments, but the extent of damage was much greater
when copper or boron was not applied. As reported in a previous
publication (12), cold damage was more severe on boron de-
ficient lupine.







Table 1.-Treatment effect on cold survival of Louisiana S-1 white clover.t
Average number of
Treatment surviving plants per pot
1. Control 12.2
2. Cu 4.4
3. B 4.8
4. Mo 11.8
5. Co 13.2
6. V 12.2
LSD 5% 6.8
LSD 1% 6.9
t Seeded 11/14/62 and thinned to 25 plants per pot. Counts on survival 12/28/62.
t Same as in Experiment 15 in the Appendix.

Seed Production
The effects of fertilization on seed production (Table 2) of
white clover were striking. Phosphorus, potassium or sulfur
deficiency reduced seed yields considerably, but without an ap-
plication of boron or copper few seed were produced. Since white
clover in Florida behaves similarly to an annual, the difficulty of
maintaining a clover pasture without applications of micronu-
trients to increase seed yields is obvious.

Table 2.-Fertilization effect on mean yield of Louisiana white clover seed.
Grams air-dry seed per pot at harvest date
Treatment March 7 April 29 Total
1. Control .41 3.11 3.52
2. %1 N .13 2.80 2.93
3. 4 N .66 4.07 4.73
4. 1/5 P .33 .72 1.05
5. 1/5 K .32 .43 .75
6. -ME .00 .07 .07
7. -Mo .57 4.18 4.75
8. -Zn .36 4.56 4.92
9. -Cu .00 .41 .41
10. -Mn .37 2.65 3.02
11. -B .01 .59 .60
12.. -Mg .21 1.96 2.17
13. 4/5 Ca .44 2-41 2.85
14. -S .27 .79 1.06
LSD 5% .24 1.59 1.71
LSD 1% .32 2.14 2.30
t Experiment was conducted in 1957, ind is same one as given in Appendix, Experiment 9.
Minus ME indicates micronutrients not applied. Fractions of N. P, K, or Ca are based
on amount in the control treatment, and other nutrients were not changed.

Major Element Effects on Yield and Composition
High levels of nitrogen (Table 3) had little effect on the
growth of two legumes except to get them started early. The
general effect of applied nitrogen for legumes, was not striking
(Table 4), as might be expected, because of symbiotic nitrogen







Table 3.-Nitrogen effect on mean dry weight per pot of white clover and lupine.
Grams clover by cutting dates Grams lupine
Treatment Feb. 1 March 7 April 29 Total April 4
Control 11.5 18.2 30.6 60.2 31.1
1/ N 7.5 18.4 36.3 62.4 29.2
4 N 19.0 20.2 28.3 67.5 33.1
LSD 5%/ 1.3 2.9 6.0 7.1 2.4
LSD l'c, 1.8 3.9 8.0 9.5 3.2
i Experiments conducted in 1957. Treatments are given in the Appendix, Experiments 8
and 9. Differences in treatments are in N only and are based on amount in the control
treatment.

fixation. Applied nitrogen highly significantly increased the
yields of all non-legumes (Table 4), and usually increased the
nitrogen percentage of the forage. Phosphorus generally in-
creased the yield of all crops (Table 4 and Figure 1), as well as
percentage phosphorus content of the forage, and the same was
true of potassium. As might be expected, the effect of added
calcium on increasing yield was mainly on legumes (Table 4 and
Figure 2), but added calcium generally increased the calcium
content of all crops. Magnesium had relatively little effect on
yields (Table 4), but usually increased the magnesium content of
the forage. Sulfur almost invariably increased forage yields
(Table 4, Cover, and Figure 1) and the percentage sulfur content
of the forage. Thus, for growth of these crops this soil is low in
available N, P, K, Ca, and S, but not Mg. Furthermore, when
these elements were applied, the percentage content of the ele-
ment, with few exceptions, was higher in the forage. Generally
this difference was highly significant statistically.
From the chemical analyses the total amount of each major
element in the harvested forages was calculated. These values
are not tabulated, but an application of a major element invari-
ably increased the total amount of that element in the forage,

Figure I.-Growth response of white clover to fertilization on Leon fine sand.
Complete fertilization (including micronutrients) and single element deficiencies.
Left to right, low K, no S, complete fertilization, no Cu, and low P.









Table 4.-Effect of varying a major nutrient element on the yield of dry forage per pot and percentage composition of that element in
forage of various crops grown on Leon fine sand when other nutrients were applied at rate of the control treatment.
Non P on


Crop and date
Dixie 18 corn, 1956
Dixie 18 corn, 5/20/59
Floriland oats 1956
Floriland oats 1/3/57
Floriland oats 2/26/57
Pangolagrass 5/3/56
Bermudagrass 5/8/56
Bermudagrass 2/11/57
Bermudagrass 3/21/57
0 Pensacola bahiagrass 5/31/56
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56
Sweet yellow lupine 1957
White clover 2/1/57
White clover 3/7/57
White clover 4/29/57
White clover 3/31/61
White clover 5/10/61
Ladino clover 3/30/61
Ladino clover 5/9/61
Ladino clover 4/10/62
Ladino clover 5/14/62
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 4/9/62
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 5/14/62


Yields in grams
Low N High N
6.2 14.5**
26.0 73.0**
6.4 24.1**
10.8 32.0**
19.8 37.3**
14.6 47.6**
9.8 43.8**
10.5 18.7**
6.8 19.5**
2.0 12.0**
1.8 8.6**
29.2 31.1
7.5 11.5**
18.4 18.2
36.3 30.6


Percentage N Yield in grams
Low N High N Low P High P


.82 1.06**


1.48
1.3
.67
1.00


.83

3.50
4.3**
4.24
2.70


1.91**
1.5**
1.25**
1.04


1.04*
1.08
3.62
3.7
4.30
2.65


14.5*
73.0*
24.1**
32.0
37.3*
47.6*
43.8
18.7**
19.5
12.0
8.6**
31.1**
11.5*
18.2**
30.5**


Percentage P
Low P High P
.11 .26**


.43**
.24**
.32**
.19**


.20**
.23**
.22**
.43**
.41**
.22


* and ** Significantly different at the 5', and 1% levels, respectively.






Table 4 (continued).


Crop and date
Dixie 18 corn, 1956
Dixie 18 corn, 5/20/59
Floriland oats 1956
Floriland oats 1/3/57
Floriland oats 2/26/57
Panolagrass 5/3/56
Bermudagrass 5/8/56
Bermudagrass 2/11/57
Bermudagrass 3/21/57
to Pensacola bahiagrass 5/31
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/5
Sweet yellow lupine 1957
White clover 2/1/57
White clover 3/7/57
White clover 4/29/57
White clover 3/31/61
White clover 5/10/61
Ladino clover 3/30/61
Ladino clover 5/9/61
Ladino clover 4/10/62
Ladino clover 5/14/62
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 4/
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 5/


Yield in grams
Low K High K
9.5 14.5**
52.0 73.0**
9.5 24.1**
28.0 32.0**
20.3 37.3**
29.2 47.6**
37.3 43.8*
14.7 18.7:*
20.1 19.5
/56 8.6 12.0**
6 4.9 8.6**
18.4 31.1**
10.8 11.5
11.1 18-2**
4.1 30.6**


Percentage K


Yield in grams


Ca on
Percentage Ca


Low K High K Low Ca High Ca Low Ca High Ca
.26 .75** 15.4 14.5 .11 .21**
67.0 73.0**
19.8 24.1**
.66 2.76** 31.3 32.0 .11 .14**
.65 1.35** 35.8 37.3 .21 .24*
.30 .98** 47.4 47.6 .17 .24**
.37 1.06** 42.1 43.8 .20 .27**
18.4 18.7
17.4 19.5
.23 .60** 11.4 12.0 .21 .31**
.41 .98** 8.3 8.6 .26 .50**
.36 .85** 31.6 31.1 .89 1.14**
2.38 3.95** 11.5 11.5 .49 .72**
.69 2.49** 19.7 18.2 .51 .78**
.46 .81** 28.8 30.6 1.04 2.06**
4.7 13.7** .21 .87**
1.0 14.4** 1.05
5.9 33.9** .34 .91**
0.9 37.5** 1.76
34.1 39.0*
27.5 28.1
21.9 27-9*
20.7 34.1*


* and ** Significantly different at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.









Table 4 (continued). Effect of varying a major nutrient element on the yield of dry forage per pot and percentage composition of
that element in forage of various crops grown on Leon fine sand when other nutrients were applied at rate of the control treat-
ment.


Mg on


Crop and date
Dixie 18 corn, 1956
Dixie 18 corn, 5/20/59
Floriland oats 1956
Floriland oats 1/3/57
Floriland oats 2/26/57
Pangolagrass 5/3/56
Bermudagrass 5/8/56
Bermudagrass 2/11/57
- Bermudagrass 3/21/57
SPensacola bahiagrass 5/31/56
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56
Sweet yellow lupine 1957
White clover 2/1/57
White clover 3/7/57
White clover 4/29/57
White clover 3/31/61
White clover 5/10/61
Ladino clover 3/30/61
Ladino clover 5/9/61
Ladino clover 4/10/62
Ladino clover 5/14/62
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 4/9/62
Hairy Peruvian alfalfa 5/14/62


Yield in grams
Low Mg High Mg


12.6
70.0
22.3
32.0
37.8
43.9
39.1
15.6
22.7**
10.3
6.4
30.1
11.8
18.5
26.3


14.5*
73.0
24.1
32.0
37.3
47.6
43.8
18.7
19.5
12.0
8.6**
31.1
11.5
18.2
30.6


Percentage Mg
Low Mg High Mg
.26 .33


.17
.20
.08
.10


.09
.07
.26
.30**
.27
.22


.19*
.20
.09*
.11*


.15**
.10*
.33**
.27
.31**
.27**


S on
Yield in grams Percentage S
Low S High S Low S High S


6.8 14.5**
46.0 73.0**
18.7 24.1**
22.3 32.0**
29.5 37.3**
21.5 47.6**
17.7 43.8**
11.0 18.7**
8.4 19.5**
8.1 12.0**
5.1 8.6**
17.7 31.1**
11.3 11.5
8.6 18.2**
13.6 30.6**
11.5 13.7*
8.3 14.4**
23.2 33.9**
18.0 37.5**
33.4 39.0**
20.3 28.1**
21.4 27.9*
13.4 34.1**


.09 .40**


.26**
.21**
.16**
.34**


.54**
.65**
.64**
.25*
.19**
.28**
.24**
.26**
.25**
.24**


* and ** Significantly different at the 5'1 and c1% levels, respectively.



























Figure 2.-Calcium made the difference in the growth of white clover on
Leon fine sand.

and in most cases the increases were highly significant statistic-
ally. For soils low in available nutrients similar to this Leon fine
sand it is clear that an application of a major element will in-
crease the percentage composition of that element in the forage
grown and increase the total amount of the element in the forage.
A point of interest in connection with the chemical analyses
is that Pangolagrass was high in sodium as compared to other
grasses (Appendix, Experiments 3, 4, 5). This is in keeping with
the findings of Gammon (8). The reason why this grass should
take up 5 to 10 times more sodium than the other crops grown
under similar conditions is not clear.

Micronutrient Effects on Yield and Composition
Applications of micronutrients frequently had a marked effect
(Tables 5 and 6) on yields of crops grown on this soil. Copper
had a marked beneficial effect on the yield of several non-legumes.
Other micronutrients seemed to have no appreciable effect on
the growth of non-legumes, although occasionally there was an
indication that zinc, boron, or manganese had a slight effect.
Copper deficiency reportedly decreased early growth of bahia-
grass (12) but difference in size had disappeared by the time of
first harvest (Appendix, Experiment 3). Copper, boron, and
molybdenum (Table 5 and 6) each considerably increased the








Table 5.-Influence of micronutrient deficiency on dry forage yield per pot and percentage content of nitrogen and mineral elements
of crops grown on Leon fine sand when other elements in the treatment were at the rate of the control treatment.

Effect of element on composition of forage
Yield in grams N % P %
Crop and date Element with without with without with without

Dixie 18 corn, 1956 Cu 14.5** 8.4 1.06 2.54** .26 .63**
Dixie 18 corn, 1956 ME- 14.5** 8.4 1.06 2.48** .26 .73**
Floriland oats 1/3/57 Cu 32.0** 26.0 1.91 2.42** .43 58**
Floriland oats 2/26/57 Cu 37.3** 23.3 1.5 2.1 ** .24 .34**
Pangolagrass 5/3/56 Mn 47.6** 42.3 1.25 1.26 .32 .33
Pensacola bahiagrass 5/31/56 ME 12.0** 6.3 1.04 2.37** .20 .37
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56 Zn 8.6* 7.3 1.08 1.15** .23 .23
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56 B 8.6** 7.0 1.08 1.17** .23 .25
S Sweet yellow lupine 1957 Cu 31.1** 25.4 3.62 3.89* .22 .29**
Sweet yellow lupine 1957 Mo 31.1** 24.0 3-62** 3.32 .22 .26**
Sweet yellow lupine 1957 B 31.1** 26.0 3.62 3.91** .22 .28**
Sweet yellow lupine 1957 Mn 31.1** 27.4 3.62 3.92** .22 .29**
White clover 2/1/57 Cu 11.5** 7.2 3.7 3.8 ** .43 .50**
White clover 3/7/57 Cu 18.2** 7.7 4.30** 3.11 .41 .44**
White clover 4/29/57 Cu 30.5** 22.4 2.65 2.76** .22 .38**
White clover 2/1/57 B 11.5* 10.2 3.7 3.7 .43 .45
White clover 3/31/61 Cu 13.7** 10.4 3.84 3.71 .30 .37
White clover 3/31/61 Mo 13.7** 7.0 3.84** 2.22 .30 .30
Ladino clover 3/30/61 Cu 33.9** 26.9 4.07 3.73 .42 .41
Ladino clover 3/30/61 Mo 33.9** 23.1 4.07** 2.86 .42 .42
Ladino clover 5/9/61 V 41.7** 37.5 2.97 3.43
and ** Significantly different at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
t Refers to the group of micronutrients.






Table 5 (Continued).


Crop and date
Dixie 18 corn, 1956
Dixie 18 corn, 1!956
Floriland oats 1/3/57
Floriland oats 2/z0/57
Pangolagrass 5/3/56
Pensacola bahiagrass 5/31/56
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56
Pensacola bahiagrass 7/3/56
SSweet yellow lupine 1957
Sweet yellow lupine 1957
Sweet yellow lupine 1957
Sw\eet yellow lupine 1957
White clover 2/1/57
White clover 3/7/57
White clover 4/29/57
White clover 2/1/57
White clover 3/31/61
White clover 3/31/61
Ladino clover 3/30/61
Ladino clover 3/30/61
Ladino clover 5/9/61


Effect of element on composition of forage

K % Ca % Mg % S %
Element with without with without with without with without


Cu
MEt
Cu
Cu
Mn
ME
Zn
B
Cu
Mo
B
Mn
Cu
Cu
Cu
B
Cu
Mo
Cu
Mo
V


.75
.75
2.76
1.35
.98
.60
.98
.98
.85
.85
.85
.85
3.95
2.49
.81
8.95
2.19
2.19
2.38
2.38
.72


1.97**
1.51*
3.62**
1.66**
1.43**
1.53**
.98
.95
1.04**
1.00**
1.07**
1.01**
5.12**
3.47**
1.78**
4.28*
2.15
2.58*
2.86**
2.82*
.68


.21
.21
.14
.24
.24
.31
.50
.50
1.14
1.14
1-14
1.14
.72**
.78
2.06**
.72
.87
.87
.91
.91
1.68


.26**
.24*
.13
.31**
.28**
.31
.53
.48
1.41**
1.39**
1.20
1.24*
.61
1.03**
1.69
.67
1.05
.97
1.02
1.08*
1.76


.33
.33
.19
.20
.09
.15
.10
.10
.33
.33*
.33
.33
.27
.31
.27**
.27**
.45
.45
.42
.42
.68


.56**
.50**
.22**
.37**
.11**
.27**
-09
.12
.38**
.30
.31
.34
.30**
.33
.24
.21
.50
.44
.42
.42
.66


.40
.40
.26
.21
.16
.54
.65
.65**
.64
.64
.64
.64
.25
.19
.28
.17
.24
.24
.25
.25
.22


.67**
.61**
.30*
.29**
.37**
.87**
.70**
.59
.85**
.79**
.76**
.79**
.33**
.24**
.37**
.16
.25
.23
.30*
.28
.24


* and ** Significantly different at the 5% and 1%
t Refers to the group of micronutrients.


levels, respectively.







Table 6.-Yield responses in grams of dry forage per plot to an application of
a micronutrient to Leon fine sand when other elements in the fertilizer
treatment were at the rate of the control treatment.
Yield in grams
Crop and date Element With Without
Corn 5/10/63
F6 (A) line Cu 11.3** 6.2
L 576 (fert.) line Cu 11.8** 6.8
Oats 1956 Cu 24.1** 13.3
Bermudagrass 2/11/57 Cu 18.7** 16.1
Bermudagrass 2/11/57 B 18.7* 16.8
White clover: 4/10/63 Cu 17.1** 2.0
White clover: 5/7/63 Cu 15.4** 0.7
White clovert 4/10/63 B 17.1** 6.0
White cloverT 5/7/63 B 15.4** 7.3
White clovert 4/10/63 V 17.1* 14.5
Ladino clover 4/10/62 Cu 39.0* 34.9
Alfalfatt 4/9/62 Cu 29.9** 15.0
Alfalfatt 5/14/62 Cu 34.1** 9.8
Alfalfatt 4/9/62 B 27.9** 20.2
Alfalfatt 5/14/62 B 34.1** 14.0
* Significantly different at the 5% level.
** Significantly different at the 1% level.
t Floriland variety.
SLouisiana S-1.
+t Hairy Peruvian.

yield of legumes. In two cases vanadium increased the yields of
legumes slightly, which is in agreement with what was pre-
viously reported (10). The increase was not great enough to be
of much practical importance, and the effect might have been
of an indirect nature.
In general a micronutrient deficiency markedly affected the
percentage nitrogen and other major nutrient elements of plants
(Table 5) even though the nitrogen and other major nutrients
were applied at constant rates. In a large proportion of the
cases (Table 5), where there was a micronutrient deficiency, the
percentage composition of the forage with respect to nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur was
higher than the control. This relationship was not quite as
consistent for calcium and magnesium as the others. Nitrogen in
the legumes did not follow this pattern, probably because of sym-
biotic fixation of nitrogen in that group of plants. Full explana-
tion of what happened is not possible, but superficially it appears
that even though yield was decreased by the micronutrient de-
ficiency, much of the available nutrients was absorbed, and thus
concentrated in a smaller amount of plant tissue.

Yield and Composition as Related to Cutting
A number of examples are given in Table 7 showing how the
yield response to a treatment may vary with cutting and that







the nitrogen and mineral content of forage from the two cuttings
were not the same. For example, molybdenum increased the
yield of white clover in the first cutting but had no effect on
the second cutting, while sulfur had no effect on yield the first
cutting but increased yield the second. Copper increased the
yields of both oat cuttings. Wide variations in chemical data
with cuttings are shown (Table 7). It is, therefore, apparent
that the time of cutting and nature of sampling as well as the
treatment are important in evaluating yield and chemical data.
Chemical evaluations that do not take these points into considera-
tion are likely to be of limited value.

Correlations
Many correlations were calculated (Table 8) between forage
yields and the percentage composition of the various elements in
the forage when the element correlated was constant in the
treatments. With non-legumes there usually were highly signifi-
cant negative correlations for nitrogen. This means that gener-
ally the nitrogen percentage of the forage went down as yield
increased. The nitrogen correlations for legumes were generally
highly significant positive values, and are the reverse of those
for non-legumes. The positive nitrogen correlations for legumes
are thought to be related to symbiotic fixation of nitrogen by
organisms, and it seems that high positive values indicate ef-
ficient symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In general, the correlations
between yields and percentage composition for phosphorus or
potassium were negative and highly significant. Thus under
the conditions of these experiments, by knowing the yields and
fertilizer treatments, the percentage content of nitrogen, phos-
phorus, or potassium in the forage could be predicted, in a gen-
eral way, without doing the chemical analyses. The correlations
for calcium, magnesium, and sulfur were not as consistent as
those for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. However, they
were to some degree similar, since 12 of the 15 statistically sig-
nificant correlations for calcium, magnesium, and sulfur were
negative values. Correlations, of course, are not proof of a cause-
and-effect relationship, but they are suggestive. Some of these
relationships have been pointed out previously (9, 11, 14 ,16).

Discussion of Nitrogen and Mineral Analyses
From these studies several points that relate to the value of
nitrogen and ordinary mineral analyses in forage production
seem clear. Even thought the basic fertilization treatment was
the same, a number of factors influenced yield and chemical








Table 7.-Influence of cutting on yield and percentage content of nitrogen and minerals in the dry forage.
Yields, gms. N % of forage P % of forage K % of forage Ca % of forage S % of forage
Treatment cutting date cutting date cutting date cutting date cutting date cutting date

Pensacola bahiagrass 1956
May 31 July 3 May 31 July 3 May 31 July 3 May 31 July 3 May 31 July 3 May 31 July 3
Control 12.0 8.6 1.04 1.08 .20 .23 .60 .98 .31 .50 .54 .65
MEt 6.3** 9.6 2.37** 1.28** .37** .25 1.53** .82** .31 .46 .87** .54**

Floriland oats 1957
Jan. 3 Feb. 26 Jan. 3 Feb. 26 Jan. 3 Feb. 26 Jan. 3 Feb. 26 Jan. 3 Feb. 26 Jan. 3 Feb. 26
Control 32.0 37.3 1.91 1.50 .43 .24 2.76 1.35 .14 .24 .26 .21
Cu 26.0** 23.3** 2.42** 2.10** .58** .34** 3.62** 1.66** .13 .31** -30* .29**

White clover 1957
Feb. 1 March 7 Feb. 1 March 7 Feb. 1 March 7 Feb. 1 March 7 Feb. 1 March 7 Feb. 1 March 7
Control 11.5 18.2 3.70 4.30 .43 .41 3.95 2.49 .72 .78 .25 .19
S 11.3 8.6** 3.60** 3.17** .355** 5** 3.64* 2.70 .81** 1.06"* .20* .11**


March 31 May 10 March 31
Control 13.7 14.4 3.84
Mo 7.0e** 14.3 2.22**


White clover 1961
May 10 March 31 May 10 March 31 May 10 March 31
3.17 .30 2.19 1.06 .87
2.93 .30 2.58* 1.37* .97


May10 March 31 May10
1.05 .24 .26
.94 .23 -21**


t Micronutrients not applied.
* and ** Significantly different at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.







Table 8.-Coefficients of correlation betwe
grown on Leon fine sand where I



Crop and harvest date


Dixie 18 corn 5/10/56

Floriland oats 2/26/57

Pangolagrass 5/3/56

Coastal Bermudagrass 5/8/56

Pensacola Bahiagrass 7/3/56

Sweet yellow lupine 4/4/57

White clover 2/1/57

White clover 3/7/57

White clover 3/31/61

Ladino clover 3/30/61


en forage yield and percentage content of an element in the forage for a variety of crops
he element correlated was constant in the treatments.

Correlation between yield and percentage composition of element in forage

N P K Ca Mg S


- 0.68**

- 0.85**

- 0.82**

- 0.89**

- 0.25

+ 0.72**

- 0.06

+ 0.82**

+ 0.86**

+ 0.82**


- 0.65**

- 0.80**

- 0.66**

- 0.68**

- 0.42**

- 0.54**

- 0.30*

- 0.27*

- 0.54**

- 0.70**


- 0.87**

- 0.90**

- 0.73**

- 0.81**

- 0.72**

- 0.77**

- 0.71**

- 0.68**

- 0.59**

- 0.85**


+ 0.08

+ 0.28*

- 0.49**

- 0.63**

+ 0.27

+ 0.05

+ 0.19

- 0.48**

- 0.41**

- 0.65**


- 0.24

- 0.35**

+ 0.03

+ 0.45**

- 0.26

+ 0.16

+ 0.14

- 0.10

- 0.16

- 0.42**


- 0.57**

- 0.46

- 0.18

+ 0.24

- 0.60**

+ 0.30**

- 0.04

-0.08

- 0.38*

- 0.71**


* and ** Significantly different at the 5% and 1% levels, respectively.







composition of the crops. Different crops did not have the same
composition. The application of nitrogen, potassium, and other
elements to this infertile Leon fine sand increased the content
of these elements in the plants as would be expected. The yield
response and change in chemical composition of the forage to the
application of a nutrient often varied with cutting. This raises
the question of how a satisfactory sample of forage for chemical
analyses can be obtained. It was pointed out that micronutrient
deficiencies result in decreased yields and affected composition.
Generally an increase in yield resulted in a lower percentage con-
tent of an element in the forage when the element was applied
to the soil at a constant rate. Conditions do vary, and an exact
evaluation of the nitrogen and mineral content of forage without
chemical analyses is not possible; but even so, with information
about conditions, yields, and fertilization, it was possible to
predict reasonably well the nitrogen and mineral content of the
crop grown without doing the chemical analyses. In view of
this it is clear that nitrogen and ordinary mineral analyses of
plant material grown under the conditions of these experiments
is of limited value and not likely to give much new information
about the plant; nevertheless, it is a common practice to make
them. The primary value of such analyses probably is in evaluat-
ing the plant material for animal feed, but even these evaluations
have limitations. Since we are discussing principally plant rela-
tionships, we do not wish to go into this other than to point out
that one difficulty is in making certain the material analyzed is
representative of what the animal eats. In any case a careful
study should be made of which analyses are valuable before
making them.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A large number of experiments dealing with a variety of
crops have been conducted on virgin Leon fine sand in pot cul-
tures. Liming and different fertilizer treatments, involving both
major elements and micronutrients, were applied. The treat-
ments were from reagent grade chemicals; and either distilled
water or distilled water that was then passed through an ion
exchange demineralizer was used in growing the crops. The
growth of the crops was carefully observed, the weights of the
dry forage produced were obtained, and nitrogen and mineral
analyses of the forage grown in many of the experiments were
made. The conclusions are as follows:
1. Of the major elements, this soil was generally low in
available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and sulfur







for the growth of crops. As was expected, nitrogen was im-
portant for legumes mainly in getting the young plants started.
Calcium was more important for legumes than non-legumes ex-
cept that lupine did not seem to require a high level of this
element. Magnesium had relatively little effect on yields.
2. Of the micronutrients, copper greatly increased yields
of a number of non-legumes. Boron, zinc, manganese, and moly-
bdenum had no effect in this respect or the effect was slight.
Copper, boron, and molybdenum frequently increased consider-
ably the yields of legumes.
3. Seed yields of white clover were low where the plants
were not well supplied with phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur,
and few seed were produced where copper or boron was not
applied.
4. An application of any one of the major elements, when
the other elements in the treatment were constant, generally
increased the percentage content of that element in the forage.
This was not true for nitrogen on legumes, probably because of
symbiotic fixation of nitrogen.
5. The sodium content of pangolagrass was generally higher
than other crops.
6. The total amount of a nutrient in the plant was invari-
ably greater where a larger amount of the element was applied
to the soil.
7. The yield response to an application of an element to the
soil, as well as the chemical composition of the forage, often
varied with cutting.
8. There was some indication that copper or boron deficient
plants were more susceptible to cold damage.
9. A deficiency of a micronutrient resulting in a smaller
forage yield often resulted in a higher percentage of nitrogen or
minerals in the forage. The feed value of such forage is not
known.
10. The correlation between percentage content of an ele-
ment in the forage, when the element was applied at constant
rate, and yield of forage was in many cases a significant negative
value. Nitrogen for legumes was the general exception in which
case the correlations were positive values. This is thought to be
due to the symbiotic nitrogen fixation associated with the
growth of legumes.
11. By knowing the treatments and yields of the crops grown
under the controlled conditions of these experiments the nitrogen







and mineral content of the forage could be roughly predicted
without doing the chemical analyses.
12. Before making chemical analyses, a careful re-evaluation
and study should be made of what analyses will help solve a
particular research problem.



LITERATURE CITED

1. Blaser, R. E., W. E. Stokes, J. D. Warner, G. E. Ritchey, and G. B.
Killinger. 1945. Pastures for Florida. Fla. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull.
409. 78 p.
2. Bledsoe, Roger W., and R. E. Blaser. 1947. The influence of sulfur
on the yield and composition of clovers fertilized with different sources
of phosphorus. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39:146-152.
3. Blue, W. G., C. F. Eno, N. Gammon, Jr., and D. F. Rothwell. 1964.
Timing liming applications to obtain the maximum beneficial effect in
clover-grass pasture establishment on virgin flatwoods soils. Soil and
Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 24:162-166.
4. Blue, W. G., and Nathan Gammon, Jr., 1962. Grass or grass-clover?
Better Crops with Plant Food 46:6-13.
5. Blue, W. G., and N. Gammon, Jr. 1963. Difference in nutrient require-
ments of experimental pasture plots managed by grazing and clipping
techniques. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 23:152-161.
6. Drosdoff, Mathew, and D. Charles Nearpass. 1948. Quantitative
micro-determination of magnesium in plant tissue and soil extracts.
Anal. Chem. 20:673-674.
7. Fiskell, J. G. A., and H. W. Winsor, 1958. Frit may boost yield of
ladino on flatwoods soil. Fla. Agri. Exp. Sta. Res. Rept. 3 (No. 2):
14-15.
8. Gammon, Nathan, Jr. 1953. Sodium and potassium requirements of
Pangola and other pasture grasses. Soil Sci. 76:81-90.
9. Harris, Henry C. 1962. Effect of certain nutrients on growth and
chemical composition of legumes. Assoc. South. Agr. Workers, Inc.,
Proc. 59:80-81.
10. Harris, Henry C. 1962. Vanadium possibly a new necessary element
for plant growth. Asso. South. Agr. Workers, Inc., Proc. 59:80.
11. Harris, Henry C. 1963. Effect of micronutrient deficiencies on mineral
composition of certain plants and on animal and human nutrition. In
Symposium on Relation of Geology and Trace Elements to Nutritional
Problems. The Geological Society of America, New York (In press).
12. Harris, Henry C. 1963. Symptoms of nutritional deficiencies in plants.
Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 23:139-152.
13. Harris, Henry C. 1965. Micronutrient and major element experiments
effectively conducted with home-made facilities. Soil and Crop Sci.
Soc. Fla. Proc. 25:112-116.







14. Harris, Henry C. 1966. Effect of micronutrients and other deficiencies
on yield and mineral composition of forage crops. Proc. Tenth Int.
Grassland Congr. p. 175-178.
15. Harris, Henry C., Roger W. Bledsoe, and Fred Clark. 1954. The In-
fluence of micronutrients and sulfur on the yields of certain crops.
Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 14:63-80.
16. Harris, Henry C., and R. L. Gilman. 1956. Effect of mineral defi-
ciencies on yield and chemical nature of certain crops. Soil and Crop
Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 16:198-220.
17. Harris, Henry C., and R. L. Gilman. 1957. Effect of boron on peanuts.
Soil Sci. 84:233-242.

18. Horwitz, William (Editor). 1955. Official methods of analyses of the
association of official agricultural chemists. Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D. C. 1008 p.
19. Killinger, G. B., R. E. Blaser, E. M. Hodges, and W. E. Stokes. 1943.
Minor elements stimulate pasture plants. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 384.
12 p.
20. Neller, J. R. 1963. Comparisons of phosphorus fertilizers for pastures
on flatwoods soils in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 651. 12 p.

21. Neller, J. R., G. B. Killinger, D. W. Jones, R. W. Bledsoe, and H. W.
Lundy. 1951. Sulfur requirements of soils for clover-grass pastures
in relation to fertilizer phosphates. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull.
475. 32 p.

22. Roberston, W. K., L. C. Hammond and L. G. Thompspn, Jr., 1965.
Yield and nutrient uptake by corn (Zea mays L.) for silage on two
soil types as influenced by fertilizer, plant population and hybrids.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29:551-554.
23. Snell, Foster Dee, and Cornelia T. Snell. 1949. Colorimetric methods
of analysis (third edition, third printing, vol. 2). D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., New York. 950 p.
24. Wallace, A. T., G. B. Killinger, R. W. Bledsoe, and D. B. Duncan.
1957. Design, analysis and results of an experiment on response of
Pangolagrass and Pensacola bahiagrass to time, rate and source
of nitrogen. Fla. Agr. Exp. Tech. Bull. 581. 30 p.






APPENDIX
This appendix contains tables of complete treatments and
results for the 16 experiments conducted. Calcium carbonate,
calcium sulfate, or calcium lactate were mixed uniformly with
the soil. Other chemicals of a treatment were applied as a broad-
cast layer 3 inches below the surface. The treatments were
applied before seeding, except there were some top dressings
with nitrogen as indicated for the experiments.
The treatments were the same for the first five experiments.
The control treatment in these tests consisted of the following
chemicals in pounds per acre: Ca(C3H503)2 5H20, 800; CaS04
2H20, 740; KC1, 254; Ca(H2PO4)2 H20, 284; Mg(C2H0z2)2
4H20, 250; CO (NH2),, 278; ZnCI2, 10; CuC12 2H20, 10; MnCl2
4H20, 10; H3BOs, 2; and Na2Mo04 2H20, 0.4. The other treat-
ments indicated in the tables were the same as the control except
an element was removed or the level reduced by selecting chem-
icals. In the case of treatment 13 (low calcium), calcium sulfate
was not applied but an equivalent amount of sulfur was added in
such compounds as ammonium sulfate, potassium sulfate, and
magnesium sulfate. In treatment 14 (-S) no calcium sulfate was
applied, but an equivalent amount of calcium as calcium lactate
was substituted. In these experiments oats and corn had one,
bahiagrass two, and pangolagrass and bermudagrass three top
dressings of ammonium nitrate as the plants appeared to need it.
Each top dressing was one-half the nitrogen of the original
treatment before seeding.
In experiments 6 to 10 the complete or control treatment
was the same for all experiments except the legumes received
only half as much nitrogen as non-legumes. The control for
the non-legumes was the following chemicals (in pounds per
acre): CaCO3, 1800; CaSO42H2O, 800; KC1, 381; Ca(H2PP04)2
H20, 284; Mg(C2H302)2 4 4H20, 250; NH4NO3, 343; ZnC12, 10;
CuC1, 2H20, 10; MnCI2 4H20, 10; HBOs, 3; and Na2MoO4 *
2H20, 0.4. The 13 other treatments (indicated in the tables) were
varied from the control by selecting chemicals or not applying.
In treatment 13 (approximately 4/5 calcium) calcium sulfate
was not applied and the equivalent amount of sulfate was applied
in other forms. In treatment 14 (-S) calcium sulfate was not
applied and the equivalent amount of calcium was supplied as
lactate. In these experiments oats and corn had an additional
top-dressing of ammonium nitrate as they appeared to need it.
This was 1/ the nitrogen of the control treatment as indicated
above.







The control in experiments 11 and 12 consisted of the fol-
lowing chemicals (in pounds per acre) : CaC03, 1800; CaS04
2H20, 800; Ca(H2PO4)2 HO, 284; KC1, 381; Mg(C2Hs02)
4H20, 250; NH4NOS, 172; ZnCl2, 10; CuCl2 2H2O, 10; MnC2
4H20, 10; H3B03, 3; Na2MoO4 2HO0, 0.4; and CoC1, 6H10, 8.
Substitutions were made as indicated above, and V202C14 at 5
pounds per acre was added in treatment 8.
The treatments in experiments 13 and 14 were similar to
those in 11 and 12 except some of the rates and chemicals were
different. The control in this case had the following chemicals
(in pounds per acre) : CaCOs, 2400; CaSO4 2H20, 400;
Ca(H2P04)2 H20, 284; KC1, 381; Mg(CH02) )2 4110, 125;
NH4NO3, 115; ZnC12, 10; CuC12 2HO, 10; MnCL 4H20, 5;
H3BO0, 3; Na2MoO4 2H20, 0.4; CoC12 6H20, 1; and VOS04
2H20, 1. In treatment 2 (-S) calcium sulfate was deleted and
calcium lactate was used to supply an equivalent amount of
calcium.
Only six treatments were applied in experiments 15 and 16.
The control consisted of the following chemicals in pounds per
acre: CaCO3, 2400; CaSO4 2H20, 600; Ca(H2P04)2 H20, 284;
KC1, 381; Mg(C2H302)2 4H120, 125; NH4N03, 100; ZnS04 *
6H20, 8; CuC12 2HO0, 10; MnCL 4H20, 3; H1BO3, 3; Na2MoO *
2H20, 0.4; CoS04 7H10, 0.6; and VOS04 2H20, 0.6.
The seed for planting for all legumes were inoculated with
Rhizobium sp. Age of plants at harvest can be calculated from
seedling and cutting dates given in the tables.



Experiment 1. Mean dry weight of oat+ forage per pot.
Treatment Grams
1. Control 24.1
2. MEt 12.5
3. -CaSO, 16.9
4. Mo 23.4
5. Zn 24.2
6. Cu 13.3
7. -Mn 24.5
8. B 24.7
9. -Mg 22.3
10. 1/5 P 20.0
11. 1/5 K 9.5
12. 1/5 N 6.4
13. Low Ca 19.8
14. -S 18.7
LSD 5% 2.1
LSD 1% 2.8
t Floriland oats seeded 12/19/55 and harvested 3/23/56.
T Without micronutrients.








Experiment 2. Mean dry weight of

Grams
Treatment forage

1. Control 14.5
2. MEt 8.4
3. CaSO4 6.4
4. Mo 14.6
5. -Zn 14.3
6. Cu 8.4
7. -Mn 14.9
8. -B 13.7
9. Mg 12.6
10. 1/5 P 12.4
11. 1/5 K 9.5
12. 1/5 N 6.2
13. Low Ca 15.4
14. -S 6.8


cornt forage per pot and percentage composition of nitrogen and other elements.


Ca%


Mg%


LSD 5% 1.8 .30 .12 .23 .03 .08 .10 .02
LSD 1% 2.4 .40 .16 .31 .04 .12 .14 .03

t Dixie 18 corn seeded 3/29/56 and harvested 5/10/56.
t Without micronutrients.


S% NaS








Experiment 3. Mean dry yield of bahiagrasst forage per pot and percentage content of nitrogen and other elements at different har-
vest dates in 1956.

Grams at harvest date N % P %/ K %
Treatment 5/31 7/3 7/24 Total 5/31 7/3 5/31 7/3 5/31 7/3

1. Control 12.0 8.6 2.4 23.0 1.04 1.08 .20 .23 .60 .98
2. MET 6.3 9.6 3.2 19.1 2.37 1.28 .37 .25 1.53 .82
3. CaSO, 6.9 6.2 2.7 15.8 1.07 1.13 .25 .27 .38 .81
4. -Mo 11.5 8.2 2.6 22.2 1.04 1.05 .20 .23 .55 .90
5. -Zn 10.8 7.3 2.7 20.7 1.08 1.15 .21 .23 .58 .98
6. -Cu 11.0 8.3 3.0 22.3 1.59 1.16 .26 .24 .68 .80
7. Mn 12.0 7.6 2.8 22.4 1.08 1.11 .21 .25 .63 .96
8. B 12.4 7.0 2.7 22.1 1.04 1.17 .20 .25 .60 .95
9. -Mg 10.3 6.4 2.6 19.3 1.13 1.19 .21 .24 .71 .95
10. 1/5 P 10.3 5.6 2.6 18.4 1.01 .99 .06 .05 .63 .87
11. 1/5 K 8.6 4.9 2.0 15.5 1.28 1.43 .26 .28 .23 .41
12. 1/5 N 2.0 1.8 1.2 5.1 .83 .25 .26 1.35 1.66
13. Low Ca 11.4 8.3 2.9 22.6 1.00 1.06 .19 .24 .61 .78
14. -S 8.1 5.1 3.1 16.2 1.02 1.15 .20 .31 .54 .93

LSD 5% 1.8 1.1 0.6 1.9 .21 .04 .03 .03 .21 .09
LSD 1/ 2.4 1.5 .09 2.6 .28 .06 .04 .04 .29 .12

t Pensacola bahiagrass seeded 1/3/56.
$ Without micronutrients.








Experiment 3. (continued) Mean dry yield of bahiagrasst forage per pot and percentage content of nitrogen and other elements at
different harvest dates in 1956.

Ca % Mg % S % Na %
Treatment 5/31 7/3 5/31 7/3 5/31 7/3 5/31 7/3

1. Control .31 .50 .15 .10 .54 .65 .05 .03
2. -ME:: .31 .46 .27 .16 .87 .54 .14 .03
3. CaSO, .24 .30 .14 .13 .11 .08 .11 .04
4. -Mo .32 .45 .15 .10 .55 .57 .10 .03
5. -Zn .32 .53 .16 .09 .56 .70 .08 .04
6. Cu .33 .54 .23 .08 .53 .58 .15 .04
7. -Mn .33 .51 .15 .09 .50 .61 .08 .03
8. -B .30 .48 .14 .12 .57 .59 .08 .04
9. -Mg .35 .46 .09 .07 .59 .47 .08 .04
10. 1/5 P .31 .41 .16 .11 .52 .56 .08 .04
11. 1/5 K .35 .51 .26 .17 .69 .63 .07 .05
12. 1/5 N .28 .46 .10 .15 .88 .23 .07
13. Low Ca .21 .26 .21 .17 .68 .57 .07 .03
14. -S .28 .33 .16 .16 .07 .11 .07 .04

LSD 5c,/ .03 .05 .01 .03 .08 .04 .04 .01
LSD 1% .04 .07 .02 .04 .11 .05 .05 .02

t Pensacola bahiagrass seeded 1/3/56.
1 Without micronutrients.








Experiment 4. Mean dry yield of Pangolagrasst per pot and percentage


Grams at harvest date


N % P % K % Ca / Mg %


5/3 6/19 7/17 Total


Analyses on one harvest (5/3/56)


LSD 5, 5.1 7.9 3.2 9.0 .04 .03 .16 .03 .01 .02 .04
LSD 1( 6.8 5.9 4.3 12.0 .05 .04 .21 .04 .02 .03 .05


t Sprigged 1/20/56.
t Without micronutrients.


Treatment


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
bn 8.
-1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.


Na %


Control
- ME:l:
- CaSO,
- Mo
Zn
- Cu
- Mn
-B
- Mg
1/5 P
1/5 K
1/5 N
Low Ca
- S


content of nitrogen and other elements, 1956.








Experiment 5. Mean dry yield of Coastal Bermudagrasst per pot and percentage content of nitrogen and other elements, 1956.

Grams at harvest date N % P % K % Ca % Mg % S % Na %
Treatment 5/8 6/21 7/19 Total Analyses on one harvest (5/8/56)


1. Control
2. MEt
3. CaSO,
4. Mo
5. Zn
6. Cu
7. Mn
00 8. B

9. Mg
10. 1/5 P
11. 1/5 K
12. 1/5 N
13. Low Ca
14. S


43.8 45.4 14.6
43.6 43.3 13.0
17.3 9.0 4.2
43.2 48.7 13.5
39.5 45.0 14.3
41.5 44.7 14.5
42.0 45.1 12.8
44.6 45.6 14.5
39.1 44.2 13.9
39.9 27.3 8.6
37.3 30.2 4.1
9.8 13.1 5.0
42.1 43.3 12.2
17.7 10.9 5.4


LSD 5% 5.1 3.3 1.9 6.1 .17 .01 .07 .03 .01 .02 .01
LSD 1% 6.9 4.4 2.5 8.1 .22 .02 .10 .04 .02 .03 .02

t Sprigged 1/19/56.
SWithout micronutrients.


103.8
99.9
30.5
105.3
98.8
100.7
99.9
104.7
97.1
75.7
71.5
27.9
97.9
34.0


1.06
1.13
1.35
1.08
1.05
1.16
1.11
1.07
1.09
1.26
.37
1.38
.93
1.36








Mean dry yield in grams of Coastal
harvest dates in 1957.


Bermudagrasst per pot at


Date Date
Treatment 2/11 3/21 Total

1. Control 18.7 19.5 38.2

2. 1/4 N 10.5 6.8 17.3
3. 4 N 18.1 36.5 54.7
4. 1/5 P 15.9 19.4 35.2
5. 1/5 K 14.7 20.1 34.8
6. ME$ 17.7 19.1 36.8
7. Mo 18.2 19.1 37.3
8. Zn 17.7 19.6 37.3
9. Cu 16.1 20.8 36.8
10. Mn 18.3 20.1 38.4
11. B 16.8 20.3 37.1
12. Mg 15.6 22.7 38.4

13. 4/5 Ca 18.4 17.4 35.8
14. S 11.0 8.4 19.4

LSD 5% 1.8 2.4 2.2
LSD 1% 2.5 3.2 3.0

t Sprigged 11/16/56.
t Without micronutrients.


Experiment 6.








yield of Florilond oatt forage in grams per pot per cutting, and nitrogen and mineral content of the cuttings,


Harvest dates
1/3 2/26 Total


N %
1/3 2/26


P% K %o
1/3 2/26 1/3


Treatment


LSD 5% 2.4 4.5 .15 .08 .09 .04 .36 .15

LSD 1% 3.3 6.0 .21 .11 .12 .05 .48 .20

t Seeded 11/2/56.
t Without micronutrients.


Experiment 7.


Mean dry
1957.


1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.

o 8.
9.
10.

11.

12.
13.
14.


Control

1/4 N
4N
1/5 P

1/5 K
- ME
-Mo
-Zn
-Cu

-Mn
-B

-Mg
4/5 Ca
-S


69.3

30.6

95.5

63.8

48.3
44.3

70.5
71.5

49.3

72.0
70.8
69.8

67.1

51.8


1.91

1.48
4.94

1.97

2.10

2.79

1.88

1.90
2.42

1.87
1.90

1.95
2.05

2.30


2.76 1.35

2.80 2.31
2.71 .66

2.77 1.54

.66 .65

4.26 2.05

2.56 1.47

2.56 1.52
3.62 1.66
2.71 1.40

2.65 1.35

2.39 1.37
2.42 1.47

3.28 1.87








Experiment 7 (continued).


Treatment


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
S8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.


Control

1/4 N

4 N

1/5 P

1/5 K

- ME:T:

-Mo

- Zn

-Cu

- Mn

-B



4/5 Ca

-S


LSD 57/

LSD 1;


Na ',


2, 26


t Seeded 11/2/56.
t Without micronutrients.


Ca ,,


Mg /C


2/26


2/26

.20

.15

.27

.13

.41

.42

.22

.21

.37

.22

.23

.20

.22

.24


.04

.06








Mean dry yield in grams per pot of sweet yellow lupinef forage and nitrogen and mineral content.


Yield,
Treatment grams N % P % K % Ca % Mg % S % Na %


1.

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
cM 8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

13.
14.


Control

1/4 N

4N
1/5 P

1/5 K
- MET

- Mo

- Zn

- Cu
- Mn

-B

- Mg
4/5 Ca
- S


3.62

3.50

3.37
2.49
2.71

3.33

3.32

3.86

3.89

3.92
3.91

3.84

3.80

2.87


LSD 5% 2.4 .22 .03 .08 .10 .03 .09 .02
LSD 1% 3.2 .29 .04 .11 .13 .04 .12 .03

t Seeded 1/18/57 and harvested 4/4/57.
SWithout micronutrients.


Experiment 8.








Experiment 9. Mean dry yield in grams per pot of Louisiana white clovert on different harvest dates and nitrogen and mineral con-
tent, 1957.

Harvest date, grams N date P %, date K %, date
Treatment 2/1 3/7 4/29 Total 2/1 3/7 4/29 2/1 3/7 4/29 2/1 3/7 4/29

1. Control 11.5 18.2 30.6 60.2 3.7 4.30 2.65 .43 .41 .22 3.95 2.49 .81
2. 1/4 N 7.5 18.4 36.3 62.4 4.3 4.24 2.70 .45 .41 .22 4.46 2.67 .84
3. 4 N 19.0 20.2 28.3 67.5 4.3 3.94 2.80 .49 .37 .22 3.40 2.17 .68
4. 1/5 P 10.1 8.6 6.1 24.8 3.4 3.00 2.35 .21 .14 .18 3.59 2.65 2.31
5. 1/5 K 10.8 11.1 4.1 26.0 4.0 4.06 2.95 .41 .42 .75 2.38 .69 .46
6. MEt 5.6 4.7 19.3 29.6 4.1 2.93 2.85 .56 .48 .38 5.56 3.57 2.27
7. Mo 10.8 19.7 31.8 62.3 3.6 3.70 2.60 .37 .39 .22 3.43 2.53 .88
8. Zn 12.1 19.5 32.0 63.6 3.9 4.18 2.60 .42 .41 .20 3.80 2.58 .75
9. Cu 7.2 7.7 22.4 37.3 3.8 3.11 2.78 .50 .44 .38 5.12 3.47 1.78
10. Mn 12.8 20.7 27.8 61.3 4.1 4.07 2.83 .40 .36 .23 3.46 2.44 .78
11. B 10.2 16.5 32.5 59.2 3.7 3.97 2.88 .45 .38 .25 4.28 2.62 .91
12. Mg 11.8 18.5 26.3 56.6 3.8 4.18 2.75 .43 .39 .24 3.94 2.39 .81
13. 4/5 Ca 11.5 19.7 28.8 60.0 3.9 4.08 2.88 .40 .42 .22 3.33 2.73 .95
14. S 11.3 8.6 13.6 33.5 3.6 3.17 2.28 .35 .35 .32 3.64 2.70 1.88

LSD 5%/ 1.3 2.9 6.0 7.1 .07 .11 .09 .03 .03 .05 .30 .24 .18
LSD 1% 1.8 3.9 8.0 9.5 .10 .14 .12 .04 .04 .07 .40 .33 .25

t Seeded 1/7/56.
t Without micronutrients.








Experiment 9. Mean dry yield in grams per pot of Louisiana white clovert on different harvest dates and nitrogen and mineral con-
tent, 1957.

Ca %, date Mg %,date S %, date Na %, date
Treatment 2/1 3/7 4/29 2/1 3/7 4/29 2/1 3/7 4/29 2/1 3/7 4/29


1. Control
2. 1/4 N
3. 4 N

4. 1/5 P
5. 1/5 K
6. MET

co 7. Mo
8. Zn

9. Cu
10. Mn
11. B

12. Mg
13. 4/5 Ca
14. S


.72 .78
.65 .79
.70 1.06
1.00 .94
.99 1.38

.54 .97
.76 .96
.68 .81
.61 1.03
.68 .80
.67 .79
.72 .85
.49 .51
.81 1.06


LSD 5% .06 .18 .27 .02 .03 .02 .05 .03 .02 .03 .07 .03
LSD 1% .07 .23 .36 .03 .04 .03 .07 .04 .03 .04 .09 .04

t Seeded 1/7/56.
1 Without micronutrients.








Experiment 10.

Treatment


Mean dry yield in grams per pot of Dixie 18 cornt forage.

Grams


Control

1/4 N

4 N

1/5 P

1/5 K

- M E::

- Mo

- Zn

-Cu

- Mn

-B

-Mg

4/5 Ca

-S


LSD 5(;

LSD 1;

t Seeded 4/7/57 and harvested 5/20/59.
$ Without micronutrients.


4.5

6.0








Experiment 11. Mean dry yield in grams per pot and nitrogen and mineral content of ladino clovert forage by dates of harvest in
1961.


Grams, date N % P % K % Ca % Mg % S %
3/30 5/9 Total 3/30 5/9 3/30 5/9 3/30 5/9 3/30 5/9 3/30 5/9 3/30 5/9


33.9 37.5 71.4 4.07 3.43 .42 2.38 .68 .91 1.76 .42 .66 .25 .24
23.2 18.0 41.2 3.20 2.37 .33 2.60 1.48 1.07 1.32 .33 .53 .14 .10
26.9 40.8 67.7 3.71 3.48 .41 2.86 .82 1.02 1.74 .42 .65 .30 .27
35.1 42.9 77.9 4.13 3.55 .42 2.52 .74 .95 1.74 .37 .70 .27 .24
34.2 40.6 74.8 4.08 3.47 .38 2.52 .68 .91 1.71 .35 .68 .27 .25
23.1 42.7 65.8 2.86 3.32 .42 2.82 .98 1.08 1.70 .42 .65 .28 .25
32.3 41.4 73.7 4.24 3.25 .38 2.61 .83 .94 1.55 .44 .66 .25 .23
33.1 41.7 74.8 4.22 2.97 .41 2.53 .72 .98 1.68 .47 .68 .23 .22
5.9 0.9 6.8 2.67 .74 3.43 .34 .54 .56 .88


Treatment


1. Control
2. -S
3. Cu
4. -Zn
5. -B
6. -Mo
7. -Co
8. +V
9. CaCOa


LSD 5% 4.2 2.6 4.9 .38 .62' .10 .31 .39 .16 .23 .10 .06 .05 .03
LSD 1% 5.7 3.5 6.7 .58 .94 0.16 .46 .59 .24 .35 .15 .09 .08 .05

t Seeded 12/29/60.








Experiment 12. Mean dry yield in grams per pot and nitrogen and mineral content of Nolin's improved white clover by dates of
harvest, 1961.


Grams, date N ,; P % K % Ca % Mg % S (4
3/31 5/10 Total 3/31 5/10 3/31 5/10 3/31 5/10 3/31 5/10 3//10 3310 3/31 5/10


1. Control
2. -S
3. -Cu
4. -Zn
-i 5. -B
6. Mo
7. -Co
8. +V
9. CaCO,


13.7 14.4 28.0 3.84 3.17 .30
11.5 8.3 19.8 2.78 2.29 .27
10.5 12.9 23.3 3.71 3.02 .37
15.5 14.3 29.8 3.91 3.00 .30

14.0 13.1 27.1 3.83 2.88 .31
7.0 14.3 21.3 2.22 2.93 .30
13.6 14.2 27.8 3.86 3.16 .30
13.0 15.0 28.0 3.89 2.94 .28
4.7 1.0 5.7 1.47 .45


2.19 1.06 .87 1.05 .45 .51 .24 .26
1.93 1.05 1.01 1.22 .43 .56 .12 .07
2.15 .80 1.05 1.18 .50 .55 .25 .25
2.09 .84 .92 1.02 .46 .49 .24 .22
2.13 .86 .73 1.06 .45 .51 .22 .20
2.58 1.37 .97 .94 .44 .49 .23 .21
2.16 .73 .87 .92 .47 .46 .23 .22
2.00 .77 .80 .79 .49 .48 .23 .24
2.52 .21 .49 .32 .41


Treatment


LSD 5',K 2.0 2.2 2.6 .36 .35 .08 .39 .28 .21 .33 .06 .07 .05 .03
LSD 1,( 2.8 3.0 3.6 .55 .54 .13 .60 .43 .31 .50 .10 .11 .07 .04

t Seeded 12/30/60.








Experiment 13. Mean dry yield in
cuttings in 1962.


grams per pot of Hairy Peruvian alfalfa by


Grams, date
Treatment 4/9 5/14 Total

1. Control 27.9 34.1 62.0
2. -S 21.4 13.4 34.8
3. -Cu 15.0 9.8 24.7
4. -Zn 28.7 36.3 65.0
5. -B 20.2 14.0 34.1
6. Mo 26.3 25.7 51.9
7. -Co 27.0 31.7 58.7
8. -V 28.8 38.6 67.4
9. 1/2 CaCO:, 21.9 20.7 42.5

LSD 5% 4.6 11.9 12.8
LSD 1% 7.0 18.2 19.4

I Seeded 1/5/62.









Experiment 14. Mean dry yield in grams per pot of ladino clover'; by cuttings
in 1962.

Grams, date
Treatment 4/10 5/14 Total

1. Control 39.0 28.1 67.1
2. -S 33.4 20.3 53.7
3. -Cu 34.9 29.6 64.5
4. Zn 38.9 29.7 68.6
5. B 37.4 29.4 66.9
6. -Mo 39.5 30.3 69.8
7. -Co 41.0 30.6 71.6
8. V 39.2 30.3 69.5
9. 1/2 CaCO: 34.1 27.5 61.6

LSD 5% 3.3 5.2 7.0
LSD 1% 5.0 7.8 10.7

t Seeded 1/5/62. California grown FC 36250 seed.








Mean dry yield in grams per
white clover.t


Treatment

1. Control
2. -Cu
3. -B
4. -Mo
5. -Co
6. -V


Experiment 15.


17.7 32.2


LSD 5% 2.1 2.4 3.5
LSD 1% 2.8 3.3 4.7

t Seeded 1/11/63.


Experiment 16. Mean effect of treatment on two lines corn forage.t
Grams dry forage Grams dry forage
Treatment F6(a) line L 576 (fert.) line

1. Control 11.3 11.8
2. -Cu 6.2 6.8
3. -B 13.0 13.5
4. -Mo 11.2 11.4
5. -Co 10.9 11.7
6. -V 11.2 12.4

LSD 5% 3.3 2.8
LSD 1% 5.2 4.4

tCorn seeded 4/11/63 and harvested 5/10/63.


pot per cutting of Louisiana S-1


Grams, date
5/7 Total

15.4 32.5
0.7 2.7
7.3 13.3



































PAI E'07




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs