• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Literature cited
 Tables






Group Title: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Agronomy Department ; AY-91-03
Title: Diagnosis of phenotypically observed potassium deficiency in soybean
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056110/00001
 Material Information
Title: Diagnosis of phenotypically observed potassium deficiency in soybean
Physical Description: 18 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Shrefler, James William, 1953-
Gallaher, Raymond N
Sartain, J. B ( Jerry Burton ), 1945-
University of Florida -- Agronomy Dept
Publisher: Department of Agronomy, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1991?]
 Subjects
Subject: Soybean -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Deficiency diseases in plants -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: J.W. Shrefler, R.N. Gallaher, and J.B. Sartain.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 6-8).
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: Chiefly tables.
General Note: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Agronomy Department ; AY-91-03
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056110
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62596334

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Literature cited
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Tables
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
Full Text

^34/y
6 <$-
Central Science
Agronomy Research Report AY-91-(0 ) Lr

Diagnosis of Phenotypically Obs rved als'iA9Iueficiency in
Soyb an

J. W. Shrefler(1), R. N. Gallaherd(1) a i.of oirtaih(2). (i)
Graduate Research Assistant and Profe-ssor of A-ro-oiy, and (2)
Professor of Soil Science, Departments of Agronomy and Soil
Science, Respectively, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.


ABSTRACT

Soil and plant analysis are valuable techniques in the
diagnosis of nutrition related field problems in Soybean (Glycine
max (L.) Merr). In a field where K fertility in double cropped rye
(Secale cereale L.) / Soybean was previously researched, residual
K fertility variation was evident in that the appearance of
soybeans grown at the site ranged from healthy to severely stunted
and chlorotic (symptomatic). In order to assess the causes) of
this varied plant growth, plant mineral nutrient status and soil
chemical factors were analyzed. Four study sites were selected
within the field such that each had healthy and symptomatic crop
stands within close proximity. At the early reproductive stage of
development (R2 growth stage) plants were harvested and soil was
sampled. Plants were separated into roots, and upper and lower
shoots. Shoots were further separated into stems, leaves and
petioles. Each of these plant parts were analyzed for
concentrations of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Fe and Mn. In addition
to these elements, soil was analyzed for pH, organic matter and Al.
Dry weight of healthy soybean was 45% greater than that of
symptomatic ones. Potassium conc. were as much as 71% higher in
healthy than deficient plants, with the greatest differences
occurring for upper petioles and upper leaves. Conversely, P, Zn,
Ca and Mn conc. were greater in deficient than in healthy plants.
Plant Mg, Fe and Cu did not differ between healthy and deficient
plants. Interactions were found between plant parts and all of
the nutrients except Zn, Fe and Cu. Soil was found to differ only
in K, being lower at sites of symptomatic plants. There was good
correlation of soil to plant K conc. in healthy but not deficient
plants. Thus, inadequate K seems to be an underlying
characteristic of the malady found in the soybean crop.


INTRODUCTION

Residual K from previous crops can be important to the growth
of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) on sandy soils of central
Florida (Million et al., 1989; Ortiz and Gallaher, 1987). At a
site where fertility management in a no-tillage double-cropping
system was previously studied, soybean growth was found to be quite









variable 3-yr later. Symptoms on poorer growing plants appeared to
be those of K deficiency (Sprague, 1964). In order to assess
whether residual soil nutrient status would explain the variable
plant growth observed, a study of the nutrient composition of
plants and soil at this site was undertaken. Specific objectives
were to determine how the condition in question affected
accumulated soybean plant biomass, N and mineral composition for
various plant parts. Relationships of plant nutrients and soil
minerals and N were also determined.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant material and soil used in this study were obtained from
the Green Acres Research Farm of the University of Florida located
at Gainesville, Florida. The soil is a Grossarenic Paleudult (Soil
Service Staff, 1984) on which rye (Secale cereale L.) / Soybean
have been double cropped for 14-yr (Ortiz and Gallaher, 1987) and
for which chemical and physical properties have been documented
(Ortiz, 1985). During the winter of 1988-89, the location of the
study had been cropped with 'Wrens abruzzi' rye which was planted
20 Nov. 1988. It was topdressed with 80 Kg N ha-1 as ammonium
nitrate with 0.3 of the total amount being applied at planting and
the remainder at early boot stage. Rye was harvested 10 May 1989
and yielded 1076 Kg ha'1. Soybeans of the variety Centennial were
planted 20 May 1989 into rye straw in 0.25 m wide rows using a no-
tillage Tye drill. The herbicides alachlor (2-chloro-2'-6'-
diethyl-N-(mehthoxymethyl) acetanilide) and paraquat (1,1'-
dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride) were applied preplant at
recommended rates. On August 2, when plants were flowering and pod
set was incipient (R2 stage, Fehr and Caviness, 1977), four pairs
of plots measuring 1 m were selected for study. Each pair was
comprised of one plot in which leaf margins were chlorotic and
necrotic (symptomatic condition) and the other in which these
symptoms were absent (healthy condition). All plants in each of
the plots were harvested and separated into upper leaves, lower
leaves, upper petioles, lower petioles, upper shoots, lower shoots
and roots. Samples were then washed, dried at 70 C in a forced air
oven, weighed and ground. The various ground plant parts were
analyzed for total N using micro-Kjeldahl procedures (Bremmer, J.
M., 1965) and techniques described by Gallaher et al., 1975 and
Gallaher et al. 1976. Samples were dry ashed in a muffle furnace
and boiled to dryness in 0.1 N HC1 solution. Samples were then
rehydrated, brought to volume and stored in 0.1 N HC1. Mineral
nutrients were extracted using double acid (Mehlich, 1953). The P
was analyzed colorimetrically, K by emission spectroscopy and Ca,
Mg, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Healthy
and symptomatic treatments were analyzed as a randomized complete
block design (RCBD) using techniques given by Steel and Torrie
(1980).
Soil samples were taken 2 August 1989 in each plot at 0 to 10,
0 to 20 and 0 to 40 cm depths. Air dried samples were sieved to









pass a 2 mm mesh screen and analyzed for pH, organic matter (OM)
and the Mehlich I (Mehlich, 1953) extractable elements P, K, Ca,
Mg, Cu, Mn, Fe, Zn and Al. Elements were determined as described
for plant material. Total soil N analysis was made as described
for plant material. Soil data were analyzed as a RCBD with SPTA.
Main plots were plant condition and sub plots were soil sample
depth. Correlation of soil and plant part elemental concentrations
were tested for healthy and deficient plants using the PROC CORR
procedure (SAS Institute Inc, 1985).


RESULTS

Leaves, lower stems and roots were the main contributors to
total soybean plant dry weight (table 1). Dry weight of plants
expressing symptoms was 45 % less than that of healthy plants. In
general this relationship held for individual plant parts with the
greatest deviation occurring for roots, in which case the reduction
was 20 %.
Substantial variation in K concentration occurred among
different plant parts (table 2). The overall tendency was for
greater K concentration in healthy plant parts, with the increase
being as great as 240%. The greatest differences in K
concentrations between the plant conditions healthy and symptomatic
occurred for upper leaves and upper petioles.
Nitrogen concentration in plant parts varied as much as four
fold, being greatest in leaves and upper stems (table 3). There
was no great overall effect on N concentration in plants due to
condition. An interaction between plant parts and condition was
found for N with 25% more being found in upper stems, and 13% less
in lower leaves of symptomatic plants as compared to healthy
plants.
Plants of the symptomatic condition were generally found to
have increased plant P concentrations (table 4). Significant
differences were found for lower petioles and upper stems, leaves
and petioles and represented increases of 16 to 28 % more P in the
symptomatic plants.
Concentrations of Ca and Mg varied with plant part (tables 5
and 6) in a similar manner for the two elements. In general, Ca
and Mg concentrations in plant tissue were not influenced by plant
condition to any great extent. The only differences found were
increased Ca in symptomatic plants, with 26% more being found in
upper stems, 18% more in lower leaves and 1% more in upper petioles
of healthy plants.
Copper and Fe concentrations differed between plant parts
(tables 7 and 8). Iron concentration in roots was particularly
high compared to other plant parts (table 7). Concentrations of
these elements were not influenced by plant condition (tables 7 and
8). Zinc and Mn concentrations varied by as much as three and five
fold, respectively, among the different plant parts (tables 9 and
10). Concentrations of these elements showed a general tendency of
being higher in the various plant parts, with the exception of









roots, for the plants of the symptomatic condition. For Mn there
was an interaction between plant parts and deficiency symptoms,
indicating that all plant parts were not equally affected by the
condition causing the deficiency symptoms.
Soil chemical analysis data from each of the plots of healthy
and symptomatic soybeans are given in Table 11. Of the various
factors analyzed; elements, pH and organic matter (OM), only K
concentration was found to differ for the healthy versus
symptomatic conditions. Soil K was 67% greater where the healthy
plants were growing. The effect of soil sampling depth is shown in
Table 12. No interactions were found between plant condition and
sampling depth. Nitrogen, K and OM differed significantly, each
being inversely related to sampling depth. Iron and Al extractable
levels increased with sampling depth.
Correlation coefficients of nutrient levels in soil to those
in plant parts, for healthy and deficient soybean plants, are given
in table 13 for macronutrients and table 14 for micronutrients.
Each correlation is based on data of the four replicates. At least
one significant correlation was found for each of P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn
and Fe. Correlations were usually positive although negative ones
occurred for K in deficient plants and for Ca in healthy plants.
For given element x plant part combinations, correlations were
found for either healthy or deficient plants but not for both.


DISCUSSION

The large reduction in accumulated dry matter associated with
the plants exhibiting symptoms suggestive of K deficiency indicates
that plants were lacking in some critical growth factors) over a
prolonged period of time. In a study with determinate soybean
varieties (Terman, 1977), K deficiency symptoms were similarly
found associated with stunted plant growth. Of the mineral
nutrients considered in the current study, K was found in healthy
plants in concentrations more than three times greater than those
of symptomatic plants. Plants with symptoms had lower K
concentrations. Hanway and Weber (1971) studied the distribution
of mineral nutrient levels over time in soybean plants. At early
stages of reproductive growth, which would correspond to the
development achieved by plants used in the curre t study, plant
tissue K concentrations ranged from 10 to 30 g Kg- among leaves,
stems and petioles. Terman (1977) found K concentrations in plants
at this growth stage to be 10 g Kg- or less for plants showing K
deficiency while concentrations ranged from 10 to 20 g Kg-1 for
healthy plants. According to Jones (1974), 20 to 25 g K Kg-1 in
upper mature soybean leaves prior to initial seed set indicates
sufficient K for plant growth. In the current study, average K
concentrations observed across the various plant parts ranged from
2 to 12.8 g Kg" Specific cases may exist where lower K
concentrations are adequate, as was found in a study by Bell et al.
(1987) in which about 12 g Kg- in uppermost leaf blades was found
to be the critical concentration for dry matter production. Thus









even the healthier plants of this study had somewhat lower K
concentrations than were found in healthy plants of studies by
Hanway and Weber (1971) and by Terman (1977). Values given by
Terman (1977) are likewise lower than what Jones (1974) considers
sufficient. Pulvini located at the base of petioles have been
found to contain high levels of K relative to other plant parts
(Hanway and Weber, 1971). These structures are involved in leaf
movement which is functionally related to K fluxes in and out of
cells (Esau, 1977). This K movement results in differential turgor
pressures in cells causing cell contraction and expansion and
ultimately leaf movement. Pulvini were not considered as
individual plant parts in the current study and they were probably
included with the petioles. This could explain the high K levels
found in upper petioles.
Position of plant parts influenced the K levels found in plant
tissue. Plants with deficiency symptoms had especially low K
concentrations in upper leaves and upper petioles as compared to
their healthy counterparts. In lower leaves and petioles, however,
these differences were less pronounced. For each of healthy and
symptomatic plants, decreased K in lower versus upper leaves and
petioles can be attributed to the re-mobilization of K to the
physiologically more active tissue (Mengel and Kirkby, 1987).
Of the other elements considered in this study, only Cu levels
in upper mature leaves were not within the ranges considered
sufficient for soybeans (Jones, 1974). Values of 4 to 5 mg Kg-
were obtained while the sufficiency range of Jones (1974) is 6 to
30 mg Kg-. These differences may be due to instrument
standardization (R. N. Gallaher, personal communication)1.
Although differences were not found for Cu between healthy and
symptomatic plants, the fact that Cu tended to be greater in leaves
of the latter indicates that inadequate Cu was not the underlying
cause of the poor plant growth. Since Cu levels were borderline it
may be that Cu would fall to deficient levels as a more limiting
factor is overcome.
For each of the elements considered in this study, their
occurrence was found to vary with plant part. Nutrient levels were
typically found to be greatest in leaves and upper stems. This
would be expected as these are regions of high photosynthetic and
general metabolic activity (Goodwin and Mercer, 1988). High N
levels, for example, would be expected in these plant parts due to
their high contents of N containing chlorophylls and enzymes. On
the other hand, lower N levels occur in petioles, lower stems and
roots since N would be transported through these plant parts
without being utilized extensively within them (Mengel and Kirkby,
1987). The dramatic difference in Fe levels in roots versus other
plant parts may be due to soil particles on the root (Jones, 1974).
Soil residues were not readily removed from roots during
preparation for nutrient analysis.

1R. N Gallaher, Professor, Department of Agronomy, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.









Relationships between plant condition and tissue levels for
the various elements evaluated varied greatly. Magnesium, Cu and
Fe had very little effect. Cases of both increased and decreased
nutrient concentration were found associated with symptomatic
plants. These symptomatic plants were generally higher than
healthy ones in all nutrients except K, which was lower. Hallmark
and Barber (1981) found a similar response to decreased K supply
for Ca and Mg in soybean seedlings. Because deficient plants were
greatly stunted, these increases in nutrient concentration may in
part be attributed to a lesser amount of dilution, due to decreased
plant growth, as discussed by Mengel and Kirkby, 1987.
Soil K level proved to be a principal factor differing between
plots of healthy and deficient soybean plants, while other factors
considered in the study were not found to differ. Relationships
between soil and plant nutrient levels are reflected in the
correlations shown in tables 13 and 14. Healthy plants were
apparently more efficient at utilizing soil K than were deficient
ones, resulting in plant K being closely related to soil K in
healthy plants but not deficient ones. Other correlations found
are less easily explained. In general, the correlations found with
cations in deficient plants (e. g. Mg, Mn and Fe) may be a
reflection of increased availability of cation uptake and transport
routes due to the paucity of K. The occurrence of positive and
negative correlations for Ca suggests that underlying factors
influencing Ca in soybean under varied K availability may be more
complex than those suggested for the previously discussed
interactions.


CONCLUSIONS

The phenotypically observed K deficiency that was studied was
associated with a substantial decrease in accumulated plant
biomass. Based on soil and plant nutrient concentration analysis
low K availability provided an explanation for the observed
condition. Thus, after 3-yr without any addition of K fertilizer
to this site, it appears that differences still remain in the
residual soil K resulting from prior management practices.


LITERATURE CITED

Bell, R. W., D. Brady, D. Plaskett and J. F. Lonergan. 1987.
Diagnosis of potassium deficiency in soybean. J. of Plant Nutr.
10(9-16) 1947-1953.

Bremmer, J. M. 1965. Total nitrogen. p. 1149-1178. In C. A.
Black (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Esau, K. 1977. Anatomy of Seed Plants. Wiley., New York.









Fehr, W. R. and C. E. Caviness. 1977. Stages of soybean
development. Special Report 80. Cooperative Extension Service,
Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa.

Gallaher, R. N., C. O. Weldon, and F. C. Boswell. 1976. A
semiautomatic procedure for total nitrogen in plant and soil
samples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:887-889.

Gallaher, R. N., C. O. Weldon, and J. G. Futral. 1975. An
aluminum block digester for plant and soil analysis. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 39:803-806.

Goodwin, T. W. and E. I. Mercer. 1983. Introduction to Plant
Biochemistry. Pergamon Press., Oxford. 677 pp.

Hallmark, W. B. and S. A. Barber. 1981. Root growth and
morphology, nutrient uptake, and nutrient status of soybeans as
affected by soil K and bulk density. Agronomy J. 73 779-782.

Hanway, J. J. and C. R. Weber. 1971. N, P, and K percentages in
soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) plant parts. Agronomy J. 63 286-
290.

Jones, J. Benton, Jr. 1974. Plant Analysis Handbook for Georgia.
Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. of Georgia, Athens. Bulletin
735.

Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na and NH4.
North Carolina Soil Test Division (Mimeo, 1953). North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.

Mengel, K. and E. A. Kirby. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition.
International Potash Institute. Bern, Switzerland. 687 pp.

Million, J. B., J. B. Sartain, R. B. Forbes, and N. R. Usherwood.
1989. Effects of residual and applied K on soybean nodulation,
root growth, pod formation and K and N composition. Commun. In
Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 20(11&12) pp 1069-1084.

Ortiz, R. A. 1985. Soil chemical and physical properties affected
by oat/soybean versus oat/grain sorghum double cropping and
tillage. Masters Thesis. University of Florida.

Ortiz, R. A. and R. N. Gallaher. 1987. Rye and soybean response
to potassium and nitrogen fertilization in a no-tillage double-
cropping system. Agronomy Research Report AY-87-07.

SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version
6 Edition. Cary, NC:SAS Institute Inc., 1985. 378 pp.

Soil Service Staff. 1984. Official series description of the









Arredondo series. United States Government Printing Office, Wash.
D. C.

Sprague, H. B. 1964. Hunger Signs in Crops. David McKay Co., New
York. 461 pp.

Steel, R. D. G. and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures
of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.

Terman, G. L. 1977. Yields and nutrient accumulation by
determinate soybeans, as affected by applied nutrients. Agronomy
J. 69 234-238.


Table 1. Dry matter yield of soybean plant parts as influenced by
healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition

Healthy Symptomatic

-- percent of total weight --
upper stem 4.92 4.60 n9l

lower stem 24.73 24.21 **
upper leaves 18.48 16.46 **
lower leaves 20.34 22.52 **
upper petioles 6.25 4.60 ns
lower petioles 9.04 7.26 *
roots 16.22 20.34 *
------------ g-2 ---
whole plant 188.00 103.25 *
Condition (whole plot) cv = 21.7%.
1/ Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.05
or 0.01 if followed by or **, respectively.










Table 2. Potassium concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition


Healthy


Symptomatic


----- g kg1----
upper stem 10.5 7.3 *1/
lower stem 3.9 1.6 ns
upper leaves 11.3 5.7 **
lower leaves 6.6 3.9 ns
upper petioles 12.8 3.7 **
lower petioles 5.2 2.0 *
roots 3.3 2.5 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 21.7%.
1/ Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.05
or 0.01 if followed by or **, respectively.


Table 3. Nitrogen concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition


upper stem
lower stem
upper leaves
lower leaves
upper petioles
lower petioles
roots
Condition (whole plot)
1/ Values within a row
if followed by **.


Healthy Symptomatic
---- g kg1 ---
19.70 24.25 **1/
8.95 8.47 ns
46.90 44.65 ns
37.08 32.65 **
12.80 14.60 ns
08.45 10.32 ns
11.25 11.07 ns
cv = 3.9%.
are significantly different at alpha = 0.01









Table 4. Phosphorus concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition

Healthy Symptomatic
---- g kg1--
upper stem 3.25 3.92 **/
lower stem 2.15 2.10 ns
upper leaves 3.67 4.25 **
lower leaves 2.68 2.95 ns
upper petioles 2.50 2.90 **
lower petioles 1.92 2.45 **
roots 2.30 2.53 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 2.5%.
1/ Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.01
if followed by **.


Table 5. 'Calcium concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition


Heal


Lthy Symptomatic
----- g kg- ----


S1/


upper stem 7.88 9.98 *
lower stem 6.25 4.35 ns
upper leaves 10.02 11.70 ns
lower leaves 15.32 18.10 **
upper petioles 11.00 11.85 **
lower petioles 13.65 13.05 ns
roots 3.80 3.52 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 7.7%.
Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.05 or
0.01 if followed by or **, respectively.









Table 6. Magnesium concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition


Healthy


Symptomatic


stem
stem
leaves
leaves
petioles
petioles


----- g kg-1
5.00
3.45
5.02
5.72
5.02
5.82
2.93


Condition (whole plot) cv = 4.4%.
1/ Values within a row are not significantly different at alpha =
0.05.


Table 7. Iron concentration of soybean plant parts as influenced
by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition


upper stem
lower stem
upper leaves
lower leaves
upper petioles
lower petioles
roots
Condition (whole plot)
1/ Values within a row
0.05.


Healthy Symptomatic
---- mg kg ---
72.5 62.5 ns1/
80.0 77.5 ns
110.0 92.5 ns
130.0 135.0 ns
62.5 60.0 ns
50.0 72.5 ns
487.5 335.0 ns
cv = 27.9%.
are not significantly different at alpha =


upper
lower
upper
lower
upper
lower
roots


4.25
2.58
5.45
7.72
4.85
5.60
3.00


nsl/
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns









Table 8. Copper concentration of soybean plant parts as influenced
by healthy versus symptomatic condition.


Plant Part


Condition
Healthy Symptomatic
--- mg kg- --


upper stem 3.50 3.75 nsl/
lower stem 2.75 2.75 ns
upper leaves 4.25 5.00 ns
lower leaves 4.00 6.00 ns
upper petioles 4.25 4.75 ns
lower petioles 2.50 2.75 ns
roots 4.00 4.00 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 6.9%.
1/ Values within rows are not significantly different at ali
0.05.


pha =


Table 9. Zinc concentration of soybean plant parts as
by healthy versus symptomatic condition.


Plant Part


influenced


Condition


Healthy Symptomatic
----- mg kg ---
upper stem 35.3 47.0 **1/
lower stem 14.5 17.8 ns
upper leaves 50.5 56.3 ns
lower leaves 46.5 56.0 *
upper petioles 33.0 43.5 **
lower petioles 21.5 33.3 **
roots 21.0 21.0 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 3.8%.
1/ Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.05
or 0.01 if followed by or **, respectively.









Table 10. Manganese concentrations in soybean plant parts as
influenced by healthy versus symptomatic condition.
Plant Part Condition
Healthy Symptomatic
---- mg kg --
upper stem 30.50 55.50 **1/
lower stem 15.50 24.75 ns
upper leaves 60.75 96.75 ns
lower leaves 75.25 124.00 **
upper petioles 25.75 37.00 ns
lower petioles 31.00 60.25 ns
roots 28.25 23.75 ns
Condition (whole plot) cv = 8.6%.
1/ Values within a row are significantly different at alpha = 0.05
or 0.01 if followed by or **, respectively.


Table 11. Analysis of soil from healthy and symptomatic regimes averaged over
three sampling depths.




So6ybean Mehlich I extractable concentration 1
Condition g kg"- mg kg"- pH OM%
_N P K Ca Mg Zn Cu Mn Fe 2 Al

healthy .05 31 17 382 41 0.8 0.1 3.4 6.9 190 6.2 1.42

symptomatic .05 40 10 396 35 1.0 0.2 3.0 7.6 217 6.1 1.49
ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns


1 Values in column followed by asterisk are significantly different at alpha=.05









Table 12. Analysis of soil from three sampling depths averaged over the healthy
and symptomatic regimes.

Mehlich I extractable concentration
Depth g kg^ ma kg pH OM%
(cm) N P K Ca Mg Zn Cu Mn Fe Al

0 10 0.06a 35a 15a 410a 43a 0.97a 0.17a 3.1a 7.0a 185a 6.1a 1.77a

0 20 0.05b 36a 14a 394a 38a 0.91a 0.14a 2.6a 7.0a 206b 6.2a 1.42b

0 40 0.04b 36a 13b 363a 35a 0.90a 0.13a 4.0a 7.8b 219b 6.2a 1.21c

1. Within column values followed by the same letter are not significantly
different based on Duncan's New Multiple Range Test at alpha=0.05. No
letters follow columns within which no differences were found.


Table 13. Correlation coefficients (R) of macronutrient element concentrations in soil
versus plant tissue. 1/ 2/

R
PLANT PART N P K Ca Ma

H S H S H S H S H S
upper stem 0.30 -0.82 -0.19 -0.72 0.50 0.12 -0.63 0.37 0.06 0.97a
lower stem 0.61 0.51 0.19 0.98a 0.98a 0.58 0.93b 0.86 0.79 0.83
upper leaves 0.64 0.64 -0.10 0.36 0.90 0.60 -0.96a 0.85 0.85 0.57
lower leaves 0.87 -0.31 -0.81 0.03 0.93b 0.52 -0.17 0.96a 0.89 0.53
upper petioles 0.03 -0.18 0.08 0.32 0.98a 0.80 -0.95a 0.84 0.83 0.75
lower petioles -0.06 0.46 0.93b 0.21 0.96a 0.44 0.13 0.16 0.87 0.64
roots 0.67 0.71 0.42 -0.72 0.42 -0.93b 0.83 0.74 0.50 0.20

1/ H and S indicate healthy and symptomatic conditions, respectively.
2/ Probability that correlations are not equal to zero are <0.05 for values followed by a and
<0.1 for values followed by b.









Table 14. Correlation coefficients of micronutrient element concentrations in soil
versus plant tissue. 1/ 2/


PLANT PART


H

H S


Cu

H S


Mn

H S


Fe

H S


upper stem
lower stem
upper leaves
lower leaves
upper petioles
lower petioles
roots


-0.47
0.83
0.50
0.59
0.61
0.45
0.74


0.54
0.33
0.80
-0.01
0.89
0.36
-0.84


-0.26
-0.26
-0.63
0
-0.26
-0.26


-0.13
0.91
0.89
0.90b
0.87
0.87
0.43


0.68
0.95b
0.93b
0.67
0.93b
0.81
0.24


-0.68
0.73

0.76
0.51
0.32
0.77


0.98a
0.29
0.94b
0.84
0.20
-0.09
0.07


1/ H and S indicate healthy and symptomatic condition, respectively.
2/ Probability that correlations are not equal to zero are <0.05 for values followed
by a and <0.1 for values followed by b.


Appendix. Raw data for soybean K deficiency diagnosis study.

Table 1. Plant part raw datal.


5
2.16
1.79
1.98
1.95
1.08
0.82
0.81
0.87
4.83
4.62
4.78


6
0.75
0.85
0.76
0.79
1.18
0.47
0.39
0.46
0.94
1.04
1.05


7
0.55
0.37
0.55
0.53
0.38
0.39
0.27
0.34
0.53
0.52
0.44


8
1.22
1.33
1.04
0.6
0.51
0.4
0.33
0.32
1.36
1.14
1.07


9 10 11 12
0.31 31 4 21
0.34 44 3 56
0.31 28 2 18
0.34 38 5 27
0.22 16 3 11
0.21 14 3 13
0.22 16 3 28
0.21 12 2 10
0.38 51 4 34
0.37 53 5 58
0.37 59 5 110


13
120
40
50
80
100
110
70
40
110
110
110


1 2
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
1 1
2 1
3 1









4.53
4.17
3.68
3.49
3.49
1.38
1.15
1.28
1.31
0.89
0.79
0.82
0.88
1.14
1.50
0.95
0.91
2.34
2.61
2.24
2.51
0.90
0.79
0.87
0.83
4.34
4.62
4.63
4.27
3.33
3.36
3.17
3.2
1.47
1.56
1.41
1.4


0.98
1.53
1.64
1.45
1.51
1.06
1.12
1.11
1.11
1.37
1.40
1.31
1.38
0.40
0.37
0.38
0.37
0.98
0.98
0.85
1.18
0.35
0.45
0.41
0.54
1.02
1.17
1.22
1.27
1.71
1.87
1.77
1.89
1.09
1.18
1.2
1.27


0.52
0.63
0.59
0.46
0.61
0.56
0.53
0.36
0.56
0.67
0.65
0.42
0.59
0.35
0.2
0.27
0.35
0.41
0.36
0.35
0.58
0.3
0.22
0.22
0.29
0.65
0.5
0.47
0.56
0.96
0.69
0.65
0.79
0.6
0.42
0.38
0.54


0.94
0.78
0.61
0.59
0.64
1.95
1.21
0.98
0.96
0.71
0.46
0.42
0.47
0.46
0.17
0.37
0.32
0.69
0.72
0.7
0.81
0.17
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.56
0.53
0.56
0.64
0.4
0.38
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.34
0.36
0.37


0.35
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.26
0.23
0.26
0.25
0.21
0.2
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.4
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.19
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.31
0.32
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.31
0.26
0.34


41
43
78
130
50
14
23
48
18
17
30
55
22
13
58
30
12
50
66
65
41
18
26
36
19
73
100
140
74
120
130
160
86
28
39
53
28


110
110
170
120
120
80
100
30
40
50
60
40
50
360
990
300
300
100
50
50
50
90
110
60
50
120
90
80
80
160
110
140
130
70
100
40
30









1 2 6 8 1.04 1.28 0.7 0.22 0.25 36 3 49 70
2 2 6 9 1.07 1.23 0.47 0.18 0.27 37 3 56 120
3 2 6 5 1.04 1.33 0.47 0.22 0.23 37 3 100 50
4 2 6 8 0.98 1.38 0.6 0.17 0.23 23 2 36 50
1 2 7 20 1.15 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.26 24 4 25 360
2 2 7 22 0.94 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.23 20 4 16 330
3 2 7 17 0.94 0.33 0.24 0.19 0.25 19 4 30 160
4 2 7 25 1.4 0.42 0.3 0.25 0.27 21 4 24 490

1/ Key to columns:

1 Replication
2 Condition. l=healthy 2=symptomatic
3 Plant part. l=upper stem, 2=lower stem, 3=upper leaves
4=lower leaves, 5=upper petioles, 6=lower petioles and 7=roots
4 Dry weight in g.
5 Nitrogen in percent.
6 Calcium in percent.
7 Magnesium in percent.
8 Potassium in percent.
9 Phosphorus in percent.
10 Zinc in ppm.
11 Copper in ppm.
12 Manganese in ppm.
13 Iron in ppm.

Table 2. Soil analysis raw datall.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 1 9 0.0634 436 43.2 17.6 18.8 0.88 0.16 1.8 6.8 179.6 6.3 1.75
2 1 9 0.0721 420 62.8 25.6 33.6 1.32 0.16 3.56 7.2 158 5.9 2.07
3 1 9 0.0587 329.2 35.2 18 42.8 0.96 0.24 4 6.8 166 5.9 1.85
4 1 9 0.0429 440 50 15.6 29.6 0.72 0.12 1.72 5.6 190.4 6.6 1.36
1 1 10 0.0395 488 49.2 20 24 0.88 0.12 1.92 6.4 184.8 6.4 1.27
2 1 10 0.0553 337.6 41.2 19.2 28 0.84 0.12 2.32 8 177.6 6.1 1.44
3 1 10 0.0493 342.4 31.6 16 44.8 0.64 0.2 0.64 6.8 218.4 6.2 1.41









0.0496
0.0462
0.0436
0.0395
0.0362
0.0765
0.053
0.0597
0.0577
0.0493
0.0466
0.0547
0.0402
0.0409
0.0392
0.0459
0.0365


408
428
296.4
306.4
350
206.8
448
432
564
179.6
524
366.4
508
233.2
460
374.8
456


42
48
35.6
25.6
36.4
30
33.2
33.2
57.6
21.6
45.6
29.2
40.8
34.8
29.6
27.6
42.4


14.8
19.2
16
14
14.8
12.8
10.4
10.4
14
9.2
9.6
11.2
10.8
10
8
10
10


29.2
22
31.2
43.6
28.4
25.2
48
43.6
36.4
23.6
53.2
46
39.2
25.6
53.2
48.8
38.4


0.4
1.08
0.68
0.72
0.44
0.88
1.32
0.96
0.72
0.84
1.64
1.2
0.8
0.48
1.04
2
0.76


0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.2
0.12
0.16


Key to columns:
Replication
Condition. l=healthy 2=symptomatic
Sampling depth. 9=0 to 10 cm, 10=0 to 20
Nitrogen in percent.
Calcium in percent.
Magnesium in percent.
Potassium in percent.
Phosphorus in percent.
Zinc in ppm.
Copper in ppm.
Manganese in ppm.
Iron in ppm.
Aluminum in ppm.
pH.
Organic matter.


1.8
1.88
2.04
2.56
1.48
4.4
3.12
3.32
2.52
2.64
3.44
3.48
2.72
1.68
2.84
3.64
2.4


5.6
7.2
8
7.6
6.8
10.8
6.8
7.2
4.8
10
6.4
6.8
5.6
12
6.8
7.6
6.4


184.4
191.6
183.2
243.2
206.4
168.8
213.6
220.4
185.6
183.6
219.6
226.8
252.8
181.2
247.2
243.6
256.8


6.4
6.3
6
6.2
6.6
5.4
6.2
6.2
6.4
5.7
6.3
6.2
6.4
5.8
6.3
6.2
6.5


1.27
1.27
1.34
1.24
0.97
1.52
1.75
1.88
1.94
1.17
1.47
1.74
1.61
0.8
1.34
1.34
1.34


cm and 11=0 to 40 cm.




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