SOIL FERTILITY

AND FERTILIZERS
AN INTRODUCTION TO NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
EIGHTH EDITION

John L. Havlin
North Carolina State University

Samuel L. Tisdale
Late President, The Sulphur Institute

Werner L. Nelson
Late Senior Vice President, Potash & Phosphate Institute

James D. Beaton
Retired from Potash & Phosphate Institute
and Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada
Formerly at Cominco Ltd., The Sulphor Institute,
Ag Canada, and University of British Columbia
Copyright © 2017 Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd

Published by Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd, CIN: U72200TN2005PTC057128,

formerly known as TutorVista Global Pvt. Ltd, licensee of Pearson Education in South Asia.

No part of this eBook may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the
publisher’s prior written consent.

This eBook may or may not include all assets that were part of the print version. The publisher
reserves the right to remove any material in this eBook at any time.

ISBN
eISBN 978-93-325-8603-1

Head Office: A-8 (A), 7th Floor, Knowledge Boulevard, Sector 62, Noida 201 309,
Uttar Pradesh, India.
Registered Office: 4th Floor, Software Block, Elnet Software City, TS 140, Block 2 & 9,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai 600 113, Tamil Nadu, India.
Fax:  080-30461003, Phone: 080-30461060
www.pearson.co.in, Email: [email protected]
 contents
Preface V Calcareous Soils 95
Saline, Sodic, and Saline-Sodic Soils 100
Study Questions 116

Introduction
1 1
Selected References 118

Global Population Growth 1

Food Consumption, Production, and Agricultural
Land Use 3 Nitrogen
4
121
Impact on U.S. Agriculture 5 The N Cycle 121
Utilizing Food Crops for Non-Food Uses 7 Functions and Forms of N in Plants 122
Crop Yields and Nutrient Use 8 Biological (Symbiotic) N2 Fixation 126
Crop Yield Limiting Factors 10 Forms of Soil N 140
Elements in Plant Nutrition 12 N Transformations in Soils 141
Study Questions 15 Gaseous Losses of N 154
Selected References 15
N Sources for Crop Production 165
Study Questions 187
Selected References 188

2
Basic Soil–Plant Relationships 17
Ion Exchange in Soils
Buffering Capacity 35
18
Phosphorus
5 189
Mineral Solubility in Soils 36 The P Cycle 189
Supply of Nutrients from OM 37 Forms and Functions of P in Plants 191
Movement of Ions from Soils to Roots 39 Forms of Soil P 195
Ion Absorption by Plants 44 P Sources 212
Study Questions 47 Study Questions 224
Selected References 49 Selected References 225

3
Soil Acidity and Alkalinity 51 Potassium
6 227
Acidity in Water 51 The K Cycle 227
Sources of Soil Acidity 52 Functions and Forms of K in Plants 228
Soil pH Buffering 64 Forms of Soil K 232
Determination of Active and Potential Acidity Factors Affecting K Availability 236
in Soils 65 Sources of K 240
Plant Growth Problems in Acid Soils 67 Study Questions 242
Reducing Soil Acidity Effects on Plants 72 Selected References 242

iii
iv contents

7
Sulfur, Calcium, and Magnesium 243
10
Nutrient Management 369
Sulfur 243 Plant Characteristics 369
Calcium 256 Soil Characteristics 375
Magnesium 260 Nutrient Placement 377
Study Questions 263 Other Nutrient Management Considerations 410
Selected References 263 Management of Organic Nutrients 413
Nutrient Management in Turf 425

Micronutrients
8 265
Nutrient Management Planning
Study Questions 429
Selected References 430
426

Iron (Fe) 265

Zinc (Zn)
Copper (Cu)
Manganese (Mn)
274
279
286
11
Nutrient Interactions and Economics 431
Boron (B) 290 Nutrient Interactions 431
Chloride (Cl) 296 Economics of Nutrient Use 446
Molybdenum (Mo) 300 Study Questions 453
Nickel (Ni) 303 Selected References 454

Beneficial Elements 304

Study Questions 308
Selected References 309 12
Agricultural Productivity and
Environmental Quality 455
9
Soil Fertility Evaluation 311
Soil Health or Quality 455
Soil Erosion Effects on Crop Productivity 462
Introduction 311 Management Practices Essential to Soil Health 466
Plant Nutrient-Deficiency Symptoms 311 Environmental Quality 480
Plant Analysis 315 Epilogue: Agricultural Challenges and
Opportunities 504
Greenhouse and Field Tests 334
Study Questions 505
Soil Testing 336
Selected References 506
Study Questions 366
Selected References 368 Index 507
Preface
Soil Fertility and Fertilizers was first published in 1956. Although this edition has
been substantially revised to reflect rapidly advancing knowledge and technologies in
plant nutrition and nutrient management, the outstanding contributions of Samuel
L. Tisdale (1918–1989) and Werner L. Nelson (1914–1992) will always be remem-
bered and appreciated.
The importance of soil fertility and plant nutrition to the health of all life
cannot be overstated. As human populations continue to increase, human distur-
bance of the Earth’s ecosystems to produce food and fiber will place greater demand
on soils to supply plant nutrients. As the soils’ native supply of nutrients decreases
with increasing cropping intensity, it is essential that we enhance our understand-
ing of nutrient behavior in soil and to efficiently utilize every available nutrient
source to optimize nutrient availability. One of the greatest challenges of future
generations will be to develop and implement soil, crop, and nutrient management
technologies that enhance plant productivity, while protecting the quality of the
soil, water, and air. If we do not improve and/or sustain the productive capacity of
our fragile soils, we cannot continue to support the food and fiber demand of our
growing population.

ABOUT THE NEW EDITION:

• This textbook is designed for use in an undergraduate classroom or distance edu-
cation course. Other books on the market are less functional for use in an under-
graduate course.
• This text includes a wide diversity in crop systems (agriculture, horticulture, turf,
etc.) that will appeal to students from diverse geographic regions, backgrounds, and
interests.
• This edition greatly expands description of tools and technologies essential to
increase nutrient use efficiency, with a substantially enhanced focus on environ-
mental impacts of nutrient use.
• This text illustrates critical quantitative skills essential to professional success in
nutrient management and related disciplines. It also provides many examples and
the Instructor’s Manual includes answers to all quantitative questions at the end
of each chapter.
• It covers topics and issues from the soil sample to the field scale and to a global
perspective.
• This textbook provides an unbiased approach to the use of inorganic and organic
nutrient sources and expands emphasis on organic nutrient sources as alternatives
to common fertilizers.
• Materials are presented in the most logical order, allowing a student to first learn
principles of basic nutrient behavior in soil and then to apply the knowledge to
practical field scale problems.
• Increased number of photographs, diagrams, and other visuals of nutrient response
in crops, soil management effects on crop growth, nutrient application equipment,
and others.

v
vi preface

TO THE STUDENT
The goal of this book is to provide a thorough understanding of plant nutrition,
soil fertility, and nutrient management so that you can (1) describe the influ-
ence of soil biological, physical, and chemical properties and interactions on nu-
trient availability to crops; (2) identify plant nutrition–soil fertility problems and
recommend proper corrective action; and (3) identify soil and nutrient manage-
ment practices that maximize productivity and profitability while maintaining
or enhancing the productive capacity of the soil and quality of the environment.
The quantitative approach is essential to accurately assess nutrient status in soils
and plants, and to quantify nutrients needed for optimum plant health and
productivity.
The specific objectives are to (1) describe how plants take up or absorb plant
nutrients and how the soil system supplies these nutrients; (2) identify and describe
plant nutrient-deficiency symptoms and methods used to quantify nutrient prob-
lems; (3) describe how soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, soil pH, parent
material, climate, and human activities affect nutrient availability; (4) evaluate nu-
trient and soil amendment materials on the basis of content, use, and effects on the
soil and the crop; (5) quantify, using basic chemical principles, application rates of
nutrients and amendments needed to correct plant nutrition problems in the field;
(6) describe nutrient response patterns, nutrient use efficiency, and the econom-
ics involved in nutrient use; and (7) describe and evaluate soil and nutrient man-
agement practices that either impair or sustain soil productivity and environmental
quality.

TO THE TEACHER
Motivate your students to learn by showing them how the knowledge and skills
gained through the study of soil fertility will be essential for success in their careers.
Use teaching methodologies that enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving
skills. In addition to understanding qualitative soil fertility and plant nutrition
relationships, students must know how to quantitatively evaluate nutrient availabil-
ity and nutrient management. Environmental protection demands that nutrients be
added in quantities and by methods that maximize crop productivity and recovery of
the added nutrients.
Since some of the examples used in this text may not be representative of your
specific region, frequently integrate additional field examples from your region to
illustrate the qualitative and quantitative principles. Strongly reinforce the reality that
production agriculture, sustainability, and environmental quality are compatible pro-
vided soil, crop, and nutrient management technologies are used properly. Develop
in your students the desire and discipline to expand beyond this text through reading
and self-learning. Demand of your students what will be demanded of them after they
graduate—to think, communicate, cooperate, and solve problems from an interdisci-
plinary perspective.
An Instructor’s Manual is available from the publisher and provides qualita-
tive and quantitative information pertinent to each chapter. Instructors should utilize
the questions at the end of each chapter as learning aids to help students gain confi-
dence with the material and to prepare for exams. Answers to each question and com-
plete solutions to quantitative calculations are provided in the Instructor’s Manual.
To access supplementary materials online, instructors need to request an instructor
access code. Go to www.pearsoned.co.in/JohnLHavlin, where you can register for
an instructor access code. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email,
 preface vii

including your instructor access code. Once you have received your code, go to the
site and log on for full instructions on downloading the materials you wish to use.
Thank you to the professors who helped review the manuscript: Jorge D.
Hernandez, Southern Illinois University; Nels Hansen, The Ohio State University;
Thomas L. Thompson, Texas Tech University; Joan Davenport, Washington State
University; Larry J. Cihacek, North Dakota State University.
We hope your students find the text a valuable resource throughout their
careers. Please feel free to provide suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of the
text as a teaching and learning aid.
John L. Havlin

We would like to thank D. Sangeetha, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai, for contributing insight-
ful content to the book and making it more relevant and contextual for Indian
students.
 1
Introduction
Essential nutrients to support healthy human life are acquired through
diverse food sources, ultimately supplied from soil. While plants are a
major direct human food source, animals used as human food also ob-
tain nutrients from a variety of plants (forage and grains) in their diets.
Even fresh and salt water food sources contain nutrients that ultimately
originate from soluble and sediment-bound nutrients deposited in sur-
face waters from surface and subsurface runoff. Therefore, management
of nutrients in the soil is essential to ensure adequate nutrient supply to
plants. The following sections describe how the demand for food, fiber,
and other products from agricultural systems will increase over the next
four to five decades, and assess our ability to meet this demand. Ob-
viously, any increase in agricultural output requires additional nutrient
supply. While native soil nutrient supply must be enhanced with inor-
ganic fertilizers and recycling of organic waste materials, it is essential to
understand nutrient reactions and processes in soils to optimize nutrient
availability to crops and minimize environmental risk of nutrient use.
For students in non-food-related programs such as urban lands,
environmental science, forestry, and many others, nutrient cycling and
management principles are just as important to understand. While you
may never engage in a food and fiber production-related profession,
meeting future demands for these resources will challenge all societies
to enhance agroecosystem output, while maintaining or
enhancing the diversity and health of all ecosystems.

When we perceive that civilization rests on the food

giving capacities of the soil, when we perceive that all
of the future advances of our kind depends upon the
preservation and enhancement of its fertility, we are
in a position to consider the duty which we owe to it.

(Shaler, 1891)

GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH

As human populations have grown, organized agricul-
tural systems were developed to ensure food security
(Table 1-1). Despite advances in agricultural produc-
tion technologies, a significant proportion of the current
world population is undernourished, primarily in unde-
veloped nations (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa and Asia) that
exhibit high population growth rates and often rely on
unproductive farming methods. In contrast, developed
2 chapter one introduction

TABLE 1-1
C APABILITY OF A GRICULTURAL S YSTEMS TO P RODUCE F OOD AND
S UPPORT P OPULATION

World
Cultural Stage Cereal Population Acres/
Agricultural System or Time Yield (t/ac) (millions) Person1
Hunting and gathering Paleolithic (>10,000 0.30 2–7
years ago)
Shifting agriculture Neolithic (10,000 0.33 10–100 76.8
(early cultivation) years ago)
Medieval rotation A.D. 500–1450 0.37 100–400 12.8
Livestock farming Late 1700s 0.42 1,000 3.8
Modern agriculture 1900 0.48 1,650 2.3
1950 0.92 2,527 1.5
2000 3.00 6,113 0.6
2050 5.20 9,181 0.4
1Assumes 1.55 billion ha of arable and permanent cropland.
Source: Adapted from McCloud, 1975, Agron. J., 67:1; FAO, 2008,
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf.

countries utilizing modern agricultural technologies are generally self-sufficient in

food production and provide the majority of food exports to undeveloped and devel-
oping nations.
Currently about 15–20 million people (<0.3% of world population) are
affected by famine or risk of death due to food shortage; however, malnutrition
affects nearly 1 billion people or 15% of world population. Although many politi-
cal, economic, climate, and other factors influence food insecurity, increasing world
population pressure, availability of suitable cropland, and degradation of soil pro-
ductivity will challenge our agricultural production systems to meet future food,
fiber, fuel, and water needs. The importance of increasing agricultural productivity
to secure sufficient food for a growing population is obvious (Table 1-1). World
population has doubled over the last 40 years to over 7 billion people, and will
increase by 50% over the next 40 years to over 9 billion in 2050 (Fig. 1-1). Most
of the projected population increase will occur in developing countries, primarily
in Asia and Africa. World population is expected to stabilize at about 12 billion by
2100, as the annual growth rate continues to decline (Fig. 1-1). Despite decreas-
ing population growth rates, providing food and other agricultural resources for
9 billion by 2050 will require substantial increases in production.

Figure 1-1 10 2.5

Actual and projected world 9
population growth from 8 2
POPULATION (billions)

GROWTH RATE (%)

1950 to 2050
7
(United Nations, 2007).
6 1.5
5
4 1
3
2 Population 0.5
1 Growth Rate
0 0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR
 introduction chapter one 3

FOOD CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION,

AND AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Increasing population over the next four decades will drive food consumption
(Fig. 1-2). These data illustrate that cereal consumption for food will increase about
50%, while meat consumption will double. Most of these projected increases will
occur in developing nations, particularly in China and India, whose economies are
experiencing rapid growth in disposable income. As percentage of animal products in
the diet increases, cereal use for feed will increase.
Currently, world food production is meeting food demand (Fig. 1-2). In 2008,
total cereal consumption was about 2,350 million tonnes (Mt) compared to nearly
2,400 Mt of total cereal production. In 2050, total cereal consumption is estimated
at nearly 3,200 Mt compared to nearly 3,600 Mt of total cereal production. Of
course this assumes that over the next 40 years current growth in cereal production
continues (Fig. 1-2). These data show that average total cereal yield was 3,400 kg/ha
in 2008 and projected to be 5,200 kg/ha in 2050, where the annual increase in yield
is nearly 44 kg/ha/yr (slope of the linear best fit in Fig. 1-2).
Rapid human population growth in the last century has extensively impacted land
use more than in any comparable time in human history. Approximately 12% of total
world land area (13 billion ha) and about 32% of agricultural land (4.93 billion ha)
are current croplands (1.55 billion ha) (Table 1-2). The remaining 3.38 billion ha
of agricultural land, primarily (90%) in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, is
forests, permanent pasture, and other non-crop uses. Most estimate these remaining
agricultural lands represent only 20% of yield potential of the most productive crop-
land; thus, cropland expansion in these areas occurs at a large economic cost (poor
3,500 Figure 1-2
Cereals, Total Actual and projected
3,000 Cereals, Food cereal and animal product
CONSUMPTION (Mt × 106)

Animals consumption from 1970

2,500
to 2050 (top), and actual
2,000
and projected world cereal
production (million tonnes,
1,500 Mt), cereal yield (kg/ha),
and cereal production area
1,000 (million ha) from 1960 to
2050 (bottom) (FAO, 2008).
500

0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR
6,000
million tons million ha kg/ha

5,000
Mt or ha (× 106) or kgyha

y = 43.6x − 84063
R2 = 0.99
4,000

3,000
y = 30.1x − 58079
2,000 R2 = 0.97
y = 0.23x + 231
1,000 R2 = 0.03

0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR
4 chapter one introduction

TABLE 1-2
A PPROXIMATE W ORLD L AND A REA U SED FOR
F OOD P RODUCTION (FAO, 2007)

Million ha
World land area 13,009
Agricultural area 4,932
Cropland 1,554
Pulses 73
Cereals 700
Roots and tubers 55
Vegetables and melons 52
Tree nuts 8
Oil crops 251
Fruit 47
Fiber crops 36

soil fertility, shallow soil depth, low rainfall, etc.) and causes a great risk to biodiver-
sity, soil erosion, and other factors impacting ecosystem health.
Total agricultural land has been relatively constant since 1990, whereas cropland
has increased slightly (+0.22%/yr), likely into these less productive land areas (Fig. 1-3).
Per capita cropland use decreased nearly 50% from 0.44 in 1960 to 0.23 ha/person
in 2007 (Fig. 1-3). By 2050, world cropland use further decreases by about 30%

Figure 1-3 5,200 1,600

Change in world agricultural
land and cropland since
5,000 1,500
1960 (top), where cropland
represents arable and

CROPLAND (million ha)

AG LAND (million ha)

permanent cropland, and 4,800 1,400

historical and projected
per capita world cropland 4,600 1,300
use (bottom). Projections
are based on no expansion
4,400 1,200
of current cropland area of
1.55 billion ha (solid line)
or the 1996–2007 annual 4,200 Agricultural Land 1,100
rate of cropland increase Cropland
of ~3.38 million ha/yr or 4,000 1,000
0.22%/yr (FAO, 2008). 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
YEAR
0.5

0.4
CROPLAND (hayperson)

0.3

0.2

0.1 Constant Cropland Area

+0.22%yyr Cropland Area

0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR
 introduction chapter one 5

TABLE 1-3
C ROPLAND A REA D EGRADED TO L EVELS THAT R EDUCE C ROP
P RODUCTIVITY

Continent Cropland Area ____ Degraded Area ____

_____ million ha _____ %
Africa 187 121 65
Asia 536 204 38
Australia/Pacific 49 12 25
Europe 287 73 25
North America 236 60 25
Latin America 180 92 51
Total 1,475 562 38

Source: Oldeman et al., 1991, UN Environment Program.

to 0.16 ha/person, assuming constant cropland area. If the small annual increase in
cropland area continues (∼ 3.38 million ha/yr or 0.22%/yr), then per capita crop-
land use only slightly increases to 0.18 ha/person. It is important to recognize that
per capita cropland assessments are misleading because of the changing distribution
of human populations in rural and urban areas. Similar to population growth rate,
the rate of urbanization has been decreasing, but the absolute urban population is
increasing. For the first time in history, >50% of world population (3.6 billion) lived
in urban areas in 2010. By 2050 >60% or nearly 6 billion people will live in urban
areas. Therefore, the impact of increasing population on conversion of cropland to
urban uses is lessened by the disproportionate expansion of urban areas. However,
urban population growth commonly occurs on highly productive lands, where urban
expansion in developing countries decreases cropland by 0.5 million ha/yr.
Expanding cropland into remaining agricultural lands that are substantially less
productive will limit global crop production growth. Current estimates suggest that
90% of future crop production increases will come from intensification compared to
expansion of cropland. Unfortunately, the poorest cropland occurs in regions with
the greatest need to expand production. In developing countries (sub-Saharan Africa,
Latin America, etc.), projected croplands will increase only 0.3%/yr or 120 million
ha/yr over the next several decades, which is less than in previous decades. Little or no
increases are expected in developed countries.
Since cropland expansion will have minimal impact on crop production, pro-
duction (yield per area) on existing cropland must increase; however, continued degra-
dation of world soil productivity threatens our ability to meet future global food and
fiber demand. Although soil degradation varies widely between regions, approximately
38% of the world’s cropland has degraded (Table 1-3). The primary causes of soil
degradation are water and wind erosion. About 2 million ha of rainfed and irrigated
agricultural lands are lost to production every year due to severe land degradation,
which increases the productivity demand on remaining croplands, while increasing
pressure on converting less productive land into cropland. The relationships between
soil productivity and agricultural sustainability are discussed in Chapter 12.

IMPACT ON U.S. AGRICULTURE

Since future population growth will occur primarily in undeveloped and develop-
ing nations, and the majority of agricultural land in these regions that could be
converted to cropland is substantially less productive than current croplands, these
6 chapter one introduction

Figure 1-4 300

Total world cereal imports World Imports
and U.S. cereal exports 250 U.S. Exports
(top), and historical and

CEREAL TRADE (t × 106)

projected U.S. cereal
200
production and exports
(bottom) (FAO, 2008; USDA-ERS,
2008). 150

100

50

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

600
U.S. Production
PRODUCTIONyEXPORT (t × 106)

500 U.S. Export

400

300 y = 4.29x − 8232

R2 = 0.75
200

100
y = 1.24 − 2389
R2 = 0.45
0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR

nations will continue to depend on agricultural imports. Historically, North America

and the European Union have been the major suppliers of grain to many food-poor
nations, whereas the United States provides about 60% of world food aid and is
meeting nearly 30% of cereal imports (Fig. 1-4). Current U.S. exports are approxi-
mately 100 Mt, which represents 25% of total U.S. cereal production (Fig. 1-4). Of
total world cereal production of 2,350 Mt in 2008 (Fig. 1-2), 100 Mt of U.S. cereal
exports represents about 4.3%. Assuming that global cereal grain consumption and
production will increase nearly 50% by 2050, U.S. cereal export will need to increase
to about 150 Mt (Fig. 1-4). At this level of cereal export, U.S. cereal production will
need to increase from current cereal production of about 400 Mt to 580 Mt in 2050
(Fig. 1-4).
Currently, about 60 million ha in the United States are harvested for cereal
production at an average yield of 6,500 kg/ha (Fig. 1-5). Assuming 580 Mt of cereal
production are needed in 2050, and maintaining current land area (60 million ha)
in cereal production, cereal yield will need to increase to about 9,600 kg/ha by 2050,
an increase of 45%. Linear extrapolation of current growth in U.S. cereal production
shows that cereal yield will be approximately 9,700 kg/ha by 2050; thus, current
growth rate in cereal yields should meet 2050 cereal demand.
Unfortunately, agricultural land area is decreasing at an annual rate of 0.15 mil-
lion ha (Fig. 1-5). This trend is somewhat misleading, as the annual decrease from
1990 is about 0.54 million ha. This is likely an overestimate as cereal cropland loss
at this rate would result in about 35 million ha of cereal cropland in 2050 (Fig. 1-5).
 introduction chapter one 7

90 12,000 Figure 1-5

Production Area Cereal Yield Historical and projected

PRODUCTION AREA (ha × 106)

80 cereal yield and production
y = 81.4x + 2359 10,000
area in the United States
R2 = 0.91
(top), and current growth

YIELD (kgyha)
70
8,000 in U.S. cereal yields (solid
60 line) and cereal yield growth
rate needed to meet world
6,000
50 cereal demand (dashed
line) in 2050 (bottom).
y = −0.148x + 358 4,000 Current growth rate
40 R2 = 0.12 assumes constant cereal
cropland area (~60 million
30 2,000
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 ha) and needed growth rate
YEAR assumes 10 million ha fewer
14,000
cereal cropland in the
United States (FAO, 2008).
12,000
CEREAL YIELD (kgyha)

Needed Growth Rate

10,000 y = 123.9x − 242350
8,000

6,000

4,000
y = 81.6x − 157512
2,000 Current Growth Rate

0
1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
YEAR

Recent estimates suggest approximately 0.40 million ha/yr of total U.S. cropland
loss to predominately rural residential uses. With about 70% of total U.S. cropland
in cereals, annual cereal cropland loss would be 0.25–0.30 million ha. If the con-
servative estimate of 0.25 million ha/yr is used, then 10 million fewer ha of cereal
cropland will be available in 2050. With approximately 50 million ha of cereal pro-
duction, cereal yields need to increase to over 11,600 kg/ha compared to 9,700 kg/ha
under current cereal yield increases on 60 million ha (Fig. 1-5). To achieve an ad-
ditional 2,000 kg/ha cereal yield by 2050, annual growth rate in cereal yield must be
increased from 82 kg/ha/yr to about 124 kg/ha/yr, a 50% increase in annual yield
growth rate. To achieve this, substantial advances in genetics and soil/crop manage-
ment technologies will be needed. Greater cereal yields per unit land area will also
require substantial increases in fertilizer nutrient use.

UTILIZING FOOD CROPS FOR NON-FOOD USES

Increased consumption and cost of energy have driven technology development and
policy decisions in food-secure nations to utilize grain crops to produce ethanol,
biodiesel, and other energy sources. In the last decade, U.S. ethanol production has
increased over four fold (Fig. 1-6). The United States and Brazil annually produce
90% (∼ 15 billion gal/yr) of world ethanol used for fuel. Current ethanol produc-
tion capacity is approximately 10 billion gallons, requiring over 3.5 billion bushels
of corn, at 2.8 gal ethanol/bu. This level of ethanol production utilizes 30% of total
U.S. corn production (Fig. 1-6). If current U.S. energy goals of 35 billion gallons
of ethanol are realized by 2017, over 12 billion bushels of corn would be needed,
which consume the entire current U.S. corn crop. Despite increases in grain yield
and acreage planted to fuel-dedicated grain crops, if proposed ethanol production
8 chapter one introduction

Figure 1-6 14
Total ethanol, corn, corn Ethanol, gal
used for ethanol, and 12 Corn Use (ethanol), bu

GALLONS or BUSHELS (billion)

ending corn stocks in the Corn Production, bu
United States (USDA-ERS, 2008). Ending Stocks, bu
10

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
YEAR

goals are attained (35 billion gal), corn grain available for export will be between
30 and 50% of current levels. The rapid increase in corn-based ethanol has reduced
ending corn stocks by 50% over the last several decades (Fig. 1-6). This reduces our
ability to support global food security goals, placing additional stress on undeveloped
and developing countries to meet basic food needs. Thus, using corn for ethanol
is not sustainable, especially since cropland area in the United States is decreasing
(Fig. 1-5). Using ethanol as a major fuel source in the future will require use of ligno-
cellulose feedstocks (crop residue, forest products, etc.). However, there are limits to
utilizing field crop residues for ethanol as organic residues returned to soils are critical
to sustaining soil and crop productivity (Chapter 12).

CROP YIELDS AND NUTRIENT USE

While we expect limited expansion of cropland into less productive agricultural
lands, expansion of non-agricultural land uses (wildlife habitat, forests, municipal,
industrial, etc.) will also reduce available land area for cultivation. Maintaining and
enhancing natural land areas is critical to sustaining ecosystem diversity and health.
Therefore, meeting future food and fiber demand, while protecting environmental
health, will require agricultural intensification. Advances in agricultural produc-
tion technologies must occur to enhance productivity per unit of cropland to ensure
world food security.
In the United States, crop yields have increased greatly over the last half-century
(Fig. 1-7). This remarkable achievement is directly related to the development and
adoption of agricultural technologies over the last 50 years (Fig. 1-8). The principal
factors contributing to higher crop yields include development of improved varieties
and hybrids, nutrient and pest management, soil and water conservation, and cul-
tural practices. Development and use of fertilizer is partially related to increased crop
productivity in the United States (Fig. 1-9); however, since 1980 growth in fertil-
izer use has been much lower. In contrast, world fertilizer use continues to increase
(Fig. 1-9). In the last decade, growth in world use of nitrogen (N) fertilizers was
nearly 60 times greater than in the United States. Continued growth in world fertil-
izer demand will increase demand for fossil fuel, since natural gas ( CH4) is a primary
ingredient in the manufacture of N fertilizers (Chapter 4).
Since 1970, concerns for environmental quality have resulted in the development
and adoption of improved management technologies that have stabilized nutrient use
and provided important environmental protection in the United States. Nutrient use
 introduction chapter one 9

200 1,000 Figure 1-7

Corn Historical yields of major
Wheat food and fiber crops in the
CORN or WHEAT YIELD (buya)
160 Cotton 800 United States. Solid line

COTTON YIELD (lbsya)

represents a 10-year moving
average (USDA-NASS, 2008).
120 600

80 400

40 200

0 0
1865 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005
YEAR

175 Figure 1-8

Transgenic (Bt)
Insect Resistance Growth in U.S. corn yield
150 Conservation Tillage, Soil
(1966–2005) and the
Testing, NPK Fertilization technological innovations
GRAIN YIELD (bu/a)

125 Double-X to that contributed to yield

Single-X Hybrids
Reduced N
increases (CAST Commentary,
Fertilizer and QTA2006-3, Nov. 2006).
100
Irrigation?

75
Integrated
Pest
50 Expansion of Irrigated Area, Management
Increased N Fertilizer Rates

25
1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
YEAR

14 Figure 1-9
United States Fertilizer use in the
12
FERTILIZER USE (t × 106)

United States and the world

10 (FAO, 2008; USDA-ERS, 2008).
Nitrogen
8 Phosphate
Potash
6

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
120
Nitrogen World
FERTILIZER USE (t × 106)

100
Phosphate
80 Potash

60

40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
10 chapter one introduction

Figure 1-10 200

Nutrient use efficiency in Nitrogen United States

Kg GRAINyKg FERTILIZER
U.S. corn production (top) 160 Phosphate
and world cereal production Potash
(bottom). Solid lines repre- 120
sent 4-year moving average
(FAO, 2008; USDA-ERS, USDA-NASS,
80
2008).

40

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

120
Kg GRAINyKg FERTILIZER Nitrogen World
100 Phosphate
Potash
80

60

40

20

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

efficiency or quantity of crop production per unit nutrient applied has increased over
the last several decades in the United States (Fig. 1-10). Nutrient use efficiency in world
cereals has decreased, which means fertilizer use is increasing faster than cereal yields
(Fig. 1-10). Despite the improvement in nutrient use efficiency in many crops in the
United States, improved nutrient management technologies are still needed to reduce
the impact of nutrient use on environmental quality and ecosystem health (Chapter 12).
One important nutrient management principle discussed throughout the textbook is
the importance of maximizing crop productivity to increase the quantity of applied
nutrient recovered by the crop. This reduces the quantity of applied nutrient in the soil
after harvest and, thus, reduces the impact of nutrient use on the environment.

CROP YIELD LIMITING FACTORS

Obtaining the maximum production potential of a particular crop depends on growing
season environment and the skill of the producer to identify and eliminate or minimize
factors that reduce yield potential. Many factors affect crop growth and yield potential
(Table 1-4). Although the producer cannot control many of the climate factors, most of
the soil and crop factors can and must be managed to maximize productivity.
For maximum yield potential, plants must utilize a high percentage of available
solar energy. Based on available solar energy, the maximum potential yield for most
crops exceeds current yield levels. For example, maximum potential yields are nearly
600, 250, and 300 bushels per acre (bu/a) of corn, soybean, and wheat, respectively.
Worldwide, the dominant stresses reducing crop yield potential are related to plant
available water, temperature, and nutrient availability (Table 1-5). Environment and
nutrient-related stresses occur on about 55 and 20% of the land area, respectively.
Most factors influencing yield potential interact with each other to increase
or decrease plant growth and yield (Chapter 11). The challenge is to accurately
 introduction chapter one 11

TABLE 1-4
F ACTORS A FFECTING C ROP Y IELD P OTENTIAL

Climate Factors Soil Factors Crop Factors

Precipitation Organic matter Crop species/variety
Quantity Texture Planting date
Distribution Structure Seeding rate and geometry
Air temperature Cation exchange capacity Row spacing
Relative humidity pH and base saturation Seed quality
Light Slope and topography Evapotranspiration
Quantity Soil temperature Water availability
Intensity Soil management factors Nutrition
Duration Tillage Pests
Altitude/latitude Drainage Insects
Wind Others Diseases
Velocity Depth (root zone) Weeds
Distribution Nutrient supply (soil test) Harvest efficiency
CO2 concentration Element toxicity Crop sequence or rotation

TABLE 1-5
P RIMARY C LIMATE AND S OIL S TRESSES THAT R EDUCE C ROP
Y IELD P OTENTIAL

Global Land Area

Dominant Soil Stress Million acres % of total
Low moisture stress 9,015 27.95
Low temperatures 5,385 16.69
Seasonal moisture stress 2,544 7.89
Soil salinity, alkalinity 2,235 6.93
Low nutrient-holding capacity 1,927 5.97
Shallow soils 1,828 5.67
Excessive nutrient leaching 1,111 3.44
Excessive soil acidity 1,013 3.14
Low moisture and nutrient stress 864 2.68
Low water-holding capacity 840 2.60
Other 4,483 13.90
Few constraints 1,013 3.14
Total 32,258 100
Source: Wiebe, 2003, USDA-ERS, Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 823.

identify all yield-limiting factors and eliminate or minimize the influence of

those that can be managed. The importance of this principle was identified by
the 19th-century-scientists Carl Sprengel and Justus von Liebig. The Law of the
Minimum states that crop yield is proportional to the amount of the most limit-
ing nutrient. Once this nutrient deficiency is corrected, yield will increase to a
level limited by some other nutrient and so on. While the Law of the Minimum
was originally based on nutrient limits, the principle can be applied to other fac-
tors influencing crop yield. For example, a producer may have planted the cor-
rect variety at the optimum time and population and may have applied all of the
optimum nutrients using the most efficient methods, but still might not attain
maximum yield potential because plant available water was the most limiting
12 chapter one introduction

Figure 1-11 Possible

Law of the Minimum states Production
that the most limiting factor
Insects
determines yield potential.
and
Producers should minimize Diseases
or eliminate the most
limiting factor first, then the
second most limiting factor, Weeds
Improper
and so forth. Only in this Poor Crop
manner can maximum yield Soil Variety
potential be achieved. Structure
Poor
Low Stand
Lack Fertility
of
Moisture

Figure 1-12
Yield response to increasing D
No
N inputs with water, Limiting Factors
phosphorus, and seeding
C
rate limiting yield potential
(A); with only phosphorus Limiting Factor
and seeding rate limiting Seeding Rate
yield potential (B); with only B
seeding rate limiting yield
potential (C); and with no Limiting Factors
CROP YIELD

manageable factors limiting Phosphorus

Seeding Rate
yield potential (D).
A
Limiting Factors
Water
Phosphorus
Seeding Rate

NITROGEN INPUT

factor (Fig. 1-11). Thus, until the producer minimizes water as a limiting factor to
yield potential, yield response to management of any other factor(s) will be substan-
tially less than if plant available water were non-limiting (Fig. 1-12).
Sufficient nutrient availability in soil is required to realize maximum yield potential.
Before thoroughly discussing the complex soil chemical, biological, and physical factors in-
fluencing nutrient supply to plants, as well as nutrient management strategies to optimize
crop productivity, a brief review of the nutrients required for plant growth is necessary.

ELEMENTS IN PLANT NUTRITION

An element is considered essential to plant growth and development if
• the element is directly involved in the nutrition of the plant,
• a deficiency makes it impossible for the plant to complete its life cycle, and
• a deficiency is specific to the element and can only be prevented or corrected by supply-
ing the element.
 introduction chapter one 13

Usually, the plant exhibits a visual symptom indicating a deficiency in a specific nutri-
ent, which normally can be corrected or prevented by supplying that nutrient. Visual
nutrient deficiency symptoms can be caused by many other plant stresses; therefore,
caution should be exercised when diagnosing deficiency symptoms (Chapter 9). The
following terms are commonly used to describe nutrient levels in plants:
Deficient: when the concentration of an essential element is low enough to
severely limit yield and distinct deficiency symptoms are visible. Extreme de-
ficiencies can result in plant death. With moderate or slight deficiencies, symp-
toms may not be visible, but yields will still be reduced.
Critical range: the nutrient concentration in the plant below which a yield
response to added nutrient occurs. Critical levels or ranges vary among plants
and nutrients but occur somewhere in the transition between nutrient defi-
ciency and sufficiency.
Sufficient: the nutrient concentration range in which added nutrient will not
increase yield but can increase nutrient concentration. The term luxury con-
sumption is often used to describe nutrient absorption by the plant that does
not influence yield.
Excessive or toxic: when the concentration of essential or other elements is high
enough to reduce plant growth and yield. Excessive nutrient concentration can
cause an imbalance in other essential nutrients, which can also reduce yield.
Figure 1-13 shows that yield is severely affected when a nutrient is deficient, and
when the nutrient deficiency is corrected, growth increases more rapidly than nutrient
concentration. Under severe deficiency, rapid increases in yield with added nutrient
can cause a small decrease in nutrient concentration. This is called the Steenberg effect
(Fig. 1-13) and results from dilution of the nutrient in the plant by rapid plant growth.
When the concentration reaches the critical range, plant yield is generally maximized.
Nutrient sufficiency occurs over a wide concentration range, where yield is unaffected.
Increases in nutrient concentration above the critical range indicate that the plant is absorbing
nutrients above that needed for maximum yield, commonly called luxury consumption. Ele-
ments absorbed in excessive quantities can reduce plant yield directly through toxicity or
indirectly by reducing concentrations of other nutrients below their critical ranges.

Critical Range
Sufficient
Transition
PLANT YIELD

Excessive
or Toxic
Deficient

Steenberg Effect

NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION IN TISSUE

Figure 1-13
Relationship between essential plant nutrient concentration and plant growth or yield.
As nutrient concentration increases toward the critical range, plant yield increases. Above the
critical range, the plant contains sufficient levels for normal growth and can continue to absorb
nutrients without increasing yield (luxury consumption). Excessive absorption of a nutrient or
element can be toxic to the plant and reduce yield or cause plant death.
14 chapter one introduction

TABLE 1-6
R ELATIVE AND A VERAGE P LANT N UTRIENT C ONCENTRATIONS

Nutrient Concentration in Plants1

Classification Name Symbol Relative Average
Hydrogen H 60,000,000 6%
Carbon C 40,000,000 45%
Oxygen O 30,000,000 45%
Nitrogen N 1,000,000 1.5%
Macronutrients Potassium K 250,000 1.0%
Calcium Ca 125,000 0.5%
Magnesium Mg 80,000 0.2%
Phosphorus P 60,000 0.2%
Sulfur S 30,000 0.2%
Chloride Cl 3,000 100 ppm (0.01%)
Iron Fe 2,000 100 ppm
Boron B 2,000 20 ppm
Manganese Mn 1,000 50 ppm
Micronutrients
Zinc Zn 300 20 ppm
Copper Cu 100 6 ppm
Nickel Ni 2 0.1 ppm
Molybdenum Mo 1 0.1 ppm
1Concentration expressed on a dry matter weight basis.

Seventeen elements are considered essential to plant growth (Table 1-6). Car-
bon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O) are not considered mineral nutrients but
are the most abundant elements in plants. The photosynthetic process in green
leaves converts CO2 and H2O into simple carbohydrates from which amino acids,
sugars, proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic compounds are synthesized. The
supply of CO2 has increased from 310 to 390 ppm since 1960. The supply of H2O
rarely limits photosynthesis directly but does so indirectly through various effects
resulting from moisture stress.
The remaining 14 essential elements are classified as macronutrients and
micronutrients, and the classification is based on their relative abundance in plants
(Table 1-6). The macronutrients are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K),
sulfur (S), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). Compared with the macronutrients,
the concentrations of the eight micronutrients—iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese
(Mn), copper (Cu), boron (B), chloride (Cl), molybdenum (Mo), and nickel (Ni)—
are very small. Four additional elements—sodium (Na), cobalt (Co), vanadium (V),
and silicon (Si)—have been established as beneficial micronutrients in some plants.
Micronutrients are often referred to as minor elements, but this label does not mean
that they are less important than macronutrients. Micronutrient deficiency or toxic-
ity can reduce plant yield just as macronutrient deficiency or toxicity does.
Although aluminum (Al) is not an essential plant nutrient, Al in plants can be
high when soils contain relatively large amounts of Al (Chapter 3). In fact, plants ab-
sorb many nonessential elements, where more than 60 elements have been identified
in plant materials. When plant dry matter is burned, the remaining plant ash con-
tains all of the essential and nonessential mineral elements except C, H, O, N, and S,
which are volatilized as gases.
 introduction chapter one 15

Plant nutrient content is affected by many factors, including soil, climate, crop
variety, and management. Because many biological and chemical reactions occur
with nutrients in soils, plants do not absorb all of the nutrients applied, regardless of
nutrient source. Proper management can maximize the proportion of applied nutri-
ent absorbed by the plant (Chapter 10). As plants absorb nutrients from the soil,
complete their life cycle, and die, the nutrients in the plant residue are returned to
the soil. These plant nutrients are subject to the same biological and chemical reac-
tions as nutrients applied as fertilizer and waste materials. Although this cycle varies
considerably among nutrients, understanding nutrient dynamics in the soil-plant-
atmosphere system is essential to efficient nutrient management.
The remaining chapters will detail our current knowledge of soil fertility and
nutrient management. Use of this knowledge to identify nutrient availability prob-
lems and provide economically and environmentally sound nutrient management
recommendations will be essential to a world with a secure supply of safe nutritious
food, fiber, and other agricultural commodities.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What factors might be influencing the decreasing 8. Crop yields have been increasing with time because
population growth rate shown in Figure 1-1? of advances in tillage, varieties, pest control, fertil-
2. Using Figures 1-1 and 1-2, estimate current ization, and so on. What factor(s) will ultimately
(2010) and future (2050) cereal consumption and limit further yield increases?
production per capita (per person). 9. Among the environmental factors limiting crop
3. If population in 2050 will be 10 billion, how much response to nutrients, which is probably the most
yield and total production would be required, by easily and inexpensively changed?
assuming a constant 750 million ha of cropland in 10. Crop yields have increased more in the last 50 years
cereal production. Also determine the additional than in the 200 years before 1950. What factors
production needed when the cereal cropland is are related to the increased yields since 1950?
reduced to 650 million ha in 2050. 11. List down and classify the essential elements
4. How much additional production (kg/ha and required for the plant growth.
Mt) is needed if cereal cropland is reduced to 12. What factors affect the plant’s nutrient content?
600 million ha? Explain.
5. In Table 1-4, identify which climate, soil, and crop 13. What is Steenberg effect?
factors limiting crop yield potential can be practi- 14. What is meant by luxury consumption?
cally managed? 15. Using Figure 1-13, explain the relationship
6. Define the Law of the Minimum and provide an between plant growth and essential plant nutrient
example. concentration.
7. Identify two criteria for establishing whether an 16. What is the impact of rapid human population
element is an essential nutrient required in plants. growth in the last century?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Barker, A. V., and D. J. Pilbeam. 2007. Handbook of Epstein, E., and A. J. Bloom. 2005. Mineral nutrition
plant nutrition. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. of plants: Principles and perspectives (2nd ed.).
Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil. 2007. The nature and Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association.
properties of soil (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, Marscherner, H. 2005. Mineral nutrition of higher
N.J.: Pearson Education. plants (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.
16 chapter one introduction

Mengel, K., and E. A. Kirkby. 1987. Principles of plant Shaler, N. S. 1891. The origin and nature of soils. USGS
nutrition. Bern, Switzerland: International Potash Annual Report 12. Washington, DC.
Institute. Viets, F. G. 1977. A perspective on two centuries of
Römheld, V., and H. Marscher. 1991. Function of progress in soil fertility and plant nutrition.
micronutrients in plants. In J. J. Mortredt et al. SSSAJ. 41: 242–249.
(Eds.), Micronutrients in agriculture. No. 4.
Madison, Wis.: Soil Science Society of America.
 2
Basic Soil–Plant
Relationships
The interaction of numerous physical, chemical, and biological proper-
ties in soils controls plant nutrient availability. Understanding these pro-
cesses and how they are influenced by environmental conditions enables
us to optimize nutrient availability and plant productivity. The purpose
of this chapter is to review basic chemical principles and reactions in
soils that are important to understanding the soils’ ability to provide
plant nutrients. This knowledge is essential for decisions regarding man-
agement of nutrients to optimize plant growth and health, and to mini-
mize nutrient application impacts on the environment. We also build
the foundation of quantitative skills essential to nutrient management.
Nutrient supply to plant roots is a very dynamic process (Fig. 2-1).
Plant nutrients (cations and anions) are absorbed from the soil solution
by plant roots, which also release small quantities of ions (H+ , OH- , and
HCO3- ) back to the soil solution (reactions 1, 2). All aqueous solutions
(soil water or plant cell water) must remain electrically neutral where
an equal number of ions with positive (cations) and negative (anions)
charges are present. Thus, if there is an imbalance in cation–anion
uptake in plant root cells, these cells release cations or anions depending
on the imbalance (Fig. 2-2). This process can influence soil solution pH
(Chapter 3).
As plant roots absorb nutrients, the nutrient concen-
tration in the soil solution decreases (Fig. 2-1). As a result,
several chemical and biological reactions occur to buffer
or resupply these nutrients to the soil solution. The spe-
cific reaction that occurs depends on the cation or anion.
Ions adsorbed to the surface of clay minerals desorb from
these surfaces to resupply the soil solution (reaction 3). Ion
exchange (adsorption and desorption) in soil is an impor-
tant chemical reaction to plant nutrient availability. Soils
also contain minerals that can dissolve to resupply the soil
solution (reaction 6). Addition of nutrients or ions through
fertilization or other inputs increases ion concentration
in the soil solution. Although some of the added ions re-
main in solution, some are adsorbed to mineral surfaces
(reaction 4) or precipitated as solid minerals (reaction 5). As
soil microorganisms degrade plant residues, they can absorb
ions from the soil solution into their tissues (reaction 7).
When microbes or other organisms die, they release nutri-
ents back to the soil solution (reaction 8). Microbial reac-
tions are important to plant nutrient availability as well as
other properties related to soil productivity.
18 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-1
Diagram of the various soil
components that influence Nutrient Uptake
plant nutrient concentration
in the soil solution. Ca+2
Soil 2 Al+3 Surface
1
Air 3 Exchange Mg 2
10
K+
9
Soil 4
Solution 5
8

7 6
Organic Matter 12 Mineral
Microorganisms 11 Solubility
Rainfall
Evaporation
Drainage
Management

Microbial activity is dependent on adequate energy supply from organic C (i.e.,

crop residues), inorganic ion availability, and numerous environmental conditions.
Plant roots and soil organisms utilize O2 and respire CO2 through metabolic activ-
ity (reactions 9, 10). As a result, CO2 concentration in the soil air is greater than in
the atmosphere. Numerous environmental factors and human activities can influence
ion concentration in soil solution, which interacts with the mineral and biological
processes in soils (reactions 11, 12). For example, adding P fertilizer to soil initially
increases H2PO4- concentration in soil solution. With time, H2PO4- concentration
will decrease with plant uptake (reaction 1), H2PO4- adsorption on mineral surfaces
(reaction 4), and P mineral precipitation (reaction 5).
All of these processes and reactions are important to plant nutrient availabil-
ity; however, depending on the specific nutrient, some processes are more important
than others. For example, microbial processes are more important to N and S avail-
ability than mineral surface exchange reactions, whereas the opposite is true for K,
Ca, and Mg.

ION EXCHANGE IN SOILS

Cation and anion exchange in soils occurs on surfaces of clay and other minerals,
organic matter (OM), and roots (Fig. 2-2). Ion exchange is a reversible process by
which a cation or anion adsorbed on the surface is exchanged with another cation or
anion in the soil solution. Cation exchange is generally considered to be more impor-
tant, since the cation exchange capacity (CEC) is much larger than the anion exchange
capacity (AEC) of most agricultural soils. Ion exchange reactions in soils are very im-
portant to plant nutrient availability and retention in soil. Thus, it is essential that we
understand the origin of the surface charge on soil minerals and OM.

Cation Exchange of Clay Minerals in Soil

Solid materials in soils comprise about 50% of the soil volume, with the remain-
ing volume occupied by water and air. The solid portion comprises both inorganic
minerals and OM in various stages of decay. The inorganic fraction consists of sand,
silt, and clay particles. The clay fraction primarily consists of aluminosilicate miner-
als composed of sheets of layers of silica (Si) tetrahedra and aluminum (Al) octahedra
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 19

Figure 2-2
Soil Solution
Mineral, organic matter, and
cations/anions
root exchange surfaces in
Ca12 K1 Mg12 soils. Also shown is the ion
Ca12 Ca12 1
2 Soil Clays
a cation/anion absorption by roots and root
H1 Al13 C
2H1 2H1 exchange exudation of ions to main-
12 tain electrical neutrality of
K1 Mg the soil solution.
2
H1 1 H1 Soil OM/Microbes
NO3 2 Ca
cation/anion exchange
Cation, OH2
NO32 SO422 mineralization-immobilization
anion, Ca12
& water 2H1 NH41 1
H
uptake H2PO42
H2O
HCO32 Soil Minerals
H2O 2 cation/anion exchange
2 H2PO4 Ca 1
H2PO4 2 dissolution-precipitation
H2O
Ca12
Ca12
Calcareous soils
Mg12 [Ca/MgCO3, Ca3(PO4)2, etc.]
H1
Al13 13
K1 H2PO42 Al Acid soils
13
Fe13 Al [Al/Fe oxides, Al/Fe(PO4), etc.]
Root 2
Surface H2PO4

(Fig. 2-3). The structure of a Si tetrahedra is one Si+4 cation bonded to four O-2
anions, whereas the Al octahedra is one Al+3 cation bonded to six OH- anions. The
long sheets or layers of tetrahedra and octahedra are bonded together to form the
aluminosilicate or clay minerals.
The clay minerals exist in 1:1, 2:1, and 2:1:1 forms. Kaolinite is the most
common 1:1 clay and is composed of one Si sheet and one Al sheet (Fig. 2-4). The
2:1 clays are composed of an Al octahedral layer between two Si tetrahedral layers,
where mica, smectite, and vermiculite are the most common 2:1 clays (Fig. 2-5).

Figure 2-3
Chemical structure of
Si tetrahedra, Al octahedra,
and the tetrahedral and
octahedral sheets.
(Adapted from Sposito, 1989, The
Chemistry of Soils, Oxford University
Press.)
20 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-4
Structures of a 1:1 mineral,
kaolinite, and a 2:1 mineral,
pyrophyllite. No isomorphic
substitution occurs in the
tetrahedral or octahedral C-spacing
layers. A nanometer (nm) is 0.7 nm Al octahedra
1 * 10-9 m. C-spacing is the
distance between each unit
cell (tetrahedral-octahedral
Si tetrahedra
layer including the space
between layers).
Kaolinite
(Adapted from Bear [Ed.], 1964,
Chemistry of the Soil, ASC
Monograph Series No. 160.)

C-spacing
0.9 nm

Pyrophillite

Pyrophyllite 2:1 minerals (Fig. 2-4) are not common in soils, but illustrate 2:1 clays
with no isomorphic substitution (defined in the next paragraph). Chlorites are 2:1:1
aluminosilicates that consist of an interlayer Al (acid soils) or Mg (basic soils) hydrox-
ide sheet in addition to the 2:1 structure referred to previously (Fig. 2-6).
Clay minerals exhibit negative (CEC) and positive (AEC) surface charge. The
major source of negative charge arises from replacement of either the tetrahedral Si+4
or octahedral Al+3 cations with cations of lower charge. Cation replacement in miner-
als is called isomorphic substitution and occurs predominately in 2:1 minerals, with very
little substitution in 1:1 minerals. Isomorphic substitution occurs during the forma-
tion of these minerals and is largely unaffected by present environmental conditions.
Muscovite mica has a similar structure to pyrophyllite (Fig. 2-4) except for the
substitution of one Al+3 for every fourth Si+4 in the tetrahedral layer, resulting in an
increase of one negative 1 - 2 charge for each substitution. The high 1 - 2 surface
charge combined with the unique geometry of the tetrahedral layer allows K + cations
to neutralize the 1 - 2 charge between two 2:1 layers (Fig. 2-5). The resulting mica
mineral exhibits a lower C-spacing, and the mineral is considered “collapsed,” with
little of the 1 - 2 surface charge available to attract cations. Thus, muscovite mica has
a lower CEC than other 2:1 minerals because the interlayer surfaces are not accessible
to cation exchange (Table 2-1). Other micas exist in soil depending on the source
parent materials; however, most differ from muscovite with additional isomorphic
substitution of Mg +2 and/or Fe+2 for Al+3 in the octahedral layer. Illite is a term often
used for mica, but it is more weathered with a structure between muscovite mica and
smectite, with isomorphic substitution in both tetra- and octahedral layers and some
of the interlayer K + has been replaced with other cations 1 Ca+2, Mg +2 2.
In smectites, Mg +2 or Fe+2 replaces some of the octahedral Al+3, again result-
ing in an increase of one 1 - 2 charge for each substitution. Compare the unsubsti-
tuted 2:1 pyrophyllite (Fig. 2-4) with the isomorphic substitution in the 2:1 mica
(muscovite) and 2:1 smectite (montmorillonite) (Fig. 2-5). With montmorillonite,
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 21

Figure 2-5
Structures of mica, mont-
Interlayer K morillonite, and vermiculite,
all 2:1 minerals. Isomorphic
Si tetrahedra
C-spacing substitution occurs in the
10 Å tetrahedral and octahedral
layers.
Al octahedra
(Adapted from Bear [Ed.], 1964,
Chemistry of the Soil, ACS
Monograph Series No. 160.)
Si tetrahedra

Mica (Illite)

Exchangeable
Ca, Mg, K, a
cations

C-spacing
9.6–21.4 Å

Smectite (Montmorillonite)

and/ or Al (OH)x
(acid soils)

C-spacing
10–15 Å

Vermiculite

Si Figure 2-6
O Structure of chlorite, a 2:1:1
OH mineral. Isomorphic substi-
C-spacing Mg, Fe, Al tution occurs in the tetrahe-
1.4 nm dral and octahedral layers.
OH
O The interlayer is occupied
Al, Si with Mg1OH2x or Al1OH2x
layer.
O, OH (Adapted from Bear [Ed.], 1964,
Mg, Fe21 Chemistry of the Soil, ACS Mono-
O, OH graph Series No. 160.)

Al, Si
O
Chlorite
22
TABLE 2-1
S ELECTED P ROPERTIES OF THE C OMMON L AYERED A LUMINUM -S ILICATE C LAY M INERALS IN S OILS

Layer Interlayer C-spacing6 Degree of CEC8

Clay Mineral1 Chemical Formula2 Clay Type IS3 Charge4 Cations5 (nm) Expansion7 (meq/100 g)
Kaolinite Al4Si4O101OH28 1:1 none 0 H 0.7 None 2–15
Mica Al21Si3Al12O101OH22 2:1 T (O) 1 K 1.0 None 10–40
Smectite 1Al, Fe, Mg24Si8O201OH24 2:1 O (T) 0.2–0.6 Ca, Mg, K 1.0–2.1 High 80–150
Vermiculite 1Al, Fe, Mg241Si, Al28O201OH24 2:1 T (O) 0.6–0.9 Mg, Al 1.0–1.5 Low 100–180
Chlorite 1Al, Mg241Si, Al28O201OH42 2:1:1 T, O 1 Mg, Al1OH26 1.4 None 10–40
1Represents a type of common mineral, where several variations of each can exist in soils depending on source parent material and weathering environment.
2General representation as several variations exist under each mineral type.
3Dominant isomorphic substitution (some variations exist); T = tetrahedral layer; O = octahedral layer; thus, T (O) means dominant substitution in tetrahedral, where some mineral types also have substitution
in octahedra.
4Net negative charge in a half unit of the mineral due to the isomorphic substitution.
5Dominant interlayer cation or compound; in chlorite and vermiculite, the presence of Mg or Al depends on pH (more Al in acid soil, more Mg in alkaline soils).
6Distance of tetrahedral + octahedral + interlayer (see Figs. 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6); nm is nanometer 11 * 10 -9 m2.
7Shrink-swell potential.
8CEC of the pure mineral.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 23

isomorphic substitution occurs only in the octahedral layer 1Mg +2 and Fe+22, where
interlayer attraction forces are less than in clay minerals with tetrahedral substitution.
Thus, montmorillonite has a much higher CEC and readily expands and contracts
with wetting and drying conditions.
The 2:1 vermiculite is commonly weathered from micas; thus, isomorphic sub-
stitution occurs in both the octahedral and tetrahedral layers. Although isomorphic
substitution 1Al+3 for Si+42 in the tetrahedral layer is less than in mica, the tetrahe-
dral charge attracts hydrated cations 1Ca+2, Mg +2 2 , which limits expansion of the
interlayer compared to smectites. Therefore, vermiculite has a higher CEC, but lower
interlayer expansion when wet compared to smectites (Table 2-1).
Chlorites are similar to other substituted 2:1 minerals except that the inter-
layer space is occupied by a layer of Mg 1 OH 2 x called brucite or Al1OH 2 x called
gibbsite (Fig. 2-6). The surface of these layers is 1 + 2 charged and is attracted to the
1-2 charged tetrahedral surface. As a result, adsorption of H2O or other cations in
the interlayer is limited, thus chlorites are non-expansive and exhibit a low CEC
(Table 2-1).
The location of the isomorphic substitution (tetrahedral, octahedral, or both)
imparts specific properties to the clay minerals that affect the quantity of 1 - 2 surface
charge or CEC (Table 2-1). For example, isomorphic substitution 1Al+3 for Si+42 in
the tetrahedral layer locates the 1 - 2 charge closer to the mineral surface compared
with octahedral substitution. Compared to mica, smectite is an expanding mineral
(wide variable C-spacing); however, expansion in vermiculite is more restricted be-
cause total layer charge (isomorphic substitution) is greater and also partially located
in the tetrahedra, which collapses the interlayer more in the smectites minerals like
montmorillonite (Fig. 2-5).
Intergrade 2:1 minerals are similar to smectites and vermiculites except the
interlayer area contains discontinuous “islands” of brucite in alkaline soils or gibbsite
in acid soils (Fig. 2-7). The latter hydroxyl-Al interlayered vermiculites are common
in ultisols and other highly weathered acid soils typical of the southeastern United
States. As with chlorites, the intergrade minerals are non-expansive and exhibit a
much lower CEC compared to vermiculites and smectites.
Many other non-layered minerals exist in soils that exhibit surface exchange
properties (Table 2-2). The clay-sized crystalline or amorphous compounds impart
both CEC and AEC, and occur as distinct minerals or as coatings on layered silicates
and other minerals.

Figure 2-7
Structure of hydroxy-Al
Si vermiculite. The interlayer is
O occupied with “islands” of
OH Al1OH2x. While isomorphic
C-spacing substitution occurs in both
Al
1.4 nm tetrahedral and octahedral
OH
layers, the net 1 +2 charge
O
Al, Si
of the Al1OH2x neutralizes
1 -2 surface charge, reduc-
O, OH ing CEC. Mineral exhibits
Mg, Fe21 high pH-dependent charge
O, OH as some of the H + on the Al-
OH are neutralized exposing
Al, Si
O 1 -2 charge from Al -O - .
(Adapted from Bear [Ed.], 1964,
Chemistry of the Soil, ACS
Hydroxy-Al Vermiculite
Monograph Series No. 160.)
24 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

TABLE 2-2
P RIMARY AND S ECONDARY M INERALS IN S OILS

Mineral Classification1 Chemical Formula

CaSO4 # 2H2O
Increasing weathering intensity

Gypsum Primary
Calcium Carbonate Primary CaCO3
Amphiboles Primary Ca2Mg5Si8O221OH22
Hornblend Primary NaCa21Mg, Fe, Al251SiAl28O221OH22
Olivine Primary 1Mg, Fe22SiO4
Mica (biotite) Primary K1Mg, Fe23 1Si3Al2O101OH22
Feldspar Primary 1Ca, K, Na2Al2Si2O8
Quartz Primary SiO2
Mica (muscovite) Primary KAl21Si3Al2O101OH22
Chlorite Secondary 3Mg, Al1OH2641Al, Mg241Si, Al28O201OH24
Vermiculite Secondary 1Al, Mg, Fe241Si, Al28O201OH24
Smectite Secondary 1Al, Fe, Mg24Si8O201OH24
Kaolinite Secondary Al4Si4O101OH28
Allophane, Imogolite Secondary Al2O3 # SiO2
Gibbsite Secondary Al1OH23
Hematite Secondary Fe2O3
Goethite Secondary FeOOH
1Secondary minerals are weathered from primary minerals
Note: The phyllosilicates (layered clay minerals) are in bold. Minerals are listed in order of increasing weathering intensity, where gypsum occurs
in relatively unweathered soils and gibbsite commonly occurs in highly weathered soils. Notice how the proportion of basic cation (Ca, Mg, K, Na)
content decreases as weathering intensity increases.

The 1 - 2 charge associated with isomorphic substitution is uniformly distrib-

uted over the surface of the clay minerals and is considered a permanent charge and
unaffected by solution pH (Fig. 2-8). Another source of charge is associated with the
edge surface of clay minerals. The quantity of 1 - 2 or 1 + 2 charge on the edges de-
pends on soil solution pH (Fig. 2-8). The edge charge is called a pH-dependent charge.
Under low pH, the edge is 1 + 2 charged because of the excess H+ ions associated
with the exposed Si-OH and Al-OH groups (Fig. 2-9). As soil solution pH increases,
some of the H+ is neutralized, and the edge charge becomes more negative. Increas-
ing the pH above 7.0 results in a nearly complete removal of H+ ions on the Si-OH
and Al-OH groups, which maximizes the 1 - 2 edge charge. Only about 5–10% of
the 1 - 2 charge on 2:1 clays is pH dependent, whereas 50% or more of the charge
developed on 1:1 clay minerals is pH dependent.

Figure 2-8
Permanent and
pH-dependent charge
associated with clay
minerals.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 25

Figure 2-9
The pH-dependent charge
associated with broken
edges of kaolinite.

Acidic pH Neutral pH Basic pH

Total Total Total

edge = +1 (AEC) edge = 0 edge = –2 (CEC)
charge charge charge

OH OH
O O
C–OH C–O–

+ 2H+
O O
C–OH C–O–

Low pH High pH

Figure 2-10
Suggested structure for humic acid in soil. The COOH groups are the pH-dependent sites, where increasing pH increases 1 -2
sites or CEC and decreasing pH increases 1 +2 sites or AEC.

Another source of pH-dependent charge is associated with soil OM (Fig. 2-10).

Most of the 1 - 2 charge originates from the dissociation of H+ from carboxylic acid
and, to a lesser extent, phenolic acid groups. As pH increases, some of these H+ ions
are neutralized, increasing the 1 - 2 surface charge. Although the CEC is highly vari-
able depending on soil pH, soil OM contributes greatly to total soil CEC. Pure soil
OM is estimated to have a CEC of 100–300 meq/100 g soil.

CEC of Whole Soil

The CEC of a soil is strongly affected by the nature and quantity of clay minerals
and OM in the soil (Table 2-1). Soils with predominately 2:1 minerals have higher
CEC than soils with predominately 1:1 minerals or higher weathered soils containing
26 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

TABLE 2-3
T YPICAL R ANGE IN CEC FOR M OLLISOLS AND U LTISOLS
OF THE M IDWEST AND S OUTHEASTERN U NITED S TATES

Soil Textural Class Mollisol Ultisol

______________ meq>100 g ______________

Sands (light colored) 3–5 ∼1

Sands (dark colored) 10–20 1–3
Loams 10–15 1.5–5
Silt loams 15–25 2–6
Clay and clay loams 20–50 3–5
Organic soils 50–100 20–40

hydroxyl-Al vermiculite. Soils with high clay and OM contents have a higher CEC
than sandy, low OM soils (Table 2-3).
The CEC of southeastern U.S. soils (ultisols) is mostly pH dependent, whereas
that of Midwest soils (mollisols) is mostly permanent charge (Table 2-3). The pH-
dependent CEC originates from three reactions:
• Soil clays with sesquioxide 3 Al, Fe 1OH 2 x 4 coatings develop a 1 - 2 charge as sur-
face H+ on Al, Fe 1OH 2 x are neutralized with liming and increasing surface 1 - 2
charge.
• Hydroxyl-Al vermiculite (2:1:1) is a dominant clay mineral in southeastern U.S.,
where Al1 OH 2 x is present in the interlayer. As pH increases with liming, the H+
associated with the interlayer Al1OH 2 x are neutralized, resulting in additional
1 - 2 charge.
• The 1 - 2 charge of the carboxyl group in soil OM (Fig. 2-10) is neutralized by
Al+3 and Al1OH2x +n, which are tightly adsorbed by COO- groups and are not
exchangeable. As pH increases with liming, Al+3 and Al1OH2x +n are neutralized,
increasing surface 1 - 2 charge.
The differences in mineralogy cause the CEC of Midwest soils to be four to five times
higher than southeastern soils at similar clay and OM contents.
The following example shows the importance of content and type of clay min-
eral and OM on soil CEC.

EXAMPLE
A soil has 27% clay (1/3 each of kaolinite, montmorillonite, vermiculite) and 4%
OM. Calculate the CEC in meq/100 g of this soil.
kaolinite S 10 meq>100 g * 9% = 0.9
montmorillonite S 100 meq>100 g * 9% = 9.0
vermiculite S 140 meq>100 g * 9% = 12.6
soil OM S 200 meq>100 g * 4% = 8.0
soil CEC = 30.5 meq>100 g

This example is for illustration purposes only, because in practice, substantial techni-
cal expertise is required to quantify specific clay mineral content in soils and, thus,
these analyses are not routinely performed.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 27

Cations and Anions on Soil Exchange Surface

Except for Al+3 and Na+ , most of the exchangeable cations are plant nutrients
(Table 2-4). In acidic soils, the principal cations are Al+3, H+ , Ca+2, Mg +2, and K + ,
whereas in neutral and basic soils, the predominant cations are Ca+2, Mg +2, K + , and
Na+ . Cations are adsorbed to the CEC with different adsorption strengths, influenc-
ing the ease with which cations can be replaced or exchanged with other cations.
For most minerals, the strength of cation adsorption, or lyotropic series, is generally
represented by:
Al+3 7 H+ 7 Ca+2 7 Mg +2 7 K + = NH4+ 7 Na+
The properties of the cations determine the strength of adsorption or ease of desorp-
tion. First, the strength of adsorption is directly proportional to the charge on the
cations 1 7 charge 7 adsorption strength2. The H+ ion is unique because of its very
small size and high charge density; thus, its adsorption strength is between Al+3 and
Ca+2. Second, the adsorption strength for cations with similar charge is determined
by the size or radii of the hydrated cation (Table 2-4). As the size of the hydrated
cation increases, the distance between the cation and the clay surface increases. Larger
hydrated cations cannot get as close to the exchange surface as smaller cations, result-
ing in decreased strength of adsorption.
Strict interpretation of the lyotropic series is difficult as many factors influence
the potential of a charged mineral surface to preferentially adsorb one cation over
another. These include mineral type (kaolinite vs. vermiculite vs. montmorillonite),
solution pH, dominant anions present, electrical potential of the charged surface, and
other factors beyond the scope of this text. For example, vermiculite can adsorb K +
and NH4+ preferentially over Ca+2, where the reverse is true for montmorillonite. At
neutral or higher soil pH, kaolinite shows higher preference for divalent than mon-
ovalent cations, where the opposite occurs in acid solutions. Compared to solution

TABLE 2-4
C ATIONS AND A NIONS A SSOCIATED WITH S URFACE E XCHANGE IN S OILS

Atomic Equivalent Ionic Radii

Ion Weight Weight Nonhydrated Hydrated
g/eq or ______________ nm ______________
g/mole mg/meq
Cations
+3
Al 27 9 0.051
H+ 1 1
Ca+2 40 20 0.099 0.96
Mg+2 24 12 0.065 1.08
K+ 39 39 0.133 0.53
NH4+ 18 18 0.143 0.54
Na+ 23 23 0.095 0.79
Anions
H2PO4- 97 97
SO4-2 96 48
NO3- 62 62
-
Cl 35 35
OH- 17 17
28 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

SO4-2, Ca+2 is held stronger in the presence of Cl- . Despite these differences, the
general lyotropic series depicted earlier can be used; however, the order of adsorption
strength does not mean that adding Ca+2 when liming an acid soil would replace all
of the exchangeable Al+3. If the solution cation concentration increases sufficiently
(lime, fertilizers, other amendments), then any cation can be exchanged through
mass action, similar to NH4+ replacing all exchangeable cations in the example on
page 31. There are situations where knowledge of the lyotropic series can explain
cation exchange behavior in soils and we will highlight these in subsequent chapters.

Quantifying CEC and AEC

CEC is one of the most important soil chemical properties influencing nutrient
availability and retention in soil. Soil CEC represents the total quantity of 1 - 2
surface charge on minerals and OM available to attract cations in solution. CEC is
expressed as milliequivalents of 1 - 2 charge per 100 g of oven-dried soil 1meq/100 g2.1
The meq unit is used instead of mass because CEC represents both the meq/100 g
of 1 - 2 charge and the total meq/100 g of cations adsorbed to the CEC. Since the
specific cations associated with CEC will vary, it is more meaningful to simply quan-
tify the total charges involved.

EXAMPLE
Converting CEC units from meq/100 g soil to cmol/kg soil
A soil has a CEC of 15 meq/100 g soil.
15 meq CEC 1 mole 1-2 1 eq 102 cmole 103 g
* * 3 * *
100 g soil eq 10 meq mole kg
15 cmole CEC
=
kg soil

Before we quantify CEC and related properties in soils, it is important to

review the basic quantitative chemistry needed to perform these calculations.
The definitions of equivalents and equivalent weight are developed from the
following:
• Atomic weight: mass 1g2 of 6 * 1023 atoms of the substance. One mole 1m2 of
a substance is 6 * 1023 atoms, molecules, ions, compounds, and so on; there-
fore, units of atomic weight are grams per mole (g/mole). A mole exactly represents
6 * 1023 atoms, ions, compounds, and so on, similar to the word dozen exactly
represents 12!
• Equivalent weight: mass 1g2 of a substance (e.g., cation, anion, or compound) that
will react with (equivalent to) 1 g of H+ or 1 mole 16 * 1023 2 of charges; there-
fore, units of equivalent weight are grams per equivalent (g/eq).

1The International System of Units or SI unit system is used by the scientific community. Thus,
meq/100 g becomes cmol/kg in SI units, representing the centimole (cmol) of charge per kilogram of
soil. The conversion is 1 meq>100 g soil = 1 cmol>kg. We use meq>100 g in this text because all soil
testing laboratories in the United States report CEC in meq>100 g units. When encountering soil test
data from international laboratories, you may see cmol>kg unit for CEC. The conversion is simple as
shown in the example on this page.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 29

The definitions of atomic weight and equivalent weight are very similar:
atomic weight = g>6 * 1023 ions or molecules
equivalent weight = g>6 * 1023 1-2 or 1+2 charges = g>mole charge = g>eq
Let’s practice these principles with several exchangeable cations. For example, con-
sider a soil that contains 1 mole of K + cations:
1 mole K + ions = 6 * 1023 K + ions
= 1 1+2 charge>ion * 16 * 10232 ion>mole
= 6 * 1023 charges>mole
= 1 mole 1 + 2 charges
+
From the periodic table, the atomic weight of K = 39 g>mole K + ions
Therefore, the equivalent weight of K + = 39 g>mole 1+2 charge or
since 1 mole 1+2>equivalent, then = 39 g>eq
Since the number of ions and charges are equal for K + , the atomic weight = equivalent weight.
For a divalent ion:
1 mole Ca+2 ions = 6 * 1023 Ca+2 ions
= 2 1+2 charges>ion * 16 * 10232 ions>mole
= 12 * 1023 1 + 2 charges>mole
= 2 mole 1 + 2 charges
From the periodic table, the atomic weight of Ca+2 = 40 g>mole Ca+2 ions
Therefore, the equivalent weight of Ca+2 = 40 g>2 moles 1 + 2 charge
= 20 g>1 mole 1 + 2 charge or
since 1 mole 1+2>equivalent, then = 20 g>eq
For a trivalent ion:
1 mole Al+3 ions = 6 * 1023 Al+3 ions
= 3 1+2 charges>ion * 16 * 10232 ions>mole
= 18 * 1023 1 + 2 charges>mole Al+3
= 3 moles 1 + 2 charges
From the periodic table the atomic weight of Al+3 = 27 g>mole Al+3 ions
Therefore, the equivalent weight of Al+3 = 27 g>3 moles 1+2 charge
= 9 g>1 mole 1 + 2 charge or
since 1 mole 1+2>equivalent, then = 9 g>eq
The use of equivalent weight in soil fertility is a convenient way to quantify
cations and anions involved in exchange reactions (Fig. 2-2). If K + replaces Ca+2 on
the exchange surface, then it will take 2 moles of K + to replace or exchange 1 mole
of Ca+2 32 1+2 charges exchanges with 2 1 + 2 charges4. If Ca+2 replaces Al+3, then
3 moles of Ca+2 replaces 2 moles of Al+3 361 +2 charges exchanges with 61 + 2 charges4.
Therefore, 1 mole of 1 + 2 charge replaces 1 mole of 1 + 2 charge regardless of which
ions are involved or:
1 equivalent of A = 1 equivalent of B
where A and B are ions or compounds involved in the reaction.
30 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

The equivalent weight of a compound is determined by knowing the reaction

involved. For example:
CaCO3 + 2H+ N Ca+2 + CO2 + H2O
The equivalent weight of calcium carbonate 1CaCO3 2 is determined from the
periodic table by:
1 molecular weight of CaCO3 1100 g>m2 neutralizes or reacts with 2 moles of
H+ (see reaction).
Now, remember 1 mole H+ = 1 equivalent H+ (1 mole ions = 1 mole charge
for univalent ions); thus,
100 g CaCO3 50 g CaCO3 50 g CaCO3
+ = + =
2 moles H 1 mole H eq
Expressing concentration
ppm = part per million S 1 g per 106 g
1 pound per 106 pounds
Convert 10 ppm Ca+2 in soil to mg Ca+2 >kg soil
10 g Ca+2 103 g soil 103 mg Ca+2 10 mg Ca+2
10 ppm Ca+2 in soil = * * =
106 g soil kg soil g Ca+2 kg soil
Convert 10 ppm Ca+2 in soil solution to mg Ca+2 >L solution

10 g Ca+2 1 g H2O 103 mL H2O

10 ppm Ca+2 in solution = * *
106 g H2O 1 mL H2O L H2O

103 mg Ca+2 10 mg Ca+2

* =
g Ca+2 L H2O

Determination of CEC
While descriptions of detailed laboratory methods for soil analysis are not pro-
vided in this text, visualizing cation exchange in this manner is helpful in quan-
tifying CEC and the proportion of cations on the CEC. A conventional method
of CEC measurement is to extract a soil sample with neutral 1 N ammonium
acetate 1NH4OAc 2 . Sufficient NH4+ is added so that all of the exchangeable
cations are replaced by NH4+ , and the CEC becomes saturated with NH4+ (see
Step 1). If this NH4+ saturated soil is extracted with a solution of a different
salt, such as BaCl2, the Ba+2 will replace all the NH4+ (see Step 2). If the soil-
BaCl2 suspension is filtered, the filtrate will contain NH4+ that was previously
adsorbed to the CEC. The quantity of NH4+ in the filtrate is a measure of the
CEC. Recall that
1 equivalent of A = 1 equivalent of B
+
so, # equivalents NH4 = # equivalents of CEC
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 31

NH4+
NH4+
NH4+
K+
NH4+
Ca+2 Step 1
NH4+
AI+3 Replace original
10 g Soil

Mg+2 NH4+
NH4CI K+
+ Ca+2 exchangeable cations
AI+3 NH4+ AI+3
Ca+2 NH4+
AI+3
Mg+2 with NH4 + . Discard
K+
NH4+ +2 Ca +2 original cations.
K+ Ca
NH4+ AI +3 Ca+2
AI+3
NH4+
Discard
NH4+
NH4+
NH4+

NH4+
NH4+
500 mL
NH4+ Ba+2
NH4+ Ba+2
NH4+
Step 2
NH4+ NH4+ NH +
Ba+2 Replace exchangeable
10 g Soil

4
NH4+ BaCI NH4+
NH4 + with Ba+2.
NH4+
2 NH4+ NH +
NH4+ Ba+2 + 4 NH +

Collect NH4 + in 500 mL

NH4+ NH + 4
4 NH4+
NH4 + Ba+2 NH4+ NH4+
NH +
flask and measure NH4 +
4 +
NH4+ NH4+ NH4
NH4+ Ba+2 NH4+ NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+ NH4+ NH4+ NH4
+ concentration.
Ba+2
NH4+
NH4+ Analyze
+
NH4
NH4+

For example, suppose that the concentration of NH4+ in the 500 mL flask was 72 ppm
(10 g of soil; 500 mL final solution volume). The CEC is calculated as follows:
72 ppm NH4+ = 72 mg NH4+ >L
172 mg NH4+ >L2 * 10.5 L>10 g soil2 = 3.6 mg NH4+ >g soil
13.6 mg NH4+ >g soil2 , 118 mg NH4+ >meq2 = 0.2 meq NH4+ >g soil
10.2 meq NH4+ >g soil2 * 100>100 = 20 meq NH4+ >100 g soil
= 20 meq CEC>100 g soil
The 20 meq g soil represents the CEC because the NH4+ replaced the
NH4+ >100
original cations on the CEC. Thus, meq cations = meq CEC. The equivalent
weight of NH4+ is given in Table 2-4.

Base Saturation
One of the important properties of a soil is its base saturation (BS), which is defined as
the percentage of total CEC occupied by Ca+2, Mg +2, K + , and Na+ . In the following
diagram, cations on the exchange are both acids 1Al+3 2 and bases 1Ca+2, Mg +2, K + 2.
In this example, Na+ is not included because most soils with appreciable exchange-
able acidity (Chapter 3) contain negligible exchangeable Na+ . There are 12 1 + 2
charges as bases and 12 1 + 2 charges as acids, or 50% BS 112>24 * 100 = 50%2.
32 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Ca+2 Ca+2 Bases

Soil Exchange or CEC

AI+3 K+
K+ K+
Ca+2 Ca+2 12 (+) charges
Mg+2 Mg+2
AI+3 Ca+2
Ca+2 Ca+2
K+ AI+3 Acids
AI+3 AI+3
Ca+2 AI+3 12 (+) charges
AI+3 AI+3

To further illustrate, suppose that the following ion concentrations were measured
in the 500 mL NH4Cl extract of the 10 g soil in the previous CEC example, where
CEC = 20 meq>100 g soil.
Ca+2 = 48 ppm
Mg +2 = 4.8 ppm
K + = 7.8 ppm
The equivalent weights of the cations are found in Table 2-4. The following calcula-
tions are used to express the cation concentrations in CEC units and determine BS.
Ca+2 = 48 ppm = 48 mg>L * 10.5 L>10 g soil2>120 mg>meq2 * 100>100
= 12 meq Ca+2 >100 g soil
Mg +2 = 4.8 ppm = 4.8 mg>L * 10.5 L>10 g soil2>112 mg>meq2 * 100>100
= 2 meq Mg +2 >100 g soil
K + = 7.8 ppm = 7.8 mg>L * 10.5 L>10 g soil2>139 mg>meq2 * 100>100
= 1 meq K + >100 g
Total 1Ca+2 + Mg +2 + K + 2 = 15 meq bases>100 g
Base saturation % = 1total bases>CEC2 * 100
= 3115 meq>100 g2>120 meq>100 g24 * 100
= 75% BS
The saturation with any cation may be calculated in a similar fashion. For exam-
ple, from the preceding data, %Mg saturation = 12 meq Mg +2 >20 meq CEC2 *
100 = 10% Mg.
Generally, BS of uncultivated soils is higher for arid- than for humid-region
soils. The BS of soils formed from limestone or basic igneous rock is greater than that
of soils formed from sandstone or acidic igneous rock.
The availability of Ca+2, Mg +2, and K + to plants increases with increasing BS. For
example, a soil with 80% BS would provide cations to growing plants far more easily
than a similar soil with 40% BS. The relation between BS and cation availability is modi-
fied by the nature of the soil colloids. As a rule, soils with large amounts of OM or 1:1
clays can supply nutrient cations to plants at a much lower BS than soils high in 2:1 clays.
Soil pH–BS relationship Base saturation increases with increasing soil pH
(Fig. 2-11). In this example, pH 5.5 equals about 50% BS and pH 6.5 equals 75%
BS. If the CEC of this soil was 20 meq/100 g, then:
50% BS * 20 meq CEC>100 g soil = 10 meq bases>100 g soil @ pH 5.5
75% BS * 20 meq CEC>100 g soil = 15 meq bases>100 g soil @ pH 6.5
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 33

Figure 2-11
General relationship
between soil pH and
base saturation.

BASE SATURATION (%)

The soil pH–BS relationship varies slightly among different soils (Fig. 2-12). In
ultisols, BS is ∼50% at pH 5, 80% at pH 6, and ∼100% at pH 7. Despite the varia-
tion between soils, pH–BS relationships can be helpful in evaluating lime require-
ments for acidic soils (see Chapter 3). Increasing pH has a greater effect on increasing
CEC in the OM fraction in soil compared to montmorillonite, which exhibits little
pH-dependent charge (Fig. 2-13). Thus, the influence of pH on CEC is greatest in
soils high in OM. Weathered, acidic soils containing hydroxyl-Al vermiculites (ulti-
sols) also exhibit strong pH-dependent CEC, due to the large quantity of Al1 OH 2 x
in the interlayer space of these clays (Fig. 2-7).

Anion Exchange
Anions in soil solution are adsorbed to 1 + 2 charged sites on clay mineral edges and
OM. Anion exchange may also occur with OH groups on the hydroxyl surface of
kaolinite. Displacement of OH from hydrous Fe and Al oxides is also an important
mechanism for anion exchange, particularly in highly weathered soils of the tropics
and subtropics.
AEC increases as soil pH decreases (Fig. 2-8). Further, AEC is much greater in
acid soils high in 1:1 clays and those containing Fe and Al oxides than in soils with
predominately 2:1 clays. The exception is soils that contain hydroxyl-Al vermiculites
common to the southeastern United States. Montmorillonitic minerals usually have

8 Figure 2-12
Relationship between soil
pH and BS for ultisols in the
southeastern United States.
7
SOIL pH

4
0 20 40 60 80 100
BS (%)
34 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-13
Influence of pH on CEC in
300 Hydroxy-Al
pure OM, montmorillonite,
Vermiculite
and hydroxyl-Al vermiculite
clay minerals.

CEC (meq/100 g)
Organic Matter
200

100 Montmorillonite

0
4 5 6 7 8
SOIL pH

an AEC of less than 5 meq>100 g, whereas kaolinites can have an AEC as high as
40 meq>100 g at pH 4.7. Anions such as Cl- and NO3- may be adsorbed, although
not to the extent of H2PO4- and SO4-2. The order of adsorption strength is
H2PO4- 7 SO4-2 7 NO3- 7 Cl-
In most soils, H2PO4- is the primary anion adsorbed, although some acidic
soils also adsorb significant quantities of SO4-2. The mechanisms for H2PO4-
adsorption in soils are much more complex than the simple electrostatic attrac-
tion, as with SO4-2, NO3-, and Cl- . H2PO4- can be adsorbed by Al and Fe oxide
minerals through reactions that result in chemical bonds that are non-electrostatic
(Fig. 2-14).

Root Cation Exchange Capacity

Plant roots exhibit a CEC ranging from 10 to 30 meq/100 g in monocotyle-
dons (grasses) and 40 to 100 meq/100 g in dicotyledons (broadleaves, legumes)
(Table 2-5). The exchange properties of roots are attributable mainly to car-
boxyl groups 1COOH2, similar to the exchange sites on humus (Fig. 2-10), and
account for 70–90% of root CEC. Legumes and other plant species with high
root CEC tend to absorb divalent cations preferentially over monovalent cat-
ions, whereas the reverse occurs with grasses. These root CEC properties help to
explain why, in grass-legume pastures on soils containing less than adequate K + ,
the grass survives but the legume disappears. The grasses absorb K + more effec-
tively than legumes.

Fe Fe
Fe
OH Anion
OH H+
O OH H (+1/2) O O -P-O A–n exchange
O O-P-O H+
OH A–n capacity in
OH H+
2H2PO4– + 2OH– acid soils
Fe Fe Fe
OH H+
OH A–n [A–n = anions]
O OH H (+1/2) O O- P-O O O-P -O H+ A–n
OH OH H+
Fe Fe Fe

Figure 2-14
Chemical adsorption of phosphate 1H2PO4- 2 to iron hydroxide 3Fe1OH234 minerals in soils and how
anion exchange may be exhibited in acid soils.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 35

TABLE 2-5
CEC OF S ELECTED R OOTS

Species CEC meq/100 g Dry Root

Wheat 23
Corn 29
Bean 54
Tomato 62

BUFFERING CAPACITY
One of the most important chemical principles in soil chemistry and nutrient man-
agement is the soil buffer capacity (BC). Plant nutrient availability depends on the
concentration of nutrients in solution but, more importantly, on the capacity of
the soil to maintain the concentration in solution. The BC represents the ability or
capacity of the soil to resupply an ion to the soil solution.
The BC involves all of the solid components in the soil system. Therefore, cat-
ions and anions must exist in soils as solid compounds, adsorbed to exchange sites,
and in soil OM (Fig. 2-2). For example, when Al+3 in solution is neutralized by
liming, Al+3 will desorb from the mineral or OM exchange sites. The solution pH is
then buffered by exchangeable Al+3 and will not increase until significant quantities
of exchangeable Al+3 (buffer capacity) have been neutralized. Similarly, as plant roots
absorb nutrients such as K + , exchangeable K + is desorbed to resupply solution K + .
If the quantity of exchangeable K + (%K saturation) is low, then the soil’s capacity to
meet crop K + requirement is low and K + must be applied to sustain normal plant
growth. With some nutrients, such as H2PO4-, solid P minerals dissolve to resupply
or buffer the solution H2PO4- concentration.
Soil BC can be described by the ratio of the concentrations of adsorbed 1∆Q2
and solution 1 ∆I2 ions. Fig. 2-15 illustrates the quantity (Q) and intensity (I)
relationships between two soils. Soil A has a higher BC than soil B, as indicated
by the steeper slope 1 ∆Q> ∆I2. Thus, increasing the concentration of adsorbed
ions increases the solution concentration in soil B much more than that in soil A,

Figure 2-15
Relationship between quan-
tity of adsorbed nutrient and
concentration of the nutrient
in solution (intensity). BC
1∆Q> ∆I2 of soil A is greater
than that of soil B.
36 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-16
Graphical representation
of the influence of BC on

SOLUTION P CONCENTRATION
changes in solution P con- Sand
centration with addition of
fertilizer P. To maintain the
same solution P concentra-
tion in both soils, fertilizer Clay
P rate would be greater for
the clay soil than the sandy
soil (——). If the same rate
of fertilizer P is added to
both soils (----), the result-
ing solution H2PO4 - con-
centration will be greater
in the sandy soil than in
the clay soil because the FERTILIZER P ADDED
BCclay 7 BCsand.

indicating that BCA 7 BCB. Alternatively, decreasing the solution concentration

by plant uptake decreases the quantity of ion in solution much less in soil A than
in soil B.
The BC in soil increases with increasing CEC, OM, and other solid constituents
in the soil. For example, the BC of montmorillonitic, high OM soils is greater than
that of kaolinitic, low OM soils. Since CEC increases with increasing clay content,
fine-textured soils will exhibit higher BC than coarse-textured soils. If exchangeable
K + decreases (e.g., as a result of plant uptake or leaching), the capacity of the soil to
buffer solution K + is lower in a sandy soil. The nutrient may become deficient, and
K + fertilizer will be needed to increase exchangeable K + and correct the K + deficiency.
Addition of P fertilizer will increase adsorbed H2PO4-, while some H2PO4- may also
precipitate as solid P compounds both of which contribute to the P BC in soils.
Thus, it is apparent that BC is a very important soil property that strongly
influences nutrient availability. Fig. 2-16 further illustrates the BC relationships
in soils. If the same rate of fertilizer P is added to both soils, the resulting solution
H2PO4- concentration will be greater in the sandy soil than in the clay soil because
BCclay 7 BCsand. Alternatively, if we wanted to establish the same solution P con-
centration in both soils, then more fertilizer P would be needed in the clay soil com-
pared to the sandy soil, again because BCclay 7 BCsand.

MINERAL SOLUBILITY IN SOILS

As nutrient concentrations in the soil solution decrease by plant uptake, nutrients in
soil solution are replenished from exchange surfaces, soil OM, or dissolution of soil
minerals (Fig. 2-2). The solubility of a soil mineral refers to the concentration of the
elements or ions in solution supported or maintained by the specific mineral. For
example, when CaSO4 # 2H2O (gypsum) is added to water, it dissolves.
CaSO4 # 2H2O N Ca+2 + SO4-2 + 2H2O
The product of the two ion 1Ca+2 and SO4-22 concentrations is called the solubility
product, or Ksp, where
Ksp = 1Ca+221SO4-22
The Ksp is a constant, such that when the product of the ion concentrations is
6Ksp, then the mineral will dissolve, and when the product of the ion concentra-
tions is 7Ksp, then the mineral will precipitate. When CaSO4 # 2H2O is added to
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 37

water, it begins to dissolve, and the reaction initially proceeds only to the right as
the concentration of Ca+2 and SO4-2 increases. Eventually, as more CaSO4 # 2H2O
dissolves, the backward reaction will start to occur, and an equilibrium between the
forward (dissolution) and backward (precipitation) reactions is established. When this
occurs, the solution is saturated. If more water is added, Ca+2 and SO4-2 in solu-
tion are diluted or their concentration decreases. When this occurs, the product of
the concentrations is 6Ksp, causing more CaSO4 # 2H2O to dissolve. If enough
water is added to dissolve all of the solid, then the solution is unsaturated. Simi-
larly, if water is removed (i.e., evaporation), then more CaSO4 # 2H2O will precipi-
tate because the product of the concentrations is 7Ksp. Likewise in this example,
if MgSO4 # 7H2O were added, the resulting SO4-2 concentration would increase,
causing more CaSO4 # 2H2O to precipitate because the product of the concentrations
1Ca+221SO4-22 is 7Ksp.
There are many minerals in soils that influence the concentrations of ions and
plant nutrients in soil solution. For example, in acid soils, FePO4 # 2H2O is a com-
mon mineral that influences P availability.
FePO4 # 2H2O + 2H+ N Fe+3 + H2PO4- + 2H2O
The Ksp for this reaction is
1Fe+321H2PO4- 2
Ksp =
1H+ 22
As the soil solution concentration of H2PO4- decreases with plant uptake, the prod-
uct of the ion concentrations is now 6Ksp, so the FePO4 # 2H2O mineral dissolves
to resupply or buffer solution H2PO4-. Alternatively, if H2PO4- is added through
fertilizers or manures, the H2PO4- concentration in solution increases, causing
FePO4 # 2H2O to precipitate (product of the concentrations is 7Ksp). The reac-
tion also shows that the solubility is dependent on pH, which was not the case with
CaSO4 # 2H2O. With FePO4 # 2H2O, increasing pH (decreasing H+ concentration)
causes Fe+3 and H2PO4- to decrease as FePO4 # 2H2O precipitates. Recall that Ksp is
a constant, so if the denominator decreases, the numerator must also decrease. Solu-
bility relationships are particularly important for plant availability of P and many of
the micronutrients. Solubility reactions (Fig. 2-2) are essential in buffering the solu-
tion concentration of many plant nutrients.

SUPPLY OF NUTRIENTS FROM OM

Microbial activity and nutrient cycling through soil OM substantially impacts plant
nutrient availability. Soil solution concentration of N, S, P, and several micronutri-
ents is intimately related to the microbial (organic) fraction in soils.
In virgin (uncultivated) soil, the OM content is determined by soil texture, to-
pography, and climatic conditions that predominately influence the quantity of CO2
fixed by plants (total plant biomass) and recycled to the soil. Generally, OM content
is higher in cooler than in warmer climates and, with similar annual temperature
and vegetation, increases with effective precipitation. These differences are related
to reduced potential for OM oxidation with cooler temperatures and increased bio-
mass production with increased rainfall. Soil OM content is greater in fine-textured
than in coarse-textured soils and is related to increased biomass production in fine-
textured soils because of improved soil water and nutrient storage and reduced OM
oxidation potential. Soil OM contents are higher under grassland vegetation than
under forest cover. These relations are generally true for well-drained soil conditions.
Under poor drainage, aerobic decomposition is impeded and organic residues build
38 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-17
PLANTS
Conceptual model of the and
degradation of plant resi- ANIMALS
dues to stable soil humus. Soil
Relative sizes of the micro- surface
bial and organic biomass DECOMPOSABLE
components are shown. Nutrients ORGANIC RESIDUES
(Doran and Smith, 1987, SSSA (10–20%)
Spec. Publ. 19, p. 55.)

HETEROTROPHIC
BIOMASS
(1–8%)

Biologically
Microbial products resistant organics

SOIL HUMUS
(50–85%)

up to high levels, regardless of temperature or soil texture. In general, soils with

higher OM content will be more productive. The influence of soil and crop manage-
ment on soil OM and its relationship to soil and crop productivity is discussed in
Chapter 12.
Soil OM comprises organic materials in all stages of decomposition. Crop
residues degrade through autotrophic and heterotrophic microbial processes
that ultimately form relatively stable soil humus (Fig. 2-17). The size of these
components depends on climate, soil type, and soil and crop management, all of
which influence the quantity of crop residues produced and returned to the soil.
Fresh plant or other organic residues are subject to fairly rapid decomposition.
The relatively small heterotrophic biomass (1–8% of total soil OM) represents
soil microorganisms and fauna responsible for the majority of organic–inorganic
transformations that influence nutrient availability. Soil humus, the largest com-
ponent of soil OM, is relatively resistant to microbial degradation; however, it is
essential for maintaining optimum soil physical conditions important for plant
growth, water-holding capacity, nutrient availability, and many other properties
important to soil productivity (Chapter 12). The primary microbial processes in-
volved in fresh residue and humus turnover or cycling in soils are mineralization
and immobilization.
Organic mineralization Inorganic
Complexed Nutrients in
Nutrients immobilization Solution
These reactions, combined with other physical, chemical, and environmental fac-
tors, are important in OM stability and in plant nutrient availability (Fig. 2-1). As
plant and other organic residues are returned to the soil, many different types of soil
microorganisms degrade these residues to a family of relatively stable organic com-
pounds called humus (Fig. 2-10). In the degradation process, organically complexed
ions in the residue can be mineralized or converted from organic to inorganic forms
of the particular nutrient (i.e., N, S, P). If there are insufficient nutrients in the resi-
due to meet the microbial demand, then inorganic ions in the soil solution will be
immobilized into the microbial tissues. The microbial cycle of mineralization and
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 39

immobilization occurs over a wide range of environmental conditions, but activity is

maximized at about the same relative moisture and temperature conditions optimum
for plant growth. Microbial transformations important to nutrient availability will be
detailed in Chapter 4.

MOVEMENT OF IONS FROM SOILS TO ROOTS

Ion absorption by plant roots requires contact between the ion and the root surface.
There are generally three ways in which nutrients reach the root surface: (1) root in-
terception, (2) mass flow, and (3) diffusion. The relative importance of these mecha-
nisms in supplying nutrients to plant roots is shown in Table 2-6.

Root Interception
Root interception represents exchange of ions through physical contact between the
root and mineral surfaces (Fig. 2-18). Ion absorption by root interception is enhanced
by increasing the quantity of absorbing roots in a given volume of soil. As roots de-
velop and exploit more soil, soil solution and soil surfaces retaining adsorbed ions are
exposed to the increasing root mass. Ions such as H+ adsorbed to the surface of root
hairs may exchange with ions held on the surface of clays and OM because of the
intimate contact between roots and soil particles. The ions held by electrostatic forces
at these sites oscillate within a certain volume (Fig. 2-18). When the oscillation vol-
umes of two ions (H+ and K + ) overlap, ion exchange occurs. In this way, Ca+2 on a
clay surface could then presumably be absorbed by the root and utilized by the plant.
The quantity of nutrients that can come in direct contact with plant roots is the
amount in a volume of soil equal to the volume of roots. Roots usually occupy 1–3%
of the soil volume.
Root interception of nutrients can be enhanced by mycorrhiza, a symbiotic as-
sociation between fungi and plant roots. The beneficial effect of mycorrhiza is great-
est when plants are growing in infertile soils. The extent of mycorrhizal colonization
is also enhanced under conditions of slightly acidic soil pH, low P, adequate N, and

TABLE 2-6
S IGNIFICANCE OF R OOT I NTERCEPTION , M ASS F LOW , AND D IFFUSION IN
I ON T RANSPORT TO C ORN R OOTS
Percentage Supplied by
Nutrients Required for Root
Nutrient 200 bu/a of Corn Interception Mass Flow Diffusion
N 225 1 99 0
P 45 2 4 94
K 200 2 20 78
Ca 50 120 440 0
Mg 55 27 280 0
S 25 4 94 2
Cu 0.12 8 400 0
Zn 0.40 25 30 45
B 0.25 8 350 0
Fe 2.5 8 40 52
Mn 10.40 25 130 0
Mo 0.012 8 200 0
Note: The contribution of diffusion was estimated by the difference between total nutrient needs and
the amounts supplied by interception and mass flow. If root interception + mass flow Ú 100%, then
diffusion = 0.
40 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

Figure 2-18
Conceptual model for root
interception or contact
exchange of nutrients be-
tween ions on soil and root
exchange sites. Overlapping
oscillation volumes cause
exchange of H + on the root
with K + on the clay mineral
surface.

low soil temperatures. The hyphal threads of mycorrhizal fungi act as extensions of
plant root systems, resulting in greater soil contact. (See Fig. 5-6 for a diagrammatic
representation of a mycorrhizal infected root.) The two major groups of mycorrhizas
are ectomycorrhizas and endomycorrhizas. The ectomycorrhizas occur mainly in the
tree species of the temperate zones but can also be found in semiarid zones. The en-
domycorrhizas are more widespread. The roots of most agronomic crops have vesicu-
lar arbuscular mycorrhiza. The fungus grows into the cortex. Inside the plant cells,
small structures known as arbuscules, considered to be the site of transfer of nutrients
from fungi to host plants, are formed. Increased nutrient absorption is due to the
larger nutrient-absorbing surface provided by the fungi, which can be up to 10 times
that of uninfected roots. Fungal hyphae can extend up to 8 cm into the soil sur-
rounding the roots, thus increasing absorption of nutrients. Enhanced P uptake is the
primary cause of improved plant growth from mycorrhiza, which results in improved
uptake of other elements (Table 2-7).

Mass Flow
Mass flow occurs when ions in soil solution are transported to the root as a result
of water uptake (transpiration) by the plant, water evaporation at the soil surface,
and percolation of water in the soil profile. Transport of ions in the soil solution to

TABLE 2-7
E FFECT OF I NOCULATION OF E NDOMYCORRHIZA AND P ON N UTRIENT
C ONTENT IN C ORN S HOOTS

Content in Shoots 1Mg 2

No P 25 ppm P Added
Nutrient No Mycorrhiza Mycorrhiza No Mycorrhiza Mycorrhiza
P 750 1,340 2,970 5,910
K 6,000 9,700 17,500 19,900
Ca 1,200 1,600 2,700 3,500
Mg 430 630 990 1,750
Zn 28 95 48 169
Cu 7 14 12 30
Mn 72 101 159 238
Fe 80 147 161 277
Source: Adapted from Lambert et al., 1979, SSSAJ, 43:976.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 41

Figure 2-19
The influence of P uptake on
the distribution of P in the
8 hours soil solution as a function
of distance from the root
surface.

root surfaces by mass flow is an important factor in supplying nutrients to plants

(Table 2-6).
The quantity of nutrients reaching roots by mass flow is determined by the rate of
water flow or the water consumption of plants and the average nutrient concentrations
in the soil water. Mass flow can supply an excess of Ca+2, Mg +2, several micronutrients,
and most of the soluble nutrients, such as NO3-, Cl- , and SO4-2 (Table 2-6). As soil
moisture is reduced (increased soil moisture tension), water transport to the root surface
decreases. Mass flow is also reduced at low temperatures because transpiration demand
by plants and water evaporation at the soil surface decreases at low soil temperature.

Diffusion
Diffusion occurs when an ion moves from an area of high concentration to one of
low concentration. As roots absorb nutrients from the surrounding soil solution, the
nutrient concentration at the root surface decreases compared with the “bulk” soil
solution concentration (Fig. 2-19).
Therefore, a nutrient concentration gradient is established that causes ions to
diffuse toward the root. A high plant requirement for a nutrient results in a large
concentration gradient, favoring a high rate of ion diffusion from the soil solution to
the root surface. Most of the P and K move to the root by diffusion (Table 2-6). Ion
diffusion in soils can be quantified by the following equation (Fick’s law) that helps
us understand the factors that influence diffusion in soil:
dC dC
= De • A •
dt dX
where dC>dt = rate of diffusion (change in concentration C with time)
dC>dX = concentration gradient (change in concentration with distance)
De = effective diffusion coefficient
A = cross-sectional area through which the ions diffuse
The diffusion equation shows that the rate of nutrient diffusion 1dC>dt2 is directly
proportional to the concentration gradient 1dC>dX2. As the difference in nutrient
concentration between the root surface and the bulk solution increases, the rate of
nutrient diffusion increases. Also, increasing the cross-sectional area for diffusion in-
creases dC>d t, which means diffusion should be greater in a clay compared to a sand
because of greater water-filled pore space. The diffusion rate is also proportional to the
diffusion coefficient, De, which partially controls nutrient diffusion to the root. For
42 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

a given spacing between roots, De determines the fraction of nutrients in the soil that
can reach the roots during a specific period of plant growth. De is described as follows:
1 1
De = Dw • u • •
T b
where Dw = diffusion coefficient in water
u = volumetric soil water content
T = tortuosity factor
b = soil BC
This relationship shows the diffusion coefficient in soil (De) is directly related to the
diffusion coefficient for the same nutrient in water (Dw). Inherent in the Dw term is
a temperature factor such that increasing temperature increases Dw, which increases
De, and then dC>d t. Also, as soil moisture content 1u 2 increases, De increases,
which results in an increase in diffusion rate, dC>d t. As moisture content decreases,
moisture films around soil particles become thinner and ion diffusion through these
films becomes more tortuous. Transport of nutrients to the root surface is most effec-
tive at field capacity soil moisture content. Therefore, raising u reduces tortuosity,
or the diffusion path length, which in turn increases dC>d t. Tortuosity (T) is also
related to soil texture. Nutrients diffusing in coarse-textured soils experience a more
tortuous path to the root surface (less water-filled pore space). As T increases with
increasing sand content, 1/T decreases, which reduces the De and thus dC>dt. While
tortuosity is less in clay soils (increasing diffusion rate dC>dt), clay soils also have a
greater buffer capacity (b) than sandy soils, which would decrease dC>dt. Thus, De is
inversely related to b. Increasing BC of the soil decreases De, which decreases dC>dt.
Compared to a soil with a high BC, a low BC soil would likely have higher nutrient
concentration in solution resulting in a higher De, and higher potential dC>dt. In-
creasing the solution ion concentration also increases the diffusion gradient, dC>dX,
which contributes to increased dC>dt.
Ion uptake by roots, which is responsible for creating and maintaining the dif-
fusion gradient, is strongly influenced by temperature. Within the range of about
10–30°C, an increase of 10°C usually causes the rate of ion absorption to go up by
a factor of two or more. Nutrient diffusion is slow under most soil conditions and
occurs over very short distances in the vicinity of the root surface. Typical diffusion
distances are 1 cm for N, 0.2 cm for K, and 0.02 cm for P. The mean distance be-
tween corn roots in the top 15 cm of soil is about 0.7 cm, indicating that some nutri-
ents would need to diffuse half of this distance, or 0.35 cm, before they would be in
a position to be absorbed by the plant root.
Roots do not absorb all nutrients at the same rate, causing certain ions to accu-
mulate at the root surface, especially during periods of rapid absorption of water. This
situation results in back diffusion, where the concentration gradient is away from the
root surface and back toward the “bulk” soil solution. Nutrient diffusion away from
the root is much less common than diffusion toward the root; however, higher concen-
trations of some nutrients in the rhizosphere can affect the uptake of other nutrients.
The importance of diffusion and mass flow in supplying ions to the root
surface depends on the ability of the solid phase of the soil to replenish or buffer
the soil solution (Fig. 2-2). Ion concentrations are influenced by the types of clay
minerals in the soil and the distribution of cation and anions on the CEC or AEC.
For example, the ease of replacement of Ca+2 from colloids varies in this order:
peat 7 kaolinite 7 illite 7 montmorillonite. An 80% Ca-saturated 2:1 clay pro-
vides the same percentage of Ca+2 release as a 35% Ca-saturated kaolinite or a 25%
Ca-saturated peat.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 43

Figure 2-20
Relationship between
nutrient mobility and
nutrient extraction zones.
Plants obtain mobile
nutrients from the whole soil
volume occupied by plant
roots. In contrast, plants
obtain immobile nutrients
from the small soil volume
immediately surrounding
the plant root.
(Courtesy B. Raun and G. Johnson,
Root system Oklahoma State University.)
Root surface
sorption zone
sorption zone

MOBILE NUTRIENTS IMMOBILE NUTRIENTS

NO32 SO4 22
NH41 H2PO42/HPO422 K1
Cl2 H3BO3° Ca12 Mg12 Zn12 Cu12
Mn12 Fe13/Fe12 MoO422

Mass flow and diffusion processes are also important in nutrient management.
Soils that exhibit low diffusion rates because of high BC, low soil moisture, or high
clay content may require application of immobile nutrients near the roots to maxi-
mize nutrient availability and plant uptake.

Nutrient Mobility in Soil

Inherent in any discussion of ion transport to plant roots is the principle of nutrient
mobility in soil. Nutrient mobility varies between ions, where NO3-, SO4-2, Cl- and
H3BO3° are not strongly attracted to exchange sites and are soluble in soils so they can
readily move through the root zone with water. As a result, mobile nutrients within
the whole soil volume occupied by the plant root system are available for transport to
the root in percolating and transpirational water (Fig. 2-20). The relative mobility of
each nutrient will depend on soil pH, temperature, moisture, soil texture, type of clay,
and OM content.
Immobile nutrients interact with mineral and OM surfaces, are less solu-
ble, and do not readily move throughout the root zone (Fig. 2-20). While classi-
fied as immobile nutrients in soil, some are more mobile than others. Generally,
NH4+ , K + , Ca+2, and Mg +2 are more soluble and mobile than the micronutrient
cations, and much more mobile than H2PO4- >HPO4-2 and MoO4-2. Since these
nutrients are relatively immobile in soil, plant roots access these nutrients from a
small volume of soil surrounding individual roots. Plants create a small zone around
the root that has very low concentration of these immobile nutrients due to plant
uptake. The concentration gradient allows diffusion to transport nutrients that are
further away from the root surface toward the root. If the soil has a high BC for an
immobile nutrient, then the solution can be replenished and diffusion continues.
With a low BC, solution concentration (and diffusion) ultimately decreases, causing
a nutrient deficiency.
Understanding nutrient mobility in soils is essential to managing nutrient ap-
plications to maximize plant growth and recovery of applied nutrients by the plant
(Chapter 10). For example, N can be broadcast or band applied with fairly similar
results because of its mobility in soil. However, P is generally placed in concentrated
bands because it is generally immobile in soil.
44 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

ION ABSORPTION BY PLANTS

Once nutrients are at the root surface, they enter the outermost root cells where they
are transported through the plant. Ion transport out of the root also occurs and can
influence rhizoshere pH. Thus, it is important to understand how ions and water
move into plant roots. While only a basic description is presented in this text, selected
references provide a thorough treatment of ion absorption processes.
Plant uptake of ions from the soil solution can be described by passive and active
processes, where ions passively move to a “boundary” through which ions are actively
transported to organs in plant cells that metabolize the nutrient ions. Solution com-
position or ion concentrations outside and inside of the boundary are controlled by
different processes, each essential to plant nutrition and growth.

Water and Ion Uptake by Roots

A considerable fraction of the total volume of the root is accessible for the passive
absorption of ions. Water and ion uptake occurs at the root hairs and the rest of the
root epidermis (Fig. 2-21). The apparent free space or apoplast is the intercellular
spaces of the epidermal and cortical cells. The apoplast allows transport of water and
ions in root tissue regions that do not require transport across an impermeable mem-
brane. Water uptake from the soil into the apoplast occurs through capillary action
and osmosis. Capillary action results when the intercellular space is smaller than the
water-filled space in the soil, thus the matrix potential in the cortex is more negative
than in the surrounding soil, and water will move to areas of lower water potential.
Osmosis is the transport of water from an area of low to high solute concentration.
The casparian bands in the endodermis function as an impermeable barrier,
which allows the endodermis to select and regulate ion absorption. Water transport
through the apoplastic pathway into the xylem vessels occurs primarily in young tis-
sues where casparian bands are not fully developed (Fig. 2-21). In older tissues, the
casparian band prevents water and ion transport directly into the xylem. Thus, water
and ions entering the cell or cytoplasm must be transported across the plasma mem-
brane (Fig. 2-22). Once inside the cell, water and ion transport can occur through
the symplastic pathway through cellular connections or plasmodesma (Fig. 2-22).
The concentration of ions in the apparent free space is normally less than the bulk
solution concentration; therefore, diffusion occurs in response to the resulting high to
low concentration gradient. Interior surfaces of cells in the cortex are negatively charged,
attracting cations. Cation exchange readily occurs along the extracellular surfaces and

Figure 2-21
Cross-section of a plant Exodermis Cortex Endodermis
root. Site of passive uptake
is the apparent free space,
which is outside of the cas-
parian strip in the cortex.
Transcellular
path
Apoplastic path

Symplastic path

Xylem
vessel

Plasmodesma Casparian bands

 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 45

3 2 1 Figure 2-22
Diagram of a plant cell.
Active ion uptake occurs
at the plasmalemma.
(Mengel and Kirkby, 1987, Principles
of Plant Nutrition, IPI.)
4

5
6
7

9 10

1. Plasmodesma 6. Cytoplasm
2. Cell wall 7. Endoplasmic reticulum with ribosomes
3. Chloroplast 8. Vacuole
4. Plasmalemma 9. Nucleus
5. Mitochondrion 10. Tonoplast

explains why cation uptake usually exceeds anion uptake. To maintain electrical neu-
trality, the root cells release H+ , decreasing soil solution pH near the root surface.
Diffusion and ion exchange are passive processes because uptake into the apoplast is
controlled by ion concentration (diffusion) and electrical (ion exchange) gradients.
These processes are nonselective and do not require energy produced from met-
abolic reactions within the cell.

Passive and Active Ion Uptake by Cells

In a plant cell, the plasma membrane (plasmalemma) and tonoplast are selectively
permeable barriers consisting primarily of phospholipids and proteins that regu-
late transport of water, ions, and metabolites into the cell and vacuole, respectively
(Fig. 2-22). Plasma membranes are permeable to O2, CO2, and some neutral com-
pounds; are slightly permeable to water; and are nearly impermeable to inorganic ions
and small-molecular-weight organic compounds (i.e., sucrose, amino acids). Proteins are
required to transport H+ , inorganic ions, and organic solutes across the plasma mem-
brane and the tonoplast at rates sufficient to meet the needs of the cell. To maintain a
relatively constant internal environment, membrane permeability properties ensure that
ions and molecules such as glucose, amino acids, and lipids readily enter the cell, meta-
bolic intermediates remain in the cell, and unneeded compounds leave the cell.
Whether a molecule or ion is transported actively or passively across a membrane
(casparian band, plasma membrane, or tonoplast) depends on the concentration and
charge of the ion or molecule, which in combination represent the electrochemical driv-
ing force. Ions and molecules diffuse from areas of high to low concentrations. Thus,
diffusion does not require the plant to expend energy. In contrast, for ions diffusing
against the concentration gradient, energy is required. Thus, passive transport across the
plasma membrane occurs with the electrochemical potential and active transport occurs
against the electrochemical potential, a process that requires the cell to expend energy.
46 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

As a result, ion concentration on either side of the plasma membrane and to-
noplast is different. The H+ concentration can be a 1,000-fold higher (lower pH) in
the apoplast and vacuole than in the cytoplasm 1∼pH 72, but Ca+2 concentration
gradients can vary over an even wider range (Ca+2 concentration is ∼ 100 nM in the
cytoplasm). At ∼pH 7 proteins in the cytoplasm are negatively charged. These and
other charge imbalances result in the establishment of an electrical potential gradi-
ent at the plasma membrane. This potential creates a strong electric field that pro-
vides the energy for ion transport against concentration gradients, and the opening
and closing of channels through the selectively permeable membranes (voltage-gated
channels).
Passive transport Simple diffusion through membranes occurs with small, nonpo-
lar molecules 1i.e., O2, CO22. For small, polar species (i.e., H2O, ions, amino acids),
specific proteins in the membrane facilitate the diffusion down the electrochemical
gradient. This mechanism is referred to as facilitated diffusion. These proteins form
channels, which can open and close, and through which ions or H2O molecules pass
in single file at very rapid rates (Fig. 2-23). For example, water movement across the
tonoplast and plasma membrane is determined by osmotic pressure gradients and by
passive transport through channel proteins called aquaporins that act as “water chan-
nels” to facilitate water transport across membranes. Aquaporins account for 5–10%
of the total protein in a membrane. A K + and NH4+ transport channel has been sug-
gested that is lined with 1 - 2 charges, where K + moves across the membrane because
of the net negative charge inside the cell. In addition, Na+ can also enter the cell by
facilitated diffusion since the concentration inside is less than that outside the cell;
however, Na+ transport outside the cell requires an active transport mechanism, since
it is against the electrochemical gradient.
Another mechanism involves transporters or cotransporters responsible for the
transport of ions and molecules across membranes (Fig. 2-23). Transporter proteins,
in contrast to channel proteins, bind only one or a few substrate molecules at a time.
After binding a molecule or ion, the transporter undergoes a structural change spe-
cific to a specific ion or molecule. As a result, the transport rate across a membrane
is slower than that associated with channel proteins. Three types of transporters have
been identified. Uniporters transport one molecule (i.e., glucose, amino acids) at a
time down a concentration gradient. In contrast, antiporters and symporters catalyze
movement of one type of ion or molecule against its concentration gradient coupled
to movement of a different ion or molecule down its concentration gradient (Fig. 2-23).
Therefore, the energy for antiporter and symporter transport originates from the elec-
tric potential and/or chemical gradient of a secondary ion or molecule, which is often
H+. The high H+ concentration in the apoplast provides the energy for symporter

Figure 2-23 Facilitated Uniporter Antiporter ATP Pump

Generalized diagram of Diffusion
Symporter
passive and active trans- Ion Channel
port processes that include K+ Na+
protein channels and
other facilitated diffusion
transport mechanisms, as
well as ATP pump mecha-
nism to transport ions and
Selectively ATP ADP
molecules against a concen- +
Permeable H2PO4–
tration gradient. Membrane

Passive Diffusion Active Diffusion

 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 47

Figure 2-24
Vmax
500 Comparison between

GLUCOSE UPTAKE RATE, V

simple diffusion and facili-
400 Facilitated Diffusion tated transport on the rate
of glucose transport across
a membrane.
300
12 Vmax
200

100
Passive Diffusion
0
0 5 10 15
EXTERNAL GLUCOSE CONCENTRATION, mM

transport of NO3- and other anions. Examples of antiporter transport are H+ @Na+
and H+ @Ca+2 transport into the vacuole. Evidence of facilitated transport is shown in
Fig. 2-24, where the rate of glucose uptake is substantially greater than that observed
with simple diffusion along a concentration gradient.
Active transport Larger, more-charged molecules have greater difficulty in mov-
ing across a membrane, requiring active transport mechanisms (i.e., sugars, amino
acids, DNA, ATP, ions, phosphate, proteins). Active transport across a selectively
permeable membrane occurs through ATP-powered pumps that transport ions
against their concentration gradients (Fig. 2-23). This mechanism utilizes energy
released by hydrolysis of ATP. In plant cells, H+ @ATP pumps transfer H+ across the
plasma membrane or tonoplast to acidify the cytoplasm or vacuole, respectively. The
Na+ @K + ATP pump transports K + into the cell and Na+ out of the cell, which main-
tains a high cytoplasm K + concentration essential for maintaining the electrical po-
tential gradient across the plasma membrane. The Ca+2 ATP pump transports Ca+2
out of the cytoplasm, which maintains Ca+2 concentration lower than in extracellular
areas, which is essential for establishing a high concentration gradient that provides
the energy for facilitated Ca+2 diffusion into the cell.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Define cation exchange capacity (CEC). What units 6. Why are 2:1 clay minerals more common in soils
are commonly used to express CEC? of the Midwest or Great Plains regions of North
2. A soil test shows CEC = 14.3 meq>100 g soil. America?
Calculate the CEC in cmol/kg soil. 7. As soils age from thousands of years of weather-
3. Identify the origin of CEC in mineral soil colloids ing, some soil properties change. List two of these
and factors that influence CEC. properties and how these changes might affect soil
4. Explain the influence of the following on CEC in productivity.
soils: 8. What are the two sources of negative charge in
a. increasing pH from 6.0 to 7.5 clay minerals?
b. increasing weathering intensity (over the long 9. Explain how isomorphic substitution in the tet-
term) rahedral or the octahedral layer influences shrink-
c. adding bases such as Ca+2 or Mg +2 swell potential in soils.
5. Which clay minerals would likely be present in a 10. What is meant by buffer capacity (BC)? What soil
weathered acid soil? properties influence the soil BC?
48 chapter two basic soil–plant relationships

11. Thirty pounds of P/a is added to two soils. The 22. Express the Ca+2 concentration of 1500 ppm in
resulting solution P concentration in soil A is four a. % Ca+2
times lower than that in soil B, although plant up- b. mg Ca+2/kg soil
take in soil A is greater than that in soil B. What c. mg Ca+2/100 g soil
is causing the differences in these soil and plant P d. lbs Ca+2/afs
observations? 23. A soil sample was analyzed and found to contain
12. What is the basis for the lyotropic series for the following cations: Ca+2 = 450 ppm, Mg+2 =
cations? 90 ppm, K + = 230 ppm and Na + = 40 ppm.
13. In addition to clay minerals, what other soil con- Calculate the
stituents contribute to total CEC? a. mg/kg of each nutrient
14. Why are AECs of ultisols usually greater than b. % content of each nutrient
those of mollisols? 24. A solution contains the following:
15. What are active and passive absorption of elements Ca+2 = 1000 ppm; Mg +2 = 480 ppm;
by root cells? How are the inner and outer space of K + = 400 ppm; Na+ = 460 ppm.
cells involved? What is the proposed mechanism a. Calculate the M (mole/L) for each nutrient.
that describes active absorption? b. Calculate the % concentration for each
16. You are addressing a group of farmers and business nutrient.
managers who understand crop production but c. Calculate the mg/kg for each nutrient.
are not familiar with the technical aspects of plant 25. A soil contains 800 ppm Ca+2. Calculate lbs
nutrition and soil fertility. You have to explain the Ca+2 >afs, lbs Ca+2 >1,000 ft2, and meq Ca+2 >100 g
nature of cation exchange and why it is important soil.
to crop production. How would you proceed? 26. A soil sample contains 1% Ca+2. Calculate
Someone asks why Cl- and NO3- will leach
a. lbs Ca+2/afs
from soils but H2PO4-, which also has a negative
charge, will not. What is your answer? b. lbs Ca+2/1000 ft2
17. Mass flow can potentially move enough Ca and c. meq Ca+2/g soil
Mg to the plant root to meet the nutritional needs. 27. A soil is 40% acid saturated. Ten grams of soil are
Which anions would most likely move with them titrated with 25 mL 0.05 N base. Calculate the
and why? CEC.
18. Describe the relative importance of root intercep- 28. Twenty grams of soil was extracted with NH4OAc
tion, diffusion, and mass flow in nutrient transport and the extract diluted to 1 L. The solution
to plant roots. What is the effect of soil texture on was analyzed for cation content and contained:
these mechanisms? 38 ppm Ca+2; 9 ppm Mg+2; 7 ppm K +; 4 ppm Na+.
19. Briefly describe the influence of the following on Estimate the CEC. If the measured CEC were
ion diffusion in soils: 20 meq/100 g, calculate the BS.
a. temperature 29. A soil contains 30% clay (1/3 each of montmo-
b. soil moisture rillonite, kaolinite, vermiculite) and 5% OM.
c. soil texture Calculate the CEC in meq/g of soil.
d. buffer capacity 30. The NH4+ concentration in 1000 ml solution of
e. specific ion (i.e., one ion vs. another) 5 g of soil was 50 ppm. Calculate the CEC in
20. What soil factors influence diffusion of nutrient meq/100g soil.
ions to roots? Describe and explain why diffusion 31. Diagrammatically explain the influence of the soil
rate is greater in a clay soil than in a sand. components on the soil’s nutrient concentration.
21. A solution contains 20 ppm Ca+2. Express the Ca+2 32. Name the process that is important for the avail-
concentration in the following terms: ability of the following elements in the soil.
a. g Ca+2 in 1,000,000 mL water a. Ca
1mL = 0.001 L2 b. N
b. g Ca+2 in 100 mL water c. Mg
c. % Ca+2 in the 100 mL water d. K
d. mg Ca+2 >kg water e. S
1mg = 0.001 g = 0.000001 kg2 33. Explain the importance of ion exchange processes
e. molarity 1M or moles Ca+2 >L2 in soil.
 basic soil–plant relationships chapter two 49

34. Represent the structures of 36. A soil has 10% kaolinite, 10% illite, 10% chlorite
a. Kaolinite along with 5% OM. Determine the CEC in
b. Chlorite meq/100g of the soil.
c. Pyrophyllite 37. What is lyotropic series? What is it’s use?
d. Vermiculite 38. Mathematically express the Fick’s law of diffusion.
35. What factors strongly affect the CEC of a soil. 39. Distinguish between active and passive transports.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Bohn, H. L., B. L. McNeal, and G. A. O’Connor. 1979. Rendig, V. V., and H. M. Taylor. 1989. Principles of
Soil chemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons. soil–plant relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Epstein, E. 1972. Mineral nutrition of plants: Principles Sparks, D. L. 2003. Environmental soil chemistry. New
and perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons. York: Elsevier-Academic Press.
Mengel, K., and E. A. Kirkby. 1987. Principles of plant Tan, K. H. 1982. Principles of soil chemistry. New York:
nutrition. Bern, Switzerland: International Potash Marcel Dekker.
Institute.
 3
Soil Acidity and Alkalinity
Throughout the world, soil acidity and alkalinity problems increasingly
influence plant health and yield. Therefore, it is essential to understand
the chemistry of these processes to effect proper management for opti-
mum plant productivity. Acid topsoils occur on approximately 30% of
the ice-free land area in the world, whereas 75% of these acid soils also
overlay acid subsoils (Table 3-1). The majority of the world’s acid soils
occur in Asia, Africa, and the Americas (Fig. 3-1). As we discuss the pri-
mary sources of soil acidity in the next sections, you will recognize that
as soil nutrient removal increases by higher crop yields and increased use
of fertilizers, soil acidity–related production problems will also increase.

ACIDITY IN WATER
Pure water undergoes slight dissociation:
H2O N H+ + OH-
The H+ actually attaches to another H2O molecule to give:
H2O + H+ N H3O+
Since both H+ and OH- are produced, H2O is a weak acid and weak
base. The H+ (or H3O+ ) and OH- concentrations in pure H2O, not in
equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, are 10-7 M (M = molarity, moles/
liter or m/L). The product of H+ and OH- concentra-
tion, shown in the following equation, is the dissociation
constant for water, or K w.
3H+ 4 * 3OH- 4 = 310-7 M4 * 310-7 M4
= 10-14 = K w
In equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, the pH of H2O is
5.5–5.7 because of the following reaction:
H2O + CO2 N H+ + HCO3-
Therefore, rainfall is a natural source of soil acidity and
important in chemical weathering of parent materials.
Adding an acid to H2O will increase 3H+ 4, but 3OH- 4
would decrease because K w is a constant 10-14. For
example, in a 0.1 M HCl solution, the 3H+ 4 is 10-1 M;
thus, the 3OH- 4 = 10-13 M by:
K w = 3H+ 4 * 3OH- 4 = 10-14
310-1 M4 * 3OH- 4 = 10-14
3OH- 4 = 10-13
52 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-1
G LOBAL D ISTRIBUTION OF A CID S OILS

Land Area
Region Total1 Cultivated Acidic2
———————— million ha ———————— %
World 13,100 1,500 3,950 30
America
North 1,867 216 662 35
Central 245 31 36 15
South 1,760 113 916 52
Asia 3,094 505 1,038 34
Europe 2,207 277 391 18
Africa 2,964 219 659 22
Oceania 849 46 245 29
1Ice-freeland area.
2Percentage of acid topsoils of the total land area.
Source: Adapted from Sumner and Noble. 2003. Soil Acidification: The World Story. In Rengel (ed.),
Handbook of Soil Acidity. New York: Marcel Dekker.

The H+ concentration in solution can be conveniently expressed using pH and is

defined as follows:
1
pH = log = -log1H+ 2
1H+ 2
Thus, a solution with H+ = 10-5 M has a pH of 5.0.
10-5 M S -log310-54 = -3 -54 = 5
Each unit increase in pH represents a 10-fold decrease in H+ or increase in OH-
(Table 3-2). Solutions with pH 6 7 are acidic, those with pH 7 7 are basic, and
those with pH = 7 are neutral. The pH represents the H+ concentration in solution
and does not measure the undissociated or potential acidity. Soil solution pH is clas-
sified according to:
64.5 extremely acidic 6.6–7.3 neutral
4.5–5.0 very strongly acidic 7.4–7.8 mildly alkaline
5.1–5.5 strongly acidic 7.9–8.4 moderately alkaline
5.6–6.0 medium acidic 8.5–9.0 strongly alkaline
6.1–6.5 slightly acidic

SOURCES OF SOIL ACIDITY

Precipitation
As discussed earlier, H2O in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 has a pH of about
5.6, resulting from:
H2O + CO2 N H2CO3 N H+ + HCO3-
Rainfall containing no acid-forming contaminants will continually add acid to soil,
contributing to weathering of soil minerals and soil acidity. The quantity of acid
added is small, and with near neutral or greater soil pH, most of this acid will be
 Topsoil pH
,4.5
4.5–5.5
5.5–7.2
7.2–8.5
.8.5
soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-1
Major acid soil regions in the world. (SAGE, 2002, http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/maps.php.) (No data for Greenland.)
chapter three
53
54 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-2
R ELATIONSHIP B ETWEEN P H, P OH, AND H+ AND
OH − C ONCENTRATION (M)

pH H+ OH − pOH
————— m/L ————-
0 100 10-14 14
-1
1 10 10-13 13
-2
2 10 10-12 12
-3
3 10 10-11 11
4 10-4 10-10 10
-5
5 10 10-9 9
-6
6 10 10-8 8
-7
7 10 10-7 7
8 10-8 10-6 6
-9
9 10 10-5 5
-10
10 10 10-4 4
-11
11 10 10-3 3
12 10-12 10-2 2
-13
13 10 10-1 1
-14
14 10 100 0

Note: The shaded area represents the commonly observed range in soil pH.

neutralized. However, as the quantity of precipitation increases, more acid is added.

Acid soils in the United States (Fig. 3-2) generally occur in regions where annual pre-
cipitation exceeds 25–30 in. (Fig. 3-3).
Precipitation pH varies with region, with lower pH in eastern U.S. regions as a
result of greater pollutant loading into the atmosphere (Fig. 3-4). Primary pollutants
are SO2, NH3, and various NOx gases that include nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide
1NO22, and nitrous oxide 1N2O2. The global sources of NOx gases include fossil
fuel combustion (40%), biomass combustion (22%), lightning (15%), soil microbial
activity (15%), and chemical oxidation of NH3 (8%). About 50% of the global SO2
emission is anthropogenic, primarily related to burning coal to produce electricity
and other industrial emissions (steel manufacturing, etc.). The remaining 50% of
SO2 emission is due to natural processes including ocean biogenic production (20%),
volcanoes (10%), soil, plant, animal emissions (10%), wind-raised dust (6%), coastal
zone and wetland biogenic sources (2%), and biomass burning (2%). The emission
of NH3 varies depending on region. In North America and Europe, 65–75% is due
to livestock production systems (including manure application to soils), 10–15%
from fertilizer application, and the remainder from industrial sources.
Ultimately, the oxidation and hydrolysis reactions of these gases in the atmo-
sphere (reactions with O2 and H2O) produce NH4+ and H+ . The emission of NH3 is
not acid forming since it combines with H2O by:
NH3 + H2O N NH4+ + OH-
The base 1OH- 2 produced neutralizes some of the acids produced from NOx and
SO2 emission. However, once in the soil, microorganisms convert NH4+ to NO3-
producing H+ by:
NH4+ + 2O2 N NO3- + H2O + 2H+
When SO2 enters the atmosphere, the acid producing reaction is:
SO2 + 1>2O2 + H2O N SO4-2 + 2H+
 Topsoil pH
,4.5
4.5–5.5
5.5–7.2
soil acidity and alkalinity

7.2–8.5
.8.5

Figure 3-2
Predominate acid soil regions in the United States. (SAGE, 2002, http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/maps.php.)
chapter three
55
56 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-3
Average annual
precipitation in the
United States.

AVERAGE
460° 200°
64° ANNUAL
32°16° PRECIPITATION
300°
16° IN INCHES
16° 300°
128
16° 96
0 200 ml
80
N 64 0 400 mL
0 200 km 40
32 0 400 km
24
16
0 600 mL 8
0
0 600 km

5.2
5.2 5.3 5.2
5.5
5.4 5.8 52 4.8
5.6
5.5 6.0 5.1 5.1 4.8
5.3 51 50 4.7
5.3 5.3 5.8 5.2 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8
5.3 5.4 53 49
5.1 4.7
5.2 4.6 4.7
5.3 5.2 4.8 4.6
5.7 46 45
5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.6
5.9 4.5
5.5 5.3
5.4 5.7 5.3 5.7 4.8 4.6
5.7 5.6 4.7 46 4.5 4.5 4 6
5.2 5.0 4.8
5.3 4.4
5.3 4.7 4.5 4.6
5.4 5.5 5.1 4.4
6.4 5.6 4.4
4.5
6.1 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4
6.1 6.0 5.4 4.5
4.3 4.4
5.4 5.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 46 4.5
5.4 5.3 4.7
5.7 5.1 4.5
5.3 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.6
5.6 4.8 4.5
5.6 5.3 4.9 6.1 4.6 4.6 4.6
5.2 6.0 4.5
5.4 5.4 4.6
5.0 5.1 5.4 4.7 4.6
5.2 4.7 4.7 4.5
4.8 4.7 4.6 5.0
4.7 4.7
5.1 5.4 4.5 4.8 4.9
5.4 4.8 Lab pH
6.3 5.4 4.8 4.6 4.6
5.3 5.1 4.9 5.1
5.6
4.6 4.8 $5.3
4.9 4.9
5.2 5.1 4.9
4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
5.2–5.3
5.4 5.4 5.6 5.1–5.2
5.3 4.7
5.3 4.8 5.0–5.1
4.9 4.9
4.8 4.9 4.9–5.0
Figure 3-4 5.3 4.8
4.7 4.9
4.8 4.8–4.9
Distribution of precipitation 5.2
4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7–4.8
5.4 5.0 4.8
pH in the United States. 4.8 4.6–4.7
5.2 4.5–4.6
(National Atmospheric Deposition 4.7
Program, 2009, NADP Program 4.4–4.5
Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 5.0 4.3–4.4
Champaign, Ill.) ,4.3

Leaching
One of the largest effects on acid formation in soils is the transport of water below
the root zone, carrying dissolved or soluble ions. The most soluble anions are NO3-,
Cl- , and HCO3-, while the most soluble cations are Na+ , Ca+2, Mg +2, and K + . Elec-
trical neutrality of the soil solution must be maintained; thus, as anions leach, basic
cations also leach reducing base saturation (BS) and pH. The environment exhibit-
ing greater leaching potential will be more acidifying (Fig. 3-5). Leaching potential
increases with increasing rainfall (Fig. 3-6). As NO3- is produced from nitrification
of NH4+ from plant residues, manures, soil OM, or N fertilizers, no net H+ would be
produced if all the NO3- were absorbed by plants (Table 3-3). Unfortunately, crop
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 57

Figure 3-5
Potential water percolation
below the root zone
in the United States.
Potential established from
USDA-NRCS percolation
factor that includes
precipitation adjusted
for crop water use and
hydrologic soil group,
which vary with surface and
subsurface water transport
properties.
(Adapted from Kellogg, 2000;
USDA-NRCS.)

Percolation Potential
Very high
High
Medium
Low
Very low
None

70 Figure 3-6
Sand Influence of rainfall and soil
60 Loam texture on NO3- leaching
NO3– LEACHED (kgyha)

Clay in wheat.
50
(Adapted from Anderson et al., 1998,
Aust. J. Agric. Res., 49:345–361.)
40

30

20

10

0
250–325 325–450 450–750 >750
RAINFALL ZONE (mm)

recovery of NO3- is not complete and some NO3- leaching occurs in nearly every
cropping situation, if sufficient water is present for transport below the root zone.
Net soil profile acidification occurs only when leaching water containing NO3- (and
an equivalent quantity of bases) is transported below the root zone. Movement of
NO3- within the root zone results in no net acidification as roots exude organic an-
ions when NO3- uptake occurs lower in the root zone. Although wide variations exist
between cropping systems, non-legume systems where fertilizer or waste N is used
exhibit greater NO3- leaching than legume-based rotations. Also, NO3- leaching and
soil acidity can be greater in unfertilized legume pastures compared to unfertilized
grass pastures. Similar differences in soil acidity have been observed between decidu-
ous and leguminous forest systems.

Crop Nutrient Uptake and Other Transformations

Nutrient requirements of crops vary greatly (Chapter 9). Crop removal of basic cat-
ions will reduce base saturation and increase soil acidity. Plants alter the soil pH
through imbalances in cation/anion uptake. As cations are absorbed by plant roots,
electrical neutrality is maintained through uptake of an anion or extrusion of H+
and/or organic acids. When anions are absorbed, uptake of cations or extrusion of
58 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-3
N UTRIENT U PTAKE AND S ELECTED N UTRIENT T RANSFORMATIONS IN
S OILS T HAT I NFLUENCE S OIL P H
Process Reaction pH Effect1
mole H + >mole N or S
Nitrogen
NO3- uptake NO3- + 8H+ + 8e- N NH2 + 2H2O + OH- -1
Mineralization R@NH2 + H+ + H2O N R@OH + NH4+ -1
Denitrification 2NO3- + 2H+ N N 2 + 21>2O2 + H2O -1
Urea hydrolysis 1NH222CO + 3H2O N 2NH4+ + 2OH- + CO2 -1
NH4+ uptake NH4+ + R@OH N R@NH2 + H+ + H2O +1
Immobilization NH4+ + R@OH N R@NH2 + H+ + H2O +1
Volatilization NH4+ + OH- N NH3 + H2O +1
Nitrification NH4+ + 2O2 N NO3- + H2O + 2H+ +2
Sulfur
SO4-2 uptake SO4-2 + 8H+ + 8e- N SH2 + 2H2O + 2OH- -2
Mineralization R@S + 11>2O2 + H2O N SO4-2 + 2H+ +2
1Negative number represents increase in pH; positive number represents decrease in pH.

OH- or HCO3- occurs to maintain electrical neutrality. When cation exceeds anion
uptake, excess H+ is released into the rhizosphere, while OH- >HCO3- is released
when anion exceeds cation uptake. Generally, most plants take up more cations than
anions, resulting in soil acidification (Table 3-4). For example in legumes, cation
uptake is greater than anion uptake because legumes provide a majority of N through
N2 fixation. Alternatively, rhizosphere pH will increase slightly with plants relying
entirely on NO3-, which does not commonly occur (Fig. 3-7). The net effect of crop
growth on soil acidity depends on plant species, the proportion of NH4+ and NO3-
uptake, total biomass production (or yield), quantity of plant material harvested, and
quantity of NO3- leached. Higher legume or non-legume (fertilized with NH4+ ) bio-
mass production results in greater soil acidity. Soil acidity would be lower with grain
harvest compared to grain plus residues. Increasing the quantity of biomass left in the
field increases acidity produced through microbial degradation.
Transformations of nutrients in soil can be both acid-producing and acid-
consuming (Table 3-3). Inspection of N and S transformations shows little net effect
on soil pH, except as NO3- and SO4-2 leach, along with an equivalent quantity of
cations, decreasing soil pH.

Soil OM
As microorganisms decompose soil OM, they release CO2 that quickly reacts with
H2O to produce H+ and HCO3-. Decomposition of organic residues and root respi-
ration increases CO2 in soil air to about ten times the atmospheric CO2; thus, acidity
produced from CO2 in soil air is greater than that produced in the atmosphere. In
addition, microorganisms produce organic acids by:
Organic C S R@COOH S R@COO- + H+
The type of residue added influences the quantity of acid produced. For example,
residue in a coniferous forest produces more acid than in soils under deciduous forest
or grasslands. Also, soil OM contains reactive carboxylic and phenolic groups that
behave as weak acids releasing H+ (Fig. 2-10). Soil OM content varies with the envi-
ronment, vegetation, and soil; thus, its contribution to soil acidity varies accordingly.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 59

TABLE 3-4
V ARIATION IN E XCESS C ATION U PTAKE IN L EGUME AND
N ON -L EGUME C ROPS
Species H + Production Excess Cations
cmol/kg shoot1 cmol/kg plant
Grain Legumes
Chickpea 58–220 108–177
Soybean 72–117 85–142
Narrow-leafed lupin 55–178 93–142
Grasspea 144 122
Yellow lupin 31–145 82–119
Field pea 78–132 110–116
Faba bean 32–68 60–122
Common vetch 149 126
Forage Legumes
Sweet clover 96–184 118–173
Lucerne 120–187 101–173
Red clover 128–180 129–180
White clover 120–190 165–185
Subterranean clover 28–100 88–175
Cereal Grains
Oats — 48–76
Barley — 26–49
Sorghum — 29–44
Wheat — 25–73
Corn — 38–75
1cmol/kg shoot = meq/100g shoot
Source: Tang and Rengel. 2003. In Rengel (ed.), Handbook of Soil Acidity (pp. 57–81). New York:
Marcel Decker.

7.5 Figure 3-7

Relative influence of anion
Anion uptake
and cation uptake on
rhizosphere pH.
SOLUTION pH

6.5

Cation uptake
5.5

4.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
DISTANCE FROM ROOT SURFACE (cm)

In peat and muck soils and in mineral soils containing large amounts of OM, organic
acids contribute significantly to soil acidity.

Soil Mineral Exchange and Hydrolysis Reactions

The dissociation of H+ from edges of clay minerals, Al and Fe oxides, and soil OM
surfaces contributes to soil acidity and pH buffering. The edges of clay minerals
such as kaolinite (1:1) and montmorillonite (2:1) can buffer soil pH (Fig. 2-9).
60 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

The pH buffering capacity associated with Al and Fe oxides behaves similarly, as

follows:

As pH decreases, adsorbed H+ increases, which increases the surface 1+2 charge or

AEC. Soils with high clay, Al/Fe oxide, and/or soil OM contents exhibit greater pH
buffer capacity than sandy and/or low OM soils.
In acid soils containing Al(OH)3, changes in soil pH affect Al+3 concentration
in soil solution according to:
Al1OH23 + 3H+ N Al+3 + 3H2O
The equilibrium reaction shows that as pH decreases (increasing H+ ), the equilib-
rium shifts to the right where Al1OH23 dissolves to produce Al+3, which can then be
adsorbed to the CEC. Depending on pH, Al+3 will hydrolyze according to:
Al+3 + H2O N Al1OH2+2 + H+
Al1OH2 +2 + H2O N Al1OH22+ + H+
Al1OH22+ + H2O N Al1OH230 + H+
Al1OH230 + H2O N Al1OH24- + H+
Each successive step occurs at a higher pH (Fig. 3-8). At low pH, more of the Al
hydrolysis species are 1+2 charged 1Al+3, Al(OH22+), which enables greater Al
adsorption to CEC. Hydrolysis of Al+3 generates H+ and lowers pH, unless there is a
source of OH- to neutralize H+ .
If a base is added (i.e., CaCO3), H+ will be neutralized first. With continued
addition of base, Al+3 hydrolyzes, with the production of H+ . In this way, Al+3 hy-
drolysis buffers the increase in solution pH. Soil pH will not increase until sufficient
base is added to decrease soluble Al+3. It should be noted that Al1OH23 will precipi-
tate at pH 6.5, decreasing Al+3 in solution and increasing pH.

Figure 3-8 100 +3

Relationship between pH Al(OH)2+
and the distribution and 80 Al(OH)30 +2
AVERAGE CHARGE

average charge of soluble

Al species. As pH decreases Al+3
TOTAL Al (%)

Al(OH)4– +1
below 5, Al +3 concentration 60
in solution greatly increases.
Average
40 charge 0

20 21
AlOH+2
0 22
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pH
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 61

Hydrolysis of Fe+3 is similar to Al+3. Although Fe is more acidic than Al, the
acidity is buffered by Al hydrolysis reactions. Thus, Fe hydrolysis has little effect on
soil pH until most of the soil Al has reacted. Al and Fe hydroxides occur as amor-
phous or crystalline colloids, coating clay and other mineral surfaces. They are also
held between the lattices of expanding clay minerals, preventing collapse of these
lattices as water is removed during drying.

Soluble Salts
Acidic, neutral, or basic salts in the soil solution originate from mineral weathering,
OM decomposition, or addition of fertilizers and manures. The cations of these salts
will displace adsorbed Al+3 in acidic soils and thus decrease soil solution pH as the
Al+3 hydrolyzes. Divalent cations have a greater effect on lowering soil pH than mon-
ovalent metal cations (see the lyotropic series in Chapter 2).
Band-applied fertilizer will result in a high soluble-salt concentration in the
affected soil zone, which will decrease pH through Al+3 hydrolysis. With high rates
of band-applied fertilizer in soils with pH 5.0–5.5, the increased soluble Al+3 can be
detrimental to plant growth.

Fertilizers
Fertilizer materials vary in their soil reaction pH. Nitrate sources carrying a
basic cation are less acid-forming than NH4+ sources. Compared with P fertilizers,
NH4+ containing or forming sources exhibit greater effect on soil pH (Table 3-5).
The acidity produced is greater when S and P sources are combined with NH4+
than with N-only sources. Phosphoric acid released from dissolving P fertilizers
can temporarily acidify small, localized zones at the site of application. With triple
superphosphate, reaction zone pH is 1.5, and with monoammonium phosphate re-
action zone pH is 3.5; however, the quantity of H+ produced is very small and has
little long-term effect on bulk soil pH. Diammonium phosphate will initially raise
soil pH to about 8, unless the initial soil pH is greater than the pH of the fertilizer
(see Table 5-10). Acidity produced by the nitrification of the NH4+ will offset this
initial pH increase.
Table 3-5 shows the theoretical quantity of CaCO3 needed to neutral-
ize the acidity produced per unit of N or S fertilizer applied. For example, with

TABLE 3-5
S OIL A CIDITY P RODUCED BY N AND S F ERTILIZERS

mole H + , mole CaCO3

Fertilizer Source Soil Reaction N or S Equiv.1
Anhydrous ammonia NH3 + 2O2 S H+ + NO3- + H2O 1 3.6
Urea 1NH222CO + 4O2 S 2NO3- + 2H+ + CO2 + H2O 1 3.6
Ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 + 2O2 S 2NO3- + 2H+ + H2O 1 3.6
Ammonium sulfate 1NH422SO4 + 4O2 S 2NO3- + 4H+ + SO4-2 + H2O 2 7.2
Monoammonium phosphate NH4H2PO4 + O2 S 2NO3- + 2H+ + H2PO4- + H2O 2 7.2
Diammonium phosphate 1NH422HPO4 + O2 S 2NO3- + 3H+ + H2PO4- + H2O 1.5 5.4
Elemental S S + 112 O2 + H2O S SO4-2 + 2H+ 2 7.2
Ammonium thiosulfate 1NH422S2O3 + 6O2 S 2SO4-2 + 2NO3- + 6H+ + H2O 1.5 5.4
1The CaCO3 equivalent represents the lb CaCO3 >lb N or S applied to neutralize acidity in the fertilizer.
Source: Adams, 1984, Soil Acidity and Liming, No. 12, p. 234, ASA.
62 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

1NH422SO4, 7.2 lb CaCO3 are needed to neutralize the H+ produced per lb of N

applied. The method used to determine CaCO3 equivalent for 1NH422SO4 is:
4 moles of H+ produced/2 moles N applied
or,
4 equivalent weights of H+ produced/2 equivalent weights of N applied
thus,
4 equivalent weights of CaCO3 S neutralize 4 equivalent weights
of H+ produced/2 equivalent weights of N applied
4 * 50 g CaCO3 >eq 7.2 g CaCO3 7.2 lb CaCO3
= =
2 * 14 g N>eq gN lb N
The theoretical CaCO3 equivalents are usually an overestimate of the CaCO3 re-
quired to neutralize the acidity produced from application of fertilizers. As previously
discussed, root absorption of fertilizer anions 1NO3-, SO4-2, or H2PO4-2 would
neutralize some of the acidity produced from nitrification of NH4+ or oxidation of
S (Table 3-3). When anion uptake effects are considered, the CaCO3 equivalent is
often reduced by ∼ 50%, which may be too extreme considering the acidity produced
with NH4+ uptake.
The extent and rate of soil pH decline with fertilization varies among soils
and management. Plant growth problems due to high soil acidity might develop
in 5 years on a sandy soil or 10 years on a silt loam, but might take 15 years
or more on a clay loam. For example, after 20 years of 200 lb N/a as NH4NO3
applied annually to bromegrass, surface soil pH decreased 1 pH unit (6.5–5.5
pH) (Fig. 3-9). After 40 years, surface soil pH decreased more than 2 pH units
(6.5–4.1 pH).

Estimating the effect of N fertilizer use on soil pH Using Table 3-5 and Figure
2-11, we can predict the decrease in soil pH caused by applying N fertilizers. This
valuable tool can be used to estimate future lime requirements to maintain optimum
soil pH (see Table 3-8, pg. 70).
For example, assume you are managing a field of tall fescue (optimum pH 5.5–6.5).
Your soil test report shows:
soil pH 6.5
CEC 10 meq>100g
OM 3%
BS 75%
You make four applications of 40 lb N/a as 1NH422SO4 each year. Estimate the
decrease in soil pH after 5 years of N management on this turf (see NOTE, pg. 62).
1. Determine total N application.
40 lb N>a * 4 applications>yr = 160 lb N>a>yr * 5 yr = 800 lb N>a
2. Estimate quantity of lime needed to neutralize acidity produced with this N source.
In Table 3-5, use 7.2 lb CaCO3 >lb N as 1NH422SO4.
800 lb N>a * 7.2 lb CaCO3 >lb N = 5,760 lb CaCO3 >a
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 63

0 Figure 3-9
A Soil pH decreases
dramatically with increasing
–10 N rate and years of
application. Soil fertilized
annually since 1946 (A) and
DEPTH (cm) –20 fertilized annually from 1946
to 1965 (no N applied since
1965). Soils were sampled
N rate (kgyha)
–30 224 in 1985.
157 (Schwab et al., 1990, SSSAJ,
112 53:1412–1417.)
67
–40 22
0
4 5 6 7

0
B

–10
DEPTH (cm)

–20

N rate (kgyha)
–30 224
157
112
67
–40 22
0
4 5 6 7
pH

3. Determine quantity of acid 1meq>100 g2 added (assume 6″ soil depth or afs; see
Chapter 2).
5,760 lb CaCO3 5,760 lb CaCO3
=
afs 2 * 106 lb soil
5,760 lb CaCO3 0.5 * 10 - 4 0.288 lb CaCO3
* -4
=
2 * 10 lb soil
6
0.5 * 10 100 lb soil
0.288 g CaCO3 103 mg
= *
100 g soil g
288 mg CaCO3
=
100 g soil
288 mg CaCO3 1 meq 5.76 meq CaCO3
* =
100 g soil 50 mg CaCO3 100 g soil
5.76 meq CaCO3 5.76 meq acid added
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
5.76 meq acid added 5.76 meq bases removed from CEC
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
64 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

4. Convert meq acid/100 g soil added to decrease in BS 1initial BS = 75%2.

10 meq CEC 7.5 meq bases
75% BS * = 3initial bases on CEC4
100 g soil 100 g soil
7.5 meq base 5.76 meq bases removed from CEC 1.74 meq base
- = 3bases left on CEC4
100 g soil 100 g soil 100 g soil
1.74 meq base 10 meq CEC
, * 100 = 17.4% BS 3new BS after 5 yr N addition4
100 g soil 100 g soil
5. Estimate new soil pH (Fig. 2-11).
17.4 %BS is ∼ 4.5 pH 3from Fig. 2-114
Therefore, applying 800 lb N/a over 5 years would decrease soil pH by 2 units
16.5 S 4.5 pH2. The reason soil pH would likely decrease this amount is because
the coarse-textured soil (10 meq CEC/100 g soil) has little buffer capacity for the
added acid. If this soil had a CEC = 20 meq/100 g soil, the change in %BS would
have been (assuming initial 75% BS):
15 meq>100 g soil - 5.76 meq acid>100 g soil = 9.24 meq base left>100 g soil
9.24 meq>100 g soil , 20 meq CEC>100 g soil * 100 = 46.2% BS
Therefore, with this clay or clay loam soil, BS decreases from 75 to 46.2%. Using
Figure 2-11, pH would decrease from 6.5 to 5.3.

SOIL pH BUFFERING
Soil behaves like a weak acid that will buffer pH. In acid soils, adsorbed Al+3 will
be in equilibrium with Al+3 in soil solution, which hydrolyzes to produce H+ , de-
pending on solution pH. If H+ is neutralized by a base (i.e., CaCO3), solution Al+3
precipitates as Al1OH23, causing exchangeable Al+3 to desorb to resupply solution
Al+3. Thus, soil pH remains the same or is buffered. As more base is added, the
reaction continues, with more adsorbed Al+3 neutralized and replaced on the CEC
with the cation of the added base. As a result, soil pH gradually increases (Fig. 3-10).
Thus, soil is a pH buffer, where the buffer capacity (BC) increases with increasing
clay and OM content and decreasing pH or quantity of exchangeable acid. The
H-saturated clay (Fig. 3-10) was prepared in a laboratory to demonstrate how
increasing the amount and form of the exchangeable acid can increase the pH buff-
ering properties. In this case, significantly more base is needed to change pH in the
H-saturated clay than in the Al-saturated clay.

NOTE:
Application of nutrients and other inputs in the turf While the CaCO3 rate was determined on the afs basis
industry is commonly based on 1,000 ft2 instead of an acre (1 acre and 6″ deep), products are applied on an area basis,
143,560 ft22. The conversion is simple: allowing lb/afs/43.56 conversion to lb/1,000 ft2.

1,000 ft2 = 1>43.56 acre

Using the previous example

160 lb N>a , 43.56 = 3.67 lb N>1,000 ft2

5,760 lb CaCO3 >a , 43.56 = 132 lb CaCO3 >1,000 ft2
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 65

Figure 3-10
Titration of Al-saturated and
7
H-saturated montmorillonite
clays. The buffer behavior
6 of the Al-saturated clay is
typical of many acid soils.
SOIL pH Al-saturated Clay The H-saturated clay was
5
prepared in a laboratory as
they rarely occur naturally.
4 (Adapted from Chesworth, 2008,
Encyclopedia of Soil Science,
Springer, N.Y.)
3 H-saturated Clay

2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NEUTRALIZATION (%)

Figure 3-11
Approximate limestone (t/a)
required to raise surface
soil pH (7-in. depth) of four
textural classes with typical
LIMESTONE (tya)

CEC (meq/100 g soil).

The reverse reaction also occurs. As acid is continually added, OH- in the soil
solution is neutralized. Gradually, the Al1OH23 dissolves, to resupply OH- , which
increases Al+3 in solution and subsequently on the CEC. As the reaction continues,
soil pH continuously but slowly decreases as the Al+3 replaces adsorbed basic cations.
The quantity of clay minerals and OM in a soil determines the extent of buffer-
ing in soils (see Buffering Capacity, pg. 35). Soils containing large amounts of clay
and OM are highly buffered and require larger amounts of lime to increase pH than
soils with a lower BC. Sandy soils with small amounts of clay and OM are poorly
buffered and require only small amounts of lime to effect a given change in pH. Soils
containing mostly 1:1 clay minerals (ultisols and oxisols) are generally less buffered
than soils with principally 2:1 clay minerals (alfisols and mollisols). For example, the
lime requirement increases with increasing clay content and CEC (Fig. 3-11).

DETERMINATION OF ACTIVE AND POTENTIAL

ACIDITY IN SOILS
Active Acidity
Active acidity represents the H+ and Al+3 concentrations in the soil solution. The
most accurate and widely used method involves measuring pH in a saturated paste
or a more diluted soil-water mixture with a pH meter and a glass electrode. On a
66 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

soil test report, soil pH represents the acidity in a soil solution. However, soil pH is
a useful indicator of the presence of exchangeable Al+3 and H+ . Exchangeable H+ is
present at pH 6 4, while exchangeable Al+3 occurs predominantly at pH 6 5.5.
Increasing the dilution of the soil from saturation to 1:1 to 1:10 soil : water ratio
increases the measured pH compared with the pH of a saturated paste. To minimize
differences in solution ion concentration between soils, some laboratories dilute the
soil with 0.01 M CaCl2 instead of water. Adding Ca+2 decreases the pH compared
with soil diluted with water. Changes in measured pH with dilution and added salt
are generally small, ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 pH unit.

Potential Acidity
Soil pH measurements are excellent indicators of soil acidity, but do not measure
potential acidity. Potential acidity represents the H+ and Al+3 on the CEC (Fig. 3-12).
Quantifying potential soil acidity requires titrating the soil with a base, which can be
used to determine the lime requirement or quantity of CaCO3 needed to increase pH
to a desired level. Thus, the lime requirement of a soil is related not only to soil pH,
but also to its BC or CEC (Fig. 3-11). High clay and/or high OM soils have higher
BCs and lime requirements, whereas coarse-textured soils low in clay and OM have
lower BCs and lime requirements.
To demonstrate how BC influences the quantity of base needed to neutralize
potential acidity (exchangeable Al+3), we use two soils with CEC = 20 meq/100 g
and 10 meq/100 g. Both have 50% exchangeable Al+3, or 50% acid saturation (AS),
or alternatively 50% BS.
Soil 1 S 50% AS * 20 meq CEC>100 g soil = 10 meq acids>100 g soil
Soil 2 S 50% AS * 10 meq CEC>100 g soil = 5 meq acids>100 g soil
If we wanted to neutralize all of the exchangeable acid 1Al+32, then we would need to
add an equivalent quantity of base 1CaCO32:
Soil 1 S 10 meq acids>100 g soil = 10 meq CaCO3 >100 g soil
Soil 2 S 5 meq acids>100 g soil = 5 meq CaCO3 >100 g soil

Figure 3-12 0.7

As soil pH increases, Al +3
saturation decreases. In
most soils, little or no effect 0.6
of Al +3 toxicity on plant
growth is observed above
pH 5.0–5.5. 0.5
(Adapted from Thomas and
Hargrove, 1984, in Adams (ed.), Soil
Acidity and Liming, ASA, CSSA,
AI+3yCEC

SSSA, Madison, Wis.) 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
4 5 6 7
SOIL pH
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 67

Now convert the charge units (meq CaCO3 >100 g soil) to mass units 1lb CaCO3 >afs2.
For Soil 1:
10 meq CaCO3 50 mg CaCO3 500 mg CaCO3
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.5 g CaCO3
=
100 g soil
0.5 lb CaCO3
=
100 lb soil
0.5 lb CaCO3 2 * 10 lb soil
6 10,000 lb CaCO3
* =
100 lb soil afs afs
For Soil 2, the quantity of base needed would only be 5,000 lb CaCO3 >afs. On a
practical basis, both rates are higher than needed because all the exchangeable acids
do not need to be neutralized to increase pH. Figure 3-12 shows that decreasing Al+3
saturation to 5% would increase pH to about 5.5.

PLANT GROWTH PROBLEMS IN ACID SOILS

High soil acid content can severely restrict plant growth, an increasing problem
throughout the world. The primary effects of soil acids on plant health are related
to acid toxicity effects on root growth and reduced nutrient availability (Table 3-6).
Recognizing acid soil problems is essential to effective management of horticultural
and agricultural plants.

TABLE 3-6
P OTENTIAL P LANT N UTRIENT P ROBLEMS R ELATED TO
E XCESSIVE S OIL A CIDITY

Nutrient Problem Soil pH and Other Conditions Effect of Liming

Al and Mn toxicity Usually pH 6 5.095.5, Exchangeable Al, solution
depends on crop and variety Al/Mn decrease with
increasing pH
H+ toxicity pH 6 4.0, Al/Mn toxicity Decrease solution and
commonly occurs first; adsorbed H+
observed mostly in solution
culture
Ca deficiency Low CEC, pH 6 4.594.8, tropical, Increase exchangeable Ca
highly weathered soils
Mg deficiency pH 6 5.5, low CEC or BS Increase Mg saturation
Mo deficiency pH 6 5.5 Liming to increase solution Mo
N deficiency pH 6 5.095.5, decreased Increase microbial activity; add
nitrification and residues as OM decomposi-
mineralization; low OM tion increases pH
P deficiency pH 6 5.0; highly weathered soils Decrease exchangeable Al and
dominant in Al/Fe oxides AEC; increase BS and CEC;
increase solubility of Fe/Al-P
minerals
K deficiency pH 6 5.0, low CEC, low BS, Decrease exchangeable Al,
highly leached soils, high increase BS
exchangeable Al
68 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-13 Effect of H+ toxicity (solution PH) on soy beanroot growth

Effect of H + toxicity (solution
pH) on soybean root growth. 50
(Adapted from Sanzonowicz et al.,
1998. J. Plant Nutr., 21:387–403.) 40

30

20

10

0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Al+3, Mn2, and H+ Toxicity

In soil, increased Al+3 and Mn+2 solubility at low pH confounds the direct assessment
of H+ toxicity in plants. Although exchangeable H+ increases relative to exchangeable
Al+3 at soil pH 6 4, it is difficult to separate the toxicity effects of these elements.
Using hydroponic growth techniques, where Al+3 and Mn+2 concentrations can be
eliminated or controlled, true H+ toxicity can be observed. With low solution pH,
visual H+ toxicity symptoms include stunted top growth, reduced lateral root growth,
and brownish discoloration of roots (very similar to Al+3 toxicity). Excess H+ deterio-
rates root membrane structure and function, increasing root permeability and loss of
organic substrates, and reducing nutrient uptake. Root growth decreases substantially
below pH 5 (Fig. 3-13).
Al+3 toxicity limits plant growth, depending on solution and exchangeable Al+3
concentration, the crop, and in many cases the cultivar or variety. The toxic effects of
Al+3 in plants are due to increased soluble Al+3, which substantially increases below
pH 5 (Fig. 3-8), or exchangeable Al3+ increases above about 10–30% of the CEC
(Fig. 3-12). Increasing exchangeable Al+3 increases Al+3 in solution (Fig. 3-14).
The initial symptom of Al3+ toxicity is a rapid inhibition of root growth that
occurs before any visual effects are observed on the above-ground plant tissues (Fig.
3-15). Despite increasing soil pH, maintaining high solution Al+3 concentration
severely restricts root growth. These data suggest that normal root growth occurs
when solution Al+3 is very low, which requires low exchangeable Al+3.
The site of Al toxicity is localized in the root apex. Initially, roots appear discol-
ored, which indicates a deterioration of cells in the root cap, root apex, and vascular

Figure 3-14 0.20

Influence of exchangeable Haplustox
SOIL SOLUTION Al (mmolc L–1)

Al +3 on Al +3 concentration Umbraquult
in solution in oxisols and 0.15 Paleudult
ultisols.
(Gonzalez et al., 1979, SSSAJ,
43:1155–1158; Jallah and Smyth, 0.10
1998, Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.,
29:37–50.)

0.05

0.00
0 20 40 60 80
Al SATURATION (%)
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 69

80 Figure 3-15
pH4.0 - tap root pH4.0 - lateral Influence of soil solution
70 pH4.6 - tap root pH4.6 - lateral pH and Al +3 on soybean
pH5.2 - tap root pH5.2 - lateral root growth.

ROOT LENGTH (cm)

60
(Sanzonowicz et al., 1998, Agron. J.,
50 21:387–403.)

40

30

20

10

0
0 7.5 15 22.5 30
SOLUTION Al+3 (uM)

elements (Fig. 3-16). Root cell division is inhibited or ceases, resulting in a reduction
and/or cessation in tap and lateral root growth, with subsequent failure of the whole
root system to elongate. Ultimately, the deterioration of root cells decreases the root
membrane permeability to water and nutrients, which reduces both root and top
growth.
Crops differ widely in their susceptibility to Al+3 toxicity; thus, Al+3 tolerance
is genetically controlled (Table 3-7). Different crop varieties also vary widely in their
tolerance to Al+3, where some grasses are quite Al+3 tolerant.
Manganese is an essential plant nutrient, but at high concentrations can be toxic
to plants. The dominant Mn specie in solution is Mn+2 in equilibrium with MnO2:
MnO2 + 4H+ + 2e- N Mn+2 + 2H2O

Figure 3-16
Differential effects of Al +3
on root growth of Perry (top)
and Chief (bottom) soybean
varieties grown in solution
containing 2 ppm Ca. Left
to right: 0, 8, 12 ppm Al +3
added. Inset photo shows
an example of root tip
damage by Al +3.
(Foy et al.,1969, Agron. J., 61:505.,
with permission, copyright American
Society of Agronomy.)
Al tolerant variety

Al+3(ppm) 0 8 12
Al sensitive variety
70 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-7
A LUMINUM T OLERANCE OF S ELECTED C ROPS
Highly Sensitive Sensitive Tolerant Highly Tolerant
Alfalfa Canola Ryegrass Orchard grass1
Annual medics Barley1 Tall fescue Rhodes grass
Red clover Wheat1 White clover Lovegrass
Buffel grass Orchard grass1 Paspalum
Lesedeza Wheat1 Oats
Cotton Subterranean clover Triticale
Soybean Lupins Yellow serradella
Sorghum Dallsigrass Cereal rye
Peanuts Corn Bermuda grass
Rice1 Rice1 Bahia grass
Barley1
1Some crops are listed twice because Al tolerance depends on variety.

As soil pH decreases, Mn+2 in solution increases at soil pH 6 5 (Fig. 3-17). Since

solution Al+3 also increases greatly below pH 5, Mn and Al toxicity can occur to-
gether. Since Mn+2 is readily absorbed and translocated from roots to shoots, the
initial toxicity symptoms appear in the shoots. In many grain crops, yellow-brown
spots appear between leaf veins, often appearing like interveinal chlorosis similar to
Fe deficiency (see color plates). In legume and broadleaf crops, necrosis of leaf edges
occurs and leaves appear crinkled.
Iron toxicity can also occur; however, Al toxicity dominates in most strongly
acid soils. When tidal marshlands in coastal areas are drained, the underlying FeS2
oxidizes generating substantial acidity and soluble Fe+2 >Fe+3 (Chapter 7). Once oxi-
dized, soil pH drops from near neutral to 64 pH. These soils are difficult to manage
for plant growth and require large rates of lime to raise soil pH.

Ca+2, Mg+2, and P Deficiency

Soils with high levels of soluble or exchangeable Al+3, especially low CEC soils, gen-
erally contain low exchangeable Ca+2 and Mg +2, resulting in potential Ca and Mg
deficiency (Fig. 3-18). As soluble and exchangeable Al+3 increases, nutrient uptake
and transport to shoots decrease (Fig. 3-19). In acid soils, the detrimental effects
of Al toxicity can be reduced or prevented by increasing solution Ca+2. Magnesium
deficiencies caused by inhibition of Mg +2 uptake by Al+3 and H+ commonly occur

Figure 3-17 12.0

Relationship between soil
pH and solution Mn in 10.0
(in saturated soil paste)
SOLUBLE Mn (mgyL)

oxisols.
(Hue et al., 2001, SSSAJ, 65:153–160.) 8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
SOIL pH (1:1 in water)
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 71

Figure 3-18
Influence of added Ca on
remediating Al toxicity.
(Dr. Eugene J. Kamprath)

10 70 Figure 3-19
Effect of increasing
60 soluble Al +3 on nutrient
Ca, Mg, P CONC. (mgyg shoot)

8 accumulation in corn.
(Adapted from Pintro et al., 1996,

K CONC. (mgyg shoot)

50
J. Plant Nutr., 19:729–741.)

6
Ca Mg 40
P K
30
4

20
2
10

0 0
0 5 10 15 30
SOLUTION Al+3 (uM)

on acid 1pH 6 52, sandy soils. As with Ca2+, Mg2+ availability is more a function
of the level of Mg saturation than the quantity of exchangeable Mg +2. Generally,
optimum plant growth occurs at 5–10% Mg saturation. Liming soils to greatly
reduce Al saturation will generally increase Mg availability. In soils with low Mg satu-
ration, application of dolomitic lime is required.
Phosphorus deficiency is common in highly weathered acid soils (e.g., oxisols
and ultisols). In these soils, low P solubility exists due to P reactions with Fe and Al
oxides. Phosphorus availability decreases as pH decreases below 6.5 due to P precipi-
tation as Al/FePO4 # 2H2O and adsorption on Al and Fe oxide surfaces (Chapter 5).
Therefore, increasing soil pH by liming can increase P solubility and availability to
crops. Elevated Al+3 levels at the root surface also enhance formation of insoluble
AlPO4 # 2H2O that limits H2PO4- uptake. In addition, as root growth is reduced by
Al toxicity, P uptake is reduced because the soil volume explored by roots is reduced.
Correction of P deficiency in these acid soils can require substantial P application
rates; however, the Al toxicity still must be remediated for optimum production.
In weathered-, acid-, course-textured soils, K + deficiencies also are common.
Reducing exchangeable Al+3 by liming will generally increase CEC; however, since
these soils are also low in K-bearing minerals, K fertilization is required for optimum
plant growth (Chapter 6).
72 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Molybdenum availability in soils decreases with decreasing soil pH; thus, in acid
soils crop response to applied Mo or liming can be observed. In acid soils, MoO4-2
is adsorbed by Al and Fe oxides, which is exchanged with OH- as pH is increased
by liming. This is particularly important with legume crops, since Mo is essential to
rhyzobia in their function in converting N2 to NH4+ . Many legumes often respond
to liming acid soils above pH 6. Increasing pH to 6.0–6.2 increases Mo availability
to bacteria involved in N2 fixation. Therefore, higher pH levels for optimum legume
productivity are related to increased solubility of soil Mo and subsequent enhance-
ment of N2 fixation by bacteria.

REDUCING SOIL ACIDITY EFFECTS ON PLANTS

Plant Tolerance to Al
Crop species and genotypes within a specie can vary greatly in their ability to tolerate
toxic levels of Al+3. Therefore, careful selection of crops and cultivars can help reduce
Al toxicity effects and enhance productivity (Table 3-8).

TABLE 3-8
S OIL P H R ANGE FOR O PTIMUM G ROWTH OF S ELECTED C ROPS

Plant Soil pH Range

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Abutilon
African Violet
Ageratum
Alsike Clover
Alamanda
Alfalfa
Almond, flowering
Alyssum
Amaranthus
Amaryllis
Apples
Apricot
Arbor Vitae
Ashe, White
Asparagus
Aspen
Aster
Avacado
Azalea
Baby’s Breath
Balsam (Touch-Me-Not)
Banana
Barberry
Barley
Beans, Broad
Beans, Field
Beans; Lima, Snap
Beans, Velvet
Beets, Sugar
Beets, Table
Begonia
Bell Pepper
Bermuda grass
Birch, white
Bitter Melons
Blueberries
Bluegrass, Kentucky
Bougainvillae
Boxwood
Breadfruit
Broccoli
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 73

Plant Soil pH Range

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Broom
Buckwheat
Butterfly Bush
Burning bush
Cabbage
Caladium
Camellia
Candytuft
Carnation
Carrots
Cauliflower
Cedar, White
Celery
Centipede grass
Cherry
Chrysanthemum
Clematis
Clover, Kaimi
Clover, Red
Clover, Sweet
Clover, White
Club moss
Cockscomb (Celosia)
Coconut
Coffee
Coleus
Corn, Field
Corn, Sweet
Cornflower
Cotton
Cowpeas
Crab apple
Cranberries
Crapemyrtle
Crimson Clover
Croton
Cucumber
Dahlia
Date
Daylilly
Dianthus
Dichondra
Dogwood
Duranta
Eggplant
Elm
Erica
Eucalyptus
Euonymus
Fescue, Tall
Ficus
Fig
Fir, balsam
Fir, Douglas
Flax
Forsythia
Four-O-Clock
Foxglove
Gardenia
Garlic
Geranium
Geranium, Ivy
Gerbera
Ginger
Gladiolus
Gloxinia
Gobo
Gourde
Grapefruit
Grapes
Grass; Flame, Kikuyu, Pangola
Guava
Hazelnut
Heather
Hemlock
74 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Plant Soil pH Range

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Hibiscus
Holly, American
Hollyhock
Honeysuckle
Huckleberry
Hydrangea, Blue
Hydrangea, Pink
Impatiens
Iris
Ironwood
Ivy, Boston
Jade Vine
Juniper, Irish
Kale
Kumera
Kumquat
Lantana
Larch, European
Larkspur
Leeks
Lemon
Lettuce
Lilac
Lily, Easter
Lime
Lupin
Lupine
Lychee
Macadamia
Magnolia
Mango
Maple
Maple, Sugar
Marigold
Marrow
Melons
Mint
Moss, sphagnum
Mock Orange
Mondo Grass
Moss Rose
Muskmelons
Mustard
Narcissus
Nasturtium
Oak, Black
Oak; Pin, White
Oak, Red
Oak, Scarlet
Oats
Okra
Oleander
Onions
Orange
Orchid
Palms
Pansy
Papaya
Parsley
Parsnips
Passion Fruit
Peach
Peanut
Pear
Peas; Field, Garden
Peppers; garden, ornamental
Perriwinkle
Petunia
Philadelphus (English Dogwood)
Phlox
Pine
Pine; Jack, Longleaf
Pine. Loblolly, Red, Yellow
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 75

Plant Soil pH Range

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Pine, White
Pineapple
Poinsettia
Pomegranate
Poppy
Potatoes
Potatoes, Sweet
Potatoes, White
Primula
Pummelo
Pumpkin
Radishes
Raspberries
Raspberry, Red
Red Clover
Redbud
Rhododendron
Rhubarb
Rice
Roses
Rye
Ryegrass
Salvia
Shasta Daisy
Snapdragon
Snowball
Sorghum
Soybeans
Spinach
Spiraea.
Spruce, Black
Spruce, Colorado
Spruce, White
Squash
St. Augustine
Strawberreis
Sudangrass
Sugarcane
Sunflower
Sweet William
Sweetpea
Sycamore
Tamarack
Tangerine
Taro
Timothy
Tobacco
Tomatoes
Trefoil, Birdsfoot
Turnips
Tulips
Verbena
Vetch
Viburnum
Vinca
Viola
Vitex
Walnut, Black
Watercress
Weeping Willow
Wheat
Whiteclover
Yew, Japanese
Zinnia
Zoysia
76 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-20 Al tolerant Al sensitive

Mechanism of Al tolerance
in selected species and
varieties within species.
(Adapted from Delhaize et al.,
2004. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
101:15249–15254.)

Elevated Depressed
organic acid organic acid
excretion excretion

Al+3 Al+3 Al+3

Al+3
Al+3
Al+3 Al+3
Al+3 Al+3 Al+3
Al+3 Al+3 Al+3 Al+3
Al+3 Al+3
Al+3 Al+3 Al-organic
acid complex
Al+3 Al+3

The mechanisms of Al tolerance include both internal and external processes.

The internal mechanism is based on observations that some plants tolerate high Al
levels through accumulation of Al in the shoot where internal Al detoxification can
occur. For example, Hydrangea (an ornamental plant) flowers turn from red to blue
when transplanted to an acid soil, which is due to Al accumulation in the sepals.
Hydrangea can accumulate about 3,000 ppm Al, while buckwheat accumulates as
high as 15,000 ppm Al in leaves when grown on acid soils. These plants complex
Al+3 with oxalate and citrate in the roots and leaves.
The external mechanism is based on a correlation between Al tolerance and Al-
activated organic acid release (Fig. 3-20). Certain plant genotypes tolerate Al+3 be-
cause they exude organic acids (malate, citrate, or oxalate) from the root tips. These
organic acids chelate or complex soluble Al+3 at the root surface and effectively limit
Al+3 uptake. Genotypes within several species (Table 3-9) release more organic acid
than Al-sensitive genotypes.
Recent research has identified the specific gene in Al tolerant wheat that con-
trols organic acid exudation and Al tolerance. Wheat breeding programs are currently
developing varieties with enhanced Al tolerance. The Al tolerance gene has also been

TABLE 3-9
P LANT S PECIES WHERE S PECIFIC O RGANIC A CID
E XUDATION BY R OOTS IS C ORRELATED WITH
Al T OLERANCE

Barley Rapeseed Sunflower

Buckwheat Rye Taro
Corn Snapbeans Tobacco
Oat Sorghum Triticale
Radish Soybean Wheat
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 77

Figure 3-21
Genetically modified
barley with the wheat Al
tolerance gene (left) and
the unmodified barley plant
(right) grown on acid soil.
(Photo by Carl Davies; permission
provided Manny Delhaize and Peter
Ryan, CSIRO Plant Industry, PO Box
1600, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.)

successfully inserted into barley (Fig. 3-21). Improving Al tolerance through genetic
modification of many important food crops will be invaluable to optimizing plant
growth in acid soils.
One short-term management strategy for reducing Al+3 toxicity in seedlings is
band application of fertilizer P (Table 3-10). These data show that band-applied P
at planting reduces Al+3 toxicity and increased wheat and sorghum yield on low pH,
high P soils.

TABLE 3-10
L IME AND P E FFECTS ON W HEAT AND S ORGHUM G ROWN ON L OW P H S OILS

Lime Rate P Rate & Application Method

Broadcast Band1
Crop 1lb P2O5 , a2 lb ECCE/a 0 40 40/35
——————— bu/a ———————
0 38 42 54
Wheat (40) 3,750 51 51 57
7,500 49 49 55
0 55 — 76
Sorghum (35) 5,000 63 — 83
10,000 73 — 83
1Initial
soil pH 4.5; high soil test P.
Source: Adapted from Lamond et al., 1997, Better Crops, 81:10–11.
78 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Neutralizing Soil Acidity with Lime

Liming reactions in soil Liming reactions begin with the neutralization of H+ in
the soil solution by adding a base 1usually OH- or CO3-22 originating from the lime
material. For example, CaCO3 behaves as:
CaCO3 + 2H+ N Ca+2 + CO2 + H2O
The fast reaction of 2H+ + CO3-2 S CO2 + H2O neutralizes H+ in soil so-
lution. Exchangeable Al+3 desorbs from the CEC as solution Ca+2 increases
from the dissolving CaCO3. Two Al+3 on the CEC are replaced by three
Ca+2 361 +2 charges of Al replaced by 61 +2 charges of Ca4. Once in solution the
Al+3 hydrolyzes to produce more H+ , which is neutralized by CO3-2. In this way,
both soil pH and BS increase (Fig. 2-11). Since the majority of exchangeable acidity
occurs as exchangeable Al+3, the neutralization reaction can be represented by:
Step 1: Exchange 2Al+3 on the CEC with 3Ca+2 from the CaCO3.

Ca+2
Soil Exchange or CEC

Ca+2
Ca+2
AI+3
K+
K+ + 3Ca+2 + 2AI+3
Mg+2
Mg+2
Ca+2
AI+3
Ca+2

Step 2: Al+3 in solution hydrolyzes (reacts with water) to produce 6H+ ; the Al1OH23
precipitates out of solution.
2Al+3 + 6H2O N 2Al1OH23 + 6H+

Step 3: CO3-2 1from CaCO32 neutralizes the H+ produced from Step 2.

3CO3-2 + 6H+ N 3CO2 + 3H2O
Overall Reaction

Ca+2
Soil Exchange or CEC

Ca+2
Ca+2
AI+3
K+
K+ + 3CaCO3 + 6H2O + 2AI(OH)3 + 3CO2 + 3H2O
Mg+2
Mg+2
Ca+2
AI+3
Ca+2

The rate of the reaction is directly related to the rate at which the H+ ions are neu-
tralized in solution. As long as sufficient CaCO3 is available, H+ will be converted to
H2O. The continued removal of H+ from the soil solution will ultimately result in
the precipitation of Al+3 as Al1OH23 and replacement on the CEC with Ca+2. Thus,
as soil pH increases, BS also increases (Fig. 2-11).
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 79

7 Figure 3-22
Example titration to deter-
mine lime requirement of an
acid sandy loam soil. Initial
6 soil pH is 4.5. Increasing
addition of base (meq/100 g

SOIL pH
soil) increases soil pH.

4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Meq BASEy100 g SOIL

Determining lime requirement The lime requirement of a soil can be determined

by several different methods. Titrating a soil with a base [i.e., Ca1OH22] will increase
soil pH (Fig. 3-22). After equilibration, pH is determined and the pH values are
plotted against the quantity (meq) of base added. From these data it is simple to de-
termine the amount of lime to be added. For example, increasing pH from 4.5 to 6.5
requires adding 6.0 meq base/100 g soil (Fig. 3-22). Thus, the quantity of CaCO3
needed to increase pH to 6.5 would be:
6 meq base 6 meq CaCO3
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
6 meq CaCO3 50 mg CaCO3 300 mg CaCO3
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.3 g CaCO3
=
100 g soil
0.3 lb CaCO3
=
100 lb soil
0.3 lb CaCO3 2 * 10 lb soil
6 6,000 lb CaCO3
* =
100 lb soil afs afs
Soil titration with a base is not generally used in routine soil testing for lime re-
quirements because titrations are usually time consuming. However, reliable titration
methods have been recently developed that can be practically used in determining
lime requirements (Fig. 3-23).
7.5 Figure 3-23
y 2 = 20.24 + 10.44x 2 Titration curve for a loam
7.0 r 2 = 0.9997 soil using a 30-minute time
interval between additions
6.5 of Ca1OH22. Volume of
base added is converted to
6.0 equivalent CaCO3 (Mg/ha).
pH

(Liu et al., 2004, SSSAJ,

5.5
68:1228–1233.)

5.0

4.5

4.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
CaCO3 (Mg ha–1)
80 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-11
C OMMON B UFFER M ETHODS U SED TO D ETERMINE L IME R EQUIREMENT
Buffer Target CaCO3 Required/0.1
Buffer Method pH pH Intended Use Decrease in Buffer pH
t/a
6.8 0.27
SMP 6.8 6.4 Exchangeable Al-alfisols 0.22
6.0 0.18
Woodruff 7.0 6.5–7.0 Mollisols 0.22
Adams-Evans 8.0 6.5 Low CEC-ultisols 0.04
Mehlich 6.6 6.0 Exchangeable Al-ultisols 0.07
Source: van Lierop. 1990. Soil pH and Lime Requirement Determinations. In R. L.Westerman (ed.), Soil
Testing and Plant Analysis (3rd ed., pp. 73–126). Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wis.

The most common method used to estimate lime requirement is based on the
change in pH of a buffered solution (the base) added to a soil (the acid). When a buf-
fer solution of known base concentration is added to an acid soil, the buffer pH is
depressed in proportion to the original soil pH and its BC. A large drop in buffer pH
would indicate a low pH soil with a large reserve or potential acidity, and a high lime
requirement. A specific volume of the buffer solution is added to a given weight or
volume of soil, and the decrease in pH of the buffer solution is related to the amount
of soil acidity and ultimately the lime requirement.
Four buffer methods are commonly used to determine the lime requirement
(Table 3-11). The Shoemaker, McLean, and Pratt (SMP) buffer is used with soils
containing 2:1 and 2:1:1clays, especially high OM alfisols. The SMP and Woodruff
buffers are commonly used in regions dominated with mollisols. The Adams-Evans
buffer was developed for low CEC and kaolinitic soils. The Mehlich buffer was ini-
tially developed for use on moderate to highly weathered ultisols, although it is in-
creasingly used in other regions. Recently, Mehlich and SMP buffer methods were
compared on nearly 100 mollisol and alfisol soils, and both methods accurately esti-
mated lime requirements (Fig. 3-24).
Liming materials The most common lime sources are calcitic and dolomitic lime-
stone (Table 3-12). The accompanying anion must neutralize H+ in solution and
hence Al+3 on the CEC. Common anions associated with liming materials are
CO3-2, OH- , and O-2. Gypsum 1CaSO4 # 2H2O2 and other neutral salts cannot
neutralize H+ , as shown by:
CaSO4 # 2H2O + 2H+ N Ca+2 + 2H+ + SO4-2 + 2H2O
In fact, neutral salts lower soil pH. In the previous example, Ca+2 replaces adsorbed
Al+3 that increases solution Al+3, which hydrolyzes to generate H+ and decreases pH.
This is especially true with band-applied salts where the fertilized zone pH is de-
pressed. Although gypsum will not neutralize soil pH, increasing Ca+2 in solution
may enhance growth if Ca+2 is marginally deficient. Also, formation of AlSO40 re-
duces Al+3 in solution and subsequent potential Al toxicity. Other neutral salts that
are not liming materials include MgSO4 # 7H2O, KCl, CaCl2, and MgCl2. NaOH
could be considered a liming material but addition of Na on the CEC is not recom-
mended (see Saline, Sodic, and Saline-Sodic Soils).
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 81

6 Figure 3-24
Comparison of SMP and
Mehlich SMP
Mehlich buffer methods for

LIME REQUIREMENT (tya)

5
estimated lime requirement.
y = 1.13x 2 – 18.9x + 78 For a lime requirement of
4
r 2 = 0.71
2 t/a, the Mehlich and SMP
3 buffer pH would be about
6 and 6.6, respectively.
2 (Godsey et al., 2007, SSSAJ,
71:843–850.)

1 y = 4.42x 2 – 58.6x + 195

r 2 = 0.84
0
5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4
SMP OR MEHLICH BUFFER (pH)

Calcium Carbonate Equivalent

The value of a liming material depends on the quantity of acid that a unit weight
of lime will neutralize, which is related to its composition and purity. Pure CaCO3
is the standard against which other liming materials are measured, and its neutral-
izing value is 100%. The calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) is defined as the acid-
neutralizing capacity of a liming material expressed as a weight percentage of CaCO3.
Consider the following reactions:
CaCO3 + 2H+ N Ca+2 + CO2 + H2O
Ca1OH22 + 2H+ N Ca+2 + H2O
In each reaction, 1 mole of either material will neutralize 2 moles of H+ . The molecular
weight of CaCO3 is 100 g/mole, whereas that of Ca1OH22 is only 74 g/mole; thus, 74 g
of Ca1OH22 will neutralize the same amount of acid as 100 g of CaCO3. Therefore, the
neutralizing value, or CCE, of equal weights of the two materials is calculated by:
100g CaCO3 >mole
* 100 = 135% CCE
74g Ca1OH22 >mole
Therefore, Ca1OH22 will neutralize 1.35 times as much acid as the same weight of
CaCO3 1CCE = 135%2.
The same procedure is used to calculate the neutralizing value of other lim-
ing materials (Table 3-12). Dolomite is unique in that there are 2CO3-2 in each
CaMg1CO322, so half the molecular weight is used to determined CCE.
CaMg1CO322 + 4H+ N Ca2+ + Mg +2 + 2CO2 + 2H2O
100 g CaCO3 >mole
* 100 = 109% CCE
0.5 * 184 g CaMg1CO322 >mole
Lime material composition can also be expressed by its Ca and/or Mg content. For
example, pure CaCO3 contains 40% Ca calculated by the ratio of molecular weights:
40 g Ca>mole
* 100 = 40% Ca
100 g CaCO3 >mole

Calcium and Calcium-Magnesium Carbonates. Calcium carbonate 1CaCO32, or

calcite, and calcium-magnesium carbonate 3CaMg1CO3224, or dolomite, are the
most common liming materials and generally referred to as Ag-lime. The CCE of
pure CaCO3 is 100%, while the CCE of pure dolomite is 109%; however, these
82 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-12
C OMMON L IME M ATERIALS
Chemical
Lime Material Composition Properties CCE (%)1
Calcium carbonate CaCO3 (pure) Reference material 100
Calcitic limestone (Ag-lime) CaCO3 Variable fineness 80–100
Suspension or fluid lime CaCO3 Very fine particles 95–100
Dolomitic limestone CaMg1CO322 650% Mg 95–100
Dolomite CaMg1CO322 750% Mg 100–120
Marl CaCO3 Clay contamination 70–90
Burned lime CaO Hard to handle 150–175
Hydrated or slaked lime Ca1OH22 Fast acting 120–135
Slag CaSiO3 Variable composition 60–90
Wood ash Ca, Mg, K oxides Depends on type of burn 30–70
Power plant ash Ca, Mg, K oxides Highly variable 25–50
Ground oyster shells CaCO3 Localized use Up to 95
Cement kiln dusts Ca oxides Localized use 40–100
Biosolids and by-products CaO, Ca1OH22, Variable composition Variable
1CCE S calcium carbonate equivalent represents the neutralizing value of the material compared to pure CaCO .
3
For example, pure Ca1OH22 neutralizes 35% more acid than the same weight of pure CaCO3.

open-pit–mined materials contain impurities. Calcitic limestone contains Ú85% CaCO3

and small amounts of MgCO3 and other minerals, where the CCE 6 100% (Table 3-12).
Dolomite contains both MgCO3 and CaCO3 with at least 15% MgCO3. Consequently,
the CCE of dolomite is higher than calcitic lime as calculated earlier. Although dolomite
has a slightly higher CCE than calcite, dolomite has a lower solubility and thus will dis-
solve more slowly; however, the difference is generally too small to observe in field crop
response. The primary factors in determining which carbonate source to apply are if soil
Mg supply is low and the difference in material cost. Dolomite should be used on acid
soils testing low or very low in Mg. If Mg is not needed, then either source can be used,
depending on cost.
Pelletized lime is made from finely ground (100–200 mesh) dolomitic or calcitic
lime. The fine particles are formed into round pellets 1∼ 0.190.2@in. diameter2 using a
lignosulfonate or other water-soluble binding agent. The primary advantage is easier han-
dling, more uniform application, and reduced dust compared to Ag-lime. Pelletized lime
products are commonly used in the turf and landscape industry, although its use in agri-
culture is increasing.
Fluid or suspension lime is commonly a 50>50 mixture of very finely ground
1∼ 200 mesh2 Ag-lime and water. Suspending agents (0.5% clay, tetrasodium pyrophos-
phate) are added to maintain dispersion. Liquid urea-ammonium nitrate may be used as
the suspending agent adding a small amount of N to the suspension. Fluid lime products
can also come from lime materials used in municipal water treatment plants. Fluid lime
can be applied uniformly with standard fluid application equipment; however, single pass
application rates are …500 lb/a.
Pelletized and fluid limes are excellent materials that generally react faster in soil
than Ag-lime; however, the finer particle size of these materials does not increase their
neutralizing value. Increasing soil pH to a target level will require an equivalent (neu-
tralizing value) quantity of lime, regardless of the source. Recall that neutralizing 2 meq
acid/100 g soil requires application of 2 meq base/100 g soil (see pg. 29). In addition, the
cost of pelletized lime is considerably higher than Ag-lime.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 83

Calcium Oxide and Hyroxide. Calcium oxide (CaO) is the only material to which
the term lime may be correctly applied. Also known as unslaked lime, burnt lime, or
quicklime, CaO is a white powder, shipped in paper bags because of its caustic prop-
erties. It is manufactured by heating CaCO3 in a furnace, driving off CO2. CaO is
the most effective of all liming materials (Table 3-12). When unusually rapid results
are required, either CaO or Ca1OH22 should be used. Because of its high reactivity
with water, avoid contact with skin, eyes, and lungs.
Calcium hydroxide 3Ca1OH224, or slaked lime, hydrated lime, or builders’
lime, is a white powder and difficult to handle. Neutralization of acid occurs rapidly.
Slaked lime is prepared by hydrating CaO and has a high CCE (Table 3-12).
Marl. Marls are soft, unconsolidated deposits of CaCO3 frequently mixed with
earthen impurities and usually quite moist. Marl deposits are generally thin, recovered
by dragline or power shovel after the overburden has been removed. The fresh material
is stockpiled and allowed to dry before being applied to the land. Marl is almost always
low in Mg, and its CCE ranges from 70 to 90%, depending on clay content.
Calcium Silicates. Calcium silicate is surface mined from natural deposits frequently
near coastal regions and has a CCE of 60–90%. A more common source of CaSiO3
is slag by-products of iron manufacturing. In the blast-furnace reduction of Fe ore,
CaCO3 loses CO2 and forms CaO, which combines with molten Si to produce a slag
that is either air or water cooled. Slags usually contain appreciable amounts of Ca, Mg
and P, depending on the source of Fe ore and manufacturing process (Table 3-13).
Availability of these materials is often limited to Fe manufacturing regions.
Wood and Other Ash Products. Burning plant and waste residues (wood, crop resi-
due, animal waste) produces ash-containing Ca, Mg, K, Na, and other metal oxides
and hydroxides. While these ash by-products neutralize acidity, their CCE is highly
variable and must be determined before correct application rates can be established.
Coal or fly ash from coal-burning power plants also has a variable CCE; however,
these materials should also be analyzed for heavy metal content before use.
Biosolids, By-Products, and Other Materials. Other materials used as liming agents
in areas close to their source are biosolids from waste treatment plants, lime or flue
dust from cement manufacturing, pulp mill lime, carbide lime, acetylene lime, pack-
ing house lime, and so on. These by-products contain variable CCE that should be
determined to ensure effective application and soil pH management.

TABLE 3-13
C HEMICAL AND L IME C HARACTERISTICS OF S LAG M ATERIALS
C OMPARED TO A G - LIME
Property Slag Source Agricultural Lime
Steel Furnace Blast Furnace
pH 12.5 10.3 8.2
CCE 79.8 81.1 97
ECCE 22 27 77
Ca, % 22.2 25.2 21.1
Mg, % 5.5 5.1 12.6
Fe, % 15.9 0.9 0.2
Al, % 1.6 3.8 0
P, ppm 23 59 34
Source: Adapted from D. Munn, 2003, Turfgrass Trends.
84 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Fineness Factor of Limestone or Particle Size Distribution

The effectiveness of liming materials also depends on their particle size distribution
or fineness, because the reaction rate depends on the surface area in contact with
the soil. CaO and Ca1OH22 are powders with the smallest particle size, but lime-
stone needs to be crushed to reduce particle size. Sieve size or mesh is the number
of openings per inch (Fig. 3-25). A 60-mesh sieve has 60 openings per inch.
A particle passing 60-mesh sieve would have a diameter 60.0098 in. 160.25 mm2
(Fig. 3-26).
When crushed limestone is thoroughly incorporated into the soil, the reaction rate
will increase with deceasing particle size (increasing fineness) (Fig. 3-27). Decreasing
the particle size fraction of a liming material decreases the lime rate required to raise soil

Figure 3-25 8 mesh 20 mesh

Sieve size or mesh
represents the number of
openings per inch of screen.
1 inch

Figure 3-26 0.1 2.5

Relationship between sieve 0.09 2.25
mesh size (# opening/inch)
0.08 2
and individual opening

OPENING SIZE (mm)

OPENING SIZE (in.)

distance in in. and mm. 0.07 1.75

0.06 1.5
0.05 1.25
0.04 1
0.03 0.75
0.02 0.5
0.01 0.25
0 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 100
SIEVE SIZE (mesh)

Figure 3-27 7.0

100 mesh
Typical effect of lime particle
size on soil pH over 3 years.
(Meyer and Volk, 1952, Soil Sci.,
6.5
60–80 mesh
73:37–52.)
40–50 mesh
SOIL pH

6.0

20–30 mesh
5.5

8–20 mesh
5.0 none

12 24 36
REACTION TIME (months)
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 85

100 12 Figure 3-28

Relative lime efficiency of
Lime efficiency 10 different size fractions of
80

LIME EFFICIENCY (%)

Lime rate limestone in raising soil pH

LIME RATE (tya)

8 to 7.0. Greater lime rates
60 are needed for coarser lime
6 material (low mesh) to raise
soil pH to the same level as
40
4 a finer material (high mesh).

20 2

0 0
10 20 40 60 80 100
PARTICLE SIZE (mesh)

120 Figure 3-29

Effect of increasing propor-
100 tion of finer particles on
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

relative crop yield. Data are

80
averages of lime responses
on six different crops over
60
6–8 years.
40 (Adapted from Barber, 1984, Soil
Acidity and Liming, Agron No. 12,
ASA, Madison, Wis.)
20

0
< 20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60 60–80 > 80
% LIME PASSING 60-MESH SIEVE (< 0 .25 mm)

pH, or increases the effectiveness of a given lime material (Fig. 3-28). In this example, a
100-mesh lime material (100% efficient) requires only 1 t/a to increase soil pH to 7.0,
whereas a 50-mesh lime material (40% efficient) requires 2 t/a. When applied at the
same lime rate, increasing the proportion of finer particles improves crop productivity
because of increased neutralization of soil acids (Fig. 3-29), but also increases the cost of
the material. Because limestone cost increases with fineness, materials that require mini-
mum grinding, yet contain enough fine material to change pH rapidly and maintain
desired pH for 4–5 years, are preferred.
Agricultural limestones contain both coarse and fine materials. Fineness is
quantified by measuring the distribution of particle sizes in a given limestone sample.
Particle size distribution or fineness represents the particles passing through or re-
tained on a specific sieve size. Most agricultural lime contains a range of particle sizes
from very fine, dust-size particles to coarse, sand-size particles. The standards for par-
ticle size distribution vary between regions (Table 3-14). The fineness factor is the
sum of the percentages of each size fraction multiplied by the appropriate efficiency
factor (Table 3-15).
Overall Lime Quality
The effective calcium carbonate equivalent (ECCE) rating of a limestone is the
product of the CCE and fineness factor (Table 3-15). Manufacturers guarantee the
CCE and fineness of any lime product sold. Thus, if 4,000 lb CaCO3 >a were rec-
ommended, it would take 4,000 lb>a , 0.68 = 5,882 lb>a of material “A” and
4,000 lb>a , 0.81 = 4,938 lb>a of material “B” to increase soil pH to the same
86 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-14
F INENESS F ACTORS FOR A GRICULTURAL L IMESTONE IN THE
U NITED S TATES AND C ANADA

Region Particle Size (mesh) Fineness Factor

78 0
Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
8–60 0.5 (0.4)
(Nebraska), North Carolina
660 1.0
710 0
Alabama, Idaho, (Kentucky),
10–60 (50) 0.5 [0.4]
Mississippi, [Ontario]
660 (50) 1.0
74 0.1
Iowa 4–8 0.3
660 0.6
78 0
Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, 8–20 0.2
Wisconsin 20–60 0.6
660 1.0
78 0
8–40 (30) 0.25
Missouri (Illinois)
40–60 (30) 0.6
660 1.0
720 0
20–60 0.4
Virginia
60–100 0.8
6100 1.0
710 0
10–20 0.3
Oregon
20–40 0.6
640 1.0
710 0.05
10–30 0.2
Alberta 30–60 0.5
660 1.0

TABLE 3-15
F INENESS E FFECTS ON E FFECTIVE C ALCIUM C ARBONATE E QUIVALENT
OF T WO L IME S OURCES

Lime Lime
Material Material
“A” “B”
Calcium Carbonate Equivalent (CCE) 80 90
Fineness (% passing through sieve)
78 mesh 3 2
8–60 mesh 24 36
660 mesh 73 62
Fineness Factor Calculation (Table 3-14; Indiana)
78 mesh * 0 3 * 0 = 0 2 * 0 = 0
8–60 mesh * 0.5 24 * 0.5 = 12 36 * 0.5 = 18
660 mesh * 1.0 73 * 1.0 = 73 62 * 1.0 = 62
Fineness Factor (FF) 73 + 12 = 85 62 + 18 = 90
FF = sum of 3 individual factors
Effective Calcium Carbonate Equivalent (ECCE) 0.80 * 85 = 68 0.90 * 90 = 81
ECCE = CCE * FF
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 87

level. For the same degree of fineness, the material that costs the least per unit of
CCE should be used.
5,882 lb lime A 1t $25 $73.53
Lime “A” S $25>t * * =
a 2,000 lb t a
4,938 lb lime B 1t $34 $83.95
Lime “B” S $34>t * * =
a 2,000 lb t a
The ECCE of lime “B” is greater than “A”; however, the cost per acre of lime “A”
is lower and should be selected. This also assumes that the moisture content in both
materials is the same.
Lime “A” S 5% moisture
5,882 lb lime A 5,882 lb lime A 5,588 lb lime A 1dry2
- 10.052 =
a a a
Lime “B” S 15% moisture
4,938 lb lime B 4,938 lb lime B 4,197 lb lime B 1dry2
- 10.152 =
a a a
Now recalculate the lime cost ($/a) based on equal moisture contents.
5,588 lb lime A 1t $25 $69.85
Lime “A” S * * =
a 2,000 lb t a
4,197 lb lime B 1t $34 $71.35
Lime “B” S * * =
a 2,000 lb t a
Adjusting for moisture content shows the two lime sources are similarly priced.
Application of liming materials

Tillage Systems
For high lime rates, broadcasting one-half the lime, followed by disking and/or plow-
ing, and then broadcasting the other half and disking, is effective in mixing lime
throughout the 0–6-in. depth. Lime recommendations are generally made on the
basis of a 6–8-in. soil depth. With deeper tillage, lime recommendations should be
increased (Table 3-16).
Neutralization of subsoil acidity through deep incorporation of surface-
applied lime is possible with large tillage equipment. The effect of incorporation
depth on cotton growth showed that the amount and depth of cotton rooting were

TABLE 3-16
A DJUSTMENT F ACTORS FOR D EPTH
OF L IME I NCORPORATION

Adjustment Factor
Incorporation
Depth (in.) Ohio Kansas
3 0.38 0.43
5 0.62 0.71
7 0.88 1.00
9 1.13 1.29
11 1.38 1.57
Sources: Adapted from Mullen et al., 2005, Ohio State Univ. 14th ed., Bull.
472-05; adapted from Witney and Lamond, 1993, Kansas State Univ. MF-1065.
88 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-30
Amount and depth of cot-
ton rooting as affected by
depth of lime incorporation.
From left to right: unlimed;
limed 0–6 in.; limed 0–18 in.
(Doss et al., 1979, Agron. J., 71:541,
with permission, copyright American
Society of Agronomy).

Figure 3-31 100

Effect of depth of lime
incorporation on relative
80
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

crop yield.
(Adapted from Bouldin, 1979, Cornell
Int. Agr. Bull. 74, Cornell Univ.; and 60
Pinkerton and Simpson,1986, Aust. J. Canarygrass
Exper. Agric., 26:107–113.)
Rapeseed
40
Wheat

20 Corn
Alfalfa
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
DEPTH OF INCORPORATION (in.)

increased by mixing lime to a depth of 18 in. (Fig. 3-30). Depth of lime incor-
poration will increase with increasing rooting depth characteristics of different
crops (Fig. 3-31). Surface lime applications without some mixing in the soil are not
immediately effective in increasing soil pH below the surface 0–2-in. depth. In sev-
eral studies it was observed that 10 or more years were required for surface-applied
lime without incorporation to raise soil pH at a depth of 6 in. Keeping surface soils
at a higher pH over time is one option to increase subsoil pH (Table 3-17).
No-Tillage Systems
With no-till cropping systems, surface soil pH can decrease substantially in a few
years because of the acidity produced by surface-applied N fertilizers and decompo-
sition of crop residues (Table 3-18). If the increased acidity is concentrated in the
soil surface, surface liming applications are effective. With low pH subsoil, limestone

TABLE 3-17
E FFECT OF S URFACE S OIL P H L EVELS ON S UBSOIL P H

Soil Depth (in.) pH at Various Depths with Increasing Surface Soil pH

0–7 4.9 5.5 6.0 6.5
7–14 4.9 5.2 5.9 6.7
14–21 4.7 4.8 5.2 5.4
Source: Ohio Agronomy Guide, 1985, Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State Univ.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 89

TABLE 3-18
S OIL P H A FTER 7 Y EARS OF C ONTINUOUS C ORN U NDER
C ONVENTIONAL AND N O -T ILLAGE S YSTEM
N Rate Soil Depth Conventional Tillage No Tillage
lbs/a in. Limed Unlimed Limed Unlimed
0–2 5.9 5.2 5.9 4.8
150 2–6 6.3 5.6 5.9 5.5
6–12 6.2 5.7 6.0 5.9
0–2 5.3 4.9 5.5 4.3
300 2–6 5.9 5.1 5.3 4.8
6–12 6.0 5.5 5.8 5.5
Source: Blevins et al., 1978, Agron. J., 70:322.

should be incorporated to the desired depth before initiating a no-tillage system. If

subsoil pH is adequate, maintenance of both surface and subsoil pH can be accom-
plished with surface lime applications. In no-tillage systems, surface-applied lime
every 3 years can be as effective in maintaining surface and subsoil pH as annual
lime applications; however, higher lime rates may be needed to effect vertical lime
movement. Where incorporation is not possible, surface application of limestone
to acid soils is effective even though the immediate effect occurs only near the soil
surface. Compared to conventional tillage systems where lime incorporation is fea-
sible, more frequent applications are necessary in no-till systems to maintain soil
pH with depth. If subsoil pH is low, surface unincorporated lime applications may
have little effect on subsoil pH (Fig. 3-32).
Time and Frequency of Liming Applications
For rotations with legumes and other crops with higher optimum pH ranges
(Table 3-8), lime should be applied 3–6 months before seeding. Sufficient time
for acid neutralization is particularly important on low pH soils. Applied too close
to planting, lime may not have adequate time to react, unless finer particle size
lime products are used (pelletized or fluid lime). In cereal-legume rotations, lime
is best applied prior to cereal planting to allow more time for the lime to react and
increase soil pH. However, lime applications before wheat planting should also
accompany control of take-all disease. Caustic forms of lime 3CaO and Ca1OH224
should be spread well before planting to prevent injury to germinating seeds.

SOIL pH Figure 3-32

4 5 6 7 8 Comparison of Ag-lime
0
incorporation on surface
soil pH in no-till crop pro-
2
duction. Lime applied in
SOIL DEPTH (in.)

4 1985, soil sampled in 1992.

(Sawyer and Peck, 1991, Ill. Fert.
Conf. Proc., pp. 95–100.)
6

8 No lime
6.5 tya - incorporated
10 6.5 tya - not incorporated
9.5 tya - incorporated
12
90 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

7.5
Lime Rate (tya)

7 12

6.5

SOIL pH
6
6
4
5.5
2
5
0
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
YEARS AFTER APPLICATION
Figure 3-33
Influence of lime rate and time after application on soil pH. Target pH was
6.2, where re-application of 4 t/a every 4–5 years is recommended.
(Patrick et al., 1995, SSSAJ, 95:248–254.)

Lime application frequency generally depends on soil texture, tillage system,

N source and rate, crop removal, precipitation patterns, and lime rate. On sandy
soils, more frequent applications are preferable, whereas on fine-textured soils,
larger amounts may be applied less often. Finely divided lime (high ECCE) reacts
more quickly, but its effect is maintained over a shorter period than coarse mate-
rials. The only reliable method to determine re-liming needs is through soil test-
ing (Chapter 9). Samples should be taken at least every 3 years, unless production
problems potentially related to soil acidity persist (Fig. 3-33). These data show
that liming is required about every 4–5 years to maintain optimum soil pH at 6.2.
Regular soil testing is the best way to identify frequency and rate of lime to main-
tain optimum soil pH.
Equipment
Dry lime applied by the supplier or the producer is the most common method.
The spinner truck spreader that distributes lime in a semicircle from the rear of the
truck is common in agricultural and turf crops (Fig. 3-34). Smaller equipment in
turf, landscape, and other horticultural systems is commonly used. Regardless of
the method employed, care should be taken to ensure uniform application. When
high lime rates are needed, applying no more than 2 t/a per application will help
ensure uniform distribution of lime material. Non-uniform distribution can result
in excesses and deficiencies in different parts of the same field and corresponding
non-uniform crop growth.
Plant and soil response to liming Adding lime to neutralize exchangeable acids will
change pertinent soil test properties (Table 3-19). Maintaining a regular soil testing
program where soils are sampled and analyzed every 2–3 years is essential to remov-
ing soil acidity as a limiting factor to optimum plant growth. In most mineral soils,
liming to pH 5.5–6.5, depending on the plant (Table 3-8), substantially reduces ex-
changeable Al+3 (Fig. 3-12). When lime is added to acid soils, exchangeable and so-
lution Al+3 is reduced by precipitation as Al1OH23, which increases yield potential
(Table 3-20). As a result of reduced adsorbed and solution Al+3, Al toxicity potential
is greatly reduced. Many studies have demonstrated an increase in crop productivity
with an increase in soil pH (Table 3-21, Fig. 3-35).
soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 91

Figure 3-34
Common field scale lime
application equipment.
Top photo shows a spinner
spreader, whereas the photo
below it is a close-up of the
spinner device. The third
photo shows a forced-air
applicator, and the bottom
photo shows a liquid appli-
cator for fluid lime.
(First Photo: Stahly. Second Photo:
Adams Fertilizer Equipment
Manufacture.)
92 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-19
E FFECT OF I NCREASING L IME R ATE ON S OIL T EST P ROPERTIES

Lime Soil
Rate1 pH P K Ca Mg K Na H CEC
t/a —— ppm ——— —————————– meq/100 g Soil —————————–
0 5.25 19.1 112 7.6 1.6 0.2 0.8 5.4 15.5
0.5 5.38 18.1 126 8.1 1.7 0.2 0.8 5.4 16.2
1 5.48 15.7 119 8.5 1.8 0.2 0.8 3.3 14.6
2 5.71 21.7 145 9.7 2.2 0.2 0.9 2.1 15.2
3 6.28 16.2 114 10.3 2.4 0.2 0.9 0 13.8
4 6.49 22.2 121 10.9 2.6 0.2 0.7 0 14.4
6 6.84 29.2 126 11.5 2.8 0.2 0.8 0 15.3
8 7.18 31.5 123 12.3 3.0 0.2 0.8 0 16.2
1ECCE; broadcast incorporated May 1999; soil samples collected Oct 2003 (0–6-in. depth).
Note: Shaded columns represent significant responses to lime rate.
Source: S. Henning, 2004, Iowa State Univ., ISRF04-13.

TABLE 3-20
L IME E FFECTS ON W HEAT Y IELDS , S OIL P H,
AND E XTRACTABLE Al +3

Lime Rate Wheat Yield Soil pH Al+3

lb ECC/a bu/a ppm
0 14 4.6 102
3,000 37 5.1 26
6,000 38 5.9 0
12,000 37 6.4 0
Note: 1986–89 average yield data; soil pH and KCl extractable Al+3 measured in 1989.
Source: Whitney and Lamond, 1993, Liming Acid Soils, Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext. MF-1065.

TABLE 3-21
A VERAGE C ROP R ESPONSES TO L IME FROM 1992 TO 2003
Crop Unlimed Limed Lime Response
———————– t/ha ———————– %
Wheat 1.45 3.10 1.64 113
Oat 1.96 2.48 0.52 26
Triticale 1.88 2.77 0.89 47
Canola 0.83 1.66 0.85 101
Pea 0.36 1.21 0.85 241
Lupin 1.39 1.41 0.02 1
Note: Crops grown in rotation.
Source: Adapted from Li and Conyers, 2006, Crop Responses to Lime, NSW Dept Primary Ind.,
Prinefact 33.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 93

100 Figure 3-35

Effect of increasing soil pH
on relative wheat yield.
90
(Mahler and McDole, 1987.)

MAXIMUM YIELD (%) 80

70

60

50

40

30
4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2
SOIL pH

On alfisols and mollisols, liming to pH 6.4–6.6 is optimum for most crops except
forage legumes (alfalfa, sweet clover), whereas liming to pH 6.7–6.9 is recommended.
Liming ultisols and oxisols to pH 5.5–6.0 is suitable for most plants; overliming these
soils can reduce micronutrient availability. Liming highly weathered soils is essential for
production of most legume crops (Table 3-22). Symbiotic N2 fixation is favored by ad-
equate liming (Chapter 4). Activity of rhizobium is restricted by soil pH 6 6.0; thus,
liming will increase legume growth because of increased N2 fixation. Adequate liming is
also essential for plants to utilize residual or applied N (Fig. 3-36).
In soils with high OM content, exchangeable Al+3 is strongly adsorbed to R@COO-
sites (Fig. 2-10) reducing soluble Al+3, and potential Al toxicity, compared to mineral
soils. As a result, the critical pH below which plant yield is reduced 1pH ∼ 52 is lower
than that for mineral soils. Thus, liming high OM soils to pH 5 provides adequate Ca to
reduce Al+3 >H+ toxicity effects on plant growth (Table 3-22).
In low pH, high Al and Fe oxide soils, P precipitates as insoluble Fe/Al-P com-
pounds (Chapter 5). Liming these acidic soils will precipitate Al+3 as Al1OH23, thus

TABLE 3-22
E FFECT OF L IMING ON S OIL P H AND N ODULATION IN S OYBEAN

Soil pH Shoot Dry Weight Nodules

g/pot number/pot
Ultisol 4.6 2.4 21
5.2 3.2 64
5.9 3.6 77

Histosol 4.3 1.4 0

4.5 2.3 64
4.7 3.5 165
5.1 2.9 113
5.3 2.7 91
Source: Sartain and Kamprath, 1975, Agron. J., 67:507–510; Mengel and Kamprath, 1978,
Agron. J., 70:959–963.
94 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-36 6.0

Liming effect on wheat Limed
Unlimed
response to plant available 5.0
N in the soil.

GRAIN YIELD (tyha)

(Li and Conyers, 2006, Crop
4.0
responses to lime, NSW Dept
Primary Ind., Prinefact 33.)
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 50 100 150 200
SOIL AVAILABLE N (kgyha) AT SOWING (0–60 cm)

increasing plant available P. Alternatively, liming soils to 7pH 6.8–7.0 can reduce P
availability because of the precipitation of Ca or Mg phosphates. A liming program
should be planned so that the pH can be kept between 5.5 and 6.8, depending on
crop, if maximum benefit is to be derived from applied P. With the exception of Mo,
micronutrient availability decreases with increasing pH (Chapter 8). Lime addition
reduces solution concentration of many micronutrients, although soil pH values of
5.5–6.0 are usually sufficient to maintain adequate micronutrient availability. Over-
liming will reduce micronutrient availability below needed levels. A regular soil test-
ing program will help identify potential nutrient problems.
Liming has a significant role in the control of certain plant pathogens. Clubroot is
a disease of cole crops that reduces yields and causes infected roots to enlarge and become
distorted. Lime does not directly affect the clubroot organism, but at soil pH 7 7 germi-
nation of clubroot spores is inhibited (Table 3-23). Alternatively, liming increases the in-
cidence of diseases such as scab in root crops. Severity of take-all infection in wheat, with
resultant yield reductions, is increased by liming soils to near neutral pH. Lime applica-
tions before wheat planting are not advised unless take-all disease has been controlled.
Structure of fine-textured soils may be improved by liming, as a result of
enhanced flocculation of Ca-saturated clays. Favorable effects of lime on soil struc-
ture include reduced soil crusting, better emergence of small-seeded crops, and lower
power requirements for tillage operations. However, the overliming of oxisols and
ultisols can result in the deterioration of soil structure, with a decrease in water
percolation.

TABLE 3-23
E FFECT OF L IMING ON C LUBROOT D ISEASE IN C AULIFLOWER

Lime Rate Marketable Yield Clubroot Rating1 Soil pH at Harvest

t/a %
0 38 3.5 5.6
2.5 56 2.7 6.5
5.0 77 2.2 6.8
10.0 80 1.5 7.2
1Clubroot rating = Σ [# roots at a rating * rating]/total # roots.

Rating: 0, no visible clubroot; 1, fewer than 10 galls on the lateral roots; 2, more than 10 galls on the
lateral roots, taproot free of clubroot; 3, galls on taproot; 4, severe clubbing on all roots.
Source: Waring, 1980, Proc. 22nd Lower Mainland Hort. Assoc. Short Course, pp. 95–96.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 95

0 21 Figure 3-37
Potential mechanism for
OH
increasing subsoil pH
Fe Fe
O O
through SO4-2 adsorption
OH2
following application of
1 OH2 1 H2O
CaSO4 # 2H2O (gypsum).
OH 1 SO422 OH S
OH O O
Fe Fe
OH2 OH2

Even at high application rates, lime may have only minimal effects on acidity
below the depth of incorporation. Gypsum can improve the rooting environment to
about 0.75-m depth depending on the soil. As discussed earlier, gypsum is not a liming
material; however, application of gypsum has been shown to ameliorate subsoil acidity
in highly weathered soils. The increase in pH may be related to adsorption of SO4-2 on
Al/Fe oxides with subsequent release of OH- and the precipitation or polymerization
of Al due to the reaction with OH- (Fig. 3-37). The negative charge developed by this
reaction results in Ca+2 being held on the exchange site. In general, acid subsoil amelio-
ration in soils with Al-hydroxy interlayer minerals requires greater quantities of gypsum
than soils that are dominantly kaolinitic. To determine which soils are responsive to
gypsum applications, pH measurements are made of acid subsoils with solutions of KCl
and K 2SO4. Responsive soils will have a higher pH in K 2SO4 than in KCl due to the
replacement of OH- from the hydrated oxides of Al and Fe by SO4-2. Unless acid sub-
soils contain appreciable amounts of hydrated Al and Fe oxides, application of gypsum
will not be effective in alleviating subsoil acidity.

CALCAREOUS SOILS
General Description
Calcareous soils contain measurable quantities of native CaCO3 mineral. These
soils commonly occur in semiarid and arid regions where annual precipitation is
620 in. and will have soil pH values 7 7.2 (Figs 3-1 and 3-2). Globally, about
6% of total ice-free land area soils are classified as calcareous (Table 3-24). As pre-
cipitation increases from semiarid to humid regions, depth to CaCO3 increases

TABLE 3-24
G LOBAL D ISTRIBUTION OF C ALCAREOUS , S ALINE , AND S ODIC S OILS

Land Area
Region Total1 Cultivated Calcareous2 Saline2 Sodic2
—————– ha * 106 —————– % ha * 106 % ha * 106 %

World 13,100 1,500 796.2 6.1 187.3 1.4 135.3 1.0

America
North 1,867 216 114.7 6.1 0.1 0.0 10.7 0.6
South/Central 2,005 144 24.3 1.2 24.3 1.2 34.7 1.7
Asia 3,094 505 315.4 10.2 95.4 3.1 30 1.0
Europe 2,207 277 56.7 2.6 2.3 0.1 7.9 0.4
Africa 2,964 219 171.2 5.8 48.6 1.6 13.8 0.5
Oceania 849 46 113.9 13.4 16.6 2.0 38.1 4.5
1Ice-free land area.
2Percenatge of acid topsoils of the total land area.
96 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-38 RAINFALL

As rainfall increases from 25 50 75 100 (cm)
one region to another, the
10 20 30 40
depth to measurable CaCO3 (in.)
content increases. Thus, in 10 25
arid and semiarid regions, 50
20
CaCO3 is present in the
surface soil. 30 75

40 100

50 125

DEPTH (cm)
DEPTH (in.)
60 150

70 175

80 200

90 225

100 250

110 275

120 300

(Fig. 3-38). Generally, when annual precipitation exceeds 30–40 in., no free lime
is present in the rooting zone. The pH of a soil containing CaCO3 in equilibrium
with atmospheric CO2 is 8.5; however, the 10-fold higher CO2 content in soil air
decreases pH to 7.2–7.5. Calcareous soils with pH 7 7.6 are influenced by high
salt and/or Na.
The presence of CaCO3 will generally not reduce plant productivity; however,
common production problems observed in calcareous soils include low P (Chapter 5)
and micronutrient availability (Chapter 8), especially with plants less tolerant of low
levels of these nutrients.

Acidifying Calcareous Soil

Calcareous soils can be very productive, although water is frequently the most limit-
ing plant growth factor. Plants favoring acid soils will not be productive on calcare-
ous soils; this is especially true for plants with low optimum soil pH (Table 3-8). For
example, blueberry and azalea production is not possible in calcareous soils. Micro-
nutrient deficiencies commonly affect many turfgrass species grown on calcareous
surface soils (Chapter 8).
In regions where the surface soil is slightly acidic, land leveling to facilitate sur-
face irrigation can expose calcareous subsoils that are less favorable for plant growth.
Problems of high soil pH are not confined to arid and semiarid areas. Acidifying
paddy soil has increased rice yields, which is often related to increased availability of
micronutrients. In humid regions, overliming or dust from limestone-graveled roads
may blow onto field borders, increasing soil pH. In other areas, moderately acidic
soils may need further acidification for optimum production of blueberries, cranber-
ries, azaleas, rhododendrons, camellias, potatoes, and conifer seedlings.
Acidifying calcareous soils can be difficult and expensive. To decrease soil pH,
CaCO3 in the soil must be dissolved or neutralized by adding acid or acid-forming
materials. In most field crop situations, reducing soil pH by neutralizing CaCO3 is
not practical. For example, the quantity of elemental S° needed to neutralize a soil
with only 2% CaCO3 (0–6-in. depth) is estimated by:
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 97

2% CaCO3 content in 6@in. surface soil depth 1∼2 * 106 lb soil>afs2

2 g CaCO3 2,000 mg CaCO3
2% CaCO3 = =
100 g soil 100 g soil
2,000 mg CaCO3 50 mg CaCO3 40 meq CaCO3
, =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
Thus, if there are 40 meq CaCO3, then 40 meq of acid is required to neutralize the
CaCO3 1remember meq A = meq B2, thus:
40 meq CaCO3 40 meq S°
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
40 meq S° 16 mg S° 640 mg S°
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.64 g S°
=
100 g soil
0.64 lb S°
=
100 lb soil
0.64 lb S° 2 * 104 12,800 lb S° 1t 6.4 t S°
* = * =
100 lb soil 2 * 104
2 * 10 lb soil
6 2,000 lb afs
Once neutralized, soil pH would likely be about the same as before neutralization
because the CEC would still be nearly 100% saturated with basic cations (100% BS).
To ultimately lower soil pH below 7, additional S° would be needed to produce H+ and
Al+3, which would in turn reduce the BS necessary to lower soil pH. The additional
quantity of S° can be estimated similarly to the pH-BS calculations shown earlier. More
importantly, 6.4 t S/a would be very expensive and thus impractical. On calcareous
soils, it is more logical to plant crops tolerant of higher soil pH (Table 3-8). However, it
is practical to lower calcareous soil pH if a small volume (or mass) of soil is used, typical
of horticultural landscape or potted plants.
If the soil is not calcareous and needs to be acidified, then the chemistry of soil
acidification is the reverse of liming acid soils. For example, assume a soil at pH 6.5 is
acidified to pH 5.5 1CEC = 20 meq>100 g soil2. Using Figure 2-11, the estimated
quantity of S° needed is:
at soil pH 6.5 S ∼ 75% BS
at soil pH 5.5 S ∼ 50% BS
∼25% decrease in %BS
20 meq CEC 5 meq base reduction
0.25 * =
100 g soil 100 g soil
5 meq acid needed
=
100 g soil
5 meq S° 16 mg S° 80 mg S°
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.08 g S°
=
100 g soil
0.08 lb S°
=
100 lb soil
0.08 lb S° 2 * 10 4
1,600 lb S° 1,600 lb S°
* = =
100 lb soil 2 * 10 4
2 * 10 lb soil
6 afs
98 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-25
Q UANTITY OF E LEMENTAL S° R EQUIRED TO R EDUCE S OIL P H (7- IN . DEPTH )

Desired pH Loamy Sandy Clay

Change Sands Sands Loams Loams Loams Organic
lb S/a
7.0–6.0 300 400 500 700 1,100 1,750
6.0–5.0 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,400 2,750
5.0–4.0 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,400 4,500
lb S>1,000 ft2
7.0–6.0 7 10 12 16 25 39
6.0–5.0 18 23 28 32 32 63
5.0–4.0 18 23 28 32 41 103
Note: The conversion from lb/a to lb>1,000 ft2 is lb>43,560 ft2 1or 1 acre2 , 43.56 = lb>1,000 ft2.
Source: USDA Handbook #60, Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils.

This S° application rate is similar to that needed to acidify the loam/clay loam
soil from pH 6 to pH 5 (Table 3-25). Any differences would be related to differences
in the CEC used in the above calculation and that assumed for the textural classes in
Table 3-25. In addition, the pH-BS relationship in Figure 2-11 is a general represen-
tation, which would vary between soil types.
These calculations are illustrated for elemental S°; however, several acidic or
acid-forming materials can be used. The calculations are conducted in the same man-
ner with the other materials, although the equivalent weight of each compound is
different (see pg. 30).
Sources of Acids

Elemental S°
Elemental S° is an effective soil acidulent. When S° is applied, the soil reaction is:
S + 1.5O2 + H2O N SO4-2 + 2H+
For every mole of S° applied and oxidized, 2 moles of H+ are produced, which
decreases soil pH. S° oxidation is a microbial mediated process that may be slow,
particularly in cold and dry alkaline soils with no history of S° application. Finely
ground S° should be broadcast and incorporated several weeks or months before
planting to assure complete reaction.
Under some conditions, it may be advisable to acidulate a zone near
plant roots to increase micronutrient and/or P availability. Both of these con-
ditions frequently need to be corrected on saline-alkaline soils. Elemental S°
can be applied in bands as either granular S° or S° suspensions. When S° is band
applied, lower rates are required than broadcast S° (Chapter 7).
Sulfuric Acid
Sulfuric acid 1H2SO42 has been used for reclaiming Na- or B-affected soils, increas-
ing availability of P and micronutrients, reducing NH3 volatilization potential,
increasing water penetration, controlling certain weeds and soilborne pathogens, and
enhancing the establishment of range grasses. The favorable influence of H2SO4 and
other acidifying treatments on sorghum (Fig. 3-39) and rice yield (Table 3-26) is par-
tially related to increased nutrient availability.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 99

50 Figure 3-39
No FeSO4 100 lb/a FeSO4 500 lb/a FeSO4 Effects of H2SO4 and FeSO4
on grain sorghum yields on

SORGHUM YIELD (buya)

40
a calcareous soil. Reducing
soil pH with H2SO4 increases
30 Fe availability to similar lev-
els as adding FeSO4.
(Mather, 1985, Fertilizer Technology
20 and Use, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.)

10

0
0 100 500 5,000
H2SO4 RATE (lbya)

TABLE 3-26
E FFECT OF S OIL A CIDIFIERS ON THE Y IELD OF T WO V ARIETIES OF R ICE

Soil Amendment Bluebonnet 50 IR661

——————– bu/a ——————–
Control 40 87
Gypsum 43 96
S 48 100
H2SO4 55 104
Source: Chapman, 1980, Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Animal Husb., 20:725–730.

H2SO4 can be added directly to the soil, but it requires the use of special acid-
resistant equipment and clothing. It can be dribbled on the surface or applied with a
knife applicator (Chapter 10). It can also be applied in high pH or HCO3- containing
irrigation water. H2SO4 has the advantage of reacting instantaneously with the soil.
Aluminum Sulfate
Aluminum sulfate 3Al21SO4234 is used by floriculturists for acidulating soil for pro-
duction of azaleas, camellias, and similar acid-tolerant ornamentals, although it is not
commonly used in agriculture. When Al21SO423 is added to water, it hydrolyzes to
produce an acid solution:
Al21SO423 + 6H2O N 2Al1OH23 + 6H+ + 3SO4-2
Iron sulfate 1FeSO42 is applied to soils for acidification and as an Fe source will
behave similarly to Al21SO423. Use this product with caution as increasing Al+3 in
solution may promote Al toxicity problems.
Ammonium Polysulfide
Liquid ammonium polysulfide 1NH4Sx2 is used to lower soil pH and to increase
water penetration in irrigated saline-alkaline soils. It can be applied in a band 3–4 in.
to the side of the seed or metered into furrow irrigation systems. Band application is
more effective in correcting micronutrient deficiencies than application through irriga-
tion water. The polysulfide decomposes into ammonium sulfide and colloidal S° when
applied. The S° and S-2 are oxidized to H2SO4. Potassium polysulfide can also be used.
100 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Organic Sources
Any organic material incorporated into the surface soil will ultimately reduce soil pH,
except in calcareous soils. Examples of such materials are yard waste, pine straw, sawdust,
and peat. Generally, the higher the N content (lower C:N ratio) of the residue, the more
acid will be generated through mineralization of organic N to NH4+ and its subsequent
nitrification to NO3- (Table 3-3; Chapter 4). Use of high C:N ratio materials (sawdust,
pine straw, etc.) will produce acids, but also will immobilize plant available N, thus ad-
ditional N may be needed to meet plant N requirement (Chapter 4). For maximum
benefit, organic materials should be incorporated into the surface 3–4 in. of soil. The
decrease in soil pH will depend on the material source and quantity incorporated. Heavy
application rates are generally needed.
Acidification in Fertilizer Bands
Because of the high BC for pH in calcareous soils, it is usually too expensive to use
enough acidifying material for complete neutralization of CaCO3. It is unnecessary
to neutralize the entire soil mass because soil zones more favorable for root growth
and nutrient uptake can be created by confining the acid-forming materials to bands
and other localized placement. Band-applied ammonium thiosulfate and ammonium
polyphosphate fertilizers can acidify soil in and near the band, which can increase
micronutrient availability.

SALINE, SODIC, AND SALINE-SODIC SOILS

Soluble salts occur in all natural waters. Sea water contains 2.2 lb salt>ft3, while fresh
water contains 0.01 lb salt>ft3. Thus, sea water is 220 times saltier than fresh water.
Soil water also contains soluble salts, where the quantity of salt in the root zone can vary
widely. When the salt concentration increases, soils can become salt-affected, restricting
plant growth depending on the salt concentration and the salt tolerance of the plant.
Soil salinity can increase to excessive levels either naturally or by poor irrigation water
management. Salt-affected soils commonly occur in arid regions and semiarid regions,
where generally soil pH 7 7.2 (Figs 3-1 and 3-2). Only 2.5% of the world’s land area
is saline or sodic (Table 3-24). However, current estimates suggest that 6–8% of crop-
land is salt affected. Development of salt-affected irrigated soils is the most common
form of chemical degradation of soil and increasingly affects crop productivity. The
primary processes involved in salt accumulation in soils are:
• weathering of rocks and parent materials
• high water table with high evaporative demand
• exposure to salt water spray or flooding near the ocean; sea water intrusion into
groundwater
• poor quality (high salt) irrigation water; irrigation mismanagement, with poor
internal soil drainage
• excessive application of salts in fertilizer, animal manure, or compost
Rapid extension of irrigated lands over the last four decades has increased salinity
of cultivated soils. Large areas of the Indian subcontinent have been rendered unpro-
ductive by salt accumulation. Salinity is a major problem in paddy rice production.
Under low rainfall, high evaporative conditions in arid regions, H2O moves up-
ward from shallow water tables and evaporates, leaving salts at the soil surface to form
saline, sodic, or saline-sodic soils (Fig. 3-40). Runoff water containing additional salts
is collected in landscape depressions, increasing salt accumulation. These soils are
widespread in semiarid and arid regions, where rainfall is not sufficient for adequate
leaching, usually 6 20 in./yr (Figs 3-3 and 3-41).
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 101

Figure 3-40
Salt-Affected Soil Processes involved in
Normal Soil (salts andyor Na) development of saline,
pH , 8.5 pH . 8.5 sodic, or saline-sodic soils.
ECse , 4 mmho/cm ECse . 4 mmho/cm
SAR , 13 SAR . 13
ESP , 15 ESP . 15

Soil Surface Salt addition

Runoff water Evaporation
Fertilizer
Na1
Ca12 1
SO422 Cl2 Na
Cl2 Ca12
Mg12 Mg12
2
Cl Ca 12
12
Ca12
Mg HCO32 Na1 Na1
SO422
1
K Ca12 Cl2
SO4 22
Ca 12

Ca12 Na1
CO322 1 12
Na1 Na1 Cl2 Cl2 Na Ca 1 CLAY
12
Ca 12 Na
CLAY Cl2 CO3 22 Mg Ca12
22 Na1
Salt addition Cl2 SO4
Exch. 1 Sol’n Ions Water table Sol’n 1 Exch. Ions

Figure 3-41
Areas in the United States
where soil salinity limits
yield potential.
(USDA-NRCS, 1992.)

Accumulated salts contain the cations Na+ , K + , Ca+2, and Mg +2, and the an-
ions Cl- , SO4-2, HCO3-, and CO3-2. They can be weathered from minerals and
accumulate in areas where the precipitation is too low to provide leaching. Na is
particularly detrimental, because of its both toxic effect on plants and effect on soil
structure. When a high percentage of the CEC is occupied by Na+ , soil aggregates
disperse, reducing natural aggregation and soil structure. These soils become imper-
meable to water, develop hard surface crusts, and may keep a water layer, or “slick
spot,” on the surface longer than low Na+ soils. As exchangeable Na+ increases, the
percentage of dispersed clay increases (Fig. 3-42), resulting in substantial decreases in
hydraulic conductivity (or less permeability to water).
Dispersion problems occur at different exchangeable Na+ contents. Fine-
textured soils with montmorillonitic clays disperse when approximately 15%
102 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-42 16 100

Increasing exchangeable

RELATIVE HYDRAULIC
14

DISPERSED CLAY (%)

CONDUCTIVITY (%)
Na content increases the 80
12
amount of clay dispersed (a)
10 60
and decreases the hydraulic
conductivity (b). 8
6 40
4
20
2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
EXCHANGEABLE Na (% of CEC) DISPERSED CLAY (%)
(a) (b)

of the CEC is Na+ saturated. On tropical soils high in Fe and Al oxides and on
some kaolinitic soils, 40% Na+ saturation is required before dispersion is serious.
Soils with low clay content are also less prone to problems because they are more
permeable.

Definitions
Saline soils Saline soils have an electrical conductivity of the saturated extract
1ECse2 7 4 mmho>cm, pH 6 8.5, a n d e x c h a n g e a b l e s o d i u m p e r c e n t a g e
1ESP2 6 15% (Table 3-27; Fig. 3-43). Saline soils were formerly called white alkali
because of the deposits of salts on the surface following evaporation. The excess salts
can be leached out, with no appreciable rise in pH. The concentration of soluble salts
is sufficient to interfere with plant growth, although salt tolerance varies with plant
species.
Sodic soils Sodic soils occur when ESP 7 15%, ECse 6 4 mmho/cm, and
pH 7 8.5 (Table 3-27). They were formerly called black alkali because of the dis-
solved OM deposited on the surface along with the salts. In sodic soils, excess Na+
disperses soil colloids and creates nutritional disorders in most plants.
Saline-sodic soils Saline-sodic soils have both ECse 7 4 mmho/cm to qualify
as saline and high exchangeable Na+ 1 715% ESP2 to qualify as sodic; however,
soil pH is usually 68.5. In contrast to saline soils, when the salts are leached

TABLE 3-27
C LASSIFICATION AND P ROPERTIES OF S ALT -A FFECTED S OILS

Classification ECse (mmho/cm)1 Soil pH ESP % Physical Condition

Saline 74 68.5 615 Normal
Sodic 64 78.5 715 Poor
Saline-sodic 74 68.5 715 Normal
1ECse represents the electrical conductivity of the saturated extract. Distilled H O is added to a soil sample
2
to exactly fill the pore space. After equilibration, the soil water is removed through vacuum filtration. An
electrode is inserted into the saturated soil extract and the electrical conductivity is measured. A high ECse
means a high salt concentration (more ions in solution conduct more current). Low salt concentration would
result in a low ECse reading. The unit mmho/cm comes from the unit of electrical resistance (ohm), such that
conductivity, or the opposite of resistance, is given the unit “mho.” An “mmho” is 0.001 * mho. The “cm”
unit in mmho/cm comes from the separation distance between the 1 -2 and 1 +2 charged surfaces of the
electrode that senses ECse.
Also, mmho>cm = ds>m in SI units; where ds = decisiemen.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 103

EC (millimhos per cm) Figure 3-43

0 4 8 12 16 Classification system
0 or saline, sodic, and
SALINE saline-sodic soils.
(White alkali) (U.S. Salinity Lab, Handbook 60,
NORMAL 1954.)

Increasing salt hazard

EXCHANGEABLE Na (%)

15
Some plants grow

SODIC
(Black alkali)
SALINE–SODIC
(Both white alkali
30 FE
W and black alkali)

OW
GR
PLANTS

45

out, the exchangeable Na+ hydrolyzes and the pH increases, which results in a
sodic soil (Table 3-27).

Relationships
Several interrelated parameters are commonly used to quantify salt- and Na+ -affected
soils. By measuring ECse of a soil, the total quantity of salts in the soil solution can
be estimated by:
ECse * 10 = total soluble cations 1meq>L2
Also,
Total dissolved salts 1ppm or mg>L2 = 640 * ECse 1mmho>cm2
If the soluble cations are measured in the saturated extract, the sodium adsorp-
tion ratio (SAR) can be calculated by:
Na+
SAR = 3all units in meq>L soil water4
1Ca+2 + Mg +22
B 2
Although SAR represents the ratio of cations in solution, values Ú13 usually indicate
high exchangeable Na+ . Because of the equilibrium relationships between solution
and exchangeable cations in soils, the SAR should be related to the quantity of Na+
on the CEC, which is expressed as the exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR). The ESR is
defined by:
Exchangeable Na+
ESR = 3all units in meq>100 g soil4
Exchangeable 1Ca+2 + Mg +22
The relationship between solution and exchangeable cations in salt-affected soils can
be used to estimate the ESR from the SAR if the quantity of exchangeable cations
has not been measured (Fig. 3-44). The following equation represents the linear
relationship:
ESR = 0.015 1SAR2
104 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-44
Relationship between ESR
and SAR in salt-affected
soils.

Again, ESR (cations on CEC) is being estimated from the concentration of Ca+2,
Mg +2, and Na+ in soil solution. Subsequently, ESR is related to ESP previously used
to classify Na+ -affected soils (Table 3-27) and is given by:
Exchangeable Na+
ESP = * 100 3all units in meq>100 g soil4
CEC
Thus, if a laboratory provides the concentration of exchangeable cations (meq/100 g
soil), the ESP can be directly calculated. If the laboratory only measured cation con-
centration in the soil solution, then the ESP can be estimated from the SAR. First,
estimate the ESR from the SAR (see above), then estimate the ESP from the ESR by:
100 ESR
ESP =
1 + ESR
These parameters and interrelationships are valuable in characterizing the solution
and exchange chemistry of salt- and Na+ -affected soils. The following example illus-
trates how these relationships can be used. Additional examples are provided in the
Instructors Manual.
A soil analysis revealed that the saturated extract contained:
20 meq Ca+2 >L
10 meq Mg +2 >L
100 meq Na+ >L
The ECse = 2.2 mmho>cm, soil pH = 8.6, and CEC = 25 meq>100 g soil. Eval-
uate this soil for potential salinity or sodicity problems. Since the laboratory only
provided cation concentrations in the soil solution, first calculate the SAR:
100
SAR = = 25.8 3all units in meq>L soil water4
120 + 102
B 2
then estimate the ESR:
ESR = 0.015 125.82 = 0.39
then estimate the ESP:
100 10.392
ESP = = 28%
1 + 10.392
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 105

Since the ECse 6 4 mmho>cm and the ESP 7 15%, this soil would be classified
as sodic. Gypsum application would likely be recommended to reduce the ESP (see
pg. 111 for example calculation).

Effects on Plant Growth

Soil salinity limits plant growth by (1) a water imbalance in the plant (physiological
drought), (2) ion imbalances that result in increased energy consumption (carbohy-
drate respiration) to maintain metabolic processes, and (3) toxicity from Na+ and Cl- .
Decreasing the osmotic potential of soil water due to elevated salt concentration re-
duces water movement into plant root cells, causing the cell to collapse (plasmolysis).
The plant may show signs of drought stress. Early signs of salt stress are chlorosis (leaf
yellowing) or darker bluish-green leaf color depending on the plant species. In each
case plants are stunted with shortened internodes. Symptoms show up first in older
needles and leaves, where salts accumulate. In conifers, needles are yellow and turn
brown from the tips downward. Broadleaf plants and woody species show the greatest
symptoms at leaf tips and margins, which eventually turn necrotic. Saline irrigation
water can also result in leaf burn, depending on the crop (Table 3-28). As soil salinity
increases above threshold levels (Table 3-29), plant growth rate decreases. Top growth
is usually affected more than root growth.
High Na+ is toxic to plants roots, especially during drought conditions when
+
Na concentration in the soil solution increases and enhances dehydration of root
tissue. Under sodic conditions, Na+ can replace Ca+2 in cell membranes, increasing
membrane permeability and transport of ions. Many plants, especially grasses, accu-
mulate Na+ in leaves, resulting in necrosis of leaf tips and edges.
Although Cl- is an essential micronutrient, excess Cl- in soil solution or in
irrigation water can reduce productivity in sensitive crops. Woody plants are more
sensitive to Cl- than non-woody species. For most crops, the salinity tolerance pro-
vides an approximate guideline for Na+ and Cl- toxicity (Table 3-29).
Toxicity to excessive B occurs in some arid region soils. B accumulates in leaf
tissues causing necrosis. Removing grass clippings can help remove some B from the
system. Most turf grasses are B tolerant, whereas many fruit and vegetable crops are
sensitive (Chapter 8).
Although in most situations yield decrease is related to total salt concentration
in the soil solution, excess soil salinity may induce nutrient imbalances (deficiencies
or toxicities). For example, excessive SO4-2 and low Ca+2 and/or Mg +2 can occur in
saline soils, causing internal browning in lettuce, blossom-end rot in tomato and pep-
per, and blackheart in celery.
Plants differ greatly in their tolerance to soil salinity (Table 3-29). For example,
old alfalfa is more tolerant than young alfalfa. Barley and cotton have considerable

TABLE 3-28
S ENSITIVITY OF S EVERAL C ROPS TO L EAF B URN C AUSED
−
BY Cl IN S PRINKLER I RRIGATION W ATER

Tolerant Semi-Tolerant Sensitive Very Sensitive

Cotton Barley Alfalfa Potato
Sugar beet Corn Sesame Tomato
Sunflower Safflower Soybeans Fruit crops
Sorghum Citrus fruits
106 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

TABLE 3-29
S ALT T OLERANCE OF S ELECTED C ROPS
Threshold ECse % Yield Decrease/ ECse @ 50% Salt Tolerance
Crop (mmho/cm) Unit ECse Increase Yield Loss Rating1
Alfalfa 2.0 7.3 8.8 MS
Almond 1.5 19 4.3 S
Apple 1.0 15 4.3 S
Apricot 1.6 24 3.8 S
Avocado 1.0 24 3.1 S
Barley (forage) 6.0 7.1 13.1 MT
Barley (grain) 8.0 5.0 18.0 T
Bean 1.0 19 3.6 S
Beet (garden) 4.0 9.0 9.6 MT
Bentgrass 2.5 7.0 8.3 MS
Bermudagrass 6.9 6.4 14.7 T
Blackberry 1.5 22 3.8 S
Boysenberry 1.5 22 3.8 S
Broad bean 1.6 9.6 6.8 MS
Broccoli 2.8 9.2 8.3 MT
Bromegrass 2.5 7.2 8.7 MT
Cabbage 1.8 9.7 7.0 MS
Canarygrass (reed) 2.0 6.4 7.0 MS
Carrot 1.0 14 4.6 S
Clover (berseem) 1.5 5.8 10.1 MT
Clover (red, ladino, alsike) 1.5 12 5.7 MS
Corn (forage) 1.8 7.4 8.6 MS
Corn (grain, sweet) 1.7 12 5.9 MS
Cotton 7.7 5.2 17.3 T
Cowpea 1.3 14 4.9 MS
Cucumber 2.5 13 6.3 MS
Date 4.0 3.6 17.9 T
Fescue (tall) 3.9 5.3 13.3 MT
Flax 1.7 12 5.9 MS
Grape 1.5 9.5 6.8 MS
Grapefruit 1.8 16 4.9 S
Hardinggrass 4.6 7.6 11.2 MT
Lemon 1.0 14 6.8 S
Lettuce 1.3 13 5.1 MS
Lovegrass 2.0 8.5 7.9 MS
Meadow foxtail 1.5 9.7 6.7 MS
Onion 1.2 16 4.3 S
Orange 1.7 16 4.8 S
Orchardgrass 1.5 6.2 9.6 MT
Peach 3.2 19 5.8 S
Peanut 3.2 29 4.9 MS
Pepper 1.5 14 5.1 MS
Plum 1.5 18 4.3 S
Potato (sweet) 1.5 11 6.0 MS
Potato (white) 1.7 12 5.9 MS
Radish 1.2 13 5.0 MS
Rice (paddy) 3.0 12 7.2 MS
Ryegrass (perennial) 5.6 7.6 12.2 MT
Sorghum 4.8 8.0 11.1 MT
Soybean 5.0 20 7.5 MT
Spinach 2.0 7.6 8.6 MS
Strawberry 1.0 33 2.5 S
Sudangrass 2.8 4.3 14.4 MT
Sugar Beet 7.0 5.9 15.5 T
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 107

Threshold ECse % Yield Decrease/ ECse @ 50% Salt Tolerance

Crop (mmho/cm) Unit ECse Increase Yield Loss Rating1
Sugarcane 1.7 5.9 10.2 MS
Tomato 2.5 9.9 7.6 MS
Trefoil (big) 2.3 19 4.9 MS
Trefoil (birdsfoot) 5.0 10 10.0 MT
Vetch (common) 3.0 11 7.5 MS
Wheat 6.0 7.1 13.0 MT
Wheatgrass (crested) 3.5 4.0 16.0 MT
Wheatgrass (fairway) 7.5 6.9 14.7 T
Wheatgrass (tall) 7.5 4.2 19.4 T
Wild rye (beardless) 2.7 6.0 11.0 MT
1S, sensitive; MS, moderately sensitive; MT, moderately tolerant; T, tolerant.

salt tolerance, but high salt will affect vegetative more than reproductive growth.
Cultivar or variety differences also exist. For example, soybean varieties differ in Cl-
exclusion (Table 3-30). Effective excluders of Na+ and Cl- may still exhibit low yield
because of salt-related water stress. Tolerant crops that do not exclude Na+ have a
capacity to maintain a high K + >Na+ ratio in the growing tissue. Conventional breed-
ing and genetic engineering methods are being used to improve adaptation and toler-
ance to saline and sodic soil environments.
Quantifying salt tolerance Plant tolerance to soil salinity is expressed as the yield
decrease with a given amount of soluble salts compared with yield under non-saline
conditions. Threshold salinity levels have been established for most crops and rep-
resent the minimum salinity level (ECse) above which salinity limits plant growth
(Table 3-29). These values represent general guidelines, since many interactions
among plant, soil, water, and environmental factors influence salt tolerance. Above
the threshold ECse level, plant growth generally decreases linearly with increasing
salinity (Fig. 3-45).
Relative yield loss (Y) at any given ECse level can be calculated for any crop
from the values in Table 3-29 for threshold levels (A) and the % yield decrease per
unit increase in ECse (b) above the threshold by the following:
Y = 100 - b 1ECse - A2

TABLE 3-30
L EAF -S CORCH R ATINGS , Y IELD , AND Cl − C ONCENTRATION IN L EAVES AND
S EEDS OF F IVE S USCEPTIBLE AND T EN T OLERANT S OYBEAN C ULTURES

Cl− concentration
Soybean Type Leaf Scorch Rating1 Yield Leaves Seed
bu/a % ppm
Cl susceptible 3.4 15 1.67 682
Cl tolerant 1.0 24 0.09 111
11 = none, 5 = severe.

Source: Parker et al., 1986.

108 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-45 100 Threshold ECse (A)

Graphical representation of
salt tolerance threshold (A)

RELATIVE YIELD (%)

and yield loss associated 75
% Yield
with increasing ECse. The b=
slope “b” represents the % ECse
yield loss per unit increase 50
in ECse.
ECse @ 50% Yield loss
25

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ECse (mmhoycm)

For example, alfalfa yield decreases about 7.3% per unit increase in ECse above
the 2.0 mmho/cm ECse threshold (Table 3-29). Thus, if a soil analysis showed
4.0 mmho/cm ECse, then the estimated relative alfalfa yield would be:
Y = 100 - 7.3 14.0 - 2.02 = 85.4%
Using these linear relationships, plants can be categorized into groups based on sen-
sitivity or tolerance to soil salinity (Fig. 3-46). These ratings are only relative but
can be used to estimate yield depression at specific soil salinity levels for many crops
(Fig. 3-47). Salt tolerance ratings for other crops are provided in the Instructors
Manual.
Factors affecting salt tolerance

Plant Factors
For some plants soil salinity influences growth at all growth stages, but for many
crops sensitivity varies with the growth stage. For example, several grain crops (e.g.,
rice, wheat, corn, and barley) are relatively salt tolerant at germination and matu-
rity but are very sensitive during early seedling and, in some cases, vegetative growth
stages. In contrast, sugarbeet, safflower, soybean, and many bean crops (including
soybean) are sensitive during germination. The growth reduction often depends on

Figure 3-46 100

Divisions for classifying crop
tolerance to salinity.
80
RELATIVE CROP YIELD (%)

60

40
Unsuitable
for crops

20
Sensitive Moderately Moderately Tolerant
sensitive tolerant

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ECse (mmhoycm)
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 109

100 100
ROOT CROPS FRUIT & NUT CROPS
RELATIVE CROP YIELD (%)

RELATIVE CROP YIELD (%)

80 80

A pr
date

ico
t, b
60 60

l
ack

Gr
St ra

ap A oyse
ber

G
ra
efr lmo

pe
40 40

wbe

ry,

uit nd peberry
G
ar

&b

& o & pach

de

rry
n

Sw ota ish

ran lum
be

P d
ee to
20 ef 20

ge
On

Ra rrot
Ca on

tP

n
i

ot
at
o
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
100 100
GRAIN CROPS VEGETABLE CROPS
RELATIVE CROP YIELD (%)

RELATIVE CROP YIELD (%)

80 80

60 60

S
40 40 C To Br pin

Be
ab m oc ac

Cu
ba at co h

an

cu
Pe
ge o li
Ba

mb ettuc
Wh

pp
Corn
Rice

rle

20 20

er

er
ea

L
y
t

e
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
ECse (mmhoycm) ECse (mmhoycm)

Figure 3-47
Relationship between salinity level (ECse) and relative crop yield (%) for selected crops. The light and dark shaded zones
correspond to salt tolerance classified as moderately tolerant and tolerant, respectively (Fig. 3-46). The ECse scales are not
the same. For example, barley is much more salt tolerant than corn, whereas corn is much more tolerant than strawberry.
(El-Swaify, 2000, in Silva and Uchida (eds.), Plant Nutrient Mgmt. Hawaii’s Soils, pp. 151–158, Univ. of Hawaii-Manoa.)

the variety, particularly with many grasses and some legume crops. Differences in salt
tolerance have also been observed between different vine and fruit tree rootstocks.
Fruit tree and some vine crops are particularly sensitive to Cl- toxicity; however, salt-
tolerant varieties exhibit reduced Cl- accumulation in the roots and/or Cl transloca-
tion from roots to above-ground tissues. Most grasses used in the turf industry are
relatively salt tolerant.
Soil Factors
In general, crops grown on nutrient-deficient soils are more salt tolerant than the same
crops grown in soils with sufficient nutrients. Lower growth rates and lower water de-
mand are likely causes for the increased tolerance to soil salinity. In these cases, nutrient
deficiency is the most limiting factor to maximum yield potential; thus, nutrient addi-
tions would increase plant growth and subsequently decrease salt tolerance.
Because saline and sodic soils have pH 7 7.0, micronutrient deficiencies can
be more common (Chapter 8). Overfertilization with N can decrease salt tolerance in
some crops because of increased vegetative growth and water demand. At recommended
rates, little or no effect on soil salinity or salt tolerance is observed with either inorganic
or organic nutrient addition. Continued overapplication of manure, as well as N and K
fertilizers, can increase soil salinity, especially in poorly drained, irrigated soils. Over-
application with band-applied fertilizers containing relatively high concentrations of
N and K can cause salt damage to germinating seeds and seedlings (Chapter 10).
110 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

Figure 3-48 Seed

In furrow-irrigated cropping placement
systems, salts accumulate
near the center of the bed.
Seeds should be planted
on the side of the beds to
avoid salinity problems.
Water Water
(Ludwick et al., 1978, Colorado State
Univ. Coop. Ext. No. 504.)

Zone of maximum
salt accumulation

Proper irrigation management is essential to reducing soil salinity effects on plant

growth and yield. Total salt concentration in the soil solution is the highest when the
water content has been reduced by evapotranspiration. With irrigation, soil solution
salts are diluted and ECse decreases. If soil salinity increases above threshold levels
(Fig. 3-47) during dry periods, more frequent irrigation will be required to prevent
water and salinity stress and, thus, negative effects on plant growth and yield. Also, the
percentage of plant available water decreases with increasing salinity (higher osmotic
potential), requiring more frequent irrigation. Excessive irrigation reduces aeration,
especially in poorly drained soils, and can reduce salt tolerance in some plants. Under
furrow irrigation conditions, excess water leaches into the furrow area; however, soil
water movement from the bottom of the furrow to the midrow area deposits salts as
water evaporates from the soil surface. Salt-sensitive crops must be planted to the side
of the midrow to minimize salt injury to germinating seeds and seedlings (Fig. 3-48).
Much lower water rates are used in trickle irrigation compared with furrow irrigation,
resulting in greater salt accumulation and potential for yield losses.
Environmental Factors
Under hot, dry conditions, most crops are less salt tolerant than under cool, humid
conditions because of greatly increased evapotranspiration demand. These climatic
effects of temperature and humidity on salt tolerance are particularly important with
the most salt-sensitive crops.

Reducing Salts and/or Na in Soils

Critical soil test information is required before a management strategy is imple-
mented to remediate salt- and/or Na+ -affected soils. These include:
• soil pH
• ECse
• solution and exchangeable cations and anions 1Ca+2, Mg +2, Na+ , Cl- , SO4-2,
CO3-2, HCO3-2
• CEC, soil texture
• CaCO3 content, or qualitative determination of its presence
• analysis of available irrigation water quality (pH, EC, Na+ content)
From these soil test data, the following parameters are calculated or estimated:
• total dissolved solids
• SAR
• ESP
• gypsum 1CaSO4 # 2H2O2 requirement (if a sodic or saline-sodic soil)
From these results, the soil is classified as saline, sodic, or saline-sodic. The fol-
lowing general management should be considered.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 111

Figure 3-49
Normal Soil Salt-Affected Soil Reclaiming a saline soil by
adding low salt and/or Na
pH , 8.5 pH , 8.5 irrigation water and leach-
ECse , 4 mmho/cm ECse . 4 mmho/cm
ing soluble salts in the soil
SAR , 13 SAR , 13
ESP , 15 ESP , 15 solution below the root
zone.
Irrigation
Soil Surface Low EC water

Na1
Ca12 22 2
1
SO4 Cl Na
Cl2 Ca12
Mg12 Mg12
2
Cl Ca12
Mg12 HCO32 Na1
Ca12 SO422 Na1
K1 Ca12 Cl 2
SO4 22
Ca 12

Ca12 Na1
CO322 1 12
Na1 Na 1 Cl2 Cl2 Na Ca 1 CLAY
Ca12 Salt leaching 12 Na
CLAY Cl2 CO322 Mg Ca12
2 SO 22 Na1
Cl 4

Exch. 1 Sol’n Ions Sol’n 1 Exch. Ions

Saline soils Saline soils are relatively easy to reclaim if adequate amounts of low-
salt irrigation waters are available and internal and surface drainage are feasible. Salts
must be leached below the root zone and out of contact with subsequent irrigation
water (Fig. 3-49).
The quantity of irrigation water needed to leach the salts out of the root zone,
or the leaching requirement (LR), can be estimated by the following relationship:
ECiw
LR =
51ECse2 - ECiw
where LR = leaching requirement
ECse = threshold ECse for a given crop
ECiw = EC of irrigation water
For example, Kentucky bluegrass’s threshold ECse = 3.0. If the ECiw = 1.5, then
the LR is:
1.5
LR = = 0.111
5132 - 1.5
LR represents the additional water 1LR = 11.1%2 needed to leach out salts over
that needed to saturate the profile. Although this relationship provides an estimate
of the water volume needed to reduce salts in the soil, more sophisticated calcula-
tions are generally used to precisely estimate the amount of leaching water needed.
The amount of leaching water required depends on (1) the desired ECse, which de-
pends on the salt tolerance of the intended crop; (2) irrigation water quality (ECiw);
(3) rooting or leaching depth; and (4) soil water-holding capacity.
As seen in the LR calculation, the quality of irrigation water used to leach salts be-
low the root zone is an important factor in managing soil salinity. The EC and SAR of
the available water must be determined before application. Based on these values, water
quality can be evaluated (Fig. 3-50). As the EC and SAR of the irrigation water increase,
greater precautions should be taken in using it to leach salts below the root zone.
In soils with a high water table, drain installation may be required before leaching.
If there is a dense calcareous or gypsiferous layer or the soil is impervious, deep chiseling
112 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1000 2 3 4 5000

VERY HIGH
4
30

28
C1-S4

26 C2-S4

HIGH
2
24 C3-S4

SODIUM (ALKALI) HAZARD

22 C4-S4

SODIUM - ADSORPTION-RATIO (SAR)

C1-S3
20

18
C2-S3

MEDIUM
16

2
14
C1-S2 C3-S3
12

10
C2-S2 C4-S3

8 C3-S2
LOW

6
1

C4-S2
C1-S1
4
C2-S1
2
C3-S1
C4-S1
0
100 250 750 2250
CL

CONDUCTIVITY – MICROMHOS/CM (EC×106) AT 258C

AS
S

1 2 3 4
LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

SALINITY HAZARD

1. Salinity classification 2. Sodium classification

C1 - Low-salinity water can be used for irrigation S1 - Low-sodium water can be used for irrigation on
with most crops on most soils, with little almost all soils with little danger of the
likelihood that a salinity problem will develop. development of a sodium problem. However,
Some leaching is required, but this occurs under sodium-sensitive crops, such as stone-fruit
normal irrigation practices except in soils of trees and avocados, may accumulate injurious
extremely low permeability. amounts of sodium in the leaves.

C2 - Medium-salinity water can be used if a S2 - Medium-sodium water may present a moderate

moderate amount of leaching occurs. Plants sodium problem in fine-textured (clay) soils
with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in unless there is gypsum in the soil. This water
most instances without special practices for can be used on coarse-textured (sandy) or
salinity control. organic soils that take water well.

C3 - High-salinity water cannot be used on soil with S3 - High-sodium water may produce troublesome
restricted drainage. Even with adequate sodium problems in most soils and will require
drainage, special management for salinity special management, good drainage, high
control may be required, and plants with good leaching, and additions of organic matter. If
salt tolerance should be selected. there is plenty of gypsum in the soil, a serious
problem may not develop for some time. If
gypsum is not present, it or some similar
material may have to be added.

C4 - Very-high-salinity water is not suitable for S4 - Very-high-sodium water is generally unsatis-

irrigation under ordinary conditions but may be factory for irrigation except at low- or medium-
used occasionally under very special salinity levels, where the use of gypsum or
circumstances. The soil must be permeable, some other amendment makes it possible to
drainage must be adequate, irrigation water use such water.
must be applied in excess to provide
considerable leaching, and very-salt-tolerant
crops should be selected.

Figure 3-50
Classification of irrigation waters. (U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Handbook 60, 1954.)
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 113

or plowing may be needed to improve infiltration. When only rainfall or limited irriga-
tion is available, surface organic mulches will reduce evaporation and increase drainage.
Managing the soil to minimize salt accumulation is essential, especially in semi-
arid and arid regions. Maintaining the soil near field capacity with frequent watering
dilutes salts. Light leaching before planting or light irrigation after planting moves
salts below the planting and early rooting zone. If water is available, periodic leaching
when crops are not growing will move salts out of the root zone. Much of the salt
may precipitate as CaSO4 # 2H2O and CaCO3 or MgCO3 during dry periods and
will not react as soluble salt, although precipitation of Ca and Mg will increase the
proportion of Na+ present in solution (see SAR definition).
Managing soils for improved drainage is essential for controlling soil salinity. When
ridge-tillage systems are used, the salt moves upward with capillary H2O and is deposited
on the center of the ridges where the water evaporates. Planting on the shoulders or edge
of the ridges helps to avoid problems associated with excess salts (Fig. 3-48).
Sodic or saline-sodic soils (no CaCO3 present) In sodic and saline-sodic soils, ex-
changeable Na+ and/or ECse must be reduced, which can be difficult because the
soil clay may be dispersed, preventing infiltration. Reducing exchangeable Na+
is accomplished by replacement with Ca+2 by adding appropriate rate of gypsum
(CaSO4 # 2H2O). The reaction is:

Clay-2Na + Ca+2 Clay-Ca + 2Na+

CaSO4 Amendment
+
Irrigation
Ca+2
– +
Ca+2 HCO3 CI– Na
SO4–2 + Ca +2
Mg+2 Mg+2 Na+
HCO3– Na Na+
Ca+2 +2 CI–
Ca –2 +2
K+ SO4 Ca Ca+2
Ca+2 Ca+2 Na+
–2 CO3–2 SO4–2 Ca+2
Na +
Mg+2 CO3 – +
Ca +2
Ca +2 CI– CI Mg+2 Na+2 CLAY
Na+ Ca
+2
CLAY Ca SO4–2 Na+
Na+ Na+ Leaching
Na+

Estimating the quantity of CaSO4 # 2H2O required is similar to the calcula-

tion for estimating the CaCO3 required to increase pH. For example, a soil with
CEC = 24 meq>100 g soil contains 15% ESP, and we need to reduce the ESP to
5%; thus, 15% - 5% = 10% reduction in ESP.
Reduce ESP from 15 to 5% of the CEC, or 10% of CEC occupied by Na+
must be removed and is calculated by:
24 meq CEC 2.4 meq Na+
0.10 * = 3Na+ removal4
100 g soil 100 g soil
Thus,
2.4 meq Na+ removed 2.4 meq Ca+2 added
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
2.4 meq CaSO4 # 2H2O added
=
100 g soil
114 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

NOTE:
The equivalent weight of CaSO4 # 2H2O is determined Now, remember 1 mole Ca+2 = 2 moles 1 +2 or
exactly as we did for CaCO3 on page 30: 2 equivalents; thus:
CaSO4 # 2H2O N Ca+2 + SO4-2 + 2H2O 172 g CaSO4 # 2H2O 86 g CaSO4 # 2H2O
=
Clay@2Na+ + Ca+2 N Clay@Ca+2 + 2Na+ 2 moles Na+ 1 mole Na+
86 g CaSO4 # 2H2O 86 mg CaSO4 # 2H2O
Thus, 1 mole or molecular weight of CaSO4 # 2H2O (172 = =
g/m) exchanges or reacts with 2 moles Na+ . eq meq

Now convert the charge units (meq/100 g soil) to mass units (lb/afs):
2.4 meq CaSO4 # 2H2O added 86 mg CaSO4 # 2H2O 206 mg CaSO4 # 2H2O
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.206 g CaSO4 # 2H2O
=
100 g soil
0.206 lb CaSO4 # 2H2O
=
100 lb soil
#
0.206 lb CaSO4 2H2O 2 * 10 4
4,120 lb CaSO4 # 2H2O
* =
100 lb soil 2 * 104 afs
If it were desired to reduce exchangeable Na+ in 0–12-in. depth instead of 0–6-in.
depth (afs), then the CaSO4 # 2H2O rate would be doubled (8,240 lb/a-ft). The rec-
ommended gypsum would be broadcast applied followed by slow irrigation to dis-
solve the CaSO4 # 2H2O and move the Ca+2 into the target soil depth. The Na-Ca
exchange and leaching process can take several months.
Sodic or saline-sodic soils (CaCO3 present) In calcareous soils, the soil already has
an available Ca+2 source in CaCO3. Thus, the amendment could be an acid or acid-
forming material to dissolve the CaCO3 to produce Ca+2 that would then replace
exchangeable Na+ according to:

S + H2O + 3/2 O2 2H+ + SO4–2

2H+ + CaCO3 Ca+2 + H2O + CO2

S Amendment
+
Irrigation
Ca+2
Na+
– CI–
Ca+2 HCO3 CI– Ca+2
Mg+2 Mg+2 Na+
Ca+2 +2 CI– HCO3 –Na+
K+ Ca Ca +2 K+
CO3–2 Ca+2 Na+
Ca+2 Ca+2 SO4 –2
Na +
Mg+2 Na+ Ca+2
SO4–2 CI– Na+
Ca+2 Ca+2 Mg+2 Ca+2 CLAY
Na+
CLAY Ca+2 SO4–2 CO3–2 Na+
Na+ Na+ Leaching
SO4–2 Na+
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 115

NOTE:
The equivalent weight of S is determined by: Thus, 1 mole S resulted in the exchange of 2 moles Na+ , so
the equivalent weight of S is:
S + 1.5O2 + H2O N SO4-2 + 2H+
32 g S 16 g S 16 g S 16 mg S
Thus, 1 mole or molecular weight of S (32 g/m) oxidizes to = = =
+ + eq meq
form 2 moles H+ . 2 moles Na 1 mole Na

CaCO3 + 2H+ N Ca+2 + CO2 + H2O

2 moles H+ dissolves 1 mole CaCO3 to produced 1 mole Ca+2.

Clay@2Na+ + Ca+2 N Clay@Ca+2 + 2Na+

In the previous example, assume the soil also contained 2% CaCO3. Thus, a reduc-
tion of 2.4 meq exchangeable Na+ >100 g soil is still required; however, elemental
S is added that will oxidize to produce 2H+ , which will dissolve exactly 2.4 meq
CaCO3 >100 g soil to produce 2.4 meq Ca+2 >100 g soil:
2.4 meq Na+ removed 2.4 meq Ca+2 added
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
2.4 meq CaCO3 in soil
=
100 g soil
2.4 meq S added
= 3to dissolve CaCO34
100 g soil
The calculation for S rate is:
2 .4 meq S added 16 mg S 38 mg S
* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.038 g S
=
100 g soil
0.038 lb S
=
100 lb soil
0.038 lb S 2 * 104 760 lb S
* =
100 lb soil 2 * 104 afs
Since the oxidation of S is a microbially mediated reaction, additional time is re-
quired for the amendment process to be completed. In some situations, the remedia-
tion of sodic soils can take several months, often taking the field out of production
until the remediation process is completed.
To use S as an amendment to reduce exchangeable Na+ (ESP), the soil must
be calcareous or contain sufficient CaCO3. In the previous example, the minimum
%CaCO3 content is estimated by:
2 .4 meq Na+ removed 2.4 meq Ca+2 added
=
100 g soil 100 g soil
2.4 meq CaCO3 in soil
=
100 g soil
116 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

2.4 meq CaCO3 added 50 mg CaCO3 120 mg CaCO3

* =
100 g soil meq 100 g soil
0.120 g CaCO3
=
100 g soil
= 0.12 % CaCO3
Estimating amendment rates for sodic or saline-sodic soils is relatively easy once the
reduction in exchangeable Na+ is determined:
X meq Na+ removed
100 g soil
X meq Ca+2 needed
=
100 g soil
X meq CaSO4 # 2H2O added
=
100 g soil
X meq S added
= 3if CaCO3 present in soil4
100 g soil
X meq CaCO3 in soil
= 3minimum CaCO3 needed in soil4
100 g soil
Gypsum (or S) should be broadcast and thoroughly incorporated into the surface 3–4
in. of soil. Once uniform application is accomplished, high quality irrigation water
is applied at rates to ensure water is transported below the root zone or to depths
1 72 - 3 ft2 where exchangeable Na+ will have minimal impact on plant growth.
Fields with little or no slope can be flooded to ensure adequate percolation of water
and salts. In some cases, high ESP will initially limit infiltration; however, eventually
sufficient Ca will improve aggregation and water transport. Following reclamation,
ESP will again increase as evaporative waters transport salts to the surface soil. Regu-
lar soil testing will identify when subsequent amendment is needed.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. A solution has 10-5.2 M H+ concentration. What 9. Write the chemical reactions that occur when lime
is the solution pH? is added to an acid soil.
2. Identify the principal sources of soil acidity? 10. Can CaSO4 # 2H2O be used as a liming agent?
3. Distinguish between active and potential acidity. Write the neutralization reaction.
Which of these two forms is measured when soil 11. Define neutralizing value or calcium carbonate
pH is determined? equivalent (CCE). What is the CCE of Na2CO3?
4. Solution A has a pH of 3.0. Solution B has a pH of 12. You analyze limestone and find that it has a neu-
6.0. The active acidity of solution A is how many tralizing value of 85%. How many tons of this
times greater than that of solution B? limestone would be equivalent to 3 t of pure
5. How is soil pH affected by fertilizer applications? CaCO3?
Provide several example reactions. 13. In addition to purity and neutralizing value, what
6. Define lime requirement. The term Ag-lime usu- other property of limestone is important as a lim-
ally refers to what materials? ing material?
7. How does soil BC influence the lime requirement? 14. Using the following reactions, indicate if the mate-
8. How is the lime requirement of a soil determined? rial can be used as a suitable liming material.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 117

a. clay@2H+ + CaSO4 # 2H2O N clay@Ca+2 recommendation? If not, what would you recom-
+ 2H+ + SO4-2 + 2H2O mend? Show all calculations.
b. clay@2H + 2KOH N clay@2K + + 2H2O
+ 22. A grower received a lime recommendation of 4 t/afs
c. clay@2H+ + Mg1HCO322 N clay@Mg +2 of CaCO3. The only material available is dolomite
+ 2CO2 + 2H2O or CaMg1CO322. The dolomite has a CCE of 90%
d. clay@2H+ + 2KCl N clay@2K + + 2H+ + Cl- and 54% passes a 60-mesh screen, 25% passes an
e. clay@2H+ + Na2CO3 N clay@2Na+ 8-mesh screen, while the remainder will not pass the
+ CO2 + H2O 8-mesh screen (use Indiana in Table 3-14).
15. Adding lime will increase BS of an acid soil. a. Calculate the ECC of this dolomite.
A grower indicates that adding gypsum will do b. How many lb dolomite/afs does he need to
the same thing at half the cost. What would you apply?
advise this grower? 23. Titration of a 50 g soil sample with 10 mL of 0.25 N
16. A soil sample has a pH of 6.0 and CEC of NaOH raises soil pH from 5.3 to 6.5. How many
25 meq/100g. 50 g of soil was titrated with 50 ml lb/afs of the following materials would be required?
of 0.1 N kOH to pH 7.0. Calculate the lime a. Pure CaCO3
recommendation in lb/afs. b. Pure CaMg1CO322
17. Calculate the lb/afs of CaCO3 (using Figure 2-11), c. Lime material with CCE of 85% and the following
to raise the soil pH from 5.0 to 6.5. The CEC is screen analysis (use Indiana in Table 3-14).
30 meq/100 g. Mesh Size % of Material
18. A grower received a lime recommendation of 8 t/afs
660 50
of 80% ECC lime material. His soil test results
showed pH = 5.5 and CEC = 26 meq>100 g. 8–60 25
The grower thought that this recommendation 78 25
was too high. How much would the soil pH in- 24. Are benefits derived from deep mixing of lime in
crease if the grower only applied 4 t/afs of the lime soil? Can long-term liming of surface soil influ-
material? (Use Fig. 2-11 and assume all the lime ence subsoil acidity?
reacted.) 25. You have lost the liming recommendations sent
19. A golf course superintendent wants to plant fescue to you by the soil laboratory, but you do recall
in two fairways that have drastically different soil that 3 t/a were recommended for field B. Because
properties. the pH is the same in both fields, you apply 3 t
Fairway 1—silt loam texture; soil to field A as well. Have you acted wisely? Why or
pH = 5.7; BS = 58%; CEC = 15 meq>100 g why not?
26. 30 ml of 1 N H 2SO 4 was added to completely
Fairway 2—clay loam texture; soil
neutralize the line content of 10 g of calcareous
pH = 6.0; BS = 60%; CEC = 40 meq>100 g
soil. Excess acid was titrated with 10 ml 0.5 N
a. Calculate the CaCO3 (lb/afs) required to NaOH. What is the percentage of lime content?
neutralize soil acidity in Fairway 1 to pH 6.8 27. Answer the following questions for the soil data
and BS of 90%. listed below.
b. Calculate the CaCO3 (lb/afs) required to
Exchangeable Cations in
neutralize soil acidity in Fairway 2 to pH 6.8
Cations Saturated Extract
and BS of 90%.
(ppm Soil) (ppm Solution)
20. A soil had an initial pH of 5.5 and a CEC =
25 meq>100 g. After the producer applied the Ca 1,600 180
lime, the pH increased to 6.5. How much lime did Mg 600 20
she apply? (Use Fig. 2-11 and assume all the lime Na 1,000 900
reacted.)
K 600 5
21. A soil has the following properties: clay content =
50%; CEC = 40 meq>100 g; pH = 5.2; CEC 1meq>100 g2 = 17 pH 1sat’d paste2
%Ca saturation = 40; %Mg saturation = 6; = 8.6
%K saturation = 8; %Na saturation = 0. T h e CaCO3 1%2 = 2 ECse 1mmho>cm2
lab recommended 3 t/afs of CaCO3. Is this a good = 4.5
118 chapter three soil acidity and alkalinity

a. Calculate CEC and compare with measured 34. A golf course manager complained that when he
CEC. Suggest a reason why the two values irrigated the fairways the water would not infil-
may be different. trate very readily. Soil samples were collected and
b. Calculate SAR and estimate SAR from the the soil solution (saturated extract) contained:
exchangeable cation data.
1,600 ppm Ca+2
c. Calculate and estimate ESR and ESP.
28. Explain how S acidulates a soil. 960 ppm Mg +2
29. What are the main cations in saline, sodic, and 2,760 ppm Na+
saline-sodic soils? Explain how sodic soils become
impermeable. The CEC was 35 meq/100 g soil and the lab
30. Write the chemical reactions when S is added as an recommended lowering the ESP to 5% to improve
amendment to reduce exchangeable Na. infiltration.
31. Explain why CaSO4 is effective in reclaiming a. Calculate the gypsum required to lower ESP
saline soils. to 5% (lb/a-ft).
32. A soil has the following properties: pH = 8.6; b. How much S (lb/a-ft) would be required
ESP = 18%; CEC = 25 me>100 g; to lower the ESP to 5%?
CaCO3 = 2%. c. The soil contained 0.2% lime. Was there
a. Calculate the SAR. enough lime present to supply enough Ca+2
b. A lab recommended adding 4,300 lb gypsum/ to lower ESP to 5%?
afs. Calculate the final ESP if the grower 35. Using Figure 3.1, identify the major acid soil
followed the recommendation. regions in the world.
c. If the grower added S instead of gypsum, 36. Mention the sources of soil acidity.
calculate the final CaCO3 content. 37. How do you classify irrigation waters based on
33. A laboratory analysis showed the following results: a. Salinity
b. Sodium content.
CEC = 28 meq>100 g
38. On the basis of soil test data, how do you classify
solution Ca = 6 meq>L
soil?
solution Mg = 2 meq>L
39. Proper irrigation management is essential to
solution Na = 36 meq>L
reduce soil salinity effects on plant growth and
EC = 5.2 mmhos>cm
development. Justify.
CaCO3 = 0.2%
40. Define
soil pH = 8.6
a. Saline soil,
a. Calculate SAR, ESR, and ESP.
b. Sodic soil and
b. Calculate the S (lb/afs) required to neutralize
c. Saline-sodic soil.
all the lime.
41. Describe the processes involved in the salt accu-
c. Calculate the gypsum (lb/afs) required to
mulation of soil in detail.
reduce ESP to 5%.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Adams, F. (Ed.). 1984. Soil acidity and liming. Madi- Follett, R. H., L. S. Murphy, and R. L. Donahue. 1981.
son, Wis.: Soil Science Society of America. Fertilizers and soil amendments. Englewood Cliffs,
Alley, M. M., and L. W. Zelazny. 1987. Soil acidity: N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Soil pH and lime needs. In J. R. Brown (Ed.), Kamprath, E. J., and C. D. Foy. 1985. Lime-fertilizer-
Soil testing: Sampling, correlation, calibration, and plant interactions in acid soils. In O. P. Engles-
interpretation. Madison, Wis. Special Publication tad (Ed.), Fertilizer technology and use. Madison,
No. 21. Soil Science Society of America. Wis.: Soil Science Society of America.
Bresler, E., B. L. McNeal, and D. L. Carter. 1982.
Saline and sodic soils. New York: Springer-Verlag.
 soil acidity and alkalinity chapter three 119

McLean, E. O. 1973. Testing soils for pH and lime Thomas, G. W., and W. L. Hargrove. 1984. The chem-
requirement. In L. M. Walsh and J. D. Beaton istry of soil acidity. In Adams, F. (Ed.), Soil acidity
(Eds.), Soil testing and plant analysis. Madison, and liming (2nd ed., pp. 3–56). Madison, Wis.:
Wis.: Soil Science Society of America. American Society of Agronomy.
Rengel, Z (Ed.). 2003. Handbook of soil acidity. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Thomas, G. W. 1988. Beyond exchangeable alumi-
num: Another ride on the merry-go-round. Com-
munications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
19(7/12): 833–856.
 4
Nitrogen
Nitrogen (N) is the most frequently deficient nutrient in non-
legume plants, while quantities of N2 fixed by legumes can be suf-
ficient for their growth. Because most soils cannot supply sufficient
amounts of plant available N, inorganic and/or organic N sources
must be applied to meet plant N requirements (Fig. 4-1). Globally,
agricultural N use has substantially increased over the last 50 years,
contributing to our ability to feed a growing planet (Chapter 1).
However, global N use has also increased N loading in the environ-
ment (Chapter 12). Understanding the biology and chemistry of N
in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum is essential for maximizing
plant growth and productivity, while reducing the impacts of N in-
puts on the environment.

THE N CYCLE
The ultimate source of all N used by plants is N2, which constitutes
78% of the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, higher plants cannot me-
tabolize N2 directly into protein. N2 must first be converted to plant
available N by:
• microorganisms that live symbiotically on legume roots,
• free-living or nonsymbiotic soil microorganisms,
• atmospheric electrical discharges forming N oxides, or
• the manufacture of synthetic N fertilizers.
The large reservoir of atmospheric N2 is in equi-
librium with all fixed forms of N in soil, seawater, and
living and nonliving organisms (Table 4-1). Cycling of
N in the soil-plant-atmosphere system involves many
transformations between inorganic and organic forms
(Fig. 4-2). The N cycle can be divided into N inputs
or gains, N outputs or losses, and N cycling within the
soil, where N is neither gained nor lost (Table 4-2).
Except for industrial fixation and combustion, all of
these N transformations occur naturally; however, hu-
mans influence many of these N processes. This chap-
ter describes the chemical and microbial cycling of N
and how humans influence or manage these transfor-
mations to optimize N availability to plants.
122 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-1 250

Global agricultural N Animal Manure N2 Fixation
sources from 1800 to 2010. Crop Residue Synthetic N
Synthetic N use is increasing 200
relative to other N sources.

N SOURCE (Mt)
(Adapted from Mosier, 2001, Plant
150
and Soil, 228:17–27.)

100

50

0
1800 1900 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

TABLE 4-1
A PPROXIMATE D ISTRIBUTION OF N T HROUGHOUT THE S OIL -P LANT /
A NIMAL -A TMOSPHERE S YSTEM 1

N Source Metric Tons % of Total

Atmosphere 3.9 * 1015
99.3840
Sea 2.4 * 1013 0.6116
Soil 4.5 * 1011 0.0038
Plants 1.5 * 1010 0.00038
Microbes in soil 6 * 109 0.00015
Animals (land) 2 * 108 0.000005
People 1 * 107 0.00000025
1Not included in the above is ∼ 180 * 1015 t of N contained in rocks and other materials unavailable to

soil-plant-atmosphere system.

FUNCTIONS AND FORMS OF N IN PLANTS

Forms
Plants contain 1–6% N by weight and absorb N as both nitrate 1NO3 - 2 and
ammonium 1NH4 + 2 (Fig. 4-2). In moist, warm, well-aerated soils, soil solution
NO3 - is generally greater than NH4 + . Both move to plant roots by mass flow and
diffusion.
The rate of NO3 - uptake is usually high, causing an increase in rhizo-
sphere pH. When plants absorb high levels of NO3 - , there is an increase in anion
(HCO3 - , OH - , organic anions) transport out of cells. Plants metabolize NO3 -
to NH4 + to amino acids and to proteins. NO3 - reduction to NH4 + is an energy
requiring process that uses two nitrate reductase (NADH) molecules for each NO3 -
reduced in protein synthesis. Thus, NH4 + is the preferred N source since energy is
conserved compared to NO3 - (one less step in the reduction process). Plants sup-
plied with NH4 + may have increased carbohydrate and protein levels compared
with NO3 - .
 nitrogen chapter four 123

Atmosphere N2

N2
N Transformations

tio
N2O

Fi
xa

xa
NO Lighting

Fi

t
ion
1

2
N2 Rainfall

N
NH3 Fertilizer Legumes
NH41 NO32 Plant and Animal
9 8
NO32 Residues

NH3
Volatilization

N2 Soil Surface Nonsymbiotic

Denitrification

N2O Symbiotic

NO NH41 4 tion
1 Fixa
NO2 NH 4 2:1 Clay
NO32 NH41 7
2
NO2 solution
5 Readily Decomposable
Residues (10–20%)
Immobilization
Microbial Biomass
NO32 NO22 NH41 R-NH2 (<10%)
Ammonification Aminization Fungi, Bacteria, Protozoa
Actinomycetes, Algae
Nitrification Mineralization Nematodes, Fauna

3 2
NO32 Stable Humus
(70–90%)
6
SOIL ORGANIC MATTER
NO32 Leaching (Organic N)

Figure 4-2
The N cycle. Most of the N transformations (italics) are facilitated by the microbial biomass and cycle through the organic
fraction in soil. In step 1, N in plant and animal residues and N derived from the atmosphere through electrical discharges,
legumes, and industrial processes (N2 is combined with H2 or O2) are added to the soil. In step 2, organic N is mineralized to
NH4 + by soil organisms. Much of the NH4 + is converted to NO3 - by bacteria through nitrification (step 3). In step 4, NO3 - and
NH4 + in soil solution are taken up by plant roots. In step 5, some solution NH4 + and NO3 - are converted back to organic N
through immobilization. Solution NO3 - can be lost by leaching to groundwater or drainage systems as a result of downward
movement below the root zone in percolating water (step 6). In step 7, NH4 + fixation by 2:1 clay minerals can occur. In step 8,
NH4 + can be volatilized to gaseous NH3. NO3 - derived from nitrification, fertilization, or rainfall can be converted by denitrifying
bacteria to N2, N2O, NO that escape into the atmosphere (denitrification; step 9), completing the cycle.

TABLE 4-2
N INPUTS, OUTPUTS, AND CYCLING IN THE SOIL-PLANT-ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM1

No Net N Gain or Loss

N Inputs (Gains) N Outputs (Losses) (Cycling)
Fixation Plant uptake Mineralization
Biological (bacteria) Denitrification Immobilization
Industrial (Haber-Bosch) Volatilization Nitrification
Electrical (lightning) Leaching
Combustion (fossil fuel) NH4 + fixation2
Animal manure
Crop residue
1Some N inputs, outputs, and cycling components can be influenced by management but generally are
not managed.
2Some fixed NH4 + can be released (input).
124 chapter four nitrogen

Plant uptake of NH4 + reduces Ca + 2, Mg + 2, and K + uptake while decreasing

rhizosphere pH, caused by H + exuded by the root to maintain electroneutrality or
charge balance inside the plant. Differences in two pH units near the root surface
have been observed for NH4 + versus NO3 - uptake, which can affect nutrient avail-
ability and biological activity in the vicinity of roots (Fig. 3-7).
While preference for NH4 + or NO3 - differs between plants, plants have
evolved with a preference for NO3 - as a primary N source because NH4 + rapidly
converts to NO3 - in moist, well-aerated soils. Although energy within the plant is
conserved with NH4 + as the primary N source, NH4 + tolerance limits are narrow,
where high levels of NH4 + can retard growth and restrict uptake of other cations.
For example, a 75:25 ratio of NO3 - : NH4 + is recommended for nutrient solu-
tions used in horticulture, where NH4 + toxicity can occur if NH4 + exceeds 50%.
In contrast, plants can accumulate and tolerate comparatively high NO3 - levels in
tissues.
For most plants, growth is improved when nourished with both NO3 - and
NH4 + compared with NO3 - (or NH4 + ) alone. It is difficult to maintain NH4 + in
soils; however, split application of NH4 + or NH4 + -forming fertilizers later in the
growing season and use of nitrification inhibitors can increase NH4 + availability. For
example, 50:50 NH4 + : NO3 - ratios have been shown to improve yield in cereals and
corn. This would be advantageous in calcareous soils where increased NH4 + uptake
would lower rhizosphere pH and increase the availability of P and micronutrients.
In contrast, plants grown under anaerobic soil conditions (e.g., rice) predominantly
utilize NH4 + , as NO3 - is denitrified under these conditions.
Some plant diseases are more severe when either NH4 + or NO3 - predomi-
nate. Two processes may be involved. One is the direct effect of N form on patho-
genic activity; the other is the influence of NH4 + or NO3 - on organisms affecting
the availability of micronutrient cations. For example, high NO3 - supply stimulates
certain bacteria, which lowers Mn availability in wheat. The effect of N form on rhi-
zosphere soil pH is partially responsible for differences observed in disease incidence
and severity.

Functions
Before NO3 - can be used in the plant, it must be reduced to NH4 + . Nitrate re-
duction involves two enzyme-catalyzed reactions that occur in roots and/or leaves,
depending on the plant species. Both reactions occur in series so that toxic nitrite
1NO2 - 2 does not accumulate.

Reduction Reaction Enzyme Reaction Site

Step 1 NO3 - S NO2 - Nitrate reductase Cytoplasm
-
Step 2 NO2 S NH3 Nitrate reductase Chloroplast

The NH3 produced is assimilated into amino acids that are subsequently com-
bined into proteins and nucleic acids. Proteins provide the framework for chloro-
plasts, mitochondria, and other structures in which most biochemical reactions occur.
The type of protein formed is controlled by a specific genetic code in nucleic acids,
which determines the quantity and arrangement of amino acids in each protein. The
nucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), present in the nucleus and mitochondria
of the cell (Fig. 2-22), duplicates genetic information in the chromosomes of the
parent cell to the daughter cell. Ribonucleic acid (RNA), present in the nucleus and
cytoplasm of the cell, executes the instructions coded within DNA molecules. Most
enzymes controlling these metabolic processes are also proteins and are continually
metabolized and resynthesized.
 nitrogen chapter four 125

Figure 4-3
A simplified representation
of a chlorophyll molecule.

In addition to the formation of proteins, N is an integral part of chlorophyll,

which converts light into chemical energy needed for photosynthesis. The basic chlo-
rophyll structure is the porphyrin ring, composed of four pyrrole rings, each contain-
ing one N and four C atoms (Fig. 4-3). A single Mg atom is bonded in the center of
each porphyrin ring.
Nitrogen is a component of energy-transfer compounds, such as adenosine
diphosphate (ADP) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which allows critical cel-
lular use, and transfer, of energy released in metabolism.
An adequate supply of N is associated with high photosynthetic activity, vigor-
ous vegetative growth, and a dark green color. An excess of N in relation to other nu-
trients, such as P, K, and S, can delay crop maturity. In many plants grown in humid
environments, excess N stimulates vegetative growth and increases the incidence of
foliar diseases. In semi-arid and arid climates, stimulation of heavy vegetative growth
early in the season can reduce soil moisture during the reproductive growth stage,
where plants are most sensitive to water stress.
The supply of N influences carbohydrate utilization. Under low N, carbohy-
drates will be deposited in vegetative cells, causing them to thicken. When N supplies
are adequate and conditions are favorable for growth, proteins are formed from the
manufactured carbohydrates. With less carbohydrate deposited in the vegetative por-
tion, more protoplasm is formed, and because protoplasm is highly hydrated, a more
succulent plant results. Excessive succulence in cotton weakens the fiber, and with
grain crops, lodging may occur, particularly with a low K supply or with varieties not
adapted to high levels of N. In some cases, excessive succulence enhances susceptibil-
ity to diseases or insects. Crops such as wheat and rice have been modified for growth
at higher densities and at higher levels of N fertilization. Shorter plant height and
improved lodging resistance have been bred into plants, which respond in yield to
much higher N rates.

Visual Deficiency Symptoms

When plants are N deficient, leaves or leaf veins appear yellow. The loss of protein
N from chloroplasts in older leaves produces the yellowing, or chlorosis, indicative
of N deficiency. Chlorosis usually appears first on the lower leaves, the upper leaves
remaining green; under severe N deficiency, lower leaves turn brown and die. This
necrosis begins at the leaf tip and progresses along the midrib until the entire leaf is
126 chapter four nitrogen

dead (see color plates). The tendency of newer growth to remain green as the lower
leaves turn yellow or die indicates the mobility of N in the plant. When roots are
unable to absorb sufficient N, protein in the older plant parts is converted to soluble
N, translocated to the active meristematic tissues, and reused in the synthesis of new
protein.

BIOLOGICAL (SYMBIOTIC) N 2 FIXATION

Many organisms have the unique ability to fix atmospheric N2 (Table 4-3). Estimates
of total annual biological N2 fixation worldwide range from 130 to 180 * 106 Mt,
with about 50% fixed by Rhizobia. In contrast, world fertilizer N use was about
100 * 106 Mt in 2008 (Fig. 1-9). In the United States, reliance on biological N2
fixation for crop production has declined dramatically since the 1950s because of in-
creased production and use of low-cost synthetic N fertilizers (Fig. 4-4). About 20%
of N supplied to crops in the United States is from legumes and crop residues (Table
4-4). Under high fertilizer N costs, rotation with forage legumes is generally cost
effective, increases soil OM content, and reduces soil erosion potential. Inclusion of
grain legumes in the rotation will also reduce fertilizer N costs; however, soil erosion
potential may increase.
In addition to forage and grain legumes, N2 fixation by leguminous trees is
important to the ecology of forests and agroforestry systems. Numerous leguminous
tree species fix appreciable amounts of N2. In the United States, mimosa, acacia,
and black locust are common. Three woody leguminous species—Gliricidia sepium,
Leucaena leucocephala, and Sesbania bispinosa—are used as green manure crops in
rice-based cropping systems.
Some widely distributed non-leguminous plants also fix N2 by a mechanism
similar to legume and rhizobial symbiosis. Frankia, an actinomycete, is responsible
for N2 fixation by several non-leguminous woody plants including Betulaceae, Elaeag-
naceae, Myricaceae, Coriariaceae, Rhamnaceae, and Casuarinaceae (Table 4-3). For
example, alder and ceanothus, two species commonly found in the Douglas fir forest
region of the Pacific Northwest, contribute substantial N to the ecosystem.

TABLE 4-3
E CONOMICALLY I MPORTANT M ICROORGANISMS I NVOLVED IN B IOLOGICAL
N2 F IXATION

Organisms General Properties Agricultural Importance

Azotobacter Aerobic; free fixers; live Minor benefit to agriculture; found
in soil, water, rhizosphere, in vascular tissue of sugarcane, with
leaf surfaces sucrose as an energy source for N 2
fixation
Azospirillum Microaerobic; free fixers; Inoculation benefits some non-
or found in association legume crops, shown to increase
with roots of grasses root hair development
Rhizobium Fix N 2 in legume- Legume crops are benefited by
Rhizobium symbiosis inoculation with proper strains
Actinomycetes Fix N 2 in symbiosis with Potentially important in reforesta-
non-legume wood trees— tion, wood production
alder, Myrica, Casuarina
Cyanobacteria Contains chlorophyll, Enhance rice in paddy soils; Azolla (a
(Anabaena) mostly aquatic, some water fern) symbiosis; used as green
terrestrial manure
 nitrogen chapter four 127

14 400 Figure 4-4

LEGUME SEED PRODUCTION (lb × 106)

Inverse relationship be-
12 350 tween N fertilizer use and

FERTILIZER N USE (tons × 106)

legume seed production in
300 the United States. Part of
10
Fertilizer N Use the decrease in U.S. produc-
250
8 tion is offset by increased
200 production in Canada.
6
150
4 Legume Seed Production
100

2 50

0 0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR

TABLE 4-4
E STIMATED P ERCENTAGE OF T OTAL N A DDED TO U.S. C ROPLAND BY
V ARIOUS S OURCES

N Source Total (million tons) % of Total

Commercial N 13.2 57
Legumes, crop residues 5.6 24
Animal manures 3.4 15
Other sources 0.9 4
Source: USDA-ERS, 2008; Howarth et al., 2002, Ambio, 31:89–96.

N2 Fixation by Legumes
When legume root growth begins, N2-fixing bacteria in soil invade root hairs and
multiply. Legume roots respond by forming tumor-like structures called nodules
on the root surface (Fig. 4-5). The specialized bacteria called rhizobia inside the
nodule absorb N2 from soil air and convert it to NH4 + (Fig. 4-6). Rhizobia use

Figure 4-5
Example of nodules on
soybean (left) showing
differences in nodulation
between varieties, and
alfalfa (right) showing non-
inoculated (left) and
inoculated (right) with
proper rhizobia bacteria.
(Courtesy D. Israel (soybean) and J.
Burns, D. Chamblee, and J. Green
(alfalfa), NC State University.)
128 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-6 Legume root

Conversion of N2 to NH4 +
by rhizobia inside a legume
root nodule.
N2

N2
NH4 +
N2

Rhizobia N2

N2

nitrogenase
N2 + 16 ATP + 2H+ 2NH4+ + 16 ADP + H2

the enzyme nitrogenase and energy from the transformation of ATP to ADP to
break the strong triple bond 1N ‚ N2 in N2. The symbiotic relationship between
legume host plant and nodule bacteria is mutually beneficial. Plants provide
energy (sugars, carbohydrates, ATP) for rhizobia to fix N2 , and rhizobia in turn
provide NH4 + for production of proteins by the host plant. Most of the fixed N2
is utilized by the host plant, although some may be excreted from the nodule into
the soil and used by other nearby plants, or released as nodules decompose after
the plant dies.
Numerous rhizobium species exist in soil, each requiring a specific host
legume plant. For example, symbiotic bacteria specific to soybean will not fix
N2 with alfalfa. Inoculation of the legume seed with the correct inoculum is
recommended the first time a field is planted to a new legume species. Care-
fully matching cultivars with inoculum strains will increase N2 fixation, which
increases plant yield and protein content (Table 4-5). A wide range in yield
increases to inoculation has been observed (10–90%), but commonly are 15–
25% with 5–20% increases in protein content. Typical legume response to in-
oculation is shown in Table 4-6.
As the population of the desired rhizobia increase, the effect of inoculation on
N2 fixation decreases. Since laboratory assays for specific rhizobia strains are costly,
producers generally inoculate legumes at planting regardless of the presence of native

TABLE 4-5
I NFLUENCE OF R HIZOBIAL I NOCULATION ON L EGUME S EED Y IELD AND
N C ONTENT

No. of Trials Where

Inoculation Increased Yield
Legume Species or Seed N Content Average Seed N (%)
Yield Seed N Inoculated Uninoculated
Soybean 83 100 6.2 5.7
Lima bean 60 80 3.2 3.0
Common bean 33 50 3.0 2.8
Cowpea 0 80 4.2 3.9
Source: J. Thies, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii, 1990.
 nitrogen chapter four 129

TABLE 4-6
I NFLUENCE OF R HIZOBIAL I NOCULATION ON G RAIN Y IELD IN C OMMON
F OOD L EGUME C ROPS

Legume + Inoculant − Inoculant Increase

_____________kg/ha_____________ %
Soybean 2195 1652 32.9
Common Bean 1825 1363 33.9
Mungbean 651 484 34.5
Groundnut 1079 1031 4.6
Source: Adapted from Singleton et al., 1990, Applied BNF Technology, Univ. of Hawaii.

rhizobia because the economic risk of poor production is far greater than the cost
of the inoculum. Sufficient native rhizobia occur when legume crops are frequently
grown in the same fields or with previous legume inoculations. Inoculation assures
the producer an adequate population of rhizobia for the crop.
The presence of nodules on legume roots does not necessarily indicate N2 fixa-
tion by active rhizobia. Mature effective alfalfa nodules tend to be elongated (2–4 by
4–8 mm), clustered on the primary roots, and have pink to red centers. The red color
is due to leghemoglobin, which indicates that rhizobia are actively fixing N2. Ineffec-
tive nodules are small ( 62 mm in diameter), usually numerous, and scattered over
the entire root system. In some cases, they are very large (78 mm in diameter), few
in number, and have white or pale-green centers.
Quantity of N2 Fixed Generally, nodule bacteria fix 25–90% of the total legume
N (Table 4-7). Under optimum conditions, N2 fixation by most perennial forage
legumes exceeds short-season annual legumes. Most of the N2 fixed is found in the
above-ground plant material (Table 4-8). These data also illustrate that N2 fixation
represented 63% of total N uptake, increasing through the season as the contribution
from soil N decreased.
The amount of N2 fixed by rhizobia varies with yield level, effectiveness of
inoculation, amount of soil N, and environmental conditions. Soybeans remove
about 1.5 lb N/bu from the soil and fix 40% or more of the total N in the plant.
However, on sandy, low-OM soils, soybeans may fix 80% or more. In many en-
vironments, the quantity of N removed by soybean grain at harvest exceeds the
quantity of N2 fixed.
All legumes recover some soil N, but grain legumes generally remove more soil N
than forage legumes since most of the N is transferred to the seed and removed from
the field at harvest. Forage legumes generally increase soil N, reducing additional N
needed for subsequent crops, because the growth period is usually longer with forage
legumes, developing more extensive root systems than grain legumes. Forage legume
roots and nodules contain high amounts of N that ultimately increase soil N.
Factors Affecting N2 Fixation
Soil Nutrient Supply
As with any plant, legumes prefer soil N (NO3 - and NH4 + ) because it requires less
energy for the plant to take up soil N than to fix N2. As soil N availability decreases,
N2 fixation generally increases. Maximum N2 fixation occurs only when available
soil N is at a minimum. Excess NO3 - availability reduces nitrogenase activity, which
reduces N2 fixation by competition for photosynthate between NO3 - reduction and
N2-fixation reactions.
130 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-7
R ANGE IN Q UANTITY OF N2 F IXED BY S ELECTED L EGUMES

N fixed (lb/a/yr)
Legume Range Typical
Alfalfa 50–300 200
Beans 20–80 40
Birdsfoot Trefoil 50–100 70
Black gram 80–140 100
Chickpeas 20–100 50
Clovers (general) 50–300 150
Cluster beans 30–200 60
Common Bean 10–120 40
Cowpeas 60–120 90
Crimson clover 30–180 80
Faba beans 50–240 130
Field peas 50–180 100
Green gram 30–60 40
Groundnut 70–120 90
Hairy vetch 50–200 140
Kudzu 20–150 110
Ladino clover 80–200 150
Lentils 40–130 60
Leucaena 350–480 450
Lespedezas (annual) 30–120 85
Lucerne 180–250 220
Lupin 60–100 80
Mung bean 170–225 200
Peanuts 20–200 60
Pigeon Pea 140–220 200
Red clover 70–160 115
Soybean 20–260 100
Sweet clover 20–80 20
White clover 30–150 100
Winter peas 10–80 50

TABLE 4-8
N B UDGET FOR F IRST -Y EAR A LFALFA

Harvest
N Budget
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Total
______________________ lbs/a ______________________

Forage yield 3,128 2,727 1,032 6,887

Total plant N 105 113 53 271
N from N 2 fixation1 51 (49%) 91 (81%) 30 (57%) 172 (63%)
Leaves/stems 46 66 20 132
Roots/crown 4 25 11 40
N from soil 54 22 22 99
Leaves/stems 48 16 14 79
Roots/crown 6 6 8 21
1Percent of total plant N.
Source: Heichel and Barnes, 1981, Crop Sci., 21:330–35.
 nitrogen chapter four 131

Even under adequate soil N supply, inoculation of the legume seed is still
important for optimum yields (Fig. 4-7). Sometimes a small amount of N fertil-
izer at planting provides young legume seedlings adequate N until rhizobia become
established on the roots. Early spring N application can also benefit legume crops
where rhizobial activity is restricted by cold, wet conditions. With some legumes,
N2 fixation is low and usually unreliable (e.g., common bean), so N fertilization is
recommended.
In acid soils, Ca+2 and H2PO4 - deficiencies can limit rhizobial growth and
reduce host plant productivity (Fig. 4-8). N2 fixation requires more Mo than the host
plant because Mo is a component of nitrogenase; thus, Mo deficiency is the most im-
portant micronutrient deficiency affecting N2 fixation. Initiation and development
of nodules can also be affected by B, Fe, and Cu deficiencies. Differences exist in the
sensitivity of various rhizobial strains to nutrient stress.
Soil pH
Soil acidity can restrict the survival and growth of rhizobia in soil and severely affect
nodulation and N2-fixation process. Generally at pH 6 5.5, rhizobial infection, root
growth, and legume productivity can be severely reduced. Significant differences in
sensitivity of rhizobia to soil acidity exist. For example, soil pH 6 6 drastically re-
duces Rhizobium meliloti population, degree of nodulation, and alfalfa yield, whereas
soil pH 5.0–7.0 has little effect on Rhizobium trifoli associated with red clover. Lim-
ing acid soils increases alfalfa growth dependent on Rhizobium meliloti. For locations
where lime may not be readily available, high levels of inoculum and coating inocu-
lated seeds with lime can improve inoculation. Another approach is to select and use
acid-tolerant rhizobia (Fig. 4-9).
Environment
A high rate of photosynthate production is strongly related to increased N2 fixation
by rhizobia. Factors that reduce the rate of photosynthesis will reduce N2 fixation,
including reduced light intensity, moisture stress, and low temperature.

Legume Management
In general, any management practice that reduces legume stands or yield will reduce
the quantity of N2 fixed by legumes. These factors include water and nutrient stress,
excessive weed and insect pressure, and improper harvest management. Harvest

3.5

3
3
GRAIN YIELD (tyha)

SEED YIELD (kgyha ×1,000)

Inoculated
2.5 2.5 Uninoculated
2
2 1.5

1
1.5
CB, + inoculant CB, – inoculant 0.5
SB, + inoculant SB, – inoculant
1 0
0 20 40 60 0 50 100 200
N RATE (kgyha) PHOSPHORUS RATE (kgyha)

Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8

Influence of inoculation and N rate on soybean (SB) and common bean Soybean yield as influenced by P availability and
(CB) yield. inoculation.
(Singleton et al., 1990, Applied BNF Technology, Univ. of Hawaii.) (Singleton et al., 1990, Applied BNF Technology, Univ. of Hawaii.)
132 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-9
Forage yields (a) and nodu-
lation scores (b) of alfalfa
inoculated with low-pH-
tolerant and low-pH-
sensitive strains of
Rhizobium meliloti. Barley
was the non-legume control.
(Rice, 1989, Can. J. Plant Sci., 62:943.)

(a) (b)

practices vary greatly with location, but excessive cutting frequency, premature har-
vest, and delayed harvest, especially in the fall, can reduce legume stands and the
quantity of N2 fixed.
Legume N Availability to Non-Legume Crops Yields of non-legume crops are often
increased when grown following legumes. For example, when corn follows soybean, the
N required for optimum yield is less than that required for corn after corn (Fig. 4-10).
Similarly, less N is needed to maximize wheat grain yield following lupins (Fig. 4-11).
Reduced N rates with the non-legume crop following a legume, compared to continu-
ous non-legume rotations, are due to:
• decomposition of legume residue providing plant available N
• greater N immobilization in continuous non-legume rotations
• enhanced soil microbial activity resulting in increased N mineralization in legume
rotations
For example, recent studies showed that soil organic N at planting decreased
≈10% by corn harvest but increased ≈10% from soybean planting to harvest
(Table 4-9). Rotation benefits can also be related to reduced soilborne diseases
and improved soil physical properties (Chapter 12).
When a perennial legume such as alfalfa is used in rotation, the response of
the following non-legume crop to applied N varies with time (Fig. 4-12). Little or
no response to N fertilization is observed in the first year; however, the amount

Figure 4-10 180

Typical corn grain yield
response to N following 160
corn and soybean.
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

140
(O’Leary et al., 2008, Providing
Proper N Credit for Legumes, Univ. 120
of Minnesota, WW-03769-GO.)
100

80
Corn-Soybean
60
Corn-Corn
40
0 50 100 150 200 250
N RATE (lbya)
 nitrogen chapter four 133

60 Figure 4-11
Typical wheat grain yield
response to N following
50
wheat and lupin.
GRAIN YIELD (buya)
(Doyle et al., 1988, Aust. J. Agric.
40 Res., 39:1029–1037.)

30

20 Wheat-Lupin
Wheat-Wheat
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N RATE (lbya)

TABLE 4-9
C HANGE IN S OIL O RGANIC N B ETWEEN P LANTING AND H ARVEST
OF C ORN AND S OYBEAN G ROWTH (0–6- IN . DEPTH )

Organic N
Crop Planting Harvest Change
__________________ kg/ha ________________ %
Corn 3661 3294 -367 -11
Soybean 3304 3623 +319 +12
Note: Values are averaged over 10 locations.
Source: Martens et al., 2006, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70:382–392.

of N required for optimum crop production increases with time as the legume N
reserves are depleted. N availability in the legume cropping system depends on the
quantity of N2 fixed, the amount and type of legume residue returned, and soil
and environmental conditions influencing residue decomposition and N mineral-
ization. Legume N incorporated into the soil from first year alfalfa varies between
35 and 300 kg>ha. Vigorous, high N2 fixing, alfalfa stands can usually supply all
or most of the N to a non-legume crop in the first year. Several studies suggest that
the N credit commonly attributed to legumes in rotation is overestimated. These
contrasting results can probably be explained by soil, climate, and legume manage-
ment effects.

160 Figure 4-12

Typical corn grain yield
140 response to N following
alfalfa. Corn yields were
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

120
monitored over 3 years
100 following alfalfa and com-
pared to continuous corn
80
response to N.
60 (O’Leary et al., 2008, Providing
Proper N Credit for Legumes, Univ.
40 of Minnesota, WW-03769-GO.)
1st year 3rd year
20
2nd year Corn-Corn
0
0 50 100 150 200
N RATE (lbya)
134 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-13
Corn grain yields as influ-
enced by previous crop and
fertilizer N.
(Heichel, 1987, Role of Legumes in
Conservation Tillage Systems, Soil
Cons. Soc. Am., p. 33.)

Forage legumes are used for green manure and animal feed, where all or part of
the legume biomass is incorporated into the soil. Since the majority of legume N is
in above-ground plant material, the quantity of N returned can be substantial. With
forage legumes grown for animal feed, a smaller part of the N2 fixed is returned to
the soil because most of the forage is harvested. For example, legume N availability
can be greater in a one-cut system compared with a three-cut system because of the
increased amount of N incorporated with less-frequent harvests (Fig. 4-13). Forage
legumes generally return more N than grain legumes, because most of the fixed N is
in the grain compared to residue N left on the field.
Forage legumes are also used as winter cover crops to protect surface soil from
erosion. Depending on the legume and amount of growth (N2 fixation), winter
cover crops will provide some of the N needed by the subsequent non-legume crop
(Table 4-10). As a non-legume, using rye as a cover crop will provide protection
from erosion, but has little influence on N availability.
The yield benefit of rotations with some legumes may not always be related
to the legume N supply. Figure 4-13 illustrates that corn yield response to fertil-
izer N was similar following soybean or wheat. The rotation response compared

TABLE 4-10
I NFLUENCE OF L EGUME AS A W INTER C OVER C ROP ON S OIL N
AND S ORGHUM Y IELD

Soil N Sorghum Yield

Cover Crop Inorganic Organic 0 lb N/a 100 lb N/a
lb/a % ___________ bu/a ___________

Fallow1 7.1 5.8 43 58

Rye 7.1 6.5 38 58
Crimson clover 12.5 6.5 58 63
Subterranean clover 17.9 8.1 58 57
Hairy vetch 18.8 8.0 59 56
Common vetch 12.5 6.3 54 59
1Fallow means field was idled with no crop.
Source: Hargrove, 1986, Agron. J., 78:70–74.
 nitrogen chapter four 135

with continuous corn is commonly referred to as a rotation effect. Whether the

non-legume yield response following a legume is due to N or to a rotation effect,
the benefit can be observed for several years although the majority of the benefit
occurs in the first year.
Optimum utilization of legume N by a non-legume crop requires that mineral-
ization of legume N occurs over the same time as crop N uptake. Legume N miner-
alization by soil microbes is controlled predominately by environment. The quantity
of crop N uptake also varies during the season. Thus, for maximum utilization of
legume N by the non-legume crop, N uptake must be in synchrony with N miner-
alization. For example, the N uptake period for winter wheat is considerably earlier
than for corn (Fig. 4-14). The hypothetical distribution of N mineralization shows
that corn N uptake is more synchronous with N mineralization than is winter wheat.
Therefore, compared with corn, winter wheat may not utilize much legume N and,
when mineralization occurs, the inorganic N is subject to leaching and other losses.
Therefore, efficient management of legume N requires careful crop selection.
Legumes grown with forage grasses generally supply N for both crops, where
50–70% of the grass N originates from the legume. Legume N availability to a com-
panion crop is not well understood. Small amounts of amino acids and other organic
N compounds may be excreted by the legume roots. Microbial decomposition of the
sloughed off root and nodule tissue may also contribute N to the crop growing with
legumes. Under some conditions, the quantity of fixed N2 and/or legume N avail-
ability is not sufficient, and N fertilization is required for optimum production of
both non-legume and legume crops.
Fertilizer N Value of Legumes Direct measures of the quantity of N fixed by le-
gumes in rotation are difficult; however, the legume value in rotation with non-le-
gume crops can be estimated in fertilizer N units. Crop yield response to N must
be determined for the non-legume crop grown in rotation with a legume and grown
continuously (Fig. 4-15). In this example, N response was measured with corn grown
in rotation with soybean compared to continuous corn. The fertilizer N value of the
previous soybean crop is the N rate needed in continuous corn to produce the same
yield in rotation with soybean without N fertilizer. Notice in this example corn yields
are higher in rotation with soybean than in continuous corn even at high N rates. The
additional yield is due to rotation effects other than the N value from the soybean.

Figure 4-14
Synchrony of soil N mineral-
ization and crop N uptake in
corn and winter wheat.
136 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-15 220

Estimating the fertilizer N Corn-Soybean
value of soybean in rotation
with corn. With no fertilizer 190
N, corn yield is 130 bu/a
in the corn-soybean rota-

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

Corn-Corn
tion; however, 50 lb N/a are 160
needed in continuous corn 130 bu/a corn yield
to produce the same yield in both C-S and C-C
130
(130 bu corn/a).

100

70 Fertilizer N value of
Soybean crop
= 50 lb N/a
40
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
N RATE (lbya)

Legume Rotations The primary reason for including legumes in a rotation is to

supply N, but with development and availability of relatively inexpensive fertil-
izer N, most agricultural production does not involve legume N (Fig. 4-4). In a
livestock farming system, the main purpose of legumes is to supply large amounts
of high-quality forage (hay or pasture). Legumes are generally of superior qual-
ity, with higher protein and mineral concentrations compared with N-fertilized
grasses.
Management decisions regarding the use of legumes or fertilizer N are based
on the highest net return on investment. Fertilizer N costs have increased in recent
years because of greater global demand and higher fossil fuel costs. As a consequence,
interest in legumes to substitute partially for the fertilizer N requirements of non-
legume crops has increased. In some developing countries, commercial N may not
be available or is too expensive. Therefore, cropping systems that include legumes are
essential to supply some or all of the N needed for non-legumes.
In spite of the advantages of legume rotations, it may not always be economical
and thus varies greatly between regions (Table 4-11). For example, producers may
not have a use or market for forage legumes. Higher water use and lower drought
tolerance in some legumes is a disadvantage in semi-arid areas.

Nonsymbiotic N2 Fixation
Soil Microorganisms Nonsymbiotic N2 fixation in soils occurs with certain strains
of free-living bacteria (Table 4-3). More common in flooded than in well-drained
soils, cyanobacteria are autotrophic, requiring only light, water, N2, CO2, and es-
sential nutrients. Because they need light, they contribute only small quantities of N
in upland agricultural soils after crop canopy closure. In desert or semi-arid regions,
cyanobacteria or lichens containing them become active following occasional rains
and fix considerable quantities of N2 during their short-lived activity. N availability
to other organisms provided by cyanobacteria is important to chemical weathering in
the early stages of soil formation.
N2 fixation by cyanobacteria is significant in tropical rice soils. The symbi-
otic relationship between Anabaena azolla (a cyanobacteria) and Azolla (a water
fern) in temperate and tropical waters is capable of supplying all of the N needs
of the host plant. The N2 -fixing bacteria is located in protected leaf cavities of
the water fern. In southeast Asia, Azolla has been used for centuries as a green
 nitrogen chapter four 137

TABLE 4-11
E XAMPLES OF R EGIONAL U SE OF L EGUMES IN THE U NITED S TATES
Region Legume Species Cropping or Tillage System
Southeast Crimson clover, hairy vetch Winter cover crop—no-till corn
Bigflower vetch, crown Winter cover crops preceding grain
vetch, alfalfa, lupine, sorghum and cotton
arrowleaf clover, red clover
Northeast Alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, Legumes grown for hay or silage in rota-
red clover tions that include conventional or no-till
corn as feed grain or silage; also used as
living mulches
North Soybean, pea Grown in rotation with nonlegume,
Central possibly in conservation tillage; peas may
precede soybean in double-crop system

Alfalfa, red clover, white Grown for 2 + years in 3-5 year rotations
clover, alsike clover with small grains or corn, possibly in con-
servation tillage

Birdsfoot trefoil, crown Used for forage, silage, or pasture

vetch, sweet clover
Great Plains Native legumes Rangeland for grazing
Pacific Dry pea, lentil, chickpea Rotation or double cropped with grains,
Northwest Austrian winter pea green manure or alternated with winter
wheat
Alfalfa Grown in rotation with winter wheat,
spring barley, and winter peas

Fava bean Grown in rotation for silage

California Dry bean, lima bean, Grown for grains in various rotations
blackeye pea, chickpea
Alfalfa Grown for seed on irrigated land and for
erosion control and forage on steeply
sloping soils

Subterranean clover Rangeland for grazing

Source: Heichal, 1987, Role of Legumes in Conservation Tillage Systems, Soil Cons. Soc. Am.

manure in wetland rice culture, as a fodder for livestock, as a compost for produc-
tion of other crops, and as a weed suppressor. In California, the Azolla-Anabaena
N2-fixing association supplies ≈90 lb N>a, or 75% of the N requirements of rice.
When used as a green manure, it provides ≈50 lb N>a and substantially increases
yields over unfertilized rice.
Certain N2-fixing bacteria can grow on root surfaces and to some extent within
root tissues of corn, millet, rice, sorghum, wheat, sugarcane, and many other grasses.
Azospirillum brasilense is the dominant N2-fixing bacterium that has been identified.
Inoculation of cereal crops with azospirillum can improve growth and N nutrition,
although the response to inoculation is variable. In most of the studies in which
inoculation was beneficial, the response was related to factors other than increased N2
fixation. Some of the possibilities are increased root hair growth that enhances water
and nutrient uptake and improved root permeability. Azotobacter- and clostridium-
inoculated seed may provide ≈5 lb N>a; therefore, these nonsymbiotic organisms
are of little value to N availability in intensive agriculture.
138 chapter four nitrogen

Atmospheric N N compounds in the atmosphere are deposited with rain and

snow as NH4 + , NO3 - , NO2 - , and organic N. Because of the small amount of
NO2 - present in the atmosphere, NO3 - and NO2 - are combined and reported
as NO3 - . About 10–20% of the NO3 - is formed during atmospheric electri-
cal discharges, with the remainder from industrial waste gases or denitrification
from soil. NH4 + comes largely from industrial sites where NH3 is used or manu-
factured. Soil has a high capacity for adsorbing NH3 gas from the atmosphere.
NH3 also escapes (volatilization) from the soil surface (Fig. 4-2). Finely divided
organic residues swept into the atmosphere from the earth’s surface are deposited
in rainfall.
Total N deposition as NH4 + + NO3 - in rainfall is usually 68 lb N>a>yr,
depending on the location, where ≈75% is NO3 - (Fig. 4-16). Total N deposition
is higher around areas of intense industrial and agricultural activity and is greater in
tropical than in polar or temperate zones. Localized NH4 + deposition can depress
soil pH (Fig. 4-17). NH3 emissions from confined poultry facilities are greater than
with other confined animal production systems.

Greenhouse Gases
Nitrous oxide 1N2O2 is emitted to the atmosphere from numerous sources and
is ≈300 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat in the atmosphere;
however, N2O contributes only a few percent to overall greenhouse warming.
Although N2O is unreactive and long-lived in the lower atmosphere (tropo-
sphere), it slowly rises into the stratosphere reacting with ozone 1O32. Decreasing
upper atmospheric O3 increases ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth’s surface.
Global atmospheric N2O has increased ≈18% since 1750 and is ≈4% higher
than in 1990. In the United States, agricultural soil management and fertilizer use
contributes 67% of atmospheric N2O with fossil fuel combustion contributing
15% (Chapter 12).

1.4
0.9 1.3 1.1
1.1
1.8 4.3 36 2.8
1.6
1.1 3.6 3.7 4.8 2.2
4.1 42 35 5.2
0.5 2.3 4.3 5.6 2 7 3 4 3.0
0.4 2.9 3.6
0.8 1.2 3.2 4.9
4.4 4.7 3.4
3.2 3.5 4.3 5.1
1.2 4.2 54
0.2 5.2 5.2 3.5 4.8 8.5 2.9
5.7 5.8
2.2 4.3
0.4 0.7 1.0 2.7 5.2 6.2
2.2 5.2 4.6 63 3.5 4.9 4 3
5.5 7.1 5.3
1.1 5.2
0.6 6.0 5.4 3.4
0.4 7.5 7.9 5.3
2.4 1.2 7.1
5.2
5.8 6.9 6.9 6.8 5.8 5.7 6.3 6.5 6.0
1.6 0.3 2.1 3.7
6.7 3.9
1.3 2.8 4.1 6.2 5.1 50 4.5
1.6 6.5 5.7
1.1 2.9 5.5
1.4 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.1
1.3 3.6 4.0
1.1 1.2 2.2 4.7 6.3 4.9 3.5
1.0 2.7 3.9
0.2 5.4 4.7
1.6 3.7 1.0 6.3 3.2
6.3 4.7 4.8 3.6
3.9 3.7 3.9 3.5
2.6 3.3
1.1 0.9 3.5 3.1 2.5
2.2 3.8
2.5 4.5 2.9 3.5 4.0
1.4 3.9 3.4 3.9 N
1.5
2.8 2.1 (kgyha)
3.7 2.9
1.6 1.1 3.9 2.8
0.8 1.5 1.9
4.8 2.5 2.6
#1.0
2.3
4.3 2.8
2.1
2.2
1.0–2.0
1.5
4.2 2.7 2.0 2.0–3.0
2.4
3.1 1.9 3.0–4.0
2.6 2.1
4.0–5.0
Figure 4-16 0.9 3.4
3.9 2.9 1.7
2.7 5.0–6.0
Spatial distribution of total N deposition. 3.8
2.2
6.0–7.0
(National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2009,
2.5
.7.0
NADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 4.1

Champaign, Ill.)
 nitrogen chapter four 139

Figure 4-17
6.5 6.0
5.5 NH3 produced from the
poultry houses (20,000
5.0 animals) deposits NH4 +
downwind and reduces soil
4.5 pH. Field is approximately
Soil pH 20 acres and poultry houses
had been operated for 18
2 years before air and soil
6 sampling in 1986. NH4 +
10 deposition data were
collected over 1 month.
14 (Adapted from Speirs and Frost,
1987, Research & Development in
Total N Deposition (kgyha) Agriculture, 4:83–86.)

Prevailing
Wind
Direction Confined Animal Housing

Ammonia and NOx 1NO2 + NO2 are highly reactive and short-lived in the
troposphere, thus contribute little to atmospheric warming. Nitric oxide (NO) cata-
lyzes the formation of smog. In sunlight, NO and O2 react with hydrocarbons emit-
ted by automobile exhausts to form ozone, the most dangerous component of smog.
Ground-level ozone has serious detrimental effects on human health as well as the
health and productivity of crops and forests. NOx also combines with H2O and O2 to
form atmospheric HNO3, a component of acid rain (Fig. 3-4). Combustion (fossil fuel,
deforestation, etc.) and denitrification are the dominant sources of NOx. In contrast,
NH3 neutralizes acids in the atmosphere by:
NH3 + H2O M NH4 + + OH -
Nearly 70% of global NH3 emissions are related to NH3 losses from fertilizer
use, storage and application of animal wastes, and forest combustion.
Industrial N Fixation The industrial fixation of N2 is by far the most important
source of N to plants. Industrial N2 fixation is based on the Haber-Bosch process
(Fig. 4-18). The NH3 produced can be used directly as a fertilizer (anhydrous NH3),
although numerous other fertilizer N products are manufactured from NH3 (see
Fig. 4-49). Development of the NH3 synthesis process was essential to world food
security through increased crop yields with fertilizer N; however, contamination
of water and air resources has also increased.

CH4(g) + H2O(g) 800°C CO(g) 1 3H2(g) Figure 4-18

Ni Industrial synthesis of NH3 in
350° 200°C the Haber-Bosch process.
CO(g) + H2O(g) CO2(g) 1 H2(g)
FeO

Hydrogen
(H2)

Cooling 300–550°C
2NH3 2NH3
250 bar, FeO
N2 1 3H2
liquid gas

Nitrogen
(N2 from air)
140 chapter four nitrogen

FORMS OF SOIL N
Total soil N content ranges from 0.02–0.5% in mineral soils, increasing with soil
OM content (Fig. 4-19). In organic soils, total N content can be 72.5%. Total N
content decreases with soil depth (Fig. 4-20). Total soil N occurs as inorganic or or-
ganic N, where ≈95% of total N in surface soils is organic N.
Assuming surface soil (acre-furrow slice or ≈6-in. depth) contains an average
of 0.4% total N, then:
2 * 106 lb soil>afs * 0.4% N = 8,000 lb N>afs
If this entire N were plant available, plants would not need supplemental N as fertil-
izers or organic amendments. Therefore, it is critical to quantify native plant available
N in soils, and potential plant available N mineralized from soil organic N during the
growing season to accurately estimate additional N needed.

Organic N Compounds
Organic soil N occurs as proteins, amino acids, amino sugars, and other complex N
compounds. The proportion of soil organic N in these various fractions is:
amino acids 30–45%
bound NH4 + 20–35%
acid insoluble 20–35%
amino sugars 5–10%
unidentified 10–20%
The exact origin of each fraction is not clearly defined. Most are associated with hu-
mic and fulvic acids that comprise soil OM and are characterized by their solubility
in acids or bases. For example, humic acids are acid insoluble, whereas fulvic acids
are both acid and base soluble. Proteins are commonly found in combination with
clays, lignin, and other materials resistant to decomposition. While all of these forms
contribute to plant available N to some extent, the easily decomposable compounds
(amino acids) and organic bound NH4 + comprise the majority of mineralizable N
during the growing season. Dependence on these reserves to meet non-legume plant
N requirements will result in N deficiency and reduce growth and yield.
TOTAL N (%)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.6

10
0.5
SOIL DEPTH (in.)

0.4 20
TOTAL N (%)

0.3
30

0.2 y = 0.0402x –0.005

R2 = 0.92 40
0.1 Mollisol
50 Aridisol
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Histisol
SOIL OM (%) 60

Figure 4-19 Figure 4-20

Influence of soil OM on total soil N content. Relative distribution of total N content with soil depth
(Zheng, 2008, M.S. Thesis, Dept. Earth Sci., Indiana Univ.) in selected soil orders.
 nitrogen chapter four 141

Inorganic N Compounds
Inorganic soil N includes ammonium 1NH4 + 2, nitrite 1NO2 - 2, nitrate 1NO3 - 2,
nitrous oxide 1N2O2, nitric oxide 1NO2, nitrogen dioxide 1NO22, and elemental
N 1N22 which is inert except for its utilization by rhizobia and other N-fixing micro-
organisms. For plants, NH4 + and NO3 - are most important and are produced from
aerobic decomposition of soil OM or from addition of N fertilizers. These forms
represent 2–5% of total soil N. N2O, NO, and NO2 are important N forms lost
through denitrification.

N TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOILS
Supplying sufficient NH4 + and NO3 - to meet plant requirement depends on the
quantity of N mineralized from soil organic N with the remainder provided through
fertilizer or organic N applications. The amount of plant available N released from
organic N depends on many factors affecting N mineralization, immobilization, and
losses of NH4 + and NO3 - from the soil.

N Mineralization and Immobilization

Mineralization N mineralization is the conversion of organic N to NH4 + through
two reactions, aminization and ammonification (Fig. 4-2). Mineralization occurs
through the activity of heterotrophic microorganisms that require organic C for
energy. Heterotrophic bacteria dominate the breakdown of proteins in neutral and
alkaline environments, with some involvement of fungi, while fungi predominate in
acid soils. The end products of the activities of one group furnish the substrate for the
next and so on until the material is decomposed. Aminization converts proteins in
residues to amino acids, amines, and urea (Step 1). These are organic N compounds
that are further converted to inorganic NH4 + by ammonification (Step 2). A diverse
population of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes is capable of
converting the products of aminization to NH4 + .

Step 1. Aminization

Step 2. Ammonification

The NH4 + produced through ammonification is subject to several fates (Fig. 4-2).
NH4 + can be:

• converted to NO2 - and NO3 - (nitrification),

• absorbed directly by higher plants (N uptake),
• utilized by heterotrophic bacteria to decompose residues (immobilization),
142 chapter four nitrogen

• fixed as biologically unavailable N in the lattice of certain clay minerals (NH4+

fixation), or
• converted to NH3 and released back to the atmosphere (volatilization).
Soil moisture content regulates the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic microbial
activity (Fig. 4-21). Maximum aerobic activity and N mineralization occur between
50 and 70% water-filled pore space. Soil temperature also influences microbial activ-
ity and N mineralization (Fig. 4-21). Most biological reactions are influenced by tem-
perature, where optimum soil temperature for microbial activity ranges between 25 and
35°C. The temperature coefficient, Q 10, is 2 over the range of 5–35°C. Thus, a twofold
change in mineralization is associated with a shift of 10°C (Fig. 4-22). While N miner-
alization can occur over a wide range in soil moisture and temperature, N mineraliza-
tion rates generally increase as temperature and moisture increase (Fig. 4-23). However,
increasing moisture to saturation and temperature above 50°C will dramatically reduce
N mineralization potential due to reduced microbial activity (Fig. 4-21).
Soil OM contains about 5% N and during a growing season 1–3% of organic
N is mineralized to inorganic N. As total soil N content increases, the quantity of
N mineralized from soil organic N increases (Fig. 4-24). Therefore, soil and crop
management strategies that conserve or increase soil OM will result in a greater con-
tribution of mineralizable N to plant N availability.
The quantity of N mineralized during the growing season can be estimated. For
example, if a soil contained 2% OM with 2% mineralization rate, then:
2% OM * 12 * 106 lb soil>afs2 * 15% N2 * 12% N mineralized2 = 40 lb N>a
Thus, each year, 40 lb N>a as NH4 + are mineralized, which can be utilized by
plants or other soil N processes (Fig. 4-2). Depending on the nature of the previous crop
residue being degraded, 50–75% of organic N mineralized can be utilized by the crop.

Figure 4-21
RELATIVE MICROBIAL

Influence of soil moisture 1.0

(water-filled pore space) and 0.8 Aerobic Anaerobic
ACTIVITY

temperature on relative mi- 0.6

crobial activity in soil.
0.4
(Doran and Smith, 1987, SSSA Spec.
Publ. 19.)
0.2
0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SOIL WATER-FILLED PORE SPACE SOIL TEMPERATURE (°C)
(0 to 150 mm depth)
Figure 4-22
Fraction of N mineralized
k = FRACTION or N0 MINERALIZED

per month, k, in relation

to temperature (k was
estimated graphically for
PER MONTH

observed average monthly

air temperatures).
(Stanford et al., 1977, Agron. J.,
69:303.)

TEMPERATURE (°C)
 nitrogen chapter four 143

12 Figure 4-23

N MINERALIZED (mgykg)
90% WHC Effect of temperature and
10
moisture on cumulative
8 70% WHC N mineralization (mg N/
kg soil). Sandy clay loam
6 soil contained 3.6% OM
50% WHC
4 and 0.44% total N. WHC
represents water holding
2 capacity.
(Agehara and Warncke, 2005, SSSAJ,
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 69:1844–1855.)

21
N MINERALIZED (mgykg)

18
20–25°C
15
12
9 15–20°C
6
10–15°C
3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
INCUBATION TIME (weeks)

Immobilization N immobilization is the conversion of inorganic N (NH4 + and

-
NO3 ) to organic N (Fig. 4-2). If decomposing residues contain low N, microor-
ganisms will immobilize NH4 + and NO3 - in the soil solution. Microbes need N
in a C:N ratio of ∼8:1; therefore, inorganic soil N is utilized by the rapidly grow-
ing population, reducing NH4 + and NO3 - to very low levels. Microorganisms
outcompete plants for NH4 + and NO3 - during immobilization, and plants can
readily become N deficient. Fortunately, in most cropping systems, sufficient N
is applied to compensate for N immobilization by microbes and crop N uptake. If
added organic material contains high N, immobilization will not proceed because
the residue contains sufficient N to meet microbial demand, and inorganic N will
increase from mineralization of organic N in the residue.
C:N Ratio Effects on Mineralization and Immobilization The ratio of %C to %N
(C:N ratio) defines the relative quantities of C and N in crop residues and other or-
ganic materials, soil OM, and soil microorganisms (Table 4-12). The N content of
stable soil OM is ∼5%, whereas C ranges from 50 to 58%, giving a C:N ratio ranging

100 Figure 4-24

ORGANIC N MINERALIZED (mgykg)

Influence of total soil N on

quantity of N mineralized.
80

60

40

20 r = 0.916 • • •

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
TOTAL N IN SOIL (%)
144 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-12
C:N R ATIOS OF S ELECTED O RGANIC M ATERIALS C OMPARED TO S OIL OM
AND M ICROORGANISMS

Organic Material C:N Ratio Organic Material C/N Ratio

Soil microorganisms 8:1 Bitumens and asphalts 95:1
Soil OM 10:1 Coal liquids and shale oils 125:1
Sweet clover (young) 12:1 Oak 200:1
Barnyard manure (rotted) 20:1 Pine 300:1
Clover residues 23:1 Crude oil 400:1
Green rye 36:1 Sawdust (generally) 400:1
Corn/sorghum residues 60:1 Spruce 1000:1
Grain straw 80:1 Fir 1200:1
Timothy 80:1

between 10 and 12. Whether N is mineralized or immobilized depends on the C:N

ratio of the OM being decomposed by soil microorganisms. For example, a typical soil
mineralizes 0.294 mg N, as measured by plant uptake (Table 4-13). When residues
of variable C:N ratio are added to soil, N mineralization or immobilization would
be indicated if plant uptake was greater or less than 0.294 mg N, respectively. In this
study, a C:N ratio of ∼20:1 was the dividing line between immobilization and miner-
alization. The N content of the residue being added to soil also can be used to predict
whether N is immobilized or mineralized (Fig. 4-25). Generally, N mineralization
occurs with residue N content 72% under aerobic conditions.
The progress of N mineralization and immobilization following residue ad-
dition can be estimated (Fig. 4-26). During the initial stages of decomposition of
added residue, there is a rapid increase in the number of heterotrophic organisms,
indicated by the increased evolution of CO2. If the C:N ratio of the fresh material is
720:1, N immobilization occurs, as shown in the hatched area under the top curve
(Fig. 4-26). As residue decay proceeds, residue C:N ratio decreases, due to decreasing

TABLE 4-13
N M INERALIZED FROM V ARIOUS R ESIDUES AS M EASURED BY
P LANT U PTAKE

Plant Residue* C:N Ratio N Uptake (mg)

Check soil 8:1 0.294
Tomato stems 45:1 0.051
Corn roots 48:1 0.007
Corn stalks 33:1 0.038
Corn leaves 32:1 0.020
Tomato roots 27:1 0.029
Collard roots 20:1 0.311
Bean stems 17:1 0.823
Tomato leaves 16:1 0.835
Bean stems 12:1 1.209
Collard stems 11:1 2.254
Collard leaves 10:1 1.781
*Residues above the dashed line have a C:N ratio 7 20:1 (net immobilization).
Residues below the dashed line have a C:N ratio 6 20:1 (net mineralization).
Source: Iritani and Arnold, 1960, Soil Sci., 89:74.
 nitrogen chapter four 145

200 Figure 4-25

IMMOBILIZATION or MINERALIZATION (mgykg) Effect of N content of
organic materials on ap-
150 parent N immobilization or
y = 6.7x – 135
R2 = 0.95 mineralization.
100 (Goos, 1995, J. Nat. Resources Life
Sci. Educ., 24:68–70.)

50

–50

–100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
N CONTENT OF RESIDUE (gykg)

Figure 4-26
General description of N
mineralization and immobi-
lization following addition of
residue to soil.
(Adapted from B. R. Sabey, Univ. of
Illinois.)

C (respiration as CO2) and increasing N (N immobilized from soil solution). Micro-

bial activity eventually decreases as the residue C supply decreases (decreasing CO2
evolution). Ultimately a new equilibrium is reached, accompanied by mineralization
of N (indicated by the hatched area under the top curve) (Fig. 4-26). The net result
is that final soil inorganic N may be higher than the original level, as a result of N
added in the residue.
Generally, when residues with C:N 7 20:1 are added to soil, soil N is im-
mobilized during the initial decomposition process. For residues with C:N 6 20:1,
there is a release of mineral N early in the decomposition process. Soil OM may also
increase, depending on the quantity and type of residue added and the quantity of
OM loss through oxidation (mineralization) or physical soil loss (Chapter 12). The
time required for residue decomposition depends on the quantity added, degree of
146 chapter four nitrogen

surface residue incorporation, inorganic soil N supply, resistance of the residue to

microbial attack (a function of the amount of lignins, waxes, and fats present), and
soil temperature and moisture.
Estimating N Immobilization Potential
When high C:N residues are added to soil, N in the residue and inorganic soil N are
used by the microorganisms during residue decomposition. The quantity of inor-
ganic soil N immobilized by microbes can be estimated. For example, assume 3,000
lb/a residue (40% C) and C:N = 60.
3,000 lb>a residue * 40% C = 1,200 lb C>a in residue 1Cresidue2
Microbial activity will utilize ≈35% of the residue C (increasing microbial biomass),
while the remaining ≈65% is respired as CO2 (Fig. 4-27). Thus, the microbes will
use 420 lb of residue C.
1,200 lbs Cresidue * 35% C = 420 lb C used by microbes 1Cmicrobe2
The increasing microbe population will require N governed by microbe C:N = 8:1
(Table 4-12):
420 lb Cmicrobe 8
=
x lb Nmicrobe 1
= 52.5 lb Nmicrobe >a
Thus, the microbes will need 52.5 lb N/a to degrade the 1,200 lb C/a in the residue.
As microbes digest the residue, they access residue N during decomposition deter-
mined by:
1, 200 lb Cresidue 60
=
x lb Nresidue 1
= 20 lb Nresidue >a
If the residue N content were known (assume 0.67%N), the lb N/a would be deter-
mined by:
3,000 lb residue>a * 0.67% Nresidue = 20 lb Nresidue >a
Thus, the quantity of N immobilized is:
52.5 lb N>a needed by microbes - 20 lb N>a in residue = 32.5 lb N>a immobilized

Figure 4-27 CO2

Partitioning of residue C added to soil into
Plant Residue ~ 40% C Microbial
CO2, soil microbe C, and soil OM, and its respiration
influence in N immobilization/mineralization. Cresidue 12 120
5
Plant residues contain an average of 40% C Nresidue 1
65% Cresidue
with variable C:N ratio. As microbes degrade
the added residue, 65% of residue C is
respired to the atmosphere as CO2. The
remaining 35% is incorporated into the
microbes as their population increases 35% Cresidue
because of the residue addition. The increase
in microbe C is governed by its C:N ratio
Cmicrobe
(8:1). Therefore, additional N needed by the
microbes (N immobilization) is the difference
in total N needed by the microbe to degrade Soil OM
the residue and the residue N content (see Cmicrobe 8
example calculation on this page). 5 Nimmobilized 5 Nmicrobe 2 Nresidue
Nmicrobe 1
 nitrogen chapter four 147

Therefore, at least 32.5 lb N/a will be needed to compensate for immobiliza-

tion of inorganic N by the microbes degrading the residue added. Routine N recom-
mendations usually account for N immobilization requirements (Chapter 9).
Large amounts of small grain straw, corn stalks, or other high C:N residues incor-
porated into soils with low inorganic N content will result in N immobilization by mi-
croorganisms as residues are decomposed. If crops are planted immediately after residue
incorporation, they may become N deficient. Deficiencies can be prevented by adding
sufficient N to supply the needs of the microorganisms and the growing crop.
N Mineralization and Immobilization Effects on Soil OM The C:N ratio of undis-
turbed topsoil is about 10 or 12. Generally, C:N narrows in the subsoil because of
lower C content. An uncultivated soil has a relatively stable soil microbial popula-
tion, a relatively constant amount of plant residue returned to the soil, and usually
a low rate of N mineralization. If the soil is disturbed with tillage, the increased O2
supply increases N mineralization rate. Continued cultivation without the return of
adequate crop residues ultimately leads to a decline in soil OM content. The influ-
ence of soil and crop management on soil OM and its relationship to soil and crop
productivity is discussed in Chapter 12.
Any change in soil OM content dramatically reduces the quantity of N miner-
alized, and thus native soil N availability to crops. The differences in N mineraliza-
tion can be readily calculated. For example, suppose that a virgin soil has a 5% OM
content, and as the soil is cultivated (conventional tillage), the rate of OM loss is 3%
per year. The quantity of N mineralized in the first year is:
5% OM * 12 * 106 lb soil>afs2 * 3% OM loss>yr * 5% N in OM
= 150 lb N>a>yr mineralized
Notice that the 150 lb N/a would meet or exceed the quantity of N required by
most crops. Now assume that after 50 years of cultivation, the OM declined to 2% or
one-half the original level (Fig. 4-28). Assume that 2% of the OM oxidizes per year;
thus, the quantity of N mineralized is:
2% OM * 12 * 106 lb soil>afs2 * 2% OM loss>yr * 5% N in OM
= 40 lb N>a>yr mineralized

Figure 4-28
Decline in total soil N with
years of cropping at three
locations in Kansas. Each
site was in wheat-fallow-
wheat, with all residues
incorporated with tillage.
Total soil N represents soil
OM, since 95% of total N is
organic N.
(Haas and Evans, 1957, USDA Tech.
Bull. No. 1164.)
148 chapter four nitrogen

The estimated N mineralized illustrates that cultivation of virgin soils miner-

alized sufficient N to optimize yields of most crops, especially at lower yield levels
experienced 50 years ago. The excess N not utilized by the crop was subject to
several losses, which include leaching and denitrification. However, at present yield
levels, mineralization of 40 lb N/a is insufficient to meet crop demand and fertil-
izer or manure N is needed to optimize yields.
The decline in soil OM following cultivation is well documented. Depending
on soil type, climate, cropping system, and tillage intensity, initial soil OM content
can decline by 50% in 40–70 years. These observations indicate that the loss of soil
OM can be extensive resulting in a loss of productivity. Maintaining or increasing
soil OM content can dramatically improve soil productivity and crop yield. While
soil and crop productivity relationships will be detailed in Chapter 12, we can use the
N mineralization–immobilization calculations to estimate time required to increase
soil OM.
Estimating Soil OM Production
A soil contains 1.5% OM with an annual decomposition rate of 1%. The producer
wants to increase OM to 2%. How many years will it take if he produces 8,000 lb
crop residue/yr (residue contains 40% C and C:N is 80:1). Also assume 80% of resi-
due N ultimately ends up as N in soil OM.
Step 1. Estimate annual soil OM loss.
OMlost S 1.5% OM * 12 * 106 lb soil>afs2 * 1% loss rate
= 300 lb OMlost >afs>yr
Step 2. Estimate annual soil OM produced.
OMmade S 8,000 lb residue>a * 40% C = 3,200 lb Cresidue
3, 200 lb Cresidue 80
=
x lb Nresidue 1
= 40 lb Nresidue
About 80% of residue N goes into forming N in OM, thus:
40 lb Nresidue * 0.8 = 32 lb NOM 1this is N in soil OM from residue N2
OM has a 10:1 C:N ratio (Table 4-12), so:
10 lb COM x
=
1 lb NOM 32
= 320 lb COM
Since there is about 50% C in OM, then:
320 lb COM
= 640 lb OMmade >afs>yr
0.5 lb C>lb OM
Therefore,
640 lb OMmade - 300 lb OMlost = 340 lb OM net gain>afs>yr
want to increase soil OM from 1.5% OM S 2% OM = 0.5% OM gain:
0.5% OM gain * 12 * 106 lb>afs2 = 10,000 lb OM>afs needed
10, 000 lb OM
= 29.4 years
340 lb OM gain>yr
 nitrogen chapter four 149

The important concept is recognizing that soil OM can increase over time if
the C added in the residue exceeds soil C lost. Therefore, increasing C inputs and
reducing C loses will increase soil OM; however, it takes many decades to effect any
measurable change (Chapter 12).

Nitrification
A major portion of the NH4 + produced from mineralization is converted to NO3 -
through microbial oxidation or nitrification (Fig. 4-2). Nitrification is a two-step pro-
cess where NH4 + is converted to NO2 - and then to NO3 - . Oxidation of NH4 + to
NO3 - is represented by:
Step 1
nitrosomonas
2NH4+ + 3O2 2NO2– + 2H2O + 4H+

(–3) (+3)
increasing oxidation of N

Step 2
nitrobactor
2NO2– + O2 2NO3–

(+3) (+5)
increasing oxidation of N

Net Reaction
NH4+ + 2O2 NO3– + H2O + 2H+

Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are chemoautotrophic bacteria that obtain their

energy from the oxidation of N and their C from CO2. Other autotrophic bacteria
(Nitrosolobus, Nitrospira, and Nitrosovibrio), and some heterotrophic bacteria, can
oxidize NH4 + and other reduced N compounds (i.e., amines). Recently Crenar-
chaeota (Archaea) have been established as NH4 + oxidizers in soils, and may contrib-
ute more to nitrification than bacteria.
The source of NH4 + can be from N mineralization or N fertilizers or ma-
nures containing or forming NH4 + . Nitrification reaction rates in well-drained
soils are NO2 - S NO3 - 77 NH4 + S NO2 - . As a result, NO2 - generally does
not accumulate in soils, which is fortunate since NO2 - is toxic to plant roots.
Both reactions require molecular O2 ; thus, nitrification occurs rapidly in well-
aerated soils. The reactions also show that nitrification of one mole of NH4+
produces two moles of H + . Increasing soil acidity with nitrification is a natural
process, although soil acidification is accelerated with continued application of
NH4 + -containing or NH4 + -forming fertilizers (Fig. 3-9). Since NO3 - is readily
produced, it is very mobile and subject to leaching losses. Understanding factors
affecting nitrification in soils will improve management practices that minimize
NO3 - leaching.

Factors Affecting Nitrification Because nitrification is a microbial process, soil

environmental conditions influence nitrification rate. Generally, the environmental
factors favoring the growth of most agricultural plants are those that also favor the
activity of nitrifying bacteria.

Supply of NH4+
A supply of NH4 + is the first requirement for nitrification. If conditions do not favor
mineralization, or if NH4 + -containing or NH4 + -forming sources are not added to
soils, nitrification is minimal.
150 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-29 120

Influence of pH on %
nitrification of fertilizer N. 100

NITRIFICATION (%)
Anhydrous NH3 fall applied,
soils sampled after planting 80
in spring.
(Kyveryga et al., 2004, SSSAJ, 60
68:545–551.) y = 32.5x2161
40 R2 = 0.90

20

0
5 6 7 8
SOIL pH

Population of Nitrifying Organisms

Soils differ in their ability to nitrify NH4 + even under similar temperature, moisture,
and NH4 + content. Variation in nitrifier population results in differences in the lag
time between addition of NH4 + and buildup of NO3 - . Because of the tendency of
microbial populations to multiply rapidly, total nitrification is not affected by the
number of organisms initially present, provided that temperature and moisture con-
ditions are favorable for sustained nitrification.
Soil pH
Nitrification takes place over a wide range in pH (5–9), although optimum is ∼pH 8
(Fig. 4-29). Nitrifying bacteria need an adequate supply of Ca +2, H2PO4 - , and mi-
cronutrients. The influence of soil pH and Ca +2 on activity of nitrifiers supports the
importance of liming.
Soil Aeration
Aerobic nitrifying bacteria will not produce NO3 - in the absence of O2 (see reactions
under “Nitrification”). Soil conditions that permit rapid gas diffusion are important
for maintaining optimum soil aeration. Soils that are coarse textured or possess good
structure facilitate rapid gas exchange and ensure an adequate supply of O2 for ni-
trifying bacteria. Incorporation of crop residues and other organic amendments will
help maintain or improve soil aeration.
Soil Moisture
Soil moisture and soil aeration are closely related in their effects on nitrification.
Nitrification rates are generally highest at field capacity (Fig. 4-30). These data
show that nitrification was initially slowed at the lower soil moisture content (50%
WHC). N mineralization and nitrification are reduced when soil moisture exceeds
field capacity (0.3 bar) or nears air dryness ( 715 bar).

Figure 4-30 70
CUMULATIVE NO32 (mgykg)

Influence of soil water con-

60
tent on cumulative nitrifica-
tion of urea applied to soil. 50
(Agehara and Warncke, 2005, SSSAJ, 40
69:1844–1855.)
30
20 50% WHC
70% WHC
10
90% WHC
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
INCUBATION TIME (weeks)
 nitrogen chapter four 151

70 Figure 4-31

CUMULATIVE NO32 (mgykg)

60 Effect of temperature on
cumulative nitrification of
50 N added as urea and poul-
40 20–25°C try manure. Temperature
30 15–20°C range represents 10 h and
10–15°C 14 h at each temperature,
20 respectively.
10 Urea (Agehara and Warncke, 2005, SSSAJ,
69:1844–1855.)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

80
CUMULATIVE NO32 (mgykg)

70
60
50
40 20–25°C
30 15–20°C
20 10–15°C
Poultry
10 Manure
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
INCUBATION TIME (weeks)

Soil Temperature
Although nitrification occurs over a wide temperature range, optimum soil
temperature is 25–35°C. Observe how nitrification of urea or poultry manure
is slowed at the lower soil temperature regime (Fig. 4-31). For off-season ap-
plication of NH3 or NH4 + -containing or NH4 + -forming fertilizers, winter
soil temperatures should be low enough to retard NO3 - formation, thereby
reducing the risk of leaching and denitrification losses. Fall NH4 + applications
are most efficient when minimum air temperatures are below 40°F 14.4°C2 or
when soil temperatures are below 50°F 110°C2. Application of nitrification in-
hibitors can help retard nitrification for several months. These are best used
in moderately to well-drained soils under conditions optimum for nitrification
( 750°F, pH 75.5, well-aerated soil, fall NH4 + applications).
Even if temperatures are occasionally high enough to permit nitrification
of fall-applied NH4 + , this is not detrimental if leaching does not occur. In
low rainfall areas, moisture movement through the soil profile during the win-
ter months is insufficient to leach NO3 - . In humid areas, water movement
through the soil profile can be excessive, and NO3 - losses occur. Whether
NH4 + can be applied in the fall without significant NO3 - loss depends on
local soil and weather conditions.

Nitrate Leaching
NO3 - is very soluble in water and is not strongly adsorbed to the AEC. Conse-
quently, it is highly mobile and subject to leaching losses when both soil NO3 -
content and water movement are high (Fig. 4-32). N leaching is considered
a major pathway of N loss in humid climates (Fig. 3-5) and under irrigated
cropping systems. NO3 - leaching must be carefully controlled because of the
serious impact on the environment. High NO3 - levels in surface runoff and
water percolating through soil can pollute drinking water sources and stimulate
unwanted plant and algae growth in lakes and reservoirs. Some of the factors
152 chapter four nitrogen

400
400 Ohio lowa lowa Minnesota

300

Added in fertilizer
N (lbya ANNUALLY)
200
200
158

103 100
100
64
50
18
In tile drainage

0
17 12 16
27 24 28
43
53
100

Figure 4-32
N added in fertilizer and lost as NO3 - in tile drainage water in experiments in Ohio, Iowa, and
Minnesota.
(CAST, 1985, Agric. and Groundwater Qual., Report No. 103, Ames, Iowa.)

that influence the magnitude of NO3 - leaching losses are (1) rate, time, source, and
method of N fertilization; (2) intensity of cropping and crop N uptake; (3) soil pro-
file characteristics that affect percolation; and (4) quantity, pattern, and time of pre-
cipitation and/or supplemental irrigation. It is important to match crop N needs with
soil and applied N so that leachable NO3 - is minimized. NO3 - leaching into water
draining from tile lines located several feet below the soil surface occurs in many areas
of the Midwest (Fig. 4-32). Generally, NO3 - leaching losses in tile-drained systems
can approach 30–40% of applied fertilizer or manure N, while under natural-drain-
age systems values between 10 and 30% are common.
In general, increased leaching potential is related to N rates exceeding crop yield
potential (Fig. 4-33). Exceeding the optimum N rate increases profile N content and
N leaching potential. If other factors reduce yield potential, crop recovery of applied
N will be reduced. For example, when corn yield was reduced by P deficiency, correct-
ing the P deficiency increased yield and N uptake, decreasing profile N (Fig. 4-34).

Figure 4-33 10 500

Typical relationship between
N rate, crop yield, and N Corn yield
8 400
SOIL or CROP N (kgyha)

accumulation in the soil

CORN YIELD (Mgyha)

profile.
(Schepers et al., 1996.) 6 Soil N 300

4 200

2 Crop N 100

0 0
0 112 224 336 448 560
N RATE (kgyha)
 nitrogen chapter four 153

250 Figure 4-34

Influence of N rate on
200 soil NO3 - content (0–3 m

SOIL NO3–N (kgyha)

Economic optimum N rate
depth) after 30 years of ir-
150 rigated corn production.
Economic optimum N rate
occured at 180 kg N/ha.
100 No P
Addition of P reduced soil
20 kg P ha–1
NO3 - .
50 (Schlegel et al., 1996, J. Prod. Agric.,
9:114.)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
N RATE (kgyha)

One of the most important factors that reduces NO3 - leaching potential is ap-
plying N synchronous with periods of high crop N demand. The same principle holds
for matching peak N uptake periods with peak N mineralization (Fig. 4-14). In addi-
tion, N leaching potential increases when elevated inorganic profile N occurs during
periods of low evapotranspiration (low crop water and N demand) that coincides with
periods of high precipitation, soil water content, and drainage water (Fig. 4-35). Tim-
ing N applications to avoid periods of high water transport through the profile reduces
leaching potential. The quantity of residual fertilizer N (N not recovered by the crop)
can be substantially reduced with legumes in crop rotations (10–30% reduction) and/
or cover crops (20–80% reduction). N management and NO3 - leaching impacts on
environmental quality are discussed in Chapter 12.

Ammonium Fixation
Certain clay minerals, particularly vermiculite and mica, are capable of fixing NH4 +
by replacement with cations in the expanded lattices of clay minerals (Fig. 4-36). Fixed
NH4 + can be replaced by cations that expand the lattice 1Ca +2, Mg +2, Na + , H + 2
but not by those that contract it 1K + 2. Coarse clay (0.2–2 mm) and fine silt (2–5
mm) are important fractions in fixing added NH4 + . In a high NH4 + -fixing clay soil
dominated by mica, substantial amounts of added NH4 + were fixed, increasing with
soil dryness (Fig. 4-37). Increasing moisture likely increases nitrification of the added
NH4 + . Greater NH4 + fixation occurs with broadcast application due to increased
soil-fertilizer contact.
Alternate cycles of wetting-drying and freezing-thawing contribute to the sta-
bility of recently fixed NH4 + . The presence of K + often restricts NH4 + fixation
since K + can also fill fixation sites (Chapter 6). Consequently, K fertilization before

14 Figure 4-35
Typical soil-plant-water cycle
12 for a humid region, sandy
10 loam soil in the southeast
United States. Soil water
WATER (cm)

8 content in surface 1 m and

water drainage below 1 m.
6

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Soil Water Precipitation Evapotranspiration Drainage
154 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-36
Diagram of an expanding
1 1
clay mineral capable of fix- K NH4
ing native or applied NH4 + .

2:1 Clay Mineral

Figure 4-37 100

Influence of soil moisture Broadcast, incorporated
content and NH4 + applica- 80
Subsurface Band
tion method on relative
FIXED NH4 (%)

fixation of NH4 + added as

1

60
NH4HCO3 fertilizer.
(Tong et al., 2004, Pedoshere,
14:247–252.)
40

20

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
WFPS (%)

NH4 + application can reduce NH4 + fixation. The availability of fixed NH4 + ranges
from negligible to relatively high. Clay fixation of NH4 + provides some degree of
protection against volatilization, nitrification, and subsequent leaching. Although the
agricultural significance of NH4 + fixation is not great, it is important in certain soils.
For example, selected soils from Oregon and Washington fixed 1–30% of the applied
NH4 + . In certain soils of eastern Canada, 14–60% of fertilizer NH4 + can be fixed.
Native-fixed NH4 + is significant in many of these soils and can amount to 10–30%
of the total fixation capacity. Intensive cropping generally cannot readily remove
native-fixed NH4 + . In contrast, while some added NH4 + is fixed in soils, intensive
cropping generally recovers recently fixed NH4 + .

GASEOUS LOSSES OF N
The major losses of N from the soil are due to crop removal and leaching; however,
under certain conditions, inorganic N can be converted to gases and lost to the at-
mosphere (Fig. 4-2). The primary pathways of gaseous N losses are by denitrification
and NH3 volatilization.

Denitrification
When soils become waterlogged, O2 is excluded and anaerobic conditions occur
(Fig. 4-21). Some anaerobic organisms obtain their O2 from NO2 - and NO3 - ,
with the accompanying release of N2 and N2O. Although several possible mecha-
nisms exist (Table 4-14), the most probable biochemical pathway for denitrifica-
tion is:
NO3- S NO2- S NO S N2O c S N2 c
 nitrogen chapter four 155

TABLE 4-14
G ASEOUS L OSSES OF N FROM S OILS

Form of N Lost Source of N General Reaction

-
N 2 and N 2O Denitrification of NO3 NO3 - S NO2 - S NO S N 2O c S N 2 c
Nitrification of NH4 + NH4 + S NH2OH S H2N 2O2 S NO2 - S NO3 -
T
N 2O

Reactions of NO2 - with:

NH4 + NO2 - + NH4 + S N 2 c + 2H2O
Amino acids NO2 - + NH2R S N 2 c + R@OH + OH -
Lignin NO2 - + lignin S N 2 c + N 2O c + CH3ONO

Decomposition of NO2 -
H+ 3NO2 - + 2H + S 2NO + NO3 - + H2O
Fe +2 NO2 - + Fe +2 + 2H + S Fe +3 + NO + H2O
Mn +2 NO2 - + Mn +2 + 2H + S Mn +3 + NO + H2O
NH3 Fertilizers
anhydrous NH3 NH3 (liquid) S NH3 (gas)
urea 1NH222CO + H2O S 2NH3 c + CO2
NH4 + salts NH4 + + OH - S NH3 c + H2O 1pH 7 72

Residue decomposition Organic N S NH4 + S NH3 c

Source: Modified from Kurtz, 1980, ASA Spec. Publ. 38, p. 5.

Conversion of NO3 - to N2 under anaerobic conditions can be monitored with

time (Fig. 4-38). In this example, NO3 - decreases as NO2 - increases, then NO2 - is
replaced by N2O, which is ultimately converted to N2.
Large populations of denitrifying microorganisms exist, the most common are
the bacteria Pseudomonas, Bacillus, and Paracoccus, and several autotrophs (Thiobacil-
lus denitrificans and Thiobacillus thioparus). Denitrification potential is high in most
field soils, but conditions must arise that cause a shift from aerobic respiration to a
denitrifying metabolism involving NO3 - as an electron acceptor in the absence of
O2. N2O and N2 losses are highly variable because of fluctuations in environmental
conditions between years, between seasons, and within a given field. N2 loss predom-
inates, sometimes accounting for about 90% of the total denitrification, while N2O
loss is greater under less-reduced conditions.
Factors Affecting Denitrification When assessing the potential for denitrification
and the magnitude of N loss, three major issues must be evaluated: (1) will the
surface soil environment be waterlogged or anaerobic, (2) is NO3 - and to a lesser
extent NO2 - present in the anaerobic zone, and (3) does the surface soil contain
an ample supply of decomposable or soluble C. If each of these parameters occurs
together, denitrification potential and quantity of N loss are high. While other
factors can influence denitrification, these are the most important.
Figure 4-38
Reeves NO32 Sequence and magnitude
Wysaro
MILLIGRAMS N

NO22 of N products formed and

N2O utilized during anaerobic
N2 denitrification of Wysaro
clay (pH 6.1) and Reeves
loam (pH 7.8) at 30°C.
(Cooper and Smith, 1963, Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J., 27:659.)
TIME (hours) TIME (hours)
156 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-39 1000

Relationship between Fertilized Unfertilized
denitrification rate (N2O y = 66.3x – 5329 y = 25.5x – 2020

N2O EMISSION (gyhayd)

800
emission) and water-filled R2 = 0.46 R2 = 0.26
pore space (WFPS) in unfer-
tilized soil and fertilized with 600
210 kg N/ha as urea.
(Sainz Rozas et al., 2001, SSSAJ,
400
65:1314–1323.)

200

0
75 80 85 90 95
WFPS (%)

Soil Drainage (Moisture and Aeration)

Soil moisture content is critical to denitrification because of its effect on aeration.
Denitrification proceeds only when the O2 supply is too low to meet aerobic micro-
bial requirements. Generally, when soil water-filled pore space exceeds 60%, aerobic
activity declines, while anaerobic microbial activity increases (Fig. 4-21); however,
appreciable N loss generally occurs at 780% water-filled pore space (Fig. 4-39).
As soil moisture increases, O2 diffusion through soil is impeded. Denitrification
accelerates under low O2 diffusion in soil and a high microbial respiratory demand
(high C source). When O2 content of well-aerated soil ( ≈ 16–18% O2) declines to
8–10% O2, denitrification is optimized (Fig. 4-40). Denitrification can also occur in
aerated soils, presumably in anaerobic microsites or aggregates, where O2 diffusion is
slow (Fig. 4-41).

Soil NO3- and NO2-

NO3 - must be present for denitrification to occur, and high NO3 - increases deni-
trification potential. Residual or freshly applied N from fertilizer, manure, or other
waste materials in aerated soil will mineralize and/or nitrify to produce NO3 - , which
will be readily denitrified if anaerobic conditions occur after application (Fig. 4-42).
In flooded rice soils, NO3 - fertilizers are not used because of rapid conversion
to N2 by denitrification. Only NH4 + or NH4 + -forming N sources are used.
Although NO2 - does not usually accumulate in soil, detectable amounts occur
in high pH soils and in localized soil zones containing NH4 + or NH4 + -forming fertil-
izers. High rates of band-applied urea, anhydrous NH3, or 1NH422HPO4 fertilizers

Figure 4-40 100 100

General relationship 90 90
between reducing O2 con- O2
80 80
RELATIVE O2 CONTENT

RELATIVE N2 CONTENT

tent in soil air following a

rainfall event and increasing 70 70
N2 production. Release of 60 60
N2 peaked when soil O2 NH4+
50 50
decreases to ∼ 25% of that and H2O
observed at field capacity. 40 added 40
Total N loss depends on 30 30
duration of low O2 N2
conditions. 20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
TIME AFTER RAIN EVENT (days)
 nitrogen chapter four 157

50
Unfertilized
Fertilized
40

N2O FLUXE (μgym2yhr)

30

20

Drained pore, 10
aerated
Water-filled
aggregate, 0
anaerobic Before Irrigation After Irrigation

Figure 4-41 Figure 4-42

Diagram of microsites within an aerated soil that repre- Influence of N fertilization and irrigation on rate of N2O
sent anaerobic, water-saturated aggregates in which emission from winter wheat. Urea applied a 120 kg N>ha.
native or applied N can be denitrified. (Su et al., 1995, Terrestrial, Atmos., and Oceanic Sci., 6:409–417.)

cause temporary increases in pH, which encourages NO2 - accumulation in the band,
regardless of initial soil pH. Diffusion and/or dilution of NH4 + in the fertilizer bands
will restore conditions suitable for conversion of NO2 - to NO3 - . NO2 - can diffuse
beyond the fertilizer band to a soil environment, where Nitrobacter will readily convert
it to NO3 - . If anaerobic conditions occur during the nitrification of applied N, some
of the intermediate NO2 - can be denitrified.
Decomposable OM
Decomposable soil OM or soluble C enhances denitrification potential in soil
(Fig. 4-43). The reactions with available C required for microbial reduction of
NO3 - to N2O or N2 are:
41CH2O2 + 4NO3 - + 4H + S 4CO2 + 2N2O + 6H2O
51CH2O2 + 4NO3 - + 4H + S 5CO2 + 2N2 + 7H2O
Carbonaceous exudates from active roots support denitrifying bacteria growth
in the rhizosphere. Under field conditions, freshly added crop residues can stimulate
denitrification. Fields where animal wastes are regularly applied provide a high reser-
voir of soluble C.

Figure 4-43
DENITRIFICATION (ppm N2 + N2O)

400
Relationship between de-
nitrification capacity and
300 water-soluble organic C.
(Burford and Bremner, 1975, Soil Biol.
Biochem., 7:389.)
200

100

0
0 100 200 300
ORGANIC C (ppm)
158 chapter four nitrogen

Soil pH
Denitrifying bacteria are sensitive to low pH; however, denitrification has been ob-
served over a wide range in soil pH. Generally, formation of NO occurs at pH 6 5.5,
whereas at pH 6 6.096.5 N2O represents more than half of the N loss. N2 is the
primary compound observed at near neutral or greater pH.
Temperature
Denitrification increases rapidly in the 2–10°C range. Denitrification will proceed
at slightly higher rates when temperature is increased to 25–60°C, but is inhibited
by temperatures 760°C. The increase in denitrification at elevated soil temperatures
suggests that thermophilic microorganisms play a major role in denitrification.
Rapid conversion of NO3 - to N2O or N2 occurs when rain saturates a warm
soil. Denitrification losses of 10–30 lb N/a following saturation have been measured.
Saturation during spring snowmelt may cause N losses related to accelerated denitri-
fication rates when soils are quickly warmed from 2 to 12°C or higher.
Agricultural and Environmental Significance of Denitrification Under reducing
conditions, NO3 - is subject to denitrification losses to the atmosphere. Since the
earth’s atmosphere is largely N2 and the oceans are virtually NO3 - free, denitrifica-
tion is responsible for returning N2 to the atmosphere (Fig. 4-2).
Two categories of N loss by denitrification exist: (1) rapid and extensive flushes
associated with heavy rains, irrigation, and snowmelt; and (2) continuous small losses
over extended periods in anaerobic microsites. Generally, as soil water-filled pore
space increases 770–80%, loss of NO, N2O, and N2 increases (Fig. 4-39). Under
conditions of high soil NO3- , temperature, and water content (low O2), denitrifica-
tion losses can reach 1 lb N/ac/day. While difficult to quantify, denitrification losses
generally represent a small percentage of fertilizer N applied, and is usually greater
with manure N (Table 4-15). Under high rainfall or irrigated conditions, denitrifica-
tion loss can be higher ranging 2–25% of soil N in well-drained soils, compared to
6–55% in poorly drained soils (Table 4-16). With fall-applied N, when heavy winter
snows persist into late spring, N deficiencies can occur. N fertilizer use efficiency can
be reduced 25–50% under these conditions. In systems where NO3 - enters drainage
water, controlled drainage and riparian buffer systems can denitrify relatively large
quantities of NO3 - (Chapter 12). Thus, field measures of denitrification of fertilizer
N applied to the soil surface would be relatively low compared to total eventual deni-
trification in the system.
Worldwide increase in N fertilizer use has increased emissions of N2O from
soils and contributed to deterioration of the ozone layer. Although there is evidence
that denitrification of fertilizer-derived NO3 - is responsible for N2O emission,

TABLE 4-15
A NNUAL G LOBAL N G AS E MISSIONS FROM N F ERTILIZER OR M ANURE
A PPLIED TO C ROPS AND G RASSLANDS

N Loss
N Applied
N Source 1t * 1062 N2O NO NH3
Fertilizer 78 t * 106
0.9 0.6 11.2
% of N applied 1.2 0.8 14.4
Manure 32 t * 106 2.5 1.4 7.8
% of N applied 7.8 4.4 24.4
Source: US EPA, 2007.
 nitrogen chapter four 159

TABLE 4-16
D ENITRIFICATION E STIMATES FOR V ARIOUS S OILS AND R ECOMMENDED A DJUSTMENTS FOR T ILLAGE ,
M ANURE , I RRIGATION , AND S OILS

Soil Drainage Classification

Excessively well Moderately well Somewhat poorly
Soil OM Content drained Well drained drained drained Poorly drained
% ______________________ % inorganic soil N denitrified (all sources)1 __________________________

62 2–4 3–9 4–14 6–20 10–30

2–5 3–9 4–16 6–20 10–25 15–45
75 4–12 6–20 10–25 15–35 25–55
1Sources are primarily fertilizer, irrigation, precipitation, soil N not due to fertilizer. Site-specific adjustments: No-tillage or compacted layer below
tillage depth use one wetter drainage class; manure N double all values; tile-drained soils use one drier drainage class; paddy systems use poorly
drained only; irrigation or humid climates use value at upper end of range; semi-arid/arid sites (nonirrigated) use value at lower end of range.
Source: Meisinger and Randall, 1991. In Managing N for Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability (pp. 85–122). SSSA, Madison, Wis.

contributions from natural transformations of soil OM and fresh crop and animal
waste residues also contribute to N2O emission.

Volatilization of NH3
NH3 is a natural product of N mineralization of which only small amounts are vola-
tilized compared to NH3 volatilization from surface-applied N fertilizers and manure
(Fig. 4-2). The reversible reaction is:
NH4 + M NH3 + H + 1pKa = 9.32
Urea and other amines are products of N mineralization (aminization) and am-
monification of urea mineralized from soil OM could be subject to NH3 volatiliza-
tion. The biological hydrolysis of urea requires the enzyme urease, which is abundant
in soils. Large numbers of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes in soils possess urease.
Urease activity increases with the size of the soil microbial population and with OM
content. The presence of fresh plant residues often results in abundant supplies of
urease (Fig. 4-44).
Urease activity is greatest in the rhizosphere where microbial activity is high.
Although temperatures up to 37°C favor urease activity, urea hydrolysis occurs at
temperatures of …2°C. As a result, a portion of fall-applied or early winter-applied
+
UREASE ACTIVITY (mg NH4 –N/kg soily4h) Figure 4-44
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600 Distribution of urease activ-
ity in soil profiles as affected
by tillage.
(Dick, 1984, SSSAJ, 48:569.)

7.5
WOOSTER HOYTVILLE
SOIL DEPTH (cm)

SOIL SOIL

15.0

No-Tillage
22.5 Plow Tillage

30.0
160 chapter four nitrogen

urea may be converted to NH3 or NH4 + before the spring. Urease activity is gener-
ally greater at optimum soil moisture content for plant growth.
While NH3 volatilization is generally low in native unmanaged systems, adding
fertilizer or manure N sources to soils can greatly increase N losses by volatilization.
Understanding soil, environmental, and N management factors influencing volatil-
ization reactions is essential to minimize NH3 loss.

Factors Affecting Volatilization

Soil pH
Volatilization of NH3 depends on the quantity of NH3 and NH4 + in the soil so-
lution, which is dependent on pH (Fig. 4-45). Appreciable quantities of NH3 loss
occur when soil solution pH 7 7.5. When NH4 + fertilizers are added to acidic or
neutral soils, little or no NH3 volatilization occurs because of low soil solution pH.
Recall that soil pH decreases slightly when the NH4 + is nitrified to NO3 - . When
NH4 + -forming fertilizers (e.g., urea) are added to acidic or neutral soils, solution pH
around the urea granule increases during hydrolysis:
CO1NH222 + H + + 2H2O M 2NH4 + + HCO3 -
Solution pH increases above 7 because H + is consumed in the reaction; thus,
the NH4 + M NH3 equilibrium shifts to the right to favor NH3 loss. Therefore, in
neutral and acidic soils, NH4 + -containing fertilizers are less subject to NH3 loss than
urea and urea-containing fertilizers; however, NH3 volatilization can occur with an
NH4 + source depending on soil and environmental conditions (see “N Sources for
Crop Production” for more detail).

Buffer Capacity (BC)

Soil BC greatly influences NH3 volatilization loss (Fig. 4-46). Soil pH and subse-
quent NH3 loss will be less in a soil with high BC compared with low BC because
of increased adsorption of NH4 + on the CEC. Soil BC will increase with increasing
CEC and OM content.

Environment
NH3 loss by volatilization increases with increasing temperature up to about
45°C, which is related to higher reaction rates and urease activity (Fig. 4-45).
With a dry soil surface, microbial activity and volatilization reaction rates are
reduced (Fig. 4-47). Maximum potential NH3 loss occurs when the soil surface
is at or near field-capacity moisture content and when slow drying conditions

Figure 4-45 60
Influence of pH and tem- 40° C
perature on the %NH3 of total 50
NH3 + NH4 + in solution.
NH3 IN SOLUTION (%)

At pH 8.5, %NH3 in solution 40

increases from 5 to 30% with
increasing temperature. 30
(Adapted from Cabrera and Kis- 10° C
sel, Univ. of Georgia, personal
20
communication.)

10

0
5 6 7 8 9 10
SOLUTION pH
 nitrogen chapter four 161

Figure 4-46
Soil BC effects on soil pH
and NH3 volatilization after
N fertilizer application.
(Ferguson et al., 1984, SSSAJ,
48:578.)

40 Figure 4-47
Field Capacity Influence of soil moisture on
NH3 LOSS (%) OF APPLIED N

Air Dry cumulative NH3 loss from

30 surface applied urea.
(Al-Kanani et al., 1991, SSSAJ,
55:1716–1766.)
20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
SOLUTION pH

exist for several days. Water evaporation from the soil surface encourages NH3
volatilization.
Surface Crop Residue
Surface crop residues increase potential NH3 volatilization by maintaining wet,
humid conditions at the soil surface and by reducing the quantity of urea diffusing
into the soil. Crop residues also have a high urease activity.
N Source (Fertilizer and Manure N)
Volatilization of N applied as fertilizer or animal wastes varies greatly and depends
on soil conditions, climate, and method of application. Since soil pH has a large
influence on conversion of NH4 + to NH3, potential N volatilization loss is greater
in calcareous soils than in acid soils. In calcareous soils, CaCO3 buffers solution pH
around 7.5; thus, urea and NH4 + -containing fertilizers may be subject to volatiliza-
tion, depending on climate and application method (Table 4-17).
162 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-17
V OLATILIZATION E STIMATES FOR V ARIOUS F ERTILIZER N S OURCES ,
M ETHOD OF N A PPLICATION , S OILS , AND C LIMATE

Precipitation after N Application

Humid climate Subhumid Dry climate
Ú0.5 in. rain 0–0.25 in. rain little/no rain
within 2 d within 7 d within 7 d
Fertilizer N N Application
Source Method ____________ % fertilizer N loss1 ____________

Soil pH + 7
Urea Broadcast 0–20 2–30 2–40
or Dribble 0–15 2–20 2–30
UAN Incorporated 0–10 0–10 0–10
Ammonium Broadcast 0–40 2–50 5–60
sulfate Incorporated 0–10 0–20 0–30
Ammonium Broadcast 0–20 2–25 5–30
nitrate Incorporated 0–10 0–15 0–20
Anhydrous NH3 Injected 0–2 0–3 0–5
Soil pH * 7
Urea Broadcast 0–5 5–30 5–40
Dribble 0–5 2–20 2–30
Incorporated 0 0–2 0–2
UAN Broadcast 0–5 2–15 2–20
Dribble 0–5 2–10 2–15
Incorporated 0 0–2 0–2
Other N sources Any method 0 0–2 0–2
1Adjust estimates for BC, and surface residue by:
low CEC 16 10 meq>100 g2: use upper end of range
high CEC 17 25 meq>100 g2: use lower end of range
7 50% surface residue cover: use upper end of range
paddy systems: use values under dry climate & surface broadcast
Source: Meisinger and Randall, 1991. In Managing N for Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability
(pp. 85–122). SSSA, Madison, Wis.

When applied to soil, urea is hydrolyzed by the enzyme urease to NH4 + , which
can be converted to NH3 at the soil surface by:
CO1NH222 + H + + 2H2O M 2NH4 + + HCO3 -
T
NH4 + + HCO3 - S NH3 + CO2 + H2O
Solution pH increases 1∼899 pH2 near the dissolving urea granule because of the
HCO3 - produced, increasing volatilization potential.
Urea hydrolysis proceeds rapidly in warm, moist soils, with most of the urea
converted to NH4 + in several days. Conditions for best performance of surface-
applied urea are cold, dry soils at the time of application and/or the occurrence of
significant precipitation (0.25–0.5 in.) within the first 3–6 days after application.
Movement of soil moisture containing dissolved NH3 and diffusion of moisture
vapor to the soil surface during the drying process contribute to NH3 volatilization
at or near the soil surface.
 nitrogen chapter four 163

NH4 + -containing fertilizers are also subject to volatilization. When 1NH422SO4

is applied to a calcareous soil, the reaction is:
1NH422SO4 + CaCO3 + 2H2O S 2NH4 + + 2HCO3 - + 2OH - + CaSO4
NH4 + + HCO3 - S NH3 + CO2 + H2O
NH4 + + OH - S NH3 + H2O
Solution pH increases because of the OH - and HCO3 - produced. Since
CaSO4 is slightly soluble in calcareous soil, the reaction proceeds to the right and
NH3 volatilization is favored due to increasing pH driven by precipitation of insolu-
ble Ca precipitates. Similar reactions occur with other NH4 + fertilizers that produce
insoluble Ca precipitates (e.g., NH4HCO3, 3NH442HPO4). In comparison, vola-
tilization losses are reduced with NH4 + fertilizers that produce soluble Ca reaction
products (e.g., NH4NO3).
Generally, NH3 volatilization losses in calcareous soils are greatest with
urea fertilizers and the NH4 + salts that form insoluble Ca precipitates. However,
NH3 losses also occur when N fertilizers are surface applied to acid soils (Table
4-17), especially in pasture, turf, and no-tillage systems with high surface residue
cover. NH3 losses also increase with increasing fertilizer rate and with liquid com-
pared with dry N sources. Urease inhibitors can be added to urea or UAN (urea
ammonium nitrate) to reduce volatilization potential (see “N Sources for Crop
Production”).
Volatilization of N in animal waste can be as high as 40% depending on waste
source, N content, and placement (Table 4-18). Immediate incorporation of broad-
cast manure will reduce volatilization losses (see Chapter 10 for more detail).
N Placement
NH3 volatilization is much greater with broadcast compared to subsurface or sur-
face band applications (Tables 4-17 and 4-18). Immediate incorporation of broad-
cast N greatly reduces NH3 volatilization potential by increasing the volume of
soil to retain NH4 + . With subsurface placement or incorporation of urea or urea-
containing N solutions, NH3 formed must diffuse over greater distances before
reaching the atmosphere. If soil and other environmental conditions are favorable

TABLE 4-18
V OLATILIZATION E STIMATES FROM M ANURE A PPLIED TO S OILS

Time after Application

Short Term Long Term
Manure Application
Manure Type Method __________ % manure N loss __________

Solid Broadcast, no 15–30 25–45

Liquid incorporation 10–25 20–40
Solid Broadcast, immediate 1–5 1–5
Liquid incorporation 1–5 1–5
Liquid Broadcast 15–35 20–40
Knifed 0–2 0–2
Source: Meisinger and Randall, 1991. In Managing N for Groundwater Quality and Farm Profitability
(pp. 85–122). SSSA, Madison, Wis.
164 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-48 10
Generalized effect of band- Control
applied N fertilizers on soil 9 Anhydrous NH3
pH in the band. NH4 + >NH3 Urea
produced with NH3, urea, 8 DAP
MAP
and DAP initially raises soil

SOIL pH
Amm. Nitrate
pH. With time nitrification of 7 Amm. Sulfate
added NH4 + will decrease
pH below the unfertilized 6
soil pH (see nitrification
reaction in Table 3-3). 5
Ultimately 1NH422SO4 is
more acid forming than any 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
N source (see Table 3-5).
(Adapted from Mulvaney et al., 1997, TIME AFTER APPLICATION (day)
Biol. Fert. of Soils, 24:211–220.)

for NH3 volatilization, deep incorporation is preferred over shallow surface tillage.
Some of the N losses from broadcast UAN with high surface residue cover are due
to N immobilization.
Band placement of urea results in soil changes comparable to those produced
by applications of anhydrous NH3 (Fig. 4-48). Diffusion of urea from banded appli-
cations can be 2.5 cm (1 in.) within 2 days, while appreciable NH4 + can be observed
at distances of 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) from the band. After dilution or dispersion of the
band by moisture, hydrolysis begins within a few days under favorable temperature
conditions.
Agricultural and Environmental Significance of Volatilization Although substan-
tial losses of NH3 from various N sources have been measured in laboratory studies,
their validity should be closely examined. Experimental systems can impose artificial
conditions of air movement, temperature, and relative humidity different from those
occurring in the field. For example, NH3 volatilization losses as high as 70% of fertil-
izer N have been reported from laboratory studies.
Field studies conducted under a wide range of conditions show that volatiliza-
tion losses with 1NH422SO4 broadcast on a calcareous soil can be about 50% of the
fertilizer N applied, while NH3 volatilization losses can be as high as 30% with urea
in field crop systems, and can be much higher in turf systems. In acid soil, NH3 losses
are greater for urea than for 1NH422SO4. Typical NH3 losses in arable systems are
usually 625% in low-pH soils and about double this amount in high-pH soils. In
flooded rice systems, NH3 loss has been reported as high as 75% of applied N.
In general, N source effects on NH3 loss decrease with NH4HCO3 7
1NH422SO4 Ú CO1NH222 7 NH4NO3. Increasing N rate significantly increases
NH3 volatilization. Volatilization loss is minimal when soil pH 6 5, but greatly in-
creases up to pH 8.5. Potential NH3 volatilization increases with temperature. As
temperature approaches 35–45°C, nitrification of NH4 + is reduced, which increases
availability of NH4 + for NH3 volatilization.
Soil and environmental conditions conducive to maximizing NH3 losses
are high soil pH, low BC, broadcast/unincorporated urea-containing fertilizer or
manures, and warm/moist surface soil conditions (Table 4-19). When optimum
conditions exist for N volatilization, utilizing urease inhibitors with urea-based
products can reduce NH3 volatilization and increase N use efficiency (see “Urease
and Nitrification Inhibitors”).
NH3 Exchange by Plants NH3 absorption and loss occur in plant leaves. The
quantity depends on soil-surface wetness and extent of evaporation, which influence
the amount of NH3 released into the air coming into contact with plant canopies.
 nitrogen chapter four 165

TABLE 4-19
S UMMARY OF R ELATIVE R ISK F ACTORS FOR NH3 V OLATILIZATION

Condition High Risk Low Risk

Soil pH 77 66
Soil moisture Moist Dry
Rainfall, irrigation Little or none, heavy dew 70.3 in. after N applied
CEC (meq/100g) 610 725
Soil temperature 720°C 170°F2 610°C 150°F2
Soil surface 750% residue cover (turf, Bare
pasture, no-till)
N source1 Manure, 1NH422SO4, CO1NH222, NH3, NH4NO3 (urea/
UAN, NH4HCO3 UAN  + inhibitor)1
N application Surface broadcast Incorporate, subsurface
apply
1NBPT is a common urease inhibitor (see Table 4-24). If using urea/UAN on high-risk site, consider using
a urease inhibitor.

Field crops exposed to air containing normal levels of atmospheric NH3 may obtain
5–10% of their N requirement by direct absorption of NH3. Plant seedlings are a
natural sink for atmospheric NH3, absorbing about 40% of the NH3 from air con-
taining 1 ppm NH3. NH3 produced near the ground surface of grass-clover pasture
can be completely absorbed by the plant cover. NH3 volatilization from plant foliage
also occurs during ripening and senescence, with values ranging 10–30 lb N/ac/yr.

N SOURCES FOR CROP PRODUCTION

Both organic and inorganic N sources supply the N required for optimum crop
growth. Efficient management of N inputs requires understanding N cycling and
transformations in soils (Fig. 4-2). Management practices that minimize N losses and
maximize the quantity of applied N recovered by the crop will increase production
efficiency and reduce potential impacts of N use on the environment. N manage-
ment technologies are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10, but the commonly
available N sources used in agricultural production systems and their reactions with
soil are presented here.

Inorganic N Sources
Manufactured fertilizers are the most important sources of N to plants. Over the last
30 years, world N consumption has increased from 60 to 110 million metric tons
(Fig. 4-1).
Anhydrous NH3 is the basic building block for almost all chemically derived
N fertilizer materials (Fig. 4-49). NH3 is manufactured using the Haber-Bosch
reaction with N2 from the air and H2 produced from natural gas 1CH42 (Fig. 4-18).
Since CH4 is a limited resource (fossil fuel) and is also used for heating, cooking,
and so on, conservation of this vital resource is essential. Increasing demand for
CH4 and decreasing supply increase CH4 cost, subsequently increasing fertilizer N
costs (Chapter 11).
Worldwide about 74% of NH3 produced is used to manufacture other N fertil-
izer materials, while 3% is applied directly to soil and the remaining 23% accounts for
non-fertilizer uses (Fig. 4-50). In the United States, N solutions, urea, and anhydrous
NH3 account for nearly 90% of total fertilizer N use (Fig. 4-51). The United States
166 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-49
H2SO4 Ammonium sulfate
Simplified schematic of Sulfuric acid (NH4)2SO4 21-0-0-24
common N fertilizers
manufactured from NH3.
HNO3 Ammonium nitrate (AN)
Nitric acid NH4NO3 34-0-0

NH3 AN + Urea N solutions

(water) UAN 28-0-0, 30-0-0, 32-0-0

CO2 Urea
Carbon dioxide CO(NH2)2 46-0-0

H3PO4 Ammonium phosphate

Phosphoric acid (NH4)2HPO4 18-46-0 y NH4H2PO4 11-52-0

Figure 4-50 Ammonium

Global use of NH3. NH3 sulfate
N solutions 3%
3%
4%
Ammonium
bicarbonate
6%

N+P sources
6%

Urea
Ammonium 45%
nitrate
10%

Other
23%

Figure 4-51
12 UAN
Common N sources used in
Urea
the United States.
10 Anhyrous Amm.
(USDA-ERS, 2009.)
N FERTILIZER (t × 106)

Amm. Sulfate
8 Amm. Nitrate

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
 nitrogen chapter four 167

and Canada represent nearly all of the direct NH3 application in agriculture. For
convenience, the various N compounds are grouped into three categories: ammonia-
cal, nitrate, and slowly available (Table 4-20).
NH4+ or NH4+ -Forming Sources
Urea [CO(NH2)2]
Favorable manufacturing, handling, storage, and transportation economics make
urea a competitive N source. It is the most widely used N source in the world. Urea
represents ∼21% of total fertilizer N use in the United States (Fig. 4-51). Granular
urea has noteworthy characteristics, including (1) less tendency to stick and cake than
NH4NO3, (2) no risk of explosion, and (3) less corrosive to handling and application
equipment. Substantial savings in handling, storage, transportation, and application
costs are possible because of urea’s high N content (Table 4-20).
During manufacturing, biuret 1NH2@CO@NH@CO@NH22 concentration in
urea is kept low due to its phytotoxicity. Biuret levels of 2% can be tolerated in
most fertilizers, unless applied to sensitive crops (i.e., citrus, pineapple, and other
crops) where 60.25% is recommended. Solutions made from urea containing
61.5% biuret are acceptable for foliar application. Urea high in biuret should
not be placed near or in the seed row. Biuret is not a problem in most urea
products.
As discussed in the previous section (Volatilization of NH3), careful manage-
ment of urea and urea-based fertilizers will reduce the potential for NH3 volatiliza-
tion losses and increase effectiveness of urea fertilizers. Surface applications of urea
are most efficient when they are applied to soils with low volatilization potential. In-
corporation with tillage or dissolved into the soil with irrigation or adequate rainfall

TABLE 4-20
C OMPOSITION OF S OME C OMMON S OLUBLE F ERTILIZER N S OURCES
Nutrient Content (%)
N Source N P2O5 K 2O Ca Mg S Cl Physical State
+ +
NH4 or NH4 forming
Anhydrous ammonia 82 — — — — — — Gas
Aqua ammonia 20–25 — — — — — — Liquid
Ammonium bicarbonate 21–23 — — — — — — Solid
Ammonium chloride 25–26 — — — — — 66 Solid
Ammonium nitrate 33–34 — — — — — — Solid
Ammonium sulfate 21 — — — — 24 — Solid
Ammonium thiosulfate 12 — — — — 26 — Liquid
Calcium ammonium nitrate 15–27 9–19 Solid or Liquid
Ammonium polyphosphate 10–11 34–37 — — — — — Liquid
Diammonium phosphate 18–21 46–54 — — — — — Solid
Monoammonium phosphate 11 48–55 — 2 0.5 1–3 — Solid
Urea 45–46 — — — — — — Solid
Urea-ammonium nitrate 28–32 — — — — — — Liquid
Urea-ammonium phosphate 21–38 13–42 — — — — — Solid
Urea phosphate 17 43–44 — — — — — Solid
Urea-sulfate 30–40 — — — — 6–11 — Solid
NO3 −
Calcium nitrate 15 — — 34 — — — Solid
Potassium nitrate 13 — 44 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.2 Solid
Sodium nitrate 16 — — — — — 0.6 Solid
168 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-21
N O -T ILL C ORN G RAIN Y IELD AS A FFECTED BY UAN R ATE AND M ETHOD
OF A PPLICATION

Surface Band
N Rate Broadcast Unincorporated Incorporated
lb/a _______________ bu/a _______________

80 89 118 125
160 108 133 141
240 114 139 154
Reduced yield with broadcast N is related to both N loss to volatilization and immobilization.
Source: Touchton and Hargrove, 1982, Agron. J., 74:825.

after application will enhance N availability with urea (Table 4-21). Use of coated
urea products will also reduce N volatilization losses (see “Controlled and Slow Re-
lease Compounds”).
Placement of urea with the seed at planting should be carefully controlled
because of the toxic effects of free NH3 on germinating seedlings (see reactions in
“Volatilization of NH3”). The harmful effects of urea placed in the seed row can be
eliminated or greatly reduced by banding at least 2.5 cm (1 in.) directly below and/
or to the side of the seed row of most crops. Seed-placed urea should not exceed 5–10
lb N/a.
The effect on germination of urea placed near seeds is influenced by available
soil moisture. With adequate soil moisture in medium-textured soils, urea at 30 lb
N/a can be used without reducing germination and crop emergence. However, in
low moisture, coarse-textured soils, urea at 10–20 lb N/a often reduces both germi-
nation and crop yields. Seedbed moisture is less critical in fine-textured (clay and clay
loam) soils, and urea can usually be drilled in at rates of up to 30 lb N/a.
To summarize, the effectiveness of urea depends on the interaction of many
factors, which cause some variability in the crop response to urea. However, if man-
aged properly, urea can be as effective as other N sources (also see “Urease and Nitri-
fication Inhibitors”).
N Solutions
Of the liquid N fertilizers used for direct application, N solutions are most common,
representing 44% of total N consumption in the United States (Fig. 4-51). Some
advantages of N solutions include:
• easier and safer to handle and apply than other N fertilizers (especially NH3)
• applied more uniformly and accurately than solid N sources
• many pesticides are compatible with N solutions, allowing simultaneous application
• applied through various types of irrigation systems
• excellent source for use in formulation of fluid N, P, K, and S fertilizers
N solutions are usually produced from urea, NH4NO3 , and water and are
referred to as UAN solutions (Fig. 4-49; Table 4-20). Each UAN solution has a spe-
cific salting-out temperature, below which dissolved fertilizer salts precipitate. The
salting-out temperature determines feasibility of outside winter storage and the time
of year for application. Salting-out temperatures vary with N concentration in solu-
tion (Table 4-22).
 nitrogen chapter four 169

TABLE 4-22
P HYSICAL AND C HEMICAL C HARACTERISTICS OF UAN

Fertilizer Grade (% N by weight)

Composition and Properties 28% 30% 32%
Ammonium nitrate, NH4NO3 (%) 40 42 45
Urea, CO1NH222 (%) 30 33 35
Water (%) 30 25 20
Density (lbs/gal) at 15.5°C 160°F2 10.65 10.84 11.06
Salting-out temperature, °C 1°F2 -17 1 +12 -10 1 +142 -2 1 +282

Anhydrous NH3
Anhydrous NH3 contains 82% N, the highest N content of any fertilizer (Table
4-20). About 16% of all N fertilizer used in the United States is applied as NH3.
Over the last several decades, NH3 use in the United States has declined as urea
and UAN use has increased (Fig. 4-51).
Like H2O, NH3 can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas depending on tempera-
ture. At room temperature, NH3 is a colorless, highly irritating gas with a pungent,
suffocating odor. NH3 gas dissolves easily in water to form ammonium hydroxide
1NH4OH2, a weak base. NH3 gas is easily compressed and forms a clear liquid under
pressure, which is stored and shipped as a compressed liquid in steel containers. NH3
is not highly flammable, but can explode when exposed to high heat. When liquid
NH3 is released from a pressurized tank, it expands rapidly, vaporizes, and produces
a white cloud of water vapor formed by water condensation in the air surrounding
NH3 as it vaporizes.
Anhydrous NH3 is hygroscopic and is rapidly absorbed by water. Because NH3
is very irritating to the eyes, lungs, and skin, safety precautions must be taken with
anhydrous NH3. Safety goggles, rubber gloves, and an NH3 gas mask are required
safety equipment. A large container of water attached to NH3 application equipment
is required for washing skin and eyes exposed to NH3. Current regulations require
certification for anyone applying NH3.
Because anhydrous NH3 is a gas at atmospheric pressure, some may be lost to
the atmosphere during and after application (Chapter 10). If the soil is hard or full of
clods during application, the slit behind the applicator blade will not close or fill, and
some NH3 escapes to the atmosphere.
NH3 reacts rapidly with soil water and various organic and inorganic soil com-
ponents through several possible reactions:
• NH3 + H2O S NH4 + + OH -
• NH3 + H + S NH4 +
• reaction with OH - groups and tightly bound water of clay minerals
• reaction with water of hydration around exchangeable cations on CEC
• reaction with OM
• NH4 + fixation by expanding clay minerals
• adsorption by clay minerals and organic components through H-bonding
Immediately after NH3 injection, a localized zone high in both NH3 and NH4 + is
created (Fig. 4-52). The horizontal, roughly circular- to oval-shaped zone is about
2–5 in. in diameter, depending on several factors influencing NH3 retention in soil:
Soil moisture content S NH3 retention increases with soil moisture content,
with maximum retention occurring at or near field capacity. As soils become
170 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-52 Direction

NH3 NH4+ NH3
Diagram of an NH3 reten- NH3 of
tion zone. Retention applicator
Zone NH3 NH4+
travel
through
soil

drier or wetter than field capacity, they lose their ability to hold NH3. The size
of the initial retention zone decreases with increasing soil moisture. Diffusion of
NH3 from the injection zone is impeded by high soil moisture, because of the
strong affinity of NH3 for water.
Clay content S NH3 retention increases with the clay content. NH3 diffusion
is greater in sandy soils than in clay soils due to larger pores and lower retention
capacity of soil colloids.
Injection depth S NH3 retention increases with increasing depth of injection
and varies considerably, depending on soil properties and conditions. Deeper
injection depths are required for sandy soils compared to clay soils. In dry soil,
NH3 loss declines with increasing placement depth.
Injection spacing S At a given N rate, NH3 applied per unit volume of soil
decreases with decreasing injection spacing. With the greater retention achieved
with narrow spacing, there is less chance of NH3 loss, especially in sandy soils
with limited NH3 retention capacity.
Soil OM S NH3 retention increases with increasing soil OM. At least 50% of
the NH3 retention capacity is due to OM.
Temporary changes in soil chemical, biological, and physical conditions occur
in the NH3 retention zone. High NH3 and NH4 + levels 1 ≈1,00093,000 ppm2 pro-
duce high soil pH 1Ú92 and osmotic potential 1Ú10 bar2, resulting in partial and
temporary sterilization of soil within the retention zone. NH3 is toxic to microor-
ganisms, higher plants, and animals. Bacterial activity is probably affected most by
free NH3, while fungi are depressed by the high pH in the retention zone. Partial
sterilization in the retention zone can persist for several weeks. As a consequence of
reduced microbial activity, nitrification of NH4 + will be reduced until conditions
return to normal.
The OH - produced by the reaction of NH3 with H2O will dissolve or solubi-
lize soil OM. Most of these effects on OM are only temporary. Solubilization of OM
may temporarily increase the availability of nutrients associated with OM.
Contrasting beneficial and harmful effects on soil structure have been reported
following use of anhydrous NH3. Several long-term studies have shown no difference
among N sources on soil physical properties. Impairment of soil structure is not ex-
pected to be serious or lasting except in situations involving low-OM soils, in which
any loss of OM would likely be harmful.

Aqua NH3
The simplest N solution is aqua NH3, which is made by forcing compressed NH3 gas
into water, and contains 25–29% NH3 by weight (Table 4-20). Transportation and
delivery costs limit aqua NH3 production to small, local fluid-fertilizer plants. Aqua
NH3 is used for direct soil applications or to produce other liquid fertilizers. The
NH3 will volatilize quickly at temperatures above 50°F; thus, aqua NH3 is usually
injected into soil to depths of 2–4 in. At temperatures over 50°F, surface applications
of aqua NH3 should be immediately incorporated into the soil.
 nitrogen chapter four 171

Ammonium Nitrate (NH4NO3)

NH4NO3 contains 33–34% N and is manufactured by reacting nitric acid 1HNO32
with NH3 (Fig. 4-49). Use of NH4NO3 in the United States has declined, and for
internal security reasons, it is now banned in some countries (Fig. 4-51).
NH4NO3 dissolves to NO3 - and NH4 + and is readily available to crops. Several
disadvantages of NH4NO3 include:
• hygroscopic compound (absorbs water) that results in caking during storage
• high risk of explosion when combined with oxidizable C (oil, diesel fuel,
gasoline, etc.)
• less effective for flooded rice than urea or NH4 + fertilizers
• more prone to leaching and denitrification than NH4 + -only products
Ammonium sulfate nitrate (Sulf-N 26) was recently released as an N source
that eliminates the explosive properties of NH4NO3. The product (26% N, 14% S)
is too new in the marketplace to report agronomic responses; however, its behavior in
soil would be similar to NH4NO3 and 1NH422SO4.
Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4]
Ammonium sulfate represents only about 5% of total N fertilizer use in the United
States (Fig. 4-51). The advantages of 1NH422SO4 include low hygroscopicity and is a
source of both N and S. 1NH422SO4 depresses soil pH greater than other N sources
(Table 3-5). The main disadvantage of 1NH422SO4 is its relatively low N content
(21% N) compared to other sources; however, it can be an economical N source
when S is also required.
Ammonium Phosphates
Monoammonium 1NH4H2PO42 and diammonium 31NH422HPO44 phosphates are
more important P sources than N sources (see Chapter 5).
Ammonium Chloride (NH4Cl)
NH4Cl contains 25% N (Table 4-20). The majority of NH4Cl is used in Japan,
China, India, and Southeast Asia. Some of its advantages include higher N concentra-
tion than 1NH422SO4 and is superior to 1NH422SO4 for rice. NH4Cl is an excellent
N source for Cl responsive crops (i.e., coconut, oil palm, kiwifruit). NH4Cl is as acid
forming as 1NH422SO4 per unit of N and, thus, is undesirable in acid soils requiring
lime. Other shortcomings are its low N content compared to urea or NH4NO3, and
its high Cl - content, which limits its use to Cl - tolerant crops.
Ammonium Bicarbonate (NH4HCO3)
This low-analysis N source (19% N) is commonly used in China (25% of total fertil-
izer N use), but is now being phased out in favor of urea because of its relatively low
quality and instability. It is manufactured by passing CO2 into a concentrated solu-
tion saturated with NH3. At room temperature, NH4HCO3 is a white, crystalline
powder that dissolves in water to produce a pH ≈8. Applied to warm, moist soils
NH4HCO3, NH3 volatilization potential is higher than with urea.
Urea-Based Fertilizers
Urea phosphate 3CO1NH222H3PO44 is a crystalline product formed by the reaction
of urea with phosphoric acid. The common grade is 17-44-0, which is primarily used
to produce other grades of lower analysis. Urea phosphates with lower purity stan-
dards may be adequate for production of suspension fertilizers and for fertigation.
Urea has also been combined with 1NH422HPO4 into a solid 28-28-0.
172 chapter four nitrogen

Granular urea sulfate with grades ranging from 40-0-0-4 to 30-0-0-13 has been
produced. The N:S ratio may vary from 3:1 to 7:1, providing enough flexibility to
correct N and S deficiencies in crops. Although numerous urea-based fertilizers have
been produced in pilot plants, they are not commonly used in North America.
NO3− Sources In addition to NH4NO3 , sodium nitrate 1NaNO32, potassium
nitrate 1KNO32, and calcium nitrate Ca1NO322 should be mentioned because of
their importance in certain regions (Table 4-20). NO3 - sources are soluble and
mobile in soil, and therefore susceptible to leaching. Unlike NH4 + fertilizers,
NO3 - salts are not acid forming. Because NO3 - is absorbed by crops more rap-
idly than the accompanying cation, HCO3 - and organic anions are exuded from
roots, resulting in a slightly higher soil solution pH (Chapter 2). Prolonged use of
NaNO3, for example, will maintain or even raise the original soil pH; however, this
product should not be used in semi-arid and arid climates because of buildup of
exchangeable Na (Chapter 3).
At one time, NaNO3 (16% N) was a major source of N in many countries.
Most of it originated in large natural deposits in Chile, where NaNO3 production
continues to be a major industry.
Potassium nitrate 1KNO3, 13% N2 contains two essential plant nutrients and
is a common source in vegetable and tree crops. KNO3 properties that make it at-
tractive include moderate salt index, rapid NO3 - uptake, favorable N/K ratio, and
negligible Cl - content.
Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN)
Two commercial products are available that contain different amounts of Ca +2
and N (Table 4-20). The most common product in the United States contains
Ca1NO322 + NH4NO3 117% N, 8.8% Ca2 and is available as a solid or liquid.
This product is used on vegetable and tree crops in California, Arizona, and the Pa-
cific Northwest. The value of Ca +2 in this material is likely through its positive effect
on maintaining the integrity of plant cell membranes (Chapter 2) to enhance cation
uptake, referred to as the Viets effect.
Another granular CAN product contains CaCO3 + NH4NO3 127% N,
8% Ca; or 15% N, 19% Ca2, helps neutralize acid produced through nitrification of
NH4 + (Table 3-5), and eliminates potential combustion hazards of NH4NO3. This
product is commonly used in China and Europe.
Controlled and Slow Release Compounds Because the crop recovery of soluble fer-
tilizer N is …50%, development of N fertilizer products that potentially minimize
fertilizer N losses through volatilization, denitrification, and leaching have been de-
veloped (Table 4-23). Use of controlled release fertilizer (CRF) or slow release fertil-
izer (SRF) may improve N use efficiency, while reducing environmental risk of N
use. Compared to the major N sources used throughout the world, SRF and CRF
use is small, but has nearly doubled in the last decade. North America, Japan, and
Europe are the major consumers, primarily in non-agricultural markets (e.g., turf and
horticulture) with increasing use in production agriculture.
SRFs represent products where N release is reduced but not well controlled.
CRFs are products where the rate and duration of N release is controllable. CRFs or
SRFs are classified by:
• organic-N low-solubility compounds S slowly decompose by biological (e.g.,
urea formaldehyde) or chemical (e.g., isobutylidene diurea) processes
• fertilizer N products with a physical barrier that controls release S fertilizer N
coatings include organic polymers, resins, and inorganic materials (e.g., S)
• inorganic low-solubility compounds S fertilizers such as Mg>NH4 phosphates
and partially acidulated phosphates rock (Chapter 5)
 nitrogen chapter four 173

TABLE 4-23
C ONTROLLED AND S LOW R ELEASE N P RODUCTS U SED TO R EDUCE P OTENTIAL N L OSSES BY
L EACHING , V OLATILIZATION , AND D ENITRIFICATION

N Content Inhibition Duration

N Source Base Compound Common Name(s) __ % __ __ weeks __

S-coated urea urea SCU 30–42 4–12

Enspan 39
Polymer/S-coated urea urea PolyPlus Poly-S TriKote 38–42 6–16
XCU 41–43
Polymer- or resin-coated urea Polyon, Osmocote, 38–44 8–14
urea Meister 25–46
Agriform Multicote
Escote
Prokote
ESN
Nutrisphere
Urea formaldehyde ureaforms Nitroform 38 10930 +
FLUF 18 6–10
Folocron 29
GP-4340 30
methylene urea Nutralene 40 7–12
Hydrolene
Nitamin
methylol urea Resi-Grow 30 6–10
polymethylene urea CoRoN 12 or 28 7–9
Isobutylidene diurea isobutylidine urea IBDU 31 10–16
Triazone triazone/urea N-Sure, Nitamin 28–33 6–10
TriSert, Formolene
Crotonylidene diurea urea/crotonaldehyde Crotodur, CDU, Triabon 34 6–12
Melamine 2,4,6 triamino-1,3,5-triazine Nitrazine 50–60 6–12

While there is no official differentiation, generally SRFs are microbial degraded N

products such as urea formaldehydes, and CRFs are commonly coated or encapsu-
lated products.
SRF S Organic-N Low-Solubility Compounds
These SRF products reduce the rate of N released to soil solution compared to urea
or other inorganic N sources. By slowly dissolving during the growing season, NO3 -
will not exceed crop utilization rate, thereby reducing potential N losses predomi-
nately through leaching, but reduced denitrification and volatilization losses are also
possible.
Urea formaldehyde (UF) is the most common SRF, containing 35–40% N
(Table 4-23). Urea is reacted with formaldehyde producing a mixture of UF, un-
reacted urea, methylol urea, and methylene urea, which can be separated into SRF
products of variable solubility or N release rates. For example, methylol urea and
methylene urea are more H2O soluble than UF and, thus, release N faster. The N
release rate from UF products is characterized by their solubility in water by deter-
mining the activity index (AI) given by:
• cold water 125°C2 soluble N (CWSN) contains mostly unreacted urea and exhibits
fast N release rate
• hot water 1100°C2 soluble N (HWSN) contains methylene urea and UF and is
slowly released into the soil
174 chapter four nitrogen

• hot water insoluble N (HWIN) contains long-chain UF and has extremely slow N
release rate
Once these values are determined, then cold water insoluble N (CWIN) is
calculated by:
CWIN = HWSN - CWSN
Then AI is determined by: AI = 1CWIN - HWIN2>CWIN * 100. AI
represents the % of relatively long N release (∼ 6 months). Current UF products have
≈ 50–60% AI values.
Applied to soil, UF products are converted to plant available N through micro-
bial decomposition or hydrolysis. Microbial decomposition is the primary mecha-
nism of N release with the carbon in the methylene urea polymers providing the site
for microbial activity. Increasing soil temperature and moisture (up to field capacity)
increases the rate of N release.
Another related SRF is isobutylidene diurea (IBDU) formed by reacting isobu-
tyraldehyde with urea. IBDU is nearly 90% H2O soluble and contains 31% N. N re-
lease is through chemical decomposition and hydrolysis. Depending on soil moisture
and temperature, IBDU can release N for 2–4 months after application (Table 4-23).
High soil pH 1772 will reduce N release rate. As a granular material, decreasing par-
ticle size will increase exposed surface area and N release rate.
Triazone is a SRF containing 28% N (Table 4-23). Because of the closed-ring
structure and strong C-N bonds, N is released slowly. Triazone (N-Sure) is predomi-
nately used as a foliar-applied N source, exhibiting excellent absorption properties
with no toxicity to plants and commonly used in turf. A new product (Nitamin) is a
combination of triazone and methylene urea and contains 22 or 30% N depending
on formulation.
Crotonylidene diurea (CDU) contains 32% N, although a commercial product
Triabon contains only 16% N.

CRF Coated Fertilizers

These urea-based CRFs are slightly soluble in soil solution, where the N release rate de-
pends on microbial activity and hydrolysis. These products are commonly used in turf,
vegetable, and ornamental systems; however, they are increasingly used in cereal grain sys-
tems. Like SRF products, CRFs reduce the rate of NH4 + and ultimately NO3 - released
to soil solution, thereby reducing leaching, volatilization, and denitrification potential.
Sulfur-coated urea (SCU) is one of the oldest CRFs consisting of a shell of S
around each urea granule with 32–38% N and 12–22% S content (Table 4-23).
Urea granules are coated with molten S, and then a coating of wax is added to seal
cracks in the S coating. An additional layer of conditioner is added to reduce dust
and improve handling (Fig. 4-53). Dissolution rate depends on the quality of the S
coating. S must be oxidized by soil microorganisms before the urea is exposed and

Figure 4-53
Urea coatings used as slow
and controlled release N
fertilizers. SCU will not con- Sulfur
tain the polymer coating,
whereas PSCU contains all urea Polymer
three layers shown. Polymer- sealant
coated urea will not contain Conditioner
the S coating.
 nitrogen chapter four 175

100 Figure 4-54

Uncontrolled Typical N release pattern
Controlled from selected coated urea
80
products. The controlled

N RELEASE (%)
N release product releases
60 desired amounts of N at the
“Lock-off” desired time. The uncon-
40 trolled N release product il-
Desired lustrates an initial N “burst”
“Burst” or rapid release, followed by
20 reduced N release or “lock-
off” where N release may be
0 insufficient for crop need.
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Ideally, fertilizer N release
TIME AFTER APPLICATION (d) occurs just ahead of N
uptake demand by the crop
subsequently hydrolyzed. Only about 30% of SCU granules are perfectly coated, (Fig. 4-56).
whereas the coating of remaining granules is thin and/or cracked, which accelerates
dissolution of the urea granule and N release (Fig. 4-54). If the S coating is too thick,
then N release is slowed or “locked-off” (no N release). Therefore, the initial rapid
N release could occur too early for recovery by the target plant, and a portion not
released or released after the N is needed by the plant. Coating degradation rate will
increase with soil temperature and moisture, increasing N release.
Polymer-coated SCU (PSCU) were developed to better control the N release
characteristics of SCU (Fig. 4-54). With these products, the SCU is coated with an
organic polymer or resin (Fig. 4-53), where the polymer thickness partially controls
N release rate. In the soil, H2O initially diffuses through the polymer layer, into
the cracks and defects of the S layer, where urea hydrolysis can begin and NH4 +
diffuses back through the polymer layer into the soil solution. PSCU products gen-
erally provide more uniform N release compared to SCUs.
Polymer-coated CRFs are the most recent technology for controlling N
release and reducing N losses by leaching, denitrification, and volatilization
(Table 4-23). Similar to PSCUs, N release occurs by the diffusion rate of H2O
(in) and NH4 + (out) through the polymer coating (Fig. 4-55). The N release
rate is controlled by varying the specific polymer and its thickness. Polymers are
alkyd (polyester), polyurethane, or polyolefin coatings. The alkyd-type resin (e.g.,
Osmocote) is primarily a dicyclopentadiene with a glycerol ester and provides a
uniform coating around the fertilizer granule. N release occurs through micro-
pores in the resin. Polyurethane coatings (e.g., Multicote, Polyon) are unique,
where the polyurethane reacts with the fertilizer granule and is often referred to

Figure 4-55
Urea Process of controlled N
release from a polymer-
Polymer coated urea granule.
Coating
Apply to soil
CO(NH2)2 NH41 NO32
H2O
)2 )2
NH NH
2 2
( (
CO NH 1 CO NH 1
4 4
H2O H2O H2O
H2O
H2O
H2O diffuses Urea dissolves N diffuses through
into granule inside granule polymer to soil
176 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-56 100

CUMULATIVE N USE or SUPPLY (%)

Relationship between timing
of N released from a CRF or N Release
SRF and N demand by the 75
plant.
Plant N Uptake
50

25

0
Planting Rapid Growth Maturity
GROWING SEASON

as a reacted layer coated fertilizer (RLCF). RLCF products provide good control of
N release, again depending on thickness. Increasing temperature will increase N
release, while soil moisture, pH, and microbial activity have little effect. A new
product (Nutrisphere) uses a maleic-itaconic polymer that also shows controlled
N release characteristics.
Agricultural and Environmental Significance of CRF/SRF The primary purpose of
CRF or SRF technology is to provide sufficient N to meet plant requirement, while
reducing potential N losses to the environment through leaching, volatilization, and
denitrification. In many environments, preplant application of total N needed by the
plant will increase N loss potential by any or all of these pathways depending on site-
specific conditions. To be classified as a CRF/SRF:
• …15% N released in 1 day
• 15–75% N released in 28 days
• at least 75% N released in stated release time
Thus, CRF/SRF technologies are designed to release N throughout the grow-
ing season (Fig. 4-56). Ideally, some N must initially release to meet early growth
demand; if not, then a low rate of soluble N should be preplant applied. Just ahead
of the period of high N demand (maximum vegetative growth rate), sufficient
N release must occur. As plant N needs are reduced during maturation, all of the
N should have been released. N release without plant N uptake will increase N loss
potential.
Generally, CRFs/SRFs cost more than soluble N fertilizers. As a result, their use
in production agriculture is much less than in higher value turf, horticultural, and
ornamental plant systems. Development of new manufacturing processes is lowering
the cost of these products and their use in agriculture is increasing.
It is well documented that use of CRFs/SRFs in turf systems provide sufficient
N for optimum turf growth and quality, while reducing N leaching (Fig. 4-57) and
volatilization (Fig. 4-58) losses. The extent of their benefit depends on the specific
product and the environmental conditions after application. For example with cool-
season grasses, IBDU provides better N response than ureaforms and some polymer-
coated products because its N release is not temperature dependent. Alternatively
with warm-season grasses in high rainfall areas, coated CRFs exhibit longer N release
period more synchronous with N requirements of warm-season grasses.
Under irrigated systems, N leaching potential can be enhanced. It is critical to
select the CRF/SRF that provides optimum N availability while reducing N trans-
port below the root zone (Fig. 4-59).
 nitrogen chapter four 177

100 Figure 4-57

Polymer Effect of polymer-coated
Coated Urea urea on N leached in ber-
80
Urea mudagrass golf green.

N LEACHED (mgyL)
(Shuman, 2001, Proc. Georgia Wa-
60 ter Resources Conf. Univ. Georgia,
Athens.)

40

20

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
TIME (weeks)

40 Figure 4-58
Effect of urea products on
35
N volatilization in creep-
ing bentgrass. SCU =
N VOLATILIZED (%)

30
25
sulfur-coated urea; UF =
urea formaldehyde; CSS =
20 composted sewage sludge;
15 AN = ammonium nitrate;
PCU = polymer-coated
10 urea.
5 (Knight et al., 2007, Crop Sci.,
47:1628–1634.)
0
Urea SCU UF CSS AN PCU Control
N SOURCE

70 Figure 4-59
Fertigate AN Effect of polyolefin resin-
60 coated urea (CRF) com-
Broadcast AN
pared to ammonium nitrate
N LEACHED (lbya)

50 Broadcast CRF
(AN) on NO3@N leached in
40 citrus. One application of
CRF was compared to same
30 N rate split broadcast (4 split
20 applications) and dissolved
in irrigation water (15 ap-
10 plications). Same amount of
irrigation water applied to
0 all treatments.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(Paramasivam et al., 2001, SSSAJ,
N RATE (lbya)
65:914–921.)

In agricultural systems, similar effects of water and temperature will influence

the performance of specific CRFs/SRFs. While studies have shown highly variable
responses, when conditions are optimum for N loss, these products can improve N
availability and yield (Fig. 4-60). Over this 3-year study, corn yield increased an aver-
age of 6 bu/a, while the N rate required to maximize yield was 17 lb N/a less when
the polymer-coated CRF was used.
Urease and Nitrification Inhibitors Preserving N applied as fertilizers or manures
in plant available forms during plant growth will increase N use efficiency and reduce
N losses to the environment. Urea in fertilizers and manures will hydrolyze to NH4 +
with potential loss of volatile NH3, depending on soil and environmental conditions
(see “Volatilization of NH3”). Subsequent nitrification of NH4 + to NO3 - , or direct
178 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-60 200

Corn yield response to Polymer-Coated Urea
N applied as urea and Urea
185
polymer-coated urea (ESN).

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

Data are averaged over
5 site-years (2003–05). 170
Average yield increase
with the CRF was 6 bu/a
using 17 lb N/a less N. 155
Polymer-
(Killorn et al., 2005, Iowa State Univ. Coated
ISRF05-29, 31.) Urea Urea
140
Ave. yield (bu/a) 177 171
N rate for max. yield (lb/a) 141 158
125
0 50 100 150 200
N RATE (lbya)

application of NH4 + or NO3 - , presents increased leaching and denitrification po-

tential, also depending on soil and environmental conditions (see “Nitrification” and
“Denitrification”). Thus, controlling urea hydrolysis and nitrification processes can
improve N recovery by the crop and reduce N losses to the environment.
Urease Inhibitors
Inhibition of urea hydrolysis occurs by reducing the enzymatic activity of urease, re-
ducing the rate of urea conversion to NH4 + . Ni is important for urease activity and
new urease inhibitor products may inhibit urease by adsorbing Ni on the CEC of the
polymer coating the urea granule.
NBPT (n-butyl-thiophosphoric triamide) is the most common urease inhibitor
and can be used with any N source or method of application (Table 4-24). These
products are more effective in reducing N loss under conditions of high volatilization
potential, especially where urea or UAN is surface applied in heavy residue environ-
ments. Thiosulfate also has activity in reducing N volatilization and nitrification.
Nitrification Inhibitors
Nitrification inhibitors (NI) interfere with the nitrification process by direct toxicity
to Nitrosomonas bacteria (see “Nitrification”). Adding NIs to fertilizer or manure re-
duces NO3 - formation, maintaining more of the applied N as NH4 + , thus, reducing
N leaching potential. NIs also reduce potential denitrification of applied N by reduc-
ing the amount of NO3 - available for denitrification.
Nitrapyrin and dicyandiamide are the most common NIs that reduce N losses
when conditions are suitable for rapid nitrification to NO3 - (Table 4-24). If soil and
environmental conditions are favorable for NO3 - losses, treatment with an inhibitor
often increases the amount of applied N recovered by the plant. A new NI DMPP
has been recently developed.
A tropical forage grass (Brachiaria humidicola) has the ability to regulate nitri-
fication in soils by releasing exudates from roots that inhibit nitrification. Current
research efforts are evaluating genetic transfer of these mechanisms into grain crops
(e.g., rice, wheat, maize, and soybean) and forages.
Agricultural and Environmental Significance of Urease and Nitrification
Inhibitors Additives to most solid and liquid N fertilizers have been developed
to reduce nitrification, volatilization, and denitrification potential. Improving the
effectiveness of urea through subsurface band placement and other N management
practices can reduce N volatilization potential without use of urease inhibitors; how-
ever, broadcast application may be the only option in certain systems (i.e., no-tillage,
turf), where urease inhibitors can substantially reduce N loss. For example, a summary of
 nitrogen chapter four 179

TABLE 4-24
F ERTILIZER A DDITIVES U SED TO R EDUCE P OTENTIAL N L OSSES BY L EACHING , V OLATILIZATION ,
AND D ENITRIFICATION

Additive Base Compound Common Name(s) N Content N Process Inhibition Duration

__ % __ __ weeks __
Nitrification Inhibitors
Nitrapyrin 2-chloro-6- N-Serve – Nitrification 2–6
trichloromethyl pyridine Stay-N 2000 Denitrification
DCD Dicyandiamide DCD 1.6 4–8
Ensan
DMPP 3,4-dimethypyrazole DMPP – 6–8
phosphate ENTEC 12–26
Urease Inhibitors
NBPT n-butyl- Agrotain – Volatilization 2–3
thiophosphoric SuperU 46
triamide
Thiosulfate Ammonium or ATS 12 Volatilization 2–3
calcium thiosulfate CaTS nitrification
Combination Products
DCD + NBPT Dicyandiamide + Agrotain Plus — Volatilization 6–8
n-butyl-thiophosphoric HYDREXX Nitrification
triamide Denitrification
DCD + NBPT + UMAXX 47 8–12
urea UFLEXX 46 6–8
SuperU
Polymer Maleic-itaconic Nutrisphere — 6–12
copolymer

Polymer + urea SSN 46 6–12

78 field trials over 5 years demonstrated a 4.3 and 1.6 bu/a corn yield increase with
urease inhibitor (NBPT) included in urea or UAN, respectively (Table 4-25). Use
of NBPT also reduces NH3 volatilization with urea applied in turfgrass (Fig. 4-61).
With irrigated turfgrass systems, application of water within a few days of urea ap-
plication can substantially reduce volatilization; however, it may increase denitrifica-
tion if excess water is applied. Ammonium thiosulfate (ATS) has been evaluated as a
urease inhibitor. Generally, reduction in volatilization and increased N recovery by
the crop have not been as consistent as with NBPT.

TABLE 4-25
S UMMARY OF C ORN Y IELD I NCREASES FROM A PPLICATION OF NBPT
WITH S URFACE -A PPLIED U REA AND UAN

Yield increase
Experimental sites Number of sites Urea UAN
_____________ bu/a _____________

All sites 78 4.3 1.6

N responsive 64 5.0 2.8
Significant NH3 loss 59 6.6 2.7
Source: Hendrickson, 1992, J. Prod. Agric., 5:131–137.
180 chapter four nitrogen

Figure 4-61 5
Effect of urease inhibitors on
N volatilized as a % of urea-
N applied (49 kg N/ha) to 4
Kentucky bluegrass.

N VOLATILIZED (%)
(Joo et al., 1989, Proc. 6th Inter.
Turfgrass Res. Conf.) 3

0
0 1 2 3 4
TIME AFTER APPLICATION (d)

Urea only Urea + ATS Urea + NBPT

The effectiveness of NIs depends on cropping system, climate, soil type, and
time of application. NIs can be effective for 2–8 weeks depending on NI and the
site-specific conditions. Thus, NIs can help reduce N leaching potential in sandy
soils compared to clay soils. In contrast, denitrification in clay soils is generally higher
than in coarse-textured soil due to reduced aeration, especially when fertilizer or ma-
nure N is applied just prior to irrigation or significant rainfall (Table 4-26). These
data illustrate that DCD (dicyandiamide) had a greater effect on reducing N2O loss
as soil H2O content increased. While ATS also reduced denitrification, it was not as
effective as DCD. In contrast, ATS and nitrapyrin were equally effective in increasing
fertilizer N availability and N uptake efficiency in spring wheat under wet soil condi-
tions (high winter snowfall) after N application (Table 4-27).
Development of products that contain both urease and nitrification inhibitors
has been prompted by studies documenting a positive response when both are in-
cluded in the fertilizer N (Table 4-28). A summary of field trails throughout the
Corn Belt showed 3–30% range in yield increases to NIs included in fertilizer N
applied to corn (Table 4-29). For fall-applied N, the primary goal is to maintain ap-
plied N as NH4 + until soil temperatures decline below 40–50°F; nitrification poten-
tial is greatly reduced in cold soils. This is particularly important in cold, wet winter

TABLE 4-26
I NFLUENCE OF N ITRIFICATION I NHIBITORS AND S OIL M OISTURE C ONTENT
ON T OTAL N2O@N E MISSION FROM U REA A PPLIED (62.5 MG / KG ) TO A
C LAY S OIL

Soil H2O Content

Treatment Field Capacity 80% WHC1
_____________ mg N O - N>kg soil _____________
2

Control 55 79
Urea 334 744
Urea-DCD 218 416
Urea-ATS 314 655
1WHC = water holding capacity.
Source: Kumar et al., 2000, Current Sci., 79:224–228.
 nitrogen chapter four 181

TABLE 4-27
I NFLUENCE OF N ITRIFICATION I NHIBITORS ON S PRING W HEAT Y IELD , N U PTAKE , AND S OIL N

N in Fertilizer Band2

Fertilizer Grain Grain N Total N Apparent After Application Before Planting

+ -
Treatment Yield Uptake Uptake NUE1 NH4 NO3 NH4 + NO3 -
bu/a ________ lb/a ________ % ___________ ppm ___________

Control 23.5 25.2 34.6 — 3 1 2 2

Aqua 38.0 40.5 52.9 24 32 21 0 9
Aqua + nitrapyrin 45.4 55.3 72.3 50 65 13 26 11
Aqua + ATS 47.3 58.3 77.0 56 54 17 13 23
1NUE = N uptake efficiency.
275 lb N/a injected 4” deep on Oct 3. Fertilizer bands sampled 3 weeks after application (Oct 24) and 1 day before planting (May 14).
Source: Goos and Johnson, 1999, Agron. J., 91:1046–1049.

TABLE 4-28
C OMBINED E FFECT OF DCD AND NBPT ON S PRING W HEAT

Treatment Yield Protein N Recovery

g/pot _____________ % _____________
Urea 8.1 16.4 65.2
Urea + NBPT 8.5 16.8 68.2
Urea + DCD 8.4 16.3 69.4
Urea + NBPT + DCD 10.4 18.0 80.9
Source: Hou et al., Agric. J., 1:109–112.

TABLE 4-29
S UMMARY OF C ORN Y IELD R ESPONSES TO N ITRIFICATION I NHIBITORS
A PPLIED WITH U REA OR UAN IN THE U.S. C ORN B ELT
Yield Increase with NI1
Region in the N Application
Corn Belt Time Irrigation % of Sites Average %
Southeast Fall No 17 14
GA, MD, NC, SC, TN Spring 43 15
Eastern Fall No 69 9
IL, IN, OH, KY Spring 51 3
Spring (no-till) 82 13
Northern Fall No 25 5
MI, MN, WI Spring 17 12
Western (sandy soils) Spring Yes 52 30
KS, MN, NE
Western (loam & clay Spring Yes 10 5
soils) KS, NE
1Datarepresent % of sites and average % yield increase to NIs added to fertilizer N.
Source: Nelson and Huber, 1992, Nat. Corn Handbook, Iowa State Univ.
182 chapter four nitrogen

climates where denitrification can occur even at soil temperature 640950°F. For
spring preplant applications of N, NIs can retain applied N as NH4 + when plant
N demand is low and rainfall potential is high. Generally, the highest probability of
yield response to NIs is on sandy soils (excessive leaching) and poorly drained fine-
textured soils. Under these conditions, potential N loss through leaching and deni-
trification are the highest, respectively. With any NI, as temperature increases, their
effectiveness decreases.

Organic N Forms
Before 1850, virtually all of the N consumed was primarily animal manure and le-
gume N. Presently these materials account for 40% of the total N use in the United
States (Table 4-4). Annually, over 1 billion tons of agricultural, municipal and
industrial wastes are generated in the United States. When used as a nutrient source,
considerable quantities of N and other nutrients are added, depending on the rate of
material applied. This section will provide general information regarding N content
of selected organic N sources, while Chapter 10 will provide detailed information on
organic nutrient management.
Organic nutrients are classified by their source and effects on the soil and target
plant. Source generally refers to animal- or plant-based materials, while effects are
characterized by:
• materials that have a stable organic base with a low N content and N mineraliza-
tion potential (e.g., composts, peat)
• materials with short-term nutrient supply, relatively high N content, and/or readily
mineralizable organic N content (e.g., manures, biosolids)
In agricultural cropping systems, the average N content in most organic materi-
als utilized is low (1–12% N) relative to crop N need. Using these materials to meet
crop N requirement requires high application rates, which often results in an imbal-
ance of other nutrients (Chapters 10 and 11). To avoid nutrient imbalances and risk
to environmental quality, lower rates of organic amendments are supplemented with
fertilizer N. In ornamental, turf, and other horticultural systems, plant N require-
ments can usually be met with appropriate rates of organic N sources.
Non-Manure Sources Many organic materials can be utilized in diverse plant or
cropping systems to provide nutrients. The majority used in agricultural and horticul-
tural systems are by-products of animal- or plant-processing facilities and municipal
waste treatment plants. About 75% of the sewage handled by municipal treatment
plants is of human origin, and the remaining 25% is from industrial sources. The
end products of all sewage treatment processes are sewage sludge and sewage effluent.
Sewage sludge or biosolids are produced during sewage treatment. Sewage effluent is
essentially clear water containing low concentrations of plant nutrients and traces of
OM, which may be chlorinated and discharged into surface waters. Biosolids are a
heterogeneous material, varying in composition between cities and even from one day
to the next in the same city. The United States produces nearly 10 million tons (dry
weight) of biosolid waste per year, and about 60% is processed for land application.
The remainder is incinerated or buried in landfills.
Biosolids contain 1–6% N (Table 4-30). While there are strict regulations re-
garding their use in agriculture, they are a valuable nutrient source. Management of
biosolids and other organic nutrient sources will be discussed in Chapter 10.
Much of the remaining organic materials used to supply nutrients are waste
products from either animal- or plant-processing facilities (Table 4-30). With ani-
mal-based materials, the N content is relatively high and the C:N ratio is relatively
 nitrogen chapter four 183

TABLE 4-30
S ELECTED O RGANIC S OURCES OF N AND O THER N UTRIENTS

Material C:N N P K Ca Mg
___________________ % dry weight ___________________

Animal Based
Blood meal 2–3 9–13 0.2–1.0 0.2–1.5 1.5–3 0.3–0.4
Bone meal 4–5 4–6 7–12 0.2–0.3 18–25 0.5–0.6
Carcass meal 3–4 6–11 2–7 0.3–0.5 4–10 0.1–0.2
Guano 3–4 8–16 2–7 1–3 18–20 3–5
Plant Based
Fruit pulp 40–50 0.8–1.4 0.2–0.3 1.2–1.4 0.6–0.9 0.1
Brewers grain 10–12 3–5 0.4–0.7 0.5–1.0 0.2–0.3 0.1–0.2
Distillers pulp 8–10 5–6 0.7–1.0 0.8–6.0 0.2–0.3 0.1–0.2
Compost
Biogenic waste 15–25 1–2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1.3 1.5–5.0 0.3–1.6
Yard waste 30–50 1–2 0.1–0.3 0.5–0.7 4–6 0.4–0.6
Municipal Sewage
Biosolids 1–6 1.5–7.0 0.2–0.5 0–12 0.4–0.7
Source: Adapted from Trenkel, 2007, Fertilizers. In Ullmans Agrochemicals 1:3–142. Wile-VCH.

low. As a result, N mineralization potential is high making these materials ex-

cellent sources of plant available N. In contrast, most plant-based materials (in-
cluding manures) have low N content and provide little mineralizable N. As a
result, plant-based organic wastes are commonly used in ornamental and horticul-
tural systems, where N requirements are lower compared to agricultural cropping
systems.
Before using any organic N source, the material should be analyzed for nutrient
content by a soil testing laboratory.
Manure Sources The total quantity of manure produced annually in the United
States is nearly 150 million tons (dry weight), with about 60% produced and depos-
ited by grazing animals (Table 4-31). The remaining 40% is produced in confined
animal feeding operations (CAFO). Approximately 16 million acres (8%) of crop-
land were fertilized with manure, with the majority 1≈60%2 applied to corn. Of
the total manure produced, 1.3 million tons of N is available for land application
(Fig. 4-62). Since the majority of recoverable N is associated with CAFO, many
regions in the United States produce more N than can be utilized on-farm. About
60% of recoverable N exceeds that used to meet on-farm crop N requirements,
where the majority is related to poultry production (Fig. 4-62). Nutrients in excess
of on-farm use must be transported to other areas.
Average annual manure production ranges 6–15 tons per animal unit (Table
4-32). The quantity of N in manure and the availability to plants vary greatly and
depend on (1) nutrient content of the animal feed, (2) method of manure handling
and storage, (3) quantity of added materials (i.e., bedding, water), (4) method and
time of application, and (5) soil properties. Most wastes exiting the animal contain
75–90% water. Storage and handling usually reduce water content in solid-storage
systems and increase water content in liquid systems, such as the lagoon storage com-
mon with swine production (see Chapter 10).
184 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-31
A NIMAL M ANURE P RODUCTION IN THE U NITED S TATES , WITH T OTAL N
AND P E XCRETED AND R ECOVERABLE ( USABLE ) AS A N UTRIENT S OURCE

N
Manure Dry
source No. Animals manure Excreted Recoverable Total Organic
___________ t * 106 ___________ ________ % ________
# * 106
Dairy 12.3 27.0 1.00 0.32 2–3 1.0 –1.5
Beef 68.4 91.5 3.87 0.26 1–2 0.7 –1.5
Swine 8.5 9.3 0.60 0.14 3 –5 1.5 –2.5
Poultry 6.1 17.9 0.99 0.58 4–6 2.4 – 3.6
Total 95.3 145.7 6.45 1.29
Source: USDA-ERS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/manure/default.asp?ERSTab=2.

Figure 4-62 Poultry

Total manure N available 8% Swine
9%
and the proportion in excess Swine
for on-farm utilization. 6% Dairy
(Gollehon et al., 2001. USDA-ERS. 9%
Agric. Information Bull. No. 771).

Dairy Poultry
21% 64%
On-farm Beef
excess 18%
60%

Beef
5% Total recoverable N Total excess N
(1.3 × 106 tons) (0.8 × 106 tons)

TABLE 4-32
T YPICAL A NNUAL M ANURE AND N P RODUCTION PER A NIMAL U NIT
(AU) FOR C OMMON A NIMAL T YPES

Manure
Production
Animal Type Animals per AU1 (as excreted) N (as excreted) N (after losses2)
tons/AU _____________ lb/t ____________

Beef cows 1 11.5 11.0 3.3

Dairy cows 0.74 15.2 10.7 4.3
Heifers, dairy 1.82 12.1 6.1 1.8
calves
Steers, calves, 1.64 10.6 11.0 3.3
bulls
Swine, breeders 2.67 6.1 13.3 3.3
Swine, 9.09 14.7 11.3 2.8
slaughters
Hens & pullets 250 11.5 26.9 18.5
Broilers 455 15.0 26.8 16.1
Turkeys for 67 8.2 30.4 16.2
slaughter
Turkeys hens for 50 9.1 22.4 11.2
breeding
1AU = 1,000 lb animal weight.
2Volatilization
and denitrification.
Source: Kellogg et al., 2000, USDA-NRCS, ERS, Report No. nps 00-0579.
 nitrogen chapter four 185

Figure 4-63
Total Manure N Form and relative N avail-
ability in land-applied
manure.
Urine (40–75%) Feces (25–60%)

Rapid N
Slow N
Mineralization
Mineralization
(amino acids, urea)
(proteins, carbohydrates)
(small amount of NH4+)

N Mineralized N Mineralized
During 1st Year in Future Years

Total N Rapid N Organic N Organic N

Available = Available + Mineralized + Mineralized
(this year) (this year) (this year) (past applications)

N Availability with Organic Nutrient Sources With any organic N source, N avail-
ability to a plant will depend on the quantity of organic or mineralizable N (Table 4-31).
With manure, total N contents range from 1 to 6%, 50 to 75% of the total N is organic
N, while the remaining 25 to 50% is NH4 + . A large proportion of the initial N excreted
is volatilized during storage and handling (Table 4-32). Thus, manure N availability to
plants depends on mineralization of the organic N. The mineralization process is the
same as described previously for soil OM.
Organic N in manure is composed of stable and unstable forms (Fig. 4-63).
Depending on the animal, a large proportion of the waste is urine, which contains
some NH4 + and readily mineralizable organic N compounds (e.g., urea, amino acid,
uric acid). If not volatilized during or after application (see Chapter 10), these N
sources are immediately plant available.
Since NH4 + can be converted to NH3 under optimum soil and environmental
conditions, significant volatilization losses of manure N are possible, ranging from 15
to 40% of total N. In lagoon systems, 60–90% of total manure N can be lost through
denitrification and volatilization during storage and land application.
The remaining stable organic N will mineralize in the first and subsequent years
after application (Table 4-33). The less-resistant stable organic N will generally min-
eralize in the year of application. This fraction represents 30–60% of total manure N,
depending on manure source. The more-resistant stable organic N mineralizes slowly
over the next several years, where about 30, 15, and 5% of the N mineralized in the
first year is mineralized in the second, third, and fourth years, respectively. N miner-
alization rates vary between manure sources (Fig. 4-64). These data show that total
N mineralized is much greater with poultry waste compared to beef and swine waste.
The initial N mineralization rate is also much higher with poultry waste.
The kinetics of N mineralization from manure, legume, or native soil OM can
often be described by a first-order rate equation:
Nmin = No 11 - e - kt2
where Nmin = amount of N mineralized at time, t
No = the total mineralizable N pool
k = mineralization rate constant 1t - 12
This equation indicates that when “k” increases, larger quantities of N mineralize ini-
tially, with decreasing N mineralized with time (Fig. 4-65). In this example, increasing
186 chapter four nitrogen

TABLE 4-33
M INERALIZATION F ACTORS FOR S ELECTED A NIMAL W ASTES AND S TOR -
AGE /H ANDLING M ETHODS 1

Mineralization Factor2
Animal Solid Storage3 Liquid Storage3
Swine 0.50–0.60 0.30–0.35
Beef cattle 0.25–0.35 0.25–0.30
Dairy cattle 0.25–0.35 0.25–0.30
Sheep 0.25–0.35 —
Poultry 0.50–0.60 0.50–0.70
Horses 0.20–0.35 —
1Factors represent the proportion of organic N mineralized in the first year of application.
2Mineralization factors are reduced for surface application compared with subsurface injection.
3Higher factors in a storage column represent anaerobic liquid storage and solid manure without bedding
or litter added. Lower factors in a storage column represent aerobic liquid storage and solid manure with
bedding or litter added.

Figure 4-64 100

N mineralization of organic
ORGANIC N MINERALIZED (%)

N in selected liquid animal Poultry

80
manures applied to a sandy
soil.
(Van Faassen, 1987, Netherlands. 60
In V. D. Meer [Ed.], Animal Manure
Swine
on Grassland and Fodder Crops, 40
Martinus Nijhoff Publ. Dordrecht,
Netherlands.)
20 Beef

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
WEEKS

Figure 4-65 120

General first-order kinetics N0 = 100 lb N/a; k = 0.2 w–1
of N mineralization. Two 100
manure sources with N0 = 100 lb N/a; k = 0.05 w–1
N MINERALIZED (%)

different total min-

eralizable N 1No = 80
100 lb N vs. No = 50 lb N2.
The N mineralization rate 60 N0 = 50 lb N/a; k = 0.2 w–1
constant (k) is varied
between 0.05 and 0.2 per
40
week 1w - 12. Higher “k”
N0 = 50 lb N/a; k = 0.05 w–1
represents manures that
mineralize N at a faster rate. 20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
TIME (weeks)
 nitrogen chapter four 187

“k” from 0.05 to 0.2 per week 1w - 12 increases rate of N mineralized, where given
enough time both materials provide the same total mineralizable N because No = 100
in both. Decreasing No decreases total mineralizable N.
Because of the importance of N to meeting future food and fiber needs, and
the growing environmental impacts of fertilizer and manure N use, it is critical to
understand N processes in soil and their influence on N availability to plants. Protect-
ing the quality of air and water resources depends on our judicious use of N inputs to
optimize plant growth while minimizing off-site N transport. Chapter 10 will provide
additional information on N management in diverse plant systems.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Describe the major functions of N in plants and germinates and turns yellow. Tests show low N in
how they might relate to distinctive visual defi- the tissue. What is wrong with the wheat? What
ciency symptoms. would you advise?
2. Do crops utilize both NH4 + and NO3 - ; which is 13. In what forms may N gas be lost from soil? Dis-
preferred and why? Does the stage of growth influ- cuss the conditions under which each form is lost,
ence crop uptake of either NH4 + or NO3 - ? and write the reactions involved. Can there be large
3. Identify an important soil property that can be losses of N gases from soil? How would you prevent
altered by uptake of NH4 + or NO3 - . or minimize the various gaseous losses of N?
4. How is atmospheric N made usable to higher 14. Classify the various forms of N fertilizers. What
plants (exclude synthetic N fixation)? What mi- are the most important sources of N?
croorganisms are responsible for N fixation? 15. What developments have resulted in the great
5. What soil property can exercise considerable increase in urea use?
influence on the survival and growth of Rhizo- 16. List changes in soil properties influenced in the
bia in soil? Describe at least two practical ways of injection zone of anhydrous NH3.
improving the effectiveness of Rhizobia. 17. What conditions favor NO2 - accumulation?
6. Define ammonification and nitrification. What Describe the harmful effects of NO2 - on crops.
factors affect these reactions in soils? 18. Ammonium volatilization of urea in soils can be
7. Why does intensive cultivation of land lead to a an important N loss mechanism. The reaction is
rapid decomposition of OM? How does this influ- NH2@C@NH2 + 2H2O S 1NH422CO3 S 2NH3
ence N availability in both the short and long term? + H2O + CO2
8. What is the difference between N fixation and a. Volatilization losses of urea fertilizer applied to
nitrification? the soil can occur if not properly managed. List
9. Nitrification is a two-step reaction. What are the the factors/conditions that would maximize the
two steps and what organisms are responsible for potential for NH3 volatilization.
each? Why is nitrification important and a mixed b. What urea management recommenda-
blessing? tions would you make to minimize NH3
10. If leaching losses of N are to be minimized after fall volatilization?
application of NH4@N, soil temperatures during c. What other source of urea (besides urea in
winter months should not rise above what point? fertilizer or manure) is subject to volatilization?
As a general rule, is fall application of NO3@N fer- 19. What is urease and why is it important? How do
tilizers to a spring-planted crop a sound practice? urease inhibitors reduce N loss?
Why or why not? 20. What are the important factors governing the
11. What is NH4 + fixation? What are the soil condi- selection of fertilizer N source?
tions under which it occurs? How important is 21. Why does NH4@N have an acidifying effect on the
NH4 + fixation to N availability? soil?
12. Barley straw was incorporated a week before plant- 22. Describe the conditions in which nitrification in-
ing fall wheat. At planting, you applied 20 lb N/a, hibitors have the greatest potential for increasing
10 lb P/a, and 30 lb K/a fertilizer. The wheat the efficiency of N fertilizer management.
188 chapter four nitrogen

23. A crop consultant recommends 80 lb N/a to a 25. A farmer wants to increase the OM from 1.5%
sorghum crop in a soybean-sorghum rotation. The to 2.0%. How many years will he take, if he pro-
following data are available: duces 6000 lb/yr crop residue (60:1 C:N, 40% C,
80% of residue N used to make OM)? The annual
Previous decomposition rate of the soil is 1%.
Soybean Crop Sorghum Crop Soil Data 26. For 3000 lb/a residue (40% c) and C:N = 60,
30 bu/a grain 100 bu/a yield 2% OM calculate the quantity of inorganic soil N immobi-
yield goal lized by micro lies.
40 lb residue/ 56 lb/bu test 1% OM 27. A soil contains 2% OM with an annual decompo-
bu weight degradation sition rate of 1%. The producer wants to increase
rate OM to 3%. How many years will it take if he pro-
40% residue C 75 lb residue/ 20 lb/a duces 10,000 lb crop residue/yr (residue contains
bu profile N 40% C and C:N is 80:1). Assume 80% of residue
content N ends up as N in soil OM, ultimately.
28. With a neat diagram, explain the N cycle.
30:1 C:N ratio 1.8% grain N 30 lb N/a 29. How nitrogen supply influences the utilization of
soybean carbohydrates? Explain.
credit 30. Mention the economically important microorgan-
0.6% residue N isms involved in biological N2 fixation. What are
Is the recommendation accurate? Show all work. their general properties and agricultural importance?
24. A turf specialist annually applies 100 lb N/a as 31. Discuss the steps involved in the industrial synthe-
1NH422SO4 to turfgrass. Initial soil pH was 6.8 sis of NH3. Write the chemical reactions.
and the CEC = 14 meq>100 g. After 20 years, 32. What are green house gases?
would the soil pH drop below 6.8 if 1 ton/a 33. What is C:N ratio? What is it’s effect on
CaCO3 were applied every 4 years? If so, by how mineralization?
much (use Table 3-3)? 34. Classify the organic nutrients by their source and
effects on soil.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Barber, S. A. 1984. Soil nutrient bioavailability: A mech- Hauck, R. D. 1985. Slow-release and bioinhibitor-
anistic approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. amended nitrogen fertilizers. In O. P. Engelstad
Barker, A. V., and D. J. Pilbeam (Eds.). 2007. Hand- (Ed.), Fertilizer technology and use (pp. 293–322).
book of plant nutrition. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Madison, Wis.: Soil Science Society of America.
Press. Jones Jr., J. B. 1998. Plant nutrition manual. Boca
Bennett, W. F. (Ed.). 1996. Nutrient deficiencies and Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
toxicities in crop plants. St. Paul, Minn.: APS. Marschner, H. 2002. Mineral nutrition of higher plants.
Boswell, F. C., J. J. Meisinger, and N. L. Case. 1985. London: Academic Press, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Production, marketing, and use of nitrogen fertil- Mosier, A. R., J. K. Syers, and J. R. Freney. 2004.
izers. In O. P. Engelstad (Ed.), Fertilizer technol- Agriculture and the nitrogen cycle. Washington,
ogy and use (pp. 229–292). Madison, Wis.: Soil D.C.: Island Press.
Science Society of America. Power, J. F., and R. I. Papendick. 1985. Organic sources
Follett, R. F. (Ed.). 1989. Nitrogen management and of nitrogen. In O. P. Engelstad (Ed.), Fertilizer
groundwater protection. In Developments in ag- technology and use (pp. 503–520). Madison, Wis.:
ricultural managed-forest ecology #21. New York: Soil Science Society of America.
Elsevier. Stevenson, F. J. 1986. Cycles of soil. New York: John
Hauck, R. D. 1984. Nitrogen in crop production. Madi- Wiley & Sons.
son, Wis.: American Society of Agronomy.
 5
Phosphorus
Total phosphorus (P) in surface soils varies from 0.005 to 0.15%, and
decreases with increasing weathering intensity. Thus, total soil P is much
lower in humid and tropical region soils compared to semi-arid and arid
region soils. Unfortunately, the quantity of total soil P has little or no
relationship to P availability to plants. Although semi-arid region soils are
often high in total P, many are low in plant available P. In contrast, loading
soils with P in excess of plant requirements, which is common in soils where
manure is continuously applied, may increase potential for P transport to
surface and ground waters. Therefore, understanding the relationships and
interactions of P in soils and the factors that influence P availability to plants
is essential for efficient P management and protection of water quality.

THE P CYCLE
As with N, the relationships between the various P forms in soils can be
illustrated in a P cycle (Fig. 5-1). The decrease in soil solution P with
absorption by plant roots is buffered by both inorganic and organic
P fractions in soils. Primary and secondary P minerals dissolve to resup-
ply H2PO4- and HPO4-2 in solution. Inorganic P 1H2PO4-, HPO4-22
adsorbed on mineral and clay surfaces can also desorb to buffer solution P
(Fig. 5-2). Soil microorganisms digest plant residues and other organic
amendments (manures, biosolids, etc.) producing organic P compounds
that are mineralized through microbial activity to supply
solution P.
Water-soluble fertilizer or waste P applied to soil in-
creases P in soil solution. In addition to P uptake by roots,
inorganic and organic P fractions buffer the increase in
solution P through P adsorption on mineral surfaces, pre-
cipitation as secondary P minerals, and immobilization as
microbial or organic P. Maintaining solution P concentra-
tion (intensity) for adequate P nutrition depends on the
ability of adsorbed, mineral, and organic P (quantity) to
replace soil solution P taken up by the plant. The ratio of
quantity to intensity factors defines buffer capacity (BC) or
the relative ability of the soil to buffer changes in soil solu-
tion P (Fig. 2-15 and 2-16). The larger the BC, the greater
the ability to buffer changes in solution P concentration
and provide plant available P.
Understanding the dynamics of P transformations
in soils will provide the basis for sound management of
soil and fertilizer P to ensure adequate P availability to
plants (Chapter 10) and to reduce P losses to surface and
ground waters (Chapter 12).
190 chapter five phosphorus

Crop P
Removal

Runoff, Erosion Manure, Biosolids P

[solution and Fertilizer P H2PO4–, HPO4–2
sediment P] H2PO4–, HPO4–2 Residue Organic P
P

Adsorbed P De
[clay and other so Readily Decomposable
rpt
mineral surfaces] ion Residues
Ad
so
rpt Immobilization
ion Microbial Biomass
Secondary P Solution P Fungi, Bacteria, Protozoa
Minerals Dissolution H2PO4– Actinomycetes, Algae
[Ca-, Fe-, Al- HPO4–2 Nematodes, Fauna
phosphates] Precipitation
Mineralization Stable Humus

Primary P
tion
Minerals s olu P cycling
[Ca-phosphates] Dis Leaching P input
P output

Figure 5-1
P cycling in soil. Internal P cycling (dashed lines) between soil solution P and adsorbed P,
solid mineral P, and organic P controls P availability to plants. Removal of P from the system
occurs primarily through crop removal; however, P losses occur from soil erosion, runoff, and
leaching.

Mineral P
Solution P
Weakly Strongly and very
H2PO42
adsorbed P adsorbed P strongly
HPO422
adsorbed P

Ca, Fe, Al-P

P form P adsorbed to minerals and
Soluble P
or source clay and other mineral surfaces very strongly
adsorbed P

Extractability
High High Low Very low
by soil tests

Availability
High High Low Very low
to plants

Figure 5-2
Relative plant availability and extractability of inorganic P forms in soil. H2PO4- or HPO4-2 in
soil solution or weakly adsorbed to AEC sites on mineral surfaces are the dominant P sources
immediately available to plants. The strongly adsorbed and P-containing minerals provide
little immediate plant available P. The arrows between P forms indicate that solution P can be
converted to any adsorbed or mineral P form. While weakly adsorbed P (labile P) can be readily
desorbed to solution (long arrow), strongly adsorbed (non-labile P) and mineral P conversion to
soluble P is substantially lower (short arrow).
 phosphorus chapter five 191

FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF P IN PLANTS

Forms
P concentration in plants ranges between 0.1 and 0.5%, considerably lower than N
and K. Plants absorb either H2PO4- or HPO4-2 (orthophosphate) depending on soil
pH (see p. 191).

Although it has been suggested that plants also absorb soluble, low-molecular weight
organic P compounds (i.e., nucleic acid and phytin), these P compounds are likely
converted to H2PO4- in the rhizosphere.

Functions
The most essential function of P in plants is in energy storage and transfer.
Adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) act as “en-
ergy currency” within plants (Fig. 5-3). When the terminal H2PO4- molecule
from either ADP or ATP is split off, a large amount of chemical energy (12,000
cal/mole) is liberated. Energy obtained from photosynthesis and metabolism of
carbohydrates is stored in phosphate compounds for subsequent use in growth
and reproductive processes. Phosphorylation is the transfer of energy-rich
H2PO4- molecules from ATP to energy-requiring substances in the plant. In this
reaction ATP is converted to ADP. ADP and ATP are formed and regenerated in

Figure 5-3
Structure of ADP and ATP.
192 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-1
P ROCESSES AND F UNCTIONS OF ADP AND ATP IN P LANTS

Membrane transport Generation of membrane electrical potentials

Cytoplasmic streaming Respiration
Photosynthesis Biosynthesis of cellulose, pectins, hemicellulose,
and lignin
Protein biosynthesis Lipid biosynthesis
Phospholipid biosynthesis Isoprenoid biosynthesis S steroids and gibberellins
Nucleic acid synthesis RNA and DNA

the presence of sufficient P. Almost every metabolic reaction of any significance

involves H2PO4- derivatives (Table 5-1). As a result, P deficiency is associated
with restricted growth and development.
P is an essential element in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic
acid (RNA) that contain the genetic code of the plant to produce proteins and
other compounds essential for plant structure, seed yield, and genetic transfer.
Phospholipids, phosphoproteins, coenzymes, and nucleotides are important
structural components of membrane chemistry and related functions. Thus, P
is essential for vigorous growth and development of reproductive parts (fruits,
seeds, etc.).
Adequate P is associated with increased root growth. When soluble H2PO4- is
applied in a band, plant roots proliferate extensively in P-treated soil. Similar observa-
tions are made with both NO3- and NH4+ applied in a band near roots (Fig. 5-4).
The increased root proliferation should encourage extensive exploitation of the treated
soil areas for nutrients and water. Adequate P is essential for fruit and seed develop-
ment. P also enhances crop maturity and reduces the time required for seed and fruit
ripening (Fig. 5-5).
Adequate P increases straw strength in cereals and increases N2-fixation capacity
of legumes. The quality of certain fruit, forage, vegetable, and grain crops is improved
and disease resistance enhanced under adequate P availability. The effect of P on raising
the tolerance of small grains to root-rot diseases is particularly noteworthy. Also, the risk
of winter damage to small grains can be decreased with sufficient P, particularly on low
P soils and with unfavorable growing conditions.

Visual Deficiency Symptoms

The most common visual symptoms include overall stunting of the plant and a
darker green coloration of leaves. With increasing P deficiency, the dark green
color changes to a grayish-green to bluish-green metallic luster. In some crops
(i.e., sugar beets), dark green leaves appear in the early seedling stage, developing
to brown, netted veining in older leaves as the plant matures. Purple leaf color-
ation is commonly associated with P deficiency. Symptoms appear on lower leaf
tips and progress along leaf margins until the entire leaf is purple. Lower leaves
are necrotic under severe P deficiency. The purple color is due to accumulation of
sugars that enhances synthesis of anthocyanin (a purple pigment) in the leaf (see
color plates).
P is mobile in plants, and is translocated from older to newly developing tis-
sues. Consequently, early growth stage responses to P are common. In the reproduc-
tive stage, P is translocated to fruit and seeds. Thus, P deficiencies late in the growing
season affect both seed development and crop maturity.
 phosphorus chapter five 193

Control (HHH) Phosphate (LHL) Nitrate (LHL)

Ammonium (LHL) Potassium (LHL)

10 cm

Figure 5-4
Effect of a localized supply of phosphate, nitrate, ammonium, and potassium on root growth.
Control plants (HHH) received the complete nutrient solution to all parts of the root system.
The other roots (LHL) received the complete nutrient solution only in the middle zone, the top
and bottom being supplied with a solution deficient in the specified nutrient.
(Drew, 1975, New Phytol., 75:486.)

P deficiency symptoms can appear in P sensitive crops emerging under cool,

wet conditions, even in soils with sufficient plant available P. Reduced P diffusion
in cool soils combined with small root systems in young plants causes P deficiency
symptoms. Increasing soil temperature and expanding root growth usually corrects
the P deficiency. When this condition is anticipated, starter P applications can pre-
vent early season P deficiency (Chapter 10).
P supply to plant roots is greatly enhanced by a symbiotic relationship between
plant roots and fungal microorganisms called mycorrhizae (Fig. 5-6). Mycorrhizal
fungi infect roots of most plants and function primarily by enhancing nutrient up-
take (Table 2-7). Ectomycorrhiza predominately infect tree species, while endomy-
corrhiza (vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza [VAM]) infect most other plants, although
plants vary in the degree of fungal infection. As new roots develop, mycorrhizal fungi
infect or enter the root and develop extensive structures extending into and beyond
the rhizosphere influenced by root hairs. Plants with a high dependency on VAM
generally exhibit (1) low root surface area due to low root branching, (2) few or short
194 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-5
Effect of P fertilization on
grain sorghum (top) and
winter wheat (bottom)
maturity. Notice the
advanced maturity of both
crops receiving P (left)
in contrast to those that
received no P (right).

Chlamydospore

Xylem

External feeding Epidermis

hyphae
Cortex
Arbuscule
Hartig
(internal hyphae)
net
Endodermis
Vesicle

Root hair
(point of entry) Fungal
Epidermis mantle
Cortical cells

Endomycorrhizae Ectomycorrhizae

Figure 5-6
Schematic of primary types of symbiotic mycorrhizal infection of plant roots. Endomycorrhizae, commonly
associated with many annual and perennial plants, infect the plant through the root hair, occupying intercel-
lular space and cell membranes in the cortex (arbuscules, vesicles), enhancing nutrient supply to the plant.
Ectomycorrhizae, common to woody plants, form a sheath or mantle over the root tips and a cover (Hartig
net) over cells in the cortex, which enhances nutrient supply to plant cells.
 phosphorus chapter five 195

Nonmycorrhizal root VAM colonized root

VAM hyphae

Root

Root
P depletion zone

P depletion zone
Figure 5-7
Influence of VAM-colonized roots on soil volume accessed for P uptake.

root hairs, (3) slow root growth rate, and (4) reduced root exudation. Under low soil-
nutrient availability, VAM-infected roots explore a substantially larger soil volume
from which to absorb nutrients. For example, VAM-dependent plants explore greater
soil P extraction volume to satisfy P requirement (Fig. 5-7). In many cases, excessive
N and/or P fertilization and soil tillage can reduce the contribution of mycorrhiza-
related nutrient uptake.

FORMS OF SOIL P
Solution P
The amount of H2PO4- and HPO4-2 present in solution depends on soil pH
(Fig. 5-8). At pH 7.2, H2PO4- ≈ HPO4-2. Below this pH, H2PO4- 7 HPO4-2,
whereas HPO4-2 7 H2PO4- above pH 7.2. Plant uptake of HPO4-2 is much slower
than with H2PO4-. Soil solution P concentration varies widely among soils from
10-7 (very low) to 10-4 M (very high), or 0.003–3 ppm P (average ∼ 0.05 ppm).

Figure 5-8
Influence of pH on the dis-
tribution of orthophosphate
species in solution.
196 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-2
E STIMATED S OIL S OLUTION P C ONCENTRATION A SSOCIATED WITH 75
AND 95% OF M AXIMUM Y IELD OF S ELECTED C ROPS

Approximate Soil Solution P for Two Yield Levels

Crop 75% Maximum Yield 95% Maximum Yield
______________ ppm ______________

Cassava 0.003 0.005

Peanuts 0.003 0.010
Corn 0.008 0.025
Wheat 0.009 0.028
Cabbage 0.012 0.040
Potatoes 0.020 0.180
Soybeans 0.025 0.200
Tomatoes 0.050 0.200
Head lettuce 0.100 0.300
Source: Fox, 1982, Better Crops Plant Food, 66:24.

Soil solution P required by plants depends on crop species and level of produc-
tion (Table 5-2). For example, maximum corn yields may be obtained with 0.01
ppm P if yield potential is low, but Ú0.05 ppm P is needed with high yield potential
(Fig. 5-9).
With relatively low solution P concentration 1∼0.05 ppm P2, supplying the
quantity of P needed or accumulated by plants 1∼ 0.3% P2 requires soil solution P
to be frequently replenished. The following example illustrates the rate of solution P
replenishment needed to meet plant P requirement.
Assume soil solution P concentration = 0.3 ppm P
Calculate kg P/ha in the soil solution:
0.3 mg P
0.3 ppm P = 3see note on pg. 1934
L solution

Estimate soil water volume (L):

Assume 1 ha area -30 cm soil depth

Figure 5-9 100

Influence of inorganic P in
soil solution on corn grain
yield.
(Fox, 1981, Chemistry in the Soil Envi-
RELATIVE YIELD

ronment, p. 232, ASA, Madison, Wis.) 60 Corn

Grain
Wahiawa soil
Honokaa soil

20

NONE .003 .006 .012 .025 .05 .1 .2 .4 1.6

P IN SOLUTION PREDICTED (μgymL)
 phosphorus chapter five 197

10,000 m2 3 * 103 m3 soil

* 0.3 m =
ha ha - 30 cm
3 * 10 m
3 3
1L 3 * 106 L soil
* -3 3 = 3see note below4
ha - 30 cm 1 * 10 m ha - 30 cm

Assume volumetric soil water content = 18%

3 * 106 L soil 5.4 * 105 L solution

* 0.18 =
ha - 30 cm ha - 30 cm
5.4 * 10 L solution
5 0.3 mg P 1.62 * 10 5
mg P g kg
* = * 3 * 3
ha - 30 cm L solution ha - 30 cm 10 mg 10 g
0.16 kg P
=
ha - 30 cm
Since we are basing these estimates on the surface 30 cm or 1 ft soil depth, we assume
25% of total rooting depth (120 cm or 4 ft.).

0.16 kg P 0.04 kg P
* 0.25 =
ha - 30 cm ha - 30 cm
Thus, 0.3 ppm P in solution represents 0.04 kg P/ha; however, plants generally
require 0.3–0.5 kg P/ha/day (Fig. 5-10). Therefore, soil solution P must be resup-
plied about 10 times each day. Under P deficiency where solution P is tenfold less at
0.03 ppm P (Fig. 5-9), then only 0.004 kg P/ha is available and solution P must be
resupplied about 100 times each day.

Note:
Converting ppm to mg/L:
0.3 g P 103 mg 1 g H2O 103 mL 0.3 mg P
0.3 ppm P = * * * =
106 g H2O g mL L L solution
Converting m3 to L:
1 mL L 102 cm 3 L
* * a b =
cm3 3
10 mL m 1 * 10-3 m3
where,
102 cm 3 106 cm3
a b =
m m3

0.6 Figure 5-10

P UPTAKE RATE (kg Pyhayd)

Influence of soil P availability

0.5 Sufficient on rate of P uptake in spring
soil P
0.4
barley.
(Adapted from Leigh and Johnston,
0.3 1986, J. Agric. Sci., 107:329–333.)
Deficient
0.2 soil P
0.1

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DAYS AFTER PLANTING
198 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-3
D IFFUSION C OEFFICIENTS AND D IFFUSION R ATE OF S ELECTED I ONS IN
S OIL S OLUTION

Diffusion Coefficient
Ion Range Average Diffusion Rate
_________ m2 >sec _________ mm/day
NO3- 10-10
to 10-11
5 * 10 -11
3.0
+
K 10-11 to 10-12 5 * 10-12 0.9
H2PO4- 10-12 to 10-15 1 * 10-13 0.13

The actively absorbing surface of plant roots is the young tissue near the root tips.
Rapid replenishment of solution P is important where roots are actively absorbing
P. As roots absorb P from soil solution, diffusion and mass flow transport additional
P to the root surface (Chapter 2). Mass flow in low P soils provides very little of the
P requirement. For example, assume a transpiration ratio1 of 400 and 0.3% P in the
crop. If the average solution concentration is 0.05 ppm P, then the quantity of P
moving to the plant by mass flow is:
400 g H2O 100 g plant 0.05 g P
* * 6 * 100 = 0.67%
g plant 0.3 g P 10 g H2O
In fertilized soil with a solution concentration of 1 ppm P, mass flow contributes
approximately 13% of the total requirement. The very high P concentrations (2–14
ppm) that exist temporarily in and near fertilizer bands are expected to encourage
further P uptake by mass flow and diffusion. Since mass flow provides little P to the
root surface, P diffusion is the primary mechanism of P transport, especially in low P
soils (Chapter 2).
In soil solution, H2PO4- diffusion rate is also low compared to other ions
(Table 5-3). Using an average diffusion coefficient of 1 * 10-13 m2 >sec, H2PO4-
diffusion would be only 0.13 mm/day, which explains why sufficient supply of
readily available P throughout the soil volume explored by roots is essential to meet
crop P demand. Low solution P and low P diffusion rate help explain why plants
frequently respond to P fertilizer placed in concentrated bands near active roots
(Chapter 10).

Inorganic Soil P
As organic P is mineralized to inorganic P or as P is added to soil, inorganic P in solu-
tion 1H2PO4- >HPO4-22 not absorbed by roots or immobilized by microorganisms
can be adsorbed to mineral surfaces or precipitated as secondary P compounds (Fig. 5-1).
Surface adsorption and precipitation reactions are collectively called P fixation or reten-
tion. The extent of inorganic P fixation depends on many factors, most importantly
soil pH (Fig. 5-11). In acid soils, inorganic P precipitates as Fe/Al-P secondary minerals
and/or is adsorbed to surfaces of Fe/Al oxide and clay minerals. In neutral and calcare-
ous soils, inorganic P precipitates as secondary minerals of Ca-P (Mg-P in high Mg
soils) and/or is adsorbed to surfaces of clay minerals and CaCO3.

1Transpiration ratio = weight of H2O transpired per unit plant weight.

 phosphorus chapter five 199

pH range for Figure 5-11

maximum P availability Relative effect of soil
High pH on P adsorption
and precipitation.
RELATIVE P FIXATION

Medium
P adsorption to P adsorption to
clays and Al/Fe oxides clays and CaCO3
P precipitation as P precipitation as
Al/Fe -P minerals Ca -P minerals

Low
4 5 6 7 8
SOIL pH

P fixation is a continuous sequence of precipitation and adsorption. With low

solution P concentrations, adsorption dominates, while precipitation reactions pro-
ceed when solution P exceeds the solubility product (Ksp) of the specific P-containing
mineral (Chapter 2). Where water-soluble fertilizers or organic wastes are applied, soil
solution P concentration increases greatly depending on P rate and method of applica-
tion (band vs. broadcast). Both adsorption and precipitation reactions occur, to some
extent, immediately following P addition. P precipitation reactions occur as solution P
exceeds a specific mineral solubility, while adsorption occurs when adsorption capacity
is not saturated with P. Regardless of the contributions of adsorption and precipita-
tion, understanding P fixation processes is important for optimum P nutrition and
efficient fertilizer P management.
P Mineral Solubility The P cycle illustrates that solution P levels are buffered by
adsorbed P on mineral surfaces, organic P mineralization, and P mineral dissolution
(Fig. 5-1). Ultimately, solution P concentration is controlled by P mineral solubility.
The most common P minerals found in acid soils are Al-P and Fe-P minerals, while
Ca-P minerals predominate in neutral and calcareous soils (Table 5-4).

TABLE 5-4
C OMMON P M INERALS F OUND IN A CID , N EUTRAL ,
AND C ALCAREOUS S OILS

Acid soils
Variscite AlPO4 # 2H2O
Strengite FePO4 # 2H2O

Neutral and calcareous soils

Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (DCPD) CaHPO4 # 2H2O
Dicalcium phosphate (DCP) CaHPO4
Octacalcium phosphate (OCP) Ca4H1PO423 # 2.5H2O
b-tricalcium phosphate (b-TCP) Ca31PO422
Hydroxyapatite (HA) Ca51PO423OH
Fluorapatite (FA) Ca51PO423F
Note: Minerals are listed in order of decreasing solubility.
200 chapter five phosphorus

Mineral solubility represents the ion concentration maintained in the soil solu-
tion by a specific mineral. Each P mineral supports specific ion concentrations that
depend on the solubility product (Ksp) of the mineral. For example, FePO4 # 2H2O
will dissolve according to:
FePO4 # 2H2O + H2O M H2PO4- + H+ + Fe1OH23 [1]
As H2PO4- decreases with P uptake, strengite dissolves to resupply or maintain
solution H2PO4- concentration. This reaction also shows that as H+ increases
(decreasing pH), H2PO4- decreases. Therefore, specific P minerals present in soil
and the concentration of solution P supported by these minerals are dependent on
solution pH.
The relationship between the solubility of the common P minerals and solution
pH is shown in Figure 5-12. The y-axis represents H2PO4- or HPO4-2 concentra-
tion in soil solution. H2PO4- is the predominant ion at pH 67.2, while HPO4-2
dominates at pH 77.2 (Fig. 5-8). At pH 4.5, AlPO4 # 2H2O and FePO4 # 2H2O con-
trol H2PO4- concentration in solution. Increasing pH increases H2PO4- concentra-
tion because the Al-P and/or Fe-P minerals dissolve according to reaction [1], which
is also depicted in the diagram as a positive slope. Increasing P availability is often
observed when acid soils are limed. Also, hydroxyapatite or fluorapatite can be used
as a fertilizer in low pH soils 1pH 64.52, as shown by their high solubility at low pH
(Fig. 5-12). In contrast, they cannot be used to supply plant available P in neutral or
calcareous soils because of their low solubility.

Figure 5-12
H2PO4– –2
Solubility of Ca, Al, and Fe HPO4
phosphate minerals in soils. 0
CaCO3 ppt.
See text for discussion.
(Adapted from Lindsay, 1979,
Chemical Equilibria in Soils, Wiley –1
Interscience, p. 181.)
2O
· 2H

–2
4
PO

4
PO
H
Ca

H
Ca

–3
( og M)

HO
2
2.5

–4 DCPD
)3 ·
–2

ite
og H2PO4 or HPO4

DCP
PO

r isc
Hy

Va
4 H(
dro

–5 O te
Ca

OC
4 )2

·2
H2 gi
xya

n P
PO
–

O4 tre
pat

S
a3 (

P
Al O
Flu

ite

ß- C

H2
ß–

–6
·2
ora

TC
Ca 5

O4
pa

P
Fe
(
tite

PO 4

–7
Ca 5

) 3O
(

H
PO 4
) 3F

–8

–9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
pH
 phosphorus chapter five 201

As pH increases, variscite and strengite solubility lines intersect several lines

representing the solubility of Ca-P minerals. For example, at pH 4.8, both strengite
and fluorapatite can exist in soil, supporting 10-4.5 M H2PO4- in solution. Between
pH 6.0 and 6.5, Al-P and Fe-P minerals can coexist with b-tricalcium phosphate
1b -TCP2, octacalcium phosphate (OCP), dicalcium phosphate (DCP), and DCP
dihydrate (DCPD) at about 10-3.2 M H2PO4-, which is about the highest solution P
concentration that can exist in most unfertilized soils.
Ca-P mineral solubility is affected much differently than Al-P and Fe-P miner-
als, as shown by the negative slopes of the Ca-P lines (Fig. 5-12). As pH increases,
H2PO4- concentration decreases as Ca-P precipitates, as described by the following
equation for DCPD:
CaHPO4 # 2H2O + H+ M Ca+2 + H2PO4- + 2H2O [2]
For example, assume that a soil contains b-TCP at pH 7.0. If pH decreases, H2PO4-
increases until pH ≈6.0 as b-TCP dissolves. As pH continues to decrease below 6.0,
H2PO4- decreases as strengite/variscite precipitate (reaction [1]). The Ca-P lines (Fig.
5-12) change slopes at pH 77.2 because HPO4-2 predominates in solution compared
with H2PO4-. The solubility lines represent only HPO4-2 at pH 77.2.
Above pH 7.8, Ca-P solubility lines exhibit a positive slope, which means that
as pH increases above 7.8, HPO4-2 concentration increases. The change in solubility
is due to the competing reaction of CaCO3 solubility given by:
CaHPO4 # 2H2O M Ca+2 + HPO4-2 + 2H2O [3]
Ca+2 + CO2 + H2O M CaCO3 + 2H+ [4]
CaHPO4 # 2H2O + CO2 M HPO4-2 + 2H+ + H2O + CaCO3 [5]
CaCO3 precipitation occurs at pH 7.8 and above. As solution Ca+2 decreases with
CaCO3 precipitation (reaction [4]), DCPD will dissolve (reaction [3]) to resupply
solution Ca+2. When DCPD dissolves, HPO4-2 increases (reaction [5]), which is the
sum of reactions [3] and [4]. All Ca-P minerals (Table 5-4) behave similarly in cal-
careous soils. Even though these P solubility relationships show solution P concen-
tration increasing above pH 7.8, P availability to plants can decrease by HPO4-2
adsorption to the precipitating CaCO3.
P minerals that support the lowest P concentration (lowest P solubility) are
the most stable in soils. For example, apatite minerals (b-TCP and OCP) are more
stable than DCPD in slightly acid and neutral soils. Therefore, P mineral-solubility
relationships (Fig. 5-12) can be used to understand the fate of inorganic P applied to
soils (see “Behavior of P Fertilizers in Soils”).
An important fertilizer P source is monocalcium phosphate (MCP)
3Ca1H2PO4224, which is very soluble in soil. When MCP dissolves, H2PO4- concen-
tration is much higher than P concentrations supported by native P minerals (Fig. 5-12).
Because soil P minerals have lower solubility, H2PO4- from fertilizer will likely precipi-
tate as these minerals. For example, in an acid soil, fertilizer H2PO4- reacts with solution
Al+3 and Fe+3 to form AlPO4 and FePO4 compounds, respectively. As a result, solution
H2PO4- decreases once the precipitation reactions begin. In neutral and calcareous soils,
fertilizer H2PO4- initially precipitates as DCDP and DCP within the first few weeks af-
ter application. After 3–5 months, OCP begins to precipitate, with b-TCP forming after
8–10 months. After long periods of time, apatite minerals may eventually form. Thus,
after MCP is applied to soil, reactions occur that decrease the elevated solution H2PO4-
concentration as insoluble P minerals precipitate. These reactions cannot be controlled
and explain why plant recovery of applied P is lower than recovery of soluble nutrients
such as NO3- and SO4-2.
202 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-13
Mechanism of P adsorp-
tion to Al/Fe oxide sur-
face. Phosphate bonding
through one Al-O bond
results in readily desorbed
(labile) P; however, bonding
through two Fe-O or Al-O
bonds produces a stable
structure that results in very
little P desorption.

P Adsorption Reactions H2PO4- and/or HPO4-2 will adsorb to mineral surfaces

(Fig. 5-1). In acid soils, Al and Fe oxide and hydroxide minerals are primarily in-
volved in P adsorption. Because of the acidic solution, the mineral edge surface has a
net 1 +2 charge, although both 1+2 and 1-2 sites exist (Chapter 2). The predomi-
nance of 1 +2 charges readily attracts H2PO4- and other anions. P ions adsorb to the
Fe/Al oxide surface by interacting with -OH and/or OH2+ groups on the mineral
surface (Fig. 5-13).
When H2PO4- is bonded through one Al-O-P bond, the H2PO4- can be
readily desorbed (labile P) from the mineral surface to soil solution. When H2PO4-
bonds with two Al-O, a stable six-member ring is formed (Fig. 5-13). Conse-
quently, desorption is more difficult (non-labile P), reducing plant available P. In
acid soils, P adsorption also readily occurs on the broken edges of kaolinite clay
minerals (Fig. 2-9). Again, exposed-OH groups can exchange for H2PO4- simi-
larly to surface exchange with Fe/Al oxides. Cations held to the surface of silicate
clay minerals also influence P adsorption by developing a small 1+2 charge near
the mineral surface saturated with cations. This small 1+2 charge attracts small
quantities of anions such as H2PO4-. As discussed earlier, precipitation of Al-P
minerals in acid soils and Ca-P minerals in neutral and calcareous soils occurs at
high P concentrations.
In calcareous soils, small quantities of P can be adsorbed through replacement
of CO3-2 on CaCO3 surfaces. At low P concentrations, surface adsorption predomi-
nates; however, at high P concentrations, Ca-P minerals precipitate on the CaCO3
surfaces. Other minerals, mostly Al1OH23 and Fe1OH23, also contribute to adsorp-
tion of solution P in calcareous soils.
Adsorption Equations
Many equations can be used to describe the adsorption of ions or compounds on
mineral surfaces (Fig. 5-14). Freundlich and Langmuir equations are commonly used
and are helpful in understanding the relationship between quantity of P adsorbed per
unit soil weight and the concentration of P in solution. The Freundlich equation is
represented by:
Q = aC -x
where Q = quantity of P adsorbed on mineral surface (per unit soil weight)
C = solution P concentration
a, x = coefficients that vary among soils
 phosphorus chapter five 203

Figure 5-14
Graphical representation of
adsorption isotherms of the
Freundlich (a) and Langmuir
(b) equations used to de-
scribe P adsorption in soils.

The Freundlich equation does not include a maximum adsorption capacity and
therefore is reliable at low solution P concentrations (Fig. 5-14). Since P adsorption
data exhibit a maximum P adsorption capacity at some solution P concentration,
another equation is needed to describe situations in which the adsorption sites are
saturated with P.
The Langmuir equation includes a term for the maximum P adsorption
described by:
abC
Q =
1 + aC
where Q, C, a = defined as before
b = P adsorption maximum
P adsorption maximum “b” implies that a monolayer of P ions is adsorbed on the
surface of the mineral, which occurs at relatively higher solution P concentrations
than described by the Freundlich equation. The Langmuir equation also shows that
further increases in solution P concentration do not increase P adsorption.
Adsorption equations provide no information about adsorption mechanisms or
whether Fe/Al oxides, silicate clays, or CaCO3 dominate adsorption reactions. P ad-
sorption is initially rapid, slowing with time, as the adsorption sites become saturated
with P. Once maximum P adsorption is attained, if P is continually added to soil, the
solution P concentration will rapidly increase with no additional increase in adsorbed P.
Under this scenario, potential soluble P transport by surface runoff or leaching en-
hances risk to water quality (Chapter 12).
In general, adsorbed P is not readily desorbed. Hysteresis occurs when the quantity
of adsorbed P (or other ion or compound) is greater than can be desorbed (Fig. 5-15).
The extent of desorption depends on the nature of the adsorption mechanism at the
mineral surface. With P adsorption on Al/Fe oxides, formation of ring structures limits
P desorption (Fig. 5-13), and contributes to hysteresis of P in soils.

Figure 5-15
General depiction of
ADSORBED or DESORBED P

Desorption
hysteresis in soil, where the
quantity of P desorbed is
less than the quantity of
Adsorption
P adsorbed.

SOLUTION P CONCENTRATION
204 chapter five phosphorus

Factors Influencing P Fixation in Soils Many physical and chemical soil proper-
ties influence P solubility and adsorption reactions in soils. Consequently, these soil
properties also affect solution P concentration, P availability to plants, and fertilizer P
recovery by crops. In general, P adsorption is greater in soils with low initial adsorbed P.
As fertilizer P is added and the quantity of adsorbed P increases, the potential for
additional P adsorption decreases. When all adsorption sites are saturated with
H2PO4-, further adsorption will not occur.
Soil Minerals
Adsorption and desorption reactions are affected by the type of mineral surfaces in
contact with solution. Fe/Al oxides are abundant in acid soils and have the capac-
ity to adsorb large amounts of solution P. Fe/Al oxides occur as discrete particles in
soils or as coatings or films on other soil particles. They also exist as amorphous Al
hydroxy compounds between the layers of expandable Al silicates. In soils with sig-
nificant Fe/Al oxide content, the less crystalline or more amorphous the oxides, the
larger the P-fixation capacity because of greater surface area.
P is adsorbed to a greater extent by 1:1 clays (e.g., kaolinite) than by 2:1 clays
(e.g., montmorillonite) because of the higher amounts of Fe/Al oxides associated with
kaolinitic clays that predominate in highly weathered soils. Kaolinite has a larger
number of exposed OH groups in the Al layer that can exchange with P. In addition,
kaolinite develops pH-dependent charges on its edges that can adsorb P (Fig. 2-9).
Figure 5-16 shows the influence of clay mineralogy on P adsorption. First,
compare the three soils with 770% clay content. Compared with the oxisol and
Figure 5-16 8,000
P adsorption influenced by Andepts > 70% clay
clay content. Oxisols
(Sanchez and Uehara, 1980, The Role 6,000 Ultisols
of Phosphorus in Agriculture, p. 480,
Mollisols
ASA, Madison, Wis.)
4,000

2,000 > 70% clay

P ADSORBED (ppm)

1,200 45% clay

1,000 11% clay

800
36% clay

600
38% clay

400

10% clay
200 6% clay
> 70% clay

0
0.001 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 1.0
P IN SOLUTION (ppm)
 phosphorus chapter five 205

andept soils, very little P adsorption occurred in the mollisol, composed mainly of
montmorillonite, with only small amounts of kaolinite and Fe/Al oxides. The oxisol
soils contained Fe/Al oxides and exhibited considerably more P adsorption capacity
compared with mollisols. Greatest P adsorption occurred with the andept soils, com-
posed principally of Fe/Al oxides and other minerals.
Soils containing large quantities of clay will fix more P than soils with low clay
content (Fig. 5-16). In other words, the more surface area exposed with a given type
of clay, the greater the tendency to adsorb P. For example, compare the three ultisol
soils with 6, 10, and 38% clay. A similar relationship is evident in the oxisol soils (36,
45, and 70% clay) and the andept soils (11 and 70% clay).
In calcareous soils, P adsorption to CaCO3 surfaces occurs; however, much
of the adsorption is attributed to Fe oxide impurities. The amount and reactivity
of CaCO3 will influence P fixation. Impure CaCO3 with large surface area exhibits
greater P adsorption and more rapid precipitation of Ca-P minerals. Calcareous soils
with highly reactive CaCO3 and high Ca-saturated clay content will exhibit low solu-
tion P levels, since P can readily precipitate or adsorb.
In relative terms, acid soils fix twice as much P per unit surface area than
neutral or calcareous soils. In addition, adsorbed P is held with five times more
bonding energy in acid soils than in calcareous soils. To maintain a given level
of solution P in soils with a high fixation capacity, it is necessary to add larger
quantities of P fertilizers (Fig. 2-16). Larger additions of P are required to reach
a given solution P concentration in fine-textured compared with coarse-textured
soils. Consequently, high clay soils often require more fertilizer P than loam soils
to optimize yields.
Soil pH
P adsorption by Fe/Al oxides declines with increasing pH. Gibbsite 3Al1OH234
adsorbs the greatest amount of P at pH 4–5, while P adsorption by goethite
(FeOOH) decreases steadily between pH 3 and 12 (Fig. 5-17).
P availability in most soils is at a maximum near pH 6.5 (Fig. 5-11). At
low pH, P fixation is largely from reaction with Fe/Al oxides and precipitation
as AlPO4 and FePO4 (Fig. 5-12). As pH increases, solution Fe and Al decreases,
which reduces P adsorption/precipitation and increases solution P concentration.
Above pH 7.0, Ca+2 precipitates with P as Ca-P minerals (Fig. 5-12) and P avail-
ability decreases. Minimum P adsorption at pH 6.0–6.5 (Fig. 5-11) corresponds
with the pH range of maximum P solubility (Fig. 5-12). Liming acidic soils gener-
ally increases P in solution. Overliming can depress P solubility due to the forma-
tion of insoluble Ca-P minerals.

Figure 5-17
The adsorption of P by Fe
oxide (goethite) as influ-
enced by soil pH.
(Adapted from Hingston et al.,
1968, Trans. 9th Int. Cong. Soil Sci.,
1:1459–1461.)
206 chapter five phosphorus

Cation and Anion Effects

Divalent cations on the CEC enhance P adsorption relative to monovalent cations.
For example, clays saturated with Ca+2 retain greater amounts of P than those satu-
rated with Na+ or other monovalent ions. Divalent cations increase the accessibility
of 1+2-charged edges of clay minerals to P. This occurs at pH 6 6.5, because at
greater soil pH Ca-P minerals would precipitate.
Concentration of exchangeable Al+3 is also an important factor in P adsorption
in soils since 1 meq of exchangeable Al+3 >100 g soil may precipitate up to 100 ppm
P in solution. The following illustrates how hydrolyzed Al+3 adsorbs soluble P.
Step 1. Cation exchange

Step 2. Hydrolysis
Al+3 + 2H2O M Al1OH22+ + 2H+
Step 3. Precipitation and/or adsorption
Al1OH22+ + H2PO4- M Al1OH22H2PO4
Both inorganic and organic anions can compete with P for adsorption sites,
resulting in decreased P adsorption. Weakly held inorganic anions such as NO3- and
Cl- are of little consequence, whereas adsorbed OH- , H3SiO4-, SO4-2, and MoO4-2
can be competitive. The anion adsorption strength determines the competitive abil-
ity. For example, SO4-2 is unable to desorb much H2PO4-, since H2PO4- is capable
of forming a stronger bond than is SO4-2.
Soil OM
Organic compounds in soils increase P availability by (1) formation of organophos-
phate complexes that are more soluble, (2) organic anion replacement of H2PO4-
on adsorption sites, (3) coating of Fe/Al oxides by humus to form a protective cover
and reduce P adsorption, and (4) increasing the quantity of organic P mineralized to
inorganic P.
Organic anions produced from OM decomposition form stable complexes with
Fe and Al, preventing reaction with H2PO4-. These complex ions exchange for P
adsorbed on Fe/Al oxides. Anions that are most effective in replacing H2PO4- are
citrate, oxalate, tartrate, and malate.
Time and Temperature
P adsorption in soils occurs by an initial rapid reaction followed by a much slower
reaction. Adsorption reactions involving exchange of P for anions on Fe/Al oxide surface
are rapid. The slower reactions involve (1) formation of covalent Fe-P or Al-P bonds on
Fe/Al oxide surfaces (Fig. 5-13) and (2) precipitation of P compounds (Fig. 5-12). These
slow reactions involve a transition from more loosely bound (labile) to more tightly
bound (non-labile) adsorbed P, which is less accessible to plants.
The initial P compounds precipitated during the reaction of fertilizer P in soils
are initially unstable and are converted to more stable and less soluble compounds.
For example, Ú70% conversion of added DCPD to OCP occurred after 10 months
at 10°C and after only 4 months at Ú20°C (Fig. 5-18). P adsorption in soils of warm
regions is generally greater than in soils of temperate regions, due to faster reaction
 phosphorus chapter five 207

120 Figure 5-18

30 C Percentage of DCPD con-

ACCUMULATION of OCP (%)

100 20 C verted to OCP as a function
10 C of time and temperature.
80 (Adapted from Sheppard and Racz,
1980, Western Canada Phosphate
60 Symp., p. 170.)

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME AFTER DCDP APPLICATION (months)

rates and higher Fe/Al oxide content associated with a greater mineral weathering
environment. Mineralization of P from soil OM or crop residues depends on soil bio-
logical activity, which increases with increasing temperature. Usually, mineralization
rates double with each 10°C increase in temperature (Fig. 4-22).
Flooding
In most soils plant available P increases after flooding, largely due to a conversion
of Fe+3@P minerals to more soluble Fe+2@P minerals. Other mechanisms include
increased mineralization of organic P in acid soils and increased solubility of Ca-P in
calcareous soils. These changes in P availability explain why response to applied P by
irrigated rice is usually less than an upland crop grown on the same soil.
Fertilizer P Management Considerations
An important practical consequence of P adsorption and precipitation reactions is the
time after application during which the plant is best able to utilize the added P. On
soils with high P-fixation capacity, this period may be short, whereas with other soils it
may last for months or even years. The reaction time will determine whether fertilizer P
should be applied at one time in the rotation or in smaller, more frequent applications.
Adsorption of fertilizer P is greater in fine-textured soils because the reactive min-
eral surface area is greater than in coarse-textured soils. Also, if fertilizer P is broadcast
applied, P is exposed to a greater amount of soil; hence, more P fixation occurs than if
the same amount of P is band applied. Band placement reduces contact between soil
and fertilizer, with a subsequent reduction in P adsorption (see Chapter 10). Although
this is only one factor to consider in P fertilizer placement, it is very important for
crops grown on low P soils with a high P adsorption capacity, where band placement
generally increases plant utilization of fertilizer P.

Organic Soil P
Organic P represents about 50% of total soil P and typically varies between 15 and
80% (Table 5-5). Like OM, soil organic P decreases with depth, and the distribution
with depth also varies among soils (Fig. 5-19). These data also illustrate the correla-
tion between organic C and organic P in soils. P content in soil OM ranges from 1 to
3%. Although soil organic P increases with increasing organic C and/or N, the C:P
and N:P ratios are more variable among soils than C:N ratio. Soils are characterized
by C:N:P:S ratio (Table 5-6). Average C:N:P:S ratio in soil is 140:10:1.3:1.3.
Most soil organic P compounds are esters of orthophosphate 1H2PO4-2 in-
cluding inositol phosphates (10–50%), phospholipids (1–5%), and nucleic acids
(0.2–2.5%). Inositol phosphates represent a series of phosphate esters ranging from
monophosphate up to hexaphosphate.
208 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-5
R ANGE IN O RGANIC P L EVELS IN V ARIOUS S OILS

Location Organic P
mg/kg % Total P
Australia 40–900 5–60
Canada 80–700 10–55
Denmark 150–350 25–80
England, Scotland 200–900 20–80
New Zealand 120–1,400 30–80
Nigeria 160–1,200 10–40
Tanzania 5–1,200 30–90
United States 5–100 5–50

Figure 5-19 ORGANIC P (mgykg) ORGANIC P (mgykg)

Distribution of organic P 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
and C with depth in Iowa 0 0
A1 P A1
mollisol and alfisol soils. P A2
(Adapted from Stevenson, 1986, 10 10 C A21
C A11
Cycles of Soil, p. 261, John Wiley & B1
Sons.)
DEPTH (in.)
DEPTH (in.)

20 20

Soil Profile
Soil Profile

B 2
A3
B21
30 Mollisol 30 Alfisol
C1
B3
40 40
C C
50 50

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
ORGANIC C (%) ORGANIC C (%)

TABLE 5-6
O RGANIC C:N:P:S R ATIO IN S ELECTED S OILS

Location Number of Soils C:N:P:S

Iowa 6 110:10:1.4:1.3
Brazil 6 194:10:1.2:1.6
New Zealand1 22 140:10:2.1:2.1
India 9 144:10:1.9:1.8
Scotland2
Calcareous 10 113:10:1.3:1.3
Noncalcareous 40 147:10:2.5:1.4
1Values for subsurface layers (35–53 cm) were 105:10:3.5:1.1.
2Values for S given as total S.
Source: Stevenson, 1986, Cycles of Soil, p. 262, John Wiley & Sons.
 phosphorus chapter five 209

Figure 5-20
Chemical structure of inosi-
tol and inositol phosphate
(phytic acid).

Phytic acid (myoinositol hexaphosphate) has six H2PO4- groups attached to

each C atom in the benzene ring (Fig. 5-20). Successive replacement of H2PO4-
with OH- represents the other five phosphate esters. For example, the pentaphos-
phate ester has five H2PO4- groups and one OH- . Inositol hexaphosphate is the
most common phosphate ester and comprises ≈50% of total soil organic P. Most
inositol phosphates and nucleic acids in soils are products of microbial degrada-
tion of plant residues. Two distinct nucleic acids, RNA and DNA, are released into
soil in greater quantities than inositol phosphates. Since nucleic acids are rapidly
degraded by soil microbes, they represent a small portion of total soil organic P.
The common phospholipids are derivatives of glycerol and are insoluble in water,
but also readily degraded by soil microbes. Thus, phospholipids also represent a
small proportion of total organic P. The remaining soil organic P compounds origi-
nate from microbial activity, where, bacterial cell walls contain large amounts of
stable P esters.

P Mineralization and Immobilization in Soils In general, P mineralization and

immobilization are similar to N in that both processes occur simultaneously in soils
and can be depicted as follows:

Soil organic P originates from plant and animal residues, which are degraded by
microorganisms to produce other organic compounds and release inorganic P
(Fig. 5-1). Phosphatase enzymes catalyze the mineralization reaction of organic P by:

The quantity of P mineralized in soils increases with increasing organic P content

(Fig. 5-21). In contrast, the quantity of inorganic P immobilized is inversely related
to soil organic P, such that as the ratio of soil organic C:P increases (i.e., decreas-
ing organic P), P immobilization increases (Fig. 5-22). Residue C:P ratio determines
the predominance of P mineralization over immobilization, just as residue C:N
210 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-21
Mineralization of organic P
in soil as influenced by total
organic P.
(Sharpley, 1985, SSSAJ, 49:907.)

influenced N mineralization and immobilization. The following guidelines have been

suggested:
C:P Ratio Mineralization/Immobilization
6200 Net mineralization of organic P
200–300 No gain or loss of inorganic P
7300 Net immobilization of inorganic P

Expressed as % residue P, net P immobilization occurs when residue P 6 0.2% and

net mineralization occurs with 70.3% residue P. When residues are added to soil,
net P immobilization occurs during the early stages of decomposition, followed by
net P mineralization as the C:P ratio of the residue decreases.
P mineralization-immobilization processes are similar to N (Fig. 4-2). Factors
affecting the quantity of P mineralization/immobilization are temperature, moisture,
aeration, pH, cultivation intensity, and P fertilization. The environmental effects are
similar to those described for N mineralization-immobilization, since both are micro-
bial processes (see Chapter 4).
Inorganic fertilizer P can be immobilized to organic P by microorganisms.
The quantity of P immobilized varies widely, with values of 25–100% of applied P
reported. Continued fertilizer P applications can increase organic P content and sub-
sequently increase P mineralization. Increases of 3–10 lb/a/yr in organic P mineraliza-
tion with continued P fertilization are possible. In general, organic P will accumulate
with P fertilization when C and N are available in quantities relative to the C:N:P
ratio of soil OM. Inorganic P will likely accumulate if C and N are limiting.

Figure 5-22 30
Relative effect of C:P ra-
P IMMOBILIZED (ppm)

tio in soil on organic P 25

immobilization.
20

15

10

0
30 60 90 120 150
SOIL C:P RATIO
 phosphorus chapter five 211

TABLE 5-7
O RGANIC P L OSS WITH C ULTIVATION IN T HREE C ANADIAN P RAIRIE S OILS

60–70 Years
Soil Association Native Prairie of Cultivation C or P Loss
____________ mg/g ____________ __ % __

Blaine Lake
Organic C 48 33 32
Total P 0.82 0.72 12
Organic P 0.65 0.53 18
Inorganic P 0.18 0.20
Sutherland
Organic C 38 24 37
Total P 0.766 0.66 12
Organic P 0.50 0.41 17
Inorganic P 0.26 0.25
Bradwell
Organic C 32 17 46
Total P 0.75 0.53 29
Organic P 0.45 0.32 29
Inorganic P 0.30 0.21 29
Source: Tiessen et al., 1982, Agron. J., 74:831.

As with N, continued cultivation increases organic P mineralization decreas-

ing soil organic P. When virgin soils are brought under cultivation, the soil OM
decreases (see Chapter 12). As soil OM is oxidized, organic P is mineralized to
inorganic P. For example, in the Northern Plains, organic C and P decreased an
average of 38 and 21% after 60–70 years of cultivation, respectively (Table 5-7).
Studies in the Midwest showed that after 25 years of cultivation, mineralization
reduced organic P by 24% in the surface soil, which was less than the loss in
organic C and N. In the Southern Plains, organic P losses are greater because of
increased soil temperature. In temperate regions, the decline in organic P with
cultivation is generally less than that of organic C and N because of fewer loss
mechanisms for P, resulting in comparatively greater conservation of organic P.
Under higher temperature and moisture regimes, equal losses of organic C, N,
and P have been observed.
Measuring organic P cycling in soils is more difficult than for N because
inorganic P produced through mineralization can be removed from solution by
(1) P adsorption to clay and other mineral surfaces and (2) P precipitation as second-
ary Al-, Fe-, or Ca-P minerals. Therefore, the quantity of P mineralized during a
growing season varies widely among soils (Table 5-8). Large quantities of organic P
are mineralized in tropical, high-temperature environments. In the Midwest, organic
P mineralization contributes about 4–10 lb/a/yr of plant available P.
Mineralizable organic P can be quantified in the same manner as mineralizable
organic N (Chapter 4). For example, assume a soil contains 2% OM in the surface
6 in., 1% OM degradation rate, 5% N in OM, and a 10:1.3 N:P ratio. Organic P
mineralized is estimated by:
12 * 106 lb soil>afs2 * 4% OM * 1% OM loss * 5% N in OM
* 1.3>10 P:N ratio = 5.2 lb P>afs mineralized
Since P removal with most crops ranges 10–40 lb P/a, mineralizable P generally can-
not meet crop P requirement.
212 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-8
O RGANIC P M INERALIZED IN A G ROWING S EASON FOR S EVERAL S OILS

Period Organic P Mineralized

Location Land Use Soil yr kg/ha/yr %/yr

Slightly weathered, temperate soils

Australia Grass — 4 6 4
Wheat — 55 0.3 0.3
Canada Wheat Silt loam 90 7 0.4
Sandy loam 65 5 0.3
England Grassland Silt and sandy loam 1 7–40 1.3–4.4
Arable Silt and sandy loam 1 2–11 0.5–1.7
Woodland Silt loam 1 22 2.8
Cereal crop — — 0.5–8.5 —
Deciduous forest Brown earth 1 9 1.2
Grass Brown earth 1 14 1.0
Iowa Row crops Clay loam 80 9 0.7
Maine Potatoes Silt loam 50 6 0.9
Minnesota Alfalfa Silty clay loam 60 12 1.2
Mississippi Cotton Silt loam 60 5 1.0
Soybean Silty clay loam 40 8 1.0
New Mexico Row crops Loam 30 2 0.4
Texas Sorghum Clay 60 7 1.0
Weathered, tropical soils
Honduras Corn Clay 2 6–27 6–12
Nigeria Bush Sandy loam 1 123 24
Cocoa Sandy loam 1 91 28
Ghana Cleared shaded Fine sandy loam 3 141 6
Tropical half shaded 3 336 17
Rainforest exposed 3 396 17
Source: Stewart and Sharpley, 1987, SSSA Spec. Publ. No. 19, p. 111.

Immobilization and mineralization processes for P, C, N, and S cycling are sim-

ilar and related. For example, if adequate amounts of N, P, and S are added to soils to
which crop residues are returned, some of the added nutrients may be immobilized.
However, continued cropping of soils without the addition of N, P, and S results in
their depletion in soils through mineralization and crop removal.

P SOURCES
Inorganic P
P Fertilizer Terminology Terms used to describe P content in fertilizers are water
soluble, citrate soluble, citrate insoluble, available, and total P (as P2O5). A fertilizer
sample is first extracted with water, and the P contained in the filtrate represents
the water-soluble fraction. The remaining water-insoluble material is extracted with
1 N ammonium citrate to determine citrate-soluble P. The sum of water-soluble and
citrate-soluble P represents plant available P. The P remaining after the water and
citrate extraction is citrate-insoluble P. The sum of available and citrate-insoluble P
represents total P.

P Content of Fertilizers Fertilizer P content is expressed as P2O5 instead of elemen-

tal P. Although attempts have been made to change from %P2O5 to %P, the industry
still expresses P concentration in fertilizers as %P2O5. Similarly, the concentration of
 phosphorus chapter five 213

K in fertilizers is expressed as %K 2O instead of %K. As a matter of interest, N was

formerly guaranteed as %NH3 rather than as %N, as is now done.
The conversion between %P and % P2O5 is:
%P = %P2O5 * 0.43
%P2O5 = %P * 2.29
The conversion factors are derived from the ratio of molecular weights of P and
P2O5:
2 * P 1g>mole2 2 * 31
= = 0.43
P2O5 1g>mole2 142

P Fertilizer Sources
Rock Phosphate
Rock phosphate (RP) is the primary raw material used in the manufacture of P fertil-
izers (Fig. 5-23). The major RP materials are sedimentary deposits found in Morocco,
China, the United States, and Russia, representing nearly 72% of total world produc-
tion. The United States produces about 18% of the world’s RP. RP minerals are apa-
tites 3Ca101PO4261X224, where X is F- , OH- , or Cl- . Fluorapatite 3Ca101PO426F24
is the most common RP. RP contains numerous impurities of CO3, Na, and Mg,
with some heavy metals, particularly Cd.
None of the P in RP is water soluble, although the citrate solubility varies
3–20% of total P. Finely ground RP can be applied directly to soil and reacts as:
Ca101PO426F2 + 12H2O S 10Ca+2 + 6H2PO4- + 2F- + 12OH-
Increasing soil acidity (lower pH) will increase dissolution of RP, since soil acids will
neutralize OH- produced and force the above reaction to the right. The solubility
of RP (fluorapatite) increases as soil pH decreases (Fig. 5-12); therefore, use of RP
as a P fertilizer is restricted to very acidic soils in warm, moist climates characteristic
of tropical regions. Since the % available P in RP is relatively small (Table 5-9),
RP rates are two to four times superphosphate rates. However, at these rates several
years of residual availability can occur, which is important for permanent crops such

Solid Fertilizer H2SO4 Phosphoric Acid Figure 5-23

Rock Phosphate
Liquid Fertilizer H3PO4 Manufacturing process
Ca10(PO4)6F2 H2 S
Precursor Material O for common solid and
4
Single Superphosphate liquid P fertilizers from
Ca(H2PO4)2 0-20-0 rock phosphate.
t

H3
ea

PO
h
e,

4
ac

Triple Superphosphate
rn

Ca(H2PO4)2 0-46-0
Fu

Phosphoric acid Phosphoric acid

H3PO4 0-56-0 H3PO4 0-54-0
he
at

at
he

Super Phosphoric Acid

Urea KOH H3PO4 (ortho) + HxPyOz (poly) NH3 NH3
0-74-0
NH3 NH3
9-18-9 10-34-0 11-37-0 MAP 11-52-0 DAP 18-46-0
ortho ortho + poly ortho + poly NH4H2PO4 (NH4)2HPO4
0-0-62 + H2O

7-21-7
ortho + poly
214 chapter five phosphorus

TABLE 5-9
C OMMON O RTHO - AND P OLYPHOSPHATE F ERTILIZERS

Commonly Analysis (%) % Total

Used Available
Fertilizer Abbreviations N P2O5 K 2O S P P Compound
Calcium phosphates
Rock phosphate RP 25–36 3–20 Ca101PO426 # F2 # 1CaCO32x # 1Ca(OH22)x
Single SSP 16–22 11–12 80–85 Ca1H2PO422
superphosphate
Triple TSP 44–52 1–2 90–95 Ca1H2PO422
superphosphate
Ammonium phosphates
Monoammonium MAP 11–13 48–62 0–2 100 NH4H2PO4
phosphate
Diammonium DAP 18–21 46–53 0–2 100 1NH422HPO4
phosphate
Ammonium APP 10–15 35–62 100 1NH423HP2O7 # NH4H2PO4
polyphosphate1
Urea ammonium UAP 21–34 16–42 100 1NH423HP2O7 # NH4H2PO4
phosphate1
Potassium phosphates
Monopotassium 51 35 100 KH2PO4
phosphate
Dipotassium 41 41 100 K2HPO4
phosphate
1Contains a mixture of ortho- and polyphosphates.

as rubber, oil palm, and cocoa. Ground RP can also be used for restoration of low
P soils on abandoned farms and on newly broken lands, usually at rates of 1–3 t/a.
In situations where RP reactivity is inadequate for immediate crop response
and P fixation capacity of the soil reduces fertilizer P available to plants, partially
acidulated RP can increase the water-soluble P content and improve short-term crop
response to RP. Partially acidulated RP is produced by treating RP with 10–20%
of the quantity of H3PO4 used for the manufacture of triple superphosphate or by
reacting it with 40–50% of the amount of H2SO4 normally used in the production
of single superphosphate (Fig. 5-24).
Figure 5-24 25
TOTAL or H2O SOLUBLE P (% of RP)

Acidulation of North
Carolina rock phosphate
20
increases soluble P and
ultimately plant available P.
Total P increases since P is 15
being added with H3PO4.
(Adapted from Schultz, 1986, Inter.
10
Fert. Dev. Center, IFDC-T-31, Muscle
Shoals, Ala.)
5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
ACIDULATION (%)

Total P-H3PO4 Soluble P-H3PO4

Total P-H2SO4 Soluble P-H2SO4
 phosphorus chapter five 215

Reacting RP with H2SO4 produces phosphoric acid 1H3PO42, commonly

referred to as green or wet-process acid, containing 17–24% P 139955% P2O52.
Ca101PO426F2 + 10H2SO4 + 20H2O S 6H3PO4 + 10CaSO4 # 2H2O + 2HF
A by-product of green acid production is gypsum 1CaSO4 # 2H2O2 that can be used
as an S and Ca fertilizer, as an amendment for sodic soils, and for other industrial
purposes.
Heating RP in an electric furnace produces elemental P that is reacted with O2
and H2O to form H3PO4, called white or furnace acid (Fig. 5-23). White acid has a
much higher degree of purity than green acid; however, high energy costs involved in
manufacturing limits its use in agriculture.
While green acid can be injected in soil or irrigation water, particularly in
alkaline and calcareous areas, almost all green acid is used to acidulate RP to make
Ca and NH4 phosphates (Fig. 5-23). Common P fertilizers are produced from either
acid- or heat-treated RP to increase water-soluble P (Fig. 5-23; Table 5-9).
Calcium Phosphates
Once the most important P fertilizer, single superphosphate (SSP) and triple super-
phosphate (TSP) use have decreased relative to NH4 phosphate sources (Fig. 5-25).
Use of SSP in the United States has nearly disappeared (Fig. 5-26).

20 Figure 5-25
MAP/DAP World use of common P
P FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION (mt)

SSP fertilizers in metric tons of

16 TSP P. MAP/DAP, diammonium
phosphate/monoammo-
Other N-P
nium phosphate; SSP, single
12 Other P superphosphate; TSP, triple
RP superphosphate; RP, rock
phosphate used for direct
8 application.
(Adapted from International Fertilizer
Industry Association, 2009.)
4

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

4.5 Figure 5-26

DAP Use of common P fertilizers
P FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION (tons)

4
APP in the United States. DAP,
3.5 diammonium phosphate;
MAP APP, ammonium polyphos-
3 TSP phate (also includes other
SSP N-P fertilizer); MAP, mono-
2.5
ammonium phosphate; TSP,
2 triple superphosphate; SSP,
single superphosphate.
1.5
(USDA ERS, 2009.)
1

0.5

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
216 chapter five phosphorus

SSP contains 7–9.5% P (16–22% P2O5 ) and is an excellent source of S

(Table 5-9). Similar to production of green acid, SSP is produced by:
Ca101PO426F2 + 7H2SO4 + 14H2O S 3Ca1H2PO422 + 7CaSO4 # 2H2O + 2HF
The gypsum by-product is utilized as described before.
TSP contains 17–23% P (44–52% P2O5) and is produced by treating RP with
H3PO4:
Ca101PO426F2 + 14H3PO4 S 10Ca1H2PO422 + 2HF
TSP was the most common P source used in the United States until the 1970s,
when NH4 phosphates became popular (Fig. 5-26). Its high P content is an advan-
tage because transportation, storage, and handling comprise a large fraction of total
fertilizer cost.
Ammonium Phosphates
NH4 phosphates are produced by reacting wet-process H3PO4 with NH3 (Figs 5-23;
5-27). Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) contains 11–13% N and 21–24% P
(48–55% P2O5); however, the common grade is 11-22-0 (11-52-0). Diammonium
phosphate (DAP) contains 18–21% N and 20–23% P (46–53% P2O5); the most
common grade is 18-20-0 (18-46-0). Although MAP use has increased significantly,
DAP is more widely used than any other P fertilizer in the United States (Fig. 5-26).
Increased global use of MAP/DAP results from increased P uptake when NH4+ is
placed with P fertilizer (see Chapter 10). Both MAP and DAP are granular, water-
soluble fertilizers with the advantage of high nutrient content, which reduces ship-
ping, handling, and storage costs. They can be used for formulating solid fertilizers
by bulk blending or in manufacturing suspension fertilizers. MAP and DAP are also
used for direct application as starter fertilizers.
Soil reaction pH around a dissolving granule of MAP is ≈3.5, compared
to pH 8.5 with DAP (Table 5-10). Depending on rate, row or seed placement of
DAP can cause seedling injury and inhibit root growth through NH3 produced
according to:
1NH422HPO4 S 2NH4+ + HPO4-2 1pH 8.52
2NH4+ + OH- S NH3 + H2O
Because of the high dissolution pH (pH 8.5), NH4+ will convert to NH3 (Fig. 4-45),
where NH3 toxicity potential is greater in calcareous or high pH soils. However,
adequate separation of DAP from the seed will reduce seedling damage. In most
cases, DAP rate should not exceed 15–20 lb N/a applied with the seed (depending
on crop, row width, soil pH and texture, and application rate). Seedling injury
with MAP is seldom observed except in sensitive crops such as canola, flax, and
other salt-sensitive crops (Chapter 3).
Except for differences in reaction pH and seedling injury when applied with
the seed, few agronomic differences exist between MAP and DAP. Reports of
improved crop response to MAP compared with DAP on high pH or calcareous soils
are generally not substantiated. Low-reaction pH with MAP has been claimed to

Figure 5-27 H3PO4 NH4H2PO4

NH3
Reactions of ammonia with + Orthophosphoric Monoammonium
Ammonia
orthophosphate to produce acid phosphate
monoammonium phosphate
(MAP) and diammonium H3PO4 (NH4)2HPO4
2 NH3
+ Orthophosphoric Diammonium
phosphate (DAP). Ammonia
acid phosphate
 phosphorus chapter five 217

TABLE 5-10
F ERTILIZER P S OURCES AND T HEIR R EACTION C HEMISTRY IN S OILS

P Source Saturated Solution Properties

Compound Formula Symbol pH P (m/L) Primary Cation m/L
Highly water soluble
Monocalcium Ca1H2PO422 TSP 1.5 4.5 Ca 1.3
phosphate
Monoammonium NH4H2PO4 MAP 3.5 2.9 NH4 2.9
phosphate
Ammonium 1NH423HP2O7 APP 6.0 6.8 NH4 10.2
polyphosphate
Diammonium 1NH422HPO4 DAP 8.5 3.8 NH4 7.6
phosphate
Sparingly soluble1
Dicalcium phosphate CaHPO4 DCP 6.5 ≈ 0.002 Ca 0.001
Dicalcium phosphate CaHPO4 # 2H2O DCPD 6.5 ≈ 0.002 Ca 0.001
dihydrate
Hydroxyapatite Ca101PO4261OH22 HA 6.5 ≈ 10-5 Ca 0.001
1Compounds not used as fertilizers, included for comparison purposes.
Source: Sample et al., 1980. In F. E. Khasawneh et al. (Eds.), Phosphorus in Agriculture, p. 275, ASA, Madison, Wis.

increase micronutrient availability in calcareous soils, but this has not been consis-
tently demonstrated.
Ammonium Polyphosphate
Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) is manufactured by reacting pyrophosphoric acid,
H4P2O7, with NH3 (Fig. 5-23). Pyrophosphoric acid is produced from dehydration
of wet-process acid. Polyphosphate is a term used to describe two or more orthophos-
phate ions combined together, with the loss of one H2O molecule per two H2PO4-
(Fig. 5-28). APP is a liquid containing 10–15% N and 15–16% P (34–37% P2O5),
with about 75 and 25% of the P present as polyphosphate and orthophosphate,
respectively. The most common APP grade is 10-15-0 (10-34-0). Liquid APP is a
competitive P source and can be directly applied or mixed with other liquid fertiliz-
ers. Commonly, UAN and APP are combined and subsurface band applied.
With APP applied to soil, rapid chemical and biological hydrolysis of poly-
phosphate produces H2PO4-. Several factors control hydrolysis rates. Phosphatase
associated with plant roots and rhizosphere organisms are responsible for biological

Figure 5-28
Reaction of two H3PO4
molecules to produce
pyrophosphate. The
reaction continues to form
longer chains called poly-
phosphates. Adding NH3 to
pyro- and polyphosphates
produces ammonium poly-
phosphate (APP).
218 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-29
Sequestering of Zn by poly-
phosphate molecules can
maintain a greater Zn con-
centration in solution than
Zn added to orthophos-
phate fertilizers.

hydrolysis of polyphosphates. Temperature, moisture, soil C, pH, and various condi-

tions that encourage microbial and root growth favor phosphatase activity and poly-
phosphate hydrolysis. Temperature is the most important environmental factor, where
hydrolysis of polyphosphate increases substantially as soil temperature increases.
Polyphosphates are as effective as H2PO4- sources for crops. One unique prop-
erty of APP is chelation or sequestering reaction with micronutrient cations, which
maintains higher micronutrient concentration in APP than possible with H2PO4-
solutions (Fig. 5-29). APP can maintain 1–3% Zn in solution compared with only
0.05% Zn with H2PO4-.
A granular fertilizer, urea ammonium phosphate (UAP), is produced by react-
ing urea with APP. The fertilizer grade is 28-12-0 (28-28-0), containing 20–40%
polyphosphate. UAP can be easily blended with other granular fertilizers. Like DAP,
seedling damage may occur when UAP is applied with the seed.
Potassium Phosphate
Potassium phosphate products include KH2PO4 and K 2HPO4 (Table 5-9). They are
water soluble and commonly used in the horticulture industry. Their high P and K
content makes them ideally suited for solanaceous crops such as potatoes, tomatoes,
and many leafy vegetables sensitive to high levels of Cl- associated with KCl (see
Chapter 6). Their low-salt index reduces injury to germinating seeds and to young
seedlings when placed close to the seed.
Behavior of P Fertilizers in Soils
Fertilizer P Reactions
Many of the factors affecting native P availability, discussed earlier, also influence
fertilizer P reactions and availability in soil. P fertilizer added to soil initially increases
solution P, but subsequently solution P decreases through P adsorption to mineral
surfaces, precipitation as Al/Fe- or Ca-P minerals, and immobilization by microbes
(Fig. 5-1).
Inorganic P fertilizers dissolve rapidly when placed in moist soil. Water suf-
ficient to initiate dissolution moves to the granule or droplet by either capillary or
vapor transport. While water is drawn into the fertilizer, the fertilizer solution moves
into the surrounding soil. A nearly P-saturated solution forms in and around the
fertilizer granule or droplet (Fig. 5-30). Initial P diffusion from the fertilizer seldom
exceeds 3–5 cm (Fig. 5-31). Diffusion of P reaction products away from the dissolv-
ing granule increases with increasing soil moisture content.
As the saturated P solution moves into the first increments of soil, solution
pH ranges from 1.5 to 8.5 depending on fertilizer P source (Table 5-10). Some
soil minerals may be dissolved by the concentrated P solution, resulting in the re-
lease of cations (Fe+3, Al+3, Mn+2, K + , Ca+2, and Mg +2 ) that react with P to form
 phosphorus chapter five 219

Figure 5-30
Reaction of a monocalcium phosphate (MCP) granule in soil. Water vapor moves toward the granule,
which begins to dissolve. Phosphoric acid forms around the granule resulting in a solution pH of 1.5. The
acidic solution causes other soil minerals to dissolve, increasing cation (and anion) concentration near
the granule. With time the granule dissolves completely and the solution pH increases, with subsequent
precipitation of a dicalcium phosphate (DCP) reaction product.

specific compounds, referred to as soil-fertilizer reaction products. For example,

as MCP 3Ca1H2PO4224 dissolves, H3PO4 forms near the granule and lowers pH
to 1.5 (Table 5-10). Other soil minerals in contact with H3PO4 may dissolve,
increasing solution cation concentration near the granule. Subsequently, the solu-
tion pH will increase as H3PO4 is neutralized. Within a few days or weeks, DCP
and/or DCPD will precipitate as the initial fertilizer reaction product (Fig. 5-12).
Depending on the native P minerals initially present in the soil, OCP, TCP, HA,
or Fe>AlPO4 may eventually precipitate.
In acid soils, reaction products formed from MCP include DCP and eventually
AlPO4 and/or FePO4 precipitates (Fig. 5-12). In calcareous soil, DCP and OCP are
the dominant initial reaction products. Because MAP has a reaction pH of 3.5 com-
pared with pH of 8.5 for DAP, P should be more soluble near the dissolving granule
(Table 5-10). The acid pH with MAP may temporarily reduce the rate of P reaction
product precipitation in calcareous soils.
Although differences in reaction pH among P fertilizers cause differences in
reaction products, the overall effect is temporary because the volume of soil influ-
enced by the P granule or droplet is small. Differences in availability of P sources to
crops are small compared with differences in other P management factors such as P
placement.

Figure 5-31
P diffusion away from TSP and DAP granules or an APP droplet in soil over 5 weeks.
(Khasawneh et al., 1974, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 38:446.)
220 chapter five phosphorus

Precipitation reactions are favored by high P concentrations that exist near

the dissolving P fertilizer. Adsorption reactions are expected to be most impor-
tant at the periphery of the soil-fertilizer reaction zone, where P concentrations are
lower (Fig. 5-31). Although both precipitation and adsorption occur, precipitation
accounts for most of the P being retained near the dissolving granule.
Interaction of N with P
N promotes P uptake by plants by (1) increasing top and root growth, (2) altering
plant metabolism, and (3) increasing P solubility and availability. Increased root mass
is largely responsible for increased crop uptake of P. NH4+ fertilizers have a greater
stimulating effect on P absorption than NO3-. Improved fertilizer P effectiveness can
occur with P placed close to NH4+ sources (see Chapter 10).
Effect of Granule or Droplet Size
Since water-soluble P is rapidly converted to less-soluble P reaction products,
decreasing contact between soil and fertilizer generally improves plant response to P
fertilizer. Increasing granule or droplet size and/or band application of the fertilizer
decreases soil fertilizer contact and maintains a higher solution P concentration for a
longer time compared with broadcast P and/or fine particle size.
Soil Moisture
Soil moisture content influences the effectiveness and availability of applied P. At
field capacity, 50–80% of the water-soluble P can diffuse from the fertilizer granule
within 24 hours. Even at 2–4% moisture, 20–50% of the water-soluble P moves out
of the granule within the same time.
Rate of Application
Even though fertilizer P eventually forms less-soluble P compounds, the P concen-
tration in solution increases with P application rate. With time the P concentration
decreases as less-soluble P compounds precipitate. The duration of elevated solution
P levels depends on the rate of P fertilizer applied, the method of P placement, the
quantity of P removed by the crop, and soil properties that influence P availability.
Modification of Chemistry in Soil Fertilizer Reaction Zone Modification of the
chemical environment around fertilizer P particles or bands of fluid P by coatings
or additions of a specific family of polymers has been investigated since 1999 on a
wide range of crops and soils. The most common polymer is maleic itaconic copolymer
® ®
solution used with solid or liquid P fertilizers (AVAIL ). Nutrisphere is a similar
product used with N fertilizers (Table 4-24).
The suggested mechanism for improving P availability with polymer-enhanced
P fertilizers is related to the large negative charge 1∼1,800 meq CEC>100 g2 of the
maleic itaconic copolymer. The high CEC attracts cations (Al+3, Fe+3, Ca+2, and
Mg +2 ) in the P fertilizer reaction zone, reducing their interaction with H2PO4-
from the applied fertilizer. As discussed in the previous section, high solution cation
content enhances formation of less-soluble P fertilizer reaction products, reducing P
availability.
Increased crop yield response to polymer-coated P fertilizers occurs, but not
consistently or predictably. It is important to recognize that while the polymer has a
high CEC, the polymer rate applied is very small compared to the soil CEC.
Residual P Residual fertilizer P availability can persist depending on P rate applied,
crop P removal, and soil properties that influence P reaction product chemistry.
P-fixation reactions influence residual P availability in acid soils more than in basic
soils (Table 5-11). These data show that approximately 45% of fertilizer P was plant
 phosphorus chapter five 221

TABLE 5-11
I NFLUENCE OF S OIL T YPE ON R ESIDUAL F ERTILIZER P A VAILABILITY

% P Available After 6 Months

Soil Type # of Soils Mean Range
Calcareous 56 45 11–72
Slightly weathered 80 47 7–74
Moderately weathered 27 32 6–51
Highly weathered 40 27 14–54
Note: Resin extractable P measured 6 months after P application.
Source: Sharpley, 1991, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55:1038.

available after 6 months over a wide range of soil properties; however, residual P
availability was lower in highly weathered, acid soils compared to slightly weathered
and calcareous soils.
With increasing P rate, the initial and residual fertilizer P availability increases
(Fig. 5-32). After more than 10–12 years, soil test P decreased to its initial level ex-
cept with the highest P rate. These data demonstrate that relatively high P rates are
needed to substantially increase and maintain residual available P over a long time
period.
Figure 5-33 illustrates the change in plant available P influenced by P rate and
frequency of application. First, plant removal of P in the unfertilized soil caused initial
soil test P to decrease substantially over 6 years. Annual application of 100 lb>a P2O5
maintained soil test P slightly above the initial soil test level, whereas the intermedi-
ate P rate 150 lb>a P2O52 resulted in soil test levels between 0 and 100 lb>a P2O5
annual rates. Triennial application of 150 lb>a P2O5 increased available P in the first
year; however, soil test P subsequently decreased below the initial soil test level until
the next triennial application. Similarly, 150 lb>a P2O5 applied only in the first year
maintained soil test P at or above the initial level during the first 3 years, followed by
decreasing soil test P in subsequent years. These data illustrate the importance of soil
testing for accurately determining when additional fertilizer P is needed for optimum
production (Chapter 9).
P placement also influences residual fertilizer P (Fig. 5-34). On this low P
soil, broadcast P applied at 45 lb P2O5 >a did not increase soil test P over the unfer-
tilized treatment, indicating that fertilizer P not taken up by the crop converted to

50 Figure 5-32
160 lbs P/a Residual effect of single
applications of P on
40 80 lbs P/a
NaHCO3 extractable P over
40 lbs P/a
NaHCO3-P (ppm)

16 years of production.
30 20 lbs P/a (Havlorson, 1989, Soil Sci Soc. Am.
0 lbs P/a J., 53:839.)

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
YEARS AFTER P APPLICATION
222 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-33 35
Influence of broadcast fertil-
izer P on buildup or decline
in soil test P over 6 years. 30 P TREATMENTS
(Havlin et al., 1984, SSSAJ, 48:332.) lbs/a of P2O5

NaHCO3-P (ppm)
100 annual
25

150 triennial
20
50 triennial
150 at seeding
15
0 annual

10
77 78 79 80 81 82
YEAR

P compounds with a solubility similar to that of the native P minerals. In contrast,

75 lb P2O5/a (broadcast) increased soil test P. Increasing band-applied P from 45
to 75 lb>a P2O5 dramatically increased soil test P in the band, indicating that the
solubility of the P reaction products is greater than that of the native P minerals
and that they persist for several years after application.
There is some question about the need for additional P even when residual
P levels are high. Low rates of P in starter fertilizers placed with or near the seed row
are potentially beneficial on high P soils when the crop is stressed by cold, wet condi-
tions and diseases such as root rots. Although residual P contributes significantly to
crop yields, additional banding of P may be required to maximize crop production
(Chapter 10).

Organic P
Organic wastes are excellent sources of plant available P, with manure accounting for
98% of organic P applied to cropland. The form and content of P in fresh organic
materials vary widely depending on source and storage/handling prior to application.
With animal wastes, inorganic P ranges from 0.3 to 2% of the dry weight, while

Figure 5-34 50
75 lbya P2O5 Band
Influence of band-applied
75 lbya P2O5 Broadcast
fertilizer P on soil test P in
the band 23 months after 45 lbya P2O5 Band
application. Band P 1 in. 40 45 lbya P2O5 Broadcast
below the seed. Unfertilized
(Havlin et al., 1990, Proc. FFF
BRAY−1 P (ppm)

Symposium, p. 213.)
30

20

10

0
6 4 2 0 2 4 6
DISTANCE ACROSS ROW (in.)
 phosphorus chapter five 223

TABLE 5-12
P C ONTENT OF S ELECTED A NIMAL W ASTES AND C OMPOSTS

Source Total P Inorganic P

_________ % of Dry Matter _________

Animal waste
Swine 1.5–2.5 0.8–2.0
Beef cattle 0.7–1.2 0.5–0.8
Dairy cattle 0.5–1.2 0.3–1.0
Poultry 0.9–2.2 0.3–1.2
Horses 0.4–1.4 0.2–0.8

Compost
Poultry manure 1.1–2.4 0.5–1.2
Lawn clippings, leaves 0.1–0.4 0.05–0.2
Biosolids 1.5–7.0 0.7–4.0

organic P ranges from 0.1 to 1% (Table 5-12; Table 4-30). In fresh manure, organic
P represents 30–70% of total P. Composting organic wastes generally increases total
P content.
As discussed with N, manure storage and handling can change the nutrient
content of manure. Mineralization of organic P during storage usually increases in-
organic P content and decreases organic P. For example after 3–4 months of liquid
swine waste storage, inorganic P increased from 60–70 to 85% of fresh manure dry
weight (Table 5-13).

TABLE 5-13
D ISTRIBUTION OF P F RACTIONS IN L IQUID S WINE M ANURE
A FTER S TORAGE

Animal Total P (% dry matter) % of Total P

Total inorganic P 1.5–2.0 85
Total organic P 0.2–0.3 15
Inorganic P in solution 0.01–0.20 5
Organic P in solution 0.01–0.03 64
Microbial P 0.02–0.04 62
Source: Van Faassen, 1987. In V. D. Meer (Ed.), Animal Manure on Grassland Crops, pp. 27–45.

TABLE 5-14
I NFLUENCE OF C ROP N–B ASED W ASTE A PPLICATION R ATES ON P A PPLIED IN E XCESS
OF C ROP N EED

Waste Nutrients Crop Requirement1

Application Excess P
Source Rate N P N P Applied
____ lb/a ____
lb DM/a % PAN 1 % lb/a lb/a
Poultry litter 8,000 2 160 1.7 136 160 25 111
Biosolid 10,000 1.6 160 2.5 250 160 25 225
1PAN = plant available N represents the amount of N required by the crop. Waste rate determined by crop N needed. Crop P required based on
200 bu/a corn at ∼ 0.2% P content.
224 chapter five phosphorus

Figure 5-35 SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Increase in Mehlich P with 0 50 100 150 200
increasing manure P rates 0
applied annually for 10
years.
(Adapted from Sharpley et al., 1984,
J. Environ. Qual., 13:211–215.) 10 No Manure
40 lb P/a/yr

SOIL DEPTH (in.)

90 lb P/a/yr
110 lb P/a/yr
20

30

40

P content in biosolids ranges from 2 to 7%, with most present as inorganic P

(Table 5-12). Thus, 40–140 lb P/a would be applied per ton of material. If 80% is
inorganic P and plant available during the first year, then 32–175 lb P/a would be
applied per ton. Because of relatively high transportation and processing expenses,
application rates generally exceed 1 t/a, and therefore the total amount of P applied
can greatly exceed typical crop requirements. See Chapter 10 for detailed discussion
of manures and manure management.
Animal waste application rates based on the N requirement of the crop also results
in P application in excess of crop requirement (Table 5-14). This example illustrates that
waste P was applied at rates 4–9 times that needed by the crop. Continued application
of wastes based on crop N requirements will substantially increase soil P (Fig. 5-35), and
increase risk of P transport to surface and ground waters (Chapter 12).

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Describe P deficiency symptoms in grasses and 7. Estimate the quantity of P mineralized, if a soil
broadleaf plants and explain why P-deficient contains 2.5% OM content and the rate of miner-
plants exhibit severe stunting. alization is 1.5%.
2. Give brief descriptions of the main pathways of 8. How is P availability influenced by soil pH?
transporting soil P to plant roots. How can P fer- 9. Refer to Figure 5-12 (P solubility diagram) and
tilization alter the importance of these pathways? answer the following:
3. Compare typical soil solution concentrations of P a. A soil contains b-TCP and strengite minerals.
with P content in plants. If a soil contains 0.05 ppm The soil pH would be ________ and the soil
P in solution, calculate the number of times the solution P concentration would be _______ M.
solution P must be replenished to meet a 0.5 kg P/ b. After 20 years of fertilizer N use, the soil pH
ha/day demand by the plant. dropped 2 units. The P mineral present at this
4. Define P intensity and quantity factors. What is pH would be ________ and the solution P
labile soil P? concentration would be _______ M.
5. What are the various mechanisms of P retention in c. Assuming the critical P level is 10-5 M, the
acid and calcareous mineral soils? minimum pH for adequate P supply to plants
6. What soil properties influence fixation of fertilizer P and would be _______.
what can be done to reduce the amount of P fixation?
 phosphorus chapter five 225

d. Assume the initial soil pH is 8. Circle one 18. What are polyphosphates? Describe the hydroly-
answer in each group. If the pH is slowly sis reaction of polyphosphates. Do you expect any
decreased, the concentration of P in solution difference in crop response to equal rates of APP
will (increase, decrease, not change) until about and MAP?
pH (7.2, 6.2, 7.8), at which point the solution 19. Briefly describe the sequence of events that takes
P level generally (increases, decreases, or stays place during the dissolution of P fertilizers.
the same) until pH (7.0, 6.0, 5.0) at which 20. What are typical distances for the initial movement
point solution P (increases, decreases, stays the of P from fertilizer application sites? Will P in the
same). reaction zones eventually become more uniformly
e. A soil contains octacalcium phosphate and distributed in the soil? Why or why not?
variscite. What is the soil pH range where solu- 21. For a crop yield of 3 t/a (0.5% P), estimate the
tion P would be enough for adequate P avail- annual excess P applied with 3 t/a swine waste
ability (assume the critical P level is 10-5 M)? (2% N; 1.52% P).
Soil pH = _____. 22. For a transpiration ratio of 500 and 0.4% P in
f. Why does P solubility increase above pH 7.8 the crop, if the average solution concentration is
for the Ca-phosphate minerals? 0.08 ppm P, calculate the quantity of P in percent-
g. Fertilizer P is added to a soil at pH 7.2. The P age moving to the plant by Mass flow.
compound in this soil is hydroxyapatite. What is 23. What is the role of microorganisms in producing P
the initial P compound that precipitates in the soil compounds in soil?
and what is the final P compound to precipitate? 24. Discuss the functions of P in plants
10. What is the original source of most fertilizer P? 25. Why P is considered as an essential element for the
11. Under what types of soil and cropping conditions growth and development of the reproductive parts
might the use of RP give satisfactory results? Explain. of a plant?
12. What acids are commonly used to acidify RP? 26. What are the characteristics of VAM-infected
Why does acid treatment of RP render the P more roots?
plant-available? 27. Distinguish between endomycorrhizae and
13. Describe the soil and management conditions that ectomycorrhizae.
you might expect an appreciable downward move- 28. Using Figure 5.9, briefly explain the influence of
ment of P through the soil profile. inorganic in soil solution on corn grain yield.
14. Under what soil conditions would band placement 29. Explain the mechanism of P adsorption using
of P result in its greatest utilization by the plant? a. Freundlich and
15. What advantages or disadvantages exist with high- b. Langmuir equations.
analysis sources such as DAP, MAP, and TSP? 30. Write a note on P mineralization and immobiliza-
16. Describe how the presence of N improves plant tion in soils.
utilization of P fertilizers. Which of the two forms, 31. Explain the manufacture of P-fertilizers from Rock
NH4+ or NO3-, is more beneficial? phosphate.
17. What is residual P? Why is it important 32. What is the Mechanism of improving P availability
agriculturally? using polymer-enhanced fertilizers?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Barker, A. V., and D. J. Pilbeam. 2007. Handbook of Pierzynski, G. M., J. T. Sims, and G. F. Vance. 2005.
plant nutrition. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. Soils and environmental quality. Boca Raton, Fla.:
Khasawneh, F. E. (Ed.). 1980. The role of phosphorus in CRC Press.
agriculture. Madison, Wis.: American Society of Sims, J. T., and A. N. Sharpley (Eds.). 2005. Phospho-
Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil rus: Agriculture and the environment. Madison,
Science Society of America. Wis.: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.
Marschner, H. 2003. Mineral nutrition of plants. Bos- Stevenson, F. J. 1986. Cycles of soil: Carbon, nitrogen,
ton., Mass.: Academic Press. phosphorus, sulfur, micronutrients. New York: John
Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999. Wiley & Sons.
Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby,
Ohio: Meister Publishing Co.
 6
Potassium
Potassium (K) is the seventh most abundant element 1∼2.5%2 in the
earth’s crust and is generally absorbed by plants in amounts larger than
any other nutrient except N. Total soil K content ranges between 0.05
and 3% and is lower in coarse-textured soils formed from sandstone or
quartz and higher in fine-textured soils formed from high K-bearing par-
ent materials. Although total soil K content exceeds crop uptake during
a growing season, only a small fraction is plant available.
Highly weathered soils are highly leached and generally have a low
K content. In tropical soils, total K content is generally low because of
greater weathering by high rainfall and temperatures; thus K deficiency
frequently occurs after a few years of cropping a virgin tropical soil. In
contrast, moderately weathered soils generally have a high K content
because of lower rainfall conditions.

THE K CYCLE
Listed in increasing order of plant availability, soil K exists in four forms:
mineral 5,000–25,000 ppm (0.5–2.5%)
nonexchangeable 50–750 ppm
exchangeable 40–600 ppm
solution 1–10 ppm
Mineral K accounts for 95–98% of total soil K, whereas
slowly available (nonexchangeable) and readily avail-
able (exchangeable and solution) represents 1–3%
and 0.02–2%, respectively. K cycling or transforma-
tions among K forms in soils are dynamic (Fig. 6-1).
As K is removed by crop uptake and leaching, there is
a continuous but slow transfer of K from minerals to
exchangeable and slowly available forms. With applica-
tion of fertilizer K, some reversion to slowly available
forms can occur.
Exchangeable and solution K equilibrate rapidly,
whereas nonexchangeable K equilibrates very slowly with
exchangeable and solution K. Transfer of K from min-
eral to more available forms is extremely slow in most
soils, and this K is essentially unavailable to crops during
a single growing season, but slowly available K resupplies
solution and exchangeable K.
228 chapter six potassium

Figure 6-1
K cycling in soils. Crop K Removal

Residue, Manure, Fertilizer K1

Biosolids K1

Microbial
Biomass

Solution
K1 adsorption

desorption
leaching

weathering K fixation

K release
nonexchangeable K exchangeable K

Primary K Minerals Secondary K Minerals

feldspars, micas micas, vermiculite

FUNCTIONS AND FORMS OF K IN PLANTS

Forms
K is absorbed by plant roots as K + and tissue concentration ranges from 1 to 5% in
dry matter.

Functions
Unlike N, P, and most other nutrients, K is not a component of biochemical com-
pounds in the plant. K exists solely in solution or bound to 1 -2 charges on tissue
surfaces. As a result, K + functions are related to solution ionic strength in plant cells.
K is involved in water relations, charge balance, and osmotic pressure in cells and
across membranes, which explains its high mobility in the plant.
K is important for many crop quality characteristics due to its involvement in
synthesis and transport of photosynthates to plant reproductive and storage organs
(grain, fruit, tubers, etc.), and subsequent conversion into carbohydrates, proteins,
oils, and other products. For example, in fruits and vegetables (citrus, bananas, to-
matoes, potatoes, onions, etc.), adequate K enhances fruit size, color, taste, and peel
thickness, which is important for storage quality.
K deficiency influences metabolic processes, primarily related to photosynthesis,
and synthesis and translocation of enzymes.
 potassium chapter six 229

Photosynthesis and Energy Relations K is essential for photosynthesis through

several functions including:
• ATP synthesis
• production and activity of specific photosynthetic enzymes (i.e., RuBP carboxylase)
• CO2 absorption through leaf stomates
• maintenance of electroneutrality during photophosphorylation in chloroplasts
Plants require K for the photosynthetic transfer of radiant energy into chemi-
cal energy through production of ATP (photophosphorylation). Energy from ATP is
required for metabolic processes in plants that produce carbohydrates, proteins, lip-
ids, oils, vitamins, and other compounds essential for crop productivity and quality.
K nutrition for optimum photosynthesis, measured by CO2 absorption, varies with
the crop, where ∼2% leaf K is needed in corn (Fig. 6-2) and ∼ 3% K is needed in
alfalfa (Fig. 6-3). Increased K supply influences stomatal function to (1) increase CO2
absorption, (2) increase RuBP carboxylase enzyme activity responsible for combining

Figure 6-2
Adequate K in corn leaves
increases photosynthesis as
measured by CO2 fixation.
(Smid and Peaslee, 1976, Agron. J.,
68:907.)
CO2 ASSIMILATION [mgy(dm2 · hr)]

K CONCENTRATION IN TISSUE (%)

Figure 6-3
RuBP CARBOXYLASE ACTIVITY
PHOTOSYNTHESIS and DARK

40 8
Relationship between K
(mmol CO2ymg proteinyhr)

nutrition and rate of photo-

RESPIRATION RATE
(mg CO2ydm2yhr)

30 Photosynthesis 6 synthesis and dark respira-

Carboxylase tion as measured by CO2
20 4 exchange in alfalfa.
(Adapted from Marschner, 2002, Min-
eral nutrition of higher plants, 2nd
10 2
Respiration ed., Acad. Press, London.)

0 0
0 1 2 3 4
LEAF K CONTENT (%)
230 chapter six potassium

ribulose biphosphate and CO2 to produce 3-phosphoglycerate, the first product of

CO2 fixation in leaves, and (3) decrease dark respiration (Fig. 6-3). The increase in
dark respiration under K deficiency reduces plant growth and crop quality.
Enzyme Activation K is involved in activation of enzymes important to energy utili-
zation, starch synthesis, N metabolism, and respiration. These enzymes are abundant
in meristematic root and shoot tissues where cell division occurs rapidly (growing
points). For example, the starch synthetase enzyme converts sugars into starch, critical
for starch accumulation in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Decreased starch conversion
causes soluble sugar accumulation that reduces fruit quality. Also, K influences the
nitrogenase enzyme required for reduction of N2 to NH3 in rhizobium (Chapter 4).
N2 reduction depends on carbohydrate supply, where K enhances carbohydrate
transport to nodules for amino acid synthesis.
Translocation of Assimilates Once CO2 is assimilated into sugars during photosyn-
thesis, they are transported from leaves to fruits, roots, tubers, seeds, and grains where
they are stored and used for growth. Translocation of sugars uses energy from ATP
that requires K for its synthesis. Sugar translocation is greatly reduced in K-deficient
plants. For example, normal translocation rate in sugarcane leaves is ∼ 2.5 cm>min,
and is reduced to half in K-deficient plants. Under adequate K nutrition, osmotic
potential of the phloem sap, water flow rate, and sucrose concentration are higher
than in K-deficient plants. K is also important as a counterion (maintaining electrical
balance) for NO3- transport in the xylem.
Water Relations K provides much of the osmotic “pull” that draws water into
plant roots. K-deficient plants are less able to withstand water stress, mostly
because of their inability to fully utilize available water. Maintenance of plant turgor
is essential for optimum photosynthetic and metabolic function. Stomata open when
there is an increase in turgor pressure in the guard cells surrounding each stoma, which
occurs by an influx of K. Malfunctioning of stomata with K deficiency is related to
lower rates of photosynthesis and less-efficient water use. Transpiration, or water loss
through stomata, accounts for most plant water use. K can affect the rate of transpira-
tion and water uptake through regulation of stomata openings (Fig. 6-4).

Visual Deficiency Symptoms

Typical K deficiency symptoms in alfalfa consist of white spots on leaf edges,
whereas chlorosis and necrosis of leaf edges are observed with corn and other
grasses (see color plates inside book cover). Since K is mobile in the plant, visual
deficiency symptoms usually appear first in the lower leaves, progressing toward

Figure 6-4 1.0

Influence of increasing K
nutrition on relative stomatal
RELATIVE TRANSPIRATION

Stomatal aperture
or STOMATAL APERTURE

0.8
aperture and transpiration
rate.
0.6

Transpiration
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
K CONTENT (%)
 potassium chapter six 231

Figure 6-5
Response of corn to K on a low K soil. Note the poor growth and lodged condition of the crop
on the right.
(Courtesy International Plant Nutrition Institute.)

upper leaves (newer growth). K deficiency can also occur in young leaves of high-
yielding, fast-maturing crops such as cotton and wheat.
Another K deficiency symptom is weakening of stalks or stems, which causes
lodging in small grains and stalk breakage in corn and sorghum (Fig. 6-5), which can
severely reduce harvestable yield (Fig. 6-6).
K stress increases crop damage by bacterial and fungal diseases, insect and mite
infestation, and nematode and virus infection (Fig. 6-7). For example, K-deficient soy-
beans are highly susceptible to pod and stem blight caused by the fungus Diaporthe
sojae L. Similarly, low K greatly increases the severity of foliar diseases (stem rot, sheath
blight, brown leaf spot) in paddy rice. In fruits and vegetables, poor storage and shelf
life due to reduced peel or skin thickness and increased skin cracking are related to K
deficiency.

140 70 Figure 6-6

Effect of N and K on corn
120 60 yield and lodging.
(Schulte, 1975, Proc. Wisconsin Fert.
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

100 50 and Aglime Conf., p. 58.)

LODGING (%)

80 40

60 30

40 20

20 Grain Yield 10
Lodging
0 0
0 80 160
K2O RATE (lbya)
232 chapter six potassium

Figure 6-7 80 Crop Yield

Summary of over 2,400 Disease/Pest Incidence
research projects demon- 60

INCREASE or DECREASE (%)

strating the positive effect
of adequate K nutrition on 40 78
crop yield and resistance 57
20 42 36
to diseases and insect
infestation. 0
(Adapted from Perrenoud, 1990, Fungal Bacteria Insects Viruses
Potassium and Plant Health, IPI 220 241
Research Topics No. 3, Switzerland.)
270 269 263
240

260

280

FORMS OF SOIL K
Soil Solution K
Plant roots absorb K + from the soil solution (Fig. 6-1). Solution K + concentration for
optimum plant growth ranges from 1 to 10 ppm, depending on crop and yield level. The
higher values are commonly found in arid or saline soils. K + uptake is influenced by the
presence of other cations, where increasing Ca+2 and Mg +2 concentrations can decrease
K uptake. In acid and sodic soils, Al+3 and Na+ can reduce K + uptake, respectively.
The quantity of K transported to the root surface by diffusion and mass flow is
related to K intensity. The relative contribution of mass flow to K absorption can be
estimated. For example, if the K content in the crop is 2.5% and the transpiration ratio
is 400 g H2O/g plant, transpirational water should contain 760 ppm K for mass flow
to provide sufficient K. Since most soil solutions contain 1–10 ppm K, mass flow con-
tributes ∼10% of crop K requirement. Mass flow could supply more K to crops grown
in soils naturally high in water-soluble K or where fertilizer K has increased solution K.
K diffusion is a slow process compared with mass flow and is limited to distances of
only 1–4 mm (Table 6-1). Diffusion accounts for approximately 90% of K absorption by
roots. K diffusion to roots can be seen from autoradiographs made by using 86Rb, which
closely resembles K (Fig. 6-8). Since K absorption occurs within only a few millimeters of
the root, plant available K that is farther away is not positionally available.

Exchangeable K
Like other exchangeable cations, K + is adsorbed to negatively charged soil colloids by
electrostatic attraction to three types of exchange sites or binding positions (Fig. 6-9).
The planar position (p) on the outside surfaces attracts K + and other exchangeable cat-
ions. The edge (e) position is comprised of exchangeable cations held to pH-dependent
surface charge (Fig. 2-9) and K + held in the interlayer positions, representing the ini-
tial K + released in the nonexchangeable K release process (see next section). The inner

TABLE 6-1
M ECHANISMS AND R ATES OF K T RANSPORT IN S OILS

Situation Mechanism Rate (cm/day)

In profile Mainly mass flow Up to 10
Around fertilizer source Mass flow and diffusion 60.1
Around root Mainly diffusion 0.01–0.1
Out-of-clay interlayers Diffusion 10-7
 potassium chapter six 233

Figure 6-8
Left, corn roots growing through soil. Right, autoradiograph showing the effect of corn roots on 86Rb
distribution in the soil. Lighter areas are where 86Rb concentration is reduced by root uptake of 86Rb.
(Barber, 1985. in R. D. Munson (Ed.), Potassium in Agriculture, Reprinted courtesy of American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America).

(i) positions have a high specificity for K + and represent nonexchangeable K + released
slowly. During a growing season, solution K + concentrations are buffered more readily
by exchangeable K + held to p positions; however, K + held on all three positions ulti-
mately buffers solution K + .
Because of the major role of exchangeable K + in buffering changes in solu-
tion K + , the relationship between exchangeable K + (quantity, Q) and solution K +
(intensity, I), or Q:I ratio, is used to quantify K + buffering in soils. Q:I measures the
ability of the soil to maintain solution K + concentration and is proportional to CEC.
Planar (p) positions Figure 6-9
Al+3, H+ (exchangeable cations) Binding sites for K+ on
Ca+2 2:1 secondary clay min-
K+ erals such as mica and
Mg+2 vermiculite.
2:1 clay layers

(nonexchangeable K +) (nonexchangeable K +)
internal (i) positions (exchangeable cations)
edge (e) positions
234 chapter six potassium

Figure 6-10 2.0

Relative difference in BC
between two soils with

EXCHANGEABLE K (meqy100 g)
equal clay content 1∼38%2, Mica
where the dominant clay is 1.5
either kaolinite or mica. As
exchangeable K is
decreased with plant K
uptake, solution K is 1.0
Kaolinite
decreased much greater
with kaolinite clay compared
to mica clay. Thus, the
BC for K + is greater in a 0.5
mica-dominated soil.
(Adapted from Grimme and Nemeth,
1979, Proc. Congr. Int. Potash Inst.,
11:99.)
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
SOLUTION K (mmolyL)

A high Q:I signifies good K + buffering capacity (BC), whereas a low Q:I suggests a
need for K fertilization (Fig. 2-15). Therefore with K +, soils dominated with kaolin-
ite clay would exhibit a lower K + BC than soils with dominantly mica clays (Fig.
6-10). In sandy soils, where BC is small, intense leaching or rapid plant growth can
deplete available K (Fig. 6-11). Liming can increase Q:I, presumably as a result of the
increase in pH-dependent CEC.
In general, the relation between exchangeable and solution K + is a good measure
of K availability to plants. Soil-testing laboratories use extractants (e.g., NH4OAc)
to quantify both solution and exchangeable K (Chapter 9). The ability of a soil to
maintain solution K against depletion by plant roots and leaching is governed partly
by exchangeable K, release of fixed or nonexchangeable K, and factors influencing
diffusion and transport of solution K + to roots.

Nonexchangeable and Mineral K

The remaining soil K is comprised of nonexchangeable and mineral K. Although nonex-
changeable K reserves are not always immediately available, they contribute significantly
to maintenance of exchangeable K. A portion of nonexchangeable K becomes available
as exchangeable and solution K + are removed by cropping; however, nonexchangeable K
release is generally too slow to meet crop demand during the growing season.

Figure 6-11 800

Relative effect of clay
content on buffering solu-
tion K + . Although initial
Sand (4% clay)
solution K + is much greater 600
in the sand, solution K + is
SOLUTION K (mM)

depleted much further from

the root surface, reflecting a
lower BC in the sand com- 400
pared to the loam soil.
(Adapted from Claassen and Jungk,
1982, Z. Pflansenernahr. Bodenk., Loam (21% clay)
147:276.) 200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE FROM ROOT (mm)
 potassium chapter six 235

K Release The rate of nonexchangeable K release to solution and exchangeable K is

largely governed by weathering of K-bearing micas and feldspars.
feldspars S orthoclase, microcline KAlSi3O8
micas S muscovite KAl3Si3O101OH22
biotite K1Mg,Fe23AlSi3O101OH22
phlogopite KMg 2Al2Si3O101OH22
Relative K availability from these minerals depends on the ease of weathering and
generally is:
biotite 7 muscovite 7 feldspars
Feldspars have a three-dimensional crystal structure, with K located throughout the
mineral lattice. K can be released from feldspars only by dissolution of the mineral.
K feldspars are the largest natural K reserve in many soils. In moderately weathered
soils, there are usually considerable quantities of K feldspars. They often occur in
much smaller amounts or may even be absent in strongly weathered soils typical of
humid tropical regions.
The micas are 2:1 layer silicates (Chapter 2). K + resides mainly between the
silicate layers (Figs 6-9 and 6-12). Bonding of interlayer K is stronger in dioctahedral
than in trioctahedral micas; therefore, K release generally occurs more readily with
biotite than with muscovite. Gradual release of K from positions in the mica lattice
results in the formation of hydrous mica and eventually vermiculite, with an increase
in CEC (Fig. 6-12). K release from mica is both a cation exchange and a diffusion
process, requiring time for the exchanging cation to reach the interlayer site and for
the exchanged K + to diffuse from the interlayer region. Low solution K + favors in-
terlayer K release. Thus, solution K + depletion by root absorption or leaching may
induce nonexchangeable K release. K release can occur from all interlayer locations,
or it may come only from alternate interlayers, leading to formation of interstratified
mica-vermiculite.
K Fixation K fixation represents the re-entrapment of K + between the layers of 2:1
clays, predominately hydrous mica (Fig. 6-12). The 1:1 minerals (kaolinite) do not
fix K + . K + is sufficiently small to enter the interlayer space, where it is firmly held
by the negative charge generated by isomorphic substitution (Chapter 2). NH4+ has

Figure 6-12
Weathering of micas to release fixed K with subsequent transformation into vermiculite clay minerals.
236 chapter six potassium

a similar ionic radius as K + and can also be fixed (Chapter 4). Cations such as Ca+2
and Na+ have larger ionic radii than K + and do not move into the interlayer posi-
tions. Because NH4+ can be fixed by clays in a manner similar to K + , its presence will
alter both fixation of added K and release of fixed K. Just as the presence of K + can
block the release of fixed NH4+ , the presence of NH4+ can partially block the release
of fixed K + . NH4+ held in the interlayer positions further traps K + already present.
K fixation is generally more important in fine-textured soils. Although fixation
reactions are not considered a serious factor in limiting crop response to either applied
NH4+ or K + , increasing K + concentration in soils with a high fixation capacity will
obviously encourage greater fixation.
Air drying some soils high in exchangeable K can result in fixation and a decline in
exchangeable K. In contrast, drying of field-moist soils low in exchangeable K, particu-
larly subsoils, will frequently increase exchangeable K. The release of K upon drying is
thought to be caused by cracking of the clay edges and exposure of interlayer K, which
can then be released to exchange sites. Wetting and drying effects on K availability under
field conditions are difficult to quantify. They are important, however, in soil testing.
Soil test procedures call for air drying samples before analysis. Drying can alter extract-
able K and subsequent K recommendations. Freezing and thawing of moist soils can also
release K in soils containing mica.
As with P, the conversion of K to slowly available or fixed forms reduces its
availability for plant uptake. However, it must not be assumed that K fixation is
completely unfavorable. K fixation results in conservation of K, which can eventu-
ally become available through K release.

FACTORS AFFECTING K AVAILABILITY

Clay Minerals and CEC
The greater the proportion of high K minerals, the greater the potential K availabil-
ity. Soils containing vermiculite, montmorillonite, or mica have more K than soils
containing mainly kaolinitic clays, common in highly weathered soils (Table 2-2).
Intensively cropped montmorillonitic soils may be low in K and require K fertilization
for optimum crop production. Fine-textured soils usually have a higher CEC and can
hold more exchangeable K; however, a higher exchangeable K does not always result in
higher solution K. Solution K + in fine-textured soils may be considerably lower than in
coarse-textured soils at any given level of exchangeable K (Fig. 6-11).

Exchangeable K
Exchangeable K is highly correlated to K availability to plants. As exchangeable K in-
creases, fertilizer K recommendations decrease (Fig. 6-13). In general, the amount of
K needed to increase exchangeable K + by 1 ppm can vary (5–30 lb K/a), depending
on the variation in K-fixation potential among soils. Fortunately, some of the fixed K
may be subsequently released to crops, but the release may be too slow to meet plant
K demand during a growing season.

Environment
Soil Moisture and Temperature With low soil moisture, water films around soil
particles are thinner and discontinuous, resulting in a more tortuous path for K + dif-
fusion to roots (Chapter 2). Increasing K levels or soil moisture content will increase
K diffusion (Fig. 6-14).
Plants suffering from drought stress exhibit a larger K requirement, which is
related to the important role of K in photosynthetic CO2 fixation. Under drought stress,
 potassium chapter six 237

Figure 6-13
Influence of exchangeable
K and alfalfa yield level on
recommended K rate. Fertil-
izer K rate decreases with
increasing soil test K and
decreasing alfalfa yield goal.
(Adapted from Gerwin and Gelder-
man, 2005, South Dakota Fertilizer
Rec. Guide, SDSU, EC750.)

Figure 6-14
Diffusion of K in silt loam as
influenced by soil tempera-
ture and moisture.
(Adapted from Skogley, 1981, Proc.
32nd Northwest Fert.Conf., Billings,
Mont.)

TE )
MP (%
ER O
AT H2
URE IL
(°C SO
)

stomatal closure decreases CO2 fixation, which increases formation of reactive oxygen
species [e.g., superoxide radical 1O2 # - 2, hydrogen peroxide 1H2O22 and hydroxyl
radical 1OH # 2]. These compounds damage chloroplasts, reducing photosynthesis and
carbohydrate metabolism. As drought severity is enhanced, increased K supply is neces-
sary to maintain photosynthesis and protect chloroplasts from oxidative damage.
The temperature effect on K uptake is due to changes in both K diffusion
(Fig. 6-14) and root growth. For example, K influx into corn roots at 15°C was
650% of that at 29°C (Fig. 6-15). In the same study, root growth was eight times
greater at 29°C than at 15°C. K concentration in the shoot was 8% at 29°C and
4% at 15°C. Providing high K levels to increase K uptake at low temperatures
238 chapter six potassium

Figure 6-15 1.2

Rate of K influx into young 298C
corn roots is increased by

K INFLUX (pmol Kycm • sec)

higher temperature and K
concentration in solution.
(Ching and Barber, 1979, Agron. 0.8
J.,71:1040.)

0.4
158C

0 25 50 75
SOLUTION K CONCENTRATION (mM)

overcomes some of the adverse effect of low temperature on K diffusion. Tempera-

ture effects are probably a major reason for crop responses to band-applied K with
early planted crops (Fig. 6-16).
Soil Aeration Normal root function is strongly dependent on an adequate O2 sup-
ply. Under high soil moisture or in compacted soils, root growth is restricted, O2
supply is reduced, and K absorption is slowed. The inhibitory action of poor aeration
on nutrient uptake is most pronounced with K.
Soil pH In low pH soils, elevated levels of exchangeable Al+3 and Mn+2 create an
unfavorable root environment for nutrient uptake. When acid soils are limed, the re-
duction in exchangeable Al+3 reduces competition with K + , enabling K + to compete
with Ca+2 for exchange sites. As a consequence, more K + can be adsorbed to CEC,
reducing potential K leaching losses.
Ca+2 and Mg +2 compete with K + for uptake; thus, soils high in one or both
may require K fertilization for optimum K nutrition. Thus, K availability is some-
what dependent on its concentration relative to Ca+2 and Mg +2.

K Leaching
In most soils, K leaching losses are small, except in coarse-textured or organic soils
in humid regions or under irrigation. In the humid tropics, K leaching is recognized
as a major factor in limiting productivity. Under natural vegetation, leaching is low

Figure 6-16 60
Effect of planting date and 0 lbs K2O/a 20 lbs K2O/a
band-applied K at planting
on barley grain yield.
50
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

(Dubbs, 1981, Better Crops Plant

Food, 65:27.)

40

30

20
April 6 May 6 June 6
PLANTING DATE
 potassium chapter six 239

100 Figure 6-17

Influence of K source on K
leaching losses in turfgrass.
80
KCI (Sartain, 1988, Soil Sci. Fert. Sheet,

K LEACHED (%)
SL52, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, Fla.)
K2SO4
60

40

20 K3PO4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
IRRIGATION (% of maximum)

(0–5 lb/a/yr); however, on cleared land after fertilizer application, 30–40% of applied
K may be leached with cropping, and much higher losses occur on bare land. In these
soils, small annual or split applications should be used rather than higher annual K
rates to build up soil K.
K source can influence the amount of K leached (Fig. 6-17). Compared with
-
Cl , the SO4-2 and PO4-3 sources exhibit greater anion adsorption to 1 +2 exchange
sites. Thus, with fewer anions in solution available for leaching, less K + would leach.
Recall that solutions must be electrically neutral [1-2 charges = 1+2 charges];
therefore, for every 1 -2 charge leached, one 1+2 charge must also be leached.
Specific cations adsorbed to the CEC also influence K leaching. Consider the
following:
K+ Ca+2
K+ Al+3
Clay

Clay

A Al+3 + CaSO4 M + K2SO4

K+ K+
K+ K+
K+
Ca+2
K+
Clay

Clay

B Al+3 + 2KCl M + CaCl2

Al+3
Al+3
Al+3

In A, the CEC is nearly saturated with K + (usually not the case). By adding a neu-
tral salt (e.g., CaSO4), some adsorbed K + will be replaced by Ca+2. The amount of
replacement will depend on the type and amount of salt added and the quantity of
adsorbed K + . On some soils planted to perennial crops, CaSO4 is applied to encour-
age K + desorption and transport into the subsoil to increase K availability deeper in
the profile.
In B, KCl is added to a soil saturated with Ca+2 and Al+3. Because Ca+2 is
easier to displace than Al+3, the added K + replaces some of the Ca+2. This reaction
illustrates an important point: The greater the degree of Ca+2 saturation, the greater
the K + adsorption. This is consistent with the previous example, where Ca+2 from
CaSO4 replaces K + , but less readily replaces Al+3 (lyotropic series in Chapter 2). In
such cases, there will be a net transfer of K + to the soil solution. Sandy soils with a
high %BS retain more exchangeable K + than soils with a low %BS (high exchange-
able Al+3), because the added K + will exchange with Ca+2 easier than in an acid soil
with low %BS. Liming increases %BS, thus decreasing exchangeable K + loss.
240 chapter six potassium

SOURCES OF K
Inorganic K Fertilizers
Deposits of soluble K salts are found well beneath the earth’s surface. Many of these
deposits have high purity and lend themselves to mining of K salts or potash. The
world’s largest high grade potash deposit is in Canada, extending 450 miles long by
150 miles wide, with a depth of 3,000–7,000 ft.
Like P, fertilizer K content is presently guaranteed as K oxide 1K 2O2 equivalent
(Table 6-2). Converting between %K and %K 2O is accomplished by:
%K = %K 2O * 0.83
%K 2O = %K * 1.2

Potassium Chloride (KCl) Fertilizer-grade KCl contains 50–52% K (60–63% K 2O)

and varies in color from pink or red to brown or white, depending on the mining
and recovery process. KCl is the most common K fertilizer used for direct application
and for manufacture of N-P-K fertilizers (Fig. 6-18). When added to soil, it readily
dissolves in water.
Potassium Sulfate (K2SO4 ) K 2SO4 is a white solid containing 42–44% K
150953% K 2O2 and 17% S. Its global consumption has been increasing and now
represents about 7% of total K use. K 2SO4 is produced in several different ways,
including reacting KCl with SO4-containing salts or H2SO4 and recovery from natu-
ral brines. It is commonly used on Cl- sensitive crops such as potatoes and tobacco
and for tree fruits and vegetables. Its behavior is similar to KCl in soil but has the
advantages of supplying S and having a lower salt index.

TABLE 6-2
P LANT N UTRIENT C ONTENT OF C OMMON K F ERTILIZERS

Source N P2O5 K2O S Mg

_____________________________ % _______________________________

Inorganic
Potassium chloride — — 60–62 — —
Potassium sulfate — — 50–52 17 —
Potassium magnesium sulfate — — 22 23 11
Potassium nitrate 13 — 44 — —
Potassium hydroxide — — 83 — —
Potassium carbonate — — 68 — —
Potassium orthophosphates — 30–60 30–50 — —
Potassium polyphosphates — 40–60 22–48 — —
Potassium thiosulfate — — 25 17 —
Potassium polysulfide — — 22 23 —
Greensand — 1 6 — —
Organic
Cottonseed hull ash 1 — 27 — —
Manure1—cattle 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.1
—poultry 1.5–3 1–3 0.5–2 0.2 0.4
—swine 0.5–1.2 0.3-0.7 0.2–0.3 — —
Wood ashes — 2 6 — 1
Yard compost 1–2 0.1–0.3 0.5–0.7 0.3–0.5 0.4–0.6
1Highly variable nutrient content and waste analysis recommended before application.
 potassium chapter six 241

18 Figure 6-18
World - KCl World and U.S.
16 World - other consumption of K
US - KCl fertilizers 1tonnes * 1062.

K FERTILIZER USE (mt)

14
US - other (USDA ERS, 2009; FAO, 2009.)
12

10

0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR

Potassium Magnesium Sulfate 1K2SO4, MgSO4 2 Potassium magnesium sulfate is a

double salt containing 18% K 122% K 2O2, 11% Mg, and 22% S. It has the advan-
tage of supplying both Mg and S and is frequently included in mixed fertilizers for
soils deficient in Mg and S. It reacts as would any other neutral salt when applied to
the soil.
Potassium Nitrate 1 KNO3 2 KNO3 contains 13% N and 37% K 144% K 2O2. Ag-
ronomically, it is an excellent source of fertilizer N and K. KNO3 is marketed largely
for use on fruit trees and on crops such as cotton and vegetables. If production costs
can be lowered, it might compete with other sources of N and K for use on crops of
a lower value.
Potassium Phosphates 1 K4P2O7, KH2PO4, K2HPO4 2 Several K phosphates have
been produced and marketed on a limited basis. Their advantages are (1) high analy-
sis, (2) low salt index, (3) useful for preparation of clear fluid fertilizers high in K 2O,
(4) polyphosphate as a P source, and (5) well suited for use on potatoes and other
crops sensitive to excessive amounts of Cl- .
Potassium Carbonate 1 K2CO3 2 , Potassium Bicarbonate 1 KHCO3 2, Potassium Hy-
droxide (KOH) These salts are used primarily for the production of high-purity fer-
tilizers for foliar application or other specialty uses. The high cost of manufacture has
precluded their widespread use as commercial fertilizers.
Potassium Thiosulfate 1 K2S2O3 2 and Potassium Polysulfide 1KSx 2 Analysis of these
liquid fertilizers, K 2S2O3 and KSx, is 0-0-25-17 and 0-0-22-23, respectively. K 2S2O3
is compatible with most liquid fertilizers and is well suited for foliar application and
drip irrigation.

Organic K
K in organic wastes (manures and sewage sludge) occurs predominately as soluble
inorganic K + . In animal waste, K content ranges between 0.22% (4–40 lb K/t) of
dry matter (Table 6-2). The average K content in biosolids is ∼10 lb K>t. Therefore,
waste materials can supply sufficient quantities of plant available K, depending on
the rate applied. Most waste application rates are governed by the quantity of N or
P applied to minimize impacts of land application of waste on surface and ground-
water quality. If low waste rates are utilized on K-deficient soils, additional K may be
needed.
242 chapter six potassium

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What processes transport K to the plant root 12. Under what soil conditions might you prefer to
surface? use K 2SO4@MgSO4 rather than KCl and dolomite
2. Why do K deficiency symptoms commonly or KCl alone? Are there situations where KCl will
appear on old growth first? be more effective than K 2SO4 or KNO3?
3. What factors control the amount of K present in 13. For a soil with CEC = 10 meq/100 g soil and
the soil solution? 10% K saturation, calculate the initial and final
4. How does exchangeable K buffer solution K? exchangeable K after one crop. Assume that the
5. Under what soil conditions is there most likely alfalfa crop yields 5 t/a/yr at 5% K content.
to be reversion of available or added K to less- 14. Two soils have CEC = 5 meq>100 g and 25
available forms? meg/100 g. Both have 5% exchangeable K.
6. Describe the effect liming an acid soil has on K Calculate exchangeable K content for both soils
leaching or retention? (lb/a). Using the crop data in Question 13, how
7. Why does the addition of gypsum to an acid soil many years can each soil be cropped before all
not result in an increased conservation of K? the exchangeable K is removed? Assume that 1%
8. Describe K fixation in soil. How does fixed K of the CEC is resupplied by nonexchangeable K
become available to plants? release each year after the first year.
9. Is K released more readily from feldspar than from 15. A soil with CEC = 10 meq/100 g has 10%
the K-bearing micas? Do members of the mica exchangeable K. Determine the exchangeable K
group have similar abilities to supply K? In which content in lb/a.
soil particle size fractions are feldspar and micas 16. Why K is essential for photosynthesis? Explain its
usually found? energy-related functions.
10. Describe the changes that occur when mica min- 17. Explain the role of K in enzymatic activation.
erals weather in soils. Why could exchangeable K 18. What are the three types of exchanging sites of K+
increase with transformation of mica to montmo- ions? Explain their influence on buffering.
rillonite or vermiculite? 19. What is Q : I ratio? What is its significance?
11. Why might continuous cropping at high yield 20. What are the important sources of K?
levels deplete available K over time and increase
the probability of a response to K?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Barber, S. A., R. D. Munson, and W. B. Dancy. 1985. Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999.
Production, marketing, and use of potassium Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby,
fertilizers. In O. P. Englestad (Ed.), Fertilizer tech- Ohio: Meister Publ. Co.
nology and use (pp. 377–410). Madison, Wis.: Munson, R. D. (Ed.). 1985. Potassium in agriculture.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Madison, Wis.: Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Huang, P. M. 2005. Chemistry of potassium in soils. Syers, J. K. 1998. Soil and plant potassium in agricul-
In M. A. Tabatabai and D. L. Sparks (Eds.), ture. Inter. Fertiliser Society, Proc. 411. York, UK.
Chemical processes in soils. Madison, Wis.: Soil
Sci. Soc. Am.
 7
Sulfur, Calcium, and
Magnesium
Sulfur (S), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) are macronutrients
required in relatively large amounts by most plants. S and Mg are
needed by plants in about the same quantities as P, whereas for many
plant species, the Ca requirement is greater than that for P. S reactions
in soil are very similar to N reactions, which are dominated by soil
organic or microbial transformations (Chapter 4). In contrast, Ca+2
and Mg +2 are associated with the soil mineral fractions and behave
similarly to K + (Chapter 6).

SULFUR
The S Cycle
S in the earth’s crust averages ≈0.05 %, comparable to P. The origi-
nal source of soil S is metal sulfide minerals that oxidize during
weathering from S-2 to SO4-2. The SO4-2 is precipitated as solu-
ble and insoluble SO4-2 salts in arid or semi-arid climates, utilized
by living organisms, reduced by microorganisms to S-2 or S0 under
anaerobic conditions, and/or transported through runoff to the sea.
Oceans contain ∼2,700 ppm SO4-2, whereas natural waters range
from 0.5 to 50 ppm SO4-2 but may reach 60,000 ppm
(6%) in saline lakes and sediments.
Soil S is present in organic and inorganic forms,
although ≈90% of total S in noncalcareous surface
soils exists as organic S. Solution and adsorbed SO4-2
represents readily plant available S. S cycling in the soil-
plant-atmosphere system is similar to N in that both
have gaseous components and their occurrence in soils is
mainly associated with OM (Fig. 7-1).

Forms and Functions of S in Plants

Forms S is absorbed by plant roots almost exclu-
sively as sulfate (SO4-2; Fig. 7-1). Small quantities
of SO2 can be absorbed through plant leaves and uti-
lized within plants, but high concentrations are toxic.
Thiosulfate (S2O3-2 ) can also be absorbed by roots.
When plants absorb thiosulfate (S2O3-2 ), less energy
may be required by the plant in conversion to S-2 and
cysteine (Fig. 7-2). SO4-2 uptake is not inhibited by
other anions (NO3- or H2PO4- ), but is inhibited by
chromate and selenate (Chapter 8).
244 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Figure 7-1 Atmosphere SO2

S cycling is soil.

Rainfall
SO2
Fertilizer
S0, SO4–2, S2O3–2 Plant and Animal
SO4–2 Residues

Volatilization
Soil Surface

SO4–2
solution Readily Decomposable
Residues (10–20%)

Immobilization
Microbial Biomass
SO4–2 (< 10%)
adsorbed SO4–2 S0 S–2 Fungi, Bacteria, Protozoa
to AEC Actinomycetes, Algae
Mineralization Nematodes, Fauna

Stable Humus
SO4–2
(70–90%)

SO4–2 Leaching
SOIL ORGANIC MATTER
(Organic S)

Typical S concentrations in plants range from 0.2 to 0.5%. S content increases

in the order Gramineae 6 Leguminosae 6 Cruciferae, where typical S content of
their seeds ranges: 0.17–0.19%, 0.25–0.30%, and 1.0–1.7%, respectively. Most
SO4-2 is reduced in the plant to —S—S and —SH forms, although SO4-2 occurs
in plant tissues and cell sap. Selected volatile S compounds in the mustard and onion
families are responsible for their characteristic taste and smell.
Functions S is required for synthesis of S-containing amino acids (cystine, cyste-
ine, and methionine), which are essential components of plant protein that comprise
about 90% of S in plants. Cysteine and methionine content increases with increasing
S content in leaves (Fig. 7-3). S-deficient plants accumulate nonprotein N as -NH2
and NO3- , while increasing S nutrition decreases plant N:S ratio to the optimum N:S
ratio of 9:1–12:1 needed for effective N use by rumen microorganisms (Table 7-1).
With S deficiency in vegetables, NO3- accumulates in leaves, reducing food quality

Figure 7-2 Cell wall

Proposed model of ab- Energy
sorption of thiosulfate that
may require less energy to SO4–2 SO4–2 SO3–2 S–2 Cysteine
convert to amino acids than
absorption of sulfate. Sulfate Sulfite Sulfide Amino
acid

Active
transport

S2O3–2 S2O3–2

Thiosulfate
S2O3–2 = S-SO3–2
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 245

Figure 7-3

SHARE OF TOTAL PROTEIN CONTENT (%)

3.4 Relationship between S
Cysteine r 2 = 94% status of Kale and concen-
3.2 Methionine r 2 = 97% tration of cysteine and
3 methionine in leaf protein.
(Schung,1990, Sulphur in Agric.,
2.8 Washington, D.C.: The SulphurInsti-
tute, 14:2–7.)
2.6

2.4

2.2

2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TOTAL SULFUR IN LEAVES (mgyg)

TABLE 7-1
E FFECT OF S FERTILIZATION ON Y IELD AND Q UALITY OF O RCHARD G RASS

S Rate1 Yield Non-protein N NO3-N N:S Ratio

lb/a t/a _____________ % _____________

0 2.3 1.14 0.14 21.4

20 2.5 0.75 0.11 17.0
40 2.8 0.54 0.10 14.6
80 2.9 0.48 0.09 12.8
100 2.8 0.43 0.07 10.4
1S applied with 100 lb N/a.
Source: Baker et al., 1973, Sulphur Inst. J., 9:15.

(Fig. 7-4). In this example, NO3- accumulated in lettuce only when plants exhibited
visual S-deficiency symptoms.
One of the main functions of S is the formation of disulfide (—S—S—) bonds
between polypeptide chains within a protein causing the protein to fold. Disulfide
linkages are important in the catalytic or structural properties of proteins. For ex-
ample, S is needed for synthesis of coenzyme A, which is involved in oxidation and
synthesis of fatty acids, synthesis of amino acids, and oxidation of intermediates of
the citric acid cycle.

50 Figure 7-4
Influence of S nutrition on
NO3 concentration in
NITRATE CONTENT (mgyg)

40
lettuce leaves. S-deficiency
symptoms occurred at 62.5
30 Y = 69.35*EXP(–1.128*X ) + 0.643 mg S/g leaf (0.25% S).
r 2 = 97% (Schung, 1990, Sulphur in Agric.,
Washington, D.C.: The Sulphur
20
Institute,14:2–7.)

10
Symptomatic level

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SULFUR CONTENT (mgyg)
246 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Figure 7-5 70 70

CHLOROPHYLL (ugycm2 leaf area)

Influence of S nutrition on Chlorophyll

PHOTOSYNTHESIS RATE
leaf chlorophyll content and 60 Photosynthesis 60
photosynthesis rate in sugar

(ng CO2ycm2ysec)
50 50
beet. Optimum S content is
∼2.5% S. 40 40
(Adapted from Terry, 1975, Plant
Physiol., 57:477–479.) 30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4
LEAF S CONTENT (%)

Although not a constituent, S is required for the synthesis of chlorophyll

(Fig. 7-5). S is a vital part of ferredoxin, an Fe-S protein in the chloroplasts, and
has a significant role in NO2- and SO4-2 reduction, and N assimilation by N2 -
fixing soil bacteria.

Visual S-Deficiency Symptoms

S deficiency is characterized by reduced plant growth rate, where plants are
stunted, thin-stemmed, and chlorotic (see color plates). Unlike N, however,
S is generally less mobile in plants; therefore, deficiency symptoms often occur
first in younger leaves. Depending on N status in many plants S is distributed
evenly throughout the plant and symptoms may develop in either older (low N)
or younger (adequate N) leaves. Initial S deficiency appears as light green leaves,
ultimately turning yellow. In many plants, S- and N-deficiency symptoms can
be difficult to distinguish. S-deficient cruciferous crops (i.e., cabbage, broccoli,
canola/rapeseed) initially develop a reddish color on the undersides of the leaves,
where leaves are also cupped inward. As the deficiency progresses, reddening of
both upper and lower leaf surfaces occur. Paler-than-normal blossoms and severely
impaired seed set also characterize S-deficiency symptoms in rapeseed.

Forms of S in Soil
Solution SO4−2 SO4-2 is transported to roots by mass flow and diffusion. In soils
containing Ú5 ppm SO4-2, total S requirement of most crops can be supplied by
mass flow. Solution concentrations of 3–5 ppm SO4-2 is sufficient for most crops,
although some high S crops (rapeseed/canola, alfalfa, broccoli, etc.) require higher
solution S. Sandy, low OM soils often contain 65 ppm SO4-2. Except for soils in
dry areas that may have accumulations of SO4-2 salts, most soils contain 610%
of total S as SO4-2. Large seasonal and year-to-year fluctuations in SO4-2 can
occur due to the influence of environmental conditions on organic S mineraliza-
tion, downward or upward movement of SO4-2 in soil water, and SO4-2 uptake
by plants. SO4-2 content of soils is also affected by the application of S-containing
fertilizers and wastes, and by SO4-2 deposition in precipitation and irrigation.
Like NO3-, SO4-2 can be readily leached through the soil profile. Increasing
the quantity of percolation water increases potential SO4-2 leaching. Leaching losses
are lower in acid soils with appreciable exchangeable Al+3 and AEC to adsorb SO4-2.
Adsorbed SO4−2 Adsorbed SO4-2 is an important fraction in highly weathered,
humid region soils containing large amounts of Al/Fe oxides. Many ultisol (red-
yellow podzol) and oxisol (latosol) soils contain up to 100 ppm adsorbed SO4-2 in
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 247

subsoil and can significantly contribute to S nutrition of plants as root growth pro-
gresses. Mechanisms of SO4-2 adsorption include:
• 1 -2 charges on Fe/Al oxides or on clay edges, especially kaolinite, at low pH
(Chapter 2)
• adsorption to Al1OH2x complexes (Chapter 3)
• 1 -2 charges on soil OM at low pH
Reserves of adsorbed SO4-2 in acid subsoil result from SO4-2 leaching from sur-
face soil, accounting for ≈30% total subsoil S compared to ≈10% in surface soil.
Although crops utilize subsoil-adsorbed SO4-2, S deficiency can occur during early
growth stages until root development is sufficient to explore the subsoil. Once
established, deep-rooted crops (e.g., alfalfa, clover, lespedeza) readily access plant
available S in the subsoil.

Factors Affecting SO4-2 Adsorption/Desorption

-2
• Clay mineral: SO4 adsorption increases with clay content. In general, SO4-2
adsorption in kaolinite is greater than mica, which is greater than montmoril-
lonite. Under low pH and high Al+3 saturation, SO4-2 adsorption with kaolinite
is ∼ equal to mica, which is much greater than montmorillonite.
-2
• Hydrous oxides: Fe/Al oxides are responsible for most SO4 adsorption in soils.
-2
• Soil OM: Increasing soil OM content increases SO4 adsorption potential.
-2
• Soil depth: SO4 adsorption capacity is often greater in subsoils due to higher clay
and Fe/Al oxide content.
-2
• Soil pH: SO4 adsorption potential decreases with increasing pH 16AEC2, and is
negligible at pH 76.0.
-2 -2
• Solution SO4 : Adsorbed SO4 is in equilibrium with solution SO4-2; thus
increasing solution SO4 will increase adsorbed SO4-2.
-2
-2
• Competing anion: SO4 is considered to be weakly held, with adsorption strength
decreasing in the order OH- 7 H2PO4- 7 SO4-2 7 NO3- 7 Cl- . For exam-
ple, H2PO4- will displace SO4-2, but SO4-2 has little effect on H2PO4- . Cl- has
little effect on SO4-2 adsorption.
Of these factors, the amount and type of clay, pH, soil OM, and presence of
other anions exert the greatest influence on SO4-2 adsorption.
SO4-2 Reaction with CaCO3
S occurs as a coprecipitate 1CaCO3@CaSO42 impurity in calcareous soils. Availability
of SO4-2 coprecipitated with CaCO3 increases with decreasing pH (CaCO3 more
soluble), decreasing CaCO3 particle size (more surface area), and increasing soil
moisture content. Grinding calcareous soil samples will render SO4-2 accessible to
chemical extraction. Consequently, more S will be extracted by a particular soil test
procedure than is plant available under field conditions.
Reduced Inorganic S (S −2 and S0) Sulfides do not exist in well-aerated soils. Under
waterlogged, anaerobic conditions, H2S accumulates as OM decays or from added
SO4-2. S-2 accumulation is limited primarily to coastal regions dominated by satu-
rated, submerged soils. Characteristic “rotten egg” scent of H2S is readily detected.
Similar reactions also occur under paddy rice culture (Fig. 7-6).
In normal submerged soils well supplied with Fe, H2S liberated from OM is
almost completely removed from solution by reaction with Fe+2 to form FeS, which
undergoes conversion to pyrite 1FeS22. The dark color observed on the shores of the
Black Sea is caused by the accumulation of FeS2. If H2S is not subsequently precipi-
tated by Fe and other metals, it escapes to the atmosphere.
248 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Figure 7-6 70

CONCENTRATION OF H2S (ppm)

Effect of OM on H2S emis- Straw
60
sion in a saturated paddy
rice soil. 50
(Adapted from Mandal, 1961, Soil
Sci., 91:121.) 40 Green manure
30

20
Control
10

0
0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER SUBMERGENCE (days)

In some tidal marshlands, large quantities of reduced S compounds accumu-

late. When these areas are drained, oxidization of S compounds to SO4-2 will reduce
pH to 63.5 by:
FeS2 + H2O + 312 O2 S Fe+2 + 2SO4-2 + 2H+
S0, S-2, and other reduced S compounds can be chemically oxidized in soil,
but these are generally slow reactions. In contrast, microbial oxidation of S0 is en-
hanced in well-aerated soils. The rate of microbial S0 oxidation depends on available
S0 source and soil environmental conditions favorable to aerobic microbial activity.
Factors Affecting S0 Oxidation
0
• Soil microbes: Heterotrophic fungi and bacteria capable of oxidizing S represent
0
3–35% of total heterotrophic population in soils. S oxidation is greater in the rhizo-
sphere, where there are large, diverse populations of S0-oxidizing heterotrophs. The
most important group of S-oxidizing bacteria (Thiobacillus sp.) are the most active
S-oxidizers while other microorganisms including fungi (e.g., Fusaarium sp.) and
actinomycetes (e.g., Streptomyces sp.) are also important. Thiobacillus are autotrophic
bacteria that obtain their energy from S0 oxidation and C from CO2. Photolithotro-
phic S bacteria oxidize S-2 but use light for energy. Addition of S0 to soil encourages
growth of S0-oxidizing microorganisms. The reaction mediated by Thiobacilli is:
CO2 + S0 + 212O2 + 2H2O S CH2O + 2SO4-2 + 2H+
• Soil temperature: Increasing soil temperature increases S0 oxidation rate (Fig. 7-7).
Optimum temperature is between 25 and 40°C. Microbial activity decreases at
temperatures 760°C.
• Soil moisture and aeration: S0 -oxidizing bacteria are mostly aerobic, and their
activity will decline if O2 is lacking due to waterlogging. S0 oxidation is favored
by soil moisture levels near field capacity (Fig. 7-8). Also evident is the decline in
oxidization when soils are excessively either wet or dry.
• Soil pH: Microbial S0 oxidation occurs over a wide soil pH range.

Organic S There is a close relationship between organic C, total N, and total S in

soils. The C:N:S ratio in most well-drained, noncalcareous soils is about 120:10:1.4.
Differences in C:N:S between soils are related to variations in soil-forming factors
(parent material, climate, vegetation, and topography). The N:S ratio in most soils
falls within the narrow range of 6 to 8:1. The organic S fraction governs the produc-
tion of plant available SO4-2 (Fig. 7-1). Three groups of organic S compounds in soil
include HI-reducible S, C-bonded S, and residual S.
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 249

Figure 7-7
Effects of temperature and
incubation time on oxida-
tion of S 0 in soils.
(Nor and Tabatabai, 1979, Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J., 41:739.)

80 Figure 7-8
Percentage of added S 0
70
oxidized at various moisture
60 contents with time.
S OXIDATION (%)

(Adapted from Kittams and Attoe,

50
1965, Agron. J., 57:331.)
40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
SOIL H2O CONTENT (%)

• HI-reducible S is soil organic S that is reduced to H2S by hydriodic acid (HI). The
S occurs in ester and ether compounds that have C O S linkages (e.g., arylsul-
fates, alkylsulfates, phenolic sulfates, sulfated polysaccharides, and sulfated lipids).
HI-reducible S represents 40–60% of total organic S.
• Carbon-bonded S occurs as S-containing amino acids (cystine and methionine),
accounting for ∼10920% of total organic S.
• Residual S represents the remaining organic S fraction and generally represents
30–40% of total organic S.

S Mineralization and Immobilization

S mineralization is the conversion of organic S to inorganic SO4-2 and immobiliza-
tion is the reverse reaction, similar to N mineralization (Chapter 4).

Any factor that affects microbial activity influences S mineralization and immobili-
zation. When plant and animal residues are returned to soil, they are digested by microor-
ganisms, converting some organic S to SO4-2; however, most S remains as organic S and
250 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

eventually becomes part of soil humus (Fig. 7-1). S supply to plants depends largely
on SO4-2 released from OM and from plant and animal residues. ∼2915 lb/a of S
as SO4-2 is mineralized each year from the organic fraction. In calcareous soils, the
source of plant available SO4-2 is from dissolution of gypsum (CaSO4 # H2O).
Factors Affecting S Mineralization and Immobilization.
1. S content of OM. Like N, S mineralization or immobilization depends on S con-
tent of the decomposing material:
C:S ratio in crop residue Dominant process
6200:1 mineralization
200–400 no change
7400:1 immobilization

Smaller amounts of SO4-2 are liberated from low-S-containing residue. Fresh

organic residues commonly have C:S ratios of about 50:1. Where large amounts
of straw, stover, or other OM are added to soil, adequate N and S availability is
necessary to promote rapid decomposition of the straw. Otherwise, a temporary
N or S deficiency may be induced in the subsequent crop. Increasing total soil S
content or OM also increases S mineralization (Fig. 7-9).
2. Soil temperature. S mineralization is impeded below 10°C, increases with
temperatures from 20 to 40°C, and decreases at 740°C (Fig. 7-9). In sam-
ples representing 12 major soil series, more S was released during incubation
at 35°C than at 20°C (Fig. 7-10). An average Q 10 of 1.9 occurred in these
soils. The temperature effect on S mineralization is consistent with the relatively
greater S content of soils in northern climates.
3. Soil moisture. S mineralization in soils incubated at low 1 615%2 and high
1 740%2 moisture content is reduced compared with the optimum moisture
content of 60% water-filled pore space (Fig. 4-21). Gradual moisture changes
between field capacity and wilting point have little influence on S mineraliza-
tion. However, drastic changes in soil moisture can produce a flush of S min-
eralization in some soils. Increased S availability due to soil wetting and drying
may explain increased plant growth after dry periods in S-deficient soils.
4. Soil pH. Although in some soils mineralization decreases with increasing soil
pH (Fig. 7-10), generally S mineralization is directly proportional to pH up to
7.5. Near-neutral soil pH is normally expected to encourage microbial activity
and N, P, and S mineralization.
40
CUMULATIVE MINERALIZATION OF S

40
Total S Content Temperature
420 ppm 308 C
360 ppm 208 C
30 200 ppm 30 108 C
(mg Sykg soil)

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
INCUBATION TIME (weeks)
(a) (b)
Figure 7-9
Increasing total S content (a) or increasing soil temperature (b) increases S mineralization.
(Ghani, 1994, Sulphur in Agric., Washington, D.C.: The Sulphur Institute, 18:13-18.)
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 251

90 Figure 7-10
208 C 358 C Relationship between total S

SULFUR MINERALIZED (mgyg soil)

mineralized and pH of soils
incubated at 20 or 35°C.
y = 38.7 – 2.7x
(Tabatabai and Al-Khafaji, 1980, Soil
60 r = –0.55
Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44:1000.)

30
y = 138 – 12.0x
r = –0.74

0
4 5 6 7 8 0 4 5 6 7 8
SOIL pH

5. Time and cultivation. As with N, when soil is first cultivated, its S content de-
clines rapidly. With time, an equilibrium is reached that is characteristic of the
climate, cultural practices, and soil type. Before reaching this point, S miner-
alization gradually diminishes and becomes inadequate to meet plant needs.
The C:N:S ratio of virgin soils is larger than those of corresponding cultivated
surface soils. Reduction of this ratio with cultivation suggests that S is relatively
more resistant to mineralization than C and N or that losses of organic C and N
are proportionately greater than S.
6. Sulfatase activity. As much as 50% of total S in surface soils may be present as
organic S esters. Sulfatase enzymes hydrolyze S esters to release SO4-2 by:

Ester sulfates are natural substrates for sulfatase enzymes in soil.

S Volatilization
Volatile S compounds are produced through microbial transformations under both
aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Where volatilization occurs, the volatile S com-
pounds are dimethyl sulfide (CH3SCH3), carbon disulfide (CS2), methyl mercaptan
(CH3SH), and dimethyl disulfide (CH3SSCH3). CH3SCH3 accounts for 55–100%
of S volatilized. In low OM soils, S volatilization is negligible and generally increases
with increasing OM content. The amount of S volatilized represents 60.05% of to-
tal S present in soil and is relatively insignificant under field conditions.
Like NH3, volatile S (SO2 and H2S) evolves from plant leaves. Losses are gen-
erally small (0.3–6.0% total plant S), with higher levels observed under high SO4-2
nutrition. Volatile S released by plants may affect the palatability of forage plants to
grazing animals. S losses from forages when they are dried in haymaking or pelleting
might also influence quality and palatability.
Practical Aspects of S Transformations
Crops grown on coarse-textured soils are generally more susceptible to S deficiency
because these soils often have low 1 61.2 -1.5%2 OM contents. S availability gen-
erally increases with increasing OM content. Added S can be immobilized in some
soils, particularly those that have a high C:S or N:S ratio. In contrast, S mineraliza-
tion is favored in soils with a low C:S or N:S ratio.
Leaching losses of SO4-2 can be especially high on coarse-textured soils under
conditions of high rainfall or irrigation. Under such conditions, SO4-2-containing fer-
tilizers may have to be applied more frequently than on fine-textured soils or under
252 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

lower rainfall conditions. In more humid regions, a fertilizer containing both SO4-2
and S0 may be required to extend the period of S availability to crops.

S Sources
Atmospheric S SO2 released into the air, oxidizes to SO4-2, and is deposited in soil
through precipitation.
SO2 + 12O2 + H2O M SO4-2 + 2H+
Nearly 70% of the S compounds in the atmosphere are due to natural pro-
cesses. In localized areas, SO4-2 content of soils can be increased by direct adsorption
of SO2 and the fallout of dry particulates. In addition, plants absorb SO2 by diffusion
into the leaves. However, exposure to ≈0.5 ppm SO2 can cause visible injury to foli-
age of sensitive vegetation. Volatile S compounds are also released through volcanic
activity, tidal marshes, and decaying OM.
Combustion of fossil fuels and other industrial processes (ore smelting,
petroleum refining, and others) contributes to atmospheric SO2. The amount of
SO4-2 deposited in precipitation in the United States ranges from 1 lb/a/yr in rural
areas to ≈20 lb/a/yr near industrial areas. SO2 emissions are partly responsible for
the acid rainfall and snowfall in industrialized regions (Chapter 3). Because of the
concern over air pollution, the Clean Air Act was created to substantially reduce SO2
emissions. As a result, atmospheric deposition of SO4-2 has decreased ≈50% since
1994 (Fig. 7-11). As SO4-2 deposition continues to decline, increasing frequency of
S deficiency and crop response to S fertilization can be expected. Depending on the
crop, the quantity of S removed varies from 5 to 40 lb S/a (see Table 9.1). Annual
deposition of 20 kg SO4-2 >ha (18 lb SO4-2 >a) represents ≈9 lb S/a, which provides
sufficient S for many crops. However, if SO4-2 deposition decreases by 50%, then
atmospheric deposition is insufficient for most crops.
S in Irrigation Water Most irrigation water contains SO4-2 . If S deficiency is
expected, a water sample should be analyzed for SO4-2 prior to use of S fertilizers.
Generally, a response to additional S is possible if the irrigation water contains 65 lb
S/a-ft of water or 5 ppm SO4-2, and is applied to a sandy, low OM soil (see pg. 444).
Organic S Because of the lower S requirement of most crops compared with N,
most animal and municipal biosolids contain sufficient quantities of plant available

6–9 3–6
Figure 7-11
Distribution and decrease in
SO4-2 deposition (kg #3
3–6
SO4-2 >ha) in the United
1994
6–9
States between 1994 and 12–18
2009. 9–12
(National Atmospheric Deposition
19–25
Program, 2002, Washington, D.C.) 9–12
19–25 26–39

12–15

26–39
15–18 12–15

12–15
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 253

2–8 Figure 7-11

(Continued )
2009

4–6 8–12
1–2
7–12
13–17 13–19

8–12

S and are excellent S sources. Typical S content in organic wastes ranges from 0.2 to
0.5%, or 5 to 12 lb S/t (dry weight). With typical application rates ranging between
2 and 20 t/a, S applications would range between 10 and 200 lb S/a. Since the major-
ity of S in biosolids products is organic S, mineralization is required to generate plant
available SO4-2.
Inorganic S SO4-2 sources applied to the soil surface and moved into the profile with
rainfall or irrigation are immediately plant available unless immobilized by microbes de-
grading high C:S or N:S residues. Studies comparing the effectiveness of SO4-2 sources
(Table 7-2) suggest that one SO4-2 source is generally equal to any other (provided that
the accompanying cation is not Zn, Cu, or Mn, which must be applied sparingly) and

TABLE 7-2
S-C ONTAINING F ERTILIZERS

Plant Nutrient Content (%)

Material Formula N P2O5 K 2O S Other
Ammonium polysulfide NH4Sx 20 — — 45 —
Ammonium sulfate 1NH422SO4 21 — — 24 —
Ammonium thiosulfate 1NH422S2O3 12 — — 26 —
Calcium polysulfide CaSx — — — 22 6 (Ca)
Calcium thiosulfate CaS2O3 — — — 10 6 (Ca)
Ferrous sulfate FeSO4 # H2O — — — 19 33 (Fe)
Gypsum CaSO4 # 2H2O — — — 19 24 (Ca)
Magnesium sulfate MgSO4 # 7H2O — — — 13 10 (Mg)
Potassium-magnesium sulfate K2SO4 # MgSO4 — — 22 22 11 (Mg)
Potassium polysulfide KSx — — 22 23 —
Potassium sulfate K2SO4 — — 50 18 —
Potassium thiosulfate K2S2O3 — — 25 17 —
Elemental Sulfur S0 — — — 100 —
Sulfur (granular w/additives) S0 0–7 — — 60–95 —
Sulfuric acid (100%) H2SO4 — — — 33 —
Superphosphate, triple Ca1H2PO422 # CaSO4 # 2H2O — 46 — 1.5 —
Urea-sulfur CO1NH222 + S 38 — — 10–20 —
Urea-sulfuric acid CO1NH222 + H2SO4 10–28 — — 9–18 —
Zinc sulfate ZnSO4 # H2O — — — 18 36 (Zn)
254 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

the factor determining selection should be cost per unit of S applied. General guidelines
for proper use of common S-containing fertilizers are summarized in Table 7-3.
Elemental S0
S0 is a yellow, water-insoluble solid. When finely ground S0 is mixed with soil, it is oxi-
dized to SO4-2 by soil microorganisms. The effectiveness of S0 in supplying S to plants
compared with SO4-2 depends on particle size; rate, method, and time of application;
and environmental conditions. S0oxidation rates increase with decreasing particle size
(Fig. 7-12). As a general rule, 100% of S0 must pass through a 16-mesh screen, and 50%
of that should pass through a 100-mesh screen. When finely ground S0 is mixed with soil

TABLE 7-3
G ENERAL G UIDELINES FOR S F ERTILIZER U SE

Materials Guideline Remarks

Elemental S 0
Direct application and bulk blends, apply As starter or preplant, SO4-2 should
Dispersible, granular S 0 materials several months before growing be included; dispersion of water-
Ammonium phosphate–S 0 season; fall applications are encouraged, degradable granular S at soil surface
Urea–S 0 allow for dispersion before incorporation before incorporation improves effective-
of broadcast applications ness; incorporate 4–5 months preplant;
apply preplant or on severely S-defi-
cient soils, SO4-2 should be included

Ammonium sulfate Direct application and bulk blends; Segregates in bulk blends unless physical
effective anytime properties are improved by granulation;
where leaching losses expected, apply
shortly before planting

Ammonium nitrate sulfate Direct application and bulk blends; Where significant SO4-2 leaching is
Ammonium phosphate sulfate effective anytime expected, apply shortly before planting
Potassium sulfate
Potassium magnesium sulfate

Calcium sulfate (gypsum) Direct application; effective anytime Difficulties encountered in application
(dust, caking)

Ammonium thiosulfate Direct application, blending with fluid Blended with neutral fluid P products, all
Potassium thiosulfate fertilizers; broadcast preplant or applied N solutions, most micronutrient solutions
Calcium thiosulfate in starters; topdress on certain crops
(low rate); add through open-ditch and
irrigation systems

Ammonium polysulfide Direct application, blending with N Ammonium polysulfide not suitable for
Potassium polysulfide solutions; injected into soil; broadcast mixing with P-containing fluids
applications with H2O dilution; single
preplant applications; repeated applica-
tions (low rates) through open-ditch
irrigation systems

Sulfuric acid Mixing with ammonium polyphosphate and Applied directly to crops for weed
anhydrous ammonia for clear liquid blends control purposes

Suspensions-containing S 0 Direct application, simultaneous application Starter or preplant; include SO4-2

with other fertilizers, suspensions applied (15–20% total S applied)
2–3 months before growing season

Suspensions-containing SO4-2 Effective anytime Where leaching losses expected, apply

preplant or before beginning of growing
season
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 255

100 Figure 7-12

4 Weeks Influence of particle size
2 Weeks (see Fig. 3-16) of applied S 0
80
on extent of S 0 oxidation.

OXIDATION (%)
60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
PARTICLE SIZE (mesh)

possessing a high oxidizing potential, it is usually just as effective as other S sources. How-
ever, to assure adequate S availability, S0 should be incorporated into the soil as far ahead
of planting as possible. Application of high S0 rates will increase surface area exposed to
S0-oxidizing organisms, which should increase plant available S. Uniform distribution of
S0 particles throughout the soil will provide greater exposure to oxidizing microorganisms
and minimize any potential problems caused by excessive acidity (Table 3-5).
Dispersible, Granular S0 Fertilizers
Water-dispersible, granular S0 fertilizers, such as S-bentonite 1∼ 90% S2 and micron-
ized granular S 160995% S2, have several important advantages, including high S anal-
ysis, lowering costs of transportation and handling; wide distribution of S0 particle sizes
with varying degrees of controlled availability to plants; low susceptibility to leaching
losses in areas of high rainfall; and excellent durable physical forms that are well-suited
for direct application or blending with most common granular fertilizers except those
containing NO3-N. S-bentonite is manufactured by adding bentonite to molten S0,
whereas micronized granular S0 consists of 100% 6 74-mm ( 7200-mesh) particles
bound together with a water-soluble binder.
Dispersion of S0-bentonite into readily oxidized finely divided S0 occurs gradu-
ally in soil following wetting and swelling of the bentonite. Micronized, granular S0
disperses rapidly and completely upon wetting in soil. Broadcast applications are usu-
ally more dependable than banding because S0 dispersion is enhanced by exposure to
rainfall before soil incorporation. Because of the uncertainty of adequate formation
of SO4-2 from S0-bentonite in the first growing season after application, it should
be applied well in advance of planting. When applied just before seeding of high-
S-requiring crops grown on S-deficient soils, some SO4-2 should also be provided.
S0 Suspensions
Addition of finely ground S0 to water containing 2–3% attapulgite clay results in a
suspension containing 40–60% S. These suspensions can be applied directly to soil
or combined with suspension fertilizers.
Ammonium Sulfate [(NH4)2SO4 or AS]
This solid fertilizer containing 24% S and 21% N was previously described in Chap-
ter 4 (Table 7-2). AS is used predominately when both N and S are required.
Potassium Sulfate (K2SO4) and Potassium Magnesium Sulfate (K2SO4, MgSO4)
Both materials were discussed in Chapter 6 and are commonly used when both S and
K are required.
256 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Ammonium Thiosulfate [(NH4)2S2O3, or ATS]

ATS is a clear liquid containing 12% N and 26% S and is a popular S-containing
product (Table 7-2). ATS is compatible with N solutions and complete (N-P-K) liq-
uid mixes, which are neutral to slightly acidic in pH. ATS can be applied directly to
soil, in mixtures, or through either sprinkler or open-ditch irrigation systems. When
applied to soil, ATS forms colloidal S and 1NH422SO4. SO4-2 is immediately avail-
able, whereas the S0 must be oxidized to SO4-2, thus extending the availability to the
crop. Potassium thiosulfate (KTS) behaves similarly to ATS.
Ammonium Polysulfide (NH4Sx)
Ammonium polysulfide is a red to brown to black solution having a H2S odor. It con-
tains ∼20% N and 45% S (Table 7-2). In addition to use as a fertilizer, it is used for
reclaiming high-pH soils and for treatment of irrigation water to improve water penetra-
tion into the soil. Ammonium polysulfide is recommended for mixing with anhydrous
NH3, aqua NH3, and UAN solutions. Simultaneous application of ammonium poly-
sulfide and anhydrous NH3 is popular in some areas for providing both N and S. Nor-
mally, it is considered incompatible with phosphate-containing liquids. This material
has a low vapor pressure, and it should be stored at 0.5 psi to prevent loss of NH3 and
subsequent precipitation of S0. Potassium polysulfide (0–0–22–23) has been used on a
limited basis in sprinkler and flood irrigation systems for salt removal and to supply K.
Calcium Polysulfide (CaSx) and Calcium Thiosulfate (CaS2O3)
Calcium polysulfide (22% S, 6% Ca) and calcium thiosulfate (10% S, 6% Ca) are
clear, odorless solutions. They are commonly used in soils to reduce exchangeable Na
content and improve water infiltration, while supplying S.
Urea-Sulfuric Acid
Two typical grades used as acidifying amendments, as well as sources of N, contain 10% N
and 18% S and 28% N and 9% S, respectively (Table 7-2). They can be applied directly
to soil or added through sprinkler systems. Because urea-sulfuric acid formulations have
pH values between 0.5 and 1.0, the equipment used must be made from stainless steel
and other noncorrosive materials. Workers must wear protective clothing.

CALCIUM
In acid, humid-region soils, Ca+2 and Al+3 dominate the CEC, while in neutral and
calcareous soils Ca+2 occupies the majority of exchange sites (Chapters 2 and 3). As
with any other cation, exchangeable and solution Ca+2 are in equilibrium and pro-
vide the majority of plant available Ca+2 (Fig. 7-13). If solution Ca+2 is decreased by
leaching or plant uptake, Ca+2 will desorb from the CEC to resupply solution Ca+2.
Other soluble cations replace the desorbed Ca+2, or Ca minerals dissolve to provide
additional exchangeable and solution Ca+2. Conversely, if solution Ca+2 is increased,
the equilibrium shifts in the opposite direction, with adsorption of Ca+2 on the CEC.
The fate of solution Ca+2 is less complex than that of K + , due to K fixation and
release reactions (Chapter 6). Ca+2 may be (1) adsorbed to CEC, (2) absorbed by
plants and microorganisms, (3) leached in drainage water, or (4) reprecipitated as a
secondary Ca compound, dominantly in arid climates.

Forms and Functions of Ca in Plants

Plants absorb Ca+2 from the soil solution, where mass flow and root interception
are the primary mechanisms of Ca transport to the root surface. Ca deficiency is un-
common but can occur in highly leached, unlimed acid soils. Ca+2 in plants ranges
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 257

Crop Ca12yMg12 Removal

Residue, Manure, Fertilizer Ca12yMg12

Biosolids Ca12yMg12

Microbial
Biomass

Solution
Ca12 Mg12 Adsorption

Leaching Desorption

Weathering Weathering

Primary Secondary Exchangeable

CayMg Minerals CayMg Minerals Ca12yMg12

Figure 7-13
Ca and Mg cycling in soil.

between 0.2 and 1.0% and is essential to cell wall membrane structure and perme-
ability. Low Ca+2 weakens cell membranes, resulting in increased permeability, loss
of cell contents, and failure of nutrient-uptake mechanisms. Ca+2 and other cations
neutralize organic acids formed during normal cell metabolism. Ca+2 is important to
N metabolism and protein formation by enhancing NO3- uptake. Ca+2 also provides
some regulation of cation uptake. For example, K + and Na+ uptake are equivalent in
absence of Ca+2, but in its presence K + uptake greatly exceeds Na+ uptake.
Ca+2 is essential for translocation of carbohydrates and nutrients. Accumulation
of carbohydrates in leaves under Ca+2 stress decreases carbohydrate content of stems
and roots, which impairs normal root function (i.e., water and nutrient absorption)
because of low energy supply. As a result, Ca+2 deficiency causes malformation of
storage tissues in many fruits and vegetable crops.
While Ca+2 is important for translocation, Ca+2 is generally immobile in
the plant. Following absorption, Ca+2 moves with transpirational water in the
xylem. Once in the leaves, very little Ca+2 translocation in the phloem occurs,
resulting in poor Ca+2 supply to roots and storage organs. Since Ca+2 cannot be
redistributed within the plant, it is critical that a continuous supply of Ca+2 is
available for root absorption to support normal growth and fruit development.
Soil conditions that reduce root growth (e.g., Al+3 toxicity, P deficiency, pests,
and diseases) will limit root access to Ca+2 and induce deficiency. Problems re-
lated to inadequate Ca+2 uptake more commonly occur in plants that have small
root systems (i.e., tubers) than with plants having more highly developed root
systems (fibrous grass roots).
258 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Figure 7-14
Blossom end rot in tomato
caused by Ca deficiency.

Ca+2 is essential for cell division and elongation; therefore, deficiency symptoms
are primarily exhibited in meristematic regions of rapid cell division. Ca+2 deficiency
inhibits development of shoot terminal buds and apical root tips resulting in deformed
tissues and/or death of the growing points (buds, blossoms, root tips). Commonly,
leaf tips and margins are chlorotic, colorless, and/or necrotic, a condition referred to
as die back or tip burn. In some crops (i.e., corn), a gelatinous material is secreted caus-
ing leaf tips to stick together. Under severe Ca+2 deficiency, root development is slow
and root tips develop a dark color and die. Ca+2 deficiency causes poor nodulation
by N2-fixing bacteria on legume roots, where nodule tissues are white to grayish green
compared to the pink/red color found in normal legume nodules.
Low Ca+2 uptake combined with limited translocation of carbohydrates causes
distinct symptoms in fruits and vegetable crops. Examples are blossom end rot in
peppers and tomatoes (Fig. 7-14), deformed watermelons, bitter pit in apples, inter-
nal brown spot in potatoes, black heart in peanuts and celery, and cavity spot in car-
rots. Ca+2 deficiency results in discolored and softer fruit with inferior shelf life and
marketability. Crop quality in leafy vegetable crops is reduced through burning of
leaf tips and margins (e.g., lettuce, cabbage, spinach).

Ca in Soil
The earth’s crust contains ≈3.5% total Ca. Ca in soils originated from the par-
ent rocks (minerals) from which soil was formed. Anorthite (CaAl2Si2O3 ) is the
most important primary source of Ca, although pyroxenes and amphiboles are also
common. Small amounts of Ca may also originate from biotite, apatite, and certain
borosilicates.
Total Ca in soils varies widely depending on region. Ca normally ranges 0.7–
1.5% in noncalcareous soils of humid temperate regions; however, Ca is much lower
(0.1–0.3%) in highly weathered, tropical soils (Table 2-2). In contrast, semi-arid and
arid region calcareous soils contain 1–30% Ca, predominately as CaCO3 (Chapter 3).
Dolomite [CaMg1CO322] and gypsum 1CaSO4 # 2H2O2 also may be present.
Generally, coarse-textured, humid-region soils formed from low-Ca minerals
are low in plant available Ca. Fine-textured soils formed from high-Ca minerals are
much higher in both exchangeable and total Ca. However, in humid regions, even
soils formed from limestone can be acidic in the surface layers because of removal of
Ca and other cations by excessive leaching. As water containing dissolved CO2 per-
colates through the soil, the H+ formed 1CO2 + H2O M H+ + HCO3-2 displaces
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 259

Ca+2 and other basic cations on the CEC. If substantial volumes of water percolate
through the soil profile, as in humid regions, soils gradually become acidic (Chapter 3).
Where leaching occurs, Na+ is lost more readily than Ca+2 (Chapter 2); however,
since exchangeable and solution Ca+2 are greater than Na+ in most soils, the quantity
of Ca+2 lost is also much more. Ca is often the dominant cation in drainage waters
with losses ranging 75–200 lb/a per year. Since Ca+2 is adsorbed on the CEC, losses
by erosion may be considerable in some soils.
In temperate regions, soil solution Ca+2 ranges 30–300 ppm. In higher rainfall
areas, solution Ca+2 ranges 5–50 ppm. About 15 ppm solution Ca+2 is adequate for
most crops. Solution Ca+2 higher than necessary for optimum plant growth has little
effect on Ca+2 uptake, because uptake is genetically controlled. Although solution
Ca+2 is about 10 times greater than K + , its uptake is usually lower than K + . The
limited capacity for Ca+2 uptake is due to its absorption being confined to root tips
where cell walls of the endodermis are still unsuberized (soft tissue enabling high
water and nutrient uptake).
The most important factors in determining Ca+2 availability to plants are:
• Total Ca supply
• Soil pH
• CEC
• % Ca+2 saturation on CEC
• Type of soil clay
• Ratio of solution Ca+2 to other cations
For example, low total Ca in acid, sandy soils can be too low to provide
sufficient plant available Ca+2, requiring Ca fertilization or liming. Increasing Ca+2
will increase root growth (Fig. 7-15) and Ca (and Mg +2) in above-ground plant tissue
(Fig. 7-16). See Chapter 3 for additional examples of plant response to Ca.
In soils not containing CaCO3 , CaMg1CO322, or CaSO4 # 2H2O, solution
Ca concentration depends on the amount of exchangeable Ca+2. In acid soils, Ca+2
+2

is not readily available to plants at low %Ca saturation. For example, a low-CEC
soil with 1,000 ppm exchangeable Ca+2 but representing a high %Ca saturation
can supply plants with more Ca+2 compared to a high-CEC soil with 2,000 ppm
exchangeable Ca+2 and a low %Ca saturation. Thus, as %Ca saturation decreases in
proportion to total CEC, the amount of Ca+2 absorbed by plants also decreases. High
Ca+2 saturation indicates a favorable pH for plant growth and microbial activity, and
will usually reflect low exchangeable Al+3 in acid soils and Na+ in sodic soils. Many
crops respond to Ca applications when Ca saturation is 625% of CEC.
The type of clay influences Ca+2 availability; 2:1 clays require higher %Ca
saturation than 1:1 clays. Specifically, montmorillonitic clays require ≈50960%
50 Figure 7-15
Tap Root Increasing soil pH (and solu-
tion Ca +2) increases root
ROOT LENGTH (cmyplant)

Lateral Root
40
growth in soybean.
(Adapted from Sanzonowicz, et al.,
30 1998, J. Plant Nutr., 21:785–804.)

20

10

0
3 4 5 6
SOIL pH
260 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

Figure 7-16 5
Effect of increased soluble

SHOOT Ca & Mg CONTENT (mgyg)

Al +3 on Ca and Mg accumu-
lation in corn shoots. 4
(E. J. Kamprath, 2005, personal
communication.)
3 Mg

2
Ca

0
0 10 20 30 40
SOLUTION Al (μM)

Ca saturation for adequate Ca availability, whereas kaolinitic clays are able to supply
sufficient Ca+2 at 40–50% Ca saturation.

Ca Sources
The primary Ca sources are liming materials such as CaCO3, CaMg1CO322, and
others applied to neutralize soil acidity (Chapter 3). In situations where Ca is re-
quired without the need for correcting soil acidity, gypsum is used. Gypsum
1CaSO4 # 2H2O2 deposits are found at several locations in North America, and large
amounts of by-product gypsum are produced in the manufacture of phosphoric acid
(Chapter 5). Gypsum has little effect on surface soil pH; however, it has some neu-
tralizing value in acid subsoils (Chapter 3). Gypsum is widely used on sodic soils in
arid climates (Chapter 3).
Ca is present in several fertilizer materials including triple superphosphate
(12–14% Ca), calcium nitrate (19% Ca), and lime-ammonium nitrate (10% Ca).
Synthetic chelates such as CaEDTA contain 3–5% Ca, while some of the natural
complexing substances used as micronutrient carriers contain 4–12% Ca. Chelated
Ca can also be foliar applied to crops. Rock phosphate contains ≈35% Ca, and
when applied at high rates to acid tropical soils, substantial amounts of Ca are sup-
plied. Animal and municipal wastes contain ∼ 295% Ca by dry weight and are excel-
lent Ca sources.

MAGNESIUM
Like Ca, Mg occurs predominantly as exchangeable and solution Mg +2 (Fig. 7-13).
Mg +2 absorption by plants depends on the amount of solution Mg +2, soil pH, %Mg
saturation on the CEC, quantity of other exchangeable ions, and type of clay. Mg in
soil solution may be (1) lost in percolating waters, (2) absorbed by microorganisms,
(3) adsorbed on the CEC, or (4) reprecipitated as a secondary mineral, predomi-
nantly in arid climates.

Forms and Functions of Mg in Plants

Mg +2 is absorbed by plants from the soil solution and, like Ca+2 , is supplied to
plant roots predominately by mass flow. Root interception contributes much less
Mg +2 to uptake than Ca+2. The quantity of Mg +2 taken up by plants is usually less
than Ca+2 or K + .
Plants contain 0.1–0.4% Mg +2. As a primary constituent of chlorophyll, Mg +2
is essential for photosynthesis (Fig. 4-3). Chlorophyll accounts for 15–20% of total
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 261

Mg +2 in plants. Mg also serves as a structural component in ribosomes, stabilizing

them in the configuration necessary for protein synthesis. In Mg +2-deficient plants,
protein N decreases while nonprotein N increases.
Mg is required for maximum activity of almost every phosphorylating enzyme
involved in carbohydrate metabolism. Most reactions involving phosphate transfer
from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) require Mg +2. Since the fundamental process of
energy transfer occurs in photosynthesis, glycolysis, the Krebs cycle, and respiration,
Mg +2 is important throughout plant metabolism.
Because of the mobility of plant Mg +2 and its ready translocation from older to
younger plant parts, deficiency symptoms often appear first on lower leaves. In many
plants, Mg +2 deficiency causes interveinal chlorosis in leaves, where only leaf veins
remain green. Under severe Mg +2 deficiency, leaf tissue becomes uniformly chlorotic
to necrotic. In other plants (e.g., cotton), lower leaves develop a reddish-purple cast,
gradually turning brown and finally necrotic (see color plates).
Grass Tetany Low Mg content in forage crops, particularly grasses, used for animal
feed may cause grass tetany (hypomagnesemia), which is an abnormally low level of
blood Mg. Low soil Mg, or high rates of NH4+ or K + fertilizers, may depress Mg +2
uptake. For example, Mg content of young corn plants is markedly reduced when
NH4+ rather than NO3- is applied. Because grass tetany often occurs in the spring,
NH4+ may be greater than NO3- , particularly under extended cool-weather condi-
tions. In addition, high protein content of ingested forages (and other feeds) can
depress Mg absorption by the animal, especially cattle. Including legumes in the for-
age program is advised because legumes exhibit higher Mg contents than grasses. The
diet can also be supplemented with Mg salts to help prevent grass tetany. Soil Mg
may be increased through application of dolomitic limestone, if liming is advisable,
or through Mg-containing fertilizers.

Mg in Soil
Mg constitutes ∼2% of the earth’s crust; however, total soil Mg content ranges
from 0.1% in coarse, humid-region soils to 4% in fine-textured, arid, or semi-
arid soils formed from high-Mg minerals. Soil Mg originates from weathering of
several Mg-bearing minerals including biotite, dolomite, hornblende, olivine, and
serpentine. Mg also occurs in clay minerals such as chlorite, illite, montmorillonite,
and vermiculite. Substantial amounts of epsomite 1MgSO4 # 7H2O2 and bloedite
1Na2MgSO3 # 4H2O2 occur in arid or semi-arid soils.
Soil solution Mg +2 concentration typically ranges from 5 to 50 ppm in temper-
ate region soils, although Mg +2 concentrations between 120 and 2,400 ppm have
been observed in arid region soils. Mg +2 can be leached (5–60 lb/a/yr), depending
on soil Mg content, rate of weathering, leaching intensity, and plant uptake. Mg +2
leaching can be a severe problem in sandy soils, particularly following KCl or K 2SO4
fertilization as K + would displace Mg +2 on the CEC. As with Ca+2, Mg +2 erosion
losses can be considerable in some soils.
Mg in clay minerals is slowly depleted by leaching and exhaustive cropping.
Vermiculite has a high Mg content, and it can be a significant Mg source in soils.
Conditions in which Mg is likely to be deficient include acid, sandy, highly leached
soils with low CEC; calcareous soils with inherently low Mg levels; acid soils receiving
high rates of liming materials low in Mg; high rates of NH4+ or K + fertilization; and
crops with a high Mg demand. Coarse-textured, humid-region soils exhibit the great-
est potential for Mg deficiency. These soils normally contain low total and exchange-
able Mg +2, and are likely deficient when they contain 625–50 ppm exchangeable
Mg +2. In most soils, exchangeable Mg +2 is 4–20% of the CEC. Mg saturation for
262 chapter seven sulfur, calcium, and magnesium

TABLE 7-4
M G -C ONTAINING F ERTILIZERS

Plant Nutrient Content (%)

Material Formula Mg P2O5 K 2O S N
Epsom salt MgSO4 # 7H2O 10 — — 13 —
Langbeinite K2SO4 # 2MgSO4 11 — 22 22 —
Magnesium Chloride MgCl2 25 — — — —
Magnesium Nitrate Mg1NO322 # 6H2O 9 — — — —
Dolomite MgCO3 # CaCO3 12–20 — — — —
Dolomitic limestone MgCO3 # CaCO3 4–6 — — — —
Magnesium oxide MgO 55 — — — —
Kieserite MgSO4 # H2O 17 — — 45 —
Kainite MgSO4 # KCl # 3H2O 9 — 18 12 —
Struvite MgNH4PO4 # 6H2O 10 12 — — 5

optimum plant growth coincides closely with this range, but in most instances, Mg
saturation should be ≈7910%.
Excess Mg can occur in soils formed from serpentine minerals or influenced by
groundwaters high in Mg. Normal Ca nutrition can be disrupted when exchangeable
Mg +2 7 Ca+2. Mg deficiencies can also occur in soils with a high Ca:Mg ratio of
10–15:1. In many sandy, humid-region soils, continued use of Ca liming materials
may increase Ca:Mg ratio and induce Mg deficiency on certain crops.
Reduced Mg +2 uptake also occurs in strongly acid soils with high levels of ex-
changeable Al+3. Al saturation of 65–70% is often associated with Mg deficiency.
High levels of exchangeable K + can interfere with Mg uptake by crops. Generally,
the recommended K:Mg ratios are 65:1 for field crops, 3:1 for vegetables and sugar
beets, and 2:1 for fruit and greenhouse crops.
Competition between NH4+ and Mg +2 can also reduce Mg uptake. NH4+ -
induced Mg +2 stress is greatest with high rates of NH4+ fertilizers applied to low
exchangeable Mg +2 soils. The mechanism of this interaction involves the H+
released when NH4+ is absorbed by roots, as well as the direct effect of NH4+ .

Mg Sources
Organic biosolids generally contain low Mg, although at rates applied to meet N
or other macronutrient needs, sufficient Mg to meet most crop needs is applied. In
Mg-deficient acid soils, dolomitic lime applications are recommended to increase soil
pH and Mg availability (Table 7-4). Many inorganic Mg fertilizers are available to
correct Mg deficiencies if no adjustment in soil pH is required. The most common
sources are epsom salt 1MgSO4 # 7H2O2, langbeinite 1K 2SO4 # 2MgSO42, and mag-
nesium nitrate Mg1NO322, commonly used in the horticulture industry (Table 7-4).
Most Mg fertilizers contain multiple plant nutrients; therefore, only use these when
each nutrient in the selected source is needed.
In addition to most inorganic Mg salts, other materials containing synthetic
Mg chelates (2–4% Mg) and natural organic complexing substances (4–9% Mg) are
well suited for application as foliar sprays. For example, Mg deficiency in citrus trees
is frequently corrected by foliar applications of MgSO4 or Mg1NO322.
 sulfur, calcium, and magnesium chapter seven 263

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. S is an integral part of which amino acids? 13. Why is a deficiency of Ca sometimes observed
2. What mechanism(s) is involved in transport of under very dry soil conditions?
solution S to plant roots? 14. In what ways do Mg- and K-deficiency symptoms
3. What is the importance of the C:N:P:S ratio on S resemble each other? In what ways are they dissim-
availability? ilar? What function of Mg in plants is unique?
4. What are the soil conditions under which SO4-2 15. What is the primary transport mechanism of
leaching would be expected? Mg +2 and Ca+2 to the root surface? Why are they
5. Describe soil and climatic conditions where S defi- similar or different?
ciencies are most likely to occur. 16. What conditions are conducive to Ca and Mg
6. Adsorbed SO4-2 is a source of plant available SO4-2. deficiencies?
Why would adsorbed SO4-2 be greater in soils of 17. Why is it desirable to have a high degree of Ca
highly weathered soils compared to slightly weath- saturation on the CEC?
ered soils? 18. Why is soil acidity usually associated with im-
7. Which organic S compound in soil contributes paired uptake of Ca and Mg?
most to mineralizable S? 19. What are some incidental sources of plant-nutri-
8. What are the factors affecting the oxidation of S0 ent Ca?
in soils? What soil microorganisms are responsible 20. A soil sample has a CEC of 5 meq/100g soil. The
for S0 oxidation? When using granular S0 fertilizer, soil is 50% Ca saturated. Calculate the remain-
what conditions will increase rate of oxidation and ing Ca saturation, if a crop removes 50 lb Ca/afs.
ultimately plant availability? Assume that all the Ca uptake is from exchangeable
9. Identify the important soil and crop factors that Ca.
influence the type and amount of S fertilizer 21. A soil has a CEC of 15 meq/100 g. The Ca and Mg
needed by crops? saturation are 50 and 5% respectively. Estimate
10. The soil contains 2% O.M with 2% loss each year the CaCO3 and MgSO4 required to increase the
(8:1 N:S). A clover crop grown on this soil yields 5 Ca and Mg saturation to 70 and 10% respectively.
t/a (N:S = 12:1, 3% N content). 22. Discuss the important forms and functions of S in
a. How many pounds S/afs are mineralized each plants.
year? 23. Name the important S-containing amino-acids.
b. Does this crop need S fertilization (assume that 24. Discuss the factors that affect S-mineralization and
all available S comes from the OM)? immobilization.
c. How many pounds of gypsum/afs would be 25. With a neat diagram, Explain the Ca & Mg cycle
required? in soil.
11. A farmer irrigates 3 times each season with 3 in. 26. Justify with suitable examples.
of water (12 ppm S). The total above – ground a. Increase in solution Ca2+ increases roots growth
biomass weighs 4 t/a (3% N, 14:1 N:S). The soil in soybeans.
contains 2.5% OM (10:1 N:S), which degrades at b. Increase in soluble Al3+ decreases Ca & Mg
a rate of 2% per annum. Calculate the additional S content in corn shoots.
needed by the crop. 27. What factors reduces Mg uptake?
12. An irrigation water sample contains 12 ppm S.
How many acre-feet of irrigation water would you
need to apply 16 lb S/a?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Barber, S. A. 1984. Soil nutrient bioavailability: A mech- Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999.
anistic approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby,
Jez, J. (Ed.). 2008. Sulfur: A missing link between soils, Ohio: Meister Publishing.
crops, and nutrition. Agronomy Monograph 50. Tabatabai, M. A. (Ed.). 1986. Sulfur in agriculture.
Madison, Wis.: ASA, CSSA, SSSA. No. 27. Madison, Wis.: ASA, CSSA, Soil Science
Marschner, H. 2002. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. Society of America.
London: Academic Press, Elsevier Science Ltd.
 8
Micronutrients
Micronutrients are equally important in plant nutrition as macronutri-
ents; they simply occur in plants and soils in much lower concentrations
(Table 1-6). Plants grown in micronutrient deficient soils exhibit simi-
lar reductions in productivity as those grown in macronutrient deficient
soils. Micronutrients in soil are (1) elements in primary and secondary
minerals, (2) adsorbed to mineral and OM surfaces, (3) incorporated in
OM and microorganisms, and (4) present in solution. Depending on
the micronutrient, some forms are more important than others in buff-
ering micronutrients in soil solution. Understanding the relationships
and dynamics among these forms is essential for optimizing plant pro-
ductivity in micronutrient deficient soils.

IRON (Fe)
Fe Cycle
Plant available Fe is governed primarily through mineral and organic
fractions in soils (Fig. 8-1). Fe minerals dissolve to buffer reductions
in solution Fe caused by plant uptake. Solution Fe can be immobi-
lized by microorganisms and complexed by organic compounds in the
soil solution. Because solution Fe concentration is low compared to
Ca+2, Mg +2, K + , and Na+ (saline/sodic soils) or Al+3 (acid soils), only
negligible amounts of micronutrient cations like Fe are adsorbed on the
CEC. Thus, adsorbed Fe contributes little to plant avail-
able Fe.

Fe in Plants
Fe is absorbed by roots as Fe+2 and Fe+3. Because Fe
can exist in two oxidation states, it accepts or donates
an electron 1Fe+3 + e- M Fe+22, depending on oxida-
tion potential. Transfer of electrons between organic
molecules and Fe provides the electrochemical potential
for many enzymatic transformations in plants. Several of
these enzymes are involved in chlorophyll synthesis, and
when Fe is deficient, chlorophyll production is reduced,
which results in the characteristic chlorosis symptoms of
Fe stress (see color plates).
Fe is a structural component of porphyrin
molecules: cytochromes, hemes, hematin, ferrichrome,
and leghemoglobin. These substances are involved in
oxidation-reduction reactions in respiration and photo-
synthesis. As much as 75% of cell Fe is associated with
chloroplasts, and up to 90% of Fe in leaves occurs with
lipoprotein in chloroplast and mitochondria membranes.
266 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-1 Crop Removal

Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn cycling Residue, Manure, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu
Biosolids Fertilizer
in soil.
Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu

Plant
Microbial Uptake
Biomass
Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu
Soil OM

Mineralization Solution Adsorption

Fe13/ Fe12
Immobilization Zn12, Mn12, Cu12 Desorption

Primary
and Dissolution Adsorbed
Secondary Fe13, Zn12,
Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu
Precipitation Mn12, Cu12
Minerals

Fe-containing cytochromes in the chloroplasts function in photosynthetic

reduction processes where ferrodoxin, an Fe-S protein, is an electron acceptor. Fer-
redoxins are the first stable compound of the photosynthetic electron transport
chain. Reduction of O2 to H2O during respiration is also a common function of Fe
compounds. Fe is a constituent of nitrogenase, the enzyme essential for N2 fixation
by rhizobia and other microorganisms. Fe may also be capable of partial substitu-
tion for Mo involved in NO3- reductase in legumes.
The sufficiency range of Fe in plant tissue is 50–250 ppm, where Fe deficiency
occurs at 650 ppm tissue Fe content. Fe deficiency symptoms appear first in young
leaves, because Fe is not mobile in the plant. Young leaves develop interveinal chlo-
rosis, which progresses rapidly over the entire leaf. In severe cases, leaves turn entirely
white and necrotic.
Fe toxicities commonly occur in plants grown on acid and/or poorly drained
soils. Fe toxicity symptoms generally appear as bronzing or bronze colored speckles
on leaves and can occur with 7300 ppm Fe in leaves.

Fe in Soil
Mineral Fe Fe is the fourth most abundant element, comprising about 5%
of the earth’s crust. Common primary and secondary Fe minerals are olivine
31Mg, Fe22SiO44, siderite 1FeCO32, hematite 1Fe 2O32, goethite (FeOOH), and
magnetite 1Fe 3O42. Total soil Fe varies widely (1–55%).
Soil Solution Fe Compared with other cations, the solubility of common Fe minerals
in soil is very low 110 -6 -10 -20 M Fe+32 depending on pH (Fig. 8-2). In well-drained,
oxidized soil, solution Fe+2 6 Fe+3. Soluble Fe+2 increases significantly when soils be-
come waterlogged. The pH-dependent relationship for Fe+3 in soil solution is:
Fe1OH23 + 3H+ M Fe+3 + 3H2O
For each pH unit increase, Fe+3 concentration decreases a thousandfold. In contrast,
Fe+2 decreases hundredfold for each unit increase in pH, which is similar to other
divalent cations (Fig. 8-2). Over the normal soil pH range, total solution Fe is not
 micronutrients chapter eight 267

1020 1020 Figure 8-2

(a) Influence of pH on
Ca12 solution Fe +3 concentration
relative to other cations.
1024 Mg12 1024 The concentration of Ca +2
CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

Minimum Plant Requirement and Mg+2 decreases above
Zn 1
2 ∼pH 7.2 due to precipitation
Cu 1% Plant Requirement of CaCO3 and MgCO3.
1028 1
2 1028
M (b) Influence of pH on total
n1 solution Fe concentration
2 Total Solution Fe*
and its relationship to Fe
10212 Fe 10212 required by plants. *Includes
1 Fe 1
2 soluble Fe hydroxide ions
Al
2
[FeOH +2, Fe1OH22+ , Fe1OH23o,
13
Fe

Fe
13

13
10216
and Fe 1OH24- ] not shown
10216
on graph b. (Lindsay, 1981,
Chemistry in Soil Environment,
Madison, WI: ASA)
220 220
10 10
4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH SOIL pH
(a) (b)

sufficient to meet plant Fe requirements, even in acid soils, where Fe deficiencies

occur less frequently than in high-pH and calcareous soils (Fig. 8-2). Obviously, an-
other mechanism that increases Fe availability to plants exists; otherwise, crops grown
on almost all soils would be Fe deficient.
Chelate Dynamics Numerous soluble organic compounds in soil are able to com-
plex, or chelate, Fe+3 and other micronutrients (Table 8-1). Chelate is a term derived
from a Greek word meaning “claw” (see Fig. 8-6d). The concentration of solution Fe
and Fe transported to the root by diffusion can be greatly increased through natural
organic chelate–Fe complexes in soil. Natural organic chelates in soils are products of
microbial activity and degradation of soil OM and plant residues. Root exudates are
also capable of complexing micronutrients. Many natural organic compounds have
chelating properties.

TABLE 8-1
C OMMON N ATURAL AND S YNTHETIC C HELATE C OMPOUNDS

Name Formula Abbreviation

Natural
Citric acid C6H8O7 CIT
Oxalic acid C2H2O4 OX
Malonic acid C3H4O4 MAL
Malic acid C4H6O4 MA
Tartaric acid C4H6O6 TAR
Synthetic
Pyrophosphoric acid H4P2O7 PPA
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid C10H16O8N 2 EDTA
Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid C14H23O10N 3 DTPA
Cyclohexanediaminetetraacetic acid C14H22O8N 2 CDTA
Ethylenediaminedi-o-hydroxyphenylacetic acid C18H20O6N 2 EDDHA
268 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-3
Cycling of chelated micro-
nutrients (M) in soils.
Micronutrient “Chelate Pump” in Soil

During plant uptake, the concentration of chelated Fe or other micronutrients

is greater in the bulk solution than at the root surface; thus, chelated Fe diffuses to the
root surface in response to the concentration gradient (Fig. 8-3). At the root surface,
Fe+3 dissociates from the chelate through interaction between organic cell wall com-
pounds and the chelate. After Fe+3 dissociates from the chelate, the “free” chelate will
diffuse away from the root back to the “bulk” solution, again in response to a concen-
tration gradient (free chelate concentration near the root is greater than free chelate in
bulk solution). The free chelate subsequently complexes another Fe+3 from solution. As
the unchelated Fe+3 concentration decreases in solution because of chelation, additional
Fe is desorbed from mineral surfaces or Fe minerals dissolve to resupply solution Fe.
The chelate-micronutrient “cycling” is an extremely important mechanism in soils that
greatly contributes to plant available Fe and other micronutrients.

Factors Affecting Fe Availability

Soil pH and Bicarbonate Fe deficiency is most often observed on high-pH and
calcareous soils in arid regions, but it can also occur in acid soils low in total Fe. Irri-
gation water and soils high in bicarbonate 1HCO3-2 may enhance Fe deficiency, due
to high pH associated with HCO3- accumulation. Calcareous soil pH ranges from
7.3 to 8.5 (Chapter 3), coinciding with the highest incidence of Fe deficiency and
lowest solubility of soil Fe (Fig. 8-2). HCO3- forms in calcareous soils by:
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O M Ca+2 + 2HCO3-
Although the presence of CaCO3 alone does not necessarily induce Fe deficiency, its
interaction with certain soil environmental conditions is related to Fe stress.
Excessive Water and Poor Aeration The reaction just noted is promoted by
accumulation of CO2 in excessively wet and poorly drained soils. Consequently, any
compact, fine-textured, calcareous soil is potentially Fe deficient. Fe chlorosis is often
associated with cool, rainy weather when soil moisture is high and soil aeration is poor.
Also, root development and nutrient absorption are reduced under cool, wet conditions,
which contribute to Fe stress. High pH or HCO3- -induced chlorosis often disappears
when these soils dry. Flooding and submergence of soils where HCO3- formation is of
no concern can improve Fe availability by increasing Fe+2 concentration.
Soil OM Although lime-induced Fe deficiency occurs in wet soils, low-OM, cal-
careous soils are often low in plant available Fe. This deficiency occurs especially
on eroded portions of the field where the OM-rich topsoil has been removed,
exposing calcareous subsoils. Land leveling for irrigation can also expose
 micronutrients chapter eight 269

calcareous, low-OM subsoils. Additions of OM to well-drained soils can improve

Fe availability. Organic materials such as manure may increase micronutrient solu-
bility through chelation reactions. Improved soil structure in compacted soils with
applications of organic wastes should also increase Fe availability by improved soil
aeration.
Interactions with Other Nutrients Metal cations can interact with Fe to induce Fe
deficiency. For example, high soil Cu following extended use of CuSO4 as a fertil-
izer or fungicide can induce Fe stress in sensitive crops. Fe-sensitive crops exhibit
Fe chlorosis when grown on soils high in Mn. Fe deficiency in soybeans can occur
due to low Fe:1Cu + Mn2 ratio in plants. In addition to Fe deficiency caused by
excess Cu, Mn, Zn, and Mo, Fe-P interactions have been observed in some plants,
probably related to precipitation of Fe-P minerals.
Plants receiving NO3- are more likely to develop Fe stress than those receiving
NH4 . When a strong acid anion 1NO3-2 is absorbed and replaced with a weak acid
+

1HCO3-2, the pH of the root zone increases, particularly in low-buffered systems,

which decreases Fe availability. Thus, Fe solubility and availability are favored by the
acidity that develops when NH4+ is utilized by plants.
Plant Factors Although diffusion of both Fe+3 and Fe+2 to the root occurs, Fe+3 is
+2
reduced to Fe before absorption. Plant genotypes differ in their ability to take up
Fe and are classified according to their sensitivity or tolerance to low levels of avail-
able Fe (Table 8-2). Fe-efficient varieties should be selected where Fe deficiencies are
likely to occur.

TABLE 8-2
G ENERAL S ENSITIVITY OF C ROPS TO F E D EFICIENCY *

Sensitive Moderately Tolerant Tolerant

Azalea Alfalfa Amaranthus
Beans, snap Asparagus Barley
Berries Barley Flax
Blueberries Cabbage Grasses
Broccoli Corn Millet
Cauliflower Cotton Oat
Citrus Field peas Peppermint
Field beans Flax Potato
Flax Forage legumes Rice
Forage sorghum Grasses Sugar beet
Fruit trees Orchard grass Sunflower
Grain sorghum Ornamentals Wheat
Grapes Rice
Maple trees Sweet corn
Mint Tomato
Ornamentals Turfgrasses
Peanuts
Pin oak
Raspberries
Rhododendron
Soybean
Spinach
Strawberries
Sudan grass
Vegetables
Walnut
*Some crops exhibit variable sensitivity due to differences between varieties of a given crop.
270 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-4
Mechanism of enhancing
Fe and Mn availability and
transport through phytosid-
erophore (PS) complexes.

Rhizosphere Cytoplasm

PS
Phytosiderophore
(PS)
Adsorbed
Cations

Plasma Membrane
Mn+2

Fe+3

Clay Fe+3
Mineral Mn+2
PS-Fe+3

PS-Mn+2 PS
PS-Fe+3

PS-Mn+2

Active Transport Site

The ability of plants to absorb and translocate Fe appears to be a geneti-

cally controlled adaptive process that responds to Fe deficiency or stress. Roots of
Fe-efficient plants alter their environment to improve Fe availability and uptake
by (1) excretion of H+ and organic acids from roots, (2) excretion of chelating
compounds from roots, and (3) enhanced rate of Fe+3 to Fe+2 reduction at root
surface.
Some plants exhibit a unique mechanism to tolerate low Fe availability. For
example, grass roots release amino acids called phytosiderophores with a high affinity
for Fe+3. Phytosiderophore-Fe complexes enhance Fe transport to root surfaces and
absorption by root cells (Fig. 8-4).

Fe Sources
Organic Fe Most animal wastes contain small quantities of plant available Fe, typi-
cally ranging between 0.02% and 0.1%. Thus, applying 4,000 lb waste/a (0.1% Fe)
provides 4 lbs Fe/a. Although sufficient plant available Fe can be provided through
manure application at appropriate rates, the major benefit of organic waste applica-
tion is increased OM and associated chelation effects. Enhanced Fe chelation may
supply sufficient plant available Fe, even if the manure contains no Fe. In contrast,
municipal waste can contain as much as 5% Fe (Table 8-3).
Inorganic Fe Fe chlorosis is one of the most difficult micronutrient deficiencies
to correct in the field. In general, soil applications of inorganic Fe are not effective
in correcting Fe deficiency in high-pH soils because of rapid precipitation of insol-
uble Fe1OH23. For example, when FeSO4 # 7H2O and Fe-EDDHA were applied,
only 20% was plant available with FeSO4 after 1 week, compared with 70% and
 micronutrients chapter eight 271

TABLE 8-3
S OURCES OF F E F ERTILIZER

Source Formula % Fe
Ferrous sulfate FeSO4 # 7H2O 19
Ferric sulfate Fe21SO423 # 4H2O 23
Ferrous oxide FeO 77
Ferric oxide Fe2O3 69
Ferrous ammonium phosphate Fe1NH42PO4 # H2O 29
Ferrous ammonium sulfate 1NH422SO4 # FeSO4 # 6H2O 14
Iron ammonium polyphosphate Fe1NH42HP2O7 22
Iron chelates NaFeEDTA 5–14
NaFeEDDHA 6
NaFeDTPA 10
Natural organic materials 5–10

25% plant available Fe with FeEDDA after 7 and 14 weeks, respectively (Fig. 8-5).
FeSO4 # 7H2O applied with or near the seed can reduce Fe stress and increase yield;
however, high Fe rates (30–70 lbs Fe>a) are required and Fe responses are greater
under irrigated compared to dryland crops. Inorganic Fe applied to Fe-deficient acid
soils provides sufficient Fe.
Fe deficiencies are corrected mainly with foliar application of inorganic Fe
(Table 8-4). One application of a 2% FeSO4 solution at 15–30 gal/a is usually suf-
ficient to alleviate mild chlorosis. However, several applications at 7–14 days apart
may be needed to remedy more severe Fe deficiencies. Fe salts injected directly into
trunks and limbs of fruit trees are effective in controlling Fe chlorosis.

Figure 8-5
Recovery of micronutrients
in soils fertilized with vari-
ous inorganic micronutrient
fertilizers.
(Follett and Lindsay, 1971, SSSAJ,
35:600–602.)

Oat Crop Corn Crop

272 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-4
E XAMPLES OF F E M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crop Fe Source Fe Rate Application Method Remarks

Vegetables Fe chelates 0.5–1.0 lbs/a Foliar Wet leaves, repeat as needed
Citrus Fe chelates 12–24 g/tree Foliar Wet leaves, repeat as needed
Corn, sorghum FeSO4 # 7H20 ∼1 lb>30 gal Foliar 3 applications (2-week intervals)
∼30 gal>a
Field (dry) beans FeSO4 # 7H20 ∼1lb>30 gal Foliar 2-week intervals until symptoms
20 gal/a disappear
Deciduous fruits Fe polyflavonoid 0.1–0.2 lb/25 gal Foliar Wet leaves, repeat as needed
Soybeans FeSO4 # 7H20 ∼1 lb>30 gal Foliar Spray band over row at second
Fe chelates 0.15 lbs/a Foliar trifoliate
Cotton FeSO4 # 7H20 1.0 lb Fe/25 gal Foliar Wet leaves, repeat as needed
Turfgrass FeSO4 # 7H20 0.5–1.0 lbs/a Foliar Wet leaves, repeat as needed
Fe chelates 0.02 lbs>1,000 ft2

With the exception of FeSO4, perhaps the most widely used Fe sources are the
synthetic chelates (Table 8-3). Synthetic chelates (Fig. 8-6) are water soluble and can
be applied to soil or foliage. Chelated Fe is protected from soil reactions that form
insoluble Fe1OH23. The specific chelate applied depends on the micronutrient and
the chelate stability in soil (Fig. 8-7). EDDHA will strongly complex Fe and is stable
over the entire pH range. DTPA can be used for soil 6pH 7.5, whereas Fe-EDTA is
not stable applied to soils 7pH 6.5. For example, when Fe-EDTA, Fe-DTPA, and
Fe-EDDHA were applied to a high-pH, calcareous soil, EDDHA provided more

Figure 8-6 H2
–O
The structure of EDTA (a), 2C CH2 C CO2–
DTPA (b), EDDHA (c), and
N C C N
Zn-EDTA (d). The COO - H2 H2
groups surround Zn +2 in a –O
2C C H 2C CO2–
H2
“claw” orientation (d)
(a)
(Follett et al., 1981, Fertilizers and H2
–
Soil Amendments Englewood Cliffs, O2C CH2 C CO2–
NJ: Prentice-Hall.)
N C C N C C N
H2 H2 H2 H2
–O C H2C CO2–
2C H2 CH2

CO2H
(b)

–
O

–O C
2

CH N C C N CH
H H2 H2 H
CO2–

O–

(c)
 micronutrients chapter eight 273

Figure 8-6
(Continued )

(d)

plant available Fe than the other chelates (Fig. 8-8). Since Fe-EDDHA is the most sta-
ble Fe chelate, it is the preferred chelate fertilizer source, although Fe-DTPA has also
been used. Unfortunately, Fe chelates are expensive and their use is usually restricted
to high-value horticultural crops.
Local root zone acidification can be effective in correcting Fe deficiencies
in calcareous and high-pH soils. Several S products, such as S 0, ammonium thio-
sulfate, sulfuric acid, and ammonium polysulfide, will lower soil pH and increase
solution Fe concentration. Complexing with polyphosphate fertilizers also increases
Fe availability, but Fe-EDDHA is more effective than polyphosphate at the same
Fe rates.

Figure 8-7
1.0
EDDHA Stability of synthetic
chelates with Fe in soils.
0.9 (Norvell, 1972, Micronutrients in
Agriculture, Madison,WI: ASA.)
RATIO OF CHELATED Fe TO TOTAL CHELATE

0.8

0.7 DTPA

0.6

0.5 EDTA

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH
274 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-8
Effectiveness of synthetic
Fe chelates in supplying Fe
to Fe-deficient sorghum.
(Lindsay and Novell, 1978, SSSAJ
42:421–428)
Fe-EDDHA

Fe-EDDHA

Fe-DTPA

Fe-EDTA Fe-DTPA

Fe-EDTA

ZINC (Zn)
Zn Cycle
Plant available Zn is governed predominantly by Zn mineral solubility, soil OM,
and Zn adsorbed on clay and OM surfaces soils (Fig. 8-1). Primary and secondary
minerals dissolve to initially provide solution Zn, which is then adsorbed onto the
CEC, incorporated into microbial biomass, or complexed by organic compounds in
solution. Like Fe, chelated Zn is important to the transport of Zn to root surfaces
for uptake.

Zn in Plants
Plant roots absorb Zn+2, which is involved in many enzymatic activities. For
example, Zn is essential for synthesis of tryptophane, a component of some pro-
teins and a compound needed for the production of growth hormones (auxins)
such as indoleacetic acid. Reduced growth hormone production in Zn-deficient
plants causes shortening of internodes and smaller than normal leaves. Zn is
also involved in chlorophyll synthesis, enzyme activation, and cell membrane
integrity.
Zn deficiencies are widespread throughout the world, and can be identified by
distinctive visual symptoms in leaves, but also can appear in fruit or storage organs,
and in overall plant growth (see color plates). Common symptoms include:
• light green, yellow, or white areas between leaf veins, particularly in younger leaves
• eventual tissue necrosis in chlorotic leaf areas
• shortened stem or stalk internodes, resulting in stunted plants or bushy, rosetted leaves
• small, narrow, thickened leaves, often malformed by growth of only part of leaf
tissue
• premature foliage loss
• malformation of fruit, often with little or no yield.
 micronutrients chapter eight 275

Zn deficiency causes characteristic rosetting or clustering of small leaves at the

top of the plant. Rosetting commonly occurs in fruit and citrus trees. Under
severe deficiency in corn, the leaf area between the midrib and leaf edge turns a
distinctive white color. In small grains and other grasses, Zn deficiency depresses
tillering, and the midrib at the base of young leaves becomes chlorotic. Eventu-
ally, older leaves exhibit brown spots or leaf tips turn yellow-orange, eventually
progressing to the entire leaf. Under moderate Zn deficiency, symptoms may
disappear after several weeks, although plant maturity is sufficiently delayed to
limit yield.
Zn concentration in plants ranges between 25 and 150 ppm. Zn deficiencies
are usually associated with concentrations of 610920 ppm, depending on the crop,
and toxicities occur with leaf Zn concentration 7400 ppm. Zn toxicity reduces or
ceases root growth, resulting in yellowing leaves and eventual plant death. Peanut
and soybean are sensitive to high Zn, while most crops are tolerant.

Zn in Soil
Mineral Zn Zn content of the lithosphere is ≈70 ppm, and Zn in soil ranges
from 10 to 300 ppm (50 ppm average). Igneous rocks contain ≈70 ppm Zn, while
sedimentary rocks (shale) contain more Zn (95 ppm) than limestone (20 ppm) or
sandstone (16 ppm). Franklinite 1ZnFe 2O42, smithsonite 1ZnCO32, and willemite
1Zn2SiO42 are common Zn-containing minerals.
Soil Solution Zn Soil solution Zn+2 is low (2–70 ppb), with more than half com-
plexed by OM. Above pH 7.7, ZnOH+ becomes the most abundant species (Fig. 8-9).
Zinc solubility is pH dependent, decreasing with increasing pH, given by:
Soil@Zn + 2H+ M Zn+2
As a result of Zn+2 interactions with OM, thirtyfold reductions in solution Zn+2
typically have been observed for every unit pH increase between 5 and 7. Diffusion
predominately transports Zn+2 to plant roots. Complexing agents or chelates from
root exudates or from decomposing organic residues facilitate Zn+2 diffusion to roots
(Fig. 8-3). Diffusion of chelated Zn+2 (and other micronutrients) can be significantly
greater than that of unchelated Zn+2 (Fig. 8-10).

Figure 8-9
10–0 Common Zn species in
soil solution as influenced
CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

by pH.

10–4 Zn+2

10–8 Zn(OH)+

10–12

10–16
4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH
276 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-10
Effects of various complex- 1400

Zn DIFFUSION INTO SIMULATED ROOT (cpm)

ing agents and acids on
cumulative Zn diffusion
1200
into a simulated root.
(Elgawhary et al., 1970, SSSAJ,
34:211) 1000
NaEDTA 10–2 M
HCl 10–1 M
800
Citric Acid 10–1 M

600

400

200
65

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TIME (day)

Factors Affecting Zn Availability

Soil pH Zn+2 availability decreases with increasing soil pH (Fig. 8-9). Most pH-
induced Zn deficiencies occur in neutral and calcareous soils, although not all of
these soils exhibit Zn deficiency because of increased availability from Zn+2 chelation
(Fig. 8-3). At high pH, Zn precipitates as insoluble amorphous soil Zn, ZnFe 2O4,
and/or ZnSiO4, which reduces solution Zn+2. Liming acid soils, especially those low
in Zn, will reduce Zn+2 uptake, which is related to pH effect on Zn+2 solubility. Zn+2
adsorption on CaCO3, clay minerals, Al/Fe oxides, and OM surfaces also reduces
solution Zn+2, which increases with increasing pH (greater CEC).
Zn Adsorption The mechanism of Zn+2 adsorption on oxide surfaces is depicted as:

Zn+2 adsorption does not occur to any great extent on the CEC, at least compared
to Ca+2 and Mg +2. Zn is strongly adsorbed by magnesite 1MgCO32, and to a lesser
extent by dolomite 3CaMg1CO3224, where Zn is adsorbed into the crystal surface
at sites normally occupied by Mg atoms. Zn adsorption by CaCO3 is partly respon-
sible for reduced Zn+2 availability in calcareous soils, where Zn availability decreases
with increasing CaCO3 content (Fig. 8-11).
Soil OM Zn+2 forms stable complexes with high-molecular-weight organic
compounds (i.e., lignin, humic, and fulvic acids) that exist as soluble or insol-
uble complexes. With insoluble complexes, Zn availability will be reduced as in
Zn-deficient peats and humic soils. In mineral soils, formation of soluble
chelated Zn complexes enhances availability by keeping Zn+2 in solution
(Fig. 8-3). Substances present in or derived from freshly applied organic materials
also have the capacity to chelate Zn+2.
 micronutrients chapter eight 277

Figure 8-11
Zn adsorption in calcareous
Tuscon Loam soils. (Udo et al., 1970, SSSAJ,
34:405)
Superstition Sand
Elfrida Sand

Interaction with Other Nutrients Other metal cations inhibit Zn+2 uptake, pos-
sibly because of competition for the same carrier site in the casparian bands or
plasmalemma (Chapter 2). The antagonistic effect is especially prevalent with Cu+2
and Fe+2.
High P-availability can induce Zn deficiency, commonly in soils that are mar-
ginally Zn deficient. With Zn-deficient plants, cellular regulation of P uptake is im-
paired, causing absorption of toxic levels of P and translocation to plant tops, creating
symptoms resembling Zn deficiency. Mycorrhizae can increase P and micronutrient
uptake by many plants; however, P fertilization can suppress mycorrhizal uptake of
Zn and induce Zn deficiency.
Flooding When soils are submerged, concentration of many nutrients increases,
but not Zn. In acid soils, Zn deficiency may be attributed to increased pH under
reducing conditions and subsequent precipitation of franklinite 1ZnFe 2O42 or sphal-
erite (ZnS). Decreasing pH in submerged, calcareous soils would usually increase
Zn solubility. However, with high pH and poor aeration, potential Zn deficiency is
aggravated.
Climatic Conditions Zn deficiencies are more pronounced during cool, wet seasons
and often disappear in warmer weather. Climatic conditions during early spring that
can contribute to Zn deficiency are low light intensity, low temperature, and exces-
sive moisture. Increasing soil temperature increases Zn availability by increasing Zn+2
solubility and diffusion.
Plant Factors Plant species and varieties differ in their susceptibility to Zn defi-
ciency (Table 8-5). Corn and beans are very susceptible to low Zn. Fruit trees in
general, and citrus and peach in particular, are also sensitive. Cultivars differ in their
ability to take up Zn, which may be caused by differences in Zn translocation and
utilization, different accumulations of nutrients that interact with Zn, and differ-
ences in roots and mycorrhizal infection.

Zn Sources
Organic Zn Most animal wastes contain small quantities of plant available Zn,
typically ranging from 0.01% to 0.05%. With large manure-application rates, suf-
ficient plant available Zn can be provided. As a result of Zn additions to animal diets,
278 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-5
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO Z N D EFICIENCY *

High Sensitivity Mild Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Apples Alfalfa Asparagus
Beans, lima beans Barley Carrots
Castor bean Clover Forage grasses
Citrus Cotton Mustard and other crucifers
Corn Lettuce Oats
Flax Potato Peas
Fruit trees (deciduous) Sorghum Peppermint
Grapes Sugar beet Rye
Hops Tomato Safflower
Onion Wheat
Pecan
Pine
Rice
Soybean
Sudan grass
Sweet corn
*Some crops exhibit variable sensitivity due to differences between varieties of a given crop.

combined with annual manure applications, plant available Zn can increase to very
high levels. In some cases, extremely high Zn levels have prevented production of
sensitive crops (e.g., peanuts). The primary benefit of organic waste application is
increased OM and associated natural chelation properties that increase solution Zn
concentration and plant availability. Zn content in municipal waste varies greatly
depending on the source, with an average Zn content of 0.5%.
Inorganic Zn Zinc sulfate 1ZnSO42 is the most common Zn fertilizer source,
although use of Zn chelates has increased (Table 8-6). Inorganic Zn sources are
satisfactory fertilizers because they are soluble in soils. Fertilizer Zn rates depend
on the crop, Zn source, method of application, and severity of Zn deficiency.
Rates usually range from 1 to 10 lbs/a with inorganic Zn and from 0.5 to
2.0 lbs/a with chelate or organic Zn sources (Table 8-7). For most field and
vegetable crops, 10 lbs/a is recommended in clay and loam soils and 1 to 5 lbs/a
in sandy soils. In most cropping situations, applications of 10 lbs/a of Zn can be
effective for 2 to 3 years.

TABLE 8-6
S OURCES OF F ERTILIZER Z N

Source Formula % Zn
Zinc sulfate monohydrate ZnSO4 # H2O 35
Zinc oxide ZnO 78
Zinc carbonate ZnCO3 52
Zinc phosphate Zn31PO422 51
Zinc chelates Na2ZnEDTA 9–14
Zinc ligninsulfonate 5–12
Zinc polyflavonoid 7–10
 micronutrients chapter eight 279

TABLE 8-7

E XAMPLES OF Z N M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crop Zn (lb/a) Source Application Method Comments
Corn 4–10 ZnSO4, ZnO Broadcast Reduce rates for higher soil
1–2 Zn chelate Banded test Zn levels
Sorghum 3–9 ZnSO4, ZnO Broadcast Reduce rates for higher soil
1–2 Zn chelate Banded test Zn levels
Soybean 2–3 ZnSO4, ZnO Broadcast Reduce rates for higher soil
1–2 Zn chelate Banded test values
Rice 7–10 ZnSO4, ZnO Broadcast preplant Reduce rates for higher soil
1 Zn chelate banded test values
Dry beans 3–4 ZnSO4, ZnO Broadcast Reduce rates for higher soil
0.5–3 Zn chelate Banded test values
Citrus 0.5 lbs Zn> ZnSO4 Foliar Wet foliage, repeat until
25 gal H2O symptoms disappear
Pecans 0.05 - 0.1 lb Zn1NO322 Foliar 5 applications starting at bud
Zn>25 gal H2O; break, repeated weekly
100 gal/a
Snap beans, onion, 0.5–1.0 Zn chelate Broadcast Repeat foliar until symptoms
lima beans, potato 0.2–0.5 Banded disappear or leaf analysis
0.1 Foliar confirms adequate Zn
Turfgrass 0.44 lbs/a ZnSO4 or chelate Foliar or broadcast Annual foliar or every
0.01 lbs>1,000 ft2 3–4 years soil appl.

Because of limited Zn mobility in soils, broadcast Zn should be thoroughly

incorporated into the soil; however, band application may be more effective, espe-
cially in fine-textured and very low-Zn soils. The efficiency of band-applied Zn can
be improved by combining with acid-forming N and S fertilizers.
With perennial crops, preplant soil applications of Zn are effective at rates
between 20 and 100 lbs/a. Soil applications are of only limited value after these
crops have been established. Foliar Zn application is recommended for turfgrass and
tree crops. Sprays containing 10 to 15 lbs/a of Zn are usually applied to dormant
orchards, whereas 2 to 3 lbs/a can be foliar applied to growing crops. Damage to
foliage can be prevented by adding lime to the solution or by using less-soluble ma-
terials such as ZnO or ZnCO3. Other methods include seed coatings, root dips, and
tree injections. The former treatment may not supply enough Zn for small-seeded
crops, but dipping potato seed pieces in a 2% ZnO suspension is satisfactory.
Foliar applications of chelates and natural organics are particularly suitable for
rapid recovery of Zn-deficient seedlings. Chelated Zn can be used in high-analysis
liquid fertilizers because of their high solubility and compatibility. ZnEDTA or
ZnDTPA can be soil applied; however, high cost usually limits their use. In general,
Zn chelates are more effective than inorganic Zn at similar rates of application
(Table 8-8). Foliar-applied Zn is more effective than soil-applied Zn.

COPPER (Cu)
Cu Cycle
Cu cycling in soils is very similar to that described for Fe and Zn (Fig. 8-1). Soil
solution Cu and plant available Cu are governed predominantly by solution pH and
Cu adsorbed on clay and OM surfaces. Primary and secondary minerals dissolve to
280 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-8
C OMPARISON OF Z N S OURCES AND A PPLICATION M ETHODS ON L EAF Z N
C ONTENT OF S ELECTED C ROPS *

Soil-Applied Foliar Applied

ZnSO4 ZnSO4 ZnEDTA
Crop Control 120 kg>ha2 10.5 kg>ha2 11.0 kg>ha2 10.42 kg>ha2
___________________________ mg Zn>kg ___________________________

Alfalfa 22 37 39 50 43
Ryegrass 18 28 46 61 63
Wheat 17 21 31 41 51
Barley 21 30 43 43 54
*Zn application rates shown in parentheses. Adapted from Gupta, 1989, Can. J. Soil Sci., 69: 473.

initially supply solution Cu, which is then adsorbed on mineral and OM surfaces,
incorporated into microorganisms, and complexed by soluble organic compounds.
A significant “pool” of organically complexed Cu in equilibrium with solution Cu
contributes to Cu+2 diffusion to plant roots.

Cu in Plants
Plants absorb Cu+2. Normal Cu concentration in plant tissue ranges from 5 to
20 ppm. Deficiencies are probable at 64 ppm Cu. Once absorbed, Cu+2 is readily
reduced to Cu+ and donates an electron to reduce O2. The ease with which Cu
accepts and donates electrons enables it to function in many oxidation-reduction
reactions in plants.

Photosynthesis and Respiration Both photosynthesis (reduction of CO2 to

carbohydrates) and respiration (oxidation of carbohydrates to CO2 ) involve the
transfer of electrons that requires Cu. Fe and Mn are also involved in electron
transfer, but they cannot replace Cu. Electron transfer reactions involved in pho-
tosynthesis and respiration produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is the
primary energy source for synthesis of proteins, lipids, cell wall membranes, and
for active nutrient uptake (Chapter 2). Approximately 50% of Cu in the chloro-
plast is found in plastocyanin, a protein involved in energy transfer in photosyn-
thesis reactions. Cu is part of the enzyme cytochrome oxidase that catalyzes electron
transfer in respiration.

Lignin Formation in Cell Walls Lignin is a constituent in cell walls that imparts
strength and rigidity, essential for erect stature of plants. Several enzymes (polyphe-
nol oxidase and diamine oxidase) important to synthesis of lignin contain Cu. Cu
deficiency results in deformed leaves and stems, which increases potential for lodg-
ing. Lignin also aids natural plant resistance to diseases. Cu-deficient plants are more
susceptible to disease.

Carbohydrate and Lipid Metabolism If photosynthesis is impeded by Cu defi-

ciency during the vegetative growth stage, then carbohydrate production and plant
growth are reduced. During the reproductive growth stage, carbohydrates accumu-
late because Cu deficiency impedes pollination and seed set. Reduced seed develop-
ment, even under reduced photosynthesis, causes carbohydrates to accumulate since
carbohydrate storage organs (seeds, fruits, etc.) are not present. Cu deficiency also
 micronutrients chapter eight 281

alters lipid structure in cell membranes that is essential for low-temperature tolerance
and resistance to other environmental stresses.
Cu Deficiency and Toxicity Although Cu deficiencies are not as common as other
micronutrient deficiencies, they do occur in sensitive crops grown on low-Cu soils.
Symptoms of Cu deficiency vary with the crop, but chlorosis in young leaves is a
common symptom, because of the Cu-containing enzyme function in the chlo-
roplasts. In corn and small grains, young leaves become yellow and stunted, and
as the deficiency progresses, young leaves turn pale and older leaves die back. In
advanced stages, necrosis along leaf tips and edges appears similar to K deficiency.
Stem melanosis, take-all root rot, and ergot infection can occur in Cu-deficient
small grains. In many vegetable crops, leaves lack turgor, develop a bluish-green
cast, and become chlorotic, and curl, and flower production fails to take place.
Lodging, wilting, and increased incidence of disease is observed due to reduced
lignification with low Cu.
Cu toxicity symptoms include reduced shoot vigor, poorly developed and dis-
colored root systems, and leaf chlorosis. The chlorotic condition in shoots superfi-
cially resembles Fe deficiency. Toxicities are uncommon, occurring in limited areas
of high-Cu availability; after additions of high-Cu materials such as biosolids, swine
and poultry manures, and mine wastes; and from repeated use of Cu-containing pes-
ticides. In some plants (e.g., turfgrass), leaf tissue analysis will not identify Cu toxicity
because the severe root system damage reduces Cu translocation to leaves. Cu toxic-
ity in most plants occurs at 720 ppm Cu. Cu-containing fungicides (i.e., Bordeaux
mixtures) are commonly used on many perennial fruit crops to control fungal dis-
eases on leaves and fruit. Continued use can increase plant available Cu in soil, result-
ing in increased potential for Cu toxicity.

Cu in Soil
Mineral Cu Cu concentration in the earth’s crust averages about 50–70 ppm.
Igneous rocks contain 10–100 ppm Cu, while sedimentary rocks contain
4–45 ppm Cu. Total Cu concentration in soils ranges from 1 to 40 ppm and averages
about 9 ppm Cu; however, in deficient soils, soil Cu may be 1–2 ppm. Malachite
3Cu 21OH22CO34 and cupric ferrite 1CuFe 2O42 are important Cu-containing pri-
mary minerals. Secondary Cu minerals include oxides, carbonates, silicates, sulfates,
and chlorides, but most are too soluble to persist.

Soil Solution Cu Solution Cu concentration is usually low, ranging between 10-6

and 10-8 M (Fig. 8-12). The dominant solution species are Cu+2 at pH 67 and
Cu1OH220 at pH 77. Cu+2 solubility is pH dependent, increasing with decreasing
pH, as shown by:
Soil@Cu + 2H + G Cu + 2
Cu is supplied to plant roots by diffusion of organically bound, chelated Cu, similar
to chelated Fe diffusion (Fig. 8-3). Organic compounds in the soil solution are ca-
pable of chelating solution Cu+2, which increases the solution Cu+2 concentration
above that predicted by Cu mineral solubility.

Adsorbed Cu Cu+2 (and CuOH+ ) is chemically adsorbed to surfaces of clays;

OM; and Fe, Al, or Mn oxides. With the exception of Pb+2 and Hg +2, Cu+2 is the
most strongly adsorbed divalent metal to Fe/Al oxides. The adsorption mechanism
with oxides is unlike electrostatic attraction of Cu+2 on the CEC of clay particles,
and involves formation of Cu-O-Al or Cu-O-Fe surface bonds (Fig. 8-13). This
282 chapter eight micronutrients

Figure 8-12 10–0

Common Cu species in
soil solution as influenced
by pH.
10–4

CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

Cu +
2
10–8
CuO
H+
Cu(OH)20
10–12

10–16

10–20
4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH

Figure 8-13
Chemisorption of Cu +2
with surface hydroxyls on
Fe1OH23.

chemisorption process is controlled by the quantity of surface OH@groups. Cu ad-

sorption increases with increasing pH due to (1) increased pH-dependent sites on
clay and OM, (2) reduced competition with H+ , and (3) a change in the hydrolysis
state of Cu in solution. As pH increases, hydrolysis of Cu+2 adsorbed on the CEC
decreases exchangeable Cu+2 and increases chemisorbed Cu (i.e., decreasing H+ shifts
equilibrium to the right in Fig. 8-13).
Occluded and Coprecipitated Cu A significant fraction of soil Cu is occluded,
or buried, in various mineral structures, such as clay minerals and Fe, Al, and Mn
oxides. Cu is capable of isomorphic substitution in octahedral positions of silicate
clays (Chapter 2). It is present as an impurity within CaCO3 and MgCO3 in arid
soils and within Al1OH23 and Fe1OH23 in acid soils.
Organic Cu Most of the soluble Cu+2 in surface soils is organically complexed
and is more strongly bound to OM than any other micronutrient. Cu+2 is directly
bonded to two or more organic functional groups, chiefly carboxyl or phenol
(Fig. 8-14). Humic and fulvic acids contain multiple Cu+2 binding sites, primar-
ily carboxyl groups. In most mineral soils, OM is intimately associated with clay,
as clay-metal-organic complexes (Fig. 8-15).
At 68% soil OM, both organic and mineral surfaces are involved in Cu
adsorption, while at 78% OM, binding of Cu takes place mostly on organic sur-
faces. Thus, Cu deficiency frequently occurs in peat and muck soils. For soils with
similar clay and OM contents, the contribution of OM to complexing of Cu is
highest with 1:1 versus 2:1 clays.
 micronutrients chapter eight 283

Figure 8-14
Mechanism of Cu com-
plexed by organic matter.
(Stevenson and Ardakani, 1972,
Micronutrients in Agriculture, p. 90,
Madison, WI:ASA.)

Clay Mineral
OM – metal – clay bonds

Zn HC O
Cu Cu
O (HC OH)4
O O
C O HC O H
C O COOH O O C O
OH R CH O
H O COOH
N O O CH CH2
HO O COOH
O
O CH
OH OH O O
N
O NH O OH

R CH

C O

NH

Figure 8-15
Theoretical structure of the clay-micronutrient (metal)-OM complex.

Factors Affecting Cu Availability

Texture The potential for Cu deficiency is greater in excessively leached, coarse-
textured soils.

Soil pH Solution Cu decreases with increasing pH due to decreased mineral solubil-

ity and increased adsorption.

Interactions with Other Nutrients High Zn, Fe, and P concentrations in soil
solution can depress Cu absorption by roots and intensify Cu deficiency. Increased
growth response to N or other nutrients may be proportionally greater than Cu
uptake, which dilutes Cu concentration in plants. Also, increasing N in plants
impedes Cu translocation from older to newer leaves.
284 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-9
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO C U D EFICIENCY *

High Sensitivity Mild Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Alfalfa Lettuce Apples Cucumber Beans Potato
Beets Onion Barley Oats Beans, snap Rapeseed
Canary seed Rice Blueberries Parsnips Canola Rye
Carrots Spinach Broccoli Radishes Forage Soybean
Citrus Sudan grass Cabbage Strawberries grasses Turfgrasses
Flax Wheat Cauliflower Sweet corn Grapes
Celery Timothy Lupine
Clover Tomato Peas
Corn Turnip
*Some crops exhibit variable sensitivity due to differences between varieties of a given crop.

Plant Factors Crops vary greatly in their sensitivity to Cu (Table 8-9). Among small
grains, rye tolerates low soil-Cu, whereas wheat is highly sensitive. Rye absorbs nearly
twice as much Cu as wheat under the same conditions. Varietal differences in toler-
ance to low Cu can be as large as those among crop species. Genotypic differences
are related to (1) differences in Cu absorption rates, (2) greater soil exploration due
to greater root mass and/or root hairs, (3) increased Cu solubility due to root exudate
influence on soil pH or redox potential, (4) more efficient Cu transport from roots
to shoots, and/or (5) lower Cu requirement. Severe Cu deficiency may also occur in
crops planted into soils with actively degrading, high C:N residues and is related to
(1) Cu complexing with organic compounds originating from decomposing residue,
(2) competition for available Cu by a stimulated microbial population, and (3) inhi-
bition of root development and the ability to absorb Cu.

Cu Sources
Organic Cu Although most animal wastes contain small quantities of plant avail-
able Cu (0.002%–0.03%), elevated Cu levels occur in swine manure because of Cu
added to the feed. Consequently, continued application might create toxic levels of
soil Cu, especially with sensitive crops like peanut. With most manures, average ap-
plication rates provide sufficient plant available Cu. As with Fe and Zn, the primary
benefit of organic waste application is increased OM and associated natural chelation
properties that increase Cu availability. Cu content in municipal waste is ≈0.1%,
but varies greatly depending on source.
Inorganic Cu The most common Cu source is CuSO4 # 5H2O, although CuO, mix-
tures of CuSO4 and Cu1OH22, and Cu chelates are also used (Table 8-10). CuSO4 is
soluble in water and is compatible with most fertilizers. CuNH4PO4.H2O is slightly
water soluble, but can be suspended and soil or foliar applied.
Soil and foliar applications are both effective, but soil applications are more
common; with Cu rates of 1–20 lbs/a needed to correct deficiencies (Table 8-11).
Effectiveness is increased by thoroughly mixing Cu fertilizers into the root zone or
by banding near the seed row. Potential root injury exists with high band-applied Cu
rates. Additions of Cu can be ineffective when root activity is restricted by excessively
wet or dry soil, root pathogens, and toxicities or deficiencies of other nutrients. Re-
sidual Cu fertilizer availability can persist for 2 or more years, depending on the soil,
crop, and Cu rate.
 micronutrients chapter eight 285

TABLE 8-10
C OMMON C U F ERTILIZERS

Source Formula % Cu
Copper sulfate CuSO4 # 5H2O 25
Copper sulfate monohydrate CuSO4 # H2O 35
Copper acetate Cu1C2H3O222 # H2O 32
Copper ammonium phosphate Cu1NH42PO4 # H2O 32
Copper chelates Na2Cu EDTA 13
Organics - 60.5

TABLE 8-11
E XAMPLES OF C U M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crops Cu Source Rate (lb Cu/a) Method

Small grains CuSO4 # 5H2O 1–5 Banded
CuO 3–12 Broadcast
Cu chelates 0.5–2.0 Banded
Cu chelates 0.1% solution Foliar
Corn CuSO4 # 5H2O 3–12 Broadcast
CuO 1–2 Banded
Cu chelates 0.2–0.4 Banded
Soybeans CuSO4 # 5H2O 2–4 Broadcast
1–2 Banded
Citrus CuSO4 # 5H2O 5–20 Broadcast
0.1% solution Foliar
Turfgrass CuSO4 # 5H2O 0.13 Foliar
Cu chelates

Cu application in foliar sprays is confined mainly to emergency treatment of

deficiencies identified after planting. In some areas, however, Cu is included in regu-
lar foliar spraying programs. Cu chelates (CuEDTA) can be used as a foliar Cu fertil-
izer; however, soil application is more effective (Table 8-12). These data also show
that fall-applied CuSO4 is more effective than spring applications to barley, likely
because the material has more time to dissolve and move into the root zone.

TABLE 8-12
E FFECT OF C U F ERTILIZERS ON B ARLEY Y IELD

Application Cu Rate Yield

__________kg>ha__________

CuSO4 Fall Broadcast/ 10 3070

Spring Incorporate 10 2370
Spring 5 1890
CuEDTA Spring Broadcast/ 2 2960
Spring Incorporate 1 2700
Foliar 1 2100
Source: Manitoba Agric. Agdex No. 541 MG#1853, 1990.
286 chapter eight micronutrients

MANGANESE (Mn)
Mn Cycle
The equilibrium among solution, exchangeable, organic, and mineral forms
determines Mn availability to plants (Fig. 8-1). The major processes are
Mn oxidation-reduction and complexing solution Mn with natural organic
chelates. Like Fe, the continuous cycling of OM significantly contributes to
soluble Mn. Factors influencing the solubility of soil Mn include pH, redox, and
organic complexation. Soil moisture, aeration, and microbial activity influence
redox, while complexation is affected by OM and microbial activity.

Mn in Plants
Plants absorb Mn+2 and low-molecular-weight organically complexed Mn. Mn
concentration in plants typically ranges from 20 to 500 ppm, while Mn-deficient
plants contain 615–20 ppm Mn. Mn+4 must be reduced to Mn+2 for absorption
by roots by:
MnO2 + 4H+ + 2e- Mn+2 + 2H2O
Low-molecular-weight organic compounds are exuded by roots into the rhizosphere.
Microbial degradation of these exudates establishes reducing conditions and provides
electrons to reduce Mn+4 to Mn+2 for absorption.
Mn+2 enters root cells through the plasmalemma by a specific transporter
protein that establishes an electrical gradient where the cell wall is more 1 +2 than
the cell interior (Fig. 8-4). Few other cations compete with Mn+2 for transport
across membranes, which is unique since other cations compete with each other
(e.g., Cu+2 and Zn+2). However, high concentrations of Ca+2 and Mg +2 adsorbed
to apoplasmic (root) cell walls, especially in high-pH soils, can reduce Mn+2
adsorption to cell walls and eventual transport into the cell. Mn is essential to
photosynthesis reactions, enzyme activation, and root growth.
O2 and Photosynthesis Most O2 in the atmosphere originates from Mn-facilitated
electron transfer in photosynthesis. Photosynthetic reduction of CO2 to carbohy-
drates 31CH2O2n4, given by:
light
CO2 + 2H2O 1CH2O2n + O2 + H2O
involves several electron transfer steps. When chlorophyll absorbs light energy, it is
oxidized (loses an electron) and provides the energy to reduce CO2. The oxidized
chlorophyll accepts electrons from a Mn-containing protein. When Mn donates elec-
trons to chlorophyll, the oxidized Mn protein will oxidize H2O to produce O2:
2H2O + 4Mn+3 4Mn+2 + O2 + 4H+
The reduced Mn protein again donates electrons to another photo-oxidized chloro-
phyll molecule. Therefore, Mn is essential to electron transfer through chlorophyll to
reduce CO2 to carbohydrate and produce O2 from H2O.
Reducing agents formed in cellular reactions can donate an electron to O2,
forming the superoxide free radical O2-. Free radicals are highly reactive and toxic
to cellular metabolic reactions (e.g., chlorophyll degradation). Superoxide dis-
mutase (SOD) enzymes are produced to readily convert O2- to O2. Fe-SOD and
CuZn-SOD occur in chloroplasts, while Mn-SOD occurs in mitochondria. This
protection mechanism is especially important in plants grown under high light
intensity where potential free radical production and photo-oxidative damage is
the greatest.
 micronutrients chapter eight 287

Mn and Lignin Synthesis Like Cu, Mn activates several enzymes that synthesize
several amino acids and phenols important to lignin production. In addition to lig-
nin, these compounds are used to synthesize phenolic acids and alcohols that provide
resistance to infection by pathogens.
Mn Deficiency and Toxicity Because of its essential role in photosynthesis, root and
shoot growth rates are substantially reduced in Mn-deficient plants. As a result, N and
P accumulate, which increases potential for root and leaf diseases. Mn deficiency also re-
stricts formation of lignin and phenolic acids that also help reduce incidence of diseases.
Soil fungi that generally do not infect plant roots can cause disease in Mn-deficient
plants. For example, grasses low in Mn are often more susceptible to root-rot diseases.
Mn is immobile in the plant, so younger leaves initially exhibit deficiency
symptoms. Mn deficiency produces interveinal chlorosis in most crops. In some
crops, low-Mn-related chlorosis of younger leaves can be mistaken for Fe deficiency.
Mn deficiency of several crops has been described by such terms as gray speck (oat),
marsh spot (pea), and speckled yellows (sugar beet). Mn toxicity occurs in sensitive
crops grown on acid soils and poorly drained or waterlogged soils. Mn toxicity occurs
at 7500@1000 ppm Mn, depending on specie. Crinkle leaf in cotton is commonly
observed. Liming will readily correct this problem.

Mn in Soil
Mineral Mn Mn concentration in the earth’s crust averages ≈1,000 ppm, and
Mn is found in most Fe-Mg rocks. Mn, when released through weathering of pri-
mary rocks, will combine with O2 to form secondary minerals, including pyrolusite
1MnO22, hausmannite 1Mn3O42, and manganite (MnOOH). Pyrolusite and man-
ganite are the most abundant.
Total Mn in soils generally ranges between 20 and 3,000 ppm and averages about
600 ppm. Mn in soils occurs as various oxides and hydroxides coated on soil particles,
deposited in cracks and veins, and mixed with Fe oxides and other soil constituents.
Soil Solution Mn Mn+2 is the common form in solution; its concentration decreases
hundredfold for each unit increase in pH (Fig. 8-16), similar to the behavior of other
divalent metal cations (Fig. 8-2). Mn+2 concentration is predominantly controlled by
MnO2, and ranges from 0.01 to 1.0 ppm, with organically complexed Mn+2 com-
prising 790% of solution Mn+2.

1020 Figure 8-16

Common Mn species in
Mn12
solution as influenced
by pH.
1024
CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

MnOH1

1028

10212

10216

10220
4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH
288 chapter eight micronutrients

Mn+2 moves to the root surface by diffusion of chelated Mn+2, similar to Fe

(Fig. 8-3). Solution Mn+2 is increased under low pH and low O2 conditions. In
extremely acid soils 1pH 6 52, increased Mn+2 solubility causes Mn toxicity
in sensitive crops. Mn+2 can leach from coarse-textured, acid soils. Mn deficiency
in organic soils is often attributed to low Mn levels resulting from Mn+2 leaching.
Sand-based materials used in golf green construction are also commonly low in Mn.

Factors Affecting Mn Availability

Soil pH Management practices that influence soil pH affect Mn+2 availability and
uptake. Liming acid soils decreases solution and exchangeable Mn+2 by precipitation
as MnO2. On the other hand, low Mn availability in high-pH and calcareous soils
and in overlimed, poorly buffered, coarse-textured soils can be overcome by acidi-
fication through the use of acid-forming N or S materials. High pH also favors the
formation of less available organic complexes of Mn. Oats are particularly sensitive to
Mn deficiency on 7pH 6.5 soils.
Excessive Water and Poor Aeration Waterlogged soils exhibit reduced O2 and
lower redox potential, which increases soluble Mn+2, especially in acid soils. Mn
availability can be increased by poor aeration in compact soils and by local accumula-
tions of CO2 around roots and other soil microsites. The resulting low-redox condi-
tions will render Mn more available without appreciably affecting the redox potential
or pH of the bulk soil.
Soil OM Low Mn+2 availability in high-OM peats and muck soils is attributed to
the formation of unavailable chelated Mn+2 compounds. In contrast, addition of
natural organic materials such as peat moss, compost, and wheat and clover straw
will increase solution and exchangeable Mn+2 in mineral soils. High rates of green
manure crops can cause reducing conditions that increases Mn+2 and potential for
Mn toxicity.
Weather Effects Under dry soil conditions, Mn availability is generally reduced
because of lower diffusion rates. In cold, wet conditions, Mn availability can also be
reduced through decreased OM mineralization and reduced root growth. In satu-
rated or waterlogged soils, soluble Mn+2 can increase to excessive levels due to chemi-
cal reduction of MnO2 to soluble Mn+2.
Interaction with Other Nutrients High levels of Cu, Fe, or Zn can reduce Mn+2
uptake by plants. Addition of acid-forming NH4+ fertilizers will enhance Mn uptake
by decreasing soil pH.
Plant Factors For satisfactory Mn nutrition, solution and exchangeable Mn should
be 2 to 3 ppm and 0.2 to 5 ppm, respectively. Several plant species exhibit differences
in sensitivity to Mn deficiency, caused by differences in plant metabolism (Table
8-13). Reductive capacity at the root may be the factor restricting Mn uptake and
translocation. There may also be significant differences in the amounts and proper-
ties of root exudates generated by plants, which can influence Mn+2 availability. Plant
characteristics pertinent to Fe-efficient plants may similarly influence plant tolerance
to low Mn.

Mn Sources
Organic Mn Mn concentration in most animal wastes is similar to Zn, ranging from
0.01 to 0.05% Mn. Average application rates of most manures will provide sufficient
plant available Mn. As with Fe, Zn, and Cu, the primary benefit of organic waste
application is increased OM and associated natural chelation properties increasing
 micronutrients chapter eight 289

TABLE 8-13
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO M N D EFICIENCY *

High Sensitivity Mild Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Apples Peas Alfalfa Parsnip Asparagus Rice
Beans Potato Barley Peppermint Blueberries Rye
Cherry Radish Broccoli Potato Corn Turfgrass
Citrus Raspberries Cabbage Rice Cotton
Cucumber Sorghum Carrot Sweet corn Field beans
Fruit trees Soybean Cauliflower Tomato
Grapes Spinach Celery Turnip
Lettuce Strawberries
Oats Sugar beet
Onion Tomato
Peaches Wheat
*Some crops exhibit variable sensitivity due to differences between varieties of a given crop.

Mn availability. As with the other micronutrients, Mn content in municipal waste

varies greatly depending on the source. On the average, Mn content is about half the
Cu content (0.05%).
Inorganic Mn Manganese sulfate 1MnSO . 4H O2 is the most common Mn 4 2
source and is soil or foliar applied (Table 8-14). In addition to inorganic Mn fertil-
izers, natural organic complexes and chelated Mn are available and are usually foliar
applied. Manganese oxide is only slightly water soluble and must be finely ground
to be effective. Rates of Mn application range from 1 to 40 lbs/a; higher rates are
recommended for broadcast application, while lower rates are band and foliar
applied (Table 8-15). Band-applied Mn is generally more effective than broadcast
Mn, and band treatments are usually one-half broadcast rates. Oxidation to less
available forms of Mn is delayed with band-applied Mn. Applications at higher rates
are needed on organic soils. Band application of Mn in combination with N-P-K
fertilizers is commonly practiced.
Broadcast application of Mn chelates and natural organic complexes is not nor-
mally advised because soil Ca or Fe can replace Mn in these chelates, and the freed
Mn is usually converted to unavailable forms. Also, the more available chelated Ca
or Fe may enhance Mn deficiency. Lime or high-pH-induced Mn deficiencies can be
rectified by acidification by use of S or other acid-forming materials.

TABLE 8-14
C OMMON M N F ERTILIZERS

Source Formula % Mn
Manganese sulfate MnSO4 # 4H2O 26–28
Manganous oxide MnO 41–68
Manganese chloride MnCl2 17
Natural organic — 60.2
Manganese chelates Na2MnEDTA 5–12
Manganese polyflavonoid 5–7
Manganese ligninsulfonate 5
290 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-15
E XAMPLES OF M N M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crop Mn Source Rate (lb Mn/a) Method Comments

Soybean MnSO4 # 4H2O 15–40 Broadcast Annual application
2–10 Banded
MnSO4 # 4H2O 0.1–0.3 Foliar Repeat as needed during season
MnEDTA 0.2–0.5
Sugar beet MnSO4 # 4H2O 20–80 Broadcast Annual application
Onion MnSO4 # 4H2O 25–40 Broadcast Annual application
MnO 10–20 Banded
Citrus, nuts MnSO4 # 4H2O 0.2–0.4 lbs /25 gal Foliar Repeat as needed
MnO
Vegetables MnSO4 # 4H2O 2–10 Banded Annual application
MnO
Corn, oats MnSO4 # 4H2O 15–40 Broadcast Annual application
MnO 2–10 Banded
Potato MnSO4 # 4H2O 2–10 Banded Annual application
Turfgrass MnSO4 # 4H2O 0.5–1.0 Foliar Repeat as needed
MnEDTA 0.01–0.03 lbs>1,000 ft2

BORON (B)
B Cycle
Soil B exists in minerals, adsorbed on clay and Fe/Al oxide surfaces, combined with
OM, and in soil solution (Fig. 8-17). Understanding B cycling between solid and
solution phases is important because of the narrow range in solution B separating
deficiency and toxicity in crops.

B in Plants
B absorbed by plants is predominately undissociated boric acid 1H3BO3o2. The anion
forms (H2BO3-, HBO3-2, BO3-3, and B2O7-2) exist when soil pH 7 7, although

Figure 8-17 Crop Removal

B, Cl, and Mo cycling in soil. Residue, Manure, B, Cl, Mo
Biosolids Fertilizer
B, Cl, Mo

Plant
Microbial Uptake
Biomass
B, Cl, Mo
Soil OM

Mineralization Solution Adsorption

H3BO3o,
Immobilization Cl2, MoO422 Desorption

Primary and
Dissolution Adsorbed
Secondary
B, Cl, Mo H4 BO42, Cl2
Precipitation MoO422
Minerals
 micronutrients chapter eight 291

plants absorb these less readily than H2BO3o. Active B uptake (against a concen-
tration gradient) across the plasma membrane requires co-absorption of H+ . As in-
side cell pH is greater than outside cell pH, H+ readily moves across the membrane,
sometimes accompanied by H2BO3o. This relationship helps explain why B uptake is
reduced in alkaline soils where the H+ gradient is smaller.
Once inside root cells, H2BO3o is readily transported in the xylem to leaves,
where much of it occurs in cell walls. B translocation in the phloem from leaves to
other plant parts is restricted, thus B accumulates, especially in older leaves. This
explains why B toxicity symptoms first appear in older leaf tips. This is consistent
with B-deficiency symptoms first appearing in apical meristems and other plant parts
receiving water and nutrients through the phloem.

B Functions and Deficiency Symptoms Although required for higher plants and
some algae, B is not needed by animals, fungi, or microorganisms. The primary
function of B is in plant cell wall structural integrity. B provides cross-links between
cell wall polysaccharides that gives a flexible structure to the cell wall—important
for cell expansion, regulation of H+ transport, retention of cellular Ca+2, and con-
trol of lignin production following cell expansion. Under B deficiency, normal cell
wall expansion is disrupted. These functions are different in dicots and monocots,
where grasses are less dependent on B for cell wall structure, although it is still im-
portant. Cell wall stability is especially important during pollen tube growth that is
essential for seed development. Serious yield reductions in grasses occur due to B
deficiency causing male sterility, as exhibited by poorly developed anthers and non-
viable pollen grains.
In addition to cell wall structure, B is essential for normal transport of water,
nutrients, and photosynthetic sugars to rapidly developing meristematic (growing)
tissues, such as root tips, leaves, buds, and storage tissues. Thus, B deficiency com-
monly appears as a structural deformity in actively growing regions. For example,
in legumes, rosetting of new leaves is a common B-deficiency symptom caused by
decreased cell division in apical regions. B is also needed for normal development of
legume root nodules. B deficiency affects reproductive growth more than vegetative
growth. Adequate B increases flower production and retention, and seed and fruit
development.
The relative mobility of B in plants varies between species (Table 8-16). In
plants where B is immobile, B translocation from older to actively growing tissues
is reduced. The first visual deficiency symptom is cessation of terminal bud growth,
followed by death of young leaves. In B-deficient plants, the youngest leaves become
pale green, losing more color at the base than at the tip. The basal tissues break
down, and if growth continues, leaves have a twisted appearance. Plants that exhibit
B mobility or phloem transport are those species that also produce higher levels
of polyols (i.e., sorbitol, mannitol), including apple, pear, plum, peach, olive, and
carrot.
B-deficiency symptoms vary widely with crop species but commonly affect both
root and top growth (Fig. 8-18). B-deficiency symptoms often appear in the form of
thickened, wilted, or curled leaves; a thickened, cracked, or water-soaked condition
of petioles and stems; and a discoloration, cracking, or rotting of fruits, tubers, or
roots. Internal cork of apple is caused by B deficiency. Low B in citrus fruits results
in uneven thickness of the peel, lumpy fruit, and gummy deposits in the fruit. The
breakdown of internal tissues in root crops gives rise to darkened areas referred to as
brown heart or black heart. For example, hollow-heart in peanut occurs when low B
limits Ca translocation that inhibits cell wall development and cell division. Some co-
nifers exhibit striking B-deficiency symptoms including distorted branches and main
stems, resin bleeding, and death of major branches.
292 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-16
B M OBILITY IN S ELECTED P LANTS

Immobile Mobile
Alfalfa Potato Almond Grapes
Bean Sorghum Apple Nectarine
Corn Strawberry Apricot Olive
Cotton Sugar beet Asparagus Onion
Fig Tobacco Beans Pea
Lettuce Tomato Broccoli Peach
Peanut Walnut Carrot Pear
Pecan Wheat Cauliflower Plum
Pistachio Celery Pomegranate
Cherry Radish
Coffee Rutabaga

Figure 8-18
B deficiency on Geranium
(USDA) and Cauliflower.
(Courtesy C. Rosen, Univ. Minnesota)

B concentration in monocots and dicots varies between 6 and 18 ppm and 20

and 60 ppm, respectively. B deficiency often occurs with 620 ppm in mature leaf
tissue of most crops. B toxicity to plants is uncommon in most arable soils unless it
has been added in excessive amounts in fertilizers or urban compost. In arid regions,
however, B toxicity may occur naturally or may develop because of a high B content
in irrigation waters. B toxicity in most plants occurs at 7200 ppm B.

B in Soil
Mineral B B occurs in low concentrations in the earth’s crust and in most
igneous rocks 1610 ppm2. Among sedimentary rocks, shales have the highest B
content 16100 ppm2. Total B in soils varies between 2 and 200 ppm and fre-
quently is 680 ppm; however, 65% of total soil B is plant available. The main
B mineral in soils is tourmaline, a relatively insoluble borosilicate. Thus, buffer-
ing of solution B is slow, and explains the increasing frequency of B deficiencies,
especially under intensive cropping systems. In arid climates, the probability of
B deficiency increases due to reduced B mineral solubility with increasing pH,
although total B content can be greater because of reduced mineral weathering in
arid region soils.
Soil Solution B H3BO3o is the predominant solution species over 5–9 pH. B is
transported in soil solution to absorbing plant roots by both diffusion and mass flow.
About 0.1 ppm B in solution is considered adequate for most plants.
 micronutrients chapter eight 293

Adsorbed B B adsorption and desorption can buffer solution B, which reduces B

leaching potential. It is a major form of B in alkaline, high-B soils. Primary B adsorp-
tion sites are Si-O and Al-O bonds at clay mineral edges and surfaces of Fe/Al oxide
and hydroxide compounds given by:

OH OH OH OH– OH OH
Al Al + B Al Al
O OH OH OH O OH OH
Al oxide H4BO4 – B + OH–
OH OH
1

OH OH OH
Al Al B + OH–
O OH OH
2

OH O OH–
Al Al B + 2H2O
O O OH
3

Increasing pH, clay content, OM, and Fe>Al compounds favors H2BO3- adsorp-
tion. B-adsorption capacities generally follow the order: mica 7 montmorillonite
7 kaolinite.
Organically Complexed B OM represents a large potential source of plant available
B in soils, which increases with increasing OM. The B-OM complexes are probably:

C O
B OH
C O

or

C O O C –
B
C O O C

Factors Affecting B Availability

Soil pH B availability decreases with increasing soil pH, especially at pH 7 6.5
(Fig. 8-19). Liming acid soils can cause a temporary B deficiency in susceptible plants

6 Figure 8-19
0 mg B/pot 10 mg B/pot Influence of soil pH on B
5 uptake in Tall Fescue.
(Adapted from Peterson and
B UPTAKE (mg/pot)

4 Newman, 1976, SSSAJ, 40:280).

0
4.7 5.3 5.8 6.3 7.4
SOIL pH
294 chapter eight micronutrients

with the severity depending on crop, soil moisture status, and time elapsed after
liming. Lime effect on B availability is caused by B adsorption on freshly precipi-
tated Al1OH23, with maximum adsorption at pH 7. Moderate liming can be used to
depress B availability and plant uptake on high B soils. Heavy liming of soils high in
OM may encourage OM decomposition and release of B, increasing B uptake.

Soil OM Higher B availability in surface soils compared with subsurface soils is re-
lated to increased soil OM. Applications of OM to soils can increase B in plants and
even cause phytotoxicity.

Soil Texture Coarse-textured, well-drained soils can be low in B, and crops with a
high requirement respond to B applications of Ú3 lbs>a. Sandy soils with fine-tex-
tured subsoils generally do not respond to B in the same manner as those with coarse-
textured subsoils. B added to soil remains soluble, and up to 80% can be leached in
low-OM, sandy soils. Fine-textured soils retain B longer than coarse-textured soils
because of greater B adsorption. The fact that clay retains more B than sand does not
imply that B uptake in clays is greater than sands. At equal solution B concentration,
plants absorb more B from sandy soils than from fine-textured soils, where B uptake
can be impeded by higher levels of available Ca.

Interactions with Other Elements When Ca availability is high, plants can tol-
erate higher B availability. Under low Ca supply, many crops exhibit lower B tol-
erance. Greater Ca+2 supply in alkaline and recently overlimed soils restricts B
availability; thus, high solution Ca+2 protects crops from excess B. The Ca:B ratio
in leaf tissues has been used to assess B status of crops, where B deficiency for
most crops is likely when Ca:B ratio is greater than 1,200:1. B deficiency in sensi-
tive crops (e.g., alfalfa) can be aggravated by K fertilization to the extent that B is
needed to prevent yield loss, since Ca+2 displaced from the CEC by K + can inter-
fere with B absorption.

Soil Moisture B deficiency is often associated with dry weather, where low soil
moisture reduces B release from OM and B uptake through reduced B transport (dif-
fusion and mass flow) to absorbing root surfaces.
Plant Factors Because of the narrow range between sufficient and toxic levels of
available soil B, the sensitivity of crops to excess B is important (Table 8-17). Genetic
variability contributes to differences in B uptake. For example, investigations with
tomato varieties and corn hybrids revealed that susceptibility to B deficiency is con-
trolled by a single recessive gene, where one variety is B inefficient, while another is
B efficient.

B Sources
Organic B B content in animal wastes ranges between 0.001% and 0.005%, thus,
depending on application rates, animal wastes may not provide sufficient plant avail-
able B. Similar to other micronutrients, increasing OM and associated chelation
properties with waste application will increase B availability. B content in municipal
biosolids is also low 1∼0.01% B2.
Inorganic B B is one of the most widely applied micronutrients. Sodium tet-
raborate 1Na2B4O7 # 5H2O2 is the most common B source, containing ≈15% B
(Table 8-18). Solubor is a highly concentrated, soluble B source that can be foliar
applied as a liquid or dust. It is also used in liquid and suspension fertilizers.
 micronutrients chapter eight 295

TABLE 8-17
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO B D EFICIENCY

High Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Alfalfa Cotton Apple Peaches Asparagus Peppermint
Almond Olive Carrot Pears Barley Potato
Apple Peanut Clover Radish Bean Rice
Apricot Pistachio Grapes Raspberries Blueberry Rye
Broccoli Plum Lettuce Spinach Citrus Sorghum
Cabbage Roses Parsnip Tomato Cucumber Spearmint
Canola Rutabaga Strawberries Corn Soybean
Carnation Sugar beet Grasses Sudan grass
Cauliflower Sunflower Oat Wheat
Celery Table beet Pea
Cherry Turnip
Conifers Walnut

TABLE 8-18
C OMMON B F ERTILIZERS

Source Formula %B
Borax Na2B4O7 # 10H2O 11
Boric acid H3BO3 17
Colemanite Ca2B6O11 # 5H2O 10–16
Sodium pentaborate Na2B10O16 # 10H2O 18
Sodium tetraborate (Fertibor, Granubor) Na2B4O7 # 5H2O 14–15
Sodium octaborate (Solubor) Na2B8O13 # 4H2O 20–21

Solubor is preferred to borax because it dissolves more readily. The Ca borate

mineral colemanite is often used on sandy soils because it is less soluble and less
subject to leaching than the sodium borates.
The common B application methods are broadcast, banded, or applied as a
foliar spray or dust. In the first two methods, B fertilizer is usually mixed with N-P-
K-S products and soil applied. B salts can also be coated on dry fertilizer materials.
B fertilizers should be uniformly soil applied because of the narrow range
between deficiency and toxicity. Band applied B should avoid direct seed contact
with most crops. Segregation of granular B sources in dry fertilizer blends must be
avoided. B application with fluid fertilizers eliminates segregation.
Foliar B application is practiced for perennial tree-fruit crops, often in combi-
nation with pesticides other than those formulated in oils and emulsions. B may also
be included in sprays of chelates, Mg, Mn, and urea.
B fertilization rates depend on plant species, soil cultural practices, rainfall,
liming, soil OM, and other factors (Table 8-19). Soil application rates of 0.5–3 lbs/a
are generally recommended, with higher rates used on high B use crops (e.g.,
legumes, crucifers). B rate also depends on application method. For example, B for
vegetable crops is 0.4–2.7 lbs/a broadcast, 0.4–1.0 lbs/a band, and 0.1–0.3 lbs/a
foliar applied.
296 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-19
E XAMPLES OF B M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crop B Source Rate (lb B/a) Method Comments

Grapes Solubor 1–2 Banded Annual application
0.1–0.2 Foliar Pre-bloom, monitor petiole B
Alfalfa Borax 1.5–2.5 Broadcast Biennial application
Solubor 0.1–0.2 Foliar Annual, monitor leaf B
Cotton Solubor 0.5–1.5 Band Preplant or at planting, no
seed contact
Broccoli Solubor 1–3 Broadcast Perplant
0.5–1.0 Foliar Prebloom, 1 lb B/100 gal
Peanut Solubor 0.3– 0.5 Foliar Apply with 1st fungicide appl.
Canola Solubor 0.5–1.0 Broadcast Preplant
0.1–0.3 Foliar Apply with 1st fungicide appl.
Soybean Solubor 0.1 Foliar 3–5 appl. pre-bloom
Fertibor 0.5 Band At planting, no seed contact
1.0 Broadcast Preplant, incorporate
Corn Solubor 0.25 Foliar Pretassle
0.5 Band At planting, no seed contact
1.0 Broadcast Preplant, incorporate

CHLORIDE (Cl)
Cl Cycle
Nearly all chloride 1Cl- 2 in soils exists in soil solution (Fig. 8-17). The mineral, ad-
sorbed, and organic fractions contain negligible quantities of Cl- . Because of its high
solubility and mobility in soils, appreciable Cl- leaching can occur when rainfall or
irrigation exceeds evapotranspiration.
Plant-growth limiting Cl deficiencies are generally rare in areas of signifi-
cant atmospheric Cl- deposition (Fig. 8-20). Interaction of wind and sea water
1≈4% NaCl2 introduces Cl- into the atmosphere. Compared to annual crop Cl-
requirement 1 ≈498 lbs>a2, atmospheric deposition supplies adequate Cl- , although
in coastal areas deposition is much greater.

Figure 8-20 > 10 2–5

Distribution in Cl - deposi-
tion 1kg Cl - >ha2 in the U.S. 5–10 ≤ 0.5
(National Atmospheric
0.5–1 > 10
Deposition Program. 2009,
Washington, D.C.)
2–5
0.5–1 3–5 0.5–1
5–10 1–2

2–5
2–3
< 0.5 1–2

3–5
5–10

> 10
 micronutrients chapter eight 297

TABLE 8-20
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO C L D EFICIENCY

High Sensitivity Mild Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Avocado Cotton Barley
Bean Oats Corn
Citrus Potato Spinach
Legumes Soybean Sugar beet
Lettuce Wheat Tomato
Peach
Potato

Cl in Plants
Cl- is absorbed by plants through roots and leaves. Active transport of Cl- across plasma
membranes occurs through other anion transporters (i.e., NO3-, SO4-2, H2PO4-). Cl-
concentration in plants is about 0.2–2.0%, although levels as high as 10% are possible.
All of these values usually exceed the strictly nutritional need of most plants. Although
usually considered a micronutrient, its concentration in plants can be similar to S. Tissue
concentrations of 0.5% to 2.0% of sensitive crops can be toxic. Similar reductions in
yield and quality can occur when Cl- Ú 4% in tolerant crops (Table 8-20).
Cl Functions Cl- primarily is involved in osmotic and ion charge balance, which are
important to many biochemical processes in plants. Over 100 Cl- containing organic
compounds are known in plants; however, their functions are not well understood.
O2 and Photosynthesis Cl- is important to the function of Mn in photosynthetic
production of carbohydrates from CO2 and evolution of O2 (see O2 and Photosyn-
thesis under Mn). Cl- will maintain electroneutrality when Mn+3 donates an electron
during photosynthesis. This function of Cl- is essential for photosynthesis as evi-
denced by the ≈10% Cl- in the chloroplasts.
Cell Turgor For rapid gas exchange (CO2 in and O2 >H2O out) by leaves during
active photosynthesis (daylight), the epidermal guard cells of stomates are turgid,
caused by K + pumped from neighboring cells into the guard cells. K + transport into
the guard cells must be balanced by organic anions or Cl- , depending on plant spe-
cies. Observation that loss of leaf turgor is a Cl- deficiency symptom supports the
concept that Cl- is an active osmotic agent. Some of the favorable actions of Cl-
fertilization are attributed to increased water potential and moisture relations. In
other cells, inadequate osmotic adjustment reduces cell turgor pressure that inhibits
cell enlargement and cell division. Reduction in cell expansion reduces leaf size, a
common Cl- deficiency symptom.
Solute Concentration in Vacuoles For plants to absorb and use nutrients
efficiently, nutrients accumulate in vacuoles until transported to growing plant
organs. Cl- is essential for maintaining electrical balance in tonoplasts. Under
saline conditions, Cl- is especially critical in balancing high Na+ and maintaining
proper water status.
Cl − Deficiency and Toxicity Symptoms Chlorosis in younger leaves and an overall
wilting of plants are the two most common Cl- deficiency symptoms. These observa-
tions would support the mobility of Cl- in plants; however, deficiency symptoms can
be observed in younger plant tissues. This discrepancy is likely related to variation in
mobility between plant species as is observed with B.
298 chapter eight micronutrients

Necrosis in some plant parts, leaf bronzing, and reduction in root and leaf
growth may also be observed. Tissue concentrations of 70–700 ppm are usually in-
dicative of Cl- deficiency. However, higher concentrations may be beneficial for dis-
ease suppression and moisture relationships. Cl- response in small grains in the Great
Plains occurs about 50% of the time when plant Cl- is between 0.1% and 0.4%.
Excess Cl- can be harmful, and crops vary widely in their tolerance to Cl- toxicity
(Table 8-20). Leaves become thickened and tend to roll with excessive Cl- . Storage
quality of tuber crops is reduced by excessive Cl- . The principal effect of excess Cl- is
an increase in osmotic pressure of soil water that reduces water uptake. Cl toxicity in
most plants is exhibited at 73,500 ppm Cl, and commonly occurs in poorly drained
coastal region soils and saline soils in arid regions.

Cl in Soil
Mineral Cl Cl concentration is 0.02% to 0.05% in the earth’s crust, and occurs primar-
ily in igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soil Cl- commonly exists as soluble salts such as
NaCl, CaCl2, and MgCl2. Cl- is often the principal anion in saline soil solutions. Solu-
tion Cl- ranges from 0.5 ppm in acid soils to 76,000 ppm in saline/sodic soils.
The majority of Cl- in soils originates from salts trapped in parent material,
from marine aerosols, and from volcanic emissions. Nearly all of soil Cl- has been in
the oceans at least once, being returned to the land by uplift and subsequent leach-
ing of marine sediments or by oceanic salt spray carried in rain or snow. Annual Cl-
depositions of 0.2–5 lbs/a are common and may increase to more than 50 lbs/a in
coastal areas (Fig. 8-20). The quantity of Cl- deposition depends on the amount of
sea spray, which is related to temperature; wind strength, frequency, and duration
sweeping inland from the sea; topography of the coastal region; and amount, fre-
quency, and intensity of precipitation.
Salty droplets or dry salt dust may be whirled to great heights by strong air cur-
rents and carried over long distances. Cl- concentration in precipitation is decreased
in inland areas.
Solution Cl − Cl- is highly soluble in soils. Because of Cl- mobility, it will accu-
mulate where the internal drainage of soils is restricted and in shallow groundwater
where Cl- can be moved by capillarity into the root zone and deposited at or near the
soil surface. Problems of excess Cl- occur in some irrigated areas and are usually the
result of interactions of:
• high Cl- in the irrigation water,
• insufficient water to leach accumulated Cl- .
Environmental damage in localized areas from high Cl- concentrations has
resulted from road deicing, water softening, saltwater spills associated with the
extraction of oil and natural gas deposits, and disposal of feedlot wastes and various
industrial brines.

Plant Responses
Depression of Cl- uptake by high concentrations of NO3- and SO4-2 has been
observed in a number of plants (Fig. 8-21). Here potato yields increase as Cl- in peti-
oles increases from 1.1% to 6.9% and NO3- decreases. Although beneficial effects of
Cl- on plant growth are not fully understood, improved plant–water relationships and
inhibition of plant diseases are two important factors. The negative interaction between
Cl- and NO3- has been attributed to competition for carrier sites at root surfaces.
The effect of Cl- fertilization on root and leaf disease suppression has been
observed on a number of crops (Table 8-21). Several mechanisms have been sug-
gested and include (1) increased NH4+ uptake through inhibition of nitrification by
 micronutrients chapter eight 299

16 Figure 8-21
y = 0.89 1 3.50x 2 0.25x 2
14 r 2 = .88
Relationship between
potato yield and Cl - and
12
NO3- concentration in
10 petioles.
8 (Jackson et al., 1981, unpublished
data, Oregon State Univ.)
6
4
TUBER YIELD (tonsya)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PETIOLE CI (%)

16
14
12
10
8
6 y = 26.70 2 8.91x
r 2 = .92
4

1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

PETIOLE NO3 2N (%)

Cl- , which reduces takeall root disease by decreased rhizosphere pH, or (2) competi-
tion between Cl- and NO3- for uptake. Plants low in NO3- are less susceptible to
root-rot diseases. In some regions, Cl- response in some crops has not been related to
disease suppression. For example, in semiarid regions, Cl- deficiency is caused by low

TABLE 8-21
D ISEASES S UPPRESSED BY C L F ERTILIZATION

Location Crop Suppressed Disease

Oregon Winter wheat Take-all, Septoria
Potato Hollow heart, Brown center
North Dakota Winter wheat Tanspot
Spring wheat Common root rot
Barley Common root rot, Spot blotch
Durum wheat Common root rot
South Dakota Spring wheat Leaf rust, Tanspot, Septoria
New York Corn Stalk rot
California Celery Fusarium yellows
Saskatchewan Spring wheat Common root rot
Barley Common root rot
Manitoba Take Spring wheat Take-all
Alberta Barley Common root rot, Net blotch
Germany Winter wheat Take-all
Great Britain Winter wheat Stripe rust
India Pearl millet Downy mildew
Indonesia Rice Stem rot, Sheath blight
Philippines Coconut palm Gray leaf spot
Source: Fixen, 1987, 2nd National Wheat Res. Conf.
300 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-22
S PRING W HEAT R ESPONSE TO C L F ERTILIZATION I NFLUENCED BY S OIL C L

Category Soil Cl Content Yield Response Frequency

________ lb>a -2 ft ________ ________ % ________

Low 0–30 69
Medium 31–60 31
High 760 0
Source: Fixen, 1979, J. Fert. Issues, 4:95.

soil Cl- , with the probability of a Cl- response increasing with decreasing soil Cl-
(Table 8-22).

Cl Sources
Organic Cl Because of the solubility and mobility of Cl- , most animal and munici-
pal wastes are low in Cl- .
Inorganic Cl When additional Cl- is desirable, it can be supplied by the following
sources:
• Ammonium chloride 1NH4Cl2 66% Cl
• Calcium chloride 1CaCl22 65% Cl
• Magnesium chloride 1MgCl22 74% Cl
• Potassium chloride (KCl) 47% Cl
• Sodium chloride (NaCl) 60% Cl
Cl- rates vary, depending on crop, method of application, and purpose of addition
(i.e., for correction of nutrient deficiency, disease suppression, or improved plant
water status). Where take-all root rot of winter wheat is suspected, banding
≈40 lbs>a of Cl- with or near the seed at planting is recommended. Broadcasting
75–125 lbs/a of Cl- has effectively reduced crop stress from take-all and leaf and
head diseases (e.g., stripe rust and septoria). Plant nutrient Cl- requirements for high
yields of most temperate-region crops are usually satisfied by only 4–10 lbs/a.

MOLYBDENUM (Mo)
Mo Cycle
The main forms of Mo in soil include primary and secondary minerals, exchangeable
Mo held by Fe/Al oxides, Mo in soil solution, and organically bound Mo. Although
Mo is an anion in solution, the relationships between these forms are similar to those
of other metal cations (Fig. 8-17).

Mo in Plants
Mo is absorbed as the weak acid molybdate 1MoO4-22 that can form complexes with
other anions such as phosphomolybdate. Mo complexation may explain why Mo can
be absorbed in relatively large amounts without any apparent toxicity. Mo content of
plants is normally low (0.2–2 ppm), because of extremely low MoO4-2 in solution.
In some cases, Mo levels in crops may exceed 300 ppm. Mo toxicity symptoms in
plants occurs at 71,000 ppm Mo.
Mo is an essential component of NO3- reductase, an enzyme concentrated in
chloroplasts, which catalyzes the conversion of NO3- to NO2-. Mo also is a structural
 micronutrients chapter eight 301

component of nitrogenase, the enzyme essential to N2 fixation by root-nodule bacteria

of leguminous crops, by some algae and actinomycetes, and by free-living, N2-fixing
organisms. Mo concentrations in legume nodules can be 710 times that in leaves. Mo
requirement of plants decreases with increasing inorganic N availability. Mo is also
reported to have an essential role in Fe absorption and translocation in plants, which
explains why a common Mo-deficiency symptom is similar to interveinal chlorosis in
Fe deficiency. Deficiency symptoms also include pale green leaf color, stunting, necro-
sis on leaf edges, and rolled or curled leaves, often appearing on older leaves.
Excessive amounts of Mo are toxic, especially to grazing animals. High-Mo
forage may occur in wet, high-pH, and high-OM soils. Molybdenosis, a disease in
cattle, is caused by an imbalance of Mo and Cu in the diet when the Mo content of
the forage is 75 ppm. Mo toxicity causes stunted growth and bone deformation, but
can be corrected by oral feeding of Cu, Cu injections, or Cu application to soil.

Mo in Soil
Mineral Mo The average Mo concentration in the earth’s crust is 62 ppm, and typ-
ically ranges from 0.2 to 5 ppm in soils. Soil minerals controlling solution MoO4-2
concentration are PbMoO4 and CaMoO4. CaMoO4 predominates in both acidic
and calcareous soils.
Solution Mo Mo in solution occurs predominantly as MoO4-2, HMoO4-, and
H2MoO4o. MoO4-2 and HMoO4- concentration increases with increasing soil pH
(Fig. 8-22). The extremely low concentration of solution Mo is reflected in the low
Mo content of plant material. At solution concentrations 74 ppb, Mo is trans-
ported to plant roots by mass flow, while Mo diffusion to plant roots occurs at
levels 64 ppb.

Factors Affecting Mo Availability

Soil pH MoO4-2 availability, unlike that of other micronutrients, increases approx-
imately tenfold per unit increase in soil pH (Fig. 8-22). Liming to increase soil pH
increases Mo availability and prevents Mo deficiency. Alternatively, Mo availability
is decreased by application of acid-forming fertilizers such as 1NH422SO4 to coarse-
textured soils.
10–0 Figure 8-22
Common Mo species in
soil solution as influenced
by pH.
10–4
CATION CONCENTRATION (M)

MoO4–2 HMoO4–

10–8

10–12

H2MoO4o

10–16

10–20
4 5 6 7 8 9
SOIL pH
302 chapter eight micronutrients

Soil texture In sandy, low OM soils, MoO4-2 retention is low, increasing the
probability of Mo deficiency, especially with high Mo requiring crops (i.e., crucifers,
legumes).
Fe/Al Oxides Mo is strongly adsorbed to Fe/Al oxide surfaces, some of which be-
comes unavailable to the plant. Soils high in Fe/Al oxides (highly weathered soils)
tend to be low in available Mo.
Interactions with Other Nutrients P enhances Mo absorption by plants, proba-
bly due to exchange of adsorbed MoO4-2. In contrast, high levels of solution SO4-2
depress MoO4-2 uptake by plants. The antagonism of SO4-2 on MoO4-2 uptake is
due to their similar transport mechanism across the cell wall. On soils with marginal
Mo levels, application of S fertilizers may induce Mo deficiency.
Both Cu and Mn can also reduce Mo uptake; however, Mg has the opposite
effect and will encourage Mo absorption. NO3- encourages Mo uptake, while NH4+
sources reduce Mo uptake. The effect of NO3- uptake may be related to release of
OH- by roots that would increase Mo solubility.
Soil moisture Mo deficiency is accentuated under dry conditions, due to reduced
mass flow or diffusion under low-soil-moisture content. Mo availability increases with
soil water, where plants grown on poorly drained soils can accumulate excess Mo.
Plant Factors Crops vary in their sensitivity to low solution Mo (Table 8-23).
Mo-efficient and Mo-inefficient varieties of alfalfa, cauliflower, corn, and kale have
been identified.

Mo Sources
Organic Mo Only small quantities of Mo occur in animal wastes (0.0001–0.0005%
Mo), although with most manures, average application rates will provide suffi-
cient plant available Mo. Mo content in municipal waste is usually low, averaging
0.0001% Mo.
Inorganic Mo Mo fertilizers (Table 8-24) are generally applied at low rates (0.03–1 lb/a),
depending on application method (Table 8-25). Mo solutions are soil or foliar applied,
or applied as a seed coating. Seeds treated with a solution of Na molybdate are widely
used because of the low application rates needed. To obtain satisfactory distribution of
the small quantities of Mo applied to soil, Mo sources are sometimes combined with

TABLE 8-23
C ROP S ENSITIVITY TO M O D EFICIENCY

High Sensitivity Mild Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

Alfalfa Beet Apple Grapes
Broccoli Cabbage Asparagus Peach
Brussels sprouts Citrus Barley Potato
Cauliflower Oats Beans Raspberries
Clover Peas Blueberries Rice
Legumes Radish Carrot Ryegrass
Lettuce Soybean Celery Sorghum
Onion Sugar beet Corn Sweet corn
Rapeseed Tomato Cotton Tomato
Spinach Turnip Cranberry Turfgrass
Flax Wheat
 micronutrients chapter eight 303

TABLE 8-24
S OURCES OF M O F ERTILIZER

Sources Formula % Mo
Ammonium molybdate 1NH426Mo7O24 2H2O 54
Sodium molybdate Na2MoO4 # 2H2O 39
Molybdenum trioxide MoO3 66
Molybdenum frits Mo silicates 2–3

TABLE 8-25
E XAMPLES OF M O M ANAGEMENT FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Crop Mo Source Rate (lb Mo/a) Method Comments

Soybean NH4 or Na 0.5–1.0 Broadcast Effective for 2–3 years
molybdate 0.03–0.15 Foliar No residual value
0.03–0.06 Seed coat Effective for 3–4 years
Broccoli NH4 or Na 0.05–0.15 Foliar No residual value
molybdate 0.05 Seed coat Effective for 3–4 years
Peas NH4 or Na 0.03–0.10 Foliar No residual value
molybdate 0.03–0.05 Seed coat Effective for 3–4 years

N-P-K fertilizers. Foliar spray applications with NH4-or Na-molybdate are also effec-
tive in correcting deficiencies.

NICKEL (Ni)
Ni is the latest nutrient to be established (in 1987) as an essential nutrient to higher
plants since the recognition of Cl- in 1954. Ni content of plants normally ranges
from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm and is supplied to plants as Ni+2. Ni is the metal component
of urease that catalyzes the reaction CO1NH222 + H2O M 2NH3 + CO2. Appar-
ently, Ni is essential for plants supplied with urea and for those in which ureides are
important in N metabolism. Ni is beneficial to N metabolism in legumes. Nodule
weight and seed yield of soybeans have been stimulated by Ni.
Ni-deficient plants accumulate toxic levels of urea in leaf tips because of re-
duced urease activity. Although few Ni deficiencies have been observed in the field,
Ni-deficient plants may develop chlorosis in the youngest leaves that progresses to
necrosis of the meristem. Ni may also be involved in plant diseases caused by faulty
N metabolism.
Ni has been demonstrated as essential to small-grain crops (Table 8-26).
The data show increasing barley germination and grain yield with increasing Ni
in solution. High levels of Ni may induce Zn or Fe deficiency because of cation
competition.
Application of biosolids may result in elevated levels of Ni in crop plants.
Plant genes have recently been identified from wild mustard, Thlaspi goesingense,
which enable plants to accumulate high levels of Ni. Currently over 350 plants
are known to hyperaccumulate metals from soil contaminated with Ni, Cu, Zn,
Cd, Se, and/or Mn. Tissue concentrations of 1% Ni are 1,000 times greater than
normal levels.
304 chapter eight micronutrients

TABLE 8-26
E FFECT OF N I S UPPLY ON G ERMINATION AND Y IELD OF B ARLEY

Ni in Solution Germination Ni Concentration Total Grain Wt

(mM) (%) 1mg>g dry wt2 (g dry wt)
0.0 12 7 7.3
0.6 57 64 7.5
1.0 94 129 8.4
Source: Adapted from Brown et al., 1987, Plant Physiol. 85:801.

BENEFICIAL ELEMENTS
In addition to the 17 essential nutrients, several elements are beneficial to some plants
but are not considered necessary for completion of the plant life cycle.

Cobalt (Co)
Co in Plants Co is essential for growth of symbiotic microorganisms such as Rhizobia,
free-living N2-fixing bacteria, and blue-green algae. Co concentration in plants ranges
from 0.02 to 0.5 ppm. N2 fixation in alfalfa can be enhanced by only 10 ppb Co. Co
forms a complex with N, important for synthesis of vitamin B12 coenzyme. Co is also
important in the synthesis of vitamin B12 in ruminant animals; thus, soil is an impor-
tant source of plant Co for animals. Because Co behaves similarly to Fe or Zn, excess
Co produces visual symptoms similar to Fe and Mn deficiencies.
Co in Soils Average total Co concentration in the earth’s crust is ≈40 ppm. Total
Co in soils typically ranges from 1 to 70 ppm and averages about 8 ppm. Soils formed
on granitic glacial materials are low in total Co, ranging 1–10 ppm. Much higher
levels (100–300 ppm) are found in Mg-rich iron minerals. Sandstones and shales are
normally low in Co, with concentrations 65 ppm. Co deficiencies in ruminants are
often associated with forages produced on soils containing 65 ppm total Co.
Co can be beneficial to some plants grown on (1) acid, highly leached, sandy
soils with low total Co; (2) highly calcareous soils; and (3) some peaty soils. Co+2
is adsorbed on exchange sites and occurs as clay-OM complexes similar to those of
the other metal cations (Fig. 8-15). Solution Co is often 60.5 ppm. Co availability
decreases with greater adsorption capacity of Fe/Al oxides. Co availability decreases
with increasing soil pH, thus, liming can reduce Co availability. Saturated soil condi-
tions increases soluble Mn+2, which can reduce Co uptake.
Co Fertilizer Co deficiency of ruminants can be corrected by (1) adding it to feed,
salt licks, or drinking water; (2) direct injection; (3) using Co bullets (oral tablets);
and (4) fertilizing forage crops with small amounts of Co. Co fertilization with 1.5 lb/a
CoSO4 every 3–4 years is recommended when extractable soil Mn 6500 ppm. With
higher soil Co levels, crop fertilization is less effective.

Sodium (Na)
Na in Plants Na is essential for halophytic plants that accumulate salts in vacuoles
to maintain turgor and growth. Beneficial effects of Na on plant growth can be ob-
served in low-K soils, because Na+ can partially replace K + . Crops with a high Na+
uptake potential can respond to Na+ (Table 8-27). The Na demand of these crops
appears to be independent of, and perhaps even greater than, their K demand.
 micronutrients chapter eight 305

TABLE 8-27
N A U PTAKE P OTENTIAL OF V ARIOUS C ROPS

High Medium Low Very Low

Fodder beet Cabbage Barley Buckwheat
Mangold Coconut Flax Maize
Spinach Cotton Millet Rye
Sugar beet Lupins Rape Soybean
Swiss chard Oats Rubber Swede
Table beet Potato Wheat Turnip

Na+ concentration in leaf tissue varies from 0.01% to 10%. Many C4 plants
require Na, which is specifically involved in water relations. Many C4 plants occur
naturally in arid, semiarid, and tropical conditions, where stomatal closure to prevent
water loss is essential for growth and survival. As a result, CO2 entry is also restricted
when stomata are closed. Efficiency of photosynthetic CO2 conversion is greater in
C4 compared to C3 plants, where the ratio of CO2 assimilated to H2O transpired by
C4 plants is often double that of C3 plants. It is also noteworthy that C4 plants are
often found in saline habitats.
Sugar beets are particularly responsive to Na, with concentrations in leaf tips
Ú10%. Na influences water relations and increases drought resistance in sugar beets.
In low Na soils, beet leaves are dark green, thin, and dull in hue. Plants wilt more
rapidly and may grow horizontally from the crown. There may also be an interveinal
necrosis similar to K deficiency. Some of the Na effects may also be due to Cl- , as
NaCl is the common Na source.
Na in Soils Na content in the earth’s crust is about 2.8%, while soils contain 0.1–1%.
Low Na in soils indicates weathering of Na from Na-containing minerals, thus, the
proportion of exchangeable Na+ to other cations is low in humid-region soils. Na is
common in most arid and semiarid region soils, where it exists as Na salts (i.e., NaCl,
Na2SO4, Na2CO3) that accumulate in poorly drained soils, contributing to soil salin-
ity and sodicity. (Chapter 3).
Soil solutions contain between 0.5 and 5 ppm Na+ in temperate regions. Solu-
tion and exchangeable Na+ varies greatly among soils. Sugar beets respond to fertil-
ization when exchangeable Na+ 60.05 meq>100g. In arid region soils irrigated with
saline waters, exchangeable Na+ 7 K + .
Na Sources The important Na-containing fertilizers are:
• K fertilizers with NaCl impurities
• NaNO3 1∼25% Na2
• Multiple nutrient fertilizers with Na.

Silicon (Si)
Si in Plants Plants absorb Si as silicic acid 1H4SiO4o2. Cereals and other grasses
contain 0.2–2.0% Si, while broadleaves contain 0.02–0.2% Si. Si concentrations
of 2–20% occur in Si-rich plants like sedges, nettles, horsetails, and some grasses.
Si impregnates the walls of epidermal and vascular cells, where it strengthens tis-
sues, reduces water loss, and retards fungal infection. With large accumulations of
Si, intracellular deposits called plant opals occur.
Although no biochemical role for Si in plants has been identified, it has been
proposed that enzyme-Si complexes form that act as protectors or regulators of
306 chapter eight micronutrients

photosynthesis and enzyme activity. In sugarcane, Si can suppress the activity of in-
vertase, increasing sucrose production. A reduction in phosphatase activity is believed
to provide a greater supply of essential high-energy precursors needed for sugar pro-
duction and optimum cane growth.
The beneficial effects of Si have been attributed to partial remediation of toxic
effects of high soil Mn+2, Fe+2, or Al+3; plant disease resistance; greater stalk strength
and resistance to lodging; increased availability of P; reduced transpiration; and im-
proved drought tolerance. Freckling, a necrotic leaf spot condition, is a symptom of
low Si in sugarcane. Ultraviolet radiation seems to be the causative agent in sunlight
since plants kept under plexiglass or glass do not freckle. Si in sugarcane may act to
filter out harmful ultraviolet radiation.
In rice, Si also helps maintain leaf erectness, increases photosynthesis through
improved light interception, and results in greater resistance to diseases and insect
pests. The oxidizing capacity of rice roots and accompanying tolerance to high Fe
and Mn depends on Si. Si additions are beneficial at Si contents of rice straw at
611%. Heavy N rates render rice plants more susceptible to fungal attack due to
decreased Si in the straw. Often, Si materials are applied under high fertilizer N use.
Si in Soils Si is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust, averag-
ing ≈28%, while Si content in soils is 5% to 40%. Unweathered sandy soils can
contain ≈40% Si, compared with as little as 9% Si in highly weathered tropical
soils. Si sources in soil include primary and secondary minerals, where quartz
1SiO22 dominates and comprises Ú90% of all sand and silt fractions.
Low Si soils exist in intensively weathered, high-rainfall regions that exhibit low
total Si, high Al, low %BS, and low pH. In addition, they all have extremely high
P-fixing capacity due to high AEC and Fe/Al oxide content. Plant available Fe+2 and
Mn+2 may also be high in these soils.
H4SiO4o is the principal Si species in solution, where 3–37 ppm solution
Si occurs in most soils. Concentrations of 62 ppm Si are insufficient for proper
nutrition of sugarcane. Si levels adequate for rice production are ≈100 ppm.
Solution Si concentration is largely controlled by pH-dependent adsorption reac-
tions, where Si is adsorbed on Fe/Al oxides. Si leaching in highly weathered soils
will reduce solution Si and Si uptake.
Si Sources Primary Si fertilizers include:
• Calcium silicate slag 1CaAl2Si2O82 18–21% Si
• Calcium metasilicate 1CaSiO32 31% Si
• Sodium metasilicate 1NaSiO32 23% Si
Minimum rates of at least 5,000 lbs/a of CaSiO3 are broadcast applied and incor-
porated before planting sugarcane (Table 8-28). Annual CaSiO3 applications of
500–1,000 lbs/a applied in the row have also improved sugarcane yields. Liming to
increase Ca and decrease acidity does not improve sugarcane production to the same
extent as Si fertilization. Rates of 1.5–2.0 t/ha of silicate slag usually provide suffi-
cient Si for rice produced on low-Si soils.

Selenium (Se)
Se in Plants Se is not essential for plants, but it is required by animals. A greater
frequency of livestock nutritional disorders caused by low Se occurs after cold,
rainy summers than after hot, dry ones. High summer temperatures are amenable
to increased Se concentration in forages.
Plant species differ in Se uptake. Certain species of Astragalus absorb greater
Se than other plants growing in the same soil, because they utilize Se in an amino
 micronutrients chapter eight 307

TABLE 8-28
S UGARCANE R ESPONSE TO SI AT S EVERAL L OCATIONS .

Yield
Location Si Source Product Rate
Cane Sugar
________________ t/ha ________________

Mauritius Electric furnace slag 0 267 27

6.2 314 34
Hawaii Electric furnace slag 0 258 22
4.5 332 32
Hawaii Ca silicate 0 131 —
0.83 151 —
1.66 166 —
Florida Ca silicate slag 0 138 15
6.7 175 20
Source: Adapted from Matichenkov and Calvert, 2002, J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Tech. 22:21

acid specific to this species. Plants such as the cruciferae (e.g., cabbage, mustard) and
onions, which require large amounts of S, absorb intermediate amounts of Se, while
grasses and grain crops absorb low to moderate amounts of Se.
Se in Soil Se occurs in very small amounts in nearly all materials of the earth’s crust,
averaging ≈0.05 ppm in rocks and is found mainly in sedimentary minerals. Se is
similar in behavior to S; however, it has five oxidation states. Total Se in most soils
ranges between 0.1 and 2 ppm. High-pH, calcareous soils formed from sedimentary
shale in semi-arid regions exhibit high-Se soils and produce high-Se vegetation that
can be toxic to livestock.
Forms of Se present in soil are:
• Selenides 1Se-22 S largely insoluble, associated with S-2 in semiarid region soils
where weathering is limited. They contribute little to Se uptake.
• Elemental Se 1Seo2 S present in small amounts in most soils. Significant amounts
may be oxidized to selenites and selenates by microorganisms in neutral and basic soils.
• Selenites 1SeO3-22 S exist in acid soils as stable complexes of selenites with Fe oxides.
Low solubility of Fe-selenite complexes is apparently responsible for the nontoxic lev-
els of Se in plants growing on acid, high-Se soils. Plants absorb SeO3-2 6 SeO4-2.
• Selenates 1SeO4-22 S frequently associated with SO4-2 in arid-region soils. Other
Se forms will be oxidized to SeO4-2 under these conditions. Only limited quanti-
ties of SeO4-2 occur in acid and neutral soils. SeO4-2 is highly soluble, readily plant
available, and largely responsible for Se toxicity in plants grown on high-pH soils.
Most of the water-soluble Se in soils probably occurs as SeO4-2.
• Organic Se S ≈40% of total Se in some soils occurs as organically complexed Se.
Soluble organic Se compounds are liberated through residue decay from Se accu-
mulator plants. Se in plant residue is stable in dry regions, and much of it remains
plant available. Organic Se is more soluble in basic than acid soils, which would
enhance availability in semiarid-region soils.
Low-Se uptake is usually caused by low total Se or low-Se availability in acid and
poorly drained soils. Solution Se is lowest at slightly acid to neutral pH and in-
creases under both more acid and basic soil pH. High soil pH facilitates the oxida-
tion of SeO3-2 to more soluble SeO4-2. Increased yields with N and S fertilization
may lower Se concentration in crops through dilution. There has been some concern
308 chapter eight micronutrients

about increased incidence and severity of Se deficiencies in cattle due to the nega-
tive interaction of SO4-2 on SeO4-2 uptake by crops. Fertilization with S o products
depresses Se uptake less than readily available SO4-2 sources.
Se Sources Although Se deficiency disorders such as muscular dystrophy or white
muscle disease in cattle and sheep can be corrected by therapeutic measures, there
is interest in Se fertilization to produce forages adequate in Se for grazing animals,
rather than to satisfy any particular plant requirements. Se fertilization is acceptable if
precautions are taken:
• to avoid Se toxicity to grazing animals, Se topdressing is not recommended.
• high Se levels in edible animal tissue should be prevented.
• protection against Se deficiency should be provided for at least one grazing season
following application during the dormant season.
Fertilization with SeO3-2 is preferred because it is slower acting and less likely to
result in excessive Se levels in plants. SeO4-2 can be used if rapid Se uptake is desired.
Addition of Na2SeO3 (1 oz Se/a) is satisfactory for forages. Foliar application of Na
selenite (6g Se/a) is an efficient way to increase Se in plants used for animal feed. Se is
also present in P fertilizers produced from rock phosphate. Superphosphate contain-
ing Ú20 ppm Se may provide sufficient Se to plants in Se deficient areas to protect
livestock from Se deficiency.

Vanadium (V)
Low concentrations of V are beneficial for growth of microorganisms, animals, and
higher plants. Although essential for green algae, there is still no decisive evidence
that V is necessary for higher plants. V may partially substitute for Mo in N2 fixa-
tion by Rhizobia. It may also function in biological oxidation-reduction reactions.
Increases in growth attributable to V have been reported for asparagus, rice, lettuce,
barley, and corn. V requirement of plants is 62 ppb, whereas normal V concentra-
tion in plants averages approximately 1 ppm.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Identify the principal micronutrient anion and elements, and (d) between K and at least two other
cation forms absorbed by plant roots. nutrients.
2. For each micronutrient, describe the influence of 8. How do climatic factors influence plant availabil-
soil solution pH on micronutrient availability. ity of B, Mn, Mo, and Zn?
3. For which micronutrients does adsorption to clay 9. Describe the mechanism that enables Fe-efficient
and Fe/Al oxide surfaces affect nutrient concentra- plants to tolerate low-Fe soils.
tion in solution and plant availability? What adsorp- 10. Explain why soluble Fe+3 decreases thousandfold
tion mechanisms are important in calcareous soils? and soluble Zn+2 decreases hundredfold for every
4. Flooding and submergence influence the solubility one unit increase in soil pH.
and availability of which micronutrients? 11. Over the normal range in soil pH, solution Fe is
5. Explain how microbial activity influences the solu- 1,000 or more times lower than that required by
bility and availability of micronutrients. plants for normal growth. Explain why most soils,
6. How is the availability of micronutrients affected regardless of pH, are not deficient in Fe.
by soil OM? 12. Explain why soil-applied inorganic Fe fertilizers
7. Give examples of nutrient interactions important are less effective in correcting Fe deficiencies in
in micronutrient uptake (a) among heavy metal high pH soils, whereas inorganic Zn fertilizers are
cations, (b) between N and at least three other commonly applied. Describe alternative methods
elements, (c) between P and at least three other which can be used to correct Fe deficiency.
 micronutrients chapter eight 309

13. Your agricultural advisor told you that FeCl3 could 22. For a 18 in. band spacing, how many samples
be soil applied to a calcareous soil because HCl between bands are required for every sample taken
(hydrochloric acid) produced by the following on the band?
reaction would keep the soil acid and Fe+3 in solu- 23. What are micronutrients? How does its deficiency
tion: FeCl3 + 3H2O S Fe+3 + 3OH- + 3HCl. affect the plant growth?
Is this good or bad advice? Explain your answer. 24. What is a chelate? Discuss the chelate dynamics in
14. What deficiencies are best controlled by foliar soil.
treatments of micronutrient fertilizers? 25. Explain what is a Chelate Pump in soil, with a
15. What micronutrient deficiencies are best corrected diagram.
soil applications of micronutrients? 26. What factors induce Fe deficiency?
16. Acidification of high-pH and calcareous soils 27. Give the structures of
in localized zones such as fertilizer bands can be a. EDTA
helpful in the treatment of what micronutrient b. DTPA and
deficiencies? c. EDDHA.
17. What soil and environmental condition would in- 28. Explain the Zn cycle.
crease the potential for micronutrient toxicities? 29. What are the common symptoms of Zn deficiency?
18. Why is the behavior of Mo in soils different from 30. Name few common Zn – containing minerals.
the behavior of the other microelements? 31. What leads to Cu toxicity? What are its effects?
19. Why is Cl- not commonly deficient in soils? 32. What are the common sources of Cu.
20. Turf managers frequently use Fe to “green up” fair- 33. What is crinkle leaf? What is its cause and effect?
ways. Calculate the quantity of FeEDTA needed 34. What factors influence the Mn availability?
to apply 0.3 lbs Fe>1,000 ft2. If a 0.1% solution 35. What is tourmaline?
were prepared, how many gallons/1,000 ft2 are 36. What are the different forms of Se in soil?
needed to apply the same rate of Fe?
21. A grower wants to apply 5 lbs Zn/a. Calculate the
amount of ZnSO4 and ZnEDTA needed.

SELECTED REFERENCES
Alloway, B. J. (Ed.). 2008. Micronutrient deficiencies Marschner, H. 2002. Mineral nutrition of higher plants.
in global crop production. New York: Springer London: Academic Press, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Science & Business Media. Springer-Verlag New Mortvedt, J. J., et al. (Eds.). 1991. Micronutrients in
York, LLC. agriculture. No. 4. Madison, WI: Soil Science
Barker, A. V., and D. J. Pilbeam (Eds.). 2007. Handbook Society of America.
of plant nutrition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999.
Bennett, W. F. (Ed.). 1996. Nutrient deficiencies and Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby,
toxicities in crop plants. St. Paul, MN: APS. OH: Meister Publishing.
Jones Jr, J. B. 1998. Plant nutrition manual. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
 9
Soil Fertility Evaluation
INTRODUCTION
Optimum plant health and productivity of a cropping system depends on
an adequate supply of plant nutrients. The quantity of nutrients required
by plants varies depending on many interacting factors including:
• plant species and variety
• yield potential
• soil properties
• environment
• management
These factors also influence the quantity of additional nutrients needed
to optimize yield. Certainly, continued nutrient removal, with little or
no replacement, ensures future nutrient-related yield loss.
When soil does not supply sufficient nutrients for optimum plant
growth, nutrients must be applied. The proper nutrient rate is determined
by knowing the nutrient requirement of the crop (Table 9-1) and the
potential nutrient supply in the soil. Diagnostic techniques, including
visual deficiency symptoms, soil and plant analysis, and remote sens-
ing, are used to determine potential nutrient stress and the quantity of
nutrients needed to optimize growth. Unfortunately, by the time visual
nutrient-deficiency symptoms are observed, a reduction in yield potential
has occurred. Therefore, quantifying the capacity of a soil to supply suf-
ficient nutrients before planting or during the growing
season is essential for optimum plant growth and yield.
Quantifying nutrient requirements by soil and
plant analysis depends on careful sampling and analytical
methods calibrated for the representative crops and soils
in a specific region. Knowing the relationship between
test results and crop nutrient response is essential for
providing an accurate nutrient recommendation. Several
techniques are commonly employed to assess the nutri-
ent status of a soil:
• nutrient-deficiency symptoms of plants
• tissue analysis of plants growing on the soil
• remote sensing
• soil analysis

PLANT NUTRIENT-DEFICIENCY
SYMPTOMS
Visual observation of the growing plant can help identify
a specific nutrient stress (see color plates). A nutrient-
deficient plant exhibits characteristic symptoms because
312 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-1
T YPICAL N UTRIENT R EMOVAL FOR S ELECTED A GRICULTURAL AND H ORTICULTURAL C ROPS 1

Crop Yield N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn
unit/a ___________________________________ lbs/a ___________________________________

Grains
Barley (grain) 60 bu 65 14 24 2 6 8 0.04 0.03 0.08
Barley (straw) 2 ton 30 10 80 8 2 4 0.01 0.32 0.05
Canola 45 bu 145 32 100 7 5 28 — — —
Corn (grain) 200 bu 150 40 40 6 18 15 0.08 0.10 0.18
Corn (stover) 6 tons 110 12 160 16 36 16 0.05 1.50 0.30
Flax 25 bu 65 8 29 5 3 12 — — —
Oats (grain) 80 bu 60 10 15 2 4 6 0.03 0.12 0.05
Oats (straw) 2 tons 35 8 90 8 12 9 0.03 — 0.29
Peanuts (nuts) 2 tons 140 22 35 6 5 10 0.04 0.30 0.25
Peanuts (vines) 2.5 tons 100 17 150 88 20 11 0.12 0.15 —
Rye (grain) 30 bu 35 10 10 2 3 7 0.02 0.22 0.03
Rye (straw) 1.5 tons 15 8 25 8 2 3 0.01 0.14 0.07
Sorghum (grain) 80 bu 65 30 22 4 7 10 0.02 0.06 0.05
Sorghum (stover) 4 tons 80 25 115 32 22 2 — — —
Soybean (grain) 50 bu 188 41 74 19 10 23 0.05 0.06 0.05
Soybean (stover) 3 tons 89 16 74 30 9 12 — — —
Sunflower 50 bu 70 13 30 3 3 12 — — —
Wheat (grain) 60 bu 70 20 25 2 10 4 0.04 0.10 0.16
Wheat (straw) 2.5 tons 45 5 65 8 12 15 0.01 0.16 0.05
Forages and Turf
Alfalfa 6 tons 350 40 300 160 40 44 0.10 0.64 0.62
Bent grass 2 tons 230 22 100 12 5 8 — — —
Bluegrass 2 tons 60 12 55 16 7 5 0.02 0.30 0.08
Bromegrass 4 tons 140 22 180 14 15 15 — — —
Clover 6 tons 320 40 260 51 22 23 — — —
Coastal Bermuda 8 tons 400 45 310 48 32 32 0.02 0.64 0.48
Cowpea 2 tons 120 25 80 55 15 13 — 0.65 —
Fescue 3.5 tons 135 18 160 18 13 20 — — —
Orchard grass 6 tons 300 50 320 12 25 35 — — —
Red Clover 2.5 tons 100 13 90 69 17 7 0.04 0.54 0.36
Ryegrass 5 tons 215 44 200 13 40 12 — — —
Sorghum—Sudan 8 tons 320 55 400 34 47 21 — — —
Soybean 2 tons 90 12 40 40 18 10 0.04 0.46 0.15
Timothy 4 tons 150 24 190 18 6 5 0.03 0.31 0.20
Vetch 6 tons 360 38 250 45 32 18 — — —
Fruits and Vegetables
Apples 500 bu 30 10 45 8 5 10 0.03 0.03 0.03
Bean, dry 30 bu 75 25 25 2 2 5 0.02 0.03 0.06
Bell Peppers 180 cwt 137 52 217 3 43 12 — — —
Cabbage 20 tons 130 35 130 20 8 44 0.04 0.10 0.08
Onion 7.5 tons 45 20 40 11 2 18 0.03 0.08 0.31
Peach 600 bu 35 20 65 4 8 2 — — 0.01
Peas 25 cwt 164 35 105 8 18 10 — — —
Potato (sweet) 300 bu 40 18 96 4 4 6 0.02 0.06 0.03
Potato (white) 15 tons 90 48 158 5 7 7 0.06 0.14 0.08
Snap bean 4 tons 138 33 163 8 17 4 — — —
Spinach 5 tons 50 15 30 12 5 4 0.02 0.10 0.10
Sweet corn 90 cwt 140 47 136 8 20 11 — — —
Tomato 20 tons 120 40 160 7 11 14 0.07 0.13 0.16
Turnip 10 tons 45 20 90 12 6 12 — — —
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 313

Crop Yield N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn
unit/a ___________________________________ lbs/a ___________________________________

Other Crops
Cotton 1seed + lint2 1.3 tons 63 25 31 4 7 5 0.18 0.33 0.96
Cotton 1stalk + leaf2 1.5 tons 57 16 72 56 16 15 0.05 0.06 0.75
Sugar beet 20 tons 200 20 320 23 50 25 — — —
Sugarcane 40 tons 180 40 250 34 25 22 — — —
Tobacco (burley) 2 tons 145 14 150 21 18 24 — — —
Tobacco (flue) 1.5 tons 85 15 155 75 15 12 0.03 0.55 0.07
1divide nutrient removal (lb/a) by yield per acre to obtain lb nutrient/unit yield (i.e. lb/bu or lb/ton)

normal plant processes are inhibited. Visual nutrient-deficiency symptoms are char-
acterized by:
• chlorosis S uniform or interveinal yellowing or light green coloring of leaves
• necrosis S death of leaf tips, margins, or interveinal regions of leaves
• reddening S accumulation of anthocyanins causes red or purple color on leaf mar-
gins, interveinal regions, or whole leaves
• stunting S reduced plant height, shortened internodes; leaves may remain dark
green or exhibit light green or chlorotic symptoms
• new growth cessation S death of new shoots, terminal/axillary buds, or flowers; new
leaves die back or exhibit rosetting
Each visual symptom is related to a nutrient function in the plant (Chapters 4–8).
Most nutrients have several functions, making it difficult to identify the reason for a
particular deficiency symptom. For example, with N deficiency, plant leaves become
pale green or light yellow (chlorosis). When N is limiting, chlorophyll production
and leaf greenness is reduced, allowing yellow pigments (carotene and xanthophylls)
to prevail. Several nutrient deficiencies produce pale-green or yellow leaves, thus the
symptom must be further related to a particular leaf pattern or location.
Understanding nutrient mobility in the plant is important to accurately iden-
tify a specific nutrient-deficiency symptom (Fig. 9-1). With mobile nutrients (N,
P, K, Mg, and Mo), symptoms will appear in older leaves first as these nutrients are
readily translocated from older leaves to newer growth. Deficiency symptoms will
appear in newer growth first with immobile nutrients (Ca, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and
Ni). As discussed in Chapters 7-8, S, Cl, and B mobility varies with plant species
and therefore is difficult to characterize deficiency symptoms based on mobility.
In addition to leaf symptoms, nutrient deficiencies have a marked effect on
root growth (Fig. 9-2). Plant roots receive less attention because of the difficulty in
observing them; however, since roots absorb nutrients, inspection of root growth is
an important diagnostic tool.
Visual deficiency symptoms can be related to factors other than nutrient stress.
Precautions in interpreting nutrient-deficiency symptoms include the following:
• Visual symptoms may be caused by more than one nutrient. For example,
N-deficiency symptoms (chlorosis) may be identified, although S deficiency may
also be apparent.
• Deficiency of one nutrient may be related to toxicity or imbalance of another. For
example, Mn deficiency may be induced by excessive Fe in soils that are marginally
deficient in Mn. P addition can induce a Zn deficiency in marginally Zn-deficient
soils.
314 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

• It can be difficult to distinguish among deficiency symptoms in the field,

because disease, insect, or herbicide damage can resemble certain micronutrient
deficiencies. For example, leaf hopper damage can be confused with B deficiency
in alfalfa.
• A visual symptom may be caused by more than one factor. For example, sugars in
corn combine with flavones to form anthocyanins (purple, red, and yellow pig-
ments), and their accumulation may be caused by an insufficient supply of P, low
soil temperature, insect damage to roots, or N deficiency.

Mobile Nutrients Immobile Nutrients

Lower, older Newer, young

leaves? leaves?

Generally dark or Localized yellowing; Growing point, Healthy growing Interveinal

light green leaves with or w/o spotting terminal bud dies point chlorosis

Sharp
Dark green, red, Interveinal yellowing; New leaves either General
boundary
or purple leaves some reddish, light green at base, chlorosis
between veins
dead spots chlorotic; twisted,
and chlorotic
brittle, necrotic
area
Phosphorus new leaves Light green leaves,
Magnesium no spotting
Light green-yellow, or striping Iron
no necrotic spots Yellow, necrotic leaf Boron*
edges; leaf edge Weak
spots; no interveinal Leaves at terminal Sulphur* boundary
Nitrogen yellowing bud cupped down, between veins
necrotic, die back Leaves chlorotic, and chlorotic
Light green; necrotic tips necrotic area; spotty
spots; scorched, Potassium or dead
cupped, rolled Calcium
leaves Yellow, necrotic spots; Manganese
distinct boundary Copper (*nickel-monocots)
between live/dead (*nickel-dicots)
Molybdenum tissue Stunted growth, chlorosis
or bleached region
between midrib/edge
Chloride*
*S, Cl, B mobility in plants varies between species
*Ni deficiency symptoms not well defined Zinc

Figure 9-1
Generalized flow chart for distinguishing nutrient deficiency symptoms in plants.

Figure 9-2
Omitting P (left) or K (right)
reduces early growth of
alfalfa roots and tops in soil
deficient in P and K.
(International Plant Nutrition Institute
(IPNI)).
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 315

Nutrient-deficiency symptoms appear when nutrient supply is so low that the plant
cannot function properly. In such cases, supplemental nutrients are needed long
before symptoms appear. If the symptom is observed early, it might be corrected dur-
ing the growing season with foliar or sidedress applications (Chapter 10). However,
yield is often reduced below optimum if adequate nutrients are not available at plant-
ing. Diagnosis of nutrient deficiency late in the growing season can still be useful in
correcting deficiencies the following year.
Nutrient-deficiency symptoms appearing during early growth may disappear
as the growing season progresses, or there may be no measurable yield benefit from
nutrient additions. For example, P may improve early crop growth, but at harvest,
there may be no measurable yield response. Such occurrences are probably related to
seasonal effects or to root growth into soil areas with higher fertility levels.
Nutrients may also be present in sufficient quantities under ideal conditions,
but in drought, excessive moisture, or unusual temperature conditions, plants may be
unable to absorb adequate nutrients. For example, with cooler temperatures, nutrient
uptake is reduced because:
• mass flow of nutrients is reduced by decreased growth rate and transpiration
• diffusion rate decreases with declining temperature and a lower concentration
gradient
• mineralization of organic bound nutrients is reduced.
More commonly, nutrient-deficiency symptoms may not be visible, although plant nutri-
ent levels may be considerably lower than required for optimum yield (hidden hunger).
Soil and plant analyses are invaluable tools to identify hidden hunger, verify the specific
nutrient causing the deficiency, and guide nutrient management programs to avoid yield
loss from nutrient stress. Visual evaluation of nutrient stress should be used only to sup-
port or direct other diagnostic techniques (i.e., soil and plant analyses). To assure that
nutrients do not limit plant growth, nutrient availability should be high enough to take
advantage of optimum growing conditions and to prevent nutrient stress.

PLANT ANALYSIS
Plant analysis methods include tests on fresh tissue in the field and analyses per-
formed in a laboratory. Plant analyses are performed to:
• verify the accuracy of an assessment of visual deficiency symptoms
• identify plant nutrient shortages before they appear as symptoms
• help determine the relative nutrient-supplying capacity of the soil
• quantify the effect of nutrient addition on nutrient concentration in the plant
• study the relationship between plant nutrient status and crop performance (i.e.,
yield).
Plant analyses help us understand the relationship between plant nutrient content
and nutrient availability in the soil. For example, since a nutrient shortage will limit
growth, other nutrients may accumulate, regardless of their supply. With low plant
N, plant P content may be high. This is no indication, however, that under adequate
N supply, P would be adequate.

Tissue Tests
Nutrient analysis on fresh tissue is important in diagnosing nutrient needs of grow-
ing plants. With proper tissue testing, it is possible to anticipate or forecast certain
nutrient-related production problems while the crop is still in the field.
Tissue tests are easy to conduct and interpret, and some qualitative tests can
be made in a few minutes. Because laboratory tests take longer, there is a tendency
316 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

to guess rather than send samples to the laboratory. It is important to recognize that
application of nutrients to correct a nutrient stress identified with a tissue test may
not be feasible because:
• the deficiency may have already caused yield loss
• the crop may not respond to the applied nutrient at the specific growth stage tested
• the crop may be too large to apply nutrients
• climatic conditions may be unfavorable for nutrient application

Cell Sap Tests Semiquantitative estimates of plant N, P, and K can be rapidly

obtained with simple plant tissue tests conducted in the field. Plant leaves or stems are
chopped up and extracted with reagents specific for each nutrient. Plant tissue can also
be squeezed with a garlic press to transfer plant sap to filter paper and color-developing
reagents are then added. The color intensity of the cell sap/reagent mix is compared with
a standard color chart that indicates very low, low, medium, or high nutrient content.
Handheld ion-selective sensors and colorimeters are also available but are more expensive.
It is essential to test the plant part that gives the best indication of nutrient
status. In general, the conductive tissue of the most recently mature leaf is used for
testing. For most vegetable crops leaf petioles are preferred (Table 9-2). Time of day

TABLE 9-2
P ETIOLE AND M IDRIB NO3@N S UFFICIENCY R ANGES FOR S ELECTED
V EGETABLE C ROPS ON A D RY W EIGHT AND F RESH S AP B ASIS

NO3@N
Crop Tissue Sample Growth Stage % in dry weight ppm in sap
Broccoli Midrib Buttoning 0.9–1.2 800–1100
Cabbage Midrib Heading 0.7–0.9 NA
Carrots Petiole Midgrowth 0.75–1.0 550–750
Cauliflower Midrib Buttoning 0.7–0.9 NA
Celery Petiole Midgrowth 0.7–0.9 500–700
Cucumber Petiole First blossom 0.75–0.9 800–1000
Early fruit set 0.5–0.75 600–800
First harvest 0.4–0.5 400–600
Eggplant Petiole Initial fruit NA 1200–1600
First harvest NA 1000–1200
Lettuce Midrib Heading 0.6–0.8 NA
Muskmelon Petiole First blossom 1.2–1.4 1000–1200
Initial fruit 0.8–1.0 800–1000
First mature fruit 0.3–0.5 700–800
Peppers Petiole First flower 1.0–1.2 1400–1600
Early fruit set 0.5–0.7 1200–1400
Fruit 3/4 size 0.3–0.5 800–1000
Potato Petiole Vegetative 1.7–2.2 1200–1600
Tuber bulking 1.1–1.5 800–1100
Maturation 0.6–0.9 400–700
Tomato Petiole Early bloom 1.4–1.6 1000–1200
Fruit 1 in. diameter 1.2–1.4 400–600
Full ripe fruit 0.6–0.8 300–400
Watermelon Petiole Early fruit set 0.75–0.9 1000–1200
Fruit 1/2 size NA 800–1000
First harvest NA 600–800
NA = not available
Source: Adapted from C. J. Rosen and R. Eliason, 1996, Nutrient Management for Commercial Fruit &
Vegetable Crops in Minnesota, Univ. of Minnesota, DG–05886-GO.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 317

can affect tissue N concentrations. To reduce variability, samples should be collected

in midday. Collect 20–40 plants from deficient areas and compare them with plants
from normal areas.
Total Analysis Total analysis is performed on specific plant parts (e.g., petioles,
stems, leaves) in a laboratory. After sampling, plant material is dried, ground, and
nutrient content determined following wet digestion with concentrated acid or dry
ashing in a high-temperature oven. As in cell sap tests, the plant part selected is im-
portant, with the most recently matured leaf preferred (Table 9-3). Samples should
be kept dry or refrigerated and protected from contamination.

TABLE 9-3
P LANT S AMPLING G UIDELINES FOR S ELECTED A GRICULTURAL AND H ORTICULTURAL C ROPS

Crop Sampling Time Plant Part Sampled Sample #

Field Crops
Alfalfa Early bloom Top 6 in. or upper 1/3 of plant 20–30
Canola Before seed set Newest mature leaf 50–60
Clover Before bloom Upper 1/3 of plant 30–40
Corn Seedling stage All above-ground material 25–30
Sweet corn Before tasseling Fully mature leaf from top of plant 15–20
Tasseling to silking Leaf blow and opposite ear 15–20
Cotton Full bloom Newest mature leaf from main stem 30–40
Grasses/forage Stage of best quality Upper leaves 40–50
Peanuts Before or at bloom Newest mature leaf 40–50
Small grains Seedling stage All above-ground material 25–40
Before heading Uppermost leaf blades 25–40
Sorghum Before or at heading Leaf from top of plant 20–30
Soybean Before or at bloom Newest mature leaf from top of plant 20–30
Sugar beet Midseason Newest mature leaf, center of whorl 30–40
Sunflower Before heading Newest mature leaf 20–30
Tobacco Before bloom Top fully developed leaf 8–10
Vegetable Crops
Asparagus Maturity 18–30 inches above ground line 10–20
Beans Seedling stage All above-ground portions 20–30
Before or at bloom Newest mature leaf 20–30
Beets, table Mature Young mature leaf 20–30
Broccoli Before heading Newest mature leaf 12–20
Brussels sprouts Midseason Newest mature leaf 12–20
Cabbage, cauliflower Before heading Newest mature leaf, center of whorl 10–20
Celery Midseason Petiole of newest mature leaf 12–20
Cucumber Before fruit set Newest mature leaf 12–20
Eggplant Early fruiting Young mature leaf 15–25
Garlic Bulbing Young mature leaf 25–35
Lettuce, spinach Midseason Newest mature leaf 15–25
Melons Before fruit set Newest mature leaf 15–25
Peas Before or at bloom Leaves from node from top 40–60
Peppers Midseason Recently mature leaf 25–50
Potato Before or at bloom Leaf from growing tip 25–30
Pumpkin/Squash Early fruiting Young mature leaf 15–25
Radishes Midgrowth to harvest Young mature leaf 40–50
Root crops (carrot, beet, Before root or bulb Newest mature leaf 25–35
onion) enlargement
Sweet potato midseason before root Leaf from tip center 20–30
enlargement Mature leaves 25–35
Tomato (field) Early-midbloom Leaf from growing tip 15–25
Tomato (trellis or Midbloom; 1st-6th Petiole of leaf below or opposite 15–25
indeterminate) cluster stage top cluster
(continued)
318 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-3 (CONTINUED)

Crop Sampling Time Plant Part Sampled Sample #

Ornamentals, Flowers
Carnation Newly planted 4th–5th leaf pair from plant base 20–30
Established 5th–6th leaf pair from plant base 20–30
Chrysanthemum Before or at bloom Top leaves on flowering stem 20–30
Poinsettia Before or at bloom Newest mature leaf 15–25
Rose At bloom Newest mature compound leaf on 25–30
flowering stem
Trees and shrubs Current year growth Newest mature leaf 30–70
Turf Active growth Leaves, avoid soil contamination 2 cups
Fruit and Nut Crops
Apple, pear, almond, Midseason Leaves from current year growth- 50–100
apricot, cherry, nonfruiting, nonexpanding spurs
prune, plum
Blueberries 1st week of harvest Young mature leaf 50–70
Cantaloupe Early fruiting Fifth leaf from tip 25–35
Grapes At bloom Petioles or leaves adjacent to basal 50–100
clusters at bloom
Lemon, lime Midseason Mature leaf from last growth flush, 30–40
nonfruiting terminals
Orange Midseason Spring cycle leaf, 4–7 months old, 25–35
nonfruiting terminals
Peach, nectarine Midseason Midshoot leaflets/leaves 25–100
Pecan Midseason Midshoot leaflets/leaves 25–60
Pistachios Mid to late season terminal leaflets, nonfruiting shoots 25–60
Raspberries Midseason newest mature leaf, laterals of primocanes 30–50
Strawberries Midseason Newest mature leaves 25–40
Walnut 6–8 weeks after bloom Terminal leaflets/leaves from nonfruiting shoots 25–40
Watermelon Midgrowth Newest mature leaf 15–25

Sampling Time
Growth stage is important in plant analysis because nutrient status and demand vary
during the season. Nutrient concentration in vegetative parts usually decreases with
maturity (Fig. 9-3). Misinterpretation of plant analysis results are common if sam-
pling time is not identified correctly. For example, corn leaves sampled at brown silk
would be considered N deficient if compared with third leaf-stage N concentration
(Table 9-4). In most agricultural crops, the best sampling times coincide with periods
of rapid dry matter and plant nutrient accumulation. Plants from both deficient and
normal areas should be sampled to compare results.

Figure 9-3
Variation in nutrient con-
centration in plant tissue
Adequate
over the growing season
(CNR = critical nutrient
range). CNR

Deficient
 TABLE 9-4
C RITICAL N UTRIENT R ANGES FOR S ELECTED C ROPS

Corn
Nutrient Whole Plant 24–45 Days* Third Leaf, 45–80 Days† Earleaf Green Silks‡ Earleaf Brown Silks§
N, % 4.0–5.0 3.5–4.5 3.0–4.0 2.8–3.5
P, % 0.40–0.60 0.35–0.50 0.30–0.45 0.25–0.40
K, % 3.0–5.0 2.0–3.5 2.0–3.0 1.8–2.5
Ca, % 0.51–1.60 0.20–0.80 0.20–1.0 0.20–1.2
Mg, % 0.30–0.60 0.20–0.60 0.20–0.80 0.20–0.80
S, % 0.18–0.40 0.18–0.40 0.18–0.40 0.18–0.35
B, ppm 6–25 6–25 5–25 5–25
Cu, ppm 6–20 6–20 5–20 5–20
Fe, ppm 40–500 25–250 30–250 30–250
Mn, ppm 40–160 20–150 20–150 20–150
Zn, ppm 25–60 20–60 20–70 20–70
*Seedlings 6 to 16 in. tall; 24 to 45 days after planting.
†Third leaf from top; plants over 12 in. tall; before silking.
‡Seventy to ninety days after planting.
§Grain in developing stage up to “roasting ear.”
Source: Schulte and Kelling, 1985, National Corn Handbook, NCH-46, Purdue Univ. Coop. Ext. Service.

Soybean Small Grain

Nutrient Sufficiency Range* Sufficiency Range
N, % 4.3–5.5 winter / spring grains 1.75–3.0 / 2.0–3.0
P, % 0.3–0.5 0.20–0.50
K, % 1.7–2.5 1.5–3.0
Ca, % 0.4–2.0 barley / all other 0.30–1.2 / 0.20–0.50
Mg, % 0.3–1.0 0.15–0.50
S, % 0.4–0.8 0.15–0.40
Mn, ppm 21–100 25–100
Fe, ppm 51–350 40–250
Zn, ppm 21–50 15–70
Cu, ppm 10–30 5–25
B, ppm 21–55
Mo, ppm 1.0–5.0
*Upper fully developed trifoliate leaves sampled before pod set.
(continued )

319
320
TABLE 9-4 (CONTINUED)

Alfalfa
Plant Part N P K S Ca Mg
______________________________________________________________ %_______________________________________________________________

Top 6 in. 4.0–5.0 0.20–0.30 1.8–2.4 0.18–0.30 0.8–1.5 0.2–0.3

Upper 1/3 — 0.18–0.22 1.7–2.0 0.20–0.30 — —
Whole tops — 0.20–0.25 1.5–2.2 0.20–0.24 1.4–2.0 0.28–0.32
N:S tops — — — 12–17 — —

Turfgrass
Bermuda- Coastal Creeping Kentucky Perennial St. Augustine-
Nutrient grass Bermuda Bentgrass Fescue Bluegrass Ryegrass grass
N, % 4.0–6.0 1.8–2.2 4.5–6.0 2.8–3.4 2.4–2.8 3.34–5.1 1.9–3.0
P, % 0.25–0.6 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.6 0.26–0.32 0.24–0.3 0.35–0.55 0.2–0.5
K, % 1.5–4.0 1.8–2.1 2.2–2.6 2.5–2.8 1.6–2.0 2.0–3.42 2.5–4.0
Ca, % 0.5–1.0 0.4–0.7 0.5–0.75 0.4–0.6 0.25–0.55 0.25–0.51 0.3–0.5
Mg, % 0.13–0.4 0.2–0.3 0.25–0.3 0.12–0.28 0.28–0.33 0.16–0.32 0.15–0.25
S, % 0.2–0.5 0.28–0.4 — 0.24–0.5 0.26–0.45 0.27–0.56 —
Fe, ppm 50–500 — 100–300 — — 97–934 50–300
Mn, ppm 25–300 — 50–100 — — 30–73 40–250
Cu, ppm 5–50 — 8–30 — — 6–38 10–20
Zn, ppm 20–250 — 25–75 — — 14–64 20–100
B, ppm 6–30 — 8–20 — — 5–17 5–10
Mo, ppm 0.1–1.2 — — — — 0.5–1.0 —
 TABLE 9-4 (CONTINUED)
Fruits and Vegetables
Crop N P K Ca Mg S Fe B Cu Zn Mn Mo
_______________________________% _______________________________ ______________________________ ppm ______________________________

Apples 1.9–2.3 0.1–0.4 1.2–1.8 0.8–1.6 0.25–0.45 0.2–0.4 50–200 30–50 6–12 20–50 25–135 > 0.1
Asparagus 2.4–3.8 0.25–0.5 1.5–2.4 0.4–1.0 0.25–0.3 — 40–250 40–100 5–25 20–60 25–160 —
Bean, snap 5.0–6.0 0.25–0.75 2.2–4.0 1.5–3.0 0.25–0.7 — 50–300 20–60 7–30 20–60 50–300 > 0.4
Beets, table 3.5–5.0 0.25–0.5 3.0–4.5 2.5–3.5 0.30–1.0 — 50–200 30–80 5–15 15–30 70–200 —
Blueberries 1.7–2.1 0.10–0.4 0.4–0.7 0.35–0.8 0.12–0.25 0.12–0.3 70–200 25–70 5–20 9–30 50–600 —
Broccoli 3.2–5.5 0.3–0.7 2.0–4.0 1.2–2.5 0.23–0.4 0.3–0.75 50–150 30–100 4–10 20–80 25–150 0.3–0.5
Brussels sprouts 3.1–5.5 0.3–0.75 2.0–4.0 1.0–2.5 0.25–0.75 0.3–0.75 60–300 30–100 5–15 25–200 25–200 0.25–1.0
Cabbage 3.6–5.0 0.33–0.75 3.0–5.0 1.1–3.0 0.4–0.75 0.3–0.75 30–200 25–75 5–15 20–200 25–200 0.4–0.7
Cantaloupe 4.5–5.5 0.3–0.8 4.0–5.0 2.3–3.0 0.35–0.8 0.25–1.0 40 50–300 25–60 7–30 20–200 50–250
Carrot 2.5–3.5 0.2–0.3 2.8–4.3 1.4–3.0 0.3–0.5 — 50–300 30–100 5–15 25–250 60–200 0.5–1.5
Cauliflower 3.3–4.5 0.33–0.80 2.6–4.2 2.0–3.5 0.27–0.50 — 30–200 30–100 4–15 20–250 25–250 0.5–0.8
Celery 2.5–3.5 0.3–0.5 4.0–7.0 0.6–3.0 0.20–0.50 — 30–70 30–60 5–8 20–70 100–300 —
Cucumber 4.5–6.0 0.3–1.3 3.5–5.0 1.0–3.5 0.3–1.0 0.3–0.7 50–300 25–60 5–20 25–100 50–300 —
Eggplant 4.2–5.0 0.45–0.6 5.7–6.5 1.7–2.2 0.25–0.35 — — 20–30 4–6 30–50 15–100 —
Garlic 3.4–4.5 0.28–0.5 3.0–4.5 1.0–1.8 0.23–0.35 — — — — — —
Grapes 1.6–2.8 0.2–0.46 1.5–2.0 1.2–2.5 0.3–0.4 — 40–180 25–50 5–10 25–100 25–100 0.2–0.4
Lettuce 2.5–4.0 0.4–0.6 6.0–8.0 1.4–2.0 0.5–0.7 — 50–500 30–100 7–10 26–100 30–90 > 0.1
Onion 5.0–6.0 0.35–0.5 4.0–5.5 1.5–3.5 0.3–0.5 0.50–1.0 60–300 30–45 5–10 20–55 50–65 —
Peas 4.0–6.0 0.3–0.8 2.0–3.5 1.2–2.0 0.3–0.7 0.2–0.4 50–300 25–60 5–10 25–100 30–400 > 0.6
Peppers 3.5–4.5 0.3–0.7 4.0–5.4 0.4–0.6 0.30–1.50 — 60–300 30–100 10–20 30–100 26–300 —
Potato (leaf) 3.5–4.5 0.25–0.5 4.0–6.0 0.5–0.9 0.25–0.5 0.2–0.35 30–150 20–40 5–20 20–40 20–450 —
Potato (petiole) — 0.22–0.4 8.0–10.0 0.6–1.0 0.3–0.55 0.2–0.35 50–200 20–40 4–20 20–40 30–300 —
Pumpkin/Squash 4.0–6.0 0.35–1.0 4.0–6.0 1.0–2.5 0.3–1.0 — 60–300 25–75 6–25 20–200 50–250 —
Radish 3.0–6.0 0.30–0.70 4.0–7.5 3.0–4.5 0.50–1.20 0.20–0.40 50–200 30–50 6–12 20–50 25–130 —
Raspberries 2.2–3.5 0.20–0.50 1.1–3.0 0.6–2.5 0.25–0.80 0.20–0.30 50–200 25–300 4–20 15–60 25–300 —
Spinach 4.2–5.2 0.30–0.60 5.0–8.0 0.6–1.2 0.60–1.00 — 60–200 25–60 5–25 25–100 30–250 > 0.5
Strawberry 2.1–2.9 0.2–0.35 1.1–2.5 0.6–1.8 0.25–0.7 0.2–0.3 90–150 25–60 6–20 20–50 30–100 —
Sweet corn 2.8–3.5 0.25–0.4 1.8–3.0 0.6–1.1 0.2–0.5 0.2–0.75 50–300 8–25 5–25 20–100 30–300 0.9–1.0
Tomato 4.0–6.0 0.25–0.8 2.9–5.0 1.0–3.0 0.4–0.60 0.4–1.2 40–200 25–60 5–20 20–50 40–250 —
Watermelon 2.0–3.0 0.2–0.3 2.5–3.5 2.5–3.5 0.6–0.8 — 100–300 30–80 4–8 20–60 60–240 —
Source: C. J. Rosen and R. Eliason, 1996, Nutrient Management for Commercial Fruit & Vegetable Crops in Minnesota, Univ. of Minnesota, DG-05886-GO.

321
322 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-4 10% Reduction

Relationship between plant in Growth
Luxury
nutrient concentration and 100
Consumption To
plant growth. Critical nutri-

GROWTH (% of maximum)
xic
ent range (CNR) represents Critical Nutrient ity
80
a small economic yield loss Range Visual
(no symptoms) Symptoms
without visual deficiency

Def c ency
symptoms. 60

40 Visual
Symptoms

20 Critical Concentration

0
CONCENTRATION OF NUTRIENT IN TISSUE (dry basis)

Interpretation
Plants that are severely nutrient deficient exhibit a visual deficiency symptom with
substantial yield loss (Fig. 9-4). Plants that are moderately deficient usually exhibit
no visual symptoms, although yield potential can be reduced. Correcting the
deficiency by adding nutrients will maximize growth potential and increase plant
nutrient concentration. Luxury consumption represents nutrient absorption in
excess of that required for optimum growth, but is not detrimental to plant
growth. Thus, as nutrient supply increases, plant nutrient concentration increases
without an increase in growth. Nutrient toxicity occurs when plant growth
decreases with increasing plant nutrient concentration.
A critical nutrient concentration (CNC) can be used in interpreting plant analy-
sis results (Fig. 9-5). The CNC is located in that portion of the curve where the plant
nutrient concentration changes from deficient to adequate; therefore, CNC is the
nutrient level below which crop yield, quality, or performance is unsatisfactory. How-
ever, it is difficult to establish an exact CNC since variation exists in the transition
zone between deficient and adequate nutrient concentrations. Consequently, critical
nutrient range (CNR) is commonly used, which is the range in nutrient concentration
at a specific growth stage above which nutrient supply is adequate and below which
nutrient deficiency occurs (Fig. 9-5). CNRs have been developed for most of the
essential nutrients in many crops (Table 9-4).

Figure 9-5 100

Example of critical nutrient
concentration (CNC) and
critical nutrient range
(CNR) for S in forage grass.
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

90 CNR

80

70 CNC

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

S IN MIXED HERBAGE (%)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 323

60 16 Figure 9-6
Typical grain yield (winter
50 15
wheat) and plant N (grain

GRAIN PROTEIN (%)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)
14 protein) response to N rate.
40
CNR ranges between 12.5%
CNR 13
30 and 13.5% grain protein.
12
20
11
Grain Yield
10 10
Grain Protein
0 9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
N RATE (lbsya)

60 12 4 Figure 9-7
CHLOROPHYLL METER READING

Relationship between
3.5
irrigated corn grain yield,
50 9 3 tissue N, and chlorophyll
YIELD (Mtyha)

readings at V8 growth

LEAF N (%)
2.5
40 stage. CNR is ∼ 3.2 - 3.7%N.
6 2
Chlorophyll readings were
Grain Yield 1.5 obtained with a handheld
30 Chlorophyll chlorophyll meter.
3 1
Leaf N (Adapted from Schepers et al., 1992,
0.5 Great Plains Soil Fert. Conf., p. 42.)
20 0
0
0 75 150 225 300
N RATE (kgyha)

Relationship Between Yield and Plant Nutrient Content

When a nutrient is deficient, increasing nutrient availability will increase plant
growth and nutrient content until CNR is exceeded (Fig. 9-4). For example, applied
N increased % N (or grain protein) in wheat (Fig. 9-6) and in corn (Fig. 9-7). Above
the CNR, % N in the plant increases with little yield advantage.
Plant analysis interpretations based on CNR and sufficiency-range concepts
have limitations. Unless the crop sample is taken at the proper growth stage, the
analytical results will have little value (Fig. 9-3). Also, considerable skill is needed
to interpret plant analysis results relative to overall production conditions, as other
factors can limit yield and alter nutrient concentration.
Nutrient Ratios
Plant nutrient ratios can be used to assess crop nutrient balance. For example,
N:P, N:S, K:Mg, K:Ca, Ca+Mg:K, and other ratios are commonly used. When
a nutrient ratio is optimal, optimum yield occurs unless some other limiting factor
reduces yield. When a ratio is low, a response to the nutrient in the numerator may be
obtained. If the nutrient in the denominator is excessive, yield response to application
of the nutrient in the numerator may or may not occur. When the ratio is too high,
the reverse is true. Optimum nutrient ratios are established similar to critical levels
for individual nutrients (Fig. 9-8). These data illustrate that when S concentration
60.12% or N:S 7 17, wheat grain yield will likely respond to S fertilization.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting nutrient ratios. For example,
when N:S = 17 (Fig. 9-8), three possibilities exist where both N and S are optimal,
excessive, or deficient. It is difficult to determine from the ratio alone which situa-
tion exists in the plant. When N:S 7 17, either N could be excessive or S could be
deficient. A yield response to applied S occurs only if S is deficient, whereas if N is
high and S is normal, additional S may dilute N in the plant. Alternatively, when
324 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-8

PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM GRAIN YIELD

Relationship between win-
ter wheat grain yield and 100
S concentration (a) and
N:S ratio (b). N and S were
determined in whole plant 80
samples collected at boot
stage.
60
Fall-applied S

40
Spring-applied S

20
Critical Value = 0.12% S

0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

S CONTENT (%)
(a)
PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM GRAIN YIELD

100

80

60 Fall-applied S

40 Spring-applied S

20
Critical Value = 17:1 N/S

0 10 20 30 40
N:S RATIO
(b)

N:S 6 17, either N could be deficient or S could be high. With low N, adding N
may increase yield and dilute plant S. This example demonstrates why nutrient ratios
are difficult to interpret and a yield response is not always obtained when a ratio is
outside the optimum range. Interpretation of nutrient ratios should be integrated
with CNR information.
Tissue Tests for In-Season N Adjustments Plant analysis is used in many crop sys-
tems to determine appropriate nutrient application rates during the growing season.
Petiole NO3–N analysis is advised in cotton production to enhance yield and N-use
efficiency (Fig. 9-9). Petiole samples of the newest mature cotton leaf are collected at
or near full bloom stage and are either sent to a laboratory for NO3 9N analysis or
quick-tested using in-field colorimetric analysis of the petiole tissue sap. For example,
if full bloom petiole samples tested 0.2% NO3–N (Fig. 9-9), then a foliar application
of 5 lbs/a N would be recommended. Usually three foliar applications are required to
optimize cotton yield. As the cotton plant matures, petiole NO3–N declines. Thus, it
is essential to identify the growth stage accurately.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 325

1.8 Figure 9-9

1.6
Cotton petiole NO3 9N
concentration as influenced
1.4 Excess NO3–
by sampling time. Foliar N
PETIOLE NO3–N (%)

1.2 applications would be

recommended when
1.0
petiole NO3 9N is low.
0.8 (Adapted from Steve Hodges, 1997,
Adequate NO3–
Dept. Soil Science, NCSU.)
0.6
0.4
0.2 Low NO3–
0
–1 FB +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6
WEEKS BEFORE (–1) OR AFTER (+)
FULL BLOOM (FB)

In potato, petiole NO3- determined 50–55 days after emergence is used as

a guide for sidedress or topdress N to maximize yield and recovery of applied N
(Fig. 9-10). When petiole NO3- concentrations are 61.592.0%, additional N is rec-
ommended. Petiole NO3 sufficiency levels will vary depending on crop (Table 9-2)
and in some cases the variety (Table 9-5).
In winter wheat, N uptake at mid- (GS25) and late tillering (GS30) are critical
growth stages for maximizing yield and N use efficiency (refer to Fig. 10-2). When
tiller density is 6100 tillers>ft2 at GS25 and/or N in leaves at GS30 is 64.5%, ad-
ditional N is required to optimize yield (Fig. 9-11).
Sensor Based Tissue Analysis
Chlorophyll Meters
The chlorophyll meter is a simple, portable diagnostic sensor that measures green-
ness or relative chlorophyll content in plant leaves. Chlorophyll meters based on either
light absorbance or laser technology are available (Fig. 9-12). With absorbance meters,
measurements involve placing a handheld sensor on a leaf surface and the quantity
of light 1∼ 650 nm2 transmitted through the leaf is measured (Fig. 9-13). Increasing
chlorophyll content decreases light transmitted through the leaves. The sensor displays
relative chlorophyll content as SPAD (soil plant analyzer development) values. In prac-
tice, chlorophyll readings from nutrient-deficient leaves are compared to readings from

3 Figure 9-10
200 lbs N/a
Influence of N rate on peti-
Sample
ole NO3 - concentration.
Petioles
Optimum petiole NO3 -
concentration is 1.5–2.0% at
PETIOLE NO3– (%)

2 120 lbs N/a

Sufficient NO3– Levels 50–55 days after emergence.
(Adapted from Wolkowski et al.,
1995, Nitrogen management on
sandy soils, Madison, WI: Univ. Wis-
consin Coop. Ext. Publ. A3634.)
1
40 lbs N/a

0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70
DAYS AFTER EMERGENCE
326 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-5
P ETIOLE NO3− S UFFICIENCY R ANGES AT D IFFERENT G ROWTH S TAGES FOR
T WO R USSET P OTATO V ARIETIES *

Growth Stage Description N Sufficiency Range (%)

Ranger Russett
I Emergence until tuberization 2.0–2.2
II Tuberization 1.8–2.0
III Tuber bulking 1.8–2.0
IV Maturation 1.3–1.5
Gem Russett
I Emergence through tuberization 2.1–2.3
II Tuberization 2.1–2.3
III Early tuber bulking 1.6–1.9
IV Late tuber bulking 1.0–1.3
V Maturation 0.6–1.1
*To convert NO3 - to NO3@N, multiply by 0.226.
Source: Adapted from S. L. Love, 1998, Cultural Management of Ranger (CIS919) and Gem (CIS1093)
Russet Potatoes, Coop. Ext. System, Univ. of Idaho.

70 140
N RECOMMENDATION (lbsya)

N RECOMMENDATION (lbsya)

60 GS 25 120 GS 30

50 100

40 80

30 60

20 40

10 20

0 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
TILLER DENSITY (lbsyft2) TISSUE N CONCENTRATION (%)

Figure 9-11
Use of tiller density at GS25 and tissue N concentration at GS30 to quantify split N application rates to optimize winter wheat
yield and N-use efficiency. (Alley et al., 1996, Virginia Coop. Ext., Publ. No. 424-026.)

Figure 9-12
Handheld chlorophyll meters. Minolta light absorbance based sensor (left) and Spectrum laser based sensor (right).
(Photo from Spectrum Technologies, Inc, www.specmeters.com).
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 327

High Figure 9-13

Reference
Readings Relationship between
chlorophyll meter reading

CHLOROPHYLL (SPAD) READINGS

(SPAD) and N content in a
plant leaf. Proper calibration
requires use of “high” N
LED
reference areas.

653 nm

931 nm
Light Passing Through Green Leaf

Chlorophyll

Detector
Low
Low High
N IN PLANT LEAF (%)

reference plants where nutrients are nonlimiting (Fig. 9-13). A reference strip through
the field is established where excessive N is applied to attain high chlorophyll (and N)
content in leaves.
Leaf chlorophyll content is highly correlated with % N in the leaf, particularly
over the range of yield response to applied N (Fig. 9-7). Increasing N rate increases
grain yield and leaf N, but chlorophyll readings do not increase with increasing
N applied above that required for optimum yield (Fig. 9-7). Also, chlorophyll read-
ings decrease with plant maturity (Fig. 9-14). For N-management purposes, chloro-
phyll readings have greater value at an early growth stage because the potential crop
response to in-season N applications is greater. The primary advantage of using a
chlorophyll meter is its ability to detect nutrient stress before deficiency symptoms
are visible.
To help reduce inherent variability in chlorophyll readings in the field, an
N sufficiency index (SI) or relative chlorophyll reading is calculated:
(average meter reading from unknown area)
SI = * 100%
(average meter reading from reference area)

60 Figure 9-14
Effect of N rate and crop
CHLOROPHYLL (SPAD units)

55 maturity on chlorophyll
meter readings in corn.
50
(Havlin, 1994, unpublished data.)

45

40
112 kg N/ha
35 56 kg N/ha
28 kg N/ha
30
0 kg N/ha
25
50 60 70 80 90 100
DAYS AFTER PLANTING
328 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-15 1.2

Chlorophyll meter readings

SUFFICIENCY INDEX
1
at V8 in corn used to predict
additional in-season N 0.8 180 – 50 = 130 kg N/ha
application rates.
(Adapted from Varvel et al., 2007,
0.6
Additional N needed
Agron. J. 99:701.)
0.4
50 kg N/ha @ 180 kg N/ha for
0.2 maximum yield
sampling time
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N RATE (kg Nyha)

When SI 6 95%, additional N is required for optimum yield (Fig. 9-15). These
data illustrate that SI determined from chlorophyll readings taken at V8 growth
stage in corn can be used to estimate the additional in-season N needed to maximize
yield.
The chlorophyll meter can also be used to identify S deficiency (Fig. 9-16).
Chlorophyll meter values of 645 in the flag leaf indicate S-deficient wheat; these
readings are comparable to those for N in wheat and corn (Fig. 9-14).
Chlorophyll meter readings identified K deficiency in cotton, where values
642 represented …1% K (Fig. 9-17). However, at this leaf K content, it is usually
too late to correct K deficiency and realize optimum yield.

Figure 9-16 22
Relationship between
chlorophyll content in flag Y = 23 – 0.33X. R2 = 0.90
leaves and shoot dry matter
SHOOT DRY MATTER (g pot–1)

influenced by S supply. 18

14

10

Critical
Value

6
10 20 30 40 50 60
CHLOROPHYLL METER READING

Figure 9-17 60
CHLOROPHYLL METER READING

Relationship between leaf

K content and chlorophyll 50
meter readings with cotton
grown over a range of soil K 40
availability.
(Adapted from Reddy et al., 2000, 30
Potassium Nutrition of Cotton,
Mississippi State Univ., Bull. 1094.)
20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
LEAF K (%)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 329

Figure 9-18
An example of a simple
color chart to assess N
status in wheat.
(Courtesy R. Mutters, UC-Davis.)

Color Charts
In regions where chlorophyll meters are not available, simple, easy-to-use leaf color
charts have been developed to assess crop N status and improve N management.
Crop N status is periodically assessed by comparing leaf color with panels of critical
colors in the chart (Fig. 9-18). Farmers are alerted to the best time for topdressing N
as plants begin to show N-deficiency symptoms. Rating of turf quality is often done
by means of a color chart.
Remote Sensing
Remote sensing applications in production agriculture have advanced rapidly over
the last several decades. Visible and near-infrared sensors are commonly used to
detect plant stress related to nutrients, water, and pests. When light energy (green,
blue, red, and near-infrared wavelengths) strikes a leaf surface, blue and red wave-
lengths are absorbed by chlorophyll, while green and near-infrared wavelengths
are reflected. Reflected light is monitored by an optical sensor. The contrast of
light reflectance and absorption by leaves enables assessment of the quantity and
quality of vegetation (Fig 9-19). Chlorotic, N-stressed leaves absorb less light en-
ergy. A common index used to evaluate vegetation cover is the normalized differ-
ence vegetation index (NDVI) calculated by:
NIR - PAR
NDVI =
NIR + PAR
Use of NDVI is based on growing plants strongly absorbing photosynthetically ac-
tive radiation (PAR) or visible light, while strongly reflecting near-infrared radiation
(NIR). NDVI increases with increasing leaf greenness and with green leaf biomass
(Fig. 9-19).
NDVI is highly correlated with plant N status; thus, remote sensing of growing
crops can be used to identify in-season N requirements. For example, in wheat, NDVI
measured at tillering is highly correlated to N uptake (Fig. 9-20). This information is used
to predict grain yield potential for purposes of estimating topdress N rates (Fig. 9-21).
This method is readily incorporated into real-time, leaf-reflectance-guided variable top-
dress N applications to increase yield and N-use efficiency.
330 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Rem sor

40% Sen te
Sen

sor
o
SUN

Rem
ote
10%
50%

%
– 30
Vis
Ne

d–
ar I

ible

ble

frare
nfra

Visi

r In
red

Nea
Dark Green, Dense Light Green, Yellow Sparse
Vegetation Vegetation
0.50 – 0.10 0.40 – 0.30
NDVI = = 0.67 NDVI = = 0.14
0.50 + 0.10 0.40 + 0.30

Figure 9-19
Determining the normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) using an optical sensor. NDVI
is calculated from the visible and near-infrared light reflected by vegetation. Dense, dark green
vegetation (left) absorbs most of the photosynthetic active radiation or visible light and reflects
most of the near-infrared light. Sparse, light green or yellow vegetation (right) reflects more vis-
ible light and less near-infrared light. Dense vegetation will reflect much greater near-infrared
than visible radiation (high NDVI values), whereas with sparse vegetation reflected near-infrared
and visible light are similar (low NDVI values).

Figure 9-20
Relationship between NDVI 160
at late tillering in winter
y = 14.76 + 0.776e5.487x
N UPTAKE (kgyha)

wheat and plant N uptake. 120

Thin lines represent varia- R2 = 0.75
tion in the data collected
from three sites over 3 years. 80
(Raun et al., 2002, Agron. J. 94:815.)
40

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
NDVI

Figure 9-21 100

Relationship between y = 1100 – 106772x + 25712032
measured wheat yield and R2 = 0.83
80
in-season estimated yield
WHEAT YIELD (buya)

(INSEY) determined from

NDVI measured at late tiller- 60
ing divided by accumulated
growing degree days from
40
planting to late tillering.
INSEY is then used to de-
termine N rate required to 20
achieve the estimated yield.
(Raun et al., 1999, Agron J. 93:131.)
0
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
INSEY
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 331

1.2 Figure 9-22

RELATIVE NIR DIGITAL COUNT

y = 1.005x + 0.091 Use of aerial NIR photogra-
1 R2 = 0.77 phy to determine tiller num-
ber in wheat at GS25. Tiller
0.8 number is used to estimate
in-season N requirements.
0.6 (Flowers et al., 2001, Agron. J.
93:783.)
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
RELATIVE TILLER DENSITY

250 Figure 9-23

Prediction of in-season
sidedress N rates for corn
200 using aerial color infrared
photography at the pre-
OPTIMUM N RATE (kgyha)

tassel growth stage. RGDVI

represents the relative green
150
difference vegetation index,
which represents the NIR-
green values divided by
100 the value for a high N-rate
reference plot.
(Sripada, et al., 2005, Agron. J.
50 95:1443.)
y = 3510 – 3478x; when x > 0.956
R2 = 0.67
y = 185; when x ≤ 0.956
0
0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02
RGDVI

Another method for estimating in-season N requirements involves the use of

remote sensing to determine plant biomass. If tiller density is low 1 6100 tillers>ft22, N
application at GS25 improves grain yield (Fig. 9-11). Tiller number can be deter-
mined by remote sensing using aerial infrared photographs at GS25 (Fig. 9-22).
These data are then used with tissue N estimated by NDVI to determine optimum
N rates applied at GS30. Remote-sensing techniques have also been established to
estimate sidedress N rate required at pretassel stage in corn (Fig. 9-23). Field evalu-
ation of this technique demonstrated a 35% reduction in N rate and a 50% increase
in N-use efficiency.
Postmortem Tissue Tests
Stalk NO3- Test
The stalk NO3 - test was developed to assess N sufficiency using a corn stalk sample
collected at physiological maturity. The postmortem test enables a producer to assess
excessive N use, and adjust N rates in subsequent years.
Under low N supply, plants translocate N from the lower leaves and stalk to the
younger leaves. With excess available N, corn plants have more N than needed and
accumulate NO3 - in the lower stalks (Fig. 9-24). At 1–3 weeks after physiological
maturity (black layer), 8″ stalk sections are taken 6″ above the soil surface from 15
to 20 plants (Fig. 9-25). Areas dissimilar in soil types and management should be
332 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-24 N deficiency Luxury

General influence of Consumption

STALK NO3-N CONCENTRATION

fertilizer N rate on corn stalk
NO3@N concentration.

Width varies
with N
Slope varies with variety
requirement
and N uptake efficiency

N RATE

Figure 9-25
Location on corn plant to
collect stalk samples. Collecting Corn
Stalk Samples

Top Cut
14˝ above ground
Stalk Sample
8˝ segment

Bottom Cut
6˝ above ground

sampled separately. Samples are air-dried and sent to a laboratory for NO3@N analy-
sis. General guidelines for interpreting stalk NO3@N tests are:

Stalk NO3@N (ppm N) Plant N Status N Management Recommendation

0–250 Low N-deficiency symptoms likely, in-
crease N rate
250–700 Marginal N rate is close to optimum, slightly
increase N rate
700–2000 Optimal Adequate N
7 2000 Excess Reduce N rate

Many states have evaluated the corn stalk NO3@N test and have reported similar and
consistent results (Fig. 9-26). Reliability of the test is excellent and is especially use-
ful on soils that have a recent history of manure application or forage legumes in the
rotation. N mineralization from residual organic N is difficult to quantify, and the
stalk N test can help identify the appropriate supplemental N rate.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 333

300 5,000 Figure 9-26

CORN GRAIN YIELD (bua)

Influence of N rate on corn
250

STALK NO3–N (ppm)

4,000 grain yield and stalk NO3@N
200 at maturity (black layer).
3,000 (Adapted from Bongard and Lamb,
150 Univ. of Minn., Dakota Co Extension.)
2,000
100 Grain yield
Stalk NO3–N 1,000
50

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
N RATE (lba)

Grain Analysis
Grain or other harvested plant parts are often collected to provide nutritional infor-
mation to the grower. For example, wheat grain protein can be used to indicate if
additional N was required for optimum yield (Fig. 9-27). When winter and spring
wheat grain protein is 611.5% and 613.2%, respectively, additional N is needed to
optimize yield.
Grain samples can be sent to a laboratory for analysis, although grain protein
sensors have been developed using NIR transmittance that provides inexpensive
and rapid results. Sensors can be installed in combines to monitor grain protein
as the field is harvested. Grain protein measured spatially illustrates the high
spatial correlation between grain protein and soil-profile N content (Fig. 9-28).
Because temporal stability of this relationship is greater in regions where annual
precipitation is 6750 mm, N application rates could be reduced in areas within
fields that consistently exhibit high residual soil profile N. While areas of high-
profile N content are likely due to either high N mineralization or low yields (low
N uptake), grain protein distribution can be used to help delineate variation in
N requirements within fields. Although grain analysis can be very helpful in N
management, it is a postmortem analysis. However, monitoring grain protein for
several consecutive years provides information that improves the accuracy in esti-
mating N requirements.

Figure 9-27
Relationship between grain
protein and N sufficiency
in winter wheat.
(Goos et al., 1982, Agron J.,
74:130–133.)
WHEAT YIELD (% of maximum)

N Sufficient for
Maximum Yields
N Insufficient for
Maximum Yields
334 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Grain Protein

Soil Profile N Grain Protein

lbs/a %

> 125 > 12.5

100 – 125 11.5 – 12.5

Soil Profile N
75 – 99 10.5 – 11.4

50 – 74 9.5 – 10.4

< 50 < 9.5

Figure 9-28
Spatial distribution of soil profile N content is similar to that of wheat grain protein content deter-
mined with a grain protein sensor mounted on a yield-monitoring combine. Grain protein content
is high where soil N is high.

GREENHOUSE AND FIELD TESTS

Greenhouse Tests
Simple greenhouse tests involve growing plants in small amounts of soil to assess
nutrient availability. Generally, soils are collected from a field suspected of being de-
ficient in a specific nutrient. For purposes of calibrating soil and plant tissue tests, a
wide range of soils that differ in nutrient availability are selected. Selected nutrient
rates are applied, and a crop is planted that is sensitive to the specific nutrient being
evaluated. Crop response to increasing nutrient rate can be determined by measuring
total plant yield and nutrient content. For example, a greenhouse test was used to
separate Fe-deficient and Fe-sufficient soils. Soils were selected to represent a range
in DTPA-extractable Fe. Sorghum plants show decreasing Fe deficiency as DTPA-
extractable Fe increases (Fig. 9-29).

Strip Tests
Narrow field strips where selected nutrient treatments have been applied can help
verify the accuracy of nutrient recommendations. The test results must be inter-
preted with caution if they are unreplicated. Replication of strip tests on several
farms is also helpful. Figure 9-30 illustrates how a strip test of several nutri-
ent rates might be located in the field. It is important to place treatments in as
similarly uniform areas as possible. If several soil types or conditions occur in the
same field, locate treatments so that each soil type occurs equally in each treat-
ment. The use of a yield-monitoring combine to measure and record treatment
yields makes strip tests a valuable tool in assessing the accuracy of management
recommendations.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 335

Figure 9-29
Greenhouse test used to
evaluate the ability of DTPA
to separate Fe-deficient and
Fe-sufficient soils. Sorghum
was used as an indicator
crop. Fe stress in sorghum
decreased with increasing
DTPA extractable Fe (ppm).

Figure 9-30
Soil Soil Example of strip tests
Condition 1 Condition 2
located in a field with two
(a) or three (b) soil types or
Treatment #1
conditions in the field.

Treatment #2

Separate Observation Sample Areas

or
Single Observation Sample Area
(a)

Soil Soil
Condition 2 Condition 3

Treatment #1

Treatment #2
Soil
Condition 1
Observe, sample only this

(b)

Field Tests
Measuring crop response to applied nutrients is commonly done by agricultural sci-
entists developing nutrient recommendations. After specific treatments are selected,
they are randomly assigned to an area of land. The treatments are replicated several
times to obtain more reliable results and to account for soil variations at the experi-
mental site (Fig. 9-31). For example, when a range of increasing N rates are applied
and a crop planted and harvested, the yield results are used in establishing N rec-
ommendations (see Calibrating Soil Tests). When many similar tests are conducted
on well-characterized soils, recommendations can be extrapolated to other soils with
similar characteristics.
Field tests are used in conjunction with greenhouse tests in the calibration of
soil and plant tests. Field experiments are essential in establishing equations used to
provide nutrient recommendations that will optimize crop yield. Plant analysis of
samples collected from the various treatments can also help establish CNR.
336 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

N RATE TREATMENTS (lbs/a)

0 40 80 120 160 Replicate 1

80 120 160 40 0 Replicate 2

120 80 0 160 40 Replicate 3

40 160 120 0 80 Replicate 4

Figure 9-31
Example of field plot design for evaluating crop response to applied N (left). Five N rates are replicated four times, with N rates
randomly placed within each replicate. Photo (right) shows replicated crop rotation study
(USDA-ARS).

SOIL TESTING
A soil test is a chemical extraction of a soil sample to estimate nutrient availability.
Soil tests extract part of the total nutrient content that is related to (but not equal to)
the quantity of plant available nutrient. Thus, a soil test level represents only an index
of nutrient availability.
As an index, the nutrient quantity extracted by the soil test is not equal to the
quantity of nutrient absorbed by the crop, but they are closely related. For example,
Figure 9-32 shows that soil test P varied from 20 to 80 ppm in a ∼6a field. If soil
test P is related to P availability, then the variability in % P in the crop should reflect
the variability in extractable soil P. The spatial distribution of % P concentration in
wheat grain reflects the distribution of plant available P as measured by soil test P
(Fig. 9-32). Specifically, high and low soil test P results in high and low grain P, re-
spectively. These data demonstrate the ability of a soil test to provide a reliable index
of plant available nutrients.

Objectives of Soil Tests

Soil test information can be used to:
1. provide an index of nutrient availability in soil. The soil test or extractant is
designed to extract a portion of the nutrient from the same “pool” (i.e., solu-
tion, exchange, organic, or mineral) used by the plant (Fig. 2-2).
2. predict the probability of obtaining a profitable response to fertilizer or lime. Al-
though a response to applied nutrients will not always be obtained on low-
testing soils because of other limiting factors, the probability of a response is
greater on low-testing soils.
3. provide a basis for development of fertilizer and lime recommendations. The basis
for nutrient recommendations relies on detailed laboratory, greenhouse, and
field studies.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 337

Figure 9-32
Spatial distribution of Bray-1P
and wheat grain P concentra-
tion over a 6-a field. Areas of
high soil test P correspond to
areas of high % P in the grain
(left center region of both
figures). Low Bray-1P levels
result in low % P in the grain
(see two shaded areas above
and one below high soil
test P area).
(Havlin and Sisson, 1990, Proc.
Dryland Farming Conf, p. 406.)

The objective of soil testing is to simply help predict the amount of nutrients needed
to supplement native soil nutrient supply. For example, a soil testing high will require
little or no additional nutrients in contrast to soil with a low test value (Fig. 9-33).
Sufficiency levels are commonly used in soil testing, where a high soil test represents
90–100% sufficiency in supplying adequate plant nutrients from the soil. Sufficiency
levels decrease with decreasing soil test levels.
The soil testing–nutrient recommendation system is comprised of four consecutive
steps:
1. Collect a representative soil sample from the field.
2. Determine the quantity of plant available nutrient in the soil sample (soil test).
3. Interpret the soil test results (soil test calibration).
4. Estimate the quantity of nutrient required by the crop (nutrient recommendation).
338 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-33 Soil test Relative Sources of Nutrients Sufficiency

As soil test levels decrease, Level at Different Soil Test Levels Level
the capacity of the soil to Very
Soil 100%
provide sufficient plant High
nutrients decreases. High
soil test levels represent High Soil Fert.* 90–100%
90–100% sufficiency in sup-
plying adequate nutrients. A Medium 70–90%
Soil Fertilizer
low soil test level represents
a 50–70% sufficiency in sup-
Low Soil Fertilizer 50–70%
plying adequate nutrients.
Very
Soil Fertilizer < 50%
Low

Nutrients Nutrients Required

Available
from Soil
*Fertilizers used at high levels are
for "starter" or "maintenance"
purposes

Soil Sampling
The most critical aspect of soil testing is obtaining a soil sample that is representative of
the field. Usually, a composite sample of only one pint of soil (about 1 lb) is taken from a
field or sampling area that may represent, for example, a 10a field or about 20 * 106 lbs
of surface soil 312 * 106 lb soil>ac - 6″2 * 10 ac4. Therefore, considerable oppor-
tunity exists for sampling errors. If the sample does not represent the whole field, it is
impossible to provide a reliable nutrient recommendation. Field sampling errors are much
greater than laboratory analysis errors, thus, the accuracy of any nutrient recommendation
is entirely dependent on the quality of the sample collected from the field.
Two common methods of collecting soil samples are (1) sampling whole or
parts of fields to provide “average” soil test value(s) or (2) sampling to describe spatial
variability in soil test values. Field average soil sampling is commonly used, but adop-
tion of site-specific nutrient management technologies requires the spatial distribu-
tion of soil test values.
Field Average Sampling Each field should be subdivided into sampling units rep-
resenting a relatively uniform area. Criteria used to delineate a sampling unit in-
clude soil types, slope, drainage, or past management (Fig. 9-34). Sampling units

Figure 9-34
Composite samples sent Composite
Sample #5
to a laboratory for analysis
represent relatively uniform Composite
areas within a field. Sample #4
Individual Samples
Combined into a
Composite Composite Sample
Sample #3 Sent to Laboratory

Composite
Sample #2

Composite
Sample #1

Area not Sampled if Small,

or Sampled Separately if Low Area
Large Enough or Planted
with a High Cash Crop
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 339

Figure 9-35
Collecting a surface soil sample and placing the 15–40 cores from each sampling unit in the bucket. Mix the contents of the
bucket thoroughly and take a subsample to be sent to the laboratory.

vary in size, but usually are 640 ac. Small areas within a sampling unit that are not
representative of the unit should be omitted from the sample. Even in a relatively
uniform area, variability in soil test levels exists. For example, recent lime or nutri-
ent applications, or previous crop residues, may have been unevenly distributed. A
sample taken entirely from areas high in these materials would not represent the
field average. To minimize sampling errors, 15–40 sample cores should be collected
within the sampling unit (Fig. 9-34). Soil samples within each sampling unit are
composited by mixing in a non-galvanized container, and a subsample is sent to the
laboratory for analysis (Fig. 9-35). Use of galvanized containers may contaminate
the sample with Zn.
With the use of a geographic information system (GIS), sampling units and
sampling sites within a unit can be identified. Pertinent digital data used to segregate
sampling units include soil survey data (soil types), digital elevation, and an aerial pho-
tograph of the field; all are readily available from state or federal agencies. Other known
spatial data (soil test data, yield maps, etc.) specific for the field may also be available
and could be included. The GIS enables the user to overlay spatial data and delineate
sampling units based on uniformity of field and soil characteristics (Fig. 9-36). Sam-
pling points within a sampling unit can also be identified in the GIS. With this infor-
mation and a global positioning system (GPS) on the soil sampling vehicle, personnel
can collect samples from the exact positions identified with the GIS.
On apparently uniform fields, nutrient levels still can be highly variable. More
often, soil test values are not normally distributed (Fig. 9-37). When normally dis-
tributed, the average or mean soil test value is the same as the mode, the value that
occurs most frequently. If soil test results do not follow a normal distribution, the
data are skewed and the mean does not represent the most frequently occurring
value or mode. Table 9-6 shows how mean soil test levels were consistently greater
than the mode, which represents the largest percentage of the field. Nutrient rates
based on mean soil test levels would then be lower than those based on the mode.
Most soil test data are lognormally distributed, where 7 50% of soil test values are
6 mean (Fig. 9-37). When this occurs, nutrient needs are underestimated. For exam-
ple, the skewed distribution of soil test K results in no K recommended when 30% of
the field tested low (Fig. 9-38).
340 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-36
Using geospatial data to
guide field soil sampling.
A represents the digital
orthoimagery or aerial
black/white photograph
of a field, B is the digitized
map of soil types obtained
from NRCS Soil Survey data,
and C is the elevation in the
field obtained from remote
sensing, where each contour
represents a 2m change in
elevation. These three data
layers are then combined
(large photo on the right) to
identify locations in the field
where soil samples will be
collected (areas represented
by the “stars”).

Figure 9-37
Normal and lognormal
distributions showing the Mode
mean and mode.
Lognormal
Normal
FREQUENCY

Mean

SOIL TEST LEVEL

TABLE 9-6
S TATISTICAL C HARACTERISTICS OF S OIL T ESTS FROM 1a S AMPLING G RIDS

Nutrient Range Mean Mode

_______________________ ppm _______________________

NO3@N 2–24 11 8
P 0–104 15 9
K 127–598 276 155
SO4@S 7–944 480 10

Site-Specific Sampling Use of equipment capable of variably applying nutrients

according to variability in soil test levels requires intensive, georeferenced field sam-
pling. Georeferenced sampling refers to the use of a GPS to record the latitude and
longitude of each sampling location in the sampling unit.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 341

40 Figure 9-38
Frequency distribution
of soil test K from a
Class, ppm K
FREQUENCY (%)
30 220 ft * 220 ft sampling
Samples = 40 1 = 59–101 (low) grid. 30% of the field tested
Range = 59–310 ppm K 2 = 102–143 low enough to require K
Mean = 135 ppm K 3 = 144–185
20 4 = 186–227 (Class 1) and another 33%
Mode = 108 ppm K
5 = 228–269 was marginal in K status
6 = 270–311 (high) (Class 2). If K recommenda-
tions were based on the
10
field mean, at least 30%
of the field would have
experienced K deficiency.
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 (Penney et al., 1996, Proc. Great
Plains Soil Fert. Conf, 6:126.)
SOIL TEST CLASS

Grid Sampling
Grid sampling consists of collecting equally spaced soil samples throughout the field
and analyzing each sample separately (Fig. 9-39). Typically 2a to 3a grids are used.
Decreasing grid size increases the number of samples collected and associated sampling
and analysis costs, but improves the probability of accurately describing the true dis-
tribution. For example, in a comparison of grid sizes varying from 0.75a to 7.5a, …3a
grids adequately describe the spatial variability in soil test P (Fig. 9-40).
Grid samples can be collected as cell or point samples (Fig. 9-39). With cell
sampling, random samples are collected within each grid and composited. With large
grids (e.g., 2 acres), compositing samples within a cell will mask variability within
the grid. To avoid the averaging that occurs with cell sampling, point samples can be
collected (Fig. 9-39). With point sampling, 5–10 individual soil samples are compos-
ited from a 10–15 ft diameter circle centered over each intersection of the grid lines.
Thus, with point sampling, more within-field variability is quantified.

Cell Sample

Samples Randomly
Collected from Cell

Samples Randomly
Collected from
10-ft Circle Around
Grid Point

Point Sample

Figure 9-39
Illustration of point and cell sampling schemes used for describing the spatial distribution
of soil properties. Grid size commonly varies from 2a to 3a.
342 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

0.75 a 1.5 a 3.0 a 7.5 a

Bray-1 P (ppm)

< 10

10 – 14

15 – 19

> 20

Figure 9-40
Influence of grid size on the spatial distribution of soil test P (Bray-1) levels; … 3 acre adequately
described the variability. (Havlin et al., 1996, Agron. Abstracts, p. 184.)

Directed Sampling
To reduce the cost of grid sampling, sampling locations can be identified by using
other spatially variable parameters in the field. Figure 9-41 illustrates that soil color,
OM, and elevation could be used to direct sampling locations needed to accurately
quantify the spatial distribution in soil test P. Yield-monitored data and other re-
mote-sensing information could also help direct specific sampling locations. These
data also allow development of specific management zones for use in variable nutri-
ent management (Chapter 10).
Other Soil Sampling Considerations
Banded Nutrients
Band application of immobile nutrients (e.g., P and K) often results in higher
concentration of residual nutrient in previous fertilizer bands for several years af-
ter application. Residual availability depends on application rate, chemical and

Soil Color Soil OM Elevation Bray-1 P

Figure 9-41
The spatial distribution of soil color, using aerial photography, is related to soil OM, elevation, and soil
test P. Dark soil color regions correspond to high soil OM, low elevation, and high Bray-1 P. Georefer-
enced soil sampling could be guided by the soil color map to reduce the samples needed to define varia-
tion in Bray-1 P.
(Courtesy of R. Ferguson and J. Schepers, 1995,University of Nebraska).
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 343

physical properties of the soil, quantity of nutrient removed by the crop, and time
after application. For example, increasing broadcast or band P rate increases soil test P
(Fig. 5-34). Band-applied P increased soil test P more than the same rate of broadcast P.
Thus, if only the bands are sampled, the soil test P is much higher than if none of the
bands are sampled (i.e., if only the between-band areas are sampled). Few guidelines
have been established for soil sampling fields in which immobile nutrients have been
band applied. In no-till systems where the band is undisturbed and its position is
known, the following can be used:
8 * row spacing 1in.2
S =
12
where S = ratio of off-band to on-band samples. Thus, for 12 in. band spacing,
eight samples between bands are required for every sample taken on the band. If
the band position is not known, then the sampling intensity should be increased to
provide an adequate estimate of the average field soil test level.
Sampling Depth
For cultivated crops, samples are ordinarily taken to tillage depth that can vary from
6 to 12 in. (Fig. 9-42). Tillage generally mixes previous lime and nutrient applica-
tions in the tillage layer (Fig. 9-43). When lime and nutrients are broadcast on the
surface in lawns, pastures, permanent crops, and no-till systems, considerable nutri-
ent stratification occurs (Fig. 9-43, Table 9-7); where soil samples collected from
the upper 4–6 in. depth are recommended. In low rainfall regions, preplant subsoil
samples (2–3 ft. depth) are routinely collected to determine NO3 - content to adjust
N recommendations (see N Soil Tests).
Sampling Time
Ideally, samples should be taken just before planting or early in the crop growth
cycle. However, these times are often impractical due to the time involved in collect-
ing samples, obtaining test results, and applying needed amendments. Consequently,

Figure 9-42
Diagram of various soil
sampling depths used
for nutrient analyses.
344 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

SOIL TEST K (ppm) SOIL TEST P (ppm)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0

2 2

SOIL DEPTH (in.)

SOIL DEPTH (in.)
4 4

6 6

8 8
Plow Plow
10 Chisel 10 Chisel
No Till No Till
12 12

Figure 9-43
Influence of tillage on stratification of soil test K and P. (Adapted from Mengel, 1990, Agron. Guide AY-268, Purdue Univ.)

TABLE 9-7
I NFLUENCE OF T ILLAGE , N R ATE , AND S AMPLING D EPTH ON SOIL P H

No-Till Plow
Yearly N Rate
lb/a 0–2 in. 2–6 in. 0–2 in. 2–6 in.
0 5.75 6.05 6.45 6.45
75 5.20 5.90 6.40 6.35
150 4.82 5.63 5.85 5.83
300 4.45 4.88 5.58 5.43

samples are customarily taken any time soil conditions permit in the noncrop period.
Samples for spring-planted crops are often taken after harvest. In drier regions where
NO3 - levels are used to assess soil N status, fall sampling is common.
Generally, soils should be tested every 2–3 years, with more frequent testing on
sandy soils. In most instances, this frequency is sufficient to assess soil pH changes
and to determine whether the nutrient and lime management program is adequate for
optimum productivity. For instance, if soil test P has decreased over time to 6100%
sufficiency (Fig. 9-33), P application rate should be increased. If soil test levels have
increased to 7100% sufficiency, application should be reduced to maintenance rates
(see Immobile Nutrient Recommendations).

Soil Tests
The specific chemical extractant used in soil testing varies with the nutrient (Table 9-8).
A soil test extractant removes a nutrient from similar reservoirs (i.e., CEC, OM, mineral
solubility) that provide nutrients to growing plants (Fig. 2-2).
N Soil Tests NO3 - occurs predominantly in the soil solution and NH4 + exists
both in solution and on the CEC. A simple water extract of the soil sample would
recover solution NO3 - + NH4 + . KCl 11 -2 M2 is commonly used, where Cl -
replaces small amounts of exchangeable NO3 - absorbed to AEC and K + would
remove exchangeable NH4 + . Increasing KCl extractable NO3 - decreases N re-
quired for optimum yield in regions where NO3 - leaching potential is negligible
(Fig. 9-44).
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 345

TABLE 9-8
C OMMON S OIL T EST E XTRACTANTS AND S OURCE OF N UTRIENT
E XTRACTED FROM THE S OIL

Plant Nutrient Common Extractants Nutrient Source

-
NO3 KCl, CaCl2 Solution
NH4 + KCl Solution/CEC
H2PO4 - >H2PO4 - NH4F>HCl 1Bray@1P2 Fe/Al-P mineral solubility
NH4F>CH3COOH>HNO3 Fe/Al-P mineral solubility
(Mehlich-P)
NaHCO3 (Olsen-P) Ca-P mineral solubility
K+ NH4OAc CEC
SO4 - 2 Ca1H2PO422, CaCl2 Solution/AEC
Zn + 2, Fe + 3, Mn + 2, Cu + 2 DTPA, EDTA Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu mineral solubility
H3BO30 Hot water Solution
Cl - Water Solution

200 Figure 9-44

OPTIMUM N FERTILIZER RATE (lbsya)

Y = 216 + 0.98X Optimum N rates for corn

when X < 220 based on preplant soil
150 NO3 - content (3 ft. sample
Y=0
when X > 220 depth).
R 2 = 0.92 (Bundy et al., 1995, Wisconsin’s
Preplant Soil Nitrate Test, Univ.
100 of Wisconsin, A3512.)

50

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
SPRING RESIDUAL NITRATE–N (lbsya–3 ft)

Preplant Sampling
In many humid regions where annual precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration,
leaching and denitrification reduce preplant profile NO3 - to levels unreliable for
use in N recommendations for subsequent crops (Fig. 9-45). However, in regions of
the United States where annual precipitation is …35″ (Fig. 3-3) and percolation is
…medium (Fig. 3-5), preplant soil NO3 - concentration is related to relative yield
(Fig. 9-46). As soil NO3 - increases, the additional N required for optimum yield
decreases (Fig. 9-47).
In regions where evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation (Fig. 9-45), measuring
preplant profile NO3 - content is valuable in determining N requirements. Usually a
2 to 3 ft profile sample is collected before planting to provide plant available NO3 -
(Table 9-9). Determining soil profile NO3 - is essential to accurately estimate addi-
tional N requirements (Fig. 9-48).
The Illinois Soil N Test (ISNT) was recently developed to extract a portion
of organic N from preplant soil samples (0–12 in. depth) and attempts to estimate
potential mineralizable N. The test was developed to detect sites that are nonre-
sponsive to N fertilizer application. Critical ISNT levels are ≈200–250 ppm N.
Although results are mixed, the ISNT is generally not predictive of crop response to
applied N.
346 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-45
Use of residual profile NO3 - analysis in determining N recommendations is more common in regions where
average annual potential percolation below the root zone is 617.5 cm.
(Hergert, 1987, SSSA Spec. Publ. No. 21.)

100 100
PPNT PSNT
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

RELATIVE YIELD (%)

90 90

80 80

70 70
0–2 ft 0–1 ft 0–2 ft 0–1 ft
60 60

50 50

40 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
SOIL NO3–N (ppm) SOIL NO3–N (ppm)

Figure 9-46
Relationship between soil NO3@N concentration and relative corn yield. Preplant soil NO3@N test (PPNT) and the presidedress
NO3@N test (PSNT) are based on 0–1 ft soil samples collected before planting and when corn is about 1 ft. tall, respectively. Use of a
0–2 ft sample varies with states. The arrows represent the critical soil NO3@N concentration above which no additional N is required.
(Adapted from Bundy et al., 1999, North Central Regional Res. Publ. No. 342.)

Figure 9-47 180

FERTILIZER N CREDIT (lbs Nya)

Quantity of fertilizer N credit 160

for corn based on preplant y = 8.8x –10
140 R2 = 0.82
soil NO3@N in a 0–2 ft
sample. Generally, higher 120
soil NO3 - levels occur in 100
cropping systems where
80
manure is utilized or when
overwinter or spring 60
precipitation is low. 40
(Schmitt et al., 1998, Univ. Minnesota,
20
FO-06514-GO.)
0
0 5 10 15 20
SOIL NO3–N (ppm)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 347

TABLE 9-9
N R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR D RYLAND W INTER W HEAT B ASED ON S OIL
P ROFILE NO3@N AND OM C ONTENT FOR A 50 BU / A Y IELD G OAL 1

Soil NO3@N, ppm2 Soil OM, %

0–1 ft 0–2 ft 0–1.0 1.1–2.0 7 2.0
____________ N rate, lbs/a _____________

0–3 0–5 75 75 75
4–6 6–9 75 70 50
7–9 10–12 75 45 25
10–12 13–15 50 20 0
13–15 15–18 25 0 0
715 718 0 0 0
1Toadjust N rate for yield goals different from 50 bu/a, add or subtract 25 lbs N/a for each 10 bu/a difference,
where maximum rate is 75 lbs N/a.
2NO @N concentration in the 0-1 or 0-2 ft sample depth.
3
Source: Davis et al., 2002, Fertilizing Winter Wheat, Colorado State Univ. Coop. Ext. No. 0.544.
PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM YIELD

100
SUNFLOWER YIELD (lbsya)

2500 Y = –263.47 + 34.14X – 0.12X2

R2 = 0.725 80
2000

1500 60
ARGYLE
1000 40
Y = 17.17 + 0.94X – 0.003X2
R2 = 0.65
500 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 50 100 150 200 250
SOIL NO3–N PLUS FERTILIZER N (lbsya) SOIL AND FERTILIZER N (kgyha)
(a) (b)

Figure 9-48
Relationship between soil NO3-N fertilizer N and relative crop yield of sunflower (a) and Kentucky
bluegrass (b). (Black and Bauer, 1992, Proc. Great Plains Soil Fert. Conf.)

In-season Soil Sampling

Pre-Sidedress Soil NO3 - Test (PSNT) As mineralization and nitrification rates in-
crease in the spring, soil NO3 - increases, which occurs just prior to maximum N
uptake period in corn (Fig. 9-49). Soil NO3@N determined in surface soil samples
(0–12-in. depth) collected between corn rows when corn is about 12 in. tall is related
to relative yield (Fig. 9-50). The critical soil NO3@N concentration below which side-
dress N applications are recommended varies between regions, but is approximately
20–25 ppm NO3@N (Fig. 9-51).
Previous legume crops or manure application greatly influences the quantity
of extractable soil NO3@N (Fig. 9-52). Lower PSNT critical levels (13–15 ppm) are
appropriate in semiarid regions due to greater subsoil NO3@N. In soils amended with
organic wastes (manure, sewage sludge, etc.), NH4 + + NO3 - analysis improves pre-
diction of sidedress N response compared to soil NO3@N alone.
348 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

N Uptake

Soil Nitrate

Tasseling

Sample Soil
and Apply
Nitrogen

WINTER PLANTING 12 in. TALL HARVEST

Figure 9-49
General distribution of soil NO3 - and N uptake in corn.

100
1.0

80
RELATIVE CORN YIELD

0.9

RELATIVE YIELD (%)

0.8
60
0.7

0.6 Organic 40
Inorganic
0.5
20
0.4

0.3 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
SOIL NITRATE–N TEST (ppm) SOIL NITRATE–N TEST (ppm)
(a) (b)

Figure 9-50
Relationship between soil NO3@N and relative corn yield in Pennsylvania (a) and Iowa (b).
Organic indicates soils with a history of manure or legumes, whereas inorganic indicates
soils without this history. (Beegle, 1982, Proc. Indiana Ag. Chem. Conf.)

200
N RECOMMENDATION (lbya)

160

120

80

40

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SOIL NO3–N (ppm)

Figure 9-51
Sidedress N recommendations for corn based on PSNT. At 10 ppm NO3@N the range in N rates
is 110–160 lbs/a, whereas at 20 ppm NO3@N 10–60 lbs N/a would be recommended for
sidedress application. (Blackmer et al.,1991, Iowa State Univ. Extension, p. 1381.)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 349

Figure 9-52
3 yr Alfalfa + Manure Vetch Green Manure

MINERALIZATION or UPTAKE RATE

Synchronization of N
3 yr Alfalfa Low-OM Content Corn
mineralization and crop N
uptake (a) and subsequent
accumulation of NO3 -
(b) as influenced by previous

(lbs Nyayd)
Plant Uptake
crop and manure.
(Magdoff, 1991, Prod. Ag. 4:297–305.)

(a)
SOIL NO3-N (lbsya)

3 yr Alfalfa + Manure Low-OM Content Corn

3 yr Alfalfa Low-OM + 70 lbs N/acre
Vetch Green Manure Leach. Most Probable
Except When Frozen
(b)

PSNT has also been adapted for vegetables where the critical NO3@N level is
similar to that used for corn (Fig. 9-53). Guidelines for in-season soil sampling with
vegetables is also similar to corn (Table 9-10).
Other In-Season N Tests As with the PSNT, sampling to determine soil NO3@N is
also useful in adjusting in-season N application rates in wheat (Fig. 9-54).

110 Figure 9-53

Relationship between
100
PSNT and relative yield
90 of cabbage.
(Heckman, 2003, Rutgers Coop.
80
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

Ext. Bull. E285.)

70
60
50
40
30 Critical
Level
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
SOIL TEST NO3 –N (ppm)
350 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-10
G UIDELINES FOR I N -S EASON S OIL S AMPLING U SED FOR PSNT IN
V EGETABLES

Crop Soil Sampling Time

Sweet corn, field corn plants 6–10 in. tall
Cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, brussels 2 wks. posttransplant
sprouts
Celery 2 wks. posttransplant, repeat in 3–4 wks
Lettuce, endive, escarole 2 wks. posttransplant or after thinning at
2–4 leaf stage if direct seeded
Beet, turnip, rutabaga after thinning at 2–4 leaf stage
Pumpkin, winter squash, cucumber, vines 6 in. long
muskmelon
Spinach 2–4 leaf stage, repeat after cutting
Irish potato plants 6 in. tall
Peppers, tomato, eggplant 1st fruit set, repeat after 3–4 wks
Source: Heckman, 2003, Rutgers Coop. Ext. Bull. E285.

New technologies may allow description of the spatial variation in N availability

while reducing the dependence on soil sampling and analysis. With a sensor mounted
on a yield-monitoring combine, the distribution of grain protein can be measured
(Fig. 9-28). As an indicator of N availability, grain protein content is highly corre-
lated with soil-profile N content. These new technologies will ultimately enhance our
ability to more accurately predict crop N requirements.
P Soil Tests When solution P decreases with plant uptake, P minerals dissolve or
adsorbed P desorbs to resupply soil solution P (Fig. 5-1). Chemical extractants used
for P soil tests simulate this process, because they reduce solution Al or Ca. As solu-
tion Al or Ca decreases during extraction, native Al-P or Ca-P minerals dissolve to
resupply solution Al or Ca. Solution P then concurrently increases, which provides a
measure of the soil’s ability to supply or buffer plant available P.
The Bray-1P soil test is used in acid and neutral pH soils and contains
0.025 M HCl + 0.03 M NH4F. In acid soils, Al>FePO4 are the primary P minerals
controlling P in solution (Fig. 5-12). During extraction, F - and Al + 3 precipitate as
AlF3. As Al + 3 decreases, AlPO4 # 2H2O dissolves to buffer the loss of solution Al + 3,
releasing H2PO4 - into solution according to:
Step 1: 3F - + Al + 3 S AlF3 T 3Al + 3 decreases as AlF3 precipitates4
Step 2: AlPO4 # 2H2O + 2H S Al + 3 + H2PO4 - + 2H2O
+

Figure 9-54 140

Relationship between soil
N RECOMMENDATION (lbsya)

NO3@N (0–3 ft depth) at 120

mid-tillering (GS 25) and 100
N required for optimum
wheat yield. 80
(Alley et al., 1996, Virginia Coop.
Ext., Publ. No. 424-026.) 60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
SOIL NO3–N (ppm)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 351

The subsequent increase in solution H2PO4 - during the extraction is measured, which
represents an estimate of the soil’s capacity to supply plant available P. The HCl in the
extractant also dissolves Ca-P minerals present in slightly acid and neutral soils.
Mehlich-3P soil test is also used in acid and neutral soils and contains
NH4F, extracting P in the same manner as the Bray-1P test. A Mehlich-1 soil test
10.05 M HCl + 0.0125 M H2SO42 is used in some regions with more highly weath-
ered, low-CEC soils. The quantity of P dissolved by these dilute acids from Fe-P and
Al-P minerals is calibrated with P crop response.
Olsen or Bicarb-P soil test is used in neutral and calcareous soils and contains
0.5M NaHCO3 (pH 8.5). In these soils, Ca-P minerals control solution P concentra-
tion (Fig. 5-12). The HCO3 - causes CaCO3 to precipitate during extraction, which
reduces Ca + 2 in solution. Consequently, Ca-P minerals dissolve to buffer solution
Ca + 2 and release H2PO4 - into solution by:
Step 1: HCO3 - + Ca + 2 S CaCO3 T + H + 3Ca + 2 decreases as CaCO3 precipitates4
Step 2: CaHPO4 # 2H2O + H + S Ca + 2 + H2PO4 - + 2H2O
As with the Bray-1 and Mehlich-3 tests, the increase in H2PO4 - provides a measure
of the soil’s ability to supply plant available P.
The Kelowna 10.015 N NH4F + 0.25 N HOAc2 and modified Kelowna
10.015 N NH4F + 0.5 N HOAc + 1 N NH4OAc2 soil tests are recommended for
plant available P on high-pH, calcareous soils in western Canada.
While soil test interpretations differ among regions and crops, the P concentra-
tion extracted also varies between tests (Table 9-11). Bray and Mehlich-P tests extract
similar quantities of P, while Olsen P test extracts about half as much P. Soil test level
indicates the soil P sufficiency level (Fig. 9-33); thus, as soil test P increases, recom-
mended P rate decreases (Table 9-11). No response to P fertilization would occur at
high soil test P, where the “high” soil test P level varies with crop (Fig. 9-55). For
example, soybean would attain 100% yield at 10 ppm P, while alfalfa would only
reach 60% yield at 10 ppm soil test P.
K Soil Tests Exchangeable plus solution K + is usually extracted with 1 M NH4OAc
(Table 9-8):
Clay@K + + NH4 + S Clay@NH4 + + K +
The NH4OAc soil test extracts K + in concentrations related to K availability to plants;
however, as with P, crops vary in their responsiveness to K (Fig. 9-56). A general calibra-
tion for the NH4OAc soil test is shown in Table 9-12. In soils with high K release and
retention properties, this method may extract some K + that is unavailable to crops.

TABLE 9-11
C ALIBRATIONS FOR THE B RAY -1, M EHLICH -3, AND O LSEN S OIL T ESTS 1

Sufficiency Level Bray-1 Mehlich-3 Olsen P Recommendation

_____________ ppm _____________ lbs P2O5 >a
Very low 65 67 63 50–90
Low 6–12 8–14 4–7 30–50
Medium 13–25 15–28 8–11 10–30
High 26–40 29–50 12–20 0
Very high 740 750 720 0
1P sufficiency levels and recommendations represent general values, which vary between region and crop.
352 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-55
Response of various crops
) ats

m
to Bray-1 P. d O rne)

e
Co rghu

aiz
in S n
n

Gra ybea
a e

(m
(Olsen et al., 1984, Nat. Corn at uc

o
he a (L

rn
Handbook.)

So
lf

W
fa
Al

er
int
W
PERCENTAGE YIELD

BRAY-1 P (ppm)

Figure 9-56 100

ts
Relationship between Oa
or n
NH4OAc extractable K and at ea er
s
he yb ov
relative yield of several 90 W So C l
crops. or
r n
Co
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

80

70

60

50

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
NH4OAc K (ppm)

TABLE 9-12
G ENERAL C ALIBRATION OF THE NH4OAc@K S OIL T EST 1

Sufficiency Level NH4OAc@K K Recommendation

ppm lb K2O>a
Very low 640 120–160
Low 41–80 80–120
Medium 81–120 40–80
High 121–160 0–40
Very high 7160 0
1K sufficiency levels and recommendations represent general values and will vary between region and crop.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 353

Figure 9-57
100
Relationship between rela-

RELATIVE YIELD (%)

tive annual yield of pasture
and MCP 3Ca1H2PO4224
extractable organic S.
50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
ORGANIC-S (mgykg)

S Soil Tests Like NO3 - , SO4 - 2 is mobile in soil; thus, in humid regions,
extractable SO4 - 2 has not been a reliable measure of S availability. In low rainfall
regions; H2O, Ca1H2PO422, or CaCl2 extractable SO4 - 2 have been used with some
success. Plant available SO4 - 2 is supplied by OM mineralization during the grow-
ing season. Since organic S represents ≈90% of total S in most soils, S soil tests
that estimate mineralizable S might be more accurate in identifying S deficient soils.
Ca1H2PO422 or KH2PO4 extractable S represents some mineralizable organic S and
should be a better indicator of S availability (Fig. 9-57). For example, extraction
with 0.2 M KH2PO4 satisfactorily measures both available SO4 - 2 and organic S
(Table 9-13).
Where S soil tests are unreliable, recognizing that crop response to S is more
likely on coarse-textured, low OM soils is helpful in identifying potential S defi-
ciency. Other factors to consider are (1) crop requirement for S, (2) crop history,
(3) use of manures, (4) proximity to industrial S emissions, and (5) S content of
irrigation water (Chapter 7).
Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu Soil Tests Chelate-micronutrient relationships and stability in soils
are utilized in soil testing for micronutrients. When EDDHA is added to soil, 100%
is complexed with Fe over the soil pH range (Fig. 8-7). Therefore, EDDHA might
make a good extractant for Fe; however, Fe-EDDHA is so stable that very few other
micronutrient cations would be complexed with EDDHA. Although Fe-DTPA is
not as stable at high pH as Fe-EDDHA (Fig. 8-7), the other micronutrients (i.e., Zn
and Cu) exhibit stability with DTPA, especially at pH 7 7 (Fig. 9-58).
Knowledge of chelate stability in soil provides the basis for developing the
DTPA soil test for Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn, which is used in most soil-testing laborato-
ries. EDTA is less effective in extracting micronutrients because it has a high affinity
for Ca. In soils with pH 7 6.5, EDTA would be approximately 100% complexed
with Ca, with little remaining capacity to complex Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn.

TABLE 9-13
I NTERPRETATION OF SO4 AND O RGANIC S S OIL T EST V ALUES

Soil S Status SO4−2 Organic S S Recommendation

_____________ ppm _____________ lb S/a
Deficient 0–6 0–10 10–20
Adequate 7–12 10–20 0
Above optimum 712 720 0
Source: Sulphur Institute, 1994.
354 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-58 1.0

Influence of soil pH on the Fe Zn
amount of Fe, Zn, Mn, or Cu 0.9
Cu
chelated with DTPA. Over

Fe, Zn, Mn, or Cu CHELATED BY DTPA (%)

the pH range of most soils 0.8
(pH 5–8), DTPA complexes
micronutrients in quantities 0.7
related to crop response. Mn
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
4 5 6 7 8 9
pH

Before chelate relationships were developed, the most common micronutrient

soil test was based on an acid extraction, usually HCl. Although some laboratories
still use acid-extractable micronutrient soil tests, the DTPA test is preferred. Excel-
lent correlations exist between DTPA-extractable micronutrients and relative crop
yield (Fig. 9-59). For example, DTPA effectively separates Zn-deficient from nonde-
ficient soils (Fig. 9-60). About 90% of the soils testing 6 0.65 ppm Zn responded
to Zn, whereas 100% above this level did not respond. The DTPA soil test has been
calibrated for most crops, and the general interpretation for DTPA-extractable mi-
cronutrients is shown in Table 9-14.
B, Cl, and Mo Soil Tests Extraction with hot water is the most common soil test
for B. Critical levels for most crops are …0.5 ppm B. When hot water-extractable B
is 7495 ppm, B toxicity can occur. Like NO3 - , Cl - is soluble, so extraction with
water is used. Soil samples should be taken to at least a 2 ft depth. The critical water-
extractable Cl - level is 7–8 ppm for most crops. No reliable Mo soil test has been

Figure 9-59 120

Relationship between DTPA-
extractable Cu and relative
100
barley yield.
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DTPA-EXTRACTABLE Cu (ppm)
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 355

1.6 3.5 Figure 9-60

7.0 1.6 2.4 6.5 Corn response of 40 soils to
Zn as a function of DTPA soil
test levels.
1.2 Deficient (yield response to Zn) (Havlin and Soltanpour, 1981, SSSAJ,
45:70–75.)
Marginal (plant conc. <10 ppm)
DTPA EXTRACTABLE Zn (ppm)

1.0
Nondeficient

0.8
Critical Extractable Zn Level

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
15 20 42 35 10 24 12 2 13 19 29 11 3 4 21 32 25 26 14 43
.18 30 17 7 36 16 1 22 6 23 41 33 9 27 5 28 8 31 34 44
SOIL NO.

TABLE 9-14
DTPA-E XTRACTABLE F E , Z N , M N , AND CU FOR D EFICIENT , M ARGINAL ,
ANDS UFFICIENT S OILS

Sufficiency Fe Zn Mn Cu
_______________________ ppm _______________________

Low (deficient) 0–2.5 0–0.5 091.0 0–0.4

Marginal 2.6–4.5 0.6–1.0 — 0.4–0.6
High (sufficient) 74.5 71.0 71.0 70.6

developed, although both water and NH4-oxalate extracts have been used. Fortu-
nately, Mo deficiency is uncommon in the United States.
Multinutrient Soil Tests With the advance of analytical instruments capable of
measuring elements simultaneously, soil tests have been developed that simultane-
ously extract macro- and micronutrients. Components of the Mehlich-3 soil test and
their functions in extracting nutrients include:
• 0.2 N CH3COOH (acetic acid) S buffers solution at pH 2–3 to limit CaF2
precipitation.
• 0.25 N NH4NO3 (ammonium nitrate) S NH4 + exchanges for cations on CEC.
• 0.013 N HNO3 (nitric acid) S dissolves some Ca@P + micronutrient containing
minerals.
• 0.015 N NH4F (ammonium fluoride) S extracts P; NH4 + exchanges for cations
on CEC.
• 0.001 M EDTA S complexes Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn.
356 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

For calcareous soils, the NH4HCO3@DTPA soil test is based on:

• 1.0 M NH4HCO3 (ammonium bicarbonate) S NH4 + exchanges for K + ; HCO3 -
extracts P.
• 0.005 M DTPA S complexes Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn.

Calibrating Soil Tests

To identify the optimum nutrient application rate from soil test results, soil tests
must be calibrated against crop responses to applied nutrients in field experiments
conducted over a wide range of soils and climate conditions. Yield responses from
various rates of applied nutrients can then be related to the quantity of available
nutrients indicated by the soil test. An accurately calibrated soil test (1) correctly
identifies the degree of nutrient deficiency or sufficiency and (2) supports the esti-
mated nutrient rate required to optimize crop productivity.
Controlled experiments are initially conducted in the greenhouse to provide
information about (1) the ability of a soil test to extract a nutrient in quantities
related to crop uptake (i.e., to identify the best extractants), and (2) the relationship
between soil test level and relative yield. Figure 9-29 shows crop response to a range
of DTPA extractable Fe levels. When DTPA Fe is 7 4.5 ppm, normal growth is
observed.
After greenhouse studies have been completed, field calibration experiments are
conducted on the major soil series and crops in the region. For example, if a P soil
test is being calibrated (Fig. 9-31), 4–6 P rates will be applied and crop response
quantified by measuring yield (e.g., forage, grain, fruit) and P content in the whole
plant or plant part. Yield response data can be expressed as % yield or yield increase
(Fig. 9-61); % yield represents the ratio of yield in unfertilized soil to yield obtained
where P is nonlimiting (fertilized soil). For example, 70% yield means that the unfer-
tilized crop yield is 70% of that obtained at optimum P applied. Yield increase repre-
sents the increase obtained with optimum fertilization. Thus, as soil test P increases,
% yield increases to 100%, or where no difference in yield is observed between fertil-
ized and unfertilized soil. Alternatively, as soil test P level increases, yield increase to P
fertilization eventually declines to zero.
YIELD INCREASE (bua)
PERCENTAGE YIELD

BRAY-1 P SOIL TEST (ppm) BRAY-1 P SOIL TEST (ppm)

(a) (b)

Figure 9-61
Relationship between % yield (a) or yield increase (b) and Bray-1 P soil test level. The vertical dashed line represents
the critical soil test level, or the soil test level below which crop response to added nutrient is expected. Vertical
dashed lines represent the CL.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 357

90 Figure 9-62

P RATE FOR MAXIMUM YIELD (Ibs P2O5a)

Influence of soil test P level
on P recommendation.
75

45 y = 0.144x2 – 7.62x + 102

45

30

15

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Generally, when % yield reaches 95–100% or when yield increase reaches

0–5%, the critical soil test level (CL) is obtained (Fig. 9-61). The CL represents the
soil test level above which no yield response to fertilization will be obtained. Soil test
CLs vary among crops, climatic regions, and extractants. For example, CLs for the
Bray-1, Mehlich-3, and Olsen P tests are approximately 25, 28, and 11 ppm, respec-
tively (Table 9-11).
Soil test calibration studies also provide data to establish fertilizer recommen-
dations. For example, at each field location, P rate required for optimum yield can
be determined and displayed (Fig. 9-62). Increasing soil test level corresponds to
decreasing P rate required for optimum yield. These diagrams are used to establish
nutrient rates associated with very low, low, medium, and high soil test levels; how-
ever, an equation is commonly used to describe the relationship (Fig. 9-62).
Interpretation of Soil Tests Many soil test reports, in addition to reporting the
nutrient concentration, provide the interpretation or nutrient sufficiency (very low,
low, medium, high, or very high). The probability of a response to fertilization in-
creases with decreasing soil test level (Fig. 9-63). While nutrient availability is only
one factor influencing plant growth, the probability of a response to applied nutrients
increases with decreasing soil test level.
Soil test interpretation involves an economic evaluation of the relation between
soil test level and nutrient response. However, actual nutrient response may vary due

1.0 Figure 9-63

The probability of obtaining
PROBABILITY OF A PROFITABLE

a profitable response from

0.8 nutrient addition decreases
with increasing soil test
level.
RESPONSE

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Very Low Medium High Very
low high
SOIL TEST LEVEL
358 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-64
Exponential
Common models used to
describe crop response to Linear Plateau
increasing soil test level or
to rate of applied nutrients.
Quadratic

YIELD

QUANTITY OF NUTRIENT APPLIED

or
SOIL TEST LEVEL

to any factor (i.e., weather, pests, and management) that limits yield (Fig. 1-11;
Fig 1-12).
Many soil test laboratories provide one recommendation, assuming best pro-
duction practices for the region, and producers make adjustments as necessary. As
technology and management practices improve, yield potential and recommenda-
tions increase. For the grower, the goal is to maintain plant nutrients at a level for
sustained productivity and profitability, which means that nutrients should not be a
limiting factor at any stage, from plant emergence to maturity.
Nutrient-Response Functions The most common models used in fitting nutrient-
response data are given by (Fig. 9-64):
Linear-plateau model:
Y = b plateau portion with slope = 0
Y = mx + b linear portion with slope = m
Exponential model:
Y = ex
Quadratic model:
Y = a + bx - cx2
where Y = yield, x = nutrient rate, and a, b, and c are constants or coefficients. All
of these equations have been used to describe yield response to both immobile and
mobile nutrients.
The model selected for use in describing crop response to increasing soil test
level will influence the established critical level (Fig. 9-65). Regardless of the model,
crop response will vary with the crop (Fig. 9-55), yield potential (Fig. 1-12), soil test
level (Fig. 9-66), previous crop (Fig. 4-13), year (discussed later), and other manage-
ment factors (Chapter 10).

Nutrient Recommendations
Nutrient Mobility Soil test interpretation for purposes of making nutrient recom-
mendations is influenced by the mobility of the nutrient. With mobile nutrients, crop
yield is proportional to the total quantity of nutrient present in the root zone, because
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 359

RELATIVE GRAIN YIELD (%) 110 110

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 CORN 70 SOYBEAN
Critical Concentrations Critical Concentrations
LP 15.0 LP 12.4
60 60
EXP QP 21.4 EXP QP 17.8
QP EXP 27.0 EXP 20.8
50 LP 50 QP
LP
40 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
SOIL TEST P (ppm) SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Figure 9-65
Relationship between soil test P and relative yield of corn and soybean (24 years, three locations)
in Iowa using linear-plateau (LP), quadratic (QP), exponential (EXP) models. Dashed lines represent
critical soil test P levels for each model. (Dodd and Mallarino, 2005, SSSAJ/69:1118–1128)

80

mP
20 pp
ST =
P
m
60 pp
10
=
ST
P
WHEAT YIELD (bua)

m
pp
5
=
ST

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100
P2O5 RATE (lbsa)

Figure 9-66
Wheat yield response to P2O5 rate at three soil test (ST) P levels.

of minimal interaction with soil constituents (Fig. 2-20). Recall that for NO3 - , SO4 -2,
and Cl - , a 2–3 ft profile sample is important for accurately assessing mobile nutri-
ent availability (Fig. 9-47). In contrast, yield response to immobile nutrients (e.g.,
H2PO4 - , K + , Zn +2) is proportional to the concentration of nutrients near the root
surface because these nutrients strongly interact with or are buffered by soil constituents
(Fig. 2-20).
Crop response to increasing nutrient concentration is generally linear until the
yield potential for the given environment is achieved or is limited by nutrient deple-
tion or other yield limiting factors (Fig. 1-12). For example, if profile N soil test
indicated available N was ≈70% sufficient, equivalent to 100 lb N/a, then for 100%
sufficiency additional N would be recommended (Fig. 9-67).
360 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-67 100

Influence of N rate on 90 Iowa

PERCENT CHANCE OF N
relative N supply 80 Illinois
(sufficiency) to corn.
70

SUFFICIENCY
(Nafziger et al., 2004, North
Central Ext.-Ind. Soil Fert. Conf. 60
Des Moines, IA) 50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
N RATE (Ibacre)

Mobile Nutrient Recommendations With mobile nutrients, soil test buildup and/
or maintenance programs are not viable, because these nutrients are readily mobile
in the root zone in many soils. Preventing potential NO3 - transport below the root
zone, while providing sufficient N for profitable crop production, requires accurate
N recommendations and management (Chapter 10). N recommendations are usu-
ally based on yield goal, where the N required to produce each unit of yield is known
(i.e., 2.0 lbs N/bu of winter wheat, see Table 9-1). This concept is also evident when
in-season N is recommended because better-than-average growing conditions in-
creased yield potential above initial estimates provided before planting.
N recommendations require knowledge of the quantity of N needed by the
crop and supplied by the soil. N recommendations are based on:
NREC = NCROP - NSOIL - 1NOM + NPC + NMN2
where, NREC = N recommendation
NCROP = crop yield goal * N coefficient
NSOIL = preplant soil NO3- content
NOM = soil OM mineralization
NPC = previous legume crop N availability
NMN = manure N availability
NCROP represents N required by the crop and involves estimating yield and lb N/ unit
of yield (N coefficient). Underestimating the yield goal can cause considerable yield loss
due to underfertilization. Alternatively, overestimating yield goal results in overfertiliza-
tion, which can greatly increase profile N content after harvest and increase N leaching
potential. Unfortunately, growers often overestimate yield goal and thus apply excess N.
The N coefficient also varies among crops, regions, and climates (Table 9-1). The N coef-
ficients for corn, usually ranges from 0.9 to 1.7 lbs N/bu (1.2 lbs N/bu average), and for
winter wheat, 1.8 to 2.4 lbs N/bu (2.0 lbs N/bu average), are used to estimate NCROP.
Thus, with 60 bu/a wheat yield goal, total N required by the crop is 120 lbs N/a.
The NCROP estimate is reduced by potential available soil N. After adjustments
for soil profile NO3 - content, if present, NCROP is adjusted for potential miner-
alizable N available from NOM, NPC, and NMN. NMN varies with rate applied and
time after application (Chapter 10). Generally, 50% of manure N is available in
the first year, 25% in the second year, and none in the third year. NPC depends on
the legume, legume yield, and length of time after the legume crop was rotated to
a nonlegume crop (Chapter 4, Chapter 12). NPC from forage legumes is generally
greater than grain legumes, although low-yielding forage legumes can fix less N2 than
high-yielding grain legumes (Table 4-7). When nonlegume crops are grown on soils
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 361

previously cropped to a forage legume, NPC decreases with time (Fig. 4-12). Thus,
NREC is lower in the first year following the legume compared with subsequent years.
Few NREC models include NOM because of the difficulty in accurately estimat-
ing soil OM mineralization under variable climate conditions from year to year. Al-
though many tests have been evaluated, they have not always been highly correlated
with NOM. Some models reduce the N coefficient to account for NOM. Alternatively,
some NREC models use % soil OM as an indicator of NOM (Table 9-9). Credits for
NOM generally range from 20 to 80 lbs N/a.
NREC Based on Average N Response Data
Most NREC systems are based on field trials that quantify crop response to a wide
range of N rates (Fig. 9-31). The N response data over many soils, soil and crop man-
agement inputs, and years are combined to develop an average N response equation
that uses average yield goals and average N coefficients (lb N/bu grain). For example,
in western Minnesota, the N recommendation model for corn is:
NREC = 31.2 lb N>bu * YG4 - STN - NPC
where, NREC = N recommendation (lb N/a)
YG = crop yield goal (bu/a)
STN = preplant soil NO3 - content (0–2 ft depth) (lb N/a)
NPC = previous crop N credits (lb N/a)
In most situations, the N rate needed for optimum yield varies greatly between years
(Fig. 9-68). In this example, optimum N rate varied between 121 and 230 lb N/a
(Table 9-15). The N coefficient (lb N/bu) also varied between 0.7 and 1.3 lb N/bu.
If the average optimum N rate (165 lb N/a) were recommended, then the correct
N rate would have been applied in 2 of 6 years (2001 and 2003), excess N applied in
2 years (2000 and 2002), and insufficient N applied in 2 years (1999 and 2004). Since
there is a greater economic loss to underfertilizing than overfertilizing (Chapter 11),
N recommendations are increased above averages supported by N response studies
(Fig. 9-68). For example, if the N coefficient were increased to 1.2 lb N/bu, then the
N recommendation would be 208 lb N/a 1173 bu>a * 1.2 lb N>bu2, resulting in
excess N applied in 4 of 6 years. In addition, N use efficiency (NUE; % N applied that
is recovered in the grain) averaged 60% (Table 9-15). Using 208 lb N/a, the NUE
decreases to 48%, which increases fertilizer N left in the soil after harvest and potential
for N leaching below the root zone.

250 250
2004 2004
1999 2002
GRAIN YIELD (bua)

GRAIN YIELD (bua)

200 200
2003
2002 2001
2000 2000
150 2003 150
2001
100 100

50 50
Optimum N Rate Corn-Corn Optimum N Rate Soybean-Corn
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
N RATE (lba) N RATE (lba)

Figure 9-68
Variation in corn grain yield response to N following corn (left) and soybean (right) (1999–2004). Optimum
N rate represents maximum net return to N at 0.10 price ratio (i.e. $0.44/ lb N: $4.40/bu).
(Adapted from Sawyer et al., 2006, PM 2015, Iowa State Univ.)
362 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-15
A NNUAL V ARIABILITY IN C ONTINUOUS C ORN Y IELD R ESPONSE TO N1

Optimum Optimum N
Year Yield No N Yield rate N Coefficient2 NUE3
_______ bu/a _______ lb/a lb N/bu %
1999 75 212 200 0.94 64
2000 75 156 143 0.92 56
2001 42 121 162 1.34 45
2002 75 170 125 0.74 74
2003 65 147 164 1.12 49
2004 84 230 198 0.86 69

Average 69 173 165 0.99 60

1Datafrom Fig. 9-68; Sawyer et al., 2006.
2Optimum N rate / optimum yield.
3NUE S % fertilizer N recovered in grain at optimum N rate
S [(fertilized yield * 1.5 %N - unfertilized yield * 1.2 %N) / optimum N rate] * 100
S yield in lb>a = bu>a * 56 lb>bu
1.2 and 1.5% grain N assumed for unfertilized and fertilized grain, respectively.

This example illustrates the difficulty in accurately estimating optimum N rates

for a given year. While year-to-year variation in growing season environment greatly
contributes to the error in predicting N rates, these conditions also greatly influence
soil mineralizable N. Therefore, using technologies that enable in-season N rate ad-
justments (see Tissue Tests for In-Season N Adjustments and In-season Soil Sampling)
to improve the accuracy of estimated N requirements can significantly decrease the
amount of excess N applied, which will increase NUE and profitability, while reduc-
ing potential N loss to the environment. (Fig. 9-69).

NREC Based on “Delta” Yield

To address the difficulty in estimating N rate based on average yield goal and the
large variation in N response between years (Fig. 9-68), a delta yield approach has
been developed. Delta yield is the difference between unfertilized yield and yield at
optimum N rate. The unfertilized yield provides a biological estimate of soil N sup-
ply. For example, there is a poor correlation between optimum yield and N rate, due
to yearly variation in N response; however, optimum N rate is highly correlated to
delta yield or optimum yield–unfertilized yield (Fig. 9-70). Determining delta yield
for a field requires an unfertilized strip and the producer would measure yield in the
fertilized and unfertilized area over several years. With the commonly available yield
monitors, delta yield can be easily determined using strip test procedures (Fig. 9-30).
Clearly the delta yield method of determining N recommendations is an improve-
ment over using average yield goals.

Immobile Nutrient Recommendations With immobile nutrients, crop yield potential is

limited by the quantity of nutrient available at the soil-root interface (Fig. 2-20). Gener-
ally, solution concentrations of immobile nutrients are low, and replenishment occurs
through exchange, mineralization, and mineral solubility reactions (Fig 2-2). If nutri-
ent uptake demand exceeds the soils capacity to replenish solution nutrients, then plant
growth and yield will be limited. Immobile nutrient recommendations are based on suffi-
ciency levels determined through soil testing (Fig. 9-33). Soil tests for immobile nutrients
provide an index of nutrient availability that is generally independent of environment.
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 363

140 24
Corn Yield Return 22
130 20
18
120 16

ADDED RETURN ($a)

GRAIN YIELD (bua) 14
110 12
10
100 8
6
90 4
2
80 0
–2
70 –4
–6
60 –8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
120 2,880
Excess N Fertilizer
100 1967–1990 2,400
AVERAGE (lbs Nayr)

TOTAL (lbs Na)

80 1,920

60 1,440

40 960

20 480

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
N RATE (lbsa)

Figure 9-69
Effect of N rate on corn yield, economic return, and amounts of excess
N applied. (Vanotti and Bundy, 1994,J. Prod. Agric. 7:243.)

200 200
N RATE FOR 95% YIELD (Iba)

N RATE FOR 95% YIELD (Iba)

180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 y = 0.51x + 42 40 y = 0.3.82x + 0.0197x2
20 r2 = 0.06 20 r2 = 0.96
0 0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
95% OF MAXIMUM YIELD (bua) DELTA YIELD (bua)

Figure 9-70
Relationship between optimum corn yield and N rate needed for optimum yield (left) and delta yield
and optimum N rate (right) (Kachanoski et al., Better Crops 80 (1):20–23).

Some immobile nutrient recommendation models account for yield potential

similar to N recommendations (Table 9-16). Incorporation of yield potential into P
or K recommendations is based on replacement of nutrients removed as a function of
yield level. For instance, 70 bu/a wheat production would deplete soil test P if no P
were applied or P were applied for 40 bu/a yield potential. Alternatively, P rates ap-
plied for 70 bu/a production are inappropriate for 40 bu/a yields. Significant soil test
P buildup would occur with overfertilization.
364 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

TABLE 9-16
N, P, AND K R ECOMMENDATIONS B ASED ON C ORN Y IELD P OTENTIAL

Yield Potential (bu/a)

100 140 180
N Rate (lb/a)
110 160 220
Bray-1 P (ppm) P2O5 Rate (lb/a)1
5 85 100 115
10 60 75 90
15–30 35 50 65
35 20 25 35
45 0 0 0
NH4OAc@K 1ppm2 K2O Rate (lb/a)2
50 195 210 220
75 145 160 170
100 95 110 120
125–155 45 60 70
165 25 30 35
175 0 0 0
1Values represent P soil test maintenance recommendations, where P rate will increase or decrease if
buildup or drawdown of soil test P is advised, respectively.
2Values represent K rates for a CEC = 20 meq>100 g, where K rate increases with increasing CEC or

decreases with decreasing CEC.

Source: Vitosh et al., 2002, Coop. Ext. Service Bulletin E–2567, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH.

With any immobile nutrient management program, soil must be sampled peri-
odically to determine whether the soil test level is decreasing or increasing (Fig. 5-33).
These data show that soil test P declined with …50 lbs P2O5 >a. In contrast, P soil test
was maintained at or slightly above the initial level with annual applications of 100
lbs P2O5 >a. Soil test P level increased with 150 lbs P2O5 >a applied initially and every
3 years, and then subsequently declined with crop removal.
Basic Cation Saturation Ratio (BCSR)
The basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR) approach in soil testing for immobile nutri-
ent recommendations assumes that maximum yields can only be achieved by main-
taining an ideal cation saturation percentage or ratio of Ca + 2, Mg + 2, and K + on
the CEC. Using “ideal” exchangeable cation levels of 65% Ca, 10% Mg, 5% K, and
20% H, the “ideal” ratios suggested are:
Ca:Mg 6.5:1
Ca:K 13:1
Mg:K 2:1
K:Ca+Mg 1:15
In some regions “ideal %” is expanded to optimum saturation ranges of 65–85% for
Ca, 6–12% for Mg, and 2–5% for K.
The BCSR maintenance approach differs from the sufficiency approach (Fig 9-33)
by an emphasis on fertilizing the soil rather than fertilizing the crop. Using BCSR, nutrient
rates are based on maintaining specific cation ratios on the CEC. Once ideal levels are
attained, nutrient rates equal to crop nutrient removal are applied to maintain ideal cat-
ion ratios. Using the sufficiency level approach, nutrient rates are based on maintaining
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 365

plant nutrient levels in soil that provide optimum nutrient availability to plants. Below a
defined soil test sufficiency or CL, crops will respond to the applied nutrient; plants will
not respond if soil test levels are above the CL.
Most field crop studies show that BCSR approach has little impact on crop
response, and suffers from the disadvantage in that if the cation ratio is optimum, a
nutrient deficiency may still exist. For example, if two soils have an optimum Ca:Mg
ratio of 6.5:1, one soil could have 65% Ca and 10% Mg, while the other soil has
13% Ca and 2% K and exhibit Ca deficiency. Therefore, sufficient supply of avail-
able cations in the root zone is more important than the cation ratio in determining
optimum nutrient recommendations. Most soil testing laboratories use the sufficiency
level approach to establish nutrient recommendations.
Soil Test Maintenance—Buildup
Decisions to maintain, draw down, or build up a soil test level are based on under-
standing the CL for the specific nutrient and crop (Fig. 9-71). When the soil test is
6CL, buildup or sufficiency programs are recommended, depending on factors such
as land ownership, fertilizer costs, and other economic considerations. For example,
P or K rates based on sufficiency levels (very low, low, medium) are recommended
with short-term ( 62–3 years) land rental. If fertilizer costs are high, sufficiency rates
might be advisable until costs decrease.
Generally, annual applications of 10–30 lbs P2O5 >a are required to increase soil
test P 1 ppm, depending on soil properties influencing P fixation capacity (Chapter 5).
Similarly, 5–30 lbs K 2O>a are needed to increase soil test K level 1 ppm, depending
on CEC.
When soil test is 7CL, continued applications to further increase soil test are
not needed and continued crop removal will draw down the soil test level. Although
this can be a viable option, soil test levels can decline rapidly; thus, annual soil testing
is recommended (Fig. 9-72). These data illustrate both drawdown and buildup of soil
test P relative to the CL. When soil test is at or slightly above the CL, soil test level
can be maintained by P or K rates that replace P or K crop removal. In some 2-year
and double crop (2 crops/year) rotations, the first crop can be fertilized at sufficient
rates for both crops.
In cropping systems utilizing annual manure applications, fertilizer nutrients
are likely not needed, unless soil, crop, and environmental conditions suggest that
a response to starter nutrients is warranted (Chapter 10). When soil tests indicate
very high sufficiency levels of P or K, no further additions of these nutrients should
be made because of increased risk to water quality (Fig. 9-73). Regardless of the

Figure 9-71
Diagram of buildup/mainte-
Critical Maintenance nance approach to P and K
Soil Test Break Point recommendations.
FERTILIZER RATE

Soil Test
Ceiling

Buildup Maintenance Drawdown

SOIL TEST LEVEL

366 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

Figure 9-72 120

Influence of P rate and crop-
ping on soil test P over time. 100 90 lbs P2O5a

SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Approximately 25 lb P2O5 >a
80
is needed to maintain initial
soil test P level. 60
(Dodd and Mallinaro, 2005,
45 lbs P2O5a
SSSAJ/69:1118). 40

20 Critical Level
0 lbs P2O5a
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
YEARS OF CROPPINGANNUAL P APPLICATION

Figure 9-73 Fertilizer & Manure Manure No Nutrient

Example of buildup and Applications Applications Applications
maintenance rates of P 100
based on soil test level.
(Leikam et al., 2003, Better Crops,
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

87:6–10).
80

Environmental
Risk Potential
Maintenance or Starter
Recommendation
60

Sufficiency Starter Only

40 or Build
Recommendation
Recommendation

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Excessive

20
0 10 20 30 40 50
BRAY-1 P (ppm)

management program selected for immobile nutrients, decisions must be based on

the information provided from periodic or annual soil testing that accurately moni-
tors change in soil test level with time as nutrients are added and removed. Soil
test history will guide adjustments in rates depending on whether soil test levels
are increasing or decreasing. Soil test P or K buildup substantially above the CL is
unnecessary, and with P, poses a potential risk to water quality (Chapter 12). Alter-
natively, decreasing soil test levels below the CL that reduces yield is economically
unsustainable and should be avoided.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What factors must be taken into consideration in 5. How can plant analysis be useful in soil fertility
interpreting tissue tests? management? Provide several examples.
2. Describe the difference between critical nutrient 6. Describe the use of in-season tissue analysis to
concentration (CNC) and critical nutrient range improve N management.
(CNR). 7. Would you apply a given nutrient if there were
3. Identify the potential problems in interpret- only 50% chance of obtaining a response? A 25%
ing plant nutrient ratios in diagnosing nutrition chance? Why or why not?
problems. 8. Describe the important information that can be
4. Can any part or growth stage of crops be used in used to develop a sampling plan. How frequently
plant analysis? Why or why not? should it be resampled?
 soil fertility evaluation chapter nine 367

9. What is the primary advantage of point sampling many lb N/a–4 ft are present in the profile? If the
over cell sampling? sample were combined into one 4 ft sample, calcu-
10. Explain how selected spatial data can be used to late the ppm N.
develop a soil sampling plan.
11. When is deep soil sampling appropriate? Soil Depth ppm NO3@N
12. How does band application of immobile nutrients 0–6 inches 3.5
complicate soil-sampling procedures? 6–12 inches 4.0
13. Why are N soil tests less reliable in high rainfall 1–2 feet 3.0
areas? 2–3 feet 1.5
14. Describe the theoretical basis for the following soil 3–4 feet 1.0
tests.
a. NH4OAc@K 23. 200 lb N/a was applied by a farmer. Calculate
b. NaHCO3@P a. lb NH3/a
c. Bray-1P b. lb UAN/a
d. Ca1H2PO422@S c. lb urea/a
e. DTPA 24. A farmer applies 20 25–lb bags of fertilizer
f. PSNT (15% N content) to 2500 ft2 lawn. Calculate the
15. What are the essential components of an N- lb N/a applied.
recommendation model? Which factors are 25. Why is it important to evaluate soil fertility?
measured and which are estimated? 26. Highlight on the plant nutrient – deficiency symp-
16. List five factors that affect the recommended nu- toms with reference to N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Cu,
trient rate and describe how each factor affects the Mn and Zn.
recommendation. 27. What is the effect of nutrient deficiency on the
17. Using diagrams/figures, show how you can estab- leaf and root growth with respect to
lish the “critical level” of a nutrient in the soil and a. Chlorosis
in a plant or plant part. b. Necrosis
18. Describe the main steps in the soil testing/fertilizer 28. Give a generalized overview of the nutrient defi-
recommendation process. What are the relative er- ciency symptoms in plants with a flow chart.
rors involved in each step? What can be done to 29. What are the reasons for reduced nutrient uptake?
reduce these errors? 30. What are the advantages of plant analysis?
19. Briefly outline how soil tests are developed and 31. Write a note on tissue tests. What are its benefits?
how fertilizer recommendations are established. 32. What are the similarities and differences of cell sap
20. 20 grams of NH 4 NO 3 (34% N) is added to and total analyses?
400 grams of soil. Calculate 33. Plot the relationship between plant nutrient con-
a. % N in soil centration and plant growth and explain the curve
b. lb N/afs to indicate the various stages of the deficiency, lux-
c. ppm NO3 added ury and toxicity.
d. ppm NH4 added 34. What is a chlorophyll meter? What is the principle
e. ppm N added behind its working?
21. A grower sampled his okra leaves 8 weeks after 35. What is N sufficiency index? How is it calculated?
emergence and sent them into a lab for analysis. 36. What is a colour chat? What is its use?
The results showed 0.25% P. The critical level for 37. Express NDVI. How is the index calculated?
P in okra is 0.32% (sampled at 4 weeks after emer- 38. How is a postmortem tissue test performed?
gence). Give two reasons why the grower should 39. Explain the various models used in fitting
not apply P to this crop. nutrient-response data.
22. Profile NO3@N is determined prior to planting. 40. What is the difference between point sampling
The laboratory reported the following data. How and cell sampling?
368 chapter nine soil fertility evaluation

SELECTED REFERENCES
Brown, J. R. (Ed.) 1987. Soil testing: Sampling, Westermann, R. L. (Ed.), 1990. Soil testing and plant
correlation, calibration, and interpretation. Special analysis. No. 3. Madison, WI.: Soil Science Soci-
Publication No. 21. Madison, WI.: Soil Science ety of America.
Society of America. Whitney, D. A.., J. T. Cope, and L. F. Welch. 1985.
Havlin, J. L., and J. S. Jacobson (Eds.). 1994. New Prescribing soil and crop nutrient needs. In
directions in soil testing and nutrient recommendations. O. P. Engelstad (Ed.), Fertilizer technology and use.
No. 40. Madison, WI.: Soil Science Society of Madison, WI.: Soil Science Society of America.
America.
 10
Nutrient Management
Efficient nutrient management programs supply plant nutrients in ade-
quate quantities to sustain maximum plant growth and yield while mini-
mizing environmental impacts of nutrient use. Substantial economic
and environmental consequences occur when nutrients limit plant
productivity. Ensuring optimum nutrient availability through effective
nutrient management practices requires knowledge of the interactions
between the soil, plant, and environment.

PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Nutrient Utilization
The quantity of nutrients required by plants (Table 9-1) varies depending
on plant characteristics (crop, yield level, variety or hybrid, planting rate),
environmental conditions (moisture and temperature), soil characteristics
(soil properties, soil fertility, and landscape position), and soil and crop
management. Although these interacting factors affect plant nutrient up-
take and recovery of applied nutrients, nutrient accumulation during the
growing season generally follows plant growth (Fig. 10-1). The shape of
the curve varies among plants, but nearly all plants exhibit a rapid or
exponential increase in growth and nutrient accumulation rate up to a
maximum, followed by a period of decline. Some plants exhibit rapid nu-
trient uptake and growth early in the growing season, while other plants
exhibit maximum growth rate much later (Fig. 4-14).
Regardless of the shape of the growth curve, nutri-
ents are needed in the greatest quantities during periods
of maximum growth rate. Thus, nutrient management
plans are designed to ensure adequate nutrient supply
before the exponential growth period (Fig. 10-2). In this
case, N should be applied preplant or split applied before
the stem extension phase. All the immobile nutrients,
including P and K, should be applied before planting.
Knowledge of crop-uptake patterns facilitates improved
management for maximum productivity and recovery of
applied nutrients.

Roots
Since nutrients are absorbed by roots, understanding
root characteristics is important in nutrient manage-
ment. Root systems are usually either fibrous or tap, and
both occur with annuals, biennials, or perennials. The
roots’ ability to exploit soil for nutrients and water de-
pends on their morphological and physiological char-
acteristics. Root radius, root length, root surface/shoot
370 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-1
Graphical representation

NUTRIENT UPTAKE
of cumulative plant growth (a)

TOTAL GROWTH
and plant growth rate (b) of a (a)
typical annual plant.

OR
Maximum Growth Rate

GROWTH OR NUTRIENT
UPTAKE RATE (dYydX) (b)

TIME

Heading Ripening

Head
Stem Extension visible Flowering

Last Ligule of
First node Second leaf last leaf
of stem node just just
visible visible visible visible In boot

Tillering

Leaf
Leaf sheaths
Tillering Tillers sheaths strongly
One shoot begins formed lengthen erected

Winter
Wheat
Growth
Stage
Scales:

Zadoks' 10 20–26 30 31 32 37 39 45 50 58 75–100

Feekes' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10.1 10.5 11

Figure 10-2
N-uptake pattern (solid line) of winter wheat throughout the growing season.
(Alley et al., 1996, Virginia Coop. Ext., Publ. No. 424–026.)

weight ratio, and root hair density are the main morphological features (Table 10-1).
The presence of mycorrhizae is also important.
Plant Species Knowledge of rooting characteristics is important to understanding
water and nutrient extraction by plants from soil. The primary plant root systems
include fibrous roots characterized by a dense mass of similarly sized roots (mostly
 nutrient management chapter ten 371

TABLE 10-1
T YPICAL R OOTING D EPTHS OF S ELECTED C ROPS

* 1.5 ft 1.6–3.0 ft 3.1–6.0 ft + 6.0 ft

Vegetables Small grains Corn Alfalfa, clovers
Berry crops Soybean Sorghum Sunflower
Lawn grasses Annual legumes Biennial clover Cotton
Potato Perennial grasses Sugar beet
Safflower
Tree fruits

monocots), or taproots (mostly dicots) characterized by one main root from which
smaller branch roots emerge (Fig. 10-3). Fibrous-rooted plants generally exhibit
extensive root systems, exploring greater soil volume for H2O and nutrients. Many
taprooted crops have smaller root systems that reduce the accessible quantity of
H2O and nutrients. For example, fibrous root length density 1cm root>cm3 soil2
can be 5–10 times larger than with taproots. With either root system, early root
growth occurs mainly in the topsoil, increasing with plant age in the subsoil. Some
taprooted crops (i.e., alfalfa, clovers) may penetrate 710 ft if soil conditions are
favorable (Fig. 10-4). One advantage deep-rooted crops have is they loosen com-
pact subsoil by root penetration and subsequent decomposition. Also, deep-rooted
legume species in pastures provide more animal feed during drought periods than
do shallow-rooted grasses.
With either taprooted or fibrous-rooted plants, most of the total root mass is
in the surface soil (Fig. 10-4). However during dry periods, surface root growth can
decrease in favor of deeper growth (Fig. 10-5). Root growth can also be limited by
soil compaction (Fig. 10-6).
Root systems of the same species tend not to interpenetrate, which suggests an
antagonistic effect (Fig. 10-7). Thus, with narrow row spacing and high populations,
the characteristic root pattern is altered and there may be deeper rooting if soil condi-
tions permit.

Wheat Alfalfa
Corn Clover
Sorghum Soybean Radish
Oat Pepper Sugar Beet
Barley Parsnip Carrot
Turfgrass Cucumber Turnip
Onion Sunflower Beet

Taproots
(storage)

Fibrous
Taproots
Roots
(primary)

Figure 10-3
Selected examples of plants with fibrous and taproot systems.
372 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-4
Alfalfa (a), dryland wheat (b),
irrigated wheat (c), potato (d),
and lettuce (e) root distribu-
tion. Grid lines are 1 ft apart.

(b) (d)

(c)

(e)

(a)

Figure 10-5
Root development in
soybean, where subsoil
root growth expands later
in the season due to more
favorable soil moisture.
(Taylor, 1980, Agron. J. 72:543.)

0.6

0.4
0
 nutrient management chapter ten 373

Increasing Compaction

1.3 gycm3 1.5 gycm3 1.6 gycm3

1.84 m root 0.60 m root 0.46 m root

Decreasing Root Growth

Figure 10-6
Soil compaction increases bulk density 1g>cm32, which decreases root growth (m). Photo of tillage-related soil compaction effect
on corn root growth. (Courtesy USDA, Nat. Soil Dynamics Lab.)

DISTANCE FROM CENTER (cm) Figure 10-7

60 45 30 15 0 15 30 45 Influence of neighbor-
0 ing soybean roots on root
growth. Single-plant plot
represents root distribution
15
with only one soybean plant
DEPTH (cm)

in the plot area, and row

30 plot represents typical row-
planted soybean illustrating
45 the influence of neighboring
roots on root growth.
(Raper and Barber, 1970, Agron. J.,
60 SINGLE-PLANT PLOT ROW PLOT 62:581.)

Nutrient Extraction Since roots occupy about 2% of the soil-root volume, interac-
tions between roots and soil greatly influence nutrient uptake. Since most of the root
mass is in the surface soil, nutrients placed near actively growing roots will be readily
taken up. With fibrous root crops (i.e., small grains), nutrients placed on the surface
or with or to the side of the seed optimize growth due to secondary root growth
above the seed. With taprooted plants (i.e., peas, lentils, beans), few roots grow above
the seed, thus subsurface band application of nutrients below the seed often improves
growth compared to surface-applied nutrients. High nutrient rates placed with the
seed are not recommended due to potential salt damage (see “Salt Index”). Storage
taproot crops (Fig. 10-3), with generally smaller root volume, access less soil volume
for nutrients and require additional nutrient application. Likewise, many of these
crops also require supplemental irrigation, depending on annual rainfall.
Generally, divalent cation requirement is higher in dicots than in monocots
compared to monovalent cations. The relative absorption of cations and anions in-
fluences release of H+ or HCO3- by the root. Acidity develops from H+ released in
response to absorption of NH4+ or other cations, while pH increases with release of
HCO3- and/or OH- following NO3- uptake. Changes in rhizosphere pH affect the
solubility and availability of many plant nutrients.
374 chapter ten nutrient management

Mycorrhizal fungi colonize roots of most plants and function primarily by en-
hancing nutrient and H2O uptake. Ectomycorrhiza predominately infect tree species,
while vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM) colonize most other plants, although
plants vary in the degree of fungal colonization. As new roots develop, mycorrhizal
fungi colonize or enter the root and develop extensive structures extending into and
beyond the rhizosphere influenced by root hairs (Fig. 5-6). Plants with a high depen-
dency on VAM generally exhibit (1) low root surface area due to low root branching,
(2) few or short root hairs, (3) slow root growth rate, and (4) reduced root exuda-
tion. Under low soil nutrient availability, VAM-infected roots explore a substantially
larger soil volume from which to absorb nutrients and H2O (Figs 5-7 and Fig. 10-8).
In many cases, excessive P fertilization can reduce mycorrhizal influence on plant
growth (Fig. 10-9).

Figure 10-8
Example of mycorrhizal
colonized root.
Root
(USDA)

Mycorrhizae

Figure 10-9 2
Example of increased P Mychorrhizal
uptake by Cassia pruinosa
SHOOT DRY WEIGHT (g)

1.6
colonized with VAM. At
higher P availability, P
uptake is similar between 1.2
VAM-infected and unin-
fected plants. Non-mycorrhizal
0.8
(Jasper et al., 1994, in C. E. Pankhurst
[ed.], Soil biota in sustainable farming
systems [pp. 9–11], CSIRO Publ., East 0.4
Melbourne.)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
P RATE (mgykg)
 nutrient management chapter ten 375

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Roots must fully exploit soil to obtain nutrients and H2O for optimum produc-
tivity. Since crop yield is directly related to the availability of stored soil water
and nutrients, soil physical conditions that restrict root growth will reduce yield
potential (Fig. 10-6).
Soil tillage can improve seed placement into moist soil, seed germination, and
seedling growth; however, tillage can also influence root growth and distribution
(Fig. 10-10). With reduced tillage, root growth can be enhanced by more favorable
soil H2O availability due to greater surface residue cover compared to full tillage.
Increased tillage also increases compaction. In some soils, no-tillage can restrict root
growth because of increased bulk density compared to reduced tillage.
Attempts to loosen plowpans or heavy subsoils are not always successful. Sub-
soiling is most effective when the subsoil is dry so that shattering of the soil occurs;
however, in most cases, there is a rapid resealing of the subsoil (Fig. 10-11). One
cultivation with a disk or similar implement may eliminate any effect of subsoiling.

Figure 10-10
ROOT LENGTH DENSITY (kmym3)
Tillage effects on corn root
0 4 8 12 16
0 distribution. Discing left less
residue on soil surface,
0.2
reducing plant available H2O
SOIL DEPTH (m)

0.4 and increased compaction.

Root growth is reduced in
0.6 No-till due to increased soil
0.8 bulk density.
(Newell and Wilhelm, 1987, Agron. J.,
1 Chisel 79:160–165.)

1.2 Disc
No-till
1.4

Shank

Straight tip

Shank
Root growth can
not penetrate
compacted soil

Compacted Soil

Subsoil fractured to
encourage root growth Winged tip

Figure 10-11
Subsoiling can improve root growth below compacted soil layer. Photos illustrate subsoiler shanks. (Courtesy U.S. Forest Service.)
376 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-12 4
Effect of soybean root
length on grain yield.

GRAIN YIELD (tyha)

(Barber and Silberbush, 1984: Spec. 3.5
Publ. No. 49, p. 86, Madison, Wis:
ASA.)
3

2.5 y = 0.181x + 2.24

r = 0.58

2
2 4 6 8
ROOT LENGTH (kmym2)

Figure 10-13
Influence of lime (L), N, P,
and K on root growth and
tillering in wheat grown on
a low pH and N-, P-, and
K-deficient soil.
(International Plant Nutrition
Institute (IPNI))

In drought-prone areas with root-restrictive soil layers, subsoiling can increase

rooting depth and plant available H2O, especially in crops such as soybean, cotton,
and many vegetable crops that have limited ability to penetrate even moderately
compacted soil layers.

Plant Nutrient Effects

Numerous soil physical and chemical factors influence root growth and absorp-
tion of H2O and nutrients in quantities sufficient for optimum productivity. Any
management factor that improves the soil environment for healthy root growth will
enhance plant growth and yield (Fig. 10-12). Adequate nutrient supply in the topsoil
encourages a vigorous and extensive root system (Fig. 10-13). Stimulation of root
development is related to N and P buildup in the cells, which hastens cell division
and elongation.
Plants cannot absorb nutrients from dry soil; thus, shallow applications of
nutrients may be less effective under drought. Generally, nutrients should be placed
where stimulation of root growth is wanted; therefore, deep placement may be neces-
sary in frequently droughty soils (Fig. 5-4). While it is not necessary to fertilize the
entire soil volume occupied by roots, fertilized soils exert a strong influence on root
growth (Fig. 10-14).
 nutrient management chapter ten 377

Figure 10-14

FRACTION OF ROOTS IN FERTILIZED

Y = X0.73
Relationship between
1 R2 = 0.96
fraction of the soil volume
fertilized with P and fraction
of total roots in fertilized

SOIL VOLUME
0.8
soil volume.
0.6 (Adapted from Mullins, 1993,
Fertilizer Res., 34:23–26.)

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FRACTION OF SOIL VOLUME FERTILIZED WITH P

NUTRIENT PLACEMENT
Determining proper placement of applied nutrients is as important as identifying
the correct rate (Chapter 9). Placement decisions involve knowledge of crop and soil
characteristics, whose interactions determine nutrient availability. Numerous place-
ment methods have been developed, and the following factors should be considered
with nutrient placement decisions:
1. Optimum nutrient availability from plant emergence to maturity. Vigorous
seedling growth (i.e., no early growth stress) is essential for obtaining the
desired plant growth and yield potential. Merely applying nutrients does not
ensure that they will be absorbed by the plant.
2. Prevent salt injury to the seedling. N, K, or other soluble salts close to the seed
may be harmful, although salt injury potential depends on nutrient source, rate,
and crop sensitivity to salts.
3. Convenience to the grower. Timeliness of all crop management factors is es-
sential for realizing yield potential and maximum profit. In many areas,
delay in planting after the optimum date reduces yield potential. Conse-
quently, growers often reject nutrient placement options to avoid delays in
planting, even when they may increase yield. Placement decisions influence
yield potential; thus, planting date and nutrient placement effects on yield
must be carefully evaluated.

Nutrient Placement in Soil

Fertilizer placement options generally involve surface or subsurface applications
before, at, or after planting (Fig. 10-15). Placement practices depend on the crop
and crop rotation, degree of deficiency or soil test level, nutrient mobility in the
soil, degree of acceptable soil disturbance, and equipment availability.
Preplant
Broadcast
Nutrients are applied uniformly on the soil surface over the entire target area
before planting, and can be incorporated by tilling or cultivating (Fig. 10-16). In
no-till cropping systems, there is no opportunity for incorporation; thus, broadcast
N applications will reduce N recovery by the crop due to potential immobilization,
denitrification, and volatilization losses (Table 4-21).
Broadcast application errors commonly occur with spinner spreader applicators
if proper overlap distance is not followed (Fig. 10-17). Overlap distance can be about
378 chapter ten nutrient management

Broadcast Subsurface Surface Broadcast Subsurface band

(incorporated) band band (topdress) (sidedress or
(knife, spoke) (dribble) knife, spoke)

Broadcast Surface band With Subsurface band Surface

(unincorporated) (dribble) seed (below and/or to band
the side) (dribble)

BEFORE PLANTING AT PLANTING AFTER PLANTING

Figure 10-15
Illustration of various nutrient placement options in soil.

Figure 10-16
Broadcast application of solid fertilizers before planting with a spinner spreader (left) and air boom spreader (right).

Figure 10-17
Uneven N fertilizer applica-
tion with a spinner spreader
is probably the cause of the
streaks in this photo. Dry N
fertilizer with broken gran-
ules is difficult to spread
evenly with this type of
spreader, and is becoming
increasingly common as dry
N fertilizer use increases.
(Courtesy Peter Scharf/University
of Missouri, photo by Henrietta
Christensen.)
 nutrient management chapter ten 379

30% of application width depending on particle size distribution and other material
characteristics; however, with pneumatic or air applicators, little overlap is needed
(Fig. 10-18).

Figure 10-18
Relative application overlap
width needed for uniform
nutrient application with
spinner spreader applica-
tors (top photo/diagram).
Little overlap is needed
with pneumatic applications
(bottom photo/diagram).
(Adams Fertilizer Equipment
Manufacturer)

Distance Between Lanes

Applied Amount

Working Width
Throwing Width
Overlap Overlap

Distance Between Lanes

Applied Amount

Working Width
380 chapter ten nutrient management

(a) (b)

Figure 10-19
(c) (d)
Examples of injection knives for subsurface band application of nutrients in conventional and reduced
tillage cropping systems. Knife (a) is designed to place anhydrous NH3 (front tube) and liquid P or 10-34-0
(rear tube) simultaneously. As the NH3 is converted from a liquid under pressure to a gas, the NH3 tube
freezes. The ~1 cm separation between tubes behind the knife prevents liquid P tube from freezing
during application. Knife (b) is similar to (a) except that the backswept design reduces topsoil disturbance
during application. Knife (c) is also similar to (a) except that dry P sources (i.e., TSP, MAP, DAP) are
delivered through the large hose by forced air. Knife (d) represents a typical application knife mounted
on a chisel plow shank. (Photos (a) and (b) courtesy of L. S. Murphy.)

Subsurface Band
Crop recovery of nutrients can be increased by placing below the soil surface where
soil moisture might be more favorable for nutrient uptake. Subsurface placement
depth varies between 2 and 8 in., depending on the crop, nutrient source, and appli-
cation equipment. In full and reduced tillage systems, a knife applicator is commonly
used to apply nutrients below the soil surface (Fig. 10-19). A cutting coulter in front
of the liquid injection knife is important in heavy surface crop residue (Fig. 10-20).
When injecting nutrients, a disk implement will disturb less residue than a knife
implement. In semi-arid regions, the commonly used sweep plow tillage implement
can also be equipped to apply nutrients (Fig. 10-21).
Subsurface point or spoke injection of fluid fertilizers can be effective in high
surface residue cropping systems, especially with application of immobile nutrients
(Fig. 10-22). Point injection of N in no-till systems is also more efficient than broad-
cast N. Point injection can be used in turf systems to simultaneously fertilize and
aerate.
Surface Band
Surface band–applied fertilizers can be effective before planting (Fig. 10-23). How-
ever, if not incorporated, dry surface soil conditions can reduce nutrient uptake,
especially with immobile nutrients. Surface band N applications can improve
N availability compared with broadcast application in some soils and cropping
systems.
 nutrient management chapter ten 381

Figure 10-20
Cutting coulter in front of a liquid knife (left) or high pressure liquid injection (right). (Right Photo: Courtesy Yetter Mnfg, Inc.;
Left Photo: Courtesy Wade E. Thomason, Virginia Tech)

(a) (b)
Figure 10-21
The sweep plow is a common tillage implement in semi-arid regions (a) that provide weed control with little residue
incorporation by operation about 3–4 in. below the soil surface. Sweep plows can be equipped to apply anhydrous
NH3 and/or liquid N or P sources through a steel tube placed under the sweep blade (b) with injection orifices
spaced every 12 in.

(a) (b)
Figure 10-22
Point or spoke injector for application for fluid fertilizers in no-tillage systems. Injection depth varies from 2 to 6 in.
depending on surface soil texture and moisture content, with little disturbance of surface residues.
(Courtesy Spike Wheel Systems.)
382 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-23
Surface-band application
of liquid fertilizers before
planting.
(Courtesy L. S. Murphy.)

At Planting
Subsurface Band
Solid and fluid fertilizer placement can occur at numerous locations near the seed
(Fig. 10-24). Commonly called a starter, fertilizer is applied 1–4 in. directly below
and/or to the side of the seed, depending on equipment and crop (Fig. 10-25). Single
pass or direct seeding that includes application of as much fertilizer as is feasible with-
out harming seed reduces operating costs but increases planting time.
Figure 10-24
Options for at-planting band
application of nutrients at or
below the soil surface.

Seed Seed Seed Seed

Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer Fertilizer

Surface Band With Seed Side and Below Seed Below Seed

Subsurface Band

Residue
Dry or Liquid
Coulters
Fertilizer

Seed
Opener 2 3 2" Placement

Figure 10-25
Example of subsurface nutrient placement at planting illustrating 2 * 2 in. placement (see photo inset). Residue coulters are
required for subsurface application in high surface residue systems.
(Courtesy Yetter Mnfg. Inc.)
 nutrient management chapter ten 383

AT PLANTING WITH TIME

New
Soil Level
Crown Fertilizer
Fertilizer Roots Band
Band
Seminal
Roots

Figure 10-26
Surface band or dribble application of fluid fertilizer. In this case fertilizer is applied over the row after the press wheel.
Application beside the row at planting is also possible. With surface-band application of nutrients, soil will slough into the
furrow left by the planter press wheel and bury the fertilizer. (Westfall et al., 1987, J. Fert. Issues, 4:114–121.)

Seed Band
Fertilizer application with the seed (in the seed row), commonly referred to as a
pop-up application, is a subsurface band generally used to enhance early seedling
vigor, especially in cold, wet soils (Fig. 10-24). Usually low nutrient rates are applied
to avoid germination or seedling damage. Fluid or solid sources can be used.
Surface Band
Fertilizers can be surface applied at planting in bands directly over or to the side of
the row (Fig. 10-23; 10-24). Application over the row can be effective for placement
of immobile nutrients with a hoe opener because soil can slough off over time and
bury the fertilizer band. Thus, the surface-applied band becomes a subsurface band
placed slightly above the seed (Fig. 10-26).
After Planting
Topdress
Topdress N applications are common on permanent or close seeded crops (i.e., turf,
small grains, pastures); however, N immobilization in high-surface-residue systems
can reduce recovery of topdress N (Fig. 10-27). Topdressed P and K are not as

Figure 10-27
Topdress application of nutrients to small grain. (CropCare, Paul B Zimmerman Inc.)
384 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-28
Sidedress application of N to corn (left) and subsurface application in grass (right). (Right photo: Dr. Peter Scharf, University of Missouri;
Left photo: Courtesy Yetter Mnfg. Inc.)

effective as preplant applications. Both solid and liquid sources can be used. Top-
dress granular urea in corn and sorghum may damage the crop due to urea granules
deposited in the “whorl.” The dissolving urea places high salt concentration near the
growing point. Topdress fluid fertilizers may also damage the crop if applied above
recommended rates.
Sidedress
Sidedress N application is very common with row crops (i.e., corn, sorghum,
cotton) and is done with a standard knife (Fig. 10-20; 10-28) or point injector
applicator (Figs 10-22). Anhydrous NH3 and fluid N sources are most common.
Fluid sources also can be surface band applied beside the row after planting.
Sidedress applications increase flexibility since applications can be made almost
any time equipment can be operated without damage to the crop. Sidedress
placement is particularly suited for spatially variable N application using remote
sensors mounted on the applicator to guide application rate (see Variable Nutri-
ent Management).
Subsurface sidedress applications with a knife too close to the plant can cause
damage by either root pruning or nutrient toxicity (i.e., anhydrous NH3). Sidedress
application of immobile nutrients (e.g., P and K) is not recommended because most
crops need P and K early in the season.
Anhydrous NH3 converters are often used to reduce the need for deep injection
and pre-application tillage to ensure soil closure behind the injection knife. Convert-
ers serve as depressurization chambers for compressed anhydrous NH3 stored in the
applicator tank. Anhydrous NH3 freezes as it expands in the converters, separating
liquid NH3 from the vapor and greatly reducing pressure. The temperature of liquid
NH3 is about -26°F. Approximately 85% of the anhydrous NH3 turns to liquid;
the remainder stays as vapor. The liquid flows by gravity through regular application
equipment into the soil. Vapor collected at the top of the converter is injected into
the soil in the usual manner.
High NH3, NH4+ , and NO2- concentrations can severely damage germinat-
ing seedlings. Deeper injection offsets the harmful effects of high NH3 rates. Closer
injection spacing would also reduce the injurious effect of high NH3 rates.
 nutrient management chapter ten 385

Figure 10-29
Nutrient application with or near the seed enhances wheat seedling vigor and growth (left—16 lb P2O5 >a) and grain sorghum
maturity (right—12 lb P2O5 >a). Starter P applied as 7-21-7 on a low P soil. (Fluid Fertilizer Foundation)

Specific Placement Considerations

Band Applications
Vigorous seedling growth is essential to maximum crop productivity. Often a small
amount of nutrients with (pop-up) or near (starter) the seed at planting promotes
increased root growth and formation of large, healthy leaves (Figs 10-29 and 5-5).
Starter or pop-up applications include N, but should also include P, K, and S, espe-
cially with soil testing low to medium in P and K, and low OM soils. With cool, wet
spring conditions, reduced nutrient availability can be caused by reduced:
• mineralization of N, P, S, and micronutrients
• mineral dissolution rate
• nutrient diffusion rate
• nutrient absorption by the plant
The advantage of early stimulation depends on the crop, variety, soil test levels, and
seasonal conditions. Some factors to consider are:
• Resistance to pests. A vigorous young plant is more insect and disease resistant.
• Competition with weeds. A vigorous early crop growth advances canopy coverage
of soil surface important for reducing light penetration and soil temperature that
reduces weed germination. Reduced weed pressure improves herbicide effective-
ness and reduces cultivation frequency. Reduced H2O use by weeds and soil H2O
evaporation enhances H2O availability to crops.
• Advanced maturity. Early crop vigor, especially with P, can advance crop maturity that
enables earlier harvest and/or lower grain-moisture content at harvest (Fig. 10-29).
Early maturity can be important in northern climates, where adverse fall weather may
interrupt and delay harvest. With vegetable and fruit crops, a delay of only 3–4 days
may result in a producer missing an early, higher value market.

Salt Index. High concentration of soluble salts in contact with germinating seeds
reduces germination and seedling growth. Plasmolysis occurs when the salt concen-
tration outside root cells exceeds the cellular salt concentration, resulting in H2O dif-
fusing out of the cell. As a result, the cell’s membrane shrinks away from the cell wall,
partially collapsing the cell. H2O transport across cell membranes from high H2O
concentration (inside cell) to lower H2O concentration (outside the cell) causes the
plant to exhibit symptoms similar to drought stress.
386 chapter ten nutrient management

Fertilizers are categorized for their salt injury potential by the salt index, de-
termined by placing the material in soil and measuring the osmotic pressure of the
soil solution. The salt index is the ratio of the increase in osmotic pressure produced
by the fertilizer to that produced by the same weight of NaNO3, based on a relative
value of 100 (Table 10-2).
N and K salts have much higher salt indices and are more detrimental to ger-
mination than P salts when placed close to or in contact with the seed (Fig. 10-30).
High NH4+ concentrations following application of NH4+ sources increases osmotic
pressure of the soil solution, and favors temporary accumulation of NO2-, which is
toxic to plants. Some N sources contribute more to germination and seedling damage
than is explained by osmotic effects. NH3 is toxic and can move freely through the
cell wall, whereas NH4+ cannot. Urea, DAP, 1NH422CO3, and NH4OH will cause
more damage than MAP, 1NH422SO4, and NH4NO3.

TABLE 10-2
S ALT I NDEX FOR C OMMON F ERTILIZER M ATERIALS

Material Analysis1 Salt Index2 Partial Salt Index3

N Sources
NH3 82.2 47.1 0.572
NH4NO3 35.0 104.1 3.059
1NH422SO4 21.2 88.3 3.252
NH4H2PO4@MAP 11.0 2.453
1NH422HPO4@DAP 18.0 1.614
Urea 46.0 74.4 1.618
UAN 28.0 63 2.250
UAN 32.0 71.1 2.221
NaNO3 16.5 100 6.080
KNO3 13.8 5.336

P Sources
Ca1H2PO422@CSP 20.0 7.8 0.390
Ca1H2PO422@TSP 48.0 10.1 0.210
MAP 52.0 26.7 0.405
DAP 46.0 29.2 0.456
APP 34.0 20 0.455
K Sources
KCl 60.0 116.1 1.936
KNO3 50.0 69.5 1.219
K2SO4 54.0 42.6 0.852
Sul-Po-Mag 22.0 43.4 1.971
K2S2O3 25.0 68.0 2.720
KH2PO4 34.6 8.4 0.097
S Sources
1NH422S2O3 26.0 90.4 7.533
1NH422Sx 40.0 59.2 2.960
CaSO4 # 2H2O 17.0 8.2 0.247
MgSO4 # 7H2O 14.0 44.0 2.687
Organic Sources
Manure salts 20.0 112.7 4.636
Manure salts 30.0 91.9 3.067
1%N in N carriers, %P2O5 in P carriers, and %K2O in K carriers.
2Relative to NaNO3.
3Saltindex of a mixed fertilizer is the sum of the partial salt index per unit (20 lb) of nutrient times the units due to
each source in the mixture.
 nutrient management chapter ten 387

15 1 Figure 10-30
3
2 4 1 – KCI Effect of N, P, and K fertiliz-

CONDUCTIVITY (mmhoycm)
2 – NH4NO3
ers on solution conductivity
3 – (NH4)2SO4
4 – K2SO4 in a silt loam soil.
10 5 – TSP (Chapin et al., 1964, SSSAJ/28:90.)
6 – MAP
5

5
6

0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FERTILIZER RATE (gy100 g soil)

Mixed fertilizers also vary widely in salt index depending on sources used. Higher
analysis mixed fertilizers generally have a lower salt index per unit of plant nutrient
than lower analysis fertilizers because they usually comprise higher analysis sources.
For example, to furnish 50 lb N/a, 240 lb of 1NH422SO4 would be required, whereas
with urea, 110 lb would be required. Hence, higher analysis fertilizers are less likely
to produce salt injury than equal amounts of lower analysis fertilizers. In addition,
increasing row width increases quantity of fertilizer applied in a row, assuming that
equal rates are applied. For example, with the same fertilizer rate, fertilizer placed
per unit length of row is double in 30-in. rows than in 15-in. rows (Table 10-3).
In general, total N + K 2O should not exceed about 10 lb/a applied with the seed
(Fig. 10-31); however, this value varies widely with crop and soil conditions. Primary
factors affecting the potential for salt damage include:
1. Soil properties. Soil moisture at seeding and in the first week after seeding can
influence extent of salt damage. Toxic fertilizer effects are diluted with soil H2O
content at or near field capacity. Fine-textured soils not only hold more H2O
than coarse-textured soils, but clay surfaces also adsorb more NH4+ from soil
solution, reducing toxic effects of N sources. Dry, calcareous, eroded hilltops
with low soil OM are especially prone to salt injury from seed row urea fertilizer
placement, partially due to elevated levels of NH3.
2. Crop type. Cereals generally exhibit greater salt tolerance with seed row fertil-
izers than legumes and oilseed crops. Within cereals, salt tolerance with oats 7
barley 7 wheat. With oilseed crops, soil tolerance with flax 7 canola. Most

TABLE 10-3
S UGGESTED M AXIMUM N + K2O R ATES A PPLIED WITH C ORN AND
S MALL G RAIN S EED

N + K2O 1lb , a21

Row Spacing (in.) Medium- to Fine-Textured Soils Sandy or Dry Soils
6–8 30 21
10 24 17
12 20 14
15 16 11
20 12 8
30 8 6
40 6 4
1Reduce rates 30% for grain sorghum; no seed placed N + K O with soybean, sunflower, field bean, sugar
2
beet. No urea or UAN with the seed.
Source: Kansas State Univ. Extension.
388 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-31 100

Average effect of salt
rate applied with the Y = 90–1.7x
seed on corn emergence. 80

EMERGENCE (%)
Emergence decreased
∼1.7%>lb 1N + K2O2>a.
Variation around average 60
response is due to soil Variation Around
moisture conditions (rainfall) Average Response
after planting. Increasing 40
soil moisture reduced the
salt damage and increased
emergence. 20
0 5 10 15 20
(Adapted from Raun et al., 1986, J.
Fert. Issues, 3:18–24.) N + K2O RATE (lbya)

legumes and other broadleaf crops are much more sensitive to elevated salt con-
centration near the seed.
3. Risk factors. The safest rate is probably no fertilizer with the seed. In some con-
ditions, high rates of seed placed fertilizer can cause minimal injury, yet in other
situations, the same rates cause extensive damage. Seed or seedling mortality
may not always lead to lower yield, as thin stands may tiller and produce ad-
dition yield; however, delaying maturity by several days or more can reduce
yield. With reduced plant population because of seed placed fertilizer damage,
increased weed growth can reduce crop yield.
To avoid potential seedling damage, broadcast application or placement to the side
and below the seed is an effective method (Fig. 10-32).
Broadcast Applications
Broadcast applications usually involve large amounts of lime and/or nutrients in
buildup or maintenance programs. The advantages of broadcast nutrients include:
• application of large amounts of fertilizer is accomplished without danger of plant
injury
• if tilled into the soil, distribution of nutrients throughout the tillage layer encour-
ages root exploration of the soil for H2O and nutrients

Figure 10-32
Comparison of fertilizer 5 - 20 - 0
placed with the seed and 5 - 20 - 20
Side
1.5 in. below and to the
85 Placements
side of the seed at planting
on seedling emergence. 5 - 20 - 0
Adding K to the blend 70 Contact
EMERGENCE (%)

substantially reduced with Seed

emergence when banded
with the seed compared to 55
below and beside the seed.
(Lawton et al., 1964, Agron. J.,
52:326.) 40
5 - 20 - 20
Contact
with Seed
25

10

2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DAYS AFTER SEEDING
 nutrient management chapter ten 389

TABLE 10-4
E FFECTS OF U NEVEN B ROADCAST A PPLICATION OF N-P-K F ERTILIZER
ON C ROP Y IELD

Soybeans Corn Barley

Spread Pattern _________________ Yield (kg/ha) _________________

No fertilizer 1,278 2,059 592

Uniform 1,345 8,060 2,809
Nonuniform 1,264 7,271 2,540

• labor is saved during planting, as fertilizer application can be extended through fall,
winter, or early spring periods
• practical means of applying maintenance nutrient rates, especially in forage, turf,
and no-till cropping systems
Uniform and accurate spreading of fertilizer and lime is essential for effective utili-
zation by the crop (Figs 10-17 and 10-18; Table 10-4). Several disadvantages of broadcast
application include:
• in reduced tillage systems, nutrient stratification (Fig. 9-43) can reduce soil test
levels below 4–6 in. depth where broadcast applications would be relatively inef-
fective (depending on nutrient mobility in soil)
• broadcast N in high surface residue systems can reduce plant available N by
increased N immobilization, volatilization, and denitrification (Chapter 4)
• broadcast, incorporated nutrients increase soil erosion potential through loss of
protective surface residue cover (Chapter 12)

Specific Nutrient Considerations

Nitrogen
Total N requirements for most crops are generally not supplied with starter or pop-
up applications due to potential risk to the crop. Many recommendations suggest
…50960 lb N 1or N + K 2O2 in a 2 * 2 in. placement, depending on crop and soil
texture. Lower rates are used for salt-sensitive crops and in coarse-textured soils. For
large N use crops, starter N with the remaining N broadcast or band applied optimizes
plant growth and yield (Fig. 10-33). Thus, most N is applied either before planting or side
dressed after planting or both to increase N efficiency. Prediction of sidedress N rates
can be improved by use of remote sensing or PSNT (Chapter 9). With vegetable and
other small taprooted crops, broadcast N usually provides sufficient N to meet crop
demand, although positive responses to subsurface band–applied N occur, especially
200 Figure 10-33
– Starter Effect of N placement
180 + Starter with and without starter
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

N. Broadcast (BC) N was

applied preplant and at
160 planting 1160 lb N>a2; starter
N rates were 20 lb N>a.
140 (Havlin, unpublished data).

120

100
BC BC @ Subsurface Sidedress
Preplant Planting Band @ @ V6
Planting
390 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-34 2.5 190

Starter response in corn on
soils high in soil test P and K.
185

CORN GRAIN YIELD (buya)

(Adapted from Mallarino, 2003,

EARLY GROWTH (gyplant)

Intergrated Crop Mgmt. Conf. Iowa
State Univ.) 2.0 180

175

1.5 170

165

1.0 160
Check Starter Starter N Check Starter Starter N
NPK NPK

with high surface residues. Split N applications 1preplant + sidedress or topdress2

generally enhance vegetable yield and quality.
Most starter materials contain multiple nutrients, because crop response to
mobile and immobile nutrients can occur in high-testing soils in cool, moist con-
ditions. However, in many high P and K soils, starter response is commonly due
to N, especially if the remaining N is sidedress applied after planting or applied
fall preplant where a portion of the N can be lost by leaching below the seedling
root zone or denitrified (Fig. 10-34). Under conditions conducive to nitrification,
the addition of a nitrification inhibitor can improve the crop response to starter N
(Chapter 4).
Yield increases from band-applied nutrients are generally greater under
no-till systems than under full tillage systems. Conservation tillage maintains
greater surface residue cover, resulting in cooler and wetter conditions at planting,
reducing nutrient availability and plant growth. A large portion of broadcast N in
reduced-tillage systems can be immobilized by surface crop residues (Chapter 4).
Therefore, maximizing crop recovery of fertilizer N requires placement below the
residue (Fig. 10-35). Similarly, low rates of broadcast N are generally ineffective
in permanent grass pastures and native grassland due to considerable N immobi-
lized by high C/N grass residue (Fig. 10-36).

Figure 10-35 140

Influence of N rate and Knife (KN)
placement on no-till grain 120
sorghum yield and appar- Surface band (SB)
YIELD (buya) or ANR (%)

ent N recovery (ANR) in the

grain. Placing N below sur- 100
Broadcast (BC)
face crop residue increased
yield and % recovery of 80
applied N compared with KN KN
broadcast and surface
60
band N.
(Adapted from Lamond et al., 1989, SB ANR
BC
Rep. of Prog., Kansas State Univ.) 40 BC SB

20
0 50 100 150
N RATE (Ibya)
 nutrient management chapter ten 391

Figure 10-36
Effect of broadcast N
Crested Wheatgrass
fertilization on permanent
Wild Ryegrass grassland and native
Native Rangeland rangeland.
(Adapted from Leyshon and Kilcher,
1976, Proc. Soil Fert. Workshop. Publ.
244, Univ. Saskatchewan, Sask.)

Phosphorus
Since P is relatively immobile in soil compared to N and K, placement near roots is
usually advantageous. For example, in establishing forage crops in low P soils, sur-
face or subsurface band–applied P is generally superior to broadcast, although higher
broadcast P rates would likely have improved seedling growth (Fig. 10-37). Sub-
surface band application of P at planting also enhances crop response compared to
broadcast P in shallow-rooted and/or taprooted vegetable crops especially grown in
short seasons, in cooler temperatures, and on low P soils.
Surface applications after the crop is planted will not place P near the root zone
and will be of little value to annual crops in the year of application. In perennial for-
age crops, subsurface band applications are generally not feasible, and surface band
and broadcast applications at higher rates will maintain adequate P availability as
P can be absorbed by plant crowns and very shallow roots. Subsurface P applied with
a spoke wheel applicator is an excellent alternative to surface application in estab-
lished perennial crops (Fig. 10-22).
When properly placed, band-applied P can enhance plant growth and yield po-
tential compared with broadcast P (Table 10-5; Fig. 10-38). In this case, subsurface
band P greatly increased tiller number, which is directly related to number of heads
and final grain yield. Increasing broadcast P to three times band P did not produce
the same growth at late tiller stage. Band P placement increased root growth and

Figure 10-37
Alfalfa response to P and K
placement in the establish-
ment year; P2O5 and K2O
were applied at 80 lb>a by
(a) broadcast, (b) surface
band or dribble, and
(c) subsurface band or knife
applications before plant-
ing. Early alfalfa growth
is enhanced with band-
applied P and K compared
with broadcast.
(Courtesy of D. Sweeney, 1989,
Kansas State University.)

(a)
392 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-37
(Continued )

(b)

(c)

TABLE 10-5
N O -T ILL W INTER W HEAT R ESPONSE TO P R ATE AND P LACEMENT

Dry Matter Grain

P Placement1 P Rate Tillers Full Tiller1 Harvest Heads Grain Yield
lb P2O5 >a #>ft 2
lb>a #>ft 2
bu>a
0 11 280 4,978 43 34
Broadcast 15 14 370 5,906 51 40
45 17 475 8,131 61 53
Subsurface 15 29 1,053 7,754 63 49
band 45 32 1,096 8,641 70 58
1Broadcastunincorporated; band applied 1 in. below seed; full tiller = Feekes growth stage 5 (Fig. 10.2).
Source: Havlin, 1992, Proc. Great Plains Soil Fert. Conf.
 nutrient management chapter ten 393

No P BC P Band P
No P BC P Band P

Figure 10-38
Influence of P placement on winter wheat root growth (left) and grain head size (right). P rate was 45 lb P2O5 >a broadcast applied
and subsurface band applied 1 in. below the seed (∼ 2.5-in. below soil surface). (Havlin, 1988, Kansas State Univ.)

head size (Fig. 10-38). Similar responses to P placement in corn and soybeans occur
(Table 10-6). Grain moisture content with starter P decreased, which illustrates more
advanced maturity (Fig. 10-29).
NH4+ added to P fertilizer has beneficial effects on P availability (Fig. 10-39).
Although dual application of N + P may not increase yield in all soils, positive
responses have frequently been observed (Fig. 10-40).

TABLE 10-6
E FFECT OF P R ATE AND P LACEMENT ON P LANT H EIGHT , G RAIN Y IELD ,
AND C ORN G RAIN M OISTURE

Plant Height, in. Grain Yield, bu/a Grain

Placement P Rate, lb/a Corn Soybean Corn Soybean Moisture, %
Broadcast 0 14.6 7.1 115 37 27.0
20 16.5 8.3 124 40 26.1
40 15.4 7.5 119 40 26.6
80 17.3 9.8 123 40 25.6
Starter 0 14.2 7.1 117 35 27.0
20 27.2 10.2 135 39 24.8
40 26.8 10.2 132 39 22.5
80 30.7 10.2 146 45 24.2
Source: Fixen et al., 1984, Better Crops, vol. 72.

80 Figure 10-39
APP + UAN Influence of NH4+ (UAN)
70 APP added to P fertilizer (APP)
TOTAL AVAILABLE P (mg)

on plant available P with

reaction time in soil.
60
(Djinadou et al., 1995, SSSAJ,
59:49–58.)
50

40

30

20
0 10 20 30 40
TIME (weeks)
394 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-40
Winter wheat response
to dual N-P application
compared with N and P
applied separately. BC and
SB represent broadcast and
seed-banded P, respectively,
while UAN was knife applied
separately. DL represents
dual N-P.
(Leikam et al., 1983, SSSAJ, 47:530.)

When all of the P is either banded or broadcast, the relative efficiency is

related to both soil P status and P application rate. In general, differences in crop
response between subsurface band and broadcast P decline with increasing soil test P
(Fig. 10-41). Although responses to starter P decreased with increasing soil test P,
small increases can occur with high soil test P (Fig. 10-42), likely related to cool,
wet spring soil conditions. In most cases, early plant growth response to starter P is
greater than responses in final yield.

Figure 10-41 5
Influence of soil test P level
on the ratio of broadcast
4
RATIO BC:BD P RATE

(BC) to band (BD) P rates

Y = 22.78x–1.054
required for equal grain R2 = 0.85
yield. 3
(Peterson et al., 1981, Agron. J.,
73:13–17.)
2

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
BRAY SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Figure 10-42 80
EARLY GROWTH RESPONSE (%)

Influence of soil test P on Starter

70 Broadcast
relative response to starter
Broadcast + Starter
P in corn. 60
(Mallarino, 2003, Intergrated Crop
Mgmt. Conf. Iowa State Univ.)
50

40

30

20

10

0
<16 ppm Soil P 16–20 ppm Soil P >20 ppm Soil P
(Very Low to Low) (Optimum) (High to Very High)
 nutrient management chapter ten 395

16 Figure 10-42
Starter (Continued )

GRAIN YIELD RESPONSE (%)

14 Broadcast
Broadcast + Starter
12

10

0
<16 ppm Soil P 16–20 ppm Soil P >20 ppm Soil P
(Very Low to Low) (Optimum) (High to Very High)

Even with band placement, crops during any one season generally recover
620% of applied P. In contrast, typical N and K recovery can be about 40–60%.
Band P placement reduces fertilizer–soil contact, resulting in less fixation than broad-
cast P (Chapter 5). Therefore, band P should increase crop recovery compared with
broadcast P. Although generally the most efficient use of limited quantities of P is at
planting and the highest return will be obtained by band applications, there may be
some advantage in building up soil fertility in a long-term fertilizer program. Gener-
ally, use of starter P only will result in gradual decrease in soil test P. Maintaining
high crop yield can require increasing soil test P to medium or higher sufficiency
levels (Fig. 10-43).
Plant response to starter nutrients can be difficult to predict, but responses domi-
nantly depend on soil test levels, tillage system, soil environmental conditions near the
seedling, and proximity of nutrients to the seed. As with most band placement meth-
ods, the probability of a response commonly decreases with increasing soil test level.
With medium-high soil tests, yield response to starters is often related to cool, wet con-
ditions in fine-textured soils where early season nutrient diffusion may not meet early
plant growth demand. In addition, starter responses are often more frequent in conser-
vation tillage systems where cool, wet soil conditions persist through early crop growth.
Figure 10-44 provides a general summary of observable crop responses to band versus
broadcast P and selected conditions affecting the response.
Potassium
Relative to P, K is more mobile in soil, and placement responses are generally not as
large as P. K fertilizers (mostly KCl) applied at Ú10 lb K 2O>a in direct-seed contact
commonly reduces germination and seedling growth, especially in salt-sensitive crops.

175 Figure 10-43

Soil Test P Increasing soil test P above
25 ppm medium sufficiency (∼ 13
165
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

13 ppm ppm Bray P) optimized

8 ppm corn yield with 20 lb P2O5 >a
155 starter.
(Adapted from Franzen and Gerwing,
1997, North Central Regional Res.
145
5 ppm Publ. No. 341.)

135

125
0 20 40 60 80
P2O5 RATE (lbya)
396 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-44 Band = Broadcast

1.0
General differences in crop Broadcast
response to increasing P rate

RELATIVE CROP RESPONSE

and P placement methods. 0.8 Band
Typical soil and environmen-
tal factors affecting P place-
ment response are shown. 0.6
(Adapted from Fixen and Leikam,
1988, Proc. Great Plains Soil Fert.
Workshop, 2:37–51.) 0.4
High P Soil Test
Warm, Moist Soil
0.2
Warm Season Crops
Thorough Incorporation
0.0
INCREASING FERTILIZER P APPLIED
Broadcast Never = Band
1.0
Broadcast
Band
RELATIVE CROP RESPONSE

0.8

0.6

Cold, Wet Soil and Early

0.4 Growth Critical
Low ST P with Minimal
0.2 Incorporation and Dry
Surface Soil

0.0
INCREASING FERTILIZER P APPLIED
Band . Broadcast (5 High BC Rate)
1.0

Band
RELATIVE CROP RESPONSE

0.8
Broadcast
0.6

0.4

0.2 Low P Soil Test

Cold, Wet Soil
High P Fixing Soils
0.0
INCREASING FERTILIZER P APPLIED

K placed in a 2 * 2 in. band generally avoids salt toxicity effects on plant growth.
In contrast, salt-tolerant crops such as barley and other small grains can respond to
15–30 lb K 2O>a placed with the seed.
Depending on the crop, broadcast K is usually less efficient than banded K;
however, as soil test K increases, there is generally less difference between placement
methods. The importance of placement also decreases as higher K rates are used.
Starter responses from K, similar to those from N and P, occur with many crops
planted under cool, wet conditions, even on high K soils.
K responses in reduced and no-till systems are likely due to cool, wet conditions
and low subsoil K (Fig. 10-45). K responses are less unlikely to occur in years when
warm, spring conditions persist.
 nutrient management chapter ten 397

155 155
Deep Band Deep Band
Broadcast Broadcast
2 3 2 Band
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

150 150

145 145

140 140

135 135
0 35 70 0 35 70 105 140
K2O RATE (lbya) K2O RATE (lbya)

Figure 10-45
Corn yield response to K placement methods in no-tillage (left) and ridge-tillage (right) systems.
(Adapted from Mallarino and Sawyer, 2003, Integrated Crop Mgmt. IC-490, Iowa State Univ.)

Compacted soils often respond to subsurface band-applied K (Table 10-7).

These data show starter K response even in high K soil. Although cotton is a high
K use crop, yield increases from deep placement of fertilizer K have not consistently
increased yield above broadcast K with subsoiling (Table 10-8). Subsoiling without

TABLE 10-7
E FFECTS OF S OIL C OMPACTION , S OIL T EST K, AND K M ANAGEMENT
ON C ORN (1985–87) AND A LFALFA (1992–94) Y IELDS

Yield
Compaction Soil Test K1 K Mgmt.2 Corn Alfalfa
t bu>a t>a
65 Optimum 0 142 11.1
+ 158 11.3
Very high 0 153 11.0
+ 158 11.5
19 Optimum 0 126 9.2
+ 158 10.3
Very high 0 141 9.2
+ 148 10.3
1optimum soil test K∼ 115 ppm, very high soil test K 7 200 ppm.
245lb K2O>a starter, 300 lb K2O>a broadcast.
Source: Wolkowski, 2000, New Horizons in Soil Sci. Univ. Wisc., Madison.

TABLE 10-8
E FFECT OF I N -R OW S UBSOILING AND D EEP K P LACEMENT ON S EED
C OTTON Y IELD

In-Row Subsoil Tillage1 Tillage + K Management1

No Yes BC K – Subsoiling BC K + Subsoiling Deep Band K
___________________________________ lb/a ___________________________________

2,169 2,625 2,399 2,708 2,711

1Subsoilingand deep K 175 lb K2O>a2 placed ∼ 12 in. deep.
Source: Mullins et al., 1994, Agron. J., 86:136–139.
398 chapter ten nutrient management

K produced nearly the same cotton yield as deep band K, illustrating the impact of
compacted soil on K nutrition. Soils exhibiting the greatest response to deep place-
ment of K generally have subsoil with low to very low soil K.
Micronutrients
As crop yields continue to increase, greater frequency of micronutrient deficiencies
can be expected. Specific micronutrients are applied in areas known to be severely
deficient or to crops with especially high micronutrient requirements. The micro-
nutrient may be added to a mixed starter fertilizer, applied separately as a broadcast
application or foliar spray, or added as a seed coating. Micronutrients added to
N-P-K fertilizer should be placed in bands 2 in. away from the seed to prevent fertilizer
injury. Micronutrients are commonly added to APP and other P sources used in
starter applications. Continued use of soil- or foliar-applied B to permanent crops
can elevate B availability to potentially toxic levels (Chapter 8).

Application Timing
Timing of nutrient application depends on cropping system, climate, specific nutrient,
and soil. Sometimes nutrients are applied during the year when they may not be the
most efficient agronomically, but are more favorably priced or better suited to workload
on the farm. Despite these considerations, growers should apply nutrients at a time that
will maximize recovery by the crop and reduce potential losses to the environment.
Nitrogen N loss mechanisms must be considered in selecting the time of
application (Chapter 4). It is desirable to apply N as close to peak crop N demand
as possible; however, this is seldom feasible except with early in-season applica-
tions. Because of N mobility in soils, the amount and distribution of rainfall are
important considerations. As annual rainfall increases, N-leaching potential increases,
especially if the crop is not growing vigorously or in coarse-textured soils. In
addition, conditions conducive to denitrification are likely to occur when soils
become waterlogged.
In warm climates, soil temperatures are more optimum for nitrification
during a greater portion of the year. Thus, fall N applied before spring plant-
ing would be more subject to nitrification and leaching. In cooler climates, NH4+
sources can be applied in the fall, after soil temperature drops below 50°F, except
on sandy or organic soils. However, compared with fall-applied NH4+ , spring ap-
plications are 5–10% more efficient on fine- and medium-textured soils and
10–30% more efficient on coarse-textured soils. Nitrification and/or urease inhibi-
tors can be used to improve N efficacy in warm, sandy soils. For spring-planted crops,
maximum crop recovery of applied N often occurs when growers preplant (fall or
early spring) apply 20–40% of total N and the remaining N as in-season sidedress or
topdress during early crop growth.
With fall-planted small grains, all or most of the N is commonly applied in late
summer or fall (preplant). In warm, humid regions, yields will be somewhat below
those obtained by topdressing some of the N in early spring because of N losses by
leaching, denitrification, and/or volatilization. In some regions, the soil may be too
wet for machinery to be operated in early spring, thus fall-applied N may be the only
option. For fall-planted crops, maximum crop recovery of applied N often occurs
when growers preplant apply 20–40% of total N and the remaining N as in-season
topdress before jointing (Fig. 10-2).
With many vegetable and small fruit crops, application of total N needed by
the crop is not generally recommended. Split applied N is common, where 30–50%
of the total N is applied preplant and the remaining N rate applied at planting and/or
after emergence (Table 10-9).
 nutrient management chapter ten 399

TABLE 10-9
E XAMPLE N R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR V EGETABLE C ROPS

Split N Timing1
Crop Total N Preplant At Planting After Emergence
lb/a
Asparagus (new) 100 50 BC-inc 50 sidedress @ 6-in. height
Asparagus (established) 80 40 pre-harvest
40 post-harvest
Lima beans 30 30 2 * 2
Snap beans
Carrots, Horseradish 100 50 BC-inc 50 topdress (4–6 weeks)
Parsnip
Table beets, Rutabagas 80 30 2 * 2 50 topdress (well established)
Broccoli, Cabbage, 130 50 BC-inc 40 sidedress (3 & 6 weeks
Brussels sprouts, after transplant)
Cauliflower
Sweet corn 130 50 BC-inc 30 2 * 2 50 sidedress
Cucumbers slicing 70 30 2 * 2 40 topdress
Cucumbers pickling 60 30 BC-inc 30 topdress
Muskmelons, 90 90 BC-inc 45 band (no plastic) 45 sidedress (no plastic)
Watermelons (plastic)
Peas 40 40 BC-inc
Peppers 120 40 BC-inc 40 sidedress (3 weeks after
transplant)
40 sidedress (3 weeks after
1st harvest)
Radishes Turnips 50 50 BC-inc
Tomatoes (processing) 75 50 BC-inc 25 sidedress
Tomatoes (fresh market) 120 60 BC-inc 30 sidedress (3 + 6 weeks
after transplant)
Rhubarb 100 50 early spring 50 sidedress
1BC-inc = broadcast incorporate; 2 * 2 = starter at planting.
Source: Extension Bull., E-550B, Mich. State Univ.

Phosphorus In general, P should be applied just before or at planting because of

the conversion of soluble P to less available forms. The magnitude varies greatly
with the P-fixation capacity of the soil (see Chapter 5). On soils low to moderate in
P-fixation capacity, broadcast P in the fall for a spring-planted crop is an effective
method. On low P and/or high P fixing soils, band-applied P as close to planting as
possible is the most efficient and should maximize crop recovery of P. On medium
to high P soils, the time and method are less important and maintenance applications
are advised. Similarly with vegetable crops, recommended P should be applied before
or at planting.

Potassium K is commonly applied and incorporated before or at planting, which

is usually more efficient than sidedress. Because K is relatively immobile compared
to N, sidedress K is less likely to move to the root zone to benefit the current crop.
Fall-applied K is more dependable than either P or N applied in the fall- to spring-
planted crops because fewer loss mechanisms exist with K. In some crop rotations,
K may be broadcast only once or twice in the rotation. Fall incorporation of K
is generally made before planting K responsive crops, such as corn and legumes.
400 chapter ten nutrient management

Maintenance application on forage crops can be made almost any time. Fall appli-
cations are generally desirable, because the K will have time to move into the root
zone. On hay crops, application is recommended after the first cutting and/or before
the last cutting. With vegetable crops, recommended K should be applied before or
at planting.

Nutrient Application to Foliage and Through Irrigation

Foliar Application Soluble nutrients may be applied directly to leaves to remedy
obvious (visual) nutrient deficiencies or prevent hidden hunger (not visual) that can
seriously impair crop yield or quality (Fig. 10-46). Foliar application can be an excel-
lent supplement to soil-applied nutrients. Generally, horticultural crops have higher
value encouraging careful monitoring of plant nutrient status; thus, foliar nutri-
ents are commonly applied to high value crops (i.e., fruits, vegetables). The quan-
tity of nutrients absorbed depends on factors related to the specific nutrient, crop,
climate, and application technique. General advantages and disadvantages of foliar
nutrients include:
Advantages
• Nutrient response can be high if the plant is severely deficient.
• Foliar-applied micronutrients can meet much of the plant need.
• Can be combined with foliar pesticide applications.
• With tree crops, foliar application is the most efficient means of correcting a
deficiency.

Disadvantages
• Absorption time can be short depending on nutrient and environmental
conditions.
• Quantity of macronutrients delivered or absorbed is relatively small.
• Compatibility with pesticides is variable (review pesticide label).
• Solution concentration is generally small, requiring repeated application.
• Time of day, weather conditions, and plant age influences nutrient absorption rate.

In addition to these constraints, foliar-applied nutrients must first enter the leaf sur-
face before entering leaf veins and translocating throughout the plant (Fig. 10-47).
The primary resistance to absorption is through the waxy cuticle layer. The cuticle
has a high pore density 11010 pores>cm22 where most pores are 61 nm diameter.

Figure 10-46
Foliar fertilization of winter wheat. (Left photo: CropCare/PBZ LLC A Paul B Zimmerman Inc.)
 nutrient management chapter ten 401

Nutrients Applied to Upper Leaf Surface Numerous Cuticle “Pores” (1010 pore/cm2) Figure 10-47
(Major Nutrient Absorption) Pore Diameter ,1 nm/pore General structure of a leaf
illustrating nutrient absorp-
tion through cuticle in upper
Cuticle leaf surface (primary absorp-
Upper Epidermis
tion site) and through stoma
in lower leaf surface (minor
absorption).
Palisade Layer

Vein Spongy
Mesophyll Cells
Xylem
Phloem
Bundle
Sheath

Lower Epidermis

Stoma
Nutrients Applied to Lower Leaf Surface Guard Cells
(Minor Nutrient Absorption)

Most ions 60.5 nm radius can physically enter through cuticular pores, unless a cat-
ion is applied with a chelate ( 71nm diameter).

Nutrient Hydrated Diameter (nm)

K + , NH4+ 0.33
Ca+2 0.41
Mg +2, Zn+2 0.43
*Urea 0.44
*Non-hydrated
Membranes within cuticular pores have a net 1-2 charge, increasing from the leaf sur-
face through the inner cuticle, encouraging cation over anion absorption and trans-
port. Since urea is uncharged, transport through the cuticle is not influenced; thus, urea
absorption is generally greater than other N sources 1NH4+ or NO3-2. Cuticle pore
density is also high within the guard cells, which accounts for greater foliar nutrient ab-
sorption in plants with high stomata density. The dominance of cuticular over stomatal
absorption is evidenced by the general observation that nutrient absorption is higher at
night when stomata are closed than during the day when stomata are open.
With macronutrients, foliar applications do not replace soil applications; however,
foliar nutrient application can be effective with micronutrients. For example, B is rap-
idly absorbed and can readily correct B deficiencies in many crops. Fall foliar applica-
tion of B in perennial fruits and other woody plants can increase B in the successive
crop; however, excessive B can accumulate in soil and woody plants contributing to
potential B toxicity in successive crops. Foliar Zn, Mn, and Fe are effective in correct-
ing deficiencies if applied several times during the season depending on the crop.
With macronutrients, late season foliar N applied to small grains and other
monocots can increase grain N or protein as late season N is rapidly translocated
to developing grain. Foliar application of urea increases N nutrition in grapes, ap-
ples, citrus, pineapple, and other tree crops, because N is absorbed more rapidly than
with soil applications. Foliar P application is used less than foliar N because most
402 chapter ten nutrient management

P compounds (with N) cause leaf damage when sprayed in quantities large enough to
increase plant P. In contrast, foliar Ca generally does not correct Ca deficiency as Ca
is not readily translocated in the vascular system. However, repeated foliar Ca appli-
cations throughout the season can reduce Ca deficiency in fruit and vegetable crops.
Nutrients supplied through leaves can increase short-term nutrient utiliza-
tion, quickly correcting nutrient deficiencies compared to soil application. Often the
response is temporary due to the small amount of nutrient applied or absorbed through
the leaf. To achieve full benefits from foliar feeding, proper nutrient application relative
to specific crop need or growth stage is essential. Many other factors (time of day, specific
nutrient, etc.) affect absorption and translocation of nutrients applied to leaves. Important
guidelines to maximize absorption of foliar applied nutrients include:
• Foliar nutrients should be applied before plant demand to ensure optimum
response.
• Plants with severe nutrient deficiency can respond quickly to foliar application.
• Plants with “hidden hunger” may exhibit a yield response.
• Correcting macronutrient deficiencies is difficult because of relatively high nutrient
requirement relative to nutrient absorption rates through leaves. Excessive foliar
nutrient application can cause leaf “burning” (Fig. 10-48).
• Multiple applications repeated at short intervals (every 2–3 weeks) may be needed.
• After application, rapid drying of nutrient solution on the leaf surface decreases
absorption; thus, application when leaves are wet (early morning or late evening)
increases absorption and response.
• Application to both upper and lower leaf surfaces (nozzle orientation and pressure)
increases nutrient absorption.
• Crops that exhibit no other stress than the nutrient in question will respond more
favorably to foliar application; heat or moisture stress reduces nutrient absorption
rate.
• Leaf cuticle thickness increases with plant age; thus, foliar nutrient application late
in the growing season will be less effective.
• Nutrient absorption rates vary with specific nutrient, climate condition at applica-
tion, and plant age (Table 10-10).
• Nutrient absorption can also be reduced by physical droplet runoff from leaf im-
mediately after application and rainfall washing nutrients off leaves shortly after
application.

No Surfactant Surfactant

Figure 10-48
Use of a surfactant in the foliar nutrient solution reduces surface tension increasing leaf surface wetting and nutrient
absorption in the leaf (left). Foliar nutrients at high rates may cause leaf damage (right).
 nutrient management chapter ten 403

TABLE 10-10
G ENERAL N UTRIENT A BSORPTION R ATES IN A P LANT L EAF

Nutrient Time for 50% Uptake

NH4+ , NO3- 2–6 hrs
Urea 0.5–2 hrs
H2PO4- 5–10 days
K+ 0.5–2 days
Ca+2 1–4 days
SO4-2 5–10 days
Mg+2 0.5–1 day
Fe+3 6–8 days
Mn+2 1–2 days
Zn+2 1–2 days
MoO4-2 10–20 days
H3BO3o 1–2 hrs
Source: Adapted from Wittwer and Teubner, 1959, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol., 10:13–32.

Although foliar application rates vary widely with nutrient and crop, nutrient con-
centrations 61–2% in the product solution are generally used to avoid injury to foli-
age (Table 10-11). Because of the hydrophobic leaf surface, due to cuticle wax and
presence of leaf hairs in some plants, surfactants are often added to the foliar nutrient
solution to reduce surface tension, increasing wetting of leaf surface that increases
absorption (Fig. 10-48). Surfactants increase contact between leaf and the aqueous
solution and increase permeability of the external wax barrier. Both ionic and non-
ionic surfactants are available, where non-ionic surfactants are generally more effec-
tive. The narrow cuticle pore diameter and 1 -2 surface charge within the pores likely
reduces transport of anionic, high molecular weight chelates like EDTA.
Fertigation Application of nutrients, primarily N, P, K, and S, through an irriga-
tion system ( fertigation) is feasible where supplemental irrigation is essential for pro-
duction of a crop or landscape. In environments where evapotranspiration exceeds

TABLE 10-11
R ECOMMENDED S OLUTION C ONCENTRATIONS U SED IN F OLIAR
N UTRIENT A PPLICATION

Solution Concentration
Nutrient Source lb product/100 gal
N UAN 5–7
NH4NO3, 1NH422SO4, NH4Cl 3–5
P APP 3–4
K KNO3, K2SO4 6–10
KCl, K2S2O3 2–4
Ca CaCl2, Ca1NO322 6–10
Mg MgSO4 # 7H2O, Mg1NO322 8–10
Fe FeSO4 # 7H2O 4–10
Mn MnSO4 # H2O 4–6
Zn ZnSO4 # 7H2O 3–5
Cu CuSO4 # 5H2O 0.5–1
B Sodium borate—Na2B4O7 # 10H2O 0.5–2
Mo Sodium molybdate—Na2MoO4 # 2H2O 0.2–0.3
404 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-49
Center pivot irrigation
system equipped to apply
nutrients to vegetables
during the growing season
(left) and drip irrigation on
grapes (right) equipped
for fertigation.

Center Pivot Irrigation Drip Irrigation

+ +
Nutrients Nutrients

growing season precipitation, nutrients can be injected into the irrigation stream to
meet crop nutrient demand. Fertigation is utilized in furrow, center pivot (overhead
sprinkler), and microirrigation (drip) systems (Fig. 10-49). Fertigation is common
in microirrigation systems because of their frequency of operation and because H2O
application is carefully metered. Fertigation enables uniform nutrient >H2O distri-
bution in the root zone, optimizes nutrient application timing with respect to crop
demand, reduces nutrient application costs, and often reduces nutrient application
rates. Fertigation equipment varies widely with application (agronomic or landscape),
but each comprises a metering system to inject nutrients into the irrigation H2O
delivered to the field or site (Fig. 10-50).
In order to be injected, nutrient sources must be H2O soluble. Granular sources
must first be completely dissolved prior to injection. Fertilizer materials differ widely
in H2O solubility, with solubility depending on the physical properties of the fertilizer
as well as on irrigation H2O temperature, pH, and salt content. Most dry nutrient fer-
tilizers are coated with conditioners to prevent absorption of moisture by the granules.
Use of coated granular fertilizers can cause plugging problems; thus, only fluid grade

Figure 10-50
Irrigation and nutrient
injection system needed
to deliver H2O and Nutrient Injector
Irrigation Pump Nutrient
nutrients to irrigation Controller Source
nozzles or emitters. Filter Tank
(Adapted from Schwankl, 2008, Univ.
California-Davis.)

Nutrient
Valve
Nutr
ients
Electric Panel Check Valve

Nutrients
Injected
in H2O

Relief Valve Shutoff Pressure To Irrigation

and Drain Valve Switch System

Irrigation
Pump
 nutrient management chapter ten 405

TABLE 10-12
S ELECTED F ERTILIZERS C OMMONLY U SED IN F ERTIGATION S YSTEMS

Source Common Name Precautions

NH4NO3 # H2O AN-20 Do not mix with urea-H2SO4 or other
concentrated acids
1NH222CO # NH4NO3 UAN-32/28 Do not mix with CAN-17 or other Ca sources
Ca1NO322 # NH4NO3 CAN-17 Do not mix with SO4-2 or S2O3-2 sources;
mix with NO3- & Cl- salts
1NH222CO # H2SO4 Do not mix with AN-20
1NH422S2O3 ATS Do not mix with CAN-17 or other Ca sources
1NH422Sx APS S can precipitate if mixed with aqua NH3
K2SO4 Can cause some precipitates
K2S2O3 PTS
KCl Do not use on fruit and tree crops (Cl toxicity)
H3PO4
1NH423HP2O7 # NH4H2PO4 APP Do not mix with 7300 ppm Ca>Mg H2O

(100% H2O soluble) sources should be used. To avoid this problem, liquid sources
are commonly used except for fluid grade KCl and K 2SO4 (Table 10-12).
Injection of anhydrous NH3, UAN, or other free NH3-containing N sources
to irrigation waters high in Ca+2, Mg +2, and HCO3- may precipitate CaCO3 and/
or MgCO3, causing scaling and plugging problems in irrigation equipment. Their
formation can be prevented by the addition of H2SO4, 1NH422S2O3, or other acid
solutions. Fertigation of P is common, although APP combined with irrigation
H2O containing 7300 ppm Ca or Mg will cause Ca/Mg-P to precipitate and plug
the irrigation system. Solution grade K sources are H2O soluble and can be mixed
with N and P sources. The exception is K 2SO4, which is less soluble than KCl or
KNO3; thus, most use K 2S2O3 (liquid) or dissolve KCl. Many of the N and K
sources contain S, and Cl- or SO4-2 salts are commonly used for most micronutri-
ents (Chapter 8). With Ca>Mg, Cl- and SO4-2 salts are commonly used; however,
special equipment is needed to dissolve and agitate the less-soluble SO4-2 salts.
Uniform fertigation of nutrients is accomplished with properly designed irrigation
systems and skilled irrigation management, since dissolved nutrients are delivered with
the water. Poor nutrient distribution can occur with flood or furrow irrigated systems and
with low nutrient rates. Under furrow irrigation, a large proportion of the nutrients may
be deposited near the inlet and uneven infiltration may result in nutrient moving below
the root zone. To prevent nutrients from becoming inaccessible to crops through either
leaching below the root zone or accumulating at or near the soil surface, they should be
introduced toward the middle of the irrigation period and application should be termi-
nated shortly before completion of the irrigation. For these reasons, furrow and flood
fertigation is less common. With sprinkler fertigation systems, as with topdress applica-
tions (Fig. 10-27), it is critical to follow labeled product rates to prevent excessive nutrient
application on leaves that may cause significant leaf burn and yield loss.

Variable Nutrient Management

Variable or site-specific nutrient management can improve nutrient use efficiency by
distributing nutrients based on spatial variation in yield potential, soil test levels, and
other spatially variable factors that influence soil nutrient availability and crop nutri-
ent demand. Pre-season and in-season assessments of spatial information are two vari-
able nutrient management approaches used to guide nutrient application decisions.
406 chapter ten nutrient management

Pre-Season Approach Geospatial information is acquired before nutrients are

applied and the crop is planted in a given field, and commonly includes:
• previous crop yield data obtained from a yield monitor combine
• soil test data obtained from grid, cell, or zone sampling
• digital orthophoto quarter quads (DOQQ) (b/w aerial photographs)
• aerial or satellite provided NDVI
• digital elevation
• soil electrical conductivity (EC correlated to soil texture, soil depth, salinity, etc.)
These spatial data are stored and analyzed within a GIS and interpreted for relationships
influencing crop yield that can be used to guide spatially variable nutrient rate decisions
(Fig. 10-51). For example, the spatial distribution in soil test P based on grid sampling
(Fig. 9-39) and associated P sufficiency levels (Fig. 9-33) are used to establish variable
P recommendations in the same way field average P recommendations are developed
(Fig. 10-52). Fertilizer P is then applied through a computer-controlled variable rate
applicator according to the variable P rate map (Fig. 10-53). With uniform P applica-
tion, low soil test P areas are underfertilized while high soil test P areas are overfertilized
(Fig. 10-54). Similar responses to variable application of K and lime are also common.
Yield loss due to underfertilization decreases profitability more than overfertilization
because the value of lost yield exceeds the cost of the excess fertilizer input.

Figure 10-51
La
Spatial information on a
field site, soil, and crop used
WBa

WBb
to develop nutrient prescrip- Soil Type La
Fm
tion maps to guide spatially
variable nutrient application. WB
Elevation a
Selected data layers can be
used to identify manage- Management
ment zones. Soil Test P Zones

Soil EC

DOQQ

Figure 10-52 (a) (b) (c)

Spatial distribution of soil
test P determined from
sampling 120 acre field
on 2 acre square grids (a).
These data were used to
develop the P sufficiency
map (b). Ultimately, a vari-
able P recommendation
map is established (c).
The light areas represent
low soil test P (a), low % P Bray-1 P % Yield P Rate
sufficiency (b), and low P (ppm) sufficiency lb P2O5/a
recommendations (c).
<5 < 60 < 15
6–10 61–70 16–30
11–15 71–80 31–45
16–25 81–90 46–60
> 25 > 90 > 60
 nutrient management chapter ten 407

Figure 10-53
Typical variable fertilizer applicator capable of applying several nutrient sources at various rates based on spatially
distributed soil test levels (left) and the variable rate controller in the vehicle (right).

140 Figure 10-54

Variable P Uniform P Comparison of variable
120
and uniform P application
P2O5 RATE (lbsya)

100 on soybean yield. Apply-

ing a uniform P rate of
80 30 lb P2O5 >a (a) resulted
60 in significant yield loss on
very low P areas (b). On very
40 high P areas, overapplica-
20 tion occurs with uniform P
management (a).
0
Very Medium Very
Low High
SOIL-TEST LEVEL
(a)

50
Variable P Uniform P
40
YIELD (buya)

30

20

10

0
Very Medium Very
Low High
SOIL-TEST LEVEL
(b)

Establishing management zones within a field based on specific spatial data can
also be used to develop variable nutrient recommendations (Fig. 10-51). These spatial
data commonly include aerial photography of soil color (correlated with surface soil
OM), previous yield maps, electrical conductivity, elevation, soil type, and other spatial
information (Fig. 10-55). Although variability in weather conditions influences yield
potential between years, in years when high yield management zones do not perform
as expected, over- and underapplication of nutrients would increase compared to years
when management zones perform as expected (Fig. 10-56). With N, overfertilization
may have negative impacts on N transport below the root zone (Table 10-13).
408 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-55
Use of b/w aerial photogra-
phy, where dark colors repre-
sent areas of higher surface
soil OM than lighter color
areas and where digitized soil
survey data were superim-
posed over the b/w photo;
elevation, where elevation
increases from dark to light
colored areas; and electrical Aerial b/w photo w/soil survey Elevation
conductivity, where soil EC
increases from dark to light.
These spatial data were used 1
to delineate soil manage-
ment zones that represent 2
areas of similar crop yield
potential. The dark-colored 3
zones exhibit higher yield
potential (Fig. 10-56) and 4
would require higher nutrient
application rates than light-
colored areas. Soil EC Management Zones
(Schepers et al., 2004, Agron. J.,
96:195.)

Figure 10-56 240

Average corn yields of four 1 MZ 2 MZ 3 MZ 4 MZ
management zones (MZ) 220
over five crop seasons
(see Fig. 10-55). 200
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

(Schepers et al., 2004, Agron. J.,

96:195–203.)
180

160

140

120

100
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
YEAR

TABLE 10-13
C OMPARISON B ETWEEN U NIFORM AND V ARIABLE N M ANAGEMENT IN
A 40 A F IELD ON A VERAGE N RATE , T OTAL U REA U SE , S PRING W HEAT
Y IELD , AND S OIL P ROFILE NO3@N (0–2 FT ) A FTER H ARVEST

N Management Average N Rate Urea Applied Yield Soil NO3@N

lb>a lb bu>a lb>a
Uniform 70 6,087 44.0 41.1
Variable 57 4,944 45.6 32.0
Source: D. Franzen, North Dakota State Univ.
 nutrient management chapter ten 409

Pre-season variable nutrient management is common with immobile nutrients

and lime. Many growers realize enhanced crop productivity and profitability with
adoption of grid or zone soil sampling to variably apply P, K, and lime. With mo-
bile nutrients like N, where N rates are based on estimated yield goals determined
from crop yield maps, the spatial distribution of crop yield can vary greatly between
years (Fig. 10-57). Thus, it is difficult to utilize annual yield maps to reliably estab-
lish the spatial distribution in yield goals needed to prescribe variable N rates. Tech-
nologies used to establish in-season N recommendations will likely be more efficient
than N recommendations determined through pre-season variable N management
techniques.
In-Season Approach Growing plants are often the best indicator of N availability
(Chapter 9). Remote sensing (light reflectance) provides an excellent opportunity
to quantify crop N status and additional N need that varies throughout a field
(Fig. 9-19). Thus, in-season N management decisions can be guided by real-time
or on-the-go crop N status (canopy reflectance) assessment, interpretation, and
N application. Crop canopy reflectance provides a relative measure of leaf
chlorophyll content, where NDVI is highly correlated to crop N status, N uptake,
and crop yield (Figs 9-20, 9-21, and 10-58). Therefore, vehicles equipped with can-
opy sensors can quickly assess variability of crop N status and apply the economic
optimum N rate, reducing both under- and overapplication errors (Fig. 10-59).
While in-season crop N assessment coupled with variable N application technolo-
gies are rapidly evolving, research has clearly established in-season variable N man-
agement is an effective means of increasing crop N use efficiency (Table 10-14).

Optimum N Rate (lb N/a) Figure 10-57

Variation in economic opti-
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 mum N rate between years
for a 30-acre corn field. Field
ELEVATION (ft)

ELEVATION (ft)

topographic features are

RELETIVE

illustrated.
1330 1330 (Malzer data [Univ. Minn.] from
1320 1320 Doerge, 2002, Crop management,
doi:10.1094/CM-2002-0905-01-RS.)
0
0
0

12
0
12

0
0

0
0

(ft 10
E 10

0
0

80
)

0
80
t)

0
(f

t)
TA 8
E
t)
TA 8

(f
0
C
(f
0
C

60
N

E
0
0

60
N

C
0
60

N
6
IS

0
N

TA
IS

40
TA

0
40
0
D

IS
0
H
0

IS

D
H

N 4
T
N 4

0
T

R
0

T
20
R

20

S
0

0
O

A
20

E
A

TO
TH 2
TO

TO
E
0

0
0

TO
H

T
S
T

U
T
U

E
O
S

W
O

S
E
S

1997 1999

WHEAT CORN
100 0.8 200 0.9
GRAIN YIELD (buya)
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

80 160
0.6 0.8
60 120
NDVI
NDVI

0.4 0.7
40 80
Yield 0.2 Yield 0.6
20 40
NDVI NDVI
0 0 0 0.5
0 45 90 135 180 225 0 45 90 135 180 225
N RATE (lbya) N RATE (lbya)

Figure 10-58
Relationship between NDVI and grain yield in wheat and corn. (Raun et al., 2008, Agron. J., 100:1088–1093.)
410 chapter ten nutrient management

Low leaf N High leaf N

Low NDVI High NDVI
Canopy “ ” N rate “0” N rate
Reflectance
Sensors

Figure 10-59
In-season N application to corn using canopy reflectance sensors to determine NDVI and variable N application rate.
(Right photo: Newell R. Kitchen, University of Missouri; Left photo: Newell Kitchen/USDA-ARS)

TABLE 10-14
E VALUATION OF P REPLANT AND I N -S EASON U NIFORM N WITH P REPLANT +
V ARIABLE I N -S EASON N U SING C ANOPY R EFLECTANCE (NDVI)

N Application N Use
Treatment Preplant In-season Total Yield Efficiency Net Return
__________ lb>a __________ bu>a lb N>bu $ >ac
Uniform N 73 20 92 34.6 2.66 82
NDVI-based N 56 23 79 39.8 1.98 100
Source: Courtesy B. Raun, Okla. State Univ.

Since a portion of the total crop N requirement should be applied before plant-
ing, utilizing both pre- and in-season variable N management will spatially match
crop N need with N application rate. A pre-season estimate of total fertilizer N is
used to determine preplant N rate and to establish potential ranges for in-season
N rates, which are then dynamically determined through monitoring crop N status.
Only through in-season variable N application can the spatially optimum N rate be
applied, increasing N use efficiency throughout the field.

OTHER NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

CONSIDERATIONS
Utilization of Nutrients from the Subsoil
Utilization of subsoil nutrients depends on the ability of roots to explore subsoil,
which depends on the crop, and on soil physical (i.e., compaction, drainage, aeration)
and chemical properties (i.e., soil acidity, exchangeable Al). Most humid-region sub-
soils are acidic and low in fertility, which contribute very little to total nutrient uptake
by crops (Fig. 10-60). Deep-rooted crops (e.g., alfalfa, sweet clover, grasses) increase
available P in the surface by upward transfer from the subsoil as the organic residues
are returned and decomposed. Surface horizons of forest soils are commonly higher in
nutrients than the subsoil horizons because of upward transfer and accumulation.
 nutrient management chapter ten 411

70 Figure 10-60

K UPTAKE FROM SUBSOIL (%)

Effect of increasing subsoil
60
K content on K uptake by
50 wheat.
(Adapted from Kuhlman, 1984,
40 Plant & Soil, 127:129.)

30 y = 16.6 ln(x) – 30.1

R2 = 0.90
20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
SUBSOIL K (ppm)

Loess or alluvial soils can be high in K and P throughout the profile and can
be utilized by deep-rooted plants, causing some difficulty in correlating surface soil
test results for P or K. When subsoil P or K is considered, the relation between ex-
tractable P or K and crop response can be improved. Some regions have established
relative subsoil nutrient availability for major soil series to improve the accuracy of
nutrient recommendations (Fig. 10-61).
In calcareous soils, soil test K is usually high in both surface soil and subsoil, but
most subsoils are low in P and many micronutrients. P and micronutrient fertilization
of the surface soil is generally adequate to increase P and micronutrient availability.

Figure 10-61
Relative P and K availability
in subsoils of major soil
series in Wisconsin.
(Kelling et al., 1999, Optimum soil
Douglas Bayfield test levels for Wisconsin, Univ. of
Iron Wisconsin Coop. Ext. A3030.)
Ashland
Vilas
n
ur

Burnett Sawyer
hb

Florence
as
W

Price Oneida
Forest
Marinette
Polk Barron Rusk
Lincoln
Langlade
Taylor
Saint Crotx Chippewa
or

Oconto
Dunn
Do

Marathon Shawano
Pierce Eau Claire Clark
Pepin Brown
ee
un
aleau

Wood Portage Waupaca

wa

Outagamie
n

Buffalo
oc Ke
kso
e
Tremp

Jac

itow
Calumet
ago

Man

Waushara
eau

Winneb

Monroe Adams
A P High, K Med. La
Jun

Cr te
ak

os et
n
nL

B P Med, K Med. qu
ga

se
ar Fond du Lac
oy
ee

M
eb
Gr

C P Low, K High
h
ton S

Vernon
D P Med, K Low
kee

Sauk Columbia
Dodge
ing

E P Variable Richland
Milwaukee Ozau
h
d

as
for

K Low
W
aw
Cr

Dane
sh

All Data Refer to Jefferson

ke

lowa
au

Subsoils (8" to 30") Only. Grant

W

Low, Medium, and High Racine

Ratings Are Relative Lafayette Green Rock Walworth
and Are Not Defined Kenosha
in Pounds per Acre.
412 chapter ten nutrient management

TABLE 10-15
E FFECT OF S UBSOILING AND D EEP
I NCORPORATION OF P AND K ON B ARLEY
Y IELD (1974–77)

Tillage/Fertilizer Grain Yield

bu>a
None 50.3
Subsoiled alone 63.2
Subsoiled + P + K 73.5
P + K to topsoil 49.9
Source: Adapted from McEwan and Johnston, 1979, J. Agr. Sci.
(Camb.), 92:695.

Subsoil application of nutrients can enhance nutrient availability and root

development in the fertilized zone. Lime added to acid subsoil will not only reduce
Al, Fe, and Mn in solution, but also increase Ca and Mg supply (Chapter 3). In some
cases, subsoiling alone can increase crop yields, although subsoil incorporation of fertil-
izers can further increase yields (Table 10-15). Subsoiling to 10–20-in. depth increased
4-year mean barley yield by 24%, and subsoil incorporation of P + K increased barley
yield an additional 20%. In some soils, deep tillage (24–36 in.) can improve root growth
and crop yield without subsoil fertilization, mostly due to access to subsoil H2O. If the
plant is utilizing water from 24 to 36 in. in contrast to only 12-in. deep, the probability
of drought stress is reduced. Under some conditions, turning up heavy clay subsoil ma-
terial may cause the surface to seal off more rapidly and decrease infiltration.

Residual Fertilizer Availability

Depending on nutrient mobility in soil, a portion of applied nutrients will remain
in the soil after harvest, depending on rate applied, crop nutrient removal, and the
soil. Residual N availability is related to buildup of profile NO 3-N and soil OM
especially with continued animal waste applications (Chapters 4 and 9). With fertil-
izer N in humid regions, residual profile N generally does not accumulate due to
leaching and denitrification losses of residual fertilizer N (Fig. 9-45). However, in
moderate to semi-arid climates, fertilizer N recommendations should include re-
sidual N (Figs 9-46 and 9-47; Table 9-9). With substantial surface residue cover,
recommended N rates also depend on N placement (Fig. 10-62). Like N, residual
fertilizer S in moderate to semi-arid climates also can accumulate in subsoil; how-
ever, in highly weathered soils, SO4-2 can be retained in subsoil by adsorption to
AEC (Fig. 3-37).
Figure 10-62 200
Influence of residual soil N
180
and N placement on op-
OPTIMUM N RATE (lbya)

timum N rate for dryland 160 Broadcast

wheat in western Kansas.
140
(Adapted from Schlegel et al., 2003,
Agron. J., 95:1532–1541.) 120

100 Subsurface Band

80

60

40
15 25 35 45 55 65
RESIDUAL SOIL N (lbya)
 nutrient management chapter ten 413

Initial St P = 18 ppm Initial St P = 40 ppm Initial St P = 63 ppm

80 Ib P2O5/acre/year Annual P
70 =0 Stopped

= 23
SOIL TEST P (ppm)

Annual P
60 = 46 Stopped
= 69 Annual P
50 Stopped

40
30
20
10
Critical Level
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
YEARS OF CROPPING

Figure 10-63
Effect of long-term P fertilization and cropping (corn-soybean) on soil test P (St P). Critical soil test
P levels (shaded bar) are 15–21 ppm for corn and 12–18 ppm for soybean.
(Adapted from Dodd and Mallinaro, 2005, SSSAJ/69:1118.)

For immobile nutrients, residual availability can be observed for many years
depending on the rate applied and the soil buffer capacity (Fig. 10-63). Generally, as
fertilizer application rate increases, the residual value also increases. In many cases, the
cost of fertilization is charged to the crop treated. However, residual fertilizer availabil-
ity should be included in evaluation of fertilizer economics. The residual availability
potential for immobile nutrients can be accurately determined through soil testing.

MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIC NUTRIENTS

Animal Manure
Recycling of organic wastes is a primary function of soil, and prior to development
of fertilizers, animal manures were a major source of nutrients for crop production.
Some of the beneficial effects of manure use are:
• a source of plant available nutrients
• increased soil OM, CEC, and buffer capacity
• increased mobility and availability of P and micronutrients due to OM complexation
• increased soil H2O and nutrient holding capacity
• improved soil structure, decreased bulk density, and increased infiltration
• increased soil pH and reduced Al+3 toxicity in acid soils by complexation with OM
Table 10-16 illustrates the improvement in soil quality factors with long-term ap-
plication of animal manure. Greater attention is being given to effective disposal

TABLE 10-16
E FFECTS OF 11 Y EARS OF M ANURE A DDITIONS ON S OIL P ROPERTIES

Application Rate OM CEC pH P K Pore Space

t/a/y % meq/100 g ____ ppm ____ %
0 4.3 15.8 6.0 6 121 44
10 4.8 17.0 6.2 7 159 45
20 5.2 17.8 6.3 14 191 47
30 5.5 18.9 6.4 17 232 50
Source: Magdoff and Van Es, 2009, Building soils for better crops (3rd ed.), Sustainable Agric. Network
Handbook Series Book 10 (http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/bsbc.pdf, accessed March 24, 2011).
414 chapter ten nutrient management

of manures because of increased use of confinement production systems and

associated manure distribution problems, and increased risk of ground and surface
water contamination by NO3- and H2PO4- associated with long-term manure
application.
Manure is applied to about 16 million acres of U.S. cropland, which rep-
resents about 5% of total cropland. While confined animal feeding operations
occur in nearly every state, they are concentrated in the southwest (beef and
dairy), southern plains (beef ), upper Midwest (dairy and poultry), and the south-
east (poultry and hogs) (Fig. 10-64). In principle, manure could be spread on
far more cropland, mitigating risks that arise from excessive concentrations of
manure (Fig. 10-65). These data show the large capacity of soils (mollisols)
and crops (corn) in the Midwest to utilize manure N, whereas the highly

Figure 10-64
Total manure N and P
available for application
Manure N
from confined livestock
operations.
(Kellogg et al., 2000, USDA-NRCS,
Publication No. nps00-0579.)

Hawaii

106 lb manure N or P/county

.2 0.5–2 0.5–0.5 0.05–0.2 ,0.05

Manure P

Hawaii
 nutrient management chapter ten 415

Figure 10-65
Capacity of cropland
Manure N to assimilate N and P
in manure.
(Kellogg et al., 2000, USDA-NRCS,
Publication No. nps00-0579.)

Hawaii

lb N/a .140 120–140 60–120 ,60 0 lb N/a

lb P/a .25 20–25 50–20 ,15 0 lb P/a

Manure P

Hawaii

weathered, low P soils in the southeast can utilize substantial manure P. Over 70%
of manure nutrients are applied to eight crops, with the majority applied to corn
from dairy, beef, and swine manure (Table 10-17). Peanuts receive a large pro-
portion of poultry manure because peanuts are dominantly grown in the south-
east where extensive poultry production occurs. Unfortunately, large quantities
of manures are produced in localized areas, and it is cost prohibitive to trans-
port manure nutrients to other cropland regions. Many areas in the United States
produce more nutrients than can be locally utilized by crops (Fig. 10-66). As a
result, many crop fields near confined animal feeding operations have received
animal wastes for many decades, increasing the risk of N and P transport to
surface and ground waters (Chapter 12). Typical manure nutrient rates applied to
crops in the United States is shown in Figure 10-67.
416 chapter ten nutrient management

TABLE 10-17
D ISTRIBUTION OF A NIMAL M ANURE TO M AJOR A GRONOMIC C ROPS
IN THE U NITED S TATES

Manure Source
Crop Dairy Beef Swine Poultry Other All
__________________________ ac * 103 __________________________

Barley 54 36 4 4 2 100
Corn 5,612 1,617 1,161 472 224 9,086
Cotton 67 101 0 228 1 397
Oats 218 139 8 3 7 375
Peanuts 0 8 0 44 0 52
Sorghum 1 37 7 1 0 46
Soybeans 354 327 139 132 30 982
Wheat 107 250 26 12 6 401
All 6,413 2,515 1,345 896 270 11,439
Source: USDA, 2006, Manure use for fertilizer and for energy/report to Congress (http://www.ers.usda.gov
/Publications/AP/AP037/AP037b.pdf, accessed March 25, 2013).

Maximizing crop recovery of soil-applied manure nutrients depends on the

manure nutrient content, application method and time, and short- and long-term
availability of manure nutrients. Manure nutrient content varies, depending on:
• animal type and diet
• type and amount of bedding
• manure moisture content
• storage and handling method
Nutrient content of typical animal wastes varies between regions and local values
should be used in estimating the quantity of nutrients applied with a specific ma-
nure rate (Table 10-18; Chapter 4). In most cases, just prior to application, manure
samples should be collected and sent to a laboratory for analysis.
Figure 10-66
Manure N and P in excess
of crop need.
(Kellogg et al., 2000, USDA-NRCS, Manure N
Publication No. nps00-0579.)

Hawaii

106 lb manure N or P/county

.2 0.5–2 0.2–0.5 0.05–0.2 ,0.05
 nutrient management chapter ten 417

Figure 10-66
(Continued)

Manure P

Hawaii

140 Figure 10-67

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Average macronutrient rates
120 applied in manure to major
100 agronomic crops in the
United States.
lbyacre

80 (USDA, 2006, Manure use for fertilizer

and for energy/report to Congress,
60 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publica-
tions/AP/AP037/AP037b.pdf,
40 accessed March 25, 2013.)

20

0
Soybeans Corn Oats Wheat Peanuts Barley Cotton Sorghum

TABLE 10-18
A PPROXIMATE D RY M ATTER AND N UTRIENT C OMPOSITION OF S ELECTED A NIMAL M ANURES

Nutrients (lb/ton)
N
Waste Handling
Livestock Type System Dry Matter % Available1 Total2 P2O5 K2O
Solid Handling Systems

Swine Without bedding 18 6 10 9 8

With bedding 18 5 8 7 7
Beef cattle Without bedding 15 4 11 7 10
With bedding 50 8 21 18 26
Dairy cattle Without bedding 18 4 9 4 10
With bedding 21 5 9 4 10
Poultry Without litter 45 26 33 48 34
With litter 75 36 56 45 34
Deep pit (compost) 76 44 68 64 45
(continued)
418 chapter ten nutrient management

TABLE 10-18 (C ONTINUED )

Nutrients (lb/ton)
N
Waste Handling
Livestock Type System Dry Matter % Available1 Total2 P2O5 K2O
Liquid Handling Systems

Swine Liquid pit 4 20 36 27 19

Oxidation ditch 2.5 12 24 27 19
Lagoon 1 3 4 2 61
Beef cattle Liquid pit 11 24 40 27 34
Oxidation ditch 3 16 28 18 29
Lagoon 1 2 4 9 5
Dairy cattle Liquid pit 8 12 24 18 29
Lagoon 1 2.5 4 4 5
Poultry Liquid pit 13 64 80 36 96
1PrimarilyNH4@N, which is plant available during the growing season.
4@N
2NH plus organic N, which is slow releasing.
Application conversion factors: 1,000 gal = ∼ 4 t; 27,154 gal = 1 acre-inch
Source: Sutton et al., 1985, Univ. of Minn. Ext. Bull. AG-FO-2613.

Four primary methods used for field application of manure include:

• broadcast solid manure
• broadcast slurry or liquid manure with a vehicle or irrigation system
• subsurface band or injection of slurry or liquid
• surface band-applied preplant or in-season
Methods for handling and storing manure will affect manure nutrient content.
Common manure disposal methods include both dry and liquid manure sources
(Fig. 10-68). Liquid waste systems have been developed where manure is diluted
with water and stored in pits or lagoons and distributed. N-volatilization losses in
liquid systems can be substantial (Table 10-19). In an open lot, about 50% of the N
is lost. In a lagoon, much of the P settles out and is lost from the liquid applied on
the land.
Manure application methods particularly affect N-volatilization losses that reduce
the quantity of plant available N applied in the manure (Table 10-20). N losses are
greatest with liquid systems and with broadcast solids or liquids. Immediate incorpora-
tion will minimize N volatilization (Fig. 10-69). In most cases, little or no N is available
if incorporation occurs later than 5–8 days after application. Subsurface application
maximizes N availability from manure, but increases application costs. The effective-
ness of injected liquid manure can be improved by adding nitrification inhibitors to
maintain NH4@N.
In addition to NH4+ present in the manure (Table 10-18), organic N will
slowly mineralize over time to supply plant available N. Depending on the
manure source, 20–30% of organic N will mineralize the first year after application,
decreasing in subsequent years (Table 10-21). The classic studies in England demon-
strated substantial residual N availability of continued applications of high manure
rates (Fig. 10-70). Even though maintenance of 100% relative yield required annual
manure applications, residual effects were observed nearly 40 years after waste
applications were stopped.
 nutrient management chapter ten 419

Figure 10-68
Manure application methods including dry manure spreader (upper left), liquid spreader (upper right),
subsurface liquid injection (lower right), and traveling high pressure liquid gun (lower left). (USDA)

TABLE 10-19
E FFECT OF A NIMAL W ASTE H ANDLING AND S TORAGE M ETHOD ON N L OSSES

Handling/Storing Method Handling/Storing Method

Solid Systems N Loss (%)1 Liquid Systems N Loss (%)1
Daily scrape and haul 15–35 Anaerobic pit 15–30
Manure pack 20–40 Oxidation ditch 15–40
Open lot 40–60 Lagoon 70–80
Deep pit (poultry) 15–35
1Based on composition of waste applied to the land versus composition of freshly excreted waste, adjusted for dilution effects of the various
systems.
Source: Sutton et al., 1985, Univ. of Minn. Ext. Bull. AG-FO-2613.

TABLE 10-20
E FFECT OF M ANURE A PPLICATION M ETHOD ON N-V OLATILIZATION L OSSES

Method of Application Waste N Loss (%)1

Broadcast without cultivation Solid 15–30
Liquid 10–25
Broadcast with cultivation2 Solid 1–5
Liquid 1–5
Subsurface knife Liquid 0–2
Irrigation Liquid 30
1%total N in waste applied that was lost within 4 days after application.
2Cultivationimmediately after application.
Source: Sutton et al., 1985, Univ. of Minn. Ext. Bull. AG-FO-2613.
420 chapter ten nutrient management

Figure 10-69 100% Time Between Broadcast Application and Incorporation

Influence of manure appli-
cation method and length 90% 90%
of time between applica-
tion and incorporation on
% plant available N of the
original manure N. The 65%
majority of the decrease
in %N availability is due
50% 50%
to N-volatilization losses.
(Leikam and Lamond, 2003, Kansas
StateUniv. Coop. Ext. MF2562.) 40%

30%

20%

10%
5%

Sweep Knife Sprinkler Immediate 1 2 3 4 5 6 ≥7

Injected Injected Irrigation Incorporation Day Day Day Day Day Day Days

TABLE 10-21
E STIMATED Q UANTITY OF P LANT A VAILABLE N FROM THE O RGANIC
N A PPLIED IN M ANURE OVER 3 Y EARS

Manure Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

________________ % N Mineralized ________________

Liquid manure 30 12 6
Solid manure 25 12 6
Compost 20 6 3
Source: Leikam and Lamond, 2003, Kansas State Univ. Coop. Ext. MF2562.

Figure 10-70
Barley yield influenced by 100
long-term manure applica-
RELATIVE YIELD (%)

80 Annual 1852–1911
tion. Annual manure appli-
Annual 1852–1871
cation of 30 Mt/ha from1852
60 No Manure
to 1911. N availability for
mineralizable organic N
from manure applied from 40
1852 to 1871 persisted for
40 years after manure appli- 20
cations were halted in 1871.
(Hall, 1917, The book of the Rothamsted 0
experiments [2nd ed.], E.P. Dutton and 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
Company, N.Y.) YEAR

Estimating plant available N (PAN) in manure is provided in the following

examples:
Solid beef manure (without bedding)—broadcast, incorporate 2 days after application
Total N = 11 lb>t (Table 10-18)
Organic N = 7 lb>t
NH4@N = 4 lb>t
NO3@N = negligible
 nutrient management chapter ten 421

PAN = 4 lb NH4@N>t * 50% = 2.0 lb available NH4@N>t (Fig. 10-69)

+7 lb organic N>t * 25% = 1.7 lb plant available organic N/t
(Table 10-21)
3.7 lb PAN/t
Liquid swine manure (lagoon)—knife injected
Total N = 4 lb>1,000 gal (Table 10-18)
Organic N = 1 lb>1,000 gal
NH4@N = 3 lb>1,000 gal
NO3@N = negligible
PAN = 3 lb NH4@N>1,000 gal * 90% = 2.7 lb available NH4@N>1,000 gal
(Fig. 10-69)
+1 lb organic N>1,000 gal * 30% = 0.3 lb plant available organic N>1,000 gal
(Table 10-21)
3.0 lb PAN>1,000 gal
Many comparisons have been made between the effects of manure on crop pro-
duction and those obtained from the application of equivalent amounts of N, P,
and K in commercial fertilizers. Long-term studies comparing manure and fertilizer
sources demonstrate similar crop productivity (Figs 10-71 and 10-72).

3.5 Figure 10-71

Long-term continuous
Fertilizer
3.0 wheat production between
13.4 Mg/ha Manure
manure and fertilizer nutri-
No Treatment
GRAIN YIELD (Mgyha)

2.5 ent sources (1890–1990).

(Sanborn Plots, University of
2.0 Missouri.)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
YEARS

50 Figure 10-72
Comparison of manure and
Fertilizer
40 fertilizer sources on winter
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

Manure
wheat yield (1930–2007).
No Treatment
(MagruderPlots, Okla. State Univ.)
30

20

10

0
1930–37 1938–47 1948–57 1958–67 1968–77 1978–87 1988–97 1999–07
YEARS
422 chapter ten nutrient management

Distribution of manure by grazing animals presents a problem in the

maintenance fertilization of pastures. For N, which does not remain in effective con-
centrations for more than a year, about 10% of a grazed area is effectively covered an-
nually. In contrast, residual effects of P from animal wastes may last for 5–10 years. In
general, nearly all of a pasture area will receive deposits of manure in a 10-year period.
K retention in soil is intermediate between N and P, and manure-applied K is effec-
tive to some degree for about 5 years. During this period, about 60% of a pasture will
have been covered. With low stocking rates, animal excreta will essentially have no
effect on soil fertility. On highly productive pastures with a high carrying capacity,
excreta may have a beneficial effect on soil fertility over a period of time.
Producers interested in using manure as a nutrient source in cropping systems
should consider:
• high transportation costs potentially result in continued application of manure
close to the source, where overapplication is common
• nutrient content in manure is highly variable, causing considerable uncertainty in
quantifying nutrient rates applied
• high variability in mineralization of organic N in manure combined with year-
to-year environment effects on N mineralization causes uncertainty in estimated
N availability to crops
• increased soil compaction can occur with manure application equipment
• possible nutrient imbalances; for example, manure rates based on crop N re-
quirements will result in P applications three to five times the crop requirement
(Table 5-14)

Composted Feedlot Manure Composting is being adopted in many regions as

an alternative means for handling large volumes of manure produced at confined
animal feeding operations. This approach has many benefits, including reduction
in mass and volume of material as well as reductions in weed seed viability and
fly breeding potential, plus avoiding malodors from land application of manure.
N and C losses as high as 30–60%, respectively, accompanied by reductions of
20–30% in dry matter are observed in typical windrowing compost (Fig. 10-73).
Consequently, compost bulk density is 3-4 fold higher than manure, reducing
transportation costs.

Figure 10-73
Composting animal manure.
 nutrient management chapter ten 423

Biosolids
Sewage wastes that have undergone treatment to meet specific standards can be
used as an agricultural soil amendment and are referred to as biosolids. Biosolids are
nutrient-rich materials from the treatment of municipal wastewater and contain
nutrients beneficial to plants and some heavy metal elements that must be moni-
tored in soils and in plants. Interest in disposal of biosolids is increasing because of
increasing population-generated wastes, and the need to recycle these materials as
energy and fertilizer costs continue to increase. Use of biosolids can benefit agricul-
tural production because of the relatively high OM and nutrient content and is an
effective alternative to more costly methods of disposal, such as burning or burying
(landfills).
Land application of biosolids is regulated by federal and state governments.
Prior to land application, biosolids are treated to reduce pathogens, odor, and heavy
metal content.
The United States divides biosolids into two grades: class A biosolid has been
treated to reduce bacteria prior to application to land; class B biosolid has not.
Class A biosolid is the most rigorous, with no application site restrictions (i.e., all
crops, lawns, gardens, and public accessible areas). Class B biosolid receives less
rigorous treatment, with site restrictions related to crop harvest, animal grazing,
and public access. Biosolids are also treated with lime, partial composting (aerobic
and anaerobic), and dehydrated to reduce odor and the potential to attract flies and
other disease-transmitting organisms (vector attraction reduction).
Like manure, biosolids contain both inorganic and organic N (Table 10-22).
Biosolid application rates to crops are determined by crop N requirement and
biosolid N content similar to manure rates. Most of the inorganic N occurs as
plant available NH4+ . During and after application, the quantity of NH3 volatil-
ized depends on application method (Table 10-23). Subsurface application or
immediate incorporation will minimize N volatilization losses and increase plant
available N.
As with manure, organic N will slowly mineralize to provide plant available N.
Because of variation in organic N content, biosolid application rate, and yearly
variation in environment controlling N mineralization rate, it is difficult to assess

TABLE 10-22
T YPICAL E LEMENTAL A NALYSIS OF B IOSOLIDS ON A D RY W EIGHT B ASIS

Cumulative
Component Concentration Component Concentration Loading Limit
% ppm lb/a
Organic C 50–60 Hg 1–15 15
Organic N 3–6 Zn 700–2,800 2,464
NH4+ + NO3- 1–2 Cu 500–1,500 1,320
P2O5 2–4 Mn 50–400 –
K 2O 0.2–0.3 B 20–85 –
Ca 3 Cd 5–50 34
Mg 1 Pb 50–300 264
S 0.9 Ni 20–400 370
Fe 1–3 As 15–50 36
Se 5–70 88
Source: Stehouwer, 2011, Penn. State Univ. (http://cropsoil.psu.edu/extension/esi/biosolids-use, accessed
March 25, 2013).
424 chapter ten nutrient management

TABLE 10-23
E FFECT OF B IOSOLID A PPLICATION M ETHOD ON NH3 V OLATILIZATION

Application Method NH3 Loss (%)

Broadcast 40–60
Broadcast and incorporation within 3–4 days1 10–30
Subsurface band or injection 62
1Increasing time between application and incorporation increases NH3 loss.

the annual contribution of organic N mineralization to plant available N. First-year

N mineralization rates range between 10 and 40% depending on the biosolid source
(Table 10-24). When waste is applied annually, N mineralization contributions from
both current and past applications must be considered in estimating plant available
N. The declining amounts of mineralizable N with time from previous biosolid
applications are considered in the determination of total PAN:
%PAN = NO3@N
+ % volatilization loss * NH4@N (Table 10-23)
+ mineralization rate 11st year2 * organic N* (Table 10-24)
+ mineralization rate 1past years2 * organic N*
where *Organic N = Total N - Inorganic N 1NO3@N + NH4@N2
Like animal waste, biosolids applied at agronomic N rates often results in
P and micronutrient application in excess of crop requirement. Eventual buildup
of these elements can pose environmental concerns. In contrast, K content in
biosolids is low, and supplemental fertilizer K may be needed if soil test K is
below the CL.
Biosolid application is regulated to lifetime loading rates determined by cumula-
tive application of eight elements (Table 10-22). Cumulative loading represents the
maximum total amount (lb/a) of each element that can be applied to a field. Back-
ground concentration of the eight elements is documented prior to biosolid applica-
tion. With each biosolid application, the lb/a of each element applied is added to the
initial background level. Biosolid application to a field is prohibited when lifetime
loading rate has been reached. It is essential that appropriate application and soil
management techniques be used to protect the environment and human health.

TABLE 10-24
N M INERALIZATION R ATES FOR V ARIOUS B IOSOLID M ATERIALS OVER
T HREE C ROPPING S EASONS A FTER A PPLICATION

% N Mineralization
Sludge Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Unstabilized 40 20 10
Lime stabilized 30 15 7
Aerobic digestion 30 15 7
Anaerobic digestion 20 10 5
Composted 10 5 2
 nutrient management chapter ten 425

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN TURF

Turfgrass production is a rapidly growing component of agriculture. Regardless of
its use in residential or recreational environments, effective nutrient management is
essential to turfgrass quality, durability, and aesthetic appeal. A comparison of relative
nutrient contents of several turfgrasses is provided in Table 9-1. The primary difference
between most agricultural crops and turfgrass is that most of the nutrients applied to
turf systems are not removed, but recycled through soil OM components as the resi-
dues are degraded (Fig. 4-2). Most of these nutrients ultimately become plant available
in subsequent years. In addition to soil tests, plant tissue can be sampled to assess nutri-
ent status and adequacy of the fertilization program. Samples are collected by clipping
leaves slightly above the soil surface several days after regrowth (Table 9-3). Nutrient
sufficiency ranges are provided in Table 9-4.

Nitrogen
N requirements of turfgrass are greater than any other nutrient, which is similar to
other agronomic crops (Table 9-1). Adequate N maintains a desirable dark-green
leaf color, prolific tillering or shoot density, and some tolerance to other nutrient
and pest stresses. Excessive N accumulation in turf increases growth and H2O use,
enhances susceptibility to diseases, and reduces tolerance to heat stress. Reduced root,
stolon, and rhizome growth with increased heat and water stress results in thin, un-
even growth patterns.
The goal of an efficient N management program is to provide adequate
N to support vigorous growth without overfertilization. Recommended an-
nual N rates depend on the turfgrass species, desired turfgrass quality, and soil
type. N contribution from the irrigation water should also be factored into the
N recommendation. Most turfgrass N recommendations range between 1 and
8 lb>1,000 ft2 (40–350 lb N/a) annually (Table 10-25). Because N is mobile
in the soil, two to four applications throughout the season are recommended.
More frequent applications result in higher quality and longer periods of dark-
green color. Because of the midspring to midsummer and mid- to late-fall active
growth pattern in cool-season grasses (e.g., bluegrass, ryegrass, and fescue), main-
taining high forage quality requires three to four applications of 1 lb>1,000 ft2 in
late fall and early spring (Table 10-25). Warm-season grasses (e.g., bermuda grass
and zoysia) exhibit active growth from midsummer through midfall. N is applied
in midspring 11 lb>1,000 ft22, followed by monthly applications through early
fall. Low N rates 161.5 lb>1,000 ft22 should be used with soluble N sources to
maximize N recovery by the plant and to minimize N leaching. Higher rates can
be used with slow release N sources (Tables 4-23 and 4-24).
Continued use of N fertilizers will depress soil pH (Table 3-5). Monitor soil
pH changes with periodic soil testing and apply lime to maintain soil pH at 6–6.5.

Phosphorus
Although used in smaller amounts than N, P is important for early seedling vigor,
stand establishment, and spring regrowth (Chapter 5). P is especially important for
establishing new turfgrass areas. In low P soils, increasing P availability improves N
utilization and recovery. P deficiencies are uncommon in established turfgrass, where
clippings are usually left on the surface, and many mixed turf fertilizers contain P.
Soil testing is the best tool to identify low P soils and the need for P fertilization.
Where soil test P is high, fertilizers that contain P are not necessary. Overapplication
of P will increase surface loss of soluble P, which can degrade surface H2O quality
(Chapter 12).
426 chapter ten nutrient management

TABLE 10-25
O PTIMUM A NNUAL N A PPLICATION R ATES AND T IMING FOR S ELECTED
T URFGRASS S PECIES 1

Annual N
Rate Number of Applications
Turf Species lb>1,000 ft2 1 2 3 4
Fine leaf fescue 1–2 EF EF, ES EF, ES, LF EF, ES, MR, LF
Tall fescue 2–4 EF EF, ES EF, ES, LF EF, ES, MR, LF
Perennial ryegrass 2–4 EF EF, ES EF, ES, LF EF, ES, MR, LF
Kentucky bluegrass 2–4 EF EF, ES EF, ES, LF EF, ES, MR, LF
Bermuda grass 4–8 ES ES, MR ES, ER, LR ES, ER, MR, LR
St. Augustine grass 2–4 ES ES, MR ES, ER, LR ES, ER, MR, LR
Zoysia 2–4 ES ES, MR ES, ER, LR ES, ER, MR, LR
1E=early; M=mid; L=late; S=spring; R=summer; F=fall

Potassium
Turfgrass can require as much K as N, although N is usually the most limiting.
Using adequate N without K enhances plant susceptibility to diseases and drought
stress. With high N rates, higher K rates are required to maintain turfgrass quality.
Balanced N and K nutrition encourages root, stolon, and rhizome growth impor-
tant for maintaining optimum turf density; H2O use efficiency; winter hardiness (in
northern climates); and tolerance to heavy traffic. An N:K ratio of 2:1 in leaf tissue
is considered normal. Early fall-applied K improves winter hardiness in northern
climates, while early spring-applied K preceding heat or water stress periods is ben-
eficial in southern climates. Fertilizers with a 1:1 ratio of N:K will supply adequate
K in most cases. K fertilizers have higher salt indices than most N and P sources;
thus, caution is recommended with applications at germinating and seedling growth
stages (Table 10-2). The salt index with K 2SO4 is lower than other K sources.

Sulfur
Turfgrass usually requires more S than P. Adequate S nutrition is important for pro-
tein and chlorophyll synthesis that greatly contributes to a healthy, dark-green color
(Chapter 7). S-deficiency symptoms are often mistaken for N stress. S is also essential
for maximizing recovery of N and K, which is important in reducing N leaching po-
tential. Annual S rates are 0.5–2 lb>1,000 ft2, either as a single application in early
spring or split applied with N in the spring and fall. Split applications of S reduce the
potential for S leaching, especially in sandy soils (Chapter 7).

Micronutrients
Dark-green turf color is also related to Fe and Mg nutrition, since these nutrients function
in chlorophyll synthesis. Early spring and midsummer applications are recommended.
Soil testing provides the best guide to identifying soils low in plant available micronutri-
ents. Foliar-applied Fe can enhance turf greenness, even with adequate Fe availability.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Adoption of best management practices (BMPs) for nutrients should increase plant
productivity (yield and quality), increase profitability, maintain or improve soil fertil-
ity and productivity, and avoid damage to the environment. The basic requirements
 nutrient management chapter ten 427

of good soil fertility, nutrient availability, and efficient plant use of applied nutrients
include:
• optimal soil pH for the specific plant grown
• sufficient soil OM for improved soil structure, H2O holding capacity, nutrient sup-
ply, and microbial activity
• porous soil structure with no limits to root growth, infiltration, or drainage
• removal or neutralization of toxic elements (Al in strongly acid soil, Na in saline/
alkali soils, or heavy metal contaminants)
Implementation of BMPs for plant nutrients can be challenging due to many uncon-
trollable variables; however, efficient nutrient management should start by avoiding
common mistakes:
• less than optimum soil pH, OM, and soil structure reduce nutrient supply, plant
growth, and nutrient use efficiency (NUE)
• unrealistic yield goals may cause overapplication of nutrients reducing NUE and
increasing risk of nutrient loss from the root zone
• not using or misuse of readily available soil and plant nutrient diagnostic techniques
• failure to recognize high nutrient requirements of selected plants
• unbalanced nutrient availability may cause hidden hunger that reduce plant yield
• while nutrient additions may be recognized, optimum nutrient response and NUE
will be realized only with the optimum rate, source, placement, and/or application
timing of recommend nutrients
A nutrient management plan must be developed for each field and includes the
following information.

Field and Soil Map

A field map illustrating field boundaries, soil types, and elevation enables assessment of
crop land areas, proximity to water bodies, water wells, residences, and other objects.
Yield history of each manageable subfield area is essential to identifying potential pro-
ductivity that influences nutrient availability, retention, and need.

Soil Testing and Plant Analysis

Accurate soil test information depends on a quality soil sampling plan guided by the
field and soil map (Chapter 9). This information provides the foundation for assess-
ing the soil’s ability to supply plant available nutrients and establish nutrient recom-
mendations. Plant analysis information from previous crops should be reviewed for
areas with nutrient levels below or above their critical range.

Crop and Crop Rotation

Previous crop and yield level is important information, especially with legumes. Low
legume yield in the previous year will provide less legume available N than a high
yielding legume crop. Surface residue condition and specific crop will guide nutrient
placement decisions.
The intended crop will determine the general nutrient requirements. Recognize
specific plants with high requirements for certain nutrients.

Yield Expectation
Realistic yield expectations are essential to estimating nutrient needs. Historical yield
records for each field provide the best record for determining expected yield level.
Overestimating yield results in overapplication of nutrients with potential negative
428 chapter ten nutrient management

impacts on environment, while underestimating yields results in underapplication of

nutrients and loss of yield and profitability.

Nutrient Sources
If soil physical conditions are not optimum, increasing soil OM may be warranted.
Quantifying nutrient content (and mineralization rate) of organic amendments is essen-
tial to balanced nutrient supply and meeting the projected nutrient need of the plant.
Selection of fertilizer sources is based on crop need, soil properties, and cost. Selected
nutrient sources should optimize nutrient supply just ahead of peak nutrient demand.

Recommended Rates
Recommended rates are determined through evaluation of expected yield
potential, native soil nutrient supply, and efficiencies of crop recovery of applied nu-
trients. Most soil testing laboratories provide recommended nutrient rates. While
these recommendations are good guides, adjustments should be made to satisfy
requirements for specific field conditions. Match the nutrient rate to crop need
(Fig. 10-74). Excess nutrients may enhance losses to the environment, while too little
reduces yield and/or quality. Utilize appropriate diagnostic tools (crop scouting, soil
and plant analysis, field tests, variable rate technology, record keeping, etc) to evaluate
nutrient sufficiency. Documenting nutrient response of previous crops is essential to
quantify the most efficient nutrient rate for the intended crop.

Application Timing
Nutrient application timing depends on the specific nutrient and the crop growth
pattern. Mobile nutrients should be applied just prior to the maximum uptake or
growth period. This may require in-season split applications or controlled release
sources (N) to maximize nutrient use efficiency. With immobile nutrients, preplant
applications are generally recommended.

Placement Method
Many placement options exist that greatly influence nutrient availability and crop
recovery of applied nutrients. For example, broadcast N with surface residue cover re-
duces N recovery by the crop. Band-applied P can substantially increase yield in low
P soils compared to broadcast P. Placement decisions are based on specific nutrient
and intended crop.

Figure 10-74 Deficiency Maximum Yield Toxicity

Optimum nutrient supply
100
is essential for maximizing Critical
plant growth and nutrient Nutrient High Yield
use. Nutrient addition be- Range
GROWTH OR YIELD (%)

yond critical nutrient range Low Yield

does not increase plant
growth and reduces nutrient
use efficiency.
Acute Deficiency

Optimum Supply
Hidden Hunger

Excess Supply
Luxury Supply

Acute Toxicity

INCREASING NUTRIENT SUPPLY

 nutrient management chapter ten 429

Proximity to Nutrient-Sensitive Areas

Assessment of the field and potential nutrient transport will help prevent nutrients
from entering unwanted areas (e.g., streams, ponds, groundwater, water wells). Use
of riparian buffers, grassed waterways, conservation tillage, and other management
practices reduces potential nutrient transport off the field (Chapter 12).

Assessment and Revision

After each crop season, the nutrient management plan should be evaluated relative to
crop productivity and profitability. Adjustments should be made with any nutrient-
related decrease in yield or quality.
Regardless of the nutrient source (organic or fertilizer), adopting nutrient BMPs
will help ensure efficient nutrient supply to the target crop, which should minimize
offsite impacts of nutrient use.
While recycling and use of all available organic nutrient sources is beneficial to
both the supplier and user, fertilizer nutrients are essential to meet the growing global
population demand for food, fiber, feed, and other products generated from plant
materials.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Why is root growth stimulated in response to 12. What is meant by residual nutrient availability?
plant nutrients in infertile soil? What root charac- Using Figure 10-63, estimate the number of years
teristics influence the ability of crops to exploit soil required for soil test P to decline below the critical
for moisture and nutrients? level if no P is applied in each soil.
2. Describe soil conditions that might affect depth of 13. Are there residual benefits from NO3@N in soils?
rooting. What conditions would you expect to measure
3. Why might the nature of the root system of the residual N?
crop being grown affect the decision to build up 14. There are three philosophies of managing immo-
the fertility level of the soil versus applying fertil- bile nutrients: buildup, maintenance, and draw-
izer in the row? How would the economic status of down. Describe situations where each would be
the farmer affect the decision? the most appropriate management.
4. Explain how band and broadcast applications 15. What is foliar fertilization? Discuss any limitations.
complement each other in encouraging efficient 16. What is fertigation and what are its advantages
crop production. and drawbacks?
5. Explain why crops are more likely to experience 17. How is the distribution of plant nutrients in the
salt injury on a sandy soil than on a silt loam. root zone modified by tillage?
6. Why can P materials be placed close to the seed or 18. Explain why deeper placement of plant nutrients
plant? Why is it usually important that P be close is likely to give a greater response than shallow
to the seed or young plant? placement in some areas.
7. You have the choice of broadcasting and plowing 19. Explain why conservation tillage often requires
down, broadcasting and disking in after plowing, a change in nutrient management. Why might
or subsurface band apply. Which method would higher rates of N be required for no tillage com-
be most desirable for N and P? Explain fully. pared to conventional tillage?
8. Under what conditions is surface broadcast P and 20. Ten grams of NH4NO3 134% N2 is added to
K taken up by the plant? 3,000 g of greenhouse soil. Calculate the following:
9. Why does NH4@N applied with P cause more P to a. mg NH4NO3 added
be absorbed by the plant? b. mg N added
10. What are the risks associated with fall N c. ppm N added
fertilization? d. ppm NO3 added
11. Explain how mycorrhizas function and their influ- e. ppm NH4 added
ence on nutrient use. f. %N in soil after adding N
g. lb N/afs
430 chapter ten nutrient management

22. A farmer wants to apply 160 lb N/a. Calculate the 27. A biosolid has the following analysis: 0.5% NO3@N,
following: 0.8% NH4@N, and 6% total N. The material was
a. lb NH3 >a broadcast and immediately incorporated. Using
b. kg NH3 >ha Tables 10-23 and 10-24, estimate PAN.
c. lb urea>a 28. Explain the growth curve of a plant.
d. lb UAN>a 29. What is meant by nutrient management?
e. gal UAN>a (assume 10.8 lb/gal) 30. What is meant by soil tillage?
23. A homeowner applies 3 lb N>1,000 ft2. Calculate 31. What is meant by nutrient placement? What
the lb N>a applied. factors should be considered in determining
24. A golf green manager applied N to each green at proper placement of applied nutrients?
75 lb N>a. Each green is 600 ft2. Calculate the 32. Illustrate the various possible nutrient placement
following: options in soil diagramatically.
a. lb N/green 33. What are the advantages of broadcast placement?
b. lb UAN/green Briefly explain, why it is considered as an effective
c. gal UAN/green method that prevents potential seedling damage.
25. A homeowner applies ten 40-lb bags of fertilizer 34. What are the disadvantages of broadcast application?
(10% N content) to a 2,000 ft2 fescue lawn. Cal- 35. What is the principle of fertigation?
culate lb N>a applied and indicate whether this is 36. List some of the beneficial effects of manure use.
a normal, high, or low N rate. 37. What are the commonly used methods for field
26. Broadcast N usually is less efficient than subsurface application of manure?
N in high surface residue cropping systems. 38. What is total PAN? How is it determined? Give
Using the following data, calculate the %N the formula and explain.
recovery for each system. What caused the dif- 39. What are the salient features of a nutrient
ference? [%N recovery = 1N uptake fertilizer + soil - management planning?
N uptake soil only2>N rate * 100.4 40. What do you mean by crop rotation?
41. How does the placement method influence the
Broadcast N Subsurface N Unfertilized nutrient availability and crop recovery of applied
nutrients?
N rate 100 lb N>a 100 lb N>a 0 lb N>a
Grain yield 98 bu/a 110 bu/a 75 bu/a
Test weight 56 lb/bu 56 lb/bu 56 lb/bu
% grain N 2.1 2.4 1.8

SELECTED REFERENCES
Black, C. A. 1993. Soil fertility evaluation and control. Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999.
Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press. Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby,
Clay, D., and J. Shanahan (Eds.). 2011. GIS applications Ohio: Meister Publishing.
in agriculture: Nutrient management for energy Pierce, F. J., and E. J. Sadler (Eds.). 1997. The state of
efficiency. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. site specific management for agriculture. Madison,
Grant, C. A., and M. S. Milkha (Eds.). 2008. Wis.: Amer. Soc. Agronomy.
Integrated nutrient management for sustainable Rendig, V. V., and H. M. Taylor. 1989. Principles of soil–
crop production. New York: The Hanworth plant interrelationships. New York: McGraw-Hill
Press. Publishing Co.
 11
Nutrient Interactions
and Economics
NUTRIENT INTERACTIONS
Adequate plant nutrition depends on nutrient supply and nutrient bal-
ance. Nutrients interact when increasing one nutrient influences nutri-
ent uptake or translocation of another nutrient. Thus, assessing nutrient
interactions requires understanding relationships between soil nutrient
supply and plant growth, and between plant nutrient concentrations
and plant growth.
Although interactions between nutrients can be positive, nega-
tive, or neutral, it is usually negative interactions that are the most
documented. An interaction occurs when plant response to two or
more inputs is different than the sum of responses to the individual
inputs (Fig. 11-1). A zero interaction occurs when cumulative plant
response is the simple addition of responses to individual inputs:
• response to nutrient A = 100
• response to nutrient B = 50
• response to A + B = 150
Positive (synergistic) interactions occur where the combined response to
two limiting nutrients is greater than the sum of the individual responses:
• response to nutrient A = 100
• response to nutrient B = 50
• response to A + B 7 150
Negative (antagonistic) interactions result when plant
response to the combined nutrients is less than the re-
sponse to the two inputs applied separately:
• response to nutrient A = 100
• response to nutrient B = 50
• response to A + B 6 150
Negative interactions are often observed by either
a deficient or toxic plant nutrient concentration
(Fig. 9-4) caused by an imbalance in soil nutrient supply.
Many antagonistic interactions can be avoided by main-
taining a balanced nutrient supply. Assessment of nutri-
ent ratios can be misleading since the same nutrient ratio
can occur when both nutrients are deficient or both are
excessive.
Nutrient interactions frequently influence plant
growth when (1) two nutrients are deficient, or (2) there
is an excessive supply of one nutrient, while another is
432 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Factor A Factor B Factor A Factor B Factor A Factor B

Zero Interaction Positive Interaction Negative Interaction

Growth response to Factor A Growth response to 2 Growth response to
and Factor B is additive. The factors is greater than Factors A and B combined
additional growth or yield the sum of the responses increases yields less than
realized by adding Factor A of the factors individually. when they are applied
and B is equal to the sum The influence of either separately.
of the responses of each factor alone will be much
factor individually. less than the influence
applied together.

Figure 11-1
Influence of zero, positive, and negative interactions between two factors on crop growth.

marginally sufficient. In the first case, positive nutrient interactions are often observed,
as both yield and nutrient concentration increase with increasing balanced nutrient
supply. In the second case, nutrient deficiency (second nutrient) is induced by excess
nutrient supply (first nutrient). Yield increases from an application of one nutrient
can reduce the concentration of the second nutrient, but the greater plant growth
results in greater uptake [yield * nutrient concentration (%)] of the second nutri-
ent. This dilution effect should be distinguished from an antagonistic effect, which
occurs only if the nutrient concentration decreases below the critical range (Fig. 9-4).
Many interactions are not observed with average yields; however, under high yield
environments, nutrient demand is greater and nutrient interactions are more likely.
Nutrient responses are influenced by many crop (variety, plant population, row spacing,
etc.), soil (plant available water, tillage, compaction, etc.), and environment factors that
must be carefully managed to optimize plant productivity and nutrient use efficiency.
Future increases in agricultural productivity will likely be related to manipulation of
interactions between numerous management inputs and other plant growth factors. It is
essential that growers recognize and take advantage of nutrient interactions.

Interactions Between Nutrients

Macronutrients N-P and N-K interactions are commonly observed. For example,
under low pH, grain yield responses to N and P are substantially reduced compared
to responses on optimum pH soil (Fig. 11-2). Crop response to N is greatly reduced
when P is limiting, where adequate N and P supply substantially increases grain yield
compared to N or P applied alone (Table 11-1). In addition to grain yield response,
recovery of applied N is increased and residual fertilizer NO3@N in the soil profile
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 433

1,800 Figure 11-2

160 kg N/ha Influence of lime application
1,600 40 kg N/ha on wheat yield response to

WHEAT GRAIN YIELD (kg ha–1)

1,400 0 kg N/ha broadcast N and P on an
Lime
acid sandy soil. About 8 t/ha
1,200 lime increased soil pH from
1,000 4.4 to 6.2.
(Adapted from Goedert, 1987, In
800 Sanchez et al. (Eds.). Mgmt. Acid
Tropical Soils Sust. Agric. Proc.
600 [pp. 109–127]. IBSRAM Inaugural
Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand.)
400 No
Lime
200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
P2O5 RATE (kg ha–1)

TABLE 11-1
N-P I NTERACTION ON C ORN , W HEAT , AND G RAIN S ORGHUM Y IELD

Corn Wheat Grain Sorghum

N Rate P2O5 Rate Yield N Rate P2O5 Rate Yield N Rate P2O5 Rate Yield
________ lb/a ________ bu/a ________ lb/a ________ bu/a ________ lb/a ________ bu/a
0 0 41 0 0 32 0 0 45
200 0 50 30 0 42 90 0 87
0 160 58 30 30 45 0 30 88
200 160 123 60 0 38 90 30 101
60 60 58
Source: Adapted from Better Crops, 1999, 83(1):11–13.

is decreased with application of N + P on low P soils (Fig. 11-3). N rate required

for optimum yield was higher with 40 lb P2O5 >a 1160 lb N>a2 compared with no
P 180 lb N>a2. When both N and P were adequate, fertilizer N recovery was ap-
proximately 75% compared with 40% without adequate P fertilization. Maximizing
crop recovery of fertilizer N reduced profile NO3@N after harvest (Fig. 11-3). The
rooting depth is approximately 4–5 ft and without adequate P supply a significant
quantity of applied N moved below the root zone. Thus, adequate N and P supply

Figure 11-3
Interaction of N and P
fertilization on irrigated
corn grain yield (a), fertilizer
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

N recovered in the grain

(b), and profile NO3 after
harvest (c).
(Schlegel et al., 1996, J. Prod. Agric.,
9:114–118.)

N RATE (lbya)
(a)
434 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-3
(Continued)

N RATE (lbya)
(b)
PROFILE NITRATE (lbya–10 ft)

N RATE (lbya)
(c)

will optimize yield and maximize fertilizer N recovery while minimizing environ-
mental impact of N use.
N-P interactions are observed with many different crops (Table 11-2). Positive N-K
interactions on grain yield are also commonly observed with increasing K fertilization or

TABLE 11-2
N : P I NTERACTION ON Y IELD AND N U SE E FFICIENCY (NUE) IN S ELECTED C ROPS
Fertilizer Treatment
Crop
1kg N , ha@kg P2O5 , ha2 Parameter1 Unfertilized N Only P Only N + P
Wheat Grain yield 1,750 4,187 1,947 5,057
(120–60) NUE 20 26
Rice Grain yield 2,940 5,530 3,243 6,190
(120–60) NUE 22 25
Corn Grain yield 1,190 4,750 2,250 6,750
(120–60) NUE 36 45
Sorghum Grain yield 2,270 3,670 3,450 5,500
(120–60) NUE 12 17
Sunflower Grain yield 1,470 1,995 1,672 2,426
(60–30) NUE 9 13
Field pea Grain yield 2,180 2,592 2,422 3,028
(40–30) NUE 10 15
1Grainyield (kg/ha); NUE (kg grain/kg N).
Source: Adapted from Aulakh and Malhi. 2004. In Mosier et al. (Eds.). Agriculture and the nitrogen cycle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 435

250 250
Ohio
lb K2O/a Illinois
CORN GRAIN YIELD (buya)

CORN GRAIN YIELD (buya)

200 144
200
96
150 48
0 150 Soil Test K, ppm
100 136
116
100
50 100
80
0 50
0 60 120 180 240 0 60 120 180 240
N RATE (lbya) N RATE (lbya)

Figure 11-4
Influence of K fertilization (Illinois) and soil test K (Ohio) on corn response to N. (Better Crops, 1998, 82[3]:12–13.)

TABLE 11-3
P-K I NTERACTION ON S OYBEAN , W HEAT , AND C OASTAL B ERMUDA GRASS Y IELD

Soybean Wheat Coastal Bermuda Grass

P2O5 K2O Yield P2O5 K2O Yield P2O5 K2O Yield
________ lb/a ________ bu/a ________ lb/a ________ bu/a ________ lb/a ________ lb/a
0 0 26 0 0 52 0 0 2.69
30 0 31 60 0 77 100 0 3.26
0 120 46 0 80 64 0 300 2.65
30 120 55 60 80 91 100 300 4.57
Source: Adapted from Better Crops, 1999, 83(1):11–13.

soil test K (Fig. 11-4). Similar P-K interactions are also common, where plant response is
considerably lower with P or K alone compared to P + K (Table 11-3).
Micronutrients Interactions with micronutrients can be dramatic. For example,
on a soil testing low in P and Zn, adding P without Zn decreased yield by 12 bu/a,
while adding Zn without P decreased yield by 22 bu/a (Fig. 11-5). When both
nutrients were applied, a positive interaction occurred, increasing yield by 44 bu/a.
Similar responses with P applied on marginally Fe-deficient calcareous soils are also
common.

Figure 11-5
20 lb Znya Interaction of P and Zn
fertilization on corn yield.
GRAIN YIELD (bu/a)

(Ellis, 1967, Kansas Fert. Handbook,

Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, Kans.)

0 lb Znya

P2O5 RATE (lbya)

436 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Depending on plant species, soil, and environmental conditions, excessive Mg +2

can have an antagonistic effect on K + absorption, while excessive K + supply can reduce
absorption of Ca+2 and Mg +2 (Fig. 11-6). While negative Ca-Mg and Ca-K interac-
tions have been observed, they are less frequent or pronounced as K-Mg interactions.
Increasing Ca supply has little influence on macronutrient cations, but can substan-
tially reduce absorption of Mn, Fe, and Zn (Fig. 11-7). Increasing Ca concentration
enhances oxidizing ability of roots decreasing Mn, Fe, and Zn solubility.
Many nutrient interactions influence plant growth and nutrient content; only
a few examples have been provided. The most probable nutrient interactions in a
given cropping system involve nutrients that are deficient or marginally deficient.

Figure 11-6 40
K, Ca, and Mg interactions K
35 Ca
in rice seedlings grown in Mg CONCENTRATION (uM)
solution culture. 30
(Adapted from Fageria, 2001, J. Plant
Nutr., 24:1269–1280.) 25

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200
K or Ca CONCENTRATION (ppm)

9
Ca
8 Mg
K CONCENTRATION (uM)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Ca or Mg CONCENTRATION (ppm)

35
K
30 Mg
Ca CONCENTRATION (uM)

25

20

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800
K or Mg CONCENTRATION (ppm)
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 437

40 600
K Mn
35
Mg 500 Fe
30 Cu Zn

Mn, Fe, or Zn (gykg)

K, Mg, or Cu (gykg)

400
25

20 300

15
200
10
100
5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ca CONCENTRATION (gykg) Ca CONCENTRATION (gykg)

Figure 11-7
Influence of increasing Ca supply on macro- and micronutrient uptake in dry bean grown in soil.
(Adapted from Fageria, 2001, J. Plant Nutr., 24:1269–1280.)

Therefore, a good soil testing program will enable the grower to anticipate potential
nutrient interactions.

Nutrient–Crop Management Interactions

Population (row spacing) Increasing plant population may not increase yield with-
out increasing available nutrients, while increasing nutrient supply without sufficient
plant population to utilize the additional nutrients may also not increase yield. For
example, under low rainfall and N supply (0 lb N/a), increasing plant population
decreased corn yield due to substantially greater crop N demand relative to N sup-
ply (Fig. 11-8a). As N supply increased, higher plant populations provided higher
plant yield compared to low population. In a year with greater plant available H2O,
increasing population resulted in increased plant yield at all N rates (Fig. 11-8b). In
contrast, under lower moisture conditions, both plant population and optimum N
rates are substantially lower (Fig. 11-8c). In addition, no interaction was observed
between population and N supply.
With increasing plant population, it may be necessary to adopt narrower row
spacing to optimize light distribution through the crop canopy. Equidistant plant
spacing decreases individual plant competition for sunlight, H2O, and nutrients,
which can enhance plant growth and yield potential. This is especially important
under limited plant available H2O, where high populations planted in wide rows
increases within row competition for available H2O. In an environment with greater

225 Figure 11-8

(a) Indiana Plant population *
200 2005–07 N rate interaction as
influenced by environ-
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

175 ment. Optimum N rate is

based on a 0.1 price ratio.
In (c), N supply = soil N +
150
applied N.
42,000 (Adapted from Boomsma et al.,
125 2009, Agron J., 101:1426–52 [a, b];
32,000
Blumenthal et al., 2003, Agron. J.,
22,000 95:878–83 [c].)
100
Opt. N rate
75
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N RATE (lbya)
438 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-8 225

(Continued) (b) Indiana
200 2009

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

175

150

125 42,000
32,000
100 22,000
Opt. N rate
75
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N RATE (lbya)

60
(c) Nebraska
50
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

40

30
11,000
20 7,000
Opt. N rate
10
0 50 100 150 200 250
N SUPPLY (lbya)

plant available H2O, the advantage to narrow row spacing would likely be reduced.
Generally, the advantage to narrow row spacing is greater in northern latitudes where
sunlight can be relatively more yield limiting than in southern climates.
Variety or Hybrid Within a given environment, one hybrid or variety may produce
a greater response to applied nutrients than another (Fig. 11-9). This is especially
true with N * hybrid response as they vary greatly depending on growing season

60 80
Cowpea Soybean
50 70
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

40 60

30 50

20 40

Variety A Variety A
10 30
Variety B Variety B

0 20
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
P2O5 RATE (lbya) K2O RATE (lbya)

Figure 11-9
Variety * nutrient interaction effect on cowpea and soybean grain yield. (Adapted from Magani and Kuchinda, 2009, Agron. J., 101:1387;
Terman, 1977, Agron. J., 69:234.)
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 439

220 60 Figure 11-10

Hybrid A May 27 Variety * N interaction
200 Hybrid B in corn (Ohio) and plant-
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

June 16
Hybrid C 50 ing date * K in soybean
180 July 8
(Kentucky).
160 40 (Adapted from Thomison et al., 1994,
Fluid J., 94[2]:10–11; Peaslee, Univ.
140 of KY, personal comm.)
30
120 Ohio Kentucky

100 20
75 150 225 Low Med High
N RATE (lbya) RELATIVE SOIL TEST K

moisture and temperature (Fig. 11-10). Because nutrient response between varieties
is difficult to predict, on-farm evaluations of varietal responses to nutrients should be
conducted to optimize productivity and nutrient use efficiency (Fig. 9-30).
Planting Date Earlier planting dates extend the growing season for spring-planted
crops, which generally increase yield potential. For example, soybean yield response to
increasing soil test K level was greater with earlier planting (Fig. 11-10). Similar planting
date interactions with both N and P are common. Cooler soil temperatures experienced
with early planting can temporarily reduce nutrient supply, especially in northern lati-
tudes, requiring a starter nutrient application to ensure nutrient supply meets demand
associated with high yield potential (see “Application Timing” in Chapter 10).

Nutrient–Soil Management Interactions

Plant response to fertilization can be greatly increased if nutrients are applied prop-
erly (Chapter 10). Under reduced and no-tillage systems, surface accumulation of
residue and nutrients combined with cooler temperatures and higher moisture in the
spring can influence nutrient use. In many cropping systems, especially with low soil
test P and/or K, nutrients applied below the soil surface often enhance plant growth
and yield (Figs 10-38; 10-44). Positive interaction of N and P was also shown in
wheat with N-P placement (Fig. 10-40).
In general, higher rates of N and perhaps S are required under no-till systems
than under conventional tillage. Under no-till, broadcast N is partially immobilized
and/or denitrified (Fig. 10-35). To avoid fertilizer N interactions with surface resi-
dues, N must be placed below the residue to reduce N immobilization, denitrifica-
tion, and/or volatilization losses, improving plant recovery of applied N and reducing
residual profile N after harvest. In some environments, yield potential is greater under
no-till systems, requiring more N and other nutrients.
The importance of exploiting interactions in maximizing productivity and prof-
itability cannot be overemphasized. When one practice or group of practices increases
yield potential, nutrient requirement increases. As production agricultural technolo-
gies (genetics, management, etc.) advance, they will be successful only if the technol-
ogy is integrated in a manner that allows the expression of positive interactions.

Nutrient–Water Interactions
Soil H2O supply influences nutrient availability and use, while nutrient supply can
influence H2O use (Fig. 11-11). Even in regions where annual precipitation exceeds
evapotranspiration, H2O stress frequently limits plant growth potential and plant
nutrient demand. With excessive nutrient application, early plant vigor (growth) in-
creases use of limited H2O supply, ultimately reducing yield. In addition, nutrient
deficiencies, pests, and other stresses reduce the plants’ ability to use H2O efficiently,
which reduces crop productivity.
440 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-11
< Nutrient Diffusion, Mass Flow
Influence of soil H2O < Mineral Dissolution
content on nutrient supply < Plant Growth
and plant growth.

Deficit

> Plant Growth

> Plant Growth
> Nutrient Uptake Optimum Soil Optimum
> WUE
> NUE (w/ >H2O) (Nutrients) H2O (H2O) (w/>Nutrients)
> Nutrient Cycling

Excess

> Nutrient Leaching Potential

> N Denitrification Potential
> Fe/Mn Solubility
< Plant Growth

Increasing industrial and residential H2O use will reduce availability for irri-
gated agricultural uses increasing reliance on non-irrigated (dryland) crop produc-
tion. Increasing H2O use efficiency is a major challenge to agriculture; thus, growth
factors that increase yield generally improve H2O use efficiency.
Water Use Efficiency Water use efficiency (WUE) represents crop yield per unit
of H2O used from soil, precipitation, and irrigation. WUE varies between season
and management level (Fig. 11-12). Crops also vary greatly in WUE (Table 11-4).
Because H2O use is required to produce the first unit of plant biomass, a minimum
quantity of both biomass and H2O is required to produce harvestable yield. Thus,
when measuring WUE based only on grain yield, for example, yield versus H2O use
lines have a negative Y intercept (Fig. 11-13).
Yields of crops have increased greatly in the past 30 years on essentially the
same amount of H2O, which is related to improved genetics and soil/crop manage-
ment practices. For example, tillage systems that leave large amounts of surface resi-
dues conserve H2O by:
• increased infiltration
• reduced runoff
• decreased evaporation from soil surface
• increased snow collection (standing residue)

Figure 11-12
Conceptual diagram of
growing season and man-
agement effects on water
use efficiency (crop
CROP YIELD (buya)

yield/water use). Increasing

Management
(Adapted from Hatfield et al., 2001,
Level
Agron. J., 93:271.)

es
ferenc
Dif
nal
aso
Se

CROP WATER USE (in.)

 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 441

TABLE 11-4
W ATER U SE E FFICIENCIES (WUE) FOR S ELECTED C ROPS
AND THE E STIMATED M INIMUM Q UANTITY OF W ATER R EQUIRED
TO P RODUCE F IRST U NIT OF G RAIN

H2O Required to Produce

Crop WUE First Bushel
lb grain/a/in. H2O In.
Corn 580 9.1
Wheat 390 6.8
Millet 240 3.5
Safflower 190 9.2
Sunflower 165 5.3
Source: Neilsen, 1995, Cons. Tillage Fact Sheet No. 2-95, USDA-ARS, USDA-NRCS.

10,000 Figure 11-13

Corn Water use efficiencies for
selected dryland crops.
8,000
The points where lines cross
GRAIN YIELD (lbya)

Wheat
the X axis represent the
6,000 minimum quantity of water
Millet
required to produce the first
4,000 unit of grain (actual values in
Sunflower Table 11-4).
(Adapted from Neilsen, 1995, Cons.
2,000 Safflower
Tillage Fact Sheet No. 2-95,
USDAARS, USDA-NRCS.)

0
0 10 20 30
CUMULATIVE WATER USE (in.)

Although irrigation can stabilize production, yields may still be limited by other
factors (Figs 1-11 and 1-12). For example, if yield potential is doubled with irriga-
tion, then nutrient demand would double. Consequently, the crop must obtain
more nutrients from native soil supply, manures, or fertilizers. With optimum nu-
trient availability, WUE is generally greater under irrigation than under dryland
conditions, where H2O may limit yield potential and crop response to nutrients
(Fig. 11-14).
Water and Nutrient Absorption With vigorous plant growth, most crops rapidly
deplete soil H2O in shallow surface layers. As surface soil H2O is depleted, the
plant extracts H2O from the lower three-fourths of the root depth (Fig. 11-15).
Under nutrient stress, root growth may be limited and the plant may not extract
H2O from lower soil depths, limiting plant growth. If an extra 2–4 in. of subsoil
water is accessed, the crop may tolerate drought without appreciable yield loss. In
areas with dry subsoil, increased fertilization will not help crops penetrate subsoil.
Water is essential to nutrient uptake by root interception, mass flow, and dif-
fusion (Chapter 2). Roots intercept more nutrients, especially Ca+2 and Mg +2, in
a moist soil than in a dry soil because root growth is more extensive. Mass flow of
soil H2O transports most of the NO3-, SO4-2, Ca+2, and Mg +2 to roots. Nutrients
diffuse from areas of high to low nutrient concentration but over short distances.
Diffusion rate depends partly on soil H2O content; therefore, thicker H2O films or
higher nutrient content increase nutrient diffusion (Fig. 11-11).
442 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-14
Relationship between 1.2
irrigated and dryland winter Irrigated
wheat yield and water use
Dryland
efficiency (WUE).
(Musick et al., 1994, Agron. J.,86:980.) 1.0

WATER USE EFFICIENCY (kgym3)

0.8

0.6

0.4

WUE = 0.26*GY – 0.016*GY2

0.2 r2 = 0.88

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
GRAIN YIELD (Mgyha)

Figure 11-15
The top 25% of the root
zone is the first to be
25% Moisture 40% of Total
exhausted of available
Used
moisture. Certain manage-
ment practices, including 25% 30%
adequate nutrient availabil- EFFECTIVE
ROOT ZONE
ity, encourage a deeper root
DEPTH
system to extract moisture 25% 20%
from the lower root zone.
25% 10%

Nutrient absorption is directly affected by soil H2O content, and indirectly by

the effect of H2O on metabolic activity, degree of soil aeration, and solution salt con-
centration. Plant growth and yield potential is greater with normal or higher mois-
ture availability; however, even in dry seasons, adequate nutrient availability greatly
increases yield and WUE (Fig. 11-16).
Adequate nutrient supply is critical for efficient crop H2O use and enhanced
crop tolerance to low soil H2O supply. The following factors are relevant:
• adequate nutrient supply favors expanded root growth; if roots explore an addi-
tional 1 ft. depth, 1–2 in. of H2O can be obtained
• under low soil H2O, nutrient diffusion is reduced because H2O films are thin,
increasing diffusion path length
• low soil H2O exerts a physiological effect on roots reducing elongation, turgidity,
and density of root hairs, decreasing nutrient uptake
• adequate K nutrition aids stomata closure during drought, reducing transpiration
H2O loss
• adequate nutrition encourages rapid canopy development that reduces soil H2O
evaporation
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 443

YIELD (buya)

Figure 11-16
Long-term influence of fertilization on corn grain yield and WUE. (Morrow plots, Univ. Illinois).
(Adapted from Potash & Phosphate Inst., 1990, Fert. Improves Water Use.)

• adequate nutrition advances maturity that may initiate flowering, pollination, and
grain fill before summer periods of drought and high temperatures
• plant residues increase with increasing yield, increasing surface residue cover, which
increases infiltration, reduces runoff, and lowers wind speeds at the soil surface, all
of which increase potential H2O availability

Dryland (non-irrigated) Cropping Systems

In many climates, available soil H2O frequently limits plant growth and yield. In
semi-arid and arid regions, fallowing (extended non-crop periods) is commonly
practiced to store additional precipitation. In crop-fallow systems, increased soil
H2O conservation by maximizing surface residue cover (no-till) will reduce the
dependence on fallowing and enable more intensive cropping (Fig. 11-17). These
data illustrate that wheat yields in a wheat-fallow rotation are not greatly increased
due to the extra soil H2O conserved under no-till; however, additional stored soil
H2O enabled production of two crops in 3 years and three crops in 4 years com-
pared to one crop in 2 years. Total WUE increased 750% in the 3-year rotation
compared with the 2-year rotation.
N availability is usually not reduced as much as P and K; however, under
drought conditions, N mineralization is reduced, in addition to reduced uptake
of soluble N. Generally, the commonly observed positive H2O * N interaction is
related to (1) increasing N supply will not increase yield without sufficient plant
available H2O and (2) increasing stored soil H2O will not greatly increase produc-
tion without adequate N (Fig. 11-18). Similarly, increasing N supply increases
WUE.
444 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-17
Influence of decreasing
fallow (F) frequency on
wheat (W), corn (C), and
millet (M) grain yield (a) and
on total grain production
and H2O use efficiency (b)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

YIELD (Ibya 3 1000)

in a 12-year cycle.

WUE (Ibyin.)
(Peterson et al., 1992, Proc. Great
Plains Soil Fert. Conf., pp. 47–53.)

(a) (b)

80 8 80
Available Water (in) WUE Yield
20

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

60 15 6 60
10
WUE (buyin)

5
40 4 40

20 2 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100
N RATE (lbya) N RATE (lbya)

Figure 11-18
Interaction between plant available H2O (soil H2O + growing season rainfall) and N on dryland winter wheat yield
(left) and N rate on wheat grain yield and water use efficiency (right) (Havlin, unpublished data).

Sufficient P and K nutrition is critical for maximizing plant growth under

reduced soil H2O availability, where increasing drought stress increases P and K
response (Fig. 11-19). The P>K * H2O interaction is related to:
• P>K diffusion is reduced under low H2O content; P>K fertilization increases con-
centration in the H2O films and increases diffusion
• subsoil P>K 6 surface soil in many soils; under drought stress, roots explore lower
P>K subsoil, contributing to increased plant response to P/K
Micronutrient diffusion to plant roots is also reduced under low soil H2O.
Since plants require a much smaller quantity of micronutrients, drought stress
effects are not as great. Temporary B deficiency can occur under dry soil conditions
attributed to both restricted B mineralization and crop uptake in surface soil. Low
soil H2O can also induce Mn and Mo deficiencies. Increased soil moisture results in
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 445

90 200
80 Rainfall
YIELD INCREASE FROM

70 160 Normal

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

PHOSPHORUS (%)

60 Corn
Low
120
50
40
80
30
Normal
20 40 Low
10 Soybean
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 50 100 150 200
12-WEEK RAINFALL (in.) K2O RATE (lbya)

Figure 11-19
Influence of growing season rainfall on soybean response to P (left) (Barber, 1971, Better Crops) and corn and soybean
response to K (right). (Johnson and Wallingford, 1983, Crops and Soils, 36:15).

greater amounts of Mo uptake. Mn becomes more available under moist conditions

because of conversion to more soluble forms.
Irrigated Cropping Systems
Nutrient * H2O interactions under irrigated systems are often similar to dry-
land systems, except the interactions operate at higher yield levels (Fig. 11-14).
Fertility is one of the important controllable factors influencing H2O use in irri-
gated soils. Generally, crop response to N is much greater under irrigation, where
H2O is non-limiting (Fig. 11-20). When N is deficient, increasing N fertilization
will increase yield, total H2O use, and WUE. In sandy soils, excessive irrigation
may leach soluble nutrients (e.g., NO3- and H2BO30), which can reduce nutrient
supply.
When irrigating crops with ground or surface waters, it is essential that water
samples are sent to a laboratory for nutrient analysis. For example, in western regions
of the United States, irrigation water may contain salts, S, and many other constitu-
ents that must be accounted for in the nutrient management plan. Salts are particu-
larly problematic (Chapter 3); however, substantial nutrients can also be added to

200 140 7
Irrigated Yield
Dryland 120 WUE 6
160
GRAIN YIELD (buya)

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

100 5
WUE (buyin)

120 80 4

80 60 3

40 2
40
20 1

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 75 150 225 300
N RATE (lbya) N RATE (lbya)
(a) (b)

Figure 11-20
Influence of N supply on irrigated and dryland corn yield (a) and on wheat yield and WUE (b).
(Schlegel and Havlin, 1995, J. Prod. Ag., 8:181–185; PPI, 1990.)
446 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

crops through irrigation. For example, if a H2O analysis shows 10 ppm SO4-S and
12-in. irrigation H2O is applied during the growing season, the quantity of S applied
is calculated by:
10 lb S 43,560 ft2 62.4 lb H2O
10 ppm S = * * 1 ft H2O * = 27 lb S>a
6
10 lb H2O a ft3
This amount of S meets or exceeds S requirement of most crops (Table 9-1).

ECONOMICS OF NUTRIENT USE

World fertilizer use increased ≈30% over the last decade, due to increased nutri-
ent use in China and other rapidly developing nations (Fig. 1-9). To meet world
food demands in the next 40 years (Chapter 1), increased agricultural productiv-
ity will require increased inputs, especially fertilizers. As higher nutrient rates
are utilized, it is essential that nutrients are applied to maximize recovery by the
crop. Higher crop yields represent the greatest opportunity for reducing per-unit
production costs.
To obtain a given level of production, growers vary fertilizer, labor, machinery,
and other inputs. Actual input use depends on relative costs and returns. Although
production costs vary between years, costs generally increase over time. The relative
costs of many farm inputs have increased more than the costs of fertilizers and chem-
icals (Fig. 11-21). Unfortunately, the input prices paid by growers have increased
much more than the output prices received (Fig. 11-21). Therefore, it is imperative
that growers achieve optimum productivity through efficient and cost-effective use of
only those inputs that ensure positive net returns.

Maximum Economic Yield

Maximum economic yield represents the yield level where the last unit of input pays
for itself and is less than maximum yield (Fig. 11-22). Maximum economic yields
vary among management levels, although on most farms they are often higher than
those generally achieved. To maximize profits, higher yields are essential; however,
achieving the highest yield will not result in the greatest return per unit of added
input.

500 1.2
Taxes Seeds
Chemicals Labor
PRICE INDEX (1985 = 100)

1.1
400 Machinery Fertilizers
PRICE INDEX RATIO

Fuel
1
300
0.9
200
0.8

100
0.7 y = –0.0133x + 27.4
R2 = 0.82
0 0.6
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
YEAR YEAR
(a) (b)

Figure 11-21
Index of prices paid for selected inputs (a) and the ratio of prices received to prices paid (b).
(USDA-National Agric. Statistics Service, 2011, http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ and http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/.)
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 447

Figure 11-22
High Yield
Diagram representing

VALUE OF INCREASED YIELD ($ya)

fertilizer economics as-
sociated with high and low
Yield Without yield levels. Fertilizer rate
Fertilizer
for maximum yield occurs
Low Yield
where the slope of the re-
sponse curve is equal to 0
Rate for or is parallel with the x-axis.
Rate for Fertilizer rate for maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Yield profit occurs where the
Profit
slope of the response curve
is parallel to the fertilizer
Fertilizer cost line.
Cost

FERTILIZER RATE (lbya)

Management practices that increase crop yield per unit of land area will lower
per unit production cost, since management (tillage, planting, input application, etc.)
costs associated with a low or high yield crop are relatively similar. Fixed costs (land,
buildings, machinery, labor, seed, etc.) are independent of production level, whereas
variable costs (fertilizers, harvesting, handling, etc.) vary with yield.
Inputs that increase yield increase production cost/a, but decrease cost/bu and
increase net return (Table 11-5). Key factors in obtaining the most efficient use of
inputs are weather and the management skill of the producer. With superior manage-
ment, higher nutrient rates are generally required (Fig. 11-22). Selected management
practices that enhance yield include:
• timeliness: important in planting, tillage, nutrient application, equipment adjust-
ment, pest control, scouting, and harvesting
• variety selection: large differences in yield, disease resistance, quality, and respon-
siveness to inputs exist among varieties and hybrids
• plant population-row spacing: optimum utilization of light energy through the
canopy and plant available soil H2O requires equidistant plant spacing
• pest control: identifying pest problems early improves effectiveness of pesticides
• crop rotation: rotating crops may not only reduce weed, disease, and insect problems
but also improves soil structure and reduces N inputs when legumes are included
• tillage: reduced tillage in many environments increases water availability
Producers recognize the importance of maximizing net return per unit of land.
With adequate cash or credit, producers select input levels that earn the greatest

TABLE 11-5
E FFECT OF I NCREASING C ORN Y IELD ON P RODUCTION C OSTS
AND N ET P ROFIT / A

Grain Yield Production Costs Net Profit1

bu/a $/a $/bu $/a
130 350 2.69 235
160 390 2.44 330
190 410 2.16 445
220 420 1.91 570
1Revenue-variable costs assuming $4.50>bu.
448 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-23 240

Incremental Response
Diminishing returns to N
200 Cumulative Response $–0.47 $–1.72
application. The dollar

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

$1.03
Yield with No N $2.42
values on top of each bar $4.92
160
represent the net return per
$9.67
added dollar invested in N. 120

80

40

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
N RATE (lbya)

net return per acre. In general, as nutrient rate increases, the return per dollar spent
decreases as a result of reduced response for each successive incremental input.
Eventually, no further response to additional nutrients is realized. This principle is
called the law of diminishing returns (Fig. 11-23). When a nutrient is deficient, the
first nutrient increment results in a large yield increase. The next increment may
also give an increase, but not as proportionately large as the first. Consequently,
responses to additional increments continue diminishing to the point where the
last incremental yield value just equals the input cost, which represents the nutrient
rate for maximum profit.
Nutrients costs and crop prices can vary widely (Fig. 11-24). When fertilizer
prices increase and crop prices decrease, the nutrient rate for maximum return should
be adjusted. To assess the influence of changing crop and nutrient prices, the nutri-
ent rate required for maximum yield and maximum profit can be estimated from

Figure 11-24 1,000

Annual variation in fertilizer N
costs and commodity prices 800 P2O5
PRICES PAID ($yton)

in the United States. K2O

(USDA-NASS, 2011, http://quickstats
600
.nass.usda.gov/.)

400

200

0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
YEAR

12
Soybean
PRICES RECEIVED ($ybu)

10 Wheat
Corn
8

0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
YEAR
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 449

180 Figure 11-25

y = –0.0020x2 + 0.85x + 70
160
Example yield response to
N relationships with high

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

140 and low corn yield levels (a).
Influence of corn : N price
120
ratio on economic optimum
100 y = –0.0024x2 + 0.80x + 50 N rate (EONR). Shaded area
in (b) represents the typical
80
range in corn price :
60 N cost ratio.

40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N RATE (lbya)
(a)
220
200
High Yield
180
160
EONR (lbya)

140 Low Yield

120
100 Normal
Range
80
60
40
0 5 10 15 20
CORN : N PRICE RATIO
(b)

typical yield response to applied nutrient relationships. For example, assume the yield
response to N function for a high yield is (Fig. 11-25a):
Y = -0.0020X 2 + 0.85X + 70
where Y = grain yield (bu/a)
X = N rate (lb/a)
N rate for maximum yield:
• set the first derivative of the response function equal to zero
• solve for X

dY
= -0.004X + 0.85
dX
0 = -0.004X + 0.85
0.85
X = = 212 lb N>a
0.004
• N rate for maximum yield represents that point on the yield (bu/a) curve where the
slope 1dY>dX2 = 0 (Fig. 11-26a).
N rate for maximum profit:
• set the first derivative of the response function equal to the ratio of fertilizer N cost
(i.e., $0.45/lb N) to grain price (i.e., $4.50/bu)
• solve for X

dY $0.45
= -0.004X + 0.85 =
dX $4.50
-0.004X + 0.85 = 0.10
0.75
X = = 188 lb N>a
0.004
450 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

Figure 11-26 180

Graphical representation 160 High Yield
of the N rate for maximum

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

140
yield (a) and N rate for maxi- Low Yield
120
mum return to applied N (b),
100
using the high and low yield
functions in Figure 11-25a. 80
60 N Rate for
Maximum
40
Yield
20
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
N RATE (lbya)
(a)
800
High Yield
700
YIELD VALUE ($ya)

600 Low Yield

500
400
300 N Rate for
200 Maximum Fertilizer
Return Cost
100
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
N RATE (lbya)
(b)
The N rate for maximum profit represents the point on the yield value ($/a)
curve where the slope is parallel to the fertilizer cost line (Fig. 11-26b).
For the low yield response function (Fig. 11-25a), the N rate for maximum
yield and profit are 167 lb N/a and 146 lb N/a, respectively (Fig. 11-26).
The nutrient rate required for maximum return to applied nutrient depends
on nutrient cost and crop price (Fig. 11-24). For example, as N cost increases
with a given corn price, the N rate for maximum profit decreases (Table 11-6).
Alternatively, as corn price increases with a given N cost, the N rate for maximum
profit increases. If prices remain within a commonly observed range of 10:1–15:1
(Fig. 11-25b), price changes have relatively minor effects on N rate for maximum
profit (12 lb N/a range). However, if large fluctuations occur in N cost or crop
price, adjustments in N rate can be considered. For example, with $6/bu corn and
$0.30/lb N, optimum rate is 200 lb N/a, whereas at $3.00/bu corn and $0.60/lb
N, optimum rate is 163 lb N/a.
Additional Benefits from Maximum Economic Yields
Energy Efficiency
Higher yields are an effective means of improving energy efficiency in agriculture.
Higher yields require more input energy/a, but less energy cost/bu or ton. Some costs
are the same regardless of yield level. For example, it takes just as much fuel to till a
field yielding 60 bu/a of soybean as one yielding 90 bu/a.
Reduction in Soil Erosion
Raindrops strike soil with surprising force, dislodging particles and increasing soil
erosion. However, crop canopies and residues absorb raindrop energy maintaining
or increasing infiltration, reducing runoff, and decreasing soil loss. Wind erosion
and soil moisture depletion are also decreased by the presence of heavy surface crop
residues. Highly productive cropping systems are essential to soil conservation and
productivity because crop canopy development is advanced and more top and root
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 451

TABLE 11-6
E FFECT OF C ROP P RICE AND F ERTILIZER C OST ON N R ATE FOR M AXIMUM R ETURN TO A PPLIED N,
B ASED ON “H IGH Y IELD ” N R ESPONSE F UNCTION IN F IGURE 11-25

N Cost ($/lb)
Crop Price 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
$/bu lb N/a
3.00 188 184 180 175 171 167 163
3.50 191 188 184 180 177 173 169
4.00 194 191 188 185 182 178 175
4.50 196 193 191 188 185 182 179
5.00 198 195 193 190 188 185 183
5.50 199 197 195 192 190 188 186
6.00 200 198 196 194 192 190 188
Note: “Shaded” cells represent the N rate associated with a corn : N price ratio = 10:1; the “outlined” area represents a commonly observed
range in price ratio = 10:1–15:1.

residues are produced. Conservation tillage practices leave more residues on the sur-
face greatly reducing soil erosion (Chapter 12).
Soil Productivity
Increasing soil OM is a long-term process; however, the productivity benefits of
raising OM can be substantial (Chapter 12). In areas of higher temperatures and
lower moisture, it is more difficult to increase OM; however, larger amounts of
decomposing residues improve soil physical conditions and water infiltration that
increases water availability to plants, while reducing runoff and erosion.

Other Nutrient Economic Issues

Unit Price of Nutrients
Growers are interested in the most economical nutrient source. Wide variations in
the cost per unit of nutrient occur commonly related to increased foreign demand for
fertilizers and increased natural gas and other energy costs. Growers should choose
a fertilizer source based on the cost per unit of nutrient in the formulation. For ex-
ample, if urea (45-0-0) costs $400/ton and UAN (30-0-0) costs $320/ton, the unit
cost ($/lb N) is:
Urea
2,000 lb urea * 0.45 = 900 lb N
$400>900 lb N = $.44>lb N
UAN
2,000 lb UAN * 0.30 = 600 lb N
$320>600 lb N = $.53>lb N
Mixed fertilizers contain more than one nutrient. To compare costs of several mixed
fertilizers, the cost per unit of one or more nutrients is assumed or based on the cost
of the single nutrient source used in the mixed fertilizer formulation. The assumed
cost of these nutrients is subtracted from the total fertilizer cost, and then the remain-
ing cost is used to determine the cost per pound of the nutrient in question. For
example, if DAP (18-46-0) costs $650/ton, assume the N cost is $0.44/lb for urea in
the above example. The unit cost 1$ >lb P2O52 is:
2,000 lb fertilizer * 0.18 N = 360 lb N
2,000 lb fertilizer * 0.46 P = 920 lb P2O5
452 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

DAP cost attributed to N:

$.44>lb N * 360 lb N = $158.40
P2O5 cost in DAP:
$650 - $158.40 = $491.60
$491.60>920 lb = $.53>lb P2O5
If TSP (0-46-0) costs $400>ton, the unit cost 1$ >lb P2O52 is:
2,000 lb fertilizer * 0.46 = 920 lb
$400>920 lb = $.43>lb P2O5
The cost of P2O5 in 18-46-0 is greater than in 0-46-0.
Similar calculations are used when comparing common-blended fertilizer made
from the concentrated sources shown above (i.e., 3-9-9, 10-10-10). For example, a
5-10-10 costs $180/ton and 10-10-10 costs $220/ton. Assuming the same P and K
costs, the 5-10-10 costs $1.80/lb N and the 10-10-10 costs $1.10/lb N.
In addition to the actual fertilizer cost, growers also consider cost of transpor-
tation, storage, and labor used in fertilizer application. These costs may be difficult
to evaluate, but if the nutrient price from one source is the same as another source,
growers will purchase the one requiring less labor. Higher analysis sources generally
are the least expensive sources.

Residual Effects High crop yields are impossible with low levels of fertility. Soil nu-
trient supply can be easily controlled; however, the initial cost of building soil fertility
from low to high levels may discourage growers if viewed as an annual rather than
long-term investment. Residual nutrient availability from past applications should be
included in analyses of nutrient economics. Usually the entire cost of fertilization is
charged to the current crop, whereas lime cost can be amortized over 5–7 years. With
high rates of fertilization; however, residual effects can be substantial, especially with
immobile nutrients (Fig. 10-63).
At optimum N rates, about 10–20% may be residual for next year’s crop, pro-
vided that it is not leached below the root zone. The residual value of P and K can
vary from 25 to 60%, depending on rate applied, crop removal, and soil properties
influencing P and K availability.
The lower figure would apply when hay, straw, or stover is removed, or with
high P or K fixing soils. Buildup of immobile nutrients is a capital investment that
can be amortized over years. For example, soil test P buildup from 20 to 30 lb/a
(Bray-1 P) requires 100 lb/a, assuming 10 lb P2O5 >a per 1 lb>a Bray-1 P. The initial
cost is $45.00>a 1$0.45>lb P2O52; however, using a 5-year payoff, the annual pay-
ment would be $9>a>yr with interest. A yield increase of 2 bu/a of $5/bu corn or
1 bu/a of $10/bu soybean would pay for the investment.

Soil Fertility Effects on Land Value When buying land, the producer may choose
high- or low-priced property. The higher priced land is generally more produc-
tive, is fertile, and has better improvements. The lower priced land may actually
be a good buy, provided the land is not severely eroded or has no other physi-
cal limitations to productivity. Low-priced land is usually infertile and may need
considerable lime and/or nutrients. Adequate liming and fertilization, as indicated
by soil tests and combined with other good practices, can rapidly increase produc-
tivity. Expenditures to improve fertility may be included in the land cost, where
$100 - 200>a for liming and nutrient buildup may be expected. Thus, with
 nutrient interactions and economics chapter eleven 453

proper management, it is possible to increase land productivity and value, with the
cost amortized over years.

Liming Lime applications guided by soil testing and plant requirement are essen-
tial for maximum returns from fertilizer (Fig. 11-2). Net returns from liming are
high when applied where needed, where returns vary with lime rate, lime cost, yield
response to liming, and crop price. In spite of a high return, lime is often neglected
in the fertility program because (1) responses to lime are often not as visual as those
obtained with N, P, or K unless the soil is particularly acidic and (2) liming effects last
for 5–7 years and returns are not all realized the first year.

Animal Wastes Soil enriching benefits from manure, in addition to those from
nutrients, are related to the OM that improves soil structure and moisture relations;
increases mobility of P, K, and micronutrients; and stimulates microbial activity.
There is considerable variability in manure, depending on methods of storing and
handling; however, with current fertilizer, labor, and equipment costs, it is usu-
ally profitable for the grower to use livestock manure. Because manure is largely
an N-P fertilizer, the highest returns are obtained on non-legume crops. Hauling
charges can be reduced by applying it on fields close to the source and using com-
mercial fertilizer on more distant fields. With this strategy, risk of overapplication
and N and P loss to surface and ground waters is increased. Composting of manure
significantly lowers hauling costs, enabling it to be transported to greater distances
(Chapter 10).

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What is a positive interaction? Why are interac- maximum yield. Describe how fertilizer rate for
tions more critical at higher yield levels? maximum profit is calculated. Show how the fer-
2. Explain why it is impossible to obtain a full tilizer rate for maximum profit can be determined
response from an applied nutrient if the level of graphically.
another nutrient is inadequate. 11. Why does the level of management affect the
3. Describe the importance of adequate P or K sup- return from a given level of fertilization?
ply on N response. 12. What are some of the yield improving practices
4. Explain the greater response to P or K in dry years that cost little or nothing? How do they influence
and in wet years. returns from high-cost inputs?
5. Define water use efficiency (WUE). Why is it so 13. T h e f u n c t i o n Y = 90 + 0.6X - 0.0025X 2
important in agriculture? List factors that affect describes the crop response to fertilizer N.
WUE. a. Calculate the N rate for maximum yield.
6. What is the effect of adequate plant nutrients on b. Calculate the N rate for maximum profit
WUE? Why does this effect occur? 1$4>bu; $0.40>lb N2.
7. Explain the effect of adequate nutrients on increasing c. Grain price drops 20% and fertilizer cost
the extent of the root system. Why is this important increases 20%. Calculate N rate for maximum
in drought periods? profit. Why is the answer different than in
8. How might placement of nutrients affect uptake part b?
in a dry year? 15. Calculate the nutrient cost per lb of N, P2O5 and
9. What is maximum economic yield and how is it K2O, when the fertilizer cost is
determined? a. TSP (0–46–0) $ 500/ton
10. Using Figure 11-22, describe why fertilizer rate b. KCl (0–0–60) $ 800/ton
for maximum profit is less than that required for c. NH3 (82–0–0) $ 200/ton
454 chapter eleven nutrient interactions and economics

16. If urea (45–0–0) costs $ 500/ton and UAN 21. Discuss the influence of Ca supply on macro – and
(30–0–0) costs $ 350/ton, what is the unit cost micronutrient uptake in dry bean grown in soil.
($/lb N). 22. Discuss the influence of (i) soil water on nutrient
17. If DAP (18–46–0) costs $ 700/ton, what is availability & use and (ii) nutrient supply on H2O
the unit cost ($/lb P2O5) in the above problem. use.
Assume the N cost is $ 0.50/lb for urea. 23. Explain the essentiality of water in nutrient
18. If the function y = 100 + 0.5x - 0.0005x 2 absorption.
describes the crop response to fertilizer N, calculate 24. What is the principle of law of diminishing
the N rate for maximum yield. returns?
19. Comment on 25. Discuss the various management practices
a. N-P interaction followed to increase the crop yield per unit land
b. N-K interaction area.
c. P-K interaction 26. What is liming? How does lime application
20. What are the benefits of a good soil testing maximise the returns from fertilizers?
program?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Jackson, T. L., A. D. Halvorson, and B. B. Tucker. Terman, G. L., and O. P. Engelstad. 1976. Agronomic
1983. Soil fertility in dryland agriculture. In evaluation of fertilizers: Principles and practices.
H. E. Dregne and W. O. Willis (Eds.), Dryland Bull. Y-21. Muscle Shoals, Ala.: Tennessee Valley
agriculture. Madison, Wis.: American Society of Authority, National Fertilizer Development
Agronomy. Center.
Mortvedt, J. J., L. S. Murphy, and R. H. Follett. 1999. Thorne, D. W., and M. D. Thorne. 1979. Soil, water,
Fertilizer technology and application. Willoughby, and crop production. Westport, Conn.: AVI
Ohio: Meister Publishing. Publishing Co.
Prihar, S. S., P. R. Gajri, D. K. Benbi, and V. K. Wolf, B. 1999. The fertile triangle: The interrelation-
Arora. 2000. Intensive cropping: Efficient use of ship of air, water, and nutrients in maximizing
water, nutrients, and tillage. Binghampton, N.Y.: soil productivity. Binghampton, N.Y.: Hanworth
Hanworth Press. Press.
 12
Agricultural Productivity
and Environmental
Quality
The strength and longevity of any civilization depends on the ability to
sustain and/or increase the productive capacity of its agriculture. Soil
and crop management practices should achieve sustained profitable pro-
duction. Sustainable agriculture encompasses soil and crop productivity,
economics, and environment and can be defined by:
The integration of agricultural management technologies to produce
quality food and fiber while maintaining or enhancing soil produc-
tivity, farm profitability, and environmental quality.
Achieving agricultural sustainability depends on many agronomic,
environmental, and social factors. Common criteria used to assess sus-
tainable farming systems include:
• maintain short-term profitability and sustained economic viability
• maintain or enhance soil productivity
• protect environmental quality
• maximize efficiency in use of resources
• ensure food safety, quality of life, and community viability
Soil management practices that contribute to or en-
courage soil degradation will reduce soil productivity
and threaten agricultural sustainability (Fig. 12-1). Al-
ternatively, soil conservation is essential to enhancing
soil productivity and long-term sustainability.

SOIL HEALTH OR QUALITY

Many interrelated physical, biological, and chemical
properties determinely the health of a soil. Most of
these properties are relative easy to measure and should
be periodically assessed to guide soil and crop man-
agement decisions that can sustain crop productivity
(Table 12-1). Improving soil health can have a large
influence on profitability by:
• increasing plant vigor and yield
• reducing risk of yield loss during stress (e.g.,
drought, pests pressure)
• reducing input costs (e.g., less tillage, fertilizer, and
pesticides use)
456 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-1 Soil Degrading Processes Soil Conserving Practices

Soil productivity is reduced
by soil degradating pro-
cesses and improved by soil
conservating practices. Soil Erosion Crop rotation
OM Loss Reduced Tillage
Nutrient Depletion Contour Farming
Compaction Strip Cropping
Desertification Terracing
Salinization Improved Drainage
Acidification Riparian Buffers
Excessive Nutrient
Leaching Management

Severely Non-
Eroded Eroded

TABLE 12-1
M EASURABLE S OIL P ROPERTIES U SED AS I NDICATORS OF S OIL H EALTH

Measurement Process Affected

Topsoil depth Root volume, H2O/nutrient availability
Soil OM Nutrient cycling, H2O/pesticide retention, soil structure,
porosity
Infiltration Runoff, erosion, leaching potential, plant available H2O
Aggregation Soil structure, infiltration, erosion, root growth
Bulk density Root penetration, H2O/air-filled pore space, microbial activity
Microbial biomass Biological activity, nutrient cycling, pesticide degradation
Soil pH Nutrient availability, pesticide absorption and mobility,
root growth
Salinity, sodicity Soil structure, infiltration, crop growth
Nutrient availability Plant growth, environmental hazard

Management practices that degrade a natively productive soil reduce crop

yield and producer profitability (Fig. 12-2). When a soil is not functioning to its
full capacity, changes in many physical, biological, and chemical soil properties can
be observed or measured (Table 12-2). For example, dryland wheat yields declined
until growers adopted technologies that improved soil productivity and wheat yield
(Fig. 12-3).

Figure 12-2 Intensive Tillage

Soil management practices Soil Erosion
that degrade soil health Nutrient Depletion
ultimately reduce the soils
SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

Soil OM Decline
ability to support crop
production. Soil Structure Deteriorates
< Aggregation
> Surface Crusting, Soil Compaction

> Soil Erosion

> Soil OM Loss
< Soil H2O Availability
< Biological Diversity
> Nutrient Exhaustion

TIME
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 457

TABLE 12-2
S OIL F ACTORS T HAT N EGATIVELY I NFLUENCE S OIL H EALTH

Soil Properties
Physical Chemical Biological
Compaction Nutrient depletion Low microbiological activity
Low infiltration Excessive acidity Low organism diversity
Poor drainage High salinity or sodicity Low organic matter
Erosion Heavy metal contamination High pest or pathogens
Poor aggregation Pesticide contamination High weed seed bank
Surface crusting
Low plant available H2O
Shallow soil depth

60 Figure 12-3
Relative changes in dryland
50 wheat productivity in the
United States. (USDA-NASS,
WHEAT YIELD (buya)

Fallowing,
40 Fertilizers, 2010.)

OM, Topsoil, Conservation

30 Nutrient Tillage
Depletion
20
Semi-Dwarf Varieties
10 Herbicides
Crop Rotation

0
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
YEAR

Although all of the soil properties inherent in soil health are important, soil OM
content is the most critical, because of its influence on many characteristics of a pro-
ductive soil (Table 12-3). For example, increasing soil C increases aggregate stability

TABLE 12-3
C HARACTERISTICS OF S OIL OM AND A SSOCIATED E FFECTS ON S OIL AND P LANTS

Property Effect on Soil Effect on Plant

Color Imparts dark color 7 surface soil temperature advances germination &
seedling growth (depending on residue cover)
H2O retention Holds ∼20 times its weight in H2O 7 H2O holding capacity, 7 plant available H2O esp.
in sandy soils
OM-clay interaction Cements soil particles into Improves soil structure & porosity, enhances gas
aggregates exchange, infiltration, root proliferation in soil
CEC Increase CEC 20 - 70% 7 nutrient retention and availability
Mineralization / Nutrient cycling Increases nutrient availability, retains/conserves
immobilization nutrients
Buffer capacity pH and nutrient buffering Buffer pH and nutrient changes in solution
Chelation Stable metal 1Mn + 2 complexes Enhances micronutrient availability
Solubility Insoluble humus-clay Soluble compound-nutrient complexes leach nutrients
complexes, many soluble low from surface to subsoil areas
m.w. organic compounds
OM-organic molecules Pesticide bioactivity, persistence Influences pesticide degradation
458 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-4

WATER-STABLE SOIL AGGREGATES (kgykg)

Influence of soil C on 1.0 Y = 0.63 + 0.31 In(X/10)
aggregate stability (top) R 2 = 0.62
and soil bulk density 0.9
(bottom).
(USDA-NRCS, 2005.) 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
SOIL C (gykg)

1.85
MAXIMUM BULK DENSITY (gycm3)

Y = 2.044 – 0.229X
R 2 = 0.920
1.75

1.65

1.55

1.45
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
ORGANIC C (%)

and reduces bulk density, which increases infiltration, improves root proliferation
through the soil, and improves soil resistance to water and wind erosion (Fig. 12-4).
The steady-state OM level depends on soil and crop management practices
influencing C accumulation and loss (Fig. 12-5). If management practices are
changed, a new OM level is attained that may be lower or higher than the previ-
ous level. Maintenance of OM for the sake of maintenance alone is not a practical
approach to farming. It is more realistic to use a management system that will give
sustained profitable production without degradation of OM.
When a virgin soil is cultivated, OM decline is rapid during the first 10 years
and then decreases at gradually diminishing rates for several decades (Fig. 12-6).
Increased aeration by soil tillage stimulates microbial oxidation of soil organic C
and increases loss of OM-rich topsoil by water and wind erosion. Many studies have
suggested that under continuous cultivation, soil OM declines approximately 50%
in 40–70 years, depending on the environment and quantity of residue returned.
Eventually, an apparent equilibrium is reached, where soil OM gains equal losses.
Several long-term studies demonstrate the exponential declines in soil OM after
virgin soils are tilled (Fig. 12-7). These data show that OM decreased ≈40% after
45 years in a conventionally tilled wheat-fallow system. Maintenance of 2% OM
occurred with annual application of 10 t/a manure (C and N added), whereas annual
application of 40 lb N/a had little influence on OM. Reducing C input by burning
crop residue further decreased soil OM. The influence of C and N balance on grain
yield is also evident (Fig. 12-7).
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 459

Figure 12-5
Hypothetical decrease in
soil OM with time. At 50
years, changes in soil and
crop management can either
maintain (A), decrease (B), or
increase (C, D) soil OM. (A)
represents no change in crop-
ping system; (B) represents a
change that would accelerate
OM loss (i.e., more intensive
tillage); (C) might represent
adoption of reduced till-
age or a crop rotation that
produces more residue; (D)
might reflect the change in
OM following adoption of a
high-yield no-till system or
rotations that return large
quantities of residue.

100 Figure 12-6

Decline in soil C with time
since initial cultivation in
80
SOIL OM (% of virgin soil)

corn and wheat cropping

Oregon systems. Increasing temper-
60 ature regime increases rate
Kansas of OM oxidation.
(Adapted from Paustian et al., 1997,
40 Mgmt. Controls on Soil C., p. 25,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.)
Australia
20 Increasing Average
Annual Temperature

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
YEARS OF CULTIVATION

3.5 Figure 12-7

+ Wheat-Fallow Conventional Tillage Effects of increasing or
Pendleton, Oregon; 0-30 cm Soil Depth decreasing C and N (manure
3.0 + or fertilizer N) inputs on soil
OM (top) and grain yield
(bottom) in a wheat-fallow
+
2.5 cropping system.
+
OM (%)

(Rasmussen, 1989, USDA-ARS,

+ Bull. 675.)
+
+
+ +
2.0 +

1.5 10 tya of Manure

40 lbya of N
0 lbya of N
1.0
0 lbya of N (Residue Burned)

1881 1901 1921 1941 1961 1981

YEAR
460 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-7
(Continued) 100

GRAIN YIELD (% of maximum)

90

80

70

60 10 tya of Manure
40 lbya of N
50 0 lbya of N
0 lbya of N (Residue Burned)
40
1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981
YEAR

Long-term rotation and nutrient management effects on soil OM are well

documented (Fig. 12-8). Generally, soil OM increases with rotations compared to
continuous cropping due to higher residue C returned associated with higher yields.
Also, ≈100 years of annual manure addition increased soil OM compared with no
manure applied. Interestingly, when manure application was replaced with fertilizer
N, soil OM declined.
Similarly, dryland crop rotations increased soil OM with increasing cropping
intensity or reduced dependence on fallowing (Fig. 12-9). Soil OM increased as more
residue was produced in the wheat-corn-fallow and wheat-corn-millet-fallow systems
compared with the wheat-fallow-wheat system.

Figure 12-8 30
Long-term influence of Pre–1967: MLP Corn-Corn
crop rotation and nutrient Pre–1955: none
SOIL ORGANIC C (gykg)

management on soil C. 1967–: High NPK

Open circles (~) represent 1955–: NPK
25
manure, lime, and P (MLP)
applied during 1867–1966
and replaced with NPK
from 1967 to 2005 (•).
Open squares ( n ) repre- 20
sent no amendments
used during 1867–1955 and
replaced with NPK from
1955 to 2005 ( .). 15
(Khan et al., 2007, J. Environ. Qual., 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
36:1821–1832.)
30
Pre–1967: MLP Corn-OatySoybean After 1967
Pre–1955: None
1967–: High NPK
SOIL ORGANIC C (gykg)

1955–: NPK
25

20

15
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 461

30 Figure 12-8
Corn-Oat-Hay (Continued)

SOIL ORGANIC C (gykg)

25

20

Pre–1967: MLP 1967–: High NPK

Pre–1955: None 1955–: NPK
15
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Figure 12-9
Increasing no-till cropping
intensity increased OM
compared with wheat-fallow-
wheat systems (top). W,
wheat; C, corn; M, millet; F,
fallow. (Peterson and Westfall, 1990,
Proc. Great Plains Soil Fert. Conf.)
Influence of corn or alfalfa
residue incorporated into
the soil for 11 years on soil
C (bottom). (Larson et al., 1972,
Agron. J., 64:204.)

Generally, the quantity of residue returned to the soil will have a much greater
effect on increasing soil OM than residue N content. Figure 12-9 shows that even
though N content of alfalfa is much greater than corn, the original soil C content
was maintained with either corn or alfalfa residue. Increasing residue produced and
returned with either crop increased soil organic C. Soil organic C would have been
greater if all of the alfalfa residue had been left on the soil surface.
462 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Soil OM transformations are very dynamic. Intensive tillage systems, fallow-

ing, and low crop productivity, combined with physical soil loss by erosion, decrease
soil OM content over time (Fig. 12-5). Increasing soil OM requires reducing tillage
intensity and increasing the quantity of CO2 fixed by plants and returned to the soil.
Increasing C input or sequestration depends on the interaction between more pro-
ductive rotations and reduced tillage.
Many factors determine whether soil OM is increased or decreased by crop-
ping systems. The key is to keep large amounts of crop residues (stover and roots)
cycling through the soil. Continued good management, including adequate fertiliza-
tion, helps to maintain the cycle. Sustaining soil productivity for future generations
ultimately depends on maintaining optimum soil OM levels.

SOIL EROSION EFFECTS ON CROP PRODUCTIVITY

Soil erosion represents the greatest threat to sustained soil productivity. Physical soil
loss by water and wind (Fig. 12-10) reduces soil productivity by:
• decreasing topsoil thickness and rooting depth
• decreasing OM and microbial activity, which decreases nutrient supply
• decreasing depth to higher subsoil clay content, which decreases infiltration and
plant available H2O
Loss of soil productivity through soil erosion and other soil-degrading processes
occurs throughout the world; in developed regions, producers have afforded adop-
tion of many soil conservation technologies (Table 1-3). While the extent of soil
erosion has decreased in the U.S., approximately 30% of cropland still exceeds ac-
ceptable soil loss tolerance (Fig. 12-11).

Figure 12-10
Examples of water (top) and wind (bottom) erosion in farm fields.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 463

4 Figure 12-11
Water Wind Trend in total annual soil

SOIL EROSION (t 3 109)

erosion loss (a), average an-
3
nual soil loss per acre (b),
1.38 and % cropland exceeding
2 1.3 soil loss tolerance (c) in
0.99 the United States. Soil loss
0.85 0.8 0.77 tolerance or “T” represents
1
1.68 1.49 maximum annual soil ero-
1.18 1.04 1.01 0.96 sion without a loss in crop
0 productivity.
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 (USDA-Natural Resource Cons.
Serv., 2009.)
YEAR
(a)
8
Water Wind
SOIL EROSION (tyacyyr)

6
3.3
3.2
2.6
4 2.3 2.2 2.1

2 4 3.7
3.1 2.8 2.8 2.7

0
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
YEAR
(b)
50
Water Wind
40
CROPLAND (%)

19
19
30
15
13 13 13
20

24 22
10 19 17 17 16

0
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
YEAR
(c)

Soil erosion is a symptom of poor soil and crop management. Although growers
may recognize or observe soil erosion on their lands, they may not be overly con-
cerned because crop yields have substantially increased since the 1950s (Fig. 12-3).
One should not confuse increasing crop yields with increasing soil productivity, be-
cause yield increases are primarily due to technological advances in crop breeding and
genetics, fertilizers and nutrient management, pesticides and pest management, and
other agronomic technologies.
Water and wind erosion of topsoil can reduce productivity by exposing less-
productive subsoil (Table 12-4). For example, the productive capacity of eroded
Ulysses soil is less than that of eroded Harney soil because the latter is a deeper soil
and has a greater OM content in the subsoil, which improves nutrient availabil-
ity and H2O holding capacity (Fig. 12-12). As a result, the yield loss associated with
increasing soil loss is also greater in the Ulysses than in the Harney soil (1.8 vs. 0.8
bu/a/in. topsoil, respectively). On many eroded subsoils, reduced soil OM and
H2O availability are common factors limiting productivity (Table 12-4; 12-5).
464 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-4
I NFLUENCE OF S OIL E ROSION ON S URFACE S OIL P ROPERTIES IN
T HREE I NDIANA S OILS

Soil Series Erosion Level Clay OM PAW1 P

______________% ______________ lb/a
Slight 19.6 3.03 12.9 62
Corwin Moderate 20.8 2.51 9.8 61
Severe 23.0 1.86 6.6 41

Slight 15.4 1.89 16.1 95

Miami Moderate 18.1 1.64 11.5 86
Severe 22.1 1.51 4.8 68

Slight 18.6 1.91 7.4 81

Morley Moderate 23.0 1.76 6.2 66
Severe 28.4 1.60 3.6 50
1PAW = plant available soil H O.
2
Source: USDA-NRCS, 1998, Soil Quality-Agronomy Tech. Note No.7.

Clearly, loss of topsoil exposes subsoils with physical, biological, and chemical
properties less suitable for optimum crop production. As subsoil characteristics
16depth, 7% clay, 6pH, 6OM2 become less suitable for crop growth, increasing
inputs or management will have less effect on yield (Fig. 12-13).

Figure 12-12
Loss of topsoil by wind and water erosion reduces soil OM, which contributes to wheat grain yield loss.
Loss in productivity varies between soils, depending on initial topsoil depth and productivity of the subsoil.
Compared with the Ulysses soil, the Harney soil has a deeper topsoil; thus, productivity is not reduced as
much as the Ulysses soil under equivalent topsoil loss. (Havlin et al., 1992, Proc. Great Plains Soil Fert. Conf.)
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 465

TABLE 12-5
I NFLUENCE OF S OIL E ROSION ON C ROP Y IELD L OSS AND THE D OMINANT S OIL P ROPERTIES
A FFECTING C ROP P RODUCTIVITY IN S ELECTED U.S. S OILS

Factors Related to Yield Loss

* H2O
Erosion % Yield Holding * Rooting
Location Level Loss Capacity * pH + Bd + % Clay * OM Depth
Indiana Moderate 5 . .
Severe 15 . . . .
Iowa Moderate 7 . .
Severe 16 . .
Michigan Moderate 11 .
Minnesota Moderate 3 . .
Missouri Severe 22
Nebraska Moderate 7 . . .
Severe 9 . . .
N. Dakota Severe 20 . . . .
S. Dakota Moderate 4 . . .
Severe 16 . . . .
Wisconsin Moderate 8 .
Severe 6 .
Source: USDA-NRCS, 1998, Soil Quality-Agronomy Tech. Note No.7.

Figure 12-13
Yield Loss Effect of degree of erosion
and exposed subsoil prop-
erties on crop productivity.
(a) represents moderate
erosion (topsoil loss) or a
Uneroded
subsoil with soil characteris-
tics where increasing inputs
would produce similar yield
YIELD

Eroded
Cost as an uneroded soil. (b) rep-
Increase resents severe erosion and/
or subsoil characteristics
that results in a crop yield
loss regardless of input
level. (c) illustrates how
INPUT declining subsoil suitability
(a) to support crop growth
decreases yield potential.

Yield
Loss Uneroded

Eroded
YIELD

Equal
Cost

INPUT
(b)
466 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-13
(Continued)
Uneroded Declining
Subsoil
Suitability

Increasing
Yield Loss

YIELD

INPUT
(c)

Profitable crop production on eroded soils is an important agricultural problem

that severely limits our ability to meet world food demand (Chapter 1). It is impera-
tive that crop production systems minimize the destructive effects of water and wind
erosion.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ESSENTIAL

TO SOIL HEALTH
Conservation Tillage
Crop residue management (tillage) systems have been developed to leave more crop
residue on the surface to reduce soil and/or water loss compared with conventional
or full tillage systems wherein all residues are incorporated into the soil after harvest
and/or before planting. Conservation tillage broadly refers to tillage systems that leave
Ú30% of the soil surface covered with residue after planting. Specific advantages
include:
• 7 crop yield, except in level, fine-textured, poorly drained soils
• 6 soil erosion by water and wind
• 7 soil OM, aggregation, infiltration, and soil H2O stored
• 6 surface soil evaporation
• 7 acreage of sloping land that can safely be used for row crops
• 6 labor, machinery, and fuel costs
Several disadvantages include:
• 7 potential for rodents, insects, and diseases in some systems
• 6 soil temperatures in spring, resulting in slower germination and early growth
• 7 management ability is required
Several unique conservation tillage methods that require specialized equipment in-
clude (Fig. 12-14):
no-tillage—all crop residue left on soil surface; soil disturbance occurs only with
planters and/or application of nutrients (subsurface band, Chapter 10). With
heavy surface cover, no-till is not well-suited for poorly drained soils
strip tillage—a narrow strip tilled before or at planting, incorporating residue
only in the narrow strip allowing for increased soil temperature and decreased
soil H2O at planting compared to no-till
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 467

Figure 12-14
Tillage systems influence surface residue cover and erosion control. Upper left-full tillage (no residue cover); upper right-ridge
tillage; lower left-strip tillage (courtesy L. Stahl, Univ. of MN), lower right-no tillage. (Other photos courtesy of USDA.)

ridge tillage—a single-pass tillage-planting operation; planter units work on

ridges made the previous year during cultivation, after harvest, or preplant;
planter pushes old residue into the area between the rows; practice useful on
poorly drained, clay soils (Fig. 12-15)
Conservation Tillage Effects on Soil Erosion The quantity of surface residue
remaining after tillage operations depends on crop residue type and amount, and
tillage characteristics (e.g., specific implement, number of passes, tillage depth,
speed of travel). Figure 12-16 illustrates the relationship between residue cover
and residue mass. Low residue producing crops (e.g., soybean, sunflower, cot-
ton, peanuts) provide little surface cover compared with small- and coarse-grain
crops.
The quantity of residue required to prevent or minimize soil erosion depends on:
• soil characteristics (e.g., texture, OM, surface roughness, structure, depth, slope
percentages, and slope length)
• residue characteristics (e.g., type, quantity, orientation)
• rainfall characteristics (e.g., quantity, duration, and intensity)
• wind characteristics (e.g., velocity, direction, gusts, and duration)
468 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-15
Ridge tillage production
system. The planter tills
2–4-in. soil in 6–8-in. band
on top of ridges. Seeds are Old Stubble
planted on top of ridges,
Cover Crop
and soil from ridges is mixed Before Planting
with crop residue between Residue
ridges. Soil on ridges is gen- Manure
erally warmer than soil on Seed
flat fields or between ridges.
Band Fertilizer
Warm soil facilitates crop
germination. Crop residue
between ridges also reduces After Planting
soil erosion and increases
moisture retention. Me-
chanical cultivation during
the growing season helps
to control weeds, reduces
need for herbicides, and
rebuilds ridges for the
next season. Before First Cultivation

Last Cultivation Builds New Ridges

In general, as surface residue cover increases, soil erosion potential decreases (Fig. 12-16).
At about 30% residue cover, soil loss is about 20% of that observed under bare, fallow
(no crop, no residue cover) conditions that maximize erosion potential. Thus, increas-
ing surface residue cover decreases soil detachment by water and wind, and soil erosion
loss. (Fig. 12-17). While reducing tillage intensity increases surface residue cover, surface
cover was much less after planting soybean than corn, resulting in considerably greater soil
loss (Table 12-6). In addition, soil loss is generally greater with tillage up/down the slope

Figure 12-16
Relationship between
residue mass and % surface
cover for selected crops
(top). Relationship between
soil loss with residue cover
divided by soil loss from
bare soil (soil loss ratio)
and % surface residue
cover (bottom).
(USDA-NRCS, 1998.)
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 469

Figure 12-16
(Continued)

50 15 Figure 12-17
Runoff Surface residue cover effects
on runoff (% of rainfall)
40 Soil Loss 12 and soil loss (top) and
influence of tillage direction

SOIL LOSS (tya)

(relative to slope) and inten-
RUNOFF (%)

30 9
sity on soil loss (bottom).
(J. Mannering, 1996, personal
communication; adapted from
20 6 Dickey et al., 1981, Neb Guide,
181–554, Univ. of Neb.)

10 3

0 0
0 41 71 93
RESIDUE COVER (%)

5
Plow Tillage Direction
Parallel
4
Perpendicular
SOIL LOSS (tya)

Sweep
3
Plow

2 Sweep

1
No-Tillage
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
RAINFALL (in.)

compared to tillage on the contour. The same relationship can be seen in Figure 12-17;
however, no-tillage (100% residue cover) provides the largest soil erosion protection.
Conservation Tillage Effects on Nutrient Supply Decreasing tillage intensity and
increasing surface residue cover will influence soil temperature and H2O, which
affects microbial activity, nutrient supply, and ultimately plant growth. Soil tempera-
tures are generally lower under conservation tillage than under full tillage due to the
insulating effect of the residues (Fig. 12-18). Decomposition of crop residue and soil
OM, with subsequent release of plant nutrients (e.g., N, P, S), is restricted by low
soil temperatures. Low soil temperatures may also retard root growth and nutrient
470 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-6
I NFLUENCE OF T ILLAGE I NTENSITY AND D IRECTION ON S URFACE R ESIDUE C OVER AND S OIL L OSS

Tillage Up/Down Slope Tillage On Slope Contour

Surface Cover, % Soil Loss, t/a Surface Cover, % Soil Loss, t/a
Previous Crop Previous Crop
Tillage System Corn Soybean Corn Soybean Corn Soybean Corn Soybean
Fall plow 7 1 9.8 18.3 4 2 5.7 11.4
Fall chisel 25 12 6.7 13.5 50 11 0.6 3.3
No-tillage 69 26 1.1 6.0 85 59 0.5 1.7
Note: Indiana soils, ∼ 4.5% slope, 35 ft slope length, 5-in. simulated rainfall.
Source: Siemens and Oschwald, 1976, ASA, 76:2552.

Figure 12-18 8 30
Increasing surface residue
PLANT AVAILABLE H2O (in.)

SOIL TEMPERATURE (8C)

7
cover increases plant avail- 28
able H2O (in./5 ft rooting 6
depth) and decreases surface 5 26
soil temperature (average
4
growing season maximum
3 24
soil temperature @ 2 in
depth). The 150% residue 2
cover established by adding Soil Water 22
1
the residue removed from Soil Temperature
the 50% residue treatment. 0 20
(Doran et al., 1984, SSSAJ/, 0 50 100 150
48:640–645.) RESIDUE COVER (%)

diffusion to plant roots, although the temperature difference is generally only a few
degrees.
Increasing surface residue cover by reducing tillage can increase plant available
H2O by decreasing runoff, increasing infiltration, and reducing evaporation from the
soil surface (Fig. 12-18). The H2O conservation value of reduced tillage is particu-
larly critical in semi-arid regions. Increasing residue cover with no-till systems can
increase total H2O stored, consequently improving yield and WUE compared with
residue incorporation (Table 12-7).

TABLE 12-7
T ILLAGE E FFECTS ON W ATER S TORAGE , S ORGHUM G RAIN Y IELD , AND
WUE IN A W HEAT -S ORGHUM -F ALLOW C ROPPING S YSTEM

Precipitation
Tillage System Total Storage GrainYield Crop H2O Use WUE
In. % bu/a In. bu/in.
Disk 5.9 15.2 29 12.5 2.3
Sweep 6.7 22.7 37 12.8 2.9
No-till 8.5 35.2 47 13.8 3.4
Source: Unger and Weise, 1979, SSSAJ/43:582.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 471

The influence of tillage on soil temperature and moisture dramatically influ-

ences microbial activity (Fig. 12-19). Mixing air and plant residues into the surface
soil with tillage increases soil aeration and temperature, stimulating aerobic micro-
bial decomposition of residue and soil C, while increasing nutrient mineralization.
The net tillage effect is increased OM mineralization, resulting in gradual OM loss
over time (Fig. 12-6; 12-20). Reducing tillage intensity reduces OM mineralization
and C loss; thus, soil OM levels can be sustained. As discussed earlier, N appli-
cations combined with high-residue-producing cropping systems can increase soil
OM, although 5–8 years of continuous no-till systems may be needed before effects
are measurable. The increase in soil OM occurs predominantly in the surface 2 in.,
although increased OM can be measured deeper in the profile after decades of con-
tinuous no-till cropping.

Figure 12-19
Hypothetical relationship
between relative microbial
activity and time of year in
Aeration
a plowed and a no-till soil;
factors controlling activity
are shown on top of the
graph; the arrow indicates
Plow Tillage
time of plowing.
(J. Doran, personal communication.)

No Tillage

4
No-Till No Tillage
Stubble Mulch Ridge Tillage
Plow
SOIL ORGANIC C (%)
ORIGINAL SOD N (%)

Chisel
3 Moldboard

1
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
YEAR

Figure 12-20
Influence of tillage on soil N, measured as % of total N in undisturbed prairie soil (left). (Lamb et al., 1985, SSSAJ, 49:352).
Decreasing tillage intensity increased soil C. The increase in C with moldboard plow tillage is due to an increase in yield (right).
(Power et al., 2001, J. Environ. Qual., 30:1866–1880.)
472 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-21 140

Adoption of conservation Conservation Tillage
tillage systems in the 120
United States. 100

ACRES 3 106
(USDA-CTIC, 2008.)
80

60

40

20
No-Tillage + Strip-Tillage
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
YEAR

Adoption of Conservation Tillage Systems Currently, over 60% of the cropland

in the U.S. is under some form of conservation tillage (Fig. 12-21). No-till cropping
will continue to increase, where ≈50% of U.S. cropland in the next 20 years will be
under no-till systems. The attractive features of no-tillage systems are:
• row crop production on sloping lands is more feasible, with less loss of soil, nutri-
ents, and H2O
• increased infiltration and reduced evaporation reduces drought stress and increases
WUE
• energy, time, labor, and machinery costs are reduced

Crop Rotation
The increased supply of inexpensive N in the 1960s encouraged non-legume crop-
ping systems on soils where erosion was not a serious problem. Most cropping sys-
tems are currently used because of favorable economics. The most common example
where most producers in a large geographical area use the same crop rotation is the
corn-soybean rotation in the Midwest United States. The overwhelming use of this
2-year rotation indicates powerful economic or social factors influencing cropping
decisions. The primary factors include government program incentives, crop insur-
ance policy, agronomic research focused on corn-soybean, and economics related to
high global demand for these grains and lower production costs related to similar
machinery and equipment. The Morrow plots at the University of Illinois clearly
document the benefit of long-term rotation (and adequate nutrient supply) on crop
productivity compared to continuous cropping (Table 12-8). In the Midwest, corn
yield is often increased ≈10–20% in rotation with soybean than with continuous
corn (Fig. 4-10). Similarly, soybean yield in rotation with corn is also higher than
in continuous soybean. Corn-soybean rotation costs about 10–15% less to produce
than continuous corn, primarily due to increased productivity with lower N cost.
Crop rotations are commonly used to diversify income, spread labor require-
ments throughout the year, and spread crop loss risk associated with weather and
pests over two or more crops. Rotations are primarily used to increase crop produc-
tivity and enhance soil health by:
• reducing wind and water erosion of topsoil
• maintaining or increasing soil OM
• increasing soil N supply with legumes in the rotation
• utilizing residual nutrients applied to previous crop
• deep-rooted legumes and other crops may improve soil structure, water infiltration,
and nutrient redistribution from subsoil to surface soils
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 473

TABLE 12-8
A VERAGE C ORN Y IELDS IN THE M ORROW P LOTS S INCE 1967

Fertility
Treatment Continuous Corn Corn-Soybean Corn-Oat-Hay Treatment Mean
_________________________ bu/a _________________________

Unamended 47 79 100 76
Manure1 82 108 124 105
Manure2 92 125 147 121
U-NPK3 127 153 168 150
M-NPK4 141 157 164 154
H-NPK5 139 160 161 153
Rotation mean 105 131 144
1Manure applied at 4 t>a>y to continuous corn, 6 t>a>y applied before corn in corn-soybean and corn-oat-

hay rotations. Plant density is 8,000 plants/a in manure and unamended plots.
2Manure amendment rates are the same as above, plant density is 16,000 plants/a.

3No manure, 200 lb N>a as urea; plots testing 6 45 lb P>a and 336 lb K>a amended with 49 and 93 lb>a

TSP and KCl.

4Manure and N, P, and K applied as in U-NPK.

5Plots that had received manure until 1967 were amended with only 300 lb N>a as urea, and P and K were

maintained at 7 112 and 560 lb>a of P and K.

Source: Aref and Wander, 1997, Advances in Agron., 62:153–197.

• reducing weed, insect, and disease pressure

• labor is more broadly distributed and income is diversified
While these factors can increase crop yield, a response to crop rotation above that
attributed to these factors can be observed. The specific mechanism(s) causing this
rotation effect is difficult to identify (Fig. 4-13). In this example, corn yield increased
following wheat or alfalfa, where the response is not attributed to N.
In some regions, crop options may be limited because of climatic constraints
or market opportunities; thus, growers continuously produce an adapted crop that
maximizes profit potential. Dryland continuous wheat-fallow in the Great Plains
region is an example.
Numerous long-term experiments have demonstrated that, in general, rotations
increase long-term crop and soil productivity compared with continuous cropping
(Fig. 12-22).
The reasons for the production advantage with rotation cropping compared
with continuous cropping depend on the crops involved, environment, and other

200 Figure 12-22

3 Year Rotation Long-term crop rotation
2 Year Rotation effects on corn yield (2 year
160
= corn-soybean; 3 year =
CORN YIELD (buya)

Continuous Corn
corn-oat-soybean)
120 N, P, K (Adapted from Darmody and Peck,
Initiated 1997, Soil organic c changes in
in 1955 morrow plots, p. 165, CRC Press,
80 Boca Raton, Fla.)

40

0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
YEAR
474 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-23 5
Reseeding alfalfa into alfalfa
over 7 years illustrates an

ALFALFA YIELD (tya)

4
allelopathic decrease in
alfalfa production. 3
(USDA-NRCS, 2009.)

0
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
YEARS OF CONTINUOUS ALFALFA

interacting factors. In some cases, a crop may have a harmful effect on the subsequent
crop, especially if it is the same crop. Allelopathy is the term used to describe the
antagonistic action on like or different species. Substances released from roots and
foliage or formed during the decomposition of residues can have toxic and inhibitory
properties. The comparison of continuous corn versus a corn-soybean rotation is an
example. Seeding alfalfa following alfalfa is often unsatisfactory (Fig. 12-23). With
time, continuous wheat yields generally decrease in many regions due to allelopathic
effects and increased disease and insect pressures.
Crops vary considerably in their macro- and micronutrient demand and in root
morphology that influences nutrient removal from the soil profile. For example, deep-
rooted crops absorb nutrients from the subsoil. As their residue decomposes in the surface
soil, subsequent shallow-rooted crops may benefit from the redistribution of nutrients.
Crop Rotation Planning Widespread use of a single, simple, rotation usually leads to
problems with insects, diseases, and resistant weeds, which are increasingly observed
in corn-soybean (U.S. Midwest), wheat-canola (Canadian Prairies), or wheat-lupine
(Australia). Use of pesticides and genetic engineered crops can be effective, although
they are expensive inputs. Increasing diversity and length of rotations is also effective
depending on the economics of each crop in the rotation.
Designing a crop rotation sequence should include basic agronomic principles
including:
• 2-season interval between the same crop often increases rotation productivity
• specific crop rotation sequence is established to reduce volunteer plants from the
previous crop
• crop options, especially with forages, within the rotation are enhanced with live-
stock diversified farming systems
• vegetable crops are a viable alternative for increased profits, but required high
investments in equipment and labor
• the desire to increase diversity and intensity needs to be balanced with profitability
• previous crop residue quantity, distribution, and architecture that influence pre-
plant tillage and planting the subsequent crop should be considered
• previous crop residue types and management influence infiltration, in-field snow
collection, evaporation, and other factors affecting soil H2O storage critical in
semi-arid regions
• to recover residual nutrients applied to a previous crop, include crops with fast
germination and root development, deeper rooting depths to reach deep profile
nutrients, and crops with high nutrient demand
• varying crop rotation sequence may reduce pest pressure and the probability of
developing resistant, tolerant, or adapted pest species
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 475

TABLE 12-9
E XAMPLE C ROPS TO I NCLUDE IN C ROP R OTATION P LANNING

Cool Season Warm Season

Grass Broadleaf Vegetable Grass Broadleaf Vegetable
Barley1 Alfalfa Asparagus Corn1 Amaranth Bush beans
Durum wheat Clovers Beets Sorghum1 Buckwheat1 Pole beans
Oats1 Canola Broccoli Sudangrass1 Chickpea Lima beans
Spring Wheat1 Crambe Brussel sprouts Millet1 Dry Edible beans Cantaloupe
Winter Wheat1 Field pea Cabbage Sweet Corn Potatoes Cucumber
Winter Rye Flax1 Cauliflower Corn silage Safflower Eggplant
Triticale1 Lentils Carrots Popcorn1 Sunflower Okra
Lupine Celery Soybean Peppers
Mustard Horseradish Pumpkins
Sugarbeets Onions Squash
Peas Snap beans
Spinach Sweet potatoes
Turnips Tomatoes
Lettuce Watermelon
Radish Zucchini
Carrots
Mustard
1High-residue-producing crop.

The crop sequence should contain different crop types (Table 12-9) such
that:
• 2-crop sequence should contain a warm season and a cool season crop
• 3-crop sequence should contain a warm season and a cool season crop, neither of
which may be grown in consecutive years
• 4-crop sequence should contain two different crop types, neither of which included
in 750% of the sequence
• Ú5-crop sequence can have 2–3 consecutive years of the same crop type
• with legume-based rotations, legume should be grown immediately prior to non-
legumes with high N requirements

Crop Rotation Effects on Soil Erosion and Soil Health Generally, crop rotations
that include forage crops in the sequence and/or utilize no-tillage to maximize surface
residue cover increases soil surface protection from soil erosion (Fig. 12-24). As dis-
cussed previously (see “Conservation Tillage”), increasing residue produced and left
on the soil surface will increase infiltration, while reducing runoff and soil loss. Some
of the influences of crop rotations on soil erosion are:
• increasing canopy denseness and/or residue cover enhances protection from wind
and rain, reduces evaporation, and increases yield
• decreasing the proportion of row crops in the sequence relative to close-growing or
solid seeded crops (e.g., small grains, forages) decreases erosion potential
Crop sequences designed for fields/soils with a high erosion potential should provide
good plant cover and return large amounts of surface crop residue. Crop rotation
can greatly improve soil structure and health of many medium- and fine-textured
soils, especially if managed with conservation tillage. Pasture grasses and legumes
in rotation exert significant beneficial effects on soil physical properties. When soils
476 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-24 50
Influence of crop rotation Continuous Corn
sequence and field slope 40

SOIL LOSS (tya)

on soil erosion loss. Hay
grown following corn-barley 30
for 1, 3, and 6 years.
20
Corn-Barley
10 Corn-Barley-Hay (1 yr)
Corn-Barley-Hay (3 yr)
Corn-Barley-Hay (6 yr)
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
FIELD SLOPE (%)

previously in sod are plowed, they crumble easily and readily shear into a desirably
mellow seedbed. Internal drainage can be improved so that ponding and the time
needed for drainage of excess H2O is reduced.
Crop Rotation Effects on Pest Control With most diverse crop sequences, pest
pressure can be considerably lower than under monoculture. For example, reduc-
ing root-rot diseases in wheat and other cereals requires crop rotation, together
with resistant varieties, clean seed, and field sanitation practices (Table 12-10).
Legumes, other dicotyledons, and even cereals such as oats, barley, and corn
are often suitable alternate crops in place of wheat when take-all disease occurs.
However, under irrigation, this disease can be severe, even in wheat following
other crops. Corn root rots and the severity of several seedling diseases have been
reduced in rotations. Susceptible crops should be grown on the same field only
once every 3–4 years. For example, due to serious loss in canola yields from at
least three widespread diseases, minimum 3–4-year rotations are recommended.
Cereals and grasses are suitable rotational crops because they are not susceptible
to diseases of cruciferous crops. Few important bacterial or viral diseases are con-
trolled by crop rotation.

TABLE 12-10
E XAMPLES OF H OW C ROP R OTATION C AN R EDUCE I NCIDENCE
OF C OMMON D ISEASES IN S ELECTED C ROPS

Disease Crops Affected

Bacterial blights Wheat, barley, grasses, rye
Black rot, blackleg Cabbage, pumpkin
Clubroot Radish, cabbage
Common root rot Wheat, barley, grasses
Ergot Rye, wheat, grasses
Fusarium rot Asparagus, spinach, lettuce
Fusarium wilt Peas, muskmelon, squash, tomato
Net blotch Barley
Rust (sunflower) Sunflower
Scab Wheat, barley, corn, rye
Sclerotinia (white mold) Sunflower, dry beans safflower, soybean, potato, canola
Septoria (different species) Wheat, barley
Smut (corn) Corn
Take-all Wheat, barley
Tan spot Wheat, durum
Verticillium wilt Potato, sunflower, safflower
Note: The frequency of including these crops in a rotation sequence varies between 2 and 7 years.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 477

Crop rotation is important for control of nematodes in annual crops. Grass

crops are commonly used in rotation to control root-knot nematodes. Acceptable
yields of irrigated cotton can be obtained following 2 or more years of root knot–
resistant alfalfa.
The role of crop rotation in weed control depends on the weed and the ability to
control it with available cultivation and/or herbicides. If all of the weeds can be conve-
niently and economically controlled with herbicides, then crop rotation is not a vital part
of a weed control program. However, there are situations in which rotations are necessary
for control of a troublesome weed. For example, downy brome and jointed goat grass
can severely reduce yields in a wheat-fallow system. Improved herbicides have reduced
the negative effects of these and other grasses in grass crops; however, crop rotations with
broadleaf crops enhance weed control through rotation of herbicides and reduced poten-
tial of weed resistance to specific compounds. Continuous use of the same herbicides can
potentially cause development of weeds resistant to the specific herbicide.
Rotation was once a common practice for insect management, but its use declined
with the development of economically effective insecticides. Interest in rotations has
increased because of insect resistance to certain chemicals and increased costs. Rotation can
be helpful where insects have few generations each year or where more than one season is
needed for the development of a generation. For example, northern corn rootworm can be a
serious problem in continuous corn. Rotation with soybean reduces the need for insecticide
control. Rotation is only partially successful in reducing damage by cotton bollworm.

Cover Crops and Green Manure Crops

Cover crops are planted after crop harvest to protect the surface soil from erosion
during the non-crop periods (Table 12-11). These crops may be a non-legume, a
legume, or a mixture of the two. If the cover crop is incorporated into the soil with
tillage prior to planting the primary crop in the rotation, it becomes a green manure
crop (Fig. 12-25). Often a green manure crop is planted similarly to a cash crop

TABLE 12-11
C OMMON C OVER C ROPS U SED IN M AJOR C ROP R EGIONS OF THE U NITED S TATES

Region Cover Crops Benefits to Cash Crop Limitations to Cash Crop

Pacific Northwest Winter pea, brassicas, wheat, Improve H2O retention & soil Cover crop H2O use, planting and
triticale structure, reduce erosion germination in heavy residues
Pacific Small grains, field pea, Reduce intercrop tillage, Cool soil temperatures reduce
vetches suppress weeds & pathogens vigor, slow cover crop re-growth
Northern Plains Rye, winter pea, sweet Improve H2O retention, reduce Cover crop H2O use, slow soil
clover, sorghum-sudangrass wind erosion, increase soil C warming following cover crops
Southern Plains Small grains Improve H2O storage, reduce Cover crop H2O use
wind erosion
Midwest Rye, red clover, hairy Reduce erosion, suppress Short cover crop season,
vetch, sweet clover weeds, recover N establishment constraints
Mid-South Small grains Reduce erosion, improve soil Crop establishment in clay soils
structure w/high residue
Northeast Rye, wheat, oats, ryegrass, Reduce erosion, improve soil Cost, establishment constraints,
hairy vetch, crimson clover, H2O, N source H2O use
winter pea, brassicas
Southeast Small grains Increase OM, less erosion, Cost, excess H2O at crop planting
improve H2O storage
478 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-25
Rye grass cover crop in a corn field (left) and rye-hairy vetch green manure crop (right).
(Left Photo: Copyright Michigan State University Board of Trustees; Right Photo: Danielle Treadwell, University of Florida - IFAS)

(normal growing season) and is used primarily as a soil amendment and a nutrient
source for the subsequent crop in the rotation. Using the normal growing season for
a green manure crop instead of a cash crop will increase the green manure crop yield
and quantity of nutrients returned to the soil. Since the field is not in production of
the cash crop, the economic loss must be considered.
Cover and green manure crop benefits to subsequent crops include:
• providing N from a legume included in the cover or green manure crop
• weed suppression through allelopathic effects
• decreased soil erosion
• potentially greater plant available water through increased infiltration and less soil
H2O evaporation (cover crop water use may reduce soil water for next crop)
• small grains or other cover crops can be grazed in late fall and winter when the
amount of growth and soil conditions permit; grazing allows additional return
from cover crop
One important reason for using green manure legume crops is that they supply
additional N, depending on yield and N content (Table 12-12). Increasing the quan-
tity of N produced in the legume cover crop increased yield of unfertilized corn

TABLE 12-12
C OMMON G REEN M ANURE C ROPS U SED IN T EMPERATE R EGIONS
AND THER ANGE IN Y IELD AND N C ONTENT

Yield N Content
Green Manure Crop t>ha kg>ha
Legumes
Black lentil 1.0–2.5 35–65
Blue lupine 2.0–5.0 20–35
Yellow trefoil 0.6–12 15–220
Burr medic and snail 0.5–3.0 15–75
Gamma medic 1.2–2.5 10–25
Alfalfa 0.5–3.0 20–150
Barrel medic 1.2–4.0 35–130
Yellow sweetclover 3.0–5.5 15–55
Field pea or Austrian winter pea 3.0–5.0 60–160
Berseem clover 2.0–8.0 75–180
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 479

TABLE 12-12 (C ONTINUED )

Yield N Content
Green Manure Crop t>ha kg>ha
Legumes
Kura clover 6.0–10 55–140
Alsike clover 2.5–6.0 45–135
Crimson clover 4.0–7.0 110–180
Balansa clover 2.5–4.5 35–70
Red clover 0.4–3.5 20–110
White clover 0.8–4.0 10–90
Persian clover 1.7–4.0 12–25
Hairy vetch 1.5–9.0 60–240
Non-Legumes or Mixtures
Oat 3.0–5.0 80–82
Mustard 2.0–4.0 62–72
Buckwheat 2.0–4.0 52–65
Ryegrass 0.5–5.0 10–50
Field pea 0.5–7.0 35–180
Oilseed radish 2.5–3.5 15–45
Rye 1.5–4.0 20–70
Wheat 4.0–10 40–80
Hairy vetch and rye 3.0–6.0 50–180
Crimson clover and rye 2.5–8.0 50–170
Source: Cherr and Scholberg, 2006, Agron. J., 98:302–319.

(Table 12-13). The grain yield after fallowing was greater than following the wheat
cover crop because of N mineralization during the fallow period.
Allowing the cover or green manure crop to grow to its reproductive stage
will increase yield and the quantity of N fixed and returned to the soil (Fig. 12-26).
Legume green manure crops can contribute large quantities of N to subsequent
non-legume crops (Table 12-13).
In rotations where crops return little residue, maintenance of soil productivity
may be particularly difficult. Thus, lengthening the rotation to include green manure
crops could be beneficial. The acreage of corn and sorghum silage is increasing in
some areas, which leaves the soil with almost no surface residue. Oats or rye seeded
immediately after harvesting or seeded by airplane before harvesting will help to pro-
tect the soil and increase the residue returned.

300 Figure 12-26

Effect of biomass yield on
250 N uptake in corn following
hairy vetch (forage legume)
and rye (small grain) green
N UPTAKE (Ibya)

200
Forage Legume manure crops.
150

100 Small Grain

50

0
0 1 2 3 4
BIOMASS YIELD (Ibya)
480 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-13
D RY M ATTER AND N C ONCENTRATION OF V ARIOUS C OVER C ROPS AND
T HEIR I NFLUENCE ON C ORN G RAIN Y IELD

Grain Yield
Cover Crop Dry Matter N Content 0 lb N>a 200 lb N>a
lb>a lb>a _________bu>a _________

Fallow — — 63 161
Wheat 1,178 35 32 121
Winter pea 1,423 61 132 165
Hairy vetch 2,526 113 156 168
Crimson clover 2,883 102 143 172
Source: Neely et al., 1987, Role of legumes in conservation tillage systems, p. 49, Soil Cons. Soc. Am.,
Ankeny, Iowa.

Protection against erosion is one of the most important benefits of winter cover
crops, depending on the distribution of rain and erosion potential during the year.
The effect of cover crops on soil loss is reduced if soil erosion occurs when winter
cover crops are incorporated in early spring.
For perennial crops such as grapes, peaches, and apples planted on steep slopes,
continuous cover is important in reducing erosion. Since the trees and the cover crops
occupy the land simultaneously, care must be taken, particularly in young orchards,
to prevent competition for H2O and nutrients. In regions of high overwinter rainfall,
cover crop recovery of residual plant nutrients will aid in controlling potential envi-
ronmental problems.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
As plant nutrients cycle through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum, some will be
recovered through plant uptake, incorporated into OM, adsorbed to mineral and
OM surfaces, and precipitated as solid minerals (Fig. 2-1). The remaining nutri-
ents can be transported from the field through runoff and subsurface lateral flow to-
ward streams and rivers, and by leaching to groundwater (Table 12-14; Fig. 12-27).

TABLE 12-14
S OIL P ROCESSES P OTENTIALLY I NFLUENCING S URFACE W ATER ,
G ROUNDWATER , AND A IR Q UALITY

Soil Process Impact on Water and Air Quality

OM mineralization Release of soluble nutrients and other compounds subject to
erosion or leaching
Soil erosion Transport of nutrients and other chemicals dissolved in H2O and
adsorbed to sediments in surface H2O runoff
Leaching Transport of dissolved nutrients and other chemicals in percolat-
ing H2O through soil pores and rapid transport of H2O and
solutes from soil surface through macropores (root and
organism channels, cracks) to groundwater
Denitrification Chemical or biological transformation of dissolved NH4+ , NO3- ,
Volatilization and SO4-2 to gases released to the atmosphere
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 481

Precipitation

Dry Evaporation
Deposition Spray Drift
Wind Erosion

Waste Water

Runoff

Runoff

Entry
Through
Wells
Recharge Groundwater Recharge
Discharge
Recharge from Streams to Streams

Figure 12-27
Diagram of the hydrologic cycle showing potential pathways of nutrients to surface water, groundwater,
and the atmosphere. (Gilliom et al., 2006, The quality of our nation’s waters—pesticides in the nation’s streams and ground water,
1992–2001, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291, p. 172.)

Gaseous losses of N and S to the atmosphere also occur (Chapters 4 and 7). While
it is impossible to utilize nutrients in agriculture without some loss or transport to
surface water, groundwater, and the atmosphere, careful management of applied nu-
trients can minimize their loss to the environment.

Surface- and Groundwater Quality

Nutrients and sediments from agriculture commonly impair inland surface waters
(Table 12-15). Organic compounds, metals, and nitrates are the primary contami-
nants of groundwater. The nutrients of primary environmental concern in agriculture
are N and P.
It is important to recognize that nutrient movement to surface- and ground-
water occurs in natural ecosystems. Water quality standards for drinking water have
been established for all elements that adversely affect health when present in high
concentrations (Table 12-16). Approximately 2% of groundwater wells used for
drinking water exceed the primary drinking water standard of 10 ppm NO3@N. Sev-
eral adverse health effects occur in humans or animals due to excessive N in the envi-
ronment (Table 12-17). Although rare, the most notable health effect of high NO3-
water is low blood O2 in human infants, called methemoglobinemia (Table 12-18).
Infants have a low tolerance for NO3@N compared to adults.
Another impact of nutrient loss from fields is nutrient enrichment or eutro-
phication of surface waters with P and N. Eutrophication is a natural process that
typically occurs as a water body ages; however, accelerated eutrophication is usually
due to anthropogenic causes. Nutrient additions to surface water stimulate excessive
482 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-15
M OST C OMMON P OLLUTANTS AND S OURCES T HAT I MPACT W ATER
Q UALITY OF I NLAND S URFACE W ATERS IN THE U NITED S TATES

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

Pollutants
1 Siltation Nutrients Nutrients
2 Nutrients Metals Bacteria
3 Bacteria Siltation Toxic organic chemicals
4 O2-depleting substances O2-depleting substances O2-depleting substances
5 Pesticides Noxious aquatic plants Oil and grease
Sources
1 Agriculture Agriculture Industrial discharges
2 Municipal point sources Unspecified nonpoint Urban runoff/storm
sources sewers
3 Hydrologic modification Atmospheric deposition Municipal point sources
4 Habitat modification Urban runoff/storm Upstream sources
sewers
5 Resource extraction Municipal point sources Agriculture
Source: U.S. EPA, 2008.

TABLE 12-16
W ATER Q UALITY S TANDARDS FOR H UMAN AND L IVESTOCK C ONSUMPTION

Element Human Livestock

___________________ ppm ___________________

Pb 60.1 0.05
Mo — 0.01
As 60.05 0.05
Se 60.01 0.01
Zn 615 620
Cd 60.01 0.01
Ba 61.0 —
Ca 6200 61,000
Hg 60.01 0.002
NO3@N 610 650
NH4@N 60.05 —
Cl 400 61,000
Source: US-EPA, 2005.

phytoplankton and algae growth. As algae die, they sink to the lake or river bottom
and decay encouraging microbial growth. The decay process releases more nutrients
and depletes the water of dissolved O2. Eutrophication results in several negative
impacts on water quality and ecology of the water bodies, including:
• reduced light penetration due to increased algae growth decreases productivity of
plants living in the deeper waters that are important for producing O2
• use of O2 by microorganisms decomposing dead algae
• reduced dissolved O2 causes death of desirable fish that requires high concentra-
tions of dissolved O2, with a shift to less desirable fish species
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 483

TABLE 12-17
P OTENTIAL A DVERSE E NVIRONMENTAL AND H EALTH I MPACTS OF N

Impact Causative Agents

Human Health
Methemoglobinemia Excess NO3- and NO2- in water and food
Cancer Nitrosamines from NO2- , secondary amines
Respiratory illness Peroxyacyl nitrates, alkyl nitrates, NO3-
aerosols, NO2- , HNO3 vapor in urban
atmosphere
Animal Health
Environment Excess NO3- in feed and water
Eutrophication Inorganic and organic N in surface waters
Materials and ecosystem damage HNO3 aerosols in rainfall
Stratospheric ozone depletion N 2O from nitrification, denitrification, stack
emissions

TABLE 12-18
GUIDELINES FOR U SE OF W ATER WITH KNOWN NO3@N (OR NO3 − ) C ONTENT

NO3− NO3@N Interpretation*

__________ ppm __________

645 610 U.S. Public Health Service standard as safe for

humans and livestock
45–90 10–20 Safe for adults and livestock; not safe for pregnant
women or infants
90–180 20–40 Humans and some livestock at risk, especially young
or those in high-risk category; monitor nitrates in
livestock feed
7180 740 Hazardous to humans and livestock; do not use for
drinking or cooking without treatment

• increasing costs of water purification if used for human consumption

• reduced esthetics and recreational use of water
N and P reaching surface water are from nonpoint agricultural sources, primarily
from land-applied animal wastes and fertilizer (Table 12-15). Guidelines have been
established for N and P loading rates for rivers and streams (Table 12-19).
Nitrogen Although NO3- naturally occurs in all waters, NO3- loading of surface-
and groundwaters can be greatly elevated from N added to agricultural systems.
Although fertilizer, legume, and manure N sources are used to meet N requirements
of crops, fertilizer N is considered the primary cause of contamination of surface-
and groundwater, due to its predominance as an N source (Fig. 4-1). Fertilizer N
lost directly through runoff is relatively small because its solubility and mobility
results in immediate movement into the root zone in most soils. In general, crops
recover 40–60% of fertilizer N in the first year. The remaining N stays in the soil
as NO3-, immobilized to organic N, denitrified as N gases, volatilized as NH3, and
leached as NO3- below the root zone (Fig. 4-2). High N recovery by the crop (low
residual N available for leaching after harvest) will occur with a readily available N
source applied to a crop that can utilize it quickly. Split N applications and/or slowly
484 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-19
G ENERAL G UIDELINES FOR N AND P L OADING I NTO RIVERS AND S TREAMS

Risk Level Total N Total P

_____________ mg>L or ppm _____________

Low 60.5 60.05

Intermediate 0.5–1.0 0.05–0.10
High 71.0 70.10
Note: Total P in streams should not exceed 0.05 mg>L directly entering lakes or reservoirs; total P should
not exceed 0.1 mg>L in streams not discharged directly into lakes or reservoirs.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2003.

available N provides N throughout the crop N uptake period, which improves fer-
tilizer N recovery and reduces N leaching potential. Thus, applied at appropriate
rates, fertilizer N can exhibit a lower potential for leaching than manure, biosolid,
or legume N because a portion of the organic N in these materials will mineralize
during periods of low plant growth and N uptake (Fig. 4-14). Thus, organic N can
often contribute more to nonpoint source contamination of surface- and groundwa-
ter than fertilizer N at equal application rates.
NO3- leaching is normal; excessive NO3- loss is unacceptable. For NO3-
leaching to occur, soil H2O must contain NO3- and move below the root zone
(Chapter 4 (Nitrate Leaching)). Water transport below the root zone generally
occurs in regions where rainfall or irrigation exceeds evapotranspiration (Fig. 12-28).
In addition, soil profile characteristics are important in determining the quantity
of NO3- transported below the root zone (Fig. 12-29). In these examples, the time
required for NO3- to reach groundwater is very short (3–9 months) in a sandy soil
with a shallow vadose zone, which represents the material below the rooting depth but
above the aquifer. With similar vadose zone thickness, time required for transport to

Index Value
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High

Figure 12-28
Groundwater vulnerability index for N. (USDA, 1996.)
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 485

RIVER VALLEY SANDHILLS TABLE LAND

RZ = Loamy Sand RZ = Fine Sand RZ = Silty Clay Loam
VADOSE ZONE T=
15 ft Sand and Gravel 3–9 mo

AQUIFER
50 ft Sand and Gravel VADOSE ZONE VADOSE ZONE
Fine Sand 80 ft Silt–Silt Loam
C=
7 yrs T= T=
8–10 yrs 25–30 yrs

RZ = Root zone

T = Transit time from root zone to

aquifer when deep percolation = 10 in./yr AQUIFER AQUIFER
Sand and Gravel Sand and Gravel
100 ft
C = Time to add average of 10 ppm of
nitrate-N with 50 lbs/a/yr entering aquifer, C= C=
assuming aquifer porosity is 25% 14 yrs 14 yrs
(uniform mixing is assumed)

Figure 12-29
Summary of NO3@N transit times and aquifer contamination times for three example situations.
(Watts, 1992, Univ. of Nebraska.)

groundwater can be two to three times longer in fine-textured soils compared with
sands (Fig. 12-29).
In fields with subsurface drainage tiles, excess soil H2O containing NO3- is
transported to nearby surface water (Fig. 12-30). N management can influence
NO3- concentration in the soil after harvest and in the drainage effluent (Fig. 4-32;
Table 12-20).
Irrigated cropping systems can contribute to nonpoint source NO3- contami-
nation, especially with excessive irrigation combined with high N-application rates.
With furrow irrigation systems, more water is applied at the beginning than at the
end of the furrow, increasing the quantity of water transport below the root zone
during irrigation (Fig. 12-31). After irrigation, NO3- leaching is greater down field.

25
NITRATE CONCENTRATION

20
Nitrate in Tile Drain

15
(mgyL)

Tile Drains
Not Flowing
10
Nitrate in Stream

0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
1995

Figure 12-30
Illustration of a drainage tile transporting soil water containing NO3- from a field to nearby surface water.
(USGS, 2010, Circ. 1350.)
486 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-20
I NFLUENCE OF N R ATE ON C ORN Y IELD AND NO3@N IN THE S OIL
P ROFILE (4 FT ) AND IN D RAINAGE W ATER

N Rate Grain Yield Soil Profile N Drainage NO3@N

lb>a bu>a lb>a ppm
60 153 13 11
120 199 23 14
60 + 60 180 28 15
180 207 40 18
Note: N was applied preplant, whereas the split N treatment 160 + 602 was applied preplant and at eight
leaf stage.
Source: Jaynes and Colvin, 2006, Agron. J., 98:1479–1487.

Figure 12-31
NO3- leaching pattern
during the irrigation season
H2O
(a) and off-season (b) for 24 hr
long set times and/or
long irrigation runs.
Root Zone
(Watts, 1992, Univ. of Nebraska.)

4 hr
(a)
Deep Percolation

Nitrate-N Loss

Root Zone

(b)

Nitrate-N Loss

NO3- leaching can be as problematic under center-pivot systems with similar over-
irrigation and/or over-fertilization (Fig. 12-32).
N Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Many site, environment, and management factors interact to reduce potential NO3-
contamination of surface- and groundwaters. Understanding the principles involved
in N availability and transport to surface- and groundwaters is essential for identify-
ing the BMPs for reducing the impact of N use on water quality. Figures 12-33 and
12-34 illustrate how these principles direct appropriate best management strategies.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 487

800 Figure 12-32

0–6 ft Average lb/a of NO3@N in
700 681 deep soil samples under
6–25 ft 4 center-pivot and 10 fur-
600 row-irrigated corn fields.
NITRATE-N (lbsya)

(Watts, 1992, Univ. of Nebraska.)

500
447
399
400

300

200

100 79

0
Grass Pivots Furrow Furrow
(Upper End) (Lower End)

Processes Control Strategies Figure 12-33

Processes and control strat-
egies of nutrient and pesti-
Availability Reduce concentration in soil: cide losses to groundwater.
Concentration in Limit quantity of pollutant available for leaching by
soil profile (solution/ proper application rates and placement method
adsorbed) determines Limit exposure time:
potential for loss to Select pesticide with low persistence; split apply
groundwater pesticide/nutrient
Limit application near sensitive areas:
Establish buffer zones near sensitive areas
(wells, sinkholes, etc.)

Detachment Select products with high absorption strength:

Nutrient/pesticide Strongly absorbed pollutants less likely to be
desorbed and moves desorbed into soil water
into soil H2O

Transport Reduce gravitational H2O volume:

Nutrient/pesticide Nutrient / pesticide transport is reduced if
transported in leaching H2O volume is reduced; irrigation
gravitational H2O management and cover crops used to reduce in-
through soil profile to season and off-season percolation losses;
groundwater subsurface drainage reduces drainage H2O, but
may redirect drainage H2O to surface H2O

Deposition Establish physical barrier to transport:

Nutrient/pesticide Difficult to establish in crop fields; natural
deposited or removed claypans or impermeable geologic
before reaching formations may create a physical barrier; barriers
groundwater often created in disposal sites (land fills)
488 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-34 Processes Control Strategies

Processes and control strat-
egies for nutrient and pesti-
Availability Reduce concentration in soil:
cide entry into surface water.
Concentration at Limit quantity of pollutant available at surface by
soil surface (<0.5 in.) proper application rates and other BMPs
determines runoff Limit exposure time:
potential to surface Select pesticide with low persistence; split apply
H2O; NO3– is H2O pesticide/nutrient
soluble and moves
into surface H2O by Limit application near sensitive areas:
lateral subsurface Establish buffer zones near sensitive areas
flow or drainage tile (streams, field borders, ponds, etc.)

Detachment Delay runoff after rainfall begins:

Nutrient/pesticide Allow time for nutrient / pesticide to move below
dissolved in runoff soil surface; enhance infiltration with
H2O; adsorbed conservation tillage
nutrient / pesticide Reduce soil detachment by rainfall:
transported in runoff Crop residue, cover crops reduce detachment of
soil particles by rain drops

Transport Reduce soil erosion loss:

Runoff that contain Reduce nutrient/pesticide transport in runoff
both dissolved and H2O; conservation tillage, terraces, contour
adsorbed nutrient/ cropping, strip cropping, cover crops, etc.
pesticide are
transported to surface
H2O

Deposition Trap dissolved pollutants and sediment:

Nutrient/pesticide Provide means for nutrient / pesticide deposition
deposited or removed before leaving field or entering surface H2O;
before reaching difficult with dissolved pollutants, especially with
surface water concentrated flow; vegetative filter strips most
effective in reducing sediment loss

BMPs for N can be categorized into those essential for groundwater and surface water
(Table 12-21). Understanding the impact of each N BMP requires knowledge of how
N transformations in soils influence native and added N availability (Chapter 4), crop N
requirements (Chapter 9), and N management for optimum productivity and maxi-
mum recovery by the plant (Chapter 10). The material developed in these chapters
provides the foundation for nutrient management plans that incorporate appropriate
BMPs. An environmentally sound N management plan involves evaluation of all native
N sources (soil OM, irrigation water, legume N, etc.) to accurately assess additional N
requirements (Chapter 9). For example, if estimated crop N requirement is the same
under two different systems, recognition that residual NO3- is greater under one sys-
tem than the other results in a lower N recommendation.
The most important factor in reducing NO3- leaching potential is to minimize
the quantity of soil profile NO3- after harvest and to establish the next crop with a
root system extensive enough to recover residual profile NO3-. Important N BMPs
include the following.
N Rate. The most important N BMP is identifying the correct N rate required to
optimize yield (Chapter 9). When N rate exceeds yield potential, residual NO3- may
leach if H2O is sufficient to move below the root zone (Fig. 4-33; 4-34). Significant
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 489

TABLE 12-21
B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES FOR C ONTROLLING N E NTRY INTO S URFACE - AND G ROUNDWATERS

Nitrogen
Conservation practices Conservation tillage, terraces, contour cropping reduces total N loss by reduced sediment loss
Runoff/leaching losses of NO3- not consistently affected
Increased stored H2O can increase NO3- movement below root zone
Crop rotation Legumes reduce N needed in subsequent non-legume crop
Legumes and other deep-rooted crops utilize residual fertilizer N
Cover crops Cover crops grown in non-crop periods utilize residual fertilizer NO3-
Riparian buffers Buffers trap sediment containing NH4+ and organic N
Denitrifies residual fertilizer NO3- in subsurface flow
Although minor, buffer plants take up some NO3-
Soil testing Preplant soil tests are useful in drier climates
With spring NO3- leaching and/or denitrification potential, late spring or pre-sidedress N tests
can determine additional N need
N rate Use realistic expected yields based on yield history for each field
Use appropriate soil tests to determine residual N (if needed)
Credit manure, legume residual N and N in irrigation H2O
N timing Split N applications increase crop recovery of applied N b/c N rates applied close to periods
of high crop N demand
If some N is fall applied, delay till soil temperatures 650°F
N placement Subsurface band N reduces volatilization loss
Band apply N in ridge to reduce N leaching
Subsurface band N with surface residue cover
N source Select N source based on N loss potentials and crop value, consider controlled release N
Application precision Variable rate N, combined with intensive soil analysis or crop sensing can adjust N rates to
match crop productivity
Inhibitors Nitrification inhibitors maintain NH4+ longer, reducing leaching and denitrification
Urease inhibitors temporarily maintain NH4+ , reducing volatilization
Plant analysis Tissue tests can confirm N deficiencies and hidden hunger
Chlorophyll sensors are reliable in assessing plant N status
Grain protein, stalk NO3- are useful post-mortem tests to assess N supply
Irrigation management Irrigation scheduling based on soil moisture estimates and potential evapotranspiration is
essential
Sprinkler systems apply H2O uniformly, reducing NO3- leaching
Furrow irrigation efficiency improved by adjusting set time, stream size, furrow length, water
every other row, use surge valve
Fertigation supplies N during high crop demand
Controlled drainage Reduce residual fertilizer NO3-
Constructed wetlands Surface or drainage tile H2O directed to constructed wetlands to denitrify NO3-
Pest management Minimize yield loss from pests to ensure final yield matched N rate

NO3- accumulation occurs only when N rate exceeds that required for optimum yield
(Fig. 12-35). N recommendations should be evaluated for each individual situation.
N Timing. Substantial reduction in total applied N susceptible to N leaching occurs
with split N applications compared with a single application (Fig. 12-36). The use of
sensor-based in-season N applications can be used to split apply N (Fig. 10-59).
N Placement. Subsurface N application can reduce soluble N loss in surface run-
off, but also reduces N loss by volatilization (Chapter 4). In permanent pasture or
turf systems, subsurface applications are less desirable than surface broadcast applied
490 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-35 N Rate Where Maximum

The relationship between Yields Are Obtained N Rate Where Soil Profile
inorganic N accumulation (55 lbsya of N) Inorganic N Begins to Increase
(76 lbsya of N)
and annual N applied and
the estimated soil-plant N

INORGANIC N ACCUMULATION (lbsya)

45 600
buffering zone, which
represents the proportion
550
of applied N that is 40

GRAIN YIELD (buya)

immobilized and does 500
not contribute to inorganic Annual
35 Inorganic
N accumulation. 450
(Raun and Johnson, 1995, Agron. J.,
N Buffer
87:827.) = 21 lbs/a 400
30 of N
(76–55) 350
25
300

20 250
0 20 40 60 80 100
N RATE (lbsya)

Grain Yield (buya)

Inorganic N Accumulation (lbsya)

SINGLE N APPLICATION SPLIT N APPLICATIONS

Cumulative N Applications
100 100
4
N Subject
75 to Losses 75
TOTAL N (%)

N Subject 3
to Losses
50 50
Crop N Uptake Crop N Uptake
2
25 25

Total N Applied = Total N Applied =

0 100% of Crop Need 0 1 100% of Crop Need

Planting Seeding Rapid Maturation Harvest Planting Seeding Rapid Maturation Harvest
Growth Growth
CROP GROWING SEASON

Figure 12-36
General estimations of potential soil N losses occurring when N fertilizer is applied in a single or in
split applications. (Waskom et al., 1994, BMPs for irrigated agric., Colorado Water Resources Institute Report No. 184.)

N; however, spoke-wheel and other innovative application technologies offer oppor-

tunities to maximize recovery of N by the crop (Chapter 10). In reduced-tillage sys-
tems, which are critical to ensuring long-term soil and crop productivity, subsurface
application of N is essential to maximizing crop recovery of applied N and reducing
N immobilization by high-C-containing crop residues.
Crop Rotation. There are several issues relative to cropping systems that can influence N
management decisions. Figure 12-37 illustrates that, except for fallow systems that pro-
duce the largest amount of leachable N (no N uptake during periods of N mineralization),
rotations that include legumes may contribute more leachable N than non-legume-based
systems, unless high N rates are used in the non-legume rotations. Table 12-22 shows that
soybean in the rotation increased soil profile NO3- as well as NO3- below the root zone.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 491

200 Figure 12-37

Total soil N loss during
and following a spring

TOTAL SOIL N LOSS (kgyha)

wheat crop grown in rota-
150
tion with selected legumes,
non-legumes, and fallow.
( .) represents N uptake by
100 the wheat crop in relation to
apparent leaching losses ( )
during the autumn/winter
following wheat harvest.
50

0
BARLEY RAPE LENTILS LUPINS PEAS BEANS FALLOW

TABLE 12-22
C OMPARISON OF S OIL P ROFILE NO3@N WITH S OIL S OLUTION NO3@N
B ELOW THE R OOT Z ONE

Soil Profile (0–0.45-m depth) Soil Solution (1.2–1.5-m depth)

Treatment May, June, July1 June, July, August
mg>kg 1mg>L2 mg>L
Corn (1990)
No-till 14 (56) 9
Tilled 19 (77) 10
Wheat (1991)
No-till 4 (16) 4
Tilled 6 (24) 10
Beans
1990 26 (105) 12
1991 33 (133) 27
1Used different times to compensate for the time necessary for the soil solution to flow from the surface to
the 1.2–1.5-m depth.
Source: Meek et al., 1994, SSSAJ/58:1464.

When soil tests suggest that significant, residual soil profile NO3- is present
after harvest, cover crops may recover significant quantities of NO3- to reduce N
transport to groundwater.
N from Organic Wastes. Organic N sources contribute to plant available N as effi-
ciently as fertilizer N. Unfortunately, if N rates exceed crop N requirement, N miner-
alization after the peak N uptake period may contribute to leachable N. Figure 12-38
illustrates that increasing poultry manure or municipal biosolids rate greatly increases
soil profile NO3-. Compared with split applications of fertilizer N, manure N can
result in greater profile NO3- content after harvest (Table 12-23).
Riparian Buffers. Although retaining surface residue cover through conservation
tillage systems can substantially reduce soil erosion, riparian buffer zones are effec-
tive in reducing NO3- in subsurface flow and in filtering sediments and nutrients in
surface runoff water (Fig. 12-39). Depending on the width of the grass and/or forest
buffer, 60–95% reduction in sediment can occur (Table 12-24). Reduction of N and
P in surface runoff ranges 10–80%; the wider the buffer area, the greater the deposi-
tion of nutrients.
492 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-38 SOIL NO3 (kgyha) NO3 –N (mgyl)

Influence of poultry manure
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
N application (a) and 0 0
municipal biosolids (sludge) Control
or fertilizer N application (b) 30 1x Sludge
on soil profile NO3@N. 1x 1x Fertilizer
and 3x represent one and 20 60 3x Sludge
three annual applications,
respectively. 90

SOIL DEPTH (cm)

(Scott et al., 1995, Arkansas Agric.
Exp. Bull. 947.)
40
120

(cm)
150
60
kgyha–1 of N 180
0
15 210
80
30
45 240
90
100 270
(a) (b)

TABLE 12-23
N M ANAGEMENT E FFECTS ON C ORN Y IELD AND NO3@N C ONCENTRATION
INS OIL W ATER

N Source N Rate N Timing Grain Yield Soil Water NO3@N1

lb>a bu>a ppm
Anhydrous NH3 150 Spring 177 12
Anhydrous NH3 75 + 75 Spring + sidedress 173 10
Hog manure 1962 Spring 184 41
1Measured at 5-ft depth by suction lysimeters at the end of second year.
2Estimated available N. Total N applied was 315 lb/a, half being inorganic and half organic; 100%
availability from inorganic N in year of application.
Source: Griffith, 1989, Better Crops, 73:23.

Figure 12-39
Schematic of the two-
zone riparian forest
buffer system.
(Modified from Lowrance et al.,
1995, U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C., 903-R-95–004.)

Surface runoff

Subsurface flo
w

Groundw
ater

Zone 2 Zone 1 Stream Bottom

Grassed Area Forested Area
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 493

TABLE 12-24
E FFECTS OF R IPARIAN B UFFERS ON R EDUCTIONS OF S EDIMENT AND N UTRIENTS FROM F IELD
S URFACE R UNOFF

Buffer Sediment N1 P1
Width Type Input Output Reduction Input Output Reduction Input Output Reduction
m mg>L % mg>L % mg>L %
4.62 Grass 7,284 2,840 61 14.1 13.6 4 11.3 8.1 29
9.22 Grass 7,284 1,850 75 14.1 10.9 23 11.3 8.6 24
19.93 Forest 6,480 660 90 27.6 7.1 74 5.0 1.5 70
23.64 Mixture 7,284 290 96 14.1 3.5 75 11.3 2.4 79
28.25 Mixture 7,284 188 97 14.1 2.8 80 11.3 2.6 77
1N = NO3 - N + NH4 - N 1dissolved + adsorbed2 + organic N 1soluble + particulate2; P = dissolved + particulate.
2Calculated from masses of total suspended solids, total N, total P, runoff depth, and plot size 122 * 5 m2.
3Surface runoff concentrations at 19 m into forest.
44.6-m grass buffer + 19@m forest.
59.2-m grass buffer + 19@m forest.

Source: Lawrence et al., 1995, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C., 903-R-95–004.

The reduction in NO3- concentration in subsurface flow occurs through

denitrification, not plant N uptake (Fig. 12-40). Anaerobic denitrifying microor-
ganisms obtain C from roots in the buffer zone and convert NO3- to N2 gas. In
many crop fields, soil solution NO3- concentration can range 15–40 ppm N after
harvest. Figure 12-41 shows that denitrification reduces NO3- concentration to
610 ppm N, depending on buffer width.
N BMP Summary
Although the range of options for BMPs should be evaluated for each site, the deci-
sions on which management practices are utilized depend on the skill of the manager
and the particular situation (Table 12-21). While conservation practices are impor-
tant in efficient use of N, identifying the right N rate, using the correct timing or split
N applications, identifying the optimum N source, and using the right application
method or placement will dramatically improve N utilization by the target crop.
Producer adoption of BMPs is essential to maximizing profit and minimizing
the impact of N use on H2O quality. Our continued ability to produce sufficient
food for an expanding population depends on continued increases in crop yield per
unit land area. Under increasing production pressure, conservation of our limited
natural resources (quantity and quality) can only occur with full adoption of existing

Diffusion Precipitation
Cropland, Forest Transpiration
Boundary NO3 H2O
O2 H2O
SO4 O2
NOx Soil Surface
SO4
N2 Stream
Groundwater

NO3 SO4 SO2

O2 Respiration Denitrification Reduction

Figure 12-40
Conceptual model of below-ground processes affecting groundwater nutrients in riparian forest.
(Correll and Weller, 1989, Freshwater, wetlands and wildlife, pp. 9–23, U.S. Dept. Energy.)
494 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-41 26
Nitrate concentrations in 24 Maryland
groundwater beneath Maryland

NO3–N CONCENTRATION (mgyL)

22
riparian forests. Georgia
20 Maryland
(Osmond et al., Selected agric. best
mgmt. practices to control N, NC 18 North Carolina
Agric. Res. Service Tech. Bull. 311 NC 16
State Univ.)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
DISTANCE FROM FIELD (m)

BMPs and continued development of new agricultural technologies that will improve
crop N use efficiency essential to reducing environmental risks associated with N use.
Phosphorus While industrial wastes, municipal wastes, and urban runoff contrib-
ute to P loading in certain watersheds, P applied directly to cropland though fer-
tilizers and animal wastes can be primary contaminant sources in watersheds with
predominately agricultural land uses.
In general, about 20% of fertilizer P is recovered by crops during the first grow-
ing season after application. When P is applied at recommended rates, soil test P levels
generally remain the same or increase slightly with time depending on P rate, soil type,
and crop removal. When animal waste application rates are based on crop N require-
ment, P rates can be three to five times the crop P requirement (Table 5-14). Contin-
ued long-term application of P exceeding crop requirement will increase soil test P and
subsequent risk of P loss to surface- and groundwater (Fig. 12-42). P transport and loss
to surface- and groundwaters involves (1) soluble P loss in runoff water, (2) P adsorbed
to eroding sediments, (3) soluble P loss in leaching water, and (4) P losses related to the
type of waste P and method of application.
Soluble P in Surface Runoff
Total soluble P in surface runoff transported to a stream or other water body depends
on the quantity of runoff and its P concentration (Fig. 12-43). Dissolved P in runoff
Figure 12-42 SOIL TEST P LEVELS (Crop P Response)
Comparison of agronomic Low Medium High Very High
and environmental inter-
pretation of soil test P. As
)

the agronomic soil test P

increases above the level
RELATIVE CROP YIELD (

P LOSS IN RUNOFF (

where crop response to

added P is not expected, Critical
Soil test P
dissolved P concentration Critical
(Yield) Soil test P
in runoff increases to levels
(Runoff)
that could potentially con-
taminate surface water.

Low Medium High Very High

SOIL TEST P LEVELS (Runoff P Loss)
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 495

Rainfall
Crop
Riparian Buffer

Subsurface
(Sedimen Runoff
t and solu
ble P)
Infiltration
Water Table
P Leaching

Subsurface Water Flow

Figure 12-43
Diagram of major pathways of P transport to surface- and groundwater.

is directly related to soil test P. Since P is adsorbed more strongly in clay soils, higher
soil test P is required for a given runoff P concentration in clay soils compared to
sandy soils (Fig. 12-44). This difference is related to P being held less tightly in the
sand compared to the clay soil because of differences in P adsorption capacity.

2.5 Figure 12-44

Influence of soil test P and
soil texture on dissolved P
2 (top) and sediment bound
Sand P (bottom) in surface runoff
water.
DISSOLVED P (mgyL)

1.5
(Cox and Hendricks, 2000, J. Environ.
Qual., 29:1582.)

Clay
0.5

0
0 200 400 600
MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg)

6
40% Clay
50% Clay
SEDIMENT P (kgymt)

4
30% Clay
3
20% Clay
2
10% Clay
1

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg)
496 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

The quantity of runoff H2O with an individual storm event depends on char-
acteristics of the rainfall (quantity, intensity, and duration), surface soil conditions
(residue cover, soil physical properties including H2O content) that influence infil-
tration, subsoil properties that influence percolation, and H2O table depth. During
rainfall, H2O enters the soil through large, surface-connected macropores. H2O
then diffuses vertically and horizontally into a network of micropores by capillary
action or soil moisture tension (SMT). After soil macropores are filled, H2O moves
through micropores toward the highest SMT. H2O infiltration or transport rate is
governed by the number, size, and continuity of the pore network. The presence
of old root channels, earthworm and other organism burrows, and natural subsoil
structural macropores can substantially increase H2O infiltration and transport of
dissolved P through the profile; however, their presence and influence are difficult
to quantify.
P Adsorbed to Sediments Transported by Water
Although receiving less attention, P can be removed from surface soils in windblown clay
and OM sediments containing adsorbed P. With H2O erosion, P adsorbed to clay and
OM tranported beyond the field edge is a function of (1) soil erosion rate, (2) amount of
sediment deposition within the field, and (3) quantity of P adsorbed to the eroding soil
particles (Fig. 12-43). The amount of P adsorbed to soil depends primarily on soil test
P and clay content (Fig. 12-44). As soil test P and clay content increase, the quantity of
adsorbed P and potential sediment-bound P loss increases.
P in Leaching Water
There is potential for P to leach below the root zone and be transported to surface waters
through shallow subsurface groundwater flow (Fig. 12-43). Since P is strongly adsorbed
to clays, P leaching would occur only when % P saturation is increased to very high levels
though continued applications of P exceeding crop requirement (Fig. 12-42). Although
P leaching is frequently greater in sandy soils (low P adsorption capacity), P leaching can
occur in some clay soils through macropore flow.
P leaching commonly occurs in sandy soils where high rates of manure are
applied over extended periods (Fig. 12-45). Increasing the manure rate increases
potential P transport through the profile (Fig. 12-46). The P leaching potential
increases with increasing soil test P level and sand content.
Waste Source Effects
During runoff events, soils with low erosion potential can contribute to high-soluble
P loss due to differences in waste source properties and their interaction with soil
Figure 12-45 MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg)
Influence of soil texture (a) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
and duration after surface 0
waste application (b) on P
leaching in a sandy soil. 20
(Ham et al., 2000, Ph.D. Diss., NC
State Univ.) 40
DEPTH (cm)

60

80

100

120 Sandy Textured Soil

Clayey Textured Soil
140
(a)
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 497

MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg) Figure 12-45

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 (Continued)
0

20

40
DEPTH (cm)

60

80

100

120 <10 Years Manure Application

>10 Years Manure Application
140
(b)

MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg) Figure 12-46

0 50 100 150 200 250 Effect of total P applied
0 as swine effluent during a
5-year period on distribution
of Mehlich-3 P.
15
(Reddy et al., 1980, J. Envir. Qual.,
9:86.)
30
DEPTH (cm)

Total P, kgyha
45 Applied in 5 Yrs

0
60
400
800
75 1600

90

particles. The primary waste source characteristics that influence P delivery to a sur-
face water body are total P and soluble P concentrations (Table 12-25).
Total P content of waste sources varies widely with animal species, diet, and
method of waste handling and storage. In general, P content in common waste
sources follows the order: poultry and turkey 7 beef 7 swine 7 dairy. Increasing P
in the animal diet will increase P content in the waste. Total P concentration within a
waste source varies depending on the waste handling system, where generally dry lit-
ter 7 liquid 7 slurry 7 sludge. Inorganic P comprises 60–90% of total P in animal
wastes, where about 25–80% of total P is water soluble (Table 12-25).
Waste sources with high P solubility result in a high proportion of total P infil-
trating into soil, reducing potential soluble surface P loss. Generally, runoff P loss is
highest during the first runoff event following waste application, with P loss decreas-
ing with subsequent runoff events. Waste materials with high % solid content will
remain on the soil surface until decomposed or dissolved with rainfall. H2O-soluble
P content is a useful indicator of potential P runoff or leaching. While both soluble
and particulate P are transported in runoff water to the field edge, a proportion of
mobile P is retained in the field by adsorption of soluble P to eroded sediment and
deposition before reaching the stream or water body edge.
P BMPs
Many soil and crop management factors interact to determine potential P trans-
port from fields to surface- and groundwaters (Table 12-26). Reducing potential P
loss requires understanding and managing P availability and sediment detachment,
498 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-25
S ELECTED S OURCES OF A NIMAL W ASTES AND T HEIR P C ONTENT

Waste Source Total P1 Soluble Fraction2 Soluble P3 Nonsoluble P4

Beef
Lagoon liquid, kg P>ha@cm 15.0 0.80 12.0 3.0
Lagoon sludge, g P>L 2.7 0.60 1.6 1.1
Slurry, g P>L 1.2 0.75 0.9 0.3
Dairy
Lagoon liquid, kg P>ha@cm 15.0 0.80 12.0 3.0
Lagoon sludge, g P>L 1.2 0.60 0.7 0.5
Scraped, kg P>t 1.4 0.60 0.8 0.6
Slurry, g P>L 0.7 0.75 0.5 0.2
Swine
Lagoon liquid, kg P>ha@cm 10.3 0.80 8.2 2.1
Lagoon sludge, g P>L 2.6 0.40 1.0 1.6
Slurry, g P>L 1.2 0.60 0.7 0.5
Broiler
Fresh manure, kg P>t 3.6 0.25 0.9 2.7
House litter, kg P>t 17.3 0.25 4.3 13.0
Stockpiled litter, kg P>t 17.5 0.25 4.4 13.1
Layer
High-rise manure, kg P>t 12.3 0.60 14.8 9.8
Lagoon liquid, kg P>ha@cm 8.9 0.80 16.2 4.1
Lagoon sludge, g P>L 4.9 0.50 2.5 2.4
Slurry, g P>L 3.1 0.60 1.9 1.2
Undercage manure, kg P>t 6.9 0.50 3.5 3.4
Turkey
Stockpiled litter, kg P>t 15.9 0.25 4.0 11.9
House litter, kg P>t 11.5 0.25 2.9 8.6
1Concentrationunits vary with waste source.
2Wt. basis.
3Soluble P = Total P * Soluble fraction.

4Nonsoluble P = Total P * Soluble P.

transport, and deposition processes (Figs 12-33 and 12-34). Important P BMPs in-
clude the following.
P Rate. Regardless of the P source, once soil test P reaches the agronomic optimum
level for the specific cropping system and soil, P rates that further increase soil test P
increase potential for P loss (Figs 9-73 and 12-42).
P Placement. Subsurface P placement reduces P susceptible to runoff loss com-
pared to surface applications (Fig. 12-47). Broadcast P applications to pastures or
no-till crops results in greater soluble P loss than in cultivated soils, due to reduced
P soil contact. As the time interval between application and incorporation increases,
potential runoff P loss increases. Incorporation within 2–3 days after application is
recommended. Subsurface P applications will not reduce potential soluble P loss by
leaching.
P Timing. Application of P in relation to probability of rainfall is an important fac-
tor in managing loss of surface-applied fertilizer or waste P to surface water. Runoff
P can be reduced by applying waste during periods of low rainfall probability, with
greater reductions occurring on soils with high P adsorption capacity. Surface P appli-
cation just prior to a rainfall event can lead to significant P losses in runoff. Relative
to P supply to crops, all recommended P should be applied before planting to maxi-
mize crop response (Chapter 10).
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 499

TABLE 12-26
B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES FOR C ONTROLLING P E NTRY INTO S URFACE - AND G ROUNDWATERS

Phosphorus
Conservation practices Conservation tillage, terraces, contour cropping, cover crops reduce total P loss by
reduced sediment loss
Conservation practices consistently reduce runoff P loss
Runoff P loss higher in no-till with surface-applied fertilizer or manure P, incorporating/
injecting P below soil surface reduces P loss
Riparian buffers Buffers trap sediment and adsorbed P
Buffers constructed/maintained for sheet flow of runoff through buffer
Soil testing Preplant soil tests are essential to determine agronomic rates
P rate Reduce rates in high runoff risk areas
Consider P content of manure rather than solely N content
Use P index tool to assess environmental risk of continued P use
P timing Avoid fertilizer and manure application to frozen or wet soil
Apply all P preplant
P placement Incorporate or inject P sources, band apply P in low P soils
Starter P can usually supply maintenance P requirements for row crops
P source Select P source for ease of placement and P fixation potential
Application precision Variable rate P application is recommended if 720% field is P responsive
Plant analysis Tissue tests can confirm P deficiencies and hidden hunger
Irrigation management Surface crop residue in furrow irrigated crops reduces sediment and P loss
Manure management Determine P content to calculate appropriate P rate
Low P soils benefit most from manure applications
Consider risk factors such as nearness to streams, slope, presence of wells, sinkholes,
surface tile inlets, and residences when selecting fields for manure application
Manure amendments such as alum reduce soluble P losses in runoff
Animal feed management Balance livestock rations so supplemental P is not excessive
Low phytate corn or phytase enzyme in rations reduces manure P

30 3
TOTAL P IN RUNOFF (mgyL)

DISSOLVED P (mgyL)

20 Surface Broadcast P 2 Cropped Fields

10 Incorporated P 1
Grass Fields

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 50 100 150 200
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT IN RUNOFF (mgyL) MEHLICH–3 P (mgykg)

Figure 12-47
Influence of sediment content in runoff and surface broadcast or incorporated P in manure or fertilizer on total P concentration in
runoff (left) and the effect of soil test P and cropping system on dissolved P in runoff (right). Cropped fields represent wheat with
residue incorporated with a moldboard plow and grassed fields representative of short grass pasture.
(Kleinman et al., 2002, J. Envir. Qual., 31:2026.)
500 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

TABLE 12-27
S OIL AND C ROP M ANAGEMENT F ACTORS T HAT R EDUCE A NNUAL
E STIMATED S EDIMENT L OSS

Conservation Practice Relative Reduction1

Terraces High
Vegetative filter strips2 Medium
Permanent pasture High
No-tillage (standing residue) High
No-tillage (residue removed) Medium–low
50% residue incorporation Medium
75% residue incorporation Low
Contour tillage Low
Contour conservation tillage Medium–low
Contour cropping (conventional tillage) Medium–low
Contour cropping (no-tillage) Medium–high
Contour strip cropping (conventional tillage) Medium
Contour strip cropping (no-tillage) High
1Relativereduction in sediment transport to the field edge as influenced by conservation practices.
2Narrow 16 1 m2 permanent grass strips planted on the contour. As with terraces, the steeper the slope,
the smaller the interval between strips.

Soil Conservation Practices. Table 12-27 illustrates the relative effectiveness of

selected conservation practices in reducing sediment transport, which would
reduce sediment-bound P loss. Generally, increasing surface residue cover will
decrease soluble and sediment P transport (Fig. 12-47). Because there are many
interacting factors that influence soil erosion control, it is difficult to generalize.
For example, terracing is one of the most costly conservation practices to imple-
ment and consequently is not commonly used unless slopes are 75–7%. However,
when properly designed and maintained, terraces can substantially reduce effec-
tive slope length, thus reducing the erosive kinetic energy associated with runoff
compared to longer slopes. Conservation practices also have cumulative effects. For
example, contour cropping and/or contour strip cropping combined with terracing
can be more effective than contour cropping or strip cropping alone. If these sys-
tems are implemented with no-tillage management, the potential sediment and P
loss can be greatly reduced (Fig. 12-17).
Sediment P Trapping Practices. Riparian buffers between the field edge and the
surface water body can be effective in trapping sediment P, further reducing P loss
(Fig. 12-43). Sediments must be evenly distributed within the buffer to maintain
long-term effectiveness in reducing sediment P. Vegetative buffers can remove
20–80% of sediment P in surface runoff (Table 12-24). Increasing buffer width
increases sediment P removed (Fig. 12-48). Although buffers are effective in trap-
ping sediment, they are less effective in trapping soluble P.
Several in-field conservation structures can also help reduce sediment P delivery
to the stream edge by 10–50%. These include controlled drainage structures, sedi-
ment basins, and ponds; ponds will generally maintain standing H2O throughout the
year, while sediment basins do not.
Soluble P Retaining Practices. Unlike sediment P, there are few conservation prac-
tices that can reduce soluble P in runoff prior to reaching the stream edge. How-
ever, any soil management practice that increases infiltration and decreases runoff
(conservation tillage or water control structures) can reduce transfer of soluble P to
surface H2O.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 501

1 Figure 12-48

BUFFER P DELIVERY RATIO

Effect of buffer width on
0.8 delivery of sediment P.
(Daniels and Gilliam, 1996, SSSAJ/
60:246.)
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40
BUFFER WIDTH (m)

P in Animal Feed. About 65% of P in feed grains (corn and soybean) occurs as rela-
tively undigestable phytate-P or phytic acid (Fig. 5-20). Since undigested phytate-P
will be excreted by the animal, supplemental P as CaHPO4 is added to the diet to
meet P nutritional needs.
Phytase is an enzyme that facilitates hydrolysis of phytate-P into digestible inor-
ganic P 1H2PO4-2. Added to the feed ration, phytase improves grain P digestibility,
reducing the need for supplemental P. Phytase in diets can reduce manure P in poultry
25–35% and in swine 25–60%, which represents a significant reduction in potential
P loss associated with land-applied wastes. In addition, advances in barley, corn, and
soybean genetics have resulted in low phytate-P hybrids and varieties. Currently, these
new genetics have shown reduced yield potential relative to traditional high phytate-
P genetics. With continued developments, such as the combination of high-yielding
low-phytate genetics and phytase supplemented diets, the manure-P applied to fields
can be reduced by 30–40%, decreasing potential applied-P impact on water quality.
P Loss Assessment Tools
Recently, changes in nutrient management guidelines suggested by the USDA resulted
in development of methods or tools to estimate the quantity of P delivered to surface-
and groundwaters. These P loss assessment tools require a technical service provider to
understand fate and transport of P applied to soils that involve (1) P adsorbed to erod-
ing sediments, (2) soluble P in runoff water, (3) soluble P in leaching water, and (4) P
losses related to the specific waste sources and management. In addition, the potential
P loss associated with fertilizer or waste P applications can be estimated. P loss assess-
ment tools enable the user to assess the impact of adoption of P BMPs on reducing
potential P loss, and thus will reduce the risk of P use on water quality.

Air Quality
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include H2O vapor, CO2, methane 1CH42,
nitrous oxide 1N2O2, and others. Although CO2 is a dominant anthropogenic green-
house gas, agriculture contributed ≈6% of total U.S. gas emissions. While agricul-
ture is not a major contributor to CO2 emission, it is not predominately involved in
CO2 sequestration.
Agricultural soil and crop management contribute to greenhouse gas emission
through numerous processes, where CH4 and N2O are the major sources. CH4 and
N2O emissions have increased only slightly over the last two decades (Fig. 12-49).
CH4 emissions are dominated by animal intestinal gas (enteric fermentation), manure
application, and rice cultivation, while N2O emissions are dominated by agricultural
soil management (mostly fertilizer N) and manure N application (Fig. 12-50). With
manure management, CH4 and N2O are dominantly produced by anaerobic decom-
position of manure and urine.
502 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-49 500

CH4 + N2O EMISSION (Tg CO2 Eq.)

Trend in CH4 and N2O
emissions from all agricul- Total
400
ture related sources in the
United States from 1990 to
2007. Quantity in teragram 300
11012 g2 of gas equivalent to
CO2 (Tg CO2 Eq.). N2O
(U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA 430-R-09-004.)
200 CH4

100

0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
YEAR

CH4
Figure 12-50
Primary sources of CH4 and 6.2 0.9
N2O emissions (Tg CO2 Eq.)
from agriculture in the
United States.
(U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA 430-R-09-004.)

44

139

Enteric Fermentation Manure Mgmt.

Rice Cultivation Field Burn Crop Res.

N2O

0.5

14.7

207.9

Agric. Soil Mgmt. Manure Mgmt.

Field Burn Crop Res.
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 503

N2O is released naturally from soils through nitrification and denitrification

reactions (Chapter 4). Increasing mineral N in soils increases the amount of N avail-
able for nitrification and denitrification, and ultimately N2O emission. Mineral N is
increased either directly or indirectly (Fig. 12-51). Direct sources include fertilizer,
manure, or biosolid N applications; crop residue degradation; drainage/cultivation of
organic soils; and, to a lesser extent, nonsymbiotic N2 fixation (Chapter 4). Soil man-
agement practices (e.g., tillage, drainage, fallowing) can also contribute to N emission
through N mineralization and nitrification.

N Volatilization

Fertilizer N

N Deposition to All Soils and Water Bodies

N Flows:
N Input to
Managed Soils
Organic N
Direct N2O
Emissions

N Volatilization
and Deposition
Manure N
Indirect N2O
Emissions

Crop Residue N

OM Mineralization

Nonsymbiotic N2

Cultivation

hing Runo
ac ff
Le

Surface
Water

Groundwater

Figure 12-51
Agricultural N sources and direct and indirect pathways (arrows) of N2O emissions from soils.
(Adapted from U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA 430-R-09-004.)
504 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

Figure 12-52 400

Trend in N2O emissions from Total

N2O EMISSION (Tg Co2 Equiv.)

all sources in the United Agric. Soil Mgmt.
States from 1990 to 2007. 300 Fuel Combustion
Agriculture soil manage- Ind. Acid Prod.
ment represents about Manure Mgmt.
67% of the total.
200
(U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA 430-R-09-004.)

100

0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Figure 12-53 N2O Emissions, Tg CO2 Equiv.

Primary sources of N2O
emissions from agricultural
cropland in the United
States.
(U.S. EPA, 2009, EPA 430-R-09-004.)

N Mineralization Fertilizer N N Leaching, Runoff

Organic N Volatilization Residue N

Management of agricultural soils produces approximately 67% of all N2O

emissions in the United States, with fuel combustion and manure application con-
tributing substantially lower amounts (Fig. 12-52). The dominant sources of N2O
emission are related to agricultural management of cropland and, to a lesser extent,
grasslands. Within agricultural cropland, N mineralization and fertilizer N applica-
tion comprised over 70% of N2O emission (Fig. 12-53).
While it is difficult to mitigate agricultural N source contributions to greenhouse
gas emissions, N management guidelines are effective (Table 12-28). Many of these
N BMPs are similar to those identified in Table 12-21. Dominant BMPs include iden-
tifying the right N rate, using the correct timing or split N applications, identifying the
optimum N source, and using the right application method or placement to improve N
utilization by the target crop and reduce N loss to the environment.

EPILOGUE: AGRICULTURAL CHALLENGES

AND OPPORTUNITIES
Meeting food security needs for a growing population (estimated to be 9.5 billion
in 40 years) will require ≈50–70% increase in food production on approximately
the same or less agricultural land area used today (Chapter 1). Land managers must
 agricultural productivity and environmental quality chapter twelve 505

TABLE 12-28
S ELECTED N M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES T HAT M AY R EDUCE N L OADING TO THE A TMOSPHERE

Source Management Impact

N fertilizer Soil testing, plant anal- Improves N rate estimate, reduces over-fertilization
ysis, crop sensing
N timing N applied synchrony with crop N demand, limit N application in non-crop
periods
N placement N banding increases NUE, reduces volatilization
N source Additives to N sources reduce nitrification, denitrification, and volatilization
Cover crops, green ma- Cover crops reduce residual soil N, green manure and legumes provide
nure, legume rotations biologically fixed N reducing N loss
Manure N Waste storage Anaerobic waste storage reduces N 2O loss by removed substantial N to
atmosphere during storage, net effect is small
Waste disposal Subsurface banding reduce N loss
Non-crop N Crop N use Manage similar to crop N management
addition Riparian buffers Riparian buffers essential to reduce N leaching and subsequent N 2O loss
at streamside
Animal facility NH3 loss from confined animal housing contributes NH4+ ; NH3 emission
from waste storage reduced with anaerobic systems

adopt economically viable technologies that maintain, enhance, or protect the pro-
ductive capacity of our soil resources to ensure future food, feed, and fiber supplies.
While organic nutrient sources are important to meeting the nutritional needs of
diverse cropping systems, inorganic fertilizer nutrients will remain the predominant
nutrient source. The challenge to the agricultural community is to ensure maximum
recovery of applied nutrients, regardless of source, through use of diverse soil, crop,
water, nutrient, and other input management technologies to maximize plant pro-
ductivity. Accomplishing this will significantly reduce nutrient losses to the environ-
ment. Protecting water and air quality is essential to the health of diverse ecosystems
on Earth, which directly impact our quality of life.
The study of soil fertility and nutrient management is a large and critical com-
ponent of our agricultural systems. Throughout the text, the relationships between
nutrients and other essential inputs and management factors were presented. Sus-
taining the productivity of agriculture demands a thorough and functional under-
standing of the interactions between nutrients, water, plant growth, and many other
factors that influence plant health and yield. Hopefully you will continue your search
for new knowledge and experiences that will help secure a productive agriculture.

STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Why are long-term yield trends likely to be mis- 4. Loss of surface soil varies considerably with the
leading as a measure of soil productivity? What soil. How does soil erosion influence crop yield
might happen to yield trends if plant breeding and explain how soil fertility depletion might
studies ceased? accelerate soil erosion.
2. What is the aim of a crop and soil manage- 5. List the advantages of rotations and monoculture.
ment program? How does it relate to agricultural 6. In what ways may N, P, and K be lost other than
sustainability? by crop removal? In what ways other than fertiliza-
3. Discuss the yield response to rotation and nutrient tion may the supplies be increased?
amendments in the Morrow Plots relative to long- 7. Using your local conditions, design two crop
term crop and soil productivity. rotations that maximize profitability while
506 chapter twelve agricultural productivity and environmental quality

(1) increasing soil OM over time and (2) reducing 16. A farmer uses conventional tillage on a 2% OM
N fertilizer or manure use. soil (0–6 in. depth). How much total soil N does
8. Which cover or green manure crops would work the farmer lose each year, if the soil loss by erosion
best in your area? Identify the advantages and dis- is 25 t/ac/yr.
advantages to the use of cover/green manure crops. 17. Describe the pathways of P loss in agricultural soils.
9. Define conservation tillage and outline its advan- 18. How does P source and management influence
tages and disadvantages. potential P loss?
10. What soil and environmental conditions would be 19. P is strongly adsorbed to soil clays. How is it
most and least suited for no-tillage? possible that P can leach in soils?
11. Describe how BMPs protect surface and subsurface 20. What are the common criteria used for assessing
water quality. sustainable farming system?
12. Compare and contrast the essential components of 21. What factors determine the soil health?
N and P BMPs. 22. How improving soil quality will lead to increase in
13. How do riparian buffers function to enhance profitability?
water quality? 23. Explain how soil productivity is reduced by
14. Nitrate leaching into the groundwater has become soil degradation processes and improved by soil
an increasingly sensitive issue among both rural conservation processes.
and urban constituents. You have been asked to 24. Explain the influence of soil erosion on surface soil
give a short presentation to an urban consumer properties.
group on agricultural technologies that reduce the 25. List down the specific advantages and dis-
potential for fertilizer N movement to groundwa- advantages of conservation tillage.
ter. What management technologies would you 26. Write a note on types of tillage methods.
identify/discuss? 27. What is the relation between crop rotation and
15. Identify the primary source of greenhouse gas pest control?
emissions from agriculture. 28. What is eutrophication? What is its cause and effect?

SELECTED REFERENCES
Lal, R. 1999. Soil quality and soil erosion. Soil and Sprague, M. A., and G. B. Triplett (Eds.). 1986.
Water Cons. Soc. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. No-tillage and surface tillage agriculture: The tillage
Lal, R., and B. A. Stewart. 1994. Soil processes and revolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
water quality: Advances in soil science. Boca Raton, Tate, R. L. 1987. Soil organic matter: Biological and
Fla.: Lewis Publishers. ecological effects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Paul, E. A., K. Paustian, E. T. Elliot, and C. V. Cole. 1997. Troeh, F. R., J. A. Hobbs, and R. L. Donahue. 1991.
Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems. Boca Soil and water conservation. Englewood Cliffs,
Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Power, J. F. (Ed.). 1987. The role of legumes in conservation
tillage systems. Madison, Wis.: Soil Conservation
Society of America.
 index
A AEC; See Anion exchange capacity (AEC)
Acid, 51; See also Acidity Aeration, and S0 oxidation, 248
Acidity Agriculture
active, 65–66 direct benefits of lime, 87–88
Al and Fe hydrolysis, 59–61 food production and population
Al and Fe oxides, 59–60 support, 2
Al, Mn, H toxicity, 68–70 indirect benefits of lime, 88–89
boron (B), 293–294 introduction, 1
buffer, 59–60, 64–65 lime use, 82, 87–89
Ca, Mg, P deficiency, 67 pH range of selected crops, 72–75
clay minerals, 59, 65 Agronomic technologies, and higher crop
copper (Cu), 283 yields, 8–10
dentrification, 158 Air quality, 501–504
factors affecting N2 fixation, 131 Al; See Aluminum (Al)
fertilizers, 61–64 Al and Fe hydrolysis, and acidity, 59–61
iron (Fe), 268 Al and Fe oxides, and acidity, 59–60
leaching, 56–57 Alkalinity, buffer, 64–65
lime requirement, 66, 80–81 Allelopathy, 474
long-term effects, 61 Al+3 toxicity, 68–70
manganese (Mn), 288 Aluminum (Al)
molybdenum (Mo), 301 plant nutrition, 14
neutralizing of soil, 78–95 plant tolerance to, 72–77
nitrification, 150 Aluminum sulfate, calcareous soils, 99
nutrient transformation and uptake, Aluminum tolerance, of crops, 70
57–58 Amines, 141
phosphorus (P), 205 Aminization, 141
plant growth problems, 67–72 Amino acids, 141
plant nutrition problems, 67, 102 Ammonification, 141
potassium (K), 238 Ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3), 171
potential, 52, 66–67 Ammonium chloride (NH4Cl), 171
precipitation, 52–56 Ammonium fixation, 153–154
reducing effects on plants, 72–95 Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3),
soil OM, 58–59 disadvantages of, 171
soil pH buffering, 64–65 Ammonium phosphates, 171, 216–217
soluble salts, 61 Ammonium polyphosphate, 217–218
sources of soil, 52–64 Ammonium polysulfide (NH4Sx), 256
sulfur, 250–251 and calcareous soils, 99
titrated, 66, 79 Ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4],
volatilization of NH3, 160 171, 255
in water, 51–52 Ammonium thiosulfate [(NH4)2S2O3], 256
zinc (Zn), 276 Anabaena azolla (a cyanobacteria),
Acid soils 136–137
global distribution of, 52 Anhydrous NH3, 169–170
plant growth problems in, 67–72 properties of, 169–170
Active acidity, determination of, 65–66 Anion effect, and phosphorus (P), 206
Active transport, 47 Anion exchange, 33–34
Adsorption Anion exchange capacity (AEC), 18
boron (B), 293 quantifying, 28–30
phosphate, 36, 202–204 Anions, and sulfur, 247
sulfate, 33–34, 95, 246–247 Antiporters, 46
zinc (Zn), 276 Apoplast, 44–46
Adsorption reactions (fertilizers), 220 Aqua NH3, 170
507
508 index

Aquaporins, 46 Buffer capacity (BC), 35–36

Atmospheric sulfur, 252 Burned lime, 83
Atomic weight, 28–30
ATS; See Ammonium thiosulfate [(NH4)2S2O3] C
Azolla (a water fern), 136–137 Ca; See Calcium (Ca)
Azospirillum brasilense (N2-fixing Calcareous soils, 95–100
bacterium), 137 acidification in fertilizer bands, 100
acidifying, 96–100
B aluminum sulfate, 99
B; See Boron (B) ammonium polysulfide, 99
Bacillus (bacteria), 155 description, 95–96
Band applications, Nutrient elemental S°, 98
placement, 385 global distribution of, 95
Banded nutrients, 342–343 iron sulfate, 99
Base, 51; See also Acidity; Alkalinity organic sources, 100
Base saturation (BS), 31–33 sulfuric acid, 98–99
defined, 31 Calcium (Ca), 256–260
soil pH–BS relationship, 32–33 calcium nitrate and, 260
of uncultivated soils, 32 cycle, 256–257
Basic cation saturation ratio (BCSR) deficiency, 70–72, 258
approach, 364–365 forms and functions, 256–258
BC; See Buffer capacity (BC) lime, 81–82
Best-management practices (BMP) lime-ammonium nitrate and, 260
and Nitrogen (N), 486–494 plant nutrition, 14
and Phosphorus (P), 497–501 in soil, 258–260
Bicarbonate, and Iron (Fe), 268 sources, 260
Bicarb-P, Soil testing, 351 triple superphosphate and, 260
Biosolids, 423–424 Calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN), 172
Black alkali, 102; See also Sodic soils Calcium carbonate, equivalent to lime, 81–83
Boron (B), 290–296 Calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE), 81–83
adsorbed, 293 Calcium hydroxide, lime, 83
common fertilizers, 295 Calcium-magnesium carbonates, and
crop sensitivity to deficiency of, 295 lime, 81–82
cycle, 290 Calcium oxide (CaO), 83
factors affecting availability, 293–294 Calcium phosphates, 215–216
functions and deficiency symptoms, 291–292 Calcium polysulfide (CaSx), 256
inorganic, 294–295 Calcium silicates, and lime, 83
interactions with other elements, 294 Calcium thiosulfate (CaS2O3), 256
mineral, 292 Calibrating soil tests, 356–357
mobility in plants, 292 Capillary action, 44; See also Osmosis
organic, 294 Carbohydrate, and Copper (Cu), 280–281
organically complexed, 293 Carbon (C), plant nutrition, 14
plant factors, 294 Carbon-bonded, sulfur, 249
plant nutrition, 14 Casparian bands, 44
in plants, 290–292 Cation effects, and phosphorus (P), 206
in soil, 292–293 Cation exchange, of clay minerals in soil,
soil moisture, 294 18–25
soil OM, 294 Cation exchange capacity (CEC), 18–25
soil pH, 293–294 determination of, 30–31
soil solution, 293 of Midwest soils (mollisols), 26
soil tests, 354 of plant roots, 34–35
soil texture, 294 potassium, 236
sources, 294–296 quantifying, 28–30
Brachiaria humidicola (tropical forage grass), 178 of southeastern U.S. soils (ultisols), 26
Broadcast, Nutrient placement, 377–379, 388–389 of whole soil, 25–26
Brucite, 23 CEC; See Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
 index 509

Cell samples, 341 ridge tillage, 467

Cell sap tests, 316–317 strip tillage, 466
Cell turgor, and chloride (Cl), 297 Controlled release fertilizer (CRF); See also Slow release
Chelate dynamics, 267–268 fertilizer (SRF)
Chelate-micronutrient cycling, 268 agricultural and environmental significance
Chemisorptions, 281–282 of, 176–177
Chloride (Cl), 296–300 classification of, 172–173
cell turgor, 297 polymer-coated, 175–176
crop sensitivity to deficiency of, 297 polymer-coated SCU (PSCU), 175
cycle, 296–297 sulfur-coated urea (SCU), 174–175
deficiency and toxicity symptoms, 297–298 use of, 172
diseases suppressed by fertilization of, 299 Copper (Cu), 279–285
environmental damage and, 298 absorbed, 281–282
functions, 297 carbohydrate, 280–281
inorganic, 300 common fertilizers, 285
mineral, 298 coprecipitated, 282
O2, 297 crop sensitivity, 284
organic, 300 cycle, 279–280
photosynthesis, 297 deficiency and toxicity, 281
plant nutrition, 14 factors affecting availability, 283–284
plant responses, 298–300 inorganic, 284–285
in plants, 297–298 interactions with other nutrients, 283
in soil, 298 lignin formation, 280
solute concentration in vacuoles, 297 lipid metabolism, 280–281
solution, 298 mineral, 281
sources, 300 occluded, 282
Chlorites, 20, 23, 23 organic, 282–283, 284
Chlorophyll, 125 photosynthesis, 280
Chlorosis, 313 plant factors, 284
Cl; See Chloride (Cl) plant nutrition, 14
Clay minerals in plants, 280–281
acidity, 59, 65 respiration, 280
cation exchange of, 18–25 in soil, 281–283
edge surface of, 24 soil pH, 283
magnesium (Mg), 261–262 soil solution, 281
potassium, 236 soil tests, 353–354
replacement in, 20 sources, 284–285
SO4–2, 247 Coprecipitated, copper (Cu), 282
surface charge, 20 Cotransporters (ion transport), 46
C:N ratio effects on mineralization and immobilization, Cover crops, 477–480
143–147 Crenarchaeota (Archaea), 149
Co; See Cobalt (Co) CRF coated fertilizers; See Controlled release
Cobalt (Co), 304 fertilizer (CRF)
fertilizer, 304 Critical nutrient concentration
plant nutrition, 14 (CNC), 322
in plants, 304 Critical range, plant nutrition, 13
in soils, 304 Crop characteristics, nitrogen, 165–187
Color charts, 329 Crop N status, 329
Conservation tillage, 466–472 Crop nutrient transformation and uptake, as
adoption of conservation tillage systems, 472 source of acidity, 57–58
adoption of no-till system, 470-471 Crop production, nitrogen sources for, 165–187
advantages and disadvantages, 466 inorganic sources, 165–182
effects on nutrient supply, 469–472 organic forms, 182–187
effects on soil erosion, 467–469 Crop productivity, soil erosion effects
methods, 466–467 on, 462–466
no-tillage, 466 Crop residue management (tillage) systems, 466
510 index

Crop rotation, 472–477 air quality, 501–504

crop types, 475 nitrogen (N), 483–494
effects on pest control, 476–477 phosphorus (P), 494–501
effects on soil erosion and health, 475–476 surface- and groundwater quality, 481–501
planning, 474–475 Enzyme activation, and potassium, 230
role in weed control, 477 Equivalent weight, 28–30
rotation effect, 473 European Union, 6
Crop yield; See also Maximum economic yield Eutrophication, 481
climate stresses, 11 Excessive plant nutrition, 13
corn in United States, 9–10 Exchangeable sodium percent (ESP), 104
factors affecting potential, 11–12 Exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR), 103
factors contributing to higher, 8
law of the minimum, 11–12 F
limiting factors, 10–12 Facilitated diffusion, 46
and nutrient use, 8–10 Famine, 2
primary soil-related stresses, 10 Farming methods, unproductive, 1
wheat in U.S., 9, 457 Fe; See Iron (Fe)
Crotonylidene diurea (CDU), 174 Fertigation, Nutrient placement, 403–405
Cu; See Copper (Cu) Fertilizers; See also Crop characteristics; Manure; Nitrogen
Cytochrome oxidase (enzyme), 280 (N); Nutrient management planning; Nutrient
placement; Phosphorus (P); Plant nutrients;
D Potassium (K); Soil characteristics
Deficient, Plant nutrition, 13 higher crop yields, 8
Delta yield approach, 362 as source of acidity, 61–64
Denitrification, 154–159 United States use of, 8–9
aeration, 156 Fick’s law, 41–43
agriculture and environmental significance, 158–159 Field average sampling, 338–339
decomposable soil OM, 157 Field test, 334–335
factors affecting, 155–158 Fixed costs, 447
NO2–, 156–157 Flooding, and phosphorus (P), 207
NO3–, 156–157 Foliar application, Nutrient placement, 400–403
soil moisture content, 156 Food commodities, projected global
soil pH, 158 consumption, 3
soil temperature, 158 Food consumption, 3–5
Dicyandiamide, 178 Food crops
Diffusion, 41–43 biodiesel production and, 7–8
facilitated, 46 ethanol production and, 7–8
simple, 46 utilizing for non-food uses, 7–8
Directed sampling, 342 Food production
Divalent ion, 29 cropland expansion and, 5
Dryland cropping systems, 443–445 projection of food commodities, 3
United States, 7
E world land area used for, 4
ECCE; See Effective calcium carbonate equivalent (ECCE) Food security, 1, 8
Ectomycorrhizas, 40, 374 Fusaarium (S-oxidizing bacteria), 248
Edge charge, 24
Edge surface, of clay minerals, 24 G
Effective calcium carbonate equivalent (ECCE), 85–87 Geographic information system (GIS), 339
Electrical conductivity (EC), 102–112 Gibbsite, 23
Elemental S°, 254–255 Global positioning system (GPS), 339
Elemental Se, 307 Grain analysis, 333
Elements, in plant nutrition, 12–15; See also Grass tetany (hypomagnesemia), and
Plant nutrition magnesium (Mg), 261
Endomycorrhizas, 40 Greenhouse tests, 334
Energy relations, and potassium, 229–230 Green manure crops, 477–480
Environmental quality, 480–504 Grid sampling, 341
 index 511

H mineral, 266
Haber-Bosch process, 139 organic, 270
HI-reducible, Sulfur, 248, 249 organic matter, 268–269
Humus, 38 pH, 268
Hydrogen (H), plant nutrition, 14 plant factors, 269–270
H toxicity, 68–70 plant nutrition, 14
Hydrolysis reactions, as source of in plants, 265–266
acidity, 59–61 poor aeration, 268
Hydrous oxide, and sulfur, 247 sensitivity of crops to deficiency of, 269
in soil, 266–268
I soil solution, 266–267
Illinois Soil N Test (ISNT), 345 soil tests, 353–354
Illite, 20 sources, 270–274
Immobilization, 38–39, 143 sources of fertilizer, 271
C:N ratio effects, 143–147 unchelated, 268
effects on soil OM, 147–148 Irrigation waters, sulfur, 252
phosphorus (P), 209–212 Irrigated cropping systems, 445–446
sulfur, 249–251 Isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), 174
Inositol hexaphosphate, 209 Isomorphic substitution, 20
Intensity, 35
Interaction; See also Nutrient-water interaction K
macronutrients, 432–437 K; See Potassium (K)
negative, 431–432 Kelowna
nutrient and crop, 437–439 modified soil testing, 351
nutrient and soil, 439 Soil testing, 351
nutrient and water, 439–446
between nutrients, 432–437 L
planting date, 439 Land, major usage of, 3–5
plant population, 437–438 Land value; See Maximum economic yield
plant variety, 438–439 Law of diminishing returns, 448
zero interaction, 431 Law of the minimum, 11–12
Ion(s) Leaching, as source of acidity, 56–57
diffusion, 41–43 Legume, and nitrogen, 182
movement from soils to roots, 39–43 Legume management, 131–132
precipitation, 17 Lifetime loading rates, 424
Ion absorption Lignin formation, and Copper (Cu), 280
by plants, 44–47 Lignin synthesis, manganese
and uptake by cells, 45–47 (Mn), 287
water uptake by roots, 44–45 Lime
Ion exchange, 18–35 agriculture use, 82, 87–89
anion exchange, 33–34 Al+3 toxicity, 68–70, 90
base saturation, 31–33 application of, 87–90
buffering capacity, 35–36 biosolids, 83
cation exchange, 18–25 calcium, 81–82
CEC and AEC quantifying, 28–30 calcium carbonate equivalent, 81–83
CEC determination, 30–31 calcium hydroxide, 83
root cation exchange capacity, 34–35 calcium-magnesium carbonates, 81–82
in soils, 18–35 calcium oxide (CaO), 83
Iron (Fe), 265–274 calcium silicates, 83
bicarbonate, 268 clubroot disease in cauliflower, 94
chelate dynamics, 267–268 determining requirement, 79–80
cycle, 265 effective calcium carbonate equivalent
excessive water, 268 (ECCE), 85–87
factors affecting availability, 268–270 equipment for, 90
inorganic, 270–274 fineness of limestone, 84–85
interactions with other nutrients, 269 hyroxide, 83
512 index

Lime (continued ) soil pH, 288

marl, 83 soil solution, 287–288
materials for, 80–81, 82 soil tests, 353–354
miscellaneous, 83 sources, 288–290
neutralizing soil acidity with, 78–95 Manure, 413–424
no-tillage systems, 88–89 animal, 413–422
particle size distribution, 84–85 composted feedlot, 422
plant pathogens and, 94 liquid swine, 421
plant response to, 90–95 nitrogen, 183–185
quality of, 85–87 phosphorus, 222–224, 494
reactions in soil, 78–79 solid beef, 420–421
tillage system application, 87–88 Marl, and lime, 83
time and frequency of applications, 89–90 Mass flow, 40–41
wheat yields, 92 Maximum economic yield, 446–452
wood and other ash products, 83 animal waste, 453
Limestone, fineness of, 84–85 benefits of, 450–452
Lipid metabolism, and copper (Cu), 280–281 energy efficiency, 450
Long-term effects, acidity, 61 liming, 453
Luxury consumption, 13, 322 reduction in soil erosion, 450–451
Lyotropic series, 27 residual effects, 452
soil fertility effects on land value, 452–453
M soil productivity, 451
Macronutrients, 14 unit price of nutrients, 451–452
Magnesium (Mg), 260–262 Mehlich-3P, soil testing, 351
clay minerals, 261–262 Mg; See Magnesium (Mg)
cycle, 260 Microbial fertilization, and
deficiency, 70–72, 260 phosphorus, 210
fertilizers containing, 262 Micronutrients, 14
forms and functions, 260–261 nutrient placement, 398, 426
grass tetany (hypomagnesemia) and, 261 Mineral, zinc (Zn), 275
organic biosolids, 262 Mineral element, plant nutrition, 14
plant nutrition, 14 Mineralization, 38–39
in soil, 261–262 C:N ratio effects, 143–147
sources, 262 effects on soil OM, 147–148
Maleic itaconic copolymer, 220 nitrogen, 141–149, 345–349
Manganese (Mn), 286–290 phosphorus (P), 209–212
climatic and weather effects, 288 sulfur, 249–251
common fertilizers, 289 Mineral solubility
crop sensitivity to, 289 phosphorus (P), 199–202
cycle, 286 in soils, 36–37
deficiency and toxicity, 68–70, 287 Mn; See Manganese (Mn)
excessive water, 288 Mo; See Molybdenum (Mo)
factors affecting availability, 288 Molybdenum (Mo), 300–303
inorganic, 289 crop sensitivity to deficiency of, 302
interaction with other nutrients, 288 cycle, 300
lignin synthesis, 287 factors affecting availability, 301–302
mineral, 287 Fe/Al oxides, 302
O2, 286 inorganic, 302–303
organic, 288–289 interactions with other nutrients, 302
photosynthesis, 286 mineral, 301
plant factors, 288 organic, 302
plant nutrition, 14 plant factors, 302
in plants, 286–287 plant nutrition, 14
poor aeration, 288 in plants, 300–301
in soil, 287–288 in soil, 301
soil OM, 288 soil moisture, 302
 index 513

soil pH, 301 Nitrogen (N), 121–188

soil tests, 354–355 ammonium fixation, 153–154
soil texture, 302 availability with organic nutrient sources, 185–187
solution, 301 best-management practices (BMP), 486–494
sources, 302–303 calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN), 172
sources of fertilizer, 303 C:N ratio effects on mineralization and immobilization,
Montmorillonitic minerals, 33–34 143–147
Multinutrient soil test, 355–356 crop rotation, 490–491
Mycorrhiza, 39 cycle, 121–122
denitrification, 154–159
N distribution throughout soil-plant/animal atmosphere
N; See Nitrogen (N) system, 122
Na; See Sodium (Na) environmental quality, 483–494
Natural organic chelates, 267 estimating immobilization potential, 146–147
NBPT (n-butyl-thiophosphoric triamide), 178 forms of in plants, 122–124
NDVI, 329–331 forms of soil, 140–141
Necrosis, 313 functions and forms in plants, 122–126
New growth cessation, 313 functions of in plants, 124–125
NH3, retention zones, 169–170 gaseous losses of, 154–165
NH4+ forming sources, 167–170 immobilization, 143
ammonium bicarbonate inorganic compounds, 141
(NH4HCO3), 171 inorganic sources, 165–182
ammonium chloride (NH4Cl), 171 leaching, 484
ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), 171 legume, 182
ammonium phosphates, 171 manure sources, 183–185
ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4], 171 mineralization, 141–149
anhydrous NH3, 169–170 mineralization and immobilization effects on soil OM,
aqua NH3, 170 147–148
calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN), 172 NH4+ forming sources, 167–170
controlled and slow release compounds, 172–173 nitrate leaching, 151–153
nitrification and urease inhibitors, 177–178 nitrification, 149–151
NO3– sources, 172 non-manure sources, 182–183
N solutions, 168 nonsymbiotic N2 fixation, 136–139
Urea [CO(NH2)2], 167–168; 171–172 Nutrient placement, 389–390,
Ni; See Nickel (Ni) 398, 426
Nickel (Ni), 303–304 organic compounds, 140
plant nutrition, 14 organic forms, 182–187
Nitrapyrin, 178 from organic wastes, 491
Nitrate leaching, 151–153 placement, 489–490
Nitric oxide (NO), 54 plant nutrition, 14
Nitrification, 58, 62, 67, 100, 149–151 rate, 488–489
factors affecting, 149–151 recommendation model, 360–362
population of nitrifying riparian buffers, 491
organisms, 150 sewage effluent, 182
soil aeration, 150 sewage sludge, 182
soil moisture, 150–151 soil tests, 344
soil pH, 150 sources of crop production, 165–187
soil temperature, 151 symbiotic N2 fixation, 126–136
supply of NH4+, 149 timing, 489
Nitrification inhibitors (NI), 178 transformation in soils, 141–154
agricultural and environmental significance of, visual deficiency symptoms, 125–126
178–182 volatilization of NH3, 159–165
dicyandiamide, 178 Nitrogen and crop production, 165–187
DMPP, 178 inorganic sources, 165–182
nitrapyrin, 178 organic forms, 182–187
Nitrobacter (chemoautotrophic bacteria), 149 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 54
514 index

Nitrogen-sufficiency index (NSI), 327 specific nutrient considerations, 389–398

Nitrosolobus (autotrophic bacteria), 149 specific placement considerations, 385–389
Nitrosomonas (chemoautotrophic bacteria), subsoil nutrient utilization, 410–412
149, 178 subsurface band, 380, 382
Nitrosovibrio (autotrophic bacteria), 149 sulfur, 426
Nitrospira (autotrophic bacteria), 149 surface band, 380, 383
Nitrous oxide (N2O), 54 time of application, 398–400
Nonsymbiotic N2 fixation, 136–139 topdress, 383–384
atmospheric N, 138 variable nutrient management, 405–410
greenhouse gases, 138–139 Nutrient ratios, 323–324
industrial fixation, 139 Nutrient-response functions, 358
soil microorganisms, 136–137 Nutrient interaction, between nutrients, 432–437
NO3– sources, 172 Nutrient–soil interaction, 439
No-till, and conservation tillage, 466 Nutrient transformation and uptake, 58
NREC, 361–362 Nutrient-water interaction, 439–446; See also Interaction
Nutrient-crop interactions, 437–439 dryland/non-irrigated cropping systems, 443–445
planting date, 439 irrigated cropping systems, 445–446
plant population, 437–438 water and nutrient absorption, 441–443
plant variety, 438–439 water use efficiency, 440–441
Nutrient-deficiency symptoms, 311–315 Nutrisphere, 220
Nutrient management planning, 426–429 Nutrition, elements in plants, 12–15; See also
application timing, 428 Plant nutrition
assessment and revision, 429
best management practices (BMPs) for, O
426–427 Occluded, copper (Cu), 282
crop rotation, 427 Olsen, soil testing, 351
field and soil map, 427 OM; See Organic matter (OM)
nutrient sources, 428 Organic matter (OM)
placement methods, 428 crop yield and, 11
proximity to nutrient-sensitive areas, 429 nitrogen forms, 182–187
recommended rates, 428 phosphorus (P), 206
soil testing and plant analysis, 427 S content of, 250
yield expectation, 427–428 supply of nutrients from, 37–39
Nutrient mobility, 358–359 Organic nutrients, 413–424
in soil, 43 Organic Se, 307
Nutrient placement, 377–410 Osmosis, 44; See also Capillary action
after planting, 383–384 Oxygen (O), plant nutrition, 14
band applications, 385
biosolids, 423–424 P
broadcast, 377–379, 388–389 P; See Phosphorus (P)
fertigation, 403–405 Paracoccus (bacteria), 155
fertilization with manure, 413–424 Passive transport, 46–47
foliar application, 400–403 Permanent charge, 24
management in turf, 425–427 Pest management, higher crop yields, 8, 9
micronutrients, 398, 425 pH
nitrogen (N), 389–390, 398, 425 boron (B), 293–294
nutrient management planning, 426–429 copper (Cu), 283
phosphorus, 391–395, 399, 425 dentrification, 158
at planting, 382–383 factors affecting N2 fixation, 131
potassium (K), 395–398, 399–400, 426 iron (Fe), 268
preplant, 377–379 manganese (Mn), 288
residual fertilizer availability, 412–413 molybdenum (Mo), 301
salt index, 385–388 nitrification, 150
seed band, 383 phosphorus (P), 205
sidedress, 384 potassium (K), 238
in soil, 377–398 of selected crops, 72–75
 index 515

S0 oxidation, 248 soil conservation practices, 500

sulfur, 247, 250 soil minerals, 204–205
volatilization of NH3, 160 soil moisture, 220
zinc (Zn), 276 soil pH, 205
pH-dependent charge, 24 soil time, 206–207
Phosphoric acid, 213, 215 solution in soil, 195–198
Phosphorus (P), 189–224 sources of, 212–224
adsorbed to sediments transported by surface runoff, 494–496
water, 496 timing, 498
adsorption equations, 202–203 visual deficiency symptoms, 192–195
adsorption reactions, 202; 220 waste source effects, 496–497
ammonium phosphates, 216–217 Photosynthesis, and potassium, 229–230
ammonium polyphosphate, 217–218 chloride (Cl), 297
in animal feed, 501 copper (Cu), 280
anion effects, 206 magnesium, 125
behavior in soils, 218–222 manganese (Mn), 286
behavior of fertilizer in soils, 218–222 Photosynthetic process, 14
best management practices, 497–501 Phytase, 501
calcium phosphates, 215–216 Phytic acid (myoinositol hexaphosphate), 209
cation effects, 206 Phytosiderophores, 270
content of fertilizers, 212–213 Plant analysis, 315–334
cycle, 189–190 critical nutrient ranges, 319–321
environmental quality, 494–501 sampling guidelines, 317–318
factors influencing fixation in soils, 204–207 tissue tests, 315–334
fertilizer P management considerations, 207 Plant cells, passive and active ion uptake by, 45–47
fertilizer reactions, 218–220 Plant characteristics, 369–374
fertilizer sources, 213–218 nutrient utilization, 369
fertilizer terminology, 212 roots, 369–374
flooding, 207 Plant growth problems, in acid soils, 67–72
forms and functions in plants, 191–195 Plant nutrient content, yield and, 323
forms of soil P, 195–212 Plant nutrients, 17
granule or droplet size, 220 Plant-nutrient use, economics of, 446–453; See also
inorganic, 212–222 Maximum economic yield
inorganic in soil, 198–207 Plant nutrition; See also Crop characteristics; Manure;
interaction with nitrogen, 220 Nutrient management planning; Nutrient place-
leaching in water, 496 ment; Plant-nutrient use; Soil characteristics;
loss assessment tools, 501 Soil-plant relationship
microbial fertilization, 210 beneficial elements, 304–308
mineral solubility, 199–202 elements in, 12–15
modification of chemistry in soil fertilizer form organic matter (OM), 37–39
reaction zone, 220 graph of, 13
nutrient placement, 391–395, 399, 426 nutrient-deficiency symptoms, 311–315
organic, 222–224 process of, 17
organic in soil, 207–212 relative and average concentrations, 14
phosphoric acid, 213, 215 typical nutrient removal, 312–313
placement, 498 Plants; See also Plant nutrition
plant nutrition, 14 analysis, 315–334
polymer-enhanced fertilizers, 220 critical nutrient ranges, 319–321
potassium phosphate, 218 ion absorption by, 44–47
precipitation reactions, 220 nutrient-deficiency symptoms, 311–315
rate, 498 nutrient ratios, 323–324
rate of application, 220 reducing soil acidity effects on, 72–95
residual fertilizer, 220–222 typical nutrient removal, 312–313
retaining practices, 500 Plasma membrane (plasmalemma), 45
rock phosphate, 213–215 Plastocyanin (protein), 280
sediment P trapping practices, 500 Point samples, 341
516 index

Population Potassium polysulfide (KSx), 241

growth, and U.S. agriculture, 5–7 Potassium sulfate (K2SO4), 240; 255
growth of world, 1–2 Potassium thiosulfate (K2S2O3), 241
malnutrition and, 2 Potential acidity, 52
supporting capacities in developing countries, 5 determination of, 66–67
Pop-up application, 383 Precipitation, as source of acidity, 52–56
Post-mortem tissue tests, 331–334 Precipitation reactions (fertilizers), 220
stalk NO3– test, 331–332 Preplant, nutrient placement, 377–379
Potassium (K), 227–242 Pre-sidedress soil NO3–, PSNT, 347–349
CEC, 236 Pseudomonas (bacteria), 155
clay minerals, 236
cycle, 227–228 Q
environment, 236–238 Quantity, 35–36
enzyme activation, 230 Quicklime, 83
exchangeable, 232–234, 236
factors affecting availability, 236–239 R
fixation, 235–236 Reacted layer coated fertilizer (RLCF), 176
forms in plants, 228 Reddening, 313
forms of soil, 232–236 Remote sensing, 331
functions and forms in plants, 228–232 Respiration, copper (Cu), 280
functions in plants, 228–230 Ridge till, and conservation tillage, 467
inorganic fertilizers, 240–241 Rock phosphate, 213–215
leaching, 238–239 Root cation exchange capacity, 34–35
mineral, 234–236 Root exudates, 267
nonexchangeable, 234–236 Root interception, 39–40
nutrient placement, 395–398, 399–400, 426 Roots, 369–374
organic, 241 ion movement from soil to, 39–43
photosynthesis and energy relations, 229–230 nutrient extraction, 373–374
plant nutrition, 14 species and variety differences, 370–373
potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), 241 water and ion uptake by, 44–45
potassium carbonate (K2CO3), 241 Rosetting, and zinc (Zn) deficiency, 275
potassium chloride (KCl), 240
potassium hydroxide (KOH), 241 S
potassium magnesium sulfate (K2SO4, MgSO4), 241 S; See Sulfur (S)
potassium nitrate (KNO3), 241 S0
potassium phosphates (K4P2O7, KH2PO4, elemental, 254–255
K2HPO4), 241 suspensions, 255
potassium polysulfide (KSx), 241 water-dispersible, granular
potassium sulfate (K2SO4), 240 fertilizers, 255
potassium thiosulfate (K2S2O3), 241 Saline-sodic soils, 100–116
release, 235 classification of irrigation
soil solution, 232 waters, 112
soil test, 351 defined, 102–103
sources of, 240–241 effects on plant growth, 105–110
translocation of assimilates, 230 managing for crop production, 113
visual deficiency symptoms, 230–232 quantifying salt tolerance, 107–108
water relations, 230 relationships, 103–105
Potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), 241 Saline soils, 100–116
Potassium carbonate (K2CO3), 241 classification of irrigation waters, 112
Potassium chloride (KCl), 240 defined, 102
Potassium hydroxide (KOH), 241 effects on plant growth, 105–110
Potassium magnesium sulfate (K2SO4, MgSO4), managing for crop production, 113
241; 255 quantifying salt tolerance, 107–108
Potassium nitrate (KNO3), 241 relationships, 103–105
Potassium phosphates (K4P2O7, KH2PO4, K2HPO4), Salt-affected soils, 100
218, 241 classification and properties of, 102
 index 517

Salt index, nutrient placement, 385–388 effects on plant growth, 105–110

Salt tolerance, 106–110 managing for crop production, 113
environmental factors, 110 quantifying salt tolerance, 107–108
factors affecting, 108–110 relationships, 103–105
plant factors, 108–109 Sodium (Na)
quantifying, 107–108 adsorption ratio (SAR), 103
soil factors, 109–110 plant nutrition, 14
Sampling time, 318, 343–344 in plants, 304–305
Sampling units, 338 in soils, 305
Saturated solution, 37 sources, 305
Seed band, nutrient placement, 383 Soil(s); See also Soil-plant relationship
Selenates, 307 CEC of, 25–26
Selenides, 307 ion exchange, 18–35
Selenites, 307 mineral solubility in, 36–37
Selenium (Se) movement of ions to roots, 39–43
forms of Se present in soil, 307 nutrient mobility in, 43
in plants, 306–307 primary and secondary minerals in, 24
in soil, 307–308 salt-affected, 100
sources, 308 Soil aeration
Sensor-based tissue analysis, 325–331 denitrification, 156
chlorophyll meter, 325–328 nitrification, 150
remote sensing for crop N status, 329 potassium (K), 238
Sewage wastes; See Biosolids Soil characteristics, 375–377
Shoemaker, McLean, and Pratt (SMP) buffer, 80 plant-nutrient effects, 376
Si; See Silicon (Si) Soil cultivation, mineralization and, 251
Sidedress, nutrient placement, 384 Soil depth
Silicon (Si), 305–306 soil sampling, 343
plant nutrition, 14 nitrate, 345–347
in plants, 305–306 sulfur, 247
in soils, 306 Soil erosion, 462–463
sources, 306 Soil exchange surface, cations and anions on,
Simple diffusion, 46 27–28
Site-specific nutrient management; See Variable nutrient Soil health; See Soil quality
management Soil microbes, and S0 oxidation, 248
Site-specific sampling, 340 Soil mineral exchange, as source of acidity, 59–61
Slow release fertilizer (SRF); See also Controlled release Soil minerals, and phosphorus (P), 204–205
fertilizer (CRF) Soil moisture
agricultural and environmental significance boron (B), 294
of, 176–177 molybdenum (Mo), 302
classification of, 172–173 nitrification, 150–151
crotonylidene diurea (CDU), 174 potassium (K), 236–238
isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), 174 S mineralization and, 250
organic-N low-solubility compounds, 173–174 S0 oxidation, 248
triazone, 174 Soil moisture content, denitrification, 156
urea formaldehyde (UF), 173–174 Soil OM
use of, 172 boron (B), 294
SMP; See Shoemaker, McLean, and Pratt (SMP) buffer estimating production, 148–149
SO4–2 iron (Fe), 268–269
clay minerals, 247 manganese (Mn), 288
leaching losses of, 251–252 as source of acidity, 58–59
reaction with CaCO3, 247 sulfur, 247
soil depth, 247 zinc (Zn), 276–277
soil pH, 247 Soil pH
Sodic soils, 100–116 boron (B), 293–294
classification of irrigation waters, 112 copper (Cu), 283
defined, 102 manganese (Mn), 288
518 index

Soil pH (continued ) Mo soil tests, 354–355

molybdenum (Mo), 301 multinutrient soil test, 355–356
S mineralization and, 250 nitrogen soil tests, 344
S0 oxidation, 248 nutrient recommendation system, 337
zinc (Zn), 276 objectives of, 336–337
Soil plant analyzer development (SPAD), 325 Olsen, 351
Soil-plant relationship, 17–48 other in-season N tests, 349–350
anion exchange, 33–34 preplant sampling, 345
base saturation, 31–33 pre-sidedress soil NO3 -, 347–349
buffering capacity, 35–36 P soil test, 350–351
cation exchange, 18–25 S soil tests, 353–354
CEC and AEC quantifying, 28–30 Zn soil tests, 353–354
CEC determination, 30–31 Soil testing interpretation buildup, 365
introduction to, 17–18 immobile nutrient recommendations, 362–364
ion absorption by plants, 44–47 maintenance, 365–366
ion exchange, 18–35 mobile nutrient recommendations, 360–361
mineral solubility in soils, 36–37 NREC, 361–362
movement of ions from soils to roots, 39–43 N recommendation model, 361
nutrient supply from OM, 37–39 nutrient mobility, 358–359
root cation exchange capacity, 34–35 nutrient response functions, 358
Soil productivity, 462–466 Soil texture
Soil quality, 455–462 boron (B), 294
Soil sampling, 338–344 copper (Cu), 283
banded nutrients, 342–343 molybdenum (Mo), 302
directed sampling, 342 Solubility product, 36
field average sampling, 338–339 Soluble salts, as source of acidity, 61
Soil solution S0 oxidation, 248
boron (B), 293 factors affecting, 248
copper (Cu), 281 soil microbes, 248
grid sampling, 341 soil moisture and aeration, 248
manganese (Mn), 287–288 soil pH, 248
sampling time, 343–344 soil temperature, 248
site-specific sampling, 340 Sprengel, Carl, 11
soil depth, 343 Steenberg effect, 13
zinc (Zn), 275–276 Streptomyces (S-oxidizing bacteria), 248
Soil temperature Strip test, 334
denitrification, 158 Stunting, 313
nitrification, 151 Subsoil nutrients, utilization of, 410–412
phosphorus (P), 206–207 Subsurface band, Nutrient placement, 380, 382
potassium (K), 236–238 Sufficiency level approach, 365
S mineralization and, 250 Sufficient, plant nutrition, 13
S0 oxidation, 248 Sulfatase activity, S mineralization and, 251
Soil testing, 336–338, 344–349 Sulfur (S), 243–256
Bicarb-P, 351 absorbed SO4–2, 246–247
B soil tests, 354 ammonium polysulfide (NH4Sx), 256
calibration of, 357 ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4], 255
Cl soil tests, 354 ammonium thiosulfate [(NH4)2S2O3], 256
Cu soil tests, 353–354 atmospheric, 252
Fe soil tests, 353–354 calcium polysulfide (CaSx), 256
in-season sampling, 347–356 calcium thiosulfate (CaS2O3), 256
interpretation of, 357–358, 357–366 carbon-bonded, 248, 249
Kelowna, 351 cycle, 243
K soil tests, 351 factors affecting SO4–2 adsorption/desorption, 247
Mehlich-3P, 351 fertilizer use guidelines, 254
Mn soil tests, 353–354 forms, 243–244
modified Kelowna, 351 forms and functions, 243–246
 index 519

forms in soil, 246–252 interpretation, 322

HI-reducible, 248, 249 nutrient ratios, 323–324
hydrous oxide, 247 post-mortem tissue tests, 331–334
inorganic, 253–254 sampling guidelines, 317–318
irrigation water, 252 sampling time, 318
mineralization and immobilization, 249–251 sensor-based tissue analysis, 325–331
organic, 248–249, 252–253 total analysis, 317
plant nutrition, 14 yield and plant nutrient content relationships, 323
potassium magnesium sulfate (K2SO4, MgSO4), 255 Tonoplast, 45
potassium sulfate (K2SO4), 255 Total analysis, 317
practical aspects of S transformations, 251–252 Tourmaline (mineral), 292
reduced inorganic, 247–248 Toxic plant nutrition, 13
residual, 248, 249 Transporter proteins, 46
S0 granular fertilizers, 255 Transporters (ion transport), 46
SO4–2 clay minerals, 247 Triazone, 174
soil OM, 247 Trivalent ion, 29
soil tests, 353 Turf management, 425–426
solution SO4–2, 246, 247
SO4–2 soil depth, 247 U
SO4–2 soil pH, 247 Undernourishment, of population, 1
sources of, 252–256 Undissociated acidity; See Potential acidity
S0 suspensions, 255 Uniporters, 46
transformation, 251–252 United States
urea-sulfuric acid, 256 agricultural productivity growth, 7, 9
visual S-deficiency symptoms, 246 commercial fertilizer use, 8–9
volatilization, 251 ethanol production, 7
Sulfur-coated urea (SCU), polymer-coated, 175 food production, 7
Sulfuric acid, and calcareous soils, 98–99 major crop yields, 9
Surface band, Nutrient placement, 380, 383 Unsaturated solution, 37
Symbiotic N2 fixation, 126–136 Unslaked lime, 83
biological fixation, 126–136 Urea-based fertilizers, 171–172
environment, 131 Urea [CO(NH2)2], 141, 171–172
factors affecting, 129–136 Urea formaldehyde (UF), 173–174
fertilizer N value of legumes, 135–136 Urease inhibitors, 178
fixation by legumes, 127–136 agricultural and environmental
fixation by leguminous trees and shrubs, 126 significance of, 178–182
legume management, 131–132 NBPT (n-butyl-thiophosphoric triamide), 178
legume N availability to nonlegume crops, 132–135 thiosulfate, 178
legume rotations, 136 Urea-sulfuric acid, and sulfur (S), 256
quantity of fixed, 129
soil nutrient supply, 129–131 V
soil pH, 131 Va; See Vanadium (Va)
Symporters, 46 Vadose zone, 484
Vanadium (Va), 308
T plant nutrition, 14
Technological innovations, U.S. corn yield increases, 9 Variable costs, 447
Thiobacillus (S-oxidizing bacteria), 248 Variable nutrient management, 405–410
Thiobacillus denitrificans, 155 in-season approach, 409–410
Thiobacillus thioparus, 155 pre-season approach, 406–409
Thiosulfate, 178, 256 Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM), 374
Tilling; See Conservation tillage Visual deficiency symptoms, 313–314
Tissue tests, 315–334 Volatilization, of sulfur (S), 251
cell sap tests, 316–317 Volatilization of NH3, 159–165
critical nutrient ranges, 319–322 agricultural and environmental significance, 164
for in-season N adjustments, 324–325 buffer capacity, 160
in-season nitrogen adjustments, 324–325 environment, 160–161
520 index

Volatilization of NH3 (continued ) Z

exchange by plants, 164–165 Zinc (Zn), 274–279
factors affecting, 160–164 adsorption, 276
fertilizer, 161–163 climate conditions, 277
manure nitrogen, 161–163 crop sensitivity, 278
nitrogen placement, 163–164 cycle, 274
nitrogen source, 161–163 factors affecting
relative risk factors, 165 availability, 276–277
soil pH, 160 flooding, 277
surface crop residues, 161 inorganic, 278–279
water evaporation, 161 interaction with other
von Liebig, Justus, 11 nutrients, 277
mineral, 275
W organic, 277–278
Water; See also Nutrient-water plant factors, 277
interaction plant nutrition, 14
efficient use of, 440–441 in plants, 274–275
interaction with nutrients, 439–446 in soil, 275–276
Water erosion, 463 soil OM, 276–277
Water relations, and potassium, 230 soil pH, 276
Wheat yield, lime effects, 92 soil solution, 275–276
White alkali, 102; See also Saline soils soil tests, 353
Wind erosion, 463–464 sources, 277–279
sources of fertilizer, 278
Y Zn; See Zinc (Zn)
Yield; See Crop yield; Maximum
economic yield