Soil Nutrients Deficiencies and Plant Health

Paul Carter

Steve Van Vleet

WSU Extension

December 11-11, 2019

Soil acidity impacts everything in the soil

Soil acidification, or a decrease in soil pH, is a natural process that is accelerated by crop production practices, primarily the use of nitrogen fertilizers.

Anderson et al. 2013

Soil

Compaction

1/14/2020 3

pH Effects Root Development

pH 6.2 pH 4.5

Winter wheat plant root mass locations

50% of roots are in the soil surface 8 inches

(they take up 70% of the water and nutrients)

Root Dominant Plants

70% of roots are in the top 18 inches of soil profile

Soil pH% Fertilizer Efficiency

% Fertilizer Unavailable

N P K

4.5 30 23 33 71

5.0 53 34 52 54

5.5 77 48 77 33

6.0 89 52 100 20

7.0 100 100 100 0

Soil pH and Nutrient Availability

Soil acidity impacts micro-organisms in the soil

Graphical representation of the complex mycorrhizosphere

altered by root exudates of wheat and basic soil chemistry

changes under acidic conditions versus neutral soil pH.

Seguel et al., 2013

The diversity of soil bacteria is largely effected by the pH of the soil.

Below pH 5.8, most beneficial bacteria are inactive or diminished and fungi have increased.

The structure of the soil is affected by pH.

In the optimum pH range clay soils are granular and are easily worked, whereas if

the soil pH is either extremely acid or extremely alkaline, clays tend to become

sticky and hard to cultivate. University of Vermont Extension Department of Plant and Soil Science

http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm

Soil Structure and Soil pH

http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/pubs/oh34.htm

“Without soil structure, future operations may compact the soil by squeezing out the

pore spaces between the soil aggregates.” Paul Jasa, Extension Engineer, UNL

Soil Structure and Tillage

Deep tillage is a short term solution to compaction.

Calcium loosens soil by flocculating particles and increasing pore space while

Magnesium tightens soil by separating particles and decreasing pore space.

Soil dispersion hardens the soil and blocks water infiltration.

Magnesium is held more weakly (due to larger ion radius) and behaves in some

instances in soil like sodium (i.e. when calcium is low).

Kinsey Book page 50-51

Soil Structure and Nutrients

Soil clay particles can be unattached to one another (dispersed) or clumped together (flocculated) in aggregates. Soil aggregates are cemented clusters of sand, silt, and clay particles.

Soil Structure and Bulk Density

Higher bulk density means less pore

space, which means less ability to hold air

and water. Bulk density thresholds that

affect root growth are shown in the table

below.

Bulk Density affected by tillage, field traffic,

and certain nutrients.

The structure of soil under conventional tillage (left) degrades quickly when exposed

to water. Soil under conservation tillage (right) forms stable aggregates that resist

erosion. Photo credit: Chesapeake Bay Program. James DeDecker, Michigan State University Extension

Soil Stability Slake Test

Base Saturation

Base saturation (BS) represents the percentage of CEC occupied by bases (Ca2+,

Mg2+, K+, and Na+). The % BS increases with increasing soil pH. The availability of

Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+ increases with increasing %BS. For example, an 80% BS soil

provides cations to plants more easily than 40% BS soil. At pH 5.5 most soils have

45-55% BS, whereas at pH 7 BS is >90%.

Recommended Levels:Ca 60-75%Mg 10-20%K 3-5%Na 0.5-3%

(Kinsey Book page 50-51)

Total Base = Ca+Mg+K+Na (meq/100g soil) = 6.4+1.5+1.27+0.05 = 0.627x100 = 63%Saturation CEC (meq/100g soil) 14.7

NO-TILL CONTINUOUS

DepthBulk

Density

OM

(Walk.-

Blk)

Soluble

SaltspH

Buffer pH

(A/E

,SMP)

Ca

(1N

KCl)

Mg

(1N

KCl)

Na

(1N

KCl)

K

(1N

KCl)

Total

Bases

Est.

CEC

Ca/CE

C

Mg/CE

C

Na/CE

C

K/CE

C

Base

Saturati

on

inches

mill #/ac-

depth %

mmhos/c

m (1:1)

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/1

00g % % % % %

0/3 0.88 3.35 0.34 4.9 7.22 6.4 1.5 0.05 1.27 9.2 14.7 44 10 0.3 8.6 63

3/6 0.92 2.94 0.31 4.5 7.07 7.0 1.3 0.05 0.47 8.8 14.7 48 9 0.3 3.2 60

6/12 1.88 2.48 0.31 5.7 7.42 11.3 2.7 0.06 0.59 14.7 21.1 54 13 0.3 2.8 69

12/18 1.81 2.16 0.39 6.2 7.55 10.6 3.1 0.07 0.62 14.4 20.1 53 15 0.3 3.1 72

18/24 1.88 1.49 0.49 6.8 12.1 4.4 0.10 0.40 17.0 22.9 0

Soil Test ReportNO-TILL CONTINUOUS

DepthBulk

Density

OM

(Walk.-

Blk)

Soluble

SaltspH

Buffer pH

(A/E

,SMP)

Ca

(1N

KCl)

Mg

(1N

KCl)

Na

(1N

KCl)

K

(1N

KCl)

Total

Bases

Est.

CEC

Ca/CE

C

Mg/CE

C

Na/CE

C

K/CE

C

Base

Saturati

on

inches

mill #/ac-

depth %

mmhos/c

m (1:1)

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/10

0g

meq/1

00g % % % % %

0/3 0.88 3.35 0.34 4.9 7.22 6.4 1.5 0.05 1.27 9.2 14.7 44 10 0.3 8.6 63

3/6 0.92 2.94 0.31 4.5 7.07 7.0 1.3 0.05 0.47 8.8 14.7 48 9 0.3 3.2 60

6/12 1.88 2.48 0.31 5.7 7.42 11.3 2.7 0.06 0.59 14.7 21.1 54 13 0.3 2.8 69

12/18 1.81 2.16 0.39 6.2 7.55 10.6 3.1 0.07 0.62 14.4 20.1 53 15 0.3 3.1 72

18/24 1.88 1.49 0.49 6.8 12.1 4.4 0.10 0.40 17.0 22.9 0

Availabl

e

Moistur

e

NO3N

(CaSO4)

NO3N

(CaSO4)

NH4N

(1N

KCl)

NH4N

(1N

KCl)

SO4S

(DTPA)

SO4S

(DTPA)

P

(

Bray)

P

(Bicarb

)

K

(Bicarb)

Zn

(DTPA

)

Mn

(DTPA)

Cu

(DTPA)

Fe

(DTPA

)

Boron

(DTPA

)

Al Chloride

(H2O)inches/d

epth ppm lbs/acre ppm lbs/acre ppm lbs/acre ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

lbs/acre-

depth

0.87 5.1 5 38.6 34 6 5 52 42 496 0.82 46.9 1.3 111 0.14 48 1.1

0.81 5.3 5 7.4 7 8 7 34 28 182 0.48 56.9 1.4 124 0.10 71 1.5

1.63 5.8 11 3.3 6 3 6 18 12 231 0.21 12.1 1.3 50 0.18 5 2.6

1.58 5.9 11 1.6 3 2 4 18 11 244 0.22 7.0 1.1 37 0.18 2 3.8

1.59 6.1 11 1.5 3 2 4 13 6 155 0.12 2.8 1.1 28 0.14 0 6.0

Soil Sampling

• Sample areas separately based on production and topography

• Compare highest producing area to all the other areas; what is missing or too much

• Soils with a deficiency have too much of something else; nutrients not balanced▪ Excess N can limit K, Ca, Cu, Zn, B

▪ Excess P can limit Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn

▪ Excess K can limit N, Ca, Mg, B

▪ Excess Mg can limit Ca, K

• Feed the soil and the soil feeds the plants

Commonly low or deficient nutrients that I have observed in nearly all soil samples

• Calcium

• Zinc

• Copper

• Boron

• Chloride

Mobile nutrients in plant: Cl, K, Mg, Mo, N, P

Immobile nutrients in plant: B, Cu, Ca, Fe, Mn, S, Zn

http://landresources.montana.edu/soilfertility/images/DefFlowChartMobile.pnghttp://landresources.montana.edu/soilfertility/images/DefFlowChartImmob.png

Calcium

• building block of cell division with strong cell walls and membranes

• controls water movement in and out of plant cells

• activates many of the soil microbial enzyme systems

• improves soil microbial activity

• enhances root uptake of other nutrients

• critical for balancing excess nitrogen and for disease suppression

• help loosen compacted soil and make more nitrogen available

Deficiency Symptoms:• Flag leaf is twisted/curled• Stunted development• Leaf tip burn• Crop lodging (weakened stems)

Zinc

• essential for the transformation of carbohydrates• development of new leaves, seed / fruit set• formation of protein• should always be at a higher level than copper

Deficiencies• intervenial chlorosis on the most recently developed leaves• plants are stunted • Reduced tillers

Copper

• enzyme activator• catalyst for plant respiration• Copper and Boron are disease fighters.

Deficiencies• light green color with twisted leaf tips• Young leaves become yellow and stunted• Lodging, wilting• Increased disease• Weaken stalks (cell wall strength)• Plants show dry, white and twisted or curled leaf tips

(white tip)

Boron

• assists in flower pollination • regulates metabolism of carbohydrates • promotes maturity with increased set of flowers, fruit, seed, yield and

quality• necessary for nitrogen conversion• disease resistance

Deficiencies• Poor pollination• flowering is altered and seed set/fill is poor • leaf unfolding is delayed

Chloride• photosynthesis and root growth• water movement in cells• aids in the transport of nutrients

Deficiencies• Chlorosis in younger leaves and overall wilting• Chlorotic lesions on leaves (physiologic leaf spot)

Soil Test

Dept

h

Bulk

DensityEc(1:1) OM pH

Buffer

pHLime Req (to pH 6.5)

Ca Mg Na KTotal

Bases

Est.

CEC CEC

Ca

CEC

Mg

CEC

Na

CEC

K

CEC

Base

Saturati

on

inch

esg/ml dS/m % lbs/ac meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g % % % % %

0/3 1.18 0.16 3.2 4.9 7.17 8009 5.4 1.1 0.04 2.05 8.6 12.9 16.1 33.54 6.83 0.25 12.73 53.42

3/6 1.21 0.14 2.49 4.7 7.12 8956 5.3 0.9 0.04 1.48 7.7 12.1 16.1 32.92 5.59 0.25 9.19 47.83

6/12 1.17 0.12 1.94 5.5 7.39 4473 7.7 1.6 0.05 1.46 10.8 14.7 15.1 50.99 10.60 0.33 9.67 71.52

Depth NH4-N NO3-NBray

P1

Bicarb

P

Bicarb

KSO4S Zn Mn Cu Fe B Al(KCl)

Al

(DTPA)Chloride

inches ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

0/3 5.2 10.4 40 23 801 8 0.51 24.3 1.1 83 0.11 39 23 2.3

3/6 2.4 3.6 42 24 581 9 0.43 20.8 1.1 82 0.11 76 28 2

6/12 1.3 2.7 27 15 571 5 0.24 7.4 1.1 48 0.14 2 9 2.3

Demonstration Plots Lime and Nutrient Applications

Blue – untreated lime

White - treated lime

1/14/2020 26

Demonstration Plots Lime and Nutrient Applications

• Lime was applied at the rate of about 2000 #CaCO3/acre

• Date Lime Applied: September 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Border borderborder lime borderno lime

chickpeas

lime no lime lime no limeno limeno lime no lime lime

peas

limeno-lime lime lime no lime lime

Soil Test Results

Dept

h

Bulk

DensityEc(1:1) OM pH

Buffer

pHLime Req (to pH 6.5)

Ca Mg Na KTotal

Bases

Est.

CEC CEC

Ca

CEC

Mg

CEC

Na

CEC

K

CEC

Base

Saturati

on

inch

esg/ml dS/m % lbs/ac meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g % % % % %

0/3 1.18 0.16 3.2 4.9 7.17 8009 5.4 1.1 0.04 2.05 8.6 12.9 16.1 33.54 6.83 0.25 12.73 53.42

3/6 1.21 0.14 2.49 4.7 7.12 8956 5.3 0.9 0.04 1.48 7.7 12.1 16.1 32.92 5.59 0.25 9.19 47.83

6/12 1.17 0.12 1.94 5.5 7.39 4473 7.7 1.6 0.05 1.46 10.8 14.7 15.1 50.99 10.60 0.33 9.67 71.52

Depth NH4-N NO3-NBray

P1

Bicarb

P

Bicarb

KSO4S Zn Mn Cu Fe B Al(KCl)

Al

(DTPA)Chloride

inches ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

0/3 5.2 10.4 40 23 801 8 0.51 24.3 1.1 83 0.11 39 23 2.3

3/6 2.4 3.6 42 24 581 9 0.43 20.8 1.1 82 0.11 76 28 2

6/12 1.3 2.7 27 15 571 5 0.24 7.4 1.1 48 0.14 2 9 2.3

Blue – untreated lime

White - treated lime

1/14/2020 28

Demonstration Plots Lime and Nutrient Applications

• Lime was applied at the rate of about 2000 #CaCO3/acre

• Date Lime Applied: September 2014

Date Nutrients Applied: September 2015

• Zinc 1.13 #/acre $18.00

• Copper 0.788 #/acre $19.80

• Boron 1.1 #/acre $11.00

• Potassium 21.5 #/acre $8.50

• Chloride 16 #/acre $0 (with the K)

• Nitrogen 1.2 #/acre $0.43

$57.73

4 5

1B+ 2W+ 3W+ 4B+ 5W+ 6B+ 7B+

61 2 3

8W+

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

9W+ 10B+ 11W+ 12B+ 13W+ 14B+ 15W+ 16B+

16B-1B- 2W- 3W- 4B- 5W- 6B- 7B- 8W-

l ime lime

Cu, Zn,

and B

nutrients

added

no added

nutrients12B- 13W- 14B- 15W-

l ime lime lime lime lime lime

9W- 10B- 11W-

no

lime

Bo

rde

rB

ord

er

Bo

rde

r

Bo

rde

rB

ord

er

Bo

rde

r

Bo

rde

rB

ord

er

no

lime

no

lime

no

lime

no

lime

no

lime

no

lime

no

lime

1/14/2020 Paul Carter 29

Soil pH

2015 – 6 months after application

2017 – 31 months after treatment

2019 – 55 months after treatment

pH results 2015 2017 2019Treated 0-3” Range 5.3 – 6.2 5.6 – 6.9 5.6 – 6.7Untreated 0-3” Range 4.7 – 5.2 4.4 – 5.2 4.5 – 4.8

Treated 3-6” Range 4.6 – 4.8 4.7 – 4.8 5.0 – 5.8Untreated 3-6” Range 4.5 – 4.8 4.6 – 4.7 4.5 – 4.8

Lime applied at the rate of 2000 #CaCO3/acre

2017 Lime/Micro-nutrients Trial – Hard Red Winter Wheat

Control Add Nutrients Add LimeAdd Lime and

Nutrients122.0 bu/ac 126.1 bu/ac 125.0 bu/ac 130.1 bu/ac

Yield Increase 4.1 bu/ac 2.5 bu/ac 8.2 bu/ac

% Yield Increase 3.4% 2.5% 6.7%

2019 Lime/Micro-nutrients Trial – Soft White Winter Wheat

ControlAdd Nutrients

OnlyAdd Lime Only

Add Lime and Nutrients

111.5 bu/ac 122.4 bu/ac 116.5 bu/ac 128.4 bu/ac

Yield Increase 10.9 bu/ac 5.0 bu/ac 17.0 bu/ac% Yield Increase 9.8% 4.5% 15.2%

2016 Lime/Micro-nutrients Trial – Spring Pea

Control Add Nutrients Add LimeAdd Lime and

Nutrients

1641 #/ac 1892 #/ac 1806 #/ac 2029 #/ac

Yield Increase 251 #/ac 164 #/ac 388 #/ac

% Yield Increase 15.3% 10.0% 23.6%

Plot Yields

$65.00

$45.00

$85.00

$195.00

Lime Percolation Test PlotEstablished November 26, 2018

• Notill field last 25+ years; no harrow, disc, plow, or any other soil disturbance

• 18” rainfall zone

• Pelletized lime applied @ rate of 10,000 #/acre

• Soil sampled inside and outside treated area

• April 24, 2019

• October 24, 2019

To address the question about lime percolating down in the soil

Many state that lime must be incorporated

15 feet radius

15 foot radius

700 ft2

November 26, 2018

April 24, 2019

5 months later

Lime Percolation Plot

Treated November 26, 2018

Treatment at 10,000 #/acre rate

Lime provided by CRC

Sampled April 25, 2019

Sampled October 24, 2019

Depth inches

Untreated Treated Untreated Treated

1 5.2 7.5 5.4 7.4

2 5.2 6.9 5.2 7.2

3 4.9 5.0 5.0 6.1

4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.1

5 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.3

6 4.6 4.6 5.0 5.2

7 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2

8 4.7 4.9 5.3 5.2

9 4.9 4.8 5.3 5.3

10 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.3

11 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.6

12 5.0 5.4 5.9 5.9