Yield and elemental composition of sainfoin and alfalfa as affected by fertilizer variables
by Alan Roy Foos
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Soil Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by Alan Roy Foos (1979)
Abstract:
This study was part of a broader, longer term investigation into the nutritional responses of sainfoin and
alfalfa. A strip plot, randomized complete block experiment was designed with sainfoin and alfalfa
strips as the main plots. Each of four replications included 25 fertility treatments. Treatments were
composed of one factorial set of four levels of potassium over three levels of phosphorus, and another
set of four levels of nitrogen over selected combinations of phosphorus and potassium. Additional
treatments included additions of sulfur and sulfur with selected micronutrients. Dependent variables
studied were yield, water use efficiency, and soil nitrate. Also studied were the forage percentages and
uptakes of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium.
Alfalfa yielded more than sainfoin in both years, had a greater water use efficiency, and was higher in
protein and concentrations of potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium. Sainfoin was much higher
in percent phosphorus. Yields and concentrations of most elements were higher the second year for
both species. Soil nitrate was in- creased the spring following nitrogen fertilization, but nitrate levels
were low by fall of that year (1977), and the effect of applied nitrogen was no longer evident. Nitrate
levels were below levels of detection on all units when sampled in the summer and fall of 1978, In
1977, the year of seeding, alfalfa yield was increased by nitrogen and phosphorus, but a negative
interaction existed between the effects of these two nutrients. Phosphorus also increased the uptakes of
nitrogen, potassium, and calcium. Nitrogen increased sainfoin yield, potassium concentration and
uptake, and phosphorus concentration in 1977, but caused percent protein to decline. Phosphorus
increased the concentration and uptake of that element in both species both years.
In 1978, moderate applications of phosphorus appeared to stimulate the growth of sainfoin and uptake
of most elements, but larger applications reversed this trend.
In 1977, potassium reduced soil nitrate levels on alfalfa units and improved the water use efficiency of
sainfoin. The following year, potassium decreased yield, potassium concentration, and the uptakes of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium by alfalfa. Calcium concentration of alfalfa
was increased to some extent by phosphorus in 1978 and nitrogen in 1977, but not by potassium.
Sulfur sharply reduced alfalfa yield and the uptakes of most elements in both years. Micronutrients
usually decreased sainfoin yield and the uptakes of most elements. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in'partial fulfillment■of'the .require­
ments ■
.for ■an advanced degree at Montana State' University, I agree that
the' Library•shall make, it freely .available for inspection,
I further
agree'that permission'for'extensive:copying of this thesis for schol­
arly purposes may be granted by m y -major professor, o r , i n his absence,
by. the Director of'Libraries',
It. is understood that any copying or .
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed’ •
without my written permission.
Signature'
Date
YIELD AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF SAINFOIN AND ALFALFA
AS AFFECTED BY FERTILIZER VARIABLES
by
ALAN ROY FOOS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER.OF SCIENCE
in
Soil Science
Approved:
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
April, 1979
ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere appreciation is extended to the following persons:
Dr..E. 0. Skogley for his professionalism and guidance as my major
professor and for providing an assistantship which enabled me to com­
plete my graduate program.
Dr. IC. C. Feltner, Dr. R. A. Olsen, and Dr. I. K. Mills for guid­
ance and encouragement while serving on my graduate committee.
Special
thanks are due Dr. Olsen and Dr. Mills for exceptional classroom in­
struction.
Dr. J. F. Martin, Dr. R. E, Lund, and Dr. S. R. Chapman for excel­
lent instruction and counseling in statistics.
Dr. R. L. Ditterline and Dr. C. S. Cooper for organizing each har­
vest and for patient understanding, guidance, generosity, and moral sup­
port.
Dr. C. N. Caughlin for outstanding patience and dedication in con­
veying an understanding of physical chemistry.
My wife, Dorene, for her sacrifice, support, and encouragement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
VITA. . . . . .
..........
. ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................. ..............................
ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES..................................................
vi
LIST OF F I G U R E S ............
ABSTRACT. . . .
............
x
. . . . . .
........
. . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION..............
I
LITERATURE R E V I E W ..............................................
General Characteristics of Sainfoin and Alfalfa . . . . . . . .
Growth and Forage Quality .
............ ................ . .
Nitrogen Fixation ................................. ...........
Potassium..........
Phosphorus. . ............. . . . . . . . . . ................
Sulfur and Micronutrients ............ . . . . . . . . . . . .
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . .
xii
......................
■Plot Description. .............................................
Soil Sampling ............................
Seeding and Harvesting........................................
Chemical Analysis ............ ....................... . . . .
Statistical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i ....... .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. .........................................
Emergence and Plant Height............
Soil Nitrate.......... ...........................■............
Yield and Water Use Efficiency. . . . . . . ..................
Protein and Nitrogen Uptake
.................. . .
Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake ...........................
Potassium Concentration andUptake. . . . . . . . .............
Calcium Concentration and Uptake................
Magnesium Concentration and Uptake. ................
Sodium Concentration and Uptake . .............................
.3
3
5
6
9
10
12
14
14
14
16
17
18
24
24
25
27
33
39
46
51
59
60
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)
PAGE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... ............. .
Species' and Years Comparisons
............................
Effects'of ■Nitrogen ........ ; ..................; ...........
Effects of Phosphorus . ......................................
Effects of Potassium. .........................
Effects of Stilfur and Micronutrients..........................
*
APPENDICES. . ..........
Appendix I:
■ i
. . . . .
................
. . . . . .
64
64
65
66
67
.69
71
2
Regression Equations, Probability Levels, and r
Values for Response Characteristics.........
Appendix II: Significant Paired Comparisons.................
Appendix III: Data and ANOVA Statistical Parameters for
-.
Response Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
LITERATURE CITED................................................
Ill
72
86
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
' PAGE
1 'Treatment numbers and levels of applied fertilizer in kg/ha
15
2
Prefertilizer soil test results.......... .. ...............
15
3
List of paired comparisons performed for each forage
characteristic . . . . . . . .......... .
........
20
Plant height of alfalfa in the year of seeding as affected
by applications of N and P ...................... ..
25
5
Effects on soil nitrate levels to 6 feet under alfalfa . . .
26
6
Mean yields for species and years in metric tons/hectare . ..
27
7
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and
micronutrients on yields ........ ........ .
31
8
Effect of K on the water use efficiency (WUE) of sainfoin. .
32
9
Effect of P on the water use efficiency (WE) of alfalfa in
1977 . ......... .............................. ..............
33
10
Mean protein concentrations for species' and years........ .
34
11
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and
micronutrients on protein and nitrogen uptake............
36
Effect of the 11-55-0 treatment (21-45-28) on sainfoin
protein in 1977................ .. . . ..................
37
13
Mean phosphorus concentrations for species and years . . . .
40
14
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and
micronutrients on P concentration, ■............ .........
45
15
Effect of micronutrients on the P uptake of sainfoin in 1977
45
16
Mean potassium concentrations for species and years. . . . .
48
17
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and
micronutrients on IC concentration.................... . .
4
12
51
vii •
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.)
TABLE.
18
PAGE
Paired comparisons showing the'effects of S and
micronutrients on the uptake of K, . ....................
52
19
Mean calcium concentrations■for species and years..„ . . . .
52
20
Mean magnesium concentrations for species and years.
59
21
Mean sodium concentrations for species and y e a r s .......... ;
60
22
Effect of S on Na uptake (kg/ha) by sainfoin and Na
concentration (% composition) of alfalfa .................
62
....
APPENDIX TABLE
23
24
Yield in metric tons/ha at 12% moisture - regression
equations for significant effects. . . . . ........
...
Protein percentage - regression equations for significant
effects.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
73
;
74
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects,
.............
75
Phosphorus concentration - regression equations for
significant effects. . .................... ..............
76
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects.......................
77
Potassium concentration - regression equations for,
significant effects. . . . .
..........................
78
Potassium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects.......... , ........ ..................
79
Calcium concentration - regression effects for significant
effects,...................................... .. • • • .
80
Calcium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects. . . i . . . . . . . . . . . .......
81
viii
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.)
APPENDIX TABLE
32
PAGE
Magnesium concentration - regression equations for
significant effects. . , , „ ; .................... ..
82
Magnesium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects. ........ . . . . . ................
83
Sodium concentration - regression equations for significant
effects............ ................................. .. .
84
Sodium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects. . . . . . . .............
85
36
Yield in metric tons/ha - significant paired comparisons . .
87
37
Protein percentage - significant paired comparisons. . . . .
88
38
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - significant paired comparisons.
.
89
39
Phosphorus concentration - significant paired comparisons.
.
90
40
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - significant paired comparisons.
91
41
Potassium concentration - significant paired comparisons . .
92
42
Potassium uptake in kg/ha for 1977 - significant paired
comparisons..............................................
93
Potassium uptake in kg/ha for 1978 - significant paired
comparisons. .
............ ......................... ;
94
44
Calcium concentration - significant paired comparisons . . .
95
45
Calcium uptake in kg/ha - significant paired comparisons . .
95
46
Magnesium concentration - significant paired comparisons . .
96
47
Yield in metric tons/ha - treatment means and selected .
statistical parameters , I . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98,
Protein percentage - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters ; .......... -. ; ......... ..
99
33
34
35
43
48
ix
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.)
APPENDIX TABLE
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
PAGE
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters . . . ............................
100
Phosphorus concentration
treatment means and selected
statistical parameters........................
101
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters ..........
102
Potassium concentration - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters ..................
103
Potassium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters . ..........................
104
Calcium concentration - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
105
Calcium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means, and selected
statistical parameters........ .. . . ..................
106
Magnesium concentration - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters . ..............
107
Magnesium uptake in kg/ha — treatment means and selected
statistical parameters......................
108
Sodium concentration - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters . ..................
109
Sodium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected
statistical parameters ...............................
HO
X
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1
PAGE
Yield of sainfoin in 1977 as -a function of nitrogen
applied 12-13 October 1 9 7 6 . .................... .. . . .
28
Yield of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of nitrogen and
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 ...............
.
28
Yield of alfalfa in 1978 as a function of potassium
applied 12-13 October 1976, ........................... ,
30
Protein percentage of sainfoin in 1977, second harvest, as
a function of nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976 . . . .
35
5 z Protein percentage of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976, . . . . ..........
35
6 .Nitrogen uptake by sainfoin in 1977 and 1978 as a function
of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 . .
38
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Nitrogen uptake by alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a function
of phosphorus and potassium applied 12-13
October 1976. .
38
Phosphorus concentration of sainfoin and alfalfa in 1977
and 1978 as a function of phosphorus applied 12-13
October 1976................................ ..
41.
Phosphorus uptake by sainfoin and alfalfa in 1977 and 1978
as a function of phosphorus applied 12-13
October 1976. .
43
Phosphorus uptake by sainfoin in 1977 as a function of
nitrogen applied 1.2-13 October 1976 ....................
43
Phosphorus uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976, .......... . . . .
44
Potassium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a
function of potassium applied 12-13 October 1976........
47
Potassium concentration of sainfoin in 1977 and 1978 as a
function of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 12-13.
October 1976.............. ........................
47
xi
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd.)
FIGURE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RAGE
Potassium uptake by sainfoin in 1977 and 1978 as a function
of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 . .
50
Potassium uptake by alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a function
of phosphorus and potassium applied 12-13 October 1976. .
50
Calcium concentration of'sainfoin.in 1977, second harvest,
as a function of nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976. . .
55
Calcium uptake by sainfoin in 1977 as a function of
nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976 ............... ..
55
.
Calcium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a
function of phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 . . . .
56
Calcium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976. . . . . . . . . . .
.56
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 ............
...
57
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of ■
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 ..................
57
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976....................
58
Magnesium uptake by sainfoin in 1978 as a function of
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976 ..................
61
Sodium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
potassium, applied 12-13 October 1976............ ..
63
xii
ABSTRACT
This study was part of a broader, longer term investigation into
the nutritional responses of sainfoin and alfalfa. A strip plot, ran­
domized complete block experiment was designed with sainfoin and alf­
alfa strips as the main plots. Each of four replications included 25
fertility treatments. Treatments were composed of one factorial set
of four•levels of potassium over three levels of phosphorus, and an­
other set of four levels of nitrogen over selected combinations of
phosphorus and potassium. Additional treatments included additions
of sulfur and sulfur with selected micronutrients. Dependent vari^
ables studied were yield, water use efficiency, and soil nitrate. Also
studied were the forage percentages and uptakes of nitrogen, phosphor­
us, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium.
Alfalfa yielded more than sainfoin in both years, had a greater
water use efficiency, and was higher in protein and concentrations of
potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium. Sainfoin was much higher
in percent phosphorus. Yields and concentrations of most elements
were higher the second year for both species. Soil nitrate was in- ■
creased the spring following nitrogen fertilization, but nitrate levels
were low by fall of that year (1977), and the effect of applied nitro­
gen was no longer evident. Nitrate levels were below levels of detec­
tion on all units when sampled in the summer and fall of 1978,
In 1977, the year of seeding, alfalfa yield was increased by ni­
trogen and phosphorus, but a negative interaction existed between the
effects of these two nutrients. Phosphorus also increased the uptakes
of nitrogen, potassium, and calcium. Nitrogen increased sainfoin yield,
potassium concentration and uptake, and phosphorus concentration in
1977, but caused percent protein to decline. Phosphorus increased the
concentration and uptake of that element in both species both years.
In 1978, moderate applications of phosphorus appeared to stimulate the
growth of sainfoin and uptake of most elements, but larger applications
reversed this trend.
In 1977, potassium reduced soil nitrate levels on alfalfa units
and improved the water use efficiency of sainfoin. The following year,
potassium decreased yield, potassium concentration, and the uptakes of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium by alfalfa.
Calcium concentration of alfalfa was increased to some extent by
phosphorus in 1978 and nitrogen in 1977, but not by potassium.
Sulfur sharply reduced alfalfa yield and the uptakes of most ele­
ments' in both years. Micronutrients usually decreased sainfoin yield
and the uptakes of most elements.
INTRODUCTION
Alfalfa (Medicago satIva L.) is the major forage legume in Mon­
tana.
Because of its wide use and long-term popularity it has been the
subject of more research than any other forage legume.
However, little
research has been done to investigate soil fertility requirements of
alfalfa in Montana.
Recent studies have shown that alfalfa in Montana
is frequently deficient in P and that both P and K may increase yields.
That alfalfa yields statewide are very low emphasizes the need to clar­
ify nutritional requirements of alfalfa on Montana soils.
Sainfoin (Onobrychls viciifolia Scop.) has attracted recent atten­
tion as a substitute for alfalfa.
It is ideally suited to many condi^
tions in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Canada that are less favor­
able to alfalfa production.
that of alfalfa.
Its nutritional quality is comparable to
Its potential for improvement is excellent.
It has
not been subjected to the long history of intensive breeding that alfal­
fa has.
Nutritional requirements and physiological status are by com­
parison nearly unknown, but it is certainly very different from alfalfa.
In the United States, sainfoin has proven to have an outstanding ability
to extract soil P and usually shows no response to additions of highly
available forms.
One problem with sainfoin is that it often shows symp­
toms of N deficiency and poor N fixation.
It is also susceptible to a
crown and root rot complex that frequently reduces yields and stands,
especially on heavy, irrigated soils.
The importance of studying the effects of soil nutrients on yield
2
is obvious.
Knowledge of soil nutrient effects on chemical composition
is also desirable.
Such information reveals forage quality and physi- ■
ological status of the plant.
It also characterizes in depth the manner
in which each species responds to soil nutrients.
valuable indicator of forage quality.
Protein is the most
Concentrations of other elements
are indicators of general health, physiological strengths and weakness­
es, and differences in such characteristics among species.
The objective of this experiment was to clarify and compare yield
and compositional responses of irrigated sainfoin and alfalfa to soil
fertility factors.
levels;
Specific items of investigation were:
2) water use efficiency;
3) yield;
tions and uptakes of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na.
factorial combinations of N, P, and K.
I) soil NO^
and 4) plant concentra­
Major treatments were
Additional treatments included
an annual application of 0-45-112, an annual application of 11-55-0
and KCl (24-45-28), an application of S, and an application of S com­
bined with B 9 Co, and Mo.
Effects were analyzed for each species and
harvest for the year of seeding (1977) and the year following.
These experimental objectives were, however, only part of a larger
experimental plan.
Final conclusions will not be reached until results
are obtained over a period of 5 or more years.
Other investigators will
be studying effects of soil nutrients on stand longevity, nodulation,
and disease.
LITERATURE REVIEW
General Characteristics of Sainfoin and Alfalfa
Sainfoin (Qnobrychis viciifdlia Scop.) is usually taller than al­
falfa (Medicago sativa L.), growing to a height of 3 feet or more (37),
while the height of alfalfa is usually under 3 feet.
The leaves are
pinnately compound like those of alfalfa, but vetch-like, having a large
number of leaflets (37,63).
Alfalfa is trifoliolate.
bent (26) instead of Upright like those of alfalfa.
larger than those of alfalfa.
Stems are decum­
Sainfoin seeds are
The flowers are bright pink in color un­
til pod stage. (26,37), while those of alfalfa are usually purple but
may be yellow or variegated.
The long tap root of sainfoin, resembling
that of alfalfa, may be 5 cm in diameter and I to 10 m deep (26), with
about twice as many laterals (56).
The popularity of sainfoin has been increasing for a number of rea­
sons.
Depending on environmental conditions and location, sainfoin may
yield less than, the same as, or more than alfalfa (14,26,37,79,81).
Usually, sainfoin yields more than alfalfa at the first cutting and
less at the second cutting (16,26,60) due to a slow rate of recovery.
Sainfoin is therfore particularly likely to perform well in areas
where springs are warm and moist and climate limits harvest to a single
cutting (60).
It is recommended for dryland production in Montana and
Canada only where annual precipitation is greater than 12^13 inches
4
(26,37).
The variety Remont is a multicut variety, as opposed to the
single-cut Eski, and is recommended for irrigated pastures in Montana
where a more even seasonal distribution of growth is desired (14,25) .
Sainfoin is highly resistant to serious pests, in particular the
alfalfa weevil (26,37,78) which has been a serious threat to alfalfa
production in Montana.
winterhardy (20).
It is highly resistant to drought and is very
Koch et al. (46) found sainfoin yields to be high
in years of low moisture with little decline in forage quality from
early to late bloom stages of maturity.
Sainfoin, like alfalfa, is
easily established (26), and at least in the early stages of growth is
salt tolerant (87).
A large variation in protein content among species
gives promise of improvements through breeding programs (22).
Sain- ■
foin, unlike alfalfa, has never been known to cause bloat (26,28,37,63,
67).
Seedlings have a wider temperature optimum for growth than alfalfa
or cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer L;) which permits earlier seeding
(82).
Feeding trials in Montana have indicated the nutritional value of
sainfoin hay to be equal to or superior to that of alfalfa (14,43).
is highly palatable to livestock.
It
Sheep will graze sainfoin first,
alfalfa second, and cicer milkvetch last, although the total consump­
tion of sainfoin and alfalfa is about the same (81),.
Sainfoin is more
easily pollinated and much more heavily worked by bees than alfalfa,
the honey yield being large and of excellent quality (27,34,43).
.
5
Sainfoin possesses some undesirable characteristics in comparison
to alfalfa.
Due to poor recovery it may not be able to withstand graz­
ing (49), a problem aggravated by its high palatability.
Stand lon­
gevity has been seriously reduced in many cases due to a root rot caus­
ed by a complex of organisms including Fusarium solan! (2,76) and
Pseudomonas and Erwinia (29).
Unlike alfalfa, sainfoin often seems to
be ineffective at N fixation (2,26,79), even when abundantly nodulated
(10).
It is a poor competitor with most weeds and grasses (38,84),
especially aggressive, rhizomatous types like bromegrass (Bromus inermis
L.) (37), as well as most cereal crops (26).
Hanna et al. (38) found
alfalfa in Canada to give better yields than sainfoin either alone or
in grass mixtures.
However, Cooper (19) found sainfoin in grass mix­
tures in Montana to have greater persistence and vigor than birdsfoot
trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) under hay-stockpile management, and
additions of sainfoin to birdsfoot trefoil-grass mixtures have consis­
tently increased yields in Montana (26).
Growth and Forage Quality
For alfalfa, maximum dry matter accumulation occurs at 2% to 45%
bloom, but at 100% bloom for sainfoin.
These occur at about the same
date on dryland but sainfoin may be much later on irrigated land (15).
At maximum yield the crude fiber of sainfoin is less than or about the
same as alfalfa, TDN (total digestible nutrients) is about the same,
6
but alfalfa has 3% to 6% more protein and 9% to 10% less nitrogen-free
extract (15,25,41).’ The protein content of sainfoin is sufficient for
the needs of beef cattle (15).
Steers grazing sainfoin have gained
more than those grazing other legumes and legume-grass mixtures (26).
Swine have gained as much with 3% ground sainfoin as with 3% ground
alfalfa (61).
Baker et al. (4) summarized previous literature and data of their
own on the composition of sainfoin.
Protein content, lower than that
of alfalfa, was found to vary from about 16% to 19% at preflowering to
about 12% at full bloom.
At full bloom, Ca was about 1.4%, P 0.6%, K
1.6%,. Mg 0.35%, and Na 0.6%.
These figures varied considerably with
climate and soil fertility status.
They found large differences be-t
tween leaf and stem composition for most nutrients, protein being
concentrated in the leaf, which is also true of alfalfa (70).
Large
differences in the mineral composition of sainfoin were attributed by
Baker et al. (4) to differences in the leaf-stem ratio,.
is higher in sainfoin than in alfalfa (41).
This ratio
In Montana, alfalfa has
been higher in N-free extract, TDN, and P (15,26).
Varga (89) rated
the nutritional value of sainfoin in Romania 26% higher than that of
alfalfa.
Nitrogen fixation
Nodulation is generally decreased in legumes by N applications,
but large amounts of N seem to be required for complete suppression
7
(55).
However» Hallsworth (36) presented evidence that N fixation it­
self is unaffected or even sharply increased over a range of 0.5 to 60
ppm soil N.
The literature dealing with N fixation of sainfoin is inconsistent.
Burton and Curley (10) found that moderate additions of N had little or
no effect on nodulation or symbiotic fixation by sainfoin in Wisconsin.
On the other hand, Radomirov et al. (65) found N to decrease the number
of nodules on sainfoin in Bulgaria.
Panosian and Kirakosian (62) reported that, under sainfoin in Rus­
sia, soil N increased each year up until the third or fourth year and
then declined.
In Russian the nodules of sainfoin are reported to be
more numerous than those of alfalfa and 5 to 8 times larger (44,83).
Steergeva (83) maintained that the quality of sainfoin nodules was also
greater than those of alfalfa in that yields of wheat were greater fol­
lowing sainfoin.than those following alfalfa.
He stated that sainfoin
stored 10 times more W for release into the soil than alfalfa.
David-
ovskii (21) also reported that sainfoin accumulated N in the soil.
However, Rovshanov (73) found alfalfa to be superior to sainfoin in in­
creasing seed cotton yields’ the following year.
Koter (48) found that
while application of N as ammonia or small amounts of ammonium nitrate
stimulated nodulation and N fixation in Poland, other forms of N (urea,
nitric acid, ammonium nitrate) had a negative effect.
Applications of N to sainfoin have consistently given greater
8
yields, the responses being more marked than those of alfalfa (3,11,48)
In Montana, symptoms of N deficiency have been noted in the first 5 to
6 weeks of growth and in some cases resulted in depressed yields but
not in others (.79).
Sims et al. (79) concluded that soils with less
than 80 pounds NO^-N to 4 feet were N deficient for sainfoin.
The inconsistent behavior of infection leading to root rot could
be responsible for some of the disagreement in the literature on N fix­
ation by sainfoin.
of Rhizobium (2,76).
It is known that Fusafium reduces the effectiveness
The effectiveness of various Rhizobium strains is
also variable, and there are many capable of nodulating sainfoin (88).
There may be other organisms of unknown identity which are import­
ant to N fixation in sainfoin.
Sainfoin plants dipped in Rhlzobium in­
oculum and transferred to sterile soil develop a massive accumulation
of CaCOg in the roots and lower levels of Ca in the forage (72)„
This
is accompanied by root distortion, decreased numbers of nodules, and
decreased capacity to fix N.
These effects were riot observed in plants
grown on non-sterile soil.
Meyer's data typify sainfoin responses to N (58).
Nitrogen in­
creased yield, vigor, and regrowth at all rates of application up to
448 kg/ha.
ment.
Stand persistence was poor except in the 448 kg/ha treat­
Alfalfa usually shows little response and sometimes shows a neg­
ative response to N in both yield and stand persistence (30).
Brown
(9) found N to decrease alfalfa stands and facilitate weed invasion.
9
Potassium
The critical plant level of K for alfalfa was found to be some­
where between 1.75% and 2.00% by Kresge and Younts (51).
Adams and
Sheard (I) considered it to be about 1.75% and Gerwig and Ahlgren (31)
between 1.42% and 1.84%.
Kresge and Younts (51) found maximum yield of alfalfa was obtained
with a single application of 165 lb K/acre, but this was reduced to 83
lb if the application was evenly split between one spring application
arid another after the first cutting.
This was attributed to a higher
recovery of K through more even seasonal distribution.
Reports of vig­
orous yield responses of alfalfa to K are common in the literature (5,
6,30,31,33,45,77,85).
Potassium also increases stand longevity (9,31,85) of alfalfa, and
according to Seay (77) uptake of P is increased by K.
Gervais found K
requirements to increase sharply with continued 'cropping, and that K
decreased the Ca and P contents of alfalfa (30).
Kimbrough (45) found
the growth rate and leaf area of alfalfa to increase faster with appli­
cations of K and suggested that timely use of K could make possible an
increase in the number of seasonal cuttings.
Butseroga (11) found that, both P and K or the two combined de­
creased sainfoin yields in Russia without applications of N.
This does
not seem congruent with other reports (54,55,68) that K in all cases and
P in most greatly enhance the ability of Rhizobium to fix N.
Phosphorus
10
in particular increases total root growth and nodule density (55,65).
Phosphorus■
Blair and Prince (5) in 1939 found no significant response to P
by alfalfa, even on soil previously cropped for ten years without any
addition of P.
Gerwig and Ahlgren (31) found no benefit of P to yield
or stand persistence of alfalfa.
Stivers and Ohlrogge (85) found no
yield response of alfalfa on one soil type but a large response on
another that was associated with a low soil test for available P .
In
most cases, however, marked yield responses of alfalfa to P are observ­
ed (30,34,47,52,80).
Larson et al. (52) fouftd large yield increases of
alfalfa still occurring 3 years after an application of 240 lb P/acre
on a P deficient soil.
Halstead et al. (35) observed 100% to 300%
yield increases of alfalfa in the first year following applications of
PgO^ up to 2000 Ib/acre.
Cary et al. (17) found P and S effective in
increasing alfalfa yields.
Stivers and Ohlrogge (85) and Gerwig and Ahlgren (31) found P not
to affect stand persistence of alfalfa;
yield responses were not ob­
served, either.
On an acidic soil, Singh (80) found additions of P not to affect
the P content of alfalfa, but % P is usually increased (5,30,31,35,47,
52).
Halstead et al. (35) raised the P content of alfalfa from an
average of 0.18% to 0.54% with a high rate of P.
Seay and Weeks (77)
found alfalfa to take up P even when dormant in the winter.
Adams and
11
Sheard (I). found P to decrease the N content of alfalfa, although
Blair and Prince (5) found N content not to be significantly affected
by P .
Koehler et al. (47) found P not to affect the concentration of N
or any cations.
Gervais et al. (30) found P to decrease % K, but %
Ca was unaffected.
In most instances, sainfoin does not respond to applications of P .
Butseroga (11), as previously noted, found P to decrease sainfoin yield
unless N was also applied.
Babian and Karagulian (3) found the same on
a humus soil but on a basic soil (CaCO^ =5.9%) P increased the yield
of sainfoin.
Sainfoin was believed to have a strong ability to change
unavailable forms of P to available forms.
P content of sainfoin roots to be high.
Ukrainskii (86) found the
Roath and Graham (67) suggest­
ed that sainfoin might be grown to. advantage on soils low in available
P.
Where alfalfa and other legumes have responded to P in Montana,
sainfoin has not (50).
Phosphorus does not appear to influence recovery
or stand persistence of sainfoin (58) , but may favor late development of
both sainfoin and alfalfa (66).
However, Rorison (71) and Sariceva (75)
both found higher concentrations of soil P to reduce initial dry weight
loss of sainfoin seedlings and to accelerate later weight gain.
In most
legumes, additions of P overcome the suppression of nodulation brought
about by high levels of Mo, N, or Ca (40).
The uptake of Mo may also be
increased by as much as 5 to 30 times by P additions (40).
Phosphorus
greatly stimulates the growth, number, and density of nodules if ade­
12
quate K is present, and P also increases total root growth (55).
Sulfur arid Micronutrieiits
The effects of S deficiency are similar to those of N in that S is
required for the conversion of N into protein.
Sulfur usually decreas­
es the uptake of Mo by above ground portions (40).
A deficiency of S
leads to small, greenish nodules instead of large, branched, pink ones
(55).
Adams and Sheard (I) found that a deficiency of S reduced alfalfa
yields more than a deficiency of K.
to increase alfalfa yields.
Pumphrey and Moore (64) found S
The S requirement of alfalfa is high:
about 0.3% S content is required if the plant is adequately supplied
(12).
An adequate supply of S considerably increases N content (12,13,
63), the S content (13,64), and the Mn content (13) of alfalfa.
Sulfur
reduces the P and B contents of alfalfa, other elements being unaffect­
ed (13).
Inorganic S is nearly absent in plants deficient in S (23).
Dijkshoorn and Lampe (23,24) showed that only when the S content of
protein falls below about 2.7% is S deficient, more exact values being
2.5% for legumes and 3.2% for grasses (24).
Much of the importance of micronutrients relates to N fixation.
Molybdenum increases nodule size if S is adequate but nodule numbers
are decreased (40).
On a soil of neutral pH, Radomirov et al. (66)
found that.Mo applied at 300 g/ha increased seed yields of sainfoin
54%.
With the addition of P, Mo increased yields more than NH^NO3
13
applied at 120 kg/ha.
Since nitrogenase contains Mo, most of the ben­
efit obtained from Mo by legumes is probably through its effect on N
fixation (36).
Molybdenum is also required in the host plant for re­
duction of nitrates in protein synthesis (40,55).
Liming increases the
availability of Mo (55).
Both the legume plant and the N fixing process require B (40).
deficiency results in poof root and nodule development (55).
A
Modula­
tion requirements are probably less than those of the plant, but effects
of B on nodulation and N fixation are dramatic.
Small amounts of B, if
deficient, will increase nodule numbers up to 9 times and the amount of
N fixed per nodule 5 times with small increases of soil B up to 10 ppm
(40).
Radomirov et al. (66) found B to stimulate nodule development of
sainfoin but not to affect yields.
response of sainfoin to B.
fixation process (74).
Easier et al. (39) also found little
Cobalt is also probably required for the
MATERIALS AITO METHODS
Plot Description
On 12 and 13 October 1976, fertility treatments as listed in Table
I were applied to a 128 by 200 foot plot at the Montana State Univers­
ity Agricultural Experiment Station Farm west of Bozeman, Montana.
Soil on the experimental units was then worked lightly with a duckfoot
cultivator.
The units were arranged in a strip plot, randomized com­
plete block design with four replications.
sainfoin.
Strips were alfalfa and
Soil was the Bozeman silt loam, a fine-silty, mixed Argic
Pachic Cryoboroll.
Blocks were oriented north and south such that a
soil moisture gradient intersected at a right angle.
Sources of fer­
tilizer were ammonium nitrate (34-0-0), superphosphate (0-45-0), po­
tassium chloride (0-0-60), calcium sulfate, cobalt chloride, molybdic
acid, and sodium borate.
Table 2 shows prefertilizer soil test results
for soil nutrients and other characteristics.
Soil Sampling
On 25 April 1977 soil samples were taken from eleven selected
treatment units in each replication at depths of 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, and
4-6 feet.
Samples were weighed and then dried for 50 hours at 60°C,
then reweighed to determine percent moisture and then converted to cen­
timeters of moisture to the full 6-foot depth.
peated on 27 October 1977.
This procedure was re­
The difference in moisture values was added
to total precipitation over this period and to the total water appli-
15
Table I.
Treatment numbers and levels of applied fertilizer in kg/ha.
Treatment
Number .
P
N
K
■ Treatment
Number
N
P
K
112
336
0
28
112
336
0
0
0
0
45
45
0
28
112
336
0
28
7
S
9
10
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
.45
45
224
224
224
224
I
11
12
13
14
. 15
0
0
0
56
56
56
0
224
224
0
224
224
0
112
336
0
112
336
16
17
18
19
20
21
112
112
112
224
224
224
0
224
224
0
224
224
0
0
21
0
224
45
45
224
112
112
28
112
22
23
24
25
•
Table 2.
+
+
•
0
112
336
0
112
336
45S
Annually
(11-55-0 + KCl, Annually)
458 + 2.2B + 5[.2Co + 0.
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
CM
I
2
3
4
5
6
Prefertilizer soil test results.
P
K
EC
Mg.
Na
Ca
(ppm) (ppm) (meq) (meq) (meq) mmhos
Area
Sampled
Depth
(cm) Texture PH
O.M.
(%)
South
0-15
15-30
Si L
Si L
6.9
7.0
2.4
2.1
21
16
344
296
13.5
13.5
3.7
4.0
Middle
0-15
15-30
Si L
Si L
7.0
7.1
2.2
1.8
24
24
363
334
13.9
14.7
0.1 0.40
4.3
4.6 . 0.1 .0.40
North
0-15
15-30
Si L
Si L
6.9
7.1
2.1
1.6
21
19
334
296
13.1
14.7
4.4
5.1
!■
Tr.
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.30
V
16
cation from 4 irrigations.
This was then used to obtain water use
efficiency (WUE), defined as kilograms forage at 12% moisture produced
per centimeter of water evapotranspired.
Nitrate was determined from the soil samples so that the influence
of applied N or other nutrients on soil nitrate levels could be deter­
mined. . Soil samples were taken again in 1978 on 10-11 July and 2-3
October.
Soil nitrate was determined using the phenoldisulfonic acid
method (7).
Seeding and Harvesting
The plot was seeded on I May 1977 at the rate of 50 kg/ha sainfoin
seed (variety Remont) and 13 kg/ha alfalfa seed (variety Thor).
Seed­
lings were counted on selected treatments on 9-11 June 1977 in sets of
two one-meter counts per unit.
germination over the plot.
Counts were made to confirm uniform
Seedling height was determined on 30 June
1977 on each experimental unit by taking eight measurements per unit. .
This was done in case yields in the year of seeding were insufficient
to warrant harvesting.
The first harvest was taken in the year of seeding on 3 August
1977.
Sainfoin was at 100% bloom and alfalfa at 10% bloom.
Second
harvest was obtained on 17 October while sainfoin was in the early pod
stage and alfalfa at 80% bloom.
Samples for yield determination were
taken by harvesting with a Mott forage harvester which chops the mat­
erial to facilitate subsampling.
A 4-foot middle section of each 8
17
foot wide unit was harvested.
Subsamples of forage were then weighed
and dried at 65°C for 4 to 5 days and then reweighed.
In this way per­
cent moisture was determined for calculating yields in metric tons per
hectare at 12% moisture.
The dried subsamples were then analyzed for
protein, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and sodium.
Total uptake
of these minerals were then determined by multiplying the plant frac­
tion times yield in kilograms per hectare.
The year after seeding, harvesting was performed on 29 June and
5 September 1978.
Maturities for both harvests were 10% and 100% bloom
for alfalfa and sainfoin, respectively.
Chemical Analysis
Forage nitrogen content was determined using the semimicro-Kjeldahl method as described by Bremner (8).
Other elements were determined by ashing samples of 2 g each at
550°C to 600°C for 10 to 15 hours, in a muffle furnace.
Concentrated
HCl (1.5 ml) was added to each crucible after cooling.
Distilled-de-
ionized water (2.5 ml) was added and the mixture was evaporated at
145°C.
Finally, 1.0 ml of 2.5N HCl and 5.0 ml H^O were added and the
solution was poured into 100 ml volumetric flasks, and brought to vol­
ume.
An aliquot was taken for analysis for P by the vanadomolybdic
acid method (42),
A separate aliquot was taken for analysis by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry to determine K, Ca, Mg, and Na.
Readings
as percent transmission or absorbance were converted to percent of
18
plant forage.
This value was multiplied by.dry forage yield in each
unit to obtain values of total uptake in kg/ha.
Statistical Analysis
Thirteen nutritional characteristics were studied for each plant
species for each cut in each year:
yield, percent protein, uptake of
N, and percents and uptakes of P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na.
Data for each of
these characteristics fit a randomized complete block design with 25
treatments for each plant species.
The treatments can be arranged to
fit a complete factorial with four rates of applied K over three rates
of applied P.
Another complete factorial exists with four rates of
applied N over three rates of P and K combinations.
the treatments into the two factorials.
Table I groups
In addition are four other
treatments from which various paired comparisons can be made.
These
treatments are an annual application of the 0-45-112 treatment, the
0-224-112 treatment but with S added, the same but with B, Co, and Mo
added as well, and an annual application of 24-45-28(11-55^0 + KCl).
The latter treatment was included to determine whether or not any ben­
efit was realized from the application of 11-55-0.
The manufacture of
11-55-0 results in a product where the N portion contributes less to
the cost than if N were applied separately.
Therefore, any resulting
benefit is relatively host-free.
A standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each characteristic
19
for each harvest, year, and species to evaluate the significance of the
above factors.
Appendix II contains treatment means and selected sta­
tistical parameters from these analyses.
In addition, the percent com­
position values were averaged over both harvests, yields and uptakes
summed for each year, and these data analyzed in the same way.
Each of
these analyses included tests for eight selected paired comparisons us­
ing the 4 odd treatments just described.
these comparisons.
See Table 3 for a list of
Thus, each ANOVA includes information on applied P
and K in a factorial design at 0 N, and N and P+K as another set.
For
each set the same error term is used from the overall ANOVA. Note that
the analysis with respect to a, single factor (such as N) is performed
at the mean level application of the others in each factorial set.
Thus, the analysis for K at three levels of P implies that any con­
clusions drawn about the effect of K are under the assumption that mean
levels of N and P exist from the first 12 treatments.
lem except in cases where an interaction is present.
This is no prob­
If the interac­
tion is significant, then one is committed to accepting both factors as
significant and describing the behavior of one factor at each separate
level of the other, or vice versa.
For each standard ANOVA a regression analysis was also performed
using all treatments from I through 21.
Note that in using all of
these treatments, orthogonality as in the previous ANOVA is lost.
That
is, the same levels of non-respective factors do not exist for each
20
Table 3.
List of paired comparisons performed for each forage charac­
teristic.
Treatment numbers
Treatments
11
■ vs.
25
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
11
22
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S
22
vs.
25
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
VS .
.
vs.
23
0-45-112
vs.
0-45-112(Annually)
12
vs.
23
0-224-336
vs.
0-45-112(Annually)
6
vs.
24
0-45-28
vs.
21-45-28(Annually)
14
.56-224-112
vs.
21-45-28(Annually)
I'
VS .
24
23
VS.
24
0-45-112(Annually)
vs.
21-45-28(Annually)
21
level of the other.
However, If only one factor (e.g. N, P, or K) has
an effect, this is of no consequence.
If the effects of more than one
factor'are.significant, then the inclusion of both, in one equation is
still valid.
Note that this can cause.a significant effect for one
factor which is the result of another, but to eliminate these one can:
I) check the significance of both factors when combined in one regres­
sion, and 2) check the significance of the factor in the standard ANOVA
which is orthogonal.
It was felt that the increased precision gained
by using all 21 treatments for regression analysis overcame the ortho­
gonality question given these ways to resolve it.
Regression analysis
is a higher-powered test (i,e., conclusions are more likely to be
correct) than the standard ANOVA, so the results of the regression an­
alysis were preferred and form the basis of conclusions drawn in this
thesis.
In some cases regression analysis indicates significance not
substantiated by the other, and vice versa.
With few exceptions, re­
gressions that were chosen as significant were so at the 1% level or
less.
Appendix I contains a list of all regression equations and prob­
abilities which were chosen as significant.
A series of single and combined factors were run as regressions
for each characteristic in both linear and quadratic form.
From these
and from the standard ANOVA, significant effects were selected and
the appropriate factors run as one regression to give one equation.
Because the EMS (error mean square) from the standard ANOVA (based on
22
treatment means) contained
a
greater degree of precision, the standard
ANOVA EMS was corrected for number of observations and substituted into
the regression analysis to give a new error term.
As for the standard ANOVA, the assumption is implicit that values
predicted by an equation are at the mean level of omitted factors among
the first 21 treatments.
Factors which are combined into one equation
are graphed separately in this thesis at the mean level of the others.
If an interaction exists, the graph necessarily portrays a family of
lines.
Most of the selected equations are quadratic models, not be­
cause the quadratic is significant over the linear, but because non­
linearity is generally assumed and the best fit is non-linear.
All probability values refer to Type I errors so that smaller
probabilities indicate greater significance.
Also, rather than estab­
lishing significance by F values associated with certain levels of
probability, e.g. 10% or 5%, actual probability levels associated with
respective F ratios are reported.
These values were rounded to three
decimal places and except in Appendix III reported only for significant
factors.
Also, probabilities are listed under the heading "p(F)" to
indicate probability as a function of F .
A separate ANOVA was used to evaluate the overall differences be­
tween years, species, treatments, and their interactions.
Tables in
the text report only significant effects from this analysis.
These
effects are drawn from the following sources and degrees of freedom:
23
Source
Decrees of freedom
Replications
Species
Error a
Years
Treatments
Species x Years
Species'x Treatments
Years x Treatments
Error b
3
I
3
I
24
I
24
24
318
-x/
RESULTS M D DISCUSSION
It was not practical to discuss in detail all of the significant
effects.for each harvest and year.
Only total and average effects for
each year are discussed unless a special reason -warrants attention to
a particular harvest.
However, the appendices list information for
each harvest separately in addition to the total or average effect in
one year.
Appendix I lists all regression equations and probabilities,
if significant.
Appendix II lists significant paried comparisons.
Appendix III lists all treatment means and selected statistical inform­
ation.
formed.
Each EMS is also included so that additional tests may be per­
Appendix III also allows examination of data before conversion
into predictive models.
Numbers given in the test are carried to a certain number of
places.
This was not meant to imply accuracy to that point.
The num­
ber of digits reported is based on the size of significant intervals.
For example, if a significant interval is less than 0.01 then digits
are reported to the third place beyond the decimal, indicating pre­
cision, if not accuracy, to that point.
Appendix data carry an extra
number of digits to avoid rounding errors in the event further analyses
or transformations are to be performed.
Probability levels are design
nated by "p(F)".
Emergence and Plant Height
' Seedling counts taken 9-11 June 1977 showed no significant dif-
25
ferences except between species.
This was expected.
Mean seedling
number was 25.4/meter for'sainfoin (s = 6.7) and 72.6/meter for alfalfa
(s = 12.5)
Plant height measurements'made on 30 June 1977 did not show sig­
nificant differences among sainfoin treatments.
both increased seedling height (see Table 4).
For alfalfa, N and P
Mean heights were 40 cm
and 35 cm for sainfoin and alfalfa, respectively.
Table 4.
Plant height of alfalfa in the year of seeding as affected by
applications of -N -and -P.
Effect of N
Effect of P
Applied N,
kg/ha
Plant height,
cm
0
56
112
224
33.7
37.1
36.5
37.2
Applied P ,.
kg/ha
0
45
224
Plant height,
cm .
30.4
33.9
36.0
CV=5.9%
P(F) 0.001
Soil Nitrate
Soil NO^ was determined primarily to see if applied N significant­
ly affected levels of this soil nutrient.
By 1978 there was no measur­
able NOg remaining in the 0 to 6 foot depth sampled.
Samples taken in
the spring of 1977 showed a significant effect due to applied N.
The
mean level of soil NOg among treatments with N applied at 224 kg/ha was
306 kg/ha.
But random variation was extremely high (CV - 41%).
Sig-
26
hificance due to applied N was present among alfalfa treatments but not
sainfoin (see Table -.5)v
However, mean levels of soil N0~ did not dif­
fer significantly between the two.
Mean soil NO^ among sainfoin treat­
ments was 207 and, among alfalfa, 194 kg/ha.
As expected, other fertil­
izer treatments did not affect NO^ levels in the spring of 1977.
Table 5. . Effects on soil nitrate-levels to 6 feet under alfalfa.
Date of sampling 25 April 1977
Applied N,
kg/ha
Soil NO^
kg/ha
0
112
Date of sampling 25 October 1977
Applied K,
kg/ha
Soil NOkg/ha
0
112
54 '
32
139
174
CV=40%
P(F)-O.001
CV=62%
p (F)=0.037
Soil NOg taken in the fall of 1977 showed a mean value of only 33
compared to the spring mean of 201 kg/ha.
variation for fall 1977 was 79%.
Also, the coefficient of
This high coefficient was apparently
due in part to many units having no measureable NO^ remaining.
N no longer showed any significant effect;
Applied
however, among alfalfa
units, applied K decreased soil NO^ as seen in Table 5.
Potassium had a detrimental effect on both yield and chemical com­
position of alfalfa in 1978.
If these effects and reduced soil NO3 by
K in 1977 were related, the relationship was not understood.
Since
soil NO. reserves were completely depleted by 1978, and the response of
3
27
alfalfa to N was not. large, it is unlikely that NO. reduction by K■
3
could directly cause reduced yield and -forage quality. The lack of
'
effect by K on soil NO3 confirms that its effects were exerted through
action on the plant rather than the soil.
The effects on yield and
soil NO3 suggest a possible weakening of the plant-Rhizobjum relation­
ship.
However, the additional effects on plant composition suggest
that either root growth or function was disturbed by high levels of K.
Yield and Water Use Efficiency
Table 6 shows that alfalfa yield was considerably greater than
that of sainfoin although this difference narrowed in the year after
seeding.
Only the probability levels of significant factors are shown.
Table 6.
Mean yields for. species and years in metric tons/hectare.
■
Probability levels for
significant.differences
Yield, metric tons/ha
Species
1977
1978
Sainfoin
5.52
11.1
Alfalfa
7.48
12.6
’
p(F,species)<0.001
- p(F,years)<0.001
p(F,species x years)-0.042
Yields from.the two harvests of 1977 showed similar patterns.
Sainfoin showed a response to N demonstrated by the regression curve in
Figure I.
Sainfoin yield was raised slightly more than I metric ton/ha
with 224 kg applied N/ha.
This response was not evident in 1978, nor
Yield, metric tons/ha
28
112
^
Nitrogen, kg/ha
.
Yield of sainfoin in 1977 as a function of nitrogen ap­
plied 12-13 October 1976.
N-224
Yield, metric tons/ha
N - I I2
p(F)<0.001
r 2-0.31
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 2.
Yield of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of nitrogen and
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
29
were any others for sainfoin.
Alfalfa yield in 1977 was affected by both N and P which exhibited
a negative interaction with each other.
family of lines in Figure 2.
This result is graphed as the
Maximum yield of 8 metric tons/ha occur­
red near the middle application of P of 112 kg/ha and full rate of N of .
224 kg/ha.
With equal rates of application, the effect of P was slight­
ly larger than that of N.
Phosphorus, without N, increased yield from
7.1 to 7.8 metric tons/ha over an application ranging from 0 to 168
kg/ha.
Alfalfa yield in 1978 (see Figure 3) exhibited one of several ef­
fects of K on alfalfa in that year.
With increasing K there was an in­
itial, but negligible, yield increase which quickly changed to a sharp
decrease from a maximum of 13.1 to 11.8 metric tons/ha.
This strongly
negative response is not readily explained, nor was it found in the
literature, but soil nitrate levels in 1977 provide additional evidence
in that K decreased soil'NO^ in the fall of 1977.
Pretrial tests for
soil K were higher than is usual (ppm K = 300), so positive responses
to K were not necessarily expected.
Paired comparisons revealed effects by S and micronutrients on
yields.
For a list of all such significant comparisons refer to Ap­
pendix II.
For sainfoin in 1978, the addition of micronutrients and
S, compared to the addition of S alone, resulted in a total yield re­
duction from 12.2 to 10.6 metric tons/ha.
Micronutrient responses by
Yield, metric tons/ha
30
p(F)=0.002
r =0.50
168
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 3.
Yield of alfalfa in 1978 as a function of potassium applied
12-13 October 1976.
31
alfalfa tended to be positive instead of negative, but were not usually
significant.
As seen in Table 7, S consistently decreased alfalfa
yields, causing a 0.6 metric ton/ha reduction in 1977 and a 2.2 metric
ton/ha reduction in 1978.
The S+micronutrient treatment gave similar
reductions, though non-significant and not as large.
This and other
similar effects could suggest possible beneficial effects by the micro­
nutrient application.
Forage responses to both S and K in this region
have been recorded a number of timesi^, so these adverse effects were
not expected nor readily explained.
Table 7.
Species
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and micronutrients
on yields.
. Year
Treatments
Sainfoin
1978
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
Alfalfa
1977
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112
Alfalfa
1977
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
Yield,
metric tons/ha
P(F)
■
0.060
12.2
vs.
10.6
7.30
vs.
7.91
0.023
7.91
vs.
. 7.48
0.099
11.6
0-224-112+S
vs.
vs.
0.024
. 13.8
0-224-112
__
■
^
■
- D r . •Earl 0. Skogley, Professor of Soil Science, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana. 1979. Unpublished data.
Alfalfa
1978
32
Water use efficiency (WUE) is defined as the amount of forage pro­
duced per"cm of water used.
and in 1978' was 141 kg/cm.
1978 for alfalfa.
The WUE of sainfoin in 1977 was 65.3 kg/cm
It was 89,6 kg/cm in 1977 and 164 kg/cm in
This represents a .considerably more efficient use of
water by alfalfa, but this is mostly derived from greater yields.
Wa­
ter use efficiency of both species, like yields, more than doubled from
1977 to 1978, but the year-species interaction was not significant.
Unfortunately, WUE values obtained in 1978 reflected only the last har­
vest because the first set of soil samples was not obtained until 10
July 1978.
Therefore, years are not strictly comparable.
The set of WUE data for 1977 did not allow factorial analysis.
Selected levels of applied nutrients in paired comparisons show that in
1977 WUE of sainfoin was increased from 62 kg/cm to 69 kg/cm by a 112
kg/ha application of K (see Table 8).
Potassium continued to increase
the WUE of sainfoin in 1978, the 336 kg/ha treatment giving an increase
from 135 to 155 kg/cm.
Table 8.
Effect of K on the water use efficiency (WUE) of sainfoin.
1978
1977
Applied N,
kg/ha
WUE,
kg/cm
Applied K,
kg/ha
WUE,
kg/cm
0
112
62
69
0
336
135
155
CV=40%
p(F)=O.001
CV=62%
..p(F)=0,037
33
In 1977 the OTE of alfalfa was affected only by P (see Table 9).
The application of 224 kg/ha P increased OTE from 82 to 93 kg/cm.
effects.were significant in 1978.
No
The effect of P on the OTE of alfal­
fa was certainly a yield related example;
however, this was not true
of the effect of K on the OTE of sainfoin, since K had no effect on
yield.
Since K is involved in stomatal responses to water stress, it
may be that sainfoin required higher levels of soil K to perform at
peak efficiency.
This is supported by the fact that the overall mean
K concentration of sainfoin, was 23% lower than that of alfalfa.
The
fact that concentration of K in sainfoin forage showed no responses to
applied K suggests, however, that the effect of K on OTE may have been
related to root function rather than stomata.
In either case, higher
levels of soil K could have an important yield effect in the production
of dryland sainfoin.
Table 9.
Effect of P on the water use efficiency (OTE) of alfalfa in
1977.
Applied P, kg/ha
TOE, kg/cm
0
82
224
93
P(F)
0.001
Protein and Nitrogen Uptake
Table 10 shows the protein values for sainfoin and alfalfa in both
years.
Note that the percent protein of sainfoin did not increase in
34
1978, but that of alfalfa did.
Since soil N0~ levels were entirely de­
pleted by 1978, it was assumed that the N fixing ability of alfalfa im­
proved but that of sainfoin did not.
There were no significant effects by N, P, or K in 1978.
1977 seem to have originated mainly from the last harvest.
Those in
Because of
large random variation, statistical resolution of effects was poor.
Figure 4 shows the negative effect of N on sainfoin protein during the
last harvest of 1977.
The reduction in protein is not serious, but
demonstrates a characteristic common to plants deficient in N.
Addi­
tions of N in such cases stimulate growth more than N uptake, result­
ing in decreases in protein concentration.
Table 10.
Mean protein concentration for species and years.
Forage protein, %
Species
1977
1978
Probability levels for
significant differences
Sainfoin
14.8
14.2
p(F,species)=0.004
Alfalfa
15.1
16.4
p(F,years)<0.001
p (F,species x years)<0.001
Figure 5 shows the positive effect on alfalfa protein in 1977 by K,
but this was very minor.
The paired comparisons listed in Table 11 show that, contrary to
yield decreases in sainfoin by micronutrient applications in 1978 and
the first harvest of 1977, the micronutrient treatment gave a better
Percent protein
35
p(F)=0.052
112
4.
kg/ha
Protein percentage of sainfoin in 1977, second harvest,
as a function of nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976.
Percent protein
CD
Nitrogen,
P(F)=O.012
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 5,
Protein percentage of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976.
36
than I unit increase in percent protein the second harvest of 1977 when
compared.to the S treatment.
For this same harvest, a more than 2 unit
increase was observed if the comparison was made to the no S - no micro­
nutrient treatment.
Both S and micronutrients may have therefore in-t
creased percent protein of sainfoin.
In 1978 the S+micronutrient treat­
ment compared to the no S - no micronutrient treatment increased alfalfa
protein from 14.2% to 16.8% in the first harvest but decreased it from
17.2% to 15.8% in the last harvest (see Table 11).
There was no net
effect when the total yearly harvest was considered.
Table 11.
Species
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and micronutri­
ents on protein.
Year-harvest
Treatments
Sainfoin
1977-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S-t-B+Co+Mo
Sainfoin
1977-2
1978-1
Alfalfa
1978-2
0.045
0.091
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
18.9.
vs.
20.2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
14.2
vs.
16.8
0.004
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
17.2
vs.
15.8
0.007
/ VS.,
•
P(F)
18.0
vs.
20.2 '
0-224-II2+S
Alfalfa
Protein, %
The annual 11-55-0 treatment (21-45-28) favorably affected the
average protein concentration of sainfoin in 1977 over the same annual
37
treatment but without N (see Table 12).
Considering the low cost of N
applied in this mixture, 11-55-0 could be a valuable.source of fertil­
izer for sainfoin.
This might depend on its being applied in amounts
such that P does not unfavorably affect the growth of sainfoin.
There
are indications secondary to yield effects, explained at several points
later on, that moderate to large amounts of soluble P may be detriment­
al to the growth of sainfoin.
Table 12.
Effect of the 11-55-0 treatment (21-45-28) on sainfoin
protein in 1977.
Treatment ■
Protein, %
0-45-28
14.1
21-45-28(Annually)
15.4
P(F )
0.018
It is reasonable to expect that the total uptake of most elements
would follow the effects of their components, i.e. yield and percent
composition.
nificant.
However, the results may or may not be statistically sig­
Thus, N uptake in 1977 was increased by N in the case of
sainfoin and P in the case of alfalfa (see Figures 6 and
I ) .
These
effects were due to the yield rather than the concentration component.
The effect of K on alfalfa, protein and the negative effect of N on
sainfoin protein in 1977 did not carry over into significant influences
on nitrogen uptake.
In 1978, effects evident in total N uptake were reflected in the
38
P(F)=O.025
Phosphorus, kg/ha
p(F)<0.001
r2= 0 . 72
0
Figure 6.
56
112
Nitrogen, kg/ha
168
224
Nitrogen uptake by sainfoin in 1977 and 1978 as a func­
tion of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 12-13 October
1976.
P(F)=O.003
r =0.52
Potassium,
kg/ha
p(F ) <0.001
r 2=0.44
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 7.
Nitrogen uptake by alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a func­
tion of phosphorus and potassium applied 12-13 October
1976.
39
first harvest but not in the last..
Sainfoin revealed interesting ef­
fects by Pj which were not evident. Ln yield or concentration values.
Phosphorus applications resulted in large increases in N uptake by
sainfoin, up to a maximum near 112 kg P/ha (see Figure 6).- However,
from this point to the 224 kg/ha treatment, the uptake of N was reduced
nearly as much as it was previously increased.
Similar effects yet to
be discussed show sainfoin to be affected by P applications, but
responding in a manner like that of N uptake.
The reason for a decline
in N uptake and similar effects might lie in.a negative reaction to
high levels of available P.
unavailable forms.
Sainfoin subsists easily on P in normally
It may be most beneficial, from the standpoints of
both cost and response, to fertilize sainfoin with a less available form.,
of P than superphosphate, or not to fertilize with P at all.
The strongly negative effect of K on alfalfa yield.in 1978 was
also evident in the uptake of most elements, including N (see Figure 7).
The effect of S on alfalfa yield in 1977 also caused a reduction of N
uptake from 193 kg/ha to 177 kg/ha.
The effect of P on alfalfa yield
in 1977 was reflected in N uptake (see Figure 7).
Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake
There are interesting comparisons between the P nutrition of al­
falfa and sainfoin.
Table 13 shows sainfoin to have, on the average,
a 25% greater concentration of P than alfalfa.
The year following
seeding there was a 6% and 8% increase in the P concentration of sain­
40
foin and alfalfa, respectively.
change between species.
This
w a s
not a significant yearly
Examination of Figure 8 shows that the P con­
centrations of both species, in both years, responded to applications ,
of P in nearly the same manner.
These responses to P were evident in
each harvest, each year, for each species.
Table 13. . Mean phosphorus concentrations for species and years.
Forage P, %
Species
Probability levels for1
significant differences .
1977
1978
Sainfoin
0.260
0.275
p(F,species)<0.001
Alfalfa
0.205
0.222
p(F,years)<0.001
p(F,species x treatments)=^.004
The significant species by treatment interaction arises from the
additional effects of N and K on the P content.of alfalfa in 1977, a l - .
though these effects were not large.
Nitrogen additions resulted in a
very slight decrease in P concentration for the second harvest, and K
increased, on the average, the P concentration from 0.204% to 0.213%
over its range of application (see Appendix I for additional details).
.Micronutrients increased the P concentration of sainfoin slightly
in 1977.
As with yield and N uptake, S had a negative impact on the P
concentration of alfalfa in 1978.
Again, following yield and N uptake,
the further addition.of micronutrients reduced this negative effect,
but differences were not then significant.
See Table 14 for probabil-
41
0
p(F)<0.001
Percent phosphorus
0
Sainfoin 1978
r2=0.63
p (F)<0.001
Sainfoin 1977
0
r2=0.86
0
Alfalfa 1978
0
Alfalfa 1977
0
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 8.
Phosphorus concentration of sainfoin and alfalfa in 1977 and
1978 as a function of phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
42
ity levels associated with these differences.
Effects on P uptake wdre a combination of those factors' affect­
ing percent P and yield for each harvest.
This resulted in a species
by year interaction seen from Figure 9, which shows the effect of P
applications.
Because of the much greater yield of alfalfa in 1977»
the uptake of P exceeded that of sainfoin in spite of the lower percent
P of alfalfa, but the larger increase in sainfoin yield in 1978 caused
the P uptake of sainfoin to exceed that of alfalfa.
Thus, no practical
difference existed between the P uptakes of the species for the two
years combined.
Sainfoin had a slightly greater P uptake of 45' kg/ha
versus 44 kg/ha for alfalfa over the two years.
Figure 10 shows the effect of N on the P uptake of sainfoin in the
year of seeding.
Figure 11 shows the negative effect of K on the P up­
take of alfalfa in 1978.
These results were due to effects of the
yield component rather than percent composition.
There were also other
effects of lesser importance in the second harvest of 1977 (see Appen­
dix I for regression results).
Both N and K also positively affected
the P concentration and uptake by alfalfa in 1977, although a yearly
effect persisted only for percent P as affected by K.
The addition of micronutrients to the S treatment increased the
P concentration of sainfoin in 1977 (see Table 14).
In spite of re­
duced yield due to micronutrients (see Table 7), P uptake, as shown by
Table 15, was also increased due to the increased P concentration.
43
Phosphorus uptake, kg/ha
Sainfoin 1978
P(F)-O.006
r =0.43
Alfalfa 1978
p(F)<0.001
r «0.73
Alfalfa 1977
Sainfoin 1977
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 9.
Phosphorus uptake by sainfoin and alfalfa in 1977 and
1978 as a function of phosphorus applied 12-13 October
1976.
p(F)<0.001
r2=0.92
5 13.5
112
Nitrogen, kg/ha
Figure 10.
Phosphorus uptake by sainfoin in 1977 as a function
of nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976.
Phosphorus uptake, kg/ha
44
28.5
p(F)<0.001
r2=0.73
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 11.
Phosphorus uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976.
45
Table 14.
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and micronutri­
ents on P concentration.
Species
Year
Sainfoin
1977
Treatments
Phosphorus, %.
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.287
P(F)
0.267
VS .
0.018
Alfalfa
1978
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
0.242
vs.
0.226
0.041
Alfalfa
1978
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.242
vs.
0.228
0.060
Table 15.
Effect of micronutrients on the P uptake of sainfoin in. 1977.
Treatment
Phosphorus uptake,
■ kg/ha
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S-iB+Co+Mo
13.6
vs.
15.0
P(E)
0.091
Applications of S alone sharply decreased P uptake by alfalfa in
both years.
The decreases (see Appendix II) were from 17.0 to 15.7
kg/ha in 1977 and 34.9 to 26.7 kg/ha in 1978.
These results were deriv­
ed from the negative effect o f S on yield in both years, but also from
a negative effect on percent P in 1978.
If the no S - no micronutrient
treatment was compared to the S+micronutrient treatment in 1978, the
difference was not as great.
This is further evidence that the micro-
46
nutrient application had a favorable influence on alfalfa yield.
negative effects by S were.not understood.
The
As for yield and other
characteristics, these trends were opposite those of sainfoin, but,
as in this case, not generally significant.
Potassium Concentration and Uptake
Table 16 shows that the K concentration of alfalfa ranged from 34%
higher in 1977 to 25% higher in 1978 than that of sainfoin.
The K con­
centration of alfalfa was far above critical levels in both years, even
on units showing no fertilizer responses.
Figure 12 shows that in 1977
K increased the K concentration of alfalfa from 2.62% to 2.74%.
In
1978 K exerted a similar effect up to an application of 207 kg/ha, but
in keeping with other negative responses to K in 1978, even percent K
was reduced by larger applications.
This phenomenon further supports
the hypothesis that K was injurious to the alfalfa root.
If reduced
NOg levels suggest possible harm to the N fixing relationship, this may
be argued against because the Rhizobium activity would not be expected
to affect K uptake.
Critical levels of K forage concentration have not been determined
for sainfoin.
Since yield increases due to applied K were not observed,
the K concentration of sainfoin would seem sufficient.
ously noted, K increased the WUE of sainfoin.
Butil as previ­
Thus, there is some ques­
tion about sainfoin's ability to obtain adequate K under dryland condi­
tions or at lower levels of soil K.
For some plants the critical level
47
1978
p(F)<0.OOl
r2=0.52
p(F)<0.001
r2=0.62
Potassium,
Figure 12.
kg/ha
Potassium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as
a function of potassium applied 12-13 October 1976.
Phosphorus application
p (F)-0.073
r 2«0.22
a 2.1
Nitrogen application
p(F)=0.066
r 2-0.23
'
112
16!
Nitrogen or phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 13.
Potassium concentration of sainfoin in 1977 and 1978
as a function of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 1213 October 1976.
48
of K content may be dependent on moisture regimes.
Table 16.
Mean potassium concentrations for species and years.
Species
Forage K , .%
------------1977
1978
Sainfoin
1.99
2.22
p(F,species)<0.001
Alfalfa
2.66
2.77
p(F,years)<0.001
Probability levels for .
significant differences
p(F,species x years)<0.001
p(F,species x treatments)=0.065
The K concentration of sainfoin was increased by applications of N
in 1977, although not significantly in the first harvest.
This is in
keeping with other responses by sainfoin to N in the year of seeding.
Data from 1978 were unexpected.
Over the range of applied K, the K
concentration of sainfoin was decreased from 2.51 to 2.29% in the first
harvest.
This effect was not apparent in the yearly average and its
importance is unknown. ,But it does appear likely that if supplemental
K is required for optimum performance of sainfoin under dryland condi­
tions, then applications of K only may not be an effective remedy.
Fig­
ure 13 shows that over the entire season in 1978, P increased the K con­
centration of sainfoin.
Also, adequate uptake of K appears to be
strongly linked to N nutrition.
to be determined.
The extent of these influences remains
49
Data for K uptake further demonstrate the involvement of N and P
in the K uptake of sainfoin.
and P in 1978.
Figure 14 shows the effect of N in 1977
The effect, of N is a positive response derived from in­
fluences on both yield and concentration.
In 1978 the effect of P is
at least partially derived from an effect on K concentration, but
the character and magnitude implicate yield as well (see Figure 14).
Like the effects of P on N and P uptakes, this is in spite of a demon­
strated yield effect, and the curve is highly concave downward. < The
source of P may also be important, superphosphate being perhaps' too
available for sainfoin if present in large amounts.
As previously mentioned, soil K as indicated by pretrial tests was
high enough so that responses under conditions of low soil K are likely,
especially in view of sainfoin's low forage concentration of K and the
enhancement of. WUE by K.
Experimentation under better controlled conditions must be per­
formed in order to resolve the effects of P and K on yield and WUE of
sainfoin.
These conditions should include lower levels of soil K and
different sources of P.
Figure 15 summarizes the uptake of K by alfalfa.
on yield is shown in its effect on K uptake.
The effect of P
In 1978 the combined ef­
fects of K on yield and percent K resulted in a downward concave curve
which is predominately negative.
Sulfur and micronutrients decreased the K concentration of sain-
50
« 270
p(F)<0.001
r 2”0.38
^ 240
Phosphorus, kg/ha
-H 140
p(F)<0.001
r 2“0 . 77
0
Figure 14.
56
_
112
Nitrogen, kg/ha
168
224
Potassium uptake by sainfoin in 1977 and 1978 as a
function of nitrogen and phosphorus applied 12-13 Oc­
tober 1976.
P(F)< 0 .00I
r2=0.42
Potassium, kg/ha
P ( F ) <0.001
r =0.62
0
Figure 15.
56
112
168
224
Phosphorus, kg/ha
280
336
Potassium uptake by alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a func­
tion of phosphorus and potassium applied 12-13 October
1976.
51
foin from 2.00 to 1.78% in the second harvest of 1978 (see Table 17).
The total uptake of K by sainfoin in 1977 was reduced by the addition
of micronutrients to the S treatment from 288 to 241 kg/ha as shown in
Table 18.
These and other effects suggest that the applied micronutri­
ents had an overall negative impact on sainfoin.
Table 17.
Species
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
Paired comparisons showing the effects of S and micronutri­
ents on K concentration.
Year-harvest
1978-2
1978-avg.
Treatments
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
Potassium, %
2.00
vs.
1.78
P(F)
.
0.032
2.86
vs.
0.009
2.63
Sulfur decreased the K concentration of alfalfa from 2.86 to 2.63%
in 1978 (see Table 17).
In the first harvest of 1978, S+micronutrlents ,
did not cause as great a reduction.
These and other similar effects
suggest that S’ alone was responsible for negative responses of alfalfa
to treatments 22 and 25.
Since yields were also reduced by S, S consis­
tently and sharply reduced the uptake of K, while the presence of added
micronutrients ameliorated these effects as seen from Table 18.
Calcium Concentration and Uptake
■
Table 19 summarizes the Ca percentages of alfalfa and sainfoin.
The Ca concentration of alfalfa was 47% higher than that of sainfoin in
52.
Table 18.
Paired comparisons showing the effect of S and micronutrients
on the uptake of K,
Species
Year
Sainfoin
1977
Alfalfa
1977
Alfalfa
1977
Alfalfa
1978
Alfalfa
1978
Table 19.
Treatments
K uptake,.kg/ha.
0-224-112+3
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
-P(F)
288
vs.
241
0.014
211
vs.
193
0.020
211
vs.
198
0.088
408
vs.
308
0.001
408
VS .
0.044
348
Mean calcium concentrations for species and years..
Forage Ca, %
Species
Probability levels for
significant differences
.1977
1978
Sainfoin
1.15
1.17
p(F,species)<0.001
Alfalfa
1.69
1.59
p(F,years)<0.001
p(F,species x years)<0.001
p(F,species x treatments)=0.015
&
53
the year of seeding, but dropped to 36% higher in 1978.
While the per­
cent Ca of sainfoin remained about the same the second year as the
first, the Ca content of alfalfa dropped 6% from the year of seeding.
These effects were all significant.
The uptake of Ca is linked to that
of P, so one would expect Ca content to rise substantially the second
year (refer to Figure 8 and Table 12), but this was not the case.
It
may be, however, that the reduced uptake of Ca by alfalfa in 1978, com­
pared to that of sainfoin, was related to the reduced uptake of P by
alfalfa in 1978 compared to that of sainfoin (refer to Figure 9).
The data bring into question whether Ca uptake by sainfoin, at
least as indicated by the above ground portion, is clearly associated
with levels of soil P .
Phosphorus did not change the Ca concentration
of sainfoin in either year despite its effect on P content.
The Ca up­
take of sainfoin in the second harvest of 1977 was increased only
slightly by P, rising from 18 to 19 kg/ha over the entire range of ap­
plied P .
In the first harvest of 1978, P increased the Ca concentration
of sainfoin, but this was tempered by a negative interaction with N.
Calcium uptake was also increased at this time, but the effect resembled
that of K uptake by sainfoin in 1978.
Lack of significance for sainfoin
yield in 1978 does not rule out the possibility that the source of these
effects of P on uptakes was primarily the yield component.
In fact, ev­
idence based on uptake values consistently suggests yield as having been
similarly affected by P.
Thus, Ca concentration in sainfoin forage is
54
probably Independent of the rate of P uptake.
Calcium concentration of sainfoin was decreased by N in the second
harvest of 1977.
This effect was paralleled by the similar effect of
N on protein (see Figures 4 and 16).
may be correlated.
The Ca and N contents of sainfoin
The overall uptake of Ca by sainfoin in 1977 was
increased by N due to the yield component (see Figure 17).
Unlike sainfoin, P increased the Ca concentration of alfalfa in
both years (see Figure 18).
Figure 19 shows that the highest level of
K in 1977 increased the Ca concentration of alfalfa 12% over no applica­
tion (at the mean level application of P, i.e. 115 kg/ha).
This is un­
expected when it is considered that the Ca content of alfalfa was al­
ready high and all other responses to K in 1978 were negative.
The ef­
fect may be related to other detrimental effects of K on alfalfa in
1978.
Figures 20 and 21 show the Ca uptake response curves of alfalfa as
a function of applied P.
Both years are graphed. Note that the 1977
curve is a composite of P effects on both yield and Ca concentration,
but that the curve for 1978 reflects primarily percent Ca since P had
no effect on alfalfa yield in that year.
Ca by alfalfa in 1978 as influenced by K.
Figure 22 shows the uptake of
The fact that this curve re­
sembles the. effect of K on yield, despite, its positive effect on Ca con­
centration, emphasizes the depressive effect of K on alfalfa yield.
The only significant paired comparisons of any interest with re-
55
0.98
P(F)=O.023
r =0.28
Z
0.96
112
Nitrogen,
Figure 16.
kg/ha
Calcium concentration of sainfoin in 1977, second har­
vest, as a function of nitrogen applied 12-13 October
1976.
P ( F ) <0.001
r 2=0.63
112
Nitrogen, kg/ha
Figure 17.
Calcium uptake by sainfoin in 1977 as a function of
nitrogen applied 12-13 October 1976.
56
Percent calcium
1.70
p (F)=O.005
r -0.54
p (F)<0.00 I
r 2-0.72
112
18.
kg/ha
Calcium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 and 1978 as a
function of phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
Percent calcium
^
Phosphorus,
p(F)-0.005
r -0.54
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 19.
Calcium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 as a function
of potassium applied 12-13 October 1976.
57
<u 128
E 124
p (F)<0.001
r^=0.64
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 20.
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
P(F)-O.003
r -0.48
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 21.
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of
phosphorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
58
r =0.58
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 22.
Calcium uptake by alfalfa in 1978 as a function of potas­
sium applied 12-13 October 1976.
59
gard to Ca were the uptakes of Ca by alfalfa in 1978.
These followed
the pattern of yield in which S effected decreases.
Magnesium Concentration and Uptake
Table 20 shows overall means for percent Mg.
Magnesium concentra­
tion of alfalfa was higher than that of sainfoin and for both legumes
rose in the year following seeding.
Phosphorus applications ranging
from 0 to 224 kg/ha decreased the average Mg concentration of sainfoin
from 0.32 to 0.30% in 1977.
This effect was present in each harvest.
In the first harvest of 1978, applied P initially increased percent
Mg of sainfoin but further applications resulted in a decline.
same time, N slightly increased Mg concentration.
not evident in the 1978 average.
At the
These effects were
For equations and statistics pertain­
ing to Mg, refer to Appendix I.
Table 20.
Mean magnesium concentrations for species and years.
Forage Mg, %
Species
1977
1978
Sainfoin
0.31
0.33
Alfalfa
0.34
0.38
In 1977 P decreased the Mg concentration of alfalfa in the first
harvest but increased it in the second.
Potassium increased the Mg
concentration of alfalfa slightly in 1977, but had little effect in
60
1978.
Magnesium uptakes followed the' same significant patterns as did
yields in each harvest and year.
A possible exception'was the effect
of P on the Mg uptake of sainfoin in 1978.
Figure 23 shows this effect
to be similar to the uptakes of N, P, K, and Ca during the same period.
Since these effects were not generally observed for forage concentra­
tions, it is again most likely that this was an effect of P on yield,
despite lack of significance for the latter.
Micronutrients tended to increase the Mg concentration of alfalfa
in both years, but due to the effect of S on yield, the combined S+micronutrient treatment caused the Mg uptake of sainfoin to decrease 15%
in 1978.
Sodium Concentration and Uptake
Alfalfa, as seen from Table 21, had a greater Na concentration
than did sainfoin.
The Na concentration of alfalfa tripled in the
second year, and that of sainfoin increased almost as much.
Table 21.
Mean sodium.concentrations for species and years.
Forage Na, %
Species
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
,
1977
1978
0.019
0.052
0.021
0.064
61
P(F)=O.061
r =0.25
112
Phosphorus, kg/ha
Figure 23.
Magnesium uptake by sainfoin in 1978 as a function of phos­
phorus applied 12-13 October 1976.
62
The Na concentration of alfalfa was generally increased by appli- .
cations of K (second harvest 1977, average 1977, first harvest 1978).
Figure.24 shows the effect of K on the average percent Na of alfalfa in
1977.
Sodium uptake of sainfoin was.not affected by any variable.
That of alfalfa was increased by K in the last harvest of 1977.
positively affected Na uptake is not known.
Why K
The average Na uptake by
alfalfa in 1978 was increased by both N and P, but these two variables
interacted negatively (see Appendix I).
A similar effect was observed
for alfalfa yield in 1977.
Table 22.
Species
Effect of sulfur on sodium uptake by alfalfa and the sodium
concentration of sainfoin.
Year
Means,. p(F)
Treatments
Na, %
Sainfoin
1977
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S
0.027
vs. .
0.053
0.040
Na uptake,
kg/ha
Alfalfa
1978
0-224-1I2+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
1.57
vs.
2.52
0.052
Only S significantly affected the Na concentration of sainfoin.
Sulfur doubled the Na concentration of sainfoin in the second harvest
of 1977, raising it from 0.027 to 0.053% (see Table 22).
Compared to
63
the S treatment, the addition of micronutrients increased the uptake of
Na by alfalfa in 1978, second harvest, from 1.57 to 2.52 kg/ha.
This
appeared to follow from the yield component in that yield was similarly
increased (non-significant) but concentration was not.
0.150
0.125
0.1 0 0
0.075
P(F)=O.005
0.050
Potassium, kg/ha
Figure 24.
Sodium concentration of alfalfa in 1977 as a function of
potassium applied 12-13 October 1976.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Species and Years ComparisonsThe yield of alfalfa, considerably higher than that of sainfoin,
increased 68% the year after seeding (1977), while that of sainfoin
increased nearly 100%.
Due to differences in yields, WUE (water use
efficiency) of alfalfa was greater than that of sainfoin.
These re­
sults, covering only a period of 2 years, will have to be reevaluated
over a longer term.
Alfalfa, protein, at an overall mean level of. 15.8%, was higher
than that of sainfoin and rose slightly the second year (1978) while
sainfoin protein, at an overall mean level of 14.5%, fell slightly the
second year.
The P concentration of sainfoin was 25% higher than that of alfal­
fa, and was 5% higher the year following seeding while that of alfalfa
was 8% higher that year.
The uptake of P totalled over both years was
about the same for sainfoin as for alfalfa.
The K concentration of alfalfa at 2.72% was much higher than the
critical level of 1.75% to 2.00%, and it was 29% higher than the K
concentration of sainfoin.
1978.
Potassium concentrations were greater in
That of sainfoin increased more the year after seeding than did
that of alfalfa.
Differences in Ca concentration between years followed the same
pattern as those of K described above.
At an overall mean of 1.64%,
65
the Ca concentration of alfalfa was 42% higher than that of sainfoin.
Magnesium concentrations of both species were higher the second year
than the first.
Mean concentrations of sainfoin and alfalfa for both
years,combined were 0.32% and 0.36%, respectively..
Sodium concentrations were 174% and 200% higher the year after
seeding for sainfoin and alfalfa, respectively.
The Na concentration
of alfalfa was 11% higher than that of sainfoin in 1977 at 0.021% and
23% higher in 1978 at 0.064%.
Effects of Nitrogen
Ammonium nitrate applications increased seedling height of alfal­
fa in 1977.
Applied N also increased spring soil NO^ levels, but this
effect vanished by fall and NO^ was depleted to non-detectable levels
on all- treatment units by 1978 under both sainfoin and alfalfa.
Sainfoin yield was increased 20% by 224 kg/ha applied N in 1977.
Alfalfa yield was also increased by N in 1977, but this depended on
the amount of P added, P reducing the requirement for N.
No appreci­
able effects due to N were observed in 1978 for either species except
for Na uptake by alfalfa.
The lack of effect due to applications of N
was probably due to soil NO^ reduction by 1978.
Nitrogen decreased sainfoin protein slightly the year of seeding,
indicating N deficiency.
Although in contradiction to. this result,
21-45-28 (11-55-0+KC1) increased sainfoin protein in 1977.
Since the
66-
cost of N applied in this manner is low, 11-55-0 may be a valuable
fertilizer source for sainfoin if the amount of applied P is not too
great.
Either increased yield or protein could be expected.
In addition to increasing yield, N increased P uptake, K concen­
tration, and K uptake of sainfoin in the year of seeding, and decreased
Ca concentration in the last harvest.. The latter effect was reversed
by slight increases in 1978.
Other than yield in 1977, the only effects of N on alfalfa were
an increase in Na uptake in 1978, a slight decrease in Mg concentration
in 1978, and a slight decrease in P concentration in 1977.
These results indicate probable N deficiency of sainfoin in both
years.
Any N deficiency of alfalfa is likely to occur the year of
seeding and can be overcome by adequate applications of P.
Effects of Phosphorus
Phosphorus applications as superphosphate increased the P concen­
trations of both species in both years.
These effects were roughly
identical, but the response by alfalfa was slightly more pronounced.
This effect on concentration carried over into effects on P uptake.
Phosphorus had no other effects on sainfoin in 1977 except for a
reduction in Mg concentration.
However, in 1978 a downward concave re­
lationship was observed for the uptakes of all elements.except Na.
These curves generally had maxima about midway in the. range of applied
67
P.
Except for uptake of K, these effects were not accompanied by con­
centration effects and the influence on K concentration was far too
small to account for that on uptake.' It was therefore concluded that
in 1978' superphosphate most likely increased sainfoin yield up to an
application of about 112 kg/ha P, but further applications reduced
yield.
Yield data substantiated this trend but significance was lack­
ing.
Yield, seedling height, and WUE of alfalfa were all increased by P
in 1977.
P.
Yield was influenced by a negative interaction between N and
Other than P uptake,the uptakes of N, K, and Ca by alfalfa were
also increased by P in 1977.
In 1978 P increased the Na uptake of al­
falfa, but N reduced this effect.
Calcium concentration was increased
by P in both years.
Effects of Potassium
Pretrial levels of soil K were high - greater than 300 ppm - but
responses to K under these circumstances have been frequent in this
geographical region as discussed in the Results and Discussion section.
Negative responses to K by either species are virtually unknown, and
vigorous responses by alfalfa are frequent.
Nevertheless, strongly
negative responses to K by alfalfa were observed in 1978.
Potassium
appreciably decreased soil NO^ levels under alfalfa in the fall of 1977
but since no signs of N deficiency were observed it is possible this
68
was symptomatic of a negative effect on root function.
This may have
been related to subsequent negative responses to K in 1978.
Slightly
positive initial responses were usually seen which became negative with
larger applications of K.
This pattern was observed for yield, uptakes
of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg, and K concentration.
In 1977, applications of'
K resulted in a 12% increase in the Ca concentration of alfalfa.
The
cause of these effects was unknown.
Negative effects of K on alfalfa were not observed in the year of
seeding.
Potassium concentration was increased 5% in 1977 by K, and
Na concentrations were increased in both years.
centration were increased slightly in 1977.
Protein and P con­
The negative effects of K
on alfalfa in this study will have to be evaluated from the longer term
perspective than that covered so far.
It has been shown that splitting
large applications into two or more smaller ones at different times dur­
ing the growing season sharply reduces the K requirement of alfalfa
(51).
Perhaps highly uneven applications of K on a soil already high
in K can actually result in negative responses.
Despite much lower levels of K in sainfoin, K did not increase the
K concentration of sainfoin and decreased it in 1978.
increased the WUE of sainfoin.
In both years, K
This leads to speculation that K may
be more important to the dryland production of sainfoin than it is to
that of other forage legumes.
WUE
It could be assumed that the effect on
was due to increased leaf concentrations of K since K plays a cen­
69
tral role in stomatal function.
Other evidence suggests the effect on
WUE was related to root rather than stomatal function.
Potassium did
not increase forage K concentration of sainfoin, and in one harvest ac­
tually reduced it.
Levels of forage K were mostly affected by P and to
some extent by N.
Effects of Sulfur and Micronutrients
Application of micronutrients resulted in generally positive re­
sponses by alfalfa, but negative responses by sainfoin.
However, ap­
plication of S resulted in strongly negative responses by alfalfa while
having little effect on sainfoin.
A number of negative effects resulted from applications of S to
alfalfa.
Like those of K, these effects were unexpected and remain
unexplained.
Alfalfa has responded to applications of S in western
Montana in the past, as mentioned in the Results and Discussion section
Sulfur reduced alfalfa yield 8% in 1977 and 16% in 1978.
Protein was
unaffected, but N uptake was reduced 10% in 1977, P concentration was
reduced 7% in 1978, P uptake was reduced 8% in 1977 and 23% in 1978, K
concentration was reduced 8% in 1978, calcium uptake was reduced in
1978, and K uptake was reduced sharply in both years.
The Na concen­
tration of sainfoin was increased in 1977 by application of S.
Regard­
ing the negative effects due to S, data from a longer period of time
will have to be analyzed before final conclusions can be reached.
70
The addition of micronutrients with S seemed to either counteract
most of the negative effects of S on alfalfa or to cause positive ef­
fects of their own.
This could not be determined since a treatment with
micronutrients added Without S was not included.
Since these effects
led to results intermediate between the S and no-S treatments, many,
but not all, of the differences were non-significant.
The addition of
micronutrients increased the Mg concentration of alfalfa in both years
and Na uptake in 1978.
Micronutrients caused a 13% reduction in sainfoin yield in 1978
and reduced Mg uptake 15%.
In the year of seeding, S decreased K up­
take, but increased the concentration and uptake of P .
APPENDICES
72
APPENDIX I
REGRESSION EQUATIONS, PROBABILITY LEVELS,' AND RZ VALUES FOR RESPONSE
. CHARACTERISTICS
73
Appendix Table 23.
Yearharvest
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
1977-1
Alfalfa
Yield in metric tons/ha at 12% moisture - regression equations for significant effects.*
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
r2
1.15-1 Cf 3N+8.98-1 Cf 6N2+3.18
<0.001
0.68
3.59-10~3N+6.12-IO-3P-S.47•IO-6N2 ' <0.001
0.84
-2.38-IO-5P2-I.10-10-5NP+3.70
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
Alfalfa
2.92-IO-3N-2.51•ICf6N2IZ.II
I.47■10-3N+2.96-10-3P-2.49•IO-6N2
<0.001 '
0.78
<0.001
. 0.72
3.65-10-3N+5.10-10-6N2+ 5 .30
<0.001
0.36
3.80-10-3N-5.27•10-6N2+ 7 .87•IO-3P
<0.001
0.81
<0.001
0.47
-5.59*10-6P2-6.01•10~6NP+3.37
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
-2.26-IO-5P2-I.10-10-5NP+7.08
X=7.06
1978-1
Sainfoin
1978-1
Alfalfa
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=4.03
1978-2
Alfalfa
X=4.40
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
X=Il.I
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
2.52•IO-3K-I.71•10-5K2+ 8 .54
3.31•10"3K-1.94•IO-5K2+!2.9
'
0.002
.0.50
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
74
Appendix Table 24.
. .
Protein percentage - regression equations for
significant effects
. *
Yearharvest
Species
Equation(Y=)
1977-1
Sainfoin
Xf=IO. 9
1977-1
Alfalfa
X=I3.6
1977-2
Sainfoin
-4.61*10~3N+3.50-10~'6N2+! 8.6
0.052
0.26
1977-2
Alfalfa
-2.20*10-3K+1.15* IO-'5K2+! 6.4
0.007
0.33
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
' 0.012
0.29
1978-1
Sainfoin
0.001
0.53
1978-1
Alfalfa
X=I6.3
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=14.8
1978-2
Alfalfa
X=I6.5
1978-avg.
Sainfoin
X=14.2
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
X=16.4
P(F)
r
2
X=I4.8
-1.94*10""3K+9.28*10'"'6K2+! 5.0
3.25*IO-3P-I.99*10-'5K+! 3.5
*Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
75
Appendix Table 25.
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest
Species
1977-1 •
Sainfoin
X-57.7
1977-1
Alfalfa
X=85.3
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
P(F)
'2
r
' 6.29-IO-2N-S. 72-IO-5N2H-SS. 6 '
<0.001
0.56
Alfalfa
5.61-IO-2P-S.63•10-5P2+79.0
<0.001
0.59
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
1.65- 10-2N+4.08 •IO-4N2-H19
<0.001
0.72
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
1.18-10-1P-2.79•IO-4P2-H 73
<0.001
0.44
1978-1
Sainfoin
5.91■10-1P-2.40•IO-2P2-H 44
0.029
1978-1
Alfalfa
-6.03-10-2K~9.28•IO-5K2-KZ27
0.003
0.51
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=95.9
1978-2
Alfalfa
X=I 16
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
6.80-10-1P-2.77•10-3P2+238
0.025
0.37
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
-1.61-IO-2K-2.22•10-4K2+342
0.003
0.52
Equation(Y=)
.
0.34
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
76
Appendix Table 26.
Phosphorus concentration - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest ... Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
1977-1
Alfalfa
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
1.64-10™4P-2.27•10~7P2+0.193
. <0.001
9.87•10~5P+3.70•I(T5K+1.14•ICf 8P2
r2
0.66
<0.001
0.66
<0.001
0.84
<0.001
0.96
1.19-10-4P-2.42-10-8P2+ 0 .245
<0.001
0.86
1.68-IO-4P-I.84'10-7P2+2.33•IO-5K
<0.001
0.94
-3.45'10-5P+5.00'10-7P2+0.289
<0.001
0.59
-3.02'10_8K2+0.182
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
Alfalfa
1.04-IO-4P+I.57'10~7P2+ 0 .298
1.83-10
N+3.70-10
P+7.52'10
K
-8.43-IO-7N2-O.73-IO-7P2
+8.89*10-8K2+0.189
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
+1.35'10-8K2+0.187
1978-1
Sainfoin
1978-1
Alfalfa
I.72-10-4P+1.57-10-7P2+0.212
<0.001
0.88
1978-2
Sainfoin
2.46-IO-4P-S.93-1O-7P2PO.246
0.013
0.38
1978-2
Alfalfa
I.56*10-4P-2.96*IO-7P2PO.197
<0.001
0.65
1978-avg.
Sainfoin
1.04-IO-4P-1.89 *IO-8P2PO.267
<0.001
0.63
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
1.63-10-4P-6.73•IO-8P2PO.205
<0.001
0.85
*Equations are replaced by means' (X) where no significant factors'
exist.
77
Appendix Table 27.
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - regression equations
for significant effects.*.
Yearharvest
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin -9.77-IO-3N-7.68-10 3P+5.31-IO-5N2
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
r2
<0.001
0.81
8.74-IO-3P-I.65•10-5P2+ 6 .19
<0.001
0.80
+5.00-10-5P2+ 2 .88•10-5NP+5.70
1977-1
Alfalfa
1977-2
Sainfoin
5.71-10-3N+3.64-10-3P+3.31-IO-3N2
-6 2
-8.75-10 P +5.35
<0.001
0.90
1977-2
Alfalfa
7.36-IO-3N+!.54•10_2P-7.75-IO-4K
<0.001
0.93
<0.001
0.92
-3.26-IO-5N2-3.40-IO-5P2
+4.56-10-6K2+5.71
1977-tot.
Sainfoin -1.34-10-4N+4.52•10-5N2-2.10•IO-3P
+4.56-IO-5P2+!2.5
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
2.09 -10-2P-2.65•IO-5P2+!3.7
<0.001
0.91
1978-1
Sainfoin
5.00-IO-2P-I.87-10-4P2+19.7
0.007
0.37
1978-1
Alfalfa
8.85-10-4P+5.79-IO-5P2+!.49.-IO-2K
<0.001
0.66
. . -6.26-IO-5K2+!8.2
X=10.2
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
Alfalfa
1.15-10-2P-2.94 *10-5P2+8.53
<0.001
'0.53
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
6.21-10-2P-2.30-10-4P2+29.5
0.006
0.43
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
1.15-10-2P+3.11-IO-5P2+!.66-IO-2K
<0.001
0.73
-6.68-10-5K2+26.7
*Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors'■
exist.'
78
Appendix Table 28.. Potassium concentration - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
1977-1
Alfalfa
Equation(Y=)
P (F) •
X=I.74 •
1.46-10""3P+4.06 •10~4K-6.36-IO-6P2
<0.001
0.66
-2.66-10-7K2+ 2 .54
X=2.24
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
Alfalfa
2;II•IO-4K+7,03•10-7K2+ 2 .68
<0.001
0.49
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
I.40-10-3N-3.15-IO-6N2+!.93
0.066
0.23
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
3.53-10-4K+l.31-1O-8K2+ 2.62
<0.001
0.62
1978-1
Sainfoin
-7.51-1O-4K+2.77-1O-7K2+2.51
0.027
0.32
' 2.05*10-3K-4.74-10-6K2+2.51
0.027
0.32
0.010
0.24
1978-1
■ Alfalfa
4.37-10
-4
P+1.88
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
Alfalfa
1973-avg.
Sainfoin
8.02-10-4P-2.28•10-6P2+ 2 .I8
0.073
0.22
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
1.41-10-3K-3.41 *10-6K2+2.71
<0.001
0.52
X=2.62
AEquations■are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
79
Appendix Table 29.
Yearsharvest
Species
1977-1
Potassium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations
for significant effects.*
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
r2
Sainfoin
4.,18• 10~2N+1.53'10~4N2+47.7
<0.001
0.66
1977-1
Alfalfa
1.28-10_1P~4.74•10~4P2+85.8
<0.001
0.54
1977-2
Sainfoin
8.92-IO-2N-I.25•10-4N2+40.2
<0.001
0.62
1977-2
Alfalfa
9.05-10-2P-2.23•10-4P2+80.9
<0.001
0.58
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
I.33-IO-1N+2.80-10-5N2+99.8
<0.001
0.77
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
2.19•10-1P-6.13•IO-4P2+!89
<0.001
0.62
1978-1
Sainfoin
0.006
• 0.40
0.051
0.19
1978-1
■
Alfalfa
X=177
2.57•10-1K-9.20•10-4K2+240
2.16-10-2P+75.2
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
Alfalfa
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
4.93-IO-1P-I.95•10_3P2+244
<0.001
0.38
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
3.09-IO-1K-I.07•10-3K2+354
<0.001
0.42
X=I 15
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
80
Appendix Table 30.
Calcium concentration - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest
Species
Equation(Y=)
1977-1
Sainfoin
X=I.30
1977-1
Alfalfa
X=I.93
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
Alfalfa
2.14-IO-4N-2.66•IO-6N2+! .01
-5.93-10-5P-9.08•10-5K+4.99-1O-6P2
P(F)
r2
0.023
0.28
<0.001 ■
0.79
.0.005
0.54 ■
0.010
0.48 •
0.003
0.51
<0.001
0.58
<0.001
0.72
+1.17-IO-6K2+!.34
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
X=I.15
-5.45-10-4P+2.15-10-4K+3.33*IO-6P2
+1.07-IO-6K2+!.64
1978-1
'
Sainfoin
-3.66'10-4K+6.42•10-7K2+ 0 .997
and
3.40-10-4N+8.66-10-5P-2.41'IO-6NP
+0.962
1978-1
Alfalfa
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
■
Alfalfa
1978-avg.
Sainfoin
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
9.38-10-5P+l.32-10-6P2+!.37
X=I.36 •
3.02-10-4P+1.11-IO-6P2+ ! .72
X=I.15
2.00-10-4P+l.20-1O-6P2+!.55
*Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
81
Appendix Table 31.
Year-.
harvest..
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
1977-1
Alfalfa
1977-2
Sainfoin
Calcium uptake in kg/ha
significant .effects.*
regression equations for
Equation(Y=)
-9.87 •10-3N+2.30 ■10"'4N2+36.8
p(F)
r2
0.002
0.46
0.001
0.66
X=37.6
2.42-10~2N+3.12-IO-4P-S.81-IO^5N2
+2.50•10~5P2+18.I
1977-2
Alfalfa
5.92•10-2P+2.81•10-4P2+40.7
'<0.001
0.77
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
2.87 •10-2N+1.01 •10-4'N2+62.8
<0.001
0.63
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
4.72*10-2P+5.45•10-5P2+121
<0.001
0.64
1978-1
Sainfoin
0.179P-7.64•10-4P2+66.0
0.085
. 0.24
1978-1
Alfalfa
0.105K-4.13-IO-4K2IlS
0.003
0.48
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
Alfalfa
0.003
0.49
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
0.005
0.58
X=54.9
4.97-10-2P-7.44-10-5P2+74.4
X=I 23
-5.34-10-2P+4.29-10-4P2+0.I08K
-4.24-IO-4K2+!92
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
82
Appendix Table 32.
Yearharvest
Species
Sainfoin
1977-1
1977-1
Alfalfa
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-2
Alfalfa
Magnesium concentration - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
r2
X==O. 255
-5,37; 10" 5P-1.78-IO-7P2^-0.312
0.028
0.35
1.37-IO-5P-S.82-IO-7P2-K).376
0.072
0.25
1.22-10-4P-6.47-IO-5K+2.53•IO-7P2
0.001
0.61
0.043
0.17
0.044
0.33
0.025
0.38
.0.010
0.34
+4.50-IO-7K2-H). 352
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
1978-1
Sainfoin
-6.72-IO-5P-K).319
6.34•I0-5K-2.73•I0-8K2+0.331
2.54-10-4N-7.I5■IO-7N2+5.84•IO-4P
-2.82•10-6P2+0.309
1978-1
Alfalfa
X=O .349
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=0.349
1978-2
'
Alfalfa
3.46-IO-4K-I.02■IO-6K2-PO.402
1978-avg.
Sainfoin
X=0.332
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
X=0.380
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
83
Appendix Table 33.
Yearharvest ...
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
1977-1
Alfalfa
1977-2 .
Sainfoin
Magnesium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations
for significant effects.*
2
Equation(Y=)
p(F)-
r
1.24'10-2N-2.06•IO-5N2+!.01
0.001
0.52
<0.001
0.62
X=Il.9
I.03-10-2N+4.91•IO-3K-I.51•IO-5N2
-I.44•I0-5K2+ 6 .53
1977-2
Alfalfa
9.06-10-3P+l.03•10-5P2+10.7
<0.001
0.79
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
2.33-IO-2N-3.34 -10-5N2+!5.6
<0.001
0.70
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
1.53-10-2P-2.06•10-5P2+24.0
<0.001
0.66
1978-1
Sainfoin
1.04-10-1P-4.57•10-4P2+21.6
0.023
0.37
1978-1
Alfalfa
-1.12- 10-2'K+30.5
<0.001
0.32
1978-2
Sainfoin
1978-2
Alfalfa
1.19-10-2P+3.50-10-3K-4.74-IO-5PK
+17.1
0.009
0.44
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
9.53-10-2P-4.13•10-4P2+35.3
0.061
0.25
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
2.45•IO-2K-I.04•I0-4K2+47.5
0.010
0.39
X=14.I •
*Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
84
Appendix Table 34.
Sodium concentration - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
X=O.208
1977-1
Alfalfa
X=0.415
1977-2
Sainfoin
X=0.392
.1977-2
Alfalfa
1977-avg.
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
Alfalfa
1978-1
Sainfoin
1978-1
Alfalfa
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=0.408
1978-2
Alfalfa
X=0.488
1978-avg.
Sainfoin
X=Q.516
1978-avg.
Alfalfa
Equation(Y=)
P(F)
r2
-
7.72-IO-6K+!.63•10-7K2+ 0 .0581
0.005
0.44
0.009
0.32
0.076
0.27
X=O.300
2.89-10~4K+0.0484
X=0.624
-4.39-10-5K+2.10-IO^7K2-K). 0765
.
. X=0.636 '
^Equations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
85
Appendix Table 35.
Sodium uptake in kg/ha - regression equations for
significant effects.*
Yearharvest .
Species
1977-1
Sainfoin
X=O.679
1977-1
Alfalfa
X=I.62
1977-2
Sainfoin
X=840
1977-2
Alfalfa
1977-tot.
Sainfoin
X=I.54
1977-tot.
Alfalfa
X=3.32
1978-1
Sainfoin
X=4.36
1978-1
Alfalfa
X=6.44
1978-2
Sainfoin
X=I.64
1978-2
Alfalfa
X=2.13
1978-tot.
Sainfoin
X=6.00
1978-tot.
Alfalfa
Equation(Y=)
8.7 4•10~4K+3.51•10~ 6K2+!.8 0
I.20-10_2N+2.09•10~3P-6.99-IO-5NP
+8.23
:
"o
.r
P(F)
0.004
0.019
0.39
'
0.47
AEquations are replaced by means (X) where no significant factors
exist.
86
APPENDIX II
SIGNIFICANT PAIRED COMPARISONS
37
Appendix Table 36.
Yield in metric tons/ha at 12% moisture - significant paired comparisons.
Yield,
metric tons/ha
Species
Year-harvest
Treatments
Alfalfa
1977-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
4.039
vs.
3.681
0.080
Alfalfa
1977-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
3.874
vs.3.624
0.065
Alfalfa
1977-total
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
7.914
vs.
7.302
0.023
1977-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
3.874
vs.
3.525
0.012
Alfalfa
1977-total
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
7.914
vs.
7.475
0.099
Alfalfa
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
9.613
vs.
8.020
0.079
Sainfoin
1978-1
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
7.991
vs.
6.613
0.067
Sainfoin
1978-total
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
12.15
vs.
'10.61
0.060
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
9.613
1978-1
• 0-224-112
vs.
0-7224-112+S
13.32
vs..
11.64
Alfalfa '
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
1978-total
VS .
P(F) '
.
0.033
7.672
0.024
88
Appendix Table 37.
Species
Protein percentage - significant paired comparisons.
Year-harvest
Treatments
Sainfoin ■
1977-2
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
18.92
vs.
20.17
Sainfoin
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
17.99
1977-2
20.17
1977-2
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+3+Co+Mo
16.24
vs.
16.98
0.040
Alfalfa
1978-1
0-224-112+S '
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
15.27
vs.
16.34
0.074
0-224-112+S
Alfalfa
1978-2
0.007
0-224-112+S+B+C0+M0
17.14
vs.
15.78
14.22
vs.
16.84
0.004
17.16
vs.
15.78
0.007
Alfalfa
VS'.
Alfalfa
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
Alfalfa
1978-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
Protein, %
P(F)
0.091
0.045
VS .
■
89
Appendix Table 38.
..
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - significant paired
comparisons.
..
Species
Year-harvest
Alfalfa
1977-2
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
1977-2
1977-total
1977-total
Treatments
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
' 0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
Nitrogen uptake,
kg/ha
103.6
vs.
P(F)
0.022
94.03
103.6
VS .
0.062
95.85
.193.4
VS
0.024
176.6
■ 193.4 ■
vs.
180,6
0.084
90
Appendix Table 39.
Species
Phosphorus concentration - significant paired
comparisons.
. Year-harvest
Treatments
Phosphorus, %
P(F)
' 0.021
Sainfoin
1977-2
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.323
■ vs.
0.351
Sainfoin
1977-avg.
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.267
vs.
0-224-112
. vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.319
VS .
0.351
0.009
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo ■
0.271
vs.
0.287
0.005
x
Sainfoin
1977-2
Sainfoin
1977-avg>
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
0.018
0.287
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
0.267
vs. 0.236
1978-avg.
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
0.242
vs.
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.267
vs.
0.240
0.025 .
1978-avg.
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.242
vs.
0.228
0.060 .
-
0.007
'
• 0.041
0.226
91
Appendix Table 40.
Species
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - significant paired
comparisons.
Phosphorus uptake,
kg/ha
P(F)
Year-harvest
Treatments
1977-total
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
13.57
vs.
15.03
0.091
1977-total
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
16.98
vs.
15.74
0.085
0-224-112
vs.
■ 0-224-112+S
25.75
vs.
18.13
0.003
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
34.91
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
25.75
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
34.91
1978-1
1978-total
1978-1
1978-total
VS .
0.003
26.70
VS .
0.013
19.58
vs.
29.09 .
0.026
92
Appendix Table 41.
Potassium concentration - significant paired
comparisons.
Year-harvest
Treatments
Sainfoin
1978-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
2.00
vs.
1.78.
0.032
Alfalfa
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
3.06
vs.
2.85
0.090
Alfalfa
1978-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
3.06
vs.
2.69
0.004
Alfalfa
1978-avg.
0-224-112 '
vs.
0-224-112+S
2.86
vs.
2.63
0.009
Species
Potassium, %
P(F)
93
Appendix Table 42.
Potassium uptake in kg/ha for 1977 - significant
paired comparisons.
Potassium uptake,
. kg/ha
Species
Harvest
Treatments
Sainfoin
I
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Ho
' 208
vs.
170
0.026
Sainfoin
Total
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co+Mo
288
vs.
241
0.014
I
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
VS .
Alfalfa
p (F)
106
0.079
96.6
Alfalfa
2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
105
vs.
96.8
0.072 '■
Alfalfa
Total
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
211
vs.
193 .
0.020
Alfalfa
2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Go+Mo
VS .
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-1I2+S+B+Co +M o
VS .
Alfalfa
Total
105
0.031
95.2
211
198
0.088
94
Appendix Table 43.
Species. .
Potassium uptake in kg/ha for 1978 - significant
paired comparisons.
Harvest
Treatments
Potassium uptake,
kgZha
p (F)
296
Alfalfa
I
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
Alfalfa
2
0-224-112+S
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
VS .
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
408
vs.
308
0.001
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo■
296
vs.
230
0.017
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
vs.
348
Alfalfa
Total
Alfalfa
I
Alfalfa
Total
vs.
206
0.002
102
0.086
118
408
0.044 .
95
Appendix Table 44.
. .
Species
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Calcium concentration - significant paired
comparisons.
Year-harvest
1977-avg.
1978-2
1978-2
Treatments
0-224-112
vs.
' 0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
Year-harvest
Alfalfa
1977-2
Alfalfa
0.092
1.91
1.71
0-224-112+S
1.89
vs.
0.006
0.009
VS .
1.71
Calcium uptake in kg/ha - significant paired
comparisons.
Species
Alfalfa
vs.
1.16
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
vs.
P(F)
'
. 1.03
0-224-112
0-224-112+,S+B+Co+Mo
Appendix Table 45.
Calcium, %
1978-1
1978-total
Treatments
Calcium uptake,
kg/ha
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
62.0
vs.
51.3
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
VS .
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S
215
vs.
118
p (F)
0.007
■
135 '
0.029
103
0.019
96
Appendix Table 46.
Magnesium concentration - significant paired
comparisons.
Treatments
Species
Year-harvest
Magnesium, %
Alfalfa
1977-1
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
1977-2
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.369
Alfalfa
P(F)
0.283
vs.
0.320
VS .
0,077
0.038
0.433
Alfalfa
1977-avg.
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-II2+S+B+Co+Mo
0.326 .
vs.
0.376
Alfalfa
0-224-112
vs.
0-224-112+S+B+Co+Mo
0.301
1978-1
VS.
0.368
0.022
0.004
97
APPENDIX III
DATA AND ANOVA STATISTICAL PARAMETERS FOR RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS
Appendix Table 47.
Yield in metric tons/ha - treatment means and selected statistical
parameters.
Yield,
__________________________________ Metric tons/ha_______________________________
________________1977___________________
Treat ment
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*p(N)
p(P)
P(K)
p(PK)
p (N(PMO)
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
CV
Sainfoi1st
2nd
cut
3.434
3,306
3.199
3.025
3.137
3.182
3.121
3.087
2.885
3.289
3.261
3.154
3.199
3.496
3.367
3.356
3.238
3.362
3.614
3.726
4.011
3.210
3.462
3.121
3.216
0.000
0.507
0.527
0.306
0.243
0.397
8.2E-2
3.298
8.7
1.926
2.042
2.149
2.170
1.940
2.099
2.176
2.102
2.169
2.093
2.205
2.275
2.199
2.383
2.216
2.236
2.508
2.367
2.653
2.526
2.616
2.066
2.219
1.949
2.224
2.OOl
Z.379
2.3:3
2.562
2.5-2
0.256
6.62-2
2.221
11.6
Tota I
Al faIfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
5.360
5.347
5.348
5.195
5.078
5.282
5.300
5.189
5.055
5.382
5.465
5.429
5.398
5.879
5.583
5.594
5.747
5.728
6.266
6.251
6.628
5.296
5.682
5.070
5.440
0.000
0.647
0.595
0.910
0.748
0.547
0.156
5.519
7.2
3,670
3.782
3.709
3.574
3.888
3.933
3.894
3.927
4.023
3.927
4.039
3.978
3.944
4.OOij
4.011
4.017
3.961
4.028
4.045
4.219
3.961
3.681
3.743
3.989
3.950
0.508
0.010
0.957
0.975
0.414
0.401
8.4E-2
3.916
5.4
3.311
3.400
3.487
3.270
3.617
3.471
3.304
3.530
3.800
3.618
3.874
3.662
3.446
3.520
3.549
3.910
3.660
3.634
3.630
3.749
3.766
3.621
3.355
3.402
3.525
0.932
0.000
0.604
0.097
0.101
0.269
3.8E-2
3.564
5.4
________________ 1_973______________
Total
6.980
7.181
7.196
6.845
7.505
7.404
7.198
7.468
7.823
7.546
7.914
7.640
7.390
7.910
7.641
7.537
7.621
7.777
7.594
7.853
7.727
7.302
7.098
7.391
7.475
0.531
0.000
0.782
0.512
0.400
0.520
0.141
7.480
5.0
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
6.767
6.728
7.342
6.746
7.472
7.658
8.243
6.468
6.926
7.190
7.009
7.119
6.693
7.353
6.853
6.605
7.038
7.330
6.904
6.486
7.115
7.991
7.131
6.687
6.613
0.980
0.305
0.375
0.711
0.936
1.470
1.125
7.059
15.0
3.882
4.343
3.892
3.956
3.892
3.967
4.261
4.013
3.842
3.909
4.150
4.044
3.915
4.173
3.838
3.884
4.007
4.340
4.085
3.992
4.104
4.156
4.175
3.839
3.997
0.954
0.957
0.662
0.790
0.831
0.670
0.234
4.028
12.0
Total
10.65
11.07
11.23
10.70
11.36
11.62
12.50
10.48
10.77
11.10
11.16
11.16
10.61
11.53
10.69
10.49
11.04
11.67
10.99
10.48
11.22
12.15
11.31
10.58
10.61
0.977
0.327
0.275
0.759
0.761
1.596
1.325
11.09
10.4
Altai fa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
8.722
8.668
7.810
7.847
7.944
9.263
8.469
7.377
8.008
7.739
9.613
7.537
8.501
8.052
7.399
9.003
9.708
7.454
9.121
8.010
7.068
7.672
8.867
8.336
8.020
0.375
0.989
0.182
0.246
0.651
1.775
1.640
8.248
15.5
P Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
4.225
4.109
4.501
4.327
4.431
4.337
4.299
4.586
4.441
4.761
4.211
4.574'
4.013
4.670
4.393
4.711
4.431
4.282
4.390
4.475
4.150
3.972
4.678
4.392
4.456
0.893
0.515
0.879
0.694
0.370
0.702
0.256
4.393
11.5
Iota I
12.95
12.78
12.31
12.17
12.37
13.60
12.77
11.96
12.45
12.50
13.82
12.11
12.51
12.72
11.79
13.71
14.14
11.74
13.51
12.48
11.22
11.64
13.54
12.73
12.48
0.329
0.912
0.333
0.634
0.724
1.877
1.833
12.64
10.7
Appendix Table 48.
Treat i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*p(N)
P(P)
P(K)
P(PK)
p (N(PMC))
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
CV
Protein percentage - treatment means and selected statistical par­
ameters.
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
cut
11.12
11.43
11.39
10.95
10.62
9.79
11.61
10.55
11.17
10.94
11.89
10.46
10.03
10.79
11.62
11.00
9.72
10.03
10.87
11.89
11.59
11.56
9.87
11.44
11.12
0.014
0.164
0.043
0.536
0.018
1.278
0.850
10.94
8.4
19.40
18.44
18.88
18.34
18.31
18.47
19.40
17.63
19.18
18.21
17.99
19.26
18.70
18.42
18.14
17.80
18.67
18.10
17.75
18.31
17.48
18.92
19.49
19.36
20.17
0.104
0.652
0.436
0.130
0.305
1.450
1.094
18.59
5.6
_____________ Values for protein concentration . %_________
1977________________ _
______________ 1973
Alfalfa
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
Average
cut
cut
Average
cut
cut
Average
15.26
14.93
15.14
14.65
14.46
14.13
15.51
14.09
15.17
14.58
14.94
14.86
14.37
14.60
14.88
14.40
14.19
14.06
14.31
15.10
14.54
15.24
14.68
15.40
15.65
0.079
0.196
0.079
0.531
0.697
1.039
0.562
14.77
5.1
12.72
14.35
13.77
14.69
14.39
13.90
12.80
13.74
13.37
12.82
13.86
13.64
12.98
13.01
13.52
14.05
13.32
14.40
13.40
13.73
13.86
13.98
12.89
13.99
13.40
0.209
0.343
0.419
0.016
0.614
1.278
0.850
13.62
6.8
15.88
16.14
16.80
16.70
16.84
16.33
16.21
16.73
16.52
16.67
16.73
16.87
16.54
15.78
16.73
16.41
16.23
16.68
16.12
15.96
16.90
16.24
16.78
16.65
16.98
0.717
0.155
0.177
0.166
0.098
0.702
0.256
16.50
3.1
14.30
15.25
15.29
15.70
15.62
15.11
14.51
15.24
14.95
14.75
15.30
15.26
14.76
14.40
15.12
15.23
14.78
15.54
14.76
14.85
15.38
15.11
14.83
15.32
15.19
0.260
0.787
0.171
0.006
0.215
0.755
0.297
15.06
3.6
12.83
12.30
13.26
13.32
14.63
13.78
13.72
12.96
13.83
15.29
13.85
13.58
13.21
13.56
13.38
13.40
13.99
12.98
13.91
13.91
13.82
12.38
12.96
13.26
13.25
0.834
0.077
0.835
0.460
0.984
2.128
3.335
13.49
11.4
15.40
15.61
13.00
14.51
15.43
14.91
14.93
15.01
15.33
14.38
14.94
15.01
15.01
15.46
14.84
14.16
14.24
14.09
14.85
13.84
15.43
15.13
15.40
14.92
1515
0.135
0.518
0.129
0.779
0.607
1.575
1.826
14.84
7.7
14.12
13.95
13.13
13.91
15.03
14.35
14.32
13.99
14.58
14.84
14.39
14.29
14.11
14.51
14.11
13.78
14.12
13.53
14.38
13.88
14.63
13.76
14.18
14.09
14.20
0.630
0.105
0.456
0.920
0.926
1.491
1.638
14.17
7.6
Alfalfa
2nd
1st
cut
cut
16.55
15.49
17.00
15.33
17.42
16.10
16.31
15.99
17.13
16.50
14.22
17.43
16.49
15.83
17.75
15.91
16.12
16.07
16.63
16.16
16.49
15.27
15.22
16.17
16.84
0.504
0.681
0.099
0.010
0.146
1.719
2.175
16.26
7.6
'p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
16.07
17.15
16.27
16.82
16.96
16.39
16.85
16.98
16.50
15.65
17.16
16.77
16.53
16.72
15.70
16.29
16.18
16.00
16.34
16.97
16.21
17.14
17.34
16.34
15.78
0.290
0,446
0.307
0.033
0.385
0.966
0.687
16.52
4.2
Average
16.31
16.32
16.64
16.08
17.19
16.24
16.58
16.49
16.82
16.08
15.69
17.10
16.51
16.28
16.73
16.10
16.15
16.04
16.48
16.56
16.35
16.20
16.28
16.26
16.31
0.438
0.417
0.175
0.111
0.364
0.961
0.680
16.39
4.2
Appendix Table 49.
Nitrogen uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statis­
tical parameters.
__________________Nitroaen Unrakp fky/M_______________
197 7
Sainfoin
Treat­
ment
________________ 197'
AI fa I f n
1st
cut
2nd
cut
fot;aI
1st
cut
61.06
60.55
58.29
52.82
53.25
50.14
57.81
51.78
51.80
57.36
62.03
52.77
51.22
60.38
62.35
59.10
50.48
53.57
62.98
70.77
74.33
59.67
54.69
56.94
57.24
0.000
0.134
0.117
0.461
0.012
9.593
47.91
57.73
12.0
59.93
60.81
65.37
63.16
57.15
61.79
68.18
59.09
67.18
60.85
63.28
70.48
65.64
70.43
64.37
63.55
75.42
68.92
75.51
74.00
73.72
63.48
69.54
63.69
71.59
0.077
0.479
0.604
0.633
0.593
13.20
90.74
66.17
14.4
121.0
121.4
123.7
116.0
110.4
111.9
126.0
110.9
119.0
118.2
125.3
123.2
116.9
130.8
126.7
122.6
125.9
122.5
138.4
144.8
148.1
123.2
124.2
117.6
128.8
0.000
0.218
0.230
0.868
0.940
16.18
136.3
123.9
9.4
74.21
86.40
81.62
83.50
89.42
37.80
79.56
86.39
36.13
80.46
89.73
86.88
81.66
83.36
86.50
90.13
84.41
92.56
86.47
92.99
88.06
82.53
77.20
89.34
84.71
0.151
0.209
0.880
0.113
0.207
11.10
64.16
85.28
9.4
Sainfoin
2nd
cut
84.13
87.77
93.63
87.18
97.49
90.68
85.65
94.57
100.5
96.57
103.6
98.89
91.16
98.68
97.35
92.43
95.00
100.0
91.66
92.81
101.9
94.03
90.08
90.59
95.85
0.933
0.000
0.673
0.202
0.039
8.120
34.32
94.09
6.2
Total
1st
cut
158.3
136.9
174.2
132.2
175.3
157.5
170.7
144.2
186.9
176.1
169.0
178.5
165.2
183.1
181.0
134.5
186.7
153.1
177.0
176.9
193.4
156.2
185.8
156.4
172.8
141.2
182.0
158.6
183.9
147.4
182.6
142.2
179.4
157.8
192.6
152.4
178.1
153.3
144.1
185.8
189.9
157.3
176.6
155.6
167.3
146.9
179.9
141.3
180.6
140.2
0. 352
0.995
0.000
0.074
0.909
0.386
0.006
0.371
0.033
0.955
14.47
40.96
109.0
873.6
179.4
152.6
5.8
19.4
2nd
cut
95.66
109.9
80.82
92.31
96.13
94.86
101.9
96.47
94.58
90.19
99.61
97.20
94.72
103.7
90.75
88.16
91.08
97.91
97.26
88.58
101.1
100.6
103.1
92.76
97.04
0.853
0.870
0.914
0.219
0.713
20.81
225.5
95.85
15.7
Alfalfa______
Total
232.6
242.1
238.3
236.5
272.2
263.9
285.0
231.0
247.7
267.1
255.9
253.6
235.9
262.2
238.2
230.4
248.8
250.3
250.5
232.7
258.5
256.1
249.8
234.0
237.2
0.985
0.102
0.521
0.706
0.804
48.16
1207.
248.4
14.0
1st
2nd
co:______cut_____ To- a I
232.1
216.2
213.5
188.9
220.7
239.2
222.2
109.6
112.8
117.6
116.5
120.4
113.8
115.8
124.6
117.1
119.3
115.6
189.1
219.1
204.7
217.3
211.3
122.2
223.6
105.9
204.0
124.9
110.1
209.5
229.7
122.8
251.6
114.7
192.0
109.3
245.3
115.2
209.3
121.5
184.6
108.1
188.0
109.0
216.0
129.7
216.0
114.9
216.9
112.8
0.840
0.980
0.908
0.630
0.299
0.771
0.836
0.975
0.552
0.423
53.20
21.07
1473.
231.2
214.4
116.2
17.9
13.1
*p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
341.7
328.9
331.1
305.4
341.1
353.0
338.0
313.7
336.2
324.0
332.9
333.5
329.5
328.9
319.6
352.4
366.3
-»01.3
360.5
330.8
292.7
297.0
345.7
330.9
329.6
0.802
0.786
0.551
0.930
0.523
55.61
1610.
330.6
12.1
100
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*p(N)
P(P)
P(K)
P(PK)
p (N (P&K))
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
CV
______________
Appendix Table 50.
Phosphorus concentration - treatment means and selected statistical
parameters.
X Phosphorus
1977
Treat meat
0.197
0.204
0.198
0.197
0.199
0.192
0.202
0.205
0.213
0.227
0.223
0.255
0.189
0.207
0.214
0.187
0.207
0.205
0.180
0.232
0.215
0.211
0.198
0.198
0.223
0.111
0.000
0.818
0.802
0.424
0.021
2.6E-4
0.206
7.8
Averaoe
Alfalfa___
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.304
0.292
0.289
0.307
0.303
0.307
0.300
0.299
3.320
0.330
0.319
0.334
0.296
0.329
0.328
0.304
0.327
0.322
0.292
0.324
0.317
0.323
0.307
0.305
0.351
0.621
0.251
0.248
0.243
0.252
0.251
0.250
0.251
0.252
0.266
0.279
0.271
0.279
0.243
0.268
0.271
0.245
0.267
0.263
0.236
0.278
0.266
0.267
0.252
0.252
0.287
0.297
0.176
0.188
0.186
0.196
0.186
0.188
0.186
0.197
0.205
0.209
0.210
0.209
0.180
0.211
0.212
0.176
0.194
0.195
0.185
0.211
0.218
0.209
0.188
0.187
0.206
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.4-52
0.669
0.825
0.023
2.7E-4
0.313
5.3
0.565
0.826
0.439
0.016
1.4E-4
0.260
4.5
0.065
0.774
0.702
0.015
1.1E-4
0.196
5.4
Ave rage
0.183
0.195
0.194
0.199
0.204
0.202
0.200
0.217
0.228
0.225
0.220
0.235
0.199
0.236
0.241
0.200
0.241
0.236
0.188
0.228
0.244
0.223
0.200
0.196
0.231
0.013
0.180
0.191
0.190
0.197
0.195
0.195
0.193
0.207
0.217
0.217
0.215
0.229
0.190
0.224
0.227
0.188
0.217
0.216
0.187
0.219
0.231
0.216
0. I<?4
0.191
0.219
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.608
0.447
0.015
1.2E-4
0.215
5.1
0.003
0.537
0.428
0.011
6.1E-5
0.205
3.8
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.288
0.288
0.301
0.273
0.280
0.292
0.288
0.292
0.300
0.312
0.315
0.304
0.289
0.305
0.314
0.293
0.289
0.304
0.288
0.315
0.302
0.299
0.284
0.300
0.321
0.750
0.005
0.330
0.740
0.569
0.027
3.TE-4
0.297
6.4
0.252
0.250
0.248
0.246
0.265
0.251
0.253
0.252
0.255
0.259
0.262
0.256
0.239
0.236
0.261
0.243
0.258
0.260
0.246
0.260
0.259
0.252
0.257
0.243
0.257
0.258
0.251
0.819
0.925
0.517
0.022
2.4E-4
0.253
6.1
Average
0.270
0.269
0.275
0.260
0.272
0.272
0.271
0.272
0.277
0.285
0.289
0.280
0.264
0.270
0.287
0.268
0.273
0.282
0.267
0.288
0.281
0.276
0.270
0.271
0.289
0.546
0.003
0.472
0.811
0.335
0.017
1.4E-4
0.275
4.3
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.197
0.212
0.231
0.208
0.219
0.218
0.220
0.223
0.274
0.251
0.267
0.266
0.216
0.260
0.257
0.204
0.247
0.255
0.216
0.253
0.255
0.236
0.226
0.221
0.241
0.488
0.000
0.257
0.104
0.307
0.022
2.5E-4
0.235
6.7
*p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
0.179
0.198
0.207
0.195
0.198
0.205
0.205
0.205
0.219
0.211
0.218
0.213
0.203
0.214
0.235
0.196
0.211
0.220
0.199
0.215
0.212
0.217
0.215
0.213
0.214
0.076
Average
0.188
0.205
0.219
0.202
0.209
0.211
0.213
0.214
0.246
0.231
0.242
0.240
0.210
0.237
0.246
0.200
0.229
0.238
0.208
0.234
0.234
0.226
0.220
0.217
0.228
0.218
0.000
0.000
0.201
0.374
0.179
0.018
1.7E-4
0.209
6.2
0.103
0.033
0.109
0.015
1.2E-4
0.222
5.0
101
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*p(N)
P(P)
P(K)
P(PK)
p(N(P&K)
LSD.05
EKS
G MEAN
CV
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Appendix Table 51.
Treatment
i
2
3
4
5
Phosphorus uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statis­
tical parameters.
_____________________________ Phosphorus Uptake (kg/ha)____________________________
____________ 1977_________________ ____________________________1978____________
Sainfoin
Al faIfa
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
Total
Tota I
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
cut
Total
cut
5.875
6.005
6.216
6.613
5.842
6.492
6.492
6.288
6.980
6.973
7.072
7.595
6.527
7.834
7.223
6.780
8.133
7.599
7.745
8.138
8.274
6.789
6.842
5.982
7.812
0.020
0.008
0.485
0.967
0.750
0.316
0.901
6.965
13.6
12.62
12.78
12.55
12.55
12.08
12.59
12.77
12.55
13.11
14.41
14.33
14.70
12.61
15.12
14.42
13.02
14.84
14.48
14.29
16.74
16.90
13.57
13.69
12.14
15.03
0.000
0.001
0.472
0.900
0.946
1.699
1.502
13.76
8.9
6.458
7.147
6.896
6.971
7.207
7.395
7.245
7.749
8.277
8.202
8.484
8.312
7.102
8.436
8.493
7.091
7.682
7.897
7.532
8.898
8.632
7.676
7.035
7.476
8.092
0.044
0.030
0.635
0.912
0.602
0.990
0.510
7.695
9.3
6.051
6.625
6.767
6.511
7.350
7.008
6.625
7.657
8.650
8.147
8.498
8.597
6.873
9.232
8.751
7.024
8.788
8.842
6.679
8.278
9.181
8.064
6.720
6.647
8.167
0.059
0.000
0.453
0.108
0.217
0.766
3.305
7.669
7.2
12.51
13.77
13.66
13.48
14.56
14.40
13.87
15.41
16.93
16.35
16.98
16.91
13.97
17.67
17.24
14.11
16.47
16.74
14.21
17.18
17.81
15.74
13.75
14.12
16.26
0.085
0.000
0.501
0.320
0.432
1.413
1.039
15.36
6.6
19.34
19.33
22.06
18.22
21.11
22.36
23.81
18.86
20.74
22.42
21.90
21.55
19.47
22.48
21.66
19.39
20.31
22.19
19.83
20.37
21.43
23.82
20.23
19.98
21.17
0.953
0.173
0.120
0.833
0.972
4.455
10.33
20.96
15.3
9.736
10.92
9.667
9.733
10.32
9.951
10.78
10.10
9.801
10.10
10.86
10.39
9.254
9.914
9.988
9.405
10.28
11.30
10.09
10.35
10.63
10.47
10.73
9.434
10.27
0.600
0.795
0.8'">7
0.739
3.924
1.886
1.852
10.18
13.4
29.08
30.25
31.73
27.95
31.43
32.31
34.59
28.96
30.54
32.52
32.76
31.94
28.73
32.39
31.64
28.80
30.59
33.49
29.92
30.72
32.06
34.29
30.96
29.41
31.44
0.990
0.124
0.074
0.887
0.894
4.685
11.43
31.14
10.9
17.19
7.635
18.39
8.178
18.06
9.313
16.34
8.457
17.42
8.835
20.14
8.923
18.65
8.845
16.51
9.360
21.94
9.706
19.49
10.09
25.75
9.161
20.17
9.821
18.35
8.098
20.84
10.04
19.33
10.38
18.46
9.251
23.72
9.352
19.11
9.378
19.99
8.780
20.57
9.615
18.02
8.784
18.13
8.577
19.95
10.05
18.49
9.376
19.58
9.509
0.647
0.593
0.002
0.013
0.171
0.766
0.422
0.602
0.374 0.323
4.794
1.687
11.97
1.482
19.38
9.181
17.8
13.3
p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
24.83
26.56
27.38
24.80
26.25
29.06
27.50
25.87
31.65
29.58
34.91
29.99
26.45
30.87
29.71
27.71
33.07
28.49
23.79
30.18
26.81
26.70
30.01
27.87
29.09
3.790
0.000
0.212
0.684
0.288
5.087
13.47
28.57
12.8
102
6.744
6.780
6.329
5.932
6.242
6.102
t
7
6.277
8
6.266
9
6.129
7.439
10
11
7.253
12
7.105
6.078
13
14
7.282
7.198
15
16
6.237
17
4.703
6.879
18
19
6.543
20
8.607
21
8.926
22
6.780
6.850
23
24
6.156
7.222
25
0.000
*P(N)
0.012
P(P)
P(K)
0.513
P(PK)
0.171
p (N(PiK)) 0.201
LSD.05
1.001
EMS
0.522
G MEAN
6.790
CV
10.6
Total
Appendix Table 52.
Potassium concentration - treatment means and selected statis­
tical parameters.
_____________________ ______ 70 Potassium________________________________________
________________1977___________________ ________________________________1975______________
Treat ment
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
2.454
2.111
1.937
1.959
2.146
1.863
2.407
2.205
2.152
2.171
2.202
2.510
2.183
2.227
2.199
2.388
2.401
2.286
2.407
2.223
2.251
2.283
2.158
2.395
2.370
0.638
0.545
0.565
0.166
0.934
0.522
0.142
2.235
16.8
2.119
1.998
1.771
1.781
1.961
1.735
2.103
1.996
1.960
1.850
1.809
2.180
1.946
1.923
1.976
2.090
2.100
2.083
2.093
2.084
2.070
1.954
1.993
2.108
2.035
0.420
0.893
0.324
0.036
0.638
0.322
0.054
1.989
11.7
2.497
2.598
2.564
2.624
2.276
2.561
2.579
2.762
2.557
2.643
2.628
2.654
2.516
2.647
2.620
2.572
2.576
2.669
2.520
2.587
2.665
2.624
2.546
2.561
2.609
0.917
0.119
0.001
0.244
0.611
0.110
6.3E-3
2.598
3.0
2.578
2.566
2.709
2.721
2.721
2.678
2.696
2.877
2.653
2.696
2.696
2.783
2.712
2.746
2.815
2.793
2.696
2.768
2.690
2.734
2.861
2.672
2.572
2.696
2.703
0.320
0.050
0.001
0.750
0.491
0.161
0.013
2.713
4.3
Average
2.538
2.582
2.637
2.673
2.648
2.619
2.638
2.820
2.605
2.670
2.662
2.718
2.614
2.696
2.718
2.682
2.636
2.718
2.605
2.660
2.763
2.648
2.559
2.629
2.656
0.433
0.013
0.000
0.331
0.284
0.101
5.3E-3
2.656
2.8
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
2.518
2.470
2.402
2.606
2.624
2.364
2.408
2.532
2.482
2.470
2.594
2.556
2.476
2.444
2.676
2.538
2.464
2.518
2.500
2.476
2.500
2.605
2.450
2.563
2.574
0.717
0.690
0.115
0.316
0.595
0.208
0.023
2.512
6.0
1.936
1.849
1.801
1.819
1.931
1.886
1.893
2.066
1.961
1.906
2.004
1.998
1.806
2.202
1.911
1.974
1.936
1.856
1.849
1.949
2.036
1.931
1.899
1.794
1.775
0.745
0.068
0.511
0.612
0.044
0.206
0.022
1.919
7.8
Avera ge
2.227
2.159
2.101
2.212
2.277
2.125
2.150
2.299
2.221
2.187
2.299
2.277
2.140
2.323
2.292
2.255
2.200
2.187
2.175
2.212
2.268
2.268
2.175
2.178
2.175
0.546
0.179
0.070
0.437
0.401
0.154
0.012
2.215
5.0
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
2.878
2.854
2.946
2.884
2.754
2.878
2.842
3.070
2.860
2.896
3.064
2.996
1.766
3.158
2.940
2.842
2.898
2.922
2.792
3.008
3.008
2.686
3.045
2.983
2.853
0.596
0.456
0.134
0.531
0.637
0.244
0.031
2.913
6.0
p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
2.568
2.618
2.656
2.640
2.624
2.674
2.712
2.706
2.538
2.448
2.648
2.668
2.686
2.576
2.432
2.562
2.650
2.656
2.680
2.736
2.612
2.580
2.723
2.667
2.649
0.184
0.065
0.088
0.733
0.105
0.174
0.016
2.628
4.8
Average
2.723
2.736
2.801
2.762
2.689
2.776
2.776
2.888
2.698
2.672
2.856
2.831
2.726
2.866
2.686
2.701
2.773
2.788
2.735
2.872
2.810
2.633
2.884
2.825
2.751
0.527
0.720
0.025
0.629
0.760
0.163
0.014
2.770
4.2
103
1.783
i
1.884
2
1.604
3
4
1.604
1.776
5
1.608
6
1.798
7
1.787
8
9
1.768
10
1.529
1.417
11
1.850
12
1.708
13
1.619
14
1.753
15
1.791
16
17
1.798
1.880
18
19
1.779
20
1.944
1.888
21
22
1.626
1.828
23
24
1.821
1.700
25
0.176
*P(N)
0.492
P(P)
0.346
P(K)
P(PK)
0.151
P(N(P&K)) 0.439
0.346
LSD.05
EMS
0.062
G MEANS
1.742
CV
14.3
Averatse
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Appendix Table 53.
Potassium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statis­
tical parameters.
________________Potassium Uptake (kg/ha)________________
1977___________________
Treat meat
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
cut
cut
47.77
43.74
42.60
42.12
40.80
38.96
52.67
44.73
47.60
43.57
49.21
56.14
47.79
52.43
47.90
52.95
59.13
53.50
64.90
56.41
59.11
47.53
48.30
47.11
53.32
0.134
0.407
0.587
0.679
0.794
16.69
145.1
49.60
24.3
108.9
106.2
93.78
91 23
96.34
90.13
108.7
100.1
98.82
94.12
95.23
114.7
102.4
110.1
107.0
113.2
117.3
116.6
129.4
128.7
134.8
100.2
111.7
103.4
109.0
0.001
0.935
0.846
0.131
0.800
21.82
248.0
107.3
14.7
91.50
97.94
95.09
93.46
100.1
100.8
100.4
108.4
102.8
103.8
106.1
105.7
99.24
105.9
105.0
103.4
102.1
107.4
101.8
109.1
105.6
96.63
95.29
102.0
103.0
0.532
0.001
0.569
0.778
0.497
10.59
58.38
101.7
7.5
84.40
87.22
94.49
89.06
98.53
92.95
89.36
101.6
100.8
97.38
104.6
101.8
93.51
107.3
102.2
98.29
98.55
103.8
95.36
99.26
107.8
96.78
86.27
91.62
95.15
0.405
0.000
0.237
0.055
0.032
8.506
37.67
96.76
6.3
________________ 1978
Tvtal
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
176.9
185.2
189.6
182.5
198.6
193.7
189.8
210.0
203.6
201.2
210.7
207.4
192.9
213.2
207.3
201.7
200.6
211.3
197.2
208.4
213.4
193.4
181.6
193.7
198.2
0.241
0.000
0.297
0.146
0.056
14.37
107.5
193.5
5.2
168.1
165.4
175.4
175.2
195.0
180.8
198.2
163.2
171.9
176.9
181.3
181.4
165.7
180.9
181.8
167.3
172.4
184.2
172.8
160.5
177.4
207.7
174.4
170.1
169.8
0.902
0.296
0.626
0.607
0.936
33.12
571.2
176.7
13.5
75.03
80.24
69.99
72.05
75.06
75.41
80.63
82.87
75.51
75.45
83.35
80.52
70.89
93.01
73.34
76.66
77.33
80.51
75.36
77.73
83.44
80.19
78.77
69.88
71.00
0.990
0.525
0.889
0.635
0.337
31.90
132.44
77.29
14.9
Total
243.2
245.6
245.4
247.2
270.1
255.2
278.8
246.0
247.4
251.3
264.7
262.0
232.6
273.9
255.1
243.9
249.7
264.7
248.2
238.3
260.9
287.9
253.2
240.0
240.7
0.899
0.186
0.661
0.782
0.644
37.07
715.2
254.0
10.5
AIfaIfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
250.5
245.6
229.7
227.6
218.9
266.1
240.7
225.9
226.3
225.3
296.2
228.1
235.4
254.6
221.9
256.9
281.5
219.2
254.6
242.5
213.3
205.6
269.4
249.7
230.4
0.419
0.875
0.260
0.129
0.801
53.33
1481.
240.6
16.0
p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
Total
109.0
359.5
107.8
353.3
119.2
348.9
114.2
341.8
116.1
335.1
115.9
382.0
357.2
116.5
124.1
350.0
112.4
338.7
342.1
116.7
111.5
407.6
121.7
349.8
107.6
343.1
374.4
119.8
106.5
328.5
120.7
377.6
117.3
398.9
113.2
332.4
117.7
372.4
122.3
364.8
108.0
321.4
102.3
303.0
396.7
127.3
116.9
366.5
118.0
348.3
0.709
0.402
0.472
0.822
0.496
0.369
0.889
0.317
0.377
0.863
35.72
57.45
166.0
1712.
115.3
356.0
11.2
11.6
104
61.11
62.43
51.17
U
49.10
55.54
5
6
51.43
7
55.98
8
55.37
9
51.22
10
50.55
46.02
11
12
58.55
54.63
13
14
57.69
59.08
15
16
60.28
58.21
17
18
63.08
19
64.46
72.30
20
21
75.67
22
52.64
63.43
23
24
56.31
55.73
25
0.001
*P(N)
0.427
PW
0.636
P(K)
0.228
P(PK)
p(N(P&K)) 0.365
13.30
LSD. 05
EMS
92.11
G MEAN
57.69
CV
16.6
i
2
3
Total
Alfal fa___
2nd
1st
cut
cut
Appendix Table 54.
Calcium concentration - treatment means and selected statistical par­
ameters .
% Calcium
1973
1977
Treat -
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
1.070
0.979
0.919
0.983
1.016
1.004
0.988
1.021
1.013
1.048
c.*>3
1.025
1.004
1.079
1.044
0.991
0.976
0.959
0.973
0.936
0.929
0.993
0.923
1.045
1.029
0.016
0.633
0.109
0.646
0.450
0.109
6.2E-3
0.996
7.9
I.,232
I.,202
I..117
I,,110
I..164
I..121
I..206
I.186
I.213
I..102
I,.028
I.222
I.161
I.,114
I.169
I.,133
I..179
I..108
I.114
I.156
I..127
I..087
I..118
I..229
I .162
0,.926
0..737
0.,267
0..187
0.206
0,.155
0.013
I..150
9..7
1.888
2.000
1.938
2.100
1.881
1.969
1.888
1.981
1.800
1.950
1.944
2.019
1.944
1.881
1.931
1.950
1.775
1.975
1.875
1.969
1.756
2.075
2.025
1.853
1.990
0.541
0.595
0.073
0.979
0.358
0.233
0.028
1.930
8.7
1.219
1.298
1.375
1.400
1.413
1.293
1.331
1.419
1.453
1.588
1.594
1.550
1.444
1.509
1.588
1.409
1.510
1.638
1.304
1.494
1.663
1.544
1.410
1.381
I.456
0.525
0.000
0.211
0.254
0.119
0.165
0.014
1.451
8.2
Averaoe
I..553
I..649
I.,656
I..750
I.647
I,.631
I,.609
I..700
I..626
I..769
I,.769
I..784
I,.694
I,.695
I.759
I,.679
I..643
I..756
I,.589
I..731
I..709
I..809
I..718
I.617
I..723
0..851
0..050
0..046
0,.718
0.,345
0..160
0..013
I..691
6.,8
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.969
0.956
0.944
0.938
1.006
0.988
0.975
0.944
0.994
0.994
0.969
0.938
0.975
0.988
1.000
1.019
0.969
0.925
1.031
0.944
0.931
0.975
0.944
0.975
1.000
0.820
0.579
0.417
0.999
0.676
0.108
6.1E-3
0.972
8.0
I..313
I,.350
I..256
I..281
1.400
I.356
I,.294
I..338
I.388
I..306
I.350
I,.413
I,.356
I,.538
I..385
I.531
I.319
I,.32$
I,.381
I..388
I.344
I..331
I..306
I..375
I..375
0.620
0..378
0..675
0,.893
0,.090
0,.186
0..018
I..360
9,.9
Averaoe
I..141
I..153
I..100
I..109
I,.203
I.,172
I..134
I..141
I,.191
I.150
I,.159
I.175
I.166
I.263
I,.193
I,.275
I,.144
I.125
I..206
I..166
I,.138
I..153
I..125
I..175
I..188
0..583
0..339
0,.592
0..985
0,.195
0..125
8..IE-3
I..166
7..7
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
I..306
I..413
I..438
I,.363
I..388
I..388
I..375
I.356
I.463
I,.469
I,.369
I..394
I.325
I.444
I.475
I.350
I.456
I.450
I.394
I.538
I,.513
I,.325
I.413
I..250
I..413
0..140
0..515
0.785
0..776
0.,995
0..180
0..017
I..403
9.,2
p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
I..625
I,.738
I.719
I,.775
I..794
I.713
I,.646
I.788
I.769
I.763
I.906
I.825
I.791
I.888
I.844
I.694
I.863
I..856
I,.694
I..869
I,.843
I..894
I..719
I..706
I..713
0..537
0..009
0.,327
0.,044
0..607
0.,134
9..3E-3
I..777
5.,4
Average
I.466
I.575
I.578
I.569
I.591
I.550
I.411
I.572
I.616
I.616
I.638
I.609
I.558
I.666
I.659
I.522
I.659
I.653
I.544
I..703
I,.678
I.609
I,.566
I..478
I..563
0..229
0..043
0..869
0.449
0..996
0..123
7,.8E-3
I,.590
5.6
105
I
1.394
2
1.425
1.315
3
1.238
4
1.313
5
6
1.238
7
1.425
1.350
8
1.413
9
10
1.156
1.094
11
12
1.419
1.319
13
1.150
14
1.294
15
16
1.275
17
1.381
18
1.256
19
1.256
20
1.375
21
1.325
22
1.181
1.313
23
24
1.413
1.296
25
0.886
*P (N)
0.587
P (P)
0.609
P (K)
0.172
P (PK)
P (N(PtiO) 0.282
0.294
LSD.05
EMS
0.045
G MEAN
1.304
CV
16.3
Averaoe
Al faIfa
2nd
1st
cut
cut
Appendix 55.
Calcium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statistical par­
ameters.
Calcium Uptake (ke/ha)
1973
1977
Treat-
47.86
47.27
41.92
37.77
41.10
39.61
44.50
41.41
40.98
38.30
35.51
44.85
41.99
40.86
43.45
42.66
44.70
41.93
45.66
51.22
53.15
38.07
45.40
43.42
42.24
0.039
0.365
0.845
0.233
0.294
10.41
56.45
43.03
17.5
20.47
19.86
19.47
21.14
19.57
20.86
21.32
20.91
21.93
21.67
21.02
23.19
21.92
25.35
23.03
21.86
24.29
22.50
25.65
23.42
24.04
20.44
20.21
20.78
22.43
0.216
0.316
0.815
0.976
0.549
4.590
10.97
21.89
15.1
Tjt.il
Alfal fa
2nd
1st
cut
cut
68.34
67.13
61.40
58.90
60.66
60.47
65.82
62.32
62.91
59.97
56.53
68.04
63.91
66.21
66.48
64.52
68.99
64.42
71.30
74.64
77.19
58.51
65.60
64.20
64.66
0.018
0.765
0.881
0.265
0.402
11.65
71.08
64.92
13.0
69.05
75.09
72.29
74.49
73.40
77.45
73.43
77.78
72.28
76.42
78.43
80.59
76.68
75.77
77.24
78.09
70.37
75.72
75.92
82.92
69.87
76.16
75.73
73.77
78.65
0.563
0.503
0.070
0.977
0.430
18.11
42.20
75.45
17.3
40.25
44.10
47.89
45.75
50.92
44.83
44.05
50.18
55.04
57.48
61.96
56.84
49.87
59.10
57.63
49.64
55.10
61.42
46.07
54.10
62.64
55.92
47.25
46.89
51.25
0.647
0.000
0.527
0.119
0.029
7.546
29.65
51.85
10.5
7vt.il
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Total
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Tota I
109.3
119.2
120.2
120.2
124.1
122.3
117.5
128.0
127.3
133.9
140.4
137.4
126.6
134.4
134.9
127.7
125.5
137.1
122.0
137.0
132.5
132.1
123.0
120.7
129.9
0.071
0.901
0.000
0.590
0.063
14.31
106.6
127.3
8.1
64.87
63.94
69.16
63.08
74.24
75.56
80.47
60.82
68.91
71.35
67.61
67.36
64.75
73.21
68.70
67.04
67.99
67.55
71.00
61.42
66.21
76.42
67.09
65.04
66.27
0.912
0.103
0.176
0.551
0.741
13.66
97.10
68.40
14.4
115.9
123.1
118.2
113.7
128.7
129.9
136.0
114.5
122.4
122.5
123.8
125.0
117.8
137.7
121.8
126.5
120.9
125.4
127.1
116.8
121.3
131.9
121.5
118.3
121.1
0.346
0.150
0.458
0.726
0.362
19.18
191.6
123.3
11.2
115.1
123.3
112.8
107.4
109.6
129.0
116.3
99.64
117.5
114.0
134.9
106.7
113.3
115.3
109.4
121.3
142.2
110.2
129.1
125.3
107.3
102.6
125.8
104.5
114.6
0.419
0.875
0.260
0.129
0.801
26.67
370.2
120.3
16.0
184.0
194.4
190.2
184.0
188.6
203.0
187.0
181.6
196.2
197.8
215.1
189.9
185.6
203.2
190.5
201.0
224.6
190.0
203.5
209.1
183.9
177.6
206.2
179.3
190.8
0.591
0.290
0.408
0.870
0.833
31.02
501.0
194.3
11.5
51.07
59.17
49.00
50.62
54.42
54.32
55.49
53.67
53.45
51.17
56.24
57.66
53.05
64.48
53.10
59.44
52.91
57.85
56.12
55.42
55.09
55.46
54.45
53.30
54.81
0.945
0.757
0.962
0.677
0.439
12.63
83.00
54.87
16.6
P Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
68.86
71.11
77.37
76.62
79.01
74.04
70.72
81.99
78.69
83.86
80.25
83.19
72.26
87.85
81.09
79.79
82.42
79.89
74.46
83.79
76.55
75.00
80.37
74.84
76.22
0.810
0.069
0.567
0.673
0.689
13.54
95.50
78.01
12.5
106
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*p(N)
p(P)
p (K)
p(PK)
p(N(P&K))
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
CV
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
cut
Appendix Table 56.
Treatment
CV
___________________________________ % Magnesium_________________________________
______________1977_________________
______________ 1978____________
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
Sainfoin
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
cut
Average
cut
cut
cut
cut
Average
cut
Average
cut
cut
0.249
0.263
0.263
0.244
0.271
0.237
0.289
0.269
0.252
0.218
0.200
0.258
0.263
0.230
0.243
0.261
0.264
0.326
0.257
0.269
0.252
0.232
0.254
0.280
0.237
0.094
0.136
0.783
0.473
0.422
0.068
2.4E-3
0.255
19.2
0.372
0.351
0.389
0.363
0.389
0.358
0.381
0.375
0.325
0.360
0.376
0.364
0.397
0.386
0.332
0.389
0.325
0.378
0.372
0.347
0.362
0.360
0.375
0.414
0.344
0.821
0.269
0.303
0.499
0.068
0.048
1.2E-3
0.367
9.3
0.310
0.307
0.326
0.304
0.330
0.297
0.335
0.322
0.289
0.289
0.288
0.311
0.339
0.308
0.287
0.325
0.295
0.352
0.314
0.308
0.307
0.296
0.315
0.347
0.290
0.393
0.048
0.504
0.693
0.214
0.043
9.5E-4
0.311
9.9
0.297
0.309
0.317
0.340
0.294
0.318
0.308
0.317
0. 300
0.292
0.283
0.301
0.292
0.308
0.305
0.315
0.288
0.291
0.311
0.303
0.277
0.305
0.331
0.297
0.320
0.983
0.110
0.288
0.747
0.554
0.041
8.7E-4
0.304
9.7
0.339
0.329
0.362
0.387
0.357
0.351
0.380
0.359
0.388
0.416
0.369
0.405
0.341
0.371
0.441
0.349
0.391
0.385
0.375
0.369
0.405
0.387
0.391
0.355
0.433
0.852
0.024
0.628
0.407
0.528
0.060
1.9E-3
0.377
11.5
0.318
0.319
0.339
0.363
0.325
0.335
0.344
0.338
0.344
0.354
0.326
0.353
0.316
0.339
0.363
0.332
0.339
0.338
0.343
0.336
0.341
0.346
0.361
0.326
0.376
0.923
0.629
0.346
0.505
0.722
0.043
9.5E-4
0.341
9.0
0.298
0.291
0.314
0.303
0.343
0.331
0.315
0.328
0.295
0.330
0.297
0.286
0. 326
0.340
0.308
0.333
0.290
0.315
0.349
0.312
0.311
0.312
0.304
0.327
0.300
0.022
0.007
0.757
0.223
0.270
0.038
7.5E-4
0.314
8.7
0.330
0.326
0.362
0.339
0.360
0.347
0.344
0.358
0.339
0.344
0.352
0.339
0.352
0.390
0.338
0.351
0.339
0.343
0.352
0.342
0.364
0.349
0.357
0.368
0.339
0.213
0.334
0.608
0.573
0.112
0.035
6.3E-4
0.349
7.2
0.314
0.308
0.338
0.321
0.352
0.339
0.329
0.343
0.317
0.337
0.324
0.313
0.339
0.365
0.323
0.342
0.314
0.329
0. 351
0.327
0.337
0.330
0.330
0.348
0.320
0.027
0.020
0.951
0.216
0.095
0.031
4.9E-4
0.332
6.7
0.349
0.353
0.355
0.365
0.318
0.367
0.374
0.352
0.366
0.357
0.301
0.360
0.351
0.352
0.373
0.328
0.342
0.319
0.372
0.357
0.354
0.332
0.348
0. 309
0.368
0.034
0.670
0.415
0.019
0.169
0.044
9 .SE-4
0.349
9.0
p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
0.406
0.421
0.397
0.414
0.389
0.425
0.401
0.409
0.422
0.403
0.443
0.413
0.382
0.443
0.394
0.384
0.423
0.394
0.414
0.451
0.389
0.417
0.417
0.393
0.429
0.325
0.388
0.845
0.356
0.832
0.044
I 0E-3
0.411
7.7
Average
0.377
0.387
0.376
0.390
0.353
0.396
0.388
0.381
0.394
0.380
0.372
0.387
0.366
0. 397
0.383
0.356
0.383
0.356
0.393
0.404
0.372
0.374
0.382
0.351
0.399
0.096
0.862
0.532
0.318
0.376
0.034
6.OE-4
0.380
6.4
107
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*P(N)
p(P>
P(K)
P(PK)
p(N(P&K))
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
Magnesium concentration - treatment means and selected statistical
parameters.
Appendix Table 57
Magnesium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statis
tical parameters.
________________ Magnesium Uptake (kg/ha)_______________
1977___________________
Treat­
ment
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
cue
cut
7.000
7.075
8.250
7.710
7.451
7.428
8.143
7.764
6.836
7.255
8.129
7.987
8.575
9.131
7.266
8.629
8.020
8.818
9.813
8.693
9.349
7.379
8.251
7.966
7.490
0.001
0.813
0.016
0.978
0.015
1.254
0.819
8.016
11.3
15.58
15.75
16.63
15.25
15.98
15.06
17.17
16.06
14.18
14.53
14.62
16.12
17.00
17.36
15.52
17.43
16.65
19.51
19.15
18.69
19.45
14.85
17.04
16.65
15.22
0.701
0.229
0.588
0.790
0.447
2.885
4.333
16.46
12.6
10.86
11.78
11.81
12.10
11.44
12.50
11.98
12.47
12.05
11.47
11.46
12.02
11.52
12.31
11.44
12.52
11.39
11.66
12.58
12.81
10.99
11.18
12.38
11.84
12.63
0.723
0.650
0.652
0.922
0.417
2.033
2.152
11.89
12.3
11.21
11.17
12.59
12.76
12.83
12.16
12.58
12.67
14.68
15.04
14.27
14.83
11.73
14.50
15.92
12.25
14.29
14.31
13.20
13.45
15.22
13.94
13.13
11.99
15.20
0.779
0.000
0.794
0.813
0.558
2.314
2.788
13.44
12.4
________________ I97S
Total
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Total
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Total
22.07
22.95
24.41
24.86
24.28
24.66
24.56
25.14
26.74
26.51
25.73
26.86
23.25
26.81
27.36
24.76
25.68
25.97
25.78
26.26
26.21
25.12
25.51
23.83
27.83
0.712
0.011
0.698
0.914
0.638
3-683
7.061
25.32
10.5
20.15
19.60
22.94
20.40
25.70
25.35
26.07
21.16
20.31
23.92
20.79
20.43
21.97
24.95
21.54
21.98
20.55
23.22
24.07
20.36
22.33
24.60
21.63
21.84
19.83
0.548
0.024
0.418
0.624
0.677
5.733
17.11
22.23
18.6
32.89
33.79
37.04
33.77
39.71
39.15
40.77
35.55
33.35
37.40
35.41
34.13
35.80
41.27
34.57
35.59
34.15
38.14
38.52
34.00
37.22
39.11
36.50
36.20
33.39
0.459
0.027
0.368
0.856
0.265
6.794
24.03
36.30
13.5
30.40
30.95
27.76
28.57
25.10
33.84
31.79
25.85
29.13
27.85
29.09
27.68
29.83
28.46
27.30
29.71
33.30
24.30
34.08
28.71
25.10
25.96
30.75
25.97
29.68
0.985
0.861
0.396
0.421
0.545
7.383
28.38
28.85
18.5
47.54
48.21
45.63
46.38
42.31
52.21
49.02
44.62
47 86
47.03
47.68
46.63
44.95
49.29
44.56
47.79
51.94
40.89
52.28
48.90
41.09
42.57
50.24
43.19
48.79
0.965
0.982
0.527
0.633
0.429
8.617
38.65
46.86
13.3
12.74
14.19
14.10
13.37
14.01
13.80
14.70
14.39
13.05
13.48
14.63
13.70
13.83
16.32
13.02
13.61
13.60
14.93
14.46
13.64
14.89
14.51
14.87
14.36
13.56
0.833
0.665
0.569
0.987
0.299
2.894
4.360
14.07
14.8
P Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
17.14
17.26
17.87
17.81
17.21
18.37
17.24
18.77
18.73
19.18
18.59
18.96
15.11
20.82
17.26
18.08
18.64
16.59
18.20
20.19
15.99
16.60
19.49
17.22
19.12
0.928
0.239
0.819
0.985
0.116
3.203
5.342
18.02
12.8
108
8.582
i
2
8.671
8.383
3
4
7.536
8.534
5
7.630
6
9.032
7
8.295
8
9
7.345
10
7.275
6.487
11
12
8.135
13
8.427
14
8.227
8.250
15
8.797
16
17
8.626
10.69
18
19
9.333
20
9.993
10.11
21
22
7.473
8.789
23
24
8.680
7.735
25
0.016
*P (N)
0.158
P(P)
0.979
P(K)
0.669
P(PK)
p (N(PtiO) 0.577
2.397
LSD.05
2.990
EMS
G MEAN
8.441
CV
20.5
Totnl
Al faIfa
2nd
1st
cut
cut
Appendix Table 58.
Sodium concentration - treatment means and selected statistical par­
ameters.
7. Sodium
_________________ 1977_____________________
TreatI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*P (N)
P(P)
P(K)
P(PK)
p(N(PSK))
LSD.05
EMS
G MEANS
CV
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.035
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.012
0.019
0.018
0.003
0.024
0.024
0.011
0.027
0.015
0.024
0.017
0.041
0.020
0.028
0.022
0.022
0.025
0.021
0.030
0.021
0.950
0.751
0.831
0.267
0.253
0.024
3.1E-4
0.021
83.8
Average
0.040
0.037
0.048
0.032
0.040
0.029
0.024
0.037
0.022
0.026
0.029
0.020
0.034
0.027
0.042
0.030
0.030
0.016
0.050
0.076
0.027
0.026
0.023
0.035
0.041
0.034
0.041
0.028
0.029
0.035
0.041
0.029
0.039
0.040
0.054
0.037
0.040
0.034
0.022
0.023
0.029
0.025
0.053
0.039
0.039
0.030
0.038
0.045
0.030
0.040
0.243
0.505
0.444
0.249
0.538
0.380
0.317
0.395
0.793
0.590
0.019
0.025
1.9E-4
3.2E-4
0.039
0.030
45.7
45.7
_________________ 1978_______________
Al faIfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Average
0.037
0.037
0.045
0.045
0.040
0.032
0.042
0.037
0.043
0.042
0.051
0.042
0.034
0.036
0.046
0.034
0.062
0.035
0.042
0.035
0.038
0.063
0.040
0.034
0.046
0.847
0.580
0.694
0.994
0.417
0.026
3.6E-4
0.042
45.4
0.042
0.059
0.036
0.051
0.057
0.035
0.048
0.050
0.048
0.061
0.081
0.042
0.047
0.075
0.041
0.044
0.034
0.026
0.051
0.054
0.027
0.050
0.053
0.047
0.069
0.047
0.037
0.056
0.062
0.054
0.061
0.036
0.053
0.064
0.056
0.034
0.047
0.071
0.051
0.044
0.071
0.048
0.065
0.058
0.041
0.053
0.032
0.063
0.068
0.069
0.040
0.057
0.042
0.055
0.059
0.048
0.044
0.051
0.066
0.045
0.053
0.055
0.052
0.066
0.057
0.032
0.056
0.093
0.048
0.044
0.059
0.043
0.060
0.074
0.040
0.589
0.819
0.173
0.427
0.525
0.557
0.232
0.248
0.925
0.910
0.258
0.110
0.383
0.998
0.888
0.021
0.031
0.022
2.3E-4 4.9E-4
2.5E-4
0.053
0.062
0.041
28.7
38.9
35.3
0.046
0.066
0.051
0.077
0.054
0.056
0.061
0.063
0.051
0.070
0.055
0.086
0.061
0.052
0.083
0.072
0.074
0.075
0.054
0.066
0.068
0.069
0.072
0.054
0.074
0.630
0.691
0.651
0.869
0.623
0.033
5.SE-4
0.064
36.5
Sainfoin
1st
2nd
cut
cut
Average
Alfalfa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
0.047
0.067
0.046
0.065
0.049
0.075
0.061
0.083
0.058
0.073
0.030
0.073
0.040
0.083
0.050
0.083
0.053
0.071
0.058
0.079
0.048
0.078
0.045
0.093
0.061
0.078
0.060
0.066
0.050
0.082
0.047
0.082
0.055
0.076
0.049
0.072
0.051
0.094
0.055
0.070
0.054
0.099
0.044
0.079
0.070
0.081
0.074
0.051
0.057
0.084
0.436
0.459
0.380
0.562
0.441
0.215
0.180
0.986
0.976
0.431
0.021
0.028
2.3E-4 4.1E-4
0.052
0.078
29.4
25 9
p Refers to the probability or level of significance o f the factor which follows in parenthesis.
Average
0.045
0.056
0.045
0.055
0.057
0.066
0.043
0.063
0.048
0.061
0.052
0.062
0.046
0.065
0.049
0.066
0.050
0.061
0.052
0.065
0.055
0.066
0.065
0.079
0.048
0.063
0.052
0.059
0.045
0.063
0.045
0.063
0.051
0.064
0.048
0.060
0.052
0.073
0.037
0.053
0.045
0.072
0.040
0.059
0.051
0.066
0.047
0.061
0.056
0.070
0.428
0.724
0.249
0.274
0.274
0.836
0.704
0.920
0.375
0.220
0.021
0.019
2.2E-4
I.9E-4
0.049
0.064
21.9
30.5
Appendix Table 59.
Sodium uptake in kg/ha - treatment means and selected statistical
parameters.
_______________________________________________________ S c v i i i i m M p t a k p
________________1_977___________________
Treat­
ment
1.228
0.535
0.549
0.407
0.566
0.436
0.609
0.549
0.079
0.842
0.772
0.341
0.803
0.541
0.805
0.597
1.345
0.656
0.993
0.814
0.851
0.781
0.769
0.891
0.668
0.886
0.686
0.807
0.215
0.271
0.813
0.344
0.697
84.2
Total
0.745
1.973
0.946
1.481
0.746
1.295
0.814
1.221
0.476
1.041
0.587
1.023
0.716
1.325
1.394
0.845
0.675 0.753
1.532
2.373
0.585
1.357
0.753
1.094
0.899
1.701
0.930
1.471
0.743
1.548
1.471
0.874
0.918 2.263
1.217
1.872
1.052 2.045
0.560
1.374
1.597
0.746
0.014
1.795
0.866
1.635
0.880
1.771
0.889
1.558
0.288 0.657
0.255
0.563
0.601
0.861
0.137
0.125
0.597 0.508
1.093
0.553
0.159 0.622
0.840
1.537
51.3
47.5
Al faIfa___
2nd
1st
cut
cut
1.345
1.414
1.714
1.664
1.581
1.244
1.625
1.395
1.686
1.676
2.031
1.634
1.333
1.433
1.816
1.319
2.499
1.360
1.710
1.489
1.509
2.353
1.506
1.319
1.808
0.909
0.512
0.711
0.992
0.379
1.031
0.554
1.618
46.0
1.540
2.234
1.778
2.553
1.948
1.948
2.024
2.205
1.911
2.557
2.087
3.143
2.087
2.205
3.052
2.530
2.648
2.768
1.939
2.402
2.533
2.532
2.432
1.845
2.671
0.681
0.330
0.989
0.916
0.707
0.194
0.742
2.296
37.5
________
________________ 1_978______________
Total
2.885
3.648
3.491
4.217
3.528
3.192
3.649
3.600
3.597
4.233
4.117
4.777
3.420
3.457
4.868
3.849
5.147
4.129
3.649
3.890
4.041
4.885
3.938
3.164
4.479
0.662
0.169
0.324
0.926
0.372
1.565
1.275
3.914
28.9
Sain i- •;n
1st
2nd
cut
cut
3.948
3.860
3.645
5.247
5.541
2.622
4.336
3.474
4.728
4.134
4.271
3.777
4.654
4.997
3.869
4.059
4.827
4.119
4.126
4.480
3.762
4.555
6.632
3.945
4.894
0.877
0.913
0.362
0.353
0.998
2.265
2.671
4.357
37.5
1.380
1.468
1.926
6.583
1.593
1.083
1.155
1.909
1.450
2.110
1.509
1.332
1.995
1.944
1.579
1.239
1.613
1.923
1.756
1.760
2.067
1.303
2.030
1.606
1.574
0.271
0.730
0.966
0.187
0.737
0.902
0.424
1.636
39.8
Total
5.328
5.328
5.571
6.830
7.135
3.705
5.491
5.382
6.178
6.243
5.780
5.109
6.649
6.941
5.448
5.298
6.441
6.042
5.882
6.240
5.829
6.140
8.772
5.668
6.381
0.701
0.823
0.566
0.357
0.978
2.685
2.753
5.992
32.3
Alfal fa
1st
2nd
cut
cut
5.879
5.625
5.930
6.782
5.769
6.801
7.070
6.208
5.601
6.044
7.504
6.438
6.474
5.197
6.009
7.445
7.410
5.404
8.750
5.516
6.919
6.061
7.182
6.169
6.737
0.517
0.819
0.576
0.923
0.212
2.708
3.819
6.443
30.3
*p Refers to the probability or level of significance of the factor which follows in parenthesis.
1.931
1.838
2.627
1.803
2.115
2.236
1.941
2.280
2.185
2.431
2.279
2.848
1.897
2.500
1.925
2.084
2.161
2.030
2.313
1.649
1.775
1.573
2.365
2.029
2.523
0.485
0.259
0.831
0.467
0.286
0.954
9.474
2.134
32.3
Total
7.810
7.462
8.557
8.585
7.884
9.037
9.012
8.488
7.786
8.476
9.783
9.286
8.371
7.697
7.934
9.529
9.571
7.434
11.063
7.165
8.694
7.631
9.669
3.195
9.287
0.646
0.627
0.494
0.979
0.151
2.998
4.679
8.576
25.2
no
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*P(N)
P(P)
P(K)
P(PK)
P(N (PtiO)
LSD.05
EMS
G MEAN
CV
Sainfoin
2nd
1st
cut
cut
fltg /h a^
LITERATURE CITED
112
p
1.
Adams; C. H., and R„ W. Sheard. 1966. Alterations in the nitro­
gen metabolism of Medicago sativa and Dactylis glomerata as
influenced by potassium and sulfur nutrition. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 46:671-630.
2.
Auld, D. L. 1976. Proof of pathogenicity of Fusafium solan! and
resistance. Pb. D. Thesis, Montana State University. 89 pp.
3.
Babian, G. B., and S. A. Karagulian. 1959. Some features of ni­
trogen and phosphorus nutrition of esparcet. Akad. Nauk. Armianskoi S. S. R. Dok. 29(4):181-185. Trans. Berkoff, Carleton,
Cooper. Cited in "A Compilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Lit­
erature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C . S . Cooper.
4.
Baker, C . J. L., M. Heinberg, G. Alderman, and A. Eden. 1952.
Studies of the composition of sainfoin. J. Agr. Sci. 42:382394.
5.
Blair, A. W., and A. L. Prince. 1939. Studies on the nitrogen,
phosphorus, and mineral requirements of alfalfa. Soil Sci.
47:459-466.
f- 6.
Blaser, R. E. 1962. Yield and .uptake (of P2O5 and KgO) in alfal­
fa fertilization. Better Crops. 46:14-22.
7.
Bremner, J. M. 1965a, Inorganic forms of nitrogen. In Methods
of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Edited by C. A. Black and R. C.
Dinauer. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wiscon­
sin. pp. 1216-1217.
8. Bremner, J. M. 1965b. Total nitrogen. In Methods of Soil Anal"
ysis, Part 2. Edited by C. A. Black and R. C . Dinauer. Amer­
ican Society of Agronomy, Inc.,' Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 11711175.
9.
10.
Brown, B. A. 1928. Effect of fertilizers on maintaining stands
of alfalfa. Agron. J . 20:109-117.
Burton, Joe C., and R. L, Curley.
1968. Modulation and nitrogen
fixation in sainfoin (Qnobrychis sativa Lam.) as influenced by
strains of Rhizobia. In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C.
S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627.
PP. 3-5.
113
11.
Biitseroga, M. M. 1952. On physiological peculiarities of sain­
foin nutrition. Akad. Nauk, S . S. R. Dok. 83:303-306. Trans
Berkoff, Carleton, Cooper. Cited in. "A Compilation of Ab­
stracts of Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C „
.S. Cooper.
12.
Caldwell, A. C., Edwin C. Seim, and George Rehm, 1966.
fur and alfalfa. Crops and Soils. 19:16-17.
13.
_a n d _________________________________________ . 1969. Sulfur
effects on the elemental composition of alfalfa (Medicago
sativa L.) and corn (Zea mays L.). Agron. J. 61:632-634.
14.
Carleton, A. E. 1968. The sainfoin breeding program in Montana.
In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S . Cooper and A. E.
Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 79-84.
15.
______________ , C. S . Cooper, and R. H. Delaney. 1968. Growth
and forage quality comparisons of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciaefolia Scop.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Agron. J. 60:
630-632.
16.
______________ , _____________, C. W. Roath, and J. L. Krall. 1968
Evaluation of sainfoin for irrigated hay in Montana. In "Sain
foin Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton.
Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul, 627. pp. 44-48.
17.
Cary, E. E., G. M. Horner, and S. J. Mech. 1967. Relationship of
tillage and fertilization to the yield of alfalfa on Freeman
silt loam. Agron. J. 59:165-168.
18.
Cooper, C. S. 1972. Establishment, hay yield, and persistence to
two sainfoin growth types seeded alone and with low-growing
grasses and legumes. Agron. J . 64:379-381.
19.
______ ,
_____ . 1973. Sainfoin-birdsfoot trefoil mixtures for pas­
ture, hay-pasture, and hay-stockpile management regimes.
Agron. J . 65:752-754. .
20.
Low sul­
_________ , A. E. Carleton, R. F. Eslick, and R. H. Delaney.
1968. Evaluation of sainfoin for winterhardiness. In "Sain­
foin Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton.
Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 90-92.
114
21.
Davidovskii, G. M. 1958. Produkitrnost" espartseta i ego smesei
so ziakpvymi komppnentami i ikh vliyanie na plodor odie pochvy. Vest, sel' skokhoz. Nauk. 7:142-145. Referat. Zhur.,
Biol., 1959, No. 53271. Cited in "A Compilation of Abstracts
of Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C. S.
Cooper.
22.
Davis, A. M. 1968. Variation in the protein content of a collec­
tion of sainfoin from U.S.S.R. In "Sainfoin Symposium." Ed­
ited by C. S. Cooper and A. E . Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 627. pp. 102-103.
23.
Dijkshoorn, W., and J. E. M. Lampe. 1960. A Method of diagnosing
the sulphur nutrition status of herbage. Plant and Soil. 13:
227-241.
24. ''______________ , and A. L. Van Wijk. 1967. The sulphur require­
ments of plants as evidenced by the sulphur-nitrogen ratio in
the organic matter. A review of published data. Plant and
Soils. 26:129-155.
25.
Ditterline, R. L. 1973. Yield and yield components of sainfoin
(Onobrychis viciaefolia Scop.) seeds and an evaluation of its
use as a protein supplement. Ph. D . Thesis. Montana State
University. 84 pp.
2 6 . ________________ , and C . S. Cooper. 1975. Fifteen years with
sainfoin. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 681. 17 pp.
27.
Dubbs, A. L. 1968. Sainfoin as a. honey crop. In "Sainfoin Sym­
posium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627. pp. 108-109.
28.
Eslick, R. F., and L. E. Weisner. 1967. Sainfoin seed quality
and seeding rates. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. "NOW". 2(3):
10- 11 .
29.
Gaudet, Denis A. 1978. The role of bacteria in the root and
crown rot complex of irrigated sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia
Scop.) in Montana. M. S. Thesis. Montana State University.
H O pp,
30.
Gervais, P., J. L. Dionne, and W. S. Richardson. 1962. Produc­
tivity and chemical composition of alfalfa as influenced by
varying levels of phosphorus and potassium applications. Can.
J. Plant Sci. 42:1-10.
115
fT 31.
Gerwig, John L., and Gilbert H. Ahlgren. 1958. The effect of
different fertility levels on yield, persistence, and chem­
ical composition of alfalfa. Agron. J. 50:291-294.
32.
Greenwood, A. E. N. 1958. The interaction of copper and phos­
phorus in legume nutrition. Nutrition of the Legumes. Ac­
ademic Press, Inc. New York. p. 69.
33.
Gross, Douglas H., E. R. Purvis, and Gilbert H. Ahlgren. 1953.
The response of alfalfa varieties to different soil fertility
levels. Agron. J. 45:118-120.
34.
Haaland, R. L. 1970. The mode of reproduction in sainfoin.
M. S . Thesis. Montana State University. 54 pp.
35.
Halstead, R. L., A..J, MacLean, and L. E . Lutwick. 1956. Avail- ,
ability of phosphorus in soils pretreated with superphosphate.
Can. J. Agr. Sci. 36:471-482.
36.
Halsworth, E. G. 1958. Nutritional factors affecting nodulation.
Nutrition of the Legumes. Academic Press, Inc.. New York, pp
190-191.
37.
Hanna, M. R., D. A. Cooke, S. Smoliak, and B. P . Goplen. 1972.
Sainfoin for western Canada. Canada Dept. Agr. Pub. 1470.
18 pp.
38.
____________ , G. C . Kozub, and S. Smoliak. 1977. Forage produc­
tion of sainfoin and alfalfa on dryland in mixed and alternate
row seedings with three grasses. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:61-70
39.
Easier, A., R. Zuber, and H. Pulver. 1961. Boron absorption and
the calcium/boron ratio in various fodder legumes. Schweiz.
Iandiv. MH. 39, No. I, 2-15. Herb. Abs. 1962, Vol. 32, No.
3.
40.
Hewitt, E. J. 1958. Some aspects of the mineral nutrition in
legumes. Nutrition of the Legumes. Academic Press, Inc. New
York. pp. 16-32.
41.
Holden, J. L. 1963. Agronomic potential of sainfoin (Onobrychis
yiciaefolia) for Montana. M, S. Thesis. Montana State Uni­
versity. 52 pp.
116
42.
Jackson, J. L. 1958. Analysis of phosphorus in plants. In Soil
' Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc. pp. 141-153.
43.
Jensen, E. H., C . R. Torell, A. L. Lesperance, and C. F. Speth.
1968. Evaluation of sainfoin and alfalfa with beef cattle.
In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E.
Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627. pp. 97-99.
44.
Karpov, M. P. 1957. In regard to the biology of the esparcet
root system. Agrobilogiia 6:126^128. Trans. Berkoff,
Carleton, Cooper. Cited in."A Compilation of Abstracts of
Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
45.
Kimbrough, E. L., R. E. Blaser, and D. D. Wolf. 1971. Potassium
effects on regrowth of alfalfa. Agron. J. 63:836-839.
46.
Koch, D. W., A. D . Dotzehko, and G, 0. Hinge, 1972. Influence of
three cutting systems on the.yield, water use efficiency and
forage quality of sainfoin. Agron. J . 64:463-467.
47.
Koehler, F. E., A. W. Moore, R. R. Allmeras, and R. A. Olson.
1957. Influence of past soil treatment on yield, composition,
and fertilizer phosphorus utilization by alfalfa. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. Proc. 21:201-205.
48.
Koter, Z. 1965. Nitrogen nutrition of leguminous plants. I.
The effect of different forms of nitrogen on the growth and
symbiotic Ng fixation by sainfoin (0. Viciaefolia var. persica). Pam. Pulawski. 1965. No. 20, 3-37. 39-52.
(Bibl.
47114; PI. e. ur.; Pracownia Fizjol. Zywienia Rosl., IUNG,
Pulawy, Poland). In Bio. Abs. 1958. 32(11):#404.
49.
Krall, J. L. 1968. Preliminary report on grazing irrigated sain­
foin with yearling steers. In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited
by C . .S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.
627. pp. 104-107.
50.
____________ , C. S. Cooper, C. W. Crowell, and A. J. Jarvi. 1971.
Evaluations' of sainfoin for irrigated pasture. Mont. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bui. 658.
<4- Si.
Kresge, C. B., and S. E. Younts. 1962. Effect of various rates
and frequencies of potassium application on yield and chemical
composition of alfalfa and alfalfa-orchardgrass, Agron. J . 54
313-316.
117
Larson, W. E., L. B. Nelson, and A. S. Hunter. 1952. The effects
of phosphate fertilization upon the yield and composition of
bats and alfalfa grown on phosphate-deficient Iowa soil.
Agron. J. 44:357-361.
53.
Lawton, K., and Milo B. Jesar, 1958. Yield, potassium content
and root distribution of alfalfa and bromegrass grown under
three levels of applied potash in the greenhouse. Agron. J.
50:148-151.
54,
Lynch, D. L., and 0. H. Sears, 1950. Differential response of
strains of Lotus nodule bacteria to soil treatment practices.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 15:176-180.
55.
Manil, P. 1958. The legume-rhizobia symbiosis.
the Legumes. Academic Press, Inc. New York,
5 6 '
Nutrition of
pp, 147-154.
Martel, Y. A., and J. Zizka. 1969. Yield and quality of alfalfa
as influenced by additions of S to P and K fertilizations un­
der greenhouse conditions. Agron. J. 69:531-535.
57.
Massaudilov, E. S . 1958. Developmental peculiarities of the root
system of sainfoin in the South-East of Central chernozem area. Agrobiologia. 2:81-87.
Ul
OO
ft
52.
Meyer, D. W. 1975. Yield, regrowth, and persistence of sainfoin
under fertilization. Agron. J. 67(3):439-441.
59.
Mishustin, E. N., and I. M. Karashchnk. 1955. Epiphitnaya micro­
flora semyan espartseta i povyshenie ego urozhainosti. Izv.
Akad. Nauk. SSSR.: Ser. Biol. 1955.
(2) :8018. Referat. Zhur.,
Biol., 1957, No. 18060. Biol. Abs. 1958. Vol. 32. No. 11.
Cited in "A Compilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature."
1968. A. E. Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
60.
Murray, G. A., and A. E. Slinkard. 1968. Forage and seed produc­
tion potential of sainfoin in northern Idaho. In "Sainfoin
Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul, 627. pp, 74-76.
61.
61 .
Newman, C. W. 1968. Sainfoin and alfalfa hay in swine diets.
"Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S . Cooper and A. E.
Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627. pp. 100-101.
In
118
£ r
62.
Panosian, A. K., and A. M. Kirakosian. 1955. The effect of sain­
foin on the accumulation and deposition of nitrogenous sub­
stances in the soil. Akad. Nauk. Armianskoi S . S. R. Mikrobiol. Sboru. 8:141-153. Cited in "A Compilation of Abstracts
of Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C, S . Coop­
er.
63.
Piper, C. V. 1920. Forage plants and Their Culture. MacMillan
Co. New York. p. 560.
64.
Pumphrey, F. V., and D . P . Moore. 1965. Sulfur and nitrogen con­
tent of alfalfa herbage during growth, Agron. J . 57:237-239.
65.
Radomirov, P ., Ya Yakimova, and D . Dzhumalieva. 1964. Investiga­
tions of a molybdenum trace-element fertilizer for leading
meadow cinnamon soil. Rast. Nauki. I (4):39-53.
(Bulg. r. e.)
(Vyssh. s.-kh. Inst. "Dimitrov," Sofiya and Inst. Pochooznen.
Agrotekh. "Pushkarov," Sofiya) (Nd. Abs. 1964. Vol. 2). Cited
in PA Compilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature." 1968.
A. E. Carleton and. C . S . Cooper .
66.
_____________ , ___________, and __ _____________ . 1965. The prob­
lem of grass mixture manuring under the conditions of the Sofia
area.
(Bulg.) Rast. Nauki:2(1):95-108.
(Higher Agric.
Inst., Sofia). Herb. Abs. 1966. Vol. 36. Cited in "A Com­
pilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E .
Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
67.
Roath, C. W. 1968. Sainfoin for dryland hay in western Montana.
In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C . S. Cooper and A. E.
Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 26-28.
68.
Roberts, J. L., and- F. R. Olson. 1942.. The relative efficiency
of strains of Rhizobium trifolii as influenced by soil fertil­
ity. Sci. 95:413-414.
69.
Rominger, R. S., Dale Smith, and L. A. Peterson.
1975. Yields
and elemental composition of alfalfa plant parts at late bud
under two fertility levels. Can. J . Plant Sci. 55:69-75.
70.
________________, __________ , and ______________ . 1976 ■Yield and
chemical composition of alfalfa as influenced by high rates of
K top dressed as KCl and K^SO^. Agron. J . 68:573-577.
119
71.
Rorison5 I. H. 1960. The growth of sainfoin seedlings. Rep.
Nottingham Univ. Sch. Agric. 1961, 44-46. Cited in "A Com­
pilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature." 1963. A. E.Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
72. .Ross5 W. D., and R. H. Delaney. 1977. Massive accumulation of
calcium carbonate and its relation to nitrogen fixation of
sainfoin. Agron. J. 69(2):242-246.
73.
Rovshanov5 B. 1964. The significance of lucerne for increasing
soil fertility of new lands in northern Tarkmenia. Izu. Akad.
Nauk. turkmeri". SSR (Ser. Biol. Nauk.). Nd. 2, 5307. Cited
in "A Compilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature," 1968.
A. E. Carleton and C . S. Cooper.
74.
Russell, E. W. 1973. ' Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. Tenth
edition. Longman. London and New York. pp. 355-361.
75.
Sariceva5 Z. A. 1962. Seed productivity of certain, steppe plant
species in the Mihailovskaja virgin-land reservation, Lebedin
district, Suny Province. Ukr. bot. Z., Kiev. 19, No. 6, 8291. Cited in "A Compilation of Abstracts of Sainfoin Liter­
ature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
76.
Sears5 R. B. 1974. The crown-foot complex in sainfoin (Onobrychis viciaefolia Scop.). M. S. Thesis. Montana State Univer­
sity. 67 pp.
77.
Seay5 William A., and M. E. Weeks. 1955. The effect of time of
top-dressing on uptake of phosphorus and potassium by an es­
tablished stand of alfalfa. Soil Soc. Am. Proc. 19:458-461.
78.
Shaw5 Arthur F. ■ 1968. The certification program for sainfoin.in •
Montana. In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and
A. E. Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 77-78.
79.
Sims5 J. R., M. K. Muir5 and A. E. Carleton. 1968. Evidence of
ineffective Rhizobia and its relation to the nitrogen nutri­
tion of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciaefolia) . In "Sainfoin Sym­
posium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A, E. Carleton. Mont.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 8-12.
)
120
80.
Singh, R. N., and L. F, Seatz. 1961. Alfalfa yield and composi­
tion after different times and rates of lime and phosphorus
application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25:307-309.
81. . Smoliak, S., and M. R. Hanna. 1975. Productivity of alfalfa,
sainfoin, and cicer milkvetch on subirrigated land when grazed
by sheep. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:415-420.
82.
■
______ , A. Johnston, and M. R. Hanna. 1972. Germination and
seedling growth of alfalfa, sainfoin, and cicer milkvetch.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:757-762.
83.
Stergeeva, A. G. 1957. Sainfoin - best enricher of soil with
nitrogen. Selsk. Khoz. Povolzh'is 2(7):43-45, Cited in
"A Compilation of Abstracts'of Sainfoin Literature." 1968.
A. E . Carleton and C. S. Cooper.
84.
Stewart, V. R. 1968. ' Chemical weed control in sainfoin. In
"Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S . Cooper and A. E .
Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627, pp. 55-62.
85.
Stivers, Russell K., and A. J. Ohlrogge. 1952. Influence of
phosphorus and potassium fertilization of two soil types on
alfalfa yield, stand, and content of these elements. Agron.
J. 44:618-621.
86.
Ukrainskii, V. T. 1953. The chemical composition of the root
mass of herbage plants and root disintegration after plough­
ing the sward. Doklady Vsesojuz. Akad. S-H (Procv Lenin Acad.
Agric. Sci.). 18(9):16-21.
(Azov/Black Sea Agr. Inst.).
Herb. Abs. 1954. Vol. 24, No. 2. Cited in "A Compilation of
Abstracts of Sainfoin Literature." 1968. A. E. Carleton and
C . S . Cooper.
87.
Usman, S. M,, Nurten Gunduz, and H. W. Hough. 1968. Sainfoin
germination and early seedling response to salinity induced
osmotic tension. In "Sainfoin Symposium." Edited by C. S.
Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627.
pp, 16-21.
88.
Van Schreven, D . A. 1972. Note on the specificity of the rhizobia of crownvetch and sainfoin. Plant and Soil, 36:825-330.
121
89.
Varga, Paul. Aims of sainfoin breeding in Romania. In "Sainfoin
Symposium." Edited by C. S. Cooper and A. E. Carleton. Mont..
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 627. pp. 87-89.
90.
West. P. A., and G. L. Lyles. 1960. A new method for the deter­
mination of nitrates. Analytica Chemica Acta. pp. 227-232.
try
,^,.ltbrariES
m
u
3 1762 10013754
Foos, Allan Roy
Yield and elemental
corn-position of sainfoin
and alfalfa as affected by
fertilizer variables.
N371
773%
cnp.2
ISSUED TO
DATE
m n ie
J:S
'
o
■m
i
i
t
fik 2I
-X-
f e e sc Pp *
J Z s m / I)'