Drill application of ammonium phosphate fertilizers with the seed of irrigated barley on calcareous
soils
by J D Franklin
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Soil Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by J D Franklin (1978)
Abstract:
Four field experiments in 1974 and seven in 1975 were conducted on calcareous soils to determine the
effect of banding monoammonium phosphate (MAP, 11-55-0), diammonium phosphate (DAP,
18-46-0), and urea ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP, 28-28-0) with the seed of irrigated barley at N
rates from 11 to 44 kg/ha. In 1975, a mixture of urea and DAP (U+DAP) in 1:1 ratio N:P2O5 was
banded with seed at rates of 11 to 44 kg/ha of N and a mixture of ammonium nitrate and MAP
(AN+MAP) in 1:1 ratio N:P2O5 was banded with seed at rates of 22 and 44 kg/ha of N.
The effects of volatilized NHo on barley germination, growth, and yield were not as pronounced in
1975 due to above-normal precipitation and delayed seeding dates caused by excessive rainfall during
the April-May planting period.
In 1974, NH3 damage to irrigated barley seedlings was in the order UAPP >DAP %>MAP. In 1975,
seedling injury was in the order UAPP >U+DAP = DAP >MAP. Differences between the fertilizer
mixtures in 1:1 ratio N:P2O5 were not statistically different from either DAP or MAP alone.
In both years, N rates with the seed of greater than 22 kg/ha generally produced the greatest plant
damage. In 1974, a significant interaction between fertilizer source and rate influenced results.
Damaging effect on early season plant growth as N rates with the seed increased above 22 kg/ha was
found to be in the order UAPP >DAP >MAP.
Of 16 different crop response variables measured, early season number of plants, number of stems, and
plant top weight were found to be the most effective estimates of NH3 damage. Increases in number of
spikes per plant, kernels per head, 1000-kernel weight, and kernel weight per spike as N rate with the
seed increased revealed evidence of possible compensation by the barley plant to earlier damage.
Site variability associated with factors other than soil CaCO3 equivalent made estimates of the
influence CaCO3 difficult. Using relative top weight values, negative slopes were attained with
regression analysis with increasing CaCO3 levels. Further analysis of variance could not, however,
refine the estimate of soil CaCO3 influence on damage caused by band-applied ammonium phosphate
fertilizers. STATEMENT O F ■PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the
requirements 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
scholarly purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his
absence, by the Director of Libraries.
It. is understood that any copy­
ing or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be
allowed without my written permission.
Signature_
Date
DRILL APPLICATION OF AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZERS WITH THE SEED OF IRRIGATED
BARLEY ON CALCAREOUS SOILS
by
J ,,D
Franklin
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Soil Science
Approved:
Chairperson, Graduate Committee
:ment
GraduateYDean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
March, 197-8
ill
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is greatly indebted to the staff and fellow graduate
students of Montana State University who shared their knowledge and
experience with him in the preparation of this thesis.
A special thanks
goes to Dr. Neil W. Christensen for his enriching advice and abundant
patience.
His ability to deal with complex research problems and guide
the author to their solution will always be remembered and admired.
The author acknowledges with thanks the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) and the Montana Cooperative Extension Service for their
funding and support of this research work.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
V I T A ....................................■........................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................... ............ ..
ii
' iii
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ..............................................
iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................................
vi
LIST OF F I G U R E S ....................... '........................
ix
A B S T R A C T ..........
xi
INTRODUCTION ........................................
LITERATURE REVIEW
. ........
. ............... .. -................... . . . .
I
2
9
12
13
15
O B J E C T I V E S .......................................................
19
MATERIALS AND M E T H O D S ...........................
21
Site Selection ...................................
. . . . . .
Soil Sampling and Test R e s u l t s ................ .. ; ........
Experimental D e s i g n ................ .. ......................
Seeding and Management of E x p e r i m e n t s ............
.
. .
Measurement of Crop Response to Treatments . . . .............
Statistical Analysis . .........................................
OO
os
Soil Texture ......................................
Exchange Capacity of Soil and Exchangeable Cations
pH and CaCOg Content of Soil .....................
Soil Temperature and Soil MoistureContent.....................
Method of Fertilizer Application .............................
Fertilizer Rates ...............................................
Fertilizer Source ............................................
21
23
26
31
31
3.5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................
42
Response to N, P, and K F e r t i l i z a t i o n ..............
Ammonia Damage ................................................
42
46
V
Page
Moisture Differences
........
Crop Response Variables' and Year Effect
Fertilizer Source and Rate
t
,
a. Analysis of variance across locations with one
main effect confounded
b. Analysis of variance across locations with S-r-factor
interaction confounded
c . Comparison of individual fertilizer sources
and rates
1974 results
1975 results .
d. Mixtures of fertilizers with low and with high
volatilization potentials . . . . ........................
Compensation by Barley Plants to Ammonia Damage
Calcium Carbonate Effect
..................
47
51
64
65
69
72
78
83
'86
91
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ................. .......................... 96
APPENDIX ........................................................ '
101
LITERATURE C I T E D .......................................
123
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Location specifics.for"1974 and 1975
2.
Soil test results
3.
CaCOgX and seed^leyel soil moisture
4.
List Of treatments for 1974
5.
List of treatments for 1975
22
t
25
, ....................... 25
27
, „ .............
6 . Crop response variables measured in 1974 and 1975
7.
.
29
, ........
33
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom for crop response
variables measured in 1974 and 1975 .......................
35
8 . Degrees of freedom for analysis of variance with one
main effect used as error estimate ...........................
9.
39
Degrees of freedom for analysis of variance with threefactor interactions used to estimate e r r o r ..................
41
10,
Response of barley grain yield to nitrogen fertilization . . .
42
11,
Comparison of total measured NOJ-N arid organic matter to
recommended N rates and N rates at which highest
yields were o b t a i n e d .......................................... 43
12,
Response of barley grain yield to phosphorusfertilization . .
13,
Response of barley grain yield and kernelplumpness
to
potassium fertilization ,
................................ 46
14,
Total weekly rainfall from April I to September 30 at
selected locations in 1974 and1975
15,
16,
44
4
Departure from mean monthly precipitation for 1974
and 1975
..............................
49
Quadratic regression p values calculated for 16 crop
response variables at all locations in both years
. . . . .
52
vii
Table
17.
18.
Page
Plant height of all locations in 1974 and 1975 as
affected by fertilizer source and rate
59
Culms/meter of row as affected by fertilizer source
and rate in 1974 and 1975 , ............. ..
61
19.
Stand count/meter of row and early top weight as
affected by fertilizer source and rate ................... 62
20.
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p
values across locations in 1974 with one main
effect confounded . ; ........... -....................... ..
65
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p
values across locations in 1975 with one main effect
confounded for three fertilizer sources ...................
68 .
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p
values across locations in 1975 with one main effect
confounded for four fertilizer sources
. .................
69
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p
values measured across locations with 3-factor
interactions used to estimate error for all
locations in 1974, all locations in 1975 with 3
fertilizer sources, and 5 locations in 1975 with
4 fertilizer sources
. . . . . . .
.......... . ........
71
Boot stage growth as influenced by N fertilizer rates
and sources banded with the seed in 1975 .................
83
The effect of fertilizer source on several crop
response variables averaged over locations in 1975
....
85
weight and culms/meter row as influenced
of monoammonium phosphate and two rates
of ammonium nitrate and monoammonium
1:1 ratio N:P 2^5 at 4 locations in 1975 . . .
86
21.
22.
23.
24,
25.
26.
27.
Boot stage top
by two rates
of a mixture
phosphate in
Yield components averaged over locations as influenced
by N fertilizer rates and sources banded with seed in
1974 . . ...................................................
89
viii
Table
28.
29.
Page
Yield components averaged over locations as influenced
by N rate and source banded with seed in 1975
90
Analysis of variance for CaCOy levels in 1974 and 1975
degrees of freedom, F, and p values
95
Appendix Tables
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Tillering stage growth, yield, and yield components
at harvest for Location 14-1974 ...........................
102
Tillering stage growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 24-1974
.............................
105
Tillering and harvest stage growth, and yield
components for Location 34-1974 ...........................
107
Tillering stage growth, yield, and yield
components at harvest for Location 44-1974
..............
108
Boot stage growth, yield, and yield components
at harvest for Location 15-1975 ...........................
HO
Boot stage growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 25-1975
.............................
112
36.
Boot stage growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 35-1975
............... 114
37.
Boot stage growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 45-1975
............................. 116
38.
Boot stgge growth, yield, and yield components at .
harvest for Location 55-1975
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
118
39.
Boot stage growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 65-1975
. ............................ 120
40 .
Boot stage plant growth counts for Location 75-1975 . , ... . 122
j
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.
. Rage
Plant top weight measured at tillering and harvest
as influenced by 3 fertilizer sources at 3 nitrogen
rates for location 1 4 ....................... ..
Plant top weight measured at tillering and harvest
as influenced by 3 fertilizer sources at 3 nitrogen
rates for location '44
54
.
55
Number of heads/meter row as influenced by 3 fertilizer
sources at 3 nitrogen rates for locations 14 and 34 , . . ,
57
4.
Number of heads/meter row as influenced by 4 fertilizer
sources at 4 nitrogen rates for location 1 5 .............. 58
5.
Tillering stage top weight as affected by three
ammonium phosphate fertilizers at three rates of
N applied with barley seed at 4 locations in 1974 ........
73
Tillering stage stand counts/meter row as affected by
3 ammonium phosphate fertilizers at 3 rates of N
applied with barley seed at 4 locations in 1974 ..........
75
Tillering stage stand counts/meter row as influenced
by fertilizer source and rate averaged over four
locations in 1974 ..........................................
76
Tillering stage plant top weight as influenced by
fertilizer source and rate averaged over four
locations in 1974 ........ .................................
77
Tillering stage culms/meter row as influenced by
fertilizer source and rate averaged over four
locations in 1974 ........ .................................
77
Boot stage plant top weight as affected by four
fertilizer sources at four rates of application
for three locations in 1975 , , ........ . . . . . . . . .
80
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
X
Figure
11.
12.
. Page
Boot stage stand counts/meter row as affected by
four fertilizer sources at four rates of application
for three locations in 1975
82
Harvest stage stem counts as influenced by N
fertilizer rates and sources banded with seed
at five locations in 1975 ....................... ..........
84
13.
Grain weight as influenced by fertilizer source and
rate for location 14 in 1974
............ 87
14.
Grain weight/head as influenced by fertilizer source
and rate for locations 14 in 1974 ..........................
87
Kernels/head as influenced by fertilizer source, and
rate for location 14 in 1974
..................... ..
88
15.
16.
Influence of CaCOg level on relative plant top weight
for 4 fertilizer sources at locations 15, 25, 35,
45, and 65 ............... ................................ . 9 2
17.
Influence of CaCO^ level on relative plant top weight
for 4 fertilizer rates at locations 15, 25, 35, 45,
and 65
93
ABSTRACT
Four field experiments in 1974 and seven in 1975 were conducted
on calcareous soils to determine.the effect of banding monoammonium
phosphate (MAP, 11-55-0), diammonium phosphate (DAP, 18-46-0), and urea
ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP, 28-28-0) with the seed of irrigated barley
at N rates from 11 to 44 kg/ha.
In 1975, a mixture of urea and DAP
(U+DAP) in 1:1 ratio NiPgO^ was banded with seed at rates of 11 to 44
kg/ha of N and a mixture of ammonium nitrate and MAP (AN+MAP) in 1:1
ratio NrPgO^ was banded with seed at rates of 22 and 44 kg/ha of N.
The effects of volatilized NHo on barley germination, growth,
and yield were not as pronounced in 1975 due to above-normal precipita­
tion and delayed seeding dates caused by excessive rainfall during the
April-May planting period.
In 1974, NHg damage to irrigated barley seedlings was in the
order UAPP %>DAP > M A P .
In 1975, seedling injury was in the order UAPP
> U+DAP = DAP > M A P . Differences between the fertilizer mixtures in
1:1 ratio N:P 2C>5 were not statistically different from either DAP or
MAP alone.
In both years, N rates with the seed of greater than 22 kg/ha
generally produced the greatest plant damage. In 1974, a significant
interaction between fertilizer source and rate influenced results.
Damaging effect on early season plant growth as N rates with the seed
increased above 22 kg/ha was found to be in the order UAPP > DAP
MAP.
Of 16 different crop response variables measured, early season
number of plants, number of stems, and plant top weight were found to
be the most effective estimates of NHo damage. Increases in number of
spikes per plant, kernels per head, 1000-kernel weight, and kernel
weight per spike as N rate with the seed increased revealed evidence of
possible compensation by the barley plant to earlier damage.
Site variability associated with factors other than soil
CaCOj equivalent made estimates of the influence CaCOg difficult. Using
relative top weight values, negative slopes were attained with regres­
sion analysis with increasing CaCOg levels. Further analysis of
variance could not, however, refine the estimate of soil CaCOg influence
on damage caused by band-applied ammonium phosphate fertilizers.
(
INTRODUCTION
Fertilizer use by small grain farmers in Montana has increased
rapidly in the past few years.
Banding ammonium phosphate fertilizers
with the seed has proven to be beneficial in increasing yields.
Recently,
grain growers in semi-arid regions have encountered damage to plants
from gaseous ammonia volatilized from banded fertilizers on calcareous
soils.
Germination has been impaired; seedling growth has been slowed;
and grain yields have been decreased.
Extensive laboratory and green­
house research has provided information on how the ammonia is released,
how it produces toxic effects on small grain plants, and how environ­
mental factors influence its activity.
In order to relate these laboratory findings to the problems of
the small grain producer, the effects of banding ammonium phosphate
fertilizer with barley seed in calcareous soils was studied under
irrigated conditions in the field.
These studies were conducted over
a period of two years at 11 locations throughout south-western Montana.
It is hoped that the results of these studies will prove to be of value
to the small grain grower in avoiding crop injury from volatilized N H y
LITERATURE REVIEW
It has been well documented that fertilizers are a valuable
tool which can be used to increase crop production.
Recently, increased
emphasis has been placed on problems resulting from improper fertilizer
use.
One of these is the problem of plant damage resulting from the
release of free NHg when nitrogenous fertilizers,
especially urea and
ammonium phosphates, are applied to soils under certain conditions.
This review brings together some of the more pertinent findings related
to ammonia volatilization and toxicity.
It will point out the questions
that have been adequately answered and discuss
those that remain to
be answered.
A number of chemical equilibria are involved in the volatiliza­
tion of NHg and most have been shown to be pH dependent.
DuPlessis
and Kroontje (1964) found that ammonia volatilization was directly
related to the initial pH of the soil and increased with an increase in
pH.
They postulated that NHg may be volatilized, even from acid soils,
due to the equilibrium:
+
NH4 +
—
OH
--
*
NHg
+
H2O
Ernst and Massey (1960) found that increasing the soil pH by liming
caused an increase in activity of both NH 4 and OH
ions, thus driving
the above equilibrium to the right and increasing the volatilization
of ammonia.
3
When ammoniacal fertilizers were applied to calcareous soils,
Larsen and Gunary (1962) found that NH^ loss depended on the equilibrium:
K]
'NE,
where K is a constant equal to
pressure of CO2 .
The terms
/
(
Ca
KqaCQg
pco2)
pCOg is t^ie Partial
and K ^ , ^ ^ are the dissociation con-
stants of NH^ and CaCOg, respectively.
As a result of the above
equilibrium, NH^ loss from a soil containing free CaCOg would be expected
to be proportional to NH^ concentration and inversely proportional to
the square root of the Ca^+ concentration times the partial pressure of
COr
,2 .
The reaction of ammonium phosphate fertilizers in the soil to
form relatively insoluble
calcium phosphate compounds would be expected
to enhance NH^ volatilization because of a reduction in Ca^+ concentra­
tion.
Terman and Hunt (1964) found that when diammonium phosphate is
applied to limed acid or naturally calcareous soils the reaction is:
(NH4) 2HP0 4
+
CaCOr
HgO
CaHPO 4 ' 2H20
+ (NH4) 2COg.
The (NH4) 2C0g thus formed is unstable and decomposes easily according
to the equilibrium:
(NE4)2COg
2NH 4 + HCOg + OH"
2NHg|
+ CO2 I
+ 2H 20.
4
Ammonia volatilized from fertilizers can be toxic to plants and
may reduce germination, seedling growth, and crop yields.
Many of
the mechanisms involved and their effects on plants have been explained
by researchers but some specifics remain to be explained.
Several investigators (Khan and Mandal, 1968; Hunter and Rosenau,
1966) have theorized that the injurious effects of certain nitrogenous
fertilizers on seed emergence is due to the contact of volatilized gaseous
ammonia with the germinating seed.
Hood and Ensminger (1964) found
that when seeds were soaked in MgSO^ or MgClg after being soaked in
(NH^)gHPO^ germination was greater than when seeds had been soaked only
in (NH^)gHPO^.
They concluded that detrimental effects of ammonium
phosphates are not due to the ammonium or phosphate ions "per se."
Ensminger, et al.
(1965) reported that germination injury from (NH^)gHPO^
appears to be largely due to inactivation of Mg in seeds.
They found
that harmful effects were largely alleviated by subsequent soaking of
seeds in dilute solutions of MgSO^.
Cell membranes were found by Warren (1962) to be impermeable
to NH^, whereas NH^ passed tissue barriers with ease.
Haddock (1968) found that (NH^)gSO^,
Stuart and
(NH^)gCO^, and gaseous NH^ inhibit
water uptake in sugarbeet roots when the pH is sufficiently high.
roots lacking an epidermis, NH^ did not inhibit water uptake.
In
This may
indicate that the site of inhibition lies within the root epidermis.
5
While studying the effects of ammonia on plant metabolism,
Vines and Wedding (1960) tried to locate one or more sites at which
ammonia could be shown to have deleterious effects on normal metabolic
processes of plants.
tion.
Their findings indicate an inhibition of respira­
A possible site could be located in the electron-transport system,
especially the D P N H - >DPN reaction.
Thus the transport of electrons
from oxidized substrates to oxygen is blocked.
Along these same lines
Kramer (1955) reported an inhibition of oxidative formations.
Several researchers have reported effects on certain character­
istics and yield components of crops by volatilized NH^ (Cook et al.,
1958; Lawton and David, 1960; Colliver and Welch, 1970)
unpublished research by Smith et al.
Results of
(1968-1972) with non-irrigated winter
wheat indicate that volatilized NH^ may slow down or prevent germination,
reduce stand, retard plant growth, and under certain circumstances reduce
the number of heads per meter of row.
Pairintra (1973) found that
wheat seedlings subjected to toxic NH^ levels had stunted coleoptiles and
radicles with a brown color giving them a "burnt-off" appearance.
He
reported that ammonia content in soil samples from field experiments
having fertilizer banded with wheat seed was directly related to dry
weight of plants at the stem elongation stage of growth.
The ability of nitrogenous fertilizers to release NH^ and the
subsequent amount released are dependent on a number of factors.
Factors identified by Pesek et al. (1971) include soil water content,
6
temperature, surface roughness and residue, air movement, presence of
carbonates, granular size of fertilizer, and time elapsed between
I
fertilizer application and the next rainfall or irrigation.
Mortland
(1958) listed soil moisture, texture, pH, organic matter, placement,
and soil tilth as factors affecting NH^ loss in soils.
The remainder
of this review will be concerned with the role of soil texture,
exchange capacity of the soil, soil pH, CaCOg content of the soil,
soil temperature and moisture, fertilizer source, application method,
and fertilizer rate on NHg volatilization.
Soil Texture
Jenny et al. (1945) reported that uptake of N in soil suspensions
containing NH^ and (NH^JgSO^ is, broadly speaking, a function of soil
texture.
Wahhab et al. (1957) found twice as much NHg was volatilized
-L
from a sandy than from a sandy loam soil with applications of NH^-N.
When
equal amounts of ammonia were applied to soils, Chao and Kroontje
(1964) found that loss of NHg was in the order of:
loam >
Salinas clay
Yolo loam
Davidson clay.
Norfolk fine sandy
They stated that
the larger NHg losses from coarse textured soil indicates that soil
texture is a factor in NHg volatilization.
Since surface layers of
sandy soils dessicate sooner than those of heavy soils, van Shreven
(1950) gave this as one of the reasons
why loss of ammonia may be
7
greater on sandy soils under field conditions.
He further stated that
the low adsorptive powers of sandy soils favors the loss of NH^.
Conclusion:
Coarse textured soils are more
conducive
to
NHg volatilization than finer textured soils.
Exchange Capacity of Soil and Exchangeable Cations
Several investigators have shown that low cation exchange
capacity (CEC) is more conducive to NH^ loss (Martin and Chapman, 1951;
Volk, 1959.; Brown and Bartholomew, 1962; Liegel et a l ., 1976).
.
Gasser
(1964) stated that the property most likely to be related to the ability
of the soil to retain NH^-N and NHg is its base exchange capacity.
results suggest that, when 100 lb
His
of N/acre is applied as urea to soils
with base exchange capacities less than 10 meq/lOOg, more than 20%
may be lost as ammonia; the maximum losses decrease to 10% at 20 meq/lOOg,
with less than 10% lost from soils of greater CEC.
Mortland (1958) reported the effect of exchangeable cations on
NH„ desorption was found to follow the order:
H+ > Ca+ ^ > Na+ 5» K 1".
He found that fixation of K+ by bentonite particularly reduced the
sorption of ammonia.
Mortland further stated that it has been suggested
that NH 0 is chemically sorbed in greatest quanities by clay minerals
_L
under acid conditions, i.e. when there is a supply of H 'ions to react
with the ammonia, while other work has shown that ammonia is chemically .
sorbed in greatest quantities by organic matter under alkaline conditions.
8
He stated that in all likelihood, the combination of these two soil
constituents will provide for chemical sorption of NH^ over a wide
range in soil reaction.
Conclusions:
Lower CEC's are more conducive to NHg loss.
The
effect of exchangeable cations on NH^ desorption in bentonite, clays
follows the order of:
H+ > Ca+ ^ >=* Na-*"> K+ .
pH and CaCOg Content of Soil
A number of researchers have studied the effect of pH on the
evolution of NH^ from nitrogenous fertilizers.
Most are in agreement
that greater NHg loss can occur when soils have high p H ’s as compared
to soils with lower ones (Mitsue, 1954; Wahhab et al., 1957; Volk,
1959; Ernst and Massey, 1960; Kresge and Satchell, 1960; Mills et al.,
1971).
Martin and Chapman (1951) report a 9% loss of NHg from NH^OH.
on a soil with pH 4.5 and a 51% loss on a soil with pH 8.0.
(1947) found a 5% loss of NHg over a 4 week period on a soil
6.0 and as much as a 60% loss on a soil with pH 8.0.
virtually no loss at pH less than 6.0.
Steenbjerg
with pH
He reports
Feagley and Hossner (1975)
state that substantial losses may occur from limed, acid soils.
Several researchers have shown that increasing CaCOg content in
soils results in
increased NHg volatilization from nitrogenous ferti­
lizers which form insoluble
reaction
products such as calcium phosphate
(van Schreven, 1950; Terman and Hunt, 1964).
This occurs due to the
equilibrium described by Larsen and Gunary (1962).
Steenbjerg (1947)
9
found a 25%■ loss of NH^ from (NH^^SO^ on soils with 1-2% CaCO^.
On
soils with 5-10% CaCO^ a 50% loss occurred. On ten soils ranging in
CaCOg content from 0% to 12.9% at constant moisture,
Pairintra (1973)
found NHg loss from four different fertilizers increased directly with
%CaC0g
in the soil.
Ammonia production at most levels of CaCOg
studied was less from ammonium polyphosphate than from monoammonium
phosphate.
Diammonium phosphate produced more NHg than monoammonium
phosphate, and urea ammonium phosphate produced the most NHg at all
CaCOg levels.
Wahhab et al. (1957) state that the.reason for the
relationship between NHg production and CaCOg is the higher degree of
calcium saturation of the soil exchange complex with an increasing
amount of CaCOg and an associated increase in pH or OH
activity in
the soil solution which results in increased NHg production.
Conclusions:
Greater ammonia loss can occur when soils have a
high pH as compared to soils with a lower one.
A direct relationship
exists between ammonia loss from fertilizers which form insoluble
reaction products in soil and increasing %CaC0g of the soil.
Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture Content
Volk (1959), Overrien and Moe (1967), and Watkins et al. (1972)
reported that higher soil temperatures result in greater NHg loss from
surface applications of urea.
With applications of ammonium nitrate on
a soil at 25% moisture capacity, Martin and Chapman (1951) found an
11% loss of added N when soil was at room temperature.
When soil
10
temperature was 100°F, a 21% loss occurred and a 32% loss occurred when
soil temperature was 150°F.
Ernst and Massey (1960) found that after
10 days, about 5% of the N applied as urea was lost when the soil
temperature was 45°F.
10% was lost.
. When the soil temperature was 60°F, about
At 75°F, approximately 15% was lost and about 23% was
i
lost at 90 F.
They stated that incomplete hydrolysis of the added urea
could partially account for the decreased ammonia losses at the lower
temperatures.
I
Soil moisture has been shown to play an important role in NH^
volatilization.
Decreases in the rate of NH^ volatilization from
anhydrous ammonia and ammonium sulfate occurring with increasing soil
water content were reported by van Schreven (1950) and Parr and
Papendick (1966).
In early studies, Jones (1932) found that the rate
of NHg accumulation from urea decreased with an increase in soil moisture
in the early period of incubation.
Jewitt (1942) reported that NH^ loss
from ammonium sulfate was influenced little by moisture content except
when
it approached air dry levels.
Martin and Chapman (1951) also
stated that moisture content has little effect except that evaporation
I
of water was necessary for appreciable volatilization of ammonia from
ammonium hydroxide.
Wahhab et al. (1957) found negligible NHg losses
from ammonium sulfate.on air-dry soil.
Maximum losses occurred at
0.25% moisture saturation and then decreased with increasing moisture.
11
Similarly, Volk (1959) found a significant rate of loss of NH^ from
urea with as little as 1% soil moisture on sandy soils while dry condi­
tions retarded NH^ loss.
Greater volatilization of NHg from urea was found to occur by
Ernst and Massey (1960) when moisture was lost from the soil.
Volatili­
zation was found to be directly related to initial soil moisture content,
presumably through the effect of this variable on the duration of. the
drying process.
Kresge and Satchell (1960) reported more loss from urea
on soils drying out from field capacity than from any other moisture
content.
Rolston et al. (1972) stated that moist soil has a greater
capacity for ammonia sorption than a dry one.
Pairintra (1973) found
that total 6-day NH^ production in the soil decreased as soil moisture
increased from 10 to 20%.
However, he observed that the amount of NHg
produced in the first day of the experiment was in the order of.
magnitude:
20% > 15% > 1 0 % soil water.
He speculated that this first-
day effect is the direct result of more rapid hydrolysis of the
fertilizer with greater moisture.
Ammonia volatilization from (NH^gSO^
was found by Fenn and Escarzaga (1976) to be greatly
with 55% water as compared to soils with 30% water.
when soils contained 13-30% soil water.
reduced on soils
Losses were highest
Dry NH^ chemicals did not
dissolve in soils with 1% and 8% soil water; therefore, little NH^ was
lost.
12
Conclusion:
A direct relationship exists between increasing
soil temperatures and NH 3 production.
The relationship between NH^
volatilization and soil moisture content is more complex.
led to only inconsistent results.
Early research,
The work of Fenn and Escarzaga (1976)
helps to explain some of these inconsistencies.
Dry ammonium-chemicals
do not dissolve at low soil water contents, thus explaining small
losses in dry soils.
Greatest losses occur when soils contain 13-30%
water and decrease with further increases in soil water content.
Method of Fertilizer Application
Severe stand reductions and yield losses as a result of banding
nitrogenous fertilizers with the seed have been noted by several
researchers (Olson and Dreier, 1956; Cook et al., 1958; Brage et al.,
1960; Molberg, 1961).
Under greenhouse conditions, Lawton and Davis
(1960) found that contact placement of wheat seed with 5-20-20
fertilizer at a 500 Ib/A rate seriously delayed and reduced emergence
of seedlings and subsequent growth.
They observed that applying mixed
fertilizer in a band below or I 1/2 inches to the side and 11/2 inches
below the seed was the most desirable method of placement from the
standpoint of emergence and growth.
Colliver and Welch (1970) reported that toxic effects of anhyd­
rous NH 3 on germination and early growth of corn were severe when the NH 3
was applied 10 cm deep immediately before planting at a 5 cm depth.
Injury was largely prevented when application depth was 25 cm for ■
13
all times and rates of application.
Three methods of placement of
ammonium phosphate fertilizers in relation to seed placement were
studied by Smith et a l . (1970).
The first method was direct application
of fertilizer with seed in a 3.2 cm band.
This was compared
with
applications of fertilizer and seed in wider (6.4 cm) bands and with
fertilizer placed 3.8 cm
below the seed.
With monoammonium phosphate
(11-48-0), damage^was virtually eliminated by placement below seed.
Damage to wheat plants was less when the band was spread (6.4 cm) as
compared to the narrow band (3.2 cm).
Conclusions:
Contact placement of certain nitrogenous ferti­
lizers with crop seed can result in stand reduction and yield loss.
Spreading the band or placing
fertilizer below seed may reduce damage.
Fertilizer Rates
Loss of gaseous ammonia
from ammonium sulfate was observed by
Jewitt (1942). to be greatly influenced .by the rate of application of
the fertilizer.
Overrein and Moe (1967) found that rates of
volatilization increased at an exponential rate as rates of urea
application increased.
Recent work by Hauck (1976)
explain this exponential increase.
may help to
He stated that increasing the rate
of application and/or banding urea brings fertilizer granules closer
together, thereby permitting the chemistry of the fertilizer to over­
ride the chemistry of the soil.
Overlapping of these "microsite"
14
reactions of the granules could explain exponential increases in NHg
volatilization.
Guttay (1957) reports that complete fertilizers used at rates
which placed 100
Ib/acre or more of nutrients in contact with wheat
seed seriously delayed and curtailed germination and emergence.
Olson
and Dreier (1956) found damage to germination under critical soil
moisture to be apparent at 10 lb
stand elimination with 160 lb
N/acre, increasing to the point of
N/acre.
Mills et al. (1971) observed
ammonia volatilization increases with increases in the rate of N
application from 112 to 1344 kg N/ha as ammonium chloride.
tests, Molberg (1961) found that 20 lb
significantly reduced emergence.
In field
N/acre applied with flax seed
When reagent grade urea was placed
with the seed of corn and barley by Brage et al. (1960), they found
stand depressions of 25% and 60% when 40 and 80 lb
were applied.
N/acre, respectively,
Pairintra (1973) measured greater amounts of NHg from
ammonium phosphates as rate of N application increased.
In field
studies with urea ammonium phosphate, number of stems was found to
increase with application of 11 kg N/ha but then decrease with subse­
quent applications of 22, 33, and 44 kg N/ha with wheat seed.
When
urea ammonium phosphate (24-42-0) was banded with wheat seed. Smith et
al. (1970) found reductions in number of wheat crowns with increasing
N rates.
With 5 lb N/acre approximately 45 crowns/100 cm
)
of row were -
15
measured.
Number of crowns dropped to approximately 35/100 cm
with 20 lb
N/acre and less than 25 crowns/100 cm
of row
of row with 30 lb
N/acre.
Conclusions:
Increasing the rate of application of certain
fertilizers can result in increased ammonia volatilization.
Formation
of "microsites" around fertilizer granules and their subsequent over­
lapping by increasing the rate of application may result in exponential
rates of increase in ammonia release.
Fertilizer Source
Terman and Hunt (1964) stated that differences between N
fertilizers can be explained largely in terms of urea hydrolysis or the
reaction of certain acid radicals of ammonium salts with calcium com­
pounds in soil.
These differences in losses of nitrogen as NIIg from
various N fertilizers have been studied by several researchers. When
comparing ammonium hydroxide to ammonium sulfate, Martin and Chapman
(1951) observed that 9-51% of the added N as NH^OH was lost on soils
ranging in pH from 4.5 to 8.0, while 1-27% of added N as (NH^gSO^
was lost on the same soils.
Olson and Dreier (1956) found the order
of magnitude of NHg loss from three N
^
NH^NOg.
sources to be:
NH^OH >• (NH^gSO^
Detrimental effects of various fertilizers on the germina­
tion of wheat were found by Cummins and Parks (1961) to decrease in the
order:
anhydrous ammonia > urea >
NH^NOg >
(NH^^SO^.
Hargrove
et al. (1976) found estimates of NHg volatilized from NH^NOg in field
16
studies ranged from 3-10% of applied N while losses from pelleted and
liquid (NH^)2SO 4 ranged from 25 to 55% of the applied N at rates of
140 and 280 kg N/ha.
Matocha (1976) reported that surface applied
(NEL^CO and (NH^^SO^ lost significant
amounts of NHg-N, while losses
from sulfur-coated urea and NH^NOg were negligible.
Fenn and Kissel
(1976) found that ammonium sulfate produced higher soil pH values and
NHg losses than did NH^NOg.
NH^NOg application rates.
The pH of the soil decreased with increasing
These findings may aid in explaining earlier
inconsistencies existing in the research done with these two fertilizers.
Wjiile studying ammonium phosphates of a .1:1:0 ratio, Olson and
Dreier (1956) concluded that they are harmful when placed with the seed
under conditions of limited moisture.
Allred and Ohlrogge (1964) found
that free NH„ associated with diammonium phosphate fertilizer was toxic
to germinating corn.
They stated that the effects of diammonium phos­
phates were more pronounced than the effects of equal amounts of mono­
ammonium phosphates.
Along this same line. Hood and Ensminger (1964)
observed that urea ammonium polyphosphate treatments banded with corn
seed resulted in less than 25% germination, compared to 60-90% for NH^N O g
plus concentrated superphosphate treatments.
Smith et al. (1969) studied the effect of various rates of
different fertilizer materials on the number of winter wheat plants per
foot of row.
At all rates above 5 lb
N/acre,- diammonium phosphate
(18-46-0) produced more damage than monoammonium phosphate (11-48-0).
Both of these fertilizers resulted in fewer plants than did ammonium
17
polyphosphate (15-60-0) at 20 and 30 lb N/acre rates.
Greatest damage
at all rates was caused by urea ammonium phosphate (24-42-0) .
The
total amount of NH^ measured over a six day period by a "diffusion can"
technique developed by Pairintra (1973) was in the ratio of 18:4.5:1.5:1
for urea ammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, monoammonium
phosphate and ammonium polyphosphate, respectively.
The effect of CaCOg on NH^
production has already been dis­
cussed, but its interaction with fertilizer source
is also important.
Matocha (1976) found that topdressing lime with N caused more NHg loss
from (NH^gSO^ than from (NHg) gCO during the initial 48 hours following
application.
Pairintra (1973) concluded from his studies that
fertilizers and allowable soil CaCOg percentage before serious seedling
damage occurs are as follows:
ammonium polyphsphate, 12.5% CaCOg;
monoammonium phosphate, 10.5%; diammonium phosphate, 3.5%; and urea
ammonium phosphate exceeds the limit at 0% CaCOg.
Effects of mixing low and high loss ammonium compounds have
been studied by several researchers.
volatile losses of
Volk (1959) found that the average
nitrogen as ammonia were 20.6% and 29.3% for pelleted
and crystallized urea, respectively, during seven days following
application of 100 pounds of urea-nitrogen to various grasses in field
tests.
The average loss following an equivalent application of NH^NOg
was 0.3%, and that following application of a solution containing
16.5% urea-nitrogen and 15.5% NH^NO^-N was 11.5%.
Kresge and Satchell
18
(1960) observed that NH^NO^ mixed with urea in concentrated solutions
reduced ammonia volatilization as compared to urea alone in solution.
Fenn (1975) stated that losses of NH^-N
from surface applications of
NH F and (NH,) SOa to a calcareous soil were reduced by mixing either
4
4 2
H
N H ^ ^ P O ^ or NH^NOg with these two compounds.
Conclusions:
Ammonia is volatilized more readily from some
nitrogenous fertilizers than others.
Studies have shown the following
anhydrous a m m o n i a u r e a > NH^OH > (NH^) 2^0^
order of loss:
NH^K^.
Recent studies have shown ah order of NHg loss as: urea ammonium phos­
phate >■ diammonium phosphate > mono-ammonium phosphate > ammonium poly­
phosphate.
differences.
High CaCOg percentage of the soil may accentuate these
Mixing low loss ammonium compounds with high loss ammonium
compounds may result in less NH^ volatilized than from high loss
compounds alone.
OBJECTIVES
As has been pointed out in the literature review, ammonia
volatilization and toxicity depend upon the chemical composition of
fertilizers and the chemical and physical properties of soils.
Most
studies reported have examined only one or two variables with respect
to their effect on ammonia volatilization.
As a result of interactions
between variables or failure to consider all variables, results have
sometimes been inconsistent.
Bennet and Adams (1970) stated that
failure to consider adequately all equilibria has prevented many invest!
gators from establishing generally applicable parameters for ammonia
loss or toxicity.
The study reported herein is an attempt to quantify ;
the effects of fertilizer source, rate, soil CaCOg content, and soil
moisture level as they relate to growth and development of irrigated
barley grown in Montana..
Specific objectives of this study are to:
1.
Determine the rate at which several ammonium phosphate fertilizers
can be safely applied with barley seed under irrigated conditions.
2.
Determine the magnitude of damage by several ammonium phosphate
fertilizers including 1:1 ratio
mixtures of fertilizers with low
and with high volatilization potentials.
3.
Determine the effect of soil CaCOg content on damage caused by
fertilizers banded with seed.
4.
Determine the effect of soil moisture content at seed level on
damage from banding fertilizers with seed.
20
5.
Evaluate interactions between the aforementioned
assess their effect on NHg
factors and
damage and overall crop performance.
6 . Determine which measures of plant growth and development are the
best indicators of ammonia damage.
This research is among the first on the effects of volatilized
NHg on irrigated barley.
It also includes one of the first major
field tests of the volatilization potential of the experimental
fertilizer urea ammonium polyphosphate (28-28-0).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field experiments designed to measure the effects of banding
different ammonium phosphate fertilizers with irrigated barley seed
were conducted at eleven locations in south-western Montana.
Four
experiments were initiated in the spring of 1974 by Dr. Charles M. Smith,
former Professor and Extension Soil Scientist at Montana State Univer­
sity.
In the spring of 1975 seven additional experimental sites were
selected.
Site Selection
A number of factors were taken
sites for the experiments.
of these factors.
into consideration when choosing
Uniformity of the experimental area was one
In particular, estimated variations in soil color,
depth, texture, and slope within the proposed site were considered.
Another factor was the willingness of the farmer to cooperate by allowing
us to conduct our studies on the proposed site within his irrigated
barley field.
It was imperative that the cooperator be growing barley
in the same field as the site because irrigation of the experiment
was to done by the farmer.
One of the objectives of this study was to determine the effects
of CaCOg content of the soil on NHg volatilization.
In.accordance with
this, a wide range in CaC0g% between the different locations'was sought.
I^Dr. Smith is currently Chairman of the Soils Department at North
Dakota State University, Fargo, N.D.
22
In order to get an approximation of the CaCO 3 equivalent of a location,
a field volume calcimeter as described by Black^/ was used.
description of the basic procedure follows.
A
A sample is weighed into
the barrel of a 50 ml syringe and the plunger inserted.
Approximately
4N HCl is inserted into this syringe from a 5 ml syringe attached to its
tip by a 1/2 inch length of 1/8 inch I .D. tubing.
sample and forces back the plunger.
from the syringe markings.
CO^, evolves from the
The volume of gas evolved is read
Corrections for temperature and elevation
are made by adjusting the sample weight.
The adjusted volume of CO 2
evolved is equivalent to the CaCO^ content of the sample in percent.
As a matter of simplification, individual locations will be
designated by a two digit number.
were studies conducted in 1974.
Those ending in 4 (14, 24, 34,44)
Those ending in 5 (15, 25, 35, 45,
55, 65, 75) were studies conducted in 1975.
Certain location specifics
are listed in Table. I .
Table I.
Location specifics for 1974 and 1975____________________
Barley
Variety
Date
Seeded
Type of Irrigation
Number
Cooperator
Address
14
L . Flikkema
Belgrade
Compana
5-6-74 ■ Hand-line sprinkler
24
B . Booher
Townsend
Firlbecks
5-1-74
Flood
34
C. Diehl
Townsend
Moravian
4-26-74
Side-Wheel roll
sprinkler
^Methods of Soil Analysis, C.A. Black, Ed. ASA Monograph 9. 1965.
23
Table I. (continued)
Number
Cooperator
Address
Barley
Variety
Date
Seeded
Type of Irrigation.
44
R. Lee
Fairfield
Shabet
5-2-74
Hand-line sprinkler
15
D . Boylan
Bozeman
Moravian
5-30-75
Side-wheel roll
sprinkler
25
A. Kimm
Churchill
Moravian
5-28-75
Hand-line sprinkler
35
T. Visser
Amsterdam
Piroline
5-27-75
Hand-line sprinkler
45
D . Quinn
Dillon
Ingrid
5-29-75
Hand-line sprinkler
55
B . Booher
Townsend
Unitan
5-26-75
Flood
65
S . Marks
Townsend
Moravian
6-3-75
Side-wheel roll
sprinkler
75
D . Burnham
Helena
Klages
6-2-75
Side-wheel roll
sprinkler
Soil Sampling and Test Results
Before the results of a field experiment can be fully understood^
a number of factors other than the effects under study must be considered.
For this reason numerous tests were conducted on soil samples taken from
each location.
Samples were taken within each replication of each
experiment before any fertilizer applications were made.
Samples for
NO~-N analysis were taken with a 4-foot Veimeyer king tube at 30.5 cm
depth intervals.
for drying.
Samples were placed on dry ice until placed in the :oven
Other samples were taken with an Oakfield Sampler to a
depth of 15 cm.
The Oakfield Sampler was also used to take samples
24
in the fertilizer-seed band to determine moisture content of the soil
(
at seed level.
The seed-level moisture samples were also placed on dry
ice until weighed and placed in the drying oven.
All samples were analyzed by the Montana State University Soil
Testing Laboratory.
Nitrate-Nitrogen.was analyzed by the Phenoldisul-
fonic Acid method.
Phosphorus was determined by the 1:50 ratio Bray #1
method.
Potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium were extracted with
lt[ Ammonium Acetate and determined by atomic absorption spectrometry.
Soil texture was estimated by the hand feel method.
content was analyzed by the Walkley-Black method.
procedures see Black.
3/
Organic matter
For outlines of these
Soil pH and salt content were analyzed accord4/
ing to the 2:1 saturation method as described in Handbook 60.
Method
23b of Handbook 60 was used to determine CaCO^ equivalent in the
laboratory.
Results of these analyses are listed in Tables 2 and 3.
At location 75, only the top 30.5 cm of soil was analyzed for NO^-N
content.
Soil texture at location 75 and seed-level soil moisture at
locations 24, 34, 44, and 55 were not determined.
3/
'Methods of Soil Analysis.
C . A. Black, ed.
ASA Monograph 9, "1965.
^Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils.
book 60. U.S.D.A., 1969.
Agr. Hand­
25
Table 2.
Soil test results
Location
Number
NOg-N
14
24
34
44
46
50
29
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
11
161
66
76
26
34
20
Total
Table 3.
Location
Number
to 4'
kg/ha
9
P
K pH
ppm■ PPm
Salt O.M. Ca
Mg Na
mmhos %
----meq/lOOg— —
26 612 8.1
55 1134 7.9
23 451 8.2
38 696 7.8
0.8
2.7
0.8
0.8
3.03
3.41
1.82
2.06
7.7
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.1
8.3
7.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
2.63
3.83
2.60
2.00
2.84
2.19
1.52
19
34
16
24
■49
31
34
340
528
355
216
675
594
448
Soil
Texture
19.2
5.9
5.2
6.5
7.9
0.4
1.2
0.6
0.5
Clay loam
Clay loam
Loam
Clay loam
17.4
26.1
38.1
34.8
65.7
38.6
13.2
5.0
4.2
3.7
4.5
6.9
5.5
7.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
Silty clay loam
Clay loam
Loam
Silty clay loam
Clay loam
Silty clay loam
46.7
39.4
40.3
Soil CaCOj equivalent and seed-level soil moisture at planting.
I
%
— Replication----II
III
%
% .
X
%
Seed-Level
Soil Moisture
%
14
24
34
44
8.4
4.7
4.1
1.1
6.6
4.4
5.1
0.8
.8.3
7.0
4.6
0.5
7.8
5.4
4.6
0.8
18.8
———
—
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
1.2
16.6
11.6
17.1
16.3
13.9
0.6
2.3
9.0
12.6
11.0
8.1
12.1
0.2
5.5
12.3
8.9
17.1
5.9
9.4
0.3
3.0
12.6
11.1
15.1
10.1
11.8
0.4
22.3
17.9
18.4
19.3
—
22.1
14.1
26
The soils at the experimental sites were medium to medium-fine
textured.
All locations except number 25 had NO^-N levels low enough
to expect a yield response to nitrogen fertilizer.
Most locations
were low to very low in available phosphorus and medium to high in
extractable potassium.
Soil pH ranged from 7.5 to 8.3 (slightly to
moderately alkaline).
Salt contents were low for all locations except
24 which was slightly salty.
Because barley is relatively tolerant to
saline, conditions, no adverse effects of salinity would be expected at
location 24. . Soil organic matter (O.M.) ranged from 1.52 to 3.83% and
should be considered low.
Soil CaCOg equivalent
7.8% in 1974 and from 0.4 to 15.1% in 1975.
ranged from 0.8 to
Variation in CaC0g%
between replications within 1975 locations was substantial as can be
seen in Table 3.
Experimental Design
Tables 4 and 5 list
1975, respectively.
fertilizer treatments used in 1974 and
In 1974 (Table 4), comparison of treatments
3,
16, 4, 20, and 21 show increasing rates of N at constant rates of P
and K and were used to evaluate nitrogen response.
Phosphorus response
was evaluated at constant N and K rates by comparison of treatments
13, 14, 15, 2 and 4.
Potassium response was evaluated at constant N
and P rates by comparing treatment 19 with 15, 2 and 4.
In 1975
(Table 5), N response was determined by comparison of treatments 2, 3,
27
Table 4.
Treatment
Number
List of treatments for 1974
Fertilizer Treatments I/
N (Kg/ha).
P (kg/ha)
K (kg/ha)
Bdc Drill Sum Bdc Drill Sum
Bdc
I
2
3
78
—
11
11
4
5
6
78
78
78
.7
8
9
Kind of
Fertilizer /
Check
1-2-3
2-3-6
11
34
34
——
25
34
59
45
'45
.11
11
11
89
89
89
34
34
34
25
13
5
59
47
39
45
45
45
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
1-2-3-8
67
67
67
22
22
22
89
89
89
34
34
34
49
25
10
83
59
44
45
45
45
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
1—2—3—8
10
11
12
56
56
56
33
33
33
89
89
89
34
34
34
74
38
15
108
72
49
45
45
45
. 1-2-3-6
1—2—3—7
1-2-3-8
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
78
78
78
33
33
33
78
123
168
33
11
. 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
89
—
—
13
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
13
25
59
59
59
59
59
59
59
45
45
45
45
45
45
-45
45
45
89
89
89
44
44
44
89
134
179
44
34
34
34
34
34
'34
34
1-3
1-2-3
.1-3-6
1—2—3—6
2-3-4-6
2-3-4-6
1-2-6
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-6 .
2—3—5—6
!/Treatments 2, 18, and 22 have broadcast' N topdressed after seeding,,
Treatment 20 has 45 kg N/ha topdressed after seeding and treatment 21
has 90 kg N/ha topdressed.
Treatment 22 has 3 kg S/ha.
2/l.
34-0-0
2. 0-45-0
3. 0-0-60
4. 45-0-0
ammonium nitrate
5. 40-0-0-4(S) urea ammonium sulfate (UAS)
treble superphosphate 6. 11-55-0 monoammonium phosphate (MAP)
muriate of potash
7. 18-46-0 d!ammonium phosphate (DAP)
urea
8. 28-28-0 urea ammonium polyphosphate
(UAPP)
28
11, 9, and 10.
P response.
treatment 11.
Treatments 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 were used to evaluate ■
Response to K was determined by comparing treatment 4 to
Several rates of nitrogen and phosphorus were used to
determine the optimum rate of application for the cooperator in his .
particular field and for response data for this !study.
All treatments
received 45 kg/ha of K broadcast and incorporated before seeding
since irrigated barley often responds to K fertilizer at soil test
levels greater than 250 ppm K.
Treatments 17, 18 and 22 in Table 4
were for use in other studies being conducted by the Montana Cooperative
Extension Service and have no bearing on this study.
They are included
here only as a source of reference for future use.
The ammonium phosphate fertilizers included in 1974 were
monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0), diammonium phosphate (18-46-0),
and urea ammonium polyphosphate.
These fertilizers were drill applied
in a band with barley seed at rates of 11, 22, and 33 kg/ha of N.
is shown in treatments 4 through 12 in Table 4.
This
In 1975 these same
fertilizers were banded with the seed at rates of 11, 22, 33, and 44
kg/ha of N.
A mixture of urea + diammonium phosphate was also applied
at these same rates and a mixture of ammonium nitrate arid monoammonium
phosphate was drill applied in a band with barley seed at rates of
22 and 44 kh/ha of N.
The 1975 ammonium phosphate treatments are
numbers 11 through 28 in Table 5.
In both 1974 and 1975, the total N
rate on treatments used to compare ammonium phosphate fertilizers was
29
Table 5.
Treatment
Number
List of treatments for 1975
Fertilizer Treatments
N (kg/ha)
P (kb/ha)
Bdc Drill. Sum
Bdc Drill Sum
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
33
78
78
78
78
78
123
168
11
12
13
14
64
64
25
13
5
5
64
52
44
44
45
45
45
45
1—2—3—4
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
39
39
39
39
49
25
10
10
88
64
49
49
45
45
45
45
1-2-3-4
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-6
1—2—3—7
89
89
89
89
39
39
39
39
74
38
15
15
113
77
54
54
45
45 •
45
45
1-2-3-4
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-6
1—2—3—7
44
44
44
44
89
89
89
89
39
39
39
39
99
50
20
20
138
89
59
59
45
45
45
45
1-2-3-4
1—2—3—5
1—2—3—6
,1—2—3—7
22
44
89
89
,39
39
10
20
49
59
45
45
1—2—3—8
1-2-3-8
39
25
25
78
78
78
78
11
11
11
11
89
89
89
89
39
39
39
39
. 15
16
17
18
67
67
67
67
22
22
22
22
89
89
19
20
21
22
56
56
56
56
33
33
33
33
23
24
25
26
45
45
45
45
27
67
45
I/
Fertilizer^/
45
45
45
45
45
45
— —
28
K (kg/ha)
Bdc
Check
2-3-4
1-2-3-4
1-2-4
1-3
1-3-4
1-3-4
1-2-3
1-2-3-4
1-2-3-4
11 11
11 44
11 89
11 89
11 89
11 89
11 89
11 134
11 179
— —
I/
89
89
39
39
39
— —
39
39
25
25
25
13
25
—
64
64
45
45
64
—
13
25
39
Treatments 18,26, 27, and 28 were omitted for locations 65 and 75.
Locations 45 and 65 had 78 .kg P/ha broadcast before seeding.
J
30
89 kg/ha.
As N rates drill applied in a band with the barley seed
increased, broadcast rates were reduced an equivalent amount.
Broad­
cast N was applied as ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) and incorporated into
the soil before seeding.
To overcome the effects of variable rates
of band-applied P established when ammonium phosphates were banded at
equivalent N rates, treble superphosphate (0-45-0) was broadcast
and incorporated before seeding at rates thought tb be sufficient to
meet the P requirement of the crop.
Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with
three replications.
long.
Plots were 2.1 meters wide (7 rows) by 9 meters
At locations where side-wheel roll sprinkler irrigation systems
were used, 2.1 meter wide seeded alleys were left where needed for the.
wheels to move through without disturbing the plots.
In 1975, treat­
ments 13 and 25 were placed adjacent to each other in one replication
at each location.
It was hoped that if differences existed in the
growth of the barley plants on these plots, they could be shown to
local farmers on tours conducted by the Montana Cooperative Extension
Service.
2/l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
34-0-0 ammonium nitrate
0-45-0 treble superphosphate
0-0-60 muriate of potash
11-55-0 monoammonium phosphate (MAP)
18-46-0 diammonium phosphate (DAP)
28-28-0 urea ammonium polyphsophate (UAPP)
urea + DAP (1:1 ratio NzPgOg)
ammonium nitrate + MAP (1:1 ratio N^gOg)
31
Seeding and Management of Experiments
Prior to seeding, Fargo (Triallate) E.C.
herbicide was applied
as a pre-emergent spray at a rate of 1.4 kh/ha active ingredient for
wild oat control.
65 was seeded.
The spray equipment was inoperative when location
At this location, Avenge (difenzoquate) herbicide was
applied as a post-emergent spray when wild oats plants (Avena fatua L.)
were in the 4-leaf stage of growth, but control was ineffective at
this location.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizer treat­
ments in excess of the ammonium phosphates to be banded with the seed
were broadcast and incorporated into the soil with duckfoot
shovels and a springtooth harrow prior to seeding.
Seeding and simul­
taneous drill fertilizer application were done with a modified
Minneapolis Moline deep furrow press drill with 30 cm row spacings.
Spreaders attached to the bottoms of the seed spouts produced a
fertilizer-seed pattern approximately 6.5 cm wide within the row.
Seeding dates and barley varieties used are shown in Table I.
Barley
varieties were those being grown by the farmer and were seeded at a
rate of approximately 100 kg/ha.
Irrigation at all locations was con­
ducted by the farmer during the course of his regular irrigations.
Measurement of Crop Response to Treatments
In order to determine the occurrence and extent of ammonia
damage to irrigated barley plants, a number of crop response variables
32
were measured at different stages of plant growth.
Smith et al. (1968-
1972) and Pairintra (1973) showed that ammonia damage occurred within
the first few days after seeding in field studies with wheat.
In order
to measure this initial damage, selected response variables were
measured at tillering stage (Peekes stage 2)-*-/ in 1974 and at boot stage
(Peekes stage 10) in 1975.
Besides final harvest measurements of grain
yield, several other crop response variables were measured at harvest.
These measurements were designed to show if ammonia damage■could still
be determined at plant maturity and to determine whether plants com­
pensated for the initial damage during their
development.
Table 6
presents the crop response variables measured at each location in 1974
and 1975.
Tillering (1974) and boot stage (1975) measurements consisted
of determining the number of plant culms, plant height, number of
plants (stand counts), weight of roots, and weight of tops.
conducted as
follows.
were removed from the
This was
Two meter lengths of each of two rows.of plants
respective plots.
until ready for measurement.
Samples were kept frozen
After thawing, soil was washed from the
plant roots and roots were separated from the rest of the plant at the
base of the plant crown.
counted.
Number of culms and number of plants were
Plant height was measured as the distance from the base of
^Large, E. C . 1954. Growth Stages in Cereals.
Peekes Scale. Plant Path.
3:128-129.
Illustration of
33
Table 6.
Crop Response Variables Measured in 1974 and 1975.
___________ Experimental Location_________
Measured Variable__________ 14 24 34 44 15 25 35 45 55 65 75
Grain yield (kg/ha)-- -------Dry matter (kg/ha)
--------Test weight (kg / h l ) ------:--Protein percent--------------P percent mature-------------Total P uptake mature (kg/ha)Plump percent----------------Straw:grain ratio-------------
X
X
X
X
X
Number of spikes/meter row---Number of culms/meter row^/-Number of culms/meter row^/— Plant height (cm)------------Kernel weight (g/1000)--------Kernels /spike
---------------Stand count / meter row^/-----Stand count / meter row^/----Spikes/ plant----------------Grain weight /spike (g)-------:
Root weight (g/ha)-----------Top weight (kg/ha)V — --------Top weight (kg/ha) -----------P percent roots -----------------P percent tops------------------Total P roots (g/ha)-----------Total P tops (kg/ha)------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^measured at tillering in 1974 and at boot in 1975.
^/measured at harvest both years.
the plant crown to the tips of the longest leaf when straightened out.
Roots and tops of plants were placed in separate sacks and dried for at
least 48 hours at 82°C for determination of root and top dry weight.
34
Crop response measurements at maturity were number of spikes,
number of culms, number of plants, and top weight in 1974.
In 1975,
only number of spikes and number of culms were counted so that the
measurements could be made directly in the field.
same as for the first counts in 1974.
Procedures were the
In 1975, sample size was reduced
to one meter of two separate rows.
2
Three rows (5.0 to 5.6 m ) of each plot were harvested for grain
yields and associated data.
Length of the rows harvested was dependent
on points at which the drill stopped and started at the edge of each
plot during planting.
The rows were cut with a Jari mower modified
with metal catch pans to hold the plants as they were being cut at
ground level.
At the end of each plot the bundles were removed from
I
the pans, weighed, and the grain separated from the straw in a cylinder
type plot thresher.
Kernels per spike, spikes per plant, and grain
weight per spike were calculated using variables measured in previous
counts and at final harvest.
Location 55 provided no boot stage measurements because of a
combination of rain and flood irrigation through this period.
Loca­
tion 75 was accidentally swathed by the cooperator prior to harvest
and final measurements and therefore only the boot stage counts were
made.
Locations 24 and 34 were both damaged by hail just prior
35
to harvest and have some data missing where damage was great
enough to interfere with accuracy.
Phosphorus uptake was not determined
in 1975 due to a lack of time to analyze plant tissues for phosphorus.
Statistical Analysis
After all crop response variables had been measured and
tabulated, data for each variable.at each location were subjected to a
standard analysis of variance.
Where the F statistic indicated statis­
tically significant treatment differences, treatment means were compared
using the least significant difference■(L.S.D.) at the 5% probability
level.
Table 7 lists the degrees of freedom for the crop response
variables measured in 1974 and 1975.
Table 7. AOV degrees of freedom for crop response variables measured
__________ in 1974 and 1975.___________________
Source
Replications
__________________ Degrees of Freedom________________________
1975
_______ 1974
------------— --------- — ----------------grain data counts grain data-*-' grain data^/ counts-*-/ counts^/
2
2'
2
2
2-
2
Treatments
21
14
27
23
23
19
Error
42
28
54
46
46
38
65
44
83
71
71
59
Total
locations 15, 25, 35, 45, 55
location 65
3' locations 65 and 75
36
To evaluate the effects of banded N rate, fertilizer source,
and N rate x source interactions, crop response variables were
regressed on N rate for each fertilizer source at each location.
Because crop response to banded N is often curvilinear (Smith et a l .,
1969-1972 and Pairintra, 1973), quadratic equations relating the
measured variables to banded N rate were fitted according to the method
of least squares.
Form of the fitted regression equation was Y = a +
2
b^X + bgx ; where Y is the predicted value of the measured variable,
x is the banded nitrogen fertilizer rate, a is the intercept, and b^
and bg are the partial regression coefficients.
An F statistic was
calculated to determine if regression lines for each of the fertilizer
sources were significantly different from the regression line for all
sources.
Crop response variables analyzed in this manner were:
grain
yield, dry matter yield, straw/grain ratio, number of spikes, number of
culms (both early season and harvest measurements), plant height, 1000
kernel weight, kernels/spike, stand counts (both early season and harvest
measurements), spikes/plant, grain weight/spike, root weight, and top
weight (both early season and harvest measurements where applicable).
To estimate the effect of soil CaCO^ equivalent on ammonia
damage, measured variables averaged over N rate or fertilizer source
were linearly regressed on soil CaCOg means for each location within
a crop year.
This approach proved to be unsatisfactory since between
location variation associated with other factors masked CaCO^ effects.
37
In an attempt to remove some of the between location variation, relative
values of the measured variables were calculated.
Treatments receiving
monoammonium phosphate at a rate of 11 kg/ha of N drill applied with
the seed were assigned a value of 100 and relative values for other
fertilizer sources and rates were calculated as follows:
Relative value =
Measured value for each fertilizer source and rate________
Measured value for monoammonium phosphate at 11 kg of N/ha
The relative values averaged over N rates, or in separate analysis over
fertilizer sources, were then linearly regressed on soil CaCO^ means
for each location within a crop year.
Preliminary analysis had shown that tillering or boot stage
stand counts and top weight were among the better crop response vari­
ables for assessing ammonia damage to plants.
These two response
variables along with final grain yield were subjected to analysis of
variance across locations within a year (1974 and 1975 analyzed
separately).
Because soil CaCO^ effects were confounded with locations
and not easily evaluated, use was made of the variation in CaCO^ equiva­
lent (see Table 3) between replications within location to assess the
impact of this variable.
Partitioning the sums of squares in this
manner eliminated replications at each location and left no degrees
of freedom for estimating error variance.
Tp test the significance of
some main effects and interactions, one main effect was used as a
38
replication and the variance estimates from its two way and three
way interactions with location were used as an "error" variance in
calculating an F statistic.
Repeating this process using a different
main.effect each time permitted testing the significance of all main
effects and interactions as shown in Table 8.
The analysis of variance in Table 8
showed that the three
way interaction location x rate x source was not significant.
Therefore
in order to test the significance of all main effects and two way
interactions with the same error variance, the analysis of variance
was repeated using the variance estimate from the 3-factor interaction
as an "error" variance in calculating the F statistics.
the degrees of freedom with the 3-factor
estimate.
Table 9 shows
interaction used as an error
Table 8 .
Degrees of freedom for analysis of variance with one main effect used as
error estimate.
__
_____ ________________
Source
Location (L)
Fert. Rate (R)
CaCOo
within locations (C)
L x R
C x R
Error L x S
L x R x S
Location (L)
Fert. Source (S)
CaCO^
with location (C)
L x S
C xS
Error L x R
L x R x S
Location (L)
Fert. Rate (R)
Fert. Source (S)
Factor
Confounded
Fert.
Sources (S)
Fert.
Rate (R)
CaCO 3
Degrees of Freedom
1974
1975
Stand Count Top Weight Yield
A
B
A
B
A
B
Stand count
& Topweight
Yield
3
2
2
2
6
3
4
3
5
3
.3
3
5
3
4
3
8
6
16
6
12
6
4
12
4
8
14
18
42
12
36
10
12
30
12
36
12
15
36
10
30
8
9
24
9
27
12
15
36
10
30
10
12
30
12
36
3
2
2
2
6
2
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
2
4
3
14
12
28
18
36
10
12
30
12
36
12
10
24
15
30
8
9
24
9
27
12
10
24
15
30
10
12
30
12
36
6
3
2
4
3
3
5
3
2
3
3
3
5
3
2
4
3
3
8
6
16
6
12
3
2
2
6
4
12
4 .
8
2
2
2
Table 8.
Source
L x R
L x S
R x S
L x R x S
Error C
C x R
C x S
A.
B.
(continued)
Factor
Confounded
within
location (C)
Stand count
& Topweight
6
6
.4
12
8
16
16
Yield
4
4
4
8
6
12
12
Degrees of Freedom
1974
1975
Stand Count Top Weight Yield
A
B
A
B
A
B
18
12
6
' 36
14
42
28
12
12
9
36
10
30
30
15
10
6
30
12
36
24
Excludes urea and DAP as fertilizer source on locations 65 and 75.
Includes all four fertilizer sources on locations 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55.
9
9
9
27
8
24
24
15
10
6
30
12
36
24
12
12
9
36
10
30
30
•E>
O
41
Table 9.
Degrees of freedom for analysis of variance with
3-factor interaction used to estimate error.
_____________ Degrees of Freedom_____________
1974__________________ 1975_____________
Stand Count
Stand Count Topweight Yield
Source____________________ & Topweight Yield
A_____ B
A
B
A
B
Location (L)
Fert. Rate (R)
Fert. Source (S)
CaCOg within location (C)
L x R
x
LxS
R x S
R x C
S xC
Error
A.
B.
3
2
2
8
6
6
L x R x S
4
16
16
12
2
2
2
6
4
4
4
12
12
8
6
3
2
14
18
12
6
42
28
36
4
3
3
10
12
12
9
30
30
36
5
3
2
12
15
10
6
36
24
30
3
5
3
3
3 • 2
12
8
15
9
10
9
6
9
24
36
24
24
27
30
4
3
3
10
12
12
9
30
30
36
Excludes urea and DAP as a fertilizer source on locations 65 and 75
Includes all four fertilizer sources on locations 15, 25, 35, 45,
and 55.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
While the main objective of the experiments was to determine
the effects of banding ammonium phosphate fertilizers with the seed
of irrigated barley, data .showing responses to N, P, and K fertilizers
were obtained.
For this reason, this section is divided into two parts;
the first is a brief summary of the kinds of N, P , and K responses
obtained and the second is the main discussion of NH^ damage.
Response to N, P, and K Fertilization
Table 10 shows grain yield as influenced by nitrogen fertilizer
additions.
Nitrogen ■*■/
Fertilizer
Rate
kg/ha
11
45
90
134
179
LSD.05
Locations 34 and 75 produced no grain.
Location 24
Grain Yield
Location Number
14
24
44
15
25
-kg/ha
35
45
55
65
2857
3397
4299
4480
4303
1712
1665
1906
2224
2110
3046
3529
4630
4711
4682
2272
3283
4287
4383
3648
3678
3187
3387
3167
3245
4226
4570
4357
4191
4376
4465
4478
4266
4244
4443
3781
3681
4450
4143
4095
2118
2502
3207
2794
2794
633
339
918
510
629
783
879
553
720 .
"^Nitrogen fertilizer applied as follows: 11 kg/ha drill applied with
the seed, as monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0), remainder broadcast as
ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) to equal total shown in table.
^/Locations 14, 24, and 44 had 34 kg P/ha and 45 kg E/ha broadcast and
incorporated before seeding plus 25 kg P/ha banded with the seed.
Locations 15, 25, 35, and 55 had 39 k.g P/ha and 45 k g K/ha broadcast
43
was damaged by hail which resulted in low yields and location 65 had
bad weed infestations which reduced yields.
Most locations had a
significant response to additions of nitrogen fertilizer.
25 had a total NO 3-N content to a 122 cm depth of
was high enough that no response was expected.
why location 45 did not respond to N fertilizer.
Location
161 kg/ha which
It is not certain
Soil test NOg-N and
organic matter % were low and responses were expected.
Table 11 shows
the relationships between total NO^-N and O.M.%, recommended N fertili­
zer rates, and the applied N fertilizer rate at which highest yields
were obtained.
Table 11. Comparison of total measured NO 3-N and organic matter to recom___________ mended N rates and N rates at which highest yields were obtained .
Location
Number
44
15
55
65
14
24
35
45
25
Total NO 3-N
to 122 cm
k g/ha
Organic
Matter
%
N fertilizer-*-/
Recommendation
kg/ha .
9
2.06
2.63
2.84
2.19
3.03
3.41
2.60
134-168
134-168
134-168
106-134
106-134
106-134
106-134
78-106
11-45
11
26
24
46
50
66
76
161
2.00
3.83
Fert. rate with
highest yield
kg/ha of N
I/ Based on Fertilizer Guide for Irrigated Cereal Grain.
Cooperative Extension Service. 1974.
134
134
90
90
134
134
45
45
11
Montana
and incorporated before seeding plus 25 kg P/ha banded with seed. Loca­
tions 45 and 65 had 78 kg P/ha and 45 kg K/ha broadcast and incorporated
before seeding plus 25 kg P/ha banded with seed.
44
Most responses correlated well with recommended rates based on
soil test information.
Highest yields were obtained at most locations
with 90 to 134 kg/ha of N.
Those that produced their highest yields at
lower rates were also highest in soil test NO^-N.
If any inconsistency
exists, it is that the recommended rates tended to be slightly higher
than the actual highest yielding rates.
Additions of phosphorus fertilizer were made by broadcasting
and drill application at increasing
rates.
Table 12 shows response
of grain yield to phosphorus fertilization.
Table 12.
Response of barley grain yield to phosphorus fertilization.
Phosphorus
_____________ ;
____ ;______Grain Yield_______________________
Fert. Ratel/
______________________ Location Number_____________________
BdcZ/ Pr_______ 14
24
44
15
25
35
45
55 . 65
— kg/ha—
----------- ---------------- kg/ha-------------- -----------
0
0
0
34-78
34-78
0
3942
4547
0
3820
25
4299
1637
1902
2127
1914
1906
633
339
13
25
LSD. 05
3893
4140
4210
4417
3714
4630
918
2682
3800
3763
3653
4287
720 .
3263
3148
3068
3236
3387
2921
4127
3973
3908
4357
4229
4551
4293
4656
4266
519
629
783
3876
4450
2657
2626
2990
2653
3176
879
553
4060
4287
3889
/ P broadcast and incorporated before seeding as treble superphosphate
(0-45-0) and banded as monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0). All
treatments received 89 kg N/ha.
2/ Locations 14, 24, and 44 had 34 kg P/ha broadcast, locations 15, 25,
35, and 55 had 39 kg P/ha broadcast, locations 45 and 65 had 78
kg P/ha broadcast.
45
Locations 14, 24, 15 and 35 had statistically significant
differences between treatment means.
Most locations had highest yields
with drill applied or a combination of drill applied and broadcast P
as opposed to broadcast P alone.
Soils at all locations tested low
to very low in available phosphorus and responses were expected.
Soil tests revealed that extractable potassium levels were
high at all locations in 1974 and 1975.
Even so, responses to additions
of 45 kg/ha of K were obtained at most locations as shown in Table 13.
Location
24 was the only one not showing increased grain yield due to
K fertilization.
It is possible that hail damage may be the reason
for this lack of response.
Locations 25, 45 and 55 had increased
yields which were not statistically significant at the 5% probability
level.
Increases in kernel plumpness with potassium were evident at
several locations as shown in Table 13.
Locations 14, 45, and 55 did
not show increases in kernel plumpness with additions of K fertilizer..
.
It is possible that factors, particularly climatic ones, were responsible
for this.
Also, location 14 was planted to a feed grain barley variety
as opposed to malting barley varieties at the other locations.
Complete data and least significant difference values
at the 5% probability level for all treatments at each location are
listed in appendix tables.
It is hoped that this data will be of
value in refining soil test corrleations for irrigated barley.
46
Table 13. Response of barley grain yield ’and kernel plumpness to
___________ potassium fertilization.____________________
0
45
L S D .05
Location Number
15
35 .
25
— Grain Yield
44
3920
4299
2023
1906
4236
4630
3887
4287
2972
3387
3985
4357
633
339
918
720
519
0
45
LSD ns
55
65
4085
4266
3820
4450
2834
3707
629
783
879
553
P
..Ti
--
45
I
I
I
I
I
24
CTr
14
00
Potassium „ ,
Fert. Rate1'
kg/ha
-
93.1
92.0
89,5
92.5
91.4
93.6
90.3
94.3
70.3
73.8
78.9
83.8
70.4
69.6
79.2
78.5
75.8
79.8
3.9
5.2
3.8
3.0
8.9
4.5
13.6
4.9
4.5
I/ K broadcast before seeding as muriate of potash (0-0-60). All
locations received 89 k g N/ha and from 34 to 78 kg P/ha broadcast
plus 25 kg P/ha banded with seed.
Ammqnia Damage
The remainder of this section consists of discussion of the
effects of banding different rates and sources of ammonium phosphate
fertilizers with the seed of irrigated barley at 11 locations.
purpose of organization and simplification
For the
this section is divided
into subsections based upon the different factors taken into consider­
ation
during the course of this study.
Some repetition of the results
was necessary because some data provided information for more than
one factor,
47
Moisture Differences
In field experiments of this type, climatological factors can
be of the utmost importance.
Recent studies have shown that the
effects of soil moisture on ammonia volatilization are both profound
and complicated (Fenn and Escarzaga, 1976).
Since ammonia damage occurs
in the first few days after planting (Pairintra 1973), it can be
assumed that precipitation a few days prior to and just after planting
will have an important effect.
Subsequent rainfall during the growing
season could influence compensation, if any, by the barley plant to
earlier damage.
Table 14 lists rainfall amounts at all locations
in 1974 and 1975 during April I to September 30.
Numbers shown are the weekly total precipitation in centimeters.
Rainfall data were collected at the nearest National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration meterological s t a t i o n . I n 1974, data for
location 14 was obtained from Belgrade, Montana; locations 24 and 34
from Townsend; location 44 from Fairfield, Montana.
In 1975, location
15 rainfall was obtained from the Agricultural Experiment Station at
Bozeman; locations 25 and 35 from Manhattan, Montana; locations 45
from the Dillon airport; locations 55 and 65 from Townsend, Montana;
and locations 75 from 6 miles north of Helena, Montana.
Differences
5/ Climatological Data. Montana. Vol, 77 and 78. U.S. Dept, of
Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1974
and 1975.
48
Table 14.
Total weekly rainfall from April I to September 30 at
selected locations in 1974 and 1975.
Date
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
14
24&34
44
0.15
0.08
0.13
0.38
0.74
0.10
0.10
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-30
Total
0.25
0.18
0.05
. 0.74
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-31
Total
0.05.
0.69
2.24
. 3.23
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-30
Total
0.38
0.08
0.18
0.05
0.69
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-31
Total
1.60
0.69
0.28
0.08
2.65
9.46
0.74
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-31
Total
1-7
8-14
15-21
22-30
Total
Season Total
1.22
6.21
—
—**•■*’*—
0.25
0.45
—
1.02
0.81
1.78
3.61
0.13
0.69
0.82
1.91
-——
0.66
2.57
0.25
. 1.07
——1.32
■*■*■*■■
1.32
0.25
————
—
1.20
1.57
1.50
2.03
0.94
—'—— —
4.47
0.86
1.78
3.38
3.05
-— —
0.79
1.60
1.04
0.51
0.79
3.18
——1.55
18.42
15.26
1.60
4.88
————
7.34
Rainfall (cm)
-Location Number
15
25&3S
45
0.86 . 1.14
0.79
0.46
0.58
1.27
3.10
6.58
4.62
6.15
1.45
0.03
0.69 . ---—
_ _ _ _ _
0.28
8.57
4.65
3.28
0.94
0.71
2.79
0.94
2.46
6.90
0.18
3.30
1.70
0.89
0.15
4.72
0.18
5.94
0.56
1.30
4.34
1.37
7.57
■ ---
—™ ~—
_____
0.03
1.60
0.71
3.53
5.87
0.76
0.81
0.91
4.65
7.13
0.86
____
2.27
0.51
2.31
1.09
6.18
1.35
0.41
10.35
0.15
2.01
4.24
6.40
2.01
7.19
1.40
2.95
4.35
1.22
_ _ _ _
0.56
0.76
0.20
0.64
5.06
1.12
1.02
1.07
3.97
0.41
2.19
0.10
0.93
0.64
— —0.97
____
1.61
0.08
----
1.07
----
0.46
2.28
1.27
— ——
1.35
———
2.62
0.54
0.58
—
1.65
16.40
33.41
27.01
23.19
27.65
1.75
0.48
0.05
0.58
0.25
——3.35
4.21
0.05
0.53
1.45
2.03
8.21
.75
0.43
0.43
0.46
1.85
3.17
2.01
0.51
0.28
0.38
4.09
5.26
55&65
_ _ _ _ _
0.25
0.03
6.55
7.97
2.64
0.58
0.58
0.30
4.10
«
1.17
4.37
0.20
5.74
0.08
2.54
3.40
6.88
0.71
--0.61
0.10
1.42
32.29
49
between actual rainfall at the experimental sites and measured
rainfall
at the given stations could exist, but conclusions as to rainfall
patterns and differences between the two years can be reached.
It is evident from Table 14 that considerably more precipitation
occurred in 1975 as compared to 1974 at all locations.
To further
verify this. Table 15 shows the departure from mean monthly precipitation
for both years at selected locations.
These data were not available
for locations 44, 25 and 35.
Table 15.
Departure from mean monthly precipitation for 1974 and 1975.
Departure from Mean Monthly Precipitation (cm)
--------------- Location Number-------------- :—
15
45
14
55&65
75
24&34
Month
April
-1.73
-1.42
-0.02
+3.18
+2.06
+5.26
May
+ 0.86
-1.04
+5.61
+0.43
+0.41
+0.48
June
- 6.22
-5.44
+0.61
+0.25
+1.32
+1.14
July
- 0.10
-1.55
+ 0.66
+3.68
+4.39
+7.44
August
+1.55
+4.62
-0.61
-1.17
-0.69
+3.78
September
-0.36
-1.50
-0.23
-1.83
-1.40
-1.27
Season Totals
- 6.00
-6.33
+ 6.02
+4.54
+6.09
+16.38
Comparison of locations 24 and 34 to locations 55 and 65 (which
were measured at the same station in both years) serves to point out
the differences between the years.
6 cm
below normal precipitation.
In 1974, the two locations were
The same locations in 1975 received
50
6 cm above normal precipitation.
normal precipitation.
Location 75 was over 16 cm above
Every location in 1974, except location 14 in
May, had below normal average precipitation
during the first four
months measured, while every location in 1975, except location 15 in
April, had above average precipitation.
In 1974, all locations were planted between April 26 and May 6
(see Table I)
but in 1975 planting was not feasible until the period
of May 27 to June 3.
This delay of almost a month was due to inclement
weather during April and May 1975.
During the month of April 1974,
the three stations received 1.22, 0.74, and 0.45 cm of precipitation,
respectively.
During the month prior to planting in 1975 (May), the
stations received 10.35, 8.57, 4.65, 5.06, and 4.10 cm of precipita­
tion, respectively (see Table 14).
In the month following planting
(May 1974 and June 1975) the locations in 1975 again received more
precipitation than those measured in 1974, except location
14 which
had 6.21 cm of precipitation for the month of May.
Precipitation differences between the two years were great
enough to rule out grouping data from the two years for analysis.
Above
normal precipitation in 1975 could minimize the effects of volatilized
NH 3 on barley plants.
For this reason., the two years were analyzed
and treated separately throughout the remainder of this discussion.
51
Crop Response Variables and Year Effect
Quadratic regression equations describing crop response to
banded N rate for each fertilizer source were calculated for 16 crop
response variables measured over four locations in 1974 and seven
locations in 1975.
An F test and subsequent p values were used to
determine if regression equations for sources were statistically
different.
Fertilizer sources were monoammonium phosphate, diammonium
phosphate, urea ammonium polyphosphate, and, in 1975, a 1:1 ratio
^ :^2^5
urea + diammonium phosphate
at rates of 11, 22, 33, and,
in 1975, 44 kg/ha of N drill applied with barley seed,
Table 16 shows
the p values obtained.
The differences between the two years are readily apparent in
Table 16.
Although the p values do not necessarily indicate any
patterns of ammonia damage, they do indicate where there were signifircant differences between fertilizer sources as N rates with the seed
increased.
The differences in the p values and the number of
significant p values in 1974 as compared to 1975 must be considered.
It is obvious from the table that for almost all crop response variables
measured? lower p values and a larger number of statistically signifi­
cant p values were obtained for 1974 data as compared to 1975 data.
The reason for the differences between the two years would seem to be
precipitation amounts as discussed in the previous subsection.
1975 experiments received a much greater amount of precipitation
Since
52
Table 16.
Quadratic regression p values calculated for 16 crop
response variables at all locations in both years.
P- value
Location Number
Crop Response
Variable
Grain yield
Dry matter
Straw/grain ratio
Spike s/me ter row ,
Culms/meter row
Culms/meter row^/
Plant height
1000 kernel w t .
Kernels/spike
Stand count^/
Stand count2/
Spikes/plant
Grain wt./spike
Root weight
Top weight !/
Top weight 2/
14
24
.21
.01*
.21
.00*
.01*
.00*
.26
.00*
.04*
.00*
.01*
.79
.01*
.05*
.00*
.23
.26
.81
.60
1974
34
.
.03*
.00* .09
.01*
.08 .00*
'
.06
.00* .06
. .01*
.96
44
15
25
35
.46
.87
.03*
.11
.00*
.05*
.08
.83
.21
.02*
.05*
.21
.18
.82
.23
.82
.25
.94
.05*
.06
.77
.70
.34
.45
.37
.31
.27
.57
.35
.55
.24
.34
.02
.42
.91
.08
.59
.06
.16
.42
.99
.84
.92
.16
.42
.33
.76
.37
.20
.08 .07 .03*
.00* .00* .00*
.70
1975
45
.37
.74
.08
.63
.76
.50
.83
.02*
.95
.52
.39
.36
.49
.19
.08
.74
.65
.60
.49
.68
55
65
75
.70 .43
.68 .73
.52 .56
.53
.49
.99 .87
.07
.49 .23
.55 .63
.82 .91
.28
.14
.41
.74 .49
.54 .70
.98 .38
.03* .61
* p-values 2% .05 considered statistically significant,
!/measured at tillering in 1974 and boot stage in 1975.
2/measured at harvest both years.
throughout the growing season, it would be expected that the amount of
ammonia damage incurred would be less than the dryer 1974 experiments.
Another factor that could have resulted in differences between
the two years is that certain crop response variables were measured
at tillering stage in 1974 but not until boot stage in 1975.
This
might be expected to influence p values if large discrepancies existed
between the measurements made first as compared to the harvest
53
measurements within a given location.
If, for instance, the number
of culms/meter of row measured at tillering stage revealed a greater
difference between different fertilizer sources or rates as compared
to measurements made at harvest, then it is possible that by waiting
until boot stage to make the initial measurements, early evidence of
ammonia damage could be missed.
As seen in Table 16, no particular
difference exists in the p values obtained for culms per meter of row
or stand count per meter of row whether measured at tillering or
harvest in 1974.
Previous studies (Pairintra, 1973) found measurable
ammonia damage at early stages of measurement, but early stage
measurements tended to point out treatment differences more dramatically.
One of the crop response variables in Table 16 which shows differences
between early and late measurements is top weight.
Although it was
only measured at harvest in 1974 and then only at two locations, the
results are of interest.
Figure I shows early and late top weight
measurements made at location 14.
Even
,
though trends of ammonia damage are shown in both
figures, the tillering stage measurement is much more dramatic.
While
the F value for the harvest stage measurement is greater than 1.0,
the probability level (p) is too high for differences to be considered
statistically significant.
An even greater difference exists between
tillering and harvest stage top weight measurement for location 44,
as is seen in Figure 2.
54
Harvest stage top w t .
95-1
90
858075706560-
N rate (kg/ha)
MAP = monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0)
DAP = diammonium phosphate (18-46-0)
UAPP = urea ammonium polyphosphate (28-28-0)
Figure I.
Plant top weight measured at tillering and harvest as influenced
by three fertilizer sources at three nitrogen rates for
location 14.
In Figure 2, the difference between the two times of measurement
is much more evident.
Tillering stage measurement showed statistically
significant differences between the fertilizer sources
(note UAPP),
but no trends of ammonia damage were evident in measurements made at
the same location at harvest.
Therefore, delaying measurement of crop
response variables until the boot stage in 1975 could be at least
55
Tillering stage top weight
Harvest stage top weight
UAPP
N Rate (kg/ha)
MAP = monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0)
DAP = diammonium phosphate (18-46-0)
UAPP = urea ammonium polyphosphate (28-28-0)
Figure 2.
Plant top weight measured at tillering and harvest as influenced
by three fertilizer sources at three nitrogen rates for
location 44.
partly responsible for the differences between the two years.
However,
differences between the times of measurement did not result in
different crop injury trends for all response variables measured.
The
extreme differences in precipitation between the two years must have
played a significant role in the amount of ammonia damage incurred
and this along with the delayed measurement in 1975 could have resulted
56
in less ammonia damage in 1975 and a minimizing of the researchers .
ability to detect it.
One of the objectives of this study was to determine which
measures of plant growth and development are the best indicators of
ammonia damage.
Table 16 serves as a basis for this determination.
As was pointed out earlier, measurements made at earlier stages of
plant development seem to be better indicators of plant damage.
As
can be seen, certain crop response variables tended to have lower
p values than others, particularly in 1974.
Those crop response variables included as possible measures
of ammonia damage which tended to have lower p values were culms/meter
of row (both times of measurement), plant height, stand count/meter
of row (both times of measurement), and early top weight.
Since it is
assumed that less ammonia damage occurred in 1975, much of this
information will be reliant on 1974 results with the assumption that
in years of normal to below normal precipitation these crop measurements
will be more indicative of volatilized ammonia damage.
Spikes^meter of row showed significant differences between
sources for locations 14 and 34, but in all other locations for both
years this crop response variable was not influenced by ammonia damage.
Figure 3 shows the number of spikes^meter of row for locations 14 and 34.
It should be noted that for this crop response variable, monoammonium
phosphate (MAP), and diammonium phosphate (DAP) produced more heads/meter
57
Location 34
Location 14
o
I
Pd
u
HI
■u
M
•H
A
W
N applied with seed
(kg/ha)
Figure 3.
N applied with seed
(kg/ha)
Number of spikes/meter of row as influenced by three fertilizer
sources at three nitrogen rates for locations 14 and 34.
of row at all fertilizer rates that did urea ammonium polyphosphate
(UAPP).
Data from location 15, fairly indicative of the other loca­
tions, are shown in Figure 4.
No trends or differences between the
different fertilizer sources or rates are evident.
Plant height proved rather ineffective as an indicator of
ammonia damage.
At location 14, which was probably the best overall
location for showing evidence of ammonia damage, plant height was
not measureably affected by volatilized ammonia.
All three of the
58
"
UAPP
(1:1 ratio
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
Figure 4.
Number of spikea'meter of row as influenced by four fertili­
zer sources at four nitrogen rates for location 15.
other locations in 1974 and several in 1975 did show some evidence
that plant height was affected by volatilized NH^.
Table 17 lists
plant height for specific treatments for all locations in 1974 and 1975.
Location
34 provides evidence of the effects of volatilized
NH^ on plant height.
Urea ammonium polyphosphate had lower plant
height with 33 kg/ha of N drill applied with barley seed.
Although
all locations in 1975 were statistically significant to either the 1%
or 5% level, the results were inconsistent as far as the development
of a pattern of ammonia damage is concerned.
Location 25 had
59
Table 17. Plant height of all locations in 1974 and 1975 as affected
___________ by fertilizer source and rate._____________________________
Fert.
Source
N
applied
w/ seed
i
K-g//rf.i_
d
MAP
11
22
33
__________________Plant Height
'_______________ Location Number /I
________ 1974
___________ 1975
14
24
15
25
35
45
34
44
53
53
53
54
52
54
48
49
52
40
40
44
44
DAP
11
22
33
56
53
54
53
53
56
46
47
52
40
41
41
UAPP
U+DAP
Significance
LSD nc
81
85
81
85
66.
68
67
65
83
88
66
68
64
69
61
64
69
84
84
63
65
67
66
86
63
64
57
64
69
63
68
44
11
22
33
64
71
67
67
51
55
54
52
49
51
42
41
32
39
38
38
64
63
66
81
79
73
67
70
65
68
62
65
75
62
67
65
.61
68
64
57
60
61
64
70
. 67
70
60
58
60
61
57
67
63
61
64
68
44
67
79
11
22
33
66
62
63
64
65
64
60
68
59
65
44
64
85
78
84
80
57
65
64
64
59
AA
6.6
AA
6 .U
A
3.0
*
4.0
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
8.4
3.0
5.7
5.7
6.5
65
9.3
*, ** Treatment means significantly different at the 5% and 1%
probability level, respectively.
Location 55 not measured.
decreases in plant height with drill application of 44 kg/ha of N as
diammonium phosphate (DAP), urea ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP)
mixture of urea and DAP in 1:1. ratio NzP^Og.
and a
Locations 45. and 65 also
60
showed some evidence of lower plant heights with higher N rates.
It
is possible that under certain conditions plant height could be used
as a measure of ammonia damage (Parintfa 1973), but the results from
this experiment are inconclusive.
The inconsistencies between the
different locations could possibly be caused by precipitation differ­
ences, planting dates, or possibly even varietal differences.
For
example, plant height could be affected differently in tall varieties
as compared to shorter ones.
Culms/meter row. (both times of measurement), stand count/meter
of row (both times of measurement in 1974), and early top weight all
proved to be fairly reliable measures of ammonia damage, particularly
in 1974.
Tables 18 and 19 present culms/meter of row, stand count/
meter of
row, and top weight as influenced by fertilizer source and
banded N rate for all locations in 1974 and 1975.
Number of culms/meter
row was not measured early at location 55, nor at harvest at locations
24 and 75.
Stand counts were not made early at location 55 and were
made at harvest only at locations 14, 34, and 44.
Top weight was not
measured at location 55.
Culms/meter row (Table 18) appears to be a more effective
damage indicator at early stages of growth than at harvest.
Urea
ammonium polyphosphate had fewer culms/-meter of row with 33 (1974)
or 44 (1975) kg/ha of N applied with the seed as compared to lower
rates of N when measured at early stages of growth at all locations
Table 18.
Culms/meter of row as affected by fertilizer source and rate in 1974 and 1975
______ Early Culms/meter r o w ______ Harvest Culms/meter row
N
_________________■
___________
Location Number _____________
Fert. Applied
1974
1975
1974 _______
w/
seed
14
'24
44
"
15
25
35
45
'
75
14
34
44 15 25
34
Source
.65
kg/ha
Wft TX
MAP
DAP
UAPP
U+DAP
11
22
33
44
11
22
33
44
11
22
33
44
198 250 174 213 27.8
190 252 197 209 276
209 270 190 222 254
255
55
65
207
297
279
277
443
312
299
318
282
296
322
326
286 267 133 187 262 338
265 303 138 216 236 364
173 264 134 208 270 366
268
265 395
422
469
414
380
329
283
318
327
238
239
261
236
326
389
353
353
196 256 171 191 273 286 245
192 254 176 203 276 323 248
180 260 193 215 273 282 283
242 262 234
290
305
338
268
277
345
347
291
354 255 135 196 241 321
225 289 142 199 231 356
294 272 140 196 268 350
245 317
186
386
351
416
352
276
337
270
274
239
223
229
228
332
392
358
372
179 234 160 236 256 349 214
144 193 164 188 254 354 252
119 186 146 174 247 304 220
258 281 208
349
316
238
249
275
293
353
261
236 224 132 186 222 408 438
263 178 129 181 228 294 414
212 149 95 196 252 314 373
290
231. 370 428
324
282
237
270
224
227
232
235
389
367
307
342
342
379
361
419
372
292
334
276
215 358
208
243 359
232
11
22
214
300
258
235
33
44
Significance
LSD: .05
1975
35 45
**
34
**
31
37
**
24
324
322
307
319
338
290
281
275
232 373 335 194
274 294
210 332 285 218
256 213
A
55
70
83 128
85 130
215 389
220 293
253 364
212 327
AA
AA
AA
AA
57
23
25
56
A
84
-
93 122
*, ** Treatment means significantly different at the 5% and 1% probability levels,
respectively.
60
88
Table 19.
Source
MAP
DAP
UAPP
U+DAP
Stand count/meter row and early top weight as affected by fertilizer source and
rate.
N
applied
w/seed
kg/ha
11
22
33
44
11
22
33
44
11
22
33
44
Stand Counts/meter row
______________ Early________ ^
Harvest
Early Top Weight (kg/ha)
_____________ ________________Location Number_________________ .___________
1974
_______ 1975
1974
1974
1975
14 24 34 44 15 25 35 45 65 75 14 34 44 14 24 34 44 15 15 25 35 65 75
59 77 61 58. 98 106 115 80 132
63 81 54 62 103 109 87 49 116
55 79 57 61 100 97 97 38 126
122 112 98 51 121
20
23
24
20
18 27
21 16
20 17
20 16
24 24
21 18
19 17
18 15
17 17
19 17
23 16
20 13
64 78 55 59 108 104 101 48 123 79 52 51 56 24 30 17 19 44 27 24
56 80 54 63 97 111 93 58 116 47 46 47 47 28 28 17 21 42 35 25
54 76 56 63 133 104 95 49 126 64 45 50 57 27 32 21 21 44 35 21
115 H O
70 39 101 40
46 31 23
45 66 56 60
32 54 52 48
31 48 41 45
99 121 118 58 106 47 43 45 41 19 29 13 21 42 35
89 118 92 41 104 63 29 43 43 21 21 15 16 43 36
99 95 70 30 120 46 23 31 39 18 22 8 14 42 31
106 96 71 33 107 40
45 32
95 120 104
107 109 100
112 118 79
95 94 85
11
22
33
44
Significance
LSD .05
81 46 47 47 26 30 18 21 43 35 23 30 23 17
63 56 44 51 27 29 19 19 48 35 27 24 26 19
30 43 50 58 27 33 21 21 42 33 33 33 27 11
54
45 32 29 22 25 18
A
AA
9 10 11
22
A* A*
8
A
81 119 58
46
52 120 39
43
A
21
*, ** Treatment means significantly
respectively.
30 29
38
45
42
.34
AA AA AA AA AA
43 36 15 10 12 14
6
31 20 22 18 18
31 20 21
32 17 23 20 17
28 20 16
A AA AA
6
3
7
AA
7
7
AA
9
different at the 5% and 1% probability levels,
A
5 10
63
except 15 and 45.
Harvest culms were lower with higher N rates on
locations 14, 34, and 15 only.
Stand counts/meter row and early top
weight (Table 19) were both effective measures of NH^ damage,
especially in 1974.
Higher rates of N applied with seed frequently
produced lower stand counts and top weight than lower rates.
Because
these two crop response variables were relatively effective measures
of ammonia damage, early stand counts and early top weight were
statistically analyzed in greater depth in order to obtain a more
thorough evaluation of the effects of the fertilizer treatments.
Grain
yields were analyzed in the same manner in order to estimate the
effects of volatilized ammonia (if any) on final yield of barley grain.
These three crop response variables are discussed in more depth in
subsequent subsections.
Thousand kernel weight, kernels/spike, spikes/plant, and
grain weight/spike were measured in order to determine if grain plants
compensated for earlier ammonia damage.
discussed in the compensation subsection.
These response variables are
Plant dry matter, straw:
grain ratio, and root weight resulted in variable and inconsistent
data.
Root weight was shown to be an effective measure of NH^
damage by Pairintra (1973) in laboratory and greenhouse studies,
but these field studies could not duplicate his findings.
The
method in which the root weight of the plants was determined was
probably at fault.
Removal of the foot systems from the soil and
64
subsequent washing of the soil from the roots probably damaged the
fibrous
root system of the barley plant.
If the effects of
volatilized ammonia are to be evaluated in field studies using
plant root measurements, a more precise method of removing and cleaning
the roots should be developed.
Fertilizer Source and Rate
One of the major objectives of this study was to determine the
magnitude of damage by several ammonium phosphate fertilizers and to
determine at what rates these fertilizers could be safely applied
with barley seed under irrigated conditions.
phosphate fertilizers (monoammonium
In 1974, three ammonium
phosphate - MAP, diammonium
phosphate - DAP, and urea ammonium polyphosphate - UAPP) were drill
applied with barley seed at three rates (11, 22, and 33 kg/ha of N ) .
In 1975, MAP, DAP, and UAPP were drill applied at 11, 22, 33, and
44 kg/ha of N.
A mixture of urea and diammonium phosphate (U + DAP)
in a 1:1 ratio N :P20^ was also applied at these four rates at all 1975
locations except 65 and 75.
at 11 and 33 kg/ha of N only.
At these two locations, U +.DAP was applied
A mixture of ammonium nitrate and
monoammonium phosphate (AN + MAP) in a 1:1 ratio N=PgO^ was applied at
22 and 44 kg/ha of N at locations 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55.
Due to the
total number of treatments studied, the mixture of AN + MAP was not
included in much of the statistical analysis but data will be included
where appropriate.
65
a.
Analysis of variance across locations with one main effect confounded.
The F and p values obtained from analysis of variance across
locations in 1974 with one main effect confounded each time are listed
I
in Table 20.
Stand counts/meter row at tillering stage of growth,
plant top weight at tillering, and final grain yield were the crop
response variables analyzed.
Final grain yield was measured on only
three of the four locations.
Table 20. Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F , and p values
___________ across locations in 1974 with one main effect confounded.
Source
Location (L)
Rate (R)
CaCO 3 (C)
L x R
C x R
Error L x S
L x R x S
Location
Source (S)
Cs-COn
L x S
C xS
Error L x R
L x R x
Location
Rate
Source
L x R
L x S
Factor
Confounded
Fert.
Source
Stand Counts
df
F
P
Top Weight
df
F
p
3
3
2
8
6
16
44.3
10.3
0.3
0.7
0.2
.00
.00
.95
.69
.99
3
44.3 .00
3
2
8
6
68.0 .00
2
8
6
16
0.9 .51
4.5 .01
0.9 .60
3
2
2
6
6
.00
.58
.99
.06
.99
16
56.3
9,6
82,6
0.6
5.4
.00
,00
,00
.72
.00
3
2
2
6
6
2 438.9 .00
2
0.8 .47
6
1.5 .20
4
12
1.7 .21
1.5 .14
4
8
176.7
38.9
0.4
1.0
1.2
,00
.00
.90
.45
.27
6
12
6
12
CaCO^
within
location
16
176.7
0.6
0.2
2.5
0.3
6
12
6
12
Fert.
Rate
2
8
6
Grain Yield
df
F
P
2 438.9 .00
2
7.0 .01
6
1.3 .26
4
12
0.4 .84
0.8 .69
4
8
107.0
0.5
68.9
2.3
1.7
.00
.61
.00
.04
.13
2 623.1 .00
2
1.2 .31
2
6.5 .00
4
4
2.5 .05
0.3 .89
66
Table 20.
(continued)
Source
Confounded
Stand Counts
df
F '' P
R xS
L x R x S
Error
C x R
C x S
p
4
6.9
.06
12
8
Top weight
df • F
P
.00
.84
8.3
.00
12 1.0
8
.47
4
16
16
16
16
Grain Yield
df
F ■ P .
4
1.3
8 0.6
6
12
12
.28
.79
,05 considered statistically significant.
Location effects were always highly significant regardless of
which main effect was confounded.
Because of differences in management
and unmeasured soil and climatic variables, it was expected that
location would have a profound effect in field tests of this type.
Fertilizer rate significantly influenced stand counts but had no
effect on top weight or grain yield.
affected
Fertilizer source significantly
all three crop response variables.
The fertilizer rate
x source interaction was significant for stand counts and top weight
when within location CaCOg levels (originally intended replications)
were used to estimate error variance.
The analysis of variance with one main effect confounded for
1975 was divided into two parts:
fertilizer sources
one across all locations with three
(MAP, DA P, and UAPP), the other across locations
(15, 25, 35, 45, and 55) with four fertilizer sources (MAP; DAP, UAPP,
and U + DAP).
Table 21 lists analysis of variance F and p values
67
for 1975 with three fertilizer sources.
Table 22 lists analysis of
variance F and p values for 1975 with four fertilizer sources.
As in
1974, location was the most significant variable with both three and
four fertilizer sources. . With three fertilizer sources, fertilizer rate
main effect significantly affected stand counts when fertilizer source or
CaCOg level was confounded and grain yield when CaCOg level was confounded
With three fertilizer sources, the fertilizer source main effect signi­
ficantly influenced top weight and grain yield when rate was confounded
and all three crop response variables when CaCOg levels were confounded.
With four fertilizer sources, the fertilizer rate main effect signifi­
cantly Affected stand count and grain yield when source was confounded
and all three crop response variables when CaCOg level was confounded.
Fertilizer source main effect significantly influenced top weight when
rate was confounded and top weight and grain yield when calcium car­
bonate level was confounded.
In 1975, none of. the crop responses were
significantly influenced by fertilizer rate x source interactions.
The initial AOVs point out the impact of fertilizer rate and
source on crop growth, particularly in 1974.
Since confounding main
effects to estimate error resulted in some main effects and interactions
being tested for significance with different estimates of error
variance, the AOVs were conducted again but this time the three-factor
interaction variance estimate was used to calculate the F statistic.
68
Note that this interaction
previous A O V ’s .
was not statistically significant in the
The following subsection details the results of this
analysis.
Table 21.
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p values
across locations in 1975 with one main effect confounded
for three fertilizer sources.
Source
Location (L)
Rate (R)
CaCO 3 (C)
L x R
C x R
Error L x S
L x R x S
Location
Source (S)
CaCO 3
L x S
C x S .
Error L x R
L x R x S
Location
Rate
Source
L x R
L x S
R x S
L x R x S
Error C
C x R
C x S
P fS
Factor
ignored
Stand counts
df
F
P
6
Fert.
Source
3
14
18
42
12
15
36
124.0 .00
1.8 .16
1.0 .39
1.4 .19
1.0 .43
5
3
12
15
36
10
10
36
30
30
14
12
28
18
36
6
3
CaCOn
Level
■ 5
3
Grain Yield
df
F
p
12
6
2
Fert'.
Rate
75.5 .00
3.2 .03
1.0 .51
1.3 .22
1.3 .13
Top weight
df
F
P
2
18
12
6
36
14
42
28
75.5
2.5
0.9
0.5
.00
.10
.61
.88
1.2 .21
66.5 .00
3.8 .01
3.2 .04
1.6 .07
0.7 .77
1.6 .15
0.7 .90
5
2
12
10
24
15
30
5
3
124.0 .00
5.0 .01
1.1 .39
1.2 .36
1.2 .23
132.8 .00
2
15
10
6
30
2.0 .12
6.1 .00
1.5 .10
1.4 .18
0.5 .79
0.9 .56
5
2
12
10
24
15
30
5
3
2
15
10
6
30
12
12
36
24
36
24
.05 considered and statistically significant.
40.5 .00
2.3 .10
2.3 .01
0.6 .82
1.5 .04
40.5 .00
4.1 .03
2.1 .02
0.6 .77
1.1 .38
79.1 .00
3,0 .03
4.2 .02
0.8 .62
0.6 .78
1.5 .20
0.9 .60
69
Table 22.
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p values
across locations in 1975 with one main effect confounded
for four fertilizer sources.
Source
Location (L)
Rate (R)
CaCO 3 (C)
L x R
C x R
Error L x S
L x R x
Location
Source (S)
CaCO 3
L x S
C x S
Error L x R
L x R x
Location
Rate
Source
L x R
L x S
R x S
L x R x S
Error C
C x R
C x-S
P
b.
ignored
Fert.
Source
Stand Counts
df
F
p
Top weight
df
F
p
4
3
3
3
10
12
30
119.4 .00
3.3 .03
0.8 .67
1.8 .10
1.5 .07
12
S
26
4
3
Fert.
Rate
10
12
30
119.4
1.1
0.6
0.9
1.1
12
36
S
CaCO 3
Level
4
3
3
12
12
9
36
83.8
4.4
1.3
2.4
0.9
1.7
0.7
8
9
24
9
27
.00
.37
.79
3
3
.68
9
8
.39 ■ 24
9
27
.00
.01
.29
.01
.54
.09
.90
3
3
9
9
9
9
■ 27
160.6
2.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
.00
.06
.34
.39
.30
Grain Yield
df
F :•
p
4
3
:.lo
12
30
120.0
.00
3.4 .03
0.4 .94
0.6 .82
1:3 .13
12
36
160.6
5.7
1.2
0.7
1.3
.00
.00
.30
.71
.21
4 120.0 .00
3
2.6 .07
10
0.4 .95
12
0.8 .65
1.2 .24
30
12
36
194.2
3.3
7.1
1.4
0.9
1.1
0.9
,00
.02
.00
.22
.56
.39
.57
4
3
3
12
12
9
36
10
8
10
30
30
' 24
24
30
30
49.9
4.6
3.2
0.8
1.0
.00
.00
.02
.63
.45
1.6 .12
0.9 .63
.05 considered statistically significant.
Analysis of variance across locations with 3-factor interactions
confounded.
70
Table 23 lists analysis of variance F and p values across loca­
tions using the three-factor interaction as an estimate of error
variance.
The table is in three parts:
1974 with all four locations,
1975 with three fertilizer sources (all seven locations), and 1975 with
four fertilizer sources (all locations except 65 and 75).
As was
expected, location differences were highly significant in each analysis.
Calcium carbonate main effects were generally non-significant and will
be discussed in the next subsection.
In 1974, fertilizer.rate main effects significantly affected
stand counts/meter row only, while fertilizer source main effects signi­
ficantly affected stand counts, top weight, and grain yield.
The rate x
source interaction was significant for stand counts and top weight.
In
1975 with three fertilizers, fertilizer rate main effect was statisti­
cally significant only for final grain yield.
Fertilizer source main
effect had a significant effect on all three crop response variables.
The rate x source interaction approached significance only for stand
counts/meter row.
In 1975 with four fertilizer sources, the inclusion
of a mixture of urea + diammonium phosphate in 1:1 ratio N.'P^O^ had a
noticeable effect on the analysis of variance.
Fertilizer rate main
effect was significant only for grain yield, and the importance of
fertilizer source main effect was not as evident as it was statistically
significant only for top weight and possibly for grain yield.
x source interaction was significant for stand counts. ■
The rate
71
Table 23.
_________
Analysis of variance degrees of freedom, F, and p values
measured across locations with three-factor interactions
used to estimate error for all locations in 1974, all
locations in 1975 with 3 fertilizer sources, and 5 locations
in.1975 with 4 fertilizer sources.
Source
Stand counts
df
F
P
df
Top weight
F
P
Grain Yield
df
F
P
1974 (
Location (L)
Fertilizer Rate (R)
Fertilizer Source (S)
CaCOg Level (C)
L x R
L x S
R x S
R x C
SxC
Error L x R x S
3
2
2
8
6
6
4
16
16
95.5
15.7
15.2
1.5
.00
.00
,01
,20
1,0
.45
9,2
.00
.00
11.8
1.1
1.4
Lx S
R x S
R x C
SxC
Error L x R x S
6
3
2
2
2
8
6
6
4
16
16
.00
0.8
,64
2.3
1.7
8.4
.10
.19
1.2
2.1
.36
,03
12
12
8
1,9
1.1
.13
.04
.74
.15
.08
.41
142.5
1.3
4.3
.00
.04
.81
.00
.00
4
4
4
108.9
0.5
22.7
1.9
4.4
0.5
2.3
.00
.66
,01
q
94,5
2.4
4.7
,00
.10
5
3
2
12
5
3
87.1
3.6
2
12
.12
15
10
6
1.4
,18
.77
.24
.15
' 6.6
2.9
0.9
0.7
1.5
.09
.00
.01
.22
4
55.6
3 ■ 5.6
3 . 3.3
10
0.5
12
0.9
.52
12
1,1
.03
.41.
2,3
.02
15
12
6
1,0
.50
.06
.08
.07
10
6
.00
3
3
3
208,7
.00
2.5
.13
8.3
.01
8
1.5
1.5
0.9
,18
2.3
1.4
1.5
36
24
30
.00
.31
.04
.29
14
18
42
28
36
2
2
2
6
108.1
' 0.2
38.3
12
12
io"?c: ../
Location .
Fertilizer Rate
Fertilizer Source
CaCOg Level
L x R
.40
.19
3
1.2
1.6
1.5
0.6
1.2
36
24
30
.01
.00
.54
.72
.18
1.6
2 .0. .01
T./ /,
Location
Fertilizer Rate
Fertilizer Source
CaCOg Level
L x R
L x S
4
3
3
10
12
12
121.3
1.9
1.4
0,8
3.5
. 1.3
.19
.29
.61
,00
.26
9
9
1.1
.06
.90
.55
.38
72
Table 23.
(continued)
Source
R x S
R x C
SxC
Error L x R x S
P !S
c.
Stand counts
df
F
P
9
30
30
36
2.5
1.6
1.4
.03
.05
.13
' df
Top weight
F
P
9
24
24
27
1.2
.36
1.5
1.5
.10
■ Grain Yield
• df
F
P
.08
9
30
30
36
.1.8
.10
1.6
.05
1.4
.10
.05 considered statistically significant.
Comparison of individual fertilizer sources and rates.
1974 Results
The previous analysis of variance revealed that fertilizer
source main effect was significant for all three crop response vari­
ables measured in 1974, while fertilizer rate main effect was signifi­
cant only for stand counts/meter row.
Figure 5 graphically illus­
trates the effect of fertilizer source and rate on tillering stage top
weight for the four individual locations in 1974.
All four locations
are shown in the same figure for purposes of comparison.
As can be seen from Figure 5, monammonium phosphate (MAP) and
diammonium phosphate (DAP) had greater top weights at higher N rates
than did urea ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP),
At locations 14, 24, and
34 UAPP had lower top weights at tillering stage of growth than either
MAP or DAP at all rates of N applied with the seed,
difference is evident between MAP and DA1
P.
No particular
The effect of fertilizer
Tillering stage top weight (kg/ha)
Location 14
Location 24
Location 34
Location 44
11.2
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
m=monoammoniuni phosphate (11-55-0); d=diammonium phosphate (18-46-0); u=urea ammonium
polyphosphate (28-28-0)
p <
.05 considered statistically significant.
Figure 5.
Tillering stage top weight as affected by three ammonium phosphate fertilizers at
three rates of N applied with barley seed at four locations in 1974.
74
rate main effect was not significant (see Table 23) but UAPP had decreas
ing top weights with N rates greater than 22 kg/ha applied with barley
seed at locations 14 and 34.
It produced decreased top weights at ferti
lizer rates greater than 11 kg/ha of N on locations 24 and 44.
The rate
x source interaction was significant and is shown by the fact that MAP
and DAP had little or no effect on tillering stage top weight as N
rates with barley seed increased while top weights generally decreased
with increasing N rate when UAPP was the fertilizer source.
Figure 6 shows graphically the effect of fertilizer source and .
rate on tillering stage stand counts/meter row for the four locations in
1974.
MAP and DAP are again seen to be superior to UAPP at rates
greater than 11 kg/ha of N applied with the seed.
UAPP fertilizer
resulted in fewer plants with increasing rates at all four locations.
The fertilizer rate x source interaction was highly significant and is
shown by the different effect of rate of N application on tillering
stage plant stand counts for UAPP as opposed to MAP and DAP.
particular difference between MAP and DAP is evident.
Again no
Any evidence
that rates of 22 kg/ha of N applied with seed as UAPP were superior to
lower rates did not exist with stand counts as it did with top weight
for locations 14 and 34.
The statistical significance of the rate x
source interaction at location 34 is questionable, but UAPP produced
fewer plants at 33 kg/ha of N applied with barley seed than did MAP
or DAP.
Location 14
Location 24
Location 34
Location 44
F = 30.1
Ln
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
m = monoammonium phosphate (11-55—0); d=diammonium phosphate (18—46—0); u=urea ammonium polyphosphate
(28-28-0) ._____________ p < .05 considered statistically significant._____________________________
Figure 6.
Tillering stage stand counts/meter row as affected by three ammonium phosphate fertilizers
at three rates of N applied with barley seed at four locations in 1974.
76
By
averaging values for fertilizer source and rate over loca­
tions, it was found that tillering stage stand counts per meter row,
tillering stage top weight, and tillering stage culms per meter of row
were affected by significant interactions between fertilizer rate and
Figures 7, 8 , and 9 illustrate these three crop response vari­
source.
ables as affected by fertilizer rates and sources averaged over all
four locations in 1974.
U
U
0)
u
<D
MAP
UAPP
B
tn
u
§
O
U
"c
MAP: Y=56.0+1.026N-.0298N
DAP: Y=60.8+0.892N-.0398N2
UAPP: Y=39.3+2.777N-.0826N2
•u
CO
N rate applied with seed
(kg/ha)
Figure 7.
Tillering stage stand counts/meter row as influenced by
fertilizer source and rate averaged over four locations
in 1974
77
30Cfl
-C
$
25-
4J
M>
•H
UAPP
MAP
DAP
X X
20
-
St
Du
O
H
15-
MAP
DAP
UAPP
x
Y=24.0+0.245N-.0038N3 \
Y=18.9+.6477N-.0199N2
Y=16.5+1.233N-.0376N2
11
23
33
N applied with seed (k.g/ha)
row
Figure 8 .
M-I
O
Tillering stage plant top weight as influenced by fertilizer
source and rate averaged over four locations in 1974.
230UAPP
---------
x
210-
W
4-1
S
m
E
r—I
P
U
190MAP: Y=218.0+1.004N-.0159N2
DAP: Y=189.5+3.268N-.1124N2
170UAPP: Y=188.5+5.063N-.1791N2
11
22
<
\
33
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
Figure 9.
Tillering stage culms/meter of row as influenced by
fertilizer source and rate averaged over four locations in
1974.
78
As can be seen from the above figures, early season growth was
least affected by monoammonium phosphate (MAP) while greatest damage
occurred with urea ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP).
Damage from DAP and
UAPP was apparent at rafes of greater than 22 kg/ha of N drill applied
with the seed.
For the 1974 experiments, whether looking at the individual
locations or at averages across the locations, a clear pattern of damage
to barley plants caused by NH^ volatilized from ammonium phosphate
fertilizers can be seen.
Seedling damage was in the order monoammonium
phosphate Cdiammonium phosphate C urea ammonium polyphosphate.
Damage
was greatest af rates greater than 22 kg/ha of N applied with the seed.
Damage was more readily apparent at early stages of growth than at
harvest.
The results from the 1975 experiments will be discussed in
the next section.
1975 Results
The analysis of variance for 1975 (Table 23) showed that
fertilizer source main effect was significant for boot stage stand
counts, top weight, and final grain yield when MAP, DAP, and UAPP at
rates of 11, 22, 33, and 44 kg/ha of N were drill-applied, with barley
seed.
yield.
Fertilizer rate main effect was significant only for final grain
When a mixture of urea + DAP at 1:1 ratio NiPgO^ was included,
fertilizer rate main effect was again significant only for final grain
!
79
yield while fertilizer source main effect was significant for top weight
and possibly for grain yield.
Figure 10 illustrates plant top weight for locations 35, 45,
and 65 as affected by all four fertilizer sources at increasing rates
of N applied with barley seed.
The other locations had no particular
response patterns, and location 55 did not have plant top weight
measured.
The reason for greater NH^ damage at these locations is not
known but it should be noted that they are among the highest in CaCOg
levels (see Table 3),
At rates of 44 kg/ha of N drill applied with the
seed, top weights were in the order of magnitude MAP >
>
UAPP.
DAP >
U + DAP
Location 65 had U + DAP applied at only 11 and 22 kg/ha of
N but the ranking of the fertilizer sources at these rates follows the
same trend.
Although the significance of locations 35 and 45 is
questionable, the same patterns of NHg damage to plant top weight
are evident as in location 65 which was highly significant.
of increasing N rates are not as evident.
The effects
Several instances of decreasing
top weights with applications of 22 or 33 kg/ha of N with certain
fertilizer sources do exist
however, particularly with UAPP.
Although curvilinear regression p values indicate no significant
interactions between fertilizer source and rate, Figure 11 shows the
general effect of increasing banded N rates on plant numbers.
These
three locations are fairly representative of all 1975 locations as
far as stand counts are concerned.
At 44 kg/ha of N drill^applied with
Location 35
Location 45
Location 65
32
F=. 98
F=2.5
00
o
N drill applied with seed (kg/ha)
m=monoainmonium phosphate (11-55-0) ; d=diaTnmoniuin phosphate (18-46-0); u-urea ammonium poly­
phosphate (28-28-0); +=mixture of urea (45-0-0) and DAP in 1:1 ratio N:P 20$.
p ^
.05 considered statistically significant.
Figure 10.
Boot stage plant top weight as affected by four fertilizer sources at four rates
of application for three locations in 1975.
81
barley seed, plant numbers were higher with jnonoammonium phosphate
as compared to the other sources.
Plant numbers were Iowpr for urea
ammonium polyphosphate treatments at location 65.
Results from loca­
tion 35 dramatically show the effect of increasing fertilizer rate on
stand counts.
With all fertilizer sources except MAP, increasing rates
of N drill-applied with the seed resulted in fewer plants per meter of row.
Analysis of variance over locations showed that boot stage
stand counts', plant top weight, and cultns were significantly affected
by fertilizer rate.
Boot stage stand counts, stems, and plant heights
were significantly affected by fertilizer, source.
are shown in Table 24.
These main effects
Plants per meter of row, top weight,, and stems
per meter of row all decreased with increasipg rates of N applied with
the seed.
Compared to MAP, UAPP had the most detrimental effects on
boot stage measurements with DAP and Urea + PAP being intermediate in
their effect.
Only number of stems per metep row at harvest was found
to be significantly affected by the fertilizer rate x sburce inter­
action in this analysis.
Figure 12 shows thgt as N rates with the Seed
increased, MAp had the least effect followed by DAP, Urea + DAP, and
UAPP,
No explanation can be given for the increased number of culms
per meter with UAPP at the 44 Kg/ha rate.
Location 25
Location 65
F=I.0
Boot stage stand counts/meter row
F=I.2
Location 35
F=.45
p=.91
N drill applied with seed (kg/ha)
m=mono a in m on i u m p h o s p h a t e (11-55-0): d = d ! a m m o n i u m p h o s p h a t e (18-46-0); u = u r e a a m m o n i u m p o l y ­
p h o s p h a t e (28-280); +=Hiixture of u r e a (45-0-0) a n d DAP in 1:1 r a t i o
p —
.05 considered statistically significant_________________________________________________
Figure 11.
Boot stand counts/meter row as affected by four fertilizer sources at four rates
of application for three locations in 1975.
83
Table 24. Boot stage growth as Influenced by N fertilizer rates and
___________ sources banded with the seed In 1975.
__________________
Treatment
Stand counts^/ Top weight^/
/meter row
kg/ha
Number stems"*"/
/meter row .
plant height^/
cm
N rate kg/ha
11
22
94.9
33
44
85,8
83.0
26.5
28.3
24.9
25.8
■ 6.8
2.1
91.0
88.5
83.6
89.0
28.3
26.6
25.6
25.7
5.9
N.S.
88.0
LSD .05
280
280
271
254
.
20.2
67.2
68.9
67.4
67.1
N.S.
N Source
MAP
DAP ,
UAPP
U+DAP
LSD .05
284
274
262
263
17.5
69.0
67.8
66.7
66.8
1.74
I/ Averaged oyer 7 locations, 2/ Averaged.Over 6 locations.
d.
Mixture of fertilizers with low and high volatilization potentials.
Mixing fertilizers that have a high potential for NH 3 volatili­
zation with fertilizers of low volatilization potential may result in
less NH 3 volatilized than from high loss compounds alone (Fenn, 1975).
evaluate the effect of mixing fertilizers under field conditions, a
mixture of urea and diammonium phosphate (U + DAP) in a I ;I ratio
NrP 2O 5 at four rates of application and a mixture of ammonium nitrate
and monoammonium Phosphapez (AN + MAP) in a I;I ratio NrP 2Q 5 at two
To
84
UAPP
MAP
U+DAP
§
V-i
u
a)
4-1
B
MAP:
DAP:
UAPP:
U+DAP:
i
9
U
Y=316.7+2.079N-.0331N;
Y=268.6+4.767N-.0849N2
Y-439.1-8.529N+.1410N2
Y=343•5-1.529N+.0206N2
11
22
33
44
N drill applied with seed (kg/ha)
Figure 12.
Harvest stage culm counts as influenced by N fertilizer
rates and sources banded with seed at five locations in 1975.
rates of application with barley seed were included as treatments in
1975 experiments.
Due to the large amount of data, only the U + DAP
treatments were included in most of the statistical analysis.
Table 25 lists the fertilizer source treatment means across
all locations in 1975 for several crop response variables measured
at boot stage and harvest,
As can be seen, no definite pattern
developed between DAP alone and a mixture of DAP and urea.
U + DAP
had more plants/meter row and higher dry matter yield, while DAP alone
85
Table 25.
The effect of fertilizer source on several crop response
variables averaged over locations in 1975,
Plant
Height2/
Dry
Matter
Yield2/
Yield2/
/m row
cm
kg/ha
kg/ha
3989
3837
3805
3770
Boot Stage
Fertilizer
Source
Plants^/' Top Wt.2/
/m row
MAP
DAP
UAPP
U+DAP
Effect of U-TOAP
Compared to DAP
Alone
kg/ha
Culms-*-/
91.0
88.5
83,6
89.0
28,3
26.6
25.6
25.7
284
274
262
263
69.0
67.8
66.7
66.8
8136
7695
7769
8009
+0.5
-0.9
- 11,0
- 1.0
+314
-67
5.9
N.S,
17.5
299
133
l s d .05
I/ Averaged over 7 locations,
1.74
2/ Averaged over 6 locations.
had greater top weight, number of culms, plant height, and grain yield.
Only the difference in dry matter yield was statistically significant,
however.
Table 26 lists treatment means for boot stage top weight and
number of culms as affected by MAP at 22 and 44 kg/ha of N and AN + MAP
at the same rates,
The data
show
that the AN + MAP mixture resulted
in lower top weights and culm numbers at all locations than did MAP
alone at the same rates.
This effect was evident with practically all
crop response variables measured.
Since ammonium nitrate has a lower
volatilization potential than does MAP, it would be expected that a
86
Table 26.
Boot stage top weight and culmd/meter row as influenced by
two rates of monoammonium phosphate and two rates of a
mixture of ammonium nitrate and monoammonium phosphate in 1:1
ratio NiPpOq at four locations in 1975.______________'
_____
Treatment
Number of culms
Plant top weight
Number----*
----------Location
25
35
45
15
25 ‘ 35
15
/meter row
kg/ha
45
MAP
35
27
24
276
■44 kg/ha of N
48
45
32
29
20
255
322
319
297
277
312
318
AN + MAP
22 kg/ha of N
44 kg/ha of N
41
42
33
28
20
18
20
244
243
300
267
234
204
283
22 kg/ha of N
19
mixture of the two would produce less damage than MAP alone.
the opposite seems to have occurred in these experiments.
295
However,
It is not
clear why the AN + MAP and U + DAP mixtures performed in an unexpected
manner.
Compensation by Barley Plants to Ammonia Damage
In 1974, results from location 14 exhibited increases in certain
yield components as N rate increased, especially when urea ammonium
polyphosphate was the fertilizer source.
Figures 13 and 15 illustrate
the response pf kernel weight /1000 kernels, grain weight/spike, and
number of kerneIs/spike to three ammonium phosphate fertilizers at three
rates of N application with the seed.
Ker. wt. (g/1000 Ker.
87
60
F=7.1
P= .00
UAPP
58
u
56
54
d
DAP
52
50
MAP
11
22
33
Grain wt./spike (g)
(XlOO)
_
w
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
Grain weight as influenced by fertilizer source and
rate for location 14 in 1974.
F=3.7
m
'—
UAPP
in
d
DAP
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
Figure 14.
Grain weight/spike as influenced by fertilizer source and
rate for location 14 in 1974.
98
•
17
F=2.9
P= -035
UAPP
QJ
15
•H
CL
CO
to
U
13
QJ
C
Cl
11
tS
m
d- m
d
9
11
22
MAP
DAP
33
N applied with seed (kg/ha)
p
Figure 15.
.05 considered statistically significant
Kernels/spike as influenced by fertilizer source and rate
for location 14 in 1974.
These results suggest a dramatic capacity of barley plants to
compensate for early damage from volatilized ammonia from UAPP.
number of kernels/spike and the weight of each kernel
about 40-50%.
The
increased by
It will be recalled that top weight, number of spikes,
and number of plants were significantly reduced by increasing rates
of UAPP with the seed at this location (Figures I, 3, 6).
Plant
compensation was evident for some locations in 1975 but in all cases
the differences were not statistically significant.
Number of spikes/
plant tended to increase with increasing rates of UAPP for location
44 in 1974 and locations 25, 35, and 45 in 1975.
89
Data were averaged across locations for certain crop response
variables in order to get a more inclusive idea of the compensation by
the barley plant to ammonia damage.
The effects of fertilizer rate
and source on these variables are presented in Tables 27 and 28 for
1974 and 1975, respectively.
Table 27.
Yield components averaged over locations as influenced by N
fertilizer rates and sources banded with seed in 1974.
Treatment
. Dry
Matter
Yield1/
kg/ha
Grain
Yield1/
kg/ha
Spikes/
Plant2/
1000
' Kernel
Kernels
Kernel
weight
/snike2Z weight2/ /spike2/
N Rate (kg/ha)
11
22
33
47.2
7098
6906
6639
3707
3601
3415
3.91
3.76
4.00
13.5
13.2
15.6
48.7
49.4
6660
6940
7045
3501
3598
3621
3.70
3.97
4.00
14.1
13.9
14.4
48.6
48.1
48.7
0.66
0.66
0.81
N Source
MAP
DAP
UAPP
0.70
0.70
0.74
^ Averaged over 3 locations,
Averaged over 2 locations
3/ Treatment ineans were not significantly different at the 5% probability
level.
Table 27 shows that although dry matter and grain yield
differences were not statistically significant, both decreased with
increasing N rate.
If this is compared with stand data (see Table 24)
it can be seen that the effects were greater for .stand.
The probable
90
Table 28.
Yield components averaged over locations as influenced by
N rate and source banded with seed in 1975. I/
. Treatment
1000
Dry
Matter
Yield
kg/ha
Grain
Spikes/
Yield. Plant
kg/ha
7596
7961
7968
8086
3707
3811
3911
. 3857
3.00
3.30
3.55
3.69
N .S .
115
8136
7695
7769
8009
299
Kernels/
spike
Kernel
Weight
" g
Kernel
Weight/
sD ike
g ■
N Rate (kg/ha)
11
22
33
44
LS D .05
10.2
10.6
10.8
42.6
43.1
43.3
43.3
0.44
0.46
0.46
0.47 .
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
3989
3837
3805
3770
3.42
3.26
3.63
3.20
10.2
10.7
10.5
42.9
43.2
43.1
43.0
0.44
0.46
0.45
0.47
133
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
. 0.03
10.4
N Source
MAP
DAP
UAPP
U+DAP
USD.05
10.8
'
I/ Averaged over 6 locations.
reason why grain yield was not as adversely affected is that barley
plants compensated for reduced stand by increasing other yield com­
ponents.
As can be seen, increases in spikes^plant, kernels/spike, 1000
kernel weight and kernel weight/spike occurred with increasing fertilizer
rate and from MAP to UAPP, although differences were not statistically
significant.
^
The crop response variables were for the most part less affected
in 1975, but increases in spikes/ plant, kerne Is/spike, 1000 kernel weight,
91
and kernel weight/spike did occur with increasing fertilizer rate with
the seed.
It should be noted that significant increases in grain
yield were observed in 1975 as N rate with the seed increased.
Since
the total of band-applied plus broadcast N was held constant at 89
kg/ha, the apparent positive response to banded N is most likely a
response to increasing P rates with the seed.
It is possible that the'
amount of treble superphosphate broadcast and incorporated before
seeding was insufficient to meet crop requirement for P, especially on
locations that were high in CaCO^ content.
Calcium Carbonate Effect
The enhancement effect of CaCOg and its interactions with
fertilizer source and rate to enhance NHg volatilization has been well
documented (Parintra, 1973).
It was hoped that by choosing experimental
sites with a wide range of CaCOg levels, adequate field estimates of.
its effect could be established.
As was shown in
Table 3, a wide
range of CaCOg levels existed between the different replications at
an individual location in 1975.
It was therefore decided that any
analysis of CqCOg across locations would have to consist of analysis
of each replication as if it were a location.■ Thus; instead of having
seven locations in 1975, a total of 21 CaCOg levels were used in
statistical analysis.
In order to nullify some of the location effects, relative
values based pn monoammonium phosphate at 11 kg/ha rate of application
I
92
with the seed were used.
The observed value for the MAP treatment
at 11 kg/ha of N was given a value of 100 and relative values for other
fertilizer sources and rates were computed for each replication
(CaCCy level).
Figure 16 illustrates the regression of relative top
weight on C a C O for five locations (15 CaCO^ levels) in 1975
affected by four fertilizer sources.
as
Figure 17 shows the effect of
CaCOg levels for four fertilizer N rates.
monoammonium phosphate
diammonium phosphate.
urea ammonium polyphosphate
urea + DAP
MAP:
DAP:
UAPP:
U+DAP:
Figure 16.
Y=123.33-2.OlN
Y=117.83-2.45N
Y=116.31-2.56N
Y=106.69-2.09N
r=-.56
r=-.67
r=-.59
Influence of CaCOj level on relative plant top weight for
four fertilizer sources at locations 15, 25, 35, 45, and 65.
93
130
120
4-1
HO
OO
•H
(U
13
100
CU
O
H
■u
90
CXj
80
22 kg/ha*
11 kg/ha
C
i— I
33 kg/ha
44 kg/ha
Ph
CU
-S
JJ
n)
rH
0)
Pd
70
11 kg/ha: Y=105.98-1.42N
22 kg/ha: ¥=128.21-2.73N
60
33 kg/ha: Y = H O . 25-1.87N
44 kg/ha: Y=120.46-2.95N
r=-.55
r=-.64
r=-.63
r=-.65
50
3
6
9
CaCO 3
12
15
*Rates given are of N drill-applied with barley seed.
Figure 17.
Influence of CaCO level on relative plant top weight for
four fertilizer rates at locations 15, 25, 35, 45, and 65.
The values given for sources in Figure 16 are the averages of that
fertilizer source at four rates and the values given for rates are the
averages of the four fertilizer sources at that rate.
As can be seen in
both figures, relative plant top weight declined with increasing CaCO 3
levels for all fertilizer rates and sources.
It should be noted that
monoammonium phosphate had higher relative top weights at all CaCO 3
levels as did the fertilizer rate of 22 kg/ha of N drill applied with
barley seed.
94
Although the preceding data gave some indication the CaCO„ levels
may have enhanced ammonia volatilization, it is quite probable that
relative values did not alleviate all location effects.
In order to
attain a more definitive idea of the effects of CaCO^ on NH^ volatiliza­
tion, CaCO^ was included in the analysis of variance across locations.
This approach assumed that differences between replications within a
location were wholly attributable to differences in soil CaCOy equiva­
lent.
Table 23 had previously listed the complete results of this
statistical analysis, but the following table lists the analysis of
variance F and p values as related to CaCOy and its interactions for
stand counts, top weight, and grain yield.
Since no replications were
available to estimate error, the CaCOy main effect and the N rate x
CaCOy and kind of ammonium phosphate x CaCOy interactions were tested
for statistical significance using higher order interactions.
divided into two parts:
1975 was
one with three fertilizer sources on all loca­
tions (MAP, DAP, and UAPP) and the other with four sources (MAP, DAP,
UAPP, and U+DAP) for four locations.
' In general, this analysis of the data indicated that the main
effect of soil CaCOy on damage caused by band-applied ammonium phosphate
fertilizer was not significant at the 5% probability level.
Calcium
carbonate level was significant only for grain yield when U+DAP was not
included as a fertilizer source in 1975.
In 1974, the fertilizer source
x CaCOy interaction was significant for tillering stage plant top weight.
95
The fertilizer rate x CaCO^ interaction was significant for grain yield
for both analyses in 1975 and for boot stage stand counts with all four
fertilizer sources included.
The fertilizer source x CaCO^ interaction
was not significant for any measurement in 1975 but consistently low p
values were obtained.
Calcium carbonate level for plant top weight in
1975 with all four fertilizer sources had an F value of 1.5 and a p
value of 0.18 which is too large to be considered significant.
Table 29. Analysis of variance for CaCOg levels in 1974 and 1975
___________ degrees of freedom, F, and p, values.___________________
Source
Stand Counts
df
F
p
10 7/.
Location
3 95.5
CaCOg within locations (C) 8
1.5
Fertilizer rate x C
16
1.1
Fertilizer source x C
16 . 1.4
.00
.20
.40
.19
............. 1975 w/ 3 fertilizer
Location
6 94.5 .00
CaCOg within locations (C) 14
1.1 .41
Fertilizer Rate x C
42
1.4 .08
Fertilizer Source x C
28
1.5 .07
Top Weight.
df
F
p
Grain Yield
df
F
P
^ 4-^
.00
3 108.1
0.8
8
1.2
16
2.1
16
.64
.36
.03
5 142.5
1.2
1.3
36
1.4
24
.00
.29
.24
.15
3 208.7
8
1.5
1.5
24
1.5
24
.00
.18
.10
.08
2 108.9 .00
6
1.9 .13
12
1.9 .08
12
1.1 .41
.. ...
12
5
12
87.1 .00
2.9 .00
36
24
1.5 .09
2.0 .01
IO 7 £ w/ 4 fertilizer
Location
4 121.3 .00
CaCO^ within locations (C) 10
0.8 .61
'1.6 .05
Fertilizer Rape x C
30
Fertilizer Sogrce x C
30
1.4 .13
p
.05 considered statistically significant.
4
1.0
30
30
55.6
0.5
1.6
1.4
.00
.90
.05
.10
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Four field experiments in 1974 and seven in 1975 were conducted
on calcareous soils to determine the effect of banding monoammonium
phosphate
(MAP, 11-55-0), diammonium phosphate (DAP, 18-46-0), and urea
ammonium polyphosphate (UAPP, 28-28-0) with the seed of irrigated
barley at N rates from 11 to 44 kg/ha.
In 1975, a mixture of urea and
DAP (U+DAP) in 1:1 ratio NiP^O^ was banded with seed at rates of 11 to
44 kg/ha of N and a mixture of ammonium nitrate and MAP (AN+MAP) in
1:1 ratio N^PgOg was banded with seed at rates of 22 and 44 kg/ha of N.
Due to large differences in growing-season precipitation
during 1974 and 1975, the results from the two years were considered
separately.
Since 1975 was above normal precipitation and excessive
rainfall during
the April-May planting period resulted in delayed
seeding dates, the effects of volatilized NH 3 on barley germination,
growth, and yield were not as pronounced as in 1974.
In 1974, NHg damage to irrigated barley seedlings was in the
order UAPP J> DAP >■ MAP.
UAPP
U+DAP = DAP > MAP.
In 1975, seedling injury was in the order
In 1974, the influence of UAPP on seedling
emergence, growth, and grain yield was much more pronounced than
either DAP or MAP.
This difference was not as evident in 1975.
The
mixture of urea and DAP did not perform differently from DAP alone
and crop damage was intermediate between MAP and UAPP.
There was a
trend for U+DAP to produce slightly fewer plants and plant culms than
97
did DAP alone, particularly at higher rates of N applied with the seed.
The effect of the AN+MAP mixture on barley was inconsistent and
generally lower
in plant production than MAP alone.
In 1974, the greatest damage occurred for all fertilizer sources
at N rates with the seed of greater than 22 kg/ha.
This was generally
true for 1975 also, but for some measurements 44 kg/ha of N drillapplied with barley seed was necessary before damage was evident.
In
1974, a significant interaction between fertilizer source and rate .
influenced results.
Monoammonium phosphate was found to have the least
damaging effect on early season plant growth as N rates with the seed
were increased,
As rates increased above 22 kg/ha of N applied with
seed, the damaging effects of DAP and UAPP became more evident with
UAPP having the most deleterious effect,
A total of 16 different crop response variables were statisti­
cally analyzed in order to determine which ones were the most reliable
estimates of NH^ damage.
Measurements were made at tillering and har­
vest in 1974 and at boot stage and harvest in 1975.
Early measurements
were more effective for the most part, although several measurements
made at harvest revealed evidence of ammonia damage.
In 1974, tillering
stage stand counts per meter of row, plant top weight, number of culms
per meter of row, and to a lesser extent, plant height, were found to
be effective estimates of NHg damage.
Boot stage stand counts, top
weight, and culms were found to be the most effective estimates in 1975.
98
At harvest in 1974, number of culms/meter of row and number of
spikes/meter of row reflected earlier ammonia damage.
This reduction in
number of.harvest culms and spikes as N rates increased suggests that
plants were not able to fully compensate for reduced stand through
increased tillering.
Early exposure to NH^ may adversely affect plant
growth even if the seedlings emerge and survive.
Number of culms/meter
of row in 1975 at harvest was found to have a significant N rate x
ammonium phosphate source interaction.
Grain yield in 1975. was found to
increase as N rate increased but this may indicate insufficient
phosphorus fertilizer application.
In 1974, grain yield decreased with
increasing N rate with the seed; the differences were not statistically
significant.
The probable reason that grain yield was not as adversely
affected as plant stand by increasing N rate is the remarkable ability
of small grain plants to compensate by increasing other components of
yield.
■ Although not statistically significant, the following crop
response variables increased with increased N rate with seed in the
order M A P D A P UAPP for 1974:
Spikes per plant, kernels per
spike, 1000 kernel weight, and kernel weight per spike.
same trends existed but to a lesser extent.
In 1975, these
Monoammonium phosphate
generally had fhe least effect.
Site variability associated with factors other than soil CaCO^
equivalent made it difficult to estimate the influence of CaCO^ across
99
locations.
An attempt was made to estimate the effect of CaCO
using
the variability in CaCO^ equivalents between individual replications.
Grain yield, early season stand counts, and top weight were analyzed
in this manner.
Since no replications were available to estimate
error, the CaCO^ main effect and the N rate x CaCO^ and kind of ammonium
phosphate x CaCO^ interactions were tested for statistical significance
using higher order interactions.
Earlier, using relative top weight
values, negative slopes were attained with regression analysis with
increasing CaCO^ levels.
Further analysis of variance indicated that
only grain yield .was affected by a statistically significant CaCO
effect in 1975.
main
Estimates of influence of soil CaCO^ on damage caused
by band-applied ammonium phosphate fertilizer were not measurably
improved by using this approach.
It is hoped that the information derived from this study will
be of direct aid to small-grain farmers in areas where economic losses
have been incurred because of NH^ volatilization from banded fertilizers
Field studies of this type serve as a direct link between laboratory
and greenhouse research and the application of their findings by the '
producer.
In general, this study has revealed that higher pates of
ammonium phosphate fertilizers may be safely applied with Irrigated
barley seed than were previously recommended and that the individual
■field conditions where the grain is grown and the climatic environment
100
surrounding it from year to year are of the utmost importance when
determining the most effective band application rates.
APPENDIX
102
Table 30. Tillering stage growth, yield, and yield components at harvest
__________ for Location 14 - 1974. 4/________
2/
Fertilizer rate
P
Tmt., ,
N
__K
No.
Be Dr Bd Dr Be
— k.g/ha—
Kind of
Fertilizer^'
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
78 11 34
— — 11 34
78 11 34
78 11 34
78 11 34
67 22 34
67 22 34
67 22 34
56 33 34
56 33 34
56 33 34
78 11 —
78 11 —
78 11 — —
33 11 34
33 11 34
33 11 34
78 11 34
123 11 34
168 11 34
33 11 34
—
25
25
13
5
49
25
10
74
38
15
—
13
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
.45
45
—
45
45
45
1-2-3
2-3-6
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
1— 2—3—8
1-2-3-6
1— 2—3—7
1— 2—3—8
1-2-3-6
1— 2—3—7
1— 2—3—8
1-3
1-2-3
1-3-6
1— 2—3—6
2—3—4 —6
2—3—4—6
1— 2—6
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-6
' 2-3-S-6
LSD i05
Grain Yield
kg/ha
Dry
Test
Matter
Wt.
kg/ha kg/hl
Protein
%
67.1
65.7
65.2
63.5
65.3
12.1
12.1
12.1
66.0
13.4
14.4
13.7
13.9
3864
4480
4303
3977
4294
6548
4851
7547
7251
7084
8560
8350
7536
8443
7816
6383
6591
6956
7409
5870
7026
6670
6900
7776
8279
6695
65.7
12.5
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.5
12.4
' 12.5
12.7
13.1
13.4
. 14.0
13.1
633
1360
1.8
1.0
2689
3820
2857
4299
4210
4115
4675
4627
4469
4689
4342
3855
3942
4547
3893
3397
3846
4228
64.3
65.3
63.8
65.2
65.0
66.0
67.1
64.1
64.4
66.1
65.9
65.2
64.7
65.9
64.4
13.3
12.1
12.6
!/Treatments 2, 18, and 22 have all broadcast N topdressed after seeding.
Tmt 20 has 45 kg/ha of N topdressed after seeding. Tmt 21 has 90 Kg/ha
of N topdressed. Tmt?2has 3.4 kg/ha of S .
2/b c = broadcast before seeding; Dr=drill applied with seed.
3/l. 34- 0-0 ammonium nitrate
6 . monoammonium phosphate (11-55-0)
2. 0-45-0 treble superphosphate
7. diammonium.phosphate (18-46-0)
3 . 0-0-60 muriate of potash
8 . urea ammonium polyphosphate
(28-28-0)
4. 45-0-0 urea
5. 40-0-0-4 (S) urea ammonium sulfate
4/This location had alfalfa interseeded with irrigated grain barley.
Table 30.
Continued
T m t . Mature
No.
P
%
P
Uptake
Mature Plumpness
kg/ha
%
I
.24
9.2
2
.21
3
4
5
.24
12.2
10.2
.22
.21
12.6
12.6
.24
.23
.26
.24
.27
.25
.25
.25
.25
14.8
15.4
13.8
14.9
16.2
15.2
17.3
18.3
15.1
ispo=; .02
3.5
N .S .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.22
.21
.20
.60
.71
.69
.76
.72
.72
.83
.81
.69
.80
.80
.66
.67
.53
.91
.73
.84
.55
.76
.73
.93
■N.S.
163
196
171
259
238
208
286
275
161
255
262
141
220
287
248
164
179
171
198
196
179
190
192
144
209
180
119
179
204
209
1000
Plant
/ / C u l m s • Height
/m row
cm
177
207
186
267
255
224
303
289
178
264
272
149
239
309
54.6
53.8
52.9
53.1
56.0
283
51.0
52.8
52.7
54.8
53.2
54.3
53.5"
55.5
55.4
55.0
57
N.S.
Kernel
Weight
g
54.8 .
53.5
54.0
51.1
52.9
54.2
50.8
53.4
56.4
50.5
52.7
58.7
54.1
54.6
53.4
Kernels
/Spike
9.5
11.1
9.6
10.0
10.6
11.7
9.8
10.1
15.3
11.2
9.7
15.7
10.3
103
.25
.23
.25
.25
.23
15.0
13.6
12.9
19.0
17.3
16.6
18.9
15.4
94.5
94.0
95.0
92.0
93.4
94.0
91.2
93.7
94.1
92.1
95.1
95.5
95.5
93.7
93.7
96.0
95.2
95.1
93.1
94.6
92.0
95.8
Straw:
Grain
Ratio # Spikes //Culms ^
/m row J m row
8.9 .
9.2
.68
I/ Measured at tillering .stage of growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
58
34
. 3.7
3.5
■
Table 30. Continued
Tm t .
No..
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
180.05
Stand
Countz'
/m row
/m row
56.6
■54.0
55.3
58.8
63.6
45,2
62.9
56.2
32.3
54.6
53.9
30.7
55.2
58.7
57.8
46.4
42.7
45.2
46.1
51.7
43.1
56.0
46.1
29.3
42.7
44.6
3.6
■4.6
22.8
6.0
51.6
40.7
54.9
4.3
7.9
7.6
. 14.5
Spikes
/Plant
3.8
6.3
4.6
5.0
5.1
6.0 ■
5.7
6.0
5.9
4.6
N .S .
Grain
Weight
/spike
Root
Wt.
Wt?1/
g
g/ha
-- kg/hia-----
.52
.60
.52
.51
.56
.63
.50
.54
.86
.57
.51
.92
.56
1.36
1.31
1.78
1.19
1.62
1.33
1.22
1.22
1.68
19.3
21.7
24.6
26.0
24.4
19.0
27.4
27.7
20.5
27.4
27.0
17.8
20.5
25.3
1.56
N.S.
.48
• .49
.20
2.00
1.32
1.38
1.95
1.41
Measured at tillering stage of plant growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
W P 2/
P
Roots
P
Tops
Total
P
Roots
Total
P
Tops
g/ha
kg/ha
%
%
.14
.15
.17
.18
.16
;16
.20
.20
.21 ■ .21
.19
.26
.20
,21
.20
.25
.18
.17
.21
.22
.21
.25
.17
.15
.14
.17
.17
.21
.20
26.8
72.6
77.2
61.0
71.6
84.5
82.0
.21
.21
.41
.24
.23
.42
.29
.19
.17
.29
.27
3.3
14.0
.02
.02
.11
50.8
64.6
50.9
82.9
74.5
72.0
91.3
84.1
66.9
.19
.19
.19
.19
.30
37.9
41.1
50.2
53.7
46.9
37.4
68.4
58.2
45.8
68.7
52.4
36.2
39.0
52.4
55.4
6.7
104
10
11
12
Stand
Count"*"'
105
Table 31. Tillering stage plant growth, yield, and yield components
__________at harvest for location 24-1974. 2/_____________________
No.I/
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LSD.O 5
Grain
Yield
kg/ha
1572
1914
1712
1906
1835
1891
1914
2019
1669
2145
1876
1807
1637
1902
2127
1665
1684
1728
2023
2224
Dry
Matter
kg/ha
1518
4432
5534
4679
5377
5257
5280
5258
5602
5187
5850
5501
5040
4770
5152
5807
, 4682
4897
4831
5320
6002
5221
4256
339
877
2110
Test
Weight
kg/hl
65.6
65.8
67.5
66.1
P
li^ture Uptake
Protein_____ P____I' ire
%
■ %
11.8
.23
.23
10.0
12.1
10.8
11.8
.20
7.5
96.3
94.4
95.7
92.5
93.3
94.1
92.9
92.3
93.5
87.3
93.5
. 91.4
93.9
.92.3
90.9
94.8
93.8
93.5
89.5
91.9
83.1
95.7
0.9
.03
2.3
5.2
13.2
12.4
12.5
12.6
.24
.23
.21
.24
.25
.25
.23
.24
.26
.23
.23
.25
65.4
65.6
65.9
65.3
64.9
65.0
64.9
65.3
13.2
12.5
12.5 ■
12.9 '
13.2
13.0
13.5
66.6
12.6
.21
65.8
64.4
66.3
65.0
66.5
65'; 6
64.5
63.5
. 65.9
12.9
13.2
11.9
12.3
•.22
.23
N.S.
Plump
%
12.1
12.9
13.1
13.9
.21
.21
..0
.21
9.3
11.2
8.6
11.3
11.9
11.7
10.8
12.2
12.1
■ 12.2
11.3
11.4
8.8
10.1
11.7
. 9.0
9.0
8.7
Straw:
Grain
Ratio
1.82
1.89
1.74
1.82
1.86
1.80
1.75
1.78
2.10
1.75
1.94
1.78
■ " .91
1.71
1.73
1.81
1.91
1.81
1.65
1.74
1.46
1.81
N.S.
I/ Treatments are the same as listed for location 14 (Tables I)
2/ This location was subjected to hail damage just prior to harvest.
106
Table 31 Continued
Plant
Tmt.
No. //Culms"*"/ Height
cm
/m row
I
2
3
4
5
219
239
232
49.7
49.8
54.2
54.3
52.8
51.5
52.3
53.0
Stand
Root
Cotmt"*-/
Mt.
/m row
g/ha
Top
Wt.
kg/ha
P
Roots
%
%
81
6 .6
78
6.3
75
77
6.0
6.0
78^
66
5.5
5.3
6 .6
6.7
5.3
27.4
24.9
31.4
30.3
30.3
29.2
29.4
28.3
20.7
33.0
31.6
.29
.31
.27
.30
.30
.29
.31
.31
.32
.31
.30
.31
.29
.30
.30
N.S.
7
250
256
234
252
8
254
9
193
270
260
186
234
241
273
48.8
53.8
56.2
50.5
51.3
51.5
53.3
54
79
76
48
81
77
80
31
4.0
9
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
LSD,05
81
80
6.0
21.6
26.2
6.9
6.9
28.1
32.8
.13
.16
.13
.16
.17
.17
.17
.15
.16
.17
•16
.17
.14
.15
.15
6.4
.03
6.2
5.5
4.9
1.2 .
P
Tops
Total
P
Roots
g/ha
Total
P
Tops
kg/ha
.83
78.2
.97
.80
.96
.94
.89
1.13
76.7
1.01
.83
1.03
.89
.83
.85
.99
1.04
.17
86.3
91.8
90.4
85.0
90.2
86.7
66.5
102.9
94.3
66.9 •
75.3
84.2
97.7
19.8
I/ Only tillering stage counts made. Harvest counts not made due to
hail damage.
Table 32. Tillering and harvest stage growth, and yield components for location 34-1974.
Tmt
N b .'
1000
'
Plant Kernel Stand
//Spikes //Culms //Culms Height Weight Countl/
/m row /m row /m row
I
84
2
108
95
114
108
107
113
115
104
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
LSD .05
121
121
76
98
114
119
23
N.S.
Root
Wt.
Top
Wt.
g/ha
kg/ha
g
/m row
/m row
41.6
42.4
40.2
43.3
42.6
43.7
40.2
43.7
42.2
42.7
43.4
42.6
42.3
44.2
42.3
57
60
63
61
55
56
64
54
52
57
56
41
63
58
60
52
58
59
47
51
45
44
47
43
50
50
31
51
52
51
4.0
4.9
4.7
5.6
4.7
5.1
5.7
5.0
4.5
5.7
6.5
4.1
5.2
5.1
11.8
142
143
36.7
. 43.8
43.3
47.8
46.0
41.7
49.2
46.8
40.8
52.2
51.5
31.5
43.2
44.3
50.7
6.1
23
8.4
1.9
10 .
10
N.S.
HO
134
115
133
135
132
138
142
129
134
140
95
120
Total Total
P
P
P
P ■
Root Tops Roots Tops
%
%
.14
.15
.18
.17
.16
.18
.19
.16
.16
.19
.17
.29
g/ha kg/ha
.32
.55
.74
.32
.83
.34 .95
.30 .76
.35 .90
.32 1.08
.30 .78
.30 .69
.36 1.11
34.6
49.0
53.9
61.4
52.2
47.7
59.7
51.5
42.6
75.8
.32 1.10
66.2
20.8
.16
.14
.16
.35
.31
.30
.31
28.9
47.4
46.6
64.6
6.4
.04
N.S., N.S. 23.2
15.6
16.6
18.2
16.9
13.4
18.8
17.0
14.0
21.2
21.0
8.2
15.4
15.8
.22
^ Measured at tillering stage of growth.
Measured at harvest,,
-‘t Treatments the
same as listed for Location 14 (Table I) .
No final yield data due to extensive hail damage just prior to harvest.
.91
.83
.69
.99
107
10
11
12
149
178
171
174
171
160
197
176
164
190
193
146
184
164
190
cm
Stand
Count^/
Table 33.
Tillering stage plant growth, yield and yield components at harvest for
location 44 - 1974.
Grain
No.3/ Yield
kg/ha
I
1861
2
3714
3046
4630
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
5
LSD.0 '
4175
4263
4390
4334
4809
4654
4386
4140
4219
4417
3529
2968
4220
4236
4711
4682
327.2
918
3135
6382
5049
7612
7195
7281
7035
7194
7737
8203
7937
8175
7277
7346
7446
5584
5000.
5375
7149
8322 •
9230
5188
1534
66.2
66.1
65.9
66.6
65.7
66.7
66.3
65.4
65.8
P
Mature Uptake
Protein
Mature
P
%
kg/ha
%
10.5
10.8
10.3
10.3
9.9
10.1
10.3
10.5
10.5
.29
.29
.28
.28
.26
.27
.28
.26
.26
8.1
16.2
12.4
19.0
16.7
17.6
17.6
16.8 ■
17.7
20.7
92.8
.86
.76
.74:
.69
.58
10.8
93.7
93.2
91.8
95.7
94.4
93.5
91.4
86.4
73.8
92.0
.32
.69
.77
.98
.59
3.7
3.8
.15'
.28
.28
65.4
65.7
65.7
65.8
66.7
11.3
.26
.25
.25
.27
.24
19.3
16.3
16.1
18.0
11.9
.24
10.8
11.6
66.1
66.1
65.7
65.6
63.8
66.3
1.3
10.0
9.6
10.1
10.2
10.8
.24
.24
.23
■12.4 ■ .23 .
10.3
.23
0.6
.03
.68
93.6
93.7
93.3
94.4
93.5
92.8
93.7
92.9
10.2
10.2
10.3
10.3
92.5
91.0
.72
.64
.64
.62
.74
.65
.64
.78
.70
.70
66.1
66.6
10.1
Plump
%'
Straw:
Grain
Ratio //Spikes //Culms"*"/ //Culms3/
/m row /m row
/m row
20.1
15.1
17.2
18.8
92.8
95
166
106
157
176
160
186
179
157
186
176
164
164
157
173,
130
208
144
213
191
236
209
203
188
187
196
186
216
199
181
222
208
215
174
196
199
196
196
189
185
193
24
25
212
104
202
122
.68
I/ Measured at tillering stage of growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
3/ Treatments are same as listed for Location 14 (Table I).
25
108
10
11
12
4422
Test
Dry
Wt.
Matter
kg/ha kg/hl
Table 33. Continued
1000
T m t . Plant Kernel
■N o . Height Weight
cm
g
Stand Stand
Grain .
Total Total
P
Kernels
Top
Top
P
Spikeg
/
Weight
Root
P
2
/
I/
P .
Wt
./I
Wt
.2/
Count
Root
Count
Tops
Plant
/Spike
W
t
.
Roots Tops
/Spike
g/ha — kg/ha-/m row /m row
%
% g/ha kg/ha
g
.77
.83
.78
N .S .
1.3
10.6
47.4
48.1
47.2
47.8
47.5
48.3
48.7
48.3
49.2
49.1
48.3
49.4
48.0
47.7
47.8
12.7
14.4
. 19.8
18.9
16.1
16.6
14.5
15.5
17.2
16.1
16.7
16.7
16.0
17.4
16.4
54
62
58
58
59
60
62
63
48
61
63
45
57
58
60
42
55
48
47
56
41
51
47
43
58
57
39
. 53
52
51
2.3
3.0
.60
2.2
.92
.90
.77
.80
.71
.75
.85
.79
.81
3.0
N .S .
N .S .
11
12
0.9
LSD Of>
3.4
3.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.7
3.2
3.1
4.4
3.2
3.0
3.4
I/ Measured at tillering stage of plant growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
.69
.82
3.2
5.7
4.2
8.4
18.1
12.5
6.0
20.6
4.9
19.1
6.0
20.8
3.3
.19
.16
.19
.35
.30
.33
.33
.32
.30
.32
.31
.31
.36
.32
.36
.31
.31
.33
1.08
1.13
60.6
63.0
61.4
63.5
50.2
77.9
68.4
51.8
56.4
64.8
64.3
.04
.02
.25
10.2
.23
.22
.19
.20
.18
.18
.20
.24
.21
.21
.71
1.23
.96
1.29
.94
1.18
1.05
1.06
.93
1.44
1.15
1.03
.89
29.6
54.1
41.6
68.7
109
.22
.21
5.8 19.4
5.8 20.5
4.7 ■16.4
6.2 21.4
5.5 21.4
4.9 14.4
4.9 18.4
6.8 20.7
6.2 19.8
39.6
75.9
43.3
74.2
78.7
77.0
80.9
78.9
77.6
86.5
81.0
87.7
76.5
76.8
75.3
I ' 27.3
38.2
.2
31.5
3
4
40.3
5
39.5
39.2
6
39.8
7
8. 41.0
38.2
. 9
43.7
10
41.2
11
12
38.2
36.8
13
39.3
14
38.5
15
HO
Table 34. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for location 15 - 1975.
Fertilizer!/
Tm t .
N_____ P
K
Kind o f G r a i n
No. Be Dr Be Dr Be Fertilizer Yield
-kg/ha----kg/ha
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
26
27
28
—
33
78
78
78
78
78
123
168
78
78
78
78
67
67
67
67
56
56
56
56
45
45
45
45
67
45
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
22
22
22
22
33
33
33
33
44
44
44
44
22
44
39 25 45
39 25 45
39 25 — —
—
45
-- 13 45
25 45
39 — —1 45
39 25 45
39 25 45
39 25 45
39 13 45
39 5 45
39 5 45
39 49 45
39 25 45
39 10 45
39 10 45
39 74 45
39 38 45
39 15 45
39 15 45
39 99 45
39 50 45
39 20 45
39 20 45
39 10 45
39 20 45
2-3-5
1-2-3-5
1-2-5
1-3
1-2-3
1-3-5
1-2-3
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-5
1—2—3—6
1-2-3-7
l.t-2—3—8
1-2-3-5
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
1— 2—3—8
1— 2—3—5
1-2-3-6
1-2-3-7
1—2—3—^8
1— 2—3—5
1— 2—3—6
1-2-3-7
1— 2—3—8
1— 2—3—9
1— 2—3—9
LSD.os
1476
2272
3283
3889
2682
3800
3763
3653
4383
3648
4287
4044
4035
3696
3857
4119
4086
4206
4296
4248
3888
3792
4007
4096
Straw:
Dry
Test
Grain
Matter W t . Protein Plump Ratio
kg/ha kg/hl
%
%
2384
3532
4891
5378
4355
5638
5893
6694
6435
6630
5944
5639
6091
6158
6030
5799
6306
5786
6416
6082
. 5430
6037
5524
6008
62.1
65.8
64.9
11.8
65.2
64.8
64.5
64.3
63.6
11.8
11.0
12.1
66.1
11.7
11.7
64.5
65.6
66.7
64.0
62.6
10.1
93.8
10.9
12.5
90.2
92.6
92.6
91.3
92.0
92.4
93.5
94.3
94.3
11.1
11.6
11.3
11.3
92.6
11.1
65.2
10.7
65.7
10.8
94.5
93.6
92.7
93.7
64.0
64.9
11.4
88.6
11.1
11.1
11.1
93.5
94.1
11.5
10.4
10.7
11.4
93.5
66.2
62.6
3984
3970
5979
6045
5637
720
1207
2.2
5703
90.4
94.9
64.8
65.7
64.9
64.5
64.1
65.3
65.6
65.0
3804
3936
11.5
11.0
10.7
10.4
N .S ,■
.64
.54
.48
.38
.63
.48
.57
.85
.47
.83 .
.38
.39
.51
.66
.57
.40
93.1
91.7
91.5
92.2
94.5
.54
.39
.49
.43
.39
.59
.54
.47
.50
.52
.52
.83
3.0
.28
93.6
93.6
I/Bc=broadcast before seeding; Dr =drill applied with seed.
6 . 18-46-0 diammonium phosphate (DAP)
2/I. 34-0-0 ammonium nitrate (AN)
7 . 28-28-0 urea amm. pplyphsophate
2. 0-45-0 treble superphosphate
(UAPP)
3. 0-0-60 muriate of potash
8 . Urea + DAP (1:1 ratio N:P 205)
4. 45-0-0 urea (U)
5. 11-55-0 monoammonium phosphate 9. AN + MAP (1:1 ratio N^gOg)
(MAP)
Table 34. Continued
1000
Plant
Tint.
N o . //Spikes //Culms-*-/ //Culms^/ Height
cm
/m row
/m row /m row
I
2
5
6
130
164
' 198
. 244
7
228
8
11
12
244
254
234
206
20
21
22
23
24
25
-26 .
27
211
234
223
222
. 213
264
260
248
248
259
242
220
20:8
216
260
239
236
278
273
256
214
276
' 276
254
300
254
273
247
248
255
242
28
237
257
258
235
244
243
ISO.os
55
55
136
169
203
250
231
247
262
241
40.9
53.4
55.8
62.2
65.1
54.2
64.4
222
63.9
65.9
g
. 241
269
67.3
6.3;6
65.3
63.4
42.7
44.5
45.3
44.7
44.5
46.2
46.0
46.2
44.9
41.3
44.1
44.4 '
45.3
43.6
45.0
45.1
44.9
44.6
45.0
44.7
44.7
44,0
.42.3
44.4
56
5.7
2.0
64.5
215
236
231
70.8
68.6
228
220
270
268
64.7
65.2
67.0
62.6
252
253
264
245
231
66.1
63.8
212
67.0
68.4
Kernels
/Spike
I/ Measured at boot stage of plant growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
8.3
9.9
9.3
11.3
11.7
10.2
11.5
11.5
13.4
13.8
Grain
Stand Spikes/ Weight
Count Plant /Spike
/m row
g
63
95
98
97
97
82
98
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.4
.47
.42
.54
.53
.60
.53
.38
0.6
.13
N.S.
2.5
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.2
2.1
12.4
14.7
11.2
100
11.5
11.0
133
99
10.4
9.4
112
122
12.1
.2.3
12.8
8.6
'115
106
95
119
114
N.S.
22
11.9
13.7
2.9
20.3
27.1
27.5
37.2
40.9
32.2
43.1
. 44.2
41.8
37.8
3.8
47.8
3.8
41.7
3.4
42.8
4.3
45.4
4.0
42.3
43.6
4.9
3.7
41.8
6 .5
42.1
5.8
45.4
4.9
45.6
6.5
45.0
4.5
34.1
5.2
41.1
5.3
41.7
108
99
95
103
97
89
107
11.6
12.8
.35
•.44
.42
.51
.51
.47
.53
.53
.60
.57
.51
.57
.56
.64
.50
.52
Root
Top
Wt.
Wt.
g/ha kg/ha
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.2
2.1 •
2.1 .
2.1
2.0
.49
4.1
3.4
3.9
6.7
4.0
4.7
5.4
5.3
4.8
7.1
Ill
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
168
203
Kernel
Weight
112
Table 35. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for location 25 - 1975.
Grain
Z s / Yield
k.g/ha
I
3451
2.
3678
3
4
5
3189
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2972
3263
3148
3067
3236
3166
3246
3387
3205
3403
2894
3137
3464
3532
3370
3293
3591
3257
3646
3586
3307
3087
3541
3323
3445
Dry
Test
Matter
W t . Protein
kg/ha kg/hl
%
8234
8708
8369
7839
8107
8217
7797
8075
7832
8306
8986
8289
8434
7204
8446
9012
8898
8795
8658
8748
8823
7740
8856
7920
8607
8979
8760
8989
61.2
62.6
60.7
61.3
62.7
61.2
61.7
61.4
61.3
60.9
61.8
62.0
62.2
61.2
61.2
62.2
62.3
61.1
61.0
61.6
60.9
61.1
62.0
61.3
60.5
63.4
59.6
60.9
Plump
%
14.1
13.1
13.8
14.6 '
13.5
14.0
14.1
14.4
14.4
13.6
14.0
14.2
13.6
14.1
14.6
14.1
13.5
13.8
13.9
14.1
13.8
14.2
13.9
14.1
73.4
66.5
76.1
70.3
77.1
70.0
72.1
71.0
70.5
70.9
73.8
71.0
72.4
70.2
73.3
73.9
70.1
69.0
74.9
73.9
72.6
Straw:
Grain
Ratio
I/
//Spikes //Culms
/m row /m row
2/
//Culms
/m row
334
297
302
302
380
333
312
345
358
300
308
294
324
297
348
380
324
1.5
1.5
1.7
305
279
364
341
347
349
338
321
408
338
389
1.6
338
364
356
1.5
277
277
343
319
322
323
354
290
293 •
366
350
314
364
395
317
370
327
317
316
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
382
323
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.7
283
68.1
1.2
71.6
70.7
1.5
1.4
14.5
66.0
1.8
13.5
13.9
13.8
74.5
71.1
1.5
1.7
313
339
265
331
289
294
66.8
1.6
268
286
307
282
304
337
319
262
281
275
300
267
294.
Differences between treatment means not significantly different at the
5% probability level.
Measured at boot stage of growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
3/ Treatments
same as listed for Location 15 (Table 5),
's
113
Table 35. Continued
1000
Kernel
Weight
g
Kernel
/Spike
Stand
Count
/m row
Grain
Spikes/ Weight
Plant
/Spike
g
Root
Wt.
g/ha
Top
Wt.
kg/ha
2 j3
2.5
25.4
32.6
.29
2.3
2.5
.26
.33
2.2
2.6
29.1
31.1
29.0
30.3
3.0
35.2
2.6
2.6
3.2
3.1
2.3
2.5
.35
.36
.30
.27
.28
.32
.40
.39
26.8
34.6
30.8
34/.'9
34.7
3.6
.29
3.1
3.0
2.7
3.1
2.4
3.5
3.1
.34
.36
.36
SN
Plant
Height
cm
I
79.7
81.7
41.4
41.3
7.7
9.3
116
114
2.9
.32
2.6
.39
6
79.2
79.2
7
86.5
81.1
7.6
7.0
6.3 .
7.9
123
109
123
8
41.6
41.5
41.7
41.5
2.5
3.2
2.9
2.7
40.7
41.7
41.0
48.8
41.4
41.7
41.2
40,7
42.3
41.6
42.1
41.6
39.5
41.2
41.5
42.1
41.1
41.5
8.6
106
104
2.9
121
120
3.0
109
2
3
4
5
111
.32
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
81.4
83.1
84.0
84.9
84.9
88.1
84.3
77.9
81.4
81.1
85.6
84.0
85.2
79.1
79.5
79.7
87.3
78.6
8.7
7.2
6,5
6,7
7.7
9.7
9.5
6.9
8.2
8.5
8.5
8.4
9.5
7.0
9.0
8.5
9.6
111
ll 8
109
97
104
95
118
112
HO
96
94
104
91
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.0
.33
.39
.29
.38
.35
.40
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.5
2,6
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.6
2.5
36.1
30.9
32.9
34.9
31.3
32.1
32.3
31.2
32.1
27.5
32.1
.27.7 .
:
114
Table 36. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components at
harvest for Location 35 - 1975.
Straw:
Tmt. Grain Dry
Test
Grain
I/
2/
Plant
No?/ Yield Matter W t . Protein Plump Ratio #Spikes //Culms //Culms Height
kg/ha kg/ha
%
/m row /m row /m row
cm
%
I
2975
2
4226
4570
3985
2921
4127
3973
3908
4191
4376
4357
4286
3749
5781
7511
7753
7176
5821
7569
7292
7784
7993
7915
8057
8133
7366
3460
6892
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
■17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LSD
4678 8456
4282 7706
4501 8212
4328 . 8215
5038 8802
4170 7579
4523 8763
3905 7655
4252 9071
4561 9194
4215 8840
4100 8829
4237 7870
. 4526 8805
05 629
1197
60.4
64.5
62.3
62.2
60.1
62.2
61.8
60.5
62.3
63.4
62.7
63.0
60.4
61.6
62.5
63.2
62.5
62.2
14.3
85.6
.95
12.8
12.8
88.2
.78
.70
.80
.99
.83
.84
.99
.91
13.5
14.5
13.9
13.4
13.6
12.9
13.1
13.1
13.5
14.0
13.7
13.2
13.3
13.7
13.9
87.2
78.9
84.4
83.6
86.6
85.2
82.7
83.3
83.3
85.7
82.4
81.4
84.4
82.2
82.5
83.5
86.0
.82
.94
.96 .
1.19
61.2
63.4
62.2
62.7
63.0
60.7
61.7
60.0
62.2
61.3
12.6
12.6
12.8
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
12.4
13.1
12.9
79.7
85.5
77.5
80.8
80.9
79.9
80.3
83.9
2.3
1.0
4.5
276
334
410
295
173
227
299
346
54.7
.64.5
220
312
367
426
339
66.7
67.3
58.0
235
268
237
54.6
.82
.85
.89
.96
.98
.81
.80
.82
.90
.74
86.2
254
319
.94
371
357
393
302
420
301
324
340
376
367
338
328
335
320
390
375
397
359
.23
86
1.02
1.10
1.16
.86
235
422
386
438
342
469
351
414
379
414
416.
373
361
380
352
428
419
460
204
388
69.4
64.3
64.4
62.0
65.4
N.S.
93
6.5
207
245
214
232
297
248
252
274
279
283
220
210
277
234
208
256
-*-/ Measured at boot stage of plant growth.
2/ Measured at harvest.
3/ Treatments are the same as listed for Location 15 (Table 5).
65.8
66.4
62.7 .
60.0
73.2
67.6
66.6
63.3
67.1
63.8
63.0
59.5
68.1
.
115
Table 36. Continued
1000
Tmt.
No.
I
2
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L S D .05
Kernel,
Weight
g
' 41.9
41.9
41.3
41.0
40.6
40.7
41.1
41.2
41.8
41.5
41.1
41.6
42.0
41.0
41.7
42.2
41.6
42.1
41.7
42.5
40.6
41.4
41.2
41.3
N.S.
Kernels
/.Spike
8.7
10.2
8.1
■
Stand
Count
/m row
Spikes/
Plant
104
87
2.5
3.8
2.9
3.3
5.0
2.7
3.3
3.6
3.4
85
9.2
• 7.5
103
92
10.2
112
8.7
8.9
6.9
8.5
8.3
10.5
10.2
9.8
9.8
8.3
115
101
118
104
87
93
92
100
9.4
97
95
70
79
98
70
71
85
103
73
N.S.
29
9.8
8.9
10.5
10.5
8.1
8.1
' 8.0
Grain
Weight
/Spike
g
.43
.33
.38
4.9
3.3
3.5
3.4
4.2
4.0
4.9
4.3
3.9
4. 6
5.6
4.4
3.9 .
5.1
1.7
N.S.
2.9
2.0 .
2.2
2.0
2.8
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.3
.36
.30
.41
.36
.37
.29
.35
.34
.44
.43
.40
.41
.35
.41
.37
.43
.45
.33
.34
.33
.39
■
Koot
Weight
g/ha
2.9
2.5
2.9
■
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.6
1.9
2.9
1.8
2.2
Top
Weight
kg/ha
20
26
26
23
24
16
23
24
24
20
27
25
31
20
22
21 •
19
17
29
23
. - 18
.
20
20
2.4
2.4
2.3
18.
0.7
7
'
116
Table 37. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components at harvest
for location 45 - 1975.
Tm t .
No.3/
Test
Grain Dry
Yield Matter W t . Protein
kg/ha kg/ha kg/hl
%
I
4236
2
8
4467
4479
4085
4184
4551
4296
4657
10585
11831
9
4244
10694
10
11
12
4443
4266
4050
4434
4465
4404
4472
4641
4229
5042
4477
5072
4627
4804
4467
4171
4630
4655
4413
9600
10707
9722
10984
11850
10994
10986
11361
11932
11735
10574
11319
11944
13039
11976
10315
10983
11189
10893
59.6
57.2
60.0
58.2
59.5
58.7
58.6
56.0
59.4
57.4
59.0
59.6
60.2
57.8
58.9
61.2
58.0
59.5
59.5
57.3
60.7
59.6
60.0
58.8
58.9
58.5
60.5
59.8
L S D i0S N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
3
4
5
6
7
. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10422
10580,
9965
10524
10498
10630
12.4
13.0
12.4
12.7
12.4
12.4
13.4
12.0
13.3
12.5
13.1
12.5
12.1
12.6
13.1
12.4
12.9
13.5
12.5
Straw:
Grain
I/
2/ ' Plant
Plump Ratio //Spikes //Culms //Culms Height
%
/m row /m rpw /m row
cm
72.8
72.1
73.0
70.4
76.6
70.6
70.1
72.3
70.1
67.7
69.6
70.1
76.2
74.5
69.5
82.8
12.7
13.2
12.5
12.5
13.0
75.6
76.9
71.4
74.2
78.6
73.4
76.8
73.4
70.8
73.8
78.3
70.1
N.S.
N.S.
12.8
12.5
13.1
12.2
1.5
1.4
313
359
289
368
349
402
287
282
318
3.9
314
313
246
247
309
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
283
443
241
295
290
349
373
312
305
316
294.
299
338
238
329
276
• 324
372
1.6
278
306
57.4
68.0
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
267
285
369
57.1
60.3
65.5
60.8
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5 ,
N.S.
322
239
278
261
277
299
238
228
332
246
318
268
249
213
236
221
283
337
282
292
318
270
237
334
70.3
61.3
64.5
64.2
65.5
63.8
65.9
64.7
67.9
68.8
57.4
67.7
327
66.6
62.1
63.7
58.5 '
64.4
58.6
6 .6
222
28$
316
293
274
270
276
245
335
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
I/ Measured at boot stage of plant growth.
2 / .Measured at harvest.
3/ Treatments are the same as listed for Location 15 (Table 5), except
that 78 Kg/ha P was broadcast before seeding on the entire experiment.
117
Table 37. Continued
Tmt.
No.
I
2
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LSD nc
1000
Kernel
Weight
g
Kernels
/Spike
5.2
5.6
5.2
4.6
5.5
4.8
3.7
5.0
5.4
4.3
5.1
5.0
6.5
Grain
Weight
/Spike
g
4
5.5
30
8.0
5.4
6.9
6 .6
42.0
' 42.3
41.1
13.8
14.0
17.6
18.0
10.5
52
51
39
33
44
47
43
5.1
7.8
N .S .
■ N.S.
29
N.S.
N.S.
42.2
10.6
13.8
14.0
11.1
11.1
14.9
.12.2
10.5
14.6
11.3
13.7
11.3
12.4
13.9
16.3
12.4
12.0
63
Spikes/
Plant
.43
.39
.45
.57
.59
.47
.46
.61
.52
.43
.61
.49
.55
.48
.52
.58
.70
.51
.50
.60
.59
.71
.75
.44
41.4
41.3
42.1
41.2
41.5
41.9
41.3
40.6
42.4
40.9
41.3
43.4
40.8
41.9
41.9
41.9
43.1
41.2
41.9
43.2
10.3
9.4
Stand
Count
/m row
66
57
53
44
69
80
48
58
81
49
58
41
46
38
6.2
8.2
8.6
6 .0
Root
Weight
g/ha
■
Top .
Weight
kg/ha
1.8
17
3.1
1.5
1.9
28
2.1
1.9
3.0
1.9
2.3
16
22
20
21
29
20
24
2.6
22
2.5
2.3
. 24
23
18
2.6
2.2
. 2.2
2.6
1,9
2.3
2,5
21
22
24
17
23
2.2
22
20
1.9
1.9
15
15
2.0
20
2.3
19
.9
N.S.
Table 38. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components for location 55
1975,1/
Tmt.
Straw;
1000
Grain
2/
Grain Dry
Test
Grain
..........Kernel Kernels Stand Spikes/Weight
No. Yield Matter Ft, Protein Plump Ratio #Spikes #Culms Weight /Spike Count Plant /Spike
kg/ha kg/hl
3077
3781
3681
3820
3876
4060
4287
3889
4143
4095
4450
3950
3506
3.741
3899
3748
4154
3690
3963
4077
4180
5106
6682
6539
7463
7036
7358
7653
7446
8043
7735
8088
7088
6550
7186
7193
6607
7879
6431
7092
7209
7675
%
55.0
11.7
11.6
54.4
10.8
54.6
11.4
52.4
11.3
55.0
10.9
52.6
11.5
54.5
54.0 ' 10.8
11,8
52.0
11.1
53.8.
54.7 . 11.3
11,1
54.5
11,5
54.2
11.2
.53.6
11.7
53.5
11,3
54.4
11.5
54.5
11,5
54.4
11.7
54.5
11,6
55.3
11.4
54.7
% '
81.0
82.5
81,1
79,2
80,0
10.9
81,9
80,2
78.0
77.6
78.5
82.0
80.7
75,2
81,2
78,7
78.3
81,0
80.4
82,3
77.3
/m row /m row
.67
.76
,77
.95
.81
.81
.77
.92
.94
.84
.76
.89
,74
.78
.76
.84
8
•179
176
203
208
48.6
48.2
10,9
13.9
93
82
1.9
2.1
.53
.67
201
218
194
183
234
256
243
216
50,3
49.9
48,9
49,6
11.7
11.4
13,9
13.4
104
105
98
81
1.9
2.1
,59
.57
.68
.67
196
201
184
187
198
203
214
194
219
196
193
238
239
224
215
239
223
227
208
261
229
232
14,6
12.5
12,0
12,8
96
78
89
93
85
92
100
94
96
83
90
2,0
.69
2.6
,61
,58
,61
,60
,57
,59
.89
,81
,79
.88
,90
/m row
8
2.0
2.3
.
47.3
48.7
48,5
48,2
49,4
48,4
49.2
48,8
48.1
49,4
49,2
12,2
11,8
12.0
11,9
11.6
13,0
13,4
2.1
2,0
2,3
2,2
2,1
2,1
2.4
2.4
2,2
,58
.56
,64
,66
Differences between treatnent means not significantly different at the 5% probability level.
I/ Because of late irrigation delaying counting period, some crop response variables had
to be.omitted on this location,
2/ Treatments are the same as listed for location 15 (Table 5),
118
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IZ
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
kg/ha
Table 38. Continued.
Straw:.
1000
Grain
Tmt.
Stand
Grain
Kernel
Kernels
Test
Dry
2/
Grain
Spikes/Weight
No. Yield Matter W t . Protein Plump Ratio //Spikes //Culms Weight /Spike Count Plant /Spike
/m row /m row
/m row
%
%
kg/ha kg/ha kgAhl
g ■
g .
22
4341
23
4259
4108
24
25 . 3603
26
4001
27
3802
4088
28
8631 ' 54.4
8027 54.5
7293 55.6
6473 53.6
7321 54.0
6637 54.1
7951 54.2
11.6
' 11.4
11.7
11.3
11.5
10.9
11.5
80.3
82.2
81.5
81.4
79.1
82.2
80.0
.99
.88
.77
.79
.83
.73
.94
205
189
195
200
178
204
179
243
236
228
235
50.0
49.6
50.4
48,5
. 232
48.8
222
198
49.3
49.4
12.9
14.0
12.9
11.4
14.4
11.5
14.2
94.
87
94
94
79
94
92
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.9
.65
.69
.65
.55
.70
.57
.70
H
H
120
Table 39. Boot stage plant growth, yield, and yield components at
__________ harvest .for Location 65 - 1975. 4/_____________________
Tmt, . Grain
No. ' Yield
kg/ha
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130.05
1861
2118
2502
2834
2557
2626
2997
2652
2794
2794
3207
2775
2611
2643
3400
3095
2859
3056
2744
2968
2351
2724
2660
2729
533
Dry
Matter
kg/ha
Test
W t , Protein
%
kg/hl
Plump
%
Straw:
Grain
I/
2/
.
Ratio //.Spikes //Culms //Culms
/m row /m row /m row
6100
6274
5096
5572'
5713
5606
60.0
60.4
59.9
58.9
59.0
59.4
59.6
58.2
59.5
57.8
58.6
59.4
58.6
59.5
59.2
59.8
59.2
60.9
59.9
59.5
59.4
60.7
59.4
58,5
10.1
9.8
9.6.
11.3
11.4
11.6
11.2
11.0
11.8
12.1
10.9
10.5
10.9
10.9
10.6
10.8
10.6
10.2
10.9
ll.O
11.2
10.9
11.0
11.5
83.0
85.5
81.7
75,8
78.5
74.3
81.4
74.5
78.4
75.5
79.8
80.1
78.4
80.4
79.7
79.4
78.5
83.0
78.5
80.5
77.5
81.4
79.4
78.5
.90
.90
.87
.94
1.17
1.00
.94
1.23
1.29
1.35
1.02
.95
1.03
1.11
1.06
.85
.91
.90
1.21
1.11
1.19
1.06
1.12
1.06
1490
1.7
0.9
4.5
.31
3609
4017
4685
5512
5796 '
5229
5802
5915
6385.
6509
6520
5391
5330
5536
7072 '
5758
5503
5820
232
240
247
280
273
306
279
301
313
248
271
337
352
328
362
277
351
342
300
355
319
313
303
283
248
304
.304
322
285
282
N.S.
283
277
275
335
296
345
293
378
289
326
332
389
347
353
285
326
291
261
358
385
392
367
371
358
308
359
353
372
342
N.S,
N.S.
322
I/ Measured at boot stage of plant growth.
Measured at harvest.
3/ Treatments
the same as listed for Location 15 (Table 5), except
tmts 18, 26, 27, and 28 were omitted for this location.
78 kg/ha P
was broadcast before seeding on the entire experiment.
4/ This location was heavily infested with wild oats, (Avena fatua).
121
Table.39.
Tmt.
No.
I
2
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lsd,05
Continued
Plant
Height
cm
47.8
54.3
■ 51.9
51.8
61.6
53.0
62.4
57.2
57.6
56.9
67.0
■ 60.0
59.5
65.1
61.3
61,0
58.8
60.7
63.8
57.2
6.0
1000
Kernel
Weight
g
39.5
40.6
39.9
38.9
38.9
39.1
39.5
37.9
39.7
39.4
39.3
40.2
39.8
40,4
Kernels
/Spike
Stand
Count
/m row
6.3
6,6
7.3
6.9
7.6
116
116
119
130
141
163
132
123
106
119
116
116
104
126
126
120
120
121
101
107
8.8
9.0
9.1
5.9
6.9
7.4
. 7.7
7.1
7.6
39.0
39,8
39.7
39.6
40.0
40.3
8.2
1.3
. 1-2
9.3
6.1
7.0
6,3
7.5
N.S,
Grain
Spikes/ Weight
Plant
/Spike
'g
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.3
1.5
2.1
2.9
3.3
2.6
3.1
2.8
3.1
2.5
• 2.0
2.1
2.5
2.6
3.4
2.9
1.0
.25
.27
.29
.27
.30
.34
.36
.34
.23
.27
.29
.31
.28
.31
.32
.37
.24
.28
.25
.30
N.S.
Root
Weight
g/ha
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.1
3.7
2.9
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.5
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.0
‘ N.S.
Top '
Weight
kg/ha
13
19
17
18
22
16
23
18
17
18
26
.21
19
27
20
23
20
25
.20
20
5
122
Table 40.
Tmt.2/
. Nb. ' '
I
2
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
■ 14
15
16
17
19
. 20
21
22
23
24
25
LSD,05
Boot stage plant growth counts for location 75 - 1975.1/
#Culms
/m row
133
158
216
274
243
177
286
354
236
194
265
225
263
173
294
212
218
268
186
190
N.S.
Plant
Height
cm
Stand
Count
/m row
52.8
52.4
59.4
64.5
65.5
58.6
67.7
70.1
67.3
64.2
64.5
66.7
62.9
60.7
69.7
67.5
65.4
64.5
60.4
65.1
35
38
60
62
43
40
81
79
47
58
63
47
63
30
64
46
39
54
40
40
9.3
N.S.
Root
Weight
g/ha
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.2
3.7
2.4
3.5
3.5
2.9
2,7
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.5
3.7
2.3
3.4
3.1
' 2.4
1.9
N.S.
Top
Weight
kg/ha
9.2
10.3
15.0
13.7
16.1
13.3
17.2
26.8
17.4
18.4
17.4
15.9
17.4
11.0
17.3
16.0
17.4
18.5
16.5
. 13.3
N.S.'
I/ This location was accidentally swathed before harvest of grain and
harvest counts could be made.
2/ Treatments are the same as listed for location 15 (Table 5) except
tmts 18, 26, 27, and 28 were omitted on this location.
LITERATURE CITED
124
Allred, S . E., and A. J. Ohlrogge.
1964. Principles of nutrient uptake
from fertilizer bands. VI. Germination and emergence of corn
as affected by ammonium and ammonium phosphate. Agron. J. 56:
309-313.
Bennett, A. C., and F. Adams.
1970. Concentration of NHg(aq) required .
for incipient NH toxicity to seedlings.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 34:259-263.
Brage, B. L., W. R. Zich, and L. 0. Fine.
1960. The germination of small
grain and corn as influenced by urea and other nitrogenous fer­
tilizers.
Soil Sci. Sco. Amer. Proc. 24:294-296.
Brown, J. M., and W. V. Bartholomew.
1962. Sorption of anhydrous ammonia
by dry clay systems.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 26:258-262.
Chas, T. and W. Kroontje. 1964. Relationships between ammonia volatili­
zation, ammonia concentration and water evaporation.
Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc.
28:393-395.
Colliver, G. W., and L. F, Welch.
1970. Toxicity of preplant anhydrous
ammonia to germination and early growth of corn: I. Field
studies. Agron. J. 62:341-346.
Cook, R. L., J. R. Guttay, L. W. Robertson, and.A. R. Wolcott.
1958. .
Fertilizer placement for small grains. Proc. of the thirtyfourth annual meeting of the national joint committee on
fertilizer application, pp. 25-34.
Cummins, D . G., and W. L. Parks.
1961. The germination of corn and wheat
as affected by various fertilizer salts at different soil tempera
tures. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
25:47-49.
DuPlessis, M. C . F., and W. Kroontje.
1964. The relationship between pH
and ammonia equilibria in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
28:
751-754.
Ensminger, L. E,, J. T . Hood, and G. H. Willis. 1965. The mechanism of
ammonium phosphate injury to seeds. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
29:320-322.
Ernst,.J. W., and H. F. Massey.
1960. The effects of several factors on
volatilization of ammonia formed from urea in soil. Soil Sci,
Soc. Amer. Proc. 24:87-90.
125
Feagley, S . E., and L . R. Hossner. 1975. Ammonia volatilization from
surface application of ammonium fertilizer to a limed, acid
soil supporting coastal bermudagrass. Agron. Abstr. 1975.
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Fenn, L. B . 1975. Ammonia volatilization from surface applications
of ammonium compounds on calcareous soils.:III. Effects of
mixing low and high loss ammonium compounds. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 39:366-368.
Fenn, L. B., and R. E. Escarzaga.
1976. Ammonia volatilization from
surface applications of ammonium compounds on calcareous soils:
V. Soil water content and method of nitrogen application.
Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 40:537-541,
Fenn, L. B., and D. E. Kissel.
1976. The influence of cation exchange
capacity and depth of incorporation on ammonia volatilization
from ammonium compounds applied to calcareous soils. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. J. 40:394-398.
Gasser, J. K. R. 1964. Some factors affecting losses of ammonia from urea
and ammonium sulphate applied to soils. J. Soil Sci. 15:258-272.
Guttay. J. R. 1957. The effect, of fertilizer on the germination and
emergence of wheat and oats. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 40:193-
202.
.
_
'
Hargrove, W. L., D. E. Kissel, and L. B . Fenn. 1976. Field measurements
of ammonia volatilization from surface applications of ammonium
salts to a calcareous soil, Agron. Abstr. 1976. Houston.
Hauck, R. D, 1976, Practical aspects of urea transformations in soils.
Agron, Abstr, 1976, Houston.
Hood, J, T., and L, E. Ensminger. 1964. The effect of ammonium phosphate
and other chemicals on the germination of cotton and wheat seeds.
Soil Sci, Soc. Amer, Proc. 28:215-253.
Hunter, A, S,, and W, A. Rosenau.
1966. The effect of urea, biuret, and
ammonia on germination and early growth of corn. (Zea mays L.).
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc, 30:77-81.
Jenny, H., A. D. Ayers, and J, S. Hosking, 1945. Comparative behavior of
ammonia and ammonium salts in soils. Hilgardia 16:429-457.
126
Jewitt, T . N . 1942. Loss of ammonia from ammonium phosphate applied to
alkaline soils.
Soil Sci. '54:401-409.
Jones, H. W. 1932. Some transformations of urea and their resultant
effects on the soil. Soil Sci. 34:281-299.
Khan, D. H., and B, C. Mandal.
1968. Effect of urea on the germination
and yield of jute. Plant and Soil. 24:471-473.
Kramer, P. J. 1955. Water relations of cells and tissues.
Plant Physiol.
6:253-269.
Ann. Rev.
Kresge, C . B., and D, P . Satchell, 1960. Gaseous loss of ammonia from
nitrogen fertilizers applied to soil. Agron. J. 52:104-107.
Larsen, S., and D . Gunary.
1962. Ammonia loss from ammoniacal fertili­
zers applied to calcareous soils. J. Sci. Food A g r . 13:566-672.
Lawton, K., and J, F . Davis.
1960. Influence of fertilizer analysis
and placement on the emergence, growth, and nutrient absorption
by wheat seedlings in the greenhouse. Agron. J. 52:326-328.
Liegel, E. A., L . M. Walsh, and J. J. Genson. 1976.
Influence of banded
fertilizers containing urea on the growth of corn seedlings.
Agron. Abstr. 1976. Houston.
Martin, J. P., and H. D. Chapman.
1951. Volatilization of ammonia from
surface fertilized soils.
Soil Sci.
71:25-34.
Matbcha, J. E. 1976. Ammonia volatilization and nitrogen utilization
■from sulfur-coated ureas and conventional nitrogen fertilizers.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 40:597-601.
Mills, H. A., A. V. Baker, and D. N. Maynard.
1971. Effects of pH, rates
of nitrogen application, and plants on ammonia volatilization
from soils. Agron. Abstr.
1971. New York.
Mitsui, S. 1954. The volatilization of ammonia transformed by urea.
Chem. Abstr.
48:11702.
Molberg, E. S. 1961.
Injurious effects of fertilizers applied with
the seed on the emergence of flax. Can. J. Soil Sci. 41:35-43.
Mortland, M. M. 1958.
10:325-348.
Reaction of ammonia in soils.
A d v . in Agron.
127
Olson, R. A., and A. F . Dreler, 1956. Fertilizer placement for small
grains in relation to crop stand and nutrient efficiency in
Nebraska.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 20:19-24.
Overrein, L . N., and P . G. M o e : 1967. Factors affecting urea
hydrolysis and ammonia volatilization in Soil. Soil Sci, Soc.
Amer. Proc. 31:57-61.
Pairintra, C. 1973. Influence of NH^ from ammonium phosphate fertilizers
on germination, seedling growth, and small plant yield of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.); Ph.D. Thesis. Mont. State Univ. Bozeman.
Parr, J. F., and R. I. Papendick. 1966, Greenhouse evaluation of the
agronomic efficiency of anhydrous ammonia. Agron. J . 58;215-219.
Pesek, J., G. Standford, and N. L. Case.
1971. Nitrogen production and
■use. In: Fertilizer Technology and Use. R. A. Olson, ed.,
Soil Sci, Soc. Amer,, Inc., Publ. Wisconsin.
Racker, E.' 1961. Mechanisms of synthesis of adenosine triphosphate.
A d v . Enzymol. 23:323-329.
Ralston, D . E., D . .R, Nielsen, and J. W. Biggar. 1972. Desorption of
ammonia from Soil during displacement. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
Proc. 36:905-911.
Smith, C . M., E. 0. Skogley, and C . Pairintra.- 1969-1972.
demonstrations. Ann. Report to TVA (Unpublished)
Farm test
Steenbjerg. F, 1947. Ammonia loss from nitrogen containing commercial
fertilizer when applied to top soil, Chem. Abstr. 41:4878-4879.
Stuart, D. M., and J. L. Haddock.
1968.
Inhibition of water uptake in
sugar beet roots by ammonia. Plant Physiol.
43:345-350.
Terman, G. L., and C . M. Hunt. 1964. Volatilization losses.of nitrogen
from surface^applied fertilizers as measured by crop response.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 28:667-672.
van Schreven, D . D . 1950, Loss of nitrogen from ammonia containing
fertilizers applied to calcareous soils of Zuiderzeepolders.
■Trans. 4th.Inter, Congr. Soil Sci, Amsterdam. 1:259.261.
128
Vines, H. M., and R. T. Wedding,
1960. Some effects of ammonia on
plant metabolism and a possible mechanism of ammonia toxicity.
Plant Physiol,
35:820^825.
Volk, G. M. 1959. Volatile loss of ammonia following surface application
of urea to turf and bare soils. Agron. J . 51:746-749,
Wahhab., A., M, S , Randharva, and S . Q. Alam. 1957, Loss of ammonia from
ammonium sulfate under different conditions when applied to soils.
Soil Sci.
84:249-255.
Warren, K. S .
1962.
Ammonia toxicity and pH. Nature 195:47-49.
Watkins, S , H., R. F. Strand, D, S, DeBell, and J. Esch, Jr. 1972.
Factors influencing ammonia losses from urea applied to
northwestern forest soils.
Soil Sci, Soc. Amer. Proc. 36:354357.
N378
F85k
cop. 2
Franklin, J. D.
Drill application of
ammonium phosphate
fertilizers ...
h
ISSUED TO
/'£ }
JUN 8
L . ..v. ■k.cdL
.
/
• . / / / //
K-Lq
^
X