Effects of spring top-dressing phosphorus on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
by Charles Randal Phillips
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Soils
Montana State University
© Copyright by Charles Randal Phillips (1972)
Abstract:
Three repetitions of fifteen treatments were laid out on a cooperator's winter wheat field in spring,
following the fall planting. The cooperator was asked to drill in P fertilizer at seeding in the fall and to
manage the planting as he normally would After the plots were laid out, plant and soil samples were
taken and the fertilizer was spread. Soil temperatures, precipitation, and evaporation measurements
were made throughout the growing season. Eighty-one sites were considered, 40 from the 1970 and 41
from the 1971 growing seasons.
For both years the top-dressing resulted in an overall increase in yield of 2.1 bushels/acre and an
overall decrease in protein percentage of 0.05%. Of the sites 69.1% showed an average yield increase
of 3.6 bushels/acre; 4.9% showed no change; and 26.5% showed an average decrease of 1.5
bushels/acre. Of the sites 30.9% showed an average increase in percent protein of 0.48%; 25.9%
showed no change; and 43.2% showed an average decrease of 0.45%.
Simple correlations were run on change of yield and of percent protein versus percent P in the plant
tissue collected at growth stage 2 to 3 (Peekes' stage), ppm P (0-6") im the soil, ppm P (6"-12") in the
soil, and ppm P (0-12") in the soil. For the combined data of 1970 and 1971 the highest correlation was
found between change of grain yield versus ppm P (0-6") in the soil (r = -0.256). The lowest correlation
was found between change of percent protein versus ppm P (6"-12") in the soil (r = +0.070) Of all 24
correlations only two were found to be significant, change of grain yield versus ppm P (6"-12") in the
soil, 1971 (r = -0.470), and change of grain protein percentage versus % P in plant tissue at Feekes
stage 3, 1970 (r = -0.469).
_______ppm P (6"-12") An expression, ppm p (0-6") - ppm P (6"-12"), increased the significance of
the 1971 data to the 2% level; unfortunately it was poorly correlated with the 1970 data and the
combined data had an insignificant r value. Because the expression was only qualitative, it was
proposed that it should be multiplied by the ppm P (0-12") in the soil in order to make it quantitative.
This new expresssion increased the r value of the 1971 data to 0.622, more than highly significant, and
also increased the 1970 correlation.
For both years combined the correlation was significant at the 3% level.
Another significant correlation was found between percent P in the plant tissue at the two leaf stage
versus the ppm P (0-6") in the soil. 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
in his absence, by the Director of Libraries.
professor, or,
EFFECTS OF SPRING TOP-DRESSING
PHOSPHORUS ON WINTER WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L,)
by
CHARLES RANDAL PHILLIPS
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Soils
Approved:
Head, Major Department
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
June, 1972
HiiACKNOWLEDGMENT
It is with great pleasure that I thank those who so willingly
helped to make this thesis possible.
Unfortunately I cannot
acknowledge all contributors by name, but their guidance is
sincerely appreciated.
!
My thanks are extended to:
Dr. James R. Sims, my major professor, who supplied the research
problem, guided me through the problem, and was always available to
help in any academic or personal problem.
Dr. Earl 0. Skogley, Dr. Gerald A. Nielsen, and Dr. Lark Carter,
the other members of my committee, who patiently waited for this
thesis and always were willing to help in any way possible.
(For
example-,. Dr. Skogley patched up. a hole in our old Falcon.)
Grant Jackson, Bernie Schaff, and Vince Haby who accompanied me
on trips to the field.
They were always ready to help me off the
floor, if, as once happened, a bed should decide to lay on me.
Ijarbld Holton, Ray Choriki, Dr. Roger Wilson, Dr. Charles Smith,
County extension agents, personnel of the Montana Agricultural
Experiment Stations, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Agricul­
tural Research Service.
Their field work provided valuable data .
that was used within this thesis.
Homer Metcalf who was always available for advice during the
eafly morning hours.
-ivTruman Massee and others like him who took time to discuss the
thesis problem and to make helpful suggestions.
My wife, Dawn, who has typed a major portion and has been
involved in every aspect of this thesis.
Charles Phillips
-vTABLE OF CONTENTS
VITA................................................. .......
Page
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................
v
LIST OF TABLES..............................................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES.............................
vii
ABSTRACT...............................................
x
INTRODUCTION................................................
I
REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................
2
MATERIALS AND METHODS............... ........................'
Experimental design....................................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................
Phosphorus in the planttissue...........................
Phosphorus in thesoil...I...............................
Phosphorus in planttissue versus phosphorus in the soil
16 .
21
25
^7
44
80
SUMMARY.........
84
CONCLUSIONS.................................................
88
APPENDIX #.................... ..............................
90
LITERATURE CITED... ...........................................
105
-V l -
LIST OF TABLES •
Table
Page
1
Listing of cooperators, locations, and soil series........
19
2
Soil analysis, plant tissue analysis, and yield and
protein content................... ......... ............. .
26
3
Overall grain yield and grain protein percentage changes...
31
4
Values of the correlation coefficient (r) for the indicated
simple correlations ................................'........
36
Analysis of variance...... .............................
91
5
-viiLIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Location of the fertilizer sites 1970 and 1971.........
17
2
Plot diagram - 1971 nitrogen top-dressing studies......
22
3
1970 correlation of A yield versus % P in plant at
Feekes stage 3 ........................................
37
1971 correlation of
yield versus % P in plant at
Feekes stage 3 .. .....................................
38
1970 and 1971 correlation of
Yield versus % P in
plant at Feekes stage 3 ........................... .
39
1970 correlation of ^
Feekes stage 3 ......
40
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
% protein versus 7» P in plant at
1971 correlation of A % protein versus 7» P in plant at
Feekes stage 3 ........................................
41
1970 and 1971 correlation of
aL protein versus % P in
plant at Feekes stage 3 .... .........................
42
1970 correlation of ^ yield versus available phosphorus
in soil (0-6").......
44
1970 correlation of ^ yield versus available phosphorus
in soil (6"-12")__ '...................................
45
1970 correlation of
yield versus available phosphorus
in soil (0-12").......................................
46
1971 correlation of
yield Versus available phosphorus
in soil (0-6")................. •••.....................
47
1971 correlation of ^ yield versus available1phosphorus
in soil (6"—12")............. .............. '..........
48
1971 correlation of ^ yield versus available phosphorus
in soil (0-12").......................................
49
-viiiList of Figures
(Continued)
Figure
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page
1970 and 1971 correlation of & yield versus available
phosphorus in soil (0-6")............................
50
1970 and 1971 correlation of & yield versus available
phosphorus in soil (6"-12")..........................
51
1970 and 1971 correlation of A yield versus available
phosphours in soil (0-12")...........................
52
1970 correlation of A % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (0-6")......................... . ..
53
1970 correlation of A % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (6"-12")..........................
54
1970 correlation of A % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (0-12").......................
55
1971 correlation of A, % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (0-6").............................
56
1971 correlation of A % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (6"-12")..........................
57
1971 correlation of A % protein versus available
phosphorus in soil (0-12")...........................
58
1970 and 1971 correlation of A % protein versus
available phosphorus in soil (0-6")..................
59
1970 and 1971 correlation of A, % protein versus
available phosphorus in soil (6"-12")...................
60
1970 and 1971 correlation of A %■ protein versus
available phosphorus in soil (0-12")..............
1970 correlation of A
yield versus expression (I)....
61
66
-ixLisfc of Figures
"
'(Continued)
Figure
Page
28
1971 correlation of ^
yield versus expression (I).....
29
1970 and 1971 correlation of
67
yield versus expression
(1) ..................................... •........
68
30
1970 correlation o f p r o t e i n versus expression (I)....
69
31
1971 correlation of
% protein versus expression (I)..
70
32
1970 and 1971 correlation of
7o- protein versus
expresion (I)..........................................
71
33
1970 correlation of
yield versus expression (2).
74
34
1971 correlation of 4^. yield versus expression (2).
75
35
1970 and 1971 correlation of
yield versus expression
(2 ) .....................................
76
1970 correlation of
% protein difference versus
expression (2).........................................
77
36
% protein versus expression (2)..
37
1971 correlation of ^
38
1970 and 1971 correlation of ^ 7= protein versus
expression (2).........................................
79
1970 correlation of % f in plant, Feekes- stage 3 versus
available soil P (0-6")...............................
81
1971 correlation of % P in plant, Feekes stage 3 versus
available soil P (0-6")...............................
82
1970 and 1971 correlation of % P in plant, Feekes stage
3 versus available soil P (0-6")................
83
39
40
41
78
ABSTRACT
Three repetitions of fifteen treatments were laid out on a coop­
erator's winter wheat field in spring, following the fall planting.
The cooperator was asked to drill in P fertilizer at seeding in the
fall and to manage the planting as he normally would. After the
plots were laid out, plant and soil samples were taken and the
fertilizer was spread. Soil temperatures, precipitation, and eva­
poration measurements were made throughout the growing season.
Eighty-one sites were considered, 40 from the 1970 and 41 from the
1971 growing seasons.
For both years the top-dressing resulted in an overall in­
crease in yield of 2.1 bushels/acre and an overall decrease in
protein percentage of 0.05%. Of the sites 69.1% showed an average
yield increase of 3.6 bushels/acre; 4.9% showed no change; and
26.5% showed an average decrease of 1.5 bushels/acre. Of the sites
30.9% showed an average increase in percent protein of 0.48%; 25.9%
showed no change; and 43.2% showed an average decrease of 0.45%.
Simple correlations were run on change of yield and of per­
cent protein versus percent P in the plant tissue collected at
growth stage 2 to 3 (Peekes' stage), ppm P (0-6") in the soil, ppm P
(6"-12") in the soil, and ppm P (0-12") in the soil. For the
combined data of 1970 and 1971 the highest correlation was found
between change of grain yield versus ppm P (0-6") in the soil
(r = -0.256).
The lowest correlation was found between change of
percent protein versus ppm P (6"-12") in the soil (r = +0.070). Of
all 24 correlations only two were found to be significant, change
of grain yield versus ppm P (6"-12") in the soil, 1971 (r = -0.470),
and change of grain protein percentage versus % P in plant tissue at
Feekes stage 3, 1970 (r = -0.469).
______ ppm P (6"-12")
An expression, ppm p (0-6") - ppm P (6"-12"), increased the
significance of the 1971 data to the 2% level; unfortunately it
was poorly correlated with the 1970 data and the combined data had
an insignificant r value. Because the expression was only quali­
tative, it was proposed that it should be multiplied by the ppm P
(0-12") in the soil in order to make it quantitative. This new
expresssion increased the r value of the 1971 data to 0.622, more
than highly significant, and also increased the 1970 correlation.
For both years combined the correlation was significant at the 3%
level.
Another significant correlation was found between percent P in
the plant tzissue at the two leaf stage versus the ppm P (0-6") in
the soil.
INTRODUCTION
Wheat is one of the most important food crops of the world.
At
a time when world overpopulation is a threat to every person's
security, any work helping to increase the grain yield and/or the
quality of the grain is a forward step in alleviating world hunger.
A soil fertility problem with annual crops is to obtain
knowledge concerning the crops' deficiencies soon enough to remedy
the problem.
The purpose of this study was a preliminary investigation into
the effects of spring top-dressing phosphorus on winter wheat that
had some phosphorus drilled in with the seed.
The effects on yield
and protein changes and a possible method to diagnose nutrient
deficiencies were investigated in order to indicate the value of
further research.
This study was actually part of a larger study on the effects
of spring top-dressing nitrogen on winter wheat, spring wheat, and
barley.
For this reason only two phosphorus treatments, zero and
forty pounds per acre, are considered in this study.
During 1970 and 1971 about one hundred-twenty plots were laid
out; but due to hail damage, cooperators harvesting the plots, and
due to the fact that not all plots were winter wheat, only eightyone sites are included within this study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
WHEAT RESPONSES TO PHOSPHORUS
The value of phosphorus fertilization on small grains is well
documented„ Many investigators have reported increased grain yields
along with decreases in the protein percentage in the grain.
Ames and Boltz (1917) in Ohio reported that wheat grown during
twenty years of field experiments on soils supplied with nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium produced the largest, grain yields but did
not produce grain with the highest percent protein.
Where only
nitrogen and phosphorus were supplied, a lower grain yield but a
higher grain protein percentage than the nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium treatment were recorded.
When phosphorus alone was supplied,
an increase in grain yield was reported, but there was a decrease
over the check plot in grain protein percentage.
Highest grain protein
percentages were obtained on soils deficient in available phosphorus
and well supplied with available nitrogen.
Murphy (1930) in Oklahoma reported larger grain yields with
phosphorus fertilizers; but with the introduction of phosphorus,
whether by itself, with nitrogen, or with potassium, the grain
protein percentage decreased.
Phosphorus fertilizers in two
successive years decreased the grain protein percentage nearly two
percent below the check plots.
-3Ellis (1934) in Canada during the cropping years 1929, 1930,
and 1931 found that many of the soils in grain growing areas of
Manitoba, although high in nitrogen and phosphorus, showed a yield
response to phosphorus fertilization,
Geddes et al (1939) explained
that these soils were low in available phosphorus. They also reported
that during the growing seasons of 1930 and 1931, the grain protein
percentage of spring wheat decreased an average of 0,16 percent and
0,14 percent. Also, there was no evidence of any increase in the
phosphorus content of the wheat plant due to the application of triple
superphosphate singly or in combination with nitrogen and potassium
fertilizers,
Twenty years of fertility trials in Kansas (1911-1930)
indicated that superphosphate had little value on crops other
than wheat and alfalfa. Wheat grown in a sixteen year rotation
and wheat grown continuously showed increased grain yields due to
all fertilizers.
Wheat grown in a three year rotation with corn
and cowpeas responded only to superphosphate fertilizer.
Superphosphate fertilizers decreased the grain protein percentage
of wheat in all the cropping systems used (Throckmorton and Duley,
1935).
Colwell (1946) in Mexico recorded grain yield increases from
phosphorus fertilizers on sixty percent of his wheat plots.
The
•?
-4 average increase was 6.6 bushels/acre with the application of
71.4 pounds of PgO^/acre.
Smith et al (1949), investigating fertilizer effects on yield
of wheat forage on an upland and a bottomland soil in east Texas,
found that phosphorus fertilizers increased the forage yields.
Thirty
pounds of P 2 C>5 /acre increased the yield of the upland soil five times
that of the bottomland soil.
A second application of 30 pounds of
PgO^Zacre increased the yield of the upland soil slightly and increas­
ed the yield of the bottomland soil to that of the upland soil.
Although the increases in yield were statistically significant, the
actual increases were so small that they were of little practical
value.
In Kansas, during the cropping years of 1949 and 1950,
fertility tests with hard red winter wheat showed increases in
grain yield with all treatments that included phosphorus fertilizers.
Phosphorus, included in the treatment with nitrogen, decreased the
grain protein percentage (Gingrich and Smith, 1953 and Williams
and Smith, 1954).
Rennie (1956) found that with thirty field experiments on
wheat in Saskatchewan the grain protein percentage was unaffected
by nitrogen or phosphorus fertilizers but varied greatly as a
result of soil or climatic conditions.
-5PHOSPHORUS IN MONTANA
According to Heid and Larson (1969) very little data,
pertaining to fertilizer response on either dryland or irrigated
i
soils for the state of Montana, has been published.• What has been
published should be referred to with caution.
Nygard (1931, 1932);,
Burke, Nygard, and Martin (1933), Green (1935)j Green and
Harrington (1936) and Post (1941) were some of the early
investigators of phosphorus deficiencies in Montana soils.
Nygard (1932) reported that, during the cropping years 1930
and 1931, wheat on ten irrigated plots showed an average of 5.1
bushels/acre or 13.4 percent grain yield increase with phosphorus
fertilizers.
Of 493 soil samples collected from, twenty-seven
counties and tested by the Winogradsky (Azotobacter) test, 300
showed a deficiency in available phosphorus.
In 1932 (Burke,
Nygard, and Martin, 1933) treble superphosphate and ammonium
phosphate increased winter wheat grain yields as much as 9.22
bushels/acre, and 14.63 bushels/acre respectively.
In 1934 (Green,
1935) no significant grain yield increases were reported.
Eight
out of twenty-four test plots in 1935 showed an average increase
in spring and winter wheat grain yields of 8.8 bushels/acre (Green
and Harrington, 1936).
Post (1941) did not report any significant
yield increases during 1940.
Wilson (1970) reported significant
-6increases in grain yields of winter wheat due to phosphorus
fertilization at two locations during the cropping years 1968 and 1969.
One fertilizer treatment, 2.5 pound of phosphorus and 5 pounds of
nitrogen starter fertilizer and 20 pounds of phosphorus and 60 pounds
of nitrogen broadcasted, in 1968 gave over 100 percent yield increase
as did the fertilizer treatment, 2.5 pound of phosphorus and 5 pounds
of nitrogen starter and 20 pounds of phosphoirus and 20 pounds of
nitrogen broadcasted, in 1969.
Fertilizer use in Montana has increased at a faster rate since
1959 than it has for all the United States, wheat receiving the
largest share.
However, the rate of application in Montana lags
behind the average for all the United States (Held and Larson, 1969).
PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER PLACEMENT
Phosphorus fertilizer placement has been found to be almost
as important in increasing fertilizer use efficiency as simple
application has been in increasing yields.
Prior to 1928, at
various times during the settlement of the Canadian plains, experi­
ments were conducted with the application of commercial fertilizers
to cereals by the broadcast method.
The results were not
economically good enough to recommend fertilizers for general use.
When a grain and fertilizer drill was introduced in 1928, it proved
to be a major contribution toward gaining larger grain yields.
-I -
Subsequent trials with phosphate fertilizers began the widespread
fertilization of cereals on the Canadian prairies (Ellis, 1934).
Duley (1930) in Kansas, comparing drilled-in phosphorus
fertilizers with broadcasted phosphorus fertilizers for the
cropping years 1928 and 1929, found that drilled-in superphosphate
increased yields by more than 7 bushels/acre over the broadcasted
superphosphate.
This yield increase was as great as the yield
increase of broadcasted phosphorus fertilizer over the check plot.
In North Dakota, Norum and Young (1950) found that at least
twice as much, and sometimes as high as three to four times as
much, phosphate fertilizer is necessary if you broadcast rather than
drill in the fertilizer.
Also, wheat competes more effectively
with weeds when the fertilizer is drilled in rather than
broadcasted.
Using a modified Mitschdrlich equation, Bray (1958) and Vavra
and Bray (1959) derived an efficiency coefficient fob broadcasted
phosphorus fertilizers and for drilled-in phosphorus fertilizers.
The coefficients were 0.0088 and 0.0178j indicating that drilled-in
phosphorus fertilizers were twice as efficient as broadcasted
phosphorus fertilizers.
Lutz et al (1961) reported that for eight fertilizer plots
of winter wheat across the states of Mississippi and Virginia,
"
8
-
broadcasting and then disking in the phosphorus fertilizer before
planting was only 60 percent as effective in increasing yields as
drilling in the phosphorus with the seed.
Top dressing the
phosphorus fertilizer after the plants were two inches tall was only
53 percent as effective as drilling in the phosphorus with the seed.
Singh (1962) in India, placing fertilizer with wheat at
varying depths, found maximum utilization of superphosphate at a
six-inch depth.
In Montana field tests, during.1967, 1968 and 1969, showed
comparable results with 90 pounds of phosphorus broadcasted and
thirty pounds of phosphorus drilled in with the seed (Wilson, 1970).
WHEAT UPTAKE OF PHOSPHORUS
The nutrient requirements of wheat cannot be considered only
in terms of total amount necessary.
Rather, the requirements should
be considered in terms of the necessity during successive stages of
plant development.
It appears that phosphorus is required during
the early stages of growth.
Brenchley and Hall (1909) wrote that
during the later part of the life of the wheat plant the production
of fresh material ceases and the chief process going on is the
translocation of accumulated material from the stem and the leaves
to the grain. ■They observed in field experiments, during the
cropping years of 1907 and 1908, that phosphorus uptake continued
-9until a week before harvesting.
Geriche (1925) reported that only a four-week period of time
was necessary for the uptake of phosphorus.
Plants exposed the
first four weeks to a complete nutrient solution and then
transferred to a solution devoid of phosphorus, yielded more than
plants maintained the entire time in a complete nutrient solution.
According to Brenchley (1929), phosphorus uptake by barley
steadily increases in direct proportion to the length of time the
plant is exposed to phosphorus at the beginning of growth.
Sufficient phosphorus for maximum growth was absorbed during the
first six weeks.
Knowles and Watkins (1931) examined in the field the nutrient
composition of winter wheat at nine different growth stages.
They
concluded.that the plant attained its maximum quantity of
phosphorus two weeks before harvest.
Within seven weeks the plant
had taken up 91 percent of its phosphorus.
In Kansas, using a hard red winter wheat and a soft winter
wheat, planted the first five days of October, during the cropping
years of 1931 to 1935, Miller (1939) reported that plants absorbed
from 12 percent to 25 percent of their phosphorus by the first of
March.
Following this date, the absorption of phosphorus was rapid.
In one case 48.5 percent of the phosphorus in the plant was absorbed
-10during the four weeks following April 27.
In another case, during
the month following May 4, 55.6 percent of the total phosphorus
entered the plant.
With one exception, the amount of phosphorus in
one hundred plants reached its maximum at harvest.
There were, how­
ever, unexplained decreases in the amount of phosphorus at numerous
times.
Miller concluded that phosphorus is absorbed by the plant as
it is needed.
Ching-Kwei Lee (1940) wrote that, because wheat takes up most
of its phosphorus supply in early stages of growth, the application
of phosphate fertilizers should be considered early.
application could be delayed up to thirty days.
Phosphate
Thereafter, a
reduction of phosphate use efficiency and yield will occur.
Where
the phosphate was applied at later stages of. growth, more phosphoric
acid was found in the straw.
However, he reported that the presence
of a small amount of available phosphorus in the soil made later
applications of phosphatic fertilizers much more efficient.
Boatwright and Haa's (1961) in Montana observed that the
highest concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in spring wheat
was during the stages of plant development but decreased rapidly
until maturity.
Irrespective of the nitrogen or phosphorus
treatment, maximum phosphorus in the plant occurred by heading.
Boatwright and Viets (1966) reported that at Mandan, North
-11North Dakota, phosphorus absorption begins in the seedling stage,
and the rate of phosphorus uptake was greatest between flag leaf
and heading.
The time required for graminaceous plants to reach
maximum phosphorus uptake decreased with increasing phosphorus
concentration.
Using solution cultures, they found that phosphorus
was not needed the entire life of the plant.
An adequate supply
of phosphorus during the first four weeks produced maximum root
growth, and five weeks of adequate phosphorus produced maximum
yields.
When phosphorus was withheld the first two weeks, grain yields
were only 42 percent of the maximum, but phosphorus accumulation was
at its maximum.
Even with four different levels of phosphorus fertilization,
Lewis.and Quirk (1967) found a constant phosphorus uptake by
wheat plants during a two-to-twelve week period.
PHOSPHORUS CORRELATIONS
It is very difficult to correlate phosphorus fertilization
with percent phosphorus in the plant tissue.
Many factors such
as climate, soil type, and nutrient interactions exert a
tremendous influence on the nutrient composition of the plant.
Many investigators, Ames (1910), Ames and Boltz (1917), Smith,
Kapp, and Potts (1949), and Rennie (1956) have reported a nitrogenphosphorus interaction.
-12In Ohio, Ames (1910) observed that phosphorus applied to a
phosphorus deficient soil increased the percent phosphorus in the
plant along with an increase in potassium and a decrease in nitrogen.
He concluded that the percent nitrogen in the wheat plant varies
with the supply at its disposal and with the supply of phosphorus.
Rennie (1956), with some thirty field experiments around the
province of Saskatchewan, found no statistical relationship existed
between grain yield and percent phosphorus in the plant.
The effect
of soil type or climate caused greater variations in percent
phosphorus in the grain than the fertilizer treatments.
Nitrogen
in the soil was also responsible for variations in the phosphorus
percentage in the grain.
Phosphorus fertilization increased the
phosphorus content of the forage only in the early stages of growth.
Eck and Stewart (1959), working with winter wheat at fiftythree locations in Western Oklahoma, found that soil tests of
phosphorus alone, though related to it, are of little value in
predicting the yield response of wheat to phosphorus fertilization.
Even with considerations of precipitation, soil moisture.at
planting, temperature during the ripening period, yield level,
and date of seeding along with the soil test values, the yield
response of phosphorus fertilization could not be predicted.
Partial regression coefficients indicated that temperature
-13during the ripening period had the greatest effect on response to
phosphorus while soil phosphorus level, precipitation during the
growing season, yield level, soil moisture at planting, and seeding
date had lesser effects.
ROOT DEPTHS OF WHEAT
Soil samples, being analyzed for nutrient deficiencies,
generally come from the plow layer or the top six inches of soil.
Although this layer supplies the plant during its early stages of
development, the wheat plant does draw from deeper levels.
In Utah Sanborn (1894), investigating the wheat roots in only
the top twelve inches of soil, found 92 percent by weight of these
roots in the top six inches.
In Kansas hard red winter wheat was planted October, 1902,
and at harvest time, July, 1903, it was carefully removed along
with its soil in order to inspect its root profile.
The first foot
was filled with a fine network of roots, the largest portion of
which was concentrated about two-and-a-haIf inches deep.
The
roots penetrated to a maximum depth of four feet, but it was
concluded that the major portion of the roots were located in the
top foot of soil, (Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1904).
Lees (1924) in New South Wales found a number of winter
wheat varieties to have roots that reached on the average as deep
-14as four feet. A number of spring wheat varieties reached an average
of about thirty-nine inches.
Fertilizing with superphosphate
increased the root length of a winter wheat variety as much as six
inches and a spring wheat variety as much as eleven inches.
With winter wheat on the Great Plains, Weaver (1926) found
working root depths and maximum root depths of 2.3 and 2.7 feet,
3.6 and 4.4 feet, and 3.8 and 5.4 feet for the short-grass plains,
the mixed prairies, and the tail-grass prairies respectively.
At Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in a dark-brown, light loam
Pavlychenko (1937) recorded maximum root depths for wheat, rye,
and barley of 45.2 inches, 46 inches, and 46 inches respectively.
Cereal crop root systems consist of' two types of roots, the
primary or seminal roots and the secondary or nodal roots.
The
primary roots are the first to develop and will eventually
penetrate to great depths.
The secondary roots develop later.
They do not penetrate very deep, rarely going below the first foot,
and generally they grow laterally (Troughton, 1962).
Weaver (1926) reported that ten days after emergence the
secondary roots had still not developed, but seventy days after
emergence the secondary roots were more developed than the
primary roots.
At this time the primary roots had a working depth
of 36 inches while the secondary roots had an average length of
only seven inches.
-15Pavlychenko (1937) reported that forty days after emergence the
deepest penetration of the secondary roots was only 5.6 inches..
-16MATERIALS AND METHODS
A state-wide cooperative fertilizer top-dressing study, of
which a phosphorus top-dressing study was a small segment, was begun
the spring of 1970.
The main purpose of the state-wide cooperative
fertilizer top-dressing study was to determine the effect of spring
top-dressed nitrogen on yield and quality of small grains.
The main
purpose of the phosphorus top-dressing was to insure that phosphorus
was not limiting the expression of a nitrogen response.
however, has the following three objectives:
This thesis,
(I) to determine the
frequency and the degree of winter wheat response to the top-dressed
phosphorus, (2) to determine if plant tissue tests and/or chemical
soil tests can be used to predict the response of winter wheat to
top-dressed phosphorus and, (3) to determine if additional
experimentation with top-dressed phosphorus is warrented.
Six investigators, coordinating their efforts, chose fiftyfive sites in 1970 and sixty-five sites in 1971, throughout the
cereal growing areas of eastern Montana.
Since only winter wheat
(triticum aestivum) was considered in this study and, due to the
loss of some sites from hail and prior harvesting by the
cooperator, only forty sites from 1970 and forty-one sites from
1971 are considered.
one sites.
Figure (I) shows the location of the eighty-
Twenty-six of the sites in 1971 were located in fields
o
x
H
scale of miles
FIG. (I)
LOCATION OF THE FERTILIZER SITES 1970 AND 1971
sites in 1970
sites in 1971
sites for both years
-18ad jacent to sites in 1970.
For this reason only fifty-five
locations are plotted on Figure (I).
Table (I) lists the
location number, the cooperator, the location of the sites, and
the soil series.
out the thesis.
The. location numbers will identify the site through­
A description of all the soil series included would
make this thesis very lengthy.
These descriptions may be obtained
from the Plant and Soil Science Department, Montana State University.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Three replications of twelve fertilizer treatments in 1970
and three replications of fifteen fertilizer treatments in 1971
were established in a randomized block design.
by 20 feet.
Plot size was 10
The first twelve treatments were used by all six
investigators.
In 1971, treatments 13, 14, and 15 varied
depending upon the desires of the particular investigator; for
example,
Figure (2) gives the 1971 field plot diagram for the
sites studied by Dr. J. R. Sims.
Although all investigators used
the first twelve treatments, the spatial distribution of the
treatments was not the same.
As indicated on Figure (2), only
treatments 40-0-25 and 40-40-25 ,were considered in this study.
The fertilizer carriers were ammonium nitrate, triple
superphosphate, potassium chloride, and potassium sulfate.
criteria for cooperator-site selection were:
The
(I) some phosphorus
-19-
Table (I) Listing of cooperators, locations and soil series.
Location
No. Cooperator
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
29
30
Kelly
Birkland
Erickson
Cooper
________Location
Soil Series
Keiser silty clay loam
Acel silty clay loam
Bainville clay loam
Unnamed loam (^ypj.c
Cryoboroll)
Amsterdam, Gallatin Co.
■Amsterdam silt loam
Bates
.Sidney, Richland Co.
Williams loam
Albin
Broadus, Powder River Co.
Bainville loam
Benge
Bloomfield, Dawson Co.
Farnuff
Theilman
(Not available)
Fort Shaw, Teton Co.
Graves
Vida.loam
Vida, McCone Co.
Erickson
Berry clay loam
Rapelje, Stillwater Co.
Weiler
Bozeman silty clay
Ft. Ellis
Bozeman, Gallatin Co.
Topm
Turner loam
Ross
Terry, Prairie Co.
(Not available)
Holtz
Fort Benton, Chouteau Co.
(Not available)
Denton,
Fergus
Co.
Holgate
Angela, Rosebud Co,
Chama silt loam
Fadhl
Gilt Edge silty
Torske
Hardin, Big Horn Co.
.clay loam
(Not available)
Lee
Geyser, Judith Basin Co.
Nerrow clay.loam
Rowland
Joliet, Carbon Co.
Vida
loam
Circle,
McCone
Co.
Kahn
(Not available)
Coffee Creek, Fergus Co.
Nemec
Coburn silty clay
Pryor, Yellowstone Co.
Daum
Narrow clay loam
Columbus, Stillwater Co.
Patterson
Morton silt loam
Dobrowski
Wibaux,-Wibaux Co.
•Metcalf
Moccasin, Judith Basin Co. (Not available)
Unnamed (Borollic
Tempel
Joplin, Hill Co.
Camborthid)
Glasgow, Valley Co.
Phillips loam
Breigenzer
Illiad loam
■Kremlin, Hill Co.
Rolston
Gildford,
Hill
Co,
Assinniboine
fine
S Cetfenson
£•sandy loam
Scobey clay loam
Christofferson Malta,.Phillips Co.
Table continued. . .
Hardin, Big Horn Co. .
South-western Chouteau- Co.
Broadview, Yellowstone Co.
Willow Creek, Gallatin Co.
......................... .....
‘
-20-
Table (I) continued„ . .
Location
No. Cooperator
31
32
Doucette
Reinowski
33
34
Halscide
■Stanton
35
Coulter
36
.37
38
39
40
41
.42
43
44
.45
46
.47
48
49
50
Obergfell
Berkrum
Bergstrom
Katzenberger
Jergenson
Bates
Patterson
Emmons
Benge
Holland
Erpelding
Graves
Dobrowski
.Holtz
Kelly
51
Kincaid
52
Torske
53
54
■55
56
57
58
.59
Dyk
Dyk
Weller
Rowland
Daum
Erickson
Fadhl
'Location
Scobey loam
Assinniboine fine
sandy loam
•Homestead,.Roosevelt Co.
(Not available)
Devon .thin solum
Brusett, Garfield Co.
variant
Cherry, dark surface
Brusett, Garfield Co.
•variant
Ghama- silt loam
Sidney, Richland Co.
Kevin clay loam
Cut Bank, Glacier Co.
Marias clay
Brady, Pondera Co.
■South-western Chouteau Co. Gerber silty clay loam
Williams loam
Chinook, Blaine Co.
Amsterdam silt loam
■Gallatin Co. .
Nerrow clay loam
Columbus, Stillwater'Co.
Cherry silt loam
Broadus, Powder River Co.
Bainville loam
■Broadus, Powder River Co,
(Not available)
Forsyth, Rosebud Co.
(Not available)
Forsyth, Rosebud Co.
(Not available)
Fort Shaw, Teton Co.
Morton silty loam
Wibaux, Wibaux Co.
(Not available)
Fort Benton, Chouteau Co.
Keiser silty clay
Hardin, Big Horn Co.
loam
Keiser silty clay
Hardin, Big Horn Co.
loam
Keiser silty clay
Hardin,.Big. Horn Co.
loam
Amsterdam silt loam
Amsterdam, Gallatin Co.
Amsterdam silt loam
.Amsterdam, Gallatin Co.
Berry clay loam
Rapelje, Stillwater Co.
Nerrow clay, loam
Joliet, Carbon Co.
Bainville clay loam
Pryor, Yellowstone Co.
■Broadview, Yellowstone.Co. Bainville clay loam
Chama
.Angela, Rosebud Co.
Table continued. . .
Wagner, Phillips Co.
Kremlin, Hill Co.
iSoil Series
-21Table (I).continued. . .
Location
No. Cooperator
60
61
.62
63
64
65
Nissley
Obergfell
Erickson
Halscide
Coulter
Stanton
66
Bergstrom
Gray
Lee
Metcalf
Nemec
Melton
Franson-Bros.
Kraft
Lakey
Elling
Gregoire
Rolston
Reinowski
67
68
69
70
71
72
73'
74
75
76
77
■78
79
80
81
Wayrick
Kaercher
Jergenson
Location
Bloomfield, Dawson Co.
Sidney,,Richland'Co.
Vida, McCone Co.
^Homestead, Roosevelt Co.
Brusett, Garfield C o . .
Brusett, Garfield.Co.
■Soil Series
(Not available)
Chama- silt loam
Vida -loam
(Not available)
Thurlow,clay loam
Devon thin solum
variant
Marias clay
Brady, Pondera Co,
Highwood, Chouteau Co.
■Acel silty clay loam
■Geyser, Judith Basin Co.
(Not available)
(Not available)
Moccasin, Judith Basin Co.
Cdffee- Cfeek, Fergus Cd.
(Not available)
(Not available)
Denton, Fergus Co.
(Not available)
Dunkirk, Toole Co.
(Not available)
Hingham, Hill Co.
Chester, Liberty Co.
(Not available)
■Ruidyard, Hill Co.
(Not available)
■Havre, Hill. Co.
(Not available)
Illiad■loam
Kremlin, Hill Co.
Assinniboine fine
Kremlin, Hill Co.
sandy loam
(Not available)
Havre, Hill Co.
(Not available)
Havre, Hill Co.
Williams loam
Chinook, Blaine Co.
-22Location No.
I
3
2
5
4
6
8
7
10
9
11
12
13
14
*
8
9
13
I
3.. ..4 10
14
— --- - - ----- -----
11
15
2
25
26
7
6
27
28
*
2
12
15T
* I
5 j
'
16
17
18
20
19
21
22
23
24
*
12
4
8
10
14
6
.9
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3
*
2
8
7
15
13
5
7
38
39
40
41
42
4
11
12
6
11
I
14
5
1
Tmt.
No.
I
2*
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
150, —
9
:
Fertilizer Treatments Ibs'/A
P
S
KoO
N
p?°5 K
0
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
140
180
40
40
40
40
40
0
0
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
0
0
o ■ 25
92
25
92
25
92
25
92
25
25
92
92
25
92
25
25
92
0
92
92 100
92 135
92 135
92 135
0
0
0
30
30 ' 0
'0
30
0
30
0
30
0
30
0
30
0
30
0
30
0
0
0
120
162
15
30
162
162
45
* Treatments considered in this thesis
(2)
30
II
70
I
43
44
13
10
3I
45
*
<s—
FIG.
29
PLOT DIAGRAM - 1971.NITROGEN TOP-DRESSING STUDIES
1 5 Iv
^
-23was drilled with the seed, (2) the soil represented an extensive
area devoted to small grain production and, (3) a recommended winter
wheat variety was planted.
The majority of the sites were seeded
with Winalta and Cheyenne varieties with the remainder being seeded
with Froid, Warrior, or Itana varieties.
Tissue samples of the above ground portion of the plants
at Feekes Stage 3 (Large, 1954) were taken for phosphorus analysis.
Soil samples from 0-6" deep and from 6"-12" deep were taken in
every other experimental unit.
Soil samples for nitrate-nitrogen
analysis were taken as deep as six feet in the soil at four places
across the site.
The experimental units were then marked, and the
fertilizer spread by hand.
During the growing season records were kept on the inches
of precipitation and evaporation using the method of Sims and
Jackson (1971).
Also weekly readings of soil temperature at the
fifty centimeter depth were made with a dial-stem therometer.
A six-foot pit was dug and the soil profile characterized by
personnel of the Soil Conservation Service.
Approximately two
months after setting out the site, the rows and the perimeter of the
site were mowed.
The cooperator was expected to spray the site
for weeds at the same time he sprayed the rest of his field.
-24A 50 to 60 square foot section was harvested from the center
of each plot with a Jari mower
I
2
and a Vogel thresher . Before
threshing, the wheat bundles from each experimental unit were
weighed, and the weight was recorded.
Plant samples from the 0-0-0
and 180-40-25 treatments were stored in plastic bags for moisture
analysis.
The plant samples taken in spring were dry-ashed and analyzed
for percent total phosphorus (Greweling, 1966).
The soil samples
were analyzed for available phosphorus using a Modified Bray Soil
Test (Smith et al., 1957).
Grain yield, test weight, and grain
protein content were determined for each plot.
Grain protein
content was determined by the Udy dye method (Method 46-14) .
(American Association of Cereal Chemists, 1962).
The data were subjected to analysis of variance, simplelinear correlation and regression analysis, and curvilinear
regression analysis using the models described by Steel and
Torrie (1960).
A Monroe 1766 Desk Computer was used to process
the data.
1Jari Products Inc., 2938 Pillsbury, Minneapolis, Minn. 55408
O
Bill's Welding, Pullman, Washington
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The grain yield and percent protein in the grain for treatments
40-0-25 and 40-40-25; the change in grain yield and in grain protein
percentage due to the addition of forty pounds of elemental phos­
phorus; and the results of both the soil and the plant tissue analysis
are listed for all locations in Table (2).
The ppm P (0-12") in the soil reported in Table (2) is not the
result of a soil analysis of the 0 to 12" soil layer but is the
average of the parts per million of available soil phosphorus in
the 0 to 6" layer and the 6" to 12" layer.
The analyses of variance are listed in the appendix.
Significant yield responses were limited to five sites in 1970, and
four sites in 1971 with two of these being highly significant.
significant protein response was found in 1971.
No
Due to only two
treatments involved in the comparisons, it is very difficult to
find significant differences.
The following ranges for both years can be found in Table (2):
grain yields from 12 to 59 bushels/acre; grain protein percentage
from 9 to- 17 percent; grain yield change.s from -3.8 to +10.2
bushels/acre; grain protein percentage changes frpm -1.9 to +1.3
percent; phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes Stage 3 from
0.130 to 0.633 percent; available phosphorus in the plow layer (0-6")
Table (2)
Soil analysis, plant tissue analysis, and yield and protein content.
Grain yield
Protein
ppm P^ ppm P2 ppm P2
Change Change
LocaBu./A.
Percentage
in
in
% P1 (0-6") (6"-12") (0-12")
tion
in Grain
Yield Protein in
in
in
in
Plant Soil
Soil
No. 40-0-25 "40-40-25 40-0-25 40-40-25 Bu./A.
%
Soil
1970
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
33.26
50.ii
35.96
21.10
34. 55
47.09
28.24
32.46
22.50
28.36
36.91
59.75
27.35
24.39
26.89
56.79
31.33
17.00
34.86
27.50
23.40
.35.98
19.75
19.54
33.26
52.89
45.17
24.77
35.89
48.23
36.74
29.41
22.50
37.14
45.41
58.70
34.61
25.80
29.72
56.19
30.16
18.90
45.08
33.51
25.69
34.30
23.94
18.07
Table continued. .
12.47
13.30
10.63
13.23
14.27
12.60
14.83
15.63
13.27
13.93
12.63
10.60
11.37
13.17
13.88
14.73
12.60
13.60
10.30
13.33
11.70
12.47
13.47
14.60
12.13
13.40
11.33
13.83
14.70
12.60
13.87
15.63
13.80
13.93
12.50
10.60
11.37
12.73
12.67
14.73
12.37
13.37
9.67
13.33
11.73
12.53
13.83
14.63
0.0
2.8
9.2
3.7
1.3
1.1
8.5
-3.0
0.0
8 .8
8.5
-1.0
7.3
1.4
2.8
-0.6
-1.2
1.9
10.2
6.0
2.3
-1.7
4.2
-1,5
-0.3
0.1
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.7
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
.184
.264
.336
.200
.470
.434
.434
.292
.410
25
40
24
34
20
31
23
31
31
25
25
75
25
57
34
20
51
34
48
20
43
43
28
28
13
18
23
3
13
24
29
24
18
16
3
25
13
15
13
43
13
28
22
20
19
59
15
13
23
5
25
15
18
15
13
10
24
16
37
20
36
18
30
29
20
19
Table (2) Continued. . .
Change Change
Grain yield
Protein
! Ippm P^
Loca-•
Percentage
in
in
7= P1 (0 -6")
Eu. /A.
Yield Protein in
tion
in Grain
in
No. 40-0-25 40-40-25 40=0—25 40-40-25 Eu./A. ' 7=
Plant Soil
1970 continued
27.80
30.10
25
15.23
26
12.97
21.30
23.27
27
33.03
27.13
28
11.70
14.97
29
35.00
30
27. 53
53.70
31
53.13
31.80
34.97
32
30.26 • 31.34
33
25.53
25.52
34
37.04
35.04
35
37.23
36
39.59
38.20
32.63
37
37.54
34.58
38
28.60
29.80
39
35.53
29.93
40
13.03
13.30
15.30
13.77
12.87
12.37
14.43
14.10
12.80
15.53
13.93
12.97
13.47
13.57
14.43
12.90
12.83
13.73
15.23
13.73
12.60
11.93
14.53
14.90
12.80
15.53
13.93
12.97
12.20
13.57
14.17
12.73
-2.3
2.3
2.0
5.9
3.3
7.5
0.6
3.2
1.1
0.0
2.0
-2.4
5.6
3.0
-1.2
5.6
-0.2
0.4
-0.1
0.0
-0.3
-0.4
0.1
0 8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.3
0.0
-0.3
-0.2
1971
41
42
43
10.43
10.73
14.30
10.67
10.37
13.80
- “
1.9
-2.7
1.6
0.2
-0.4
-0.5
49.22
47.34
41.26
43.95
29.50
31.11
= =<'-=■
Table continued. . .
a
o
»
4»
rw
0V
-
.130
.152
.260
.322
.310
.182
.334
.192
.408
.509
.633
.332
28
13
34
37
20
28
31
37
45
20
28
31
25
31
63
51
40
28
54
ppm P^
ppm :
(6 "-12") (0-12
in
Soil
in
Soil
15
5
15
18
3
13
10
20
21
9
24
28
12
20
20
28
5
15
20
13
42
32
10
25
18
23
10
32
a = ~ “ —"—
Table (2) continued. . .
Protein
Grain yield
Change Change
ppm P2 ppm P2
ppm P2
in
Percentage
in
Loca­
Eu. /A.
7= P1 (0-6" )(6"-12"> (0-12")
in Grain
Yield Protein in
in
tion
in
in
No. 40-0-25 40-40-25 40-0-25 40-40-25 Eu./A.
Plant
Soil
Soil
%
Soil
1971 continued
21.98
44
25.40
40.10
45. 76
45'
46
44.37
45.28
21.80
47
26.27
35.93
37.40
48
41.79
49
46.49
50
35.30
36.10
29.30
30.65
51
59.08
52
59.29
41.06
41.22
53
30.43
33.52
54
55
46.59
54.98
56
39.25
45.28
22.87
24.75
57
38.20
58
36.03
26.64
25.55
59
60
38.17
38.44
45.12
61
47.89
24.57
27.18
62
40.66
46.43
63
64
34.19
34.22
24.83
24.58
65
34.76
35.30
66
12.83
10.87
11.27
13.80
14.57
9.47
14.63
14.40
13.43
12.60
15.33
14.57
10.13
17.20
12.13
15.63
15.63
13.00
14.23
13.60
15.13
16.97
12.23
12.73
11.77
11.03
13.13
14.27
9.13
14.40
15.47
13.10
12.83
15.90
14.27
10.10
16.73
12.33
15.00
15.33
12.27
14.13
14.17
15.43
16.40
11.83
3.4
5.7
0.9
4.5
1.5
4.7
0.8
-1.4
0.2
0.2
3.1
8.4
6.0
1.9
2.2
-1,1
0.3
2.8
2.6
5.8
0.0
-0.2
0.5
-0.1
0.8
-0.2
-0.7
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
1.1
-0.3
0.2
0.6
-0.3
0.0
-0.5
0.2
-0.6
-0.3
-0.7
-0.1
0.6
0.3
-0.6
-0.4
.388
.412
.478
.488
.439
.463
.383
.245
.387
.276
.228
.304
.384
.222
. .178
.174
.355
.370
.208
.548
.405
.487
.358
28
23
34
34
43
54
25
43
25
28
23
31
28
20
20
43
34
20
43
79
73
48
5
10
13
15
8
15
23
18
. 20
13
I
10
8
8
10
■16
16 24
21
29
38
22
32
19
14
16
20
18
15
- - - s
Table: continued. . .
Table (2) continued. . .
Grain yield
Change Change
ppm
ppm P2 ppm P^
LocaEu./A,.
in
in
% P1 (0-6") (6'-'-12") (0-12")
tion
Yield Protein in
in
in
in
No. 40-0-25 40-40-25 40-0-25 40-40-25 Bu./A.,
%
Plant Soil
Soil
Soil
1971 continued
39.76
67'
43.74
23.83
22.78
68
37.23
69
40.05
70
26.32 .25.77
71
39.41
39.34
27.20
25.45
72
29.56
73
28.87
32.23
35.47
74
30.20
26.40
75
76
33.13
29.30
27.37
31.63
77
30.23
78
28.03
25.37
25.43
79
80
24.77
26.77
36.03
38.47
81
10.27
13.67
12.37
13.17
15.00
14.05
14.70
16.17
15.13
12.57
14.03
15.37
13.03
14.63
13.07
10.47
13.70
12.63
14.00
15.43
12.15
14.67
16.13
15.40
12.53
13; 23
15.40
14.37
15.17
13.33
4.0
-1.0
-2.8
-0.6
-0.1
-1.8
-0.7
3.2
3.8
-3.8
4.3
2.2
-0.1
2.0
2.4
-0.3
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.4
-1.9
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
-0.8
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.3
.556
.297
.469
.387
.306
.321
.241
.229
.262
.224
.297
.160
.208
I/ Tissue samples from above ground portion of plants at stage three of Feekes stage„
2/ Modified Bray Number I Test.
-30from 13 to 79 ppm; available phosphorus in the sub-soil (6"-12") from
I to 43 ppm; and available phosphorus in the soil (0-12") from 9 to
59 ppm.
There is a strong negative correlation between grain yield.
changes and protein percentage changes for the 1970 data.
This
suggests a possible dilution effect on grain protein due to
increased yields induced by phosphorus fertilization.■ The 1971 data
does not give the same negative correlation.
Table (3) presents the overall results of the grain yield
changes and grain protein percentage changes for both 1970 and 1971
and both years combined.
Considering 1970, the average yield on the
40 sites was 31.2 bushels/acre without phosphorus and 33.9 bushels/
acre with phosphorus.
The average protein percentage in the grain
was 13.28 percent without phosphorus and 13.22 percent with phos­
phorus.
Although there was a 0.5 percent reduction in the total
protein content of the grain, increased yields gave an average 8
percent increase in total pounds of. protein per acre.
Considering
1971, the average grain yield on the 41 sites was 34.1 bushels/acre
without phosphorus and 35.6 bushels/acre with phosphorus.
The
average proteih percentage in the grain was 13.58 percent without
phosphorus and 13.54 percent with phosphorus. ■Although there was
a 0.2 percent reduction in the total protein content of the grain,
Overall
Yield
1970
% of Sites
70.0
Increase
No Change
7.5
Decrease
22.5
% Protein
Increase
No Change
Decrease
Overall
Yield
Protein
grain yield and grain protein percentage changes.
7» of Sites
25.0
37.5
37.5
Bu./A,
4.4
0,0
1.6
■7=
0.41
0.00
0.42
2.7 bu./A. increase
0.06% decre ase
1971
7» of Sites
68.3
2.4 ■
29.3
7> of Sites
36.6
.14.6
48.8
Eu./A.
2.9
0.0 .
1.4
%
0.53
0.00
0.48
1.6 bu./A. increase
0.04% decrease
1970 & 1971
% of Sites
Bu./A
69.1
3.6
4.9
0.0
26.0
1.5
% of Sites
30.9
25.9
43.2
%■
0.48
0.00
0.45
2.1 bu. /A., increase
0.05% decrease
-IE-
Table (3)
-32increased yields gave an average 4.4 percent increase in total
pounds of protein per acre.
Throughout this thesis the 40-0-25 plot is considered the
control plot and the 40-40-25 plot is the plot that is being
compared to the control.
There was a 0-0-0 check plot that will be
referred to briefly.
In 1970 there were 9 sites and in 1971 11 sites that showed a
decrease in yield when comparing the 40-40-25 plot with the control
plot.
All 9 sites from 1970 and all but 2 of the 11 sites from
1971 showed a higher yield for both the 40-40-25 plot and the control
plot when compared with the 0-0-0 check plot.
This indicates that
these sites were deficient in nitrogen; they responded to nitrogen
application, but the addition of phosphorus diluted the response to
nitrogen, causing nitrogen to again be limiting.
In almost all cases
plots with treatments containing more nitrogen than the 40-40-25
plot showed greater yields than that of the control plot.
Locations
16, 17, 22, 36, 39, 42, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 73 showed higher yields
on the 60-40-25 plots than on the control plots indicating that with
the addition of 40 pounds of phosphorus a corresponding addition of
20 pounds of nitrogen was necessary at these locations. Locations 24,
59, and 76 showed higher yields on the 80-40-25 plots than on the
control plots , 40-0-25 , indicating. ..that, with the. addition, of 4.0
-33pounds of phosphorus a corresponding addition of 40 pounds of nitrogen
was necessary at these locations.
Location 70 showed higher yields
on the 140-40-25 plots than on the control plots, indicating that with
the addition of 40 pounds of phosphorus a corresponding addition
of 100 pounds of nitrogen was necessary at this location . The above
observations illustrate the necessity of balanced application of
nutrients.
Locations 12 and 25 showed an increase in yields with the
application of any fertilizer, but their highest yields were
obtained on the control plot.
Locations 8 and 65 showed the
highest yields on the 20-40-25 plot.
Location 8 responded to all
fertilizer applications while location 65 showed an increase over
the 0-0-0 check plot with only the 20-40-25 treatment.
showed the highest yields on the check plot.
Location 51
When nitrogen and
potassium, or nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were added, there
was a 1.2, 2.2, and 2.6 bushels/acre decrease respectively.
When
nitrogen and phosphorus were added without potassium, there was a 8.3
bushels/acre decrease.
Apparently both nitrogen and phosphorus were
detrimental to the yields.
This location did show some winter kill
and was not an ideal stand.
The grain protein percentage changes followed a similar pattern
as that of the grain yield changes.
The grain protein percentage is
-34 definitely influenced by available nitrogen.
Phosphorus mainly
affects protein percentage to the extent that nitrogen-phosphorus
interactions influence nitrogen availability and to the extent that
increased yields tend to dilute the protein.
In 1970 there were 14 sites and in 1971 20 sites that showed
a decrease in grain protein percentage of the 40-40-25 plot compared
with the control plot.
All 34 sites showed a higher grain protein
percentage for both the 40-40-25 plot and the control plot when
compared with the check plot.
Locations I, 14, 15, 17, .18, 19, 25, 27, 29, 30, 40, 42, 43
44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, and 77 showed
higher grain protein percentages on the 60-40-25 plots than on the
control plots, indicating that with the addition of 40 pounds of
phosphorus a corresponding addition of 20 pounds of nitrogen was
necessary.
Locations 7, 39, 48, 55, and 72 showed higher grain
protein percentages on the 80-40-25 plots than on fhe control plots,
indicating that at these locations the addition of 40 pounds of
phosphorus required a corresponding addition of 40 pounds of nitrogen.
Locations 37 and 59 showed higher grain protein percentages on the
100-40-25 plots than on the control plots, indicating that at these
two locations the addition of 40 pounds of phosphorus required a
corresponding addition of 60 pounds of nitrogen.
-35Table (4) presents the correlation coefficients for the simple
correlations of the change in grain yield and the change in grain
protein percentage versus the percent phosphorus in the plant tissue
at Feekes stage 3 and the parts per million of available soil phos­
phorus in the 0 to 6" layer, the 6" to 12" layer, and in the 0 to 12"
!
layer.
Out of all twenty-four correlations, two were significant at
the five percent level (change in grain protein percentage versus
percent phosphorus in the plant tissue in 1970 and change in grain
yield versus parts per million available phosphorus in the sub-soil
(6"-12".)), and two were significant at the ten percent level (change
in grain yield versus parts per million available phosphorus in the
plow layer (0-6"), 1970 and 1971 and change in grain yield versus
parts per million available phosphorus in the soil (0-12") , 1970
and 1971.)
Following Table (4) are the twenty-four graphs of the simple
correlations.
Each graph, besides showing the data points, is
labeled with the regression equation, the regression coefficient,
the mean of X, and, where the line described by the regression
equation is observably different from a horizontal line, the
regression line.
Phosphorus in the Plant Tissue
Figures 3 through 8 show the relationships found between percent
Table (4)
Values of the correlation coefficient (r) for the indicated simple correlations.
% P in Plant
-0.469 *
1971 AYield
A % Protein
+0.100
-0.139
'
1970 AYield
&
A % Protein
1971
-‘
-
+0.017
-0.194
* Significant at the 5% level.
+ Significant at the 10% level.
ppm P. (0-6")
-0.226
-0.106
ppm P, (6"-12")
-0.166
+0.164
-0.236
-0.193
-0.470 *
r0.130
-0.364
-0.397
,,"
-0.233 +
-0.147
•J
-0.210
+0.070
ppm P, (0-12")
-0.241
+0.012
-0.256 +
-0.103
-36-
0.044
1970 AYield
A % Protein
A Y i e l d = -(0.001) (7= P in plant) + 2.921
r = -0.044
8- «
Yield difference, Bu./A.
#
4-#
#
0.
**
I
W
-~l
I
- 4--
-
8
* -
0
.08
4—
.16
4
4-.24
1
---------------------- ----------------------
.40
.48
7<> P in plant
FIG
(3)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS 7, P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
1
----------------------
.56
1
-
.64
x = 0.295
A
Yield = (0.002) (7o P in plant) + 0.746
r ~ 0.100
-38
Yield difference, Bu./A.
8
-
-
8
- -
H------- 1------- 1
------- 1------- 1
------- 1------- 1------- 1—
.04
.12
.20
.28
.36
.44
7» P in plant
FIG. (4)
1971 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS 7= P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
.52
.60
A Yield
(4-10
(7o P in plant) + 1.724
r = +0.017
8 -«
Yield difference, Bu./A.
4
O
- 4—
-
8
- —
-4.04
— I-------- 1--------- 1-------- 1---------(.12
.20
.28
.36
.44
4----- H
52
7<> P in plant
FIG
(5)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS 7= P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
.60
x = 0.332
A
7„ Protein difference in the grain
1 .6
7° Protein = -(0.001) (7. P in plant) + 0.368
-0.469
-•
1 . 6 -'
7» P in plant
FIG. (6)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
7, PROTEIN VS 7= P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
x = 0.295
/\ yo Protein = -(0.001) (7, P in plant) + 0.175
r = -0.139
7o Protein difference in the grain
1.6 __
.8
•
- -
•
•
•
0
-
-
.
8 -«.
1 .6 ..
- 2.4 J---- 1_
.04
.12
.20
.28
.36
4.44
.52
7= P in plant
FIG. (7)
1971 CORRELATION OF A
7» PROTEIN VS 7= P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
.60
x = 0.349
^
7« Protein difference in the grain
1.6
% Protein = -(0.001) (7= P in plant) + 0.222
r = -0.194
7» P in plant
FIG. (8)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF
A
x = 0.332
7» PROTEIN VS 7= P IN PLANT AT FEEKES STAGE 3
-43 phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes stage 3 versus the grain
yield change and the grain protein percentage change for 1970, 1971,
and 1970 and 1971 combined.
The relationship between changes in grain yield versus the
percent phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes stage 3 is not
clear•
Using a curvilinear regression equation the maximum point of
tfie curve is at 0.362 percent phosphorus.
If a critical plant
phosphorus level exists at this growth stage, this would be it.
The relationship between change in grain protein percentage
versus percent phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes stage 3 is
a definite negative relationship.
This indicates that the less
phosphorus in the plant tissue, the lesser will be the protein
percentage decrease with phosphorus fertilizer application.
Although the relationship is not significant for both years combined,
it was significant for the year 1970.
If a critical phosphorus level
in the plant at this growth stage can be considered for maximum
protein production, a curvilinear correlation gives the point as
0.478 percent.
For both years combined the average percent phosphorus
in the plant tissue at Feekes Stage 3 was 0.332 percent.
Phosphorus in the Soil
Figures 9 through 26 show the relationship found between the 3
values for available soil phosphorus versus the grain yield change
Yield
-(0.063)(ppm P, (0-6"))+ 4.789
r = -0.226
Yield difference, Bu./A.
A
Soil Test
FIG. (9)
1970 CORRELATION OF
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
33.42
-45-
Yield difference, Bu./A.
^ Y i e l d = - (0.078) (ppm P.,. (6"-12")) + 4.070
•
r = -0.166
Soil Test
FIG
(10)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6"-12")
14.72
Yield + -(0.092)(ppm P, (0-12")) + 5.158
#
r = -0.241
Yield difference, Bu./A.
A
Soil Test
FIG. (11)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
^
Yield = -(0.039)(ppm P, (0-6")) + 3.414
r = -0.236
Yield difference, Bu./A.
8 4-
I
-O
I
—
8
■—
12
■4------ 1-------- L20
28
36
-4 44
52
60
ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG
(12)
1971 CORRELATION OF ^
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
4 ------ h
68
76
5c = 36.84
Yield = -(0.254)(ppm P, (6"-12")) + 5.189
r = -0.470
Yield difference, Bu./A.
^
+-
0
2
4------ 1------- 1--------1-------- 1------ h
6
10
14
18
22
ppm P, (6"-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (13)
1971 CORRELATION OF
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6"-12")
26
x = 12.10
Yield = -(0.146)(ppm P, (0-12")) + 5.518
r = -0.364
Yield difference, Bu./A.
^
ppm P
FIG. (14)
1971 CORRELATION OF A
Soil Test
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
22.35
A
0
Yi e V = -(0.054) (ppm P, (0-6")) + 4.283
r = -0.233
0 S
8 ..
•
Yield difference, Bu./A.
0
—
8
■ •
4------- 1------- 1------- L12
20
28
36
44
52
4 -------- 1-------- 160
68
76
ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG
(15)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
x = 34.74
Yield difference, Bu./A.
A
Yield = -(0.101)(ppm#P, (6"-12")) + 4.010
r = -0.210
- 4
Soil
FIG
(16)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF A
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6"-12")
13.74
A
Yield = -(0.099)(ppm P, (0-12")) + 5.022
r = -0.256
-52
Yield difference, Bu./A.
M
ppm P, (0-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (17)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF ^
YIELD VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
23.51
% Protein = -(0.003)(ppm P, (0-6")) + 0.057
r = -0.106
7» Protein difference in the grain
1 . 6- -
.8
#
#
%
»
%
&
#
0
s
#
r
#
*
t
$
%
%
.8
-
Ln
I
ft
#
•
1. 6—
- 2.4.
+
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG
I
UJ
%
#
(18)
1970 CORRELATION OF
% PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
64
72
x = 33.42
^
% Protein = (0.009)(ppm P, (6"-12")) - 0.190
r = 0.164
% Protein difference in the grain
1.6-r
.8- »4
«
4
«
I
Ln
■O
I
«
— 1.6- *
-
2. 440
8
16
32
4?
ppm P, (6"-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (19)
1970 CORRELATION OF
% PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6"-12")
x = 14.72
-A. % Protein = (0.000)(ppm P, (0=12")) - 0.069
r = 0.012
% Protein difference in the grain
1.6-,-
.8 - -
0
.
8■ -
■
Ul
Vl
—
1. 6—
- 2.4
0
4-
4-
8
16
-+
24
-I--------- h
32
40
_|---------h
48
56
ppm P, (0-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (20)
1970 CORRELATION OF
7» PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
x = 24.12
y\ 7o Protein = -(0.006) (ppm P, (0-6")) + 0.140
r = -0.193
7o Protein difference in the grain
S
.
8- -
#
a
-
.
8- I
Ln
I
- 1 . 6.
-2.48
+
i ------
1------- 1-------- 1------ 1------- •------- H
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (21)
1971 CORRELATION OF ^
% PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
72
x = 36.84
^
% Protein = -(0.011)(ppm P, (6"-12")) + 0.117
r = -0.130
7« Protein difference in the grain
I.64-
FIG. (22)
1971 CORRELATION OF A
7„ PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6"-12")
/\ 7= Protein = -(0.026) (ppm P, (0-12")) + 0.594
r = -0.397
% Protein difference in the grain
1.6 nr
■
00
1
Vl
-
1
.
6
- -
- 2.4 --------- 1-------- 1-------- 1--------- 1----------1--------1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ppm P, (0-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (23)
1971 CORRELATION OF A
7= PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
5 = 22.35
/\ 7= Protein = -(0.004) (ppm P, (0-6")) + 0.095
r = -0.147
7= Protein difference in the grain
1 .
.8
#
#
#
0
0
+-
0 #
#
#
#
--- #--e
#
o
«
#
#
0
-
#
#
.8
I
Vi
VC
I
-
1.6
-
2. 448
Te
424
-I-32 - - - 40
1- - - - - 148
- - - - - - 561- - - - 1-64 - - ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (24)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF A
h
72
x = 34.74
% PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-6")
7o Protein = (0.004) (ppm P, 6"-12") - 0.104
r = 0.070
-60
7„ Protein difference in the grain
^
ppm P, (6"-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG
(25)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF
7= PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (6''-12")
/\ 7o Protein = -(0.005) (ppm P, 0-12") + 0.087
7» Protein difference in the grain
1.6
r = -0.103
.8.
♦
r
^
i
r
• #
»
. 8 ..
I
I
-
1 .6.'
- 2.4._
3
24
+
40
-t56
ppm P , (0-12"), Bray Soil Test
FIG
(26)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF
% PROTEIN VS AVAILABLE P IN SOIL (0-12")
x = 23.51
-62and the grain protein percentage change for 1970, 1971, and 1970 and
1971 combined.
In 1970 there were no significant relationships between change
in grain yield or change in grain protein percentage versus available
soil phosphorus.
The strongest relationship was a negative relation­
ship found between change in grain yield versus available soil
phosphorus (0-6").
Change in grain yield versus available soil
phosphorus (0-12") was almost as strong a negative relationship.
The ■
relationship between change in grain protein percentage versus
available soil phosphorus in 1970 was not clear.
In 1971 the relationship between change in grain yield versus
available soil phosphorus (6"-12") was significant at the 5 percent
level.
However,a strong negative correlation was found between change
in grain yield versus available soil phosphorus in the (0-6") and
(0-12") soil samples.
The relationships between change in grain
protein percentage versus available soil phosphorus were, more definite
in 1971 than in 1970 showing strong negative correlations in all
three cases.
Changes in grain protein percentage versus available
soil phosphorus (0-12") was correlated at the eleven percent level.
For both years combined there were two significant negative
relationships at the ten percent level.
These ware change in grain
yield versus available soil phosphorus (0-6") and (0-12").
Change
-63in the grain protein percentage versus the values for available
soil phosphorus were very weak relationships.
The fertilizer guide for dryland small grains of the Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extention Service,
Montana State University, lists the following recommendations
on phosphorus fertilization for wheat:
MSU
Soil test
(Bray)
P-PDm
0-10
10-30
30-50
50-75
>75
Rate P
Broadcast
Rating
Very low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Ibs./A.
39.3 - 52.4
30.6 - 39.3
21.8 - 30.6
17.5 - 21.8
0
Standard procedure is to analyze the soil phosphorus on only
the plow layer (0-6").
Looking at the 1970 data there were no soils in the lowest (0-10
ppm) range.
This would indicate that the recommendations were
fulfilled for all locations.
Of the sites 45.0 percent were in the
very low (10-30 ppm) range; 42.5 percent were in the low (30-50 ppm)
range; and 12.5 percent were in the medium (50-75 ppm) range.
The
average increases for ttie three ranges were 3.9 bushels/acre, 2.0
bushels/acre, and 0.2 bushels/acre respectively.
In 1971 like 1970 there were no soils in the lowest (0-10 ppm)
range.
Of the sites 44.0 percent were in the very low (10-30 ppm)
-64range ; 40.0 percent were in the low (30-50 ppm) range; and 12.0
percent were in the, medium (50-75 ppm) range.
The average increase
for the three ranges were 2.0 bushels/acte,,2.5 bushels/acre, and
0.7 bushels/acre respectively.
(> 75 ppm) range.
One of the sites was in the high
This site showed no increase in yield.
Soils from the two years showed great similarity in terms of
the available phosphorus; however, only 1970 data responded as
would be predicted by the fertilizer guide.
Since rainfall was the
big variant between ypars, 1971 being the driest, this suggests
that moisture should be a consideration with any recommendation.
As documented in the previous literature review, wheat roots
function at depths of three to six feet.
In Montana, Brown (1971)
reported significant water extraction by winter wheat down t0 seven
feet.
It could be expected that nutrient uptake would also occur
I
at these depths.
Sub-soil phosphorus should have an effect on plant
response to phosphorus fertilization.
On dryland soils, where the
top inches of the soil profile remain dry during a large part of the
growing season, the influence of the sub-soil phosphorus may be
appreciable.
A system to predict crop response to phosphorus
fertilizer based partially on sub-soil phosphorus may be an im­
provement over present systems based only on plow layer phosphorus. .
-65Figures 27 through 32 show the relationship of grain yield change
and grain protein percentage change versus the expression:
_______ ppm P, (6"-12")________
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P 5 (6"-12")
To better understand this expression let us refer to the
available soil phosphorus (0-6") and (6"-12") as P^ and Pg
respectively.
The expression can then be written as
A
If we consider Pg as representing the phosphorus fertility of the
mineral fraction of the soil relatively unaltered by bio-forms or by
man and his management practices, and if we consider P^ as the soil
condition due to the activities of bio-forms and man, then as Pg
becomes larger, expression (I) becomes larger and the response to
applied phosphorus fertilizer should become smaller.
The data in
Figures 27 through 29 support this thesis.
For the 1971 data, expression (I) becomes a more reliable factor
than all the previously investigated factors for predicting response
to phosphorus fertilizer.
It is significantly correlated with the
change in grain yield at the two percent level.
The 1970 data shows
a similar relationship but it is not statistically significant.
For
the 1970 data, available soil phosphorus (0-6") and 0-12") have
stronger correlations with the change in grain yield than expression (I).
A
Yield = -(0.716)(:
•) + 3.431
-0.166
1.75
FIG. (27)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
2.15
_________ppm P, (6"-12")_______
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (I)
x = 0.984
Yield
-(2.305)(
ppm PT
ppm P, (6 " - 12 ” )________ ) + 3.973
- ppm P, (6"-12")
r = -0.524
(0- 6")
-67 -
Yield difference, Bu./A,
^
- 4- -
_________ppm P, (6"-12")
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
FIG. (28)
1971 CORRELATION OF
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (I)
x = 0.744
A
Yield = -(1.014) (:
) + 3.472
Yield difference, Bu./A.
-0.236
_________ppm P, (6"-12")
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
FIG. (29)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF ^
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (I)
x = 0.899
I .G-r-
/\ 7o Protein
(0.038)(
ppm P, (6" - 12")
Ppm P, (0- 6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
0.120
% Protein difference in the grain
+0.338
I
VD
I
1 .6--
-H
H-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1-------1------ f-
15
55
.95
1.35
1.75
2.15
_________ppm P, (6"-12")_______
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
FIG. (30)
1970 CORRELATION OF A
% PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (I)
2.55
2.95
3.35
x = 1.672
/\
°L Protein
(0.294) (•
- 0.219
-70
% Protein difference in the grain
= 0.400
1 .6 - -
- 2.4
ppm P, (6"-l2")
FIG. (31)
1971 CORRELATION OF ^
% PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (I)
= 0.744
/\
7, Protein
(0.040) (•
0.090
7» Protein difference in the grain
0.285
1 .6 . _
- 2.4..
_________ppm P, (6"-12")_______
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")
FIG. (32)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF A
7= PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (I)
5 = 1-350
-72For the changes in the grain protein percentage, both 1970
and 1971 data show a positive significant correlation with
expression (I) at the ten percent level.
For both years combined
the correlation is significant at the five percent level.
A deficiency of expression (I) is that it is qualitative but not
quantitative.
For example, a soil with two parts per million phos­
phorus in the (0-6") soil layer and one part per million phosphorus
in the (6"-12") soil layer will have a ratio of one.
Another soil
with 20 parts per million phosphorus in the (0-6") soil layer and ten
parts per million phosphorus in the (6"-12") soil layer will also
have a ratio of one.
Another soil with 20 parts per million phos­
phorus in the (0-6") soil layer and ten parts per million phosphorus
in the (6"-12") soil layer will also have a ratio of one.
Thus,
expression (I) should be multiplied by some factor in order to make
it quantitative.
A quantitative expression of the soils overall
phosphorus fertility status should be an appropriate multiplier to
differentiate between soils that are high and low in available
phosphorus content.
The overall phosphorus fertility can be expressed
as
ppm P (0-6") + ppm P (6"-12")
2
or using the notation from above
2
-73The new expression then becomes
( 2 ) '
Figures 33 through 38 are based on expression (2) versus grain
yield changes and grain protein percentage changes.
In 1970 and
1971 expresssion (2) versus grain yield changes shows the strongest
negative correlation of any of the relationships examined.
The 1971
correlation was more than highly-significant. Also, for both years
combined expression (2) versus grain yield change shows a significant
correlation at the five percent level.
Expression (2) versus grain protein percentage changes does
not correlate as strongly as expression (I).
In both 1970 and the
combined years of 1970 and"1971 the relationships were significant at
the ten percent level.
This result suggests that protein percentage
in the grain is not associated with the quantity of phosphorus in the
soil but is more closely associated with the balance of the phosphorus
in the soil.
In other words, as indicated by the correlations, the
addition of phosphorus fertilizer that increases the available soil
phosphorus in the plow layer may not necessarily affect grain protein
percentage, but as the parts per million of available phosphorus in
the sub-soil increases, the addition of phosphours fertilizer to
the plow layer may increase the grain protein percentage.
Yield difference, Bu./A.
ppm P, (6"-12")
(ppm P, (0-12")) (_
.)
ppm P , (0-6")- ppm P , (6"-12")
FIG. (33)
1970 CORRELATION OF ^
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (2)
24.45
A Y i e l d = -(0.118) (ppm P, (0-12")) (
+ 4.246
Yield difference, Bu./A.
-0.622
ppm P, (6"-12")_______ \
(ppm P, ( 0- 12" ) ) (.
PPm P, (.0-6") - ppm 'P, (b"-i2''y
FIG. (34)
1971 CORRELATION OF
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (2)
x = 16.76
A
Yield = -#(0.050)(ppm P , (0-12"))(
- ppm P
- 1 2 ")
) + 3.641
Yield difference, Bu./A.
-0.312
ppm P , (6"-12")_______
(ppm P, (0-12")H
ppm P , (0-6'') - ppm P, (6 "-12")
FIG. (35)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF
YIELD VS EXPRESSION (2)
x = 21.73
A
% Protein = (0.002)(ppm P, ( 0- 12" ) ) (
ppm P, (6"-12")_______ x
ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")^
1.6
7» Protein difference in the grain
.8
0.119
0.327
_ _
«
t
o ___ !•
-
.8
♦
*
♦
- -
I
"sj
I
-
1.6
- -
- 2.4
0
4--------- 1--------- 1--------- 1--------- 1--------- 1--------- 1
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
(ppm P, ( 0- 12" ) ) (
FIG. (36)
1970 CORRELATION OF ^
ppm P, (6"-12")
\
PPm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6"-12")y
7, PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (2)
x = 40.93
A
% Protein = (0.009) (ppm P, (0-12")(^
p>
" °-146
7o Protein difference in the grain
r = 0.274
.8 __
I
OO
I
-
1,6
—
- 2.4 -20
40
i--------- H
60
80
(ppm P, (0-12")) (ppm
FIG. (37)
1971 CORRELATION OF ^
100
ppm P , ^pm
(6"-12")
% PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (2)
^---------i
120
140
)
X
=
^otein - (0.002) ( p m P,
(ppgl P , ( 0 ^ ) ^
r = 0.267
7o Protein difference in the grain
»
2.4
A ------1
------1----- 1----- \ ------1
------1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
ppm P, (6''-12")_______ \
(ppm P, ( 0 - 12" ) ) ( ----------ppm P, (0-6") - ppm P, (6''-12"r
FIG
(38)
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF ^
% PROTEIN VS EXPRESSION (2)
140
x = 32.55
-80 Phosphorus in Plant Tissue Versus Phosphorus in the Soil
An interesting positive relationship was found between the per­
cent phosphorus in the plant tissue at Peekes stage 3 and the parts
per million of available phosphorus in the plow layer.
In 1970 the
relationship was significant at the ten percent level; in 1971 the
relationship was significant at the five percent level; and for both
years combined the relationship was significant at the one percent
level.
Figures 39, 40, and 41 show these relationships.
This data suggests that after fall planting and until the
following spring, the plow layer of the soil is the principal
source of phosphorus for the plant.
However, as the. data in Figures 27
through 38 show, sub-soil phosphorus levels do influence grain yield
and grain protein responses to fertilizer additions.
These data
suggest that the sub-soil becomes an important source of phosphorus
later in the season.
+ 0.167
0.414
-81
in plant
7o P in plant
PM
Er-e
.12..
FIG. (39)
ppm P , (0-6")» Bray Soil Test
x = 30.39
1970 CORRELATION OF % P IN PLANT, FEEKES STAGE 3 VS AVAILABLE SOIL P (0-6")
7<> P in plant
7o P in plant
0.427
36.84
FIG. (40)
1971 CORRELATION OF 7» P IN PLANT, FEEKES STAGE 3 VS AVAILABLE SOIL P (0-6")
-3
7« P in plant
7= P in plant = (3.9'10
) (ppm P, 0-6") + 0.204
0.459
.3d _
ppm P, (0-6"), Bray Soil Test
FIG. (41)
x = 34.14
1970 & 1971 CORRELATION OF 7. P IN PLANT, FEEKES STAGE 3 VS AVAILABLE SOIL P (0-6")
SUMMARY
Throughout this thesis a spring top-dressing treatment, 40-0-25,
has been referrred to as the control treatment while a spring topdressing treatment, 40-40-25, has been compared to the control
treatment.
A grain yield response to forty pounds of top-dressed phosphorus
in the spring was evident.
There was an overall grain yield increase
of 2,1 bushels/acre for both years 1970 and 1971 combined, suggesting
that the farmer-cooperator did not drill in sufficient starter
phosphorus at planting.
Even with the sites showing negative yield
response, 90 percent of the cases of reduced yields with added
phosphorus showed a compensating increase with the addition of more
nitrogen.
A response in the grain protein percentage was also evident.
Although the overall protein change was very small, there were many
cases of large changes, positive and negative.
For both years 43.2
percent of the sites showed a decrease due to added phosphorus.
When
other treatments at these sites were observed, 100 percent of these
sites showed increases in grain protein percentage to or above that
of the control treatments, when more nitrogen was added.
The overall response to phosphorus in grain protein percentage
suggests that phosphorus fertilizer itself has no effect on grain
protein percentage.
However, where nitrogen may be limiting,
-85 phosphorus fertilizer will cause nitrogen to become deficient,
There will be a tendency to dilute the available nitrogen, thereby
having,, with higher yields due to phosphorus fertilization, less
nitrogen, overall, for protein.
At 81.6 percent of the sites an overall increase in pounds of
protein per acre was reported with the added phosphorus fertilizer.
For both years combined on the basis of the simple correlations
studied, change of grain yield with the application of phosphorus
fertilizer is best correlated with available phosphorus (0-6") in the
soil.
Available phosphorus (0-12") in the soil follows close behind
with phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes stage 3 following
respectively.
The change in grain protein percentage for both years is best
correlated with percent phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes
stage 3 followed respectively by available phosphorus in the soil
(0-6"), (0-12"), and (6"-12").
Standard soil testing procedures make phosphorus fertilizer
recommendations on the amount of available phosphorus in the (0-6")
soil layer.
The correlation betweeh chartge in yield and ppm available
phosphorus (0-6") was significant at only the 10 percent level; but
if more treatments of phosphorus fetilizer had been included in this
study, the correlation would most likely have been higher.
-86 The qualitative expression,
______ppm (6"-12") ______
ppm (0-6") - ppm (6"-12")
or
p2
P2
where
equals ppm phosphorus (0=6") in the soil and P 2 equals
ppm phosphorus (6"-12") in the soil, proved to be significantly
correlated at the 5 percent level with the change in grain protein
percentage for both years combined indicating that the distribution
of available phosphorus in the soil may be more important than total
quantity of available phosphorus.
The quantitative expression,
ppm P (6"-12")_______ (ppm 0-12")
ppm P (.0-6") - ppm P (6"-12")
or
(
P
+ P2
2
)
where P^ equals ppm P (0-6") in the soil and Pg equals ppm P (6"~12")
in the soil, proved to be significantly correlated at the 5 percent
level with the change in grain yield for both years combined indica­
ting that available phosphorus distribution in the soil along with
total available phosphorus in the soil is important in predicting
yield response and in making phosphorus fertilizer recommendations,
-87For both years combined there is more than a highly significant
correlation between percent phosphorus in the plant tissue at Feekes
stage 3 and ppm available phosphorus (0-6") in the soil.
This indi­
cates the importance of available phosphorus in the (0-6") soil layer
during the first six months after planting winter wheat.
Apparently
the (6-6") soil layer is the primary source of phosphorus during the
early stages of growth.
Considering the following three elements:
(I) the literature
indicates that the greatest amount of phosphorus is taken up during
the early stages of growth, (2) the (0-6") soil layer was found to
be the primary reservoir for phosphorus during the first six months
after planting, and (3) the (0-6") soil layer was best correlated with
the grain yield changes due to added phosphorus fertilizer recom­
mendations on available phosphorus QD-6") soil layer.
However, since
a better correlation was found witt) expression (2), investigations,
including more soil treatments and deeper soil testing for available
phosphorus, should be considered in any subsequent phosphorus studies.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Early spring top-dressed phosphorus does become available
to dryland wheat. .
2.
Phosphorus top-dressing in the spring will increase yield
and, if not applied with sufficient nitrogen, will decrease grain
protein percentage.
3.
The farmer-cooperator did not drill in sufficient starter
phosphorus with the seed.
4.
To predict yield response due to added phosphorus fertilizer,
the available phosphorus in the (0-6") soil layer will provide the
best results when based only on soil analysis of a given depth.
When
soil analysis of the (0-6") and (6"-12") layers are available, the
quantitative expression.
Ti - P
-)A t -— )
may provide the best results.
5.
To predict grain protein percentage response due to added
phosphorus fertilizer, the percent phosphorus in the plant tissue
at Feekes stage 3 will provide the best results.
If soil analysis of
both the (0-6") and (6"-12") layers are available, better results may
be obtained using the qualitative expression,
_______ppm P (6"-12")
ppm P (0-6") - ppm P (6"-12")
-89 6.
The top six inches of the soil is the primary source of
phosphorus during the first six months after planting.
7.
During the spring and summer months, as the upper layer
of the soil drys out, the (6"-12M) soil layer becomes important as
a source of phosphoutus.
APPENDIX
-91Table (5)
Analysis of Variance.
Location No. I .
Source of Variance d ,f.
Replication
2
I
Treatment
Error
2
S.S,
35.21
0.00
4.02
Yield
F.
M.S.
17.60
8.75
0.00
0.00
2.01
Location No. 2
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S,
28.56
11.65
8.12
Yield
M.S.
F.
14.28
3.52
2.87
11.65
4.06
Location No. 3
Yield
S.S.
F.
M.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
31.30 15.65
2
0.87
Treatment
I
7.08
127.42 127.42
Error
2
35.97 17.98
Location No. 4
Source of Variance d.f.
2
Replication
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
8.20
20.13
17.57
Location No. 5
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
3.75
Location No. 6
Source of Variance d.f.
Replica tion
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
'2.21
1.94
17.74
Table continued. .
S.S.
2.62
2/68
Yield
F.
M.S.
4.10
0.47
20.13
2.29
8.79
Yield
M.S.
F,
0.70
1.31
1.43
2.68
1.88
Yield
M.S.
F.
1.10
0.12
0.22
1.94
8.87
S.S,
0.91
0.17
0.22
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.46
4.07
0,17
1.49
0.11
1.56
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.78
S.S.,
2.29
0.74
1.96 •
Protein
M.S.
F,
1.17
1.15
0.75
0.74
0.98
S.S.
0.89
0.54
0.36
Protein
M.S.
F,
2.48
0.45
3.00
0.54
0.18
S.S.
0.04
0.02
S.S.
0.20
0.28
0.30
S.S.
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.10
0.67
1.86
0.28
0.15
Protein
M.S.
===
-”™
”==
F.
“"“
-92Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 7
Yield
Source of Variance d.f. , S „S „
M.S.
F0
Replication
2
21.03 10.51
2.12
Treatment
I
109.02 109.02 22.04 *
Error
2
4.95
9.89
Location No. 8
Source,of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 9
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
19.04
13.98
1.02
S.S.
9.79
0.00
29.17
Yield
M 0S 0
F.
9.52 18.68 +
13.98 27.43 *
0.51
Yield
M 0S.
F0
4.90
0.34
0.00
0.00
14.59
Yield
Location No. 10
M 0S 0
F0
S.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
0.87
0.06
Replication
2
1.75
Treatment
I
115.81 115.81
7.39
31.33 15.67
Error
2
Yield
Location .No. .11
S.S..
M
0S o
F0
d.f.
Source of Variance
2.61
1.34
5.22
Replication
2
108.46 108.46 55.76 *
Treatment
I
1.94
Error
2
3.89
Location No. 12
Source of Variance d.f.
2
Replication
Treatment
I
2
Error
', Yield
M 0S 0
:F 0
5.09
0.70
10,18
2.84
0.39
2.84
7.23
14.47
S.S.
.D CD D ■
Table continued. . .
Frotein
S.S.
0.93
I i 40
0.26
S.S.
co-™
«««
S oS 0
.0.09
0.43
2.01
S 0S 0
==*=
M.S.
0.46
1.40
0.13
F 00
3.53 .
10.64 +'
Protein
M 0S 0
F0
”==
="a
”==
Protein
M 0S o
F0
0.05
0.05
0.42
0743
1.01
Protein
M.S,
F0
;.
•<,
S 0S o
0.01
0.03
0.17
Protein
M 0S 0
F0
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.31
0,09
SoS 0
0.04
0.00
0.16
Protein
M.S.
F0
0.02
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.08
«=» «3'« •=» «= = — =, ea eo «= «=
-93Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 13
________ Yield
Source of Variance d.f.
M.S.
s.s.
Replication
2
17.59
8.79
Treatment
79.06 79.06
I
Error
252.46 126.23
2
F.
0.07
0.63
Location No. 14
Source of Variance d .f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error .
2
S.S.
6.40
2.95
3.89
Yield
M.S.
F.
3.20
1.65
2.95 .1.52
1.94
Location No. 15
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
.2
Treatment
I
2
Error
S.S.
37.80
11.98
37.98
Yield
M.S.
F.
18.90 '1.00
0.63
11.98
18.98
Location No. 16
S.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
15.85
Treatment
0.53
I
Error
2
242.04
Yield
F.
■m :s .
0.06
7.92
0.53
0.00
121.02
Location No. 17
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
2
Error
Yield
M.S.
F,
5.96
13.53
0.90
2.05
2.27
Location No. 18
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued. .
S.S.
27.06
2.05
4.54
Yield
s,s.
M.S.
F,
4.96
0.94
9.93
1.03
5.42
5.42
10.55 ■5.27
1»
=*” ■>”1 =» =»
S.S
—F>—
s.s.
0.13
0.28
1.10
Protein
M.S.
F.
—=O=•
a -
=>™—
.'Protein
M.S.
F.
0.12
0.06
.0.28
0.51
0.55
Protein
M.S.
F. ■
S.S.
3.56
0.76
0.38
0.67 ' 0.67
6.25
0.21
0.11
S.S.
Protein
M.S.
F.
<=.«<=
-,”co
s.s.
0.49
0.08
0.49
Protein
M.S.
F.
1.00
0.25
0.33
0.08
0.25
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.40
0.20
1.98
0.80
.0.08
0.08
0.10
0.20
= ” t= = « a. => <» " P* ” "
s.s.
-94Table (5) continued. . .
Yield
Location.No. 19
F.
S.S.
M.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
96.83 48.41
2.94
2
Treatment
I
9.50 +
156.47 156,47
Error
32.92 16.46
2
Location No. 20
S.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
8.18
Treatment
I
53.51
161.43
Error
2
Location No. 21
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 22
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 23
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 24
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued. .
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.05
4.09
0,66
53.51
80.71
S.S.
0.06
0.60
0.58
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.03
0.11
2.06
0.60
0.29
S.S.
Protein
M.S.
F.
,==*»
Yield
S ..S.
0.39
7.89
3.74
S.S.
48.57
4.25
84.68
S.S.
5.04
26.38
16.45
S.S.
3.76
3.24
40.16
M.S.
0.20
7.89
1.87
F.
0.10
4.22
S.S.
0.70
0.00
0.22
'"=>"
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.35
3.15
0.01
0.00
0.11
Yield
M.S.
F.
24.28
0,57
0.10
4.25
42.34
0.64
0.01
0.21
Protein
F.
M.S.
3.00
0.32
0.01
0.06
0.11
Yield
M.S.
F.
.0.31
■2.52
26.38
3.21
8.22
S.S.
0.19
0,20
0.34
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.10 .0.55
.0.20
■1.17
0.17
.Yield
M.S.
F.
1.88
0.09
0.16
3.24
20.08
S.S.
0.33
0.00
0.09
Protein
.M.S.
F.
0.17
3.57
0.00
0.04
0,05
S.S.
-95Table (5) continued. . .
S.S.
7.76
7.91
12.75
Yield
M.S.
Fo
3.88
0.61
7.91
1.24
6.38
S.S.
0.09
0.06
0.28
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.33
0.05
0.06
0.43
0.14
Location No. 26
Source of Variance d.f.
2
Replication.
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
10.72
7.71
4.57
Yield
M.S.
F..
5.36
2.34
7.71
3.37
2.29
S.S.
1.84
0.28
0.52
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.92
.3.52
0.28
1.05
0.26
Location No. 27
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
17.60
5.80
11.80
Yield
M.S.
.F.
8.80
1.49
5.80
0.98
5.90
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.08
0.04 .0.12
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.72 • 0,36
Location No. 28
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
.I
Error
2
S.S.
4.64
52.22
0.67
Yield
M 9S.
F.
2.32
6.93
52.22 155.86*4
.0.34 .
S.S.
1.81
0.00
0.44
ProteL n
M.S.
F.
0.90
4.08
0.00 .0.01
.0.22
Location No. 29
Source of Variance d.f.
2
Replication
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
33.86
16.01
25.60
Yield
M.S.
F.
16.93
1.32
16.00
1.25
12.80
S.S.
0.72
0.11
3.20
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.36
0.22
0.11
0.07
1.60
Location No. 30
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
.2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
2.90
83.63
12.30
Yield
M.S.
F.
1.45
0.24
83.63 13.59 +
6.15
S.S.
1.89
0.28
0.02
Protein
M.S.
F.0.94 81.00 *
0.28 24.14 *
0.01
Location No. 25
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued. .
s.;s.
-96Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 31
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
30.60
0.48
■ 19.60
Yield
M.S.
F.
15.30
1.56
0.48
0.05
9.80
Location No. 32
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
.I
2
Error
Yield
F.
S.S,
M. S .
2.96
1.48
0.09
0.93
15.04 15.04
32.44 .16.22
Location No. 33
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
.2
Treatment
•I
Error
2
S.S.
27.66
1.75
20.50
Yield
M.S.
F.
13.83
1.35
0.17
1.75
10.25
Location No. 34
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
I
Treatment
2
Error
S.S.
8.11
0.00
2.55
Yield
F,
M.S..
4.06
3.18
0.00
0.00
.1.27
Location No. 35
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
4.92
6.02
50.39
Yield
"M.S.
Fr.
0.10
2.46
6.02
0.24
25.20.
Location No. 36
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
2
Error
l
S fS.
0.14
8.33
16.56
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.01
0.01
8.33
1.00
8.28
Table continued. .
I
Protein
M.S.
F.
S.S.
1.97 131.44**
3.94
0.02 .0.02
1.00
0.03 ■ 0.02
S.S.
4.33
0.96
0.73
Protein
M.S.
F.
2.16
5.93
0.96
2.63
0.36
S.S.
Protein
M.S.
F.
= ‘=a
‘=’”“
= =”
S.S.
•== "
===
===
S.S.
aa<=
=="=
S.S,
==°
-■“<==>
‘“““
'"=*=
Protein
M.S.
F.
“““
=*= ”
-■==
Protein
M.S.
F,
-==•
-”=■=
===*
Protein
M.S.
F.
===
===
.
-97Table (5) continued. .
Yield
M.S.
.F.
2.23
1.22
46.48 25.38 *
1.83
■ Protein
M.S,
F.
1.01
7.68
2.41 18.28 +
0.13
Location No. 37
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.'S.
4.46
46.48
Location No. 38
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.59
26,05 13.03
0.60
13.14 . 13.14
44.16 22.08
Location No. 39
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S .-S.
78.60
2.16
13.11
Yield
M.S.
-F.
6.00
39.30
0.33
"2.16
6.56
4.48
0.11
1.01
Protein
M.S.
F.
4.42
2.24
0.11
0.21
0.51
Location No. 40
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Yield
S.S.
.M.S.
''F."
1.73
0.16
3.45
4.50
47.04 47.04
20.92 .10.46
S.S.
0.82
0.04
0.06
Protein
M.S.
F,
0.41 13.00
1.32
0.04
0.03
Yield
M.S.
F.
4.67
2.69
5.26
3.04
1.73
SJS.
0.81
0.08
0.44
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.40
1.83
0.08
0.37
0.22
Location No. 41
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 42
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued. . .
3.66
S.S.
S..S,
9.33
5.26
3.47
S.S,"
76.75
10.91
20.96
Yield
M.S.
F.
3.66
38.38
1.04
10.91
10.48
S.S.
2.02
2.41
0.26
S.S.
S.S.
S.S."
0.12
0.20
3.61
Protein
M.S.
F0
Protein
.M.S.
F.
0.03
0.06
0.20 . 0.11
1.81
-98Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 43
Source of Variance d f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
.
Location No. 44
Source of Variance d f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
.
.
.
Location No. 45
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 46
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 47
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
129.70
3.89
63.37
S.S.
35.33
17.51
7.16
S.S.
26.71
48.05
0.75
S.S.
6.64
1.24
7.12
S.S.
82.54
30.02
0.71
Location No. 48
Source of Variance d.f.
S.S.
Replication
2
21.69
Treatment
I
3.24
Error
2
125.88
Yield
M.S,
F.
64:85
2.05
3.89
0.12
31.68
Yield
M.S.
?.
17.66
4.93
17.51
4.89
3.58
Yield
M.S.
F.
13.36 35.45 *
48.05 127.53**
0.38
Yield
M.S.
F.
3.32
0.93
1.24
0.35
3.56
Protein
M.S,
F.
7.74
6.79
0.38
0.33
1.14
S.S.
1.42
0.02
0.31
Protein
M.S,
F
0.71
4.59
0.10
0.02
0.16
S.S.
8.09
0.96
2.44
Protein
M.S.
F.
3.32
4.05
0.96
0.79
1.22
.
1.75
0.08
0.96
Protein
M.S.
F.
1.82
0.88
0.08
0.17
0.48
Yield
M.S,
F.
41.27 115.59**
30.02 84.07 *
0.36
S.S.
3.06
0.67
0.42
Protein
M.S.
F,
7.24
1.53
•0.67
3.15
0.21
M.S.
10.84
3.24
62.94
S.S.
2.84
0.14
1.11
M.S.
1.42
0.14
0.56
s,s.
F.
0.17
0.05
ee
Table continues. . .
S.S.
15.48
0.38
2.28
ce
ea
™
to
a
Ba
F
2.56
0.24
.
a
CO
a
CO
-99Table (5) continues. . .
Location No. 49
__
S.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
15.25
Treatment
I
33.14
Error
2
23.85
Location No. 50
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Yield_______
M.S.
F.
7.63
0.64
33.14
2.78
11.93
Yield
S.S.
89.00
0.24
6.13
M.S.
44.50
0.24
3.06
F.
14.52 +
0.08
Location No. 51
S.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
126.32
Treatment
2.73
I
46.01
Error
2
Yield
M.S.
F.
63.16
2.74
0.12
'2.73
23.00
Location No. 52
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Yield
M.S.
F.
18.86
1.24
0.00
0.07
15.20
Location No. 53
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 54
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued.
. .
________ Protein
S.S.
M.S.
F.
0.13
0.06
1.05
2.70
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.06
S.S.
37.73
0.07
30.41
S.S.
.1.62
0.08
1.32
S.S.
0.22
1.71
0.14
M.S.
33.80
0.04
12.83
16.90
0.04
6.42
S.S.
34.72
14.35
2.46
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.11
1.56
1.71 23.81 *
0.07
Protein
S.S.
6.84
0.17
0.86
M.S.
3.42
0.17
0.43
F.
7.93
0.39
Protein
Yield
S.S.
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.81 '1.23
0.12
0.08
0.66
F.
2.63
0.00
Yield
M.S.
F.
17.36 14.08 +
14.35 11.64 +
1.23
S.S.
8.49
0.08
4.65
S.S.
1.82
0.48
1.14
M.S.
4.25
0.08
2.33
F.
1.82
0.04
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.91
1.59
0.84
0.48
.0.57
-100Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 55
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Yield
S.S.
M.S.
F.
2.84
1.42
0.04
105.50 105.50
2.74
77.02 38.51
Location No. 56
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
26.64
54.60
8.96
Location No. 59
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
63.86
5.26
34.02
34.44
7.08
5.06
S.S.
1.37
0.00
0.49
S.S.
4:62
0.33
0.44
Yield
F.
M.S.
6.80
17.22
2.80
7.08
2.53
S.S.
M.S.
■ 7.80
.1.78
8.31
3.90
1.78
4.16
S.S.
M.S.
S.S.
T,
0.94
0.43
0.82
0.60
1.36
Yield
a
0
CD
eI
fS
0
CS
S.S.
0.17
0.14
0.16
F.
0.50
6.45 . 3.22
0.11
0.11
12.77
6.38
0.02
C9
0
0
0
Protein
M.S.
F.
1.42
2.56
0.14
0.24
0.56
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.69
2.78
0.00
0.01
0.25
Protein
M.S.
F.
2.31 10.43
0.33
1.47
0.22
Protein
S.S.
0.74
0.06
0.91
Yield
S.S.
Location No. 60
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Table continued. . .
Yield
M.S.
F.
31.93
1.88
0.31
5.26
17.01
S.S.
Location No. 58
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
2.84
0.14
1.11
Yield
M.S..F.
2.97
13.32
54.60 :
12.18 +
4.48
S.S.
Location No. 57
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
0
M.S.
0.37
0.06
0.45
F.
0.82
0.13
Protein
M.S.
F. •
0.41
0.60
0.60
0.88
0.68
Protein
F.
M.S.
1.08
0.09
0.14
1.69
0.08
-101Table (5) continued. . „
Location No. 61
____ ____Yield________ _________ Protein
M.S.
M.S.
F.
s.s.
Source of Variance d.f.
F,
0.21
4.56
0.10
Replication
2
2.28
0.57
0,29
0.58
Treatment
0.81
0.81
I
11.54 11.54
0.49 ’
47.01 23.50
2.77 ■1.39
Error
2
Yield
M.S.
F.
1.50
9.33
10.24
•1.64
6.22
S.S.
18.66
10.24
12.4
Protein
S.S. ' M.S. •F.
0.40
0.34
0.17
0.48
1.12
0.48
0.43
0.86
4.69
0.00
17.14
Location No. 65
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
•2
Treatment
I
Error
2
CO
Table continued. . .
ee
s
23.80
0.09
4.68
. s
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.10
0.16
0.14
0.21
0.64
.
0.20
0.14
1.29
0.01
0.48
0,81
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.01
0.02
1.18
0.48
0.41
F.
SYS.
M.S,i
3.88
0.22
0.24
0.75
•0.11
0.24
0.38
Yield
M.S.
■ F.
11.90
5.09
0.04
0.09
2.34
S.S.
s
. s
.
Protein
Yield
Location No. 66
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
■
Yield
F.
M.S.
2.35
0.27
0.00
0.00
8.57
s.s.
Protein
F.
M.S.
0.26 52.33 *
3.00
0.02
0.00
0.52
0.02
.0.01
Yield
Location No. 63
F.
S.S. 'M.S.
Source of Variance d.f.
0.03
Replication
2
5.69
2.84
0.46
Treatment
49,88 49.88
I
214.30 107.15
Error
2
Location No. 64
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
2
Error
.
CA
Location No. 62
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
2
Error
. s
CO
s
S.S. • M.S.
13.92
0.43
3.59
27.84
0.43
7.18
CO
CO
CD
•
COI
<=>
«=o
CO
0.12
op
SD
S
CD
=3 ■
»
"
-CS
CS
OS
<s> •CD
O= • CD
F.
0.30
0.64
»
•=
=>
«=»
=
-102Table (5) continued. . .
Location No. 67
Source' of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error"
2
Location No. 68
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
s.s.
9.63
23.76
1.40
S.S.
13.58
1.64
12.11
Yield
M.S.
F.
4.81
6.85
23.76 33.83 *
0.70
Yield
M.S. F,
1.21
6.79
1.64
0.27
6.06
11.96
1.49
Yield
M.S.
"F.
39.74 53.27 *
11.96 16.03 +
0.75
Location No. 70
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
62.55
0.45
31.03
Yield
M.S.
F.
31.27
2.02
0.03
0.45"
15.51
Location No. 71
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
2
Error
S.S.
21.92
0.01
5.16
Yield
M.S.
F.
10.96
4.25
0.00
0:01
2.58
Location No. 69
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
Location No. 72
Source of Variance d.f.
Replication
I
Treatment
I
Error
I
m tm at
Table continued. . .
S.S.
79:48
S.S.
5.52 .
3.06
33.06
m a «
9 a■
<>
)
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.17
5.52
3.06
0.09
33.06
eo oe —!
=
S.S.
0.05
0.14
0.12
Protein
M.S.
F»
0.03
0.44
0.14
2.25
0.06
S.S.
0.52
0.00
0.02
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.26 22.43 *
0.00
0.14
0.01
s.s.
0.36
0.10
0.09
s.s.
0.86
1.04
0.76
Protein
■ M,S.
F.
0.43
1.13
2.73
1.04
0.38
0.28
0.74
Protein
M.S. ■ F.
0.03
0.08
0.76
0.28
0.37
S.S.
0.25
3.61
7.84
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.03
0.25
3.61
0.46
7.84
S.S.
0.06
-
Protein
M.S.
F.
0,18
3.86
0.11
2.28
0.05
=» ™ = - 1
-103Table (5) continued.
. .
Location No. 73
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
4.44
0.74
1.75
Yield
M, S .
F.
2.22
2. 54
0.74
0.84
0.88
S.S.
0.10
0.00
0.72
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.05
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.36
Location No. 74
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
0.13
15.68
8.46
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.06
0.02
15.68
3.71
4.23
S.S.
0.49
0.00
0.54
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.24
0.90
0.00
0.01
0.27
Location No. 75
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
24.79
21.66
14 71
Yield
M.S.
F.
12.40 :1.69
21.66
2.94
7.36
S.S.
0.79
0.17
2.72
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.40
0.29
0.17
0.12
1.36
Location No. 76 .
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
26.64
22.04
0.42
Yield
M.S.
F.
13.32 62.94 *
22.04 104.13**
0.21
S.S.
0.04
0.00
0.41
Protein
M.S.
F.
0.02
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.21
S.S.
3.29
0.96
0.76
Protein
M.S.
F.
4.33
1.65
0.96
2.53
0.38
S.S.
1.21
0.00
0.37
Protein
F.
MVS.
3.25
0.61
0.01
0.00
0.19
Location No. 77
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
63.31
27.31
7.30
Yield
M.S.
F.
31.66
8.67
27.31
7.48
.3.65
Location No. 78
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
S.S.
35.64
7.26
8.49
Yield
M.S.
F.
17.82
4.20
7.26
1.71
4.24
Table continued.
. .
S.S.
-104Table (5) continued. .
Location No. 81
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
104.23
0.01
6.30
S.S.
1.84
6.00
25.27
S.S.
40.33
8.88
45.24
+ Significant at the 10% level
* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level
Yield
M.S.
52.12
0.01
3.15
F.
16.54 +
0.00
Yield
M.S.
F.
0.92
0.07
6.00
0.47
12.64
Yield
M.S.
■F.
20.16
0.89
8.88
0.39
22.62
CO
Location No. 80
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
s .s.
CO
Location No. 79
Source of Variance d.f
Replication
2
Treatment
I
Error
2
1.17
2.67
4.22
Protein
M.S. * f :
0.58
0.28
2.67
1.26
2.11
Protein
S.S.
0.84
0.43
0.05
S.S,
0.73
0.11
1.44
M.S.
0.42
0.43
0.03
F.
15.75 +
16.00 +
Protein
M.S.
F a„
0.37
0.51
0.15
0.11
0.72
LITERATURE CITED
American Association of Cereal Chemists. 1962. Cereal Laboratory
Method (7th Edition). The Association, St. Paul, Minn.:
Ames, J.W.
Bull. 221.
1910.
The compostion of wheat.
Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta.
, and G .TE„ Boltz. 1917. Relation of P and N in soil to
the composition of wheat. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 318.
Boatwright, G. 0. and H. J . Hass. 1961. Development and composition
of spring wheat as influenced by nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization,
Agron. J . 53:33=36.
_________ and F. G. Viets, Jr. 1966. P absorption during various
growth stages of spring wheat and intermediate wheatgrass. Agron. J.
58:185-188.
Bray, R. H. 1958. The correlation of a phosphorus soil test with
the response of wheat through a modified Mitscherlich equation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:314-317.
Brenchley, W. E. 1929, The phosphate requirement of barley at
different periods of growth. Ann. Bot. 43:89=110.
_____ ____, and A. D. Hall. 1909.
wheat. J. Agri. Sci. 3:195=217.
The development of the grain of
Brown, P. L. 1971 T-Tater use and soil water depletion by dry land
winter wheat as affected by nitrogen fertilization.. Agron. J.
63:43-46.
Burke, E., I. J. Nygard, and W. M= Martin.
1933, Experiments
with phosphate fertilizers on Montana soils. Montana Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 280.
Ching-Kwei Lee. 1940. Variations in yield and composition of the
wheat plant as affected by the time of applying phosphatic fertili­
zers. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 32:782=788.
Colwell, W. E. 1946. Studies on the effect of N, P, and potash
on the yield of corn and wheat in.,Mexico. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer,
Proc. 11:332-340.
-106Duley, F 0 L. 1930. Methods of applying fertilizers to wheat.
J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22;515-521.
Eck, H 0 V, and B 0 A 0 Stewart.
1959. Response of winter wheat to
phosphate as effected by soil and climatic factors. Agron. J.
51:193-195.
Ellis, J 0 H 0 1934. Zonation for fertilizer requirements in the
northern prairies. Scientific Agriculture 15:96-108.
Geddes, W 0 F 0, C 0 A 0 Winkler, and J. Roberts. 1939. The influence
of nitrogenous, phosphatic, and potassic fertilizers on the chemical
composition and blending value of western wheat. Scientific
Agriculture 19:380^388.
Geriche, W 0 F 0 1925. Salt requirements of wheat at different growth
phases. Bot. Gaz. 80:410=425.
Gingrich, J 0 E. and F 0 W 0 Smith. 1953. Investigation of small
grain response to various applications of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium on several Kansas soils. Soil Sci. Soc.■Amer. Proc.
17:383-386.
Green, J ; 1935. Report on.phosphate investigations during 1934.
Montana.Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 296.
_______ __ , and F 0 M 0 Harrington. 1936. Report on the investigation
of P-deficient soils. Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 316.
Greweling, T0 1966. The chemical analysis of plant tissue.
Agronomy mimeo No. 6622. Agron. Dep., Cornell University, Ithaca,
N.Y.
Held, W 0 G 0, Jr. and D 0 K 0 Larson.
Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 625.
1969.
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station...
Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 127.
Fertilizer use in Montana.
1904.
The roots of plants.
Knowles, F 0 and J 0 E 0 Watkins. 1931. The assimilation and trans­
location of plant nutrients in wheat during growth. J. Agr.
Sci. 21:612-637.
-107Large, E„ C.
1954.
Grdwth stages in cereals.
Plant Path.
4:128-129.
Lees, R. D 0 1924. Root developement in wheat.
New South Wales 35:609-612:
Agr. Gaz„ of
Lewis, D 0 G 0 and J. P 0 Quirk. 1967. Phosphate diffusion in soil
and uptake by plants: II Phosphate uptake by wheat plants. Plant
Soil 26:119-128.
Lutz, J 0 A 0, G 0 L 0 Terman and J0 L 0 Anthony.
1961. Rate and
placement of phosphorus for small grains. Agron. J. 53:303-305.
Miller, E 0 C 0 1939. A physiological study of the winter wheat
plant at different stages of its development. Kansas Agr. Exp0
Sta. Tech. Bull. 47.
Murphy, H. F 0 1930. Effect of fertilizers on the yield and
composition of wheat. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22:765-770.
Norum, E 0 B 0 and R 0 A 0 Young. 1950. Effect of rate, method of
application, andsource of phosphate fertilizers on yield of wheat
and durum. North Dakota Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonthly Bull. 12:125-128
Nygard, I0 J 0 1931. Phosphate deficiency in the soils of Montana
a preliminary report, Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 240.
. 1932.
of Montana soils.
A progress report on the phosphate deficiency
Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 259.
Parlychenko, T 0 K 0 1937. Quantitative study of the entire root
systems of weed and crop plants under field conditions. Ecology
18:62-79.
Post, A 0 H. 1941. Fertilizer investigations in Montana in 1940.
Moritana Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 395.
'
"\
Rennie, D 0 A. 1956. Variations in percentage phosphorus and
protein content of wheat, as induced! by fertilizer treatment soil
type, and season. Can. J. Agr. Sci. 36:491-504.
Sanborn, J. W 0 1894.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 32.
Roots and plants of farm crops.
Utah Agr.
-108Slms, J. E. and G„ D„ Jackson, 1971. • Field measurement of pan
evaporation. Agron. J. 63:339=340.
i
Singh, G. 1962. . Effect of superphosphate applications in various
doses and at different depths with and without ammonium sulfate on
the N and
content of wheat plant. Soil Sci. 94:120-128.
Smith, F. W., B„ G, Ellis, and J. Grava. 1957. Use of acidflouride solutions for the extraction of available phosphorus in
calcareous soils and in soils to which rock phosphate has been
added. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 21:400=404.
Smith, J. C., L. C, Kapp, and R. C. Potts. 1949. The effects
of fertilizer treatments upon yield and composition of wheat forage.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 14:241-245.
Steel, R. G„ D. and J. J. Torrie. 1960. Principles and. procedures
of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, N.'Y.
Throckmorton, R. I. and F. L„ Duley. 1935. Soil fertility
investigations. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 40.
Troughton, A. 1962. The roots of temperate cereals. Mimeo­
graphed publication. Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field
Crops, Hurley, Bershire.
Vavra, J. P. and R, H. Bray. 1959. Yield and composition response
of wheat to soluble phosphate drilled in the row. Agron, J.
51:326*328.
Weaver, J. E . 1926. Root development of field crops.
Book Co., Inc. New York, N. Y. <
McGraw-Hill
Williams, B. C . and F. W„ Smith. 1954. The effects of different
rates, times, and methods of application of various fertilizer
combinations on the yield and quality of hard red winter wheat
1949-1950. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 18:56-60.
Wilson, R. L. "1970. Phosphorus-time, rate and placement methods
as influencing dryland small grain production. Ph. D. Thesis.
Montana State University, Bozeman.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
762 IOO 5189
9
-
N378
P5k2
cop.2
I
I
Phillips, Charles R
Effects of soring
top-dressing
phosphorus on winter
wheat
RXWrKRBr^CBBKese
t i J / E W k - J J *
S E R ^ 3 ' ' -?4>
T c H zo
N- ip
W B I
CMIKE PUCE
= MMHERV
COOKI PUCE,WA
b