Micronutrient Management

1
Micronutrient Management
Dorivar Ruiz Diaz Soil Fertility and Nutrient
Management
2
Outline

• Overview micronutrients
• Factors to be considered
• S, Zn, Cl, and Fe
• Deficiency symptoms
• Fertilization strategies and management
• Current studies

3
Essential Micronutrients

• Minor elements or trace elements
• Increased interest in micronutrients
• Higher crop yields and micronutrient removal
  rates
• Declining soil organic matter, a major source of
  most micronutrients
• N, P and K fertilizers contain lower amounts of
  micronutrient impurities
• Excessive levels can cause toxic effects on
  plants
• In Kansas Fe, S, Zn, and Cl.
• Other micronutrients B, Mg, Cu, Mn, and Ni.

4
Organic Matter

• Important source of most micronutrients.
• Simple organic compounds as chelates.
• S, Zn and B deficiencies are more likely to occur
  in soils low in O.M.
• Deficiencies of Cu and Mn are most common in peat
  soils.

5
Soil pH and micronutrient availability

• Soil pH affects availability of micronutrients.
• In general the solubility and availability of
  micronutrients are greatest in acid soils and
  lowest in high pH calcareous soils.
• Exception is Mo.
• In some soils, high levels of soluble Fe, Al and
  Mn may be toxic to plants.

6
Sulfur (S)
Photos by Brian Lang, IA
7
Sulfur Deficiencies

• Soil situations and climatic conditions
  aggravating deficiency symptoms
• Coarse textured soils (sandy soils)
• Low organic matter soils
• Cold, wet soils
• Slow release of S from organic matter
• Low atmospheric deposition
• No application from
• Manure
• Other fertilizers

8
S
N
9
Sulfur Deposition
10 kg SO4/ha 3 lb S/acre
10
Corn Response to Sulfur
J. Sawyer, 2007
11
Sulfur Fertilizer Recommendation

• Wheat S Rec. (Lb/A) (0.6 Y Goal) (2.5
  OM) Profile Sulfur Other Sulfur Credits
• Corn and Sorghum S Rec. (Lb/A) (0.2 Y Goal)
  (2.5 OM) Profile Sulfur Other Sulfur
  Credits
• Soybean S Rec. (Lb/A) (0.4 Y Goal) (2.5
  OM) Profile Sulfur Other Sulfur Credits
• Subsoil S may be significant.
• Profile soil test for S, 0-24 inches, also good
  for nitrate and Cl.

12
Zinc (Zn)
13
Zinc

• Frequently deficient micronutrient
• Absorbed by plant roots as Zn
• Involved in the production of chlorophyll,
  protein, and several plant enzymes
• Deficiency symptoms
• Most distinctive in corn with new leaves out of
  whorl turning yellow to white in a band between
  the leaf midvein and margin

14
Zinc Deficiencies

• Sensitive crops
• Corn, sorghum
• Soil Situation
• Low organic matter, high pH (gt7.4), eroded soil
• Coarse texture, restricted rooting
• High P application in conjunction with borderline
  or low zinc availability
• High soil P alone does not create deficiency
• Climatic Conditions
• Cool and wet soil

15
Phosphorus and Zinc
P2O5 Zn Yield Leaf tissue Leaf tissue
lb/acre lb/acre bu/acre P, Zn, ppm
0 0 101 0.14 12
0 10 102 0.16 24
80 0 73 0.73 10
80 10 162 0.41 17
Adriano and Murphy, KSU

• Zn deficiency impairs plant P regulation.
• Large amounts of starter applied P can enhance Zn
  deficiency if soil Zn is low and no Zn fertilizer
  is applied.

16
P and Zn Effects On Corn Yields
P2O5 Zn   Bcast Starter
Lb / A Lb / A   Corn Yield (Bu/A) Corn Yield (Bu/A)
0 0   107 107
0 10 121 115
40 0 121 93
40 10   139 140
St. Marys, KS Kansas State University
17
Wheat response to foliar Zn and Cuwestern Kansas
Soil Test Soil Test
Year Site Variety Copper Zinc
- - - - ppm - - - - - - - - ppm - - - -
2007 1 Danby 1.0 1.3
2 Jagalene 1.0 1.0
3 Wesley 1.0 0.7
4 Jagalene 0.7 0.8
2008 1 Jagalene 0.6 0.2
2 Ike 1.0 1.2
3 TAM111 1.2 0.6

• 1 lb/acre Zn
• 1 lb/acre Cu
• Control

B. Olson, 2009
18
Wheat response to foliar Zn and Cuwestern Kansas
Treatment Yield Yield
Treatment 2007 2008
- - - - - bu/acre - - - - - - - - - bu/acre - - - -
Zinc 63 42
Copper 65 40
Control 63 42
LSD (0.05) NS NS
B. Olson, 2009
19
Zinc Fertilizer Recommendation
Corn, Sorghum and Soybeans Zinc
Recommendation Zn Rate 11.5 (11.25 ppm
DTPA Zn) If DTPA Zn gt 1.0 ppm then Zn Rec 0 If
DTPA Zn lt 1.0 ppm then Minimum Zn Rec 1
20
Application Methods

• Broadcast
• Preferred to correct a low Zn soil test
• 5 to 15 pound will increase soil test for a
  number of years
• Inorganic Zn is more economical than chelates at
  these rates
• Band
• Very efficient method of applying Zn
• 0.5 lb Zn/Acre of inorganic Zn is generally
  sufficient
• Annual applications will be needed for low
  testing soils

21
Chloride (Cl)
22
Chloride (Cl)

• Wheat, corn, sorghum deficiencies in Kansas
• Deficiencies most likely in higher rainfall areas
  with no K application history - central and
  eastern part of state
• Soluble, mobile anion
• Addition of KCl
• Increased yields with high levels of available K
• Reduced incidence of plant disease
• Internal water relationships, osmotic regulation,
  enzyme activation and other plant processes

23
Chloride fertilization for wheat and sorghum, in
Kansas
Chloride rate Wheat yield (Var. 2145)
lb/acre bu/acre
0 66
10 71
20 71
30 73
LSD(0.05) 3
B. Gordon, 2009
24
Wheat response to Cl and fungicide application
Overley wheat yield Overley wheat yield
Chloride rate No fungicide Fungicide
lb/acre - - - - - - - - bu/acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/acre - - - - - - - - -
0 48 54
10 57 62
20 60 64
30 60 64
LSD(0.05) 3
B. Gordon, 2009
25
Chloride Fertilization on Wheat
Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield Grain Yield
Chloride Marion Co. Marion Co. Marion Co. Marion Co. Saline Co Saline Co Saline Co Saline Co Stafford Co. Stafford Co. Stafford Co. Stafford Co.
Rate Site A Site A Site B Site B Site A Site B Site C Site D Site A Site B Site B Site B Avg.
lb/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - bu/a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 45 80 80 51 89 83 70 73 73 64 69 69
20 47 85 85 54 89 90 75 80 80 70 74 74
Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") 7 7 7 14 22 7 14 7 7 15 12 12
Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24") Average over either 12 or 16 varieties. Soil test Cl, lb/a (0-24")
26
Cl Fertilizer Recommendation
Profile soil Chloride Profile soil Chloride Chloride recommendation
ppm lb/acre lb Cl/acre
lt 4 lt 30 20
4 - 6 30 - 45 10
gt 6 gt 45 0
Wheat, corn and sorghum
27
Iron (Fe)

• Iron in the plant
• Catalyst in the production of chlorophyll
• Involved with several enzyme systems
• Deficiency symptoms
• Yellow to white leaf color
• Symptoms first appear on the younger leaves
• Wide range of susceptibility of different crops
• Sorghum, field beans and soybeans are more
  sensitive than corn and alfalfa
• Varieties differ within crops

28
Iron Deficiency
29
Iron Deficiency - Causes

• Iron deficiency is caused by a combination of
  stresses rather than a simple deficiency of
  available soil Fe
• Soil Chemical Factors
• pH, carbonates, salinity (EC), available Fe
  (DTPA-Fe), high nitrate-N.
• Cool, wet soils
• Biotic factors
• Variety, SCN, root rotting fungi, interplant
  competition.

30
Effect of soil nitrate?
31
The nitrate theory

• Iron is part of the chlorophyll molecule
• Iron taken up as Fe (ferric)
• Iron in chlorophyll exists as Fe (ferrous)
• High concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen inhibit
  conversion of Fe to Fe

32
Irrigated soybean
33
Nitrogen application and iron chlorosis
G. Rehm, 2007
34
Soybean population and iron chlorosis
Iron chlorosis score 5 Dead 1Green
2.0
1.5
1.0
Neave, 2004
35
Soybean population yield
36
Soybean Fe Study - 2009

• Varieties (2) high and low IDC tolerance.
• Seed treatment with and without 0.6 lb/acre of
  EDDHA Fe (6.0).
• Foliar treatments
• 0.1 lb/acre EDDHA Fe (6.0)
• 0.1 lb/acre HEDTA Fe (4.5)
• No foliar treatment
• 4 locations with 5 replications

37
Objectives

• Evaluate fertilization strategies.
• Determine soil parameters (diagnostic)
• Fe, Mg, P, K, Ca, OM, OC, TN, pH, EC, Carbonates,
  nitrate-N.
• Determine optimum plant tissue level.
• Evaluate possible interaction of parameters, both
  in soil and plant.
• Possible Fe-Mn interaction?

38
Soybean seed treatment with Fe chelate
39
Seed coating treatment
40
Chlorophyll meter readings
41
Chlorophyll meter readings
42
Plant height at maturity
43
Soybean grain yield
Treatment Average yield
W/O Seed coating 39
6 Foliar 40
4.5 Foliar 37
No 39
W/ seed coating 50
6 Foliar 52
4.5 Foliar 49
No 49
Var AG3205 Low IC tolerance
44
Soybean grain yield
Treatment Average yield
W/O Seed coating 36
6 Foliar 35
4.5 Foliar 38
No 35
W seed coating 50
6 Foliar 47
4.5 Foliar 52
No 52
Var AG2906 Very Good IC tolerance
45
Are these yield values significantly different?

Effect F Value Pr gt F Significance
Variety 2.11 0.1487 NS
Seed trt 69.6 lt.0001 S
Foliar 0.05 0.9553 NS
VarSeedtrt 0.19 0.6616 NS
VarFoliar 2.1 0.1268 NS
SeedtrtFoliar 0.1 0.9004 NS
VarSeedFoliar 0.27 0.7631 NS
46
Common Iron Fertilizers
Fertilizer Source Iron Sulfate Iron
Chelates Other Organics Manure - best
Fe () 19-40 5-12 5-11 ??
47
Average animal manure micronutrient content
Manure source Iron Manganese Boron Zinc Copper
-----------------lb/wet ton--------------------- -----------------lb/wet ton--------------------- -----------------lb/wet ton--------------------- -----------------lb/wet ton--------------------- -----------------lb/wet ton---------------------
Dairy solid 0.5 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01
Swine solid 19.0 1.09 0.04 0.79 0.50
Poultry 3.0 0.61 0.08 0.48 0.66
-----------------lb/1000 gal--------------------- -----------------lb/1000 gal--------------------- -----------------lb/1000 gal--------------------- -----------------lb/1000 gal--------------------- -----------------lb/1000 gal---------------------
Dairy liquid 0.9 0.11 0.03 0.11 0.12
Swine liquid 2.5 0.23 0.06 1.03 0.62
48
Summary

• Fe deficiency potential can not be explained well
  by a single soil parameter.
• Development of an soil index may be the best
  alternative.
• Foliar treatment seems to increase the
  greenness effectively. But seed coating
  provides higher yield increases.
• Select a soybean variety that is tolerant to Fe
  chlorosis.
• Avoid excessive application of nitrogen
  fertilizer to the crop that precedes soybeans in
  the rotation.

49
Summary

• Increased interest for foliar application of
  nutrients.
• Tissue test can provide good indication for
  micronutrient needs.
• Increased interest for mixing micronutrients with
  fluid fertilizer for band application.
• Seed coating with micronutrients is an
  alternative.

50
Questions?
Dorivar Ruiz Diaz ruizdiaz_at_ksu.edu 785-532-6183
www.agronomy.ksu.edu/extension/