1 / 54

Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?

Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?. C. A. Grant 1 , R. E. Lamond 2 , R. M. Mohr 1 and R. E. Engel 3 1 AAFC - Brandon Research Centre 2 Kansas State University 3 Montana State University. History of Chloride. Discovered in Sweden in 1774 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele

nitara
Download Presentation

Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chloride Research: What Have We Learned? C. A. Grant1, R. E. Lamond2 , R. M. Mohr1 and R. E. Engel3 1AAFC - Brandon Research Centre 2Kansas State University 3Montana State University

  2. History of Chloride • Discovered in Sweden in 1774 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele • Present in many salts, including KCl, CaCl2 and NaCl • Recognized as fertilizer as far back as mid 1800’s • NaCl applied to “stiffen straw” • Cl- viewed as active ingredient

  3. History of Chloride • Chloride recognised as an essential nutrient in 1954 • Required in very small amounts for crop growth (~100 mg kg-1) • Deficiency induced in nutrient solutions • Cl- widespread in soil and water • Responses considered unlikely in field

  4. What Does Cl- Deficiency Look Like? • Premature wilting • Chlorosis of newly emerging leaves • Reduced shoot and root growth • Roots may show “herring bone” pattern • Leaf cupping may occur

  5. Field responses occurred where Cl- was above biochemical needs • Late 1950’s to early 1960’s • Sugar beets in Manitoba (Soper) • Corn in US (Younts and Musgrave) • Increased yield and reduced stalk rot

  6. Effect of K Source and Placement on Grain Yield of Field-Grown Corn 20 lb K2O acre-1 Younts and Musgrave 1958

  7. Effect of K Source and Rate on Stalk Rot in Field-Grown Corn Younts and Musgrave 1958

  8. Field responses occurred where Cl- was above biochemical needs • Early 1970’s • Coconut and other plantation crops in Philippines (von Uexkull) • Late 1970’s - early 1980’s • Winter wheat in Europe (Russell) and USA (Powelson and Jackson; Taylor and Christenson)

  9. Winter Wheat Grain Yield as Function of N Source Christensen et al. (1981)

  10. Reponses Not Due to “Biochemical” Deficiency • Water relations? • Effects on plant development? • Nitrification inhibitor? • Transport of other nutrients in plant? • Reducing late season lodging? • Kernel weight? • Disease effects? Response occurs at Cl- much higher than measured essential level

  11. Take-all root rot of winter wheat was reduced by KCl in Oregon

  12. Oregon results triggered interest in Cl- in Great Plains • Responses to KCl had been noted on high K soils in Montana • Skogley and Haby (1981) • Winter wheat, spring wheat, barley, potatoes, alfalfa and more • Suggested a problem with K soil test prediction • Cl- response could be part of the reason

  13. Great Plains Research • Will crops on the Great Plains respond to Cl-? • Which crops will respond? • What is the mechanism for Cl- response? • Can we predict where responses will occur?

  14. Cl- has improved crop yields in the Great Plains • Over 210 trials in KS, MN, MT, ND, SD, MB and SK have evaluated Cl- response in wheat and barley • Significant yield response in 48% of trials • Average response of ~5 bu/A • Cl- responses also occurred in other crops

  15. Wheat and barley responded to KCl while oats did not 8 site-years in South Dakota Fixen et al. (1986)

  16. Chloride fertilization increased grain corn yield in Kansas Brown County - 2000 Lamond et al. 2000

  17. Chloride fertilization increased grain sorghum in Kansas Brown County- 2000 Lamond et al. 2000

  18. Responses to Cl- are cultivar dependant • Cultivar differences occur in barley and wheat • Both spring and winter wheat • Some of the differences may be due to disease susceptibility

  19. Summary of grain yield responses to addition of 50 kg Cl- ha-1 (Manitoba, 1989-91) Mohr

  20. Chloride Variety Trials • North American Cl- study • Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota and Manitoba • 15 winter wheat or spring wheat varieties at each location • Treatments: 0 Cl- and 40 lb/A Cl-

  21. Response of Winter Wheat Cultivars to Cl- fertilization Responsive Non-responsive Lamond et al. 2000

  22. Response of Spring or Durum Wheat Cultivars to Cl- Fertilization Responsive Non-responsive Grant et al. 2000

  23. Yield Increase May Be Due To Disease Suppression • Wheat: take-all root rot, common root rot, fusarium root rot, stripe rust, leaf rust, septoria, tanspot • Barley: common root rot, fusarium root rot, spot blotch • Corn: stalk rot

  24. KCl application reduced common root rot in barley Grant and Bailey 1994

  25. KCl application reduced common root rot in wheat 1= clean and 4 = severe Mohr et al 1992

  26. Cl- reduced leaf rust in winter wheat in Texas Miller reported at PPI-FAR.org

  27. Application Of Cl- Decreased Leaf Diseases In Marshall Spring Wheat Septoria and tanspot leaf spot complex PPI-FAR.org

  28. KCl or Tilt decreased leaf disease and increased grain yield Butte spring wheat Flandreau, SD,  1984. Fixen et al. 1986 PPI-FAR.org

  29. Why Would Cl- Decrease Disease Problems? • Increased water potential restricts infection by pathogens? • Plants are better able to withstand disease? • Lowers tissue NO3- which inhibits crop susceptibility? • Increases soil NH4+ which inhibits pathogens? • Nitrification inhibition

  30. Oregon Studies Associated Cl- Effect With Plant Water Potential • Cl- treated plants were more erect at mid-day • Cl- might affect water potential • Increased water potential may reduce susceptibility to disease

  31. Osmotic potential of winter wheat leaves as related to Cl- concentration Christensen et al. 1981

  32. Cl- increased leaf relative water content and grain yield in Butte spring wheat Flandreau, SD,  1984 Fixen et al. 1986

  33. Effect of K source on tissue nitrate Timm et al. 1986

  34. Chloride reduced the effect of take-all on grain yield 1986-88 Grain Yield (bu/acre) Christensen et al. 1990

  35. Cl- Sometimes Increased Yield Without Affecting Disease • Enhanced crop development • Higher kernel weight • Longer grain fill • Greater rate of kernel growth • Better water relations • Reduced lodging

  36. Plant development K2SO4 KCl

  37. Cl- addition increased winter wheat kernel weight Engel et al. 1994

  38. Physiological Leaf Spot Physiological Leaf Spot

  39. “Physiological Leaf Spot” • Occurs in winter and durum wheat • Recently reported in barley • Looks similar to tanspot disease • Related to crop genetics • Redwin, Sierra, CDC Kestrel are susceptible

  40. (-3.89 X) Y = 1.01 + 39.8 exp 2 R = 0.82 0 2 4 6 8 -1 Plant Cl, g kg Leaf spots severity is strongly related to plant Cl! Redwin winter wheat 50 • 10 field locations MT • 1.0 g kg-1plant Cl • Severity increases exponentially at plant Cl < 1.0 g kg-1 40 30 Leaf spot severity, % 20 10 0 no lesions

  41. -1 Plant Cl, g kg Leaf Spot Severity and Plant Cl- Kestrel winter wheat • 6 field locations in MT • Relationship expressed is similar to Redwin • Break point = 1.5 g kg-1 plant Cl 50 (-2.45 X) 40 Y = 1.67 + 64.6 exp 2 R = 0.98 30 20 Leaf spot severity, % 10 0 0 2 4 6 8

  42. Chloride Deficient Leaf Spot This phenomenon is not a disease! • Applications of fungicides have no effect on symptoms • There is no infectious organism on affected tissue • Symptoms can be reproduced in solution culture WB881 durum wheat - 0 Cl dose -

  43. CDC Kestrel winter wheat K2SO4 KCl

  44. “Chloride deficient leaf spot syndrome”

  45. Soil testing can help predict Cl response Response Category Soil Cl Frequency Average lb/A-2 ft % bu/A Low < 30 69 4.0 Medium 31- 60 31 2.6 High > 60 0 0.3 Based on responsive spring wheat varieties grown at 36 locations in South Dakota.

  46. Yield response in wheat (size and probability) increase as plant Cl falls below 4 g kg-1 maximum response line -1 1200 NS 800 Significant Yield deficit from max., kg ha 400 0 -400 0 2 4 6 8 10 -1 Plant Cl, g kg

  47. Relationship between available Cl- and tissue Cl- in Katepwa wheat Mohr

  48. Soil test recommendations vary with region • Montana, North Dakota and Manitoba • Soil Cl to 24” + fertilizer should equal 30 lb Cl-acre-1 • Saskatchewan • Apply if soil Cl- to 12” is below 16 lb acre-1

  49. Soil test Cl- content in samples taken by Agvise Lab

  50. Low Soil Cl- Does Not Guarantee a Reponse • Cultivar effects • Disease pressure • Moisture regime • Other stress effects Soil testing identifies sites where responses are more likely to occur

More Related