1963-1964 Soil Plant Nutrient Research Report

D. A. RENNIE

W. L. HUTCHEON

Department of Soil Science Saskatoon, Saskatchewan University of Saskatchewan

PRINTED JANUARY, 1965

SOIL-PLANT NUTRIENT RESEARCH REPORT 1963-64

D.A. Rennie and W.L. Hutcheon Department of Soil Science University of Saskatchewan

CONTENTS

Page The Productivity of Sub-group Profile Types.. .. . . 1 A Study of Mono- and Di-Hydrogen Phosphate Carriers.. 8 Soil Moisture Investigation . . . · · · ·· · · • • • • • o • • 18 Consumptive use of Water Studies . ••••....•

o...

¹⁸

Rate of Water use by the Crop • . . . . . . . • • • • • . . . • 2.6 Moisture Storage During the Summerfallow

Period . . . . . ., . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Comparison of Various Neutrons Access Tubes 31 Urea as a Source of Nitrogen in Nitrogen-

Phosphate Carriers oo • • •••••••• •••••• ••• 42 Effect of Urea Phosphate Mixtures on

Germination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . · . . 43 Extraction Studies . .. •••

o... . .. . ...

⁴⁵

The Effect of Urea-Nitrogen on Phosphate

Fertilizer Uptake by Wheat •••...••• .• •. 46 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Significance of Various Indices to Measure

Available Soil Phosphorous • . . . .• ••.••.. 50 Experimental Results . • • . . • . • • . . • . . • • . . . • . • • . . . 51

All projects included in this report were supported by funds do- nated by The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada,

Limited, and the National Research Council. The scope of the research investigations are outlined in the Table of Contents.

THE PRODUCTIVITY OF SUB-GROUP PROFILE TYPES

This project was initiated seven years ago and has been carried out on numerous soil associations throughout the Central part of the Pro- vine e., The major objective of the study is to determine whether crop yield differences within areas that have had unifo~m cultural treat- ment in the past can be related to the morphological, physical or

chemical properties of the specific soil types on which the experiments have been laid down~ The plot sites selected for the 1963 experiments included the Calcareous, Orthic₁ Eluviated and Humic Eluviated Gleysol members of the Elstow soil association.

identical sites in 1961~

Experiments were conducted on

The reader is referred to the 1961 Soil-Plant Nutrient Research Report for specific details on field techniques. fertility treatments, and description of the sub-group profile types. Analytical data de~

signed to characterize the Ap horizon of each profile are given in Table 1,.

Results., The water budget data obtained on the four sub-group profile sites will be discussed in a later section of this report. The general moisture reserves in the soil at time of seeding in the spring was

somewhat above average, the four-fo6t profile on the Calcareous, Orthic₁ Eluviated and Gleysol sites containing l . s . 2.5₁ 7.9 and 6.4 inches of available water at time of seeding. Precipitation was con- siderably above average, with a total of 11.53 inches falling during the growing season. The majority of the rainfall fell between ti~e

of seeding and the middle of July

TABLE

1

Analytical Data on ComposJJ .. e Surface Samples

ELSTOW1 Calc,. Orthic

Texture SiCL SiCL

pH 7.,85 7 .. 15

Conductivity

0,.72 0.,72 mmhos/cm

ppm bases

-

Saturation extract

Na L,.2 0.,7

K 7.,2 7.,8

Ca 93 35.,9

Mg 6.,0 7 .. 1

% ^H₂0 F .. C .. 27,.2 3L.7

% H

20 ^{Sat., 47.,7} 46 .. 1

Available phosphorus

-

^ppm,.

H CO

2 3 20.4 21.,0

NaHC0

3 12.,5 10 •. 6

Greenhouse ^rA~ value _I

-·

^ppm.,

16.,0 15.,1

% O'"M,.(Nx20) 3.,98 3.,56

Farmer Co-operators

1Bi11 Hutcheon, Rosetown 2Gordon H1eck, Englefeld 3 Walter Konschuk, Nokomis

Eluv., CL

6.,00

0.,89

1.,5 5,.4 28 .. 7 4.,6 29.,7 48,.9

20,4 19.,9

22.,2 5.,12

YORKTON2 Glex..£..Q..l Calc,

CL L

5.,95 7.,85

1,.09 0.,61

0,.9 0.,6

7.,4 1,4

25,.3 68.,9

4 •. 6 3 ,,9

29.,5 22.,8

50,.6 3 8 •. 7

15"7 8 4 27.,8 4 .. 9

19.,1 7,1

4,.40 4.,52

2.,

ASQUITH3 Orthic

FSL 7.,85

0.,64

0 •. 5 2.,0 30.3 1.,8 16,1 35,.1

14 '" 8 7 .. 7

lL.O 2.66

TABLE 2. Comparative Data Obtained from Four Member Sites (Elstow Catena - Hutcheon)

Rate Calcareous

'I'reatm~n ts lb.P/ac .. Dark Brown (A) Yield of Grain~ bu. per ac ..

Check 33.,6 (7.8)1

I (With seed)

8.742

11-48-0 39.2(10.,5)

"

^17.48 38 .. 8(11 .. 2)

23-23-0 8.74 34 .. 4 (9.,2) I I (Broadcast)

11-48-0 17.48 36.2

"

^{34.96 36.3}

L.S. D .. (P: .. 05) 2.6

(B) Milligram Fertilizer - P per I (With seed)

11-48-0 8.74 .62

"

^{17.48 .96}

I I (Broadcast)

11-42-0 17.,48 .64

••

^{34.96 1,.23}

L..-S.D. <P=.05) .,12

Orthic Dark Brown

34.3(15-.. 9) 42.7(20.,7) 47 .. 7(26 .. 9) 42 .. 2(-19 .. 4) 38.2

37 .. 9 3.2 gram .92 1.58

.10

(grain

Eluviated Dark Brown

39.2(~4.9)

44.9(32.4) 45.5(32.5) 47.1(29.6) 42.0

42.-7 3.2 only)

.70 1.20 .79 1.27 .. 13 (C) Percent Uptake of Fertilizer - P (grain only) I (With seed)

llL-48-0

u

I I (Broadcast) ll-48:-0

"

I

L.S.D .. <f:.05)

8 .. 74 17 .. 48

16..-7 12.8

8.0 7.,6 2.4

27.1 25.9

N.S.

(D) A-value (available Soil-P) lb. P/ac ..

I (With seed) 11-48-0

"

I I (Broadcast) 11-48-0

"

L.S.D. (Po.05)

8 .. 74 17.48 17.48 34.96

54.9 64.3 106.0 95.,6 12.6

33,.3 32.6.

N.s.

21.8 18.7 11..,3 10.5

46.6 47.4 82.6 91.2 5.8

Humic Eluv.

Gleysol

43.8(17.3) 48.9(27.9) 57.4(30.7) 48.5(27.9) 45.5

44.8 3.7

.66 1. 21

.. 11

22.1 23.9

N.s.

44.8 40.6

N.S ..

1 Yield of grain obtained on the same .site ih 1961 .is. given in bracket~

2 This rate of P application is equivalent to 40 lb. 11-48-0 per acre.

TABLE 2 (continued)

Treatments

Rate lb,P/ac

Calcareous Dark Brown

thic Dark Brown (E) Total·~P"' Milligrams per gram.,

I (With seed)

11~48~0 u

II (Broadcast) 11-48-0

jl

8,74 17 .As

4,42 4 53

4.,42 4 42

(F) Soil~P~ Milligrams per gram., I (With seed)

11-48~0

II (Broadcast)

8,74 17,48

11-48-0 17.48 34,96

(G) Percentage Check

I <With seed)

11~48-0 8.,74

II 17,.,48

23~"23-0 8.,.74 II (Broadcast)

11-48-0 17.,48

H 34,.96

L,.S,.D, <P=: .. 05)

Protein 3,.90 3 54 3.,89 3.,37

in 20.,6

20 ,, 6

20~4

20M8

20.,5 20 6

N,.S

the

,27

Grain"' 19 0

19 2 19.,2 19 7

18.,9 19 0

N,S ..

4., Eluviated Humic Eluv Dark Brown . Gleysol ..

4 43 4 46

4 53 4 59

N,S"

3,73 3 26

3 74 3 32

17 1

16 ^l• 7 16 .• 6 16,.7

16,.7 16.,5

N s,.

4"22 4"16

17.0

16 9 16 7 17 0

16®9 16 ^Q• 8

N.-8

Yield data from both the current growing season and that obtained on the same site in 1961 are given in Table 2., Stored moisture at time of seeding was similar in both instances, but during 1961 a total of 1~85 inches of precipitation fell. The Calcareous was the least productive profile in both years followed in 1963 by the Orthic₁ Eluviated and the Humic Gleysol in order of increasing productivity,, This sequence was somewhat different in 1961₁ since under the drier growing conditions the yield on the gleysoli profile was significant- ly less from that recorded on the eluviated site. The inferior stru - ture of the Ap horizon iQf the gleysolic site!' coupled with the much more dense sub-soil would be expected to more adversely affect yields under the drier soil conditions prevailing in 1961.

The mean response to 11-48-0 applied at 40 lb per acre in 1963 was 6~2 bushels per acre~ Under the very much less favorable moisture conditions existing in 1961, a 6.4 bushel per acre average increase was recordedt the relatively similar absolute response to phosphate fertilization under widely differing climatic conditions is of con- siderable significance. However₁ i t should be noted that the 80 lb per acre application of ll-48-0 in 1963 (17.48 lb P/ac.) resulted in an additional 3.4 bushel increase, whereas in 1961 no further increase yield was realized with the heavier application of phosphate. While the above comments pertain to the average data obtained on the four plot sites (Table 3), i t is of interest to note that in both years

max~mum yields were obtained with the use of 40 lb. of 11-48-0 on the calcareous and eluviated sites~ Yields coritinued to increase

significantly with heavier rates of 11-48-0 on the orthic and gleysolic sites,.

Significant yield increases were obtained in most instances where the 11-48-0 was broadc~st and incorporated into the soil prior to

TABLE 3 Mean Results of Soils and Treatments

(A) SOILS

Yield % bu/ac Prot.ein Calcareous 36,4 20 .. 6

Orthic 40,5 19,2

Eluviated 43 .. 6 16,7

Humic E.,G,. 48,..2 16$9

L .. S ..

I)"'

2.,2 .,8

(P:.,05)

*data in brackets is for

(B) TREATMENTS Check

I (With seed)

11-48~0 at 8,.74 1.1-'4

s-o

^at

17.,48

23-23~0 at 8,.74

37,.7

43~9

4 7 •' 3 43.,1 I I (Broadcast)

11~48-0 at

17.,48 40.,5

11~48-0 at

34,96 40@5

L~S .. D ..

(P=.,05) 2 .• 1

18,,4

18,4

18,.6

18,.3

.Mlll:ifgrams p _{2er Gram} Total Fert, Soil

p p p

4.,53 "86. ^3,67

*( 79) (3.,72) 4.,44 ( I 25) (3.22) 4 48 99 3,.26

C.95) (2 ⁹⁹⁾ 4.wll ^(.,93) (3.~60)

•. 16 (@10) ⁽ 14) seed placement only.,

4 35 0,.72

1.,23 3,14

4 42 71

4 44 1 25 3,.34

13

6@

% A Value Uptake (lb,P/ac) (fert.,)

80.,2 11 3 (60,0) (14.,8) (33.,0) (26 ⁵⁾ 67.,0 15 •. 6 (47,.0) (20,3) ( 4 2 "'7") (23,.0) 7 1 (2 l)

44.9

20 3

93,4

10.,1 2 1

_seeding,. However, these increases were considerably less than those

obtained with seed-placed phosphate~ In addition• an application of 40 lb. of 11-48-0 applied with the seed in general resulted in a significantly higher yield than the minimal rate of broadcasting• 80 lb., of 11-48-0 pe.r acre,.

Broadcast applications of 11-48-0 at 80 lb. per acre resulted in approximately the same amount of fertilizer P taken up by the grain as for the 40 lb. treatment applied with the seed. Increasing the rate of seed-applied or broadcast p~psphate resulted in further phos- phate being taken up by the crop. However, the content of fertilizer P in the grain does not correlate with yields in all instances,. The increased uptake of fertilizer P as the rate of seed-applied 11-48-0 was increased is reflected in a corresponding increase in yield in most instances. However, this is no~ true for the broadcast t~eat­

ments nor when the broadcast treatments are compared with the seed- applied phosphate. The reason presumably lies in the fact that phos- phate must be absorbed during the early stages of growth in order to significantly enhance yields. I t is reasonable to expect that the grain fertilized with a broadcast application of ll-48-0 did not absorb as much phosphate during the early growing stages as compared to the seedrplaced treatments.

verification.,

This hypothesis, however, requires

The protein content of the grain on the calcareous and orthic sites was considerably high~r than that recorded on the grain grown in the more humid slope positions. This variation can be explained in part on the basis of the moisture profile (see Table 12) in that available moisture s t i l l remained in the eluviated and gleysolic profiles at harvest time 1 whereas on the calcareous and orthic sites essentially all available water was used.

8

The phosphate fertility level for the four profiles using the

A val~e data as an index does not substantiate similar A value data obtained in 1961~ The differences are presumably due to marked variations in rooting habits of the wheat in the two years.

A STUDY OF MONOAND DI-HYDROGEN PHOSPHATE CARRIERS

These experiments were started in 1961 and continued in 1962 and 196:Jl.;. The treatments and plot design used for the 1963 experi- ments wer:£1 essentially the same as that outlined in some detail in

the 1962 Soil-plant Nutrient Research Report. The field plots were laid down at Nokomis and Watson on Asquith and Yorkton soils respect- 1-vely., The plot sites were loeated on the same farm$ but not the same field as in 1962. The 1963 data are given in Tables 4 and 5 for the Asquith and Yorkton soils respectively. Since further field experi- ments are not contemplated the d~ta obtained over the past three years has been summarized (Tables 6t 7• 8₁ 9 and 10). Two indexes~

Yield (bu/ac.,) and A values (lb,P/ac.,)~ were used to compare the relative efficiency of the vari6us mono and di-hydrogen phosphate carriers .. The actual mean of values are given, and in addition these are converted to enable relative efficiency comparison. The ammonium di-hydrogen phosphate was arbitrarily assigned a 100% efficiency and the data obtained from the other carriers was compared in accordance The relative efficiency of the various carriers using yield as an

index was calculated as followst yield using a specific phosphate

carrier divided by yield of the ammonium di-hydrogen phosphate carrier, times 100., The A value data was converted as suggested by Spratt and

R .

1

enn1e,. The data thus converted is in units of ammonium di-hydrogen 1 Factors affecting and the significance of A values using band place-

ment. Spratt~

E.,

and kenniei

D.A.t

Symposium on the use of Radio- isotopes in soil-plant nutrition studies, 8th International Cong~ess,

Bombay₁ India, 1962.

Treatment Check I Check I I NH4H 1?0

u2 4

<NH ) HPO

4 2 4

n

KH P0- 2 4

tl

Na H PO 2 4

..

CaH PO 2 4

11

3 16-48.-,0

1Mechanica1

(Asquith F.S.L. - Orthic Dark Brown

---~----~K~o~n~s~c~h~u~k=1. N.~o~k~o~m~i~s~~~)~---

mix

Yield Total-P

lb~P/acw bu/ac mg/g

8.,74 17.,48 8,.74 17.,48 8,.,74 17.,48 8,..74 17,.,48 8,.74 17.,48 8.,74 17 .. 48 8,.74' 17.48

8.,74 17.,48 8.,74 17.,48 8.74 17,.48 8.,74 17.,48 8.,74

to give

34 8 33,.8 36 0 40,.7 35.,5

37 ^•> 3

3 8 •. 2 36,..2

34.,.5 3 5 ,, 4 34,.2 31 .~ 9 35,.3 35,6 37 .~ 5 38.,5

37.0 1 '7

4 43 4.,35

4,61 4 •. 53

4,.53 4 •. 37 4.,40 4.,48 4.,53 4.,34

N .•

s,.

rt.,-P Soil~P

mg/g mg/g

.,68 1.,02

,.58 .,81 ,60 .,88

•. 57 '"84 48 .,84

,.64 1,00

,16

3.,75 3..,33 3.,86 3.,68 3.,92 3,.80 3.,91 3,.63

4~05

3.,77 4.,38 4,17 3.,80 3.,65

% A

Uptake Value

16 •. 4 14.,2 16.,8 9.,8

15.,7 10,.8 13 ,, 0

8.,5 12"1 10 •. 2

51.~ 1 77,5

6"1,.9 76 .• 6 73.,7 78 ., .. 5 4.,8 255.0 1 •. 5 364,,0 11,.8 55.,4 10.,0 76.,9 16.,2 53~1

13,8 58.,4

2Mechanical mix to give

a 1:1 ratio of P

20

5:K 20 a 1:3 ratio of N:P

20 3 5

Commercia1 formulations corresponding to the tagged phosphate referred to in 1 and 2 respectively.

carriers

10~

TABLE

⁵

Comparison of

Mon~and Di~Hydrogen

Phosphate Carriers

(Yorkton• L. - Calcareous Black - Hleck• Watson)

Treatment Check I Check I I

CNH )

HPO 4 2 ·4

"

K HPO

2 4

"

Na2HP0 4

1KH PO +K HPO 2 4 2 4

tl

3 16-48-0

Yield Tota1-P Fert.-P Soil-P 1b.,P/ac., bu/ac mg/g mg/g mg/g

8,74 17 .As 8.,.74 17.,48 8.,74 17.,48 8,.74 17.,48 8*74 17 .AS 8.,74 17.,48 8,.74 17.,48 8,.74 17

.As

8.,74 17.,48

8.,74 17,.48 8,.74

27.,1 27.,8 39,.7 47,.,2 37.,7 44.,6 38,9 44.,9 40 •. 9 40,.9 42.,4 43.,5 36.9 34.,5 39.,7 40.,0 28,.9 33.,9 38,.8 44 •. 2

3.,59 3.,55

3.,61 3.,62 3.,60 3.,61 3,61 3,61

3.,60 3 66

3.,51 3 55

N.,S.,

,.86 1,.21 .,72 1,06 ,.75 1.,09 .,70 1.,02 ,..77 1.,16

,.20 ,.24 .,67 1..04 .,75 L,12

.,12

2.,73 2,.34

2 .. 86 2.,53 2.,90 2,. 59

2 84 2,.64 3.,30 3.,38 2.,99 2;.52 2,76 2.,43

% A

Uptake Value

23~5 27.,7 19.,6 33.,8 18 .. 8 34.,4 15 .. 5 40,4 20.,1 33.,3 16 .. 8 40.,5 19.,5 36.,2 14,.3 44 4 22.5 32 .. 2 17.,5 36,.9 18.,5 34.,4 17.,1 4L.O 20.:6 32.;.7 14.,1 47 8 3,9 144 .. 0 2 .. 6 246.2 1704 43.5 16..,0 44.,.8 23,.2 32.,2 18.,7 37.,9

2 •. 5 6 .. 2

1Mechanical mix to give a 1:1 ratio of P 20

5:K 20 2Mechanical mix to give a 1:3 ratio of N:P

2

o

3 5

Commerc1al formulations corresponding to the tagged phosphate carriers

refer~ed to in l and 2 respectively.

TABLE 6 Efficiency of Various Mon~and Di-Hydrogen Phosphate Carriers, using Yield as an index. (Mean of

six Experiments for the years 1961, 1962 and 1963.,)

Yield, bushels/ac.

lb.,P applied/ac,

Relative Efficiency¹

8,. 7 16.A Av_er<;tge

Phosphate Carrier (Check yield _- 24.w2) NH4H

2Po

4- 28.,8 2

31,.6 2

1002

1002

1002 (NH4 )

2HP0

4 28.,9 2 9 .A 100.,3 9 2

'!.2.

^{96 6}

(1) 16-48-0 30.,2 28,.7 105,.0 90 .. 8 97,.9

KH2P0

4 28,.2 30,.9 97 9 97,.6 97,8

K2HP0

4 28.,9 27.,7 100 3 87.,8 94,1

(2) 0-40-·40 27 .. 6 28 ., 3 95 .. 8 89 _., 7 92.,8

NaH2P0

4 30.,5 30,.1 105.,8 95.,4 100.,6

Na2HP0

4 27"3 24,7 94., 7 85.,5 90.,_Q

Ca(H2P0 4 )

2 28.,9 29.,0 100.,3 91;:.9 96,1

CaHP0

4 24.,2 24~ _84_, 1 7 6 d 80.,2

L,.S.,D .. (P= .. 05_) 2 .. 1 7 ,, 0 5.,7

(1) Mechanical mix of NH 4H

2P0

4 and (NH 4)

2HP0

4 to give a 1:3 ratio of N:P20

5.,

(2) Mechanical mix of KH 2P0

4 and K 2HP0

4 to give a 1:1 ratio of P 20

5:K 20 1NH

4H 2P0

4 yield assigned a value of 100.

2Values underlined are significantly different from the NH 4H

2P0 treatment., 4

TABLE 7 Effiaisnay of Various Mono and Di-Hydrogsn Phosphats

i Carriers using A Values as an Index. (Mean of

Six Experiments for the years l96lt 1962

Phosphate Car~ier

NH4H

2P0 4 (NH4)

2HP0 4 (1) 16-48-0

KH

2P0 4 K2HP0

4 (2) 0-40-40

L.S.D. <P=.05 ).

(1) Mechanical N:P2?5•

mix of

and 1963._) A value. lb., P/ac. 1

35.,9 48.,6 51.3 49...,4 42.,4 48 ... 0

~ 612.0

1.,3 NH4H

2P0

4 and (NH4)2HP04

Relative Efficiencl2 100

98

l l

68 7.1 83

~ 73 64

&.

4.1

to give a 1:3 ratio 12.

of (2) Mechanical mix of

KH

2P0

4 and K 2HP0

4 to give a 1:1 ratio of ^p 2o5:K2o.

' ~ ..

I ,

Each value is the mean of the 7.4 and 14a8 lb.P/ao .. treatments.

2 '

Since the A·value units are in terms of the carrier used, direct

comparison may be open to criticism. These were converted as outlined in the text. For example the value '95' for (NH ) HPO indicates

that 100 lb. :of Pas (NH 4)

2HP0

4 are equivalent

t~ §5 1~.

of Pas

NH 4 H

2

^P0

4 •

TABLE

s

Ef:f ec ts, o:f Additions of KC1 to NH 4 H

2PO 4 (Average of three locations for four

Sub-group profiles.)

Treatment1 Calcareous Orthic Eluviated Humic Eluviated Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown Gleysol

(A) Yield of wheat, bu/ac.

Check 28,.4 32,.4 25,.8 27.,5

ll-48-0(NH 4H

2P0

4) 32.,4 41,.2 35,6

5-24-30 NH

4

^H

2

^P0

4

^{-~oKCl 35,.7 40.,1 35*1 35,1}

L,.S*,D"' (P=,.05) 2.,5 4,.1 3.,4 (B) A values₁₁ lb .. P/ac,.

ll-48-0 69.0 51., 7 36.,7 57.0

5-24-30 73 • 0 50,3 47,7 65.0

L.,S.,D .. (P:::: .. 05) N,.S., N.,S., 5,1

1All phosphate carriers were applied at 7.4 lb. P/ac.

TABLE .9 .. Effect of Different Phosphate Carriers

Treatment 2

eheck

1~~48-0(NH

4

^H

2

^P0

4

⁾

16-4s~o<NH

4

^H

2

^P0

4

+ (NH 4)

2HP0

4) o-40-40 CKH

2PO

4

+K

2HP0 4)

L .. S.,D .. (P:::::.,05)

11-48-0 16-48-0

Calcareous Orthic Eluviated Dark Brown Dark Brown Dark Brown

(A) Yield of Wheat

16.,.5

12,.2 17..,8 22.,3

10,.6 17.,9 22.,.1

10,.0 17.,7 20,.9

1,.7 1,.5

49,.0 48.,0 73.0

52,. 0 79,5

N,.S.,

1 Average of two locations

on 1

Humie Eluviated

Gleys<~l

14,2 23,.0

21.,5

18.,5

31,.0 4.,5

2A11 phosphate carriers were applied at 7.4 1b~ P/ac.

TABLE 10

Table 8 11··48·-0 5....,24-30

L.,S .. D,.

Table 9 11-48....,0 16-48·-0 0-40-40

L.,S .. D..,

Relative Efficiency of Phosphate Carriers Compared to 11-48-0 (NH

4H 2P0

4

>

(Based on data given in Tables 8 and 9.)

Yield A Value

100 100

100 90.,6

CP:::.-:.,05)

N,S.,

4 .. 7

100 100

95.,7 91,,,9

89.,3

(P::::,. 05) 7.,1 5 .. 2

16,.

phosphatea For example, 100 lba of P as KH

2

P0

4

is equivalent to 72 lb.

The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from these data:

(1) None of the carriers investigated proved superior to the ammonium di-hydrogen phosphate.

(2) The di~ammonium phosphate carrier was practically identical to the mono-ammonium phosphate at low rates of appLication., However~

when the· rate of application was increased to 80 lb., of 11·~48~0

equivalent, the mono-ammonium carrier was considerably superior The mixture of mono- and di-~mmonium phosphate (equivalent to 16~48~0)

fell intermediate between the NH

4H P0

4 and the (NH

4) HPO • However

2 2 4

i t should be noted that the 16-48-0 equivalent and the (NH 4

>

2 ^H~P0

4

were nat markedly different in terms of yield and A value data from

(3) Comparisons were made between mono- and di-pOtassium phosphate and also ammonium di-hydrogen phosphate to which KCl had been added~

In evaluating the results obtained• the reader's attention is drawn to the high levels of exchangeable

K

in the soil (Table 1).

Considerably different results would be expected on soils that were deficient in potassium.. On the basis of yield~ the KH

2P0

4 was approxi·~

mately equivalent to the NH 4H

2P0

4., However, on the basis of the A value data• this carrier was significantly less efficient as a source of phosphate for wheat. The K

2HP0

4.in turn was less effective than the KH

2P0

4• Again, the mixture of mono- and di-potassium phosphate resulted in data approximately half-way between that obtained where the two carriers were ~pplied separately. Where KCl was used as a source of potassium, and added to the ammonium di-·hydrogen phosphate~

yields were practibally identical to those obtained with the NH 4H

2P0 4 alone., Unfortunately• rates of application in excess of 8.7 lb. of P

per acre (equivalent to 40 lb. of ll-48-0 per acre) were not used.

However, on the basis of the A value data, the 5-24-30 carrier must be considered less effective than the NH4H2 P04.

(4) The mono-sodium phosphate resulted in yield data very similar to Again, however, on the basis of the A value data~ this carrier as well must be rated down- ward. The di-sodium phosphate was very much less effective than the mono-sodium carrier. The reason for the very marked reduction in availability of the phosphate in the di-sodium phosphate form is presumably due to the higher pH of this carrier. Hydroxyl ions com- pete effectively with HP04, and also H2P04 ions for the adsorption sites on the plant roots. The higher the hydroxyl ion concentra- tion, the lower would be the expected phosphate adsopption.

The relatively lower availability of di-~otassium, -ammonium and -sodium mono-hydrogen phosphates can also be explained on this basis. The difference between the two ammonium carriers is not as great as that recorded for the comparable potassium br sodium. car- riers mainly because of the so-called ammonium ion effect, i.e. the ammonium ion itself stimulates adsorption of phosphate, and would tend in part to counteract the so-called hydroxyl ion depressing effect.

(5) While the mono-calcium phosphate is equally as soluble as the mono-ammonium phosphate, the former was somewhat less effective, due probably to the stimulating effect of the ammonium ion contained in the NH4H2P04 carrier on the phosphate uptake. Di-calcium phosphate resulted in only very small amounts of phosphorus being taken up by the plant. This carrier is much less soluble in water.

18,.

SOIL MOISTURE INVESTIGATION

Six seamless steel tubes four and one-half feet long were instal- led at each plot site, on both the unfertilized and fertilized

(11-48-0 at 17.5 lb. P per acre) treatment. These seamless steel tubes facilitated the entry of the neutron probe which was used for moisture determinations at depths below six inches. The moisture

content of the 0-6 inch depth was determined gravimetrically.

Moisture storage studies were carried out during the fallow period at ten sites on the farm of Mr., A,.D,. Hutcheont Rosetownik Saskatchewan (NE8-31-14-W3)~

Precipitation records for all investigational areas are given in Table l L

Consumptive Use of Water Studies

The change in the moisture profile that occurred throughout the 1963 growing season on the four sub-group profile sites on the

Hutcheon farm are given in Table 12,. The-values within the solid line blocks are at moisture contents at or below the 15 bar moisture constant,. In spite of the above average precipitation, the moisture profile of the calcarebus site was at or slightly below the wilting point down to the depth of two feet by July 8th; crop removal depleted the moisture profile below the wilting point down to a depth of forty inches by July 22nd~ At the end of the growing season the entire profile was somewhat below the wilting point moisture content. The fertilized crop depleted the moisture at a somewhat faster rate than the unfertilized, but in other respects, changes in the moisture profile throughout the growing season were quite similar for both unfertilized and fertilized grain.

Removal of water on the Orthic profile site followed a pattern quite similar to that described above for the calcareous profile.

TABLE 11 Rainfall Records ~ 1963 Plot Sites.

(A) Mr., Bill Hutcheon-*

Rose town.

Date Inches of May 27-June 10 0.,82 June 11-June 17 0.,57 June 18-Ju1y 2 3.,.61 .. Tuly 3-July 8 nil July 9-July 15 4,.66 July 16-Ju1y 22 nil July 23-July 30 nil July 31-Aug"' 5 0.,83 Aug., 6-Aug., 12 0.,.36 Aug,. 13-Sept'" 17 0,.68

Total 11..53

(C) Mr.,.,

w,

Konschukll Nokomis Total ppt ^:=: 5,.,120

Water

(B) Mr~ G~ ffleckt Watson

Date Inches of Water May 25

May .28 May 30 June 4 June 5 June 6 June 7 June 10 June 12 June 18 June 20 June 21 June 22 June 24 June 27 June 29 June 30 July 5 July 10 July 11 July 14 July 15 July 16 July 18 July 20 July 26 July 29 July 30 August 1 August 3 August 5 August 7 Aug·ust 8 August 14 August 15 August 16 Total

0 .. 320 0.,.250 0.,085 0,067 0.,.835 0.,900 0.,370 0.,075 0..,240 0.,125 0,105 0.,460 0.,060 0,.,175 0.,135 0 920 0,..070 0.,215 0,.135 0 .. 170 0.,570 0 .. 370 0,350 0,..240 0,.60 0.,.025 0.,225 0,..06 0,07 0.,32 0,.57 0.,05 0.,09 0,.0·4 0.,03

Q_~

9,.945

Depth 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30

30~36

3 6-4!.2

42~48

0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24

24-~30

30=36 36-42 4!2-48

0-6 6=12 12-18 18-24

24~30 30~36

36-42 42-48

TABLE 12 Changes in the Moisture Profile Throughout the Growing Season -

Hutcheon~ Elstow clay loam.

A. CHECK

(Each value is the mean of six measurements over the plot area$

Moisture is expressed in percent ^by volume* Values within the solid line blocks are below the 15 bar moisture content.)

CALCAREOUS PROFILE

May 27 June 10 June 17 July 2 July 8 July 15 July 22 July 30 Aug., 5 Aug., 12 Sept. 7 23$2

27.,6 27.,8 26,1 21.,4 14,.3 12 .. 1

15~1

21"'9 27,.4

27~8

27;rc0 22.8

16~6

12,.3 15.3 B,. FERTILIZED

23,.0

27~3

26,.6 22,.8 17.0 12 •. 5

16~5

19%8

A~ CHECK 24,8 28.5 30.,4 28.6 25.3 20,.6 18,.9 22.,1

21.,.5 27"'9 27,1 23e3 18"'5

13~3

16,0 20,7

21 .. ⁵ 28,8 30.,9 29 .. 2

25~2

20.8 19,.8 23.3

116.,3 21,.9 24 .. 9 24 .. 7 20.,5 12,6 12.,1 14.0

16,.6 22,.6 25.2 21,.6

16~9

1442 17,.1 18 ... 9

17.7 22,7

3{) ..

o

27.4 23.,5 20 .. 2 22.,6 25 3

25.,.7 27,.5 20.8 19,.5 19,4 16 .. 1 12.5 13.2

25,.0 26.5 21.2 18,.5 17.2 16.1 20.9 24,.4

27.6 29,5 26,.0 25,.9 23.,8 20 .. 2

21.,6

25"'5

18 .. 5 18,.2

22,.5 23.;.1

13 .. 5 13.5 13,..3

~~ :~ ~~ :~ ~~:~----~~=~-~

10,.1 9.,9 9,.2 9.,6 ¹

:n~7 9,.6 9.,2 8 .. 6 8~9

I

18.,0 17.1 17.0 15.4 12.7 16.9

18.5 16 .. 1 17.0 15.1 13.6 20 ~ 2

.112 ..

^{8 10. 8 9 "4 8. 9 9.}

2J'

13.2 12.3 11.3 10.7 10.5

13.7 14.6 13.5 12.7 12.2

'---2~1 ___ 5 _______ 2_2 ___ 9 _______ 1 __ .9--.-0---l-9-~-l---18.5

15 .. 8 17.,3 17,3 15.5 15.2 16.1 20.0 23 .• 4

18,.0 15,.4 15.1 15.6 21.3 23,.5 ORTHlC PROFILE

27.0 27.1 25.7 23,.4 22.,3 19.8 20 .. 7 25.A

12.6 13.3 11.9 10,.5 11 .. 7 16.,3 22.,1 24.A

17.,9 18,4 21,..4 18.6 18.,8 18 .. 3 21,..4 25@.8

13.0 11.5

11,.8 10.3

9.8 9.4

8.7 8.3

10 .. 9 10,.8 17.3 15.1 _ _ 2_3_.,;_5 _____ ^{1, 7 • 1}

23 ·~ 7 17.3

14.4 14.3 15.9 13.1 12.5 13.3 17.1 22,.5

12.,4 9.7 9.2 8.,.1 8.7 12.9 19.8 22.4

13.9 13.2 13.5 10,.6 11 0 12,.5 17 .. 0 22 .. 6

15.5 11 .. 9

9.5 8. 1

l

---~~:~

^.

22.,3 21.2

17~3

14.4 12,.9 10,.8 10 .. 6 12 .. 2 16.,9 22.,0

B., FERTILIZED

De]2th May

27

June

10

June

17

July

2

July

8

July

15

July

22

July

30

Aug.,

5

Aug.

12

S

e12

t ..

7

-·~-. _ "

____

^{, -~}

0-6 25.,2 21.,6 18.,3 27 .. 9 26.,5 17.,.0 14 .. 0 13,.5 18,.9

6-12 29.,5 29.,1 24 .. 7 30 .. 7 27.,0 18.,6 14.0 12.,7 14,.1

12-18 27~5 27 .. 9 26~7 24 .. 1 22.,6 17~6 13..,2 11,9 11 •. 9

18-24 27~0 27 .. 5 27 .. 5 23-.9 22.,2 16.,7 11,.4 10,.3 10 .. 2

24-30 21,.5 22 .. 5 19,.6 21,.0 18.8 14.,7 10.-4 9,.4 9 .. 2

30-36 16~1 16.0 17.,1 16,.4 16.,4 _H~" 8 11,. 6 11 .. 3 11,.6

36-42 17 .. 5 18- .. 2 19.,9 19 .. 9 20~1 22,.2

L

^{17,.4 18.,.4 19.,9}

42-48 23,2 24,5 28 .. 9 27,0 26 .. 8 29.1 25.2 25,.5 26,.9

ELUVIATED PROFILE A,. CHECK

0-6 29,1 27~0 20.,8 36,.1 34,.8 25.,4 24..,5 19.6 19,.0 19.,1

6-12 39~4 39,.7 31,.1 41«3 41,.3 32;.3 28,.7 24,.2 23.1 22,.4

12-18 35,8 35 .. 9 34,.2 33,.1 3 3 .. g- 30,.1 26 .. 8 24~5 23,.5 21.6

18-24 35,.8 35,. 5 34~6 34.1 31.8 30.1 26.2 25.,6 23.3 21.5

24-30 37.,0 37.,1 36,1 36,.0 33,8 32.5 29.,3 27,.0 25 .. 1 23,.0

30-36 37 .. 9 39,.1 38.,2 35~3 38.3 37~6 35e2 31.,9 30 .. 1 27 .. 5

36-42 39.,5 40,.2 39.1 39,3 39,.5 38'~ 9 37"'6 34 .. 8 32,.6 29.5

42-48 3.9. 7 40*3 38 .. 5 39~1 39,.1 38,.4 36~6 35.,6 33.,0 29 .. 9

B .. FERTILIZED

0-6 29.,1 27.,.5 20,.1 35.,9 34.,4 26.,4 26,.5 21~2 21,.0 20,5

6-12 37.,7 38..,1 30.9 41.,.8 40 .. 8 33~7 29,.4 26~3 24 .. 9 22,.4

12~18 34.,4 34;>5 32#3 36.,6 35,.5 32.A 28,.3 26,.0 24 .. 9 22 .. 5 18-24 35,.4 35"2 34 .. 7 37 .. 4 37 .. 1 31.9 29 .. 1 27 .. 2 25.,5 22 .. 8

24~30 37,.3 37.,.5 36,.8 39.,4 38 .. 9 35.8 32,.5 30 ... 0 27"'5 24 .. 8

30-36 38,.1 38.,3 37.6 39,.5 40.1 37.9 35.9 33,4 31$2 27.,9

36-42 38,.7 39,.5 39.,.6 40,.0 40 .. 7 41 .. 0 38*3 36~2 35,6 32,.5

42-48 41,.6 40.,8 40.1 39.,2 39 .. 8 39"'6 36~7 35,7 33 .. 6 30,.2

TABLE 12 conttd.,

-

^{page 3,.}

GLEYSOLIC PROFILE A .. CHECK

Depth May 27 June 10 June 17 July 2 July 8 July 15 July 22 July 30 Aug* 5 Aug~ 12 Sept., 7

0~·6 25~9 27,.3 19~7 32.,3 25.,1 31~5 25.7 22"7 19 .. 3 19~2 17.,8

6~12 34,.1 35 .. 1 28.-5 37~4 29,.8 37~2 29,.4 22~9 20.,0 17"8 18~2 12~18 34.,1 34$5 33,..5 37.,6 30.,7 35 .. 0 29~3 24.,6 22.-2

L~.g~~ ..

^18.1

18~24 36,.5 36,.5 36~4 37.,0 33,.7 36,.8 32,.1 28,.7 27,.0 22"4 21 .. 9

24-30 35,.9 37,.5 36,.5 36.,9 35,.9 37 .. 7 34,.4 31 .. 7 30.-5 25,.1 23,.8

30~36 36,.0 36.,8 35.,9 36,.3 36¢2 37,.8 35.,8 34.6 33.,9 28w7 27,.1

36-42 34.A 36.,2 34,.9 35.,6 35,.4 36,.8 36,.2 34.,8 34.-0 3l.A 30,.,2

42-48 33,.4 35.0 34,.2 34.,9 34,.3 36,.2 35,.4 34,.1 33,.8 31,.9 29.,9

Av, 33.,8 34,.8 32.,5 36,.0 32.,6 36.,1 32.,3 29.,3 27.,.6 24@6 23.4

B, FERTILIZED

0-6 27 .. 3 27,.6 19.,4 35.,5 28,.7 34,8 26.,4 24,.0 20,.5 19,.9 19~0

6'712 35"'5 36.,3 28,.9 41.,0 32,.7 40"'5 32,.5 25.7 24,.1 21.,9 20,.5

12~18 35,.4 37 .. 0 35,.9 39,.3 34,.3 38,.9 34,5 29,.5 29,.3 25,5 24 .,.6'

18~24 37,5 3.9..,1 37,.8 39,.9 37 .. 2 40 .. 7 36,. 3 31"3 29,.9 27 .. 2 25.,4 24-30 37,.4 37,.7 36 .. 1 38"'8 37 .. 6 38.,..9 36*7 31.,6 3l.A 26~5

[]f]

30-36 36~4 35.,5 34.,8 37 .. 5 36~2 37,6 36"5 34.,8 34,.3 27 .. 0 0

36~42 33,8 35~9 35.,.6 36,.6 36~2 37.,2 36 .. 3 34$5 34,.7 29_.9 27.,2

42-48 34 .. 7 36.1 36~0 37~0 35,.8 38,.3 37 .. 6 34,7 35.6 32.4 30@0

By July 22, the upper three feet of soil contained no available water.

There was not a distinct difference in moisture withdrawal between the unfertilized and fertilized crop~

The data given for the eluviated and glysolic profiles afford a sharp contrast to that discussed above for the calcareous and orthic sites., Only towards the end of the growing season was a portion of the gleysolic profile at or below the wilting point~ All horizons were above the wilting point moisture content at time of harvest on the eluviated site~

The significance of the changes occurring in the moisture profilet and of soil type• on crop production is more readily evident from the summary data given in Tables 13 and 14.

drawn to the following:

The readerts attention is

(1) The mean four-foot moisture profiles at time of harvest for both the calcareous and orthic sites were below the wilting point moisture content, while significant amounts of available water remained in the profile of both the eluviated and gleysolic soils.

(2) The marked differences in available water at time of seeding between the four Elstow profiles was not necessarily a significant factor in determining yield. This is undoubtedly due to the above-average precipitation (11.53 inches). For example$ yields on the orthic and eluviated sites were approximately the same; the latt~r contained approximately

5i

inches more available water.

(3) The grain grown on the gleysolic profiles used moisture most efficiently,. However, differences in evapotranspiration ratios between the four elstow profiles were not large~

(4) The lower evapotranspiration ratios for the grain grown on the orthic and calcareous profiles of the Asquith and Yorkton associations respectively, probably reflect the lower potential evaporative

TABLE 13 Summary of Spring and Fall Moisture Profiles,.

(inches of water to a depth of four feet~)

Soil type

Field Capacity

Wilting Point A., ELSTOW CL (Hutcheon}

Calcareous 18 .. 624 8 .. 136 Orthic 20.,064 9,.072 Eluviated 20.,304 9.,696 Gleysol 21.,360 10.,018 B., ASQUITH FSL (Konschuk) Orthic 11.,568 5,.232

C~ YORKTON L (Hleck)

Calcareous 12.,480 ^5~520

A~ ELSTOW CL (Hutcheon) Calcareous

Orthic Eluviated Gleysol

B~ ASQUITH FSL (Konschuk) Orthic

C~ YORKTON L (Hleck) Calcareous

Moisture Profile Available Water

Spring Fall Spring Fall

9 .. 984 6,.240 1~848 ~1.,896

11.616 7,.200 2.,544 -1,.872 17.,616 11..952 7,.920 2,.256 16.-464 11$472 6.,446 1.,454

11.,520 6.288 O.A80

ll.A62 5.,942 1.,315

Average Plot Yield (Grain & Straw lb/ac)

5391 7226 7982 7473

7045

8609

Water Used (inc,. rain)

15.,274 15,.946 17 .. 194 16,.522

10.,928

12"527

Av,. Plot Yield

bu/ac,.

36,.2

41~0

42 .. 4 50w6

35.,4

40,.2

E.,T~R.,

(Grain

&

Straw)

640 499 492 500

502

457

E"'T .. R.., (grain)

15 89 1465 15 27 1230

1163

1175

Table 14 Water Use by Unfertilized and Fertilized Wheat Soil Type Crop use of water

(inches) to the 4~

depth inc~ rainfall

Fert~

A® ELSTOW CL (Hutcheon)

Calcareous 14.,842 15 .. 802 Orthic 16.,474 15,370 Eluviated 17,.530 16,.810 Gleysol 16 .. 522

B. ASQUITH FSL (Konschuk) Orthic IL.072 10.,784 C& YORKTON L (Hleck)

Calcareous 14.006 15,.100

Yield bu/ac.Yield Grain and Straw

_lb,./ac ..

Stra:w/Gr,ain Ratio

Check Fert. Check Fert. Check Fert.

5440 1.68 1.33 34.,3 47 •. 7 7407 7983 2.,60 1.,79 7954 il::.,92 1.,91 43.-8 57,4 6897 8362 1.,62 1.,43

34"'3 36.,8 4902 5103 1.,38 1.,31

27.,5 40.,9 4428

Evap9-Transpiration Ratio

Grain Grain and Straw

Check Check Fert,.

A., ELSTOW CL (Hutcheon)

Calcareous 1766 1441 658 617

Orthic ¹⁸⁰⁹ 1214 503 435

Eluvi.ated 1684 1392 578 478

Gleysol 1421 1087 541 448

B. ASQUITH FSL (Konschuk)

Orthic 1216 1104 510 478

C., YORKTON (Hleck)

Calcareous 1918 1391 715 474

conditions existing in the area as compared to the Rosetown area approximately 150 miles to the West.

26,

(5) Expressing the use of water data on the basis of grain and

strawt rather than on grain alone, suggest that efficiency of water use on the Orthic, Eluviated, and Glysolic profiles of the Elstow soil was approximately identical.

(6) Fertilization again resulted in a significant decrease in efficiency of water use. This statement is substantiated by the E.T.R- values based on either grain, or grain plus straw.

(7) While phosphate fertilization on the average resulted in a

decrease in the straw:grain ratios, the difference on the Eluviated Elstow soil, and the Orthic Asquith soils was very small. In con- trast* phosphate fertilization increased the yield of straw as compared to grain on the Calcareous Yorkton soil.

Rate of Water Use by the

f:r:2..E.

Measurement of the moisture profile at various intervals through- out the growing season enabled a measure of rate of water use on the four Elstow profiles. The various periods of measurement are given in Table 19., The rate of water use has been expressed in terms of daily use for the various periods of measurement and as a cumula- tive percentage of total water use. The data in Table 15 is based on the 48-inch profile, while that given in Table 16 is for the sur- face two feet only.

The rate of water use studies were conducted primarily to deter- mine whether the increase in effic:iency of water use by the ferti-

lizer crop could be attributed to a more rapid use of water during the early growing period. There is no indication in the data that

(Calculations based on the 48=inch profile.) A., CALCAREOUS DARK BROWN

Time of measurement Days *Inches of Avail~

Water,~-A'i Profile

Water Used (Period of measurement)

Cumulative water used as

%

of total use

May 27~June 10 June ll~June 17 June 18 ~ July2 July 3-July 8 July 9-July 15 July l6~July 22 July 23~July 30 July 3l~Aug .. 5 Aug .. 6~Aug~ 12 Aug. 13-Sept., 7

Total

May 28~June 11 June 12~June 18 June 19-July 3 July 4~July 15 July 16~July 22 July 23~Aug. 5 Aug., 6~Aug* 12 Aug., 13~Sept .. 7

Total

May 27-June 11 June 12~June 18 June 19~July 3 July 4~July 15 July I6~July 22 July 23~Ju1y 30 July 31-Aug~ 5

Aug~ 6-Aug .. 12 Aug, 13~Sept .. 7

Total

14 7 15 6

7 7 6 6 7

~ 1 o;u_

Check 2,.136 .,677 1 .. 133

~.106

.,619 -1..354 -1..800

~2~405

-2.,592

<-2.,333

B~ ORTHIC DARK BROWN 14

7 15 12 7 12

7

~ 100

2.-894 2.289 2.,928 2 .. 414 .. 562 -1.,690 -2 .. 213 -2.050

Fe:rt., 1..978 1.046

2~050

.298 1.330 -.,763 -1.,032

·~2.,136

~1..954

-1..498

2.,160

1~882

2.,381 1,.752 ,.019

~2.040

-·2.294 -1.704 C. ELUVIATED DARK BROWN

15 7

15 12

7 6 6 7 26 10;1

7.,992 6.662

7~968

7.860 6,.211 3.,782 3,.691 2.,885 1,,978

7,.790 6.619 8.885 8.736 7*022 5"693 4.464 3.763 2 .. 520

Check ,.609 2.,029 3 .. 154 1.239 3.935

1~973

.466 1.,435 .547 ,.421 15.788

.806 1..175 2,.971 5.,174 1..852 3,.082 883 .,517 16.460

,.782 1..900 2.309 4.768 1.649 2,A29 ,.921 1.166 1,.587 17.,506

Fert"' ,.632 L502 2.,606 1.,752 3$628 2 .. 093 ,.269 1" 9"34

~178

~224

14.,818

.. &30 .,848 3'0olll 5-.,28-9 1,.733 2.889 .,614 .,090 15 .. 4(}4

*868 L. 741 1.,344

4~809

L714 L329 2.059 1*061 L. 923 16.,848

Check 3.,9 16,.9 36"'8

44~6

69.,5 82.,0 84.,8 93.,9 97.,4 100

4 .. 9 12.,0 30,.0 6L4 72.,7 91.4 96.,8 100

4.,5 15.,4 28.,6 55,.8 65.2 79.,1.

84 .A 9 L l 100

FerL 4.3 14.,4 32,.0 43.,8 68.3 82.4 84 .. 2 97,.3 98,.5 100

5.4 10.9 31..1 65.,4 76.7 95.,5 99.,5 100

5.2 15.,5 23.5 52.0 62.,2 70.,1 82"'3 88.6 100

Rate of.Water In~s/Day Use

Check .043 .. 289 ,.197 ,247 .562 .281 .074 .,239 .078 .,016

.057 .167 ,.198 .,431 .264 .256 .126 .019

,.052 ,.271 .153 .397 .235 .404 .153 .166 .061

Fert,.

• 04 5 .214 .162.

.,350

• 518 .299 .. 044

• 322 .,025 .008

.,059 .121 ,..20 7 --.440

"247

* 240 .,087 .003

• 057

• 24 8 .089 .,400 .,244 .,221

"343 .151 .073

TABLE 15 conttd,.

-

^{page 2 ~}

D .. HUMIC ELUVIATED GLEYSOL

Time of measurement Days *Inches of Avail, Water Used Cumulative Rate of Water

Water~4 ¹ Profile (Period of water ised as Use measurement) % of total use Inches/Day Check Fert, Check Fert~ Check FerL Check Fert, May 27-June 10 14 6,710 7.,094 ,.306 ,..383 1,.8 2.,3 ,.021 ~ 02 7

June 11-June 17 7 5.544 5.,856 1.,736 1,.808 12,.3 13,.2 "248 "25 8 June 18-July 2 15 7,767 8,323 l . 887 1.143 23 .. 7 20.1 .125 .,076

July 3-July ~ 6 5.649 6,702 1~618 L618 33.5 29.9 .269 • 26 9

July 9- July 15' 7 7.315 8.390 2.994 2.,975 51._6 47.9 .427 • 42 5 July l6-Ju1y 22 7 5.481 6~590 1.834 1.. soo 62.,7 58,8 .262 • 25 7 July 23-July 30 6 4,.022 4.657 1.459 1,. 843 71.5 70.0 • 243 •· 30 7 July 31~Aug .. 5 6 3.216 4,.368 1.636 1.209 8L.,4 77,3 .272 .. 20 ]_

Aug. 6-Aug. 12 7 L785 2oe601 L. 791 2.127 92.2 90.2 .255 • 30 3 Aug. 13-Sept. 7 26 Ll95 1.665 l . 270 l . 616 100 100 .048 • 062

Total 101 16.531 16.522

*Available water (tension< bars) remaining in the 4¹ profile at the end of the period.

tv 00

Days after

Seeding Calcareous Orthic Eluviated Gleysolic

14 ,.061 ~057 ~066 .,071 ,.062 ,076 .046 ,040

7 .. 221 ,200 .190 .. 160 ,230 *230 .211 .235

15 .204 .206 .,196 .202 ,.145 .106 .136 .106

6 .. 260 ,302 .. 250 .226

7 .,594 .,597 .,416 .430 .AOS .407 • 484 .478

7 .241 .242 .. 232 .. 244 "'194 ;201 .205 .215

6 .070 .053 .. 161 .155 .. 118 .111 .. 176 .191

6 ,.165 .,171 ,260 .263 .. 243 .205

7 .062 .,051 ,107 ,087 .092 .,088 .,125 .131

26 .. 013 ,.013 ,.016 .010 ."036 .045 .034 .037

Cumulative water Consumpt:ion ^~ % of total used ^~ for the

0~24 :inch depth.

14 ^5,.7 5,.4 6 .. 2 6.8 6,3 7.1 4.4 3.9

7 16.0 14.6 15.1 14 .A 17.,.2 18 .. 0 14,4 15.,5

15 37 .. 8 36.4 34.8 34.9 31.,8 28.,9 28.,2 26 .. 6

6 46.4 46 .. 3 38.,3 36.1

7 74.1 72 .. 9 68.2 69 .. 8 64 .. 9 62,..2 61,.2·· 59.5

7 85,.3 84.1 79.1 8L4 74.,0 71,.8 71.,0 70.1

6 88.1 86,.2 78$8 76,3 78.1 78.1

6 94.7 93 .. 0 92.,1 94~0 89~3 87~1 88.0 86,7

7 97.,6 95 .A 97~1 98~1 93~7 91*3 93b9 93,2

26 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

30 ., rate of water use was affected by fertilization. The rate of water use by the unfertilized and fertilized crop was in fact remarkably

consistent for the various periods of measurement.

The rate of water use would appear to be primarily a function of p1ant demand rather than level of available water in the four- foot _pro:t'l.le, The rate of water use on the Calcareous profile reached a maximum of approximately half an inch per day during the July 9 to 15 period of measurement. The grain grown on the Humic Eluviated Gleysol was also using water at a maximum during this period, but the rate of use was less than that for the Calcareous site, At the end of this period of measurement, approximatel'

7 inches of available water remained in the G~~olic profile, whereas less than an inch of available water was left in the Calcareous pro- file,. There appeared to be l i t t l e relationship between soil mois- ture stress and rate of water use.

While the rate of water use based on the 0-24 inch profile differs considerably from that based on the 48-inch profile, the same general observations can be drawn. I t is obvious, however, that rate of

water use from the 0-24 inch profile was greater than from the four- foot profile,. This is to be expected• since all rainfall that fell during the va:x:;ious measu;rement periods was i'ncluded in the two·~foot

profile,.

Moist~re_ Storage_ During the Summ_ex~faLl.Qw Pe..r_iQd

Net moisture storage during the August 30$ 1962 to April 30, 1964 period for the ten n!easurement sites on t:he Hutcheon farm are given in Table 17. Total precipitation during the fallow period was 20.13 inches, of which an average of 22 percent was stored in

Periods of maximum efficiency of moisture storage occurred

·'

during the first winter of the fallow period, and the following late spring and early summer. During this latter period, 3 inches of the approximately 9 inches of precipitation was stored in the soil~ An additional half inch of water was stored during the second winter

period~ The fall of 1962₁ the early spring of 1963, and the fall of 1963 all represent periods where net decreases in the moisture profile occu;rred ..

The amount of moisture stored in the eluviated and hard prismatic orthic profiles was considerably in excess of that recorded for any of the orthic sampling sites~ It is evident from' the data given in Table 17 that the amount of water moving down into the orthic-hard

prismatic~profiles was approximately the same as that moving into the eluviated sites$ Since degree of profile development is undoubtedly a function of water movement into the profile, i t would appear, on the bases of these datat that the hard prismatic orthics are very closely related to the eluviated profiles, while the (typical) orthic profile is located in a much more arid position.

COMPARISON OF VARIOUS NEUTRONS ACCESS TUBES

When the neutron moisture meter was purchased four years ago, the manufacturer recommended that seamless steel access tubes be used

io

case the hol$s for the well-type probe. Considerable difficulty was encountered with these casings due primarily to their very rapid rate of oxidation and hydration in the soil. The hydrous iron oxides forming on the inside of the tubes could be removed with a steel brusht but i t was impossible to remove the oxides forming on the outside of the tubes. Deviations in

P.V.

values up to 5% could be attributed to these hydrous iron oxides on the external portions of the tube., At one plot location where the tubes had been installed

TABLE 17, Moisture Storage during the Aug, 30t 1962 to April 30t 1964

fallow period - Elstow CLt Hutcheon Farm, Rosetown CSE8-3l-14-W3) Aug .. 30- Oct~ 28- Apr$ 30-

Oct,. 28/62 Apr,. 30/63 June 11 Orthic-hard

prismatic(l) -.,144 3.,024 ,.432 Eluviated (2) ^~.,336 2,.784 - .. 720 Orthic-hard

prismatic(3) - .. 240 1.,680 ,.048 Orthic (4) ^~,480 1.728 ^~.,192

Orthic (5) -,.528 ,.480 .048

Orthic ( 6) ^~ .. 5;28 L824 ,.096

Orthic (7) -,.48;0 .480 .048

Eluviated (8) oo384 7.,200 -,.144 Eluviated (9) ^~.680 3.736 .. 048 Orthic (10) 1.,152 L632 - .. 432 Average ^~.188 2,.457 =·. 09 6

Rainfall 2,.62 3,.49 0.,82

TABLE lB Speci.fications of Type of Casing O.D. I D Wall

( inche.s) ( . _ .. h., )Thickness

~nc es. (Inches) Seamless Steel 1,.625 1.555 .. 035

Copper 1,.625 1.525 ~050

A1uminum(Irrigation) 1.900 L610 .,145

Plastic 1.875 1 .. 555 .160

Glass 1.750 1,. 500 .. 125

Aluminum (thin) 1.625 1.,555 .035

June 11.- Jqly 16- Nov,. 15- ·%

July 16 Nov~ 15 Apr~ 30/64 To.tal Storage

4.,608 -L.536 .A32 6,.816 33,. 8 4,.944 -~528 .. 315 6.459 32,.0 3.840 -,.682 ,.528 5*174 25. 7 2 .. 544 -],.,.344 ,432 2,.688 13,.3 2 .. 784 -2"'016 ^1~392 2~160 10. 7

2,.~12 -.,720 ,.672 3,.456 17. l 3.40-8-- -1.,536 .432 2.,352 11 .. 7

1,296 -2,592. .528 6.636 32.9

2 .. 784 ~1.344 .,576 5.,130 25.4

2,.592 -1 .. 488 .336 3.,792 18. 8 3 .. 09-1 -L378 ,.564 4,.450 22,.1

8.84 3.54 0.82 20.13

Neutron Access Tubing

Re·marks

Cold drawn, seamless steel tubing.

Cost per foot= $1.15 (Crane Canada Ltd., Saskatoon) Wolverine tubing (L) ~ DWV ~ plumbing.

Cost per £oot

=

⁰ 611 (Ashdown, J.H. Hardware Co.

Ltd~, Saskatoon)

Irrigation tubing. Cost per foot

=

1.00 (Sprinkler Irrigation and Equipment Ltd .. ^j>· Saskatoon)

Carlon polyethylene series A59LB type II-plumbing tube. Cost per foot

=

10.5i (Ashdown. J.H. Hard- ware Co. Ltd., Saskatoon) ·

Pyrex double tough drainline plumbing tubing.

Cost per foot = 2.00 (Fisher Scientific• Toronto) Seamless Aluminum, cold drawn type 606/7 Condition TB, 20 gauge. Cost per foot

=

0.38¢ CDucommon

Metals and Supply Co., 2550-7th St.,Berkley 10, California)

had deteriorated to a point where the hydraulic jack used to pull themt only removed the upper 18 inches or two feet of the tube.

The specifications of the seamless steel~ coppert aluminum (irrigation), plastic, glass and aluminum (thin) used in this study are outl~ned in Table 18, In an f:ni t :l. al inve s t i ga tion designated as Trial A in Table 19, only the seamless steel, copper, aluminum

(irrigation) and plastic tubes were used The second less extensive investigation included, in addition• a glass plumbing tube. In the final investigation CTrjal C) a total of 160 measurements under

rather widely differing soil and moisture conditions were taken using the seamless steel and the aluminum (thin) casings.

TABLE 1!) Comparisons of Various Neutron Access Tubes (data in counts per minute~

Mean of 80 Measurements

Mean of 32 Average Couni;

Trial A

Seamless Steel Copper

Aluminum

Trial B Measurements in Air

(irrigation) Plastic

No casing

7331

7132(~2.5)1

7546(3,.2) 8774(19.9)

~076(10,.5)

Seamless Steel Copper

4680

4715( 71) Aluminum 4990(6.5)

(irrigation)

Plastic 5949(27.1) Glass 1107(-·76.5) No Casing 5256(12 .. 3) Trial C Mean of 160 Mtasurements Seamless Steel 5409

Aluminum ~ (thin) No casing

5801(7.3) 5859(8..,3)

82 91 82 114 52

1 data given in brackets indicate percentage increase or decrease in c.p.m. as compared to the seamless steel access tube,.

:t2 + _2,.5 -+ _10~9

~

+

14,.6 + _3.,1

34.

The mean of the various measurements taken using the different neutron access tubes for the three investigations are given in

The seamless steel tube was used as a reference, and the percentage change in counts for the other access tubes are

indicated in brackets. The variations in counts per minute over the range of moisture contents encountered in the study are illustrated in the Figures 1 to 6 inclusive, for the copper, aluminum (irrigation) plastic, glass, aluminum (thin) and where no casing was used res-

pectively.

The copper access tube resulted in a count level almost identi- cal with that of the seamless steel tube~ The copper tube should prove- a suitable substitute for the seamless steel; i t was rejected primarily because, on a practical basist i t is much more expensive.

The irrigation aluminum tubing should also prove quite satis- factory as a neutron access tube. Howevert the points were scat- tered somewhat more, presumably due to the variable thickness of the tubing. In an effort to measure the significance of the unifor- mity of the tubing, counts were taken with the tubes suspended in air. These data given in Table 19 indicate a much wider variation in counts running down the length of the eight-foot access aluminum tube than for either the copper~ seamless steel or glass tubing The aluminum tubing, however• should prove quite resistent to deterioration in the soil, and consequently in Trial C~ a compari- son between a thin aluminum tube and the seamless steel was carried out.

I t is significant to note that the thin aluminum access tube resulted in a mean count almost identical to that obtained where no