Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:28:47.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The control of manganese deficiency in soils: I. The effects of sulphur and thiosulphates on crops growing on manganese-deficient soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. H. Quastel
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Unit of Soil Metabolism, University College, Cardiff
E. J. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Long Ashton Research Station, Bristol
D. J. D. Nicholas
Affiliation:
Long Ashton Research Station, Bristol

Summary

1. Pot and field experiments were made to compare the effects of thiosulphates and sulphur on the incidence of manganese deficiency in oat, beet and pea grown in two manganese-deficient soils.

2. The addition of sodium or calcium thiosulphate to oat plants growing in a manganese-deficient fen soil in boxes markedly reduced symptoms of ‘grey speck’ and increased the soluble manganese content in the leaf tissues, but the effect was transient.

3. The growth of beet in this soil in clay pots was improved by the addition of thiosulphates, and also by painting the exterior of the pots with bitumen paint or by covering the surface of the soil with a thin layer of sand. The thiosulphate treatments increased the manganese uptake by the plants and reduced the symptoms of manganese deficiency, particularly when applied to pots painted with bitumen paint.

4. Field experiments with an old garden soil deficient in manganese showed that thiosulphate treatments increased the manganese uptake of beet. Placement treatments were more effective than broadcast treatments and greatly improved the growth of beet and reduced or eliminated manganese-deficiency symptoms, without producing any change in soil pH.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audits, L. J. & Qttastel, J. H. (1947). Nature, Lond., 160, 263.Google Scholar
Crocker, W. (1945). Soil Sci. 60, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. M. (1939). Ann. Appl. Biol. 26, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerretson, F. C. (1937). Ann. Bot. N.S. 1, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasscock, H. H. (1941). Ann. Appl. Biol. 28, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heintze, S. G. (1946). J. Agric. Sci. 36, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, E. J. (1945). Ann. Rep. Long Ashton Res. Stn, p. 44 (and unpublished data).Google Scholar
Lees, H. & Quastel, J. H. (1944). Chem. Ind. Rev. no. 26, 24 June, p. 237.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. H. (1939). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 7, 150.Google Scholar
Mann, P. J. G. & Quastel, J. H. (1946). Nature, Lond., 158, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. (1946). Nature, Lond., 157, 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, D. J. D. Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Quastel, J. H., Redmond, J. & Ellenger, G. Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Roach, W. A. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, G. D. (1943). Com. Fert. (Nov., Dec. 1943, Jan. 1944).Google Scholar
Sherman, G. D., MacHargue, J. S. & Hageman, R. H. (1943). Soil Sci. 56, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, G. D., Mchargue, J. S. & Hodgkiss, W. S. (1942). Soil. Sci. 54, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbjerg, F. (1934). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 40, 337. (English Summary, p. 366.)Google Scholar
Steenbjerg, F. (1944). Soils and Fertilizer Abstracts. 9, 14; Tidsskr. Planteavl. 48, 158.Google Scholar
Twyman, E. S. (1944). Nature, Lond., 154, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wain, R. L., Silk, B. J. & Wills, B. C. (1943). J. Agric. Sci. 33, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, T. (1943). The Diagnosis of Mineral Deficiencies in Plants by Visual Symptoms (with supplement). London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar