Spectrum Agronomic Library

Knowledge is key to using your analytic results to their fullest. The Spectrum Agronomic Library provides you with useful information that will help you to better understand the complex science of agronomy. Our agronomists will be continually adding original and reprinted articles, so check the library regularly for new information.

Access the Library

Recently Updated Articles

Common Conditions That Promote Certain Weeds

Webster defines weed as a plant that is out of place. In a corn field grass and clover are weeds; in a hay field volunteer corn or a small grain are weeds, in turf crabgrass and foxtail maybe the weeds. In most cases some type of a plant protection chemical is used to get rid of the weed. Sometimes this is only a temporary cure to improve the situation, after the effects of the treatment where off and the problem returns.

Dr. Sid Bosworth, University of Vermont, did some work and found that there are other factors that contribute to certain species of weed growth. Dr. Bosworth work is summarized in the following table.

Weed Conditions
Algae Excessive surface moisture
Annual Bluegrass Excessive surface moisture, compaction, mower too low, high nitrogen
Barnyardgrass Poor drainage
Birdsfoot Trefoil Droughty conditions, low nitrogen
Black Medic Droughty conditions, low nitrogen
Broadleaf Plantain High pH, compaction
Buttercups Poor drainage
Chickweeds Mower too low
Cinquefoil Species Droughty conditions, excessive surface moisture, low pH, general low fertility
Clover Species Low nitrogen
Coltsfoot Poor drainage, low pH
Common Chickweed Too shady
Common Mullein Low pH, general low fertility
Corn Chamomile Poor drainage, high pH
Corn Speedwell Compaction
Crabgrass Droughty conditions
Creeping Bentgrass Poor drainage, excessive surface moisture, mowed too low
Creeping Speedwell Too shady
Creeping Thyme High pH
Curl Dock Droughty conditions
Docks Poor drainage, low pH
English Daisy Low pH
Foxtail Species General low fertility
Goosegrass Droughty conditions, compaction
Hawkweeds Low pH, general low fertility
Henbit General low fertility
Hop Clover High pH
Knawel Low pH
Lady's Thumb Poor drainage, low pH
Leafy Spurge Doughty conditions
Mallow General low fertility
Moss Excessive soil moisture, mowed too low, too shady
Mouse-ear Chickweed Too shady
Nutsedge Poor drainage
Pigweed Droughty conditions
Pineapple Weed Compaction
Plantains Poor drainage, mowed too low
Prostrate Knotweed Compaction
Prostrate Spurge Droughty conditions, compaction
Rabbit Foot Clover Droughty conditions, low pH, high pH
Sheep or Red Sorrel Low pH
Speedwell Droughty conditions, mowed too low
Vetch Species Low nitrogen
Wild Carrot High pH, general low fertility
Wild Parsnip General low fertility
Wild Radish General low fertility
Wild Strawberry Low pH
Yarrow Droughty conditions
Yellow Woodsorrel Droughty conditions

Source: Bosworth, Sid. 1998. Using Plants as Indicators for Diagnosing Soil and Turf Problems. Turf Notes, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 1-5. New England Extension Systems, Un. of Massachusetts Extension.

While there maybe other factors involved other than the ones listed, these are some general guidelines and conditions that can occur and be corrected relatively easily and inexpensively.

Chloride (Cl-)

Chloride is the most recent addition to the list of essential elements. Many people make the common mistake of confusing the plant nutrient chloride (Cl-), with the toxic form chlorine (Cl). Chlorine is not the form that plants use. Chlorine exists either as a gas, or dissolved in water, such as bleach, and is not found in fertilizer. Although Chloride is classified as a micronutrient, plants may take-up as much Chloride as secondary elements such as Sulfur.

→ Read more...

Area Calculations for Fertilizer and Lime

Two basic pieces of information are needed to properly follow the fertilizer recommendation on a soil test.

1. How large is the area to be fertilized?

2. With the fertilizer that is available, how much needs to be applied to supply the recommended nutrients to this amount of area?

→ Read more...

Calcium to Magnesium Ratio

Competition between Ca and Mg for uptake by crops has become a perennial topic of discussion in agriculture. Generally, the discussion centers on the claim by some that there is (or is not) an “ideal” soil Ca/Mg ratio that should be achieved through fertilization.

It is reported that the first publication of an ideal Ca/Mg ratio came from New Jersey in 1901. This early work recommended a “total” Ca to “total” Mg ratio in the soil of about 5/4. As we know today, and was recognized soon after this publication, an analysis of the total soil content of a nutrient bears little relationship to its crop availability. Later, again in New Jersey, it was reported that the “ideal” alfalfa soil should have cation saturation's of 65% Ca, 10% Mg, 5% K, and 20% H. In the years since this claim was made, there have been many instances where record breaking alfalfa yields, not to mention other crops, have been produced on soils without this supposedly ideal cation balance. Fertile soils commonly have a Ca/Mg ratio between 5/1 and 8/1. However, this does not mean that the specific Ca/Mg ratio is required, best, or even related to yield. Research results show that this ratio can be as narrow as 2/1 or as wide as 11/1 without negative effects, assuming that there is an adequate amount of each nutrient in the soil.

In the mid-1980's the University of Wisconsin conducted research into the effect of Ca/Mg ratio on alfalfa growth. They found that while the Ca/Mg ratio in the plant tended to reflect the soil Ca/Mg ratio, the plant content of these nutrients was affected much less and in no case did the soil or plant ratio affect yield. In this work the plant Ca and Mg contents were never below the respective critical levels for each nutrient, even though the soil Ca/Mg ratios ranged from 2.28/1 to 8.44/1. They concluded that, assuming there are adequate levels of Ca and Mg present in the soil, variations in the Ca/Mg ratio over the range 2 to 8 have no effect on yield.

In 1999 the University of Missouri, Delta Research Center published the results of an investigation into the effects of soil Ca/Mg ratio on cotton. They amended plots with gypsum or epsom salts to create soil Ca/Mg ratios between 3.8/1 and 11.7/1. They found that cotton yields were not significantly different between treatments.

McLean, et al in Ohio, could find no specific cation ratios that predicted sufficiency or shortages of K, Mg, or Ca in several crops (Table 1). Notice that for all crops the Ca/Mg ratios of both the high and low yielding groups have essentially the same ranges. There is no trend or bias in the relationships between the Ca/Mg ratio and the relative yields of any crop. This indicates that the soil Ca/Mg ratio had little or no effect on yield and the researchers concluded the same.

Table 1
Ranges of Soil Ca/Mg Ratio
Cation Ratio Yield Group Corn Soybeans Wheat Alfalfa
Ca/Mg High 5.7 - 20.6 5.7 - 14.9 5.7 - 14.0 6.8 - 26.8
Ca/Mg Low 5.4 - 18.8 2.3 - 16.1 6.8 - 21.5 5.7 - 21.5

The obvious conclusion is that crop yields are not significantly affected by the soil Ca/Mg ratio as long as both nutrients are present in adequate amounts.

 
library/start.txt · Last modified: 2010/03/31 11:41 by wayland