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.
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 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.
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?
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.