1 / 12

Effects of Sulfur Application on Wheat Growth: University of Arkansas Trial 2013

This study assessed the impact of sulfur treatments on wheat growth at the University of Arkansas in 2013. In Field 1, no noticeable effects on plant height or color were observed between treated and untreated plots 1 week after treatment (WAT), whereas in Field 2, sulfur application notably affected plot appearance. Higher rates of sulfur sources led to visible leaf burn. By 7 WAT, while sulfur-deficient areas showed major symptoms, all treated plots displayed good health. Overall, both ammonium sulfate (AMS) and ammonium thiosulfate (ATS) were effective in supplying sulfur without adverse effects when applied appropriately.

aolani
Télécharger la présentation

Effects of Sulfur Application on Wheat Growth: University of Arkansas Trial 2013

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. Wheat Sulfur Trial 2013 University of Arkansas Wilson Industrial

  2. Field 1- 1 WAT (Week after Treatment)

  3. Field 2- 1 WAT

  4. 1 WAT Notes • Field 1 • No noticeable effects of application on plant height or color • No Difference in treated vs. untreated plots • Field 2 • There was a significant difference in plot appearance based on rate and source of S product • All plots receiving AMS were not affected • Plots receiving the 30 lb S/A and 45 lb S/A as ATS were visibly “burned” or yellowed by application

  5. Field 2- 1 WAT These plots received the 30 and 45 lb S/A rate as ATS and were visibly yellow due to application. Similar results were seen in all 4 reps at this site.

  6. Field 1- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence)

  7. Field 2- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence)

  8. Field 2- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence) All plots receiving S looked good. The plot that did not receive S was noticeable deficient.

  9. S Deficiency Symptoms at Field 2

  10. S Deficiency Symptoms at Field 2 S deficient plot in foreground, with S addition plots behind.

  11. 7 WAT Notes • Field 1 • No noticeable difference in plant height or color among treatments receiving S • Some minor S deficiency symptoms appearing in the plots that received no S applications • Field 2 • No noticeable difference in plant height or color among treatments receiving S • Major S deficiency symptoms appearing in the plots that received no S applications

  12. Overall Notes • Early in the season ATS products appeared to burn leaves when applied at rates of 30 and 45 lb S/A • There was no noticeable affect of AMS application at any rate • Wheat grew out of early season symptoms • Both products appear to be adequate at providing S to wheat • Plant samples will be taken 8 WAT to determine S tissue concentration and total S uptake near Early Heading

More Related