Flaten, D.

Grant, C.A.

Grenkow, L.

Heard, J.

English

eCommons@USASK

Seed-placed P and S fertilizers: effect on canola plant stand and yield

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

Seed-Placed P and S Fertilizers: Effect on Canola Plant Stand and Yield Laryssa Grenkow, Don Flaten, University of ManitobaCynthia Grant, Agriculture Agri-Food CanadaJohn Heard, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural InitiativesEarly Season P Response in Canola Grown on Soil with Low Soil Test P*No P applied 25 lb P2O5 applied as MAP25 bu/acre 35 bu/acre*equiv. to ~ 7 ppm Olsen P (John Heard, MAFRI)S Deficiency Delays Maturity, Decreases Seed Yield and Oil ConcentrationChallenges for Farmers• 4R’s - Right Source, Rate, Placement, Timing• One pass, low disturbance, low SBU seeders– Limiting rate of seed-placed fertilizer• Yield limiting?• Depleting soil fertility?• New P and S fertilizers– Seed Safety?– As effective as conventional sources?What is an Acceptable Plant Stand for Canola?• Canola Council of Canada suggests:– Seed canola at a rate of 5-8 lbs/ac– Target plant stand of 40-200 plants/m²Environmental ConditionsSeeding Rate 150 seeds/m²(~7lbs/ac)“Optimal”Emergence = 60-80%90 – 120 plants/m²“Normal”Emergence = 40-60%60 – 90 plants/m²• Seed-row fertilizer can significantly reduce plant standsSeedrow Toxicity from Ammonium SulphatePhoto:  John Waterer … west of Elm Creek, MBFertilizer Toxicity• Salt Toxicity (Osmotic stress)– Affected by fertilizer source, soil moisture content• Ammonia Toxicity– Affected by fertilizer source, soil pH, CEC, texture, temperature and water and lime content– Ammonium sulphate can react with lime in soil to form ammoniaFertilizer Salt IndexMAP (11-52-0) 26.7APP (10-34-0) 20.0AS (20-0-0-24) 88.3ATS (15-0-0-30) 90.4Study Objectives• In the field:– The effect of various sources and rates of seed-placed P and S fertilizers on plant stand and yield of canola• In controlled environment:– The effect of soils from different landscape positions on the toxicity of AS and MAPfertilizers placed in the seed-row with canolaField Study Treatments• Phosphorus Fertilizers– MAP (11-52-0)– Coated MAP (11-51-0)– APP (10-34-0)• Rate Applied– 0 lbs P₂O₅/ac– 18 lbs P₂O₅/ac (Low)– 35 lbs P₂O₅/ac (High)• Sulphur Fertilizers– AS (20-0-0-24)– ATS (15-0-0-20)– Vitasul (0-0-0-90)• Rate Applied– 0 lbs S/ac– 8 lbs S/ac (Low)– 16 lbs S/ac (High)• Microessentials S15 (13-33-0-15)– 18 lbs P₂O₅/ac – 8 lbs S/ac (Low)– 35 lbs P₂O₅/ac – 16 lbs S/ac (High)Liquid FertilizerSeed,Granular FertilizerData CollectionPlant Stand Assessment Harvesting Seed0102030405060708090Control Low ASonlyHigh ASonlyLow P only High P only Low P/Low SLow P/High SHigh P/Low SHigh P/High SPlants/m²Fertilizer RateControlASMAP/ASCoated MAP/ASMES15MAP/VitasulAverage Effect of Granular Fertilizers on Plant Stand (17 Site Years)1/17 2/171/17 1/172/176/174/177/170/17 0/17 1/17 4/17 1/17 5/171/17 2/171/17Decreased Plant Stand Most Consistently:Low MAP – High AS (mean -17 plants/m²) High MAP – High AS (mean -20 plants/m²)01020304050607080Control Low ASonlyHigh ASonlyLow P only High P only Low P/Low SLow P/High SHigh P/Low SHigh P/High SPlants/m²Fertilizer RateControlASAS/MAPAS/Coated/MAPATS/APPMES15MAP/VitasulAverage Effect of Liquid  and Granular Fertilizers on Plant Stand (10 Site Years)1/10 0/100/100/10 1/101/102/101/100/10 0/10 1/10 2/10 1/10 1/100/10 1/100/102/102/101/10 0/10 1/10 2/10 2/10 2/10Decreased Plant Stand Most Consistently:High ATS (mean -11 plants/m²)Low APP – High ATS (mean -11 plants/m²) High APP – Low ATS (mean -12 plants/m²)High APP – High ATS (mean -10 plants/m²)What About Fields with Variable Soil Properties?Exposed Sub-Soil1 inch8 inches1 inchGrowth Chamber Experiment with Soils from Different Landscape PositionsEffect of MAP on Canola Seedling Emergence in Soil from Brandon0                      18 35 lb P2O5/acHollowKnollEffect of AS on Canola Seedling Emergence in Soil from Brandon0                       8 16  lb S/acKnollHollowLandscape Position – AS Rate Interaction in Soils From BrandonSoil PropertyHollow KnollpH 7.7 7.9CEC 26.3 meq 28.2 meqOM 6.0% 1.8%TextureSandy LoamLoamCarbonates 0.5% 21%186a164b157b162b122c71d0501001502002500 9 18Plants/m²AS Rate (kg S/ha)HollowKnoll(NH₄)₂SO₄ + CaCO₃ ↔ (NH₄)₂CO₃ +CaSO₄(NH₄)₂CO₃ + H₂O ↔ 2NH₃↑ + H₂O + CO₂↑ ↔ 2NH₄OHNH₄⁺ + OH⁻ ↔ NH₄OH ↔ NH₃↑ + H₂O0204060801001200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28% Emergence of Maximum Plant StandDays After EmergenceHollow ControlHollow Low ASHollow High ASHollow Low MAPHollow Low MAP/Low ASHollow Low MAP/High ASHollow High MAPHollow High MAP/Low ASHollow High MAP/High ASKnoll ControlKnoll Low ASKnoll High ASKnoll Low MAPKnoll Low MAP/Low ASKnoll Low MAP/High ASKnoll High MAPKnoll High MAP/Low AS4-way Interaction: MAP Rate, AS rate, Landscape Position and Days After Emergence in Soil from Brandon05101520253035404550Control Low ASonlyHigh ASonlyLow P only High P only Low P/Low SLow P/High SHigh P/Low SHigh P/High SSeed Yield (bu/ac)Fertilizer RateControlASAS/MAPAS/Coated/MAPMES15MAP/VitasulAverage Effect of Granular Fertilizers on Seed Yield (16 Site Years)8/16 7/16 8/16 6/1610/16 10/1612/1610/164/16 8/16 10/16 10/16 11/16 9/169/16 10/1611/16Highest Yields and Most Consistent Increase: High MAP – Low AS (mean 13 bu/ac)High cMAP – Low AS (mean 12 bu/ac)+ 2 bu/ac No change - 2 bu/ac0510152025303540Control Low ASonlyHigh ASonlyLow P only High P only Low P/Low SLow P/High SHigh P/Low SHigh P/High SSeed Yield (bu/ac)Fertilizer RateControlASAS/MAPAS/Coated/MAPATS/APPMES15MAP/VitasulAverage Effect of Granular and Liquid Fertilizers on Seed Yield (9 Sites Years)3/9 2/93/9 2/93/9 4/95/9 5/92/9 3/9 5/9 3/9 4/9 4/93/9 4/95/91/91/90/9 3/9 4/9 2/9 3/9 4/9Highest Yields and Most Consistent Increase: High MAP – Low AS (mean 11 bu/ac)High MAP – High AS (mean 10 bu/ac)High MAP – High Vitasul (mean 9 bu/ac)Plant Stand and Seed Yield RelationshipAffected by Seed-Placed MAP and AS 0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0Control Low AS High AS Low MAP High MAP LowMAP/LowASLowMAP/HighASHighMAP/LowASHighMAP/HighASSeed Yield (kg/ha)Plants/m²Fertilizer RatePlant StandSeed YieldIn Summary – Rate and Source Effects on Canola Emergence• Canola emergence was reduced and delayed by conventional sources of  seed-placed P and S fertilizers due to salt and ammonia toxicity• AS has a high salt index and risk of ammonia toxicity, especially on calcareous soils; therefore, AS has a greater potential to reduced plant stands than P fertilizers• Polymer coating was effective in reducing salt toxicity of MAP• Liquid APP/ATS may be more toxic than conventional granular blends perhaps because the delivery increases the proximity of the liquid band with the seed• MES15 and Vitasul may be less toxic than equivalent rates of MAP/AS because the elemental S requires time to oxidize and therefore has a low salt indexIn Summary – Rate and Source Effects on Canola Yield• The relationship between plant stand and yield is plastic and reaching yield potential depends on balancing optimum plant stand with adequate plant available P and S• Increasing rates of conventional sources of P and S above the recommended rates can cause significant seedling damage which may reduce the capacity to reach yield potential• AS applied at high rates can decrease yield compared to low rates even at a S responsive site because of a severe reduction in plant stand• Seed-placed MES15 and Vitasul contain elemental forms of S, which may not be as effective as seed-placed AS in the year of application on S-responsive soilsIn Summary• Highly available sources of P and S increase the risk and severity of seedling toxicity, but they also increase the frequency and size of yield response• If limited by single shoot, low SBU seeding equipment, reserve the limited tolerance of canola for seed-row fertilizer for P.  Unlike P, S is mobile in the soil and could be placed away from the seed• umgrenkl@cc.umanitoba.ca

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/8927/1/L.%20Grenkow%20et%20al.%2c%202014.pdf

Seed-placed P and S fertilizers: effect on canola plant stand and yield

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive