Effect of micronutrient fertilizer on winter wheat yield

Bruno Morandin Figueiredo

SOIL5112 – Research Methods in Plant and Soil SciencesDr. Bill Raun

Introduction

• Micronutrient are nutrients that are required for plant growth in much lower quantities than macronutrients, such as nitrogen

• Deficiencies are not as common as in macronutrients

• Micronutrient products are pushed to producers even when there is no evidence of deficiency

Introduction

• Fertilizer demand have been growing and is expected to keep this way

Introduction

• Micronutrient fertilizer demand is also projected to increase:

“Global Micronutrient Market to grow at 5.5% to 1,236.5 KMT by 2017”

Source: Global Micronutrient Market Report

Objectives

• Study the influence of micronutrient fertilization, in winter wheat yield

• Study the effect of tillage, and method of application in nutrient response

Methodology

• Design: Randomized complete block- 11 treatments- 3 repetitions

• Locations:- Perkins (no-till)- Lake Carl Blackwell (conventional till)

• Method of application:- Soil at planting- Foliar at feekes 5

Treatment Nutrient Rate (lb/ac)Check -Check -

Foliar Calcium 0.07Soil Boron 0.68

Foliar Boron 0.27Soil Chlorine 5

Foliar Chlorine 10Soil Copper 0.40

Foliar Copper 0.20Soil Zinc 0.50

Foliar Zinc 0.25

Table 1. Rates applied for each treatment in lb/ac

Methodology

Figure 2. Specification sheet for B, Ca, Cu, and Zn products

Figure 3. Lab grade CaCl2

Methodology

Figure 4. Great Plains no-till drill adapted with CO2 system for liquid fertilizer

Methodology

Figure 5. Backpack sprayer application at development stage feekes 5

Methodology

• Yield data will be recorded by the combine harvest master;

• Data will be analyzed using SAS software through the MIXED procedure;

• Contrasts will be utilized to compare soil and foliar applications;• Mean yields will be compared to the check using the DUNNETT’s test at the

5% level;

Results

TreatmentYield (bu/ac)

Mean Std. Dev

Check 31.6* 12.4

Check 26.6 4.8

Foliar Calcium 31.2 11.5

Soil Boron 30.8 7.1

Foliar Boron 29.3 1.8

Soil Chlorine 30.1 5.0

Foliar Chlorine 27.9 8.2

Soil Copper 34.9 10.7

Foliar Copper 22.8 7.3

Soil Zinc 31.7 12.8

Foliar Zinc 31.1 16.0

Table 2. Mean wheat yield in bushels per acreper treatment at the Lake Carl Blackwell site for the 2013-14 growing season.

* Treatments were not significantly different from the check according to Dunnett’s test at the 5% level.

TreatmentYield (bu/ac)

Mean Std. Dev

Check 30.5* 4.4

Check 32.1 5.9

Foliar Calcium 29.2 7.1

Soil Boron 26.4 3.2

Foliar Boron 28.6 5.1

Soil Chlorine 32.2 5.7

Foliar Chlorine 23.9 6.4

Soil Copper 27.2 7.2

Foliar Copper 31.6 5.0

Soil Zinc 25.3 1.7

Foliar Zinc 29.0 9.0

Table 3. Mean wheat yield in bushels per acre per treatment at the Perkins site for the 2013-14growing season.

* Treatments were not significantly different from the check according to Dunnett’s test at the 5% level.

Conclusion

• Before applying any fertilizer to the crop, soil sampling must be done to attest for nutrient deficiency

THANK YOUbrunom@okstate.edu