HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Foy, C. D. Articles by Lewis, C. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Foy, C. D. Articles by Lewis, C. F. Agricola Articles by Foy, C. D. Articles by Lewis, C. F.

Differential Tolerance of Cotton Varieties to an Acid Soil High in Exchangeable Aluminum¹

Fourteen varieties of cotton, adapted to various regions of the Cotton Belt of the United States, were screened for AI tolerance by growing them for 56 days in a greenhouse on AI-toxic Bladen clay loam (pH 4.4) treated with increasing levels of CaCO₃. The varieties differed significantly in top growth on the unlimed soil and in their response to CaCO₃ additions. In general, liming the acid soil to about pH 5.4 tended to equalize top yields of sensitive and tolerant varieties and permitted each to attain near maximum yield.

Contrary to predictions, the varieties showing greatest tolerance to the acid soil, ‘Pima S-2,’ ‘Acala 47–42,’ and ‘Acala 44–10,’ are western in origin and adaptation. Varieties showing the least tolerance were ‘Coker 100A,’ ‘Deltapine Smooth Leaf,’ and ‘Acala 1517D,’ which were developed in the Eastern, Delta, and Western regions, respectively. Differential tolerance between two extreme varieties, Coker 100A and Pima S-2, was also reflected by root yields.

These results suggest the possibility of breeding cotton varieties with even greater abilities to send their roots into acid subsoils of the Southeast, where shallow rooting of crops may be due, in part, to AI toxicity.

Key Words: acid soil • aluminum toxicity • subsoil • lime response • drought

² Research Soil Scientist, Agronomist, and Chemist, Soil and Water Conservation Research Division.

³ Research Geneticist, Crops Research Division. The authors are indebted to L. A. Dean, Director, U. S. Soils Laboratory; W. A. Raney, Chief Soil Physicist, Soil and Water Conservation Research Division; and H. R. Carns and M. N. Christiansen, Research Plant Physiologists, and Thomas Kerr, Fiber Technologist, Crops Research Division, for their interest and suggestions.

Received for publication April 12, 1967.