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

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Agricola Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Related Collections Soybean Best Management Practices Cotton Sunflower Nutrient Management Plant Nutrition Soil Fertility and Productivity

Soil and Crop Management

Sulfur Requirement of Eight Crops at Early Stages of Growth

^a Crop Prod. & Environ. Div., Japan Int. Res. Cent. for Agric. Sci. (JIRCAS), 1-1 Ohwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan
^b Soybean Res. Cent. of the Brazilian Agric. Res. Corp. (Embrapa-Soja), Caixa Postal 231, CEP 86001-970, Londrina, PR, Brazil

^* Corresponding author (koki5025{at}jircas.affrc.go.jp)

Received for publication December 25, 2003.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Sulfur deficiency symptoms are more often observed in crops at early stages of growth since S can be easily leached from the surface soil. The objectives of this study were to evaluate some of the popular rotation crops grown in Brazil for tolerance to low external S levels and to determine the critical tissue concentration for S deficiency during early stages of growth. Germinated seedlings of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], rice (Oryza sativa L.), maize (Zea mays L.), field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cotton (Gossypium spp.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) were transferred to water culture with 0.0 to 32.0 mg S L^–1 and were grown for 29 d. The minimum S concentration required in nutrient solutions was 2.0 mg L^–1 for sunflower; 1.0 mg L^–1 for cotton, sorghum, wheat, and soybean; and 0.5 mg L^–1 or less for field bean, rice, and maize. All crops achieved optimum growth at 2.0 mg S L^–1. Critical shoot S concentration at early stages of growth was 0.8 g kg^–1 in maize and soybean; 1.1 to 1.3 g kg^–1 in cotton, sorghum, and rice; and 1.4 to 1.6 g kg^–1 in wheat, sunflower, and field bean. Our results demonstrate that the tolerance to low external S (<2.0 mg L^–1) and the critical tissue S levels for deficiency varied significantly among crop species tested.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
SULFUR-DEFICIENT SOILS are widely distributed around the world, including the Brazilian savanna (Cerrado) (Tisdale et al., 1986). When virgin Cerrado land is cultivated, a large amount of phosphatic fertilizer, which usually contains sulfuric materials, must be applied. Gypsum has sometimes also been recommended for soil amelioration (Sumner, 1993; Ritchey and de Sousa, 1997). Although these applications are considered to be fundamental for increasing soil P availability in the area, it is not always recognized that S is simultaneously added to the soils. Maintenance of field S fertility is often overlooked, and S deficiency symptoms in crops are sometimes confused with P or N deficiencies or Al toxicity. Since concentrated fertilizers with a low S content are now widely used, S deficiency problems appear more often.

Sulfuric materials are easily leached by precipitation and often accumulate in subsoil layers. Friesen (1991) applied ³⁵S-labeled phosphogypsum to millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in a semiarid environment and determined the residual S distribution in soil layers at harvest. He found that 4% of sulfate S (SO₄–S) remained at 0 to 15 cm, 33% at 30 to 45 cm, and 31% at 45- to 60-cm depths. Ritchey and de Sousa (1997) measured the amount of SO₄–S in two Cerrado soils and recorded values of 5 to 10 mg SO₄–S kg^–1 at 0 to 15 cm and 40 to 45 mg kg^–1 at 45- to 60-cm depths. Sulfur deficiency symptoms more commonly occur at early stages of growth in fields but disappear at later stages once roots reach deeper layers of soil where there is substantial amount of accumulated S. McClung et al. (1959) examined six Brazilian red-yellow podzolic soils and showed that the organic S concentration in the A-horizon soils decreased to one-third over 20 yr of cropping. Presently, increased yields may accelerate this tendency. Nuttall and Ukrainetz (1991) showed that S application at seeding was the optimum for maximum yield of canola (Brassica napus) and that a delay in application would result in a reduction of approximately 65 kg ha^–1 in grain yield per week. Hago and Salama (1987) also found that S applied at sowing significantly increased shoot dry weight and pod yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), but S at flowering did not. Furthermore, S fertility of the surface soil horizon is important for vigorous crop growth at early stages to control weeds. Besides, rhizobia bacteria infect legume crops soon after germination (Heinrich et al., 2001), and nodulation decreases in low-S conditions (Hago and Salama, 1987) since S is one of the components of nitrogenase. Sulfur deficiency problems will decrease if S is supplemented at early growth stages.

Sulfur concentration in crop tissues decreases over time (Fontanive et al., 1996; Yoshida and Chaudhry, 1979). For rice, the critical leaf S concentration ranged from 1.4 to 2.3 g kg^–1 (Fox and Blair, 1986); for sugarcane, it ranged from 1.0 to 2.4 g kg^–1 (Fox, 1976). Accordingly, the S criterion of a crop at the early stage should be considered as well as that at the maximum growth stage.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate some of the popular rotation crops grown in Brazil for tolerance to low external S levels and to determine the critical concentration for S deficiency during the early stages of growth.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Eight crops were tested: soybean (‘Patí’, and so forth), rice (‘IAPAR-63’), field bean (‘Carioca’), maize (‘IAPAR-52’), wheat (‘BR-18’), cotton (‘IAPAR-71-PR3’), sorghum (‘Pioneer-8419’), and sunflower (‘M-742’). The seeds were rolled in moistened filter papers with distilled water and were allowed to grow in dark incubators at 20°C (wheat and sorghum) or 25°C (the other crops) for 4 to 6 d so as to reach a height of 3 to 5 cm. One seedling of each crop was transferred at the same time to a water culture container with 48 L of nutrient solution in a greenhouse of the Soybean Research Center of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa-Soja), Londrina, Paraná, Brazil. Air temperature in the greenhouse was maintained between 23 and 28°C without regulation of air humidity. Sulfur treatments were as follows: 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 16.0, and 32.0 mg L^–1 (S-0, S-0.5,..., S-32) as KHSO₄. The experiment was done by split-plot design with six replications. The concentrations of the other elements were 68 mg N L^–1 [26 mg L^–1 as NH₄NO₃, 28 mg L^–1 as Ca(NO₃)₂·4H₂O, and 14 mg L^–1 as Mg(NO₃)₂·6H₂O], 10 mg P L^–1 as K₂HPO₄, 160 mg Ca L^–1 as Ca(NO₃)₂·4H₂O, 48 mg Mg L^–1 as Mg(NO₃)₂·6H₂O, 1 mg Mn L^–1 as MnCl₂·4H₂O, 0.2 mg Zn L^–1 as Zn(C₂H₃O₂)₂·2H₂O, 0.01 mg Cu L^–1 as CuCl₂·2H₂O, 2 mg Fe L^–1 as Fe-EDTA, 0.5 mg B L^–1 as H₃BO₃, and 0.005 mg Mo L^–1 as (NH₄)₆Mo₇O₂₄·4H₂O. The K concentration was leveled at 78 mg L^–1 with KCl depending on the amount of added KHSO₄ and K₂HPO₄. The solutions were aerated, and the pH was adjusted to 5.7 with NaOH or HCl every 2 d. The treatment solutions were renewed 2 and 3 wk after crop transfer, with crops grown hydroponically for 29 d, which was considered to correspond to the time required for growth establishment at early stages. Crop shoots and roots were cut and rinsed with distilled water, dried in an oven at 65°C, and weighed. Since some of the dry weights were small, tissues of two replications were bulked for chemical analysis. Crop tissue S concentration was determined using an inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometer (ICP) after wet ashing with HNO₃ and HClO₄. Three replications were used for statistical analysis related to S concentration in crop tissue.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Crop Growth
All crops were at juvenile stage at sampling. Growth of the tested crops stopped in the absence of S supply (S-0 treatment) 3 wk after transfer to water culture. All species showed S deficiency symptoms in the S-0 and S-0.5 treatments, namely yellowing of leaves appearing from the plant top in all crops except rice where leaves dried up from tips. In the S-1 treatment, only cotton showed a slight leaf yellowing. Total dry weight of all crops in the S-0 treatment was small (0.14 to 2.11 g plant^–1), but the weight differed among crops in treatments from S-0.5 to S-32 (Fig. 1). Shoot dry weight increased with external S concentration, and all crops reached the optimum growth range in the treatments from S-2 to S-16. The shoot dry weight of rice decreased in the S-32 treatments, but that of other crops had reached a plateau. Root growth did not correspond to shoot growth. Root dry weight was small in the S-0 treatment in all crops but did not differ in the other treatments except for field bean and maize, which showed a maximum root growth and large amount of elongation in the S-0.5 treatment. Root growth of cotton was retarded at the S-0.5 treatment, and that of rice was retarded at the S-32 treatment.

View larger version (46K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Dry weight of eight crops grown at different S concentrations in water culture. Sulfur treatments were as follows: 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 16.0, and 32.0 mg L–1 (S-0, S-0.5,..., S-32). Bars indicate standard errors of six replications.

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relative shoot (left) and root (right) dry weight of eight crops grown at the S concentration from 0.5 to 32 mg L–1 in water culture. The average weight of S-2, S-4, S-8, and S-16 treatments was used as a control (100%) in each crop. The LSD0.05 of relative dry weight between any pair was 25% in shoot and 32% in root.

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Sulfur concentration in eight crops grown at different S concentrations in water culture. The LSD0.05 among any pair of the treatments was 0.40% in shoot and 0.60% in root. Bars indicate standard errors of three replications.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

Crop Tolerance to Low External Sulfur Concentration
Since all crops achieved optimum growth at 2.0 mg S L^–1 in nutrient solution, we considered the S treatments below 2.0 mg L^–1 to correspond to low-S conditions. The relative shoot dry weight of sunflower was very low both in the S-0.5 and S-1 treatments (Fig. 2). The relative shoot dry weight of cotton, sorghum, wheat, and soybean was low in the S-0.5 treatment but increased in the S-1 treatment. Dry matter production of field bean, rice, and maize did not decrease in the S-0.5 and S-1 treatments. Thus, the minimum external S requirement for the acceptable growth was about 2.0 mg L^–1 for sunflower; 1.0 mg L^–1 for cotton, sorghum, wheat, and soybean; and 0.5 mg L^–1 or less for field bean, rice, and maize. As a result, the tolerance of crops at early stages of growth to low external S concentration was in the order of sunflower < cotton, sorghum, wheat, and soybean < field bean, rice, and maize. Crops that had greater root growth at the lower S level, such as field bean and maize in the S-0.5 treatment, would likely be more tolerant to low S in the field than is indicated by these results because of the ability to explore more of the soil profile (Fig. 2). Furthermore, crops which have a rapid root elongation rate might have the higher tolerance in fields because they would be quicker to explore lower parts of the S-accumulated soil profile. Medium- and high-tolerant crops grew with low tissue S concentration, but sunflower, which is susceptible to low external S, did not (Fig. 2 and 3). Roots of high- and medium-tolerant crops are likely to have higher levels of S in tissues and thus act as a buffer to changes of S availability in external conditions. In general, root S concentration was lower than the shoot S concentration in low external S condition, and the reverse was the case under high external S conditions (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, in the susceptible crop (sunflower), the root S concentration varied with shoot S concentration. Crop species that are indigenous to warm arid climates, where soils have high inherent potential to supply S due to solid-phase gypsum, were less tolerant to low external S conditions (sunflower, cotton, sorghum, and wheat) and required higher S concentrations for optimum growth (sunflower, cotton, and wheat) (Fig. 2). Cereals grew better compared with legumes at lower S levels.

Critical Sulfur Concentration in Crop Shoot for the Deficiency
Figure 4 represents the relationship between shoot S concentration and relative shoot dry weight obtained from the mean values of all replications. The relative shoot dry weight increased with increased shoot S concentration, and optimum growth was achieved for all crops within the range of shoot S concentrations evaluated. Critical growth to diagnose plant nutrition status has been suggested at levels of 95% (Fox, 1976), 90% (Ulrich and Hills, 1990), or 50% of maximum growth (Yoshida and Chaudhry, 1979). In the present study, the critical growth of the juvenile crops was assumed to be 75% of relative shoot dry weight. This level was chosen because such degree of early growth would depress subsequent growth and grain yield though not as high as that suggested by Fox (1976) because juvenile crops would have more time to recover from the stress. Critical S concentration for 75% relative shoot growth was significantly (P < 0.01) different among the tested crops (0.30 g S kg^–1 LSD_0.05) (Table 1 and Fig. 5). The critical S concentration of crops was grouped for comparison with the mean value by t test (5% level). The critical S concentration was low (0.76–0.80 g kg^–1) in maize and soybean; medium (1.07–1.26 g kg^–1) in cotton, sorghum, and rice; and high (1.43–1.56 g kg^–1) in wheat, sunflower, and field bean. Critical shoot S concentration was reported to be less than 1.1 g kg^–1 for rice during tillering (Dobermann and Fairhurst, 2000), less than 1.5 g kg^–1 for maize, soybean, bean, and sunflower, and less than 2.0 g kg^–1 for sorghum and cotton (Bardsley and Kilmer, 1963; Zhao et al., 1996; Olsen's Agric. Lab., 1997). Our results are in agreement with the published reports.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Schematic relationship between S concentration in crop shoot and relative shoot dry weight of eight crops obtained from mean values. The average weight of S-2, S-4, S-8, and S-16 treatments was used as a control (100%) in each crop. The LSD0.05 of S concentration between any pair was 0.40 g kg–1, and that of relative shoot dry weight was 25%. Bars indicate standard errors of three replications for shoot S concentration, and those of six replications for relative shoot dry weight. The open symbol in rice (the value in the S-32 treatment) was omitted from the data for the regression line since it was not statistically included in the plateau range.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Characteristics of S absorption in eight crops at early stages differing in tolerance to low external S concentration. Seedlings were transferred and grown for 29 d in water culture. The average weight of S-2, S-4, S-8, and S-16 treatments was used as a control (100%) in each crop. The absorbed S in shoots and root of the control plant was calculated. Bars indicate standard errors with three replications.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We express our gratitude to Dr. Noriharu Ae of National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Japan; Dr. G.V. Subbarao of Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan; and Prof. Junichi Yamaguchi of Hokkaido University, Japan for their suggestions, discussions, and comments. We also acknowledge the help from Mr. Luciano José da Silva of the Soybean Research Center of Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Brazil, for glasshouse support.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

• Bardsley, C.E., and V.J. Kilmer. 1963. Sulfur supply of soils and crop yields in the southeastern United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27:197–199.
• Dobermann, A., and T. Fairhurst. 2000. Rice: Nutrient disorders and nutrient management. Potash and Phosphate Inst., Norcross, GA, Potash and Phosphate Inst. of Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, and IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines.
• Fontanive, A.V., A.M. de la Horra, and M. Moretti. 1996. Foliar analysis of sulphur in different soybean cultivar stages and its relation to yield. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 27:179–186.
• Fox, R.L. 1976. Sulfur and nitrogen requirements of sugarcane. Agron. J. 68:891–896.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Fox, R.L., and G.J. Blair. 1986. Plant response to sulfur in tropical soils. p. 405–434. In M.A. Tabatabai (ed.) Sulfur in agriculture. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Friesen, D.K. 1991. Fate and efficiency of sulfur fertilizer applied to food crops in West Africa. p. 59–68. In A.U. Mokwaunye (ed.) Alleviating soil fertility constraints to increased crop production in West Africa. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
• Hago, T.M., and M.A. Salama. 1987. The effect of elemental sulfur on shoot dry-weight, nodulation and pod yield on groundnut under irrigation. Exp. Agric. 23:93–97.
• Heinrich, K., M.H. Ryder, and P.J. Murphy. 2001. Early production of rhizopine in nodules induced by Sinorhizobium meliloti strain L5–30. Can. J. Microbiol. 47:165–171.[Medline]
• Jones, M.B. 1986. Sulfur availability indexes. p. 549–566. In M.A. Tabatabai (ed.) Sulfur in agriculture. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
• McClung, A.C., L.M.M. de Freitas, and W.L. Lott. 1959. Analyses of several soils in relation to plant responses to sulfur. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23:221–224.
• Nuttall, W.F., and H. Ukrainetz. 1991. The effect of time of S application on yield and sulphur uptake of canola. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22:269–281.
• Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory. 1997. Plant tissue interpretative guidelines. Olsen's Agric. Lab., McCook, NE.
• Ritchey, K.D., and D.M.G. de Sousa. 1997. Use of gypsum in management of subsoil acidity in Oxisols. p. 165–178. In A.C. Moniz et al. (ed.) Plant–soil interactions at low pH: Sustainable agriculture and forestry production. Proc. Int. Symp. on Plant–Soil Interactions at low pH, 4th, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brazilian Soil Sci. Soc., Campinas, SP, Brazil.
• Sumner, M.E. 1993. Gypsum and acid soils: The world scene. Adv. Agron. 51:1–32.
• Tisdale, S.L., R.B. Reneau, Jr., and J.S. Platou. 1986. Atlas of sulfur deficiencies. p. 295–322. In K.D. McLachlan (ed.) Sulfur in Australian agriculture. Sydney Univ. Press, Sydney, Australia.
• Ulrich, A., and F.J. Hills. 1990. Plant analysis as an aid in fertilizing sugarbeet. p. 429–447. In R.L. Westerman (ed.) Soil testing and plant analysis. SSSA Book Ser. 3. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Yoshida, S., and M.R. Chaudhry. 1979. Sulfur nutrition of rice. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. (Tokyo) 25:121–134.
• Zhao, F.J., M.J. Hawkesford, A.G.S. Warrilow, S.P. McGrath, and D.T. Clarkson. 1996. Responses of two wheat varieties to sulphur addition and diagnosis of sulphur deficiency. Plant Soil 181:317–327.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. D. Zheljazkov, T. Astatkie, C. D. Caldwell, J. MacLeod, and M. Grimmett Compost, Manure, and Gypsum Application to Timothy/Red Clover Forage J. Environ. Qual., October 27, 2006; 35(6): 2410 - 2418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Agricola Articles by Hitsuda, K. Articles by Klepker, D. Related Collections Soybean Best Management Practices Cotton Sunflower Nutrient Management Plant Nutrition Soil Fertility and Productivity