chloride research: what have we learned?
DESCRIPTION
Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?. C. A. Grant 1 , R. E. Lamond 2 , R. M. Mohr 1 and R. E. Engel 3 1 AAFC - Brandon Research Centre 2 Kansas State University 3 Montana State University. History of Chloride. Discovered in Sweden in 1774 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?
C. A. Grant1, R. E. Lamond2 , R. M. Mohr1 and R. E. Engel3
1AAFC - Brandon Research Centre 2Kansas State University
3Montana State University
![Page 2: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
History of Chloride
• Discovered in Sweden in 1774 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele
• Present in many salts, including KCl, CaCl2 and NaCl
• Recognized as fertilizer as far back as mid 1800’s
• NaCl applied to “stiffen straw”
• Cl- viewed as active ingredient
![Page 3: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
History of Chloride • Chloride recognised as an essential
nutrient in 1954
• Required in very small amounts for crop growth (~100 mg kg-1)
• Deficiency induced in nutrient solutions
• Cl- widespread in soil and water
• Responses considered unlikely in field
![Page 4: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What Does Cl-
Deficiency Look Like?
• Premature wilting
• Chlorosis of newly emerging leaves
• Reduced shoot and root growth
• Roots may show “herring bone” pattern
• Leaf cupping may occur
![Page 5: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Field responses occurred where Cl- was above biochemical needs
• Late 1950’s to early 1960’s
• Sugar beets in Manitoba (Soper)
• Corn in US (Younts and Musgrave)
• Increased yield and reduced stalk rot
![Page 6: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Effect of K Source and Placement on Grain Yield of Field-Grown Corn
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Yie
ld (
bu
ac
re-1
)
Control KCl K2SO4
None
In-Row
Broadcast
20 lb K2O acre-1
Younts and Musgrave 1958
![Page 7: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Effect of K Source and Rate on Stalk Rot in Field-Grown Corn
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
0 20 60 80 100
K Rate (lb K2O acre-1)
Sta
lk R
ot
(%) KCl
K2SO4
Younts and Musgrave 1958
![Page 8: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Field responses occurred where Cl- was above biochemical needs
• Early 1970’s
• Coconut and other plantation crops in Philippines (von Uexkull)
• Late 1970’s - early 1980’s
• Winter wheat in Europe (Russell) and USA (Powelson and Jackson; Taylor and Christenson)
![Page 9: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Winter Wheat Grain Yield as Function of N Source
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Gra
in Y
ield
(T
ha
-1)
Site A Site B
(NH4)2SO4
NH4Cl
Ca(NO3)2
Christensen et al. (1981)
![Page 10: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Reponses Not Due to “Biochemical” Deficiency
• Water relations?• Effects on plant development?• Nitrification inhibitor?• Transport of other nutrients in plant?• Reducing late season lodging?• Kernel weight?• Disease effects?
Response occurs at Cl- much higher than measured essential level
![Page 11: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Take-all root rot of winter wheat was reduced by KCl in Oregon
![Page 12: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Oregon results triggered interest in Cl- in Great Plains
• Responses to KCl had been noted on high K soils in Montana• Skogley and Haby (1981)• Winter wheat, spring wheat, barley,
potatoes, alfalfa and more• Suggested a problem with K soil test
prediction• Cl- response could be part of the
reason
![Page 13: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Great Plains Research
• Will crops on the Great Plains respond to Cl-?
• Which crops will respond?
• What is the mechanism for Cl- response?
• Can we predict where responses will occur?
![Page 14: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Cl- has improved crop yields in the Great Plains
• Over 210 trials in KS, MN, MT, ND, SD, MB and SK have evaluated Cl- response in wheat and barley
• Significant yield response in 48% of trials
• Average response of ~5 bu/A
• Cl- responses also occurred in other crops
![Page 15: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Wheat and barley responded to KCl while oats did not
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Gra
in Y
ield
(M
g h
a-1
)
Wheat Barley Oats
0 KCl
187 KCl
Fixen et al. (1986)
8 site-years in South Dakota
![Page 16: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Chloride fertilization increased grain corn yield in Kansas
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
Gra
in Y
ield
(b
u a
cre-1
)
Control KCl NaCl CaCl2
20 Cl
40 Cl
Lamond et al. 2000
Brown County - 2000
![Page 17: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Chloride fertilization increased grain sorghum in Kansas
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Gra
in Y
ield
(b
u a
cre-1)
Control KCl NaCl CaCl2
20 Cl
40 Cl
Lamond et al. 2000
Brown County- 2000
![Page 18: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Responses to Cl- are cultivar dependant
• Cultivar differences occur in barley and wheat
• Both spring and winter wheat
• Some of the differences may be due to disease susceptibility
![Page 19: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Summary of grain yield responses to addition of 50 kg Cl- ha-1 (Manitoba, 1989-91)
Average Yield Response
(Kg ha-1)
Cultivar Sites with yield increase
Responsive sites
All sites
Katepwa 0 of 8 -- -10
Katepwa 0 of 4 -- -16
Roblin 1 of 4 493 137
Biggar 2 of 4 333 150
Marshall 2 of 4 363 116
Mohr
![Page 20: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Chloride Variety Trials
• North American Cl- study
• Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota and Manitoba
• 15 winter wheat or spring wheat varieties at each location
• Treatments: 0 Cl- and 40 lb/A Cl-
![Page 21: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Response of Winter Wheat Cultivars to Cl- fertilization
Lamond et al. 2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Yie
ld R
esp
on
se
(bu
acre
-1)
Responsive
Non-responsive
![Page 22: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Response of Spring or Durum Wheat Cultivars to Cl- Fertilization
Grant et al. 2000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yie
ld R
esp
on
se
(b
u a
cre
-1)
Responsive
Non-responsive
![Page 23: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Yield Increase May Be Due To Disease Suppression
• Wheat: take-all root rot, common root rot, fusarium root rot, stripe rust, leaf rust, septoria, tanspot
• Barley: common root rot, fusarium root rot, spot blotch
• Corn: stalk rot
![Page 24: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
KCl application reduced common root rot in barley
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Ro
ot
Ro
t R
ati
ng
(%
)
Control KCl KNO3 CaCl2
Grant and Bailey 1994
![Page 25: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
KCl application reduced common root rot in wheat
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Ro
ot
Ro
t R
ati
ng
Carman Portage
0 Cl
50 Cl
1= clean and 4 = severe
Mohr et al 1992
![Page 26: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Cl- reduced leaf rust in winter wheat in Texas
Miller reported at PPI-FAR.org
![Page 27: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Application Of Cl- Decreased Leaf Diseases In Marshall Spring Wheat
Septoria and tanspot leaf spot complex
PPI-FAR.org
![Page 28: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
KCl or Tilt decreased leaf disease and increased grain yield
Fixen et al. 1986 PPI-FAR.org
Flandreau, SD, 1984.Butte spring wheat
![Page 29: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Why Would Cl- Decrease Disease Problems?
• Increased water potential restricts infection by pathogens?
• Plants are better able to withstand disease?
• Lowers tissue NO3- which inhibits
crop susceptibility?• Increases soil NH4
+ which inhibits pathogens?• Nitrification inhibition
![Page 30: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Oregon Studies Associated Cl- Effect With Plant Water Potential
• Cl- treated plants were more erect at mid-day
• Cl- might affect water potential
• Increased water potential may reduce susceptibility to disease
![Page 31: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Osmotic potential of winter wheat leaves as related to Cl- concentration
-22
-21
-20
-19
-18
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chloride Concentration (%)
Os
mo
tic
Po
ten
tia
l (b
ars
)
Christensen et al. 1981
![Page 32: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Cl- increased leaf relative water content and grain yield in Butte spring wheat
Fixen et al. 1986
Flandreau, SD, 1984
![Page 33: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Effect of K source on tissue nitrate
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Tis
sue
NO
3-N
at
Bo
ot
(g/k
g)
Carringto
n
Fortuna
Minot
Powers L
ake
Willi
ston
Control
K2SO4
KCl
Timm et al. 1986
![Page 34: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Chloride reduced the effect of take-all on grain yield
Christensen et al. 1990
1986-88
Gra
in Y
ield
(b
u/a
cre
)
![Page 35: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Cl- Sometimes Increased Yield Without Affecting Disease
• Enhanced crop development
• Higher kernel weight
• Longer grain fill
• Greater rate of kernel growth
• Better water relations
• Reduced lodging
![Page 36: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
KK22SOSO44 KClKCl
Plant development
![Page 37: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Cl- addition increased winter wheat kernel weight
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
00
Ke
rne
l W
eig
ht
(g)
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Site
- Cl
+ Cl
Engel et al. 1994
![Page 38: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Physiological Leaf Spot Physiological Leaf Spot
![Page 39: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
“Physiological Leaf Spot”
• Occurs in winter and durum wheat
• Recently reported in barley
• Looks similar to tanspot disease
• Related to crop genetics
• Redwin, Sierra, CDC Kestrel are susceptible
![Page 40: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8
Plant Cl, g kg-1
Leaf
sp
ot
severi
ty,
%
Y = 1.01 + 39.8 expY = 1.01 + 39.8 exp
(-3.89 X)(-3.89 X)
22RR = 0.82= 0.82
Leaf spots severity is strongly related to plant Cl!
Redwin winter wheat
• 10 field locations MT
• 1.0 g kg-1 plant Cl
• Severity increases exponentially at plant Cl < 1.0 g kg-1 no lesions
![Page 41: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Leaf Spot Severity and Plant Cl-
• 6 field locations in MT
• Relationship expressed is similar to Redwin
• Break point = 1.5 g kg-1 plant Cl
Kestrel winter wheat
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 2 4 6 8
Plant Cl, g kg-1
Leaf
sp
ot
severi
ty,
%
Y = 1.67 + 64.6 exp Y = 1.67 + 64.6 exp (-2.45 X)(-2.45 X)
RR22 = 0.98= 0.98
![Page 42: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
This phenomenon is not a disease !
Chloride Deficient Leaf Spot
• Applications of fungicides have no effect on symptoms
• There is no infectious organism on affected tissue
• Symptoms can be reproduced in solution culture
WB881 durum wheat
- 0 Cl dose -
![Page 43: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
CDC Kestrel winter CDC Kestrel winter wheatwheat
KK22SOSO44 KClKCl
![Page 44: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
“Chloride deficient leaf spot syndrome”
![Page 45: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Soil testing can help predict Cl response
Based on responsive spring wheat varieties grown Based on responsive spring wheat varieties grown at 36 locations in South Dakota. at 36 locations in South Dakota.
Response
Category Soil Cl Frequency Average
lb/A-2 ft % bu/A
Low < 30 69 4.0
Medium 31- 60 31 2.6
High > 60 0 0.3
![Page 46: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
-400-400
00
400400
800800
12001200
00 22 44 66 88 1010
Plant Cl, g kgPlant Cl, g kg-1 -1
Yie
ld d
efici
t fr
om
max.,
kg h
aYie
ld d
efici
t fr
om
max.,
kg h
a-1
-1 maximum response linemaximum response line
NS
Significant
Yield response in wheat (size and probability) increase as plant Cl falls below 4 g kg-1
![Page 47: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Relationship between available Cl-
and tissue Cl- in Katepwa wheat
R2 = 0.68
R2 = 0.73
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
Soil (to 60 cm) + Fertilizer Cl (kg ha-1)
Pla
nt
Cl
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
g k
g-1
)
KCl
NaCl
Mohr
![Page 48: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Soil test recommendations vary with region
• Montana, North Dakota and Manitoba
• Soil Cl to 24” + fertilizer should equal 30 lb Cl- acre-1
• Saskatchewan
• Apply if soil Cl- to 12” is below 16 lb acre-1
![Page 49: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Soil test Cl- content in samples taken by Agvise Lab
![Page 50: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Low Soil Cl- Does Not Guarantee a Reponse
• Cultivar effects
• Disease pressure
• Moisture regime
• Other stress effects
Soil testing identifies sites where responses are more likely to occur
![Page 51: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
What Have We Learned?
• Cl- responses can occur under field situations
• Not strictly a biochemical requirement
• Responses are strongly related to cultivar
![Page 52: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
What Have We Learned?
• Disease suppression plays a role• Not the sole reason for
benefits• “Physiological leaf spot” is Cl-
deficiency in susceptible cultivars• Cl- application cures the
problem
![Page 53: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
What Have We Learned?
• Other benefits occur• Kernel weight • Water relations • Lodging resistance • Crop development
• Soil testing and tissue testing can help predict responses
![Page 54: Chloride Research: What Have We Learned?](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5681557f550346895dc3490d/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Questions?