JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE IN FINLAND Maataloustieteellinen Aikakauskirja Vol. 58: 215—220, 1986 Control of manganese deficiency in sugar beet by placement of a manganated compound fertilizer MATTI ERJALA Sugar Beet Research Centre, SF-25170 KOTALATO, Finland Abstract. In Finland, manganese deficiency in sugar beet has traditionally been control- led by spraying the foliage with manganese sulphate. According to field experiments, place- ment of an acid compound fertilizer seems to provide a new possibility of controlling manga- nese deficiency of sugar beet in heavily limed fields. In 1-year experiments carried out in 1984—1985 in seven fields which showed slight symptoms of manganese deficiency, conver- sion from top dressing to the placement techniquealone increased the availability of soil man- ganese to sugar beet. The availability was, however, best safeguarded only when manganese (0.7 %) was added to acid compound fertilizer and applied by the placement technique. Place- ment of manganese (25 —30 kg/ha MnS04; Mn 26 %) together with acid compound fertili- zer increased the root yield by 2.0 tons (+ 7%) per hectare in average compared to placement ofmanganese-freecompound fertilizer. The new method of application did not have a signifi- cant effect on the quality of sugar beet. Index words; manganese fertilization, fertilizer reaction, band applied manganese Introduction Manganese, a nutrient that plants need min- imal quantities of, has been a well-known plant nutrient for over 60 years (McHargue 1922). According to some studies, a sugar beet yield of 35 tons/hectare only contains 2000 g of manganese in average, including the tops (Draycott 1972). In Finland, the sugar beet soils normally contain much more manganese than a crop needs, but unfortunately most of the manga- nese is not in a plant-available form (Mänty- lähti 1981, Sperlingsson 1982). Like other plants, sugar beet can only make use of man- ganese in the form Mn2+ either as such (Cheng and Ouellette 1971) or small quanti- ties of organic complex compounds of man- ganese (Garcia and Sanchez de La Puente 1977). The quantity of plant-available manganese is affected by several external factors; avail- able manganese can take an inavailable form or vice versa. This is a typical equilibrium re- action that can be illustrated by the following oxidation-reduction equation (Scheffer and SCHACHTSCHABEL 1976): Mn02 + 4H + + 2e- =: Mn2+ + 2 H2O (inavailable manganese available manga- nese) According to the above equation, the quan- tity of manganese available to plants can be 215 https://www.c-info.fi/info/?token=ZlqORLh68hS5tNeq.Zsf-4Eng2pIOWdZBP1aBVA.RKGaybp2Kb2WBzBXTehRcBAyyLvG3euRIKKZ-tziUek5vHvZ3WKfM2MZERneP7zAxA6hXBtG7ThW4ZxDj5k2klfxpfBXbUq0y929iaOZQBApCjvQAqo26FMqeXJqYPwpLwqeK8gs2Dj0O_CHDPEx-ZJNM4xhV8DTLls controlled by the acidity and the redox-poten- tial of the soil. In Finland, the cultivated soil is naturally acid. In sugar beet cultivation these soils re- quire heavy liming, because sugar beet grows well in neutral soil. Liming decreases the acid- ity of the soil, but makes manganese partly inavailable to plants. Heavy liming can cause manganese deficiency which is in fact a very common situation in Finland. Fertilizers that increase soil acidity counter- act liming. These fertilizers release manganese for the use of plants (Solovjev and Golubev 1978). The usefulness of this information is, however, only theoretical, because acidifica- tion of the whole growth bed by fertilizers would be very expensive. The soil pH can, however, be lowered locally. For instance, by mixing a granulated fertilizer in the tilled soil layer, acidification takes place in the soil con- tiguous to the fertilizer granules (Slotta 1981). But because of the high buffer capaci- ty of the soil this is only of minor significance to the plant. A better result is achieved by placing the fertilizer in rows beside the seed row. This depresses the pH around the fertil- izer row to the extent that a remarkable amount of manganese becomes available to plants (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson 1980, Walsh and McDonnel 1957). In heav- ily limed soils the availability of manganese to sugar beet can be further increased by ad- dition of manganese sulphate in the acid NPK fertilizer (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson 1980). In Finland, manganese deficiency in sugar beet is usually controlled by spraying the fo- liage with manganese sulphate (10 kg/ha dis- solved in 300 1 of water) when clear symptoms of manganese deficiency (varicoloured foliage) are observed in late June or early July. Spray- ing may be repeated after I—21 —2 weeks, if nec- essary. Leaf application is, however, in many re- spects insufficient for the control of manga- nese deficiency. When the plants are small it is difficult to combat manganese deficiency, most of the mixture being wasted because of the small area of the foliage (Hale, Watson and Hull 1946). Apart from that, spraying is mostly carried out after symptoms of deficien- cy have been observed. Thus the effect is bound to remain scanty (Draycott and Far- ley 1973). The sugar beet may have suffered from latent manganese deficiency for a longer period of time before appearance of symp- toms. The effect of spraying remains scanty also because there is no internal, between-leaf transfer of manganese (Henkens and Jong- man 1965). The new leaves developing after spraying may suffer at least from latent man- ganese deficiency. Addition of manganese fertilizer in the soil also involves some problems, because manga- nese rapidly becomes inavailable to plants when mixed into a well limed and tilled soil. Top dressing requires relatively high quanti- ties of manganese with regard to the benefit achieved (Draycott and Farley 1973). It seems that the fertilizer placement tech- nique together with acid compound fertilizers would offer a new possibility of economical control of manganese deficiency in sugar beet (Voth 1978, Voth and Christenson 1980, Walsh and McDonnel 1957). The fertilizer placement technique is increasingly being used in Finland and there is an acid (pH 5.5) fer- tilizer on the market specifically designed for sugar beet, a sodium containing compound fertilizer (NPKNaB; 13-6-8.5-6-0.2). Kemira Ltd. kindly enough produced a small quant- ity of this fertilizer with a manganese content of 0.7 % for the present study. Materials and methods The new idea was tested in seven heavily li- med old sugar beet fields in 1984—1985. The experiments were carried out in fields which have previously shown symptoms of manga- nese deficiency (Table 1). Each experiment consisted of six treatments in quadruplicate: 1. Top dressing (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer) 216 Table I. Soil characteristics. Experimental Year pH P K Na Mg Mn 1 Humus- Soil site H 2 O % type mg/1 Mietoinen 1984 7.6 67 165 63 69 12 4 CL' Turenki 1984 6.9 16 140 39 143 12 5 CL" Perniö 1984 7.2 65 136 57 133 13 5 LSCb Mietoinen 1985 7.1 38 226 52 43 8 3 CLa Salo 1985 7.3 55 369 40 341 49 8 LSC b Köyliö 1985 7.5 46 80 29 58 5 14 FL' Perniö 1985 7.4 43 107 37 65 27 3 CL* 1 pH-corrected Mn values (Ac-EDTA-extraction) a coarse loam b loamy, silty clay 1 tine loam 2. Fertilizer placement (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer) 3. Top dressing (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer + foliage fertilization with Mn a) 4. Fertilizer placement (900 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer + foliage fertilization with Mn a) 5. Top dressing (925 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer with Mn b) 6. Fertilizer placement (925 kg/ha Na-containing compound fertilizer with Mn b) a) Manganese sulphate 10 kg/ha (Mn 26 %) + water 300 1/ha b) Na-containing compound fertilizer con- taining manganese sulphate 27 kg/ton fertilizer (Mn 0.7 <%) The experimental plots consisted of 7 rows, 12 meters each, three midmost rows being harvested (20 row meters). The sugar beet was drilled directly to stand (distance between seeds 15 cm). The top dres- sing plots were fertilized manually before the last tilling. In the placement plots the fertiliz- er was applied to each row separately, near the seed row (about 3 cm deeper than the seed row and 6 cm aside of it) after the last tilling, using a sugar beet fertilizer-seeder. Spraying with manganese sulphate was carried out immediately after appearance of symptoms of deficiency in the foliage. In 1984, spraying was done in early July and in 1985 in mid-July because of the later seeding period. In each plot the symptoms of deficien- cy were evaluated visually and samples of ma- ture leaves were taken 10—14 days after spraying. An ash extract was made of dried and ground plant tops. The percentage of manganese in the extract was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Results Because of the relatively small number of field studies, no correlation could be pointed between the concentrations of manganese in the soil and plants. In the following, only me- ans of the seven experiments are evaluated. Effect on the quantity and quality of the crop The average root yield, percentage of sugar and concentration of impurities of beets are presented in Table 2. The results indicate that 217 Table 2. Effect of the treatments on the quantity and quality of sugar beet yield. Treatment Root yield Sugar -% Amino-N Potassium Sodium (cf. text) t/ha mg/100 g beet meq/ meq/ 100 g beet 100 g beet 1. 28.2 (100)»* 15.83" 23.4» 6.3» 1.1» 2. 28.8 (102)» b 15.94» 24.0» 6.1" 1.0» 3. 28.1 (100)» 15.91» 22.3» 6.1" 1.0» 4. 29.7 (105) bc 15.97» 24.5» 6.1" 1.0" 5. 28.2 (100)» 15.88» 23.4» 6.3» 1.0» 6. 30.8 (109)' 15.89» 24.2» 6.3» 1.1» * Numbers in the same columns not marked by a common letter differ from each other at a statistical probability of 95 %. the test factors have affected much more the quantity than the quality of the crop. Spraying of manganese sulphate did not have a statistically significant effect on the quantity of the crop. The difference between treatments 1 and 3 show the effect of foliage fertilizing when the main nutrients have been applied by top dressing. In such instances fo- liage fertilizing has resulted in a minor, stat- istically insignificant decrease in the beet yield (—O.l tons/ha). The differencebetween treat- ments 2 and 4 shows the effect of foliage fer- tilization when the main nutrients have been applied by the fertilizer placement technique. The foliage fertilizer is responsible for a small increase in root yield ( + 0.9 tons/ha), which cannot be shown statistical significance, how- ever. It is interesting to observe that compared to top dressing the fertilizer placement tech- nique significantly increases the yield only when foliage fertilizer has also been applied. The results indicate an interaction between the fertilizer placement technique and foliage fer- tilization. In the present study, manganese had a strong effect on the sugar beet root yield when manganese was added to NPK fertilizer ap- plied by the fertilizer placement technique. The manganese fertilization is responsible for the difference between treatments 2 and 6, the increase in the yield being statistically signif- icant ( + 2.otons/ha, + 7 %). Top dressing with Mn-containing compound fertilizer has not had any effect. Effect on symptoms of manganese deficiency and manganese concentration in plant tops The fertilizer placement technique most prominently decreased the symptoms of man- ganese deficiency (Table 3). Foliage fertiliza- tion only slightly decreased the symptoms. There was no considerable differencebetween placement of manganese-containing NPK fer- tilizer and the conventional NPK fertilizer in favour of the former. The manganese concentrations in the tops increased by 1.9-foldcompared to the control (treatment 1) when the fertilizer placement technique was applied. Placement of manga- nese-containing compound fertilizer most prominently affected the manganese concent- rations in the tops. Manganese concentrations increased by 2.5-fold (Table 3). Table 3. Effect of the treatmentson symptoms of man- ganese deficiency and manganese concentration of tops. Symptoms of Mn concentra- Mn deficiency l ' 2 tion of tops Treatment (cf. text) ppm 44a3.0* 1.0» 2.3' 0.7» 2.& 0.8 b 1. 82b2. 3. 4. 56a5. 111'6. Scale 1 —lO 2 Numbers in the same columns not marked by a com- mon letter, differ from each other at a statistical prob- ability of 95 %. 218 Discussion The results of the present study clearly in- dicate that even in Finland manganese defici- ency may decrease the sugar beet root yield. Manganese fertilization is necessary especial- ly when symptoms of manganese deficiency are present. Crops exhibiting slight manganese deficiency responded to manganese probably better than expected (Draycott and Farley 1973). The results do not exclude the possibil- ity of latent deficiency causing losses in the beet yield (Sperlingsson 1982). Therefore, in the future, tests should be conducted both on fields with no symptoms and on heavily limed fields with apparent symptoms. Some reports suggest that foliage fertiliza- tion should also have shown the effect of man- ganese fertilization under these circumstances (Draycott and Farley 1973, Draycott and Farley 1976). This was, however, not the case, probably because foliage fertilization was applied only once, and possibly too late (Farley and Draycott 1978). The results of the study further indicate that manganese would best be available to sugar beet when manganese-containing NPK fertil- izer is placed to each row separately (Voth and Christenson 1980). This would ensure sufficient availability of manganese to sugar beet throughout the growing period. The man- ganese inside the fertilizer row was somewhat protected against the oxidizing reactions of the soil. The mechanism of action of the new meth- od of fertilization is not fully clarified. It is assumed that acidification of the soil conta- geous to the fertilized row has an important role (VoTHand Christenson 1980). Placement of fertilizer also promotes the growth of the sugar beet tops; thus the plant secretes more easily soluble organic compounds into the rhi- zosphere (Farley and Draycott 1978, Män- tylahti 1981). The organic compounds are ox- idized in the rhizosphere and manganese is de- oxidized into a plant-available form. The in- crease in the available manganese by the fer- tilizerplacement technique can also be depen- dent on the fact that it promotes the growth of the roots, this resulting in the roots sucking up more efficiently even minor quantities of manganese available (Draycott 1972). References Cheng, B.T, & Ouellette, G.J. 1971. Manganese avail- ability in soil. Soils and Fertilizers 34: 589—595. Draycott, A.P. 1972. Sugar-Beet Nutrition. 250 p. Lon- don. Draycott, A.P. & Farley, R.F. 1973. Manganese; vital trace element. British Sugar Beet Review 41, 1: 21 27. Draycott, A.P. & Farley, R.F. 1973. Response by sugar beet to soil dressing and foliar sprays of man- ganese. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 24: 675—683. Draycott, A.P. & Farley, R.F. 1976. Diagnosis of man- ganese deficiency in sugar beet and response to man- ganese applications. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 27: 991 —998. Farley, R.F. & Draycott, A.P. 1978. Manganese de- ficiency in sugar beet and the incorporation of man- ganese in the coating of pelleted seed. Plant and Soil 49: 71—83. Garcia, C.G. & Sanchez de LA Puente, L. 1977. The absorption of manganese (III) in oat plants. Plant and Soil 47: 229—237. Gisioer, L. & Hasler, A. 1948. Neuere Beobachtungen iiber die Ursachen der Dörrfleckenkrankheit beim Hafer. Plant and Soil 1: 19—50. Hale, J.8., Watson, M.A. & Hull, R. 1946. Ann. Appi. Biol. 33: 13. McFlargue, J.S. 1922. The role ofmanganese in plants. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 44; 1592—1598. Henkens, C.FI. & Jongman, E. 1965. The movement of manganese in the plant and the practical consequen- ces. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13: 392—407. Mäntylahti, V. 1981. Determination of plant-available manganese in Finnish soils. J. Soc. Scient. Agric. Finl. 53: 391—508. Scheffer, F. & Schachtschabel, P. 1976. Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. 394 p. Stuttgart. Slotta, U.M. 1981. Riihen brauchen Bor und Mangan. Zuckernibe 30; 153—155. Solov’ev, G.A. & Golubev, M.V. 1978. Influence of high mineral-fertilizer application rate and various fer- tilizer ratios on manganese and iron lability in soddy- podzolic soil and the content of these elements in po- tatoes and fodder beets. Moscow Univ. Soil Sci. Bull. 219 33, 2; 48—53. Sperlingsson, C. 1982. Glöm inte mangansprutningen. Betodlaren 45: 118—120. Voth, R.D. 1978. Effect of boron, manganese and fer- tilizers on yield, quality and nutrition of sugar beets (Bela vulgaris L.). Dissertation Abstracts Internatio- nal 39, 3: 1076. Voth, R.D. & Christenson, D.R. 1980. Effect of fertil- izer reaction and placement on availability of man- ganese. Agr. J. 72: 769—773. Walsh, T. & McDonnel, P.M. 1957. The control of manganese deficiency in wheat and oats by the com- bined drilling of a manganatedgranulated compound fertilizer. J. Dept. Agric., Dublin 53: 44. Ms received December 12, 1986 SELOSTUS Sokerijuurikkaan mangaaninpuutostilan torjunta sijoituslannoitustekniikalla ja mangaanipitoisella Y-lannoittcella Matti Erjala Sokerijuurikkaan Tutkimuskeskus, 25170 Kota lato Suomessa mangaanin puutetta sokerijuurikaskasvus- toista on totuttu torjumaan lehtilannoitteena annettavil- la mangaanosulfaatliruiskutuksilla. Suosituksen mukaan, jos selviä puutosoireita (lehtien kirjavoitumista) ilmestyy lehtiin kesä-heinäkuun vaihteen aikoihin, niin kasvusto on syytä ruiskuttaa mangaanosulfaatilla. Sitä käytetään 10 kg/ha (Mn 26 %) sekoitettuna 300 litraan vettä. Ruis- kutus uusitaan tarvittaessa I—21 —2 viikon kuluttua. Aikai- sempien koetulosten sekä käytännön kokemusten mukaan lehtilannoitusmenetelmä mangaanin puutteen torjunnassa on osoittautunut kuitenkin monessa suhteessa puutteel- liseksi. Lehtilannoituksella on vaikea torjua taimivaiheen aikaisia oireita, sillä pienestä lehtipinta-alasta johtuen suu- rin osa lehtilannoitteesta menee hukkaan. Mangaanosul- faattiruiskutus vasta oireiden ilmestyessä lehtiin on myös ongelmallista, sillä sokerijuurikas on ennen näkyviä oi- reita voinut kärsiä jo pitempään piilevästä mangaanin puutteesta. Lehtilannoituksen vaikutus jää aina osittai- seksi, sillä mangaani ei liiku kasvin sisällä lehdistä leh- tiin. Ruiskutuksen jälkeen syntyvissä uusissa lehdissä voi taas hyvinkin esiintyä ainakin piilevää mangaanin puu- tetta. Myös pintalannoitustekniikalla annettu mangaanilan- noitus on pulmallista, sillä maahan lisätty mangaani muut- tuu hyvin kalkitussa jakuohkeassa maassa nopeasti kas- veille käyttökelvottomaan muotoon.Toki maan kautta- kin mangaania voidaan antaa, muttakäyttömäärät tule- vat silloin epätaloudellisen suuriksi. Happamesti vaikuttavan Y-lannoitteen levitys rivikoh- taisella sijoituslannoitustekniikalla näyttäisi tarjoavan uu- den mahdollisuuden torjua sokerijuurikkaan mangaanin- puutostiloja voimakkaasti kalkituilla sokerijuurikasmailla. Seitsemässä yksivuotisessa kenttäkokeessa (1984 —85), joissa esiintyi lieviä mangaaninpuutosoireita, jo pelkkä pintalannoitustekniikan vaihtaminen sijoituslannoitustek- niikkaan edesauttoi sokerijuurikkaan kykyä paremmin hyödyntää maassa olevia mangaanivaroja. Sokerijuurik- kaan mangaanin saanti voitiin kuitenkin parhaiten tur- vata vasta, kun happameen Y-lannoitteeseen lisättiin man- gaania (0.7 %) ja se levitettiin sijoituslannoitustekniikalla. Mangaani sijoitettuna (25 —30 kg/ha MnS0 4 ; Mn 26 %) yhdessä happamesti vaikuttavan Y-lannoitteen kanssa an- toi keskimäärin n. 2.0 (+ 7%) tonnin juurisadonlisäyk- sen hehtaarilta mangaanittoman Y-lannoitteen sijoitta- miseen verrattuna. 220