International Scientific Journal on Reforestation, Afforestation and Tree Reproduction
Sign in
Issue image

More articles from Issue 15, 2023

Thematic Workshop: Challenges, opportunities, and adaptation strategies to climatic changes in dryland forestry systems

Variability of morpho-anatomical features of black pine needles at the area of Jastrebac and Goč

Use of sulphur in bareroot pine and hardwood nurseries

Citations

Crossref Logo

0

Use of sulphur in bareroot pine and hardwood nurseries

David B. South
David B. South
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar

Published: 01.12.2022.

Volume 0, Issue 15 (2023)

pp. 12-48;

https://doi.org/10.21750/refor.15.03.105

Abstract

During the 20th century, managers at sandy nurseries utilized sulphur (S) to lower soil pH and mitigate the risk of iron deficiency. During that time, however, applying S as a fertilizer was a rare event. At many nurseries, S in rain and irrigation water was sufficient to avoid visual deficiency symptoms. The S status of soil and foliage was typically unknown, and many researchers did not test for S due to the additional cost. Consequently, S became the most neglected macronutrient. While a few nursery trials demonstrated that elemental S reduced damping-off and increased height growth, a majority showed no benefit after applying S at rates lower than 100 kg ha-1.  Even so, by 1980, S-deficiencies occurred at bareroot nurseries in Alabama, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, the United Kingdom, and likely in North Dakota and New York. The risk of a deficiency increases when N-only fertilizers are applied to seedbeds. Due to research, experience and the precautionary principle, several managers transitioned to using ammonium sulfate instead of, less expensive, N-only nitrogen fertilizers. After soil tests became affordable, managers began to ask questions about the need to apply S to seedbeds. Only a few hydroponic trials with small pine seedlings have been used to estimate “threshold” or “critical values” for foliar S.  Since an initial 1,500 μg g-1 S value is “unreliable” for pine seedlings, some authors lowered the value to 1,100 μg g-1 and even as low as 500 μg g-1 S. Others ignore all estimates based on total S concentrations and, instead, monitor only foliar SO4 levels.

References

Albaugh, J. M., Blevins, L., Allen, H. L., Albaugh, T. J., Fox, T. R., Stape, J. L., & Rubilar, R. A. (2010). Characterization of Foliar Macro- and Micronutrient Concentrations and Ratios in Loblolly Pine Plantations in the Southeastern United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 34(2), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/34.2.53
Aldhous, J., & Mason, W. (1994). Forest Nursery Practice. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Allen, H. L. (1987). Forest Fertilizers. Journal of Forestry, 85(2), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/85.2.37
Allen, J. W., & Shachar-Hill, Y. (2009). Sulfur Transfer through an Arbuscular Mycorrhiza. Plant Physiology, 149(1), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.129866
Ames, J., & Boltz. (1916). Sulphur in relation to soils and crops (p. 256).

Citation

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles