|
Materials and Methods: Field
preparation for the research was identical across the entire field. The wheat variety is
Overly,
and planting rate was 70 pounds of wheat seed per acre. Prior to planting the field was
divided into nine alternating replications for both control and
Pro-Soil Foundation™
treated
wheat.
The
Pro-Soil Foundation™
was applied at 12.8 ounces per acre, as part of the pre plant nitrogen application.
The entire field received 20 units N, with the source being liquid 28%.
Additional fertilizer was applied with the drill, and included 50 pounds/acre of pel-lime,
and 30 pounds/ acre of 11-52-0. The wheat was planted on October 6.
Soil type is a silt loam, and according to soil maps is consistent across the field.
WHEAT ROOT SAMPLES: NUMBER
OF REPLICATIONS
Sample sites were measured, and flagged, in each strip on 11/2/06, at 150’, 300’ and 450’ in to the field.
Initial Pro-Soil Foundation™
treated wheat
replications #1, #3 and #5 at each of
the three sites, providing a total of nine wheat samples from both control and
Pro-Soil Foundation™
treated wheat.
On 12/14/06 research samples
were again taken from both control and
Pro-Soil Foundation™ treated
wheat replications #1, #3, #5 and #7, for a total of 12 wheat samples from both control
and
Pro-Soil Foundation™
treated wheat. All samples
were taken at a 12” depth, and width was 6.7” on 11/2, and 10” on 12/14.
|
|
|
|
Figure
1: Bagged Wheat Root Samples
 Click
on image to enlarge |
|
Once collected, research samples were labeled, and
placed into plastic bags, water was then added to soften the soil and samples were
allowed to sit overnight. They were then placed upon a screen, with water applied
to wash soil from the roots. They were then placed back into the bags, and
again water was added to soak overnight. After a second washing, the plants were
then placed in moist paper towels to avoid excessive drying. They received one
additional washing, and then the longest root was measured, as well as the longest leaf.
The total number of wheat roots, leaves and tillers were recorded, and then the root and
vegetative parts of the plant were divided and weighed. Both the roots and
vegetative parts were then allowed to dry for three weeks and then reweighed.
Observations:
A true comparison of individual wheat plants was somewhat difficult to achieve due to a
significant increase in plant population. This was consistent across most
comparisons, and population at each sample site is shown in Table 1.
|
|
Table 1:
Number of Plants Per Sample.
|
|
|
Sample
Control
PS Foundation™
ID
11/2
12/14 11/2
12/14
1A
6
15 10
12
1B
8
9
8
8
1C
7
13
9
15
3A
9
8 9
10
3B
8
12
12
13
|
|
|
|
In the
nine control samples taken on 11/2/06 there was a total of 74 plants (14.8 per foot of
row) and the Pro-Soil had a total of 102 plants (20.4 per foot of row), for an increase in
plant population of 37.84%.
At the time of the second sampling on
12/14/06,
this difference had decreased somewhat but there was still a significant increase
in the Pro-Soil samples. The twelve control samples had a total of 121 plants
(12.1 per foot of row) and the Pro-Soil had a total of 152 plants (15.2 per foot of
row), for an increase of 25.62%.
Seminal Wheat Roots
At the first sample date, the only roots
present were those coming
out of the wheat seed kernel itself (seminal roots).
The number and
size of seminal roots is usually determined by the vigor of the seed kernel of the wheat
itself, and usually ranges up to six per seedling. Even so, there was a
small increase in both the number and length of the roots from the seedlings treated
with Pro-Soil Foundation. (Table 2)
WHEAT DEVELOPMENT STAGE (ZADOKS SCALE)
The average development stage, using Zadoks
scale, was between 13 and 14, again with a slight difference in favor of the wheat
plants from the Pro-Soil sites.
This data is shown in Table 2.
 |
|
|
Figure 2: Trimmed Crown/Nodal
Wheat Roots
Click
on image to enlarge |
|
By the second sample date, 12/14,
crown root formation was well underway. Soil fertility, and other factors such as
physical limitations, will have an impact upon both the number and length of these later
roots (crown/nodal).
When taking these samples it was apparent that there were
roots being trimmed, probably more from a lateral standpoint than depth. (Figure
2) Even so, there was again a slight increase in both the number of roots
and the average length with samples from Pro-Soil treatment sites. This data is also shown in Table 2.
Additionally tillering was well underway, with an average
development stage of 22 to 24 on the Zadoks scale. (Table 3)
Table 2: Average
Root and Leaf Numbers, Length, and Weight. (Nov. 2 Sample Date, 6.7”
Sample Width):
------------------------
Control
------------------------ --------------------------PS Foundation-------------------
Rep 1 Rep 3 Rep
5 Average Rep 1 Rep 3
Rep 5 Average
#
Plants 21 27
26 24.67 27
34 41 34.00
#
Roots/Plant 4.74 4.99
4.35
4.69 4.93
4.65 5.07 4.88
Ave Length
(mm) 117.85 120.03 125.52
121.13 127.03 123.92
123.75
124.90
Ave Weight
(gm) .25 .32
.34 .30 .32
.25 .32 .29
Total Root Wt (gms)
5.20 8.50 8.90
22.60 8.50 8.50
13.10
33.20
Dry Root Wt. (gms)
2.50
4.50
#
Leaves/Plant 2.93 3.02
2.98 2.98 2.92
3.02 3.19 3.04
Leaf Length
(mm) 159.71 169.41 170.77
166.63 169.12 170.55
169.43 169.70
Ave Weight
(gm) .33 .33
.30 .32 .33
.26 .37 .32
Total Leaf Wt (gms)
7.00 9.00 7.70
23.70 8.90 8.90
15.10 35.10
Dry Leaf Wt (gms)
3.60
5.40
Total Plant Wt (gms)
12.20 17.50 16.60
15.43 17.40 17.40
28.20 21.00
Total Dry Wt. (gms)
6.10
9.90
Table 3: Average
Root and Leaf Numbers, Length, and Weight. (Dec. 14 Sample Date, 10”
Sample Width):
------------------------ Control
------------------------
---------------------------PS Foundation-------------------
Rep 1 Rep 3 Rep 5
Average Rep 1 Rep 3 Rep
5 Average
#
Plants 37 30 27
27
30.25 35 36
44 37 38.00
#
Roots/Plant 8.37 9.44 10.26
9.76 9.46 8.65 9.70
9.65 10.69 9.67
Ave Length
(mm) 152.72 170.28 207.20 168.56
174.69 185.81 184.72 177.81 184.70
183.26
Ave Weight
(gm) .72 .79 1.16
.97 .91 2.24 1.14
1.49 1.71 1.64
Total Root Wt (gms)
26.80 23.80 31.30 26.30
114.20
78.40 40.90 65.70 63.10 248.10
Dry Root Wt. (gms)
24.60
79.30
#
Tillers/Plant 3.00 3.73 4.30
3.59 3.66 3.83 4.03
3.80 4.30
3.99
#
Leaves/Plant 8.65 10.67 12.70
10.52 10.63 11.57 10.92
11.07 12.05 11.40
Leaf Length
(mm) 138.86 106.28 104.84 104.62
113.65 153.25 143.80 155.62 157.85
152.63
Ave Weight
(gm) .84 1.49 1.97 1.35
1.41 1.61 1.24 1.39
1.63 1.47
Total Leaf Wt (gms)
31.20 44.60 53.30 36.50 163.70
56.40 44.60 61.00 60.40 222.40
Dry Leaf Wt (gms)
38.50
51.00
Total Plant Wt (gms)
58.00 68.40 84.60 62.80 277.90
134.80 85.50 126.70 123.50 470.50
Total Dry Wt. (gms)
63.10
130.30
Figure 3: Pictured below are the
samples taken on December 14.
Click
on the image to view FULL-SIZE
"There was a definite trend toward increased root and
vegetative mass, as well as more advanced vegetative development.
Results:
Although there was certainly
some variation from one sample site to another, there was a definite trend toward
increased root (Graphs 1 & 2) and vegetative mass, as well as more advanced vegetative
development.
wheat root counts
As to root counts on November 2, the
control averaged 4.695 seminal roots per plant and the Pro-Soil treatment averaged 4.883
roots per plant, an increase of .188 roots per wheat plant (4.00%). On
December 14, the control averaged 9.458 roots (seminal and crown) per plant and the
Pro-Soil treatment averaged 9.671, for an increase of .213 roots per wheat plant
(2.25%).
wheat root length
At both sampling dates the root length
was also increased. On November 2, the control averaged 121.134 mm length, and the
Pro-Soil treatment averaged 124.898 mm; an increase of 3.11%. On December 14, the
control averaged 174.691 mm and the Pro-Soil treatment averaged 183.261 mm; an increase
of 4.91%. In addition, it appeared generally that the roots from the
Pro-Soil treatment samples were somewhat more developed as to small feeder roots
(see photos in Figure 3.)
Although the average increase per plant,
from either date, is not highly significant in itself, the difference in total root
mass is significant due to the much higher population in the Pro-Soil treatment samples
(Graph 3).
"Although the
average increase per plant, from either date, is not highly significant in itself,
the
difference in total root mass is significant due to the much higher plant population
in
the Pro-Soil treatment samples."
Graph 1:
Number of Roots (Seminal) per Plant,
by Replication ID’s (November 2 Sample).
Click
on the image to view FULL-SIZE
Graph 2:
Number of Roots (Seminal & Crown)
per Plant, by Replication ID’s (Dec. 14 Sample).
Click
on the image to view FULL-SIZE
|
|
Table 4: Plant Mass
per Foot of Row. |
|
|
|
11/2/06
12/14/6
Control
Foundation Control Foundation
Root (gms)
4.520 6.640
11.420 24.810
Vege. (gms) 4.740
7.020 13.642
22.240
Total (gms)
9.260 13.660
25.062 47.050
Diff. (gms)
+ 4.400
+ 21.988
Diff. (%)
+ 47.52%
+ 87.74%
|
|
INCREASED WHEAT PLANT BIOMASS / VIGOR
Again, the higher plant population is
responsible for a majority of the increase in biomass per foot of row, 47.52% greater on
11/2, and 87.74% greater on 12/14 (Table 4).
This is interesting, in that
under normal circumstances it is expected that as plant population increases
individual plant size will tend to decrease, due to competition, assuming equal
amounts of plant nutrient, water and other environmental factors. This was not the case with the plants
from the Pro-Soil areas of treatment, which would suggest additional vigor due to
materials either in Pro-Soil itself directly, or by indirect means resulting from other
soil/plant activity. The label lists small amounts of copper, iron
and zinc, as well as kelp extract and humic acid, which in numerous scientific studies
have each shown to be of benefit to increase plant vigor.
When washing the roots, it was observed
that there was noticeable plant residue from the previous wheat crop. This residue
was present in all of the samples taken, but appeared to be decomposing more rapidly in
the soil with the Pro-Soil treatments. Additionally, the roots from plants with
the Pro-Soil treatment were more difficult to wash clean, due to what appeared to be a
more distinct rhizosphere surrounding the root itself.
|
Graph 3:
Total Root and Plant Mass by
Replication (December 14 Sample).
Click
on image to enlarge |
|
 |
|
Graph 3
illustrates the total root mass (in grams) as well as the total plant mass, roots
and vegetative tissue.
|
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL wheat PLANT MASS CONSISTING OF ROOTS
Total root mass for the control
samples was 114.20 grams, and for the Pro-Soil samples it was 248.10 grams. Total
plant mass for the control samples was 277.90 grams, and for the Pro-Soil samples it was
470.50 grams. This computes to 41.09% of total plant mass in the control
samples consisting of roots. In the Pro-Soil samples the percentage of roots by
weight was 52.73%.
FIELD
WEIGHT VS. DRY
Of similar interest was the
percentage of dry matter in the sample plants, as compared to the “field” weights prior
to drying. The control plants, once dried, had a total weight from all
replications of 63.1 grams, or 22.71% of the original field weight. The Pro-Soil
plants had a dry weight of 130.3 grams, or 27.69% of the original field weight, which is
4.988 points higher than the control. This equates to a
21.97% increase in dry
matter per unit of field weight.
CONCLUSIONS:
From most any standpoint the results were positive, and at the very least supports the
claim that PS-Foundation 1-0-1™ is beneficial in helping to provide larger root mass in
wheat. But there also appears to be other areas of benefit that in this study were
even more significant, specifically the increase in plant population.
Seeding rate should have been very close to identical, as the grower did not change his
seeding rate at any time across the field. In addition, care was taken to avoid
any samples being taken from an overlap of seeding.
Also of interest was the difference
in percentage of root mass, when compared to total plant mass, between the control and
PS-Foundation 1-0-1™ treated samples. Although nitrogen, and water, will have a positive effect upon
vegetative development, it is well known that efficiency of any one nutrient is to a
large degree dependent upon all of the other nutrients. Whether or not the higher
percentage of vegetative plant parts in the control samples, as compared to roots, would
indicate a greater percentage of nitrogen/water is not known as tissue analysis was not
performed.
I suspect this might be the case
though based upon the dry weights.
With a 22.97% increase in dry weight percentage,
this would indicate that the plants grown in the Pro-Soil treated areas either have a
greater source of mineral nutrient and/or carbon in the soil environment itself, or that
by some method were better able to take these nutrients in from the soil environment.
If so, the question then becomes where this additional mineral source came from.
It is unlikely that, by chance alone, the Pro-Soil areas of the field had better mineral
nutrient availability. In addition, the applied fertilizer was consistent across
the entire field, so this is not the probable source. Yet another possibility
would be that the Pro-Soil plants were nitrogen/ water deficient, but this is a low
probability simply because they were growing as well if not better than the control
plants, again, even at higher populations.
Based upon visual observation, I
believe that there are two possible answers to improved sources of mineral/carbon
nutrients.
-
One involves the residue from the
previous wheat crop. As mentioned it appeared to be decomposing much more rapidly
in the soil surrounding the Pro-Soil samples, than that surrounding the control samples.
If so, this would provide an additional source of virtually all nutrients, and could
account for a more vigorous plant containing higher percentages of dry matter.
-
The other possibility involves the
rhizosphere surrounding the roots themselves.
By definition, the
“rhizosphere is the narrow region of soil that is directly influenced by root secretions
and associated soil microorganisms. It is teeming with bacteria that feed on
sloughed-off plant cells, termed rhizodeposition, and the proteins and sugars
released by roots. The protozoa and nematodes that graze on bacteria are also
concentrated near roots. Thus, much of the nutrient cycling and disease suppression
needed by plants occurs immediately adjacent to roots.”
When washing the samples,
the soil separated fairly easily from the roots of the control plants. When
washing the Pro-Soil samples though, it was much more difficult and often required an
additional washing with running water. If there was greater activity of
microorganisms in the rhizosphere of the Pro-Soil plants, this would almost certainly
improve overall nutrient availability to the growing plants, thus increasing the
potential for greater dry mass. It would be interesting to perform a bioassay to
determine if this is in fact the case.
The final comment deals
with yield potential, as this is, after all, what a grower is interested in.
Whether or not an actual yield increase is achieved will to a large degree depend upon
weather and other management practices in the spring.
Based upon the results from this study
though, one would expect that the Pro-Soil treatment has set the stage for increased
potential yield.
|
