Issue image

More articles from Volume 2, Issue 2, 2017

Production of Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth. for reforestation in southern Benin

Sulfur and lime affect soil pH and nutrients in a sandy Pinus taeda nursery

Stocktype effect on field performance of Austrian pine seedlings

Seedling Quality in Serbia – Results from a Three-Year Survey

Afforestation and reforestation in Romania: History, current practice and future perspectives

Citations

Crossref Logo

7

Crossref Logo

David B. South, Nina Payne

(2020)

Use of copper in pine nurseries

REFORESTA, (9)

10.21750/REFOR.9.08.82

Crossref Logo

David B. South

(2023)

Zinc fertilization in bareroot pine seedbeds

REFORESTA, (16)

10.21750/REFOR.16.06.111

Crossref Logo

David B. South

(2022)

Use of calcium in bareroot pine nurseries

REFORESTA, (14)

10.21750/REFOR.14.07.102

Crossref Logo

David B. South

(2021)

Use of boron in conifer and hardwood nurseries

REFORESTA, (12)

10.21750/REFOR.12.06.98

Crossref Logo

David B. South

(2023)

Use of sulphur in bareroot pine and hardwood nurseries

REFORESTA, (15)

10.21750/REFOR.15.03.105

Crossref Logo

Milena Pereira, Marcos Vinícius Martins Bassaco, Antônio Carlos Vargas Motta, Shizuo Maeda, Stephen A. Prior, Renato Marques, Ederlan Magri, Itamar Antonio Bognola, João Bosco Vasconcellos Gomes

(2023)

Influence of industrial forest residue applications on Pinus taeda: soil, litter, growth, nutrition, and wood quality characteristics

New Forests, 54(1)

10.1007/s11056-021-09902-w

Crossref Logo

David B. South

(2022)

Use of magnesium in bareroot pine nurseries

REFORESTA, (13)

10.21750/REFOR.13.02.95

Sulfur and lime affect soil pH and nutrients in a sandy Pinus taeda nursery

Ryan L Nadel ,
Ryan L Nadel
David B South ,
David B South
Scott A Enebak ,
Scott A Enebak
Gene Bickerstaff
Gene Bickerstaff

Published: 30.12.2017.

Volume 2, Issue 2 (2017)

pp. 12-20;

https://doi.org/10.21750/refor.4.02.41

Abstract

Two pH experiments were conducted at a sandy, bareroot loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) nursery in Texas. A sulfur trial (0, 813, 1626, 2439 kg ha-1 of elemental sulfur) was installed to determine if lowering soil pH would result in nutrient toxicity symptoms and affect seedling morphology. Although soil acidity in the sulfur study ranged from pH 3.9 to pH 5.0, none of the treatments resulted in micronutrient toxicity and none affected height growth, root-collar diameter, root mass, shoot mass or the root-mass ratio (root dry mass/total dry mass). Acidifying soil with sulfur increased leaching of calcium, potassium, magnesium, manganese and zinc but there was no effect on seedling morphology. The objective of the liming trial (0, 813, 1626, 3252 kg ha-1 of dolomitic lime) was to determine if increasing alkalinity would result in an iron deficiency and reduce seedling growth. As expected, applying lime increased the calcium and magnesium levels but had no effect on soil levels of iron, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, zinc and sodium. However, the root-mass ratio was reduced by applications of dolomitic lime (pH ranged from 5.3 to 6.0). Differences in soil properties (i.e. plot location) had a greater effect on seedling morphology than lime applications. Foliage levels of manganese and boron were reduced by the highest rate of lime and sulfur, respectively.

Keywords

References

Armson, K., & Sadreika, V. (1979). Forest tree nursery soil management and related practices. 179.
Bunting, W. (1980). Seedling quality: growth and development -soil relationships, seedling growth and development, density control relationships. 100–120.
Davey, C. (1991). Soils aspects of nursery management. TX. Publication, 1–23.
Dickson, A., Leaf, A. L., & Hosner, J. F. (1960). SEEDLING QUALITY — SOIL FERTILITY RELATIONSHIPS OF WHITE SPRUCE, AND RED AND WHITE PINE IN NURSERIES. The Forestry Chronicle, 36(3), 237–241. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc36237-3
Elzner, J. (1978). Liming effects on slash pine (Pinus elliottii Englm.) seedlings growing on acid soils.
Helm, C., & Kuser, J. (1991). Container growing pitch pine: germination, soil pH, and outplanting size. North J Appl For, 2, 63–68.
Howell, J. (1932). RELATION OF WESTERN YELLOW PINE SEEDLINGS TO THE REACTION OF THE CULTURE SOLUTION. Plant Physiology, 7(4), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.7.4.657
Mizell, L. (1980). Maintaining optimum soil pH in sandy forest tree nurseries. 285–298.
(1988).
Shafer, S. R., Grand, L. F., Bruck, R. I., & Heagle, A. S. (1985). Formation of ectomycorrhizae on Pinustaeda seedlings exposed to simulated acidic rain. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 15(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1139/x85-012
South, D. (2000). Tolerance of southern pine seedlings to clopyralid. Southern J Appl For, 1, 51–56.
South, D. (2017). Optimum pH for growing pine seedlings. Tree Planters. Notes, 2, 47–60.
South, D., & Davey, C. (1983). The southern forest nursery soil testing program. Circular 265. 38.
South, D., Mitchell, R., & Dixon. (1988). New-ground syndrome: an ectomycorrhizal deficiency in pine nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 4, 234–239.
St.Clair, S. B., & Lynch, J. P. (2005). Element accumulation patterns of deciduous and evergreen tree seedlings on acid soils: implications for sensitivity to manganese toxicity. Tree Physiology, 25(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.1.85
Steinbeck, K., May, J., & Mccreery, R. (1966). Growth and needle color abnormalities of slash pine seedlings caused by nutrient treatments. 9, 16–27.
SWANSON, C. O., & MILLER, R. W. (1917). THE SULFUR CONTENT OF SOME TYPICAL KANSAS SOILS, AND THE LOSS OF SULFUR DUE TO CULTIVATION. Soil Science, 3(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-191702000-00003
Wright, R., & Hinesly, L. (1991). Growth of containerized eastern redcedar amended with dolomitic limestone and micronutrients. Hort Science, 2, 143–145.
Zhang, W., Xu, F., & Zwiazek, J. J. (2015). Responses of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) seedlings to root zone pH and calcium. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 111, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.11.001

Citation

Copyright

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