Sulfur Removed from Soils by Field Crops¹

Abstract

Sypnosis More organic sulfur than inorganic sulfate was contained in the surface horizons of a Durham and Marlboro soil. In the lower horizons there was an accumulation of sulfate in both soils. On the Durham soil sulfur deficiencies were exhibited. by cotton and tobacco early in the growing season. Only cotton gave a response to additions of gypsum. Cotton and soybeans removed considerably more sulfur than tobacco or corn. Availability of soil sulfur was evaluated by use of yield of sulfur Curves.

The effect of sulphur on the yield and chemical composition of raya (indian mustard) (Brassica juncea Coss.) grown on a sulphur deficient soil

“…In both the case of sulphur deficiency and sulphur excess, flowering was delayed. These observations are consistant with the findings of Kamprath et al (1957) who also observed delayed flowering in sulphur deficient tobacco. When adequate amounts of sulphur were present, however, differences in flower initiation were not found.…”

Uptake of sulfur by four cotton cultivars grown under field conditions

“…In addition, the Decatur soil had a much higher level of extractable SO4-S at a depth of 15 to 30 cm as compared to the Norfolk soil. Kamprath et al (12) reported that mature cotton accumulated from 5.2 to 34 kg S/ha on two sandy loam soils in North Carolina that were treated with fertilizer S at rates ranging from 0 to 36 kg/ha. (14) accumulated an average of 23 kg S/ha.…”

“…Nutrition of cotton has been the subject of numerous investigations (2,5,6,8,9,15,16 For both studies (12,14) only total S uptake was reported with no mention of how the S was distributed among the various plant parts.…”

Sulfur Fertilization of an Annual-Range Soil during Years of Below-Normal Rainfall

“…The sulfur balance sheet calculations show that a very high proportion of the applied elemental sulfur and a somewhat lesser, yet substantial, amount of gypsum-sulfur was retained by the soil at the end of the threeyear period. Extraction by sodium acetate at pH 4.8 (Ensminger, 1954 and1958;Kamprath et al, 1956 and1957;and Bardsley and Jordan, 1957) demonstrated that the adsorbed sulfur content of the soil columns was low, even lower than at the beginning of the experiment. It is hypothesized, therefore, that either immobilization through biological activities, reduction to metallic sulfides, or reduction to hydrogen sulfide occurred.…”