Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T07:41:58.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of sulphur fertilizers on the grain yield and sulphur content of cereals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. J. A. Withers ,
A. R. J. Tytherleigh  and
F. M. O'Donnell
P. J. A. Withers
Affiliation:
ADAS Bridgets Research Centre, Martyr Worthy, Winchester, Hants SO21 1AP, UK
A. R. J. Tytherleigh
Affiliation:
ADAS Starcross, Staplake Mount, Starcross, Exeter, Devon EX6 8PE, UK
F. M. O'Donnell
Affiliation:
ADAS Biometrics Unit, Rivershill House, St George's Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 3EY, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In order to determine whether cereal crops require fertilizer sulphur (S) in areas estimated as receiving < 20 kg S/ha per year from the atmosphere, the effects of applying agricultural gypsum (10, 20, 30, 40, 60 and 80 kg S/ha), ammonium sulphate (24 and 48 kg S/ha) and foliar-applied elemental S (10 kg S/ha) fertilizers were compared with a nil-S control in replicated field experiments at 12 sites in England and Wales during 1987–90. Averaged across all S treatments, significant (P ≤ 0·01) positive yield responses of 0·4 t/ha were obtained in winter barley at three sites in 1990 on sandy soils in Wales (two sites) and in south-west England (one site). There was no yield advantage in applying > 10 kg/ha of S as gypsum at these sites. Yield responses were best predicted by a nitrogen: S concentration ratio ≥ 17:1 in leaf tissue at anthesis and a S concentration of ≤ 0·1% in the grain dry matter at harvest.

Significant increases in total S and sulphate-S concentrations in leaf tissue at anthesis were obtained from increasing the rates of gypsum applied at ten of the sites, but a significant increase in the concentration of S in the grain at harvest was obtained at only one site. There was no difference in effectiveness between gypsum and foliar-applied elemental sulphur when compared at a single rate of 10 kg S/ha. Comparison of the increases in leaf-S status from maximum application rates of ammonium sulphate and gypsum suggested that ammonium sulphate was the more effective Sfertilizer source. The results confirm that S deficiency is starting to appear in cereal crops in England and Wales.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 317 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Byers, M. & Bolton, J. (1979). Effects of nitrogen and sulphur fertilisers on the yield, N and S content, and amino acid composition of the grain of spring wheat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 30, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers, M., Franklin, J. & Smith, S. J. (1987 a). The nitrogen and sulphur nutrition of wheat and its effect on the composition and baking quality of the grain. Aspects of Applied Biology 15, Cereal Quality, 337–344.Google Scholar
Byers, M., McGrath, S. P. & Webster, R. (1987 b). A survey of the sulphur content of wheat grown in Britain. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 38, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conry, M. J. (1993). Response of winter barley grown on two contrasting soils in Ireland to foliar- and soil-applied sulphur. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 32, 177–183.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. J., Crawford, D. V. & McGowan, M. (1979). Nutrient relations of winter wheat. 1. Accumulation and distribution of Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, S and N. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailer, R. J. & Maples, R. L. (1986). Response of wheat to sulfur fertilization. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 17, 975–988.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. P. & Johnston, A. E. (1986). Sulphur – crop nutrient and fungicide Span 29 (2), 57–59.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. P., Zhao, F., Crosland, A. R. & Salmon, S. E. (1993). Sulphur status of British wheat grain and its relationship with quality parameters. Aspects of Applied Biology 36, Cereal Quality III, 317–326.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1986). The Analysis of Agricultural Materials, MAFF Reference Book 427. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1988). Fertiliser Recommendations for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, MAFF Reference Book 209. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. C. & Mullins, G. L. (1990). Sources, rates, and time of sulphur application to wheat. Sulphur in Agriculture 14, 20–24.Google Scholar
Randall, P. J., Spencer, K. & Freney, J. R. (1981). Sulfur and nitrogen fertilizer effects on wheat. I. Concentrations of sulfur and nitrogen and the nitrogen to sulfur ratio in grain, in relation to yield response. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, P. E., Ramig, R. E., Ekin, L. G. & Rohde, C. R. (1977). Tissue analyses guidelines for diagnosing sulfur deficiency in white wheat. Plant and Soil 46, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnug, E., Haneklaus, S. & Murphy, D. (1993). Impact of sulphur supply on the baking quality of wheat. Aspects of Applied Biology 36, Cereal Quality III, 337–345.Google Scholar
Scott, N. M. (1981). Evaluation of sulphate status of soils by plant and soil tests. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, N. M., Dyson, P. W., Ross, J. & Sharp, G. S. (1984). The effect of sulphur on the yield and chemical composition of winter barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 699–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shewry, P. R., Franklin, J., Parmar, S., Smith, S. J. & Miflin, B. J. (1983). The effects of sulphur starvation on the amino acid and protein compositions of barley grain. Journal of Cereal Science 1, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, K. & Freney, J. R. (1980). Assessing the sulfur status of field-grown wheat by plant analysis. Agronomy Journal 72, 469–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, B. A. & Porter, L. K. (1969). Nitrogen-sulfur relationships in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), corn (Zea mays), and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Agronomy Journal 61, 267–271.Google Scholar
Syers, J. K., Skinner, R. J. & Curtin, D. (1987). Soil and Fertiliser Sulphur in U.K. Agriculture, Proceedings of the Fertiliser Society No. 264. London: Fertiliser Society.Google Scholar
Taureau, J. C., Thevenet, G., Bordeaux, J. L. & De Froberville, G. (1987). Réponse des cultures à la fertilisation soufrée. Perspectives Agricoles 111, 22–44.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R. (1987). The decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 110, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withers, P. J. A. (1993). Sulphur deficiency – a growing problem. FMA Fertiliser Review 1993, pp. 6–8. Peterborough: Fertiliser Manufacturers Association.Google Scholar
Withers, P. J. A. & O'Donnell, F. M. (1994). The response of winter oilseed rape to fertiliser sulphur. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 66, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withers, P. J. A. & Sinclair, A. H. (1994). Sulphur Nutrition of Cereals in the UK: Effects on Yield and Grain Quality, HGCA Research Review No. 30. London: Home-Grown Cereals Authority.Google Scholar
Withers, P. J. A., Hodgson, I. H., McGrath, S. P. & Zhao, F. (1993). Variation in grain sulphur concentrations in wheat and barley. Aspects of Applied Biology 36, Cereal Quality III, 327–335.Google Scholar
Zhao, F. & McGrath, S. P. (1994). Comparison of sulphur uptake by oilseed rape and the soil sulphur status of two adjacent fields with different soil series. Soil Use and Management 10, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, F., Syers, J. K., Evans, E. J. & Bilsborrow, P. E. (1991). Sulphur and oilseed rape production in the United Kingdom. Sulphur in Agriculture 15, 13–16.Google Scholar