Plant growth as a function of soil texture in the Hanford series
AuthorsR. M. Davis
P. E. Martin
A. W. Fry
L. M. Carter
M. B. Zahara
R. M. Hagan
Authors AffiliationsR. M. Davis, Jr., was Associate Olericulturist, Department of Vegetable Crops, Davis. His address is: Kearney Horticultural Field Station, Reedley; P. E. Martin was Laboratory Technician IV, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Davis; A. W. Fry was formerly Specialist, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Kearney Horticultural Field Station, Reedley, is employed by Rainbird Sprinkler Company, Reedley; L. M. Carter was Agricultural Engineer, USDA Cotton Field Station, Shafter; M. B. Zahara was Specialist, Department of Vegetable Crops, Davis; R. M. Hagan was Professor, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Davis.
Hilgardia 39(5):107-120. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v39n05p107. May 1968.
At the Kearney Horticultural Field Station, in soils of the Hanford series, cantaloupe plant growth and yield varied from excellent to poor as the sand content of the soil varied from about 40 per cent to 70 per cent. Experiments described here indicated that tendencies to moisture stress or nutritional deficiency were not the primary factors limiting plant growth on the coarser soil. Observations upon roots indicated a greater mechanical impedance to root growth in the coarser soil, although this was not reflected in penetrometer measurements, and although the rate of water percolation was higher for the coarser than for the finer soil. Since, in response to textural variation, plant development in pot culture was analogous to that in the field, the field profile did not appear to be a principal factor in the response phenomenon. A two-point hypothesis which fits all the observations is offered to explain the relationship between soil texture and plant growth: (1) for cantaloupe, pore sizes in both the coarser and finer members of this soil were too small for root extension; (2) adequate root extension occurred in the finer soil via fractures which developed during moisture loss. Fractures do not develop in the coarser soil. The response of cotton and of some woody species to textural variations in this soil is similar to that of cantaloupe.
Bodman G. B., Constantin G. K. Influence of particle size distribution in soil compaction. Hilgardia. 1965. 36(15):567-91. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v36n15p567 [CrossRef]
Bushnell J. Sensitivity of potatoes to soil porosity. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 1953. 726.:42 pp.
Carter L. M., Stockton J. R., Tavernetti J. R., Colwick R. F. Precision tillage for cotton production. Transac. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. 1965. 8(2):177-79.
Carter L. M. Portable recording penetrometer measures soil strength profile. Jour. Agr. Eng. 1967. 48(6):348-49.
Davis R. M. Jr., Baker G. A., Kasmire R. F. Muskmelon quality characteristics—their variability and interrelationships. Hilgardia. 1964. 35(16):479-89. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v35n16p479 [CrossRef]
Doneen L. D., Henderson D. W. Soil conditions affecting infiltration of water and root development of crop plants. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 1952. 8:214-23.
Gill W. R., Miller R. D. A method for study of the influence of mechanical impedance and aeration on the growth of seedling roots. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc. 1956. 20:154-57.
Hilgard E. W. Soils. 1911. New York: The Macmillan Co. p. 102-05. 111.
Kampe K. Studien über Bewurzelungsstärke und Wurzeleindringungsvermögen verschiedener Kulturpflanzen. Wiss. Arch. f. Landwirtsch. Pflanzenbau. 1929. 2:1-49. (cf. Wiersum, 1957)
Keen B. A. The physical properties of the soil. 1931. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 136-46.
Lingle J. C., Wight J. R. Fertilizer experiments with cantaloupes. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 1964. 807.:22 pp.
Meredith H. L., Patrick W. H. Jr. Effects of soil compaction on subsoil root penetration and physical properties of three soils in Louisiana. Agron. Jour. 1961. 53:163-67. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1961.00021962005300030011x [CrossRef]
Storie R. E., Owen B. C., Carpenter E. J., Layton M. H., Leighty W. J. Soil survey of the Visalia area, California 1940. p.96. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Plant Indus. Ser. 1935, No. 16
Taylor H. M., Gardner H. R. Penetration of cotton seedling taproots as influenced by bulk density, moisture content, and strength of soil. Soil Sci. 1963. 96(3):153-56.
Taylor H. M., Mathers A. C., Lotspeich F. B. Pans in the southern great plains soils. I. Why root-restricting pans occur. Agron. Jour. 1964. 56:328-32. DOI: 10.2134/agronj1964.00021962005600030023x [CrossRef]
Tyler K. B., Lorenz O. A. Diagnosing nutrient needs of melons through plant tissue analysis. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1964. 85:393-98.
Veihmeyer F. J., Hendrickson A. H. Soil density and root penetration. Soil Sci. 1948. 65(6):487-93. DOI: 10.1097/00010694-194806000-00006 [CrossRef]
Weeks D., Snyder J. H. Soil variables for use in economic analysis. Hilgardia. 1957. 26(11):497-520. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v26n11p497 [CrossRef]
Wiersum L. K. The relationship of the size and structural rigidity of pores to their penetration by roots. Plant and Soil. 1957. 9(1):75-85. DOI: 10.1007/BF01343483 [CrossRef]
Also in this issue:Who's responsible for environmental research?
Verdelli summer lemons: A new option for California growers
Alternative greenhouse heating systems
Computer simulation of CRS populations
Predicting CRS infestations by trapping males
Nitrogen uptake by cauliflower
Thermochemical properties of biomass fuels
A profile of California farmworkers
Rice bran in swine rations
Women on commercial farms
Whole cottonseed increases milk fat, decreases milk protein
Publications of interest