Wheat Sulfur Trial 2013University of Arkansas

Wilson Industrial

Field 1- 1 WAT (Week after Treatment)

Field 2- 1 WAT

1 WAT Notes Field 1

› No noticeable effects of application on plant height or color

› No Difference in treated vs. untreated plots Field 2

› There was a significant difference in plot appearance based on rate and source of S product All plots receiving AMS were not affected Plots receiving the 30 lb S/A and 45 lb S/A as ATS

were visibly “burned” or yellowed by application

Field 2- 1 WAT

These plots received the 30 and 45 lb S/A rate as ATS and were visibly yellow due to application. Similar results were seen in all 4 reps at this site.

Field 1- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence)

Field 2- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence)

Field 2- 7 WAT (Flag leaf emergence)

All plots receiving S looked good. The plot that did not receive S was noticeable deficient.

S Deficiency Symptoms at Field 2

S Deficiency Symptoms at Field 2

S deficient plot in foreground, with S addition plots behind.

7 WAT Notes Field 1

› No noticeable difference in plant height or color among treatments receiving S

› Some minor S deficiency symptoms appearing in the plots that received no S applications

Field 2› No noticeable difference in plant height or

color among treatments receiving S› Major S deficiency symptoms appearing in the

plots that received no S applications

Overall Notes Early in the season ATS products appeared

to burn leaves when applied at rates of 30 and 45 lb S/A

There was no noticeable affect of AMS application at any rate

Wheat grew out of early season symptoms Both products appear to be adequate at

providing S to wheat Plant samples will be taken 8 WAT to

determine S tissue concentration and total S uptake near Early Heading