Low manganese (Mn) and copper (Cu) concentrations in cereals explained yield losses after lime application to soil

Figures & data

Table I. Soil and yield response upon liming at five field sites during the years 2000–2003.Figures in parenthesis indicate relative yields as compared with the control.

		Yield (kg ha^−1; water content 15%)
Site	Crop	Control, no lime	Lime addition 70–85% base sat.	Lime addition ≥ 100% base sat.
Märsta, clay
Init. pH 5.9	Barley	3800	3800 (100)	3730 (98)
	Oat	3680	3600 (98)	3440 (94)
	Spring wheat	5300	5200 (98)	5080 (96)
	Oat	4400	4400 (100)	4000 (90)*
Kivik, loamy sand
Init. pH 6.3	Barley	5660	5170 (91)*	5280 (93)*
	Winter wheat	8960	8450 (94)	8150 (91)*
	Barley	5220	4890 (94)	4940 (95)
Fjälkinge, loamy sand
Init. pH 5.6	Rye	5090	5410 (106)	4810 (94)
	Potato	8440*	9431 (111)*	7875 (93)*
	Rye	6210	5650 (91)*	4510 (73)*
Tågarp, loamy sand
Init. pH 6.3	Winter wheat	8020	7660 (95)	7370 (92)*
Halmstad, loamy sand
Init. pH 6.0	Oat	5840	5670 (97)	5810 (99)
	Peas	3220	3050 (95)	3970 (123)*
	Winter wheat	8840	8560 (97)	8640 (98)
	Oilseed rape	1470	1300 (88)*	1110 (75)*
	Mean relative yield decline		−6%	−8%
*Significant at P=0.05.

Figure 1.  Dry-matter concentrations of manganese and copper in grain in relation to soil pH-values. Data refer to sites, crops and treatments shown in Table I but not all soil pH-values were available. Manganese in rye was not plotted due to too few soil pH-values being available.

Figure 2.  Dry-matter concentrations of Mn and Cu in grain related to crop yield. Data refer to sites, crops and treatments shown in Table I.