Micronutrient deficiency in raspberry

Jun 22, 2013

Micronutrient deficiency in raspberry

Jun 22, 2013

Two weeks I was called out to investigate the situation in organically farmed red raspberry that the reader can see below.  The plants are pushing forth an impressive crop of fruit and overall the plant stand is strong yet numerous laterals are showing a yellowing of the leaves, especially towards the tips. 

The Problem: The youngest leaves on the ends of fruiting laterals were showing a distinctive yellowing.   Looking closely at affected leaves, one can see that the veins of the affected leaves remain green to some extent.

Field Evaluation:  The farm manager and I initially looked around for arthropods (insects and mites) or damage as well as extirpating a few plants to examine the roots and generate samples for submission to the UCCE diagnostic laboratory in Salinas.

We then took 4 replicated samples of yellow leaves and then four replicated samples of green leaves from the same stage (between the 5th and 7th leaf from the tip) of apparently healthy laterals.  We also took soil samples down to about six inches deep from four distinct areas of the field.  All samples were submitted to the Soil Control Laboratory in Watsonville for analysis.

Results:

No arthropods of any consequence were found during our visit, nor did the UCCE diagnostic laboratory come up with any plant pathogens.  The mycelial threads we found on the crown and roots (last photo below) of the cane are those of a saprophytic fungus and present no threat to the plant.

The means of the replicated tissue samples were compared through a Student’s t-test and the results are presented below in Table One.

Table One.  Average Mineral Concentration of Green and Yellow Leaves

Mineral

Green Leaves

Yellow Leaves

T-test p value

Total Nitrogen (%)

2.825

2.875

0.4950

Total Phosphorous (%)

0.19

0.2025

0.2394

Potassium (%)

1.425

1.925

0.0088

Calcium (%)

1.675

1.375

0.0462

Magnesium (%)

0.4525

0.375

0.0139

Sulfur (%)

0.165

0.15

0.1817

Copper (ppm)

4.725

4.625

0.7629

Zinc (ppm)

14.25

14

0.3910

Iron (ppm)

530

380

0.0270

Manganese (ppm)

42.75

21.25

0.0016

Boron (ppm)

73.25

68.5

0.2777

Molybdemum (ppm)

1.625

1.55

0.7680

Sodium (ppm)

172.5

167.5

0.1817

Chloride (ppm)

5250

3125

0.0520

Nitrate (ppm)

1115

1800

0.3185

As one can see, there are several minerals, being magnesium, manganese, calcium and iron, which are significantly lower (p<0.05) in concentration in the yellow leaves than in the green.  Conversely, potassium is much higher in the yellow than in the green.

The unfortunate thing is that since we don’t have published guidelines for these sorts of raspberry varieties  (for example like the recently published DRIS study in strawberry), we have to refer to out of state raspberry fertility guidelines for other varieties to get a handle on the meaning of all these numbers.  Using these guidelines, we find that the concentration of manganese in the yellow leaves falls below the consensus of a lower threshold of sufficiency of about 30 ppm.  In contrast, concentrations of iron, calcium, and magnesium, even though they are significantly lower in the yellow leaves than the green, are still within the generally accepted ranges of sufficiency.

We do get a glimpse also of the tolerances of these raspberry plants to chloride and sodium, which can be useful for future reference.  The green leaves contain about 5000 ppm chloride and around 170 ppm sodium.  These concentrations in my experience would be cause for some plant distress in strawberry, but apparently these levels are fine here.

The averages of the soil samples are below. As there was no area in the field showing more yellow than others, simply four composites of six individual samples were taken to get an understanding of the background mineral concentration of the soil.

Table Two.  Average Mineral Concentrations of Soil

Mineral

Soil Concentration

NO3-N (ppm)

10.83

NH3- N (ppm)

5.70

Phosphorous (ppm)

102.00

SP (%)

59.33

pH

7.63

ECe (dS/m)

0.91

Calcium (meq/L)

4.73

Magnesium (meq/L)

2.37

Sodium (meq/L)

1.63

Potassium (ppm)

0.49

Chloride (meq/L)

1.83

SO4-S (meq/L)

2.40

SAR

0.87

Boron (ppm)

0.65

Copper (ppm)

1.53

Zinc (ppm)

4.77

Iron (ppm)

27.67

Manganese (ppm)

3.90

 

Nothing jumps out here from this table of soil concentrations.  Nitrates might be a tad lean at 10 ppm, phosphorous is typically high, pH is normal, ECe is a comfortable 0.91 and the micronutrients are available in some quantity.

The question is then what is the conclusion?  We have no arthropod or pathogen compromising the plants ability to take up nutrients or anything else.  Lacking any other explanation, my take would be twofold.  One is that the pH of 7.6 in the soil is limiting the manganese, and that the big fruit load could be also drawing off this nutrient from the leaves and moving them to the fruit.  My choice of corrective action would be to add manganese, along with iron and magnesium, just to be sure, to this planting.

Thanks to Patrick Kingston and his boss for having me out on this call.  It’s always great to collaborate on issues with such enthusiastic and smart up and comers in our industry.