Crop Response to Elemental S and Sulfate-S Sources on S-Deficient Soils in the Parkland Region of Alberta and Saskatchewan

ABSTRACT Six field experiments were conducted on sulfur-(S) deficient Gray Luvisol (Typic Cryoboralf) and Dark Gray Chernozem (Typic Cryoborolls) soils at various locations in Alberta and Saskatchewan to evaluate the effectiveness of elemental S (ES-90, ES-95, Urea S, Fine S Powder), sulfate-S (ammonium sulfate, sodium sulfate), and elemental S + sulfate-S (Sulgro-68, Agrium Plus) fertilizers, and their rates and placement methods on seed yield and S uptake of canola and barley, and forage dry matter yield of pure bromegrass and bromegrass-alfalfa mixed stands. There was a substantial increase in yield and/or S uptake from sulfate-S application in most experiments. This indicated that the soils used in these experiments were deficient in plant-available S, especially for canola. In the initial year, the performance of elemental S fertilizers was usually inferior to sulfate-S fertilizers. Among the elemental S fertilizers, the ES-95 tended to produce greater yield and S uptake than ES-90. In general, there was no difference in seed yield between early (May 1) and late (May 23) spring applications for the elemental S (Urea S). The results indicated that from the second or third year of initiating annual applications the effectiveness of some elemental S fertilizers almost approached the level of sulfate-S fertilizers. Residual effect of S application lasted for at least three years. Overall, the findings suggest that correction of a severe S deficiency by elemental S alone may be risky in the short term, and thus addition of some sulfate-S in the initial 1 or 2 years to supplement the sulfate-S from elemental S is advisable. Increased exposure of elemental S fertilizers to oxidation either by incorporation and broadcast methods or by application ahead of plant use time tends to improve crop response.