Evaluation of the Magnesium Soil Test Interpretation for Peanuts¹

Authors: J. P. Schmidt , F. R. Cox

  • Evaluation of the Magnesium Soil Test Interpretation for Peanuts¹


    Evaluation of the Magnesium Soil Test Interpretation for Peanuts¹

    Authors: ,


Decreasing concentrations of extractable Mg in soils of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production regions of North Carolina have resulted in increased Mg fertilizer recommendations. There is little soil or plant criteria, however, on which to base Mg deficiency. The objective of this study was to determine the yield and Mg status of peanuts relative to the level of soil Mg. Five counties were surveyed for leaf and soil data in 198990. Similar data were available from nine counties in 197072. A field experiment was also conducted in 198990 in an on-going lime and Mg study. Although the 1990 survey data suggested that phosphogypsum usage during the last decade may be reducing Mg levels in the surface soil, leaf Mg was almost invariably above 2.0 g kg-1 for both surveys, reflecting adequate amounts of soil Mg according to current plant analysis standards. In the field study, prior lime and Mg treatments resulted in soil Mg ranging from 0.02 to 0.25 cmolc L-1, but there was no yield response that could be related directly to Mg. Leaf Mg was positively correlated to surface soil Mg, and inclusion of subsoil Mg slightly improved this relationship. The data from these studies indicated that sufficient leaf Mg (above 2.0 g kg-1) was attained when surface soil Mg was as low as 0.06 cmolc L-1 or as low as 3 percent of the CEC. We feel these estimates of the soil Mg critical level for peanut production are high, as there was not a Mg deficiency with leaf Mg as low as 1.5 g kg-1 in the field study.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: peanuts, Magnesium, Soil test, Critical level, Plant analysis

How to Cite:

Schmidt, J. & Cox, F., (1992) “Evaluation of the Magnesium Soil Test Interpretation for Peanuts¹”, Peanut Science 19(2), p.126-131. doi:



Published on
01 Jul 1992
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1The research reported in this publication was funded by the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service and the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association.