role of fertigation in horticultural crops: citrus of fertigatio… · · 2011-11-11role of...

1

ROLE OF FERTIGATION IN ROLE OF FERTIGATION IN HORTICULTURAL CROPS: HORTICULTURAL CROPS:

CITRUSCITRUSByBy

A.K. AlvaA.K. Alva

USDAUSDA--ARS, Vegetable and Forage Crop ARS, Vegetable and Forage Crop Research Unit, 24106 North Bunn Road, Research Unit, 24106 North Bunn Road,

Prosser WA 99350Prosser WA 99350Phone: 509-786-9205; Fax: 509-786-9277; Email: [email protected] Website: www.usda.prosser.wsu.edu

Alva; IPI International Symposium on Fertigation; Optimizing the utilization of water and nutrients; Beijing, September 20-24, 2005

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

2

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

3

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

Brazil U.SChina

MexicoSpain

Egypt Italy

S. AfricaTurkey

Greece

Ora

nge

Prod

uctio

n (1

03 MT

)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

U.SMexico

S. AfricaIsrael

Cuba

Gra

pefr

uit (

103 M

T)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2003-04

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

4

2003-04

Acr

es (x

1000

)0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FL CA TX AZ

Prod

uctio

n (x

1000

Ton

s)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

69%

25%

31% 1%

79%

18%

2% 1%

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

FL CA TX

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al P

rodu

ctio

n

0

20

40

60

80

100

29%

71%

13%

96% 87%

4%ProccessedFresh

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

5

Years 1970

19801990

2000

FL C

itrus

(x10

3 )

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

FL Grapefruit (2003-04)

51,000 AcColored Seedless

31,300 Ac White Seedless

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

6

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

7

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

8

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

9

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

10

Evaluation of citrus tree response to Evaluation of citrus tree response to changes in nutrient management requires changes in nutrient management requires longlong--term studies because of large storage term studies because of large storage of nutrients in the woody portion of the of nutrients in the woody portion of the trees.trees.

The response of citrus trees to fertigation The response of citrus trees to fertigation could vary depending on either the tree could vary depending on either the tree growth parameters of young nongrowth parameters of young non--bearing bearing trees, fruit yield response, leaf nutritional trees, fruit yield response, leaf nutritional status or orange vs. grapefruit response.status or orange vs. grapefruit response.

Background:Background:A

lva;

IPI I

nter

natio

nal S

ympo

sium

on

Ferti

gatio

n; O

ptim

izin

g th

eut

iliza

tion

of w

ater

and

nut

rient

s; B

eijin

g, S

epte

mbe

r 20-

24, 2

005

Despite the adoption of fertigation a Despite the adoption of fertigation a number of years ago, the longnumber of years ago, the long--term term response evaluation studies are rather response evaluation studies are rather few.few.

The available studies and unpublished The available studies and unpublished data are summarized in this paper data are summarized in this paper despite their often contrasting despite their often contrasting responses.responses.

Background:Background:

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

11

In the northern FL area, 25% of the mature In the northern FL area, 25% of the mature groves and 75% of new plantings have groves and 75% of new plantings have fertigation. fertigation.

Central Florida citrus acreage is dropping Central Florida citrus acreage is dropping quickly. Real estate values are very high and it quickly. Real estate values are very high and it is hard to grow citrus on $30,000 an acre land. is hard to grow citrus on $30,000 an acre land. We will see a continued loss of acreage in the We will see a continued loss of acreage in the area. Lake County is down to 18,000 acres area. Lake County is down to 18,000 acres –– had had 140,000 25 years ago.140,000 25 years ago.



Growers like fertigation because it is less Growers like fertigation because it is less expensive and has a lower labor requirement. It expensive and has a lower labor requirement. It is even more attractive to smaller growers doing is even more attractive to smaller growers doing a lot of their own maintenance work.a lot of their own maintenance work.

Many growers feel that once the root system Many growers feel that once the root system expands beyond the wetted area it is time to use expands beyond the wetted area it is time to use dry granular fertilizer than fertigation. Some dry granular fertilizer than fertigation. Some may use fertigation as supplemental source. may use fertigation as supplemental source. Less than 25% of growers in Central FL use Less than 25% of growers in Central FL use fertigation for mature trees. fertigation for mature trees.



12

Growers feel more comfortable knowing they Growers feel more comfortable knowing they can cover the entire rooting area by using the can cover the entire rooting area by using the dry granular fertilizer, even though they apply dry granular fertilizer, even though they apply material beyond the area of root distribution.material beyond the area of root distribution.

In the Central FL at least 80% of the citrus is In the Central FL at least 80% of the citrus is irrigated with micro sprinklers irrigated with micro sprinklers –– they are used they are used for cold protection as well. In this region about for cold protection as well. In this region about 10% of the groves have overhead irrigation, and 10% of the groves have overhead irrigation, and 10% with no irrigation.10% with no irrigation.



Objective:Objective:to summarize the recent to summarize the recent advances in fertigation of advances in fertigation of horticultural crops with horticultural crops with particular emphasis on particular emphasis on irrigated citrus orchardsirrigated citrus orchards.


13

Young Tree Growth:Young Tree Growth:Willis and Davis (1991) in Florida, Willis and Davis (1991) in Florida, ‘‘HamlinHamlin’’orange trees on orange trees on ‘‘Sour OrangeSour Orange’’ rootstockrootstock ..

Grown on a Grown on a KanapahaKanapaha fine sand (loamy, fine sand (loamy, siliceous, siliceous, hyperthermichyperthermic, , GrossarenicGrossarenicPaleaquultsPaleaquults).).

Two N rates (0.06 and 0.11 kg N/tree/year) Two N rates (0.06 and 0.11 kg N/tree/year) as either dry granular source broadcast as either dry granular source broadcast (five (five applappl per year) or asper year) or as fertigation at either fertigation at either 5, 10, or 30 applications per year5, 10, or 30 applications per year


Source/Frequency of N applications

Tre

e H

eigh

t (cm

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tru

nk D

iam

. (cm

)

0

1

2

30.11 0.06

N rate kg/tree/yr

NSNS

NSNS

G5 L5 L30L10 G5 L5 L30L10


14



15


Young Bearing Trees:Young Bearing Trees:Thompson et al (2002)Thompson et al (2002)

55--yr old yr old ‘‘NewhallNewhall’’ navel orange trees on navel orange trees on ‘‘CarrizoCarrizo’’ citrangecitrange rootstock planted in 1997 rootstock planted in 1997

Gilman loam soil in Maricopa County, Gilman loam soil in Maricopa County, ArizonaArizona

Second year treatments included a factorial Second year treatments included a factorial combination of 3 N rates (68, 136, and 204 g combination of 3 N rates (68, 136, and 204 g N/tree/year)N/tree/year)


16


3 application frequencies (for the growing 3 application frequencies (for the growing season season –– weekly, monthly, and 3 weekly, monthly, and 3 applappl/yr; /yr; i.e. 27, 7, or 3 i.e. 27, 7, or 3 applappl/yr). /yr).

Stored N in the nursery trees plays a major Stored N in the nursery trees plays a major role in providing N nutrition of the trees role in providing N nutrition of the trees during 1during 1--2 years after planting. 2 years after planting.

Accordingly, even for young trees, the N Accordingly, even for young trees, the N rate/frequency evaluation should be rate/frequency evaluation should be carried out for several years to make valid carried out for several years to make valid conclusions. conclusions.

Young Bearing Trees:Young Bearing Trees:


17

Both fertilizer delivery methods Both fertilizer delivery methods (fertigation vs. dry granular(fertigation vs. dry granular--broadcast) broadcast) and frequency of fertigation have no and frequency of fertigation have no significant effects on the tree growth as significant effects on the tree growth as well as leaf N concentrations in one to well as leaf N concentrations in one to two year evaluations following planting.two year evaluations following planting.

This lack of response was related to This lack of response was related to redistribution of stored nutrients in the redistribution of stored nutrients in the trees which contribute to a very small trees which contribute to a very small portion of the applied nutrients being portion of the applied nutrients being taken up by the young trees.taken up by the young trees.

Young Bearing Trees:Young Bearing Trees:


Schumann et al (2003)Schumann et al (2003)::

Reported 2 yearsReported 2 years’’ (7 and 8 year(7 and 8 year--old trees) old trees) response dataresponse data

Water soluble granular (WSG; 4 equal split Water soluble granular (WSG; 4 equal split dose application/yr), fertigationdose application/yr), fertigation

(FRT; 15 (FRT; 15 applappl/yr)/yr)

Controlled release fertilizer (CRF; single Controlled release fertilizer (CRF; single applappl/yr) on 7+ year old trees./yr) on 7+ year old trees.


18

Trees were exposed to the different Trees were exposed to the different N source/rate treatments during the N source/rate treatments during the entire growth period prior to the entire growth period prior to the yield evaluations were done during yield evaluations were done during the 7the 7thth and 8and 8thth years.years.

The N rates evaluated were 78, 134, The N rates evaluated were 78, 134, 190, and 246 kg190, and 246 kg..haha--1.1.yryr--11..

Schumann et al (2003)Schumann et al (2003)::


Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

19

Schumann et al (2003):Schumann et al (2003):Compare 3 sprinkler coverage areas of Compare 3 sprinkler coverage areas of 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 m diameter circles per 1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 m diameter circles per tree.tree.

Sprinklers delivered 37.8 L hSprinklers delivered 37.8 L h--11 water water regardless of coverage arearegardless of coverage area

They evaluated two N rates at 134 and 190 They evaluated two N rates at 134 and 190 kg hakg ha--11 as fertigation (15 as fertigation (15 applappl/yr)./yr).



20


Mature Bearing Trees 2005:Mature Bearing Trees 2005:A 6A 6--year field experimentyear field experiment

In a Tavares fine sand (In a Tavares fine sand (hyperthermichyperthermic, , uncoated uncoated TypicTypic QuartzipsammentsQuartzipsamments) in ) in central Floridacentral Florida

25+ year old 25+ year old ‘‘HamlinHamlin’’ orange trees on orange trees on ‘‘Cleopatra mandarinCleopatra mandarin’’ rootstock (286 trees rootstock (286 trees per hectare)per hectare)


21

ExperimentalExperimentalSoil: Tavares fine sandSoil: Tavares fine sand((hyperthermichyperthermic, uncoated , uncoated TypicTypic QuartzipsammentQuartzipsamment))

One of the most One of the most vulnerable Soil Series in vulnerable Soil Series in

Central FloridaCentral FloridaAlva; IPI International Symposium on Fertigation; Optimizing the utilization of water and nutrients; Beijing, September 20-24, 2005

Experimental

Commercial Grove

Hamlin / Cleopatra Mandarin


22


ExperimentalFertilizer Source and Rates:

Water Soluble Granular (WSG): 4 Appl / yrFertigation (FRT): 15 Appl / yrWSG + FRT: (50:50)Controlled-Release Fertilizer (CRF): 1 Appl / yr


23

N and K Rate (kg ha-1 yr-1)100 150 200 250 300 350

Frui

t Yie

ld (M

g ha

-1 y

r-1)

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Point of Inflection = 260

1996 - 1998

Y = 46.8 + 0.32x - 0.000547x2

R2 = 0.98**

Y = 40.6 + 0.39x - 0.000756x2

R2 = 0.95**

Dry granular broadcast (4/yr)

Fertigation (15/yr)


VADOSE ZONE

SURFICIAL AQUIFER

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

24



25


Calendar Days

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Con

cent

ratio

n of

N0 3

-N in

Sur

fical

Gro

undw

ater

(mg

L-1)

0

5

10

15

20

280 kg N ha-1 yr-1 as WSG280 kg N ha-1 yr-1 as FRT280 kg N ha-1 yr-1 as CRT

Jan 1997

Jan 1998

Fig. 7 (Alva etal., Citrus NBMP, Paper II)

May 20 1996

1996 1997 1998

December 1998


26

0 60 120 180 240 300 3600

10

20

30

0

10

20

30

0

10

20

30

Con

cent

ratio

n of

NO

3-N

in S

oil S

olut

ion

(mg

L-1

)

Days after first dose of annual fertilizer application

240 cm

120 cm

60 cm

2/12 4/2 5/20 9/16

Fig. 2 (Alva etal., Citrus NBMP paper II)

WSGFRTWSG + FRTCRF

Dates of WSG application

112 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (1996)


120 cm

0

10

20

30

40

60 cm

Con

cent

ratio

n of

NO

3-N

in S

oil S

olut

ion

(mg

L-1

)

0

10

20

30

4090

100

WSGFRTWSG + FRTCRF

240 cm

Days after First dose of annual fertilizer application

0 60 120 180 240 300 3600

10

20

30

40

2/12 4/2 5/20 9/16

280 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (1996)

Dates of WSG application

Fig. 3 (Alva etal., NBMP, paper II)

Alv

a; IP

I Int

erna

tiona

l Sym

posi

um o

n Fe

rtiga

tion;

Opt

imiz

ing

the

utili

zatio

n of

wat

er a

nd n

utrie

nts;

Bei

jing,

Sep

tem

ber 2

0-24

, 200

5

27

Alva et al (2003):Alva et al (2003):Two identical blocks (32 ha each) 34+ years old ‘Valencia’ orange trees on ‘Rough lemon’rootstock planted (286 trees ha-1)

Astatula fine sand in Highlands County, Florida.

Both blocks were irrigated by using under the tree, low volume sprinklers with one emitter per tree with a delivery rate of 96 L hr-1 and wetting area of 28 m2 per tree.


Alva et al (2003):Alva et al (2003):Nitrogen rate was about 180 kg haNitrogen rate was about 180 kg ha--11 for both blocks.for both blocks.

For one block, dry granular product along with P andFor one block, dry granular product along with P andK sources (in a NPK blend of 1:0.5:1) was broadcast K sources (in a NPK blend of 1:0.5:1) was broadcast 3 times a year (Jan/Feb, May, and Sep).3 times a year (Jan/Feb, May, and Sep).

While the second block received the sameWhile the second block received the same..

Annual N rate except that NPK blend was applied in Annual N rate except that NPK blend was applied in 18 18 fertigationsfertigations per year, i.e. Janper year, i.e. Jan--May and SepMay and Sep--Oct).Oct).

Due to heavy rainfall during June through August Due to heavy rainfall during June through August (60% of annual total precipitation), no fertilizer was (60% of annual total precipitation), no fertilizer was applied during this period.applied during this period.


28

MW_1

MW_2 202.

5 m

MW_4

MW_3

310.

5 m

166.

5 m

310.

5 m

342.

0 m

MW_5

256.

5 m

MW_8

MW_7

324

m

544.

5 m

238.

5 m

MW_6

346.

5 m

184.

5 m

441

m

Block 1

NE

256.

5 m

207

m

172.5 m

165.0 m 60.0 m

52 tree rows at 7.62 m spacing

172

trees

at 4

.57m

sp

acin

g17

2 tre

es a

t 4.5

7m

spac

ing

Citrus

Citrus

CitrusC

itrus

Road (6m)

Road (6m)

Road (6m)

Roa

d (6

m)

Tree rows

Block 2

MLS_5

MLS-6

MLS_7

MLS_8

MLS-3

MLS_4

MLS_2

MLS_1


TSS

(Mg

ha-1

)

2

3

4

5

6

Solid

s (g

kg-1

frui

t)

70

75

80

85

90

Frui

t Yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

30

40

50

60

70

Dry Granular broadcast (3/yr)Fertigation (18/yr)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Post

BM

PM

eans

Pre_BMP BMPAlva; IPI International Symposium on Fertigation; Optimizing the utilization of water and nutrients; Beijing, September 20-24, 2005

29


0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Con

cent

ratio

n of

NO

3-N

(mg

L-1)

Calendar Days

LSD = 1.21

WSG/CRF Broadcast (Block 1- TN)Fertigation (Block 2 - TS)

14 FRT 4 FRT 4 FRT

1995 Jan 1996 Jan 1997 Jan

14 FRT

1999 Jan1998 Jan

14 FRT 4 FRT 14 FRT 4 FRT 10 FRT 5 FRT


30

Conducted a 5Conducted a 5--year study using 17+ yearyear study using 17+ year--old old ‘‘ShamoutiShamouti’’ orange trees on orange trees on ‘‘Sweet limeSweet lime’’rootstockrootstock

Fertigation was evaluated at 80, 160, and 280 Fertigation was evaluated at 80, 160, and 280 kgkg..haha--11 N rates (with no P and K).N rates (with no P and K).

The 160 and 280 kgThe 160 and 280 kg..haha--11 N rates were also N rates were also evaluated either as soil application of granular evaluated either as soil application of granular fertilizer (in March) or as fertilizer (in March) or as fertigationsfertigations (March(March--August).August).

DasbergDasberg et al. (1988):et al. (1988):


17 + yr old Shamouti/Sweet lime

Fertilizer Rate/Application Method

Frui

t Yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

48

52

56

60

64

F F F F S F S

None 22/126N (kg ha-1)P/K (kg ha-1)Fertigation orSoil Applied

53.4

55.5

53.5

61.6

47.7

53.954.8

}80 160 280 160 160 280 280


31

Fruit Quality:Fruit Quality:Morinaga (2004)Morinaga (2004)

SatsumaSatsuma’’ mandarin in southwestern Japan. mandarin in southwestern Japan.

The premium quality fruit that contribute to The premium quality fruit that contribute to high net returns require maintaining 12high net returns require maintaining 12--14% 14% sugar and about 1% acid content.sugar and about 1% acid content.

Morinaga (2004) developed a new system of Morinaga (2004) developed a new system of drip fertigation with yeardrip fertigation with year--round plastic round plastic mulch.mulch.


Sugar content (Brix %)

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Control Drip fertigation

< 7.9 8-8.9 9-9.9 10-10.9 11-11.9 12-12.9 > 13


32

Grapefruit Yield Response:Grapefruit Yield Response:BomanBoman (1996)(1996)

44--year field experiment year field experiment

‘‘Ruby RedRuby Red’’ grapefruit trees on grapefruit trees on ‘‘Sour OrangeSour Orange’’rootstock planted in St. Lucie County, Florida.rootstock planted in St. Lucie County, Florida.

Two methods of fertilizer applications were Two methods of fertilizer applications were comparedcompared at approximately 180 kg haat approximately 180 kg ha--11 N and N and 150 kg K ha150 kg K ha--11, as follows:, as follows:


(i) broadcast application of dry granular (i) broadcast application of dry granular sources ( annual rates of N and K applied in sources ( annual rates of N and K applied in three equally split applications during three equally split applications during Feb/Mar, May/Jun, and Oct/Nov);Feb/Mar, May/Jun, and Oct/Nov);

(ii) 1/3 annual rates of N and K applied as (ii) 1/3 annual rates of N and K applied as granular material broadcast in February, with granular material broadcast in February, with the remainder of the N and K sources applied the remainder of the N and K sources applied as fertigation at 2 weeks interval during April as fertigation at 2 weeks interval during April through early November (i.e. 17through early November (i.e. 17--18 18 fertigationsfertigations per year).per year).

Grapefruit Yield Response:Grapefruit Yield Response:


33

Frui

t yie

ld (M

g ha

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

180

200

Years

TSS

(kg

ha-1)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

500010000

11000

12000Dry granular broadcast (3/yr)Dry granular broadcast (1/yr) + 17 fertigations

NS

NS

NS

NS

*

*

*

**

**

**

1988 1989 1990 1991 Total


A sixA six--yearyear--studystudy(A.K. Alva et al., 2005; (A.K. Alva et al., 2005; unpublished data) unpublished data) 25+ year25+ year--old old ‘‘White MarshWhite Marsh’’grapefruit trees on grapefruit trees on ‘‘SourSourorangeorange’’ rootstock (268 trees/ha)rootstock (268 trees/ha)

Grapefruit Yield Response:Grapefruit Yield Response:


34

Mean across 1994 - 1999

N Rates (Kg ha-1)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Frui

t Yie

ld (

Mg

ha-1

yr-1

)

45

50

55

60

65

70

Y = 29.69 + 0.40x - 0.00126x2

R2 = 0.991**

Y = 39.16 + 0.14x - 0.0000501x2

R2 = 0.984**

Fertigation (FRT)Water soluble granular (WSG)


Fertirrigation of citrus in tropical soils

Centro de Solos e Recursos Agroambientais - IACJosé A. Quaggio


35

Most of citrus trees in Brazil are grafted on Rangpur lime

Despite its resistance to drought and good yield, this variety has been changed by other tolerant to citrus sudden death (a new disease). Rootstocks such cleo mandarin and swingle citrumelo are more susceptible to drought stress

Citrus industry in São Paulo State:about 80% of Brazilian citrus (=750 thousand ha)only 50-60 thousand ha has been irrigated


Experiment

•• Local: Fazenda Caroline Local: Fazenda Caroline -- PirajuPirajuíí, SP, SP•• InIníício: 2001, Natal / Cravo com 4cio: 2001, Natal / Cravo com 4--5 anos5 anos

•• TratamentsTrataments::T1T1: NPK 50% : NPK 50% non irrigatednon irrigatedT2T2: NPK 100% : NPK 100% non irrigatednon irrigatedT3T3: NPK 50% : NPK 50% solid fertilizer + water irrigsolid fertilizer + water irrigT4T4: NPK 100% : NPK 100% solid fertilizer + water irrigsolid fertilizer + water irrigT5T5: NPK 50% : NPK 50% fertigatedfertigatedT6T6: NPK 100% : NPK 100% fertigatedfertigated


36

Fruit yield and quality 2002/03

6,2**7,1**4,2*1,0ns0,9ns12,2**10,7*8,9**4,2*4,2*Teste F3501,8917,00,4955,28,4182225,062,8153,96

3302,0017,50,5257,48,5182225,166,4162,75

3042,1718,70,4958,49,1191214,459,3145,34

3341,9717,10,5056,78,5181226,661,0149,53

2632,5120,10,5556,210,9227180,855,3135,52

2752,4018,40,5558,610,1213192,053,2130,31

cx/tkg/cx%%percxgt/hakg/tree

RendSSTRatioAcidityJuiceBrixFruitsYieldTratament


Two year study on newly planted Two year study on newly planted citrus trees showed no significant citrus trees showed no significant difference between the fertigation difference between the fertigation and dry fertilizer broadcast and dry fertilizer broadcast treatments. This is in part due to treatments. This is in part due to very low nutrient demand during at very low nutrient demand during at least two years after planting.least two years after planting.

Conclusions:Conclusions:


37

Conditioning the trees with different Conditioning the trees with different nutrient management programs nutrient management programs since the planting and evaluation since the planting and evaluation done during the seven and eightdone during the seven and eight--year old trees showed significantly year old trees showed significantly greater fruit yield as well as total greater fruit yield as well as total soluble solids yield with fertigation soluble solids yield with fertigation as compared to those with dry as compared to those with dry granular fertilizer broadcast granular fertilizer broadcast application.application.



This young tree study also This young tree study also showed that the optimum N showed that the optimum N rate with continuous fertigation rate with continuous fertigation treatment was lower by 35 treatment was lower by 35 kgkg..haha--11 as compared with that as compared with that for the dry fertilizer broadcast for the dry fertilizer broadcast treatment.treatment.



38

Six year study on twentySix year study on twenty--plus plus year old year old ‘‘HamlinHamlin’’ orange trees orange trees on on ‘‘Cleopatra mandarinCleopatra mandarin’’rootstock showed no rootstock showed no significant difference between significant difference between the fertigation and dry fertilizer the fertigation and dry fertilizer broadcast treatments.broadcast treatments.



A fiveA five--year study on thirtyyear study on thirty--five plus five plus year old year old ‘‘ValenciaValencia’’ orange trees on orange trees on ‘‘Rough LemonRough Lemon’’ rootstock showed a rootstock showed a significant decrease in significant decrease in surficialsurficialaquifer NOaquifer NO33--N concentration under N concentration under the trees which received total the trees which received total fertigation as compared to that of the fertigation as compared to that of the trees which received dry granular trees which received dry granular broadcast (3 broadcast (3 applappl/year) of similar N /year) of similar N rates.rates.



39

With fertigation, the With fertigation, the groundwater NOgroundwater NO33--N N concsconcs. were . were below the maximum below the maximum contaminant limit (MCL) of 10 contaminant limit (MCL) of 10 mgmg..LL--11 while in the grove that while in the grove that received dry fertilizer broadcast, received dry fertilizer broadcast, the nitrate the nitrate concsconcs. were above . were above the MCL throughout the duration the MCL throughout the duration of the studyof the study..



A study in Israel (mature A study in Israel (mature ShamoutiShamouti oranges) showed oranges) showed significantly greater fruit yield significantly greater fruit yield with fertigation as compared to with fertigation as compared to that with dry granular fertilizer that with dry granular fertilizer application at the lower N rate application at the lower N rate (160 kg/ha), but not at the high N (160 kg/ha), but not at the high N rate (280 kg/ha).rate (280 kg/ha).



40

Three years grapefruit study Three years grapefruit study showed greater fruit yield showed greater fruit yield with dry fertilizer (1/3 of with dry fertilizer (1/3 of annual rate) plus fertigation annual rate) plus fertigation (2/3 of annual rate) as (2/3 of annual rate) as compared to that with total compared to that with total dry fertilizer application dry fertilizer application treatment. treatment.



Six years grapefruit study Six years grapefruit study showed distinct benefits of showed distinct benefits of fertigation as compared to fertigation as compared to dry fertilizer application dry fertilizer application only at the high N rate (224 only at the high N rate (224 kg/ha) only.kg/ha) only.

ConclusionsConclusions


41

A study in Brazil showed A study in Brazil showed significantly greater fruit significantly greater fruit yield with fertigation as yield with fertigation as compared to that with dry compared to that with dry fertilizer application at fertilizer application at both full and 50% both full and 50% recommended rate.recommended rate.



Thank You for Your Thank You for Your

AttentionAttention

Questions????????Questions????????Alva; IPI International Symposium on Fertigation; Optimizing the utilization of water and nutrients; Beijing, September 20-24, 2005

42

0 60 120 180 240 300 36005

10152025303540

Cum

.dra

inag

e be

low

the

root

zone

(mm

)

Cum

. am

ount

of N

O3-N

leac

hed

(kg

ha-1

yr-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

0

5

10

0100200300400500600700

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

05

101520253035

Feb. 1994 - Jan. 1995

Feb. 1995 - Jan. 1996

Calendar daysFig. 11 (Alva etal.)

Cum. Drainage

224280

112168

N rates (kg ha-1 yr-1)


Leaf analysis 2003

1,14,3**3,7*2,02,35,0**2,23,2*1,52,4Teste F

481341311241244,127,11,213,627,36

561241281251414,431,01,112,130,05

4578117941224,328,01,213,832,74

49831211181334,530,51,313,229,23

451151101051215,133,31,111,826,22

46114951111265,332,31,111,828,11

mg/kgg/kg

ZnMnFeCuBMgCaPKNTratament


role of fertigation in horticultural crops: citrus of fertigatio… · · 2011-11-11role of...

Documents