n and k fertilizer comparisons on yield production of tomato
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Evaluating fertilizer forms and additives
![Page 2: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Does the form of Nmake a difference ?
Early season Fruit yield Brix yieldN fertilizer petiole NO3-N (PPM) (tons/acre (tons/acre)Ammonium sulfate 11,700 44.2 2.12UN-32 11,900 43.5 2.08CAN-17 11,700 44.6 2.11
effects significant ? no no no
Average of 1985-86 Miyao / grower sidedress trials :
![Page 3: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
2009 UCD drip-irrigated tomato trial :Comparison of fertigation with ammonium sulfate and calcium nitrate
Eight weekly fertigations, seasonal total of 170 lb N/acre- ammonium sulfate (21-0-0)- calcium nitrate (15.5-0-0-19 Ca)
![Page 4: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2009 UCD drip-irrigated tomato trial :Comparison of fertigation with ammonium sulfate and calcium nitrate
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
9-Ju
n
16-J
un
23-J
un
30-J
un
7-Ju
l
14-J
ul
21-J
ul
Sample date
Petio
le N
O3-N
(PPM
)
ammonium sulfatecalcium nitrate
![Page 5: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2009 UCD drip-irrigated tomato trial :Comparison of fertigation with ammonium sulfate and calcium nitrate
0
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
9-Ju
n
16-J
un
23-J
un
30-J
un
7-Ju
l
14-J
ul
21-J
ul
Sample date
Petio
le N
O3-N
(PPM
)
ammonium sulfatecalcium nitrate
0
10
20
30
409-
Jun
16-J
un
23-J
un
30-J
un
7-Ju
l
14-J
ul
21-J
ul
Sample date
Soil
NO3
-N (P
PM)
ammonium sulfatecalcium nitrate
![Page 6: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2009 UCD drip-irrigated tomato trial :Comparison of fertigation with ammonium sulfate and calcium nitrate
N formFruit yield (tons/acre)
Soluble solids(o brix)
ammonium sulfate 46 5.5calcium nitrate 47 5.4
![Page 7: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2009 UCD drip-irrigated tomato trial :Comparison of fertigation with ammonium sulfate and calcium nitrate
N formFruit yield (tons/acre)
Soluble solids(o brix)
Fruit calcium (% of dry wt)
ammonium sulfate 46 5.5 0.09calcium nitrate 47 5.4 0.09
![Page 8: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
210 lb Ca / acre was applied with calcium nitrate- why no difference in fruit Ca ?
![Page 9: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
0.00
0.100.20
0.30
0.40
0 2 4 6
Leaf Ca (%)
Frui
t Ca
(%)
Processing tomato fruit quality survey :
210 lb Ca / acre was applied with calcium nitrate- why no difference in fruit Ca ?
![Page 10: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
0.00
0.100.20
0.30
0.40
0 2 4 6
Leaf Ca (%)
Frui
t Ca
(%)
Processing tomato fruit quality survey :
210 lb Ca / acre was applied with calcium nitrate- why no difference in fruit Ca ?
Ca moves in transpirational flow in xylem, so leaf Ca is highsurface wax on fruit limits transpiration, limiting Ca in
xylem flow; Ca does not move in phloem
![Page 11: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Does the form of K make a difference ?K chlorideK sulfateK thiosulfate
![Page 12: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Does the form of K make a difference ?K chlorideK sulfateK thiosulfate
To what degree is chloride toxic?Tomato is reasonably salinity tolerant, and chloride tolerant
- no detrimental effects < 175 PPM Cl in soil solution- 200 lb K2O/acre from KCl contains ≈ 35 PPM Cl averaged
over a season’s irrigation
![Page 13: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Does the form of K make a difference ?K chlorideK sulfateK thiosulfate
To what degree is chloride toxic?Tomato is reasonably salinity tolerant, and chloride tolerant
- no detrimental effects < 5 meq/liter (175 PPM Cl)- 200 lb K2O/acre from KCl contains < 35 PPM Cl averaged
over a season’s irrigation
Are there beneficial effects of sulfate or thiosulfate ions?- sulfur availability is limited only in very low organic matter soil,
and low salt irrigation water- thiosulfate ion acidifies soil
![Page 14: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Does humic acid improve fertilizer performance ?
![Page 15: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
What has been proven :In hydroponic studies, humic / fulvic acids can
- increase plant growth- increase nutrient uptake
![Page 16: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
What has been proven :In hydroponic studies, humic / fulvic acids can
- increase plant growth- increase nutrient uptake
Are commercial humic products effective in field soils ?Replicated field data from western states is very limited
- slight benefit in potatoes (University of Idaho)- no benefit in onions (Oregon State University)
![Page 17: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Products tested :Actagro Humic acidActagro Liquid humusOrgano Liquid HumeQuantum-HESP-50
2007-09 UCD trials :
![Page 18: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Does humic acid stimulate microbial activity in field soils ?
Two field soils wetted with a solution of humic acid and 10-34-0- all products at 2 lb active ingredient/acre
Incubated in sealed jars for 7 daysCO2 released by microbial respiration measured
![Page 19: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Does humic acid stimulate microbial activity in field soils ?
mg of carbon mineralizedSoil with 0.8% organic matter
Soil with 2.5% organic matter
P + Humics 5.9 11.0P fertilizer alone 5.5 11.2
Humic effects significant ? yes no
![Page 20: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Does humic acid affect the microbial community in field soils ?
Phospholipid fatty acids increased ?Soil with 0.8% organic matter
Soil with 2.5% organic matter
fungi yes nobacteria yes noactinomycetes yes no
![Page 21: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Does humic acid improve fertilizer efficiency ?
![Page 22: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Plant dry weight (g)Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4
No P or Humic 0.21 0.50 0.79 1.06 Humic only 0.26 0.53 0.89 1.21 Humic effects significant ? no no no no
P only 2.08 1.89 2.69 2.74Humic + P 1.77 1.70 3.16 2.88Humic effects significant ? no no yes no
![Page 23: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
2008-09 Humic acid field trials
Pretransplant banding of 10-34-0 with / without humic acidsHumic rates of 1 and 3 lb active ingredient / acreFive 100’ reps per treatment
![Page 24: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Early season sampling :Whole plant sacrifice to evaluate growthLeaf samples to evaluate nutrient uptake
![Page 25: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
% in plantPlant dry wt (g) N P K
Fertilizer + Humics @ I lb/acre 88 4.6 0.42 3.4Fertilizer + Humics @ 3 lb/acre 87 4.7 0.42 3.5Fertilizer alone 87 4.6 0.39 3.4
Humic effects significant ? no no no no
2008 :
Sampling 6 weeks after transplanting
![Page 26: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
% in leafPlant dry wt (g) N P K
Fertilizer + Humics @ I lb/acre 21 5.6 0.63 2.4Fertilizer + Humics @ 3 lb/acre 22 5.6 0.64 2.4 Fertilizer alone 22 5.7 0.68 2.4
Humic effects significant ? no no no no
2009 :
Sampling 4 weeks after transplanting
![Page 27: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
How about micronutrients ?
in neither year did humic acid consistently increaseleaf micronutrient concentration
![Page 28: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
2008 2009Mkt yield
(tons/acre)Solids(o brix)
Mkt yield(tons/acre)
Solids(o brix)
Fertilizer + Humics @ I lb/acre 50.9 5.5 42.2 5.5Fertilizer + Humics @ 3 lb/acre 51.8 5.5 45.6 5.5 Fertilizer alone 52.7 5.6 44.2 5.6
Humic effects significant ? no no no no
At harvest :
![Page 29: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Why such disappointing results ?Hydroponic studies suggest that HA concentration of 50-100 PPM necessary
for optimum response; typical field application rates are too low
Dissolved organic matter in soil can perform the same functions as HA,thereby masking potential HA effects
![Page 30: N and K Fertilizer Comparisons on Yield Production of Tomato](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022042613/553783a55503465a698b4d7b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)