Nutrient Availability in Soil Amended with Pecan Wood Chips

Self Cite

The pruning wood of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch] is often burned. Chipping and soil incorporation of pruning wood is becoming more popular as a result of environmental constraints on burning. The objective of our research was to determine how pecan wood incorporation into soil affects the soil chemical and physical properties. Pecan wood chips were incorporated into a silty clay soil at rates of 0, 4484, 8968, 13,452, and 17,936 kg·ha−1 in Summer 2002, 2003, and 2004. Some plots received nitrogen at a rate of 0, 15.2, 30.5, 45.7, and 61.0 kg·ha−1 to adjust the C : N ratio of trimmings to 30 : 1. Ammonium sulfate, as a nitrogen source to balance the C : N ratio of pecan wood chips, reduced soil pH. However, the wood chip amendments alone did not reduce soil pH. Soil salinity (as determined by electrical conductivity) and bulk density were unaffected by wood chip incorporation regardless of application rate or number of applications. Incorporation of pecan chips had little effect on soil moisture content, but the soil had an inherently high waterholding capacity. Pecan wood chip incorporation significantly increased soil organic matter content and aggregate stability, particularly at the higher application rates and with repeated amendment. The incorporation of pecan pruning wood into the soil appears to improve soil tilth and aggregation while providing growers with an environmentally acceptable means of disposal.

mentioning

confidence: 52%

Chemical and Physical Properties of Soil Amended with Pecan Wood Chips

Tahboub¹,

Lindemann²,

Murray³

2008

Self Cite

“…After 3 years, TCSA was 31 cm 2 in untreated trees versus 39 cm 2 in trees with 10 cm of mulch applied to the soil surface (Foshee et al, 1996). In another study, incorporation of pecan pruning wood chips into the soil improved soil tilth and aggregation and increased volumetric water content 20 d after irrigation (Tahboub et al, 2008) while not affecting nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium availability (Tahboub et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Manure and Soil Zinc Application to ‘Wichita’ Pecan Trees Growing Under Alkaline Conditions

Núñez-Moreno

Walworth²,

Pond

2009

The effect of cattle manure or combined manure and zinc (Zn) application on Zn uptake, mineral composition, and yield and nut quality in pecan trees [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) C. Koch] was evaluated. In 2006, treatments evaluated were: manure (12 ton/ha; M), manure plus Zn (12 ton/ha plus 129 kg Zn/ha as ZnSO4; MZ), and an untreated control. During 2007, two more treatments were added with doubled manure and Zn rates. New treatments were manure 2× (24 ton/ha; M2) and manure 2× plus Zn 2× (24 ton/ha plus 258 kg Zn as ZnSO4; M2Z2). Manure was broadcast on the soil in a 2.5-m wide band 2 m from the trunk. Zinc sulfate was broadcast over the manure, and then manure and Zn were disked into the top 10 cm of soil. In 2008, in five of nine sampling dates, significant treatment effects were detected on leaf Zn concentrations. On all of the dates, M2Z2 had the highest foliar Zn levels. During the Summer 2008 (17 July) foliar Zn in M2Z2, treatment reached 66 μg·g−1; the control treatment level was 45 μg·g−1. Nut yields were higher in treatments receiving manure, with or without Zn in the first year, and highest in the untreated control the second year. No differences were observed in trunk growth, leaf area, leaf weight, or nut growth. Kernel percentages were over 61.4 in the 3 years of study in all treatments. Largest differences among treatments in nut size were found in 2007; nut weight in the control treatment was 7.5 g per nut and in M was 8.0 g per nut. Nut weight was smaller during 2008 when nut yield was high, and the untreated control nuts were smaller than those from treated trees. The manure and manure plus Zn treatments increased foliar Zn levels in pecan trees after 3 years of annual applications. In 2008, significant differences in leaflet Zn concentration among treatments were detected with M2Z2 having the highest concentrations.

“…The pecan wood chips in our study had a C:N mass ratio of 94. From the soil tillage study by Tahboub et al (2007), pecan wood chips from an orchard in nearby semiarid west Texas had a C:N ratio of 143. A 0.15% difference in wood N (0.49% and 0.34% of dry weight in the present study vs. their study, respectively) led to the large difference in C:N ratio.…”

Section: Biological and Horticultural Implications For A Pecan Wood 'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Mesilla Valley, pecan prunings have traditionally been disposed of by burning, but a relatively new practice is mechanical shredding for orchard mulch (Kallestad et al, 2008) or tillage to a shallow soil depth (Tahboub et al, 2007). The tillage does not appear to immobilize soil nutrients and may improve soil tilth and aggregation (Tahboub et al, 2007(Tahboub et al, , 2008. Mulching and tillage have provided an environmentally acceptable means of branch disposal in view of recent burning restrictions, but add to pecan production costs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetative Growth and Leaf Nutrient Status of ‘Carpino’ Chrysanthemum on a Pecan Wood-amended Commercial Substrate

Picchioni¹,

Martinez²,

Mexal³

et al. 2016

Commercial production of pecan [Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch.] generates significant woody biomass from hedge prunings with little economic value. Value-added uses could aid pecan growers, and one possible use is wood chips for potting substrates to lessen dependence on peatmoss, thereby aiding greenhouse growers. We evaluated vegetative growth and leaf nutrient responses of ‘Carpino’ garden chrysanthemum (Dendranthema ×grandiflorum) over a 60-day period. Plants were grown in five pecan wood chip substrate levels that substituted 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of peatmoss by volume. Three water soluble fertilizer (WSF) rates—N at 0, 200, or 400 mg·L−1 (0–N, 200–N, and 400–N, respectively)—were applied with each irrigation and to each of the wood substitution treatments. The WSF and wood substitution treatments interacted strongly. In the presence of wood, (25−100% substitution levels), increasing WSF to 400–N increased cumulative evapotranspiration (ET), crop height, total leaf number and area, total leaf and stem dry weight, and leaf N and P concentrations. However, with 0% wood substitution, 400−N provided little or no such enhancements. With 25% to 50% wood substitution, root dry weight increased by 61% to 91% from 0–N to 200–N, which may be an adaptive response to nutrient-limiting conditions at 200–N. Appearance of a white rot fungal species in and atop pecan wood-supplemented substrate supports the likelihood that microbial activity was, at least in part, responsible for the nutrient limitations. High WSF at 400–N in combination with 25% pecan wood substitution maintained adequate fertility and shoot growth that was comparable to the conventional peat-only substrate at 200–N. With low to moderate amounts of pecan wood, further adjustments to WSF rate and irrigation volume would support sustainable fertigation practices, reduce dependence on peatmoss by greenhouse industry, and provide a value-added recycling option for pecan growers.