Recirculation of nutrients in container nursery production

Abstract

Purvis, P., Chong, C. and Lumis, G. P. 2000. Recirculation of nutrients in container nursery production. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80: 39-45. This study evaluated (a) the capacity of a computerized injector to deliver and recirculate nutrients in a container nursery, and (b) plant growth and nutrient status under this regime compared with non-recirculated methods of fertilization, using Dart's Gold ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius L. 'Dart's Gold') potted in 6-L containers filled with a medium of pine bark, peat, and soil (75, 15, and 10%, by volume). The injector was programmed to deliver NH 4 -N (24 mg L -1 ), NO 3 -N (196 mg L -1 ), P (54 mg L -1 ), and K (235 mg L -1 ) and other nutrients, with or without recirculation. Plants grown with recirculated nutrients were placed on aluminium troughs to collect the leachate, which was pumped back to the injector, recharged [based on a target electrical conductivity (EC) value of 1.85 dS m -1 ], and returned to the crop. Additional plants were grown on a crushed stone base and fertilized (a) by the computerized injector without recirculation, (b) with water soluble Plant-Prod 20-8-20 (200 mg L -1 N; non-recirculated) delivered through a Dosatron proportioner, or (c) with incorporated, controlled release Nutricote 18-6-8, Type 140 (6.5 kg m -3 ). NH 4 -N, NO 3 -N, P, and K concentrations delivered by the computerized injector (recirculated and non-recirculated; mean over six dates, 3 July to 28 August 1997) were 50, 22, 41, and 39%, respectively, lower than targeted values. Electrical conductivity values were not significantly different from targeted. The pH values (6.2 -6.4) were higher than targeted (6.0). The amounts of N, P, and K used were reduced by between 57 and 77% with recirculation compared to without. Notwithstanding reduced N, P, and K values, plants grew best with recirculated nutrients and least with non-recirculated liquid 20-8-20. 18-6-8, type 140 (6,5 kg M -3 ). Les concentrations de N ammoniacal et nitrique, de P et de K distribuées par l'injecteur (avec ou sans recyclage) étaient respectivement en moyenne (six dates échelon-nées du 3 juillet au 28 août 1997) de 50, 22, 41 et 39 % plus basses que les valeurs attendues. Les valeurs CE en revanche ne s'é-cartaient pas significativement des valeurs cibles mais les valeurs pH (6,2 à 6,4) étaient plus élevées que la valeur ciblée (6,0). Les quantités de N, P et K utilisées étaient diminuées de 57 à 77 % en circuit recyclé, mais malgré cela la meilleure croissance était obtenue avec les fertilisants recyclés. C'est la solution 20-8-20 sans recyclage qui produisait la croissance la moins bonne.

Response of Container-grown Confetti Tree Irrigated with Runoff Water

“…Global concerns about water quality and quantity, as well as environmental regulations, which aim to reduce nutrient leaching into surface and groundwater, have prompted a number of research efforts including the evaluation of alternative irrigation for agriculture (Jarecki et al, 2005;Purvis et al, 2000). One option for alternative water supply is the sequential reuse of runoff water to irrigate increasingly salt-tolerant plants (Su et al, 2005).…”

Use of Wastewater and Compost Extracts as Nutrient Sources for Growing Nursery and Turfgrass Species

“…Hoagland's #2 solution (half‐strength) was the chosen reference standard since it tends to resist change to alkaline levels (M.K. Jarecki, personal communication, 2002), and previous research showed that full‐strength solutions were toxic (i.e., extreme chlorotic, necrotic, and etiolation effects observed) and unnecessary from a nutrient level standpoint (Purvis et al, 2000; Chong et al, 2004; Jarecki et al, 2005). While nutrient solutions were changed every 2 wk to provide sufficient nutrient levels and to avoid accumulation of root exudates, more frequent changes may decrease the observed stress effects.…”

“…Turfgrass fertilized with compost or its extracts had longer root length and increased root density than nonfertilized plants, and exhibited less incidence of disease (Anonymous, 2001; Scheuerell and Mahaffee, 2003). Furthermore, Purvis et al (2000) found up to 77% reduction in essential plant nutrient needs by recirculating nutrients in containerized nursery production, exemplifying the potential for agricultural and horticultural waste reuse, reduction and conservation, and overall cost savings.…”

La subirrigación como sistema de producción de pimiento (Capsicum annuum L.) en cultivo sin suelo

“…Subirrigation systems offers many advantages, such as a lower nutrients and water requiremnts, provides nutrients in a uniform manner, prevents leaf wetness (disease prevention), irrigation uniformity, less substrate compaction, more uniform crops, improved productivity; reduced discharge of nutrients into surrounding ecosystems and reduce production El sistema de subirrigación ofrece muchas ventajas, tales como un menor requerimiento de nutrientes y agua, proporciona nutrientes de una manera uniforme, evita la humectación foliar (prevención de enfermedades), uniformidad de riego, menor compactación del sustrato, cultivos más uniformes, mejor productividad; reduce la descarga de nutrientes a los ecosistemas circundantes y reduce los costos de producción (Cox, 2001;Santamaria et al, 2003;Rouphael y Colla, 2005;Rouphael et al, 2008;Montesano et al, 2010). Estos beneficios generan ahorros en mano de obra, insumos materiales y pérdidas de producto (Purvis et al, 2000;Santamaria et al, 2003). Además, el sistema de subirrigación puede facilitar el manejo de la SN ya que mantiene estables los parámetros de la misma, puesto que los elementos que no son absorbidos por la planta se acumulan en la parte superior del sustrato, en lugar de la acumulación en la SN como lo haría en un sistema de riego abierto (Reed, 1996;Kent y Reed, 1996;Morvant et al, 1997;Santamaria et al, 2003;Rouphael y Colla, 2005;Rouphael et al, 2006;Montesano et al, 2010).…”

“…Es necesario verificar la validez de éstos sistemas para la producción en hortalizas en invernadero, ya que estas se caracterizan por un ciclo cultural largo, tienen una alta tasa de crecimiento y una gran demanda de agua y nutrientes (Santamaria et al, 2003;Rouphael y Colla, 2005), además de estudiar la idoneidad de diferentes cultivares a este método de riego como consecuencia de su tolerancia a la salinidad costs (Cox, 2001;Santamaria et al, 2003;Rouphael and Colla, 2005;Rouphael et al, 2008;Montesano et al, 2010). These benefits generate savings in labor, material inputs and output losses (Purvis et al, 2000;Santamaria et al, 2003). Also, subirrigation systems can facilitate SN management as it maintains stable parameters of the same, since the elements that are not absorbed by the plant accumulate in the upper part of the substrate instead of accumulating in SN as it would in an open irrigation system (Reed, 1996;Kent and Reed, 1996;Morvant et al, 1997;Santamaria et al, 2003;Rouphael and Colla, 2005;Rouphael et al, 2006;Montesano et al, 2010).…”