Release Mechanisms for Slow- and Controlled-release Fertilizers and Strategies for Their Use in Vegetable Production

Morgan, Kelly T.; Cushman, Kent; Sato, Shuko

doi:10.21273/hortsci.19.1.10

Cited by 76 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) is a fertilizer manufactured with an insoluble coat covering the surface of watersoluble fertilizer pellets [1]. It has the benefit of reducing fertilizer-induced pollution because fertilizer nutrients are gradually eluted through a semipermeable film as needed by crops [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth effects of the application of new controlled-release fertilizers on Phalaenopsis spp.

Kim

et al. 2018

Appl Biol Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To develop a controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) suitable for nutrient absorption characteristics of Phalaenopsis, four kinds of new controlled-release fertilizer (NCRF 1-4) with different dissolution rates were developed and studied to determine the concentration and amount suitable for growth of Phalaenopsis. To make NCRF, new acryl-based polymers were developed and used as fertilizer coating solutions. In addition, a fluidized bed coater for coating fertilizer was developed and used in this study. To test the growth of Phalaenopsis, 10-monthold Phalaenopsis seedlings were planted in plastic pots (diameter 10 cm) filled with 100% Sphagnum moss and cultivated for approximately 100 days from May 29, 2015, to September 11, 2015. NCRF 1, NCRF 2, and Osmocote, an imported fertilizer, consistently exhibited release patterns of fertilizer nutrients in a directly proportional form; however, NCRF 3 and NCRF 4 displayed a sigmoid-like tendency of fertilizer nutrient release with a slower initial dissolution rate. Furthermore, leaf length, leaf width, fresh weigh, and root weight of Phalaenopsis were the highest when growing in 1.5 g/pot of NCRF 3 fertilizer, and the pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil were stable at this concentration of NCRF 3. Based on our results, we suggest that 1.5 g/pot of NCRF 3 fertilizer is the ideal concentration and fertilizer for growing Phalaenopsis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth effects of the application of new controlled-release fertilizers on Phalaenopsis spp.

Kim

et al. 2018

Appl Biol Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Controlled release fertilizer is one approach to increasing fertilizer efficiency by synchronizing nutrient release with crop demand and thereby minimizing environmental losses (Blaylock et al, 2005; Shoji et al, 2001; Morgan et al, 2009). Polymer‐coated urea is one type of controlled release fertilizer (Grant and Wu, 2008; Nelson et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Barley Productivity Response to Polymer‐Coated Urea in a No‐Till Production System

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers are interested in more cost-effi cient and environmentally sound fertilization programs in fi eld crops. A multi-site study on the Canadian prairies was conducted to determine the eff ect of polymer-coated urea (Environmentally Smart Nitrogen, ESN) compared with urea on weed management and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) yield and quality. Treatments included a semi-dwarf and tall barley cultivar, polymer-coated urea (ESN) and urea, 100 and 150% of soil test N fertilizer rates, and 50 and 100% of registered herbicide rates. Treatments were applied to the same plots in four consecutive years. Barley yield was greater with semi-dwarf compared with tall barley in 13 of 20 site-years but weed biomass was greater in 7 of 18 site-years with the semi-dwarf cultivar. Th e 150% N fertilizer rate increased yield of both cultivars in 9 of 20 site-years and of the semi-dwarf cultivar in four additional site-years. Barley yield was oft en similar with ESN and urea but ESN increased barley yield in three site-years at both N rates, two additional site-years at the 150% N rate, and one further site-year with semi-dwarf barley. Barley grain protein concentration was greater with ESN than with urea in 8 of 20 site-years. Information gained in this study will be used to advise growers on improved barley production practices.

show abstract

“…Less water soluble superphosphates (e.g., the SuperSR range of products from CSBP Fertilizers and lime‐reverted SSP in New Zealand, often termed dicalcic phosphates ), which are basically di‐calcium phosphate dihydrate formed by treatment of SSP with lime, are sometimes used, but the agronomic efficiency of these products is usually greater than SSP only in situations where P leaching is significant (i.e., course‐textured soils in high‐rainfall environments) (Edmeades, 2000). Polymer‐coated products, while effective in slowing P release from water‐soluble products, are generally too expensive for widespread use on pastures and tend to be used more in horticultural production systems on light‐textured soils, focused mostly on decreasing losses of nitrogen (Morgan et al, 2009). …”

Section: Common Phosphatic Fertilizers Applied To Pastures and Their mentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Exports of Phosphorus from Fertilizers Applied to Grazed Pastures

Nash¹,

McDowell

Condron

et al. 2019

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its discovery in 1669, phosphorus (P) in the form of fertilizer has become an essential input for many agroecosystems. By introducing a concentrated P source, fertilizers increase short‐term P export potential soon after their application and longer‐term export potential by increasing soil fertility (legacy P). The 4R concept was developed to help mitigate P exports from the fertilizers that sustain agricultural productivity. This review investigates the factors affecting P exports soon after the application of mineral fertilizers to pasture‐based grazing systems and studies quantifying its potential impact in different systems, with an emphasis on Australasia. Initially, P fertilizers and reactions that might affect their short‐term P export potential are reviewed, along with P transport pathways, the forms of P exported from grazing systems, factors affecting P mobilization into water, and studies demonstrating the possible short‐term effects of fertilizer application on P exports. Using that foundation, we review studies quantifying the short‐term impact of fertilizer application in different regions; they show that under poor management, recently applied fertilizer can contribute a considerable proportion (30–80%) of total farm P exports in drainage, but when fertilizer is well‐managed, that figure is expected to be <10%. We then use three model systems of varying hydrology that are common to Australasia to demonstrate the principles for selecting fertilizers that are likely to minimize P exports soon after their application. Core Ideas Fertilizers increase P exports directly or by increasing P cycling. We review P pathways and processes relevant to grazing systems. Direct fertilizer P exports can be comparatively small (<10% of annual exports). Fertilizer selection to minimize P exports in three model systems is demonstrated.

show abstract

Release Mechanisms for Slow- and Controlled-release Fertilizers and Strategies for Their Use in Vegetable Production

Cited by 76 publications

References 18 publications

Growth effects of the application of new controlled-release fertilizers on Phalaenopsis spp.

Growth effects of the application of new controlled-release fertilizers on Phalaenopsis spp.

Barley Productivity Response to Polymer‐Coated Urea in a No‐Till Production System

Direct Exports of Phosphorus from Fertilizers Applied to Grazed Pastures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About