Methods for Determining Nitrogen Release from Controlled-release Fertilizers Used for Vegetable Production

Carson, Luther C.; Ozores-Hampton, Mónica

doi:10.21273/horttech.22.1.20

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An ideal damage test would be rapid, measure fertilizer release dynamics directly, and require no specialized equipment. The standard laboratory methods reviewed by Carson and Ozores‐Hampton (2012) measure fertilizer release directly, and some of the tests took as little as 6 h to perform, but they required specialized laboratory equipment to implement. Parish (2001a, 2001b) assessed damage by immersing 100 prills in a solution of four drops of food coloring in 50 mL water for 5 min and counting the prills that absorbed the dye to give a percentage of damaged prills.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Quick Test to Assess Polymer‐Coated Urea Prill Damage

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polymer‐coated ureas (PCUs) can reduce N leaching in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) production while maintaining yields. However, damage to the polymer coating during handling increases N release and potentially affects leaching and crop response. A 2‐yr study was conducted to develop a quick test of PCU damage, compare its results with N release under field conditions, and determine damage effects on N uptake and yield in field experiments. A 24‐h water immersion procedure was developed to measure N release differences from two sources of the PCU fertilizer Environmentally Smart Nitrogen (ESN) handled in different ways: ESN(C), dealer grade undamaged control, and ESN(A), damaged by air boom spreader application. Nitrogen release from ESN(A) was more rapid in both the 24‐h test and during in situ soil incubation. Quick test results were positively correlated with N release during the first 7 d of field incubation (R2 = 0.91, adjusted R2 = 0.86). Differences in prill damage between ESN(C) and ESN(A) were greater in 2010 than 2011. Limited crop response differences occurred in 2011, but in 2010 petiole nitrate‐N was more stable and higher late in the season for ESN(C) than ESN(A), and tuber, vine, and total N uptake were significantly greater for ESN(C). Tuber yield and size were not significantly affected by ESN damage. Based on these results, the quick test provides an accurate assessment of potential differences in N release during the growing season due to coating damage and can be used to evaluate leaching potential and possible need for fertigation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Quick Test to Assess Polymer‐Coated Urea Prill Damage

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental conditions and leachate sampling from the sand columns were based on published protocols (Cabrera, 1997;Carson and Ozores-Hampton, 2012;Fan and Li, 2010). Columns remained saturated with water up to the upper level of the sand.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both growth chamber and greenhouse methods have been used to compare how CRF will act in a particular controlled environment (Broschat and Moore, 2007;Carson and Ozores-Hampton, 2012). Field methods are also used to measure N release in commercial vegetable soil conditions (Birrenkott et al, 2005;Simonne and Hutchinson, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plant growth and nutrient level were evaluated under simulated consumer conditions in a landscape planting and in containers for an additional 98 d. A simple financial budget for each fertilizer strategy was calculated. An additional experiment was conducted to generate nutrient release curves in growth chambers at 10, 21, and 32°C with sand-filled columns, using a protocol based on Carson and Ozores-Hampton (2012). 15.7 ± 5.1 molÁm -2 Ád -1 and daily air temperature averaged 24.1 ± 2.2°C.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategies to Provide Fertilizer for Both Production and Consumer Phases of Petunia

Oliveira

Fisher

Huang

et al. 2016

hortte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to compare strategies using water-soluble fertilizers (WSF) and controlled-release fertilizers (CRF) to provide adequate nutrition during both production and consumer phases of petunia (Petunia ×hybrida). Strategies included a CRF with a second prill coating (DCT) that delayed initial nutrient release, compared with a conventional single-coated CRF (OSM) and WSF. Rooted cuttings of petunia were grown for 42 days in trade 1-gal (2.84-L) containers (the “production phase”) with WSF only, a low rate of combined WSF and substrate-incorporated OSM, or low and high label rates of WSF and top-dressed (TD) OSM (WSF + OSM TD), WSF and substrate-incorporated DCT (WSF + DCT), OSM, or a commercial blend of substrate-incorporated OSM and DCT (OSM + DCT). By the end of production phase after 42 days, all fertilizer strategies tested produced horticulturally acceptable plants in terms of chlorophyll index and number of flowers. In a subsequent “consumer phase,” plants were maintained in containers or were transplanted into a landscape and irrigated with clear water for 98 days. Plant performance [number of flowers, SPAD chlorophyll index, dry weight, and tissue nitrogen (N) level] was greater during the consumer phase in treatments with high rates of CRF compared with WSF only or lower rates of CRF. On the basis of nutrient release in a sand substrate without plants at 10, 21, or 32 °C, the DCT had delayed nutrient release compared with single-coated CRF. The release rates of all CRF products and the duration of the delay in release from DCT were temperature dependent. A partial budget found that the lowest cost treatment was WSF only at $0.02/container. Comparing at high application rates, using WSF + DCT ($0.085/container) was more expensive than incorporated OSM ($0.05/container) and had a similar cost to WSF + OSM TD ($0.084/container). The greatly improved consumer performance for plants with residual fertilizer compared with WSF provides an opportunity to add value and profitability if a slightly higher sales price could be obtained. Several fertilizer strategies are available depending on material and labor cost and availability and preferred crop management style.

show abstract

“…Field measurements of CRF N release have been made by researchers using the field pouch method, which consists of a known mass of CRF (e.g., 3.5 g N) sealed inside fiberglass mesh pouches that may be buried inside a polyethylene mulched or open bed vegetable systems and removed at prearranged dates (Carson and Ozores-Hampton, 2012). After collection, the N content remaining in the CRF prills is measured to determine the amount of N remaining and the N release rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogen Release Properties of Controlled-release Fertilizers during Tomato Production

Carson

Ozores-Hampton

Morgan

et al. 2014

horts

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determination of nutrient release duration from controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) or soluble fertilizers encapsulated in polymer, resin, or sulfur covered fertilizer coated with a polymer differs among manufacturers, but may be determined as 75% to 80% nitrogen (N) release at a constant temperature (e.g., 20 to 25 °C). Increases or decreases in temperature compared with the manufacturer release determination temperature increase or decrease CRF N release; thus, coated fertilizer may release more rapidly than stated during the fall season when soil temperatures in seepage-irrigated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) production can reach 40.1 °C. The objectives of this study were to evaluate N release duration of CRFs by measuring N release from CRFs incubated in pouches under polyethylene mulch-covered raised beds and to determine the CRF duration suitable for incorporation into a fall tomato fertility program. In 2011 and 2013, 12 and 14 CRFs from Agrium Advanced Technologies, Everris, Florikan, and Chisso-Asahi Fertilizer were sealed in fiberglass mesh pouches (12.7 × 14 cm) that were buried 10 cm below the bed surface in a tomato crop grown using commercial production practices. A data logger collected soil temperature 10 cm below the bed surface. Pouches were collected and N content was measured eight times through two fall seasons. A nonlinear regression model was fit to the data to determine N release rate. During the 2011 and 2013 seasons, minimum, average, and maximum soil temperatures were 21.2 and 19.2, 25.7 and 23.5, and 32.2 and 27.7 °C, respectively. Seasonal total CRF N release was between 77.6% and 93.8% during 2011 and 58.3% and 94.3% in 2013. In 2011, PCU90 and in 2013, PCU90 and PCNPK120 had the highest seasonal total percentage N release (PNR) and FL180 had the lowest in both years. A nonlinear regression fit N release from CRF with R2 = 0.85 to 0.99 during 2011 and 0.49 to 0.99 during 2013. Nitrogen release from all CRFs was faster than the manufacturer’s stated release, probably as a result of high fall bed temperatures. A CRF or CRF mixture containing CRFs of 120- to 180-day release duration may be recommended, but the CRFs must release greater than 75% N during the season.

show abstract

Methods for Determining Nitrogen Release from Controlled-release Fertilizers Used for Vegetable Production

Cited by 20 publications

References 28 publications

Evaluation of a Quick Test to Assess Polymer‐Coated Urea Prill Damage

Evaluation of a Quick Test to Assess Polymer‐Coated Urea Prill Damage

Strategies to Provide Fertilizer for Both Production and Consumer Phases of Petunia

Nitrogen Release Properties of Controlled-release Fertilizers during Tomato Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About