Effect of Some Controlled Release Fertilizers and Application Methods on the Growth of Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)

Abstract

The fertilizer applied to the soil is affected by many factors depending on the nutrient element until it will be dissolved and taken up by plants. Controlled release fertilizers (CRF) have been developed as a new technology to increase the efficiency of fertilizers. In this study, effect of 5 different CRFs (115, 414, 715, 815, and 2415), which have similar characteristics in terms of N, P and K contents, and different application methods (incorporated or in the package) were determined on the development of the Italian ryegrass under controlled conditions. CRFs were incorporated or applied in the package to the ryegrass grown in pots filled with peat. In 4-month period starting from seed sowing, fertilizers and application methods were compared by determining the total weight loss occurred in fertilizers over time, total loss in fertilizer nutrient content, total fresh and dry biomass produced per unit fertilizer, and the total amount of nutrients removed by biomass per pot. As a result, while the weight loss was the least in 414 (29.90%) and 815 (15.03%), their biomasses were the highest. It was determined that the effectiveness of both fertilizers is higher than the others. According to total biomass produced per unit fertilizer, 815 came to the fore with an open gap. Incorporating was more effective in terms of application method. 815 and incorporating method were recommended for plant in container-grown and having with a long-life cycle.

Keywords

• Weight loss
• Nutrient
• Biomass
• Container-grown

Bazı Kontrollü Salınımlı Gübrelerin ve Uygulama Metotlarının İtalyan Çimi (Lolium multiflorum)’nin Gelişimi Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Toprağa uygulanan gübrelerin yarayışlı hale geçerek bitkiler tarafından alınması besin elementine bağlı olarak birçok faktör tarafından etkilenmektedir. Gübrelerin etkinlik derecesini arttırmak için kontrollü salınımlı gübreler (KSG) yeni bir teknoloji olarak geliştirilmiştir. Yapılan bu çalışmada N, P ve K içerikleri yönünden benzer özellik gösteren 5 farklı KSG’nin (115, 414, 715, 815 ve 2415) ve farklı uygulama (serbest veya paketli) metotlarının İtalyan çiminin gelişimi üzerine etkisi kontrollü şartlarda belirlenmiştir. Torf ile doldurulmuş saksı içerisinde yetiştirilen bitkilere KSG’ler paket halinde ya da serbest halde uygulanmıştır. Tohum ekiminden itibaren 4 aylık periyod içinde gübrelerde zamanla meydana gelen toplam ağırlık kayıpları, besin elementi içeriğindeki meydana gelen kayıplar, birim gübre karşılığında toplam üretilen yaş ve kuru biomas ve saksı başına hasatla kaldırılan toplam besin elementi miktarları belirlenerek gübreler ve uygulama şekilleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, 414 (% 29.90) ve 815 (% 15.03) nolu gübrelerde ağırlık kaybı en az olurken biomas üretimi en fazla olmuştur. Her iki gübrenin etkinliği diğerlerine oranla istatistiksel olarak önemli düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Birim gübre karşılığında üretilen biomas miktarına göre ise 815 açık farkla öne çıkmıştır. Uygulama şekli açısından “serbest” uygulamanın daha etkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Özellikle saksıda yetiştirilen ve uzun hayat döngüsüne sahip bitkilerde 815 nolu gübrenin serbest uygulama şekli önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ağırlık kaybı
• Besin elementi
• Çim verimi
• Saksı yetiştiriciliği

References

1. Agro, E., & Zheng, Y. (2014). Controlled-release fertilizer application rates for container nursery crop production in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. HortScience, 49, 1414-1423. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.49.11.1414
2. Andiru, G., Pasian, C., & Frantz, J. (2015). Effects of controlled-release fertilizer placement on nutrient leaching and growth of bedding impatiens. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 33, 58-65.
3. Azeem, B., KuShaari, K., Man, Z. B., Basit, A., & Thanh, T. H. (2014). Review on materials and methods to produce controlled release coated urea fertilizer. Journal of Controlled Release, 181, 11-21. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.02.020
4. Blythe, E. K., Mayfi eld, J. L., Wilson, B. C., Vinson III, E. L., & Sibley, J. L. (2002). Comparison of three controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers in greenhouse crop production. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 25, 1049-1061. doi:10.1081/PLN-120003938
5. Cabrera, R. I. (1997). Comparative evaluation of nitrogen release patters from controlled-release fertilizers by nitrogen leaching analysis. HortScience, 32, 669-673. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.32.4.669
6. Chen, J., & Wei, X. (2018). Controlled-Release Fertilizers as s Means to Reduce Nitrogen Leaching and Runoff in Container-Grown Plant Production. In Amanullah, & S. Fahad (Eds) Nitrogen in Agriculture- Updates (pp. 33-52). Rijeka, CROATIA: InTech.
7. Cole, J. C., Smith, M. W., Penn, C. J., Cheary, B. S., & Conaghan, K. J. (2016). Nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium applied individually or as a slow release or controlled release fertilizer increase growth and yield and affect macronutrient and micronutrient concentration and content of field-grown tomato plants. Scientia Horticulturae, 211, 420-430. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2016.09.028
8. Du, C., Zhou, J., & Shaviv, A. (2006). Release characteristics of nutrients from poly¬mer-coated compound controlled release fertilizers. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 14, 223-230. doi:10.1007/s10924-006-0025-4

9. Hanafi, M. M., Eltaib, S. M., Ahmad, M. B. & Syed Omar, S. R. (2002). Evaluation of controlled-release compound fertilizers in soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 33:7-8, 1139-1156. doi:10.1081/CSS-120003878
10. Hutchinson, C., Simonne, E., Solano, P., Meldrum, J., & Livingston‐Way, P. (2002) Testing of controlled release fertilizer programs for seep ırrigated ırish potato production. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 26:9, 1709-1723. doi.org/10.1081/PLN-120023277
11. Mehmood, A., Niazi, M. B. K., Hussain, A., Beig, B., Jahan, Z., Zafar, N., & Zia, M. (2019) Slow-release urea fertilizer from sulfur, gypsum, and starch-coated formulations, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 42:10, 1218-1229. doi:10.1080/01904167.2019.1609502
12. Merhaut, D. J., Blythe, E. K., Newman, P. J. & Albano, J. P. (2006). Nutrient release from controlled-release fertilizers in acid substrate in a greenhouse environment. I. Leachate electrical conductivity, pH, and nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium concentrations. HortScience, 41(3): 780-787. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.41.3.780
13. Sempeho, S. I., Kim, H. T., Mubofu, E., & Hilonga, A. (2014). Meticulous Overview on the Controlled Release Fertilizers. Advances in Chemistry, 2014, 1-16. doi:10.1155/2014/363071 Shaviv, A. (2000). Advances in controlled-release fertilizers. Advances in Agronomy, 71, 1-49. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(01)71011-5
14. Shaviv, A., Raban, S., & Zaidel, E. (2003). Modeling controlled nutrient release from polymer coated fertilizers: Diffusion release from single granules. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 2251-2256. doi.org/10.1021/es011462v
15. Syers, J. K., Johnston, A. E., & Curtin, D. (2008). Efficiency of soil and fertilizer phos¬phorus use: Reconciling changing concepts of soil phosphorus behavior with agronomic information. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bull., 18. FAO, Rome.
16. Tisdale, S. L., & Nelson, W. L. (1975). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. New York, USA: Macmillan Publishing.