r11: (fl .Euv-{OIH

v . r! ...1 r. ... N
... . 1 . .
.1 1 .. . ...,” $14321“. J9
. .- 1 .

 

              

 
             

  

- \ l 1 s I!
. I IE. 1 . I.
, £314. 1
, i 1
c f ”can... ‘9 «I. . TJQY .7..th ¢ hwfifixfiiti a:
1.111 3.1514 111.11.13.11 .
. Du ..rv l. c . , fiiuJMe“ ”a .. ,
1 .Mvflrol. ... earn. 7!: N5...“ ., 1n ,
.....wfir .811 , .1 .3 . 11.1.". ..
I! . . v 1
....chwh .19 1 1QWI§+
. 1.111.112 1&0”: .
. P11.“ «“9?! . . g o.
. uni-1%.“; 1
"iir "O‘
. . . .nnwfieéBfi
1 '1 3: 1 .10. ”Lg! I! .
. 1,7. It CAI 1
.llla.w tr ‘

to: 1:11.. gym—u” .
‘1... 111.10.71.11.

«.v I x 01 . 1 £1,119. 5.5119ch (01:. .

.uo‘frrv}..vh1w.l .M amofyunh. . fbv9£iflflt91fifl§éfni 1.93.. v ...1.
v4.0! frv . 1.. 1, .5} 1114.001. g. int.‘ ‘1' fl

7 z . 'Yf".-§. {1 l.”' ['5" I'D." . .

.110!th 154131;. 117L111... Jirg‘r‘a it?! (If. . Lu.

11.11! 1 1.170101 It. 1 (19 1f]!

P111151. 1:05:01; .1 I. . AI!” 1v.

1 v-

!{I} 1:3,}.1ALP:

”1071117thth A thvlu‘tge 1 .
...

 

           

    

 

 

..Fot 0.1 ~lr . 1A....
“3.1!..r'f2‘fe . ”I" 71.. hi.
1.." vffodkvn .11 9.11 1.65 1. .1 .1115. “.1 11.1112. !.~¢I.)I..\1J.b.10:u D71” 11 I. 1.
1‘! I‘- 564 .1134! I- 0.15 fivtfl’}! P‘... on" Igog
, 1:11.1‘?‘ 11,...eo9ri. Ii: ...fPCt.YY.i-1.. , .
1.1!... 11111111111111.1111. 51.91.111.111. .1111]. 1.1.1.11111111. ,
v. . . . c . .
1 1111.119... 111691 1:111. 1
1 1 a 1.
..

  

1
,- . ..
, . 1 .11. firiawmn,
.. .... ...,rmawbwume. 411. ,, .n
1 hm”? . . t1... 1
“11¢mmmrum.g1uu1
.1 i 1’1 ’
0.311%.”1N1dea i .12
11411.11“? 12 I‘m . . ..
1 .w1 afiw.umwmmmmwup
... 1.5... 1..., 1:1 1 .
v H»

a»

  

-.f

     

 

              

 

 

.3“

In“... .
$313131

\_

 

4.

1

, . , ‘

~ 1 u. n .1

. 1. .... 1. , a, m: .

.,9.N1 . u‘orpt. 1 3:1“
, uh; . 1? 1 1.1”
, , .11m"amwmwmmmevmummmanmmunmmmu. 1

a ,1 fluvibufihfl. ...... ’1

                

     
                 

.
. i .
1.1.11
. ~f 5|.
(EU. 1 inw JIukINa. ..m w”
12‘ n . . . .
..Pcfflg . ...1 . p
.. .
. n .n
. O a
a: ... . ,
,1 . main 3.1.1 3:. _ 1
1 1 It. .1... 1
v 1 9. lflt;§\t R9398: A:
1.3 155M31\«1.»_,VG.13HK11LU( , :3
11111511, 1.531. $7411.31} . .
¥3¥SI1¥ . 5‘

1.31.15.13th 1.11,...) p
1 . ”...Jfitvezdrv,

5113.1.) 1, ”€11.10

 

 

yr: ..
ulnar-511$

5
X
“1‘12;

        
       

13%
‘P 1 .
3%" '

'2

    

5
~33
'iz‘

         

3?
if:
5- 1f;-
5
31‘»

*1?
2:12;;
sz
:11
5.

  

11.
«$111,111 1.11. .
finger».

I.
t
t .4

A

  

121
N

3.!

r 1
M-
: .11’
1; 2
g,

[A A1

A? ‘
f

O

3

I: g;
5%
‘z’ 1‘
£5" ‘
: §£1 3" 1 ‘ _
fééfi 1.1
3%
{1-
111;?
Ev:
11%
Hi
1 ‘1

 

1 Eli
"91%;
:§_
55:5
‘1
15?.

                             

      

1
f5
1?

1:15.
5:

1'

f ,
11;. f ;.1
'1

F

r

i

 

                   

   

..1.ver~

..
”111.1%? . i113

  

E.
I}.
1‘31
:9; .
1:,
51

l‘

1

1

  
  

 

 

                                

 

         

 

.9:

1
‘ no othh. en)?» b. (5 $1.01
fifihflkuuwfia 'Isoxfirwnvrl i132? H1.“-
tf . 1 1 It!” $1.134.“
1+ 1.1331; 11 g1}
1 . .1 511.1113“? 1131.1. ..
. "£51 11 0.. i
. 1.5.11.1”11 111.??? 1 . ,1
. 1. .11. £1}... 1 1 n
, f, . . , {gawk PM? 1th 2 i .
a. 3311 1. A. 45, {itictr
{2... $1.11! . .. «Ekaxs fr! .11.?! 1
.7 flag fut-13.1.: .1 1 1 .1 1 1 o. 11,. ...!qu tiff 1
, 13¢“... t.1|!f...0.n.}u..1( «Umrfurn‘. lrl. ...“ of lt.’a\{a.!lu .1 1, . . v. 1 urn?” #1:”...15‘11 1r ...
.111Hfinwwfianiiflmumritnow1fiu 1110111 1. 43.4.11}... .1 . 1 , fightrflzult 1 . 1
fr}. Q,Whfl1‘qidr>.tz§?.r.v f1zc,{&slplx+~19r 11§¢fhv§$1hfi1uq 11
. 11.1... 11.1 4 1 1.115;),1111 21 1
Ir: 1 311%.?! 1 ~ ,4 .fififirhfifinflm. u
1 Jr} . 1 . a .1
. . . by? at. 1§s§1fl§ ~ n . ....
, . $14: A 51¢ ...-LHWNL ,.
1 . 1 :59... 4 :Ju ”ff... . 1., Mgttfi
1 1 1 1 .m‘... t}; 1. a 1 L n.
1 1 11”»; fiMflldhflwhH) :
1 1 1 7? .... ,1
A . . 1 'h‘}‘
1. . , A... . v Fit:
1 . . .. MI 111..“111fi,
. éwévmnu m1?
1.
1

1.1 1
1
, ...-5.1111? 1.1 4.
104’. 1 1r. .
. . 1 . :11, ff... .ffx’hnafin; 1...: 1.1.1121 ,1,
in 1 Ski . 1‘1 ...v. .é".¢§
. (1.1.... Nix. JAA,..\ 1t§211811vf V (I?
. . . ..hw... 111114;: «.3. £55.11: 1,3191 111,11...
. a , «1 1 .n 1. 1 1 1..., AL. o|?.,. 11.?fo in .
.2.“ . . 1 1 1 .. , 1 .1 1 . ,1... if ”human“ 6.2115 Lshh.‘
1 9.1.4 r r ... .1 Ahk .. .1 .23.; 11o}

1.
.914. £11.29“? .
1 1th. .

v.1} .
«1st .FuWHIIFLl
1.1..115'54515.) 1
.11. 1 1 Paul...

    

 

f1"!
.13?

  
         

                           

              

 

        

         

 

                

11. 1 1
1.1.1 14.1111 5.11.... 11111.1.
. 71 1., 1 111.2.
.. 1. t. In“! 1.11»? . , 1.1.5:.
, , 1,. unfit; in
1.1:. Surpég . . Sr; 11.3% 314.41.» ....n
. 1.1.: .21; aflg "can: :11Mn?,1 .1. H11
1 . 5111111111.»...2; .13.?3511 1 . Tuwvm. in
_ v w . . 1 1 u .1 1. in. u I
”1%.. 1 gram?» 311%)..11k81sfiz111uw1 11”,.
. 1. . 111?? 1.3.... . 3.1, (OM. 11.0.11... ...th ,
. 1 . . .1. .L?r.4a\. 12-... £121... A F! I:
1 . . 2111.1,» 11.148.111.11: . #31183 1.1 . 1
1 1 .. 1 . 1 111111111111? .1 111 ,
i» ..rUfiyimnuHufl 11h .. r A]: . I; 11 .1
awktnmflhra 1.3%. 1 , ...11111111... ,
1H1? n§;.?vd»1af. ,
wt... ‘1‘
.- 1 1.112.111.

n
b
‘

       

. 1 1
1 s 1g\a111.131411 M1. thunk: 71.,

inlfféngdévc NW1 ,1 .

, 1' i Q u v!

. ,1 .1 fax. 49:4.fl1ifif 1 1

.1. , ~.x 54€mafl§ 1.45:1 .

l A. . or!

11.1,. ..1 1.. $1111.14: 1 . ...: 1 . ”raga“???

1 . 1 1.. 1.

u , .. .

J 1
.... -
J .... . TF1; 11! .2
1 . run A I
, 1113.. ..é .{wfi11.1ufix1 Rfiiflumflfi.‘
LL . A111 ... 1 fluff 11. ff? lhnkfiszY .
Liam—mun“??? 1!. .. l1u9tgvlvét§w R. E. 1
. 1 In fiiAl1111 , .

1
i?

J

1.
A."'
.- ‘9‘11

  

Angusffififltrfmffl .
.1 1t. ‘4; It 1 .
1 1 fl); , Intuiflntxfiwgg (fiatfibfluq
x 1 1 :trltb sfivr‘v .L\.1.r. . . ‘L ,1... 6
. . ,1 . Lfifimrsnufifi figs 1 , 11111111,.11h13nu111: 1.11.1133?
. . 1 AT. $6.1 1.11.1410“; , 1 1 ‘11 1 $1.... Lung; .114.
1 . .v 1 . ~13? .iénfi In“. A113... . 1 it fYroLJANH 5&1 h... A... 015.1 ,
.. . . .11 {hwumflnufindas fifiukanxh 311.1. wiffihfmfiumffignx wag? 1

$$§§fifi§fififi §?&§Eidw J§§§¥t 1 11f

..I [(1. iatrquLLtvS 11 16.28.? ..th x21

1‘ {1‘} ,ifaffei: Li m. 11:10.“: .Q

9.1.11.1. 9 {11(1341 5.1.1.111 L2
H.121!!!

    

t
{bdflfica .
139%.}... 1.1.9ch 11 . .2. sit». 1
A 1 ¢ I 111111 . k \1. ...C..m«.na . ‘21»: .o , .
111W €111I1IRLHRU. .uu.1.1.,..1uufl.hu.11.111,1¥11 1111;131:111.
1 1 1. ~ \1. «41911015511131 ..... , 1‘ 1.1 , 1 1 1 1.
{$1 :32. 111, . 1, ,, .
1.111.... 1 ... 1 1
. 1 .

. n. .Isphuhvryut» ..L .... 1.,
, 51,111 I 1

. 549""

mmmm mm II‘WIJWHIWHWHWMD llgL

31293 00850 3652

i' ~I‘_,2_r .‘ ‘7 5 _ o, 11 .‘
(“2‘2 *3, ; .. . ’ ‘s
-3 .. '-" ' —_ 1 “

I.

4
t" -
r. ...-19!:- my: ‘1'"??? "‘44?" .1“- 1' 3f "'1- fw. 7'2".

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Effects of Nitrogen Application
Practices on Tart Cherry Tree Response
and Nitrate MoVement Under Trickle Irrigation

presented by

Barry Richard Hahn

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS degree in AET

 

5501‘

Date 3Zl4/86

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0—12771

MSU

  

”Jun 1 3 199.:
”as . .
‘.'

JU 121995‘
(a a

DHEC 022
06 1 9 0 2

  
 

LIBRARIES
”-

RETURNING MATERIALS:

______r_____7r___
Piace 1n book rop to

remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiii
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

EFFECTS OF NITROGEN APPLICATION PRACTICES
ON TART CHERRY TREE RESPONSE AND
NITRATE MOVEMENT UNDER TRICKLE IRRIGATION
BY
Barry Richard Hahn

A-THESIS

_ Submitted to
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of '

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1986

@1233}

Approved by:

Dr.

Vincent F. Bralts

Donald W. Edwards

Boyd G. Ellis

Charles D. Kesner

Ted Loudon

Barry R. Hahn

 

Agricultural Engineering
Major Professor

Qawfl gewaZ/ ’

Agricultural Edgineering
Department Chairman

Crop and Soil Sciences
Committee Member

Horticulture .
Committee Member

Agricultural Engineering
Committee Member

 

 

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF NITROGEN APPLICATION PRACTICES
ON TART CHERRY TREE RESPONSE AND
NITRATE MOVEMENT UNDER TRICKLE IRRIGATION
BY

Barry Richard Hahn

The primary goal of this research was to promote
optimal growth and vigor of tart cherry trees while
minimizing potential nitrate contamination of groundwater in
fruit growing areas of Northwest Michigan. Pertinent
literature on cherry fertilization practices and nitrate
movement was reviewed. The research focused upon both tree‘
response and nitrate movement.

Specific objectives of this research were to determine
the effects of nitrogen application method, timing, and
amount, upon the response of young tart cherry trees, and
upon_ the nitrate content of soil water below the tree
rooting depth over time.' Surface applications of pelletized
nitrogen fertilizer, and application through fertilizer
injection in a trickle irrigation system were studied under
field conditions.

High leaf nitrogen levels indicated the presence of
residual nitrogen in the soil and in the trees. This led to
the suppresion of some growth differences. Reducing the
nitrogen application rate did not inhibit growth response
regardless of method of application. Trees under trickle

application had the highest leaf nitrogen. Nitrogen

 

 

Barry R. Hahn

application by injection through the trickle system proved
to be a viable alternative to surface application.

Nitrate movement from the root zone varied with time
and method of application. More movement occurred under
fertilizer treatments than under the control. Nitrate
concentration at a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft) remained low
throughout the summer as relatively little water moved
beyond the root zone. Fall surface applications were the
least efficient due to nitrate movement past the root zone
during the winter when root activity was minimal. Trickle
'and spring split surface applications provided nitrogen to

the roots when root activity was high.

 

LIST OF TABLES.. ...... ... ....... ............... ..... .......v
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................vii
I. INTRODUCTION......................................l
A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES..........................7
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. CHERRY FERTILIZATION PRACTICES................8
B. TRICKLE IRRIGATION AND FERTILIZER INJECTION..13
C. NITROGEN AND NITRATE MOVEMENT................34
D. 'NITROGEN BALANCE TECHNIQUES..................40
III. METHODOLOGY
A. RESEARCH APPROACH............................43
B. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN..........................45
c. ,ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES;.......................-.56
IV. RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION '
A. TREE RESPONSE................................58
B. NITROGEN BALANCE.............................64
v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................74

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A: Tree Response Data........................77

APPENDIX B: Nitrate Movement Data.....................93

APPENDIX C: Statistical Analysis.....................102

APPENDIX D: Supplemental Information.................105

LISTOF REFERENCESOOOOOOO0.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOOOOO0.00.126

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, the author would like to thank Dr.
Vince Bralts for his guidance, encouragement, and especially
his friendship. His contagious enthusiasm, his willingness
to learn and let learn, and his generous support have been
tremendous during this period of learning and maturing.

A very, very special thanks must go to Dr. Chuck
Kesner, with whom it has been an honor and a pleasure to
work. Likewise, to Dr. BodeEllis, whose high quality
teaching and guidance were always readily given, a very
special thank you.

To Dr. Donald Edwards and to Dr. Ted Loudon, many
thanks for your support, guidance and teaching.

,I must also extend my sincerest-thanks to Bill Klein
and Jackie Baase at the Northwest 'Michigan Horticultural
Research Station. To everyone else in the Department of
Agricultural Engineering and elsewhere who assisted me along
the way, thank you.

Finally, to my family a very special thanks for your
endless support. Also, to my above average dog and constant
companion, Pupper, who kept me company during those lonely
work nights. And most of all to my exceptionally patient

and loving wife Catherine, for everything. We did it.

 

L I ST OF TABLES

 

 

Table Page
1. Emmet Series Soil Characteristics. ....... . ........... 46
2. Nitrogen Fertilizer Treatments ..... . ................. 48
3. Leaf Nutrients ..................... . ................. 59
4. Terminal Growth and Trunk Growth in cm (in) .......... 63
5. Percent Leaf Nitrogen (1984)... ...................... 77
6. Percent Leaf Phosphorus (1984).. ........ ..... ...... ..78
7. Percent Leaf Potassium (1984) ......... . .............. 79
8. Percent Leaf Calcium (1984) .......... ..... ........... 80
9. Percent Leaf Magnesium (1984)............ ...... ......81

10. (Leaf Manganese in_ppm (l984)........... ....... .......82

11. Leaf Copper in ppm (1984)....... ........ ..............83

12. Leaf Boron in ppm (1984).................. ...... .....84

13. Leaf Iron in ppm (1984). ...... . .............. ........85'

14. Leaf zinc in ppm (1984)............. ............. ....86

15. Trunk Diameter Growth in 1983 (cm)....... ...... ......88

16. Trunk Diameter Growth in 1984 (cm)...................89
17. 1983 Terminal Growth (cm) ..... .......................90
18. 1984 Terminal Growth (cm) ..... . .................... ..91

19. 1984 Measured Leaf Nutrients Compared with
Kenworthy's Standard Values for Cherries.............92

20. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Control Treatments (ppm)..... ........ ................93

 

Table Page

21. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Fall Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm)...............94

22. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Spring Split Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm).......95

23. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Trickle Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm)............96

24. Average Sample Nitrate Over Four Blocks..............97
25. Water Sample Volume Collected for Control (mL).......98

26. Water Sample Volume Collected for Fall Applied
Nitrogen Treatments (mL).............................99

27. Water Sample Volume Collected for Spring Split
Applied Nitrogen Treatments (mL)....................100

28. Water Sample Volume Collected for Trickle
Applied Nitrogen Treatments (mL)....................101

29. Statistical Formulas for Randomized Complete
Block DesignDOOOOO......CCOOOCOCOIOOIIOOOO...-......102

30. Duncan's Multiple Range Test Example
Using 1984 Percent Leaf Nitrogen....................lO4

31. Rainfall, Snowfall, Irrigation, and
.Fertilizer Application Records......................105

32. 'Fertilizer Injection System UnifOrmity Test.........ll4
33. Irrigation Systems Coordination Procedure...........116

34. Soil Sample Nitrate and Ammonium Analysis...........ll7

vi

 

Figure
1. Complete Trickle Irrigation System................
2. Soil Wetting Patterns ............................
3. Statistical Field Uniformity Nomograph............
4. Fertilizer Injection Methods and Fertilizer
Concentration Over Time...........................
5. The Nitrogen Cycle................................
6. Treatment Plot Layout.............................
7. Average Terminal Growth Measurements..............
8. Vacuum Extractor and Neutron Probe
Access Tube Placement.............................
9a. Leaf Nitrogen for Control, Low, Medium, and
High Rate Nitrogen Application Treatments.........
9b. Leaf Nitrogen for Each AppliCation Method .
(Mean of Three Rates).............................
10. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Fall Applied
Nitrogen TreatmentSCOOOI00.0.00.......IOOIOOOCOOCI
11. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Spring Split
Applied Nitrogen Treatments.......................
12. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Trickle
Applied Nitrogen Treatments.......................
l3. Nitrate Movement Under Fall Applied and Spring
Split Applied Nitrogen Treatments.................
l4. Nitrate Movement Under Spring Split Applied and
Trickle Applied Nitrogen Treatments...............
15. Sandy Site Nitrate Concentration Over Time

LIST OF FIGURES

(Trickle Applied Nitrogen).......................

vii

Page

..14

...16

..22
..36
..47
..52

..66

.067

..70

.120

 

Figure Page
16. Neutron Probe Calibration Curve.....................122
17. Soil Moisture Profiles Measured With Neutron Probe..123

18. Fertilizer Injection System Layout with
Treatment Number and (Number of Emitters per Tree)..125

viii

I. INTRODUCTION

Environmental quality and industrial productivity are
worthy concerns. Often the two oppose one another.
Negative effects of man‘s industry on the natural
environment are seen in the air, water and soil around us.
Furthermore, the term "healthy environment" if carried to
its fullest definition, will encompass economic Opportunity,
productivity, and growth. Fortunately, new technology‘
occasionally affords us an opportunity to maintain or
increase productivity, while reducing the negative impacts
of our industry on the natural environment.

Groundwater is a natural resource which has received a
great deal of attention in recent years, largely due to
severe contamination .of many aquifers. Groundwater
contaminants include hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and other
inorganic and organic toxins. One important groundwater
contaminant, and the one with which this research is
concerned, is nitrate nitrogen.

Nitrate nitrogen in groundwater may arise from natural
geologic sources, or its presence may stem from man-made
alterations to the environment. These man made sources
include 1) septic system operation and waste disposal 2)

land reshaping, and 3) industrial sources, including the

 

 

application of nitrogen fertilizers to agricultural land.
This research concerns the agricultural contribution to
groundwater nitrate contamination.

Movement of nitrogen fertilizers from agricultural land
is important not only because of the potential for nitrate
contamination of groundwater, but also because leached
nitrogen represents less than a maximum return on fertilizer
dollars invested. Thus, nitrate movement beyond the rooting
zone represents both a loss for farmers and a threat to
groundwater quality.

The bulk of research on nitrate movement from
‘agricultural land has centered on row crop production.
However, since the early 1970's a significant amount of
attention has been focused on nitrate movement through sandy
orchard soils (Bingham et a1, 1971; Pratt et a1, 1972).
Nightingale (1972) found that in general, orchard soils had
greater concentrations of nitrate than did soils under row
or trench crOps. Because of their low fertility and. water
holding capacities, sandy soils generally possess. a high
potential for nitrate leaching.

A high percentage of Cherry orchards in Northwest
Michigan are located on sandy loam or loamy sand soils.
High nitrate concentrations in well water have been found in
the region and agricultural sources as well as residential
and commercial land uses have been suspect.

At a well site surrounded by extensive cherry orchards

near Traverse City, Michigan, Rajagopal (1978) found nitrate

concentrations almost double the Federal drinking water
standard for domestic water supplies. The Northwest Regional
Planning and Development Commission assessed 1200 wells in
the Traverse City area, and found that eleven percent had
nitrate concentrations in excess of the Federal standard
(Weaver and Grant, 1980). The same study identified home
sewage, geologic, industrial and agricultural sources as
potential contributors to the nitrate problem.

Since 1980 several studies seeking to identify the
major source of groundwater nitrate contamination in
Northwest Michigan have been conducted. Ellis and Hughes
(1982) took monthly soil samples to a depth of 1.8 meter (6
feet) at two sites in Cherry orchards on the Old Mission
Peninsula in order to evaluate the contribution of
fertilizer nitrogen to the nitrate problem. Where rates of
112 kilogram/hectare, 168 kg/ha, 224 kg/ha, and 280 kg/ha
(100, 150, 200 and 250 pounds/acre) of nitrogen as ammonium
nitrate were applied, high levels of nitrate were found in
the profile at depths over 1.2 m (4 ft) as late in the year
as October. In all cases, this nitrate was apparently
leached beyond the 1.8 m (6 ft) depth by the spring
snowmelt.

Based upon this evidence, Ellis and Hughes recommended
that fall fertilization, and applications in excess of 112
kg/ha (100 lb/a) of nitrogen per year be discontinued.
Fertilization rates in the area have generally been of the

order Of 112 — 168 kg/ha (100 - 150 lb/acre) of nitrogen as

 

ammonium nitrate per year. At times the rate has been known
to be as high as 269 kg/ha (240 lb/acre) per year (Iversen,
1979). For this reason, it seems unlikely that the
recommended application rate of 112 kg/ha (100 lb/acre) per
year will be followed.

Excessive fertilizer application rates represent an
attempt on the part of growers to maintain sufficient
levels of nitrogen within the root zone throughout the
growing season despite unpredictable and often severe
fertilizer movement which can occur on the local sandy soils
during periods of heavy rainfall and snow melt. Furthermore,
the practice of fall fertilizer application has arisen.‘
Extended periods of minimal rainfall during the early
growing season are thought to leave the dry fertilizer lying
useless at the soil surface. In order to compensate for
leaching losses .which occur with especially heavy
precipitation and snowmelt from late fall through early
spring, fall fertilizer applications far in excess of) crop.
requirements are often made, and the problem of nitrate loss
is compounded.

Clearly the need for a more controlled method of
nitrogen application exists. Nitrogen application through
fertilizer injection in trickle irrigation systems, a
relatively recent technological development, has been
considered as a potential solution (Bralts, 1981).

The number of acres under trickle irrigation systems in

Michigan has grown significantly over the past ten years so

 

that today over 16,188 hectares (40,000 acres) across the
state are under trickle irrigation (Irrigation Journal,
1983). Almost all new orchards in Michigan are equipped
with a trickle irrigation system at the time of planting.
Fertilizer injection in trickle irrigation systems on the
other hand, has not kept pace with the rapid rise in use of
the systems themselves, in part because of nonuniformity of
application within existing trickle systems. To avoid poor
distribution of both water and nutrients, system uniformity
of 80% or better is recommended. Bralts (1981) reported the
range of system uniformities in the Grand Traverse Bay
region to be from 26 percent to 88 percent.

A study of the performance of various fertilizer
injection techniques revealed that uniformity of fertilizer
application did not differ significantly from uniformity of
water application for four common injector designs (Hahn
et al, 1983). Furthermore, a method which allows growers to
rapidly estimate system uniformity has recently become
available (Bralts and Kesner, 1982). These gains, along.
with an overall increase in knowledge of proper system
design and maintenance, and the availability of high quality
trickle system components, has made the widespread
acceptance and implementation of fertilizer application
through trickle irrigation systems a viable alternative to
conventional surface nitrogen application.

In terms of growth and yield, fertilizer application

through trickle irrigation systems has been reported to be

very efficient (Miller et al, 1976; Smith et al, 1979;
Coston et al, 1978; Chesness and Couvillon, 1980).
Recommended rates for Michigan orchards are now generally
based on one half the recommended conventional surface
rates.

Reductions in nitrogen application rate alone could
potentially reduce nitrate contamination of groundwater.
Even greater reductions may be possible due to the ease of
performing multiple applications with fertilizer injection
and thereby maintaining more uniform concentrations of
nitrogen within the root zone. The advantages of splitting
nitrogen applications have been recognized and noted by many
researchers, although relatively few studies have been
conducted on perennial tree crops. When nitrogen is applied
in several smaller split applications, as opposed to fewer,
larger applications, the likelihood of nitrate leaching
diminishes. Singh and Sekhon (1976) found considerably more
nitrate was lost when all nitrogen was applied in a) single
application. Gerwing et al, (1979) found that-splitting the
nitrogen application to corn substantially lowered the
maximum nitrate concentrations in soil solution below the
root zone. However, greater energy and labor inputs as well
as increased soil compaction, erosion, and implement damage
to the crop would likely result from multiple applications
under conventional fertilization practices. These
limitations are minimal with application via fertilizer

injection.

A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of this research was to promote
optimal growth and vigor of tart cherry trees while
minimizing potential nitrate contamination of groundwater in
fruit growing areas of Northwest Michigan. To accomplish
this goal, the effects of various nitrogen application
practices on fruit trees under trickle irrigation were
determined, since the extent to which fertilizer injection
will be practiced depends on its ability to provide the
desired growth response. Additionally, the effects of
. application practices on nitrate movement were ,evaluated.
This research focused both upon tree response and nitrate

movement .

The specific Objectives of this research were to
determine the effects of nitrogen fertilizer application
method, 'timing of application, and amount of fertilizer

upon:
1. the response of young tart Cherry trees, and

2. the nitrate content of soil water below the tree

rooting depth over time.

 

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

To achieve the goal of promoting optimal growth, vigor
and yield of tart cherry trees with minimal nitrate
contamination of groundwater from nitrogen fertilizers in
Northwest Michigan, a literature review of pertinent topics
must be completed. Concerns are A) cherry fertilization
practices, B)trickle irrigation and fertilizer injection, C)
nitrogen and nitrate leaching, and D) nitrogen balance

techniques.
A. CHERRY FERTILIZATION PRACTICES

Early studies related to Cherry fertilization
established the benefits of increased growth and yield due
to nitrogen fertilization (Roberts and Potter, 1919;
Chandler, 1925; and Tukey, 1927). Roberts and Potter (1919)
reported an increase in yield of nearly 7.7 kg (17 lb) per
tree from eight year old Early Richmond cherries fertilized
with 1.4 kg (3 lb) of dried blood and 0.45 kg (1 1b) of
sodium nitrate per tree. To maintain highest production
they concluded, seasonal growth of at least 0.30 m (1 ft)
should be encouraged through the application of nitrogen.
Such growth allows development of many lateral buds into

spurs, from which the most fruit is produced.

Tukey (1927) further substantiated this idea by showing
that nitrogen treatments first increased growth and then
increased yield. He applied 1.02 kg (2.25 lb) of sodium
nitrate per tree to sixteen year old Montmorency cherry
trees at bud break and observed Clear increases in shoot
growth for all trees receiving nitrogen after the first
season. No difference in yield was observed until the
second year of nitrogen application. Differences in the
third season's yield were greater still.

Tukey explained these yield differences based upon
Montmorency growth and fruiting habits. The first year
response is an increase in shoot growth. The second season
some of these longer shoots bear fruit while some form
spurs, and in the third season the spurs bear fruit. Over
the three years of the study trunk diameter of nitrogen
fertilized trees was greater than nonfertilized trees.

Gardner (1930) divided the desired growing and bearing
habits of cherry into three stages. He specifically (Cited:
1) vigorous average shoot growth of 0.30 - 0.36 m (1.0 —
1.17 ft) during the first few years, during which time
little fruit is produced but a large bearing surface is
developed for later production, 2) average shoot growth of
0.15 - 0.30 m (0.50 — 1.0 ft) while trees bear heavily and
gradually increase in productivity until full size is
attained, and 3) after attaining full size and productivity,
maintenance of 0.10 - 0.20 m (0.33 - 0.67 ft) of average

shoot growth to maintain "practically indefinite" yields.

10

The idea of using terminal growth as a guide to nitrogen
applications remained central to discussions on cherry
fertilization until the advent of leaf analysis programs.

Gardner also found fall fertilized trees to outgrow and
outyield spring fertilized trees, but admitted that the
data was not sufficient to warrant recommending fall
applications. This may be the first reference to timing of
nitrogen application in Cherries. It should be noted that
discussion of specific application rates does not appear in
any of the literature yet mentioned.

Overholser (1944) reviewed literature pertaining to

fertilizing cherries and reported that sour cherries three

I to ten years old generally receive approximately 0.23 kg
(0.5 lb) of actual nitrogen, mature trees about 0.45 kg (1.0
lb), and old, weak or declining trees about 0.68 kg (1.5
lb). He reported that most nitrogen applications are made
in late winter or early spring, but indicated that
. supplemental nitrogen between cherry set and harvest may aid
fruit bud formation at a time when the crop load is making)
greatest demands upon the trees. He also warned against
large nitrogen applications late in the growing season,
which may increase the susceptibility to winter injury.

Childers (1973) reported a shift to orchard floor
management employing a herbicide strip, permanent sod cover
between rows, and irrigation. He referred to Gardner (1930)
and recommended that fertilizer play a major role in

maintaining desired growth. He reported that the more

 

ll

nitrogen added, up to the point where vegetative growth is
excessive, the higher the yields.

Today, nitrogen requirements for cherry trees may be
established by 1) leaf analyses, 2) soil tests and 3)
observance of deficiency symptoms. Factors which affect the
amount of nitrogen needed include crop load, cultivar, tree
age, soil type, soil management practice and pruning.
Kenworthy et al. (1975) stated that leaf analysis is the
best method for established fruit plantings.

Leaf analysis may be used to confirm a nutrient
shortage or excess. In Michigan, leaf samples are collected
between July 1 and August 15 (Kenworthy and Hull, 1973), and .
may be analyzed for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, cobalt, boron, zinc and
aluminum. By far the most commonly applied nutrient to
Michigan fruit crops is nitrogen.

Kenworthy Jet a1. (1975) suggested application of only
nitrogen unless other nutrient needs were demonstrated, and‘
recommended applying nitrogen in the fall after a killing
frost or as early in the spring as possible, at suggested
rates of 0.11 - 0.22 kg (0.25 - 0.50 lb) of actual nitrogen
per tree per year of age. These rates translate for stone
fruit to 84 to 112 kg of actual nitrogen per hectare (75 -
100 lb/acre).

However, Iversen (1979) reported nitrogen applications
in Michigan ranged from less than 112 kg/ha (100 lb/acre) of

nitrogen to over 269 kg/ha (240 lb/acre). Iversen's

 

12

findings are indicative at least in part, of a perceived
need on the part of fruit growers to compensate for leaching
losses. A significant overall trend toward increased tree
fruit leaf sample nitrogen was observed in data analyzed at
the Plant Analysis Laboratory, Department of Horticulture,
Michigan State University between 1955 and 1977 (Kenworthy
et al., 1975).

Application times vary, but single applications of the
total nitrogen rate in late fall (November) or early spring
(April) are most common. Split applications are somewhat
less common but are still often practiced (Kesner, 1985).

,Split applications involve applying half of the nitrogen in
the fall, and half in early spring, or half in both early
and late spring.

Historically application timing has been aimed to
effect fruit set and fruit development, and recommendations

likely resulted from research where nitrogen was applied to

soils very deficient in nitrogen (Overholser, 1944). Growth

and yield responses were dramatic under these conditions.
From more recent research, the importance of nitrogen
reserves in tree growth has become apparent (Taylor and May,
1967; Taylor and Von Den Ende, 1969; Taylor et al., 1975).
This has tended to Change the thinking concerning when
nitrogen applications should be made. Work done by Weinbaum
et a1. (1984) indicated that soil derived nitrogen is
Ipartitioned preferentially into vegetative growth after

Ithake, and does not affect reproductive tissue until the

13

following season. This work suggests that fertilizer
nitrogen should be applied strictly based upon when
conditions for root uptake are the most favorable.

Many studies of nitrate leaching under various crops
have shown that smaller, more frequent nitrogen applications
reduce leaching and enhance uptake by the crop (Singh and
Sekhon, 1976; Kanwar et al., 1983). One of the most
efficient methods to precisely apply fertilizer nitrogen to
fruit tree roots during the growing season is by injection
into trickle irrigation systems (Chesness and Couvillon,

1980; Smith et al., 1979; Coston et al., 1978).
B. TRICKLE IRRIGATION AND FERTILIZER INJECTION

Application of Chemicals through irrigation systems, or
chemigation, has been hailed as a means for reducing costs
and limiting losses of Chemicals to the environment.
Research has. shown a potential for application of
fertilizer, (fertigation), herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides through irrigation systems. Since most new
orchards in Michigan are established with supplementary
irrigation, primarily trickle, the injection of fertilizer
through these systems is even more appropriate.

Trickle irrigation, also known as drip or daily flow,
p>rovides low volume water applications delivered directly to
true base of the plant. Most commonly associated with tree
crwaps, this type of irrigation is also well suited to

virieyards, brambles and vegetables. The terms trickle

l4

irrigation and drip irrigation can be used synonymously, but
trickle irrigation will be used throughout this publication.

1. System Components

A complete trickle irrigation system consists of a
water source, a pump, pressure gauges, filters, a fertilizer
injector, backflow prevention devices, control valves, flow
meters, pressure regulators and a mainline, submain, and
lateral line network with emitters. (Figure 1)

The mainline, submain and lateral line network deliver

water to the emitters, which may be located individually or

  
   
    
  
 
 
  
   

EICCHICJI

 

Lorllols ’
—_ z _
' I III” \
"
Clean I I;—-—-‘
water tap L :“\
Fertilizer \\
Pressure umecwl Pressure \
Gauge J gauge Plessu‘e
I Check valve j 'wululor
I
——
I. t I. ’o" N
\ M ,
Wdlcv F din gale
Vacuum ,Uw valve
Drain relief lullul "lulu:
valve
“Pump
to
.§ I /
3 \

 

‘\
/ Enhllels\

 

Figure 1. Complete Trickle Irrigation System

 

 

15

in groups near the base of the plant. The mainline and
submain are usually polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe, their
diameter being dependent upon hydraulic parameters including
flow rate, slope and allowable friction head loss. Mainline
and submain are often buried to limit damage from extreme
temperatures, sunlight and farm equipment. Lateral lines Of
flexible PVC or polyethylene (PE) tubing generally run
parallel to the crop row on the soil surface or several
centimeters beneath it. Emitters are attached directly to
the lateral, or may be fastened on short extension tubes if
the lateral line is buried. Extension tubes afford easy
inspection, cleaning, and uniformity testing.

A variety of emitter types exist, generally Classified
as one of the following: 1) orifice type, 2) partially
pressure compensating, or 3) fully pressure compensating.
(Goldberg, 1976; Bralts, 1981). Use of a particular design
depends upon the type of crop to be irrigated, the desired
' flow rate, and the local topography. Trickle irrigation‘
systems on tree fruits in Northwest Michigan are generally
equipped with emitters having some pressure cOmpensating
characteristics.

Within each irrigation zone Of 20.2 - 50.6 ha (50 - 125
acres), there are several submain units consisting of the
submain and lateral lines, and covering 1.0 - 5.1 ha (2.5 —
12.5 acres) (Bralts, 1983). These separate irrigation zones
provide irrigators with greater flexibility in water

management decisions since they can be irrigated

 

16

independently.

2. Application Fundamentals

Important considerations for trickle irrigation are
soil wetting patterns, size of root zone, and moisture
holding capacity of the soil. These factors affect the
amount and timing of water application as well as number and
location of emitters.

Soil wetting patterns (Figure 2) vary with soil
texture. In coarse sandy soils, gravity affects water

movement more so than in loams or clays, and a cylindrical

 

In {in Jmiud «all In poorly pflm aoil clad!
capillary action 1m caplllary action

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2‘ a: -‘= '
: Q39 ' h
1.: » fiLQO o
_ .. o o'-
- ' 95a?
In coal-u nil gravitational Ham restricts dun-ad

(av-ca: Dracula "on” thus grouting lamal

       

 

 

Figure 2. Soil Wetting Patterns (NRAES 1980)

l7

wetted volume or spike, will result. Since at least 25% of
the root zone should be irrigated (Kenworthy, 1972), it may
be necessary to group emitters on course textured soils.
One, two or three 3.8 Liter/hour (1.0 gallon/hour) emitters

are recommended for fruit trees depending upon soil texture

(NRAES, 1980). Recommendations for emitter location
relative to the trunk vary from 0.20 - 0.91 m (0.67 — 3.0
ft).

Methods for scheduling water applications to fruit
trees include direct measures of soil moisture, monitoring
tree growth, and replacement of estimated
‘ evapotranspiration.' One common method of scheduling trickle

irrigation for fruit trees in Michigan is to replace 50 % of
pan evaporation (Kesner 1981). Others have suggested
replacement of 75 % of pan evaporation.

'Kenworthy (1972) propoSed a simple rule-Of—thumb for
Michigan fruit trees. He assumed that 1) mature trees
occupy 50% of the orchard floor, and 2) replacement of 75%.
of open pan evaporation is required. He used 20 year pan
evaporation data for July, the month of greatest
evapotranspiration in Michigan. Using these values,
Kenworthy recommended an application rate of 380 L/hr/ha
(100 gal/hr/acre) for a system with continuous flow. To
allow time for soil moisture equalization and drainage, he
limited the duration Of irrigation to no more than 12 hours
per' day. Thus, in a mature orchard with 247 trees/ha (100

trees/acre), a flow rate of 7.6 L/hour (2.0 gal/hr) per tree

18

for 12 hours daily would be required. For younger trees the
amount of irrigation depends on tree age: 1 hour for each
year of tree age up to the maximum of 12 hours for trees 12
years old and older. This method of scheduling is widely
used by Michigan fruit growers (Burgess et al., 1984).

Burgess et al. (1984) reported that the Kenworthy rule
of thumb and 75 % evaporation pan techniques were both
practical and effective in irrigation scheduling of stone
fruit. However, the 75 % evaporation pan technique used
significantly less water throughout the season than the
Kenworthy rule of thumb, yet vegetative growth and yield
between the two were not significantly different at the 5 %
level of significance.

Regardless of the method of scheduling, consideration
must be given to soil moisture holding capacity. Bralts et
a1. (1984) stressed the need to estimate the extent of
wetted root zOne and to apply no more water than can be held
in 50% of the soil profile for a specified soil texture. An
estimate of the size of the root zone is also required.
Kesner (1981) suggested an area bounded by a circle starting
with a diameter of 0.91 meter (3.0 ft) for one year old
fruit trees, increasing by 0.30 m (1.0 ft) for each year of
growth.

3. Emitter Discharge Uniformity

Emitter discharge uniformity is a measure of variation
in emitter discharge, and is an important consideration in

fertilizer application through injection in trickle

l9

irrigation systems. Bralts et a1. (1984) recommended
statistical uniformity Of 80% or above before fertilizer
injection should proceed, and identified 1) hydraulic
design, 2) manufacturers' variation of emitters, and 3)
emitter plugging as contributing to nonuniformity within a
trickle irrigation system. The following section, which
closely follows a paper by Bralts and Kesner (1983) examines
uniformity and trickle system evaluation.

A method for in field estimation of the statistical
uniformity of a submain unit is important to irrigators

considering fertilizer injection. Statistically sound field

evaluation allows measurement of variation from hydrauliC'

design, manufacturers' variation, and emitter plugging, and
provides for application of confidence levels to the
uniformity estimate.

Bralts (1983) outlined the development of field
uniformity estimation for trickle irrigation system submain
units beginning with Christiansen's formula for sprinkler
irrigation uniformity and Wilcox and Swailes statistical
uniformity coefficient for sprinkler irrigation.
Measurements of depth of water were used in sprinkler system
evaluations. Substitution of emitter flow rate for the
depth of water, made possible the application of these
uniformity principles to trickle system evaluation.

Statistical uniformity (Us) can be determined using the
coefficient of variation (Vq), defined as the standard

deviation (qu) of emitter flow divided by the mean flow (q)

 

 

in the following equation:

Us = 100 (1 - vq) = 100 (1 — qu/ci) [1]

Confidence limits for the coefficient of variation (Vq)

can be expressed:

*
where Vq = sample coefficient of variation,
td/Z = student t value for given a,
a.= confidence level desired,
Vq* = actual coefficient of variation,
and qu = Standard deviation of the coefficient of

variation calculated from the equation:

V
1/1 + 2(vq2) [3]

 

qu =

’El

Using the above equations, confidence limits may be
applied to the statistical uniformity (Us). Bralts and
Kesner (1983) translated these statistical equations into a -
uniformity calculator suitable for field evaluation (Figure
3). This nomograph is based upon the assumption that
emitter flow is normally distributed. The inverse of flow
rate, namely the time required to fill a selected volume,
is used in the procedure, and the nomograph is based upon
the fact that for any given coefficient of variation, the
sum of the observations in the upper portion of the

distribution and the sum of the observations in the lower

 

 

21

 

  
   
   
    
  

 

mm 95‘ C°~"°ENCE mm
=7
l. Choos- a small conunnav, 1 cup or U
2“) MIIIIIIM. 1 C. L.
90 i J

.00 n 2. Choc. 18 arnman at random Iron 80 1 6

all mm of mama-n and measura (he 70 ‘ )0

mm at mm to full (ha cup. 60 2 13

T max I) (ha sum 0! the three

hrghnr (mm matured. Vale

 

 

4 1' mm I: (ha rum a! the Ihrea
Iowan nmcs measured.

 

 
 

 

 

 

‘00 '-
: aoo ..
I
)-
2w
Hg! T9 “3 Th. 9h!!!
1. Find T max on tha vamcal am and
draw a horizontal Inna to the right.
1 r-
00 2. Fma T mm on (he horrmnul an: and draw a
vertical lune up.
3. In un-lormuy :3 shown by the rntarsectron of ma MO I-naa.
I L L LL L
3 50 l O 150 200 250 300

 

T MIN

Figure 3. Statistical Field Uniformity Nomograph
(Bralts and Kesner, 1982)

the fact that for any given coefficient of variation, the
sum of the observations in the upper portion of the
distribution and the sum of the Observations in the lower
portion of the distribution vary linearly.

4. Injector Performance

Bralts et a1. (1984) described four major methods of
injection used in Trickle irrigation systems. They are the
l) venturi injector, 2) positive displacement pump injector,
batch tank injector, and 4) bladder tank injector. (Figure
4) The following descriptions are taken from Bralts et a1.

(1984).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C
.9
..
N
.‘r.
C
8
=
o
D
3) Batch tank
tirna
C
.2
‘5
_.___——» .‘:
C
8
C
. 8
b) Ventun
time
3
.9
‘5
a
C
8
, c
8
time
S
.2
..
:3
a
C
8
C
o
0
d) Hydraulic pump time

Figure 4. Fertilizer Injection Methods and Fertilizer
Concentration Over Time (Bralts et al., 1984)

22

 

23

The venturi injector operates by means of a pressure
differential induced by a constriction within the mainline
at the site of injection. For this reason, some reduction
of pressure within the system can be expected with its use.
Similar pressure losses may occur with any injector that is
driven by system pressure, such as a proportional pump. In
such cases it may be necessary to increase pressure to
Offset the pressure loss due to the injector in order to
ensure proper emitter performance, since emitters function
best at the pressure for which they were designed.

A positive displacement pump may be used to take up
solution and inject it into the mainline. The posititive
displacement pump may be operated by a gasoline engine or
electric motor, or may be a proportional hydraulic pump
which operates on system water pressure. Pumps operated by
external power can be easily controlled, and thus provide
for complete rcommand of injection rate and duration of
application. This is convenient for the grower, since total
fertilizer applied is simply a function of the time the pump
is operating.

The batch tank injector is a tank for holding the stock
solution through which some portion of the irrigation water
is diverted by creating a pressure gradient between the
inlet and outlet of the tank. The tank volume depends upon
the desired dilution ratio and the size of the zone or block
tc> be fertilized. The batch tank system is inexpensive and

convenient to use and does not require an outside power

 

24

source.

The bladder tank injector consists of a flexible inner
liner separating the stock solution from the entering
irrigation water. As the bladder is collapsed by mainline
pressure, stock solution is forced from the bladder and
injected into the system. The bladder tank system has an
advantage over the batch tank method in that the rate of
fertilizer injection can be more easily controlled.

The venturi, bladder tank, and positive displacement
pump injectors maintain a fairly constant injection rate and
a constant concentration of fertilizer in the irrigation
water. With the batch tank method however, the initial
concentration of fertilizer in solution is higher than the
concentration at a later time. The decrease in fertilizer
concentration in the tank over time is not linear. Thus,
each batch should. be completely used on any one given
submain unit or crop zone. If the system is shut down
before ,the batch is completely used, the grower has no way
of determining the precise amount of fertilizer applied.

Despite the differences in fertilizer concentration in
the system over time, the uniformity of fertilizer
application is not affected by injector type. Using the
coefficient of variation to assess the uniformity of water
and fertilizer application, Hahn et a1. (1983) found that
for the batch tank, venturi, bladder tank, and hydraulic
pump, the uniformity of fertilizer application did not

differ significantly from the uniformity of water

25

application. Uniformity of fertilizer application was shown
to be dependent strictly upon the uniformity of water
application. Emitter location within the submain unit and
method of injection did not alter this relationship.
However, it was acknowledged that differences in injector
performance with respect to fertilizer concentration in the
system with time might have a bearing upon adaptability to
specific grower situations, convenience and grower
acceptance.

5. Water Quality Considerations

Water quality is important in trickle irrigation
system operation and maintenance since emitter plugging can
1 result. Municipal, surface and well water sources may be
used for trickle irrigation systems, but water quality
determines the degree of preventive maintenance required.
Bucks et a1. (1979) identified potential physical, Chemical

and biological contributors to trickle system clogging, and

developed a water-classification system for evaluating .the

clogging potential of trickle irrigation water sources
Physical contaminants include suspended sand, silt and clay.
Chemical contributors to plugging include precipitates of
calcium or magnesium carbonate, calcium sulfate and certain
fertilizer compounds. Biological sources of plugging are
bacteria and algae. Filtration, field inspection, Chemical
treatment and pipeline flushing are recommended for
controlling plugging problems.

Proper filtration to remove suspended sand, silt, Clay,

26

and algae may be accomplished by pressure filters which
include screen, centrifugal and media pack designs, or
gravity filters which are primarily settling or sediment
reservoirs. Initial water quality and emitter design
dictate Specific filtration requirements. Most existing
trickle irrigation systems in Michigan fruit orchards
utilize deep well water supplies and use 100 to 200 mesh
screen type filters (Kesner, 1981).

Chemical precipitation, high concentrations of
dissolved compounds, and bacteria problems may require
Chemical treatment. Calcium or magnesium precipitates can
form when. water with high calcium or magnesium levels is _
used. Sulfuric acid, chlorine gas and other chemicals have
been used in conjunction with filtration to prevent or
correct precipitation problems.

Another aspect of water quality concerns protecting the
system Operator, water source, and crop from concentrated
Chemical solutions. The 'ASAE IMC (1982) identified.
potential hazards and suggested precautions for' application
of Chemicals through irrigation systems. A water source at
the injection site for washing off chemicals contacting the
skin is recommended for operator safety. Protective
clothing and labeling of stock solutions is also suggested.
Water source contamination and crop damage from exposure to
concentrated fertilizer solution may be prevented by using
backflow prevention devices and interlocking of fertilizer

injector and water pump.

27

When using a positive displacement injector pump
powered by an outside energy source, the pumping plant and
the fertilizer injection pump must be interlocked, so that
if the irrigation pump stops, the injection pump will also
stop, preventing the fertilizer injector from filling the
entire irrigation network with concentrated stock solution.
Venturi, batch tank, bladder tank, and proportional pump
injectors are synchronized with the irrigation pump since
they operate relative to water flow.

A check valve in the fertilizer injection line may be
needed to prevent irrigation water from flowing into the
. stock solution tank should the injector stop functioning.
Without this Check valve, irrigation water could enter the
stock solution tank, overflowing it, and causing
concentrated stock solution to spill on the ground where it
could leach back into the groundwater.

Additionally, sOme form of backflow prevention' device

should be uSed to prevent the irrigation water containing

fertilizer from draining back to the water source. Check

valves or vacuum relief valves located between the

irrigation pump and the fertilizer injector keep the water

and fertilizer mixture from flowing back to the water
source. Currently, backflow prevention devices are not
required in Michigan but are strongly recommended. They are
required by law in several other states including Wisconsin.

6. Fertilizers

Fertilizer materials used for injection in trickle

 

28

irrigation systems must be soluble (Goldberg, 1976).
Nitrogen, the plant nutrient most Often applied through
trickle irrigation systems, is therefore generally applied
as calcium nitrate, ammonium nitrate or urea, three of the
most soluble formulations. Most nitrogen sources will not
directly increase plugging problems. However, aqua ammonia
and anhydrous ammonia tend to indirectly increase emitter
plugging by increasing the pH of irrigation waters, and
consequently increasing precipitation of calcium and
magnesium carbonates (Goldberg, 1976).

Fertilizer should be free of residues or precipitate-
' forming impurities. Water source compatibility should be
investigated prior to injection, since some fertilizers will
react with ldissolved substances in. the water to form
precipitates. Bralts et a1. (1984) gives more information
onfertilizer-water compatibility.

-Nitrate (N03) is most commonly the form in which plants
take up nitrogen. Hence, fertilizer in the nitrate form
injected into irrigation becomes immediately available to
most plants (Goldberg, 1976). Usually, the ammonia form
(NH3) will remain in the soil for a longer time and will
become available to the plant or move through the soil
profile only after conversion to the nitrate form.

Due to the low solubility of most phosphorus
fertilizers, and the increased likelihood of precipitate
formation, it is generally recommended that phosphorus be

applied by means other than through the trickle system

29

(Goldberg, 1976). Rauschkolb et a1. (1976) applied
phosphorus through a trickle system but warned of potential
plugging problems. Micronutrients including zinc (Lindsey
and New, 1974), copper and iron may also be applied, but
only the more soluble chelated forms should be used.
Potassium may also be applied with little or no increased
plugging problems. The remainder of this paper will deal
strictly with nitrogen application through fertigation.

7. Nitrogen Distribution

Distribution of nitrogen from a trickle system emitter
affects the amount of nitrate leaching and uptake that will
occur. Bar—Yosef and Sheikholslami (1976) conducted
laboratory experiments of simultaneous distribution of water
and nitrate in clay and sandy soils irrigated and fertilized
from a trickle source. Air dry soil was passed through a 2
mm (0.08 inch) sieve and packed uniformly in plastic
containers 45 cm (17.7 in) highland 46 cm (18.1 in) in
idiameter. Average bulk density of the sandy soil was'-1.60'
g/cm3 (99.9 lb/ft3). Accommodations were made for
controlling evaporation rate and sampling was accomplished
with a metal tube at various distances. Nitrate as
potassium nitrate was applied at either 4.2 or 42 mL/minute
(0.0011 - 0.011 gpm) near the soil surface at the center of
the container. Nitrate adsorption on both soils was
negligible and in the sandy soil neither nitrification nor
denitrification were significant.

With no initial nitrate concentration in the sandy

30

soil, nitrate concentrations within the wetted soil volume
after one irrigation were uniform. After the second
irrigation, nitrate accumulation near the boundary of the
wetted volume was observed. Treatments with the higher
discharge rate showed the same trend only to greater depth.

When identical amounts of water were added, but the
discharge rate in the sandy soil was increased from 4.2 to
42 mL/m (0.0011 - 0.011 gpm), vertical movement of the
wetting front increased and horizontal movement decreased.
Unlike the clay soil in which denitrification did occur, the
nitrate concentration in the sandy soil solution did not

drOp significantly below that of the trickle solution. This

is an important consideration when dealing with a nitrogen
balance on sandy orchard soils such as those studied in this
experiment. .

8. Growth Response To Fertilizer Injection

Nitrogen application through trickle irrigation systems
2 has been reported to be more efficient than bandingfollowed.
by trickle or furrow irrigation. Miller et a1. (1976)
evaluated six treatments on fresh-market ' tomatoes.
Treatments were 0) furrow irrigation with no added nitrogen,
1) furrow irrigation and banded nitrogen at planting, 2)
drip irrigation and banded nitrogen at planting, 3) drip
irrigation and drip applied nitrogen at planting, 4) drip
irrigation' and drip applied nitrogen split into two
treatmentsat planting and flowering, and 5) drip irrigation

and drip applied nitrogen split at planting, thinning,

31

flowering and fruiting. Tomato yield and plant nitrogen at
six sampling dates throughout the season were measured.

In treatment 2, emitter location relative to banded
fertilizer caused lower levels of plant nitrogen. Analysis
of soil samples showed that nitrogen had accumulated at the
outer edge of the wetted zone where it was less available to
the plants. However, treatments 3, 4 and 5 gave a higher
percentage of plant nitrogen, with the exception of
treatment 3 at the sixth sampling date. It was concluded
that furrow irrigation was superior to trickle irrigation
when the fertilizer was banded and the given emitter
orientation was. used. Fertilization through the trickle
system was the most efficient method of those evaluated.

Fertigation of tree fruit crops has been studied by
several researchers. Potential indicators of fruit tree
response are terminal growth meaSurements, leaf ~analyses,
fruit quality, trunk diameter ’or cross-sectional area
measurements, and general appearance including leaf icolor,'
fruit color, and overall size.

Smith et a1. (1979) analyzed leaf samples using a
macro Kjeldahl method. Yields of tart Cherry, plum, peach,
and apple were also evaluated, in order to examine whether
nitrogen application by injection in trickle irrigation
could reduce the total amount of nitrogen required to
produce an equivalent plant response. All treatments were
done (in the field. Results indicated that the amount of

nitrogen can be reduced to 50% of normal recommended rates

32

and still maintain the recommended percent leaf nitrogen and
yield. Treatments of 25% of the recommended nitrogen rate
did not significantly reduce leaf nitrogen in most cases.
Accumulation of leaf nitrogen over time was also monitored.
Results showed no significant differences between
full,half,and quarter rates of trickle application and full
rate fall ground application one week after the first
injection. However , a control treatment was not included in
the study.

Coston et a1. (1978) reached similar conclusions for
peach tree response to fertilizer application through a
.trickle irrigation system. A control treatment was included.
Trees were planted in 189 L (50 gal) plastic barrels filled
with calcined Clay. Trunk diameter increases and leaf
nitrogen were measured. The experiment was conducted for
two years. In the first year, 113.5 g (0.25 lb) of nitrogen
per tree was the maximum rate. Other rates applied were one
‘half, one qUarter, and one eighth this amount. Treatments
were split into two or four trickle applications. Mean
separation by Duncan's Multiple Range Test at the 5% level
showed that fertilized trees had greater trunk diameter
increases and leaf nitrogen than unfertilized trees. Trees
receiving one quarter, one half and full amounts grew best.

In the second year, a full rate ground application
treatment was added. Again, fertilized trees responded
significantly better than non-fertilized trees. Treatments

of one quarter, one half, full rate trickle applied, and

33

full rate surface applied were equivalent in terms of trunk
diameter increases. Leaf nitrogen for the one quarter rate
treatment was less than for the one half and full rates.
Treatments of one eighth rate were lower for both criteria.
These results were regarded as preliminary investigations
for orchard work to be performed.

Chesness and Couvillon (1980) studied peach yield, leaf
analyses and trunk diameter for four treatments carried out
for four years. Treatments were 1) no irrigation with
conventional nutrient application, 2) irrigation with
conventional nutrient application, 3) irrigation plus full
rate fertigation, and 4) irrigation plus one half rate
fertigation. Trees receiving one half rate fertigation
showed trunk diameter increases equal to those receiving the
full amount applied conventionally. In fact, the method and
amount of nutrient application had no influence on trunk
diameter over the four year period. Trunk diameter
increases on irrigated treatments were greater than on
nonirrigated treatments for all four years. This suggests
that trunk diameter may not be a good indicator of response
to varying fertilization rates and methods of application.

Yield differences varied during the four year period.
In the first year, the highest yields were obtained from the
irrigated conventional and full rate trickle applied
treatments. Yields for the one half rate trickle treatment
were intermediate between full rate treatments and control.

In the second and third years there were no differences

—==:i

34

between any of the irrigated treatments. All irrigated
treatments had higher yields than did nonirrigated
treatments. In the fourth year there were no significant
yield differences among any of the treatments, apparently
due to adequate rainfall.

Leaf nitrogen analyses showed higher levels for trickle
applied nitrogen treatments in all four seasons relative to
conventional surface applications. Also, nitrogen levels
for the one half rate trickle application were only slightly
lower than for full rate for all four years. Again a
control treatment without fertilizer nitrogen application

was not included in the study.
C. NITROGEN AND NITRATE MOVEMENT

Nitrogen is the most important plant nutrient for many
plants, and is more widely needed in Michigan fruit
production than any other nutrient (Kenworthy et al., 1975).
'Furthermore, fertilizer and lime together represent' the
second highest source of variable cost next to Chemical
spraying incurred in tart Cherry production in Western
Michigan (Kelsey and Johnson, 1979). Nitrates in groundwater
on the other hand, represent a lack of efficiency in
fertilizer application. High nitrate levels in groundwater
are hazardous, since they can be converted to nitrites which
cause methemoglobinemia, a serious and sometimes fatal blood
disorder in infants (Wolff and Wasserman, 1972). To better

define the role of nitrogen fertilization in groundwater

”-Z‘Z-éz . ,

35

contamination problems, and to assess the potential impact
of fertigation through trickle irrigation systems requires
an understanding of 1) nitrogen interactions in the
environment, and 2) soil processes and management practices
affecting nitrate movement.
1. Nitrogen Interactions in the Environment
The following discussion follows that found in Tisdale
and Nelson (1975). Nitrogen is found in many forms
throughout the natural environment. It exists as both
inorganic and organic compounds. In soils the bulk of
nitrogen occurs as part of the soil organic matter complex,
although significant levels Of inorganic ammonium, nitrate
' and nitrite are present in many sOils. The nitrogen cycle
(Figure 5) illustrates the various forms and interactions of
nitrogen in the environment.

The ultimate source for nitrogen in soils is the inert
gas N2, which makes up approximately 78 percent of the
earth's atmosphere. This inert nitrogen is in dynamic
equilibrium with various fixed forms, which include ammonia,A
NH3, ammonium, NH4+, nitrate, NO3—, nitrite, Noze, nitrous
oxide, N20, and nitric oxide NO. Higher plants are unable
to utilize N2 until it is first converted, or fixed into one
czf these compounds. Plants absorb the majority of their
nitrogen in the ammonium and nitrate forms.

Fixation occurs through 1) the action of symbiotic
bacteria, including Rhizobia which live on the roots of

legumes, 2) free living soil microorganisms including blue-

36

green algae and bacteria, 3) electrical discharges of
lightning in the atmosphere, and 4) industrial fixation by

fertilizer manufacturers.

 
 

   

     

O A,» —
[-1 “MN CLOUD ,
(W
REMOVED FROM .CYCLE / , 1,; ,
BY HARVESTING ’- /,
~2 MA
I //.I/‘“/ ,‘l’
: ,, ./

NITROGEN nxanon i ,l _______ .9
m. \ ~ ,
NON-SYMBIOYIC

SYMWIIC

mousmar ;

I
l ) '

:41

5
«$2005»: 'leSN) 4
i 715mm;

1

I L055

RESIDUES EXCREL‘L

~03 Nu, ORGN NOE'. '

; r ., norm '

agauilufnxz "'cnomcm'ws
I

 
    
    

473 “a

NIIEOGEN
trauma: 1:

'0:
‘r"
O

   
 

I
CAPILLARV
RISE

\

      

     
  

 

METALLO ORGANIC
AN
OgGANO- CLAY

 
  
  
  

 
 
    

\ IZOTOBICTER

  

‘\ crosmmuu 0MPLEXES
f CHEMICAL
-- M“ "Kim" lmcnou summer:
........ 6 AV
NO, *NH,o—- NH, 9

FIXED

fl
fisznON

V
LEACHING

Figure 5. The Nitrogen Cycle (Nelson, 1975)

Nitrogen transformations in soils which affect the form
arui quantity of nitrogen present are a) mineralization, b)
inunobilization, c)denitrification, d) decomposition of
Iiitrite, and e) volatilization of ammonia. Of these soil
processes, mineralization and denitrification are most

significant in terms of nitrate leaching, since they

4*. I

37

directly affect abundance of nitrate in soils.

Mineralization is the conversion of organic nitrogen to
a mineral form, either ammonium, nitrite or nitrate. It is
a three step process consisting of aminization,
ammonification and nitrification. Nitrification is
especially important here, since it is the actual biological
oxidation of ammonia to nitrate. Factors which affect
nitrification are 1) supply of the ammonium ion, 2)
population of nitrifying organisms, 3) soil aeration, 4)
soil pH, 5) calcium, phosphorus and micronutrient balance,
6) soil moisture, and 7) temperature. These factors in turn

_are under direct or indirect control by soil .management
practices. Similarly, denitrification may be influenced by
management strategies. Denitrification is the biochemical
reduction Of nitrates which results in gaseous loss of
nitrogen from the soil.

ISince management 'practices affect nitrate leaching
indirectly through the processes of nitrification and
denitrification, as well as directly such as in the case Of
irrigation water application which causes movement of
accumulated soil nitrate, the overall affects of soil, water
rand fertilizer management practices on nitrate leaching will
be discussed.

2. Management Practices Affecting Nitrate Movement

Laher and Avnimelech (1980) studied nitrification in
light of application of ammoniacal fertilizer through

trickle fertigation. They listed four distinguishing

38

characteristics of drip irrigation relevant to nitrogen
transformation in the soil. They are 1) fluctuations of
soil moisture with time are minimal due to high frequency of
irrigation, 2) distribution of water in soil is not uniform
since a zone of saturation exists below the emitter source,
3) immobile ammonium ions applied with the water are
absorbed in the soil close to the emitter source, and 4)
downward leaching is restricted to a small fraction of soil
volume.

Bananas on a calcareous clay loam soil were trickle
irrigated for eight hours daily and ammonium sulfate was
delivered through the system once a month. Soil. samples
were collected below and around emitters. Samples
equidistant radially from the emitter were grouped together
and all were analyzed for nitrate, Chloride and ammonium.
Results showed an increase in ammonium concentration from
fertilization only in the soil cylinder below the emitter.
Very low levels of ammonium remained at the end of the
fertilization cycle. Nitrate concentrations on the other
hand, were low in the saturated zone below the emitter and
higher farther away from the central core. Also, nitrate
levels were higher at the end of the fertilizer cycle than
inunediately following fertilization.

It was concluded that an effective slow release
fertilizer system is established when ammonium is applied

thrtnigh the trickle system. This is due to the fact that

Iiitrification takes place mainly outside of the saturated

 

39

volume where downward water movement is minimal. Laher and
Avnimelech also stated that the rate of nitrification could
be controlled by manipulating 1) the volume through which
ammonium is distributed and 2) soil aeration within this
volume. Such manipulations could be enacted by varying a)
fertilizer dilution rate and b) frequency of irrigation.

Application of nitrate nitrogen through trickle systems
to both Clay and sandy soils was studied by Bar-Yosef and
Sheikholslami (1976) as discussed in the fertilizer
injection section of this paper. Seven to 50% of the
nitrate present in the Clay soil could be expected to
denitrify within 24 hours depending _upon soil aeration.
Nitrification and denitrification were negligibly small in
the sandy soil.

Many researchers have investigated the affects of
fertilizer and water management on nitrate leaching (Gerwing
et al., 1979); Singh and Sekhon, 1976; Smika et al., 1977;
'Timmons and Dylla, 1981). In general,‘ practices which.
maintain high levels of nitrate in proximity with the crop
roots for the longest period of time are those which provide
the minimal level of nitrate losses to leaching.

Gerwing et al. (1979) found that splitting the nitrogen
application to corn substantially lowered the maximum
nitrate concentrations in soil solution at the 1.5 m depth
(4.9 ft). Evidence suggested that nitrate was distributed
more uniformly throughout the soil profile when split

applications were made. The same study showed increased

40

nitrogen levels in corn stover and grain under split
applications.
Similarly, Singh and Sekhon (1976) found considerably
more nitrate to be lost when all nitrogen was applied in a
single application. Evaluation of soil samples collected at
0.15 m (0.49 ft) intervals up to 2.25 m (7.4 ft) led to the
conclusion that as the number of splits are increased the
likelihood of nitrate leaching diminishes. When all
nitrogen was applied in a single treatment, considerably
more nitrate was lost regardless of the irrigation schedule.
Singh and Sekhon as well as Smika et a1. (1977) noted
that amount and frequency of irrigation significantly affect
' nitrate leaching. Singh and SekhOn observed less movement
of nitrate when irrigation amounts were less, even with
frequent irrigations. Timmons and Dylla (1981) likewise
observed greater nitrate leaching when supplemental

irrigation was applied to corn on a sandy loam soil.
‘D. NITROGEN BALANCE TECHNIQUES

Nitrate movement may be evaluated by 1) soil sampling
(Ellis and Hughes, 1982; Singh and Sekhon, 1976), 2) drain
tile flow sampling, 3) lysimeter leachate collection
(Timmons and Dylla, 1981), or 4) soil water vacuum
extraction (Smika et al., 1977; Gerwing et al., 1979).

Collection of soil samples is destructive, and may be
impossible at depths below fruit tree rooting depths where

stones, gravel and hardpan layers are present. Lysimeters

41

of adequate size for fruit trees require costly and time
consuming installation or disturbance of the soil profile.
Vacuum extractors on the other hand, seem well suited to a
comparative study in which replicated treatments to
undisturbed soil profiles are required.

Gerwing et a1. (1979), used porous ceramic vacuum
extractors to obtain soil solution samples at 1.5 m (4.9 ft)
and 2.4 m (7.9 ft) to determine if greater fertilizer use
efficiency through multiple nitrogen applications to corn
would reduce nitrate loss below the root zone and decrease
the potential for nitrate movement to the aquifer. Smika et
a1. (1977) used vacuum extractors to collect water samples
1.50 m (4.9 ft) below the soil surface under center pivot
irrigation in order to evaluate the effect of water
management on nitrate leaching under corn.

Linden (1977) described development of a soil water
sampling system, installation of samplers, and variations on
methods and schedules for sample collection. Soil water is
sampled when the applied vacuum within the sampler overcomes
the metric suction holding water in the soil, and water
moves into the sample Chamber.

Two basic configurations of ceramic and subsequent flow
pattern are possible: 1) a simple ceramic cup, and 2) a
ceramic plate installed horizontally. Soil water flow into
the cup is from all directions, while flow into the ceramic

‘plate comes only from directly above the ceramic. The cup

desigri has the advantages of low cost and simple

 

42

installation, and disruption of the soil profile is less
than with plate installation. Its disadvantage is an ill-
defined flow pattern. The plate configuration allows
definition of direction of flow but costs more and is more
difficult to install.

Vacuum may be applied continuously or intermittently.
If converting sample solute concentrations to total solute
mass is necessary, then vacuum must be continuous.
Continuous vacuum requires a motor driven vacuum pump and
greatly increases system cost and complexity. Hansen and
Harris (1975) found that constant vacuum samplers sampled
_more uniformly through time and thus produced a narrower
range of sample concentration than did samplers set with
intermittently applied vacuum, but stated that the data did
not necessarily have less bias.

_Hansen and Harris suggested the following interim
guides for reducing sampler data variability and thus aiding
interpretatiOn: 1) select samplers with similar intake
rates, 2) use short sampling periods, 3) use a. uniform
sampler length, 4) use the same initial vacuum for all
samplers, 5) avoid compositing samples so as not to Obscure
biases related to sampling technique, 6) Check sampler bias
for sampled soils, ions and ion concentrations where
possible, and 7) minimize nitrogen transformations during

collection.

III. METHODOLOGY

In the review of literature it was shown that problems
associated with conventional cherry fertilization techniques
might be overcome by means of fertilizer injection through
trickle irrigation systems. Furthermore, the review of
literature points up the lack of definitive evidence
regarding the effects of nitrogen fertilizer application
method, timing of application, and amount of fertilizer upon
both the response of tart Cherry trees and the nitrate
content of soil water below the tree rooting depth over
time. This suggests the need for a omparative study of
nitrogen application practices.

'This research will focus upon both-tree response and
nitrate leaching in order to achieve the overall goal of
promoting optimal growth and vigor of tart cherry trees and
minimal nitrate contamination of groundwater from nitrogen

fertilizers under Northwest Michigan conditions.
A. RESEARCH APPROACH

Based upon the need to define the effects of nitrogen
application practices on tree response and nitrate movement
the following approaches are proposed for achieving the

specific research objectives.

43

 

44

Objective 1. Determine the effect of nitrogen fertilizer
application method, timing of application
and amount of fertilizer upon the response Of

young tart cherry trees.

To achieve Objective 1, various parameters of tree
response will be evaluated under compartative nitrogen
application practices. Nitrogen application "practices"
here include l)two different methods of application:
a)surface applied and b) application through injection in
the trickle irrigation system (referred to hereafter as
surface applied and trickle applied), 2) four different
timing schemes for surface applications: a)-fall,b) spring,
C) fall and spring split, and d) early spring and late
spring split, and 3) four rates of nitrogen application: a)
high, b) medium, C) low, and d) none. The purpose Of
_ evaluating tree response will be to establish relationships
between the various application practices and subsequent

tree growth and vigor at the research site.

Objective 2. To determine the effect of nitrogen fertilizer
application method, timing of application, and
amount of fertilizer upon the nitrate content
of soil water below the tree rooting depth

over time.

To achieve objective 2, four of the nitrogen
application practices will be evaluated in terms of nitrate

leaching by analysis of soil water samples collected from

 

 

 

— - — 7 ' «argagengu .

45

below the tree root zone. The four practices are control,
medium rate fall surface applied, medium rate spring surface
applied, and medium rate trickle applied. The purpose of
monitoring nitrate content below the tree rooting depth will
be to establish the relationship between timing and method
of application, and nitrogen movement from the rooting

volume.
B. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The experimental design consists of two parts. Part
one involves the nitrogen application treatments themselves,
iand part two involves the colleCtion procedure' for tree
response data, water samples and soil moisture analysis
data.

All field data for this research was collected from a
block planted to 504 Montmorency tart cherry trees (Prunus
cerasus L.) called the "500 Block" lOcated at the Northwest
Michigan Horticultural Experiment Station near ~Traverse
City, Michigan.

The trees were planted in May of 1981 at a spacing of
5.5 x 4.3 m (18 x 14 ft). The orchard floor was maintained
as a Kentucky bluegrass/perennial ryegrass sod with a 1.8 m
(6 ft) weed free strip under the tree rows. Weeds were
controlled with two sprays annually of Paraquat. Soil at
the site is from the Emmet Series (Table 1).

l. Nitrogen Application Treatments

Nitrogen application treatments were initiated during

 

 

46

November, 1982. Fertilization records appear in the

appendices.

Table l. Emmet Series Soil Characteristics

 

 

Depth cm(in) USDA Texture AWC cm/cm(in/in)
0 - 56 (0 - 22) sandy loam .13 (.13)

56 — 81 (22 - 32) sandy Clay loam .20 (.20)

81 - 152 (32 - 60) sandy loam .10 (.10)

plus gravel

 

(Burgess et al., 1984)

The research plot was arranged in a randomized complete
block design with four blocks (I,II,III, and IV), and
eighteen treatments (1 - 18). See Figure 6 and Table 2. The
blocking variable was slope, with Block I at the highest
elevation and Block IV at the lowest. Slope was selected
because differences .in soil type tend to coincide with
differences in elevation. Such differences could affect
tree respOnse. Also, the land slope affects runoff and
infiltration and could therefore affect nitrogen movement.

The fertilizer used in this research was pelletized
ammonium nitrate, 34% actual nitrogen. Treatments were
carried out as shown in Table 2. Treatments 4 - 9 were made
with a single application each year. Fall and spring split,
and early and late spring split treatments (Treatments 10 —
15) were made in two equal applications. Treatments 16, 17,
and 18, the trickle application treatments, were made in

four equal applications.

 

 

 

 

i

BLOCK III BLOCK IV

BLOCK II

BLOCK I

 

UHdUlat.lng Slope

.l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _
_00000000000000000 0 aaaaaaaaa 0 aaaaaaaaaaaa _
.3 1|. 8 7 2 5 _
. 1 .
. .
. .
_0 000 aaaaa 00 ccccc 0000 00000000000000000000.
.2 1.. 6 8 7 0 _
.1 l 1.. l l l .
. _
. _
.000000000 00000 00 0 00 00 0 aaaaaaaaaaaaa .
.3 6 4 4. 9 5 _
.1 l _
. lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _
. I.
.00 00 00 aaaaaaaaaaaaa 0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _
.4 3 l 4. 6 8 _
.1 l 1 l _
. .
. .
.0000000 aaaaaaa 0 aaaaaa 00 ccccc 00 000 0000000.
.7 5 9 2 2 1... .
.1 1 1 .
. .
. .
‘0 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0 0000 aaaaaaaaaaaaaa —
.0 5 3 6 7 8 .
.1 1 .
. lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll .
.l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll .
_000000000 0 00000 aaaaaa 0 0 0 aaaaa 000 0 0.
.2 l 3 8 4 5 .
. l l ..l. 1 .
. .
. .
.00 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa .
.8 3 o 2 6 4 .
. 1.. l 1 .
. .
. _
.00 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0000 000000000 00.
.6 7 l 9 7 5 .
. l l .
..r lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll .
_ _
.000 000000 aaaaaa 00 0000 aaaaaaaaaaaaa 0 aaaaa .
.1 9 8 0 7 8 .
. l l .
_ .
. _
_000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00.
.4 2 3 4. . 3. 2 .
. l 1.. l .
. .
. .
.0000000000000 0 00 0 0 00000 0 000000000-
.6 5 l 5 7 6 .
.r 1 1 1 1.. .

I
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
l
l
I
I
l
l
l
I
l
l
I
l
l
I
I
l
l
l
I
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
I
l
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
l
I
I
l
I
l
l
l
l
i
l
l
i
l
I
I
I
L

--- 5 % down slope ----->

Treatment Plot Layout

Figure 6.

47

 

48

Table 2. Nitrogen Fertilizer Treatments

 

1983 Season 1984 Season
Actual Nitrogen
Treatment # kg (lb) kg (lb)
CONTROL 1 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
" 2 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
" 3 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 0.07 (0.15) 0.14 (0.30)
medium N 5 0.14 (0.30) 0.27 (0.60)
high N 6 0.27 (0.60) 0.54 (1.20)
SPRING APPLIED ,
low N 7 0.07 (0.15) 0.14 (0.30)
medium N 8 0.14 (0.30) 0.27 (0.60)
high N 9 0.27 (0.60) 0.54 (1.20)
*
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 0.07 (0.15) 0.14 (0.30)
medium N 11 0.14 (0.30) 0.27 (0.60)
high N 12 0.27 (0.60) 0.54 (1.20)
**
SPRING SPLIT ' '
low N 13 0.07 (0.15) 0.14 (0.30)
medium N 14 0.14 (0.30) 0.27 (0 60)
high N 15 0.27 (0.60) 0.54 (1 20)
***
TRICKLE APPLIED -
low N 16 0.07 (0.15) 0.14 (0. 0)
medium N 17 0.14 (0.30) 0.27 (0.60)
high N 18 0.27 (0.60) 0.54 (1.20)

 

* One half applied in November, one half in March/April.
** One half applied in March, one half in June.
*** Applied in four equal treatments in May/June.

 

49

Plastic cups were calibrated to the nearest 14 g (0.5
ounce) and used in the orchard to measure the fertilizer for
each tree in the surface application treatments. Fertilizer
was banded under the drip line in a circular pattern with a
radius of 0.46 m (1.5 ft). Fall surface applications were
made in November. Spring surface treatments were applied in
late March, and surface spring split treatments were applied
in two equal amounts in late March and mid June.

A trickle irrigation system was set up on the 500 Block
at the time of planting in Spring, 1981. The system is
equipped with (1) 7.6 L/hr (2 gal/hr) vortex emitter per
tree. Emitters are on extension tubes and are situated
approximately 0.15 m (0.5 ft) from the trunk and 0.15 m (0.5
ft) above the soil surface. The lateral lines are buried
0.10 — 0.15 m (0.33 - 0.50 ft) below the surface. This
system will be referred to hereafter as "the water system".
I The uniformity of water application was determined to be
over 80% (Bralts 1983).

A second trickle irrigation system was set up and used
for fertilizer injection to deliver nitrogen to the trickle
application treatments. This system uses (1), (2) or (4)
3.8 L/hr (1 gal/hr) vortex emitter(s) per tree for
treatments 16, 17 and 18 respectively. This system will
hereafter be called "the fertilizer system". A valve on the
water system submain was kept closed during fertilizer
injection to insure that no fertilizer entered the water

system network, and the two systems were never operated

 

 

50

simultaneously. By design the fertilizer system delivered
two and four times the amount of fertilizer and water to
treatments 17 and 18 respectively, than it did to treatment
16. Such differences could have caused tree response
effects not attributable to the nitrogen application
treatments.

To correct for these differences the water system was
used to deliver water to treatments 1 - 17 in a timed
procedure immediately following each fertilizer injection.
Wooden Clothespins were used to hold emitter extension tubes
on the water system closed on treatments 16, 17 and 18. The
.system was then turned on and all treatments.except 16, 17
and 18 were watered. At the appropriate times the pins were
removed from treatments 16 and 17. To insure uniform water
application during future irrigations, pins were removed
fromV all treatments after all trees had received an equal
amount of water (see appendices).

Refinements of fertilizer injection technique were made
over the course of the first four injection sessions in
1983. These refinements mainly concerned problems with the
injection procedure which arose due to the fact that by
design, treatment 18 trees received such a large amount of
water. To minimize the amount of water applied, the
injection period had to be kept as short as possible.
However, due to the low flow rate with the fertilizer
system, and the need for strict time constraints on the

injection procedure, several commonly used fertilizer

_. m . JLA-N‘

 

 

 

51

injection techniques were not feasible.

In 1984, nitrogen injection was accomplished by mixing
a stock solution of 20 kg (44.1 lb) of 34% ammonium nitrate
per 114 L (30 gal) of water. Injection was done with a
model 320 HT Hardi diaphram pump which delivers 49 L/min (13
gpm) at 2413 kilopascals (350 psi). Injection followed
procedures outlined by Bralts et a1. (1984). Twenty minutes
was allowed for the irrigation system to come to
equilibrium. Injection of nitrogen was accomplished in 20
minutes, and the lines were flushed for 20 minutes.

In order to check whether nitrogen delivery was
yuniform, the emitter discharge uniformity of the fertilizer
system was evaluated on May 7, 1984, prior to (the first
trickle nitrogen application. The uniformity of the system
was found to be excellent at 94%. The actual uniformity
calculations appear in the appendices.

.2. 'Data Collection Procedures

‘Timing of data collection was often influenCed by the
travel involved and samples were collected by personnel at
the Northwest Michigan Horticultural Experiment Station.
Data sheets and instructions for collection were developed,
and appear in the appendices.

All trunk diameter measurements were taken with
calipers at 0.30 m (1.0 ft) above the soil surface parallel
to the row. In April and September of 1983, all seven trees
.per treatment plot were measured. In September of 1984 the

first and seventh tree were not measured because of the

 

 

 

 

52

possibility of nitrogen movement from adjacent treatment
plots affecting these "buffer" trees. Data from five of the
seven trees was analyzed.

For the purposes of this research, total terminal
growth was not measured. Instead, 3 - 6 measurements were
taken from each of the five inner trees per treatment plot.
Both 1983 and 1984 growth was measured around September 20,
1984. The central leader of each of the 3 - 6 main scaffold

branches was measured (Figure 7). The average growth was

Figure 7. Average Terminal Growth Measurements

...—v

 

53

then calculated for each plot.

Leaf samples were collected on July 31 and August 2,
1984. About 100 leaves were collected from each treatment
plot of seven trees, folldwing procedures recommended by
Kenworthy and Hull (1973). Samples were then air dried
until September. Fruit was harvested from the 500 Block for
the first time in July 1984. Total weight from each plot
of seven trees was recorded.

Soil water vacuum extractors, or suction lysimeters as
they are often referred to (Linden, 1977, were used to
collect soil water samples from a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft).
'This depth was selected as being well below the active
rooting zone of the trees. One vacuum extractor per
treatment plot of seven trees was installed in treatments 1,
5, l4, and 17, for a total of 16 as shown in Figure 8. For
purposes of organization, the sixteen lysimeter sites were
assigned a letter, A through P, beginning with the lateral
lat highest elevation in Block I, and proceeding from south
to north within a given row, and ending in Block IV.

During installation, an attempt was made to place each
extractor 0.46 m (1.5 ft) directly East from the tree trunk
(perpendicular to the row). Except on treatment 14, block
IV, where there was a dead tree, the lysimeters were placed
near the second tree from the north end of the treatment
plot. Installation was made by using a soil slurry (Soil
Moisture Equipment Corporation, 1983). A description of

the soil profile at each site appears in the appendices.

 

 

 

ucmawomam wane mmmoo< mnozm.coLu:wz cam nobomcuxm Edmum> .m whammm

 

nwwu w. . .mocm.:.=.n,muu.m um voumuo. who woman mmouuo unoha cohaooz
“blunt- . .A concunu 4 moumm um nouauoH 0cm mucuuouuxu asuum>

.335 m4

.u m“ . A IIIII wao.m crop a m In:
H“ . . . H H . H H H H H H

      

mmOUU<

MOUUQNU‘H . .
090.8 .N .S .m .3 .N é .1 .2 .5 .a .n .2

5530fl>

COHUSQZ . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . U .

54

u o . . . . . o . . o u
u . u u u u . . . . u n
. . . . u . . . n n u
o u . . . . . . . . u .
c o z . . . . . . n . .

o n . . . . .

Dcuadmuwco macaw
m
w
H
G
rd

. u . . o . c . . . . u
. - . u . . o . . . . .
. . . . . u 4 . . . o u
. . o . s . . . . . o n
. u . o . o o . . u . .

 

 

‘ h .m .NH .MH .va .BH .0. .m .o .w
2 >~ xuoqm Hun xUOdm a. muoqm a :Uqu

 

.mH .0H .m .ma ..H .m .m. .v .m .9. .~ .w.

 

Collection of soil water samples began on September 9,

and proceeded until

applied vacuum varied
ability to get into the
soil

To evaluate

samples were collected

fertilizer injection

55

1983
October 4, 1984. The duration of
throughout the year with relative

orchard.
nitrogen in the root zone, soil
on May 6, 1984, prior to the first
application. Each sample was a

composite of four subsamples taken equidistant from the tree

trunk.

0.15 - 0.30 m (0.5 - 1.0 ft)
m (1.25 and 2.5 ft) from the trunk.

_applied, surface spring split, and trickle applied

The samples were taken from the soil profile between

in depth, at both 0.38 and 0.76

Control, surface fall

nitrogen

treatments were evaluated in this manner.

Soil moisture was evaluated in the research plot with a

neutron probe.
vacuum
each block (Figure 8).
in

for

at 0.15 m (0.5 ft)

Four access tubes were installed

extractor, one within the control (treatment

the appendices along with a field data
neutron probe data.

intervals within

near the

1) of
The site calibration curve appears
sheet developed
Neutron probe readings were taken

the profile to a depth

of approximately 1.8 m (6 ft).

Since the research station is part of the NOAA National

Weather Service network, daily records of precipitation were

available.

the appendices.

These appear along with records of irrigation in

C. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Analysis techniques include 1) laboratory procedures
for extraction of raw data from field samples, and 2)
statistical analysis and presentation of results. Raw data
may be found in the appendices.

1. Laboratory procedures

Leaf samples collected in August were air dryed until
October. Samples were then further dried in an oven at 105
degrees Celcius for 12 hours, ground in a mill and passed
through a 40 mesh screen. Two seperate subsamples were
weighed out from each sample.

The first subsample was dry-ashed, dissolved in nitric
acid, filtered, and anlayzed spectrographically at the
Michigan State University Soil Analysis Laboratory for
Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Iron,
Zinc, Copper and Boron. The second subsample was digested
by the macro—Kjeldahl method and anlayzed colorimetrically
for total nitrogen at the Michigan State University Soil
Analysis Laboratory.

Soil water samples remained frozen until the day prior
to laboratory analysis. Concentration of nitrate plus
nitrite was determined colorimetrically on a Technicon auto—
analyzer (Technicon 1973). Samples collected from September
10, 1983 to November 21, 1983 were analyzed on December 15,
1983. Samples collected from December, 1983 through May 6,
1984 were analyzed on May 9, 1984. The remaining samples

were analyzed on November 16, 1984.

56

 

 

57

Soil samples were extracted with saturated calcium
sulfate and the leachate analyzed for ammonium and nitrate
concentration (Technicon 1973).

2. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance for a randomized complete block
design was done for trunk diameter increases, terminal
growth, and 10 different leaf nutrients to determine if
there were significant differences among treatments.
Duncan's multiple range test was then used to separate means
at the 5 % level of significance. Appendix C gives the

statistical model and a sample of the Duncan's test results.

IV. RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. TREE RESPONSE

1. Leaf Analyses

Leaf nutrient analysis was the most sensitive indicator
of tree response. Leaf nutrients are shown in Table 3 with
mean seperation by Duncan's multiple range test (Steel and
Torrie, 1980 :Little and Hills, 1978).

There were no significant differences in leaf nitrogen
among method of application, timing or amount of nitrogen
applied. However, leaf nitrogen increased as nitrogen
fertilization rate increased (Figure 9a), and the highest
leaf nitrogen occured for treatments in which multiple

spring nitrogen applications were made (Figure 9b). The

,medium and high rate trickle treatments had more leaf_

nitrogen than any other treatment. They were not
significantly different from most fertilized treatments,
however.

There was a significant difference between all nitrogen
fertilizer treatments and the control. Table 19 in Appendix
A compares leaf nutrients in this study to the standards for
cherries in Michigan as established by Kenworthy (1979).

The relatively high nitrogen levels found in the leaves

at all nitrogen treatment rates (low, medium and high)

58

 

59

 

.ucouomw.o saucmo.umcm.m uo: mum Lmuumfi 05mm ocu.nu.3 mosam> .Ho>ma
w m .um09 omcmm mamwuaoz m.cmocso an mcEsHou.c.cum3 co.umumaom coo: N

Dom.

Dam.

00..

now.
cN

punom
panama
uuoaom

Ovm
UuDN
UVN

UGN
DmN
0mm

OQN
DunN
Ounvm

new
new
nunamm

unaom
namm
«mm

Dqumm< HQZUHmE

Budmm

Oszmm

Euqmw Dszmm\dQ<h

nao_
one.
one.

nac—
one.
6am

6am
no
nae.

Boo.
Boo.
Duo.

ado.
no
«_z

nao_
no
no
so

aamn
unamn
nunmon

uuaaoo
ounaao
nunaoo

nunano
uuoamo
sen

nunaom
gawk
nunaov

nunaon
uuomo
ounamo

nunmo

oumo

6.6
on

«woman
unaem
«name

names
unazo
unaum

a...
nunamn
unmwm

names
unmsm
«nuvo

names
unaom
onumm

obmv
0.v.

omv

:2

ma I ma Oszmm.MU<mmDm

ma I ma aq<m
«H I oH
unamv. nunaov.~
unanv. unmmv..
unamv. nunaoc._
once. nunamm._
unaom. nmcm._.
anon. amm.z
unamv. .nmom.s
naom. navm..
unaov. uuoacv._
unaom. nmNm.s
unamc. nunamv._
unamv. nunam¢.s
unanv. calm..
unanv. naem..
«mm. anm.s
unamv. ounnm._
umc. com."
unamv. nu_m._
DZ 00

mu<mmbm

now.—
unN¢..
Once.—

unakm..
unkv..
umm..

umm..
ohm.—
un.m..

unme._
unev._
namo._

un.n..
ohm..
ukm..

Osman.—

ann..

un.n..
x

6066..
tuna“.
unaom.

nun_.
num_.
num_.

ounn_.
un_.
num..

nuns.
uum_.
nunm_.

.uun_.
un..
ounom.

aNN.

amm.

00.N.
a

mucoEumoLB
mucmeummue
mucwEummLa

nanv.m m.
anv.m N.
unaoN.m 0.

Una—0.0 n.
unamw.m @—
unamN.m m.

unamm.m ~—
una.~.m ..
386 o.

unacm.m
on..m
unao~.m

o
m
n
unaoN.m 0
UDU.N.0 n
unaaN.m v
UOO.N m
ODO.N N

U on.N .
N Z a

'|"'|'||'l"'|'l'
"l'l||"'|l""|"'l|"'lll"""'|"|'-"-II|II i! "ll'-"

mucm.uu:z moo:

.m magma

11>rnr- qzmnmmv

ZMDOW—IHZ

NNNWWMWWW
........-

 

 

60

High Rate Nitrogen
Low Rate Nitrogen

 
 
 

Medium Rate Nitrogen

   

' Control

Application Rate (Mean of all Methods and Timing)

Figure 9a. Leaf Nitrogen for Control, Low, Medium, and High

ZN‘DOW—h—«z 'I'I>ITII“ qzmfipm‘o

Nmewwwww
.........

Rate Nitrogen Application Treatments

        
 

 

    

 

   

 

Trickle
Fall/Spring Applied
Spring Split -
Fall Applied Applied Applied
Spring
Split
Applied
AL

1: Control

Application Method (Mean of Three Application Rates)

Fixgure 9b. Leaf Nitrogen for Each Application Method

(Mean of Three Rates)

 

 

6 1

indicates the presence of residual nitrogen in the soil and
in the tree during the course of this experiment, and
suggests that the rate of nitrogen which is one half of the
currently recommended rate may be higher than necessary for
young trees without any crop load. Cropping will likely
reduce these levels considerably in future years.

There were some significant differences in leaf
phosphorus content among treatments. Leaves from control
trees were significantly higher in phosphorus than in all
nitrogen fertilizer treatments. Within nitrogen treatments,
leaf phosphorus was greater under low nitrogen rates than in
medium or high rate treatments, except in the spring split
blocks. This is likely due to the larger leaf size on
fertilized trees. Leaf size was not evaluated in this
study.

There were also significant differences in leaf
manganese between nitrogen fertilized trees and. control
trees, as well as among fertilizer treatments. Leaves from
control trees had a significantly lower level of manganese
than rate nitrogen treatments had higher leaf manganese than
low or medium rates, except where nitrogen was applied
through the trickle system. In this case, the effect of
nitrogen rate on leaf manganese was not seen. This can
probably be explained by the acidifying effect of the
ammonium nitrate in the root zone, since availability of
manganese is increased by reducing pH. One would expect the

extent of the acidifying effect to be less for nitrogen

 

—_—
62

applied through the trickle system, since it is likely that
less soil volume was acidified by trickle applied nitrogen
than by that surface applied. This is one explanation for
the apparent lack of effect under trickle applied nitrogen
treatments.

Some significant differences were found among
treatments in leaf potassium, calcium, magnesium, boron,
iron, copper and zinc.

2. Terminal Growth and Trunk Diameter Growth

Terminal growth and trunk diameter growth measurements
for 1983 and 1984 are shown in Table 4 with mean separation
by Duncan's multiple range test. The data show that
fertilized trees in general had more terminal growth and
trunk growth, but that nitrogen application practice had no
consistent effect. Significant differences in terminal
growth measurement _among the nitrogen treatments, and
between nitrogen treatments and the control in 1983 and 1984
are not consistent. With the exception of control Treatment
# 2, control trees had less terminal growth. 7

No significant differences existed in trunk diameter
increases among any treatments in 1983. In 1984, nitrogen
fertilized trees grew more, but growth was not always
significantly greater than for control treatments. It
appears that differences in trunk growth were suppressed by
residual nitrogen in 1983. In 1984, trunk growth

differences were just starting to be expressed.

 

Table 4.

 

63

Terminal Growth and Trunk Growth in cm(in)

 

Terminal Growth

Trunk Diameter Growth

 

 

Trmt

# --—l983 ------ ---—l984 ----- ---l983—- --—l984----
1 43.5(17.8)zc 46.9(19.4) c 1.5(.61)a 1.4(.62) c
2 48.1(18.9)abc 52.1(20.5)abc l.6(.63)a l.7(.67)abc
3 44.3(17.4) bc 49.0(19.3) bc 1.6(.61)a l.5(.59) c
4 47.9(18.9)abc 54.0(21.3)abc l.7(.67)a l.8(.72)a

5 50.3(19.8)abc 53.1(20.9)abc l.8(.7l)a 1.7(.68)a
6 49.9(19.6)abc 51.0(20.1)abc 1.8(.69)a l.8(.72)a

7 51.7(20.3)a 56.3(22.2)a l.8(.72)a l.9(.74)a
8 51.6(20.3)a 52.2(20.5)abc l.8(.7l)a l.8(.7l)ab
9 48.3(19.0)abc 50.5(19.9)abc 1.6(.65)a 1.7(.66)abc
10 48.4(19.l)abc 51.3(20.2)abc l.7(.69)a l.7(.67)abc
11 52.4(20.6)a 50.1(19.7)abc l.8(.72)a 1.7(.66)abc
12’ 47.4(18.7)abc 48.5(19.1) bc 1.7(.68)a l.9(.73)a
'13 49.5(19.5)abc 49.4(19.4)abc' l.8(.70)a 1.7(.66)abc
l4 48.2(19.0)abc 51.4(20.2)abc 1.7(.68)a l.7(.65)abc
15 47.2(18.6)abc 53.0(20.9)abc l.6(.65)a l.7(.67)abc
l6 49.6(19.5)abc 54.9(21.6)ab l.8(.73)a 1.9(.74)a
l7 48.0(18.9)abc 52.5(20.7)abc l.6(.61)a l.7(.67)abc
18 50.8(20.0)ab 54.4(21.4)ab l.7(.69)a 1.8(.70)ab
Treatments 1 - 3 CONTROL 10 — 12 FALL/SPRING SPLIT
Treatments 4 - 6 SURFACE FALL 13 - 15 SPRING SPLIT

15 - 18 TRICKLE APPLIED

Treatments 7 - 9 SURFACE SPRING
- 2
Mean separation within columns by Duncan's multiple
range test, 5% level. Values with the same letter are
not significantly different. .

 

3. Yield

No significant differences existed in yield among

nitrogen treatments, or between nitrogen treatments and

control. However, 1984 was the first year that any of the

trees bore fruit. Some control trees appeared to fruit

heavily, perhaps due to stress from lack of nitrogen. The

 

64

lack of yield differences is consistent with Tukey (1927).
It is expected that yield effects will arise as the trees
mature.

4. General Observations

One of the most notable differences among treatments
was observed in leaf color. Leaves from control treatments
were pale to yellow green. This condition, typical of
nitrogen stressed trees, was more apparent in 1984 than in
1983, and seemed to become more apparent as the 1984 season
progressed. No differences in leaf color were seen among
fertilized treatments. No attempt was made to quantify
this, or any other general observation, although photographs

were taken to record some of the visible trends.
B. NITROGEN BALANCE

Qualitative evaluation of the nitrogen balance requires
'analysis of 1) soil water nitrate concentration below the
root (zone over time, 2) soil moisture, irrigation and
precipitation, and 3) an appraisal of soil- nitrate and
ammonium within the root zone. The objective of this portion
of the study was to evaluate soil water nitrate
concentration below the root zone. The other parameters are
used only to supplement discussion and aid in formulating
conclusions.
The concentration of nitrate at 1.8 m (6 ft) over the
course of the year for control, fall applied, spring

applied, and trickle applied treatments is illustrated in

 

65

Figures 10a through 14a. It should be noted that plots for
control, fall, and trickle applied treatments represent an
average of three sites. The spring split plot represents an
average of four sites. It should also be noted that the
nitrate concentrations from Figures 10a — 14a do not imply
specific values for nitrate concentration in groundwater.
No attempt was made in this study to quantitatively measure
or predict the nitrate concentration of groundwater under
the nitrogen application treatments. However, a great deal
of dilution would occur and the concentration of nitrate
actually entering groundwater from these plots would be much
gless than the concentration found in soil water at_1.8 m (6
ft), which is illustrated in these plots.

Rainfall, irrigation and estimated snowmelt around the
period of sampling appears in Figures 10b - 14b. Rainfall is
illustrated as a semi—monthly total for the first and second
half of each month. Estimated snowmelt is based upon 12.7
cm (5 in) of Snowmelt being equivalent to 2.54 cm (1 in) of
water applied for purposes of visual comparison. For freshly
fallen snow this ratio was decreased to approximately ten to
one. Liters of irrigation water was converted to
centimeters using an area for the root zone of 2.6 m2 (28
ftz) (Kesner, 1981). The appendices contain a summary of
rainfall, snowfall, irrigation, and fertilization records at
the site, as well as results of soil sample nitrogen
analysis.

Soil samples showed that very little nitrogen as

 

 

66

 

 

 

 

 

100‘

I
804 a. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter 0 CONTROL

Over Time (ppm)
i 0 FALL APPLIED
NITROGEN

60‘

I
40‘ I
20* \' .

I
I . . .
e 4‘: 5‘. . ... o O 0 O o .

 

OCT NOV DE JAN FEB MAR APR MA UN :U:'A:I: EP
l984--->

 

‘ b. Rainfall, Snowmelt and .
11.4‘ Irrigation (cm) Solid Bars
Indicate Snowmelt/Irrigation.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Irrigation r
7. 6 I Snowmelt .
'l
3.8‘
4H '
___El - - ,
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR 'APR 'MAY‘JUN JUL AUG SEP
l984--->
0.20*
4
0.151
‘ c. fogl Moist?r; a;
. Met
0.10 n 9 cc

 

 

 

 

OCT NOV DEC {3514533 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
--->

Figure 10. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Fall
Applied Nitrogen Treatments

67

 

 
 
 
 
  
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130
l
30‘ e. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter
( Over Time (ppm)
60‘ O CONTROL
< 0. SPRING SPLIT
4° , APPLIED NITROGEN
20 '
J I
a. ...—u‘ A . - U - C .. . e e .
OCT‘NOV 03 JAN F33 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU SE?
1984-o.)
13 .2 ‘l _i
b. Reintell. Snoveelt end‘
11,4‘ Irrigation (ca) Solid Sers
Indicate Snowmelt/trrzqetzon.
'vv‘
_ . -..-gation I_7
7'6) . Snowmelt . I
3.31 , I“ -
1' ' I . .
‘ . . -w
I _2: . _l , ___..- . =
""ocr Nov DEC JAN it: me 'APN‘NAY‘JUN'JUL “AUG 5:?
I984--->
0.20*
4
0.131
I c. foglnnoiet%r7 .I
. eter 9 c:
0.101; _
"oer "Nov iota UAN firm: TERM! GUN 301. T06 '33? 5

l986--->

Figure 11. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Spring
Split Applied Nitrogen Treatments

 

68

 

   
  
 
 

 

 

 

30 a. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter
Over Time (ppm)
60] O CONTROL
0 TRICKLE APPLIED

NITROGEN

    

 

  

L

FE
l984--->

 

o. Rainfall, Snowmelt and
11,4 Irrigation (cm) Solid Sara
Indicate Snovmelt/Irrigation.

 

 

 

  
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.6 Snowmelt Irrigation
3.8 FW
“ i . , ‘ 7
OCT ’Nov'oac If???“ MAR APR MAY ‘JUN “JUL 'AUG ‘55?
no-) .
0.20
0.15
c. fogl Hoiatpre at
. M / )
0. 10 eter 9 cc

 

 

 

 

'OCT'NOVTDEC'JANVPEBrNAR'APRTEAYIUUNrJULTAUC'SE?’7
I984--->

Figure 12. Nitrate Movement Under Control and Trickle
Applied Nitrogen Treatments

 

69

 

 

 

 

1337
0
30‘ a. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter
~Over Time (ppm)
‘ 0
50* k ' 0 FALL APPLIED
NITROGEN
‘ 0 SPRING SPLIT
40 I APPLIED NITROGEN

 

 

20‘ Wk

'Ocr'Nov‘DEc'jAN‘PEaTMAR‘APR‘MAy‘JUN‘UUL'AUG'saPT'

 

 

 

 

 

l984--->

15.2‘r-1

I V

.o. Rainfall. Snovnelt and
11.,4‘ irrigation (:3) Solid Sara
Indicate Snovmel:/:rr:;a::::.
I —{
_
7.5. Irrigation

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:::j' ' _ . I ,
ocr N'o'v' DEC {greases MAR APR TwAy‘JUN JUL AUG SEP
.-.)

     

 

 

‘ c. Soil Moisture at]

 

 

 

0.10 1.8 Meter (glee) ,
OCT NOV rDex: USN Turin ‘APR WY DUN rJUL. 'KUGTSEP T
l 84--->

Figure 13. Nitrate Movement Under Fall Applied and
Spring Split Applied Nitrogen Treatments

 

70

 

 
 
 
 
  
 
   

 

 

 

so a. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter
Over Time (ppm)
507 0 SPRING SPLIT

APPLIED NITROGEN

O TRICKLE APPLIED
NITROGEN

‘OCT NOV EEC'JAN'FESTHAR'APRIMAY'JUN'JUL'AUG SEPYTT

l984--->

‘15.2 -

 

o. Rainfall, Snovmelt and
11.4 Irrigation (cm) Solid Sara
Indicate Snovmelt/Irrigation.

 

 

 

   

7. Irrigation
6 Snowmelt

3.8 '
H

OCT NOV 'osc JAN FEB MAR APR MAY “JUN JJL AUG‘SPP

 

 

 

 

 

 

4--->
0.20
0.15
c. fogl Hoist?re at
. H /
0.10 eter g to

 

 

 

 

ocr Novrbtc'JAN‘rtaTNAn'APn'MAY’JUN'JULIAUG'SEPT’
l984--->

Figure 14. Nitrate Movement Under Spring Split Applied
and Trickle Applied Nitrogen Treatments

71

nitrate or ammonium remained within the root zone after one
year following injection under the trickle irrigation
application treatments. Soil nitrogen within the root zone
under trickle nitrogen application treatments was about the
same as under control treatments when soil sampling was done
on May 6. More nitrogen had remained within the root zone
under surface applied treatments. The spring split applied
treatment had more nitrogen within the root zone than did
the fall applied because application had been made about one
month previous to soil sampling.

Figures 10c - 14c show the soil moisture at 1.8 m (6
ft) as determined by neutron probe moisture analysis.
Readings were taken through August 19, 1984. It is
interesting to note that in all cases, as soil moisture at
1.8 m (6 ft) decreases, the nitrate concentration at 1.8 m
(6 ft) also decreases. Water movement from the surface is
apparently not sufficient during this time to carry nitrate
beyond the root zone.

One concern in this research was that when soil
moisture at 1.8 m (6 ft) dropped below field capacity, the
water samples collected in the vacuum extractors would give
artificially high nitrate concentrations. This apparently
did not occur, previous to August 19, 1984, since moisture
never went below approximately 11% on a dry weight basis.
Field capacity for a sand is normally closer to 6% moisture
on a dry weight basis. Nitrate concentrations did rise

rapidly at one extractor site later in the summer (see

 

 

72

appendices), but the volume Of sample collected remained
high and precipitation was significant throughout the- same

period. Therefore, the effect of low soil moisture upon the

 

measured nitrate concentration is considered to be minimal.
The effect is negligible when compared with the much greater
effects brought on by fertilizer application and water
movement through the profile. For reference, soil moisture
profiles evaluated periodically to 1.8 m (6 ft) deep at the

four sites studied appear in the appendices.

 

In all cases, more nitrate occurred below the root zone
under the medium rate nitrogen treatments than under the
cOntrol. The highest nitrate concentration under the fall
(applied nitrogen treatment occurred in March. For the spring
applied treatments, the peak came in November. Fertilizer
was applied to the fall treatments in November, 1982, and to
the spring split treatments in March and June of 1983.
Trickle applied nitrogen was applied in May — July Of 1983.;

Some portion of the surface fall applied nitrogenf had '
already leached beyond the root zone by March, well ahead of
active root growth under Michigan conditions. Tree roots
had little opportunity to take up this nitrogen since there
is almost no root activity from November to March. Spring
surface applied nitrogen also leached to the 1.8 m (6 ft)
level but the peak came in November. Active root growth had
occurred during this leaching period.

In every case, the nitrate concentration at 1.8 m (6

ft) reached a low point in May and remained low throughout

73

the summer. This was probably due to the fact that

relatively little water moved beyond the root zone during

this period. The highest concentrations of nitrate at 1.8 m

(6 ft) under all fertilizer treatments occurred from late
October to late April.

Nitrate concentration at 1.8 m (6 ft) appears to be
very dependent upon water applied to the surface as rain,
snowmelt and irrigation. This is best illustrated in
Figures 13 and 14, as the nitrate concentration fluctuates
after periods of heavy water application for fall, spring
split and trickle applied treatments.

The spring split nitrogen treatment and the trickle
(treatment followed approximately the same pattern of nitrate
concentration, over time (Figure 14). The relatively high
concentration of nitrates found under the trickle applied
nitrogen treatments in October may be due to nitrogen that

was applied at a single point rather than banded around the

__tree.

At one lysimeter site not included in these plots, a
high level of nitrate was detected at 1.8 m (6 ft) in late
summer of 1984 ( see appendices). The soil profile at this
site was a uniform sand, without the clay and gravel layers
found at the other sites. This is an important finding,
since it indicates that nitrogen application through trickle
irrigation systems may result in significant leaching losses
on very sandy soils. Further research is needed on the

movement of these high nitrogen "spikes".

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objectives of the proposed research have been
addressed in full. Tree response and nitrate concentration
of soil water below the tree root zone were evaluated for
control, fall surface applied, spring split surface applied,
and trickle applied nitrogen application treatments. To
achieve the overall goal of promoting optimal growth and
vigor of tart cherry trees and minimal nitrate contamination
of groundwater from nitrogen fertilizers under Northwest
Michigan conditions, the effects of nitrogen application
practices on tart cherry tree response and nitrate movement

under trickle irrigation have been shown.
The specific conclusions of the research are:

1. Nitrogen fertilizer application by injection through
trickle irrigation systems is a viable alternative
to surface application\in terms of tart cherry tree

response.

2. Nitrogen application at one half the medium
recommended rate for four year old cherry trees
provided yield, leaf analysis and growth response
equivalent to that provided by the medium recommend-

ed rate and twice the medium recommended rate.

74

 

 

75

3. Nitrogen application rates to young tart cherry
trees on sandy loam soil under herbicide strip
orchard floor management can be reduced regardless

of method and timing of application.

4. Movement of nitrogen beyond the tree root zone does
occur under fall and spring split surface applied
and trickle irrigation applied nitrogen fertilizer
application practices, at the medium nitrogen
application rate recommended for three and four year

old cherry trees.

5. Surface applied nitrogen fertilizer applied in
November moves beyond the root zone during the

winter when uptake by the tree is minimal.

6. Nitrogen fertilizer applied in the spring does not
move beyond the roOt zone until fall and is within

the root zone when uptake is greatest.

7. The pattern of nitrate movement over time is similar
for spring split surface applied and trickle

irrigation applied nitrogen fertilizer.
Recommendations for further research are:

1. Continue the present treatments until the trees are

in full fruit production.

2.

LA)
0

.p
O

76

Continue to investigate the extent to which nitrogen

application rates to cherries can be reduced.

Quantitatively determine the nitrogen balance in the
fruit tree environment under conventional and

trickle applied nitrogen application practices.

Continue to study the movement and distribution of
nitrogen emitted from a trickle source under orchard
conditions, especially with emphasis on rate of
application, and number, type, and location of

emitters.

 

 

 

APPENDI CES

 

APPENDIX A

Tree Response Data

 

Tree Response Data

Table 5. Percent Leaf Nitrogen (1984).

Block Block Block Block Trmt

 

 

Treatment # I II III IV mean
CONTROL 1 2.65 2.65 2.70 3.05 2.76
" 2 3.00 2.84 2.55 3.00 2.85
" 3 2.80 2.75 2.30 2.90 2.69
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 3.20 3.30 3.40 3.25 3.29
medium N 5 3.10 3.30 3.30 3.15 3.21
High N 6 3.35 3.25 3.05 3.40 3.26
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 3.25 3.15 3.25 3.40 3.26
medium N 8 3.10 3.00 3.25 3.30 3.16
High N 9 3.10 3.40 3.40 3.45 3.34
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 3.19 3.10 . 3.10 3.40 3.20
medium N 11 3.10 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.21
- High N 12 2.95 3.60 3.35 3.40 3.33
SPRING SPLIT’ _
low N 13 3.20 3.35 3.25 3.30 3.28
medium N 14 3.20 3.55 3.35 3.05 3.29
High N 15 3.30 3.55 3.05 3.35 3.31
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 3.50 3.10 3.35 3.20 3.29
medium N 17 3.40 3.45 3.60 3.45 3.47
High-N 18 3.45 3.40 ._3.40~ 3.55 3.45
Block Means 3.16 3.22- 3.16 3.27
Grand Mean 3.20
Control mean 2.77 Low rate mean 3.26
Fall applied mean 3.25 Medium rate mean 3.27
Spring Applied mean 3.25 High rate mean 3.34

Fall/Spring Split mean 3.25
Spring Split mean 3.29

Trickle Applied mean 3.40

77

 

78

Table 6. Percent Leaf Phosphorus (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt
Treatment I II III IV mean
0.203 0.170 0.219 0.264 0.214
0.225 0.183 0.221 0.274 0.226
0.225 0.204 0.196 0.274 0.225

CONTROL

FALL APPLIED

low N 0.202 0.209 0.180 0.194 0.196
High N 0.172 0.170 0.177 0.174 0.173
SPRING APPLIED
low N 0.182 0.179 0.185 0.231 0.194
medium N 0.159 0.161 0.186 0.206 0.178

#
1
2
3
4
medium N 5 0.155 0.179 0.171 0.172 0.169
6
7
8
9

High N 0.151 0.174 0.166 0.199 0.172
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
10w N 10 0.182 0.177 0.166 0.209 0.183
medium N 11 0.148 0.167 0.157 ~0.210 0.170
High N 12 0.153 0.202 0.162 0.181 0.175
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 0.182 0.177 0.155 0.204 0.179
medium N 14 0.176 0.205 0.175 0.166 0.181
High N 15 0.155 0.192 0.160 0.184 0.173
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 0.199 0.222 0.178 0.210 0.202
medium N 17 .0.164 0.190 0.190 0.208 0.188
High N 18. 0u182' 0.206 0.183 0.194 . 0.191

Block Means ‘ 0.179 0.187 0.179 0.209
Grand mean 0.188

Control mean 0.222 Low rate mean 0.191
Fall applied mean 0.180 Medium rate mean 0.177

Spring Applied mean 0.182 High rate mean 0.177
Fall/Spring Split mean 0.176
Spring Split mean 0.178
Trickle Applied mean 0.194

 

79

Table 7. Percent Leaf Potassium (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt

Treatment # I II III IV mean
CONTROL 1 1.59 1.35 1.34 1.77 1.51
" 2 1.80 1.51 1.65 2.11 1.77
" 3 1.61 1.62 1.29 1.83 1.59
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 1.40 1.55 1.18 1.34 1.37
medium N 5 1.46 1.61 1.14 1.29 1.37
High N 6 1.50 1.49 1.42 1.62 1.51
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 1.68 1.83 1.59 1.64 1.68
medium N 8 1.35 1.46 1.50 1.43 1.44
High N 9 1.47 1.50 1.50 1.23 1.43
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 1.61 1.40 1.40 1.62 1.51
medium N 11 1.32 1.33 1.42 1.35 1.35
High N 12 1.38 ~ 1.74 1.27. 1.18‘ 1.39
SPRING SPLIT
.low N 13 1.46 1.37 1.27 1.32 1.35
medium N 14 1.61 1.69 1.38 ‘1.22 1.47
High N 15 1.25 1.71 1.54 1.78 1.57
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 1.48 , 1.77 . 1.26 1.26 1.44
medium N 17 1.34 1.47 1.28 1.60 1.42
High N 18 1.45 1.51 1.19 1.41 1.39
Block Means 1.49. 1.55 . 1.37 1.50.
Grand Mean 1.48
Control mean 1.62 Low rate mean 1.47
Fall applied mean 1.42 Medium rate mean 1.41
Spring Applied mean 1.52 High rate mean 1.46
Fall/Spring Split mean 1.42
Spring Split mean 1.47

Trickle Applied mean 1.42

 

80

Table 8. Percent Leaf Calcium (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt

Treatment # I II III IV mean
CONTROL 1 1.34 1.28 1.40 1.23 1.31
" 2 1.47 1.35 1.38 1.01 1.30
" 3 1.44 1.42 1.29 1.25 1.35
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 1.38 1.47 1.78 1.66 1.57
medium N 5 1.52 1.57 1.36 1.56 1.50
High N 6 1.61 1.63 1.38 1.43 1.51
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 1.46 1.56 1.61 1.28 1.48
medium N 8 1.50 1.59 1.48 1.15 1.43
High N 9 1.43 1.56 1.56 1.55 1.52
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 1.44 1.55 1.45 1.31 1.44
medium N 11 1.54 1.59 1.51 1.52 1.54
High N 12 1.47 1340 . 1054 1057 1050
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 1.45 1.60 1.63 1.53 1.55
medium N 14 1.44 1.47 1.62 -1.63 1.54
High N 15 1.41 1.55 1.36 1.19 1.38
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 1.32 1.69 1.47 1.38 1.46
medium N 17 1.52 1.62 1.40 1.40 1.49
High N 18 1.43 .1.45 1.28 1.45 1.40
Block Means 1.45 1.52 1.47 1.39 '
7Grand Mean .1.46
Control mean 1.32 Low rate mean 1.50
Fall applied mean 1.53 Medium rate mean 1.50
Spring Applied mean 1.48 High rate mean 1.46
Fall/Spring Split mean 1.49
Spring Split mean 1.49

Trickle Applied mean 1.45

 

81

Table 9. Percent Leaf Magnesium (1984)
Block Block _Elock Block EPA;-
Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 0.471 0.422 0.528 0.398 0.455
" 2 0.462 0.412 0.511 0.312 0.424
" 3 0.506 0.466 0.557 0.386 0.479
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 0.557 0.475 0.530 0.515 0.519
medium N 5 0.500 0.468 0.483 0.439 0.473
High N 6 0.518 0.535 0.467 0.370 0.473
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 0.490 0.499 0.491 0.427 0.477
medium N 8 0.519 0.494 0.462 0.413 0.472
High N 9 0.490 0.534 0.468 0.500 0.498
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 0.468 0.532 0.444 0.399 0.461
medium N 11 0.520 0.552 0.415 0.517 0.501
High N 12 0.483 0.468 0.468 0.512 0.483
SPRING SPLIT '
low N 13 0.499 0.566 0.433 0.522 0.505
medium N 14 0.503 0.531 0.435 0.516 0.496
High N 15 0.519 0.482 0.401 0.364 0.442
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 0.493 .0.522 .0.450 0.457 0.480
medium N 17 0.507 0.503 0.444 0.429 0.471
High N 18 0.469 0.504 0.449 0.397 0.455
Block Means 0.499 '0.498 -0.469 0.437
Grand Mean 0.476
Control mean 0.453 Low rate mean 0.488
Fall applied mean 0.488 Medium rate mean 0.483
Spring Applied mean 0.482 High rate mean 0.470
Fall/Spring Split mean 0.482
Spring Split mean 0.481

Trickle Applied mean 0.469

 

 

82

Table 10. Leaf Manganese in ppm (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt
Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 48.80 46.00 47.70 28.50 42.75
" 2 52.50 42.10 32.90 35.50 40.75
" 3 56.20 45.60 46.00 32.00 44.95
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 63.50 60.00 68.20 38.80 57.62
medium N 5 117.00 74.90 101.00 51.70 86.15
High N 6 94.90 134.00 88.80 92.50 102.55
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 71.90 79.80 65.00 37.60 63.57
medium N 8 96.50 123.00 53.50 50.20 80.80
High N 9 79.70 129.00 141.00 70.70 105.10
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 79.20 112.00 101.00 51.00 85.80
medium N 11 116.00 86.30 44.30 66.20 78.20
' High N 12 124.00. 138.00 85.60 97.10 111.18
SPRING SPLIT" _
low N 13 99.10 103.00 76.30 78.70 89.27
medium N 14 102.00 72.10 132.00 59.70 91.45
High N 15 156.00 72.10 120.00 59.60 101.93
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 81.50 59.90 57.00 52.70 62.77
medium N 17 109.00 65.90 107.00 55.70 84.40
High N 18 66.20 1111.00 . 58.70 50.80 71.67
Block Mean 89.67 - 86.37 - 79.22 56.06‘
Grand Mean 77.83
Control mean 42.82 Low rate mean 71.81
Fall applied mean 82.11 Medium rate mean 84.20
Spring Applied mean 83.16 High rate mean 98.49
Fall/Spring Split mean 91.73
Spring Split mean 94.22

Trickle Applied

 

83

Table 11. Leaf Copper in ppm (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt

Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 10.70 7.81 8.73 9.30 9.13
" 2 10.50 8.17 8.70 9.64 9.25
" 3 9.80 10.10 10.20 9.07 9.79
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 11.00 14.90 9.32 9.18 11.10
medium N 5 9.07 10.70 8.78 8.56 9.28
High N 6 10.40 9.72 9.22 8.69 9.51
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 10.10 10.00 10.50 10.60 10.30
medium N 8 10.00 9.67 10.10 8.38 9.54
High N 9 9.78 9.69 9.51 9.93 9.73
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 10.60 9.39 8.70 10.70 9.85
medium N 11 9.58 9.15 9.07 , 9.28 9.27
AHigh N 12 9.40 11.50- 8.91 8.20 9.50
SPRING SPLIT '
low N 13 10.40 9.47 8.59 9.22 9.42
medium N 14 10.90 11.80 8.75 8.49 9.98.
High N 15 8.23 11.60 8.75 9.63 9.55
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 10.50 10.50 8.30 8.91 9.55
medium N 17 10.10 10.00 9.36 9.56 9.76
High N 18 _10.00 12.20 8.89 10.70 .10.45
Block Mean - 10.06 10.35. '9.13 9.34
Grand Mean 9.72
Control mean 9.39 Low rate mean 10.04
Fall applied mean 9.96 Medium rate mean 9.57
Spring Applied mean 9.86 High rate mean 9.75
Fall/Spring Split mean 9.54
Spring Split mean 9.65

Trickle Applied mean 9.92

84

Table 12. Leaf Boron in ppm (1984)

Block Block Block Block Trmt

Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 31.70 24.70 42.30 31.20 32.48

" 2 30.90 27.70 34.30 33.40 31.58

" 3 31.70 30.90 26.00 33.10 30.43

FALL APPLIED

low N 4 26.70 31.10 28.70 25.30 27.95
medium N 5 21.10 26.40 26.10 22.60 24.05
High N 6 24.60 26.20 23.80 22.80 24.35

SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 24.70 27.00 25.50 26.20 25.85
medium N 8 25.30 22.70 28.30 22.20 24.62
High N 9 23.00 24.20 23.30 26.60 24.27
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
16w N 10 26.40- 23.60 18.00 23.90 22.98
medium N 11 22.20 24.50 20.70 26.00 23.35»
High N 12 21.80 129.00 21.60 23.70 24.02
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 25.60 24.20 .21.90. 24.70 24.10
medium N 14 25.00 28.60 24.50 22.90 '25.25
High N 15 23.00 29.30 20.10 23.00 23.85
TRICKLE APPLIED
16w N 16 31.10 32.60 . 23.80 26.90 28.60
medium N 17 27.30 26.60 27.30 28.70' 27.48
High N 18 24.50 32.20 26.70 22.00 26.35

Block Mean 25.92 27.31 _ 25.72: 25.84
Grand mean 26.20
Control mean 31.49 Low rate mean 25.90

Fall applied mean 25.45 Medium rate mean 24.95

Spring Applied mean 24.92 High rate mean 24.57
Fall/Spring Split mean 23.45
Spring Split mean 24.40
Trickle Applied mean 27.47

85

Table 13. Leaf Iron in ppm (1984)

 

 

Block Block Block Block Trmt
Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 64.40 58.80 61.70 57.60 60.62
" 2 68.80 55.30 59.20 63.90 61.80
" 3 69.50 61.20 65.60 56.40 63.17
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 76.60 71.00 63.00 67.00 69.40
medium N 5 65.70 62.30 66.90 58.50 63.35
High N 6 74.70 77.00 69.20 60.90 70.45
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 70.30 64.00 72.40 67.80 68.62
medium N 8 62.20 76.20 77.40 73.40 72.30
High N 9 66.90 70.90 70.00 71.60 69.85
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 69.60 67.20 71.20 89.70 74.42
medium N 11 66.90 65.30 60.10 80.20 68.12
High N 12 62.80 70.40 62.40 71.00 66.65
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 71.60 63.60 57.90 83.90 69.25
medium N 14 68.10 76.40 64.10 66.70 68.83
High N 15 64.00 68.60 65.00 65.80 65.85
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 72.60 64.30 66.40 78.00 70.33
medium N 17 72.80 72.00 68.20 73.60 71.65
High N 18 71.00 75.40 67.10 78.40 72.97
Block Mean 68.81 67.77 ' 65.99 70.24'
Grand mean 68.20 1
Control mean 61.87 Low rate mean 70.41
Fall applied mean 67.73 Medium rate mean 68.85
Spring Applied mean 70.26 High rate mean 69.16
Fall/Spring Split mean 69.73
Spring Split mean 67.98
Trickle Applied mean 71.65

 

 

86

Table 14. Leaf Zinc in ppm (1984)

 

 

 

Block Block Block Block Trmt
Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 13.50 10.60 12.90 10.50 11.87
" 2 13.00 9.50 11.40 12.10 11.50
" 3 13.50 11.90 11.80 10.70 11.97
FALL APPLIED
low N 4 12.30 13.10 11.40 11.30 12.02
medium N 5 10.90 12.40 11.20 9.50 11.00
High N 6 10.90 12.50 12.10 9.85 11.34
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 13.00 13.00 11.00 11.20 12.05
medium N 8 12.50 12.20 11.70 11.70 12.03
High N 9 11.40 13.10 14.50 15.00 13.50
FALL/SPRING SPLIT '
low N 10 11.90 13.50 11.40 12.80 12.40
medium N 11 10.80 10.10 9.79 12.30 10.75
High N 12 11.50 12.90 10.20 13.40 12.00
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 13.40 10.80 10.10 12.50 11.70
medium N 14 14.20 12.30 12.90 11.30 12.67
High N 15 11.60 12.80 10.70 12.00 11.78
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 12.90 11.70 10.10 12.80 11.87
medium N 17 _13.50 11.00 15.20 11.80 12.87
High N 18. 11.80 14.50 11.30 12.53
Block Mean 12.37 12.11 11.65 11.81
Grand mean 11.99
Control mean 11.78 Low rate mean 12.01
Fall applied mean 11.45 Medium rate mean 11.86
Spring Applied mean 12.53 High rate mean 12.23
Fall/Spring Split mean 11.72
Spring Split mean 12.05
Trickle Applied mean 12.43

87

Terminal growth and trunk diameter was established by
taking measurements on 5 of the 7 trees per treatment plot.
The following tables contain values for a specific block and
treatment number. Each value is an average of the

measurements taken on five trees (10 — 15 actual

measurements).

 

 

88

 

 

Table 15. Trunk Diameter Growth in 1983 (cm)
Block Block Block Block -T;mf
Treatment # I II III IV Mean
CONTROL 1 1.48 1.44 1.52 1.70 1.53
" 2 1.80 1.36 1.58 1.66 1.60
" 3 1.56 1.64 1.38 1.62 1.55
FALL APPL I ED
low N 4 1.56 1.90 1.66 1.72 1.71
medium N 5 1.44 2.16 1.72 1.86 1.80
High N 6 1.62 1.80 1.98 1.65 1.76
SPRING APPLIED
low N 7 1.66 1.74 1.88 2.10 1.84
medium N 8 1.60 1.78 1.88 2.00 1.81
High N 9 1.48 1.56 1.56 2.02 1.65
FALL/SPRING SPLIT
low N 10 1.96 1.58 1.74 1.72 1.75
medium N 11 1.52 1.84 1.96 1.98 1.82
High N 12 1.56 1.82 1.78 1.78 1.73
SPRING SPLIT
low N 13 1.68 1.68 1.92 1.88 1.79
medium N 14 1.78 1.74 1.58 1.80 1.72
High N 15 1.24 1.90 1.88 1.60 1.65
TRICKLE APPLIED
low N 16 1.58 1.98 1.74 2.12 1.85
medium N 17 1.24 1.62 1.28 2.12 1.56
High N 18 2.10 1.40 1.54 1.96 1.75
Block Means 1.60 1.72 1.70 1.85 7
Grand mean 1.72
Control mean 1.56 Low rate mean 1.79
Fall applied mean 1.76 Medium rate mean 1.74
Spring Applied mean 1.77 High rate mean 1.71
Fall/Spring Split mean 1.77
Spring Split mean 1.72
Trickle Applied mean 1.72

Table 16.

89

Trunk Diameter Growth in 1984 (cm)

Treatment

Control

Fall Applied
low N

medium N

High N

Spring Applied
low N

medium N

High N
Fall/Spring Split
low N

medium N

High N

Spring Split
low N

medium N

High N

Trickle Applied
low N

medium N

High N

Block Means

Grand 'mean

(AND—J =3:

\DCDN GNU'IM>

rakaw

O O O
01
4:.

HFJFJ
O O O
O\
C)

1.54
1.68
1.60
1.46

1.96

l 46.

2.14
1.64
1.73

Block

II

1.36
1.52
1.54

2.08
1.96

,l.86

1.68
1.80
1.60

1.58
1.56
1.84

1.64
1.76
1.84

1.92
1.60
1.56

1.71

Block

III

1.28
1.68
1.32

1.80
1.68
2.00

1.96
1.80
1.78

1.74
1.78

2.18 ,

1.64
1.46
1.62

1.62
1.52

1.40

1.68

Block

IV

1.70
1.94
1.54

1.88
1.70
1.81

2.16
2.02
1.80

1.78
1.90
1.88

1.70
1.80
1.82

2.04
2.24
2.08

1.88

1.79

Control

Fall applied
Spring Applied
Fall/Spring Split
Spring Split
Trickle Applied

LOW rate mean

Medium rate mean

High rate mean

1.79
1.71
1.77

 

90

 

Table 17. 1983 Terminal Growth (cm)

Treatment

Control

#
1
2 . .
" 3 48.39 46.43 37.64 44.58 44.26
Fall Applied
4
5
6

low N 44 90 53 20 47.47 46 ll 47 92
medium N 49 03 52 42 53.30 46 43 50 30
High N 45 73 50 29 53.23 50.33 49 89

Spring Applied
low N 7 50.32 47.47 54.03 54.91 51.68
medium N 8 47.15 49.42 56.18 53.61 51.59
High N 9 46.70 45.14 47.62 53.62 48.27
Fall/Spring Split
low N 10 49.76 43.77 47.74 52.34 48.40
medium N 11 49.53 50.26 56.67 53.07 52.38
' High N_ 12 48.44 43.40 50.82 47.08 47.44
Spring Split .
low N 13 50.53 49.97 49.16 48.50 49.54
medium N 14 51.60 52.70 43.87 44.71 48.22
High N 15 40.17 53.27 46.87 48.35 47.16
Trickle Applied
low N 16 46.46 52.13 49.97 49.97 49.64
medium N 17 37.81 51.03 42.83 60.50 48.04
High N 18 53.59' 44.32~ .51.001 54.42 50.83

 

Block Means 47.46" 48.51‘ 48.58 50.37'
Grand mean 9 48.73 V
Control mean 45.28 Low rate mean 49.44
Fall applied mean 49.37 Medium rate mean 50.11
Spring Applied mean 50.51 High rate mean 48.72

Fall/Spring Split mean 49.41
Spring Split mean 48.31

Trickle Applied mean 49.50

---—----------_--—-------—---——---—_——---------_--—-—-—-—--—
--_———-‘~-----‘_--fi-—-—‘~--_-_--‘-—~a——‘~--u-‘-----__--“—-~_—

 

91

Table 18. 1984 Terminal Growth (cm)

Block Block Block Block Trmt

Treatment # I II III IV Mean
Control 1 46.03 44.73 45.24 51.72 46.93

" 2 52.97 48.06 50.29 57.25 52.14

" 3 52.61 48.46 43.17 51.64 48.97

Fall Applied

10w N 4 49.20 57.00 55.74 54.08 54.00
medium N 5 46.60 56.50 49.87 59.33 53.08
High N 6 49.15 50.36 54.32 50.17 51.00

Spring Applied
low N 7 54.80 50.87 54.11 65.63 56.35
medium N 8 47.06 46.37 58.21 57.11 52.19
High N 9 46.87 48.89 49.69 56.50 50.49

Fall/Spring Split
10w N 10 55.06 48.17 47.76 54.41 51.35
medium N 11 44.16 50.29 52.43. 53.57 50.11
High N 12 42.75 -53.00 50.86 47.42 48.51

Spring Split '

low N 13 48.50 50.94 49.91 48.10 49.36
medium N 14 52.17 55.45 46.21 51.79 51.40
High N 15 45.67 57.40 48.00 61.09 53.04

Trickle Applied
low N 16 55.14 54.70 53.41 56.34 54.90
medium N 17 _ 46.25 52.28 49.67 61.76 52.49
High N 18 61.16' 47.68 53.17 55.69 .54.42

Block Means 49.79 51.18 50.67 55.20

Grand mean 51.71
Control Mean 49.35 Low rate mean 53.19
Fall Applied mean 52.69 Medium rate mean 51.85
Spring Applied mean 53.01 High rate mean 51.49

Fall/Spring mean 49.99
Spring Split mean 51.27
Trickle Applied mean 53.94

92

Dmuamm< QJXUHQE ma
Dmmdmm< Pudmm Uszmm ma
Eudmm ozmmmm\qd<m NH
Qmmdmm< Oz~mmm mU<hmDm m

Omuqmm< ad<m mo<mm=m o
. AOflEZOU m

ma mucosumoue
ma mucoeummue
ca mucosuooue
n mucmsuomue
v mucmsummue
H mucoEumwue

"'5'5l'"""--I"I'l-"""""'55---. ' 'l-'l""'l"|'
5 "'l|"'|""""'|l'-'
I555-||'||'|"|-'5'5'5555555555555-5555555I|"II""II"|"IIIIIII-||I'|"II'-555'.

ZmMH ZQGN
ZQMH zth
szH 2mm~
szH zm¢N
ZQMH 2mmm
zmwa ZM¢~
szH 2m¢N
zmHH ZQMN
szH zmmm
ZQMH zmwm
ZQNH 2mmm
szH zmom

zmoe.H
2mm¢.A
2mm¢.a

2mmm.d
zmom.a
zmmm.a

zmomxa
zm¢m.a
zm¢¢.~

zmmm.H
2mm¢.~

.zmm¢.a

zmam.m
zmom.H
2mmm.~

zmmm.H
zmom.~
ZQHM.H

mmooxm
HmELoz m>on<
HmeLoz
HmELoz 3o~om
moouuozm
zmma. 2mv.m
2mma. 2n¢.m
Zom. 2mm.m
zmna. sz.m
zmma. zm~.m
zmma. 2m~.m
zmha. 2mm.m
zmha. z-.m
ZmQH. Zom.m
zmna. Zem.m
zmma. ZmH.m
zmma. ZmN.m
zmna. zmm.m
zmna. zam.m
zmom. 2m~.m
ZNN. Zoo.~
2mm. 2mm.~

sz. zwn.N

802 Ha
36H ed

M: m
005 m
30H 5

M:
cos
30H

$2252 232:! 2:22: :2252 252:2

GU30

HNM

ucoeummue

'--"'I"[""l"'l"ll""'l""'|""'|||l|"'".'l'.|"-"'I'IIIIII|"-"-'|"|"|I"|

on om

hw

now

mm.

mm. mm.~

pumpcmum
anuuozcox

'555'5"I""""'-""-55"---'5'---"|"""|'5"-.."'5555555"|"'|'I'|5'-|-"
55"5"'||"l"I'll"|'l|"""|"'l|"ll'l'--l."--""'III"'ll||"|'ll'll|"l'll'

momuumnu L0u mm=~m>
companym m.»nuuo3cw& num3.poLMQsoU.mucmeuaz mood pouzmmoz emma

.mH oHnme

APPEND I X B

Nitrate Movement Data

Nitrate Movement Data

Table 20. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Control Treatments (ppm)
BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT CONTROL * * *
S I TE D H K P
date
09-10-83 27.90 38.90
10-17-83 15.80 21.80 15.80 10.80
10-19-83 29.40 28.40 15.80 14.80
10-23-83 19.30 15.70 9.70 8.20
11-17—83 17.20 20.30
11-21-83 21.30 19.80 2.20 2.20
12-19-83 1.23 1.21
02-11-84 8.95 19.35 x 0.97 0.94
02-14-84 3.47 32.27 1.03 1.10
02-22-84 2.52 22.01 1.24 1.30
03-31-84_
04-03-84 7.60 31.34
04-16-84 1.54 27.61 0.62 0.24
04-21-84 1.83 26.68 0.34 0.10
04-30-84 1.56 24.68 0.31 0.27
05—06-84 1.16 0.40 0.06
05-11-84 2.03 24.70 .
05-19-84 0.85 16.67 0.66 ' 0.28
05-25-84 1.51 23.50 0.70 0.28
06-02-84 1.51 ' 0.53 0.26
06-11-84' 1.33 13.74 0.55 0.65
06-19-84 0.90 12.20 0.44 0.16
06-27-84 0.58 8.21 0.12
07-05-84 0.15 6.69 0.05 -
07-14-84 5.42
07-18-84 0.03 2.52
07-25-84 3.25
08-01-84 0.03 3.79
08-07-84 0.03 4.72
08-15-84 5.58
08-22-84
08-29-84 5.42
09-06-84 5.14
09-18-84 5.55
10-11-84 5.71

--n~-~-‘--—‘—m--w-~——--w-‘—_—————‘--‘_—~—n_—u--————~”-—-—“~—_
----------_—-—-~——“_—_---‘—----———--———--—----—_—--—----~--.

93

Table 21.

94

Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the Fall

Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm).

BLOCK
TREATMENT
SITE

date
09-10-83
10-17—83
10-19-83
10-23-83
11-17-83
11-21-83
12-19-83
02-11-84
02-14-84
02-22-84
03-31-84
04-03-84
04-16-84
04-21-84
04-30-84
05-06-84
05-11-84
05-19—84
05-25-84
06-02-84
06-11-84
06-19-84
06-27-84
07-05-84
07-14-84
07-18-84
07-25-84
08-01-84
08-07-84
08-15-84
08-22-84
08-29-84
09-06-84
09-18-84
10—11-84

31.40
21.80
19.30
34.30
34.30
63.90
57.70
50.28
32.21
57.40
68.53
85.42
76.44
77.11
54.45
74.03
55.31
37.73
44.01
32.94

' 27.73
24.80'

20.93
16.40

14.07

27.40

4.70
23.80
18.80
16.20
23.30

22.41
22.01
20.90
14.71
17.37
14.79
12.85
11.23

‘ 7.68
9.62-

8.53
8.21
8.53
7.89
6.14

20.30
4.70

2.20
2.20
2.26
0.33
2.00
0.42

0.35
0.34
0.32
0.35
0.34
2.44
1.55
1.66
1.98
2.59
3.37
3.82
4.32

5.01
4.63
2.35

95

Table 22. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the Spring
Split Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm)
BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT SPRI NG * * *
SITE C G L N
date
09-10-83 17.80 42.00 33.40
10-17-83 11.80 39.90 55.50 39.40
10-19-83 13.80 66.60 125.50 76.20
10-23—83 15.70 76.50 76.00 58.90
11-17—83 25.30 92.50 144.30 76.00
11-21-83 30.30 95.10 145.80 75.50
12-19-83 79.84 55.56
02-11-84 72.00 52.44 62.93
02-14-84 55.14 85.76 39.96 34.68
02—22-84 63.06 61.74 23.34 30.59
03-31-84 . .
04-03-84 69.66 53.69 ‘17.40 14.97
04-16-84 52.60 39.61 9.01 8.74
04-21-84 50.17 36.36 9.82 9.28
04-30-84 56.80 32.30 4.58 10.63
05-06-84 43.13 18.62 6.03 5.62
05-11-84 45.89 21.15 20.19
05-19-84 37.31 16.86 3.40 20.52
05-25-84 39.29 18.51 3.58 18.84
06-02-84 (32.03 13.10 3.22 19.17
06-11-84' 27.46 10.04 - 2.94 16.36
06-19-84. '26.15 9.39 2.87 16.69
06-27-84 721.91 8.41 2.84 16.69
07-05-84 20.28 6.00 2.94 16.04
07—14-84
07-18-84 4.10 3.42 15.71
07-25-84 19.30 4.49 16.36
08-01-84 19.30 4.42 15.38
08-07-84 19.07 4.39 13.30
08-15-84 4.60 13.30
08-22-84 12.00
08-29-84 12.65
09-06-84 12.00
09-18-84 10.04
10-11-84 6.10

96

Table 23. Water Sample Nitrate Concentration for the
Trickle Applied Nitrogen Treatments (ppm)
BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT TRI CKLE * * *
S I TE A F J 0
date
09-10-83 26.90 58.10 25.90
10-17-83 39.40 56.50 18.80 70.10
10-19-83' 30.90 89.80 30.90 238.30
10—23-83 32.80 91.50 37.30 93.00
11-17-83 24.80 89.50 36.30
11-21-83 30.80 75.50 38.30 151.80
12-19-83 22.28 63.84 35.10 109.20
02-11-84 21.30 44.31 18.76 45.11
02-14—84 31.73 30.40 16.75 59.29
02-22-84 60.09 19.96 8.72 29.99
03-31-84 51.80 11.94 2.97
04-03-84 49.30 10.36 4.50 28.09'
04-16-84 34.65 1.94 2.83 16.50
04-21-84 38.14 3-11 2.63 13.02
04-30-84 35.35 2.52 1.94 7.43
05-06-84 40.51 2.52 0.77 2.83
05-11-84 36.10 3.48 3.22
05-19-84 33.17 3.00 3.18 6.33
05-25-84 36.20 3.22 3.18 6.16
06-02-84 23.18 3.51 3.03 5.65
06-11-84 26.76 ‘3.00 3.03 4.98
06-19-84 26.10 2.84' 3.19 6.19.
'06-27—84 25.13 2.70 12.00 6.89
07—05-84 26.10 2.25 324.97 6.96
07-14-84
07-18-84 25.15 1.56 451.41 6.63
07-25-84 23.87 175.24 6.30
08-01-84 24.19 0.67 238.46 7.29
08-07-84 23.87 0.27 288.37 7.62
08-15-84 23.23 171.91
08-22-84 474.71
08-29-84 21.05 587.84
09-06-84 22.00
09-18-84 18.19 704.30
10-11—84 22.63 624.44

97

Table 24. Average Sample Nitrate Over Four Blocks (ppm)

control fall spring trickle
date

09-10-83 33.40 24.72 31.07 36.97
10-17-83 16.05 13.25 36.65 46.20
10-19-83 22.10 20.18 70.53 97.47
10-23-83 13.23 29.47 56.78 63.65
11-17-83 18.75 25.28 84.52 50.20
11-21-83 11.37 32.80 86.67 74.10
12-19-83 1.22 33.74 67.70 57.60
02-11—84 7.55 28.69 62.46 32.37
02-14-84 9.47 22.41 53.88 34.54
02-22-84 6.77 34.12 44.68 29.69
03-31-84 68.53 22.24
04-03-84 19.47 45.44 38.93 23.06
04-16-84 7.50 37.09 27.49 13.98
04-21-84 7.24 38.69 26.41 14.22
04-30-84 6.70 27.69 26.08 11.81
05-06-84 0.54 27.79 18.35 11.66
05-11-84 13.37 26.65 29.08 14.27
05-19-84 4.62 19.21 19.52 11.42
505-25-84 6.50 21.15 20.05 12.19
06-02-84 0.77 18.06 16.88 8.84
06-11-84 4.07 17.48 14.20 9.44
06—19-84 3.42 17.43 13.77 9.58
06-27-84 2.97 15.84 12.46 11.68
07-05-84 2.30 14.68 11.31” 90.07
07-14-84 5.42 g ' .
07-18-84 1.27, 15.02 7.74 121.19
07-25-84 3.25 15.74 13.38 68.47
08-01-84 1.91 13.18 13.03 67.65
08-07-84 2.37 11.85 12.25 80.03
08-15-84 5.58 9.92 8.95 97.57
08-22-84 29.61 12.00 474.71
08-29-84 5.42 31.83 12.65 304.44
09-06-84 5.14 35.32 12.00 22.00
09—18-84 5.55 31.83 10.04 361.25
10-11-84 5.71 26.76 6.10 323.53

 

98

Table 25. Water Sample Volume Collected for Control (mL)

BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT CONTROL * * *
S I TE D H ' K P
DATE
09-10-83 52 62
10-17-83 150 160 60 106
10-19-83 52 49 22 31
10-23-83 70 75 30 55
11-17-83 120 10
11-21-83 45 50 20 30
12-19-83 20 35
02-11-84 410 510 300 330
02—14-84 140 210 15 190
02-22-84 70 60 15 40
03-31-84
04-03-84 30 25
04-16-84 140 170 . 7o 80
04-21—84 60 75 30 25
04-30-84 90 100 50 50
05-06-84 70 20 50
05-11-84 40 25
05-19-84 110 110 50 20
05-25-84 60 7o - 30- 50
06-02-84 100 _ 3o 60
06-11-84 90 . 90 so _ 60
06-19-84 100 130 50 ' 60
06-27-84 70 120 ~ 20— 40
07-05-84- ‘50 110 - 25
07-18-84 50 50
07-25-84 85
08-01-84 40 100
08-07-84 5 80
08-15-84 110
08-22-84
08-29-84 70
09-06-84 110
09—18-84 160

10-11-84 220

 

99

Table 26. Water Sample Volume Collected for Fall Applied
Nitrogen Treatments (mL)

BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT FALL * * *
S I TE B E I M
DATE
09-10-83 62 60 95 65
10-17—83 338 328
10-19-83 71 10 87 78
10-23-83 98 25 142
11-17-83 170 100 55 45
11-21-83 70 115 110 80
12-19—83 120 110 140
02-11-84 440 570 515
02-14—84 110 95 130
02-22-84 125 145 135
03-31-84 ‘ 20 -
04-03-84 ' '60 6o 55
04-16-84 200 250 230
04-21-84 105 120 100
04-30-84 140 170 160 170
05-06-84 125 210 135 120
05-11-84 70 110 45 85
05-19-84 155 260 > 170 180
05-25-84 110 170 130 120
06-02-84 ‘ 160 -190‘ 165-. ‘140
06-11-84 150' 240 190 170
06-19-84 160 270 210 160
06-27-84 95. . 190 160 145
07-05-84 60 180 ~ 170 150.
07-18-84 40 250 265 200
07—25-84 115 150 80
08-01-84 110 160 150
08-07-84 90 130 70
08-15—84 75 170 50
08-22-84 160
08-29-84 160
09-06-84 160
09-18-84 240

10-11-84 300

100

Table 27. Water Sample Volume Collected for Spring Split
Nitrogen Application Treatments (mL)

 

 

BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT SPR I NG * * *
S I TE C G L N
DATE
09-10-83 110 62 60
10-17-83 180 132 254 220
10-19-83 82 44 62 62
10-23-83 114 70 102 105
11—17-83 30 3o 15 45
11—21-83 40 45 60 85
12-19-83 45 90
02-11-84 450 480 535
02—14-84 400 40 280 260
02-22-84 140 65 185 90
03-31-84 , . .
04-03-84 60 3o -10 40
04-16-84 200 130 140 200
04-21-84 80 7o 45 80
04-30-84 150 90 100 140
05—06-84 135 70 75 100
05-11-84 35 30 30
05—19-84 135 100 125 140
05-25-84 120. 60 4o 80
06-02-84 160 , 95 95 120
06-11-84 170 ‘110 -90. 150
06-19-84 _ 190 110 80 130
06-27-84 90 80 95 120
07-05-84 150 ‘ 9o 50 130
07-18-84 50 70 185
07—25-84 60 20 95
08-01-84 . 4o 15 100
08-07-84 40 10 70
08-15-84 80
08-22-84 40
08-29-84 30
09-06-84 30
09-18-84 50

10-11-84 60

101

Table 28. Water Sample Volume Collected for Trickle Applied
Nitrogen Treatments (mL)

 

BLOCK 1 2 3 4
TREATMENT TR I CKLE * * *
S I TE A F J 0
DATE
09-10-83 70 65 185
10-17-83 230 240 700 161
10—19-83 88 79 265 50
10-23-83 165 120 348 96
11-17-83 60 50 145
11-21-83 60 65 165 50
12-19—83 75 100 400 10
02-11-84 430 400 560 450
02-14-84 90 180 560 110
02-22-84 145 135 635 60
03-31-84 20 8 115
04-03-84 60 ~ 50 500 25
04—16-84 230 210 620 190
04-21-84 100 95 260, 60
04-30-84 140 130 320 120
05-06-84 135 105 200 90
05-11-84 70 50 560
05-19-84 185 180 350 110
05-25-84 120 90 160 80
06-02-84 170. 130 200 100
06-11-84 180 110- 190 , 120
06-19-84 ' 200 160 -190. 120
06-27-84 ' 155 100 120 95
‘07-05-84' 140 90 ' 630 110
07-18-84 220 100 540 130
07-25-84 135 510 40
08-01-84 130 420 40
08-07—84 100 5 320 20
08-15-84 70 380
08-22-84 310
08-29-84 110 240
09-06-84 120
09—18-84 170 470

10-11-84 280 620

APPEND I X C

Statistical Analysis

 

 

Statistical Analysis

The statistical model for the randomized complete block

 

design is Yij = Y.. + Ti + Bj + eij’ In other words, each

cell consists of the mean of all the variates, Y , the

 

the block effect, B- and the residual

treatment effect, Tc 3,

1!
or "experimental error" component, eij'
Table 29 illustrates the formulas used in this study

 

for the analysis of variance in a randomized complete block

design with t treatments and r blocks.

'Table 29. Statistical Formulas 'for Randomized
Complete Block Design

Source of Degrees of ---------- --------------------
Variation freedom Definition Working
_. _. ‘ 2
_ .-. 2 = ' .
Blocks r 1 tigkY J Y..) zgYEJ/t _ C
. _ _ 2 _ . ‘ _
-Treatments t 1 r§;(Y1 Y ) - §:Y1./r _ C
Error (r—1)(t-1) 2(Yij-YJ-‘1-I'ifY..)2=SS(Tota'l)
i’j . o
- SS(Blocks) - SS(Treatments)
2
Total rt - 1 %;(Yij Y )2 - §:Y13 _ C
2

(Steel and Torrie, 1980)

102

103

Mean separation was accomplished using -Duncan's
Multiple-Range Test (Steel and Torrie, 1980). The
spreadsheet package Perfect Calc was used to assist in the

analysis. Table 30 is an example of the output.

104

 

 

7.6L .W................-1._

uo.~ vu.N no.0 v—.0 00.0 .N.0 .0.0 00.0 Qw.0 00.0 $0.0 00.0 60.0 ..0.0 00.0 v0.0 nv.0 hv.0

 

T
n
a
n
a

. n
n
a
a
a
a
a

.1.

 

 

 

 

6 . « 6 6. 6. .. 6 « a. 6 6. 6. n. «. 6 o. «. 6 .6236...»
1 J «6.6

a «6.6 66.6

. ...6 «..6 66.6

..6.6 «..6 6..6 «6.6

«6.6 66.6 6..6 6..6 .m.«

«6.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 6..6 6«.«

66.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 6..6 6«.«

66.6. 66.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 6..6 6«.«

.6.6 .6.6 .6.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 «..6 6..6 6«.«

. «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 66.6 «6.6 66.6 6..6 .«.6 6«.n

66. «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 66.6 «6.6 66.6 6..6 .«.6 6«.«

66.6 66.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 «..6 n..6 6«.6 6«.6 .«.o

66.6 66.6 66.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 «..6 n..6 6«.6;.6«.6 .«.n

.6.6 .6.6 .66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 ...6 «..6 6..6..n«.6 ««.6 6«.n

66.6 66.6 66.6 6..6 6..6 «..6 n..6 «..6 «..6. n..6 «..6g.6..6 6«.6 .6.6 6..«

.n.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 ..6.6 .6.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 ,66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 «6.6 no.«

66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 «6.6 no.6 «n.- 66.6 66.6 .«.6 6«.«

«6.6 6..6 «6.6 .n.6 «6.6 «6.6 An.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 «6.6 66.6 66.6 6«.6 6«.6 66.«

06.0 05.0 no.0 v-.0 00.0 .0.0 ..N.0 o~.0 0N.0 00.0 90.0 00.0 80.0 -0.0 00.0 '0.0 nv.0 sv.0

« . « 6 6. n .. 6 « n. 6 6. 6. n. «. 6 6. «. 6 .660.6..»
6«.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 ««.6 K«.6 6«.6 6«.6 6«.6 n«.6 n«.6 6«.6 ««.6 6c

66.6 66.6 «6.6 «6.6 .6.» 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 «6.6 6«.n. n«.« .«.6 0..» 66.6 66.«..66.« .66
o. A. 6. n. 6. n. «. .. 6. 6 o « 6 n 6 n « 6

00..h°.° I x0
Acne-.666 60 6.6323 -..: 633... .- um:

cmoouufiz wow; ucmoumm 6mma momma OHQonm umme mmcom oHQfluaaz m.cmocaa .om magma

APPEND I X D

Supplemental Information

 

The following table gives the daily minimum and maximum
temperatures, and the amount of rainfall, irrigation and
depth of accumulated snow over the course of the soil water
sample collection period. The date of fertilizer
application is also provided by treatment number. Rainfall
and snowfall values are in centimeters, and irrigation
amount is in liters applied per tree. The minimum and
maximum daily temperatures are given in degrees Celcius.

Table 31. Rainfall, Snowfall, Irrigation and Fertilizer
Application Records

H
o
H
01
m
N
(1'

F‘ r-

o o

N

m u

m m

N N

"
Honoowoooonooooooooowwooowowwo

OOmOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOO

HHO meO-‘UFNNO mPNHNVDmNOKDmNNomi—‘Hw

11 18 82 4-6,10-12

105

 

 

106

Table 31. (Cont'd).

12 9 82 -3 -10

12 13 82 0 -9 3.8
12 20 82 3 -10 0 2 2.5
12 21 82 0 -3 0 3 12.7
12 22 82 -2 -4 12.7
12 27 82 13 —3 1.9

12 28 82 12 -1 0.7

12 29 82 11 -7 0 4 10.2
1 3 83 1 -9 7.6
1 4 83 -3 —8 7.6
1 5 83 2 -7 2.5
1 6 83 2 -2 2.5
1 7 83 1 -2 0.5 12.7
1 10 83 3 -5

1 11 83 6 0 0.4 2.5
1 12 83 0 —9 0.1 5.1
1 13 83 -4 -9 5.1
1 17 83 -1 -14 0.4 15.2
1 18 83 10 -14 15.2
1 19 83 -9 -14 15.2
1 20 83 -7 -15 12.7
1 21 83 -4 -13 12.7
1 24 83 3 -9 0 4 15.2
1 25 83 3 -6 ‘ 15.2
1 26 83 1 -10 0 1 15.2
1 27 83 -8 -11 15.2
1 28 83 -6 -10 15.2
1 31 83 2 -6 10.2
2 1 83 -3 -7 10.2
2 2 83 -3. -8‘ 10.2
2 4 83 -1. -12 1.0 17.8
2 7 83 -1 -11 1.1 22.9
2 8 83 —4 -11 22.9
2 9 83 -1 -7 22.9
2 10 83 -4 —12 22.9
2 11 83 -4 -11 22.9
2 14 83 5 -11 15.2
2 15 83 3 0 12.7
2 16 83 3 0 12.7
2 17 83 3 -1 0.6 10.2
2 18 83 3 -3 10.2
2 22 83 1 -2 0.1

2 23 83 l -3 1.1 2.5
2 24 83 3 -4 trace

2 25 83 -3 -10 0.1 7.6
3 3 83 6 -2 0.1

3 9 83 17 1 2.1

3 10 83 l -6 0.1

3 21 83 4 -9 12 7

107

Table 31. (Cont'd).

Date Tmax Tmin Rain Snow Irrig Fert Trmt #

OJ
0
(I)
w
PQPONN
I
Ch
U'INU'IQQ
O
HU'Il-‘O‘O‘

mna-o
mcn

....a

h)

m

w

fin
wHHHmm mumwmm Npupwwmwmownnww

15.1 16-18

ON
CD
0..)
HOOONO OONwOOOOOl-‘ONHOO

15.1 .16-18

(A

...l

on

w
OOOOOH
o o o o o

11 83 15.1 16-18
15 83 13-15

H
m
on
on
O
....

17 83 ° 30.2

20 83 ° 37.9
22 83 121.1

\I\Jmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm010101.999bpbpkbwwwwwwww
H
KO
CD
(A,

108

Table 31. (Cont'd).

Date Tmax Tmin Rain Snow Irrig Fert Trmt #

5 83 15.1 15-18
6 83 151.6
13 83 60.4
15 83 90.8
25 83 60.4

113.7

H
N
m
(A)
('0'
m o

....-
\O
m
(A)
rt
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O m. 0 C 0‘. m. 0 C O O O C O O O O
(I) PHHMQHCDHU‘INQWHOQOMOWQNQWQ‘IPPOHHHNHHOU'IN NNNN

11 11 83 11 3 1.5

«1
H
m
w
o ooooooowoowoomonowpwunHowoowoooomonho oowp

109

Table 31. (Cont'd).

Date Tmax Tmin Rain Snow Irrig Fert Trmt #
11 21 83 2.1 4-6,10—12
11 28 83 1 -2 1.1
11 29 83 3 -1 0.6 5.1
12 1 83 —2 -4 0.6 10.2
12 2 83 -4 -6 0.1 12.7
12 5 83 3 -1 trace 12.7
12 9 83 -5 —7 0.3 17.8
12 10 83 -4 -8 27.9
12 12 83 l 0 1.8 10.2
12 13 83 1 —2 7.6
12 14 83 0 -2 7.6
12 15 83 0 -2 0.9 20.3
12 16 83 -1 -9 0.1 25.4
12 19 83 12 -18 0 6 33.0
12 20 83 11 -19 33.0
12 21 83 -8 -13 33.0
12 28 83 -5 45.7

1 3 84 -1 -3 50.8
1 4 84 3 -2 45.7
1 5 84 2 -4 40 6
1- 6 84 2 -4 na
1 10 84 -6 -13 53.3
1 11 84 11 -14 53.3
1 12 84 -8 -13 53.3
1 13 84 -7 -12 53 3
1 18 84 —8 -11 58.4
1‘20 84 -7 -11 63.5
1 23 84 —4 -8 66.0
1 26 84 -2 ' -9 66.0
1 27 84 .-3 -7 66.0
2 1 84 -4 —8 66.0
2 2 84 -1 -5 66.0
2 9 84 -2 -7 61.0
2 10 84 3 -1 55.9
2 11 84 8 2 45.7
2 12 84 7 1 40.6
2 13 84 11 6 25.4
2 15 84 7 -1 12.7
2 16 84 8 -1 10.2
2 17 84 7 1 10.2
2 20 84 4 —4 5.1
2 21 84 2 -3 5.1
2 22 84 3 -1 5.1
2 23 84 12 4 2.5
2 29 84 -4 -11

3 5 84 2 -4 2.5
3 6 84 —1 -11 5.1
3 7 84 11 -18 5.1
3 8 84 12 -18 5.1

110

Table 31. (Cont'd).

Date Tmax Tmin Rain Snow Irrig Fert Trmt #

9 84 12 -21 5
10 84 -6 -13 5
11 84 -4 -l6 5.
12 84 14 -19 5

5
0

\l

I

4...
l—‘O O
O O 0
PM

0.5

oooooomoooo

(”NP HHNO NNNOI-‘UF ww- 4»qu HU’INU‘O‘NOHQPOKMQ

15.1 16-18

15.1“ 16-18-1

15.1 16-18

15.1 16-18

68.1

qmmmmmmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmppbpbphppppwwwwwwwwwuww
u:
m
.p

p...
oo
oo
.9.
OOH OONH OONHOO NO 0000 OOI—‘OOOHOOOOOO

111

Table 31. (Cont'd).

Date Tmax Tmin Rain Snow Irrig Fert Trmt #

0‘9

166.5
128.7

128.7

mmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmoomoomoomoooo\Ju\lxl\quq\Jq
0)
w
(I)
.p
m

m
.p
OOOHOI—‘ONHOOHOOOOOOQJNOHOO OOHONOO 00000 660
O
HNHHHNO‘NONHDwamt-‘NOFDQNNU NWNUIU'IhUF (mar-wax

OOOOOOoomOOOOOO

 

 

 

112

The following set of directions and data sheet were

developed to facilitate water sample collection.

Instructions for Water Sample Collection

1.

Setting the vacuum:

This process will take approximately 1 hour.

Using the attached map, locate the 16 water
samplers in the orchard.

Beginning with sampler A, attach the pressure-vacuum
pump port marked vacuum to the access tube marked
with orange paint.

Make sure the other access tube (no paint) is clamped
closed.

Pump the pressure-vacuum pump about 2 full
strokes to a reading of 20 " of Mercury.

If the vacuum does not hold, Check for leaks - tube
connections, clamps, etc.

Clamp the orange tube closed, remove the pump,
close the top of the access tube cover (the PVC
pipe) and move on to B, C, D, etc.

Record the required information on a data sheet.

Collecting the sample:

This should take approximately 1.5 hours.

After approximately 48 hours, return to the
orchard with pressure-vacuum pump, 16 sample
bottles, graduated cylinder, data sheet and extra Cup
or container. ' '
Connect the pump port marked pressure to the access
tube marked in orange.

Loosen both clamps, listening for a hiss of air which
will signal whether or not the vacuum held. Record
this on the data sheet where called for with a (+) or
Being sure to avoid contamination from dirt, debris,
etc., hold the sample bottle corresponding to the
water sampler site (A, B, C, etc.) under the unmarked
access tube and pump the pump gently. Fill the
sample bottle first (60 ml) and then collect and
measure the remainder of the sample using the extra
container and graduated cylinder. This will prevent
contamination from one sample to another.

The sample may arrive quickly - be careful.

Record the total volume collected.

 

113

Storing the samples:

When all 16 samples have been collected, place them
together with a photocopy of the completed data sheet
into a bag or box, label the bag or box with the
date, and freeze the samples. They should remain
frozen until just prior to analysis for nitrate
concentration.

 

//::- DATA SHEET ——- fi‘\\

VACUUM (20" Mercury)

set

SAMPLE COLLECTION

by date time

 

 

 

 

 

collected by date time
SAMPLE HELD VACUUM? (+ or -) TOTAL VOLUME (m1)

A.

B.

c.

D.

.E .

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

o.

P.

 

 

114

Table 32. Fertilizer Injection System Uniformity Test

5/7/84 Time Collected Collected By
11:00 a.m. Barry Hahn
"65.31;?"13.312EEYES;QEESS"EE;;;QE;7;§;§'13.1.6751?-'-
' 100 mL
1 83 T17 Tr2 165 1 Min. 16.6 sec.
2 B3 T18 Tr6 32 141 1 Min. 18.7 sec.
B3 T18 Tr3 E4 131 1 Min. 20.9 sec.
4 32 T16 Tr4 128 1 Min. 29.8 sec.
5 B2 T18 Tr7 138 1 Min. 22.3 sec.
6 82 T17 Tr4 159 1 Min. 13.7 sec.
7 B3 T17 Tr7 155 1 Min. 17.8 sec.
8 32 T17 Tr2 159 1 Min. 31.1 sec.
9 -B1 T17 Trl 145 1 Min. 20.1 sec.
10 Bl T17 Tr7 145 1 Min. 23.1 sec.
11 Bl T16 Tr7 141 1 MIn. 21.0 sec.
12 B1 T17 Tr7 131 1 Min. 26.5 sec.
135 Bl T17 Tr4 128 1_Min..22.8 sec.
14 BZ T16 Tr7 152 1 MIn. 28.5 sec.
15 B4 T18 Trl 145 1 MIn. 26.5 sec.
16 B4 T17 Tr7 145 1 Min. 24.4 sec.
17 B4 T16 Tr7 138 1 Min. 29.5 sec.
18 B3 T17 Trl 169 1 Min. 17.5 sec.
Key B = Block T = Treatment
B = Emitter Tr = Tree number

115

Table 32. (Cont'd.).

Emitter # 3 High Times Emitter # 3 Low Times

8 1 Min. 31.1 sec. 6 1 Min. 13.7 sec.

4 1 Min. 29.8 sec. 1 1 Min. 16.6 sec.

17 1 Min. 29.5 sec. 18 1 Min. 17.5 sec.
3 Highs 3 Lows

91.1 sec. 73.7 sec.
89.8 sec. 76.6 sec.
89.5 sec. 77.5 sec.

 

 

 

270.4 sec. 227.8 sec.
= (T max) = (T min)

Uniformity = 94%

Mean time to fill 100 mL = 82.8 seconds

100 mL/82.8 s = 4.3 L/hr (l.l gal/hour)

116

Table 33. Irrigation Systems Coordination Procedure

WATER SYSTEM: GREEN EMITTERS = 7.6 L/hr (2 gal/hr)

FERTIGATION SYSTEM: BLACK EMITTERS 3.8 L/hr (1 gal/hr)

TREATMENTS
Surface Low Rate Medium Rate High
Rate applied N (#16) (#17) (#18)
and control
(#1-15)
EMITTERS 1 GREEN 1 GREEN 1 GREEN 1 GREEN
+ 1 BLACK + 2 BLACK +4 BLACK
HRS. OF
OPERATION
WATER
SYSTEM 2 HOURS 1.5 HOURS 1 HOUR 0 HOUR
HRS. OF
OPERATION
FERTIGATION
SYSTEM 0 HOUR 1 HOUR 1 HOUR 1 HOUR
WATER
APPLIED BY
WATER .
SYSTEM 15.1 Liter - 11.3 Liter 7.6 Liter 0.0 Liter
WATER
APPLIED'BY,‘
FERTIGATION‘
SYSTEM 0.0 L 3.8 L 7.6 L 15.1 L

 

TOTAL WATER
APPLIED 15.1 L 15.1 L 15.1 L 15.1 L

117

Table 34. Soil Sample Nitrate and Ammonium Analysis

Values are ppm NO3/ppm NH4 in the soil sample extract.

Treatment 0.38 m from trunk 0.76 m from trunk

CONTROL '

Block 1 1.32/0.48 1.03/0.24
2 0.60/0.81 0.76/1.03
3 0.91/0.61 1.24/0.19
4 0.57/0.18 0.69/0.16

FALL APPLICATION ‘

Block 1 0.93/0.95 2.52/2.44
2 O.87/l.10 1.76/0.72
3 1.19/0.24 4.63/5.29
4 2.61/1.85 10.11/6.78

SPRING SPLIT APPLICATION - -

BloCk 1 ' ‘l.97/0.95 6.67/5.62
2 6.82/2.22 7.29/2.60
3 4.32/1.03 3.95/0.73
4 4.68/0.88 8.62/3.77

TRICKLE APPLICATION

Block 1 l.l3/1.07 . 1.32/1.36
2 1.03/0.89 0.77/0.43
3 - 0.81/0.24~ * 1.24/0.19

4 0.80/0.55 _ 0.76/0.21

The

118

following soil Characteristics were observed at

vacuum extractor sites A - P.

SITE

A.

B.

Thin topsoil, sand/gravel w/some clay to 1.8 m

Topsoil, 15.2 cm sand, clay/sand stones, in rock
at 1.8 m

Topsoil, sand to sand/clay, clay to clay/gravel,
hard Shale layer at 1.4 m

Topsoil, 15.2 cm sand, clay/gravel, sand/Shale
layers to 1.8 m

 

Topsoil, 0.3 m sand, sand/gravel with some
clay/gravel to 1.8 m

Topsoil, some clay at 0.6 m, sand to sandy gravel
to 1.8 m ' . , '

Topsoil, 15.2 cm sand, Clay and Clay/gravel to 1.8
meter .

Topsoil, clay to clay/gravel, large stones at 1.8
meter

Topsoil, 15.2 cm sand, clay/gravel to gravel to
1.8 m ‘ . '

.Topsoil, sand to 1.8 m

Topsoil, sand, gravel/stones to 1.8 m with clay
Topsoil, sand to 1.8 m, light color for last 0.3 m

Gravel, thick clay layer from 1.2 m to 1.7 m, sand
last 15.2 cm

Topsoil, 0.3 m sand, clay/clay gravel with
Stones, sand/gravel to clay/gravel to 1.8 m

Topsoil, gravel 0.3 m, gravel/clay to 1.8 m

Topsoil, gravel 0.6 m, clay/gravel to 1.8 m

119

High nitrate concentrations were detected at site J,
where the soil profile consisted of sand to a depth of 1.8
meter (Figure 15). The Site was under the medium rate
trickle applied nitrogen treatment. It Should be noted that
the irrigation water applied through the fertilizer system
at the time of fertilizer injection had a concentration of
approximately 27000 ppm nitrogen. This water was applied
through two 3.8 L/hr (1 gal/hr) emitters anchored next to

one another. The concentration was determined as follows:

0.068 kg (0.15 lb) of nitrogenper tree over 20 minutes
2.5 L (0.67 gal) applied in-20 minutes

0.068 kg/2.5 L'x 1000000 mg/kg = 27200 mg/L - ppm.

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

750‘
r’.'\
/ 'x
a". I.
600 i a. Nitrate at 1.8 Meter (
1 Over Time (ppm) X
450 J I) (
‘ jg I
. f i :
300 4 I 'u g
4 I to"... 1'
l g x}
J ' ' '
150 )
':;OCT -'NOV '050 BA»: ;FE:B-FM“AI R 'APR 'MAY 'JUK 'JUL 'AUG '56? '
1984--->
'15.2‘ -

 

b. Rainfall, Snowmelt and
. Irrigation (cm) Solid Bars
1]..4‘ Indicate Snowmelt/Irrigation.

 

 

 

. 4 Irrigation Fqi
Snowmelt -

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.81
._ j , , r .4
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAN JUN JUL AUG SEP
1984--->
0.20'
1
0.15:

 

 

‘ c. Soil Moisture at
1.8 Meter (g/cc)

0. 10 4:
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB HA8 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

1984--->

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. Sandy Site Nitrate Concentration Over Time
(Trickle Applied Nitrogen)

 

121

The following data sheet was prepared for collection of

soil moisture data with the neutron probe.

 

Neutron Probe Data Sheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0A1! me N».
m _
3m P. but” cent: SIT! I. beam“:

423 Loan m 9.92;
0' 0'

11" 11"

1|" _ II”

20' 14"

30" ' 3°»

30' 16"

42" 42"

0" 40"

Se" 54"

60” i . «n .

66" 66"

n" ‘ , i n"

78" . 7."

5111 H. beehgreund com": SITE 0. beckground:

21.-mt m em 2181:. 1
v' 6”

u" - u"

1? a"

29' 2‘.

w" ' m"

36" . 36"

42" n :z"

48" 43"

3:: 5y

6W' _‘ 60'

66" 66"

72" .‘1"

T8" 73"

 

 

 

122

m>uou COLDOLQMHOU onoum coeusoz .ma mpswwm

8:. .... .

626.. “5.66 ~553356

'II-O

 

 

 

.632 #56332. . 9.8... u 66.1.6
"6625.66 6366266-

 

 

 

 

3 =N°\99 91- “, NIB-HI-v

123

onoum coLuomz an“: pmusmmoz mmaflmoum ounumwoz Hwom .hH musmwm

.Cuaop poumofiocw may um Hmom 00 oo Bod Louma no m,Ho.o mucwmouaou m comm

000000000000
000000000000
0000000000000
000000000000
00000000000
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
00000000000000
00000000000000000
00.000000000000000
00000000000000

0000000000000
000000000000
000000000000

0000000000
00000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
000000000000000
0.000000000000000
000000000000000

00000000000
0000000000
0000000000

000000000
0000000000
000000000000
00000000000
00000000000
0000000000000
00000000000000
00000000000000
000000000000

v.\0n\a

eeeeeeeeeee
‘eeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

ea..\..\«

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeer
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee

00000000000000
00000000000000.
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
000000000000000
00000000000000
0000000000000
000000000000000

000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000

00000000000000
00000000000000.
0000000000000000
0000000000000’0
00000000000000
0000000000000
000000000000
0000000000000

eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeleefleeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

 

00000000000 00000000000
00000000000 00000000000
00000000000 0000000000
0000000000 0000000000
00000000000 00000000000
0000000000000 0000000000000
000000000000 00000000000
0000000000000 0000000000000
0000000000000000 0000000000000“
6666\6.\« «6\6«\«. ..\6.\«.

000000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000010000

0000000000
00000000000
00000000000

000000000000

000000000000

000000000000

0000000000000
.0000 0000000 00

eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeereee
eeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeaee!

e 6 .
0000000000000

000000000000
00000000000
0000000000
0000000000
00000000000
00000000000
000000000000
000000000000000
00000000000000

n.\-\~—

000000000000.

00000000000
00000000000
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
00000000000
0000000000
00000000000
0000000000

00000000000000
0000000000000
00000000000
0000000000
00000000000

00000000000
0000000000
0000000000
000000000
0000000000
000000000000
00000000000
00000000000
0000000000000
0000000000001
000000000000

00000000000

n-\n~\ou n0\-\°~

6-
60¢
.00

a 63m

.A©.u:ouv .NH mpzmwm

.cuamc emumuMocm mcu um aflom we 00 non umumz “0 m Ho.o mucmmmuamu x comm

124

......- .uu..... nun-cc... ...m....... ............ ......cuoc... ...-ncoc-uocc ...-......o. c-
cccccc ...... ......nc .0....0... .0........... qu........a..n ......Iaconco .....n-I-ucu 06¢
on... cc... ...-0.. o-o.'aocc. ...-ccccccccc ..uccccccgcy.c «...-uuoococcc cacoc....u.. com
a... co... can... .......I. ...-....c... ...-conocuccc coocco-oocccco ......oc... now
can. on... ..Iu. ......... ............ .........-. ...-......o... ......o.... 0.0
a... «a... ...-o ccccaucccc ooocc¢o~ucocc ace-cccccc-cnc fiuooccoc-oucc-o ...-o-c-cno. -~.
.0... cu...- oo-aac cone-.... ......ccocccc taco-cuccc-cc ...-ccccocvuccc «coco-...... no»
no... ...-cc cant-o. c........ ......C..... ......ouccccc ......c......-. .......o..... lea
...... ...-... nuance-... ......c... ......c....a ......ucuucq ......c......c. ............¢ .ON
0...... ...-... ...-...... coco-.... yucca-coco. ...-....ucc. coca-ca-uqc-c «account-cu. IO~
can-Hun” cocucunn «...-”HUN” «...-cc... taco-...... coco-...... ...-accccoac- coccco....coc u-

u... . .... ...0. ......... ......I0.... Rum.”

. a .umm

...... .

cc... ecu:- .c-::c ...-occccc: cocoon-...... coouu-ucucc: can
...... ......o ......u.- .....uccccc ........o.co ...-cacccccc ......uccoc. .00
.HHHNH” ......o «...... ..fl....... ........... ......O..... ......o..... u........c.. 100
......cc ...-.... ....o.... ......c..... ....M.......c ......c.....cc u............ ......c..-... 0.6
...-....c ......cca .......u.. ...........c ......c....-- .............o ......c....... .............. ...
......c... .......... ......c... ......c...... ......c....... ......c........ ......c........ ......O........ on.
........... ...-«......c ......c....c ......c.....c ......c....u... t......a.....c.. ......ococccocoo......c......... own
...-...... .....ccocccc ......ccccocc ........01.... ......o......- ......a.....a¢o ...-cacoaccccca ......a........ can
..ccccu ...-...... «coo-coon... «cocoon-coca canon-coca... caucocco-cccc. coon-ocncccoca. coccccoccccccoo ov~
...-cc. ...-... «...-octet ......c... ...-......c acacccooooc ......c...c.. .............. 00‘
cu... ..c... ......c... ......I.. r........ ......c... ......o.... ......o..... |~n
can ...-u. . ...-... ......a. 0...... ......o.... ............. I.

1.0...

 

ans
auccccccguccc ....c....a.oc ...-accccuccaa 000
.Hnuunnnncnnc ...-......Ica «...-«...... ......c...... ......u.....m ......c...¢c¢ «...-......C. col-......aao 000
......cna.“ onnnnnnunnnn ......ccucc ............ ......c..... ......c..... ...........I. ...-......oo .00
...-...... ......I.. ......c... ......I.... ....Qd..... ......o..-.. ............ ......o..... ...
...-..uoo ...-...... ....co.- I........ ......c... ......cco. .....u..... ......c.... on.
......c... ...-...... ......c.. ......u... ........... ......c.... ........... ........... nun
...-no... ......I.. ......o... ......I.... .........a. ......o.... ......c..... ........... 0°»
......Icc ......c.. .......-.u .......... .......... ......o... ......I.... ........... OCR
con-cacao. ......ccua 0.00-...... ......c... ......c... ...-......a ......c.... ......a..... 0.—
.... coco ...-cuu-ucu ...-0...... concoct-cc. ...-1...... ......cc.... ......c...... o~u
0000. 00000 00000 00000 0000000000 000000000000 0

a. .u

coco-....- ..onouacac «...-co... ......c... ......c... orccatccan

.HHHHHHHHH ......o... ......c... ......c... .....I... ......o... unnnnnnnnnu ”HHHHUHHHH ”M”
......c. ”HHHHHHHH ........u ......... ......c.. ......o... ......c... ......a.. '00
.......I. ......c.... ..HHHNHHHHH ......oo. ......... ......oc. ...-...... ......Ioc 00*
......cou ...-...... ......cncco ......cccac .....occcccc ...-acct... ......o... ...
......o. ......c.. ......a... ......c.... ......c..... ......I...o.. ......o...... ......c..... o”.
Ice-coo. ...-cc- ccocccccc .cccccoocc «...-cacao. .....ccqcoo cccccococcoo ......ccooo tun
...-cc... ......u-HH once-.... ..oco..... ......occcau .....cccc...c ......c...... ......o..... OOH
......ccu . .. . ......c... ......c.... ...........o ......c...... ........la...o ......u..... ..N
.cocccccc .. . ... ......c..¢c c.......... ..........I. ......o..... ......coocccc ......oocc... u.~
.... ...-.... ......1...c .......... ......c...o ...-acct... ......caccoo ............. 1N-
...o ...... ...... ......a ...... ......cu.c ......o..... a.

a.m.c

v0\0—\o 00\m\0 vo\v~\n 90\~\n v.\~\o QO\O~\m v.\w\m 0.\0~\v H— ”Um“

 

17(2)"

 

 

16(1)
.4

Figure 18.

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

Jim)

 

 

' 913(4)

 

 

16(1)

18(4)

 

 

17(2)

 

 

 

 

16(1)

1gb“

16(1) 17(2)

 

 

18(4)

Fertilizer Injection System Layout with
Treatment Number and (Number of Emitters per

Tree)

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Society of Agricultural Engineers Irrigation
Management Committee. 1982. Safety Devices For Applying
Liquid Chemicals Through Irrigation Systems. ASAE
Engineering Practice: ASAE EP409.

Bar-Yosef, B. and M.R. Sheikhodslami. 1976. Distribution
of Water and Ions in Soils Irrigated and Fertilized from a
Trickle Source. J. Soil Soc. Amer. 40:575-582.

Bingham, F.T., S. Davis, E. Shade. 1971. Water Relations,
Salt Balance and Nitrate Leaching Losses of a 960-Acre
Citrus Watershed. Soil Science, 112:410-418.

Bralts, V.F. 1983. Hydraulic Design and Field Evaluation
of Drip Irrigation Submain Units. PhD Dissertation
(Agricultural Engineering), Michigan State University, East
Lansing. -

Bralts, V.F. 1981. The Potential Effect of Drip/Trickle
Irrigation on Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater in the
Grand Traverse Bay Region. Report prepared for Resource
Development Course, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Bralts and Kesner. 1982. Drip Irrigation Field Uniformity
Estimation. TRANSACIONS of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 26(5):1369-1374. '

Bralts, V. F., C. D. Kesner,‘ and B. R. Hahn. 1984.
Fertilizer Injection in Trickle Irrigation Systems. . IFS/
Michigan State Cooperative Extension Service Irrigation‘

Guide.

Bucks, D.A., F.S. Nakayama, and R.G. Gilbert. 1979.
Trickle Irrigation Water Quality and Preventive Maintenance.
Ag. Water Management 2: 149-162.

Chandler, W. H. 1925. Fruit Growing. Houghton Mifflin
Co., New York.

Chesness, J. L. and G. A. Couvillon. 1980. Peach Tree
Response to Trickle Application of Water and Nutrients.
1980 Winter Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Paper No. 80-2079.

Coston, D.C., R.G. Ponder, and A.L. Kenworthy. 1978.

Fertilizing Peach Trees Through a Trickle Irrigation System.
Communications In Soil Science and Plant Analysis 9:187-191.

126

127

Edwards, D.M., P.E. Fischback, and L.L. Young. 1972.
Movement of Nitrates Under Irrigated Agriculture.
TRANSACTIONS of the American Society of Agricultural
cEngineers 15 (1):?3-75.

Ellis and Huges. 1982. Nitrate Movement From Orchards on
the Old Mission Peninsula. An unpublished research report.

Gardner, V.R. 1930. Maintaining the Productivity of Cherry
Trees. Michigan State Special Bulletin 195.

Gerwing, J.R., A.C. Caldwell, and L.L. Goodroad. 1979.
Fertilizer Nitrogen Distribution Under Irrigation Between
Soil, Plant, and Aquifer. J. Environ. Qual. 8:281—284.

Goldberg, 8.0., B. Gomat, and D. Rimon. 1976. Drip
Irrigation Principles, Design and Agricultural Practices.
Drip Irrigation Scientific Publications, Kfar Shmaryahu,
Israel.

Hahn, B.R., V.F. Bralts, and C.D. Kesner. 1983. Uniform
Fertilizer Distribution Through Drip Irrigation Systems.
. 1983 Summer Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Paper No. 83-2030. '

Hansen, E.A. and A.R. Harris. 1975. Validity of Soil Water
Samples Collected with Porous Ceramic Cups. Soil Sci. Amer.
Proc, 39:528-536.

Irrigation Journal. 1985. Irrigation Survey. Encino,
California. Oct/Nov Issue.

Iversen, C.‘ 1979. Preliminary Evaluation of the Nitrate
Contamination Problem. Peninsula Township (T28N, R10W) Grand
Traverse county. USGS, DNR, State of Michigan.

Kanwar, R. S., J. L. Baker, and H.P. Johnson. 1983.
Effects of Fertilizer Management on Nitrate Leaching. 1983
Summer Meeting American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Paper No. 83-2154.

Kelsey, M. and A. Johnson. 1979. Costs of Tart Cherry
Production. Michigan State Coop. Ext. Bulletin E-1108.

Kenworthy, A.L. 1949. A Nutrient Element Balance Chart.
Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 33(1) 17-19.

Kenworthy, A.L. 1979. Nutrient Trends in Michigan Fruit
Plantings. -Michigan State University. Research Report 379.

Kenworthy, A.L. 1972. Trickle Irrigation...The Concept and
Guidelines for Use. Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Farm Science Report No. 165.

128

Kenworthy, A.L., J. Hull Jr., G.W. Howell and J. A. Flore.
1975. Fertilizers for Fruit Crops. Mich. Cooperative
Extension Bulletin E-852.

Kesner, C.D. 1981. Trickle Irrigation Management for Fruit
Trees. Michigan State University Irrigation Guide No.

Kesner, C. D. 1985. Personal Communication.

Laher, M. and Y. Avnimelech. 1980. Nitrification
Inhibition in Drip Irrigation Systems. Plant and Soil

Linden, D.R. 1977. Design, Installation and Use of Porous
Ceramic Samplers for Monitoring Soil-Water Quality. USDA
ARS Tech. Bull. 1562.

Lindsey, K.E. and L.L. New. 1974. Application of
Fertilizer Materials Through Drip Irrigation Systems in West
Texas. Texas A & M University, Fort Stockton and Lubbock,
Texas. \ -

Little, T. 1A. and F. J 'Hills. 1978. Agricultural
Experimentation. Design and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York. 1 .

Miller, R.J., D.E. Roston, R.S. Rauschkolb, and D.W. Wolfe.
1976. Drip Irrigation of Nitrogen is Efficient. Calif.
Agri. 30:16-18. - -

Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. 1980.
Trickle Irrigation in the Eastern United States. NRAES.
Riley Robb, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

Overholser, E.L. 1944. Review of Literature Pertaining to
Fertilizing Cherries. Proc. Wash. State Hort. Assoc. 40th
Ann. Mtg. 93 - 101.

Pratt, P.E., W.W. Jones, V.E. Hunsaker. 1972. Nitrate in
Deep Soil Profiles in Relation to Fertilizer Rates and
Leaching Volume. J. Environ. Qual. 1(1):97-102.

Rajagapal, R. 1978. Impacts of Land Use on Ground Water
Quality in the Grand Traverse Bay Region of Michigan.
J. Environ. Qual. 7(1):93-98.

Rauschkold, R.S., D.E. Rolston, R.J. Miller, A.B. Carlton,
and R.G. Burau. 1976. Applying Phosphorous Through Drip
Irrigation Systems. California Agriculture, May 1976.

Roberts, R.H. and G.F. Potter. 1919. Fertilizers Affect
Cherry Production. Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 302.

129

Singh, B. and 6.8. Sekhon. 1976. Some Measures of Reducing
Leaching Loss of Nitrates Beyond Potential Rooting Zone. I.
Proper Coordination of Nitrogen Splitting with Water
Management. Plant and Soil 44:193-200.

Smith, M.W., A.L. Kenworthy, and C.L. Bedford. 1979. The
Response of Fruit Trees to Injection of Nitrogen Through a
Trickle Irrigation System. J. Amer. Hort. Sci. 104(3):311-
3130

Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation. 1983. Operating
Instructions for the Model 1920 Pressure-Vacuum Soil Water
Sampler.

Taylor, B.K. and L.H. May. 1967. The Nitrogen Nutrition of
the Peach Tree, II. Storage and Mobilization of Nitrogen in
Young Trees. Austral. J. Biol. Sci. 20:389-411.

Taylor, B.K. and Von Den .Ende. 1969. The Nitrogen
Nutrition of the Peach Tree, IV. Storage and Mobilization of
Nitrogen in Mature Trees. Austral. J. Agron. Res. 20:869-

881.

Taylor, B.K., B. Von Den Ende, and R.L. Canterford. 1975.‘
Effects of Rate and Timing of Nitrogen Application on the
Performance and Chemical Composition of Young Pear Trees, cv
Williams' Bon Chretien. J. Hort. Sci. 50:29-40.

Technicon Industrial Systems. 1973. Nitrate and Nitrite in
Water and Wastewater. Industrial Method 100-70W.

Technicon Industrial Systems. 1973. Ammonia-in Water and
Seawater. Industrial Method 154-71W. -.

'Timmons, D.R. and A.S. Dylla. l981.’ Nitrogen Leaching 'as.
Influenced by Nitrogen Management and Supplemental
Irrigation Level. J. Environ. Qual. 10(3):421-426.

Tisdale, S.L. and W.L. Nelson. 1975. Soil Fertility and
Fertilizers. Maxmillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York.

Tukey, H.B. 1927. Responses of the Sour Cherry to
Fertilizers and to Pruning in the Hudson River Valley. N.Y.
State Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 541.

Weinbaum, S.A., I. Klein, F.E. Broadbent, W.C. Micke, and
T.T. Muraoka. 1984. Effects of Time of Nitrogen
Application and Soil Texture on the Availability of
Isotopically Labeled Fertilizer Nitrogen to Reproductive and
Vegetative Tissue of Mature Almond Trees. J. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 109(3):339-343.

Wolff, I.A. and A.E. Wasserman. 1972. Nitrates, Nitrites,
and Nitramines. Science, 177(4040).

HICHIGRN STATE U

l u nu Ixnlmllmglflifliflf

31293008