 

I 4 : .3.
u», .. 33431.5 b.

. . mm, c. .1. .
4.. ‘ L4 W? 1n .1

M 83:.

2x
. 1 . w.
I ... >

. ,J 3.
. 7.; R at“? a
. . Emwmwwmw
, .. . . s
h: ”$5: cg.
. 3% ms
‘1 ; gig?
I. T . ,

x1 . .P

 

. . irir
”ﬁxer,
9....4

K ‘

V .4.
_ ‘mr:
V

L)

4|,
155$»an a a»

.5:

 

.2? 7:3.
mi... . .
Pl VAVPL..12‘J:I|1

,‘(!:v1’t.rfrn¢-.|
rigid... nun 5"
V - :hitl‘).

:3 ‘

3v
.. .2.
RH. ii
:1 x11)!!!
:1 . 1.? SI 7

 

‘ . $;nnnhum.‘m"ummumwm
‘ I . ‘ u .‘v .
"gmi. a.“ «55.6»:

- I ~ .-
E u : v.“
. 3

. ... _, .ﬁrﬁz

:3: I: z A

I],

~- “33 lllllllllllMHHHIMHIHIHHIlullllllllllll

@000 3 1293 0183

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University I

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ROOT-ZONE MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINER-GROWN
HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS

presented by

Mary-Slade Morrison

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M. 5. degree in HQIfEiQUI Lure

Major professor

 

Date 7' 9.7 "’qu

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAU£D with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M animus-p14

ROOT-ZONE MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINER-GROWN
HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS

By

Mary-Slade Morrison

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Horticulture

1 999

ABSTRACT

ROOT-ZONE MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINER-GROWN
HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS

By

Mary-Slade Morrison

Media moisture levels, fertilizer concentrations, and nutrient-solution
reactions were evaluated for the effect on plant growth and development during the
forcing into ﬂower of 15 different container-grown herbaceous perennial species in
a greenhouse. There were no treatment effects on ﬂoral initiation and development.
In general, both shoot fresh weight and plant height increased with increasing water
availability, while percent dry weight was affected minimally. Both low and high
fertilizer rates generally decreased shoot fresh 'weight and only the high fertilizer
rate decreased the height. An acidic nutrient solution had less effect on lowering
medium pH than an basic nutrient solution had on raising medium pH. Both nutrient
solutions had minimal effect on plant growth and appearance.

Shoot and leaf tissue macronutrient and micronutrient concentrations were
determined for 15 container-grown herbaceous perennial species forced into ﬂower
in a greenhouse. Averaged over all species, the six NS produced a range of values
for each macronutrient that varied by 50.5, 1.0, or 21.5 % for P and Mg”, N and
Ca”, or K, respectively. In general, N and P showed minimal differences while K
concentrations increased with increasing fertilizer rate. The ranges of Fe, Mn, Zn,

B, and Cu concentration over all treatments were 33 to 1515, 40 to 483, 21 to 244,

16 to 205, and 1 to 10 ug-g", respectively.

To all the FINE people out there seeking the truth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, John Biembaum, for his encouragement
and support, and the willingness to explore alternative pathways. Appreciation
also goes to my guidance committee, Drs. Royal Heins and Darryl Wamcke.
Many thanks to my friends and colleagues for their opinions and suggestions.

I would also like to thank my family for their faith and encouragement.

I am very grateful for my belief in good orderly direction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. ix
CHAPTER I

EFFECT OF MEDIA MOISTURE AND NUTRIENT SOLUTION ON THE GROWTH
AND FLOWERING OF FIFTEEN CONTAINER-GROWN HERBACEOUS

PERENNIALS ................................................. 1
Introduction ................................... . ........... 4
Materials and Methods ...................................... 6
Results and Discussion .................................... 13
Literature Cited .......................................... 27

CHAPTER II

FOLIAR NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF FIFTEEN CONTAINER-GROWN
HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS IRRIGATED WITH SIX NUTRIENT

SOLUTIONS ................................................ ‘ . 38
Introduction ............................................. 41
Materials and Methods ..................................... 44
Results and Discussion .................................... 49
Literature Cited .......................................... 61

APPENDIX ................................................... 71

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER I Page

Table 1. The growth and development of 15 herbaceous perennials grown under
standard root-zone conditions and forced into ﬂower in the greenhouse
environment, including initial plant material size and weeks of cold treatment.
Growth and development data were measured at ﬁrst open ﬂower and
represent the mean of eight values for the standard treatment plants. 30

Table 2. Low, standard, and high values of total applied water for moisture levels
(ML), total applied water-soluble fertilizer (WSF)-N and ﬁnal root-medium
electrical conductivity (EC) (1 :2 dilution) forfertilizer concentrations (FC), and
ﬁnal root-medium pH for N-form nutrient solution (NS) for media used in
growing 15 herbaceous perennials. ........................... 31

CHAPTER II

Table 1. Nutrient values and dry weight from whole shoot tissue of 15 herbaceous
perennials grown under standard root-zone conditions. Dry weight data
represent the mean of eight measurements. Tissue data represent one
composite sample from eight plants. ......................... 64

APPENDIX

Table 1. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Astilbe chinensis. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity
(mg CaCO3 oL"). ........................................ 72

Table 2. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Campanula carpatica “White Clips’. WSF=water-soluble
fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL“). ..................... 74

Table 3. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Coreopsis grandiﬂora ‘Sunray’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL“). ............................. 76

vi

Table 4. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Coreopsis verticillata ‘Moonbeam’. WSF=water—soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg 03003 -L"). ............................. 78

5. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Delphinium grandiﬂomm ‘Blue Mirror'. WSF=water-soluble
fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ..................... 80

6. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Echinacea purpurea ‘ Magnus’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................. 82

7. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Gal/lardia xgrandiﬂora ‘Goblin'. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................. 84

8. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hemerocallis “Stella de Oro’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL“). ............................. 86

9. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Heuchera sanguinea ‘Fireﬂy’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................. 88

10. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hibiscus moscheutos ‘Disco Belle Hybrid”. WSF=water-soluble
fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ..................... 90

11. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hosta ‘undulata variegata’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL“). ............................. 92

12. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Lavandula angustifolia ‘Munstead’. WS F =water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................. 94

vii

Table 13. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Leucanthemum xsuperbum ‘Snow Cap’. WSF=water-soluble
fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ..................... 96

Table 14. The effect of various root—zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Perovskia atriplicifolia. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................. 98

Table 15. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Rudbeckia fulgida ‘Goldsturrn’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg 0300;, oL'1 ). ............................ 100

Table 16. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Salvia xsuperba ‘Blue Queen’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaC03 oL"). ............................ 102

Table 17. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and

‘ ﬂowering of Scabiosa caucasica ‘Butterﬂy Blue’. WSF=water-soluble
fertilizer. ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). .................... 104

Table 18. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Sedum ‘Autumn Joy’. WSF=water-soluble fertilizer.
ALK=alkalinity (mg CaCO3 oL"). ............................ 106

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER I Page

Figure 1. Normalized shoot fresh weight at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels
(ML) (0 and O), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (Cl and I), and nutrient-
solution reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by
standard root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated.
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant
trends (Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P
$0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively, for three treatments ............ 32

Figure 2. Normalized % dry weight at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels
(ML) (0 and O), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (Cl and I), and nutrient-
solution reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by
standard root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated.
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant
trends (Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P
$0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively, the three treatments. . ........ 34

Figure 3. Normalized plant height at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels (ML)
(0 and O), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (0 and I), and nutrient-solution
reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by standard
root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated. Hollowed
symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent high
treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant trends
(Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P 50.05, 0.01 ,
or 0.001 , respectively, the three treatments ...................... 36

CHAPTER II

Fig 1A-E. Effect of fertilizer concentrations and N form on foliartissue macronutrient
concentrations of 15 herbaceous perennials forced into ﬂower in a
greenhouse. Low phosphorus (O), fertilizer concentrations (El and I), and
nutrient-solution reaction (V and V) were compared to standard ( O).
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Tissue data represent the mean of two samples, each
sample represents four plants. Vertical dotted lines ( """"""" ) indicate the
recommended desired range and the dashed lines (--) indicate the minimum

and maximum critical values. *, **, *** Signiﬁcant at P $0.05, 0.01, or 0.001,
respectively .............................................. 65

Fig 2A-E. Effect of fertilizer concentrations and N form on foliar tissue micronutrient
concentrations of 15 herbaceous perennials forced into ﬂower in a
greenhouse. Low phosphorus (O), fertilizer concentrations (Cl and I), and
nutrient-solution reaction (V and V) were compared to standard ( O).
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Tissue data represent the mean of two samples, each
sample represents four plants. Vertical dotted lines ( ---------- ) indicate the
recommended desired range and the dashed lines (--) indicate the minimum
and maximum critical values. *,**,*** significant at P $0.05, 0.01, or 0.001,
respectively ............................................... 68

APPENDIX

Figure 1. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Astilbe chinensis. The standard (1) root-zone conditions were
compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity of
media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L'1
N, 7=250 mgoL‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench
(9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1 =5% NH4-N/320
mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL’1 ) ............... 73

Figure 2. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂOwen'ng of Campanula carpatica ‘White Clips’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L‘1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL“, 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL’1 ). . . . . 75

Figure 3. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Coreopsis grandiﬂora ‘Sunray’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L" N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg 03003 -L'1 ). . . . . 77

Figure 4. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Coreopsis verticillata ‘Moonbeam’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L’1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 0L", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 79

Figure 5. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Delphinium grandiﬂorum ‘Blue Mirror’. The standard (1) root-
zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer
concentration (6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L" N); d) phosphorus concentration
(8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution
reaction ( 11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3
4.4). ............. 81

Figure 6. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Echinacea purpurea ‘ Magnus’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 83

Figure 7. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Gail/ardia xgrandiﬂora ‘Goblin’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L’1 N); d) phosphoms concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-Nl320 mg CaCO3 oL“, 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 85

Figure 8. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hemerocallis “Stella de Oro’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 87

xi

Figure 9. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Heuchera sanguinea ‘Fireﬂy’. The standard (1) root—zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L‘1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL“ ). . . . . 89

Figure 10. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hibiscus moscheutos ‘Disco Belle Hybrid’. The standard (1 ) root-
zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer
concentration (6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration
(8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution
reaction ( 11=5% NH4-N/320 mg 03003 -L", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg 03003
at1 ). .................................................. 91

Figure 11. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Hosta ‘undulata variegata‘. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 93

Figure 12. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Lavandula angustifolia ‘Munstead’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 9)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . . 95

xii

Figure 13. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Leucanthemum xsuperbum ‘Snow Cap’. The standard (1) root-
zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer
concentration (6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L" N); d) phosphorus concentration
(8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution
reaction ( 11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3

Figure 14. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Perovskia atrfplicifolia. The standard (1) root-zone conditions
were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity
of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31
mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH
drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 11=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 0L“ ). . . . . 99

Figure 15. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Rudbeckia fulgida ‘Goldsturm‘. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg 0300;, oL" ). . . . 101

Figure 16. The effect of various root—zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Salvia xsuperba ‘Blue Queen’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L" N, 7=250 mg-L’1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1 =5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . 103

Figure 17. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Scabiosa caucasica ‘Butterﬂy Blue’. The standard (1) root-zone
conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration
(6=31 mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6)
pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 1 1=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL“, 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL" ). . . . 105

xiii

Figure 18. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water
availability, fertilizer concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and
ﬂowering of Sedum ‘Autumn Joy’. The standard (1) root-zone conditions
were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity
of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31
mg-L'1 N, 7=250 mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH
drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction ( 11=5%
NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL'1 ). . . . 107

xiv

CHAPTER I

EFFECT OF MEDIA MOISTURE AND NUTRIENT SOLUTION ON THE
GROWTH AND FLOWERING OF FIFTEEN CONTAINER-GROWN
HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS

Effect of Media Moisture and Nutrient Solution on the Growth and Flowering

of Fifteen Container-grown Herbaceous Perennials

Mary-Slade Morrison and John A. Biembaum

Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

Abbreviations: ANS, acidic nutrient solution; BNS, basic nutrient solution; BR,
bareroot; CC, container capacity; CLF, constant liquid fertilizer;
EC, electrical conductivity; FC, fertilizer concentration; HPS,
high pressure sodium; ML, moisture level; MSU, Michigan
State University; NS, nutrient solution; NSR, nutrient-solution
reaction; RO, reverse osmosis; SME, saturated media extract;

WSF, water-soluble fertilizer.

Effect of Media Moisture and Nutrient Solution on the Growth and Flowering

of Fifteen Container-grown Herbaceous Perennials

Additional index words. fertilizer concentration, nitrogen form, root-medium pH,

soilless media, water

Abstract. Media moisture levels, fertilizer concentrations, and nutrient-solution
reactions were evaluated for the effect on plant growth and development during the
forcing into ﬂower of 15 container-grown herbaceous perennial species in a
greenhouse. There were no treatment effects on ﬂoral initiation and development.
Water availability was evaluated by both irrigation frequency with three different
moisture levels, >50% container capacity (CC) , <60% CC, and >75% CC, and with
three different root media, 70% sphagnum peat 30% perlite, 100% sphagnum peat,
and 50% bark, 30% sphagnum peat, and 20% perlite. Echinacea, Heuchera, and
Lavandula had the greatest increase in shoot fresh weight, and C. grandiﬂora,
Echinacea, and Salvia had the greatest increase in height with increasing moisture
availability. In general, both shoot fresh weight and plant height increased with
increasing water availability, while percent dry weight was affected minimally.
Nutrient availability was altered by three different macronutrient fertilizer
concentrations of water-soluble fertilizer, 125N-20P-125K, 31 N-1 1 P-31 K, 250N-
32P-250K, while micronutrients remained constant. Root-medium electrical
conductivity ranged from 0.9 to 1.7 dS-m‘1 (1 :2 method) at harvest in a non-leaching

system with a preplant fertilizer. Both low and high fertilizer rates generally

decreased shoot fresh weight and only the high fertilizer rate decreased the height.
Root-medium pH was altered by drenching the root medium with an acidic or basic
solution to alter the initial pH to <5.0 or >7.0, respectively, but the drenches were
phytotoxic to most species. An acidic nutrient solution (50% NH4-N, 15 Caz’, 5
Mg”, and 20 mg CaCO3-L") had less effect on lowering medium pH than an basic
nutrient solution (5% NH4-N, 167 Ca”, 60 Mg”, and 320 mg CaCanL") had on
raising medium pH. Both nutrient solutions had minimal effect on plant growth and
appearance. Root-media pH ranged from 5.0 to 8.0 at harvest based on nutrient-

solution reaction treatment.

Introduction

The interest of gardeners in herbaceous perennials since the 1980’s has
prompted researchers and growers involvement in production of container-grown
herbaceous perennials. Most herbaceous perennial research has focused on
acquiring knowledge for species-speciﬁc ﬂowering requirements relating to
vemalization, photoperiod and temperature on development (lnversen, 1994; Heins
et al, 1997). In conjunction with adequate knowledge of aerial conditions to grow
herbaceous perennials in a greenhouse, a grower needs to understand the root-
zone conditions of container-grown herbaceous perennials, especially when many
species are grown in a common environment. To our knowledge, limited
information exists on how root-zone management effects the growth and
development of container-grown herbaceous perennials forced into ﬂower in a

greenhouse (Armitage, 1994).

Traditionally, production of herbaceous perennials took place in the ﬁeld, but
high labor costs limited potential proﬁtability (Locklear, 1981). With the ease of
container production and potential proﬁtability, the trend shifted to container-
growing. In ﬁeld production, most fertilizer recommendations vary considerably by
soil type and fertility. Fertilizer rate with both granular and controlled-release
fertilizer was evaluated on growth and development of some ﬁeld-grown
herbaceous perennials by Duarte and Perry (1988). Root-zone conditions in
outdoor container production of herbaceous perennials were addressed including
both interactions between nutrient concentration and media components, in addition
to obtaining optimum nitrogen fertility for Hemerocallis L. ‘Stella de Oro’ (Perry and
Adam, 1990), and interactions of irrigation and controlled-release fertilizers on plant
growth and substrate solution for Rudbeckia fulgida Ait. ‘Goldstunn’ (Groves et al,
1998a and 1998b). In the greenhouse, nutrient deﬁciencies effect on growth and
development were evaluated for Achilles ﬁlipendulina Lam. ‘Cloth of Gold’,
Aquilegia hybrid L. “Dragonﬂy Mixture’, Coreopsis grandiﬂora Hogg ex Sweet
‘Sunray’, Dendranthemum xgrandiﬂorum Kitam ‘Ginger‘, Dianthus pluman'us L.
“Double Mix’, Lythrum virgatum L. ‘Morden Gleam’, and Veronica incana L. ‘Red
Fox’ (Schouten and Agnew, 1994). Root-zone cultural requirements for perennial
production have also been discussed by Peterson (1985), Smith (1985), Pealer
(1985), Perry (1998), and Elliot (1990). However, there is limited peer-review
literature on how these cultural recommendations apply directly to herbaceous

perennials forced into ﬂower under greenhouse conditions.

In a greenhouse, one fertilizer concentration applied to one root medium
designed to maintain a desired pH and electrical conductivity (EC) can be used to
grow a wide variety of container-grown ornamental crops in common light and
temperature conditions. General fertilization of container—grown crops, concerning
water, media, and fertilizer, for ornamental greenhouse crops has been reviewed
by Joiner et al (1983). However, when problems arise other than those induced by
temperature and light, the problems are usually related to either one or more of
three different factors: 1) water and air proportions in the medium caused by over
or under watering and the medium’s physical condition; 2) quantity of fertilizer being
too high or too low or some unique nutrient deﬁciency that is species-speciﬁc; or 3)
sensitivity to pH extremes causing a nutrient toxicity, e.g. seed geranium
(Pelargonium xhortorum Bailey) and marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) response to low
pH, or a nutrient deﬁciency, e.g. petunia (Petunia xhybn'da 7???) chlorosis due to
high pH.

A method of comparison between species is necessary to identify potential
problems related to water and nutrient availability, and root-medium pH. The
primary objective of this research was to assess the effect of water, fertilizer, and
pH relations on the growth, development, and nutrient status of 15 container-grown
herbaceous perennials. A second objective was to develop a simple method of
screening container-grown ornamental crops for the response to a range of water,

fertility and root-medium pH conditions.

Materials and Methods

Design setup. The experiment included 12 treatments composed of a
standard and two types of media, ﬁve nutrient solution (NS), two irrigation
frequencies, and two root-medium pH. The treatments were selected to compare
a range of root-zone conditions in moisture level (ML), media components, N-P-K-
Ca concentration, water-soluble P availability, nutrient-solution reaction (NSR), and
initial root-medium pH to one standard root-zone regime, comprising a standard
level for all six factors. A completely randomized design was used with 8
replications (plants) for each treatment.

The effect of each factor on growth and development was statistically
analyzed as a comparison between low, standard, and high levels using SAS (SAS
Institute, Cary, NC.) general linear models procedure (PROC GLM) for analysis of
variance and trends, and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for mean separation
(MEANS / DUNCANS).

Media Preparation. All root media consisted of at least one or more of the
following components: select Canadian sphagnum peat (Fisons professional black
bale peat, Sun Gro Horticulture, Bellevue, WA) with long ﬁbers and little dust (Von
Post scale 1-2; Puustjarvi and Robertson 1975), composted pine bark (Stronglite,
Arkansas), and perlite. The standard medium was a blend (by volume) of 70% peat
with 30% perlite (standard). The alterations in media component treatments
consisted of 100% screened (0.65 cm mesh) peat (peat) and a blend of 50%

composted unscreened pine bark, 20% sphagnum peat, and 30% perlite (bark).

Sufﬁcient amounts of dolomitic hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2 with
34% Caz’ and 20% M9”) were added to increase the pH of the medium to 5.8 to
6.2. The amount of hydrated lime added per cubic meter (yard) was (in kg) 1.5 (2.5
lbs.) standard, 2.1 (3.5 lbs.) peat, and 0.6 (1 lbs.) bark. Hydrated lime was selected
over carbonate lime so little or no residual lime would be present in the medium to
buffer future pH changes (Argo and Biembaum, 1996).

In addition to the lime, a preplant nutrient charge consisting of 0.6kg (1 lb-yd'
3) KNOa, 0.3 kg (0.5 lb-yd‘a) triple superphosphate (ON-19.8P-0K), and 0.9 kg (1.5
lb-yd‘3) gypsum; 0.07 kg (0.1 lb-yd‘3) fritted trace elements; 0.3 kg (0.5 lb-yd'3)
wetting agent (Aquagro “G”, Aquatrols, Pennsaulken, NJ) per m3 of medium were
incorporated into all media at mixing. Sufﬁcient reverse osmosis (RO) puriﬁed water
was added at mixing to bring the moisture content of the medium to 40-50% of
container capacity. At planting, the three media had an average pH of 5.9, an EC
of 1.7 dS-m“, and (in mg-L") 130 NOa-N, 39 PO4-P, 180K‘, 105 Ca”, and 60 Mg",
as measured with a saturated media extract (SME) analysis with R0 water as the
extractant (Wamcke, 1986).

After planting, the root-medium pH was altered with an acidic and basic
drench, 2.0 ml-L'1 H2804 (93%) and 4.8 g-L‘1 KHCOa, respectively, to create a range
of initial root-medium pH. Drenches were applied at 250 ml intervals until desired
pH reached for an acidic and basic root medium, $5.0 and 27.0, respectively.

Nutrient solutions. NS—1, standard, was a water-soluble fertilizer (WSF)
made of Ca(NO3)2, KNO3, NH4N03, and NH4H2PO4 that contained (mg-L") 125N-

20P-125K-33Ca-0Mg-OSO4 mixed with acidiﬁed well water, produced by adding

8

H2804 (93%) to the well water which provided a pH 5.8, an EC of 0.7 dS-m“,
concentrations of 100 Ca”, 30 Mg”, and 91 804-8 (mg-L"), and a titratable
alkalinity to pH 4.5 of 120 mg CaCOsoL". NS-1, NS-2, NS-3, and NS-4 remained
constant at 25% NH4-N, 30 Mg”, 12 Na’, and 91 804-8 (mg-L"), whereas NS-2 and
NS-3 varied in concentration of N-P-K-Ca mg-L", 62N-14P-62K-116Ca and 250N-
32P-250K-166Ca, respectively. NS-2 and NS-3 were made with the same fertilizer
salts and water as NS-1. The fertilizer concentration (FC) of NS-1 was cut in half
to create a low FC, NS-2, and doubled to create a high FC, NS-3. After ﬁve weeks
into the experiment, N-P-K-Ca rate of NS-2 was halved from 62N-14P-62K-16Ca
to 31N-11P-31K-80a, because the root-medium EC reading was similar to NS-1,
not lower as desired. For NS-4, low P, NH4H2PO, was substituted with urea to
create an intended zero P WSF. A zero level was not maintained due to an
unlabeled component in the micronutrient source, as explained later.

A basic NS (BNS), NS-5, and an acidic NS (ANS), NS-6, were developed to
create NSR on the root-medium pH. For NS-5 and NS-6, concentration of N-P-K
was maintained at a constant 125N-20P-125K, but %NH4-N, Ca”, Mg”, and 804-8
were varied. NS-5 was a WSF made from Ca(N03)2, Mg(N03)2, KNOa, and KH2P04
that contained 5% NH4-N with 67 Ca”, 30 Mg”, and 0 804-8 (mg-L") mixed with
well water that had a pH of 7.8, an EC of 0.6 dS-m“, concentrations of Ca”, Mg”,
and Na" similar to that of the well water in NS-1, and a titratable alkalinity to pH 4.5
of 320 mg CaCOsoL". NS-6 was a WSF made from NH4N03, urea, KNO3, K280“
and NH4H2PO4 that contained 50% NH4-N, with 0 Ca”, 0 Mg”, and 27 804-8 (mg-L‘

‘) mixed with R0 puriﬁed well water that had a pH 5.5, an EC of 0.1 dS-m", and 15

9

Ca”, 5 Mg”, 27 Na+, and 1 804-8, and a titratable alkalinity to pH 4.5 of <20 mg
CaCanL".

Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B, and M0) were added to all NS with a
commercially available blended chelated material [Compound 1 1 1 (1 .50Fe-0.12Mn-
0.082n-0.11Cu-0.23B-0.11Mo) Scotts, Marysville, Ohio] at a constant 50 mg-L".
This rate is higher than usually incorporated in preblended WSF used at a rate of
125 mgoL" N. Typically, when WSF rates are diluted or concentrated, micronutrient
levels are simultaneously diminished or elevated, respectively. However, in an
attempt to eliminate potential trace element deﬁciencies with low PC or toxicities
with high FC, micronutrient levels were maintained constant for all NS.

Water Availability. The eight plants in each treatment were irrigated at the
same time independent of other treatments. Time for irrigation was determined
gravimetrically when four or more of the eight pots within a single treatment reached
a target weight of 500 9 (except for bark, low ML, and high ML), based on
predetermined weight of the pot, plant, and medium. Pots were checked daily for
target weight at which point 250 ml was applied by top watering.

Both physical and chemical properties of the medium can be altered to
evaluate potential differences in plant growth. Physical properties of a medium
determine how much water and oxygen are supplied to the plant roots, whereas the
chemical properties of a medium alter nutrient availability. To focus on how different
media components affect water availability, our intent was that only the physical
properties were altered while the chemical properties of the different media were

adjusted to be equivalent. Saturation or excess drying of the three different media

10

were also prevented by gravitational measurements prior to irrigation. The bark
based medium had a greater bulk density (0.21 g-cm") than the standard or peat
(0.11 and 0.10 g-cm", respectively), and required irrigation at an elevated target
weight, 600 g per pot.

Standard, low, and high ML, >50%, <60% and >75% CC, respectively were
based on CC of standard root medium, 1030 g , and assigned target weights (in g),
500, 400, and 800, respectively. Initial low and high ML were established, and then
maintained with small irrigation volumes, 125 ml. As plant growth increased,
irrigation frequencies increased for high ML beyond convenience, and irrigation
volumes were increased, 250 ml, to decrease the irrigation frequency. Based on
prior media moisture studies (unpublished), severe drying to the point of wilt
followed by thorough watering with leaching was not as effective a method for using
low medium moisture to control plant size as frequent low volume applications at
regular intervals.

Plant culture. During Oct.1, 1997 to June 1, 1998 plants were forced into
ﬂower at different times, based on forcing schedules developed at Michigan State
University (MSU), E. Lansing, MI. Plugs and bare root plants (Table 1) were
received from commercial growers, and upon arrival were given the appropriate
species-speciﬁc cold treatment recommended by MSU herbaceous perennial
research (Table 1). For cooling, plants were placed in a cooler at 5 10.5 °C and
illuminated for 9 h-d'1 with cool-white ﬂourescent lamps (VHOF96T12; Phillips,

Bloomﬁeld, NJ.) at = 10 umol-m'zos". While in the cooler, plants were watered with

11

acidiﬁed (93% H2804) well water (340 mg CaCO3-L") to a titratable alkalinity of 120
mg CaCO3-L".

After cold treatment, 96 plants of each species plus approximately 16 plants
for guard rows were transplanted into 14-cm (1.5 L) square plastic containers,
containing one of the three medium formulated at MSU. Eight pots in each
treatment were placed on water-catcher trays (Landmark Plastic, Akron, OH),
providing a non-leaching system. The greenhouse heating and cooling setpoints
were 20 °C and 23 °C. Supplemental lighting was provided with high pressure
sodium lamps (HPS) from 0700 to 2200 HR at :90 umol-m'z-S'1 at plant level, in two
glass greenhouse sections at MSU in East Lansing, MI. Due to the sun sensitivity
of Hosta, a 50% aluminum shade cloth (LS Americas, Charlotte, NC) covered the
plants during production.

Data collection. Dates of visible bud and ﬁrst open ﬂower were recorded for
each plant, and days to visible bud and ﬂowering were calculated. At ﬂowering,
total visible ﬂower buds and total nodes were counted, and total height was
measured from top of medium in container. Shoot fresh and dry weight were
determined when majority of all treatments for a particular species were in ﬂower.
Root-medium pH and EC were monitored every three weeks and at the end of
experiment by a 1:2 dilution method. Samples were removed from the lower half
of the pot, and consisted of approximately 25 ml per pot from four of the eight pots
per treatment. Replication for the ﬁnal samples was made by sampling from both

sets of four pots per treatment. Nutrient content in the root medium from the

12

standard treatment of each species was tested using SME method with R0 puriﬁed
water as extractant.

Data presentation. To allow easier comparison of treatment effects compared
to the standard and across species varying in plant size, data were normalized by
dividing the treatment means by the standard treatment mean. Both leaf tissue and
whole shoot tissue from plants receiving the six NS and the standard NS,
respectively, were collected at ﬂower and analyzed for elemental content, but are

reported separately (Morrison and Biembaum, 1999).

Results and Discussion

Overview. Time to ﬂower for the 15 species ranged from 38 days for Salvia
to 94 days for Hibiscus (Table 1). A few species exhibited statistical differences in
days to ﬂower due to moisture level and fertilizer concentration, however for any
species days to ﬂower did not vary by more than 5-7 days. Days to ﬂower, ﬂower
number per plant, and ﬁnal node count for the standard treatment are found in
Table 1. Flowering is primarily controlled by temperature and/or photoperiod. With
similar greenhouse light and temperature conditions, developmental differences
were not expected from water and nutrient management, and in general were not
observed.

Shoot fresh weight ranged from about 20 to 200 9 across species with
standard root-zone conditions or a 10-fold difference in shoot growth, whereas
shoot growth rate, adjusted for crop time, ranged from 0.06 to 0.39 g dry wt-day‘,

only a 6.5 fold difference (data not shown). Visual differences in plant growth usually

13

required a 20 to 30% difference in fresh weight, even though statistical signiﬁcance
occurred below these percentages (Figure 1).

Herbaceous, leafy perennials like Gaillardia, Leucanthemum, and Sedum
ranged from 7.7 to 11.3% dry matter, while woody plants like C. verticillata,
Lavandula, and Perovskia, ranged from 22.1 to 24.5% with standard root-zone
conditions. In general, percent dry weight differences of 10% :l: 5% were required
for statistical signiﬁcance (Figure 2).

With standard root-zone conditions plant height ranged from 71 to 81 cm for
taller plants, like Echinacea, Hibiscus, and Perovskia to 15 to 27 cm for shorter
species, like Gail/ardia, Leucanthemum, and Sedum. Statistical signiﬁcance
generally required a difference between treatments within a species greater than
15% (Figure 3), however, visually a difference of 25 to 30% or greater was
noticeable. It is unclear why the standard for Leucanthemum, Salvia, and Scabiosa
was different enough to offset all the remaining treatments.

Media. Pore space characteristics in unplanted pots of the standard, peat,
and bark medium, after saturated and drained , were 23, 17, and 23% for air and
56, 71, and 50% for water, respectively. Greater differences in air and water
porosity were expected between the different medium component. Air space did not
decrease as much as expected in the 100% peat medium, most likely because the
peat quality, in terms of particle size, was still acceptable even after screening. Air
space was not increased and water space decreased in the bark medium
presumably because the pine bark contained a high percentage of smaller particles.

Probably because of the smaller differences in air and water space than intended,

14

there were few statistical differences in growth due to media, however, the
differences were small and the data are not reported. Another explanation why
differences in growth were small between the three different media components is
because water availability was carefully managed gravimetrically to prevent
saturation or excess drying. For outdoor container production rain becomes an
issue because water application is less controlled and excessive saturation may
occur. Plants grown in potentially saturating outdoor conditions may beneﬁt from
a more porous root medium containing bark or from taller containers.

Our goal was to have similar chemical properties in the media. There was
no apparent effect of the composted pine bark on nitrogen availability at our
standard FC. in this experiment, the low overall pH of the bark media, 5.8, 5.7, and
5.0 for standard, peat, and bark, respectively, at harvest over the 15 species might
be attributed to the hydrated lime, which provided no residual buffer. Acidiﬁcation
of the bark media over time was not expected, but maybe merited to the lower lime
addition in medium.

Low P. There were no differences in growth between the standard and low
P nutrient solution, and the data are not reported. During the course of the
experiment, a nutrient analysis of the low P nutrient solution revealed a P level of
8 mg-L". From fertilizer nutrient analysis, the source of P was determined to be an
unlabeled component in the commercial micronutrient blend, Compound 111. The
corrected P values for the FC nutrient solutions would be 8, 11, 20, and 32 mg«L'1
P as opposed to the intended concentration of 0, 3, 12, and 24 mg-L'1 P. The

comparison of the low P and standard NS, therefore was a comparison of 8 mg-L'1

15

P and 20 mg-L'1 P, respectively. The overall P delivery to root zone was relatively
close, thus similar growth responses are not surprising. It has been proposed that
as low as 10 mg-L‘1 P constant application of P was adequate for most ornamental
container-grown plants (Argo and Biembaum, 1996). While there were no apparent
visual symptoms of P deﬁciency in this study and based on tissue concentrations
of 0.20 and 0.30% P with the lowest applied concentrations (Morrison and
Biembaum, 1999), we recommend 20 mg-L‘1 P for production of herbaceous
perennials to meet plant requirements with an adequate safety margin in case of
leaching. It is important to note that the medium contained 0.3 kg-m’3 triple
superphosphate (ON-19.8P-0K) and P in superphosphate is readily leachable (Argo
and Biembaum, 1995). Since there was no leaching in our system, all this P would
also have been available to the plant.

Moisture Level. Generally, shoot fresh weight and plant height had an
increasing linear trend with increasing moisture, and ﬂower number increased with
increasing ML. Height was inﬂuenced the greatest by ML, especially for Echinacea
with a 35% increase at the high ML, and for Hemerocallis with a 35% decrease with
the low ML relative to the standard. Percent dry weight increased as ML decreased.
Compared with the mean standard ML for 15 species, the mean low ML decreased
by 41% and the mean high ML increased by 45% in total water volume applied
(Table 2). Our original goal was to apply similar amounts of water while keeping
plants dry or moist, so that differences in fertilizer applied were minimized. The
extreme moisture levels were initially established and were to be maintained by

adding small aliquots of water, 125 ml, at appropriate frequencies. Differences in

16

plant size soon resulted in water being applied less frequently to the dry treatment,
and a need to increase the quantity of water applied (250 ml) each day to the moist
treatment. This increase in constant liquid fertilizer (CLF) application tends to
confound ML and FC treatments. To separate water and fertilizer treatments in the
future, fertilizer application could be administered weekly, while irrigation frequency
would be managed independently based on demand. However, with differences in
plant size due to medium moisture level, a uniform fertilizer quantity applied would
seemingly result in excess for smaller plants or inadequate levels for a larger plants.
Total amount of applied N in g-pot'1 N was calculated by multiplying water
use by concentration (0.125 g-L'1 N) and averaged 0.37, 0.63, and 0.91 g-pot'1 N
over all species for the three ML. The differences between low and high FC were
greater, 0.19 and 1.04 g-pot'1 N for low and high, respectively (Table 2). The
mean water use for a species as ML increased was 50, 80, and 120 ml-day ",
respectively, per pot. However, Gaillardia and Rudbeckia received 48% more
water, and Hosta and Sedum 35% less than the mean amount of total applied
water. The decrease in water use by Hosta was probably due to a 50% aluminum
shade cloth covering the plants, decreasing light levels and evapotranspiration.
As ML increased, mean growth rate (based on shoot growth only) was 0.16,
0.22, and 0.29 g dry wt-day " (averaged over entire crop cycle), respectively, for the
dry, standard, and wet treatment (data not shown). Echinacea, Heuchera,
Lavandula, and Perovskia maintained similar growth rates at low and standard ML,
yet had greatest growth rates, 40% over the standard, at high ML. Low above

ground growth rates were observed for Hosta and Hemerocallis, possibly

17

suggesting a greater tendency to partition available resources to roots. Growth
rates decreased by 50% or greater at low ML for Hemerocallis and Rudbeckia,
hence the more than 40% decrease in shoot fresh weight (Figure 1).

Mean water use efﬁciencies for all species as ML increased were 3.25, 2.57,
and 2.35 g shoot dry wt-L'1 H20 per pot (data not shown). Based on shoot growth
only and not root growth, C. grandiﬂora and Sedum had greatest water use
efﬁciencies overall, especially at low ML, 5.61 and 5.65 g dry wt-L'1 H20,
respectively, per pot with only minimal differences between standard and high ML.
Contrastingly, Hemerocallis and Hosta had overall below mean water use
efﬁciencies. Both of these species appeared to increase in root mass more than
other species (personal observation only).

Fertilizer. No differences were observed in ﬂower number with FC.
Generally, high FC decreased plant height and shoot fresh weight. The latter also
decreased with low FC, although percent dry weight generally increased and by
over 20% for Echinacea, Gail/ardia, and Leucanthemum. A quadratic trend in shoot
fresh weight with increasing F0 was most notable by a 40% or greater decrease
with both low and high FC for Rudbeckia. The FC effect on plant height was most
prominent with Echinacea, increasing by 21% with low FC, and with Hemerocallis,
Lavandula, and Rudbeckia, decreasing by about 20% with high FC. Water use,
growth rate, and water use efﬁciencies at all three FC were similar.

Compared to standard root-zone conditions, both low and high FC decreased
or increased in total applied N by 70% or 66%, respectively (Table 2). Even though

the difference in fertilizer rate of the low FC, 31 mg-L“ N, to the standard FC, 125

18

mg-L‘1 N, was a 4 fold increase, the mean soluble salt level in the root medium at
harvest was only 24% lower, 0.99 and 1.30 dS-m", respectively (Table 2). The EC
increased and pH decreased from standard PC to high FC, 1.27 to 1.74 dS-m“,
and 5.73 to 5.25, respectively. Hibiscus and Perovskia had higher than mean
soluble salts at all three FC, while both Salvia and Sedum had lower soluble salts
for only the standard and high FC. Hibiscus, Perovskia, and Sedum had elevated
total applied N at low FC because these species received 62 mg-L'1 N for initial ﬁve
weeks of production compared to 31 mg-L’1 N for all other species. Low and high
FC received, 8% and 17%, less total applied water, respectively, than standard root-
zone conditions.

Root-medium pH drench and % NH4—N. The method of adjusting medium pH
with an acidic or basic drench resulted in symptoms that could not reliably be
attributed to pH alone. Therefore, plant growth data are not reported. The reason
plant material was not planted directly into pH adjusted media was to allow some
plant establishment prior to altering root-medium pH of the plant. The drench
technique had been successful with pot plant and bedding plant crops, where
medium pH was moved from low or high pH for acceptable root-zone conditions
(5.5-6.5) back toward a standard level (unpublished). In this study, the drench
technique appeared to not inhibit growth for some species, yet, for many species
the rapid pH change in the opposite direction, from an acceptable to an
unacceptable pH (low or high), inhibited growth and development. From our
observations, it was difﬁcult to separate the effect of the pH change from the

application method on plant or root damage. Our recommendation for future

19

experiments would be to gradually change the pH over a longer time period or to
plant into pH modiﬁed media.

Differences in shoot fresh weight, percent dry weight, and plant height due
to differing %NH,,-N were minimal. There was no affect on visual appearance (data
not shown). Typically detrimental effects on plant growth due to ammonium-based
fertilizers would be observed during low light or low soil temperature conditions, or
rates of greater than 50% NH4-N. In this experiment, with z90 umoI-m'Z-S'1
supplemental lighting from HPS lamps for 16 hours a day, average daily
temperatures about 20 °C. and nitrogen of 50% NH4-N or less, no differences were
expected.

Argo and Biembaum (1996, 1997) demonstrated root-medium pH effects with
acidic and basic nutrient solution over a ﬁfteen week crop time on hybrid Impatiens
(Impatiens wallerana Hook. F .), but minimal differences in shoot dry weight. In this
experiment, the mean root-zone pH for basic, standard, acidic NS was 7.2, 5.8, and
6.0, respectively. Both nutrient solution and plant species affected root-medium pH
(Table 2). Plants grown with BNS had the highest medium pH for all species, while
only Gaillardia, Hemerocallis, and Hibiscus decreased in medium pH with ANS. On
the other hand, all plant species with the standard NS, medium pH remained within
a range of 5.7 to 6.3, except for Heuchera, Lavandula, and Rudbeckia where the
media pH decreased, 5.5, 4.8, and 5.2, respectively. A lack of pH decrease in root
media with ANS contrasts with Argo and Biembaum (1996) ﬁndings that pH fell by
0.5 after 8 weeks at 200 mg-L‘1 N, a rate higher than required for normal Impatiens

growth. The pH effect of 3 NS depends not only on the % NH4-N of the WSF, but

20

also on amount delivered to the container and the duration of production (Argo and
Biembaum, 1997). In this experiment, the range of bench time for the 15 perennials
was between 6 to 14 weeks and the fertilizer concentration was about half the rate,
125 vs 200 mg-L‘1 N. In a time frame of ten weeks and a reduced FC, one would
not expect a major inﬂuence as opposed to growing long term and at a higher FC.

In this study, the ﬁnal pH decreased signiﬁcantly more at a high FC (5.25)
than with the ANS (6.03). The high FC provided 86 to 100% as much NH4-N as the
ANS for eleven perennials except for C. grandiﬂora, Echinacea, Hibiscus, and
Rudbeckia, where high FC supplied only 69 to 78% of NH4-N applied by ANS.
Differences in root-medium pH observed between high FC and ANS could be
attributed to an increase in application rate more than % NH4-N in WSF.

The target pH range for most greenhouse crops is 5.8 to 6.2, however, in this
study, herbaceous perennials produced acceptable growth with a pH range of 5.2
to 7.1, except for Rudbeckia (Morrison and Biembaum, 1999). Though it may
appear herbaceous perennials have a wider acceptable pH range, it is likely that the
acceptable range is actually broader than the 0.5 pH unit target mentioned above
frequently given for greenhouse crops (Nelson, 1998). Research on annuals had
identiﬁed a few exceptions, like seed geranium and marigold, requiring a nanower
pH range (Argo, 1996; Biembaum et al, 1988). As herbaceous perennial production
expands some exceptions could be detected requiring a narrower pH range, such
as Rudbeckia. When root-medium pH fell below 5.5, purple tissue developed on the
underside of foliage and leaf tissue Fe concentrations were 2900 ug-g", indicating

Fe toxicity .

21

General Response to Water and Fertilizer. Maintenance of adequate water
and nutrient levels is essential for production of containerized greenhouse crops.
Severe reduction of water availability indirectly affects plant growth and
development by ﬁrst reducing expansive growth and then reducing photosynthesis.
Growth response to irrigation depends on how much and how often water is
delivered, air and water-holding capacity of the substrate material, plant species,
and rate of fertilization. Many differences occurred in shoot fresh and dry weights
due to ML for most of the 15 herbaceous perennials. However, percent dry weight,
a measure of the plant tissue water content, was altered in response to media ML
for only a few species from standard ML. In general, fresh and dry weight had
lineartrends with increasing moisture, but horticultu rally signiﬁcant differences were
expressed most resoundingly at only either low or high ML. Typically, growth was
affected by ML at one extreme, and the other extreme differed minimally from the
standard. Species tolerant of dry conditions in the garden had similar growth and
development regimes with dry and standard ML, such as Echinacea, Lavandula,
and Perovskia. When water availability was high for all species shoot fresh weight
increased, except for Salvia and Sedum.

Water availability can limit nutrient availability. Water availability relates to
nutrient solubilization in a root medium, and how available these nutrients potentially
are to the roots. Overall, the mean root-medium EC for 15 herbaceous perennials
from the means of three moisture levels was similar, 1.28 dS-m“. As moisture level
increased, the amount of fertilizer applied also increased, which would typically lead

to higher soluble salts in a non-leaching method. A relative similar EC for all ML

22

could be interpreted as evidence that nutrients accumulated in the dry treatment
faster than in the standard or wet, or could also be that nutrients were removed
faster from the wet treatment. If EC value increased as moisture increases then
water was probably not limiting nutrient availability.

Plant species’ response to different levels of water and nutrient availability
differed also. Root-medium EC values for Gaillardia, Hemerocallis, Hibiscus, and
Salvia decreased as ML increased, which could indicate low ML can inhibit mass
ﬂow of nutrients to the plant roots and decrease growth. Coreopsis verticillata,
Rudbeckia, and Sedum at a high ML led to elevated soluble salts, probably due to
accumulation of fertilizer nutrients.

The relationship between irrigation volume and amount of fertilizer applied
with CLF is important in minimal and non-leaching regimes (Yelanich and
Biembaum, 1994). With the high ML, not only does the amount of water applied
increase, but also, the quantity of nutrients applied to the root zone increases.
Eventually, high soluble salts in root medium can potentially reduce availability of
water to the plants, and thus reduce growth. In this experiment, the high moisture
level had a 73 % increase in total applied water over the high FC, but the high PC
only had 14 % increase in total applied N over the high ML. With high FC, fresh
weight decreased and was more likely due to increased root-medium soluble salts
(1.74 vs. 1.27 dS-m“) than decreased water applied (4.17 vs. 7.25 L) or increased
applied N (1.04 vs 0.91 g). In comparison, high ML soluble salts, 1.27 dS-m",
remained in an acceptable range and plant growth was not inhibited. Wamcke

(1990) assigned soluble salt values between 0.5 to 0.99 dS-m‘1 as suitable for most

23

established plants. Further, values between 1.00 to 1.49 dS-m’1 are considered
higher than desired, but reduced growth is typically observed at values of 1.50 to
1.99 dS-m“. Overall, high FC produced acceptable plant quality and no visible
signs of toxicity, however, high soluble salts in root zone could create unpredictable
plant quality in post production environments. A linear increase in inﬂorescence and
shoot fresh weight with increasing water availability and not increasing fertilizer, can
be interpreted as an indication of the relative importance of how water availability
can have a greater inﬂuence on growth, in both dry matter and cellular enlargement,
over fertilizer concentration.

Low FC plants demonstrated acceptable growth and development, and no
visible deﬁciency symptoms were evident. Preplant charges can last up to 2-3
weeks if minimal leaching occurs or longer in non-leaching systems (Argo and
Biembaum, 1995). Additionally, the amount of applied N for low F0 was 50 % less
than applied with low ML, yet in 14 out of 15 species, shoot fresh weight of low FC
was either the same or greater than low ML. Minimal or non-leaching regimes
allows growers to focus on the amount (in grams of N) of fertilizer applied to the root
zone. Low FC plants grew normally as long as fertilizer was applied at each
irrigation, evident by the low FC ﬁnal mean EC measurement of 0.99 dS-m". In
constant liquid fertilization, as more water is applied more fertilizer is applied, so as
irrigation is increased more fertilizer is automatically applied (Yelanich, 1991 ).
There is no need to change fertilizer concentration. The low FC might not work as
well when leaching is occurring (Yelanich and Biembaum, 1994). Acceptable

growth with higher than normally recommended media EC can also be explained

24

based on the higher Ca and Mg of our irrigation water, which accumulate under a
non-leaching system and contribute signiﬁcantly to root-medium EC.

A decrease in shoot growth may be attributed to low nutrient levels in the root
medium, but rootzshoot ratio must be considered. The roots of Echinacea, Hosts,
and Hemerocallis were washed and visually observed for all eight pots from the
three FC treatments. The three species had increased root mass with decreasing
fertilizer rates (observation only). In a separate study, at low FC Hydrastis
canadensis L. increased by 41 % in root mass compared to high FC (unpublished
data). Higher soluble salts in the media due to increasing FC possibly could have
limited root growth, and resulted in a decreased root mass within the pot. The low
rootzshoot ratio limits the plant’s potential to acquire both water and nutrients,
reducing the plant’s adaptability to survive abrupt changes to root-zone conditions,
and enhancing susceptibility to excess drying, saturation, or disease infestation.
Root mass production is important to consider for herbaceous perennial production
in addition to post production purposes. Future studies should monitor root mass
response to water and nutrient availability.

Post Production and Fertilizer Runoff. Most herbaceous perennial species
are directly cultivated from the wild, where tolerances for low water and nutrient
availability and pH extremes may be developed for survival. Differences in the
nature of crop responses to nutrient stress have been compared between
agricultural crops selected for greater productivity and reproductive output and
species that have evolved in nature, particularly under low-nutrient conditions

(Chapin, 1980). From the growth and development responses of these15

25

herbaceous perennials over a range of water and nutrient availability and root-
medium pH, acceptable growth appeared with adequate ML and relatively low FC,
and a pH tolerance ranging from 5.0 to 7.1. High fertilization practices not only can
lead to excess nutrient runoff with leaching practices and produce more lush shoot
growth, but also could decrease root mass, increasing the crops sensitivity to
cultural management problems, such as sunburn damage or insect damage.
Consideration of plant quality after production through marketing and in the garden
is important. Beyond differences due to plant morphology, percent dry weight may
be useful to evaluate plant stress during production. An increase in percent dry
weight could reﬂect a water or nutrient availability limitation possibly from either low
moisture or high soluble salts in the root medium, which could affect expansive
growth in plant tissue. Good shoot growth with poor root growth may cause
problems when a plant is placed in the retail store or garden. Roots are what keep
herbaceous perennials and ultimately the customer coming back.

In general, herbaceous perennials can be successfully grown with irrigation
and fertilization techniques similarto those used for annual bedding plants. As with
bedding plants, the risk of fertilizer runoff can be very low as long as the nutrient

solution is applied directly to the media.

26

Literature Cited

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1997. The Effect of Root Media on Root Zone pH,
Calcium, and Magnesium Management in Containers with Impatiens. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122(3):275-284.

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1996. The Effect of Lime, Irrigation-water Source,
and Water-soluble Fertilizer on Root-zone pH, Electrical Conductivity, and
Macronutrient Management of Container Root Media with Impatiens. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(3):442-452.

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1995. The Effect of Irrigation Method, Water-
soluble Fertilization, Preplant Nutrient Charge, and Surface Evaporation on
Earty Vegetative and Root Growth of Poinsettia. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
120(2):163-169.

Argo, W R. 1996. Root-Zone pH, Calcium, and Magnesium Management in Peat-
Based Container Media. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michigan State Univ., East
Lansing.

Arrnitage, A. 1994. Spring into Perennials. Greenhouse Grower. 12(8): 92-94.

Biembaum, J A, C A Shoemaker, W H Carlson, and R Heins. 1988. Low pH
Causes Iron and Manganese Toxicity. Greenhouse Grower 6(3):92-97.

Chapin, F S. 1980. The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
11:233-260.

Duarte, M and L P Perry.1988. Field Fertilization of Heuchera sanguinea
‘Splendens‘. HortScience 23(6):1084.

Elliot, G C. 1990. Nutritional Management of Container-grown Perennials.
Connecticut Greenhouse Newsletter. No. 155

Groves, K M, S L Warren, and T E Bilderback. 1998a. Irrigation Volume,
Application, and Controlled-release Fertilizers: I. Effect on Plant Growth and

Mineral Nutrient Content in Containerized Plant Production. J of Environ.
Hort. 16(3):176-181.

Groves, K M, S L Warren, and T E Bilderback. 1998b. Irrigation Volume,
Application, and Controlled-release Fertilizers: II. Effect on Substrate
Solution Nutrient Concentration and Water Efﬁciency in Containerized Plant
Production. J of Environ. Hort. 16(3):182-188.

27

Heins, R D, A C Cameron, W H Carlson, E Runkle, C Whitman, M Yuan, C
Hamaker, B Engle, and P Koreman. 1997. Controlled Flowering of
Herbaceous Perennial Plants. P. 15-31. In: E Goto et al (eds.) Plant
Production in Closed Ecosystems. Kluwer Academic, Netherlands.

lnversen, R R and T C Weiler. 1994. Strategies to Force Flowering of Six
Herbaceous Garden Perennials. HortTech. 4(1):61-65.

Joiner, J N, R T Poole, and C A Conover. 1983. Nutrition and Fertilization of
Ornamental Greenhouse Crops. Hort Reviews. 5:317-403.

Locklear, J H and Coorts G D. 1981. Container Production of Herbaceous
Perennials. BPI News. 12(12):4-5.

Morrison, MS and J A Biembaum. 1999. Root-zone Management of Container-
grown Herbaceous Perennials. Master of Science Thesis. Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI.

Nelson, P V. 1998. Greenhouse Operations and Management. 5th ed. Prentice Hall,
Englewood NJ.

Pealer, G. 1985. Soil Mix Options Using Composted Hardwood Bark. Perennial
Plant Symp. Perennial Plant Assoc. 3:18-19.

Perry, L P and S A Adams. 1990. Nitrogen Nutrition of Container grown
Hemerocallis x ‘Stella de Oro’. J of Environ. Hort. 8(1):19-20.

Perry, L P. 1998. Herbaceous Perennial Production: A Guide from Propagation to
Marketing. 93 NRAES.

Peterson J C. 1985. Perennial Plant Nutrition. Proc. Perennial Plant Symp.
Perennial Plant Assoc. 3:20-24.

Puustjarvi, V and R A Robertson. 1975. Physical and Chemical Properties. p. 23-
28. In: D W Robinson and J G D Lamb (eds). Peat in Horticulture.
Academia, London.

Schouten, S L and N H Agnew. 1994. Feeding the Frenzy: an Examination of the
Effects of Fertilizer Deﬁciencies on Seven Popular Herbaceous Perennials.
American Nurseryman. 180(9):46—51.

Smith, E M. 1985. Soil Mix Options. Proc. Perennial Plant Symp. Perennial Plant
Assoc. 3:11-15.

28

Wamcke, D D. 1990. Testing Artiﬁcial Growth Media and Interpreting the Results.
In Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. R L Westennan, ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
No. 3 Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, WI.

Wamcke, D D. 1986. Analyzing Greenhouse Growth Media by the Saturation
Extraction Method. HortScience 21:223-225.

Yelanich, M V and J A Biembaum. 1994. Fertilizer Concentration and Leaching
Affect Nitrate-Nitrogen Leaching from Potted Poinsettia. HortScience
29(8):874-875.

Yelanich, M V. 1991. Fertilization of Greenhouse Poinsettia to Minimize Nitrogen
Runoff. Master of Science Thesis. Michigan State University, E Lansing.

29

.530: .8: on. 8 E2» 9: co move: .0 .3822.
453 05 co «8:33.85 Lo 33 .626: sea? .0 .3532N
.5. 523.. 25 .:

 

 

5 8m R on 8% «a e: c =8 2. .2st
«.8 we on 2 mm 9 NE 2 =8 2 .oawoﬁwﬁwumﬁuom
e2 5 «a m 2 8 «a m :8 mu. .cooaohwwhammeom
at 9: an m 8 Q. 8.: w. h: N .suumwowﬁﬁgm
3s «m E E 3 8 .5: m an «socuismcwwwmeod
m. 2 8 2 8 m. B 2a. m h: N .80 scamhuﬂuwﬁsw ”Umﬁwwwgﬂ
EN 9. 8 mm m. t. 85 9 =8 R eawwmmwmhuﬁﬁsﬂ
2: mm 8 z 2 2 R: 2 mm .9899 emﬁﬁmﬁmﬁv use:
as. R. B R we 3 Q: o =8 new .Eﬁhcwﬁwmmwumruﬁz
3. t 3” S N 6 8a. 8 mm ebﬁmmwmmumsf
«.2 «a on m S 5 8a 2 mm .20 on MHMEMEE
as 2: «N 2 mm 9. RN 9 =8 2. ﬁwuwzwmmzmﬁwsme
we 8 E 2 m R 85 o. =8 2. .macmmwruwﬁmwomuwﬁm
new 8 3 m at 8 «:3 o =8 mm. acmﬁmwwmomm‘mheo
q: m: an o R 6 8a. 2 mm secawwmmomcmomwwwﬁoo
.3 be .3 EB. 82. .35.... .23.. 8% o. a a 3:22. 8.8%
.85 .32. 2 :2: L23: 2 $8 an... 3.83 an...
s .85 an...

 

acceegumm .853 2.253.: 235:.

05 .8 322, 29¢ no 5!: 2: $30.32 new .36: code E: «a 3.532: 225 San 22:93.26“. new 5320
ace—Such Bee .0 8.3:. one on? 3:82: Eu... 3:... 9.520.... €055.32. 332.520 2... c. .826: 8:. .322
new 0:63:33 2.3.32 23:8. have: .520 c.2522. 3033.2. 3 .0 «5:50.02... new 5305 0...... .w 038.

30

 

6.0 ad NS VHF on: mad we; and 26 mNK Nod sad can:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88 88 88 8N :8 N3 8; 8.. 88 8.8 88. 88 8.:
88 88 88 8.. B8 88 88 3.8 88 88 EN 85 23
0 CE: 3
88 8 E 8.. N88 88 8.. 88 88 88 88 8N .: _. s 2588
0: > o
88 88 E 8.. 8.. 88 88 S8 :8 88 88 8N 888M888“ Wazoﬂuom
C83 03
e8 88 NE 8.. 8.. 88 88 88 88 88 8N m: 86%; ummeww
E: w
88 N8 88 EN 8.. 8: 8., 8.. NN8 8.2 8.2 28 assasmumwmgm
8 88 8E 88 8.. N3 8.. .88 88 88 88 88 89888 $898
. . . . . . . . . . . . .80 325.
N 8 w 8 8 E 8 P 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 N. 8 8 8 8 v 8 N 5888 x 5858388..
. . . . . . . . . . . . 82822.
8 m 8 v 8 8 8 N 8 . 8. F 8 8 8 8 2 8 8 8 8N e 8 N 88888 58:83
8
88 88 88 8.. NE 88 88 88 28 88 88 8N .8 Es 8.8:”..8:
> 0 8m
88 88 8E 8N.N 8.. 5.. 8.. 38 88 28 8E 88 .umwcuohﬁws whys:
> e
.8 88 88 8.. 8.. 88 88 :8 38 8E 88 8N 85:88.8 Nmmmsex
O.— Q a 0
N8 8 v8 88 8.. 88 38 88 N8 8E 88 8N . 0 “Magyar
88 88 E 8.. .3 88 8; N8 38 8E 88 88 285:8.uumcom80
macaw .
88 88 E 8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. 88 28 88 88 88 82:98.8 8898
En :00 .
.8 88 8E 88 8.. 8.. 88 $8 NN8 88 88 88 «cosmeomamaqu‘eoe
>80: .
88 8 E 8.. z... 8.. 88 88 N8 88 8N... 8N 886:me 98%28
mm: 0“. on. m: 8.0on
2.23 28:38 288 .3: 28:28 26.. :9: 28:88 :3 :9: 28:88 33
8 In 82%.: .E. .v Es. . . “on .v J. .0. can 80 E8. :82: .0. a2

 

88.—nun “4. . .N4 ”8‘“. o-< .d..- 84.“. ., 84.8:
.8 32. 8.0.5.0. E055: 5.8.2 .8 In 5:58.300. .85 new .8“: 2.0—88:00:00 505.88 .8 E235. N“ S Gm. 83:03:00 82800.0 25.00:.
.802 .25 new z.Emz¢ .8558 03208.80; 00:23 .88 .32. 226. 288.2: .8 .825 3:9? .88 .0 eon—E, no... new .8088» .30.. .N 0.00...

31

Figure 1. Normalized shoot fresh weight at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels
(ML) (0 and O), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (Cl and I), and nutrient-
solution reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by
standard root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated.
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant
trends (Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P
50.05, 0.01, or 0.001 , respectively, for three treatments.

32

£8.82. 82". 82.8 83.252
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

8N om. cc. 9.. on. co. co om ov on o
. . . . _ _ _ . .
82 82 82.... . o 5? nI o H - E88
82... .82 82.... .o D B I o - 88.88
wz sz wz... . D D! I UN 0 . niom
wz.... .sz wz.... I D D I B . £203.83.
2.... .L... .L... I D D D O . 9.8.9.961
wz 1...... wz.-. I p B . E:Eo£:mozo..
mz m2 wz.... I D I D D O - 3.6.6.6..
wz mz m2? 0 D D i o - 8.8:
gmz Lmz wz.... I D B . o n 38.5....
wz L. 82.... o o “D I D o W - 8888...
.82 mz m2... 0. I5 D 0 .. m...moo..oEoI
kmz 2...... «0.2.... I .v . O D . m..b..m....m®
m2... ..wz mz.... I D D nl w . 883.com.
wz wz wz... . I D I D U . So....o..to> .0
wz £82 .82.... o . D D I oH - 888.888 .0
D > I o o O .289".

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Normalized % dry weight at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels
(ML) (0 and I), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (0 and I), and nutrient-
solution reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by
standard root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated.
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant
trends (Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P
$0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively, the three treatments.

22.; to : 25.3.5
s

 

 

 

 

 

9.: o: 09 our o: 2: cm on on cm on
_ _ _ . . . _ a q

02.. .02 wz D o D H 1 5:30

02 wz .. I i @8330

wz Lmz wz... S no I A u @330

.... 02 02.... o I D I D .. m.o.ooob:m
wz m2 wz SIB - «29.8...
wz z... ...... Do .I D D I 1 252.3333.
02 m2 mz D . D o D I I I o.=b=m>o..
m2 wz wz D .II a .H r 2.8...

02 wz mz O I D u 9.83....

02 02 mz D ﬁI . r 82.0.8...
wz... wz wz o D Iu ’ f m...moo.oEoI
mz ..... 02.... D o B D I i £93.30
m2 2...... $2 D 50. F .. moonstom
wz... wz wz I DcIDD I 83.8%? .0
02 02 02 O H 9D I EoSbcmB .0
D D I D I O

 

 

 

 

N 2:9“.

Figure 3. Normalized plant height at ﬂower. The low and high moisture levels (ML)
(0 and I), fertilizer concentrations (FC) (Cl and I), and nutrient-solution
reactions (NSR) (V and V) of root-zone conditions were divided by standard
root-zone conditions and percentage differences calculated. Hollowed
symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent high
treatments. Data represents the mean of eight values. Signiﬁcant trends
(Linear/Quadratic). NS, *,**,*** Nonsigniﬁcant or signiﬁcant at P $0.05, 0.01 ,
or 0.001, respectively, the three treatments.

36

«gm—I... 52n— nos-ago:

 

 

 

 

 

 

9
cm. 03 o? our o: 0me cm on 0.. cm on
_ . _ a a J 2 ﬂ .

..02 02 02... D D I 0 IO . 1 E380

02 02 02 . D I 5 0 1 80.580

02 02 02.. I DW D I DO u 0.3.3.

0z .. 02.... . I D D U m I o u 3.03.32

02 mz 2.. I B D o - 322...
....02 ..02 ...... I D D .0 IO r 8352:2833
02 02... 02... I a DD MO I u $239.3

02 02.. 02.... MD I D D I o 1 £8:

02 .. 02.... I DD I o .. 030.5...

02 02 02 I D D D I o l 82.26...

02 ..02 ...... I 0 D I o r m...moo.oEo...
02 02 02 D D D I . I m.Em...m0

02 02... 02.... I D D O D I . 382.com

02 02 02.... I p D 00 I 1 83.3.2? .0
02 02 02... I nVI o D T EoSbnﬂu .0
P D I D O O m 0.59“...

 

 

 

 

37

CHAPTER II
FOLIAR NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF FIFTEEN CONTAINER-GROWN

HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS IRRIGATED WITH SIX NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS

38

Foliar Nutrient Concentrations of Fifteen Container-grown Herbaceous

Perennials Irrigated with Slx Nutrient Solutions

Mary-Slade Morrison and John A. Biembaum

Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325

Abbreviations: ANS, acidic nutrient solution; BNS, basic nutrient solution; EC,
electrical conductivity; FC, fertilizer concentration; HPS, high
pressure sodium; ML, moisture level; MSU, Michigan State
University; NS, nutrient solution; NSR, nutrient-solution

reaction; R0, reverse osmosis; SME, saturated media extract;

WSF, water-soluble fertilizer.

39

Foliar Nutrient Concentrations of Fifteen Container-grown Herbaceous

Perennials Irrigated with Six Nutrient Solutions

Additional index words. Ammonium, macronutrients, micronutrients, nutrition

phosphorus, root-medium pH, soilless media,

Abstract. Shoot and leaf tissue macronutrient and micronutrient concentrations
were determined for 15 container-grown herbaceous perennial species forced into
flower in a greenhouse. Nutrient solution concentrations were altered by three
different macronutrient fertilizer concentrations of water-soluble fertilizer, 125N-20P-
125K, 31N-11P-31K, and 250N-32P-250K, while micronutrient concentrations

remained constant. Averaged over all species, the six nutrient solutions produced

a range of values for each macronutrient that varied by 50.5, 1.0, or 21.5 % for P

and Mg”, N and Ca”, or K, respectively. In general, N and P showed minimal
differences while K concentrations increased with increasing fertilizer rate. The
ranges of Fe, Mn, Zn, B, and Cu concentration over all treatments were 33 to 1515,
40 to 483, 21 to 244, 16 to 205, and 1 to 10 ug-g", respectively. Micronutrients
were minimally affected for most species, but some species accumulated a
particular trace element at low fertilizer concentration or low medium pH. Nutrient
solutions differing in %NH4-N, Ca”, and Mg2+ and irrigation water source were
applied to create a basic (5% NH4-N, 167 Ca”, 60 Mg”, 320 CaCO3 (mg-L“)),
neutral (25% NH4-N, 133 Ca”, 30 Mg”, 120 CaCO3 (mg-L")), or acidic (50% NH4-N,
15 Ca”, 5 Mg”, 20 CaCO3 (mg-L“)) reaction with the root-medium pH to evaluate

4o

the effect of water-soluble fertilizer and irrigation water source on nutrient tissue
concentrations. Generally, P increased and Ca2+ and Mg2+ decreased with

increasing % NH4-N.

Introduction

Mills and Jones (1996) reported nutrient levels in dried foliar tissue for over
100 herbaceous perennial species mostly from container production in a nursery or
from the landscape. These values provide nutrient tissue averages, or in some
cases sufﬁciency ranges, based on outdoor production, but further evaluations are
necessaryto establish nutrient ranges of herbaceous perennials grown overa range
of root zone conditions in a greenhouse. In a greenhouse, one fertilizer
concentration applied to one root medium designed to maintain a desired pH and
electrical conductivity (EC) can be used to grow a wide variety of container-grown
ornamental crops in common light and temperature conditions. However, when
problems arise otherthan those induced by temperature and light, the problems are
usuallr‘related to either one or more of three different factors: 1) water and air
proportions in the medium caused by over or under watering and the medium’s
physical condition; 2) quantity of fertilizer being too high or too low or some unique
nutrient deﬁciency that is species-speciﬁc; or 3) sensitivity to pH extremes causing
a nutrient toxicity, e.g. seed geranium (Pelargonium xhortorum Bailey) and marigold
(Tagetes erecta L.) response to low pH, or a nutrient deﬁciency, e.g. petunia

(Petunia xhybrida hort. Viim.-Andr.) chlorosis due to high pH.

41

General fertilization requirements and nutrient management of greenhouse
container-grown ﬂoricultural crops has been addressed in Bunt (1988), Hanan
(1998), Joiner et al. (1983), Reed (1996), and Nelson (1998). Argo and Biembaum
(1996) reported tissue concentrations for Impatiens (Impatiens wallerana Hook. F.)
grown with 12 nutrient solutions formulated from 4 water sources and 3 water-
soluble fertilizers. Argo (1996) then screened a range of bedding plant species with
acidic, neutral, and alkaline nutrient solution (NS) with low and high Ca” and Mg”
produced over seven weeks. Tissue concentrations among species showed similar
increasing trends of Ca” and Mg” uptake, but each species had different ranges
of concentration. Impatiens consistently had 0.6% and 0.2% greater Ca” and Mg”
tissue level than eight and six other bedding plants, respectively, with all NS. A
method of comparison between species is necessary to identify potential problems
related to nutrient availability and root-medium pH. Based on the fact that many
herbaceous perennial plants have not undergone intensive genetic selection under
greenhouse container production performance, one could hypothesize the nutrient
requirements might generally be lower compared to ﬂowering potted plants,
selected for performance under higher rates of fertilization common in container
plant production. Differences in the nature of crop responses to nutrient stress have
been compared between agricultural crops selected for greater productivity and
reproductive output and species that have evolved in nature, particularly under low-
nutn'ent conditions (Chapin, 1980). As more herbaceous perennials are forced in
greenhouse production, nutrient related management problems could become more

common.

42

Strategies, such as minimal leaching, have been developed to reduce
greenhouse fertilizer and water use along with minimizing fertilizer runoff
(Biembaum, 1992). As fertilization rates become lower to meet actual fertilizer
requirements, the proper selection of fertilizer solutions becomes more critical. A
major concern in minimal leaching systems is the accumulation of soluble salts in
the root medium that could be detrimental to plant growth. Typically, as applied
fertilizer rates increase, foliar concentrations of macronutrients increase. Nutrient
antagonisms can occur at high concentrations. For instance, if plants are supplied
with a high concentration of one cation, e.g. NH4”, then other cations, particularly
Ca”, Mg”, and K“ concentrations could be lower (Bunt, 1988). Lang and Pannkuk
(1998) found foliar N-P-K concentrations to be highest in New Guinea impatiens
'Barbados’ (Impatiens xhawken' Bull) treated with 250 mg-L'1 N in a minimal
leaching system, while Ca” and Mg” concentrations were highest at lower fertilizer
concentrations, 84 mg-L‘1 N, and both had a ﬁnal pH of 5.5. Argo and Biembaum
(1996) concluded at a fertilizer rate of 200 mg-L'1 N, Ca” availability was not
reduced by a low pH in peat-based media or higher NH4-N, but availability was from
a lack of sources applied to the medium. Generally, the lower the Ca” and Mg”
concentration applied in the NS, the lower the Ca” and Mg” tissue values.

Media based on mineral soils typically contain sufﬁcient amounts of
micronutrients and do not require additional sources, unlike peat-based media
which can be deﬁcient in B, Cu, and Fe (Bunt, 1988). Peterson (1981) addressed
the availability of micronutrients in peat-based media for greenhouse crops based

on nutrient concentrations in fresh, unplanted root media, and found an inverse

43

relationship existed between pH and availability of micronutrients except Mo. In
addition to micronutnent’s presence in root media components and possibly in the
irrigation water source (Bunt, 1988), Argo and Biembaum (1995) looked at the
relationship between root-medium pH and tissue concentration of micronutrients
(Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and B) on Impatiens. They found foliar tissue levels of Fe, Zn, and
B decreased with increasing pH, Cu was unaffected by pH, and Mn concentration
increased as the pH decreased or increased from pH 6.

The primary objective of this research was to assess macronutrient and
micronutrient concentration in foliar tissue from container-grown herbaceous
perennials under a range of root-zone conditions. A second objective was to
develop a simple method of screening container-grown ornamental crops for their
nutrient concentration responses to nutrient solutions varying in concentration and

reaction.

Materials and Methods

Design setup. The experiment included 12 treatments composed of , a
standard and two types of media, ﬁve NS, two irrigation frequencies, and two root-
medium pH. The treatments were selected to compare a range of root-zone
conditions in moisture level (ML), media components, N-P-K-Ca concentration,
water-soluble P availability, nutrient-solution reaction (NSR), and initial root-medium
pH to one standard root-zone regime, comprising a standard level for all six factors.
A completely randomized design was used with 8 replications (plants) for each

treatment. Water, media, and root-medium pH treatments are reported in Morrison

44

and Biembaum (1999). Only six treatments were sampled for plant nutrient
concentrations.

To evaluate the effect of each factor on species nutrient concentration, each
factor was statistically analyzed as a comparison between low, standard, and high
levels, except phosphorus treatment with just a low and standard level, using SAS
(SAS Institute, Cary, NC.) general linear models procedure (PROC GLM) for
analysis of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for mean separation
(MEANS/DUNCANS)

Media Preparation. Root medium consisted of the following components:
select Canadian sphagnum peat (Fisons professional black bale peat, Sun Gro
Horticulture, Bellevue, WA) with long ﬁbers and little dust (Von Post scale 1-2;
Puustjarvi and Robertson 1975), and perlite. Sufﬁcient amounts of dolomitic
hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2 with 34% Ca” and 20% Mg”) were added to
increase the pH of the medium to 5.8 to 6.2. The amount of hydrated lime added
per cubic meter (yard) was 1.5 kg (2.5 lbs.). Hydrated lime was selected over
carbonate lime so little or no residual lime would be present in the medium to buffer
future pH changes (Argo and Biembaum, 1996). In addition to the lime, a preplant
charge consisting of 0.6 kg (1 lb-yd‘a) KNO3, 0.3 kg (0.5 Ib-yd'a) triple
superphosphate (ON-19.8P-0K), and 0.9 kg (1.5 lb-yd‘3) gypsum; 0.07 kg (0.1
lb-yd‘3) fritted trace elements; 0.3 kg (0.5 lb-yd'3) wetting agent (Aquagro “G”,
Aquatrols, Pennsaulken, NJ) per m3 of medium were incorporated into the medium
at mixing. Sufﬁcient reverse osmosis (R0) water was added at mixing to bring the

moisture content of the medium to 40-50% of container capacity. At planting, the

45

medium had pH of 5.9, an EC of 1.7 dS-m‘1 , and (in mg-L") 130 NOS-N, 39 PO4-P,
180 K‘, 105 Ca”, and 60 Mg”, as measured with a saturated media extract (SME)
analysis with R0 water as the extractant (Wamcke, 1986).

Nutrient solutions. NS-1, standard, was a water-soluble fertilizer (WSF)
made of Ca(N03)2, KNOa, NH4NO3, and NH4H2PO4 that contained (mgoL") 125N-
20P—125K-33Ca-0Mg-OSO; mixed with acidiﬁed well water, produced by adding
H2804 (93%) to the well water which provided a pH 5.8, an EC of 0.7 dS-m“,
concentrations of 100 Ca”, 30 Mg”, and 91 304-8 (mg-L"), and a titratable
alkalinity to pH 4.5 of 120 mg CaCanL". NS-1, NS-2, NS-3, and NS-4 remained
constant at 25% NH4-N, 30 Mg”, 12 Na", and 91 804-8 (mg-L"), but NS-2 and NS-
3 varied in concentration of N-P-K-Ca mg-L“, 62N-14P-62K-1 1603 and 250N-32P-
250K-166Ca, respectively. NS-2 and NS-3 were made with the same fertilizer salts
and water as NS-1. The fertilizer concentration (FC) of NS-1 was cut in half to
create a low FC, NS-2, and doubled to create a high FC, NS-3. After ﬁve weeks
into the experiment, N-P-K-Ca rate of NS-2 was halved from 62N-14P-62K-16Ca
to 31N-11P—31K-80a, because the root-medium EC reading was similar to NS-1,
not lower as desired. For NS-4, low P, NH4H2PO4 was substituted with urea to
create an intended zero P WSF. A zero level was not maintained due to an
unlabeled component in the micronutrient source, as explained later.

A basic NS (BNS), NS-5, and an acidic NS (ANS), NS-6, were developed to
create NSR on the root-medium pH. For NS-5 and NS-6, concentration of N-P-K
was maintained at a constant 125N-20P—125K, but % NH4-N, Ca”, Mg”, and 804-8

was varied. NS-5 was a WSF made from Ca(N03)2, Mg(NO3)2, KNOa, and KH2P04

46

that contained 5% NH4-N, with 67 Ca”, 30 Mg”, and 0 804-8 (mg-L") mixed with
well water that had a pH of 7.8, an EC of 0.6 dS-m“, concentrations of Ca”, Mg”,
and Na” similar to that of the well water in NS-1, and a titratable alkalinity to pH 4.5
of 320 mg CaCanL". NS-6 was a WSF made from NH4N03, urea, KNOa, K2804,
and NH4H2PO4 that contained 50% NH4-N with 0 Ca”, 0 Mg”, and 27 804-8
(mg-L") mixed with R0 puriﬁed well water that had a pH 5.5, an EC of 0.1 dS-m",
and concentrations of 15 Ca”, 5 Mg”, 27 Na’, and 1 804-8 (mg-L“), and a
titratable alkalinity to pH 4.5 with <20 mg CaCOacL".

Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B, and Mo) were added to all NS with a
commercially available blended chelated material [Compound 11 1 (1 .50Fe-0.12Mn-
0.082n-0.11Cu-0.23B-0.11Mo) Scotts, Marysville, Ohio] at a constant 50 mg-L".
This rate is higher than usually incorporated in preblended WSF used at a rate of
125 mg N-L". Typically, when WSF rates are diluted or concentrated, micronutrient
levels are simultaneously diminished or elevated, respectively. However, in an
attempt to eliminate potential trace element deﬁciencies with low FC or toxicities
with high FC, micronutrient levels were maintained constant for all NS.

Inigation. The eight plants in each treatment were irrigated at the same time
independent of other treatments. Time for irrigation was determined gravimetrically
when four or more of eight pots within a single treatment reached a target weight
of 500 9, based on predetermined weight of the pot, plant, and medium. Pots were
checked daily for target weight at which point 250 ml was applied by top watering.

Plant culture. During Oct.1, 1997 to June 1, 1998 each species was forced

into ﬂower at different times, based on forcing schedules developed at Michigan

47

State University (MSU), E. Lansing, MI. The species studied were received from
commercial growers, and upon arrival were given the appropriate species-speciﬁc
cold treatment (Morrison and Biembaum, 1999) recommended by MSU herbaceous
perennial research. After cold treatment, 96 plants of each species plus
approximately 16 plants for guard rows were transplanted into 14-cm (1.5 L) square
plastic containers, containing one of the three medium formulated at MSU. Eight
pots in each treatment were placed on water-catcher trays (Landmark Plastic,
Akron, OH), providing a non-leaching system. The greenhouse heating and cooling
setpoints were 20 °C and 23 °C. Supplemental lighting was provided with high
pressure sodium lamps (HPS) from 0700 to 2200 HR at :90 umol-m'Z-s" at plant
level, in two glass greenhouse sections at MSU in East Lansing, MI. Due to the sun
sensitivity of Hosta, a 50% aluminum shade cloth (LS Americas, Charlotte, NC)
covered the plants during production.

Data collection and presentation. Shoot fresh and dry weight were
determined when majority of all treatments for a particular species were in ﬂower.
Root-medium pH and EC were monitored every three weeks and at the end of
experiment by a 1:2 dilution method. Samples were removed from the lower half
of the pot, and consisted of approximately 25 ml per pot from four of the eight pots
per treatment. Replication for the ﬁnal samples was made by sampling from both
sets of four pots per treatment. Nutrient content in the root medium from the
standard treatment of each species was tested using SME method with R0 puriﬁed

water as extractant.

48

Leaf tissue samples were collected at ﬂower and analyzed for the six NS.
Each sample came from four plants within a treatment, providing 2 samples for each
of the six treatments. Mature leaves were collected from the upper part of the plant
at ﬂower. Usually leaf samples are collected prior to anthesis, however this was not
considered feasible since ﬂowering and plant size data were collected from the
same plant. Leaf samples were washed in 0.1 N HCI for 1 minute and rinsed in R0
puriﬁed water for 1 minute prior to drying at 60 °C in a forced air drying oven. Dried
samples were ground and sent to a commercial plant testing laboratory (MicroMacro
lnc., Athens, GA), where they were analyzed for nitrogen after Kjehldahl digestion
and for other nutrients by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry. In addition, a
sample, from the whole above ground biomass used for dry weights, was combined
and ground for nutrient analysis from the standard treatment only.

Recommended tissue analysis guidelines, consisting of minimum and
maximum critical levels and standard desired levels or sufﬁciency ranges, based
on a wide range of ﬂoriculture crops, are incorporated into Figures 1A-E and 2A-E

(Hanan, 1998, Reed, 1996, and Nelson, 1998).

Results and Discussion

Whole shoot growth. At ﬂowering, all plants appeared healthy and were of
marketable quality and size. Plant growth and ﬂowering results are reported in
Morrison and Biembaum (1999). Shoot dry weights ranged from 4.3 g for
Hemerocallis to 26.1 g for Rudbeckia (Table 1). The standard FC had the greatest

dry weight, while both low and high FC overall mean decreased by 16% and 15%,

49

respectively, and minimal differences were observed with low P and NSR
treatments. Overall differences in percent dry weight for all treatments was minimal.
There were no obvious signs of nutrient deﬁciencies or toxicities for most species,

the exception being Rudbeckia and Hibiscus.

Media analysis. The ﬁnal root-medium pH averaged over 15 species was
similar for low P, low FC, standard, and ANS, 5.61, 5.73, 5.74, and 6.03,
respectively. High FC pH decreased to 5.25 and BNS pH increased to 7.03, both
out of target range, 5.8 to 6.2 (Wamcke and Krauskopf, 1983). Soluble salt levels
at ﬂower increased with increasing fertilizer 0.99, 1.30, and 1.74 dS-m",
respectively, and decreased with both ANS and BNS, 1.08 and 0.90 dS-m“. Low
P EC was similar to the standard, 1.31 dS-m“. The target range for EC values from
a 1:2 dilution method is 0.5 to 0.99 dS-m‘1 (Wamcke, 1990). Further, values
between 1.00 to 1.49 dS-m‘1 are considered higher than desired, but reduced
growth is typically observed at values of 1.50 to 1.99 dS-m".

Macronutrient tissue analysis. Averaged over all species, the six NS
produced a range of values for each macronutrient that varied by 5.0.5, 1.0, or 21.5
% for P and Mg”, N and Ca”, or K, respectively.

Nitrogen values were consistently between 5.0 to 6.0%, even for the PC at
31 mg N-L'1 (Figure 1A). Argo and Biembaum (1997a) found N tissue
concentrations in Impatiens higher with increasing NH4-NzN03-N at a fertilizer rate

of 200 mg-L'1 N after four weeks, accompanied by a decreasing media pH. In this

50

 

experiment, the ratio of NH4-N:N03-N had minimal effect on shoot dry weight and
tissue N (Figure 1A).

Nitrogen levels were higher than expected and expressed little to no
differences among all treatments. In comparison, Mills and Jones (1996) had N
levels for the 15 herbaceous perennials ranging from 1.3 to 3.7% for mature leaves
from new growth. Their samples were from container production in the nursery or
from botanical gardens or arboretums. One explanation for the high levels of N
could be attributed to the age of the tissue sample, which were taken at ﬂower or
shortly after from mature leaves. At this stage of growth, nitrogen may have
accumulated to higher levels than normally found in recently mature leaves.
Differences in N concentration that may have inﬂuenced plant size early in
development, may have disappeared once ﬁnal plant size was determined by ﬂower
bud initiation. Dole and Wilkins (1991) found N concentrations highest in upper
leaves of vegetative poinsettia (Euphorbia pulchem’ma Willd. ‘Gutbier V-14 Glory’)
plants consistently at 3, 6, and 9 weeks, and also found the highest N concentration
values from the ﬁrst ﬁve apical leaves per plant at 6 weeks with only a 0.1%
decrease in the tissue of an older plant sampled 3 weeks later.

Phosphorus values ranged from 0.2 to 1.2%, approximately a 6 fold
difference (Figure 1B), and showed the most differences of all macronutrients and
micronutrients for the comparison of low P and the standard treatment. P
concentrations increased and minimally decreased with ANS and BNS, respectively,
where the pH of the latter treatment increased to a mean of 7.1. Our results are

similar to Argo and Biembaum (1996). where as the pH increased, levels of

51

available water-soluble P in the root medium decreased, but the effect on shoot
tissue concentration was minimal until the pH increased above 7.6.

Many P values were between 0.2 and 0.4%. Based on experience with many
greenhouse ﬂower crops P deﬁciency symptoms are unlikely until 0.2% or below.
Phosphorus deﬁcient symptoms or tissue levels (<0.2 %) were not observed.
During the course of the experiment, a unlabeled P component in the commercially
available micronutrient blend was revealed in a nutrient analysis, and led to the
overall P delivery to root zone of 8 mg-L’1 P and not the intended 0 mg-L'1 P. The
corrected P values for the FC nutrient solutions would be 11, 20, and 32 mg-L'1 P
as opposed to the intended concentration of 3, 12, and 24 mg-L'1 P. Minimal
differences may also be due to the preplant P incorporated in the medium and the
zero level of leaching. Since Hemerocallis, Heuchera, Hosta, and Rudbeckia
maintained P levels near the critical minimum, 0.2 %, and all species lacked
deﬁciency symptoms, possibly low levels of P fertilization (20 mg-L") could be
suggested for herbaceous perennial production with minimal leaching methods,
provided root medium was initially amended with at least 0.3 kg-m’3 (0.5 lb-yd'a)
triple superphosphate (0N-19.8P—0K).

Potassium values ranged from 1.5 to 8.8% depending on species and NS,
approximately a 6 fold difference (Figure 10). Potassium differences between
species were greater than the differences between FC. The desired range for K in
ﬂoricultural crops is 3.5 to 5.0 %. A few species consistently had K values below
3.0%, but showed no apparent deﬁciency symptoms. Coreopsis verticillata and

Heuchera ranged from 1.7 to 2.0 % and 1.5 to 2.5 % K, respectively. Other species

52

tended to accumulate higher concentrations of K than the maximum critical,
particularly Leucanthemum, which accumulated from 6.9 to 8.8%, and Gail/ardia,
from 5.5 to 8.5%. With such a range across 15 species, adjustments to the typical
desired K range may need to be deﬁned by plant species.

Calcium and Mg” ranged from 0.5 to 5.0% and from 0.3 to 1.8%,
respectively, with a 10 and 6 fold range, respectively (Figure 1D-E). Several
species had higher Mg” values than the recommended desired range (>0.7%).
Mg” levels in MSU water, 30 mg-L", can lead to problems particularly when not
leached. Usually the container root medium is leached once a month to remove Mg
or to prevent antagonism with Fe and Mn. The elevated tissue Mg levels, however,
appeared to not cause any obvious nutrient problems.

In a majority of the species, Mg” concentrations declined as FC increased
from low to high, particularly for Echinacea where Mg” concentrations decreased
from 1.8 to 1.0 %. Our results agree with Lang and Pannkuk (1998) who noted
Mg” values were signiﬁcantly higher in New Guinea impatiens irrigated with low
concentrations of N-P-K in a minimal leaching system. Calcium showed no
consistent differences with varying FC. At low nutrient concentrations ion
absorption is very selective and little interference is encountered, unlike at higher
nutrient concentrations where ion absorption is competitive (Barker and Mills 1980).
Decreased Ca” concentrations in the foliar tissue could be contributed to similar
cation competition at the higher fertilizer rates. Plant uptake of Ca” and Mg” can
be depressed by applications of high concentrations of other major cations, such

as NH.+ and K+ (Marschner, 1995).

53

At our standard fertilizer rate, 125 mg-L'1 N, but lower % NH4-N and higher
Ca” and Mg” levels, the BNS treatment, Ca” and Mg” values increased slightly.
Argo and Biembaum (1996) reported that as applied concentrations of nutrient
solutions increased from 18 to 210 mg-L'1 Ca” and 7 to 90 mg-L'1 Mg”, Impatiens
tissue Ca” and Mg” increased linearly by 1.4 and 0.4%, respectively, after 12
weeks growth in a medium amended with hydrated lime. The NSR was designed
to produce an acidic, neutral, and basic reaction in the root medium based on water-
soluble fertilizer and irrigation water source. Nutrient solubility and uptake are
inﬂuenced by pH management (Peterson, 1981). In media containing hydrated
lime, the NS was found to control the root-medium pH after four weeks (Argo and
Biembaum, 1997). Argo and Biembaum (1996) concluded that Ca” availability was
not reduced by low pH in peat-based media, but a lack of Ca” applied to the root
medium did reduce uptake. In this study, generally, the lower the Ca” and Mg”
concentration applied with NS, the lower was the tissue Ca” and Mg” values.

Differences in NS SO4-S concentrations, ranging from 0 to 91 mg-L'1 SO4-S,
had no effect on foliar tissue S values.

Micmnutrient tissue analysis. The ranges of Fe, Mn, Zn, B, and Cu
concentration over all treatments were 33 to 1515, 40 to 483, 21 to 244, 16 to 205,
and 1 to 10 ug-g", respectively (Figure 2A-E). A few species had signiﬁcant
accumulations of certain trace elements outside of normal acceptable ranges. At
low FC, Echinacea, Hibiscus, and Rudbeckia accumulated B, Zn, and Fe,
respectively, at the following values, 205, 244, and 1516 ugog“ dry weight,

respectively. Boron and Mo induced foliartoxicity on seed geranium at tissue levels

54

of 337 ug-g'1 B and 485 ug-g’1 Mo (Lee et al, 1996), whereas acute B toxicity
developed on begonia (Begonia xhiemalis Fotsch) at tissue concentrations of 125
to 258 pig-g" B (Elliot and Nelson, 1981). At lower root-medium pH, foliar tissue
from Impatiens tended to accumulate higher amounts of trace elements except for
Cu and Mo (Biembaum and Argo, 1995). Iron and Zn levels were generally higher
in Hibiscus, whereas Lavandula had higher levels of Fe and Mn, and Rudbeckia
had higher levels of Fe. Accumulation of trace elements could lead to potential
problems if plant material is maintained for an extended period of time. Conversely,
Cu levels consistently were below recommended lower desired range of 10 #9'9'1
without deﬁciency symptoms. Many greenhouse tissue samples reviewed over the
past years have been between 1 and 10 rig-g“, so the critical levels may need
adjustment. Lower levels are acceptable, yet need to be considered as a warning
to not go too low, or problems will likely occur.

Some herbaceous perennials had Fe and Mn values considered to be
deﬁcient, while other species accumulated levels assumed toxic. The Fe values
between standard and low P for Hibiscus doubled from 596 to 1174 149-9" (Fig 2A),
respectively, and root-medium pH decreased from 6.2 to 5.7, respectively. For most
species, ANS consistently increased Fe, Mn, Zn, B, and Cu concentration in leaf
tissue, yet the magnitude of the increase and its signiﬁcance was strictly species-
speciﬁc. Differences in root-medium pH would be expected to have the greatest
effect on Fe and Mn. Higher Fe and Mn tissue levels in marigolds and seed
geraniums have been attributed to low root-medium pH (Biembaum et al, 1988) or

to increasing concentrations of applied Fe in the root medium (Albano et al, 1996;

55

Lee et al, 1996). With Rudbeckia, when the root-medium pH fell below 5.5, Fe
reached levels associated with toxicity, above 500 pig-g". Leaf size was reduced
and leaf color was dark green with purplish tissue on the underside of the foliage.

In seed geraniums Lee et al. (1996) noted reduced leaf size and production of
purplish-black spots on some leaves at tissue levels of 951 ug-g" Fe. In a
treatment not reported here, the root medium of Rudbeckia was drenched with an
acidic solution, and Fe levels reached 2918 rig-g" at a pH of 4.6. Growth was
inhibited, possibly due to application method, but the foliage still developed purplish
tissue, which eventually led to necrosis of older foliar tissue. In a follow up study,
Rudbeckia were grown with different liming rates and sources, 1.5 kg-m'3 (2.5
lb-yd'3) of hydrated lime and 12 kg-m‘3 (20.0 lboyd‘3) of carbonated lime. Fe, Mn and
Zn values were 1737, 363, and 118 ug-g", or 397, 182, and 72 149-9", for the low
and high lime treatment, respectively. Plant appearance at the high lime rate was
lush with fully expanded leaves and lacked purplish blemishes, unlike the low lime
rate which developed small and brittle leaves with purplish tissue on older leaves.
A standard recommendation for the prevention of iron toxicity in Rudbeckia is to
maintain a root-medium pH of 6.0 or above.

Hibiscus developed periodic marginal white leaf tissue and leaf crinkling on
new growth regardless of nutrient solutions at 20 °C with HPS lamps on a bright
sunny day immediately following a few days of Michigan winter cloudy weather.
The cause of this symptom is unclear. In a separate study at temperatures of 23
°C or greater with similar light conditions, no marginal white tissue developed.

Based on previous MSU studies with Hibiscus, we recommend 23 °C for a minimum

56

temperature to force (Wang et al. 1998). From tissue samples taken at 20, 23, 26,
and 29 °C with HPS lamps, Ca and Fe values decreased with decreasing
temperatures. Also, at 23 °C in a comparison between HPS lamps and no lamps,
Ca values slightly increased and Fe levels decreased from 761 to 342 ,ug-g",
respectively. Marginal white leaf tissue was analyzed separately from the interior
green leaf blade of the same leaf, and found Fe values were similar at 154 and 187
ug-g", respectively. The symptoms would remain for a 24 to 48 hour period
depending on light levels, and then margins would green up, but never to the extent
of the unaffected interior portion of the leaf blade. The leaf distortion damage to the
tissue, as a result of inhibiting expansive growth, was temporary and did not reduce
plant quality. Furthermore, regardless of the temperature, an interveinal chlorosis
developed occasionally during production more commonly at higher temperatures.
Comparing green leaves to interveinal chlorotic leaves, Fe and Mn levels were
lower in interveinal chlorosis leaf tissue, 90 and 43 rig-g“, respectively (based on
one sample). Hibiscus had higher Fe, Mn, and Zn levels in general compared to
other herbaceous perennials in this study. Desired values may need to be
evaluated further for this species.

Whole shoot tissue analysis. Whole shoot tissue analysis for the standard
treatment is found in Table 1. Total plant nutrient concentrations were normally
less than foliar concentrations, except for P. Most species had similar or higher P
values. Macronutrient, N, P, K, Ca, and Mg, mean values for whole shoot
concentration between all ﬁfteen species were 5.3, 0.5, 3.8, 1.2, and 0.5 %.

Micronutrient, Fe, Mn, Zn, B, and Cu, mean values were 141, 92, 57, 35, and 5

57

ug-g" dry weight. Typically, whole shoot tissue values are not recommended to
evaluate the nutrient status of a crop. However, the combination of the dry weight
and tissue concentrations could be used as an estimate of the above ground
biomass nutrient removal per pot during production. This information is useful for
estimating fertilizer requirement in non-leaching systems. The estimation would not
account for root mass and root nutrient content, which must be considered to
calculate total nutrient removal from the medium.

Critical levels have not been ﬁrmly established for every element for standard
ﬂoriculture crops, and could be quite different for herbaceous perennials. Minimum
critical levels usually indicate a need for additional fertilizer or a possible growth
limiting situation, but would likely vary depending on plant species. Maximum
critical levels usually indicate over fertilization, and possible accumulation of some
elements, like Fe, Mn, Zn, and B, to toxic levels, which could lead to growth
reductions. Potassium can accumulate as much as 10% dry matter without
detrimental effects, otherthan possibly inducing deﬁciencies of other elements such
as Ca” and Mg”. Hibiscus, Rudbeckia, and Sedum appeared to contain higher
than normal concentrations of Ca” and Mg”. Calcium and Mg” are not expected
to be toxic, but can lead to induced deﬁciencies of other elements, particularly Fe
and Mn if Mg” is in excess.

Most tissue samples are taken from the most recently mature leaves on new
growth. In this experiment due to the constraints of collecting ﬂowering data, the
tissue samples were not collected until ﬂowering or shortly after on the most

recently mature leave. All plants were treated consistently so no differences

58

between species would be attributed to different sampling times. In most cases the
plants were not showing any damage or signs of loss of color. Based on these
results, we can determine how certain species have the potential to accumulate
particular nutrients, in general, over other herbaceous perennial species, or with
certain NS regimes during production in a greenhouse. We would recommend
collecting leaf samples earlier in future studies, perhaps at ﬁrst visible bud. Also,
due to the constraints of collecting growth and development data, only two tissue
samples per treatment per species were able to be taken, but at least three are
recommended in future experiments.

In general, nutrient values of many species did not conform to published
desired ranges for ﬂoriculture crops, nevertheless all species produced healthy
plants. Some of the factors affecting plant nutrient concentrations are elemental
concentration in medium, capacity of medium to supply nutrients, moisture level of
medium, total solution concentration, aeration, temperature, plant age, part of plant
sampled, plant species and cultivar, transpiration, nutrient interactions, and nutrient
sources (Hanan, 1998). Altering any one of the above can contribute to a difference
in the breadth of sufﬁciency ranges for a particular element. In a controlled
environment the main factors to consider are plant age, part of plant sampled, and
plant species. Nutrient solution concentration or reaction would have the most
effect on nutrient levels in leaf tissue in a greenhouse, if all other sampling factors
were treated as consistently as feasible.

Literally hundreds of herbaceous perennials are available for greenhouse

forcing and pot culture. We believe a screening method that provides a range of

59

 

fertilizer concentrations and nutrient solutions similar to the ones used in this study
will help establish critical nutrient ranges. However, due to the close proximity of
an elemental range for a species, it is difﬁcult to suggest a protocol for evaluation
of the six nutrient solutions on nutrient concentration. In future experiments,
samples should be collected earlier to evaluate nutrient levels, particularly N, at
visible bud or prior to ﬁrst open ﬂower. Also, establishing a lower fertilizer
concentration or altering the root medium nutrient charge would be useful to

evaluate low N and P levels.

60

Literature Cited

Albano, J P, W B Miller, and M C Halbrooks. 1996. Iron Toxicity Stress Causes
Bronze Speckle, a Speciﬁc Physiological Disorder of Marigold (Tagetes
erecta L.). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121 (3)2430-437.

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1997. The Effect of Root Media on Root Zone pH,
Calcium, and Magnesium Management in Containers with Impatiens. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122(3):275-284.

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1997a. Lime, water source, and fertilizer nitrogen
form affect medium pH and nitrogen accumulation and uptake. HortScience
32(1):72-74.

Argo, W R, and J A Biembaum. 1996. The Effect of Lime, Irrigation-water Source,
and Water-soluble Fertilizer on Root-zone pH, Electrical Conductivity, and
Macronutrient Management of Container Root Media with Impatiens. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(3):442-452.

Argo, W R. 1996. Root-Zone pH, Calcium, and Magnesium Management in Peat-
Based Container Media. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michigan State Univ., East
Lansing.

Biembaum, J A and W R Argo. 1995. Effect of Root Media pH on Impatiens Shoot
Micronutrient Concentrations. HortScience 3(4):858 (Abstract).

Biembaum, J A. 1992. Root-zone Management of Greenhouse Container-grown
Crops to Control Water and Fertilizer Use. HortTech 2(1):127-132.

Biembaum, J A, C A Shoemaker, W H Carlson, and R Heins. 1988. Low pH
Causes Iron and Manganese Toxicity. Greenhouse Growers 6(3):92—97.

Barker, A V and H A Mills. 1980. Ammonium and nitrate nutrition of horticultural
crops. Hort. Rev. 2:395-423.

Bunt, A C. 1988. Media and Mixes for Container-grown Plants. Unwin Hyman,
London.

Chapin, F S. 1980. The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
11:233-260.

Dole, J M and H F Wilkins. 1991. Relationship Between Nodal Position and Plant
Age on the Nutrient Compostion of Vegetative Poinsettia Leaves. J. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 116(2):248-252.

61

 

Elliott, G C and P V Nelson. 1981. Acute Boron Toxicity in Begonia xhiemalis
’Schwabenland Red’. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Annu. 12(8):775-783.

Hanan J J. 1998. Greenhouses: Advanced Technology for Protected Horticulture.
CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.

Joiner, J N, R T Poole, and C A Conover. 1983. Nutrition and Fertilization of
Ornamental Greenhouse Crops. Hort Reviews. 5:317-403.

Lang, H J and T R Pannkuk. 1998. Effects of Fertilizer Concentration and Minimum-
leach Drip Irrigation on the Growth of New Guinea Impatiens. HortScience
33(4):683-688.

Lee, C W, J M Choi, and C H Pak. 1996. Micronutrient Toxicity in Seed Geranium
(Pelargonium xhortorum Bailey). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(1):77-82.

Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. 2"d ed. Academic, London.

Mills, H A and J B Jones. 1996. Plant Analysis Handbook ll. Micromacro Publishing.
Athens, GA.

Morrison, MS and J A Biembaum. 1999. Root-zone Management of Container-
grown Herbaceous Perennials. Master of Science Thesis. Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI.

Nelson, P V. 1998. Greenhouse Operations and Management. 5”1 ed. Prentice Hall,
Englewood NJ.

Peterson, J C. 1981. Modify your pH perspective. Florist’s Rev. 169(4386):34-
35,92-93. .

Puustjarvi, V and R A Robertson. 1975. Physical and Chemical Properties. p. 23-
28. In: D W Robinson and J G D Lamb (eds). Peat in Horticulture.
Academia, London.

Reed, D W. 1996. Water, Media, and Nutrition for Greenhouse Crops. Ball
Publishing, Batavia, IL.

Wang, Shi-Ying, R D Heins, W H Carlson, and A C Cameron. 1998. Forcing

Perennials- Crop by Crop: Hibiscus moscheutos ‘Disco Belle Mixed’.
Greenhouse Grower. 16 (2)229-33.

62

 

Wamcke, D D. 1990. Testing Artiﬁcial Growth Media and Interpreting the Results.
In Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. R L Westennan, ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.
No. 3 Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, WI.

Wamcke, D D. 1986. Analyzing Greenhouse Growth Media by the Saturation
Extraction Method. HortScience 21:223-225.

Wamcke, D D and D Krauskopf. 1983. Greenhouse Media: Testing and Nutrition
Guidelines. Michigan State Univ. Ext. Bul. E-1736.

Yelanich, M V and J A Biembaum. 1993. Root-medium Nutrient Concentration and

Growth of Poinsettia at Three Fertilizer Concentrations and Four Leaching
Fractions. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1 18(6):223-225.

63

 

 

 

 

 

30.. :E8:<. 09.0 .I

 

 

 

 

N N: N: E NN Nd N.N «N ..o N.N N...NN E880
. . . . .85 €259 85

N :N N NN NN N: N: N N N o v N t : 8.68:8 82:80
. . . 28:0 85. .390

N .N NN N: NN N: 3 3 N o N N N v 3.8:. x «3:0
. . . 528.8. .5.

N 2. 5 .N. NFN N.N N.N o... v o e N 2 NN 8.9:. 838:3.

. . . . 5:60

N NN NN NN NN N: ..N N N v o N N N N. 8:885: 8.89::
. . . . . .30 26:0. 880:. .N .8 55900

N .N x: 8 NN Do N N N N N o N N 2 : 5:083: x 5:85:88:
. . . . . . 828:2. ..___2

v .N NN N: N. N N F F N N v o N N R N 888:8: 3:883
. . . . .9888 32:95. .__Nm .1 .._

N NN NN N N: to ..N P N N o N N NN : 2.8.: N 250 38:
. . . . .25? 2.8 8.5. .._

N N NN NS NNN N: 5 N N N N N N : NN 83:88.: 88.5.:
. . . . 2.2:. 5.85

N :N 3 NN N: N: N: N N v o N N 8 N 85:88 8:88:
. . . .90 8 «=20. ...

N 3. NN NN E N: N: NN N o N N NN 4 8.89.8:
. . . . .538. 25:: 8>

N 3. N: 8 NN N: N; o N N o N N NN t 8.85: x 822.50
. . . . . .8882. 8822 30

v N: NN NN NN Do N N N v N o N N NN t 838:: 88:28.
. . . . .5828; .._
. . . . 38:30. .830 .6 moo:

. NN NN NN NN. N: E N v N o e N NN N. 88.88: 8828

II... can...) ﬁt :99: I E .03 v 5 q
:o N m c: on. In: 8 x a z Ewe; 8.3:...
a
855::
.85...

£90 Eek 0.9:: 3.39:3 eco «conﬁne: Sec 2.3.... 9:082:32: 29: No :35 05 «coach! 8a: 392: to 6:02:53
0:333: 93:5. 66:: E595 22.222. 2633.2. 0.. No 23»: Sega 0.2.3 Ea... £203 to :5 Ion-ID 205:2 ... snub

Fig 1A-E. Effect of fertilizer concentrations and N form on foliartissue macronutrient
concentrations of 15 herbaceous perennials forced into ﬂower in a
greenhouse. Low phosphorus (O), fertilizer concentrations (El and I), and
nutrient-solution reaction (V and V) were compared to standard ( O).
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Tissue data represent the mean of two samples, each
sample represents four plants. Vertical dotted lines ( ---------- ) indicate the
recommended desired range and the dashed lines (--) indicate the minimum
and maximum critical values. *,**,*** Signiﬁcant at P $0.05, 0.01, or 0.001,
respectively.

65

Figure 1A—E.

 

 

C. grandiﬂora -
C. verticillata
Echinacea .
Gaiilardia ~
Hemerocallis .
Heuchera -
Hibiscus -
Hosta -
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum:
Perovskia -
Rudbeckia 4
Salvia :
Scabiosa 4
Sedum .

 

 

 

 

 

9%
0<1

 

C. veniciilata 4
Echinacea
Gailiardia .
Hemerocallis -
Heuchera .
Hibiscus -
Hosta -
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum I
Perovskia . I
Rudbeckia -
Salvia .
Scabiosa .
Sedum I

C. grandiﬂom . 3|
|

 

_ —-_———_————

Phosphorus -

l

l

L l l L l l

 

 

 

.0
.0 0

O.

.0 0
O.

 

0.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

 

C. grandiﬂora ~
C. verticiliata -
Echinacea ..
Gail/ardia -
Hemerocallis -
Heuchera -
Hibiscus -
Hosta _
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum .
Perovskia .
Rudbeckia -

Scabiosa _
Sedum .

 

Potassium -

lllLlyLllJllll

 

 

0.

 

 

I

I

I

, I
Salwa - I
I

2

1

66

 

 

 

Figure 1A-E. (cont’d)

 

 

C. grandiﬂora l
C. verticillata i
Echinacea ~
Gailiardia q
Hemerocallis -
Heuchera 7
Hibiscus «
Hosta -
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum .
Perovskia «
Rudbeckia .
Salvia -
Scabiosa -
Sedum :

 

Calcium .

 

 

0..

 

 

 

0

01
O)

 

C. grandiﬂora .
C. verticillata -
Echinacea —
Gaillardia .
Hemerocallis -
Heuchera .
Hibiscus .
Hosta -
Lavandula .
Leucanthemum -
Perovskia -
Rudbeckia -
Salvia -
Scabiosa -
Sedum .

 

lllLLllLll

l

1

 

 

ﬁt

 

‘0

 

 

0

%

67

N .. ————————_——

_— m. ‘

 

Fig 2A-E. Effect of fertilizer concentrations and N form on foliar tissue micronutrient
concentrations of 15 herbaceous perennials forced into ﬂower in a
greenhouse. Low phosphorus (O), fertilizer concentrations (D and I), and
nutrient-solution reaction (V and V) were compared to standard ( O).
Hollowed symbols represent low treatments and ﬁlled symbols represent
high treatments. Tissue data represent the mean of two samples, each
sample represents four plants. Vertical dotted lines ( --------- ) indicate the
recommended desired range and the dashed lines (--) indicate the minimum
and maximum critical values. *,**,*** signiﬁcant at P 50.05, 0.01, or 0.001,
respectively.

68

 

Figure ZA-E. 00 C-

 

C. grandiﬂora -
C. verticiliata -
Echinacea -
Gaillardia .
Hemerocallis ..
Heuchera ~
Hibiscus .
Hosta .
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum _
Perovskia J
Rudbeckia -
Salvia _
Scabiosa -
Sedum .

 

’8'.

57

q

t.

II:

'V
'V
2'...
I

.: I] Iron .

"' .0
-:
V

|
|
|
|
|
I V ll 0 O V
|
|
I
|

 

 

 

O.

00

 

0

200 400 600 800 1000 120014001600

 

C. grandiﬂora -+
C. verticillata "l
Echinacea -
Gal/lardia +
Hemerocallis N
Heuchera «
Hibiscus I
Hosta 4
Lavandula -
Leucanthemum -
Perovskia -
Rudbeckia -
Salvia -
Scabiosa N
Sedum -

 

V .0 _ Maqgancce+
(I O C] v | .

L l l
O

-‘ 0‘

 

 

I
I.
|
|
V DO. OI -
|
I
|
l
1

 

 

0

1 00 200 300 400 500 600

 

C. grandiﬂora ~
C. verticillata -
Echinacea -
Gail/ardia -
Hemerocallis ~
Heuchera -
Hibiscus -
Hosta -
Lavandula I
Leucanthemum 'l
Perovskia -
Rudbeckia -
Salvia -
Scabiosa —
Sedum -

 

 

 

 

 

0

50 100 150 200 250 300
um.“

69

 

 

Figure 2A-E. (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OI E! W
C. grandiﬂora ~ D V .1 3"“ ‘
c. verticillata - l o no I | - . ..
Echinacea « | I I v I 1) 0 lo - N ..
Gaillardia - I ; a E] ; I -
Hemerocallis 4 - Q ' t -
Heuchera - I'm : I -
Hibiscus 'I I . a 0' g I « .
HOSta -l w. . | .4
Lavandula - : .37 : I . ..
Leucanthemum 1 g. a ; . u .
Perovskia ~ ; ; I .
Rudbeckia - | . v IQ .0 | - u
Salvia - I (I!) . ' -
Scabiosa — : q. : _
Sedum J I ‘ I .09 y I
0 50 100 150 209/ 250
C. grandiﬂora - E G v . COPPOIT - .
C. verticillata - v 00. ‘ ‘ - .
Echinacea - V .30 | v -
Gail/ardia - v OCP' -
Hemerocallis - D I QII - . .
Heuchera - ICJI -
Hibiscus : V (II v I - .
Hosta - m | -
Lavandula ~ m I '—
Leucanthemum - I (137 I . - u
Perovskia -l v I v C]: I :.
Rudbeckia « v I00 I D j- .
Salvia - Clv I) :- .
Scabiosa ~ v v .. .
Sedum '- CD v -
l l / l l
o 5 1o ’ ’ 20
urg‘

70

 

 

APPENDIX

71

5.9888. ..NN... .....N .8... v n. ... 58:5...» 5 5858.962 ... .. .Nz

 

 

 

 

8:585:85... 8:...»

N2 . N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 8:85.53

N.N N... N.N 8N .....N N.N. N.N: N N.NN N .N 535522 N.NN

N.. N.N N.N NN.N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N NN 0.... 8.3.2 N.NN

N.. N.N N.N NN.N N.NN N.N N.NN N N.NN . .N ...... 893.2 ....N
8.5.8 522:2

N2 N2 . N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 858585

N.NAI:

N.. N.N N.N NN.N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N 8 N.Nv..:VN.N

N.N N.N N.N NN.N ..NN N.N. N.NN N N.NN . NN N.Nvﬁ
20:05 2:

N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 858.85

N.. N.N N.N 8N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N NN xNN.-:N..zNN.

... N.N N.N NN.N ..NN N.N N.NN N N.NN . NN v.NN.-..N.zNN.
.52.. NN.... n. 56..

338330.583. N05;

: .. N2 N2 N2 N2 8:8:_:N.N

N.. N... N.. NN.N onN-....N-zoNN

N.. N.N N.N 8N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N NN xNN.-:N.-zNN.

N... ...N N... NN.N N.NN N.N N.NN N ...... . NN V..N-..N-2.N
.55.. so: NN....

Nz . N2 N2 N2 N2 . 8:82:9N

N.. N.N N.N NN.N N.NN .... N.N N N. .N N NN N.NN

N.. N.N N.N 8N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N NN 25258:

N. N.N N.N NN.N .....N ...N N.NN N N.NN . N: .8:
«=32

8:585:85... 8:2.

.. .. N2 N2 N2 N2 888586

... N.N ... NN... N.NN N.N. N.NN N N.NN . .N 8 ....NNA

N.. N.N N.N 8N N.NN N.N N.NN N ..NN N NN 00 ...:NA

N.. N.N N.N N... N.NN ..N N.N N N.NN N 3 oo .88
.25.. 2:502
cu ﬂ IIg .... .83.... - 5......» _ a. a. 802 «:4... 34.4.2 .22.“. 5.5.8::

52...... 52.8: 2 3.92 ......s to: 52.2. 2.2:... .2... 5...... 83o... o. 2...:
.8... .2... .80. 8.2.9. ...: .85 :8... .85 5a...
.53

 

...... 60:09:. £53.33... 53...... 2:235:38...» 6.2.2.2...
0052‘ 3 05:02.0: 0:: £30.... :0 :0 52002.30. 0:: 62.8.5300 .0525 $532.26 .32.. .0 30>! 05020:. 30.2050 0:08.00. 32...... 3 .0030 0:... .w 03:...

72

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 81 N APPLIED
21007.! _.-__.A_.._ g
I- ' ‘ =r‘
0 75%. ##—
3 -
50% _°
1: >
3 25%
0% 4 5 6 7 a 9’10‘11 12
Treatments Evan“ INitmoen
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
10° * -.. . _ . as
°°.,'-iI H II E. -.m
g, 60, ‘ ‘ I; m ‘ ‘ 35
3 4o ' H ‘ 5 1‘
20 - j ‘ g”
o l ‘ l _ . i . . L 15
123456789101112
Treatments 10
[:3 Days to Vbe. Bud I Day. to PM T
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
E 3 #"—'——i— 380 29
'5 E60 I II I15 3'
S .9 . ‘ I‘r g
l! O —
6 g 40 hm E
5 £20 5 E‘
3 IE lo o
g ‘- : ~ 01234515739101":
.. 6 7 8 9101112 Treatments
Treatments . th might- CI Dry weight:
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
1o - ._77--
A40 I T—"ﬂ—VM_ . .
£2”. 3 ‘.
é“) . 5 2 ‘
0‘12'3456789101112 o 2 789101112
Treatments 4Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Astilbe chinensis. The standard (1)
root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, Swat); b) porosity of
media components (4=peat 5= bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L" N 7=250 mgoL ‘ N); d)
phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5. 5, 10=pH>6. 5); and f) nutrient-solution
reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL" , 12=50% NH‘-Nl20 mg CaCO3 -L" ).

73

.5508... ..8... .5... .8... v .. .. 58:50.... .0 58:59.82 .. .Nz

 

 

 

 

 

Nz.:. ...: .... I. ._ .358:0..8::. 35.... .l.

.. .. N2 N2 N2 N2 8:8...:.._N

N... ...N N... NN.N N.N. N... N.NN N. N... NN N. ....<NN.$.2 ......N

N... N.N N... NN. N.N. N.N N.N. N. N.N. ..N NN ...2 8:32 ..NN

N... N.N N... NN.N N.N. N.N ..N. N. ..N NN NN x... ..NN..iz ....N
8.5.8 .:......2

N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 88:80

N... N.N N... NN.N . N.N. N... N.NN N. N... NN «N NN....

N... N.N N... NN. N.N. N.N N.N. N. ...... .N NN N.viaNN

.... N.N N... NN.N ...N. N... N.NN N. ... : NN N N.NV...
5:05 :0

N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 8:85:9N

N... N.N N.N NN. N.N. N.N N... N. N... ..N NN ..NN...N..2NN.

N... N.N N... NN.N N.N. N.N N.N N. N... NN NN ..NN.-.N.2NN.
.5... ..NB .. 3...

....Nz 8.2.8985... 8:...

N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 .. N2 8:85:05

... N.N N... 8N N.N. N.N N.NN N. N... N. NN ..NNN-....N.2..NN

N... N.N N.N NN. N.N. N.N N... N. ...... ..N NN ..NN.-..N..2NN.

N... N.N .... NN.. N.N. N... N.N N. N.N NN ..N N.N-..Ni...
.5... ...: ..N:

N2 . N2 N2 N2 . N2 8:8...:..N

N... ... N... NN. N.N. ...N N.NN N. N... N. .N ..NN

N... N.N N... NN. N.N. N.N N... N. N... ..N NN 25......

N. N.N N... NN.N N.N. N... ..NN N. N.N. .... NN ....
......

.0..0.00:O..00:.... N05...

N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 8:85.35

N... N.N N... .....N N.N. N... N.NN N. N.N. N. .N 00 ..NN.

N... N.N N... NN. N.N. N.N N.N. N. N... ..N NN 00 ......NA

N... N.N N... 8.. N.N. N.N N... N. ...: 3. «N 00 .89
I - I ...... 53......
0m .... EH. .83... ms...) 3 a. 8.2 .5... .2552 ....6... 5.55...

52...: 52.8... 2 02...... .....s be: 50...... 50...... 5:... 50.... .23... 0. ......
5:... 5:... ....» 02...... ...: 5...... ...... .....N 5....

....»
...... .00N0Im5. 35558.3( ...u....... .......o......3u..N.... ......0 ......s. ...-...... .5505...
.0 05.0.50... 0:0 5.50.0 :0 :0 50.005300. 0:0 .:0..0....00:00 .00....3. 5:30:30 .80... .0 0.0.6. 05020:. 0:0...0:00 0:00.00. 00000.. .0 .0030 0:... .N 0.00...

74

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8: N APPLIED

     

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

3 : +0.5
0210096 ’ A ‘ , .
g 75% g l3...
° I 3 4111011:
50% _ .I. II, II,
a ; 5 l l. a-
3 25%. ’0 ll-
; I 1 . I II
a 0%‘1 4 5 e 7 0 9101112 Treatments
Treatments .vm I'"
PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
20 T—. l . .
-19 F ' ‘ ‘ ‘ l
1‘.
.. 18
C
§ 17
0
°- 10
15
.DwstoVIsIIthd-Doylbﬁowv
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
2 so 1 p . -30 e
g 1 325 . a
2 ‘° . 5.20 1;
... 30 A o 15 _
§ 20 f E 10 2 i
'5 i g s 1 5
310 . l o a
: o .
Imhmljmm
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE DEVELOPMENT
20

 

 

l
l

   

Number of Nodes
3

   

1011 12

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Campanula carpatioa ‘White Clips’.
The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat. 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L'1 N.
7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 0) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH‘-Nl320 mg CaCO3 ~L", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 -L" ).

75

 

  

29.883 .33 .85 .8... v m a 38583 3 28558.82 ... .. .mz

 
 

3883932.... gh

 

 

mz m2 m2 mz mz mz m2 8c8£§w

3 3 9o 86 we: «.2 92.. m 95 an F. xéoﬁczz $8

5 hm no m? o. 3 on. 33 o N. E R E §< 8.232 .38

3 I no 8... a: an. 32 m 3; mm on xi 83:2 .3».
5.53 2.2.32

wz m2 .. .. wz 8:8585

3 E 3 mm.» ..ﬁ 32 26 o «.3 mm 3.. 3A....

5 S no 8.. Q: on. an: o :m R B «.9193

n. o... no 8a 3. o.» 28 m ...S. 2 mm n.9,...
cocoa ....

wz mz mz mz m2 m2 wz 8:82.55

N P 3 no m3. 9: of an: o 5... a E xmmwdmwzmﬁ

3 3.. 3 can «a. 3: 3: o 98 an 3 xmmpdeimﬁ
in... an; a 33

Lmz 68589582 «22.?

m2 m2 . mz m2 m2 m2 8:85.55

3 3.. mo and 5.: 2: 3: 8 won on 8 x8~-%~-28~

5 S no as q: of an: 0 E R 5 xmmpdmwza.

3 on to 8d 9: 02 ....n: m «an em 8 x5138
Eu... .5. ...»;

mz . mz mz . . m2 8:85:9m

3 me no 8... ad. «2 New. o «.3. «a 5 {mm

5 3. no 3' Q: of on: o Sm R E o._:o%moa

3 ..o 3 an m. t 92 «.8? o N.Nm x” E 58
«=8:

mzr: mzr: m2? mzr 8:985:85: 85:.

wz mz .. m2 . 8:85.55

c r 3 a o 8.8 9: 3w «.8. 0 38 3 8 00 gm?

5 . E m o mg 0.: a? on: o to a 5 oo 88?

n v 3 n o 03 mm. v.9 3.2 m «.3 - 5 00 .88
.26.. 25.20:
um ... ..3 .32 .3532 330E 2258:.

22...: 528: 2 3.3.2 :55 to: 22.3 22.3 .2: 22.: 83o: 2 {an
.3: .2; .83 8.3.2 to .85 .32“. 82.» .5...
3o»

 

.3. .88 ms. 3.5.2.35.‘ .835... ease-......zrum: $8.5m. Batista .3828
.0 act-.30: an: 5393 :0 In 5:52.202 can 60:82.35". Suite. 5:33.26 3.25 .0 :26. 05.5.0... 2.0.22.3 2.3.39. 25...; .0 «out. 05 .n 03¢...

76

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8: N APPLIED

 

100% «

        

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E , g ' E-
; 75% g g
o
E 5094* .3 g
‘c' > . z
3 257.1
.1 ~ » ,
0”"1 2 :1 4 5L6 7 8 9101112 Treatments
Treatments .vm I
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
‘ﬁ_,._._..—~——— 15 k _ _ _—ﬁ
-14 ‘ r ‘ ‘ ‘
ES
...13 1
c 1
§12
e
“-11 1
4 5 6 1 a 91
Treatments 10 8
.mnbwmm.mbpw Treatments
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
£40 _k- — —— 320° ~24
' v ‘ ‘ ‘6
£30 £150 k If I >71“;
=20. E‘W;~" in““ 8.12%
3 : 5 saw * Mill IinIl s
i g ill |l||‘||;1lb
£10. IL 0.. IIIII II lilac
_‘. [545678910112
2; o . 1 Treatments
Treatm7enats Ithmmlquw-Iem
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE DEVELOPMENT

0
#4,.
1

    

Number of Nodes
N b

   

O
s l

1 2’3 4 5 6‘1 8
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Coreopsis grandiﬂora ‘Sunray'. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL“ N, 7=250
mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH‘-N/320 mg CaCO3 ~L“, 12=50% NH‘-N120 mg CaCO3 oL" ).

77

$52.00an .wood .36 .mod v 1 an 2.85:9» ..0 “5055952 .2. .2 .. .mz

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

wz? 888.538... 8:2»

. m2 wz mz m2 m2 mz 88555

3 S ago 9.3 SN 3 ”.3. 2 man 2: 8 53832 $8

3 3 .00 E.” new ...m can m 93 a: 8 x._< 85.12 $8

3 S no 2...” SN 3. e; : 3.» n2 3 xi ommsvxz e8.
:25...» .5532

mz . .. m2 m2 . m2 88585

E 2 to mm.» v.8 S «.8 2 98 o: 8 main

0.. S. no m3 new «.m can a 3e 2. on «.8193

3 an co 8d 098
£2.95 In

. mz mz m2 m2 mz 8.858%

3 q... no 2.» new «a can a 93 a: on xmwwdwwzap

3 3. no mm... B. we 98 2 Zn 8. E xmmpdezmﬁ
.53.. a»; a 25..

..ng 8:985:85. 88:

m2 wz wz . m2 m2 m2 88285

3 «a 3 £5. 93.. no men : «.8. at 8 x8~-%~-zom~

3 3 no 2.” new ta can m 3a m: 8 xmmsdupimﬁ

E 3 No om.» menu 3 08 8 mom «.8 on xadnis
.52: .3. ”.25

wz .. .. mz wz m2 m2 8:8sc9m

N; 3 3 as... men 3... as a cam 8. a ram

3 3 no 2.” new .3 can m can at 8. o.__a%8a

3 3 no 84‘ New 2: 0.3 2 can SN 8 .8“.
3.8:

mzrz wz? sz wZ... wz? 8:985:85: 88:

m2 .. .. . m2 8:85.56

5 to ed 88 new 2.; at. z ..8 8m 3 8 s8?

3 3 .3 2a new 3 98 m 3e, 2. 8 8 .30?

w... No no and new 2 v.8 : we. a: 8 8 $89
.254 0.53.0:
om mm . _ .. 6de . i .42.. ...a isms; 43 E _ . I28...lz “Eu: ... i .853... 8.3.“. £258:

£28: 62...: z 3.22 ...-z. to: £225 22.; .2: £26: 826.“. 2 :3
...:E .25. .53 3.22 an .85 is“. .85 .5...
ice

 

.3. .38 as: 35.38%? .82.... 63262333.»; ..aazcoos. 3.53.2 £6328

.o octets: can 5265 :o to $552.38.. ecu 6038.533 35...... $532.26 .825 .0 £26. 9.522.. 2.02930 2.0502 2.5:: po “out. 2.» .v saw...

78

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8: N APPLIED
._W_____ﬁ1

     
    

      
   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

      

2"“ nnnnnnnlnn 5
° 75% "' I:
émlllllllllllllllllllll E: g
“25%II||I|||||||||||I||||| >°2 z
rte-XIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII °
123456789101112
Treatments .Volume INK-won
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
30
-25
.35
E 20
§ 15
5 r 3 10
Treatments 5 i
.omwwuquysmm-v 4739:”?!908
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
WM?— g» A
32°“ i f,“ g:
‘6 150 ' o _
3.00; gm '3;
55° . Eu 5
u. 0 ‘ 5
‘ 3 Treatments .th mmmory mm
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
E60 ‘,~________ﬁ___ g 15 ——7
£40 I .2: 10 T ,
€20 T 5 5i
:
2 o: i

1234 5 6 7 3‘9 101112

123456789101112
Treatments

Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Coreopsis verticillata ‘Moonbeam'.
The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L'1 N.
7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-Nl320 mg CaCO3 5L“, 12=50% NH4-N120 mg CaCO3 -L‘1 ).

79

 

 

5.02.083 €86 . Wed .mod v l .a ESE

5.» 3 2.85582 ... .. .mz
3.8339583. 35:.

 

 

mz mz mz m2 mz mz mz 88588

2. 88 o... 86 8.8 3 as" m ...? 8. 8 5383.2 $8

a... .8 m... 8... 98 8.... 8.8 o «.3 8 8 v...< 8:3..2 8a

a... E m... 8... 8.8 m8 «.8 m 8.8 8 8 5.. 98.82 ..8
5.5.8 .5552

wz mz mz . .. wz . 8:85.58

3 2 I. 8..” 8.8 an «.8 m 5.2. 8 8 8.8....

...o 2.. no 8... 98 88 8.8 o ...: 8 8 «.8198

3 o... 2. 8d 8 92 e 8 8.9....
50:95 In

. . mz . m2 . wz 8:85.58

m... .8 m... mm... 98 88 8.8 o «.3. 8 8 88-8728.

... em 8... a: 8.8 mm 8.8 m ..t. 8 5 88.8.an
.52.. an; a 33

8.8639533 «9.0:.

wz mz wz m2 82 m2 mz 8.8588

3 8 .... 8... ea .8 8.8 m «.8 2 8 x8~-n.¢~.z8~

a... .8 m... 8... Q8 8.8 8.8 a ...3. 8 8 88-87288

3 3 ..o 88 t8 3 8.8 m 3.. 8 8 v5-8-2;
.82.. 35. um;

. . . 82 m2 m2 wz 8:85.58

E ..m E 8.8 93 as ..8 m 8.2. 8 2.... {an

...o .8 no 88 98 88 8a a «.3. 8 8 o....o%mon.

m. 8 m... 8... ..ou ..m 8.8 o «.8 8 8 .8“.
«.8:

838339.35... 3:8...

82 m2 m2 wz mz m2 m2 8:88.88

8... .8 E 8.8 8.8 o8 new 8 Ni. 8 8 oo .87

a... .8 8... mm... 0.8. 8.8 8.8 o «.3. 8 8 oo $8A

e. 8 to 88 ea «8 8.8 a ...8 E 8 00 88v
I I .26.. 23.3:
om :m :83. .83... Ham; .3 a. one: .8. .3552 .231 .558.»

£28... 52...... z 8.32 5.3 to.» £26.... £26.... .8: ......o: .23.“. o. 3.8
as“. .2: .83 3.2.... >5 .88 .32“. .88 .5...
.50»

 

..L. .88 9:. 35.2.85... ...»...to. 635.38.2883 £252 2.3. 528.32.. 55.5.3.8
.o aerate: use 530.6 co to £235.39. use 62.83033 .6353. 5:33.95 .8...) .o 0.96. uses-0:. 32:23 2.3302 30...; 3 «cote 2.... .m 038.

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8. N APPLIED

     
 
  
 

   
 

  
    

 

 

i i 313?."WTT1’25
“ 75% ' T 5 T =
Em |I|||||l||||||ll|ll 5: g
E || II II || || || || Ill'll “I > g on
a M II || II II II II || || || II III M...“
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 911112
Treatments .Volume Inma-
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Treatments 4T5 at Bts
.DeyetoVIebIeMIDeyetoFIewer re men
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
:1 120 . --_ 535 1o .
3 100 ,. E 23 .3
5 M? 8" i' 5
g :3: :12 v: ‘ i
a 20 ’ IE : i F l E
3 . 1 2 .l ‘o
‘; o Treatments
Treatments I PM” mm [:1 0,, mm
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
1o .,
8 9 i
B 81
z 7 ’
E 3 r
5 :
E 4 ‘
a 3 .
z .
0123456789101112 2‘ 34551391011
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Delphinium grandiﬂorum ‘Blue Mirror’.
The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL'1 N,
7=250 mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL'1 ).

81

5.2.888. .98... .8... .8... v ... ... .2858... .o E85525: ... .. .mz

 

 

 
 

 

 

Lmz... m2... 828822... 8:25

mz . .. m2 mz m2 mz 8:85.58

E ...o o... R... 2.9 m. .« we: 9 «.9 s 9. x2322 $8

«.9 o8 S 8.... Q9 «.9 m.«m 9 F. E m 2. V...< 8512 $8

3 2 5o 2... ..o« «.9 «.2 9 «.2 5. «« v..< 83:2 .3
5.5.8 2.5::

m2 m2 .. m2 mz . wz 828525....

3 E m... 8.... «.8 9.9 can 9 Q8 ... 9 3......

«.9 o... «.o 88 «.9 «.9 m.«m 9 9.: m 2 «9:92..

«.9 «... ...... 88 :« «.9 ...: 9 9.8 a 8 ....mvﬁ
cocoa ....

mz . m2 mz m2 m2 mz 8.858%

«.9 o... 3 88 Q9 «.9 «.8 9 9. E. m 2 £989.28.

3 «.m m... 8.. «.o« ...«« «.9. 9 c.«« 5 9 29.523.
.53. ...»; ._ 3a..

:5. ng m2... 8598:0525... .225

m2 . wz . wz mz 8.858%

a... ...... Z on... «.o« «.3 no. 9 «.8 o «« v.8«-%«.zom«

«.9 o... 2. 8.... «.9 «.9 ....«m 9 9.: m 2 29-2722.

3 1... «.o 3.... v.«« «.9 Q9 9 «.8 m 8 55-.....an
.59.. as. .52.

wz m2 m2 wz wz : mz 858529....

3 9.... «.o m«.m ....9 Q9 «99 9 5.9 o 9 .....m

«.9 a... Z. on... «.9 E. ...«m 9 P. 9 m 2 250.52..

3 m... m... 8... °.o« «.8 «.«9 9 «.8 o «« .88
23:

m2.... m2... wz? 85885585... 8:...»

m2 m2 m2 m2 828585

«.9 3 « 9 8... «.9 «.8 5.2. 9 «.8 o 2 oo .59.

«.9 o... 5. o 88 «.9 «.9 m.«... 9 9.: m 2 oo .58.

3 a... v c on...” Q9 «.3 ..«s 9 19 m as 00 58v
.2... 22......
2:52 ﬂute... 2252:.

52...... 52...: z 3.92 5.3 an: 55...; 2a.»; .2... 2...»: .23... 2 £8
.2... .2... .53 3.9.... an .85 :8... 82.» .5...
.53

 

...... .88 we. 5.5.2.25... 53...... 28.35.31»; .329... Saws... 385%...
.0 05:23: ecu 5320 co In 8:52.302 ucn .:o_.g:3cou 85:5 5:32.26 .22... .0 «.26. 05.5.2: 9.22930 2.0309. 30:: .0 .0er 2:. .o 030...

82

 

 

 

 

 
      

 

 

‘1 PERCENT FLOWERING e H20&NAPPLIED ‘12
3100“,. f" "’5 .... j ‘ . E
3 75%- ‘ .. 5
. g . g
u. 50% .0. _
E > z
8 25%-
E
0%" 2 456789101112
Treatments Iva“ -
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT

 

   
   

La MW 24 ‘ 1

Percent (7.)

.o
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Treatments “123456789112
Treatments
ﬂmmwnhm-neysum

NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
2 9 .._—f—— -150 # —30
§ 5" - - a
E f. — ‘ hang
‘ 7’ . ‘ ll} ‘ i ‘ 1 9
‘3 g ‘l ‘ ‘ l L ll i if ‘ :10;
. 11w .
i E ‘ , i l l I . l ,29 a
.. 455731101112
I; Treatments

Treatments IthmhuDDrvw-Iem
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER

'3’

.5
0|
i

    

Plant Height (cm)
Number of Nodes
3

 

456 3 23456189101
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Echinacea purpurea ‘ Magnus'. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, awet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L‘1 N. 7=250
mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 3) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH.—N/320 mg CaCO3 ~L". 12=50% NH‘-N/20 mg CaCO3 -L'1 ).

83

202.0098. .wood .36 .36 v 1 an 385:9» ..o «cobEEQmp—oz .2 ... .. .mz

 

 

 
 

 

 

Lmz 3885.52... 88...

mz mz . m2 m2 wz mz 828529....

...o o... o... 8... o... 3.. 32 2 tom «N 9. 5(8332 $8

3 3 L... 3.... a... ...: ma: 2 N.NN on 3 x... 823.2 «Sm

3 E. o... 2.... I: 3.. 3.3 2 ZN mu 9. 5... 8.54.2 ....m
5.5.3 22.5...

.: wz mz . wz 8:82.25

3 as m... a: ...... ...: as... 2 ..«u ..N t. 34....

3 m... 3 2.... a... ...: 9m: 2 N.NN mm .... «9.313

3 5. no 2.» ..Nu m... ...: 9 92 a on nmvﬁ
2295 ....

m2 : mz m2 wz m2 828.2%

.... no .3 m; a... ...: 9m: 2 N.NN m... 8 £9-29-sz

2 no 3 8.... 2: ...: mm: 2 3. mm 3 xmmpdﬁzﬂp
.52. “.25 .. 3a..

L: Lmz L 8:288:85... «22»

. m2 wz wz m2 828523

3 .3 5 mm... no. en. E: 9 «.2 ..n my £343.28...

3 ...... 3 2.... mm ...: we: .9 N.NN mm 3 xmﬁdwvﬁﬁ

m... .... 2. 8... I: 92 Q8 9 in mm 3. c.3235
.52.. 33. “a;

m2 m2 mz wz wz mz m2 8:82.25

a... on ...o on... 92 2: 3: t «.8 mm 9. 2mm

.... 3 3 2... mm at 3: m. N.NN mm m... ......oasmon.

E No 3 m8 ...: ...: 3: 9 RN on 3. .2...
2......

m2... wz..: mz..: 8:285:85... 8:2»

.. m2 mz m2 m2 8:82.25

m o m... m o 8... N... ...... «Na 2 QE 3 .... oo «...?

o r m... L o m3 2. ...: cat 9 N.NN mm 8 oo .8?

F P E .. o 8... ...: ..N. QB. N. «.2 ... 9. 8 so?
.0)...— 230.05
89.52 5946.“. 2.253....

65.3: 55.2.: z 3.22 SE... to: 22.2. 3225 .2... £2... .23.“. o. 2.3
.2... .2... .38 3.8... an .85 52“. .52.» .5...
.53.

 

...... .008 we. 3.5.2.25... 23...... 12.35.2333 ......30. Ea...22m4~.2~.=6
.0 05.330: to: 5265 co to Eaton—300. ace Eczehcoocoo 85:5 .§_.ae:e>a .82.. .o «.25. 05.5.0... 3.0.52.3 2.0302 26:2. .o «note 23 .5 03¢...

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
we" “2

 

 

    

a‘ ; .

2110096, . A
'B " El: 3
g 75% s
2 3 g
in 50%. a ._
on O S
5 25% > . z
e T

g ' .

0”“1 2 3 4 5 e 7 3 9101112 Treatments
Treatments .wlm I"

 

 

FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent ('l.)

   

 

 

 
    
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Dayotoneblelud-Dayetom Treatments
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
.2 40 A m
3 ~ 9 l a
E 30 59180 15 E;
5 20 E 120 10 g
3 * f, 00 b
a 10 . 2 n
3 . IL 0
E 0 reatments
.th welohtsDDryweIchts

PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER

30 20
a ‘ 1 1
gr: : 315
+215 ‘3' 10
E 10 g
c E 5
3 5 ~ : 1
°- 0 z o l

 

5 3 4 5 6 1 a 9 1011
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Gail/ardie xgrandiﬂora ‘Goblin'. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL‘1 N, 7=250
mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 9) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 0L". 12=50% NH4-Nl20 mg CaCO3 oL'1 ).

85

5.8888. .8... .8... .8... v m. 5 5858... 5 5858582 .. .mz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wz... Lmz ..wz Lmz .52 25.88.52... 8:25

. . . : m2 m2 . 8:85:55

5.: «.m m... 8.: ...... .... «.L. m L8 5 «0 2.28522 5.8

... L5 5: 8.: 3. «.: «.«« m 58 o. .... 2.... 82:22 5.8

«.. :5 m... 8... 5.8 m.« «.«. o «.8 L 8 2.2 85:22 ......
5.5.8 22.82

m2 . . m2 . m2 . 8:85:55

. . L... m... 8..” 3. m.« L5. m 0.8 L :o 582..

L . L5 m... 8.: n5. «.: «.8 o ".8 o. E «.8295...

o . L.: ...: 8...” «.5. :.« o.«. o ..L« L 8 58....
22:5 ....

wz . m2 m2 : wz .2 8:85:55

... L: m... 8.: a... «.: «.8 c «.8 o. .m 28.8.28.

5... ....m m... 8.: «.5. on ...... o «.8 L «... 28.8.28.
.8... .32. a. 8..

.52 ......2 6.5580285... 8:2»

«2 wz m2 mz .. m2 . 8:85:55

3 «.... 5.: 8.: «.5. :8 ...L. w ..8 5 :o 28«-...:«.28«

... L... m... 8.: a... «.: «.8 m «.8 o. .... 287.5728.

...... a... ..o 8... «.5. .... ...... L o. .... 5 Ln 25.8.23
.8... as. ...»...

m2 wz m2 . : m2 mz 88585

...: ...: ...: 8.: ...... o... «.... m :8 a 8 :8

... L5 m... 8.: n5. «.: «.8 o :8 o. 6 2.8.58...

«.. ...: :.: 8.... ..5. ...” m... o :8 o. 8 .8:
2...:

m2... .2... .L: m2... Lmz 89:80:85... 8:...»

m2 : : wz . . 8:85:55

0.. ...: .... 8L ...... a... «.8 L L8 :. 8 oo .28.

... L... n: 8.: ...... «.: «.8 o «.8 o. .... oo 58.

«.. men n... 8.« L. .« .... ...: o «.8 L Lo 00 .88
l .26.. 2.5.2..
om . as. ... ...... a .82 ....o. 8:52 ......8 ... 2258:»

52.5: 25.2.: z 8.5:... 55.... to... 25...... ......oz. .2... 2.2... :26... 2 2.3
.2... .2... .83 8.5.... to .85 :8... «3..» 2:...
.59.,

 

...... .008 we. 5.5.2.222 55...... 28.595.22.52. ...:o 8 2.5. 8.8985...
3 0222.3: 0.... 5305 co ...: 55:35.38 ace 62.8.5358 33.3... .3353: .303 no «.26. 9.33.0... 2.2.353 c.3308 «not; 3 ounce 2.... .o 030...

 

 

      
      

 

 

 

 

   
 

      
  

      

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

       

F PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
“1000/I 7* Fw‘vﬁ'f 1o 1
g , l 3 8 ‘3
3 n g“ 5
t 50% _:_ 4 g
g 25%: ‘>’ 2 E
E o
0%‘1 456789 1112
Treatments .vﬂm .N
70 FLOWER TIMING Percentage Dry Weight
5° —I= “ ”lll ‘ 22 1- 1 1 1
erﬂE-HEE ..21 1 l . . ‘
aw aaeeeaaar=r a 1 ‘ ‘ . 1
~30.” alu‘unnnu -201 l- ‘ 1 . l
1: anallilﬂllllilllll g . 1 . ..g
2°;«EIIIIEMIHIIII 81. 3" ~ I
wuuuuunnnnun E 1 l 1,
°~-"a-"u=1=aal .. 1 ,
12345678910111: 1 l "1'
Treatments ‘7 1 2 4 s a 7 a 9 101112 l
.DayctoncthIDcyctoFloww Treatments ‘1
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS Fresh and Dry Weights l
2 15 .30 1o
8 g ..
5 £24 3 I
:2 8'" E l
.3 312 i ‘
‘i 5 6 a l
é E . ° 1
: 0 ‘ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Treatments I Fm" ”hm D my mm
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
4o .
A , 1o 7-_—---
E30 l g a - . J
.. . o ; .
520 E c -l
e o
I u. 4 l
E 10 . 3 ,
L“ i E 2 Y
n. 3 .
o 1 z o l ‘ 1
Treatments 1 2 3 18811393159 1°" '2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Hemerocallis ‘Stella de Oro’. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L‘1 N. 7=250
mgoL'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH4'N’20 mg CaCO3 -L" ).

87

5.85.852 ..85 ..5... .55.: v n. .5 285:... .5 2858.582 ... ... .. .52
. ﬂea—5.530.552... 5.2.5....

 

 

 

 

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:55

5.5 ..5 5.: 8.: L8 5.5. 5.«5 5. 5.55 5 55 2.25322 .85

:.. 5.5 5.5 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: 5. 5.55 « .5 2...: 82:22 .58

«.. 5.5 5.: 8.: 5.5. 5... 5.55 :. 5.55 : 5: 2... 85:22 .55
8.5.55 ......52

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:55

... 5.5 :.5 8.5 5.5. «.5 5.«: 5. 5.:5 5 «5 5.5.2..

:.. 5.5 5.5 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: 5. 5.55 « .5 «8295.5

5.5 5.: «.5 8.. 5.5V...
22.55 :5

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

:.. 5.5 5.5 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: 5. 5.55 « .5 28.8.28.

«.. L5 5.: 85 :..« L5 «.:: 5. «.«5 5 .5 28.55.28.
.55... ..52. .. 56..

...... .... 652580558... 8:2.

52 .. .. 52 52 52 52 8:85:55

L.. 5.5 5.5 55.5 L5. 5.5. 5.55 .. :.55 : 5: 258-58-258

:.. 5.5 5.5 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: 5. 5.55 « .5 28.-..«728.

5.. 5.5 .... 55.: 5.5. 5.«. 5.55 5. 5.55 : 5: 2.5-55-2.5
.55... 2.2 ..52.

. . . 52 52 52 52 8:85:55

«.. 5.: 5.: 85 5.5. 5.5 5.«5 .. «.L5 5 .5 ....5

:.. 5.5 5.: 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: 5. 5.55 « .5 2.8%....

5.. 5.5 5.: 8.: 5.5. 5.«. 5.55 5 5.55 : 55 .5...
:.:.:

52.... 52.... ..52 852589.85... 8:2.

. 52 52 . 52 8:85:55

:.. 5.5 5.: 8L :.5. :.:. ..5L 5. L.«: 5 5: oo 5.85

:.. 5.5 5.5 85 5.5. 5.5 5.L: o. 5.55 « .5 oo .85.

:.. 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.5. 5.5 :.5: 5 :.«5 : L5 oo .88
.3... 23...:
......52 .28... .858...

85.5.: 55.5.... 2 52...? ....2. to: .25....» 25...... .8... .25.... .28... 5. 2....
.8... .8... .3.» 52...... to .525 :..... .825 .5...
......

 

.... . .88 5:: 2.5.8.85... ...»...22 ...:31.....r..53 $52.... 8:35.... 8.5.5...
3 02.826: 0:: 5265 ...o I... E20222: ecu dozahceocoo Lunar! 5:35:96 .853 no 5.5.6. 05.5.0... ace—:33 285.500.. 520...: .0 «echo 5.:. .5 535...

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8. N APPLIED

100M ‘

1

 

  
 
   

    
 

  
 

 

‘.
I"
456789101112

Treatments

  

Percent Flowering
H
3:
Volume (L)

123

 

.Volume .Nltrogen

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
60 . ' i
so .I J 21 .
‘ 20.5 ‘
‘° II g5 20
1 ii :19-5 E
II I: 19 -u -I
ll 8 = IFII
ﬂ 313.5 _ n l.
g .. : 1a a :1 ll
2 17.5 ‘ a a g: .
11 II II II II II II
1 2 3 8 9101112
lounwwmeua-omnm Treatments
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
3 5 . 5 I A30
8 . ' I ‘ ‘ 1 3
5 co
9
O
3 no
a 20
2
u- o

   

.FreehwelngDrywelghu

PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER

 

 

 

S
3

   

E 8141: .....
4o .

£1 . guf

:30‘ 21o; ......

f-: In»

:20 Eat

g

510 g;

n. ,
o 2o

 

123456789101112
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Heuchera sanguinea ‘Firefly’. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL'1 N, 7=250
mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO;1 ~L", 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL'1 ).

89

5.9.888. ..555 ..55 .555 v m .5 285:5... .5 2858.852 ... .. .5z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.452 ...52 558555.38: 55......

52 52 . 52 52 .. 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.5 5.. 5.... ..5. 5.5 5.55. 55 5.5. .5 55 5.255.:12 5555

... 5.5 5.5 55.. 5.5. ..55 5.55. .5 5.:. 55 :5 5..... 5553.2 5.8

5.. 5.. 5.5 55.. 5.55 5.5. 5.5 55 5.55 55 55 ...... 555.:52 5.5
5.5.55 .5532

. .. 52 52 52 .. 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.. 5.5 8.. 5.:. 5.5. 5.5.. 55 5.:. 55 55 55......

... 5.5 5.5 55... 5.5. ..8 5.55. .5 5.:. 55 :5 59:95.5

:.. 5.: 5.5 55.. ...5. ..55 ...... .5 ..5. :5 55 5.5v::
£2.05 .._...

52 52 52 . 52 52 .. 8:85:95

... 5.5 5.5 55.. 5.5. ..55 5.55. .5 5.:. 55 :5 555755.255.

5.5 5.5 5.. 55.5 5.5. 5.:5 5.55. 55 5.5. 55 .5 58755.28.
.55... ..52. .. 56..

...52 ...52 .. ..52 855.55.50.85... 55:2.

52 .. .. 52 . . 52 8:85:95

5.5 ..5 5.. 55.5 5.5. :... ..55 55 5.55 55 55 v.555-..:5-258

... 5.5 5.5 55.. 5.5. ..55 5.55. .5 5.:. 55 :5 555755.255.

5.. 5.5 :.5 55.5 5.... 5.5. :.:5 .5 5.55 .5 55 5.5-55-2.5
.55... 5.8. 55....

52 52 52 52 .. 52 52 8:85:95

5.. ..5 5.5 55.. 5.... ..55 5.55. .5 ..55 55 :5 :55

... 5.5 5.5 55.. 5.5. ..8 5.55. .5 5.:. 55 :5 5.555585

..5 5.5 5.. 5... ..5. 5. .5 5.5.. .5 5.... 55 55 .55..
5.55:.

52.... 52.... 52.... 52.... 652555.555... 55:...»

m2 .0 CO. ”2 CO. CO. wz 8:8c_CO_m

5.. 5.5 ... 5.5 5.5. 5.55 5.55. 55 :..5 55 55 oo ...5...

... 5.5 5.5 55... 5.5. ..55 5.55. ..5 5.:. 55 :5 oo 5.55.

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5.55 .... 5.:5 55 5.55 5. 55 00 ...55v
.055.— 0.5930:
cm :5 .85.... .5... .... as»... 3 ﬁll. .55. 2 5...... .3252 .556... 3258..

55.5.... 55.55:. 2 52.55... .25.... 5.5.5 2.5.5.... 5.5.5.... .2... .55.... .28... o. 5555
.55... .2... .55. 555...... to .855 :8... .855 .55...
.85.

 

Av... 500a”. 95 3.5—8:55.44: .35.?! 0320?.353353 auto»... 0:8 0055. 33:052.. 5:025:
.0 05.2.6: 9.5 526.0 no to :.:.—$8.58.. new .eozgceocoo 35.5.8. 5:35:26 .85.... .0 5.5.6. 9:55.05 55.:—Eco 2.05.509. 532.2. .0 «vote on... .2. 535...

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED

 

    
 

    
 
 

 
    
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21°“ i i ' -
E 15% ‘ I E
.....IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII %
.,..I|||||||||||||||I||||||| >
E ... II II II II II II II || || || || | 5.....-
123456789101112
Treatments IV m .NM
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
12° :*—* 22 . . . ‘ 1
n II II I:
ll ll ll ll
lDeyetthlbleMIDayctoFlower Treatments
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
@200 1 %a a
£150 ' . 1:9 E
'5 100 20 9
IT- a o 1:
123456 r119101112
reatments
.thmmDDrywelng
PLANT NODE AT FLOWER

     

Plant Height (cm

i
i
l
i
I
i

1112

 

4 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Hibiscus moscheutos ‘Disco Belle
Hybrid'. The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level
(2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31
mg-L" N, 7=250 mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5,
10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH.-N/320 mg CaCO3 ~L“, 12=50% NH4-N/20
mg CaCO3 -L'1 ).

91

 

 

.9288... .55. 5. .5. 5 ..55 5 v m .5 285:9. 8 5858.852 ... ... .. .52

 
 

552555.58... 8:...

 

 

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

. 5 5.5 5.5 55. : 5... 5.5 5. 55 .. 5.55 :. 5. 5.255312 5.55

. . 5.5 5.5 55. : 5.5. :.: 5. 55 .. 5.55 5. 5. v...< 55......2 5.55

5.5 5.5 5.5 55.: .. .5 5.: :. 55 5. ...5 55 ... ...... 555.:12 ...5
5.5.55 2.5::

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5. 5. 5 5. .5 5. 5.:5 .5 5. 5.5.15

... 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5. :. : 5. 55 .. 5.55 5. 5. 5.55.955

5.5 5.: 5.5 5.5 5... ..: 5. .5 5. 5.55 5. :. 5.5V...
5:85 :..

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

... 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5. :. : 5.55 .. 5.55 5. 5. 555.55.255.

..5 5.5 5.5 55.: ..5. 5. : 5.55 5. 5.5 :. 5. 555.55.255.
..:... .5.... 5 ...5.

52.. 655.555.5855 8:...

52 52 52 52 . 52 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.: 5.5 5. 5 5. 5. ..: 5. 55 .. .. 5: 5. :. 5555-5:52555

... 5.5 5.5 55. : 5. 5. :.: 5. 55 .. 5. 55 5. 5. 555755.255.

5.5 5.5 ..5 55. : 5. .. 5.: 5 55 5. 5.55 :. 5. 5.5.52.5
.55... s... .5...

. 52 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

5.5 5.5 5.5 5.. : 5... ..5 5.55 5. 5.55 5. :. :55

... 5.5 5.5 55. : 5.5. :.: 5.55 .. 5.55 5. 5. 5.5.555...

... 5.5 5.5 5.. : 5... ..5 ..55 5 ..55 ... 5. .5..
5.5.2

52.... 52.... 52.... 8556550558.... 55:...

52 52 52 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5. 5.5 5.55 .. :.55 .. 5. 8 5.5..

... 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5. :.: 5.55 .. 5.55 5. 5. oo 5.55.

..5 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.5. 5.5 5.5. 5. :.5: .. 5. 8 5.8V
1 I I ...... 22...:
cm :5 3.... .5. A... j .3552 ..:... .85....

52.8: 55.5.... 2 52.55.. .....s ...5: 25...... 25...... ..:... 25.... ...5... o. ...5
..:... ..:... ...5. 52.5.... ...5 .5555 ...... .855 ...5...
.5...

 

...... .88 ...... 55:53:85... 5.5.5... 355.59....355... ..555F.=.> 5.2.6:...

83: .0 55.2.6: 3:: 526... ..o :.. 53.32.7500. 3.... .30....55353 85:?! $532.26 .25.... .0 5.5.6. 3533...... 5:25.23 235.30. 530...... .o .05.... 2... .5.. £35k

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
E -
. a
3 a
.. 2
g
E
Treatments
.Volume Inna.»
PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
2. E
8 E
5
8
Treatments
Day: 5 v1.51. m I Day: 5 PM Treatments
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
% 25 . 1.341) 8
in. E» ’s'
: 1s 7 i ,0 5 g»
g 1° '5 10 g g
h ' e 1 a
g 5 j u. o o a
E o reatments
Treatments I Fresh mm E] 0w New
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
15 .. , ——
8
8
z
‘2'
3
E
3
z

   

3 4 5 6 7 8 91011
Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Hosta ‘undulata variegata'. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL’1 N. 7=250
mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 8) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 -L". 12=50% NH‘-N/20 mg CaCO3 0L“ ).

93

5.2.58... ..555 ..5.5 .555 v m .5 .:85:9. .5 E85522 ... ... .. .52

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. .555...555...5.:3. 8:2.

52 . 52 52 52 52 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.5 5.5 55.: :.55 ..5. ..55 :5 5.5 .5 :: 5.55.3.2 5.55

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. ... 2.... 55::22 ..55

5.. 5.5 ..5 55.5 5.55 5. .. 5..: :5 5.55 .. 5: 2.... 555......2 ...5
5.5.55 ......Sz

52 52 52 52 . 52 52 8:85:95

5.5 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5....

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. .: 5.51.955

5.. :.: 5.5 55.5 5.55 5.5 5..: 55 5.5 5. 5: 5.51.5
50:80 ....

52 52 52 52 . 52 52 52 8:85:95

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. .: 255755.255.

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: 5.55 . 5.5. 5.:: 55 ..55 .. 5: 255755.255.
..:... .53 .. ...5.

52... 655.555.5555. 55:...

52 52 52 52 .. 52 52 8:85:95

..5 ..: 5.5 5.5 5.5. 5.5 5.:5 55 5.55 .. 5: 2555552555

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. .: 255755.255.

... 5.: ..5 55.: 5.5 5.5. 5.5: 55 5.55 5. 5: 2.5-55-2.5
.55... ...5. .5.;

52 52 52 52 . 52 52 8:85:95

5.. :.: 5.5 55.: 5.55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. 5: ..55

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. .: ...:5555...

:.. 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.55 ..5 5.5: 55 5.55 5 5: .5.:
......

52.... 52.... 52... .... 855.55.555.55 55:...

52 ... 52 .. .. 52 8:85:95

5 . :.: 5.5 55.5 5.5. 5.5. 5.55 .5 5.:5 :.. :: 8 5.5..

5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: ..55 5.5 5.5: 55 5.55 5. .: oo ..55.

5.. 5.: 5.5 5.5 5.55 5.5 ..55 55 5.5 55 5: oo 5.58
...... 85.5.52
. ...... ... ...... 282 El... 85.52 ..:... E255...

E23... E23... 2 52.5.... ....2. ...5... .52.... ...5...» .5.... .55.... ...5... o. ...5
..:... ..:... ...5. 32.55.. ...5 .85 ...... .85. E5...
...5.

 

......588 5E. 55:59:82.... ......5... ..55..........u.5.<. ..:...552. 3.85%..- 353......
.0 3.2.2.6.. 3:5 526.3 ..o 1.. 83.32.18. 3:5 62.532823 .5553... 5:35:56 .85... .0 5.5.6. 32.33.52. 5:03.323 5:05.503. 53035.. .0 .55... 5.:. .5. 5.35..

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING

-‘
o
o
a!

 

Percent Flowering

WATER 8: N APPLIED
10 ——————

 

 

 

Volume (liters)
O N 0. Cl 0
+554 5‘ ‘ t
u- _
“I
I—
O O O
b O O
trogen )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatments
.DayeteVlelbleBud-Deyeteﬂower

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS

 

 
  
  

 

 

 

Treatments

PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER
4o . -._.

E .

3

E

9

O

:c

3

1L

 

Treatments

 

 

 

123‘ 3 89101112“
Treatments
.Volume .Nltrooen
PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
so
3
‘5
§
K
s s
Treatments
FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
A90 18
‘2 15 15 §
550 12 3
.3 ‘5 g
.: 3° 3
" 15 E
E o a
.Freeh Whammy weights
PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
as - 7- -_ _-
u .
22 I

N
O
. -,

Number of Node:
=

 

123.5.739101112
Treatments

 

 

 

Figure 12. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Lavandula angustifolia 'Munstead'.
The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L" N,
7=250 mg-L" N); d) phosphorus concentration (8= low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5. 5. 10= -pH>6. 5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 -L".12=50% NH‘-N/20 mg CaCO3 -L'1 ).

.5288... ..555 ..55 .555 v n. .5 .5858... .5 .5.-55.55.5552 ... .. .52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....52 55255505555... .55...

52 52 52 52 52 52 8585.555

5.5 ..5 5.5 55.: .... :... 5.55 5. 5.5. 5. .5 5.55.3.2 5555

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5... .. .. 5.55 5. :.5. 5. .5 x... 55.:...2 .555

5.5 5.. 5.5 55.: 5. .. :. .. ..55 5. 5.5. 5. .5 xi 555.:52 .55
5.3.55 .8552

52 ... .. 52 52 8585.555

5.5 ... 5.5 55.: 5... 5... 5.55 5. ..5. .. 55 5.55....

5.. ..5 5.5 8.: 5... .... 5.55 5. :.5. 5. 55 5.51.955

5.. 5.: 5.5 5.5 5.:. 5.5. 5.5.. 5. 5.5. .. 55 5.5V...
5:55 :..

52 . 52 52 : 5z 8585.555

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5... .. .. 5.55 5. :.5. 5. .5 5.55.55.255.

5.. 5.5 5.5 55.: 5.5. 5.5. 5.55. t 5.5. 5. :5 55.55255.
. .5... .52. a 26..

:... 52.... ..:... ..52 52.... 52.. 8555550558... 555...

.0. Ct. COO wz C CC. I 8:85:°_m

5.. 5.5 5.5 5.5 :.5. 5.5. 5.5. 55 5.5. 5. 55 555-535-2555

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5... .... 555 5. :.5. 5. .5 x55.-n.5.255.

5.5 5.5 ..5 55.: 5.5. :.5 5.55 5. 5... 5. .5 5.5-55.2.5
.25.. ..55 “.52.

52 52 .. . .. 52 . 8585.595

5.. 5.5 5.5 55.: 5... ..5. 5.5. .. 5... 5. :5 ..55

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5. .. .... 5.55 5. :.5. 5. .5 5.5.5.5...

5.. 5.5 5.5 55.: 5... :.5. 5.55. .5 5.5. 5. :5 ...5
5.5....

Ck... wZ\CCI ”2‘... CKCCC wZ\CiC k. Aoamhumso\bmo=_ldv ”2°55:

CC. CC. CC. wz CC. CC CC 8:8¢_ca_m

... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.5. 5.:. ..55. 5. 5.5. :. .5 55 .557

5.. ..5 5.5 55.: 5... .. .. 5.55 5. :.5. 5. .5 55 .5555

5.5 5.5 :.5 55.5 5.5. 5.5 5... t :.5. 5. 55 55 .555v
. .26.. 22...:
55 ..H ..33. .83... .55.: .... .... .552 4:... 855.52 ..:... .55....

55.5.2 65.5.: 2 5.555.. ...—.2. .55.. 25...... ...5...» ..:... .55.... ...5... o. ...5
.55... ...... ...5. 5.555.: :5 .855 ...... .855 ......
...5.

 

...... 65.5 55.. 5.5.2.553... 5.5.5.. 255.533.33.53 .....5 .655. 555...... x 555.5585...
.5 0:35.55: 3:5 5:65 :o ...5 62358.35. 3:5 .:o..5...:55:oo 555......5. 5:35:35 .85... .5 5.2.5. 55325:. 5:53.355 5:55.85. 2.2.5.. .0 555.55 5..... .2 535..

 

 

      

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
1o ~————-—~———————v1
2'10“] 1—V_ . ‘ l 3 - a k 0.8 -
t 1 J l l -I i. 3
g 75"" V e 0.6 :
2 l l 2 °
1. 5099‘ % 4 g
E 25% “II > 2 E
5 l ~ 0
°%‘1 2 3 4 5 s 7 3 9101112
Treatments .vm .Nheon
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
so ‘ 1 15
5° ' -14
4° =2
:12
C
§1° .
0
“- a
Treatments 6
.DeyetoVBbleBud-Deystoﬂower
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
gzo , . 3150 ‘ ‘20
g...‘ 1 Emi i?
g , .g’ 90 a l - I. - 12 g
5 Eco. ll‘nl *Illhn
a = l|lll “ll“ 3
u . 30 I | l [I4 E
§ E o IIIII III:I17° O
- thl567ll101112
‘; Treatments
Treatments IFMWEWWM
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
-25 . ‘ ‘ 25 ——
E g 20 ~
.- ° .
15’ “23'“;
E 3 ‘°
2 g 5
n. z .
o
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Leucanthemum xsuperbum “Snow
Cap’. The standard (1 ) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L‘1 N.
7=250 mg-L'1 N); d) phosphoms concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 -L". 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL“ ).

97

$528855. ..:5... . .5... .595 v 5. .5 255555.. ..5 5555:9582 ... ... .. .52

 

 

 

 

:..... :..... 52... 5585305555.... .55... i.
52 52 52 .. 52 8585.555
:.. 5.5 5.5 55.5 :.55 5.5. 5.55 55 5.55 55 5. 5.255352 ..55
.... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5.5 .5 5.5 5: 55 5..... 55.522 ..55
5.. 5.. 5.5 55.5 5.55 5.5. :.55 55 5.5. 5: 55 5...... 555.:12 .55
55.5.55 5.5::
52 . 52 52 52 52 8585.595
5.. 5.. 5.5 55.: 5.55 ..:. ..:5 55 5.55 55 55 5.55....
5.. 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5.5 .5 5. .5 5: 55 5.55.555
5.. 5.: 5.5 55.: 5.555
555.5 :5
52 52 52 . 52 8585.595
... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5. .5 .5 5. .5 5: 55 v.55..55.-255.
..5 5.5 5.5 55.5 ..:5 5... 5.55 55 5.55 55 .. 5.55.55.255.
.E55. “.5.... 5 35..
...... :..... .5....55505555.... .55...
52 52 52 52 52 8585.555
:.5 5.5 5.. 55.5 5.55 ..5. . :.55 55 5.5. .5 55 5555-..:52555
... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5.5 .5 5. .5 5: 55 255755.255.
:.. 5.5 :.5 55.5 5.55 5.:. 5.5 55 5.55 55 55 5.5-55.2.5
.E... ..55 “.5....
52 . 52 . . 8585.555
... 5.5 5.5 55.5 :.55 5.:. ..55 55 .... .5 :5 ...5
... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5. .5 .5 5. .5 5: 55 5.5.55...
5.5 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.55 5.5. 5.55 5. 5.5. 55 55 ...5
5.5....
OK... CCKCCC WZ\CC WZ\CCO mg... Auaega\h~gjv ”Bab-P
5z 52 .. ... 8585.595
5.5 ...5 5.. 55.5 5.55 :.5. 5.55 .5 5.55 55 55 55 ...5...
... 5.5 5.5 55.5 5.:5 :.5. 5.5 .5 5. .5 5: 55 oo ..55.
5.. ...5 :.5 55.5 5.55 5.5 ..55 55 5.5. 55 5. 55 58v
I I ...... 235.5...
55 .5.... .5 ...... .552 E. SE... ..:5... .52....»
E558... E2525 2 52.55.. .....s to.» 55...... 55...... ...5... .55.... ..:5... 5. ...5
...... ...5... ...5. 52.5.2 ...5 .5555 5..... .5555 .5....

.5....
...... 65.5 5E. 555......5ux...‘ 5.5.5.... 255.533.33.52. 5.5.555... .3558...
3 0:35.50... 3:5 535.: :o ...5. 52355.39. 3:5 6035535555 55......5. 5:35:35 .85.... 3 5.2.5. 05325:. 5:533:55 5:55.39. 5:25; 3 «55:5 5..... .5.. 535...

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
————.———— 1.5

    

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

51007.- ——rﬁ_—i——*T_*
g 75% ‘ ‘ ‘ 3
3 I a
I: 50% .3
§ 255“ >
E .
0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 Treatments
Treatments .vam .N
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT ‘
A l
i 1
5
n.
Treatments
ﬂmnthbbBud-Deyetem 4 ngtnzegt 9
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
.5100
E so .3:
a ..
e
g 3 16:
.E o o
Treatments I th mm D Orv WM!
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
100 25
A . In .
5, 3° : 3820 ‘
3.; 6° ' E 15 .
a + 2
g 40 .8 10 '
E 20. E 5 ’
0 0
4 3 4 5 6 7 B 9101
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 14. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Perovskia atriplicifolia. The standard
(1 ) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity
of media components (4=peat 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L" N 7=250 mgoL‘1 N);

‘ “ (8= low P); e)pH drench(9=pH<5. 5. 10= -pH>6. 5); andOnutrient-solution
reaction (11=5% NH4-Nl320 mg CaCO3 oL‘.‘ 12= 50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 -L'1 ).

 

99

82888. .288 .86 .88 v a a 2858.» 3 2858.802 ... .. .mz

 

 

.r. m2? m2... 6:285:83. 8:2»

.. . ... mz wz m2 mz 8:885

P F .3 N 2 m3 3. 98 3: 2 n2. 3 2 58312 28

h . «.... n 2 8.2 at 2.8 «.2; m 2.8 8 2 x._< 823:2 $8

a 2 od 2 2 one «.2 N.NN 82 m 98 8 2 x._< 83:2 2...
8.5.8 .382

ICC 000 CC. 0 CC. C CO 8§E:°_m

3 «a 3 8s 02 8. 32 N can 2 8 343

5 an 3 8.2 8.: 2.8 «.2; a 2.2. 8 2 «9:99...

«.. 3 .8 88 t2 «.2 v.8 m «.8 2 mo «.98
30:20 :a

.. wz mz mz mz mz m2 8:833

5 mm 3 8.2 8.: 2.8 «.2; m 2.8 8 2 82-82.28.

3 3 «.. 2.... 8.2 98. 3.2 2 En 8 E 82.8.28.
.58. “a; a 33

2:52 .sz s. .52 Lmz 8828588.... 85;

m2 m2 .. . .. 880285

N.N . cm 5 m3 ..2 Q2 5.8 a 3m 8 2 x8~-%~.z8~

3 3 3 8.2 at .8 «.2; m 2.8 8 2 £28728.

«.2 3. No 8.» 2.2 3.. 02 m 8.8 2 t x2238
.58. .3. an:

m: wz .. mz mz 8:886

3 S E 8.» «.2 Q2 82 2 2.8 8 2 8mm

2 3 3 8.2 8.: 2.8 «.2; m 2.8 8 2 8.58.3;

E 3 «.2 8.8 3.. can $2 2 m8 8 2 son.
:8:

mzr: wzr: mzrz wzr: a... Lmz 8283088.... 85:

CC. CC. CC. wz CC. C... C 8:85co_m

m P 3. N 2 2.2 8. man «.08 m 2.8 2. 2 8 «on?

s 2 3 n 2 8.2 8.: ..8 ~82 8 2.8 8 E. 8 .8?

m F 3 m o 26. 92 m: 92 a ”.8 R 2 00 28v
.26.. 2320:
cm .82 is: 2.835

52.8: 528: 2 88.2 in; to.» 22.3 22.3 .2: 22.: .26: 8 :3
.2: is“. .88 3.9? to .85 52”. .85 .5...
.53

 

 

 

..:... .88 95 2.53.3.1 .55.... 23:39:33.3; ...Eaazoo. 59... .2885
.0 95.830: 3:. 5325 :0 1.. :.:.—35.30.. .23 62.82.0050 35.?! ..:—.32.“: .825 3 «.25. 05.5.2: 233.260 23202 32.6) .0 «out. 2; .3 03a...

100

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8: N APPLIED

   

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

    

a A
“E a . 3
° :
3 E .
.9 g g
8 > z
2
O
o. Treatments
.vam .Nltrooon
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
90
75
u 60
:45
‘3 so
15
0
Treatments
IDmtoVIsIbIoeud-omtorm
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
A250
at A
23200 2
5150 E
3 2
O
i‘” a
g 50 10 E
IL 0
Treatments I Fm" mm [3 my might
PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
15
§ ~ l
2 10 T .............
‘2' l
3 5 l
E l
3 .
2 0 1
123456789101112
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm'. The
standard_(1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat. 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL" N, 7=250
mg-L'1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH‘-N/320 mg CaCO3 ~L“. 12=50% NH‘-Nl20 mg CaCO3 oL'1 ).

101

 

5.9.888: ..8... .3... .8... v m a 8858... 8 2858.82 .. .mz

 
 

0:235:35. 02.2...

 

 

wz mz mz mz mz mz mz 00:858.».

o... ...o «.o 2.« v2 em a...» m 8 ... o8 0.23.12 28

.... o... no 2.« o2 m... 98 m «n 2 ..8 x... 8......2 28

...o «... no 2.« «.2 m... v.8 o 8 2 o...” .3 89812 .8
8.5.3 .8332

m2 mz mz wz m2 8:85:86

.... Z n... 8.« o... o v 8.8 o «n «. 98 02::

.... o... no 2.« ...2 a v ...8 m «n 2 ..8 «8.888

«.. qr. no 8.« 3.. . m «.2 m .« «. ...... 3!...
5:25 :..

. m2 mz mz m2 wz wz 8.8586

o . o... n o 2.« 8.2 a... ...8 m «m 2 ..8 0.8.8.28.

o o ..m ... o 8.« ..2 ..m «.8 ... 8 ... ..2 82-8.28.
.88. “.02. .. 25..

:82 :62 88:85:85. 8:2.

. wz .. m2 wz m2 m2 8:85:85

«.. ...m o... 8.« o... a... 8.8 o 8 2 3... v.8«d..«.28«

.... o... no 2.« ...2 m... 8.8 m «m 2 ..8 0.8.8728.

a... a... ..o 8.« «... o... n.«« o ... .. 8.8 2392...
.58. 35. um;

mz . .. m2 m2 wz . 8:858...

..o «.m ...o 8.0 ..2 ...... ...8 m 8 2 ..8 {no

.... o... «.o 2.« 8.2 a... ...8 m «n 2 ..8 2.888..

a... ..m 2. 8.« ..2 ..c «.8 m 8 e. 92. .8".
«.8:

m2... m2: m2... m2... 6:985:85... 8:2.

: . : wz . m2 m2 8:8...8.m

.. o «... m o 8... «2 ...v v. ... m 8 ... 8.8 00 .8?

o . o... n o 2.« ...2 3 ...8 m «... 2 ..8 oo .82

« . 9m « o 2.. o... ....” ..2 o 8 a m8 oo ..88
.254 0.53.63
on to... .382 .28.“. £282..

53.8: 828: z 3.8.. :..5. to.» 2.22... 20.25 ..:... :.:.... 83o... o. :6
.8: .8... .53 8:8... to .02.... :8... .02.» .8...
.83

 

A... 60848.. 5.5.2.85... .5....5. 28.38888... ..:82... SE. 3.8...» x 228
3 05.33.. 0.... 523.5 .3 :1 :.:.—35.39. .23 52.2.3030 35.2.3. 52.30.33 3.0.... 3 0.23. 9.320.... 23.5230 0.3302 23.3.. 3 Soto 2:. .2. 032.

102

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8. N APPLIED

    

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

    
  

 

   

 

 

 

5.100%. 0-9
g 75%. 33 0.6 3
5 g : =
E 50% a 2 ‘ ‘ 5‘
§ 25%.T >0 . || ‘ 22
3 . . 0 ll 0
n. 0% . 1 3456789101112
12 3 4 5 6 1 8 9101112 Treatments
Treatments .Volume .u
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
19
A18
.35 .
.. 17
C
§1o ‘
0 ;
°- 15
Treatments 1‘
.mmwmm-mbm Treatment
NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
an ~35 7
E ‘ £30 a a
5 ‘5 ‘ .5 25 :7
g 3 20 f?
3 1o 3 15 3 e
B .5 1o 2 i
z 5. s z 1..
E 0 I. 4 5 6 7 reatments
Treatments I'm" womanly “I'm
PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
8
° .
24 . _ _ , l
'6 J
E 2 g . 7 _ , l
E , l
5 l
2 o A 1
123456789101112
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 16. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration, and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Salvia xsuperba ‘Blue Queen'. The
standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3mm);
b) porosity of media components (4=peat. 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L‘1 N, 7=250
mg-L‘1 N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f)
nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH‘-N/320 mg CaCO3 -L". 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 ~L" ).

103

.8888. ..8... ..o... .8... v n. ... 585:...» 8 5858.202 ... ... .. .mz

 

 

 

 

....lz... m2... Illa? 8. 5:85.. 88... I: .

mz .. .. mz mz m2 02 8:82:90

.... o... ...: 8.« ..2 m2 «.8 a ..«n ..« .... v...<..«......z .8...

... m... ...... 2.. «.2 «. .. ...... o. ...8 ..« 2. ...: 8.2.2 *8

...: ... m... 2.... ....2 «.2 ...... m ...«n .« ... ...... 893.2 ....
5.5.8 .85.:

CC CC. CC. wz CC. CC. wz scgcucomm

... a... n... 8.« ...2 .... ....2. ... 8.8 «« 3 2......

... ...: m... 2.... «.2 «... :..: 2 ......” 8 8 «.818...»

m... ...: «... 2.. o.o« «... «.o« o ...m« e. 8 98....
8...... ....

02 m2 02 02 02 m2 02 8:85:90

... ...... m... 2... «.2 «... ...... 2 ......” o« 2. 52.2.2.2

... m... m... 2.... _ o2 ...... ...8 .. :8 ..« 3 82-8.28.
3...... “.02. .. ..:...

..mz .02 6:285:82... 8:9.

02 . . wz 02 02 02 8:85:90,

:.. on m... 8.: «.2 :... ...... o. ..8 «« 9 x8«-..:«.zo..«

... m... .._... 2.... «.2 «... o... 2 t2 8 .... xm«.-..«..zm2

.... ...: .... on... «.2 ...... v.8 m «.2 .« 2. v..n-..n-2.n
...5... ..:. “......

mz m2 m2 wz . mz mz 8:85:20

.... .... ...: 8... m2 ...... ...8 o a...» .« 2. ..:...

... ...... m... 2... «.2 «... ...... 2 ...2 ..« 2. 28.38..

... ...... ...... 2... «... .... ..«m ... ...8 «« .... 8..
«......

... m2..: m3... 02.. 8:285:85... 88..

.. m2 m2 . mz 885:5

... :... :... 8... ....2 ...2 «.2 2 ......” 8 «w 00 $2.

... n: m... 2... «.2 «... :. ... 2 :.2 ..« 2. oo .88

a. :... m... 8.« «.2 m... ...2. 2 o. .m 8 8 00 °:.....v
.26.. 25.2....
one: 2258:.

828... 52...... z 8.3.... 8...... ...5: ......oz. ...5... ..:... 2...... .26... o. 2.8
.8... .8... .3... 02...... ...5 .85 :8... .02.» .5...
.50...

 

...... .008 ME. €53.85... 08....5. ..::szszaaz. ..:..m 53.5. 8.82.8 .8380
3 3.33: new 5303 .3 :.. E23339. .30 62.8.3930 3253. 5..-32.23 .03.... 3 22.2 9.320.... 32.3.30 23830.. 0:23.. 3 .0080 SF .... 0.0-....

104

 

 

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 8: N APPLIED

l
I

 

    

 

 

 

 

s
E ~ g‘ , 3
g 15%: £3 5
E 501d 3 2 3
a . § 5
3 25%. 1 z
E . o
“- 0%
12345673910111: Treatments
Treatments Ivan“ I"
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
2 1 ‘ .

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatments

IDIVIMWMIMIDFM Treatments l

NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHTS
“80 29
3 I .1 ‘3
0 40 ~ - ‘ 1o —
3 i I1 I g
5 2° i 1 T t5 e
5 0T ‘ (1'11lz‘° n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

lthmm-Dorymm
PLANT NODE AT FLOWER
32" g1!)
3 ‘ 12$ ,, ,,
1324 E 9; 7 ., , ,
E A e A i
E 8. 5 3I - . , . J
0. o z o ‘1 2 3‘4'5‘6 7 8 9101112
Treatments Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability, fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Scabiosa caucasica 'Butterﬂy Blue'.
The standard (1) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry,
3=wet); b) porosity of media components (4=peat. 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mgoL" N,
7=250 mg-L“ N); d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); e) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and
f) nutrient-solution reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 -L“, 12=50% NH4-N/20 mg CaCO3 oL‘1 ).

105

5.8.88»... .5.... ...... .8... v n. a ...-85:...» ... 28.....2952 ... .. .mz

 

 

 

 

9.. .82 .282 8.8.8082... 88..

. m2 mz m2 . ... mz 8c8£§m

m... .... .... .....m E Q8 ...«8 «« ..8 88 «.. 2.28.3.2 ...8

m... .... .... .....m ... ..8 .88 8 ....« 8«.. «... ...... ..«.......z ....8

.... ... .... 8.... «.. ..2 .....8 .« ...8 88 ... x... 8312 .8
5.5...» .8352

. m2 m2 m2 . ... m2 8:85.58

...o .... m... 8.« .... ...... 9.8 8 no... 28 8 98....

.... ...». .... 8.... ... ..8 .....8 8 ..8 88 «.. «8.888

.... .... .... .....m .... ...8 «.8« «« «.8 8... «.. ...mvﬁ
5...... ....

mz mz ....2 m2 m2 . m2 8:858...

m... ..m .... 88 ... ..8 .....8 8 ..8 88 «.. ..8.-..«.-z8.

.... ...m .... .....m .... ...... ...8« 2 ...8 88 .... 28.8.28.
...5... .83 .. 3....

.82 .82 63983258.... 88..

.. m2 mz m2 mz . wz 8:85.55

.... n... ... 8.8 .... «... ......« 8 ..8 88 .... x8«-....«.28«

.... .... .... 8.... ... ..8 .....8 8 ..8 88 «.. v.8.-..«..z8.

.... o... n... .....m «... 8.... ....8 .« ...8 ...8 .... 23-8.2...
...5... ...... ......»

wz mz wz m2 m2 . mz 8:8...88

.... ..m .... .....m .... ...8 ....8 2 «.8 88 ... ...mm

m... 8 .... 8... ... ..8 .....8 8 ...« 88 «.. 2.888..

.... .... o... .....m .... .... ....8 8 ...8 8... ... .8n.
3...:

m2... m2... m2... wz..: .....9..80......c.... 8......

m2 .. .. m2 . wz 8:8...85

.... no .... 88 E .8 .88 2 m..« 28 8 oo ....8.

...... ..m .... 8.. S. ..8 .....8 8 ...« 88 «.. 00 .8...

o... ...m .... 8.« ...» ...... 3.8 «« ...8 28 .m 00 .88
.26.. 23......
0.. ..m .88. .23... ...—..:5 .... .... one: .5... 82.52 ..:5... 2258...

52...: 52...... z 8.3.... 3...... ...... ......oz. 30...; .2... ......o: .26... ... 2.3
.8... .8... ....o. 8.3.... .... .8...» ..8... .2...» .5....

......» -
...... .006 9:. b.5385... 88...: 2.3.2.8388; ..ﬁ. c2334.. 888
.o 02.030: use 530.6 ..o In 52008.82 2.0 62.22.0050 Les-=5. 5:32.86 .82.. ..o 22.2 05.5.0... 2.2.5.30 2.0300. 2.2.2. .o .02... 2: .2. 2......

106

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

   

PERCENT FLOWERING H20 & N APPLIED
o
5.100%. 5
C $ A A
E 757.‘ ~'44 E
3 g 3 o
E 50% :1 8'
a . E2 5
3 25% 1 z
2 o
07'1 2 34 5 e 759101112
Treatments Iva” IN
FLOWER TIMING PERCENTAGE DRY WEIGHT
100 ‘ 3.5 ‘ . ‘ . ‘ ‘
75 5? o ‘
% so £15
a 25 E 7
0
ﬂ.
0 6.5
reatments 6 1 II II 12

4 5 6 7 s 91
.nmaovmmaud-mmm Treatment

NUMBER OF FLOWER BUDS FRESH AND DRY WEIGHT
2 5000 - . , . .

 

 

 

 

16
12

Dry Weight (g)

 

Treatments I F..." "mm [3 Dry minim

PLANT HEIGHT AT FLOWER PLANT NODE AT FLOWER

 

 

 

Number of Nodes

 

123456789101112
Treatments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 18. The effect of various root-zone conditions including levels of water availability. fertilizer
concentration. and root-medium pH on growth and ﬂowering of Sedum 'Autumn Joy'. The standard
(1 ) root-zone conditions were compared to low and high a) moisture level (2=dry, 3=wet); b) porosity
of media components (4=peat, 5=bark); c) fertilizer concentration (6=31 mg-L'1N. 7=250 mg-L'1 N);
d) phosphorus concentration (8=low P); 6) pH drench (9=pH<5.5, 10=pH>6.5); and f) nutrient-solution
reaction (11=5% NH4-N/320 mg CaCO3 oL", 12=50% NH.-N120 mg CaCO3 oL" ).

107

"lllllllllllllllllllllllll