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. ....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