ABSTRACT EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM LEVELS ON GROWTH AND COMPOSITION OF LEAVES OF 'ICEBERG' CHRYSANTHEMUM UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS By Reynaldo Catublas Rodriguez Rooted cuttings of 'lceberg' chrysanthemum were planted in glazed crocks containing quartz sand. Three cuttings were planted in each of 90 two-gallon containers. The cuttings were watered with nutrient solutions containing varying levels of N and K. Ten treatment solutions were prepared to contain 56, ll2, 22h, “#8 and 896 ppm N with BIZ and 62h ppm K. Leaf samples were collected after 9 weeks of growth. The samples were collected to represent leaf position of successive pairs of leaves starting with a sample of tip tissue. Height and weight of IO plants in each treatment were recorded. Best growth resulted from 22# ppm N with 3l2 ppm K. When K was increased to 62h ppm, the greatest amount of growth, as measured by weight occurred with hh8 ppm N. Each leaf sample was analyzed for N, K, P, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Cu, B, Zn, Al, and Na. Several instances of interactions resulting from N level, K level, and leaf position were found. Reynaldo Catublas Rodriguez Considering composition values, growth measurements and values from the literature, leaf sampling positions 3, h, and S as a‘ combined sample, appeared satisfactory as a location for sampling to determine nutrient status of Chrysanthemum. These positions represented leaf numbers 3 to 8 below the tip. Composition values found in this study are not suggested as ”standard” values. It is recommended that such values be confirmed with further studies that would involve flowering and studies of flower quality. EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM LEVELS ON GROWTH, AND COMPOSITION OF LEAVES OF 'ICEBERG' CHRYSANTHEMUM UNDER GREENHOUSE CONDITIONS By Reynaldo Catublas Rodriguez A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture I969 ’ . .’ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks and aappreciation to Dr. A. L. Kenworthy for his assistance in F>reparing the manuscript; to Dr. R. S. Lindstrom (presently vvith the Horticulture Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute) for his guidance in carrying out the experiments. Grateful acknowledgement is expressed to Drs. W. H. (Larlson, M. J. Bukovac, C. M. Harrison and H. C. Beeskow Ftar their suggestions in editing the manuscript. The author also wishes to express thanks to his fellow g;raduate students in the plant analysis laboratory for their assistance in the use of the facilities. Special appreciation is due my family for their encourage- Inerwt, patience and sacrifices during the course of graduate StLJdY. And to others who may have contributed in some way or another, I wish to express my thanks TABLE AC KNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . LIST OF TABLES ’. L l ’. ’. ‘. . L IST OF APPENDICES . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . Materials . . . . . . . Treatments. . . . . . . Statistical Analysis. . RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . Growth. . . . . . . . . Observations. . . . . . Nitrogen. . . . . . . . Potassium . . . . . . . Phosphorus. . . . . . . Calcium . . . . . . . . Magnesium . . . . . . . Manganese . . . . . . . Iron. . . . . . . . . . Copper. . . . . . . . . Bo ron O O O O O O O O ‘0 OF CONTENTS Page Zinc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Aluminum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 [DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Nutrient Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . .». 8h Leaf Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Selection of Leaf Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 SIJMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O L.ITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9I APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 LIST OF TABLES 'Table Page I N and K Concentrations in Each Treatment. . . . ll 2 Growth of Chrysanthemum Plants as Influenced by Solution Concentrations of Nitrogen and POtaSSium O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l6 3 Nitrogen in Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nutrient Solution Concentration of NitrOgen and Potassium and to Leaf Position. . . . . . . I9 h Nitrogen in Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Combinations of Nitrogen and PotaSsium Solution Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Nitrogen Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Leaf Position as Influenced by Solution Concentration of Nitrogen. . . . . . . 2l 6 Nitrogen Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Leaf Position and SolutiOn' Concentration of Potassium. . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 Nitrogen Content of Chrystanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Potassium and Nitrogen Solution Concentration and by Leaf Position. . . . . . . 2h E3 Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Concentrations of NitrOgen and Potassium and to Leaf Position. . . . . . . . . 27 59 Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by NitrOgen and Potassium Solution concentrationS. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 28 I0 Potassium Content of Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Positions . . . 30 ll Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to PotaSsium Concentration and Leaf POSition. O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 3] Tataha 12 l3 l4 IS l6 I7 18 '59 12(3 21 22 Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Solution Concentration and to Leaf Position. . . . . . Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations in the Solution. . . . . . . . Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium ConcentratiOn and Lea‘F POSItion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and by Leaf Position. . . Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Squti n Concentrations of Nitrogen and Potassium. . . . . . . . . . . . Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen ConcentratiOn and Leaf POS i t ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to PotaSsium Concentration and Leaf POSition. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and to Leaf Position. . . Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and PotaSsium Concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by NitrOgen.Concentrati0n and Leaf POS i t ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 33 34 35 37 39 40 4] 43 44 45 47 Table 23 24 25 26 27 28 259 33(3 3 I 322 33 Page Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium ConcentratiOn and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and by Leaf Position. . . . 49 Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SI Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by NitrOgeniConcentratiOn and Leaf POSition O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 52 Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to PotaSsium Concentration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf POSition O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 57 Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to PotaSsium Concentration and Leaf POSition. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 59 Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . 60 COpper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 vii Tkable 34 35 36 37 38 39 140 [+2 1+3 44 Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen,Concentration and Leaf POS i tion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf POSition O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen ConcentratiOn and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by PotaSsium Concentration and Leaf POS i tion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by the Interaction of Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations. . . . . . . . . Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf POSition. O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to the Interaction of Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration and Leaf Position . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 63 64 65 67 68 69 7I 72 73 74 76 Table 45 46 47 48 49 Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by the Interaction of Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration . . . . . . . Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by NitrOgen,Concentrati0n and Leaf POSitionO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Potassium Concentration and Leaf POSition. O O I O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Effects of Changes in Concentration of Nitrogen and Potassium on Other Elements . . . . . . . . A Comparison of the Composition of Chrysanthemum Leaves Number 3 to 8 With Values PrOposed by Lunt g£_al,, I963, with 'Good News' Chrysanthemum Page 77 78 80 8] 85 'Table I0 ll LIST OF APPENDICES Nutrition Solution Used for Each Treatment. . Nitrogen Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf PCsition and Solution Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn compos i t i on O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O 0 Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as In luenced by Leaf Position and SqutiOn Compos i t ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn compos i t ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as In- fluenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COpper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf PCsition and SolutiOn compos i t ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and Solution Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 96 97 98 99 lOO lOl I02 I03 I04 l05 I06 Table 1.2 1.3 Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf PoSition and SolutiOn comPOSi t ion 0 O O O O O O C O O O O 0 Sodium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Leaf Position and SolutiOn compos i t i on O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Page lO7 l08 INTRODUCTION Chrysanthemum has been one of the largest of the green- house floriculture crops and has become the flower of the people. At present the chrysanthemum industry has a whole- sale value of 6l.3 million dollars in the 23 states included in the U. S. Crop Reporting Services survey of I966. This included standards, pompons, and potted plants. Chrysanthemum ranked as first among the four main cut flower crops produced. Of the 6l.3 million dollar value, the standard chrysanthemum had a total wholesale value of 23.2 million dollars. In Michigan the wholesale value of chrysanthemum was I.35 million dollars with the standards being 0.3 million dollars. Post, I952, stated that chrysanthemums were grown by a greater number of greenhouse producers than any other commercial crop in the U.S. and in several countries of the world. With prOper manipulation of daylength and temperature, the chrysanthemum can be made to flower the year round. The great number of chrysanthemum varieties available and their good keeping quality make chrysanthemum a popular cut flower for home use and for commercial flower arrangement. In order to obtain good keeping and storage qualities, and marketability, a good cultural management program in the greenhouse is mandatory. Usually the accepted practice is to use a soil mix that provides good drainage and aeration. However, this may not supply the necessary nutrients for the normal growth of the plants. Furthermore, growers do not change the soil in benches from year to year. This necessitates fertilizer amendments. Although there has been some work conducted on the nutri- tion of chrysanthemum there is little information on the effects of N and K. This study was conducted in order to provide additional information on the effects of various concentration of N and K in the nutrient medium on leaf composition and growth of Iceberg chrysanthemum and to relate these effects to position on the plant where the leaf sample was taken. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Foliar analysis has been used for over IOO years. Weinhold (I862), Hellriegell (I867), and Wolff (I868) were among the first workers who used plant tissue analysis as a diagnostic tool to confirm visual symptoms which indicate deficiency or toxicity of a nutrient element. Ulrich (I8) mentioned de Sausure in I804 as the earliest work on plant analysis. Today plant analysis has become widely used as a tool for determining fertilizer needs of perennial crops like fruit trees, and, also, in some vegetable and floriculture crops. Bould (2) stated that in order to be effective as a diagnostic tool, factors such as age and position of leaves, the species or varieties of crop, the climate, time of the year, stage of development of the crop, damage by pests and diseases, and geographical location should be taken into account. Lunt,§£_§l. (ll) stated that a background of detailed information as to the requirement of the crop would be essential in order for tissue analysis to be effective as a diagnostic tool. Leaf analysis is based on the functioning and assimilating leaves as the central laboratories of nutrition according to Lundegard has mentioned by Shear,§£_§l. (l4). Leaf analysis, also may reveal the direction and extent of nutrient inbalance in the plant. Since a great deal of work had been done in tree crops and other economic crops, a compilation on the position of leaf, the tissue best for sampling, and the range best for a plant of a particular nutrient element had been listed by Childers (4), Chapman (3), and Goodall and Gregory (5), so that only literature pertaining to chrysanthemum will be cited here. Messing, _£._l. (l2) reported that the omission of any element from a nutrient solution frequently induced different effects in different varieties of the same species. The nutrient requirement of chrysanthemum depended on the variety. In particular, slow growing varieties with small hard foliage needed higher levels of N. Waters (I9) stated that increased K had little effect on plant responses other than K-content of leaf and flower tissue. When N rates were increased, yield responses and postharvest keeping quality decreased and the susceptibility to Botrytis cinerea Perc. ex. Fr. increased markedly. In general, optimum yields were obtained when young mature leaves contained 3.5% to 4.5% and 3.5% to 6.0% K; and flowers contained l.5% to 2.5% of N and K. He also observed that, for good quality yields of flowers, 20 to 30 lbs. of N and K per acre per week should be applied under field conditions in Florida. Lunt, t I. (ll) proposed the following leaf composition and sampling positions as representative of desirable growth of 'Good News' Chrysanthemum. Element Adequate Range Plant Part Effec- tively Reflecting Mineral Deficiencies N % 4.5 - 6.0 Upper leaves P % 0.26 - l.l5 Upper or lower leaves K % 3.5 - l0.0 Lower leaves Ca % 0.50 - 4.6 Upper leaves Mg % O.l4 - l.50 Lower leaves Mn ppm I95 - 260 Upper or lower leaves B ppm 25 - 200 Upper leaves Cu ppm I0 (?) Middle leaves from lower axillary growth Zn ppm 7-26 (?) Lower leaves Boodley (I) observed that potted chrysanthemum, grown in spring and summer, had a greater nutrient content than those grown in winter. Lunt and Kofranek (l0) reported that the K requirement of Chrysanthemum (var. Albatross, Dark Orchid, Queen and Good News) was high. Leaf K content of plants adequately fertilized contained about IOO me./I00 grams (3.90%) and upward while the leaves of plants containing l2-l5 me./l00 grams (0.47-0.59%) developed necrosis, typical K deficiency, were delayed in blooming and shoots were crooked. The N requirement of these 4 varieties was also high. Plants adequately fertilized had leaf N levels of about 4.0 to 4.5%. Levels of about 2.25 to 2.75% were considered slightly deficient. They felt it was important that N levels should be maintained for the first 7 weeks of growth. If moderate N deficiency devel0ped subsequently, N fertilization did not bring back the flower quality. Sustained high N levels until blooming time led to a condition of “brittle leaf”. Thus lower N levels in the growing medium would be desirable during the last 3 or 4 weeks before bloom. Joiner and Smith (9) used 'Bluechip' Chrysanthemum and observed detrimental effects of high N and low K during high temperature, although the injurious effects were less marked and were finally overcome as K was increased. Vigorous, produc- tive plants were produced when l00 ppm N and I66 ppm K were used or a ratio of I:l.6 N to K. Chemical analysis of the foliage revealed ionic antagonism between K and Mg whereas N had a synergistic effect on the absorption of Ca, Mg, and P. Increased N lowered flower keeping quality while intensity of flower color decreased with high N and low K. Woltz (2l) with 'Forty Niner' and 'Goldsmith' Chrysanthemum proposed the following as approximate desirable levels for solution concentration (sand culture) and leaf analysis. Element Nutrient Sol. Sand Leaves Culture PPm N % lOO - 200 4.5 - 5.0 P % 40 0.3 - 0.4 K % l00 - 200 4.0 - 6.0 Mg % 25 - 50 0.3 B ppm O.l 75 Cu ppm 0.l 35 Fe ppm l.0 200 Mn ppm 0.25 200 Zn ppm 0.5 l50 Stevens, _£._l, (l7) with potted Chrysanthemum observed the first symptoms of injury due to excessive soluble salts as a reduction in plant growth followed by a wilting of the foliage. Joiner (7) stated that generally at a low P level, each increment of K, decreased tissue content of P, Ca, and Mg. But as P was increased in the substrate a larger increase of K was necessary to cause a decrease in the absorption of these elements in 'Indianapolis White No. 3'. Pawlowski (l3) observed that flower deveIOpment in Chrysanthemum was delayed by ammonium nitrate in concentrations exceeding 200 ppm N, and this effect was independent of the K concentration in the nutrient solution or the K content of the plant. Increasing K concentration in the nutrient solution, decreased the content of the total N in the plant, whereas the nitrate and relative protein N content increased. In the K stimulating range, increasing yields were accomapnied by a decrease in the content of organic bond non-protein N. Waters (l9) observed that generally N content of leaves and flowers increased linearly in response to additional K. The K content of leaves and flowers increased linearly in response to additional K fertilizers and varied slightly in response to additional N. Excessive N was more injurious than excessive K. Waters (20),using I4-I4-l4 fertilizer at the rate of 2400- 7200 lbs/A/season, reported the following leaf composition values at the different rates of fertilizers. He used 'Iceberg' Chrysanthemum. % Chemical Content of Leaves at Harvest Fertilizer TBS/A7Season 7N7 P K C5 900 3.l2 .39 1.40 l.26 I200 3.3l .4I I.48 l.55 l500 3.59 .35 2.97 I.30 l800 3.55 .47 2.05 l.56 2l00 3.48 .38 2.40 l.58 2400 3.45 40 2.68 l.53 N:S. MATERIALS AND METHODS The research was carried out in the Plant Science Green- house of the Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Materials Rooted cuttings of Chrysanthemum morifolium var. Iceberg* were placed in 2-gallon containers filled with number 7 fine quartz sand and then covered with an inch of number 4 coarse grade sand. One-gallon containers were used to hold and collect the nutrient solution used for the culture. Treatments The quartz sand used was rinsed several times with de- ionized water until the washings were clear before the cuttings were planted. The 2-gallon containers were cleaned with a solution of 50 cc. chlorox to I gallon of water. The 2-gallon containers were provided with a side drain hole where a single-holed rubber stOpper was fitted and a rubber tubing connected the 2-gallon container to the l-gallon container fitted with a 2-holed rubber stopper. *Obtained from Yoder Brothers, Barberton, Ohio. ID A watch glass was placed over the drain hole inside the 2-gallon container and covered with glass wool to minimize loss of sand during watering. This did not interfere with the drainage. The rooted cuttings were washed carefully to remove any soil or rooting medium which might contaminate the culture. Three plants were placed in each container on June l6, I967. Three Z-gallon containers corresponded to one treatment and a total of nine 2-gallon containers made up a single treat- ment with three replications. The plants were watered with deionized water for three days before the treatments were started. A modified Hoagland solution was used as standard. The nutrient solutions contained all the elements in the standard solution of Hoagland and Arnon (6). Nitrogen and potassium were supplied at varying concentrations as shown in Table l. The pH of the solutions was adjusted to 6.0 prior to use and the nutrient solutions were changed once a week. The frequency of watering was based on the needs of the plants as determined by growth or climatic conditions. The 2-gallon containers were placed on t0p of the benches and a support was built for the l-gallon containers so that they were just below their respective 2-gallon containers. The containers were labelled with their respective treatment numbers and were completely randomized. II Table l. N and K Concentrations in Each Treatmenta Treatment Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. No. ppm ppm l 56 3l2 2 ll2 3l2 3 224 3l2 4 448 3l2 5 896 3l2 6 56 624 7 ll2 624 8 224 624 9 448 624 ID 896 624 aSee Appendix Table l for chemicals used in preparation of each solution. l2 Saran cloth was placed above the plants to prevent leaf burn from the intense sunlight and, also, to minimize dust on the medium and on the leaves. Additional lights were used from 4:00 p.m. to ll:00 p.m. to extend daylength and to insure vegetative growth during the experimental period. Insects and diseases were controlled by spraying the appropriate insecti- cide and fungicide during the experimental period. The plants were observed very closely for any signs of deficiency or toxicity. The plants grown under treatment I (56 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K) and treatment 6 (56 ppm N and 624 ppm K) showed signs of chlorosis and stunted growth. By the ninth week, the plants from these two treatments were completely different from the 224 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K so that on August l8, I967 the plants final observations were made regarding symptoms of nutrient disorders. The height and fresh weight were taken and recorded for ten plants from each treatment. The following leaf samples were taken from each treatment by compositing the 3 plants in each container. Sample No. l - The growing tip included the first expanded leaf. Sample No. 2 - The next two leaves below sample I. Sample No. 3 - The next two leaves below sample 2. l3 Sample No. 4 - The next two leaves below sample 3. Sample No. 5 - The next two leaves below sample 4. Sample No. 6 - The next two leaves below sample 5. Sample No. 7 - The next two leaves below sample 6. Sample No. 8 - The next two leaves below sample 7. Sample No. 9 - The next two leaves below sample 8. Sample No. l0 - The next two leaves below sample 9. Leaf sample ID was also the bottom leaves in treatments using 56 ppm N. The leaf samples were cleaned with cheesecloth moistened with deionized water. Each leaf sample from one treatment in each replicate was placed in a perforated bag. They were immediately placed in a drying oven for 48 hours at ISO to l70F. The oven-dried samples were ground in an intermediate Wiley mill to pass through a 20-mesh screen. The ground samples were collected in separate bottles, covered, numbered corres- pondingly and stored for analysis. For nitrogen determination, a 0.25 gram aliquot was weighed and placed in a Kjeldahl flask and analyzed by a standard Kjeldahl method. For potassium determination, a 0.25 gram aliquot of the ground sample was weighed and extracted in 50 ml. of distilled water for 2 hours with occasional shaking. The filtrate was used for potash determination in the flame photometer. l4 For phosphorus, sodium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, copper, boron, zinc, and aluminum spectrophotometric analysis was used. All analyses were made in the Plant Analysis Laboratory, Horticulture Department, Michigan State University. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance was done by use of the computer. Tukey's (l6) honestly significant difference (HSD) was used in determining significant differences among the means. A significant difference at the .Ol level was used unless otherwise specified. A simple correlation was also run through the computer to determine the effects of the N and K interaction on the various elements included in the analysis except Na. RESULTS Growth Growth of the plants was affected by the concentration of nitrogen and potassium, Table 2. Greatest amount of growth, as measured by either height or dry weight, resulted from the use of 224 ppm N and 3l2 or 624 ppm K. Solutions containing 896 ppm N reduced growth only when combined with 624 ppm K. The least amount of linear growth resulted from the solution containing 56 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K. The solution containing 56 ppm N with 624 ppm K did result in significantly greater height of plants than the 56 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K. sthweight of tops was significantly reduced when 56 ppm N was used as compared to all other N concentrations with 3l2 ppm K. However, with 624 ppm K, 56 ppm N significantly reduced growth as compared with 224 ppm N and above. With both BIZ and 624 ppm K there was no difference in fresh weight of tops for N concentrations above lI2 ppm. Observations Plants in treatments receiving 56 ppm N with 3l2 and 624 ppm K respectively, were stunted, no side shoots devel0ped, stems were thin, leaves were smaller and yellowish green compared to the other treatments; and after removing l0 leaf samples practically no leaves were left. These were the only 2 treatments that showed N deficiency. I5 l6 Table 2. Growth of Chrysanthemum Plants as Influenced By Solution Concentrations of Nitrogen and Potassium a 4‘— Nitrogen Potassium Ht. of Tops Fresh Wt. of Tops PPm PPm cm 9 56 3l2 46.8 38.0 ll2 3l2 78.4 99.9 224 3l2 92.8 ll2.2 448 3l2 77.2 98.] 896 3l2 74.7 l06.8 56 624 58.l 40.3 lI2 624 72.9 68.5 224 624 85.7 83.9 448 624 84.7 90.5 896 624 66.7 73.2 Required for significant difference .05 - ll.4 .05 - 27.4 .0I - l3.0 .Ol - 3l.3 l7 With ll2 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K, the plants were not very different from the 224 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K, although the leaves were not as large, plants were not as tall, and side shoots were present. Using lI2 ppm N with 624 ppm K, resulted in plants that were somewhat shorter and with thinner shoots thinner as compared to its counterpart above. This was shown by the average height of 72.9 cm compared to 78.4 cm, and average weight was 68.5 9 compared to 99.9 g. The plants with ll2 ppm N with 624 ppm K were woody and the leaves difficult to remove from the stems with petioles attached. The solution with 224 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K was considered as a standard. This treatment resulted in plants that were tallest with an average height of 92.8 cm and heaviest with an average weight of ll2.2 g. The leaves were large and bright green. Side shoots were present. Solutions with 224 ppm N but with 624 ppm K, resulted in an average height of 85.7 cm and 83.9 9 average weight. The plants looked normal. Solutions with 448 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K, resulted in plants with few side shoots but looked normal. The plants had an average height of 77.2 cm and 98.l 9 average weight. Plants receiving 448 ppm N and 624 ppm K, averaged 84.8 cm in height and 90.5 9 average weight. Solutions with 896 ppm N and 3l2 ppm K, produced plants .that were quite brittle. The plants looked normal. The average l8 height was 74.7 cm and l06.8 9 average weight. Solutions containing 896 ppm and 624 ppm K resulted in plants with an average height of 66.7 cm and 73.2 9 average weight. However, the plants in both treatments looked normal. Nitrogen As shown in Table 3, each increment in nitrogen concen- tration above ll2 ppm resulted in a significant increase in leaf N. The use of 56 ppm N did not significantly reduce leaf N below that resulting from ll2 ppm N. The use of 624 ppm K resulted in a significant increase in leaf N as compared to 3l2 ppm K. Leaf N was lower in older leaves. Although there was a stepwise reduction in leaf N with age, not all leaf positions were significantly different from each other. However, significant differences were present if the data for even or odd numbered leaf positions were compared. Table 4 shows leaf N as influenced by K concentration in relation to varying concentrations of N. Increasing the K concentration from 3l2 to 624 ppm resulted in an increase in leaf N when the nitrogen concentration was 56, Il2 or 224 ppm. However, when N concentration was 448 or 896 ppm, an increase in K concentration resulted in a decrease in leaf N. Leaf N content increased as the N concentration in the medium was increased regardless of leaf position (Table 5). l9 Table 3. Nitrogen in Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nutrient Solution Concentration of Nitrogen and Potassium and to Leaf Position 4 L _ — —_ *1 N - ppm Leaf N - % dry wt 56 3.27 ll2 3.40 224 3.90 448 4.90 896 5.9l Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .l4, l% - .l6 K - ppm 3l2 4.2] 624 4.34 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .08, l% - .lO Leaf position I 4.9l 2 4.7l 3 4.60 4 4.47 5 4.26 6 4.l5 7 4.07 8 3.95 9 3.87 0 3.73 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .20, l% - .23 l 20 Table 4. Nitrogen in Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Combinations of Nitrogen and Potassium Solution Concentrations Nitrogen Con. Potassium Conc. Nitrogen ppm ppm % dry wt. 56 3l2 3.l8 lI2 3l2 3.03 224 312 3.78 448 3l2 5.0l 896 3l2 6.05 56 624 3.35 ll2 624 3.77 224 624 4.02 448 624 4.78 896 624 5.77 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .20; l% - .23 2l Table 5. Nitrogen Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Leaf Position as Influenced by Solution Concentration of Nitrogen _ L Leaf Position Nitrogen Concentration pm 56 ll2 224 448 896 Nitrogen - % dry wt. l 4.3l 4.42 4.62 5.33 5.89 2 3.97 4.05 4.15 5.22 6.l6 3 3.59 3.82 4.09 5.31 6.2l 4 3.2l 3.6I 4.04 5.24 6.26 5 3.09 3.30 3.74 5.02 6.l5 6 2.99 3.l4 3.79 4.87 5.97 7 3.03 2.97 3.73 4.68 5.93 8 2.97 2.89 3.62 4.55 5.72 9 2.87 2.89 3.62 4.45 5.53 l0 2.62 2.90 3.59 4.30 5.22 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .44; l% - .5l 22 A significant difference in the younger leaf tissues occurred when 448 and 896 ppm N was used. In the older leaf tissues a significant difference occurred when 224, 448 and 896 ppm N were used in the medium. There was no significant difference between the first two leaf samples when the N concentration in the medium was 56, ll2, or 224 ppm. However, in the medium where 448 ppm N was used there was no significant difference from the first down to the sixth leaf sample. Similarly where 896 ppm N was used there was a gradual increase in leaf N from the first leaf sample to the fourth and then a decrease for the leaf samples below the fourth sample. The increase in leaf N from the first to the fourth leaf sample was not significant. However, leaf position 8 and below were significantly below the N concentration for leaf position 4. The nitrogen content of leaves still followed the general trend of having the greatest concentration in the upper-most leaf position (Table 6) when the potassium concentration was increased from 3l2 to 624 ppm. However, the two uppermost leaf samples had a higher N content as compared to 3l2 ppm K, when 624 ppm K was used in the medium. There was no signi- ficant difference between 3l2 and 624 ppm K for the other leaf positions. As shown in Table 7, there was a decrease in leaf N ‘with leaf age for all N concentrations with either K concen- trations except for 448 and 896 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K, in which 23 Table 6. Nitrogen Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Leaf Position and Solution Concentration of Potassium Leaf Position Potassnum Concentration 3T2 ppm 624 ppm Nitrogen - %dry wt. l 4.64 5.l9 2 4.5I 4.9l 3 4.49 4.7l 4 4.44 4.5l 5 4.2l 4.32 6 4.l7 4.l4 7 4.08 4.06 8 3.98 3.92 9 3.86 3.88 l0 3.7l 3.74 .28 .32 Req. for Sign. Diff.: .05 .0 24 .m. u &_ “No. u &m "mococomw_o ucmo_m_cm_m LOm ooc_zcom 00.: 0:.m N~.: mm.: N0.m Nm.m 0_.m m0.~ _N.N mm.~ 0. :m.m _N.m m~.: 00.: mu.m .m.m _~.m mm.N :m.~ om.~ m mm.m 0_.0 00.: 50.: 0N.m :m.m _N.m 0m.~ 00.~ :0.m m mm.m mm.0 m:.: mm.: nw.m 00.m mm.m mm.N :0.m ~0.m n 00.m :m.m 00.: m_.m 0m.m mm.m ~m.m nu.~ ~_.m mm.~ 0 mm.m 0m.0 RN.: Nu.m mm.m .0.m m0.m mm.~ mm.m :m.~ m mm.m :m.0 00.m m:.m m_.: mm.m mm.m m~.m ~:.m 00.m J 0_.0 0~.0 m_.m m:.m m~.: mm.m :~.¢ mm.m mm.m m:.m m nm.0 :m.m 0m.m m_.m .m.: mm.m mm.: Nm.m .00.¢ :m.m N 0:.0 mm.m mm.m __.m nn.: N:.: mm.: 00.: mm.: :~.: _ :mo ~_m :No ~_m No ~_m :Nm ~_m :No N_m Ea .6200 .x :o_u_m00 000 0:: JNN ~__ 0m 0mm; Eda .ocow .m co_u_m00 moo; >0 6cm co_umcucmocoo co_u:_0m comoLu_z ocm E:_mmmuOm >0 066063—00. mm mo>mou Ezeozucmm>csu mo ucoucou comoLumz .n m_nmp 25 case leaf N content tended to increase from the first to the fourth leaf samples before it decreased with age. With 624 ppm K, the above did not occur but instead followed the trend of leaf N which decreased with leaf age. The data showed that for 56 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K, leaf N was lowest for leaf position l0 and significantly increased when leaf position 3 was reached. For 56 ppm N with 624 ppm K, the lowest leaf N was for position ID with a significant increase occurring at position 4. Lowest leaf N for ll2 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K was for leaf position 8 and significantly increased at position 4. The combination of ll2 ppm N with 624 ppm K had the lowest leaf N at leaf position ID with a significant increase occuring at position 4. For 224 ppm N with 3l2 ppm K, the lowest leaf N was at position 9 and signi- ficance occurred at the first leaf sample. For 224 ppm N with 624 ppm K, the lowest leaf N was at leaf position l0 and a significant increase was reached at leaf position I. When 448 ppm N was used, the lowest leaf N occurred at position ID for both 3l2 and 624 ppm K. However, a significant increase occurred at position 6, for 3l2 ppm K and position 4 for 624 ppniK. Also, the highest leaf N content occurred at leaf position 4 and there was no significant difference between samples 4 and l. Using 896 ppm N resulted in the lowest leaf N at position ID with either 3l2 or 624 ppm K. However, a 26 significant increase occurred at leaf position 7 with 3l2 ppm K and at position 9 with the 624 ppm K. There was no signi- ficant increase until position 3 was reached. Also note that the highest leaf N with 3l2 ppm K was highest at position 4 and a significant difference from position I. In all cases 624 ppm K increased leaf N content compared to 3l2 ppm. Potassium Nitrogen concentrations below and above ll2 ppm in the medium resultedin an increased K content of leaves as shown in Table 8. The increase was significant with the 56, 448, and 896 ppm N. The lowest N concentration (56 ppm) resulted in the highest K content but was not significant when compared to the 448 or 896 ppm N. Table 8 shows that leaf K content was significantly increased when 624 ppm K was used in the medium. Leaf K was higher for the lower leaf samples as shown in Table 8. The first six leaf samples had K content that was significantly different from each other. Below position 6, there was not a significant increase for each leaf position but significance occurred for every other leaf position. Various combinations of N and K concentrations altered the main effects of N and K concentrations, Table 9. Increasing the K concentration from 3l2 ppm to 624 ppm increased leaf K 27 Table 8. Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Concentrations of Nitrogen and Potassium and to Leaf Position N - ppm Leaf K - % dry wt 56 7.0l ll2 6.42 224 6.43 448 6.78 896 6.94 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .26, l% - .30 K-ppm 3l2 5.96 624 7.47 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .l6, l% - .l9 Leaf Position l .l8 .92 .75 .29 .82 .20 .50 .86 .2I .43 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .36, l% - .42 ommwmmpww mmuwummmrt ‘ 28 Table 9. Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Solution Concentrations Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Potassium ppm ppm %Tdry wt. 56 3l2 6.84 ll2 3l2 5.45 224 3l2 5.76 448 3l2 5.88 896 3l2 5.89 56 624 7.l8 ll2 624 7.39 224 624 7.l0 448 624 7.68 896 624 8.00 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .36, l% - .42 29 when the N concentration was ll2 ppm or higher. The increase was not significant when 56 ppm N was used. With 3l2 ppm K, increasing the N concentration from 56 to lI2 ppm reduced leaf K. Further increases in N concentration increased leaf K with significance occurring when 448 or 896 ppm N was used. When 624 ppm K was used there was no significant increase in leaf K until 448 or 896 ppm N was used. As shown in Table l0, leaf K increased with lower leaf positions regardless of N concentration. However, the increase between leaf position I and 2 was significant for a N concentration of 56 ppm. For all other N concentrations the increase was not significant until leaf position 3. Conversely, the decrease in leaf K below that for leaf position ID was significant for leaf position 7 when 56, ll2 or 448 ppm N was used. For 224 and 896 ppm N, the decrease was significant for leaf position 6. The over-all increase in leaf K, from position I to ID, was greatest for 56 ppm N and lowest for ll2 ppm N. This over-all increase was about equal for ll2 and 224 ppm N and for 448 and 896 ppm N. Using 624 ppm K in the medium increased leaf K content significantly for all leaf positions as shown in Table II. Leaf K content increased with leaf age in both K concentrations. The highest value was significantly different from the lowest. 30 Table l0. Potassium Content of Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Positions Nitrogen Concentration Leaf Position 56 ll2 352 448 896 Nitrogen - % dry wt. l 3.90 4.l6 4.20 4.3l 4.3] 2 4.94 4.83 4.83 4.95 5.06 3 6.l8 5.66 5.52 5.68 5.73 4 6.48 6.27 6.l3 6.20 6.39 5 6.8l 6.66 6.50 6.95 7.l7 6 7.26 6.90 7.03 7.35 7.46 7 7.76 6.96 7.3l 7.57 7.90 8 8.56 7.30 7.26 7.87 8.30 9 8.99 7.69 7.6l 8.30 8.45 l0 9.l9 7.78 7.88 8.63 8.67 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .8l, l% - .93 3l Table II. Potassium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position =— Leaf Position POFaSSIum ‘ PPm 3'2 624 K - % dry wt. l 3.87 4.48 2 4.45 5.39 3 5.ll 6.39 4 5.60 6.98 5 5.82 7.82 6 6.27 8.l2 7 6.63 8.37 8 7.04 8.67 9 7.27 9,15 l0 7.56 9.30 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .36, l% - .42 32 Phosphorus The leaf P content (Table l2) was significantly higher when 56 ppm N was used in the medium compared to higher con- centrations. N concentrations above ll2 ppm did not signifi- cantly change leaf P. Using 624 ppm K significantly increased leaf P content above that found for 3l2 ppm K as shown in Table l2. There was higher leaf P content with older leaf positions. There was not a significant increase for each leaf position. However, significance occurred when every other or every third leaf position was compared. Using 3l2 ppm K with N concentrations below and above 224 ppm N tended to increase leaf P content (Table l3). The increment was not significant except in the 56 ppm N which was also the highest value obtained. Applying twice as much K (624 ppm) in the medium did not change the effect of N concentration on leaf P. Except the lowest value was for ll2 ppm N and 448 ppm N significantly increased leaf P. When 56 ppm N was used, leaf P was significantly higher than all other N concentrations. The interaction of nitrogen concentration with leaf position on leaf P was significant (Table I4). The significant increase in leaf P associated with leaf position varied in significance with different concentrations of N. For example: 33 Table l2. Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Solution Concentration and to Leaf Position N - ppm P - % dry wt 56 l.73 lI2 l.34 224 I.3l 448 I.39 896 I.37 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .II, I% - .l2 K - ppm 3l2 l.2l 624 l.65 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .06, l% - .07 Leaf Position l l.02 l.22 l.29 l.43 l.58 l.7l l.8l OkOGDNO‘U‘I-PUJN d Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .l4, l% - .l6 34 Table I3. Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations in the Solution Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Phosphorus ppm ppm %Tdry wt. 56 3l2 l.54 ll2 3l2 l.l5 224 3l2 l.09 448 3l2 l.l3 896 3l2 l.l4 56 624 l.92 ll2 624 l.52 224 624 l.54 448 624 l.67 896 624 l.6l Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .l4, l% - .l6 35 Table I4. Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Nitrogen Concentration Position 56 ll2 224 448 896 P - % dry wt. l 0.97 l.06 l.07 l.ll .9l 2 l.08 l.08 l.l7 l.20 .02 3 l.23 l.l4 l.l4 l.25 .08 4 l.33 l.l7 l.l4 l.29 .l6 5 l.43 l.l9 l.2l I.3O .30 6 l.78 l.33 l.28 l.37 .4l 7 2.07 l.46 I.34 l.48 .56 8 2.32 l.52 l.49 l.58 .64 9 2.40 l.64 l.60 l.64 .77 IO 2.66 l.79 l.69 l.75 .87 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .32, l% - .37 36 with N at 56 ppm leaf positions I to 3 were not significantly different in leaf P; with N at ll2 ppm leaf positions I to 6 were not significantly different; with N at 224 ppm leaf positions I to 7 were not different; with N at 448 or 896 ppm, leaf positions I to 6 were not different. Also, with N at 56 ppm leaf positions, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were signifi- cantly different from leaf positions I or l0. With N at ll2 ppm, leaf position 7 was significantly different from leaf positions I or IO. However, with N at 448 or 896 ppm there were no leaf positions significantly different from either positions I and ID. As shown in Table IS, the interaction of leaf position with K concentration was significant for leaf P. The signi- ficant increase in leaf P did not occur for leaf positions I and 2 but for all other positions when K was increased from 3l2 to 624 ppm. Leaf P did not increase from position I until leaf position 5 when 3l2 ppm K was used while when 624 ppm K was used the increase occurred when leaf position 3 was reached. Moving upwardfrom leaf position ID, a significant decrease in leaf P occurred at position 7 when 3l2 ppm K was used and at position 8 when 624 ppm K was used. la 37 Table l5. Phosphorus Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Position POFaSSIum ' PPm ~3l2 624 P7- % dry wt. l 0.93 l.l2 2 0.96 l.27 3 0.98 I.35 4 103 1.40 5 I O9 l.49 6 l.2l l.65 7 I.34 l.83 8 l 44 l.98 9 l.50 2.l2 l0 l.62 2.29 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .20, l% - .23 (fi __,_0 th wi si. "lb: Will low The ior liver 38 Calcium N concentration below and above 224 ppm significantly decreased leaf Ca (Table I6). Increasing K concentration to 624 ppm in the medium significantly decreased leaf Ca. Leaf Ca increased with age. There was twice as much leaf Ca in the older leaf position compared to the youngest one. Signi- ficant differences occurred between each leaf position for the first 4 positions. Below position 4, significance always occurred for alternate leaf positions. The use of 624 ppm K, as compared to 3l2 ppm K, reduced leaf Ca at all nitrogen concentrations (Table I7). However, the pattern of change associated with N concentrations varied with the K concentration. With 3l2 ppm K, there was not a significant difference in leaf Ca between 56 and ll2 ppm N. When 624 ppm K was used, leaf Ca did not change significantly when N was increased from 448 to 896 ppm. The general pattern of an increase in leaf Ca with lower leaf positions was found for all N concentrations (Table I8). However, the rate of increase varied with N concentration. The first two leaf positions were not significantly different for all concentrations of N. Starting from leaf position 3, there was not a significant increase in leaf Ca until position 8 for 56 ppm N. For ll2, 448, and 896 ppm N, leaf position 5 39 Table I6. Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and by Leaf Position N - ppm Ca - % dry wt 56 l.33 ll2 l.4l 224 l.6O 448 l.45 896 l.25 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .06, l% - .07 K - ppm 3l2 l.62 624 l.l9‘ Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .04, l% - .05 Leaf Position l . 0.88 OKDQVO‘U‘IJTWN U‘I L» d Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .08, l% - .09 40 Table I7. Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Solution Concentrations of Nitrogen and Potassium Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Calcium ppm ppm % dry wt. 56 3l2 l.57 lI2 3l2 l.58 224 3l2 l.83 448 3l2 l.73 896 3l2 I.39 56 624 l.09 ll2 624 l.24 224 624 l.36 448 624 l.l7 896 624 l.ll Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .08, l% - .09 4l Table I8. Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Nitrogen Concentration Position ppm 56 ll2 224 448 896 .98 0.89 0.9l 0.86 0.74 O l.l3 0.95 l.l2 l.06 0.87 l.24 l.l8 l.26 l.25 l.05 l.22 l.32 l.49 l.43 l.l5 l.20 l.4l l.58 l.47 l.27 .37 l.58 l.78 l.58 I.35 l.4l l.62 l.8l l.67 l.43 l.45 l.67 l.94 l.69 l.5l l.56 l.73 2.02 l.7l l.56 ommNO‘U'lbWN d l.7l l.79 2.06 l.76 l.62 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .l8, I% - .2l 42 was significantly higher in leaf Ca than position 3. Starting with leaf position ID, a difference existed between N concen- trations as to how soon a significant reduction occurred. As shown in Table I9, the increase in leaf Ca in relation to leaf position was found for both concentrations of K. However, the rate or extent of change in leaf Ca was greater for 3l2 ppm K than for 624 ppm K. This rate of change resulted in more instances of adjacent leaf positions not being signi- ficantly different for 624 ppm K than for 3l2 ppm K. Maqnesium N concentrations below and above 224 ppm in the medium decreased significantly the leaf Mg content (Table 20). However, 56 and ll2 ppm N did not differ significantly as regards leaf Mg. K concentration of 624 ppm in the medium significantly decreased the leaf Mg. Mg was more concentrated in the lower leaf positions. However, adjacent leaf positions did not differ significantly. Moving 2 or 3 leaf positions was necessary for significance. Table 2l shows that with both BIZ and 624 ppm K, the highest level of leaf Mg was found for 224 ppm N. However, with 624 ppm K, the change in leaf Mg was signficant only for 896 ppm N. With 3l2 ppm K, the change in leaf Mg was signi- ficant for all N concentrations except 56 and ll2 ppm N did not result in a significant change in leaf Mg. 43 Table I9. Calcium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position - .—_-> r — Leaf Position P°t355lum ' PPm 3l2 624 Ca - % dry wt. l 0.98 0.77 2 l.l6 0.89 3 l.36 l.03 4 l 52 l.l2 5 l.62 I IS 6 l.79 l 27 7 l 85 l 32 8 l 92 I.39 9 l 97 l.46 l0 2.04 l.53 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .l2, l% - .l3 44 Table 20. Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and to Leaf Position N - ppm Mg - % dry wt 56 0.39 Il2 0.39 224 0.44 448 0.4l 896 0.32 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .0l9, l% - .02l K - ppm 3l2 0.47 624 0.3l Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .0l2, l% - .0l4 Leaf Position l 0.33 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.4l 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.44 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - .027, l% - .03l c) u) (n -u 0\ tn 3- u: be d 45 Table 2l. Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Magnesium ppm ppm %_dry wt. 56 3l2 0.47 ll2 3l2 0.45 224 ' 3l2 0.54 448 3l2 0.49 896 3l2 0.38 56 624 0.32 Il2 624 0.33 224 624 0.34 448 624 0.32 896 624 0.26 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .027, l% - .O3l 46 Leaf M9 was highest for all leaf positions when 224 ppm N was used, Table 22, and lowest when 896 ppm N was used. There was a significant reduction in leaf Mg with 56 ppm N, as compared to 224 ppm N, for leaf positions I, 2, 3, 4, and ID but not for leaf positions 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Com- paring 56 ppm N with 896 ppm N showed that there was a significant difference in leaf Mg for all leaf positions except I, 2, 4, 5. The level of N also influenced the signi- ficance between leaf positions. The greatest change was for 224 and 56 ppm N and the least for 896 ppm N. The number of leaf positions not differing significantly in leaf Mg varied according to N concentration. As shown in Table 23, the increase in leaf Mg was found for 3l2 ppm K. This was not true when 624 ppm K was used. With 624 ppm K there was no significant difference between leaf positions. However, with 3l2 ppm K there was a consis- tent increase in leaf Mg with leaf position with the lower leaf positions (7,8,9, and ID) not differing significantly. Manganese N concentration did not have a significant influence on leaf Mn (Table 24). Increasing the K concentration in the medium from 3l2 to 624 ppm did not significantly increase leaf Mn. 47 Table 22. Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Nitrogen Concentration Position 56 ll2 234m 448 896 Mg - %dry wt. l 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.33 0.28 2 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.35 0.28 3 0.38 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.31 4 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.33 5 0.36 0.38 0.44 0.4l 0.34 6 0.42 0.42 0.48 0.43 0.33 7 0.4l 0.42 0.47 0.44 0.33 8 0.4l 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.34 9 0.42 0.42 0.5l 0.43 0.34 l0 0.47 0.44 0.5l 0.44 0.34 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - .06, l% - .07 48 Table 23. Magnesium Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Position Potass'um - ppm 43l2 624 Mg - % a?y wt. l 0.34 0.3l 2 0.37 0.30 3 0.40 0.3l 4 0.45 0.3l 5 0.47 0.30 6 0.5l 0.32 7 0.52 0.3l 8 0.52 0.32 9 0.53 0.32 l0 0.55 0.33 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 0.38, l% - 0.44 49 Table 24. Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concen- tration in Solution and by Leaf Position N - ppm Mn - ppm dry wt 56 119 ll2 l20 224 l20 448 ‘25 896 122 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 9.8, l% - ll.3 K - ppm 3l2 ll8 624 l24 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 6.2, l% - 7.l Leaf Position l 85 2 88’ 3 95 4 99 5 l07 6 l2l 7 I30 8 I42 9 I66 l0 I78 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - l3.9, l% - l6.l 50 .Mn was more concentrated in the lower leaf samples. This difference became significant when leaf position 4 was reached. This increase repeated its significance for leaf positions 6, 8, and 9. Using 3l2 ppm K with N levels below and above 224 ppm tended to increase the leaf Mn content (Table 25). The difference was not significant except for 56 ppm N. Increasing the K level to 624 ppm in the medium leaf Mn was lowest with the lowest N concentration. Increasing N to ll2 ppm increased leaf Mn content significantly. Further increases in N had no marked effect. It might be of interest to note that using 624 ppm K with 56 ppm N resulted in the lowest leaf Mn while 312 ppm K with 56 ppm N produced the highest leaf Mn values. The effect of N concentrations on leaf Mn was not signi- ficant for all but 2 leaf positions - 5 and ID (Table 26). Leaf Mn increased with leaf position for all N concentrations. The greatest increase occurred with 56 ppm N. Starting with position I, all N levels resulted in a significant increase in leaf Mn at leaf position 5 or 6. Starting at leaf position l0, there was a significant decrease in leaf Mn at position 7 and 8 for all N concentrations. As shown in Table 27, increasing the K concentration from 3l2 to 624 ppm did not increase leaf Mn for any of the leaf positions. Starting with the first leaf position, there was 5l Table 25. Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Inf uenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Manganese ppm ppm ppm dry wt 56 3l2 l30 lI2 3l2 ll2 224 3l2 III 448 3l2 l22 896 3l2 ll4 56 624 l07 ll2 624 l28 224 624 l29 448 624 l28 896 624 l29 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - I4, I% - l6 52 Table 26. Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position L —:_; Leaf Nitrogen Concentration POSition 56 lI2 234 448 896 Leaf Mn - ppm dry wt. I 83 86 80 97 78 2 84 84 88 96 90 3 87 97 97 99 94 4 87 96 l07 l05 I02 5 84 l03 I20 ll7 IIZ 6 ll6 ll8 l24 l28 II9 7 I20 I34 l25 I37 I35 8 I43 l4l I39 I42 I45 9 I83 l59 l58 I6l I68 10 20l l8l I62 I72 I74 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 3l, l% - 36 53 Table 27. Manganese Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Position P°ta$5lum ' PPm 3l2 624 Leaf Mn - ppm dry wt. l 82 88 2 83 94 3 9I 99 4 93 106 5 l00 ll4 6 ll7 l25 7 l27 I34 8 I39 I45 9 I68 164 ID I79 I76 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - I9, I% - 22 54 a significant increase in leaf Mn at leaf position 6 for 3l2 ppm K and position 5 at 624 ppm K. Leaf position 8 was significantly lower in leaf Mn than position ID for both K concentrations. 1399 N concentration of 56 ppm resulted in the lowest leaf Fe content (Table 28). N levels of 448 and 896 significantly increased leaf Fe. Leaf Fe was significantly higher for 448 and 896 ppm N than for Il2 ppm N. Other comparisons did not show significant differences. K concentration of 624 ppm in the medium significantly increased the leaf Fe content. Leaf Fe was more concentrated in the lower leaf samples. A significant increase occurred at leaf position 4. Additional significant increases occurred at leaf positions 7 and ID. Leaf Fe was lowest for 56 ppm N when 3l2 ppm K was used (Table 29). When 624 ppm K was used, leaf Fe was lowest for 224 ppm N and significantly higher for 56 and 896 ppm N. Leaf Fe was significantly lower for 56 ppm N with 3l2 ppm I( than all other N concentrations. Leaf Fe increased significantly with leaf position for all N concentrations, except for ll2 ppm (Table 30). For all N concentrations, except lI2 ppm, there was a significant Table 28. Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position N - ppm Fe - ppm dry wt 56 240 ll2 250 224 263 448 288 896 282 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 27, I% - 3l K - ppm 3l2 243 624 287 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - I7, I% - 20 Leaf Position I 200 2 22l 3 225 L, 249 5 252 6 274 7 278 8 293 9 3ll ID 344 55 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 38, 1% - 44 56 Table 29. Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Interaction I Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. 'Iron ppm ppm ppm afry 56 312 I73 ll2 3l2 230 224 3l2 267 448 3l2 28l 896 3l2 263 56 624 308 Il2 624 270 224 624 259 448 624 295 896 624 30l Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 38, l% - 44 Table 30. Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position 57 Leaf Nitrogen Concentration Position 56 112 p524 448 896 Leaf Fe - ppm dry wt. 1 186 201 I76 218 217 2 I84 2l9 206 248 246 3 I65 23l 227 256 247 4 I76 244 269 274 281 5 I77 246 286 278 274 6 258 275 271 288 279 7 242 275 264 302 309 8 293 264 288 318 300 9 332 264 325 327 307 10 391 283 3l8 37l 357 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 86, 1% - 100 58 increase in Fe when leaf position 7 or 8 was reached. Starting with leaf position 10, there was a significant reduction in leaf Fe at position 8 for 56 ppm N, position 3 for 224 ppm N, position 5 for 448 and 896 ppm N. Varying the N concentration resulted in significant variation in leaf Fe for leaf positions 3, 4, and 10. '7 Leaf Fe was increased for all leaf positions by increasing I K concentration from 312 to 624 ppm (Table 31). This increase was significant for leaf positions 4, 8, 9 and 10. With 312 ppm K, there was a significant increase in leaf Fe when leaf position 6 was reached. Starting with leaf position ID, 312 ppm K resulted in a significant decrease at leaf position 5. When 624 ppm K was used, leaf Fe was significantly higher for leaf position 4 than for position I and significantly lower for leaf position 8 than for position IO. Copper Using varying concentrations of N below and above 112 ppm tended to decrease the leaf Cu content (Table 32). The difference was not significant except for 896 ppm N. Using 624 ppm K in the medium significantly increaed the leaf Cu. Leaf Cu content decreased with leaf age. The difference between the first and third leaf positions was significant.‘ However, leaf positions 2 through 10 did not differ significantly. 59 Table 31. Iron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Pdgition K - ppm 312 624 ‘_Fe - ppm dry wt 1 191 208 2 202 239 3 215 235 h 221 277 5 235 269 6 257 292 7 259 298 8 258 327 9 284 338 10 305 383 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 54, 1% - 63 60 Table 32. Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position N - ppm Cu - ppm dry wt 56 19 IIZ 20 224 I7 448 16 896 . 15 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 4.3, 1% - 5.0 K - ppm 312 11+ 624 21 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 2.7, 1% - 3.2 Leaf Position 1 25 20 l8 16 15 I6 18 l4 l4 17 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 6.1, 1% - 7.l OKOCDNO‘U‘I.PWN d 61 Using 624 ppm K as compared to 312 ppm, increased leaf Cu with all N concentrations except 224 and 896 ppm (Table 33). N concentrations did not significantly decrease leaf Cu. Leaf Cu content decreased with age regardless of N levels (Table 34). The differences were significant for 56 and 112 ppm N; N concentrations did not have a significant influence on leaf Cu at any of the leaf positions. Using 624 ppm K significantly decreased leaf Cu for leaf positions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as compared to that for leaf positions I (Table 35). When 312 ppm K was used, leaf Cu was significantly lower for leaf position 5 than for position 1. Comparing 624 ppm K with 312 ppm K showed that leaf Cu was significantly increased at leaf position I, 2, 3, and 7. m Leaf B was decreased with increasing N concentrations (Table 36). A significant decrease occurred with 448 and 896 ppm N. As K level was increased to 624 ppm, leaf B was increased significantly. Leaf 8 increased with age. Only leaf positions 7, 8, and 9 were not significantly different from the adjacent leaf position. 62 Table 33. Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations m Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. COpper PPm PPm PPm 56 312 15 112 312 I4 224 312 15 448 312 12 896 312 12 56 624 23 112 624 26 224 624 19 448 624 19 896 624 18 Req. Sign. Diff.: 5% - 6.1, 1% - 7.1 63 Table 34. Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Nitrogen Concentration 5. 251: I... 8,. Eeaf Cu - ppm dry wt. 1 32 29 22 20 24 2 23 25 l6 I8 20 3 19 22 16 15 I9 4 l8 l7 I6 15 12 5 15 I6 18 15 12 6 19 17 ' 15 15 13 7 16 19 27 15 I3 8 15 15 I3 15 12 9 15 I6 15 15 ll 10 18 25 I4 15 I4 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - l4, 1% - l6 64 Table 35. Copper Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position = {— Leaf K ' ppm Position 312 624 Eeaf Cu - ppm dry wt 1 20 31 2 15 26 3 I3 23 L. 12 19 5 ll 19 6 l3 l9 7 I3 23 8 12 I6 9 12 I6 10 15 19 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 9, 1% - 10 65 Table 36. Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position N - ppm B - ppm dry wt 56 67 112 68 221 65 448 58 896 55 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 3.1, 1% - 3.6 K - ppm 312 60 624 65 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 1.9, 1% - 2.2 Leaf Position 3 l 31 42 51 58 62 70 74 75 78 83 ommwwmrwm d Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 4.2, 1% - 5.1 66 Leaf B was decreased significantly when 448 and 896 ppm N was used with 312 ppm K (Table 37). With 624 ppm K, leaf B was significantly higher for 112 ppm N than other levels of N. Increasing K to 624 ppm resulted in significantly higher leaf B for 112, 448, and 896 ppm N. Leaf B was highest at leaf position I with 896 ppm N, for position 2, 3, 4, S, 6, and 7 with 56 ppm N, and for positions 8, 9, and 10 with 112 ppm N (Table 38). As compared to the highest value for each leaf position, varying N concentrations resulted in a significant decrease for all leaf positions except I and 2. Starting with leaf position I, there was a significant increase in leaf 8 at position 2 for all N concentrations, except for 896 ppm N where the increase was significant at position 3. Starting at leaf position 10, there was a significant decrease in leaf B at position 5 with 56 ppm N, at position 7 with 112 and 896 ppm N, and at position 8 with 224 and 448 ppm N. The increase in leaf B with increasing leaf positions was significant at position 2 for both 312 and 624 ppm (Table 39). Starting with leaf position 10, there was a significant decrease in leaf 8 at position 8 with 312 ppm K and at position 9 with 624 ppm K. Significant differences in leaf B for adjacent leaf positions was not consistent for the K concentrations. 67 Table 37. Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Boron ppm ppm ppm dry wt 56 312 68 112 312 65 224 312 63 448 312 54 896 312 51 56 624 65 112 624 70 224 624 66 448 624 63 896 624 59 k Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 4, 1% - 5 68 Table 38. Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Nitrogen Concentration 5. 232': I... 8,. 1 29 31 31 31 33 2 an 41 an 42 40 3 57 53 53 49 46 4 66 60 61 54 50 5 69 65 67 57 55 6 83 76 72 61 58 7 84 82 73 67 63 8 82 85 76 69 65 9 75 90 83 74 68 '0 8' 94 86 79 73 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 10, 1% - 12 69 Table 39. Boron Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf K ' ppm Position 3'2 '624 Leaf B - ppm dry wt 1 30 32 2 39 45 3 49 54 4 56 60 5 61 64 6 70 70 7 72 75 8 73 78 9 75 81 10 78 88 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 6, 1% - 7 70 Zinc There was no consistent effect of N concentration on leaf Zn (Table 40). Leaf Zn was significantly higher with 112 ppm N. A150, 56 and 448 ppm N resulted in higher leaf Zn than found for 224 or 896 ppm N. Increasing K level to 624 ppm in the medium increased the Zn content of leaves significantly. The Zn content of leaves at positions 9 and 10 (Table 40) was significantly higher than for positions 2 and 3. All Other comparisons of leaf position were not significant. The highest Zn content of leaves obtained with 312 ppm K was with 56 ppm N (Table 41). The lowest with 312 ppm K was with 896 ppm N. The difference was not significant. With 624 ppm K the highest Zn content was obtained with 112 ppm N and the lowest with 224 ppm N. The difference was highly significant. The increase in K level to 624 ppm significantly increased the Zn content of leaves regardless of N concentration. Increasing the N concentration did not significantly affect leaf Zn at any leaf position (Table 42). Increasing the K concentration to 624 ppm significantly increase leaf Zn for all positions (Table 43). With 312 ppm K there were no significant differences between leaf positions. With 624 ppm K, leaf positions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were signi- ficantly higher in leaf Zn than positions 1 and 2. Leaf Zn 71 Table 40. Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position N - ppm Leaf Zn - ppm dry wt 56 43 112 51 224 33 448 42 896 32 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 8, 1% - 10 K - ppm 312 22 624 _S8 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 5, 1% - 6 Leaf Position 1 37 34 34 37 38 42 42 44 47 47 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 12, 1% - l4 OkOGDVO‘U'IJ-‘UJN d 72 Table 41. Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by the Interaction of Nitrogen and Potassium Concentrations Nitrogen Conc. Potassium Conc. Zinc ppm ppm ppm dry wt 56 312 26 112 312 22 224 312 25 448 312 22 896 312 I8 56 624 61 112 624 80 224 624 41 448 624 62 896 624 46 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 12, 1% - l4 73 Table 42. Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position -_ T Leaf Nitrogen Concentration s. 232': I... 8,. Leaf Zn - ppm dry wt ' 43 42 3o 38 32 2 35 42 28 34 31 3 32 49 28 32 30 4 40 47 31 40 27 5 35 50 36 41 27 6 42 57 34 45 34 7 49 52 32 46 32 8 51 55 33 46 35 9 51 57 40 51 37 '0 54 57 39 50 37 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 26, 1% - 30 74 Table 43. Zinc Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to the Interaction of Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf Potassium - ppm Position 3'2 624 Leaf Zn - ppm dry wt 1 28 45 2 21 46 3 20 48 4 19 54 5 18 ' 57 6 22 63 7 -22 62 8 23 64 9 ’23 72 10 27 68 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - l7, 1% - l9 75 was significantly higher for leaf position 10 than for position 3 with 624 ppm K. Aluminum Leaf Al was significantly increased with 224, 448, and 896 ppm N (Table 44). Increasing K level to 624 ppm did not significantly increase the leaf Al. Leaf AI increased with age and the increase was significant for every third leaf position. Leaf Al was significantly higher for 56 and 112 ppm N with 624 ppm K than for 312 ppm K (Table 45). For 224 ppm N, leaf Al was significantly higher for 312 ppm K than for 624 ppm K. With 448 and 896 ppm N, the K concentration did not affect leaf Al. Leaf Al was significantly higher for 224 and 448 ppm N than for 56 ppm N when 312 ppm K was used. When 624-ppm K was used, there were no significant differences as related to N concentration. Increasing the concentration of N did not significantly .affect leaf A1 at any leaf position (Table 46). However, vvith 56 ppm N there was a significant increase in leaf A1 at leaf position 8. With 112 ppm N, the increase was significant at position 6, at position 4 with 224 and 448 ppm N and at [mosition 7 with 896 ppm N. Starting at leaf position 10, 76 Table 44. Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves in Relation to Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position N - ppm Al - ppm dry wt 56 140 112 I60 224 189 448 187 896 170 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 24, 1% - 29 K - ppm 312 164 624 175 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - l6, 1% - 18 Leaf Position 1 93 108 131 154 I62 182 190 204 217 OKDCDNO‘U'IrUJN 251 Req. for sign. diff.: 5% - 35, 1% - 41 77 Table 45. Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by the Interaction of Nitrogen and Potassium Concentration Nitrogen Conc. PotasSium Conc. Aluminum ppm ppm ppm dry wt 56 312 121 112 312 I39 224 312 208 448‘ 312 187 896 312 I63 56 624 159 112 624 180 224 624 170 448 624 187 896 624 178 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 35, 1% - 41 78 Table 46. Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Nitrogen Concentration and Leaf Position JV f J Leaf Nitrogen - ppm Position PPm 56 112 224 448 896 Leaf Al - ppm dry wt. 1 82 101 95 86 103 2 97 99 116 112 116 3 101 126 135 156 137 4 107 145 194 166 158 S 116 168 187 177 162 6 141 183 213 198 177 7 141 183 200 221 206 8 170 I87 202 257 202 9 183 192 276 232 202 10 261 213 276 265 242 __ Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 79, 1% - 98 79 there was a significant decrease in leaf A1 at position 7 with 56 ppm N, position 3 with 112 ppm N, position 4 with 224 and 448 ppm N, and position 5 with 896 ppm N. Leaf Al was not increased at any leaf position when the K concentration was increased to 624 ppm (Table 47). Starting at leaf position I, there was a significant increase in leaf A1 at position 3 with 312 ppm K and at position 4 with 624 ppm K. Starting at leaf position 10, there was a significant decrease in leaf A1 at position 8 with 312 ppm K and position 7 with 624 ppm K. As nitrogen changes there is a negative correlation of the following elements: K, P, Ca, Mg, Mn, and B. (Table 48) As potassium changes there is a positive correlation of the following elements: P, Na, Ca, Mn, Fe, B, Zn, and AI. 80 Table 47. Aluminum Content of Chrysanthemum Leaves as Influenced by Potassium Concentration and Leaf Position Leaf K ' ppm Position 312 624 Leaf A1 - ppm dry wt 1 68 98 2 103 113 3 135 127 4 151 157 5 163 I61 6 181 184 7 189 192 8 183 225 9 209 225 10 237 266 Req. for Sign. Diff.: 5% - 50, 1%‘58 81 Table 48. Effects of Changes in Concentration of Nitrogen and Potassium on Other Elements. Correlation Coefficients (r at 1% . 0.182) Elements _:7 Correlation Coefficients Nitrogen Potassium N 1.00000 K -0.20074 1.00000 P -0.3l4ll 0.80691 Na -0.02711 0.33664 Ca -0.33280 0.28904 Mgi -0.33215 -0.11173 Mn -0.21337 0.74115 Fe 0.05306 0.54994 Cu -0.00617 -0.06288 3 -0.55352 0.74991 Zn -0.l7977 0.46751 Al -0.08493 0.58401 -l‘ DISCUSSION Varying the level of N with different levels of K resulted in significant changes in growth as indexed by height and/or weight of plants. As regard height of plants, the greatest height resulted with a combination of 224 ppm N with 312 ppm K. Height of plants with this treatment was significantly greater than that obtained with 56, 112, 448, or 896 ppm N and 312 ppm K. When 624 ppm K was used, the 224 ppm N resulted in height being significantly greater than with 56, 112, or 896 ppm N but not with 448 ppm N. However, increasing the level of K to 624 ppm did not increase the height of plants beyond that obtained with 224 or 448 ppm N. This would indicate that the level of N was critical and may have been either too low or too high for maximum growth. The level of K may be lower without significantly reducing the height of plants. When plant weight was used as an index of performance, the heaviest plants were obtained with 224 ppm N with 312 ppm K. When 624 ppm K was used the greatest weight was obtained with 448 ppm N thus indicating that an increase in K should be accompanied with an increase in N if plant weight is used as a criteria of growth. However, the plant weight was not significantly altered until N was decreased to 56 ppm with either 312 or 624 ppm K. Increasing N to 896 ppm with 624 ppm K also significantly reduced growth. 82 83 These responses suggest that the relationship of N to K in the growing media is not extremely specific when plant weight is used as a criteria of response. If a ratio of height to weight was used as a criteria of response, this ratio was less than 1.0 when the N/K ratio was higher (N increased) and more than 1.0 when the N/K ratio was lower (N decreased). In this experiment, the N/K ratio of 0.715 (224 ppm N/312 ppm K or 448 ppm N/624 ppm K) resulted in the greatest level of growth as measured by either plant height or weight. Responses to other treatments, however, suggests that the ratio of N/K in the growing media may not be as specific as suggested by the value of 0.715 but may vary, possibly, over a wide range (perhaps 0.5 to 1.0) without significantly altering plant performance. Of equal importance to the possibility of having N too low for best performance is the possibility of having N too high and the suggestion that if the N level should be too high, an increase in K may overcome the detrimental effect of the high N. When growing Chrysanthemum in soil, it may not be possible to accurately determine the level of N and K. The use of soil tests would be helpful but the use of plant (leaf) analysis may be more reliable. Lunt,§£_§l,, 1963, reported the range in composition of Chrysanthemum leaves necessary for desirable 84 growth. Table 49 shows the composition of leaves from sample positions 3, 4, and 5 (leaves 3 to 8 below tip) from plants grown with 224 ppm N and 312 ppm K. The composition of leaf positions 3, 4, and 5 (leaves 3 to 8 from tip) did not fall below or exceed the range proposed by Lunt, t 1., except for N and Mn. Nutrient Interrelationships Antagonistic and synergistic interrelationships have been reported by several research workers, Smith (15). Certain reports suggest that such relationships may induce a deficiency or eliminate an excess or decrease the severity of a defi- ciency. The relationship between a given pair of elements has not always been the same for the different reports. Nearly all reports of research wherein the nutrient supply was changed there were changes in the plant content for one or more elements not altered. The results of this study show similar effects when the level of N or K in the growing media was varied. An increase in N concentration resulted in an increase in N content of the leaves as would be expected. Increasing the N concentration, also, increased and decreased leaf Ca and Mg but decreased K, P, Cu, B, and Zn while Mn was not affected. Fe and A1 were increased. 85 Table 49. A Comparison of the Composition of Chrysanthemum Leaves Number 3 to 8 with Values Proposed by Lunt 2; al., 1963, With 'Good News' Chrysanthemum Element Proposed by Lunt Leaves 3 to 8* Adequate Range % N 4.5 - 6.0 3.61 - 3.95 P .26 (?) - 1.15 0.95 - 0.97 K 3.5 - 10.0 4.94 - 5.70 Ca 0.50 - 4.6 1.36 - 1.83 Mg 0.14 - 1.5 0.42 - 0.55 Mn ppm 195 - 260 81 - 104 Fe ppm None given 224 - 273 Cu ppm 10 (?) 13.1 - 15.2 B ppm 25 - 200 49 - 65 Zn ppm 7 -26 (?) l7 - 27 Al ppm None given 135 - 219 *For plants growing in nutrient solutions having 224 ppm N and 312 ppm K. i 86 An increase in K concentration resulted in an increase in K content of leaves and also increased N, P, Mn, Fe, Cu, B, Zn, and Al while Ca and Mg. decreased. These main effects of N and K on absorption, as measured by leaf analysis, were not consistent but showed an effect of concentration. For example, increasing K concentration to 624 ppm caused an increase in leaf N when N concentration was 56, 112, or 224 ppm. However, when N was 448 or 896 ppm there was a decrease in leaf N. At 312 ppm K, leaf K increased an N concentration was either above or below 112 ppm in the medium. At 624 ppm K, leaf K increased as the N level was either above or below 224 ppm in the medium. Thus, when the K concentration was increased, there was an increase in the N concentration at which the N-K interaction occurred. Leaf P decreased as N concentration was increased with 312 and 624 ppm K. However, at the higher K concentration all leaf P values were higher, indicating that the level of K may not eliminate the influence of N concentration on leaf P but the higher level of K had a positive influence on leaf P regardless of the N level. Thus, a higher level of K could result in a leaf P level at a higher N level being equal to P level found at a lower N level. 87 Several of the other elements showed similar variations in the main effects of N and K concentrations on nutrient absorption. Perhaps, nutrient interactions lose their practical significance because of the multiple factor effect. Practical significance would be lost unless the interaction was of sufficient intensity to result in a change in absorption that would influence performance of the plant by possibly inducing a deficiency or an excess of an element. None of the nutrient interaction in this study showed such an effect. Leaf Age As the leaf became older, within the leaf positions studied, there was an increase in K, P, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, 8, Zn, and Al but a decrease in N and Cu. This influence of leaf age was not in agreement with similar repOrts on other crops. The influence of leaf age on N and Ca appears to be consistent for all species of crops studied by others and for the Chrysanthemum. Variations in the level of N and K, however, altered the leaf position at which there was a significant increase or decrease. For example, a N concentration of 896 ppm resulted in an increase in leaf N from the tip to the sixth leaf, while older leaves showed a decrease in leaf N. At lower levels of N, leaf N decreased from the tip downward. There were several other instances in which a similar effect was observed. 88 Some of the differences in leaf composition associated with leaf sampling positions may have been a result of the rate of growth. Those levels of N that resulted in maximum growth produced more leaves than used in collecting samples, while the lowest level of N produced only enough leaves to provide material for sampling. This would result in the true morphological age of each sample position being somewhat younger for those treatments making the most growth. Although such a variation must be recognized, it is believed that this was not the principal factor associated with changes found to be associated with sampling positions with levels of N and K. Should it be desirable to check nutritional conditions by use of leaf analysis, the use of leaf positions 3-5 (leaves 3-8 below the tip of the plant) appears to be a reliable tissue for analysis as shown in Table 49. Leaves from this position reflected the least interaction of N and K with those elements held at a constant level of supply .and at the same time reflected the induced variations of N and K concentrations. 89 Selection of Leaf Samples: From Appendix Table52-12, leaf samples with the greatest variation in nutrient element content as N and K were selected. leaf For N, leaf samples 3 to 10 may be used. For K, the last three leaf samples, 8, 9, 10, although samples, 3, 4, S, 6 and 7 tended to vary as N and K were altered. when For P, leaf samples 5 to 10 seem best. For Ca, leaf samples 2 to 10. For Mg, leaf samples 4 to 10. For Mn, leaf samples 7, 8, 9, and 10. For Fe, leaf samples 3 to 10. For Cu, almost any leaf sample, variation was noticed K was altered. For B, leaf samples 3 to 10. For Zn, leaf samples 5 to 10. For A1, leaf samples 3 to 10. For N, P, K, Ca and Mg leaf samples 5 to 10 will be most appropriate under the conditions the experiment was carried out. For the minor elements Mn, Fe, Cu, B, Zn, and Al except for Mn, the same leaf samples would be acceptable. SUMMARY Growth as measured by height and weight was greatly influenced by N and K ratio. A 224 ppm N with 312 ppm K in the medium, produced the best growth. N concentration should be at the optimum level in order to produce the best growth. However, if the N level is too high an addition of K may reduce the effects of N excess. Increased N concentration in the medium decidedly in- creased Ieaf N content, increased and decreased Ca and Mg, and decreased K, P, Cu, B, and Zn, while Fe and A1 increased and Mn was not affected. At higher levels, N also disturbed the usual trend of N as the leaf tissue ages. Increased K concentration in the medium increased leaf K content as expected, decreased Ca and Mg but increased N, P, Mn,Fe, Cu, B, Zn and Al. Samples from leaf positions, 3, 4, and 5 (leaves 3-8 below the tips) are suggested for leaf tissue sampling. 90 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY Boodley, J. W. 1964. Mist Fertilization of Pot Chrysanthemum. Bul. N.Y. State Flower Grower. 1964 No. 227, p. 1-8, 10. Bould, C. 1967. Leaf Analysis as a Diagnostic Method and Advisory Aid in Crop Nutrition. Experimental Agriculture. 4:17-27, (reprint) 1968 Chapman, H. D. 1966. Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils. University of California, Division of Agricultural Science. Childers, N. F. 1966. Nutrition of Fruit Crops. Horticultural Publications. Rutgers, The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Goodall, D. W. and F. G. Gregory. 1947. Chemical Composition of Plants as an Index of Their Nutritional Status. Imperial Bureau of Hort. and Plant. Crops. Techn. Communication No. 17. Hoagland, D. R. and D. I. Arnon. I950. The Water- Culture Method for Growing Plants Without Soil. Cir. 347. Calif. Agric. Expt. Station, Berkeley, Calif. Joiner, J. N. 1967. Effects of P, K, and Mg Levels on Growth, Yield and Chemical Composition of Chrysanthemum. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 90:389-96. 91 92 8. . 1964. Present Status of Tissue in Diagnosing Fertilizer Needs of Chrysanthemum Morifolium. Proc. Florida State Hort. Sic. 1964-1965. 77:517-20. 9. , and T. C. Smith. 1962. Effects of Nitrogen and Potassium Levels on the Growth, Flowering Response and Foliar Composition of Chrysanthemum morifolium "Blue Chips.” Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 80:571. 10. Lunt, 0. R. and A. M. Kofranek. 1958. Nitrogen and Potassium Nutrition of Chrysanthemum. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 72:487-497. 11. , and A. M. Kofranek, and J. J. Oertli. 1963. Deficiency Symptoms and Mineral Nutrient Levels in 'Good News' Chrysanthemums. The Exchange. 1963. 140: (15) 38-39, 66. 12. Messing, J. H. L. and 0. Owen. 1964. The Visual Symptoms of Some Mineral Deficiencies on Chrysanthemum. Plant and Soil. 5:101-120. 13. Pawlows'ki, H. E. 1967. Die Wir Kung von Calcium and Ammonium Nitrate auf das Wachstun ven Petunien, Chrysanthemen, und Begonien. II. MineralstOffgehalt. (The Effect of Calcium and Ammonium Nitrate on the Growth of Petunia, Chrysanthemums and Begonias. II. Mineral Content. Summary Translated to English. Gartenbauwiss. 1967. 14. 15. l6. l7. 18. 19. 20. 93 Shear, C. B., H. L. Crane, and A. T. Myers. 1946. Nutrient Element Balance: A Fundamental Concept in Plant Nutrition. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47:239-248. Smith, P. F. 1962. Mineral Analysis of Plant Tissues. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 13:81-108. 1962. Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics With Special Reference to the Biological Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y. 1960. Stevens, M. H., S. C. Wiggins, and R. N. Payne. 1963. Effects of Various Fertilizer Analyses and Watering Frequencies on Plant Response and Soluble Salt Accumulation in Potted Plant. Soil Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1963. 82:606. Ulrich, Albert. 1952. Physiological Bases for Assessing the Nutritional Requirements of Plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Phys. 3:207-228. Waters, W. E. 1965. Influence of Nutrition on Flower Production, Keeping Quality, Disease Susceptibility, and Chemical Composition of Chrysanthemum morifolium. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 86:650. Waters, W. E. 1965. Effects of Coated Fertilizer on Growth, Keeping Quality, Disease Susceptibility and Chemical Composition of Field-Grown Chrysanthemum morifolium, Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 1964-65. 77-78:383-386. 94 21. Woltz, S. S. 1956. Studies on the Nutritional Require- ments of Chrysanthemums. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 69:532. APPENDIX 96 Appendix Table 1. Nutrition Solution Used For Each Treatment A molar concentration of each of the following chemical compounds was prepared to provide the necessary elements called for in the experiment including the trace elements and Fe. Deionized water was used. - —_ _ — 1 Treatment Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,7_ 8 9 10 Nitrogen ppm 56 112 224 448 896 56 112 224 448 896 Potassium ppm 312 312 312 312 312 624 624 624 624 624 Chem; des. me of stock solution*/1iter of water NH4H2PO4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 KNOB 2 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6 6 KCI 6 2 2 2 2 14 10 10 10 10 Ca(N03)2 - - 4 4 4 - - 4 4 4 CaClz 4 4 - - - 4 4 - - - NHhNOB - - - 8 24 - - - 8 24 MgSOh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 *A molar concentration for each chemical. 8, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Mo added according to Hoagland and Arnon (1950). For Fe 419 Sequestrene iron/liter deionized H20 for Stock 501. Use 25 cc/IOO liters of nutrient solution. 97 Mm” H.wwn ".cm_m 06» .66¢ 66.: sm.m mm.m mm.m 66.m mm.m mm.m 6_»6 ‘km.6 63.0 awe 6mm -.s mN.: 44.: 04.: 66.: .4.: oo.m k_.m om.m mm.m :NS 0:: ~6.m mu.m ok.m k0.m 60.m mm.m m_.: m~.: .m.: ok.s awe JNN 6_.m .N.m _~.m km.m ~m.m m6.m mm.m :~.: mm.: mm.: awe ~__ k_.~ sm.~ om.~ so.m ~_.m mm.m N3.m mk.m 66.: 0m.s saw 6m 0:.m _k.m o_.6 mm.6 :m.6 0m.0 sm.6 6~.6 :m.m mm.m ~_m 0mm 0m.: 60.: “6.: 00.: m_.m k~.m ms.m m:.m m_.m __.m ~_m as: Nm.m .m.m :m.m 66.m me.m _0.m mm.m mm.m mm.m 53.: N_m SNN m6.~ mm.~ 6m.~ mm.~ kk.~ mm.N m~.m mm.m ~m.m 66.: ~_m ~__ mm.~ om.~ sa.m No.m k0.~ 40.~ oo.m ms.m :m.m ‘s~.: ~_m. 6m uzm_03 >00 N Eng 6. 10‘ m N 0 m s m N _ co_0_.o. 0663 ”665060.”. co_u_mOQEOQ co_u:_Om 0cm co_u_mOm $000 >0 000000—00. mm m0>mm0 Eaeocucmm>000 mo acoucou comoLumz .N 6.0mp x_6:066< 98 NR. 1 _o. m0. - m0. ".c0_m 060 .00m _~.m __.m m~.m m~.m >m.m mm.m 00.> ~m.0 mm.m 0m.: :wm 0mm _>.m >:.m __.m :>.m m:.m oo.m mm.m mm.m mm.m #0.: awe m:: m>.m m:.m >m.> _~.m mm.> .m.> >m.0 o_.0 m~.m m~.: duo :NN >m.m m~.mi ::.w m_.m _0.m m>.> m0.> 0~.0 m:.m .m.: :mm N.— _m.m 0:.m mm.m 0m.> mN.> m_.> _o.m 0:.0 mo.m :0.: :um 0m m_.w 0m.> om.> .m.0 :m.m m:.m >_.m mm.: m~.: m>.m ~_m 0mm mm.> m_.> m0.0 _:.0 _~.m .m.m 0:.m ~0.m mm.: mm.m ~_m ma: 0m.0 m>.0 mm.0 _:.0 >_.0 o>.m mm.m :m.: m:.: __.: ~_m :NN mm.0 mo.0 0_.0 m>.m m>.m :m.m m:.m __.m >_.: om.m ~_m ~__ 0m.m mm.m >m.m .0.m m~.> m:.w mm.m mm.m mm.: nnem ~_m mm u0m_03 >00 & E00 0. m m m 0 m J m N _ co_u_mOm 0000 x z .. acme—.500...— co_u_moaeoQ co_u:_Om 0cm co_u_mO¢ $000 >0 oedema—kc. mm m0>mo0 Eaeozucmm>ccu 00 0:00:00 E:_000000 .m 0.0mh x_ocoaa< 99 0N. 1 .0. m0. - m0. ".cm_m 060 .600 mm..~ 0>0.~ 000.. .00.. >>0.. nmm.. >0m.. 00N.. 00N.. ~00.0 :N0 000 m0..~ 0:0.. 000.. >0>.. 000.. .00.. 0:0.. 000.. 000.. 0:~.. 4~0 0:: 0N0.~ 000.. 000.. >0m.. m.m.. :m:.. 000.. 0mm.. :Jm.. mm... :N0 :NN m>0.N 0.0.. 0~>.. 000.. 000.. 000.. mom.. 00m.. om~.. 00... :00 ~.. 0mo.m 00>.N omm.~ 00N.N 000.. Num.. >0:.. 000.. :4... 0N0.. :N0 00 0.0.. 000.. 000.. 0>N.. mm... 000.. 000.0 :00.0 >00.0 0N0.0 «.0 000 ::m.. 0mm.. 00~.. 00... 000.. 0:0.. :00.. 000.. .00.. :>0.0 ~.m 00: .00.. ..m.. .>... >.... 000.. 000.0 :>0.0 000.0 «00.0 000.0 ~.m :NN >00.. .00.. :0m.. :m~.. N0... m~0.. 000.. 000.0 000.0 000.0 ~.m 0.. .0~.N ::0.~ >00.~ >J0.. 000.. .dm.. :0... 000.. 0.0.. 000.0 «.0 00 000.03 >00 N 0. 0 0 N 0 mg : m N . :o.0.mom 0000 #:080000u >0 000:0:.m:_ 00 m0>000 E:E000:0m>000 mo 0:00:00 ma0osam00¢ H :o.0.moQEoo :o.0:.00 0:0 :o_0_mO0 0000 .0 0.0m. x060066< IOO 0.. u .0. 4.. - mo. ".cm_m 00. .umm :::.. 0«:.. 000.. 00«.. «0... 000.. 000.0 0.0.0 «0>.0 .:0.0 :«0 000 00:.. 000.. 0:0.. 000.. 0:«.. 00... 00... 000.0 :00.0 0:0.0 :«0 0:: 0.>.. 000.. .«0.. 00:.. 00:.. 000.. >0«.. 0:... 000.. 000.0 :«0 :«« 0:0.. 00:.. 000.. 000.. :.0.. 0:«.. 00... 000.. .00.0 000.0 :«0 «.. «0:.. 000.. .0«.. «0... 0:... :.0.0 0:0.0 000.0 0:0.0 0.0.0 :«0 00 000.. :00.. 000.. 000.. 000.. :::.. >0«.. .0... «00.0 «:0.0 «.0 000 :00.« 000.« 000.« >.0.« «00.. 00>.. 000.. 0«m.. :0«.. «00.0 «.0 0:: 00:.« 000.« 00«.« 00..« 000.« 0«0.. 000.. «00.. «0... 0.0.. «.0 :«« 000.« «00.« 000.. ::0.. ::0.. 000.. :::.. :0«.. 000.0 0.0.0 «.0 «.. ««0.. 000.. 0>0.. 000.. 000.. 00:.. 00:.. 00:.. «.:.. 0:... «.0 00 050.03 >:0 N E00 0. 0 0 m 0 m : 0 « . :o.0.mom 0000 x z , 0:08000Lp :o.0.manoo :o.0:.Om 0:0 :o.0.m00 0000 >0 00o:0:.0:_ m0 m0>000 E:E0:0:0m>::0 00 0:00:00 53.0.00 .m m.an_x_ncoaa< IOI m 0 www” H 0%“ ”.cm_m .00 .Umm 00«.0 :>«.0 00«.0 .0«.0 00«.0 00«.0 .0«.0 .0«.0 0««.0 0:«.0 :«0 000 0.0.0 0«0.0 .«0.0 .«0.0 .«0.0 000.0 .«0.0 «.0.0 0.0.0 0.0.0 :«0 0:: 0:0.0 000.0 000.0 :00.0 .00.0 :00.0 0«0.0 .«0.0 .«0.0 000.0 :«0 :«« :00.0 «.0.0 0.0.0 0«0.0 .«0.0 0«0.0 0«0.0 :00.0 0«0.0 «00.0 :«0 «.. 000.0 .«0.0 .«0.0 «.0.0 :00.0 00«.0 000.0 0:0.0 000.0 .«0.0 :«0 00 0.:.0 00:.0 .0:.0 00:.0 00:.0 0.:.0 000.0 .00.0 000.0 «.0.0 «.0 000 0:0.0 0:0.0 0:0.0 000.0 000.0 0«0.0 00:.0 0::.0 «00.0 .00.0 «.0 0:: 000.0 :00.0 0«0.0 0.0.0 0.0.0 0:0.0 000.0 :«:.0 «00.0 000.0 «.0 :«« :00.0 0«0.0 0«0.0 0.0.0 0.0.0 00:.0 0.:.0 000.0 .«0.0 000.0 «.0 «.. 000.0 0«0.0 000.0 0.0.0 000.0 >0:.0 0::.0 :«:.0 00:.0 000.0 ..«.0 00 EB»: Eu 0. o. 0 0 « 0 w : 0 « . :o.0.m00 0000 “c05000LH >0 000:0:.0:_ m0 m0>mwr0hwmmmwwmmmwmw.mw WMM0mMW0hmwm0mmwn .0 0.00h x.0:0aa< 102 0.0« u .0. 0.:0 - mo. “.cm_m 000 .umm 0.«0. 0.00. «.::. 0.0:. 0.0«. 0.0«. «.««. :.00. 0..0. :0.00 :«0 000 «.00. 0.00. «.::. 0.0:. «.00. 0.0«. 0.00. :0.00 00.00 00.00 :«0 0:: 0.00. 0.00. 0.0:. 0.0«. 0.0«. 0.00. 0.0«. 0.«.. «.00. .0.00 :«0 :«« ..00. :.00. 0..0. «.::. 0.0.. 0.00. 0.00. 0..0. :0.00 ««.00 :«0 «.. 0.00. ..00. «.00. ..... :.0.. 00.00 00.00 00..0 .«.00 :0..0 :«0 00 ..00. ..0:. 0.0:. :.0«. 0.«.. 0«.00 «0..0 «0..0 00.00 00.00 «.0 000 0.00. :.«0. 0.0:. 0.0«. ..««. :.00. 0.00. 00.00 00.:0 00.00 «.0 0:: «.:0. 0.00. 0.0«. 0.0«. :.0.. 0.00. 00.:0 0«..0 0«.00 00.00 «.0 :«« ..00. «.::. 0.0«. 0.0«. 0.0«. 00.00 .0.00 0:.«0 00.00 00.00 «.0 0.. 0.«.« 0.00« :.00. 0.0«. 0.«.. 00.:0 ««.00 0..0. .0.00 00.:0 «.0 00 000%: >:.w Elna Eng 0. 0 0 m» 0 0 : w\ « . :0.0.000 0000 x z u :.0.....”— MOL _ :0.0.000500 :0.0:.00 0:0 :0.0.m0¢ 0000 >0 000:0:.0:_ m0 m0>000 E:E0:0:0m>:00 00 0:00:00 0m0:00:0z .. m_nm0 x_ucmaa< ‘103 muwm H mwn “.cm_m :00 .umm 0.000 0.000 0.«.0 «.000 ..00« 0.00« 0.0.0 :.00« 0.00« 0.00« :«0 000 0.«:: 0.0:« «.000 0.«00 «.00« «.00« 0.00« 0.00« 0.00« «.:.« :«0 0:: ...0« 0.000 0.00« 0.0:« 0.00« 0.00« ..00« 0.00« ..0«« ..00. :«0 :«« 0.00« ..00« 0.«0« 0.00« 0.00« «..0« 0.00« 0.0:« 0.0«« 0.«.« :«0 «.. 0.0«0 0.00: 0.00: 0.000 0..00 «.0.« ~.0.« 0.00. :.:0« 0.00. :«0 00 0.0:« 0.:00 0.00« 0.00« ..00« :.000 0.0:« 0.0«« 0.«0« 0.00. «.0 000 0.000 0.:.0 0.000 0.000 0.«00 0.00« :.00« «.00« 0..:« ..««« «.0 0:: 0.000 0.0:0 ..0«« ..00« «.00« «.00« 0.00« ..:«« 0.«0. 0.00. «.0 :«« 0.«00 0.0:« 0.00« 0.00« :.00« ..0«« 0.00. «.0.« 0.0.« 0.00. «.0 «.. 0.00« :.00« 0.:0. 0.:0. ..00. 0.00. 0.00. 0..0. ..00. 0.:0. «.0 00 000.03 >00 Ema 0. 0 0 0 0 m : 0 « . :0.0.m00 0000 x z 0:0500000 :0.0.m00&00 :0.0:.00 0:0 :0.0.m00 0000 >0 000:0:.0:_ m0 m0>000 E:E000:0m>:00 00 0:00:00 :0:_ .m 0.0m. x_ncmaa< 104 Mum” H mm” ”.cm00 000 .cmm 0.0. ..«. ..«. 0.:. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0« 0.:« 0..0 :«0 000 0.:. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0« 0.0« 0.0« :«0 0:: 0.«. 0.0. 0... «.00 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.«« :«0 :«« 0.00 :.0. :.0. 0.«« 0.0. 0.0« 0.0« 0.0« 0..0 0.00 :«0 «.. 0.0« 0.0« 0.0. 0.0« .0.0« 0.0« 0.0« 0.0« ..0« 0.00 :«0 00 :.0. 0.0. 0.«. 0... «.0. 0.0 0.0 0... 0.:. 0.0. «.0 000 0.0. 0.0. ..«. 0... ..0. «.0. 0.0 0.0 0... 0.«. «.0 0:: 0.0. 0.:. 0.:. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.«. 0..« «.0 :«« 0... 0.0. 0... 0.0. 0.:. 0... 0... :.0. 0.0. :.0. «.0 «.. 0.0. «.0. ..«.. 0... 0... 0.0. 0.0. 0.:. :.0. 0.0« «.0 00 0000.02. >00 .000} 0. m, 0 0 0 m : 0 « . :0.0.m00 0000 x z 0:0E00000 :0.0.manO0 :0.0:.00 0:0 :0.0.m00 0000 >0 000:0:.0:_ m0 m0>000 E:E000:00>000 00 0:00:00 000000 .m 0.0m0 x0000004 0.0 u .0. 0 105 .0 - mo. ”.cm0m 000 .cmm «.00 0.00 ...0 0.00 0.00 ..00 «.00 0.0: 0.«: :.:0 :«0 000 :..0 0..0 0.00 0.«0 0.:0 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.0: 0..0 :«0 0:: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 :.00 0..0 :.00 ..00 0.00 :«0 :«« 0..0 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.:0 :«0 «.. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 «..0 0.:0 0.:0 :.00 0.0: 0.00 :«0 00 0.00 0..0 0000 0.00 0.:0 0..0 0.0: :.«: 0.00 «.«0 «.0 000 0.00 0.00 0.«0 ...0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0..: 0..0 «.0 0:: 0.:0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 ..00 :.00 0.0: 0.00 «.«0 «.0 :«« 0..0 ..00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.0: «.00 0.0« «.0 «.. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.0: ..0« «.0 00 000.03 >00 E00 Eng 0. 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 « . :0.0.mom 0000 x 2 H 0.0:..“ 00.. _ :0.0.m00&00 :0.0:.Om 0:0 :0.0.m00 0000 >0 000:03.0:_ 00 m0>000 E:E000:0m>000 00 0:00:00 :0000 .0. 0.000 x.0:000< 106 m.m~ - :.oN - mo. ”.cm_m 000 .umm .o. mm.¢m on..o Aom.~m mm.m: mm.m: 0...: mm.mm 0:.nm mm.mm m...: :No 0mm mm.mm m..mn mo.mm :..mn mo.mm ~m..m Nn.mm mm.~: Nu.m: m~.m: :«0 ma: ~m.~m m~.mm mm.mm -.mm 0...: N..m: Nw.:m 0:.mm Nm.o: m~.nu :wo :NN Nm.mm mm.mm um.mw :o.~m mm..m .o.~m mm.mm mm.mm .m..o w:..m :Nm N.. ~m.~m mm.mm mm.~m .m.~w .0.:0 mo.~m .m.mm :..m: mm.o: :w.m: :No mm um.m. :m.~. o~.m. mm.:. ...m. Nm... .m.:. no..~ m~.m~ om.m~ ~.m mmm mo.m~ N..m~ m~.m~ mm.m. mm..~ mm.m. mm.ou mm.m. mm..~ m~.m~ ~.m ma: :~.m~ no.m~ ~m.m~ .m.m~ m..m~ ::.:~ :..NN wo.m. mm.:. mn..m N.m :NN m..m~ mm.:~ :m.m. :0..~ mm..~ o~.m. mo.m. m:.:~ mm.~u nm.- ~.m N.. mm.:m m:.m~ mm.m~ mm.m~ :m.m. m..n. mu.om :0..N om.- o~.mm ~.m om unm.03 >L© Eng 0. m, m m w w J m N . co.u.mo; mm0u. ”c0eum00” co.u.moaeou co.u:.om 0:0 co.u.mOm 0004 >3 U0uc0z.wc_ mm m0>m04 Ess0zucmm>gco mo uc00coo uc.N .__ 0.3m. x_ucoaa< o..m . .o. m._m - mo. ".cm_m 000 .umm ..:Jw m.mm. m.mo~ m.o.~ :.mm. ~.:m. «.:0. m.n¢. 5.:m. ..NN. :«0 0mm :.o.~ m.wm~ ..:mm m.n- m.om. :.mo. “.mm. m.n.. m.wm m.mm Jmm m:: ..MNN ..::~ m.mm. m.om. m.om. m.mm. m.wm. n.:m. m.m~. «.:m :Nm JNN ..m- mnnm.- m.:.~ m.~o~ m.mo~ o.~o~ ~.mm. m.mm. :.mo. ..~.. :«0 ~.. :.mJN m..m~ m.o.N m.mm. ~.:m. n.m.. ~.mo. m.mm m.mm ~.:m :«0 mm ./ m.mm~ m.o.~ m.~m. o.~o~ N.:m. m.mm. m..m. m.w~. w.mm N.:m ~.m 0mm ”w m.mm~ m.mo~ m.m.~ u.:.~ m.:.~ ~.mm. w.mm. m.mm. m.w~. o.~m ~.m m:: m.w~m m.nom m.oo~ m.m.~ m.m:~ m.m.~ m.o.~ N.:m. ~.mo. «.mo. ~.m :NN o.~o~ ~.mm. m.mm. «.:0. m.mm. w.:m. «.mo. n.m.. :Jmm mmmn N.m N.— m.-. m.:m. m.om. ..m:. m.... m.m.. :.mo. ~.mo. m.mm m.mm ~.m mm unm.03 >mefiRP o. m w u w m J m N . co.u.mo; 0004 ”c0eum0gn co.u.manoo co.u:.om 0cm c0.u.m0¢ .004 >3 U0oc0a.mc_ mm 00>004 E:E0;ucmm>gzu .0 0:00:00 E:c.E:.< .N. 0.nmh x.nc0aa< 108 “m" H ”W” ".cm_m L00 .umm >.:o. m.wo. >.o.. w.mo. o...— m..o. o.~o. >.:o. ..oo. m.~o. :«0 0mm m.mo. m.o.. ~..N. ~.:.. m.mo. m.>m >.mo. 0.0m 0.0m m.>m :w@ m:: :.mm o.mo. o..m~ :.mm m.:m N.om ..:m >.mm >.mm m.~m .Jmm :Nw «..0. m.mo. N.No. m.mo. ..NO. ..NO. m.>m o.mm >.mm m.oo. :Nm N.. m.m.. m.:o. ..oo. m.~o. :.MN. m.mo. m.Nm ..no. m.wm m.mo. :«0 mm :.mo. 0.0m N..o. m..m m.mw m.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm >.~m ~.m 0mm 0.«0. m.mm :.mm m.mm m.mm m..o. >.mm >.mm m.:m ~..o. N.m m:: m.ON. m..o. ..oo. m.mo. >.mo. m.mm m.~o_ m._m o.mm >.mm ~.m JNN ~.mm m.mm «.mm :.mm o.mm m.mm ..nm m.mm m.~m >.wm N.m «.. m..o. ijm muom‘ mwmm o.mm m.mm- m.~o_ ..mm >.mm :.mo. ~.m mm 05m.03 >LUEQQ o. m‘ m m m m- : m N . co.u.mom 0004 ”c05000gu co.u.manOQ co.u:.Om 0:0 co.u.mOm $004 >0 U0uc0z.mc_ mm m0>004 E:E0:uc00>gso 00 0:00:00 83.00m .m_ 0.3m. x_ccoaa< III (I! .! I‘J’PIJI‘IIII‘I . E'T‘Ln‘t Ell!!! I’III'IIIIOJD? w“ i I I7.