THE RELATIONSHIP OF
TRICKLE IRRIGATION T0 GROWTH AND
ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF SHADE TREES

AND TO FERTILIZER INJECTION

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
HARRY GLENN PONDER
1975

 

II II III IIIIIIIIIIIHITIIII

312

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF
TRICKLE IRRIGATION TO GROWTH AND
ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF SHADE TREES

AND TO FERTILIZER INJECTION

presented by

HARRY GLENN PONDER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Horticulture

(2. X1; ":23?

Major professor

Date March 28, I975

0-7639

 

 

|
- II

   
  

  
    
  
 

3mm av :r I'-
ms 5 sons * -'
:i {our emnm ms.

IBRARY emoens

.‘I-I-q- 7
m arllunvflhf lulu"..-

  

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION

TO GROWTH AND ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF SHADE
TREES AND TO FERTILIZER INJECTION

By

Harry Glenn Ponder

In spring of 1972, 3-year-old liners of Pin Oak (Quercus

palustris L.) and Common Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.)

 

 

and 4-year-old liners of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.)

 

and White Ash (Fraxinus americana L. cv. Autumn Purple) were

 

planted in a uniform Coloma loam soil near Albion, Michigan.
Trickle irrigation was installed during July and August of 1972.
The relationship of trickle irrigation to root distri-
bution was evaluated with Sugar Maple, Common Honey Locust, and
Pin Oak. Treatments were 5.7 liters per hour and no supple—
mental water. Trees were dug with a 66" tree spade October
17, 1974. The root system of each tree was divided into 15 cm
concentric cylinders around the trunk. Roots were divided
into those greater than 2 mm and those less than 2 mm in diameter.
Fresh weight determinations were made with each root size
classification in each zone.
Irrigation did not alter root system depth. Irrigated

Sugar Maple had more fibrous roots (on a weight basis) and

Harry Glenn Ponder

irrigated Common Honey Locust had more large roots than check
trees.- Irrigated Pin Oak had more fibrous roots and more large
roots. Root systems of irrigated and non—irrigated trees

were distributed in the same volume of soil.

The effect of trickle irrigation ontnnnflcdiameter increase
was studied with 4 shade tree species in 1973 and 1974.
Irrigation treatments consisted of 5.7 liters per hour and
no supplemental water on Sugar Maple and Common Honey Locust.
White Ash treatments were no water, 1.4 liters per hour, and
2.8 liters per hour. Irrigated Pin Oak trees received 5.7
liters per day at application rates of 5.7, 2.8, and 1.4
liters per hour and application time per day was 1, 2, and
4 hrs respectively. Leaf analysis was performed each year.

In 1973 there was a doubling in increase in diameter
of irrigated Pin Oak, White Ash, and Sugar Maple with the
higher flow rate per hour over that of checks. Irrigated
Common Honey Locust trunk diameter increase was greater than
checks. In 1974 1 hr and 2 hr irrigated Pin Oak and irrigated
White Ash again outgrew checks but irrigated Common Honey Locust
and Sugar Maple did not.

Leaf N and K were the only elements to show consistent
changes with all species. Leaf N was lower in 1974 compared to
1973 while K was higher. Trickle irrigation did not promote
any consistent significant change in nutrient composition of
leaves.

A fertilizer injection system based on hydraulic dis-

placement of tank fertilizer solution was developed for trickle

Harry Glenn Ponder

irrigation systems. A portion of the water in the irrigation
line is by—passed through a tank containing fertilizer solution.
Displacement of the fertilizer solution occurs over time and
results in a constant dilution of the fertilizer solution.
Fertilizer turnover rate for the system was determined.
Sixty-six percent of the fertilizer was lost during each
cycle (cycle is the movement of a volume of water equal to
the volume of the tank through the tank). As tanks were
connected in series, the depletion rate was reduced. This

system is amenable to field trickle irrigation plots.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION
TO GROWTH AND ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF SHADE
TREES AND TO FERTILIZER INJECTION

By

Harry Glenn Ponder

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Horticulture

1975

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express deep appreciation to Dr.
A. L. Kenworthy for his patient guidance during the course of
this graduate program.

The author also wishes to express appreciation to members of
his guidance committee - Dr. Clifford J. Pollard, Dr. E. H.
Kidder, Dr. C. M. Hansen, Dr. Jerome Hull, Jr., Dr. Harold
Davidson - for their suggestions and help during the course of
this research.

The author feels indebted to Mr. David Farley and Mr.
Robert Farley for graciously letting us use their land and
trees for conducting this research. Their total support of this
project made the work easier, and their encouragement and per-
ceptive observations enhanced the quality of this project.

The author wishes to express sincere thanks to Mr. D. C.
Coston for his assistance in the collection of data for this
project and for his friendship and helpful suggestions.

And lastly, the author's undying gratitude goes to his

father, mother, and brother for their faith and inspiration.

ii

Guidance Committee:

The Paper-Format was adopted for this thesis in
accordance with departmental and university regulations.
The thesis body was separated into three sections. Each
section is intendedikn:publication in The Journal of the

American Society for Horticultural Science.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

SECTION I: RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION

TO ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF THREE SHADE TREE SPECIES .

Abstract .
Introduction

Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
Literature Cited

SECTION II. RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION
TO GROWTH OF FOUR SHADE TREE SPECIES . .

Abstract .
Introduction

Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion

Literature Cited

SECTION III: HYDRAULIC DISPLACEMENT OF TANK FERTILIZER

SOLUTION(S) INTO A TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Abstract .
Literature Cited

SUMMARY

LITERATURE CITED

iv

Page

vi
viii

ix

U'IUDNNH

22

24
25
25
26
28
44

45
46
55
S6
59

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Section I

Relationship of distance from the trunk to quantity
and per cent of total root system of trickle-
irrigated Pin Oak

Relationship of trickle irrigation to top and
root growth of Pin Oak

Relationship of distance from trunk to quantity'
and per cent of total root system of trickle-
irrigated Common Honey Locust

Relationship of trickle irrigation to top and root
growth of Honey Locust Trees .

Relationship of distance from the trunk to quantity
and per cent of total root system of trickle-
irrigated Sugar Maple .

Relationship of trickle irrigation to top and root
growth of Sugar Maple Trees

Section II

Net pan evaporation and rainfall data for 1973
and 1974

Growth response of 4 shade tree species to trickle
irrigation in 1973

Growth response of 4 shade tree species to trickle
irrigation in 1974

Nutrient-element composition of leaves of Sugar
Maple and White Ash in 1973 and 1974

Nutrient-element composition<xfleaves of Common
Honey Locust and Pin Oak in 1973 and 1974

Page

10

ll

12

l3

14

15

33

34

35

36

37

Table Page
Section III

1. Percent K remaining as related to the number
of cycles run . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Section I

Root distribution of Pin Oak. Top and bottom:
left, irrigated and right, non-irrigated

Root distribution of Sugar Maple. Top and
bottom: left, irrigated and right, non-
irrigated

Root distribution of Common Honey Locust. Top
and bottom: Left, irrigated and right, non-
irrigated . . . . . .

Section II

Trunk diameter increase of White Ash related
to date and treatment.

Trunk diameter increase of Pin Oak related
to date and treatment

Trunk diameter increase of Pin Oak related to
l and 2 emitters per tree on each treatment

Section III

Per cent K remaining as related to the number

of cycles run

TOp, L-R: 1/2" end plug, plastic '0' ring,

3/8" check valve, plastic '0' ring, 1/2" end

plug. Bottom: Check valve apparatus enclosed

in l/2" polyethylene pipe

Top, L-R: 1/2" end plug, plastic '0' ring, spray
nozzle screen, plastic '0' ring, l/2" end plug.
Bottom: In-line screen apparatus enclosed in l/2"

polyethylene pipe

vii

Page

l6

18

20

38

4O

42

52

53

53

INTRODUCTION

Trickle irrigation is based on the prevention of drought
stress. This is accomplished by consistent applications of
small quantities of water directly to the area of the root zone.

Dr. Blass, of England, is credited with discovering
trickle irrigation in the late 1940's. He and other English
researchers developed a trickle irrigation system for use on
greenhouse tomatoes. In the late 1950's, researchers in Israel
adapted trickle irrigation to field production of vegetable crops
and by the mid 1960's Australian workers were using trickle
irrigation in orchards and vineyards.

To date, most of the research with trickle irrigation has
been with fruit and vegetable crops in arid regions. The research
has shown in many cases increased yield and increased vegetative
growth with trickle irrigation as compared to sprinkler irrigation.
Little research has evaluated trickle irrigation under temperate
climatic conditions and research evaluating trickle irrigation
on ornamental horticulture corps is almost non-existent.

The purpose of this research was to determine the effect
of trickle irrigation on root distribution and growth of several
shade tree species under temperate climatic conditions and to
develop a non-electrical fertilizer injection system.for use with

trickle irrigation systems.

viii

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Root distribution. Historically, several factors have been

 

reported as affecting root distribution. Some of these factors
are nitrogen quantity (7,10), nitrogen carrier (2,6,8), cultural
practices (1.3.13), temperature (15), soil type (5,9,12), and
water (4,7,11,16).

Research reports evaluating root distribution with res-
pect to trickle irrigation are limited and are for arid climates
almost exclusively. At this time no clear picture of the
effect of trickle irrigation on root distribution has emerged.

Some of the work with fruit crops under trickle irri-
gation in arid regions suggested that roots directly under
the trickle emitter died and new roots developed further
away in the transition-zone between water-saturated soil and
dry soil (17). Yet work with greenhouse carnations indicated
greater root growth around the emitter (11), and research com-
paring sprinkler and trickle-irrigated 'Valencia' oranges
suggested no difference in horizontal or lateral root

development (18).

Growth. Middleton et. al. (14) showed no difference in trunk
area increase of trickle-irrigated prunes the first year with

varying quantities of water applied each day. A significant

ix

increase in trunk diameter was found the second year with the
higher quantities of water applied each day. There are few,
if any, other research reports that show the effect of

trickle irrigation to trunk diameter increase on trees.

SECTION I

RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION
TO ROOT DISTRIBUTION OF THREE
SHADE TREE SPECIES

Harry Glenn Ponder

Abstract: The relationship of trickle irrigation

to root distribution was evaluated with Sugar Maple,
Common Honey Locust and Pin Oak. Treatments were

5.7 liters per hour and no supplemental water. Trees
were dug with a 66” tree spade in 1974. The root
system of each tree was cut into 15 cm concentric
cylinders around the trunk. Roots were divided into
those greater than 2 mm and those less than 2 mm.
Fresh weight determinations were made with each root
size classification in each zone.

Irrigation did not alter root system depth. Irrigated
Sugar Maple had more fibrous roots (on a weight basis)
and irrigated Common Honey Locust had more large roots
than check trees. Irrigated Pin Oak had more fibrous

roots and more large roots. Root systems of irrigated

and non-irrigated trees were distributed in the same
volume of soil.

Numerous factors have been implicated as influencing
root distribution. Nitrogen quantity (7,11), nitrogen
carrier (2,6,8), cultural practices (1,3,16), temperature (17),
soil type (5,9,14), and water (4,7,13,18,20) are some primary
factors that have been studied.

No data have been found to show any relationship of
trickle irrigation to root development on any crop under
temperate climatic conditions. Some data on fruit trees
from arid regions suggest that roots directly under the
trickle emitter die and new roots develop further away in

the transition zone between water-saturated soil and dry

2

soil (19). Goldberg et al,(l3) using greenhouse carnations
indicated a greater root growth at the emitter decreasing
with distance from the emitter. They also suggested that
trickle irrigation promoted a shallow root system. Other
arid region data suggest no difference in lateral or hori-
zontal root development between trickle—irrigated 'Valencia'
oranges and sprinkler-irrigated 'Valencia' oranges (22).
Furuta et a1.(12) working on eucalyptus in containers found
a heavier root system and more roots were in the center of
the ball with fewer roots at the bottom with trickle irrigation
as compared to sprinkler irrigation.

The objective of this research was to study the effect
of trickle irrigation on root development of three shade tree

species under temperate climatic conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three—year-old bareroot liners of Pin Oak (guercus

palustris L.) and Common Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.)

 

 

and 4-year-old liners of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.)

 

were planted in a nursery near Albion, Michigan during late
June of 1972. The soil type was a deep uniform Coloma loam.
The late planting plus an extremely dry summer prevented notice-
able growth on all genera that first summer and contributed to
the death of many Pin Oaks.

Planting consisted of plowing furrows, putting liners
in the furrows, and pushing the soil around each tree.

Partially open furrows were left between trees.

Four hundred trees were planted per acre in twenty tree
rows. A natural grass sod developed and was left the duration
of the experiment. No fertilizer was applied during the
experiment.

Trickle irrigation was installed in late July and early
August of 1972. A four—inch well served as the water source.
A flow regulating valve (valve designed to deliver a specific
quantity of water if a 15 lb. water pressured differential is
maintained across the valve) on each row and one microtube
per tree controlled water flow rate to each tree. Microtubes
were positioned 15 cm from tree trunks. Solenoid valves and
time clocks were used to automate the system.

The irrigation treatments were 5.7 lph (liters per hour)
per tree versus no supplemental water on each genus. In 1973,
trickle irrigation began June 25 and was discontinued September
25. Water was applied 1 hr each day. The summer was not
extremely dry.

In 1974, the trickle irrigation system ran June 10 -
September 24. Water was applied 1 hr each day June 10 -

July 1, 2 hrs each day July 1 - July 16, and 3 hrs each day
July 16 - September 24. The summer was extremely dry. Eva-
poration date was collected during both summers.

Two trees per treatment were dug October 17, 1974 with
a 66" tree spade. Trees selected reflected the trunk diameter
average for the 20 trees under the treatment. Less than 2%

of the roots were severed in the digging process. The soil

was carefully removed from the roots by hand and with a minimal
loss of fibrous roots.

There were 2 replications per treatment, and both the
.l and .05 levels of significance were calculated. T test
was used to determine treatment differences.

The root system was photographed and root system depth
measured. Then the root system was cut into 15 cm concentric
circles around the trunk. Roots were divided into those
greater than 2 mm in diameter and those less than 2 mm. The
smaller classification was considered the fibrous roots and
probably included the major absorbing roots (10). Fresh

weight was obtained on each root category.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 1, 3, and 5 show quantity on a weight basis
’ and per cent of root system in relation to distance from trunk
for Pin Oak, Common Honey Locust,and Sugar Maple respectively.

Regardless of treatment, over 90% of the root systems
of the three genera were within 30 cm of the trunk. 10% of
this total were fibrous roots. Cowart (10) working with
2-year-old peaches on a sandy loam soil in Georgia found
only 67% of the root system within 30 cm of the trunk. This
difference may indicate the importance of soil characteristics,
soil moisture conditions, and the inherent nature of genera on

root development.

In contrast to the statement by Goldberg et a1 (13)
that trickle irrigation promoted a shallow root system, no
difference was found in depth of root systems receiving
supplemental water versus those without supplemental water
(tables 2, 4, and 6). By digging a ball 28 cm deep and 60 cm
in diameter, over 90% of the total root system and over 70%
of the fibrous root system of Pin Oak would be retained.

The ball would need be 40 cm deep for Common Honey Locust
and Sugar Maple. These are not large balls for the tree
size and should make for excellent livability after trans-
planting.

Total quantity of roots decreased with distance from
the trunk of the tree. This is in agreement with previous
work on peach (10) and apple (3,5). Boynton and Savage's
work (5) on a mature Baldwin apple tree shows that the total
quantity of fibrous roots did not decrease for some distance
from the tree. Our data show thattfd§;was not true for all
shade tree genera in this study.

Tables 1 and 2 and fig. 1 show the data and show
visually the response of Pin Oak roots to the irrigation
treatments.

Irrigated trees outgrew non-irrigated trees in t0p
growth and root growth, but there was no difference in per
cent of roots, large or fibrous, in any zone. There was an
increase in the quantity of large roots in the 0-15 cm and
30-45 cm zones and of fibrous roots in the 15-30 cm zone in

the irrigated plot.

Trickle irrigation did not influence per cent of
total root system in each zone. Trickle irrigation did result
in a larger root system and a larger tree. The larger root
system was distributed in the same volume of soil as the
roots of the smaller non-irrigated trees.

Wyman (21) working with 7-year-old Pin Oaks averaging
1.6 cm in trunk diameter found that all new roots grew
directly downward and none grew laterally beyond the original
diameter of the root ball. The root balls ranged between
60-90 cm. The check and irrigated Pin Oaks of this study
averaged 2.17 cm and 2.92 cm in trunk diameter respectively.
Ball diameters were similar to those in Wyman's study, but our
observation was that new roots did move beyond the original
root ball diameter and Hum many of the new roots grew laterally.

Tables 3 and 4 and fig. 2 show the data and show
visually the response of Common Honey Locust roots to the
irrigation treatments.

There was no difference in total top or root growth
between irrigated and non-irrigated trees. A higher per-
centage of fibrous roots in the 30-45 cm zone was found in
the non-irrigated plot. This has little practical significance
since these roots will probably be severed when the trees
are transplanted from the nursery. In the irrigated plot, a
greater quantity of large roots was discovered in the 0-15 and

15-30 cm zones. Kramer (15) pointed out that the large roots

of trees do absorb a sizable quantity of water indicating that
the large root increase may be advantageous for transplanting
and during the ensuing adjustment period.

Tables 5 and 6 and fig. 3 show the data and show
visually the response of Sugar Maple roots to the irrigation
treatments.

Irrigated trees had more fibrous roots in the 0-15
and 15-30 cm zones compared to checks. This should enhance
transplantability of those trees. Irrigated trees also had
a larger caliper.

The influence the grass sod may have had on tree
growth was not determined. The sod removed some of the
water applied. Beckenbach and Gourley (3) found little
difference in root distribution of apple trees grown under
sod, clean cultivation and cover crop methods.

No root rot or pathogenic situation was found on any
of theixxn:systems surveyed in the study. There was no
evidence of roots dying under the trickle emitter as reported
from arid regions (19), and no evidence of roots congregating
around the emitters as has been reported (13). The root
systems seemed to be uniformly around the tree regardless of
emitter location.

The root systems of Pin Oak, Common Honey Locust, and
Sugar Maple were beneficially altered by trickle irrigation

as was the root system of eucalyptus in Furuta's work (12) and

in contrast to no alteration reported on citrus in arid
regions (20).

The greater quantity of rainfall and higher quality
water in temperate regions contrasted to arid regions may
account for many of the differences in root distribution

data from the two regions.

10

Table 1. Relationship of distance from the trunk to quantity
and per cent of total root system of trickle-irrigated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pin Oak.
Treatmend Distance from Trunk (centimeters) Total
+ Weight
0-15 15-30 30 (g)
g J% g I % g %
Roots less than 2 mm Diameter
5.68 lph 143 8 58 4 341 2 234
check 22 4 25 4 211 4 68
N.S. N.S. *TT N.ST N.S. NZS. **
Roots 2 mm Diameter or Larger .
5.68 lph 1282 73 190 11 48 2 ' 1520
check 332 64 103 18 17 4 454
. ** N.S. N.S. N.S. ** N.S. **

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*.1 level of significance
**.05 level of significance

ll

mocmowmwawwm mo Hm>mH mo.ss
mocmowmwcwwm mo Hm>ma H.k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as .m.z as. as
0H.MN 05.0 o.HNm mm N.om¢ mq.o mo.N xomno
o.mmna mm m.o¢om qe.H mm.m nma mo.m
.uammumash .ummmukaah
enma mmma
. Ame “amass Aaov Ame Aaov AauV
AEUV Doom ammum Samoa uswwmz .ocH .Emwa ummwamo
mmoa cowumuoam>m Hmuoa wcfiuoom smoum QOH chHH owmum>¢ _quEummuH

 

.xmo Cam mo Lusouw uoou mam

aou ou cowumwwuuw maxowuu mo awnmcowumamm

.N magma

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Relationship of distance from trunk to quantity
and percent of total root system of trickle-
irrigated Common Honey Locust.

Treatment Distance from Trunk (centimeters) Total

+ Weight
0-15 15-30 30 (g)
g % g % g %
Roots less than 2 mm Diameter
5.68 lph 39 4 44 4 l6 1 99
check 75 8 47 5 28 4 149
N.S. N.Sfl N.S. ‘NTSI N.Si ** N.S.
Roots 2 mm Diameter or Larger
5.68 lph 902 75 159 13 48 3 1109
check 741 80 4 1 3O 3 774
** NIS. TR *7 N.S. N.S. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*.1 level of significance
**.05 level of significance

l3

cosmoflwwcwwm mo Hm>mH mo.ks
cosmowwwamflm mo Hm>oH H.¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m.z .m.z .m.z e
«No oq ¢.o~oa mm.o o¢.N xoono
moma Om «.mHNH aa.o «w.~ sea mo.m
Awe unmamz Aaov Awe Aauv AEUV
Doom 3mmum spawn unwwmz .ocH .Bmfla Hogwamo
Hmuoa wcwuoom nmwum ace chHH mwmum>< . ucmeummuH

 

nuzouw uoou new mom ou cowumwwuuw

.mmoHH umsooq kmsom mo
masoauu mo anamcoaumamm .s magma

14

Table 5. Relationship of distance from the trunk to quantity
and per cent of total root system of trickle-irri-
gated Sugar Maple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Distance from Trunk (centimeters) Total
7 + Weight
0-15 15-30 I 30 (g)
g 7. g 7. L g 7.
Roots less than 2 mm Diameter
5.68 lph 208 9 176 8 56 2 441
check 36 2 60 4 32 2 128
7r 1 9? 7? N.S. N.S. N.S. *

 

 

 

 

 

Roots 2 mm Diameter or Larger

 

5.68 lph 1301 56 448 19 109 4 1858
check 1012 75 218 16 35 2 1264
4N.S. ** TN.S. NTS. N.S. N.S. N.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*.1 level of significance
**.05 level of significance

 

 

 

‘II’I‘I

 

15

mocmowmwcwflm mo Hm>mH mo.«s
mocmofimacwwm mo Ho>mH H.s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m.z .m.z .m.z es

o.mmma mm 0.0Hmm NH.H o~.¢ xomno
m.ma- mm o.soo~ me.a om.e ans mo.m

Ame unwams Ame Aaov Aauv

Doom smmnm Afiov uswflmz mmmmuoaH Homwamo
Hmuoe numoa Smmum mow Hogwamo mwmum>< quEumouH

.mmmHH mammz Hmem mo SD30Hw

uOOH can aou Ou cowumwwuuw oHXUHHu mo mwnmcowumaom .o manna

Figure l.

16

Root distribution of Pin Oak. Top and bottom:

left,

irrigated and right, non-irrigated.

 

 

 

 

 

l7

      

IIIIIIIIAI IIII

   

lIIICIIIE

" . RICKLE IIIIIII'IIIIIIII

Figure 2.

18

Root distribution of Sugar Maple. Top and bottom:

left, irrigated and right, non-irrigated.

 

 

 

 

19

i
. mm IIIIEITIII
I mu

.IfiliI’H CHEEL

 

Figure 3.

20

Root distribution of Common Honey Locust. Top and

bottom: left, irrigated and right, non-irrigated.

—_—-—-4-——

21

IIIIIIIILE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

‘ LllBIISl
I N

Ifill'II

‘ 5 ’3: f;

 

“3...! , .
:"p‘, i J ' "‘ *3

TIIIIKIE IIIIIIiITIIII

   
  

 

, IIIBIIST

22

LITERATURE CITED

Adriance, G. W., and H. E. Hampton. 1949. Root
distribution in citrus, as influenced by environment.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 53:103-108.

Batjer, L. D., and R. H. Sudds. 1938. The effect
of nitrate of soda and sulfate of ammonia on soil
reaction and root growth of apple trees. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:279-282.

Beckenbach, J., and J. H. Gourley. 1932. Some
effects of different cultural methods upon root distri-

bution of apple trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
29:292-204.

Black, J. D. F., and P. D. Mitchell. 1974. Changes
in root distribution of mature pear trees in response

to trickle irrigation. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr.
Cong. 74. p. 437-38.

Boynton, D., and E. F. Savage. 1937. Root distribution
of a Baldwin apple tree in a heavy soil. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 34:164-168.

Cahoon, G. A., E. S. Morton, W. W. Jones, and M. J.
Garber. 1959. Effects of various types of nitrogen
fertilizers on root density and distribution as
related to water infiltration and fruit yields of
Washington navel oranges in a long-term.experiment.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 74:289-299.

, L. H. Stolzy, M. J. Garber, and E. S.
Merton. 1964. Influence of nitrogen and water on the
root density of mature Washington navel orange trees.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 85:224-231.

 

Chadwick, L. C. 1934. The distribution of roots of
Moline Elms in relationship to fertilizer application.
Proc. Nat'l Shade Tree Conf. 10:38-51.

, D. Bushey, and George Fletcher. 1937.
Root distribution studies. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
35:734-738.

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23

Cowart, F. F. 1938. Root distribution and root and

top growth of young peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 36:145-149.

Ford, H. W. 1957. Effect of nitrogen on root
development of Valencia orange trees. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 70:237-244.

Furuta, T., R. Branson, W. Jones, R. Strohman, T.
Mock, and I. Ramaden. 1974. Irrigation for container
growing. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74.

p. 155-158.

Goldberg, D., B. Gornat, and Y. Bar. 1971. The
distribution of roots, water, and minerals as a
result of trickle irrigation. J. Amer. Soc. Hort.

Sci. 96(5):645-648.

Hinrichs, H., and F. B. Cross. 1942. The relationship
of compact subsoil to root distribution of peach trees.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 42:33-38.

Kramer, P. J. 1969. "Plant and soil water relation-
ships." McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. p. 482.

Marth, P.C. 1934. A study of the root distribution
of Stayman apple trees in Maryland. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 32 334-337.

Proebsting, E. L. 1943. Root distribution of some
deciduous fruit trees in a California orchard. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 43:1-4.

Torasaburo, S. 1938. Apple root systems under dif-
ferent cultural systems. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
36:150-152.

Willoughby, P., and B. Cockroft. 1974. Changes in
root patterns of peach trees under trickle irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74. p. 439-42.

Wood, 0. M. 1934. The root system of a Chestnut
Oak (Quercus montana). Proc. Nat'l Shade Tree
Conf. 10:95-99.

Wyman, D. 1932. Growth responses of Pin Oaks due
to fertilizers, pruning, and soil conditions. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 29:562-565.

Yager, E., and C. Yitzchak. 1974. Drip irrigatiOn in
citrus orchards. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74.
p. 456-61.

SECTION II

24

RELATIONSHIP OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION
TO GROWTH OF FOUR SHADE TREE SPECIES

Harry Glenn Ponder

Abstract: The effect of trickle irrigation on

trunk diameter increase was studied with four shade
tree species in 1973 and 1974. Irrigation treatments
consisted of 5.7 liters per hour and no supplemental
water on Sugar Maple and Common Honey Locust. White
Ash treatments were no water, 1.4 liters per hour,
and 2.8 liters per hour. Irrigated Pin Oak trees
received 5.7 liters per day at application rates of
5.7, 2.8, and 1.4 liters per hour and application
time per day was 1, 2, and 4 hrs respectively. Leaf
analysis was performed each year.

In 1973 there was a doubling in increase in diameter
of irrigated Pin Oak, White Ash, and Sugar Maple

with thelfigher flow rate per hour over that of checks.
Irrigated Common Honey Locust trunk diameter increase
was greater than checks. In 1974 1 hr and 2 hr
irrigated Pin Oak and irrigated White Ash again

out grew checks but irrigated Common Honey Locust and
Sugar Maple did not.

Leaf N and K were the only elements to show consistent
changes with all species. Leaf N was lower in 1974 com-
pared to 1973 while K was higher. Trickle irrigation did
not promote any consistent significant change in nutrient
composition of leaves.

Shade trees are priced in accordance to trunk diameter.

Research on trickle irrigated prunes showed no difference in

trunk area increase the first year with varying quantities of

water each day but a significant increase the second year with

the higher quantities of water each day (3).

This research was performed to determine the relationship

of trickle irrigation to trunk diameter increase and nutrient

composition of leaves of Sugar Maple(Acer saccharum Marsh ),

 

25

26

Common Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), White Ash

 

 

(Fraxinus americana L. cv. Autumn Purple), and Pin Oak

 

(Quercus palustris L.).

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three-year-old liners of Pin Oak and Common Honey Locust
and 4-year-old liners of Sugar Maple and White Ash were
planted in a nursery near Albion, Michigan during late June
of 1972. The soil type was a deep uniform Coloma loam. The
late planting plus an extremely dry summer prevented noticeable
growth on all species that first summer and contributed to the
death of many Pin Oaks.

Planting consisted of plowing furrows, putting liners
in the furrows, and pushing the soil around each tree.
Partially Open furrows were left between trees.

Four hundred trees were planted per acre in twenty tree
rows. A natural grass sod developed and was left the duration
of the experiment. No fertilizer was applied during the
experiment.

Trickle irrigation was installed in late July and
early August of 1972. A four-inch well served as the water
source. A flow regulating valve (valve designed to deliver
a specific quantity of water provided a 15 lb. pressure
differential can be maintained across the valve) on each row
and one microtube per tree controlled water flow rate to each
tree. Microtubes were positioned 15 cm from trees. Solenoid

valves and time clocks were used to automate the system.

27

Irrigation treatments consisted of 5.7 lph versus no
supplemental water on Sugar Maple and Common Honey Locust.
White Ash treatments were no water, 1.4 lph, and 2.8 lph. All
Pin Oak trees except check trees received the same total amount
of water per day. Application rate varied and consequently
application time. The 1 hr. treatment was 5.7 lph; the 2 hr.
treatment,2.8 lph; and the 4 hr. treatment,l.4 lph. Each
time treatment on Pin Oak was further split into 1 versus 2
microtubes per tree. Microtubes were positioned in the row
15 cm on either side of the tree trunk. There were at least
20 trees under each treatment for all genera.

In 1973 trickle irrigation began June 25 and was
discontinued September 25. Water was applied 1 hr. each day.

In 1974 the trickle irrigation system ran June 10 -
September 24. Water was applied 1 hr. per day June 10 -

July 1, 2 hrs. per day July 1 - July 16, and 3 hrs. per day
July 16 - September 24. The summer was extremely dry.

Leaf samples were collected on August 15 of both summers.
Leaf N content was analyzed by the Kjeldahl method and K
content by flame photometer. Other elements were determined
spectrographically.

Leaf water content was determined using the relative
turgidity method described by Weatherly (4). The leaf disks
were collected during the noon period of September 4, 1973.

Randomized block designs were employed and comparisons

among treatment means were made using Duncan's test.

28

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows net water loss from an evaporation pan and
rainfall data for 1973 and 1974. 1974 was much drier. August
was the driest month both years.

Sugar Maple, White Ash, Common Honey Locust, and Pin Oak
trunk diameter increase related to trickle irrigation in 1973
and 1974 is shown in tables 2 and 3. Tables 4 and 5 show
leaf nutrient-element composition for the 4 shade tree species
in 1973 and 1974.

1213. Trickle irrigated trees showed a greater trunk
diameter increase than check trees for all species. Trunk
diameter increase doubled, except for Common Honey Locust,
with the higher flow rate per hour on each species compared
to check trees. Leaf composition values are thought to
represent acceptable levels based on growth obtained.

Relative trugidity studies revealed a higher water
content in the leaves of irrigated Sugar Maple and Common
Honey Locust. Ash and Pin Oak showed no difference in
relative turgidity. This may be related to leaf structure.

Pin Oak axillary shoot number increased with increasing
flow rate.

1214. There was no difference in trunk diameter
increase between check and irrigated trees of Sugar Maple and
Common Honey Locust.

The reduced growth of irrigated Sugar Maple, relative
to 1973, may have been due to lower leaf N compared to check

trees. Davidson (2) reported 2.98, 2.41, and 1.71% as high,

29

average, and low leaf N values respectively for Norway Maple

(Acer platanoides, L.). In comparison irrigated Sugar Maple

 

had low leaf N. There were no treatment differences in any
other nutrient composition values. Cole and Till (I) found a
N deficiency and reduced growth on 'Valencia' oranges under
trickle when fertilizer was not applied for 18 months.

Common Honey Locust had the highest leaf nutrient
composition variability between years.. N, P, Ca, Mg, Fe,
B, and Al were lower and K, Na, Mn, Cu, and Zn were higher
in 1974 compared to 1973. Compared to the high, low and
average values reported by Davidson (2), Common Honey Locust
had low leaf N, P, Ca, Ma, and Fe and high leaf Mn. Reduced
growth may have resulted from low nutrient composition values
having reached a threshold level that reduced tree response
to water.

Trunk diameter increase was twice as great on irrigated
White Ash as on check trees. Irrigated trees trunk diameter
increase was greatest in July and August (figure 1). No
difference in rate of trunk diameter increase was found between
the two flow rates. Leaf N was lower and K and P higher in
1974 compared to 1973.

Pin Oak trunk diameter increase doubled in the l and
2 hr. irrigation treatments compared to the check. Trunk
diameter increased most rapidly in July and August (Figure 2).
This was the driest period of 1974.

Axillary shoot number was significantly increased on

Pin Oak in the 1 hr. plot

30

Little trunk diameter increase occurred on any species
after August 24. This suggests that trickle irrigation was
probably not beneficial after August.

1973 and 1974. A tendency for checks to outgrow or

 

at least grow as fast as irrigated trees before the irrigation
treatments were implemented in 1974 was found with all species.
This may suggest that the irrigated trees, larger at the end of
1973, required more water for growth and/or thatthe root system
of irrigated trees became sensitive to the irrigation and grew
less rapidly when there was no irrigation. Turning the trickle
system on earlier in the spring might eliminate this situation.

Trunk diameter increase of check trees of White Ash,
Pin Oak, and Common Honey Locust was about the same both years
even though 1974 was much drier. It is hard to explain this on
a nutritional basis. Possibly the sporadic nature of drought
stresses on a plant during the year partially account for it.
It is hard to evaluate the long term effect of a short stress
period versus a longer stress period. Perhaps in 1973 the
drought stresses were simply shorter in nature.

Pin Oak had significantly more axillary shoots in the
1 hr. treatment. Wider and taller heads resulted in these
trees,increasing their commercial acceptability.

There was no difference in growth with 1 versus 2
emitters per tree on Pin Oak for any treatment in either year.

Figure 3 shows the data for 1974.

31

Observation showed that irrigated Pin Oak had greater
twig elongation than check trees. wyman (5) working on 5-year-
old Pin Oak discovered a high correlation between twig growth
and trunk diameter increase.

The reduced trunk diameter increase of Pin Oak in the
4 hr. treatment may have been due to the slow application
rate coupled with the competition of the sod for water. It
was also difficult to maintain accurate delivery rates at
the low flow rate. Constant maintenance and adjustment was
required on this treatment during both summers.

It seems that N should not be left off Sugar Maple for
more than 1 year if a substantial growth rate is to be main-
tained. This statement probably applies to Common Honey Locust
and totflmzother species to a lesser extent. With trickle
irrigation Middleton et al,CDshowed significantly higher leaf
N on prunes within 1 year after application of N fertilizer at
the water discharge point. This suggests that low leaf N such
as found in Sugar Maple in this study can be corrected quickly
with the addition of N fertilizer in conjunction with the trickle
system.

Tables 4 and 5 show some differences in nutrient-element
values between treatments in 1973 and/or 1974, but there seem to
be few trends that would explain the growth responses obtained.
N and K seem to be the only elements showing consistent changes
inaflJ.species with time. Leaf N was lower, regardless of treat-

ment, while K was higher in 1974 compared to 1973. Other than N

32

the deletion of fertilizer did not seem to affect growth during
the experiment with the possible exception of Common Honey
Locust. The data indicate that trickle irrigation does not
promote consistent significant changes in nutrient content of
leaves.

Tree hardiness did not seem to be adversely affected
by trickle irrigation. No winter injury was observed on any
of the trees. Even with continued irrigation in 1974 growth was
halted by August 24 on all species studied. Some factor,
environmental and/or genetic, must override the promotive
effect of water on growth at this time of year.

Per cent increase in trunk diameter has a yearly
additive effect and the increases due to trickle irrigation

result in a more profitable tree for the nurseryman.

33

Table 1. Net pan evaporation and rain-
fall data for 1973 and 1974.

 

 

Year July August Sept.

 

 

Net Evaporation (cm)

 

1973 - 1.02 - 8.38 + 2.41
1974 -10.87 -12.24

 

 

 

Rainfall (cm)

 

1973 13.94 6.15 11.10
1974 5.31 6.98 4.95

 

 

 

34

.mo.oum um xaucmoflmacwfim Hmmmwp muouuoa uceummmwp he ponoaaom mcmozx

 

 

4+
mo.Hm man.ma awe.o mm.H w Aaaa mo.mv u: H «
mo.mm nma.a mam.o ms.H Anaa sm.mv as N _
mc.mm omm.¢ nmN.o AG.H Anna ~4.Hv an a
ma.~w som.o owa.o me.H sumac amo cam
mo.ma mmm.o “a.a mo.m
pa.om no~.o am.H sumac “mason smaom
mo.am mam.o oa.~ aw.~
mo.om pom.o om.~ Ne.a
mo.ow omH.o Hm.~ somau nma
mm.mm «Ho.o o~.m mo.m
no.ma mm.o ~a.~ sumac «Ham: Hawsm

«N .uamm-e~ .cse «N .csn ua\mumuaa
muwpwwune mucosm Aaov Aaov
m>wumamm .Hafixm .ocH .Emwn chHH .Bmfla xcsue uaoaummuh mowooam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x.mnma CH cowumwwuhw maxowuu oumowomam menu momsm q we omcoammu £u3ouo .N mHQMH

35

.qmma magnum mamuou poumHSEdoom unmmmumon mmdam?fl

.mo.oum um maucmowmwcwwm ummmap mumuuma udouowmap an pm3oHHom mammzx

 

 

 

mm.aa mm¢.o ems.o m-.o eq.~ Anna we.mv u: H
na.m mmq.o m3.0 mo~.o mN.N Anna em.mv an N
no.H nHm.o nam.o nmsH.o mo.~ Anaa NG.HV us a
no.0 pmm.o nm~.o «No.0 Na.H sumac xmo cam
mom.o «No.0 «ma.o o¢.~ wo.m
mHN.o mmH.o msH.o He.m somao umaooa emcee
mNm.o mom.o .mmN.o He.m em.m
mam.o maN.o mHN.o Hq.m N¢.H
awa.o nsH.o nsH.o om.m sumac awe moans
moq.o mam.o «no.0 so.s wo.m
m3.0 mom.o mma.o sm.m somao mama: “swam
SN namm em ws< em Has «a use ua\msmuaa
muoonm Eov
.Hawx< mAEov .ocH .Emwn xanH .Emwa xcnue unmaumoue mowomam

 

 

 

 

 

x.¢nma CH cowumwwuuw maxowuu cu.mmwomamixwuu mpmnm a mo omcoamou zuzouo .m manna

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mo.ona um maucmoHMchHm ummmwp mumuuwa ucmummmwp An posoaaom mammzk
mq.moa mm.ma wN.mN mm.mH mm.mmH om.mq mom.o mHN.H mo.ww~ mq~.o nem.o muw.a em.N
mN.NOH mq.ma mm.©w mo.mH mH.omH mH.H¢ n-.o mmo.a m¢.mmm mNN.o new.o maw.H Nq.H
mq.mm mw.ma m¢.m~ wH.HH mm.meH mH.mm QHN.o mmH.H m¢.o¢m mNN.o moa.a www.H xomSU Asmmav
wo.m0H mH.om mH.oN mc.mH mo.omH mm.m¢ mam.o mmN.H m¢.o¢~ moH.o moo.o mom.N qw.~
mm.moH mm.mm m¢.mm mm.wH mo.on mm.mm mam.o mmN.H mm.mwm mmH.o wmo.o mNm.N N¢.H Annmav
mo.mHH wo.mm mm.¢m m¢.¢H mN.H~H mN.Nm mmm.o mmN.H mm.wom moH.o mmm.o mqq.w xomno £m< ouwnz
mm.00H na.om mm.om mq.m m¢.~qa mm.maq mmm.o mNo.H om.mma mmm.o mmn.o oom.a wo.n
mm.¢m mn.mm no.¢q no.5 m¢.ooH mm.mmm mom.o nwm.H mm.qqa nom.o mum.o mom.H xomno Aqmmav
AmmmHv
om.¢NH mo.mm mm.H¢ mo.HH mm.m¢H «H.0wm omm.o omm.H mm.mmm mom.o mwm.o mHN.N mo.n mammz
mm.o~H am.HH mm.H¢ on.a mH.on ww.mom mom.o mm~.H mo.mmm me.o mqq.o mom.~ xooco umwsm
H£\.uHH
Ema H< Baa CN 8mm m Ema so Sam on Ban :2 Nmz New Ema mz Nm xx NZ uaoaummuw mowooam
«.emma paw mmma CH £m¢ ouwnz paw maamz newsm mo mm>mmH mo cowuwmomaoo ucoEoHOIuCOHuuaz .e oHan

37

.00.0ua 00 AHuc«0HMchHm ummMHv mu0uu0H 0:000MMH0 A0 0030HHom mfl«02¥

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AnaH 00.n0
«0.00 «0.00 0H.5~ «0.0 00.HOH « H0~H «5H.0 «00.0 0 H50 0«0H.0 «H5.0 «50.H A a 00 w
0 H 00.0
«0.50 0«0.00 00.00 «5.0 00.00H « 00~H «5H.0 «00.0 0 000 «H~.0 0H0.0 «00.H A m 00 W
. 0 H ~0.H
«0.00 00.00 00.00 «0.0 0«~.50H 0 00m «0H.0 «00.0 « 000 0«mH.0 000.0 «00.H 00 0
«0.00 «0.00 «5.00 «0.0 «5.0HH « 50NH «0H.0 «00.0 « 000 00H.0 0H0.0 «05.H x0000 A050Hv
A000 00.nv
00.05 «0.00 «0.~N «H.5 00.00H « 0mm 00H.0 «00.0 « 000 «5H.0 «00.0 «00.0 A 0 H0 w
0 H 00.0
05.05 «0.00 «0.00 «0.5 n0«H0HH « 00m 0«0H.0 «00.0 « 000 «0H.0 000.0 «5H.0 A a H0Hw
0 H N0.

0«N.00 00.0H «0.0m 0~.H 0«0.0NH « H00 0«0~.0 «00.0 « 050 «5H.0 000.0 «0H.0 00 0 A050HV
«0.00H 00.5H «0.0m 0~.H «0.HOH « 5HOH «H~.0 «00.0 « ~00 «5H.0 000.0 «05.H 30000 x00 ch
«0.50 «0.H0 «0.0 «0.00 «0.00 «5.00H «0H.0 «00.0 « 005 «0H.0 «0N.H «55.H 00.0
«0.00 «0.00 00.0 00.00 «0.00 00.0HH «0H.0 «50.0 0 005 0NH.0 «0~.H «~0.H 30000 A050HV

A05mHv
«0.0m «0.0H «0.00 «0.~ «0.00H «0.50 «00.0 «00.0 «5.000 «00.0 «50.0 «00.H 00.0 unsooH
«5.H0 «0.0 «0.00 «H.~ «0.00H «0.05 «00.0 «H0.H 00.000 «00.0 «00.0 «HN.N 30000 -0060:
Sam H< Sam Gm 809 0 Ban :0 Sam 0.0 San a: .502 .500 Ban 02 Nm .5— Nz 0c080«0u.H. 00.30am
.0050H va« 050H 0H x«o 0H0 00« umaooH 00com soaaoo mo m0>«0H mo GOHuHmomaou 000E0H0uua0Huuaz .0 0H0«H

38

Figure l. Trunk diameter increase of White Ash related to date
and treatment. Differing letters on a particular

date indicate differences due to treatment at p=0.05.

 

39

 

 

.407
a 2.84 lph
A .30_ a 0 L42 lph
E o
3
o
m
o
o
23 o
.5
E, .20“ °
-— CK
E . v
o
‘95- b
E
I' .IO -
June 24 July 24 Aug. 24 Sept. 24

40

Figure 2. Trunk diameter increase of Pin Oak related to
date and treatment. Differing letters on a
particular date indicate differences due to

treatment at p=0.05.

Trunk Diameter Increase I cm)

41

.SOr
o
.40 "
o
.30 r
b
a b
.20 - 0
ab
0
.IO ’

 

 

June 24 July 24 A0924

Ihr - 5.8 lph
a
2hr - 2.8Iph
a
4hr- l.4lph
b
CK
b
Sept24

42

Figure 3. Trunk diameter increase of Pin Oak related to l and
2 emitters per tree on each treatment. There was no
difference between 1 and 2 microtubes on any date

for any treatment at p=0.05.

Trunk Diameter Increase I cm)

.607

.50 *'

.40 t

.20 ’

 

 

June 24

July 24

Aug. 24

lhr- I tube

I hr -2tubee

2nr- I tube

2hr -2tubes

4hr- I tube

4hr -2 tubes
Sept. 24

44

LITERATURE CITED

Cole, P. J. and M. R. Till. 1974. Response of mature
citrus trees on deep sandy soil to drip irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74.p. 521-526.

Davidson, H. 1960. Nutrient-element composition of leaves
from selected species of woody ornamental plants. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 76:667-672.

Middleton, J. E., E. L. Proebsting, S. Roberts, and
F. H. Emerson. 1974. Tree and crop response to drip
irrigation. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74.

p. 468-473.

Weatherly, P. J. 1950. Studies in the water relations
of the cotton plant. I. The field measurement of water
deficits in leaves. New Phytologist.49:84-97.

Wyman, D. 1933. The third year of growth experiments
with Pin Oaks. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 30:58-61.

SECTION II I

45

ABSTRACT:

HYDRAULIC DISPLACEMENT OF TANK
FERTILIZER SOLUTIONS(S) INT A
TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM_/

H. G. Ponderg/and A. L. Kenworthyé/
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Objectives were to deve10p a non-electrical

field fertilizer injection system for trickle
irrigation and to determine fertilizer turnover
rates for the system. Materials included a
plastic tank(s), a flow regulating valve, and
small I.D. inlet, outlet connector lines. Flow
from the tank(s) was created by a pressured
differential across the flow regulating valve.
With post valve line pressure known, microtubes
for inlet, outlet lines were cut to lengths
necessary for specific flow rates. Fertilizer
turnover rates were determined by placing known
quantities of KCl in the tank(s) and collecting
aliquots released from the tank(s) at half-cycle
intervals (1 cycle = volume of tank). K concen-
tration was determined by flame photometer. For
a one tank system, 66% of fertilizer solution was
removed per cycle. As tanks were added in series
the depletion rate was reduced. This system

is amenable to field trickle irrigation plots.

Trickle irrigation has become an important cultural prac-

tice in fruit production in many areas. For example, since 1970

approximately 28,327 hectares of trickle irrigation has been

installed in the United States. In Michigan, trickle irrigation

has been installed in over 1618 hectares, primarily in deciduous

fruit crops. This acreage is increasing daily.

 

2 & §$ Michigan Agricultural Exp. Station Journal Art. No. 7067
— Research Assistant and Professor respectively, Dept. ofTHort.

 

46

47

The objective of this research was to develop an efficient,
inexpensive, non-electrical fertilizer injection system for
trickle irrigation and to determine fertilizer turnover for the
system. The basic principle used was hydraulic displacement
of fertilizer from a tank - or simply, forcing water into a tank
thereby physically displacing fertilizer solution from the tank.
Such a system results in continuous dilution of the fertilizer
solution.

To determine if such a system could be accurately
calibrated, a series of experiments were initiated to determine
fertilizer turnover for the system. An 18.925 liter plastic
tank was connected to a 1.27 cm polythene pipe. 1.14 mm I.D.
(inside diameter) tubing was used as the connecting line. All
tank and pipe connections were made via 1.90 mm I.D. grommets.
The connecting tubing fitted tightly into a 2.54 cm sleeve of
1.90 mm I.D. tubing at the grommets. The sleeve permitted a
piece of 1.14 mm I.D. tubing bent to 45 degrees to be extended
down into the tank. This extension facilitated the mixing action
in the tank. A pressure regulator in the 1.27 cm line allowed
control of line pressure. By manipulating line pressure and
length and/or I.D. of the connecting tube, flow thru the tank
was regulated (1,2).

The tank must be air and water tight. To prevent leaks
around the lid of the tank, the lid was sealed with Silastic

JRTV Moldmaking Rubberl/.

 

l/Manufactured by Dow Corning Corp., Midland, Michigan.

48

225 g KCl was added to the tank. K concentration was
determined with a flame photometer. Flow thru the tank was
adjusted to the desired level. K concentration determinations
were subsequently made at 1/2 cycle intervals - cycle is the
movement of a volume of water equal to the volume of the tank
through the tank. Cycle time was varied from 2 to 5 hours.

Data for a l tank system (Table 1) shows that 66.67% of
the K was expelled during each cycle. So 33.33% of the K
remained in the tank at the end of the first cycle. At the end
of the second cycle 66.67% of the 33.33% was lost and 10.93%
of the K remained. At the end of 4 cycles 1.2% of the K remained.

Anticipating that more fertilizer would be needed in some
field plots than would be soluble in one tank, a concept of
connecting tanks in series was developed. 1.90 mm I.D. tubing
was used to make the connections.

For a 2 tank system - at the end of 4 cycles, in contrast
to the 1.2% of the K remaining in a 1 tank system, 5.35% of the
K remained. So not only was the fertilizer capacity of the system
increased, but the fertilizer depletion rate was decreased.

For a 3 tank system - 16% of the K remained at the end of
4 cycles.

For a 4 tank system - 32% of the K remained at the end of
4 cycles.

And with a 5 tank system, 50 % of the K remained at the
end of 4 cycles. With 7 cycles less than 10% of the K remained

in a 5 tank system.

49

Fertilizer capacity could be increased and fertilizer
depletion rate decreased simply by using a single larger tank
while maintaining flow thru the tank at the same level as used
with the smaller tank. However, one very large tank, at the
head of each row in a research plot, could prove to be an obstacle
to the normal flow of orchard traffic. Also maintaining flow
thru the tank at a low level could hinder adequate mixing in the
tank.

The data plotted on semilog paper (Fig. 1) illustrate
how the addition of fertilizer tanks decreases the fertilizer
depletion rate. (Each data point represents from 3 to 10
replications.) Varying cycle time did not affect this relation-
ship, and it is believed that this K turnover rate data will hold
true for any fertilizer material as long as the material is
completely in solution.

For field research a constriction is needed in the 1.27
cm line everywhere a tank is to be located to force water thru
the tank. A flow regulating valve, or a gate valve, can be used
to provide the constriction. A flow regulating valve is a
valve designed to deliver a specific quantity of water provided
a 77.57 centim. mercury pressure differential can be maintained
across the valve. Flow regulating valves were used in this
study.

All tank and pipe connections were made via 1.90 mm I.D.
grommets. For the inlet line (line from the high pressure side
of the flow regulating valve to the tank) 0.89 mm I.D. tubing
was used. The inlet line setup was the same as the connecting

tube setup described earlier.

50

A check valve in the inlet line prevented fertilizer
solution from siphoning from the tank into the header when the
system was turned off (Fig. 2).

A second check valve was placed adjacent to the first
one; positioned so as to let air into the tank when the system
was turned off. This prevented collapsing of the tank due to
suction created as each line drains thru its lowest outlet.

For the outlet line (line from tank to the low pressure
side of the flow regulating valve) 1.90 mm I.D. tubing was used.
The larger I.D. outlet line was to prevent buildup of pressure
in the tank. An in-line screen (Fig. 3), placed in the outlet
line, prevented any solid material from passing from the tank
into the irrigation line.

For research, each tree row can be a plot with its own
independent fertilizer injection system. This technique offers
the researcher great flexibility in designing his fertilizer
plots with trickle irrigation.

For commercial growers, one large tank on the water
source line with a gate valve for a constriction could be used
to fertilize an entire orchard. This technique offers the

grower efficiency and economy.

51

Table 1. Percent K remaining as related to the
number of cycles run.

% K Remaining

 

Cycle No. Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Tank 4 Tank 5

 

 

 

 

 

\lO‘O‘UU‘I-l-‘DUJWNNl—‘H
OU‘IOU'IOUTOUIOMOWOU'I

Percent K Remaining

 

52

 

l00
P
[96%
”429
A
'38» 0”»
‘9 "4
)~ 43.
4,, 5‘
A 43‘
4 O
9:. °»
0 1
e ‘0
| .—
° ‘+
0
.-
I . . . . w . I
'50 2 3 4 s e 7
Cycle

Fig. l Percent K remaining as related to the number of cycles

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

53

Top, L-R: 1/2" end plug, plastic '0' ring, 3/8"
check valve, plastic '0' ring, l/2" end plug.
Bottom: Check valve apparatus enclosed in 1/2"

polyethylene pipe.

Top, L-R: 1/2" end plug, plastic '0' ring, spray
nozzle screen, plastic '0' ring, 1/2” end plug.
Bottom: In-line screen apparatus enclosed in 1/2"

polyethylene pipe.

 

55

LITERATURE CITED

Kenworthy. A. L. 1972. Trickle irrigationzp the concept and
guidelines for use. Research Report 165. Michigan State
University Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing.

Kenworthy, A. L. 1974. Trickle irrigation: simplified
guidelines for orchard installation and use. Research Report

248. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station,
East Lansing.

SUMMARY

In spring of 1972, 3-year-old liners of Pin Oak (Quercus

pglustris L.) and Common Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.)

 

and 4-year-old liners of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.)

 

and White Ash (Fraxinus americana L. cv. Autumn Purple) were

 

planted in a uniform Coloma loam soil near Albion, Michigan.
Trickle irrigation was installed during July and August of 1972.
The relationship of trickle irrigation to root distri-
bution was evaluated with Sugar Maple, Common Honey Locust, and
Pin Oak. Treatments were 5.7 liters per hour and no supple-
mental water. Trees were dug with a 66" tree spade October
17, 1974. The root system of each tree was divided into 15 cm
concentric cylinders around the trunk. Roots were divided
into those greater than 2 mm and those less than 2 mm in diameter.
Fresh weight determinations were made with each root size
classification in each zone.
The following observations were made: ,
l. The irrigation treatments did not alter root system
depth of Sugar Maple, Common Honey Locust, or Pin Oak.
2. On a weight basis, irrigated Sugar Maple had more
fibrous roots and irrigated Common Honey Locust had
more larger roots than check trees. The difference
in response may reflect characteristic differences

between the species.

56

57

Irrigated Pin Oak had more fibrous roots and more
larger roots than check trees.

Root systems of irrigated and non-irrigated trees
of all species were distributed in the same volume
of soil.

In 1973, the higher flow rate of irrigation resulted
in twice the increase in trunk diameter of Pin Oak,
White Ash, and Sugar Maple trees. Trunk diameter
increase for irrigated Common Honey Locust trees
was also greater than check trees.

In 1974, 1 hr and 2 hr irrigated Pin Oak and

White Ash trees again outgrew check trees but
irrigated Common Honey Locust and Sugar Maple trees
did not.

Leaf N and K were the only elements to show con-
sistent changes (decrease) with all species.
Trickle irrigation did not promote any consistent
significant change in composition of leaves for
other nutrients. This decrease in N may have caused
the reduced response during the second year of
trickle irrigation.

A fertilizer injection system based on hydraulic
displacement of tank fertilizer solution was

developed for trickle irrigation systems.

58

Fertilizer turnover for the system was determined.
Sixty-six percent of the fertilizer was removed
from the tank during each cycle (cycle is the
movement of a volume of water equal to the volume

of the tank thru the tank).

LITERATURE CITED

General:

1.

Adriance, G.W., and H.E. Hampton. 1949. Root distribution

in citrus, as influenced by environment. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 53:103-108.

Batjer, L.D., and R.H. Sudds. 1938. The effect of nitrate
of soda and sulfate of ammonia on soil reaction and root

growth of apple trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 35:
279-282.

Beckenbach, J., and J.H. Gourley. 1932. Some effects of
different cultural methods upon root distribution of apple
trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 29:292-304.

Black, J.D.F., and P.D. Mitchell. 1974. Changes in root
distribution of mature pear trees in response to trickle
irrigation. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74. p. 437-38.

Boynton, D., and E.F. Savage. 1937. Root distribution of

a Baldwin apple tree in a heavy soil. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 34:164-68.

Cahoon, G.A., E.S. Merton, WLW. Jones, and M.J. Garber.
1959. Efects of various types of nitrogen fertilizers

on root density and distribution as related to water
infiltration and fruit yields of washington navel oranges

in a long-term experiment. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
74:289-99.

Cahoon, G.A., L.H. Stolzy, M.J. Garber, and E.S. Morton.
1964. Influence of nitrogen and water on the root density

of mature Washington navel orange trees. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 85:22 -31.

Chadwick, L.C. 1934. The distribution of roots of Meline
Elms in relationship to fertilizer application. Proc.
Nat'l Shade Tree Conf. 10:38-51.

Chadwick, L.C., D. Bushey, and George Fletcher. 1937.
Root distribution studies. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
35:734-38.

59

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

60

Ford, H.W. 1957. Effect of nitrogen on root development
of 'Valencia' orange trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
70:237-44.

Goldberg, D., B. Gornat, and Y. Bar. 1971. The distri-
bution of roots, water, and minerals as a result of trickle
irrigation. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 96(5):645-648.

Hinrichs, H., and F.B. Cross. 1942. The relationship of
compact subsoil to root distribution of peach trees. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 42:33-38.

Marth, P.C. 1934. A study of the root distribution of
Staymen apple trees in Maryland. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 32:334-337.

Middleton, J.E., E.L. Proebsting, S. Roberts, and F.H.
Emerson. 1974. Tree and crop response to drip irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74 p. :zgfgg.

Proebsting. E.L. 1943. Root distribution of some deciduous

fruit trees in a California orchard. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 43:1-4.

Torasaburo, S. 1938. Apple root systems under cultural
systems. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 36:150-152.

Willoughby, P., and B. Cockroft. 1974. Changes in root
patterns of peach trees under trickle irrigation. Proc.
Sec: Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74. p. 439-42.

Yager, E., and C. Yitzchak. 1974. Drip irrigation in citrus
orchards. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74 p. 456-61.

Section I:

 

l.

Adriance, G.W., and H.E. Hampton. 1949. Root Distribution
in citrus, as influenced by environment. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 53:103-108.

Batjer, L.D., and R.H. Sudds. 1938. The effect of nitrate
of soda and sulfate of ammonia on soil reactions and root

growth of apple trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
35:279-282.

Beckenbach, J., and J.H. Gourley. 1932. Some effects
of different cultural methods upon root distribution
of apples trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 29:292-204.

10.
ll.
12.

13.

14.

15.

61

Black. J.D.F. and P. D. Mitchell. 1974. Changes in root
distribution of mature pear trees in response to trickle
irrigation. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74. p. 437- 38.

Boynton, D., and E.F. Savage. 1937. Root distribution
of a Baldwin apple tree in a heavy soil. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 34:164-168.

Cahoon, G.A., E.S. Morton, WLW. Jones, and M.J. Garber.
1959. Effects of various types of nitrogen fertilizers
on root density and distribution as related to water
infiltration and fruit yields of washington navel oranges
in a long-term experiment. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
74:289-299.

, L. H. Stolzy, M. J. Garber, and E. S. Morton.
I964. Influence of nitrogen and water on the root density
ofmature Washin ton navel orange trees. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 85:2 4- 231.

Chadwick, L.C. 1934. The distribution of roots of Moline
Elms in relationship to fertilizer application. Proc.
Nat'l Shade Tree Conf. 10:38-51.

, D. Bushey, and George Fletcher. 1937. Root
distributIon studies. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
35:734-738.

 

Cowart, F.F. 1938. Root distribution and root and top

growth of young peach trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
36:145-149.

Ford, H. W. 1957. Effect of nitrogen on root development
of Valencia orange trees. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
70: 237- 244.

Furuta, T., R. Branson, W. Jones, R. Strohman, T. Mack,
and I. Ramaden. 1974. Irrigation for container growing.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip, Irr. Cong. 74. p. 155-158.

Goldberg, D., B. Gornat, and Y. Bar. 1971. The distri-
bution of roots, water, and minerals as a result of
gzgcgzg irrigation. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 96(5):

Hinrichs, H., and F. B. Cross. 1942. The relationship
of compact subsoil to root distribution of peach trees.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 42:33-38.

Kramer, P.J. 1969. "Plant and soil water relationships."
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. p. 482.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

62

Marth, P.C. 1934. A study of the root distribution
of Stayman apple trees in Maryland. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 32:334-337.

Proebsting, E.L. 1943. Root distribution of some
deciduous fruit trees in a California orchard. Proc.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 43:1-4.

Torasaburo, S. 1938. Apple root systems under dif-
ferent cultural systems. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.
36:150-152.

Willoughby, P., and B. Cockroft. 1974. Changes in
root patterns of peach trees under trickle irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74. p. 439-42.

Wood, O.M. 1934. The root system of a Chestnut Oak
(Quercus montana). Proc. Nat'l Shade Tree Conf.
10:95-99.

wyman, D. 1932. Growth responses of Pin Oaks due to
fertilizers, pruning, and soil conditions. Proc. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 29:562-565.

Yager, E., and C. Yitzchak. 1974. Drip irrigation in
citrus orchards. Proc. Sec. Int. Drip. Irr. Cong. 74.
p. 456-61.

Section II:

 

1.

Cole, P.J. and M.R. Till. 1974. Response of mature
citrus trees on deep sandy soil to drip irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74. p. 521-5 6.

Davidson, H. 1960. Nutrient-element composition of
leaves from selected species of woody ornamental plants.
Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 76:667-672.

Middleton, J.E., E.L. Proebsting, S. Roberts, and F.H.
Emerson. 1974. Tree and crap response to drip irrigation.
Proc. Sec. Int. Drip Irr. Cong. 74. p. 468-473.

Weatherly, P.J. 1950. Studies in the water relations
of the cotton plant. I. The field measurement of water
deficits in leaves. New Phytologist. 49:84-97.

Nyman, D. 1933. The third year of growth experiments
with Pin Oaks. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 30:58-61.

63

Section III:

 

1.

Kenworthy, A.L. 1972. Trickle irrigation: The concept
and guidelines for use. Research Report 165. Michigan

State University Agricultural Experiment Station, East

Lansing.

Kenworthy, A.L. 1974. Trickle irrigation: Simplified
guidelines for orchard installation and use. Research
Report 248. Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station, East Lansing.

"IIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII