Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer (한국토양비료학회지)

Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizer (한국토양비료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Responses of Lactuca Sativa (Lettuce) to Fertilization Rates at Various Soil Moisture Conditions at Protected Cultivation

  • Jung, Kang-Ho (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Sonn, Yeon-Kyu (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Han, Kyoung-Hwa (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science) ;
  • Zhang, Yong-Seon (Soil and Fertilizer Division, National Academy of Agricultural Science)
  • Received : 2014.11.18
  • Accepted : 2015.02.17
  • Published : 2015.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research was performed to test the hypothesis that the optimal fertilization rate for lettuce is various with soil moisture conditions. The experiment was conducted under a rainfall-intercepted facility in Suwon, South Korea from 2002 to 2003. Soil was irrigated at 30, 50, or 80 kPa of soil moisture tension at 15 cm soil depth in 2002 spring and fall and 20, 30, 50, or 80 kPa in 2003 spring. Fertilization was performed with four levels in spring for both years: none, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 times of the recommended N, P, and K fertilization rate. The irrigation amount increased with decreased irrigation starting point as soil moisture tension. The maximum yield was found at the lowest soil moisture tension in spring while irrigation at 50 kPa resulted in the greatest yield in fall. The yield responses of lettuce to fertilization rates were various with soil moisture condition. In spring, maximum yield was found at 1.0 or 1.5 times of the recommended fertilization rate at 20, 30, and 50 kPa irrigation while 0.5 or 1.0 times of fertilization rate resulted in the maximum yield in fall. Especially for 80 kPa irrigation in 2003 spring, yield was decreased by fertilization. It suggested that the optimum fertilization rate for lettuce is affected by soil moisture condition and that lower fertilization rate should be suggested when soil is managed in drier condition.

Keywords

References

  1. Aggelides, S., I. Assimakopoulos, P. Kerkides, and A. Skondras. 1999. Effects of soil water potential on the nitrate content and the yield of lettuce. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 30:235-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103629909370199
  2. Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56: Crop evapotranspiration. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  3. Atwell, B.J., P.E. Kriedeman, and C.G.N. Turnbull. 1999. Plants in action. Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.
  4. Cary, J.W. 1981. Projecting irrigation with soil instruments: Error levels and microprocessing design criteria, p.81-91. In: Irrigation scheduling for water and energy conservation in the 80's. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Madison, WI, U.S.
  5. Eom, K.C., E.U. Son, and S.H. Yoo. 1983. Fertilizer responses of Chinese cabbage to soil water potential. J. Kor. Soc. Soil Sci. Fer. 16:98-105.
  6. Eom, K.C., K.C. Song, and S.H. Kim. 1994. Irrigation guideline of leaf-vegetable under protected cultivation. p.140-143. In: NIAST Research Report 1993. Suwon, Korea.
  7. Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics: Fundamentals, Applications, and Environmental Considerations. Academic Press, CA, USA.
  8. Jung, K., Y. Sonn, K. Han, and Y. Zhang. 2014. Responses of Capsicum annum (red pepper) to fertilization rates at various soil moisture conditions. J. Kor. Soc. Soil Sci. Fer. 47:332-339.
  9. Kreuzwieser, J. and A. Gessler. 2010. Global climate change and tree nutrition: influence of water availability. Tree Physiol. 30:1221-1234. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq055
  10. Lee, J.H. and C.J. Kim. 2011. Derivation of drought severityduration-frequency curves using drought frequency analysis. J. Kor. Water Res. Assoc. 44(11):889-902. https://doi.org/10.3741/JKWRA.2011.44.11.889
  11. Lower, S.S. and C.M. Orians. 2002. Soil nutrients and water availability interact to influence willow growth and chemistry but not leaf beetle performance. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 107:69-79.
  12. March, A.W. 1961. Tensiometers: Key to increased profits. Western Grower and Shipper 34:15-17.
  13. National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (NIAST). 2000. Analysis method of soil and plant. NIAST, Suwon, Korea.
  14. Rural Development Administration (RDA), 2014. Fertilizer recommendation for crop production, RDA, Suwon, Korea.
  15. Sammis, T.W. 1980. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle, subsurface, and furrow irrigation methods for row crops. Agron. J. 72:701-704. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1980.00021962007200050002x
  16. Shock, C.C. and F-X. Wang. 2011. Soil water tension, a powerful measurement for productivity and stewardship. HortScience 46: 178-185.
  17. Steduto, P., T.C. Hsiao, E. Fereres, and D. Raes. 2012. Crop yield response to water, FAO, Rome, Italy.
  18. Sutton, B.G. and N. Merit. 1993. Maintenance of lettuce root zone at field capacity gives best yields with drip irrigation. Sci. Hort. 56:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(93)90096-9
  19. Taylor, S.A. 1972. Physical edaphology: The physics of irrigated and nonirrigated soils. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA, U.S.