609 Micronutrient Fertilization of Container-grown Woody Seedlings Essential Regardless of Pine Bark pH

in HortScience
Authors:
Amy N. WrightDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0327

Search for other papers by Amy N. Wright in
ASHS
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Alex X. NiemieraDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0327

Search for other papers by Alex X. Niemiera in
ASHS
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. Roger HarrisDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0327

Search for other papers by J. Roger Harris in
ASHS
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Robert D. WrightDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0327

Search for other papers by Robert D. Wright in
ASHS
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of micronutrient fertilization on seedling growth in pine bark with pH ranging from 4.0 to 5.5. Koelreuteria paniculata (Laxm.) was container-grown from seed in pine bark amended (preplant) with 0, 1.2, 2.4, or 3.6 kg/m3 dolomitic limestone and 0 or 0.9 kg/m3 sulfate-based micronutrient fertilizer (Micromax ®). Initial pine bark pH for each lime rate was 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5, respectively. Final pH (week 10) ranged from 4.7 to 6.4. Ca and Mg supply in irrigation water was 10.2 and 4.2 mg·L–1. Seedlings were harvested 10 weeks after planting, and shoot dry weight and height were determined. Pine bark solution was extracted using the pour-through method at 3, 7, and 10 weeks after planting. Solution pH was measured, and solutions were analyzed for Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn. Shoot dry weight and height were higher in micronutrient-amended bark than in bark without added micronutrients. Lime (1.2 kg·\batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \(\mathrm{m}^{-_{3}}\) \end{document}) increased growth only in the absence of micronutrient additions. In general, adding micronutrients increased pine bark solution Ca, Mg, and micronutrient concentrations. Adding lime increased pine bark solution pH and Mg concentration and either had no effect on or decreased solution Ca and micronutrient concentrations. Regardless of pine bark pH, micronutrient additions resulted in improved growth and adding lime was not necessary.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

 

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 8 8 6
PDF Downloads 25 25 2