Managing nutrition in high density apple and sweet cherry Denise Neilsen and Gerry NeilsenAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Summerland, British Columbia, Canada

USHA ConventionProvo, UT, Jan 23rd ,2008

Nutrient management in apple and cherry

compared with high density apple production little information is available for sweet cherry

principles similar and can be applied to both

Nutrition and water management are linked

water isa solvent for nutrients in the soil and planta transporting agent for nutrients to the root and within the plantirrigation management is the key to nutrient placement and retention in root zone

Increasing density - more water and nutrient management options

Nutrient Availability

Accessible to plant roots

Timed to match demand

Sufficient quantity

Root distribution under drip irrigation

Neilsen et al. 1997 Can. J. Plant Sci. 77

1.5m

0.3m

0-40cm

0-30cm

0

20

40

60

Dep

th b

elow

sur

face

(cm

)

0 50 100

M.9M.9

Distance from emitter (cm) Distance from emitter (cm)

0

20

40

60 M.26M.26

0 50 100

0-30cm

0-40cm

Nutrients can be targeted to where

roots grow

drip irrigation

micro-jet

0

45

15 45 75

90

0cm

emitter

Where roots grow

Nutrient solubility and mobility

Mobile nutrients – N, B, Clremain dissolved in the soil solutionmove by mass flow

Moderately mobile nutrients – Ca, Mg, Na, Kremain dissolved in solution and are easily exchanged from soil particlesmove by mass flow

Immobile nutrients – K, P, Zn, Mnfixed by soil move by diffusion (occasionally mass flow)

Mobile nutrients – N, B

Nitrogenvery mobile

allows flexibility in application

but difficult to control

Mobile nutrients

Nitr

ate-

N (p

pm)

140 160 180 200 220 240Day of the year

020406080

100BroadcastIrrigated weeklywith sprinkler

Day of the year110 130 150 170 190 210 2300

4080

120160200 (N1)

(N3)N

itrat

e-N

(ppm

)Fertigated daily

with drip

Control of soil N supply beneath drip emitter with fertigation

Neilsen et al. 1998 JASHS 123

N is stored in leaves

RootRoot-- suppliedsupplied

SummerSummer

FallFall

N is withdrawn from leaves and stored in roots

and woody tissue

Foliar spraysFoliar sprays

Remobilised Remobilised from storage from storage within the tree within the tree

Sources of N for growth Sources of N for growth in the springin the spring

RootRoot-- suppliedsuppliedafter bloomafter bloom

Timed to meet demand

Contribution of stored N to vegetative growth

Grassi et al., 2002 Plant, Cell, Env. 25

12-27SweetCherry

Tagliavini et al., 1998 Tree Phys. 18

38-46Peach

Neilsen et al., 1997, 2001. Tree Phys. 17, 21

18-92Apple

Frak et al., 2002. Plant Phys. 130

88-92Walnut

Reference%Species

Leaf N moves into storage in the fall

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Leaf N content (g m-2)

Res

orbe

d N

(mg/

tree

)

As tree N status increases the amount of N moved into storage increases

Tree N statusRe-drawn from Cheng et al., 2002 J. Hort. Sci &Biotech 77

Fall applied foliar urea

05

101520253035404550

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Leaf N content (g m-2)

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al s

tore

d N

(%)

Unsprayed Sprayed

In trees with low leaf N, fall urea applications may increase N storage for growth next yearIn high N trees foliar urea is not necessary

Re-drawn from Cheng et al., 2002 J. Hort. Sci &Biotech 77

Contribution of winter storage N to tree performance in sweet cherry

N withdrawal to storage

0

1

2

3

4

Leaf

N (%

dw)

Jul Aug Sep Oct

N2N1

2004

Harvest

Leaf strip

Lapins/Gi5

Contribution of winter storage N to tree performance in sweet cherry

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Leaf stripping

Frui

t num

ber

0

5

10

15

20

25

Yiel

d (k

g/tr

ee)

no nononoyes yesyesyes

Fruit Number Yield

2005 2006 20062005

leaf stripping decreased fruit number & reduced yieldfruit development highly dependent on stored Nleaf stripping did not affect shoot leaf development (data not shown)shoot growth more dependent on current season supply

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Day of the year

N (m

g/tr

ee)

Budbreak

Full bloom

Timing of N demand for growth in apple in relation to phenology

Guak et al. 2003, J. Exp. Bot 54Neilsen et al., 2006 Acta Hort 721

Before full bloom leaf growth (spur leaves) supported by remobilized N

Root uptake occurs mainly after bloom to support shoot and fruit growth

N inflow into fruit occurs mainly after cell division

Root uptake into shoot leaves and fruit

Tree stored N moves into spur, shoot leaves and

fruit

Shoots

Spur leaves

Fruit

Petal fall

End of cell division

0-4 4-8 8-12N applications weeks after bloomN applications weeks after bloom SignificantSignificant

(number of years)(number of years)

ResponseResponse

BloomBloom

YieldYield

SizeSize

SSSS

MalicMalic acidacid

SS/SS/MalicMalic acidacid

StarchStarch

% red% red

11

11

11

22

22

22

33

Not significantNot significant

Effect of timing of N applications on fruit for Gala/M.9 over 3 years

g/tree kg/ha*Golden Delicious/M.9 first year 2.7 8.9

Gala/M.9 third year 6.5 21.7

Elstar/M.9 fourth year 10.2 34.0

Gala/M.9 sixth year 12.3 41.0

•assumes a tree density of 3300 trees/ha (1336 trees/acre)

Nitrogen amount - removal in fruit and senescent leaves of apple trees

Neilsen et al. 2002HortTechnology 12

Nitrogen requirements for sweet cherry

most soils cannot supply sufficient N

classic N deficiencies seen (pale, small leaves, leaf drop)

recommend 2.2-3.4% leaf N

~50-130 kg N/ha recommended high rate on sandy soil low rates in soils with high organic matter

Hanson and Proebsting 1996 in ‘Cherries crop production and physiology’(eds. Webster & Looney )

Fertigation treatments

N (8 weeks post full bloom)

1. Low (42 ppm) ~63 kg/ha

2. Medium (84 ppm) ~126 kg/ha

3. High (168 ppm) ~ 254 kg/haBroadcast treatments

5. Broadcast N at bloom (75 kg ha-1, 2m strip)

6. Broadcast at bloom plus post- harvest fertigated N (med. rate, 4 weeks, August)

Lapins/Gisela.5 N treatments

Leaf and fruit N - Lapins/Gisela 5

LEAF

FRUIT

high N increased leaf and fruit N concentration

large crop in 2004 reduced N concentration in fruit

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Frui

t N (m

g/10

0g F

W)

Low N Medium N High N

******* ****** *** ****

1

2

3

4Le

af N

(%) **** * *** ** ****

Tree growth - Lapins/Gisela 5

But high N decreased tree growth

50

100

150

200

TCSA

(cm

2 )

Low NMedium NHigh N

a

b

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

Yiel

d (k

g/tr

ee) Low N

Medium NHigh N

***

**** ***

Tree yield - Lapins/Gisela 5

high N inputs do not necessarily lead to high yields

fertigated N improved yield compared with broadcast N

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Yiel

d (k

g/tr

ee)

Medium N fertigatedBroadcast NBroadcast +postharvest fertigation

***

**** ***

Spring frost reduced

yield

ns

9.4

10.1

9.7

2004

****

13.8

14.4

14.9

2005

8.68.19.09.612.3High

9.8

11.4

***ns

10.09.010.012.0Medium

11.010.011.012.6Low

2003 UT T

200220012000N rate

Low ~ 63 kg/ha; Medium ~126 kg/ha; High ~ 254 kg/ha

Fruit size (g/fruit)

Fruit quality

Nitrogen treatments had no effect on firmness or sweetness (data not shown)

But high N fruit was less acid

100

200

300

400

2003 2004 2005

Firm

ness

(g/m

m) Low N

Medium NHigh N

FIRMNESS

0

10

20

2003 2004 2005

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty ***

**

ACIDITY

*

Boronvery mobile

Narrow range between sufficiency and deficiency

Mobile nutrients – N, B

Blossom blast

Surface cracking

Boron deficiency

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 50 100Sand (%)

Soil

B (p

pm)

Soil boron- effect of soil texture

30 cm beneath drip emitter

Day of the year0.336 g Boron/tree/year

Background

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Soil

solu

tion

B (p

pm) End

(Jul 29)Start

(May 23)

1995 1996

End(Jul 20)

Soil solution boron

S - SpringF - FallN - None

01020304050607080

Leaf

B (p

pm)

Leaf B concentration

1996 1997S F N

0.34 g B/tree/yr

ab b

0.17 g B/tree/yr

1998S F N

ab

c

Frui

t B (m

g/10

0g F

W)

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0 Fruit B concentration

1996 1997

ab b

1998

0.34 g B/tree/yr

0.17 g B/tree/yr

S F N S F N

a

bc

Leaf and fruit B concentration in response to application method

Neilsen et al. 2004Can. J. Plant Sci. 84

Lapins/G.5 - B

Deficiency level <20ppm leaf B2003 overall average = 28.7ppm

drip treatment = 21.5 ppm

2004 overall average = 29 ppmdrip treatment = 22.1 ppm

Immobile nutrients

Phosphorus and potassiumimmobile

much less information available on internal cycling and uptake patterns than N

Spatially targeted applications required

Resorption of major nutrients from poplar leaves in Fall

0102030405060708090

100

25-A

ug

1-Sep

8-Sep

15-S

ep

22-S

ep

29-S

ep

6-Oct

Rel

ativ

e co

nten

t (%

)

N P K

Redrawn from Keskitalko et al., 2005 Plant Physiol. 139

130 160 190 220

Day of the year

200

0

150

100

50

Soil

P (p

pm)

Year 1Year 2Year 3

Single application

Fertigated phosphorus in apple (drip irrigation)

Neilsen et al. 1999HortTechnology 9

GalaGala

FujiFuji

CameoCameo

AmbrosiaAmbrosia

SilkenSilken

P fertigation trial- five apple cultivars tested

P fertigatedat 20g/tree one week after full bloom

Cum

ulat

ive

Yie

ld(k

g/tre

e)

Cumulative Yield (2000-04)

0

-P+P

1020304050 *

0

4

8

12

2001 2002 2003

Frui

t P(m

g/10

0g F

.W.)

Fruit P concentration ** ** **

Phosphorus effects on fruit production - 5 apple cvs/M.9

Phosphorus additions are effective when targeted to the roots through fertigation

Year Statistically significant effect on quality

2002 reduced incidence of water core, all cultivars

reduced browning of cut surfaces, all cultivars

2003 reduced browning of cut surfaces, all cultivars

reduced membrane leakage Silken

2004 increased soluble solids, all cultivars

Phosphorus effects on fruit quality- 5 apple cvs/M.9

Phosphorus increases the stability of cell

walls

Lapins/Gisela.5 P and K treatments

Fertigated through micro-sprinkler with medium N rate

Annual P (20g/tree, end April)

Annual K (14-31g/tree, 4 weeks, June)

Leaf and fruit P - Lapins/Gisela 5

0

0.25

0.5

Leaf

P(%

) *

0

10

20

30

2003 2004 2005

Frui

t P (m

g/10

0g F

W)

Drip Microsprinkler

LEAF

FRUIT

P fertigation did not affect growth or nutrient conc. (data not shown) leaves and fruit

irrigation effects inconclusive

P fertigationusing drip may be more useful than P fertigation with microsprinkler

****

****

PotassiumManagement options

0

5

10

15

20

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4

0 g K/tree/year15 g K/tree/year

Soil

solu

tion

K (p

pm)

Soil solution K concentration in response to fertigation under drip

Neilsen et al. 2004 JASHS 80

0g K/tree/year15g K/tree/year

Averaged for four apple cultivars (Gala, Fuji, Spartan, Fiesta)

Effect of fertigated K on leaf K concentration

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 50

1

2

Leaf

K (%

dw

)

b

aa

a

a a

b bb

b

1.3%

Neilsen et al. 2004 JASHS 80

Leaf and fruit K - Lapins/Gisela 5

0

1

2

3

Leaf

K (%

) ** *** ****** ****

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Frui

t K (m

g/10

0g F

W)

Drip Microsprinkler

*********

LEAF

FRUIT

K fertigation(microsprinkler) did not affect leaf or fruit K conc. (data not shown)

Leaf and fruit K are reduced under drip irrigation, likely due to soil K leaching

Low crop in 2005, reduced overall demand for K

****

****

Nutrient management and soil quality

Alley

Beneath emitters

Significance

(ppm)pH

7.0

6.2

***

B

0.97

0.19

****

K

211

88

**

Mg

144

114

**

Ca

1235

911

**

*,**,***,****, significantly different at p<0.05, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001

Soil chemical changes in 20 orchards (3-5 years old) receiving drip irrigation and fertigation

Consequences of fertigating with NH4+

based fertilizers

Effects of mulches and composts

Long –term compost/mulch trial at Summerland, B.C.

29b0.09c0.9cBlack plastic

26b0.12b1.3bcPaper Mulch

205a0.18a1.9aBiosolids(GVRD)

40b0.10bc1.0cCheck

ExtractableP (ppm)

Total N (%)

Total C (%)

Treatment

Neilsen et al. 2003. Can. J. of Soil Sci. 83:131-137

Long –term compost/ mulch trial. Soil property changes over 7 years

Water and nutrient management are linked

Retention of nutrients in the root zone for as long as possible will improve nutrient use efficiency

fertilizer applications are timed to meet tree demandwater applications are scheduled to meet

evaporative demand

Loss of water and N beneath the root zone in response to irrigation scheduling

Wat

er lo

ss (L

/tree

)

aa

a

0

100

200

0

2345

N lo

ss (g

/tree

)

a

fertigation period

1

May June July Aug. Sept.Oct-May May

Scheduled to meet ETUnscheduled (fixed rate)

Water/tree (L)Addition Loss

646 1681304 286

b

b

bb

Neilsen et al. 2002HortTechnology 12

water and N losses related during fertigationperiod

water losses high under unscheduled irrigation during periods of low ET

Drip Microsprinkler

b

a

b

a a

b

a

b0

40

80

120

Wat

er d

rain

age

(L/tr

ee)

Seasonal water & N loss beneath the root zone in response to irrigation type

0

2

4

Apr Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct

Nitr

ogen

loss

(g

/tree

)

a

b

a

b

fertigation

N losses follow water drainage closely

Losses under drip higher during periods of high ET (mid-summer)

Water replacement rate too high for soil storage capacity

Day of the year

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

67 130 138 165 207 236 264 291

DripMulch+amendment+dripMicrosprinklerMulch+amendment+M/S

Orth

o-P

loss

(g/tr

ee)• P susceptible to leaching

under compost

• Movement as Organic P?

• Over-application of water in micro-sprinkler plot, day 236, increased P losses.

Timing of P leaching in response to irrigation system and compost

ConclusionsMobile nutrients

Water management (scheduling, irrigation method) and timing of N application determines the retention of N in the root zone and availability.

Aided by improved understanding of tree N cycling and time of root uptake

Fertigation allows precise timing of N additions and is more effective than broadcast applications

Very high N applications, may be detrimental to production

B deficiency more prevalent in sandy soils and can be managed by fertigation –with care

Conclusions Less mobile nutrients

Fertigation may improve the mobility and effectiveness of P applications, but only with drip irrigationDrip irrigation, may cause soil K leaching and reduce availability – K fertigaitonthrough drip can offset thisFertigating K through microsprinkler does not improve K uptakeSize controlling rootstocks may take be more susceptible to K deficiencyP leaching may occur when organic amendments are used

International Dwarf Fruit Tree Association

Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission

Okanagan Kootenay Cherry Fruit Growers Association

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada Matching Investment Initiative MII

Financial support

Thank you