Upload
shyann-beagle
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Physical Characteristics of Physical Characteristics of Soilless SubstratesSoilless Substrates
Andrew G. Ristvey Andrew G. Ristvey Extension Specialist Commercial HorticultureExtension Specialist Commercial Horticulture
University of Maryland ExtensionUniversity of Maryland Extension
Wye Research and Education CenterWye Research and Education CenterCollege of Agriculture and Natural College of Agriculture and Natural
ResourcesResourcesUniversity of MarylandUniversity of Maryland
Substrate Technology, Water and Mineral Nutrition in Protected Agriculture
WorkshopDay 1 Topic 2
Objectives for this topic include:
Review soilless substrate physical properties
Relate those factors to air and water availability
Evaluations for physical properties
Smarter Substrate ManagementSmarter Substrate Management
Soils vs Soilless SubstratesWhat are the important physical differences between
soils and soilless substrates?Parent materials or components Particle size
Porosity Air and water availability
ACE / NETC 99
Perlite
Soilless Substrates
Composition
Particle Size = Pore
USDA System
Soils
Texture
Structure
Pinebark
Particle Size
Soilless Substrates Soilless Substrates Physical Properties Three Phases of Growing Media by volume
45% Solid (matrix)
15 - 45%Water
10 - 40% Air
Solid (matrix) – 33 to 50%
Total Pore Space
Water % Air %
Matrix Component Porosity:determines the ratio between
Liquid (water) – 15 to 45%Gas (air) – 10 to 40%
Water % + Air % = Total Pore Space
• Highly Variable– Physical properties
• Very porous • Leach very easily • Various combinations
• Plant Available Water – the % volume of water
that plants can retrieve
PinebarkPerlite
• Peat Moss• Pine bark• Perlite• Coir• Rice Hulls• Shredded palm leaves
and other organics• Sand• Gravel• Vermiculite
Variability of Components
Component StructureComponent Structure
(Handreck & Black, 1994)
Electron micrograph of Sphagnum Peat
Typical Substrates Utilized in Costa Rica
Air-Filled Porosity (AFP) Water Holding Capacity (WHC)
Physical PropertiesParticle Size and Composition: Their affect on:
Porosity: Air and Water AvailabilityPorosity: Air and Water Availability
AFP - air in the substrate after irrigation / drainage WHC – water in the substrate after irrigation / drainage
PoresPores When we buy substrate---we are buying pores!
What else can affect substrate AFP and WHC? Handling Watering Age Container geometry
Potting- do not compress substrate- water the plant in
Porosity:
Macropores Water drain through freely
(< 4mm)
Mesopores Water at CC (1 to 0.5mm)
Micropores Water might work as “buffer”
(0.5 to 0.03mm)
Ultramicropores Water held beyond 1.5 Mpa (<0.01mm)
Drzal et al. (1999)
water
air
Soil particles
Components Affect AFP and WHCwater
air
Soil particles
• Particle size affects WHC and AFP
• Capillary action
- water tension - water is attracted to surfaces with a force large enough to support a relatively large mass of water against the ‘pull' of gravity
- the smaller the particle, the more firm the hold
Components Affect AFP and WHC
• Pore size affects WHC and AFP
Physical Properties : Pore Size
Components Affect AFP and WHC
Soilless SubstratesSoilless SubstratesImportant Attributes of Soilless Media
Recommended physical characteristic values for soilless substrates, after irrigation and drainage are (% volume):
• Air-Filled Porosity - 10 to 30% or 20 to 35% (field test)
• Water Holding Capacity - 45 to 65%; • Available water content - 25 to 35%; • Unavailable water content - 25 to 35%;
Note: A substrate with many coarse particles has a large air space and a relatively low water holding capacity.
Field Test for AFPW1 = Saturated container media
W2 = Drained container (several hours later)
W3 = Volume of Substrate
W4 = Weight of Container
W5 = Weight of Dry Media
% AFP =W1
W3 –
SaturationAFP
Total Volume
X 100– W2
W4
WHC = % W2
W3X 100– (W5 + W4)
Substrate ManagementSubstrate Management
Andrew G. Ristvey Andrew G. Ristvey Extension Specialist Commercial HorticultureExtension Specialist Commercial Horticulture
University of Maryland ExtensionUniversity of Maryland Extension
Wye Research and Education CenterWye Research and Education CenterCollege of Agriculture and Natural College of Agriculture and Natural
ResourcesResourcesUniversity of MarylandUniversity of Maryland
Substrate Technology, Water and Mineral Nutrition in Protected Agriculture
WorkshopDay 1 Topic 3
Objectives for this topic include:
Composting and aging
Storage of substrates
Handling of substrates
Smarter Substrate ManagementSmarter Substrate Management
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging
Composting is a biological process where complex organic material is degraded into more basic organic components at a rate faster than decomposition would occur naturally.
Aerobic Composting is a thermophilic (generating heat) process
Aging is not composting, because there is no heat generation
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging
The process of efficient composting requires several ingredients.
The basic recipe:
1. A source of organic material
2. Microorganisms
3. C:N ratio of more than 30:1 – this may mean the addition of a nitrogen or carbon source
4. Proper moisture levels – 45 to 60% by weight
5. Oxygen
6. pH stabilizer, if needed
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging Composting Chemistry: The C:N Ratio
Materials High in Carbon C/N*
Senesced leaves 30-80:1
straw 40-100:1
wood chips or sawdust 100-500:1
bark 100-130:1
mixed paper 150-200:1
newspaper or corrugated cardboard
560:1
Materials High in Nitrogen C:N*
vegetable scraps 15-20:1
coffee grounds 20:1
grass clippings 15-25:1
manure 5-25:1
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging The result of efficient aerobic composting is .
1. Generation of Heat ≈ 55 Co
2. C:N Ratio of between 10 and 15 : 13. Degradation of organic material and increase Cation Exchange
Capacity
Composting Composting and Aging and Aging
Microorganisms
The Aerobic Cycle
http://www.theteggroup.plc.uk/technical_library/microbiology_of_invessel_composting
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging Cellulose and Lignin…
Why some substrates degrade faster than others
1. Cellulose is a sugar
2. Lignin is a more complicated molecule and more difficult to degrade
Lignin
Cellulose
Composting and Aging Composting and Aging When it goes wrong…
1. Compounds like alcohols and methane are developed in anaerobic composting.
2. Weed and pathogens are not destroyed
Adding Compost to Growing Media
• Consistency – can you assure?
• Well/properly composted
• Water Holding capacity Pore Space?
• Nutrient availability– what is in compost?
– adjust your nutrient management plan?
Adding Compost to Growing Media
• First, analyze your compost– All macro and micro nutrients
• How much should be added?– Base your addition on nutrients, WHC
AFP and EC
– Usually no more than 20%
• Check your WHC and AFP
But first…Prevention!
is crucial to successful plant health management
Smarter Substrate ManagementSmarter Substrate ManagementThere are three lines of defense against plant diseases
To prevent pathogens from entering the production systems
Create cultural conditions that work for plant growth and against disease development
Correctly and timely treat disease problems that do arise
Storage of SubstratesStorage of Substrates
Storage of SubstratesStorage of Substrates
Storage – high and dry?
Potting- do not compress substrate- water the plant into pot
What else? Handling Watering Age
Storage of SubstratesStorage of Substrates
Practical Examination for SubstratesPractical Examination for Substrates
Capillary Force practical experiment
Particle Distribution Analysis
Field Porosity and water holding capacity tests
Question: Does particle size affect AFP and WHC?
Substrate Re-use and handlingSubstrate Re-use and handling
Irrigation in Protected Environments:Irrigation in Protected Environments:Checking Irrigation System EfficiencyChecking Irrigation System Efficiency
John Lea-Cox and David RossJohn Lea-Cox and David RossNursery Extension Specialist / Extension EngineerNursery Extension Specialist / Extension Engineer
University of Maryland ExtensionUniversity of Maryland Extension
College of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesCollege of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of MarylandUniversity of Maryland
Substrate Technology, Water and Mineral Nutrition in Protected Agriculture Workshop
Day 2 Topic 4
Overhead Irrigation SystemsOverhead Irrigation Systems
The pros and cons of overhead irrigation systems.
Pros
1. Easy management
2. Lower labor costs
3. Less infrastructure
Cons
1. Efficiency low - depending
2. Larger volumes needed
3. Higher pressures needed
Micro Irrigation SystemsMicro Irrigation Systems
The pros and cons of microirrigation systems.
Pros
1. Higher Efficiency
2. Less volume needed
3. Lower pressures
4. Less waste
Cons
1. Greater management
2. Higher costs – more specialized equipment needed
3. Potential Higher labor costs
ACE / NETC 99
Irrigation Audits Irrigation Audits SummaryIs your irrigation system working properly?
First, do an inspection & repair problems.
Second, check pressures and flow rates.
Third, do a test for uniform application.
Decide on changes to improve system and water wisely.
ACE / NETC 99
Uniform Water Application?
Applying water uniformly should be goal # 1, particularly for container crops
Question - Where are your dry spots after irrigation?
If none, do you knowingly overwater some plants to adequately water other plants?
How do I check my irrigation system?
ACE / NETC 99
System Audit Procedure
First, inspect for problems and repair them.
1. Damaged pipelines and risers
2. Damaged, clogged, worn, or broken nozzles or drip tubes.
ACE / NETC 99
System Audit Procedure
Second, check pressure and flow rate.
1. What were the pressures and flow rates of the system when new?
2. Check pressure at pump, beginning and end of laterals, and before and after filters.
3. Check the nozzles for wear and flow rate. Check drip tubes for clogging.
Pressure Check
Installed or Portable Pressure Gauges
Pressure Check
Filter Pump
Laterals – drip or sprinkler Pressure Gauge
Pressure variation in a LateralFor good design, pressure variation from one end of a lateral to the other should not exceed +/- 10 percent of the average lateral design pressure.
Actual variation in lateral is 20%.
55 psiAverage of 50
psi 45 psi
Too High Correct Pressure
Too Low
Nozzle Pressure versus Water Distribution Pattern
Pressure affects Application Pattern
Correct operating pressure is best!
Pressure too high or too low causes distortion of application pattern.
Nozzle Flow Rate
Use a bottle or bucket to catch the water discharged from the nozzle for one minute.
Measure the volume of water caught.
Convert to gal/min. as in nozzle chart.
Measure nozzle pressure, if possible.
Nozzle Flow Rate
Nozzle (new) specs for water discharge at a given pressure.
RainBird 14DH
Nozzle Flow Rate
RainBird 14DH
Note changes in gpm for changes in PSI.
Nozzle Wear Check
Use drill bit to check size carefully.
Nozzle Wear
Note changes in gpm & radius for changes in Size.
RainBird 14DH
Wear changes demand on the pump.
Nozzle Pressure & Flow Rate
Let’s review the last few slides –
We checked nozzle wear, pressure and flow rate. From the nozzle chart we saw that a different pressure resulted in a different discharge and wetted radius.
Differences mean non-uniformity!
Application Uniformity Check
The next step is to check on the application uniformity of your system.
This process uses a grid pattern of water catch cans to collect water.
A regular pattern of cans is placed on the ground in the irrigated area.
Application Uniformity Check
Catch can – top left
Calibrated measuring container – bottom left/ top right
Application Uniformity Check
Audit Kit
Irrigation Association Education Foundation
www.iaef.org
Application Uniformity CheckCatch cans - use 16 or more.
Do audit to sample application uniformity several places.
Application Uniformity Check
Irrigation Lateral
Production Bed – Hoop House
Catch cans
Must run all laterals that cover catch area.
Lower Quarter Distribution Uniformity, DULQ
Sketch of laterals and sprinklers. Show catch cans and amounts of water.
List in descending order. Mark smallest quarter. Average of total and smallest 1/4 . [Divide Average of ¼ by
Average of total] x 100
Readings: (use 16, 20, 24 or more)
0.32 0.34 0.32 0.34
0.30 0.28 0.25 0.30
0.33 0.30 0.27 0.33
0.36 0.24 0.31 0.37
Total of all = 4.96 Average All= 0.31
Total small 1/4 = 1.04; Average 1/4 = 0.26
DULQ = [0.26 / 0.31] x 100 = 84 %
Doing the Math – easy!
We calculate the “Lower Quarter Distribution Uniformity, DULQ”
DULQ = [Avg of smaller 1/4 readings / Avg of all readings] x 100
Tells us how close the lowest (dry) readings are to all readings. Less than 70-75 percent is not so good.
Summary
Correct pressure and nozzle/emitter flow rates are important factors in overall uniformity of a system.
The Lower Quarter Uniformity Distribution gives us a measure of the uniformity of application.
Check out your system soon!
Irrigation in Protected EnvironmentsIrrigation in Protected EnvironmentsPlant/Substrate Relations Plant/Substrate Relations
Andrew G. Ristvey Andrew G. Ristvey Extension Specialist Commercial HorticultureExtension Specialist Commercial Horticulture
University of Maryland ExtensionUniversity of Maryland Extension
Wye Research and Education CenterWye Research and Education CenterCollege of Agriculture and Natural College of Agriculture and Natural
ResourcesResourcesUniversity of MarylandUniversity of Maryland
Substrate Technology, Water and Mineral Nutrition in Protected Agriculture
WorkshopDay 2 Topic 5
Smarter Irrigation ManagementSmarter Irrigation Management Manage irrigation and substrate water content
Are we over-watering? Water logging will increase the incidence of disease
Water-use efficiency research at UGA showed that during a 6 week trial, Vinca (Catharanthus roseus) could be grown with liter of water without reduction in mass or quality
Why don’t we use soil in containers?
Key reason – too many fine particles, which leads to waterlogging
Also, bottom of container creates a barrier to drainage resulting in a “perched” water table
The smaller the particle size, the higher the perched table
Soilless substrates degrade in time and act like soils
Container Size and Container Size and Water Holding CapacityWater Holding Capacity
Given the same substrate
Squat containers hold more water
Given the same volume
Moisture/air gradient – capillary action
AFP and WHC based on Container Size
Adapted from A Grower’s Guide to Water, Media, & Nutrition for Greenhouse Crops, Ed. David Wm. Reed, 1996.
% Water
% Solid
% Air0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6 inch 4 inch 48 cell 512 cell
Plant Available WaterPlant Available Water
Soils and substrates have the ability to hold and release water
Some water is available for the plants
Some water is not available for the plants…even though the substrate or soil may seem moist
Why?Recall our lesson about particle size and water attraction
Plant Available WaterPlant Available Water
Electron micrograph of Sphagnum Peat
Plant Available WaterPlant Available Water
Soils and substrates have the ability to hold and release water
Some water is available for the plants
Some water is not available for the plantsEven though the substrate or soil may seem moist
Why?Recall our lesson about particle size water attraction
Plant Available Water is the water that held by the soil or substrateDivided into:Easily Available Water and Water Buffer Capacity
Plant Available WaterPlant Available Water
(Handreck & Black, 1994)
(Handreck & Black, 1994)
0 -5 -100
100
Vol
ume
% (
20 c
m h
igh
pot)
-1
Suction applied (kPa)
Solids
Air
Total Pore Space
Water
AirAir Filled Porosity(at container capacity)
Readily available water
Easily Available Buffer capacity
Unavailable Water (progressively)
set points
7 kPa = 1 PSI
Finding Plant Available Water Desorption curves generated
using a custom-built desorption table using 5 and 20cm long Ech2O capacitance sensors.
Ten columns were simultaneously desorbed for each substrate (n=30).
Each column was packed by slowly adding and settling the substrate with water
Each column had a capacitance probe sealed into the top polycarbonate lid, positioned centrally and vertically down the column
Once sealed, each column was slowly hydrated over 6 hours to gradually force the interstitial air out of the substrate
Finding Plant Available Water
Positive gas pressure was incrementally applied at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 kPa
The volume of water expressed at each pressure increment was measured for each column
Finding Plant Available Water
100%Perlite
80 Pine Bark : 20 Peat
100%Coir
100%Pine Bark
80 Peat: 20 Perlite
Pressure (kPa)
Distribution of Water (%)
EAW (1 to 5) 36.0 40.0 32.6 34.6 43.7
WBC (5 to 10) 1.2 7.0 2.1 2.2 13.1
PUW ( >10 ) 62.8 53.0 65.3 63.2 34.1*† Total volume of the 5-cm column = 722 mL. Note that CC = TP - AS. Use CC values to interconvert data.* An additional 9.1 % water was expressed from this substrate between 10 and 60 kPa (to total 100%)
Results – Physical Properties (5cm columns)
Determination of Leaching FractionDetermination of Leaching Fraction
Knowledge Center - Access to Online Resources Knowledge Center - Access to Online Resources
Andrew G. Ristvey Andrew G. Ristvey Extension Specialist Commercial HorticultureExtension Specialist Commercial Horticulture
University of Maryland ExtensionUniversity of Maryland Extension
Wye Research and Education CenterWye Research and Education CenterCollege of Agriculture and Natural College of Agriculture and Natural
ResourcesResourcesUniversity of MarylandUniversity of Maryland
Substrate Technology, Water and Mineral Nutrition in Protected Agriculture
WorkshopDay 3 Topic 9