Nutrient Solution Concentration Affects Shoot : Root Ratio, Leaf Area Ratio, and Growth of Subirrigated Salvia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HORTSCIENCE 39(1):49–54. 2004. the effects of nutrient solution concentration and pH on growth, Pn, and leaf area develop- Nutrient Solution Concentration ment of salvia. Affects Shoot : Root Ratio, Leaf Area Materials and Methods Plant material. Salvia ‘Scarlet Sageʼ was Ratio, and Growth of Subirrigated seeded in plug fl ats (288 cells/fl at) fi lled with soilless growing medium (Redi-Earth; The Scotts Co., Marysville, Ohio). The seeds Salvia (Salvia splendens) were germinated in a growth chamber at 20 Jong-Goo Kang °C and continuous light. The seedlings were transplanted into cell packs (606 fl ats, volume Department of Horticulture, Sunchon National University, 315 Meagok-dong, 160 mL/cell) fi lled with an inert growing me- Sunchon, Chonnam, 540-742, South Korea dium (diatomaceous earth; Isolite CG-2, Sun- 1 dine Enterprises, Arvada, Colo.) at 12 d after Marc W. van Iersel seeding. All plants were placed on greenhouse Department of Horticulture, Plant Science Building, The University of Georgia, benches in a double-layer polyethylene-cov- Athens, GA 30602-7273 ered greenhouse. The temperature set points for the greenhouse were 25 °C day/20 °C night. Additional index words. photosynthesis, leaf area ratio, shoot : root ratio, relative growth rate Treatments. Two experiments were con- Abstract. To evaluate the effects of nutrient concentration and pH of the fertilizer solution ducted simultaneously. In the fi rst experi- on growth and nutrient uptake of salvia (Salvia splendens F. Sellow ex Roem. & Schult. ment, plants were subirrigated with different ‘Scarlet Sageʼ), we grew plants with fi ve different concentrations of Hoagland nutrient concentrations of modifi ed Hoagland solution solution [0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0× full strength; electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.4, 0.7, (Hoagland and Arnon, 1950), while plants were 1.1, 2.0, and 3.7 dS·m–1, respectively]. In a concurrent experiment, plants were subirrigated subirrigated with half-strength nutrient solution with modifi ed Hoagland solution at 0.5× concentration and one of fi ve solution pH values: with different pH values in the second experi- 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, and 8.0. Shoot and total dry weight and leaf area increased greatly with ment. In the fi rst experiment, the plants were increasing nutrient solution concentrations from 0.125 to 1.0×, while leaf photosynthesis watered with Hoagland solution at one of fi ve concentrations: 0.125× (EC = 0.4 dS·m–1, pH (Pn), transpiration, and stomatal conductance decreased with increasing nutrient solution concentrations. Treatment effects on growth apparently were caused by changes in carbon 6.8), 0.25× (EC = 0.7 dS·m–1, pH 6.6), 0.5× allocation within the plants. Shoot : root ratio and leaf area ratio increased with increasing (EC = 1.1 dS·m–1, pH 6.4), 1.0× (EC = 2.0 fertilizer concentration. Plants fl owered 8 days later at low concentrations of nutrient solu- dS·m–1, pH 6.0) and 2.0× full strength (EC = 3.7 tion than at high concentrations. Shoot tissue concentrations of N, P, K, and B increased, dS·m–1, pH 5.5). These solutions contained 26, while C, Al, Mo, and Na decreased with increasing concentration of the nutrient solution. 52, 105, 210, and 420 mg·L–1 N, respectively + – The pH of the nutrient solution had no effect on the growth or gas exchange of the plants, (6.7% NH4 and 93.3% NO3 ). while its effects on nutrient concentration in the shoot tissue generally were smaller than In the second experiment, the plants were those of fertilizer concentration. These results indicate that 1.0 to 2.0× concentrations of watered with modifi ed Hoagland solution at Hoagland solution result in maximum growth, apparently because the plants produce leaf 0.5× concentration and one of fi ve solution area more effi ciently at high fertilizer concentrations. pH values: 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, and 8.0. To make Hoagland solutions with differing pH values, HNO3 or NH4OH were used to adjust the pH of Fertility probably is the most controllable Mak and Yeh, 2001; van Iersel, 1999), most the 0.5× nutrient solution. Thus, treatment solu- cultural factor affecting the growth of green- of this research has been descriptive rather tions may have differed slightly in N-content, house crops. Most greenhouse crops are grown than explanatory. Although this research has although the total amount of N added for pH in some type of soilless medium, which does yielded practical guidelines for the fertilization control was small compared to the 105 mg·L–1 not contribute a signifi cant amount of nutrients. of greenhouse crops, it may not be universally present in the 0.5× Hoagland solution. Instead, these kinds of media mainly function applicable, since the optimal fertilizer concen- Irrigation timing was based on a color as substrates that can hold water and nutrients, tration for plant growth may depend on the change of the top layer of the diatomaceous thus making them available to the roots. An environmental conditions (Kang and van Iersel, earth, which becomes lighter as it dries out. effective fertilization program has to take into 2001). Thus, to be able to predict fertilizer Approximately every other day, the plants account both the absolute amounts of nutrients needs of plants under a range of conditions, were subirrigated with nutrient solution by supplied, as well as the availability of these it is essential to understand the mechanism pouring 1 L of the solution into a watertight nutrients to the plants. Availability of micro- by which different fertility treatments affect tray, and the solution was absorbed by the nutrients in particular is dependent on the pH plant growth. growing medium through holes in the bottom of growing medium. Thus, fertilizer programs Photosynthesis is the physiological pro- of the cell packs. The solution was left in the have to take into account both the concentration cess responsible for almost all dry matter trays until all of it had been absorbed by the of fertilizer to be applied, and its effect on the accumulation in plants (although accumula- growing medium. pH of the growing medium. tion of inorganic nutrients can account for Measurements. Three plants were harvested Although there have been many research up to ≈15% of dry matter). Therefore, to at weekly intervals starting at 30 d after trans- reports on optimal fertilizer concentrations optimize plant growth, fertilization programs planting (DAT) to determine leaf area, shoot for the production of fl oricultural greenhouse should aim to optimize plant photosynthesis. and root dry weight, and chlorophyll content. crops (e.g., James and van Iersel, 2001; Kang Whole-plant photosynthesis depends on both Shoots and roots were dried in a forced-air and van Iersel, 2002; Kent and Reed, 1996; the photosynthesis per unit leaf area and the drying oven at 70 °C for a minimum of 3 d total leaf area of the plant. Although nutrition before dry weight was measured. Leaf area effects on leaf photosynthesis (Pn) are well was determined using a LI-COR 3100 leaf area Received for publication 27 Sept. 2002. Accepted for understood (e.g. Marschner, 1995; Thornley, publication 28 Jan. 2003. We thank Larry Freeman meter (LI-COR, Lincoln, Nebr.). Dry weight and Keven Calhoun for their assistance in setting 1998; and references therein), nutrition effects and leaf area data were used to determine the up the experiments and data collection. on leaf area development have not been studied shoot : root ratio and the leaf area ratio, both 1 To whom reprint requests should be addressed. in as much detail. on a whole plant (LARplant, leaf area divided E-mail: [email protected] The objective of this study was to determine by total dry weight) and shoot basis (LARshoot, HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 39(1), FEBRUARY 2004 49 10-7479, p49-54 49 2/17/04, 11:23:12 AM CROP PRODUCTION leaf area divided by shoot dry weight). Chlorophyll content of the leaves was measured with a SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter 4 (Minolta, Ramsey, N.J.), which measures chlo- rophyll content in arbitrary units (here referred 3 to as SPAD units). Leaf gas exchange param- eters (Pn, stomatal conductance, transpiration, and leaf temperature) were measured with a 2 portable photosynthesis system (CIRAS-1, PP Systems, Haverhill, Mass.) at 37, 48, and 56 1 DAT. Photosynthetic photon fl ux density was ≈700, 350, and 415 µmol·m–2·s–1 on these 3 d, Total dry weight (g/plant) respectively. Time to fl owering was determined 0 when 40% of the plants in an experimental unit were fl owering, and length of the fl ower stalk was determined when all fl orets had opened. 3 The shoots collected at the end of the experi- ment were analyzed for nutrient content. Tis- sue C, N, and S were determined with a CNS 2 2000 analyzer (LECO Corp., St. Joseph, Mich.) (Mills and Jones, 1996), while P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Al, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Na, and Zn were determined 1 by dry ashing and inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (Jones and Case, 1990). Shoot dry weight (g/plant) Experimental design and data analysis. The 0 experimental design for both experiments was a randomized complete block with four replica- 0.5 tions. The experimental unit was a fl at with 36 plants. All data were analyzed by linear and 0.4 quadratic regression, using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Corre- 0.3 lations with P < 0.05 were considered to be statistically signifi cant. Treatment effects on the relative growth rate (RGR) of the plants 0.2 in both experiments were tested by fi tting the 0.1 following equation: Root dry weight (g/plant) ln(DW) = a0 + (a1 × DAT) + (a2 × C) 0.0 2 + (a3 × DAT × C) + (a4 × DAT ) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2 2 + (a5 × C ) + (a6 × DAT × C) 2 Hoagland solution concentration (x full strength) + (a7 × DAT × C ) 2 2 + (a8 × DAT × C ) [Eq.