Nitrogen and Potassium Management in Container Production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and Landscape Performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1-1-2016 Nitrogen and Potassium Management in Container Production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and Landscape Performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella Maddox Martin Miller Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td Recommended Citation Miller, Maddox Martin, "Nitrogen and Potassium Management in Container Production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and Landscape Performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 3290. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/3290 This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Template B v3.0 (beta): Created by J. Nail 06/2015 Nitrogen and potassium management in container production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and landscape performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella By TITLE PAGE Maddox Martin Miller A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Plant and Soil Sciences in the Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Mississippi State, Mississippi December 2016 Copyright by COPYRIGHT PAGE Maddox Martin Miller 2016 Nitrogen and potassium management in container production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and landscape performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella By APPROVAL PAGE Maddox Martin Miller Approved: ____________________________________ Geoffrey C. Denny (Major Professor) ____________________________________ Gary R. Bachman (Committee Member) ____________________________________ Christine H. Coker (Committee Member) ____________________________________ Karl K. Crouse (Committee Member) ____________________________________ Michael S. Cox (Graduate Coordinator) ____________________________________ J. Mike Phillips Department Head ____________________________________ George M. Hopper Dean College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Name: Maddox Martin Miller ABSTRACT Date of Degree: December 9, 2016 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Plant and Soil Sciences Major Professor: Geoffrey C. Denny Title of Study: Nitrogen and potassium management in container production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna and landscape performance of Musa, Ensete, and Musella Pages in Study 81 Candidate for Degree of Master of Science Two container production studies (nursery area and greenhouse) and a landscape performance study to evaluate bananas and cannas were performed at R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center on the campus of Mississippi State University. Previous reports determined that there is greater need of K2O fertilization in addition to N for tropical monocot nutrition. Contradictory to previous cultural recommendations for landscapes, it was determined that a N:K2O ratio is not significant for container production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna in pine bark substrate. Nitrogen rate was the most significant variable in the containerized production of Musa, Ensete, and Canna. The purpose of the landscape performance study was to evaluate six cultivars of bananas for growth and cold hardiness. The three cultivars of bananas trialed which showed the greatest cold tolerance and vigor were Musa basjoo, Musella lasiocarpa, and Musa balbisiana ‘Thai Black’. DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this research to my parents, Robert Miller and Renee Clary, and my numerous siblings: Morgen, Mallory, Mason, Michael, and Mary Kathryn. I would also like to dedicate this research to the person who first introduced me to horticulture, the late Randall Godley. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the professors who have led me to this point in my academic journey. It is impossible to quantify the personal impact of faculty at both Louisiana State University and Mississippi State University. I am grateful for their collective guidance and support. One professor who has had a profound effect on developing me into a better researcher and person is my major professor, Dr. Geoffrey Denny. I have learned far more about practical knowledge, horticultural terminology, and life experiences than I expected when I began this journey of a Master’s Degree. I also appreciate the expertise and guidance of my committee members: Dr. Gary Bachman, Dr. Christine Coker, and Dr. Keith Crouse. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................4 III. CONTAINER PRODUCTION ...........................................................................14 Introduction .........................................................................................................14 Nursery Area .......................................................................................................15 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................15 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................18 Canna .....................................................................................................18 Ensete .....................................................................................................20 Musa .....................................................................................................21 Discussion ......................................................................................................23 Greenhouse ..........................................................................................................24 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................24 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................27 Canna .....................................................................................................27 Ensete .....................................................................................................28 Musa .....................................................................................................29 Discussion ......................................................................................................30 IV. LANDSCAPE PERFORMANCE ......................................................................66 Materials and Methods ........................................................................................67 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................68 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................77 iv REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 79 v LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Nitrogen fertility level, nitrogen to potash ratio, grams of controlled release nitrogen fertilizer applied (42-0-0), grams of actual nitrogen applied, grams of controlled release potash fertilizer applied (0-0-59), and grams of actual potash applied to Musa basjoo, Ensete ventricosum ‘Maurelii’ and Canna ‘Erebus’ in 8.71L pots filled with pine bark at the R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS between May and September of 2014. ..............................................................................31 3.2 Maximized nitrogen rates (grams), maximized dry mass (grams), and maximized pseudostem height growth (centimeters per plant) for Canna, Ensete, and Musa parameters which were significantly affected by nitrogen rate when grown in pine bark substrate in a nursery container production study at the R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS between May and September of 2014. ...............................................................48 3.3 Recommended nitrogen rate multiplier, grams of controlled release nitrogen fertilizer applied (42-0-0), and grams of actual nitrogen applied for Musa basjoo, Ensete ventricosum ‘Maurelii’, and Canna ‘Ra’ in 3.79L pots filled with pine bark at the R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS between September and December of 2015. .................................49 3.4 Maximized nitrogen rates (grams), maximized dry mass (grams), and maximized pseudostem height growth (centimeters per plant) for Canna, Ensete, and Musa parameters which were significantly affected by nitrogen rate when grown in pine bark substrate in a greenhouse container production study at the R. R. Foil Plant Science Research Center in Starkville, MS between September and December of 2015. ........................................64 vi 4.1 Mean measurements ± standard deviation for number of leaves,