.*":::ff;ffi# oYTON fr;ffiffillirT*' .
Fundada en 1951 por Founded 1951 byMiguel Raggio & Nora Moro-Raggio
Editor: Dr. Miguel RaggioFTINDACION ROMULO RAGGIO
Gaspar Campos 861, 1638 Vicente López (BA), Argentina
53'ANIVERSARIO 2O04:29-37 53rd ANNIVERSARY
Nutrient levels of the soil solution obtained bymeans of suction cups in intensive tomato
cultivation(with 5 tables & L figure)
Laol MT, S Jiménez2, E Eymaf , EJ Fernándezl
Abstract. Suction cups are the only viable method to obtain in situ tlne soil solu-tion along the culture in real time (24 h). The soil solution is the objective criterion tomodify the nutrient solution, so that it can be a¡ appropriate tool for fertirrigationmanagement. The nutrient levels of the soil solution must be known to establish theappropriate approach to nutrients management. In this work, levels of pH, EC,NO;, NH;, H;PO;, K', Qsz*, Mgz-, ¡¿- and Cl- of the soil solution of three tomatocrops weré followed for periods 1995/96 and 1996/97 culture estimated in a trialcarried out during two years.
Key words: fertirrigation management, nutrient parameters, nutrient solution,tomato production.
Fertirrigation is the combined application of water and fertilisers. Thefertirrigation system is at the moment the most rational method, to carryout an optimised fertilisation with due respect of the environment (1).
To satisfy the needs of the crop by fertirrigation, two approachesmay be taken:
One, more traditional: the nutrients supply in quantitative sense isadapted to the theoretical needs ofthe crop. This system requires to usethe classic diagnostic methods. A second, one more physiological and morequalitative approach that tries to apply to the crop a physiologically bal-anced solution, with all elements required by the crop. This is the ap-
1 Dpto. Producción Vegetal Escuela Politécnica Superior. Universidad de Almeria.Almeria (España) Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]
, Centro de Investigación y Formación Agrícola. Departamento de Horticultura. Apdo.91. El Ejido. Almeria (España)
3 Dpto. Química Agrícola, Geología y Geoquímica. Facultad de Ciencias C-VII.Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Madrid (España)
Received 14.I.2003; accepted 18.IL2003
30 Lao MT, ar aL, TDWON 2004
Table 1.- Nutrient solution proposed by some authors for the tomato crop, expressed inmmol L'l and dS m-1 (EC)
Autor (date) Ca2* Mg'. EC pH
Cadahía (1998) 16
Marlínez y García (7994) 12
Coic y Lesaint (1975) 12
Sonneveld (1980) 10.5White (1992) 20.3
Resh (1992) R*Escudero (1993) 10-18
Cooper (1982) 14.3
1.5 2 0.5ó.J f.J
1.5 2.7
0.2(s)-0.3(w)
1-1.5 7.5-2.5
1,9
(1)* 9 5.5
0.5 7.5 3.5
2 5.2 6.2
0.5 7.5 3.7
11.1 6 1
1(s)2(w)
7-9 4-6
I 4.2
1.5
L.ZC D.)
1.5
1
3.3 3.4 6
1.5-2.5 2-3.5 5-5.8
2.2
(1)' The total application is 16 mmot Lr (207o maximum ammonium). s( summer) w (winter)
proach used in soil less culture (2). Table 1 shows nutrient solutions pro-posed by some authors applying the last criteria.
we have the appropriate technology to apply the nutrient sorutionsaccurately. with a quality of water is applied the necessary nutrient toobtain a theoretical solution. However, keeping in mind the interactionsamong soil, nutrient solution, soil solution, plants and atmosphere, thefinal soil solution differs ofthe required one (B).
The roots of the plants uptake the soil solution, is the direct produc-tive parameter on the crop; it is fundamental to know it as the basis ofthe fertirrigation management.
The suction cups are the only viable method to extract in situ thesoil solution, without proceeding to dilutions of the same one. In conse-quence, in the cases, where is necessary to know the ionic composition ofthe soil solution, only this technique can be used because other techniquesonly measured the EC in sítu (4). The first ones to introduce the suctioncups technique, were Briggs & Mccall, proposing their use like an artifi-cial root to suction the really available water in the soil for the plants.
In this work the nutritional levels of the soil solution are establishedfor tomato crop to use it in management fertirrigation.
MATERIALS & METHODS
This work was carried out in 6 commercial greenhouses type"Almería" with tomato var. Daniela, during two years 9bl96 and 96197.Located in southeastern Spain. The election of these greenhouses wasmade in function of high production, fertirrigation equipment and thehorticulturist's capacity to understand the process being tested.
In each greenhouse a watering subsector was chosen with approxi-mately 2.500 rnz, the watering uniformity was studied (up to g\Vo),15
SoiI nutrients obtained by suction cups in tomato
suction cups were installed in a random way considering the perimetraledge. The installation and taking of samples are described for (3). Thesuction cups remained in the soil during the crop.
6 samplings by greenhouse were taken for each year (95196 and 96/97). Each sampling was constituted by 16 samples, one of nutrient solu-tion and 15 samples of the soil solution. Of each 15 samples of soil solu-tion were taken 20 cc, mixed and homogenised.
Analytical methods described by the Spanish Ministry of Agricul-ture HrPO;, were used to determine the following:pH;EC at 25"C;NO;,phosphate and NH; (VIS-UV spectrophotometry); K*, Cazn, Mg2n, I.{a*(atomic absorption) & Cl (photometry).
The production by qualities was registered weekly. The samplingsare classified in three periods: period 1: vegetative state (1-90 DAT); pe-riod 2: full production (91-250 DAT) and period 3: final of the cycle (251-320 DAT).
An analysis of variance was carried out for the experimental designis multifactorial with three factors: plots, period and year.
RESULTS
The total productions and categories, as well as the unmarketablefruits corresponding to each plot and year are presented in the Table 2.
Nutrient solution: The Table 3 shown the average values and stan-dard deviations of the nutritional parameters of the nutrient solution byperiods for two years.
The different nutritional parameters between years don't show sig-nificant differences.
Table 2.- Total production of tomato (kg m',) by categories in twoyears 95/96 and 96/97 of the plots
Year Plot production Total G+GG M+MM Unmarketable fruit
31
9696969696vb97onoa
979797
1.0oa1.0
2.4+. r
t.78.69.7t¡.Va9
0.50.40.40.40.40.30.60.20.50.10.11.9
JAVGPMJMMJLAALLRMHJAVGMPJMMJLAALLRMH
14.5 13.411.9 9.1r1.4 10.319.6 77.211.5 7.412.6 9.51,4.1 6.8t5.2 13.5t4.2 5.5\7.4 7.6t0.7 3.811.0 3.8
32 Lao MT, et at, @yTON2e04
Table 3.- Average values and standard deviations ofthe nutritional parameters ofthenutrient solutions during two years 95/96 and 96/97 , expressed in mnoll,-r and dSm-t (EC)
1
Average Std. Dv.2
Average Std. Dv. Average Std. DvAverage
Average Std. Dv
pH 5.7 b*EC 2.6 aNO; 12.2 aNHi 2.0 aHrPO; 1.3 aK- 10.6 aCa2* 3.7 aMg:* 2.1 aNa* 5.7 a
Cl' 3.8 a
5.6 t.42.4 0.8
t1.7 4.01.6 0.91.3 0.77.9 5.73.5 1.12.0 0.94.5 3.44.8 4.0
1.50.94.41.11.0
8.8r.20.84.33.6
5.8OF
12.5L,I
1.470
3.62.03.95.0
I,40.63.51.0
0.54.21.0
0.82.63.9
7.0 a1.9 b8.6 b0.7 b0.7 b4.8 b2.9 a
1.8 a4.7 a
4.8 a
U.C¡
0.7OF
0.50.42.11.0L4,i. b
4.6
baaaba
abaa
aa
* Mean separation in files by LSD (n = 72, p < 0,05), expressed in mmol L-1 and dS mr
In pH: two groups are observed; ones acidifies the nutrient solutionup to values of 4.7; the other group presents an average value of 6.4. ThepH is higher in period 3 due to the smaller amount of applied acid.
EC: between plots the range values is 1.60 and 3.00 dS m-1. The ECin the period 3 are inferior due to the minor fertilizers contribution (ni-trates, ammonium, phosphates and potassium) that is iustified for theincrement of the transpiration crops and the mayor water consumption.
The concentrations of NO;, NH; and Ca2n in the nutrient solution,don't differ signifrcantly between plots.
The differences found in the concentrations of Mg2*, Na* and Cl-depend fundamentally on the quality of the irrigation waters employed.Plots don't show differences (p<0.05).
The concentration of phosphates in the nutrient solution presentsdifferences between plots, a group applies a concentration around 2 mmolL-1 and another group around 1 mmol L-1. In period 3 the concentration islower.
Great variability exists in the concentration of K* due to the lack ofclear criteria for application. Between periods there are differences di-minishing the quantity applied along the crop.
Soil solution: In table 4 the average values and standard devia-tions of the nutritional parameters of the soil solution are presented byperiods for both years.
Between years the nutritional parameters don't differ significantly.The pH of the soil solution doesn't differ significantly between plots,
although the nutrient solutions employed present different acidity, nei-ther are there pH differences between different productive periods, dueto the buffer effect of the soil.
Soii nutrients obtained by suction cups in tomato
Table 4.- Average value and standard deviations ofthe soil solution inthe years g5/96 and 96/97, expressed in mnoll,'l and dSmr (EC)
tl tl
Period 1
Average Std. DvPeriod 2
Average Std. DvPeriod 3 Average
Average Std. Dv. Average Std. Dv
pH 7.7 aD^a!^
NO; 14.0 aNH; 7.4 aHrPO; 0.2 aK- 6.2 aCa2* 6.5 aMg'* 56aNa. 9.5 aCl- 8.0 a
7.8 a 0.22.9 b 0.7
12.5 a 6.80.5 b 0.50.2 a 0.25.7 a 3.05.6 a 2.04.2 b 1.56.0 b 3.6/.ó a b.r
/.ó tJ..J
2.9 0.8r2.7 6.30.7 0.60.2 0.26.0 2.95.5 2.t4.2 1.7
6.9 4.57.3 5.9
0.30.9
1.20.22.72.92.05.96.1
0.30.85.10.30.13.01.1
4.55.6
7.9 a2.7 b
I2.I a0.4 b0.2 ab.b a
4.6 b3.1c7.1 ab7.2 a
* Mean separation in frles by LSD (n = 72, p < 0.05), expessed in mmol L'1 and dS m'r
There are no differences between plots, it presents them betweenproductive periods; in period 1 is higher, due to a larger evapotranspira-tion rate but fertilizers accumulation is not observed.
The concentration of Nitrates differs widely. There exist B groupswhere the concentrations vary from 7.20 to 18.70 mmol L-1; however thenutrient solutions didn't differ between plots. This indicates that the NO;concentration is not be the appropriate parameter to standardizefertirrigation (Figure 1).
Between productive periods signifrcant differences are not observed(p <0.05) in the concentration of NO;, H,PO; and K due fundamentally tothe high degree ofvariability.
The average levels found in the soil solution can be compared withthe nutrient solutions applied in soil less culture; we find that (6) pro-poses a level of 20.3 mmol L'1, (7) recommends levels in the substratesolution of 11 mmol L-1.
In ammonium concentration there are no differences between plotsbut there are between productive periods, diminishing the concentrationin period 2.
The differences between the soil solution and the nutrient solutioncould be due to a nitrifrcation process, or the volatilization of ammonia.The values recommended in nutrient solutions are 0.5 mmol L-l (8 & 9)and 2 mmol ¡-t 110). The use of ammonium nitrate has been recommendedtraditionally in soil cultivation (11).
The concentration of phosphates in the soil solution differs signifi-cantly between plots, although the range ofconcentrations is very nar-row (0.05 - 0.33 mmol L'1). Nutrient solutions present higher values (av-erage !.26 mmol L-'). This effect of phosphates retrogradation can be due
34 Lao MT, et al , ¡DYTON2004
to pH (12) in recirculating system observes the same phenomenon, a de-crease in phosphates concentration correlated with an increase ofpH (13)
find levels in cultivated soil between 0.1-0.01 mmol L-1. In this work withthe levels found, the crops did not show deficiency s¡'rnptoms; neverthe-less it seems more convenient to know the available levels of P by meansof the Olsen method to management the fertilization.
The concentration of potasium in the soil solution presents differ-ences between plots with values in the range of 3.2 to 8.7 mmol L-1.
The concentration of calcium in the soil solution ranges betweenpiots with values in the range of 3.3 and 6.9 mmol L-1. The concentrationof Ca in the soil solution is low in period 3. According to references, thevalues obtained in this trial can be considered acceptable or high.
One of the important approaches are the balances between cations;the Ca shows a 1ow ratio with K and Mg (35: 39: 26) in comparison with(14) (45: 35: 20); (15) suggest a value of 2 and 2.97 as ratio of CalMguptake for the vegetative and productive periods respectively and (16)finds a ratio of uptake of 2 for 2.46; the ratio of concentrations in the soilsolution presents an average value of 1.35 in our trial and corresponds toa high value of Mg more than to a low application of Ca (17) doesn't finddifferences in the B.E.R. in tomato crop, as manifestation of the meta-bolic imbalance of Ca, with values of the ratio Ca.IMg in nutrient solu-tions superiors to one. Nevertheless the level of applied calcium is condi-tioned by the level of magnesium in the soil solution. The coefficient CalMg should be adjusted, to diminish the application of Ca, without pro-ducing imbalances, because the uptake is very good at this pH.
The concentration of magrresium doesn't present differences be-tween plots. The concentrations are higher in the nutrient solution due tothe enrichment by the soil. There also exist differences between periods,
Table 5.- Average levels found in the nutrient solution, in the soil solution, and theratios between both levels for the different nutritional parameters
Nutrient Est. Dvsolution
Soil solution Est. Dv. N.S./S.S.
pHECNoiNHn.H2PO3t1.'
cur*MBz-NatCI
tr. U
2.4tr.71.61.3no3.52.04.64.8
t.40.84.0t.70.7i). ¡
1.1
0.93.44.2
7.82.912.70.70.26.05.64.2fr.Yna
0.30.86.30.90.22.92.11.84.55.9
0.80.80.9
u. ¡
1.30.60.50.70.7
I expressed in mmol L+ and dS mr
Soil nutrients obtained by suction cups in tomato
10
I
o4
0
1,5
1
0,5
0
10 i"'r4 +-.12 .l ..
35
4,5
4^ 1Á
EsNi E 3
iass lS z,s2
O .EtX 'r'1
0,50
JbEE
o6.=c
:J6EE
o6coocfI
IJ
6EE
E:'6dC)
¡t r.
I al_-_to 2.b a-C
-lci- ¡TL Ut +-oic ñ1
JEEE
EfEoa
t_J 9rIo ultr -l
ci
E s+'6 "To 3+c ^1ó ¿'6 ,;> 'i
1o r-81-
^'olI
4,L-
2iI
ol
JEEEopocO
10 i--I +.-6 f --
I
4 +'-¡l
123
Fig. 1.- Soil nutrients obtained by suction cups i¡ tomato
diminishing toward the end of the crop. (18) considers that under Almeríaconditions it isn't necessary to apply Mg.
Sodium & chlorides: the concentration of Na* and Cl in the soilsolution present signifrcant differences between plots due to the quality
25
)-20otrE-
Elo!
g5oLo
I
I
11
++-l
T
tb
12
10
66420
36 Lao MT, et al, @WON 2004
of the irrigation water, and between periods with superior values in theperiods 1 & 3. The Cl don't show variations differences between periods.
Ratios between the concentrations in the nutrient solutionand in the soil solution: Table 5 shows the ratios between concentra-tions in nutrient solution and in soil solution and frgure 1 shows the aver-age level of different parameters in nutritional and soil solutions' Theratios of ammonium, phosphates and potassium are superior to 1, it sup-poses a net consumption due to uptake by plant, retrogradation in thesoil orland leaching. For the rest of the analysed parameters these ratiosis smaller than one, it implies a net accumulation due to a low uptake orcontribution by the soil.
CONCLUSIONS
x The levels of the different nutritients parameters of the soil solu-tion in the productive periods are presented in the table 4, as basic crite-ria for the management fertirrigation in tomato crop in the Mediterra-nean area.
x The soil solution presents a stable pH due to the tampon effect ofthe soil that doesn't modify the acidity of the nutrient solution.
* The EC should be managed jointly by the nutritional parametersand by irrigation.
* The application of nitrates should be managed in function of soilsolution levels because the nitrates are very mobile.
Level ofphosphates in the soil are very low in relation to the nutri-ent solution, without deficiency symptoms in the crop. The phosphatesbuffer in soil should be evalueted by means of the Olsen method (basic
soils). The form, time and amount of application of phosphates should be
carefully studied.
REFERENCES
1. Cadahía C, Fertirrigación. Conceptos básicos. I Congreso ibérico y IiI Nacional deFertirrigación (1997) 46Domínguez A., In Fertírrigación, Edit. Mundi-Prensa (1996)
Lao MT, Gestión del fertirriego de los i¡vernaderos de Almería mediante el uso de
sondas de succión. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Almería (1998)
Grossmann J, P Udluft, J Soil Sci 42 (1991) 83
MAPA, Métodos oficiales de análisis. Publication's Seru of MAPA, Ed. Madrid, Spain(1986)White RAJ, Commercial use of soilless culture for tomatoes in New Zealand.iSOSCProceedings of Bt1'Internat Congr Soilless Cult Hunters rest (1992) 483
Jeannequin B, in Fertiiisation de ia tomate en culture hors sol en régionméditerranéenne, en Les cultures hors sol. INRA (1987) 235Martínez E, M García. Cultivos sin suelo: Hortalizas en clima mediterráneo,Horticultura Ed. (1994) 41
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Soil nutrients obtained by suction cups in tomato
9. Sonneveld C, Growing cucumbers and tomatoes in rockwool. ISOSC, Proceedings ofFifth Intemational congress on soilless culture, Wageningen (1980) 253
10. Coic Y, C Lesaint, La nutrition minerale et en eau des plantes en horticulture avancé.Le document Technique de Ia S.C.P.A. Mulhouse (France) (1975)
11. Paiomar F,In Fertirrigacíón de cultiuos hortícolas en inuernadero. Hoja divulgadora15/92. Junta de Andalucía. Consejeúa de Agricultura y pesca (1993)
12. García M, Eficacia en el uso de Ia fertirrigación recirculante en cultivos hortícolas sinsueio bajo condiciones de clima semiárido. Tesis doctoral. Univ de Almería (1997)
13. Mengel K, EA Kirkby, Principles of plant nutrition. Internat Potash Institute Bern,Switzerland, 3'd ed. (1982)
14. Steiner AA, The selective capacity of plants for ions and its importance for the compo-sition and treatment of the nutrient solution. ISOSC 1980, Proceedings Wageningen(1980) 83
15. Bru¡r R, D Blanc, Cinétique de l'absoration hydrique et minérale. Composition ioniquedes solutions, en Les cultures hors sol. INRA (1987) 203
16. Gertsson E, Nutrient uptake by tomatoes grown in hydroponics. Acta horticulturae401 (1995) 351
17. Segura-Pérez ML, Fertirrigación de cultivos hortícolas en condiciones salinas consistemas enarenados y sustratos aiternativos. Comarca Agrícola de Almería. Tesisdoctoral, Univ autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias (1995)
18. GonzáIez P, La fertiiización mediante el riego localizado. Curso Internacional sobreAgrotecnia del cultivo en invernaderos, F.I.A.P.A. Almería 0991) 223
ót
