Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:22:02.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of weather conditions on the response of lettuce to applied fertilizers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. J. Greenwood ,
T. J. Cleaver  and
K. B. Niendorf
D. J. Greenwood
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick
T. J. Cleaver
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick
K. B. Niendorf
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Fertilizer experiments on lettuce were carried out over 5 years on adjacent sites of the same soil. The shapes of the response curves to both N and P varied considerably from experiment to experiment even though the amounts of those nutrients that could be extracted from the soil did not show this variation. Responses to N were of an ‘overturning’ type and the level of N at which maximum yield occurred ranged from 50 to 400 kg/ha. Responses to P were of a ‘diminishing returns’ type and the maximum increases in yield brought about by applying P ranged from 75 to 700% of the yields obtained with no application.

A mathematical model was derived which fitted the results from all the experiments satisfactorily. The parameter denning the response to P, and that denning the ‘downward’ component of the response to N were linearly related to the integral of cumulative rainfall with respect to time. Insertion of these relations into the model led to an overall model that predicted lettuce yields for each treatment in each experiment from the values of two weather parameters, the levels of N, P and K and a fitted value for seed weight. This overall model accounted for about 75% of the total variance due to fertilizer applications in the nine experiments. It is argued that most of the year-to-year variation in fertilizer response could be explained in terms of rain influencing the adverse osmotic effects on growth, the leaching of nitrate down the soil profile and dispersion of P from phosphate fertilizer granules especially in the early stages of growth.

The model was slightly improved by replacing the parameter ‘time’ with cumulative evaporation from an open water surface, but not with cumulative day degrees, or cumulative evaporation divided by vapour pressure deficit.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 217 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, R. B., Nelder, J. A. & Berry, G. (1964). The use of mathematical model for the analysis of manurial and weather effects on the growth of carrots. Annals of Botany 28, 153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierhuizen, J. F. & Slatyer, R. O. (1965). Effect of atmospheric concentration of water vapour and CO2 in determining transpiration-photosynthesis relationships of cotton leaves. Agricultural Meteorology 2, 259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. A. & Dermot, W. (1964). Fertilizer experiments on main crop potatoes, 1955–1956. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63, 249–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Shaw, K. (1955). Determination of ammonia and nitrate in soil. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 46, 320–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1929). The phosphate requirements of barley at different periods of growth. Annals of Botany 43, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, G. H., Bingham, F. T. & Garber, M. J. (1960). Effects of irrigation and phosphorus on vegetative growth and nutrient composition of tomato leaves. Soil Science 89, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleaver, T. J., Greenwood, D. J. & Wood, J. T. (1970). Systematically arranged fertilizer experiments. Journal of Horticultural Science 45, 457–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follett, R. H. & Reichman, G. A. (1972). Soil temperature, water and phosphorus effects upon barley growth. Agronomy Journal 64, 36–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, J. K. R. (1963). A substitute reagent for titanous sulphate for reducing nitrate-N. Analyst, London 88, 237–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, D. J., Wood, J. T., Cleaver, T. J. & Hunt, J. (1971). A theory for fertilizer response. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 511–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, R. M., Vaadia, Y. & Russell, M. B. (1959). Interpretation of plant responses to soil moisture regimes. Advances in Agronomy 11, 77–131.Google Scholar
Haworth, F., Cleaver, T. J. & Bray, J. M. (1966). The effects of different manurial treatments on the yield and mineral composition of carrots. Journal of Horticultural Science 41, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, K. & Vomocil, J. A. (1954). The dissolution and migration of phosphorus from granular superphosphate in some Michigan soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 18, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madariaga, F. J. & Knott, J. E. (1951). Temperature summations in relation to lettuce growth. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science 58, 147–52.Google Scholar
M.A.F.F. (1967). Fertilizer recommendations for agricultural and horticultural crops. N.A.A.S. Advisory paper no. 4.Google Scholar
M.A.F.F. (1968). Magnesium in agriculture. N.A.A.S. Advisory paper no. 5.Google Scholar
Nichols, M. A. (1970). A note on the reciprocal yielddensity model. Horticultural Research 10, 88–90.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1962). Woburn irrigation 1951–59. II. Results for grass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 349–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raheja, P. C. (1966). Acidity and salinity. In Salinity and Acidity New Approaches to Old Problems, pp. 43–127. Ed. Boyko, H.. The Hague: Junk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, G. A. & Grunes, D. L. (1966). Effect of water regime and fertilization on barley growth, water use and N and P uptake. Agronomy Journal 58, 513–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijtema, P. E. & Endrödi, G. (1970). In Calculation of Production of Potatoes, Technical bulletin no. 70. Wageningen: Institute for Land and Water Management Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaife, M. A. (1973). The early relative growth rates of six lettuce cultivars as affected by temperature. Annals of Applied Biology 74, 119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaife, M. A. & Jones, D. (1970). Nutrient level/plant density interaction. Report of the National Vegetable Research Station for 1969, pp. 52–3.Google Scholar
Scaife, M. A., Webber, J. & Jones, D. (1972). Fertilizer experiments with outdoor lettuce. Journal of Horticultural Science 47, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. E. & Warren, G. F. (1957). Studies of soluble salts in greenhouse soil. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science 70, 501–11.Google Scholar
Smith, R. & Scaife, M. A. (1973). The phosphorus requirement of lettuce. 1. Use of P intensity estimates to predict the response curve. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 111–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viets, F. G. (1967). Nutrient availability in relation to soil water. In Irrigation of Agricultural Lands, Agronomy no. 11, pp. 458–69. Madison: American Society for Agronomy.Google Scholar
Wood, J. T., Greenwood, D. J. & Cleaver, T. J. (1972). Interactions between the beneficial effects of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium on plant growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 389–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1968). Investigations into the effects of weather on yields. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1968, Part 2, pp. 46–9.Google Scholar