Paper · 1998 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Slow release versus water soluble fertilization affects nutrient leaching and growth of potted chrysanthemum

Christopher J. Catanzaro; Kimberly A. Williams; Roger J. Sauve

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
40
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract In two experiments, ‘Charm’ and ‘Delano’ chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura] were grown in a peat‐based root medium using standard greenhouse cultural practices. Fertilization treatments included (1) alternate liquid fertilization (ALF): water‐soluble formulation of 15N‐4.3P‐24.9K (15–10–30) at 536 mgL‐1 N alternated with tap water irrigation; (2) Constant Liquid Fertilization (CLF): 15N‐4.3P‐24.9K(15–10–30)at268 mgL‐1 Napplied at each irrigation; (3) slow release resin‐coated fertilizer (SRR): slow release formulation of 12N‐4.3P‐14.1K(12–10–17); and (4) slow release tablets (SRT): slow release formulation of 14N‐1.7P‐4.9K (14–4–6). Irrigation volume and timing of application were arbitrary for all plants in the first experiment, but they were determined gravimetrically for each treatment in the second experiment. Irrigation volumes exceeded container capacity by 20 to 30% (leaching fractions of 0.2 to 0.3). Leachate had lower electrical conductivity and higher pH with the slow release products than with liquid fertilizer. All treatments except SRT produced plants which met commercial crop standards and had adequate nutrient levels in shoot tissue. However, root dry mass was higher with slow release fertilizer than with liquid fertilizer. Rootrshoot ratios were ranked SRT>SRR>ALF=CLF. Root data suggest that an advantage of SR fertilization over LF fertilization is that greater root mass will develop. Estimations of nitrogen (N) recovery in Experiment 2 suggest that chrysanthemums grown with SRR resulted in most efficient uptake of fertilizer with 64 to 68% of applied N recovered in plant tissue (compared to 41 to 46% from LF treatments) and 18 to 21 % recovered in container leachate (compared to 32 to 41% from LF treatments).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Slow-release products gave leachate with lower electrical conductivity than liquid fertilizer.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
slow release productse1
Outcome
electrical conductivitye1
Direction
lowere1
Qualifier
Leachatee1
Comparator
liquid fertilizere1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leachate had lower electrical conductivity and higher pH with the slow release products than with liquid fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–1073 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Slow-release products gave leachate with higher pH than liquid fertilizer.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
slow release productse1
Outcome
pHe1
Direction
highere1
Qualifier
Leachatee1
Comparator
liquid fertilizere1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e1

“Leachate had lower electrical conductivity and higher pH with the slow release products than with liquid fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–1073 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments except SRT produced chrysanthemum plants that met commercial crop standards.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
All treatments except SRTe2
Outcome
met commercial crop standardse2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e2

“All treatments except SRT produced plants which met commercial crop standards and had adequate nutrient levels in shoot tissue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1201 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments except SRT gave plants with adequate nutrient levels in shoot tissue.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Organ / stage
shoot tissuee2
Treatment
All treatments except SRTe2
Outcome
adequate nutrient levelse2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e2

“All treatments except SRT produced plants which met commercial crop standards and had adequate nutrient levels in shoot tissue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1201 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root dry mass was higher with slow-release fertilizer than with liquid fertilizer.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Organ / stage
roote3
Treatment
slow release fertilizere3
Outcome
root dry masse3
Direction
highere3
Comparator
liquid fertilizere3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e3

“root dry mass was higher with slow release fertilizer than with liquid fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1212–1293 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root-to-shoot ratios were ranked SRT, then SRR, then ALF and CLF.

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
SRT>SRR>ALF=CLFe4
Outcome
Rootrshoot ratiose4
Direction
rankede4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e4

“Rootrshoot ratios were ranked SRT>SRR>ALF=CLF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1295–1340 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chrysanthemums grown with SRR recovered more applied nitrogen in plant tissue (64 to 68%) than liquid fertilizer treatments (41 to 46%).

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
SRRe5
Outcome
N recovered in plant tissuee5
Direction
most efficiente5
Value
64 to 68%e5
Comparator
LF treatmentse5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e5

“Estimations of nitrogen (N) recovery in Experiment 2 suggest that chrysanthemums grown with SRR resulted in most efficient uptake of fertilizer with 64 to 68% of applied N recovered in plant tissue (compared to 41 to 46% from LF treatments)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1460–1700 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SRR recovered less applied nitrogen in container leachate (18 to 21%) than liquid fertilizer treatments (32 to 41%).

Taxon
chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
Treatment
SRRe7
Outcome
recovered in container leachatee6
Direction
lowerinferrede6
Value
18 to 21 %e6
Comparator
LF treatmentse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryLucia Condac · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“'Charm' and 'Delano' chrysanthemum [Dendranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura]”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 29–111 · show in text ↑
e6

“18 to 21 % recovered in container leachate (compared to 32 to 41% from LF treatments)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1705–1790 · show in text ↑
e7

“chrysanthemums grown with SRR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1526–1555 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results

52 papers: 49 positive, 3 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.