Paper · 1992 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Application of micronutrients to citrus trees through microirrigation systems

Mongi Zekri; Robert C.J. Koo

6
claims
13
verbatim quotes
18
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Using conventional soil and foliar spray applications to correct micronutrient deficiency in citrus has not been completely satisfactory. Therefore, this study was developed to test the effectiveness of micronutrient application through microirrigation (fertigation) at rates similar to those recommended for foliar spray application. Three field experiments were conducted on ‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees to study the absorption of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu by periodically analyzing leaf samples. The effectiveness of fertigation with micronutriems was found to depend on the fertilizer source. Application of chelated Fe, Mn, and Zn through irrigation systems increased the concentrations of these micronutrients in the leaves. The nitrate forms of Fe, Mn, and Zn were ineffective, as was the sulfate form of Zn. The sulfate form of Mn was occasionally effective, but the sulfate form of Cu was very effective. The application of chelated micronutrients through fertigation shows promise in central Florida.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chelated Fe, Mn, and Zn fertigation increased their leaf concentrations.

Taxon
orangee1
Material
‘Valencia’e1
Treatment
chelated Fe, Mn, and Zn through irrigation systemse0
Outcome
concentrations of these micronutrients in the leavese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Application of chelated Fe, Mn, and Zn through irrigation systems increased the concentrations of these micronutrients in the leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–754 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrate forms of Fe, Mn, and Zn were ineffective.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
nitrate forms of Fe, Mn, and Zne0
Outcome
ineffectivee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The nitrate forms of Fe, Mn, and Zn were ineffective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–808 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfate Zn was ineffective.

Taxon
orangee2
Treatment
sulfate form of Zne0
Outcome
ineffectivee1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“the sulfate form of Zn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–839 · show in text ↑
e1

“The nitrate forms of Fe, Mn, and Zn were ineffective, as was the sulfate form of Zn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–839 · show in text ↑
e2

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfate Mn was occasionally effective.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
sulfate form of Mne0
Outcome
occasionally effectivee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The sulfate form of Mn was occasionally effective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 841–890 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfate Cu was very effective.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
sulfate form of Cue0
Outcome
very effectivee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“the sulfate form of Cu was very effective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–937 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Chelated micronutrient fertigation shows promise in central Florida.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
chelated micronutrients through fertigatione0
Outcome
shows promisee0
Setting
central Floridae0

Verbatim

e0

“The application of chelated micronutrients through fertigation shows promise in central Florida”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 939–1034 · show in text ↑
e1

“‘Valencia’ orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.] trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 386–437 · show in text ↑

manganese atom · molecular: metabolites · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

iron atom · molecular: metabolites · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

zinc atom · molecular: metabolites · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.