Abstract
Lysimeters constructed from polyethylene tanks were filled with Oldsmar fine sand soil. A single “Midsweet” orange on Carrizo citrange rootstock tree was planted in each lysimeter on May 5, 1991. Fertilization treatments included traditional fertilization using applications of dry-soluble fertilizer at 6-week intervals (TF), weekly fertigation applications (WF), and single annual applications of two different controlled-release materials (CR). Irrigation (by microsprinklers) and drainage volumes (collected weekly) were measured with totalizing flow meters. Trees fertilized with CR products achieved equivalent growth to trees on the TF and WF treatments, even though the CR treatment trees received only 44% of N as the other treatments. The fertigated trees averaged about 14% greater evapotranspiration (ET) during the period of study as compared to the nonfertigated trees. As the trees grew, the average ET increased from 2.8 and 2.3mmday−1 during 1991/1992 for the fertigated and nonfertigated treatments, respectively, to 5.0 and 4.4mmday−1, respectively, during 1993/1994. The percentage of the applied N leached ranged from 35% for the WF treatment to 53% with the TF treatment. The total N leached (NO3–N and NH4–N) with the WF trees was approximately two times greater than that for the CR treatments. TF applications resulted in approximately two and one-half times more N leached than from the CR materials. More than 65% of the total N was leached during the rainy summer months (June–November). Leaching was found to be directly related to the rainfall rate.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled-release fertilizer produced equivalent tree growth to traditional fertilizer and weekly fertigation.
Verbatim
e0“Trees fertilized with CR products achieved equivalent growth to trees on the TF and WF treatments, even though the CR treatment trees received only 44% of N as the other treatments”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigated trees had about 14% greater evapotranspiration than nonfertigated trees.
Verbatim
e0“The fertigated trees averaged about 14% greater evapotranspiration (ET) during the period of study as compared to the nonfertigated trees”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Average ET increased as trees grew, from 2.8 and 2.3mmday−1 in 1991/1992 to 5.0 and 4.4mmday−1 in 1993/1994 for fertigated and nonfertigated trees.
Verbatim
e0“As the trees grew, the average ET increased from 2.8 and 2.3mmday−1 during 1991/1992 for the fertigated and nonfertigated treatments, respectively, to 5.0 and 4.4mmday−1, respectively, during 1993/1994”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The applied N fraction leached ranged from 35% under WF to 53% under TF.
Verbatim
e0“The percentage of the applied N leached ranged from 35% for the WF treatment to 53% with the TF treatment”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Total N leached with WF trees was approximately twice that with CR treatments.
Verbatim
e0“The total N leached (NO3–N and NH4–N) with the WF trees was approximately two times greater than that for the CR treatments”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
TF applications leached approximately two and one-half times more N than CR materials.
Verbatim
e0“TF applications resulted in approximately two and one-half times more N leached than from the CR materials”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
More than 65% of total N leached during rainy summer months.
Verbatim
e0“More than 65% of the total N was leached during the rainy summer months (June–November)”
t0“Orange Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
N leaching was directly related to rainfall rate.
Not reportedSettingDirection
Verbatim
e0“Leaching was found to be directly related to the rainfall rate”
t0“Orange Trees”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →fertilization · growth · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.