Abstract
Bearing `Misty' and `Star' southern highbush blueberries were grown on pine bark beds and fertilized at three rates using granular and liquid fertilizers with a 3–1–2 (1N–0.83K–0.88P) ratio. Granular fertilizer was applied 8 times per year at 4-week intervals beginning in April and continuing through October. Liquid fertilizer was applied with low volume irrigation 16 times per year at 2-week intervals during the same period. During the growing season, irrigation was applied at 2- to 3-day intervals in the absence of rain. A 2 cultivar × 2 fertilizer type × 3 fertilizer rate factorial arrangement of treatments was replicated 8 times in a randomized complete-block design. All fruits were harvested from single-plant plots at 3- to 4-day intervals. Canopy volume was not affected by fertilizer type, but fruit yield was slightly greater for granular than for liquid fertilizer treatments. In 2003, fruit yield of 2.5-year-old `Misty' and `Star' plants increased with increasing fertilizer rates up to the highest rate tested (50 g N/plant/year). Similarly, in 2004, fruit yields increased with increasing fertilizer rates up to the highest rate (81 g N/plant/year). Root distribution was limited to the 12-cm-deep layer of pine bark with very few roots penetrating into the underlying soil. The positive growth responses of blueberry plants to high fertilizer rates in pine bark beds suggests that soluble fertilizer was leached through the pine bark layer into the soil below the root zone. More frequent, lighter applications of soluble fertilizers, use of slow-release or controlled-release fertilizers, and careful irrigation management may improve fertilizer use efficiency of blueberry plantings on pine bark beds.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Blueberry canopy volume did not differ by fertilizer type.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Canopy volume was not affected by fertilizer type”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
Granular fertilizer produced slightly greater blueberry fruit yield than liquid fertilizer.
Verbatim
e0“fruit yield was slightly greater for granular than for liquid fertilizer treatments”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2003, fruit yield of Misty blueberry increased with fertilizer rate up to 50 g N/plant/year.
- Taxon
- Blueberriest0
- Material
- Mistye0
- Treatment
- increasing fertilizer ratese0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 50 g N/plant/yeare0
- Qualifier
- In 2003e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In 2003, fruit yield of 2.5-year-old `Misty' and `Star' plants increased with increasing fertilizer rates up to the highest rate tested (50 g N/plant/year)”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2003, fruit yield of Star blueberry increased with fertilizer rate up to 50 g N/plant/year.
- Taxon
- Blueberriest0
- Material
- Stare0
- Treatment
- increasing fertilizer ratese0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 50 g N/plant/yeare0
- Qualifier
- In 2003e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In 2003, fruit yield of 2.5-year-old `Misty' and `Star' plants increased with increasing fertilizer rates up to the highest rate tested (50 g N/plant/year)”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2004, blueberry fruit yield increased with fertilizer rate up to 81 g N/plant/year.
- Taxon
- Blueberriest0
- Treatment
- increasing fertilizer ratese0
- Outcome
- fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 81 g N/plant/yeare0
- Qualifier
- in 2004e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“in 2004, fruit yields increased with increasing fertilizer rates up to the highest rate (81 g N/plant/year)”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
Blueberry roots were mostly confined to the 12-cm pine bark layer, with few entering underlying soil.
Verbatim
e0“Root distribution was limited to the 12-cm-deep layer of pine bark with very few roots penetrating into the underlying soil”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest soluble fertilizer leached below the blueberry root zone in pine bark beds.
Verbatim
e0“soluble fertilizer was leached through the pine bark layer into the soil below the root zone”
t0“Southern Highbush Blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend more frequent, lighter soluble fertilizer applications to improve fertilizer use efficiency.
Verbatim
e0“More frequent, lighter applications of soluble fertilizers, use of slow-release or controlled-release fertilizers, and careful irrigation management may improve fertilizer use efficiency of blueberry plantings on pine bark beds”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend slow-release or controlled-release fertilizers to improve fertilizer use efficiency.
Verbatim
e0“More frequent, lighter applications of soluble fertilizers, use of slow-release or controlled-release fertilizers, and careful irrigation management may improve fertilizer use efficiency of blueberry plantings on pine bark beds”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend careful irrigation to improve fertilizer use efficiency.
Verbatim
e0“More frequent, lighter applications of soluble fertilizers, use of slow-release or controlled-release fertilizers, and careful irrigation management may improve fertilizer use efficiency of blueberry plantings on pine bark beds”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · VacciniumResults differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →fertilization · growth · VacciniumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.