Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Yield Levels Using Soluble and Controlled-release Urea Formulations in Tomato Production
-
Published:2024-04
Issue:4
Volume:59
Page:442-452
-
ISSN:0018-5345
-
Container-title:HortScience
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:horts
Author:
Jalpa Laura1, Mylavarapu Rao S.1, Hochmuth George1, Li Yuncong2, Rathinasabapathi Bala3, van Santen Edzard4
Affiliation:
1. Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 2. Soil, Water, and Ecosystem Sciences Department, Tropical Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida, Homestead, FL 33031, USA 3. Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 4. Department of Agronomy and IFAS Statistical Consulting Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Abstract
This research study evaluated the suitability of controlled-release urea (CRU) as an alternate nitrogen (N) fertilizer source to conventional soluble urea (U) for tomato production under a humid, warm climate in coastal plain soils. Tomatoes are typically produced on raised plastic-mulched beds, where U is fertigated through multiple applications. On the other hand, CRU is applied once at planting, incorporated into soil before the raised beds are covered with plastic mulch. N source and management will likely impact tomato yield, N use efficiency (NUE), and apparent recovery of N fertilizer (APR). A 2-year field study was conducted on fall and spring tomato crops in north Florida to determine the crop N requirement and NUE in tomatoes (var. HM 1823) grown in sandy soils under a plastic-mulched bed system. In addition to a no N fertilizer treatment, three urea N sources [one soluble source and two polymer-coated CRU sources with different N release durations of 60 (CRU-60) and 75 (CRU-75) days] were applied at three N rates (140, 168, and 224 kg⋅ha−1). Across all N sources and N rates, fall yields were at least 20% higher than spring seasons. At the 140 kg⋅ha−1 N rate, APR and NUE were improved, especially when U was applied in fall tomato, whereas preplant CRUs improved N efficiency in spring tomato. Based on the lower APR values found in spring production seasons (0% to 16%) when compared with fall (57.1% to 72.6%), it can be concluded that residual soil N was an important source for tomatoes. In addition, the mean whole-plant N accumulation of tomato was 102.5 kg⋅ha−1, further indicating that reducing the N rate closer to crop N demand would greatly improve conventional vegetable production systems on sandy soils in north Florida. In conclusion, polymer-coated CRU and fertigation U applications were able to supply the N requirement of spring and fall tomato at a 38% reduction of the recommended N rate for tomato in Florida (224 kg⋅ha−1). Preliminary results show that adoption of CRU fertilizers can be considered a low-risk alternative N source for tomato production and the ease of applying CRU once during the bed preparation period for tomato may be an additional incentive.
Publisher
American Society for Horticultural Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Carbon and nitrogen budgets in spring and fall tomato crops;Andersen PC,1999 2. Tomato growth, yield, and root development, soil nitrogen and water distribution as affected by nitrogen and irrigation rates on a Florida sandy soil;Ayankojo IT,2020 3. Tomatoes make efficient use of applied nitrogen;Broadbent FE,1980 4. Cantliffe D, Gilreath P, Haman D, Hutchinson C, Li Y, McAvoy G, Migliaccio K, Olczyk T, Olson S, Parmenter D, Santos B, Shukla S, Simonne E, Stanley C, Whidden A. 2009. Review of nutrient management systems for Florida vegetable producers: A white paper from the UF/IFAS Vegetable Fertilizer Task Force. Univ. Florida, IFAS, EDIS Publ. HS1156. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs1156. 5. The efficiencies of nitrogen fertilizer applied to cereals in different climates;Craswell ET,1984
|
|