clay research summary
Post on 13-Nov-2014
226 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Clay amended soilless substrate: Increasing water and
nutrient efficiency in containerized crop production
J.S. Owen, Jr., Dept. Horticultural Science
Dept. Soil Science
NC STATE UNIVERSITY
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Nursery Industry3.97 billion dollars in gross sales
USDA, 2004.
Nursery Industry3.97 billion dollars in gross sales73% containerized crop inventory
Organic substrate
USDA, 2004.
Nursery Industry3.97 billion dollars in gross sales73% containerized crop inventory
Organic substrate Southeast
41% of 7,742 national operations34% of 20 billion ft2 in total production
USDA, 2004.
Problem
Low input efficienciesWater 30% to 80%N and P 30% to 60%
Tyler et al., 1996, Lea-Cox and Ristvey, 2003; Warren and Bilderback, 2005
Problem
Low input efficienciesWater 30% to 80%N and P 30% to 60%
Water availability and use
Tyler et al., 1996, Lea-Cox and Ristvey, 2003; Warren and Bilderback, 2005
Problem
Low input efficienciesWater 30% to 80%N and P 30% to 60%
Water availability and useUSEPA-MCL regulation and criteria
Nitrate-N ≤ 10 mg L-1
Total P ≤ 0.05 mg L-1
Tyler et al., 1996, Lea-Cox and Ristvey, 2003; Warren and Bilderback, 2005
Floriculture and nursery research initiative
Environmental resource management systems for nurseries, greenhouses and landscapes
• Clemson • University of Florida • Horticulture & Breeding Research – USDA• Floral & Nursery Plants Research – USDA
Primary objective
To engineer a pine bark-based soilless substrate that increased water and nutrient efficiency in containerized nursery crop production
Approach
NUTRIENTS
ENVIRONM
ENT IRRIGATION
SUBSTRATE
ContainerContainer
Approach
NUTRIENTS
ENVIRONM
ENTIRRIGATION
SUBSTRATE
Yeager et al., 1997
Approach
NUTRIENTS
ENVIRONM
ENTIRRIGATION
SUBSTRATE
Yeager et al., 1997
EFFICIENT?EFFICIENT?
Infrastructure
Approach
NUTRIENTS
ENVIRONM
ENT IRRIGATION
SUBSTRATE
ContainerContainer
Approach
NUTRIENTS
ENVIRONM
ENT IRRIGATION
SUBSTRATE
ContainerContainer
Amendment
Amendment
Peat-based substrateIncrease available waterDecrease effluent phosphorusIncrease pH buffering capacityPre-charged source of nutrient
Pine bark-based substrateIncrease available waterIncrease plant K and P content
Williams and Neslon, 2000 and 1997; Warren and Bilderback, 1992; Reed, 1998; Handreck and Black, 2002.
Amendment
Mineral aggregateChemical absorbentFertilizer carrierBarrier clays
IndustrialUniformReproducible
Murray, 2000.
Amendment
Raw Clay Selection & Mining
Primary CrusherSecondary Crusher
Dryer(RVM)Mill
Screen
Rotary Kiln(LVM)
Oil-Dri Corporation of America
Bag or Bulk
≤ 800°C ≈ 120°C
Amendment
Montmorillonite Palygorskite
Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7.
Amendment
Montmorillonite Palygorskite
Surface Area: 98 m2/g Surface Area: 122.5 m2/g
Oil-Dri Corporation of America
Amendment
Heating
DehydrationNatural
OccurringLow
VolatileMaterial
Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7.
Montmorillonite
Amendment
Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7.
Heating
DehydrationNatural
OccurringLow
VolatileMaterial
Palygorskite
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Clay Processing
Pine bark-based substratesIndustrial Mineral Aggregate
• 8% Clay (by vol.)
Industry Representative Substrate• 11% Sand (by vol.)
Clay Type
Industrial Mineral Aggregate Processing
• Particle Size• 0.25 to 0.85 mm• 0.85 to 4.75 mm
• Temperature Pre-treatment• Low volatile material (LVM)• Regular volatile material (RVM)
Clay Processing
2 x 2 factorialRCBD3 replications
Cyclic micro-irrigation1200, 1500, 1800 HR EST0.2 target LF
Medium rate of CRFDolomite addition
Clay Processing
Data collectedDry weightInfluentEffluentEffluent N and P content
Use to calculateLF = effluent ÷ influentWUE = water retained ÷ plant dry mass PUE = (plant P ÷ applied P) x 100
Field Plots
Field Plots
Nutrient AnalysisNH4 – nitrogen
NO3 – nitrogen
Dissolved reactive P
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
USDA-ARS
Laboratory
Analysis
StatisticsParticle size
• WaterTemperature
pretreatment• Effluent DRP
ControlA priori contrast
Clay Processing
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.25-0.85 mm0.85-4.75 mmControl
Cum
ulat
ive
wat
er a
pplie
d (L
)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
Clay Processing
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.25-0.85 mm0.85-4.75 mmControl
Cum
ulat
ive
wat
er a
pplie
d (L
)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
20 L
Clay Processing
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.25-0.85 mm0.85-4.75 mmControl
Cum
ulat
ive
wat
er a
pplie
d (L
)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
31 L
Clay Processing
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.25-0.85 mm0.85-4.75 mmControl
Cum
ulat
ive
wat
er a
pplie
d (L
)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
31 L
WUE 731 ml g-1
to 599 ml g-1
Clay Processing
0
40
80
120
160
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.25-0.85 mm0.85-4.75 mmControl
Cum
ulat
ive
wat
er a
pplie
d (L
)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
107,000 gallons of water saved per growing acre
while maximizing growth
Clay Processing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LVM
ControlRVM
Cum
ulat
ive
effl
uen
t D
RP
(m
g)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
Clay Processing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LVM
ControlRVM
Cum
ulat
ive
effl
uen
t D
RP
(m
g)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
19 mg
Clay Processing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LVM
ControlRVM
Cum
ulat
ive
effl
uen
t D
RP
(m
g)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
29 mg
Clay Processing
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LVM
ControlRVM
Cum
ulat
ive
effl
uen
t D
RP
(m
g)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
PUE Control 27% Clay 36%
Clay ProcessingWater
Particle size• 0.25 to 0.85 mm• 18% (31L) decrease
NutrientPhosphorus
• Temperature pretreatment• Low volatile material• 48% (29 mg) decrease
Equivalent growth0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM
24 - 48
Clay ProcessingWater
Particle size• 0.25 to 0.85 mm• 18% (31L) decrease
NutrientPhosphorus
• Temperature pretreatment• Low volatile material• 48% (29 mg) decrease
Equivalent growth0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM
24 - 48
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Physical Properties
Clay rate 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM0% to 24% (by vol.)
• 4% increments
PoromoterSubstrate moisture
characteristic curve15-bar extractionParticle size distribution
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
PorometerResults
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Container Capacity
Air space
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Container Capacity
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Unavailable water
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Air space
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
um
e (
%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Air space
Available water
Normal Range
Materials & Methods
Clay rate (% vol.) RCBD0, 8, 12, 16, and 20%
Li-Cor 6400Net photosynthesisStomatal conductance
Nutrient analysisPlant growth
Clay Rate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 8 12 16 20
Top
dry
mas
s (g
)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Clay Rate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 8 12 16 20
Top
dry
mas
s (g
)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Max. = 12%
Clay Rate
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 8 12 16 20
Pn (
µm
ol C
O2 m
-2 s
-1) g
s (µm
ol H2 O
m-2 s
-1)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Clay Rate
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 8 12 16 20
Pn (
µm
ol C
O2 m
-2 s
-1) g
s (µm
ol H2 O
m-2 s
-1)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Max. = 11%
Clay Rate
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 8 12 16 20
g s (µ
mo
l H2O
m-2
s-1
)W
ater use e
fficinecy (m
l g-1)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Clay Rate
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 8 12 16 20
Tot
al p
lant
P c
onte
nt (
mg)
Amendment rate (% vol.)
Clay Rate
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 8 12 16 20
Tot
al p
lant
P c
onte
nt (
mg)
Amendment rate (% vol.)
PUE = 46%
Clay Rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
01220
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t DR
P (
mg
L-1)
Day after initiaiton
Amendment rate (% vol.)
Clay Rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
01220
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t DR
P (
mg
L-1)
Day after initiaiton
Amendment rate (% vol.)
33 mg
Clay Rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
01220
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t DR
P (
mg
L-1)
Day after initiaiton
Amendment rate (% vol.)
33 mg
Clay Rate
Clay Rate
Clay Rate
X-ray absorption near edge surface (XANES) spectroscopy
Linear combination fittingAthena Software
Phosphorus Speciation
Phosphorus Speciation
Phosphorus Speciation
Linear combination fittingLow volatile material
• 75 mol% hydroxyapatite• 25 mol% metal adsorbed P
Linear combination fittingLow volatile material
• 75 mol% hydroxyapatite• 25 mol% metal adsorbed P
(aq)2-4(aq)2
2 (aq) (aq)(s)345 OH PO3H 5Ca 7HOH)(POCa
Phosphorus Speciation
Linear combination fittingLow volatile material
• 75 mol% hydroxyapatite• 25 mol% metal adsorbed P
(aq)2-4(aq)2
2 (aq) (aq)(s)345 OH PO3H 5Ca 7HOH)(POCa
Phosphorus Speciation
Clay Rate
Clay rate (% vol.) 10% to 12%
• Plant growth• Net photosynthesis• Stomatal conductance• Use efficiency
• Water• Phosphorus
Plant mineral content
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Input EfficiencyRCBD with 4 replications
Cyclic irrigation • 0100, 0300, 0500 HR EST
Main effects Amendment (11% by vol.)
• 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM• Washed, builders sand
Leaching fraction• 0.2 or 0.1
P rate• 1.0x or 0.5x
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Amendment
P rate
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Amendment
P rate
A
B
31 g
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Amendment
P rate
Not Significant
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
A
B
77 g
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tot
al p
lant
dry
mas
s (g
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
B
A31 g
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N P K Ca Mg S
SandClay
Pla
nt t
op
nutr
ient
con
tent
(g)
Elemental nutrient
Amendment
0.5
Input Efficiency
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N P K Ca Mg S
SandClay
Pla
nt t
op
nutr
ient
con
tent
(g)
Elemental nutrient
Amendment
0.5
Input Efficiency
108%
38%
48%
54%
21%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 0.5
SandClay
P u
se e
ffici
ency
(%
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
Input Efficiency
B
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 0.5
SandClay
P u
se e
ffici
ency
(%
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
Input Efficiency
B
A11%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 0.5
SandClay
P u
se e
ffici
ency
(%
)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
Input Efficiency
B
A
B
64%
Input Efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.10 LFClay 0.20 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
influ
ent
(L)
Treatment
Day after initiation
Input Efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.10 LFClay 0.20 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
influ
ent
(L)
Treatment
Day after initiation
26 L
Input Efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.10 LFClay 0.20 LFSand 0.10 LFSand 0.20 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
influ
ent
(L)
Treatment
Day after initiation
Input Efficiency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.10 LFClay 0.20 LFSand 0.10 LFSand 0.20 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
influ
ent
(L)
Treatment
Day after initiation
90,000 gallons of water saved per growing acre
while maintaining growth
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t (L
)
Day after initiation
Treatment
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t (L
)
Day after initiation
Treatment
16 L
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LFSand 0.1 LFSand 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t (L
)
Day after initiation
Treatment
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LFSand 0.1 LFSand 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
luen
t (L
)
Day after initiation
Treatment
55,000 gallons per growing acre
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LFSand 0.1 LFSand 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
lue
nt D
RP
(m
g) Treatment
Day after initiation
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LFSand 0.1 LFSand 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
lue
nt D
RP
(m
g) Treatment
Day after initiation
14 mg
Input Efficiency
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Clay 0.1 LFClay 0.2 LFSand 0.1 LFSand 0.2 LF
Cum
ulat
ive
eff
lue
nt D
RP
(m
g) Treatment
Day after initiation
7 mg
Input Efficiency
Water buffering capacityReal-time monitoring
• Weight• Water loss• Container capacity
Input Efficiency
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
06:00
12:00
18:00
00:00
Time and date
Con
tain
er
capa
city
(%
)
ClaySand
Aug 23 Aug 24 Aug 25 Aug 26 Aug 27 Aug 28
Amendment
Input Efficiency
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
ClaySand
5:30
7:30
9:30
11:3
0
13:3
0
15:3
0
17:3
0
19:3
0
21:3
0
Wat
er lo
ss (
ml)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
Input Efficiency
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
ClaySand
5:30
7:30
9:30
11:3
0
13:3
0
15:3
0
17:3
0
19:3
0
21:3
0
Wat
er lo
ss (
ml)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
3.4 mL m
in-1
2.7 mL m
in -1
Input Efficiency
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
ClaySand
5:3
0
7:3
0
9:3
0
11:
30
13:
30
15:
30
17:
30
19:
30
21:
30
Wat
er lo
ss (
ml)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
334 mL
Input Efficiency
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
ClaySand
5:3
0
7:3
0
9:3
0
11:
30
13:3
0
15:
30
17:
30
19:3
0
21:
30
Wat
er lo
ss (
ml)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
4% increase in available water which equates into 500 ml
Input Efficiency
Phosphorus use efficiency≤64% increase
Water use efficiency ≤15% increase (43 mL g-1)
Maximum growth≤46% increase
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Conclusion
Maximum growth0.25 to 0.85 mmLow volatile material11% amendment50% reduction of inputs
• Phosphorus
• Water
Water buffering capacity
Overview
IntroductionExperiments
Clay processingClay rateInput efficiency
ConclusionFuture
Future Research
Species screenNutrient addition
of clayPhosphorus Potassium
Water Management
Financial Support
NC STATE UNIVERSITYFNRI
William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim HutchisonBeth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. NorthupDr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. SwallowSandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim KetchieAnthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist Dr. Hunt
Committee:Dr. Warren Dr. BilderbackDr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg
Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty & Graduate Students
My family
Thank you…..
Thank you…..William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim HutchisonBeth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. NorthupDr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. SwallowSandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim KetchieAnthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson
Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist
Committee:Dr. Warren Dr. BilderbackDr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg
Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty & Graduate Students
My family
top related