Search

All Volumes

Previous article
Next article

Previous No
Next No

HOME CURRENT ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS LINKS SUBSCRIBE
 
The Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology

Vol. 73 No: 2

Title:
Nitrogen Partitioning in Apple as Affected by Timing and Tree Growth Habit

Authors:
H. KHEMIRA, T.L. RIGHETTI and A.N. AZARENKO

pp: 217-224

Abstract:
Nine year old standard-(Std) ‘Topred Delicious’ and spur-type ‘Redspur Delicious’ apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) on Malling 7A (M.7A) rootstocks were fertilized with ground-applied ammonium nitrate or foliarly-applied urea depleted in 15N on various dates. The treatments consisted of a ground application in spring (March) (SG), a pre-harvest ground application in August (PHG), a foliar spray in fall (September) (FF), or a combination of each of the last two treatments with SG (SG/PHG and SG/FF). All trees received a total of 120 g N each with the exception of FF trees, which received half the dose. Labelled N from the SG application was allocated preferentially to the fruit, leaves, shoots, and branches and to a lesser extent to the roots. Leaves on young shoots had higher concentrations of 15N label than those on older shoots or spurs, indicating an increasing dependence of the tree on soil N from spring to summer. The amount of N allocated to above-ground tissues decreased as the season progressed. Very little 15N from the PHG application reached the leaves, fruit, buds, or branches but the roots were heavily labelled and substantial amounts of labelled N were found in the following season's fruit, leaves, and shoots. Losses of fertilizer-15N from the PHG application to fruit removal, leaf fall, and pruning were minimal suggesting a higher utilization efficiency of absorbed N. The percentage of N derived from the FF spray was low in all tissues. However, this treatment resulted in 15N reaching the buds and shoots. Spur-type tree tissues tended to have higher N and 15N concentrations compared with those of Std-type trees. These differences appear to be related to different tree size. These differences suggest that the smaller spur-type trees are more manipulable with N management, and may be more subject to the adverse effects of over-fertilization. The subtle differences in N partitioning between tree types may cause spur-type trees to recycle N more efficiently.

Full text: JHSB Subscribers     ISHS members & other users
(PDF 572770 bytes)

Translate:


Go back to previous page