Clay research summary
111
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
-
Upload
airish -
Category
Technology
-
view
233 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Clay research summary
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 ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Nursery Industry ¢ 3.97 billion dollars in gross sales
USDA, 2004.
Nursery Industry ¢ 3.97 billion dollars in gross sales ¢ 73% containerized crop inventory
l Organic substrate
USDA, 2004.
Nursery Industry ¢ 3.97 billion dollars in gross sales ¢ 73% containerized crop inventory
l Organic substrate ¢ Southeast
l 41% of 7,742 national operations l 34% of 20 billion ft2 in total production
USDA, 2004.
Problem ¢ Low input efficiencies
l Water 30% to 80% l N and P 30% to 60%
Tyler et al., 1996, Lea-Cox and Ristvey, 2003; Warren and Bilderback, 2005
Problem ¢ Low input efficiencies
l Water 30% to 80% l 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 efficiencies
l Water 30% to 80% l N and P 30% to 60%
¢ Water availability and use ¢ USEPA-MCL regulation and criteria
l Nitrate-N ≤ 10 mg L-1
l 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
l 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
Container
Approach
Yeager et al., 1997
Approach
Yeager et al., 1997
EFFICIENT?
Infrastructure
Approach
Container
Approach
Container
Amendment
Amendment ¢ Peat-based substrate
l Increase available water l Decrease effluent phosphorus l Increase pH buffering capacity l Pre-charged source of nutrient
¢ Pine bark-based substrate l Increase available water l Increase plant K and P content
Williams and Neslon, 2000 and 1997; Warren and Bilderback, 1992; Reed, 1998; Handreck and Black, 2002.
Amendment ¢ Mineral aggregate
l Chemical absorbent l Fertilizer carrier l Barrier clays
¢ Industrial l Uniform l Reproducible
Murray, 2000.
Amendment Raw Clay Selection & Mining
Primary Crusher Secondary 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 Dehydration
Natural Occurring
Low Volatile Material
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 Dehydration
Natural Occurring
Low Volatile Material
Palygorskite
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Clay Processing ¢ Pine bark-based substrates
l Industrial Mineral Aggregate • 8% Clay (by vol.)
l Industry Representative Substrate • 11% Sand (by vol.)
Clay Type ¢ Industrial Mineral Aggregate
l 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 factorial
l RCBD l 3 replications
¢ Cyclic micro-irrigation l 1200, 1500, 1800 HR EST l 0.2 target LF
¢ Medium rate of CRF ¢ Dolomite addition
Clay Processing ¢ Data collected
l Dry weight l Influent l Effluent l Effluent N and P content
¢ Use to calculate l LF = effluent ÷ influent l WUE = water retained ÷ plant dry mass l PUE = (plant P ÷ applied P) x 100
Field Plots
Field Plots
¢ Nutrient Analysis l NH4 – nitrogen l NO3 – nitrogen l Dissolved reactive P
¢ North Carolina Department of Agriculture
¢ USDA-ARS
Laboratory
Analysis ¢ Statistics l Particle size
• Water l Temperature
pretreatment • Effluent DRP
¢ Control l A 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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg)
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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg)
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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg)
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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg)
Day after initiation
Substrate amendment
PUE Control 27% Clay 36%
Clay Processing ¢ Water
l Particle size • 0.25 to 0.85 mm • 18% (31L) decrease
¢ Nutrient l Phosphorus
• Temperature pretreatment • Low volatile material • 48% (29 mg) decrease
¢ Equivalent growth ¢ 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM
24 - 48
Clay Processing ¢ Water
l Particle size • 0.25 to 0.85 mm • 18% (31L) decrease
¢ Nutrient l Phosphorus
• Temperature pretreatment • Low volatile material • 48% (29 mg) decrease
¢ Equivalent growth ¢ 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM
24 - 48
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Physical Properties ¢ Clay rate l 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM l 0% to 24% (by vol.)
• 4% increments ¢ Poromoter ¢ Substrate moisture
characteristic curve ¢ 15-bar extraction ¢ Particle size distribution
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Porometer Results
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Container Capacity
Air space
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Container Capacity
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Unavailable water
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Air space
Available water
Clay Rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Vol
ume
(%)
Mineral amendment rate (% vol.)
Air space
Available water
Normal Range
Materials & Methods ¢ Clay rate (% vol.)
l RCBD l 0, 8, 12, 16, and 20%
¢ Li-Cor 6400 l Net photosynthesis l Stomatal conductance
¢ Nutrient analysis ¢ Plant 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 (µ
mol
CO
2 m-2
s-1
) gs (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 (µ
mol
CO
2 m-2
s-1
) gs (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
mol
H2O
m-2
s-1
)W
ater use efficinecy (ml g
-1)
Amendment rate (% by vol.)
Clay Rate
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 8 12 16 20
Tota
l pla
nt P
con
tent
(mg)
Amendment rate (% vol.)
Clay Rate
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 8 12 16 20
Tota
l pla
nt P
con
tent
(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
efflu
ent D
RP
(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
efflu
ent D
RP
(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
efflu
ent D
RP
(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 fitting l Athena Software
Phosphorus Speciation
Phosphorus Speciation
Phosphorus Speciation ¢ Linear combination fitting
l Low volatile material • 75 mol% hydroxyapatite • 25 mol% metal adsorbed P
¢ Linear combination fitting l Low 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 fitting l Low 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.)
l 10% to 12% • Plant growth • Net photosynthesis • Stomatal conductance • Use efficiency
• Water • Phosphorus
l Plant mineral content
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Input Efficiency ¢ RCBD with 4 replications
l Cyclic irrigation • 0100, 0300, 0500 HR EST
¢ Main effects l Amendment (11% by vol.)
• 0.25 to 0.85 mm LVM • Washed, builders sand
l Leaching fraction • 0.2 or 0.1
l P rate • 1.0x or 0.5x
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Amendment
P rate
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Amendment
P rate
A B
31 g
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sand Clay
0.51.0
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Amendment
P rate
Not Significant
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
A
B
77 g
Input Efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.5 1.0
SandClay
Tota
l pla
nt d
ry m
ass
(g)
Phosphorus rate
Amendment
B A 31 g
0.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N P K Ca Mg S
SandClay
Pla
nt to
p nu
trien
t 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 to
p nu
trien
t 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
A 11%
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
efflu
ent (
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
efflu
ent (
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
efflu
ent (
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
efflu
ent (
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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg) 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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg) 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
efflu
ent D
RP
(mg) Treatment
Day after initiation
7 mg
Input Efficiency ¢ Water buffering capacity
l Real-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 c
apac
ity (%
)
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 (m
l)
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 (m
l)
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 (m
l)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
334 mL
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 (m
l)
daylight hours
Time (Sept.)
Amendment
4% increase in available water which
equates into 500 ml
Input Efficiency ¢ Phosphorus use efficiency
l ≤64% increase ¢ Water use efficiency
l ≤15% increase (43 mL g-1) ¢ Maximum growth
l ≤46% increase
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Conclusion ¢ Maximum growth
l 0.25 to 0.85 mm l Low volatile material l 11% amendment l 50% reduction of inputs
• Phosphorus • Water
l Water buffering capacity
Overview ¢ Introduction ¢ Experiments l Clay processing l Clay rate l Input efficiency
¢ Conclusion ¢ Future
Future Research ¢ Species screen ¢ Nutrient addition
of clay l Phosphorus l Potassium
¢ Water Management
Financial Support
NC STATE UNIVERSITY FNRI
William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim Hutchison Beth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. Northup Dr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. Swallow Sandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim Ketchie Anthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist Dr. Hunt
Committee: Dr. Warren Dr. Bilderback Dr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg
Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty
& Graduate Students
My family
Thank you…..
Thank you….. William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim Hutchison Beth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. Northup Dr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. Swallow Sandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim Ketchie Anthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson
Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist
Committee: Dr. Warren Dr. Bilderback Dr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg
Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty
& Graduate Students
My family
