Blueberry Irrigation MO 10-7-11 Bryla

Irrigation Guidelines for
Better Blueberry Production

David Bryla
USDA-ARS Horticultural Crops Research Unit
Corvallis, Oregon
Blueberry is sensitive to soil water deficits
Even within a few days without rain or irrigation, water
stress develops quickly in blueberry
Under-irrigated plants
• reduced photosynthesis
• less growth
• lower yields
Water deficits
When is Irrigation Needed?
Marion County, OR Barton County, MO

3.0
2.5
2.0
Rainfall (in.)
1.5
Blueberry harvest
Effective
1.0 rainfall
threshold
0.5 23 d
18 d 11 d 10 d 12 d
9d 25 d 19 d 69 d 10 d 9d
0.0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
2011 2011
Rapid onset of water stress in blueberry
Leaf water potential declined as predicted As leaf water potential began to decline after
when soil water was depleted over time 3 to 4 days, transpiration also declined
Elliott Elliott
Predawn
0.0 70
Irrigated
60
Leaf water potential (MPa)
-0.5
Transpiration (ml/h)
50
-1.0
Midday
40
-1.5 Non-irrigated
30
-2.0
Onset of leaf wilting
20
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Days without water Days without water

Stress symptoms include:
Plant process Water stress level

Mild Severe
Reduced shoot growth
Increased root growth
Reduced water use
Reduced photosynthesis
Leaf wilting
Leaf death/senescence
Drought Stage Effects on Yield
Bluecrop
3500
a
3000 100%
b b
2500 79% b
78%
Yield (g/plant)
74%
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Control Fruit growth Ripening Harvest
Moderate water deficits
Mingeau et al. (2001)

Drought Stage Effects on Flower Induction
Bluecrop
1400
a a
1200 100% 102% a
96%
Flower buds per plant
1000 a
91%
800
b
600 53%
400
200
0
Control Fruit growth Ripening Harvest Post-harvest
Moderate water stress
Mingeau et al. (2001)

Blueberry is also very sensitive to flooding
Plants take 2 weeks to fully recover
Over-irrigated plants
• reduced root function
• increased soil erosion
& nutrient leaching
• higher incidence of root
rot diseases
Flooding
„Perfect‟ Irrigation
Transpiration
Irrigation
Rainfall
Evaporation
Depends on: Runoff

• weather conditions
• soil texture
Deep
• plant size & stage of
development percolation
• cultural practices
Study 1
Irrigation Methods
Blueberry Irrigation in Oregon
Sprinklers Drip
Most commercial blueberry fields are

irrigated by sprinklers or drip
Irrigation is applied once or twice a week by sprinklers
and every 1-3 days by drip
Overhead sprinkler Drip
Advantages: Advantages:
• Frost protection • Water control &
• Maintain a cover crop distribution uniformity
• Cool the crop in hot • Fertigation & other
weather chemical application
• Wash dust off before • Improved cultural
harvest practices
drip • Less health concerns
lines
Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
• Low WUE • Filtration required
• Limits field access • Higher maintenance
• Promotes weed • More expensive
growth
• Increases disease wetting wetting
problems front front
A few growers are also testing microsprays
on blueberry, which potentially offers
advantages of both sprinklers and drip
Given the same amount of water, microspray irrigation
produced higher yields than drip in Chile
12
'Bluetta'
10
Microspray
8
Yield (t/ha)
6 Drip
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
Years after planting
Holzapfel et al. (2004)

2004 Irrigation Study
Three irrigation systems…
…two cultivars…
…and three irrigation rates
Sprinklers
Drip
Irrigation rates:
Cultivars: • 50% ET (deficient)
c
• „Duke‟ • 100% ETc (optimum)
• „Elliott‟ • 150% ETc (excessive)
Microsprays
ETc = crop evapotranspiration
Objective: Identify the best irrigation method for
growth, production, and water use efficiency in blueberry
Irrigation manifold
Planted April 2004

Irrigation systems
Sprinklers Microsprays Drip
One line per

20 x 20 ft. spacing, A 6 gph emitter
row with 0.5
1.5 gpm sprinkler located between
gph emitters
heads every other plant
every 12 in.
wetting wetting wetting

front front front
• irrigated 2x‟s/week • irrigated 3-4x‟s/week • irrigated 3-4x‟s/week

• efficiency - 35% • efficiency - 68% • efficiency - 90%
Drip produced the
most growth in both
cultivars in Year 1
In year 2, drip continued to produce the largest
plants in Elliott – but no longer in Duke
50% ETc A
600 100% ETc a
150% ETc AB
B
500 ab
bc bc a-c
Plant dry weight (g/plant)
bc
bc cd
400 C C b-d
de
de
de e
300
ef ef
D
200
fg
g g
100
0
Sprink. Microspr. Drip Sprink. Microspr. Drip
Duke Elliott
Duke was smaller with drip
and growth was quite variable
Drip irrigated at 100% ETc

Duke was infected by Phytophthora; Elliott was not
30
50% ETc
100% ETc
Root samples
25 150% ETc
a were plated &
assessed for
Infected root fragments (%)
20 ab
Phytophthora
ab
15 b-d a-c
b-d
10
c-e
5
de
de
e e e e e e e e e
0
Sprinkler Microspray Drip Sprinkler Microspray Drip
Duke Elliott
Root rot reduced growth in Duke –
especially with drip
Note the level of

shading in each
treatment
Microsprays
Drip
Sprinklers
Based on plant-free soil

samples, it appears the
problem originated with
the planting stock Drip treatment
Elliott – Year 2
Sprinkler
Microspray
Drip
0.60
0.55
100% 150%
Total dry wt. (kg/plant)
0.50
0.45 150%
100%
50%
100%
0.40
150%
0.35 50%
50%
0.30
0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Irrigation (in.)
Elliott was first cropped in Year 3
while Duke was cropped the following year
Marketable Fruit Production (2006-2010)
Duke Elliott
5.5 12
Microspray
Microspray
5.0
10
4.5 Sprinkler Sprinkler
8
Yield (ton/acre)
4.0 Drip
3.5 6
3.0 Drip
4
Microsprays produced
2.5 highest yields in Elliott
Drip caused (so far)
2
2.0 severe problems with
root rot in Duke
1.5 0
3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7
Years after planting Years after planting

Summary (healthy plants)
Overhead sprinkler Microspray Drip
Early growth* • Highest @ 150% ETc • Highest @ 100% ETc
• Highest @ 100-150% • Highest @ 100-150%

Fruit production ETc (years 4-7) ETc (years 3-4)
• Increased fruit firmness • Wide range of effects • Consistently increased

Fruit quality • Increased mold in depending on the fruit size & berry
Duke amount of water applied ripeness
• Required only 17-22%

Water use of the water needed with
sprinklers & microsprays
*Sprinklers & microsprays can reduce problems with root rot.

Study 2
Nitrogen Fertigation
Blueberry Fertigation
Goal: “4R” Nutrient Stewardship
“Right”
source
“Right”
time
“Right”
place “Right” rate
Many new blueberry plantings are irrigated by drip

(“Acid-loving” plant; prefers NH4+-N)
Objectives:
• Compare fertigation to conventional granular

fertilizer application
• Identify the best fertigation rates for maximum

growth and production
Study was planted in March 2006
Control
Weekly fertigation Granular (drip)
(liquid urea) (ammonium sulfate)
0 lbs/acre N 0 lbs/acre N
Control Standard (soil pH 5.9)

Split fertigation Granular (microspray)
(liquid urea) (ammonium sulfate)
Visible Near-infrared
15 45
2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2)
14
40
13
12 35
Canopy cover (%)
Canopy cover (%)

11
30
10
9 25
8
20
7
6 15
Weekly fertigation (drip) Weekly fertigation (drip)
5 Split fertigation (drip) Split fertigation (drip)
Granular fertilizer (drip) 10 Granular fertilizer (drip)
4
Granular fertilizer (microspray) Granular fertilizer (microspray)
3 5
0 45 90 135 0 45 90 135
N application (lbs/acre) N application (lbs/acre)

2.4 2006 (Year 1) 2.4 2007 (Year 2)
Weekly fertigation
2.1 2.1
Split fertigation
Granular (drip)
Granular (microspray)
Leaf N (%)
Leaf N (%)
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.2 Weekly fertigation 1.2

Split fertigation
Granular (drip)
0.9 0.9
0 45 90 135 0 45 90 135
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50

deficient below normal above excess
normal normal
Granular fertilizer (drip or microspray) – 90-135 lbs/acre N
Discolored leaves Necrotic & senesced leaves
Dead canes Dead plants

Weekly fertigation – 135 lbs/acre N
2006 (Year 1)
70
0 lbs/acre
60 45 lbs/acre
90 lbs/acre
135 lbs/acre
50
Dead plants (%)
40
30
20
10
0
Weekly Split Granular Granular
fertigation fertigation (drip) (microspray)
Fertilizer application
Soil solution samplers
Soil solution sampler

0 lbs/acre N
45 lbs/acre N
90 lbs/acre N
135 lbs/acre N
3 Weekly fertigation 210 Granular (drip)

180 Fertilizer applications
150
NH4+-N (ppm)
NH4+-N (ppm)
2
120
90
1
60
30
0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
2007 2007
15 Split fertigation 1000 Granular (microspray)

Fertilizer applications Fertilizer applications
12 800
NH4+-N (ppm)
NH4+-N (ppm)
9 600
6 400
3 200
0 0
2007 2007
0 lbs/acre N
45 lbs/acre N
90 lbs/acre N
135 lbs/acre N
Electrical conductivity (mS cm-1)

Fertilizer applications
4
2
3
2
1
1
0 0
2007 2007

Fertilizer applications 10 Fertilizer applications
2 8
1 4
0 0
2007 2007
0 lbs/acre N
45 lbs/acre N
90 lbs/acre N
135 lbs/acre N

150 150
NO3--N (ppm)
NO3--N (ppm)
100 100
50 50
0 0
2007 2007

Fertilizer applications Fertilizer applications
400
150
NO3--N (ppm)
NO3--N (ppm)
300
100
200
50
100
0 0
2007 2007
Visible Near-infrared
15 45
2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2)
14
40
13
12 35
Canopy cover (%)
Canopy cover (%)

11
30
10
9 25
8
20
7
6 15
Weekly fertigation (drip) Weekly fertigation (drip)
5 Split fertigation (drip) Split fertigation (drip)
Granular fertilizer (drip) 10 Granular fertilizer (drip)
4
Granular fertilizer (microspray) Granular fertilizer (microspray)
3 5
0 45 90 135 0 45 90 135

2.4 2006 (Year 1) 2.4 2007 (Year 2)
Weekly fertigation
2.1 2.1
Split fertigation
Granular (drip)
Leaf N (%)
Leaf N (%)
1.8 1.8
1.5 1.5
1.2 Weekly fertigation 1.2

Split fertigation
Granular (drip)
0.9 0.9
0 45 90 135 0 45 90 135
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50

deficient below normal above excess
normal normal
Most Important Findings in Years 1 & 2:
1. Weekly fertigation was better than granular fertilizer

or split fertigation…
…but required much more N fertilizer than granular.
2. Granular fertilizer applied at high rates damaged or

even killed the plants…
…and at lower rates was ineffective with drip.
3. Ammonium sulfate was no better than urea at

reducing soil pH (5.2 by end of year 1) – “Right form”.
Changed two of the treatments in 2008 (Year 3)
Continuous fertigation
(N-pHURIC)
120 lbs N/acre
Weekly fertigation Granular

Granular
(microspray)
(drip)
(liquid urea) (ammonium
(urea)sulfate)
60 45 lbs/acre N 60
45 lbs/acre N
120 90 lbs/acre N 120
90 lbs/acre
lbs/acre N
N
180 135 lbs/acre N 180
135 lbs/acre N
Weekly
Split fertigation
fertigation Granular (microspray)
(ammonium
(liquid urea)sulfate) (ammonium sulfate)
60
45 lbs/acre N 60 45 lbs/acre N
120
90 lbs/acre
lbs/acre NN 120 90 lbs/acre N
135
180 lbs/acre N 180 135 lbs/acre N
0 lbs/acre N
60 lbs/acre N
120 lbs/acre N
180 lbs/acre N
10 Weekly fertigation (urea) 210 Granular (urea)

9
8
7 150
NH4+-N (ppm)
NH4+-N (ppm)
6 120
5
4 90
3 60
2
30
1
0 0
2008 2008
Granular (ammonium sulfate)

24 Weekly fertigation (ammonium sulfate) 3000
21
2500
18
NH4+-N (ppm)
NH4+-N (ppm)
2000
15
12 1500
N-pHURIC
9
1000
6
500
3
0 0
2008 2008
0 lbs/acre N
60 lbs/acre N
120 lbs/acre N
180 lbs/acre N

5
2
4
3
1
2
0 0
2008 2008


3 Weekly fertigation (ammonium sulfate) 25
20
2
15
N-pHURIC 10
1
5
0 0
2008 2008
0 lbs/acre N
60 lbs/acre N
120 lbs/acre N
180 lbs/acre N

600 600
NO3--N (ppm)
NO3--N (ppm)
400 400
200 200
0 0
2008 2008
800 Weekly fertigation (ammonium sulfate) 800 Granular (ammonium sulfate)
600 600 Fertilizer applications

NO3--N (ppm)
NO3--N (ppm)
400 400
200 N-pHURIC 200
0 0
2008 2008
Plants were first cropped in 2008 (Year 3)
Fertigation (ammonium sulfate) - [previously split fertigation]
Fertigation (urea)
Granular (urea) - [previously granular (drip)]
1.2 2.2 4.5

2008 (Year 3) 2009 (Year 4) 2010 (Year 5)
a a
1.0 2.0 a 4.0 a
a a a a a a
a a a a a
0.8 1.8
Yield (kg/plant)
Yield (kg/plant)
Yield (kg/plant)
a a ab a
a a 3.5
a a
a a
0.6 b 1.6 a ab
b a ab
b
a b b 3.0
a b a
0.4 1.4 b a b bc
b NS
F ** F a F **
N ** b N ** 2.5 N **
0.2 F xN ** 1.2 F xN ** a F xN * c
a
0.0 1.0 2.0
0 60 120 180 0 67 133 200 0 75 150 225
N application (lb/acre) N application (lb/acre) N application (lb/acre)
1 kg = 2.2 lbs
Most Important Findings in Years 3-6:
1. Weekly fertigation produced higher yields than

granular ammonium sulfate…
…but less N fertilizer was needed than the first 2

years.
2. Soil EC was again very high when N fertilizer was

applied as granular ammonium sulfate…
…but less when applied as granular urea.

Study 3
Water & Fertilizer Placement
Correct Location
Many growers use two lines of drip

Why?
Greenhouse evidence for no lateral transfer of water
• Shoot dry weight – 148.2 g • Shoot dry weight – 23.0 g

• Leaf dry weight – 12.8 g • Leaf dry weight – 4.5 g
• Number of new shoots – 16 • Number of new shoots – 6
• Avg. shoot length – 9 mm • Avg. shoot length – 3 mm
• Large, well-developed root • Small, poorly-developed
system root system
Irrigated Non-irrigated
Abbott & Gough (1986)

Greenhouse evidence for no lateral transfer of nutrients
• Shoot dry weight – 50.0 g • Shoot dry weight – 11.5 g

• Leaf dry weight – 3.7 g • Leaf dry weight – 1.3 g
• Number of new shoots – 6 • Number of new shoots – 2
• Large, well-developed root • Small, poorly-developed
system root system
Fertilized Non-fertilized
Gough (1984)
Field site
6-year-old „Elliott‟
blueberry plants
Irrigation treatments
Irrigate west Control Irrigate east

side only side only
Drip Drip Drip Drip

laterals lateral lateral laterals
Wetting
front
Wetting Wetting
front front
Each treatment received
the same amount of water
Fertilizer treatments
Fertilize west Control Fertilizer east

side only side only
N fertilizer N fertilizer N fertilizer N fertilizer
NH4+ NH4+ NH4+ NH4+

NH4+ NH +
NH4+ NH4+ NH4+ 4
NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+
Each treatment received the

same amount of fertilizer
An unfertilized treatment
was also included
All measurements were
taken on the east and west
sides of the plants
separately
Soil water content
0-0.3 m depth
Irrigation on both sides

Irrigation on west side only
Irrigation on east side only
West side of the row East side of the row

40 40
35 35
Soil water content (%)
Soil water content (%)

30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
Jun 1 Jun 15 Jun 29 Jul 13 Jul 27 Aug 10 Aug 24 Sep 7 Jun 1 Jun 15 Jun 29 Jul 13 Jul 27 Aug 10 Aug 24 Sep 7
2009 2009
Measured by TDR
Plant water status
Ho: Lower water potential on un-irrigated side of the plant
Stem water potential (MPa)z
West side East side Avg. of both

Irrigation of plant of plant sides of plant
Both sides -0.64 ay -0.64 a -0.64 a

West side only -0.79 b -0.79 c -0.79 b
East side only -0.66 a -0.71 b -0.69 a
Significance * ** **
zAverage of measurements collected weekly from 15 June to 31 Aug. 2009.
yMeans were separated within columns using Fisher‟s protected LSD at the 0.05 level.
*, ** = P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.
Measured at midday on bagged leaves using a pressure bomb

New shoot production
Irrigate west Irrigate both

side only sides
New shoot production
Ho: Fewer new shoots on un-irrigated side of plant
New shoots (no./plant)z
West side East side Total of both

Both sides 4.7 ay 6.0 a 10.7 a

West side only 2.3 b 1.9 b 4.3 c
East side only 3.7 ab 3.4 ab 7.0 b
Significance * * **
zShoots were counted 6 Aug. 2009.
*, ** = P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

Fruit production
Ho: Less yield on un-irrigated side of the plant
Three-year total (2009-11)

Marketable yield (kg/plant)
West side East side Total of both

Both sides 6.2 5.8 az 11.9 a

West side only 5.1 4.7 b 9.8 b
East side only 5.1 5.1 ab 10.1 b
Significance NS * *
NS, * = non-significant and P < 0.05, respectively.
Yield differences among treatments were a function

of both fruit size and fruit number per plant
Plant N status
Ho: Lower leaf N% on unfertilized side of the plant
Leaf N concentration (%)
West side East side Avg. of both

N fertilizer of plant of plant sides of plant
Both sides 1.69 1.81 az 1.75 a

West side only 1.65 1.63 b 1.64 bc
East side only 1.68 1.69 ab 1.68 ab
None 1.61 1.55 b 1.58 c
Significance NS * *
NS, * = non-significant and P < 0.05, respectively.
Only 0 N (none) had any effect on yield

and only after 3 years
What‟s happening belowground?
(root imaging)
Handle
Computer
Camera &
light source Power source
Minirhizotron
tube (clear)
Figure 1. Minirhizotron camera system for monitoring root development in soil.

Early Root Imaging Results
1. Unfertilized plants produced 2 to 2½ times more

roots than fertilized plants.
2. Unfertilized plants tended to produce deeper roots

than fertilized plants irrigated by either microsprays
or drip … or unfertilized plants irrigated by
microsprays.
3. Three times as many roots were produced on the

east side of the plants than on the west side,
regardless of treatment.
Conclusion: Location is important in blueberry, as expected
…but the reason for it was unexpected
West side only Control East side only
Drip Drip Drip Drip

laterals lateral lateral laterals
1. Water applied to only one side reduced shoot & fruit production;
N fertilizer applied to only one side reduced leaf N%
2. No evidence for lateral isolation of water & nutrients
3. Plant water & nutrient status were higher when irrigation &
fertilizer were applied to the east side than to the west side
Study 4
Cultivar Comparisons
Influence of Application Method
(planted Oct. 2008)
Six cultivars
Earliblue Draper Elliott
Duke Bluecrop Aurora
Three irrigation/fertigation methods

Drip (2 lines) Microspray KISSS
Drip treatment
Level raised
planting beds
Drip laterals are located

8” from each side of the
plants and covered with
sawdust
Microspray treatment
Rectangular
spray pattern
(5‟ x 10‟)
KISSS (Kapillary Irrigation Sub Surface System)
“Line source” instead of “point

source” of water & fertilizer
Irrigation systems
Drip Microsprays KISSS

(two lines) (one line)
Drip Drip
lateral lateral KISSS
lateral
Wetting
Wetting front
front Wetting
front
Bluecrop
Drip Microspray
KISSS
Elliott
Drip Microspray
KISSS
Why is KISSS better?
Drip Microsprays KISSS

(two lines) (one line)
Drip Drip
lateral lateral KISSS
lateral
NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+ NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+
NH4+ NH4+
Wetting
Wetting front
front Wetting
front
Fruit Production
(Year 3) 1 kg = 2.2 lbs
Yield (kg/plant)
Irrigation
method Earliblue Duke Draper* Bluecrop Elliott Aurora
Drip 0.8 a 1.2 b 1.4 a 1.8 a 2.3 a 1.7 a

Drip (low N) 0.9 a 1.3 ab 1.2 a 1.7 a 2.0 b 1.4 bc
Microspray 0.6 b 1.2 b 1.2 a 1.3 b 1.7 c 1.2 c
KISSS 0.7 ab 1.5 a 1.4 a 1.9 a 2.4 a 1.6 ab
*Healthy plants only; Draper developed problems with root rot.
1. Yield was similar between Drip and KISSS in each cultivar but
lower with Microsprays
2. With drip, low N had no effect on yield in the early- and mid-
season cultivars but reduced yield in the late-season cultivars
Study 5
Rapid Field Establishment
More on Fertilizer Source, Timing & Placement
(planted Oct. 2010)
Optimize timing & placement

of fertilizer for rapid field
establishment
• Conventional & alternative

fertilizers, e.g., slow-release,
humic acids
• Pre-plant fertilizers
• Fertilizer timing
Current Drip Recommendations
During Establishment
1. Use two lines of drip per row.
2. Locate lines far enough away from the plants to

avoid root rot & far enough apart to avoid too much
overlap of the irrigated drip zone.
3. Use fertigation but …
4. Either move the drip lines closer to the plants the first
few months after planting…or…make a couple small
applications of granular fertilizer…or…use slow-
release fertilizer to establish the plants.
Acknowledgements
Graduate students:
• Oscar Vargas
• Luciane Letzke
Cooperators
• Bernadine Strik (OSU) • Wei Yang (OSU)
• Rui Machado (U. Evora) • David Ehret (Ag Canada)
• Bob Linderman (retired)
Technical Support
• Amber Shireman
• Will Fummerton
• OSU undergrads
Funding
• Oregon Blueberry Commission
• Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research
• Fall Creek Farm & Nursery
Irrigation System Maintenance
Uniformity of Water Application
Common assumption:
Irrigation water is applied uniformly across the field
Uniform distribution of water

Reality:
All irrigation systems apply water non-uniformly
Drought stress
Deep
Deep
percolation
percolation
Non-uniform distribution
Goal:
Avoid drought stress & yield loss
All plants are well irrigated
NH4+ K+ Deep
Deep H2PO4 -
percolation
percolation
NO3- NO3- NO3- NO3-
Non-uniform distribution
NO3- NO3-
Distribution Uniformity
Average depth of application

in the lowest quarter of the field
DULQ = X 100
Average depth of application
in the entire field
where DULQ is the “Low Quarter Distribution Uniformity”

Target Distribution Uniformity
Quality Distribution uniformity

of irrigation
system Drip Sprinklers
Excellent, but… >90% >80%

Good* 85% 70%
Fair 70-80% 50-65%
Poor <70% <50%
*Target range.
Washington Berry Fields
100
90
Good
80
Distribution uniformity (%)
Fair
70
60
Poor
50
40
30
Blueberry
Failed
20 Raspberry
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Evaluation rank
*From Walters et al.
Non-Uniformity with Drip
System component Factors causing non-uniformity
1. Differences in discharge - Manufacturer variation

between emitters - Soil differences (if emitters are
buried)
- Temperature differences along the
lateral
- Zone & hose pressure differences
- Different emitter types in the same
field
- Plugged emitters
2. Volumes applied not - Variations in plant spacing are not

proportional to plant area matched by emitter spacing or
(assuming same plant age) scheduling
- Unequal discharge during start-up
and drainage
Regular irrigation system evaluations
provides helpful information for
improving distribution uniformity

Blueberry Irrigation MO 10-7-11 Bryla

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Blueberry Irrigation MO 10-7-11 Bryla

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Irrigation Guidelines for

Better Blueberry Production

Marion County, OR Barton County, MO

Days without water Days without water

Plant process Water stress level

Reduced shoot growth

Increased root growth

Reduced water use

Moderate water deficits

Mingeau et al. (2001)

Moderate water stress

Mingeau et al. (2001)

Depends on: Runoff

Most commercial blueberry fields are

Holzapfel et al. (2004)

Planted April 2004

One line per

wetting wetting wetting

• irrigated 2x‟s/week • irrigated 3-4x‟s/week • irrigated 3-4x‟s/week

Drip irrigated at 100% ETc

Note the level of

Based on plant-free soil

4.5 Sprinkler Sprinkler

Years after planting Years after planting

Early growth* • Highest @ 150% ETc • Highest @ 100% ETc

• Highest @ 100-150% • Highest @ 100-150%

• Increased fruit firmness • Wide range of effects • Consistently increased

• Required only 17-22%

*Sprinklers & microsprays can reduce problems with root rot.

Many new blueberry plantings are irrigated by drip

• Compare fertigation to conventional granular

• Identify the best fertigation rates for maximum

Control Standard (soil pH 5.9)

Canopy cover (%)

N application (lbs/acre) N application (lbs/acre)

1.2 Weekly fertigation 1.2

N application (lbs/acre) N application (lbs/acre)

1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50

Discolored leaves Necrotic & senesced leaves

Dead canes Dead plants

Soil solution sampler

3 Weekly fertigation 210 Granular (drip)

15 Split fertigation 1000 Granular (microspray)

Electrical conductivity (mS cm-1)

Electrical conductivity (mS cm-1)

200 Weekly fertigation 200 Granular (drip)

200 Split fertigation 500 Granular (microspray)

Canopy cover (%)

N application (lbs/acre) N application (lbs/acre)

1.2 Weekly fertigation 1.2

N application (lbs/acre) N application (lbs/acre)

1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50

1. Weekly fertigation was better than granular fertilizer

…but required much more N fertilizer than granular.

2. Granular fertilizer applied at high rates damaged or

…and at lower rates was ineffective with drip.

3. Ammonium sulfate was no better than urea at

Weekly fertigation Granular

10 Weekly fertigation (urea) 210 Granular (urea)

Granular (ammonium sulfate)

Electrical conductivity (mS cm-1)

Granular (ammonium sulfate)

Electrical conductivity (mS cm-1)