Title: Modified stability analysis for N-fertilization response of radishes
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094273/00001
 Material Information
Title: Modified stability analysis for N-fertilization response of radishes
Physical Description: 9 leaves : ; 22 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Boonstra, Tara
Muschler, Reinhold G
Singh, C. B.
Publisher: Farming Systems Research and Extension
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1992
Copyright Date: 1992
 Subjects
Subject: Radishes -- Fertilization   ( lcsh )
Soils -- Testing   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographic references (leaf 9).
General Note: "...for Farming Systems Research and Extension (Dr. Peter Hildebrand), Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida."
General Note: "April 1992."
General Note: Typescript.
Statement of Responsibility: Tara Boonstra, Reinhold G. Muschler, C.B. Singh.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00094273
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 122928749

Full Text






MODIFIED STABILITY ANALYSIS
FOR N-FERTILIZATION RESPONSE OF RADISHES





TEAM REPORT




Tara Boonstra
Reinhold G. Muschler
C.B. Singh


for


FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (Dr. Peter Hildebrand)
Department of Food and Resource Economics
University of Florida


April 1992


Cf







1. INTRODUCTION


On-farm trials (OFT) have been widely accepted as a method for developing, evaluating

and disseminating innovative technologies to improve the productivity of farming systems. They

provide a means of better understanding the farmer and farm environment, and of integrating

farmers, extension, and research. Thus, research activities in the form of OFT strongly focus on

farmers' needs (Hildebrand and Poey, 1985).

One of the most powerful tools to analyze OFT is modified stability analysis (MSA), where

the performances of the different treatments are graphed against an "environmental index" (El),

which is the average of all treatments in any one environment. Thus, the environment becomes

a continuous quantifiable variable that accounts for both biophysical and socioeconomic

characteristics. Graphing the yields of the different treatments against El reveals

environment*treatment interactions which can be used to separate the research domain into

recommendation domains within which there is no or minimal interaction (Stroup et al., 1991).

To simulate OFTs, experiments were set up at two different locations to evaluate the

response of radishes to nitrogen under on-farm conditions.

2. HYPOTHESES AND OBJECTIVES

Testing hypotheses is an important aspect of statistical analysis which should be used

in the evaluation of OFTs (Amir and Knipscheer, 1989). Hypotheses provide the necessary link

between the problem, the data collection, and the analytical stages of the research (Andrew and

Hildebrand, 1982). For the radish trials, the following null hypotheses were developed:

(1) There are no differences in radish response to different levels of nitrogen application.

(2) Radish response to various levels of nitrogen does not vary in different environments.

These hypotheses were translated into the following objectives which guided the actual field

work:

(1) determine radish response to different levels of nitrogen application in different
environments, and







(2) develop response surfaces in order to develop recommendations.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Site Description

Two sites, representing different villages, were included in the study. Both sites were located on

the agronomy farm adjacent to Fifield Hall. The biophysical characteristics of the sites were

evaluated during a visit prior to land preparation.

The first site (Fifield), was located on slightly inclined ground (from west to east) at the

southeastern corner of the agricultural experiment area north of Fifield Hall. The area was

bordered by a dirt road to the east, by a fence to the south, and by an unharvested crop of

pigeon pea to the north. The area where the plots were to be laid out was covered by a sparse

cover of weeds (<20% ground cover), mainly Brassica species and some Laminaceae. At the

western end of the area, where team 7 (F7') set up its plots, the weed cover was particularly

sparse, possibly indicating lower fertility levels. The soil texture was fine sand with very low

amounts of coarser or finer material; the soil was not aggregated. Analyses of two composite

samples, one from a plowed up dirt road and another from the adjacent area, showed very high

levels of phosphorus, low levels of potassium and high levels of magnesium at pH-values slightly

above the recommended 6.5. The IFAS extension soil testing laboratory recommended

application of 90 Ibs N/ac and 120 Ibs K/ac (App. 1).

At the second site (Pecan), some 500 m to the west of Fifield, the soil texture was again

fine sand, but with slightly higher amounts of silt and clay. This area had a stronger slope from

the north to south. The soil at the top of the slope contained small rocks, which were absent in

the lower half of the slope, where team 7 had its plots. The area was part of a field of winter rye

which appeared to grow best in some strips, possibly due to micro-topographical or soil



Sthe farms are referred to according to village (F=Fifield, P=Pecan) and team number (1-7).







differences. One area of strong development of winter rye was about 5m south of the P7 plots,

approximately where P1 was located. The composite soil sample indicated similar conditions to

Fifield with respect to P, K and Mg, while the pH was found to be 0.5 units below target pH for

radish. This resulted in the same fertilization recommendations plus an addition of 1 ton of lime

per acre (App. 1).

3.2 Experimental Design and Management

On-farm trials based on a randomized complete block design were established at Fifield

and Pecan. Each of the seven teams, composed 6f three persons from different disciplines,

established five treatment plots within one block at each location. The plots were 4 x 5 ft, and

the radishes were planted in 1 ft rows on Feb. 29, 1992. The treatments of nitrogen fertilization

(ammonium nitrate 33-0-0) were: 0; 100; 200; 300 and 400 Ibs/ac. Five weeks after planting, the
A
radishes were harvested from the central two rows and 4 ft length, giving a net area of 8 ft2 (2x4

ft), except where large patches without radishes (that were not caused by management) justified

a reduction of the harvested area. For each treatment, radishes larger than a dime and a nickel

were counted and weighed. The management of the plots of team 7 at both sites consisted of:

leveling of the plots, initial removal of weeds, fertilizer application in double bands about two

inches from the seed rows, and thinning and weeding at two and four weeks after sowing. F7

was watered twice, while P7 was rainfed.

3.3 Statistical Analysis

The yields of the seven teams were converted to tons per acre. Then, following

Hildebrand and Poey (1985), an environmental index (El) was calculated for each location, and

the locations were sorted and graphed according to El. For each treatment, linear and quadratic

equations of yields at the different locations versus El were obtained, and the ones with best fit

(highest R2 and reasonable shape against the scatter plots) were chosen to represent the crop

response. Interaction of the two highest-yielding treatments was used to split the research

3







domain into recommendation domains. Subsequently, for the average yields of these treatments

within each recommendation domain, a frequency distribution of confidence intervals was

calculated, which was also used to create risk estimation plots.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Data

Since many teams were not able to harvest nickel-size radishes, it was decided to

concentrate on the dime-size data which were more complete. From the full data set of 14

locations, the following locations were excluded: Fifield 1 (F1) and Fifield 2 (F2), because it

appears that parts of the experimental blocks were influenced by higher soil fertility due to

previous leguminous crops (perennial peanut) and less compaction from previous access roads.

Thus, the blocks were not homogeneous and were therefore eliminated from the analysis. All

other locations (blocks) appeared sufficiently homogeneous. However, the block of team 1 at

the Pecan site (P1) was also excluded, because it represented extremely intensive management

with watering of the radishes every three days, resulting in extremely high yields that exceeded

the next lower yield by a factor of five. Including these yields in the modified stability analysis

would have resulted in an extremely uneven distribution of data points along the El with a large

gap between El =0.7 and El =3.5 (and far in excess of average El). It is unfortunate that the

outlier (P1) had to be excluded, since this strongly reduced the representation of possible yields;

in "normal" years, yields of up to 4 t/ac are possible. Beyond these limitations, the yields

obtained this year do not appear to reflect what one would expect in a normal year, thus further

restricting the value of the data. These limitations must be kept in mind for the data analysis.

4.2 Modified Stability Analysis

S The linear and quadratic regressions turned out very similar for all treatments (cf. Table

1 and App. 2), with the largest differences for the 100 and 200 Ibs treatments. Since the plant

response to fertilization is generally not linear, we chose to use the quadratic regression

4







functions.

Table 1. Parameters of the regression equations for the responses of fertilization treatments to
environmental index (El) (the locations F1, F2, and P1 were excluded from the regression
analysis).

TREATMENTS REGRESSION PARAMETERS
Constant X1 X2 R2
0 lbs: linear -0.008 0.2131 -- 0.5287
quadratic 0.0033 0.0641 0.2412 0.5467
100 Ibs: linear -0.006 1.5035 ---- 0.6743
quadratic -0.08 2.4666 -1.559 0.6936
200 Ibs: linear -0.049 1.7529 -- 0.8932
quadratic 0.0448 0.5362 1.9689 0.9231
300 Ibs: linear 0.0434 0.7617 0.7051
quadratic 0.0172 1.1026 -0.552 0.7169
400 Ibs: linear 0.0198 0.7688 0.7821
quadratic 0.015 0.8304 -0.1 0.7825


Using yield per acre as criterion ("researcher's criterion"), plotting the estimated yield

responses for the five treatments, against the El allowed the partitioning of the research domain

into two recommendation domains. In our case, the border between the two recommendation

domains lay at approximately El =0.45 (Fg. 1 top). For Els lower than 0.45, the best yields were

achieved when 100 Ibs of fertilizer were applied. It is interesting to note that this result coincides

with the N-fertilizer recommendation derived from the soil tests (cf. App. 1). For better

environments, the 200 Ibs treatment resulted in higher yields within the range of Els under

consideration. The higher fertilizer doses appeared to provide only weak yield responses,

possibly due to fertilizer bum of the young plantlets and the fact that other factors obviously

limited the radish response. In particular, water availability seems to have played an important

role, as demonstrated by the extremely high yields of the intensively irrigated farm P1. The 15-

day dryspell during the last two weeks before harvest (cf. App. 3) may have limited radish

development. However, all fertilizer treatments increased radish yields, reflecting the N-poverty

5







of the sandy soils.

When accounting for cash expenses for the purchase of fertilizer, the border between the

two recommendation domains was shifted towards El =0.6 (towards better environments) (Fig.1

bottom). We calculated the yield/$-cash cost, as it would be measured by resource-poor

farmers, by assuming all inputs into the 0 fertilizer treatment (labor and seed) to be 100% of

costs, i.e., a cost index (Cl) of 1.0. Fertilization with 100 Ibs of ammonium nitrate was assumed

to increase the total expenses by 50% above the 0 fertilizer treatment, yielding a Cl of 1.5, 2.0,

2.5 and 3.0 for the 100, 200, 300 and 400 Ibs treatments, respectively. Dividing the total per acre

yield of radishes by these indices then gave yield/$-cash cost. Although this approach does not

account for additional labor expenses for the fertilizer applications, it illustrates the importance

of using this criterion for resource-poor farmers, whose strongest constraint may be lack of cash.

For example, while a farmer in an El =0.5 environment would be recommended to apply 200 Ibs

of fertilizer according to the researcher's criterion, he would still be recommended to apply only

100 Ibs when the costs are considered. Thus, depending on the goals of an experiment, caution

must be exerted for the choice of the criterion to allow meaningful recommendations for the

intended user.

The confidence intervals for the averages of the two best treatments, again using the

yield/acre criterion, show for both recommendation domains that the means for the 200 Ibs

treatment were estimated with greater accuracy (Fig. 2), probably due to the fact that only the

200 Ibs treatment consistently produced dime-sized radishes on all locations. Graphing the

yield/acre data against the probability of harvesting less shows the superiority of the 200 Ibs

treatment in the better environments (Fig. 3 bottom), which is not so clear for the poorer

environments (Fig. 3 top). Using the yield/$-cash cost criterion would probably change the

graphs to favor the 100 Ibs treatment.











RESEARCHE''.S C(ITEI IUN 0 Ibs

S...................... 100 Ibs
1-------------


N 200 Ibs
0 .................... ........................ ..................................... ...... .... .....
0 ................ . .......... -..................................... .-** .4
.... Y ---- --300 Ibs
0 .4 .... ..... ... ... ... ..... ..... ..... ........ ........ ... ... .................. .. .................. ... ........... ...... ......... .
0.4- -
400 lbs
0 .2 .......-..... .
Els


-0.2 .AI A A -
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
1.2
FARMER'S CRITERION
>x 100 Ibs (Cl= 1.5)

0 0.8- -- --------- ----- -----...... 200 bs (CI=2.0)
In 300 Ibs (CI=25)
i ''o 400 Ibs (CI=3.0)

04... --.........------.......- Els

0.2 ........

0-

A0&2 ,A A,,AA A, A A A A
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Environmental Index for radishes > dime




Figure 1. Yield responses of five N-fertilization treatments to environmental index for radishes
larger than dime-size. Given are two criteria: researcher's criterion yield per acre (top), and
farmer's criterion yield per cost expressed as cost index (bottom).












7 Els < 0.45


1.2

x1-

0.8-

S0.6-

0.4-

0.2-


65 70 75 80 85
PERCENT WITHIN INTERVAL


MIN 100 Ibs

SMAX 10 Ibs

MIN 200 Ibs

MAX 200 Ibs


MIN 100 Ibs

MAX 100 Ibs

MIN 200 Ibs

MAX 200 Ibs


Figure 2. Confidence intervals for the average radish yields of the two best fertilizer treatments
(ammonium nitrate) in the poorer environments (top) and the better environments (bottom).


?11A1J $


S


-.

--------

. ........................ ..... .......... ............................................................................................ .I...... .. ...... .. .


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


..... . ..... .... .... ......... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ... .... .... ... ....


4 1t 6A% v -


~-~p*-~


r











RISK ESTIMATION, RADISH MIN 100
POORER ENVIRONMENTS (Els < 0.45) MIN200bs
.8 ... .... ......... ... ................................................. ...... .. .................... ........ .. I 0 b


0.6-


a 0.4-


0.2-


............................................................... ............. ... -. .................. ..............


0 5 10 15 20 25

BETTER ENVIRONMENTS (Els > 0.45) M.oo.I b
........ ............................ ............ ............ ................. ............................. ........................ ... M IN 200 Ib s


10 15
PERCENT OF TIME BELOW VALUE


Figure 3. Risk estimation for radish trials in poorer environments (top) and better environments
(bottom).


- --------- ----







4.3 Environmental Characterization

To characterize the farm environments, the Table 2 was developed to assess the

importance of farm management for radish yield. The table is admittedly a coarse assessment

of management practices, but demonstrates nevertheless that variations exist, and that patterns

are difficult to discern. In addition, the importance of and interaction between each practice in

overall yield is difficult to evaluate. Further research would be necessary to determine which

management practice had the greatest influence on radish yield. It is interesting to note that

plots under high management which appeared productive before harvest (i.e., F3) actually had

low yields.

Comparing the top six environments with the bottom five, land preparation does not seem

necessarily important, as minimal and intensive land preparation was associated both with high-

and low-yielding farms. The top six environments applied fertilizer in a single band, while two

of the lower-yielding environments (one team at two locations) applied nitrogen in two bands.

Hilling up the soil around the plants and transplanting radishes may have been of some

importance, but low-yielding farms also hilled up and transplanted. Lack of water does not seem

to have been a problem (in this data set), as three of the top four farms did not water at all. The

lower-yielding farms both watered and weeded more than the high-yielding farms.

Although the comparison of management practices did not explain much of the observed

yield differences, the relative location of the farms at Pecan may provide a clue (Figure 4a and

b). At Pecan, higher yields were associated with rocky soils at the top of the slope, possibly

reflecting higher clay content and higher water holding capacity. This outcome was somewhat

unexpected based on the initial site characterization, which showed that the rye grass grew

thickest (east-west) near the bottom of the slope. However, due to the limited range of

environments and low yields, the above information has to be interpreted with caution.




(west)


F7 0.0088 = 8 (2)


LEGEND
F6 F=Fifield, P=Pecan
#=team number (1-7)
0.0201 El


6 El rank out of 11 farms (l=high)
(1) El rank in village


F5 0.0006 = 10 (4)


F3 0.0002 = 11 (5)






F4 0.0025 = 9 (3)





I F2 excluded



Fl excluded


Figure 4a. Location of farms at Fifield village.


F6 0.0201 = 6 (1)




(north)


P6 0.4109 = 1 (1)



P3 0.2944 = 2 (2)



P5 0.1796 = 3 (3)


P2 0.0594 = 5 (5)


P4 0.1205 = 4 (4)





l P7 0.0144 = 7 (6)




UB P1 excluded


Figure 4b. Location of farms at Pecan village.







Table 2. Summary of Management Practices
Team El Soil Land Fert Thin Hill Tran Wtr Weed
Prep
P6 .4109 rocky M S 1 1 0 2 0
P3 .2944 rocky I S 2 2 2 0 3
P5 .1796 rocky M S 1 0 0 5
P4 .1205 M S 1 0 0 0 2
P2 .0594 I S 1 0 1 3 2
F6 .0201 M S 1 0 0 7 0

P7 .0144 I D 2 0 0 0 2
F7 .0088 sandy M D 1 0 0 2 2
F4 .0025 M S 1 0 0 1 2
F5 .0006 sandy M S 1 1 0 5 5
F3 .0002 I S 2 2 2 4 3
and Prep = Minimal or Intensive
Fert = Single or Qouble-banded fertilizer application
Thin = number of times thinned
Trans = number of times plants transplanted
Hill = number of times soil hilled up around plants
Wtr = number of times watered
Weed = number of times weeded


5. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the radish experiments demonstrated the power of MSA to partition the

environments and to derive appropriate recommendations for recommendation domains. Using

the criterion yield/acre, within the range of El from 0 to 0.7 t/ac, the application of 100 Ibs of

N/ac can be recommended for the poorer environments (El < 0.45), while 200 Ibs of N/ac

maximized yield in the better environments. However, the criteria for the evaluation of yield must

be chosen according to the objectives and constraints of the user. In that sense, yield per

expenses may be more meaningful to the small-scale, resource-poor farmer than yield/acre

(Hildebrand and Poey, 1985). Thus, using the farmer's criterion yield/$-cash cost (and the

relative cost assumptions made above), the recommendation domain for 100 Ibs of N/ac







expands to the whole range of environments included in the analysis.

However, generalization of the results is restricted by the small number of observations

and the limited spread of environments (Els). Therefore, the results of the present study must

be interpreted with caution. The major limitations of this experiment arise from an incomplete

biophysical characterization of the areas where the radishes were grown, and from the extremely

uneven distribution of Els. Obtaining more results in the intermediate range of Els would have

permitted a broader interpretation of the data.

6. REFERENCES

Amir, P., Knipscheer, H.C., 1989. Conducting on-farm animal research: procedures and
economic analysis. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development and
International Development Research Centre. Singapore National Printers Ltd.

Andrew, C.O., Hildebrand, P.E., 1982. Planning and Conducting Applied Agricultural Research.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Hildebrand, P.E., Poey, F., 1985. On-farm Agronomic Trials in Farming Systems Research and
Extension. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner

Stroup, W.W., Hildebrand, P.E., Francis, C.A., 1991. Farmer Participation for more effective
research in sustainable agriculture. Staff Paper SP91-32, University of Florida, Gainesville:
Food and Resource Economics Department.

7. APPENDIX

1. Soil Test Report

2. Yield data and regressions

3. Rainfall data








3CL 7377 '?.-CR- AND .-STANDARD 4:~N -C-r-Hi1EN.D 3


vame:
idadrass:
2 1:*


9se=arch C .UNT'


HILDEBRAND, PETER
FARMING SYSTEMS
UF CAMPUS
FL 32611


Printed: 15-APR-92


SET NO. 4440


SAMPLE INFORMATION
iient's Identificati-on: F'FLD DEB Lab Number: 58739
"op-: RADISH fEc .,0ff 7T/4F p Soil Texture: Sand

3oth interpretations and recommendations are based upon the soil test results
and research/experience with the specified crop under Florida's growing
conditions. No adjustments have been made for nutrients supplied, by. addition
of organic amendments nor for nutrients from crop residues. To adjust For
nutrients released from those organic sources estimate the amount mineraliza
and subtract that amount from the fertilizer recommendations given below.

SOIL TEST RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS
target pH for this crop: 6.5
- (1:2 S:W): 7. 1
-E Buffer Value: N/A
,-, ----+-" -. --- I I I
MEHLICH I EXTRACTABLE 'v. low low medium high. iv. high off-
--------- --------------------+----- -+---------i--scale-+

PHOSPHORUS (ppm P) 194 ******~~ ** !**? **** *******'******

POTAPSIUM (ppm K) 33: H*+ 1*** ***- L L I1

MAGNESIUM (ppm Mg) 51*******H-****,***~, I* **** I !
I --- 1 ---I--
CALCIUM (ppm Ca) 12S2 .

------------------+
LIME AND FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS
ime: 0.0 tons per acre


itrogen:

tosphorus:

3tassium:


90 pounds per acre-

0 pounds per acre

120 pounds per acre


these footnotes are an integral part of the ferti-lizatiorn recommendation-
_EASE READ THEM CAREFULLY. They are unique f-or each soil/crop situattionr

EE FOOTNOTE.(S): 250 251 252
'.* -. -- --<.: .- *"...- .
.. -; _.c ii '. -
*. : f . .. -. .-- . -. .. . : -


-A INE36


.--~ t:!~?:Zi: '?-~^`~I'


~C:~




.- -. .- -.
++., .
- - --,i
7I-- % I= r= ;,Z.--- ,


-737 ==C7 '. j~ijr) 3-71- 'NC A RD -:E1;-7CN!


',Jame:
ad r es s:


13 ar SIn7i n 3n aC:CUNTY
"osaar-rC 1SUNTi


HILDEBRAND, PETER
FARMING SYSTEMS
JF CAMPUS
FL 32611


1Cuo .I j n / . .- W

SAMPLE INFORMATION
lient's Identification: F'FLD RD Lab Number: 58740
op: RADISH "__--__I 7/I /e A .Soil Texture:Sand

3oth interpretations and recommendations are based upon the-soil test results
and research/experience with the specified crop under Florida's growing
conditions. No adjustments have been made for nutrients supplied by additions
of organic amendments nor for nutrients from crop residues. To adjust foi
nutrients released from those organic sources, estimate the amount mineralized
and subtract that amount from the fertilizer recommendations given below.

SOIL TEST RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS
arget pH for this crop: 6.5
H (1:2 S:W): 7.6
-E Buffer Value: N/A
---------------------- -- --------
MEHLICH I EXTRACTABLE Iv. Lou : Law medium high iv. high off
---------- --------------- ale
PHOSPHORUS (ppm P) *76***************i************ *IM*****
I F
POTASSIUM (ppm K) 26 to******* ***- I
I ; I I S
MAGNESIUM (ppm Mg) 34:***1********'***+****I "
I -I I4 ,I- -,
CALCIUM (ppm Ca) 1929
- - - - - - --- + { .-_. +: :. .


LIME AND FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS
ime: 0.0 tons per acre


a- -


nitrogen:


hosphorus:

otassium:


90 pounds per acre

0 pounds per acre

120 pounds per acre


these footnotes are an integral part of the fer-tiLization recommendatiarr.
-EASE READ THEM CAREFULLY. They, are- unique. for each~ sair/crop- situationrr
SFOOTNOTE("-): 250 251 252.
=E FOOTNOTE(S): 250 251 252.


----
-t-


3~-i nCnrl 1 ~-~PO-37


NQ= \i( 40


,-
--~
-i.--
.1




-- --- --'I_ ,- -- - .:" _.., '
-'=' .7-- _-. --7 -7 -


3CIL _~ES~ fRT -ND STANDARD -ER-: : CN .;.EC..M r'END'ATS4 -


--nr ormta In o13.n :Cn ac c
Rs aear'. CUNTn
HILDEBRAND, PETER
FARMING SYSTEMS
UF CAMPUS
FL 32611


Printed: 15-APR--2


SET NO. 4440


SAMPLE INFORMATION
client's Identificati-on: PECAN Lab Number: 58741 -. L
roo:RADISH Soil Teyture:Sand
---------------------------- ------------------- ------
3oth interpretations and recommendations are based upon the soil test results
and research/experience with the specified crop under Florida's growing
conditions. No adjustments have been made for nutrients supplied. by addition
of organic amendments nor for nutrients from crop residues. To adjust for
nutrients released from those organic sources, estimate the amount mineralize
and subtract that amount from the fertilizer recommendations given, below..
--------------------------- ------------
SOIL TEST RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS
arget pH for this crop: _6.5_
H (1: 2 S: W): 6. 0 -
-E Buffer Value: 7.64-
--------------- -----------------~------+--- ~ ------~
MEHLICH I EXTRACTABLE Iv. Low i Loutw medium 1 high Iv. high! off
-----------------+---- r-sca 1 e-+
PHOSPHORUS (ppm P) 237 *******I-** *******4 i ***** *****f *

POTASSIUM (ppm K) 30 *********** { ... r
I r I I I I
MAGNESIUM (ppm Mg) 2.9 : ?-**-M**N**L*-m**I*e .,*t I*.
CALCIUM (ppm Ca) 590 :---- -.- ---------- -
CALCIUM (ppm Ca) 590:
--. ,.


ime:

itrogen:


hosphorus:

otassium:


LIME AND' FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS
i. 0 tons. per acre


90 pounds, per acri


*~. 5-~_


0 pounds per- acre-

120 pounds per acre


hese footnotes are an integral part of the fertilization recommendation.
LEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY. They are unique for eact so-l/-corW situation.

EE FOOTNOTE(S): 250 251 252. 802 803 :" ,;-";'- ..:"

_^ V. .. : ..--. - .
'- -: iSf . .. -


S .- .- ', .,:: .. -/ .:*. : -' : -. '- -. .
- ,+ : -'. ..,,-:.- .. -., f I.


'iame:
-3 press:
-':-


-. -.22.


, . ,. .




:. Z; 3 .;. ..... .- 7 1r.r 3i n -. n .i 0: 0U.-'.- 7 -:':3i, C- -
sa :.is ..... e r.-O 7" --I- -- ':j T';."?me !. -7 Sr "' -, :--3o '.--> 3n. '-- : "
r.d jarr! .nanaq emenm a ... .. a -?3 :- 1 sr :-'- --I'I .= ,
n-ni airn :l.se aaen: l n -o at.er nanaqemen-. zu3l.u eno.ugn3
i"l gat on -Bat, r sa- r :. 5? : .:-ui;.men .

-3 suosurfac9 _'" :a, on., .nai-naain a -ons-anT iuaTer a' .ao-l a meen .5 ana
13 inches belsw 'ne -oo ?z t'n bed.

3n soils that have not been in vegetabia production 'itihin the :ast u2
eears, or where microfnur ieants are known .o be e'ci.e nt, aolu 5 lbs or
sIn, 3 b b Zn, 4 3 ib Cu, and 1. lb 3/A. Use soil tesninq to imonior
,micronutrient status every 2 years. When deciding about nicronutrient
applications, consider micronutr-ients added to the crop via Funqicides.
Some micronutrients can build up in the soil -- avoid micronutrient
'oxicity.


51 Fertilizer should be applied in split applications to reduce leaching
losses and lessen danger of fertilizer burn. Broadcast all P205 and
micronutr ients, --I any, and 25 to 50% of the N and K20 in the bed at
planting. Apply remaining N and K20 in sidedress bands during the ea-rly
part of the growing season.

In cold soil or following fumigation, apply 20 to 25%. of the recommended N
in the nitrate form.

Additional, supplemental sidedress applications of 30 Ib N/A and 20.1b
K20/A should be applied only after rainfall/irrigation amounts exceed 3
inches within a 3-day period or exceeds 4 inches within a 7-day period.
Avoid mechanical damage to. plants when applying fertilizers.


52 The amounts suggested are generally sufficient for- 2 or 3 crops in
Succession.
fI ."" " -I

32 Recommendations are based on the Adams-Evans lime requirement test which
is run on all mineral soils. When the recommended amount of lime is
incorporated in the surface 6 inches of soiLL -soiL pH should adjust to
a level above which additional Liming benefitJ is not expected.
Excessive applications of lime carr result in nutritional disorders.


33 Lime soil with either dolomite or-datonfttic limestone.













-. C o --
\^ .... -
.....~~~~~~~~~~~~' -.-,:~~~ -i ...A:: .,_. ..
i '" : ' ":'?;'




-*._3J 3C1 --3T:: -. S2-- Z


;A7NEEY:L E S V:L


rXTENS~Ni E~~ ~ ."~
EiMENT, ~EO'RTFD AS naoll,- ~N T-:' BGK. EC IZ~33~E ;


-DR. -"DE
SAmE
-DR ESS


BET. JO


1 0,000C
HILDEBPAND, P"T_=
FARMING SYSTEMS
UF CAMPUS


4440


CONTAIN


REPORTEDD


FL 32-11
NS LA3 NO. 58739 THROUGH


M.AS.4*ZN 1 ZN CMN


5879 F'IL-D DEB: 4. 20! 0.341 5. a4
---------------------------------------

58740' F'FLD RDI I .204-1 o.24, 5.Q04.


58741


PECANI 1.00! 0.28: 2.441


----------------- --- ----+-------------


p.

r
-,.
r~-




~-r-i.

s .~ J
.~
r.
.i
~'-- I--.C
~,p--

: : ;.._c' .-I




-I .' (
t.
''-i I---~t-
s- i
x
-~r~-
"
-I
I
.~' 51a~ -5;
Ii -VL
--~. f;


..- .j4 -,-. hht~9UA
.X- .4.- l_- ~ L
*" -.* ..-




AiI


87.11


I





V


I-


File: DINOP1LI.WQ1


/ ,'-, . -/ J


I -.7


MSA for >D data no F1,F2,P1

Olbs 1001bs 2001bs 3001bs 4001bs
Number Loc./ WT>D WT>D WT>D WT>D WT>D


team
F3
F5
F4
F7
P7
F6
P2
P4
P5
P3
P6


TRT MN
TRT STD
MN<
STD<
MN>
STD>


t/ac
0
0
0
0
0.096
0
0
0
0.096
0.1801
0.102

0.0431
0.0609
0.0213
0.0399
0.141
0.039


t/ac t/ac
0.036. 0.012


0.042
0
0.4262
0
0.042
0.2401
0.4738
0.9123
1.1644
0.5702

0.3552
0.3807
0.2414
0.2937
0.8673
0.2971


0.036
0.1801
0.018
0
0.2881
0.4862
0.4682
0.4742
0.8643
1.2724

0.3727
0.3856
0.2181
0.2026
1.0684
0.2041


t/ac
0.03
0.024
0.042
0
0.2941
0.2101
0.2221
0.4452
0.3481
0.2521
0.6242

0.2265
0.1886
0.1795
0.1537
0.4382
0.1861


t/ac
0
0.024
0.03
0.024
0.2101
0.1681
0.2701
0.3481
0.2881
0.2521
0.6362

0.2046
0.1807
0.1514
0.1271
0.4442
0.1921


El El*EI


0.0156
0.0252
0.0504
0.0936
0.12
0.1416
0.2437
0.3471
0.4237
0.5426
0.641


0.0002
0.0006
0.0025
0.0088
0.0144
0.0201
0.0594
0.1205
0.1796
0.2944
0.4109


OLBS L.;
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom

X Coefficient(s) 0.2131
Std Err of Coef. 0.0671


oLS, 46 Regression Output:


-0.008
0.0462
0.5287
11
9


Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom


0.0033
0.0481
0.5467
11
8


X Coefficient(s) 0.0641 0.2412
Std Err of Coef. 0.2736 0.4281


Regression Output:


I


Regression Output:









Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom


-0.006
0.2402
0.6743
11
9


-.,
Constant
Std Err of Y Est
R Squared
No. of Observations
Degrees of Freedom


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


1.5035
0.3483


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


2.4666 -1.559
1.4053 2.1989


.0 L-, Regression Output:
Constant -0.049
Std Err of Y Est 0.1393
R Squared 0.8932
No. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 9


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


1.7529
0.2021


,'e L~ Regression Output:
Constant 0.0434
Std Err of Y Est 0.1132
R Squared 0.7051
No. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 9


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


0.7617
0.1642


0; o L-Z Regression Output:
Constant 0.0198
Std Err of Y Est 0.0933
R Squared 0.7821
No. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 9


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


0.7688
0.1353


2.oo L)1_ Regression Output:
Constant 0.0448
Std Err of Y Est 0.1254
R Squared 0.9231
No. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 8


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


0.5362
0.7131


1.9689
1.1158


Joc0 L- Regression Output:
Constant 0.0172
Std Err of Y Est 0.1181
R Squared 0.7149
o. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 8


X Coefficient(s)
Std Err of Coef.


1.1026
0.6715


-0.552
1.0508


6 CM-`OLr Regression Output:
Constant 0.015
Std Err of Y Est 0.0989
R Squared 0.7825
No. of Observations 11
Degrees of Freedom 8

X Coefficient(s) 0.8304 -0.1
Std Err of Coef. 0.5622 0.8797


-0.08
0.2471
0.6936
11
8


j















ESTIMATED QUAD. RESPONSES >D no F1,F2,P1
TREATMENTS
Olb 100 Ib 200 Ib 300 Ib 400 Ib Elprint
0.0044 -0.042 0.0537 0.0343 0.028 -0.18
0.0051 -0.019 0.0596 0.0446 0.0359 -0.18
0.0072 0.04 0.0769 0.0714 0.0567 -0.18
0.0115 0.1369 0.1123 0.1156 0.0919 -0.18
0.0145 0.1933 0.1376 0.1416 0.1133 -0.18
0.0173 0.2377 0.1603 0.1623 0.1307 -0.18
0.0333 0.4281 0.2924 0.2531 0.2115 -0.18
0.0546 0.5879 0.4681 0.3334 0.2912 -0.18
0.0738 0.685 0.6256 0.3854 0.349 -0.18
0.1091 0.7991 0.9154 0.453 0.4363 -0.18
0.1435 0.8603 1.1976 0.4973 0.5064 -0.18







01 APR 92 AH 24.61C AL
31 MAR 92 AH 25.76C AL
30 MAR 92 AH 21.54C AL
29 MAR 92 AH 22.82C AL
28 MAR 92 AH 26.61C AL
27 MAR 92 AH 22.98C AL
26 MAR 92 AH 24.82C AL
25 MAR 92 AH 22.10C AL
24 MAR 92 AH 24.92C AL
23 MAR 92 AH 19.09C AL
22 MAR 92 AH 22.12C AL
21 MAR 92 AH 21.99C AL


20 MAR 92 AH
19 MAR 92 AH
18 MAR 92 AH
17 MAR 92 AH
16 MAR 92 AH
15 MAR 92 AH
14 MAR 92 AH
13 MAR 92 AH
12 MAR 92 AH
11 MAR 92 AH
10 MAR 92 AH
09 MAR 92 AH
08 MAR 92 AH
07 MAR 92 AH
06 MAR 92 AH
05 MAR 92 AH
04MAR 92 AH
03 MAR 92 AH
02 MAR 92 AH
01 MAR 92 AH
28 FEB 92 AH
27 FEB 92 AH
26 FEB 92 AH
25 FEB 92 AH
24 FEB 92 AH
23 FEB 92 AH
22 FEB 92 AH
21 FEB 92 AH
20 FEB 92 AH
19 FEB 92 AH
18 FEB 92 AH
17 FEB 92 AH
16 FEB 92 AH
15 FEB 92 AH
14FEB 92 AH
13 FEB 92 AH
12 FEB 92 AH
11 FEB 92AH
10 FEB 92 AH
09 FEB 92 AH
08 FEB 92 AH
07 FEB 92 AH
06 FEB 92 AH
05 FEB 92 AH
04 FEB 92 AH
03 FEB 92 AH
02 FEB 92 AH
01 FEB 92 AH
31 JAN 92 AH


28.18C AL
24.54C AL
25.47C AL
19.95C AL
25.07C AL
20.67C AL
16.36C AL
14.48C AL
15.02C AL
24.56C AL
27.74C AL
28.89C AL
28.21C AL
24.69C AL
25.01C AL
26.41C AL
28.67C AL
28.67C AL
27.71C AL
25.89C AL
20.71C AL
18.02C AL
22.55C AL
23.98C AL
22.33C AL
25.93C AL
23.07C AL
18.74C AL
22.57C AL
21.04C AL
20.18C AL
27.37C AL
27.55C AL
27.73C AL
26.54C AL
23.08C AL
22.76C AL
18.44C AL
20.68C AL


11.71C AM
13.75C AM
7.529C AM
S.796C AM
7.812C AM
,0.47C AM
1.29C AM
6.290C AM
10.79C AM
10.52C AM
4.626C AM
S.874C AM
16.39C AM
10.99C AM
3.543C AM
6.063C AM
5.088C AM
3.262C AM
6.855C AM
5.650C AM
4.463C AM
14.91C AM
11.74C AM
1432C AM
18.21C AM
17.89C AM
16.42C AM
13.46C AM
7.747C AM
7.247C AM
8.674C AM
9.876C AM
4.206C AM
7.261C AM
11.85C AM
17.25C AM
17.67C AM
18.64C AM
14.46C AM
6.777CAM
1030C AM
15.52C AM
15.40C AM
15.71C AM
15.99CAM
14.11CAM
7.620C AM
7.155C AM
5.320C AM
8.911CAM
7.079CAM


16.00CAL -.213CAM
15.13C AL 2.294CAM
15.20C AL 6.146C AM
16.27CAL 6.028C AM
2335C AL 13.73C AM
26.02CAL 3.463C AM
22.83C AL 4.796C AM
15.49C AL .6816C AM
19.76C AL 3.951C AM
20.17C


18.59C GM
'8.48C GM
14.85C GM
14.27C GM
16.79C GM
15.55C GM
16.45C GM
13.79C GM
17.36C GM
14.50C GM
I3.01C GM
16.35C GM
21.42C GM
17.27C GM
14.02C GM
12.48C GM
15.23C GM
12.21C GM
11.66C GM
9.462C GM
9.880C GM
18.36C GM
19.80C GM
20.68C GM
21.13C GM
19.75C GM
20.43C GM
20.03C GM
18.32C GM
17.60C GM
17.07C GM
16.82C GM
12.02C GM
11.45C GM
17.94C GM
1954C GM
20.01C GM
21.30C GM
17.61C GM
14.04C GM
15.75C GM
17.84C GM
17.40C GM
19.19C GM
20.15C GM
19.46C GM
16.63C GM
13.60C GM-
13.71C GM
12.49C GM
1284C GM
7.617CGM
8.229CGbM
9.370C GM
11.44C GKM
16.96C GM
13.77CGM-
11.96CGM
8.638C GM
10.78C GM


17.19C PT
;6.50C PT
,5.39C PT
15.68C PT
16.03C PT
:6.i8C7 P
16.09C PT
15.69C PT
16.46C PT
15.65C PT
15.55C PT
16.92C PT
17.01C PT
15.65C PT
14.69C PT
15.05C PT
14.90C Pr
14.50C PT
14.60C PT
14.74C PT
16.36C PT
18.48C PT
18.50C PT
19.34C Pr
1931C PT
18.46C PT
1838C FP
17.70C Pr
16.83C PT
16.58C FT
16.47C PT
15.69C Fr
15.08C FP
16.04C PT
18.47C Fr
18.84C PT
18.87C Pr
18.12C PT
16.49C FP
15.38C F
16.4C Fr
17.28C PT
17.13C Pr
17.49C FP
17.12C Pr
16.09C Pr
14.82C PT
1431C Pr
13.83C PT
13.58C PT
12.70C PT
1132C PT
12.54CPT
13.41CPT
14.81CPIr
14.87C Fr
13.11C PF
12.77CPr
12.19C PT
13.24C PT


).0MM ST 15.88MJ
O.0MM ST 13.92MJ
0.0MM ST 9.962MJ
).0MM ST 18.28MJ
0.0MM ST 24.50MJ
0.0MM ST 15.22MJ
25.00MM ST 13.41MJ
0.0MM ST 20.46MJ
0.0MM ST 12.62MJ
0.0MM ST 3.333MJ
0.0MM ST 23.93MJ
0.0MM ST 24.50MJ
1.000MM ST 18.33MJ
0.0MM ST 12.42MJ
0.0MM ST 23.89MJ
0.0MM ST 24.85MJ
0.0MM ST 22.92MJ
0.0MM ST 23.24MJ
1.000MM ST 10.63MI
0.0MM SE 11.56MJ
0.0MM ST 19.66MJ
38.00MM ST 4.905MJ
0.0MM ST 17.60MJ
0.OMM ST 21.48MI
18.00MM ST 13.00MJ
9.000MM ST 5.709MJ
1.000MMST 10.72MJ
3.000MM ST 1552MJ
O.OMM ST 2033MI
0.0MM ST 21.10M
0.0MM ST 20.67MJ
0.0MM ST 20.92MJ
0.0MM ST 20.44MJ
0.0MM ST 14.12MI
1.000MM ST 15.26MJ
26.00MM ST 6.185MI
22.00MM ST 5.134MJ
0.0MM ST 9.762MT
9.000MM ST 5.866MJ
0.0MM ST 6387M1
0.0MM ST 18.87MJ
3.000MMST 5.319MJ
2.000MM ST 3.151MJ
9.000MM ST 9.194MJ
0.0MM ST 11.1MJ
0.0MM ST 14.23MT
0.0MM ST 14.08MI
0.OMM ST 14.96MI
0.0MM ST 1639MI
0.0MM ST 12.69MI
0.0MM ST 17.31M
0.0MM ST 1659MW
O.OMM ST 18.15MJ
3.000MM ST 8.166MI
5.000MM ST 4.186MJ
13.00MM ST 10.88Mf
0.0MM ST 14.94MJ
0.0MM ST 16.54MJ.
0.0MM ST 9.961MI
0.0MM ST 17.13MW


A4dr; -7- 0
T- 0





/,. 0


.7 :: ~




,'c


,4,4, 2 0


o

(-0


^




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs