<%BANNER%>

Phosphorus Requirement of St. Augustinegrass

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101112_AAAADG INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T17:35:54Z PACKAGE UFE0019669_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1947 DFID F20101112_AACBIE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH liu_m_Page_034.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
333fa6f0bd87e1580f53078a695618ef
SHA-1
6b7420d9781d2802dc05655aa7313612bb172768
122492 F20101112_AACBHP liu_m_Page_021.jp2
2fbf265f45461c407591374e17049e7d
795f72c4a0ec68bdae87c3b4ca4f5d7948a9ac93
89454 F20101112_AACBIF liu_m_Page_047.jpg
1d5a0c9327e49fe709fb1920b44de9db
e035240e0b0f9ef059879d4bae137cd612fb85f6
1053954 F20101112_AACBHQ liu_m_Page_058.tif
5c00b13ab1c258b8713397f34414d14e
230ca119b7e647c64e64c0d8bb9e78bdff04be7b
6727 F20101112_AACBIG liu_m_Page_109thm.jpg
be5ef0f6fdc0af0874c2412d21279dca
ce4dc51905d724049da146d073bebbb69b4c04e3
11527 F20101112_AACBHR liu_m_Page_083.pro
dde05252ec1cfc371347c249fc2408a9
fabc998100d597cb90d40935fe6f5643629c311f
41385 F20101112_AACBIH liu_m_Page_099.jpg
81f5de5290738d05d6fba13c552fc37c
af4e8091de544aa50090a994d487628151987238
114633 F20101112_AACBHS liu_m_Page_053.jp2
893799b4fcaf945a406f48e05a2d6dd0
95476da52c9ea22882ce1466bb71474b3f5706c0
24207 F20101112_AACBII liu_m_Page_035.pro
042cb10ef5a1546b822ad46996579972
33545748d7ee3edfdfd013008b4338f494590dca
56559 F20101112_AACBHT liu_m_Page_056.pro
8bd924e15ac0c84abc4d52fa3a1e7288
dc7860f0118e76b759923add14450ff7c74d46a0
7000 F20101112_AACBIJ liu_m_Page_062thm.jpg
615845a4ba980bc695fbde24fc629b3e
a0cdde77763293bf0c439da9564bea2d361bc741
2563 F20101112_AACBHU liu_m_Page_112.txt
b9884b281e2699f2776ff9110c5902ed
63289edc3b30a20fdb61b880251544ea6f804f4b
78037 F20101112_AACBIK liu_m_Page_062.jpg
939df28e6b7cc7d6b1ba113f2913f7b0
e10f32ab2b238df8e54d43ae965ff20d4a32fea3
38573 F20101112_AACBHV liu_m_Page_036.pro
16d53f444e651c14b3ee9d6af67f9bd6
0c160e6830c903df3521d01bb3cd9e4e9142636f
56669 F20101112_AACBIL liu_m_Page_018.pro
b819afcd1d7afa4834ed3e2cb36e8787
969ddb34542657d8250e431902feb1f60d501bbc
56944 F20101112_AACBHW liu_m_Page_050.pro
882f8c588a1b61778c0629e9b3743fbb
a9c663da6a39195a097914023ac0584da92580bb
4436 F20101112_AACBIM liu_m_Page_098thm.jpg
dc56a70964b6402bcbbf8770e0af717b
160d372ee7943c6989d167b009730abe298d5aaf
F20101112_AACBHX liu_m_Page_095.tif
6068933beb61fae913f8e3052495c9f5
2d5bc9dcacbbe5455161e51efa39e9871f3ca38e
8124 F20101112_AACBJA liu_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
fbe69a791e69bd50df8e03aa2ebeecaa
717d29ae677e95b7aa1f22c91ea250fda9d2248a
113331 F20101112_AACBIN liu_m_Page_109.jp2
3d24f714a200b95314880b97b8257037
2acb448f00393a950a8b380371678d342c8f5ea5
F20101112_AACBHY liu_m_Page_016.tif
669bdba6a614a73ecbbfe01bfc46abee
a72b257b5c1e77d914ad830810fdab946e8ad1d4
56375 F20101112_AACBJB liu_m_Page_041.pro
0bfc96c51c3040a29ff57255c582c401
209681340245c2fd6623756fff70f4fa82231630
F20101112_AACBHZ liu_m_Page_027.tif
072e124f7a2183c343fb7dbb5d85942b
442bab9bf61aad4cd59311afef79422c134aa244
2088 F20101112_AACBJC liu_m_Page_032.txt
0a7d1ee0e08d55f4935e7fdbbdc9a64f
b69389d594abbb5335ecf4b1702f41327619368c
251297 F20101112_AACBIO liu_m_Page_076.jp2
cb8dd31f84720d3e9d233d4621e55bbe
f7959cbc0cdc1abf94a792ba669fff50b2ada009
80842 F20101112_AACBJD liu_m_Page_009.pro
021f420a7542dd50d86626203157f64d
b5212b5c2214e96e185a1d202a1e939fefd46fe7
4919 F20101112_AACBIP liu_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
a302259e028c14d1c33f591e5ad527e5
5842dbb389999b036fa93c55ecdb43ad7ecf4773
2285 F20101112_AACBJE liu_m_Page_026.txt
adeabe1b199013872394abb9d4b650dd
cfa811f9ec952ebd1bc9adfbf008c7d3a7b275f7
29298 F20101112_AACBIQ liu_m_Page_079.jp2
40c3f6c756f01df78fb0a47b495ff6cb
ebb52d6efd79844bca646eb56c323b12efb5e5f0
115299 F20101112_AACBJF liu_m_Page_057.jp2
23106c0ba4130553bf107456e7f344f6
4c1255f22f1081f2cf7a599a5745cb2dd0833a96
110506 F20101112_AACBIR liu_m_Page_022.jp2
7a2610b3f767d676901aef4c7fcc9b30
6b058e390accc0dd58e2b73454a4efaca178baf2
933 F20101112_AACBJG liu_m_Page_104.txt
dcfc8ff54cdbc8ce2c6e2fae57d20c29
40037d751ae42f2b519e014cb900da39b5ff80cc
8589 F20101112_AACBIS liu_m_Page_003.jp2
d6d42a951509be0b597fdd0c9ed21cec
2eda27c8baa3cf43a1bdaf62e92ed5be47978533
7102 F20101112_AACBJH liu_m_Page_108thm.jpg
9e3af824c8c67a61d673246cf762dabc
a1a73ca13a3bf164fcb90a1adfdac925099101c6
2212 F20101112_AACBJI liu_m_Page_018.txt
46a2f6dfd838b1513c3db28bfaf71b5b
16909a0e84fcce7e204a68c7bcd8000ad11073eb
27863 F20101112_AACBIT liu_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
22f7f5c66fe1b98faaef3e96166eebdb
dc6e43353be962e57cb839d593eaa169f922d3e1
6715 F20101112_AACBJJ liu_m_Page_008thm.jpg
145ef81134edcdba6e87067b35b8a738
f121db65d6a8c04a64710a831073ab7ab1931116
25271604 F20101112_AACBIU liu_m_Page_010.tif
89c049891be2153718652587fe20c2db
d317bbdc21887ea7a95e86acc1bf0a36f38fb232
1008455 F20101112_AACBJK liu_m_Page_043.jp2
2fd433ae715a97e24887cd08268fc8d1
3da6ed339902cf2adad1af03f00dd777cda54670
106377 F20101112_AACBIV liu_m_Page_019.jp2
aa2ff731912b3126790415d6b5ec94e5
426d1c5585c78cb2e49c8414dd738763faff4c7e
90668 F20101112_AACBJL liu_m_Page_111.jpg
3ced907bdbbaf8151350e5fb71231604
015f3ec45b82e37c2ccac6e638275f0a4071507c
28006 F20101112_AACBIW liu_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
a0dadbaeba391d7567eb33e285225ba8
b035b7b26ad739bda406172a2d40d1f3f8f3f977
10592 F20101112_AACBKA liu_m_Page_077.pro
2e31ae6b404904a93a3453b343e0d532
c3360104248469591173bfe78940d7d526cd71f3
2101 F20101112_AACBJM liu_m_Page_053.txt
2973445762ccb26183ae1759d2617276
362f3e756f808ba8f93c1e704e9f6b3e58b3cfee
51991 F20101112_AACBIX liu_m_Page_085.pro
a42fe45c3147b0329d94ba0ebb38a90a
2d451aa91c9c13cde38a9e0427dba697c623776b
F20101112_AACBKB liu_m_Page_092.tif
e005f3b0d96342e54a4cbda6e10fc358
c8403320518466cb561915ff460fe21e143367e5
10401 F20101112_AACBJN liu_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
7f2766c916e64913f50d438dffc4f4c9
b761789db62c7e6a81d9790e5955b14ae1ef8d18
27965 F20101112_AACBIY liu_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
07e4d6b363dee68ac5acbe09901efc06
e9ab19f12b3ffa6b4ed5e865e6b1400e6498bd7d
8025 F20101112_AACBKC liu_m_Page_076.pro
f37ac7e1f0dab7b890179f461a09a900
0c1710661383b8824a0ad44685aa0b8ba8a626c6
3754 F20101112_AACBJO liu_m_Page_089thm.jpg
47737e1c016e64db12c78bef0d825d39
4fd85cb06b65731dc2e9c3438f3adf9ae8896671
50822 F20101112_AACBIZ liu_m_Page_015.pro
f5b44a1ab0bbe2f1112aa433fde0907b
945aa433f4062f8a830a2457b83e04df238a10fc
25131 F20101112_AACBKD liu_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
e5d626ecb950fc96a9755d5771c304d8
86a31aad117c932b7a9492642f838dea4d4b96bd
6993 F20101112_AACBKE liu_m_Page_063thm.jpg
f6e5e7a6ef142aa825f38fa5ee89b81b
15305a92426a031e755da7251b7ba0c2479a0994
138437 F20101112_AACBJP liu_m_Page_114.jp2
8ed72f63f7a36155748498ca58c15630
4472a05863e224a67912d1bc1f5ab9024b7734f1
53331 F20101112_AACBKF liu_m_Page_039.pro
9d55a764edcd116da670b4b623f1b5b4
1019ee27857d464d73df621e0c91db509c978e4d
8176 F20101112_AACBJQ liu_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
808c2ade1cddec2130b78378e7d8efb4
6f619e1291a5c10ee4bb0a2cd7a94304f6b68146
1051959 F20101112_AACBKG liu_m_Page_038.jp2
8e92b18c9325a12698349e0a2c6a5330
b2a6e59c4f23de261c62f52901723229ba1ded86
24927 F20101112_AACBJR liu_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
a4698cf363e1f3fbad4337968c6763a2
0d3b39d65bf6646fccdd200abe08679da407fe33
26763 F20101112_AACBKH liu_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
e53d177242687033c77887d84dcc1d35
46836a6116d2575533c6fe1bf0d1aa5c5671d051
50538 F20101112_AACBJS liu_m_Page_108.pro
b34ce842b172387363cd7e2d66687553
f9b26153b9fb56c6df3e295e44571f7c9ab22f1d
7542 F20101112_AACBKI liu_m_Page_041thm.jpg
dbcc21e1fc0bd286c193150e14bfe75a
34f94ee074040fe35bba4f64ac4104268a243c48
6836 F20101112_AACBJT liu_m_Page_061thm.jpg
618e6766245ab24cd22b40650cf2d501
ac10beef3a2c0d0688319ec9bb77076105eb8f76
F20101112_AACBKJ liu_m_Page_091.tif
4cbbd3e1b7b585a019d7040cd9a162ea
1b1051a174f47fabaf0f573a5cfea251a1bc8d6f
58152 F20101112_AACBJU liu_m_Page_023.pro
b79fe00039dab88c19e9dcbc83b2f215
80b77a82d267c138a724119e78d0fb8dcabcb115
25490 F20101112_AACBKK liu_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
ee5c9d5d2b3301682649f4c562cd2d73
5fc6fc8972578b9d9ab45e984d8106626e742c29
F20101112_AACBJV liu_m_Page_116.tif
8d64c93945d05ee7fb9ebb0a999dd422
61118ec49571c55355caeffce203eca3f5b166b9
39499 F20101112_AACBKL liu_m_Page_082.jpg
f35563436634bd1826a14737ee12faaa
16d2782d105c974b6f52ff6d483898ca133edbdc
2200 F20101112_AACBJW liu_m_Page_058.txt
22b45a0f210347e47758d8de188e6bc4
22bd6d9e22e3fd33d1bd13d38827dbb1dc2c6338
84114 F20101112_AACBKM liu_m_Page_036.jp2
df8685df243273e4284d6b8abf45a158
37051e167d7606289808e390d007213e113c2f01
27502 F20101112_AACBJX liu_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
c62a55d68f0043d526a43f70fe6d4f2e
03a27558cc8cd3d4875866be82ba085650acba61
1054428 F20101112_AACBLA liu_m_Page_099.tif
ffe0496c75ffc993e3404fdb52b431e6
e1390057c9fac0d51addf21b70a4813ed3685dcd
6911 F20101112_AACBKN liu_m_Page_111thm.jpg
537efb632a9e040b9ef19c58a0b9e0a3
e60261f65e9cdec01db9a1e1e0fbd016ef9d7277
100789 F20101112_AACBJY liu_m_Page_011.jp2
6a5a9bdabc2a596e425ad444ffd4ec2c
f7ed3d468d8598acb03ccad61ec66d8ad56e76de
F20101112_AACBLB liu_m_Page_072.tif
662a6c9684dd1d33203459d680edb6c1
f53f1685b83136c715134e07ed3f0421926d5ebf
11268 F20101112_AACBKO liu_m_Page_102.pro
fe8270e645f736f467bd7b023ef7a3b5
aeac619371654d243ce8aa7e477977a09ad24b0f
79568 F20101112_AACBJZ liu_m_Page_056.jpg
5858a174e4c5704ea3bc5db93e577114
fb09dcbfb3b7766d37d9fe85ebdcd726621cf8ef
454 F20101112_AACBLC liu_m_Page_076.txt
6338f58c85d65fc526395efc346ed688
ad7cb1a214d01f15db81b9ee5a28677d8d519b72
91654 F20101112_AACBKP liu_m_Page_114.jpg
5dc69157dbbab2df7df863904f298af0
2e43c591a5bf9d98883d896d5de4649eaa0a899d
2256 F20101112_AACBLD liu_m_Page_021.txt
b4ec7324d8a9db3472d486e93c081792
394052816792ae6a594f2c61c7da5450f6d3ba68
55907 F20101112_AACBLE liu_m_Page_065.pro
346f09348e934515ea9cc12d664070de
b032132d233dfb958a3ff242e0abde53075501b6
28500 F20101112_AACBKQ liu_m_Page_092.jpg
e6474cd4de2da45ae451b0ff9f5eeff2
0a37545c42ffcd7f548414d0180eafb8669ff5a8
2162 F20101112_AACBLF liu_m_Page_063.txt
f6bae8c43e295825634ed2c4e7eb6e7e
7bd138bd14fd1784dd5f70c7601591ffccf8fba4
75363 F20101112_AACBKR liu_m_Page_061.jpg
3b53df325c4ab8d4d41cb69a236bd543
f8e81322fd6a36bf8d85ae8ade7fa854236d89c7
F20101112_AACBLG liu_m_Page_025.tif
612c8013a5b4bf8fa0dcf19c3b7966f4
8e35ff26177a0df07e1c69081532ff176b3913c6
455141 F20101112_AACBKS liu_m_Page_088.jp2
cb756081a9f59e72e855525aa7cbcd56
d48687c07a85d1132be950aa29199300633eca14
F20101112_AACBLH liu_m_Page_043.tif
e721fef8d346c80f6a0aab1668519706
e83fee5bfcc2fce81c5eb187b31cfe4e1374d6c7
5729 F20101112_AACBKT liu_m_Page_007thm.jpg
01ae2b9964144abf5cbd7ad6abf561db
ba19f8dcbcfbfc2bc5d58d30c66e62afb6c94e61
F20101112_AACBLI liu_m_Page_069.tif
017542963f4d7c32d329dba889d6bd9f
a5f8fb3decca0a216e9d48a0622e1be19629a6d3
530 F20101112_AACBKU liu_m_Page_092.txt
b0414396cf3f3a192bc1b8fc57ea8d28
13f2d27268f145b1620df74db69d8117e2d375b3
77011 F20101112_AACBLJ liu_m_Page_064.jpg
6572da80e7bc4b9f3ccb0211097188ff
2c6f408ff2930d7747099de2411b4fe450411b11
649 F20101112_AACBKV liu_m_Page_002.pro
aa611af2f1de6f7f6204a1211fc3c9ab
f9b401a7b8a46c2934b7491e3eb58e97e266d3b9
137177 F20101112_AACBLK UFE0019669_00001.mets FULL
bf1dd2c55b21dc5fa2f1bb0a9e886d09
d56e9489575f7cc6480a08c020331b30731462b5
79644 F20101112_AACBKW liu_m_Page_058.jpg
23f8b31a2c06b7e9972f0ddabfa8e1fc
968958115c79e0b02373cc8a268870d95cbf9c56
85393 F20101112_AACBKX liu_m_Page_113.jpg
840fb2dda23b59c814afd86ffd49e345
bc3d26fd8da2901f3b0fb3685daa02b8eac29173
81112 F20101112_AACBMA liu_m_Page_020.jpg
c58cfd9784644d812de1a3cee7fc5237
69f8f724674611085c19250980ff819c28323668
22968 F20101112_AACBKY liu_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
c038018914b2fb6ce0f13536d5c28ea3
b4bad9831352c2616ac52ccee2c635b59efef161
81324 F20101112_AACBMB liu_m_Page_021.jpg
2da2f996d1bce15b5b70759d80f83859
ffb1219fc6970568715dc6c212f7fadd38bf2ae9
20462 F20101112_AACBLN liu_m_Page_001.jpg
6b8b53b610a764800eef0dd02e03cf1f
3eb8f8977b1c299155547da7c25049c5f69997e2
1051941 F20101112_AACBKZ liu_m_Page_044.jp2
4e8d372a688c715dc55b8469afca3208
d75abaa0fd07f5e4e1b1677c6b6c6f607181af20
75039 F20101112_AACBMC liu_m_Page_022.jpg
eeabbe93129c089e2410765d11ecdda8
6ff13afdca5974ffeaa00c2a93dfdc6b2958d2c3
9504 F20101112_AACBLO liu_m_Page_002.jpg
7357589b1c36e20694f62849e513b105
3137a32e4774d775c5c8c6aeebf5afb524518164
80679 F20101112_AACBMD liu_m_Page_024.jpg
84a030f36e5d2497716609da7b9e2a38
35d655b3030846f72e2246edf4ed5cdd922742ce
11963 F20101112_AACBLP liu_m_Page_003.jpg
6e89367fc0e640cca5ce0aaf5288ae6c
aa8b0f070984b177144427779da35d8068985ce5
93150 F20101112_AACBME liu_m_Page_025.jpg
050f1ede8e80fdc92c30ee14714f59c6
d75b07896f400cb203127b4be592c7f56084b40d
41275 F20101112_AACBLQ liu_m_Page_004.jpg
20d6468f998860ea6e10f1a9784ec673
bfb7aa3a7f20317f39cccf25e52a4c116c853002
81985 F20101112_AACBMF liu_m_Page_026.jpg
400b7dd618cb6ed6663bc4d649e89362
9db9f23781c14b3b46b549de3d8a3dc1552c7698
82865 F20101112_AACBMG liu_m_Page_027.jpg
9c69ec640dd8e837351fdad7828d1001
4c3d511f573978683db9532e5b52a284698dce23
83543 F20101112_AACBLR liu_m_Page_005.jpg
86adcfa2efe5604158ecfc49d65bb7a9
7526f70533d69413224c73c9a5dff9fd7a05378c
86066 F20101112_AACBMH liu_m_Page_028.jpg
e74f938f5e67e24543993cef7c62da96
d6dbcd5b6d96cca5c1ac0bf0f7f1e565c9d90e42
97986 F20101112_AACBLS liu_m_Page_008.jpg
6d43137fd7a88e6bec8e642ccaa1cd7b
696c8d01c69c9b2f7573e4eb2fb754f2dbf29651
77922 F20101112_AACBMI liu_m_Page_030.jpg
7180e72ef964821bcc49757ba3092f93
841580f29a84ae2917bc2d7725001fc2875ae87e
107315 F20101112_AACBLT liu_m_Page_009.jpg
b54ca7391de5bb375f5a059caf686de4
80d51aabe71cd35b0587776b94d1c0651ce2a05b
81109 F20101112_AACBMJ liu_m_Page_031.jpg
9364442832cd2b38387ee9473fab249d
7561994ee096ec29626a38c992e3b1b2280d9c4f
105178 F20101112_AACBLU liu_m_Page_010.jpg
93fa59c26eec0a79dec5b551e8984dce
cb4d75b546a7e0f267f124880cdec1a4829f4527
75689 F20101112_AACBMK liu_m_Page_032.jpg
822e32525e7e8faf7878e11bba0f2773
de56014c85ff3ae7901509bfc893b7e2777f585f
69297 F20101112_AACBLV liu_m_Page_011.jpg
f4e872776800ef2629088de9a00a85e6
cfbd15e81d11ff09e52ebd98d67dacc1b0101a45
20365 F20101112_AACBML liu_m_Page_033.jpg
30d761195a3f4277b8a40ba1e5536a30
d3202226e1fba46d6d13d0091800445149abeeb1
13409 F20101112_AACBLW liu_m_Page_014.jpg
d7e728a42ec9ad41009049d6d1f13979
a298cf2a8cfd2223c2de42205d14adbfd7dab88f
76227 F20101112_AACBNA liu_m_Page_053.jpg
01d583508da56ddfecf7fa1c0440774d
52686b9cbab8d0eff87ab87bf7b6d514fc3d5cc8
33906 F20101112_AACBMM liu_m_Page_034.jpg
47b9eaad7b5d94aae068cdf1cdcd5a08
5589e32564826684fda7b009c6ffd7063a75bab7
74073 F20101112_AACBLX liu_m_Page_015.jpg
764ed3db7650c637ea6c4dddc79d356e
2253dee5474df7849432efff5c7669ab3148b85c
83229 F20101112_AACBNB liu_m_Page_054.jpg
292c48c544cc1a3f8cb69b3b7ae4a2b9
2a270c43532bcb9d0041aed217ebce19b8a443cd
39920 F20101112_AACBMN liu_m_Page_035.jpg
a06e2a171114d2c4eec4ba0dc3f1a42f
aa93b136918e5c09893f3b94ac4bc33f39b0d0e2
80640 F20101112_AACBLY liu_m_Page_018.jpg
b1adb3e383d967012a8a484e0a6d0e75
53dea09e591f28eeb3cc08b5a83674df0709214a
75905 F20101112_AACBNC liu_m_Page_055.jpg
4664e332ef0e1f8d86db3ec8c0511fe6
d1dcdcf457bf53cf7d6ea18fb924d5ab0b67332b
87569 F20101112_AACBMO liu_m_Page_038.jpg
6be5633ab5d69e4cec0b523ecb78cf0e
f40c1761eb559bf9ff1ea9c9718cd3bfe2b113d8
71243 F20101112_AACBLZ liu_m_Page_019.jpg
8ea3446d9ad36691510fa32fcde735b6
62933f69aa01e7f897048ebbc85a39dbc47e81fa
83738 F20101112_AACBND liu_m_Page_059.jpg
9c3d55b2accae3597d7073b0708e3a6f
a94f3ab3f14fa10edcfd1a92f4f49c5c3e77cc59
76498 F20101112_AACBMP liu_m_Page_039.jpg
84e296dd3b9b373ccdef51b93eae0bfd
28a6732a884dff7088b21217897d71cae9588c09
81099 F20101112_AACBNE liu_m_Page_060.jpg
46f0ece4d824c7fe28eeb0c5687945a7
f2b9127341a8ca61a1f3be37c8b1df389f8e487b
84450 F20101112_AACBMQ liu_m_Page_040.jpg
5c57ffa99f1ced96be6a859d9cac3f59
4d834190e5e4c75579ed1c9cd6bc876783d7f899
79396 F20101112_AACBNF liu_m_Page_065.jpg
e5101cd9d6e36822637a262b55ad40a3
339406b58f23e361afaa78e4264de0109e62e5d9
88930 F20101112_AACBMR liu_m_Page_041.jpg
bac78b35cfdf46abae3138c6df2bdcba
167967a1d256e0bf571a8d06b3310fdf9f43624f
14217 F20101112_AACBNG liu_m_Page_067.jpg
e3420ae5f2a18ed49d4e4039bb7c3928
6957dbf9859627e7a791147380452d293e98ed33
42455 F20101112_AACBNH liu_m_Page_068.jpg
fda6483966a502ec130a468a1a293f6b
770ceefe16c21ab1189bbecba46b7fe9544d7150
82954 F20101112_AACBMS liu_m_Page_042.jpg
94a901d05ff531cbc6bc28b14443d494
898b78211cc65d90e1f48815cb1afdbb4d45b9ec
24879 F20101112_AACBNI liu_m_Page_070.jpg
ec7287cfbc872c30eefdc26d6d059d94
841f514587ee4f7d89389e5504afefcbbfceffaf
72960 F20101112_AACBMT liu_m_Page_043.jpg
22c5dde3a342af986fd6680b9991b54c
eb2bc089b68d619ac4a23de454441814639b0f5e
23846 F20101112_AACBNJ liu_m_Page_071.jpg
63852bfdcc9c4e439c6d63fde76da137
e65abe67a790e8fbee0eafe6dfe56f874ac6fd82
21418 F20101112_AACBMU liu_m_Page_045.jpg
bed01dda2a44c87e9df3b4cc19ddc98b
9986aaedd1807f2345955852ff801ce2658e53c0
28480 F20101112_AACBNK liu_m_Page_073.jpg
2c2c03111910ec231d6412d535624c51
6fb4071efefb08a85e398e4669ffb26bbbc39d41
69758 F20101112_AACBMV liu_m_Page_046.jpg
785106576ef11e7c079c06455c6bd8d9
bd60c25ba0ee22112caf4341459ba93cbc2abd96
56720 F20101112_AACBNL liu_m_Page_074.jpg
d32d394db109af3da453423ac5a24a0e
244e11977cb7838e41c44cd4c600686e346d0ed7
75821 F20101112_AACBMW liu_m_Page_049.jpg
120a8ff85dab97e4eea2bf1846df0866
7d2d5cc56682e86466d73891696414aebab8de73
26076 F20101112_AACBNM liu_m_Page_075.jpg
ef2119a2e8ff81f8488017775aa234ae
428746234cf1260603711cc20461a487158eba9d
79406 F20101112_AACBMX liu_m_Page_050.jpg
3cd103d8befd30c75ae5e74529982ed1
83800ac1e12dcc38792fc6c6070dbc11cc9a7c5b
42218 F20101112_AACBOA liu_m_Page_097.jpg
b413d8ff6dfcc320292bef31f29846c2
d198497e29b3af69bd5755a587b789cd498aa926
36167 F20101112_AACBNN liu_m_Page_077.jpg
4fd9a2b332f877f27cdde62a4cb499bf
915d532474e3059bec533c785858c53dfa55ea47
75369 F20101112_AACBMY liu_m_Page_051.jpg
17c74de86fc33cc937144d13b535dcef
be29624a19ad0a0920803aa91a269930594671f7
43750 F20101112_AACBOB liu_m_Page_098.jpg
bea43a23f3255ca0b1b0a51dcf7d710d
9c9e3a30e4ae25865147b08f1ab1aaf41715d738
39659 F20101112_AACBNO liu_m_Page_078.jpg
0fdc87b2b7131e9bd7a473af321a6968
43a6c6bd3d14178841277c17e6ad18bec184b3cb
86468 F20101112_AACBMZ liu_m_Page_052.jpg
6398debdaebf943e7c71f9ceb71a5d37
176c5c29798bd20466db2bc69e5f523f7c20f83f
26825 F20101112_AACBOC liu_m_Page_100.jpg
2803cb551b9ac7d12531a2d152179d80
54fa85943c2840017f8c7d20c59074d57b12b102
28329 F20101112_AACBNP liu_m_Page_079.jpg
a7a24a5f13051c8b8bb12cd23ece18fb
76e0bc8ab1f191744fb265aa906aef35512bbda9
31715 F20101112_AACBOD liu_m_Page_102.jpg
e4d75d89e58fdf7269a67d5a42b52b60
629a0427a15b6106f55c41e563d52a52840c20f4
27095 F20101112_AACBNQ liu_m_Page_080.jpg
3864bb06ea165d61891fc390ab8c0f76
869665be24e2b016df09f0870f3c069adef13868
40285 F20101112_AACBOE liu_m_Page_104.jpg
bec8a955b5cccb8d922c299811b5e4f7
9d85be605ed6760915c523725f730d96dd9d53d8
27334 F20101112_AACBOF liu_m_Page_105.jpg
8d71d0df751b801ce8ce49c6a934a5af
bf633c93da532ce2582dfac181e500a1d39bf578
26420 F20101112_AACBNR liu_m_Page_081.jpg
1f0b71ca6e78b1bf057a3f44a479a2e3
410993af74d8a091ee569f9c0ae11e5ae7396353
25207 F20101112_AACBOG liu_m_Page_106.jpg
c80228b5f022e374e78cfa1a685f0dd7
e4afd269373247a0a003634bd112ab595ba07162
26362 F20101112_AACBNS liu_m_Page_083.jpg
e5e4036e04b65c85d6925a51e551ec75
56d18c951cf68ac13676ca7f23afec71fe6f63a0
44630 F20101112_AACBOH liu_m_Page_107.jpg
1e251d53201c9d484127584cd919667a
a49eca9cc48975ed7d8d71cac64a871afc242dd0
34947 F20101112_AACBOI liu_m_Page_110.jpg
9e2931a9b87b954e83cfe0791263b509
2fecc6a52c488517c4f242fb605842628df55827
71117 F20101112_AACBNT liu_m_Page_085.jpg
d956aa86ea2088b2b667cf6418ad01b8
44301229d9151ad5a9195e2376e6ae51d84466da
90850 F20101112_AACBOJ liu_m_Page_112.jpg
11dec5dc8e6cc27df3e1e1367fd334ce
3c06714950523231b2fbff3e41f57c39e9d32949
37512 F20101112_AACBNU liu_m_Page_088.jpg
694075b12f518569617c30656ca915de
dad845abb8d34793470010c33235d42bf0b7a259
87220 F20101112_AACBOK liu_m_Page_115.jpg
649ef75a2514f1f28478b068028da4f2
539a850124173f25bf281391f4f134016c033bc8
35118 F20101112_AACBNV liu_m_Page_089.jpg
4a045f192eb3c5c3fd75260ecf15fd3e
00e62b4b3d5ea2268d7558b467a70a04f338e55b
84569 F20101112_AACBOL liu_m_Page_116.jpg
60e672c7719016ba448af8fddc0c2a4f
fff5edfbc5222e50a04314d99015ef7e51312146
39111 F20101112_AACBNW liu_m_Page_091.jpg
3ae8eba6d567521d25b8cf7567aefe69
48dccd827c2ea93b3b85a9b4a3611eb8207a5036
117150 F20101112_AACBPA liu_m_Page_016.jp2
bfab0bbc7848af0b2f6e2b86f0e15d03
435fefecd238501c45170136cb7fb02942e03fcf
98384 F20101112_AACBOM liu_m_Page_117.jpg
99ce168f93fb861d7a0ea2f9f1b1b715
719212f1f5a922d3c81b269b63edf0919ec1a8bc
28433 F20101112_AACBNX liu_m_Page_094.jpg
bfc4eb3419185aedc106bd6a2bd069b6
820733ec69c06d5deb9ce61bbd57ac3960ae8a6d
123561 F20101112_AACBPB liu_m_Page_018.jp2
dcd79591c6b3532faf778c04a2136047
768e0c57716a3c3bc3fab984f422c3c8d89e9997
92588 F20101112_AACBON liu_m_Page_118.jpg
09219237eaca3d576e0d03f396476b7f
a6f5184e5ad5f0a25b1c8a36656459c041e13f13
27519 F20101112_AACBNY liu_m_Page_095.jpg
72436fbb603dc64ad2e52bc51b979fe2
a91aa46aaf5926cb72fcc691299cef45a32722e9
121649 F20101112_AACBPC liu_m_Page_020.jp2
98da8e2eee6c520e98a6951bdbfac707
16751e6d848b95591e1b389ee2805fe4e42df1e7
41169 F20101112_AACBOO liu_m_Page_120.jpg
b35b2e9454598eb6113264adac1a9c89
82e8ba9b944c34c7633ea2883f3a258c43df1cbf
42521 F20101112_AACBNZ liu_m_Page_096.jpg
c603a1484675f5edda830b466e812fc8
0729a1431ebba7231c3e117b339052d039c033b1
119399 F20101112_AACBPD liu_m_Page_024.jp2
280e0a0dcd002b8992e5675540a70731
492588599659b94157ca106edfe41ad0feaa8ba8
21874 F20101112_AACBOP liu_m_Page_001.jp2
09a35376cf6c2881b977f8c9856e2908
5e2585e37cacf81bc55042b94017ff06ecb02fad
1051968 F20101112_AACBPE liu_m_Page_025.jp2
83c2f58656376fc6774e8129a535d2ae
f2f0f00e0c6468dbcb2966f9c52b0f98c1055fbf
4541 F20101112_AACBOQ liu_m_Page_002.jp2
9bfc3b472c5962cd5ea88951dabbb9fb
097b974a132ff4b1eafbeeef8dd2411869e45e7d
124782 F20101112_AACBPF liu_m_Page_026.jp2
99f8f4ee9fe236d20082a70fc1ca5ba6
9d2e391a659fbfed7f094bf5f2059a237e3b0061
56555 F20101112_AACBOR liu_m_Page_004.jp2
e4c72df27f54a0bc5048a61e9afb84f4
4dc423b68e2012daebc5496921bae1fa8f4d0a52
122408 F20101112_AACBPG liu_m_Page_027.jp2
c127f75fd160fc15e78615bfa5ebe03e
cc0e761be694af19556ddb80825c03fec5360ba2
1051986 F20101112_AACBOS liu_m_Page_005.jp2
50d944b3ec4ad1f0d414e4bc4f73ba6a
dc407e557b356276a4cfa8fa909de873febfbaed
1051909 F20101112_AACBPH liu_m_Page_028.jp2
628448c3c18f3bb22d1193455d94e227
b6cf11e0fb30677897f6a959ebb144f66cb4ea17
1051977 F20101112_AACBOT liu_m_Page_007.jp2
f351064d87abb6e7ef7414590a945917
8c8b9d24e0b1d876a0a4e08b11fa03cb1a52544e
113253 F20101112_AACBPI liu_m_Page_029.jp2
07cb195d9e41525bbdc89f98a9876e8c
2776251705780f5892157ebd1c254877b7848e0e
119237 F20101112_AACBPJ liu_m_Page_030.jp2
ddf00932370e2d0ea75fef80ae3fe8e4
58d4574c8284e225f9d6deaa2a1798ec02cd73e6
F20101112_AACBOU liu_m_Page_009.jp2
cd5f8c1daca7342a4306bec41ab61691
de774d7852caa2a55fecbe090e86c402e19a1f31
23099 F20101112_AACBPK liu_m_Page_033.jp2
29d86c705129aabac5ab906b2a537288
b4fbf2fd3d4ea41b5f0c9943e413665f6745a75b
1051985 F20101112_AACBOV liu_m_Page_010.jp2
58348ccf995f0a14518b06eb92544316
b6d63e4e3886673b8d93d4540bdc7b4364b7fe25
36807 F20101112_AACBPL liu_m_Page_034.jp2
8a96ce8b59fa57fca3927737a2ca6eb5
4b15dde835e49dd254cfac872c7c93b387cc237a
46068 F20101112_AACBOW liu_m_Page_012.jp2
98a9ae52a446b9ffefe18460fd0ae00d
fafcf2107fd212e64a0c8c0495753d027350836f
51675 F20101112_AACBPM liu_m_Page_035.jp2
239f513ff582146e4c3ed87419ca6ef5
753585a25c164a79d006bb3fe6a9def40e1ef550
119432 F20101112_AACBOX liu_m_Page_013.jp2
bf49ed78a600a7d3cb35ea0edda75bd3
ef09231fd1a9827e6124ab773f84d478456a2ee8
119167 F20101112_AACBQA liu_m_Page_056.jp2
a2ed46e88629b4e10d822365dd27db50
b5b7438acfaba6b44fc602bcea7f7ffd337fcb8e
1051964 F20101112_AACBPN liu_m_Page_037.jp2
04dd5b0dd1f7b9c7ede434a6698fef75
4c9ffc48e3d34374d88190b498e8d660b3258e02
11858 F20101112_AACBOY liu_m_Page_014.jp2
a1404032b5e35b878682174a762cf18c
bc3c19d290c14e013edaedd738d62b049b7b2241
117030 F20101112_AACBQB liu_m_Page_058.jp2
3de84877c43facba759c577686d17dcc
282bbbd7fe9f0ce9a647fe78a39539eebb0f1777
114890 F20101112_AACBPO liu_m_Page_039.jp2
028fe26501a81a00dcfbbbf58c3bda74
d23197d0efd5466d9fd1d4c3506032f80ea62ef6
108349 F20101112_AACBOZ liu_m_Page_015.jp2
d7bf47c00a961a6b9ff03bd0ec1ec7d6
f8c6e5a8622946513e8659c1b4ec7b82f93b7d01
123244 F20101112_AACBQC liu_m_Page_059.jp2
568b1588ce462d94873f07e342bd5ffe
7e04a3fb51ebffd4482af9dca2dd50e2499b8176
1051935 F20101112_AACBPP liu_m_Page_041.jp2
ba47ff7dbbadf818fbd31860700f9b9b
fffde568bfe02bf079ed60a0b5cb26db35190f69
120335 F20101112_AACBQD liu_m_Page_060.jp2
9a9e39e7e023421731ab69cfcac75068
db8f52759510871b6ec15caf7998d73967c851f4
F20101112_AACBPQ liu_m_Page_042.jp2
6f36224b96149706ac9bbd998d99e6be
3029dfb64479cbc54fed9bb08dda1ded29521836
112114 F20101112_AACBQE liu_m_Page_061.jp2
d9a93ad03af8fcc4ef20c7c5e3c1942d
b3d1e327d32f09bbbee1c8ea542d2aef6dcb07c3
37950 F20101112_AACBPR liu_m_Page_045.jp2
8f5350bf89dbca8e160760f0537802c3
4307f60bfb47d9640f1e826fc5eb0d8699f86741
115332 F20101112_AACBQF liu_m_Page_062.jp2
ec93ca313212e32356df02b226ce5576
f0e3a8d5319a4b316a1511f98746b869d61f4ea0
102233 F20101112_AACBPS liu_m_Page_046.jp2
e2b1f676d50142f354b26466c0c1414f
7d22811890f472cbb3b9f45f3fee880937cd42f7
113922 F20101112_AACBQG liu_m_Page_064.jp2
8d974a00db15431305ebd24c555bbd75
c97e2b670e8e91b34c00d67e45327c8b10366873
F20101112_AACBPT liu_m_Page_047.jp2
2d8c3f0622c6aaa5cd88a792a208a0c6
f217e972c166fa93c9937bf05dd1d388574f5058
118317 F20101112_AACBQH liu_m_Page_065.jp2
e46f42661e6043146fd5d3dfacea02d6
53ab5803d5b4d4df85e595dd68e7599132fe554f
119561 F20101112_AACBPU liu_m_Page_048.jp2
729df9a6f347d805b402f07f55e7bef8
711bc6e1c8de290f45fe91ba3e2c4d7f2b48de0f
119346 F20101112_AACBQI liu_m_Page_066.jp2
432ab157a2a5e56d654e558f7e512216
3a1574018ec9d53102b17c7cfd7b1f50baec6368
581809 F20101112_AACBQJ liu_m_Page_068.jp2
be8d1c8462aa84beb40b406114e017c6
a5dc7d579da6d4efed1f7f8cfe0e7b4b5e605b55
118430 F20101112_AACBPV liu_m_Page_050.jp2
704d45406863f292538825f93c212e05
57a4df80c19ce16c43450a3731ea061aa9374c50
399894 F20101112_AACBQK liu_m_Page_069.jp2
a89aaf16a59ef8e388ad36cb8080badd
acfc4960075fe42d3f61e2e7c547b53d33224d73
113000 F20101112_AACBPW liu_m_Page_051.jp2
d5790e437c12757a566f72bfa88a8118
88653e8d2c7569cdd323d5e56e908f57a62e470c
25901 F20101112_AACBQL liu_m_Page_070.jp2
00e34b35933a48490228288b9dd2d3b7
e8e881ca8c0b3739ed22160a56225d3115ee44eb
1051916 F20101112_AACBPX liu_m_Page_052.jp2
fb89c5549af96f4263e1f889bd07be59
1474ed7eaec3fc1c1cdcced7f61060b98907ee9e
453562 F20101112_AACBRA liu_m_Page_091.jp2
999bd0b665a26db1f49737f8b8675262
fbb99c91e961b8b2d99aafa85c828511005da3e6
220629 F20101112_AACBQM liu_m_Page_071.jp2
8a8ca3f244a2d991f577e9a8e83aea66
283f0593a7ad03de2a41506cf1d91332ee0afd14
125039 F20101112_AACBPY liu_m_Page_054.jp2
c084f75163aa91dbfef416c04169b274
e5592e0761e60e522c95cc48564af3b4d6c1f203
29563 F20101112_AACBRB liu_m_Page_092.jp2
6c3f93f9b501431fc75692e52475b857
e3a22bf935878a22d521ee395c1343716e6069b7
26141 F20101112_AACBQN liu_m_Page_072.jp2
da689ac1caa1ac8275bd82dcdbfe5852
9cfe6153a6d686467d47cc1954f96d62026e87e2
113081 F20101112_AACBPZ liu_m_Page_055.jp2
692f4a05b2ac0484bdaa0b53b839eec8
e1aaf2f7ddf02ce9fc17fe3f627e24cbfb4a6fab
29576 F20101112_AACBRC liu_m_Page_094.jp2
3f4c6561b29db2187d6916e8b6de036f
d4b27518d012c3d03da8d6fbf4a09463faed5d49
55083 F20101112_AACBQO liu_m_Page_073.jp2
af6c5cc502824b6cbe1f0ba82f61724c
4e112ed0a5ee43bab546d6e2dc6d7153262d85ee
28449 F20101112_AACBRD liu_m_Page_095.jp2
bdc67acd230f67fce95b9f3a8d494efb
066bc9438a2061755bc36d42a537ebbda6b5a08e
76746 F20101112_AACBQP liu_m_Page_074.jp2
32444867b60abdcbad07cc44ac8ea4ff
45ef118b27d21ea749c3ac888c13291d54936269
454458 F20101112_AACBRE liu_m_Page_096.jp2
9f36d5cdff367539030424c7cceb42ad
bd2ccef3d482ed2b43e6d05e03ee746a19b9d840
427503 F20101112_AACBQQ liu_m_Page_077.jp2
4a94cb1b2f1297feae9527b34132468b
3648935c8336a9d96028ab5bb8c23f3d956012d4
459061 F20101112_AACBRF liu_m_Page_097.jp2
7db025cd99d2e2af7dc14c94bde24259
f131f1c74136f76c2ede7c409c4abfcb580dfb3d
458798 F20101112_AACBQR liu_m_Page_078.jp2
9b8aabe95d14ef06018c6d8f69d61264
3f9f917d7ecf7d9f6819cea4f133a6913cd64dc9
468393 F20101112_AACBRG liu_m_Page_098.jp2
e10984a5157bd5951e9cd859ac4a22ed
5799e952eb6feef706bc9430c30ab5e3aa01b138
27620 F20101112_AACBQS liu_m_Page_080.jp2
727fb3962cc6ae6aff18d38d4b2e1626
29924bee05a6069f2b25dc15c52fc7199fe68adc
82103 F20101112_AACBRH liu_m_Page_099.jp2
25baff7b05d02a539a56562248836271
f4ab416152d22d126e3308e62c73653b51552c77
237918 F20101112_AACBQT liu_m_Page_083.jp2
90c951352398da4b7120b10df41673b3
a50c3ef1ac659a9915e63e75484d597415de476d
30590 F20101112_AACBRI liu_m_Page_100.jp2
4eb16da549f28e958cfc4357f7a670d9
90d44a60c53e5ad58d06916740b043b649f88817
66862 F20101112_AACBQU liu_m_Page_084.jp2
17004f1e1fa055a45c85bd3a0c6a93ea
4350bc6a56fd7fbc2b78ffc4a93cc425d7013448
27736 F20101112_AACBRJ liu_m_Page_101.jp2
c905f2a6f1657b201fb39c7426011fd9
ed3cf26d74db40f5adbdac8437d19889538f9d3b
94346 F20101112_AACBQV liu_m_Page_085.jp2
dadbe9dc449037dd2834feca656f7d90
189cd2871bc108646105375e08cea7d2ae508c0d
329535 F20101112_AACBRK liu_m_Page_102.jp2
9cbe12daf164e981c944c7541e708fa2
c813e0dc92e2b9130368bbabb3278703d86cfd22
433170 F20101112_AACBRL liu_m_Page_103.jp2
2bfd5c28736adeeec0fd1508ae11b17e
7d758fad0a9b1f5a87a2e69952b3df1365008499
28600 F20101112_AACBQW liu_m_Page_086.jp2
d28a45d31a4439f5057d6d52563be62a
0bf1642672d0409dfe20933a7fe9c7cec8f8c2d1
F20101112_AACBSA liu_m_Page_003.tif
b0db76f6f40156d71c87b8978eb154e3
09f7ff3d9371d4dc318c33a5edaaf8cc7f71e932
462116 F20101112_AACBRM liu_m_Page_104.jp2
0de8beecb5bfc03f48636fd63ebbfebb
08e176fb64b84e4422cab888f14c6a0f34f7b47d
510446 F20101112_AACBQX liu_m_Page_087.jp2
f2685c0c3ab380e52b7d5e403e2c4df8
5acde2a53f89145801996f1136be71b3dc868f5c
F20101112_AACBSB liu_m_Page_004.tif
1cf6c4f052e41068f9eef81ab60765d7
0e3b2ebdb8dc2008c6c2109a05f08ec934e6fdad
27866 F20101112_AACBRN liu_m_Page_105.jp2
15827bb227035012b15c9b9ed4d89eb9
86b5aeb62db5b43f6fb89caf297f194ecd682db6
419423 F20101112_AACBQY liu_m_Page_089.jp2
6c89496585e9c29adbfd2b7f570ad55a
33fb9f666ab4bade024bf62e3642b2521ad4593e
F20101112_AACBSC liu_m_Page_006.tif
835e85fe17b1f3304783630ee167b780
47be676333b4c9b2c6cedb8575d578329f7d4e3b
234223 F20101112_AACBRO liu_m_Page_106.jp2
9679cc79802a3da56bef99bc144b5afd
88dd19597d1805f027e4af01b55e18c76ec027ea
466436 F20101112_AACBQZ liu_m_Page_090.jp2
1a2a4fdbe50b6a03cc4b4790cca65a2a
1745edc875a856ed605105c5789e2158971855d0
F20101112_AACBSD liu_m_Page_009.tif
0d6d46253f5d5ad25951e2c38b759ed9
afe467c8c79e6ea9c1d74bc6b957b2b16145868a
461210 F20101112_AACBRP liu_m_Page_107.jp2
055eb2eccae90f7a3147d2cc6755ad1c
531d5d8a4c7599ce23d0ac00db94653cc840cd54
F20101112_AACBSE liu_m_Page_011.tif
9b57de7eb1af67cfa0b165caa88ac1f1
106ab39498c795767c025875780d2dcf638838ea
1051981 F20101112_AACBRQ liu_m_Page_108.jp2
5ecef3fe54c5dcb2c8933ebff264c169
dc9b30414d4c8fdff324d548af32674d9ca053d8
F20101112_AACBSF liu_m_Page_013.tif
f0b2ad69c7395d2f50cf21c66d88561a
d82a7562700a9af3cdf4f3737bb2492b47e152e1
47645 F20101112_AACBRR liu_m_Page_110.jp2
0989ed45b79b93746c42193f4602bb53
037d90dbaa78785bbda32306fc4473c0979f6bcc
F20101112_AACBSG liu_m_Page_014.tif
08d41f30d2bd91522056fa5f84e6dd1b
cfc80474659f3451a98971b15063e9bbab16c517
131774 F20101112_AACBRS liu_m_Page_111.jp2
44a303a902cc0a337e0b1e5752e45c7c
e61c539a34ea04fc74aee0adf55116109f49b483
F20101112_AACBSH liu_m_Page_015.tif
a167acf07b5e6d2fc2f38615a92b81e7
35031374117dbcee9b0c8901d8975d9854d0a7d7
136416 F20101112_AACBRT liu_m_Page_112.jp2
3ad184b0dc61cf2985bba00ed7ce5788
e1cfd1373412b21a03aa97356fa5bfaeb0a0b9c4
F20101112_AACBSI liu_m_Page_017.tif
b5d88809b7d96d48647e3c868223220e
cb1fef1deacd765324b65ab241ff8e9a14d6cad3
132522 F20101112_AACBRU liu_m_Page_115.jp2
dc22e02f19fbe59659d1b11bd69c9da3
0b67e58295ff37e68f38fd23a45c6bb898973d64
F20101112_AACBSJ liu_m_Page_019.tif
1c2d0903b4b02ff93662a1c6df546c0a
c2dec6fa8eda51d7fdb9b8b8b5d4a3a497a9b27c
128891 F20101112_AACBRV liu_m_Page_116.jp2
1ac20b56dffe7d8e4d747574f90eef41
2673c27a390301dd8792f0cb74d669d98d875232
F20101112_AACBSK liu_m_Page_020.tif
e1c35870e8dbf78c5ca099be88c22799
10addbecc5f8f47d26d597e5777eda650b1b61a5
137801 F20101112_AACBRW liu_m_Page_117.jp2
fd6d9048d4d699ed5ecfc04f7c4242a1
2db1b5b6599be694a1259150c06795de680a695c
F20101112_AACBSL liu_m_Page_021.tif
19dea33101cacdc85d0a5b8dbbfc1b67
b007fd8ac6e955b516f3d478585d3844135c0bfe
F20101112_AACBSM liu_m_Page_022.tif
529453e381d27a59d014dfd5e2a71751
852011f9ec1e7e9774d8c44a887538c3e2595a58
40842 F20101112_AACBRX liu_m_Page_119.jp2
c992d6032758a90e89a56a94277c10ae
6ed0ab908fe9e67b331ee3b9dcc103728c56193b
F20101112_AACBTA liu_m_Page_041.tif
e8af4225298ad57a24836c430b47e635
26e69f9df785b9d9fe51187041768e0b48c711ee
F20101112_AACBSN liu_m_Page_023.tif
8db357fe1d628ba4e8f7c0742fdfce48
4e38c3d74b0cdbcf9bd84e92ecf06f839eb98f0d
56137 F20101112_AACBRY liu_m_Page_120.jp2
f8b15062a1d86613df7afb41c82e5a02
f590e23d2746d36460a2f76cfce616c114ab0354
F20101112_AACBTB liu_m_Page_042.tif
fa39cdbf4c017cd67c3bfe872473095c
5d820212379cdab85909fa765f494a6e9f691b00
F20101112_AACBRZ liu_m_Page_001.tif
7684b4c487b71e5f42b55be68c2482a9
872e3d06bfc773a2b5e0fdd8d60d6e0c2f47c2e8
F20101112_AACBTC liu_m_Page_044.tif
ab20e3bd2df51380463bacbb30865f1e
1bae59d47e278386492ee605f6072e1d4837bfb6
F20101112_AACBSO liu_m_Page_024.tif
6d7c6973691af68241ab2b98561f163b
e2c281a67d6ca2d6383790fbea8b6f233c3e3dca
F20101112_AACBTD liu_m_Page_045.tif
e8d68aa344fbaf0b03e5ae3e3c3d09ea
59018fcf999653ac687a0f147c91010b1e8e496d
F20101112_AACBSP liu_m_Page_029.tif
4f7a9dd0425db03760c17850a826a3c2
1f59dc11f084759f00af661eaf6e0ca129fcc2f6
F20101112_AACBTE liu_m_Page_047.tif
06fc63aedcdf7d570defbac1cdfcbda8
34cfbf62e63bb4543d320a82b87e6b661ef6bdb8
F20101112_AACBSQ liu_m_Page_030.tif
2f6b058aa22cead3e09f62676aa3ca80
db60db469a6646dee5c39a1967550139591c6abe
F20101112_AACBTF liu_m_Page_048.tif
dbda43d5fa6416312e9c105d7ac5bcf7
2170f54ff3dcc7a20379f469287eaf0fe36213b8
F20101112_AACBSR liu_m_Page_031.tif
8c2c0183ae32194d9e449a743fa27962
c49eb65b6d70afdc3f97cc6f4d58436eadc6c8cf
F20101112_AACBTG liu_m_Page_050.tif
2773b5920d66fcda0da7aeaa3ba6d9cd
513301f4c76896e3e97d495cce7cfd799e5cf4ab
F20101112_AACBSS liu_m_Page_032.tif
da6768b2d89914a719155106be2df50f
205dd40602aef4bb20284a94952ffa83acd57a9e
F20101112_AACBTH liu_m_Page_051.tif
84c1f66e528e1e5d1121a0b1c8a06f62
f95f1882958c6507ee524bac4b632b5893c59d58
F20101112_AACBST liu_m_Page_034.tif
1a884e8ee08e9720f3b514235361f4d9
c92716d2eb736fe7913a926010b43f6508954153
F20101112_AACBTI liu_m_Page_052.tif
6b1576ec9544e6d7cc24e9c4daf68011
76451b4f102ecb0c0e1397aa62511d4a38acae0f
F20101112_AACBSU liu_m_Page_035.tif
fe5629a2afcdf35479d18cb29b30185b
04a1094e3222d54133c6a9ce11948f7d8e009689
F20101112_AACBTJ liu_m_Page_054.tif
59da8134cf6f616968a9a49e042fd2ab
9658fe51a8a791728fc8d23a4d4b1c47682022e6
F20101112_AACBSV liu_m_Page_036.tif
85877504a1a09d8cf8e75f6a16dd58d2
ac2c83e584394c881aeb677d38bad0bb2b2902da
F20101112_AACBTK liu_m_Page_055.tif
d988388ebf34a3bb5457a7af653a8a12
05ac269578f68b884b5161837cb3faf7bd1300a2
F20101112_AACBSW liu_m_Page_037.tif
aa2d20796090965c630462f895e52323
70ffb133b3fb2926d7fe9c41796671fcd7bc2649
F20101112_AACBTL liu_m_Page_056.tif
db20dc7b25c88d54f652719ac55f9b32
2b2c131414ce85bfcaab9ea80e84226d87171150
F20101112_AACBSX liu_m_Page_038.tif
a8afc015aea7d765860b6e6ea5d82288
df0be8d26e889ffc7c9cd48c4000620aa8b31ea4
F20101112_AACBUA liu_m_Page_077.tif
84fdb0ed989286783bc2595412bf3837
edbb6990f695810880eaed9a85fe6a712e133037
F20101112_AACBTM liu_m_Page_059.tif
ff453e12facf6ea68bbbb61e497003df
442e7519d3ba0cab97b128757caa1ffc03d0bad6
F20101112_AACBUB liu_m_Page_078.tif
2cf9bf9ef0d3fb75a0b13258b3718e94
da99ea7c102a038b66bfa64fed265ba6aeb8f52d
F20101112_AACBTN liu_m_Page_060.tif
0f3f07d4d099f9938ddb580ec81b18c6
4d98bb9da7d2963c9a213ca9e7a70e57050eba74
F20101112_AACBSY liu_m_Page_039.tif
021549f802d785de12636922e5a1bb9a
2c0777e2d95f1c134d3b6be27417785b8ea7d593
F20101112_AACBUC liu_m_Page_080.tif
3d14abb412efbd06a46781f0d71230e6
a272b76d564526cd37143cf53ddb07cd125f063d
F20101112_AACBTO liu_m_Page_061.tif
dad0d01675e1288ee9e64d6bd268ecd5
277327df99a19571a6e2c95fe5a585aea1d4a30c
F20101112_AACBSZ liu_m_Page_040.tif
4bb9616b9c93b6600862eb404a0c9c5b
a7240b755088f19c1a95ef597536bb209fc96241
F20101112_AACBUD liu_m_Page_081.tif
49ea11bee0f6eea684f7659254854b50
079e9a8b560c61674a67d8ed08dd8af402a6e575
F20101112_AACBTP liu_m_Page_062.tif
46596d906e7f17b435af2b229b0d7113
e1f4956c2afb492de03308d5b75a07da2833622a
F20101112_AACBUE liu_m_Page_082.tif
e2365343f263f409ac49f3230cc1faaf
f481d64cc37b274f78a0536a28a82722e6d487ea
F20101112_AACBTQ liu_m_Page_063.tif
e27883a6685c50bce3f44eb966f17f95
dfec50f32981736c890a55633968be94a2390b1f
F20101112_AACBUF liu_m_Page_083.tif
479adf7c91b8b43cb3e1e5ab9d3a5713
82892e9527ca542e5b09a4e6d164f694380addb0
F20101112_AACBTR liu_m_Page_064.tif
cfba44a3202bd420843b8439d614e62a
af312d74d16a8469e9a1b014a9a821db4a9c8b20
431 F20101112_AACCAA liu_m_Page_070.txt
0c6b4fdb42c221b989a5f335bebda419
844b4c9222266b3758c7b2718a164e364a14c6ff
F20101112_AACBUG liu_m_Page_084.tif
376833accc63d072e7308b36b0efb05f
bca15c20915759bb40427703005399bff3ae0a2a
F20101112_AACBTS liu_m_Page_065.tif
6beb86f888fd6ad9a326754895f01b26
725b0130704603cf7fbf44f78c1efeac3b250e32
568 F20101112_AACCAB liu_m_Page_071.txt
7f88bbb92b81c73a941c2e4c92ba7f92
a689766b1f5067eb7ae9b04919bacf44e0d984f1
F20101112_AACBUH liu_m_Page_085.tif
24d040db56309a4945a2f99c0032b43c
e11d79eeed426a00a08bc5bc22f48e7e03b345a3
F20101112_AACBTT liu_m_Page_066.tif
8e26d06e99c3a5febaa3c77e48ddf160
bf168ab051dffe3f7bea91bec95029a608915893
444 F20101112_AACCAC liu_m_Page_072.txt
97ce117fe76eb4fd7e57f1c2329ed65a
7f315d0ebc9dc848433992b38de973d773a398f9
F20101112_AACBUI liu_m_Page_088.tif
d8802b56da8c36f784d38426de859d72
09713cc99bb56356c2be6e7689196ea951b7c57b
F20101112_AACBTU liu_m_Page_067.tif
1beb1a40152382483f0297b2a45fd6b8
d4a9a48c1d473b9e3766fa79be80f41f1fe02b01
489 F20101112_AACCAD liu_m_Page_075.txt
21b2053302eea3f71199884945240157
373dc0aa518c2a04546105f3c019aab045564b9f
F20101112_AACBUJ liu_m_Page_089.tif
e27ac1169346b799123403fe577dc771
85e4702306e08bcf43e0bc85ef29e38b3aaf8ff3
F20101112_AACBTV liu_m_Page_070.tif
6df24fb778b8d159e32e13e353b7d744
7e0e16b5f013f1277eaa297a1d80d8197d4374af
633 F20101112_AACCAE liu_m_Page_077.txt
d0ff64f89bc178da28ce176e953a882e
3ccd901d6de88b2b31126f646dbb9c4661865613
F20101112_AACBUK liu_m_Page_093.tif
a8aeec0456f623b30193ce97e6bbd586
892a0767ee54d3ac9b3ca04d3713d8470b51eaaa
F20101112_AACBTW liu_m_Page_071.tif
c8ff80338a34f0333c84af27d32e16a1
d8c5299df478efab919569ba9d216a91fa9b2585
F20101112_AACBUL liu_m_Page_094.tif
9b0c00cca7dd3752663bf95266a3c278
85f6749a96a92d1650ebc3371084190c35e25f90
F20101112_AACBTX liu_m_Page_073.tif
bbf664a749b4811250ad44b98710213b
7d486147f4eaf4bb25a20cd915a762dd176a4f50
666 F20101112_AACCAF liu_m_Page_079.txt
dc68a43957497056dc5f33bd8184bcf4
b887f503b1f38e678b2222ce0e33f61fa886b688
F20101112_AACBUM liu_m_Page_096.tif
47fdd52cb555eb12d120aa335c49a63c
94076970fddfa035b06c2dbd0a8ff16f22ca2810
F20101112_AACBTY liu_m_Page_075.tif
8e4127caa6275c667bbf48db086ed205
4023b474b032e948f61d1fc97f569e34aa1aa75f
536 F20101112_AACCAG liu_m_Page_081.txt
9286d168a19b01cdd0b0f71ba104e730
0b01e1a75b15a007e5515f09b44985719aaa79a6
F20101112_AACBVA liu_m_Page_120.tif
6b4ed3119f8fd7783bb28a88763be0b2
37930002e904b148329fbf64dc06287359a2dafe
F20101112_AACBUN liu_m_Page_097.tif
24215c0af923f199a7c3b2f3d174e8fd
119d650bad5cd60512c5bb9e66d3ca8704287605
735 F20101112_AACCAH liu_m_Page_083.txt
ec0b0dc850f1c04efadb927099e9a910
59535c9b30f95e0097312c94fb9b37c06635ddf8
7066 F20101112_AACBVB liu_m_Page_001.pro
624808351da48d05cdaa6ce8892b528f
67d5a1a716c5a43bddeb09dcdf4629ad9a8f179e
F20101112_AACBUO liu_m_Page_098.tif
60eca2e48f9073591a059de74d8f6d59
acf2ebb6a76203c11e6ae96515f7ec2f81ae5f07
F20101112_AACBTZ liu_m_Page_076.tif
df4891429bcd6ed1887866c99e5d2fbf
2e4b46307187ee99394a7b45c62007a140b86428
1602 F20101112_AACCAI liu_m_Page_084.txt
70f2a2d05333e5d76f20740dc76e4a9f
5b09b7f273145feec4214e9999c7e8013792e9b0
2181 F20101112_AACBVC liu_m_Page_003.pro
c002bc79a2c8491c04a8b387de74d352
2e090b08f49f830b3def04264ce11d3ba499bb33
F20101112_AACBUP liu_m_Page_100.tif
2c445de3bd95e1adf06df021682c3ee9
97b68670d8814a9d936d1b0cadfe4f8f39cb40ee
2657 F20101112_AACCAJ liu_m_Page_085.txt
7ed70b21d702a139f92c3214b65a742e
7e4b3b8f4342ae2ad103c92a2d5ba8fb9ba9ea4b
24629 F20101112_AACBVD liu_m_Page_004.pro
b73659393791ae1c1c78d0b1cf7606ab
764c57959397e6b8cd358202d8f55357b3e4782d
F20101112_AACBUQ liu_m_Page_102.tif
35a39835d7b8ef3296f58bf8ec7b2863
fc57ee2a554c4a3a3fa7b601e24df92922c2fc7a
714 F20101112_AACCAK liu_m_Page_087.txt
65efe3cc995d6228665a9d2899ea6870
ebe42e7b14fcc2cfd76c452c8bb4d778c55e8bba
94073 F20101112_AACBVE liu_m_Page_005.pro
18f79df948cf148e4cc9b34d067b56a2
826f8cc181f79b26d85f91ac80ec88db5519ce82
F20101112_AACBUR liu_m_Page_103.tif
6e05e2ba32e36de7145e78fd3a433621
e7fe412e8aa3c50c6358c8017ef059b4e7529242
572 F20101112_AACCBA liu_m_Page_106.txt
ed21cc1c58f394f5ff8e2bdaba4e76b8
b92b717f30c18c2f9769a70e1987d52ac524a777
932 F20101112_AACCAL liu_m_Page_088.txt
d20f3aee8a3a7f622dc9c7806230f6be
dd79a2f2630fe80916b38938ae9696354ac22bea
113947 F20101112_AACBVF liu_m_Page_006.pro
d8a477b93bdf1d5b1479bff75ff686b1
65611d2ddbdae756a23d87d8de514146f43e5c6d
F20101112_AACBUS liu_m_Page_105.tif
ce2e6f021a2f3e500b24c0a0fd74c503
2654460fdccfadee07dae7bee351d2678ba9c442
1185 F20101112_AACCBB liu_m_Page_107.txt
dc5da5b37b5b4f5cc74cfd6175a59d6c
cd81323c3bf327c3abfbd276ba56fec2343a796b
873 F20101112_AACCAM liu_m_Page_089.txt
179cd1e4d80f421fba3f930ca174cedd
f77142334a4009e762efb9e3539a027bbc616712
60098 F20101112_AACBVG liu_m_Page_007.pro
a5835daeb8cd3bcfbe2ef8ae3b329d71
13a06ec1cdcb30760d6b659c09b95d9ad46cc580
F20101112_AACBUT liu_m_Page_108.tif
42e726ae4a22cf8703a73c0c88342b2e
b6d52d37f67c1c418f6c32214f5d40e0a9f3a71b
2122 F20101112_AACCBC liu_m_Page_108.txt
64501372f7f2348c129139313603b34f
4b17117cee4ebd0c0b595f0dfdeaffa46a18ea07
1163 F20101112_AACCAN liu_m_Page_090.txt
2032e2aa607d10f2aaddf791fa20d580
3a4daa8ed285d4ae87cfa9bb8728cd278f6d2ebf
75294 F20101112_AACBVH liu_m_Page_008.pro
c25faf87c860f78a254be68283d8bed9
55f83b3ac4fb64eeee986330257dcf82370569ce
F20101112_AACBUU liu_m_Page_109.tif
b00b8aaa1430a4a2103dab93005aa5ad
2a1932bceaf4c39a3cf047119ef03f3b543eb2a5
2150 F20101112_AACCBD liu_m_Page_109.txt
ce900c8dfc4b0bde58b14d532072414c
d77bc3293b543f7a326e2c608289ebee96ad8890
F20101112_AACCAO liu_m_Page_091.txt
7804d7a10eeb881e77d28c1ace3248b4
2274ee54f1e9016900df3d8249823b15176b2d0d
84851 F20101112_AACBVI liu_m_Page_010.pro
fbb471f8ac3539af7ab25601dcfd5b4c
77348faa7447f4a96f19bb155101c512a057a55d
F20101112_AACBUV liu_m_Page_110.tif
43c989493614fb8fc92bfb7189daeb01
118bd1a6b802eec8e7d2c550fd4d0610b1150a16
859 F20101112_AACCBE liu_m_Page_110.txt
dd4f257634865dde1aed5918c9e77fac
aee5c257909560749d53ad01f3d883bd4a2051f2
697 F20101112_AACCAP liu_m_Page_093.txt
a1c6af6a0ff86be9596fd7889a0f4933
43cccb75698e16c4bc4e6f73951d18cea7e57533
47384 F20101112_AACBVJ liu_m_Page_011.pro
ca355a8985d8b17b1d7188c4a2045c3d
bdbfc1a3211784e1f95b685a7e1be901e3348008
F20101112_AACBUW liu_m_Page_112.tif
1aa5f20b31823f77656f0fc9680ee7a1
169a7494e599f853f4dfe5e505b297f780fa894d
2496 F20101112_AACCBF liu_m_Page_111.txt
719a5751e83f916807f23a062e34d9b1
27882624d42c672c06be92166a43671dcbc704e2
618 F20101112_AACCAQ liu_m_Page_094.txt
c2c32ca57db1be41244b5e45989f6619
302341aff8e73c39185018f995fb71937f463a02
20121 F20101112_AACBVK liu_m_Page_012.pro
e0efb43e329a413fa0c7288375fb9624
a78ccfff5f9ef4381428a588adc07ec63fdd3846
F20101112_AACBUX liu_m_Page_115.tif
10daa5071c9d4d19d0e949ecd4000c98
8ba002ec7255c6ac5721cd39c20f617c87889b7a
700 F20101112_AACCAR liu_m_Page_095.txt
bb42fed54d307cadff2f469702a15a4a
3faf4dbb7a90ae4e22ffd232815655bc6aeacdf5
57114 F20101112_AACBVL liu_m_Page_013.pro
ed9c027859f20a861ff2f04f751dd680
4e0725a046de7224eb98b56b02bf07684bbe551a
F20101112_AACBUY liu_m_Page_118.tif
76b06f4fbe262140a28d7848f342670c
2da8b6e1081fab00f3609936b6b67b3c2384f23f
2528 F20101112_AACCBG liu_m_Page_113.txt
353c1a9a78889140184b9ab9eb7df721
18d6e3070a1476cd95598cf321b7cf9c145c8390
52555 F20101112_AACBWA liu_m_Page_040.pro
4e72b72532669299d2a9ff2fce0335d3
27616de42f6cf4007ac115c4aa6ebec3595fc069
971 F20101112_AACCAS liu_m_Page_096.txt
f79db87d1b89d50e9a5ed5361d6536ba
87c26a09650109669aa86a10c5943e5272178fe2
3990 F20101112_AACBVM liu_m_Page_014.pro
e54c14e36eb2a8e952f59437c783e00d
db41415c15688434bf27c4e4c41cc9055c0495eb
F20101112_AACBUZ liu_m_Page_119.tif
ed67df2b2de1bbf280eb14bcb092cbf8
993450ee4f9be831e7808c2ebafd234ca3ae4228
2506 F20101112_AACCBH liu_m_Page_115.txt
8e5e3c155e5ac73e650c9c291037a28c
63c780f9eedcf8223c9f2be2ba2bb1b53612f3f9
52408 F20101112_AACBWB liu_m_Page_042.pro
d614feb16a6d9f258307809866769c17
f1b496cbeb128ae2108b9a610ee27640464f5b4b
985 F20101112_AACCAT liu_m_Page_097.txt
7a479b5dea56ceceeabec12aedf6390c
ba613f5fd82a7e9852672ecf3be62fa5a72eb6b4
55253 F20101112_AACBVN liu_m_Page_016.pro
8bd298fe2f6d3f9893e5caf1c886a417
e17cd42ab05ae26694d966efcf9885634b6ecc09
2476 F20101112_AACCBI liu_m_Page_116.txt
d46b890c8066b59485bab6be791a9e84
69bdf6b3e3f5ff3915f9d084f80608a8347d534c
44567 F20101112_AACBWC liu_m_Page_043.pro
6d04770bb71805bb83d2e19f3e35d5c0
0a5ab8ada640a03c770da7b5af0a136064780bfb
1918 F20101112_AACCAU liu_m_Page_099.txt
b4469c5eb9a44ef20d78eaad5e55a97d
084ef97388c89c10330bbd373ea6347971c092f4
58899 F20101112_AACBVO liu_m_Page_017.pro
ef78187ab48e290d8dfc6442ae72a2cb
550a5ef6473b9d233fcd99da38b1f003f899eeca
2601 F20101112_AACCBJ liu_m_Page_117.txt
c643cad6a3c37c81856dc768e7579d34
2e7982c1e9a19b8ac329e4093d368e20027cd191
3260 F20101112_AACBWD liu_m_Page_044.pro
ad6670cfaeb78a8b113cb88c4d10b6c5
867dcc66eb07e8d95d22e3a4750685b35775da51
797 F20101112_AACCAV liu_m_Page_100.txt
6980ea398d74f5b1c25fe0a7cd94c0d7
420d79958df987caae85c2ba82b3ce6ebf194efd
50498 F20101112_AACBVP liu_m_Page_019.pro
f3cbf1d6ba788112fdfb7dec1849fd42
e7d6319569329d45bf6934d4d0fb19ad21272fe4
2699 F20101112_AACCBK liu_m_Page_118.txt
d674a0a319bb51fb944299f9cf8e5adb
ab8ebdb5d8d87468e63c505358d08acf82ad5afa
48125 F20101112_AACBWE liu_m_Page_046.pro
5ef9dd34c977b3d6db7a9aff7e1ac35b
467eb132af12e034c3ad6840544f40d097bae41d
560 F20101112_AACCAW liu_m_Page_101.txt
5a1bea39aba6dffdb2d1600cd4db9cfb
5a6f9a1190a6895631ff83488f11cdd34756b5fa
57667 F20101112_AACBVQ liu_m_Page_020.pro
c425114210740af28a1cf2d24c6c3812
89aaac549ed95617db763bca2f9a3779448201fe
1029 F20101112_AACCBL liu_m_Page_120.txt
bd44a71d051775c87847a63bfb1b5130
414cba73d0a8fb3667394a8f139362ef8e0deb25
56029 F20101112_AACBWF liu_m_Page_048.pro
c64a63b7a1d16386ddd23f933a39b392
12665ee3302e1011ff80b6c68bce7f5fbcf4133e
611 F20101112_AACCAX liu_m_Page_102.txt
fd3ac9d66e7857b0771b6a5a41141718
75fa3692f78ae513923aaf02a789b9efd8b7bee1
57819 F20101112_AACBVR liu_m_Page_021.pro
052e0dac9d5b7bc4761792f0c6cf2b82
302ac8e93ddc4e643c6e2c261507ac358a196e31
25138 F20101112_AACCCA liu_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
8dcde60389fa0fe6b481980c1f42b5c6
745100bc6c87e82b936835c2cbd9b3fbb3a42ef4
2137 F20101112_AACCBM liu_m_Page_001thm.jpg
1d7e9f532d14c3ea70eb3c19f215b39d
9c0bd3730d918987cb0eb9f7d47d624a5ebde35f
53636 F20101112_AACBWG liu_m_Page_051.pro
3daa14bdd71b4e0492f3f695fc175c50
6d3822e8d1cbb01f370f9495ebaf513706b9535b
941 F20101112_AACCAY liu_m_Page_103.txt
67ce743a8d10432d03336d5e12aa42f3
ea1c2ccbe40c37549a2ab5c5d564a7b87a458ace
52151 F20101112_AACBVS liu_m_Page_022.pro
3edcf05ea5f59b3e6dbe1c2e0cb1683b
866a30c0a53833c2975b331c80282e83c6664a50
28626 F20101112_AACCCB liu_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
2656916ed06ecc45dd2092f92930e18c
22e077c9f865fd0ba603fde938e83fc40351686f
764338 F20101112_AACCBN liu_m.pdf
eb3cbf5cbd5a47fefa68101a92675a70
a2ea7a13ee412c7781e9ebb43643a79a117d0145
55730 F20101112_AACBWH liu_m_Page_052.pro
42254c5fd08359ea6fd8d955f5e5bdfa
da42c6a86b9157528031a0f8b1f1658385f883e9
516 F20101112_AACCAZ liu_m_Page_105.txt
5916bb896f6de1856230778ba069d6d0
7308b32a5c79f83d403cd488e00ffd8bc78c3c5a
56349 F20101112_AACBVT liu_m_Page_024.pro
84117239ecd9d6b51b9cf666d8c4b858
2679ff265cb7a8094ed4219c5213e4c95cdd7fd0
7661 F20101112_AACCCC liu_m_Page_118thm.jpg
6abdb9f44ea7c9f789d47d02156a2b05
37c1cd325f8a21c9e4ac33b308a8b949d5fae779
8193 F20101112_AACCBO liu_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
32d8ccdf105edcae7076d8850885419f
e6f54e5e8283fa6f4896e403bd16d973959caa2b
53574 F20101112_AACBWI liu_m_Page_053.pro
9470fe6648ec87f74f2fbc990782ca2f
4f6fe2261c530896655316a1fc13c5c31e634314
59224 F20101112_AACBVU liu_m_Page_027.pro
96199d9f9b25463fc9c4af281232c67e
75501957251ed202d1ab3ef5184e76a92502512f
2586 F20101112_AACCCD liu_m_Page_073thm.jpg
59f26d0c72ba15429e7110d8362c4980
d660638ed6106f7b29ffa2105fdb1b27a138303f
26947 F20101112_AACCBP liu_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
d5097efe4accb9e29caf3f9bdd608876
b4965093980d6ec79509cbb510b4050eddceb5ff
59784 F20101112_AACBWJ liu_m_Page_054.pro
7e79f8c4b122260e68455ccf02bcdef3
009db27af7e593f4a08ea1a8d2553b4abc91f5f9
56155 F20101112_AACBVV liu_m_Page_030.pro
d2b171bc28f045f6ddd0fdf31c006b86
566033c386ff071e254ac0a2d28caf8f39da1824
28110 F20101112_AACCCE liu_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
f161fc0cb811a7d227119f2e2897c1d0
7e30c2549161fe88b5c837bd89fa58d5cf98c4dd
26085 F20101112_AACCBQ liu_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
658642b6cce4f44481207e9bb495e292
94e40b89fe986409ed55e6d28dd476cadf7b92aa
54204 F20101112_AACBWK liu_m_Page_057.pro
542e3aff90e37ed5d76618a3cb239c43
4c3ad114efe45a7c4ab911b6186d3ea21134f5fa
57096 F20101112_AACBVW liu_m_Page_031.pro
65a17a7e0968f3401e80f59b8b3c8d05
ede9ac091cf3674d4282ea9ad5e594f82dcf793f
2936 F20101112_AACCCF liu_m_Page_119thm.jpg
0828622b9c3f164f76410ae9407771fe
14e7bc1c993ebe116c8288fc821cb7da85fcd1e2
7158 F20101112_AACCBR liu_m_Page_060thm.jpg
3b954ae819aa524c1ddcf5264b41821d
fcd0807de1a91ae98685cf9cd9b51cfd26b48c15
55955 F20101112_AACBWL liu_m_Page_058.pro
2ef2723295a03bdfddbe885e3bc12aef
8fda0c52b0a11814a9a655feb352ed1648d3feb1
9194 F20101112_AACBVX liu_m_Page_033.pro
6f8170b62dc4fcb35611ffe4bc1d6c47
2f40b9653afd00eb9a3e26b058257014419e5a01
26472 F20101112_AACCCG liu_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
fb2e4fb8a5a299cad814433b0d07b9a2
8be6e02efb5bc9f9aab99ad8429968b5acc4fc11
14249 F20101112_AACBXA liu_m_Page_082.pro
fa87e17cbeb8595eff43d2122c997630
f687d02bd4159fb98dd2d4d6123a9e7ef78e02b1
26887 F20101112_AACCBS liu_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
10c53e648c942038cb3978468b34c35a
591771f7056655debbb0c6184b55e4586a7a882d
52528 F20101112_AACBWM liu_m_Page_061.pro
8827d7cd64ced9ce1cdd4fd250367894
15d85b3acbd782b94f2b887ed699a0b8174355ca
53678 F20101112_AACBVY liu_m_Page_037.pro
2bd8bd13b7a0f3a168cd7110204232c9
1c095f80a665db35acb04715cb2f568ab647abd5
33799 F20101112_AACBXB liu_m_Page_084.pro
79055402dd16c7c6beaa898698c5134a
6c390fb77bc2f13c8fd280a9e6de1c390065054c
14664 F20101112_AACCBT liu_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
9c54e326ef80952e688899d15240e181
3a9416e6efd2e8af8d1a99c36163b639f761439b
55145 F20101112_AACBWN liu_m_Page_063.pro
e97f8713110a042f265f233a9a1314d2
67291629170069afa8aa786d41e27b058c87cd0a
55743 F20101112_AACBVZ liu_m_Page_038.pro
42759704dd43c8ee163baf587428a3b8
1fef30ae4787fd2fbb29d634fbdd14248e8a996b
6186 F20101112_AACCCH liu_m_Page_011thm.jpg
a52336c94e7c44bbe8105b7c9fdaeea0
08ad74997d1e52ada89e228c46446d3dc4de2bde
10117 F20101112_AACBXC liu_m_Page_086.pro
84897eac82a64857c9579d20420b062a
800f970847e0b3ebfb48b2fecefce762c972a084
11454 F20101112_AACCBU liu_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
30c7f58c47f29e0daf3efc2e3f1e482a
9adec981b215b915a1521d58aebe3d92435391e5
53651 F20101112_AACBWO liu_m_Page_064.pro
520183fb0315edcfa92d86e244d0a15d
e516b14f2155f98c04766cce4828e4f53c299540
3440 F20101112_AACCCI liu_m_Page_099thm.jpg
9b84cd9ed3098b0f2f26314b23993a7d
0e29b79467b3342607cfdf764b661361504227fd
15270 F20101112_AACBXD liu_m_Page_088.pro
8992dfe32571700df4e858293a9fa7ea
a077cbe77688d90e2cc68c01abadbb053532dfc5
27112 F20101112_AACCBV liu_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
7a30b06c026e22f6b6da0d86e0523059
ceab8c87effe5932eb34a7ff4c20cbdb67dc9884
56486 F20101112_AACBWP liu_m_Page_066.pro
6301e44f2aad0117d76f4ea71597b5e0
9a3741d237be0f94c148d56388dc7905b2c0abbd
9275 F20101112_AACCCJ liu_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
c853827bcd450929f1749b38edeec856
cfed6d1f8f3daa7ceb3e330fcfce829bd2337457
13434 F20101112_AACBXE liu_m_Page_089.pro
7449c42da3e257ff2f8ce30c921afd76
1d8099bec7c0de6bddfd7a1ea5e2f3cd70ecc41c
11296 F20101112_AACCBW liu_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
7fd90e8675b8707ed6b3727aebc5c01c
4acf8853153e995970a7d55d0468febf5c18e07c
4588 F20101112_AACBWQ liu_m_Page_067.pro
8e3aa7b16e47faa414ed8f378e1c830e
1f7ab8e3503d1ca4c5490f94d6cb003b7d95b0e0
7239 F20101112_AACCCK liu_m_Page_031thm.jpg
d0806b71f34ffffaf7cd4ce017f9bcbb
c7104f7d4b9a3f74a1bcaec9bfa6bf62813fd8fa
17495 F20101112_AACBXF liu_m_Page_090.pro
28085bdf6d8f26198bebea802e73767d
2a5ccd8d855409c116a2b727789f41f8a6ea419c
7357 F20101112_AACCBX liu_m_Page_027thm.jpg
7b96fbf5eeea6c737f8f9dfb442fc980
6ea8826fe61b556ed64aa1b5f66e63d38abd4b5d
16759 F20101112_AACBWR liu_m_Page_068.pro
24c43c4f708eee3190e9efda86251f26
9cd9e12998a74af65a02023d380fe90539a48f1d
4283 F20101112_AACCDA liu_m_Page_097thm.jpg
bb073c02860f69c22668fa3e125d3dd5
dd88ff384b517a14309e2f8c77fb39d1c0721c02
7394 F20101112_AACCCL liu_m_Page_017thm.jpg
1890d785ec4d5b735d6de6dd0cda1402
0e856e68d22f71bfddf025c3636fb2e11283a7e2
15463 F20101112_AACBXG liu_m_Page_091.pro
77feef90b8bda4ed032ca9ab7b846ebb
e27c8ab235d91d71f10e266ed51594026b35fa14
8641 F20101112_AACCBY liu_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
419b83f6155c40ec3146542cf7a173bd
4562f5273d8d1deee0cca56f0b05a62c9fd75159
16218 F20101112_AACBWS liu_m_Page_069.pro
e325eb9e24e460cf1cd3b6a92c5c5ee7
efbca17399f9e36e319e6644f66236b789688227
9665 F20101112_AACCDB liu_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
9c1dbc6b35ae7fa3f99df8028c878c47
e24265a5107745e87ce7b0fb4fbd2120925266dc
4216 F20101112_AACCCM liu_m_Page_088thm.jpg
769af38ae8e634bb78f7b02e74d3e593
c9d9161666097a2681b7f44cbfbefac1bdf7e926
9516 F20101112_AACBXH liu_m_Page_092.pro
6efc921f88f8fa9c03db1ca2a3280290
f9d5cc7363100ba0fea46ad8bd8968f0535ec544
3080 F20101112_AACCBZ liu_m_Page_072thm.jpg
83e671489560023542e648eacb5fdf27
f6ea0ef75e3469444f48030264dc14e6e1910c52
7787 F20101112_AACBWT liu_m_Page_071.pro
c57e9b4b4566bc88d4b173f6e09d177e
7cd59c7b821c8a74ef59d7c631ba2b8158cb1558
23496 F20101112_AACCDC liu_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
e130d4b3eeb638e1879cced698213cf2
95ed572d8c7a0bc1d3db8b0a86e55e4337defc91
10254 F20101112_AACCCN liu_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
3c2df7822f1356e5eaae7a102fa93087
68ab691f0134002827d4ac48f3624f3bc3cb39ee
11726 F20101112_AACBXI liu_m_Page_093.pro
d446437e464447ceec8c2d9a49e840d3
28243410b631e6106377e6174406790583011eb3
26978 F20101112_AACBWU liu_m_Page_073.pro
c4af8011336045f2b658a0b28ffafc17
27913974a5d63fe1dd2a052ea60578f0c404caff
7055 F20101112_AACCDD liu_m_Page_039thm.jpg
18874b9b5c853a110229241006467fab
340ffc62b6c965f06f2540a32f2feb6998c14962
3656 F20101112_AACCCO liu_m_Page_079thm.jpg
a035f9bd776132758cadff419c315b07
4fb9ebc45b08c90a8d567b2dedd254b6800cbd8f
11017 F20101112_AACBXJ liu_m_Page_094.pro
6e5f42887cc482c7737a2f4076f74240
d3d7c775745fb79be5347f3410d59e566a13de1c
42573 F20101112_AACBWV liu_m_Page_074.pro
cd14e9ba19923eb626851d28a0e0a074
5503e815e985e1e072599c56ebcd59359cfbe0dd
25383 F20101112_AACCDE liu_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
a548d5f45f1a8c3e5164eb9b1c3ed0f9
00a720122b22f05aaf5f139fc5b4caf28ce571c5
7560 F20101112_AACCCP liu_m_Page_052thm.jpg
76ba2ebe5a887375d2f6fc20fe12a822
59db84fb641022d39dbf806068e9d59c572cf7ed
11767 F20101112_AACBXK liu_m_Page_095.pro
ce46cb1037acb448913a33d03e0b100a
b57f34ba864b87218aaf441d8ddd8453efa5bfe7
13969 F20101112_AACBWW liu_m_Page_078.pro
41aac7245eb5f3383f02331d2390543e
bcdc8def25beb5cda1307e134269fc6028d683c6
23079 F20101112_AACCDF liu_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
397f58fcbffd7dcd85537ede1d06a282
abec2f341b0b3bd9fc8fa856d5b06d61282e8e9c
23449 F20101112_AACCCQ liu_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
46997e1165b5709f31f4077994451dfd
0d774769efcd551b332f48d004e7238a4a231fad
13871 F20101112_AACBWX liu_m_Page_079.pro
4efe3488404fafc149ee62b9630c3fe8
d1fd2f23768bf4cc5d68afc4aaf71cc26e5de95f
12409 F20101112_AACCDG liu_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
3d7e32eaccf53566c9b992f01d60f02a
d88d20c574449b330b3f8f3d989f03b6e3142f3e
3586 F20101112_AACCCR liu_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
f53628ef29a86016a9235f208bfb4a47
034040f45fc19530fd26adf4c05f7a1f412eada7
16004 F20101112_AACBXL liu_m_Page_096.pro
7bbef920af483193c66714da4a2e2fae
071535ccd3598128a5d6d567ee4dfbeef353ca07
8521 F20101112_AACBWY liu_m_Page_080.pro
b7ecd45c5ec3aabd47669791199dda0b
182ff72583dd20bc040bc13b457a56df1307bdf6
3847 F20101112_AACCDH liu_m_Page_120thm.jpg
7f76c5ccb7e37f577156197a653d9251
e631211632c539aef34ad589141c355224045c11
25030 F20101112_AACBYA liu_m_Page_120.pro
d14f36d7d14797a854c57bae4a38c577
e982981754786cdcd3a158d1b9b75cd8452a63fb
3776 F20101112_AACCCS liu_m_Page_035thm.jpg
d35c9a78fe540aeaa8bbeeaa65b1d502
0a332360bb01ea6be3c96be3de3a8a6bcf20394b
16758 F20101112_AACBXM liu_m_Page_097.pro
b7f9aeeffb65a0384066d54d4442de98
90fa72aab098daa7aaf8084f5f2f6663dc200cd5
8367 F20101112_AACBWZ liu_m_Page_081.pro
b37b26a3b15c8e05d8630cb241132e4e
a37cc1a96b58728e3e40f56758e4bace95d9261d
408 F20101112_AACBYB liu_m_Page_001.txt
32c94d869e81efd35b9e8eb956a82bdc
d7cdf53b41eeccd0afeadc3bd6e5e954dc72a785
26123 F20101112_AACCCT liu_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
bd7214aab7ef076d50117c3c5b590721
e21e19b0d5bc8c4a9994ffa9092ad2282594206e
15856 F20101112_AACBXN liu_m_Page_098.pro
80a79de8c0528524d631ab5327cd075b
733d76fbd10f448a1ad140e893d5660fa358b58d
28568 F20101112_AACCDI liu_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
fcf1da32e9d56d60ed699a579e06def0
a9198ae325fd556d768256d441cb9d4681f58e78
73 F20101112_AACBYC liu_m_Page_002.txt
85e35d061922447c98d442366953c338
079f0a56d829e9ad843a7890bf221f2b7cc4f2ca
25416 F20101112_AACCCU liu_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
36f453a99abdd918566b2312f11f4121
c78aa664fd7dba5bfa33a9892ba03965304a2b7c
9075 F20101112_AACBXO liu_m_Page_101.pro
0213525991ce44156c2bf857a353d51a
c2c82ad15bc7f0789c8f9e77fd2c3e72c2eea5fe
7849 F20101112_AACCDJ liu_m_Page_047thm.jpg
c7b9af8a01c34fb94195a6e5486fbfcf
7b81eba9e847bb5257de59b1e04ea2a4f091a3f9
1021 F20101112_AACBYD liu_m_Page_004.txt
dfefd0786f54b0f69e4cff9675efe9b1
090c38cbdf5a675003a366baf4e806cedddeb79e
27030 F20101112_AACCCV liu_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
6b7cfcf2907b11bfe80db278e0765813
2f44658d7a6617668c75dcd4b8f109b3c59d72aa
14584 F20101112_AACBXP liu_m_Page_103.pro
0984b05c5d809381456d567b1301b832
be889d8db0f7a76625898f7a648293e43ff3058f
28402 F20101112_AACCDK liu_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
13cd1807d2fce00b45a6ad6d6aaec6bf
4ccbf51d78907f7d939bb9219cb9e6517a260d0c
3898 F20101112_AACBYE liu_m_Page_005.txt
60e507a292f3ee215e7f8109e706cafa
b1b5dd74653c8d05a6821d897d5bff7760f83150
11880 F20101112_AACCCW liu_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
722eefa2121e8f14cad0d4381669dcb5
3ba69f35b70d13c98bd6fcc337776ffab0517aab
15510 F20101112_AACBXQ liu_m_Page_104.pro
54597155c0bf1d481b14079e8ca27e3b
47bd1be2d095e19caabe38b43c90eb38a184667e
17324 F20101112_AACCEA liu_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
20dc9ade16b86a2993c151120067e107
3c62cef7bc48140d6fa9f154c82a063fbe8dd8fe
7268 F20101112_AACCDL liu_m_Page_028thm.jpg
60b8ffa1da114cbf0ec3f47e95fa5f43
8fabd96cec48f782f2db2ff0e0bfe90b0b3a38c7
4670 F20101112_AACBYF liu_m_Page_006.txt
9c6ddce1c3e78d3089484f99130d2524
8f347c2a83a5ed80cf20ad83649c4feb3fa54de8
12352 F20101112_AACCCX liu_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
73c9739e58ce48f38cfad71c8fbffc09
fb71820a18df6056cd180c7d8271fdda2ecd4a93
9698 F20101112_AACBXR liu_m_Page_106.pro
99095817325ca76d2e710188dfcb7582
58856cfc46d9851c9087bfeae87f3bd2302e95e5
9922 F20101112_AACCEB liu_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
a850869dd6bcb0bce82544f23098349e
42b3294a936ae65496ef3dca92a35d2ca7970dc7
7390 F20101112_AACCDM liu_m_Page_010thm.jpg
8a478bccea7d6dd3d203cd272d841795
1ce9fb2b897821695004fa6063696b2db21c5888
3069 F20101112_AACBYG liu_m_Page_008.txt
afca1936cd08a7ef3086cd9007348eb4
2cb4dc298027a2d8217a5f717f78e322fea6edd3
24618 F20101112_AACCCY liu_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
753b3cee40c9b051e7bc5ec69ad347cf
d2b56a44eda4e027011c5dfbbe5b11dac526c2ba
17861 F20101112_AACBXS liu_m_Page_107.pro
275c86107ed560c02326f342c8b3cf37
52062ce440a8d236c2f7fd4595612ea9845794eb
4553 F20101112_AACCEC liu_m_Page_068thm.jpg
75c8c416718003cf58d132b29af793c3
fb814b0b75f9dfcf52fc78e81336c04547eb974c
2899 F20101112_AACCDN liu_m_Page_106thm.jpg
965050165aa2df7a7e4a0568a2caefa7
feb30d03e9486abf9529af6992f5d4c33d5547c1
3247 F20101112_AACBYH liu_m_Page_009.txt
b24cd03fd21a78280adb7907404804d7
016e9c1916a0e82f2ecdb66dc676d24c9909579f
6211 F20101112_AACCCZ liu_m_Page_046thm.jpg
12afd960ff58261246b0be52ba3c6f99
c12a4adc16f05aee67821a439a5f0cd75009aa53
20776 F20101112_AACBXT liu_m_Page_110.pro
588684ddbd9b94b730db09ea02bacc20
9952b6169b56cefb8625f249b77a4beec0738746
9743 F20101112_AACCED liu_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
fbda80f05bdbe28ec009182027d0f56b
79c47d85cc28b98f48c2a78e6a66da1bea527f8a
3532 F20101112_AACCDO liu_m_Page_092thm.jpg
de5bf5b5a0ded862bc1dd236605b092d
395ff5d8dd6778d49d2fc0a0dc2def32f255d90f
F20101112_AACBYI liu_m_Page_012.txt
e8de14d0a2cf99bb9d4992ab68aa80b6
0c7836d5e5a676180dfc9378dfd615ad7ba37256
64381 F20101112_AACBXU liu_m_Page_111.pro
96c58245b20a77f7dc0153fa73db848e
e8bf57bdccd3330822708e1311e94f062495773a
2812 F20101112_AACCEE liu_m_Page_100thm.jpg
f2b4ec2dd3cb5705c3ce3a1f99986948
53fbf7c0a62f6ba952e41b82344b916211db4acc
5394 F20101112_AACCDP liu_m_Page_005thm.jpg
c47dc34eb54dd684c45c558c3eb4fba6
78c4f492d1142cb6b17821d3f904159688506125
2310 F20101112_AACBYJ liu_m_Page_013.txt
99347bf1415c5535b1de200ddf45c434
065cef7f34dcf5e412337b637be91fa570c409ed
66288 F20101112_AACBXV liu_m_Page_112.pro
a5583446f02649ae710646f84c0c6207
1d4065a2825d6f28a8ea7ffee308f1f067614082
6534 F20101112_AACCEF liu_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
b6bf80efbc8cd892c8922201244fb7db
a2fd0ceb75c16cdbd5ce8d91e6cdba7fbaa9b029
26282 F20101112_AACCDQ liu_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
1baa2a73167203447c5281c5a51272b6
2b3a45576e1f5efc9b67b554babe016c9b41b252
162 F20101112_AACBYK liu_m_Page_014.txt
acdc2a47b4fde13b548d0de51ad5e606
583b0b57c55e85497728b994d2fff57a32c8525b
68459 F20101112_AACBXW liu_m_Page_114.pro
e21481671820117ae5ceb8687ba8bc2e
02ee120f464168b781f34a4df659c144eb024d7c
25717 F20101112_AACCEG liu_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
4317bde87b45983176d716b37acf5718
20d1a0df5b89e73438ed1d98c70fcd9c5557741d
4016 F20101112_AACCDR liu_m_Page_103thm.jpg
04da04cae6328c164cf9e7b24122751d
12ebb57522d03c67d2ecd8cda531cd41ab44df14
2090 F20101112_AACBYL liu_m_Page_015.txt
7c212f4b5cbb1979e968d48d9b445f88
2e899b202017966335b3715460ad689fb375cc8d
64766 F20101112_AACBXX liu_m_Page_115.pro
a495e83479ca75a21b5cb417a0d20990
756ea8c55d50e9069a270fb5ce1265382ad0699e
26237 F20101112_AACCEH liu_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
8a2b170e718af68a0f83803170a7e705
74d32aaf4b4e0c330ba02951db5ce9c02bbbafb3
2205 F20101112_AACBZA liu_m_Page_037.txt
7905c40376e3484697f578b7d69e277e
58f115331b144445e77f58cbf30891e1e93fcbe7
3612 F20101112_AACCDS liu_m_Page_110thm.jpg
a2f1cf669156a049157ac23b1dd77063
4507de030c038b0703c0a89278006a5e63310864
2165 F20101112_AACBYM liu_m_Page_016.txt
1865dabf577837f007a0e6789a6a6b17
c9b9e27c6c94e18b6db96a5413a6f88c371db5d6
63585 F20101112_AACBXY liu_m_Page_116.pro
30abc36ebf286a69705e28b21f003a39
7ee21f4d8bc2b0894f40283cfbc0d914a23ce8e2
14056 F20101112_AACCEI liu_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
0d9618c874a82100530b15fc967cbb26
cb942e2faedf653da328023419f745448b0f7841
2189 F20101112_AACBZB liu_m_Page_038.txt
85359ac6293ad7cba2bbbdd672884bc8
46ca22a7e8bc948d9fd453314de8bbd3f0b7adf2
29124 F20101112_AACCDT liu_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
368aee9fb1c0e60b3cd0eb1f89a7a678
b6b7c290ca783a6809b83446041c4c2f92780f8a
2304 F20101112_AACBYN liu_m_Page_017.txt
89ef57dfc6a36a45514d4f013516244c
4f9f0db0d89c04a255b6c459fb2e7567b29fb4dc
67369 F20101112_AACBXZ liu_m_Page_117.pro
c8e4f4f724a90dfc6860df5e22924ab2
ce3ffeec3ae028a5b03892de2f6f64218d712063
2132 F20101112_AACBZC liu_m_Page_039.txt
e357dc5626a5132dea18b3c9fc7038d4
a27cdf869fbc2f6fc2aa226eed310bf7975c4599
F20101112_AACCDU liu_m_Page_033thm.jpg
245f5ba57394a541690e1737c7a930c2
50b6723f3317b0b0844361d7309af1c92e9a0c9e
2019 F20101112_AACBYO liu_m_Page_019.txt
09431605e3300cdbde84b4348f859124
26b0de02aada71c14f1bc83717d65a93920a49e5
2119 F20101112_AACBZD liu_m_Page_040.txt
dbf4a5797e8bda7fcb46116716375c96
b12f1f24b869e9914392f3c9a6d3ac21d4da969c
3395 F20101112_AACCDV liu_m_Page_101thm.jpg
1914a6fff7297598a46311520f1cf0b7
6180f7840931903016249ba4815786693798911a
2251 F20101112_AACBYP liu_m_Page_020.txt
db9d21c49b79acd2c5bbee76bd89040f
a5d8312d54ccb108fe676d56e0093b07b6a73922
3538 F20101112_AACCEJ liu_m_Page_081thm.jpg
38601d0425aed4ff55a1db5f09425622
12ff606ce164b08cd250e7cc02e80ae6e7598620
1786 F20101112_AACBZE liu_m_Page_043.txt
482f58a28d6bbebc28a44fe892c17f49
38416029c87d158cb1eebcb6134813627b689b2a
7320 F20101112_AACCDW liu_m_Page_021thm.jpg
abead22d893f80058240ae72f69f484e
bef9542e54185d31aa03da66097f3be8e971ffc4
2060 F20101112_AACBYQ liu_m_Page_022.txt
8901b74324d0778e4be7371c10230f85
1bd3de98ce42c3f11957d90161dd07e6ac78f833
25061 F20101112_AACCEK liu_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
2d6a3e5468d8713275e6a1b20ab62229
7bfa360f97d18c835376f9e23a066ce4ee29cf5b
140 F20101112_AACBZF liu_m_Page_044.txt
9993cfd1586c40281801ba1f4122f91f
817e46b6a37bd07e1735357648c505dc66a1fc89
4367 F20101112_AACCDX liu_m_Page_104thm.jpg
31310a6182df340c8a36f475f9790107
213d12fd35ad2dd2a39ba18ed0b7a127b5090892
2269 F20101112_AACBYR liu_m_Page_023.txt
0bc062c90a77772d19705b52d9e6b22d
827c279adec92d210eed3139f14d1376116bf7a1
9515 F20101112_AACCFA liu_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
cb8e62c49bb15b851b1ef11af8fa8abe
05c8da395cb1132d893b6928ea6f877760fd6e9e
F20101112_AACCEL liu_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
6828b23426fcf6447a99f3f77c1b5cf4
64e573953b0342d0cd68dec23df90faef55c959f
1258 F20101112_AACBZG liu_m_Page_045.txt
be82934d5369413b931b956d3e199df8
8645bc400ee1a7247b321998b4043095fd0258bf
13530 F20101112_AACCDY liu_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
de7700b7ff438a959728d97cb166c00b
7c163f6e83c0ea27cb49f755bc8420829a094cc4
2204 F20101112_AACBYS liu_m_Page_024.txt
61b09aa586690090dd7b66831aa3df1d
e7f919466e29ce46684b16eb6de1f5363ab2fef5
7084 F20101112_AACCFB liu_m_Page_066thm.jpg
9092dbb46947e8f6c2aedb73022fbdcc
c4cf1a1bef438958a2d555186c0cd35bc4458ee6
4341 F20101112_AACCEM liu_m_Page_078thm.jpg
3e5e1c0e3e744e93423bb96dcd5d172b
98d55784704537465c677060f41fb1153673803e
2004 F20101112_AACBZH liu_m_Page_046.txt
63d7523ad672145fdeb1b3c3abae7494
bb1fb4008f52b484f69d08376aeeb819e51367c9
7196 F20101112_AACCDZ liu_m_Page_030thm.jpg
f9e50a0d7a981f9708c8b6b6085578d2
2e4078b8019c36d1676045c0bc615d35f0d043e1
2313 F20101112_AACBYT liu_m_Page_027.txt
b9c8d8020ddad4009163438fde9289eb
e022ae222ea4cb3a09a3fe75b0508e8aab5dd2b4
81146 F20101112_AACBCA liu_m_Page_108.jpg
2e094fbe477f19af1c4c403daa6fcc3a
584aa981d6d124e222075d115ff0d31e99c8d005
6930 F20101112_AACCFC liu_m_Page_053thm.jpg
1995808c45d115fbecb40114d52dba43
98374bf92f828b08b487dc87234030d71dcc6335
11703 F20101112_AACCEN liu_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
7e3b538165137d244eaeb56458d7ee10
568a5befb8bba59ba1287d8c594d70d50b613aa9
2258 F20101112_AACBZI liu_m_Page_047.txt
2a11bef056b8bd26f958aa3a42dcd6d2
20bb9e885dbb36f4ac8ad7a228f79865dfca7ff7
2056 F20101112_AACBYU liu_m_Page_029.txt
0606b58d5d59baeb4f0acf3f2382ef33
296ac4011778069e8e5c6ed5d348d60851f51edc
26450 F20101112_AACBCB liu_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
94eaf346d1feda158fc970841f54aba2
4da9d637f01c1d087541ac47048b9aef9e5506b3
28264 F20101112_AACCFD liu_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
df38c4e1f56d821240ad011490f37db2
d2064bb47827ded61d9323a93a0538b12447a1e5
13106 F20101112_AACCEO liu_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
c96588c653214c5769c270110ee26086
34cc3fe14a77b6cbe697d40856b5bb59f13681dd
2145 F20101112_AACBZJ liu_m_Page_049.txt
c38a9f73064cf9f7497f38696ec0c92a
2c6df3f6557854d99a6a02f65a1e5b41eff6d097
2231 F20101112_AACBYV liu_m_Page_030.txt
8caa82439299c3f7ad53ed28fd854786
8ce1881030622e0cdb82e85358425124730d532d
2464 F20101112_AACBCC liu_m_Page_007.txt
ec4c8e60189d6eac1f2443d1b93df662
88a7c152f99f46d947d2bfb10a26b920ee021456
7345 F20101112_AACCFE liu_m_Page_009thm.jpg
6105b9d4c207d5e5d93b9083395d32b8
710c37c8adc486cad96ba5f4e70e9e1099f49799
9685 F20101112_AACCEP liu_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
200714db6c26920d9a437a227b4c6f77
eb8f1c9dfd06ac020ff00af470b2477f3bf8a914
2229 F20101112_AACBZK liu_m_Page_050.txt
4ef2c2574f48b57817368012195ff6a0
bb94a7d1c473183c9fa036ac303383e5add39772
F20101112_AACBYW liu_m_Page_031.txt
91c01a2cbdce51bcd37abd46481e63ad
c1d4622796e720255d723b1afa6d410fcae0acc0
55078 F20101112_AACBCD liu_m_Page_028.pro
24ed03c05f93d5de6c94b6cbd90cf2b1
ecaf43ef259744a648acacc33bc4fad1091590c4
12997 F20101112_AACCFF liu_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
38aeb6cea2dd2dfeef18c7925bfec6fc
1dbe06b64688a297a08ed4183f982dc566b48c50
27028 F20101112_AACCEQ liu_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
453b9d418cb8427b480cac5dd441fa61
f64a8276a59205b7784549ca636245ae32c1ecce
2105 F20101112_AACBZL liu_m_Page_051.txt
9011701774800d53bb0e339b93cb5946
a748cec9c29717a3a8c7cf4409f53fd71c309746
367 F20101112_AACBYX liu_m_Page_033.txt
32128a076ae2d3f455f6bc70321c326a
86c1952ec80bc15597fbf2ab1272fbf896bef5c7
8689 F20101112_AACBCE liu_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
b10db3fe2543ddcc8a18dcd4139c49c5
d3c6821ad7929858b980a7fbccb65c4c23cf68b9
14175 F20101112_AACCFG liu_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
e8c8b9fb863d3c2cbee4a71e8467777c
ad40ded0126fbb67931ea0ddb340528528fdc645
7422 F20101112_AACCER liu_m_Page_054thm.jpg
0a627d6e34afce7066e3ffa2d56313d8
ba3d9a6652f460ae80dcbefba2b424b526d6d1ef
2190 F20101112_AACBZM liu_m_Page_052.txt
e50024103c0f7d1956a1e485bdd7aec6
502c6e9f5c1bee3790449aefe6d501ee8321175f
87 F20101112_AACBYY liu_m_Page_034.txt
bf546237edab092a5d617072a22cdf43
78948fbdef9b451ace145c1275e3ccf553b24da0
34788 F20101112_AACBCF liu_m_Page_084.jpg
196e72d1625292fb01cbea09228fcaaf
21395f5b3244cf803140afdc1f03de24356f9943
2683 F20101112_AACCFH liu_m_Page_071thm.jpg
9d8ae089f805b292cd8732d2e3c201e4
ea64a198782ce98b28bc7591dcbd143e3c47d0fe
4568 F20101112_AACCES liu_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
6a89828f6a653722283707bf594b1e2f
732be26bfe86d7c6203aa62b11f094a7b60ab68c
2333 F20101112_AACBZN liu_m_Page_054.txt
0bb47a729d240778b5227124f9792c53
9e96ccdc1bfcff61a1d93862b494dc5fbc035144
1752 F20101112_AACBYZ liu_m_Page_036.txt
3878d39b5e62e27d5a9a2ba6ff9dbbc4
86ed0f9078e373953512033c4db18349b603dbe6
567 F20101112_AACBCG liu_m_Page_086.txt
3cc50256e8a1e8796953731c2d97f2ed
ae380448dd3e1322ef94f3fca09e3ae13f5cc2d0
26505 F20101112_AACCFI liu_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
78bcffcfa7eb2a1655eaa53f6c8270b1
3230ad6adf2f3036fc2c1545e243c5022fc3a4fb
6954 F20101112_AACCET liu_m_Page_055thm.jpg
8873d1c6216fe3ffab4eac2e07377747
b97937d640b6068a15c035596d09d2e4ab50df9f
2139 F20101112_AACBZO liu_m_Page_055.txt
e3e3b3bca9781199e19560a73a7e9fc4
e52ad8cf516e90b64c73a2a9fad5fa07741c6193
69988 F20101112_AACBCH liu_m_Page_118.pro
766ebfd4b31512beb25545d940215f8c
c4c41de6f8ead9dd52e3efba85defb6bfbccf8c3
7430 F20101112_AACCFJ liu_m_Page_037thm.jpg
90507092838dd389f6f45a91cdf27070
9cb96ff582ebea0eb46eeaf0282d325268653b24
27000 F20101112_AACBBS liu_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
a437eda114a47444d38c8ee1165ac07e
3d7c116d324c951e388a434387a13e01d1350ee3
4617 F20101112_AACCEU liu_m_Page_107thm.jpg
ef6d7e83f3c27b80f5eb1271faa18f85
0a7f45fcbd8944a33f3a7466f695d18599bcc56b
2215 F20101112_AACBZP liu_m_Page_056.txt
f16b76e12581e502b831ea8f2d916489
6b209040db52b8b492f6d8061ef74d6a54666a16
14501 F20101112_AACBBT liu_m_Page_087.pro
016321ef4aaf52e586d9260080c4f04a
c298eeef3e79ffb2eb235fd7a430ecb64e154c09
28246 F20101112_AACCEV liu_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
bc90fc21b50c4624931c41cc030d618d
0d272599056a96ae1939333160c81d0f96b2d969
2126 F20101112_AACBZQ liu_m_Page_057.txt
992c193c84a26402b262287caa265da3
19bc3f887ab690adc2713f0f0a0779b589d207e9
74962 F20101112_AACBCI liu_m_Page_029.jpg
c17f9a722e333288aaf26713080798cc
5b6013a07dd6be1f78c4d6424d4794d2bfa24a60
9632 F20101112_AACCFK liu_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
e91f1d76d87843ac30160a4e496fb3ca
7f4d787d2d053d1474fb3c65c9879779476ec72e
82310 F20101112_AACBBU liu_m_Page_023.jpg
f05d81a171512dc493b5c75b180ab357
94df7e8a904bcca73d9905dbf957c673b76de801
11394 F20101112_AACCEW liu_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
961ffcaade275be9cf0b7d1956078abf
5da1d89a79d50ac2e05a4b9ca66708fc5d2ebf5d
25470 F20101112_AACCGA liu_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
9aabad99f25c210a45771b51c6db132f
d9c610f4bf155a257391480c7a121cb5cb00869e
2299 F20101112_AACBZR liu_m_Page_059.txt
faa6644f448e97e47e98f63aa1e40c4f
f210faf3ceecfadc62809279c2b444ddee20508e
6969 F20101112_AACBCJ liu_m_Page_024thm.jpg
b158cfd04d15ae9fd59af15aee462a92
0cdc0f316f2b3da88a17445b8458c575fefec680
3380 F20101112_AACCFL liu_m_Page_012thm.jpg
22af806f1405e277cde00327c3967af3
ab48571c1ab400c684f70fdf3da0a8340e7b6137
28507 F20101112_AACBBV liu_m_Page_093.jpg
523acfb968bc7d83803eff1e40dbabbd
a5904395b85e723e55f47be6fd1380fa02df3cae
3436 F20101112_AACCEX liu_m_Page_095thm.jpg
5327726aa676d2d8c80f0797a29e7303
61e640a0b3420415244d14c8a6071cd416682cdd
6828 F20101112_AACCGB liu_m_Page_015thm.jpg
7689be354268ab98511ed6b34a4c9902
6e22c0ccf4ca88c818bc66abf5684f60edb0b97d
2289 F20101112_AACBZS liu_m_Page_060.txt
76581bdaf841dbf121321fdcb5a823c3
438a6c104f11d70e333546c25bc86cc0c77b216e
1743 F20101112_AACBCK liu_m_Page_067thm.jpg
21fd1c9c432544299103418ebd1507da
50a857bfdde8650f198973ea4654036ef6b4a586
3904 F20101112_AACCFM liu_m_Page_077thm.jpg
b9085571f5409d98d995375c05132585
f6b0554c2bc4a166868d683f9a02a126c2e2db0f
75669 F20101112_AACBBW liu_m_Page_109.jpg
5536acec81c37497a03cb2a766d743f1
8195fafcd0b8cf8eb769863fa523b017f714b288
7244 F20101112_AACCEY liu_m_Page_058thm.jpg
96cfa0cca5f89b2aee1e855890be51aa
88dcfe7231ac9be0e82317fc3ce8de04749d30cc
3694 F20101112_AACCGC liu_m_Page_069thm.jpg
5819b590b77c61e27ddc847f586acaba
2e42cf365ff6f2e92ce46fba2d5a2762cd5f7ac8
2104 F20101112_AACBZT liu_m_Page_061.txt
7a0e1cd129c768afc4705a1dca839f6e
a6278553ae16d663bebb83b1094bb7609ca833b0
65358 F20101112_AACBDA liu_m_Page_113.pro
c328f1ac1afdda67967fbd332dd279b6
24cef4825ad50a4dc9a48202d86fecb6f7bd39a8
24541 F20101112_AACBCL liu_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
4c3cddf5bb268a6c46e9cfe8af6eb1cb
2014f90e6fefd098e80c01f2180e96f073f69831
4609 F20101112_AACCFN liu_m_Page_044thm.jpg
a7abecbc8af62a3e4fb8bea34bda0ba7
0cdc665a235dfbba2c5b6007674db414c1110d4e
8882 F20101112_AACBBX liu_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
6f9979fd18d93e0d0ea777f311ec53af
a63848d032b44e2b88240052b2e200cd1c1e0107
7413 F20101112_AACCEZ liu_m_Page_042thm.jpg
096ca73b0545ddad35da29ef005e9f6a
a9eb26efe8ea95c515a752d9b78680ba3346b46c
27278 F20101112_AACCGD liu_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
0093c3828d53826ac01dfc5a2b93bfe7
aa9783206214dcded7076c7069a532db12ef1dcf
2153 F20101112_AACBZU liu_m_Page_062.txt
17f7716c931f01a75ee6708ca2df9451
09c2a22ededfed87a6694ab7834f313bb01ef263
132221 F20101112_AACBDB liu_m_Page_113.jp2
03d30250b4b139514ab9e41a34145bda
da72e638c2399b28b72d2bb2ce6624d63be78ad8
F20101112_AACBCM liu_m_Page_111.tif
f71c1658ac83f839f4bd28b617f19089
e8018b6b89b750dbd6e6ed7aef2bd2cea22a981b
7217 F20101112_AACCFO liu_m_Page_020thm.jpg
5a7877bcb373b9288bec4055216f963c
3e6ede41c8afb8c63f9794b089e1cf388d7bfac7
2197 F20101112_AACBBY liu_m_Page_048.txt
f73004e0977178b661dd15ccf34f66ab
89a575edcb948de7017bf8d4a296491cb4375e38
2955 F20101112_AACCGE liu_m_Page_084thm.jpg
1d83a69630432d705db897e0466dc210
663d5097ba14c4f156224f46073e2b28b41c5417
2107 F20101112_AACBZV liu_m_Page_064.txt
1c845da91aaba7e9942681f90e2a89b5
ad196d2fb9ed8cb847edaccd788774f9283e226b
7428 F20101112_AACBDC liu_m_Page_038thm.jpg
aea60cda5a65d3e42eaa38f20ffbfbac
2d1fba7be76972a965556b12bbfcdf4abaf9fd46
4295 F20101112_AACBCN liu_m_Page_090thm.jpg
9ee3223b96c72c7156097888657d72c0
3c988ac33881aa485ba14ee3a9bc70451353ad42
3386 F20101112_AACCFP liu_m_Page_075thm.jpg
7481f2a62eb9cfa1278c1f1aa79e0da6
e449922093edd5487efc0adce6ae59f99a0a1557
F20101112_AACBBZ liu_m_Page_016thm.jpg
12d7361b0a2cb70a514ec005c302b323
7f9e79e6a8983bf5ba23689782268c38bcb9fafd
2934 F20101112_AACCGF liu_m_Page_076thm.jpg
b49cbc36e53defd587b648f6b39c6836
9027f6ccde9ee874d77a9eafe6777cb26adc2231
2195 F20101112_AACBZW liu_m_Page_065.txt
eb1585dfd287002e597479ef2e36deb4
289e55a2f9ac35beefc4a01027dbe619552eb7a6
7781 F20101112_AACBDD liu_m_Page_070.pro
92a0e8941ce4f9b3d083eaab90d210bd
7ac4ba8c18eb276a1119681d408fba01b5d89aa0
26705 F20101112_AACBCO liu_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
990efd1b2515884e7c4caee54441237b
b38ce4343b1eaca7da86f1e1537f8f80bb5686fb
2721 F20101112_AACCFQ liu_m_Page_083thm.jpg
08af09087693d0e91ba98b3484846dbe
1fb3709dbe4d42cbaa771f2b05052256e31996b2
7354 F20101112_AACCGG liu_m_Page_059thm.jpg
baa476c494fd2e4366bf43a77cc143fa
31b54d55bb7727b08a105458bcb3eb979203cc8f
F20101112_AACBZX liu_m_Page_066.txt
2c8f0abaf8d77997715e197ea6e170f5
83299a62543ded9736df511e3a9b3a5c654b53b4
18333 F20101112_AACBDE liu_m_Page_119.pro
dc0664c80c5a326f6f7b42ca1d5e78cc
aee21f6ff3ba195fe84a21e45c6468bee5bf499b
7435 F20101112_AACBCP liu_m_Page_040thm.jpg
f4504f9af025c03b94a7ba29d08111ab
f9a21c99ea15242ae196664cad5c9b8948a85a46
3580 F20101112_AACCFR liu_m_Page_094thm.jpg
63b53a26b922c6e6ac40098dc441d1e3
4260673a90d11669aff35c8f85c0ea4b3abb2f00
3808 F20101112_AACCGH liu_m_Page_004thm.jpg
dac574f3046575c93764143c10e0286e
0309e00163459a57ec06f0036b965b08c1382385
805 F20101112_AACBZY liu_m_Page_068.txt
8012c93278b7aa1b4d309503675a1973
00e4a77d1a35b27deafb093ccc24eb1c809c1357
53220 F20101112_AACBDF liu_m_Page_032.pro
b35a89b6b4a9aaf5de93972715c99001
be3ab0fef2953330fc6d1cbb35fe7c4033e285e5
23887 F20101112_AACBCQ liu_m_Page_072.jpg
6e6cb635aab57a7182174970c66a86f9
8ebe3205ce9c149348f34f8aa645f5f590e3123c
1334 F20101112_AACCFS liu_m_Page_002thm.jpg
381d3ece538e02d150742cd906f7d6cf
1d92054b679eca7fb64ddaca6b1df7e4f7623ebb
13753 F20101112_AACCGI liu_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
a83e5d1fc311c6f5086e88b046ad6741
757f5ca6efb3db4700667604de66cb73bd92087f
784 F20101112_AACBZZ liu_m_Page_069.txt
084bb0a5280804a0167814cc0fef1501
3159259f4318a6ec0d6b3f745ec4fb367679ef4a
6675 F20101112_AACBDG liu_m_Page_051thm.jpg
dd403c00bb6954d952a19eafe5c4f26b
d64b5d76ae7e5b7d61ad0a16ab3f8b51d5ab79ba
125156 F20101112_AACBCR liu_m_Page_023.jp2
9c3ec0a35f8a53b0cd4412d12c6eb6bb
310c97f2f552edbf3e66184eacaf60cacf7d8582
7093 F20101112_AACCFT liu_m_Page_049thm.jpg
8a9d02f66f51cfd62a2a500db57b0bf7
bc6e7f55dd05b163b544e2330ff6a37fd650790e
3412 F20101112_AACCGJ liu_m_Page_105thm.jpg
ee11c0c8355071a56c413e8991e21289
3f8fe90b6e593aa1c2b9177add9579ba4505796f
F20101112_AACBDH liu_m_Page_002.tif
7a59f1d7505548121850c07ca8f77b2d
f1613858cbb4d1df6e820a513ecf58e71647a733
25525 F20101112_AACBCS liu_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
80a3c3e9722d8e0d21e274b3e6a79c8a
149d17a9387bf49c8c547e803f1c93222fa444cf
15829 F20101112_AACCFU liu_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
24f8600cd2bcf9265157f71bc00454a0
57b50a39b1a4052d486cef8789632397ebd52fb1
6940 F20101112_AACCGK liu_m_Page_064thm.jpg
b347d05696e915c34b6bb1a0952e12dc
88e8023fb7d2482328a845ada75e2ff2ea5f1419
F20101112_AACBDI liu_m_Page_049.tif
6db76520b030ecfeb21f122342ff5db0
6d7601ad40e2efac96c19cf3b25d374d757fdde0
1980 F20101112_AACBCT liu_m_Page_074.txt
76b81cda14f78cefa1ecafe58ae15282
327e1e8585bf6a2d8d959cdd2a9c603468cd6ea0
F20101112_AACCFV liu_m_Page_086thm.jpg
54364b35a769c540854eba5ef18cce0b
abcd52f3a0e0ba5a74639abeac5c2df6855a5a79
30016 F20101112_AACBCU liu_m_Page_093.jp2
fdadb12040e748f57b213b36d6189d9b
0993d6dc5d8151f6799e6001ae935a96a6ba6802
4250 F20101112_AACCFW liu_m_Page_096thm.jpg
cb9b3c10dee0b427002cccdd788158b6
7e104afd1562539d0c9b1be214eb55ddc7fc29bc
6271 F20101112_AACCHA liu_m_Page_085thm.jpg
e76d72300d3c4ca75fa6e000c4748031
32f8c613274cf85de9fdbd099a178671213976f9
10121 F20101112_AACCGL liu_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
ca8b2682c84a6ad99329746864e7e4d3
f5ac54b0a89d8f78478e9f112dac3acbb543fc1c
34419 F20101112_AACBDJ liu_m_Page_069.jpg
7bca7884cffe593ab4349e819856ae48
a0659f9c41165abdeb36cefd19e2740d705e1dd6
F20101112_AACBCV liu_m_Page_006.jp2
f1184c115a8961cfda6b46dd66b94578
699b201f6276f99a821e2ba4bf701e280d053550
23900 F20101112_AACCFX liu_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
0f675d1a052ee3e3a36aabb9f7a70496
8184ec9dbaaab7a934dfb9b9264b1db4d540e800
6731 F20101112_AACCHB liu_m_Page_022thm.jpg
769092b490fa785b40366aa0210e7507
51ee448d8fd24c0c2f6c67f93bbc0eaccf87c60e
3034 F20101112_AACCGM liu_m_Page_070thm.jpg
1ff3efddeb5ef92564740066126641f4
0c1ddcff407f1ad75463628da8b8e2692336ece2
26453 F20101112_AACCFY liu_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
965590e1bcf0456577e697280952c4da
ea9951d0e4ef51ab40b55bb68a42e7e1bcd61dc1
45449 F20101112_AACBDK liu_m_Page_087.jpg
73d1622561001454c789e96076d0cf0c
e6da3fc3d20fcdb28e32144e9aac36aaf382dc29
1051978 F20101112_AACBCW liu_m_Page_008.jp2
87d72477181bf6099fcc97abcf4a1472
9aa480677424e97df282dd97b0b3a5d0b279aa6d
18234 F20101112_AACCHC liu_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
65867b54e55212f9ed914faa3525fa79
1d18d813282b89dc77d600573c2161668ec9464a
27033 F20101112_AACCGN liu_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
a0153c6e070e01fadbae0e3c43ba2939
0a185b39353a670d629a74ce8d2bf7aeae9822ff
2303 F20101112_AACCFZ liu_m_Page_045thm.jpg
2c2e9704af5f21bbd05de06a5c8a127f
b9909c99eec6a280327ee845c19e08aa7af4a31d
58806 F20101112_AACBDL liu_m_Page_059.pro
9e01ad0909eefe64be864463720c76a0
eb51f3726c8ed0b08807b707b57f54f7867c838f
7885 F20101112_AACBCX liu_m_Page_072.pro
0e7164b8a9871c09b28c5abd6aa22446
c046bdec3945ef6ff1a1483acbd8adb9381d3d5a
7343 F20101112_AACBEA liu_m_Page_113thm.jpg
0d2b63b2c330d2cf7880f4f94b5952bd
28e0e6f01c0fbe70362e8455a6ff493e52b5518f
13629 F20101112_AACCHD liu_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
e04de4100d44a6eca283c4be96968fae
312badb86b5df56f265d8e02eabbc0bdded9f1e7
6786 F20101112_AACCGO liu_m_Page_019thm.jpg
bcfc192558cb155a95b100b0c34d63c0
3d03cd2870c780fb174fe71c39144a6ddbc86917
2214 F20101112_AACBDM liu_m_Page_041.txt
dc3e80e68d526e548998bf393e8f4296
0b78112502990d103c5c460095985fe1ef8bde4c
434274 F20101112_AACBCY liu_m_Page_082.jp2
2703cf4485fb58846e807035f4a9c9cc
7b6d6fb8aef612888029063115121dcc1181d31d
F20101112_AACBEB liu_m_Page_033.tif
3dacb88c2efbf37712f10fa4a0269125
8b9e5f06b6ff9186deba068f0cc3819096dbf129
7041 F20101112_AACCHE liu_m_Page_050thm.jpg
62d8417d29d88c9ff0aee8a647a43b25
f0c0ed3b5f8314cf170d26da287b0a21ae904a89
26721 F20101112_AACCGP liu_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
3de5d1b217604c1c2d4cc52b043535da
852856ba169ec577b15c557bcd461e020547230b
F20101112_AACBDN liu_m_Page_028.tif
204655df6e1ea87efd628a941759a106
423d9a428839d701d5d71502bf942aeb84b38577
F20101112_AACBCZ liu_m_Page_057.tif
c5f597d60ef095bf3ff65fdae1fc4779
9ba05adf34f76a8f0b01031564e0b76a5b49d060
F20101112_AACBEC liu_m_Page_012.tif
a6f429e4d4cdad73cc4c411684cccf60
a67e28fd2f1966612df2cb5fd5bf87ab4c32adaf
25245 F20101112_AACCHF liu_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
0621400f41c075546037ac84edd8ae1b
24ced05729148296ff51a696c867ce44ae8916a7
6008 F20101112_AACCGQ liu_m_Page_006thm.jpg
35089f54a3fac4563089b5fa2fcaa761
c647cb58cf2f6e52ae0e97dd4921c84ef39ce071
141488 F20101112_AACBDO liu_m_Page_118.jp2
07b847b543c5d8c6567f96d18fd460c5
f5cbe6167b91765506969f775370bf12c16275df
58671 F20101112_AACBED liu_m_Page_060.pro
b483d42d55d57b711abf5e6571981f83
7ead84e2779dcb4e41056aad21ed3923f9d2b65c
11480 F20101112_AACCHG liu_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
b08864aec93a00cdeb6c2d574d7ad21d
ddc0bb2a5affa847de41f2c98513cf1d69273f0e
6698 F20101112_AACCGR liu_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
3098fca585bd694e748ac2e45818e99e
5a232f4c2bbd5c9ee1ef8d91a93eb4581ae0e1b2
F20101112_AACBDP liu_m_Page_068.tif
26cc845e8b04d273a2e1e09cebf92108
80be0338e9512048d2a5b89101c7dc43db2a8d26
85189 F20101112_AACBEE liu_m_Page_037.jpg
acc9c2fef53a97ccdac88e5aaeb98963
db4ec92374152b4bce8da83429585c93c37109e8
27539 F20101112_AACCHH liu_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
8191f40d9be4d8f0f1b173336b86dcaa
7bc43eb50b6b9f86fa6f04d1019f231e50641d0c
21725 F20101112_AACCGS liu_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
191a213c965594c0664edae7bb26ee40
296e4327a2dd7e4d29972b05b13fb9d586aac318
F20101112_AACBDQ liu_m_Page_087.tif
cfd2671d98c70a4198e12e68d60b375a
d6b34faf137f57dc87a9269d353a5a272c7e590c
113624 F20101112_AACBEF liu_m_Page_032.jp2
6af313a0d74e5bb9070bbe1c1f5b2103
9d264d5bf51431aedf4534394f25ce932815aac1
7025 F20101112_AACCHI liu_m_Page_057thm.jpg
cce510cad03101db525f6b6082c9a33f
0fb8305422866d3042ca5593e97b19ec89273eed
7680 F20101112_AACCGT liu_m_Page_025thm.jpg
23e3a56fcb3d402f0ac27aab7c0d82a4
5530c8f47eb2e62bfa13e1a39516ee581d522ae3
F20101112_AACBDR liu_m_Page_018.tif
d751d5bcd2ed8cd545b35e6e3456e36b
e2c1346aac246a3526da22d8905cffd1fb967c69
886 F20101112_AACBEG liu_m_Page_098.txt
fd2f3236d4a17d108fdcabdc08ae1f21
cf1c133a2cdea778bdb9200c202a6be8d01056f5
12463 F20101112_AACCHJ liu_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
b57df9303007bf765551c0ef8cc2dd9e
026548ed3ed14efe11540bc89ec736fc029212b8
7105 F20101112_AACCGU liu_m_Page_018thm.jpg
5ff6cbff5647d23304150b1f40b0fcc3
f231f88eb76d37a389510f0975d04ae09904cde9
185 F20101112_AACBDS liu_m_Page_067.txt
f5b8ede2f0346de41ca53649ae58a24c
26216002d8c63f89228957d5008c780ce6467941
53037 F20101112_AACBEH liu_m_Page_109.pro
10ea1955f769edde8d7c2da359f38de4
c96ad5a0ad2264a99beff1a1f07b166db152dd52
9536 F20101112_AACCHK liu_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
b3d795fc8ff5fb704fe76de4bd2bfdde
f32f1e38f501dbba2c8872aa8f5d6ff7497c968e
21541 F20101112_AACCGV liu_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
0a997fd8b0aac767bdf33ba31fd38d07
4d5de5d77db1809281466c12bcc171ddcfbbdf99
28971 F20101112_AACBDT liu_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
ee59a85eb0165ccb877016e63e4d06ef
80780a177277f581a0e8d12e52f03d8c9db8d7bd
23374 F20101112_AACBEI liu_m_Page_045.pro
1dd322b588b057763a6d9788c255ae18
68069e7eddb5e48fd4d26a60beaa86edcd9fb3ac
14566 F20101112_AACCHL liu_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
b8802bc45e53ce99db8757b04845ddbd
109b7ef5549cf5dcf9a51dbdb9f0f7ba53f1541d
1512 F20101112_AACCGW liu_m_Page_003thm.jpg
b3e9ceda1b03ee7914ad509d09818b0d
79010de99c7b38b467b53f151a14058b2d0af53b
7117 F20101112_AACBDU liu_m_Page_065thm.jpg
a4d80e19f28b731083ddf2de372bbd08
186f3e338e5aee972c23d22a7a9f1d27ab72e7dd
F20101112_AACBEJ liu_m_Page_086.tif
1ed1e7603813fcb807eeb93ed846c2ab
b06efe3f2d817c6d7d24d582d2c193f45e8bfcb0
7178 F20101112_AACCIA liu_m_Page_056thm.jpg
f416c1720c36e0cf01a7f44d203b6690
07a616cc70a282b823562ff1028de0e5de29ebc9
3063 F20101112_AACCGX liu_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
181649cabe6391fcb081a17d134c96e8
add6e4140459eaf2f16bd4d41aa29a0c2c8438cc
15915 F20101112_AACBDV liu_m_Page_100.pro
f64def7b682d413298a8bdf723388145
f4902636e6b93fbdbd30bb225cf18b8f328f792a
3560 F20101112_AACCIB liu_m_Page_080thm.jpg
6e0a70751a098f1845cbe408fda1fbfa
2ea1419c67529faf9989be7b98a2120143b9769f
12141 F20101112_AACCHM liu_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
5f7323221050dc5a854429fc8a629e34
432037a393193f9981b9c446a93ad85917b68150
4233 F20101112_AACCGY liu_m_Page_091thm.jpg
c4b857bb498cd3a687cb1660ae6ccaff
a9fa7583067e6f23d42549282d68804410394409
138 F20101112_AACBEK liu_m_Page_003.txt
aa6f20a9f6ddf738dffd9ed40e452640
f572bdc76bb156ddbb1c9cfa835add194bca21da
78655 F20101112_AACBDW liu_m_Page_066.jpg
de8d5f15bad9e233b702c5d12b8448cf
84c3745c379b513c8b42af1bcdb3d99c54d3a7a2
7522 F20101112_AACCIC liu_m_Page_114thm.jpg
0bd8e62ae9c9e3b9bc2f49767b342dc0
163921649e43c6594e51b5d5eed04568941b0281
4208 F20101112_AACCHN liu_m_Page_087thm.jpg
49b4942852979f2c296e447ddd1f8450
cc1c7351554f9fee330f11510fc78b39d063a0bf
25263 F20101112_AACCGZ liu_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
dd02b56fe8191e3e55b7543143d6f6bc
34d861795a124d7bdb42c6551cb47b11726c10a0
7046 F20101112_AACBFA liu_m_Page_048thm.jpg
432933a5d767c0aea86d7396e52a1fd9
a8a06e0d7aff1e67a22f00f36a3127cbd682ded8
F20101112_AACBEL liu_m_Page_104.tif
5b89620545af4626d25ffc688803720e
87debf2e1c005eed3ca0b1719b7366a8b6249991
F20101112_AACBDX liu_m_Page_007.tif
0cbcb9ad26c11b1b225bd6f99ce67fbc
9ce41db37285d1b05d19490aafc3c096f728602b
7083 F20101112_AACCID liu_m_Page_115thm.jpg
92ef85a2a22525c63ccd4d7d93d92d60
849073f172c969a1b371e2be51c5528f1abfb1cd
3541 F20101112_AACCHO liu_m_Page_093thm.jpg
1dad2bf03db566cfce4e60d6df3298ec
f780a4f9a6a37db61ab3dfe24e5166094dedec85
55762 F20101112_AACBFB liu_m_Page_036.jpg
3f3a65e39adbc48bb1e7afb155d31014
0c4c2f9b2881d32d06625762300a2384173e7cd3
1051966 F20101112_AACBEM liu_m_Page_040.jp2
e7f86945be24ac02908807b318705ab9
4637a374a2012ecfa11e1adb9aa956370c9a0dda
2275 F20101112_AACBDY liu_m_Page_025.txt
309efa4bfd353a8c0452455ae1e0fd6d
56fac2cb482d7529f566c38d3aca9e6d4e17d14f
25786 F20101112_AACCIE liu_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
c0b10f678c04915629e4ff5a4942124f
63cbb30e1708f573761d802eb6e49c043e71cb67
3781 F20101112_AACCHP liu_m_Page_034thm.jpg
923a09b394df848b81c2bb6e3f37165b
c3f3c4854505de1e9e09c89174e1dfced56ad4cd
27233 F20101112_AACBFC liu_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
666a0987f737642e9d13e44e968cf7bb
3674b80f54f7c5d06bdfa28d47757ca3b0416b9c
1710 F20101112_AACBEN liu_m_Page_014thm.jpg
031938d00244ff0996139bc91422a489
314ee72608ea0f7ad8c9a01efe71e7d26daa55ae
53741 F20101112_AACBDZ liu_m_Page_049.pro
5a048a878ea27f1c3c44f1c2d9f41f4e
341a3af02c0c2e13d46ee728e95db321cfcbcfa8
F20101112_AACCHQ liu_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
bcb57f738984609484a87f305550d585
7f4f7898cbb37ad87cb06785093ea495a6f9e62e
58257 F20101112_AACBFD liu_m_Page_025.pro
55b578d7f43e79008deabdf70cf72ae8
a48794b748e54c1980f954539c369cb02429bbe5
7207 F20101112_AACBEO liu_m_Page_112thm.jpg
1f8a7ff813037ee89c62db39a6bc8fc2
f9ff910f2687372618c05111086a167e0722ab1d
13040 F20101112_AACCHR liu_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
8271f5727cbf2350f9dd6c5430c0feae
3d089c64c0370369869c8e6b4b14b49a65ba1da3
F20101112_AACBFE liu_m_Page_046.tif
4e86982dfc22be8937d1c8af5a30cb1b
bfd4eb548d24eea66da9b0988bf00686ebd42d89
26207 F20101112_AACBEP liu_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
1412515ea0c39395dff36ec9fe35a709
ac71d509a03eca1c4e426478f4b49e9a05a891e6
26136 F20101112_AACCHS liu_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
f448670855fc68964a88f9c766a2ebfd
91836f1922fa1bde503cec274caf1d8e5741694a
27120 F20101112_AACBFF liu_m_Page_081.jp2
634f50366b6fa2e5eb72c3e76bff134b
a97a80fae5501c38a66222a0f7a722293f55768e
864 F20101112_AACBEQ liu_m_Page_082.txt
df004b52bc33bbb1becd69fd600e0f96
a1041f8ac2b33f011906cbdc1545475184c531b3
4193 F20101112_AACCHT liu_m_Page_082thm.jpg
763620dabb6a31de2b821269bac22893
0e6b135be0cd93c5d7d9c5eb81c23ec795888c39
27021 F20101112_AACBFG liu_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
892d3137d5144b09cee3825f83636141
dbb93382407eba8cb0264caf4dbe1243f5ccf0a9
53577 F20101112_AACBER liu_m_Page_055.pro
a7af068d19e9fe3f155a534b59b66218
86adc71629e8e9ee637fb4e427bcfd1cacf5615a
26299 F20101112_AACCHU liu_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
befeccae8c84c1b5804680e7d907d627
c4e56cd3b598415a409ba65f70a2a45b5b504371
12302 F20101112_AACBFH liu_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
a4ebfd45c473e336dbb01eff06882e23
6d5a4cfcddde2984255ab3ff0332829cd42e3494
9040 F20101112_AACBES liu_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
26f15a9847b337aa4e487913fe48e310
bcc7b8a199301068d72d828b55ba7978cf01cbc4
177407 F20101112_AACCHV UFE0019669_00001.xml
c693e5da0ec442d3bd007925eab57556
e2ba0630e4843a44b0564a8d31e180b10cd1ce3c
26019 F20101112_AACBFI liu_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
62b2b8ccea978837f85e0ebc3729387c
9517b37db9c4b16392241bd52488f5da4a0fe85b
F20101112_AACBET liu_m_Page_090.tif
d3fe997daa68bb5c5e0d0cf28de8a0da
aa8081d7366f640b458fe43d9737a9f332d3a6f8
7153 F20101112_AACCHW liu_m_Page_013thm.jpg
5b854d28cc69218a05a08fbdf6c8a0d8
95b4f394b848c9e9efa22c0c6dfd0fd897abe205
3078 F20101112_AACBFJ liu_m_Page_102thm.jpg
853c539c481c7333caafca6b9539c396
bae6fb46415bcfcba9e15cb99708d3b1a82e501c
13183 F20101112_AACBEU liu_m_Page_067.jp2
c03e5dbd556f025d01a4a360b48b134f
a45d5f5bf53865b8d7ae0b1257e77f67490be7df
6710 F20101112_AACCHX liu_m_Page_029thm.jpg
769c633cd151932b769dcc08d12f6d2f
561b19d1d2900c431cd763f894a7bfa79186b766
3410 F20101112_AACBFK liu_m_Page_010.txt
976965d384a874d52b62560047e7b4d3
765188b83c4b27230f9f58027e0fc8cfea68340c
28305 F20101112_AACBEV liu_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
a47668fca677dc3a6b08658db837bbd8
944918d984ec534520b3ddfacbc633c77c1b3b3b
24966 F20101112_AACCHY liu_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
241438e76ce6a1640fc9ad8507995eb1
22b2353fbf93aa8b2af5652b884a7a558c40cda3
8980 F20101112_AACBEW liu_m_Page_075.pro
e1b7080598baf2f8ea86741a386883dc
bc89d4ae043faa2f70bb2b2624e7d83b43c3241f
6568 F20101112_AACCHZ liu_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
e8895d40ca109a9c2973b22b89d5f3bc
06a20e96cfc3d0c9aa25d2ebeefcccae2fe79bdc
721 F20101112_AACBFL liu_m_Page_119.txt
20c7dc24fe60002760c7eebf22d3be80
a2ee480946384aa434dd037387ac979cef27ec3a
33857 F20101112_AACBEX liu_m_Page_012.jpg
517bd56df96428a9ef20ee2d86c01558
2e0b43ba13c04ec9137fc277a024ccff73ae8a12
458 F20101112_AACBGA liu_m_Page_080.txt
cb2147b5a2a1328e22838e7a7cb26d96
78244445a092c66095c466500ee150ac05557d57
100774 F20101112_AACBFM liu_m_Page_006.jpg
285b1539c26b716f3976b82d28293788
2b316031e6531affe171e2df134f44f7eb61467b
7902 F20101112_AACBEY liu_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
967029b9f4aee82e469146252aa89032
8885dd469e30b9da3d6c2cdc5c841f340ec7355a
37228 F20101112_AACBGB liu_m_Page_103.jpg
8fe6bfc1ec4ccca29a22b2a6ef4529a9
c99edf29d913f5372f103ab3edd04303ab961bcf
F20101112_AACBFN liu_m_Page_079.tif
7b75154029d6eb28ce9c282b4d145f2c
f342926282477d3b789ca998b7b98ae009fa7cc3
125897 F20101112_AACBEZ liu_m_Page_017.jp2
e1b96fe99a9ce93e7761ffa4d3246a24
3374d252ad73a8c3a76322b6d97dac86c13ba257
78000 F20101112_AACBGC liu_m_Page_048.jpg
e8714ad64563cdfe88b9ab854e3c901e
f682391b983120c8abc48c1f30a305af5c655ef7
5150 F20101112_AACBFO liu_m_Page_074thm.jpg
4d916a4861fa98fcac3f36b21759cc8e
9c9d584431ce3410d3558dc16bc402702b902ef8
77729 F20101112_AACBGD liu_m_Page_016.jpg
82b6fab98f5b75c487d75260d32739e1
1a3d7d3d50f421170bc36c0a72b514a50c1f2076
27145 F20101112_AACBFP liu_m_Page_075.jp2
396dd8c0dafa45453251e4e993273c3c
e697bcffd7fa47adb4e59b968480e5744e31777f
7201 F20101112_AACBGE liu_m_Page_026thm.jpg
fd1ebdc124f8dcc1cda21427892ded43
e7639796a5bcfb4f370e514dae3a14dd80cf0847
9722 F20101112_AACBFQ liu_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
517a5f262ee7c5da34c2d72a2a644e6d
360f43da53c49f25f860b872f6265b5cc9676c33
1170 F20101112_AACBGF liu_m_Page_073.txt
52f66a4a8ed9ce888fd34f3ab0bb25ca
1747541a249d9862aac87051cf4b403302ab065f
1113 F20101112_AACBFR liu_m_Page_035.txt
12e0a55cfdac9e3e3f52fba0890a84dd
fd1b60d5f910a07c320012ba429b41fc527c9dbd
83398 F20101112_AACBGG liu_m_Page_017.jpg
d3715c855dc5460562b672b51027c79c
6cb776e66adcf6f4ff27425e9c095397d48068a8
12565 F20101112_AACBFS liu_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
c9cdb485a306fe1b5a13089c2e460875
34ef7560873a904ead22f4558a8640b544d53982
9831 F20101112_AACBGH liu_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
bef436582fe0a21fa9ce62b484a744c9
630938b2d23e9c7bac9f06092df8cd5378b4e43a
26919 F20101112_AACBFT liu_m_Page_076.jpg
028f93c0711d6e7978caa5f6a2b2be91
cbc50f0e999c8cdf01cade183576cbb2fe0955c2
58437 F20101112_AACBGI liu_m_Page_026.pro
8060f3f5ef4fb41abe3649142f6d6b44
1467b241a69b43e62c66edd6a2062ceaffc0710f
F20101112_AACBFU liu_m_Page_053.tif
828ffab954a6e5df3ee38071ad533c96
f33aab666365eeabfb8a88094640d85fd828491e
6877 F20101112_AACBGJ liu_m_Page_032thm.jpg
63b9d36917dbcb7e912e81d5e503d02a
9e2382380d40d812b6cf14d3d367dfeef03cfb6b
27478 F20101112_AACBFV liu_m_Page_086.jpg
1dad92aa8bc2471255619b7839c6e602
20b3d99fa75dc7725ce2173b84229c19430fb3e3
42529 F20101112_AACBGK liu_m_Page_099.pro
8b6120aeb65210e014346a3dc0b4a1ff
9b6ed3d0a1892469985d99e41666506f42771ae1
116023 F20101112_AACBFW liu_m_Page_063.jp2
4df79c89f131af9736a6aa7c8bc2082c
8c9d4a9e8d716b594f40712f879f07e7137ad720
31649 F20101112_AACBGL liu_m_Page_119.jpg
f8306be9a188adc5945c62ff8a74b7e5
eb9cecc557c5fc6f623398da843b9290b2fe99f5
76191 F20101112_AACBFX liu_m_Page_057.jpg
a804f20cffbf6dd3fcee75ba34edfb62
12d70e3c58dc662c9bea10928969f3e5bda15e99
F20101112_AACBHA liu_m_Page_113.tif
e26185446badfe470d0c8e268fdb5784
74efb7c87025244fad0bc3f1235414e5f19bf0db
57659 F20101112_AACBFY liu_m_Page_047.pro
9fc2b0ef6bfcbd879f7010d5f63eebf6
8bf3cab911c5a10190a97764253385e6f034aa27
80755 F20101112_AACBHB liu_m_Page_013.jpg
7b431185994b4a4c509481b2d4c30420
48da926081f1cbe12380646ff8e9715d6e7869bf
F20101112_AACBGM liu_m_Page_008.tif
6031d61400d2fdf6c9fc6a00c3759d36
2d404b74fcc9293795ef9c22b75205d2491bff98
6923 F20101112_AACBFZ liu_m_Page_116thm.jpg
0e48f9ab81bad4f798147622f0549ebb
34a438402814db690baf5b2959ab5c9753094abf
54734 F20101112_AACBHC liu_m_Page_062.pro
45626ed0bc18024cd9ab839fd261d109
a56dd2b39ccf321279e673cd5306b610369dee5c
21407 F20101112_AACBGN liu_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
6b80645d95be42ee28a4ddcbd741f738
6cbd7a080c9eca2def27c44adf78c38b8f92a50c
7295 F20101112_AACBHD liu_m_Page_023thm.jpg
f028f5185208a1acc7866c1bf360c665
e5e1537696397ffdc44a5a4ce2f8a164994e9992
F20101112_AACBGO liu_m_Page_026.tif
e0744f1afc0c8fdbec69692118e8236b
9491b3a9c6e4343a12e07fa7becf35694bba19b8
F20101112_AACBHE liu_m_Page_074.tif
eaf04c3fe274b13c49d5d4ece2cbe233
8bd08d333667f1798ddf2ea7254dadfedc5d186f
7603 F20101112_AACBGP liu_m_Page_117thm.jpg
d2f09106338cc3162c586d297ae6e71c
02f46608bc4d23bfe6fc849860456f66b095da78
914 F20101112_AACBHF liu_m_Page_078.txt
7099bef4d799ff5d07a400fcce12df90
5dd5c07409d961b4ca97e99d5db0fa57144a38e1
76357 F20101112_AACBGQ liu_m_Page_007.jpg
cece79cd996c5c02110e1858121de0fd
2d5f76211bb102c3854fea7f3f05c27ee1ccb0ca
2156 F20101112_AACBHG liu_m_Page_028.txt
6ce1a33d2f01020e2c4394a5ad5669eb
15024f09a3ed5715d056fd33573dcf58f43874c2
F20101112_AACBGR liu_m_Page_101.tif
ddf0159b6aef86cf86d0cfc7f078e788
da92720248538da9f03256d00260ef1cebb67f1f
F20101112_AACBHH liu_m_Page_117.tif
7eb8d1c46fd76ca9e85ba45874364f3f
72c39cd2639cff79e50efeced198f9b157c1147e
F20101112_AACBGS liu_m_Page_005.tif
def923cc8142ea264c8038a2cb28972a
e37a1f9fb0cf5949357b072f71a2a540a4fa0c99
6413 F20101112_AACBHI liu_m_Page_043thm.jpg
0d08a57a5befd230e373be9bbaafd007
2fd4d959ae9b82782b1de0767cbc67a6a334bd21
2649 F20101112_AACBGT liu_m_Page_114.txt
4c83a423cd492aa05826b41528db8838
39e6154f2bceb89757f10ed04386d9672af591d0
122410 F20101112_AACBHJ liu_m_Page_031.jp2
97fbb73ed5f1a52928b77d80101b7a1e
f76234461f309c3e15d70691372522cce6bdb00f
112807 F20101112_AACBGU liu_m_Page_049.jp2
404e3b2529895829f6b708190d5ad30e
fe6c257a1b5178f2d14b4d9f2e0f6e94865b2196
11134 F20101112_AACBHK liu_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
84e951302d11a8321fe56368f6c1f827
4a96d77466b7208bf81b4d1e51256f4ef77a45a3
F20101112_AACBGV liu_m_Page_106.tif
4072f469a7829bb6ef8948925ec3acf0
0cf514293279e2093f3f8c3d50caccd3b58a21a5
2108 F20101112_AACBHL liu_m_Page_042.txt
245e6e2afb48950066262c1ec2a56d50
71fa5cc7da35d0a03a2ac5d8c2ed375c99a9768d
27185 F20101112_AACBGW liu_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
910634f07f2e563648c8d21fc6858109
c940ca80586d3f661d234d7c69bf970d60234758
F20101112_AACBIA liu_m_Page_011.txt
cb59d3820d282fe89eb2c80526cf366b
e38add0b92e8d81050f6afab368a906053b30650
52183 F20101112_AACBHM liu_m_Page_029.pro
305d626ddb51512c2bbceac9fff76baa
2fd9e187428f707139ce54bca31e82bd73a9c29e
8740 F20101112_AACBGX liu_m_Page_105.pro
73d7ba642aa069b579990a92e32642ce
24ca4be57d80940eed46f9f949a97b041b83f321
78114 F20101112_AACBIB liu_m_Page_063.jpg
34d9a2b98f5fab23287f0810bd6e5ebf
91d07b8cc59d23c644498658802124697731c2b1
5083 F20101112_AACBGY liu_m_Page_036thm.jpg
4d2965d09715abb3ede60701db0e8ae2
5daeb6ca3fa4154743edfe37a4d488a69c7dfe19
53190 F20101112_AACBIC liu_m_Page_044.jpg
2e9cba71f5c51c7b30fbbd2f87f0204a
d1d2f0964a03db9b9e91faf72145586ce461b7d5
27315 F20101112_AACBHN liu_m_Page_101.jpg
9f9390e36678fcf1b16d4afe337b1dc6
64ab3c68ab8c1ae50630ead81dafdba601ed5fea
39764 F20101112_AACBGZ liu_m_Page_090.jpg
92f464263e518c0a06cfc7f6d883be55
945bf26d25436c21e72050edf215b4caaaa9331f
F20101112_AACBID liu_m_Page_107.tif
01f64f92db26f044f45e2aea89d9e622
7911952b8a334cc20c8b9ab377e799ac9471f860
F20101112_AACBHO liu_m_Page_114.tif
a7515abfa47f505282f26ae187f385f3
91d37eb361f4ba05b69745db5bae9a444e34d2eb



PAGE 1

1 PHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT OF ST. AUGUSTINEGRASS By MIN LIU A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Min Liu

PAGE 3

3 To my wife Ma, Kehong, my father, Li u, Dinghong and my mother, He, Wanmei

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I give my sincere thanks and appreciation to the chair of my supervisory committee, Dr. Jerry Sartain. It is his continuous support, guida nce, and encouragement that made this degree possible. I would also like to thank the other committee members: Dr. Laurie Trenholm for her expertise in turfgrass, Dr. Grady Miller for hi s knowledge of turfgra ss research methodology, Dr. Peter Nkedi-Kizza for his suggestion for the leach ing data analysis, Dr. Willie Harris for his knowledge in soil mineralogy, Dr. Rongling Wu for his guidance in Statistics. Thanks go to the Florida Department of Environment Protection who sponsored this research project. Special thanks go to lab pers onnel, Ed Hopwood Jr., Nahid Varshovi, Martin Sandquist, who helped me throughout my research. Sp ecially, I would like to thank my dear wife, Kehong Ma, our incoming baby, both sets of pare nts and family members for their ongoing support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Phosphorus in the Soil-Plant Environment.............................................................................15 Phosphorus Reactions in Soil..........................................................................................15 Organic Soil P..................................................................................................................16 Leached P in Turfgrass Environment..............................................................................17 Management Practices to Reduce P Leaching................................................................... 18 Conventional Soil and Tissue P Tests....................................................................................19 Soil P Extractants............................................................................................................19 Suitability of Different Extracting Procedures................................................................20 Soil P Extracting Procedures and Geographical Regions................................................21 Tissue P test.................................................................................................................. ...22 Response of Turfgrass to P Fertiliz ers and Fertilizer Recommendations...............................22 Phosphorus Toxicity Trial...............................................................................................22 Phosphorus Requirements by Turfgrasses.......................................................................23 Critical Minimum Soil P Concentrations........................................................................25 Effects of P Applicati on on Soil Test P Levels...............................................................27 Critical Tissue P Concentrations.....................................................................................28 Interaction with other Nutrients..............................................................................................30 Phosphorus and N............................................................................................................30 Phosphorus and K, Ca and Mg........................................................................................31 Phosphorus and Zn..........................................................................................................32 Effect of N, P, K, and their In teractions on Water Use Efficiency.................................. 32 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................37 Glasshouse Hydroponic Study................................................................................................37 Glasshouse Soil Study 1........................................................................................................ .39 Glasshouse Soil Study 2........................................................................................................ .40 Glasshouse Soil Study 3........................................................................................................ .42

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................46 Glasshouse Hydroponic Study................................................................................................46 Turf Quality................................................................................................................... ..46 Tissue P and Root P.........................................................................................................46 Tissue Growth Rate and Root Growth Rate....................................................................47 Critical Tissue P level......................................................................................................48 Glasshouse Soil Study 1........................................................................................................ .49 Turf Quality................................................................................................................... ..49 Top Growth Rate.............................................................................................................49 Tissue P Concentration....................................................................................................50 The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration...............................................................51 Soil Test P.................................................................................................................... ....51 The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations.........................................................52 P Downward Movement..................................................................................................53 Leached P Mass and Concentration................................................................................54 Glasshouse Soil Study 2........................................................................................................ .55 Turf Quality................................................................................................................... ..55 Top Growth Rate.............................................................................................................55 Tissue P Concentration....................................................................................................56 The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration...............................................................57 Soil P Tests................................................................................................................... ...57 The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations.........................................................58 P Downward Movement..................................................................................................59 Leached P Mass and Concentration................................................................................60 Glasshouse Soil Study 3........................................................................................................ .61 Turf Quality................................................................................................................... ..61 Top Growth Rate.............................................................................................................62 Tissue P Concentration....................................................................................................62 Critical Minimum Tissue P Concentration......................................................................63 Soil P Tests................................................................................................................... ...63 The Critical Minimum Mehl ich-1 P Concentration........................................................65 P Downward Movement..................................................................................................65 Leached P Mass and Concentration................................................................................66 5 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................108 Glasshouse Hydroponic Study..............................................................................................108 Turf Quality in Glasshouse Soil Studies...............................................................................108 Top Growth Rate in Glasshouse Soil Studies.......................................................................109 Tissue P Concentration and Crit ical Tissue P Concentration...............................................109 Soil P Tests and Critical So il Test P Concentrations............................................................109 P Downward Movement and Leached P..............................................................................110 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................120

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Common soil test extractants used for available P............................................................35 2-2 Critical P concentration in some subt ropical and tropical gr asses (Kamprath and Watson, 1980).................................................................................................................. ..36 3-1 Selected chemical properties used in the glasshouse soil study 1, 2, and 3.......................45 4-1 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 1....................................................................................73 4-2 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005 2006 glasshouse soil study 1..............................................................................................74 4-3 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegra ss as influenced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 1....................................................................................74 4-4 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 2....................................................................................84 4-5 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P applicat ion rate and soils in 2005 glasshouse soil study 2....................................................................................85 4-6 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegra ss as influenced by P application rate and soils in 2005 glasshouse soil study 2.......................................................................85 4-7 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 3....................................................................................99 4-8 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005 2006 glasshouse soil study 3..............................................................................................99 4-9 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegra ss as influenced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 3..................................................................................100

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 The P cycle in soil........................................................................................................ ......34 3-1 Glasshouse solution culture P study layout.......................................................................44 3-2 Glasshouse soil P study 1 layout........................................................................................44 4-1 Turf quality response to solution P concentr ation. Turf quality is the mean of five replications over time after treatments were applied. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test..................................................................................................................... ....68 4-2 Tissue P response to solution P concentration and time....................................................68 4-3 Relationship of solution P and tissue P concentration on day 148. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly diffe rently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test...........................................................................................................69 4-4 Relationship of solution P and root P concentration on day 148. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly diffe rently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test...........................................................................................................69 4-5 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to solution P concentration.......................70 4-6 Root growth rate relative to solution P concentration. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test..................................................................................................................... ....71 4-7 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration...........................72 4-8 St. Augustinegrass tissue gr owth rate relative to tissu e P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1.......................................................................................................75 4-9 Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP c oncentration as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1..................................76 4-10 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Ox ide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.................................................77 4-11 Relationships between tissue P concentr ation and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1......78 4-12 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Me hlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1.................................................................................................79

PAGE 9

9 4-13 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1.......................................................................................................80 4-14 St. Augustinegrass tissue gr owth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1.......................................................................................................81 4-15 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influen ced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse soil study 1...................................................................................82 4-16 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 1.......................................................................................................82 4-17 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 1.......................................................................................................83 4-18 St. Augustinegrass tissue gr owth rate relative to tissu e P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2.......................................................................................................86 4-19 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentr ation as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in th e glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2)......................87 4-20 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentr ation as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in th e glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3)......................87 4-21 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Ox ide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the gl asshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2)..............................88 4-22 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Ox ide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the gl asshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3)..............................89 4-23 Relationships between tissue P concentr ation and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling dept h of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2)................................................................................................................... ......90 4-24 Relationships between tissue P concentr ation and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling dept h of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3)................................................................................................................... ......91 4-25 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Me hlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil st udy 2 (soil No. 2)..............................................................................92 4-26 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Me hlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil st udy 2 (soil No. 3)..............................................................................93 4-27 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2)....................................................................................94

PAGE 10

10 4-28 St. Augustinegrass tissue gr owth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2)....................................................................................95 4-29 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influen ced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 2)......................................................................96 4-30 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influen ced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 3)......................................................................96 4-31 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2)....................................................................................97 4-32 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2)....................................................................................97 4-33 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3)....................................................................................98 4-34 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3)....................................................................................98 4-35 St. Augustinegrass tissue gr owth rate relative to tissu e P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 3.....................................................................................................101 4-36 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentr ation as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3. Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05).............................................................................102 4-37 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Ox ide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3..............................................103 4-38 Relationships between tissue P concentr ation and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3...104 4-39 St. Augustinegrass tissue grow th rate relative to soil Me hlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 3...............................................................................................105 4-40 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influen ced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse soil study 3.................................................................................106 4-41 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P a pplication rate and leaching event in the glasshouse soil study 3.....................................................................................................107 4-42 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in the glasshouse soil study 3...............................................................................................107

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT OF ST. AUGUSTINEGRASS By Min Liu May 2007 Chair: Jerry B. Sartain Major: Soil and Water Science St. Augustinegrass [Stenotaphrum secondatum (Wa lt.) Kuntze] is widely used for Florida lawn grass. At present phosphorus (P) fertilization of Florida lawn grasses is based on soil tests which were designed for agronomic crops in a production culture. Little information exits relative to the exact P re quirement of St. Augustinegrass. The objective of this research was to determine the critical P requirement of St. Augustinegrass. Four individual studies were conducted in a glasshouse including one solution culture study and thre e soil studies. Data collected in the soluti on culture study included visual quality rating, t op growth rate, tissue P concentration. From the solution culture study, the critic al solution P concentr ation and critical minimum tissue P concentration were determined to be 111 ppb and 1.6 g kg-1, respectively. Data collected in soil studies included visu al quality rating, top growth rate, tissue P concentration, soil test P concentrations, a nd leachate volume and soluble reactive P concentration. From the soil studies, the minimu m P application rate to achieve the maximum growth rate was 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1; the critical minimum tissue P concentration were determined to be 1.8 g kg-1. Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide Strip P, and WEP were highl y correlated to each other and they were also highly correlated to tissue P concentration and top growth rate. Mehlich-1 was the best soil P extractant for St Augustinegrass. The crit ical soil Mehlich-1 P

PAGE 12

12 levels were in the range from 5 to 9 mg kg-1 depending on soil properties. Most of the applied concentrated superphosphate did not leach below the top 2 cm of soil. Approximately 1% of P applied leached in the 10 cm of soil profile. Larger quantity and highe r concentration of P leached in the first leaching event. Application of 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 did not result in either a larger leached P quantity or a higher concentr ation. Based upon these research findings, 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 is recommended for St. Augustinegrass only if the soil Melich -1 P concentration is below 10 mg kg-1. Otherwise, no P application would be recommended. Multiple applications with small quantity each time is suggested and do not apply P fertilizer before a rain event.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the recent past, more attention has been di rected towards phosphorus (P) fertilization of Florida lawn grasses, because P is recognized as an element of impairment of water bodies and streams, which is called eutrophicaiton. Eutrophi cation of surface waters, the proliferation of aquatic plants, is caused by a su rplus of available nutrients (suc h as P and N). Eutrophication can cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen in waterways, a situation that can kill fish. Compared with the other major nutrients, phosphorus (P) is by far the least mobile a nd available to plants in most soil conditions. The poor mobility of soil inorganic phosphorus is due to the strong reactivity of phosphate ions relative to numer ous soil components and to the c onsequent strong retention of most soil phosphorus onto those components. Howeve r, a typical Florida soil is sandy and acidic, and the potential for P leaching exis ts. Ballard and Fiskell (1974) reported that most of the sandy soils of the Southeastern Coastal Plains have a very small retention capacity for water soluble P against leaching, but that the su rface horizons of Spodosols had th e lowest retention capacities. In a lysimeter study, Neller (1946) reported that in 4 months 72.4 cm of rainfall leached more than 70% of applied superphosphate-P from the surface of 20 cm of a Leon fine sand. Therefore, P applied to Florida lawn grasse s have potential to cause eutr ophication if not managed properly. At present P fertilization of Florida lawn gra sses is based on soil tests with were basically designed for agronomic crops in a production culture. Little information exists relative to the exact P requirement of Florida lawn grasses and fertilization levels required to produce the required levels in the soil. The objectives for this study are to identify th e critical P tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass using so lution culture techniqu es; to determine the minimum P fertilization level on f our types of soils (three with low in Mehlich-1 P and one with medium level of Mehlich-1 P) requ ired to achieve the optimum growth; to select the best soil P

PAGE 14

14 test procedure for recommendation on St. Augustineg rass; and to identify the critical minimum soil test P level to achiev e the optimum growth.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Phosphorus in the Soil-Plant Environment Phosphorus is a macro nutrient used by plant. Th e most essential function of P in plants is in energy storage and transfer. Phosphorus is also an important structural component of nucleic acids, coenzymes, nucleotides, phosphoproteins phospholipids, and sugar phosphates. Plant tissue P concentration ra nges between 1 to 5 g kg-1. Plants absorb either H2PO4 or HPO4 2orthophosphate ions (Havlin et al., 1999). Phosphor us ion concentration in soil solution ranges between 0.03 and 0.5 mg kg-1 in most soils (Ozanne, 1980; Mengel and Kirkby, 1987; Raghothama, 1999; Frossard et al., 2000). In general, it is beli eved that a soil solution P concentration of 0.2 mg kg-1 is adequate for most crops. Phos phorus exists in the soil solution primarily in anionic forms and the distribution among various species (H3PO4, H2PO4 -, HPO4 2and PO4 3-) in solution is governed by solution pH. In the pH domain of most soils the dominant orthophosphate ions are H2PO4 and HPO4 2-, the latter being the major species at pH above 7.2 (Lindsay, 1979). In order to ensure adequate P av ailability to plants and limit the environmental impact of P fertilization, one must thoroughly understand the P-cycle (Figure 2-1) and the dynamics of P transformations in soils. Phosphorus Reactions in Soil Phosphorus ions have a strong te ndency to form ion pairs or complex species with several metal cations, most frequently with Ca and Mg in alkaline soils, and with Fe and Al in acid soils (Lindsay, 1979). Ruiz (1992) reported that 9 and 20% of soluble P occurred as Mg-P and Ca-P complexes for a hydroxyapatite in equilibrium with a simplified nutrient solution (NH4NO3 2 mM, KNO3 3.5 mM, and MgSO4 0.5 mM) at pH values of 7 and 8.5, respectively. Phosphorus ions also readily precipitate with metal cations to form a range of P minerals in case of external

PAGE 16

16 concentrations. In acidic conditions P ions will precipitate as Fe and Al phosphates such as strengite, vivianite, variscite and various mi nerals of the plumbogummite group (Norrish and Rosser, 1983; Lindsay et al., 1989). With pH incr easing to neutral or alka line conditions, P ions will precipitate as Ca phosphates such as octa calcium or dicalcium phosphates, hydroxylapatite and eventually least soluble apatit es (Lindsay et al., 1989). P availa bility in most soils is at a maximum near pH 6.5. Many soil physical and chemical properties in fluence the P solubil ity and adsorption reactions in soils. Consequentl y, these soil properties also aff ect solution P concentration, P availability to plants, and rec overy of P fertilizer by crops. Sanchez and Uehara (1980) reported the influence of clay mineralogy on P adsorption. For three soil orders with >70% clay content, they found that the P adsorption occurred in the order: Mollisol soils composed mainly of montmorillonite < Oxisoil soils containing some Fe/Al oxides < the Andept soils composed principally of Fe/Al oxides and other minerals. Soils containing large quantities of clay will fix more P than soils with low clay content. Cole man et al. (1960) reported a strong positive linear relationship between exchangeable Al and P adsorption. Organic Soil P Organic soil P represents about 50% of the to tal P in soil and varies between 15 and 80% in most soils (Havlin et al., 1999). Havlin et al. (1999) also reported that soil organic P decreases with depth and the distribution with depth varies among soils. The average C/N/P/S ratio in soils is 140:10:1.3:1.3 (Havlin et al., 1999). Many of th e organic P compounds in soils have not been characterized. Most organic P compounds are es ters of orthophosphoric acid and have been identified primarily as in ositol phosphates with appr oximate proportion of 10-50%, Phospholipids with proportion of 1-5% and nucle ic acids with proportion of 0.2-2.5% (Havlin et al., 1999). In general, P mineralization is simila r to N. Dormaar (1972) reported that organic P

PAGE 17

17 content decreases with crop gr owth and increases again afte r harvest, which suggests P mineralization and immobilization. Tiessen et al. (1982) reported that organic P decreased an average of 21% after 60 and 70 years of cultiva tion. Sharpley (1985) reported that with an increase of total organic P cont ent, the organic P mineralizati on rate increased. Tabatabai and Dick (1979) found that P minerali zation increases with increasing total organic C. The C/P ratio of the decomposing residues regulates the pred ominance of P mineralization over immobilization as suggested by the following guidelines. Net minera lization of organic P occurs in case the C/P ratio is less than 200 and net immobilization of inorganic P would occur for a >300 C/P ratio. Leached P in Turfgrass Environment Phosphorus is an essential macronutrient re quired by turfgrass for proper growth and function. Accordingly, P is often included in fertiliz er regime used to maintain aesthetic lawns. Although P enters into many inorganic forms in natural setting, which renders it sparingly soluble by precipitation and adsorption in most cas es and not prone to leaching, a typical Florida soil is sandy and acidic, and the potential for P le aching exists. Many of Fl oridas soils have low P-retention capacities, which allow significan t P leaching. Additionally shallow groundwater intercepted by drains allows leached P to join surface water bodies. From 20 to 80% of P and other fertilizers which were app lied to Florida sandy soil may be leached (Champbell et al., 1985; Sims et al., 1998). Shuman (2001) investigated P leaching from a simu lated USGA putting green in an environmentally c ontrolled greenhouse and reported 27% of applied P was lost via leaching. Studies addressing N leaching from turfgrass environment are quite extensive (Snyder et al., 1980; Broschat, 1995; Erickson et al., 2001). Re latively few studies have addressed the P leaching under turfgrass environment. Erickson et al. (2005) examined fertilizer P leaching loss from contrasting residential landscape models (St. Augustinegrass vs. a mixed-species landscape) established on a sandy soil. They reported that during the 45 month study, cumulative mean P

PAGE 18

18 leached was 23 kg ha-1 from approximate 1400 kg ha-1 application on the St. Augustinegrass model. Leaching losses were high during establishment and following intense precipitation. Leaching losses of P were high enough to rais e concern over ecological impacts on neighboring hydrologically linked systems. Chung et al. (1999) evaluated the influe nce of a number of different P sources in a glasshouse study simu lating the USGA putting green root-zone mixes on bermuda ( Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. C. transvaalensis Burtt Davy) growth, plant uptake and leaching characteristics. They reported differenc es in P leaching characteristics among the P sources, with monopotassium phosphate contributing the largest quantity of P to the leachate, accounting for approximately 28% P applied, and c oncentrated superphosphate (CSP) the least, accounting for 13% of P applied. Brown and Sart ain (1999) studied the P retention in United States Golf Association Green s by looking at the influence of sand type (clay coated vs. uncoated), amendment sources (peat and iron huma te), and P fertilizer materials (MKP, 0-20-20, and CSP). They reported that more P leached during establishment. Coated sand retained more Mehlich-1 extractable P, which resulted in more P uptake and less P leaching. Iron humate reduced leachate P and experime nt units receiving CSP leached least P. Snyder et al. (2000) investigated coated sands for use in putting gr een construction and concluded that naturallycoated sand retained more P than uncoated and artificially-coated sand with approximately 1% leached for naturally-coated sand. Management Practices to Reduce P Leaching Different management practices have been prop osed to minimize P leaching in sandy soils. In recent years, water treatment residuals have been studied extensively to improve the P holding capacity of sandy soils. OConnor et al. (2002) ev aluated WRTs P retention capacities and found that all three WRTs tested could reduce P solubi lity by either adsorpti on, precipitation, or both mechanisms and the Al-WTR had an especially large P-sorption capacity of at least 5000 mg P

PAGE 19

19 kg-1. Decreasing P fertilizer rates or application of calcite or dolomitic limestone to increase soil adsorption capacity are the traditional ways for reducing P leaching (Sims et al., 1998). However, both procedures may lead to insufficient P avai lability to plants because liming promotes transformation of plant-available P into unavail able forms (Lindsay, 1979). Silicon fertilizers have a high adsorption capacity and positively influe nce soil physical properti es. As a result of P adsorption onto a surface of Si fertilizer, P leaching is reduced. At the same time, Si fertilizers can induce transformation of slightly soluble phosphates into plant available forms (Matichkov and Ammosova, 1996). Therefore, Si fertilizers ca n improve P nutrition in plants and keep P in the upper soil layers. Matichenkov et al. (2001) found that Si-rich s ubstances or Si fertilizers increased bahiagrass biomass and reduced P leaching by 40 to 70%. Conventional Soil and Tissue P Tests Soil P Extractants Most soil P extractants were developed to estimate the capacity of the soil to supply P. They were designed to extract some fraction of the labile P and thus provide an index of the availability of P to plants over the growing seas on. Soil P test extractants can be placed into various categories related to the chemical nature of the extracting solutions. A list of the commonly used soil test extrac tants is given in Table 2-1. Extractants Troug and Mehlich-I contain dilute concentrations of strong acids normally with a pH of 2 to 3. This provides sufficient H ion activity to dissolve th e Ca-P and some of the Al-P and Fe-P as well. Mehlich III, Bray I a nd Bray II contain both d iluted strong acids and a complexing agent, fluoride ion. Fluo ride ions are very effective in complexing Al ions from Al-P and also precipitate Ca ions to release P form Ca-P into solution. With the double effects of P

PAGE 20

20 extraction mechanism Mehlich-III, Bray-I and II tend to extract more P from the same soils than Mehlich-I and Troug would. On coarse textured Georgia Coastal Plai n soils, Gascho et al. (1990) found that Mehlich-III extracts about 1.46 times mo re P than Mehlich-I. Also, on finer textured soils Mehlich-III extractant removes about 1.6 times more P than Mehlich-I. Olsen-P extractant is so called buffered alkaline so lution containing 0.5N NaHCO3 with pH 8.5, which originally was developed for calcareous soils. The HCO3 is quite effective in replacing adsorbed P. Because of high pH Olsen-P extract ant is also very effective in extracting P from Al-P and Fe-P due to the hydrolysis of the Al and Fe. The extr actant citric acid, Egne r and Morgan, consist of diluted weak acids, which were developed based upon the idea of mimicking the root environment. The organic anions associated with the weak acids tend to a ffect the extraction in two ways. The organic anions form complexes with Ca, Al or Fe ions to release P and can also replace adsorbed P and prevent its readsorption. Modified Morgan extractant was modified from Morgan extractant by substituting NH4 for Na and adding NH4F to provide a 0.03 N F solution. NH4 is more effective in removing K from clay soils than is Na. NH4F would give a measure of a greater portion of P reserve by forming Al-F or Fe-F complexes. FeO strip P test is the so-called chemical sink-based test, which has been propos ed to rely on P sorpti ondesorption reactions instead of dissolving soil P with chem icals. It extracts P using Fe-oxide impregnated filter paper strips or discs (Chardon et al, 1996). Suitability of Different Extracting Procedures The suitability of the extracting methods can be evaluated by correlating the P extracted with plant growth parameters such as yiel d, P uptake and P concentration (Fitts and Nelson, 1956). The Olsen and Bray I methods are quite satis factory across a wide range of soil conditions and the Mehlich I appeared to be very good when used for soils with a pH of 7 or less (Fitts, 1956). The soil testing laboratory at the University of Florida is currently using the Mehlich-I

PAGE 21

21 procedure. The Egner method was as effective as Olsen and Bray-I methods while the Morgan method is least satisfactory across a wide range of soils (Van Diest, 1963). In a stud y that related turfgrass growth response to extractable soil P concentration in sand greens, Guillard and Dest (2003) reported that extractable P was highly co rrelated among Mehlich -I, Bray-I and modifiedMorgan procedures with r value of around 0.9. Meh lich-I and Bray-I extracta ble P extracted four to six times more P than modified Morgan. Ex tractable P with Bray-I P was 1.3 times greater than Mehlich-I extractable P. A better correla tion was observed between Bray P and Mehlich-I P than with modified Morgan P. Soil P Extracting Procedures and Geographical Regions The compounds that control the availability of P differ with soil conditions in different geographical regions of the country and different extrac tants have been developed and used for these situations. For example, P chemistry of so ils in the southeast primarily involves factors affecting the availability of aluminum and ir on phosphates. Therefore, most commonly used extractants in these regions are the Mehlich I a nd the Mehlich III. The Morgan extractant, which is used by some states in the northeast and Pa cific northwest and contains acetic acid, is a buffered weak acid extractant. Both of the Mehlic h solutions extract more P from soils than the Morgan extractant. The Mehlich III extractant removes about 10 times mo re P from soils than the weak acid-based Morgan extractant (W olf and Beegle, 1995). The extractant used predominantly in the Midwest is the Bray-Kurtz, commonly referred to as Bray I. The extraction of P by this procedure is based upon the solubilization effect of the H+ on soil P and the ability of the F to lower the activity of A1 and to a lesser ex tent that of Ca and Fe by forming complexes in the extraction system. Clay soils with moderately high base saturation or silty clay loam soils that are calcareous or have a very high base saturation will lessen the ability of the extractant to solubilize P. Consequently, the method shoul d normally be limited to soils with pHw (soil pH

PAGE 22

22 determined in water) values less than 6.8 when the te xture is silty clay loam or finer. Calcareous soils, or high pH, fine textured soils may be te sted by this method provided the soil:solution ratio is changed from 1:10 to 1:50. However, it should be noted that the Olsen extractant is used most extensively for calcareous soils (Anonymous 1992, Knudsen and Beegle, 1988). The Olsen extractant is quite effective for soils with me dium to high CEC, high percent base saturation, moderate to high amounts of calcium phospha tes, and containing free calcium carbonates (Thomas and Peaslee, 1973). It is used extensively in states such as Arizona, California, Utah, Wyoming, and Oregon. Research also indicates that the procedure works reasonably well on moderately acid soils. However, not many laborat ories testing moderate ly acid soils use the procedure. The fact that it is not used more wi dely on these soils is proba bly due to the lack of correlation data. Tissue P test Plant tissue analysis is an indicator of atta ining or maintaining ma ximum yield or quality. Therefore, the good correlation between the concentr ation of P in plant tis sue and in the soil as well as between the concentration in plant tissu e and yield, plant growth or quality normally exists. Ballard and Pritchett (1975) reported that the relationship be tween the concentrations of P extracted from the soil by different extractants correlated highly with the concentration of P in the tissue of pine seedlings. Response of Turfgrass to P Fertilizers and Fertilizer Recommendations Phosphorus Toxicity Trial Accumulations of P in soils growing turf, citrus, vegetable crops and field crops are common when heavy application of fertilizers containing a hi gh proportion of P are usually applied frequently. Since only a portion of P adde d in fertilizers is recovered by plants, the continuous use of P fertilizers on turfgrass would be expected to raise soil P level well above the

PAGE 23

23 optimum level. In most states, soils contain subs tantial portion of clay an d P leaches very little. Scientists question whether or not these high levels are detrimenta l to plant growth. Juska et al. (1965) looked at the effects of P on the development of Red Fescue ( Festuca rubra ssp. commutata ), Merion, and Common Kentucky Bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ). The P application rates were: 0, 244, 488, 734, 978, 1222, 1466 and 1710 kg ha-1. The largest increase in weight of both tops and roots of Merion and co mmon Kentucky bluegrass resulted fr om the first increment of P. Differences among remaining increments were small. It is conceivable that P application as high as 1710 kg ha-1 did not depress top growth and P application rate of 244 kg ha-1 supplied sufficient P already. These results suggest that grasses can tolerate very high levels of P and may require low rate of P applic ation for optimum growth. Phosphorus Requirements by Turfgrasses Grasses exhibit marked species difference in response to P supply. R obinson et al. (1976) found no influence of P applications to a New Zealand browntop-New Zealand chewings fescue ( Festuca rubra var. commutate ) lawn mixture for verdure, root weights, or tiller numbers. Jones et al. (1970) grew Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum ), hardinggrass ( Phalaris tuberosa var. stenoptera ), tall fescue ( Festuca arundinace ), orchardgrass ( Dactylus glomerata), and tall oatgrass ( Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) P. Beauv .) with 0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 kg P ha-1. Tall fescue, ryegrass, and tall oatgrass produced the highest yields without P, but tall fescue and ryegrass also showed the greatest response to P fe rtilization. Christians et al. (1979) investigated the N, P and K effects on quality and growth of Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass ( Agrostis palustris ) using solution culture. No response to P levels in solution was observed, which indicated that the requirements of these tw o species for P, under the conditions established, were met at or below the lowest P level of 2 mg L-1 in solution. Fry et al. (1989) conducted a field study over 8 years on a sand medium to dete rmine creeping bentgrass quality response to P.

PAGE 24

24 They found that creeping bentgras s fertilized at 60 or 132 kg P ha-1 yr-1 was similar in quality. In calcareous sand greens Johnson et al. (2003) found that creeping bentgrass plots receiving 27.5 kg P ha-1 yr-1 or higher rates attained the maximum quality. Allen et al. (1977) established Pensacola bahiagrass ( Paspalum notatum ) on a Lexington silt loam that contained 34 mg kg-1 P in the surface 1.5 m soil. For 5 years they applied annually 224, 336 and 448 kg N ha-1; 112, 224 and 336 kg P2O5 ha-1; and 112, 224 and 336 kg K2O ha-1 in a complete factorial experiment. Rates of 224 and 336 kg P2O5 ha-1 accounted for increases of only 1% and 2% forage above the 49 kg P2O5 ha-1 level, respectively. Maximum yield response of bahiagrass to P fertilizer in south Florida occurred on Arenic Haplaquods at 24 kg P ha-1 (Rechcigl et al., 1992). Another study on the bahiagrass fertility requirement in south Flor ida on soils with a spodic horizon called for13 kg P ha-1, and only if >112kg N ha-1 is applied. If less than 60 kg N ha-1 is applied, no P is recommended (Sumner et al., 1991). Turner (1980) found little infl uence of P on the growth of perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ), Kentucky bluegrass, or cr eeping red fescue, despite low soil P levels. Robinson and Eilers (1996) obtained 90% of maximum ryegrass dry matter yield with 45 to 50 kg P ha-1 on a Tangi silt loam (Typic Fragiudult) at pH 6. Higher rates of P had little influence on yield but significantly increased P removed by the crop. This result was consistent with the study of irrigated annua l ryegrass responses to N and P on calcareous soil by Lippke et al. (2006), in which they conclude d that increments of growth re sponses to levels of fertilizer about 39 kg applied P ha-1 were relatively small. Watschke et al. (1977) looked at the effect of P application of 0, 85, 170, 340, and 680 kg P ha-1 on soil test and tissue analyses P. Phosphorus fertilization increased the Bray extractable P from 13 to 137 mg kg-1. Treatments P1, through P5 gave P concentration of 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, and 4.4 g kg-1, respectively, with all differences being

PAGE 25

25 significant except 3.5 and 3.6 g kg-1. When soil test P was related to yield response, the correlation was slightly lower th an those found for tissue P and yield, which was in agreement with Hall and Miller (1974) who also found that tissue P and yield were better correlated than soil test P and yield. Watschke et al. (1977) al so investigated the zone of maximum root absorption for Merion Kentucky bl uegrass as affected by P applic ation. Results indicated that P enhanced rooting, and the magnit ude of absorption from the 1.3-cm depth exemplified the need for P near the soil surface for op timum turf establishment. Juska (1959) reported that adequate P was necessary for rapid esta blishment of zoysiagrass ( Zoysia spp ) on a soil extremely low in P. St. Augustinegrass growth was affected by P most during the first 8 weeks of establishment (Wood and Duble, 1976). On P-deficient soils, McVey (1967) reported a Kentucky bluegrass seedling growth response to extremely low rates of P applications. Long-term benefits from P application to the seedbed have also been obser ved by Turner et al. (1979). He reported that 6 years after establishment, spring greening was enhanced by the orig inal seedbed P applications. Critical Minimum Soil P Concentrations The critical soil test level implies the P level above which little or no response to fertilizer P is obtained. Woodhouse (1969) and Jordan et al. (1966) reported that about 25 mg kg-1 of Mehlich-1 extracted soil P is ad equate for coastal bermudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon ) in North Carolina and Alabama. Lunt et al. (1965) indicated that about 14 mg kg-1 of Olsen extractable P was adequate for common bermudagrass harvested frequently as turfgrass; Bruce and Bruce (1972) indicated that 17.5 mg kg-1 of P extractable with 0.005 M H2SO4 was necessary for high production of various tropical gr asses. Vicente-Chandler et al. (1974) concluded that tropical species such as guineagrass ( Urochloa maxima ), napiergrass ( Pennisetum purpureum ), and stargrass ( Cynodon plectostachyus ) require fertilization w ith at least 73 kg P ha-1 annually when cut every 40 to 60 days. Annual ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum Lam.) response to applied P

PAGE 26

26 ranged from 8300 to 8600 kg ha-1 as extractable soil P increased from 3 to 55 mg kg-1 (Hillard et al., 1992). Christians et al (1981) did not find significant quality responses for creeping bentgrass on calcareous sand greens when initial Bray-1 extractable P concentrations were 12 mg kg-1. Dest and Guillard (1987) reported that on a lo am soil with modified Morgan extractable P at 10.7 mg kg-1, quality responses of creeping bentgrass we re not affected by P fertilization. Fry et al. (1989) reported that creep ing bentgrass quality improved w ith addition of P on sand-based media putting greens only when extractable P was <5 mg kg-1. Kuo (1993) reported that Olsenextractable P concentrations at 95% of maximum clipping yi elds was from 2.8 to 4.8 mg kg-1 for the growth of annual bluegr ass and creeping bentgrass ( Agrosti stolonifera L. ). In calcareous sand greens the critical Ol sen-P level of 3.0 mg kg-1 was reported for the growth of creeping bentgrass (Johnson et al., 2003). For Pensacola ba hiagrass on a virgin Clarendon loamy sand the critical Mehlich-1 P concentration was 3 mg kg-1, which corresponded to 56 kg P2O5 ha-1 application (Burton et al., 1997). To locate the critical soil P con centration the plant growth rate or turf quality are most commonly used to relate to soil test levels. Guillard and Dest (2003) used a number of plant response variab les including shoot counts, thatch thickness, relative clipping yields, quality ratings, P defici ency ratings, tissue P concentra tions, and root weights, which resulted in different soil critical P concentrations. Selection of a particular critical extractable soil P concentration would depend on the quality or growth variable that is the most important to the individual manager. Among the three extractants modified Morgan, Bray I and Mehlich I, critical extractable P concentrations for creeping bentgrass were lowest for the modified Morgan extractant (1.4 to 12.0 mg kg-1) and greatest for the Mehlich I extractant (14.1 to 63.6 mg kg-1). The critical values are generally influen ced by soil properties, such as texture and temperature. A lower amount of P is generally ex tracted from a clayey soil than from a sandy

PAGE 27

27 soil (Woodruff and Kamprath, 1965). Rouse (1968) found that an application of 5 to 6 kg P ha-1 was required to raise Meh lich-I extractab le P 1 kg ha-1 with sandy loam to clay loam textured Ultisols, but on clayey textured soils 12 kg P ha-1 were required to change the soil test values 1 kg ha-1. Finn and Mack (1964) showed that both soil moisture and soil temperature affected P response of orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata ). Yields were higher at 75 than at 25% of the moisture-holding capacity at each level of P app lied. Under 75% moisture-holding capacity level, at a 10 C soil temperature, maximum yield of the S-143 cultivar occurred with 35 mg kg-1 of applied P; at 20 C, yields were still increasing with 70 mg kg-1. Effects of P Application on Soil Test P Levels When soil test P is below the critical level, the rate of fertilizer P recommended is sufficient to supply adequate P for the plant and to result in some buildup of available soil P when applied at the rate for severa l years. In trying to predict how much fertilizer P is needed to change the soil test P, information is needed a bout the P adsorption characteristic of the soil, which is related to soil te xture, as well as the initial level of soil test P. In a Honeoye fine sandy loam soil, Peck et al. (1975) found that continuous applications of concentrated superphosphate over 10 yr for a total of 248 kg P ha increased soil test P (Morgan's method) from 10 to 186 kg P ha. An application of 4 kg P ha-1 was required to raise the Bray I extractable P of mediumtextured Mollisols and Alfisols 1 kg ha-1 (Peck et al., 1971). Single applications of 22, 45, 90, and 180 kg P ha raised the levels of Olsen P by 1, 2, 4, and 8 mg P kg soil, respectively, on a glacial till soil after 16 yr of P fertilization (Halvorson and Black, 1985) In a 29-yr study on Ultisols in Alabama, Cope (1981) found that 24 and 20 kg P ha raised Mehlich-1 soil test P by 1 mg P kg when P was applied at rates of 31 and 54 kg P ha yr, respectively. For a cornsoybean rotation on a Portsmouth fine sandy loam, annual rates of 19, 38, and 57 kg P ha-1 increased the soil test levels 7, 20 and 40 mg kg-1 P over a 7-year period (Kamprath, 1964). After

PAGE 28

28 14 yr of annual application of P fertilizer in a Webster fine-loamy and a Canisteo fine-loamy soil located in north central Iowa, Webb et al. (1992) re ported that annual P additions required to maintain Bray-1 P values increased from 16.8 to more than 33.6 kg P ha with increases in the initial Bray-1 P value. In a Chicot sandy loam soil, an application of 14 kg P ha of net added inorganic fertilizer P was required to increase soil Mehlich-3 P by 1.0 mg P kg (Zhang et al., 1995 ). Cox (1994) showed that increases in Mehlich-3 with each unit of applied P were 0.7 units for soils with 10% clay, and it decreased exponentially to 0.2 units for soils with >50% clay. Results obtained from a study by Randall et al. (1997) in Minnesota, showed that every 1 mg P kg increase in Bray-1 extracta ble P requires 35 and 20 kg P ha in a Webster clay loam soil and 58 and 26 kg P ha in a Aastad clay loam soil when fertilizer P was added at 24 and 49 kg P ha, respectively. Many studies have shown that the amount of fertilizer P required for each unit increase of soil test P level varies with soil texture, soil test method employed, as well as the rate of fertilizer P applied. Critical Tissue P Concentrations The critical tissue P concentr ation is normally regarded as the minimum concentration associated with near maximum yield. The nutrient concentration in the plant at 90% of maximum growth has often been termed the critical con centration (Ulrich and H ills, 1967). It could be statistically determined from the shape of the yi eld response curve in rela tion to concentration of P in the selected tissue. Knowle dge of the minimum P concentrati ons for plant growth has been used as a means to diagnose the P status of many plants (Hartt, 1955; Ulrich, 1952). Jones and Eck (1973) reported that the critic al concentration of P in the sw eet corn leaf tissue was from 0.27 to 0.29% and the corresponding equilibrium so il solution P concentration was about 0.12 to 0.13 mg L-1. A similar highly positive linear correlati on between percent P in the rice tissue and

PAGE 29

29 soil solution P concentration was reported by Hossner et al. (1973). The critical tissue P concentration of 0.25% corresponds to the soil solution P of 0.1 mg L-1. Oertli (1963) reported that healthy bluegrass (Poa spp) and bermudagrass (Cynodon spp) contain 1.2 to 2.4 g kg-1 P, respectively. Tissue P-deficiency levels were found to be 0.5 to 0.8 g kg-1, respectively, for bluegrass and bermudagr ass. Martin and Matocha (1973) outlined approximate sufficient ranges for tissue P for cool-season forage grasses. For Kentucky bluegrass, values 1.8 g kg-1 were considered deficient, from 2.4 to 3.0 g kg-1 were critical, from 2.8 to 3.6 g kg-1 were adequate, and values 4.0 g kg-1 were considered high. For annual and perennial ryegrass values < 2.8 g kg-1 were deficient, from 2.8 to 3.4 g kg-1 were critical, from 3.6 to 4.4 g kg-1 were adequate, and > 5.0 g kg-1 were high. Jones (1980) s uggested that in most situations concentratio ns below about 2.0 g kg-1 indicate a deficiency for plant growth while 3.0 to 3.5 g kg-1 is usually necessary for optimum yields. Wedin (1974) reported that P concentration in cool-season grasses range from about 1.4 to 5.0 g kg-1. Johnson et al (2003) investigated the P requirement of creeping bentgras s on calcareous sand greens and found that tissue test of 4.0 g kg-1 was the optimum level for maximum quality. For warm-season grasses, the P concentration in plant tissue should be logically lower for the optimum yield compared with cool-season grasses because the higher growth rate dilutes the P concentration in plant tissue. Burton et al. (1997) reported that phosphorus concentration of the 1993 Pensacola bahiagrass forage receiving 56 kg P2O5 ha-1, above which no significant yield in crease occurred, averaged 1.5 g kg-1. When P2O5 was increased to 112 kg ha-1, forage P concentration increased to be 1.8 g kg-1. The critical P concentrations in some subtropical and trop ic grasses were shown in Table 2-2 (Kampraph, 1980).

PAGE 30

30 Some factors may modify the critical P con centration of plants such as growth rate (Terman et al., 1972), plant tissue age (Jones et al ., 1970) and cultivar effects (Terman et al., 1975), thus making the conclusion between tissue P concentration and yield difficult. Therefore, in many cases, the variability in the P concentrat ion does not allow a high degree of accuracy in the prediction of the increments of plant growth or yield. Consequently, th e critical concentration range of P in the plant is usually the criterion th at is used in differentia ting P deficiency from P sufficiency and the decision to simply apply P or not is usually made. Interaction with other Nutrients Phosphorus and N Increased P absorption by plants is a common consequence of adding N fertilizers (Grunes, 1959). Templeton et al. (1969) c onducted a study showing the effects of N on P response of orchardgrass. At each level of P applied, with in creased N rate plant gained increased weight increased top growth, increased r oot growth, altered metabolism, and increased solubility of soil applied among three levels of N applications. In a study on response of bahiagrass to N, P and K on an Ultisol in North Florida, Rhoads et al (1997) found that there were no interactions between N and P rates with respect to bahiag rass yield. However, th ere were significant interactions in 1996 between N and K rates and betw een P and K rates with respect to bahiagrass yield. Hylton et al. (1965) repor ted that for Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum Lam ), as the P supply increased from 0.16 to 0.64 mg per plant, the tissue NO3-N concentration decreased from 13.2 g kg-1 with 0.16 mg of P per plant to a low of 7.6 g kg-1 with 0.64 mg. Engelstad and Allen (1971) found that root yiel ds and root P contents were increased by N fertilizer, with ammonium being superior to nitrat e. The addition of KNO3 to the pellet reduced the P content of the tops. Sartain and Dudeck (1982) studied the effect of N fertilization on the P uptake of Tifway bermudagrass and overseeded ryegrass. Tissue P content was significantly reduced by each

PAGE 31

31 increasing N rate on the ryegrass. The reduction in tissue P could possibly be attributed to a diluted effect caused by greater growth rate. Hi gher tissue N content was observed for Tifway bermudagrass by excluding P, which implied a possible nutrient uptake competition between NO3-N and H2PO4-P. Sartain (personal communication) found that bermudagrass growth rate was reduced each of three years by the applicatio n of additional P. A reduction in N uptake was observed in conjunction with the reduction in grow th rate. It was suggested that the competition effects of the NO3-N and H2PO4-P anions may have been responsible for the observed reduction in N uptake and subsequent growth rate. Watschke et al. (1977) reported that clipping yield and rooting of Merion Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis L. ) were enhanced by the application of additional P. In case NH4-N was applied during cool season, NH4-N would be the major N form available for plant uptake because of reduced nitrification of the applied NH4-N (Parker and Larson, 1962). The increased growth rate may possibl y due to the fact that additional P enhanced N uptake for the cool season Kent ucky bluegrass. Bluegrass tissu e P levels were more than sufficient (3.2 g kg-1) for all treatments, which indicate that the positive growth response to P was not related physiologically to P. With th e exclusion of P fertilization the number of H2PO4-P anions would be reduced and the quantity of NH4-N cations that can be accumulated would also be reduced, therefore, a yi eld reduction was expected. Phosphorus and K, Ca and Mg Enhanced P utilization due to K appli cations was observed for stargrass (Cynodon nlemfuensis Vanderyst var. nlemfuensis) by Pant et al. (2004). The app lications of 10 and 93 kg ha-1 yr-1 of P and K, respectively, provided effi cient P utilization. Phosphorus mass balance showed that stargrass removed maximum P (161%) of the applied P by uptake from soils. This may indicate that the supply of sufficient K appear s to be crucial for efficient P utilization by forages, reducing potential adverse effects of P over-fertilization on water quality. When the

PAGE 32

32 different P:K ratios were related to the total dr y matter yield, the application of 10 and 93 kg ha-1 yr-1 of P and K, respectively, achieved almost 90% of the maximum total dry matter yield, which indicates that application of 10 kg P ha-1 yr-1 was critical for stargra ss to achieve maximum dry matter yield. Greenwood and Hallsworth (1960) f ound no direct effect of P on Ca uptake, but found that earlier and more severe symptoms of Ca deficiency occu rred where P levels were high. Mg has been ascribed the function of P carri er in plants (Truog et al., 1947), based on a positive correlation between the Mg and P contents of plants or between fertilizer P efficiency and the supply of available Mg. Phosphorus and Zn Phosphorus and Zinc nutrition in plants have often been related. In P deficient plants additional P promoted plant growth resulting in depressed Zn concentrations in tissue and possible Zn deficiency conditions. In P sufficient plants additional P increase concentrations to toxic levels producing necrotic symptoms in old leaves and depressi ng new growth. Sartain (1992) investigated the influence of Zn and th e interaction of P an Zn on the growth of bermudagrass. Application of Zn did not influenc e growth nor Zn uptake rate. Extractable soil Zn levels over 252 mg kg-1 did not affect bermudagrass gr owth nor quality. In effect, bermudagrass can tolerate high levels of soil ex tractable P and Zn without exhibiting toxicity effects. Effect of N, P, K, and their Interactions on Water Use Efficiency When water resources become limited, it is important for turfgrass manager to use many different cultural practices to reduce water loss thr ough turfgrass evapotrans piration rate (ET). Nitrogen application enhanced th e ET by promoting the top growth and total leaf area. Ebdon et al. (1999) investigated the interaction of N, P and K on ET rate of Kentucky bluegrass. The nature of the interaction between N, P, and K on Kentucky bluegrass water use can only in part

PAGE 33

33 be explained by the interaction e ffects of N, P and K on shoot gr owth response. No relationship between clipping yield and ET rate at high P appl ications was found. They also discovered that at N and P levels that are rout inely applied (147 kg N and 21.5 kg P ha-1 yr-1 and lower), increasing K levels minimized Kentucky bluegrass water use.

PAGE 34

34 Plant and a nimal Fertilizer Plant residuals Figure 2-1. The P cycle in soil. SOLUTION P H2PO4 HPO4 2Adsorption Desorption Dissolution Precipitation Dissolution Mineralization Immobilization Leaching (Labile P) Plant Uptake SOIL ORGANIC MATTER MICROBIAL P (Nonlabile P) ADSORBED P (Labile P) SECONDARY MINERALS Fe/AlPO4 CaHPO4 (Nonlabile P) PRIMARY MINERALS (Nonlabile P)

PAGE 35

35 Table 2-1. Common soil test extract ants used for available P. Soil/solution Common name Extractant ratio Reference Troug 0.002N H2SO4 buffered at 1:100 Troug (1930) pH 3 with (NH4)2SO4 Mehlich -I 0.05N HCl + 0.025N H2SO4 1:4 Mehlich (1953) Mehlich-III 0.2N CH3COOH + 0.25N NH4NO3 1:10 Mehlich (1984) + 0.013N HNO3 + 0.015N NH4F + 0.001M EDTA Bray0.025N HCl + 0.03N NH4F 1:10 Bray & Kurtz (1945) Bray0.1N HCl + 0.03N NH4F 1:17 NDSU (1980) Olsen 0.5N NaHCO3 pH 8.5 1:20 Olsen et al. (1954) Citric acid %1 citric acid 1:10 Dyer (1894) Egner 0.02N Ca lactate + 0.02N HCl 1:20 Egner et al, (1960) Morgan 0.54N HOAc + 0.7N NaOAc pH 4.8 1:10 Morgan (1941) Modified Morgan 0.54N HOAc + 0.7N NH4OAc 1:10 McIntosh. (1969) + 0.03N NH4F pH 4.8 FeO strip 0.02 N CaCl2 + FeO-coated filter 1:40 Chardon et al. paper strip (1996)

PAGE 36

36 Table 2-2. Critical P concen tration in some subtropical and tropical grasses. Critical P Age or concentration, Grass identification stage of growth % Reference Bermudagrass 4-5 weeks 0.20-0.26 Martin and Matocha, 1973 Midland and common Bermudagrass 4-5 weeks 0.24-0.28 Panicum Maximum, VAR 3-4 leaf 0.55 Smith, 1975 Trichoglume, cv. Petrie 4-5 leaf 0.32 6-7 leaf 0.15 I.P.F. (57days) 0.20 Andrew and Robins, 1971 Kikuyugrass I.P.F.(45 days) 0.22 Pearl millet 4-5 weeks 0.16-0.20 Martin and Matocha, 1973 Staria spacelata, cv 4-l eaf 0.46 Smith, 1975 Nandi 5-leaf 0.36 6-leaf 0.24 7-leaf 0.14 Staria anceps, cv Nandi I. P.F.(57 days) 0.21 Andrew and Robins, 1971 Dallisgrass I.P.F.(57 days) 0.25 Pangolagrass I.P.F.(45 days) 0.16 4 weeks 0.12-0.16 Martin and Matocha, 1973 Buffelgrass I.P.F.(57 days) 0.25 Andrew and Robins, 1971 (whole plant tops 0.16 Smith, 1975 inflorescences just appearing) youngest expanded 0.17 leaves sampld Buffelgrass I.P.F.(39 days) 0.26 Christie and Moorby, 1975 46 days 0.30 Rhodesgrass, cv Pioneer I.P.F.(57 days) 0.22 Andrew and Robins, 1971 Molassesgrass I.P.F.(57 days) 0.18 Johnsongrass boot stage 0.16-0.20 Martin and Matocha, 1973 Sorghum-sudangrass 4-5 weeks 0.14-0.20 and sudangrass I.P.F. means immediate preflo wering stage of growth. Most analyses apply to whole plants unless otherwise specified.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS This research consisted of one glasshouse hydr oponic study and three gla sshouse soil studies. Glasshouse Hydroponic Study A glasshouse hydroponic study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. St Augustinegrass var. Floratam was chosen as the testing cultivar based on its greatest use among a ll St. Augustinegrass cultivars. Six levels of P (0, 1.24, 6.2, 31, 155 and 775 mg m-3) with five replicates were used to test for P response. Certified sod collected from the G.C. Horn Tu rfgrass Field Laboratory at the University of Florida in Gainesville was washed to remove soil from the root system. Sod was cut to a size of 15cm 30cm rectangle and transferred to the hydroponics system on June 27, 2004. Nalgene tubs (31cm 16cm 12cm) were us ed as the hydroponic c ontainers. The outside surfaces of the containers were painted with bl ack latex paint first and white afterwards to prevent light penetration. A 10-mm inner diameter polynvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was used to make a rectangle frame (15cm 30c m). The frame was attached with a piece of poly-hardware cloth and fitted on the corners of opening of the container to form a grass bedding surface. Since the frame was not fixed to the container, the fram e/screen with grass could be removed to change solution or check solution pH periodically. The grass pieces (15cm 30cm) were placed on the bedding surfaces. Nutrient solution level in the c ontainer was adjusted to touch the screen to induce root growth. Roots penetr ated the screen and grew into the solution after about three weeks. Then the solution volume was reduced to approximately 1.5 cm below the frame to create an air zone between grass stolons and solution surface to avoid water damage and algae growth on the grass. An air compressor was used to s upply air to the nutrient solution. A 5-m long with 7-mm inside diameter tygon tubing was fitted to th e outlet of the air compressor at one end and

PAGE 38

38 the other end was plugged. Along the 5-m plastic tube the containers were laid out on both sides with 15 tubs on each side. Another tube of the same diameter, but shorter length was used for each solution tub with one end fitting with a need le and the other end going to the solution. The needle penetrated the main tube and through th e short tube air was blown into each solution. Smaller size of needles was used at the positions closer to the ai r compressor and larger sizes of needles for the far positions. By doing this, the ai r pressure due to distance difference between each tub and air compressor was roughly regula ted and each solution achieved approximately the same air bubbling speed. Figure 3-1 shows the experiment layout. Nutrient solution was slightly modified from what was reported by Breeze et al. (1984) by replacing Sequestrene Fe 138 with Sequestrene Fe 330, eliminating CaSO4 and doubling the concentrations of nutrients they used. The nutrient solution was changed every other day to regulate pH, maintain nutrient concentrations and minimize salt accumulation. The P treatments were applied on October 17, 2004 at which time th e turfgrass was exhibiting P deficiency. The study was terminated on March 14, 2005. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Computer controlled overhead exhaust fa ns, a wall-length humidifier, and an automatic roof window were used to ma intain relatively consta nt conditions in the glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 22C with a range of 18C to 30C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%. Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm approxima tely monthly, once the dry matter production reached harvestable quantities, fo r a total of seven co llections. Clippings were dried at 70C for 48 h, and weighed. Root materials were clippe d to 4 cm on September 8, 2004 and November 27, 2004. At root collection time the root density in the container was high. Root materials were washed with distilled water to remove the poten tially adsorbed salts, dried at 70C for 72 h and

PAGE 39

39 weighed. The dry tissue and root samples we re ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual qualit y was rated biweekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 re presents superior quality (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992). Statistical analysis (analysis of variance) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Mean separation was done using Duncans Multiple Ra nge test at a 0.05 significant level. The relationship between turfgrass ti ssue growth rate and solution P and tissue P were determined using linear plateau analysis (PROC NLIN). Glasshouse Soil Study 1 With the information of the critical minimu m tissue P required by St. Augustinegrass from the hydroponic study, a study to dete rmine the critical minimum soil test P concentration was initiated. This glasshouse soil study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. The soil chosen in this study was collected from the A horizon of a soil mapped as Pomona sand. It containe d very low levels of Mehlich-1 P (2 mg P kg-1). The Pomona series is in the family of Sandy, S iliceous, Hyperthermic U ltic Alaquods. Selected chemical properties for this soil (soil No. 1) are shown in Table 3-1. Nalgene tubs (53cm 38cm 12cm) were used as the growth container. Outs ide surfaces of the contai ners were painted with white latex paint first and black afterwards to prevent light pene tration. Certified sod with high initial tissue P concentration was washed to re move soil, then cut to a size of 53cm 38cm rectangle and transferred to th e growth container on May 8, 2005. After P deficiency was induced, P2O5 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four weeks were applied initially on April 12, 2006 and reapplied 3 times during the 16-week growth period. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5 replications for

PAGE 40

40 each treatment. Computer controlled overhead ex haust fans, a wall-lengt h humidifier, and an automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively constant conditions in the glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 24 C with a range of 18C to 30 C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%. The e xperiment layout was shown in figure 3-2. Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 8 collections. Clippings were dried at 70 C for 72 h, and weighed. Tissu e growth rate was calcu lated by dividing tissue dry weight by growth days. The dry tissue sa mples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior qualit y (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992). Soil samples were taken at termination using a 3.0-cm via. soil probe. Soil samples were separated into soil depths of 0 cm and 2 cm. Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined for the soil samples in depth of 0 cm and 2 cm Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were determined for the 0 cm soil depth. At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers to aid in the collection of leach ate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed. Statistical analysis (analysis of varian ce) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Duncans multiple range test with fixed variable was used for all the mean separation in this study. Means marked by the same letter ar e not significantly di fferently at P = 0.05. Glasshouse Soil Study 2 An attempt was made to verify the critical so il test P concentration obtained in the glass house soil study 1. Two soils different from the one used in the previous study were chosen for

PAGE 41

41 this study based on their low Me hlich-1 P concentrations ( 5 mg kg-1). Samples from the A horizons were collected from soils mapped as Tavares sand and Pottsbur g sand. Classifications of the soils were Tavares (Hyperthermic Un coated Typic Quartzipsamments) and Pottsburg (Sandy, Siliceous, Thermic Grossarenic Alaquods), respectively. Selected chemical properties for soil No. 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-1. This glasshouse soil study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the University of Florid a, Gainesville, Florida. Nalgene tubs (53cm 38cm 12cm) were used as the growth containe rs. Outside surfaces of the containers were painted with white latex paint fi rst and black afterwards to prev ent light penetration. Certified sod with high initial tissue P concentration was wash ed to remove soil, then cut to a size of 53cm 38cm rectangle and transferred to th e growth container on Septemer 28, 2005. After P deficiency was induced, P2O5 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four weeks were applied initially on June 20, 2006 and reapplied 2 times during the 12-week growth period. The treatments were arranged in a 2 by 5 factorial design with 2 soils and 5 rates of P application. Each treatment was replicated 5 times. Computer c ontrolled overhead exhaust fans, a wall-length humidifier, and an automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively constant conditions in the glasshouse. Glasshous e temperature was maintained at an average 24 C with a range of 18C to 30C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%. Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 8 collections. Clippings were dried at 70C for 72 h, and weighed. Tissue growth rate was calculated by dividing tissue dry weight by growth days. The dry tissue sa mples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior qualit y (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992).

PAGE 42

42 Soil samples were taken at termination using a 3.0-cm dia. soil probe. Soil samples were separated into soil depths of 0-2 cm and 2 cm Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined for the soils samples in depth of 0 cm and 2 cm Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were determined for the 0 cm soil depth. At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers to aid in the collection of leach ate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed. Analysis of variance was perf ormed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Tukeys test was used for all the mean separation in this study. Means ma rked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05. Glasshouse Soil Study 3 Observing St. Augustinegrass growth responses on three soils low in P, a study was undertaken to evaluate growth on a soil containing a medium level of P. This soil study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the Univ ersity of Florida, Gain esville, Florida. The Tavares soil used in this experiment was chosen based on it having a medi um level of Mehlich-1 P (17 mg P kg-1) and was classified as Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Quartzipsamments. Selected chemical properties for this so il (soil No. 4) are shown in Table 3-1. Nalgene tubs (53cm 38cm 12cm) were used as the growth containers. Outside surfaces of the containers were painted with white latex paint first and black afterwards to prevent light penetration. Certified sod with high initial ti ssue P concentration was washed to remove soil, then cut to a size of 53cm 38cm rectangle and transferre d to the growth c ontainer on May 8, 2005. After P deficiency was induced, P2O5 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four weeks were applied initially on August 18, 2006 and reapplied 2 times during the 12 week growth period. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5

PAGE 43

43 replications for each treatmen t. Computer controlled overhea d exhaust fans, a wall-length humidifier, and an automatic roof window were us ed to maintain relatively constant conditions in the glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 24C with a range of 18C to 30C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%. Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 6 collections. Clippings were dried at 70C for 72 h, and weighed. Tissue growth rate was calculated by dividing tissue dry weight by growth days. Dry tissue sample s were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior qualit y (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992). Soil samples were taken at termination usi ng a 3.0-cm diameter soil probe. Soil samples were separated into soil depths of 0 cm and 2 10 cm. Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined for both depths. Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were determined for the soil samples in the depth of top 0 cm. At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers to aid in the collection of leach ate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed. Statistical analysis (analysis of varian ce) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Duncans multiple range test was used for all the mean separation in this study. Means marked by the same letter are not si gnificantly different at P = 0.05.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 3-1. Glasshouse soluti on culture P study layout. Figure 3-2. Glasshouse soil P study 1 layout.

PAGE 45

45 Table 3-1. Selected chemical properties of soils used in the glasshouse soil study 1, 2, and 3. Soil Study Soil No. Classification name Series name pH (1:2) OM (g kg-1) Mehlich-1 P (mg kg-1) Oxalate Al (mg kg-1) Oxalate Fe (mg kg-1) 1 1 Sandy, Siliceous, Hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods Pomona 4.6 9 2 32 42 2 Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Quartzipsamments Tavares (a) 5.1 15 3 77 60 2 3 Sandy, Siliceous, Thermic Grossarenic Alaquods Pottsburg 4.7 9 5 49 27 3 4 Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Quartzipsamments Tavares (b) 4.8 13 17 173 154 : soil pH was determined in 1:2 soil/water ratio. : Organic Matter content was determined by ignition.

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Glasshouse Hydroponic Study Turf Quality St. Augustinegrass visual quality increased with each increm ental increase in solution P concentration in the ra nge from 0 to 775 mg m-3 (Figure 4-1). St. Augustin egrass treated with the two highest P concentr ations, 155 and 775 mg m-3, recovered from the P deficiency conditions and attained mean turf quality values of 6.8 and 7.2, respectively (Figure 4-1). The turf treated with zero P in solution suffered severely from P deficiency with a mean turf quality value of 2.5 (Figure 4-1). Turf treated with zero P declined in quality ove r time and by the end of the study was dead. Solution P levels of 1.24, 6.2, and 31 mg m-3 were generally insufficient in P for turf to recover from deficiency and promote optimum growth. Mean turf quality values from these treatments were below 5.5, which is widely used as a minimum value for acceptable turf quality. Tissue P and Root P The initial tissue P concentration of the St Augustinegrass tested was as high as 4.8 g kg1 on a dry weight basis. After three harvests prio r to treatment applicati on, P deficiency (<1.0 g kg1 on dry weight basis) was induced. Over time, tissue P concentration changed for the six P treatments as shown in Figure 4-2. Tissue P conc entration of turfgrass receiving no P declined over time until it reached a value of 0.48 g kg-1 after the fourth harvest. By the end of the study most of the turfgrass was dead, but those porti ons which were still a live contained 0.45 g P kg-1. This could be considered the minimum P concentration to keep St. Augustinegrass alive. The relationship between tissue P levels and so lution P concentration is presented in Figure 4-3. The highest tissue P level was achi eved with applic ation of 775 mg m-3 solution followed by

PAGE 47

47 P treatment of 155 mg m-3. There were no differences in P c oncentration among the four lowest P treatments. One possible reason for this observation is that the turfgrasses with the four lowest P levels remained P deficient du ring the experimental period. The relationship between root P levels and so lution P concentrations is shown in Figure 44. Root P levels increased with increasing so lution P concentration. The highest P treatment resulted in the highest root P concentration (Figure 4-4). Root P concentration differences among the four lowest solution P levels were noted by Duncans Multiple Range test compared with no significant differences among tissue P levels, which indicates that the primary use of P is for root growth rather than top growth when P is defici ent. Moreover, the root P concentration (Figure 44) with the two highest P levels was lower than those in foliage tissu e (Figure 4-3) when P supplies were sufficient. But the root P concentrat ion resulting from the four lowest P levels was identical or even slightly higher than levels found in leaf tissue when P supplies were deficient. This suggests that roots require less P than tissue when P is suffi cient, but when P is deficient root growth requires a higher level of P. It is possible that when P is deficient a higher quantity of P is required in order to produce mo re roots to overcome the P deficiency. Tissue Growth Rate and Root Growth Rate Phosphorus fertilization influence on tissue growth rate is rarely observed in St. Augustinegrass because of the generally medium to high available P status in Florida soils and relatively low P requirement by St. Augustinegrass. Tissue growth rate (Fi gure 4-5) was affected by solution P concentration. Tissue growth rate increased with solution P levels in a quadratic manner to a maximum value. According to line ar plateau regression an alysis (Figure 4-5), solution P concentrations beyond 111 mg m-3 did not result in increa sed tissue growth rate (r2 = 0.88, p<0.0001, CV = 15.5). Asher and Loneragan (1967) reported that P at 155 mg m-3 produced maximum dry weights of clover ( Trifolium subterraneum L.), erodium ( Erodium

PAGE 48

48 botrys (Cav.) Bertol.) and yields of brome grass ( Bromus rigidus Roth) and cape weed ( Cryptostemma calendula (L.) Druce) were close to ma ximum in a similar hydroponics study. Root growth rates (Figure 46) were affected by soluti on P concentration although the effect was less as compared with tissue grow th rates. Turfgrass re ceiving P at 31 mg m-3 attained the highest root growth rate among the P levels applied according to D uncans Multiple Range test. Asher and Loneragan (1967) reported that P at 31 mg m-3 produced maximum top and root growth for sliver grass ( Vulpia (Festuca) myuros (L.) Gmel.). Root P concentration in the presence of P at 31 mg m-3 was 0.7 g kg-1, which indicates that roots require a smaller quantity of P for optimum growth than tissue (Figure 4-7). Only three mean categories were separated for root growth rates (Figure 4-6) in dicating that the extent of the e ffect of solution P concentration on root growth was less than that on tissue growth. Additionally, turf receiving no P produced substantial root growth (Figure 4-6). The large reserve of P in the parent plant (approximately 5 g kg-1 P in tissue (Figure 4-1) and correspondingly hi gh P level in stolons (not measured)) can be a P source for root growth in case there was no P application or P supplies were not sufficient. Critical Tissue P level A yield response curve in relation to concentratio n of P in the selected tissue is commonly used to determine the critical P concentration. Tissue growth rate was increased with tissue P concentration in a quadratic manner to a ma ximum value (Figure 4-7). The slope of the regression curve can be defined as the change of tissue growth rate over the change of tissue P concentration. The nearly vertical portion of the regression curve shows relatively steeper slopes and the horizontal portion has a sl ope of zero. The transition zone is the area of the curve where the vertical and horizontal portions converge. With the increase of the tissue P concentration the slope gradually decreases until it reaches zero, whic h is the plateau of the curve. According to

PAGE 49

49 linear plateau regression analysis, the critical tissue P level was 1.6 g kg-1 on dry weight basis for the optimum growth (R2 = 0.88, p<0.0001, CV = 15.4). Glasshouse Soil Study 1 Turf Quality For each week across 16 weeks, the hi ghest P application rate of 2.5 g m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in the best turf quality (Table 4-1). There was no differe nce between turf quality ratings associated with the highest P rate and the second highest P rate except for the first week (Table 4-1). The third highest P application rate also achieved best turf quality except for the first three weeks (Table 4-1). With the P deficiency indu ced for St. Augustinegrass before P application, it took some time for St. Augustinegrass to recover from the P deficiency after P application. The higher the P rates applied, the shorter the time required for it to recover and produce the best quality. The second lowest P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in the best turf quality in 12 out of 16 weeks (Table 4-1), which provided some evidence that the minimum P application rate was somewhat above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 for this soil. The turf quality of the control treatment remained above 6.0 for the firs t 10 weeks and started to decline afterwards. By the last two weeks, the turf qua lity was below 5.5, which is widely used as a minimum value for acceptable turf quality (Table 4-1). Overall, the tu rf quality ratings were above 5.5 except for the turf with control during the last four weeks. This indicate d that St. Augustineg rass could sustain for months with very low soil P concentrations and deficient P levels in plant tissue. Top Growth Rate St. Augustinegrass top growth res ponded to P applica tion rates (Table 4-2). Turf receiving no P produced the lowest amount of top biomass acr oss eight harvests (Table 4-2). The largest increase on top growth rate was observed with th e first incremental P application (Table 4-2). Turf with three highest P application rates achieve d the highest top growth rate across the eight

PAGE 50

50 harvests. For six out of eight harvests, turf with the second lowest P appl ication rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 produced the same top growth as higher P a pplication rates (Table 4-2). The mean value of turf top growth rate with the P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 across eight harvests was 2.7 g m-2 day-1 and the highest mean value of top growth rate was 3.0 g m-2 day-1 (Table 4-2). The top growth rate for turf with the P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 was reduced by 10% from the maximum growth rate. By definition, th e amount of nutrient applie d that results in 10% reduction in maximum growth is defined as the critical minimum requirement for that nutrient. Moreover, when the overall means of top growth rate for each P application rate were compared, turf with the P a pplication of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 produced tissue dry weight that was not significant different from those with higher P a pplication rates by Duncans multiple range test (Table 4-2). By either definition of critical minimum nutrient requirement or Duncans multiple range test, P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 satisfied the minimum P requirement of St. Augustinegrass in this soil. Tissue P Concentration The initial St. Augustinegrass tissue P con centration tested was as high as 4.9 g kg-1 on a dry weight basis. Over time before P applic ation, tissue P concentration dropped from 4.9 g kg-1 to 1.2 g kg-1 on dry weight basis. With no P applicati on to turf and very low soil P concentration, it took almost one year to induce P deficiency (<1.6 g kg-1 on dry weight basis). Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P applic ation rate is shown in Table 4-3. With each incremental P applica tion, tissue P concentration increased across the eight harvests. The highest tissue P level was achieved with application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 and was followed by application of 1.25, 0.63, and 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 (Table 4-3). Turfgrass receiving no P maintained a P concentration of 1.0 g kg-1, with which turfgrass showed P deficiency symptoms, reduced turf quality (Table 4-1), and reduced growth rate (Table 4-2). In

PAGE 51

51 particular, the mean value of tissue P concen tration with P applic ation rate of 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4wk-1 was 1.4 g kg-1, which was slightly lower than the cr itical minimum tissue P concentration according to the previous glasshouse hydroponic st udy. This indicated that P application of 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 was about to achieve the critical mini mum tissue P concentra tion in this soil. This is consistent with the previous discussion on top growth rate conc luding that P application rate of 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 satisfied the minimum P requirem ent of St. Augustinegrass in this soil. The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration A yield response curve in relation to concentratio n of P in the selected tissue is commonly used to determine the critical P concentration. Tissue growth rate was increased with tissue P concentration in a quadratic manner to a ma ximum value (Figure 4-8). The slope of the regression curve can be defined as the change of tissue growth rate over the change of tissue P concentration. The nearly vertical portion of the regression curve shows relatively steeper slopes and the horizontal portion has a sl ope of zero. The transition zone is the area of the curve where the vertical and horizontal portions converge. With the increase of the tissue P concentration the slope gradually decreases until it reaches zero, whic h is the plateau of the curve. According to linear plateau regression analysis, the critical tissue P level was 1.8 g kg-1 on dry weight basis for the optimum growth (R2 = 0.77, p<0.0001). Soil Test P Mehlich-I procedure is widely used in the southeast region of US for agronomic crop soil tests. Fe Oxide P and WEP procedures are us ed for environmental impact prediction. Soil Mehlich-I P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentratio ns as affected by P application are shown in figure 4-9. With increased P appli cation rates, Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P and WEP concentrations increased incrementally. For each P application, th e Fe Oxide procedure extracted approximately

PAGE 52

52 the same quantity of P as water, which means th at the labile P portion with sorption/desorption process was soluble, suggesting there is lit tle Al/Fe oxides in this soil. Mehlich-1 P concentrations were all higher than the concen trations of Fe oxide P or WEP, which was consistent with Pautler and Sims (2000). Figure 4-11 shows the relationship among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations. They were pa irwise linear dependent with r2 s of 0.91, 0.90, and 0.85 for WEP vs. Fe oxide P, Mehlich-1 P vs. Fe oxide P, and Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. All the pairwise relationships we re highly significant with p values less than 0.0001. Pautler and Sims (2000) reported a better relationshi p of Fe oxide P vs. WEP than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP. This was true for this study. The explanation could be the nature of Fe oxide P procedure that it does not dissolve water insolubl e P components. While, Mehlich-1 extractant contains diluted strong acids which could pa rtially dissolve water in soluble P components. In order to select the best soil test pro cedure for P recommendation on St. Augustinegrass, Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, WEP concentrations were related to turf tissue P concentration (Figure 4-11). All the pairwise relati onships were highly significant with p values less than 0.0001, which means that all three soil P test methods could potentiall y be used as an index for P nutrition of St. Augustinegrass. Mehlich-1 P obt ained the best correlation against tissue P concentration with r2 of 0.84 better than 0.77 and 0.79 for Fe Oxide P and WEP respectively. The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations Application of the various P2O5 rates up to 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a range of extractable soil P concentration (0.5 to 16.7 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1, 0.4 to 7.7 mg kg-1 for Fe Oxide, and 0.4 to 7.6 mg kg-1 for WEP). Growth rate of St. Augustinegrass was affected by extractable soil P concentrati ons (Figure 4-12; Figure 4-13; Figure 4-14). Responses were described relatively well by the quadratic respons e and plateau model with the coefficients of

PAGE 53

53 determination being generally high (0.71 for Me hlich-1, 0.68 for Fe Oxide, and 0.62 for WEP) and p values of less than 0.0001. Critical concentr ation of the extractable P was greatest for Mehlich-1 of 7 mg kg-1 compared 3 and 3 mg kg-1 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively. This is to be expected, because Mehlich-1 extractant co ntains diluted strong acids which could dissolve water insoluble P compounds. Critical concentrati on of the extractable P for Fe Oxide and WEP was the same. This indicated that P adsorbed on soil particles was soluble. CSP applied was partially dissolved in soil solution and partiall y reacted with soil chemicals to form insoluble compounds. Previously, Mehlich-1 soil P below 16 mg kg-1 was categorized as low and below 10 mg kg-1 as very low P. Phosphorus fertilization woul d be recommended in those cases. These data showed that P levels can be kept very low for St. Augustinegrass optimum growth. Phosphorus fertilization would not result in gr owth response above 7, 3, and 3 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1, Fe Oxide, and WEP, respectively. Mehlich-1 P ha d the best correlation against both tissue P concentration and top growth rate in this soil, therefore it is the best soil P test for St. Augustinegrass among the three used in this study. P Downward Movement Soil samples in depth of 0-10 cm were ini tially taken and analyzed for Mehlich-1 P. However, Mehlich-1 P concentrations for the whol e depth of 0-10 cm were generally very low, and there was no difference in Mehlich-1 P c oncentrations among P application rates by Duncans multiple range test (data not shown) An attempt was made to investigate the downward movement by separating the soil dept h into 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application and soil sampling depth are shown in Figure 4-15. Control soils contained 0.6 mg kg-1 Mehlich-1 P, which indi cated extremely low soil P availability without P applica tion during the study. Soil Mehlich1 P concentration in top 2 cm

PAGE 54

54 depth increased with each incremental P applicat ion. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentrations in depth of 2 cm increased with P application, but were all very low in the range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg kg-1. Considering 0.6 mg kg-1 was the baseline of Mehlich-1 P with control, the highe st P application rate of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in Mehlich-1 P of 1.1 mg kg-1 in soil depth of 2 cm. Moreover, for each P application other than contro l soil, Mehlich-1 P conc entration in depth of 0 cm was higher than that in depth of 2 cm. This suggests that little to none of the CSP applied to the turfgrass moved dow nward and the majority remained in the top 2 cm of soil. Leached P Mass and Concentration Phosphorus treatments were appl ied every four weeks for a to tal of four times. Leachates were collected weekly. Sixteen leachates were collected during the study period. The sum of the soluble reactive P (SRP) leached during the first, second, third and fourth leaching collections is presented in Figure 4-16. Chung et al. (1999) has shown that a great er quantity of P leached from sand root-zone mixture during the first two leaching events. However, a natural soil was used in this study, for each P application a greater quantit y of P leached during the first leaching event than those during following leachate collections. Soil receiving 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 leached a total of 11.8 mg P, followed by 5.9, 2, 1.3, and 0.9 mg P from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 and 0 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively. The two highest P application rates resu lted in larger quantities of P leached and no differences in P leached we re detected among the three lower P application rates. In effect, soil with application rate of 0.63 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 did not leach a larger quantity of P than control soil. This result showed the im portance of small P appli cation rate to prevent P leaching to ground waters. Not to mention the P re quirements for certain crops could be less than recommended, the best management practice could be to suggest multiple P applications with a smaller quantity each time. Leached SRP concentr ation as affected by P application rate and leaching event followed the same pattern as leached SRP mass (Figure 4-17). The highest P

PAGE 55

55 concentration was detected in the leachates collec ted in the first leaching event. An application of 0.63 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 did not result in a higher SRP concentration than control soil. Leachates collected from soil receiving 2.5 and 1.25 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 contained as high as 0.89 and 0.5 mg P kg-1, respectively, which could cause envir onmental concerns. Notice that both of these rates are commonly applied to St. A ugustinegrass and applica tion rate of 1.25 g P2O5 m-2 4wk-1 is the standard in summer months based on the 4:1:2 ratio of N: P2O5: K2O. Glasshouse Soil Study 2 Turf Quality Quality ratings were influenced by P applicati on rate for both soil No.2 and 3 (Table 4-4). Twelve weeks of turf quality da ta were collected. For individu al weekly evaluations across the 12 week experiment period, P application of 0.63g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 and above resulted in the best turf quality for both soils (Table 4-4). P application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 achieved the best turf quality in 11 out of 12 weeks fo r both soils (Table 4-4), which pr ovided some evidence that the minimum P application rate was somewhat above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 for these two soils. For the control turf, turf quality remained above accepta ble level 5.5 for the first 4 and 3 weeks for soil No.2 and 3, respectively, and declined afterwar ds. Overall, the turf quality ratings were somewhat lower than that in the glasshouse soil study 1, which was mainly due to an incidence of disease. Turf with no P application barely recovered from the incidence of disease, which implied the importance of P nutrition in case of disease damage recovery. Top Growth Rate St. Augustinegrass top growth rate varied with P application and soil (Table 4-5). Control turf produced the lowest quantity of top dry ma ss across six harvests in both soil conditions (Table 4-5). The largest increase on top growth rate occurred in the first incremental P application for both soils (1.6 to 2.5 and 1.6 to 2.1 g m-2 day-1 for soil No.2 and 3, respectively)

PAGE 56

56 (Table 4-5). For soil No.2 the top growth rate for turf with P app lication rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 was reduced by approximately 10% from the op timum growth rate. Mo reover, turf with P application rates of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 and above achieved equivalent mean top growth rates by Tukeys test. Therefore, by either definiti on of critical minimum nutrient requirement or Tukeys test, P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 satisfied the minimum P requirement of St. Augustinegrass in soil No.2. However, for soil N o. 3 the top growth rate for turf with P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 was reduced by approximate ly 30% from the optimum growth rate of 2.9 g m-2 day-1. When the 6-harvest means of top growth rates were subjected to Tukeys test, there were no differences among gr owth means receiving P application of 0.31 g m2 4-wk-1 and above. This was probably due to a la rger variation on top growth rate that occurred when grown in soil No. 3. This larger variation may have resu lted from more severe disease damage in soil No. 3, which particularly influenced growth more on turf with lower P application rates (0.63 g m-2 4-wk-1 and below) (Table 4-5). It has been previously shown that P application improved recovery of tu rf quality from disease. These data also showed the benefits of P application on top growth rate in case of disease incidence. Tissue P Concentration The initial tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass was 4.1 g kg-1 on a dry weight basis. Over 9 months before P applicati on, tissue P concentrati on dropped from 4.1 g kg-1 to 1.2 g kg-1 on dry weight basis. Both soils cont ained very low Mehlich-1 P (< 5 mg kg-1). Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass vari ed with P rate and soil (Table 4-6). In both soils, a maximum tissue P level was achieved (3.2 g kg-1) in response to P2O5 applied at 2.5 g m-2 4-wk-1. Turfgrass receiving no P main tained a value of 1.0 g kg-1, with which turfgrass showed P deficiency symptoms, reduced turf quality (Table 4-6), and reduced growth rate (Table 4-5). Tissue P concentration increased with each incremental P application across six

PAGE 57

57 harvests for both soils. Maximum top growth rate was achieved at 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, suggesting that application of additional P doe s not enhance top growth rate but P uptake. Greater tissue P concentrations and top growth rates were obser ved in soil No. 2 than No. 3, indicating a greater P uptake occurred in soil No 2, possibly caused by a mo re severe incidence of disease in soil No.3. The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration In a previous solution culture study, the critic al tissue P concentration was determined to be 1.6 g kg-1. In the glasshouse soil study 1, the criti cal minimum tissue P concentration was estimated to be 1.8 g kg-1. In this study including two so ils, the critical minimum tissue P concentration was 1.9 g kg-1 (Figure 4-18), according to non-lin ear plateau regr ession analysis (R2 = 0.70, p<0.0001). The coefficient of determina tion could be improved from 0.70 to 0.75 by removing two outliers. The maximum top growth rate estimated in the quadratic relationship was 2.8 g kg-1, which was the same as the optimum grow th rates corresponding to the highest P application rate of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, suggesting a reasonable plateau. Soil P Tests Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP varied with P application for soil No. 2 (Figure 419) and No. 3 (Figure 4-20). With increased P ap plication soil test P levels increased for both soils. For each P rate, Fe Oxide procedure extracted approximately the same quantity of P as water, which was consistent with the findings in glasshouse soil study 1. This was possibly due to a low bonding energy of P sorp tion/desorption with absence of Al/Fe oxides in these soils. The portion adsorbed on soil particles eventually dissolved in the water extraction procedure. Mehlich-1 P concentration was more or less double the concentration of Fe oxide P or WEP, which was consistent with the observations in the glasshouse soil study 1. The explanation could be the nature of Fe oxide P procedure that is based upon sorption/desorption process and does

PAGE 58

58 not dissolve any water insoluble P components. However, Mehlich1 extractant contains diluted strong acids which could pa rtially dissolve water in soluble P components. Figure 4-21 showed the relationships am ong Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations for soil No.2. They were pairwise linear dependent. All the pairwise relationships were highly significant with p values less than 0.0001. In the previous glasshouse soil study 1, a better correlation of Fe oxide P vs. WEP than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP was observed. This was true for soil No. 2 in this study with r2 s of 0.65 and 0.54 for WEP vs. Fe oxide P and Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. For soil No. 3, an identical coefficient of determination (r2) of 0.68 was obtained for relationships of Fe Oxide P vs. WEP and Me hlich-1 P vs. WEP. A higher coefficient of determ ination was recorded for Mehlich-1 P vs. Fe Oxide P (r2=0.72) (Figure 4-22). In the glasshouse soil study 1, Mehlich-1 P co rrelated better with tissue P concentration than Fe Oxide P and WEP (Figure 4-12). Tissue P concentration and soil test P concentrations for soil No. 2 (Figure 4-23) and soil No. 3 (Figur e 4-24) showed the same trend. For soil No. 2, Mehlich-1 P obtained the best correlation against tissue P concentration with r2 of 0.85, which was higher than 0.46 and 0.35 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively. For soil No. 3, r2 of 0.71 was obtained for Mehlich-1 P vs. tissue P, which was higher than 0.67 and 0.63 for Fe Oxide P and WEP vs. tissue P, respectivel y. Overall, the three soil P test s concentration were correlated to tissue P concentration with Mehlich-1 P obtai ning the best prediction on tissue P levels. The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations The growth rate of St. Augustinegrass was affected by soil Mehlich-1 P concentration (Figure 4-25 for soil No. 2; Figure 4-26 for soil N o. 3), Fe Oxide P (Figure 4-27 for soil No. 2), and WEP concentration (Figure 4-28 for soil No. 2). Applicati on of phosphate up to 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a range of ex tractable soil P concentrati ons (0.2 to 10.5 and 0.6 to 9.5 mg

PAGE 59

59 kg-1 for Mehlich-1 in soil No. 2 and 3, resp ectively; 0.6 to 5.2 and 0.8 to 5.5 mg kg-1 for Fe Oxide in soil No. 2 and 3, respectively; 0.8 to 4.0 and 0.9 to 4.6 mg kg-1 for WEP in soil No. 2 and 3, respectively). Growth rate vs. Mehlich-1 P in both soils and growth rate vs. Fe Oxide P and WEP in soil No.2 were described relatively well by the quadratic res ponse and plateau model with the coefficients of determination being generally acceptable (0.54 and 0.60 for Mehlich-1 in soil No. 2 and 3 respectively, 0.72 for Fe Oxide in soil No. 2, and 0.41 for WEP in soil No. 2). When top growth rate was related to Fe Ox ide P and WEP in soil No. 3, top growth rate increased with increasing Fe Oxide P or WEP con centrations and thus fa iled to converge to a plateau (data not shown). This was possibly due to a low correlation between growth rate and Fe Oxide P or WEP concentration and a large varia tion among replications. The critical Mehlich-1 P concentration obtained for soil No. 2 and 3 were 8 and 9 mg kg-1, respectively, which was close to the critical Mehlic h-1 P concentration (7 mg kg-1) determined in the previous glasshouse soil study 1. For soil No. 2 the critical Fe Oxide P and WE P concentration was 3 mg kg-1. These data suggest that optimum growth of St. Augustine grass can be attained at very low soil lest P levels. Phosphorus fertilization would not resu lt in growth response above 8, 3, and 3 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1, Fe Oxide, and WEP, respectively for soil No. 2. Mehlich-1 P had the best correlation against both tissue P concentration and top growth rate in both so ils with exception of correlation of top growth rate against Fe Oxide P was bette r than that against Mehlich-1 P. Overall, Mehlich-1 P test was the best so il P test for St. Augustinegrass among the three extractants used. P Downward Movement In the glasshouse soil study 1, CSP applied to the turfgrass did not move downward and the majority stayed in the top 2 cm in that soil. In this study soil samples were separated into 0 cm and 2 cm depths. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentra tion as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling depth are shown in Figure 4-29 (soil No. 2) and Fig. 4-30 (so il No. 3). Mehlich-1 P

PAGE 60

60 concentration (0-2 cm depth) w ith P application rate of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 was increased from 1 to 7.9 and 1.1 to 9.3 mg kg-1 for soil No. 2 and 3, respectivel y. Many studies have shown that the amount of fertilizer P required for each unit increase of soil test P level varies with soil texture, soil test method employed, as well as the rate of fert ilizer P applied. In a 29-yr study on Ultisols in Alabama, Cope (1981) found that 24 and 20 kg P ha raised Mehlich-1 soil test P by 1 mg P kg when P was applied at 31 and 54 kg P ha yr, respectively. An application of 4 kg P ha-1 was required to raise the Bray I extractable P of medium-textured Mollisols and Alfisols 1 kg ha-1 (Peck et al., 1971). Cox (1994) showed that incr eases in Mehlich-III with each unit of applied P were 0.7 units for soils with 10% clay, and it decreased exponen tially to 0.2 units for soils with >50% clay. In this study tota l applications of 9.4, 18.8, 37.5, and 75 kg P2O5 ha raised the levels of soil Mehlich-1 P in top 2 cm soils by 2, 2, 4, and 7 mg P kg soil, respectively, for soil No. 2 and by 2, 3, 5, and 8 mg P kg soil, respectively, for soil No. 3 after 12 week of P fertilizatio n. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentrations in depth of 2-10 cm increased with P application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 for soil No. 2, but soils with lower P rates did not result in increased Mehlich-1 P concentration (Fig. 4-29). For soil No. 3 P application did not influence the Mehlich-1 P levels in soil depth of 2-10 cm (Figure 4-30). This suggests that most of CSP applied to the turfgrass stayed in the top 2 cm soil depth and that a low application P rate would be helpful in preventing P downward movement. Leached P Mass and Concentration Phosphorus treatments were appl ied every four weeks for a to tal of three times. Leachates were collected weekly after e ach P application. Twelve leac hates were collected during the study period. The sum of the soluble reactive P (S RP) leached during the first, second, third and fourth leaching collections is presented in Figur e 4-31 (soil No. 2) and Figure 4-33 (soil No. 3), respectively. In the glasshouse soil study 1, it wa s observed that for each P application rate a

PAGE 61

61 substantial greater quantity of P leached during the first leaching event and th at little P leached in subsequent leachate collections. This was true for both soils in this study. Soil No. 2 which receiving 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 leached an average of 8.4 mg P, followed by 4.3, 1.6, 1.5, mg P from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively, among which 48%, 44%, 44%, and 34% was leached in the first leaching event. Soil No. 3 leached an average of 10.3 4.3, 3.2, 1.8, mg P from applications of 2.5, 1.25, 0.63 and 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively, among which 42%, 47%, 47%, and 55% was leached in the first leachat e collection. Not only was there a higher percentage of P mass leached in the first leaching event, but also the SRP concentration was higher in the first leachate than the subsequent leachates in soil No. 2 (Figure 4-32 ) and soil No. 3 (Figure 4-34). These findi ngs suggest the importance of P application timing. To avoid P application before a rain even t would be beneficial in preventing P leaching and runoff. P application of 1.25 and 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in larger quantities of P leached and higher SRP concentration in soil No. 2 a nd there were no differences among leached P mass and SRP concentrations resulted from the thr ee lower P application rates. For soil No. 3, P application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a larger quantity of P loss and higher SRP concentration through leaching and there were no differences among leached P mass and SRP concentrations at the lower P a pplication rates. This suggests th at P loss through leaching can be prevented by small P application rate. Glasshouse Soil Study 3 Turf Quality Quantity of applied P influenced St. A ugustinegrass quality (Table 4-7). A P2O5 application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in the best turf quality in 10 out of 12 weeks (Table 4-7). Duncans multiple range test of turf quality rating versus rate of P applied revealed differences in

PAGE 62

62 mean turf quality rating up to 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1. Application of additional P beyond 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 did not increase turf quality. A total of 0.93 g P2O5 m-2 was applied, and this equates to an N: P2O5 application ratio of 16:1, which is substantially higher than common used 4:1 ratio. The previous glasshouse study 1 and 2 re ported the same response to P application for St. Augustinegrass growing in course textured sandy soils. The overall turf quality including controls was generally good, possibly because th e relatively sufficient labile soil P prevented severe P deficiency on St. Augustinegrass. The so il used in this study initially contained 17 mg kg-1 Mehlich-1 P. By the time P treatments were applied, it was believed that this soil still contained a substantial amount of plant available P, which was c onfirmed by soil analysis at the end of the study. The soil Mehlich-1 P con centration in control soils was 2.7 mg kg-1, obviously due to a relatively high residue soil P con centration in the beginning of the study. Top Growth Rate St. Augustinegrass top growth rate responded to P applica tion (Table 4-8). Duncans multiple range test of top growth rate versus P application rate revealed differences in mean top growth rate up to 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1. Application of additional P beyond 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4wk-1 did not increase top growth (Table 4-8) Relatively smaller growth rate reduction (approximately 25%) was observed in controls in this study compared with those in previous studies. This was due to a higher initial soil Mehlich-1 P concentr ation in this soil so that P deficiency on St. Augustinegrass was mildly de veloped. A CV of less than 10% suggests that there is a small variation among replications. Tissue P Concentration The initial tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass was 5.0 g kg-1 on a dry weight basis. Over 15 months before P application, tissue P concentr ation dropped from 5.0 to 1.3 g kg-1 on dry weight basis. The soil Mehlic h-1 P decreased from 17 to 4 mg kg-1 by the time P was

PAGE 63

63 applied. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustineg rass responded to P appl ication (Table 4-9). Tissue P concentration increased with each incr emental P application across six harvests. A maximum tissue P level (3.4 g kg-1) was achieved in response to phosphate applied at 2.5 g m-2 4-wk-1. Turfgrass receiving no P ma intained a value of 1.4 g kg-1, which was higher than those found in the previous study 1 and 2 (1.0 g kg-1). This explains the smaller top growth rate reduction in controls and only mild P deficiency symptoms observed in this study. The soil used in this study supplied a substant ial quantity of P for St. Augus tinegrass growth over the entire experiment period. Critical Minimum Tissue P Concentration In the previous solution culture study, the crit ical tissue P concentration was determined to be 1.6 g kg-1. In the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2, the critical minimum tissue P concentration was estimated to be 1.8 and 1.9 g kg-1, respectively. The critical minimum tissue P concentration in study 3 was 1.8 g kg-1 (Figure 4-35), according to non-line ar plateau regression analysis (r2 = 0.48, p<0.001). The coefficient of determination was lower than that found in previous soil study 1 and 2. This was possibly due to three or four outliers. The maximum top growth rate estimated in the quadratic relationship was 2.9 g kg-1, which was consistent with the optimum growth rates (2.9 and 2.8 g kg-1 for soil study 1 and 2, respectively), suggesting a reasonable plateau. Soil P Tests Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP varied with P application in soil study 3 (Figure 436). With each incremental increased P applic ation soil Mehlich-1 P levels increased. Higher soil test P values were only obser ved for the application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 in Fe Oxide P, 1.25 and 2.5 m-2 4-wk-1 in WEP, respectively (Figure 4-36). In the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2, Fe Oxide strip procedure and water extraction procedure extracted approximately the same quantity of P in those soil conditions. However, in this study Fe Oxide procedure extracted

PAGE 64

64 greater quantities of P than water for each P application, which suggests a higher bonding energy of P sorption/desorption with the Al/Fe oxides in this soil. Some portion of P ions adsorbed on soil particles was not extracted by water extractio n procedure but by Fe Oxide strip procedure. Mehlich-1 P concentration was more or less double the concentration of WEP, which was consistent with the observations in the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2. Figure 4-37 shows the relationship among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations in glasshouse soil study 3. They were pairwise lin ear dependent. In the previous glasshouse soil study 1 and 2, a better correlation of Fe oxide P vs WEP than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP was observed. This was true in this study with r2 s of 0.52 and 0.35 for WEP vs. Fe oxide P and Melich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. Moreover, the relationship of Fe oxide P vs. WEP (p<0.0001) had a smaller p value than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP (p<0.01). A smaller coefficient of determination for each pairwise lin ear regression was obtained than those in the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2. This wa s possibly due to narrower range s of soil test P extracted in this soil with Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P a nd WEP mostly varied in 3, 1.5, and 1.5 mg P kg-1, respectively (Figure 4-37). Thes e narrow ranges of soil test P revealed a strong bonding force of P sorption/desorption and a small solubility of P compounds in water and dilute acids. These narrow ranges of Fe Oxide P and WEP also affect the correlations against tissue P concentration. The coefficients of determination for Fe Ox ide P vs. Tissue P and WEP vs. Tissue P were 0.21 and 0.23, respectively, which were lower than thos e previously observed in the glasshouse study 1 and 2 (Figure 4-38). Soil Mehlich-1 P obtai ned the best correlation against tissue P concentration with r2 of 0.70, higher than 0.21 and 0.23 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively (Figure 4-38). Overall, the three soil test P concentration were correlated with tissue P

PAGE 65

65 concentration (p<0.05) with Mehl ich-1 P obtaining the best predic tion on tissue P levels, which was consistent with observations in the previous studies. The Critical Minimum Mehlich-1 P Concentration Not only were the correlations of tissue P c oncentration against soil test P reduced by the narrow range of soil test P concen trations, but also the relationsh ip between top growth rate and soil test P concentrations were reduced. Soil Fe Oxide P and WEP were poorly correlated with top growth rate. Top growth rate continued to increase with increased Fe Oxide P or WEP concentrations so that it did not converge to a plateau (data no t shown). Therefore, it was not possible to establish a critical minimum level fo r Fe Oxide P and WEP. Growth rate vs. Mehlich1 P was described well by the quadratic response and plateau model with the coefficients of determination of 0.27 and p value less than 0.05. Th e critical Mehlich-1 P concentration obtained was 5 mg kg-1, which was somewhat lower than the cri tical Mehlich-1 P concentrations of 7, 8, and 9 mg kg-1 determined for soil No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This was expected because this soil contained a larger quantity of Al/Fe oxides and has a larger P buffering capacity. For each unit of soil test P level decrease, it supplied a la rger quantity of P for plant uptake. These data suggest that P levels can be kept very low for St. Augustinegrass optimum growth. Phosphorus fertilization would not result in growth response above 5 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1 P in this soil. Mehlich-1 P had the best correlation against both tissue P concentration a nd top growth rate and therefore is the best soil test method for St. Augustinegrass among th e three tests used. P Downward Movement Soil samples were separated into 0 cm and 2 cm depths. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application and soil sampling depth was shown in Figure 4-40. Compared with control, Mehlich-1 P concentrat ion (0 cm depth) with P application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 increased from 2.5 to 5.6 mg kg-1. Total applications of 9.4, 18.8, 37.5, and 75

PAGE 66

66 kg P2O5 ha raised the levels of soil Mehlich-1 P in top 2 cm soils by 0.6, 1, 1.6, and 3.1 mg P kg soil, respectively, after 12 weeks of P fertiliza tion. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in top 2 cm soils increased with P application, however, P levels in the 2-10 cm depth was not affected (Figure 4-40). This suggests that CSP applied to the turfgrass st ayed in the top 2 cm soil depth and downward movement of P was minimal. Leached P Mass and Concentration Phosphorus treatments were appl ied every four weeks for a to tal of three times. Leachates were collected one, two, three and four weeks af ter each P application. Twelve leachates were collected. The sum of the SRP quantity leached du ring the first, second, third and fourth leaching collections is presented in figure 4-41. It was observed that for each non-zero P application substantially greater quantities of P leached during the first tw o leaching events than in the following two leachate collections. This was consis tent with the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2. Soils applied with 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 leached an average of 9.5 mg P, followed by 4.1, 3.5, 1.9 mg P from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively, among which 71%, 68%, 74%, and 63% was leached out in the firs t two leaching events. Not only was there a substantial higher percent of P mass leached in the first two le aching events, but also the SRP concentration was higher in the first two leachat es than followings (Figure 4-42). These findings suggest timing could be an issue for P applicatio n. To avoid P application before a rain event would be beneficial in preventing P leaching. For each P application rate, the overall percentage of P loss due to leaching for application of 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 were 1.9%, 1.8%, 1.0% and 1.2%, respectively. The percentage were relatively small, but P application of 1.25 and 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in larger quantities of P leached and P application of 2.5 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 led to higher SRP concentration. P application of 0.63 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 and below did result in neither a

PAGE 67

67 greater P quantity loss nor a highe r SRP concentration than contro l. This suggests that small P application rate was effective in preventing P loss through leaching.

PAGE 68

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 01.246.231155775Solution P (mg m-3)Turf qualit y A B F E D C Figure 4-1. Turf quality response to solution P concentration. Turf quality is the mean of five replications over time after treatments were applied. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7/198/189/1710/1711/1612/161/152/143/16Tissue P (g kg-1) 0 1.24 6.2 31 155 775 Figure 4-2. Tissue P response to solu tion P concentration and time. P, mg m-3 No P applied before this point Month/Day (2004)

PAGE 69

69 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 01.246.231155775Solution P (mg m-3)Tissue P (g kg-1) Figure 4-3. Relationship of solu tion P and tissue P concentrati on on day 148. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly diffe rently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 01.246.231155775Solution P (mg m-3)Root P (g kg-1) Figure 4-4. Relationship of solu tion P and root P concentration on day 148. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test. A B BC CD CD D A B C C C C

PAGE 70

70 Solution P (mg m-3) 0100200300400500600700800 Tissue growth rate (g m-2 day-1) 0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 Figure 4-5. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to solution P concentration. y = 0.9938 0.00004(x 110.9)2 R2 = 0.86, p< 0.0001, CV = 15.5 plateau = 1 critical x =111

PAGE 71

71 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 01.246.231155775Solution P (mg m-3)Root growth rate (g m-2 day-1) Figure 4-6. Root growth rate relative to solu tion P concentration. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncans Multiple Range Test. AB B AB AB B A

PAGE 72

72 Tissue P (g kg-1) 0.0.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Tissue growth rate (g m-2 day-1) 0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 Figure 4-7. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration. y = 1.0456 -0.5056(x 1.5614)2 R2 = 0.88, p<0.0001, CV = 15.4 plateau = 1 critical x = 1.6

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-1. Visual quality rating of St. A ugustinegrass as influenced by P applicati on rate in 2005 gla sshouse soil study 1 P2O5 rates -----------------------------------------------Week --------------------------------------------------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mean 0 6.4c 6.5c 5.9c 7b 6.7b 6.8b 6.6b 6.9c 6.2b 6.2b 5.7c 5.4b 5.4b 6.1b 4.5b 4.6b 6.3c 0.31 7.0b 7.4ab 7.3b 7.4ab 7.3a 7.5a 7.4a 7.4bc 7.2a 7.7a 7.3b 7.6a 7.2a 7 .9a 7.1a 7.4a 7.4b 0.63 6.9b 7.3b 7.2b 7.6ab 7.2a 7.7a 7.2ab 7.6ab 7.2a 7.6a 7.5ab 7.7a 7a 7 .9a 7.5a 7.4a 7.4b 1.25 6.9b 7.7ab 7.7ab 7.8a 7.6a 7.8a 7.6a 7.9ab 7.6a 8a 7.8ab 7.8a 7.5a 8.1a 7.5a 7.7a 7.7ab 2.5 7.4a 8.0a 8.1a 8.0a 7.8a 8.1a 7.8a 8.1a 7.7a 8.1a 8.0a 8.0a 7.8a 8.2a 7.6a 7.9a 7.9a CV(%) 4.3 6.3 6.4 7.4 6.1 5.6 6.3 5.5 6.2 5.9 6.1 4.8 8 .7 6.9 6.0 8.8 4.7 Within columns, means followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different according to Duncans multiple range test (0 .05).

PAGE 74

74 Table 4-2. Top growth rate of St. Augustinegra ss as influenced by P application rate in 2005 2006 glasshouse soil study 1. P2O5 rates -------------------------Harvest (g m-2 day-1) -----------------------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 0 2.2b 2.1b 2.1b 1.9b 2.0c 2.1c 2.1b 1.9b 2.1b 0.31 2.9ab 2.6ab 2.6a 2.3ab 2.4bc 2.5bc 2.9a 2.7a 2.7a 0.63 3.0a 2.6ab 2.9a 2.4ab 2.7ab 2.7ab 3.0a 3.0a 2.7a 1.25 3.0a 2.9a 3.0a 2.5ab 2.9a 3.0ab 3.1a 3.1a 3.0a 2.5 3.4a 3.0a 3.0a 2.5a 3.0a 3.1a 3.1a 3.1a 3.0a CV(%) 18.8 15.4 18.5 16.9 12.7 16.6 8.5 12.9 10.6 Within columns, means followed by the same lette r are not significantly di fferent according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05). Table 4-3. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influen ced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 1. P2O5 rates ---------------------------------Harvest (g kg-1) ------------------------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 0 1.1d 1.1d 1.1d 1.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.8d 1.0e 1.0e 0.31 1.5cd 1.5cd 1.5c 1.4c 1.5c 1.3cd 1.3d 1.5d 1.4d 0.63 1.7c 1.6c 1.7c 1.7c 1.7c 1.8c 1.8c 2.1c 1.8c 1.25 2.5b 2.3b 2.6b 2.3b 2.4b 2.4b 2.7b 3.0b 2.5b 2.5 3.5a 3.2a 3.3a 3.1a 3.5a 3.3a 3.4a 4.1a 3.4a CV(%) 17.7 18.8 15.3 15.1 15.3 19.5 17.5 8.1 11.2 Within columns, means followed by the same lette r are not significantly di fferent according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05).

PAGE 75

75 Tissue P (g kg -1 ) 1234 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 Figure 4-8. St. Augustinegrass tissu e growth rate relative to ti ssue P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1. y = 2.91 1.57 (1.76 x)2 R2 = 0.77, p<0.0001, CV=10.9% plateau = 2.91 critical x = 1.8

PAGE 76

76 a a b a b b b bc bc c c c ddd Figure 4-9. Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4-10. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4-11. Relationships between tissue P conc entration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.

PAGE 79

79 Mehlich-1 P (mg kg -1 ) 024681012141618 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 Figure 4-12. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to so il Mehlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1. y = 2.93 0.02(6.94 x)2 R2 = 0.71, p<0.0001, CV=20.7% plateau = 2.93 critical x = 7

PAGE 80

80 Fe Oxide P (mg kg -1 ) 02468 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 Figure 4-13. St. Augustinegrass tissu e growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1. y = 2.90 0.13(3.10 x)2 R2 = 0.68, p<0.0001, CV = 18.9% plateau = 2.90 critical x = 3

PAGE 81

81 WEP (mg kg -1 ) 02468 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 Figure 4-14. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the glasshouse soil study 1. y = 2.90 0.11(3.31 x)2 R2 = 0.62, p<0.0001, CV = 14% plateau = 2.90 critical x = 3

PAGE 82

82 0 4 8 12 16 00.310.631.252.5P2O5 application rate (g m-2 per 4 wks)Soil Melich1 P (mg kg-1) 0-2 cm 2-10 cm D C BC cb bc B A a c Figure 4-15. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse soil study 1. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP mass (mg) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b c c c a b c c c a b bc c c a b c c c Figure 4-16. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 1.

PAGE 83

83 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP concentration (mg L-1) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b c c c a b c c c a b c c c a b c c c Figure 4-17. Leached SRP concentration as influe nced by P application ra te and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 1.

PAGE 84

84Table 4-4. Visual quality rating of St. A ugustinegrass as influenced by P applicati on rate in 2005 gla sshouse soil study 2 P2O5 rates -----------------------------------------------Week---------------------------------------Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean 0 6.5a 6.7b 6.4a 5.7b 5.3b 5.5b 4.7b 4.5b 4.7c 4.5b 5. 0b 4.4b 5.3b 0.31 7.3a 7.8ab 7.3a 7.6a 6.9a 7.3a 6.3a 6.8a 6.6b 7.4a 6.5 a 6.8a 7.0a 2 0.63 6.9a 7.6ab 7.3a 7.4a 7.2a 7.5a 6.8a 7.1a 7.3ab 7.6a 6.6a 7.0a 7.2a 1.25 7.3a 8.1a 7.3a 7.6a 7.4a 7.7a 7.1a 7.2ab 7.3ab 8.0a 7.0a 7.1a 7.4a 2.5 7.1a 7.8a 7.5a 7.7a 7.4a 7.8a 7.4a 7.4a 7.3a 7.6a 7 .1a 7.0a 7.4a 0 6.5a 6.7b 6.3b 5.4c 5.1b 5.3b 4.2b 4.2b 4.3b 4.5b 4. 7b 4.5b 5.1b 0.31 6.9a 7.4ab 7.1ab 6.8b 6.0ab 6.6ab 6.2a 6.6a 6.1a 6.9a 6.7a 6.2a 6.6a 3 0.63 6.8a 7.6ab 6.5ab 7.1ab 6.3ab 6.8a 6.1a 6.4a 6.9a 7.5a 6.2a 6.6a 6.7a 1.25 7.0a 7.6ab 7.4ab 7.4ab 7.0a 7.5a 6.8a 7.1a 7.1a 7.4a 6.9a 6.8a 7.2a 2.5 7.3a 8.1a 7.7a 7.8a 7.4a 8.0a 7.3a 7.3a 7.4a 7.7a 7 .2a 7.0a 7.5a CV(%) 5.7 8.0 9.1 6.7 10.7 9.9 10.6 6.8 8.6 6.6 10.1 7.5 6.3 Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukeys test (0.05).

PAGE 85

85 Table 4-5. Top growth rate of St Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate and soils in 2005 glasshouse soil study 2. P2O5 rates -------------------Harvest (g m-2 day-1) ----------------------Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 0 2.7a 1.7b 1.6b 1.2b 1.1b 1.7b 1.6b 0.31 3.5a 2.3ab 2.5a 2.0a 2.4a 2.5ab 2.5a 2 0.63 3.3a 2.4ab 2.9a 2.1a 2.5a 2.8a 2.6a 1.25 3.8a 2.6a 3.0a 2.3a 2.7a 2.9a 2.9a 2.5 3.6a 2.7a 3.0a 2.2a 2.8a 3.0a 2.8a 0 2.5a 1.5b 1.6c 1.3c 1.3b 1.5b 1.6b 0.31 3.0a 2.0ab 2.1bc 1.6b 2.1ab 2.1ab 2.1ab 3 0.63 2.9a 1.7ab 2.2bc 1.6abc 2.1ab 2.2ab 2.1ab 1.25 3.2a 2.4a 2.5a 2.1ab 2.5a 2.5a 2.5a 2.5 3.4a 2.5a 3.0a 2.2a 2.7a 3.0a 2.8a CV(%) 18.1 19.7 13.5 15.2 17.6 18.0 14.0 Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukeys test (0.05). Table 4-6. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influen ced by P application rate and soils in 2005 glas shouse soil study 2. P2O5 rates ----------------Harvest (g kg-1) --------------Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 0 1.1d 0.98c 0.94c 0.94c 1.1d 0.89c 0.98d 0.31 1.3cd 1.2c 1.2c 1.3c 1.4cd 1.3c 1.3cd 2 0.63 1.5c 1.4bc 1.4c 1.4abc 1.9c 1.6bc 1.5c 1.25 2.0b 1.8b 2.3b 2.2ab 2.9b 2.1b 2.2b 2.5 3.1a 2.7a 3.1a 3.0a 3.8a 3.3a 3.2a 0 1.1d 0.93c 1.0c 1.0c 1.0d 1.0c 1.0c 0.31 1.2c 1.0c 1.1c 1.0c 1.4cd 1.2c 1.2c 3 0.63 1.5c 1.2bc 1.2bc 1.3bc 1.9c 1.5c 1.4c 1.25 2.0b 1.7b 1.8b 1.9b 2.6b 2.2b 2.0b 2.5 3.3a 2.6a 2.5a 2.8a 3.9a 3.5a 3.2a CV(%) 10.8 15.6 17.7 24.5 11.8 17.7 10.3 Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukeys test (0.05).

PAGE 86

86 Tissue P (g kg -1 ) 1234 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Figure 4-18. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2. y = 2.81 1.26(1.93 x)2 R2 = 0.70, p<0.0001, CV = 12.2% plateau = 2.81 critical x = 1.9

PAGE 87

87 a a ab a b ab b bc ab ab cd bc d c b Figure 4-19. Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2). a a b a b ab bc c b b c bc c c b Figure 4-20. Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4-21. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the gl asshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2).

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4-22. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the gl asshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4-23. Relationships between tissue P conc entration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling dept h of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2).

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4-24. Relationships between tissue P conc entration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling dept h of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).

PAGE 92

92 Mehlich-1 P (mg kg -1 ) 024681012 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Figure 4-25. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to so il Mehlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil st udy 2 (soil No. 2). y = 2.96 0.024(7.73 x)2 R2 = 0.54, p<0.001, CV =17.3% plateau = 2.96 critical x = 8

PAGE 93

93 Mehlich-1 P (mg kg -1 ) 024681012 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 Figure 4-26. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to so il Mehlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil st udy 2 (soil No. 3). y = 2.74 0.017(8.78 x)2 R2 = 0.60, p<0.0001, CV = 20.2% plateau = 2.74 critical x = 9

PAGE 94

94 Fe Oxide P (mg kg -1 ) 0123456 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Figure 4-27. St. Augustinegrass tissu e growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2). y = 2.74 0.23(3.09 x)2 R2 = 0.72, p<0.0001, CV = 25.6% plateau = 2.74 critical x = 3

PAGE 95

95 WEP (mg kg -1 ) 0123456 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 Figure 4-28. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2). y = 2.72 0.21(3.08 x)2 R2 = 0.41, p<0.01, CV = 26.4% plateau = 2.72 critical x = 3

PAGE 96

96 0 2 4 6 8 10 00.310.631.252.5P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Soil Mehlich1 P (mg kg-1) 0-2 cm 2-10 cm C C C b b b B A a b Figure 4-29. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 2). 0 2 4 6 8 10 00.310.631.252.5P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Soil Mehlich1 P (mg kg-1) 0-2 cm 2-10 cm C C C a a a B A a a Figure 4-30. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 3).

PAGE 97

97 0 1 2 3 4 5 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP mass (mg) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b c c c a b c a b bc c c a b c c b bb Figure 4-31. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP concentration (mg L-1) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b c c c a b c a b bc c c a b c bc b bb Figure 4-32. Leached SRP concentration as influe nced by P application ra te and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2).

PAGE 98

98 0 1 2 3 4 5 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP mass (mg) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b a b a b a b b b b b bb b b b b b b Figure 4-33. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP concentration (mg L-1) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b a b a b a b b b b b bb b b bb b b Figure 4-34. Leached SRP concentration as influe nced by P application ra te and leaching event in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3).

PAGE 99

99 Table 4-7. Visual quality rating of St. A ugustinegrass as influenced by P applicati on rate in 2005 gla sshouse soil study 3 P2O5 rates --------------------------------------------Week ---------------------------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean 0 6.1b 6.2b 5.8b 5.6c 5.5b 5.2b 5.6b 5.4b 6.3b 6.9c 6.9c 6.6b 6.2b 0.31 7.2a 7.5a 6.6ab 7.1b 7.1a 7.1a 7.1a 6.6a 6.9ab 7.1bc 6.8bc 7.1a 7.0a 0.63 7.5a 7.9a 7.1a 7.7ab 7.5a 7.2a 7.2a 7.2a 7.4a 7.6abc 7.3ab 7.3a 7.4a 1.25 7.6a 7.9a 7.5a 7.8a 7.6a 7.7a 7.2a 7.3a 7.4a 7.7ab 7.5a 7.4a 7.6a 2.5 7.7a 8.0a 7.6a 7.6ab 7.6a 7.5a 7.3a 7.3a 7.2a 7.9a 7.5a 7.4a 7.5a CV(%) 7.6 4.9 10.7 6.8 7.6 9.7 5.4 8.3 8.8 7.4 6.54 5.2 5.7 Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05). Table 4-8. Top growth rate of St. Augus tinegrass as influenced by P applicati on rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 3. P2O5 rates ------------------------Harvest (g m-2 day-1) ----------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 0 3.2b 3.0a 2.8b 1.6b 2.0b 1.5b 2.4b 0.31 3.8ab 3.1a 3.0ab 1.9ab 2.5ab 1.6ab 2.6a 0.63 3.9a 3.1a 3.0ab 2.0 a 2.6a 1.7ab 2.7a 1.25 3.9a 3.3 a 3.1ab 2.1a 2.7a 1.7ab 2.8a 2.5 4.3a 3.4a 3.3a 2.1a 2.7a 1.8a 3.0a CV(%) 11.3 11.3 10.8 8.8 17.9 13.0 8.0 Within columns for each soil, means followed by th e same letter are not significantly different according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05).

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-9. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influen ced by P application rate in 2005 glasshouse soil study 3. P2O5 rates -----------------------------H arvest (g kg-1) -------------------------------(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 0 1.3d 1.4b 1.3d 1.2d 1.5d 1.5e 1.4d 0.31 1.4d 1.5b 1.7cd 1.5c 1.8d 1.9d 1.6d 0.63 1.8c 2.1a 1.9bc 1.7c 2.3c 2.5c 2.0c 1.25 2.2b 2.3a 2.3b 2.4b 3.0b 3.5b 2.6b 2.5 2.9a 2.4a 3.4a 3.3a 4.1a 4.6a 3.4a CV(%) 15.0 20.0 14.3 8.8 14.1 9.4 8.6

PAGE 101

101 Tissue P (g kg -1 ) 1.01.52.02.53.03.5 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 Figure 4-35. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 3. y = 2.86 1.16(1.80 x)2 R2 = 0.48, p<0.001 plateau = 2.86 critical x = 1.8 CV = 8.6%

PAGE 102

102 a a ab a b b b bc b b c b c b b Figure 4-36. Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3. Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncans multiple range test (0.05).

PAGE 103

103 Figure 4-37. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3.

PAGE 104

104 Figure 4-38. Relationships between tissue P conc entration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3.

PAGE 105

105 Mehlich-1 P (mg kg -1 ) 234567 Top growth rate (g m -2 day -1 ) 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 Figure 4-39. St. Augustinegrass ti ssue growth rate relative to so il Mehlich-1 P concentration in the glasshouse soil study 3. y = 2.87 0.08(4.59 x)2 R2 = 0.27, p<0.05, CV = 19.4% plateau = 2.87 critical x = 5

PAGE 106

106 0 2 4 6 00.310.631.252.5P2O5 application rate (g m-2 per 4 wks)Soil Mehlich1 P (mg kg-1) 0-2 cm 2-10 cm C C BC aa a B A a a Figure 4-40. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling depth in the glasshouse soil study 3.

PAGE 107

107 0 1 2 3 4 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP mass (mg) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b b b b a b b a b b b b a b b bc c bc Figure 4-41. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in the glasshouse soil study 3. 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 00.310.631.252.5 P2O5 application rate (g m-2 4-wk-1)Leached SRP concentration (mg L-1) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th a b bc b c a b b a b b b b a b bc b c c bc Figure 4-42. Leached SRP concentration as influe nced by P application ra te and leaching event in the glasshouse soil study 3.

PAGE 108

108 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Glasshouse Hydroponic Study The best turf quality was achieved by the highest P treatment. Turfgrass receiving P at 31 mg m-3 attained the highest root growth among the treatments. The critical solution P concentration for optimum shoot growth was 111 mg m-3. St. Augustinegrass can be predicted to respond favorably to P applications if the ti ssue P concentrations are less than 1.6 g kg-1. Otherwise, no additional shoot growth would be expected if all other growth factors were adequate. In practice, conventiona l P fertilization programs normally use soil test P status as an index which categories soil P into very low, low, medium, high, very high levels. However, the soil P value range for each category was initia lly designed for agronomic crops and possibly does not apply to St. Augustinegrass. Future st udies may include determining a suitable soil testing procedure for St.Augustinegrass P recomme ndations and establishing the critical soil P level by relating it to the cri tical plant tissue P level. Turf Quality in Glasshouse Soil Studies In the glasshouse soil study 1, P application above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 on soil No.1 did not result in better turf quality in 12 out of 16 weeks. For soil No.2 (Tavares sand) and 3 (Pottsburg sand) in the glasshouse soil st udy 2, P applica tion of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 achieved the best turf quality in 11 out of 12 weeks. For soil No.4 (T avares sand) in the gl asshouse soil study 3, P application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in the best turf quali ty in 10 out of 12 weeks. These suggest that in terms of turf quality the minimum P application rate was somewhat above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1, which equates to an N: P2O5 application ratio of 16:1 assuming 5 g N m-2 4-wk-1 was applied. This is substantially higher than common used 4:1 ratio. This finding could be used to modify the N:P:K ratio recommended for St. Augustinegrass.

PAGE 109

109 Top Growth Rate in Glasshouse Soil Studies Additional phosphate ap plication beyond 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 did not result in increased top growth for the soils tested except soil No.3 (Pottsburg sand). The top growth rate with P application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 for soil No.3 was reduced by approximately 30% from the maximum growth rate of 2.9 g m-2day-1. A larger variation on top growth was observed and it may be due to more severe disease dama ge for soil No.3. Generally speaking, phosphate application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 is the minimum rate to achieve the optimum top growth. In case of disease damage, higher rate of P applica tion would be beneficial for recovery. Tissue P Concentration and Critical Tissue P Concentration Tissue P concentration varied from 1.0 to 3.6 g kg-1 with P application rates. For soil No.1 (Pomona sand), 2 (Tavares sand), and 3 (Pottsbu rg sand), turfgrass receiving no P maintained a value of 1.0 g kg-1, with which turfgrass showed P defici ency symptoms, reduced turf quality, and reduced growth rate. Turfgrass receiving no P in soil No.4 maintained a value of 1.4 g kg-1, which was possibly due to a higher residual labile P concentration in soil No.4. In the glasshouse soil study 1, 2, and 3, the critical minimum tissu e P concentration determined was 1.8, 1.9, and 1.8 g kg-1, respectively. Therefore, the critical minimum tissue P concentration for St. Augustinegrass is 1.8 g kg-1 to achieve the optimum growth. This differs from solution study possibly because plants biologi cally behave slight differen tly in soil from solution. Soil P Tests and Critical Soil Test P Concentrations Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide Strip P, and WEP were highly correlated to each other and they were also highly correlated to tissue P concen tration and top growth rate. Among these three extractants, Mehlich-1 is the best soil P extr actant for St. Augustinegrass because of higher r2 and smaller p values. The critical WE P and Fe oxide strip P were 3 mg kg-1. The critical soil

PAGE 110

110 Mehlich-1 P levels were in the range from 5 to 9 mg kg-1 depending on soil properties. The critical soil Mehlich-1 P le vel tends to be lower in presence of Fe/Al oxides. P Downward Movement and Leached P Majority of CSP applied remained in the t op 2 cm soil. Approximately 1% of P applied leached down the soil profile. Larger quantity and higher concentration of P leached in the first leaching event one week after P application. Th is suggests the importance of P application timing. To avoid P application before a rain even t would be beneficial in preventing P leaching loss. Application of 0.31 g P2O5 m-2 4-wk-1 did not result in either a larg er leached P quantity or a higher concentration. This suggests that P loss through leaching can be prevented by small application rate.

PAGE 111

111 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, M., P.E. Schilling, E.A. Epps, C.R. M ontgomery, B.D. Nelson, a nd R.H. Brubuches. 1977. Response of bahiagrass to nitrogen ferti lizer. Louisiana Agic. Exp. Sta. Bull. 701. Andrew, C.S., and M.F. Robins. 1971. The eff ect of phosphorus on the growth chemical composition and critical phosphorus percentages of some tropical pa sture grasses. Aust. J. Agrc. Res. 22:693. Anonymous. 1992. Determination of phosphor us by Bray P1 extraction. p. 70. In Handbook on Reference Methods for Soil Analysis, Soil an d Plant Analysis Council, Inc., Athens, GA. Ballard, R., and J.G.A. Fiskell. 1974. Phosphorus retention in Coastal Plain Forest Soils: 1. relationship to soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38:250. Ballard, R., and W.L. Pritchett. 1975. Evaluation of soil testing methods for predicting growth and reponse of Pinus elliottii to phosphorus fe rtilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:132. Bray, R.H., and L.T. Kurtz. 1945. Determination of total, organic a nd available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 59:39. Brown, E.A., and J.B. Sartain. 1999. Phosphorus retension in Unite d States Golf Association greens. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 59:112. Broschat, T.K. 1995. Nitrate, phosphate, and pota ssium leaching from container-grown plants fertilized by several methods. HortScience 30:74. Bruce, R.C., and I.J. Bruce. 1972. The correlatio n of soil phosphorus analyses with response of tropical pastures to superphosphate on soil Nort h Queensland soils. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 12:188. Burton G.W., R.N. Gates, and G.J. Gascho. 1997. Re sponse of Pensacola bahiagrass to rates of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 56:31. Champbell, K.L., J.S. Rogers, and D.R. Hens el. 1985. Drainage water quality from potato production. Trans. ASAE 28:1798. Chardon, W.J., R.G. Menon, and S.H. Chien. 1996. Ironoxide impregnated filter paper (Pi test): I. A review of its development and methodologi cal research. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 46:41. Chung, K.Y., J.B. Sartain, and E.W. Hopwood. 1 999. Leaching characteristics and nutrient supplying potentials of selected P and K fertili zer sources. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 58:72. Christians, N.E., D.P. Martin, and K.J. Ka rnok. 1981. The interrelationship among nutrient elements applied to calcareous sand greens. Agron. J. 73:929.

PAGE 112

112 Christians, N.E., D.P. Martin, and J.F. Wilkinson. 1979. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium effects on quality and growth of Kentucky blue grass and creeping bentgrass. Agron. J. 71:564 567. Christie, E. K., and J. Moorby. 1975. Physiologica l responses of semi-arid grasses. I. The influence of phosphorus supply on growth and phos phorus absorption. Aust. J. Agrc. Res. 26: 423. Coleman, N.T, J.T. Thorup, and W.A. Jackson. 1 960. Phosphate-sorption reacations that involve exchangeable Al. Soil Sci. 90:1. Cope, J.T., Jr. 1981. Effects of 50 years of fer tilization with phosphorus and potassium on soil test levels and yields at six locations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:342. Cox, F.R. 1994. Predicting increases in extractab le phosphorus from fertilizing soils of varying clay content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1249. Dest, W.M., and K. Guillard. 1987. Nitrogen and phosphorus nutritional influence on bentgrassannual bluegrass community composition. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 112:769. Dormaar J. F. 1972. Seasonal Pattern of soil organic phosphorus. Can. J. Soil Sci. 52:107. Dyer, B. 1894. On the analytical determination of probable available mineral plant food in soils. Trans. Chem. Soc. 65:115. Ebdon, J.S., A.M. Petrovic, and R.A. White 1999. Interaction of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on evapotranspiration rate and growth of Kentuc ky bluegrass. Crop Sci. 39:209. Egner, H., H. Riehm, W. R. Domingo. 1960. German (Germany). Untersuchungen uber diechemische Bodenanalyse als Grundlage fur die Beurteilung des Nahrstoffzustandes der Boden: II. Che-mische Extraktionsmethoden zur P hosphorund Kalium-bestimmung. Kungliga Lantbr.Hogsk. Ann., Uppsala. 26:199. Engelstad, O.P., and S.E. Allen. 1971. Effect of form and proximity of added nitrogen on crop uptake of phosphorus. Soil Sci. 112:330. Erickson, J.E., J.L. Cisar, J.C. Volin, and G. H. Snyder. 2001. Comparing nitrogen runoff and leaching between newly established St. Augustin egrass turf and an al ternative residential landscape. Crop Sci. 41:1889. Erickson, J.E., J.L. Cisar, G.H. Snyder, and J.C. Volin. 2005. Phosphorus and potassium leaching under contrasting residential landscap e models established on a sandy soil. Crop Sci. 45:546. Finn, B.J., and A.R. Mack. 1964. Differential re sponse of orchardgrass varieties (Dactylis glomerata L.) to nitrogen and phosphorus under c ontrolled soil temperature and moisture conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:782.

PAGE 113

113 Fitts, J.W. 1956. Soil tests compared with field, greenhouse and laboratory results. N.C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 121. Fitts, J.W., and W. L. Nelson. 1965. The determina tion of lime and fertil izer requirements of soils through chemical tests. Advan. Agron. 8:241. Fry, J.D., M.A. Harivandi, and D.D. Minner. 19 89. Creeping bentgrass response to P and K on a sand medium. HortScience 24:623. Frossard E., L. M. Condron, A. Oberson, S. Sina j, and J. C. Fardeau. 2000. Processes governing phosphorus availability in temperat e soils. J. Environ. Qual. 29:12. Gascho, G.J., T.P. Gaines, and C.O. Plank. 1990. Co mparison of extractants for testing Coastal Plain soils. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 21(13-16), 1051. Greenwood, E.H.N., and E.G. Hallsworth. 1960. Studies on the nutrition of forage legumes. II. Some interactions of calcium, phosphorus, coppe r, and molybdenum on the growth and chemical composition of Trifolium subterraneum L. Plant soil 12:97. Grunes, D.L. 1959. Effect of nitrogen on the ava ilability of soil and fe rtilizer phosphorus to plants. Adv. Agron. 11:369. Guillard K. and W.M. Dest. 2003. Extractable soil phosphorus concentrations and creeping bentgrass response on sand greens. Crop Sci. 43:272. Hall, J.R., and R.W. Miller. 1974. Effect of phosphorus, season, and method of sampling on foliar analysis of Kentucky bluegrass. p. 155. In E.C. Roberts (ed.) Proceedings of the second international turfgrass research conference. Am. Soc. Agron. and Crop Sci Soc. Am., Madison, WI. Halvorson, A.D., and A.L. Black. 1985. Long-te rm dryland crop responses to residual phosphorus fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:928. Hanlon, E.A., J. G. Gonsalez, J. M. Bartos. 1994. Colormetric so il P determination. P. 17-18. In IFAS extension soil testi ng laboratory chemical procedures a nd training manual. Fla. Coop. Ext. Ser. Cir. 812. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Hartt, C.E. 1955. The phosphorus nutrition of sugar cane. Hawaiian Planterss Record. LV(1):33. Havelin J.L., J.D. Beaton, S. L. Tisdale and W. L. Nelson. 1999. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 6th edition. p. 164. Hillard, J.B., V.A. Haby, and F.M. Hons. 1992. Annual ryegrass response to limestone and phosphorus on an Ultisol. J. Plant Nutr. 15:1253. Hossner, L.R., J.A. Freeouf, and B.L. Fols om. 1973. Solution phosphorus concentration and growth of rice ( Oryza sativa L.) in flooded soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:405.

PAGE 114

114 Hylton, L.O., Jr., A.Ulrich, D.R. Cornelius, a nd K. Okhi. 1965. Phosphorus nutrition of Italian ryegrass relative to growth, mo isture content, and mineral constituents. Agron. J. 11:505. Johnson P.G., R.T. Koenig and K.L. Kopp. 2003. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium responses and requirement in calcareous sand greens. Agron. J. 95:679. Jones, J.B, and H.V. Eck. 1973. Plant analysis as an aid in fertilizating corn and grain sorghum. p. 349. In Leo M. Walsh and James D. Beaton (ed.) So il testing and plant analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI. Jones, M.B., L.M. Freitas, and k.H. de Mohrdi eck. 1970. Differential resp onse of some coolseason grasses to N, P, and lime. IRI Res. Inst. Bull. no. 37, 24p. Jones, J.R., Jr. 1980. Turf analysis Golf Course Manage. 48(1):29. Jordan, C.W., C.W. Evans, and R. D. Rouse. 1966. Coastal bermudagrass response to application of P and K as related to P and K levels in the soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30: 477. Juska, F.V. 1959. Response of Meyer zoysia to lime and fertilizer treatments. Agron. J. 51:81. Juska, F.V., A.A. Hanson, and C.J. Erickson. 196 5. Effect of phosphorus and other treatments on the development of red fescue, Merion, and common Kentucky bluegrass. Agron. J. 57:75. Kamprath, E.J. 1964. Optimum soil fertility leve ls for corn and soybeans. Plant Food Rev. 10(3):4. Kamprath, E.J. (Ed.). 1980. The role of phosphorus in agriculture. Am. Soc. of Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. of Am., Soil Sci. So c. of Am., Madison, WI. Knudsen, D. and D.Beegle. 1988. Recommended phosphorus tests. p 12. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. Bull. No. 499. ND Agric. Exp. Sta., ND State Univ., Fargo, ND. Kuo, S. 1993. Effect of lime and phosphate on the growth of annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass in two acid s ils. Soil. Sci. 156:94. Lindsay W.L. 1979. Chemical equilibrium in soils John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA, p449. Lindsay W.L., P.L. Vlek G and S.H. Chien. 1989. Phosphate minerals. In Minerals in soil environment, 2nd edn. Eds J. B. Dixon and S. B. Weed. pp. 1089. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. Lippke H., V.A. Haby and T.L. Provin. 2006. Irriga ted annual ryegrass response to nitrogen and phosphorus on calcareous so il. Agron. J. 98:1333. Lunt, O.R., R.L. Branson, and S.B. Clark. 1965. Re sponse of five grass species to phosphorus on six soils. p. 419. the cattle dung patch. 3. Distri bution and rate of de cay of dung patches and their influence on grazing behavi or. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 27:48.

PAGE 115

115 Matichenkov, V.V., D.V. Calvert and E.A. Bo charnikova. 2001. Effect of Si fertilization on growth and P nutrition of bahiagrass. So il Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 60:30. Matichenkov, V.V., and Y.M. Ammosova. 1996. Eff ect of amorphous silica on soil properties of a sod-podzolic soil. Eurasi an Soil Sci., 28(10):87. Martin, W.E., and J.E. Matocha. 1973. Plant analysis as an aid in the ferti lization of forage crops. p. 393. In L. M. Walsh and J.D. Beaton (ed.) Soil testing and plant analysis. Rev. Ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI. McIntosh, J.L. 1969. Bray and Morgan soil extract ants modified for testing acid soils from different parent material. Agron. J. 61:259. McVey, G.R. 1967. Response of seedlings to various phosphorus sources. p.53. In Agronomy abstracts. ASA, Madison, WI. Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na and NH4 by North Carolina soil testing laboratories. Mimeo. North Carolina Depa rtment of Agriculture, Raleigh, N.C. Mehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1904. Mengel K. and Kirkby E. A. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 4th end. International Potash Institute, Bern, Switzerland, 687 p. Morgan, M. F. 1941. Chemical so il diagnosis by the universal te sting system. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 450. NDSU. 1980. Chemical soil test procedures for the North Ce ntral Regin. No. 499 revised. pp. 14. North Dakota State University. Neller, J.R. 1946. Mobility of phosphates in sa ndy soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 11:227. Norrish K. and Rosser H. 1983. Mineral phosphate In Soils: and Australian viewpoint. p. 335 361. Academic Press, Melbourne, CSIRO/London, UK, Australia. OConnor, G.A., H.A. Elliott, and P. Lu. 2002. Characterizing water treatment residuals phosphorus retention. Soil Crop Sci. Florida Proc. 61:67. Oertli, J.J. 1963. Nutrient disorder s in turfgrass. California Turfgr ass Culture, Vol. 12 (3): 17. Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe, and L. A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ. 939. Ozanne, P.G. 1980. Phosphate nutrition of plants general treatise. In The role of phosphorus in agriculture. EDs. F. E. Khasawneh, E. C. Sa mple and E. J. Kamprath. p. 559. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

PAGE 116

116 Pant, H.K., P. Mislevy, and J.E. Rechcigl. 2004. Effects of phosporus and potassium on forage nutritive value and quantity: environm ental impactions. Agron. J. 96:1299. Parker, N.T., and W.E. Larson. 1962. Nitrification as affected by temperature and moisture content of mulched soils. Soil Sci. Sco. Am. Proc. 26:238. Pautler, M.C., and J.T. Sims. 2000. Relations hips between soil test phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, and phosphorus saturation in Delawa re soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:765. Peck, T.R., L.T. Kurtz, and H.L.S. Tandon. 1971. Changes in Bray P-1 soil phosphorus test values resulting from applicati on of phosphorus fertilizer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35: 595. Peck, N.H., G.E. MacDonald, M.T. Vittum, and U.D. Lathwell. 1975. Effects of concentrated superphosphate and potassium chlori de on residual available P, K, and Cl in three depths of soil derived from calcareous gl acial till. Agron. J. 68:504. Raghothama K. G. 1999. Phosphate acquisition. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Mol. Biol. 50: 665 693. Randall, G.W., T.K. Iragavarapu, and S.D. Evan s. 1997. Long-term P and K applications. I. Effect on soil test incline and d ecline rates and critical soil te st levels. J. Prod. Agric. 10:565 571. Rechcigl, J.E., G.G. Payne, A.B. Bottch er, and P.S. Porter. 1992. Reduced phosphorus application on bahiagrass and wa ter quality. Agron. J. 84:463. Rhoads, F.M., R.L. Stanley, Jr., and E.A. Hanl on. 1997. Response of bahiagrass to N, P, and K on an Ultisol in North Florida. Soil Crop Sci. Florida Proc. 56:79 Robinson, D.L., And T.L. Eilers. 1996. Phosphorus and potassium influences on annual ryegrass production. Louisiana Agric. 39(2):10. Ronbinson, G.S., K.K. Moore, and J. Murphy. 1 976. Effects of mowing height and frequency, rolling and phosphate level on the quality of fi ne turf. J. Sports Turf. Res. Inst., 52:77. Rouse, R.D. 1968. Soil test theory and calibra tion for cotton, corn, soybeans and coastal bermudagrass. Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 375. Ruiz, L. 1992. Mobilisation Du phosphore des apatites dans la rhizosphre. Role de lexcretion de protons par les raciness. PhD Thes is, Montpellier II Univerisity, 125 p. Sanchez, P.A. and G. Uehara. 1980. The Role of Phosphorus in Agriculture, p. 480, ASA, Madison, WI. Sartain, J.B. 1992. Phosphorus and Zinc influe nce on bermudagrass growth. Soil Crop Sci. Florida Proc. 51:39.

PAGE 117

117 Sartain, J.B. and A.E., Dudeck. 1982. Yield and nutrient accumulation of Tifway bermudagrass and overseeded ryegrass as influenced by applied nutrients. Agron. J. 74:488. SAS Institute. 1987. SAS users guide: Statistics. 6th ed. SAS, Cary, NC. Sharpley, A.N. 1985. Phosphorus cyc ling in unfertilized a nd fertilized agricultura l soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:905. Skogley, C.R., and C.D. Sawyer 1992. Field research. p. 589-614. I n D.V. Waddington, R.N. Carrow, and R.C. Shearman (ed.) Turfgra ss. Agron. Monogr. 32. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. Shuman, L.M. 2001. Nitrogen and phosphorus loss from greens and fairways: Is there a potential problem? USGA Green Section Record. 39(5):17. Sims, J.T., R.R. Simard, and B.C. Joern. 1998. Phosphorus loss in agricultural drainage: Historical perspective and current research. J. Environ. Qual. 27:277. Smith, F.W. 1975. Tissue testing fo r assessing the phosphorus status of green panic, buffelgrass and setaria. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 15:383. Snyder, G.H., E.O. Burt, and J.M. Davidson. 1980. Nitrogen leaching in Bermudagrass turf: 2. Effect of nitrogen sources and rates. p. 313 In R.W. Sheard, ed. Proc. 4th Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. Guelph, ON, Canada. Snyder, R.H., J.B. Sartain, J.L Cisar, P. Nk edi-Kizza, W.G. Harris, and M.A. Brown. 2000. Investigation of coated sands for use in putting green construction. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 60:72. Sumner, S., W. Wade, J. Selph, J. Southwell, B. Hoge, P. Houge, E. Jennings, P. Miller, and T. Seawright. 1991. Fertilization of established bahiagrass pasture in Florida. Florida Coop. Extension Serv., IFAS, Unvi. Of Florid a, Gainesville. Circular 916. 11pp. Tabatabai M.A., and W. A. Di ck. 1979. Distribution and stability of pyrophosphatase in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 11:655. Templeton, W.C., J.L. Menees, and T. H. Taylor. 1969. Growth of young orchardgrass ( Dactylis glomerata L.) plants in different environments. Agron. J. 61:780. Terman, G.L., P.M. Giordano, and N.W. Chri stensen. 1975. Corn hybrid yield effects on phosphorus, manganese, and Zinc absorption. Agron. J. 67:182. Terman, G.L, J.C. Noggle, and O.P. Engelsta d. 1972. Concentrations of N and P in young corn plants as affected by various growth -limiting factors. Agron. J. 64:384. Thomas, G.W., and D.E. Peaslee. 19 73. Testing soils for phosphorus. p. 115. In L.M. Walsh and J.D. Beaton (ed.). Soil Testing and Plant Anal ysis, Revised Edition. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am., Inc., Madison, WI.

PAGE 118

118 Tiessen, H.J., W.B. Stewart and J.R. Betta ny. 1982. Cultivation effects on the amounts and concentration of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in grassland soils. Agron. J. 74:831. Truog, E. 1930. Determination of the readily available phosphorus of soils. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 22:874. Truog, E., R.J. Goates, C.G. Gerloff, a nd K.C. Berger. 1947. Magnesium-phosphates. In W.H. Pierre and A.G. Norman (ed.) Soil and fer tilizer phosphorus in crop nutrition. Agronomy 4:281 297. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Turner, T.R. 1980. Soil test calibration studies fo r turfgrassses. Ph.D. diss. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park Turner, T.R., E.V. Waddington, and T.L. Wats chke. 1979. The effect of fertility levels on dandelion and crabgrass encroachment of Meri on Kentucky bluegrass. p. 280. In R. B. Taylorson (ed.) Proc. Northeastern Weed Scie nce Soc. Vol. 33, Boston. 3 Jan. Evans Printing Co., Salisbury, MD. Ulrich, A. 1952. Physiological basis for assessi ng the nutritional requirements of plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 3:207-228. Ulrich, A., and F.J. Hills. 1967. Principles and practices of plant analysis. p. 11. In soil testing and plant analysis. Part II. SSSA Spec. Pu bl. Ser. no. 2, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI. Van Diest, A. 1963. Soil test correlation studie s on New Jersey soils: I. Comparison of seven methods for measuring labile inorga nic soil phosphorus. Soil Sci. 96:261. Vicente-Chandler, J., F. Abruna, R. Caro-Costa s, J. Figarella, S. Silva, R.W. Pearson. 1974. Intensive grassland management in the humid tr opics of Puerto Rico. Univ. Puerto Rico AES Bull. 233. 164 p. Watschke T.L., D.V. Waddington, D.J. Wehner, a nd C.L. Forth. 1977. Effect of P, K, and Lime on Growth, Composition, and 32P absorption by Merion Kentucky bluegrass. Agron. J. 69:825 828. Webb, J.R., A.P. Mallarino, and A.M. Blackmer. 1992. Effects of Residual and Annually applied phosphorus on soil test values and yields of corn and soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 5:148. Wedin, W. F. 1974. Fertilization of cool season grasses. p. 95. In D.A. Mays (ed.) Forage fertilization. Am. Soc. of Agron., Madison, WI. Welch, L.F., W.E., Adams, and J.L. Carmon. 19 63. Yield response surface, insoquants, and economic fertilizer optima for coastal Bermudagrass. Agron. J. 55:63. Wolf, A.M. and D.B. Beegle. 1995. Recommend ed soil tests for macronutrients: phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. p. 25. In J. Thomas Sims and A. Wolf (ed.) Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the No rtheastern United States. Northeast Regional Bull. #493. Agric. Exp.Stn., Univ. Delaware, Newark, DE.

PAGE 119

119 Wood, J.R., and R.L. Duble. 1976. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on establishment and maintenance of St. Augustinegrass. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. PR-3368c. Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1969. Long-term fertility requirements of coastal bermudagrass. II. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and lime. Agron. J. 61:251. Woodruff, J.R., and E.J. Kamprath. 1965. Phosphor us absorption maximum as measured by the Langmuir isotherm and its relationship to phosph orus availability. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:148. Zhang, T.Q., A.F. MacKenzie, and B.C. Liang. 1995. Long-term changes in Mehlich-3 extractable P and K in a sandy clay loam soil under continuous corn ( Zea mays L.). Can. J. Soil Sci. 75:361.

PAGE 120

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Min Liu was born in Jingzhou, Hubei Provi nce, China, on December 13, 1978. After receiving his bachelors degree in soil and plant nutrition sc ience from China Agricultural University in 2001, he came to the United States attending the University of Georgia. He received his master's degree in soil fertility with Dr. David E. Kissel working on lime requirement of acid soils. Right after that, he moved to Gainesville as a Ph.D student with Dr. Jerry B. Sartain in 2003. He met his wife, Kehong Ma, during 2003 Ch ristmas vacation in China and married her on April, 26, 2004. Throughout the next 3 years as a graduate student in the Soil and Water Science Department at the University of Florid a, he investigated the phosphorus requirement of St. Augustinegrass. After earning his degree, Min w ould like to continue using his knowledge and skills in fertilizers and soil fertility at either a university or industry position.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019669/00001

Material Information

Title: Phosphorus Requirement of St. Augustinegrass
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019669:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019669/00001

Material Information

Title: Phosphorus Requirement of St. Augustinegrass
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019669:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT OF ST. AUGUSTINEGRASS


By

MIN LIU


















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007





























2007 Min Liu

































To my wife Ma, Kehong, my father, Liu, Dinghong and my mother, He, Wanmei









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I give my sincere thanks and appreciation to the chair of my supervisory committee, Dr.

Jerry Sartain. It is his continuous support, guidance, and encouragement that made this degree

possible. I would also like to thank the other committee members: Dr. Laurie Trenholm for her

expertise in turfgrass, Dr. Grady Miller for his knowledge of turfgrass research methodology, Dr.

Peter Nkedi-Kizza for his suggestion for the leaching data analysis, Dr. Willie Harris for his

knowledge in soil mineralogy, Dr. Rongling Wu for his guidance in Statistics.

Thanks go to the Florida Department of Environment Protection who sponsored this

research project. Special thanks go to lab personnel, Ed Hopwood Jr., Nahid Varshovi, Martin

Sandquist, who helped me throughout my research. Specially, I would like to thank my dear wife,

Kehong Ma, our incoming baby, both sets of parents and family members for their ongoing

support.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TA BLES ............... ........................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

A B S T R A C T ............ ................... ............................................................ 1 1

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... .............................. 13

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ........................................................................ .. ....................... 15

Phosphorus in the Soil-Plant Environm ent.................................... .......................... ......... 15
Phosphorus R actions in Soil ................................................ .............................. 15
O rg anic Soil P ............................................................................ 16
Leached P in Turfgrass Environm ent........................................................... ... .......... 17
M management Practices to Reduce P Leaching ....................................... ............... 18
Conventional Soil and Tissue P Tests ............................................................................. 19
Soil P Extractants ............... ... .... .................................................19
Suitability of Different Extracting Procedures..... .......... .......................................20
Soil P Extracting Procedures and Geographical Regions............................. .............21
T issue e P test ................................................................... ......... .............. 22
Response of Turfgrass to P Fertilizers and Fertilizer Recommendations..............................22
P hosphoru s T oxicity T rial ....................................................................... ..................22
Phosphorus Requirem ents by Turfgrasses.................................... ....................... 23
Critical M minimum Soil P Concentrations ............................................. ............... 25
Effects of P Application on Soil Test P Levels .................................... ............... 27
Critical Tissue P Concentrations .............................................................................. 28
Interaction w ith other N utrients....... ......................................................... ............... 30
Phosphorus and N .......... ........................................ .. .............. ........ 30
Phosphorus and K C a and M g .......................................................................... .... ...31
Phosphorus and Zn .................. .......... ... ............ ............ ... .......... 32
Effect of N, P, K, and their Interactions on Water Use Efficiency...............................32

3 M A TER IA L S A N D M ETH O D S ........................................ .............................................37

G lasshouse H ydroponic Study........ ......... ......... .......... ........................ ................ 37
G lasshouse Soil Study 1 .......................... ......... .. .. .. ...... .. ............39
Glasshouse Soil Study 2 .................................. .. .. ........ .. ............40
G lasshouse Soil Study 3 .......................... ......... .. .. .. ...... .. ............42









4 RESULTS AND D ISCU SSION .................................................. ............................... 46

G lasshouse H ydroponic Study....... ................ ........................................... ...............46
T u rf Q u a lity .......................................................................................................4 6
Tissue P and Root P............................................ ......... .............. .. 46
Tissue Growth Rate and Root Growth Rate ...........................................................47
Critical Tissue P level ........... ...... .... ........ .. ................ ..... ...... 48
Glasshouse Soil Study 1 ................................... .. .. ........ .. ............49
T u rf Q u a lity .......................................................................................................4 9
T op G row th R ate ....................................................... 49
Tissue P Concentration.......................................... 50
The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration ........................................ .....51
Soil T est P ............... ................ ... ....... ........ ......................51
The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations ................................... ....52
P Downward M movement ......... .. ............................................. .......... .... 53
Leached P M ass and Concentration ................................................. .... .. ... 54
G lasshouse Soil Study 2 ................................................................... 55
Turf Quality ................................................................ 55
T op G row th R ate .............................................................................................. 55
T issue P C oncentration............................................... ............... ...... ............... 56
The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration ........................................ .....57
Soil P Tests ........................ ................... .................... ...... ..... .. ... 57
The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations ................................... ....58
P Downward M movement ......... .. ............................................. .......... ... 59
Leached P M ass and Concentration ................................................. .... .. ... 60
G lasshouse Soil Study 3 ................................................................... 6 1
T u rf Q u a lity .......................................................................................................6 1
T op G row th R ate ....................................................... 62
Tissue P Concentration........................................ 62
Critical Minimum Tissue P Concentration ...................... ............ ....... 63
Soil P Tests ......... .... ............. ......... .. ...... .......................63
The Critical Minimum Mehlich-1 P Concentration ...................................... 65
P D ow nw ard M ovem ent........................................... .......................... ............... 65
L reached P M ass and C concentration ........................................ ........... ...............66

5 CONCLUSIONS ...................... ......... .. ... ... ................. 108

G lasshouse H ydroponic Study ........ .. ........ .. ........ .. ............ .... ............ .. 108
Turf Quality in Glasshouse Soil Studies.............................................................. 108
Top Growth Rate in Glasshouse Soil Studies.............................................. 10
Tissue P Concentration and Critical Tissue P Concentration ..................... .............. 109
Soil P Tests and Critical Soil Test P Concentrations......... ............................................ 109
P Downward M movement and Leached P ......... ........................................................... 110

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... ......... ............................................................................. 111

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ....................................................................................................... 120



6










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Common soil test extractants used for available P. ........................................ ................35

2-2 Critical P concentration in some subtropical and tropical grasses (Kamprath and
W atson 19 80) ................................36............................

3-1 Selected chemical properties used in the glasshouse soil study 1, 2, and 3.....................45

4-1 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 1.................... ........ .. .................................... 73

4-2 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-
2006 glasshou se soil study 1.......................................................... .............................. 74

4-3 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 1........................................... ............................. 74

4-4 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2............................................... ............... 84

4-5 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate and soils in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2............................................... ............... 85

4-6 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate and
soils in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2. ........................................... ............... 85

4-7 Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 3.................................. ......................................99

4-8 Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-
2006 glasshou se soil study 3...................................................................... .................. 99

4-9 Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 3.............................................................................. 100









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2 -1 T h e P cy cle in so il........................................................................................................ 3 4

3-1 Glasshouse solution culture P study layout. ........................................... ............... 44

3-2 G lasshouse soil P study 1 layout................. ..................... ................... ............... 44

4-1 Turf quality response to solution P concentration. Turf quality is the mean of five
replications over time after treatments were applied. Means marked by the same
letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's Multiple
R ange T est. ............................................................................... 68

4-2 Tissue P response to solution P concentration and time ..................................................68

4-3 Relationship of solution P and tissue P concentration on day 148. Means marked by
the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's
Multiple Range Test .................... ........ ......... ............ 69

4-4 Relationship of solution P and root P concentration on day 148. Means marked by
the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's
M multiple Range Test ........ .... ........ ........ ....... .... .... .. .... ............ 69

4-5 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to solution P concentration .....................70

4-6 Root growth rate relative to solution P concentration. Means marked by the same
letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's Multiple
R ange T est. ............................................................................... 7 1

4-7 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration.........................72

4-8 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 1.................................... .. .. .. ...... .. ............75

4-9 Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application
rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1. ................................76

4-10 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1. .........................................77

4-11 Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1......78

4-12 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshouse soil study 1............... ..... .... ....................... .. ......79









4-13 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 1............ .......................................... ..... ........ 80

4-14 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 1............ .......................................... ..... ........ 81

4-15 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling
depth in the glasshouse soil study 1..............................................................................82

4-16 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 1............ .......................................... ..... ........ 82

4-17 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 1............ .......................................... ..... ........ 83

4-18 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2 ..................................... ................... ....... ........ ..... 86

4-19 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate
(soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2)....................87

4-20 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate
(soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3)....................87

4-21 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2). ............................88

4-22 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3). ............................89

4-23 Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2
(soil N o 2). ............................................................................... 90

4-24 Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2
(soil N o 3). ................................................................................ 9 1

4-25 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o. 2)...................................... ........................... 92

4-26 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o. 3)...................................... ........................... 93

4-27 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.2). ............................................................................. 94









4-28 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.2). ............................................................................. 95

4-29 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling
depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 2). ........................................ ............... 96

4-30 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling
depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 3). ........................................ ............... 96

4-31 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.2). ............................................................................. 97

4-32 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.2). ............................................................................. 97

4-33 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.3). ............................................................................. 98

4-34 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil N o.3). ............................................................................. 98

4-35 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the
glass ou se soil stu dy 3 ...................................................................... ... .... ......... 10 1

4-36 Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application rate
(soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3. Within columns for
each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according
to D uncan's m multiple range test (0.05)....................................... .......................... 102

4-37 Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3...........................................103

4-38 Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 3...104

4-39 St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshou se soil study 3 ............................................................................... .... .......105

4-40 Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil sampling
depth in the glasshouse soil study 3.............................................................................106

4-41 Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in the
glasshouse soil study 3 .......... .. .................................. ....... ...... .. ....... .... 107

4-42 Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
the glasshouse soil study 3 ............................................. ...................................... 107









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PHOSPHORUS REQUIREMENT OF ST. AUGUSTINEGRASS

By

Min Liu

May 2007

Chair: Jerry B. Sartain
Major: Soil and Water Science

St. Augustinegrass [Stenotaphrum secondatum (Walt.) Kuntze] is widely used for Florida

lawn grass. At present phosphorus (P) fertilization of Florida lawn grasses is based on soil tests

which were designed for agronomic crops in a production culture. Little information exits

relative to the exact P requirement of St. Augustinegrass. The objective of this research was to

determine the critical P requirement of St. Augustinegrass. Four individual studies were

conducted in a glasshouse including one solution culture study and three soil studies. Data

collected in the solution culture study included visual quality rating, top growth rate, tissue P

concentration. From the solution culture study, the critical solution P concentration and critical

minimum tissue P concentration were determined to be 111 ppb and 1.6 g kg-1, respectively.

Data collected in soil studies included visual quality rating, top growth rate, tissue P

concentration, soil test P concentrations, and leachate volume and soluble reactive P

concentration. From the soil studies, the minimum P application rate to achieve the maximum

growth rate was 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1; the critical minimum tissue P concentration were

determined to be 1.8 g kg-1. Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide Strip P, and WEP were highly correlated to

each other and they were also highly correlated to tissue P concentration and top growth rate.

Mehlich-1 was the best soil P extractant for St. Augustinegrass. The critical soil Mehlich-1 P









levels were in the range from 5 to 9 mg kg-1 depending on soil properties. Most of the applied

concentrated superphosphate did not leach below the top 2 cm of soil. Approximately 1% of P

applied leached in the 10 cm of soil profile. Larger quantity and higher concentration of P

leached in the first leaching event. Application of 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 did not result in either a

larger leached P quantity or a higher concentration. Based upon these research findings, 0.31 g

P205 m-2 4-wk-1 is recommended for St. Augustinegrass only if the soil Melich-1 P concentration

is below 10 mg kg-1. Otherwise, no P application would be recommended. Multiple applications

with small quantity each time is suggested and do not apply P fertilizer before a rain event.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In the recent past, more attention has been directed towards phosphorus (P) fertilization of

Florida lawn grasses, because P is recognized as an element of impairment of water bodies and

streams, which is called eutrophicaiton. Eutrophication of surface waters, the proliferation of

aquatic plants, is caused by a surplus of available nutrients (such as P and N). Eutrophication can

cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen in waterways, a situation that can kill fish. Compared with

the other major nutrients, phosphorus (P) is by far the least mobile and available to plants in most

soil conditions. The poor mobility of soil inorganic phosphorus is due to the strong reactivity of

phosphate ions relative to numerous soil components and to the consequent strong retention of

most soil phosphorus onto those components. However, a typical Florida soil is sandy and acidic,

and the potential for P leaching exists. Ballard and Fiskell (1974) reported that most of the sandy

soils of the Southeastern Coastal Plains have a very small retention capacity for water soluble P

against leaching, but that the surface horizons of Spodosols had the lowest retention capacities.

In a lysimeter study, Neller (1946) reported that in 4 months 72.4 cm of rainfall leached more

than 70% of applied superphosphate-P from the surface of 20 cm of a Leon fine sand. Therefore,

P applied to Florida lawn grasses have potential to cause eutrophication if not managed properly.

At present P fertilization of Florida lawn grasses is based on soil tests with were basically

designed for agronomic crops in a production culture. Little information exists relative to the

exact P requirement of Florida lawn grasses and fertilization levels required to produce the

required levels in the soil. The objectives for this study are to identify the critical P tissue P

concentration of the St. Augustinegrass using solution culture techniques; to determine the

minimum P fertilization level on four types of soils (three with low in Mehlich-1 P and one with

medium level of Mehlich-1 P) required to achieve the optimum growth; to select the best soil P









test procedure for recommendation on St. Augustinegrass; and to identify the critical minimum

soil test P level to achieve the optimum growth.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Phosphorus in the Soil-Plant Environment

Phosphorus is a macro nutrient used by plant. The most essential function of P in plants is

in energy storage and transfer. Phosphorus is also an important structural component of nucleic

acids, coenzymes, nucleotides, phosphoproteins, phospholipids, and sugar phosphates. Plant

tissue P concentration ranges between 1 to 5 g kg-1. Plants absorb either H2P04- or HP042-

orthophosphate ions (Havlin et al., 1999). Phosphorus ion concentration in soil solution ranges

between 0.03 and 0.5 mg kg-1 in most soils (Ozanne, 1980; Mengel and Kirkby, 1987;

Raghothama, 1999; Frossard et al., 2000). In general, it is believed that a soil solution P

concentration of 0.2 mg kg-1 is adequate for most crops. Phosphorus exists in the soil solution

primarily in anionic forms and the distribution among various species (H3P04, H2P04-, HP042-

and P043-) in solution is governed by solution pH. In the pH domain of most soils the dominant

orthophosphate ions are H2P04- and HP042-, the latter being the major species at pH above 7.2

(Lindsay, 1979). In order to ensure adequate P availability to plants and limit the environmental

impact of P fertilization, one must thoroughly understand the P-cycle (Figure 2-1) and the

dynamics of P transformations in soils.

Phosphorus Reactions in Soil

Phosphorus ions have a strong tendency to form ion pairs or complex species with several

metal cations, most frequently with Ca and Mg in alkaline soils, and with Fe and Al in acid soils

(Lindsay, 1979). Ruiz (1992) reported that 9 and 20% of soluble P occurred as Mg-P and Ca-P

complexes for a hydroxyapatite in equilibrium with a simplified nutrient solution (NH4N03

2 mM, KNO3 3.5 mM, and MgSO4 0.5 mM) at pH values of 7 and 8.5, respectively. Phosphorus

ions also readily precipitate with metal cations to form a range of P minerals in case of external









concentrations. In acidic conditions P ions will precipitate as Fe and Al phosphates such as

strengite, vivianite, variscite and various minerals of the plumbogummite group (Norrish and

Rosser, 1983; Lindsay et al., 1989). With pH increasing to neutral or alkaline conditions, P ions

will precipitate as Ca phosphates such as octacalcium or dicalcium phosphates, hydroxylapatite

and eventually least soluble apatites (Lindsay et al., 1989). P availability in most soils is at a

maximum near pH 6.5.

Many soil physical and chemical properties influence the P solubility and adsorption

reactions in soils. Consequently, these soil properties also affect solution P concentration, P

availability to plants, and recovery of P fertilizer by crops. Sanchez and Uehara (1980) reported

the influence of clay mineralogy on P adsorption. For three soil orders with >70% clay content,

they found that the P adsorption occurred in the order: Mollisol soils composed mainly of

montmorillonite < Oxisoil soils containing some Fe/Al oxides < the Andept soils composed

principally of Fe/Al oxides and other minerals. Soils containing large quantities of clay will fix

more P than soils with low clay content. Coleman et al. (1960) reported a strong positive linear

relationship between exchangeable Al and P adsorption.

Organic Soil P

Organic soil P represents about 50% of the total P in soil and varies between 15 and 80%

in most soils (Havlin et al., 1999). Havlin et al. (1999) also reported that soil organic P decreases

with depth and the distribution with depth varies among soils. The average C/N/P/S ratio in soils

is 140:10:1.3:1.3 (Havlin et al., 1999). Many of the organic P compounds in soils have not been

characterized. Most organic P compounds are esters of orthophosphoric acid and have been

identified primarily as inositol phosphates with approximate proportion of 10-50%,

Phospholipids with proportion of 1-5% and nucleic acids with proportion of 0.2-2.5% (Havlin et

al., 1999). In general, P mineralization is similar to N. Dormaar (1972) reported that organic P









content decreases with crop growth and increases again after harvest, which suggests P

mineralization and immobilization. Tiessen et al. (1982) reported that organic P decreased an

average of 21% after 60 and 70 years of cultivation. Sharpley (1985) reported that with an

increase of total organic P content, the organic P mineralization rate increased. Tabatabai and

Dick (1979) found that P mineralization increases with increasing total organic C. The C/P ratio

of the decomposing residues regulates the predominance of P mineralization over immobilization

as suggested by the following guidelines. Net mineralization of organic P occurs in case the C/P

ratio is less than 200 and net immobilization of inorganic P would occur for a >300 C/P ratio.

Leached P in Turfgrass Environment

Phosphorus is an essential macronutrient required by turfgrass for proper growth and

function. Accordingly, P is often included in fertilizer regime used to maintain aesthetic lawns.

Although P enters into many inorganic forms in natural setting, which renders it sparingly

soluble by precipitation and adsorption in most cases and not prone to leaching, a typical Florida

soil is sandy and acidic, and the potential for P leaching exists. Many of Florida's soils have low

P-retention capacities, which allow significant P leaching. Additionally, shallow groundwater

intercepted by drains allows leached P to join surface water bodies. From 20 to 80% of P and

other fertilizers which were applied to Florida sandy soil may be leached (Champbell et al., 1985;

Sims et al., 1998). Shuman (2001) investigated P leaching from a simulated USGA putting green

in an environmentally controlled greenhouse and reported 27% of applied P was lost via leaching.

Studies addressing N leaching from turfgrass environment are quite extensive (Snyder et

al., 1980; Broschat, 1995; Erickson et al., 2001). Relatively few studies have addressed the P

leaching under turfgrass environment. Erickson et al. (2005) examined fertilizer P leaching loss

from contrasting residential landscape models (St. Augustinegrass vs. a mixed-species landscape)

established on a sandy soil. They reported that during the 45 month study, cumulative mean P









leached was 23 kg ha-1 from approximate 1400 kg ha-1 application on the St. Augustinegrass

model. Leaching losses were high during establishment and following intense precipitation.

Leaching losses of P were high enough to raise concern over ecological impacts on neighboring

hydrologically linked systems. Chung et al. (1999) evaluated the influence of a number of

different P sources in a glasshouse study simulating the USGA putting green root-zone mixes on

bermuda (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. C. transvaalensis Burtt Davy) growth, plant uptake and

leaching characteristics. They reported differences in P leaching characteristics among the P

sources, with monopotassium phosphate contributing the largest quantity of P to the leachate,

accounting for approximately 28% P applied, and concentrated superphosphate (CSP) the least,

accounting for 13% of P applied. Brown and Sartain (1999) studied the P retention in United

States Golf Association Greens by looking at the influence of sand type (clay coated vs.

uncoated), amendment sources (peat and iron humate), and P fertilizer materials (MKP, 0-20-20,

and CSP). They reported that more P leached during establishment. Coated sand retained more

Mehlich-1 extractable P, which resulted in more P uptake and less P leaching. Iron humate

reduced leachate P and experiment units receiving CSP leached least P. Snyder et al. (2000)

investigated coated sands for use in putting green construction and concluded that naturally-

coated sand retained more P than uncoated and artificially-coated sand with approximately 1%

leached for naturally-coated sand.

Management Practices to Reduce P Leaching

Different management practices have been proposed to minimize P leaching in sandy soils.

In recent years, water treatment residuals have been studied extensively to improve the P holding

capacity of sandy soils. O'Connor et al. (2002) evaluated WRTs P retention capacities and found

that all three WRTs tested could reduce P solubility by either adsorption, precipitation, or both

mechanisms and the Al-WTR had an especially large P-sorption capacity of at least 5000 mg P









kg1. Decreasing P fertilizer rates or application of calcite or dolomitic limestone to increase soil

adsorption capacity are the traditional ways for reducing P leaching (Sims et al., 1998). However,

both procedures may lead to insufficient P availability to plants because liming promotes

transformation of plant-available P into unavailable forms (Lindsay, 1979). Silicon fertilizers

have a high adsorption capacity and positively influence soil physical properties. As a result of P

adsorption onto a surface of Si fertilizer, P leaching is reduced. At the same time, Si fertilizers

can induce transformation of slightly soluble phosphates into plant available forms (Matichkov

and Ammosova, 1996). Therefore, Si fertilizers can improve P nutrition in plants and keep P in

the upper soil layers. Matichenkov et al. (2001) found that Si-rich substances or Si fertilizers

increased bahiagrass biomass and reduced P leaching by 40 to 70%.


Conventional Soil and Tissue P Tests

Soil P Extractants

Most soil P extractants were developed to estimate the capacity of the soil to supply P.

They were designed to extract some fraction of the labile P and thus provide an index of the

availability of P to plants over the growing season. Soil P test extractants can be placed into

various categories related to the chemical nature of the extracting solutions. A list of the

commonly used soil test extractants is given in Table 2-1.

Extractants Troug and Mehlich-I contain dilute concentrations of strong acids normally

with a pH of 2 to 3. This provides sufficient H ion activity to dissolve the Ca-P and some of the

Al-P and Fe-P as well. Mehlich III, Bray I and Bray II contain both diluted strong acids and a

completing agent, fluoride ion. Fluoride ions are very effective in completing Al ions from Al-P

and also precipitate Ca ions to release P form Ca-P into solution. With the double effects of P









extraction mechanism Mehlich-III, Bray-I and II tend to extract more P from the same soils than

Mehlich-I and Troug would. On coarse textured Georgia Coastal Plain soils, Gascho et al. (1990)

found that Mehlich-III extracts about 1.46 times more P than Mehlich-I. Also, on finer textured

soils Mehlich-III extractant removes about 1.6 times more P than Mehlich-I. Olsen-P extractant

is so called buffered alkaline solution containing 0.5N NaHCO3 with pH 8.5, which originally

was developed for calcareous soils. The HC03- is quite effective in replacing adsorbed P.

Because of high pH Olsen-P extractant is also very effective in extracting P from Al-P and Fe-P

due to the hydrolysis of the Al and Fe. The extractant citric acid, Egner and Morgan, consist of

diluted weak acids, which were developed based upon the idea of mimicking the root

environment. The organic anions associated with the weak acids tend to affect the extraction in

two ways. The organic anions form complexes with Ca, Al or Fe ions to release P and can also

replace adsorbed P and prevent its readsorption. Modified Morgan extractant was modified from

Morgan extractant by substituting NH4 for Na and adding NH4F to provide a 0.03 N F solution.

NH4 is more effective in removing K from clay soils than is Na. NH4F would give a measure of a

greater portion of P reserve by forming Al-F or Fe-F complexes. FeO strip P test is the so-called

chemical sink-based test, which has been proposed to rely on P sorption-desorption reactions

instead of dissolving soil P with chemicals. It extracts P using Fe-oxide impregnated filter paper

strips or discs (Chardon et al, 1996).

Suitability of Different Extracting Procedures

The suitability of the extracting methods can be evaluated by correlating the P extracted

with plant growth parameters such as yield, P uptake and P concentration (Fitts and Nelson,

1956). The Olsen and Bray I methods are quite satisfactory across a wide range of soil conditions

and the Mehlich I appeared to be very good when used for soils with a pH of 7 or less (Fitts,

1956). The soil testing laboratory at the University of Florida is currently using the Mehlich-I









procedure. The Egner method was as effective as Olsen and Bray-I methods while the Morgan

method is least satisfactory across a wide range of soils (Van Diest, 1963). In a study that related

turfgrass growth response to extractable soil P concentration in sand greens, Guillard and Dest

(2003) reported that extractable P was highly correlated among Mehlich-I, Bray-I and modified-

Morgan procedures with r value of around 0.9. Mehlich-I and Bray-I extractable P extracted four

to six times more P than modified Morgan. Extractable P with Bray-I P was 1.3 times greater

than Mehlich-I extractable P. A better correlation was observed between Bray P and Mehlich-I P

than with modified Morgan P.

Soil P Extracting Procedures and Geographical Regions

The compounds that control the availability of P differ with soil conditions in different

geographical regions of the country and different extractants have been developed and used for

these situations. For example, P chemistry of soils in the southeast primarily involves factors

affecting the availability of aluminum and iron phosphates. Therefore, most commonly used

extractants in these regions are the Mehlich I and the Mehlich III. The Morgan extractant, which

is used by some states in the northeast and Pacific northwest and contains acetic acid, is a

buffered weak acid extractant. Both of the Mehlich solutions extract more P from soils than the

Morgan extractant. The Mehlich III extractant removes about 10 times more P from soils than

the weak acid-based Morgan extractant (Wolf and Beegle, 1995). The extractant used

predominantly in the Midwest is the Bray-Kurtz, commonly referred to as Bray I. The extraction

of P by this procedure is based upon the solubilization effect of the H on soil P and the ability of

the F to lower the activity of Al and to a lesser extent that of Ca and Fe by forming complexes in

the extraction system. Clay soils with moderately high base saturation or silty clay loam soils

that are calcareous or have a very high base saturation will lessen the ability of the extractant to

solubilize P. Consequently, the method should normally be limited to soils with pHw (soil pH









determined in water) values less than 6.8 when the texture is silty clay loam or finer. Calcareous

soils, or high pH, fine textured soils may be tested by this method provided the soil:solution ratio

is changed from 1:10 to 1:50. However, it should be noted that the Olsen extractant is used most

extensively for calcareous soils (Anonymous, 1992, Knudsen and Beegle, 1988). The Olsen

extractant is quite effective for soils with medium to high CEC, high percent base saturation,

moderate to high amounts of calcium phosphates, and containing free calcium carbonates

(Thomas and Peaslee, 1973). It is used extensively in states such as Arizona, California, Utah,

Wyoming, and Oregon. Research also indicates that the procedure works reasonably well on

moderately acid soils. However, not many laboratories testing moderately acid soils use the

procedure. The fact that it is not used more widely on these soils is probably due to the lack of

correlation data.

Tissue P test

Plant tissue analysis is an indicator of attaining or maintaining maximum yield or quality.

Therefore, the good correlation between the concentration of P in plant tissue and in the soil as

well as between the concentration in plant tissue and yield, plant growth or quality normally

exists. Ballard and Pritchett (1975) reported that the relationship between the concentrations of P

extracted from the soil by different extractants correlated highly with the concentration of P in

the tissue of pine seedlings.

Response of Turfgrass to P Fertilizers and Fertilizer Recommendations

Phosphorus Toxicity Trial

Accumulations ofP in soils growing turf, citrus, vegetable crops and field crops are

common when heavy application of fertilizers containing a high proportion of P are usually

applied frequently. Since only a portion of P added in fertilizers is recovered by plants, the

continuous use of P fertilizers on turfgrass would be expected to raise soil P level well above the









optimum level. In most states, soils contain substantial portion of clay and P leaches very little.

Scientists question whether or not these high levels are detrimental to plant growth. Juska et al.

(1965) looked at the effects of P on the development of Red Fescue (Festuca rubra ssp.

commutata), Merion, and Common Kentucky Bluegrass (Poapratensis). The P application rates

were: 0, 244, 488, 734, 978, 1222, 1466 and 1710 kg ha-1. The largest increase in weight of both

tops and roots of Merion and common Kentucky bluegrass resulted from the first increment of P.

Differences among remaining increments were small. It is conceivable that P application as high

as 1710 kg ha-1 did not depress top growth and P application rate of 244 kg ha-l supplied

sufficient P already. These results suggest that grasses can tolerate very high levels of P and may

require low rate of P application for optimum growth.

Phosphorus Requirements by Turfgrasses

Grasses exhibit marked species difference in response to P supply. Robinson et al. (1976)

found no influence of P applications to a New Zealand browntop-New Zealand chewings fescue

(Festuca rubra var. commutate) lawn mixture for verdure, root weights, or tiller numbers. Jones

et al. (1970) grew Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), hardinggrass (Phalaris tuberosa var.

stenoptera ), tall fescue (Festuca arundinace), orchardgrass (Dactylus glomerata), and tall

oatgrass (Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) P. Beauv.) with 0, 100, 200, 300, and 400 kg P ha-l. Tall

fescue, ryegrass, and tall oatgrass produced the highest yields without P, but tall fescue and

ryegrass also showed the greatest response to P fertilization. Christians et al. (1979) investigated

the N, P and K effects on quality and growth of Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass

(Agrostispalustris) using solution culture. No response to P levels in solution was observed,

which indicated that the requirements of these two species for P, under the conditions established,

were met at or below the lowest P level of 2 mg L-1 in solution. Fry et al. (1989) conducted a

field study over 8 years on a sand medium to determine creeping bentgrass quality response to P.









They found that creeping bentgrass fertilized at 60 or 132 kg P ha-1 yr- was similar in quality. In

calcareous sand greens Johnson et al. (2003) found that creeping bentgrass plots receiving 27.5

kg P ha-1 yr- or higher rates attained the maximum quality. Allen et al. (1977) established

Pensacola bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) on a Lexington silt loam that contained 34 mg kg-1 P

in the surface 1.5 m soil. For 5 years they applied annually 224, 336 and 448 kg N ha-1; 112, 224

and 336 kg P205 ha-1; and 112, 224 and 336 kg K20 ha-1 in a complete factorial experiment.

Rates of 224 and 336 kg P205 ha-1 accounted for increases of only 1% and 2% forage above the

49 kg P205 ha-1 level, respectively. Maximum yield response of bahiagrass to P fertilizer in south

Florida occurred on Arenic Haplaquods at 24 kg P ha-1 (Rechcigl et al., 1992). Another study on

the bahiagrass fertility requirement in south Florida on soils with a spodic horizon called forl3

kg P ha-1, and only if>1 12kg N ha-1 is applied. If less than 60 kg N ha-1 is applied, no P is

recommended (Sumner et al., 1991). Turner (1980) found little influence of P on the growth of

perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Kentucky bluegrass, or creeping red fescue, despite low

soil P levels.

Robinson and Eilers (1996) obtained 90% of maximum ryegrass dry matter yield with 45

to 50 kg P ha-1 on a Tangi silt loam (Typic Fragiudult) at pH 6. Higher rates of P had little

influence on yield but significantly increased P removed by the crop. This result was consistent

with the study of irrigated annual ryegrass responses to N and P on calcareous soil by Lippke et

al. (2006), in which they concluded that increments of growth responses to levels of fertilizer

about 39 kg applied P ha-1 were relatively small. Watschke et al. (1977) looked at the effect of P

application of 0, 85, 170, 340, and 680 kg P ha-1 on soil test and tissue analyses P. Phosphorus

fertilization increased the Bray extractable P from 13 to 137 mg kg-1. Treatments P1, through P5

gave P concentration of 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, and 4.4 g kg-1, respectively, with all differences being









significant except 3.5 and 3.6 g kg-1. When soil test P was related to yield response, the

correlation was slightly lower than those found for tissue P and yield, which was in agreement

with Hall and Miller (1974) who also found that tissue P and yield were better correlated than

soil test P and yield. Watschke et al. (1977) also investigated the zone of maximum root

absorption for 'Merion' Kentucky bluegrass as affected by P application. Results indicated that P

enhanced rooting, and the magnitude of absorption from the 1.3-cm depth exemplified the need

for P near the soil surface for optimum turf establishment. Juska (1959) reported that adequate P

was necessary for rapid establishment of zoysiagrass (Zoysia spp) on a soil extremely low in P.

St. Augustinegrass growth was affected by P most during the first 8 weeks of establishment

(Wood and Duble, 1976). On P-deficient soils, McVey (1967) reported a Kentucky bluegrass

seedling growth response to extremely low rates of P applications. Long-term benefits from P

application to the seedbed have also been observed by Turner et al. (1979). He reported that 6

years after establishment, spring greening was enhanced by the original seedbed P applications.

Critical Minimum Soil P Concentrations

The critical soil test level implies the P level above which little or no response to fertilizer

P is obtained. Woodhouse (1969) and Jordan et al. (1966) reported that about 25 mg kg-1 of

Mehlich-1 extracted soil P is adequate for coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in North

Carolina and Alabama. Lunt et al. (1965) indicated that about 14 mg kg-1 of Olsen extractable P

was adequate for common bermudagrass harvested frequently as turfgrass; Bruce and Bruce

(1972) indicated that 17.5 mg kg-1 of P extractable with 0.005 M H2SO4 was necessary for high

production of various tropical grasses. Vicente-Chandler et al. (1974) concluded that tropical

species such as guineagrass (Urochloa maxima), napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum), and

stargrass (Cynodonplectostachyus) require fertilization with at least 73 kg P ha-1 annually when

cut every 40 to 60 days. Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) response to applied P









ranged from 8300 to 8600 kg ha-1 as extractable soil P increased from 3 to 55 mg kg-1 (Hillard et

al., 1992). Christians et al. (1981) did not find significant quality responses for creeping

bentgrass on calcareous sand greens when initial Bray-1 extractable P concentrations were 12 mg

kg-1. Dest and Guillard (1987) reported that on a loam soil with modified Morgan extractable P

at 10.7 mg kg-1, quality responses of creeping bentgrass were not affected by P fertilization. Fry

et al. (1989) reported that creeping bentgrass quality improved with addition of P on sand-based

media putting greens only when extractable P was <5 mg kg-1. Kuo (1993) reported that Olsen-

extractable P concentrations at 95% of maximum clipping yields was from 2.8 to 4.8 mg kg-1 for

the growth of annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass (Agrosti stolonifera L.). In calcareous

sand greens the critical Olsen-P level of 3.0 mg kg-1 was reported for the growth of creeping

bentgrass (Johnson et al., 2003). For Pensacola bahiagrass on a virgin Clarendon loamy sand the

critical Mehlich-1 P concentration was 3 mg kg-1, which corresponded to 56 kg P205 ha-1

application (Burton et al., 1997). To locate the critical soil P concentration the plant growth rate

or turf quality are most commonly used to relate to soil test levels. Guillard and Dest (2003) used

a number of plant response variables including shoot counts, thatch thickness, relative clipping

yields, quality ratings, P deficiency ratings, tissue P concentrations, and root weights, which

resulted in different soil critical P concentrations. Selection of a particular critical extractable soil

P concentration would depend on the quality or growth variable that is the most important to the

individual manager. Among the three extractants, modified Morgan, Bray I and Mehlich I,

critical extractable P concentrations for creeping bentgrass were lowest for the modified Morgan

extractant (1.4 to 12.0 mg kg-1) and greatest for the Mehlich I extractant (14.1 to 63.6 mg kg-1).

The critical values are generally influenced by soil properties, such as texture and

temperature. A lower amount of P is generally extracted from a clayey soil than from a sandy









soil (Woodruff and Kamprath, 1965). Rouse (1968) found that an application of 5 to 6 kg P ha-1

was required to raise Mehlich-I extractable P 1 kg ha-1 with sandy loam to clay loam textured

Ultisols, but on clayey textured soils 12 kg P ha-1 were required to change the soil test values 1

kg ha-1. Finn and Mack (1964) showed that both soil moisture and soil temperature affected P

response of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata). Yields were higher at 75 than at 25% of the

moisture-holding capacity at each level of P applied. Under 75% moisture-holding capacity level,

at a 10 C soil temperature, maximum yield of the S-143 cultivar occurred with 35 mg kg-1 of

applied P; at 20 OC, yields were still increasing with 70 mg kg1.

Effects of P Application on Soil Test P Levels

When soil test P is below the critical level, the rate of fertilizer P recommended is

sufficient to supply adequate P for the plant and to result in some buildup of available soil P

when applied at the rate for several years. In trying to predict how much fertilizer P is needed to

change the soil test P, information is needed about the P adsorption characteristic of the soil,

which is related to soil texture, as well as the initial level of soil test P. In a Honeoye fine sandy

loam soil, Peck et al. (1975) found that continuous applications of concentrated superphosphate

over 10 yr for a total of 248 kg P ha1 increased soil test P (Morgan's method) from 10 to 186 kg

P ha 1. An application of 4 kg P ha-1 was required to raise the Bray I extractable P of medium-

textured Mollisols and Alfisols 1 kg ha-1 (Peck et al., 1971). Single applications of 22, 45, 90,

and 180 kg P ha1 raised the levels of Olsen P by 1, 2, 4, and 8 mg P kg 1 soil, respectively, on a

glacial till soil after 16 yr of P fertilization (Halvorson and Black, 1985) In a 29-yr study on

Ultisols in Alabama, Cope (1981) found that 24 and 20 kg P ha1 raised Mehlich-1 soil test P by

1 mg P kg 1 when P was applied at rates of 31 and 54 kg P ha1 yr respectively. For a corn-

soybean rotation on a Portsmouth fine sandy loam, annual rates of 19, 38, and 57 kg P ha-1

increased the soil test levels 7, 20 and 40 mg kg-1 P over a 7-year period (Kamprath, 1964). After









14 yr of annual application of P fertilizer in a Webster fine-loamy and a Canisteo fine-loamy soil

located in north central Iowa, Webb et al. (1992) reported that annual P additions required to

maintain Bray-1 P values increased from 16.8 to more than 33.6 kg P ha1 with increases in the

initial Bray-1 P value. In a Chicot sandy loam soil, an application of 14 kg P ha of net added

inorganic fertilizer P was required to increase soil Mehlich-3 P by 1.0 mg P kg 1 (Zhang et al.,

1995). Cox (1994) showed that increases in Mehlich-3 with each unit of applied P were 0.7 units

for soils with 10% clay, and it decreased exponentially to 0.2 units for soils with >50% clay.

Results obtained from a study by Randall et al. (1997) in Minnesota, showed that every 1 mg P

kg 1 increase in Bray-1 extractable P requires 35 and 20 kg P ha1 in a Webster clay loam soil

and 58 and 26 kg P ha 1 in a Aastad clay loam soil when fertilizer P was added at 24 and 49 kg P

ha1, respectively. Many studies have shown that the amount of fertilizer P required for each unit

increase of soil test P level varies with soil texture, soil test method employed, as well as the rate

of fertilizer P applied.

Critical Tissue P Concentrations

The critical tissue P concentration is normally regarded as the minimum concentration

associated with near maximum yield. The nutrient concentration in the plant at 90% of maximum

growth has often been termed the critical concentration (Ulrich and Hills, 1967). It could be

statistically determined from the shape of the yield response curve in relation to concentration of

P in the selected tissue. Knowledge of the minimum P concentrations for plant growth has been

used as a means to diagnose the P status of many plants (Hartt, 1955; Ulrich, 1952). Jones and

Eck (1973) reported that the critical concentration of P in the sweet corn leaf tissue was from

0.27 to 0.29% and the corresponding equilibrium soil solution P concentration was about 0.12 to

0.13 mg L-. A similar highly positive linear correlation between percent P in the rice tissue and









soil solution P concentration was reported by Hossner et al. (1973). The critical tissue P

concentration of 0.25% corresponds to the soil solution P of 0.1 mg L1.

Oertli (1963) reported that healthy bluegrass (Poa spp) and bermudagrass (Cynodon spp)

contain 1.2 to 2.4 g kg-1 P, respectively. Tissue P-deficiency levels were found to be 0.5 to 0.8 g

kg- respectively, for bluegrass and bermudagrass. Martin and Matocha (1973) outlined

approximate sufficient ranges for tissue P for cool-season forage grasses. For Kentucky

bluegrass, values 1.8 g kg-1 were considered deficient, from 2.4 to 3.0 g kg-1 were critical, from

2.8 to 3.6 g kg-1 were adequate, and values 4.0 g kg-1 were considered high. For annual and

perennial ryegrass values < 2.8 g kg-1 were deficient, from 2.8 to 3.4 g kg-1 were critical, from

3.6 to 4.4 g kg-1 were adequate, and > 5.0 g kg-1 were high. Jones (1980) suggested that in most

situations concentrations below about 2.0 g kg-1 indicate a deficiency for plant growth while 3.0

to 3.5 g kg-1 is usually necessary for optimum yields. Wedin (1974) reported that P concentration

in cool-season grasses range from about 1.4 to 5.0 g kg-1. Johnson et al (2003) investigated the P

requirement of creeping bentgrass on calcareous sand greens and found that tissue test of 4.0 g

kg-1 was the optimum level for maximum quality. For warm-season grasses, the P concentration

in plant tissue should be logically lower for the optimum yield compared with cool-season

grasses because the higher growth rate dilutes the P concentration in plant tissue. Burton et al.

(1997) reported that phosphorus concentration of the 1993 Pensacola bahiagrass forage receiving

56 kg P205 hal-, above which no significant yield increase occurred, averaged 1.5 g kg-1. When

P205 was increased to 112 kg ha-l, forage P concentration increased to be 1.8 g kg-1. The critical

P concentrations in some subtropical and tropic grasses were shown in Table 2-2 (Kampraph,

1980).









Some factors may modify the critical P concentration of plants such as growth rate

(Terman et al., 1972), plant tissue age (Jones et al., 1970) and cultivar effects (Terman et al.,

1975), thus making the conclusion between tissue P concentration and yield difficult. Therefore,

in many cases, the variability in the P concentration does not allow a high degree of accuracy in

the prediction of the increments of plant growth or yield. Consequently, the critical concentration

range of P in the plant is usually the criterion that is used in differentiating P deficiency from P

sufficiency and the decision to simply apply P or not is usually made.

Interaction with other Nutrients

Phosphorus and N

Increased P absorption by plants is a common consequence of adding N fertilizers (Grunes,

1959). Templeton et al. (1969) conducted a study showing the effects of N on P response of

orchardgrass. At each level of P applied, with increased N rate plant gained increased weight

increased top growth, increased root growth, altered metabolism, and increased solubility of soil

applied among three levels of N applications. In a study on response ofbahiagrass to N, P and K

on an Ultisol in North Florida, Rhoads et al. (1997) found that there were no interactions

between N and P rates with respect to bahiagrass yield. However, there were significant

interactions in 1996 between N and K rates and between P and K rates with respect to bahiagrass

yield. Hylton et al. (1965) reported that for Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam), as the P

supply increased from 0.16 to 0.64 mg per plant, the tissue N03-N concentration decreased from

13.2 g kg-1 with 0.16 mg of P per plant to a low of 7.6 g kg-1 with 0.64 mg. Engelstad and Allen

(1971) found that root yields and root P contents were increased by N fertilizer, with ammonium

being superior to nitrate. The addition of KNO3 to the pellet reduced the P content of the tops.

Sartain and Dudeck (1982) studied the effect of N fertilization on the P uptake of Tifway

bermudagrass and overseeded ryegrass. Tissue P content was significantly reduced by each









increasing N rate on the ryegrass. The reduction in tissue P could possibly be attributed to a

diluted effect caused by greater growth rate. Higher tissue N content was observed for Tifway

bermudagrass by excluding P, which implied a possible nutrient uptake competition between

NO3-N and H2P04-P. Sartain (personal communication) found that bermudagrass growth rate

was reduced each of three years by the application of additional P. A reduction in N uptake was

observed in conjunction with the reduction in growth rate. It was suggested that the competition

effects of the N03-N and H2P04-P anions may have been responsible for the observed reduction

in N uptake and subsequent growth rate. Watschke et al. (1977) reported that clipping yield and

rooting of Merion Kentucky bluegrass (Poapratensis L.) were enhanced by the application of

additional P. In case NH4-N was applied during cool season, NH4-N would be the major N form

available for plant uptake because of reduced nitrification of the applied NH4-N (Parker and

Larson, 1962). The increased growth rate may possibly due to the fact that additional P enhanced

N uptake for the cool season Kentucky bluegrass. Bluegrass tissue P levels were more than

sufficient (3.2 g kg-1) for all treatments, which indicate that the positive growth response to P

was not related physiologically to P. With the exclusion of P fertilization the number of H2P04-P

anions would be reduced and the quantity of NH4-N cations that can be accumulated would also

be reduced, therefore, a yield reduction was expected.

Phosphorus and K, Ca and Mg

Enhanced P utilization due to K applications was observed for stargrass (Cynodon

nlemfuensis Vanderyst var. nlemfuensis) by Pant et al. (2004). The applications of 10 and 93 kg

ha-1 yr1 of P and K, respectively, provided efficient P utilization. Phosphorus mass balance

showed that stargrass removed maximum P (161%) of the applied P by uptake from soils. This

may indicate that the supply of sufficient K appears to be crucial for efficient P utilization by

forages, reducing potential adverse effects of P over-fertilization on water quality. When the









different P:K ratios were related to the total dry matter yield, the application of 10 and 93 kg ha-1

yr-1 of P and K, respectively, achieved almost 90% of the maximum total dry matter yield, which

indicates that application of 10 kg P ha-1 yr- was critical for stargrass to achieve maximum dry

matter yield. Greenwood and Hallsworth (1960) found no direct effect of P on Ca uptake, but

found that earlier and more severe symptoms of Ca deficiency occurred where P levels were high.

Mg has been ascribed the function of P 'carrier' in plants (Truog et al., 1947), based on a

positive correlation between the Mg and P contents of plants or between fertilizer P efficiency

and the supply of available Mg.

Phosphorus and Zn

Phosphorus and Zinc nutrition in plants have often been related. In P deficient plants

additional P promoted plant growth resulting in depressed Zn concentrations in tissue and

possible Zn deficiency conditions. In P sufficient plants additional P increase concentrations to

toxic levels producing necrotic symptoms in old leaves and depressing new growth. Sartain

(1992) investigated the influence of Zn and the interaction of P an Zn on the growth of

bermudagrass. Application of Zn did not influence growth nor Zn uptake rate. Extractable soil

Zn levels over 252 mg kg-1 did not affect bermudagrass growth nor quality. In effect,

bermudagrass can tolerate high levels of soil extractable P and Zn without exhibiting toxicity

effects.

Effect of N, P, K, and their Interactions on Water Use Efficiency

When water resources become limited, it is important for turfgrass manager to use many

different cultural practices to reduce water loss through turfgrass evapotranspiration rate (ET).

Nitrogen application enhanced the ET by promoting the top growth and total leaf area. Ebdon et

al. (1999) investigated the interaction of N, P and K on ET rate of Kentucky bluegrass. The

nature of the interaction between N, P, and K on Kentucky bluegrass water use can only in part









be explained by the interaction effects of N, P and K on shoot growth response. No relationship

between clipping yield and ET rate at high P applications was found. They also discovered that

at N and P levels that are routinely applied (147 kg N and 21.5 kg P ha-1 yr-1 and lower),

increasing K levels minimized Kentucky bluegrass water use.










Plant and animal


Leaching


Figure 2-1. The P cycle in soil.









Table 2-1. Common soil test extractants used for available P.
Soil/solution
Common name Extractant ratio Reference
Troug 0.002N H2S04 buffered at 1:100 Troug (1930)
pH 3 with (NH4)2SO4


Mehlich -I
Mehlich-III


0.05N HC1 + 0.025N H2S04
0.2N CH3COOH + 0.25N NH4N03
+ 0.013N HN03 + 0.015N NH4F
+ 0.001M EDTA


1:4
1:10


Mehlich (1953)
Mehlich (1984)


Bray-I 0.025N HC1 + 0.03N NH4F
Bray-II 0. IN HC1 + 0.03N NH4F
Olsen 0.5N NaHCO3 pH 8.5
Citric acid %1 citric acid
Egner 0.02N Ca lactate + 0.02N HCI
Morgan 0.54N HOAc + 0.7N NaOAc pH 4.8
Modified Morgan 0.54N HOAc + 0.7N NH40Ac
+ 0.03N NH4F pH 4.8
FeO strip 0.02 N CaCl2 + FeO-coated filter
paper strip


1:10
1:17
1:20
1:10
1:20
1:10
1:10

1:40


Bray & Kurtz (1945)
NDSU (1980)
Olsen et al. (1954)
Dyer (1894)
Egner et al, (1960)
Morgan (1941)
McIntosh. (1969)

Chardon et al.
(1996)









Table 2-2. Critical P concentration in some subtropical and tropical g
Critical P
Age or concentration,
Grass identification stage of growth %


Bermudagrass
Midland and common
Bermudagrass
Panicum Maximum, VAR
Trichoglume, cv. Petrie


Kikuyugrass
Pearl millet
Staria spacelata, cv
Nandi


Staria anceps, cv Nandi
Dallisgrass
Pangolagrass

Buffelgrass






Buffelgrass


4-5 weeks 0.20-0.26


4-5 weeks
3-4 leaf
4-5 leaf
6-7 leaf
I.P.F. t (57days)
I.P.F.(45 days)
4-5 weeks
4-leaf
5-leaf
6-leaf
7-leaf
I.P.F.(57 days)
I.P.F.(57 days)
I.P.F.(45 days)
4 weeks
I.P.F.(57 days)
(whole plant tops
inflorescences just
appearing)
youngest expanded
leaves sampled
I.P.F.(39 days)
46 days


0.24-0.28
0.55
0.32
0.15
0.20
0.22
0.16-0.20
0.46
0.36
0.24
0.14
0.21
0.25
0.16
0.12-0.16
0.25
0.16


0.17

0.26
0.30


rasses.


Rhodesgrass, cv Pioneer I.P.F.(57 days) 0.22 Andrew and Robins, 1
Molassesgrass I.P.F.(57 days) 0.18
Johnsongrass boot stage 0.16-0.20 Martin and Matocha, 1
Sorghum-sudangrass 4-5 weeks 0.14-0.20
and sudangrass
t I.P.F. means immediate preflowering stage of growth. Most analyses apply to whole plants
unless otherwise specified.


971

973


Reference
Martin and Matocha, 1973


Smith, 1975


Andrew and Robins, 1971

Martin and Matocha, 1973
Smith, 1975



Andrew and Robins, 1971


Martin and Matocha, 1973
Andrew and Robins, 1971
Smith, 1975




Christie and Moorby, 1975









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research consisted of one glasshouse hydroponic study and three glasshouse soil studies.

Glasshouse Hydroponic Study

A glasshouse hydroponic study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. St. Augustinegrass var. Floratam was chosen as the

testing cultivar based on its greatest use among all St. Augustinegrass cultivars. Six levels of P

(0, 1.24, 6.2, 31, 155 and 775 mg m-3) with five replicates were used to test for P response.

Certified sod collected from the G.C. Horn Turfgrass Field Laboratory at the University of

Florida in Gainesville was washed to remove soil from the root system. Sod was cut to a size of

15cm x 30cm rectangle and transferred to the hydroponics system on June 27, 2004.

Nalgene tubs (31cm x 16cm x 12cm) were used as the hydroponic containers. The outside

surfaces of the containers were painted with black latex paint first and white afterwards to

prevent light penetration. A 10-mm inner diameter polynvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was used to

make a rectangle frame (15cm x 30cm). The frame was attached with a piece of poly-hardware

cloth and fitted on the covers of opening of the container to form a grass bedding surface. Since

the frame was not fixed to the container, the frame/screen with grass could be removed to change

solution or check solution pH periodically. The grass pieces (15cm x 30cm) were placed on the

bedding surfaces. Nutrient solution level in the container was adjusted to touch the screen to

induce root growth. Roots penetrated the screen and grew into the solution after about three

weeks. Then the solution volume was reduced to approximately 1.5 cm below the frame to create

an air zone between grass stolons and solution surface to avoid water damage and algae growth

on the grass. An air compressor was used to supply air to the nutrient solution. A 5-m long with

7-mm inside diameter tygon tubing was fitted to the outlet of the air compressor at one end and









the other end was plugged. Along the 5-m plastic tube the containers were laid out on both sides

with 15 tubs on each side. Another tube of the same diameter, but shorter length was used for

each solution tub with one end fitting with a needle and the other end going to the solution. The

needle penetrated the main tube and through the short tube air was blown into each solution.

Smaller size of needles was used at the positions closer to the air compressor and larger sizes of

needles for the far positions. By doing this, the air pressure due to distance difference between

each tub and air compressor was roughly regulated and each solution achieved approximately the

same air bubbling speed. Figure 3-1 shows the experiment layout.

Nutrient solution was slightly modified from what was reported by Breeze et al. (1984) by

replacing Sequestrene Fe 138 with Sequestrene Fe 330, eliminating CaSO4 and doubling the

concentrations of nutrients they used. The nutrient solution was changed every other day to

regulate pH, maintain nutrient concentrations and minimize salt accumulation. The P treatments

were applied on October 17, 2004 at which time the turfgrass was exhibiting P deficiency. The

study was terminated on March 14, 2005. The treatments were arranged in a randomized

complete block design. Computer controlled overhead exhaust fans, a wall-length humidifier,

and an automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively constant conditions in the

glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 220C with a range of 18C to

300C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%.

Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm approximately monthly, once the dry matter production

reached harvestable quantities, for a total of seven collections. Clippings were dried at 700C for

48 h, and weighed. Root materials were clipped to 4 cm on September 8, 2004 and November

27, 2004. At root collection time the root density in the container was high. Root materials were

washed with distilled water to remove the potentially adsorbed salts, dried at 700C for 72 h and









weighed. The dry tissue and root samples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were

analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric

method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated biweekly using a scale of 1 to 9

where 1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior quality (Skogley and Sawyer,

1992).

Statistical analysis (analysis of variance) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Mean

separation was done using Duncan's Multiple Range test at a 0.05 significant level. The

relationship between turfgrass tissue growth rate and solution P and tissue P were determined

using linear plateau analysis (PROC NLIN).

Glasshouse Soil Study 1

With the information of the critical minimum tissue P required by St. Augustinegrass from

the hydroponic study, a study to determine the critical minimum soil test P concentration was

initiated. This glasshouse soil study was conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the University

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. The soil chosen in this study was collected from the A horizon

of a soil mapped as "Pomona sand". It contained very low levels of Mehlich-1 P (2 mg P kg-1).

The Pomona series is in the family of Sandy, Siliceous, Hyperthermic Ultic Alaquods. Selected

chemical properties for this soil (soil No. 1) are shown in Table 3-1. Nalgene tubs (53cm x 38cm

x 12cm) were used as the growth container. Outside surfaces of the containers were painted with

white latex paint first and black afterwards to prevent light penetration. Certified sod with high

initial tissue P concentration was washed to remove soil, then cut to a size of 53cm x 38cm

rectangle and transferred to the growth container on May 8, 2005.

After P deficiency was induced, P205 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four

weeks were applied initially on April 12, 2006 and reapplied 3 times during the 16-week growth

period. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5 replications for









each treatment. Computer controlled overhead exhaust fans, a wall-length humidifier, and an

automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively constant conditions in the glasshouse.

Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 24 C with a range of 180C to 30 OC. The

relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%. The experiment layout was shown in

figure 3-2.

Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 8 collections. Clippings

were dried at 70 OC for 72 h, and weighed. Tissue growth rate was calculated by dividing tissue

dry weight by growth days. The dry tissue samples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples

were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric

method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where

1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior quality (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992).

Soil samples were taken at termination using a 3.0-cm via. soil probe. Soil samples were

separated into soil depths of 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined for

the soil samples in depth of 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were

determined for the 0-2 cm soil depth.

At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers

to aid in the collection of leachate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample

was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed.

Statistical analysis (analysis of variance) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987).

Duncan's multiple range test with fixed variable was used for all the mean separation in this

study. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05.

Glasshouse Soil Study 2

An attempt was made to verify the critical soil test P concentration obtained in the glass

house soil study 1. Two soils different from the one used in the previous study were chosen for









this study based on their low Mehlich-1 P concentrations (<5 mg kg-1). Samples from the A

horizons were collected from soils mapped as Tavares sand and Pottsburg sand. Classifications

of the soils were Tavares (Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Quartzipsamments) and Pottsburg

(Sandy, Siliceous, Thermic Grossarenic Alaquods), respectively. Selected chemical properties

for soil No. 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-1. This glasshouse soil study was conducted at the

Turfgrass Envirotron at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Nalgene tubs (53cm x

38cm x 12cm) were used as the growth containers. Outside surfaces of the containers were

painted with white latex paint first and black afterwards to prevent light penetration. Certified

sod with high initial tissue P concentration was washed to remove soil, then cut to a size of 53cm

x 38cm rectangle and transferred to the growth container on Septemer 28, 2005.

After P deficiency was induced, P205 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four

weeks were applied initially on June 20, 2006 and reapplied 2 times during the 12-week growth

period. The treatments were arranged in a 2 by 5 factorial design with 2 soils and 5 rates of P

application. Each treatment was replicated 5 times. Computer controlled overhead exhaust fans,

a wall-length humidifier, and an automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively

constant conditions in the glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 24

C with a range of 180C to 300C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%.

Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 8 collections. Clippings

were dried at 700C for 72 h, and weighed. Tissue growth rate was calculated by dividing tissue

dry weight by growth days. The dry tissue samples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples

were analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric

method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where

1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior quality (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992).









Soil samples were taken at termination using a 3.0-cm dia. soil probe. Soil samples were

separated into soil depths of 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined for

the soils samples in depth of 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were

determined for the 0-2 cm soil depth.

At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers

to aid in the collection of leachate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample

was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed.

Analysis of variance was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987). Tukey's test was used for

all the mean separation in this study. Means marked by the same letter are not significantly

differently at P = 0.05.

Glasshouse Soil Study 3

Observing St. Augustinegrass growth responses on three soils low in P, a study was

undertaken to evaluate growth on a soil containing a medium level of P. This soil study was

conducted at the Turfgrass Envirotron at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. The

Tavares soil used in this experiment was chosen based on it having a medium level of Mehlich-1

P (17 mg P kg-1) and was classified as Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Quartzipsamments.

Selected chemical properties for this soil (soil No. 4) are shown in Table 3-1. Nalgene tubs

(53cm x 38cm x 12cm) were used as the growth containers. Outside surfaces of the containers

were painted with white latex paint first and black afterwards to prevent light penetration.

Certified sod with high initial tissue P concentration was washed to remove soil, then cut to a

size of 53cm x 38cm rectangle and transferred to the growth container on May 8, 2005.

After P deficiency was induced, P205 rate of 0, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g m-2 per four

weeks were applied initially on August 18, 2006 and reapplied 2 times during the 12 week

growth period. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5









replications for each treatment. Computer controlled overhead exhaust fans, a wall-length

humidifier, and an automatic roof window were used to maintain relatively constant conditions

in the glasshouse. Glasshouse temperature was maintained at an average 240C with a range of

180C to 300C. The relative humility was maintained at approximately 75%.

Top growth was clipped to 7.5 cm every other week for a total of 6 collections. Clippings

were dried at 700C for 72 h, and weighed. Tissue growth rate was calculated by dividing tissue

dry weight by growth days. Dry tissue samples were ground to 2-mm and ashed. Samples were

analyzed for P by spectrophotometry using the molybdenum-reduced molybdophosphoric

method (Hanlon et al., 1994). Turf visual quality was rated weekly using a scale of 1 to 9 where

1 represents brown, dormant turf and 9 represents superior quality (Skogley and Sawyer, 1992).

Soil samples were taken at termination using a 3.0-cm diameter soil probe. Soil samples

were separated into soil depths of 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Mehlich-1 extractable P was determined

for both depths. Water extractable P and FeO-strip P were determined for the soil samples in the

depth of top 0-2 cm.

At one week intervals, one-half pore volume of water was applied to all growth containers

to aid in the collection of leachate. Leachate volume, pH, and EC were measured. A sub-sample

was collected and frozen until soluble reactive P was analyzed.

Statistical analysis (analysis of variance) was performed by SAS (SAS Inst., 1987).

Duncan's multiple range test was used for all the mean separation in this study. Means marked

by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05.













Figure 3-1. Glasshouse solution culture P study layout.


Figure 3-2. Glasshouse soil P study 1 layout.


t71












Table 3-1. Selected chemical properties of soils used in the glasshouse soil study 1, 2, and 3.
Soil Mehlich-1 P Oxalate Al Oxalate Fe
Study Soil No. Classification name Series name pH (1:2) t OM (gkg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg1) (mg kg1)
Sandy, Siliceous, Hyperthermic
1 1 Ultic Alaquods Pomona 4.6 9 2 32 42
Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Tavares (a)
2 Quartzipsamments 5.1 15 3 77 60
2 Sandy, Siliceous, Thermic
3 Grossarenic Alaquods Pottsburg 4.7 9 5 49 27
Hyperthermic Uncoated Typic Tavares (b)
3 4 Quartzipsamments 4.8 13 17 173 154
t: soil pH was determined in 1:2 soil/water ratio.
: Organic Matter content was determined by ignition.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Glasshouse Hydroponic Study

Turf Quality

St. Augustinegrass visual quality increased with each incremental increase in solution P

concentration in the range from 0 to 775 mg m-3 (Figure 4-1). St. Augustinegrass treated with the

two highest P concentrations, 155 and 775 mg m-3, recovered from the P deficiency conditions

and attained mean turf quality values of 6.8 and 7.2, respectively (Figure 4-1). The turf treated

with zero P in solution suffered severely from P deficiency with a mean turf quality value of 2.5

(Figure 4-1). Turf treated with zero P declined in quality over time and by the end of the study

was dead. Solution P levels of 1.24, 6.2, and 31 mg m-3 were generally insufficient in P for turf

to recover from deficiency and promote optimum growth. Mean turf quality values from these

treatments were below 5.5, which is widely used as a minimum value for acceptable turf quality.

Tissue P and Root P

The initial tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass tested was as high as 4.8 g kg1

on a dry weight basis. After three harvests prior to treatment application, P deficiency (<1.0 g kg

1 on dry weight basis) was induced. Over time, tissue P concentration changed for the six P

treatments as shown in Figure 4-2. Tissue P concentration of turfgrass receiving no P declined

over time until it reached a value of 0.48 g kg-1 after the fourth harvest. By the end of the study

most of the turfgrass was dead, but those portions which were still alive contained 0.45 g P kg1.

This could be considered the minimum P concentration to keep St. Augustinegrass alive.

The relationship between tissue P levels and solution P concentration is presented in Figure

4-3. The highest tissue P level was achieved with application of 775 mg m-3 solution followed by









P treatment of 155 mg m-3. There were no differences in P concentration among the four lowest

P treatments. One possible reason for this observation is that the turfgrasses with the four lowest

P levels remained P deficient during the experimental period.

The relationship between root P levels and solution P concentrations is shown in Figure 4-

4. Root P levels increased with increasing solution P concentration. The highest P treatment

resulted in the highest root P concentration (Figure 4-4). Root P concentration differences among

the four lowest solution P levels were noted by Duncan's Multiple Range test compared with no

significant differences among tissue P levels, which indicates that the primary use of P is for root

growth rather than top growth when P is deficient. Moreover, the root P concentration (Figure 4-

4) with the two highest P levels was lower than those in foliage tissue (Figure 4-3) when P

supplies were sufficient. But the root P concentration resulting from the four lowest P levels was

identical or even slightly higher than levels found in leaf tissue when P supplies were deficient.

This suggests that roots require less P than tissue when P is sufficient, but when P is deficient

root growth requires a higher level of P. It is possible that when P is deficient a higher quantity

ofP is required in order to produce more roots to overcome the P deficiency.

Tissue Growth Rate and Root Growth Rate

Phosphorus fertilization influence on tissue growth rate is rarely observed in St.

Augustinegrass because of the generally medium to high available P status in Florida soils and

relatively low P requirement by St. Augustinegrass. Tissue growth rate (Figure 4-5) was affected

by solution P concentration. Tissue growth rate increased with solution P levels in a quadratic

manner to a maximum value. According to linear plateau regression analysis (Figure 4-5),

solution P concentrations beyond 111 mg m-3 did not result in increased tissue growth rate (r2

0.88, p<0.0001, CV = 15.5). Asher and Loneragan (1967) reported that P at 155 mg m-3

produced maximum dry weights of clover (Trifolium subterraneum, L.), erodium (Erodium









botrys (Cav.) Bertol.) and yields of brome grass (Bromus rigidus, Roth) and cape weed

(Cryptostemma calendula (L.) Druce) were close to maximum in a similar hydroponics study.

Root growth rates (Figure 4-6) were affected by solution P concentration although the

effect was less as compared with tissue growth rates. Turfgrass receiving P at 31 mg m-3 attained

the highest root growth rate among the P levels applied according to Duncan's Multiple Range

test. Asher and Loneragan (1967) reported that P at 31 mg m-3 produced maximum top and root

growth for sliver grass (Vulpia (Festuca) myuros (L.) Gmel.). Root P concentration in the

presence of P at 31 mg m-3 was 0.7 g kg1, which indicates that roots require a smaller quantity of

P for optimum growth than tissue (Figure 4-7). Only three mean categories were separated for

root growth rates (Figure 4-6) indicating that the extent of the effect of solution P concentration

on root growth was less than that on tissue growth. Additionally, turf receiving no P produced

substantial root growth (Figure 4-6). The large reserve of P in the parent plant (approximately 5

g kg-1 P in tissue (Figure 4-1) and correspondingly high P level in stolons (not measured)) can be

a P source for root growth in case there was no P application or P supplies were not sufficient.

Critical Tissue P level

A yield response curve in relation to concentration of P in the selected tissue is commonly

used to determine the critical P concentration. Tissue growth rate was increased with tissue P

concentration in a quadratic manner to a maximum value (Figure 4-7). The slope of the

regression curve can be defined as the change of tissue growth rate over the change of tissue P

concentration. The nearly vertical portion of the regression curve shows relatively steeper slopes

and the horizontal portion has a slope of zero. The transition zone is the area of the curve where

the vertical and horizontal portions converge. With the increase of the tissue P concentration the

slope gradually decreases until it reaches zero, which is the plateau of the curve. According to









linear plateau regression analysis, the critical tissue P level was 1.6 g kg-1 on dry weight basis for

the optimum growth (R2 = 0.88, p<0.0001, CV = 15.4).

Glasshouse Soil Study 1

Turf Quality

For each week across 16 weeks, the highest P application rate of 2.5 g m-2 4-wk1 resulted

in the best turf quality (Table 4-1). There was no difference between turf quality ratings

associated with the highest P rate and the second highest P rate except for the first week (Table

4-1). The third highest P application rate also achieved best turf quality except for the first three

weeks (Table 4-1). With the P deficiency induced for St. Augustinegrass before P application, it

took some time for St. Augustinegrass to recover from the P deficiency after P application. The

higher the P rates applied, the shorter the time required for it to recover and produce the best

quality. The second lowest P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk1 resulted in the best turf quality

in 12 out of 16 weeks (Table 4-1), which provided some evidence that the minimum P

application rate was somewhat above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- for this soil. The turf quality of the

control treatment remained above 6.0 for the first 10 weeks and started to decline afterwards. By

the last two weeks, the turf quality was below 5.5, which is widely used as a minimum value for

acceptable turf quality (Table 4-1). Overall, the turf quality ratings were above 5.5 except for the

turf with control during the last four weeks. This indicated that St. Augustinegrass could sustain

for months with very low soil P concentrations and deficient P levels in plant tissue.

Top Growth Rate

St. Augustinegrass top growth responded to P application rates (Table 4-2). Turf receiving

no P produced the lowest amount of top biomass across eight harvests (Table 4-2). The largest

increase on top growth rate was observed with the first incremental P application (Table 4-2).

Turf with three highest P application rates achieved the highest top growth rate across the eight









harvests. For six out of eight harvests, turf with the second lowest P application rate of 0.31 g m-2

4-wk-' produced the same top growth as higher P application rates (Table 4-2). The mean value

of turf top growth rate with the P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- across eight harvests was

2.7 g m-2 day-1 and the highest mean value of top growth rate was 3.0 g m-2 day-' (Table 4-2).

The top growth rate for turf with the P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- was reduced by 10%

from the maximum growth rate. By definition, the amount of nutrient applied that results in 10%

reduction in maximum growth is defined as the critical minimum requirement for that nutrient.

Moreover, when the overall means of top growth rate for each P application rate were compared,

turf with the P application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- produced tissue dry weight that was not

significant different from those with higher P application rates by Duncan's multiple range test

(Table 4-2). By either definition of critical minimum nutrient requirement or Duncan's multiple

range test, P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- satisfied the minimum P requirement of St.

Augustinegrass in this soil.

Tissue P Concentration

The initial St. Augustinegrass tissue P concentration tested was as high as 4.9 g kg1- on a

dry weight basis. Over time before P application, tissue P concentration dropped from 4.9 g kg-1

to 1.2 g kg-1 on dry weight basis. With no P application to turf and very low soil P concentration,

it took almost one year to induce P deficiency (<1.6 g kg-1 on dry weight basis).

Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate is shown

in Table 4-3. With each incremental P application, tissue P concentration increased across the

eight harvests. The highest tissue P level was achieved with application of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1

and was followed by application of 1.25, 0.63, and 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 (Table 4-3). Turfgrass

receiving no P maintained a P concentration of 1.0 g kg-1, with which turfgrass showed P

deficiency symptoms, reduced turf quality (Table 4-1), and reduced growth rate (Table 4-2). In









particular, the mean value of tissue P concentration with P application rate of 0.31 g P20O m-2 4-

wk1 was 1.4 g kg1, which was slightly lower than the critical minimum tissue P concentration

according to the previous glasshouse hydroponic study. This indicated that P application of 0.31

g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 was about to achieve the critical minimum tissue P concentration in this soil.

This is consistent with the previous discussion on top growth rate concluding that P application

rate of 0.31 g P20O m-2 4-wk-1 satisfied the minimum P requirement of St. Augustinegrass in this

soil.

The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration

A yield response curve in relation to concentration of P in the selected tissue is commonly

used to determine the critical P concentration. Tissue growth rate was increased with tissue P

concentration in a quadratic manner to a maximum value (Figure 4-8). The slope of the

regression curve can be defined as the change of tissue growth rate over the change of tissue P

concentration. The nearly vertical portion of the regression curve shows relatively steeper slopes

and the horizontal portion has a slope of zero. The transition zone is the area of the curve where

the vertical and horizontal portions converge. With the increase of the tissue P concentration the

slope gradually decreases until it reaches zero, which is the plateau of the curve. According to

linear plateau regression analysis, the critical tissue P level was 1.8 g kg-1 on dry weight basis for

the optimum growth (R2 = 0.77, p<0.0001).

Soil Test P

Mehlich-I procedure is widely used in the southeast region of US for agronomic crop soil

tests. Fe Oxide P and WEP procedures are used for environmental impact prediction. Soil

Mehlich-I P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations as affected by P application are shown in

figure 4-9. With increased P application rates, Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P and WEP concentrations

increased incrementally. For each P application, the Fe Oxide procedure extracted approximately









the same quantity of P as water, which means that the labile P portion with sorption/desorption

process was soluble, suggesting there is little Al/Fe oxides in this soil. Mehlich-1 P

concentrations were all higher than the concentrations of Fe oxide P or WEP, which was

consistent with Pautler and Sims (2000).

Figure 4-11 shows the relationship among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP

concentrations. They were pairwise linear dependent with r2 s of 0.91, 0.90, and 0.85 for WEP

vs. Fe oxide P, Mehlich-1 P vs. Fe oxide P, and Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. All the

pairwise relationships were highly significant with p values less than 0.0001. Pautler and Sims

(2000) reported a better relationship of Fe oxide P vs. WEP than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP.

This was true for this study. The explanation could be the nature of Fe oxide P procedure that it

does not dissolve water insoluble P components. While, Mehlich-1 extractant contains diluted

strong acids which could partially dissolve water insoluble P components.

In order to select the best soil test procedure for P recommendation on St. Augustinegrass,

Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, WEP concentrations were related to turf tissue P concentration (Figure

4-11). All the pairwise relationships were highly significant with p values less than 0.0001,

which means that all three soil P test methods could potentially be used as an index for P

nutrition of St. Augustinegrass. Mehlich-1 P obtained the best correlation against tissue P

concentration with r2 of 0.84 better than 0.77 and 0.79 for Fe Oxide P and WEP respectively.

The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations

Application of the various P20O rates up to 2.5 g P20O m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a range of

extractable soil P concentration (0.5 to 16.7 mg kg- for Mehlich-1, 0.4 to 7.7 mg kg- for Fe

Oxide, and 0.4 to 7.6 mg kg- for WEP). Growth rate of St. Augustinegrass was affected by

extractable soil P concentrations (Figure 4-12; Figure 4-13; Figure 4-14). Responses were

described relatively well by the quadratic response and plateau model with the coefficients of









determination being generally high (0.71 for Mehlich-1, 0.68 for Fe Oxide, and 0.62 for WEP)

and p values of less than 0.0001. Critical concentration of the extractable P was greatest for

Mehlich-1 of 7 mg kg-1 compared 3 and 3 mg kg-1 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively. This is

to be expected, because Mehlich-1 extractant contains diluted strong acids which could dissolve

water insoluble P compounds. Critical concentration of the extractable P for Fe Oxide and WEP

was the same. This indicated that P adsorbed on soil particles was soluble. CSP applied was

partially dissolved in soil solution and partially reacted with soil chemicals to form insoluble

compounds.

Previously, Mehlich-1 soil P below 16 mg kg-1 was categorized as low and below 10 mg

kg-1 as very low P. Phosphorus fertilization would be recommended in those cases. These data

showed that P levels can be kept very low for St. Augustinegrass optimum growth. Phosphorus

fertilization would not result in growth response above 7, 3, and 3 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1, Fe

Oxide, and WEP, respectively. Mehlich-1 P had the best correlation against both tissue P

concentration and top growth rate in this soil, therefore it is the best soil P test for St.

Augustinegrass among the three used in this study.

P Downward Movement

Soil samples in depth of 0-10 cm were initially taken and analyzed for Mehlich-1 P.

However, Mehlich-1 P concentrations for the whole depth of 0-10 cm were generally very low,

and there was no difference in Mehlich-1 P concentrations among P application rates by

Duncan's multiple range test (data not shown). An attempt was made to investigate the

downward movement by separating the soil depth into 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm. Soil Mehlich-1 P

concentration as influenced by P application and soil sampling depth are shown in Figure 4-15.

Control soils contained 0.6 mg kg-1 Mehlich-1 P, which indicated extremely low soil P

availability without P application during the study. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in top 2 cm









depth increased with each incremental P application. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentrations in depth of

2-10 cm increased with P application, but were all very low in the range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg kg1.

Considering 0.6 mg kg-1 was the baseline of Mehlich-1 P with control, the highest P application

rate of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in Mehlich-1 P of 1.1 mg kg-1 in soil depth of 2-10 cm.

Moreover, for each P application other than control soil, Mehlich-1 P concentration in depth of

0-2 cm was higher than that in depth of 2-10 cm. This suggests that little to none of the CSP

applied to the turfgrass moved downward and the majority remained in the top 2 cm of soil.

Leached P Mass and Concentration

Phosphorus treatments were applied every four weeks for a total of four times. Leachates

were collected weekly. Sixteen leachates were collected during the study period. The sum of the

soluble reactive P (SRP) leached during the first, second, third and fourth leaching collections is

presented in Figure 4-16. Chung et al. (1999) has shown that a greater quantity of P leached from

sand root-zone mixture during the first two leaching events. However, a natural soil was used in

this study, for each P application a greater quantity ofP leached during the first leaching event

than those during following leachate collections. Soil receiving 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 leached a

total of 11.8 mg P, followed by 5.9, 2, 1.3, and 0.9 mg P from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 and

0 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively. The two highest P application rates resulted in larger quantities

of P leached and no differences in P leached were detected among the three lower P application

rates. In effect, soil with application rate of 0.63 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 did not leach a larger quantity

of P than control soil. This result showed the importance of small P application rate to prevent P

leaching to ground waters. Not to mention the P requirements for certain crops could be less than

recommended, the best management practice could be to suggest multiple P applications with a

smaller quantity each time. Leached SRP concentration as affected by P application rate and

leaching event followed the same pattern as leached SRP mass (Figure 4-17). The highest P









concentration was detected in the leachates collected in the first leaching event. An application

of 0.63 g P205 m-2 4-wk-' did not result in a higher SRP concentration than control soil.

Leachates collected from soil receiving 2.5 and 1.25 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 contained as high as 0.89

and 0.5 mg P kg-', respectively, which could cause environmental concerns. Notice that both of

these rates are commonly applied to St. Augustinegrass and application rate of 1.25 g P205 m-2 4-

wk-1 is the standard in summer months based on the 4:1:2 ratio of N: P205: K20.

Glasshouse Soil Study 2

Turf Quality

Quality ratings were influenced by P application rate for both soil No.2 and 3 (Table 4-4).

Twelve weeks of turf quality data were collected. For individual weekly evaluations across the

12 week experiment period, P application of 0.63g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 and above resulted in the best

turf quality for both soils (Table 4-4). P application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- achieved the best turf

quality in 11 out of 12 weeks for both soils (Table 4-4), which provided some evidence that the

minimum P application rate was somewhat above 0.31 g m-2 4-wk-1 for these two soils. For the

control turf, turf quality remained above acceptable level 5.5 for the first 4 and 3 weeks for soil

No.2 and 3, respectively, and declined afterwards. Overall, the turf quality ratings were

somewhat lower than that in the glasshouse soil study 1, which was mainly due to an incidence

of disease. Turf with no P application barely recovered from the incidence of disease, which

implied the importance of P nutrition in case of disease damage recovery.

Top Growth Rate

St. Augustinegrass top growth rate varied with P application and soil (Table 4-5). Control

turf produced the lowest quantity of top dry mass across six harvests in both soil conditions

(Table 4-5). The largest increase on top growth rate occurred in the first incremental P

application for both soils (1.6 to 2.5 and 1.6 to 2.1 g m-2 day'1 for soil No.2 and 3, respectively)









(Table 4-5). For soil No.2 the top growth rate for turf with P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk1

was reduced by approximately 10% from the optimum growth rate. Moreover, turf with P

application rates of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- and above achieved equivalent mean top growth rates by

Tukey's test. Therefore, by either definition of critical minimum nutrient requirement or

Tukey's test, P application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- satisfied the minimum P requirement of St.

Augustinegrass in soil No.2. However, for soil No. 3 the top growth rate for turf with P

application rate of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- was reduced by approximately 30% from the optimum

growth rate of 2.9 g m-2 day When the 6-harvest means of top growth rates were subjected to

Tukey's test, there were no differences among growth means receiving P application of 0.31 g

m2 4-wk-1 and above. This was probably due to a larger variation on top growth rate that

occurred when grown in soil No. 3. This larger variation may have resulted from more severe

disease damage in soil No. 3, which particularly influenced growth more on turf with lower P

application rates (0.63 g m-2 4-wk- and below) (Table 4-5). It has been previously shown that P

application improved recovery of turf quality from disease. These data also showed the benefits

of P application on top growth rate in case of disease incidence.

Tissue P Concentration

The initial tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass was 4.1 g kg-1 on a dry weight

basis. Over 9 months before P application, tissue P concentration dropped from 4.1 g kg-1 to 1.2

g kg-1 on dry weight basis. Both soils contained very low Mehlich-1 P (< 5 mg kg-1).

Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass varied with P rate and soil (Table 4-6). In

both soils, a maximum tissue P level was achieved (3.2 g kg-1) in response to P205 applied at 2.5

g m-2 4-wk- Turfgrass receiving no P maintained a value of 1.0 g kg-1, with which turfgrass

showed P deficiency symptoms, reduced turf quality (Table 4-6), and reduced growth rate

(Table 4-5). Tissue P concentration increased with each incremental P application across six









harvests for both soils. Maximum top growth rate was achieved at 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1,

suggesting that application of additional P does not enhance top growth rate but P uptake.

Greater tissue P concentrations and top growth rates were observed in soil No. 2 than No. 3,

indicating a greater P uptake occurred in soil No. 2, possibly caused by a more severe incidence

of disease in soil No.3.

The Critical Minimum Tissue P concentration

In a previous solution culture study, the critical tissue P concentration was determined to

be 1.6 g kg-1. In the glasshouse soil study 1, the critical minimum tissue P concentration was

estimated to be 1.8 g kg-1. In this study including two soils, the critical minimum tissue P

concentration was 1.9 g kg-1 (Figure 4-18), according to non-linear plateau regression analysis

(R2 = 0.70, p<0.0001). The coefficient of determination could be improved from 0.70 to 0.75 by

removing two outliers. The maximum top growth rate estimated in the quadratic relationship

was 2.8 g kg-1, which was the same as the optimum growth rates corresponding to the highest P

application rate of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1, suggesting a reasonable plateau.

Soil P Tests

Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP varied with P application for soil No. 2 (Figure 4-

19) and No. 3 (Figure 4-20). With increased P application soil test P levels increased for both

soils. For each P rate, Fe Oxide procedure extracted approximately the same quantity of P as

water, which was consistent with the findings in glasshouse soil study 1. This was possibly due

to a low bonding energy of P sorption/desorption with absence of Al/Fe oxides in these soils.

The portion adsorbed on soil particles eventually dissolved in the water extraction procedure.

Mehlich-1 P concentration was more or less double the concentration of Fe oxide P or WEP,

which was consistent with the observations in the glasshouse soil study 1. The explanation could

be the nature of Fe oxide P procedure that is based upon sorption/desorption process and does









not dissolve any water insoluble P components. However, Mehlich-1 extractant contains diluted

strong acids which could partially dissolve water insoluble P components.

Figure 4-21 showed the relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP

concentrations for soil No.2. They were pairwise linear dependent. All the pairwise relationships

were highly significant with p values less than 0.0001. In the previous glasshouse soil study 1, a

better correlation of Fe oxide P vs. WEP than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP was observed. This

was true for soil No. 2 in this study with r2 s of 0.65 and 0.54 for WEP vs. Fe oxide P and

Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. For soil No.3, an identical coefficient of determination (r2)

of 0.68 was obtained for relationships of Fe Oxide P vs. WEP and Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP. A

higher coefficient of determination was recorded for Mehlich-1 P vs. Fe Oxide P (r2=0.72)

(Figure 4-22).

In the glasshouse soil study 1, Mehlich-1 P correlated better with tissue P concentration

than Fe Oxide P and WEP (Figure 4-12). Tissue P concentration and soil test P concentrations

for soil No. 2 (Figure 4-23) and soil No. 3 (Figure 4-24) showed the same trend. For soil No. 2,

Mehlich-1 P obtained the best correlation against tissue P concentration with r2 of 0.85, which

was higher than 0.46 and 0.35 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively. For soil No. 3, r2 of 0.71

was obtained for Mehlich-1 P vs. tissue P, which was higher than 0.67 and 0.63 for Fe Oxide P

and WEP vs. tissue P, respectively. Overall, the three soil P tests concentration were correlated

to tissue P concentration with Mehlich-1 P obtaining the best prediction on tissue P levels.

The Critical Minimum Soil Test P Concentrations

The growth rate of St. Augustinegrass was affected by soil Mehlich-1 P concentration

(Figure 4-25 for soil No. 2; Figure 4-26 for soil No. 3), Fe Oxide P (Figure 4-27 for soil No. 2),

and WEP concentration (Figure 4-28 for soil No. 2). Application of phosphate up to 2.5 g P205

m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a range of extractable soil P concentrations (0.2 to 10.5 and 0.6 to 9.5 mg









kg-1 for Mehlich-1 in soil No. 2 and 3, respectively; 0.6 to 5.2 and 0.8 to 5.5 mg kg- for Fe Oxide

in soil No. 2 and 3, respectively; 0.8 to 4.0 and 0.9 to 4.6 mg kg-1 for WEP in soil No. 2 and 3,

respectively). Growth rate vs. Mehlich-1 P in both soils and growth rate vs. Fe Oxide P and

WEP in soil No.2 were described relatively well by the quadratic response and plateau model

with the coefficients of determination being generally acceptable (0.54 and 0.60 for Mehlich-1 in

soil No. 2 and 3 respectively, 0.72 for Fe Oxide in soil No. 2, and 0.41 for WEP in soil No. 2).

When top growth rate was related to Fe Oxide P and WEP in soil No. 3, top growth rate

increased with increasing Fe Oxide P or WEP concentrations and thus failed to converge to a

plateau (data not shown). This was possibly due to a low correlation between growth rate and Fe

Oxide P or WEP concentration and a large variation among replications. The critical Mehlich-1

P concentration obtained for soil No. 2 and 3 were 8 and 9 mg kg- respectively, which was

close to the critical Mehlich-1 P concentration (7 mg kg-1) determined in the previous glasshouse

soil study 1. For soil No. 2 the critical Fe Oxide P and WEP concentration was 3 mg kg-1. These

data suggest that optimum growth of St. Augustinegrass can be attained at very low soil lest P

levels. Phosphorus fertilization would not result in growth response above 8, 3, and 3 mg kg- for

Mehlich-1, Fe Oxide, and WEP, respectively for soil No. 2. Mehlich-1 P had the best correlation

against both tissue P concentration and top growth rate in both soils with exception of correlation

of top growth rate against Fe Oxide P was better than that against Mehlich-1 P. Overall,

Mehlich-1 P test was the best soil P test for St. Augustinegrass among the three extractants used.

P Downward Movement

In the glasshouse soil study 1, CSP applied to the turfgrass did not move downward and

the majority stayed in the top 2 cm in that soil. In this study soil samples were separated into 0-2

cm and 2-10 cm depths. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and

soil sampling depth are shown in Figure 4-29 (soil No. 2) and Fig. 4-30 (soil No. 3). Mehlich-1 P









concentration (0-2 cm depth) with P application rate of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 was increased from

1 to 7.9 and 1.1 to 9.3 mg kg-1 for soil No. 2 and 3, respectively. Many studies have shown that

the amount of fertilizer P required for each unit increase of soil test P level varies with soil

texture, soil test method employed, as well as the rate of fertilizer P applied. In a 29-yr study on

Ultisols in Alabama, Cope (1981) found that 24 and 20 kg P ha1 raised Mehlich-1 soil test P by

1 mg P kg1 when P was applied at 31 and 54 kg P ha1 yr1, respectively. An application of 4 kg

P ha-1 was required to raise the Bray I extractable P of medium-textured Mollisols and Alfisols 1

kg ha-1 (Peck et al., 1971). Cox (1994) showed that increases in Mehlich-III with each unit of

applied P were 0.7 units for soils with 10% clay, and it decreased exponentially to 0.2 units for

soils with >50% clay. In this study total applications of 9.4, 18.8, 37.5, and 75 kg P205 ha1

raised the levels of soil Mehlich-1 P in top 2 cm soils by 2, 2, 4, and 7 mg P kg 1 soil,

respectively, for soil No. 2 and by 2, 3, 5, and 8 mg P kg 1 soil, respectively, for soil No. 3 after

12 week of P fertilization. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentrations in depth of 2-10 cm increased with P

application of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 for soil No. 2, but soils with lower P rates did not result in

increased Mehlich-1 P concentration (Fig. 4-29). For soil No. 3 P application did not influence

the Mehlich-1 P levels in soil depth of 2-10 cm (Figure 4-30). This suggests that most of CSP

applied to the turfgrass stayed in the top 2 cm soil depth and that a low application P rate would

be helpful in preventing P downward movement.

Leached P Mass and Concentration

Phosphorus treatments were applied every four weeks for a total of three times. Leachates

were collected weekly after each P application. Twelve leachates were collected during the

study period. The sum of the soluble reactive P (SRP) leached during the first, second, third and

fourth leaching collections is presented in Figure 4-31 (soil No. 2) and Figure 4-33 (soil No. 3),

respectively. In the glasshouse soil study 1, it was observed that for each P application rate a









substantial greater quantity of P leached during the first leaching event and that little P leached in

subsequent leachate collections. This was true for both soils in this study. Soil No. 2 which

receiving 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 leached an average of 8.4 mg P, followed by 4.3, 1.6, 1.5, mg P

from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively, among which 48%, 44%,

44%, and 34% was leached in the first leaching event. Soil No. 3 leached an average of 10.3 4.3,

3.2, 1.8, mg P from applications of 2.5, 1.25, 0.63 and 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively,

among which 42%, 47%, 47%, and 55% was leached in the first leachate collection. Not only

was there a higher percentage ofP mass leached in the first leaching event, but also the SRP

concentration was higher in the first leachate than the subsequent leachates in soil No. 2 (Figure

4-32 ) and soil No. 3 (Figure 4-34). These findings suggest the importance ofP application

timing. To avoid P application before a rain event would be beneficial in preventing P leaching

and runoff.

P application of 1.25 and 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in larger quantities of P leached

and higher SRP concentration in soil No. 2 and there were no differences among leached P mass

and SRP concentrations resulted from the three lower P application rates. For soil No. 3, P

application of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 resulted in a larger quantity of P loss and higher SRP

concentration through leaching and there were no differences among leached P mass and SRP

concentrations at the lower P application rates. This suggests that P loss through leaching can be

prevented by small P application rate.

Glasshouse Soil Study 3

Turf Quality

Quantity of applied P influenced St. Augustinegrass quality (Table 4-7). A P205

application of 0.31 g m-2 4-wk- resulted in the best turf quality in 10 out of 12 weeks (Table 4-7).

Duncan's multiple range test of turf quality rating versus rate of P applied revealed differences in









mean turf quality rating up to 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-'. Application of additional P beyond 0.31 g

P205 m-2 4-wk-1 did not increase turf quality. A total of 0.93 g P205 m-2 was applied, and this

equates to an N: P205 application ratio of 16:1, which is substantially higher than common used

4:1 ratio. The previous glasshouse study 1 and 2 reported the same response to P application for

St. Augustinegrass growing in course textured sandy soils. The overall turf quality including

controls was generally good, possibly because the relatively sufficient labile soil P prevented

severe P deficiency on St. Augustinegrass. The soil used in this study initially contained 17 mg

kg-1 Mehlich-1 P. By the time P treatments were applied, it was believed that this soil still

contained a substantial amount of plant available P, which was confirmed by soil analysis at the

end of the study. The soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in control soils was 2.7 mg kg-1, obviously

due to a relatively high residue soil P concentration in the beginning of the study.

Top Growth Rate

St. Augustinegrass top growth rate responded to P application (Table 4-8). Duncan's

multiple range test of top growth rate versus P application rate revealed differences in mean top

growth rate up to 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1. Application of additional P beyond 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-

wk-1 did not increase top growth (Table 4-8). Relatively smaller growth rate reduction

(approximately 25%) was observed in controls in this study compared with those in previous

studies. This was due to a higher initial soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in this soil so that P

deficiency on St. Augustinegrass was mildly developed. A CV of less than 10% suggests that

there is a small variation among replications.

Tissue P Concentration

The initial tissue P concentration of the St. Augustinegrass was 5.0 g kg-1 on a dry weight

basis. Over 15 months before P application, tissue P concentration dropped from 5.0 to 1.3 g kg-1

on dry weight basis. The soil Mehlich-1 P decreased from 17 to 4 mg kg-1 by the time P was









applied. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass responded to P application (Table 4-9).

Tissue P concentration increased with each incremental P application across six harvests. A

maximum tissue P level (3.4 g kg-1) was achieved in response to phosphate applied at 2.5 g m-2

4-wk-1. Turfgrass receiving no P maintained a value of 1.4 g kg-1, which was higher than those

found in the previous study 1 and 2 (1.0 g kg-1). This explains the smaller top growth rate

reduction in controls and only mild P deficiency symptoms observed in this study. The soil used

in this study supplied a substantial quantity of P for St. Augustinegrass growth over the entire

experiment period.

Critical Minimum Tissue P Concentration

In the previous solution culture study, the critical tissue P concentration was determined to

be 1.6 g kg-1. In the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2, the critical minimum tissue P concentration

was estimated to be 1.8 and 1.9 g kg-1, respectively. The critical minimum tissue P concentration

in study 3 was 1.8 g kg-1 (Figure 4-35), according to non-linear plateau regression analysis (r2 =

0.48, p<0.001). The coefficient of determination was lower than that found in previous soil study

1 and 2. This was possibly due to three or four outliers. The maximum top growth rate estimated

in the quadratic relationship was 2.9 g kg-1, which was consistent with the optimum growth rates

(2.9 and 2.8 g kg-1 for soil study 1 and 2, respectively), suggesting a reasonable plateau.

Soil P Tests

Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP varied with P application in soil study 3 (Figure 4-

36). With each incremental increased P application soil Mehlich-1 P levels increased. Higher

soil test P values were only observed for the application of 2.5 g P20O m-2 4-wk-1 in Fe Oxide P,

1.25 and 2.5 m-2 4-wk-1 in WEP, respectively (Figure 4-36). In the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2,

Fe Oxide strip procedure and water extraction procedure extracted approximately the same

quantity of P in those soil conditions. However, in this study Fe Oxide procedure extracted









greater quantities of P than water for each P application, which suggests a higher bonding energy

ofP sorption/desorption with the Al/Fe oxides in this soil. Some portion of P ions adsorbed on

soil particles was not extracted by water extraction procedure but by Fe Oxide strip procedure.

Mehlich-1 P concentration was more or less double the concentration of WEP, which was

consistent with the observations in the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2.

Figure 4-37 shows the relationship among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP

concentrations in glasshouse soil study 3. They were pairwise linear dependent. In the previous

glasshouse soil study 1 and 2, a better correlation of Fe oxide P vs. WEP than that of Mehlich-1

P vs. WEP was observed. This was true in this study with r2 s of 0.52 and 0.35 for WEP vs. Fe

oxide P and Melich-1 P vs. WEP, respectively. Moreover, the relationship of Fe oxide P vs.

WEP (p<0.0001) had a smaller p value than that of Mehlich-1 P vs. WEP (p<0.01). A smaller

coefficient of determination for each pairwise linear regression was obtained than those in the

glasshouse soil study 1 and 2. This was possibly due to narrower ranges of soil test P extracted in

this soil with Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P and WEP mostly varied in 3, 1.5, and 1.5 mg P kg1,

respectively (Figure 4-37). These narrow ranges of soil test P revealed a strong bonding force of

P sorption/desorption and a small solubility of P compounds in water and dilute acids. These

narrow ranges of Fe Oxide P and WEP also affect the correlations against tissue P concentration.

The coefficients of determination for Fe Oxide P vs. Tissue P and WEP vs. Tissue P were 0.21

and 0.23, respectively, which were lower than those previously observed in the glasshouse study

1 and 2 (Figure 4-38). Soil Mehlich-1 P obtained the best correlation against tissue P

concentration with r2 of 0.70, higher than 0.21 and 0.23 for Fe Oxide P and WEP, respectively

(Figure 4-38). Overall, the three soil test P concentration were correlated with tissue P









concentration (p<0.05) with Mehlich-1 P obtaining the best prediction on tissue P levels, which

was consistent with observations in the previous studies.

The Critical Minimum Mehlich-1 P Concentration

Not only were the correlations of tissue P concentration against soil test P reduced by the

narrow range of soil test P concentrations, but also the relationship between top growth rate and

soil test P concentrations were reduced. Soil Fe Oxide P and WEP were poorly correlated with

top growth rate. Top growth rate continued to increase with increased Fe Oxide P or WEP

concentrations so that it did not converge to a plateau (data not shown). Therefore, it was not

possible to establish a critical minimum level for Fe Oxide P and WEP. Growth rate vs. Mehlich-

1 P was described well by the quadratic response and plateau model with the coefficients of

determination of 0.27 and p value less than 0.05. The critical Mehlich-1 P concentration obtained

was 5 mg kg-1, which was somewhat lower than the critical Mehlich-1 P concentrations of 7, 8,

and 9 mg kg-1 determined for soil No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This was expected because this

soil contained a larger quantity of Al/Fe oxides and has a larger P buffering capacity. For each

unit of soil test P level decrease, it supplied a larger quantity of P for plant uptake. These data

suggest that P levels can be kept very low for St. Augustinegrass optimum growth. Phosphorus

fertilization would not result in growth response above 5 mg kg-1 for Mehlich-1 P in this soil.

Mehlich-1 P had the best correlation against both tissue P concentration and top growth rate and

therefore is the best soil test method for St. Augustinegrass among the three tests used.

P Downward Movement

Soil samples were separated into 0-2 cm and 2-10 cm depths. Soil Mehlich-1 P

concentration as influenced by P application and soil sampling depth was shown in Figure 4-40.

Compared with control, Mehlich-1 P concentration (0-2 cm depth) with P application of 2.5 g

P205 m-2 4-wk-1 increased from 2.5 to 5.6 mg kg-1. Total applications of 9.4, 18.8, 37.5, and 75









kg P205 ha 1 raised the levels of soil Mehlich-1 P in top 2 cm soils by 0.6, 1, 1.6, and 3.1 mg P

kg 1 soil, respectively, after 12 weeks of P fertilization. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in top 2

cm soils increased with P application, however, P levels in the 2-10 cm depth was not affected

(Figure 4-40). This suggests that CSP applied to the turfgrass stayed in the top 2 cm soil depth

and downward movement of P was minimal.

Leached P Mass and Concentration

Phosphorus treatments were applied every four weeks for a total of three times. Leachates

were collected one, two, three and four weeks after each P application. Twelve leachates were

collected. The sum of the SRP quantity leached during the first, second, third and fourth leaching

collections is presented in figure 4-41. It was observed that for each non-zero P application

substantially greater quantities ofP leached during the first two leaching events than in the

following two leachate collections. This was consistent with the glasshouse soil study 1 and 2.

Soils applied with 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 leached an average of 9.5 mg P, followed by 4.1, 3.5,

1.9 mg P from application of 1.25, 0.63, 0.31 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1, respectively, among which 71%,

68%, 74%, and 63% was leached out in the first two leaching events. Not only was there a

substantial higher percent of P mass leached in the first two leaching events, but also the SRP

concentration was higher in the first two leachates than followings (Figure 4-42). These findings

suggest timing could be an issue for P application. To avoid P application before a rain event

would be beneficial in preventing P leaching.

For each P application rate, the overall percentage of P loss due to leaching for application

of 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, and 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 were 1.9%, 1.8%, 1.0% and 1.2%, respectively.

The percentage were relatively small, but P application of 1.25 and 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1

resulted in larger quantities of P leached and P application of 2.5 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 led to higher

SRP concentration. P application of 0.63 g P205 m-2 4-wk-1 and below did result in neither a









greater P quantity loss nor a higher SRP concentration than control. This suggests that small P

application rate was effective in preventing P loss through leaching.































1.24


6.2 31
Solution P (mg m-3)


Figure 4-1. Turf quality response to solution P concentration. Turf quality is the mean of five
replications over time after treatments were applied. Means marked by the same letter
are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's Multiple Range
Test.


P, mg m-3

- 0

-u-1.24
-- 6.2
-x- 31

-* 155
-*-775


8/18 9/17 10/17 11/16 12/16


1/15 2/14 3/16


Month/Day (2004-2005)



Figure 4-2. Tissue P response to solution P concentration and time.


6

4 5

4


3

2

1


6

5

S4

P3

H2
.C..


0


7/19


No P applied before this
pomt





















c C

E E


0 1.24


B
C C



6.2 31 155
Solution P (mg m3)


Figure 4-3. Relationship of solution P and tissue P concentration on day 148. Means marked by
the same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's
Multiple Range Test.


0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2


-7


0 1.24


6.2 31
Solution P (mg m3)


155 775


Figure 4-4. Relationship of solution P and root P concentration on day 148. Means marked by the
same letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's
Multiple Range Test.


3
2 2.5
9 2
) 1.5
1


1



















U
S
0


- S


y = 0.9938 0.00004(x 110.9)2
R2 = 0.86, p< 0.0001, CV= 15.5
plateau= 1 critical x =111


0 100


200


300


600


700


Solution P (mg m3)
Figure 4-5. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to solution P concentration.


Ct
7


800


I I I I I I I I












A
3
AB AB AB

g1 2.5 B B


2


1.5



0 1.24 6.2 31 155 775

Solution P (mg m-3)

Figure 4-6. Root growth rate relative to solution P concentration. Means marked by the same
letter are not significantly differently at P = 0.05 according to Duncan's Multiple
Range Test.


















0.

0

.0
S




S


y = 1.0456 -0.5056(x- 1.5614)2
R2 = 0.88, p<0.0001, CV= 15.4
plateau = 1 critical x = 1.6


0.0 L
0.0


Figure 4-7. St.


.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Tissue P (g kg-')
Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration.


T3


(N
a






o
t>










Table 4-1. Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 1.
P205 rates ------------------------------------- Week t-----------------------------
(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mean

0 6.4c 6.5c 5.9c 7b 6.7b 6.8b 6.6b 6.9c 6.2b 6.2b 5.7c 5.4b 5.4b 6.1b 4.5b 4.6b 6.3c
0.31 7.0b 7.4ab 7.3b 7.4ab 7.3a 7.5a 7.4a 7.4bc 7.2a 7.7a 7.3b 7.6a 7.2a 7.9a 7.1a 7.4a 7.4b
0.63 6.9b 7.3b 7.2b 7.6ab 7.2a 7.7a 7.2ab 7.6ab 7.2a 7.6a 7.5ab 7.7a 7a 7.9a 7.5a 7.4a 7.4b
1.25 6.9b 7.7ab 7.7ab 7.8a 7.6a 7.8a 7.6a 7.9ab 7.6a 8a 7.8ab 7.8a 7.5a 8.1a 7.5a 7.7a 7.7ab
2.5 7.4a 8.0a 8.1a 8.0a 7.8a 8.1a 7.8a 8.1a 7.7a 8.1a 8.0a 8.0a 7.8a 8.2a 7.6a 7.9a 7.9a

CV(%) 4.3 6.3 6.4 7.4 6.1 5.6 6.3 5.5 6.2 5.9 6.1 4.8 8.7 6.9 6.0 8.8 4.7

tWithin columns, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncan's multiple range test (0.05).









Table 4-2. Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-
2006 glasshouse soil study 1.
P205 rates ----------------------Harvest t(g m-2 day) --------------------------------
(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean

0 2.2b 2.1b 2.1b 1.9b 2.0c 2.1c 2.1b 1.9b 2.1b
0.31 2.9ab 2.6ab 2.6a 2.3ab 2.4bc 2.5bc 2.9a 2.7a 2.7a
0.63 3.0a 2.6ab 2.9a 2.4ab 2.7ab 2.7ab 3.0a 3.0a 2.7a
1.25 3.0a 2.9a 3.0a 2.5ab 2.9a 3.0ab 3.1a 3.1a 3.0a
2.5 3.4a 3.0a 3.0a 2.5a 3.0a 3.1a 3.1a 3.1a 3.0a

CV(%) 18.8 15.4 18.5 16.9 12.7 16.6 8.5 12.9 10.6

tWithin columns, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to
Duncan's multiple range test (0.05).


Table 4-3. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 1.
P205 rates ------------------------ ------Harvest t(g kg) ---------------------------------
(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean

0 1.ld 1.ld 1.ld 1.0d 1.0d 1.0d 0.8d 1.0e 1.0e
0.31 1.5cd 1.5cd 1.5c 1.4c 1.5c 1.3cd 1.3d 1.5d 1.4d
0.63 1.7c 1.6c 1.7c 1.7c 1.7c 1.8c 1.8c 2.1c 1.8c
1.25 2.5b 2.3b 2.6b 2.3b 2.4b 2.4b 2.7b 3.0b 2.5b
2.5 3.5a 3.2a 3.3a 3.1a 3.5a 3.3a 3.4a 4.1a 3.4a

CV(%) 17.7 18.8 15.3 15.1 15.3 19.5 17.5 8.1 11.2

tWithin columns, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to
Duncan's multiple range test (0.05).












3.6




3.2-
(0
o-


E 2.8-
0)
a)


2.4 -

0
0)
0-
0o 2.0-



1.6


y
R
pi


*


* -


=2.91 1.57 (1.76-x)2
2 = 0.77, p<0.0001, CV=10.9%
ateau = 2.91 critical x = 1.8


Tissue P (g kg-1)
Figure 4-8. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P
glasshouse soil study 1.


concentration in the


0


















S 0 0 1 WEP2

8-

Sc
4 c
cc c
d dd

0 0. 31 0.63 1.25 2.5
P205 application rate (g m 2 4-wk ')


Figure 4-9. Soil Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application
rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.
































2 4 6

Fe Oxide P (mg kg 1)


4

Fe Oxide P (mg kg )


2 4 6 8 10


WEP (mg kg 1)


Figure 4-10. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.


20


b 16
-4

12

ia
8

-4
-s 4
(U


y 2.Ox + 0.09

r = 0.85, p<0.0001
CV 27%

.1 *


20


h 16
-4

12








0
*-

sc
0,















3


2


1


0


WEP (mg kg'1)

Figure 4-11. Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 1.


*^ : y = 0.17x + 0.93
r 0. 84, p<0. 0001
CV = 21%



D 4 8 12 16
Mehlich-1 P (mg kg1)



y 0.44x + 0.76
r2 0.77, p<0.0001
CV = 19.2% **









D 2 4 6
Fe Oxide P (mg kg )










y = 0.36x + 0.88
r 0.79, p<0. 0001
CV 17.4%


S4

M3

Q 2

- 1

0


4


03








0
*^













3.6 -





3.2 -
(0
co
IC

E 2.8-
0)
-^-
a)


- 2.4 -

0
0)
0-
0o 2.0-




1.6


U

* U


- 0.02(6.94 x)2
'1, p<0.0001, CV
=2.93 critical x


:20.7%
S7


I I I I I I I


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Mehlich-1 P (mg kg-1)


Figure 4-12. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshouse soil study 1.


Sy = 2.93
R2 = 0.7
/ plateau

U














3.6 -




3.2 -

(0


E 2.8-
o)

a)


2 2.4 -

0
0)
0-


o 2.0




1.6


*/ U


0


y =2.90- 0.13(3.10 -x)2
R2 = 0.68, p<0.0001, CV
plateau = 2.90 critical x =


Fe Oxide P (mg kg-1)


Figure 4-13. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 1.


18.9%













3.6 -





3.2 -

(0
co


E 2.8-
0)

a)


2 2.4

0
0)
0-
o 2.0




1.6


y = 2.90 -0.11(3.31 x)2
R2 = 0.62, p<0.0001, CV
plateau = 2.90 critical x =


14%


WEP (mg kg-1)



Figure 4-14. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 1.


U

EU
U



U
U

U

U

















12


&0 8
E
C^


0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5
-2
P205 application rate (g m2 per 4 wks)

Figure 4-15. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil
sampling depth in the glasshouse soil study 1.







6

E 5 -- 1st
<4 m 2nd
4
E o 3rd
(L3 4th
4th a
C,,
2-
c b



0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5

P205 application rate (g m"2 4-wk"1)

Figure 4-16. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 1.












a
0 1st
S 0.8 m 2n
[] 3rd a
0.6 4
o L4th b
C, a
0.4 a
b

". 0.2 c
C C
C C cc

0
0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5

P205 application rate (g m"2 4-wk"1)

Figure 4-17. Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event
in glasshouse soil study 1.









Table 4-4. Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2.
P205 rates ---- -----------------------------Week----------- --------------
Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean

0 6.5a 6.7b 6.4a 5.7b 5.3b 5.5b 4.7b 4.5b 4.7c 4.5b 5.0b 4.4b 5.3b
0.31 7.3a 7.8ab 7.3a 7.6a 6.9a 7.3a 6.3a 6.8a 6.6b 7.4a 6.5a 6.8a 7.0a
2 0.63 6.9a 7.6ab 7.3a 7.4a 7.2a 7.5a 6.8a 7.1a 7.3ab 7.6a 6.6a 7.0a 7.2a
1.25 7.3a 8.1a 7.3a 7.6a 7.4a 7.7a 7.1a 7.2ab 7.3ab 8.0a 7.0a 7.1a 7.4a
2.5 7.1a 7.8a 7.5a 7.7a 7.4a 7.8a 7.4a 7.4a 7.3a 7.6a 7.1a 7.0a 7.4a

0 6.5a 6.7b 6.3b 5.4c 5.1b 5.3b 4.2b 4.2b 4.3b 4.5b 4.7b 4.5b 5.1b
0.31 6.9a 7.4ab 7.lab 6.8b 6.0ab 6.6ab 6.2a 6.6a 6.1a 6.9a 6.7a 6.2a 6.6a
3 0.63 6.8a 7.6ab 6.5ab 7.lab 6.3ab 6.8a 6.1a 6.4a 6.9a 7.5a 6.2a 6.6a 6.7a
1.25 7.0a 7.6ab 7.4ab 7.4ab 7.0a 7.5a 6.8a 7.1a 7.1a 7.4a 6.9a 6.8a 7.2a
2.5 7.3a 8.1a 7.7a 7.8a 7.4a 8.0a 7.3a 7.3a 7.4a 7.7a 7.2a 7.0a 7.5a

CV(%) 5.7 8.0 9.1 6.7 10.7 9.9 10.6 6.8 8.6 6.6 10.1 7.5 6.3

tWithin columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to
Tukey's test (0.05).









Table 4-5. Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate and soils in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2.

P205 rates -----------------Harvest t(g m-2 day) --------------------
Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean

0 2.7a 1.7b 1.6b 1.2b 1.lb 1.7b 1.6b
0.31 3.5a 2.3ab 2.5a 2.0a 2.4a 2.5ab 2.5a
2 0.63 3.3a 2.4ab 2.9a 2.1a 2.5a 2.8a 2.6a
1.25 3.8a 2.6a 3.0a 2.3a 2.7a 2.9a 2.9a
2.5 3.6a 2.7a 3.0a 2.2a 2.8a 3.0a 2.8a

0 2.5a 1.5b 1.6c 1.3c 1.3b 1.5b 1.6b
0.31 3.0a 2.0ab 2.1bc 1.6b 2.lab 2.lab 2.lab
3 0.63 2.9a 1.7ab 2.2bc 1.6abc 2.lab 2.2ab 2.lab
1.25 3.2a 2.4a 2.5a 2.lab 2.5a 2.5a 2.5a
2.5 3.4a 2.5a 3.0a 2.2a 2.7a 3.0a 2.8a

CV(%) 18.1 19.7 13.5 15.2 17.6 18.0 14.0

tWithin columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
according to Tukey's test (0.05).


Table 4-6. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate and
soils in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 2.

P205 rates ----------------Harvest t (g kg-1) ---------
Soil (g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean

0 1.ld 0.98c 0.94c 0.94c 1.1d 0.89c 0.98d
0.31 1.3cd 1.2c 1.2c 1.3c 1.4cd 1.3c 1.3cd
2 0.63 1.5c 1.4bc 1.4c 1.4abc 1.9c 1.6bc 1.5c
1.25 2.0b 1.8b 2.3b 2.2ab 2.9b 2.1b 2.2b
2.5 3.1a 2.7a 3.1a 3.0a 3.8a 3.3a 3.2a

0 1.ld 0.93c 1.0c 1.0c 1.0d 1.0c 1.0c
0.31 1.2c 1.0c 1.1c 1.0c 1.4cd 1.2c 1.2c
3 0.63 1.5c 1.2bc 1.2bc 1.3bc 1.9c 1.5c 1.4c
1.25 2.0b 1.7b 1.8b 1.9b 2.6b 2.2b 2.0b
2.5 3.3a 2.6a 2.5a 2.8a 3.9a 3.5a 3.2a

CV(%) 10.8 15.6 17.7 24.5 11.8 17.7 10.3

tWithin columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
according to Tukey's test (0.05).












4.0


3.5 -


* .


U
EU


.

.
=U
*l
U. U


(0



E
0)

a)


0

L-

O
0-
0
H-


* 0


:12.2%
1.9


Tissue P (g kg-1)


Figure 4-18. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to tissue P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2.


y =2.81 1.26(1.93 -x)2
R2 = 0.70, p<0.0001, CV
plateau =2.81 critical x:


3.0 -


2.5 -


2.0 -


1.5 -


1.0 -


.5 -


0.0
























0 I I- -- -- -- -- -- -- --I _
0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5
P205 application rate (g m2 4-wk )
Figure 4-19. Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application
rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2).


0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5
P205 application rate (g m2 4-wk )
Figure 4-20. Soil Mehlich-1 P, FeO P, and WEP concentration as influenced by P application
rate (soil sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).












a

4

- 3




1

0


0 1 2 3 4 5 6

WEP (mg kg1)

Figure 4-21. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2).


y 0.70x + 0.51 *
r 0.65, p<0.0001
CV 35% *






** *



3 1 2 3 4 5
Fe Oxide P (mg kg )



y 1.71x 0.19
r2 0.66, p<0.0001
CV 25. 8% *




++
4




0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fe Oxide P (mg kg 1)



y 1.77x + 0. 16
r 0.54, p<0.0001 *
CV 29.7% *







I













b

4







1
S3


2




0


WEP (mg kg 1)

Figure 4-22. Relationships among Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and WEP concentrations (soils
sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).


*





*+ y = 0.75x + 0.37
Sr 0.68, p<0. 0001
CV= 24. 9%



3 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fe Oxide P (mg kg )


y 1.91x 0.72
r 2 0.72, p<0.0001
CV 27. 4%











0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fe Oxide P (mg kg )



y =2. 04x 0. 58
r = 0.68, p<0.0001
CV 28.8%
*

o *..


% i i












S y 0.26x + 0.66
r 0.85, p<.0001
=3 CV = 18.3% *
&* *

2

.21 *


0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Mehlich-1 P (mg kg1)


y 0.40x + 0.72

r 0.46, p<0.0001 *
3 CV 15. 8%
M *
a 2 4




0
*-




0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fe Oxide P (mg kgl)


4






*y 0.40x + 0.84
1 ** 2
r 0.35, p<0.0001
CV 19.4%
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
WEP (mg kg 1)

Figure 4-23. Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2
(soil No. 2).














- 3. 5
M
bZ

S2.5


0 1.5


0.5


0 2 4 6
Mehlich-1 P


8
(mg kg 1)


10 12


++




y =0.54x + 0.45
r 0. 67, p<0.0001
CV 15.8%


0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fe Oxide P, mg kg-1



y =0.58x + 0.49
r2 0.63, p<0.0001
CV 19. 4%


"... .



I II


0 1 2 3 4 5
WEP (mg kg 1)

Figure 4-24. Relationships between tissue P concentration and Mehlich-1 P, Fe Oxide P, and
WEP concentrations (soils sampling depth of 0-2 cm) in the glasshouse soil study 2
(soil No. 3).


y =0.24x + 0.79
r2 0.71, p<0.0001 *
CV 18.3%






8 i*_____















*













y 2.96 0.024(7.73 x)2
R2 = 0.54, p<0.001, CV =17.3%
plateau = 2.96 critical x = 8


Mehlich-1 P (mg kg-1)
Figure 4-25. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1
the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 2).


P concentration in


4.0


3.5 -



3.0 -



2.5 -



2.0 -



1.5 -


(0


E
0)
a)



0
L-

O
0-
0
H-


1.0


-I.











3.2


2.8-



c) 2.4
E

S2.0
(--

y =2.74 0.017(8.78 x)2
1.6 R2 = 0.60, p<0.0001, CV = 20.2%
S/ plateau = 2.74 critical x = 9
0)
0-
-1.2



.8 I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Mehlich-1 P (mg kg-1)
Figure 4-26. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Mehlich-1 P concentration in
the glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No. 3).





















0 0


3.5 -



3.0 -



2.5 -



2.0 -



1.5 -


* 0
*


>.,
(c


E
0)


a)



0
L-
O
-.)
0
0
H.


-25.6%
3


Fe Oxide P (mg kg-1)
Figure 4-27. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil Fe Oxide P concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2).


4.0


- ^



Sy = 2.74
*/ R2 = 0.7
plateau



/.


-0.23(3.09 x)2
2, p<0.0001, CV:
2.74 critical x=


1.0


-I.


C










3.2


2.8 -



(c 2.4-
E
0)
0 2.0 -
S/ y= 2.72- 0.21(3.08-x)2
/R2 = 0.41, p<0.01, CV= 26.4%
O plateau = 2.72 critical x = 3
o 1.6
0)
0 .
I- 1.2



.8 I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

WEP (mg kg-1)
Figure 4-28. St. Augustinegrass tissue growth rate relative to soil WEP concentration in the
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2).















07

3 -'
o 00
'6 P
v


O 0-2 cm
O 2-10 cm
B


C

-b
b b b




0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5
P205 application rate (g m-2 4-wk- )


Figure 4-29. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil
sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 2).


D 0-2 cm A
A
O 2-10 cm


B -


C C a a
a a




0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5
P205 application rate (g m-2 4-wk- )


Figure 4-30. Soil Mehlich-1 P concentration as influenced by P application rate and soil
sampling depth in the glasshouse study 2 (soil No. 3).














E 4 0 1st


E
a 2nd
E 3 1 3rd
Co 4th
t2 b a

a
l c
1 Cc b


0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5

P205 application rate (g m"2 4-wk"1)

Figure 4-31. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2).


0.6


--
n 0.4
E

0.2


0


* 1st
* 2nd
o 3rd
o 4th


c
ccC C

-101111 = M -A


0 0.31


0.63


1.25


a

a



2.5


P205 application rate (g m-2 4-wk1)

Figure 4-32. Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event
in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.2).














E 4 1st
m 2nd
S3 o 3rd
S4o 4th b
cO 2
b
a1 b b bb a
bb b
-j
0 b bbb b

0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5

P205 application rate (g m-2 4-wk"1)

Figure 4-33. Leached SRP mass as influenced by P application rate and leaching event in
glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3).


0.6

-j
S0.4
E

0.2


0


0 0.31 0.63 1.25 2.5


P20s application rate (g m"2 4-wk"1)

Figure 4-34. Leached SRP concentration as influenced by P application rate and leaching event
in glasshouse soil study 2 (soil No.3).










Table 4-7. Visual quality rating of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 3.
P205 rates ---------------------------------- Week t----------------- -------
(g m2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean

0 6.1b 6.2b 5.8b 5.6c 5.5b 5.2b 5.6b 5.4b 6.3b 6.9c 6.9c 6.6b 6.2b
0.31 7.2a 7.5a 6.6ab 7.1b 7.1a 7.1a 7.1a 6.6a 6.9ab 7.1bc 6.8bc 7.1a 7.0a
0.63 7.5a 7.9a 7.1a 7.7ab 7.5a 7.2a 7.2a 7.2a 7.4a 7.6abc 7.3ab 7.3a 7.4a
1.25 7.6a 7.9a 7.5a 7.8a 7.6a 7.7a 7.2a 7.3a 7.4a 7.7ab 7.5a 7.4a 7.6a
2.5 7.7a 8.0a 7.6a 7.6ab 7.6a 7.5a 7.3a 7.3a 7.2a 7.9a 7.5a 7.4a 7.5a

CV(%) 7.6 4.9 10.7 6.8 7.6 9.7 5.4 8.3 8.8 7.4 6.54 5.2 5.7

tWithin columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to
Duncan's multiple range test (0.05).


Table 4-8. Top growth rate of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in 2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 3.

P205 rates ---------------------Harvest (g m-2 day) --------------------
(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean

0 3.2b 3.0a 2.8b 1.6b 2.0b 1.5b 2.4b
0.31 3.8ab 3.1a 3.0ab 1.9ab 2.5ab 1.6ab 2.6a
0.63 3.9a 3.1a 3.0ab 2.0 a 2.6a 1.7ab 2.7a
1.25 3.9a 3.3 a 3.lab 2.1a 2.7a 1.7ab 2.8a
2.5 4.3a 3.4a 3.3a 2.1a 2.7a 1.8a 3.0a

CV(%) 11.3 11.3 10.8 8.8 17.9 13.0 8.0

Within columns for each soil, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
according to Duncan's multiple range test (0.05).









Table 4-9. Tissue P concentration of St. Augustinegrass as influenced by P application rate in
2005-2006 glasshouse soil study 3.

P205 rates -------------------------Harvest (g kg) ----------------------------
(g m-2 4-wk-1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean

0 1.3d 1.4b 1.3d 1.2d 1.5d 1.5e 1.4d
0.31 1.4d 1.5b 1.7cd 1.5c 1.8d 1.9d 1.6d
0.63 1.8c 2.1a 1.9bc 1.7c 2.3c 2.5c 2.0c
1.25 2.2b 2.3a 2.3b 2.4b 3.0b 3.5b 2.6b
2.5 2.9a 2.4a 3.4a 3.3a 4.1a 4.6a 3.4a

CV(%) 15.0 20.0 14.3 8.8 14.1 9.4 8.6