<%BANNER%>

Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation of Container-Grown Nursery Crops

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022752/00001

Material Information

Title: Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation of Container-Grown Nursery Crops
Physical Description: 1 online resource (89 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Von Merveldt, Joseph
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: container, horticulture, irrigation, reclaimed
Horticultural Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Water is a limited and vital resource in the nursery industry. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of reclaimed municipal water for container-grown nursery crop production. Growth response to reclaimed municipal water irrigation was evaluated for vinca Catharanthus roseus (lL.) G. Don, salvia (Salvia splendens F. Sellow ex Roem. & Schult.), Dwarf Yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria Ait. ?Nana?), and ?Helleri? holly (Ilex crenata Thunb. ?Helleri?). These species were chosen because of their varying levels of salt tolerance and differing durations to maturity or marketable size. Five different proportions of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) were used as irrigation treatments. Surface application and surface application with overhead spray irrigation techniques were used. A survey of nursery growers who were irrigating with reclaimed municipal water and potentially could irrigate in this manner was administered. Results from the experiments where plant response to municipal reclaimed water was evaluated and results from the surveys indicated that in most cases reclaimed municipal water is a viable irrigation source for container-grown nursery crops.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joseph Von Merveldt.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Yeager, Thomas H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022752:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022752/00001

Material Information

Title: Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation of Container-Grown Nursery Crops
Physical Description: 1 online resource (89 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Von Merveldt, Joseph
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: container, horticulture, irrigation, reclaimed
Horticultural Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Horticultural Science thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Water is a limited and vital resource in the nursery industry. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of reclaimed municipal water for container-grown nursery crop production. Growth response to reclaimed municipal water irrigation was evaluated for vinca Catharanthus roseus (lL.) G. Don, salvia (Salvia splendens F. Sellow ex Roem. & Schult.), Dwarf Yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria Ait. ?Nana?), and ?Helleri? holly (Ilex crenata Thunb. ?Helleri?). These species were chosen because of their varying levels of salt tolerance and differing durations to maturity or marketable size. Five different proportions of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) were used as irrigation treatments. Surface application and surface application with overhead spray irrigation techniques were used. A survey of nursery growers who were irrigating with reclaimed municipal water and potentially could irrigate in this manner was administered. Results from the experiments where plant response to municipal reclaimed water was evaluated and results from the surveys indicated that in most cases reclaimed municipal water is a viable irrigation source for container-grown nursery crops.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Joseph Von Merveldt.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Yeager, Thomas H.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022752:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF CONTAINER GROWN NURSERY CROPS By JOSEPH K. VON MERVELDT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Joseph K. von Merveldt

PAGE 3

3 Thanks go out to my wife, my committee members, Claudia Larsen, and all others who have assisted me in completing this endeavo r

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 General Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 Landscape p lants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 Citrus ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 Agricultural c rops ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 17 Safety of Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation ................................ .............................. 21 Attitu des and Perceptions of Reclaimed Municipal Water Use ................................ ............. 23 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 24 Rationale and Objectives for the Study of Reclaimed Municipal water Irrigation in Container Plant Nurseri es ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 25 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ........................... 26 Experiment 1 : Vinca ( Catharanthus roseus ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 Experiment 2 : Salvia ( Salvia splendens ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Municipal Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ ................................ 27 Experiment 3 : Dwarf Yaupon Holly ( Ilex ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ............................ 28 Experiment 4 : ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water I rrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ .............. 29 Descriptive Survey of Container Plant Nursery Users and Potential Users of Reclaimed Mu ni cipal Water ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 29 Participant s ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 D ata Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 31

PAGE 5

5 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Experiment 1 : Vinca ( Catharanthus rosea us ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Municipal Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 Experiment 2: Salvia ( Salvia splendens ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Municipal Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 Experiment 3: Dwarf Yaupon Holly ( ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ............................ 34 Experi ment 4: ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments ................................ ................................ .............. 36 Descriptive Survey of Container Plant Nursery Users and Potential Users of Reclaimed Municipal Water ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 37 Nurseries Using Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation ................................ ........... 37 Nurseries Not Using Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation ................................ .... 45 Discussion of Survey Results ................................ ................................ .......................... 50 4 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ 64 APPENDIX A RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER USER SURVEY ................................ ...................... 65 B RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER NON USER SURVEY ................................ ............ 80 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 89

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table P age 3 1 Constituents of Reclaimed Water at Initiation of Experiments Conducted in Greenhouse form 2001 2003 ................................ ................................ ............................. 52 3 2 Mean Shoot Dry Weight of Dwarf Yaupon Holly ................................ ............................. 5 3 3 3 Mean Shoot Dry Weight of 'Helleri' Holly ................................ ................................ ........ 5 4 3 4 ................................ ................................ ........ 5 5 3 5 Average Data for Reclaimed Water Collected at Se ven Nurseries in Florida that Participated in Reclaimed Water Use Survey ................................ ................................ .... 5 6

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure P age 3 1 Shoot Dry Weight of Vinca ................................ ................................ ............................... 5 7 3 2 Root Dry Weight of Vinca ................................ ................................ ................................ 5 8 3 3 Leachate Analysis of Vinca ................................ ................................ ............................... 5 9 3 4 Root Dry Weight of Salvia ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 3 5 Leachate Analysis of Salvia ................................ ................................ ............................... 61 3 6 L eachate Analysis of Dwarf Yaupon Holly ................................ ................................ ....... 62 3 7 Leachate Analysis of Helleri Holly ................................ ................................ ................. 63

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the Universi ty of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF CONTAINER GROWN NURSERY CROPS By Joseph K. von Merveldt December 2008 Chair: Thomas Yeager Major: Horticultural Science Water is a limited and vital resource in the nursery industry. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of reclaimed municipal water for container grown nursery crop pr oduction. Growth response to reclaimed municipal water irrigation was evaluated for vi nca [ Catharanthus roseus (l L.) G. Don] s alvia ( Salvia splendens F. Sellow ex Roem. & Schult. ) Dwarf Yaupon h olly ( Ilex vomitoria Ait. and Ile x crenata Thu nb. ). These species were chosen because of their varying levels of salt tolerance and differing durations to maturity or marketable size. Five different proportions of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water (0, 25, 50, 75, a nd 100%) were used as irrigation treatments. Surface application and surface application with overhead spray irrigation techniques were used. A survey of nursery growers who were irrigating with reclaimed municipal water and potentially could irrigate in this manner was administered. Results from the experiments where plant response to municipal reclaimed water was evaluated and results from the surveys indicated that in most cases reclaimed municipal water is a viable irrigation source for container gro wn nursery crops

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General Introduction The use of reclaimed municipal water as an irrigation source for nursery crops is a in an increase d demand for water, a limited resource, as well as increased production of sewage water to reclaim. The use of reclaimed municipal water, processed sewage, is continuously being investigated to determine its viability as a replacement for potable water us ed for irrigation. Nurseries must have access to high quality water for optimal plant production. The use of reclaimed municipal water may help the nursery industry to cope with limited supplies of high quality freshwater in Florida, as well as, provide a use for reclaimed municipal water that might otherwise be discharged to the environment. We investigated the use of reclaimed municipal water for the irrigation of four nursery crops, including: v inca [ Catharanthus roseus (l L .) G. Don] s alvia ( Salvi a splendens F. Sellow ex Roem. & Schult. ) Dwarf Yaupon h olly ( Ilex vomitoria Ait. and Ilex crenata Thu nb. ). These species were chosen due to their varying levels of salt tolerance and varying durations to maturity or m arketable size. Vinca (Tjia and Rose, 1987) and Dwarf Yaupon holly (Black 2003; Watkins and Sheehan, 1988) are accepted as more salt tolerant than Salvia Helleri olly (Watkins and Sheehan 1988). Vinca and s alvia are typically grown i n the nursery for 6 to 8 weeks, while Dwarf Yaupon h oll y and olly are grown for 6 to 8 months in the nursery to produce a plant in a 3 liter container. The second component of the current study was a descriptive survey of nursery growers who w ere currently using reclaimed municipal water for the irrigation of nursery crops. Also surveyed were nursery growers whose businesses are located in areas where reclaimed municipal

PAGE 10

10 water is available and potential for its use for irrigation exists. The survey investigated the attitudes, beliefs, and practices that the nursery industry displays regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water for the irrigation of nursery crops. Survey participants who used reclaimed municipal water were questioned regardi ng: length of time reclaimed municipal water had been used as an irrigation source, distance of nursery from water facility, contract with the water facility, frequency and type of water analyses performed, consistency of water quality and quantity, crops grown, plant growth patterns, frequency of crop damage or disease, need for water filtration, need for pH monitoring, safety concerns, satisfaction with reclaimed municipal water irrigation, other sources of water used for irrigation, reuse of water for i rrigation, fertilizer use, methods of irrigation, and the use of reclaimed/unreclaimed water mixing for irrigation. Nurseries not using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation were questioned on several of the above topics, as well as, being questioned r egarding their beliefs and attitudes as they applied to reclaimed municipal water irrigation. Literature Review Population growth results in an increased demand for water, a limited resource, as well as increas ed wastewa ter production. The use of reclaime d municipal water, processed sewage, in horticulture is continuously being investigated to determine its viability as a replacement for freshwater. The major issues in u sing reclaimed municipal water for horticultural purposes concern the quantity of total s oluble salts, individual nutrient toxicities including: sodium (Na), chloride (Cl), and boron (B), and the presence of heavy metals. Another cause for concern is the harmful microorganisms that may be present in reclaimed municipal water. Using reclai med municipal water for irrigation also has potential bene fits. Reclaimed municipal water contains low levels of macronutrients that c ould help to lower fertilizer costs.

PAGE 11

11 Another benefit is a possible increase in the yield of horticultural crops irrigate d with reclaimed municipal water Landscape Plants The use of reclaimed municipal water to grow and maintain landscape plants has been investigated to determine the benefits and drawbacks of its use. Southern Indian Hybrid a zaleas watered in the landscap e by overhead irrigation with reclaimed municipal water had a slower growth rate than when reclaimed municipal water was soil applied, overhead potable water was applied, or potable water was applied to the soil. The treatments receiving overhead reclaimed municipal water irrigation exhibited leaf burn, probably due to the high levels of chloride often found in recla imed municipal water (Robinson and Parnell, 1989). There was 300 mg/L Cl in the reclaimed municipal water compared to 6 mg/L Cl in the potable water. Both methods of irrigation, overhead and soil surface, had higher death rates with reclaimed municipal wate r than potable water (Robinson and P arnell, 1989). Dwarf Azalea Hybrids were affected in a slightly different way. The Dwarf Azalea Hybri ds irrigated with reclaimed municipal water and those that receiv ed potable water had no significant differences i n their growth rates (Robinson and Parnell, 1989). Leaf burn was again exhibited in the treatment receiving overhead irrigation of reclaimed municipal water. This probably resulted from the effects of high chloride levels. O verhead irrigation with reclaimed municipal water resulted in more plant death than the overhead irrigation with potable water (Robinson & Parnell, 1989). The plants recei ving soil surface applied reclaimed municipal water displayed the most plant death overall (Robinson and Parnell, 1989). Probably the cause of adverse effects on both Southern Indian Hybrid a zalea and Dwarf Azalea Hybrid was the extremely high levels of C l (300 mg/L ) in the reclaimed municipal water Th e concentration of

PAGE 12

12 chloride was three to four times higher than most other sour ces of reclaimed municipal water (Robinson and Parnell, 1989). According to Wu et al (1995) crops that have higher levels of Cl in their tissues are typica lly more sensitive to Cl, and therefore could be more sensitive to the use of reclaimed municipal water irrigation This is because reclaimed municipal water typically has higher levels of Cl than other sources of water. Th e exception to this is plants that have both high levels of calcium (Ca) and Cl in their tissues, such as hydrangea. Wu et al. (1995) hypothesize that Ca can help to prevent Cl toxicity. If this is true, a possible solution for plants that are adversely affected by Cl in reclaimed municipal water is to increase Ca conce ntrations in the plants (Wu et a l 1995). The impact on foliar damage as a result of sprinkle irrigating various landscape trees with reclaimed municipal water was the subject of a study con ducted in Nevada (Devitt, Morris, & Neuman, 2003). The species in this experiment were Heritage Oak ( Quercus virginiana Mill. desert willow ( Chilopsis linearis Cav. Sweet ) flowering plum ( Prunus cerasifera Ehrh; Atropurpurea ), and Chinese pistache ( Pistacia chinensis Bunge) The outcome of the study was that the Chinese pistache and flowering plum incurred greater foliar damage than des ert willow and Heritage Oak; the extent of damage depended on the irrigation treatment strategy (Devitt, et al. 2003). Four different treatments of reclaimed municipal water were applied in this study with each one producing different results between species. These treatments included: direct application of reclaimed municipal water, fo llowing the reclaim ed municipal water irrigation with a post irrigation rinse of freshwater, pH adjusting the reclaimed municipal water, and aerating and passing the reclaimed municipal water through a carbon filter. The final conclusion of this study was that no one treatm ent method worked best for all species

PAGE 13

13 and that species selection, at the time of landscape planning, is the most important strategy for avoiding the potential negative effects of reclaimed municipal water irrigation (Devitt, et al. 2003). A study done wi th turf grass, using reclaimed municipal water, used a sur face transfer pond to reduce levels of chloride. As a result of use of the pond, the water electrical conductivity (EC) was reduced from 2 4 dS/m to 1.2 1.5 dS/m. With the use of reclaimed municip al water, 0 .06 to 0 .12 $/m 3 of water used were saved in f ertilizer costs (Mujeriego, Sala, Carbo, and Turet, 1996). The only nutrient not in sufficient quantities in the reclaimed municipal water was iron (Fe). This was resolved by adding Fe compounds to areas showing Fe chlorosis. In situations where chloride levels are too high in reclaimed municipal water a surface storage pond can help to lower chloride levels and electrical conductivity level (Muje riego et. a l 1996). Citrus The use of reclaimed municipal water in citrus production has been investigated in several studies. Water Conserv II is a project in western Orange County and southeastern Lake County, Florida. This project produces 95,000 m 3 of reclaimed municipal water for use on 3,000 hec tares (h a) of citrus daily (Parsons and Cross 1995). H igh quality reclaimed municipal water is used; the standards set for the water quality for Na, Cl, barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), selenium (Se), silver (Ag), sulfate (SO 4 ), and zinc (Zn) con tent are lower than the standards for drinking water. Measurements are periodically taken to maintain these standards (Parsons and Cross 1995). In o ne study the effect of Conserv II reclaimed municipal water on the soil water content, soil chemical an alys e s, leaf mineral status, and fruit quality of well established Hamlin ( Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.) Valencia ( Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb.) and Orlando tangelo ( C. paradise Macf. x C. reticulate Blanco) trees was compared with citrus irrigated with

PAGE 14

14 well water. Zekri and Koo (1994) found that irrigation with reclaimed municipal water resulted in increased leaf mineral concentration s of Na, Cl, and B increased mineral residue s in the soil profile, better tree performance (as measured by canopy density, leaf color, and fruit quantity) decreased fruit quality, and more weed growth relativ e to irrigation with well water. Higher nutrient accumulation in soils, however, did not significantly affect leaf mineral status. Leaf Na, Cl, and B concentra tions in the trees irrigate d with reclaimed municipal water were higher than those of trees irrigated with well water, but still far below toxic levels (Zekri and Koo, 1994) Overall, trees irrigated with Conserv II water had denser canopies, greener leav es, and more blooms and fruit than trees ir rigated with well water (Zekri and Koo, 1994). No detrimental effects were found after 6 years of continuous applicati ons of Conserv II water (Zekri and Koo, 1994). Zekri and Koo (1994) also determined that Cons erv II water can sufficiently supply the phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), and B required of citrus, but can only supply nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) at subsufficient levels (1994). The precise amount by which Conserv II water can reduce the need for thes e nutrients from a fertilizer program needs to be studied more extensively. A different study testing the use of Conserv II water at different irrigation rates applied to with a combination of the four rootstocks: Ca rrizo citrange ( Citrus sinesis (L.) Osb. x Poncirus trifoliate (L.) Raf.), Cleopatra mandarin ( C. reticulate Blanco ), sour orange ( C. aurantium ( L.), and S wingle citrumelo ( C. paradise (L.) Osb x P. trifoliate ) demonstrated other benefits of reclaimed muni cipal water use (Parsons Wheaton, and Castle 2001). At the highest irrigation rate of 2500 mm / year, soluble solids in the juice were lowered, while total soluble solids per hectare increased due to increased fruit production. Fruit peel color score was l ower with this reclaimed municipal water irrigation rate, but juice color

PAGE 15

15 score was higher (Parsons et al., 2001). This high irrigation rate did not cause disease or flooding problems as expected due to the high drainage capacity of the soil. Therefore this study shows that a very high application rate of reclaimed municipal water can be applied successfully to citrus i n well drained soils (Parsons et al., 2001). Another study completed in Florida using Valencia Hamlin and Washington navel orange trees ( Citrus sinesis (L.) Osb. ) on rough lemon ( Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) or Carrizo citrange rootstocks was performed. Citrus trees irrigated with reclaimed municipal water f rom 1987 to1989, had higher leaf concentrations of N, P, Na, and Fe, and lo wer manganese (Mn) and Zn concentrations than trees irrigated with well water. There were no differences in leaf K, Ca, Mg, or Cu concentrations (Koo and Zekri, 1989). It is important to note that the elevated Na level in the leaf tissue was below toxic levels. Visual observations detected darker green leaves and a fuller canopy on trees irrigated with recla imed municipal water than trees irrigated with well water. The yields were estimated in 1987, to be 23% higher in trees that were irrigated using re claimed municipal water compared to trees irrigated with well water (Koo and Zekri, 1989 ). Davies and Maurer (1993) hypothesized that the increased yields and better foliar quality could be due to higher nutrient levels in reclaimed municipal water compar ed to the well water control treatment, but long term effects are unknown These results indicate that reclaimed municipal water provided some nutrient s but more research is needed before making fertilizer recommendations. Similar results were obtained when young citrus trees in Spain were irrigated with reclaimed municipal water that contained 81.1 5.7 mg/L Na 259.5 3.5 mg/L Cl and 0 .9 0 .1 mg/L B (Reboll et a l 2000). The soil had higher levels of Na when reclaimed municipal water was u s ed but these levels were not high enough to negatively affect the young citrus trees.

PAGE 16

16 Chloride and B levels in the soil were not different due to irrigation with reclaimed municipal water, even though the water had high Cl and B con centrations Levels of nitra te (NO 3 ) were higher in well water than in the reclaimed municipal water due to aquifer contamination from o ver fertilization (Reboll et a l 2000). L eaf nutrient concentration s revealed no differences between trees irrigated with reclaimed municipal wate r and trees irrigate d with well water (Reboll et a l 2000). Trees irrigated with reclaimed municipal water and those irrigated with well water had no differences in tree height or trunk diameter. The only difference in growth was that tree canopy diamet er for trees irr igated with reclaimed municipal water was greater than those irrigate d with well water (Reboll et. a l 2000). Another study was done in Gainesville, FL on young citrus trees using water processed to the specifications of reclaimed munici pal water from a sewage treatment plant in Vero Beach, Fl. Th e water was applied to with a Swingle citrumelo rootstock. Results indicated that reclaimed municipal water alone did not sup ply enough nutrients for optimal tree growth, but with the same levels of nutrients added as when trees were grown with well water, gro wth rates were enhanced (Maurer and Davies, 1995 ). From this, it has been deduced that the reclaimed municipal water use d in this study had some nutritional benefit to the tree, but not enough to replace a fertilizer program (Maurer and Davies, 1995) The trees irrigated with reclaimed municipal water and reclaimed municipal water with fertilizer had increased leaf concen tration s of Na, Cl, and B the first year compared to plants grown with well water and fertilizer treatment. The increased levels of Na, Cl, and B were not considered toxic for citrus (Maurer and Davies, 1995 ). Maurer and Davies (1993) demonstrated that applications of low and high irrigation rates (low: 25 mm/wk ; high: 193 mm/wk) of reclaimed municipal water

PAGE 17

17 resulted in large r canopies, greater t runk diameters and highe r yields than trees irrigated with canal water even th ough less fertilizer was applied than was applied to trees being irrigated with canal water Fruit quality was not different There were no significant differences in leaf concentrations of N P, K, Ca, Mg, or Na (Maurer and Davies, 1993). Concentration s of foliar B were the same in all rates of reclaimed municipal water irrigation, but higher than those seen with canal water irrigation. The treatments irrigated with reclaimed municipal water had accelerated rates of weed growth compared with treatments irrigated with canal water (Maurer and Davies, 1993). A study done in Egypt on n avel orange trees provided information on the effects of long term irrigation with sewage water. Five soil sites irrigated with sewage water for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, and sixty years, respectively, were chosen to study the effect of long term irrigation with sewage water on orange trees. Growth density, shoot length, fresh and dry weight of leaves, fruit weight, peel thickness and fruit yield increased with increasing durat ion of sewage irrigation (Omran et al., 1988). Overall, leaves were shown to contain the highest heavy metal concentration, followed by the peel, with juice containing the lowest concentration. Concentrations tended to increase with longer sewage a pplication time, but heavy metal levels always remain ed below the toxic lev el for humans and plants (Omran et al., 1988). Agricultural Crops In Israel Bielorai et al. (1984) investigat ed the effects of drip irrigation with municipal reclaimed water (50 mg N/L) on cotton growth. Three different quantities of reclaimed municipal water and corresponding quantities of freshwater were used along with five different amounts of N fertilizer during a 3 year period. Cotton irrigated with reclaimed municipal wat er grew taller and produced mor e vegetative growth than cotton irrigated with freshwater (Bielorai, et al., 1984). Because of lodging, caused by th e excessive growth, the cotton irrigated with

PAGE 18

18 reclaimed municipal water had a relatively low seed count in t he first year of the experiment. By delaying irrigation and adjusting fertilizer management, the average yields, lint percentage, and lint quality were comparable to cotton irrigated with freshw ater (Bielorai et al. 1984 ). The authors concluded that rec laimed municipal water can be used effectively as a source of irrigation and a source of nutrients for cotton. Furthermore, with appropriate management of reclaimed municipal water and fertilization, production yields can be obtained that are greater than when freshwater irrigation is used (Bielorai et al. 1984 ). A second study conducted in Israel with a cotton crop that was irrigated with reclaimed municipal water applied by drip irrigation investigated the effect of irrigation on soil nutrient content. Three irrigation rates of reclaimed municipal water and freshwater were used during a 3 year period. Three levels of fertilizer treatments were injected in to the freshwater; one level equivalent to the N, P, and K found in the reclaimed municipal water being used a second level at one half the nutrient levels of the reclaimed municipal water, and a third with no added fertilizer (Feigin, Vaisman, and Bielorai, 1984) The concentrations of N and P in the soil were found to increase as a res ult of reclai med municipal water irrigation and freshwater irrigatio n with added fertilizer (Feigin et al., 1984). The presence of K in the soil increased to a lesser extent as a result of reclaimed municipal water irrigation and freshwater irrigatio n with added ferti lizer (Feigin et al., 1984). In general, at equivalent application levels, no significant differences in the level of available N, P, and K in the soil or N, P, and K concentrations in the cotton plant were detected between reclaimed municipal water irrig ation and fresh water irrigation with supplemental fertilization Dry matter yield and N, P, and K accumulation were greater for the high application rate of reclaimed municipal water than for other treatment s

PAGE 19

19 (Feigin et al., 1984). Overall, there was no detrimental effect on soil nutrient s resulting from reclaimed mun icipal water irrigation (Feigin et al., 1984). The effects of reclaimed municipal water on the growth of young apple trees in British Columbia, Canada was inves apple varieties on m.7a rootstock. Either reclaimed municipal water or well water was applied to these cultivars from 1983 to 1987 along with three different rates of surface N fertilization (0, 200, 400 g NH 4 NO 3 /tree/year) (Neilsen, Stevenson, Fitzpatrick, and Brownlee 1989) The 0 g N/tree/year treatment was amended to 100 g/tree/year in 1986 due to low vigor in the trees in this treatment group (N eilsen et al., 1989). R eclaimed municipal water irrigation resulted in increased leaf N, Macspur Red Chief cipal water irrigation resulted in increased trunk diameter in all years and increased fruit number and yield in 1985 and 1 986 for both cultivars (Neilsen et al., 1989). In summary, no major horticultural limitations were observed in successful establishm ent or when irrigated with reclaimed mu nicipal water (Nielsen et a l. 1989). The effects of reclaimed municipal water irrigation on Okanagan Riesling grapes ( Vitis v inefera) resulted in an increase in some pet iole mineral concentrations and a decrease in others, usually in relation to the amount of nitrogen fertilization that was applied. Vines that were irr igated with reclaimed municipal water over a 4 year period h ad increased petiole P, K, and Ca, but had decreased Mg concentrations (Nielsen, Stevenson, and Fitzpatrick 1989). Nitrogen, applied as ammonium nitrate (NH 4 NO 3 ), at rates of 0, 17, and 34 g/vine/year (after year one the

PAGE 20

20 0g NH 4 NO 3 was increased to 8.5 g/ vine/year) resulted in increased petiole N at bloom time, as well as increased petiole Mn concentrations for the highest N application rate (Nielsen et al., 1989) Yield increased for vines irrigated with reclaimed municipal water and for vines irrigated with well water. Yield had a positive linear relationship with rate of applied N in two o f three fruiting years (Nielsen et a l., 1989). A slight increase in soluble solids and juice pH were measured for grapes irrigated with reclaimed municipal water t he second year, but overall no horticultural limitations due to the use of reclaimed municipal water irrigation on these grapes were observed during the 4 year pe riod of the experiment (Nielsen et a l., 1989). The effect of irrigation with reclaimed muni cipal water on yield and plant nutrient content of vegetables was investigated in a study conducted in Summerland, British Columbia. The vegetable crops studied included: tomatoes, sweet peppers, onions, cucumbers, bush beans, and melons. All crops were irrigated using trickle irrigation. The soil was virgin Osoyoos loamy sand soil (Nielsen, Stevenson, Fitzpatrick, and Brownlee, 1989) Yields, between crops, with reclaimed municipal water irrigat ion were greater than or similar to yields obtained with w ell water (Nielsen et al., 1989). The primary difference in nutrient concentrations as a result of reclaimed municipal water irrigation was a decrease in the concentration of Zn and an increase in P concentration found in the vegetable tissue. There were variable results in the amount of other nutrients f ound in the vegetables (Nielsen et al., 1989). Four years of irrigation with reclaimed municipal water did result in an increase in the exchangeable Na content of the soil to a 0.3 m depth, but this chan ge had little practical significance. The study concluded that there were no major limitations to the use of trickle irrigated reclaimed municipal water to produce vegetable crops (Nielsen et al., 1 989). The major benefit of reclaimed municipal water ir rigation was that it could be used to supplement plant nutrients, particularly P. The salts in the reclaimed

PAGE 21

21 municipal water did increase slightly the salinity of the soil after four years, however, long term monitoring of the soil salinity and pH is need ed to determine any lasting effects of reclaimed municipal water irrig ation on soil salinity (Nielsen et al., 1989). Safety of Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation Common concerns regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water in irrigation focus on i ts possible impact on human health and effects on the environment The economical and yield increasing benefits of reclaimed municipal water use in irrigation are compromised if such use produces a significant health risk to those consuming the products or agricultural workers who are exposed to it on a daily basis. It is also necessary to consider the long term effects of irrigation with reclaimed municipal water on the soil and groundwater in the proximity of the reclaimed municipal w ater irrigat ed crops A study done on the safety of the use of reclaimed municipal water on crops that are grown to be eaten raw showed that with proper treatment and disinfection, this irrigation source was safe. Sheikh, Cooper, and Israel (1999) tested reclaimed municipal water for several microorganisms which commonly contaminate water, including: Salmonella, Cyclospora, Escherichia coli, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia. The researchers detected no viable lev els of these microorganisms present (Sheikh, 1999). Another stud y was conducted with alfalfa, radish, and tomato using reclaimed municipal water irrigation. The tomatoes were tested for fecal coliforms and were found to be free of any fecal coliform after twenty four hours of irrigation with reclaimed municipal water (Shahalam, Zahra, Jaradat 1997). Studies have demonstrated that fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci concentrations lower than 100 colony forming units (cfu)/100 mL can be maintained with the water treatment process commonly applied to reclaimed munici p al water (Mujeriego et a l 1996).

PAGE 22

22 A study conducted in Israel compared the contamination effects on vegetable crops irrigated with reclaimed municipal water of different contaminant levels. Water from a highly polluted water source (large amount of micr obes) and from a slightly polluted water source was applied to lettuce, cabbage, onion, carrot, fennel, radish, and tomato (Armon, Dosoretz, Azov, and Shelef, 2001) The application of water from the highly polluted source produced a dramatic increase in the level of bacteria and other contaminants found on the surface of the vegetables compared with little or no increase in contaminants on the vegetables irrigated with the slightly polluted water source (Armon et al., 2001). The results of this study str ongly suggest the necessity to treat water to an extent in which no residual contaminants will be detected on irrigated crops (Armon et al., 2001). A further study completed in Israel was performed to determine the rate of organism decay (fecal coliforms, coliphages, coliphages F+ and C13, and helminth eggs), on and around reclaimed municipal water irrigated vineyards. Variables investigated included: water quality, soil characteristics, and irrigation method (Oron et al 2001). The reclaimed municipal wa ter used for this study came from a reservoir that minimally met Israeli secondary levels for reuse criteria. The two types of irrigation application methods used were on surface drip irrigation and subsurface drip irrigation. While both irrigation syste ms resulted in comparable results in the color and vegetative growth of the grapes, the subsurface irrigation system resulted in higher grape yields and also reduced the exposure of workers to pathogens in the water (Oron et al., 2001). The soil compositi on in this experiment was 28.8% clay, 45.2% silt, and 26% sand. Several characteristics of the soil affected the survival rates of microorganisms from reclaimed municipal water irrigation, most importantly: the moisture content of the soil. The experimen t revealed that when

PAGE 23

23 weight), a significant reduction in all pathogens was observed. The organic matter content in the soil was also a significant factor in pathogen survival. F or this soil type, it was determined that when organic matter content was greater than 0 .85% a significant concentration of pathogens was present (Oron et al., 2001). The salinity of the soil helped to reduce the pathogen counts by increasing the rate of the decay process of the pathogens. In this soil, when the salinity was higher than 5 dS/m, a significant reduction in fec al coliforms was observed (Oron et al., 2001). The overall conclusion of this study was that the soil tested was capable of removin g fecal coliforms, F+ and C13 coliphages, and helminth egg s (Oron et al., 2001). Attitudes and Perceptions of Reclaimed Municipal Water Use A study completed by Devitt, Morris, Kopec, and Henry (2004) investigated the attitudes and perceptions of golf cou rse superintendents regarding the application of reclaimed municipal water in the golf course setting. One question asked of superintendents of golf courses currently using reclaimed municipal water was the rationale behind their decision to use reclaimed municipal water. The four most commonly reported responses were that golf course use of reclaimed municipal water was mandated (33%), there were financial incentives offered for switching water sources (26%), the belief that reclaimed municipal water wou ld be a more reliable water source than that which had been previously used (24%), or to support water conservation efforts (15%) (Devitt et al., 2004). Another question asked participants to consider the impact that reclaimed municipal water use had on g olf courses. Less than 20% of participants viewed reclaimed municipal water as having detrimental effects (Devitt et al., 2004). Education for superintendents of golf courses using reclaimed municipal water appeared to have an impact on their confidence in managing this resource, because 89% of those who had taken

PAGE 24

24 receivin g education on the topic (Devitt et al., 2004). Several studies have been completed that addressed public opinion regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water for multiple purposes. In Irvine, California, Bruvold (1981) on current uses and potential future uses of reclaimed municipal water in their communities. Current uses included: golf course irrigation, common area irrigation, park and schoolyard irrigation, use in ornamental lakes, and food crop irrigation. The fu ture use addressed was the use of reclaimed municipal water as drinking water (Bruvold, 1981). All of the current uses received over 75% favorable opinions. The use of reclaimed municipal wastewater for drinking only received 28% positive opinions (Bruvol d, 1981). Lack of positive opinions of use of reclaimed municipal water for drinking are found throughout the literature. In a metaanalysis of pertinent literature, Bruvold (1985) reported 45 60% of all respondents in the studies analyzed stated opposit ion to the use of reclaimed municipal wastewater for drinking. Bruvold (1985) also reported that across studies a number of demographic variables correlated with opinions on use of reclaimed municipal water for drinking including: level of education, job status, income, gender, age, length of time at current residence, and knowledge of reclaimed municipal water treatment and use. It was further determined that opposition to reclaimed municipal water use consistently lessens as the degree of human contact decreases (Bruvold, 1985). Conclusion In conclusion, the information presented in this literature review indicates that reclai med municipal water can be successfully used on a wide variety of horticultural crops. Reclaimed municipal water can possibly re duce fertilizer costs because of nutrients present in the water.

PAGE 25

25 However, some elements such as Na, Cl, and B can adversely affect crop yields, especially on crops that are sensitive to these elem ents. Reclaimed municipal water irrigation also does not s eem to cause any health concerns if properly processed and applied Further research is needed to determine long term effects of rec laimed municipal water irrigation on soil s and crops. Rationale and Objectives for the Study of Reclaimed Municipal Water I rrigation in Container Plant Nurseries Water, a limited resource, is in high demand and an ever increasing population intensifies this demand. Population growth also increases the amount of wastewater produced. A solution that may both help meet the dem and for water and provide a means for the effective disposal of excess water is the reclamation and reuse of municipal water. Reclaimed municipal water has been effectively used in a variety of ways. One area in which reclaimed municipal water has been a pplied is in the irrigation of container nursery crops, however, research regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water for this use is limited. The current study will focus on the use of reclaimed municipal water as defined in part III of the Florida reu se of reclaimed water and land application law. Part III of Chapter 62 610 F.A.C. outlines the criteria that result in high quality reclaimed water for land application. The first objective of the current investigation is to evaluate the response of orna mental plants to reclaimed municipal water as an alternative irrigation source for nursery production. The second objective is to assess the attitudes, perceptions, and reclaimed municipal water irrigation experiences of container plant growers in Florida

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHOD S Experiment One: Vinca ( Catharanthus roseus ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments Catharanthus roseus plugs were potted with Metro Mix 500 in 2.8 L containers on10 Aug. 2001. Each container substr ate was surface applied with 9g of Osmocote 14N 6P 12K. The plants were placed in a randomized complete block design, containing eight blocks with one plant per treatment per block on benches in a greenhouse with temperature set points of 28 C days/18 C ni ghts and average radiation of 788 mole/m 2 / sec during the experiment. Each irrigation treatment consisted of 460 ml of water applied to the substrate surface of each container. The water applied consisted of a combination of varying percentages of reclai med municipal water and deionized water. Treatment 1 consisted of only deionized water. Treatment 2 consisted of 25% reclaimed municipal water and 75% deionized water. Treatment 3 consisted of an equal percentage of reclaimed municipal water and deioni zed water. Treatment 4 consisted of 75% reclaimed municipal water and 25% deionized water. Treatment 5 consisted of only reclaimed municipal water. Treatments 6 through 10 each directly mirror a previously described treatment condition (6 1, 7 2, 8 3, 9 4, and 10 5), with the addition of 50 70 ml of the corresponding substrate applied irrigation water via overhead spray applied to each plant with a hand held sprayer that delivered a fan pattern for 10 sec. Irrigation treatments were applied as needed fo r 8 weeks. Elemental composition of reclaimed water at experiment initiation is given in Table 3 1. After 4 and 8 weeks of irrigation treatments, measurements from the substrate surface to the top of each plant (plant height), the plant width at the wides t point, and the plant width perpendicular to the widest point were recorded for all plants. Additionally, the leachate resulting from pouring 100 ml of deionized water onto the surface of the substrate was collected

PAGE 27

27 and EC and nutrient concentrations (NO 3 N, P, and K) were determined according to standard procedures ( ARL, 2008 ) for blocks 1 4 after 1, 4, and 8 weeks of irrigation. At the experiment termination, visual observations were noted, roots were washed of substrate, and stems were cut above the uppermost root. Shoots and roots were dried in a forced air oven at 70 C. Shoot and root dry weights were recorded for all plants. Experiment Two: Salvia ( Salvia splendens ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Municipal Water Irrigation Treatments Salvia splende ns plugs were potted with Metro Mix 500 substrate in 2.8 L containers on 26 Oct. 2001. The substrate of each container was top dressed with 9g Osmocote 14N 6P 12K. Plants were placed in a randomized complete block design, containing eight blocks, on bench es in greenhouse. Greenhouse temperature were maintained at the same level as outline in Experiment 1. Average radiation level was 703 mole/m 2 /sec. Each treatment percentage of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water was identical to the corresp onding treatment outlined in Experiment 1. Irrigation treatments began 31 Oct. 2001 and were applied as needed for 8 weeks. Elemental composition of reclaimed water at experiment initiation is given in Table 3 1. After 1, 4, and 8 weeks of irrigation treat ments, measurements from the substrate surface to the top of each plant (plant height), the width at the widest point, and the width perpendicular to the widest point were recorded for all plants. Additionally, the leachate resulting from pouring 100 ml o f deionized water onto the surface of the substrate was collected and EC and nutrient concentrations (NO 3 N, P, and K) were determined according to standard procedures ( ARL, 2008 ) for blocks 1 4 after 1, 4, and 8 weeks of irrigation. At experiment termina tion, visual observations were noted, substrate was washed from the roots, and stems were cut above

PAGE 28

28 the uppermost root. Shoots and roots were dried in a forced air oven at 70 C. Shoot and root dry weights were recorded for all plants. Experiment Three: D warf Yaupon Holly ( ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments Ilex vomitoria by volume (pine bark/peat/sand) substrate, amended with 3.5 kg /m 3 dolomitic limestone and 0.74 kg/m 3 Micromax micronutrients. Each container was top dressed with 14g Osmoscote 18N 2.6P 10K. The plants were placed in a randomized complete block design containing eight blocks on benches in a greenhouse. Green house radiation level averaged 762 mole/m 2 /sec. Greenhouse temperatures were equal to those set in experiment 1 and 2. Irrigation treatments began 10 May 2002. Each treatment percentage of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water was identical to t hose outlined in Experiment 1. Irrigation treatments were applied as needed for 8 months. Elemental composition of reclaimed municipal water at experiment initiation is given in Table 3 1. After 0.5, 2.5, 4, 6, and 8 months of irrigation treatments, measu rements from the substrate surface to the top of each plant (plant height), the width at the widest point, and the width perpendicular to the widest point were recorded for all plants. Additionally, the leachate produced from pouring 100 ml of deionized w ater onto the surface of the substrate was collected and EC and nutrient concentrations (NO 3 N, P, and K) were determined according to standard procedures ( ARL 2008 ) after 0.5, 2.5, 4, 6, and 8 months of irrigation for blocks 1 4. At the completion of the experiment, visual observations were noted, substrate was washed from roots, and stems were cut above the uppermost root. Shoots and roots were dried in a forced air oven at 70 C (158 F). Shoot and root dry weights were recorded for all plants.

PAGE 29

29 Experime ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments Ilex crenata by volume (pine bark/peat/sand) substrate, amen ded with 3.5 kg /m 3 dolomitic limestone and 0.74 kg/m 3 Micromax micronutrients. Each container was top dressed with 14g Osmoscote 18N 2.6P 10K. The plants were placed in a randomized complete block design containing eight blocks on benches in a greenhou se used for Experiment 1 3. Irrigation treatments began 25 Nov. 2002. Each treatment percentage of reclaimed municipal water and deionized water was identical to those outlined in Experiment 1. Treatments were applied for 8.5 months. Elemental compositi on of reclaimed water at experiment initiation is given in Table 3 1. After 0.5, 2.5, 4.5, and 8.5 months of irrigation treatments, measurements from the substrate surface to the top of each plant (plant height), the width at the widest point, and the widt h perpendicular to the widest point were recorded for all plants. Additionally, the leachate produced from pouring 100 ml of deionized water onto the surface of the substrate was collected and EC and nutrient concentrations (NO 3 N, P, and K) were determin ed according to standard procedures ( ARL 2008 ) after 0.5, 2.5, 4.5 and 8.5 months of irrigation for blocks 1 4. At the completion of experiment, visual observations were noted, substrate was washed from the roots, and stems were cut above the uppermost ro ot. Shoots and roots were dried in a forced air oven at 70 C (158 F). Shoot and root dry weights were recorded for all plants. Descriptive Survey of Container Plant Nursery Users and Potential Users of Reclaimed Municipal Water Participants A convenience sample of fourteen wholesale container plant nurseries in Florida were chosen as survey participants. The process employed to obtain the names of nurseries using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation was as follows. A list of Florida wastewater tre atment

PAGE 30

30 facilities was obtained from Florida Department of Environ mental Protection. Water treatment facilities were then contacted and asked to release a list of current clients in the nursery industry. All nursery businesses whose contact information wa s provided by the Florida wastewater treatment facilities were contacted to determine if they were using reclaimed water for irrigation of container plants. The contacts resulted in seven candidates that were producing container crops at the time of sample selection, were using reclaimed municipal water irrigation for these crops, and were willing to participate in the survey. The nurseries currently using reclaimed water had been in business an average of 22 years Seven additional nurseries were engaged that were considered potential users of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation. The potential use nurseries surveyed had been in business an average of 32 years. These participants were geographically matched to the nurseries currently using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation, with an average distance of 10 km (6.2 miles ) for six of the users and potential users and 59.5 km (37 miles) for another user and potential user Procedures Nurseries who agreed to participate in the survey, were contacted by the researcher by telephone to schedule a survey time. Surveys were conducted in person, at the nursery being 12 Jan 06. Surveys were administered in writt en form with the researcher present at the time of their completion. The researcher was available to answer questions or provide clarification of survey contents to the participant. The survey administered to those using reclaimed municipal water for irr igation consisted of a series of questions addressing nursery demographics, questions using a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of reclaimed municipal water use for irrigation of container plant nurseries, and free response focusing on past

PAGE 31

31 experiences using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation, as well as, additional opportunities for comment. In addition to the survey conducted, samples of the reclaimed municipal water currently being used for irrigation were collected and pH, EC, and nutrient concentrations (NO 3 N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Mo, Mn, Cu, Fe, Na, and Cl) were determined by standard procedures ( ARL, 2008 ) Surveys of reclaimed municipal water potential users contained only questions addressing nursery demographic s and attitudes and perceptions of the use of reclaimed municipal water irrigation for container plant nurseries. Data Analysis Data from plant response experiments were analyzed using two way factorials and regression analyses. These tests were used to d etermine the presence of significant differences between treatment groups and to determine the strength and the direction of the relationship. Data from the survey were reported primarily as qualitative measures. Mean scores were obtained for questions a bout attitudes and perceptions.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON Experiment 1: Vinca ( Catharanthus roseus ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments There was no interaction between the main effects of irrigation method and percentage of reclaimed municipal water applied for Vinca ( Catharanthus roseus ) shoot and root dry weights. Shoot dry weights were not different for irrigation method ( P linear response to increased percentage of reclaimed water applied (Fig. 3 1). Shoot growth indices were not different 4 weeks or 8 weeks after experiment initiation fo r irrigation method or percentage of reclaimed water applied and visual observations did not reveal aberrances of foliage at week 8. Root dry weights were different (surface applied =3.0 g, overhead and surface applied = 3.3 g) for each irrigation method ( P water applied ( P percentage of reclaimed water increased (Fig. 3 2). Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K decreased throughout the experiment regardless of irrig ation method ( Fig. 3 3 ). However, K levels were above the 10 20 mg/L optimum for container plants (Yeager et al., 2007) at week 8. Leachate EC ranged from 0.6 to 1.9 dS/m during the experiment. The highest ECs, though not excessive, were observed at week 8 for plants that received the surface and overhead application of municipal reclaimed water. Reclaimed water NO 3 N, P, and K at experiment initiation were 3.8, 0.2, and 20 mg/L, respectively, and EC was 0.7 dS/m ( Table 3 1). Data from this experiment ind icated that reclaimed municipal water can be used for irrigation of C. roseus a salt tolerant plant that can be grown near the ocean (Tjia and

PAGE 33

33 Rose, 1987). These results concur with the findings of Maurer and Davies (1993); they found in a study with recl Redblus a Swingle citrumelo rootstock that tree heights were enhanced by irrigation with reclaimed municipal water compared to well water for trees that received fertilization. A possible explanation for t he increased shoot biomass with increased percentages of reclaimed municipal water in the current experiment is the contribution of nutrients in the reclaimed municipal water. This is further substantiated by the larger root biomass at higher percentages o f reclaimed municipal water when plants received a substrate surface application of reclaimed municipal water. Experiment 2: Salvia ( Salvia splendens ) Applications of Ten Reclaimed Municipal Water Irrigation Treatments Salvia ( Salvia splendens ) exhibite d no interaction between the main effects of irrigation method and percentage of reclaimed municipal water applied for shoots or roots. Root dry weights of plants irrigated with surface applied (5.0 g) irrigation were larger than plants that received over head and surface applied (4.3 g) irrigation ( P applied increased (Fig. 3 4). Shoot dry weights were not different for irrigation method ( P percentage of reclaimed water applied ( P rst growth index determination was larger ( P surface applied irrigation (44). The second growth index determination was not different and visual observation at week 8 did not reveal aberrances of fo liage. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K decreased from week 1 to week 4 regardless of irrigation method, and then increased at week 8 to approximately the concentrations

PAGE 34

34 determined at week 1 (Fig 3 5). Potassium concentrations at week 8 were high to excessive, r anging from 130 to 190 mg/L ( Eakes et al., 1991 ) Leachate EC ranged from 0.4 to 1.6 dS/m during the experiment and EC tended to be higher with higher percentages of reclaimed water applied. Reclaimed water NO 3 N, P, and K at experiment initiation were 3 .8, 0.1, and 16 mg/L, respectively, and EC was 0.7 dS/m ( Table 3 1). sensitivity (Black, 1994) and attributed to increased EC levels associated with increased percentages of reclaimed municipal water applied However, shoot dry weights and growth indices were not different due to irrigation application method or percent of reclaimed municipal water applied, thus it is possible that reclaimed municipal water be used for irrigation of s alvia if substrate EC levels are monitored routinely to ensure levels are not excessive. Experiment 3: Dwarf Yaupon Holly ( ) Applications of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments Dwarf Yaupon Holly ( Ilex vomitoria did not have an interaction for root dry weights ( P method and percentage of reclaimed municipal water applied for shoot dry weights ( P 0.0392). Waller Duncan K ratio t Test for shoot dry weights ( Table 3 2 ) revealed that overhead plus surface applied irrigation without reclaimed municipal water (46 g) resulted in greater shoot dry weights than 0, 50, or 100% reclaimed municipal water surface applied only (36, 38, and 34 g, respectively). Shoot dry weights were not different due to irrigation application method for each treatment that contained reclaimed municipal water. Growth indices were not different at each determination due to irrigation application method or percentage of reclaimed municipal water applied and visual observati on at month 8 did not reveal aberrances of foliage.

PAGE 35

35 Root dry weights for plants with surface applied plus overhead irrigation (41 g) were larger than root dry weights (37 g) for surface applied irrigation only ( P Percent reclaimed municipal wat er applied did not result in different root dry weights. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K (Fig. 3 6) increased regardless of irrigation application method at 2.5 and 4 months then tended to decrease until experiment termination at month 8. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K at month 2.5 and 4 exceeded optimal substrate concentrations (Yeager et al., 2007). Leachate EC followed a similar pattern except for the surface applied plus overhead application of 100% reclaimed water at month 8 where a detrimental EC of 2.9 dS/m wa s recorded Reclaimed water NO 3 N, P, and K at experiment initiation were 3.1, 0.1, and 12 mg/L, respectively, and EC was 0.5 dS/m ( Table 3 1). Dwarf Yaupon h olly ( Ilex vomitoria was selected due to its perceived salt tolerance (Black 2003; Watk ins and Sheehan, 1988 ) However, shoot dry weights of plants that received 100% reclaimed municipal water applied to the substrate surface were lower than when 0% reclaimed municipal water was surface applied plus applied overhead. This may be related to the fact that 100% reclaimed, regardless of application method, resulted in the highest EC at month 8. Root dry weights were not different due to percent of reclaimed municipal water applied, but were larger for overhead plus surface irrigation, than for surface irrigation alone. There does not seem to be a logical explanation for this based on substrate nutrition. These data indicate that reclaimed municipal water can be successfully used for the irrigation of Dwarf Yaupon h olly ( Ilex vomitoria wi th routine monitoring of substrate EC so excessive levels are avoided.

PAGE 36

36 ) of Ten Municipal Reclaimed Water Irrigation Treatments ( Ilex crenata he main effects of irrigation method and percentage of reclaimed municipal water applied for shoot dry weights ( P P Duncan K ratio t Test for shoot dry weights (Table 3 3) and root dry weights (Table 3 4) revealed no differences between treatments. The mean shoot and root dry weight for all treatments were 68 g and 30 g, respectively. Growth indices were not different for the first and second determination. The third determination revealed a significant interaction ( P percentage municipal reclaimed water applied with growth index exhibiting a similar response to shoot dry weights. Plants that received 100% municipal reclaimed water applied to substrate surface plus overhead exhibited the greatest growth index (91) and 0% municipal reclaimed applied similarly and 100% municipal recl aimed surface applied resulted in the smallest growth indices (78 and 76, respectively). Visual observation of foliage at 8.5 months did not reveal aberrances of foliage. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K increased for month 4.5 to excessive levels (Yeager et al., 2007) then decreased at month 8.5 to approximately initial concentrations, regardless of irrigation method ( Fig. 3 7), yet P and K were 2 3 times optimal concentrations (Yeager et al., 2007) likely due to the P and K in the reclaimed water. Leachate EC exh ibited a similar pattern and ranged from 0.7 to 2.4 dS/m during the experiment. Reclaimed water NO 3 N, P, and K at experiment initiation were 1.0, 0.3, and 15 mg/L, respectively, and EC was 0.7 dS/m ( Table 3 1 ).

PAGE 37

37 ( Ilex crenata ) was selected due to its non tolerance of salt (Watkins and Sheehan, 1988). The salt sensitivity was reflected in the growth index and even though not statistically different, also in the root growth. EC peaked at 2.4 dS/m at the experimental midpoint (4.5 mo nths) for 100% reclaimed municipal water surface applied and growth index was a low of 76 at month 8. One hundred percent reclaimed municipal water surface applied plus overhead irrigation resulted in the highest growth index (91) at month 8 and the lowes t EC (1.93 dS/m) at the experimental midpoint (4.5 Yeager personal communication, 2008) indicated that an EC above 2.0 dS/m was detrimental to root growth. Current findings suggest that contro l of EC during production may be valuable Descriptive Survey of Container Plant Nursery Users and Potential Users of Reclaimed Municipal Water Nurseries Using Reclaim ed Municipal Water for Irrigation Nurseries were surveyed that were currently using reclaimed municipal water for the irrigation of container plants (Table 3 5 ). The nurseries surveyed had been using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation for an average of 7.9 years (range: 2 12 years). Nurseries were located an average of 1.06 km from the water treatment facility from which they were receiving the reclaimed municipal water. Fifty seven percent of respondents (N=7) reported having a contract with their reclaimed municipal water supplier, of these 50% reported minimum and maximum limits for water use. Fifty seven percent of respondents (N=7) purchase the reclaimed municipal water being used for irrigation. Fifty seven percent of respondents (N=7) rece ive analyses of the water they are receiving; it was reported that analyses are received either annually or upon

PAGE 38

38 request. Thirty three percent of respondents (N=6) reported conducting their own water nutrient analysis or directly hiring another to conduct such testing; time parameters ranged from a one time analysis to repeated testing every 6 months. Participants were then asked to rate the consistency of quality and quantity of reclaimed municipal water delivered to them using a five point Likert scale (Likert, 1932), with one indicating strong agreement that quality or quantity of reclaimed municipal water was consistent ranging to five indicating strong disagreement that quality or quantity of reclaimed municipal water was consistent. To assess the da ta collected, responses of one or two were labeled as agreement to the consistency in quality or quantity of reclaimed water, a response of three was labeled neutral on the issue and responses of four or five were labeled as disagreement to the consistency in quality or quantity of reclaimed municipal water. Sixty seven percent of respondents (N=6) reported that reclaimed municipal water quality was consistent over time, 17% gave a neutral response (N=6), and 17% reported inconsistency of quality (N=6). F ifty percent of respondents (N=6) reported that reclaimed municipal water quantity was consistent over time, 33% gave a neutral response (N=6), and 17% reported inconsistency of quantity (N=6). Survey participants were asked what plants they were currently growing at their nurseries. The results were as follows: 100% of respondents reported growing container woody shrubs (N=7), 100% reported growing container trees (N=6), 75% reported growing perennials under shade or outdoors (N=4), 50% reported growing p erennials in greenhouses (N=4), 50% reported growing bedding plants under shade or outdoors (N=4), 50% reported growing bedding plants in greenhouses (N=4), 67% reported growing foliage plants under shade or outdoors (N=6), 60% reported growing foliage

PAGE 39

39 pla nts in greenhouses (N=5), 80% reported growing potted flowering plants under shade or outdoors (N=5), and 50% reported growing potted flowering plants in greenhouses (N=4). The next series of questions asked participants to report their experiences using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation of container crops, specifically as applied to plant growth and health. No respondents reported any physical or chemical treatment of reclaimed municipal water prior to irrigation of crops. Participants were then asked to rate the frequency with which they had observed plant disease in crops being irrigated with reclaimed municipal water. Frequency was rated using a five point Likert scale (Likert, 1932), with one indicating high frequency of disease observation an d five indicating infrequent disease observation. To assess the data collected, responses of one or two were labeled as highly frequent observation of disease, a response of three was labeled between high and low frequency and responses of four or five we re labeled as low frequency of disease. Seventeen percent of respondents (N=6) reported high disease frequency, but provided no description of disease; the remaining respondents indicated highly infrequent observation of disease. Participants were next a sked to rate the frequency with which they had observed plant damage or aberrant plant growth, not related to disease, in crops being irrigated with reclaimed municipal water. Frequency was rated and labeled as described above. One hundred percent of res pondents reported low or infrequent observations of non disease related plant damage or aberrant growth. Participants were then asked to rate the frequency with which they had observed enhanced plant growth or developmental differences attributed to irrig ation with reclaimed municipal water. Once again the Likert scale rating (Likert, 1932) and labeling

PAGE 40

40 method was implemented as described above. Twenty nine percent of respondents (N=7) reported high frequency of enhanced plant growth or developmental di fferences attributed to the use of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation, 29% reported neither high nor low frequency of such observation, and 43% reported low frequency of enhanced plant growth or developmental differences. Crops reported to exhibit d evelopmental differences were gardenia and Liriope muscari (Dcne). Effects on nurseries using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation of container crops was further investigated in the next section of the survey. Each question had seven respondents. For ty three percent of respondents reported that filtration of reclaimed municipal water was necessary. Fourteen percent of respondents stated that it was necessary to acidify incoming reclaimed municipal water. Twenty nine percent of respondents cited fluc tuating water pressure as a problem associated with reclaimed municipal water use. Very high pressure of water delivery was reported as a problem by 43% of respondents. Fourteen percent of respondents reported pipes or valves breaking as a result of the water pressure of the reclaimed municipal water delivered to their nursery. Fourteen percent of respondents also reported lack of a reliable water supply as a problem they had experienced using reclaimed municipal water. No respondents reported being for ced to take more reclaimed municipal water than was needed to meet nine percent of respondents reported health or safety concerns associated with the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation. No nurser ies reported any toxic reaction of reclaimed municipal water with fertilizers or other chemicals with which it came in contact. Irrigation down time, loss in plant sales, and disgruntled employees were each cited as issues associated with

PAGE 41

41 reclaimed munici pal water irrigation by 14% of respondents. No respondents reported water treatment because of pathogens or increased pesticide use as experiences associated with the use of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation. Emitter or nozzle clogging was a probl em cited by 29% of respondents in association with the use of reclaimed municipal water. Of those reporting problems with emitter or nozzle clogging, 50% reported that water treatment was necessary to remedy the problem. Participants were then asked to ra te the level of satisfaction they had experienced using reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation. Responses were reported using a five point Likert scale (Likert, 1932), with one indicating strong satisfaction and five indicating strong di ssatisfaction. To assess the data collected, responses of one or two were labeled as satisfaction, a response of three was labeled neutral on the issue and responses of four or five were labeled as dissatisfaction. One hundred percent of respondents (N=7) reported being highly satisfied with their overall experience using reclaimed municipal water irrigation. Eighty six percent of respondents reported satisfaction with both the quantity and quality of reclaimed municipal water that had been delivered to t hem. Seventy one percent of participants reported that they had received incentives for using reclaimed municipal water irrigation; 60% of those reporting incentives cited lower operating costs, 20% cited greater water availability, 20% stated that reclai med municipal water had insured irrigation with water of a lower salinity, and 20% reported that their decision to irrigate with reclaimed municipal water was related to a licensure renewal. Survey participants were questioned regarding their source of wa ter for irrigation. Wells were reported in use by 25% of respondents (N=4), but use was stated to be at low

PAGE 42

42 rates. No respondents reported surface water as a source of water for irrigation. Twenty percent of respondents (N=5) reported using municipal or p otable water, although amount of application from this water source was extremely low. Percentages of reclaimed municipal water used for container plant irrigation ranged from 95 100%. To address within nursery water reuse, participants were asked wheth er irrigation water was collected in a pond or basin after use and used in later irrigation; 14% of participants reported the collection and reuse of irrigation water. Of those respondents who reported the collection and reuse of irrigation water, none re ported collection from grassy areas, fields, or floors and benches in greenhouses. One respondent reported that 30% of irrigation water applied was collected for reuse from shade production areas. The next series of questions focused on fertilizer use. Participants were asked to report the types of fertilizer they commonly used. Controlled release fertilizer was reported as the most commonly used, with 100% of respondents (N=7) reporting its use. Granular fertilizer applied in combination with controll ed release fertilizer and granular soluble fertilizer were the second most commonly used, with 71% of respondents (N=7) reporting use of these programs. The third most used fertilizers were solution and natural organic fertilizers; each was reported at 40 % use (N=5). The least commonly used fertilizer program reported was control released fertilizer combined with solution fertilizer; this fertilizer program was used by only 33% of respondents (N=6). Twenty nine percent of respondents (N=7) reported that it had been necessary for them to change their fertilizer program after beginning reclaimed municipal water irrigation of container plants. Respondents reported that it had been necessary to alter fertilizer programs to

PAGE 43

43 adjust to new plant growth patterns to decrease nitrogen levels of fertilizer, and to eliminate boron from the micronutrients applied as part of the fertilizer regime. Survey participants were next asked questions addressing ways in which reclaimed municipal water or other sources of irri gation were applied to different production areas. The size within each of these areas was also addressed in a question. Respondents were further asked to provide the quantities of water delivered in each area during peak demand. Reclaimed municipal wa ter irrigation was considered separately from non reclaimed municipal water irrigation. Reclaimed municipal water irrigation of container plants in areas either outdoors or under shade was addressed first. Total area irrigated under these conditions avera ged 3.5 ha (range: 2 9.5 ha) for 7 respondents and the average amount of reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand averaged 261,193 L for 3 respondents. Eighty six percent of respondents reported irrigating using overhead sprinkler irrigation; a n average of 3.5 ha per respondent were irrigated using this method. Twenty nine percent of respondents reported irrigating using microirrigation; an average of 0.54 ha per respondent were irrigated using this method. No other methods of irrigation were reported to be used by survey respondents. Reclaimed municipal water irrigation of container plants in greenhouses was next addressed. Total area irrigated under these conditions averaged 9290.3 m 2 (range: 1486.4 26012.9 m 2 ) for 5 respondents and the aver age amount of reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand averaged 17,981 L for 2 respondents. One hundred percent of respondents who reported using greenhouse irrigation reported irrigating using overhead sprinkler irrigation; an average of 10776.8 m 2 per respondent was irrigated

PAGE 44

44 using this method. One respondent reported irrigating using a microirrigation system to irrigate 1858.1 m 2 of greenhouse space in addition to overhead sprinkler irrigation. No other types of irrigation were reported to be used, in greenhouses, by survey respondents. Participants were then asked to report non reclaimed water irrigation practices in their nurseries. Twenty nine percent of participants reported using non reclaimed water, in addition to municipal reclaimed water in their nurseries for irrigation of container plants. Of those reporting non reclaimed water irrigation, 100% reported its use outdoors or under shade; areas irrigated averaged 1.1 ha. Overhead sprinkler irrigation and microirrigation were the wat er application techniques each used by 50% of the respondents reporting non reclaimed water irrigation. Fifty percent of those that reported non reclaimed water irrigation reported its use in a greenhouse applied via overhead sprinkler irrigation. The ar ea within this type of irrigation averaged 46.5 m 2 The next section of the survey asked participants to specify what crops were being irrigated using only non reclaimed water. Non reclaimed water irrigation was reported as applied to container woody shru bs, container trees, and foliage plants, both in reclaimed water was azaleas; the reason provid ed by the grower for this irrigation choice was that the salinity of the reclaimed municipal water was too high and caused burning of plant leaves. The mixing of reclaimed municipal water with non reclaimed water used for irrigation of container plants was next addressed. The same types of production areas and crops that had been addressed above regarding reclaimed municipal water only and

PAGE 45

45 non reclaimed water only irrigation were again addressed. No mixing of reclaimed municipal water and non reclaimed wa ter for irrigation was reported under any circumstances. Nurseries Not Using Reclaimed Municipal Water for Irrigation Survey participants were asked what plants they were currently growing at their nurseries. The results were as follows: 100% of responde nts reported (N=6) growing container woody shrubs, 86% reported (N=7) growing container trees, 60% reported (N=5) growing perennials under shade or outdoors, 40% reported (N=5) growing perennials in greenhouses, 20% reported (N=5) growing bedding plants un der shade or outdoors, 20% reported (N=5) growing bedding plants in greenhouses, 71% reported (N=7) growing foliage plants under shade or outdoors, 67% reported (N=6) growing foliage plants in greenhouses, 100% reported (N=6) growing potted flowering plan ts under shade or outdoors, and 80% reported (N=5) growing potted flowering plants in greenhouses. Growers also reported growing ball and burlap trees, palms, palm tree liners, and retail nursery specialty plants. Survey participants were also questioned regarding their source of water for irrigation, their water monitoring practices, and means of runoff collection and disposal. For potential users of reclaimed municipal water, wells were reported to be the most common source of water for irrigation, wit h 83% of respondents (N=6) reporting the use of wells. Surface water was the second most frequently cited source of water for irrigation, for 29% of respondents. Only 14% of respondents reported using municipal or potable water for irrigation. Participa nts were asked about their irrigation water monitoring practices; specifically pH monitoring and water EC testing were addressed. The pH of water used for irrigation was regularly monitored by 43% of respondents

PAGE 46

46 (N=7); the pH measurements reported ranged from 7.0 8.2. No respondents reported monitoring EC. When asked about the monitoring of irrigation water alkalinity, 29% of respondents (N=7) reported regular monitoring, however, only a single respondent provided typical alkalinity values that were 300 mg/L. To address within nursery water reuse, participants were asked whether irrigation water was collected in a pond or basin after use and used in later irrigation; 29% of respondents (N=7) reported the collection and reuse of irrigation water. Of thos e respondents who reported the collection and reuse of irrigation water, none reported collection from grassy areas or fields, one respondent reported collection from floors or benches in greenhouses and outdoor and shade production areas; the other respon dent reporting within nursery water collection and reuse, used collection from only outdoor and shade production areas. The next series of questions presented to participants focused on fertilizer use. Participants were asked to report the types of ferti lizer that they commonly used. Controlled release fertilizer was reported as the most commonly used, with 71% of respondents (N=7) reporting its use. Granular fertilizer applied in combination with controlled release fertilizer was the second most common ly used, with 57% of respondents (N=7) reporting use of this program. The third most reported fertilizers used were solution and natural organic fertilizers; used by 50% of respondents. The least commonly used fertilizer program reported was control rele ased fertilizer combined with solution fertilizer; this fertilizer program was used by only 17 % of respondents (N=6). Survey participants were next asked questions addressing ways in which irrigation was applied to different types of production areas. The size within each of these areas was also addressed in a question. Respondents were also asked to provide the quantities

PAGE 47

47 of water delivered in each area during periods of peak demand. This portion of the to use reclaimed municipal water for irrigation if it were to become available to them. The irrigation of container plants in areas either outdoors or under shade was addressed first. Total area irrigated under these conditions averaged 3.3 ha (range: 0.61 9.3 ha) for 7 respondents and water applied per day during peak demand averaged 235,074 L for 5 respondents. Seventy one percent of participants reported irrigating using overhead sprinkler irrigation; an average of 4 ha per respondent were irrigated using this method. Fourteen percent of respondents reported irrigating using microirrigation; an average of 0.04 ha per respondent were irrigated using this method. Fourteen percent of respondents reported irrigating using flood irrigation; an average of 1.6 ha per respondent were irrigated using this method. Fourteen percent of participants reported irrigating using an unlisted method of irrigation, but no report of method used was provided. Eighty six percent of respondents (N=7) reported that they wo uld use reclaimed municipal water for irrigation outdoors or under shade if it was available to them. The irrigation of container plants in greenhouses was next addressed. Total area irrigated under these conditions averaged 10288.1 m 2 (range: 111.5 32887 .7 m 2 ) for 5 respondents and reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand averaged 64,352 L for 3 respondents. One hundred percent of respondents (N=5) who reported using overhead sprinkler irrigation in greenhouse had an average of 10288.1 m 2 per r espondent. One respondent reported interchangeable use of flood or overhead sprinkler irrigation (32887.7 m 2 ); this participant was the only respondent to report use of flood irrigation in a greenhouse. No respondents reported using microirrigation, ebb and flow irrigation, or

PAGE 48

48 any unlisted type of irrigation in a greenhouse. Eighty percent of respondents (N=5) reported that they would use reclaimed municipal water for irrigation in their greenhouses if it was available to them. The next section of the su regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation in container plant nurseries. Respondents rated their level of agreement to several statements using a five point Likert scale (Likert, 1932), with one indicating strong agreement ranging to five indicating strong disagreement. To assess the data collected responses of one or two were labeled as agreement to the listed statement, a response of three was labeled neutral to the statement, and res ponses of four or five were labeled as disagreement to the statement. Each question had seven respondents. Fifty seven percent of respondents agreed that unknown water quality was a limitation of the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant i rrigation; neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that water quality was a limitation were each reported by 28% and 14 % of respondents, respectively. Thirty nine percent of respondents agreed that the need for water treatment was a limitation of the u se of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation, 57% of respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that need for water treatment was a limitation was reported by 14% of respondents. Fourteen percent of respondents agreed that the reliability of reclaimed municipal water supply was a limitation of its use for container plant irrigation, 29% of respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that reliability of water supply was a limitation was reported by 43 % of respondents. Forty three percent of respondents agreed that the cost of reclaimed municipal water was a limitation of its use for container plant irrigation, 14% of

PAGE 49

49 respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that water cost was a limitation was reported by 43% of respondents. Seventy one percent of respondents agreed that the cost of connection to a reclaimed municipal water system was a limitation of the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation, 14% of resp ondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that the cost of connecting to a reclaimed municipal water system was a limitation was reported by 14% of respondents. When addressing the need for plumbing repairs or retrofitting 43% of responden ts agreed that this was a limitation of the use of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation in container plant nurseries, 43% reporting neutrality, and 14% disagreed that need for plumbing repairs or retrofitting was a limitation. Twenty eight percent of respondents agreed with the possibility that they would need to take more water than was needed was a limitation of the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation, no respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that excess water would need to be taken was a limitation was reported by 71% of respondents. Fourteen percent of respondents reported that limited research on reclaimed municipal water was a limitation of its use for container plant irrigation, 43% of respond ents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that limited research was a limitation was reported by 43% of respondents. Forty three percent of respondents agreed that restrictions on the use of the existing water supply was a limitation of the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation, 28% of respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that such restrictions were limitations was reported by 28% of respondents. Fifty seven percent of respondents agreed th at health or safety concerns were limitations of the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation, no respondents

PAGE 50

50 reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that health or safety concerns were limitations was reported by 43% of r espondents. Twenty eight percent of respondents agreed that regulations regarding the use of reclaimed municipal water were a limitation of its use for container plant irrigation, 28% of respondents reported neutrality on the issue, and disagreement that regulations were a limitation was reported by 43% of respondents. When asked what were other limitations to the use of reclaimed municipal water for container plant irrigation the responses given were reclaimed municipal water for irrigation may be unavai lable in a given locale and political issues surrounding the distribution of reclaimed municipal water may serve as limitations. Discussion of Survey Results Satisfaction ratings of one hundred percent reported by nurseries using reclaimed municipal wate r for irrigation support the viability of its use in the container plant nursery industry. As with any other water source, monitoring of water quality and plant response are vital for optimal production. Awareness of crop sensitivity to certain qualities of reclaimed municipal water is important for proper use. As mentioned previously, growers reported difficulty in the production of gardenias and liriope. With the use of any new technology or innovation, a period of time is required to establish its pr oper use and limitations. Those not currently using reclaimed municipal water for irrigation most frequently cited start up costs, water availability, political issues, and health and safety concerns as reasons for not using reclaimed municipal water. P rovision for governmental subsidies or tax rebates for start up costs of irrigating with reclaimed municipal water irrigation may serve as incentives for those not currently using this water source. An alternative to this would be providing cost benefit a nalyses of long term reclaimed

PAGE 51

51 municipal water use showing long term financial benefits exceed losses. If nurseries could be guaranteed a volume of water daily by water treatment facilities it may reduce their apprehension for instituting reclaimed munici pal water irrigation. Proper education stressing the safety of reclaimed municipal water for irrigation and safeguards that can be put into place to further enhance water safety may help alleviate this concern. One survey participant was not using reclai med municipal water for irrigation due to perceived unfair local politics regarding water disbursement; however, this does not appear to be a widespread issue.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 1. Constituents of reclaimed water at initiation of experiments conducted in greenhouse from 2001 2003 to evaluate the growth response of Catharanthus roseus (vinca), Salvia splendens Ilex vomitoria Ilex crenata L containers to 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100 % reclaimed water or deionized water at each irrigation. NO3 N mg/L P mg/L K mg/L Ca mg/L Mg mg/L Zn mg/L Mn mg/L Cu mg/L Fe Mg/L Na mg/L C l mg/L pH EC dS/m Vinca 3.8 0.2 20 39 20 0. 0 5 0.02 0.01 0 72 8 8 7.8 0.7 Salvia 3.8 0.1 16 52 26 0.05 0.02 0.01 0 81 83 8.3 0.7 3.1 0.1 12 31 16 0.06 0 0 0 52 90 7.9 0.5 1.0 0.3 15` 36 21 0 .06 0 0 0 75 95 7.8 0.7

PAGE 53

53 Table 3 2. Mean shoot dry w e ights (grams) of I. vomitoria grown in a 2 pine bark: 1 Canadian peat: 1 sand (b y volume) substrate and irrigated for 8 months with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy. Percent reclaimed munic ipal water Surface applied Surface applied and Overhead 0 36 46 25 39 43 50 38 43 75 44 39 100 34 39 Means separated by Waller Duncan K ratio t Test. Minimum Significant Difference = 7 g

PAGE 54

54 Table 3 3. Mean shoot dry weights (grams) of ( ) grown in a 2 pine bark: 1 Canadian peat: 1 sand (by volume) substrate and irrigated for 8.5 months with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substr ate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy. Percent reclaimed municipal water Surface applied Surface applied and Overhead 0 72 62 25 74 64 50 66 71 75 70 65 100 64 74 Means separated by Waller Duncan K ratio t Test. Minimum Significant Difference = 14 g

PAGE 55

55 Table 3 4. Mean root dry weights (grams) for ( Ilex crenata grown in a 2 pine bark: 1 Canadian peat: 1 sand (by volume) substrate and irrigated for 8.5 months with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy. Percent reclaimed municipal water Surface applied Surface applied and overhead 0 31 29 25 29 27 50 30 35 75 33 26 100 27 36 Means separated by Waller Duncan K ratio t Test. Minimum Significant Difference = 17g.

PAGE 56

56 Table 3 5 Average data fo r reclaimed water collected at seven nurseries in Florida that participated in reclaim ed water use survey June 2005 January 2006 NO3 N mg/L P mg/L K mg/L Ca mg/L Mg mg/L Mo mg/L Zn mg/L Mn mg/L Cu mg/L Fe m g/L Na mg/L Cl mg/L pH EC dS/m 2.9 1.6 17 65 14 0.02 0 0 0 0 122 136 7.9 0.7

PAGE 57

57 Figure 3 1. Shoot dry weight s of C. roseus grown for 8 weeks in 2.8 L containers with Metro Mix 500 substrate and irrigated with various percentage combinations of municipal reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and ov er head to the plant canopy.

PAGE 58

58 Figure 3 2. Root dry weights of C. roseus grown for 8 weeks in 2.8 L containers with Metro Mix 500 substrate and irrigated with various percentage combinations of municipal reclaimed and deionized water either ap plied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy (SO) or applied to the substrate surface (S).

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3 3. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K for C. roseus grown for 8 weeks in 2.8 L containers with Metro Mix 500 subst rate and irrigated with various percentage combinations of municipal reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3 4. Root dry weights of S. splendens grown in 2.8 L containers with Metro Mix 500 substrate and irrigated for 8 weeks with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy (SO) or applied to the substrate sur face (S).

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3 5 Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K for S. splendens grown in 2.8 L containers with Metro Mix 500 substrate and irrigated for 8 weeks with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionize d water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 3 6. Leachate NO 3 N, P, and K for I. vomitoria grown in a 2 pine bark: 1 Canadian peat: 1 sand (by volume) substrate and irrigated for 8 months with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 3 7. Lea chate NO 3 N, P, and K for I. crenata grown in a 2 pine bark: 1 Canadian peat: 1 sand (by volume) substrate and irrigated for 8.5 months with various percentage combinations of reclaimed and deionized water either applied to the substrate surface or applied to substrate surface and applied overhead to the plant canopy.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Reclaimed municipal water is a viable irrigation source for container plant nurseries. The experimental results for studies reported in th is document demonstrate that with proper crop management techniques container plants can be grown with reclaimed municipal water irrigation applied to substrate surface and applied overhead. A key component of crop management, when using reclaimed water i rrigation, is the monitoring and regulation of EC levels of the substrate within a range most appropriate for the crops being grown. The current survey of container plant nursery growers and owners demonstrated the general willingness of the nursery indus try to use reclaimed municipal water for irrigation, with a few notable contingencies. Primary concerns were costs, availability, water quality, and politics. In summary, results of this investigation suggest that if low cost/high quality reclaimed wate r was consistently available with freedom from political barriers, nursery growers would embrace the opportunity to use this valuable irrigation resource.

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX A RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER USER SURVEY Survey for Container Nurseries Using Reclaimed Water 1. Nursery Number _______________ County _______________________________ Date 2. How long have you been in business? ____ years 3. How long have you been using reclaimed water? ____ years 4. List source or supplier of reclaimed water: ______________________________________ 5. What type of reclaimed water do you get from the supplier as defined by state statute? (check one ) a. ____ Part I, b. ____ Part II, c. ____ Part III, or d. ____ other 6. Reclaimed water supplier is approxi mately ________ miles from the nursery. 7. Do you have a contract with the reclaimed water supplier? Circle Yes or No If yes list maximum and minimum gallons of water received daily. a. Maximum reclaimed water received daily from supplier ___________ __gallons b. Minimum reclaimed water received daily from supplier _____________gallons 8. Do you purchase reclaimed water? Circle Yes or No 9. Do you receive a water analysis report from the reclaimed water supplier? Circle Yes or No a. If yes how often? _________________ (weekly, monthly, etc.) Attach most recent report from supplier and check on report which analyses are most useful 10. Do you conduct or have conducted a nutrient analysis of the reclaimed water? Circle Yes or No a. If yes how often? ________________ (weekly, monthly, etc.) Attach your most recent report and check on report which analyses are most useful. 11. The reclaimed water quality is consistent with time? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree ) Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 12. The reclaimed water quantity supplied is consistent with time? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree ) Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strong ly Disagree

PAGE 66

66 13. What do you grow using reclaimed water? (Circle Yes or No below) a. Container woody shrubs Yes or No b. Container trees Yes or No c. Perennials under shade or outdoors Yes or No d. Perennials in greenhou se Yes or No e. Bedding plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No f. Bedding plants in greenhouse Yes or No g. Foliage plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No h. Foliage plants in greenhouse Yes or No i. Potted flowering pla nts under shade or outdoors Yes or No j. Potted flowering plants in greenhouse Yes or No k. Other, explain: __________________________ _________________ 14. Which ornamental plants do you grow with reclaimed water? (rank in order from greatest t o least 1= Greatest Quantity 5= Least Quantity ) Genus Species Container size Greatest 1. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 2. _____________ _______ ____________________ ____________________ 3. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 4. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 5. ______________ ______ ____________________ ____________________ Least 15. Do you chemically or physically treat reclaimed water before application to plants? Circle Yes or No a. If yes how? (For example: chlorination, acidification, filters, etc. ) _________________________________________________________________________ 16. How frequently have you observed plant disease attributed to reclaimed water? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Frequently Observed, 5 = Infrequently Observed ) Frequent ly Observed 1 2 3 4 5 Infrequently Observed

PAGE 67

67 17. List below plant genus and species and describe disease observed. Genus Species Describe a. ____________________ ___________________ ____________________ b. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ c. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 18. How frequently have you observed plant damage or abe rrant pla nt growth (other than diseases) attributed to reclaimed water? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Frequently Observed, 5 = Infrequently Observed ) Frequently Observed 1 2 3 4 5 Infrequently Observed 19. List below plant genus and specie s and describe damage or aberrance observed. Genus Species Describe a. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ b. ____________________ ____ ________________ ____________________ c. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 20. How frequently have you observed enhanced plant growt h or differences in development attributed to reclaimed water? (Cir cle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Frequently Observed, 5 = Infrequently Observed ) Frequently Observed 1 2 3 4 5 Infrequently Observed 21. Llist below plant genus and species and describe growth enhancement or difference in development. Genus Species Describe a. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ b. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ c. ______ ______________ ____________________ ____________________

PAGE 68

68 22. Circle Yes or No to indicate all that apply to your nursery because of reclaimed water use. a. Need for filtration Yes or No b. Need for acidification Yes or No c. Fluctuating pressure Yes or No d. Very high pressure Yes or No e. Pipes or valves breaking due to pressure Yes or No f. Lack of reliable supply Yes or No g. Forced to take more water than needed Yes or No h. Health or safety concerns Yes or No i. Toxic reaction with fertilizer or chemicals Yes or No j. Irrigation system down time Yes or No k. Loss of plant sales Yes or No l. Disgruntled employees Yes or No m. Water treatment because of pathogens Yes or No n. Increased pesticide use Yes or No o. Emitter or nozzle clogging Yes or No p. Water treatment because of emitter or nozzle clogging Yes or No q. Others, ple ase explain : _________________________ ______________ 23. How satisfied are you with reclaimed water? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 = Strongly Satisfied, 5 = Strongly Dissatisfied ) Strongly Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Dissatisfied 24. How s atisfied are you with your current arrangement with the reclaimed water supplier regarding water quality ? Strongly Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Dissatisfied 25. How satisfied are you with your current arrangement with the reclaimed water supplier r egarding water quantity ? Strongly Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Dissatisfied 26. Were there any incentives to use reclaimed water? Yes or No a. If yes explain : ____________________________ _______________________

PAGE 69

69 27. Circle Yes or No for each irr igation source used at your nursery and give an estimated percentage of total water applied from each source. Source Percentage of total water applied a. Well Yes or No ____/100% b. Surface Yes or No ____/100% c. Municipal/po table Yes or No ____/100% d. Municipal reclaimed Yes or No ____/100% 28. Is the reclaimed water collected in a pond or basin after irrigation and reused? Circle Yes or No If yes then from what location(s) is reclaimed water colle cted? Circle Yes or No and give an estimated percentage of total water volume (reclaimed or reclaimed and non reclaimed) applied that is collected from each of these locations Location Percentage of total applied that is collected a. Floors or benches of greenhouses Yes or No ____/100% b. Outdoor or shade production areas Yes or No ____/100% c. Grass areas or fields Yes or No ____/100% 29. Circle Yes or No for all of the following you are currently using. a. Granular soluble fertilizer Yes or No b. Solution (liquid) fertilizer Yes or No c. Natural organic fertilizer Yes or No d. Controlled release fertilizer Yes or No e. Controlled release fertilizer supplemented wit h solution (liquid) fertilizer Yes or No f. Controlled release fertilizer supplemented with granular fertilizer Yes or No 30. Have you changed your fertilizat ion program since you started using reclaimed water? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? ______________________________________

PAGE 70

70 The following questions refer to application of only reclaimed water to specific area. Outdoors or Under Shade 31. Ho w many acres of container plant production outdoors or under shade are irrigated with only reclaimed water (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______________ total acres irrigated with only reclaimed water b. _______________ acres of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only reclaimed water c. _______________ acres of microirrigation (low volume) with only reclaimed water d. _______________ acres of flood irrigation with only reclaimed water e. _______________ acres of other types of irrigation with onl y reclaimed water f. List other ty pes of irrigation ____ ____________________________________________ 32. Total amount of only reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand for container plant production outdoors or under shade. a. _____________ gal lons/day of total irrigation with only reclaimed water b. _____________ gallons/day of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only reclaimed water c. _____________ gallons/day of microirrigation (low volume) with only reclaimed water d. _____________ gallons /day of flood irrigation with only reclaimed water e. _____________ gallons/day of other irrigation with only reclaimed water The following questions refer to application of only reclaimed water to specific area. Greenhouse 33. How many square feet (sq. ft.) of greenhouse container plant production are irrigated with only reclaimed water (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______________ total sq. ft. irrigated with only reclaimed water b. _______________ sq. ft. of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only reclaimed water c. _______________ sq. ft. of microirrigation (low volume) with only reclaimed water d. _______________ sq. ft. of flood irrigation with only reclaimed water e. _______________ sq. ft. of ebb & flow bench irrigation with only recla imed water f. _______________ sq. ft. of other types of irrigation with only reclaimed water g. List other types of irrigation _______________________________________________

PAGE 71

71 34. Total amount of only reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand for greenhouse container plant production. a. _____________ gallons/day of total irrigation with only reclaimed water b. _____________ gallons/day of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only reclaimed water c. _____________ gallons/day of microirrigation (low volume) with only reclaimed water d. _____________ gallons/day of flood irrigation with only reclaimed water e. _____________ gallons/day of ebb & flow bench irrigation with only reclaimed water f. _____________ gallons/day of other irrigation wit h only reclaimed water The following questions refer to application of only non reclaimed water to specific area. Outdoors or Under Shade 35. How many acres of container plant production outdoors or under shade are irrigated with only non reclaimed water (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______________ total acres irrigated with only non reclaimed water b. _______________ acres of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only non reclaimed water c. _______________ acres of microirrigation (low volume) wit h only non reclaimed water d. _______________ acres of flood irrigation with only non reclaimed water e. _______________ acres of other types of irrigation with only non reclaimed water f. List othe r types of irrigation ______ __________________________ ________________ 36. Total amount of only non reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand for container plant production outdoors or under shade. a. ___________ gallons/day of total irrigation with only non reclaimed water b. ___________ gallons/ day of overhead irrigation with only non reclaimed water c. ___________ gallons/day of microirrigation (low volume) with only non reclaimed water d. ___________ gallons/day of flood irrigation with only non reclaimed water e. ___________ gallons/day of other irrigation with only non reclaimed water

PAGE 72

72 The following questions refer to application of only non reclaimed water to specific area. Greenhouse 37. How many square feet (sq. ft.) of greenhouse container plant production are irrigated with only non r eclaimed water (including aisles and walkways)? a. ______________ total sq. ft. irrigated with only non reclaimed water b. ______________ sq. ft. of overhead sprinkler irrigation with only non reclaimed water c. ______________ sq. ft. of microirrigatio n (low volume) with only non reclaimed water d. ______________ sq. ft. of flood irrigation with only non reclaimed water e. ______________ sq. ft. of ebb & flow bench irrigation with only non reclaimed water f. ______________ sq. ft. of other types of i rrigation with only non reclaimed water g. List ot her types of irrigation _____ _______________________________ __________ 38. Total amount of only non reclaimed water applied per day during peak demand for greenhouse container plant production. a. ____ ______ gallons/day of total irrigation with only non reclaimed water b. __________ gallons/day of overhead irrigation with only non reclaimed water c. __________ gallons/day of microirrigation (low volume) with only non reclaimed water d. __________ gal lons/day of flood irrigation with only non reclaimed water e. __________ gallons/day of ebb & flow bench irrigation with only non reclaimed water f. __________ gallons/day of other irrigation with only non reclaimed water 39. What do you grow using only non reclaimed water? (Circle Yes or No below) a. Container woody shrubs Yes or No b. Container trees Yes or No c. Perennials under shade or outdoors Yes or No d. Perennials in greenhouse Yes or No e. Bedding plants unde r shade or outdoors Yes or No f. Bedding plants in greenhouse Yes or No g. Foliage plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No h. Foliage plants in greenhouse Yes or No i. Potted flowering plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No j. P otted flowering plants in greenhouse Yes or No k. Other, explain __________________________________________________________

PAGE 73

73 40. Which ornamental plants do you grow with only non reclaimed water for irrigation because the plants are not compatible with the use of reclaimed water? (rank in order from greatest to least 1= Greatest Quantity 5= Least Quantity ) Genus Species Container size Greatest 1. ____________________ _______________ _____ ____________________ 2. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 3. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 4. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ 5. ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Least 41.Why are these plants not compatible with reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c The following questions refer to applicati on of both reclaimed and non reclaimed water to specific area. Outdoors or Under Shade 42. How many acres of container plant production outdoors or under shade are irrigated with both reclaimed and non reclaimed water (including aisles and walkways)? a. __________ total acres irrigated with reclaimed and non reclaimed water b. __________ acres of overhead sprinkler irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed c. __________ acres of microirrigation (low volume) with reclaimed and non reclaimed d. _______ ___ acres of flood irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water e. __________ acres of other types of irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water f. Lis t other types of irrigation ________________________________________________

PAGE 74

74 43. Total am ount of water ( reclaimed and non reclaimed ) applied per day during peak demand for container plant production outdoors or under shade. a. _________ gallons/day of total irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water b. _________ gallons/day of overhea d irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed c. _________ gallons/day of microirrigation (low vol.) with reclaimed and non reclaimed d. _________ gallons/day of flood irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water e. _________ gallons/day of other irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water Outdoors or Under Shade with Overhead Sprinkler Irrigation 44. What are your reasons why acres of overhead sprinkler irrigation outdoors or under shade receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? Lis t reasons why. a. b c 45. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water prior to application outdoors or under shade with overhead sprinkler irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water 46. Is non reclaimed water alternated with reclaimed water for application outdoors or under shade with overhead sprinkler irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaime d water Outdoors or Under Shade with M icroirrigation (low volume) 47. What are your reasons why acres of microirrigation outdoors or under shade receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c 48. Is non reclaimed w ater mixed with reclaimed water prior to application outdoors or under sun shade with microirrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water

PAGE 75

75 49. Is non reclaimed water alternated with reclaimed water for application outdoors or under shade with microirrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Outdoors or Under Shade with Flood Irrigation 50. What are your reasons why ac res of flood irrigation outdoors or under shade receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c 51. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water prior to application outdoors or under shade with flood irrigation ? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 52. Is non reclaimed water alternated with reclaimed water for application outdoors or under shade with flood irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. I f yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Outdoors or Under Shade with Other Types of Irrigation 53. What are your reasons why acres of other types of irrigation outdoors or under shade receive both reclaimed and non re claimed water? List reasons why. a. b c 54. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water prior to application outdoors or under shade with other types of irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaime d is mixed with reclaimed water

PAGE 76

76 55. Is non reclaimed water alternated with reclaimed water for application outdoors or under shade with other types of irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with r eclaimed water The following questions refer to application of both reclaimed and non reclaimed water to specific area. Greenhouse 56. How many square feet of greenhouse container plant production are irrigated with both reclaimed and non reclaimed wate r (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______ total square feet irrigated with reclaimed and non reclaimed water b. _______ square feet of overhead irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water c. _______ square feet of microirrigation with reclaim ed and non reclaimed water d. _______ square feet of flood irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water e. _______ square feet of ebb & flow bench irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed f. _______ square feet of other types of irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed g. List other types of irrigation ____________________________________________ 57. Total amount of water ( reclaimed and non reclaimed ) applied per day during peak demand for greenhouse container plant production. a. _______ gallons/day of total irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water b. _______ gallons/day of overhead irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed c. _______ gallons/day of microirrigation (low vol.) with reclaimed and non reclaimed d. _______ gall ons/day of flood irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water e. _______ gallons/day of ebb & flow bench irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed f. _______ gallons/day of other irrigation with reclaimed and non reclaimed water Greenhouse with Ov erhead Sprinkler Irrigation 58. What are your reasons why square feet of overhead sprinkler irrigation in greenhouse receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c

PAGE 77

77 59. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed w ater prior to application in greenhouse with overhead sprinklers? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 60. Is non reclaimed water alt ernated with reclaimed water for application in greenhouse with overhead sprinklers? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? ______________________ ________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Greenhous e with M icroirrigation (low volume) 61. What are your reasons why square feet of microirrigation in greenhouse receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c 62. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water pri or to application in greenhouse with microirrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 63. Is non reclaimed water alternated wit h reclaimed water for application in greenhouse with microirrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? ______________________ ________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Greenhouse with Flood I rrigation 64. What are your reasons why square feet of flood irrigation in greenhouse receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c

PAGE 78

78 65. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water prior to application in gree nhouse with flood irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 66. Is non reclaimed water alternated with reclaimed water for ap plication in greenhouse with flood irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Greenhouse with Ebb and Flow Bench Irrigatio n 67. What are your reasons why square feet of ebb and flow bench irrigation in greenhouse receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c 68. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water prior to application in greenhouse with ebb and flow bench irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 69. Is non reclaimed water alternated with recl aimed water for application in greenhouse with ebb and flow bench irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water Greenhouse wit h Other Types of Irrigation 70. What are your reasons why square feet of other types of irrigation in greenhouse receive both reclaimed and non reclaimed water? List reasons why. a. b c

PAGE 79

79 71. Is non reclaimed water mixed with reclaimed water pr ior to application in greenhouse with other types of irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is mixed with reclaimed water 72. Is non reclaimed water alt ernated with reclaimed water for application in greenhouse with other types of irrigation? Circle Yes or No a. If yes why? __________________________________________________________ b. _____/100% non reclaimed is alternated with reclaimed water 73. Additional Comments:

PAGE 80

80 APPENDIX B RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WATER NON USER SURVEY Survey for Potential Users of Reclaimed Water for Container Plants 1. Nursery Number __________ County _____________________________ Date _____ ____ 2. Are you currently using reclaimed water? Circle Yes or No If No continue. 3. For h ow long have you been in business? _____ years 4. Do you grow? (Circle Yes or No below) a. Container woody shrubs Yes or No b. Container trees Yes or No c. Perennials under shade or outdoors Yes or No d. Perennials in greenhouse Yes or No e. Bedding plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No f. Bedding plants in greenhouse Yes or No g. Foliage plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No h. Foliage plants in greenhouse Yes or No i. Potted flowering plants under shade or outdoors Yes or No j. Potted flowering plants in greenhouse Yes or No k. Other, explain 5. Which ornamental plants do you grow? (ran k in order from greatest to least 1= Greatest Quantity 5= Least Quantity ) Genus Species Container size Greatest 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Least

PAGE 81

81 6. Circle Yes or No for each irrigation source used at your nursery and gi ve an estimated percentage of total water applied from each source. Source Percentage of total water applied a. Well Yes or No ____/100% b. Surface Yes or No ____/100% c. Municipal/potable Yes o r No ____/100% 7. Do you monitor the irrigation water pH? Circle Yes or No a. What are typical values? pH 8. Do you monitor the irrigation water electrical conductivity (EC) ? Circle Yes or No a. What are typical values? EC mmhos/cm or dS/m 9. Do you monitor the irrigation water alkalinity ? Circle Yes or No a. What are typical values? Alkalinity ppm or ______________ meq. /liter 10. Is the irrigation water runoff collected in a pond or basin after irriga tion and reused? Circle Yes or No If yes then from what location(s) is runoff water collected? Circle Yes or No below and give an estimated percentage of total volume applied that is collected from each of these locations. Location Pe rcentage of total applied that is collected a. Floors or benches of greenhouses Yes or No /100% b. Outdoor or shade production areas Yes or No /100% c. Grass areas or fields Yes or No /100%

PAGE 82

82 11 Circle Yes or No for all of the following you are currently using: a. Granular soluble fertilizer Yes or No b. Solution (liquid) fertilizer Yes or No c. Natural organic fertilizer Yes or No d. Controlled release fertilizer Yes or No e. Controlled release fertilizer supplemented with solution (liquid) fertilizer Yes or No f. Controlled release fertilizer supplemented with granular fertilizer Yes or No The following questions refer to application of water to specific ar ea. Outdoors or Under Shade 12. How many acres of container plant production outdoors or under shade are irrigated (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______________ total acres irrigated b. _______________ acres of overhead sprinkler irrigation c. ___ ____________ acres of microirrigation (low volume) d. _______________ acres of flood irrigation e. _______________ acres of other types of irrigation f. List other types of irrigation _______ ________________________________________ 13. Total amount of water applied per day during peak demand for container plant production outdoors or under shade. a. _______________ gallons/day of total irrigation applied b. _______________ gallons/day of overhead sprinkler irrigation c. _______________ gal lons/day of microirrigation (low volume) d. _______________ gallons/day of flood irrigation e. _______________ gallons/day of other irrigation 14. Would you use reclaimed water outdoors or under shade if available? Circle Yes or No a. If no what in centives would make reclaimed water appealing for your use? Explain here:______ _________________________________________ ____________________

PAGE 83

83 The following questions refer to application of water to specific area. Greenhouse 15. How many square feet ( sq. ft.) of greenhouse container plant production are irrigated at your nursery (including aisles and walkways)? a. _______________ total sq. ft. irrigated b. _______________ sq. ft. of overhead sprinkler irrigation c. _______________ sq. ft. of micro irrigation (low volume) d. _______________ sq. ft. of flood irrigation e. _______________ sq. ft. of ebb & flow bench irrigation f. _______________ sq. ft. of other types of irrigation g. List othe r types of irrigation _________________________________ ____________ 16. Total amount of water applied per day during peak demand for greenhouse container plant production. a. _______________ gallons/day of total irrigation applied b. _______________ gallons/day of overhead sprinkler irrigation c. _________ ______ gallons/day of microirrigation (low volume) d. _______________ gallons/day of flood irrigation e. _______________ gallons/day of ebb & flow irrigation f. _______________ gallons/day of other irrigation 17. Would you use reclaimed water in greenh ouse if available? Circle Yes or No a. If no what incentives would make reclaimed water appealing for your use? Explain here. ___________________ _____________________________________________ 18. What do you think are the l imitations of reclaimed wate r? (Circle on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1= Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree ) a. Unknown water quality Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree b. Need for water treatment Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree

PAGE 84

84 c. Reliability of sup ply Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree d. Expense of water Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree e. Expense of connection to reclaimed system Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree f. Need for plumbing repairs or retrofitting Str ongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree g. Forced to take more water than needed Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree h. Limited research on reclaimed water Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree i. Restrictions on use of existing water supply Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree j. Health or safety concerns Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree k. Regulations Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 19 Other limitations for reclaimed water, explain ________________ _______________________ ___________________________________

PAGE 85

85 20 Rank the following with regards to why you are not using reclaimed water ( 1 = Greatest Importance, 11 = Least Importance ). Use each number only once. a. ____ forced to take more than needed b. ____ need for water treatment and/or filtration c. ____ concerns for disease / plant quality d. ____ variation in the quality of reclaimed water e. ____ variation in the quantity of reclaimed water f. ____ expense of connection to reclaimed system g. ___ expense of piping system for reclaimed water h. ____ limited research on reclaimed water i. ____ restrictions on use of reclaimed water j. ____ health or safety concerns k. ____ regulations 20. Any other reasons why you are not using reclaimed water? Please list reasons why. a. b. c. 21. Additional Comments:

PAGE 86

86 LIST OF REFERENCES Analytical Research Laboratory (ARL) 2008. University of Florida Gainesville. Methods for analyses. http://arl.ifas.ufl.edu/ARL%20pages/ARLAnalysis.htm Armon, R., C. G. Dosoretz Y. Azov, and G. Shelef 1994. Residual contamination of crops irrigated with effluent of different qualities: a field study. Wat er Sci. Tech. 30 (9): 239 248. Bieloo rai, H., I. Vaisman, and A. Feigin. 1984. Drip Irrigation of Cotton with Treated Municipal Effluents: I. Yield Response. J. Environ. Qual. 13(2): 231 234. Black, R. J. 2003. Salt tolerant plants for Florida. Univ. Fla. Ext. Cir. 134. Gainesville Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/EP/EP01200.pdf Black, R. J. 1994. Bedding plants: selection, establishment and maintenance. Univ. Fla. Ext. Cir. 134. Gainesville Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/MG/MG31900.pdf Bruvold, W.H. 1981. Community evaluation of adopted uses of reclaimed water. Water Res. Res. 17 (5) 487 490. Bruvold, W.H. 1985. Obtaining public sup port for reuse water. Journal of the American Waterworks Assoc. 77:72 77. Davies, F.S. and M. A. Maure r. 1993. Reclaimed wastewater for irrigation of citrus in Florida. Hort Technology. 3(2) : 163 166. Devitt, D.A., R.F. Morris, D. Kopec, and M. Henry. attitudes and perceptions toward using reuse water for irrigation in the southwestern United States. HortTechnology 14 (4): 577 583. Devitt, D.A., R.F. Morris, and D. S. Neuman 2003. Impact of Water Treatment on Fo liar Damage of Landscape Trees Sprinkle Irrigated with Reuse Water. J. Environ. Hort. 21(2):82 88. Eakes, D,J., R.D. Wright, and J.R. Seiler. 1991. Water relations of Salvia splendens influence by potassium nutrition and moisture stress condi tion. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 116(4):712 715. Feigin, A., I, Vaisman and H. Bielorai 1984. Drip irrigation of cotton with treated municipal effluents: II Nutrient availabil ity in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 13 ( 2 ): 234 238. Koo, R.C.J. and M. Zekri. 1989 Citrus irrigation with reclaimed municipal wastewater. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102: 51 56.

PAGE 87

87 Likert, R. 1932. A technique for measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 140: 1 5. Maurer, M.A., F.S. Davies and D. Graetz 19 95. Reclaimed wastewater irrigation and fertilization 120(3): 394 402. Maurer, M.A. and F.S. tree s using reclaimed water. HortScience 28(12): 1157 1161. Mujeriego, R., L. Sala, M. Carbo and J. Turet. 1996. Agronomic and public health assessment of reclaimed water quality for landscape irrigation. Wat er Sci. Tech. 33: 335 344. Neilsen G H D.S. S tevenson, and J.J. Fitzpatrick. 1989. The effect of municipal wastewater irrigation and rate of N fertilization on petiole composition, yield and quality of okanagan riesling grapes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:1285 1294 Neilsen, G.H., D.S. Stevenson, J.J. Fit zpatrick and C.H. Brownlee 1989. Nutrition and yield of young apple trees irrigated with municipal waste water. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114(3): 377 383. Neilsen G H D.S. Stevenson, J.J. Fitzpatrick and C.H. Brownlee. 1989. Yield and plant nutrien t content of vegetables trickle irrigated with municipal wastewater. Hort. Sci. 24: 249 252. Omran, M.S., T.M. Waly, E.M. Abd Elnaim and M.B. El Nashar. 1988. Effect of sewage irrigation on yield, tree components, and heavy metals accumulation in navel orange trees. Biological Wastes 23 : 17 24. Oron G., R. Armon, R. Mandelbaum, Y. Manor, C. Campos, L. Gillerman, M. Saigot, C. Gerba, I. Klein, and C. Enriquez 2001. Secondary wastewater disposal for crop irrigation with minimal risks. Wat er Sci. Tech. 43 (10): 139 146. Parsons, L.R. and W.P. Cross. 1995. Reclaimed municipal water for citrus irrigation in Florida. Amer ican Society of Agricu ltural Eng ineers: Proceedings of the Fifth International Microirrigation Congress: 262 268. Parsons, L.R., T.A. Wheaton, and W.S. Castle. 2001. High application rates of reclaimed water benefit citrus tree growth and fruit production. HortScience, 36 (7 ): 1273 77. Reboll, V., M. Cerezo, A. Roig, V. Flors, L. Lapena, and P. Garcia Agustin. 2000. Influence of wastewater vs groundwater on young citrus trees. J. Sci. Food Agric. 80: 1441 1446. Robinson, M.L. and J.R. Parnell. 1989. Azaleas and reclaimed w ater. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102: 92 95.

PAGE 88

88 Shahalam, A., B.M. Abu Zahra and A. Jaradat. 1998. Wastewater irrigation effect on soil, crop, and environment: a pilot scale study at Irbid, Jordan. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 106: 425 445. Sheikh, B ., R.C. Cooper and K.E. Israel. 1999. Hygienic evaluation of reclaimed water used to irrigate food crops. Wat er Sci. Tech. 40: 261 267. Tjia, B. and S. A. Rose. 1987. Salt tolerance of bedding plants. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100: 181 182. Watkins, J. V. and T. J. Sheehan. 1988. Florida Landscape Plants. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, 420 pages. Wu, L., J. Chen, H. Lin, P. Van Mantgem M.A. Harivandi, and J.A. Harding. 1995. Effects of regenerant wastewater irrigation on growth and ion uptake of landscape plants. J. Environ. Hort. 13(2): 92 96. Yeager, T., D. Fare, J. Lea Cox, J. Ruter, T. Bilderback, C. Gilliam, A. Niemiera, K. Tilt, S. Warren, R. Wright, and T. Whitwell. 2007. Best management practices: guide for producing nursery cr ops. 2 nd ed. Southern Nursery Assn., Atlanta, Georgia. Zekri, M., and C.J. Koo 1994. Treated municipal wastewater for citrus irrigation. J. Plant Nutrition. 17(5): 693 708.

PAGE 89

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ntal Horticulture department. He graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Science degree from the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences with specialization in environmental horticulture and nursery production. His areas of academic and professional inter est include: irrigation management, propagation, and production of woody ornamentals. Throughout his academic career Joseph von Merveldt has also been active in various campus and community based service organizations.