Advertisement

Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 57, Issue 6, pp 580–588 | Cite as

Optimal levels of N, P, and K for the cultivation of single-stemmed roses in a closed hydroponic system

  • Kyung-Hwan Yeo
  • Ki Young Choi
  • Han-Cheol Rhee
  • Gyeong Lee Choi
  • Yong-Beom Lee
Research Report Protected Horticulture
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

It is necessary to identify the optimum levels of mineral nutrients for the commercial production of single-stemmed roses in a closed hydroponic system to avoid the accumulation of undesirable ions in the root zone and to improve shoot growth and flower quality. We determined the optimal concentrations of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) in a nutrient solution by analyzing the amount of mineral nutrients absorbed by the plant, plant growth, and photosynthesis characteristics. Rose plants (Rosa hybrid L. cv. Red Velvet) were subjected to different concentrations of macronutrients, including N (0, 10, 50, 100, 150, or 200 mg·L-1), P (0, 10, 20, 40, 80, or 100 mg·L-1), and K (0, 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, or 250 mg·L-1). The uptake of nitrate-N (NO3 -) was inhibited by high P levels, and the NO3-N concentration in the nutrient solution was significantly higher in the 100 mg·L-1 P treatment than in the other P treatments, indicating reduced NO3 - uptake by the plants. The concentration of phosphate (PO4 -) decreased considerably in all N and K treatments during the entire growth period. To ensure a sufficient supply of P for single-stemmed roses, it is necessary to increase the PO4 - concentration in the nutrient solution. Increasing the K+ level significantly increased the concentrations of calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) in the nutrient solution. This may be the result of low Ca and Mg absorption from plants over the growth period. Although there was an increase in the fresh weight and stem length with higher levels of N [NO3 - and ammonium (NH4 +)], PO4 -, and K+, growth did not significantly increase at levels higher than 150 mg·L-1 N, 40 mg·L-1 P, and 200 mg·L-1 K treatments. The photosynthetic rates (P n) increased rapidly as the concentration in the nutrient solution increased to 100 mg·L-1 N, 40 mg·L-1 P, and 150 mg·L-1 K, followed by a reduction as the ion concentrations increased to the maximum ranges. A distinct reduction of the P n was observed in the plants supplied with nutrient levels above 150 mg·L-1 N, 80 mg·L-1 P, and 200 mg·L-1 K. Considering the nutrient-water absorption patterns, growth, and photosynthesis characteristics of single-stemmed roses, the mineral nutrient levels of 100–150 mg·L-1 N, 30-50 mg·L-1 P, and 100–150 mg·L-1 K were found to be optimal for the production of single-stemmed roses in a closed hydroponic system.

Additional key words

nutrient solution photosynthesis plant pigments recirculating nutrient solution recycling shoot growth 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Bloemhard CMJ, Moolenbroek V (1995) Management of mineral elements of roses grown in closed rockwool systems. Acta Hortic 401:481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boo HO, Saito T, Tomitaka Y (1997) Effect of plant growth regulators on the anthocyanin synthesis of Perilla ocymoides L. J Kor Soc Hortic Sci 38:9–14Google Scholar
  3. Bredmose N, Hansen J (1996a) Topophysis affects the potential of axillary bud growth, fresh biomass accumulation, and specific fresh weight in single-stem rose. Ann Bot 78:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bredmose N, Hansen J (1996b) Potential of growth and flowering in single-stem rose (Rosa hybrida L.) plants as affected by topophysis. Acta Hortic 440:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breś W (2009) Estimationof nutrient losses from open fertigation systems to soil during horticultural plant cultivation. Polish J. of Environ. Stud. 18:341–345.Google Scholar
  6. Burke S, Mulligan M, Thornes JB (1999) Optimal irrigation efficiency for maximum plant productivity and minimum water loss. Agric Water Mgt 40:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke S, Mulligan M, Thornes JB (1999) Optimal irrigation efficiency for maximum plant productivity and minimum water loss. Agr Water Mgt 40:377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrera RI, Evans RY, Paul JL (1993) Leaching losses of nitrogen from container-grown roses. Sci Hortic 53:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dai JW, Paull RE (1990) The role of leaf development on Anthurium andreanum inflorescence growth. J Amer Soc Hortic Sci 115:901–905Google Scholar
  10. Dufour L, Guérin V (2005) Nutrient solution effects on the development and yield of Anthurium andreanum Lind in tropical soilless conditions. Sci Hortic 105:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans HJ (1989) Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationship in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia 20:919Google Scholar
  12. Gitelson AA, Chivkunova OB, Merzlyak MN (2009) Nondestructive estimation of anthocyanins and chlorophylls in anthocyanic leaves. Amer J Bot 96:1861–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunes A, Alpaslan M, Inal A (1998) Critical nutrient concentrations and antagonistic and synergistic relationships among the nutrients of NFT-grown young tomato plants. J Plant Nutr 21(10):2035–2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins WG, Hüner NPA (1999) Introduction to plant physiology. p. 143–145. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Haynes RJ (1990) Active ion uptake and maintenance of cation-anion balance: A critical examination of their role in regulating rhizosphere pH. Plant Soil 126:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kang MJ (2001) Development of optimum nutrient solution for single-stemmed rose in a plant factory. PhD Diss., The University of Seoul, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  17. Kjeldahl J (1883) A new method for the determination of nitrogen in organic matter. Z Anal Chem 22:366–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Komosa A, Kleibe T, Markiewicz B (2014) The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in aeroponic and rockwool culture with or without recirculation of nutrient solution. Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus 13(2):163–177Google Scholar
  19. Raviv M, Blom TJ (2001) The effect of water availability and quality on photosynthesis and productivity of soilless-grown cut roses. Sci Hortic 88:257–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed DW (1996) Closed production systems for containerized crops. p. 221–245. In DW Reed, eds, water, media, and nutrition for greenhouse crops, Ball Publishing, Batavia, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Rouphael Y, Cardarelli M, Rea E, Colla G (2008) The influence of irrigation system and nutrient solution concentration on potted geranium production under various conditions of radiation and temperature. Sci Hortic 118:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Savvas D, Passam HC, Olympios C, Nasi C, Moustaka E, Mantzos N, Barouchas P (2006) Effects of ammonium nitrogen on lettuce grown on pumice in a closed hydroponic system. HortScience 41:1667–1673Google Scholar
  23. Siddiqi MY, Kronzucker HJ, Britto DT, Glass ADM (1998) Growth of a tomato crop at reduced nutrient concentrations as a strategy to limit eutrophication. J Plant Nutr 21:1879–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silberbush M, Lieth JH (2004) Nitrate and potassium uptake by greenhouse roses (Rosa hybrida) along successive flower-cut cycles: a model and its calibration. Sci Hortic 101:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. van Weel PA (1996) Rose factory design. Acta Hortic 440:298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Voogt W (2002) Potassium management of vegetables under intensive conditions. p. 347–362. In NS Pasricha, SK Bansal, eds, Potassium for sustainable crop production. International Potash Institute, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Voogt W, Sonneveld C (1997) Nutrient management in closed growing systems for greenhouse production. p. 83–102. In E Goto, K Kurata, M Hayashi, S Sase, eds, Plant production in closed ecosystem. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zheng Y, Graham TH, Richard S, Dixon M (2005) Can l nutrient strategies be used for pot gerbera production in closed-loop sub-irrigation? Acta Hortic 691:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yeo KH, Lee YB (2008) Growth and photosynthesis of single-stemmed roses by macro-and micro-element amendment in a closed aeroponic system. Kor J Hort Sci Technol. 27(3):404–413Google Scholar
  30. Yeo KH, Cho YY, Lee YB (2011) Estimation of growth and yield for single-stemmed rose ‘vital’ in a single stem system. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 52(5):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyung-Hwan Yeo
    • 1
  • Ki Young Choi
    • 2
  • Han-Cheol Rhee
    • 1
  • Gyeong Lee Choi
    • 1
  • Yong-Beom Lee
    • 3
  1. 1.Protected Horticulture Research InstituteNational Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Sciences, RDAHamanKorea
  2. 2.Department of HorticultureKangwon National UniversityChuncheonKorea
  3. 3.Department of Environmental HorticultureUniversity of SeoulSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations