Crop Response to an Unequal Distribution of Ions in Space and Time

  • Cees Sonneveld
  • Wim Voogt


Nutrient and salt ions often are unequally distributed in the root environment of plants and it will be expected that this strongly affect the plant reaction on the uptake of minerals and the osmotic potential. An unequal distribution of salts for example will be found with field grown crops in arid areas where the water supply is carried out by trickle irrigation (Meiri, 1984; Mmolawa and Or, 2000; Prichard et al., 1983). When under these conditions brackish water is used for irrigation, the salt accumulation on the soil surface of the dry areas between the emitters sometimes will be that strong that crystallization of salts occurs in the top layer whereby the surface is coloured white. Despite such tremendous local salt accumulations, crops often develop relatively quite well.


Water Uptake Osmotic Potential External Solution Unequal Distribution Root Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Benton Jones J Jr 1999. Advantages gained by controlling root growth in a newly-developed hydroponic growing system. Acta Hort. 481, 221–230.Google Scholar
  2. Bingham F T and Garber M J 1970. Zonal salinization of the root system with NaCl and boron in relation to growth and water uptake of corn plants. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 34, 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerda A and Roorda van Eysinga J P N L 1981. Tomato plant growth as affected by horizontally unequal osmotic concentrations in rockwool. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 29, 189–197.Google Scholar
  4. Cox D A 2001. Growth, nutrient content and growth medium electrical conductivity of poinsettia irrigated by subirrigation or from overhead. J. Plant Nutr. 24, 523–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Kreij C and Straver N 1988. Flooded-bench irrigation: effect of irrigation frequency and type of potting soil on growth of codiaeum and on nutrient accumulation in the soil. Acta Hort. 221, 245–252.Google Scholar
  6. Eaton F M 1941. Water uptake and root growth as influenced by inequalities in the concentration of the substrate. Plant Physiol. 16, 545–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flores P Botella M A Martinez V and Cerda A 2002. Response to salinity of tomato seedlings with a split-root system: Nitrate uptake and reduction. J. Plant Nutr. 25, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geraldson C M 1963. Quantity and balance of nutrients required for best yields and quality of tomatoes. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 76, 153–158.Google Scholar
  9. Geraldson C M 1990. Conceptual evaluation of intensive production systems for tomatoes. In: Van Beusichem M L (ed) Plant Nutrition – Physiology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 539–544.Google Scholar
  10. Jager A 1985. Response of plants to a localized nutrient supply. Thesis Botanical Laboratory, State University Utrecht, 137 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Kasten P and Sommer K 1990. Cultivation of cut flowers with ammonium as nitrogen source. In: Van Beusichem M L (ed) Plant Nutrition – Physiology and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 533–537.Google Scholar
  12. Kirkham M B Gardner W R and Gerloff G C 1969. Leaf water potential of differentially salinized plants. Plant Physiol. 44, 1378–1382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lunin J and Gallatin M H 1965. Zonal salinization of the root system in relation to plant growth. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29, 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maas E V and Hoffman G J 1977. Crop salt tolerance: Current assessment. J. Irr. Drainage Div. 103(IR2),115–134.Google Scholar
  15. Maas E V and Hoffman G J 1983. Salt sensitivity of corn at various growth stages. California Agric. 37(7/8), 14–15.Google Scholar
  16. Magisted O C Ayers A D Wadleigh C H and Gauch H G 1943. Effect of salt concentration, kind of salt, and climate on plant growth in sand cultures. Plant Physiol. 18, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meiri A 1984. Plant response to salinity: Experimental methodology and application to the field. In: Shainberg I and Shalhevet J (eds). Soil Salinity Under Irrigation. Process and Management. Springer Verlag. Berlin-Heidelberg, 284–297.Google Scholar
  18. Mmolawa K and Or D 2000. Root zone solute dynamics under drip irrigation: A review. Plant Soil 222, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nederhof E 1997. Effects of different day/night conductivities on blossom-end rot, quality and production of greenhouse tomatoes. Acta Hort. 481, 495–502.Google Scholar
  20. Niedziela C E Jr Nelson P V Willits D H and Peet M M 1993. Short-term salt-shock effects on production of tomato fruit quality, yield, and vegetative prediction of subsequent fruit quality. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118, 12–16.Google Scholar
  21. Ondrasek G Romic D Romic M Tomic F and Mustac I 2008. Salt distribution in peat substrate grown with melon (Cucumis melo L). Acta Hort. 779, 307–312.Google Scholar
  22. Prichard T L Meyer J L Hoffman G J Kogel F R and Roberts R 1983. Relationships of irrigation water salinity and soil water salinity. California Agric. 37(7/8), 11–14.Google Scholar
  23. Savvas D and Lenz F 2000. Response of eggplant grown in recirculating nutrient solution to salinity imposed prior to the start of harvesting. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 75. 262–267.Google Scholar
  24. Shalhevet J and Bernstein L 1968. Effects of vertically heterogeneous soil salinity on plant growth and water uptake. Soil Sci, 106, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shani U Waisel Y Eshel A Xue S and Ziv G 1993. Response to salinity of grapevine plants with split root systems. New Phytol. 124, 693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sommer K 1995. Ammonium and phosphate nutrition of plants growing in saturated solutions. Proc. Dahlia Greidinger Intern. Symp. Fertigation, Technion Inst. Technology Haifa, Israel, 155–164.Google Scholar
  27. Sonneveld C and Welles G W H 1988. Yield and quality of rockwool grown-tomatoes as affected by variations in EC-value and climatic conditions. Plant Soil 111, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sonneveld C and Voogt W 1990. Response of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) to an unequal distribution of nutrients in the root environment. Plant Soil 124, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sonneveld C Van den Bos A L Van der Burg A M M and Voogt W 1991. Fertigation in the greenhouse industry in The Netherlands. In: Fertigation / Chemigation, FAO, Rome, 186–193.Google Scholar
  30. Sonneveld C and Van der Burg A M M 1991. Sodium chloride salinity in fruit vegetable crops in soilless culture. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 39, 115–122.Google Scholar
  31. Sonneveld C and De Kreij C 1999. Response of cucumber (Cucumis sativis L.) to an unequal distribution of salts in the root environment. Plant Soil 209, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sonneveld C 2000. Effects of salinity on substrate grown vegetables and ornamentals in greenhouse horticulture. Thesis Wageningen University, Netherlands, 151 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Sonneveld C and Voogt W 2001. Chemical analysis in substrate systems and hydroponics – use and interpretation. Acta Hort. 548, 247–259.Google Scholar
  34. Tabatabaie S J Gregory P J and Hadley P 2004. Uneven distribution of nutrients in the root zone affects the incidence of blossom end rot and concentration of calcium and potassium in fruits of tomato. Plant Soil 258, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van der Burg A A M and Sonneveld C 1987. Variation of the EC in rockwool slabs. Glasshouse Crops Research Station Naaldwijk, The Netherlands. Annual Report, pp20.Google Scholar
  36. Van Ieperen W 1996a. Dynamic effects of changes in electrical conductivity on transpiration and growth of greenhouse-grown tomato plants. J. Hort. Sci. 71, 481–496.Google Scholar
  37. Van Ieperen W 1996b. Effect of different day and night salinity levels on vegetative growth, yield and quality of tomato. J Hort. Sci. 75, 99–111.Google Scholar
  38. Van Os P C and De Kreij C 1987. Gerbera op steenwol. EC van 2 het beste voor produktie en kwaliteit. Vakblad Bloemisterij, 42 no 43, 56–57.Google Scholar
  39. Van Uffelen J A M and Bakker J C 1987. EC effecten bij paprika: Neusrot en zwelscheuren dwingen tot compromis. Groenten Fruit 43 no 22, 30–31.Google Scholar
  40. Van Veen-Schotanus L 1999. Productiewinst maar geen kwaliteitsverlies bij EC verlaging. Groenten Fruit, Glasgroenten 9 no 4, 16–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cees Sonneveld
    • 1
  • Wim Voogt
    • 2
  1. 1.NijkerkNetherlands
  2. 2.Wageningen UR Greenhouse HorticultureBleiswijkNetherlands

Personalised recommendations