Bar Yosef1999

INFERTIGATION
ADVANCES
B.Bar-Yosef
Agricultural Research Organization
Bet Dagan, Israel 50250
I. Introduction
A. Fertigation Expansion
B. Potential Advantages of Microfertigation
11. Overview of Past Trends in Fertigation
A. Crop Responses to Fertigation
B. Water and Nutrient Distribution in Soils
C. Soil Root Volume Effects
D. Reducing Salinity Hazards
E. Drip versus Microjet Fertigation
E Subsurface Fertigation
G. Avoiding Clogging
111. Principles of Fertigation
A. Quantity Considerations
B. Intensity Considerations
C. Implication of the Relationshipsbetween Uptake F l u and Concentration
D. Coupling Quantity and Intensity Factors
E. Root Growth and Distribution in Soil
F. Rhizospheric Processes
G. Water Quality Considerations
N. Managing Crop Fertigation
A. N, P, and K Objective Consumption Functions
B. Nutrient Concentrations in Irrigation and Soil Solutions
C. Preplanting Broadcast Fertilization and Banding under Fertigation
D. Choice of Fertilizers
E. Temperature Effects
F. Organic Matter
G. Greenhouses
V. Modeling Fertigation
A. Models Simulating Transport and Uptake Processes
B. Crop Models
C. Auxiliary Models
VI. Monitoring
VII. Safety
Vm. Future Trends and Areas Needing More Research
References
1
Advances In Agronomy, Volume 61
Copyright 0 1999 by Academic Press. All riglia of reproduction in any form reserved.
0 0 6 m i 3 / 9 9 $moo
2 B. BAR-YOSEF
I. INTRODUCTION
Irrigation and fertilization are the most important management factors through
which farmers control plant development, fruit yield, and quality. The introduc-
tion of simultaneous microirrigation and fertilization (fertigation) (Goldberg er al.,
1976; Dasberg and Bresler, 1985) opened up new possibilities for controlling wa-
ter and nutrient supplies to crops and maintaining the desired concentration and
distribution of ions and water in the soil. Even though combined irrigation and fer-
tilization can be practices under flood, furrow, and sprinkler irrigation, the control
under microirrigation is superior; therefore, microfertigation is discussed in more
detail than other fertigation methods.
Water transport in soil under various irrigation methods has been intensively
studied and reviewed in the literature (e.g., for principles, Hanks and Ashcroft,
1980; Hillel, 1980: for drip irrigation, Bresler, 1977). Because of the above and
other reviews, aspects related to irrigation, water flow in soil, and water uptake by
plants are not discussed in the present review; attention is focused on fertigation
principles and rhizospheric processes pertinent to fertigation, which have been but
meagerly reported in the literature.
The objectives of this work are: (i) To review past and current studies of cul-
tural and theoretical aspects of fertigation that have contributed to the state of
knowledge in this area; (ii) to discuss principles of fertigation with respect to crop
production and environment sustainability; and (iii) to evaluate future trends in
fertigation research and application.
A. FERTIGATION
EXPANSION
Agricultural areas under microirrigation are expanding almost linearily with

time worldwide, including in the United States. In Mediterranean countries the ex-
pansion rate has decreased during the past decade, indicating that the use of mi-
croirrigation is approaching saturation. In the Far East (China, India, and Japan)
and in Australia the expansion rate is still increasing (Fig. 1). In some countries,
such as Israel, where water availability limits crop production, microirrigation sup-
plies about 75% of the total irrigated area. Throughout the world, the percentage
of microirrigation is considerably smaller (<1% in 1991), and in the United States
it accounts for -3% of the total irrigated area (Bucks, 1995). In Israel, 75% of the
microirrigated area was under fertigation in 1995 (Sneh, 1995) and this percent-
age probably applies to other advanced countries as well. In developing countries,
fertigation involves a negligible fraction of the microirrigated area, and fertilizers
are still being applied by broadcast dressing and banding (Bachchhav, 1995).
In 1991 the distribution of microirrigation area by crop was orchards and vines,
ADVANCES IN FERTIGATION 3
2000
h
m
f 1500
0
v)
Q
C
m
y 1000
0
s
Y
500
%
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
YEAR
Figure 1 Agricultural area under microimgation between 1973 and 1991 in the United States (m),
Australia (v),
Mediterranean countries (0).Far East (China, India, and Japan A),rest of the world
(A),and total area worldwide (V).Data derived from Gustafson e? al. (1974) and Bucks (1995).
72%; vegetables, 16%; and field crops, 14% (Table I). The main reason for the rel-
atively restricted use of microirrigation in crops such as corn and cotton is the high
cost of microirrigation systems; the operating costs of trickle and furrow systems
in cotton in the United States were within 5% of each other, but the annual fixed
costs were $865 and $370 per hectare, respectively (Nakayama and Bucks, 1986).
In developing countries, this margin is even wider (Saksema, 1995).The potential
advantages of microfertigation over surface irrigation and broadcast fertilization
(to be discussed later) are expected to be manifested in improved field crop yield
and quality and to shift the benefit-to-cost ratio in favor of microfertigation. This
trend was indeed confirmed in an economic evaluation of various irrigation meth-
ods in cotton in California (Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1994), and it is ex-
pected, therefore, that the area of microfertigated field crops will increase in the
near future, with respect to the data in Table I.
B. POTENTIAL
ADVANTAGES
OF MICROFERTIGATION
The main advantages of microfertigation over microirrigation combined with

broadcast/banding fertilization can be summarized as follows. (i) Reduced time
fluctuation in nutrient concentrations in soil in the course of the growing season,
because of the flexibility in delivery of nutrients and water. According to the the-
4 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table I
MicroirrigationUse by Crops (1991)"
World (ha) United States (ha)
Tree Crops
Citrus 230,000 95,000
Deciduous 295,550 131,000
Avocado + mango 51,275 8,000
Other 171,000 99,000
Vines 234,660 94,000
Vegetables
Field 157,000 58,500
Greenhouse 65,000 8,500
Field crops
Cotton 36,630 15,000
sugar 45,100 42,000
Other 42,330 20,000
Flowers
Nursery 9,275 6,500
Greenhouse 17,685 4,500
"After Bucks (1995).
ory of Zaslavsky and Mokady (1 967), when curves of yield response to nutrients
and water are convex and monotonic, time fluctuations of nutrient and water con-
tents in soil cause reduction in yield (Bresler, 1977). The attenuated fluctuations
under microfertigation therefore ensure higher and more consistent yields relative
to broadcast fertilization. (ii) Easy adaptation of the amounts and concentrations
of specific nutrients to crop requirements, according to the stage of development
and climatic conditions. (iii) Convenient use of compound, ready-mix, and bal-
anced liquid fertilizers with minute concentrations of minor elements that are oth-
erwise very difficult to apply accurately to the field. (iv) The crop foliage remains
dry, thus retarding development of plant pathogens (Yarwood, 1978) and avoiding
leaf burn (Bernstein and Francois, 1975; Mass, 1986). (v) Precise application of
nutrients according to crop demand, thus avoiding excess fertilizer concentrations
in the soil and leaching out of the wetted soil root volume. (vi) Application of wa-
ter and fertilizers to only a part of the soil volume; the addition of nutrients only
to wetted area, where active roots are concentrated, enhances fertilizer use effi-
ciency and reduces leaching of nutrients to deep underground water by seasonal
rains.
Drip fertigation has additional advantages. (vii) It is unaffected by wind and
causes less runoff than overhead irrigation (see below). (viii) It reduces heavy trac-
tor traffic in the field, associated with the broadcasting of fertilizers, and allows
easy application of nutrients via the water when top-dressing is expensive because
of plant height.
The above advantages of microfertigation are offset by expensive investment in
fertilizer injectors, safety devices, and shipping and storage of large volumes of
dilute liquid fertilizers. Steffen et al. (1995) evaluated the overall costs and bene-
fits of trickle-fertigated, and sprinkler-irrigated, broadcast-fertilized, open-field
tomatoes; the costs were $14,000 and $8500 per hectare, respectively. The differ-
ence in costs was not balanced by the higher gross income from the trickle-ferti-
gated plots. However, this comparison was carried out under conditions of spo-
radic heavy rains, which adversely affected yields in the drip-fertigated treatment
more than in the sprinkler plus broadcast fertilization treatment.
II. OVERVIEW OF PAST TRENDS IN FERTIGATION
A. CROPRESPONSES
TO FERTIGATION
Numerous studies have been published during the past three decades on crop re-
sponses to fertigation and on comparisons between microfertigation, on the one
hand, and microimgation coupled with broadcast and/or localized fertilization, on
the other hand. A summary of a literature search on these subjects is presented in
Table 11, which shows that the responses to fertigation of the majority of irrigated
crops have been investigated in several locations. Orange and grapefruit trees in
Israel and Florida were found to have higher fruit yield and N fertilizer use effi-
ciency under microfertigation than under split N broadcast application (Dasberg
et al., 1988; Boman, 1996). A h a and Mozaffari (1995) claimed that the main ad-
vantage of N microfertigation over broadcast-N fertilization in oranges was the
reduced nitrate leaching below the soil root volume. Reduced NO, leaching under
microfertigation, without a decline in fruit yield or quality has been also reported
for annual crops (e.g., for tomato, Miller et al., 1976; for celery, Feigin et al.,
1982). Several studies have shown that crop yield response to N was stronger un-
der microfertigation than under microirrigation plus broadcast N application (e.g.,
in apples, Assaf et al., 1983; in tomatoes, Bar-Yosef, 1977; Clough et al., 1990; in
lettuce, Bar-Yosef and Sagiv, 1982b). The data in Table I1 include much more in-
formation on specific crop responses to N fertigation, and on comparisons between
different fertilization techniques; these specific subjects are not discussed further
in the present review.
Studies on P and K microfertigation (Table 11) showed remarkably improved
crop responses to these elements, relative to broadcast fertilization. Rauschkolb et
al. (1979) showed that P drip fertigation resulted in higher P content in tomato
plants than P-banding with an identical P rate. Bar-Yosef et al. (1989) found that
6 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table I1
Summary of Literature Search on Crop Response to Microfertigation
Crop System Studied Location Reference
n e e crops
Orange N microfert. Israel Dasberg et al. (1983, 1988)
Dasberg (1987)
Micro irr., fert. Spain Legaz et al. (1983)
Drip fert. Florida Koo and Smajstrla (1984)
Drip vs microjet Israel Dasberg ( 1995)
N fert.
K, N microfert. Israel Lavon et al. (1995)
N microfert. vs Florida Alva and Mozaffari ( 1995)
N broadc.
Grapefruit Drip, flood irr., Texas Swietlik (1992)
N fert.
K, N microfert vs Florida Boman ( 1996)
N, K broadc.
Apple N microfert. Israel Assaf et al. (1983)
NO, drip fert. Israel Bar-Yosef et a!. (1988a)
NO,,NH, drip fert. Israel Klein and Spieler (1987)
Drip fert. Holland Delvert and Bolding (1988)
Drip vs microjet fert. France Cassagnes (1988)
Fert-soil acidif. Canada Nielsen et al. (1994)
Microfert. New York Robinson and Stiles (1993)
Microfert. Denmark Dencker and Hansen (1994)
N,P,K microfert. Canada Nielsen et al. ( 1995)
Peach Microfert. France Guennelon et al. (1981)
Bussi et al. (1991. 1994)
Pecan N drip fert. vs Georgia Worley et al. (1995)
broadc. N
Almond N microjet fert. California Kjelgren el al. (1985)
Prune K drip fert. California Uriu et al. (1977, 1980)
Grapevine K drip fert. California Christensen etal. (1991)
Grapevine N,P,K drip fert. Israel Bravado and Hepner (1987)
Banana Drip fert. Israel Lahav and Kalmar (1988)
N,K drip fert., India Hedge and Srinivas (199 1)
basin in:
Raspberry Drip irr.-fert. Denmark Callesen (1991)
Papaya N drip fert. Hawaii Awada et al. (1979)
Field vegetables, flowers
Tomato N drip fert. Israel Rudich et al. (1982)
N drip fert., Israel Bar-Yosef (1977)
sand dunes Bar-Yosef et al. (1980b)
Bar-Yosef and Sagiv (1982a)
N drip fert., Israel Kafkafi and Bar-Yosef (1980)
calcareous soil
conrinues
ADVANCES INFERTIGATION 7
Table II-continued
N,K drip furrow fert Brazil Canijoeral. (1983)

N drip fert. California Miller et al. (1976)
P drip fert. California Rauschkold et al. (1979)
vs banding
N, P subsurf. California Phene et al. (1982, 1986, 1990a)
drip fert.
N,P drip fert., California Mikkelsen and Jarrel(l987)
calcereous soil
N,K fertil., irr. South Carolina Karlen e f al. (1985)
management
N microfert. Hawaii Coltman (1987)
N,K drip fert. Florida Clough et al. (1990)
Potato N drip fert. Cyprus Papadopoulos ( 1988)
Fert. in drip, India Keshavaiah and
furrow irr. Kumaraswamy (1993)
P drip fert. Cyprus Papadopoulos (1992)
Sweet pepper N drip fert. Puerto Rico Crespo-Ruiz et al. (1988)
N fert. Puerto Rico Goyal et al. (1988)
N drip fert. and Puerto Rico Goyal et al. (1989)
fruit quality
N drip fert. vs New Zealand Haynes (1988)
broad
N,P,K drip fert. Israel Bar-Yosef (1 980c)
N,K drip fen. Georgia Jaworski et al. (1978)
Drip fert. Florida Neary et al. (1995)
Lettuce N,P,K microfert. Israel Bar Yosef and Sagiv (1982b)
N fert. vs broadc. Holland Bakker et al. (1984)
N drip fert. Australia McPharlin et al. (1995)
N fert. Holland Slangen et aZ. (1988)
Celery N drip fert. California Feigen et al. (1982)
Broccoli Subsurf. N irr. Arizona Doerge and Thompson (1995)
interaction
Squash Irr. method, fert. Florida Clough et al. (1992)
Cauliflower Drip irr-K fertil. Florida Wall et al. (1989)
Strawberry Drip fert., sched. Florida Locasio et al. (1977)
N drip furrow Spain Pomares et al. (1992)
fert.
K dnp fert. Florida Albregts et al. (1996)
Hochmuth er al. ( 1996)
Muskmelon N drip fert. South Carolina Bhella and Wilcox (1985)
Watermelon N irr. interaction
in drip in: Nebraska Pier and Doerge (1995)
Chrysanthemum Microin.. fert. Virginia Harbaugh and Wilfret (1980)
Harbaugh et al. (1989)
continues
B. BAR-YOSEF
Table II-continued
Field crops
Wheat N fertigation Sweden Flink et al. (1995)
Sugarcane N,K drip fert. Wisconsin Ingram and Hilton (1986)
Corn Drip fert. Israel Yanuka et al. (1982)
Drip fert. France Giradin et al. (1993)
Sweet corn P surf., subsurf.
drip fert. Israel Bar-Yosef et al. (1989)
Peanut N drip fert. Israel Wallerstein et al. (1982)
Drip fert., saline
water, sand dunes Israel Silberbush et al. (1985)
Greenhouse
Tomato Drip irr-fert. Ohio Bauerle (1975)
relationship
N drip fert. Cyprus Papadopoulos (1 987)
Drip irr.-fert. Israel Bar-Yosef (1988)
relationship
N drip fert. Australia Gastaldi and Sutton (1989)
P drip fert. Israel Bar-Yosef and h a s (1995)
N,P,K fert. Netherlands Sonneveld (1995)
Lettuce P drip fert. Israel h a s and Bar-Yosef (1997)
Muskmelon K drip fert. Israel Bar-Yosef (1996b)
Rose Microfert. France Brun et al. (1993)
P drip-fertigated sweet corn gave a significantly higher yield than drip-irrigated

sweet corn that also received preplant P fertilization. Enhanced response to mi-
crofertigated K has also been reported for citrus (Lavon et d., 1995), grapefruit
(Boman, 1996), grapevine (Christensen et aZ.,1991), and sugarcane (Ingram and
Hilton, 1986). In general, the response to P and K fertigation became more pro-
nounced as N fertigation improved and became a nonlimiting growth factor.
B. WATERAND NUTRIENT
DISTRIBUTION
IN SOILS
The governing equations that describe the flow of water and nonreacting solutes
under point- and line-source irrigation were presented and discussed by Bresler
(1977, 1978) and Dasberg and Bresler (1985). Bresler (1977) showed some appli-
cations of the analytical solution of the steady infiltration equation in planning
emitter spacings and discharge rates as functions of soil hydraulic properties and
desired matric water potential between emitters. Later studies (Warrick, 1986;
Timlin et al., 1996) contributed additional tools for solving the two-dimensional
convection-dispersion equation with emphasis on various agronomic applica-
tions.
Simulated and empirical results of water content distribution in soils under trick-
le irrigation emphasize two practical characteristics of microirrigation: (i) When a
dry soil is irrigated, the localized wetted soil volume has a sharp wetting front that
sharply separates the wet and dry soil domains. (ii) A major fraction of the wetted
soil volume has a relatively uniform water content. These attributes (see for ex-
ample Fig. 7 in Bresler, 1977)justify two important assumptions made in fertiga-
tion management: (i) The wetting front position defines the boundary of the plant’s
soil root volume. (ii) The mean water content (6) and nutrient concentrations (C)
in the soil root volume are reasonable approximations to the actual distributions
of 9 and C in the root zone. If we accept these assumptions, the radius R (cm) of
the wetting front can be evaluated from soil hydraulic properties, the emitter’s dis-
charge rate, q (ml/h), and the duration of irrigation, t(h). A simple estimate under
conditions of no evaporation and no water extraction is given by Eq. (1) (Ben Ash-
er et al., 1986),
where soil properties are represented by 9 at field capacity (eft). Other semiem-
pirical expressions for R(t) were reviewed by Zazueta et al. (1995).
The governing equation describing two-dimensional (x, z ) transport of reactive
ions in soil [Eq. ( 2 ) ]is presented in order to analyze physical and chemical factors
that determine the movement of P, microelements, and exchangeable cations in the
soil:
The equation accounts for convective and diffusive ion flows (q = flux of soil so-
lution, Dh = sum of diffusion and mechanical dispersion coefficients) and the
buffering capacity of the soil (b), which equals the slope of the ion adsorption
isotherm at a given concentration in the soil solution (c).For axisymmetric cylin-
drical flow, which is used to describe transport from a single trickle emitter in the
soil (Bresler, 1977), Eq. (2) is transformed into (3), r being the radial coordinate:
A solution of (3) for an inert salt ( b = 0) in loamy and silty soils is presented in
Fig. 2. The irrigation water had a low solute concentration (C,) that miscibly dis-
10 B. BAR-YOSEF
Figure 2 Model computations [Eq.(3)] of two-dimensionalaxisymmetrical nonreactive salt con-

centration distribution during infiltration from a trickle source for two trickler discharges (Q,, Q,),and
two soils. The cumulativeinfiltrationis 12 liters. The numbers labeling each curve indicate relative con-
centration expressed as (C - Co)/Cn.The numbers in parentheses are salt concentrations (c) in soil so-
lution (mmol(+)/liter); Cois the inlet salt concentration, and cn is the initial c in the soil (mmol(+)/
liter). Heavy lines represent the wetting fronts. Reproduced from Bresler (1977) with permission from
Academic Press.
placed a highly concentrated solution initially found in the soil (c,,). The emitter’s
discharge rate was either 4 or 20 liters/h. In both soils, and for both trickle dis-
charge rates, the soil solution concentration, c, of the saturated water entry zone
was calculated to be identical to the concentration in the infiltrated water. The
leached part of the soil in the vertical component of the wetted zone was deeper,
and in the radial component it was narrower, as the soil became coarser and the
trickler discharge rate became smaller. As expected, the concentration increased
toward the wetting front edges. The results presented can be used to evaluate the
distribution in the investigated soils of nitrate added via the water at a concentra-
tion Co.In this case the zone (c-Co)/cn = 0 in Fig. 2 is the part of the wetted soil
volume in which the concentration of the nitrate in the soil solution equals its con-
centration in the irrigation water.
The distribution of C1- (b = 0) in a loamy sand soil under furrow irrigation [elec-
trical conductivity (EC) = 3 dS/m] during infiltration and redistribution was sim-
ulated by Noborio et al. (1996) by solving Eq. (2). Characteristic profiles of min-
imum EC in the ridge and furrow slope regions, and the finding of an EC similar
to the EC in the irrigation water at the furrow bottom, agreed quite well with ex-
perimental field data.
Equation (2) predicts that strongly adsorbed nutrients (b)c)>> 1) have reduced
mobility in soil, compared with unadsorbed ions. For a given c, b(c) of a clayey
soil exceeds that of a sandy soil, therefore the mobility of adsorbed ions in fine-
textured soils is less than that in coarse-textured soils. For example, P concentra-
tion distributions in sandy and clayey soils determined experimentally after given
amounts of P and water were applied via a point source are presented in Fig. 3 .
Whereas NO, movement in both soils extended to a distance of 20 cm from the
source (data not presented), P movement was restricted to distances of 12 and 7
cm from the emitter, in the sandy and clayey soils, respectively. Larger application
rates of water and P increased the distance of the water from the emitter, but not
that of P (data not presented). The values of b(c)at c = 2 mg P/liter were 35 and
1.O (mg P/kg soil) /(mg P/liter) in the clayey and sandy soils, respectively (Bar-
Yosef and Sheikholslami, 1976). Similar effects of soil type and P application rate
on the P distribution in soil under drip fertigation can be found in studies by Rol-
ston et al. (1979), Bacon and Davey (1982, 1989), and Keng et al. (1979).
Rolston et al. (1979) showed that o-phosphate applied via trickle irrigation
moved to a much greater distance into a clayey soil than had previously been ob-
served for comparable application rates spread uniformly on the soil surface and ir-
rigated by sprinkler irrigation. The reason for the difference is that in point source
fertigation all P was applied over the small surface area of the solution entry zone,
so that soil adsorption sites became saturated, b(c)decreased significantly, and the
extent of P migration was greater than with broadcast P application,for which c was
smaller and the high b(c)restricted P transport in soil. The difference in transport
of nitrates between point source fertigation and broadcast application plus sprinkler
irrigation is expected to be considerably smaller than that observed in P transport.
The mechanism controlling K transport in soil is based on its rapid exchange
with other cations in the soil (see Section IIIF). When the quantity of K in the soil
is small relative to the soil cation-exchange capacity, adsorption is controlled
mainly by variations in K concentration in the soil solution (c,). As c, increases
12 B. BAR-YOSEF
a
0 ,
..a J
-1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
0 2 4 6 8 I 0 12 14 16 18 20
DISTANCE (cm)
I: -16
0 2
,
4
, ,
6
,
8
, ,
10 12 14 16 18
, ,
DISTANCE (CM)
Figure 3 Concentration of NaHCO, extractable o-phosphate in soil as a function of depth and lat-
eral distance from a 0.25 literlh emitter placed on top of the soil. (a) Sandy soil (field capacity 0.05,
wlw), 21 h after terminating fertigation with 1 liter solution of 200 mg Plliter. (b) Clayey soil (field ca-
, h after terminating fertigation with 2.25 liters of solution a. Initial o-phosphate
pacity 0.25, w / ~ )21
concentrations in soils a and b were 0 and 2 mg P/kg, respectively. Adapted from Bar-Yosef and
Sheikholslami (1976).
around a point source, the K buffering capacity decreases and a deeper K move-
ment is expected relative to sprinkler irrigation and broadcast K application (Uriu
et al., 1977). Bar-Yosef and Sagiv (1985) showed that at the time of maximum K
uptake rate by crops with high demand for K, this element must be supplied
through the water even if its concentration in the soil is sufficient, because the rate
of sorbed K release to the soil solution becomes a rate-limiting step in K uptake.
This constraint is particularly important under drip fertigation, where plant root
volumes are restricted.
The limited migration distance of strongly adsorbed ions in soil, with respect to
the radius of the wetting front, implies that in many soils the distance between
emitters strongly affects nutrient availability to plants. To reduce the impact of re-
stricted mobility in soil, a combination of preplant broadcast fertilization and fer-
tigation during the season must be practiced. The rate of preplant top-dressings
should be based on routine soil test results multiplied by a factor (<1) to account
for the extra supply via the irrigation water.
EFFECTS
C. SOILROOTVOLUME
Partial soil volume fertigation has been mentioned above as one of the advan-
tages of microfertigation. For a given soil and emitter discharge rate, increasing
the fertigation frequency reduces the time fluctuation in nutrient concentrations in
soil solution, but decreases the soil root volume (Bar-Yosef et al., 1980~). The size
of the soil root volume also depends on the initial soil water content. Phene et al.
(199 1) reported that high-frequency-fertigated sweet corn had a root system that
extended to a depth of 180 cm, whereas Martinez Hernandez et al. (1991) found
under similar growth conditions that sweet corn roots were confined to the upper
50-cm soil layer. The main difference between the two studies was in the initial
soil moisture: In the first study the 2-m soil profile was at field capacity, whereas
in the second it was at air dryness. Plants with restricted root systems develop
smaller canopies than plants with unrestricted root development (Bar-Yosef et al.,
1988a; Plaut et al., 1988; Erez et al., 1992).Two mechanisms can explain this phe-
nomenon: (i) reduced supply of root-synthesized plant growth regulators to the
canopy (Itai and Birnbaum, 1996); (ii) decreased water and nutrient uptake rates
limiting dry matter production by the plant. Smaller plants under root confinement
conditions can be grown at a higher density in the field, thus maintaining the yield
per unit land area (Plaut et al., 1988), and smaller plants, particularly trees, can be
harvested more easily and sprayed more efficiently. Confined root systems also im-
prove the carbon economy of plants, as the mass of thick roots leading to deep, ac-
tive roots is reduced and more carbohydrates can be allocated for fruit production.
Another feature of confined root systems is the quick and effective control of
nutrient and salt contents in the root zone. For example, nitrate uptake by leafy
crops and potatoes must be stopped 2-3 weeks before harvest to avoid the accu-
mulation of toxic nitrate levels in edible plant organs. Leaching the nitrates from
a small soil root volume is simple, and does not require much water, whereas in a
14 B. BAR-YOSEF
large soil root volume leaching is ineffective and the roots continue to absorb ni-
trate at a considerate rate, despite the reduced concentration in the soil. A disad-
vantage of confined soil root volumes is the limited ability to utilize mineralized
soil organic N: The unexploited nitrates outside the root zone are prone to leach-
ing by rains before the following crop can recover them from the soil.
D. REDUCING SALNTY HAZARDS

Several studies (Bemstein and Francois, 1975; Singh et al., 1978; Meiri and
Plaut, 1985; Mizrahi etal., 1988) indicate that irrigation water with total salt con-
centration of approximately 2 g/liter can be utilized in drip irrigation without sig-
nificant yield loss relative to freshwater, whereas the use of such water for furrow
and sprinkler irrigation caused decreases of 54 and 94%, respectively, in yield
(Bemstein and Francois, 1975). The reduced salinity hazard under trickle irriga-
tion can be related to the efficient displacementof salts to the periphery of the wet-
ted soil volume (Fig. 2 ) and to the reduction in salt concentration because the high-
er irrigation frequency maintains a high soil water content. Salts accumulated in
the margin of the top soil layer of the onion-shaped wetted volume (Fig. 2 ) may
be leached into the main soil root volume by rains and cause a sudden osmotic
shock to drip-irrigated plants. Irrigation during rainfall may avert such a stress.
Another factor that may ameliorate salinity stress under trickle fertigation is the
high and steady nutrient concentrations in the soil root volume. High nitrate con-
centration in solution may depress C1 influx by plant roots (Fried and Broeshart,
1967), although this mechanism was found insufficient to alleviate NaCl stress in
tomato and melon plants (Feigin, 1990). Ravikovitch and Yoles (1971) and
Chauhan et al. (1991) found a positive effect of P nutrition on the yield of clover
and millet and of wheat, respectively, under saline conditions, but in other studies
on the P-salinity relationship contradictory results were obtained (Feigin, 1990).
High concentrations of Na+ inhibit K+ influx into roots, or increase K+ leakage
from the cells. High Ca2+ concentrations reduce the influx of Na+ and thus main-
tain cell membrane integrity and alleviate salinity-induced K deficiency (Ben-
Hayyim et d., 1987). Alva and Syvertsen (1991) reported that citrus leaf K and
Mg concentration were reduced by high salinity, but that an increase in leaf Ca
concentration may minimize the effects of salt stress. Salinity reduces plant root
length and surface area (see Section IIIE). Under such conditions high and steady
nutrient concentrations in the fertigated soil volume may partially compensate for
the expected decline in the rate of uptake by the plant (Kafkafi, 1984). Recently, a
simple field technique was suggested for studying salinity-fertilization interac-
tions under trickle irrigation (Demalach et al., 1996), by employing separate lines
for saline water and nutrient solution. This technique is simple to operate and may
help to elucidate salinity-nutrition relationships under field conditions.
The effective means of controlling solute concentrations in restricted soil root

volumes allow growers to apply osmotic stress in microfertigated crops as a tool
to improve fruit quality with minimal loss in yield. Fruit quality improvement un-
der controlled NaCl stress was demonstrated in greenhouse tomatoes (Mizrahi et
al., 1988; Plaut and Meiri, 1988). Data from Plaut and Meiri (1988) indicate that
osmoticum alone cannot explain the fruit quality enhancement obtained, since
NaCl was more effective than KCl in improving fruit taste and firmness.
E. DRIPVERSUS MICROJETFERTIGATION
Direct comparisons between crop performance under trickle versus microjet fer-
tigation have been meagerly reported in the literature. Differing crop responses are
expected due to: (i) differing water and nutrient distribution in axisymmetrical and
one-dimensional flow regimes; (ii) better uniformity of water and nutrient appli-
cation in trickler than in microjet irrigation; and (iii) partial canopy wetting by mi-
crojets, resulting in damage to leaves.
Bravdo et al. (1992) and Dasberg (1995) compared the responses of orange trees
to trickle and microjet fertigation, for similar water and N application rates, ferti-
gation frequency, and wetted soil volume. Neither yield nor fruit quality were sig-
nificantly different in the two systems. Additional, yet inconclusive, information
on fertigation by the two methods can be found in Cassagnes et al. (1984), Cas-
sagnes (1988), and Orphanos and Eliades (1992).
F. SUBSURFACE
FERTIGATION
The high labor and energy requirements for spreading and collecting laterals
every season, and the deterioration of drip lines exposed to solar radiation, ani-
mals, and heavy machinery jeopardizes further expansion of trickle imgation.
Subsurface location of tricklers and laterals at the appropriate soil depth solves
these problems. Moreover, recent advances in quality of fertilizer products, filtra-
tion devices, and quantification of chemical precipitation in fertigation systems
have significantly reduced emitter clogging problems, which had been the prima-
ry reason for the slow expansion of subsurface drip fertigation in the past two
decades. In addition to the aforementioned economic advantages, subsurface drip
fertigation has some agronomic advantages over surface drip fertigation:
i. Nutrients are supplied to the center of the root system, where the water con-
tent is relatively high and steady with time (Phene and Howell, 1984) and root ac-
tivity is maximal. Nutrients introduced via subsurface tricklers can move in a
spherical volume around the emitter, while transport in surface application is
bound within a hemisphere below the point source (Phene et al., 1986). It is ex-
16 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table HI
Marketable Test Crop Yields in California and Israel in Response to Surface (SR)
and Subsurface (SSR) Drip P Fertigation
Israel California
c, mMP SR SSR Av SR SSR Av
Sweet corn (tonha)

PO 0 22.1 22.9 22.5 31.3 27.0 29.1
PI 0.16 22.4 24.3 23.3
0.40 29.6 29.2 29.4
P2 0.64 23.1 24.9 24.0
0.77 29.4 30.2 29.8
P3 1.29 26.3 28.9 27.6
Av 23.5 25.2 24.3** 30.1 28.8 29.4 ns
*** ns
Processing tomatoes (red fruit todha)
PO 0 143.7 141.9 142.8 143.3 142.5 142.8
0.43 155.2 182.2 168.7
PI 0.65 159.3 177.9 168.6
0.77
P2 1.30 152.8 159.0 155.9
P3 2.00 151.5 166.3 158.7
Av 151.7 161.3 156.5* 149.2 162.3 155.8*
** *
Potatoes (tonha) Cotton lint (toniha)
PO 0 55.0 66.0 60.5 I .27 1.57 1.42
P1 0.40 1.25 1.38 1.31
0.64 72.0 87.0 79.5
P2 0.80 1.22 I .39 1.30
1.30 68.0 71.0 69.5
P3 1.90 69.0 64.0 66.5
Av 66.0 72.0 69.0** 1.25 1.45 1.35*
** ns
Note. Varieties: sweet corn, tomatoes, cotton, and potatoes were Jubilee, M82-1-8 in Israel and
UC82B in California, GC-510, and Deseare. *, **, ***, ns: significant differences at P = 0.05, P =
0.01, and lack of significance, respectively.
Source: Bar-Yosef et al. (1991).
pected that differences in uptake rates of mobile elements between surface and
subsurface fertigation systems will be smaller than in those of immobile elements,
as the former are distributed and exploited from a considerably larger soil volume
than the latter. Data on the response of field crop yields to surface and subsurface
P fertigation (Table 111) show that when N and K alone were added via the water
and a sufficient concentration of P (20-25 mg NaHCO, extractable P/kg soil) was
found in the soil at seeding time, no differences in sweet corn and tomato yields
between surface and subsurface fertigation were observed. In cotton and in pota-
toes the yields were higher under subsurface fertigation, even when P was not
added via the water. When the P concentration in the water (C), varied between
-
0.2 and 1 mM, the fresh fruit yield was higher in all crops (excluding sweet corn
in California) under subsurface than under surface P fertigation (Table 111). The Cp
response curve was bell shaped, but the optimum Cp was higher under subsurface
than under surface P fertigation (Table 111). The deviation of sweet corn in Cali-
fornia from the general behavior stemmed from a high initial cp in the soil.
Empirical results of P and N distribution in soil under surface and subsurface
fertigation (Bar-Yosef et al., 1989; Martinez Hernandez et al., 1991) confirm the
expected deeper P distribution under subsurface than under surface P fertigation
and the smaller differences in N and water distribution between the two systems.
ii. When emitters are placed below the soil surface in accordance with soil hy-
draulic properties, the top 3-5-cm soil layer can be kept dry during the whole sea-
son. This placement depth (d,)should be overridden in accordance with the plow-
ing depth ($) if dp > d,. The dry top soil prevents weed germination (Bar-Yosef
et al., 1989), thereby reducing herbicide use, and decreases water evaporation.
Bar-Yosef et al. (1991) found delayed growth of tomato plants in a loamy soil
when emitters were placed 40-50 cm below the soil surface as compared with
20-25 cm. The inhibited growth was attributed to the extra time the roots needed
to pass through the relatively dry top soil layer and reach the center of the wetted
soil volume near the emitter. Subsurface P fertigation may solve one of the major
problems associated with no-tillage, namely, the frequent phosphorus deficiency,
which stems from the limited downward movement of P applied as soil top-dress-
ing and lack of soil mixing in the 0-40-cm upper soil layer, usually obtained by
deep plowing. Unfortunately, this aspect of subsurface drip fertigation has not been
investigated yet.
iii. Roots grow deeper into the soil under subsurface than under surface drip
fertigation (Martinez Hernandez et al., 1991). This stems from deeper water and
nutrient distributions in the soil, and the response of root growth to variations in
soil water content and nutrient concentrations (Bar-Yosef and Lambert, 1981;
Hoogenboom and Huck, 1986; Timlin et al., 1996). Deeper root systems buffer
roots against exposure to low and high soil temperatures. Low root temperatures
at times of high radiation and high air temperature may cause plant collapse, as
root water conductance is reduced (Dalton and Gardner, 1978) and water uptake
cannot meet the prevailing potential transpiration demand. Kafkafi (1984) de-
scribed such a collapse in surface drip-fertigated melons during mornings that fol-
lowed cold nights; when the emitters were buried 40-50 cm below the soil sur-
face, the melon plants survived. Adverse effects of high soil temperature on roots
are discussed in Section IIIE.
iv. Subsurface placement of tricklers may prevent soil crusting in sodic soils or
18 B. BAR-YOSEF
when using high sodium adsorption ratio irrigation water (see Section IIIG). This
reduces surface runoff and improves water and nutrient distribution uniformity in
the field.
v. Secondary municipal effluents can be used to irrigate edible crops, provided
that in no circumstances is a contact between aerial plant parts and irrigation wa-
ter established. The only irrigation technique that meets this condition is subsur-
face trickle fertigation. The use of recycled solutions for fertigation is discussed
in Section IIIG. From a wastewater management standpoint, buried emitters
should be placed as close as possible to the soil surface to promote microbial de-
composition of organic contaminants and pathogens and to minimize their leach-
ing toward groundwater.
There are some agrotechnical problems associated with subsurface fertigation:
(i) Germination usually requires auxiliary overhead irrigation to maintain top soil
moisture. (ii) Soils with low and spatially variable low hydraulic conductivity may
reduce the effective discharge rate of subsurface emitters and cause nonuniform
water distribution in the field. Although this problem has not yet been verified un-
der field conditions, matching between the nominal emitter discharge rate and the
effective soil hydraulic conductivity during irrigation is required. (iii) Tree main
roots may compress subsurface laterals and reduce emitter discharge rates. The
problem seems to be aggravated when laterals are placed in the soil shortly after
tree planting, when main roots are growing.
G. AVOIDINGCLOGGING
Plugging of emitters causes nonuniform distribution of water and nutrient in the
soil. According to Bucks et al. (1982) the coefficients of variation (CVs) of eight
different type of emitters increased after 4 years of operation with Colorado Riv-
er water, from approximately 0.06 t 0.04 to approximately 0.50 ? 0.10, the main
reasons being clogging and aging. When the tricklers were acid-treated the CV in-
creased after 4 years to between 0 and 0.16, the larger value characterizing long-
path, spiral-grooved tricklers. The fact that acid significantly reduced clogging in-
dicates that the main cause of plugging is chemical precipitation, probably of Ca
with HPO, (Imas et al., 1996) or CaCO,. The recommended acid treatment to dis-
solve Ca-P and carbonate precipitates comprises a 10 to 15-min flush with 0.6%
HCl33%, followed by a 1-h wash with water.
Other common causes of dripper clogging are suspended mineral and organic
particles in fertigation solutions, biofilms formed by microflora inside tricklers and
lateral tubes, and penetration of roots into drippers. Suspended particles are treat-
ed effectively by three types of filters: (i) layered gravel, which removes organic
particles such as algae or solid residues; (ii) centrifugal filters, which remove min-
eral particles such as silt and sand exceeding a concentration of -3 mg/liter; and
(iii) screen filters, designed to remove particles found in commercial fertilizers and
in corroded metal pipes. All filters cause significant head losses (2 to 10 m, de-
pending on filter type and flow rate), which should be taken into account in plan-
ning fertigation systems. Automatic flushing devices maintain the head losses at
relatively constant values. More details on dripper clogging can be found in Adin
and Sacks (1991) and Ravina et al. (1992).
Avoiding biofilm build-up inside tricklers and tubes requires chlorination every
other week when colonial protozoa are the main reason for the clogging, and every
3 days when sulfur bacteria form the biofilm (Sagi et al., 1995). To minimize mi-
croorganism development in closed irrigation systems it is advisable to prevent
fertigation solutions from remaining in tricklers and laterals between irrigations.
This can be achieved by installation of end drains, running of water without fer-
tilizers for the last 5-10 min of each fertigation, and routine flushing of mains and
submains equipped with flushing valves.
Clogging of tricklers by roots seems to vary with irrigation and cultivation tech-
niques. Bar-Yosef et al. (1991) reported that after 4 years of sweet corn, tomato,
and potato growth under surface and subsurface drip fertigation, the incidence of
clogged drippers over an area of 1 ha was <2%. In lawns, golf courses, and field
crops where heavy machinery traffic is general, clogging by roots may become a
severe problem (personal observation). It is plausible that frequent traffic on drip-
irrigated fields causes a direct contact between emitters and the soil, which allows
roots to grow into the orifices. In the absence of pressure on emitters, a cavity a
few millimeters in diameter is formed around the orifice because of soil displace-
ment by the outflowing water. When irrigation terminates, the water drains from
the cavity and the hemispherical void around the orifice prevents root growth into
the emitter. Root growth around the trickler orifice can be prevented by controlled
herbicide release via the emitter. The most commonly used herbicide is trifluralin
(e.g., Dornai et al., 1991), which has been incorporated into the plastic dripper
casting by various manufacturers.
In. PRINCIPLES OF FERTIGATION
Fertigation management is aimed at maximizing growers’ income and mini-

mizing environmental pollution. Attaining these objectives depends on economic
factors (input costs and produce value) and on crop growth, yield, and fruit qual-
ity. The incorporation of economic, environmental, and agronomic considerations
into one management decision tool has not yet been attempted. The main problem
in implementing such an integrated approach is the inability to predict plant re-
sponse, in yield and fruit quality, to variations in daily input levels that stem from
economic constraints (e.g., price of gas, fertilizers, or fruit). A few studies have
20 B. BAR-YOSEF
been initiated to link economic and agronomic considerations by optimizing CO,

enrichment and air temperature in tomato greenhouses, on the basis of expected
fruit price and input costs (Seginer, 1989; Aikman et al., 1996). Another attempt
was reported by Wu (1993, who developed a simple model to optimize microir-
rigation on the basis of the price of water, the value of projected yield, and the cost
of cleaning underground water, contaminated by deep leaching caused by ineffi-
cient water use. Doerge and Thompson (1995) used net value of yield and deep N
leaching as criteria to determine recommended N fertigation levels in vegetable
crops. The latter two studies allow ad hoc evaluation of field operations, but can-
not yet be used as a real-time management decision tool.
In the absence of an integrated agronomic-economic-environmental manage-
ment approach, current fertigation recommendations are aimed at maximizing
yield and fruit quality. The following sections discuss the question of how this ob-
jective can be met with respect to sustaining a clean environment.
A. QUANTITY
CONSIDERATIONS
It is assumed that yield and fruit quality are determined by two functions: (i) dry
matter (DM) production and partitioning among plant organs as a function of time;
and (ii) nutrient concentration (NC) in plant organs as a function of time. Unique
DM and NC functions (both being independent of soil properties) determine
unique crop yield and quality. The product DM(t) X NC(t) defines a cumulative
consumption function Q(r).The DM(t) and Q(r)that result in maximum yield and
fruit quality under given climatic conditions are termed the objective (target) DM
and nutrient uptake curves. The practical importance of the objective Q(t)curves
is that they indicate the minimal daily application rates of given nutrients neces-
sary to maintain them at a steady-state concentration in the soil. The actual fertil-
ization rate should account for the fertilizer use efficiency by the plant, EF, (EF < 1)
and must, therefore, be Q/EF. Under good management EF exceeds 0.80 (Shevah
and Waldman, 1989).
An additional quantity factor in the soil-plant system is the water consumption
during the course of the growing season that facilitates uninhibited plant develop-
ment. The transpiration function depends on climatic conditions and on crop char-
acteristics (Stanhill, 1985; Hatfield and Fuchs, 1990) and the actual irrigation rate
should exceed transpiration as it must also compensate for evaporation from the
soil surface and leaching of salts outside the root zone.
The objective DM(r) and Q(t)curves are obtained empirically by growing crops
under a certain range of fertigation regimes and climatic conditions, and deter-
mining the DM and NC in crop organs as a function of time, and the temporal crop
yield and quality (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1991). This is a very tedious procedure that ide-
ally could have been replaced by crop-soil-atmosphere models and simulation of
growth, uptake, and yield under various fertigation regimes. Unfortunately cur-
rently available models (see Section V) do not predict fruit quality and, therefore,
cannot replace empirical work.
B. INTENSITY
CONSIDERATIONS
There are two major intensity factors that must be known for proper fertigation
management: (i) root concentration distribution in the soil; and (ii) nutrient con-
centration distribution in the soil solution. The two functions must be adjusted to
enable plants to absorb nutrients according to the objective Q(t)function. Root and
nutrient concentrations have complementary effects, since uptake rate is the inte-
gral of the flux times root surface area (or length) in a given soil subvolume, over
the total number of subvolumes in the soil. The flux, F[mol (cm root)-' s-'1 is
determined by the nutrient concentration in the soil solution at the root surface, Cr
(mol liter- I ) , as shown by the Michaelis-Menten equation:
F = Fmax
Cr/(K, + CJ. (4)
Here Fmax (maximum F') and K,,, (M> are plant coefficients determined in stirred
nutrient solution experiments. Representative values of K, and Fmax for various
crops are presented in Table IV. The integration of uptake based on Eq. (4) over
the entire root zone is the basis for several models that simulate nutrient uptake in
relation to plant growth (e.g., Jones and Kiniry, 1986; Marani et al., 1992; Fish-
man and Bar-Yosef, 1995; Abbas et al., 1996; Lafolie et al., 1997). When nutri-
ents accumulate inside the root, the internal concentration CpImay affect F. In such
cases (e.g., nitrate uptake by roses, Brun and Morisot, 1996) Eq. (4) may be re-
placed by
F = KT (C, - C,,,), (5)
where KT (cm s-') is the root ion transfer constant. An approach similar to (5) was
used to simulate water influx into roots, with the concentration difference being
replaced by root water head and water pressure head at the soil-root interface, and
KT being replaced by a coefficient that accounts for the soil-root interface hy-
draulic conductance and geometry (Gardner, 1960).
The mechanism of ion uptake based on root length and nutrient concentrations
in the soil solution is challenged by another approach that maintains that as long
as nutrient quantities in the root zone are sufficient, plants take up as much nutri-
ents as their capacity for them demands, regardless of the nutrient concentrations
in the soil solution and independently of plant root length (Steiner, 1996). The ca-
pacity depends on plant's physiological stage and is independent of the ionic com-
position of the nutrient solution (Andre et al., 1978). For the specific case of ni-
trate, for example, Drews et al. (1995) found that the nitrate uptake rate was
22 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table IV
and K,,,for NO,, P, and K of Several Plant Species Using Intact Plants
Values of FmaX
in Well-Stirred Solution Culture
Fmax[(mol cm-' s-I) x 1013] K, [(mol liter-') x 10'7

Plant species NO, P K NO, P K Ref!
Corn
(Zea mays) 1.16 0.50 5.02 10 3.0 16 I"
- 6.1 - - 1.o - 2
4.0 40 5.5 70 6
Soybean
(Glycine man) - 0.10 0.09 - 2.0 10.3 1',6
Wheat
(Tritium
vulgare) - 0.18 0.88 - 6.0 I 1
Tomatod
(Lycopersicon 7.5 6.6 - 600 436 - 5
esculentum) 5.1 - - 258 - - 3
Barley
(Hordeum
vulgare) - - 34.9 - - 15 4
"Assuming root radius = 0.02 cm.

"References: 1, Barber (1984); 2, Bar-Yosef (1971); 3, Ben Asher et al. (1982); 4,Glass and Perley
(1980); 5 , h a s et al. (1997a) for P and h a s et al. (1977b) for NO,; 6, Williams and Yanai (1996).
Tmln in Barber's data disregarded
dData from ref. 3 were recalculated.According to Ref. 5 , K,,,and FmaX of NH, in tomato are 1.1
mM and 26 X 1013 mol cm-l s-I.
determined solely by the availability of soluble carbohydrates in the plant. The lat-
ter approach lacks a physicochemical and biological basis, in the present state of
knowledge, and, therefore, is not further discussed in this review.
C. LMPLICATION OF THERELATIONSHIPSBETWEEN UPTAKE

FLUXAND CONCENTRATION
Even without management models, Eq. (4) can be used to define some thresh-
old nutrient concentrations in irrigation water. When C, > Km, the increase in F
due to an incrementalincrease in Crdiminishes rapidly, and it is inadvisable, there-
fore, to maintain at the root surface a concentration that sustains an F that exceeds
0.75Fm,, (i.e., C,= 3Km). Concentrations exceeding this threshold C,value may
contributeto salinity and cause reduced influxes of other nutrients (Fried and Broe-
shart, 1967;Fishman and Bar-Yosef, 1995).Another application of Eq. (4) is to es-

timate, as a function of time, the minimal active root length (or weight) (R,) re-
quired to facilitate uptake rates according to Q(t):
R, = Q(NF,,,. (6)
The concentration of a nonadsorbing nutrient in the irrigation water (Cw)is a
first approximationto its concentration in the bulk soil solution (C,), but not to that
at the root surface (C,). For adsorbing nutrients (e.g., P, K), Cwshould be correct-
ed for adsorption. The difference between C, and Cb stems from the rapid deple-
tion of nutrients by the root, and the slower transport of nutrients from the bulk
soil to the root surface; this difference diminishes as the fertigation frequency in-
creases. Assuming a constant rate of solution flow into the root, W[ml (cm root)-'
s-l], and steady-state soil volumetric water content (0) and soil nutrient concen-
trations, the relationship among Cb,W, and C,., is given by Eq. (7), which is derived
from Eqs. (14) and (4):
C,/C, = 1/A - B(l/A - l)/(K, + C,)]. (7)
Here, A = (b/u)W'2TDp, b and a (cm) are the midway distances between roots and
root radius, respectively, B = F,,,/W, and Dp (cm2 s - l ) is the diffusion coeffi-
cient of the nutrient in the soil solution, defined as Dp = K Doexp(a 0) (Olsen and
Kemper, 1968), in which Dois the diffusion coefficient in water and a(-10) and
K(-0.001 to 0.005) are soil constants; K decreases as the soil surface area in-
creases. More discussion of D p and its dependence on soil properties is given in
Section IIIF. W is related to the solution velocity toward the root, v (cm s- I ) by W
= v2Tae.
Under high-transpiration conditions (e.g., 10 mm day-') and a crop with 9000
kg fresh roots/ha (characteristic of sweet corn, see Section IIIF) the average W is
0.014 ml (cm root)-' day-' (a = 0.02 cm), and v = 0.45 cm day-' (=5.2 E-6
cm s- I ) . At this velocity, the hydrodynamicdispersion coefficient is negligible and
Dp is determined by the thermal diffusion coefficient (Olsen and Kemper, 1968).
Assuming b = 2 cm, 0 = 0.25 cm3 cmP3, Dp = 6.0 E-8 cm2 s-I and Fmaxand
K, of NO, for corn (Table IV), Eq. (7) yields a CJC, ratio of approximately 0.5,
indicating nitrate accumulation (rather than depletion) at the root surface. Under
lower 0 (=O. lo), transpiration is limited by soil hydraulic conductivity. Assuming
that v = 2.3 E-9 cm s - I and that the other parameters are unchanged, Eq. (7)
-
yields a Cb/Crratio of 1. Assuming a 10-fold greater Fmaxand 10-fold smaller
K, (which represent the possible experimental variability in evaluating these pa-
-
rameters) gives Cb/Cr 10.A similar ratio is obtained for 8 = 0. l, the original val-
ues of Fmaxand K,, but smaller Dp (1.4 E- 10 compared with the reference val-
ue of 6.0 E-8 cm2 s-l). A CJC, value of -90 is obtained for 0 = 0.10, v = 2.3
E- 10 cm s- I , reference Fma and K,, and Dp = 1.4 E- 11.
In several studies the parameters in Eq. (4) were determined in unstirred solu-
24 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table V
MichaelisMenten Constants for N, P, and K for Pepper, Tomato, and Lettuce Plants Grown in
Unstirred Solution Cultures and in Two Growth Substrates
Fmsxr Kms
Crop" Nutrient [(mol cm-' SKI)X loi3] (phfl System Ref"
Pepper Nb 14.0 550 Unstirred solution 1

P 17.0 25 Unstirred solution 1
Tomato N 11.0 3000 Sand 2
P 1.8 320 Rockwool 3
K 3 .O 1000 Aerophonic 4
Lettuce P 2.3 136 Sand 5
"Assumed root radius = 0.02 cm.

hNH,-N:NO,-N in solution = 1:3
'References: 1, Bar-Tal et al. (1990); 2, Bar-Yosef (1991); 3, Bar-Yosef and [mas (1995); 4, Bar-
Tal er al. (1994); 5, [mas and Bar-Yosef (1997).
tions or in growth substrates. In such circumstances, K , is expressed as a con-

centration in the bulk soil solution (K,,,, Table V). The disadvantage of this ap-
proach is that Kms depends not only on the crop root properties but also on soil
characteristics and fertigation regime. Comparison between Km,(N) of tomato
plants grown in sand (Table V) and K , (Table IV) shows that Kmsis approximately
10-fold greater than K , and Fmax(tomato)in the soil is twice as great as Fmaxin
stirred solution, which is a surprisingly good agreement. The K,,/Km ratio of 10
indicates that C, in sand is approximately one-tenth of Cb,or C,. This ratio is with-
in the Cb/Crrange discussed above.
D. COUPLING AND INTENSITY

QUANTITY FACTORS
For best management results the quotient Q(t)/(daily irrigation rate) (=C)
should equal a C, value that will sustain the F required by the roots. The daily ir-
rigation rate (mm/day) is determined according to the estimated reference evapo-
transpiration multiplied by a time-dependent crop coefficient that accounts for the
partial covering of the soil surface by the canopy (Hatfield and Fuchs, 1990). The
irrigation scheduling is determined according to soil water status, monitored with
tensiometers for matric potential (Richards, 1965), and neutron probe, time-do-
main reflectometry, or capacitance meter for volumetric water content (Gardner,
1986; Dalton et al., 1984; Bell et al., 1987). Reference daily evapotranspiration
can be estimated from class A pan evaporation (Phene et al., 1990b) or calculated
from meteorological data (Hatfield and Fuchs, 1990). When the irrigation rate is
high (e.g., summer time) and root systems are confined (e.g., under high-frequen-
cy drip irrigation), C may be too low to furnish the uptake rate required by the
plants, as the integral of flux over the root length is too low. In such a case, the nu-
trient application rate should be raised above the target Q(t),which is, however, a
wasteful and environmentally undesirable practice. To avoid such problems, plants
can be grown with larger root systems, such that a lower Cr may be sufficient to
maintain the target Q(t). Large soil root volumes have a high buffering capacity
for water and nutrients, which reduces possible stresses arising from unexpected-
ly interrupted supplies. However, large root volumes cannot be rapidly enriched
with or depleted of nutrients, so that the ability to control uptake according to time-
specific plant needs is reduced.
E. ROOT GROWTHAND DISTRIBUTION

IN SOIL
Root growth depends on transport of carbohydrates and hormones from the

canopy, and on the physical and chemical conditions that prevail in the soil. The
mechanism controlling carbon supply partitioning between plant organs and roots
is still unclear. Timlin et al. (1996), in their comprehensive crop-soil-atmosphere
model, assumed that carbon allocation to roots is a function of leaf water poten-
tial (Acock and Trent, 1991). Fishman et al. (1984) suggested that carbon parti-
tioning is determined by the relative sink power of plant organs, defined as the car-
bohydrate content of the organ divided by the total carbon content in plant.
Hormone effects on root growth have not yet been treated quantitatively, and are
not discussed in this review.
Root growth models distinguish between potential and actual root growth rates.
The potential root growth rate is described as a first-order reaction with respect to
root length, L (cm), dLldt = PL, where P is a rate constant ( t - ' ) (Hoogenboom
and Huck, 1986). The potential root growth rate for the entire plant is the integral
of the individual rates in the soil subvolumes over the total number of subvolumes
in the wetted soil domain. If the potential growth rate exceeds the actual rate of
carbon supply by the canopy, allocation to individual soil subvolumes is propor-
tional to their relative root growth rate. Soil factors affect root growth by influ-
encing P (Bar-Yosef and Lambert, 1981) and by affecting root extension from a
given soil subvolume into neighboring soil cells. The important soil factors are: (i)
soil moisture content, which determines the impedance to root penetration into the
soil at a given soil compaction (Bar-Yosef and Lambert, 1981); (ii) oxygen, P, and
N concentrations in the soil (Bar-Yosef and Lambert, 1979); (iii) presence of ele-
ments that are toxic to roots (Marschner, 1995); and (iv) soil temperature. Factors
i and ii explain how fertigation rate and frequency, which determine 8 and nutri-
ent concentrations and distributions in the wetted soil volume, affect root growth
and spatial and temporal distribution in the soil. Soil temperature may explain the
26 B. BAR-YOSEF
effects of soil depth on root growth and morphology; at low temperatures roots are
smaller and less branched than at the optimal temperature for root growth (Top,).
A list of Toptfor several field crops is given by McMichael and Burke (1996). The
tap root growth rate of sunflower doubled as the root temperature increased from
10 to 20"C, increased by 20% when the temperature was further increased to 25"C,
and then decreased by -35% as the temperature was raised to 35°C. In cotton, the
tap root growth rate doubled as T was raised from 20 to 35°C and then fell by 35%
as T was increased to 40°C. The root growth rate of maize increased by a factor of
-3 as T was raised from 15 to 20"C, and by a factor of 2.3 as T was elevated to
30°C (McMichael and Burke, 1996). Ganmore-Neumann and Kafkafi (1980)
found that tomato plants growing in a solution rich in NO, developed long, thin,
branched roots whereas those grown in a solution rich in NH, developed short,
thick, second- and third-order roots. The highest dry root weight was obtained
when the solution temperature was between 16 and 24"C, for all studied ammoni-
urnhitrate ratios, and decreased when T was elevated to 34°C. The combination
of 10 mM NH, without NO, at T > 24°C resulted in very strong decreases in dry
root and shoot weights in comparison with 24"C, whereas at 16°C the root weight
in the presence of NH, alone was only slightly lower than at NH,/NO, = 5 / 5 ,
which gave the maximum dry root weight. Similar adverse effects on root and
shoot growth, of NH,/NO, ratios exceeding 7/3 at T > -25"C, were reported by
Ganmore-Neumann and Kafkafi (1983) in strawberry.
Due to the meager understanding of the mechanisms controlling root growth un-
der varying soil conditions, this relationship has not yet been incorporated in
soil-crop modeling. The modeling of three-dimensional root growth on the basis
of root morphology and architecture (e.g., Clausnitzer and Hopmans, 1994) is too
complex to be applied in fertigation problems and is outside the scope of this re-
view.
Sample root distributions of drip-fertigated, high-yield pepper, tomato,
muskmelon, and sweet corn in soil are presented in Tables VI and VII. All root sys-
tems were restricted to a soil cylinder 40 cm in radius, which coincided with the
horizontal water front position (data not shown). The depths of the tomato and pep-
per root systems were shallower than those of sweet corn and muskmelon, appar-
ently because of inherent differences in root growth characteristics. The experi-
mental root weight of tomato (Table VI) can be compared with the theoretical
minimum root weight necessary to furnish the tomato plant with its maximum
Q(N)[Eq. (6)]. Assuming a Q(N) of 2.5 kg N ha-' day-' (see below), FmaX(NO3)
of (5E- 13 mol cm-' s-') (Table V), and 8% root dry matter content, a minimum
dry root weight of 400 kg ha-' is obtained. The close agreement between the cal-
culated and experimental tomato root weights indicates that at the time of peak N
consumption rate, the roots of drip-fertigated tomato plants must absorb N at a flux
that approaches its saturation value. To approach Fmax, the N concentration in the
soil solution at the root surface must be >3Km.
Table VI
Root Distribution in a Sandy Soil and Total Root Weight of Drip Fertigated Pepper and
Greenhouse Tomato Plants That Gave Optimal Yields (Note the Different Units of Root
Density, Presented in Their Original Forms)"
Pepper Tomato
Lateral distance
Depth 0 11 21 31 0 11 21 31 41
(cm) 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50
% of total dry root wt

in a sampled grid mg dry rootkg dry soil
0-10 15 12 I1 5 320 87 39 9 103
11-20 6 11 I 6 45 12 63 36 103
21-30 5 8 9 4 45 34 43 85 62
3 1-40 2 1 2 2 28 45 60 15 63
41-50 - - - - 22 60 15 28 22
51-60 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1
Total dry root weight (kgha)'
1900 400
"Sources: Pepper (cv. Maor), Bar-Yosef (1991); tomato (cv. F-144),Bar-Yosef et al. (1992).
bFrom the stem toward the edge of the bed, perpendicular to the row.
'Plants stand: pepper 100,000, tomato 23,000 plantsha.
When calculating the minimal root weight for maximum N uptake rate by sweet
corn (Q = 6 kg N ha-' day-') [Eq. (6)], if the available F,, of grain corn (Table
IV) is used, a fresh root weight of 54,000 kg ha-' is obtained, which is apprecia-
bly higher than the sweet corn fresh root weight found under field conditions (9000
kg ha-'; Table VII). The discrepancy indicates that sweet corn, which has a much
shorter growth season, might have a considerably higher F,, and lower K, than
grain corn. A comparison between sweet corn root masses and distributions in soil
under surface and subsurface drip fertigation, respectively, was presented by Bar-
Yosef et d.(1995a). In general, the results are similar to those in Table VII, with
a distinct effect of deeper emitter placement (0, 30, and 45 cm) on root depth,
-
which shifted downward by 15 and 30 cm, respectively, relative to surface place-
ment.
The presented root weight of pepper plants is appreciably greater than the dry
tap root weight of chili pepper (600 kg ha-' at a comparable plant age) reported
by Beese et al. (1982). However, the total dry matter production in the chili pep-
per was also considerably lower than in the current case. The root weights of toma-
to plants presented here are similar to previously published root weight data (Bar-
Yosef, 1991).
28 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table VII
Relative Root Density” Distribution in the Soil6 and Total Fresh Root Weighte of Drip
Fertigated Sweet Corn and Muskmelon Plants That Gave Optimal Yields
Sweet corn Muskmelon
Lateral distance (cm)d

Depth 0 11 21 31 Depth 0 11 21
(cm) 10 20 30 40 (cm) 10 20 30
Relative root density (W)

0-10 48 94 47 77 &I0 100 54 50
11-20 100 84 82 104 1 1-25 73 54 46
2 1-30 90 78 110 50 26-40 19 42 35
31-40 67 42 52 50 41-60 92 35 42
41-50 30 50 58 36 61-80 38 38 23
5 1-70 11 24 9 28 81-100 53 23 7
7 1-90 10 5 6 0
Total fresh root weight (kgha)
9000 I00
Source: Bar-Yosef and Sagiv (1985).

“Relative root density = root density (mg dry rootkg soil) in a given soil cubehoot density in a ref-
erence soil cube. The reference root densities are 133 and 13 mg dry rootkg soil for sweet corn and
muskmelon, respectively. The reference soil cube was 0-10 cm from the emitter.
%weet corn in loess soil; muskmelon in sandy soil.
‘Total root weight was estimated by multiplying root density by soil weight represented by the soil
cube and summing over the sampled soil volume.
%om the stem toward the edge of the bed, perpendicular to the row.
F. RHIZOSPHERIC
PROCESSES
The part of the soil volume that is directly influenced by roots, called the rhi-
zosphere, extends several millimeters from the root surface into the bulk soil
(Mengel and Kirkby, 1987). The effect of the root is exerted by its uptake and re-
lease or organic and inorganic compounds, which influence biological, physical,
and chemical processes in the soil. The released compounds include root debris,
mucilage, and root exudates containing low-molecular-weight organic solutes
(sugars, amino acids, organic acids), gases (CO, and ethylene), and protons
(Marschner, 1995). Soil microorganisms utilize the released carbohydrates and
amino acids, oxidize them by competing with plant roots for soil 0,, and release
CO,, which reduces the soil pH. Certain rhizosphere microorganisms release
phosphatases that mineralize organic P compounds (Jungk, 1966); others exude
siderophores that chelate Fe3+ and enhance its transport in soil (Marschner, 1995).
Protons, carboxylates, and phytosiderophores, released at differing intensities
by roots of various plants, play an important role in mobilizing P, Ca, and mi-
croelements in soil. Discussion on the role of root exudates in plant nutrition in re-
lation to fertigation follows.
1. Carboxylate and Proton Release by Roots
Excess of anion over cation uptake is accompanied by H+ influx into the root
to preserve cell electroneutrality. In practice this occurs in the presence of nitrates
in the root-surrounding solution, and results in a pH increase in the solution. Be-
fore being metabolized by plants, the absorbed nitrates are reduced in a reaction
that takes place in both the shoots and the roots in a proportion that differs among
species and depends on nitrate concentration in the rooting medium: NO,- + 8Hf
+
+ 8e- = NH, + OH- H,O (Marschner, 1995). The generated hydroxyls must
be either excluded or neutralized, to prevent a pH increase in plant cells. Since
OH- is immobile in the phloem, it has to be neutralized by carboxylation and for-
mation of phloem-mobile anions of carboxylic acids (Marschner, 1995). Part of
the carboxylates exude to the root-surrounding solution, thus replacing an equiv-
alent influx of protons. When excess uptake of cations over anions takes place
(e.g., under NH,+ or K + fertilization), electroneutrality is maintained by H+ ef-
flux, which decreases the outer solution pH. It is apparent, therefore, that by vary-
ing the NH,/NO, ratio in fertigation solutions, a partial control over proton and
carboxylate exudation by roots can be obtained, with direct effects on the external
solution pH. The NH,/NO, effect is stronger under high than low fertigation fre-
quency, due to the continuous supply of fresh NH, to the soil in the former case.
The predominant carboxylates found in plant tissues are malate, citrate, oxalate,
succinate, and malonate (Marschner, 1995). Their relative concentration varies
among crops and within plant organs, and is affected by nutrient supplies. Car-
boxylates can complex divalent and trivalent cations at differing stability, and thus
play a role in solubilizing Ca- and Al-P minerals. Carboxylates are also adsorbed
by metal oxides and clay minerals which have pH-dependent charge, increase
the negative surface charge, and desorb P and other oxyanions (Bar-Yosef, 1996b).
Sorption-desorption reactions are discussed in more detail in Section IIIF2. The
carboxylates effective in mobilizing Pin soils are, in descending order, citrate, ox-
alate, and malate (Bar-Yosef, 1996b). Rates of citrate exudation by tomato plants
and variation in pH in nutrient solution in response to the NH,/(NO, + NH,) ra-
tio (R) are presented in Figs. 4 and 5. Citrate exudation varied between 0 at R = 1
and 0.3 kmol/(pl 6 h) at R = 0. Assuming a root-affected soil solution volume
equal to the fresh root weight of the plant, and a 6-day exudation period, the cu-
mulative citrate concentration in this volume is 0.72 mM. The effect of this con-
centration on P mobilization depends on the adsorbing surface properties, total P
concentration, and pH of the system. Under P deficiency conditions in most soils
this citrate concentration might be very beneficial in providing P to plants (Bar-
30 B. BAR-YOSEF
b=4.81 z1.78 *
0 .2 -
0.1 -
u
l-
a
LI: 0.0
k
0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S 0 L UT 10N NHa/(
NH4+N0,)
Figure 4 Citrate exudation rate (EX) by tomato roots as a function of NH,/(NH, + NO,) molar
ratio (R)in nutrient solution. Plant age = 30 days. NH, + NO, = 7.5 mM. Root and shoot fresh weights
were 19 5 2 and 30 IT 2 glpl, respectively. Reproduced from Imas et a!. (1997a). with kind permis-
sion from Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yosef, 1996b).A similar relationshipbetween R and malate exudation has been re-
ported for maize (Kraffczyk et al., 1984).
The data in Fig. 5 show that the R value at which tomato plant did not change
an initial solution pH of 5 was between 3 and 3.3, depending on plant age. When
N was supplied solely as NO, or NH,, the solution pH increased to 8 or decreased
to approximately 3.3, respectively. The maximal H+ efflux from the roots was 18
pmol H+/(pl 6 h) (Imas et al., 1997a). On the basis of the same assumptions as
above, the accumulated H+ is shown to reduce the pH in the root-affected soil so-
lution to -2.7. Similar variations in rhizosphere pH in response to R have been re-
ported for other crops as well (Barber, 1984; Marschner, 1995).
2. Sorption-Desorption
Sorption comprises three chemical reactions that coexist in soils: adsorption

(and exchange), precipitation, and fixation. Together these reactions determine ion
partitioning between the solid and liquid phases of soils. The three reactions dif-
fer in their retention mechanisms (see later) and kinetics. Sorption is characterized
by an initial rapid reaction (adsorption) that takes minutes to hours to complete,
followed by the slower precipitation and fixation reactions. Precipitation takes
hours to several weeks, and fixation several weeks to several months to reach equi-
librium (Sparks, 1986; Barrow, 1987).
9 DAP I
-*- 30
-.-
8
-A- 37
7
44
6
I
P
5
4-
3 -
2 ”
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S 0L UTI0 N NH4/(NH4+N 0,)

Figure 5 Nutrient solution pH as a function of NH,/NH, + NO,) molar ratio ( R ) in the solution
and tomato plant age (DAP). NH, + NO, = 7.5 mM. Root and shoot fresh weights were 19 ? 2 and
30 t 2 glpl, respectively. Reproduced from Imas et al. (1997a). with kind permission from Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Adsorption involves chemical and electrical forces induced by charged and

chemically reactive surfaces. The chemical component of adsorption incorporates
an inner sphere complexation between surface lattice atoms and surrounding free
ions. The adsorbed ions are assumed to be organized in two or three discrete lay-
ers that form capacitors in parallel, the last one comprising a diffuse layer extend-
ing toward the solution phase. The sum of the capacitor charges balances the ad-
sorbent surface charge, thus constituting the electrical component of adsorption.
Such models are used to describe competitive adsorption of oxyanions and mi-
croelements by pH-dependent charged surfaces such as metal oxides and edge
faces of clay mineral platelets in soil. Reviews on adsorption models and their ap-
plication can be found in Sposito (1984) and Barrow (1987). Several studies have
shown hysteresis in P adsorption-desorption by metal oxides and clay minerals in
soil (Barrow, 1987). In all cases P release from those surfaces was slower than P
retention, but the methods by which desorption was determined affected the ionic
composition of the equilibrium solution (e.g., lattice dissolution due to large dilu-
tion), so that the actual hysteresis effect under field conditions is hard to evaluate.
Barrow (1987) developed a pragmatic model that describes oxyanion desorption
as a function of solution concentration and time, according to which desorption
and adsorption do not match.
The retention of macrocations in soil is governed by electrical forces exerted by
the permanent surface charge of clay minerals. Simultaneous Ca, Mg, K, Na, and
32 B. BAR-YOSEF
NH, retention can be expressed by binary, ternary, and tertiary exchange iso-
therms, which take into account the soil cation-exchange capacity, specific ex-
change constants, and cation concentrations in the soil solution. These exchange
models predict cation adsorption in soil suspensions quite well. More details about
these models can be found in several reviews, for example, Sposito (1989).
The aforementioned adsorption and exchange models are too complex for ap-
plication in fertigation management or even in transport problems. The main lim-
itations stem from the numerous parameters involved, the fact that several equa-
tions must be solved simultaneously, and the complex partial differentiation with
respect to ion concentration and pH that defines the buffering capacity of the sys-
tem. These limitations stress the need for simpler models that can be differentiat-
ed and that describe ion partitioning as a function of total ion concentration, con-
centration of competing ions, and pH. An example of such a model, which is
suitable for P fertigation problems, is the modified Langmuir competitive adsorp-
tion model (Bar-Yosef et al., 1988b; Katou et al., 1996):
n
A = T x Kj Mi/ [1 +
j=l
x
m
i=l
K jMi].
Here A is total P adsorption (mol/kg), K is the affinity of adsorbing species to the

surface, M is activity in solution,j is the index of the n P species assumed to be ad-
sorbed (H,PO,, HPO,, PO,, CaPO,), and i is the index of the n P species plus the
(m-n) competing ions (e.g., OH, citrate). The parameter T is the maximum ad-
sorption sites (mol/kg), and is defined as T = To exp[G (RPH/pH - l)], where To
= T when the pH is equal to a reference pH (RPH), and G and RPH are soil-spe-
cific parameters. Under conditions of constant pH and absence of competing ions,
+
Eq. (8) is the Langmuir adsorption isotherm ( A = K T M l [ 1 K W ) .For many
soils the Langmuir model is sufficient to describe P partitioning between the solu-
tion and solid phases. Equation (8) was used to describe pH-dependent Zn ad-
sorption by soils (Bar-Yosef, 1979) and was incorporated into a transport model
describing Zn movement to roots (Bar-Yosef ef al., 1980b).
To estimate K, NH,, and Na partitioning in fertigation problems, binary ex-
change of each of these cations against Ca should provide an acceptable solution,
as long as Ca is the predominant cation in soil. A Gapon-type equation (9), with
M denoting the monovalent ion, can be used for this purpose:
Here [ ] and ( ) stand for the concentrations of exchangeable cations in the solid
(mmol +/lo0 g) and liquid (mM) phases, respectively, and KG ([mmol(+)/lOO g]
[ n M - $is the exchange constant. Calcium and Mg are summed due to their sim-
ilar chemical characteristics. The value of KG for M = Na is 0.015 in a large num-
ber of soils in the western United States (Shainberg and Oster, 1978). KG data for
K and NH, are not readily available, but a first approximation of 5-10 times
greater than KG of Na might be useful (unpublished data). The time needed to at-
tain equilibrium in adsorption and exchange reactions is usually much shorter than
the residence time of ions moving in soil. This explains the common assumption
made in transport models that ion partitioning in soil is instantaneous.
Precipitation occurs when the solubility product of a given mineral (Ksp) is ex-
ceeded by the ionic activity product of the pertinent ions. Precipitation is affected
by solution pH and ionic composition, through their influence on speciation and
ion activity coefficients. Under alkaline conditions, particularly in calcareous soils,
precipitation reactions may determine the P, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn ion concentra-
tions in soil solution. In the case of P, the sequence of solid-phase transformations
is monocalcium phosphate -+dicalcium phosphate-+octacalcium phosphate+hy-
droxyapatite. The critical pH for Ca-P precipitation is 7.2, which is the second pK
of the o-phosphoric acid. Information about Ksp values of Ca-P minerals can be
found in Lindsay (1979). In acid soils, the P minerals that may control P solution
concentration are AIPO, and FePO, (Lindsay, 1979). The minerals Zn,(PO,), and
Mn,(PO,), have very low K s p values and may compete with Zn(OH), and
Mn(OH), as solid phases determining Zn and Mn ionic concentration in soil so-
lutions.
Precipitation poses severe problems in stock fertigation solutions and micro-
fertigation emitters, particularly when the Ca concentration exceeds 0.1 mM and
pH > 7. Under such conditions, CaHPO, may crystallize, followed by less-solu-
ble Ca-P minerals according to the transformation sequence. CaCO, may precip-
itate at pHs approaching the second pK of H,CO, (= 10.3).Gypsum (CaSO, 2H,O
log Ksp = -4.64) may precipitate in the presence of SO,*- (e.g., when ammoni-
um sulfate is used in fertigation). Details on the solubility of some of the above-
mentioned salts are given in Section IVD.
Precipitation kinetics depends on the rate of two processes occurring in series:
crystal nucleation and crystal growth, both of which are prone to inhibition by cer-
tain components found in the plant rhizosphere (Inskeep and Bloom, 1986). In
practice these processes cannot be separated, and the overall precipitation-disso-
lution kinetics is usually approximated by
dSldT = K (C, - C,). (10)
Here S is the solid-phase concentration, and C, and C, are the solution-phase con-
centrations at time f and at equilibrium, respectively (Enfield et al., 1981). When
C,> Ce precipitation takes place; when C, < C, dissolution occurs. Bar-Yosef et
af. (1989) found that the rate of orthophosphate disappearance from solution, in a
34 B. BAR-YOSEF
+
loess soil suspension, obeyed the Elovich equation, C, = a b In t, where a and
b are soil constants.
The slowest reaction accounting for P and K disappearance from soil solution
is occlusion (fixation). Barrow (1987) described P occlusion as diffusion-con-
trolled P penetration into metal oxide and clay mineral lattices. Potassium is fixed
in soils by penetrating into clay interlayer sites of expanded 2:1 clay minerals. Oc-
clusion reactions are too slow to affect ion partitioning during fertigation and are
not discussed in this review.
The sequence of events following P fertigation can be summarized as follows:
During the first few hours after termination of fertigation, P partitioning is deter-
mined by adsorption. If the resulting 0-P and Ca ion activity product (IAP) in so-
lution exceeds the Ksp of any of the Ca-P minerals mentioned above, the 0-P con-
centration will decrease according to Eq. (10) until IAP < Ktp. Adsorption is
rapidly adjusted to the new solution 0-P concentration. As the dissolution rate of
P minerals is slow relative to P adsorption, the immediately available P is the P
found in solution plus the adsorbed P. In acid soils the theoretical considerations
are similar, only the predominant cation is A1 rather than Ca.
3. Transport of Ions in Soil toward Roots
The transport of ions from the bulk soil to the root sink affects their concentra-
tion in the soil solution C at the root surface, and hence their flux of uptake by the
root. The governing equation describing ion transport to a smooth, uniform cylin-
drical root under steady-state moisture is
+ el - =
[b(c) - D
:r(
-
p:)
+-t( D -
p:)
+ -::r-(qoroC). (11)
It is derived from Eq. (3) for the r coordinate only, with q,, r,, and Dp denoting
solution velocity at the root surface, root radius, and diffusion coefficient in the
soil solution, respectively. For q, values prevailing in soils, the mechanical dis-
persion coefficient [Eq. (2)]is negligible and Dhp= Dp(Olsen and Kemper, 1968).
The boundary condition at the root surface that best complies with the fertigation
principles discussed above is
The outer boundary condition,found either at the edge of the root-affected soil vol-
ume or midway between adjacent roots, whichever is smaller, (R) is
aC,/ddr = 0. (13)
The steady-state solution of Eq. (1 1) (Olsen and Kemper, 1968,their Eq. [58]) sub-
ject to boundary conditions (12) and (13) is
c, = W(k,/C,
Fm,,
+ 1) (14)
where W = q, IT ro 8 and b = R. This equation was used to estimate the ion con-
centrations at the root surface from known bulk soil solution concentration [Eq.
(7)]. Another application of Eq. (14) is to estimate nutrient uptake rate by plants,
Q(kg m-’ h-I), in models that calculate temporal root weight (W) and nutrient
concentration distributions in the soil. This is done by assuming at each time step
that a quasi-steady-state nutrient concentration exists in the soil cylinder sur-
rounding the root, which enables C, to be calculated according to (14) for given
C , (= C,) and R. Once C, is known, F is calculated by inserting C, into Eq. (4)
(e.g., Fishman and Bar-Yosef, 1995). The rate of uptake by the plant is Q =
Z(WiFi),summed over the entire number of subvolumes in the soil domain. The
use of Eq. (14) is more suitable than calculating fluxes by inserting the bulk soil
solution concentration (C,) into the Michaelis-Menten equation [(4)], as the lat-
ter approach does not account for the rapid depletion of nutrient concentration at
the root surface, caused by uptake.
The diffusion coefficient of a given ion in soil solution, Dp (cm2 s - l ) , has been
related to the diffusion coefficient of the ion in water (Do) by three different em-
pirical equations: Olsen and Kemper (1968) suggested Dp = Doaebewith b = 10
and a = 0.005 to 0.001 depending on soils; Nye and Tinker (1977) used Dp =
D J 8 , wherefis a compound soil impedance factor (<1); and Mualem and Fried-
man (1991) found Dp = Do(OS - Se2.5,where OS and Or are saturated and
residual volumetric water content, respectively, and S, is the effective saturation
degree [=(€I - 8,)/(8, - Or)]. The three equations stress the importance of 8 in de-
termining ion transport in soil, and allow for specific soil characteristic effects on
Dp.The soil impedance,f, decreases (higher soil tortuosity) as the clay content of
the soil increases, and as 8 decreases. The dependence of D, on the soil bulk den-
sity (4 follows a bell-shaped curve: As d increases up to a certain value (e.g., by
soil compaction) 8 increases and Dp increases too. After the optimum value of d
is exceeded,fdecreases due to increased soil tortuosity while 8 does not change
any more. More details on soil factors that affect D, can be found in a review by
Jungk (1996). Representative Do(cm2 s- I ) values of some nutrients are: NO,- 1.9
E-5; H,PO,- 0.89 E-5; K+ 1.98 E-5; Ca2+ 0.78 E-5; Mg 0.70 E - 5 (Barber,
1984). Williams and Yanai (1996) compiled literature data on all the parameters
that appear in Eq. (12) for various nutrients and crops. The data exhibit consider-
able variability, which stems from their derivation from a variety of experimental
conditions and lack of standard experimental methods.
36 B. BAR-YOSEF
G. WATERQUALITY
CONSIDERATIONS
Irrigation water quality is determined by several factors: (i) Salinity, or total con-
centration of dissolved salts (TDS, mg/liter or EC, dS/m). The EC increases by ap-
proximately 2% per degree C increase in temperature. For mixtures of salts in the
range of 1 to 10 dS/m, TDS = 640 EC; osmotic pressure (atm) = 0.36 EC; and EC
= 0.10 C,, where C, = total cation or anion concentration in mmol(+)/liter. (ii)
Sodicity, which is expressed as the sodium adsorption ratio [SAR = (Na)/(Ca +
Mg)&],where ion concentration is given in mM, or modified SAR, which accounts
for carbonate and bicarbonate ion pairs with Ca in solution (Bresler et al., 1982).
(iii) Anionic composition of the water, particularly concentrationsof chloride, bi-
carbonate, carbonates, OH, and toxic anions such as B and F. When recycled waste-
water is used for irrigation, additional quality criteria are applied: (iv) Biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD g/liter), which is the quantity of oxygen required for mi-
crobial degradation of organic compounds in the water at 20°C. This value is low-
er than the chemical oxygen demand (COD g/liter), the difference depending on
organic matter characteristics. (v) Total suspended solids in the water (TSS g/liter).
1. Use of Marginal Water in Fertigation
a. Effect on Soil Physical Properties

Increased SAR and decreased EC of soil solutions cause soil particle swelling
and dispersion. Swelling reduces the pore size in soils, dispersion causes particle
movement and pore blockage, and the overall effect is reduced soil hydraulic con-
ductivity, Kh (cm/min) (Bresler et al., 1982). Recommended threshold values of
SAR and EC in irrigation water, to prevent reduction of soil Kh are SAR < 5 mi%@
for any EC > 0.5 dS/m; SAR < 10 for EC > 1, and SAR = 20 for EC > 2 dS/m
(Feigin et al., 1991). Note that these guidelines were determined under sprinkler
and surface irrigation, not under drip fertigation.
Soil crusting, another phenomenon that reduces the water infiltration rate, is af-
fected by irrigation water SAR and EC, and by the mechanical impact of irriga-
tion water and raindrops. Another reason for the sensitivity of seal formation to
rain is that the EC is lower at the soil surface than deeper in the soil. Principles of
soil surface seal formation, runoff problems associated with it, and means of alle-
viating soil crusting by chemical and physical treatments are discussed by Sum-
ner and Stewart (1992). Soil crusting may possibly be avoided by using subsur-
face drip irrigation.
b. Salinity Effects on Plant Growth

Growth suppression due to salinity starts at some threshold value that varies
with crop tolerance, environmental conditions, and the size of the root system and
intensifies as salinity increases, until the plant dehydrates. The salt tolerance of
crops is usually expressed in terms of relative yield ( Y J , threshold salinity (a), and
percentage decrement value per unit increase of soil saturated extract EC, (b,
dS/m):
Y,. = lOO-b(EC,-a). (15)
Data on crop tolerance to salinity according to (15) under different growth condi-
tions are presented by Mass (1986). These data were obtained under furrow and
flood irrigation. Sprinkler-irrigatedcrops are potentially prone to extra damage due
to foliar salt intake and leaf burn. Drip-irrigated crops exhibit enhanced tolerance
to saline irrigation water (see Section IID). Variations in crop sensitivity to salin-
ity at different growth stages are known (Mizrahi et al., 1988) and should be tak-
en into account when allocating water sources varying in quality to several crops
grown in different fields.
c. Toxicity of Particular Element to Plants

Boron becomes toxic to plants at a concentration of a few milligrams per liter
in soil solution, depending on the crop. The toxicity is described in terms of a
threshold value and yield decrement slope parameters as in Eq. (15) (Mass, 1986).
Lemon, cauliflower, and celery have threshold concentrations in saturated soil ex-
tract of <0.5,4.0, and 10 mg B/liter, respectively, and represent crops that are sen-
sitive, moderately sensitive, and tolerant to B. For most crops the threshold B con-
centration is 0.75- 1.O mg/liter.
Chloride is particularly toxic to woody species and the toxicity is expressed as
foliar bum. Tolerance levels to chloride of various crops are given by Mass (1986).
The maximum permissible C1- concentrations in soil solution at field capacity
without leaf injury in strawberry, avocado, grapefruit, sweet orange, and Thomp-
son seedless grape are 12, 13, 50, 20, and 40 mM C1, respectively. The corre-
sponding threshold concentrations in saturation extract should be half of these val-
ues.
Sodium toxicity is attributed to its entry into the cytoplasm and interference with
K-activated enzymes that control vital metabolic processes and growth in plants
(Marschner, 1995). High Na concentrations also induce Ca replacement in the cell
membrane, thus reducing membrane integrity and causing ion leakage (Ben Hay-
imm et al., 1987) and diminished uptake. Feigin et al. (1991) presented data clas-
sifying crops according to their tolerance to exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) in soil. Whereas for woody crops the threshold ESP is 2-10, for most field
crops it is >20.
2. Recycled Municipal Effluents
The main problem associated with using recycled municipal effluents for mi-
crofertigation is the higher EC and B concentration relative to freshwater. The
38 B. BAR-YOSEF
Table VIII
Chemical Compositionof Secondary Municipal Effluents and Freshwater Used for Irrigation
Constituent Unit Municipal effluents" Freshwater
TSS mgAiter 10-100 (30) -

BOD mg/liter 10-80 (20) -
EC dS/m 1.4-2.2 0.g1.6
PH 7.3-8.4 7.6-8.3
Total N mgiliter 10-85 0-4
NO,-N mgAiter 0-10 0-10
NH,-N mgAiter 2-68
Total P mgAiter 6-17 -
B mgAiter 0-1 0.1-0.2
HCO,- mM 6-13 2.5-5.3
CI - mM 2-14 3.0-10.0
Na mM 2.5-16 1.0-10.0
Ca mM 0.5-3.5 0.7-3.8
SAR mMl/2 3.0-8.0 1.5-5.5
K mM 0.2-1 .o 0.1-0.2
Mg mM 0.5-2.7 1.0-2.3
Source: Feigin et al. (1991).

"Common permissible levels are in parentheses.
main reason for the higher EC is a 50 to 200% increase in HC0,- and C1- con-
centrations, balanced mostly by Na+ (Table VIII). From a fertigation point of view,
the higher bicarbonate concentration increases the pH-buffering capacity of the ir-
rigation solution and more acid is required to decrease the pH below 7, which is
necessary to avoid Ca-P precipitation. It also decreases the free Ca2+ activity due
to formation of CaHC03+ (log Kstability= 3.1).
Nutrients found in treated municipal effluents must be taken into account in fer-
tigation recommendations. Of practical importance are NH4+-N and mineral P
( 5 0 4 0 % of total P) usually found in secondary effluents (Table VIII). Organic N
(= total N - inorganic N) and organic P are also utilized by crops, subject to their
mineralization by soil microflora.
Boron might be the factor limiting effluent use in crops sensitive to B toxicity
(threshold < 1 mg B/liter). In clayey soils that adsorb B the risk of B toxicity is
smaller than in sandy soils. Another problem in secondary effluents, particularly
when used in swelling soils, is the SAR, which is higher than that in freshwater
(Table VIII). Recent studies have shown that organic matter in effluents might have
adverse effects on underground water quality. Graber et al. (1995), for example,
have shown that the transport of atrazine in soil was enhanced under irrigation with
treated sewage effluent as compared with irrigation with freshwater. The suggest-
ed mechanism was that the adsorbed herbicide in soil was released into the aque-
ous phase, particularly into the dissolved organic C load of the effluent, and thus
became more mobile.
Humic substances cause dispersion of Na-montmorillonite,particularly around
pH 8 (Tarchitzky et al., 1993). Because these substances are found in the effluent
organic matter content, the use of effluents for irrigation may cause dispersion and
reduction in soil hydraulic conductivity in montmorillonitic soils. The accumula-
tion of organic matter in the plant rhizosphere stimulates oxygen consumption by
soil microorganisms and decreases 0, availability to plants. The potential prob-
lems associated with the presence of organic matter in effluents call for caution in
the use of effluents for irrigation, particularly in microirrigation. Problems in mi-
crofertigation are aggravated as the recycled water is added to a relatively small
soil volume, thus creating higher local organic matter concentrations than occur
under overhead irrigation. Several field studies on microfertigation with effluents,
in which the aforementionedreactions and procezses must have played a role, were
reported by Feigin et al. (1991). No immediate damage to cotton and wheat plants,
to the yield, or to the soil occurred in these studies. Other studies showing good
yield and no damage to cotton, apple, and grape plants irrigated with municipal ef-
fluents were reported by Oron et al. (1982) and Neilsen et al. (1989a,b).
3. Recycled Greenhouse Solutions
Principles of fertigation should be similar in greenhouses and in open fields.

Greenhouses however, pose a specific problem, stemming from the requirement
not to dispose of leachates into the environment. To cope with this restriction,
greenhouse fertigation solutions have to be recycled, which raises several man-
agement problems. (i) Salinity buildup in the circulated solution. No information
is available in the literature to indicate whether the salinity threshold values under
such conditions are similar to those obtained under fixed salinity levels (see Sec-
tion IIIG). Several management strategies are available to maintain the EC with-
in the permitted range and to postpone the replacement of solution with fresh nu-
trient solutions. These strategies include starting with solutions of minimum Na
and C1 ion concentrations (ion-exchange column or reverse osmosis treatment of
tap water) and dilution with salt-free rainwater collected from greenhouse roofs.
(ii) Soil-borne root pathogens move with the recycled leachates and increase the
incidence of root diseases. To minimize infection, solutions must be disinfected
before being reintroduced into the greenhouse. Known treatments include heating
to 70°C,slow-flow sand filtration,ultraviolet irradiation, and nonphytotoxic chem-
ical treatments such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and bromine
hypobromous acid. These methods and their suitability for various crops and
growth substrates were reviewed by Bliss (1996). (iii) Pesticides, root exudates,
and growth substrate dissolution products accumulate in the recycled solution.
40 B. BAR-YOSEF
Most root exudates are expected to be consumed by nonpathogenic microflora,

which keep the dissolved organic C at a stable level. Of concern are a number of
phytotoxic root exudates like ferulic acid and other phenolic acids that cause tox-
-
ic symptoms at minute concentrations, as low as 1 pA4 (Sundin et al., 1996). Ex-
uded carboxylates, particularly oxalate and citrate, stimulate dissolution of growth
substrates like pumice, tuff, and zeolites. At low pH, resulting from proton release
by roots, A13+ activity in recycled solution may reach levels toxic to plants. (iv)
Greenhouse recycled solutions must be adjusted frequently to maintain the re-
quired nutrient and oxygen concentrations. Current methods to control NO,, NH,,
K, and Ca concentrations are based on on-line autoanalyzer and specific elec-
trodes. The latter methodology was evaluated recently by Morard (1996). He con-
cluded that calibration and fragility problems necessitate further development be-
fore electrodes can be commercially used in greenhouses. The autoanalyzer can be
easily adapted for monitoring purposes (including P) but at a high price. Robust
on-line sensors to measure oxygen concentration in solution (usually by polarog-
raphy) are commercially available.
N.MANAGING CROP FERTIGATION
A. N, P, AND K OBJECTIVE
CONSUMPTION
FUNCTIONS
Daily nutrient uptake rates that result in optimum yield and product quality [ob-
jective uptake curves, Q(t)]are crop specific and depend on climatic conditions,
but are independent of soil characteristics and irrigation technique. Objective func-
tions of N, P, and K consumption rates versus time for several crops grown under
specified conditions, are presented in Tables IX, X, and XI, respectively. Consid-
erable differences in uptake rate and in the time at which maximum consumption
rate occurs exist among crops and among varieties of the same species (e.g., pro-
cessing, greenhouse, and open-field tomatoes). In some cases, the consumption
function is not monotonic and exhibits sharp changes at critical physiological
stages. Ignoring temporal variations in uptake rate may lead to overfertilization
and, consequently, to salinity buildup, reduced intake of other nutrients (Fried and
Broeshart, 1967), and contamination of the environment. Suboptimal supply may
result in depletion of nutrients from the soil and inadequate uptake rates. Most of
the data in Tables IX, X, and XI were okained in the Mediterranean area. Similar
objective curves were published for east coast United States growth conditions by
the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (1991).
Extrapolation of the N, P, and K uptake data presented to environmental condi-
tions much different from those specified (e.g., different temperatures or light con-
ditions) should be done carefully and treated only as a first approximation.
B. NU-~IUENT
CONCENTRATIONSIN IRRIGATION
AND SOILSOLUTIONS
The suitability of given nutrient concentrations in the irrigation water can be

evaluated if the aforementioned root parameters are known. Let us consider as an
example a fresh tomato (cv. 650) crop grown in a sandy soil, which has reached a
growth stage of 100 days after planting, at the beginning of January. According to
Table IXa, the target N consumption rate (Q,) of this cultivar at this time is 2.7 kg
' '.
N ha- day- Suppose that the evaporation from a class A pan at that time is 3
mm day-' and the crop coefficient is 1 ( = 3 0 m3 ha-' day-'). Supplying the N
through the water yields a concentration (=Cw) of 6.4 mM N. The question is
whether this concentration is appropriate, that is, whether it allows the plants to
absorb the amount of N that was added to the soil. To answer this question we need
to estimate the N concentration at the root surface (C,) and to compare it with
K , (eq. [4]). In sandy soils, a Cr/Cbratio of 0.1 has been shown to be a sound ap-
proximation, in which case, C, is expected to be -0.64 mM N, which is similar to
K , of tomato (Table IV) (note that Cw = Cb) Recalling that C, should preferably
be between K , and 3K,, it can be concluded that the concentration of 6.4 mM N
in the irrigation water can be safely used.
A more detailed analysis of the suitability of this concentration would involve
the following steps: (i) Calculate F , [Eq. (4)] according to F,,, K (Table IV,
Ref. 3 ) and the above C, ( F , = 4.4 X lo-' gN cm-' root day-'); ;i) evaluate
tomato plant root weight from data in Table VI, an assumed root dry matter con-
tent (-5%), and an estimated root radius (0.02 cm) (root length = 6.4 lo9 cm root
ha-'); (iii) multiply FN by root length to obtain the rate of N uptake (= 2.8 kg N
ha-' day-'). The excellent agreement between the calculated uptake and the tar-
get consumption rate supports the previous conclusion regarding the suitability of
a concentration of 6.4 mM N in the irrigation water. If the root system is smaller
than in the example, and the calculated uptake deviates from the objective uptake
rate by more than a prescribed value (e.g., 25%), the N concentration in the irri-
gation water should be elevated to increase F,, but it should not surpass 40K,.
Immediate action should be undertaken to increase the plant root length, otherwise
the excess of N application rate over target uptake rate (Q,) will cause environ-
mental damage.
If plant parameters are unavailable, one should take care that Q(t)/(daily irriga-
tion rate) does not exceed the salinity threshold of the crop (see Section IIIG). An
alternative approach to the direct evaluation of optimal Cwis to use empirical func-
tions relating Cwto uptake rates of whole plants. These functions are specific to
soil, crop, plant age, and irrigation regime. Two examples of such functions, for
tomato and pepper, respectively, are presented in Figs. 6 and 7. According to Fig.
6, CJNO,) supplied to tomato plants grown in a sandy soil and having a root sys-
tem bounded by a soil cylinder of 30 cm radius and 60 cm depth should not ex-
Table Ma
Daily Nitrogen Consumption Rate (kg N ha-' day-') by Various Field Crops Grown under Drip Fertigation
as a Function of Time after Emergence or Planting
Days after Bell pepper

emergence Processing Greenhouse Fresh
or planting tomatoes tomatoes tomatoes a b Eggplant Potatoes Cotton"
& 1-10 0.10 1.00 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.25 0.25
11-20 0.50 1.00 0.30 0.60 0.50 0.10 0.35 0.25
21-30 1.00 1.00 0.30 2.30 1S O 0.20 0.40 0.25
31 4 0 2.80 2.00 0.40 4.00 1.60 0.25 2.10 0.25
4 1-50 4.50 2.50 0.40 4.50 1.70 3.20 2.00 0.36
5 1-60 6.50 2.50 0.45 5.50 1.60 2.90 2.10 1.05
61-70 7.50 2.50 0.50 6.00 1.70 0.25 2.90 2.65
71-80 3.50 2.50 1.70 2.00 2.60 0.25 2.20 3.55
8 1-90 5.00 1.50 2.80 1.OO 2.80 0.25 1.40 5.70
91-100 8.00 1.50 1.30 4.00 2.50 0.25 1.50 5.80
101-110 - 1.00 2.70 1 .00 2.50 0.25 0.80 1.82
111-120 1 .oo 4.60 - 1.50 1.20 1.00 0.13
121-1 30 1.50 3.90 - - 2.40 0.13
131-150 1.50 2.70 7.00 2.60 0.13
151-180 4.00 - - 2.30 -
181-220 - 2.00 - - - 1.90 - -
Total (kg N ha-') 393 450 250 380 205 290 170 224
Variety VF M82- 1-2 F- 144 Daniela 675 Maor Black Oval Desuea Acala 4-42
Seeding/
planting date Mar 27b Sept 25" Sept 18= Aug 26b Jul 14b Sept 10" Feb 19b Apr 26
Harvesting
date Jul 18 Selective Selective Selective Selective Selective Jul 1 Oct 5
Plants ha-' 50,000 23,000 12,000 90,000 100,000 12,500 - 60,000
Soil Clayey Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy
Marketable
yield (tons ha-') 160 195 127 65 75 51 57 4
Reference Dafne (1984) Bar-Yosef Bar-Yosef Sagiv Bar-Yosef Bar-Yosef Feigin and Halevy
etal. (1992) eral. (1982) etal. (1977) eral. (1980~) etal. (1981) Sagivetal. (1982) (1976)
"Grown under sprinkler inigation and broadcast fertilization.

bSeeding.
'Planting.
Table IXb
Daily Nitrogen Consumption Rate (kg N ha-’ day-’) by Various Field Crops Often Grown under Drip Fertigationas a Function
of Time after Emergence or Planting
Days after
emergence Chinese
or planting Lettuce Celery cabbage Broccoli Sweet corn carrot Muskmelon
1-10 0.15 0.17 0.74 0.02 0.50 0.45 0.15

11-20 0.45 0.2 1 1.11 0.07 1.00 0.87 0.20
21-30 3.00 0.70 1.85 1.08 1.50 0.54 0.35
3140 3.40 0.88 2.96 1.22 3.50 0.56 0.90
41-50 2.20 1.03 2.24 1.75 4.50 0.93 1.30
51-60 1.80 0.99 2.70 1.04 6.00 0.71 2.50
61-70 - 0.99 1.08 3.02 4.00 1.19 4.30
71-80 - 0.83 0.84 3.41 3.00 1.09 2.40
81-90 - 0.83 0.37 2.79 - 1.20 1.20
91-100 - 1.00 - 2.09 - 1.18 1.00
101-110 - 1.47 - 0.93 - 1.54 0.50
i2 111-120 - 1.78 - 0.20 - 2.03 0.30
121-130 - 2.00 0.30 0.18 - 2.23 -
131-140 - 2.25 0.07 0.15 - 2.34 -
141-150 - - - 0.06 - 3.83 -
151-160 - - - - - 3.80 -
161-170 - - - - - 3.47 -
Total (kg N ha) 110 150 111 202 240 279 151
Variety Iceberg Florida Kazomi Woltam Jubilee Buror Galia
Seeding/planting date Nov 5“ Oct 10” Nov 4” Aug 306 Apr 15b Oct 116 Jan 14b
Harvesting date Jan 25 Feb 27 Jan 19 Jan 17 July 5 Apr 5 Selective
Plants ha-’ 100,000 90,000 80,000 33,000 75,000 400,000 25,000
Soil Sandy Loamy hamy Loamy hamy Loamy Sandy
Marketable yield (tons ha-’) 45 65 82 13 28 85 56
Reference Bar-Yosef and Feigin et al. Sagiv et al. Feigin and Sagiv et al. Sagiv et al. Sagiv et al.
Sagiv (1982b) (1976) (1992) Sagiv (1971) (1983) ( 1995) (1980)
“Seeding.
bPlanting.
Table Xa
Daily Phosphorus Consumption Rate (kg P ha-' day-') by Various Field Crops Grown under Drip Fertigation

or planting tomatoes tomatoes tomatoes a b Eggplant Cotton"
~~ ~ ~
1-10 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

11-20 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.04
21-30 0.16 0.10 0.03 0.25 0.10 0.01 -
31 4 0 0.19 0.20 0.03 0.35 0.20 0.01 0.05
41-50 0.75 0.40 0.03 0.40 0.25 0.02 0. I
5 1-60 0.80 0.60 0.04 0.20 0.35 0.08 0.1
2 61-70 1.80 0.30 0.04 1.oo 0.45 0.09 0.3
71-80 0.50 0.30 0.18 0.20 0.35 0.05 0.4
8 1-90 0.50 0.30 0.22 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.9
91-100 0.89 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.5
101-1 10 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.25 0.09 0.55
1 11-120 0.10 0.60 0.10 0.25 0.15 0.85
121-130 0.20 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.27 0.4
131-1 50 0.35 0.17 0.30 0.3 1 0.075
151-180 0.50 0.38
181-220 0.30 - - - 0.35
Total (kgPha-I) 65 24 42 31 33
~
"Grown under sprinkler irrigation and broadcast fertilization.

Table Xb
Daily Phosphorus Consumption Rate (kg P ha-' day-l) by Various Field Crops Often Grown under Drip Fertigation
Days after
emergence Chinese
1-10 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.03

11-20 0.10 0.04 0.16 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.03
21-30 0.50 0.11 0.31 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.07
3140 0.60 0.08 0.5 1 0.13 0.55 0.12 0.18
41-50 0.55 0.20 0.87 0.20 0.85 0.19 0.25
5 1-60 0.45 0.23 0.81 0.13 1.15 0.20 0.25
6 1-70 0.35 0.45 0.36 0.80 0.29 0.35
71-80 0.29 0.28 0.46 0.20 0.27 0.45
81-90 0.39 0.28 0.38 - 0.27 0.43
91-100 0.17 0.32 0.24 0.27
101-110 0.18 0.18 0.30 0.13
111-120 0.30 0.09 0.59 0.07
121-130 0.54 0.09 0.58
131-140 0.69 0.04 0.91
141-150 0.01 1.32
151-160 0.88
161-170 - - 0.81
Total (kg P ha) 36 29 26 40 73 25
Table XIa
Daily Potassium Consumption Rate (kg K ha-' day-') by Various Field Crops Grown
under Drip Fertigation as a Function of T i e after Emergence or Planting

or planting tomatoes tomatoes tomatoes a b Eggplant Cotton"
1-10 0.10 2.00 0.40 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.1

11-20 0.30 4.00 0.50 1.00 0.90 0.00 0.1
21-30 2.00 3.50 0.50 4.00 1.25 0.30 0.3
3140 2.30 3.50 0.50 7.00 1.25 0.80 0.5
41-50 8.00 5.50 0.55 7.00 2.50 4.90 0.5
5 1-60 8.50 5.50 0.55 8.00 4.50 7.20 2.0
61-70 9.00 6.00 0.60 8.00 5.00 1.30 2.5
71-80 4.50 4.00 2.20 3.00 4.50 0.50 4.0
81-90 9.20 6.00 4.80 3.00 3.50 0.50 4.0
91-100 9.00 0.10 2.90 8.00 5.00 0.50 2.5
101-110 0.10 5.70 6.00 5.50 2.00 1.7
111-120 1.oo 7.80 1.00 3.00 3.00 0
121-130 1.00 7.00 0.30 - 3.00 0
131-150 1.30 2.00 0.80 - 3.00 0
151-180 3.80 1.60
181-220 - 3.00 1.60
Total (kg K ha-') 520 710 370 580 370 380
"Grown under sprinkler irrigation and broadcast fertilization.

Table XIb
Daily Pottasium ConsumptionRate (kg K ha-' day-') by Various Field Crops Often Grown
under Drip Fertigation as a Function of Time after Emergence or Planting
Days after
emergence Chinese
1-10 0.20 0.21 1.70 0.01 1 .00 0.40 0.10

11-20 0.50 0.24 2.80 0.02 1.50 0.88 0.25
21-30 5.10 1.33 4.50 0.74 4.50 0.60 0.60
31-40 7.80 1.52 7.20 0.91 5.80 0.60 1.45
41-50 8.20 2.56 5.25 1.35 7.20 0.99 3.00
51-60 3.20 2.78 5.52 3.04 3.80 0.98 6.00
61-70 - 4.11 1.37 4.34 6.20 1.62 7.00
71-80 - 4.05 0.01 3.95 2.00 1.57 8.00
81-90 - 5.56 - 4.09 - 1.72 7.50
91-100 - 4.04 - 3.13 - 2.14 3.50
101-110 - 5.00 - 2.74 - 2.80 1.00
111-120 - 8.60 - 0.96 - 5.73 0.05
121-130 - 8.50 - 0.48 - 7.00 -
131-140 - 10.35 - - - 9.67 -

141-150 - - - - - 11.66 -
151-160 - - - - - 10.19 -
161-170 - - - - - 1.86 -
Total (kg K ha) 250 224 219 165 320 604 385
140 DAYS AFTER SEEDING 0
8oo r 70 DAYS AFTER SEEDING A
N Concentration in soil solution (ppm)

Figure 6 Mean daily nitrogen uptake determined from tomato plant analyses over the time inter-
vals 60 to 73 and 138 to 165 days after seeding as a function of average NO,-N concentration in the
solution of a soil cylinder bounded by a radius and depth of 30 and 60 cm, from the trickler, respec-
tively, at specified times. The curves were hand fitted. Reproduced, with permission, from Bar-Yosef
and Sagiv (1982a).
ceed 100 and 150 mg N liter-' at the ages of 70 and 140 days after seeding, re-
spectively. These concentrations correspond to -2K,, and -3K,,,, (Table v),re-
spectively. According to Fig. 7, the optimal Cw(N) of 76 to 96-day-old pepper
plants grown in two sandy soils is -80 mg liter-'. The corresponding optimal
Cw(K)of the same pepper is 100 mg K liter-'. The condition that C , X (daily ir-
rigation rate) = Q(t)/EF must be fulfilled, also, when the empirical approach is
used.
C. PREPLANTINGBROADCASTFERTILIZATION
AND BANDINGUNDER FERTIGATION
For efficient preplanting fertilization one must know, for the particular soil and
crop: (i) the relationship between nutrient application rate and nutrient availabili-
ty level; and (ii) the response in terms of final yield to the nutrient availability lev-
50 B. BAR-YOSEF
-- - 1 1 1 1
A
1 1 1 1
76-96 days
1 I I
-
R;
0
c r Horeva
0.80 0 0.75
104 A 1.02A
0.40 v
c
n
= 4- K -
Y
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I , j
a- 60 I20 I80 240

z7*4-
-
0 40 80 120 160 200
Concentration in irrigation solution (mg /L 1
Figure 7 Rates of nitrogen and potassium uptake by pepper plants as a function of their concen-
tration in the irrigation water 76 and 96 days after seeding. The results were obtained at two different
sites, both with sandy soils. Ri is the ratio of seasonal overall irrigation to evaporation from a class A
pan. Reproduced, with permission, from Bar-Yosef (1991).
el at seeding time. Discussion on preplanting fertilization as the only method of

supplying nutrient to plants and a review of nutrient availability indexes can be
found in Tucker and Hagin (1982). Under fertigation, preplanting fertilization is
used to create the nutrient concentrations in the soil root volume that are required
to allow growth and uptake during the initial growth stages, according to pertinent
target uptake functions. To evaluate root depth during the first 2 weeks after emer-
gence, a root elongation rate of 1.5 f 0.5 cm/day can be used (McMichael and
Burke, 1996). For the small root volumes involved, banding seems to be more ap-
propriate than broadcast fertilization for furnishing nutrients to young plants (Bar-
Yosef et al., 1995a).
In the case of nitrogen, the preferred preplanting fertilizer is (NH,),SO,, which
ensures minimal N leaching by technical emergence irrigations and rains. It also
supplies sulfates to the soil that otherwise are seldom added via the water during
the growing season. Under no-leaching conditions, urea (46% N) can be used as a
base fertilizer. More details about the use of urea can be found in the next section.
Preplanting P fertilization has two aims: (i) to create the required initial P con-
centration in the soil solution within the seedling soil root volume (Gin); and (ii)
to establish a sufficient overall P concentration in soil volumes where roots grow,
but where P cannot be replenished via emitters. One example is P fertilizer incor-
poration in the 20 to 40-cm soil layer, which can be obtained by deep plowing fol-
lowing broadcast application. Another example is the replenishment of P to soil
volumes between emitters that are outside the range of P transport from point
sources. The application rate of either superphosphate (calcareous soils) or rock
phosphate (acid soils) depends on the existing and target available P concentra-
tions in the pertinent soil volumes, and the estimated P fixation rate in the soil. Ob-
jective i can be attained by banding soluble P (e.g., monopotassium phosphate,
monoammonium phosphate, or ammonium polyphosphate) in the soil at seeding
-
at a distance from the row and a depth of 10 cm. The combination of NH, and
0-P in preplanting fertilization is appropriate as NH, nitrification and uptake re-
duce the soil pH and delay P crystallization. Banding of either 0-P or polyphos-
phate in fertigated sweet corn resulted in similar yield and plant development (Bar-
Yosef et al., 1995a).
To estimate the required quantity of P fertilizer to be banded, a dispersion ra-
dius of -10 cm around the band, and a target Cinof 1-2 mg P/liter can be as-
sumed. From known soil P adsorption isotherm, the adsorbed P (A) in equilibrium
with Cinis estimated (Section IIIF). Multiplying A by the soil weight in the 10-
cm-radius soil cylinder around the band gives the quantity of P to be banded (Q,).
The initial quantity of adsorbed P should be subtracted from Qp. The short time
between banding and plant emergence and the use of soluble P fertilizers justify
the assumption that adsorption is the main mechanism determining Cinin this case.
D. CHOICE
OF FERTILIZERS
The data in Tables IX, X, and XI show the minimal application rates of N, P,
and K that must be added to the soil via the water at any growth stage to satisfy
plant demand and to maintain steady-state nutrient concentrations in the soil. The
questions arise as to what is the recommended fertilizer to be used for this purpose
and how various conditions in the system affect the decision regarding which fer-
tilizer to choose.
1. Fertigation under Saline Conditions
According to the U.S. Salinity Laboratory (1954), irrigation water with EC ex-
ceeding 1.44 and 2.88 dS/m constitutes a moderate and a high salinization hazard,
respectively. According to Tables IX,X, and XI, and assuming a daily irrigation
of 5 mm, nitrogen and potassium concentrations in the irrigation water at the time
52 B. BAR-YOSEF
of maximum consumption rate may reach values of 15-20 mmol(+)/liter, which

correspond to an EC of 1.5-2.0 dS/m. Under such conditions, and especially
where the water EC > 1, which is common in arid zones, care should be taken to
minimize the amount of accompanying ions added with the N or K. For example,
KC1, which is a cheap source of K, should be replaced with KNO, and K,HPO,,
while NH,NO, and urea should be preferred over (NH,),SO,. Chloride salinity is
considered more toxic for the growth of most plants than isoosmotic concentra-
tions of S0,2-(Marschner, 1995). Sodium-based fertilizers (e.g., NaNO, or
NaH,PO,) are unacceptable sources because of the adverse effect of Na on soil
hydraulic conductivity and plant functioning (see Section IIIG).
2. Fertigation Solution pH
Different sources of N fertilizers have different effects on irrigation water and soil
pH (Section IIIF). Alkaline pH in the irrigation water is undesirable, because Ca and
Mg carbonate and 0-P may precipitate in the tubes and drippers. Also, high soil pH
reduces Zn, Fe, and P availability to plants. Consequently, ammonia (fertilizer solu-
tion pH > 9) use in fertigation is not recommended, since it raises the pH when in-
jected into irrigation water. Urea and ammonium nitrate liquid fertilizers have pH of
8.0 2 0.5 and 7 k 0.5, respectively. Urea increases soil pH upon hydrolysis; there-
fore, its application to soil together with superphosphate is undesirable.
Compounds that may be used to reduce the irrigation solution pH are NHO,,
H,PO,, H,SO,, and HCl. The last two acids are undesirable, because of their con-
tribution to salinity. When the pH is depressed with acids, it should not be reduced
below 5, at which soil CaCO, readily dissolves and Ca is leached outside the soil
root volume. Higher acidity (pH < 4) is detrimental to root membranes and may
increase the A1 and Mn concentrations in the soil solution to toxic levels by dis-
solution of clay minerals and metal oxides in the soil.
The effect of the NH,/NO, ratio in irrigation water on soil pH, especially at
the soil-root interface, was discussed above (Section IILF). For tomato and rose
grown in tuff, a stable pH in growth substrate solution was maintained when the
NH,/NO, molar ratio in the solution was between 1:4 and 1:3 (Feigin et al., 1979,
1986). Muskmelon grown in rockwool with NH, as the sole source of N decreased
the leachate pH from -7 in the inflowing solution to -4 (Bar-Yosef et aE., 1995b).
According to Ganmore-Neumann and Kafkafi (1980, 1983), NH,-N is an inap-
propriate source of nitrogen for tomato and strawberry plants at root zone tem-
peratures >30°C, as it adversely affects carbon availability for root growth.
3. Nutrient Mobility in Soils
Nitrogen spatial distribution in soil is strongly affected by the source of N added

via the water. Ammonium is adsorbed by soil colloids and metal oxides and thus
has a restricted mobility compared with the nonreactive NO,-. This means that
nitrification (see Section IVF) must be considered when evaluating N transport and
distribution in the soil profile. To obtain rapid and uniform N distribution in the
soil root volume, nitrate or urea should be used. Urea-the cheaper N source-is
hydrolyzed within 2-3 days at 25°C (Black, 1968) and the ammonium obtained
reduces the mobility until nitrification is completed.
When choosing the P fertilizer for fertigation, care must be taken to avoid P-Ca
and P-Mg precipitation in stock solutions, tubes, and emitters (Imas et al., 1996).
From this standpoint, acidic P fertilizers (e.g., phosphoric acid and, to a lesser ex-
tent, monoammonium and monopotassium phosphate) are recommended. The use
of polyphosphate in fertigation requires more knowledge than the aforementioned
fertilizers. On the one hand, polyphosphate is capable of complexing Zn and Ca
quite effectively but, on the other hand, it is susceptible to precipitation with Ca
and it is adsorbed by soil similarly to 0-P, with considerable dependence on solu-
tion pH. In light of the variation in its properties with pH, the use of polyphosphate
in fertigation systems is not recommended. More details on polyphosphate char-
acteristics pertinent to fertigation can be found in Asher and Bar-Yosef (1982).
The question of using controlled-release fertilizers in fertigation has not at-
tracted much attention yet. At sufficiently high fertigation frequency, nutrient con-
centrations in the soil root volume can be maintained at the desired level with neg-
ligible time fluctuations. Under such conditions, the addition of controlled-release
fertilizer to the soil would be superfluous. When the fertigation frequency is low
(interval > 2 days), controlled-release fertilizer may attenuate time variations in
concentration and reduce minor stresses stemming from transient plant starvation.
The use of controlled-release fertilizers can be considered only if their rates of nu-
trient release under the prevailing environmental conditions are accurately known.
The quantities released should be deduced from preplanned fertigation rates.
4. Ready-Mix Fertilizers
The N, P, and K objective functions (Tables IX, X, and XI) may help to define
the N:P:K weight ratio of a given compound fertilizer designed to supply those el-
ements to a certain crop at a specific growth stage. The ingredients constituting a
ready-mix fertilizer should be selected on the basis of the principles discussed in
preceding sections and solubility characteristics.
The supply tank from which the compound solution is injected into the mains
should have a sufficiently large capacity to contain all the fertilizers needed for
treating the entire service area without refilling. Mixing (mechanical or hydraulic)
in the chemical supply tank is essential in order to avoid concentration gradients
in the tank, which may cause variations in nutrient concentrations in the irrigation
water over time. To choose a tank volume, VOL (m", one needs to know the fer-
tilizer solubility in water, SOL (kg/m'), the fertilized service area, SA (ha), the
amount of fertilizer to be supplied per application, Q, (kg ha- application-'), and
the number of applications between successive refillings of the tank (n):
54 B. BAR-YOSEF
VOL = n Q, SA/SOL. (16)

The solubility of common fertilizers in water at different temperatures is given in
Table XII. Attention should be paid to the fact that solubility decreases consider-
ably with temperature and it is, therefore, unsafe to leave concentrated fertilizer
used in the summer for the winter period, since it may crystallize and block pipes
connecting the tank and injection port.
Incorporating microelements in stock fertilizer solutions and in fertigation wa-
ter poses a problem, due to the low solubility of their hydroxides (e.g., Ksp of
Fe(OH),, Zn(OH),, and Mn(OH), are 10-38.5,10-'5.5and 10- 12.8, respectively).
To avoid precipitation at pH > 5 and to facilitate sufficient transport toward roots
in soil, microelements are added in solution as chelates of organic ligands that have
sufficient stability to avoid displacement by other cations and to prevent precipi-
tation or adsorption by soils and growth substrates differing in chemical charac-
teristics (Cadahia et al., 1988a). The main chelating agents used in fertigation
systems are EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, C,,H,,08N2), DTPA (dieth-
Table Xn
Solubility of Common Fertilizers in Water (kg fertilizer/m3)
~ ~ ~ _ _ _
Temperature range ("C)
Fertlilizer Formula Cold Lukewarm Hot
Ammonium chloride 297 (0)" - 758 (100)

Ammonium nitrate 1183 (0) 1950 (20) 3440 (50)
Monoammonium phosphate 227 (0) 282 (20) 417 (50)
Diammonium phosphate 429 (0) 575 (10) 1060 (70)
Ammonium sulfate 706 (0) 760 (20) 850 (50)
Potassium chloride 280 (0) 347 (20) 430 (50)
Potassium nitrate 133 (0) 316 (20) 860 (50)
Potassium sulfate 69 (0) 110 (20) 170 (50)
Monopotassium - 330 (25) 835 (90)
phosphate
Dipotassium 1670 (20)
phosphate
Calcium nitrate 1020 (0) 3410 (25) 3760 (99)
Magnesium nitrate - 423 (18) 578 (90)
Monocalcium 18 (30)
phosphate
Phosphoric acid - 5480 (25)
Urea 780 (5) 1193 (25)
Sources: Hodgman (1949) and Weast (1977).

"Numbers in parentheses are solution temperatures, "C.
Table XI11
Stability Constantsaof Several Common Macro- and Microelement Chelates and Complexes
in Fertigation Systems and in Plant Rhizosphere
Reaction EDTA4- DTPA4- EDDHA4- HCO; Citrate3- 0xalate’-
log KO.,,
H+L=HL 10.7 11.3 12.2 10.3 6.3 4.2
4H + L = H,L 22.4 27.85 38.3 - - -
Ca2+ + L = CaL 11.6 12.02 8.20 3.1 4.2 2.0
Mg2+ + L = MgL 9.8 10.6 9.0
Fe2+ + L = FeL 15.27 17.67 15.30
Fe3+ + L = FeL 26.5 29.2 35.4 - 12.5 8.9
Zn2+ + L = ZnL 17.44 19.6 17.8 - 5.5 4.6
Mn2+ + L = MnL 14.5 16.7 - 4.5 3.7
A13+ + L = AIL 18.0 20.59 - 9.6 7.3
Sources: Lindsay (1979) and Norvel(l972).

is defined as nM + L = M,L; K = (MnL)/[(M)” (L)].
ylenetriaminepentaaceticacid, C ,4H230 and EDDHA (ethylenediaminedi-

o-hydroxyphenylaceticacid, C,,Hzo0,N2). Their stability constants with impor-
tant cations are summarized in Table XIII. Also included in Table XI11 are stabil-
ity constants of three anions normally exuded by roots: bicarbonate, oxalate, and
citrate. In a well-aerated modified Hoagland solution (Ca = 1.5 mM, Mg = 0.8
mM, Fe-chelate = 0.1 mM, Zn = 1.5 cLM> FeEDTA becomes unstable above pH
6.5, and FeDTPA above pH 7.2, whereas FeEDDHA remains stable between pH 4
and 10 (Lindsay, 1979).This means that no cations in well-aerated hydroponic so-
lutions are capable of displacing Fe3+ from FeEDDHA. The stability data show
(Table XIII) that complexes of Fe with root-exuded carboxylic anions are consid-
erably weaker than those with EDTA. Excessive chelate stability might be disad-
vantageous too, as the free cation activity in equilibrium with the chelate would
be too low for effective uptake by plants. In such cases the plant must be able to
reduce the Fe3+-chelate at the root surface and absorb the Fez+. Transferring the
aforementioned Fe3+-chelate across the plasma membrane of root cells is very
slow, even in crops having a specific transport system for phytosiderophores
(Marschner, 1995). It is worthwhile to add to fertigation solutions a mixture of
Fe”-DTPA (or EDTA) and Fe3+-EDDHA.When the latter chelate’s sites are sat-
urated with Fe, Fe3+ activity in solution is controlled by DTPA, and Fe-EDDHA
serves as a highly mobile Fe reserve that can be utilized in case the weaker chelate
should lose its Fe3+ to stronger sinks in the soil.
56 B. BAR-YOSEF
The stability data for the Mn- and Zn-chelates (Table XIII) explain the fact that
these elements cannot be effectively chelated in soils. Note that at pH < -3 the
synthetic chelates (Table XIII) lose their capacity to retain microelements. This
poses a problem in acid stock solutions, and it is advisable, therefore, to separate
chelated microelements, keep them at pH > 5, and inject them into the water af-
ter the acid stock solution with the macroelements has been introduced.
E. TEMPERATURE
EFFECTS
Temperature affects all physical, chemical, and biological reactions in the
soil-plant system. It is understandable, therefore, that the objective DM and up-
take functions (Tables IX, X, and XI) are temperature specific. The effect of air
temperature on evapotranspiration is taken into account in irrigation management
considerations. A typical temperature profile of a wet soil at an air temperature of
-
25°C shows variations between 15 and -22°C at soil depths of 2 and 20 cm, re-
spectively.After the same soil was dried for 25 days with heat lamps, the top soil
temperature was -45"C, and at a depth of 20 cm it was 31°C. Below 50 cm the
soil temperature approached 25°C in both the wet and dry soils (Hanks and
Ashcroft, 1980). Such variations in soil temperature have a relatively small ef-
fect on chemical reactions. The diffusion coefficient in water (Do)is linearly re-
lated to absolute temperature T (Do = RTX,I[F,z,], where R is the gas constant, F
is the Faraday, A is the equivalent conductivity, and z is the valence). The -log
[ion activity coefficient],f, is positively related to T-3'2 (Debye-Huckel limiting
law), so that changes in D, and f due to a 10°C increase in temperature (Q,,) are
about 5%. Elevated temperatures increase ion adsorption by clay minerals and
soils (Muljadi et al., 1966), with an estimated Q,, of 10-20%. The effect of T on
fertilizer solubility was discussed in the preceding section.
Meager information is available on the effect of root temperature on nutrient up-
take rates. According to Marschner (1995) the Q,, of K + uptake by maize roots
in the range 1O-2O0C, is about 300%, but further increase in T to 30°C resulted in
-
only 10% increase in uptake rate. Between 30 and 35°C a decline in K' uptake
rate was observed (Marschner, 1995). The Q,, for 0-P uptake rate by maize in the
same temperature range was approximately one-half of the Q,, of K, and the de-
cline in uptake rate occurred at 38°C. The reduced ion uptake at low temperature
stems, according to Marschner (1993, from low membrane fluidity and a corre-
sponding increase in membrane resistance to ion transfer. According to Hewitt
(1966) the Q,, of nitrate absorption rate by maize seedlings in the temperature
range 20-40°C is about 70%. The lack of data on temperature effects on
Michaelis-Menten constants does not allow us to account quantitatively for the ef-
fect of variable soil temperature on nutrient uptake by fertigated crops.
F. O R G A N I C M A ~ R
Mineralization of organic matter (OM) in soil must be taken into account in fer-
tigation decision making as it contributes available nutrients to plants. The OM
can be divided, for simplicity, into three pools: (i) OM added to soil (AOM); (ii)
soil-indigenous OM (SOM); and (iii) OM found in the microbial biomass of the
soil (BOM). The microbial biomass consumes or releases mineral N depending on
whether the biomass is growing or decomposing, respectively. Biomass growth de-
pends on the carbon availability and C/N ratio of the AOM. Net mineralization is
equal to the overall mineralization minus the mineral N consumed (or released) by
the microbial biomass (Jansson and Person, 1982). Comprehensive models of N
transformations in soil (Molina et al., 1983) account for the three OM pools, but
they also need to simulate carbon transformations and balance in the soil. The sim-
ulation of carbon transformations requires extra parameters that are hard to obtain,
and it increases the complexity to the model. A simpler approach to estimating or-
ganic N mineralization, which seems to be appropriate for fertigation manage-
ment, is presented in Fig. 8. This model is based on the assumption that N in the
microbial biomass is steady with time, that is, that overall and net mineralizations
are equal. Integration over time of the first-order mineralization rate equation (Fig.
8), and the condition -d(OM - N)/dt = d(minera1- N)/dt yield:
[mineral - N], = OMol [ l - exp(-KoM,r)]. (17)
Here OMo, (=Ntotd,X foMI) is the initial SON or AON, Ntota,is total organic N
concentration at t = 0 in the SON and AON pools,,foM, is the mineralizable N frac-
tion, KoMl (=KOMoptgOMJis the rate constant, KOMoptis the rate constant under
optimal soil 0 and T, and g is a correction function accounting for deviations of
soil 8 and T from optimum values. The integrated nitrification equation has the
same form, but OMo is replaced by the initial NH, concentration in the soil (fer-
tilization) and the parameters are specific for this reaction. The correction term g
(8, r ) is equal to g(0) X g(r). The g(T) function is an empirical expression that
diminishes on both sides of the optimum T. The temperature at which mineraliza-
tion and nitrification rate constants are maximal (g ( T ) = I ) is 30-35°C (Hadas et
al., 1983; Tucker and Hagin, 1982). The correction term g(0) = [0 - 8thr)/(00pt-
Olhr)]m, where Othr and Oopt are 0 values for which g(8) = 0 and I , respectively, and
m is a soil constant. Oop1 is 75-80% of the water-holding capacity of the soil (Legg
and Meisinger, 1982). Another factor that strongly affects mineralization and ni-
trification kinetics is soil pH. The optimal range is 7.2-7.8; at pH 5 the activity of
the oxidizing bacteria is significantly reduced. At the end of each year, the un-
mineralized AON is transferred into SON. Representative values of the above-
mentioned coefficients are given in Fig. 8. For demonstration, Eq. (17) was used
to calculate the mineralization of SOM (400 mg organic N/kg soil), with dairy ma-
+
58 B. BAR-YOSEF
MINERAL
N POOL
-
Mineralization of ~
AON d.n/
NH4 NO3
Nitrification
1 Transition of I
Mineralizatio
of SON
1
AON
Mineralization rate (i = AON, SON): d(ON,)/dt = -KOM,g,f, (ON,)
Transition AON -SON: (AON,,,, - AONm,& 1 year time step
ON source . ”&. NO f, Reference

g/IOOg l/d Yo
SON Soil 0.02-0.05 0.006 15 Stanford&Smith 1972

AON Dairy manure 1.5-2.5 0.2-0.3 30 Hadas et al. 1983
Poultry manure 3.0-4.0 1.5-2.5 55 Hadas et al. 1983
Dairy compost 2.5-3.0 0.0004 25 Hadas&Portnoy 1994
d.n = denitrification
Figure 8 Nitrogen transformations in soil that should be taken into consideration in fertigation
management.The general first-orderequation is used for all transformations subject to pertinent para-
meter values (inset table). ON, = total organic N in pool i. Parameters are discussed in the text.
nure (AON) added to the soil at a rate of 8 tons/ha (2% N) in the top 0- to 20-cm
soil layer (-2500 tons soil, yielding 64 mg N/kg) under conditions of optimum 0
and T. Thef,, and KOMof the SON and AON pools were assumed to be 15 and
30%, and 0.006 and 0.22 day-’, respectively. The cumulative mineralized N was
compared with the objective QN ( t ) of processing tomatoes (Table IXa). During
the first 20 days, the manure and indigenous organic N contributed 18 and 6 g min-
eral N m--2, respectively, while consumption by plants amounted to 2 g N m-2.
At 65 days the corresponding cumulative mineralization and uptake figures were
20, 19, and 19 g N m-', and at 100 days 21,28, and 40 g N m-2. The excess of
mineralization over consumption is detrimental to final yield and quality, and is
prone to leaching outside the soil root volume.
Another organic N pool-the plant residue incorporated into the soil-was dis-
regarded in Fig. 8. Its mineralization rate is slower than that of AON, but since it
is hard to evaluate amounts of plant residues added to soil this pool was disre-
garded in this review.
In nitrification reactions f = 1 and Kopt = -0.1 day-' (Mengel and Kirkby,
1987). Denitrification may cause nitrate losses under fertigation, particularly after
irrigation, when 8 > field capacity. However, as denitrification under irrigation has
been estimated to be less than 5 - 10%of added N (Legg and Meisinger, 1982),this
N loss is often disregarded in fertigation considerations.
G. GREENHOUSES
The fertigation principles discussed so far are equally applicable to greenhous-

es and to open field. There are, however, some problems specific to greenhouses.
(i) The partial control of temperature, light intensity, and CO, requires adaptation
of the objective DM(t) and Q(t) functions to conditions prevailing in the green-
house. (ii) Growth substrates in a greenhouse may be used at different volumes per
plant. At small volume per plant, a certain fraction of the nutrients applied through
the water to comply with the Q(t)function may be leached out of the substrate and
become unavailable to plants. To control the leaching fraction under such condi-
tions, fertigation scheduling, based on the water-retention characteristics of the
substrate, becomes critical. The chemical reactions in small substrate volumes per
plant are very intensive and may cause dissolution and release of toxic elements
(e.g., A1 in tuff), and alter ion-retention characteristics and partitioning of nutri-
ents between the solution and solid phases of the growth medium. Expected vari-
ations with time in substrate resistance to root growth may change the root distri-
bution in the substrate and even the root morphology and uptake characteristics.
(iii) In light of the difficulties in maintaining the appropriate supply rates of nutri-
ents at the required concentrations in the water to small substrate volumes per
plant, fertigation solutions in greenhouses are usually added in excess, resulting in
large effluent volumes. To avoid underground pollution by effluent nitrates, and to
save resources, greenhouse leachates should be recycled. Fertigation under recy-
cling conditions, when salinity, pathogens, and substrate dissolution products ac-
cumulate in the solution, was discussed above (Section IIIG).
Discussion of the physical and chemical characteristics of commercial growing
media is outside the scope of this review. Data on the hydraulic properties, and ion
adsorption and dissolution reactions of various substrates can be found, for exam-
ple, in Adams et al. (1995).
60 B. BAR-YOSEF
V. MODELING FERTIGATION
From a fertigation standpoint, modeling is important for the following reasons:

(i) It may significantly improve management decision making, which is currently
based on the simplifying assumption that water, nutrients, and roots are uniform-
ly distributed in the wetted soil volume. Mathematical models that simulate dis-
tribution of water, ions, and roots in soil and calculate uptake from all soil sub-
volumes can improve water and nutrient uptake predictions and provide better
estimates of solute leaching outside the soil root volume. (ii) Reliable
crop-soil-atmosphere models can substitute for expensive field experiments in
which site-specific, objective dry matter and nutrient consumption functions are
determined. (iii) Models mentioned in ii, which stimulate crop growth, yield, and
soil processes in response to given initial conditions, temporal water and nutrient
supplies, and climatic conditions, may be transformed into management decision
models. To serve as a management decision tool, the model must include a target
yield versus time function. In case the target yield is not obtained under a project-
ed fertigation regime and given climatic conditions, the simulation is reiterated for
a modified regime, until the required yield function is obtained. This methodolo-
gy does not conform with the economic-environmental-agronomic models dis-
cussed in Section 11, but it may significantly improve upon the simplified decision
making process described above.
Another group of models comprises auxiliary models that simulate specific
processes, for example, optimizing the choice of fertilizers for ready-mix stock so-
lutions, or scheduling irrigation according to real-time soil water and weather
monitoring. A short review of available models in the above-mentioned categories
follows.
A. MODELSSIMULATINGTRANSPORT
AND UPTAKE
PROCESSES
Several mechanistic models that simulate transient two-dimensional nutrient
and water transport in soil and uptake by plants have been published (Abbas et al.,
1996;Timlin et al., 1996; Heinon et al., 1997; Lafolie et al., 1997). Of these, only
the second simulates temporal root growth in relation to dynamic soil factors.
None of the mentioned models treats N, P, and K concomitantly, but all of them
include N transformations and concentration-dependent uptake by roots. None of
the above models have been adjusted for drip fertigation, nor rigorously tested un-
der diverse cultural conditions. The models do not account for root exudation and
pH effects in soil (e.g., adsorption, mineralization), but have been reported to give
a reasonable agreement between experimental and computed results, which en-
courages further evaluation of their performance.
Models focusing on subunits of the plant-soil-atmosphere system [for exam-

ple, uptake by a single cylindrical root (Nye and Tinker, 1977; Bar-Yosef et al.,
1980b); one-dimensional nutrient uptake under steady-state water content and pre-
determined root growth (Barber, 1984); and one-dimensional transient water and
solute flow and nonmechanistic uptake (Wagenet and Hudson, 1987)l have been
abundantly published during the past two decades, but are being used mainly in
research.
B. CROPMODELS
Few crop models have satisfactory routines that simulate processes occurring in
soil and uptake by roots. One that may be applied to one-dimensional fertigation
problems is CEREZ-Maize (Jones and Kiniry, 1986). In addition to plant process-
es and yield it simulates soil water and solute movements, N transformation in soil,
and water and N uptake by the crop. Similar simulation capabilities are available
in a potato model (Fishman and Bar-Yosef, 1995). Marani et al. (1992) adapted a
cotton crop model (GOSSYM) to drip N fertigation including transport, subsur-
face emitter placement, and uptake by plants. The soybean simulator GLYCIN
(Acock and Trent, 1991) has been coupled in a modular way with the two-dimen-
sional soil simulator 2DSOIL (Timlin et al., 1996) to provide a potentially strong
tool for fertigation simulation. It is hoped that more crop models (Rosenthal et al.,
1989; van Keulen and Dayan, 1993; Sinclair and Muchow, 1995) will be coupled
with this platform.
C. AUXILIARY
MODELS
Several simple models have been used for managing various aspects of fertiga-
tion. Models have been developed that determine when a critical soil moisture lev-
el has been reached, as a criterion for irrigation timing and rate (Fereres et al.,
1981; Wu, 1995). A more comprehensive approach, which incorporates irrigation
water price and fruit yield value, in addition to water and nutrient inputs and con-
sumption balance, was suggested for fertigated orchards by Vera and de la Pena
(1995). Despite the rough estimates of uptake and its relation to yield, this deci-
sion support system may be helpful in assessing fertigation needs under various
growing conditions and economic environments. Recently, models that simulate
crop growth and response to water have been used for irrigation scheduling
(Hoogenboom et al., 1991). Breimer et al. (1988) presented a computerized ferti-
gation program for greenhouse crops based on estimated evapotranspiration and
nutrient consumption. An earlier program for greenhouse crops was presented by
Oswiecimski (1984), with emphasis on the effects of growth media and container
62 B. BAR-YOSEF
volume on growth. A version of a balance-based fertigation model for surge irri-

gation was suggested by Ostermeier et al. (1992).
Several computer programs that optimize the preparation of liquid compound
fertilizers from available alternativeson the basis of price and plant preference are
commercially available. Usually, such programs are available from big fertilizer
distributorsand manufacturers. Technical considerations of how auxiliary models
can be incorporated into automatic fertigation control systems are outside the
scope of this review.
VI. MONITORING
The principles discussed in the preceding sections allow one to fertigate during
the growing season to sustain crop growth and uptake according to the objective
functions, and thus to obtain an optimum yield. By monitoring plant organ dry
weight and nutrient contents and comparing the results with the required, prede-
termined overall values (Tables IX, X, XI), one can determine whether the crop is
developing and absorbing nutrients according to the objective functions. Any de-
viation between real and objective values exceeding a certain permitted error must
elicit a correction measure, usually modification of nutrient and water application
rates. The crop analysis should be done sufficiently early for the correction mea-
sure to be effective. Monthly crop monitoring seems to be adequate for character-
izing crop development with respect to the reference target curves. The recom-
mended entire plant analysis differs from the widely used leaf analysis. The latter
is significantly cheaper, but it has the disadvantageof being an intensity factor (nu-
trient concentration in a diagnostic tissue) that cannot be translated directly into a
correction measure. Another problem is that nutrient concentration in leaves are
prone to daily fluctuations and reflect transient conditions in the plant environ-
ment. More practical experience is needed to compare the cost effectivenessof the
entire plant analysis approach with that of the index leaf sampling procedure.
The required nutrient concentrations in the soil solution that allow optimal up-
take rates by plants were discussed in Section IVB. By means of soil tests, the de-
viation between prevailing and required concentrationsin the soil root volume can
be determined, and measures to restore the needed concentrations can be under-
taken. The soil water content must be maintained at a level that will not limit wa-
ter and nutrient movement to the roots under any weather conditions and for any
sink power of the crop. As stated above, discussion of the principles of irrigation
management (rates and scheduling) and of optimization of soil 0 or water poten-
tial (4) is outside the scope of this review. For more information on microirriga-
tion principles and control, readers are referred to reviews by Bucks et al. (1982)
and Dasberg and Bresler (1985). To confirm that water status in soil is maintained
within the required range, soil 8 or $I must be monitored periodically (see Section
IIID).
Nutrient concentrations in the soil solution should also be periodically moni-
tored to ensure that their deviations from the required optimum concentrations do
not exceed a given permitted value. Soil monitoring can be done by two ap-
proaches: (i) soil sampling at one or more reference points in the soil root volume
and extraction by standard solutions to determine soluble and sorbed nutrient con-
centrations in the soil samples; or (ii) direct sampling of the soil solution by means
of vacuum cups inserted permanently in various locations in the soil, and chemi-
cal analysis of the solution samples for various nutrient concentrations. The vac-
uum extraction method is convenient, cheap, and only slightly alters the actual
composition of nonadsorbing ions in the soil solution adjacent to the suction cup.
Phosphorus and cations are adsorbed by ceramic cups and can be evaluated only
by soil sampling. Commonly used vacuum cups and principles of their use are de-
scribed in detail by Rhoades and Oster (1986). Soil extraction solutions are cho-
sen in accordance with the ion and soil of interest: To obtain nutrient concentra-
tions in the soil solution, saturated paste extract is recommended. For sorbed P in
neutral and alkaline soils, the sodium bicarbonate extract is most suitable, while
in acid soils the Bray extract is preferred. Exchangeable cations are determined by
solution of a competing cation at high concentration, for example, 1 M ammoni-
um acetate. Microelements in soil are determined by the chelating agent DTPA.
Full accounts of soil extraction principles and methods are given by Page (1982).
None of the above-mentioned extractions give the true nutrient concentration in
the soil, but they determine a fraction of it that is closely related to its availability
to plants. However, the extractable nutrient concentrationsare well correlated with
the real concentrations in the soil and hence can show trends in nutrient status in
sampled volume (depletion or accumulation) over time.
Combined plant and soil monitoring is recommended, as the dual test can de-
termine whether a certain deviation from the reference crop growth curve stemmed
from under- or over supply of nutrients. When inhibited crop growth is not ac-
companied by suboptimal nutrient concentrations in the soil root volume, this in-
dicates that other factors are limiting plant growth, for example, reduced light in-
tensity or plant disease. In such cases, fertigation management should be modified
to account for the reduced potential growth and development of the crop.
VII. SAFETY
One problem with fertigation is potential contamination of the water source if

proper antipollution devices are not in place. The most common possibilities for
pollution are: (i) The injection system shuts off while imgation continues to oper-
64 B. BAR-YOSEF
ate. This could cause water to flow back through the chemical injection system and
overflow the fertilizer supply tanks. (ii) The irrigation flow is shut off and the wa-
ter-fertilizer mixture contained in the irrigation piping flows back into the irriga-
tion water supply. (iii) As in ii, only the concentrated source fertigation solution
flows into the irrigation water supply.
Injection system safety devices and irrigation mainline backflow prevention
equipment that are prerequisites for fertigation are described and discussed by
Threadgill et al. (1990). According to this reference, regulations pertinent to
chemigation (which includes fertigation) have been developed in several states in
the United States in accordance with federal acts that apply to fertigation.
Vm. FUTURE TRENDS AND AREM

NEEDING MORE RESEARCH
Significant advances in microirrigation and fertilization equipment, automation,

and understanding of basic processes have been made within the past three
decades. Efficient utilization of available equipment is hampered by lack of data
on optimum consumption rates of essential nutrients by important crops as func-
tions of time. Additional data that are currently unavailable concern relationships
between nutrient concentration and uptake flux and some basic soil parameters
pertinent to ion transport in soil. The biological, chemical, and physical database
presented in this review is still very limited, and simple extrapolation of the data
to different climatic and soil conditions may lead to operational errors. The data
presented should be regarded, however, as examples of the type of information
needed to gain full benefit from advanced fertigation systems.
Drip fertigation strongly affects plant root volumes. More research is needed to
clarify soil physical and chemical effects on root growth, uptake, and excretion.
An enhanced understanding of these phenomena will help us in using drip ferti-
gation to produce desired root systems and thus to obtain plants that are more ef-
ficient in utilizing nutrients and water from the soil. It will also help us to design
drip fertigation systems based on planning parameters that include root character-
istics as well as soil hydraulic properties.
Monitoring should be advanced on two fronts: (i) development of rapid and re-
liable methods to determine crop dry matter weight and nutrient contents, for com-
parison with the corresponding objective curves; and (ii) improving the method-
ology of determining nutrient concentrations in the soil solution, by allowing
farmers to do it alone in the field, so that correction measures based on soil tests
will be timely and effective.
Available and specifically developed soil models should replace the currently
crude calculations of nutrient uptake by roots, distribution in soil, and leaching
outside the soil root volume. A further research objective is to transform reliable
soil-crop-atmosphere models into real-time fertigation management models, by
introducing input optimization algorithms based on economic and environmental
considerations. Achievement of this objective will depend on prior significant de-
velopments in fruit quality simulation in crop models, without which, crop yield
value cannot be evaluated. Real-time management models should accept soil and
crop monitoring data for continuous assessment of fertigation decisions. This pos-
es another challenge for monitoring technology, as the sensing devices should be
fully automated.
More should be done to study the interrelationship between fertigation regimes
and crop susceptibility to fungal and bacterial diseases (Jones et al., 1988).An un-
derstanding of the mechanisms involved in enhanced plant resistance to diseases
as a function of nutrient status in the plant will add another dimension to fertiga-
tion optimization.
REFERENCES
Abbas, C., Robert, J. L., and Parent, L. E. (1996). Mechanistic modeling of coupled ammonium and
nitrate uptake by onions using the finite element method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 1160-1 167.
Acock, B., and Trent, A. (199 I). The soybean simulator, GLYCIN: Documentation for the modular ver-
sion 91. Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Idaho, Moscow.
Adams, P., Hidding, A. P., Kipp, J. A,, Sonneveld, C., and de Kreij, C. (Eds.) (1995). International sym-
posium on growing media and plant nutrition in horticulture. Actu Hort. 401.
Adin, A,, and Elimelech, M. (1989). Particle filtration for wastewater irrigation. J . Irrig. Drain. Div.
ASCE 115,474-483.
Adin, A., and Sacks, M. (199 I). Dripper clogging factors in wastewater irrigation. J. Irrig. Drainage
Eng. 117,813-826.
Aikman, D. P., Fenlon, J. S., and Cockshull, K. E. (1996). Anticipated cash value of photosynthates in
the glasshouse tomato. Acta Hort. 417,47754.
Albregts, E. E., Hochmuth, G. J., Chandler, C. K., Cornell, J., and Harrison, J. (1996).Potassium fer-
tigation requirement of drip-irrigated strawberry. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121, 164-168.
Aha, A. K., and Mozaffari, M. (1995).Nitrate leaching in a deep sandy soil as influenced by dry broad-
cast or fertigation of nitrogen for citrus production. In “Dahlia Greidinger International Sympo-
sium on Fertigation,” pp. 67-77. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Aha, A. K., and Syvertsen, J. P. (1991). Irrigation water salinity affects soil nutrient distribution, root
density, and leaf nutrient levels of citrus under drip fertigation. J. Plant Nu?,: 14,715-727.
Andre, M., Massimino, D., and Daguenet, A. (1978). Daily pattern under the life cycle of a maize crop.
11. Mineral nutrition, root respiration and root excretion. Physiol. Plant. 44, 197-204.
Asher, L. E., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1982). Effects of pyrophosphate, EDTA, and DTPA on zinc sorption
by montmorillonite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46,27 1-276.
Assaf, R., Levin, I., and Bravdo, B. (1983).The response of apple trees to nitrogen fertilization regimes.
Hassadeh 63,2586-2593. [in Hebrew]
Awada, M., Wu, I. P., Suehisa, R. H., and Padgett, M. M. (1979).Effect of drip irrigation and nitrogen
fertilization on vegetative growth, fruit yield, and mineral composition of the petioles and fruits
of papaya, Technical Bulletin No. 103, p. 20. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn., University of Hawaii, Hilo.
66 B. BAR-YOSEF
Bachchhav, S. M. (1995). Fertigation in India-Astudy case. In “Dahlia Greidinger International Sym-

posium on Fertigation,” pp. 11-24. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Bacon, P. E., and Davey, B. G. (1982). Nutrient availability under trickle imgation. I. Distribution of
water and phosphorus in soil. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 46,981-987.
Bacon, P. E., and Davey, B. G. (1989). Nutrient availability under trickle irrigation-phosphate fertil-
ization. Fertilizer Res. 19, 159-167.
Bakker, M. J., Slangen, J. H. G., and Glas, W. (1984). Comparative investigation into the effect offer-
tigation and of broadcast fertilization on the yield and nitrate content of lettuce (Lactuca sativa
L.). Netherlands J. Agric. Sci. 32,330-333.
Barber, S. A. (1984). “Soil Nutrient Bioavailability. A Mechanistic Approach.” Wiley, New York.
Barrow, N. J. (1987). “Reactions with Variable-Charge Soils.’’ Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
Bar-Tal, A., Bar-Yosef, B., and Kafkafi, U. (1990). Pepper transplant response to root volume and nu-
trition in the nursery. Agron. J. 82,989-995.
Bar-Tal, A,, Pressman, E., and Rilska, E. (1994). Tomato response to K-Ca ratios and root restriction
in solution culture. Annual Report, CALAR Tri-National (Egypt, United States, Israel) project.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1971). Fluxes of P and Ca into intact corn roots and their dependence on solution con-
centration and root age. Plant Soil 35,589-600.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1977). Trickle irrigation and fertilization of tomatoes in sand dunes: Water, N, and P
distribution in the soil and uptake by plants. Agron. J. 69,486-491.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1979). pH dependent Zn adsorption by soils. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 43,1095-1099.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1988). Control of tomato fruit yield and quality through fertigation. In “Optimal Yield
Management” (D. Rimon, ed.), pp. 175-184. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1991). Vegetable production and fruit yield and quality under combined trickle irriga-
tion and fertilization. FAO/ECE Symposium on Methods and Concepts for the Use of Organic
and Chemical Fertilizers, Geneva, R12, pp. 1-35.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1996a). Greenhouse muskmelon response to K concentration in water and irrigation
rate. Proc. ISOSC 9th Int. Congr. on Soilless Culture, pp. 35-50.
Bar-Yosef, B. (1996b). Root excretions and their environmental effects-Influence on availability of
phosphorus. In “Plant Roots-The Hidden Half (Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, and U. Katkafi, eds.), 2nd
Ed., pp. 581-604. Dekker, New York.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Imas, P. (1995). Tomato response to phosphorus nutrition via drip fertigation. Proc.
5th Int. Microirrigation Cong., Orlando, FL, pp. 200-208.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Lambert, J. R. (1979). Corn and cotton root growth in response to osmotic poten-
tial and oxygen and nitrate concentration in nutrient solutions. In “The Soil-Root Interface”
(J. L. Harley and R. S. Russell, eds.), pp. 287-299. Academic Press, New York.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Lambert, J. R. (1981). Corn and cotton root growth in response to soil impedance
and water potential. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 45,930-935.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Sagiv, B. (1982a). Response of tomato to N and water applied via a trickle irriga-
tion system. I. Nitrogen. Agron. J. 74,633-637.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Sagiv, B. (1982b). Trickle irrigation and fertilization of iceberg lettuce (Lacruca
sativa), Proc. IXth Int. Plant Nutrition Colloq., Wanvick University, UK, pp. 33-38.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Sagiv, B. (1985). Potassium supply to field crops under drip irrigation and fertil-
ization. In “Proceedings of the K Symposium,” pp. 185-188. International Potash Institute, Pre-
toria.
Bar-Yosef, B., and Sheikholslami, M. R. (1976). Distribution of water and ions in soils irrigated and
fertilized from a trickle source. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 40,575-582.
Bar-Yosef, B., Stammers, C., and Sagiv, B. (1980a). Growth of trickle irrigated tomato as related to
rooting volume and uptake of N and water. Agron. J. 72,815-822.
Bar-Yosef, B., Fishman, S., and Talpaz, H. (1980b). Amodel of zinc movement to single roots in soils.
Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 44,127 1- 1279.
Bar-Yosef, B., Kramer, S., and Ben Basat, S. (1980~).Trickle irrigation and fertilization in the North-
ern Arava Valley in Israel: Bell pepper (cv. Maor). Annual report. Agricultural Research Organi-
zation, Bet-Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Bar-Yosef, B., Kramer, S., and Ben Basat, S. (1981). Trickle irrigation and fertilization in the North-
ern Arava Valley in Israel: Egg plant. Annual report. Agricultural Research Organization, Bet-Da-
gan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Bar-Yosef, B., Kramer, S., and Ben Basat, S. (1982). Trickle irrigation and fertilization in the northern
Arava Valley in Israel: Fresh tomatoes (cv. 675). Annual report. Agricultural Research Organiza-
tion, Bet-Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Bar-Yosef, B., Schwartz, S., Markovita, T., Lucas, B., and Assaf, R. (1988a). Effect of root volume and
nitrate solution concentration on growth, fruit yield and temporal N and water uptake rates by ap-
ple trees. Plant Soil 107,49-56.
Bar-Yosef, B., Katkafi, U., Rosenberg, R., and Sposito, G. (1988b). Phosphorus adsorption by kaolinite
and montmorillonite: I. Effect of time, ionic strength and pH. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 52, 1580-
1585.
Bar-Yosef, B., Sagiv, B., and Markovitch, T. (1989). Sweet corn response to surface and subsurface
trickle phosphorus fertigation. Agron. J. 81,443-447.
Bar-Yosef, B., Phene, C. J., and Hutmacher, R. B. (1991). Plants response to subsurface trickle ferti-
gation, BARD Project IS-I 116-86. Bet Dagan, Israel.
Bar-Yosef, B., Matan, E., Levkovich, I., Assaf, A,, and Dayan, E. (1992). Response of greenhouse
tomatoes (cv. F-144 and F-175) to irrigation and fertilization in the Besor area, Report on Project
30- 170-92. Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Bar-Yosef, B., Sagiv, B., and Markovitch, T., and Levkovitch, I. (1995a). Phosphorus placement ef-
fects on sweet corn growth, uptake and yield. In “Dahlia Greidinger International Symposium on
Fertigation,” pp. 14 I - 154. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Bar-Yosef, B., Keinan, M., Sternbaum, B., Levkovich, I., Markovich, T., Rosenberg, R., and Soriano,
S. (1995b). Muskmelon (cv. Arava) response to N concentration in water, NH,:NO, ratio and
greenhouse temperature, Report on Project 301-02 11-95.Agricultural Research Organization, Bet
Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Bauerle, W. L. (1975). The effect of fertilization and irrigation on yield and quality of greenhouse toma-
toes. Research summary No. 82, pp. 13-15. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Cen-
ter, Wooster, Ohio.
Beese, F., Horton, R., and Wierenga, P. J. (1982). Growth and yield response of chili pepper to trickle
irrigation. Agron. J. 74,556-561.
Bell, J. P., Dean, T. J., and Hodnett, M. G. (1987). Soil moisture measurement by an improved capac-
itance technique. Part 11. Field technique, evaluation and calibration. J. Hydrol. 93,79-90.
Ben Asher, J., Gordon, J. M., Liner, A,, and Zarmi, Y. (1982). Nutrient uptake and supply to tomato
plants in water culture system. Agron. J. 74,640-644.
Ben Asher, J., Charach, A,, and Zemel, A. (1986). Infiltration and water extraction from trickle irriga-
tion source: The effective hemisphere model. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 50,882-887.
Ben Hayyim, G., Kafkafi, U., and Ganmore-Neuman, R. (1987). The role of internal potassium in main-
taining growth of cultured citrus cells on increasing NaCl and CaC1, concentration. Plunf Physi-
01. 85,434-439.
Bernstein, L., and Francois, L. E. (1975). Effects of frequency of sprinkling with saline waters com-
pared with daily drip irrigation. Agron. J. 67, 185-190.
Bhella, H. S., and Wilcox, G. E. (1985). Nitrogen fertilization and muskmelon growth, yield and nu-
trition. Proc. 3rd Int. DriplTrickle Irrigation Cong., Fresno, CA, Vol. I, pp. 339-345.
Bianchi, M. L., Burt, C. M., and Ruehr, T. A. (1985). Drip fertilization practices and soil permeabili-
ty. Proc. 3rd Int. Drip/Trickle Irrigation Cong., Fresno, CA, Vol. I, pp. 357-364.
Black, C. A. (1968). Soil-Plant Relationships. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
B. BAR-YOSEF
Bliss, W. R. D. (1996).Control of water borne pathogens in hydrophonics using nylate. Proc. ISOSC
9th Int. Congr. Soilless Culture, pp. 505-513.
Boman, B. J. (1 996).Fertigation versus conventional fertilization of flatwood grapefruit. Ferril. Res.
44,123-128.
Boyle Engineering Corporation (1994).Demonstration of emerging irrigation technologies. Report
submitted to the California Department of Water Conservation Office, Sacramento, CA, pp. 1-8.
Bravdo, B. A., and Hepner, Y. (1987).Irrigation management and fertigation to optimize grape com-
position and vine performance. Acra Horr. 206,49-67.
Bravdo, B., Salomon, E., Erner, Y., Shufman, E., and Oren, Y. (1992).Effect of drip and microsprin-
kler fertigation on citrus yield and quality. Proc. 7th Int. SOC.Citriculture, Acireale, Italy, Vol. 2,
pp. 646-650.
Breimer, T., Sonneveld, C., and Spaans, L. (1988).A computerized programme for fertigation of
glasshouse crops. Acta Horr. 222,43-50.
Bresler, E. (1977).Trickle-drip irrigation: Principles and application to soil-water management. Adv.
Agron. 29,343-393.
Bresler, E. (1978).Analysis of trickle irrigation with application to design problems. Irrig. Sci. 1,3-17.
Bresler, E., McNeal, B. L., and Carter, D. L. (1982).“Saline and Sodic Soils.’’ Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Brun, R., and Morisot, A. (1996).Modeling the uptake of water and nitrate of rose plants in hydro-
phonic culture. Actu Horr. 417,55-63.
Brun, R.,Paris, B., and Hammelin, I. (1993).Fertigation management of rose plants grown in green-
house on rockwool. Adv. Horr. Sci. 7, 145-148.
Bucks, D. A. (1995).Historical development in microirrigation. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation Cong.,
Orlando, FL, pp. 1-5.
Bucks, D. A., Nakayama, F. S., and Warrick, A. W. (1982).Principles, practices and potentialities of
trickle (drip) irrigation. Adv. Irrig. 1,220-298.
Bussi, C., Huguet, J. G., and Defrance, H. (1991).Fertilization scheduling in peach orchards under
trickle irrigation. J. Hort. Sci. 66,487-493.
Bussi, C., Huguet, J., Besset, J., and Girard, T. (1994).Effect of nitrogen fertilization applied during
trickle irrigation on the growth and fruit yield of peach. Eu,: J. Agron. 3,243-248.
Cadahia, C., Garcia, P., Lucena, J. J., Sarro, M. I., and Garate, A. (1988a).Solubility of Fe, Mn, Cu
and Zn fertilizers as a function of the substrate type in a drip irrigation system. Acra Horf. 222,
179- 186.
Cadahia, C., Masaguer, A,, Garate, A,, and Sarro, M. J. (1988b).Nutrient solutions-substrates (rock-
wool and peat) interactions in drip-irrigation with highly saline waters. Acra Horr. 222, 173-178.
Callesen, 0.(1991).Drip irrigation and fertigation of raspberry. Tidsskrifl Planteuvl95,411-415.
Campbell, G. S . ( 1977).“An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics.” Springer-Verlag, New York.
Carrijo, 0. A., Oliveira, C. A. S., Olitta, A. F. L., de Fontes, R. R., dos Reis, N. B. B., and Della Vec-
chia, P. T. (1983).Comparison between drip and furrow irrigation and NK fertilization in tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Hort. Brasileira 1,41-44. [In Portuguese]
Cassagnes, P. (1988).Fertilization. Apple fertigation by micro-jet or trickle irrigation. Arboriculrure
Fruitiere 406,39-46.
Cassagnes, P., Bazaillas, M., and Fourcade, P. (1984).Leaf mineral composition of apple trees irrigat-
ed by microjets or by drip irrigation. Proc. VIth Int. Colloq. Optimization Plant Nutrition, Vol. 3,
pp. 789-797.
Chauhan, C. P. S., Sing, R. B., Minhas, P. S., Agnihotri, A. K., and Gupta, R. K. (1991).Response of
wheat to irrigation with saline water varying in anionic constituents and phosphorus application.
Agric. Water Manug. 20,223-23 1.
Christensen, L.P., Peacock, W. L., and Bianchi, M. L. (1991).Potassium fertilization of Thompson
Seedless grapevines using two fertilizer sources under drip irrigation. Am. J. Enol. Viric. 42,
227-232.
Clausnitzer, V., and Hopmans, J. W. (1994).Simultaneous modeling of transient three-dimensional root

growth and soil water flow. Plant Soil 164,299-314.
Clough, G. H., Locascio, S. J., and Olson, S. M. (1990).Yield of successively cropped polyethylene-
mulched vegetables as affected by irrigation method and fertilization management. J. Am. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 115,884-887.
Clough, G. H., Locascio, S. J., and Olson, S. M. (1992). Mineral concentration of yellow squash re-
sponds to irrigation method and fertilization management. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117,725-729.
Coltman, R. R. (1987). Yield and sap nitrate response of fresh market field tomatoes to simulated fer-
tigation with nitrogen. J. Plant Nutz 10, 1699-1704.
Crespo-Ruiz, M., Goyal, M. R., Baez, C. C., and Rivera, L. E. (1988). Nutrient uptake and growth char-
acteristics of nitrogen fertigated sweet pepper under drip irrigation and plastic mulch. J. Agric.
Univ. Puerto Rico 72,575-584.
Dafne, 0. (1984). Nitrogen effect on dry matter production, mineral absorption, yield and quality of
processing tomatoes. MSc thesis submitted to the Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew Universi-
ty of Jerusalem, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Dalton, F. N., and Gardner, W. R. (1978). Temperature dependence of water uptake by plant roots.
Agron. J. 70,404-406.
Dalton, F. N., Herkelrath, W. N., Rawlins, D. S., and Rhoades, J. D. (1984). Time domain reflectome-
try: Simultaneous measurement of soil water content and electrical conductivity with a single
probe. Science (Washington,DC) 224,989-990.
Dasberg, S. (1987).Nitrogen fertilization in citrus orchards. Plunr Soil 100,l-9.
Dasberg, S. (1995).Drip and spray irrigation of citrus oranges in Israel. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation
Cong., Orlando, FL, pp. 28 1-287.
Dasberg, S., and Bresler, E. (1985). Drip irrigation manual, Publ. No. 9. International Irrigation Infor-
mation Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Dasberg, S., Bilorai, H., and Erner, Y. (1983). Nitrogen fertigation of Shamouti oranges. Plant Soil 75,
41-51.
Dasberg, S., Bar-Akiva, S., Spazisky, S., and Cohen, A. (1988).Fertigation versus broadcasting in an
orange grove. Fertil. Res. 15, 147- 154.
Delvert, P., and Bolding, P. J. (1988). Fertilization. Apple in the Netherlands. Fertigation and trickle ir-
rigation of young orchards. Arboriculrure Fruitiere 406,65-73. [In French]
Demalach, Y., Ben Asher, J., Sagiv, M., and Alert, A. ( I 996). Double emitter source (DES) for iniga-
tion experiments in salinity and fertilization. Agron. J. 88,987-990.
Dencker, I., and Hansen, P. (1994). Flower initiation and node development of auxiliary buds, growth
partitioning, and bleeding sap production of young apple trees as affected by fertigation. J. Horf.
Sci. 69,869-876.
Doerge, T. A,, and Thompson, T. L. (1995). Concurrent evaluation of agronomic, economic and envi-
ronmental aspects of trickle irrigated vegetable production. In “Proceedings of the Dahlia Grei-
dinger International Symposium on Fertigation,” pp. 263-274. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Dornai, D., Gerstl, Z., Chen, Y., and Mingelgrin, U. (199 I). Effect of trifluran on cotton growth in arid
zone soils. Weed Sci. 31,375-384.
Drews, M., Schondorf, I., and Krumbein,A. (1995).Nitrate, vitamineC,carotinandzuckergehaltvon kopf-
salat im jahresverlauf beim anbau im gewchshaus (Lactuca sativa L.). Cartenbuuwiss 60,180-187.
Enfield, C. G., Phan, T., Walters, D. M., and Ellis, R., Jr. (1981). Kinetic model for phosphate trans-
port and transformation in calcareous soils: I. Kinetics of transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
45, 1059-1064.
Erez, A,, Ran, Y., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1992).The effect of restricted root volume on the development,
yield and dry matter partitioning of young fruiting peach trees. Acra Horf. 322, 199-214.
Feigin, A. ( 1990) Fertilization of crops irrigated with saline water. In “Water, Soil and Crop Manage-
ment Relating to the Use of Saline Water” (A. Kandiah, ed.), FA0 Publ. AGL/Misc/l6/90, pp.
137-151. FAO, Rome.
70 B. BAR-YOSEF
Feigin, A,, and Sagiv, B. (1971). Broccoli response to manure and N fertilization in a loessial soil in
southern Israel, Report on Project 401- 10102. Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Is-
rael. [In Hebrew]
Feigin. A,, and Sagiv, B. (1982). Dry matter and nitrogen accumulation in irrigated autumn and spring
potatoes grown in arid zone. Proc. 9th Int. Plant Nutrition Colloq., Wanvick University, UK, Vol.
1, pp. 168-173.
Feigin. A,, Sagiv, B., Aviram, H., and Zipilevich, Y. (1976). Celery response to manure and N fertil-
ization in a loessial soil in southern Israel, Report on Project 301-046. Agricultural Research Or-
ganization, Bet Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Feigin, A,, Zwibell, M., Rylski, I., Zamir, N., and Levav, N. (1979). The effect of ammonium/nitrate
ratio in the nutrient solution on tomato yield and quality. Acra Hort. 98, 149-160.
Feigin, A., Letey, J., and Jarrell, W. M. (1982). Celery response to type, amount and method of N-fer-
tilizer application under drip irrigation. Agron. J. 74,971 -977.
Feigin, A,, Ginzburg, C., Gilead, S., and Ackerman, A. (1986). Effect of NH,/NH, ratio in nutrient so-
lution on growth and yield of greenhouse roses. Acra Horr. 189, 127-132.
Feigin, A,, Shalhevet, Y., and Ravina, I. (1991). “Irrigation with Treated Sewage Effluent.” Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Fereres, E., Goldfine, R. E., Pruitt, W. 0..Henderson, D. W., and Hagan, R. M. (1981). The irrigation
management program: A new approach to computer assisted irrigation scheduling. Proc. 4th
Scheduling Conf. ASAE, Irrigation Scheduling for Water Conservation in the go’s, pp. 202-207.
Fishman, S., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1995). Simulation of N uptake and partitioning in potato plants: Mod-
el description and sensitivity analysis. In “Potato Ecology and Modelling of Crops under Condi-
tions Limiting Growth” (A. J. Haverkort and D. K. L. Mackerron, eds.), pp.147-166. Kluwer,
London.
Fishman, S., Talpaz, H., Dinar, M., Arazi, Y., Rozman, Y., and Varshavski, S. (1984). A phenomeno-
logical model of dry matter partitioning among plant organs for simulation of potato growth.
Agric. Sysrems 14, 159-169.
Flink, M., Pettersson, R., and Andren, 0. (1995). Growth dynamics of winter wheat in the field with
daily fertilization and irrigation. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 174,239-252.
Fried, M., and Broeshart, H. (1967). “The Soil-Plant System.” Academic Press, New York.
Ganmore-Neumann, R., and Kafkafi, U.(1980). Root temperature and percentage NO,/NH, effect on
tomato plant development. I. Morphology and growth. Agron. J. 72,758-761.
Ganmore-Neumann, R., and Kafkafi, U. (1983). The effect of root temperature on NO,/NH, ratio on
strawberry plants. I. Growth, flowering, and root development. Agron. J. 75,941-947.
Gardner, W. H. (1986). Water content. In “Methods of Soil Analysis. Physical and Mineralogical Meth-
ods” (A. Klute, ed.), 2nd Ed., Vol. I, pp. 493-544. Am. SOC.Agron., Madison, WI.
Gardner, W. R. (1960). Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci. 89,63-73.
Gastaldi, C. R., and Sutton, B. G. (1989). Optimizing nitrogen fertilization of vegetable crops by drip
irrigation. Acra Hort. 247,217-221.
Girardin, P. H., Trendel, R., Meyer, J. L., Birgaentzle, M., and Freyss, P. (1993). Effects of conven-
tional and multiple N application by fertigation on maize grain yields and NO,-N residues. Opti-
mization of plant nutrition. In “Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Optimization
Plant Nutrition, 1992, Lisbon,” pp. 411-415. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Glass, A. D. M., and Perky, J. E. (1980). Varietal differences in potassium uptake by barley. Potash
Rev. 12, 1-9.
Goldberg, D., Gornat, B., and Rimon, D. (1976). “Drip trrigation Principles, Design and Agricultural
Practices.” Drip Irrigation Scientific, Kfar Shmariahu, Israel.
Goyal, M. R., Crespo-Ruiz, M., and Rivera, L. E. (1988). Root distribution of nitrogen fertigated sweet
pepper under drip irrigation. J. Agric. Univ. Puerfo Rico 72,5 1-55.
Goyal, M. R., Guadalupa-Luna, R., de Hernandez, E. R., and Chao de Baez, C. (1989). Post harvest eval-
uation of nitrogen fertigated sweet pepper under drip. J. Agric. Univ. Puerfo Rico 73,109-1 14.
Graber, E. R., Gerstl, Z., Fischer, E., and Mingelgrin, U. (1995). Enhanced transport of atrazine under
imgation with effluent. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 59, 1513-1519.
Guennelon, R., Habib, R., and de Cockborne, A. M. (1981). Aspects concerning the availability of N,
Pand K following fertilization in drip irrigation of fruit trees. In “Seminars on Drip Irrigation and
Similar Methods” (Commission des Communautes Europeennes, ed.). Univ. Bologna, Italy. [In
French]
Gustafson, C. D., Marsh, A. W., Branson, R. L., and Davis, S. (1974). Drip irrigation worldwide. Proc.
2nd Int. Drip Irrigation Cong., San Diego, CA, pp. 17-22.
Hadas, A,, and Portnoy, R. (1994). Nitrogen and carbon mineralization rates of composted manures in-
cubated in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 23, 1184-1189.
Hadas, A., Bar-Yosef, B., Davidov, S., and Sofer, M. (1983). Effect of pelleting, temperature, and soil
type on nitrogen release from poultry and dairy manures. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 47, 1129- 1133.
Halevy, J. (1976). Growth rate and nutrient uptake of two cotton cultivars under irrigation. Agron. J.
68,701-705.
Hanks, R. J., and Ashcroft, G. L. (1980). “Applied Soil Physics.” Springer-Verlag, New York.
Harbaugh, B. K., and Wilfret, G. J. (1980). Spray chrysanthemum production with controlled-release
fertilizer and trickle irrigation. J. Am. Soc. Horf. Sci. 105,367-371.
Harbaugh, B. K., Stanley, C. D., Price, J. F., and Jones, J. B. (1989). Irrigation and fertilization man-
agement of cut chrysanthemums. HortScience 24, 150.
Hatfield, J. L., and Fuchs, M. (1990). Evapotranspiration models. In “Management of Farm Irrigation
Systems’’ (G. J. Hoffman, T.A. Howell, and K. H. Solomon, eds.), ASAE Monograph, pp. 33-59.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Haynes, R. J. (1988). Comparison of fertigation with broadcast application of urea-N on levels of avail-
able soil nutrients and on growth and yield of trickle-imgated peppers. Sci. Horf. 35, 189-198.
Haynes, R. J., and Swift, R. S. (1987). Effect of trickle fertigation with three forms of nitrogen on soil
pH, levels of extractable nutrients below the emitters and plant growth. PlanfSoil 102,211-221.
Hedge, D. M., and Srinivas, K. (1991). Growth, yield, nutrient uptake and water use of banana crops
under drip and basin irrigation with N and K fertilization. Tropical Agric. 68,331-334.
Heinen, M. (1997). Dynamics of water and nutrients in closed, recirculating cropping systems in
glasshouse horticulture. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agriculture University, Wageningen.
Hewitt, E. J. (1966). “Sand and Water Culture Methods Used in the Study of Plant Nutrition,” 2nd Ed.
Commonwealth Agriculture Bureaux, Kent, UK.
Hillel, D. (1980). “Fundamentals of Soil Physics.” Academic Press, New York.
Hochmuth, G . J., Albregts, E. E., Chandler, C. C., Cornell, J., and Harrison, J. (1996). Nitrogen ferti-
gation requirement of drip-irrigated strawberries. J. Am. SOC. Horf. Sci. 121,660-665.
Hodgman, C. (1949). “Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.” CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Hoogenboom, G., and Huck, M. G. (1986). ROOTSIMU V4.0. A dynamic simulation of root growth,
water uptake, and biomass partitioning in a soil-plant-atmosphere continuum, update and docu-
mentation, Agronomy and Soils Department Series No. 109. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Hoogenboom, G., Hines, J. W., and Boote, K. J. (1991). A decision support system for prediction of
crop yield, evapotranspiration, and irrigation management. Irrigation and drainage Proc. ASAE,
pp. 198-204.
h a s , P., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1998). Response of lettuce plants grown on different substrates to phos-
phorus fertigation. Acfa Horf. 458, 171-178.
Imas, P., Bar-Yosef, B., Levkovich, I., and Keinan, M. (1996). Orthophosphate solubility in waters of
different ionic composition. Ferfil. Res. 44,73-78.
h a s , P., Bar-Yosef, B., Kakafi, U., and Ganmore-Neumann, R. (1997a). Release of carboxylic anions
and protons by tomato roots in response to ammonium nitrate ratio and pH in nutrient solution.
Planf Soil 191,27-34.
h a s , P.,Bar-Yosef, B., Katkafi, U., and Ganmore-Neumann, P. (1997b). Phosphate induced carboxy-
late and proton release by tomato roots. Planr Soil 191, 35-39.
72 B. BAR-YOSEF
Ingram, K. T., and Hilton, H. W. (1986). Nitrogen-potassium fertilization and soil moisture effects on
growth and development of drip-irrigated sugarcane. Crop Sci. 26, 1034- 1039.
Inskeep, W. P., and Bloom, P. R. (1986). Kinetics of calcite precipitation in the presence of water-sol-
uble organic ligands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50, 1167-1 172.
Itai, C., and Brinbaum, H. (1996). Synthesis of plant growth regulators by roots. In “Plant Roots-The
Hidden Half” (Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, and U. Kafkafi, eds.), 2nd Ed., pp. 273-284. Dekker, New
York.
Jansson, S. L., and Persson, J. (1982). Mineralization and immobilization of soil nitrogen. Agronomy
22,229-252.
Jaworski, C. A., Kays, S. J., and Smittle, D. A. (1978). Effects of nitrogen and potassium fertilization
in trickle irrigation on yield of pepper and polebean. HortScience 13,477-478.
Jones, C . A,, and Kiniry, J. R. (eds.) (1986). “CERES-Maize: A Simulation Model of Maize Growth
and Development.” Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station.
Jones, J. B., Stanley, C. D., Csizinszky, A. A,, Kovach, S. P., and McGuire, R. G. (1988). K and N fer-
tilization rates influence susceptibility of trickle irrigated tomato plants to bacterial spot.
HorfScience23, 1013-1015.
Jungk, A. 0. (1996). Dynamics of nutrient movement at the soil-root interface. In “Plant Roots-The
Hidden Half” (Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, and U. Kafkafi, eds.), 2nd Ed., pp. 581-604. Dekker, New
York.
Kafkafi, U. (1984). Plant nutrition under saline conditions. In “Soil Salinity under Irrigation’’(I. Shain-
berg and J. Shalhevet, eds.), pp. 319-338. Springer-Verlag. Berlin.
Kafkafi, U., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1980). Trickle irrigation and fertilization of tomatoes in highly cal-
careous soils. Agron. J. 72,893-897.
Karlen, D. L., Camp, C. R., and Robbins, L. (1985). Fresh market tomato response to N and K fertil-
ization and water management practices. Commun. Soil Sci. Plunr Null: 16,71-8 1.
Katou, H., Clothier, B. E., and Green, S. R. (1996). Anion transport involving competitive adsorption
during transient water flow in an Andisol. Soil Sci. SOC. Am. J. 60, 1368-1375.
Keng, J. C. W., Scott, T. W., and Lugo-Lopez, M. A. (1979). Fertilizer management with drip irriga-
tion in an oxisol. Agron. J . 71,971-980.
Keshavaiah, K. V., and Kumaraswamy, A. S. (1993). Fertigation and water use in potato under furrow
and drip irrigation. J. Ind. Potato Assoc. 20,240-244.
Kjelgren, R., Goldhamer, D. A., Uriu, K., and Weinbaum, S. A. (1985). Almond tree response to vari-
able nitrogen fertilization rates through low volume sprinklers. Proc. 3rd Int. DriplTrickle Imga-
tion Cong., Fresno, CA, Vol. I, pp. 377-381.
Klein, I., and Spieler, G. (1987). Fertigation of apples with nitrate and ammonium nitrogen under drip
irrigation. I. Tree performance. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 18,311-322.
Koo, R. C. J., and Smajstrla. A. 0. (1984). Effect of trickle irrigation and fertigation on fruit produc-
tion and juice quality of Valencia orange. Proc. Florida State Hort. SOC.,Vol. 97, pp. 8-10,
Kraffczyk, I., Trolldenier, G., and Beringer, H. (1984). Soluble root exudates of maize: Influence of
potassium supply and rhizosphere microorganisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 16,3 15-322.
Lafolie, F., Guennelon, R., and van Genuchten, M. Th. ( I 989). Analysis of water flow under trickle ir-
rigation: 11. Experimental evaluation. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 53, 1318-1323.
Lafolie, F., Bruckler, L., de Cockbome, A. M., and Laboucarie, C. (1997). Modeling the water trans-
port and nitrogen dynamics in irrigated salad crops. Irrig. Sci. 17,95-104.
Lahav. E., and Kalmar, D. (1988). Response of banana to drip irrigation, water amounts and fertiliza-
tion regimes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19,25-46.
Lavon, R., Emer, Y., Shapziski, S., and Mohel, E. (1995). The effect of K fertigation with different N
forms on the yield and fruit size of “Shamouti” oranges. In “Proceedings of the Dahlia Greidinger
International Symposium on Fertigation,” pp. 35-77. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Legaz, F., Ibanez, R.,Barreda, D. G. de, and Primo Millo, E. (1983). Influence of irrigation and fertil-
ization on productivity of the “Navelate” sweet orange. Proc. Int. SOC.Citriculture, 1981, Vol. 2,
pp. 591-595.
Legg, J. O., and Meisinger, J. J. (1982). Soil nitrogen budget. Agronomy 22,503-566.
Lindsay, W. L. (1979). “Chemical Equilibria in Soils.” Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Locasio, S. J . , Myers, J. M., and Martin, F. G. ( I 977). Frequency and rate of fertilization with trickle
irrigation for strawberries. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102,456-458.
Marani. A., Cardon, G., and Phene, C. J. (1992). CALGOS, a version of GOSSYM adapted for im-
gated cotton. 1. Drip irrigation, soil water transport and root growth. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf.,
Nashville, TN, Vol. 3, pp. 1352-1357.
Marschner, H. (1995). “Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants,” 2nd Ed. Academic Press, New York.
Martinez Hernandez, J. J., Bar-Yosef, B., and Kafkafi, U. (1991). Effect of surface and subsurface
drip fertigation on sweet corn rooting, uptake, dry matter production and yield. Irrig. Sci. 12,
153-159.
Mass, E. V. (1986). Salt tolerance of plants. Appl. Agric. Res. 1, 12-26.
McMichael, B. L., and Burke, J. J. (1996). Temperature effects on root growth. In “Plant Roots-The
Hidden Half” (Y.Waisel, A. Eshel, and U. Kafkafi, eds.), 2nd Ed., pp. 383-396. Dekker, New
York.
McPharlin, I. R., Aylmore, P. M., and Jeffery, R. C. (1995). Nitrogen requirements of lettuce under
sprinkler irrigation and trickle fertigation on a Speanvood sand. J. Plant Nurr. 18,219-241.
Meiri, A,, and Plaut, 2. (1985). Crop production and management under saline conditions. Plurzl Soil
89,253 -27 I .
Mengel. K., and Kirkby, E. A. ( I 987). “Principles of Plant Nutrition,” 4th Ed. International Potash In-
stitute, Bern, Switzerland.
Mikkelsen, R. L., and Jarrel, W. M. (1987). Application of urea phosphate and urea sulfate to drip-ir-
rigated tomatoes grown in calcareous soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J . 51,464-468.
Miller, R., Rolston, D. E., Rauschkolb, R. S., and Wolfe, D. W. (1976). Drip application of nitrogen is
efficient. Cul(jbrnin Agric. 30, 16-18.
Mizrahi, Y., Taleisnik, E., Kagan-Zur, V., Zohar, Y., Offenbach, R., Matan, E., and Golan, R. (1988). A
saline irrigation regime for improving tomato fruit quality without reducing yield. J. Am. Suc.
Hort. Sci. 113,202-205.
Molina, J. A. E., Clapp, C. E., Shaffer, M. J., Chichester, F. W., and Larson, W. E. (1983). NCSOIL, a
model of nitrogen and carbon transformations in soils: Description, calibration and behavior. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47,85-91.
Morard, P. (1996). Possible use of selective electrodes for nutrient solutions in recirculated systems.
Proc. ISOSC 9th Int. Congr. Soilless Culture, pp. 291 -298.
Mualern, Y.,and Friedman, S. P. (1991). Theoretical prediction of electrical conductivity in saturated
and unsaturated soil. Water Resour. Res. 27,277 1-2177.
Muljadi, D., Posner, A. M., and Quirk, J. P. (1966). The mechanism of phosphate adsorption by kaoli-
nite, gibbsite and pseudoboehmite. The effect of temperature on adsorption. J. Soil Sci. 17,
212-247.
Nakayama, F. S., and Bucks, D. A. (eds.) (1986). “Trickle Irrigation for Crop Production,” p. 383. El-
sevier, Amsterdam.
Neary, P. E., Storlie, C. A,, and Paterson, J . W. (1995). Fertilization requirement for drip-irrigated bell
peppers grown on loamy sand soils. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Orlando, FL, pp.
187-193.
Neilsen, G. H., Stevenson, D. S., Fitzpatrick, J. J., and Brownlee, C. H. (l989a). Nutrition and yield of
young apple trees irrigated with municipal waste water. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114,377-383.
Neilsen, G. H., Stevenson, D. S., and Fitzpatrick, J . J. (1989b). The effect of municipal wastewater ir-
rigation and rate of N fertilization on petiole composition, yield and quality of Okanagan Ries-
ling grapes. Cun.J. Plant. Sci. 69, 1285- 1294. [In French]
74 B. BAR-YOSEF
Neilsen, G. H., Parchomchuk, P., Hogue, E. J., Wolk, W. D., and Lau, 0. L. (1994). Response of apple
trees to fertigation-induced soil acidification. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74,347-351.
Neilsen, G. H., Parchomchuk, P., and Berard, R. (1995). NP fertigation and irrigation affect potassium
nutrition of newly planted apple trees. Acta Hort. 383,57-65.
Nissen, P. (1996). Uptake mechanisms. In “Plant Roots-The Hidden Half” (Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, and
U. Kafkafi, eds.), 2nd Ed., pp. 51 1-527. Dekker, New York.
Noborio, K., McInnes, K. J., and Heilman, J. L. (1996). TWO-dimensional model for water, heat and
solute transport in furrow-irrigated soil: II. Field evaluation. Soil Sci. SOC.A m J. 60,1010-1021.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (1991). Drip fertigation systems, Leaflet No. 33-D.
Norvell, W. A. (1972). Equilibria of metal chelates in soil solution. In “Micronutrients in Agriculture”
(J. J. Mortvedt, P. M. Giordano, and W. L. Lindsay, eds.), pp. 115-138. Soil Sci. SOC.Am., Madi-
son, WI.
Nye, €? H., andTinker, P. B. (1977). “Solute Movement in the Soil-Root System.”Blackwell Sci., Ox-
ford.
Olsen, S. R., and Kemper, W. D. (1968). Movement of nutrients to plant roots. Adv. Agron. 20,91-15 1.
Oron, G., Ben-Asher, J., and DeMalach, J. (1982). Effluent in trickle irrigation of cotton in arid zones.
J. Irrig. Drain. Div. Am. SOC.Civil Eng. 108, 115-126.
Orphanos, P. I., and Eliades, G. (1992). Nitrogen fertigation of Valencia orange irrigated by drip or
minisprinkler. Acta Hort. 365, 105-120.
Ostermeier, K.A., Watts, D. G., Boldt, A. L., Eisenhauer, D. E., and Schepers, J. S. (1992). Verifica-
tion of fertigation model for surge irrigation. Am. SOC.Ag. Eng. (No. 92-2519), 29.
Oswiecimski, W. (1984). Effect of programmed fertilization on the growth of tomatoes cultivated in
different substrates and size of containers. Acta Hort. 145,59-65.
Page, A. L. (ed.) (1982). “Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties,”
2nd Ed., Agronomy No. 9. Am. SOC.Agron., Madison, WI.
Papadopoulos, I. (1987). Nitrogen fertigation of greenhouse-grown tomato. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal. 18,897-907.
Papadopoulos, I. (1988). Nitrogen fertigation of trickle-irrigated potato. Fertil. Res. 16, 157-167.
Papadopoulos, I. (1992). Phosphorus fertigation of trickle-irrigated potato. Fertil. Res. 31,9-13.
Phene, C. J., and Howell, T. A. (1984). Soil sensor control of high frequency irrigation. Trans. ASAE
27,392-396.
Phene, C. J., Rose, J. L., Chavez, R. L., and Robb, D. J. (1982). Subsurface trickle irrigation and fer-
tilization of processing tomatoes. In “DriplTrickle Irrigation. Winter 1982,” pp. 5-7. Agribusi-
ness, Fresno, CA.
Phene,C. J., Bar-Yosef, B., Hutmacher, R. B., Patton, S. H., Davis, K. R., andMcCormick, R. L. (1986).
Fertilization of high yielding subsurface trickle irrigated tomatoes. Proc. 34th Annu. Calif. Fer-
tilizer Conf., Fresno, CA, California Fertilizer Assoc., pp. 33-43.
Phene, C. J., Hutmacher, R. B., Davis, K. R., and McCormick, R. L. (1990a). Water-fertilizer man-
agement of processing tomatoes. Act Hort. 277, 137-143.
Phene, C. J., Reginato, R. J., Itier, B., and Tanner, B. R. (1990b). Sensing irrigation needs. In “Man-
agement of Farm Irrigation Systems (J. H. Hoffman, T. A. Howell, and K. H. Solomon, ed~.),pp.
207-261. Am. SOC.Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Phene, C. J., Davis, K. R., Hutmacher, R. B., Bar-Yosef, B., Meek, D. W., and Misaki, J. (1991). Ef-
fect of high frequency surface and subsurface drip irrigation on root distribution of sweet corn.
Irrig. Sci. 12, 135-140.
Pier, J. W., and Doerge, T.A. (1995). Nitrogen and water interactions in trickle-imgated watermelon.
Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 59, 145-150.
Plaut, Z., and Meiri, A. (1988). Effect of salinity in irrigation water on yield and fruit quality of green-
house grown tomatoes during the winter. Israel Agric. Res. 2,79-97. [In Hebrew]
Plaut, Z., Carmi, A., and Grava, A. (1988). Cotton growth and production under drip-irrigation re-
stricted soil wetting. Irrig. Sci. 9, 143-156.
Pomares, F., Estela, M., and Tarazona, F. (1992). Nitrogen fertilization of strawberries in Valencia
planted in the autumn with drip and furrow irrigation. Invest. Agraria Production Protection Veg-
etables 7 , 195-207. [In Spanish]
Rauschkolb, R. S., Rolston, D. E., Miller, R. J., Carlton, A. B., and Burau, R. G. (1979). Phosphorus
fertilization with drip irrigation. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. J. 40,68-72.
Ravikovitch, S., and Yoles, D. (1971). The influence of phosphorus and nitrogen on millet and clover
growing in soil affected by salinity. I. Plant development. Plant Soil 35,555-567.
Ravina, I., Paz, E., Sofer, Z., Marcus, A., Schischa, A,, and Sagi, G. (1992). Control of emitter clog-
ging in drip irrigation with reclaimed wastewater. Irrig. Sci. 13, 129-139.
Rhoades, J. D., and Oster, J. D. (1986). Solute content. In “Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I” (A. Klute,
ed.), 2nd Ed., Agronomy No. 9985-1006. Am. SOC.Agron., Madison, WI.
Richards, S. J. (1965). Soil suction measurements with tensiometers. In “Methods of Soil Analysis.
Part I.” (C. A. Black, ed.), Agronomy No. 9153-163. Am. SOC.Agron., Madison, WI.
Robinson, T. L., and Stiles, W. C. (1993). Fertigation of young apple trees to maximize tree growth,
fruit production and profitability. Compact Fruit Tree 26,61-65.
Rolston, D. E., Rauschkolb, R. S., Phene, C. J., Miller, R. J., Uriu, K., Carlson, R. M., and Henderson,
D. W. (1979). Applying nutrients and other chemicals to trickle irrigated crops, Bulletin No. 1893,
University of California.
Rolston, D. E., Miller, R. J., and Schulbach, H. (1986). Fertilization. In “Trickle Irrigation for Crop
Production” (F. S. Nakayama and D. A. Bucks, eds.), pp. 317-344. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Rosenthal, W. D., Vanderlip, R. L., Jackson, B. S., Arkin, G. F. (1989). SORKAM: A grain sorghum
growth model, TAES computer software documentation Ser. No. MP-1669. Texas Agric. Exp.
Stn., College Station.
Rudich, J., Sagiv, B., Geisenberg, H., Gera, G., Feigin, A,, Ohayon, M., Kalmar, D., and Albo-Yaron,
A. (1982). Response of processing tomatoes to nitrogen fertilization applied through trickle irri-
gation. Hussadeh 63,52-56. [In Hebrew]
Sagi, G., Paz, E., Ravina, I., Schicha, A., Marcus, A., and Yechieli, Z. (1995). Clogging of drip irriga-
tion systems by colonial protozoa and sulfur bacteria. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Or-
lando, FL, pp. 250-254.
Sagiv, B., Bar-Yosef, B., and Kafkafi, U. (1977). “Drip Irrigation and Fertilization in Besor: Bell Pep-
per.” Agriculture Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Sagiv, B., Bar-Yosef, B., Kafkafi, U., and Mini, A. (1978). Fertilization and manuring on sprinkle-irri-
gated fields of pepper vs. fertilization via a trickle irrigation system, Report No. 763. Institute of
Soils and Water, Agricultural Research Organization, Division of Scientific Publications, Bet Da-
gan, Israel. [In Hebrew]
Sagiv, B., Bar-Yosef, B., and Eliah, E. (1980). Drip irrigation and fertilization of spring muskmelon at
Besor, Pub. No. 17. Division of Scientific Publications, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. [In
Hebrew]
Sagiv, B., Bar-Yosef, B., Eliah, E., and Mini, A. (1983). Response of sweet corn to trickle irrigation
and N fertilization under drip and sprinkle irrigation, Report No. 301/064. Agricultural Research
Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Sagiv, B., Feigin, A,, Hadas, A,, Keinan, M., and Markovich, T. (1992). Response of drip imgated Chi-
nese cabbage to manure and municipal refuse composts and inorganic N fertilization, Report No.
301- 154-90. Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Sagiv, B., Bar-Yosef, B., Hadas, A., Soriano, S., and Levkovich, I. (1995). Response of drip imgated
carrot (cv. Buror) to manure and municipal refuse composts and inorganic N fertilization, Report
No. 301-504-90. Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Saksema, R. S. (1995). Microirrigation in India-Achievement and prospective. Proc. 5th Int. Mi-
croirrigation Congr., Orlando, FL, pp. 353-358.
Seginer, I. (1989). Optimal greenhouse production under economic constrains. Agric. Syst. 29,
67-80.
76 B. BAR-YOSEF
Shainberg, I. (1992). Chemical and mineralogical components of crusting. In ‘‘Soil Crusting. Chemi-
cal and Physical Processes” (M. E. Sumner and B. A. Stewart, eds.), pp. 33-54. Lewis, London.
Shainberg, I., and Oster, J. D. (1978). “Quality of Irrigation Water.” International Irrigation Informa-
tion Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Shalhevet, J., Mantell, A,, Bielorai, H., and Shimshi, D. (1981). Irrigation of field and orchard crops
under arid conditions, Publ. I . Int. Inig. Information Center (IIIC), Bet Dagan, Israel.
Shevah, Y., and Waldman, M. (1989). Advances in management of fertilizer application and the re-
sulting effect on the pollution load in soil. In “Inorganic Contaminants in the Vadose Zone” (B.
Bar-Yosef, N. J. Barrow, and J. Goldshmid, eds.), pp. 179-189. Springer-Verlag. New York.
Silberbush, M., Ben-Asher, J., Kaflcafi, U., and Lips, S. H. (1985). Fertigation of peanuts grown in
sandy dunes and irrigated by trickling with saline water. In “Proceedings of the 3rd International
DriplTrickle Irrigation Congress, Fresno, CA,” Vol. 2, pp. 652-658. Agribusiness, Fresno.
Sinclair, T. R., and Muchow, R. C. ( I 99.5). Effect of nitrogen supply on maize yield: I. Modeling phys-
iological responses. Agron. J . 87,632-641.
Singh. S. D., Gupta, J. P., and Singh, P. (1978). Water economy and saline water use by drip irrigation.
Agron. J. 70,948-95 1.
Slangen, J. H. G., Titilaer, H. H. H., and Glas, W. (1988). The importance of fertigation for the im-
provement of N-fertilizer use efficiency in lettuce culture. Acra Horr. 222, 135-146.
Sneh, M. (1995). The history of fertigation in Israel. In “Proceedings of the Dahlia Greidinger Inter-
national Symposium on Fertigation,” pp. 1-10. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Sonneveld, C. ( 1995). Fertigation in the greenhouse industry. In “Proceedings of the Dahlia Greidinger
International Symposium on Fertigation,” pp. 121- 140. Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Sparks, D. L. (1986). Kinetics of reactions in pure and mixed systems. In “Soil Physical Chemistry”
(D. L. Sparks, ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Sposito, G. (1984). “The Surface Chemistry of Soils.” Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
Sposito, G. (1989). “The Chemistry of Soils.” Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
Stanford, G., and Smith, S. J. (1972). Nitrogen mineralization potential of soils. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. Proc.
36,465-472.
Stanhill, G. (1985). Water use efficiency. Adv. Agron. 39,53-85.
Steffen, K. L., Dann, M. S., Harper, J. K., Fleischer, S. J., Mkhize, S. S., Grenoble, D. W., Macnab,
A. A., Fager, K., and Russo, J. M. (1995). Evaluation of the initial season for implementation of
four tomato production systems. J. Am. SOC.Hort. Sci. 120, 148- 156.
Steiner, A. A. (1996). Principles of plant nutrition by a recirculated nutrient solution. Proc. ISOSC 9th
Int. Congr. Soilless Culture, pp. 505-513.
Sumner, M. E., and Stewart, B. A. (eds.) (1992). “Soil Crusting. Chemical and Physical Processes.”
Lewis, London.
Sundin, P., Waechter-Kristensen, B., Mari, S. Y., Gertsson, U. E., Hagton, U., Jensen, P., Lund, J.,
Knutsson, M., Jonsson, J., and Mathiasson, M. (1996). Phytotoxic organic compounds in the cir-
culating nutrient solution of a closed, hydrophonic tomato culture. Proc. ISOSC 9th Int. Congr.
Soilless Culture, pp. 523-533.
Swietlik, D. (1992). Yield, growth and mineral nutrition of young “Ray Ruby” grapefruit trees under
trickle or flood irrigation and various nitrogen rates. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117,22-27.
Tarchitzky, J., Chen, Y., and Banin, A. (1993). Humic substances and pH effects on sodium and calci-
um montmorillonite flocculation and dispersion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57,367-372.
Threadgill, E. D., Eisenhaur, D. E., Young, J. R., and Bar-Yosef, B. (1990). Chemigation. In “Man-
agement of Farm Irrigation Systems” ( J . H. Hoffman, T. A. Howell, and K. H. Solomon, eds.),
pp. 749-780. Am. SOC.Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Timlin, D., Acock, B., and van Genuchten, R. (eds.) (1996). “2DSOIL-A Modular Simulation of Soil
and Root Processes. Release 03.” Remote Sensing and Modeling Lab., USDA, Beltsville,
MDlSoil Salinity Lab., USDA, Riverside, CA.
Tucker, B., and Hagin, J. (1982). “Fertilization ofDryland and Irrigated Soils.” Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Unu, K., Carlson, R. M., and Henderson, D. W. (1977). Application of potassium fertilizers to prunes
through a drip irrigation system. Proc. 7th Int. Agric. Plastics Congr., San Diego, pp. 21 1-214.
Uriu, K., Carlson, R. M., Henderson, D. W., Schulbach, H., and Aldrich, T. M. (1980). Potassium fer-
tilization of prune trees under drip irrigation. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. J. 105,508-510.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils, USDA
Agric. Handbook No. 60. USDA, Washington, DC.
van Keulen, H., and Dayan, E. (eds.) (1993). TOMGRO-A greenhouse-tomato simulation model,
CABO-DLO, Simulation Report No. 29. Center for Agrobiological Research, Wageningen Agri-
cultural University, Wageningen.
Vera, J., and de la Pena, J. M. (1995). FERTIGA-Acomputer program for fruit tree fertigation. Proc.
5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Orlando, FL, pp. 194-199.
Wagenet, R. J., and Hudson, J . L. (1987). “LEACHM: Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model.”
Center for Environmental Research, Comell University, Ithaca, NY.
Wall, T. E., Hochmuth, G. J., and Hanlon, E. A. (1989). Calibration of Mehlich-I and -111 extractable
potassium for polyethylene-mulched, drip-irrigated cauliflower. Pmc. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Flori-
da 48,46-49.
Wallerstein, I. S., Bar-Yosef, B., Sagiv, B., Lobel, R., and Schiffmann, J . (1982). Effects of trickle ir-
rigation rate and interval and of fertilization level on rhizobium-inoculated peanuts. Proc. Am.
Peanut Res. Educ. SOC.,Vol. 14, p. 98.
Warrick, A. W. (1986). Design principles. Soil water distribution. I n “Trickle Irrigation for Crop Pro-
duction” (F. s.Nakayama and D. A. Bucks, eds.), pp. 93-1 16. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Weast, R.C. (1977). “CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Ph ’ CRC Press, Cleveland. OH.
Williams, M., and Yanai, R. D. (1996). Multi-dimensional vity analysis of ecological implica-
tions of a nutrient uptake model. Planr Soil 180,31 1 -324.
Worley, R. E., Daniel, J. W., Dutcher, J. D., Harrison, K., and Mullinix, B. G. ( I 995). A long term com-
parison of broadcast application versus drip fertigation of nitrogen for mature pecan trees. Horr-
Technology 5,43-47.
Wu, I. P. (1995). A simple optimal microirrigation scheduling. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation Congr.,
Orlando. FL, pp. 781 -786.
Yanuka, M., Leshem, Y., and Dovrat. A. ( I 982). Forage corn response to several trickle irrigation and
fertilization regimes. Agron. J. 74,736-740.
Yarwood, C. E. (1978). Water and the infection process. In “Water Deficit and Plant Growth” (T. T.
Kozlowski, ed.), Vol. 5 , pp. 141-165. Academic Press, New York.
Zaslavsky, D., and Mokady, R. S . (1967). Nonuniforni distribution of phosphorus fertilizers: An ana-
lytical approach. Soil Sci. 104, 1-6.
Zazueta, F. S., Clark, G. A., Smajstrla, A. G., and Carrillo, M. (1995). A simple equation to estimate
soil-water movement from a drip irrigation source. Proc. 5th Int. Microirrigation Congr., Orlan-
do, FL.. pp. 85 1-856.

Bar Yosef1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Yosef1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFERTIGATION

Agricultural areas under microirrigation are expanding almost linearily with

The main advantages of microfertigation over microirrigation combined with

World (ha) United States (ha)

"After Bucks (1995).

II. OVERVIEW OF PAST TRENDS IN FERTIGATION

Crop System Studied Location Reference

Crop System Studied Location Reference

N,K drip furrow fert Brazil Canijoeral. (1983)

Crop System Studied Location Reference

P drip-fertigated sweet corn gave a significantly higher yield than drip-irrigated

Figure 2 Model computations [Eq.(3)] of two-dimensionalaxisymmetrical nonreactive salt con-

D. REDUCING SALNTY HAZARDS

The effective means of controlling solute concentrations in restricted soil root

c, mMP SR SSR Av SR SSR Av

Sweet corn (tonha)

In. PRINCIPLES OF FERTIGATION

Fertigation management is aimed at maximizing growers’ income and mini-

been initiated to link economic and agronomic considerations by optimizing CO,

Fmax[(mol cm-' s-I) x 1013] K, [(mol liter-') x 10'7

"Assuming root radius = 0.02 cm.

C. LMPLICATION OF THERELATIONSHIPSBETWEEN UPTAKE

shart, 1967;Fishman and Bar-Yosef, 1995).Another application of Eq. (4) is to es-

Pepper Nb 14.0 550 Unstirred solution 1

"Assumed root radius = 0.02 cm.

tions or in growth substrates. In such circumstances, K , is expressed as a con-

D. COUPLING AND INTENSITY

E. ROOT GROWTHAND DISTRIBUTION

Root growth depends on transport of carbohydrates and hormones from the

% of total dry root wt

Sweet corn Muskmelon

Lateral distance (cm)d

Relative root density (W)

Source: Bar-Yosef and Sagiv (1985).

1. Carboxylate and Proton Release by Roots

Sorption comprises three chemical reactions that coexist in soils: adsorption

S 0L UTI0 N NH4/(NH4+N 0,)

Adsorption involves chemical and electrical forces induced by charged and

Here A is total P adsorption (mol/kg), K is the affinity of adsorbing species to the

3. Transport of Ions in Soil toward Roots

1. Use of Marginal Water in Fertigation

a. Effect on Soil Physical Properties

b. Salinity Effects on Plant Growth

c. Toxicity of Particular Element to Plants

2. Recycled Municipal Effluents

Constituent Unit Municipal effluents" Freshwater

TSS mgAiter 10-100 (30) -

Source: Feigin et al. (1991).

3. Recycled Greenhouse Solutions

Principles of fertigation should be similar in greenhouses and in open fields.

Most root exudates are expected to be consumed by nonpathogenic microflora,

N.MANAGING CROP FERTIGATION

The suitability of given nutrient concentrations in the irrigation water can be

Days after Bell pepper

"Grown under sprinkler inigation and broadcast fertilization.

1-10 0.15 0.17 0.74 0.02 0.50 0.45 0.15

Days after Bell pepper

1-10 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

"Grown under sprinkler irrigation and broadcast fertilization.

1-10 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.03

Days after Bell pepper

1-10 0.10 2.00 0.40 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.1

"Grown under sprinkler irrigation and broadcast fertilization.