| Literature DB >> 31277420 |
Romina de Souza1, M Teresa Peña-Fleitas2, Rodney B Thompson2,3, Marisa Gallardo2,3, Rafael Grasso4, Francisco M Padilla2,3.
Abstract
Chlorophyll meters are promising tools for improving the nitrogen (N) management of vegetable crops. To facilitate on-farm use of these meters, sufficiency values that identify deficient and sufficient crop N status are required. This work evaluated the ability of three chlorophyll meters (SPAD-502, atLEAF+, and MC-100) to assess crop N status in sweet pepper. It also determined sufficiency values for optimal N nutrition for each meter for pepper. The experimental work was conducted in a greenhouse, in Almería, Spain, very similar to those used for commercial production, in three different crops grown with fertigation. In each crop, there were five treatments of different N concentration in the nutrient solution, applied in each irrigation, ranging from a very deficient to very excessive N supply. In general, chlorophyll meter measurements were strongly related to crop N status in all phenological stages of the three crops, indicating that these measurements are good indicators of the crop N status of pepper. Sufficiency values determined for each meter for the four major phenological stages were consistent between the three crops. This demonstrated the potential for using these meters with sufficiency values to improve the N management of commercial sweet pepper crops.Entities:
Keywords: CCI; SPAD; atLEAF; greenhouse; horticulture; nitrogen nutrition index; proximal optical sensors; vegetable crops
Year: 2019 PMID: 31277420 PMCID: PMC6650809 DOI: 10.3390/s19132949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Mineral N (NO3−–N + NH4+–N) concentration in the nutrient solution and mineral N amount applied in fertigation in the three sweet pepper crops.
| 2014 | 2016 | 2017 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N Treatment | N Concentration (mmol L−1) | N Amount (kg ha−1) | N Concentration (mmol L−1) | N Amount (kg ha−1) | N Concentration (mmol L−1) | N Amount (kg ha−1) |
| N1—Very deficient | 2.4 | 64 | 2.0 | 88 | 2.0 | 86 |
| N2—Deficient | 6.2 | 189 | 5.3 | 302 | 5.7 | 304 |
| N3—Conventional | 12.6 | 516 | 9.7 | 561 | 9.7 | 519 |
| N4—Excessive | 16.1 | 804 | 13.5 | 1052 | 13.1 | 870 |
| N5—Very excessive | 20.0 | 990 | 17.7 | 1320 | 16.7 | 1198 |
Figure 1Temporal dynamics of the nitrogen nutrition index (NNI) for the sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops in the (a) 2014, (b) 2016, and (c) 2017 crops, subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (±SE). DAT is days after transplanting. Vertical dotted lines represent the different phenological stages; the horizontal dotted line indicates NNI = 1.
Integrated nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) values for each N treatment within each phenological stage in each of the three sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops. Different lower-case letters (a–d) show significant differences between N treatments within each phenological stage and crop, after the least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test of ANOVA. p-value < 0.001. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (SE). Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions.
| Phenological Stage | Treatment | 2014 Crop | 2016 Crop | 2017 Crop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetative | N1 | 0.82 ± 0.02a | 0.65 ± 0.04a | 0.64 ± 0.03a |
| N2 | 0.94 ± 0.02b | 0.79 ± 0.04b | 0.80 ± 0.03b | |
| N3 | 1.06 ± 0.02c | 0.88 ± 0.02c | 0.92 ± 0.02c | |
| N4 | 1.12 ± 0.02d | 0.98 ± 0.01d | 1.05 ± 0.02d | |
| N5 | 1.12 ± 0.01d | 1.01 ± 0.02d | 1.05 ± 0.02d | |
| Flowering | N1 | 0.59 ± 0.01a | 0.62 ± 0.04a | 0.59 ± 0.02a |
| N2 | 0.80 ± 0.02b | 0.89 ± 0.03b | 0.82 ± 0.02b | |
| N3 | 1.11 ± 0.02c | 0.92 ± 0.03b | 1.05 ± 0.03c | |
| N4 | 1.13 ± 0.01c | 1.06 ± 0.03c | 1.07 ± 0.02c | |
| N5 | 1.11 ± 0.02c | 1.10 ± 0.02c | 1.08 ± 0.02c | |
| Early fruit growth | N1 | 0.58 ± 0.03a | 0.62 ± 0.05a | 0.51 ± 0.02a |
| N2 | 0.81 ± 0.02b | 0.85 ± 0.01b | 0.74 ± 0.02b | |
| N3 | 1.03 ± 0.03c | 0.99 ± 0.01c | 1.02 ± 0.01c | |
| N4 | 1.09 ± 0.01cd | 1.11 ± 0.03d | 1.09 ± 0.01d | |
| N5 | 1.10 ± 0.00d | 1.11 ± 0.03d | 1.12 ± 0.02d | |
| Harvest | N1 | 0.56 ± 0.02a | 0.74 ± 0.01a | 0.51 ± 0.02a |
| N2 | 0.77 ± 0.01b | 0.93 ± 0.01b | 0.77 ± 0.01b | |
| N3 | 0.99 ± 0.00c | 1.01 ± 0.02c | 0.96 ± 0.02c | |
| N4 | 1.02 ± 0.01cd | 1.07 ± 0.02d | 1.05 ± 0.01d | |
| N5 | 1.03 ± 0.00d | 1.03 ± 0.02cd | 1.05 ± 0.02d |
Figure 2Temporal dynamics of chlorophyll meters measurements of SPAD values (a–c), atLEAF values (d,e), and CCI values (f), for the sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. Vertical dotted lines and numbers represent the different phenological stages: 1—vegetative, 2—flowering, 3—early fruit growth, 4—harvest. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (SE). DAT is days after transplanting.
Integrated SPAD (SPADi) values for each N treatment within each phenological stage in each of the three sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops. Different lower-case letters (a–d) show significant differences between N treatments within each phenological stage and crop, after LSD post-hoc test of ANOVA. p-value < 0.001. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (SE). Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions.
| Phenological Stage | Treatment | 2014 Crop | 2016 Crop | 2017 Crop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetative | N1 | 45.0 ± 0.1a | 42.5 ± 0.2a | 40.8 ± 0.2a |
| N2 | 47.3 ± 0.3b | 46.4 ± 0.8b | 44.7 ± 0.9b | |
| N3 | 50.2 ± 0.4c | 47.3 ± 0.7bc | 50.8 ± 0.7c | |
| N4 | 51.2 ± 0.6cd | 48.6 ± 0.6bc | 52.0 ± 0.4c | |
| N5 | 52.0 ± 0.5d | 49.5 ± 1.1c | 51.8 ± 0.7c | |
| Flowering | N1 | 47.7 ± 0.7a | 51.1 ± 0.7a | 45.8 ± 0.5a |
| N2 | 52.5 ± 0.1b | 57.6 ± 0.4b | 50.9 ± 0.4b | |
| N3 | 57.9 ± 0.5c | 59.5 ± 0.5c | 55.2 ± 0.5c | |
| N4 | 58.8 ± 0.2cd | 61.4 ± 0.4d | 55.8 ± 0.6c | |
| N5 | 59.6 ± 039d | 61.3 ± 0.4d | 55.8 ± 0.3c | |
| Early fruit growth | N1 | 49.8 ± 1.0a | 55.9 ± 0.6a | 45.7 ± 0.5a |
| N2 | 59.1 ± 0.3b | 59.4 ± 0.4b | 54.7 ± 0.2b | |
| N3 | 64.5 ± 0.4c | 62.5 ± 0.7c | 61.8 ± 0.7c | |
| N4 | 65.5 ± 0.4cd | 64.5 ± 0.2d | 62.4 ± 0.5c | |
| N5 | 67.0 ± 0.4d | 65.2 ± 0.3d | 62.7 ± 0.4c | |
| Harvest | N1 | 52.7 ± 1.2a | 54.9 ± 0.7a | 43.2 ± 0.8a |
| N2 | 63.2 ± 0.3b | 59.7 ± 0.3b | 51.2 ± 1.9b | |
| N3 | 67.4 ± 0.3c | 62.4 ± 0.2c | 55.9 ± 1.6c | |
| N4 | 69.3 ± 0.2d | 63.0 ± 0.4cd | 62.3 ± 0.6d | |
| N5 | 70.0 ± 0.3d | 63.7 ± 0.4d | 62.3 ± 1.0d |
Integrated atLEAF (atLEAFi) values for each N treatment within each phenological stage in the two sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops. Different lower-case letters (a–d) show significant differences between treatments within each phenological stage and crop, after LSD post-hoc test of ANOVA. p-value < 0.001. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (SE). Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions.
| Phenological Stage | Treatment | 2016 Crop | 2017 Crop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetative | N1 | 45.1 ± 0.6a | 42.7 ± 0.3a |
| N2 | 46.8 ± 0.6ab | 46.1 ± 0.6b | |
| N3 | 48.4 ± 0.4bc | 51.3 ± 0.4c | |
| N4 | 50.1 ± 0.7cd | 51.6 ± 0.4c | |
| N5 | 51.0 ± 1.1d | 52.4 ± 0.6c | |
| Flowering | N1 | 48.2 ± 0.6a | 46.7 ± 0.4a |
| N2 | 53.2 ± 0.3b | 50.2 ± 0.4b | |
| N3 | 54.3 ± 0.2b | 53.5 ± 0.3c | |
| N4 | 55.8 ± 0.3c | 54.5 ± 0.3d | |
| N5 | 55.9 ± 0.2c | 54.5 ± 0.2d | |
| Early fruit growth | N1 | 53.8 ± 0.6a | 46.5 ± 0.7a |
| N2 | 56.7 ± 0.6b | 53.0 ± 0.4b | |
| N3 | 58.8 ± 0.6c | 58.1 ± 0.4c | |
| N4 | 59.4 ± 0.1cd | 58.0 ± 0.6c | |
| N5 | 60.3 ± 0.2d | 58.2 ± 0.2c | |
| Harvest | N1 | 53.4 ± 0.3a | 43.1 ± 0.8a |
| N2 | 56.3 ± 0.4b | 49.2 ± 0.8b | |
| N3 | 57.2 ± 0.2bc | 52.2 ± 0.8c | |
| N4 | 57.3 ± 0.2c | 55.9 ± 0.4d | |
| N5 | 58.0 ± 0.2c | 55.6 ± 0.4d |
Integrated CCI (CCIi) values for each N treatment within each phenological stage in the 2017 sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crop. Different lower-case letters (a–d) show significant differences between N treatments within each phenological stage, after LSD post-hoc test of ANOVA. p-value < 0.001. Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error (SE). The crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions.
| Phenological Stage | Treatment |
|
|---|---|---|
| Vegetative | N1 | 22.3 ± 0.5a |
| N2 | 29.1 ± 1.5b | |
| N3 | 40.5 ± 1.4c | |
| N4 | 44.8 ± 1.2c | |
| N5 | 45.0 ± 2.0c | |
| Flowering | N1 | 29.9 ± 0.8a |
| N2 | 39.5 ± 0.7b | |
| N3 | 49.2 ± 0.8c | |
| N4 | 52.9 ± 1.8d | |
| N5 | 52.2 ± 1.3cd | |
| Early fruit growth | N1 | 29.0 ± 1.0a |
| N2 | 47.5 ± 0.8b | |
| N3 | 69.7 ± 2.1c | |
| N4 | 71.6 ± 1.1c | |
| N5 | 72.2 ± 1.4c | |
| Harvest | N1 | 25.5 ± 1.1a |
| N2 | 39.2 ± 3.4b | |
| N3 | 50.2 ± 3.2c | |
| N4 | 71.1 ± 2.4d | |
| N5 | 70.7 ± 2.5d |
Coefficients of determination (R2) of regressions between integrated SPAD (SPADi) values and integrated nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in each of the three sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops independently, and for the three crops together. Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. According to the Akaike information criterion, the best-fit regression model (exponential, linear, power, quadratic, and natural logarithm) is shown. Also, the fitted equation and standard error of the estimate (SEE) are presented. All regressions were highly significant at p-value <0.001. N is the number of data points of regressions.
| Crop | Phenological Stage | Regression | Equation |
| SEE (± | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Vegetative | Quadratic | 0.89 | 0.04 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Linear | 0.95 | 0.05 | 20 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Exponential | 0.92 | 0.05 | 20 | ||
| Harvest | Exponential | 0.97 | 0.04 | 20 | ||
| 2016 | Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.80 | 0.07 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Linear | 0.88 | 0.07 | 20 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Natural Logarithm | 0.88 | 0.07 | 20 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.86 | 0.05 | 20 | ||
| 2017 | Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.86 | 0.07 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Natural Logarithm | 0.92 | 0.06 | 20 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Exponential | 0.96 | 0.06 | 20 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.87 | 0.08 | 20 | ||
| 2014 + 2016 + 2017 | Vegetative | Quadratic | 0.82 | 0.07 | 60 | |
| Flowering | Quadratic | 0.73 | 0.11 | 60 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Power | 0.85 | 0.08 | 60 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.64 | 0.11 | 60 |
Figure 3Relationships between integrated SPAD (SPADi) values and the integrated crop nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in each of the three sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops. Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. The bold black line and the equation represent the adjustment for the combined dataset of the three crops together. Results of regression for each crop separately are in Table 6.
Coefficients of determination (R2) of regressions between integrated atLEAF (atLEAFi) values and integrated nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in each of the two sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops independently and for the two crops together. Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. According to the Akaike information criterion, the best-fit regression model (exponential, linear, power, quadratic, and natural logarithm) is shown. Also, it is presented the fitted equation and standard error of the estimate (SEE). All regressions were highly significant, with p-value < 0.001. N is the number of data points of regression.
| Crop | Phenological Stage | Model | Equation |
| SEE (± | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.74 | 0.08 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Linear | 0.85 | 0.07 | 20 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Natural Logarithm | 0.84 | 0.08 | 20 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.81 | 0.06 | 20 | ||
| 2017 | Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.84 | 0.07 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Natural Logarithm | 0.94 | 0.05 | 20 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Exponential | 0.93 | 0.07 | 20 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.90 | 0.07 | 20 | ||
| 2016 + 2017 | Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.79 | 0.07 | 40 | |
| Flowering | Natural Logarithm | 0.83 | 0.08 | 40 | ||
| Early fruit growth | Exponential | 0.82 | 0.10 | 40 | ||
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.77 | 0.09 | 40 |
Figure 4Relationships between integrated atLEAF (atLEAFi) values and the integrated crop nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in each of the two sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops. Each crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. The bold black line and the equation represent the adjustment for the combined dataset of the two crops together. Results of regression for each crop separately are in Table 7.
Coefficients of determination (R2) of regressions between integrated chlorophyll content index (CCIi) values and the integrated nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in a sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) in 2017. The crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. According to the Akaike information criterion, the best-fit regression model (exponential, linear, power, quadratic, and natural logarithm) is shown. Also, it is presented the fitted equation and standard error of the estimate (SEE). All regressions were highly significant, with p-value < 0.001. N is the number of data points of regression.
| Phenological Stage | Model | Equation |
| SEE (± | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetative | Natural Logarithm | 0.87 | 0.06 | 20 | |
| Flowering | Quadratic | 0.94 | 0.05 | 20 | |
| Early fruit growth | Linear | 0.96 | 0.05 | 20 | |
| Harvest | Natural Logarithm | 0.87 | 0.08 | 20 |
Figure 5Relationships between integrated chlorophyll content index (CCIi) values and the integrated crop nitrogen nutrition index (NNIi) for each phenological stage in a sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crop in 2017. The crop was subjected to five different N treatments with four repetitions. Results of regression are in Table 8.
Sufficiency values of SPAD, atLEAF, and CCI, in each of the four phenological stages, for individual sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) crops and for all years combined. Values are means ± standard error (SE).
| Crop | Phenological Stage | SPAD | atLEAF | CCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Vegetative | 48.1 ± 1.0 | / | / |
| Flowering | 56.4 ± 1.1 | |||
| Early fruit growth | 64.1 ± 1.4 | |||
| Harvest | 68.8 ± 0.1 | |||
| 2016 | Vegetative | 49.9 ± 1.5 | 51.2 ± 1.7 | / |
| Flowering | 60.1 ± 1.5 | 54.9 ± 1.3 | ||
| Early fruit growth | 62.7 ± 1.4 | 58.7 ± 1.2 | ||
| Harvest | 61.9 ± 1.5 | 57.1 ± 0.9 | ||
| 2017 | Vegetative | 51.3 ± 2.2 | 51.6 ± 1.9 | 42.9 ± 4.9 |
| Flowering | 54.2 ± 1.3 | 53.1 ± 0.8 | 46.5 ± 3.4 | |
| Early fruit growth | 60.8 ± 1.2 | 57.1 ± 1.1 | 65.7 ± 4.0 | |
| Harvest | 60.1 ± 3.5 | 54.5 ± 1.9 | 62.8 ± 10.1 | |
| All years | Vegetative | 49.7 ± 2.3 | 51.6 ± 1.9 | / |
| Flowering | 56.6 ± 4.6 | 54.1 ± 1.5 | ||
| Early fruit growth | 62.7 ± 2.3 | 58.1 ± 1.5 | ||
| Harvest | 65.2 ± 6.3 | 56.5 ± 2.9 |