South African
Avocado Growers’ Association Yearbook 1987. 10:49-51.
Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Research
Institute,
Private Bag X11208, Nelspruit 1200, RSA
SYNOPSIS
Liming materials and gypsum were shown to increase avocado fruit
production when applied annually in moderate amounts, but was detrimental when
excessive applications were made. Extractable Al was shown to be a better
indicator of lime requirement than soil pH. Positive residual effects were
obtained with all treatments to a certain extent. Calcium concentrations in
both leaves and fruit were only slightly affected by these treatments, and did
not correspond with the effects obtained on yield.
Avocados are mainly grown in high rainfall areas on relatively heavy
soils in the Transvaal. Acidification is a serious problem in most orchards and
the consequences not always appreciated by growers.
Beneficial effects due to liming have been claimed by several
researchers. According to Snyman & Darvas (1982), root rot on young trees
was reduced by liming. Broadbent & Baker (1974) claimed that Phytophthora
cinnamomi did not occur on soils with a Ca status of 2 000 mg kg-1.
Koen & Smart (1973) showed that optimal growth and root development for
Duke seedlings were obtained at a soil pH (water) of 6,0 to 7,0. Fouché (1981)
stated that optimum production occurred in the pH range of 5,8 to 6,5. He also
claimed that imbalances of K, Ca and Mg in the soil will enhance pulpspot.
Kotzé & Joubert (1978) claimed that calcium silicate was not as efficient
as agricultural lime in alleviating soil acidity, and that slaked lime moved
more readily in the soil than both calcitic and dolomitic lime.
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effect of different
calcium sources on the production of mature avocado trees grown on a fairly
acid soil, and to evaluate these sources in terms of their effects on soil acidity
and nutritional value.
Mature trees, cultivar Edrariol on Guatemalan seedling rootstock, grown
on a red clayey soil (Hutton form, Farningham series) in the Burgershall area
were used for this investigation. The treatments were as follows: four calcium
sources viz dolomitic lime, calcium hydroxide, gypsum and calcium silicate,
with three levels of each were compared with each other, as well as with a
control (no application). The levels were comparable on either neutralisation value
or calcium content. The treatments were applied annually from July 1979 to July
1982. The experiment therefore consisted of four calcium sources with three
levels each and a control, replicated four times. Plots consisted of three
trees each. The treatments are shown in Table 1. The trees were irrigated with
dragline sprinklers, with a cycle length of 10 days. No visible symptoms of Phytophthora
occurred during the period of investigation.
The trees were fertilised annually according to leaf analysis, to
maintain an optimum nutritional status. Yield data were taken annually from
1982 to 1984 as well as soil, leaf and fruit samples for analysis.
TABLE 1 Calcium sources and levels applied (ton ha-1 year-1). |
||||
|
|
||||
Ca source |
Ca content (%) |
Levels* |
||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
||
|
Dolomitic lime |
37 |
2,4 |
4,7 |
7,1 |
|
Ca silicate |
34 |
2,5 |
5,0 |
7,5 |
|
Gypsum |
19 |
4,5 |
9,2 |
13,7 |
|
Ca hydroxide |
46 |
1,9 |
3,7 |
5,5 |
|
*Levels
comparable in either Ca status or neutralising ability. |
||||
In Table 2 the effect of three levels of each of the calcium sources is
compared mutually and with the control (no Ca treatment). The final
applications were made in 1982; therefore the 1983 data indicate the immediate
results of the applications, and 1984 the residual effects.
From the data in Table 2 it is obvious that the highest yields for 1983
were obtained with the middle levels of dolomitic lime, Ca silicate and gypsum.
The hydroxide was not significantly better than the control. It is also
noteworthy that a decrease in yield occurred with the highest levels of all
treatments. The control plot showed a drastic decrease in yield from 64 kg tree-1
in 1982 to 16 kg tree-1 in 1984.
The residual effect of calcium hydroxide and gypsum were relatively
poor, whereas good residual effects were obtained with the highest level of
calcium silicate and the middle level of dolomitic lime. The second level of Ca
silicate had a very poor residual effect, despite the fact that this was one of
the best treatments in both 1982 and 1983. The reason is unknown, although it
could be due to alternate bearing after two heavy crops.
In order to explain these differences, soil, leaf and fruit analyses
were done.
|
TABLE 2 The effect of three
levels of four different calcium sources on avocado yield(kg tree-'). |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treatment |
Level
|
1982 |
1983 |
1984 |
|
Control |
0 |
63,8 d* |
44,3 c* |
15,7 c* |
|
|
1 |
70,9 cd |
67,8 c |
56,1 ab |
|
Dolomitic lime |
2 |
125,2 a |
141,4 a |
84,1 a |
|
|
3 |
74,4 cd |
49,6 c |
50,2 ab |
|
|
1 |
92,2 be |
94,1 b |
45,0 b |
|
Ca silicate |
2 |
102,1 ab |
138,2 a |
39,3 b |
|
|
3 |
90,7 bcd |
73,0 bc |
85,2 a |
|
|
1 |
83,2 bcd |
60,7 c |
36,8 b |
|
Ca hydroxide |
2 |
81,7 bcd |
62,7 c |
45,3 b |
|
|
3 |
63,6 d |
53,8 c |
47,2 ab |
|
|
1 |
69,7 cd |
65,7 c |
33,2 b |
|
Gypsum |
2 |
103,3 ab |
102,8 b |
38,4 b |
|
|
3 |
102,6 ab |
57,5 c |
47,7 ab |
|
LSD P = 0,05 |
|
27,7 |
31,7 |
37,6 |
|
LSD P = 0,01 |
|
36,4 |
41,7 |
--- |
|
CV (%) |
|
23,1 |
29,4 |
56,5 |
|
*Values within columns with different letters differ at P=0,05. |
||||
Table 3 shows the initial soil composition at the start of the
experiment. It is obvious that the soil pH was very low for avocado production
(Fouché, 1981), with a very high extractable Al content of 90 mg kg-1
in the topsoil and 135 mg kg-1 in the subsoil.
|
TABLE 3 Soil composition before commencement of the experiment |
||
|
|
|
|
Factor
|
Topsoil 0-300 mm |
Subsoil 300-600 mm |
|
pH (water) |
4,8 |
4,6 |
|
|
|
|
Exchangeable cations |
|
|
|
K (mg kg-1) |
140 |
65 |
|
Ca (mg kg-1) |
130 |
90 |
|
Mg (mg kg-1) |
60 |
30 |
|
Resin P (mg kg-1) |
7 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Extractable Al (mg kg-1) |
90 |
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
Texture (%) |
|
|
|
Coarse sand |
27,5 |
27,0 |
|
Fine sand |
24,5 |
23,3 |
|
Silt |
13,8 |
11,4 |
|
Clay |
34,2 |
38,3 |
In Table 4 the soil composition for 1983 is shown. These data indicate
the final treatment effects after four years of applications (1979 to 1982), as
well as the condition of the control plot. The control showed very little
difference from the original analysis, indicated in Table 3.
TABLE 4 Effect of three levels of four different
treatments on chemical composition of the top (0-300 mm) and subsoil (300-600
mm) (1983 data).
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Treatment
|
Level
|
pH (water) |
Al (mg kg-1) |
Ca (mg kg-1) |
Mg (mg kg-1) |
||||
|
Top |
Sub |
Top |
Sub |
Top |
Sub |
Top |
Sub |
||
|
Control |
0 |
516 |
4,63 |
93 |
158 |
194 |
38 |
59 |
20 |
|
Dolomitic |
1 |
5,40 |
5,03 |
59 |
127 |
213 |
75 |
84 |
40 |
|
lime |
2 |
5,86 |
5,31 |
34 |
103 |
288 |
100 |
125 |
47 |
|
|
3 |
5,60 |
4,81 |
65 |
115 |
206 |
69 |
92 |
35 |
|
Calcium |
1 |
5,54 |
4,79 |
79 |
89 |
275 |
88 |
35 |
18 |
|
silicate |
2 |
5,71 |
5,04 |
57 |
101 |
438 |
00 |
58 |
25 |
|
|
3 |
6,15 |
5,13 |
23 |
137 |
544 |
106 |
54 |
19 |
|
Calcium |
1 |
5,29 |
4,63 |
80 |
142 |
231 |
50 |
36 |
20 |
|
hydroxide |
2 |
5,38 |
4,84 |
68 |
43 |
331 |
100 |
32 |
18 |
|
|
3 |
5,61 |
5,30 |
69 |
90 |
475 |
213 |
29 |
20 |
|
Gypsum |
1 |
4,70 |
4,59 |
130 |
152 |
250 |
181 |
31 |
23 |
|
|
2 |
4,70 |
4,65 |
123 |
123 |
281 |
269 |
25 |
22 |
|
|
3 |
4,74 |
4,59 |
122 |
131 |
300 |
250 |
21 |
19 |
LSD P = 0,05
|
0,40 |
0,41 |
50 |
|
160 |
69 |
23 |
10 |
|
|
LSD P = 0,01 |
0,53 |
0,54 |
65 |
|
210 |
91 |
30 |
14 |
|
|
Cv (%) |
5,4 |
4,64 |
303 |
|
372 |
398 |
31,5 |
29,7 |
|
|
*Levels indicated
in Table 1. |
|||||||||
pH: It is obvious
that relatively small effects on pH were obtained, despite large applications
of the different products. Gypsum had no positive effect on the pH; the topsoil
showed a significant reduction as compared to the control. The highest pH of
6,15 was obtained with the highest level of calcium silicate. The subsoil pH
was only slightly increased by the three liming materials.
Al: The effects of
these materials on the extractable aluminium status were similar to the effects
on pH. In the top soil, the Al was reduced considerably except in the case of
gypsum. The subsoil Al was only slightly affected. It is interesting to note
that the two treatments with the highest yield, ie the second dolomitic lime
and calcium silicate levels has a relatively low Al content in the topsoil.
A highly significant negative correlation (r = -0,94) was found (Figure
1) between the topsoil Al content of all the plots for 1983 and the yield of
each plot for 1984. The lower the Al concentration, the higher the yield,
reaching a maximum at less than 20 mg Al kg-1 soil. A notable
exception was the gypsum treatments (data omitted from Figure 1), where high
yields were obtained despite relatively high Al values. A similar trend was
observed for the subsoil Al (r = -0,66), although the actual values were
relatively high and subsoil Al not that critical.

Ca and Mg: The
calcium status in the topsoil was increased considerably, especially by the
calcium silicate treatments, and to a lesser extent also by calcium hydroxide.
Although calcium moved down to the subsoil to a small degree, gypsum showed the
highest Ca levels in the subsoil; almost equal to those in the topsoil.
Magnesium was increased by dolomitic lime, a Mg carrier, in both top- and
subsoil. Calcium silicate which also contains some magnesium, increased the Mg
levels in the top soil only. No relationship existed between these elements in
the soil and the yield.
The concentration of only two macro-elements in the leaves, potassium
and calcium, were significantly influenced by the treatments in 1983 (Table 5).
The applications of different Ca sources decreased the K concentration,
especially at the higher levels. In all cases, K levels of less than 7 g kg-1
was reached as compared to the 8,6 g kg-1 of the control. Leaf Ca on
the other hand had only significantly increased above the control, by the
highest level of calcium hydroxide. The other treatments had almost no effect
on the leaf Ca concentration.
Only K and Ca concentrations in the fruit were significantly affected by
the treatments (Table 5). As in the case for leaf K, fruit K was also significantly
reduced by most of the Ca applications. Fruit Ca concentration was
significantly. increased by the highest levels of both dolomitic lime and
gypsum. Surprisingly calcium silicate had no effect at all on the Ca status of
the fruit, despite the significant reduction in K status at all levels of
application as well as the high Ca levels in the topsoil.
|
TABLE 5 Effects
of the different treatments on leaf and fruit composition (g kg-1)
for 1983. |
||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
Treatment |
Level
|
Leaf
|
Fruit
|
|
||
K
|
Ca
|
K
|
Ca
|
|
||
|
Control |
0 |
8,6 |
11,0 |
6,9 |
0,32 |
|
|
Dolomitic |
1 |
8,0 |
8,9 |
14,4 |
0,33 |
|
|
lime |
2 |
7,9 |
10,5 |
15,5 |
0,27 |
|
|
|
3 |
6,6 |
11,1 |
13,0 |
0,45 |
|
|
Calcium |
1 |
8,0 |
10,7 |
13,1 |
0,26 |
|
|
silicate |
2 |
7,5 |
2,4 |
13,5 |
0,31 |
|
|
|
3 |
6,7 |
0,3 |
11,9 |
0,30 |
|
|
Calcium |
1 |
8,5 |
10,1 |
14,6 |
0,29 |
|
|
hydroxide |
2 |
6,0 |
10,7 |
11,3 |
0,38 |
|
|
|
3 |
6,6 |
15,5 |
11,5 |
0,38 |
|
|
Gypsum |
1 |
6,7 |
9,6 |
11,5 |
0,38 |
|
|
|
2 |
7,2 |
11,7 |
15,5 |
0,24 |
|
|
|
3 |
6,9 |
12,3 |
11,9 |
0,43 |
|
|
LSD P = 0,05 |
|
1 5 |
2,6 |
3,2 |
0,10 |
|
|
LSD P = 0,01 |
|
|
3,4 |
|
0,13 |
|
|
Cv (%) |
|
146 |
16,7 |
17,2 |
20,9 |
|
Yields were significantly increased by moderate levels of dolomitic lime,
Ca silicate and gypsum; and decreased by high levels of these materials,
probably due to the antagonistic effect on K uptake (Table 5). Residual effects
as compared to the control were obtained with all treatments. Blarney &
Nathanson (1977) also found a marked effect of liming on yield of sunflower up
to a certain pH, with no benefit above this pH. Iley & Guilford (1979)
showed that excess lime could be detrimental to the life of citrus trees. The
results of this experiment have shown that high extractable Al, especially in
the topsoil, has a detrimental effect on the yield of mature avocado trees.
This finding is in agreement with those of Martini, Kochhann, Siqueira &
Borkert (1974), who showed that optimum yields with soybeans were obtained when
liming reduced the Al concentration in the soil.
Despite relatively high applications of liming materials the change in
pH was small, and thus not a very accurate indicator of the lime requirements.
Yuan (1976) claimed that soil pH did not accurately indicate the acidity of a
particular soil or the quantity of lime required for optimal crop production.
Gypsum induced a considerable increase in subsoil Ca concentration,
without changing subsoil pH at all. Most treatments resulted in an increase in
subsoil Ca, whereas dolomitic lime also increased subsoil Mg. Kotze &
Joubert (1978) claimed that calcium hydroxide was leached downwards to a much
larger extent than dolomitic lime and calcium silicate, and is therefore more
suitable to alleviate subsoil acidity.
The drastic reduction in yield obtained with the control plot over the
three-year period as compared to the treatments, demonstrated the necessity for
applying lime (or calcium) to avocado soils with a high Al concentration. The
aim should be to reduce the Al levels in the top 300 mm of soil to less than 20
mg kg-1.
1 Blarney, FPC & Nathanson, K, 1977. Relationship between aluminium
toxicity and sunflower yields on an Avalon medium sandy loam. Agrochemophysica,
9, 59-66.
2 Broadbent, P & Baker, KF, 1974. Behaviour of Phytophthora
cinnamomi in soils suppressive and conducive to root rot. Aust J Agric Res,
25, 121-137.
3 Fouche, PS, 1981. Bekalking van suurgrond. S Afr Avocado Growers'
Assoc Yrb, 4, 95-98.
4 Iley, JR & Guilford, HE, 1979. Excess dolomite and lime plots
display conditions very similar to YTD. Citrus Industry, 60,
7-18.
5 Koen, TJ & Smart, G, 1973. Die invloed van verhoogde grond-pH op
die groel en chemlese samestelling van Duke avokado-saailinge. Citrus &
Subtropical Fruit Journal, 474, 4-9.
6 Kotze, WAG & Joubert, ME, 1978. The mobility of liming materials in soils. The Deciduous Fruit Grower, 28, 440-444.
7 Martini, JA, Kochhann, RA, Siqueira, OJ & Borkert, CM, 1974.
Response of soybeans to liming as related to soil acidity, Al and Mn toxicities
and P in some Oxisols of Brazil. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proc, 38,
616-620.
8 Snyman, CP & Darvas, JM, 1982. Die uitwerking van kalsium op
wortelvrot by avokado. S Afr Avocado Growers' Assoc Yrb, 5,
80-84.
9 Yuan, TL, 1976. Anomaly and modification of pH-acidity relationship in
the double buffer method for lime requirement determinations. Soil Sci Soc
Amer Proc, 40, 800-801.