4.7 Article

Estimation of Watermelon Nutrient Requirements Based on the QUEFTS Model

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy10111776

关键词

QUEFTS model; watermelon; nutrient requirements; internal efficiency (IE)

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Project of China [2016YFD0200104]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2362015xk06, XDJK2013C065, 20710922]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimating balanced nutrient requirements for a watermelon plantation is essential to increase its fruit yield and nutrient use efficiency. This is vital for China, which produces 60% of world's watermelons with excessive fertilizer application. Therefore, datasets between 2000 and 2019 from field experiments in major watermelon producing regions across China were collected to assess relationships between fruit yield and nutrient uptake, and to estimate nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) requirements for a target yield using a modified Quantitative Evaluation of the Fertility of Tropical Soils (QUEFTS) model. The results showed that the QUEFTS model predicted a linear increase in fruit yield to 60-70% of the total potential yield when balanced amounts of N, P, and K nutrients were absorbed. To produce 1000 kg of watermelon, 2.11 kg N, 0.27 kg P, and 2.69 kg K were required in shoot, and the corresponding internal efficiencies (IE) were 475, 3682, and 372 kg fruit per kg of N, P, and K, respectively. The modified QUEFTS model also simulated a balanced N, P, and K removal by fruit (accounting for 50.9%, 58.2%, and 66.4% of these nutrient accumulations in shoots, respectively). Field validation experiments further verified that the modified QUEFTS model could be used for estimating balanced nutrient requirements. Results from this study can provide practical guidance on fertilizer recommendations for improving fruit yield while preventing excessive or deficient nutrient supplies in China's watermelon plantations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据