ArticlePDF Available

Soil, Plant, and Canopy Responses To Carbonated Irrigation Water

Authors:

Abstract

Scientists have sought to stimulate plant growth using carbonated irrigation water for more than 100 years. The mechanisms by which carbonated water may increase plant productivity and the influence of environmental and cultural growing conditions on those mechanisms are not completely understood. Several greenhouse and field studies have demonstrated that carbonated irrigation water can increase crop yield significantly while others have shown that carbonated irrigation water does not influence plant productivity. It is unlikely that carbonated irrigation water will be recommended commercially until the conditions are delineated under which a positive and economically advantageous growth response is ensured.
HortTechnology April–June 1996 6(2) 111
Reviews
Soil, Plant, and
Canopy
Responses To
Carbonated
Irrigation Water
Craig A. Storlie1 and
Joseph R. Heckman2
Additional index words. carbon
dioxide, drip irrigation, soil pH,
irrigation water pH
Summary. Scientists have sought to
stimulate plant growth using carbon-
ated irrigation water for more than
100 years. The mechanisms by which
carbonated water may increase plant
productivity and the influence of
environmental and cultural growing
conditions on those mechanisms are
not completely understood. Several
greenhouse and field studies have
demonstrated that carbonated
irrigation water can increase crop
yield significantly while others have
shown that carbonated irrigation
water does not influence plant
productivity. It is unlikely that
versy exists over the alleged benefits of
this practice due to the variety of re-
ported results and the lack of consen-
sus about mechanisms by which car-
bonated water might increase plant
productivity. In this paper we review
the potential mechanisms of increased
plant productivity and outline the en-
vironmental and cultural conditions
under which a plant response is most
likely.
Mechanisms of increasing
plant productivity
Mechanism 1—Increased nu-
trient uptake. One potential benefit
of carbonated irrigation water is re-
lated to soil nutrient availability. Add-
ing CO2 to water acidifies the solution.
Adding carbonated water to soil may
cause soil pH to decline temporarily.
In high-pH soils, this response brings
soils into the desirable pH range for
nutrient availability. In acidic soils,
this response could cause aluminum
toxicity or limit the availability of es-
sential plant nutrients. Reducing soil
pH also may increase the activity of
certain beneficial microorganisms
(Baker, 1988).
Novero et al. (1991) reported the
results of a Colorado study in which
the concentration of Zn in the leaves
of field-grown tomatoes receiving car-
bonated irrigation water was signifi-
cantly higher than in the control. In
addition, they concluded that the up-
take of all measured nutrients increased
because the yields of treatments re-
ceiving carbonated water were signifi-
cantly higher, and that in no case were
plant nutrient concentrations lower in
treated plants. Total and marketable
yields were 15.9% and 16.4% greater
with CO2-enriched water than the con-
trol, respectively. Novero et al. (1991)
attributed increased nutrient uptake
to increased nutrient availability caused
by decreased soil pH. In one study, soil
pH measured during irrigation was
6.8 in the carbonated water treatment
and 7.7 in the control. In another
study, soil pH measured immediately
after irrigation ranged from 5.9 to 6.2
in the carbonated water treatment and
from 7.4 to 7.6 in the control. Where
irrigation water was applied every sixth
day, soil pH gradually rose from 5.9
immediately after irrigation to 7.1 on
the day before the next irrigation. The
optimum pH for most cultivated plants
ranges from 5.0 to 7.0 (Spurway,
1941).
carbonated irrigation water will be
recommended commercially until the
conditions are delineated under which
a positive and economically advanta-
geous growth response is ensured.
Several mechanisms that may in-
fluence a growth response to
carbonated water have been
identified. Carbon dioxide reduces
water pH and may reduce soil pH,
resulting in an increased availability of
several crop nutrients. Carbonated ir-
rigation water also increases the soil–
air CO2 concentration. This may en-
hance root growth by reducing ethyl-
ene inhibition and may stimulate ben-
eficial bacteria. Carbon dioxide also
can be absorbed directly through the
plant roots and fixed in photosynthe-
sis, although direct absorption is prob-
ably not a major contributing source
to increased productivity. However,
carbonated irrigation water can in-
crease the rate of photosynthesis
through atmospheric enrichment. It
also may influence plant hormone and
enzyme balances, which may enhance
productivity. A growth response to
carbonated irrigation water is likely
due to a combination of factors, and it
is most likely to be observed where soil
and irrigation water pH are high, poly-
ethylene mulch and drip irrigation are
used, and irrigation is frequent and of
long duration.
Several researchers reported that
carbonated irrigation water increased
plant yield (Mauney and Hendrix,
1988; Nakayama and Bucks, 1980;
Novero et al., 1991). Others found
that carbonated irrigation water did
not influence, or negatively influenced,
crop yield (Hartz and Holt, 1991;
Nakayama and Bucks, 1980; Stoffella
et al., 1995; Storlie, 1992). Contro-
1Assistant professor and extension specialist in agricul-
tural engineering, Rutgers University, Rutgers Research
and Development Center, 121 Northville Road, Bridge-
ton, NJ 08302.
2Assistant professor and extension specialist in soil fertil-
ity, Rutgers University, Plant Science Department, 167
Foran Hall, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
This is New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station
publication no. D-03150-16-95, supported by state and
U.S. Hatch Act funds. The cost of publishing this paper
was defrayed in part by the payment of page charges.
Under postal regulations, this paper therefore must be
hereby marked advertisement solely to indicate this fact.
HortTechnology April–June 1996 6(2)
REVIEWS
112
Mauney and Hendrix (1988) re-
ported that Zn and Mn concentrations
were significantly higher in cotton
plants treated with carbonated irriga-
tion water. They attributed boll yield
increases of 70% and 53% and a carbon
exchange rate increase of 38% to higher
uptake of these minerals, suggesting
that a more robust photosynthetic ap-
paratus resulted from enhanced min-
eral uptake. In their Arizona green-
house study, soil pH decreased from
8.0 to 6.5 where carbonated water was
applied. Mauney and Hendrix noted
that none of the carbon in lint samples
was derived from the CO2 in the irriga-
tion water, suggesting that the in-
crease in yield was not a result of root
CO2 absorption or aerial enrichment.
Recently, Basile et al. (1993)
showed that soil Zn, Mn, Fe, Ca, and
Mg mobilities were increased by car-
bonated water, which reduced the pH
of a clay loam soil packed within leach-
ing columns from 7.5 to 6.0. In a
related study, Arienzo et al. (1993)
applied carbonated water to field-
grown tomatoes in southern Italy and
found that plant Zn, Mn, Ca, and Fe
uptake were increased. The initial pH
of the clay loam soil used in this study
was 7.5. Bialczyk et al. (1994) also
noted a similar effect in a study of
tomatoes irrigated with carbonated
water. The plant growth rate and up-
take of N, K, and Ca of young tomato
plants grown in nutrient solution with
various HCO3 concentrations were
increased compared with a control.
However, they noted that the favor-
able effects may be obtained only un-
der a limited range of HCO3 concen-
trations. Others also have noted that
carbonated irrigation water affects the
uptake of nutrients, although some
studies have reported an increase in
certain elements and a decrease in the
uptake of others (Arteca et al., 1979;
Kimball et al., 1986; Labanauskas et
al., 1971; Stoffella et al., 1995). The
number of scientific studies noting the
effect of carbonated water on nutrient
uptake suggests that this mechanism
may play a major role in the response of
plants to carbonated irrigation water.
Mechanism 2—Soil–air en-
richment. The effect of carbonated
irrigation water on the soil–air envi-
ronment also may influence plant pro-
ductivity. Novero et al. (1991) re-
ported that soil–air CO2 concentra-
tions were increased where carbon-
ated irrigation water was used along
with polyethylene mulch, and sug-
gested that the CO2-enriched soil at-
mosphere may have resulted in greater
root development and greater nutri-
ent uptake. Further, they found that a
growth response was dependent on
the presence of mulch, which they
concluded reduced the escape rate of
CO2 from the soil.
Other researchers also have re-
ported CO2 enrichment of the soil
atmosphere where polyethylene
mulches were used (Hopen and
Oebeker, 1975; Nakayama and Bucks,
1980; Sheldrake, 1963). Baron and
Gorske (1986) grew eggplant in sealed
pots containing a soilless mix and in-
jected CO2 into the growing medium
at CO2 concentrations ranging from
0.03% to 15%. At all injections rates, a
significant increase in stem diameter
was measured, whereas a significant
increase in plant dry weight and leaf
area occurred only during long day
and warm temperature conditions.
Based on these results, they concluded
that part of the positive yield response
of plants to polyethylene mulch is a
result of soil–air CO2 enrichment. Evi-
dence that supports this conclusion
appears in several studies that showed
that CO2 strongly counteracts the ef-
fect of ethylene inhibition and has a
positive effect on root elongation
(Govindarajan and Poovaiah, 1982;
Jackson, 1985). Root-source CO2 also
may affect plant hormone and enzyme
balances in other ways, influencing
photosynthesis, respiration, and other
plant processes (Arteca et al., 1980;
Govindarajan and Poovaiah, 1982).
Thus, increasing the soil–air CO2 con-
centration also appears to play a key
role in the response of plants to car-
bonated irrigation water.
Increasing the soil–air CO2 con-
centration also may affect plant pro-
ductivity through its impact on soil
nitrification. The soil–air CO2 concen-
tration generally has been regarded as
exceeding the biological demand of
the nitrifying bacteria (Alexander,
1965). However, Buyanovsky and
Wagner (1983) measured soil–air CO2
concentrations in the field ranging from
<1% to 7%. Clark (1968) measured soil
nitrification over a range of soil–air
CO2 concentrations and found that
the maximum nitrification rates oc-
curred between soil–air CO2 concen-
trations of 0.5% and 2.9%. Thus, soil–
air CO2 concentrations in the field may
be sub- or supra-optimal for maxi-
mum nitrification, and carbonated ir-
rigation water may affect nitrification
either positively or negatively.
Mechanism 3—Direct absorp-
tion. Other research suggests that
plants increase their growth rate by
absorbing CO2 from the irrigation
water. Once absorbed, CO2 is dis-
solved in the xylem sap or fixed as an
organic acid and transported to the
plant leaves where it is used as a carbon
source in photosynthesis or as an en-
ergy source for other plant reactions
(Arteca and Poovaiah, 1982a). Com-
pounds fixed in the roots also may
remain there and act as exchange ions
or energy sources in the uptake and
translocation of cations (Coker and
Shubert, 1981; Jackson and Coleman,
1959).
Many studies have shown that
plants are able to derive carbon from
CO2 contained in irrigation water. In a
series of studies using a labeled carbon
source, potatoes growing in nutrient
solution absorbed CO2 through their
roots and transported it to the site of
photosynthesis in the plant leaves
(Arteca and Poovaiah, 1982a; Arteca
et al., 1979). Substantial increases in
tuberization, stolon length, the num-
ber of tubers per stolon, and overall
plant dry weight were noted in plants
that had their roots exposed for 12 h to
a gas stream consisting of 45% CO2.
Root absorption of CO2 also has been
measured in tomato, eggplant, rice,
peas, beans, oats, corn, wheat, and
citrus (Arteca and Poovaiah, 1982b;
Baron and Gorske, 1986; Bialczyk et
al., 1994; Higuchi et al., 1984; Lab-
anauskas et al., 1971; Schafer, 1988;
Yurgalevitch and Janes, 1988). Stylites
andicola, a land plant that does not
possess stomata, derives nearly all of
the carbon it fixes in photosynthesis
from the CO2 absorbed by its roots
(Keeley et al., 1984).
It does not appear that for most
plants the amount of CO2 absorbed
could substantially affect plant pro-
ductivity. Schafer (1988) found that
root absorption of HCO3 accounted
for only 0.44% to 1.21% of the total
carbon assimilated by wheat shoots.
Mauney and Hendrix (1988) reported
that cotton yields significantly increased
in response to carbonated irrigation
water, but that none of the carbon
contained in the cotton lint was de-
rived from carbonated irrigation wa-
ter. Others have suggested that <5% of
the CO2 fixed by a plant could be
HortTechnology April–June 1996 6(2) 113
absorbed by the root system, and that
increasing yields as a result of root
absorption of carbonated irrigation
water was unlikely (Skok et al., 1962;
Stolwijk and Thimann, 1957). In con-
trast to these estimates, yield increases
of 16.4% in tomato, 70% and 53% in
cotton, and 20% in wheat have been
reported (Mauney and Hendrix, 1988;
Nakayama and Bucks, 1980; Novero
et al., 1991). These data suggest that
the influence of carbonated irrigation
water on plant productivity can be
attributed only partially to root CO2
absorption.
Mechanism 4—Canopy enrich-
ment. Carbonated irrigation water also
may increase the CO2 concentration of
air in the plant canopy. Carbon diox-
ide dissolves slowly in water, where
about 1% of it forms carbonic acid
(Enoch and Olesen, 1993). Carbonic
acid then is partially ionized, forming
HCO3 and CO32–. However, about
99% of CO2 dissolved in water remains
as dissolved CO2 gas. A portion of the
dissolved CO2 may leave the soil solu-
tion as CO2 gas. Novero et al. (1991)
measured CO2 concentration in the
canopy of tomato plants supplied with
carbonated irrigation water and grown
using polyethylene mulch. They found
elevated concentrations ranging from
2.2 to 4.1 times the ambient CO2
concentration at a height of 1 cm above
the soil surface during irrigation, and
ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 times the ambi-
ent CO2 concentration at a height of 15
cm above the soil surface. One hour
after irrigation ended, concentrations
ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 times the ambi-
ent concentration were measured at the
1-cm height. They concluded that aerial
enhancement was partly responsible for
the significant yield increases they mea-
sured.
Storlie (1992) measured canopy
CO2 concentrations in a closed bell
pepper canopy while carbonated irri-
gation water was being applied with a
drip irrigation system. Carbonated
water enriched the air at the soil sur-
face near the transplant hole 1.3 times
the ambient level, but did not increase
the concentration at locations 15, 30,
or 45 cm above the soil surface. In this
study, bell peppers were growing on
polyethylene-mulched beds. Wind
speed during testing ranged from 4 to
13 km·h–1. Sheldrake (1963) also mea-
sured increased canopy CO2 concen-
trations where polyethylene mulch and
drip irrigation were used. Noting a 4-
fold increase in CO2 concentration at
the soil surface, Sheldrake suggested
that the growth response of plants to
polyethylene mulch was due to atmo-
spheric enrichment.
In addition to the reports cited
earlier, several investigations reported
nonsignificant or negative effects of
carbonated irrigation water on plant
productivity. These studies do not
necessarily contradict the results of
studies that reported a positive re-
sponse to carbonated water. In New
Jersey, Storlie (1992) reported that
bell pepper yield was not influenced by
carbonated irrigation water applied
with a drip irrigation system and used
along with polyethylene mulch. The
irrigation water pH of 4.9 was reduced
to 4.1 where CO2 was injected at a
saturating rate (1.2 g·liter–1). Soil pH
(initially 6.8) was influenced in an
unpredictable manner and was affected
by the untreated irrigation water as
much as it was by the carbonated wa-
ter. Pepper leaf macro- and micro-
element concentration differences
among treatments were insignificant.
Canopy enrichment with CO2 was
measured at the soil surface, but only
during irrigations and for 30 min after-
ward. Storlie suggested that the lack of
significant yield differences supports
other research that has concluded that
the influence of carbonated irrigation
water on plants is largely due to en-
hanced mineral nutrition and is soil-
pH dependent.
Hartz and Holt (1991) reported
a similar experience growing cucum-
bers and tomatoes in California, where
yields were not influenced, or were
negatively influenced, by carbonated
irrigation water. In these studies, irri-
gation water pH was decreased from
7.3 to 5.3 and soil pH was unpredict-
ably affected. Tissue nutrient concen-
tration differences among treatments
were insignificant. Hartz and Holt
suggested that the negative response
that they measured at one site may
have been due to polyethylene mulch,
which they suspected increased the
soil–air CO2 content to supra-optimal
levels.
Stoffella et al. (1995) also sus-
pected that suppressing growing me-
dia pH to a sub-optimum level (from
pH 6.90 to 5.65) affected their results
in studies with citrus rootstock. In this
study, carbonated water had the ad-
verse effect of lower root weights and
lower root Mn concentrations.
Environmental and cultural
conditions under which a
growth response to
carbonated irrigation water
is most likely
A set of environmental and cul-
tural growing conditions under which
a growth response to carbonated irri-
gation water is most likely can be sug-
gested based on the results of the
research reported in this review. Car-
bon dioxide reduces water pH and
may reduce soil pH. Where soil pH is
reduced from a supra-optimum level,
nutrient uptake may be increased, sug-
gesting that a growth response to car-
bonated water is likely where soil and
water pH are higher than optimum.
The influence of CO2 on soil and
irrigation water pH and nutrient up-
take enhancement suggests that geo-
graphic location may influence plant
response to carbonated irrigation wa-
ter. Conditions of high soil and irriga-
tion water pH are common in many
portions of the western United States.
Thus, it is more likely that a crop
response to carbonated irrigation wa-
ter will be observed in the western than
the eastern United States.
Drip irrigation and polyethylene
mulch increase the soil–air and canopy
CO2 concentrations by providing a
physical means of applying and con-
taining carbonated irrigation water and
gaseous CO2. Soil–air enrichment may
increase root growth by reducing eth-
ylene inhibition. Canopy enrichment
increases photosynthesis and would
have the greatest effect on aerial en-
richment and photosynthesis where
enrichment occurred during the entire
photoperiod. Therefore, the influence
of carbonated irrigation water on pho-
tosynthesis would be greatest in a re-
gion requiring frequent, long-dura-
tion irrigations. Again, these condi-
tions are prevalent in the arid, western
United States. In addition, the effect
of carbonated water on canopy enrich-
ment would be enhanced where wind
speed is low and where the plant canopy
is closed. These factors would reduce
the effect of wind on CO2 dilution.
The practice of irrigating with
carbonated water has not been recom-
mended commercially for several rea-
sons. Research reports contain con-
flicting descriptions of plant responses
to carbonated irrigation water. Re-
ported yield increases in field studies
HortTechnology April–June 1996 6(2)
REVIEWS
114
have been relatively small and may not
justify the expenses associated with the
practice. In addition, there remains a
lack of understanding of the mecha-
nisms of action and, more importantly,
the influence of other plant and envi-
ronmental factors on these mecha-
nisms. The acceptance of carbonated
irrigation water as a commercial pro-
duction practice is unlikely until the
plant and environmental conditions
are delineated under which a positive
and economically advantageous plant
growth response is ensured.
Literature Cited
Alexander, M. 1965. Nitrification, p. 307–
343. In: Bartholemew, V.W. and F.E. Clark
(eds.). Soil nitrogen. Amer. Soc. Agron.,
Madison, Wis.
Arienzo, M., G. Basile, R. d’Andria, V.
Magliulo, and A. Maggio. 1993. Fertiliza-
tion via carbonated water and mineral con-
centrations in a tomato crop. Commun.
Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 24(17&18):2281–
2291.
Arteca, R.N. and B.W. Poovaiah. 1982a.
Absorption of 14CO2 by potato roots and
its subsequent translocation. J. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 107:398–401.
Arteca, R.N. and B.W. Poovaiah. 1982b.
Changes in phosphoenolpyruvate carboxy-
lase and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate car-
boxylase in Solanum tuberosum L. as af-
fected by root zone application of CO2.
HortScience 17:396–398.
Arteca, R.N., B.W. Poovaiah, and O.E.
Smith. 1980. Use of high performance
liquid chromatography for the determina-
tion of endogenous hormone levels in
Solanum tuberosum L. subjected to CO2
enrichment of the root zone. Plant Phys.
65:1216–1219.
Arteca, R.N., B.W. Poovaiah, and O.E.
Smith. 1979. Changes in carbon fixation,
tuberization, and growth induced by CO2
applications to the root zone of potato
plants. Science 205:1279–1280.
Baker, R. 1988. Trichoderma spp. as plant-
growth stimulants. Critical Rev. Biotechnol.
7(2):97–107.
Basile, G., M. Arienzo, and A. Zena. 1993.
Soil nutrient mobility in response to irriga-
tion with carbon dioxide enriched water.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
24(11&12):1183–1195.
Baron, J.J. and S.F. Gorske. 1986. Response
of eggplant to a root environment en-
riched with CO2. HortScience 21:495–
498.
Bialczyk, J., Z. Lechowski, and A. Libik.
1994. Growth of tomato seedlings under
different HCO3 concentrations in the me-
dium. J. Plant Nutr. 17(5):801–816.
Buyanovsky, G.A. and G.H. Wagner. 1983.
Annual cycles of carbon dioxide level in soil
air. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 47:1139–1145.
Clark, F.E. 1968. The growth of bacteria in
soil, p. 451–457. In: T.R.G. Gray and D.
Parkinson (eds.). The ecology of soil bac-
teria. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Coker, R.T. and K.R. Schubert. 1981. Car-
bon dioxide fixation in soybean roots and
nodules: I. Characterization and compari-
son with N2 fixation and comparison of
xylem exudate during early nodule devel-
opment. Plant Physiol. 67:691–696.
Enoch, H.Z. and J.M. Olesen. 1993. Plant
response to irrigation with water enriched
with carbon dioxide. Tansley Rev. No. 54.
New Phytol. 125:249–258.
Govindarajan, A.G. and B.W. Poovaiah.
1982. Effect of root zone carbon dioxide
enrichment on ethylene inhibition of car-
bon assimilation in potato plants. Physiol.
Plant. 55:465–469.
Hartz, T.K and D.B. Holt. 1991. Root-
zone carbon dioxide enrichment does not
improve tomato or cucumber yield.
HortScience 26:1423.
Higuchi, T., K. Yoda, and K. Tensho. 1984.
Further evidence for gaseous CO2 trans-
port in relation to root uptake of CO2 in
rice plant. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 30:125–
136.
Hopen, H.J. and N.F. Oebeker. 1975. Mulch
effects on ambient carbon dioxide levels
and growth of several vegetables.
HortScience 10:159–161.
Jackson, M.B. 1985. Ethylene and the re-
sponses of plant to excess water in their
environment. A review, p. 241–265. In:
J.A. Roberts and G.A. Tucker (eds.). Eth-
ylene and plant production. Butterworths,
London.
Jackson, W.A. and N.T. Coleman. 1959.
Ion absorption by bean roots and organic
acid changes brought about through CO2
fixation. Soil Sci. 73:311–319.
Keeley, J.E., C.B. Osmond, and J.A. Raven.
1984. Stylites, a vascular land plant without
stomata absorbs CO2 via its roots. Nature
310:694–695.
Kimball, B.A., J.R. Mauney, J.W. Radin,
F.S. Nakayama, S.B. Idso, D.L. Hendrix,
D.H. Akey, and S.G. Allen. 1986. Effects of
increasing atmospheric CO2 on the growth,
water relations and physiology of plants
grown under optimal and limiting levels of
water and nitrogen. Prog. Rpt. 039. U.S.
Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix.
Labanauskas, C.K., L.H. Stolzy, L.J. Klotz,
and T.A. DeWolfe. 1971. Soil carbon diox-
ide and mineral accumulation in citrus
seedlings (Citrus Sinensis Var. Bessie). Plant
and Soil 35:337–346
Mauney, J.R. and D.L. Hendrix. 1988.
Responses of glasshouse grown cotton to
irrigation with carbon dioxide-saturated
water. Crop Sci. 28:835–838.
Nakayama, F.S. and D.A. Bucks. 1980.
Using subsurface trickle system for carbon
dioxide enrichment. Proc. 15th Natl. Agr.
Plastics Congr., Tucson, Ariz. 13–17 Apr.,
p. 13–18.
Novero, R., D.H. Smith, F.D. Moore, J.F.
Shanahan, and R. d’Andria. 1991. Field-
grown tomato response to carbonated water
application. Agron. J. 83:911–916.
Schafer, W. 1988. Plant growth after appli-
cations of CO2/HCO3 to the roots. J.
Agron. Crop Sci. 160:228–234.
Sheldrake, Jr., R. 1963. Carbon dioxide
levels in the microclimate as influenced by
the permeability of mulches. Proc. 4th
Natl. Agr. Plastics Congr., New York, 15–
18 Oct., p. 93–96.
Skok, J., W. Chorney, and W.S. Broecker.
1962. Uptake of CO2 by roots of Xanthium
plants. Bot. Gaz. (Chicago) 124:118–120.
Spurway, C.H. 1941. Soil reaction (pH)
preferences of plants. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Spec. Bul. 306.
Stoffella, P.J., Y. Li, R.R. Pelosi, and A.M.
Hamner. 1995. Citrus rootstock and car-
bon dioxide enriched irrigation influence
on seedling emergence, growth, and nutri-
ent content. J. Plant Nutr. 18(7):1439–
1448.
Stolwijk, J.A.J. and K.V. Thimann. 1957.
On the uptake of carbon dioxide and bicar-
bonate by roots and its influence on growth.
Plant Physiol. 32:513–520.
Storlie, C.A. 1992. Soil and plant responses
to CO2 fertigation. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Paper No. 92-2571, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Mich.
Yurgalevitch, C.M. and H.W. Janes. 1988.
Carbon dioxide enrichment of the root
zone of tomato seedlings. J. Hort. Sci.
63(2):265–270.
... Para Arteca et al. (1979) o aumento do fluxo de CO 2 do solo pode afetar o balanço de hormônios e enzimas das plantas por outros caminhos, influenciando a fotossíntese, respiração e outros processos da planta. Aumento do CO 2 do ar do solo pode alterar a produtividade das plantas através do efeito na nitrificação do solo (Alexander, 1965 citado por Storlie & Heckman, 1996b ...
... Exceção para o gráfico de pH do solo na dose de 155 kg ha -1 , que teve dois pontos (dias 6/10 e 8/10) inferiores à dose de 310 kg ha -1 . Essa oscilação dos valores de pH do solo para os tratamentos que receberam CO 2 , segundo Donahue, et al., citado porIbrahim (1992) pode estar associada a ocorrência de carbonato de cálcio, proveniente da reação do ácido carbônico formado pela aplicação de CO 2 via água de irrigação com o cálcio presente no solo, produzindo bircabonato de cálcio que pode acarretar aumento no pH do solo.Mauney & Hendrix (1988),Novero et al. (1991),Ibrahim (1992) eBasile et al. (1993) também verificaram decréscimos no pH do solo por ocasião da aplicação de CO 2 via água de irrigação.Andria (1990) constatou redução temporária do pH da água de irrigação de 6,4 para 4,5, nos tratamentos que receberam CO 2 via água de irrigação.SegundoStorlie & Heckman (1996b) o gás carbônico reduz o pH da água, podendo diminuir o pH do solo. Onde o pH do solo é reduzido para um nível ótimo, pode ocorrer incremento na disponibilização de nutrientes, sugerindo que respostas positivas no crescimento das plantas sob aplicação de água carbonatada, ocorrem onde o pH do solo e da água atingem valores ideais. ...
... Isso sugere que a importância maior do uso do CO2 seja o enriquecimento da atmosfera. Entretanto, Storlie & Heckman (1996) sugeriram que o benefício potencial da água carbonatada seria a redução temporária do pH no solo, o que pode aumentar a disponibilidade de nutrientes para a planta. ...
Article
Full-text available
QUALIDADE FÍSICA E QUÍMICA DE FRUTOS DE MELOEIRO RENDILHADO CULTIVADO SOB DIFERENTES ÉPOCAS DE APLICAÇÃO DE CO2 VIA ÁGUA DE IRRIGAÇÃO. Boanerges S. D’ Albuquerque Júnior1; José Antonio Frizzone1; Sergio Nascimento Duarte1; Rafael Mingoti1; Nildo da Silva Dias2; Valdemício Ferreira de Sousa21Departamento de Engenharia Rural, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, baslbuqu@esalq.usp.br2Embrapa Meio-Norte, Teresina, PI 1 RESUMO O melão tem se constituído em ótimo negócio para o Nordeste brasileiro. O Brasil passou a se destacar no cenário internacional, embora com registros de quedas nas exportações nos últimos anos. Sabe-se que nos últimos 100 anos a concentração de CO2 na atmosfera vem aumentando. Pensando no que isso poderia representar para as plantas, nas últimas décadas se intensificaram os estudos com aplicação de CO2 nas plantas via ambiente e via água. Freqüentemente foram observados aumentos em crescimento de produção sob elevadas concentrações de CO2 na atmosférica. Têm sido freqüentes os estudos com dióxido de carbono (CO2) na cultura do meloeiro com o intuito de tornar viável a relação custo/benefício, de modo a se tentar reduzir o número de aplicações e o volume de CO2 aplicado por área cultivada, porém mantendo a produtividade quando se aplica o CO2 durante todo o ciclo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi estudar o efeito de uma dose de CO2 aplicada em diferentes fases fenológicas da cultura do melão via água de irrigação por gotejamento subsuperficial sobre a qualidade pós-colheita de frutos de meloeiro rendilhado cultivado em ambiente protegido. Os resultados mostram que a aplicação de CO2 não alterou a qualidade dos frutos (Brix e pH), porém no tratamento 3 se observou uma menor acidez. A aplicação de CO2 via água de irrigação nos períodos de frutificação (T3) e do florescimento (T1) proporcionaram aumentos na produção de melão em relação ao tratamento sem CO2 (T4), respectivamente; verificou-se um menor incremento do T2 em relação ao T4. UNITERMOS: pós-colheita, subsuperficial, Cucumis melo L. D’ ALBUQUERQUE JÚNIOR, B. S.; FRIZZONE, J. A.; DUARTE, S. N.; MINGOTI, R.; DIAS, N. da S.; SOUSA, V. F. de. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL QUALITY OF MELON FRUITS UNDER DIFFERENT SET OF CO2 APPLICATION THROUGH IRRIGATION WATER 2 ABSTRACT Melon is turning into a big business for the northeast of Brazilthat starts to stand out in the international scenery, although there has been a decrease in exportation in the last years. It is known that in the last 100 years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Thinking about what that could represent for plants, in the last decades studies of CO2 application in plants through atmosphere and water have been intensified. Increases were frequently observed in production growth under high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Studies with CO2 have become usual in melon production in order to make the cost/benefit relation viable, and to try to reduce the number of CO2 applications and volume per cultivated area, but keeping productivity when CO2 is applied during the whole cycle. The objective of this work was to study the effect of one single CO2 rate, applied at different crop stages through water by a subsurface drip irrigation system, under post harvest quality in net melon fruits cultivated in greenhouse. Results showed that CO2 application did not alter fruit quality (Brix and pH), but treatment 3 resulted in smaller acidity. Obtained data showed that CO2 application through irrigation water for the fruiting (T3) and flowering (T1) treatments provided yield increases, respectively, when compared to untreated (T4); the lowest yield increment was obtained by flowering plus fruiting T2 when compared to T4. KEYWORDS: post harvest, dripping, Cucumis melo L.
... A aplicação de CO 2 tem promovido aumento da produtividade em pimentão (GURI et al., 1999) e pepino (IBRAHIM,1992); em outras pesquisas o uso do gás não teve efeito significativo sobre as culturas de tomate e pepino (HARTZ; HOLT, 1991), pimentão (STORLIE; HECKMAN, 1996). No Brasil, em experimento de campo, Pinto et al.(2001) obtiveram aumento de até 70% na produção comercial em melão. ...
Article
The seed treatment is a major component of the integrated management of pests and diseases, which results in better establishment of cultures, reflecting positively on grain yield. Furthermore, it is expected to be effective, safety and low cost. This study aimed to identify options for treatment of maize seed best suited to storage without compromising seed quality. Seeds of two corn hybrids were used, which were subjected to 5 treatments: T1-Cropstar + Fertiactil GR; T2-Cropstar + Fulltec More; T3-Cropstar + Maxfertil Semental; T4-Cropstar and T5- control treatment. After treated, the seeds remained in storage with an average temperature of 20 to 22 °C and relative humidity average of 70 to 80%. It was evaluated the physiological quality through germination and seedling weight immediately after treatment and at 21, 35, 50, 72 and 99 days of storage. The treatment of corn seed with insecticide and nutrients applied alone or combined does not compromise the physiological quality up to 99 days after application. Further testing is required to evaluate the productivity of hybrids under the effect of these treatments.
... Isso sugere que a importância maior do uso do CO 2 seja o enriquecimento da atmosfera. Entretanto, Storlie & Heckman (1996) sugeriram que o benefício potencial da água carbonatada seria a redução temporária do pH no solo, o que pode aumentar a disponibilidade de nutrientes para a planta. ...
Article
Full-text available
Melon is turning into a big business for the northeast of Brazil that starts to stand out in the international scenery, although there has been a decrease in exportation in the last years. It is known that in the last 100 years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Thinking about what that could represent for plants, in the last decades studies of CO2 application in plants through atmosphere and water have been intensified. Increases were frequently observed in production growth under high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Studies with CO2 have become usual in melon production in order to make the cost/benefit relation viable, and to try to reduce the number of CO2 applications and volume per cultivated area, but keeping productivity when CO2 is applied during the whole cycle. The objective of this work was to study the effect of one single CO2 rate, applied at different crop stages through water by a subsurface drip irrigation system, under post harvest quality in net melon fruits cultivated in greenhouse. Results showed that CO2 application did not alter fruit quality (Brix and pH), but treatment 3 resulted in smaller acidity. Obtained data showed that CO2 application through irrigation water for the fruiting (T3) and flowering (T1) treatments provided yield increases, respectively, when compared to untreated (T4); the lowest yield increment was obtained by flowering plus fruiting T2 when compared to T4.
... não obteve também diferenças nas concentrações de nutrientes nas folhas do meloeiro em relação à testemunha, com exceção para o boro onde o valor foi superior ao da testemunha.Storlie & Heckman (1996b) também verificaram que não houve diferença na concentração de macronutrientes e micronutrientes, em plantas de pimentão cultivadas com a utilização de CO 2 na água de irrigação. Para o potássio, não houve interação significativa entre as doses de potássio e os sistemas de cultivo. No entanto, a utilização da água carbonatada promoveu di ...
... Isso sugere que a importância maior do uso do CO 2 seja o enriquecimento da atmosfera. Entretanto, Storlie & Heckman (1996) sugeriram que o benefício potencial da água carbonatada seria a redução temporária do pH no solo, o que pode aumentar a disponibilidade de nutrientes para a planta. ...
Article
Full-text available
1 RESUMO O melão tem se constituído em ótimo negócio para o Nordeste brasileiro. O Brasil passou a se destacar no cenário internacional, embora com registros de quedas nas exportações nos últimos anos. Sabe-se que nos últimos 100 anos a concentração de CO 2 na atmosfera vem aumentando. Pensando no que isso poderia representar para as plantas, nas últimas décadas se intensificaram os estudos com aplicação de CO 2 nas plantas via ambiente e via água. Freqüentemente foram observados aumentos em crescimento de produção sob elevadas concentrações de CO 2 na atmosférica. Têm sido freqüentes os estudos com dióxido de carbono (CO 2) na cultura do meloeiro com o intuito de tornar viável a relação custo/benefício, de modo a se tentar reduzir o número de aplicações e o volume de CO 2 aplicado por área cultivada, porém mantendo a produtividade quando se aplica o CO 2 durante todo o ciclo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi estudar o efeito de uma dose de CO 2 aplicada em diferentes fases fenológicas da cultura do melão via água de irrigação por gotejamento subsuperficial sobre a qualidade pós-colheita de frutos de meloeiro rendilhado cultivado em ambiente protegido. Os resultados mostram que a aplicação de CO 2 não alterou a qualidade dos frutos (Brix e pH), porém no tratamento 3 se observou uma menor acidez. A aplicação de CO 2 via água de irrigação nos períodos de frutificação (T 3) e do florescimento (T 1) proporcionaram aumentos na produção de melão em relação ao tratamento sem CO 2 (T 4), respectivamente; verificou-se um menor incremento do T 2 em relação ao T 4 .
... al., 1999;Ayers & Westcot, 1991;Burt et al., 1995), outra alternativa usada atualmente para reduzir o pH das águas é a injeção de CO 2 via água de irrigação. Segundo Storlie & Heckman (1996) o dióxido de carbono reduz o pH da água e o pH do solo. Essa redução do pH do solo e da água para níveis ótimos, aumenta a absorção de alguns nutrientes, induzindo a um aumento de produtividade com o uso do CO 2 nas águas alcalinas. ...
Article
Full-text available
The application of irrigation water with high contents of carbonate and bicarbonate can contribute to pH elevation of the soils after some years of cultivation. This study had as its objective the evaluation of the irrigation water with respect to its carbonate and bicarbonate content, based on the concept of the Equivalent Calcium Carbonate (ECACO3) in the region of the Chapada do Apodi and Baixo Açu in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Considering an irrigation water depth of 400 mm, the results showed that the waters of the region of the Chapada do Apodi presented larger values of ECACO3 compared to those of the region of Baixo Açu. In the region of the Chapada do Apodi, independent of the origin, largest values of ECACO3 were found for the waters of the region of Mossoró, with an average of 765 kg ha-1 and the smallest value was observed for Grossos and Upanema with 626 kg ha-1. For the region of Baixo Açu, independent of the origin of the waters, the region of Ipanguassu presented the highest values of ECACO3 with an average of 654 kg ha-1 whereas the smallest values were found for the region of Carnaubais, with 580 kg ha-1.
Article
The experiment was carried out in Piracicaba, SP, in order to evaluate the effects of different carbon dioxide levels applied with irrigation water, associated or not to the mulch plastic, on yield of summer squash. The experimental design was in random blocks in split plot design, with the factor levels of CO2 in the plot and the mulch plastic in split-plot. The treatments constituted on the following levels: 0; 59; 148 and 247 kg ha-1 of CO2. The irrigation was scheduled daily based on a tank class A, using a drip irrigation system. The leaf area, the number of fruit and the yield were evaluated. The levels of CO2 and mulch plastic influenced the leaf area; consequently, it provided increment in the number of fruit and yield of summer squash. The best yield of 15, 433 kg ha-1was obtained by 58.6 kg ha-1 of CO2 with the plastic mulch.
Article
Full-text available
Our objectives in this study were to measure the effects of low levels of root system carbon dioxide on peach tree growth (Prunus persica L. Batsch) and nutrient uptake. Using soil and hydroponic systems, we found that increased root CO2: 1) increased root growth without increasing shoot growth, 2) increased leaf P concentration, 3) decreased leaf N concentration, and 4) reduced water use relative to air injection or no treatment.
Article
Full-text available
Direct release of CO, gas to achieve a cost-effective method of atmospheric CO, enrichment has not been proven feasible under field conditions. We hypothesized that greater efficiency of application would occur by applying COz via carbonated water and that application would also result in beneficial modifications of the soil environment. Our objectives were to evaluate crop, soil, and atmospheric COz responses to application of carbonated water under pressure through a drip irrigation system. Studies were conducted under mulched and unmulched conditions in 1988 using tomato (Lycoper-sicon esculenturn Mill.). In 1989, carbonated water was applied at approximately 2-, 4-, and 6-d intervals to determine the effect of irrigation frequency. In 1988, a positive yield response of 9% was obtained in the presence of mulch. No response was observed in open beds. Fruit yields were increased at all three irrigation frequencies in 1989, with increases in fresh-market and total fruit yields averaging 16.4 and 15.9%, respectively. Atmospheric enrichment was observed during carbonated water application, but residual enrichment between irrigations was difficult to detect. Signscant increase in soil-air CO, from carbonated water application was noted throughout the intervals between successive irrigation events. Carbonated water application also decreased soil pH for periods of up to 5 d after irrigation and increased apparent uptake of P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu, and B. Based on the limited duration of enrichment relative to the entire growing season for any of the car-bonated water treatments, the yield responses observed could not be attributed solely to atmospheric enrichment. Thus, we conclude that yield increases resulted from the combined effects of limited atmospheric C 0 2 enrichment and soil environment modifications leading to improved nutrient uptake.
Article
The root systems of five week old tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Vendor) growing in nutrient solution were treated for 12 h with various concentrations (between 0.5 and 50%) of carbon dioxide and 20% O2 in a balance of N2. Growth measured five days after treatment was influenced by the CO2 concentration. Stimulation of growth occurred at the lower CO2 concentrations (0.5–5%) while higher (25 and 50%) ones were inhibitory. When the application of CO2 was extended from 12 h to five days, even low CO2 concentrations inhibited growth. One centimeter excised root tips from five day old seedlings were treated with the same gas mixtures as the whole plants. The uptake of rubidium was promoted by 1% CO2, while higher concentrations either had no effect or were inhibitory. The uptake of phosphorus was unaffected by concentrations below 10% but was negatively modulated by concentrations above 10%. A 12 h application of 50% CO2 dramatically increased ion leakage from roots.
Article
In our experiments, carbonated water (CW) modified the equilibria in soil. Application of CW decreased the soil pH about 1.5 units one hour after irrigation ended. Minimal, though well defined, differences in soil pH were observed between the two carbonated treatments. The same relationship between the treatments was not found in pH levels of the leachate. This seems strictly related to the temporal and spatial changes in the carbon dioxide (CO2) acidifying effect caused by chemical and biological factors as water descended the soil column. The temporary reduction in soil pH in the CW treatment induced the highest nutrient mobility for most of the elements.
Article
1. The magnitude of CO2 uptake and fixation by Xanthium plant roots was reinvestigated in an attempt to explain unexpectedly low C14/C12 ratios of tree leaves with regard to fixation of radiocarbon of nuclear-test origin. 2. It was found that plants derive relatively insignificant amounts of carbon from CO2 via the roots, and the minute amounts that are incorporated are approximately one hundred times less than the amount lost by root respiration. 3. The results permit the conclusion that the previously noted C14/C12 ratios of the tree leaves were most likely obtained by incorporation of carbon from sources stored in the tree.
Article
In order to make clear the mechanism of transport of CO2, absorbed by rice roots, several experiments were carried out. The amount of CO2, derived from root uptake in rice seedlings was significantly larger than that in wheat seedlings. As CO2, concentration in the culture solution increased, the predominate uptake by rice roots became more obvious. 2,4-Dinitro-phenol and sodium azide constantly inhibited dark CO2, fixation in roots of rice and wheat, while their effects on the CO2, transport to the shoots were not significant. In the case of mannitol treatment, CO2, transport from roots to shoots in wheat decreased by 50%, while no strong inhibition was observed in rice. CO2, gas analysis in roots indicated that the CO2, enrichment in the culture solution led to the increase of CO2, gas content in rice roots. The volume of the gas phase in rice roots was ten times as large as that in wheat roots and CO2, gas contents in rice roots were by far higher than those in wheat roots. These results as well as other experimental data may suggest that a large part of CO2, absorbed by rice roots moves to the shoots in the gaseous state. Further, it can be postulated that the principal gasification site in rice plants is located in the root cortex where lysigenous intercellular spaces are present.
Article
Seeds of Carrizo citrange (Citrus senensis (L.) Osb. X Poncirus trifolliata (L.), Cleopatra mandarin (C. reticulata Blanco), Sour orange (C. aurantium L.), and Rough lemon (C. Union (Buna f.) were sown in trays, irrigated without or with enriched Carbon dioxide (CO2) (1,362 mg L) and evaluated for seedling emergence, growth, and nutrient contents. Rough lemon had a faster rate and higher percent emergence than the other rootstocks. Carrizo citrange had thicker stem diameters and taller seedlings than other rootstocks. Cleopatra mandarin had the smallest seedling shoot and root weights and larger shootrroot ratios than Rough lemon and Sour orange. Carrizo citrange and Cleopatra mandarin had higher leaf chlorophyll‐a and total chlorophyll content than Rough lemon or Sour orange. Carbon dioxide enriched irrigation had no effects on emergence or seedling growth variables except lower root weight. Lower media pH (6.90 versus 5.65), attributed to CO2 enriched irrigation, may have adversely affected root growth as compared to shoot characteristics. Leaf nutrient contents generally differed between rootstocks but were not affected by CO2 enriched water except for higher Zn and lower Mn contents. These results indicate that citrus seedling emergence, subsequent growth and leaf nutrient content differred between rootstocks but there are no beneficial effect from CO2 enriched irrigation.