FINAL REPORT    

20140305      

TREATMENTS TO IMPROVE PLANT HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY IN A MATURE SASKATOON 

HASKAP, AND SOUR CHERRY ORCHARD LOCATED IN HIGH PH SOIL 

   

Funded by: The Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture under the Canada-Saskatchewan Growing Forward bi-lateral agreement

 December 2015 

  

Prepared by:  Irrigation Crop Diversification Corporation (ICDC) 

Title: TREATMENTS TO IMPROVE PLANT HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY IN MATURE SASKATOON, HASKAP, AND SOUR CHERRY ORCHARDS LOCATED IN HIGH PH SOIL

ADOPT Project #: 20140305 Sponsored by: Irrigation Crop Diversification Corp. (ICDC) Box 609

Outlook, SK S0L 2N0

Project Location: Canada Saskatchewan Irrigation Diversification Centre

(CSIDC) R.M. of Rudy No. 284 901 McKenzie St. S.

Outlook, SK S0L 2N0 Start date: 24 July, 2014 End date: 25 October, 2015 Project Manager: Gary Hnatowich P Ag;

ICDC Research Scientist CSIDC Outlook Ph: (306) 867-5405 garry.hnatowich@agr.gc.ca

Project contact: Joel Peru Box 609, 410 Saskatchewan Ave W

Outlook, SK S0L 2N0 Bus: (306) 867-5528 Cell: (306) 860-7201 joel.peru@gov.sk.ca

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Objective: The objective of this project was to demonstrate and compare soil and foliar “iron chlorosis” treatments to improve the health of mature saskatoon berry, dwarf sour cherry, and haskap plants growing in high pH soil. Treatments included: foliar applied iron chelate, soil applied iron chelate, soil applied iron sulfate, soil applied iron sucrate, soil applied iron monohydrate, foliar applied iron monohydrate, and soil applied alfalfa pellet (with Humic Acid). Rationale: Many growers have planted orchards in high pH soils, and are looking for solutions to improve plant health and productivity. Plant health issues are complex, but

Weaknesses often originate from poor soil/plant dynamics, especially in relation to the ability of the plants to absorb iron under cool wet soil conditions. The condition known as “iron chlorosis” can be identified by interveinal yellowing of leaves that are especially prevalent in new growth tissues. Photograph of “iron chlorosis” symptoms affecting Saskatoon berry

Soil pH is a site selection factor that is often not given enough consideration when new orchard sites are being selected. Most plant species are better able to absorb nutrients when the soil pH is relatively neutral (close to 7). That is because nutrients are held by relatively weak ionic bonds to negatively charged clay particles (or soil organic matter), and are more soluble at neutral pH. In high pH soils (above pH 7.8) "iron chlorosis" is far more likely to occur and is much more difficult to prevent. Iron is usually absorbed by plants in the form of Fe2+ (ferrous) or Fe3+ (ferric) ions, however in high pH soil; iron tends to form insoluble hydrous oxides (Fe2O3 3H2O) so plants cannot absorb the nutrient through the root system. The nutrient is needed by plants because it is an essential component of many redox enzymes and is required for the synthesis of chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is the most important light-absorbing pigment found in the thylakoid membranes of chloroplasts. The green chloroplasts absorb light energy from the sun and convert it into plant usable energy forms like NADPH and ATP. The production of this photosynthetic energy is necessary for general plant health. Therefore, if the plant suffers from iron chlorosis, iron is not absorbed to help create chlorophyll, which results in leaf yellowing and an inability of the plant to absorb energy to maintain its overall health. In a weakened state, plants become susceptible to winterkill or diseases, and fruit yield is reduced. This project addresses the need for growers to understand the effect of high soil pH, and how to improve conditions in high pH soils using simple tools. In the long-term, it is expected that improved soil condition through application of project treatments will increase plant productivity, and reduce plant death making operations more profitable and efficient. Methodology Five rows of Saskatoon berry, four rows of Haskap, and three rows of dwarf sour cherry were used in this project. Saskatoon berry rows included two cultivars Smokey and Thiessen. Haskap rows included University of Saskatchewan varieties Tundra, Borealis, Honey Bee; as well as Berry Blue, (a variety from One Green World nursery, Oregon). Dwarf sour cherry rows included University of Saskatchewan cultivars Cupid, Valentine, and Romeo.

In saskatoon berry and dwarf sour cherry treatment plots were 6 meters of row length (since the plants sucker the number of plants per plot was not prescribed). Haskap plots included 3 plants per plot (plot length was roughly 6 meters). Each row had 8 treatments that included:

1. Foliar applied Iron Chelate 2. Soil applied Iron Chelate 3. Soil applied Iron Sulfate 4. Soil applied Iron Sucrate 5. Soil applied Iron Monohydrate 6. Soil applied Humic Acid/Alfalfa Pellets 7. Foliar applied Iron Monohydrate 8. Control

Treatments were randomized and each plot was photographed, leaf samples were analyzed for nutrient content, and fruit was harvested from Saskatoons on July 16th and fruit samples were taken from dwarf sour cherry on August 5th. Fruit production on Haskap was negligible in 2015. Dwarf sour cherry fruit Brix (roughly equivalent to sugar content) was measured using an optical refractometer. Saskatoon berry was not measured this way because variation in sugar content is negligible (at roughly11%), and saskatoons have high fibre content that reduces the accuracy of the refractive correlation with sugar content. Treatments were applied via pull-type sprayer for water soluble iron products. Relatively insoluble granular products were spread within the row using a hand spreader. All iron treatments were applied at a rate equivalent to 10 lbs/acre. Soluble iron treatments and humic acid were applied in 60 L water per treatment on June 1st. Humic Acid was applied at 2 L of HA-6 per 60L of water/humic acid solution on May 20th. Major fertilizer application was applied according to soil samples (N-P-K-S at 100-60-40-5 lbs/acre was needed), and applications were made at rates based upon fertilizer product nutrient percentages to ensure 110-60-40-5 lbs was applied on May 20th. Since the fruit species in this project are not agronomically well characterised; the fertility measurements for the leaf samples were evaluated according to apple standard. In regard to yield, representative branches were selected for harvest in order to minimize the effect of pre-existing plot variability, and fruit was hand harvested. Three additional iron treatments were added to this project because QC Corporation donated iron sucrate and iron monohydrate. In addition; Wapaw Bay Resources Inc. (Zenon Park, SK) donated HA-6, so their humic acid product could be included with alfalfa (the alfalfa treatment is a long-term solution, and it was hoped the humic acid would speed up treatment effect). Results: The 2015 growth season was characterized as dry and warmer than average (especially from late-spring to mid-summer). Under warm dry conditions, plants are less challenged to absorb iron from soil sources because iron is less likely to form iron hydroxides. Since the non-hydroxide forms of iron are more readily absorbed by plants, symptoms of “iron chlorosis” were greatly reduced compared to the previous five years. So treatment effect was minimized. Photographs of the plots offer some evidence there were slight treatment differences, but environmental conditions and pre-existing plot variability complicate matters. Visually the salient differences were between treated plots and control.

Saskatoon berry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Treatments were photographed and are arranged in numerical order starting with treatment number one. Each treatment group includes four plot* photographs starting from row one and moving from left to right in numerical order to row four. *(Four plots were included due to camera storage capacity) Some Saskatoon leaves were infected with Hawthorn Lace Bugs and this caused leaves to appear dull tan coloured (this symbol is placed below affected plot photos), these leaves had been dark green prior to insect infestation. Hawthorn Lace bugs are usually not controlled, because they are not known to cause significant economic damage. Plants in photographs below with light green to yellow coloured leaves are affected by Iron Chlorosis. From 2010 to 2014 all plots were significantly lighter yellow, and yields were well below average. 2015 yields were above average and plants were significantly greener. Obvious evidence of treatment affect could be seen in foliar applied Iron Chelate and Iron Monohydrate as dark green spots occur where the iron is absorbed into leaves (the following photograph is an iron monohydrate treated Saskatoon berry plot)

Other treatment effects are less obvious visually, and it is suspected that treatments like iron sucrate and the humic acid/alfalfa pellet will take longer to show full effect. It is recommended that flowering and fruit–set in the 2016 growth season be monitored and compared.

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #1: Foliar applied Iron Chelate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #2: Soil applied Iron Chelate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #3: Soil applied Iron Sulfate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #4: Soil applied Iron Sucrate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #5: Soil applied Iron Monohydrate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #6: Humic Acid/Alfalfa Pellets

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #7: Foliar applied Iron Monohydrate

Saskatoon Berry Treatment #8: Control

Saskatoon Berry Leaf Sample Analysis: Leaf sample nutrient data was converted (see following table) into a percentage in which: 0 to 25% indicates nutrient deficiency, 25 to 50% indicates marginal nutrient content, 50 to 75% indicates adequate nutrition, and 75 to 100% indicates optimum nutrient content. Standards utilized to determine leaf sample nutrient status were based upon recommendations for apples. In regard to genetics, Saskatoon berries are “Pommes” (members of the apple family), so apple comparisons hold a high level of validity for Saskatoon berry. Iron (Fe) availability was adequate for all treatments including Control. This largely reflects the fact that under warm and dry conditions plants are much better able to absorb existing soil iron sources to meet need (since Fe2O3 3H2O formation wasn’t favoured in 2015). A few plots had marginal iron content in leaves. Plots R3T2, R4T5, R5T4, and R5T5 were lower Fe than other plots, but this was not related to treatment. Potassium (K) absorption was marginal to deficient in a number of samples, this also did not correlate with treatment. There was a significant amount of pre-existing variability whithin the plots. Since the Saskatoon bushes are perennial plants that have been growing for a number of years; the pre-existing differences (and other environmental factors) could not be excluded from the trial. Insect feeding may have also negatively influenced the nutrient readings, and control of these insects should be encouraged even if short-term yield effects are not economically significant. It was surprising that many of the major nutrients did not prove to be supplied at adequate levels, given that according to soil analysis adequate amounts were provided. It is speculated some nutrient leaching may have occurred (the soil has high sand content) since some heavy rains drenched the plots before samples were taken. The plants may also have had low reserves going into the 2015 season; so the fertilizer could have been rapidly absorbed by the plants and the relatively heavy fruit-set demanded more than was anticipated by simple soil analysis. It is recommended future trials be provided higher amounts of major nutrients, and that a full spectrum of micronutrients be provided. As noted previously; some treatments may provide benefit into the 2016 production year, and it would be beneficial to measure the longer term effects of these treeatments.

Nutrient content in saskatoon berry leaf samples:

R# = Row number T# = Treatment number Treatment #1 = Foliar applied Iron Chelate Treatment #2 = Soil applied Iron Chelate Treatment #3 = Soil applied Iron Sulfate Treatment #4 = Soil applied Iron Sucrate Treatment #5 = Soil applied Iron Monohydrate Treatment #6 = Soil applied Humic acid /Alfalfa Pellets Treatment #7 = Foliar applied Iron Monohydrate Treatment #8 = Control

Samples with nutrient content below 25% are considered to be deficient (for example; R2T1 in the table above highlighted in yellow) Plots with marginal iron deficiency according to leaf sample analysis did not correlate with visual symptomology. In addition; according to leaf sample analysis Control plots had sufficient iron content despite some visual symptomology. This supports the general observation that since early spring through mid-summer conditions were warm and dry, sufficient in-situ iron sources were available to the saskatoons to meet most plant needs. Saskatoon Fruit Yield: In regard to fruit yield, only selected representative shoots were harvested in an attempt to reduce pre-existing plot variability. Overall yields were above average and fruit quality was good. Some loss occurred prior to harvest due to bird predation as well as high wind associated with a thunderstorm that caused fruit fall. The picture below is representative of what was on the ground in the alleyways throughout the Saskatoon orchard. This likely represented roughly five per cent loss from total yield. Bird predation may have accounted for an additional five to ten per cent loss.

Smokey N P  K S Fe Zn Thiessen N P  K S Fe Zn

R1 T1 38 48 53 30 62.5 30 R4 T1 48 62.5 25 30 62.5 37.5

R1 T2 48 50 25 30 62.5 30 R4 T2 Irrigation  interruptioN/A N/A N/A N/A

R1 T3 38 41 25 31 62.5 30 R4 T3 51 62.5 28 28 62.5 25

R1 T4 50 48 32 31 62.5 27 R4 T4 37.5 68 25 25 62.5 25

R1 T5 48 50 38 30 62.5 25 R4 T5 33 87 37 28 37 48

R1 T6 37.5 50 25 30 62.5 25 R4 T6 52 69 23 28 62.5 37.5

R1 T7 50 51 25 31 62.5 34 R4 T7 48 62.5 25 28 62.5 29

R1 T8 34 36 51 30 62.5 38 R4 T8 50 72 25 27 62.5 37.5

R2 T1 42 52 23 27 62.5 30 R5 T1 Irrigation InteruptioN/A N/A N/A N/A

R2 T2 32 37.5 30 25 62.5 25 R5 T2 55 87 67 40 62.5 37.5

R2 T3 28 62.5 51 25 62.5 25 R5 T3 55 87 50 38 62.5 38

R2 T4 32 50 25 26 62.5 26 R5 T4 50 87 40 30 42 37.5

R2 T5 37.5 62.5 60 33 62.5 25 R5 T5 53 73 38 30 48 34

R2 T6 43 52 25 28 62.5 27 R5 T6 50 87 67 30 62.5 34

R2 T7 37.5 37.5 25 27 62.5 25 R5 T7 50 87 48 37 62.5 38

R2 T8 37.5 38 25 27 62.5 25 R5 T8 53 87 51 33 62.5 40

R3 T1 37.5 37.5 37.5 29 62.5 25

R3 T2 28 37.5 25 25 34 25

R3 T3 34 38 26 26 62.5 28

R3 T4 25 38 48 25 62.5 28

R3 T5 42 40 25 29 62.5 26

R3 T6 40 40 25 28 62.5 29

R3 T7 40 38 26 28 62.5 26

R3 T8 37.5 75 33 26 62.5 27

Picture of Saskatoon berries blown off bushes and onto the ground in the alleyways In regard to harvest, the first row was harvested at twice the amount of the other rows (twice as many shoots were harvested per plot). The number of shoots in Rows 2, 3, and 4 were reduced because access to labour was limited and it became apparent that if the amount per plot wasn’t modified the crew would run out of time before completing the task. Since a lot of pre-existing conditions influenced yield, results from 2015 yield measurement do not provide a good indicator of treatment performance. All plots received the same major nutrient application (including the Control) and given that iron absorption wasn’t as problematic in 2015 as it had been the previous five years; yield differences relate more to pre-existing conditions than they do to treatment effect. Nevertheless; the data will be useful as orchard health is tracked in future years.

Saskatoon Harvest July 16th Weight (kg)

Treatment Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Average

1 5.26 1.75 2.98 0.77 2.69

2 3.38 1.78 1.99 no data 2.383333

3 4.83 1.79 2.59 1.08 2.5725

4 2.93 3.42 1.88 2.14 2.5925

5 4.74 1.75 2.33 4.74 3.39

6 2.14 3.8 no data 1.62 2.52

7 5.06 3.42 1.95 1.24 2.9175

8 5.64 2.27 2.86 no data 3.59

Treatment #:

1= Foliar Iron Chelate

2= Soil Iron Chelate

3= Soil Iron Sulfate

4= soil iron sucrate

5= soil iron monohydrate

6= Humic Acid Alfalfa pellets

7= iron monohydrate

8= Control

Haskap Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) is a relatively shallow rooted perennial that is native to boreal regions throughout Canada and northern parts of the Eurasian landmass. It is a very recently introduced species for crop production and since boreal soils are typically neutral to acidic, high pH tolerance in this crop remains to be fully characterized. It is exceptionally winter hardy, and the flowers are exceptionally frost tolerant. Unfortunately; this species comes out of dormancy and flowers well before most other perennial species, and under the wrong circumstances this can make it susceptible to early season losses. Haskap did not perform well throughout Saskatchewan in 2015. Reasons included: 1) more frost damage occurred during early spring (temperatures had been warm in early May and this stimulated plants to come out of dormancy, then May 29 temperatures dropped below -7 ⁰ C in many locations)…at a time when other species hadn’t started to flower, 2) since it is shallow rooted, lack of consistent moisture may have reduced vascular transfer of nutrients and moisture to fruit in early development stages, 3) since two flowers need to be pollinated to allow the central ovary to fully develop, insufficient pollination (due to cool temperatures limiting bee activity) may have resulted in small fruit and reduced fruit set, 4) higher direct sunlight and heat levels in early to late-summer reduced plant vigour and fruit size. This species has understory plant characteristics and appears to prefer growing in shaded and well protected environments. High radiation level direct sunlight (like we typically get in Outlook Saskatchewan) interferes with vigorous growth. This factor likely had a negative influence on results of this project. It is recommended that photo-selective netting be tested to see if their beneficial properties can improve haskap vigour and productivity in high pH soils in Saskatchewan 2016/2017. In addition; Haskap leaves are quite pubescent and this may have reduced absorption of foliar applied nutrients, as the applications did not appear to penetrate into the leaves as effectively as in saskatoon or dwarf sour cherry leaves. In addition some roots were exposed in plots where mechanical weeding was performed too close to the plants. Since the roots are close to the surface and mechanical weed operations disturb this zone. Plot R4 T5 suffered this type of disturbance and its foliar nutrient content appears to have been affected. Haskap plots did show significant greening when compared to previous year’s growth (see below), and Berry Blue (Row 1) appears to be consistently better suited to high pH soils as it is greener and more vigorous than the other cultivars. Haskap plots photographed in 2013 are significantly yellower than in 2015 (except Berry Blue that has been consistently dark green)

2015 Haskap Treatment #1: Foliar Applied Iron Chelate

Haskap Treatment #2: Soil applied Iron Chelate

Haskap Treatment #3: Soil applied Iron Sulfate

Haskap Treatment #4: Soil applied Iron Sucrate

Haskap Treatment #5: Soil applied Iron Monohydrate

Haskap Treatment #6: Humic Acid and Alfalfa Pellets

Haskap Treatment #7: Foliar applied Iron Monohydrate

Haskap Treatment #8: Control

Haskap Nutrient Analysis: Leaf sample nutrient data were converted using the same methodology as applied to Saskatoon berry in which 0-25% represents nutrient deficiency, 25-50% equates to marginal deficiency, et cetera. In regard to leaf fertility analysis; Apple (Malus) leaf standards were used for Haskap (Lonicera). Given that these plants are from different genera, the Apple standard may not have been ideal. Nevertheless, the foliar samples did display symptomology consistent with the nutrient deficiencies indicated. In regard to iron content, most treatments as well as control had adequate iron content and although some individual plots had iron deficiency, this did not correlate with treatment type. Consistent with Saskatoon berry findings; the warm and dry conditions mitigated problems for Haskap to absorb iron in 2015. Almost all plots had adequate iron content, and plots that were marginal had pre-existing weakness that made them less able to absorb all nutrients.

Potassium and zinc levels were consistently deficient and nitrogen content was marginal to deficient. Lack of nitrogen and potassium was not as evident in the Saskatoon berries or the dwarf sour cherries (and they are larger more vigorous growing plants) so Haskap seems to either have a higher requirement, or greater difficulty absorbing these nutrients. Given the low organic content and CEC of the site’s soil, nitrogen, potassium and zinc content may have eluted into lower horizons in the soil profile making them relatively unavailable to Haskap roots. It is also possible that since Haskap is shallow rooted and the top soil has a greater tendency to

Haskap L.A. N P K S Fe Zn N P K S Fe Zn

R1 T1 32 88 18 67.5 67.5 20 R3 T1 25 70 12.5 67.5 67.5 18

R1 T2 25 88 12.5 67.5 67.5 12.5 R3 T2 25 64 14 67.5 67.5 25

R1 T3 25 88 12.5 67.5 37.5 12.5 R3 T3 25 67.5 13 67.5 67.5 25

R1 T4 25 88 12.5 67.5 30 19 R3 T4 25 88 15 67.5 67.5 25

R1 T5 25 88 10 67 31 14 R3 T5 25 67.5 11 67.5 67.5 17

R1 T6 26 88 14 67 67.5 20 R3 T6 25 67.5 13 49 67.5 17

R1 T7 25 88 12.5 67.5 67.5 20 R3 T7 25 52 13 67.5 67.5 17

R1 T8 25 88 10 67.5 67.5 17 R3 T8 25 52 17 67.5 67.5 25

R2 T1 25 88 10 67.5 67 21 R4 T1  22 53 13 67.5 67.5 13

R2 T2 25 88 20 67 50 25 R4 T2 25 67.5 19 67.5 67.5 18

R2 T3 25 88 10 67.5 67.5 25 R4 T3 25 67.5 14 68 68 13

R2 T4 25 88 10 67.5 67.5 22 R4 T4 23 53 14 68 68 20

R2 T5 25 88 14 67.5 67.5 25 R4 T5 25 13 5 18 28 10

R2 T6 25 88 13 67.5 67.5 21 R4 T6 25 54 14 67.5 67.5 13

R2 T7 25 88 13 67.5 67.5 21 R4 T7 24 53 14 67.5 67.5 17

R2 T8 25 54 10 67.5 67.5 13 R4 T8 24 67.5 22 67.5 67.5 24

dry (from evapo-transpiration), lack of water limited vascular flow and nutrient transport. Future projects should monitor upper soil horizon nutrient content throughout the growth season. Dwarf Sour Cherry: Dwarf sour cherry rows included cultivars Cupid, Valentine, and Romeo. These cultivars are from the University of Saskatchewan’s Fruit Research Program and were released in 2004. Dwarf sour cherries are drought and winter hardy, but as with most sour cherries they do not perform well in cool wet conditions. The plants had shown extensive iron chlorosis symptomology in the previous five growing seasons, (photographs from 2013 provided below show what had been typical chlorotic conditions in the orchard). As is consistent with the Saskatoon berry and Haskap plots; the warm and dry 2015 conditions favoured adequate soil available iron content and this combined with treatment reduced symptoms of iron chlorosis. In addition, lack of frost during the bloom period combined with minimal disease pressure resulted in strong fruit-set and cherry yields that were above average. Treatment differences were not visually significant, and only slight visual differences were detectable between treated versus control plots. Foliar treatments of iron chelate and iron monohydrate had obvious impacts on chlorotic leaves, as dark green spots were visible where the iron had been directly absorbed into the leaf. Nevertheless; from a distance differences between plots were hard to detect. Some dwarf sour cherry photos were lost (camera memory capacity was exceeded), so the following photos only display Cupid and Valentine cultivars (Rows 1 and 2). Cherry plots photographed in 2013:

2015 Cherry Treatment #1: Foliar applied Iron Chelate

Cherry Treatment #2: Soil applied Iron Chelate

Cherry Treatment #3: Soil applied Iron Sulphate

Cherry Treatment #4: Soil applied Iron Sucrate

Cherry Treatment #5: Soil applied Iron Monohydrate

Cherry Treatment #6: Humic Acid/Alfalfa Pellets

Cherry Treatment #7: Foliar applied Iron Monohydrate

Cherry Treatment #8: Control

Dwarf Sour Cherry Leaf Analysis: Due to limited budget and the perception that cherry foliar symptomology did not display significant variation, leaf samples were pooled and submitted per treatment type. Iron content was adequate in all samples, but treatment # 2 (soil applied iron chelate) as well as treatment #6 (humic acid/alfalfa pellet) had lower iron content than other treatments (including the control). The lower nutrient content in these two treatments did not present significant visual symptoms and likely stemmed from pre-existing conditions (rather than 2015 treatment effects). Zinc content was deemed to be deficient in all treatments, but this did not appear to affect fruit yield or quality. Dwarf sour cherry (Prunus cerasis) leaf samples were analyzed using apple (Malus domestica) nutrient standards, and in regard to zinc those standards may not be appropriate for the Prunus genera.

In regard to sugar content; dwarf sour cherry samples were measured using a standard Brix refractometer and the following data was tabulated.

Row 1 = Cupid, Row 2 = Valentine Row 3 = Romeo. Sugar content is influenced by many factors including environmental conditions and genetics. In this project sugar content was partially cultivar dependent (genetic). ADF report # 20090405 “Variety Variations in New and Existing U of S Sour Cherries” found that Romeo had the highest average sugar content, followed by Cupid, and Valentine had the lowest (at peak ripeness). This project was consistent with that data. Valentine sugar content averaged lowest at 16.6 %, Cupid averaged higher at 17.5% , and Romeo averaged highest at 19.6%. In general 2015 was filled with sunshine and this translated into higher average sugar content than had been found in the previous U of S studies. Sugar content was not significantly influenced by treatment, so iron and zinc limitations did not affect fruit quality significantly.

Cherry L.A. N P K S Fe Zn

T1 70 53 53 37.5 67.5 23

T2 70 52 67.5 37.5 48 18

T3 70 53 88 37.5 67.5 18

T4 70 56 88 37.5 67.5 14

T5 70 52 69 37.5 62.5 20

T6 70 52 87.5 37.5 48 20

T7 70 63 88 37.5 62.5 20

T8 70 55 88 37.5 62.5 22

Cherry Brix 

R1 T1 17 R2 T1 15 R3 T1 20

R1 T2 20 R2 T2 11 R3 T2 20

R1 T3 18 R2 T3 18 R3 T3 19

R1 T4 19 R2 T4  19 R3 T4 20

R1 T5 14 R2 T5 17.5 R3 T5 19

R1 T6 21 R2 T6 15 R3 T6 19

R1 T7 16 R2 T7 19 R3 T7 21

R1 T8 15 R2 T8 18 R3 T8 19

Conclusions: Treatments to improve iron chlorosis affected Saskatoon berry, Haskap, and dwarf sour cherry growing in high pH soil had some (mainly visual) effects that it is anticipated will correspond with improved plant vigour over the longer-term (including productivity in 2016 and 2017). Main visual treatment differences were between iron product treatment plots, and controls. In effect, any iron treatment appeared to provide some benefit. However; 2015 temperature and moisture conditions served to minimize treatment differences. There were significant improvements in the visual health of the plots when comparing 2015 to previous years, but most of the significant differences can likely be attributed to more favourable climate conditions. In regard to leaf analysis, iron deficiencies were negligible throughout the orchards, including controls. Nevertheless other deficiencies were noted including major nutrients like potassium, and minor nutrients like zinc. Deficiencies were especially endemic in Haskap despite all species having received the same treatments. Since Haskap is shallow rooted, it is likely that nutrient absorption was hindered through the dynamics presented to the plant within the limited soil conditions available in the top soil layer. Dwarf sour cherry also had nominal zinc deficiency, but this may relate more to nutrient standards derived from apples being inappropriate for usage on cherry. In general fruit yields for Saskatoon berry and dwarf sour cherry were above average. In regard to haskap, yield was extremely low and fruit size was small for reasons unrelated to treatment effects. Given better overall health status going into 2015/2016 winter, all plants should stand a better chance of producing high fruit yields in 2016. Flowering and fruit-set should be monitored in 2016. A field day was hosted on July 9’Th 2015, and between 70 to 100 people attended. A speech was provided describing the project, treatments, expected outcomes, and (at that time) tentative results. Results from this project will also be shared at the Saskatchewan Fruit Growers Association’s Annual Conference held in January, 2016 (where between 60 to 100 participants will be in attendance). Acknowledgements The Saskatchewan Fruit Growers Association helped to advertise the field day, and will host their SFGA Annual Conference in January 2016 where results of this demonstration will be provided. Recognition of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture and ADOPT is provided at all events where results are presented including the Field Day, and the SFGA Annual Conference (during Crop Production Week, 2016) QC Corporation was and will be recognized for their contribution of Iron Sucrate and Iron Monohydrate. Wapaw Bay Resources Inc. was and will be recognized for their contribution of HA-6 Humic Acid.

Appendices

L1665383.pdf

  Includes Saskatoon Leaf analysis data 

 

L1665384.pdf

 Includes Haskap and Dwarf Sour Cherry Leaf analysis data

Abstract Six iron fertilizer products were demonstrated at Canada Saskatchewan Irrigation Diversification Centre fruit plots in 2015 along with control plots and a humic acid/alfalfa pellet treatment. Fruit plots had been suffering from persistent Iron Chlorosis symptoms due to high pH soil (combined with cool wet conditions) limiting iron uptake in plants. Fruit productivity had been in severe decline, and many Saskatchewan fruit growers located in similar soils had been suffering in similar ways. Iron products were demonstrated on Saskatoon berry, Haskap, and Dwarf sour cherry orchard rows, with treatments randomized in an attempt to overcome bias from pre-existing plot variability. Iron treatments included: foliar applied iron chelate and iron monohydrate, as well as soil applied iron chelate, iron sulfate, iron sucrate, and iron monohydrate. 2015 climate conditions were dry and warm, and these conditions did not support development of iron chlorosis so treatment effect was minimized. Visual differences could be seen, but leaf analysis did not show significant differences in treatment effect. Fruit yield was above average in Saskatoon berry and dwarf sour cherry; however negligible yield was obtained from haskap plots. Yield levels were not significantly correlated with treatment effect, nor were sugar content or fruit quality. Saskatoon berry and dwarf sour cherry nutrient levels of N-P-K-S and Iron were largely adequate, in 2015. Dwarf sour cherry had deficient levels of Zinc according to Apple nutrient standards, but this did not affect yield or fruit quality. Haskap nutrient content was determined to be deficient in a number of different nutrients including N-K and Zinc. Haskap deficiencies likely relate to root conditions and other physiological conditions, rather than specific plant needs for these fertilizers. Plots were demonstrated July 9, 2015 at a Field Day with roughly 80 people in attendance, and results will be presented at the Saskatchewan Fruit Growers Association Annual Conference in January 2016 (Crop Production Week).