Highbush blueberries are a relatively new crop in Latvia raising interest in farmers who wish to diversify their commercial horticultural activities. It is considered that soil properties are one of the possible shortcomings limiting establishment of high-productive plantations in areas where soil reaction is close to neutral. The research objective was to test the main soil characteristics in a commercial highbush blueberry plantation where initial soil properties were changed as a result of soil modification (deep tillage, peat additions) before planting of bushes and afterwards maintained (mulching with acid peat and sawdust) periodically. The research was carried out in 2011 - in a farm where the blueberry plantation had been established seven years ago. The experimental plots were arranged on a complex slope, by choosing different parts of terrain. Soil - Haplic Cambisol, sandy loam, formed on a low calcareous moraine. Original topsoil’s reaction was pH KCl 5.37. Five experimental plots, each consisting of seven bushes, were set up. Research showed that modification of topsoil significantly changed the physical and agrochemical properties of soil. Soil bulk density reduced, porosity and soil aeration increased. Sphagnum peat (pH KCl 3.0) as a soil modifier allowed efficiently reducing the soil reaction at the soil root zone and provided an optimal environment for blueberries. Soil properties were not the determinant factor that limited establishment of a productive blueberry plantation. Soil properties adjusted accordingly to the requirements of highbush blueberry gave the possibility of establishing plantations also in typical mineral soils that develop on a low calcareous moraine.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Ancu I. Iancu M. Mladin P. & Ancu S. (2010). The planting effects on some growth characteristics of seven blueberry cultivars. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca Horticulture 67(1) 91-95.
2. Austin M.E. & Bondari K. (1992). Response of established rabbiteye blueberry to soil amendments and fertilizers. Journal of Small Fruit and Viticulture 1(1) 27-37.
3. Burkhard N. Lynch D. & Percival D. (2010). Effects of pine-needle and compost mulches and weeds on nitrogen dynamics in an organically managed highbush blueberry field. Acta Horticulturae 873(9) 253-260.
5. Hart G. Strik B. White L. & Yang W. (2006). Nutrient management for blueberries in Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service.
6. Haynes R.J. & Swift R.S. (1985). Growth and nutrient uptake by highbush blueberry plants in a peat medium as influenced by pH applied micronutrients and mycorrizal inoculation. Scientia Horticulturae 27(3-4) 285-294.
7. Haynes R.J. & Swift R.S. (1986). Effect of soil amendments and sawdust mulching on growth yield and leaf nutrients of highbush bluberry plants. Scientia Horticulturae (119) 41-48.
8. Hendershot W.H. Lande H. & Duquette M. (2007). Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. In M.R. Carter & E.G. Gregorich (Eds) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis (2nd ed. pp. 171-178). CRC Press.
9. Kārkliņš A. (2008). Augšņu diagnostika un apraksts. Jelgava: LLU.
10. Kondratowicz-Maciejewska K. & Kobierski M. (2011). Content of available magnesium phosphorus and potassium forms in soil exposed to various crop rotation and fertilization. Journal of Elementology 16(4) 543-553.
11. Li Y. Xuendong T. Lin W. & Zang Z. (2006). Effect of organic material on soil properties plant growth leaf photosynthesis nutrient uptake and mycorrhizal infection of blueberries. Acta Horticulturae 715 375-380.
12. Marschner H. (1995). Mineral nutrition of higher plants (2nd ed.). London San Diego New York: Academic Press.
13. Nollendorfs V. (2004). Augsto krūmmelleņu prasības pēc augsnes un mēslojuma. AgroPols 12 8-10.
14. Nollendorfs V. Karlsons A. & Čekstere G. (2007). Krūmmelleņu mēslošana minerālaugsnēs.Dārzs un Drava 1 26-29.
15. Ochmian I. Grajkowski J. Mikiciuk G. Ostrowska K. & Chelpinski P. (2009).Mineral composition of high blueberry leaves and fruits depending on substrate type used for cultivation. Journal of Elementalogy 14(3) 509-516.
16. Osvalde A. Nollendorfs V. Karlsons A. & Pormale J. (2011). Dzērveņu un krūmmelleņu minerālā barošanās. Agrotops 3 62-64.
17. Paal T. Starast M. Noormets-Sanski M. Vool E. Tasa T. & Karp K. (2011). Influence of liming and fertilization on lowbush blueberry in harvested peat field condition. Scientia Horticulturae 130 157-163.
18. Pormale L. Osvalde A. & Nollendorfs V. (2009). Comparison study of cultivated highbush and wild blueberry nutrient status in producing plantings and woodlands Latvia. Agronomijas Vēstis 12 80-87.
19. Ripa A. (1992). Dzērvenes zilenes brūklenes dārzā. Rīga: Avots.
20. Sanderson K.R. Carter M.R. & Ivany J.A. (1996). Effects of gypsum on yield and nutrient status of native lowbush blueberry. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76 361-366.
21. Smagula J.M. & McGovern K.B. (2012).Effects of gypsum on nutrient uptake growth and yield of the wild lowbush blueberry. Acta Horticulturae 938(11) 307-314.
22. Smolarz K. (2009). Short information about the history of the commercial cultivation highbush blueberry in Poland. Agronomijas Vēstis 12 119-122.
23. Vano I. Matsushima M. Tang C. & Inubushi K. (2011). Effects of peat moss and sawdust compost application on N2O emission and N leaching in blueberry cultivating soils Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 57(2) 348-360.
24. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006: A framework for international classification correlation and communication. (2006).World Soil Resources Reports No. 103.Rome: FAO.
25. Xie Z.S. & Wu X.C. (2009). Studies on substrates for blueberry cultivation. Acta Horticulturae 810 513-520.