The production of nursery crops demands substantial irrigation, with overhead irrigation the most common method of application; however, this method is inefficient with respect to water used and the precision with which it is applied, resulting in the generation of irrigation return flow and concomitant agrochemical export. Microirrigation systems such as individual container spray stakes provide water directly to crops thus applying water more efficiently than overhead systems but may be more costly in terms of installation (smaller pipes and components; however, a greater quantity of pipes and components) and maintenance. The study was conducted at the Michigan State University Research Nursery, where four ornamental shrub taxa were produced in #3 (11.3 L) containers using a control with 19 mm overhead irrigation per day and a conventional phosphorus fertilizer (Conv) (19-2.16-6.64), compared with four treatments: a static, daily (2 L per container) spray stake irrigation (SS2Lpd) and conventional phosphorus fertilizer; a static daily (2 L per container) spray stake irrigation and low phosphorus fertilizer (LowP) (19-1.62-6.64); spray stake irrigation based on substrate volumetric water content (θ) (up to 2.4 L per container) (SSθ) and conventional fertilizer; and spray stake irrigation based on θ (up to 2.4 L per container) and low phosphorus fertilizer. Spray stakes reduced irrigation by 76–80% compared to the overhead control, and reduced the generation of both surface and subsurface irrigation return flow (IRF), mitigating the movement of both N and P (over 98% reduction in surface IRF). Plant growth index (GI) was measured on 12 June 2017 and 6 October 2017, followed by a destructive harvest to measure shoot dry weight, and shoot nutritional content. For all four taxa, microirrigation systems were capable of producing plants of equivalent GI and shoot nutritional concentration; however, plants receiving the low phosphorus fertilizer produced less shoot biomass. Microirrigation is effective in reducing water use, water lost to IRF (particularly surface IRF), and associated fertilizer movement, while maintaining crop size.

苗圃作物的生产需要大量灌溉，而架空灌溉是最常见的施用方法。但是，这种方法在用水量和使用精度方面效率低下，导致产生了灌溉回流和伴随的农用化学品出口。微灌系统，例如单个容器的喷雾桩，直接向农作物提供水，因此比高架系统更有效地供水，但在安装（较小的管道和组件；但是，大量的管道和组件）和维护方面可能会更加昂贵。这项研究是在密歇根州立大学研究托儿所进行的，在＃3（11。3升）容器，使用每天使用19毫米顶部灌溉和常规磷肥（Conv）（19-2.16-6.64）的对照，并进行以下四种处理：静态，每日（每个容器2升）喷雾桩灌溉（SS2Lpd ）和常规磷肥；每天进行静态（每容器2 L）喷桩灌溉和低磷肥料（LowP）（19-1.62-6.64）；基于基质体积水含量的喷桩灌溉（θ）（每个容器最大2.4 L）（SSθ）和常规肥料；θ进行喷灌（每个容器最多2.4 L）和低磷肥料。与顶部控制相比，喷杆减少了76-80％的灌溉量，并减少了地面灌溉和地下灌溉回流（IRF）的产生，减轻了N和P的运动（地表IRF降低了98％以上）。在2017年6月12日和2017年10月6日对植物生长指数（GI）进行了测量，然后进行了破坏性收获以测量茎干重量和茎中营养成分。对于所有四个分类单元，微灌溉系统都能够产生等量的胃肠道并产生营养浓度的植物。然而，接受低磷肥料的植物产生的茎生物量较少。微灌有效地减少了用水量，减少了IRF（特别是地表IRF）的水分流失以及相关的肥料移动，同时保持了作物的大小。