Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Nitrogen use for high productivity and sustainability in cashew

P.J. O’Farrell a,*, J.D. Armour b, D.J. Reid c
a
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, P.O. Box 1054, Mareeba, Qld 4880, Australia
b
Department of Environment and Resource Management, P.O. Box 156, Mareeba, Qld 4880, Australia
c
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, P.O. Box 6014, Rockhampton, Qld 4702, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Interest in cashew production in Australia has been stimulated by domestic and export market
Received 17 December 2008 opportunities and suitability of large areas of tropical Australia. Economic models indicate that cashew
Received in revised form 7 October 2009 production is profitable at 2.8 t ha1 nut-in-shell (NIS). Balanced plant nutrition is essential to achieve
Accepted 25 November 2009
economic yields in Australia, with nitrogen (N) of particular importance because of its capacity to modify
growth, affect nut yield and cause environmental degradation through soil acidification and off-site
Keywords: contamination.
Cashew
The study on a commercial cashew plantation at Dimbulah, Australia, investigated the effect of N rate
Nitrogen
and timing on cashew growth, nut production, N leaching and soil chemical properties over five growth
Phenology
Nut yield cycles (1995–1999). Nitrogen was applied during the main periods of vegetative (December–April) and
Sustainability reproductive (June–October) growth.
Commercial NIS yields (up to 4.4 t ha1 from individual trees) that exceeded the economic threshold
of 2.8 t ha1 were achieved. The yield response was mainly determined by canopy size as mean nut
weight, panicle density and nuts per panicle were largely unaffected by N treatments. Nitrogen
application confined to the main period of vegetative growth (December–April) produced a seasonal
growth pattern that corresponded most consistently with highest NIS yield. This N timing also reduced
late season flowering and undesirable post-November nut drop. Higher yields were not produced at N
rates greater than 17 g m2 of canopy surface area (equating to 210 kg N ha1 for mature size trees). High
yields were attained when N concentrations in Mveg leaves in May–June were about 2%, but this
assessment occurs at a time when it is not feasible to correct N deficiency. The Mflor leaf of the preceding
November, used in conjunction with the Mveg leaf, was proposed as a diagnostic tool to guide N rate
decisions. Leaching of nitrate-N and acidification of the soil profile was recorded to 0.9 m. This is an
environmental and sustainability hazard, and demonstrates that improved methods of N management
are required.
Crown Copyright ß 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Balanced plant nutrition is a component of the intensive

Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L) is a tropical evergreen tree
native to the northern region of South America (Ohler, 1979). The
tree produces a nutritious kernel that may be eaten raw, roasted, or
as processed confectionary. There is high demand for the kernel on
world markets. Interest in cashew production in Australia was
stimulated during the 1980s, influenced by domestic and export
market opportunities and the suitability of large areas of tropical
Australia for commercial growing (Chacko et al., 1990). Trial
plantings were established in the Northern Territory, Western
Australia and Queensland. The most recent financial analysis
indicated that cashew production was profitable at 2.8 t ha1 nut-
in-shell (NIS) (Hinton, 1998).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 4048 4600; fax: +61 7 4092 3593.
E-mail address: patrick.o’farrell@deedi.qld.gov.au (P.J. O’Farrell).
mechanised production system needed to grow cashew profitably
in Australia (Chacko et al., 1990). While cashew responds to
fertilization (see studies cited by Grundon, 1999), nitrogen (N) is
possibly the most important nutrient because of its impact on
growth and yield, and because it can easily cause adverse
environmental effects through misuse (soil acidification and off-
site contamination). It increases vegetative growth, the duration of
flowering, average nut weight, NIS yield and kernel recovery when
applied during the main period of vegetative growth (Sawke et al.,
1985; Ghosh and Bose, 1986; Harishu Kumar and Sreedharan,
1988; Ghosh, 1989). This research however, provides limited
information for formulating N fertilizing practices that optimise
vegetative and floral growth and nut yield under irrigated culture
in Australia. The experiments were conducted under rain-fed
conditions, and the NIS yields reported were very low compared
with similar aged trees in Australia growing at the same density
(<1 t ha1 for 8-year-old trees at 208 trees ha1). Further, N

0304-4238/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright ß 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2009.11.016
20 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28

application timing was not investigated to understand effects on Table 1

growth and nut yield. Annual nitrogen rates (R1 and R2), and mean tree dimensions, at December each
year, for treatments receiving nitrogen wholly applied during the main phase of
This study investigated the effect of N rate and timing on
vegetative growth.
cashew growth, nut production, nitrate-N leaching and soil
chemical properties over five growth cycles (1995–1999) in north 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Queensland, Australia. Nitrogen was applied during the main Nitrogen rate (kg ha1)
periods of vegetative (December–April) and reproductive (June– R1 83 125 125 187 187
October) growth. R2 125 187 187 250 250

Tree dimensions (m)

2. Materials and methods Canopy height 3.64 4.55 4.84 5.31 5.99
Canopy diameter 3.51 4.89 5.58 5.66 5.93

2.1. Site description

The experiment was conducted on a commercial cashew
plantation at Dimbulah, Australia (178100 S, 1458050 E; elevation
460 m). The environment of Dimbulah is characterised by highly
permeable infertile sandy soils, and cool winter temperatures that
delay flowering by about a month (August–September) compared
with more northerly cashew growing areas in Australia. This can
result in yield loss as nut maturation can occur during times of
seasonal rainfall that are unsuitable for mechanical harvesting.
Average annual rainfall is 780 mm, 81% falling in December–March
(Fig. 1). Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures
during the study ranged from 26 8C in June to 33 8C in November,
and from 12 8C in July to 21 8C in February, respectively. The trial
was situated on a gently inclined slope (3–5%) facing south-east.
The soil is a haplic, mesotrophic, red, Chromosol (Isbell, 1996), with
clay increasing from 6% in the surface 200 mm to 14% at 450–
1000 mm.
2.2. Tree selection and trial design
Three and one-half-year-old clonal trees of cultivar 9/14 were
used in this study. Branching form of this variety is consistent with
the intensive pattern described by the International Board for Plant
Genetic Resources (IBPGR, 1986). Intra- and inter-row tree
spacings were 6 and 8 m (208 trees ha1), respectively, and rows
were orientated east/west.
Four replicate groups, each of six similar trees, were determined
by cluster analysis of vegetative, apple and nut characteristics
recorded in 1994. The trees within each group were randomly
assigned to two rates of N and three times of application in a
randomised complete block, factorial design. The N rates, R1 (low)
and R2 (higher), are shown in Table 1, and the three times of
application were: all applied during the main phase of vegetative
growth (December–April; Veg.); all during the main phase of
panicle emergence, flowering and nut maturation (June–October;
Rep.); and half applied during each phase (Veg./Rep.). Ammonium
nitrate (34% N) was applied in equal monthly dressings, 5 (Veg.,
Rep.) or 10 (Veg./Rep.) times per year. Treatments were applied
uniformly to the ground under trees, within the irrigated area
(extending out to 1.5 m from the tree trunk) and were irrigated
into the soil in the absence of following rain.
Nitrogen rates (Table 1) were initially guided by Richards
(1993), and were revised each year in December prior to the start of
the vegetative N treatments (Veg. and Veg./Rep.) depending on
vegetative vigour and tree size. In the first year, the Veg. and Veg./
Rep. treatments began in February 1995 instead of December 1994.
As a result, the quantity of N applied during the vegetative growth
phase was 34% of the intended application rate and was
proportional to the length of the remaining vegetative growth
phase. Rates remained unchanged from 1996 to 1997 because of
excessive vegetative growth in the Veg. and Veg./Rep. treatments
in 1996, and also from 1998 to 1999 because canopy size in
December 1998 (Table 1) was considered maximum for the tree
spacing.
2.3. Tree maintenance
Macro- and micronutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and Mo)
were applied as required by surface dressings, fertigation or foliar
sprays at rates guided by soil and leaf analysis and local experience
with other crops on similar low-fertility soils. Irrigation applica-
tions were determined by weekly measurement of soil moisture by
a neutron moisture meter (CNP 503 DR Hydroprobe; NMM)
calibrated to the soil’s volumetric water content (R2 = 73–92%).
Readings were made within the main rooting area to 1.2 m depth
in two replicates of each of the R1 Veg. and R1 Rep. treatments.
When required, irrigation was applied by mini-sprinklers to

Fig. 1. Monthly rainfall (bars) and number of wet days (1 mm) at Dimbulah (25 years average; SunWater).
 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28
restore the soil to field capacity to 0.7–1.0 m depth. Insects, and
weeds under the tree canopy, were controlled by chemical sprays,
and inter-rows were mown.
Trees were pruned immediately after the completion of nut
drop in December each year, with the exception of the Rep. trees
that were pruned in March 1996, 1997 and 1999 after the 1995,
1996 and 1998 harvests, respectively. Foliage within 1 m of the
ground and extending beyond 2.5 m from the row was removed to
aid access under the tree for harvesting, and passage down the
inter-row by machinery.
2.4. Measurements
Tree height, canopy diameter (measured along and across the
tree row) and skirt height (distance from the ground to the bottom
of the canopy) were measured immediately before and after
pruning. These data were used to calculate pre- and post-prune
canopy surface area (CSA). Tree canopy shape approximated half a
sphere, and the radius used to calculate CSA was the mean of half
the two diameter measurements and the tree height less skirt
height. Panicle growth was assessed in December each year by
counts of panicle number within a 0.5 m2 quadrant placed mid-
way up the canopy at each of the four cardinal points. Panicle
density (panicles m2 CSA) and the number of panicles per tree
(the product of mean panicle density and CSA) were calculated
from these data. N rate was normalised according to post-prune
CSA (g N m2 CSA) to calibrate rate to tree size rather than tree age
(as is the normal reference for cashew) as the relationship between
tree age and size can be influenced by climate and management.
Mature nuts were harvested monthly over the duration of nut
drop for each treatment. Fresh weight was recorded when nuts
were equilibrated to ambient relative humidity at the completion
of the harvest, and then yields were adjusted to commercial grade
nut (nut-in-shell yield, NISyld) by subtracting the weight of non-
commercial size nuts. The numbers of commercial grade nuts were
counted for the calculation of nuts per panicle (nut number divided
by panicles per tree) and mean nut weight (NISyld divided by nut
number). In 1995 and 1996, non-commercial mean nut weight was
1.4 g (9% moisture content (MC)) and consisted mainly of nuts
lacking a kernel. In 1997, 1998 and 1999, the mean weight was
3.0 g (9% MC), computed from the average kernel recovery for
1995 and 1996 (31%) and the smallest kernel size of the
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) specifications
(0.91 for W500 count; ISO, 1988). Samples from each treatment
were oven dried at 65 8C to constant weight and assumed to be at
1% MC. Yield attributes, NISyld, mean nut weight and canopy
productivity (canprod; g NIS m2 CSA), were then expressed at 9%
MC, the threshold recommended for safe storage (Okwelogu and
Mackay, 1969). Canprod, based on pre-prune CSA, represents a
measure of the productiveness of the tree independent of tree size
(Blaikie et al., 2002). The term summarises the contribution of
mean nut weight, panicle density and nuts per panicle to NISyld.
Potential yield loss due to seasonal rainfall was the sum of nut
harvested after 30 November, as conditions for mechanical
harvesting after this date become increasingly unfavourable
because of rainfall (Fig. 1).
Kernel attributes (kernel yield and kernel recovery) were
assessed from a sub-sample of nuts from each treatment. Defective
nut (void, kernel size <25% of the internal shell cavity, and rotted
and insect infested kernel) were included in the assessment. The
extracted kernel with testa attached (KT) was oven dried at 65 8C to
constant weight (assumed to be at 0% MC), and converted to kernel
weight (K) using a conversion developed from the cultivar under
study (K = 0.0149 + 0.9647  KT (R2 = 0.99)). Kernel weight was
then adjusted to 5% MC, the threshold specified by the ISO for
packaging following processing of the nut (ISO, 1988). Total kernel
21
yield was calculated from the total NISyld (9% MC), and the kernel
recovery derived from the sub-sample (kernel weight (5% MC)
expressed as a proportion of the NIS weight (9% MC)).
Leaf N concentration was assessed in February 1995 prior to the
start of treatments, and then monthly for the duration of the trial.
Concentrations in two leaf types of the current season’s growth
were measured; a mature leaf (1–4 leaves from the apex) of a
quiescent vegetative shoot (Mveg), and the largest mature leaf (3–9
leaves from the apex) of the vegetative flush that emerges with the
inflorescence (Mflor). Depending on time of sampling the Mflor leaf,
the inflorescence may have had flowers and/or nuts at various
stages of maturity. Four leaves were sampled per tree, one per
shoot, from a shoot randomly selected at each of the four cardinal
points around the canopy. The Mveg leaves were mainly available
during summer–autumn (corresponding to the vegetative N
treatments) and the Mflor leaves during winter–spring (corre-
sponding to reproductive N treatments). Samples were dried at
65 8C in a forced draft oven and ground to <1 mm before chemical
analysis. Nitrogen was determined by a colorimetric procedure
after Kjeldahl digestion.
Soil samples were taken with a 75 mm diameter auger at
intervals of 0.1–0.3 m to a depth of 0.9 m (Table 5) from the area of
fertilizer application and from the unfertilized inter-row, prior to
the start of treatments in February 1995, and then annually (June
or July). Sub-samples were immediately extracted in a field-moist
state for mineral N (ammonium-N (NH4-N) and nitrate-N (NO3-N))
analysis to avoid changes due to drying and storage (Method 7C2,
Rayment and Higginson, 1992). The remainder of the sample was
air dried at 40 8C and sieved to <2 mm. All soil analytical methods
are described by Rayment and Higginson (1992). Net acidification
rate of the fertilized area was calculated from the change in soil pH
(1:5 water, Method 4A1, Rayment and Higginson, 1992), soil pH
buffer capacity (linear regression of pH response to addition of OH
in 0.002 M CaCl2; Aitken and Moody, 1994) and bulk density as
described by Moody and Aitken (1997), assuming that there was
little change in soil organic matter.
Leachate samples were collected to determine N movement in
the soil. Three ceramic cups (79 mm  39 mm) were installed in
December 1996 at 1 m depth within the fertilized area of a single
tree of the R1 Veg. treatment. The N rate of this treatment (70% of
the highest rate) was considered within the range of rates likely to
be needed during the main phase of vegetative growth that
coincides with the wet season and high drainage potential, and in
the absence of defined rates would provide an estimate of
environmental risk under the N application methods used. Water
was extracted continuously from the soil profile via the ceramic
cups at a negative pressure equivalent to natural drainage, and
pumped to light-proof traps buried at 1 m depth. Samples were
collected weekly, or more frequently as drainage events dictated.
The samples were chilled immediately after collection, and then
maintained frozen until analysed for NH4-N and NO3-N (auto-
analyser procedure of method 7C2, Rayment and Higginson, 1992).
The ceramic cups were unconfined and could not directly
measure soil drainage to quantify N leaching. Estimates were
therefore made using the water balance model PERFECT (Littleboy
et al., 1992). Drainage simulations were run for three sampling
periods (21 March–11 April 1997, 14 January–12 February 1998
and 19 February–30 March 1999) that coincided with significant
rainfall events. An average of 3–4 samples per cup were collected
for each of the sampling periods. Model parameters were based on
daily weather records collected mainly on site, calculated soil
attributes, and crop factors derived from mango (Y Diczbalis, Pers.
comm.) and cashew (Dagg and Tapley, 1967). The model’s
estimates of soil moisture compared well with measurements
by the NMM (R2 = 87–93%) suggesting that drainage estimates
were adequate. The drainage for each sampling period was
22 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28

determined by summing the daily drainage computed by the Table 2

Effect of nitrogen timing on nut-in-shell yield (NISyld), number of nuts produced
model. The N leached per hectare for each period was calculated as
and canopy surface area.
the product of the total drainage computed by the model, the mean
concentration of NH4-N and NO3-N of the three cups, and the area Treatment 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
of fertilizer application. NISyld (t ha1)
*** *** *** **
n.s.
2.5. Statistical analysis Veg. 1.21b 2.94a 2.39a 2.75 3.32a
Veg./Rep. 1.39b 2.50b 2.09b 2.73 3.22a
Rep. 2.04a 2.19c 1.76c 2.79 2.62b
Data were analysed by standard analysis of variance to determine 5% lsd 0.33 0.26 0.29 0.40 0.43
the effects of N rate and timing on vegetative and reproductive
Number of nuts
growth. Normality and variance assumptions were checked and *** *** **
n.s. ***

transformations applied if necessary. Means were tested using a Veg. 1041b 2912a 2513a 2647 3823a
protected least significant difference (lsd) test at the 5% level. Veg./Rep. 1286b 2400b 2297a 2593 3710a
Nitrogen rate-by-timing effects were usually independent Rep. 1898a 2219b 1937b 2624 3012b
5% lsd 312 270 290 322 386
(P > 0.05), and therefore only rate and/or timing responses are
presented. Canopy surface area (CSA; m2)
*** *** ** ***
Relationships of CSA, leaf N (Mveg in May–June) and N rate n.s.
Veg. 25.4 46.6a 56.4a 64.2a 77.8a
(g N m2 CSA) with NISyld for the Veg. timing treatments were
Veg./Rep. 23.9 41.6a 52.1a 63.6a 73.6a
investigated by linear and exponential regression analyses. Rep. 23.4 31.6b 41.9b 56.4b 63.4b
Maxima from the exponential regressions were defined as 90% 5% lsd 2.6 5.3 5.4 4.6 6.0
of the asymptote. Means within a treatment not followed by a common letter are significantly
different (P = 0.05). n.s. not significant (P > 0.10).
**
3. Results P < 0.01.
***
P < 0.001.

3.1. Nitrogen rate and timing effects on yield attributes

NISyld was greater (P < 0.05) at the R2 rate compared with the
R1 rate in 1996 (2.7 and 2.4 t ha1), 1997 (2.2 and 2.0 t ha1) and
1998 (2.9 and 2.6 t ha1), respectively. NISyld for individual trees of
the R2 rate was as high as 4.4 t ha1 in 1999. In 1995, NISyld was less
(P < 0.001) in the vegetative N treatments (Veg. and Veg./Rep.)
compared with the Rep. treatment (Table 2), possibly because less
than the full rate of N was applied during the main phase of
vegetative growth in that year. However, in 1996, 1997 and 1999,
the vegetative N treatments produced greater (P < 0.01) NISyld than
the Rep. treatment. Differences in NISyld were due to nut number as
mean nut weight (mean 4.8 g) was generally unaffected (P > 0.10)
by treatments. For most years, panicle density (mean
19 panicles m2 CSA) and nuts per panicle (mean 3.8 nuts per
panicle) were unaffected (P > 0.10) by treatments and so had little
effect on nut number. Therefore, treatment differences in CSA were
largely responsible for differences in NISyld (Fig. 2) from differences
in nut number, rather than canprod (which summarises the effect of
mean nut weight, panicle density and nuts per panicle).
The proportion of nut drop following 30 November was greater
(P < 0.01) in the Rep. treatment compared with the Veg. treatment
in 1995, 1996 and 1998 (Table 3). In 1995 and 1996 this response
was associated with greater (P < 0.001) levels of post-September
panicle growth in the Rep. treatment compared with the Veg.
treatment. The response of kernel yield to treatments (Table 4) was
similar and possibly attributable to NISyld because kernel recovery
(mean 30.5%) and the proportion of defective nuts (mean 12.3%)
were either unaffected (P > 0.10) by treatments or differences
between treatments were insufficient to counter the influence of
NISyld on kernel yield.

Fig. 2. Regression of nut-in-shell yield (NISyld) on canopy surface area (CSA) for the Veg. treatment (R2 = 0.70).
 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28 23

Table 3 sampling periods each year, Mveg N concentrations fluctuated

Effect of nitrogen timing on the percentage of post-September panicle emergence
through the main period of vegetative and floral growth, while
and nut drop post-30 November.
Mflor N concentration usually declined during the latter stages of
Treatment 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 nut maturation after October.
Post-September panicle emergence (%)
*** ***
n.s. n.s. n.s. 3.3. Responses to the vegetative treatment
Veg. 9c 3b 5 4. 7
Veg./Rep. 21b 8b 8 10 9
NISyld increased exponentially with N rate to a maximum of
Rep. 58a 27a 6 7 8
5% lsd 10 11 6 9 7 2.6 t ha1 at an N application rate of 17 g N m2 CSA (R2 = 0.45,
Fig. 4). There was no relationship between canprod (mean
Nut drop post-30 November (%)
*** ***
n.s. **
n.s.
210 g NIS m2 CSA) and N rate over the range 10–27 g N m2
Veg. 9b 5b 6 14b 0 CSA. Further, there was an exponential relationship (R2 = 0.44)
Veg./Rep. 13b 17a 6 18b 0 between NISyld and Mveg leaf N concentration (May–June) with
Rep. 47a 24a 6 32a 0 the maximum yield of 2.6 t ha1 occurring at a leaf N concentration
5% lsd 6 8 3 12
of about 2% (Fig. 5). There was no direct relationship between Mflor
Means within a year not followed by a common letter are significantly different in November and Mveg in the following May–June, or between
(P = 0.05). n.s. not significant (P > 0.10). Mflor in November and NISyld of the following crop (data not
**
P < 0.01.
***
P < 0.001.
presented). However, the proportional reduction in leaf N
concentration from Mflor in November to Mveg in the following
May–June, decreased exponentially with increasing Mflor concen-
3.2. Influence of treatments on leaf nitrogen tration (R2 = 0.91; Fig. 6), indicating that trees of high N status in
November were less responsive to vegetative N applications.
Leaf N concentrations in Mflor leaves at the start of the trial in
February 1995 were similar (P > 0.10) and low for all treatments 3.4. Soil fertility and leachate composition
(mean 1.02%). Concentrations were maintained above 1.30% in
Mveg and Mflor leaves over the term of the trial, apart from Mflor in Before treatments were imposed, the soil fertility of the
1995 (Fig. 3). fertilized and unfertilized areas of the experimental site was
Mveg and Mflor leaves were responsive to N rate and timing consistent with the inherent low fertility of the soil and limited
(Fig. 3). N concentrations of Mveg and Mflor leaves were usually fertilizer history (Table 5). After the start of treatments however,
higher (P < 0.05) at the R2 rate compared with the R1 rate on concentrations of NH4-N and NO3-N in the fertilized area generally
each sampling occasion (data not presented). During the reflected both rate of N applied and time since the last N
vegetative N treatments that coincided with the main period application. For example, 27 days after the final vegetative N
of vegetative growth, Mveg N concentration was usually higher application of the Veg. treatments in 1998, the mean profile (0–
(P < 0.01) in the Veg. treatment compared with the Rep. 0.9 m) NO3-N concentrations were 8 and 24 mg kg1 for R1 Veg.
treatment that was not receiving N applications. The converse and R2 Veg. treatments, respectively. After a further 29 days, NH4-
response was observed for Mflor leaves during reproductive N N and NO3-N concentrations at all depths were <1 mg kg1.
treatments that coincided with the period of panicle emergence, The mean profile pH of the unfertilized and non-irrigated inter-
flowering and nut maturation. Concentrations in Mveg and Mflor row area fluctuated between 6.1 and 6.5 over the term of the trial.
leaves for the Veg./Rep. treatment were usually intermediate For the fertilized area, soil profile pH decreased as shown by the R2
between Veg. and Rep. treatments during their respective Veg. treatment (Fig. 7). Mean profile pH of the R1 Veg. and R2 Veg.
sampling periods (data not presented). For their respective treatments was 6.1 in 1995, and decreased to 5.4 and 5.1 in 1997
and 5.1 and 4.5 in 1999, respectively. The acidification in all
Table 4 treatments was relatively uniform down the profile to the
Effect of nitrogen timing on total and defective kernel weight and kernel recovery. maximum depth of sampling. Mean organic carbon (0–0.1 m)
Treatment 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 across all treatments increased slightly from 0.4% (s.e. 0.08) in
1995 to 0.6% (s.e. 0.06) in 1999. The profile net annual acidification
Kernel yield (kg ha1)
*** *** **
n.s. * rate was 21 and 30 kmol H+ ha1 year1 between 1995 and 1999
Veg. 345b 931a 701a 883 947a for the R1 and R2 Veg. treatments, respectively.
Veg./Rep. 411b 811b 617ab 885 939a Mean leachate concentrations of NO3-N in individual cups were
Rep. 622a 714c 529b 895 764b as high as 86 mg L1, while concentrations of NH4-N were
5% lsd 108 88 89 125 159
generally low (mean 2.0 mg L1, s.e. 0.5) except for occasional
Kernel recovery (%) samples collected within 3 weeks of N application. The loss of
** **
P = 0.057 n.s. n.s. mineral N (NH4-N + NO3-N) below 1 m ranged from 4 to
Veg. 28.6b 31.7b 29.2 32.2 28.4
11 kg N ha1 over the 3 sampling periods of between 21 and 39
Veg./Rep. 29.7a 32.4a 29.5 32.4 29.1
Rep. 30.3a 32.6a 30.0 32.1 29.1 days (Table 6). This was equivalent to 8% of the N applied during
5% lsd 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.4 the period of Veg. N application up to the end of the sampling
Defective nuts (%)
period.
*
n.s. n.s. P = 0.080 n.s.
Veg. 13.9 10.4 8.3a 6.4 23.7 4. Discussion
Veg./Rep. 17.5 9.9 6.2b 7.6 21.2
Rep. 13.9 9.1 5.4b 10.0 19.8
High NISyld (3.3 t ha1 for treatment mean and as high as
5% lsd 4.9 3.6 1.8 3.2 2.9
4.4 t ha1 from individual trees) was produced from intensively
Means within a treatment not followed by a common letter are significantly managed trees in this study. This is comparable to the yields
different (P = 0.05). n.s. not significant (P > 0.10).
*
P < 0.05.
reported by Oliveira et al. (2006) for similarly managed trees, but
**
P < 0.01. much higher than in many other studies for trees that used limited
***
P < 0.001. inputs (e.g. Ghosh, 1989). The economic threshold for Australia of
24 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28

Fig. 3. Nitrogen (N) concentration of leaves from (a) vegetative (Mveg) and (b) floral (Mflor) shoots of the vegetative (*) and reproductive (*) nitrogen timing
treatments. Horizontal bars in (a) indicate the periods of vegetative (Veg.) and reproductive (Rep.) nitrogen applications. An asterisk denotes treatment differences at
P = 0.05.

2.8 t ha1 from mature trees (Hinton, 1998) was achieved with the
higher N rate in 1998 and 1999.
Nitrogen application confined to the main period of vegetative
growth (December–April) produced a seasonal growth pattern that
corresponded most consistently with highest NISyld. Nitrogen
applied at this time, compared with that confined to the period of
panicle emergence, flowering and nut maturation, produced a
larger tree canopy resulting in greater NISyld (Fig. 2), and reduced
late season flowering which results in nut drop (up to 32% of the
crop, Table 3) at times of the year when weather is unfavourable for
mechanical harvesting which is necessary in Australia. Richards
(1993) also reported improved canopy growth and yield with
irrigation and monthly applications of fertilizer during the pre-
floral growth period.
Yield response was mainly explained by canopy size (Fig. 2),
rather than canprod which did not respond to N rate between 10
and 27 g N m2 CSA. Parameswaran et al. (1984) and Richards
(1993), who worked with different varieties, also related canopy
size and yield, thus suggesting that this relationship is typical for
this terminal bearing species.
To determine optimum N rate, the yield of the best treatment (N
application confined to the main period of vegetative growth) was
related to N rate normalised to canopy size (Fig. 4). Previous
researchers have only reported N rate in relation to tree age,
ignoring the important relationship between tree age and size
which may be influenced by local climate and tree management.
There was no major improvement in NISyld at N rates above about
17 g m2 CSA (Fig. 4). Further, canprod was reasonably consistent
 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28 25

Fig. 4. Exponential relationship between nitrogen (N) rate and nut-in-shell yield (NISyld) for the Veg. treatment (y = 2.87  46.4  exp(0.296  x); R2 = 0.45).

over the range 10–27 g N m2 CSA corresponding to canopy sizes
of 22–88 m2. Therefore, N rates greater than 17 g m2 CSA do not
contribute to higher yield and promote unnecessary vegetative
growth that may require pruning. Based on a maximum CSA of
60 m2 for a density of 208 trees ha1, this equates to a maximum of
210 kg N ha1 year1.
N concentration of both Mveg and Mflor leaves responded to N
treatments. Mflor N concentration declined each year towards the
end of nut maturation. A similar response was reported by Harishu
Kumar et al. (1981), and suggests remobilisation of N from the
Mflor leaves possibly to the developing nuts.
Maximum NISyld occurred when Mveg in May–June was about
2% N (Fig. 5), which is in the adequate range of 1.5–2.6% N
reported for similar leaves by Grundon (1999). However, this leaf
has limited value for guiding N application rates. May–June is too
late to adjust tree N status should the Mveg leaf indicate that this
is necessary, because N application at or following this time
would risk post-November nut drop. The Mflor leaf of the
preceding November however, could be used as a diagnostic tool
to guide N rate decisions in conjunction with the Mveg leaf. This
leaf occurs immediately prior to the main period of vegetative
growth when a decision needs to be made about N application for
the following crop. The proportional reduction in N concentration
from the Mflor leaf to the Mveg leaf was related to Mflor N
concentration (decreasing with increasing Mflor N concentration,
Fig. 6), indicating that trees with higher Mflor N concentration are
less responsive to applied N. Further research is needed to
evaluate the relationship between Mflor and Mveg over a range of
Mflor N concentrations and N rates. This will determine if the N
rate required to achieve an appropriate Mveg N concentration
(related to high NISyld) could be interpreted from Mflor N
concentration.
Unlike the unfertilized inter-row area, soil pH of the fertilized
and irrigated area decreased over the period of the experiment to
the depth of sampling (0.9 m, Fig. 7), and possibly to greater depth.
The net acidification rate of the R2 Veg. treatment was high

Fig. 5. Exponential relationship between nitrogen (N) concentration in leaves from vegetative shoots in May–June (Mveg) and nut-in-shell yield (NISyld)
(y = 3.13  56.0  exp(2.333  x); R2 = 0.44).
26 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28

Fig. 6. Relationship between leaf nitrogen (N) concentration in November (Mflor) and the proportional reduction in concentration from November (Mflor) to May–June (Mveg)
(y = 12.9 + 1275  exp(2.609  x); R2 = 0.91).

Table 5
Selected soil chemical properties of the experimental area prior to the commencement of treatments.

Depth (m) pH (1:5 water) NH4-N (mg kg1) NO3-N (mg kg1) Colwell P (mg kg1) Exchangeable cations (cmol+ kg1)

Na K Ca Mg

0–0.1 6.2 2.1 2.5 27 0.09 0.45 1.17 0.35

0.1–0.2 6.3 1.2 <1 13 0.09 0.36 0.95 0.22
0.2–0.3 6.4 <1 <1 0.09 0.31 0.73 0.20
0.3–0.6 6.4 <1 <1 0.10 0.24 0.76 0.45
0.6–0.9 6.4 <1 <1 0.10 0.21 0.90 0.74

Method codes: pH 4A1, Colwell P 9B2, exchangeable cations 15A1 (Rayment and Higginson, 1992).

Fig. 7. Mean soil pH for the R2 Veg. treatment in 1995 (&) prior to the start of treatments, and in June 1997 (~) and 1999 (^). Depth points indicate the mid-point of the soil
layer sampled. Horizontal bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28
Table 6
Rainfall, predicted drainage, nitrogen (N) applications, and ammonium (NH4-N) and nitrate (NO3-N) concentrations and predicted mineral N in drainage for R1 Veg. treatment
during sampling periods in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Standard errors are presented in parenthesis.
Sampling Rainfall Predicted drainage N applieda
periods (mm) to 1 m (mm) (kg ha1)
21/3–11/4/97 134 71 96
14/1–12/2/98 220 145 72
19/2–30/3/99 207 100 108
a
Total N applied from start of Veg. treatment to the end of the sampling period.
(30 kmol H+ ha1 year1) compared with some other agricultural
systems but similar to bananas (Moody and Aitken, 1997). While
only 4% of the paddock, this area is important as the main area for
water and nutrient uptake. Although cashew yields tended to
increase over the five harvests indicating they may not have been
affected by acidification, it is an important degradation process in
modern agricultural production systems (van Breemen et al., 1983;
Helyar and Porter, 1989). Acidification is caused by nitrate leaching
from some nitrogen fertilizers, removal of produce that contains an
excess of cations over anions, and increases in soil organic matter
(Helyar, 1976). Sub-soil acidity is very difficult to treat with surface
applied lime because of the very slow movement of alkali down the
soil profile, particularly deeper than 0.3 m. In addition, leaching of
nitrate below the root zone is an environmental hazard because of
its threat to water quality (Rasiah et al., 2003). Soil organic carbon
(0–0.1 m) increased slightly during the experiment and is unlikely
to have contributed much to the increased profile acidity,
particularly at depth where changes in organic matter, if any,
were likely to have been very small. Although the relative
contribution to acidification from nitrate leaching and removal
of produce (apple and nut) from the paddock were not quantified,
N management to reduce nitrate leaching is the only practical
option.
N was applied to the Veg. treatments in five equal applications
at approximately monthly intervals to maximise the opportunity
for plant uptake and minimise leaching. As mean concentrations of
NO3-N in leachate were as high as 86 mg L1, this N management
was inadequate. The equivalent of 8% of the N applied during the
vegetative growth phase was leached to 1 m depth and possibly
beyond most of the roots of cashew trees growing in this
environment (Nable et al., 1996). Given the low organic carbon
and natural mineral N of this soil, it is likely that most of the NO3-N
in leachate originated from applied N. While leachate was not
sampled in the R2 Veg. treatment, the greater decrease in profile
pH of this treatment compared with R1 Veg. suggests greater
leaching of N occurred in this treatment. As leaching loss was
measured over short periods (<39 days, mean drainage 105 mm) it
is a conservative estimate of that likely to occur during a full wet
season (mean drainage 500 mm, 1997–1999).
Improved application methods might reduce N leaching losses,
making more N available for tree uptake and thereby reducing the
application rate recommended above. Options include frequent
smaller N applications by fertigation, the use of rainfall predictions
to guide application timing, and measurement of soil water to
contain irrigation drainage depth to within the root zone of the
tree. Alternative, but more expensive, forms of N fertilizer such as
potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate
should be considered as these can alkalise the soil (i.e. reverse
acidification) if there is plant uptake of the applied nitrate (Jarvis
and Robson, 1983). In addition, regular soil (at least annual to at
least a depth of 0.5 m within the fertilized area) and leaf analysis
should be used to guide N application rate decisions.
The soil acidification and sustainability implications from this
research are also applicable to other perennial tree crops across
27
Mean concentration Predicted N in N leached/N
sampled at 1 m (mg L1) drainage to 1 m (kg ha1) applied (%)
NH4-N NO3-N
3.2 (0.4) 96 (9) 7.2 (2.5) 8
0.6 (0.2) 19 (2) 4.4 (0.3) 6
0.4 (0.1) 86 (17) 11.1 (4.3) 10
northern Australia that are grown on sandy soils that are highly
permeable, have low pH buffer capacity and require N during the
wet season, e.g. avocado and mango.
5. Conclusions
High yields of cashew nuts can be achieved from intensively
managed trees. This was achieved when N was applied at the rate
of 17 g N m2 CSA. Timing of N fertilizer is critical, and should be
applied during the main vegetative growth period (December–
April). High yields were attained when N concentration in Mveg
leaves in May–June was about 2%, but this assessment occurs at a
time when it is not feasible to correct N deficiency. This leaf could
possibly be used in conjunction with the Mflor leaf, but further
research is needed to substantiate this. As the high rate of
acidification down the soil profile to 0.9 m is a concern for
environmental and sustainability reasons, improved methods of N
management are required.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the competent technical support from Ms. T.
Whiteing, Mr. M. Dwyer and Ms. D. Rowan. We thank Cashews
Australia for assistance during all stages of this work. Funding was
provided by Rural Industries Research and Development Corpora-
tion, Department of Employment, Economic Development and
Innovation, and Department of Environment and Resource
Management.
References
Aitken, R.L., Moody, P.W., 1994. The effect of valence and ionic strength on the
measurement of pH buffer capacity. Australian Journal of Soil Research 32, 975–
984.
Blaikie, S.J., O’Farrell, P.J., Muller, W.J., Wei, X., Steele Scott, N., Sykes, S.R., Chacko,
E.K., 2002. Assessment and selection of new hybrids from the Australian cashew
breeding program. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42, 615–
623.
Chacko, E., Baker, I., Downton, J., 1990. Towards a sustainable cashew industry for
Australia. The Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 3, 39–
43.
Dagg, M., Tapley, R.G., 1967. Cashew nut production in Southern Tanzania. V. Water
balance of cashew trees in relation to spacing. East African Agricultural and
Forestry Journal 33, 88–94.
Ghosh, S.N., 1989. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on flowering
duration, yield and shelling percentage of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.).
Indian Cashew Journal 19, 19–23.
Ghosh, S.N., Bose, T.K., 1986. Nutritional requirement of cashew (Anacardium
occidentale L.) in the laterite tract of West Bengal. Indian Cashew Journal 18,
11–16.
Grundon, N., 1999. Agronomy. In: Overview of Australian cashew literature. Tech-
nical Report No 25/99. CSIRO Land and Water, Australia. pp. 12–21.
Harishu Kumar, P., Sreedharan, C., 1988. Nut characters as influenced by different
levels of NPK in cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.). Indian Cashew Journal 18
(2), 15–17.
Harishu Kumar, P., Murthy, K.N., Nair, B.P., 1981. Seasonal fluctuations in the major
nutrient composition of cashew leaf tissue (Anacardium occidentale L.). Indian
Cashew Journal 14 (2), 17–21.
Helyar, K.R., 1976. Nitrogen cycling and soil acidification. Journal of the Australian
Institute of Agricultural Science 217–221.
28 P.J. O’Farrell et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 124 (2010) 19–28
Helyar, K.R., Porter, W.M., 1989. Soil acidification, its measurement and the pro-
cesses involved. In: Robson, A.D. (Ed.), Soil Acidity and Plant Growth. Academic
Press, Sydney, pp. 61–101.
Hinton, A.W., 1998. Cashew production in North Queensland—estimating profit-
ability. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Information Series
QI98039. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Qld, pp. 21.
IBPGR, 1986. Cashew Descriptors. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources,
Rome, pp. 33.
Isbell, R.F., 1996. The Australian Soil Classification. CSIRO, Melbourne.
ISO, 1988. Cashew Kernels—Specification. ISO 6477, 1988 (E) International Organi-
sation for Standardisation, Switzerland, pp. 4.
Jarvis, S.C., Robson, A.D., 1983. The effects of nitrogen nutrition of plants on the
development of acidity in Western Australian soils. 1. Under leaching condi-
tions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 341–353.
Littleboy, M., Silburn, D.M., Freebairn, D.M., Woodruff, D.R., Hammer, G.L., Leslie,
J.K., 1992. The impact of soil erosion on sustainability of production in cropping
systems. I. Development and validation of a simulation model. Australian
Journal of Soil Research 30, 757–774.
Moody, P.W., Aitken, R.L., 1997. Soil acidification under tropical agricultural sys-
tems. 1. Rates of acidification and contributing factors. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 35, 163–173.
Nable, R.O., Blaikie, S.J., Grundon, N.J., 1996.In: Where are the cashew roots?
Working Papers of the Eight Cashew Research and Development Workshop.
Kuranda, North Queensland, August 6 pp. 38–42.
Ohler, J.G., 1979. Cashew. Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Amsterdam, Nether-
lands, p. 260.
Okwelogu, T.N., Mackay, P.J., 1969. Cashew moisture relations. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 698–702.
Oliveira, V.H., Miranda, F.R., Lima, R.N., Cavalcante, R.R.R., 2006. Effect of irriga-
tion on cashew nut yield in Northeast Brazil. Scientia Horticulturae 108, 403–
407.
Parameswaran, N.K., Damodaran, V.K., Prabhakaran, P.V., 1984. Factors influencing
yield in cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.). Indian Cashew Journal 16, 9–15.
Rasiah, V., Armour, J.D., Yamamoto, T., Mahendrarajah, S., Heiner, D.H., 2003.
Nitrate dynamics in shallow groundwater and the potential for transport
to off-site water bodies. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 147 (1–4), 183–
202.
Rayment, G.R., Higginson, F.R., 1992. Australian Laboratory Handbook of Soil and
Water Chemical Methods. Inkata Press, Sydney, pp. 110–114.
Richards, N.K., 1993. Cashew tree yield, growth and macronutrient status, as
influenced by fertilizer applications. In: Cashew Research in Northern Territory,
Australia, 1987–1991. Technical Bulletin No. 202., Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries, NT, Australia, pp. 1–16.
Sawke, D.P., Gunjate, R.T., Limaye, V.P., 1985. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potash fertilisation on growth and production of cashew nut. Acta Horticulturae
108, 95–99.
van Breemen, N., Mulder, J., Driscoll, C.T., 1983. Acidification and alkalinization of
soils. Plant and Soil 75 (3), 283–308.