550 Mourão Filho

Review

DRIS: CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS ON NUTRITIONAL

DIAGNOSIS IN FRUIT CROPS

Francisco de Assis Alves Mourão Filho*

USP/ESALQ - Depto. de Produção Vegetal, C.P. 9 - 13418-900 - Piracicaba, SP - Brasil.

*Corresponding author <[email protected]>

ABSTRACT: Nutrition and fertilization are important factors in determining fruit yield and fruit quality.
There are several methods for plant nutritional status diagnosis, among them, two are relevant and named as
Sufficiency Range Approach (SRA) and Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS). This
research reports the main concepts and applications of DRIS in nutritional diagnosis of fruit crops, comparing
it with current nutritional diagnosis methods, indicating advantages and disadvantages, and possible limitations
to be investigated.
Key words: foliar analysis, fruit crops, mineral nutrition

DRIS: CONCEITOS E APLICAÇÕES NA DIAGNOSE NUTRICIONAL

EM PLANTAS FRUTÍFERAS

RESUMO: A nutrição e a adubação são fatores determinantes na produtividade dos pomares e na qualidade
de frutos. Dentre os diversos métodos de diagnose nutricional das plantas, destacam-se o critério de faixas de
suficiência (CFS) e o sistema integrado de diagnose e recomendação (DRIS – “Diagnosis and Recommendation
Integrated System”). São relatados neste trabalho os principais conceitos e aplicações do método DRIS na
diagnose nutricional em fruteiras, comparando-o com os sistemas atuais de diagnose nutricional, apontando
vantagens e desvantagens, e possíveis limitações a serem investigadas.
Palavras-chave: análise foliar, fruticultura, nutrição mineral

INTRODUCTION Among the several tissues to be considered for nutritional

diagnosis purposes, leaves constitute the main plant sam-
One of the main plant mineral nutrition objectives pling material (Chapman & Brown, 1950). The improve-
is increasing net incomes through efficient fertilization ment in tissue analysis techniques enabled the compari-
management. To attain this goal, it is initially necessary son of results from different soil type fertilization experi-
to correctly determine the yield-limiting impact of a given ments. In the same way, it allowed the evaluation of fruit
nutrient. crop plants response to treatments in nutrient solution ex-
The search for an effective method to determine periments (Reuther et al., 1958).
plant nutritional status has been the target of many re- Leaf analysis can be a very useful tool for plant
searches in plant nutrition. Current methods include both nutritional diagnosis, since adequate procedures are
soil and tissues analysis. The advantage of this latter was available for data analysis. Because of the dynamic na-
already observed in early studies of Chapman & Brown ture of the leaf tissue composition, strongly influenced
(1950). The soil analysis method is based on the assump- by leaf age, maturation stage, and the interactions in-
tion that the chemical extractants simulate the root sys- volving nutrient absorption and translocation, the tissue
tem acquisition of soil nutrients in a comparable manner. diagnosis may be a practice of difficult understanding
However, it does not take into account factors such as soil and utilization (Walworth & Sumner, 1987). Several
temperature and aeration, and even the higher or lower methods for nutritional diagnosis using leaf tissue analy-
absorption due to the own plant nutritional needs. Another sis have been proposed and used, including the critical
soil analysis limitation is soil sampling, which is supposed value (CV), the sufficiency range approach (SRA), and
to actually represent the soil portion explored by the roots the diagnosis and recommendation integrated system
(Reuther & Smith, 1954). (DRIS). Considering that DRIS uses the nutritional bal-
Tissue analysis is considered a more direct ancing concept (relationship among nutrients), it is pos-
method of plant nutritional status evaluation than soil tulated that this method might be more precise than the
analysis, but that method must necessarily involve a well- others in the detection of nutritional deficiencies or/and
defined plant part analysis (Hallmark & Beverly, 1991). excesses.
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
 DRIS: concepts and applications in fruit crops 551

2- The DRIS method the comparison with the optimum value of a given nutri-
The usual methods for leaf chemical analyses in- ent ratio, hence, as pointed by Jones (1981) and Walworth
terpretation presuppose the nutrient concentration com- & Sumner (1987), the ideal value of the DRIS index for
parison with reference values (critical concentrations or each nutrient should be zero.
sufficiency ranges). Nutrient concentrations far below or In general, the DRIS has some advantages over
above reference values are associated with decreasing other diagnosis methods: presents continuous scale and
vegetative growth, yield and quality. These methods in- easy interpretation; allows nutrient classification (from the
tend to evaluate isolated deficiency or excess values, most deficient up to the most excessive); can detect cases
without measuring the overall nutritional balance. More- of yield limiting due to nutrient unbalance, even when
over, researches related to this subject indicate a great dif- none of the nutrients is below the critical level; and fi-
ficulty in establishing consistent critical values and re- nally, allows to diagnose the total plant nutritional bal-
late them with high yields, mainly because the nutritional ance, through an unbalance index (Baldock & Schulte,
status varies with leaf tissue maturation. Thus, sampling 1996). An additional advantage of DRIS, acknowledged
definition is a fundamental step for better accuracy of by some authors but rebuted by others, is that, overall, it
these methods. is less sensitive to tissue aging in comparison to others
A new interpretation for leaf analysis was firstly (Walworth & Sumner, 1987). Tissue aging influence the
developed and proposed by Beaufils (1957; 1971; 1973) nutrient concentration (nutrient content/ dry matter); sev-
for rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis), named as diagno- eral examples are reported in the literature, including
sis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS). The studies in alfalfa, potato, corn, peach, and many other ag-
DRIS method uses nutrient ratios instead of absolute and/ ricultural and horticultural crop species. Although some
or individual nutrient concentrations for interpretation of exceptions may occur, concentrations of nitrogen, phos-
tissue analysis. Soon after the initial proposed DRIS phorus, potassium and sulfur tend to decrease with tis-
norms for leaf analysis interpretation were released, fur- sue aging. On the other hand, calcium and magnesium
ther ones were developed for other agricultural, forest and concentrations tend to increase in older tissues (low mo-
horticultural crops. In countries such as United States, bility), in spite of the opposite being reported in the very
Canada, and China, DRIS is being adopted as part of a early or later stages for some crops. The dynamic nature
representative diagnosis in selected areas (Lopes, 1998; of the plant tissue mineral composition tends to restrict
Hallmark & Beverly, 1991; Walworth & Sumner, 1987). the use of leaf analysis for nutritional diagnosis. As al-
ready stated, the criteria of critical levels or sufficiency
2.1- DRIS method theoretical basis ranges generally depend on norms for diagnosis derived
The DRIS method expresses results of plant nu- from an specific plant tissue part and age, and classifies
tritional diagnosis through indices, which represent, in a the plants based solely in the leaf nutrient concentration
continuous numeric scale, the effect of each nutrient in (leaf nutrient content/ leaf dry matter). Thus, the plant
the nutritional balance of the plant. These indices are ex- growth stage for leaf sampling is an essential factor for
pressed by positive or negative values, which indicate that the application of both methods, and therefore, the diag-
the referred nutrient is in an excess or deficiency, respec- noses based on these criteria are usually applied in leaf
tively. The closer to zero are the indices for all the nutri- samples obtained from a well-defined growth stage.
ents, the closer will be the plant to the adequate nutri- An important limitation of these methods is that,
tional balance (Beverly, 1991; Walworth & Sumner, especially in some annual crops, the established standard
1987). sampling period many times occurs too late in the grow-
The working premises for DRIS are based on: (a) ing season, so that fertilizer application will not be ef-
the ratios among nutrients are frequently better indica- fective to correct a nutritional problem, or may not match
tors of nutrient deficiencies than isolated concentrations the sudden symptoms of a nutritional disorder, when the
values; (b) some nutrient ratios are more important or sig- producer mostly need the information (Walworht &
nificant than others; (c) maximum yields are only reached Sumner, 1987). To overcome this problem, it would be
when important nutrient ratios are near the ideal or opti- necessary to get nutritional reference values for several
mum values, which are obtained from high yielding-se- maturation stages and, as a matter of fact, some of these
lected populations; (d) as a consequence of the stated in standards have already been established for a few crops.
(c), the variance of an important nutrient ratio is smaller Although simple in theory, this procedure is of difficult
in a high yielding (reference population) than in a low application. First, there is a need for precise definition,
yielding population, and to the relations between vari- at the sampling time, of plant maturation stages (or
ances of high and low yielding populations can be used growth period) in the field. Later, the sampler should
in the selection of significant nutrient ratios; (e) the DRIS communicate this information to the analyst or person
indices can be calculated individually, for each nutrient, taking care of the diagnosis, so that appropriate norms
using the average nutrient ratio deviation obtained from can be selected and used. In addition to these limitations,
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
552 Mourão Filho

little research has been developed to determine the influ- equipment, results expressed in non-independent indices,
ence of the cultivar in the nutrient concentration in a and frequent occurrence of false diagnosis for some nu-
given maturation or development stage. Finally, factors trient excesses.
that affect the tissue aging rate might also influence the Due to recent developments in both hardware and
relation between nutrient concentration and maturation. software resources, the difficulty in running the method
An option for these diagnosis methods was pro- turned to be of little importance. The non-independent
posed through the DRIS (Beaufils, 1973), which defined indices are perhaps an advantage, because this might be
that, in general, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium con- the greater DRIS contribution in relation to the SRA.
centrations decrease with tissue maturation. Therefore, the Other ten mistakes in the diagnosis through DRIS have
ratios N/P, N/K, and P/K (or reciprocal ratios) should be also been identified, but many of them do not affects the
kept constant. In the same way, because of concentrations method effectiveness in a relevant way (Hallmark &
of Ca and Mg generally increase with maturation, quo- Beverly, 1991).
tients between these nutrients (Ca/Mg or Mg/Ca) should
2.1.1 - DRIS norms
result in constant values. Moreover, the product of two
The first step for the implementation of any nu-
nutrients, with concentrations running in opposite direc-
tritional diagnosis method is the establishment of stan-
tions with time (N × Ca, for example), also should re-
dards or norms, and the same applies for the DRIS
main constant.
method. The DRIS norms are always obtained in a high-
An example of nutrient ratio use is illustrated in
yielding population, named reference population, which
Table 1, where nutrient concentrations in corn tissues are
is selected from a larger population. The databases for
expressed in a dry matter basis or as nutrient ratios
definition of norms might have variable size in function
(Walworth & Sumner, 1987). The expression in a dry
of premises to be adopted in the method and should be
matter basis (%N, %P and %K) showed much more co-
uniform, regarding the crop characteristics. Norms ob-
herent correlation with tissue maturation (higher deter-
tained from a large database derived from different soil
mination coefficients - r2) than the expression as nutrient
types, climates and cultivars, usually cannot be general-
ratios.
ized, and they will be considered representative just if
Such constancy in the nutrient ratios and their
they include all the population variability. Therefore,
products cannot be applied in all cases. Several nutrient
these attributes should be previously well defined, and
concentration rate can change very fast in young plants,
thus, be gathered to form the database (Letzsch &
and the nutrient ratios and their products can also vary
Sumner, 1984).
in these cases. Even so, these expression forms are less
The database size might not be directly related to
affected by the maturation processes, therefore present-
standard quality. DRIS norms developed from 10 cornfield
ing great potential to expand usefulness and exactness of
observations, with yields exceeding 18 t ha-1, were more
the leaf tissue diagnosis.
representative and efficient than norms deriving from larger
Nevertheless, DRIS advantages have already been
databases (Walworth et al., 1988). Scientific literature re-
contested, because for some crops, it showed to be as sen-
ports a large variation in the database size for DRIS norms
sitive as SRA to plant tissue maturation and plant age
definition, from just 24 observations (Leite, 1992) up to
(Baldock & Schulte, 1996). Moreover, additional limita-
about 2,800 (Sumner, 1977) or even more. However, al-
tions to the method can be pointed, such as the need for
though the latter presents a high quality, it is also more
extensive and advanced computational calculations and
embracing because, it refers to a population of all corn cul-
tivars and to the whole Southern Africa territory, while the
Table 1 - Determination coefficients (r2) for the correlation first is originated from Conilon coffee plants, cultivated
between corn plant age at sampling (tissue only in the north of the Espírito Santo State, Brazil. Maybe,
maturation) and tissue nutrient concentration, and too much generic DRIS norms can negatively affect the
nutrient ratios (Beaufils, 1971). diagnosis efficiency. Despite the data quantity, the obser-
Exp r e s s io n fo r m De te r mina tio n c o e ffic ie nt ( r 2) vation quality should be the goal for database choice.
Dr y ma tte r b a s is ( % ) The chosen population or database for norms defi-
N 0.41 nition should be subdivided in two sub-populations or cat-
P 0.25 egories (Beaufils, 1973; Beverly, 1991; Walworth &
K 0.55 Sumner, 1987). These sub-populations are the following:
a) Non-abnormal plants, or reference population, that are
I n a nutr ie nt r a tio b a s is
not influenced by adverse conditions and present yield sig-
N /B 0.00
nificantly higher than an arbitrarily established level; b)
N /K 0.06 Abnormal plants, or non-reference population, influenced
K /P 0.01 by other factors, with lower yields than the established.
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
 DRIS: concepts and applications in fruit crops 553

Several researches have revealed that the selec- sum of functions involving each nutrient. Hypothetical A
tion of the reference population is an important factor for to N nutrient indices can, therefore, be calculated as fol-
the DRIS effectiveness and success. Walworth & Sumner lows (Walworth & Sumner, 1987):
(1987) alleged that the reference limit to separate two
sub-populations should be arbitrarily chosen, because Index A = [ f (A/B) + f (A/C) + f (A/D) ... + f (A/N)]
each sub-population ought to present normal distribution. Z
Other authors recommended that the reference population [- f (A/B) + f (B/C) + f (B/D) ... + f (B/N)]
contain, at least, 10% of the overall database observations Index B =
(Letzsch & Sumner, 1984). Malavolta & Malavolta Z

Index N = [- f (A/N) - f (B/N) + f (C/N) ... - f (M/N)]

(1989) recommended the reference population to be ob-
tained with 80% maximum yield observations.
Z
DRIS norms are originated after the reference
population definition, in other words, the relation between where: When A/B is larger or equal to a/b,
all the nutrients pairs and their respective standard de- F(A/B) = (A/B – 1) 1000
viations or coefficient of variation are obtained. The ra- a/b CV
tio between a pair of nutrients can be direct or inverse.
The concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, for in- Or, when A/B is smaller than a/b,
stance, can be related either as N/P or P/N ratio. F(A/B) = (1 - a/b) 1000
In DRIS calculi, each pair of nutrients is discrimi- A/B CV
nated by only one expression. There are several criteria
to select the best adequate expression and the most used In these equations, A/B is the tissue nutrient ra-
is the variance largest ratio among high and low yield- tio of the plant to be diagnosed; a/b is the optimum value
ing populations (Letzsch, 1985; Walworth & Sumner, or norm for that given ratio; CV is the coefficient of varia-
1987). That same criterion was named “F value” (Nick, tion associated with the norm; and z is the number of
1998). Bataglia & Santos (1990) evaluated direct and in- functions in the nutrient index composition. Values for
direct ratios, concluding that the ratio order can interfere other functions, such as f(A/C) and f(A/D) are calculated
in the indexes results in citrus, especially if the function in the same way, using appropriate norms and CV. In
is obtained according to Jones (1981) proposal. Nick other words, one nutrient index is the average function
(1998) suggested the criterion named “r value” for the of all the ratios containing a given nutrient. The compo-
nutrient ratio order choice for DRIS application in pruned nents of this average value are pondered by the CV re-
coffee plants, which is referred to the correlation coeffi- ciprocal of the high yielding populations (reference popu-
cient calculation (r) between plant variable response val- lations). Thus, if the A/B and A/C ratios are both used
ues and the ratio between nutrient pairs, both in direct or to generate an index for the A nutrient, the contribution
inverse order. This ratio order that will result in higher of each one to the calculation of this index will be func-
correlation coefficient absolute value is the chosen one. tion of the CV values (reference ratios) associated to
Studies in citrus showed that the “r value” is an adequate them, what will reflect the relative influence of these two
criterion for the determination of the nutrient ratio order expressions in the crop yield.
(Mourão Filho et al., 2002). Several model modifications have been proposed
The DRIS for plant nutritional diagnosis can ba- to increase accuracy in the nutritional diagnosis for sev-
sically be applied in two forms: DRIS graphs and DRIS eral crops. The calculation of the nutrient ratio functions
indices. The DRIS graphs are applied in the norms for is made according to one of three methods, namely: (a)
only three nutrients and their ratios (Walworth & Sumner, the original method proposed by Beaufils (1973); (b) the
1987). Although the use of diagrams or graphs enable the Jones (1981) method; and (c) the Beaufils (1973) method,
diagnosis for three nutrients, DRIS still favors the math- modified by Elwali & Gascho (1984). Although these
ematical ranking of the nutrient ratios or their products nutrient function ratio calculation methods have been
in nutritional indices, which can be easily interpreted. Ini- evaluated in some researches, there is not yet a clear defi-
tially, the DRIS reference or norms values should be de- nition for the best recommendation. The three methods
termined, as already described, for all the nutrient ratios applied to rubber trees revealed that Beaufils (1973) and
or products (for all nutrient pairs) to be used in the indi- Elwali & Gascho (1984) procedures presented similar re-
ces calculation. sults, and that Jones (1981) procedure showed depen-
After norms definition, sample analysis results are dence on the nutrient ratio (Bataglia & Santos, 1990).
ready to be submitted to the DRIS indices calculation In some citrus databases, the Beaufils (1973)
(Walworth & Sumner, 1987), which are composed of each method highlighted nutritional deficiencies, the Jones
nutrient individual index, calculated in two steps: first, (1981) method had advantage for presenting more simple
the functions for each nutrient pair ratio, and second, the calculation and larger statistical formality, and the Elwali
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
554 Mourão Filho

& Gascho (1984) method showed lesser interpretation er- as nitrate and ammonium can be considered apart and
rors (Santos, 1997). treated as individual nutritional factors, in expressions
According to Beverly (1991), there are two ways within the method (Walworth & Sumner, 1987).
for the second and last stage of DRIS indices calculation The absolute sum values of the nutrients indices
(the function sum involving each nutrient) namely: DRIS generate an additional index denominated Nutritional
(Beaufils, 1973) and M-DRIS (Hallmark et al., 1987; Balance Index (NBI). This index can be useful to the
Walworth et al., 1986). The original DRIS method just plant nutritional status indication, without however, hint-
uses the nutrient ratio functions. On the other hand, the ing their causes. The higher the sum value, the larger will
M-DRIS method, a variation and expansion of original be the indication of plant nutritional unbalance and, there-
DRIS, foresees dry matter inclusion in the indices calcu- fore, the lower will be the yield. NBI can be calculated
lation. The expressions are identical to the ordinarily for both DRIS and M-DRIS.
used, however, in this case, the dry matter is treated as
an additional constituent and a new index is calculated, 2.1.2- Interpretation of the DRIS nutritional indexes
in the same way as for the other plant constituents. In fact, The value of each ratio function is added to the
dry matter is, essentially, the sum of the concentration of subtotal of one index and subtracted from another [that
three nutrients usually ignored in nutritional consider- is, the value f (A/B) is added to A index and subtracted
ations: C, H, and O. That additional index is the dry mat- from B index]; before the final ponderation, all the in-
ter mass index, a good indicator of the sampled tissue dexes are balanced around zero (Walworth & Sumner,
maturity regarding the standard. 1987). Consequently, the sum of the nutritional indexes
The DRIS utilization can be enlarged for evalua- must be zero. When results are negative (lower than zero),
tion of other given data beyond the limits of those related that means deficiency, and the more negative the index,
to leaf analysis. Thus, norms for soil analysis tests were the higher the deficiency will be in relation to the other
developed for P, K, Ca, and Mg to be applied in sugar cane diagnosed nutrients. On the other hand, high index val-
crop in Southern Africa (Beaufils & Sumner, 1976). As in ues (the more positive and distant from zero indexes) in-
the leaf diagnosis, the use of DRIS for soil analyses re- dicate excessive quantity of the considered nutrient rela-
sults, presents the advantage of carrying considerations on tively to the others.
the nutritional balancing and the nutrient ranking in terms The following example may illustrate the DRIS
of relative abundance to the optimum levels. method interpretation, and to make it simple, this example
DRIS can also be expanded for expressions includ- refers only to nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium
ing non-essential elements, such as Si or Na, or even non- (K). Other nutrients may be incorporated to the calcula-
nutritional variables, like plant population or planting date, tions using the same procedure. For a nutritional diag-
although such variables were not included in calibrations nosis in maize, the interpretation norms are presented in
in already published diagnosis. Theoretically, nutrients such Table 2.
Table 2 - Maize DRIS norms for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium(a).
Lo w yie ld ing p o p ula tio n ( A) High yie ld ing p o p ula tio n ( B)
Re p r e s e nta tio n Va r ia nc e r a tio ( S A/S B)
M e a ns C V (%) Va r ia nc e ( S A) M e a ns C V (%) Va r ia nc e ( S B)
N ( % d mb) 2.86 20 0.326 3.06 18 0.303 1.075
P (%d m ) b
0.30 20 0.0036 0.32 22 0.0050 0.720
K ( % d mb) 2.32 27 0.392 2.12 23 0.238 1.647c
N /P 9.88 18 3.158 10.04 14 1.996 1.582c
N /K 1.39 28 0.150 1.49 21 0.101 1.485c
K /P 6.94 29 4.000 6.74 22 2.222 1.800c
P /K 0.13 26 0 . 0 0 11 0.15 24 0.0013 0.846
P /N 0.10 18 0.00032 0.10 16 0.00026 1.231
K /N 0.81 24 0.0380 0.72 22 0.0259 1.467c
NP 0.85 33 0.0792 0.98 32 0.0961 0.824
NK 6.59 34 5.040 5.45 34 4.910 1.026
PK 0.71 37 0.0675 0.68 36 0 . 0 6 11 1.105
a
Data from Sumner (1982), apud Walworth & Sumner (1987)1; b dm = dry matter; cVariances obtained for low and high yielding populations
are significantly different at P < 0.01.
1
SUMNER, M.E. The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS). Soil/Plant Analysis Workshop, Council on Soil
Testing and Plant Analysis. Anaheim, CA, USA. 1982.

Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004

 DRIS: concepts and applications in fruit crops 555

Considering a maize leaf sample with the follow- 2.1.3 - Application of DRIS method to fruit crops
ing nutrient concentrations in the dry matter: N (3.30%), Since the original proposal, DRIS was developed
P (0.20%) and K (1.20 %), the calculations to be made for several horticultural, ornamental, and fruit species.
are the ratios between the nutrients (represented in capi- Among the main horticultural species already diagnosed
tal letters in the previous equations) that are: N/P = 3.30/ by this method are the lettuce (Sanchez et al., 1991), to-
0.20 = 13.5; N/K = 3.30/1.20 = 2.75; and N/P = 1.20/ mato (Caron & Parent, 1989; Caron et al., 1991; Hartz
0.20 = 6.0. et al., 1998; Parent et al., 1993; Rouin et al., 1988;
Thus, Mayfield et al., 2002), potato (Mac Kay et al., 1987;
1989; Meldal-Johnsen & Sumner, 1980; Navvabzdeh &
f(N/P) = (N/P – 1) 1000 Malakouti, 1993; Parent et al., 1994a), onion (Caldwell
n/p CV et al., 1994), cucumber (Mayfield et al., 2002), and car-
because N/P > n/p. rot (Parent et al., 1994b)
There are few research works in the literature
Applying the respective values, it will result: f(N/ about the application of DRIS method in ornamental
P) = [(16.5/10.04) – 1] (1000/14) = 45.96. plants. Some of them refer to the Christmas pine (Abies
fraseri) (Rathfon & Burger, 1991a; 1991b; Arnold et al.,
In the same way,
1992).
f(N/K) = (N/K – 1) 1000 = (2.75 – 1) 1000 = 40.27 There are reports on DRIS application to fruit
n/k CV 1.49 21 crops and some DRIS norms were developed for appli-
cation on cherries, Napolean cultivar, in the State of Or-
The equation for the f(K/P) is, however, 1 – [(k/ egon, USA (Davee et al., 1986). The DRIS indexes for
p)/(K/P)] (1000/CV), because k/p > K/P and is equal to each nutrient and the unbalance-index were calculated.
[1 – 6.74/6.00)] (1000/22) = -5.61. The other nutrient in- Plants with high unbalanced indexes presented consis-
dexes are calculated: tently low yield, but crop systems using mulching pre-
sented lower unbalanced indexes and relatively higher
N index = [f(N/P + f(N/K)]/2 = (45.96 + 40.27)/2 = 43 yields. These nutrient unbalanced indexes were more cor-
P index = [-f(N/P) – f(K/P)]/2 = (-45.96 + 5.61)/2 = -20 related with relative increases in yield than any other nu-
tritional parameter. Some authors from the State of Or-
K index = [-f(N/K) + f(K/P)]/2 = (-40.27 – 5.61) = -23 egon, using DRIS norms recommended for cherries and
hazelnuts, have calculated the DRIS indexes for N, P, K,
The N index (43) >> P index (-20) > K index Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Cu, B and Zn in more than 1,000 leaf
(-23); thus, this result may be interpreted as: for a high sample data for each crop (Righetti et al., 1988). The nu-
yielding corn, the K is being relatively more required than trient unbalanced indexes were obtained through the sum
P, which is more required than N. of values in module. The sample with the least nutrient
A leaf sample with adequate nutritional balance unbalanced indexes was considered the ideal sample for
will show all indexes equal to zero. However, it is pos- their nutrient concentrations, and its values were used to
sible to have a nutrient presenting an index equal to zero create an artificial database and determining which criti-
and not being at the adequate concentration. For example, cal values would be more consistent when compared to
supposing the following diagnosis results: the DRIS evaluations. By means of calculations that
maintained all but one nutrient in ideal levels, and vary-
Nutrient: N P K Ca Mg ing another, the authors identified the concentration of
Index: -21 0 +7 +7 +7 each nutrient that would be associated to nutritional un-
balance occurrence. Thus, besides the nutritional diag-
It might be concluded that N index would indi- noses evaluation based on the nutrient ratios, the norms
cate the most deficient nutrient, compared to the others, for DRIS also allowed evaluating the SRA for nutrients
and would probably be the most limiting nutrient if the that DRIS itself sometimes appoints as relatively deficient
yields were entirely related to the nutrition. And the P or excessive nutrients.
index equal to zero, would indicate a nutrient relatively SRA and DRIS were also compared for hazelnuts,
less abundant than K and Ca or Mg and would be the sec- in the State of Oregon, USA (Alkoshab et al., 1988). The
ond more deficient in this diagnosis. Nevertheless, in this reference values, derived from both published and unpub-
case, because of nutrients may be added but not be re- lished data, were used to calculate the DRIS indexes for
moved from the soil, at least under ordinary conditions, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Cu, B and Zn. The nutrient un-
the recommendations for this diagnosis would be addi- balanced indexes were also calculated. The SRA and
tion of N, and addition of P in lower proportion, despite DRIS diagnoses were compared to determine whether the
the P index equal to zero. relative nutrient deficiencies or excesses, associated to
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
556 Mourão Filho

severely unbalanced plants, would be efficiently detected period for diagnosis purposes was 3 to 5 months after
in leaf samples. From a total of 624 leaf analyses, the di- blooming.
agnoses resulted in agreement of both methods, especially Preliminary norms for DRIS in vineyards were
when the sufficiency range was narrow for a given nu- determined in Germany (Schaller & Lohnertz, 1984). The
trient. On the other hand, some nutrients were not iden- indexes were calculated based on approximately 7,000
tified in the range of severely in excess or deficiency in groups of leaf samples. The reference population (high
any of the leaf samples classified as severely unbalanced, productivity) was defined as that presenting high sugar
based on the DRIS indexes sum. N and Mg deficiencies content in the fruit must. The developed norms allowed
were not detected, unless extremely low limits for the nu- the detection of limiting nutrient concentrations for pro-
trient unbalance indexes were used. The use of such low ductivity and quality, which could not be detected using
limits for the N and Mg deficiencies unbalance indexes the conventional methods. On the other hand, it was not
induced the identification of some high-yielding plants possible to demonstrate coincident results between soil
as nutritionally unbalanced. Thus, in this situation, DRIS analysis and DRIS norms. By means of simple and mul-
was not effective in detecting nutrient deficiencies or tox- tiple regression analyses, DRIS norms provided precise
icities and it was concluded that the method is a comple- estimates for the next year yields.
mentary tool to the SRA, providing additional informa- In India, DRIS preliminary norms were derived
tion about nutritional unbalances. from ‘Thompson Seedless’ grape, which indexes were
The application of DRIS has also been consid- evaluated in a low yielding vineyard (Chelvan et al.,
ered for apple trees (Parent & Granger, 1989). DRIS 1984). The DRIS norms were determined from a popu-
norms were derived from an apple compact orchard in lation in 48 plots, with three-year-old plants, cultivated
Canada. The experiment was installed in the Appalachian with four N rates (300; 600; 900 and 1200 kg ha-1), four
mountains region, at Quebec, with the Morspur McIntosh K2O rates (0; 500; 1000 and 1500 kg ha-1) in a factorial,
cultivar on the M.7, M.26, Ott. 3, and M. 9 dwarfing and a unique P2O5 rate (500 kg ha-1). Plots that showed
rootstocks. The plants received 12 different fertilization yields higher than 20 kg per vine plant (9 m2) were con-
treatments involving commercial products based on N, P, sidered as high-yielding plots and those lower than 15 kg
K, Ca, and Mg in three rates. The higher yielding plants per vine plant in the same area, as low-yielding plots.
on the Ott.3 rootstock presented lower leaf Mg concen- Overall, for low productivity plots, high P- and low K-
trations than on the other rootstocks. Variations in the indexes were obtained. The most limiting nutrients were
norms, year by year, led to an annual norm definition. It K and N in the plots that received only N in the rate of
was concluded that annual yields could be used instead 900 kg ha-1. In another research in India, new criteria was
of cumulative yields for the DRIS norms definition, es- developed to classify the N nutritional status of two
pecially after the sixth planting year. The incorporation grapevine cultivars based on the DRIS indexes calculated
of the dry matter index in the nutritional balance equa- with soil and leaf analysis data (Bhargava & Raghupathi,
tions (M-DRIS) was important to better define the limit- 1995). Besides the new nutrient level adopted, new fer-
ing and non-limiting nutrients, especially when the tis- tilization procedures were also recommended.
sue samples were collected in a specific period, as is the Research data on the nutritional diagnosis meth-
case of fruit trees. ods for pecan were also developed and preliminary DRIS
Research works carried out in Hungary investi- norms were obtained from a data collection of more than
gated the DRIS standard ratios for apple orchards (Szucs 3,000 entries, including the yield and 11 nutrient concen-
et al., 1990). Data on yield and leaf nutrient concentra- trations. The reference population was selected from 25%
tion from 18 representative orchards were collected dur- best yielding plants (yield above 58 kg per plant) (Beverly
ing three consecutive years. By means of conventional & Worley, 1992).
DRIS method calculations, the indexes indicated K-ex- Nutrient concentration ratios in peach leaves col-
cess and P-deficiency, while the N concentrations were lected at different stages of maturation and plant yield of
adequate. The norms estimated by quadratic regression ‘Batsch’ cultivar were also determined (Sanz et al., 1992).
analyses for N/P, N/K and K/P indicated K excess and Data were collected from 180 plants in several groves.
relative N- and P-deficiency, suggesting that the norms Leaf samples from 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days after
obtained by regression analysis might possibly point out blooming were analyzed for nutrient concentrations and
more extreme nutrient ratios than the traditional method. the respective yield was registered for each plant. Sev-
DRIS norms and indexes involving N, P, K, Ca eral calculations were performed, among them, the cor-
and Mg were established for apple orchards in New relation between the nutritional data (nutrient concentra-
Zealand (Goh & Malakouti, 1992). DRIS was compared tions and 10 nutrient ratios) and plant yield. The best cor-
to the SRA and the conclusion was that both methods pre- relation coefficients were obtained from leaf samples col-
sented similar efficacy. Unbalances referred to the N-ex- lected 60 and 120 days after blooming. Sanz (1999) per-
cess and Ca-deficiency were detected. The best sampling formed a series of simulations to evaluate the DRIS
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
 DRIS: concepts and applications in fruit crops 557

method and some of its variations with the method DOP experiment. In Eastern Africa, experiments and research
(Deviation from Optimum Percentage), using leaf samples carried out in 45 farms in the region of Kagera, Tanza-
of the ‘Batsch’ peach cultivar, and concluded that both nia, also derived new norms to estimate the nutritional
methods presented similar efficiency. status of the banana plantation, using both DRIS and the
The DRIS method was used to identify mineral critical value method (Wortmann et al., 1994).
deficiencies associated to the mango decline (a disorder of These two methods were also utilized to identify
unknown etiology), in ‘Tommy Atkins’ cultivar orchards, nutrient deficiencies in papaya grown in nutrient solution
in Florida, USA (Schaffer et al., 1988). The nutrient defi- in the greenhouse and in the field, in Hawaii, USA
ciencies associated to decline-affected plants were corre- (Bowen, 1992). Plants grown in complete nutrient solu-
lated to the whole orchard nutrition and not to the indi- tion in the greenhouse did not show any nutrient defi-
vidual plant nutritional status. Higher nutrient unbalanced ciency, and the DRIS indexes were all positive, indicat-
indexes were observed in highly affected than in healthy ing that no nutrient was actually limiting plant growth.
orchards. In the decline-affected plants, the nutrients con- Plants grown in the field were found to present some vi-
sidered deficient according to the DRIS method were Mn, sual symptoms of nutrient deficiency and their leaf peti-
Fe, or a combination of both. These nutrient concentrations ole contents indicated deficient nutrient concentrations
were below the critical value in two of the three decline- that according to DRIS were P, Fe and Zn. The average
affected mango orchards. The Mg concentration was P concentration was below the critical level in all plants
higher, overall, in decline-affected plants than in healthy showing visual symptoms of nutrient unbalance, what was
plants. In the affected orchards, phosphorus was the nutri- confirmed by the negative DRIS index. The indexes for
ent with the lowest DRIS index, but the average leaf P con- Fe and Zn were also negative, indicating that they might
centration was still above the critical value. It was con- not be in adequate levels, although the actual leaf Fe and
cluded that DRIS used together with sufficient ranges, Zn concentrations were within or above the sufficiency
might be a good auxiliary tool to detect nutritional defi- range. Toxicity might be, thus, an important factor ex-
ciencies in decline-affected mango orchards. pressing visual symptoms, particularly for Zn. Magnesium
DRIS norms were developed for mango orchards, concentrations were significantly higher in unhealthy
Alphonso cultivar, using a plant population from the plants than in the healthy ones, but the DRIS indexes did
Maharashtra district, India (Raghupathi & Bhargava, 1999). not detect this situation. It was concluded that the DRIS
The reference population was defined within the produc- method seems to be useful in detecting nutrient deficien-
tivity range of 5.4 and 7.4 t ha-1. Low yield was associ- cies in papaya, when used simultaneously with the
ated to low Mg concentrations. The same authors devel- method of critical values for the interpretation of tissue
oped another similar research work with pomegranate nutrient analysis.
(Punica granatum, L.) (Raghupathi & Bhargava, 1998). For citrus, early studies on DRIS were carried out
Preliminary DRIS norms were also developed for at California, USA, by Beverly et al. (1984), when prelimi-
N, P, and K for pineapple plantation, based on more than nary reference values were derived for nutritional diagno-
1,100 observations (previously published) on the leaf nu- sis of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg for ‘Valencia’ sweet orange.
trient composition and yields (Angeles et al., 1990). The These values were also used for subsequent comparisons
data were separated in high yielding (above 60 t ha-1) and with the SRA and, overall, both methods presented simi-
low yielding groves (below 60 t ha-1), and the DRIS lar results. However, the DRIS diagnosis was affected by
norms were derived by the standard method. The norms the sample tissue type and maturation, and the indexes re-
validity was tested using independent groups of published flected the nutrient concentration change related to the
data from factorial experiments with significant responses yield alternation or to the presence of fruits in the shoots
for N, P and K. For most data grouping, correct diagno- at sampling time. The DRIS indexes were in agreement
sis were obtained using DRIS, while the method of criti- with the SRA diagnosis, only when changes in nutrient
cal values was inefficient for the N, P and K diagnosis. concentration significantly affected the second method.
In another paper, Angeles et al. (1993) developed In a subsequent work, Beverly (1987) suggested
DRIS norms for banana, based on 915 observations from three modifications on the DRIS method and proposed
26 sources (published and unpublished data). The refer- two new methods for nutritional diagnosis for ‘Valencia’
ence subpopulation was selected according to productiv- sweet orange. The logarithmic transformation, the use of
ity equal or superior to 70 t ha-1. The indexes originated standard populations and the adoption of an unique cal-
from the developed norms were compared with the culus procedure are modifications introduced to avoid
method of critical values and the results of both methods systematic errors and simplify the diagnosis method,
were similar, except for K and K/nutrient ratios. The broadening its application. The two new suggested meth-
DRIS norms validity and their advantages over the ods were based on individual plant nutrient concentra-
method of critical values, by providing correct nutritional tions, instead of nutrient ratios. The diagnosis resulted
diagnosis, were partially confirmed through a fertilization similar to the one obtained by DRIS or SRA, but provided
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
558 Mourão Filho

more precise recommendations when evaluated by field important citrus producing States of Venezuela
tests. After this work, new researches involving data col- (Rodriguez et al., 1997). The reference population was
lecting during five more years revealed that SRA could obtained through the selection of the 20% most produc-
be more advantageous than DRIS for ‘Valencia’ sweet tive plants. The values obtained were comparable to the
orange (Beverly, 1992). The author compared SRA, DRIS previously determined in the literature. The authors con-
and three modifications of DRIS. The SRA showed effi- cluded that DRIS method might be a low cost, timesav-
cacy (not presenting false diagnosis) for N and P diag- ing and trustful alternative for the development of nutri-
nosis status in 75 and 90% of the cases, respectively, com- tional diagnosis norms.
pared to 50% or less by the other methods. All tested In Brazil, there is paucity on DRIS method inves-
methods showed efficacy for K diagnosis. tigations, especially in fruit crops. Apart of one research
Wallace (1990) carried out studies on DRIS for carried out in banana (Teixeira et al., 2002), a few other
‘Valencia’ sweet orange, from the established by Beverly studies were realized in citrus. Bataglia (1989) was prob-
et al. (1984), investigating several N, P, K ratios and in- ably the first author to report the application of this method
teractions. This author observed 23 % yield increase in re- for citrus nutritional diagnosis and indicated DRIS as an
sponse to K supply, but 69 % increase when N and P were alternative diagnosis method, pointing out the need of us-
also added. DRIS was an effective method for nutritional ing it together with other diagnoses criteria. The DRIS
diagnosis in this study. Woods & Villiers (1992), in re- norms for N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S, were calculated accord-
search works developed at South Africa, obtained well suc- ing to Jones (1981), using a reference subpopulation with
ceeded DRIS results for ‘Valencia’ sweet orange, in dis- productivity equal or superior to 120 kg plant-1.
agreement with the results reported by Beverly (1992). Creste (1996) reported the first DRIS evaluation
Those authors observed good correlation between yield (kg by comparison with the SRA in groves of Brazil, study-
plant-1) and fruit quality (fruit mass; g), with DRIS indexes ing ‘Siciliano’ lemon. Data were obtained from the analy-
derived from 1,700 observations. The results were com- sis of leaves of fruiting branches of different plant ages
pared with the conventional diagnosis method. The DRIS and rootstocks, collected in several harvesting years. The
norms were also evaluated in fertilization experiments and reference population was derived from plants with pro-
the increase in yield and fruit quality (fruit mass) were con- ductivity greater than 80 t ha-1. After the DRIS norms cal-
sistent with DRIS diagnosis. culations, the method was evaluated under field condi-
To develop DRIS norms for ‘Verna’ lemon nu- tions. DRIS showed to be more advantageous over the
tritional diagnosis, research was carried out at Murcia and SRA, mainly because it was able to discriminate the nu-
Alicante, Spain (Cerda et al., 1995). The adopted refer- trient importance order of deficiency or excess.
ence population presented yield equal or above 125 kg Santos (1997) evaluated the DRIS method using
plant-1. The DRIS determinations were influenced by the results of leaf analysis derived from a series of field ex-
rootstock/scion combination and leaf sampling period. periments with N, P, K fertilization in commercial groves
The results of diagnosis agreed with those obtained by of the State of São Paulo. This author obtained superior
the SRA only when the analyzed leaves came from the results with the DRIS compared to the SRA, for detecting
same period of sampling than the ones for the DRIS yield limitation by nutrient deficiency. Among the three
norms. Under salinity conditions, DRIS was not effective available procedures for the DRIS indexes calculations, that
in detecting if the cause of nutrient deficiency, that is, proposed by Jones (1981) was the most advantageous.
whether the nutrient unbalance was due to high salinity Yield response curves were established for three
of fertilization deficiency. Results obtained in hydropon- cultivars of sweet orange (‘Pera’, ‘Valência’ and ‘Natal’)
ics were used to establish a data bank for DRIS indexes budded on two rootstocks (Rangpur lime and Cleopatra
calculation for several citrus rootstock/scion combinations mandarin) in southwestern State of São Paulo (Creste &
in Spain (Moreno et al., 1996). Useful reference values Grassi Filho, 1998). The most productive rootstock/scion
were determined for Fe availability evaluation and its in- combination was obtained for ‘Pera’ sweet orange bud-
fluence in the nutrition of studied citrus rootstock/scion ded on Rangpur lime. It was suggested that regional DRIS
combinations, under sufficient and deficient Fe supply. norms should be established instead of general norms.
A lemon scion budded on Citrus macrophylla rootstock Mourão Filho & Azevedo (2003) established
showed less Fe-chlorosis deficiency symptoms compared DRIS norms for the ‘Valencia’ sweet orange budded on
to the same lemon budded on sour orange. Citrus Rangpur lime, Caipira sweet orange, and Poncirus
volkameriana induced higher Fe-deficiency tolerance than trifoliata rootstocks. The nutritional balance indexes
Cleopatra mandarin, when used as rootstocks combined calculated by the derived norms were highly correlated
with sweet orange scions. with yield for the rootstock/scion combinations, from
DRIS norms were developed for ‘Valencia’ sweet what it was inferred that DRIS norms might be applicable
orange for a plant population with different plant ages, always that leaf sampling is collected from non-bearing
on various rootstocks, at several regions of the four most fruit branches of irrigated-plant groves.
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004
 DRIS: concepts and applications in fruit crops 559

3 - Final remarks BEAUFILS, E.R. Research for rational exploitation of Hevea using a
physiological diagnosis based on the mineral analysis of various parts
A careful overview on the scientific literature re- of the plants. Fertilite, v.3, p.27-38, 1957.
veals that DRIS is a promising, effective auxiliary tool BEAUFILS, E.R.; SUMNER, M.E. Application of the DRIS approach for
for the nutritional diagnosis in several crops, although, calibrating soil, plant yield and plant quality factors of sugarcane.
still unknown, barely studied and applied. Except for a Proceedings of the South Africa Sugar Technology Association, v.50,
p.118-124, 1976.
few studies, most of the developed research works turns BEVERLY, R.B. Modified DRIS method for simplified nutrient diagnosis of
clear that DRIS is as effective as the conventional meth- ‘Valencia’ oranges. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.10, p.1401-1408, 1987.
ods of nutritional diagnosis (critical values and suffi- BEVERLY, R.B. A practical guide to the diagnosis and recommendation
integrated system (DRIS). Athens: Micro-Macro, 1991. 87p.
ciency range) with the additional advantage of establish- BEVERLY, R.B. Prescient diagnostic-analysis shows sufficiency range
ing a nutrient deficiency or excess ranking, according to approach superior to DRIS for Citrus. Communications in Soil Science
its importance, and a strong relation among them, quan- and Plant Analysis, v.23, p.2641-2649, 1992.
tifying the plant nutrient balance. BEVERLY, R.B.; WORLEY, R.E. Preliminary DRIS diagnostic norms for
Pecan. HortScience, v.27, p.271, 1992.
There are controversies regarding calculation pro- BEVERLY, R.B.; STARK, J.C.; OJALA, J.C.; EMBLETON, T.W. Nutrient
cedures for the norms and DRIS indexes. One of the main diagnosis of ‘Valencia’ oranges by DRIS. Journal of the American
questions is about the method application validation and Society for Horticultural Science, v.109, p.649-654, 1984.
BHARGAVA, B.S.; RAGHUPATHI, H.B. Current status and new norms of
the data universe that the norms are expected or supposed nitrogen nutrition for grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Indian Journal of
to represent. Most research results have indicated that the Agricultural Sciences, v.65, p.165-169, 1995.
more specific the data universe, the more effective the BOWEN, J.E. Comparative DRIS and critical concentration interpretation
of papaya tissue analysis data. Tropical Agriculture, v.69, p.63-67, 1992.
method for the norms derivation.
CALDWELL, J.O.; SUMNER, M.E.; VAVRINA, C.S. Development and
The criteria for the reference subpopulation defi- testing of preliminary foliar DRIS norms for onions. HortScience, v.29,
nition also demand further studies, and are, to a certain p.1501-1504, 1994.
extent, specifically adjusted for each situation. In this CARON, J.; PARENT, L.E. Derivation and assessment of DRIS norms for
greenhouse tomatoes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, v.69, p.1027-
way, DRIS norms should be developed for specific con- 1035, 1989.
ditions, in which all other factors to be correlated with CARON, J.; PARENT, L.E.; GOSSELIN, A. Effect of nitrogen and salinity
yield or quality (or any other variable) be known and iso- levels in the nutrient solution on the DRIS diagnosis of greenhouse
tomato. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.22,
lated: cultivar, climate, soil and crop management, pro- p.879-892, 1991.
ductivity etc., attaining the specific objectives. CERDA, A.; NIEVES, M.; MARTINEZ, V. An evaluation of mineral
Finally, it is highlighted that researches, both in analysis of Verna lemons by DRIS. Communications in Soil Science
a worldwide or Brazilian basis, on DRIS method utiliza- and Plant Analysis, v.26, p.1697-1707, 1995.
CHAPMAN, H.D.; BROWN, S.M. Analysis of orange leaves for diagnosing
tion are incipient. Further investigations are necessary on nutrient status with reference to potassium. Hilgardia, v.19, p.501-540,
the identification and isolation of factors that significantly 1950.
affect productivity, under several fruit crop management CHELVAN, R.C.; SHIKHAMANY, S.D.; CHADHA, K.L. Evaluation of
low yielding vines of Thompson seedless for nutrient indices by DRIS
production systems. analysis. The Indian Journal of Horticulture, v.41, p.166-170, 1984.
CRESTE, J.E. Uso do DRIS na avaliação do estado nutricional do limoeiro
REFERENCES Siciliano. Botucatu: UNESP/FCA, 1996. 120p. (Tese - Doutorado).
CRESTE, J.E.; GRASSI FILHO, H. Estabelecimento de curvas de
ALKOSHAB, O.; RIGHETTII, T.L.; DIXON, A.R. Evaluation of DRIS for produtividade para três variedades e dois porta-enxertos cítricos na região
judging the nutritional status of hazelnuts. Journal of the American sudoeste do Estado de São Paulo, com ênfase ao DRIS. In: CONGRESSO
Society for Horticultural Science, v.113, p.643-647, 1988. BRASILEIRO DE FRUTICULTURA, 15., Poços de Caldas, 1998.
ANGELES, D.E.; SUMNER, M.E.; BARBOUR, N.W. Preliminary nitrogen, Resumos. Poços de Caldas: Sociedade Brasileira de Fruticultura, 1998.
phosphorous, and potassium DRIS norms for pineapple. HortScience, v.1, p.299.
v.25, p.652-655, 1990. DAVEE, D.E.; RIGHETII, T.L.; FALLAHI, E.; ROBBINS, S. An evaluation
ANGELES, D.E.; SUMNER, M.E.; LAHAV, E. Preliminary DRIS norms of the DRIS approach for identifying mineral limitations on yield in
for banana. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.16, p.1059-1070, 1993. ‘Napolean’ sweet cherry. Journal of the American Society for
ARNOLD, R.J.; JETT, J.B.; ALLEN, H.L. Identification of nutritional Horticultural Science, v.111, p.988-993, 1986.
influences on cone production in fraser fir. Soil Science Society of ELWALI, A.M.O.; GASCHO, G.J. Soil testing, foliar analysis, and DRIS
America Journal, v.56, p.586-591, 1992. as guide for sugarcane fertilization. Agronomy Journal, v.76, p.466-
BALDOCK, J.O.; SCHULTE, E.E. Plant analysis with standarized scores 470, 1984.
combines DRIS and sufficiency range approaches for corn. Agronomy GOH, K.M.; MALAKOUTI, M.J. Preliminary nitrogen, phosphorous,
Journal, v.88, p.448-456, 1996. potassium, calcium and magnesium DRIS norms and indexes for apple
BATAGLIA, O.C. DRIS-Citros: uma alternativa para avaliar a nutrição das orchards in Canterbury, New Zealand. Communications in Soil Science
plantas. Laranja, v.10, p.565-576, 1989. and Plant Analysis, v.23, p.1371-1385, 1992.
BATAGLIA, O.C.; SANTOS, W.R. dos. Efeito do procedimento de cálculo HALLMARK, W.B.; BEVERLY, R.B. Review – An update in the use of
e da população de referência nos índices do sistema integrado de diagnose the Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System. Journal of
e recomendação (DRIS). Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v.14, Fertilizer Issues, v.8, p.74-88, 1991.
p.339-344, 1990. HALLMARK, W.B.; MOOY, C.J. de; PESEK, J. Comparison of two DRIS
BEAUFILS, E.R. Diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS). methods for diagnosing nutrient dificiencies. Journal of Fertilizer
Soil Science Bulletin, v.1, p.1-132, 1973. Issues, v.4, p.151-158, 1987.
BEAUFILS, E.R. Physiological diagnosis: a guide for improving maize HARTZ, T.K.; MIYAO, E.M.; VALÊNCIA, J.G. DRIS evaluation of the
production based on principles developed for rubber trees. Fertilizer nutritional status of processing tomato. HortScience, v.33, p.830-832,
Society of South Africa Journal, v.1, p.1-28, 1971. 1998.

Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004

560 Mourão Filho

JONES, W.W. Proposed modifications of the diagnosis and recommendation RATHFON, R.A.; BURGER, J.A. Diagnosis and Recommendation
integrated system (DRIS) for interpreting plant analyses. Integrated System (DRIS) nutrient norms for Fraser Fir Christmas trees.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.12, p.785-794, Forest Science, v.37, p.998-1010, 1991a.
1981. RATHFON, R.A.; BURGER, J.A. Diagnosis and Recommendation
LEITE, R. de A. Avaliação do estado do cafeeiro conilon no estado do Integrated System modifications for Fraser Fir Christmas trees. Soil
Espírito Santo utilizando diferentes métodos de interpretação de análise Science Society American Journal, v.55, p.1031-1037, 1991b.
foliar. Viçosa: UFV, 1992. 87p. (Tese - Doutorado). REUTHER, W.; SMITH, P.F. Leaf analysis of citrus. In: CHILDERS, N.F.
LETZSCH, W.S. Computer program for selection of norms for use in the (Ed.) Fruit nutrition. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, 1954. cap.7,
diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS). p.257-294.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.16, p.339-347, REUTHER, W.; EMBLETON, T.W.; JONES, W.W. Mineral nutrition of
1985. tree crops. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, v.9, p.175-205, 1958.
LETZSCH, W.S.; SUMNER, M.E. Effect of population size and yield level RIGHETII, T.L.; ALKOSHAB, O.; WILDER, K. Verifying critical values
in selection of Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS) from DRIS norms in sweet cherry and hazelnut. Communications in
norms. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.15, Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.19, p.1449-1466, 1988.
p.997-1006, 1984. RODRIGUEZ, O.; ROJAS, E.; SUMNER, M. Valencia orange DRIS norms
LOPES, A.S. Manual internacional de fertilidade do solo. 2.ed. for Venezuela. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
Piracicaba: POTAFOS, 1998. 177p. v.28, p.1461-1468, 1997.
MAC KAY, D.C.; CAREFOOT, J.M.; ENTZ, T. Evaluation of the DRIS ROUIN, N.D.; CARON, J.; PARENT, L.E. Influence of some artificial
procedure for assessing the nutritional status of potato (Solanum substrates on productivity and DRIS diagnosis of greenhouse tomatoes
tuberosum L.) Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, (Lycopersicum esculentum L. Mill., cv “Vedettos”). Acta Horticulturae,
v.18, p.1331-1353, 1987. n.221, p.45-52, 1988.
MAC KAY, D.C.; ENTZ, T.; CAREFOOT, J.M.; DUBETZ, S. Comparison SANCHEZ, C.A.; SNYDER, G.H.; BURDINE, H.W. DRIS evaluation of
of critical nutrient concentrations with DRIS for assessing nutrient the nutritional status of Crisphead lettuce. HortScience, v.26, p.274-
deficiencies of potatoes on irrigated chernozemic soils. Canadian 276, 1991.
Journal of Plant Science, v.69, p.601-609, 1989. SANTOS, W.R. dos. Avaliação do equilíbrio nutricional dos macronutrientes
MALAVOLTA, E.; MALAVOLTA, M.L. Diagnose foliar: princípios e em citros com diferentes adubações. Piracicaba: USP/ESALQ, 1997.
aplicações. In: BULL, L.T., ROSOLEM, C.A. Interpretação de análise 112 p. (Dissertação - Mestrado).
química de solo e planta para fins de adubação. Botucatu, Fundação SANZ, M. Evaluation of interpretation of DRIS system during growing
de Estudos e Pesquisas Agrícolas e Florestais, Faculdade de Ciências season of the peach tree: Comparison with DOP method.
Agronômicas, Universidade Estadual Paulista, 1989. p. 227-308. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.30, p.1025-
MAYFIELD, J.L.; SIMONNE, E.H.; MITCHELL, C.C.; SIBLEY, J.L.; 1036, 1999.
BOOZER, R.T.; VINSON, E.L. Effect of current fertilization practices SANZ, M.; HERAS, L.; MONTANES, L. Relationships between yield and
on nutritional status of double-cropped tomato and cucumber produced leaf nutrient contents in peach-trees – early nutritional-status diagnosis.
with plasticulture. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.25, p.1-15, 2002. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.15, p.1457-1466, 1992.
MELDAL-JOHNSEN, A.; SUMNER, M.E. Foliar diagnostic norms for SCHAFFER, B.; LARSON, K.D.; SNYDER, G.H.; SANCHEZ C.A.
potatoes. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.2, p.569-576, 1980. Identification of mineral deficiencies associated with mango decline by
MORENO, J.J.; LUCENA, J.J.; CARPENA, O. Effect of the iron supply DRIS. HortScience, v.23, p.617-619, 1988.
on the nutrition of different citrus variety/rootstock combinations using SCHALLER, K.; LOHNERTZ, O. Accomodation of DRIS-system to grape
DRIS. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.19, p.689-704, 1996. nutrition. In: INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM FOR THE
MOURÃO FILHO, F.A.A.; AZEVEDO, J.C. DRIS norms for Valencia sweet OPTIMIZATION OF PLANT NUTRITION, Montpellier, 1984. v.4,
p.1255-1263.
orange on three rootstocks. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v.38,
SUMNER, M.E. Application of Beaufils’ diagnostic indices to corn data
p.85-93, 2003.
published in literature irrespective of age and condition. Plant and Soil,
MOURÃO FILHO, F.A.A.; AZEVEDO, J.C.; NICK, J.A. Funções e ordem
v.46, p.359-363, 1977.
da razão dos nutrientes no estabelecimento de normas DRIS em laranjeira
SZUCS, E.; KÁLLAY, T.; SZENCI, G. Determination of DRIS indices for
‘Valência’. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v.37, p.185-192, 2002.
apple (Malus domestica Borkh). Acta Horticulturae, n.274, p.443-453,
NAVVABZDEH, M.; MALAKOUTI, M.J. Development of DRIS norms
1990.
for potato in the calcareous soils of Iran. Journal of Plant Nutrition,
TEIXEIRA, L.A.J.; SANTOS, W.R. dos; BATAGLIA, O.C. The N and K
v.16, p.1409-1416, 1993.
diagnosis on banana plants using the diagnosis and recommendation
NICK, J.A. DRIS para cafeeiros podados. Piracicaba: USP/ESALQ, 1998.
integrated system (DRIS) and critical value approach . Revista Brasileira
86p. (Dissertação - Mestrado).
de Fruticultura, v.24, p.530-535, 2002.
PARENT, L.E.; GRANGER, R.L. Derivation of DRIS norms from a high-
WALLACE, A. Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium interaction on Valencia
density apple orchard established in the Quebec Appalachian Mountains.
orange yields. Journal of Plant Nutrition, v.13, p.357-365, 1990.
cherry. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,
WALWORTH, J.L.; SUMNER, M.E. The Diagnosis and Recommendation
v.114, p.915-919, 1989.
Integrated System (DRIS). Advances in Soil Science, v.6, p.149-188,
PARENT, L.E.; KARAM, A.; VISSER, S.A. Compositional nutrient
1987.
diagnosis of the greenhouse tomato. HortScience, v.28, p.1041-1042, WALWORTH, J.L.; WOODDARD, H.J.; SUMNER, M.E. Generation of
1993. corn tissue norms from a small, high-yield data base. Communications
PARENT, L.E.; CAMBOURIS, A.N.; MUHAWENIMANA, A. Multivariate in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v.19, p.563-577, 1988.
diagnosis of nutrient imbalance in potato crops. Soil Science Society of WALWORTH, J.L.; SUMNER, M.E.; ISAAC, R.A.; PLANK, C.O. Use of
America Journal, v.58, p.1432-1438, 1994a. boundry lines in establishing diagnostic norms. Soil Science Society of
PARENT, L.E.; ISFAN, D.; TREMBLAY, N.; KARAM, A. Multivariate America Journal, v.50, p.123-128, 1986.
nutrient diagnosis of the carrot crop. Journal of the American Society WOODS, D.B.; VILLIERS, J.M. Diagnosing the nutrient status of ‘Valencia’
for Horticultural Science, v.119, p.420-426, 1994b. oranges in Southern Africa. In: INTERNATIONAL CITRUS
RAGHUPATHI, H.B.; BHARGAVA, B.S. Diagnosis of nutrient imbalance CONGRESS, 7., Acireale, 1992. Proceedings. Acireale, 1992. p.556-
in pomegranate by diagnosis and recommendation integrated system and 559.
compositional nutrient diagnosis. Communications in Soil Science and WORTMANN, C.S.; BOSCH, C.H.; MUKANDALA, L. Foliar nutrient
Plant Analysis, v.29, p.2881-2892, 1998. analyses in bananas grown in the highlands of East-Africa. Journal of
RAGHUPATHI, H.B.; BHARGAVA, B.S. Preliminary nutrient norms for Agronomy and Crop Science, v.172, p.223-226, 1994.
‘Alphonso’ mango using diagnosis and recommendation integrated
system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, v.69, p.648-650, Received April 06, 2004
1999. Accepted August 05, 2004

Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.5, p.550-560, Sept./Oct. 2004