Yielding and chemical composition of greenhouse tomato fruit grown on straw or rockwool substrate

• Autorzy: Nurzynski J. , Jarosz Z. , Michalojc Z.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Plonowanie i skład chemiczny owoców pomidora szklarniowego uprawianego w słomie oraz wełnie mineralnej

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Studies were conducted with tomato of Admiro F1 cultivar grown in glasshouse in the years 2008–2009. Four substrates were applied: 1) triticale straw, 2) triticale straw + high peat (3:1 v:v), 3) triticale straw + pine bark (3:1 v:v), 4) rockwool (100 × 20 × 7.5 cm = 15 dm3 ). Straw, cut into pieces, (2–3 cm) was put in plastic boxes (height of the box ca. twice its width) with the capacity of 15 liters. In each box/slab two plants grew. Experiments were conducted with the use of complete randomization method, in seven repetitions. Drop fertigation was applied in a closed system, without nutrient solution recirculation. In the period of high temperatures the daily nutrient solution consumption equaled 4.2 dm3 on a one-off basis in 10–12 doses with about 20% overflow. In the conducted studies full usefulness of triticale straw was demonstrated as the substrate for tomato grown in glasshouse. Higher yield was obtained from growing in the substrate of triticale straw+ pine bark, as well as triticale straw + peat compared to rockwool, and these differences were not statistically significant. The highest dry matter content was found in the fruit grown in straw substrates, the least – in those from rockwool substrates. No significant differences were demonstrated in the contents of N, P, K, Ca and Mg in fruit with reference to the examined substrates. After 33 weeks of vegetation (end of the studies) about 70% of the straw was mineralized.

PL

Badania przeprowadzono z pomidorem odmiany Admiro F1 uprawianym w szklarni w roku 2008 i 2009. Zastosowano cztery podłoża: 1) słoma pszenżyta, 2) słoma pszenżyta + torf wysoki (3:1 v:v), 3) słoma pszenżyta + kora sosnowa (3:1 v:v), 4) wełna mineralna (100 × 20 × 7,5 cm = 15 dm3 ). Słomę pociętą na kawałki (2–3 cm) umieszczono w skrzynkach plastikowych (wysokość skrzynki ok. dwa razy większa od szerokości) o pojemności 15 litrów. W każdej skrzynce/macie rosły dwie rośliny. Doświadczenia przeprowadzono metodą kompletnej randomizacji w siedmiu powtórzeniach. Stosowano fertygację kroplową w układzie zamkniętym, bez recyrkulacji pożywki. W okresie wysokich temperatur zużycie pożywki na dobę wynosiło jednorazowo 4,2 dm3 w 10–12 dawkach z około 20% przelewem. W przeprowadzonych badaniach wykazano pełną przydatność słomy pszenżyta jako podłoża dla pomidora uprawianego w szklarni. Wyższe plony otrzymano z uprawy w podłożu słoma pszenżyta + kora sosnowa oraz słoma pszenżyta + torf w porównaniu z wełną mineralną, przy czym różnice nie były statystycznie istotne. Najwięcej suchej masy w owocach stwierdzono z uprawy w podłożach ze słomy, najmniej z wełny mineralnej. Nie wykazano istotnych różnic w zawartości N, P, K, Ca i Mg w owocach w odniesieniu do badanych podłoży. Po 33 tygodniach wegetacji roślin (zakończenie badań) około 70% słomy zostało zmineralizowane.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Hortorum Cultus
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 11
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.79-89,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Nurzynski J.

• Department of Soil Cultivation and Fertilization of Horticultural Plants, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Leszczynskiego 58, 20-068 Lublin, Poland

autor

Jarosz Z.

autor

Michalojc Z.

Bibliografia

• Abukhovich A., Kobryń J., 2010. Yield and changes in the fruit quality of cherry tomato grown on the cocofibre and rockwool slabs used for the second time. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus, 9(4), 93–98.
• Bernardi A.C., Werneck C.G., Haim P.G., Botrel N., 2007. Yield and fruit quality of tomato grown in substrate with zeolit. Hort. Brasil., 25(2), 306–311.
• Borośić J., Benko B., Nowak B., Toto N., Zutić I., Fabek S., 2009. Growth and field of tomato grown in reused rockwool slabs. Acta Hort., 819, 221–226.
• Borowski E., Nurzyński J., 2009. Photosynthetic activity of leaves and tomato fruit field in growing on substrates of cereal straw and its mixtures with other organic substances. EJPAU, Horticulture, 10(2), www.ejpau.media.pl.
• Choi J., Ahn J., Ku J., 2007. Growth and nutrient uptake of tomato plug seedling influenced by elevated blending rate of perlite in coir and peatmoss substrates. Hort. Envir. Biotech., 48(5), 270–276.
• Domeno I., Irigoyen N., Muro J., 2009. Evolution of organic matter and drainages in wood fibre and coconut fibre substrates. Sci. Hort., 122(2), 269–274.
• Dorais M., Menard C., Begin E., 2007. Risk of phytotoxicity of sawdust substrates for greenhouse vegetables. Acta Hort., 761, 589–594.
• Ehret D.L., Helmer T., 2009. A new wood fibre substrate for hydroponic tomato and pepper crops. Can. J. Plant Sci., 89(6), 1127–1132.
• Elings A., Meinen E., Campen J., Stanghellini C., Gilder A., 2007. The photosynhesis response of tomato to air circulation. Acta Hort., 761, 77–84.
• Evans M.R., Vancey L., 2007. Physical properties of processed poultry feather fiber-containing greenhouse root substrates. HortTechnology, 17(3), 301–304.
• Fecondini M., Mezetti M., Orsini F., Gianquinto G., Poppi S., 2011. Zeolites in media mixes for soilless production: first results on tomato. Acta Hort., 893, 1007–1012.
• Fernandes C., Cora J.E., Braz L.T. 2007. Reuse of sand, crushed sugarcane and peanut hull-based substrates for cherry tomato cultivation. Sci. Agric., 64(6), 630–635.
• Gachukia M.M., Evans M.R., 2008. Root substrate pH, electrical conductivity and macroelement concentration of sphagnum peat-based substrates amended with parboiled fresh rice hulls or perlite. HortTechnology, 18(4), 644–649.
• Hanna H.Y., 2009. Influence of cultivar, growing media and cluster pruning on greenhouse tomato yield and fruit quality. HortTechnology, 19(2), 395–399.
• Hao X., Wang Q., Khosla S., 2008. Respons of greenhouse tomato to summer CO2 enrichment. Acta Hort., 797, 241–246.
• Jankauskiene J., Brazaityte A., 2007. Influence of substratum on tomato productivity and physiological processes. Sodininkyste ir Darżininkyste, 26(2), 66–77.
• Jarosz Z., Dzida K., 2011. Effect of substratum and nutrient solution upon yileding and chemical composition of leaves and fruits of glasshouse tomato grown in prolonged cycle. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus, 10(3), 247–258.
• Kaniszewski S., Dyśko J., Kowalczyk W., Wojtysiak J., Wrocławski Z., Dziedziczak K., 2010. Effect of nitration of organic materials on nitrogen availability and yield of tomato in soilless culture. Veget. Crops Res. Bull., 72, 71–81.
• Kowalczyk K., Gajc-Wolska J., 2011. Effect of the kind of growing medium and transplant grafting on the cherry tomato yielding. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus, 10(1), 61–70.
• Kowalczyk K., Gajc-Wolska J., Marcinkowska M., 2011. The influence of growing medium and harvest time on the biological value of cherry fruit and standard tomato cultivars. Veget. Crops Res. Bull., 74, 51–59.
• Lopez J.C.C., Waller P., Giacomelli G., Tuller M., 2008. Physical characterization of greenhouse substrates for automated irrigation management. Acta Hort., 797, 333–338.
• Mahamud S., Manisah M.D., 2007. Preliminery studies on sago waste as growing medium for tomato. Acta Hort. ,742, 163–168.
• Miccolis V., Candido V., Lucarelli G., Castronuovo D., 2007. Cherry tomato yield on two different soil growing media. Acta Hort., 761, 573–579.
• Neocleous D., 2010. Yield, nutrients, and antioxidants of tomato in response to grafting and substrate. Inter. J. Veget. Sci., 16(3), 212–221.
• Nichualain D., Carlile W., Hynes C., Phelan G., O'Haire R., Doyle O.P.E., 2011. Nutrient status of co-composted indigenous irish wastes, and their use in growing media. Acta Hort., 891, 85–92.
• Nurzyński J., 2002. Plonowanie i skład chemiczny pomidora uprawianego w podłożu z wełny mineralnej oraz słomy. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 485, 257–262.
• Nurzyński J., 2005. Effect of different fertilization levels on yielding of greenhouse tomato grown on sand, peat or rockwool growth media. Veget. Crops Res. Bull., 63, 101–107.
• Nurzyński J., 2006. The yileding of greenhouse tomato grown in straw and rockwool. Folia Hort. 18(2), 17–23.
• Olfati J. A., Peyvast G., Qamgosar R., Sheikhtaher Z., Salimi M., 2010. Synthetic humic acid increased nutrient uptake in cucumber soilless culture. Acta Hort. 871, 425–428.
• Parra M., Raya V., Cid M., Haroun J., 2009. Alternative to tomato soilless clture in open system in the Canary Island: preliminary results. Acta Hort., 807, 509–514.
• Piróg J., Bykowski G., Krzesiński W., 2010. Effect of substrate type and method of fertigation control on yield size and fruit quality of greenhouse cucumber. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus, 9(4), 99–109.
• Raviv M., 2011. The future of composts as ingredients of growing media. Acta Hort., 891, 19–32.
• Schroeder F.G., Knaack H., 2007. Gas concentration in the root zone of cucumber grown in different substrates. Acta Hort., 761, 493–500.
• Stanghellini C., Kempkes F.L.K., Incrocci L., 2009. Carbon dioxide fertilization in Mediterranean greenhouses: when and how is it economical? Acta Hort., 807, 135–142.
• Tzortzakis N.G., Economakis C.D., 2007. Shredded maize stems as an alternative substrates medium: effect on water and nutrient uptake by tomato in soilless culture. Inter. J. Veget. Sci., 13(4), 103–122.
• Verdonck O., 2005. Status of soilless culture in Europa. Acta Hort., 742, 35–39.