Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Reis, Mário
Data de Publicação: 2003
Outros Autores: Inácio, H., Rosa, A., Caço, J., Monteiro, A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/20335
Resumo: Grape marc and pine bark were composted in windrows for a period of three months, supplied with 1kg of nitrogen (urea) m-3 . Grape marc compost (GMC) and pine bark compost (PBC) had, respectively, 84.3 and 85.0% v/v total pore space, 10.3 and 1.2 % v/v easily available water, 59% and 32.0% v/v air capacity, 53.0 and 25.9 % v/v total water content. Rockwool (Grodan®) has higher total pore space (96.7% v/v) and total water content (81.8% v/v) but lower air capacity (14.9% v/v). Rockwool, GMC and PBC were compared as plant substrates for growing a greenhouse tomato crop. Plants of tomato 'Sinatra' (Sluis & Groot, Holland) were grown on 15 L rockwool slabs and on 30 L bags of compost, in a heated plastic greenhouse, from December to June. A nutrient solution with the same chemical composition was used for the three substrates, varying the composition according to plant development. The irrigation period was pre-set and the irrigation frequency was controlled by solar radiation. Fruits were collected twice a week, from March to June, weighted and selected. There were no significant differences in yield and fruit quality between substrates. Commercial yield on GMC was 16.6 kg m-2 , on PBC 15.5 kg m-2 and on RW 16.2 kg m-2 . Temperature in composts showed a higher resistance to daily variation. We observed a good root development after the crop, specially in GMC. Positive changes in the physical properties of composts occurred during the growing period, particularly the increase in water content of GMC and in aeration capacity of PBC, indicating a potential re-using the composts, which was lately confirmed by growing a second and third tomato crop, on GMC (open and closed systems1) and on PBC (open system2).
id RCAP_6536fd88b5362d40114f70b9a851c0ad
oai_identifier_str oai:sapientia.ualg.pt:10400.1/20335
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless cultureTomatoLycopersicum esculentum MillRockwoolFruit yieldFruit qualityGrape marc and pine bark were composted in windrows for a period of three months, supplied with 1kg of nitrogen (urea) m-3 . Grape marc compost (GMC) and pine bark compost (PBC) had, respectively, 84.3 and 85.0% v/v total pore space, 10.3 and 1.2 % v/v easily available water, 59% and 32.0% v/v air capacity, 53.0 and 25.9 % v/v total water content. Rockwool (Grodan®) has higher total pore space (96.7% v/v) and total water content (81.8% v/v) but lower air capacity (14.9% v/v). Rockwool, GMC and PBC were compared as plant substrates for growing a greenhouse tomato crop. Plants of tomato 'Sinatra' (Sluis & Groot, Holland) were grown on 15 L rockwool slabs and on 30 L bags of compost, in a heated plastic greenhouse, from December to June. A nutrient solution with the same chemical composition was used for the three substrates, varying the composition according to plant development. The irrigation period was pre-set and the irrigation frequency was controlled by solar radiation. Fruits were collected twice a week, from March to June, weighted and selected. There were no significant differences in yield and fruit quality between substrates. Commercial yield on GMC was 16.6 kg m-2 , on PBC 15.5 kg m-2 and on RW 16.2 kg m-2 . Temperature in composts showed a higher resistance to daily variation. We observed a good root development after the crop, specially in GMC. Positive changes in the physical properties of composts occurred during the growing period, particularly the increase in water content of GMC and in aeration capacity of PBC, indicating a potential re-using the composts, which was lately confirmed by growing a second and third tomato crop, on GMC (open and closed systems1) and on PBC (open system2).Project PAMAF-IED 6156International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)SapientiaReis, MárioInácio, H.Rosa, A.Caço, J.Monteiro, A.2024-02-01T13:00:56Z20032024-01-31T16:33:21Z2003-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/20335engcv-prod-213874010.17660/ActaHortic.2003.608.32406-61682-s2.0-84864705605info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-02-07T02:01:04Zoai:sapientia.ualg.pt:10400.1/20335Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:37.880416Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
title Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
spellingShingle Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
Reis, Mário
Tomato
Lycopersicum esculentum Mill
Rockwool
Fruit yield
Fruit quality
title_short Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
title_full Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
title_fullStr Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
title_full_unstemmed Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
title_sort Grape marc and pine bark composts in soilless culture
author Reis, Mário
author_facet Reis, Mário
Inácio, H.
Rosa, A.
Caço, J.
Monteiro, A.
author_role author
author2 Inácio, H.
Rosa, A.
Caço, J.
Monteiro, A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Sapientia
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Reis, Mário
Inácio, H.
Rosa, A.
Caço, J.
Monteiro, A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Tomato
Lycopersicum esculentum Mill
Rockwool
Fruit yield
Fruit quality
topic Tomato
Lycopersicum esculentum Mill
Rockwool
Fruit yield
Fruit quality
description Grape marc and pine bark were composted in windrows for a period of three months, supplied with 1kg of nitrogen (urea) m-3 . Grape marc compost (GMC) and pine bark compost (PBC) had, respectively, 84.3 and 85.0% v/v total pore space, 10.3 and 1.2 % v/v easily available water, 59% and 32.0% v/v air capacity, 53.0 and 25.9 % v/v total water content. Rockwool (Grodan®) has higher total pore space (96.7% v/v) and total water content (81.8% v/v) but lower air capacity (14.9% v/v). Rockwool, GMC and PBC were compared as plant substrates for growing a greenhouse tomato crop. Plants of tomato 'Sinatra' (Sluis & Groot, Holland) were grown on 15 L rockwool slabs and on 30 L bags of compost, in a heated plastic greenhouse, from December to June. A nutrient solution with the same chemical composition was used for the three substrates, varying the composition according to plant development. The irrigation period was pre-set and the irrigation frequency was controlled by solar radiation. Fruits were collected twice a week, from March to June, weighted and selected. There were no significant differences in yield and fruit quality between substrates. Commercial yield on GMC was 16.6 kg m-2 , on PBC 15.5 kg m-2 and on RW 16.2 kg m-2 . Temperature in composts showed a higher resistance to daily variation. We observed a good root development after the crop, specially in GMC. Positive changes in the physical properties of composts occurred during the growing period, particularly the increase in water content of GMC and in aeration capacity of PBC, indicating a potential re-using the composts, which was lately confirmed by growing a second and third tomato crop, on GMC (open and closed systems1) and on PBC (open system2).
publishDate 2003
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2003
2003-01-01T00:00:00Z
2024-02-01T13:00:56Z
2024-01-31T16:33:21Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/20335
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.1/20335
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv cv-prod-2138740
10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.608.3
2406-6168
2-s2.0-84864705605
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
publisher.none.fl_str_mv International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137417633988608