|
|
|
| Authors: | M. Basirat, S. Ghalebi, M. Meschi, M. Hosseini-Mazinani |
Abstract:
In order to demonstrate the effects of media container on durability and growth indices of olive pots after transplanting from mist condition, an experiment was carried out in randomized complete block design (RBCD) with 4 replications and 16 treatments at a greenhouse nursery in 2002.
Treatments: 1) Peatmoss-Vermiculite (50-50 %vol.), 2) Sand-Peatmoss (75-25 %vol.), 3) Sand-Peatmoss-Loam (70-20-10%vol.), 4) Sand-Sawdust (70-30%vol.), 5) Sand-Sawdust-Loam (65-20-10%vol.), 6) Sand-Husk rice (75-25%vol.), 7) Sand-Husk rice-Loam (65-25-10%vol.), 8) Sand-Vermicompost (Straw Source)(65-35 %vol.), 9) Sand-Vermicompost-loam (Straw Source)(60-30-10%vol.), 10) Sand-Vermicompost (manure source)-Loam (60-30-10%vol.), 11) Sand-Straw compost (70-30%vol.), 12) Sand-Straw compost-Loam (65-25-10%vol.), 13) Sand-Woodbark (65-35%vol.), 14) Sand-Woodbark-Loam (65-25-10%vol.), 15) Sand-Perlite-Loam (65-25-10%vol.), 16) Sand-Loam (90-10%vol.).
All media containers were sterilized in 70°C for 30 minutes.
Every experimental pot was regularly irrigated with 200CC nutrients solution based on Hoagland formula.
The percentage of durability and growth indices were measured after 10 months and statistically analyzed.
The results showed that, except for T10 and T13 that were significantly different, all other media pots were suitable and had acceptable durability percentages after transplantation.
Our study on the effect of different substrates on the mean value of shoot growth shows that T1 (Peatmoss-Vermiculite) is the best (A level) treatment.
After that T8, T9 and T16 come respectively.
Comparison between the treatments showed that T1 had the lowest shoot dry weight followed by T8, T9 and T16, respectively, as can also be seen from the trend in shoot growth.
The effect of the type of substrate on root dry weight (RDW) factor was significant and the results were the same for SDW. The regression coefficient between CEC and RDW of different media containers was significant (R2=0.68) although it was not significant between moisture holding capacity and SDW.
|
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader (free software to read PDF files) |
|