Next Article in Journal
Soil Texture Alters the Impact of Salinity on Carbon Mineralization
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Fertigation with Untreated and Treated Leachates from Municipal Solid Waste on the Microelement Status and Biometric Parameters of Viola × wittrockiana
Previous Article in Journal
Erratum: Arnuti, F., et al. Sheep Dung Composition and Phosphorus and Potassium Release Affected by Grazing Intensity and Pasture Development Stage in an Integrated Crop-Livestock System. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1162
Previous Article in Special Issue
Soil Monitoring Methods to Assess Immediately Available Soil N for Fertigated Sweet Pepper
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Leachate Fertigation and the Addition of Hydrogen Peroxide on Growth and Nutrient Balance in Dracaena deremensis Potted Plants

by
Pedro García-Caparrós
1,†,
Cristina Velasquez Espino
2 and
María Teresa Lao
1,*,†
1
Agronomy Department of Superior School Engineering, University of Almeria, CIAIMBITAL, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence ceiA3, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almería, Spain
2
Facultad de Ciencias Agrotecnológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, 31034 Chihuahua, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Submission received: 4 December 2020 / Revised: 5 January 2021 / Accepted: 8 January 2021 / Published: 11 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Crops Fertigation)

Abstract

:
The reuse of drainages for cultivating more salt tolerant crops can be a useful tool especially in arid regions, where there are severe problems for crops water management. Dracaena deremensis L. plants were cultured in pots with sphagnum peat-moss and were subjected to three fertigation treatments for 8 weeks: control treatment or standard nutrient solution (D0), raw leachates from Chrysalidocarpus lutescens H. Wendl plants (DL) and the same leachate blending with H2O2 (1.2 M) at 1% (v/v) (DL + H2O2). After harvesting, ornamental and biomass parameters, leaf and root proline and total soluble sugar concentration and nutrient balance were assessed in each fertigation treatment. Plant height, leaf and total dry weight had the highest values in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2, whereas root length, leaf number, RGB values and pigment concentration declined significantly in plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens with or without H2O2. The fertigation with leachates, regardless of the presence or absence of H2O2 increased root and leaf proline concentration. Nevertheless, root and leaf total soluble sugar concentration did not show a clear trend under the treatments assessed. Regarding nutrient balance, the addition of H2O2 in the leachate resulted in an increase in plant nutrient uptake and efficiency compared to the control treatment. The fertigation with leachates with or without H2O2 increased nitrogen and potassium leached per plant compared to plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution. The reuse of drainages is a viable option to produce ornamental plants reducing the problematic associated with the water consumption and the release of nutrients into the environment.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the production of potted plants is an important economic source in the horticultural industry. They are appreciated worldwide for gardening and landscaping projects [1]. It is estimated that the ornamental plant sector generates around 300 billion USD [2]. There is a high demand for ornamental plants due to the urban expansion and attention to plant functions and aesthetical advantages [3].
The production of containerized ornamental plants has some drawbacks since it requires a frequently fertigation due to the confinement of roots in a limited volume in a substrate with low capacity of water and nutrient retention resulting in the pollution of ground and surface water [4]. Although the leachates generated by these plants are usually rich in nutrients, they also contain a high concentration of Na and Cl which can be excessive for the non-salt tolerant cultures [5].
Under these adverse conditions generated by the excessive leachate, the implementation of a Serial Biological Concentration (SBC) or cascade cropping system could be an environmentally sustainable option. The cascade cropping system is based on the collection of the leachate from beneath one crop to be used for the irrigation of the consequent more salt tolerant crop in the series with the main aim of reducing almost entirely the leachate volume from the last crop [6].
Oxygation is a technology based on the increase in O2 concentration in the root zone and can be achieved through mixing air or chemical compounds such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) with irrigation water before to be distributed in the irrigation lines [7]. Hydrogen peroxide was used many years ago in agriculture for seed sterilization [8] and currently can be used for cleaning drippers or controlling pests [9]. Besides the effects already mentioned, a higher level of oxygation in the root zone due to the application of H2O2 in the irrigation water and the consequent enhancement of crop growth has been reported by several researchers [10,11]. Moreover, the exogenous application of H2O2 has been reported as ameliorative in the damage caused by saline conditions in several crops [12,13].
Dracaena deremensis is a foliage plant of high importance belonging to the family Agavaceae. Leaf color ranges from green to grey-green with various white striped patterns available. This species is well valued as interiorscapes because of its attractive form, color, and durability [14].
We have already investigated the potential use of a cascade cropping system with horticultural and ornamental plants to achieve the concomitant production of several species with water and nutrient savings [15,16]. Although the results were positive with improved yields and water and nutrient savings, the following step was to include some chemical compound in the leachate generated by the cascade cropping system in order to ameliorate the damages caused by salt accumulation in the substrate. Therefore, in this work, a pot experiment with D. deremensis was conducted to test how the reuse of the leachates from Chrysalidocarpus lutescens plants and the addition of hydrogen peroxide in the leachate affects biomass, pigment concentration, biochemical parameters, and water and nutrient uptake efficiencies and their losses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Growing Conditions

Seedlings of Dracaena deremensis plants (height: 30.1 cm, and plant dry weight: 6.5 g) were transferred to plastic containers with a volume of 1.5 L. The substrate used in the experiment was sphagnum peat-moss. The experiment was carried out over 8 weeks in a plastic greenhouse in the University of Almeria (36°49′ N, 2°24′ W). During the experimental period, the climatic conditions were recorded with HOBO SHUTTLE sensors (model H08-004-02). The average temperature was 16.5 ± 1.5 °C, relative humidity (RH) was 55.6 ± 2.9%, and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was 55.4 ± 4.4 µmol m−2 s−1. The experiment consisted of the irrigation of Dracaena deremensis plants with three different fertigation treatments: standard nutrient solution or control treatment (D0) proposed by Jiménez and Caballero [17] adapted for the culture of ornamental plants under Mediterranean conditions and two sequential reuse treatments: one of them was composed of raw leachates from Chrysalidocarpus lutescens plants (DL) and the other was the same leachate blending with H2O2 (1.2 M) at 1% (v/v) (DL + H2O2) (Figure 1). The plants were manually fertigated using a test tube and the same volume of 30 mL (2% of the volume container) was added to each container every day, resulting in 1.7 L pot−1 treatment−1. The planting density was 6 plants m−2. The experimental design was composed of three fertigation treatments, four blocks and four plants (pots) per block giving a total of 48 plants plus adjacent plants.

2.2. Monitoring of Irrigation and Leachate Composition

The samples of nutrient solution applied and the leachates resulting from each fertigation treatment of D. deremensis plants were collected weekly during the whole experimental period (8 weeks). The collection of the leachate was performed by placing a plastic collection bucket under each pot. To prevent evaporation of the leachate treatments during the experimental period, the buckets were tightly fitted to the pots. Aliquots of 5 mL of nutrient solution or leachates were collected and filtered using membrane filters (0.45 μm) and frozen for further analysis. The determination of pH and EC was assessed with pH meter and conductivity meter (models Milwaukee pH52 and C66), respectively. The chemical determinations of anions and cations concentration were conducted through high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) following the protocol reported by Csáky and Martínez-Grau [18].

2.3. Yield and Water Productivity

At the end of the harvesting, four plants per fertigation treatment were randomly selected. For each plant, we calculated the volume of applied water, leached and the percentage of leachate over the experimental period. The same plants were used for the determination of fresh weight (FW). Then, we calculated the water productivity in each treatment as the increase in FW between the beginning and the end of the experimental period divided by the volume of total water applied (grams of FW per L of water applied).

2.4. Ornamental Parameters and Pigments Concentration

Morphological parameters such as plant height, root length, leaf number, RGB values and pigment concentrations were recorded after harvesting. The plant height was measured with a ruler from the top of the last open leaf of the plant to the substrate line and the longest root length was then measured with a ruler from the crown to the tip of the root. Leaf number was counted directly. The determination of color index in leaves (RGB values) was assessed using the protocol recommended by García-Caparros et al. [19,20] and values were recorderd with an optical scanner (ES-2000; Seiko Epson Corp., Suwa, Japan) and the images were assessed with the program Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Adobe System Software, Dublin, Ireland) by averaging the R, G, and B values (adimensional units) of all the leaf pixels. The same leaves used for the determination of color index were then used for the determination of pigments concentration. Fresh samples of leaves (0.2 g) were submerged in methanol for 24 h under dark conditions at room temperature (RT). The supernatant was removed, and the pigments concentration was recorded spectrophotometrically using the protocol reported by Wellburn [21].

2.5. Biomass Parameters

At the end of the experimental period, four plants were randomly selected per treatment and splitted into three fractions: roots, stems, and leaves. Then, these fractions were washed with distilled water and dried with blotting paper. To determine the dry weight of these fractions, each fraction was oven dried at 60 °C for 48 h. These dry weights were used to determine several plant parameters as relative leaf weight ratio (LWR; leaf DW per unit plant DW), stem weight ratio (SWR; stem DW per unit plant DW), and root weight ratio (RWR; root DW per unit plant DW) described by Garcia-Caparros et al. [22,23]. The total plant dry weight (TDW) was calculated as the DW sum of the roots, stems, and leaves. The fresh and dry weight of roots, stems and leaves were used to calculate the plant water content (WC) (−) as indicated by Ben Amor et al. [24].

2.6. Biochemical Determinations

At the end of the experimental period, four plants were randomly selected per treatment for the determination of total soluble sugar and proline concentration in roots and leaves. Fresh material of roots and leaves (0.5 g) was crushed with ethanol (5 mL at 96%) and then washed with ethanol (5 mL at 70%). The alcoholic extract was centrifuged for 10 min (3500× g) and then the supernatant was stored at 4 °C for further analysis. The alcoholic extract supernatant was used to determine the total soluble sugar and free proline concentrations. The anthrone reagent method was used to determine the total soluble sugar concentrations (expressed in mg glucose g−1 FW). The ninhydrin reagent method was used to determine the free proline concentration (expressed in µg g−1 FW) following the recommendations given by Irigoyen et al. [25].

2.7. Nutrient Balance

At the end of the experiment, a nutrient balance for each fertigation treatment was recorded using the protocol established by García-Caparrós et al. [26,27]. The amount of nutrient supplied per plant (expressed in mg) in each treatment was calculated by multiplying the volume applied in each fertigation treatment by the nutrient concentration. To determine the plant nutrient uptake, the oven-dried samples were ground with a mill and split into two subsamples. The determination of the soluble N-NO3 was carried out through HPLC in one subsample. The other subsample was mineralized with H2SO4 (96%) and hydrogen peroxide (P-free) at 300 °C for the determination of total P [28], organic N [29], and K+ [30] concentration. The total N concentration in the different organs assessed was calculated as the sum of the organic N and N-NO3 concentration. From these determinations and with the previous recording of the dry weight in the different fractions, we computed the plant nutrient uptake as the difference of plant nutrient content at the end and at the beginning of the experiment. An initial harvest at the beginning of the experiment gave an average of 76 ± 4 mg N, 8 ± 0.5 mg P, and 276 ± 15.8 mg K per plant. The percentage of nutrient uptake efficiency was calculated as the ratio between plant nutrient uptake (mg) and plant nutrient supplies (mg) expressed in percentage. The nutrient leached per plant (expressed in mg) in each treatment was calculated using the data recorded in the chemical composition of the leachate by their respective leached volume. The percentage of nutrient leachates was calculated as the ratio between nutrient leached per plant and nutrient supplied per plant expressed as a percentage. Nutrients available in the substrate were extracted in ultrapure water (1:10 v/v, substrate-water) using the protocol reported by Sonneveld et al. [31]. The mixture of substrate-water was subjected to shaking for 1 h and the extract was filtered. An aliquot of 5 mL of the filtered extract was determined by HPLC as described by Csáky and Martínez-Grau [18]. From these determinations, the amount of nutrient available in the substrate per pot was obtained multiplying by the apparent density of the substrate and by the pot’s volume. The amount of nutrients retained in the substrate were calculated as the difference between the amount of nutrients at the end and at the beginning of the experiment. Unaccounted nutrients were calculated as the difference between nutrient supplies per plant, nutrient leached and nutrient retained in the substrate. Unaccounted loss was expressed as a percentage dividing the value of unaccounted loss by the total nutrient supplied per plant expressed as a percentage.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The experiment was designed as a randomized block design, where each parameter assessed in each plant was considered as independent replicates. Statgraphics Centurion XVI.II (Statpoint Technologies, Inc. Warrenton, VA, USA) was used to compare between treatments applying one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests.

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Composition of the Nutrient Solution

The fertigation with leachates from Chrysalidocarpus lutescens with and without H2O2 (DL and DL + H2O2) had higher values of pH and EC with respect to the control treatment or standard nutrient solution (D0). The fertigation with the leachates with and without H2O2 (DL and DL + H2O2) showed higher concentrations of NO3, Cl, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+. Regarding H2PO4 concentration, there were no statistical differences among fertigation treatments. The control treatment or standard nutrient solution showed the highest H2PO4 and SO42− concentration (Table 1).
It is worthwhile to mention that the chemical composition of the standard nutrient solution or control treatment remained constant over the experiment. As far as anions concentrations was concerned, Cl concentration in the leachates from C. lutescens with and without H2O2 showed higher values than the control treatment and did not show a clear trend during the experimental period. Nitrate concentration in the leachates showed the highest values in the first weeks of the experimental period and then tended to decrease over the experiment, being always higher than in the control treatment. In the case of phosphate concentration, the fertigation with leachates with and without H2O2 showed similar values over the experiment (around to 0.4 mmol L−1) being lower than the control treatment (around 0.7 mmol L−1). Regarding sulphate concentration, the different treatments assessed ranged from 1.7 to 2.5 mmol L−1 (Figure 2A). Considering cations concentration, it is necessary to point out that the control treatment or standard nutrient solution showed the lowest values during the experimental period. Sodium concentration in the leachates from C. lutescens with and without H2O2 tended to increase over the experimental period, whereas potassium, calcium and magnesium showed a slight trend to decrease throughout the experiment (Figure 2B).

3.2. Yield and Water Productivity in Plants

The plants subjected to different fertigation treatments received the same volume during the experimental period (10.2 L m−2). The volume of leachate generated and consequently the leachate fraction and the water uptake were similar in all treatments. Dracaena deremensis fertigated with leachates with H2O2 showed the highest values in total yield (expressed in g of plant fresh weight (FW) m−2) and water productivity (expressed in g of fresh weight per L of water applied) (Table 2).

3.3. Ornamental Parameters and Pigments Concentrations

Root length and leaf number had the highest value in plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution. The fertigation with leachates from C. lutescens did not vary the plant height with respect to the control treatment (fertigation with standard nutrient solution), but the addition of H2O2 to the leachate improved the plant height compared to the control treatment. Regarding color index, D. deremensis plants fertigated with leachates with or without H2O2 showed a decline in the values of R, G and B compared to the control treatment. Chlorophyll a, b and chl (a + b) showed the highest value in plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution (Table 3).

3.4. Biomass Parameters

Dracaena deremensis plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens without H2O2 showed the lowest value of root and shoot dry weight. Leaf and total dry weight were higher in plants fertigated with leachate with H2O2. The root, shoot and leaf weight ratio remained without changes under the different fertigation treatments. Plant water content showed the highest value in plants fertigated with leachate with H2O2 (Table 4).

3.5. Biochemical Determinations

Plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens with and without H2O2 increased proline concentration in roots and leaves compared to plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution. With respect to total soluble sugar concentration, plants fertigated with leachates had the highest value of total soluble sugar concentration in root while plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution had the highest value of leaf total soluble sugar concentration (Table 5).

3.6. Nutrient Balance

The amount of N and K supplied per plant declined in plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens with and without H2O2, whereas in the case of P, there were no significant differences between fertigation treatments. Plant nutrient uptake showed the highest value in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2. Nitrogen and P uptake efficiency showed the highest value in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2, whereas in the case of K, the fertigation with leachates without H2O2 showed the lowest value. Nitrogen and K leached per plant increased in plants fertigated with leachates with and without H2O2 compared to plants fertigated with the standard nutrient solution, while in phosphorus, plants fertigated with the nutrient solution showed the highest value. The percentages of nutrient runoff in our experiment were for N (32–41%), P (31–58%) and K (36–37%). Regarding nutrients in substrate, N and P had the highest value in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2, whereas in K, the highest value was in plants fertigated with leachates without H2O2. Unaccounted nitrogen remained without changes under different fertigation treatments, while in the case of P and K, plants fertigated with leachates without H2O2 showed the highest value (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Regarding fertigation treatments of D. deremensis, there was a rise of pH after irrigation with leachates from Chrysalidocarpus lutescens with and without H2O2 compared to the fertigation with a standard nutrient solution, and this fact can be related to the release of OH as it has been reported in similar systems [32]. The EC increase in the leachate can be ascribed to the increase in Na+ and Cl concentration as has been reported in other crops irrigated with leachates [27,33]. The reuse of leachates and the high presence of Cl, Ca2+, Mg2+ and Na+ in the tap water could be due the reason for their accumulation in the fertigation with leachates over time as previously reported by Massa et al. [34]. The decrease in H2PO4 and SO42− in leachates over time may be related to specific nutrient requirements of the previous crop for the maintenance of some physiological processes [35].
Considering the same volume of fertigation in each treatment and also that the water uptake and the volume of leachate was similar among fertigation treatments, it is necessary to highlight that the percentage of leachate fraction obtained in our experiment (30%) was in line with the range from 25% to 30% previously reported by García-Caparrós et al. [27] in a cascade cropping system with melon and rosemary plants. Although the fertigation with leachates resulted in a significant reduction in yield and water productivity with respect to the control treatment, the addition of H2O2 resulted in an improvement in yield and crop water productivity in D. deremensis plants. Similar results were reported in several crops such as zucchini and tomato by Bhattarai et al. [10,36] in enhanced oxygation conditions, which are also achieved through the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the fertigation treatments.
The addition of hydrogen peroxide in the leachate from C. lutescens used for fertigation enhanced the plant height in D. deremensis plants. The increase in plant height can be due to a higher amount of oxygen available for root respiration [37] as a consequence of the addition of hydrogen peroxide and also may be due to the enhancement of auxins synthesis via H2O2 signaling as reported by Joo et al. [38]. The decrease in root length and leaf number in D. deremensis plants fertigated with leachates with and without H2O2 with respect to the control treatment can be ascribed to the fact that leachates with higher EC resulted in a reduction in root length and leaf number mainly due to the high presence of toxic ions (Na+ and Cl) [2].
The decline in color index (R, G and B) in D. deremensis plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens with or without H2O2 agree with the reports obtained by García-Caparrós et al. [39], where the irrigation with leachates resulted in a decline in color parameters in Maytenus senegalensis plants. Although there was a decline in color parameters, the leaf color ranges characteristic of this species allowed the obtention of saleable plants considering the sales threshold established by local nurseries, since there were no symptoms of chlorosis or necrosis associated with the increase in salinity in the leachate.
The fertigation of D. deremensis with leachates from C. lutescens resulted in a decline in Chl b and (a + b) concentration compared to the fertigation with the control treatment. It has been argued that under high EC or saline conditions, there is a reduction in chlorophyll synthesis and the activation of its degradation by the enzyme chlorophyllase [40]. Nevertheless, the addition of H2O2 to the leachate for the fertigation resulted in an increase in pigment concentration compared with plants fertigated only with leachates. This enhancement of pigment concentration can be due to the addition of hydrogen peroxide and the consequent improvement in plant root respiration and photosynthetic rate as reported by Li et al. [41] and Zhao et al. [42] under oxygation conditions.
Dracaena deremensis plants fertigated with leachates resulted in a significant decline in the different biomass parameters assessed compared to the fertigation with the standard nutrient solution, but the addition of H2O2 to the leachate enhanced significantly these biomass parameters, being higher than the control treatment in the case of leaf and total dry weight. This biomass enhancement obtained in our experiment agrees with the results obtained by Hameed et al. [43] in wheat and Gil et al. [44] in avocado. These results are indicative of the positive effect of the addition of hydrogen peroxide in the fertigation treatment for the growth of this species. No variations in root, shoot and leaf weight ratio reported in our experiment in D. deremensis plants under different fertigation treatments can be ascribed to the duration of the experiment. The increase in plant water content in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2 can be ascribed to the ameliorative effect of the exogenous supply of H2O2 in crops already mentioned.
The fertigation with leachates from C. lutescens with and without H2O2 resulted in an increase in root and leaf proline concentration in D. deremensis plants with respect to fertigated plants with the standard nutrient solution. The proline increase as a consequence of the fertigation with leachates can be associated with the protective role of this osmolyte against stressful conditions such as the salt increase level in the nutrient solution as reported by Szabados and Savoure [45]. In our experiment, the fertigation with leachates with and without H2O2 increased root and decreased leaf total soluble sugars with respect to the control treatment. This evidence may suggest a translocation of soluble sugars from leaves to roots as has been already reported under increasing saline conditions [46].
From a nutritional point of view, the decrease in N and K supplies in the fertigation with leachates can be ascribed to the nutrient uptake of the previous crop (C. lutescens) as has been reported in other cascade cropping systems [5]. The highest value of nutrient uptake and efficiency in D. deremensis plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2 led to increased plant height and also the total plant dry weight previously explained. Nevertheless, the lower values in nutrient uptake and efficiency in plants fertigated with leachates without H2O2 did not result in any visual symptoms of nutrient deficiency. Analogously, the fertigation with leachates in a cascade cropping system with rosemary plants [27] resulted in lower nutrient uptake and efficiencies. The ranges of N (14–32), P (10–25) and K (27–57%) uptake efficiencies reported in this work in all fertigation treatments were similar with the data reported by García-Caparrós et al. [27]. The amount of N and K leached per plant expressed in mg or as percentage increased in plants fertigated with leachates. In our experiment, the amount of nutrient leached per plant ranged from 46 to 110 mg in N, from 11 to 21 mg in P and from 72 to 173 mg in K. Different results were reported by Ristvey et al. [47], since they recorded values of leachates per plant for N (4–152 mg) and P (2–16 mg) in an experiment with different fertilizer rates. The fertigation with leachates with H2O2 led to a higher accumulation of N and P in the substrate and this fact may be ascribed to the addition of H2O2 in the leachate and the possible consequent increase in NO3-N and H2PO4-P retention capacity in peat moss [48]. To complete the nutrient balance, unaccounted N remained without changes under different fertigation treatments, whereas in the case of P and K showed the highest values in plants fertigated with leachates without H2O2. The values expressed in percentage form for nutrient loss showed different trends in plants grown under different fertigation treatments.

5. Conclusions

The results obtained in this work reported the positive effect of the addition of H2O2 in the leachate from C. lutescens on plant height, leaf and total dry weight in D. deremensis plants. The fertigation with leachates with or without H2O2 led to a decline in root length, leaf number, RGB values and pigments concentration. Root and leaf proline concentration increased under the fertigation with leachates with or without H2O2, whereas in the case of total soluble sugar concentration, there were different trends in roots and leaves, resulting in an accumulation in the root fraction in plants fertigated with leachates. Plant nutrient uptake and efficiency increased significantly in plants fertigated with leachates with H2O2. Nitrogen and potassium leached per plant increased in plants fertigated with leachates from C. lutescens with or without H2O2 and unaccounted nutrients showed different trends for each nutrient in the fertigation treatments assessed. These results suggest the importance of understanding how the addition of H2O2 may affect the metabolism and plant physiology, especially under the reuse of leachates from another ornamental species.

Author Contributions

P.G.-C. investigation, data curation, writing-original draft preparation, C.V.E. investigation, data curation, M.T.L. conceptualization, supervision, project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the funding of this work by the group AGR-242 from University of Almería (Sustainability of Horticultural and Ornamental Protected Systems).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boutigny, A.L.; Dohin, N.; Pornin, D.; Rolland, M. Overview and detectability of the genetic modifications in ornamental plants. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. García-Caparrós, P.; Lao, M.T. The effects of salt stress on ornamental plants and integrative cultivation practices. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 240, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zulfiqar, F.; Allaire, S.E.; Akram, N.A.; Méndez, A.; Younis, A.; Peerzada, A.M.; Shaukat, N.; Wright, S.R. Challenges in organic component selection and biochar as an opportunity in potting substrates: A review. J. Plant Nutr. 2019, 42, 1386–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Warsaw, A.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Cregg, B.M.; Andresen, J.A. Container-grown ornamental plant growth and water runoff nutrient content and volume under four irrigation treatments. HortScience 2009, 44, 1573–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; El-Tarawy, A.; Correia, P.J.; Pestana, M.; Lao, M.T. Irrigation with drainage solutions improves the growth and nutrients uptake in Juncus acutus. Ecol. Engin. 2016, 95, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bethune, M.G.; Gyles, O.A.; Wang, Q.J. Options for management of saline ground water in an irrigated farming system. Aus. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, X.; Dhungel, J.; Bhattarai, S.; Torabi, M.; Midmore, D.J. Impact of oxygation on soil respiration and crop physiological characteristics in pineapple. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Engin. 2010, 28, 543–547. [Google Scholar]
  8. Massee, I. The sterilization of seed. Bull. Misc. Inf. 1913, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ben-Noah, I.; Friedman, S.P. Oxygation of clayey soils by adding hydrogen peroxide to the irrigation solution: Lysimetric experiments. Rhizosphere 2016, 2, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bhattarai, S.P.; Su, N.; Midmore, D.J. Oxygation unlocks yield potentials of crops in oxygen-limited soil environments. Adv. Agron. 2005, 88, 313–377. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guzel, S.; Terzi, R. Exogenous hydrogen peroxide increases dry matter production, mineral content and level of osmotic solutes in young maize leaves and alleviates deleterious effects of copper stress. Bot. Stud. 2013, 54, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Carvalho, F.E.L.; Lobo, A.K.M.; Bonifacio, A.; Martins, M.O.; Lima Neto, M.C.; Silveira, J.A.G. Aclimatação ao estresse salino em plantas de arroz induzida pelo pré-tratamento com H2O2. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2011, 15, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Silva, A.A.R.; Lima, G.S.; Azevedo, C.A.V.; Veloso, L.L.S.A.; Gheyi, H.R.; Soares, L.A.A. Salt stress and exogenous application of hydrogen peroxide on photosynthetic parameters of soursop. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2019, 23, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zulfiqar, F.; Younis, A.; Asif, M.; Abideen, Z.; Allaire, S.E.; Shao, Q.S. Evaluation of container substrates containing compost and biochar for ornamental plant Dracaena deremensis. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 56, 613–621. [Google Scholar]
  15. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Maksimovic, I.; Lao, M.T. Cascade cropping system with horticultural and ornamental plants under greenhouse conditions. Water 2018, 10, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; El-Tarawy, A.; Maksimovic, I.; Lao, M.T. Crop and irrigation management systems under greenhouse conditions. Water 2018, 10, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Jiménez, R.M.; Caballero, M.R. El Cultivo Industrial de Plantas en Maceta; Ediciones De Horticultura S.L.: Reus, Spain, 1990; p. 664. [Google Scholar]
  18. Csáky, A.G.; Martínez-Grau, M.A. Técnicas Experimentales en Síntesis Orgánica; Editorial Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  19. García-Caparrós, P.; González-Salmerón, O.; Pérez-Saiz, M.; Calatrava, R.; Lao, M.T.; Chica, R.M.; De la Cruz, G. Types of shelter and covering materials influencing growth, pigment, and nutrient concentrations of baby rubber plants (Peperomia obtusifolia). HortScience 2018, 53, 1434–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Hegarat, E.; Jiménez-Lao, M.; Lao, M.T. Effects of exogenous application of osmotic adjustment substances on growth, pigment concentration, and physiological parameters of Dracaena sanderiana Sander under different levels of salinity. Agronomy 2020, 10, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wellburn, A. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvent with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 1994, 144, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Pestana, M.; Correia, P.J.; Lao, M.T. Tolerance mechanisms of three potted ornamental plants grown under moderate salinity. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 201, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Pestana, M.; Correia, P.J.; Lao, M.T. Lavandula multifida response to salinity: Growth, nutrient uptake, and physiological changes. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 180, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ben Amor, N.; Ben Hamed, K.; Debez, A.; Grignon, C.; Abdelly, C. Physiological and antioxidant responses of the perennial halophyte Crithmum maritimum to salinity. Plant Sci. 2005, 168, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Irigoyen, J.J.; Emerich, D.W.; Sánchez-Díaz, M. Water stress induced changes in concentrations of proline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants. Physiol. Plant. 1992, 84, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Lao, M.T. Water and nutrient uptake efficiency in containerized production of fern leaf lavender irrigated with saline water. HortTechnology 2016, 26, 742–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; Rodríguez, J.C.; Maksimovic, I.; Urrestarazu, M.; Lao, M.T. Rosemary growth and nutrient balance: Leachate fertigation with leachates versus conventional fertigation. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 242, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hogue, E.; Wilcow, G.E.; Cantliffe, D.J. Effect of soil P on phosphate fraction in tomato leaves. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1970, 95, 174–176. [Google Scholar]
  29. Krom, M.D. Spectrophotometric determination of ammonia: Study of a modified Berthelot reaction using salicylate and dicholoroisocyanurate. Analyst 1980, 105, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lachica, M.; Aguilar, A.; Yanez, J. Análisis foliar: Métodos utilizados en la Estación Experimental del Zaidín. Anal. Edafol. Agrobiol. 1973, 32, 1033–1047. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sonneveld, C.; van den Ende, J.; van Dijk, P.A. Analysis of a growing media by means of a 1:1½ volume extract. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1974, 5, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mengel, K.; Kirkby, E.A. Principles of Plant Nutrition; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; p. 849. [Google Scholar]
  33. Smesrud, J.K.; Duvendack, G.D.; Obereiner, J.M.; Jordahl, J.L.; Madison, M.F. Practical salinity management for leachate irrigation to poplar trees. Int. J. Phyto. 2012, 14, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Massa, D.; Incrocci, L.; Maggini, R.; Carmassi, G.; Campiotti, C.A.; Pardossi, A. Strategies to decrease water drainage and nitrate emission from soilless cultures of greenhouse tomato. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 971–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hawkesford, M.J.; De Kok, L.J. Managing sulphur metabolism in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bhattarai, S.P.; Huber, S.; Midmore, D.J. Aerated subsurface irrigation water gives growth and yield benefits to zucchini, vegetable soybean and cotton in heavy clay soil. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2004, 144, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pendergast, L.; Bhattarai, S.P.; Midmore, D.J. Benefits of oxygation of subsurface drip-irrigation water for cotton in a Vertosol. Crop Pasture Sci. 2014, 64, 1171–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Joo, J.H.; Bae, Y.S.; Lee, J.S. Role of auxin-induced reactive oxygen species in root gravitropism. Plant Physiol. 2001, 126, 1055–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. García-Caparrós, P.; Llanderal, A.; El-Tarawy, A.; Majsztrik, J.; Lao, M.T. Response of container-grown confetti tree irrigated with runoff water. HortTechnology 2017, 27, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Santos, C.V. Regulation of chlorophyll biosynthesis and degradation by salt stress in sunflower leaves. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 103, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, Y.; Jia, Z.; Niu, W.; Zhang, M. Effect of post-infiltration soil aeration at different growth stages on growth and fruit quality of drip-irrigated potted tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Zhao, F.; Sun, J.; Jiang, Y.; Hu, D.; Yang, X.; Dong, M.; Yu, K.; Yu, S. Effect of rhizosphere aeration by subsurface drip irrigation with tanks on the growth of ‘red globe’ grape seedling and its absorption, distribution and utilization of urea-15 n. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 236, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hameed, A.; Shafqat, F.; Nayyer, I.; Rubina, A. Influence of exogenous application of hydrogen peroxide on root and seedling growth on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2004, 6, 366–369. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gil, P.M.M.; Ferreyra, R.E.; Barrerea, C.M.; Zúñiga, C.E.; Gurovich, L.R. Effect of injecting hydrogen peroxide into heavy clay loam soil on plant water status, net CO2 assimilation, biomass and vascular anatomy of avocado trees. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 69, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Szabados, L.; Savoure, A. Proline: A multifunctional amino acid. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lima, R.E.; Luciana, F.D.L.; Ferreira, J.F.; Suarez, D.L.; Bezerra, M.A. Translocation of photoassimilates in melon vines and fruits under salinity using 13C isotope. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 274, 109659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ristvey, A.G.; Lea-Cox, J.D.; Ross, D.S. Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake efficiency and partitioning of container-grown azalea during spring growth. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2007, 132, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Marconi, D.J.; Nelson, P.V. Leaching of applied phosphorus in container media. Sci. Hortic. 1984, 22, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the experimental design.
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the experimental design.
Agronomy 11 00127 g001
Figure 2. Anions and cations concentration (A,B) in the different fertigation treatments throughout the experimental period. D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are the average values ± standard deviation of four samples per fertigation treatment during the experimental period. DAT = days after transplanting.
Figure 2. Anions and cations concentration (A,B) in the different fertigation treatments throughout the experimental period. D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are the average values ± standard deviation of four samples per fertigation treatment during the experimental period. DAT = days after transplanting.
Agronomy 11 00127 g002aAgronomy 11 00127 g002b
Table 1. Chemical properties of the fertigation in each treatment: D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The nutrient concentration was expressed in mmol L−1 and EC was expressed in dS m−1. The results are the average values ± standard deviation of four samples per fertigation treatment during the experimental period.
Table 1. Chemical properties of the fertigation in each treatment: D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The nutrient concentration was expressed in mmol L−1 and EC was expressed in dS m−1. The results are the average values ± standard deviation of four samples per fertigation treatment during the experimental period.
ParametersD0DLDL + H2O2
pH6.60 ± 0.10 b7.96 ± 0.11 a7.88 ± 0.12 a
EC1.90 ± 0.12 b4.55 ± 0.24 a4.61 ± 0.25 a
Cl3.50 ± 0.11 b20.94 ± 2.85 a20.88 ± 2.63 a
NO36.05 ± 0.51 b15.87 ± 1.61 a14.32 ± 1.54 a
H2PO40.70 ± 0.06 a0.30 ± 0.03 b0.26 ± 0.03 b
SO42−2.01 ± 0.04 a1.69 ± 0.09 b1.68 ± 0.11 b
Na+2.60 ± 0.08 b12.12 ± 0.88 a12.28 ± 0.98 a
K+3.08 ± 0.06 b8.14 ± 0.50 a8.18 ± 0.45 a
Ca2+2.03 ± 0.05 b9.55 ± 0.55 a9.53 ± 0.54 a
Mg2+1.41 ± 0.04 b4.44 ± 0.38 a4.40 ± 0.32 a
In each row, different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Volume of irrigation water applied, water uptake, leachate volume collected, leachate fraction, yield and water productivity of D. deremensis plants in each fertigation treatment: D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each row, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Volume of irrigation water applied, water uptake, leachate volume collected, leachate fraction, yield and water productivity of D. deremensis plants in each fertigation treatment: D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each row, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
ParametersD0DLDL + H2O2
Irrigation water applied (L m−2)10.2 a10.2 a10.2 a
Water uptake7.0 ± 0.5 a7.1 ± 0.5 a7.0 ± 0.6 a
Leachate (L m−2)3.1 ± 0.3 a2.9 ± 0.3 a3.1 ± 0.3 a
Leachate fraction (%)30 a30 a30 a
Yield (g FW m−2)150.1 ± 12.7 b122.5 ± 10.8. c241.3 ± 19.8 a
Water productivity (g of FW per L of water applied)14.2 ± 1.0 b12.1 ± 0.8 c23.9 ± 2.5 a
Table 3. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root length and plant height (expressed in cm), leaf number, color index (RGB) and pigment concentrations (expressed in mg g−1 FW) in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experimental period. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root length and plant height (expressed in cm), leaf number, color index (RGB) and pigment concentrations (expressed in mg g−1 FW) in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experimental period. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
TreatmentsRoot LengthPlant HeightLeaf NumberColor IndexPigment Concentrations
RedGreenBlueChl aChl bChl (a + b)
D041.25 ± 2.75 a35.53 ± 1.74 b23.00 ± 2.04 a111.25 ± 7.66 a109.07 ± 6.92 a86.05 ± 6.58 a0.06 ± 0.01 a0.70 ± 0.06 a0.75 ± 0.06 a
DL33.75 ± 2.22 b34.13 ± 1.65 b17.50 ± 1.29 b88.50 ± 5.72 b85.18 ± 5.05 b56.55 ± 3.43 b0.02 ± 0.01 b0.42 ± 0.04 c0.45 ± 0.04 c
DL + H2O234.13 ± 2.46 b40.25 ± 1.89 a19.00 ± 1.63 b84.10 ± 4.69 b87.25 ± 5.25 b53.95 ± 3.68 b0.03 ± 0.01 b0.55 ± 0.05 b0.60 ± 0.06 b
Table 4. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root, stem, leaf and total plant dry weight (RDW, SDW, LDW and TDW, respectively) (g), relative root weight ratio (RWR), stem weight ratio (SWR), leaf weight ratio (LWR) (-) and plant water content (WC) (-) in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experiment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root, stem, leaf and total plant dry weight (RDW, SDW, LDW and TDW, respectively) (g), relative root weight ratio (RWR), stem weight ratio (SWR), leaf weight ratio (LWR) (-) and plant water content (WC) (-) in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experiment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
TreatmentsRDWSDWLDWTDWRWRSWRLWRWC
D02.56 ± 0.24 a1.27 ± 0.07 a6.97 ± 0.61 b10.60 ± 0.64 b0.23 ± 0.02 a0.12 ± 0.01 a0.65 ± 0.05 a1.27 ± 0.10 b
DL1.88 ± 0.16 b1.10 ± 0.07 b7.08 ± 0.60 b9.17 ± 0.56 c0.21 ± 0.02 a0.12 ± 0.01 a0.67 ± 0.05 a1.22 ± 0.09 b
DL + H2O22.45 ± 0.21 a1.31 ± 0.08 a8.78 ± 0.72 a12.30 ± 0.68 a0.21 ± 0.02 a0.11 ± 0.01 a0.68 ± 0.06 a2.33 ± 0.19 a
Table 5. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root and leaf proline and total soluble sugar concentration in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experiment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Effects of fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL + H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment) on root and leaf proline and total soluble sugar concentration in D. deremensis plants at the end of the experiment. The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
TreatmentsRootsLeaves
Proline (µg g1 FW)D025.56 ± 2.21 b83.45 ± 6.32 b
DL34.89 ± 2.52 a103.90 ± 8.52 a
DL + H2O234.12 ± 2.45 a105.18 ± 8.45 a
Total soluble sugars (mg g1 FW)D05.49 ± 0.29 c7.37 ± 0.54 a
DL7.07 ± 0.36 a3.57 ± 0.23 c
DL + H2O26.44 ± 0.32 b5.39 ± 0.30 b
Table 6. Nutrient balance of D. deremensis plants under different fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL+H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment). The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Nutrient balance of D. deremensis plants under different fertigation treatments (D0—standard nutrient solution or control treatment, DL—raw leachate treatment and DL+H2O2—raw leachate blended with H2O2 treatment). The experiment simulates a cascade cropping system with different leachate treatments of Chrysalidocarpus lutescens as primary or “donor” and Dracaena deremensis as a secondary or “acceptor” plant culture. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (n = 4). In each column, same letters indicate non-significant differences (p < 0.05).
TreatmentsNutrient Supplied per Plant (mg)Plant Nutrient
Uptake (mg)
Nutrient Uptake Efficiency (%)Nutrient Leached per Plant (mg)Nutrient
Leachates (%)
Substrate
(mg)
Unaccounted Nutrient (mg)UnaccountedLoss (%)
ND0145.1 ± 14.3 a20.1 ± 1.7 c13.9 ± 1.1 c45.9 ± 4.7 b31.9 ± 2.5 b4.7 ± 0.3 c76.5 ± 8.1 a50.9 ± 5.0 a
DL269.4 ± 26.2 b60.5 ± 5.4 b22.5 ± 2.0 b110.7 ± 9.8 a41.1 ± 3.8 a7.5 ± 0.6 b90.4 ± 8.7 a33.6 ± 3.3 b
DL + H2O2287.2 ± 28.0 b91.3 ± 8.6 a31.8 ± 3.0 a105.1 ± 10.7 a36.6 ± 3.5 a12.3 ± 1.1 a78.6 ± 7.4 a27.3 ± 2.9 b
PD037.6 ± 2.8 a3.7 ± 0.3 b9.8 ± 0.9 b21.8 ± 2.1 a57.9 ± 5.3 a4.2 ± 0.3 b7.6 ± 0.8 b21.1 ± 2.0 b
DL33.5 ± 2.7 a1.1 ± 0.1 c3.2 ± 0.3 c11.8 ± 1.0 b35.5 ± 3.1 b2.5 ± 0.2 c18.1 ± 1.6 a53.8 ± 5.2 a
DL + H2O235.7 ± 3.1 a9.1 ± 0.8 a24.5 ± 2.4 a11.2 ± 0.9 b31.4 ± 2.9 b8.7 ± 0.8 a6.7 ± 0.5 b18.7 ± 2.0 b
KD0200.6 ± 20.3 a114.2 ± 11.1 b56.9 ± 5.3 a72.4 ± 6.8 b36.1 ± 3.3 a0.2 ± 0.01 c13.8 ± 1.5 c6.8 ± 0.6 c
DL451.5 ± 40.7 b120.0 ± 10.5 b26.6 ± 2.4 b167.2 ± 15.8 a37.1 ± 3.9 a0.6 ± 0.02 a163.6 ± 13.9 a36.2 ± 3.2 a
DL + H2O2481.3 ± 39.8 b238.4 ± 21.7 a49.5 ± 4.4 a173.3 ± 14.4 a35.9 ± 3.4 a0.4 ± 0.03 b69.8 ± 6.4 b14.4 ± 1.2 b
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Caparrós, P.; Velasquez Espino, C.; Lao, M.T. Effects of Leachate Fertigation and the Addition of Hydrogen Peroxide on Growth and Nutrient Balance in Dracaena deremensis Potted Plants. Agronomy 2021, 11, 127. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010127

AMA Style

García-Caparrós P, Velasquez Espino C, Lao MT. Effects of Leachate Fertigation and the Addition of Hydrogen Peroxide on Growth and Nutrient Balance in Dracaena deremensis Potted Plants. Agronomy. 2021; 11(1):127. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010127

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Caparrós, Pedro, Cristina Velasquez Espino, and María Teresa Lao. 2021. "Effects of Leachate Fertigation and the Addition of Hydrogen Peroxide on Growth and Nutrient Balance in Dracaena deremensis Potted Plants" Agronomy 11, no. 1: 127. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010127

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop