Next Article in Journal
Persistence of Human Pathogens in Manure-Amended Australian Soils Used for Production of Leafy Vegetables
Next Article in Special Issue
Antiarthritic Potential of Calotropis procera Leaf Fractions in FCA-Induced Arthritic Rats: Involvement of Cellular Inflammatory Mediators and Other Biomarkers
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of the Fertilizer Added with DMPP on Soil Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Microbial Functional Diversity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Effects on Yield and Composition of Essential Oil in Wild Populations of Spike Lavender (Lavandula latifolia Medik.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/agriculture11010013
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Irrigation, Peat-Alternative Substrate and Plant Habitus on the Morphological and Production Characteristics of Sicilian Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Biotypes Grown in Pot

by
Salvatore La Bella
1,†,
Giuseppe Virga
2,†,
Nicolò Iacuzzi
1,
Mario Licata
1,*,
Leo Sabatino
1,*,
Beppe Benedetto Consentino
1,
Claudio Leto
1,2 and
Teresa Tuttolomondo
1
1
Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, Università Degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze 13, Building 4, 90128 Palermo, Italy
2
Research Consortium for the Development of Innovative Agro-Environmental Systems (Corissia), Via della Libertà 203, 90143 Palermo, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors are equally contributed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(1), 13; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11010013
Submission received: 29 November 2020 / Revised: 22 December 2020 / Accepted: 24 December 2020 / Published: 28 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in Agricultural Research When Considering Criteria of Multifunctionality and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Irrigation and growing substrate are considered as essential cultivation practices in order to obtain good productive and qualitative performance of potted rosemary plants. In pot growing, the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of the substrate must be stable over time in order to allow regular plant growth. However, the effects of cultivation techniques on the characteristics of potted rosemary are little known. Peat is traditionally used as the organic growing medium; however, despite numerous advantages, its use has determined a degradation of peatlands in the northern hemisphere and an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of irrigation and peat-alternative substrates on the morphological, aesthetic and production characteristics of potted Sicilian rosemary biotypes with different habitus types. Two years, two different irrigation levels, three peat-alternative substrates and three types of rosemary plant habitus were tested in a split-split-split-plot design for a four-factor experiment. The results highlight that irrigation and substrate determined significant differences for all tested parameters. Rosemary plants demonstrated the best performances when irrigation was more frequent; vice versa, the greatest percent content in essential oil was obtained when irrigation events were less frequent. The chemical–physical characteristics of peat-alternative substrates changed with decreases in the peat content and increases in the compost content. The erect habitus biotype showed the best adaptation capacity to the various treatments. Our results suggest that irrigation and peat-alternative substrates significantly affect the growth of rosemary plants and should, therefore, be taken into consideration in order to improve the cultivation of this species in pots for ornamental purposes.

1. Introduction

Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) is a xerophytic, evergreen shrub widely used for food and ornamental purposes, and is a long-time favourite for pot plants and private gardens [1,2,3,4]. Due to its biotechnical characteristics and hardiness in times of environmental stress [5,6], it is also used to protect against soil erosion and as a pioneer species during reforestation in fire-damaged areas [5,7].
Its wealth of bioactive compounds is also considered to be highly effective, also reported in the Pharmacopoeia [8,9].
Numerous phytochemical studies have demonstrated the presence of polyphenolic derivatives in the essential oil (EO) that provides the species with a number of pharmacological and medicinal properties, including antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor and antidiabetic actions [1,10,11,12]. Recent studies have demonstrated that the accumulation and composition of secondary metabolites in rosemary and, in general, in medicinal and aromatic plants, are highly influenced by genetic [8,13,14,15,16], environmental [17,18,19,20,21,22] and cultivation factors [23,24,25,26,27]. With regard to cultivation aspects, a number of studies have focused on the effects of some agronomic practices on growth, productivity and essential oil constituents of rosemary, in open-field conditions. Some authors [28] reported that the growth, quality and quantity of rosemary essential oil varied with organic and inorganic fertilizers. It was demonstrated [29] that combined application of vermicompost and chemical fertilizers helped to increase crop productivity and sustained the soil fertility. It was found [30] that the composition of rosemary oil could be altered by fertilization programs in regions of poor soil. It was observed [22] that the application of deficit irrigation affected the morphological and physiological characteristics of rosemary, while humidity influenced parameters related with plant–water relations. Singh [31] found that plant spacing, fertilizer and irrigation regimes affected herbage and oil yield but did not influence oil-content percentage of the species. Other authors [32] highlighted that growth media and regulators influenced significantly the vegetative propagation of rosemary. However, the effects of cultivation techniques on the morphological and production characteristics in pot-grown rosemary are, as yet, little known. Most studies focus on the influence of fertilization [33,34] and type of substrate [34,35,36,37,38] on plant growth and essential-oil production of rosemary. In particular, the choice of the growing medium seems to be crucial for cultivation of rosemary and, in general, of aromatic and medicinal plants due to significant effects on their vegetative and productive characteristics.
Peat is traditionally used as the organic growing medium in pot cultivation [38,39]. Peat is partially decayed organic matter, the result of the degradation of bog plants and bryophyte moss [40,41]. Although its use has many advantages—such as a reduction in pH and salinity, good hydraulic retention capacity, a decrease in pathogen load and weeds, and greater ease of handling and mixing—over time the continuous harvesting of peat for agricultural purposes has led to the degradation of peatlands in the northern hemisphere and an inevitable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere [42]. As a consequence, many countries have begun to impose restrictions on the use of this material. Peatlands are home to a wide range of natural habitats that guarantee biological diversity and the survival of a number of species currently considered at risk. This important ecosystem not only plays a fundamental role in carbon-fixing and in storing natural water resources but also safeguards the historical and geochemical memory of our planet [43,44,45].
In recent times, peat has become increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain [46], leading to the search for alternative substrates [47]. The use of alternative substrates in pot plants presupposes, however, that a number of chemical–physical and hydraulic properties, such as bulk density, pH, electrical conductivity, cation-exchange capacity, hydraulic-retention capacity, organic-matter content and porosity, can be guaranteed [48,49,50,51]. A number of studies [37,47,52,53,54,55,56] have demonstrated that organic residues, such as municipal solid waste, sewage sludge and pruning residues (following an adequate composting process) can be used as alternative growing substrates to peat, with optimal results. Some authors [34] studied the effect of growing substrates on the EO content of rosemary, concluding that all growing substrates are suitable when fertilization and irrigation practices are well-controlled. It was demonstrated [35] that peat can be replaced with a mixture of compost, chicken manure and biochar in rosemary cultivation, while other authors [37] achieved better rooting and length/weight of rosemary roots when using vermicompost.
The main aim of this study was to assess the effects of irrigation, peat-alternative substrates and plant habitus on the morphological, aesthetic and production characteristics of Sicilian rosemary biotypes grown in pots.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Rosemary Experimental Field

Tests were carried out in the two years 2016 and 2017 in Sciacca (Italy) (37°30′33″ N–13°05′20″ E, 60 m a.s.l.), in an experimental field belonging to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forest Sciences of the University of Palermo. Three Sicilian rosemary biotypes (code RSM) were gathered from a collection field of 10-year-old rosemary mother plants. Plant material was characterized taxonomically using analytical keys and by comparing it with exsiccata that had been previously prepared. The voucher specimen codes of the exsiccata (SAAF-S/0357) were deposited at the Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences Herbarium of University of Palermo (Italy). The plants were selected according to different growth habitus types: RSM_2 (SAAF-S/0357_a) presented an erect habitus, RSM_6 (SAAF-S/0357_b) a semi-erect habitus and RSM_5 (SAAF-S/0357_c) a prostrate habitus (Figure 1).
Each accession was propagated using stem cuttings from the apical plant parts 6 cm in length. The cuttings were treated with 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (0.50%) and then rooted in an open cold frame. The rooted cuttings were transplanted into 18-cm pots on 20 May 2016 and 15 May 2017. Four types of substrate were used with varying percentages of peat (70, 50, 40 and 20%), compost (20, 30 and 50%) and perlite (constant at 30%). The substrate was fortified with a slow-release N–P–K fertilizer + microelements (15–19−15 + 2 + 5) at a rate of 3 gr L−1 prior to transplanting.
A drip irrigation system was used for water delivery. Irrigation management consisted of integrating 100% field capacity every 4 days or 2 days. A split-split-split plot experimental design was used for a 4-factor experiment with 3 replicates. The main plot was year (Y) with two treatment levels: Y1 (2007) and Y2 (2008). The sub-plot factor was irrigation (I) with two treatment levels: I1 (integration 100% field capacity every 4 days) and I2 (integration 100% field capacity every 2 days). The sub-sub-plot factor was the substrate (S) with four treatment levels: S1 (50% peat, 20% compost, 30% perlite); S2 (40% peat, 30% compost, 30% perlite); S3 (30% peat, 40% compost, 30% perlite) and S4 (70% peat, 30% perlite) as the control. The sub-sub-sub-plot factor was plant habitus (H) with three treatment levels: H1 (erect habitus); H2 (semi-erect habitus) and H3 (prostrate habitus).

2.2. Morphological, Aesthetic and Production Characteristics of the Plants

For all of the rosemary treatments in the experiment, the main morphological and aesthetic characteristics were determined approx. 90 days from transplanting in order to attribute an ornamental value to the plant: plant height, plant diameter, height-to-diameter ratio, number of primary and secondary branches per plant, branch length and width, number of leaves per cm of branch and general appearance of the plant. Flowering stage was assessed only when 50% of the plant had flowers and was determined using a visible value scale between 1 (few flowers) and 3 (abundant flowers). The fresh-matter weight of plant parts was also determined. The plant material was subsequently dried in an oven at 65 °C for 48 h until it reached a constant weight; the plant dry-matter weight was then calculated. Essential oil content was obtained by hydrodistillation of air-dried plant material (50–100 g) for 3 h in accordance with international guidelines [57].

2.3. Chemical-Physical Properties of Compost

At the beginning of plant growth, the main chemical–physical analyses were carried out on all of the substrates used: pH, electrical conductivity, bulk density, total porosity, air capacity at pF1 and available water capacity. In particular, the compost used was supplied by the company SIRTEC Sistemi Ambientali SRL (Alcamo, Italy). The composting process used by the company included treatment of the preselected organic waste (organic matter from recycled municipal waste or organic residues from agro-industrial processing).

2.4. Weather Data

Data on rainfall and temperature were collected from a meteorological station belonging to Agro-Meteorological Information Service of the Sicilian Government [58]: the station was situated close to the experimental field. The station was equipped with an MTX datalogger (model WST1800) and various climate sensors. More specifically, a temperature sensor MTX (model TAM platinum PT100 thermo-resistance with anti-radiation screen) and a rainfall sensor MTX (model PPR with a tipping bucket rain gauge) provided data on average daily air temperatures (°C), total daily rainfall frequency (d mm > 1) (%) and rainy days per year (d mm > 1) (%).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out using MINITAB 19 for Windows. The data were compared using analysis of variance. The difference between means of values was carried out using the Tukey test.

3. Results

3.1. Temperature Trends

Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the experimental site over the two years 2016/2017 are shown in Figure 2.
Average air temperatures over the approx. 90 days of testing in both years increased between May and August. Maximum air temperatures were on average higher in 2016 than 2017 in May, July and August. In June, average maximum temperatures were similar in both years. Regarding minimum air temperatures, average values were highest in July and August in 2016, whilst in May and June in 2017.

3.2. Chemical–Physical Properties of Substrates

Average values for electrical conductivity and pH (Figure 3) of the peat-alternative substrates increased as the percentage content of the compost in the mix increased in the 4 test substrates.
Furthermore, an increase in average electrical conductivity and pH was recorded following a decrease in the peat content in the substrates.
From a physical point of view, it was noted that the gradual substitution of the peat in the mix also determined an increase in bulk density and a slight decrease in the air capacity at pF1 and in porosity. Regarding available water content, the substrates with a greater compost content produced higher average values compared to the control substrate (Table 1).

3.3. Effects of Year, Substrate, Irrigation and Plant Habitus on Rosemary Plants

Data on the morphological, aesthetic and production characteristics of the rosemary plants, under the influence of the main factors, in years 2016 and 2017, are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 and in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.
No significant differences were found for the factor year regarding all of the parameters in the study except for branch width. However, the factor irrigation produced significant effects for all of the parameters tested. Looking more closely at the effect of the two levels of irrigation on the morphological and production parameters, seemingly contrasting results were found. The highest average values for primary branching, flowering stage, number of leaves per cm/branch and percent content of EO were found under irrigation level I1, whereas highest average values for height, diameter, height-to-diameter ratio, general appearance of the plants, fresh and dry weight, number of secondary branches, and length and width of branches were found under irrigation level I2.
The plants demonstrated the best morphological, aesthetic and production performances when irrigation was more frequent. Vice versa, the greatest percent content in EO was obtained when irrigation events were less frequent (Table 3, Figure 4).
The factor substrate determined significant differences for all of the morphological and production parameters, with the exception of plant height-to-diameter ratio and flowering. More specifically, greatest average plant heights (29.46 cm) were recorded when the plants were cultivated using the control substrate, whereas the lowest average values were observed in the other substrates. Likewise, the highest average plant diameters (48.71 cm) and general appearance scores (6.10) were recorded for the control substrate. The greatest number of primary (15.29) and secondary (19.41) branches was obtained in rosemary plants grown in the control substrate; the smallest number of primary and secondary branches was found with substrates S1 and S3, respectively. The greatest average values relating to branch length and width were found for substrate S3, whilst the lowest average values were obtained with the control substrate. Regarding production parameters, the greatest average fresh weights and dry weights were obtained using the control substrate, confirming trends observed for most of the morphological parameters. The percent content of EO ranged between 0.68% (S1 and S3) and 0.66% (S2 and S4); the difference between the different substrates in terms of average percentages in EO was, therefore, minimal (Table 3, Figure 5).
The factor plant habitus had a significant effect on all of the parameters in the study. More specifically, biotype RSM_2, with erect growth habitus, differed from the others in terms of greater height (39.29 cm), greater height-to-diameter ratio (1.29), greater number of primary branches, better general appearance, more abundant flowering, greater fresh (106.08 g) and dry (35.05 g) weight and greater EO percent content (0.68%). The biotype RSM 6 with semi-erect growth habitus, showed greater diameter (50.73 cm) and greater branch length (33.12 cm) and width (3.80 cm) than other biotypes. The EO percent content was intermediate between the other two biotypes. Biotype RSM_5 with prostrate habitus showed the highest number of secondary branches but also obtained the lowest EO percentage (0.65%) of the three rosemary biotypes (Table 3, Figure 6).
Considering the interaction between the main factors (Table 2 and Table 3), analysis of the variance showed that the interaction of the factor year with the other factors did not determine significant effects on any of the morphological and production parameters. The irrigation-by-plant habitus interaction determined significant differences for plant diameter and the number of secondary branches; more specifically, the highest average diameter was obtained with the I2-by-H2 interaction, whilst the lowest average value was found with I1-by-H1 interaction, as showed in Supplementary Table S1.
The substrate-by-plant habitus interaction had significant effects on a series of characteristics, such as plant diameter, fresh and dry weight, the development of secondary branching, branch length and width, and EO content. With specific reference to the treatments, the greatest plant diameter was recorded with the interaction between the control substrate and the semi-erect habitus biotype. The lowest value was recorded with the interaction between S3 (which contained the highest compost content) and H3. The greatest number of secondary branches was observed with the interaction between the control substrate and the prostrate habitus biotype, whilst the smallest number was found with the interaction between the control substrate and the erect habitus biotype. The highest average values for branch length and width were obtained with the S3-by-H2 interaction. Regarding production parameters, the interaction between the control substrate and the prostrate habitus biotypes produced the highest average value for fresh weight.
Considering dry weight, highest averages were found when the control substrate interacted with the erect habitus biotype, whereas the lowest average values were produced with the interaction between substrate S3 and the biotype with prostrate habitus. A closer look at EO content showed that the S1-by-H1 interaction produced the highest EO percentage (0.73%). The lowest average EO percentage (0.64%) was recorded with the S4-by-H1 and S2-by-H3 interactions, as showed in Supplementary Materials (Table S1).
The interaction between irrigation factors, substrate and plant habitus determined significant differences for height, height-to-diameter ratio, number of secondary branches and plant fresh weight. Observing the various test treatments, the greatest values for height were obtained when irrigation level I2 interacted with the control substrate and the biotype with erect habitus, whereas the lowest values for height were found with the interaction I1-by-S1-by-H3. The greatest average values for height-to-diameter ratio were determined with the interaction I2-by-S4-by-H1 and I2-by-S2-by-H1. The highest number of secondary branches, however, was found in the interaction irrigation level I2 with the control substrate and prostrate habitus biotype, whereas the lowest average values were found with the interaction I1-by-S4-by-H1.
Regarding production parameters, it is worth noting that the interaction I2-by-S4-by-H3 presented higher average values for fresh weight (174.72 g), whilst the interaction I1-by-S2-by-H2 presented the lowest averages (64.57 g).

4. Discussion

In this study, over two years of tests, three Sicilian biotypes of Rosmarinus officinalis L. were evaluated growing in pots with differing habitus types and two levels of irrigation. Four substrates were compared containing different ratios of peat and compost to perlite.
All the biotypes showed good adaptation capacities to the irrigation conditions and to the different substrate types in both years, showing significant differences for all of the morphological and production characteristics in the study. The general appearance of the plants was monitored regularly and, for both levels of irrigation over the two years, no signs of lack of water or water stress were noted. Various observations have been made in scientific literature on the effects of irrigation on the morphological and production characteristics of rosemary in open-field conditions. Some authors [59] stated that the use of surface or underground micro-drip irrigation systems does not exert a significant effect on the characteristics of rosemary plants. It was demonstrated [23] that the quality of the irrigation water did not have a significant effect on rosemary. In contrast, other authors [60] observed that irrigation significantly influenced the main characteristics of rosemary plants grown in pots. In our study, it was noted that the interval of time between irrigation events significantly influenced the characteristics of rosemary. In general, plant growth was negatively affected by water stress, probably due to a decrease in the stomatal aperture, which limits the circulation of CO2 in the leaves and reduces photosynthetic activity, as reported in the literature [61].
Although little is known about the effects of cultivation techniques on potted rosemary, it should be emphasized that almost all the studies focus on investigating the influence of substrate on plant growth and production. The composition of the substrate and, in particular, a decrease in the peat content in the mix, had significant effects on the growth and on the production parameters of the plants. Peat represents the most frequently used growing substrate due to its excellent chemical and physical properties for plants grown in pots and its stability over time. Gruda [62] affirms that peat is the standard constituent of substrates used in the production of ornamental plants in pots and that other constituents may vary by 20% to 50%. However, several authors note that high-quality peat is expensive and can cause environmental problems due to the depletion of unrenewable resources [38,55]. Compost represents an interesting substrate alternative to peat and can improve the physical, chemical and biological properties of the substrate [56,63]. Raviv [64] highlights that compost is a bioresource and can be a valid alternative to peat, despite the fact it is potentially a waste material. However, the qualitative properties of compost are strongly linked to its maturity and stability. Rinaldi et al. [38] tested a number of substrates by mixing increasingly greater amounts of eight different composts in place of peat, with a fixed inert material. The authors observed that the most suitable substrates for rosemary growth contained compost at a rate of up to 70%. De Lucia et al. [36] studied four composts, obtained from agro-industrial, urban and green wastes, as growing media components in Rosmarinus officinalis L. and obtained improved quality rosemary plants by substituting peat with 30% compost. Our study also assessed the chemical–physical properties of the substrates as these characteristics tend to change as the compost content increases and the peat content decreases. In fact, the particle size of the growing substrate and the geometry of the pot need to be carefully considered in order to balance water availability and root aeration [65]. As reported in some studies [24,66], the decrease in plant height in rosemary grown in pots, using substrates with decreasing quantities of peat, is of interest in order to increase the ornamental value of the rosemary as a reduction in height is a desirable ornamental characteristic. In this study, the greater length and width of the main branches was obtained using a substrate with the greatest compost content. According to Rinaldi et al. [38], compost from pruning residues or mixes with agro-industrial or urban waste are of most interest in rosemary cultivation.
In our study, the factor year did not have significant effects on the rosemary characteristics. This result was also confirmed by some authors [67], who state that the composition and variability of rosemary mainly depend on the genetic background and origin rather than on the environmental conditions and geographic location.
The factor irrigation, however, did have a significant effect on the percent content of the EO. As highlighted in the literature, irrigation influences the morphological and physiological characteristics determining the yield of the plants and also has a bearing on the quantity of some of the principal components of the essential oils (EOs) [22,68,69,70,71]. In particular, the percentage of EO increased following limited water availability, in agreement with the results of Pirzad and Mohammadzadeh [27].
The factor substrate affected the percent content of EO. This was confirmed by a number of studies that demonstrated that the quantitative characteristics of EOs of various species in the Lamiaceae family, such as Thymus caespititus Brot. [72], Ocimum basilicum L. [73] and Lavandula agustifolia Mill. [15], are greatly affected by the composition of the substrate. It is important to note that the production of EO depends on genetic characteristics, as revealed by this study and in agreement with some authors [67,74,75,76,77,78,79] who stated that the genetic pool contributes to a greater degree than other factors to determine both the quality and the quantity of EOs.
Rosemary presents a variety of different habitus types, morphological traits, flower colours and aromatic properties [80]. Our study confirms results reported by Flamini et al. [81], who, in a recent study on the evaluation of the agronomic and production characteristics of two rosemary biotypes, state that the best performances are produced by biotypes with an erect habitus. Plant height, in particular, is a morphological characteristic under genetic control; however, its manifestation could depend on environmental factors, such as altitude, air temperature and solar radiation, but also growth techniques, such as irrigation, fertilization and, in the case of pot plants, also the substrate used. The high significance of the interactions substrate-biotype and irrigation-substrate-biotype on the agronomic and production parameters could play an important role in the production of plants with high ornamental value but also in the production of EOs, confirming results of other authors [15,70,81,82,83].

5. Conclusions

The results of this study show that the use of peat-alternative substrates can represent a valid opportunity for the cultivation of rosemary in pots, and, in general, for the cultivation of numerous medicinal and aromatic plants. The use of compost could allow a partial or total replacement of peat, leading to environmental benefits (the harvesting of peat as a substrate has a strong environmental impact) energy and economic benefits (peat is an expensive and functional material). It could also foster the use of biomass from agro-industrial activities and recycled municipal organic waste. In this study, although the best agronomic results were obtained using the substrate with greater peat content, it is worth highlighting that the substrates with 20% and 30% compost also gave excellent performance results, confirming the idea of a partial replacement of peat. The erect habitus biotype showed the best adaptation capacity to the various treatments. Considering the various interactions between the main factors, the substrate-by-irrigation-by-biotype interaction had significant effects on the morphological and production characteristics of the rosemary plants.
Further research is required, however, to assess both the performance of the various components of the substrate and, more specifically, exactly when the various agronomic factors interact with the substrate. A longer period is also needed to evaluate the morphological and production characteristics. Finally, the various biometric and production characteristics of the genotypes, together with the substrate types, could be of use when selecting rosemary biotypes with good adaptability to cultivation in pots for ornamental purposes, thus favouring the expansion of this species.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2077-0472/11/1/13/s1, Table S1: Interactions between the various treatments of the main factors in the study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.B., G.V. and T.T.; methodology, S.L.B., G.V., M.L. and T.T.; software, N.I., L.S. and B.B.C.; validation, L.S., B.B.C. and C.L.; formal analysis, N.I., L.S. and B.B.C.; investigation, S.L.B., G.V. and M.L.; resources, S.L.B. and T.T.; data curation, G.V., N.I., M.L., L.S. and B.B.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.B., N.I. and M.L.; writing—review and editing, S.L.B., G.V. and M.L.; visualization, L.S., C.L. and T.T.; supervision, C.L. and T.T.; project administration, C.L.; funding acquisition, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Sicilian Regional Ministry of Agriculture and Food Resources (Italy), research project “Environmental and plant resources in the Mediterranean: study, valorisation and defence”, grant number 2309/2005.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available by contacting the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Sicilian Regional Ministry of Agriculture and Food Resources (Italy), funding the “Environmental and plant resources in the Mediterranean: study, valorisation and defence” research project. Special thanks go to Lucie Branwen Hornsby for her linguistic assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. De Pasquale, C.; La Bella, S.; Cammalleri, I.; Gennaro, M.C.; Licata, M.; Leto, C.; Tuttolomondo, T. Agronomical and postharvest evaluation of the essential oils of Sicilian rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) biotypes. Acta Hortic. 2019, 1255, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Begum, A.; Sandhya, S.; Ali, S.S.; Vinod, K.R.; Swapna, R.; Banji, D. An in-depth review on the medicinal flora Rosmarinus officinalis (Lamiaceae). Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2013, 12, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Heinrich, M.; Kufer, K.; Leonti, M.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M. Ethnobotany and ethnopharmacology—Interdisciplinary links with the historical sciences. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006, 107, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Moreno, S.; Ojeda Sana, A.M.; Gaya, M.; Barni, M.V.; Castro, A.O.; van Baren, C. Rosemary compounds as nutraceutical health products. In Food Additives, 1st ed.; El-Samragy, Y., Ed.; IntechOpen Science: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 157–174. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tuttolomondo, T.; La Bella, S.; Leto, C.; Gennaro, M.C.; Calvo, R.; D’Asaro, F. Biotechnical characteristics of root systems in erect and prostrate habit Rosmarinus officinalis L. accessions grown in a Mediterranean climate. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 58, 769–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sarmoum, R.; Haid, S.; Biche, M.; Djazouli, Z.; Zebib, B.; Merah, O. Effect of salinity and water stress on the essential oil components of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.). Agronomy 2019, 9, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Durán Zuazo, V.H.; Rodriguez Pleguezelo, C.R. Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by plant covers. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 28, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Napoli, E.M.; Siracusa, L.; Saija, A.; Speciale, A.; Trombetta, D.; Tuttolomondo, T.; La Bella, S.; Licata, M.; Virga, G.; Leone, R.; et al. Wild Sicilian rosemary: Phytochemical and morphological screening and antioxidant activity evaluation of extracts and essential oils. Chem. Biodivers. 2015, 12, 1075–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Napoli, E.M.; Curcuruto, G.; Ruberto, G. Screening of the essential oil composition of wild Sicilian rosemary. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2010, 38, 659–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tuttolomondo, T.; Dugo, G.; Ruberto, G.; Leto, C.; Napoli, E.M.; Cicero, N.; Gervasi, T.; Virga, G.; Leone, R.; Licata, M.; et al. Study of quantitative and qualitative variations in essential oils of Sicilian Rosmarinus officinalis L. Nat. Prod. Res. 2015, 29, 1928–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sánchez-Camargo, A.P.; Herrero, M. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) as a functional ingredient: Recent scientific evidence. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2017, 14, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Andrade, M.A.; Ribeiro-Santos, R.; Costa Bonito, M.C.; Saraiva, M.; Sanches-Silva, A. Characterization of rosemary and thyme extracts for incorporation into a whey protein based film. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 92, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yosr, Z.; Hnia, C.; Rim, T.; Mohamed, B. Changes in essential oil composition and phenolic fraction in Rosmarinus officinalis L. var. typicus Batt. organs during growth and incidence on the antioxidant activity. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 43, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alipour, M.; Saharkhiz, M.J. Phytotoxic activity and variation in essential oil content and composition of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) during different phenological growth stages. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Najar, B.; Demasi, S.; Caser, M.; Gaino, W.; Cioni, P.L.; Pistelli, L.; Scariot, V. Cultivation substrate composition influences morphology, volatilome and essential oil of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. Agronomy 2019, 9, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Carrubba, A.; Abbate, L.; Sarno, M.; Sunseri, F.; Mauceri, A.; Lupini, A.; Mercati, F. Characterization of Sicilian rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) germplasm through a multidisciplinary approach. Planta 2020, 251, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Figueiredo, A.C.; Barroso, J.G.; Pedro, L.G.; Scheffer, J.J.C. Factors affecting secondary metabolite production in plants: Volatile components and essential oils. Flavour Fragr. J. 2008, 23, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Franz, C.; Novak, J. Sources of essential oils. In Handbook of Essential Oils: Science, Technology, and Application, 3rd ed.; Başer, K.H.C., Buchbauer, G., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  19. Farouk, S.; Al-Amri, S.M. Exogenous melatonin-mediated modulation of arsenic tolerance with improved accretion of secondary metabolite production, activating antioxidant capacity and improved chloroplast ultrastructure in rosemary herb. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 2019, 180, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raffo, A.; Mozzanini, E.; Ferrari Nicoli, S.; Lupotto, E.; Cervelli, C. Effect of light intensity and water availability on plant growth, essential oil production and composition in Rosmarinus officinalis L. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2020, 246, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Böszörményi, A.; Dobi, A.; Skribanek, A.; Pávai, M.; Solymosi, K. The effect of light on plastid differentiation, chlorophyll biosynthesis, and essential oil composition in rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) leaves and cotyledons. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Sánchez-Blanco, J.M.; Ferrández, T.; Navarro, A.; Bañon, S.; Alarcón, J. Effects of irrigation and air humidity preconditioning on water relations, growth and survival of Rosmarinus officinalis plants during and after transplanting. J. Plant Physiol. 2004, 161, 1133–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bernstein, N.; Chaimovitch, D.; Dudai, N. Effect of irrigation with secondary treated effluent on essential oil, antioxidant activity, and phenolic compounds in oregano and rosemary. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, M.; Guleria, N. Influence of harvesting stage and inorganic and organic fertilizers on yield and oil composition of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) in a semi-arid tropical climate. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2013, 42, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khalil, S.E.; Khalil, A.M. Effect of water irrigation intervals, compost and dry yeast on growth, yield and oil content of Rosmarinus officinalis L. plant. Am. Eurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 2015, 9, 36–51. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ganjali, A.; Kaykhaii, M. Investigating the essential oil composition of Rosmarinus officinalis before and after fertilizzating with vermicompost. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2017, 20, 1413–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pirzad, A.; Mohammadzadeh, S. Water use efficiency of three mycorrhizal Lamiaceae species (Lavandula officinalis, Rosmarinus officinalis and Thymus vulgaris). Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 204, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tawfeeq, A.; Culham, A.; Davis, F.; Reeves, M. Does fertilizer type and method of application cause significant differences in essential oil yield and composition in rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)? Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 88, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, M.; Wasnik, K. Effect of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer on growth, herb, oil yield, nutrient uptake, soil fertility, and oil quality of rosemary. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2013, 44, 2691–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bustamante, M.A.; Nogués, I.; Jones, S.; Allison, G.G. The effect of anaerobic digestate derived composts on the metabolite composition and thermal behaviour of rosemary. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singh, M. Effects of plant spacing, fertilizer, modified urea material and irrigation regime on herbage, oil yield and oil quality of rosemary in semi-arid tropical conditions. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2004, 79, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kiuru, P.; Muriuki, S.J.N.; Wepukhulu, S.B.; Muriuki, S.J.M. Influence of growth media and regulators on vegetative propagation of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.). East Afr. Agric. For. J. 2015, 81, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martinetti, L.; Quattrini, E.; Bononi, M.; Tateo, F. Effect of the mineral fertilization on the yield and the oil content of two cultivars of rosemary. Acta Hortic. 2006, 723, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Boyle, T.H.; Craker, L.E.; Simon, J.E. Growing medium and fertilization regime influence growth and essential oil content of rosemary. Hortscience 1991, 26, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Fornes, F.; Liu-Xu, L.; Lidón, A.; Sánchez-García, M.; Cayuela, M.L.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Belda, R.M. Biochar improves the properties of poultry manure compost as growing media for rosemary production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. De Lucia, B.; Vecchietti, L.; Rinaldi, S.; Rivera, C.M.; Trinchera, A.; Rea, E. Effect of peat-reduced and peat-free substrates on rosemary growth. J. Plant Nutr. 2013, 36, 863–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mendoza-Hernández, D.; Fornes, F.; Belda, R.M. Compost and vermicompost of horticultural waste as substrates for cutting rooting and growth of rosemary. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 178, 192–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rinaldi, S.; De Lucia, B.; Salvati, L.; Rea, E. Understanding complexity in the response of ornamental rosemary to different substrates: A multivariate analysis. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 176, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kern, J.; Tammeorg, P.; Shanskiy, M.; Sakrabani, R.; Knicker, H.; Kammann, C.; Tuhkanen, E.M.; Smidt, G.; Prasad, M.; Tiilikkala, K.; et al. Synergistic use of peat and charred material in growing media—An option to reduce the pressure on peatlands? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hammond, R.F. The origin, formation and distribution of peatland resources. In Peat in Horticulture, 1st ed.; Robinson, D.W., Lamb, J.G.D., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1975; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rydin, H.; Jeglum, J.K. The Bology of Peatlands, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. 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, 24, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sannazaro, F.M. Valutazione di Substrati Alternativi alla Torba: Caratterizzazione Chimica, Fisica ed Agronomica di Lolla di Riso. Ph.D. Thesis, Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy, 31 January 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. Barrett, G.E.; Alexander, P.D.; Robinson, J.S.; Bragg, N.C. Achieving environmentally sustainable growing media for soilless plant cultivation systems—A review. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 212, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Fenner, N.; Freeman, C. Woody litter protects peat carbon stocks during drought. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lazcano, C.; Arnold, J.; Salgado, A.T.; Zaller, J.G.; Martin, J.D. Compost and vermicompost as nursery pot components: Effects on tomato plant growth and morphology. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 7, 944–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Abad, M.; Noguera, P.; Burés, S. National inventory of organic wastes for use as growing media for ornamental potted plant production: Case study in Spain. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abad, M.; Martínez, P.F.; Martínez, M.D.; Martínez, J. Evaluación agronómica de los sustratos de cultivo. Actas Hortic. 1992, 11, 141–154. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ansorena Miner, J. Sustratos. Propiedades y Caracterización; Ediciones Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lemaire, F.; Rivière, L.; Stievenard, S.; Marfa, O.; Gschwander, S.; Giuffrida, F. Consequences of organic matter biodegradability on the physical, chemical parameters of substrates. Acta Hortic. 1998, 469, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cabrera, F.; Clemente, L.; Díiaz Barrientos, E.; López, R.; Murillo, J.M. Heavy metal pollutions of soils affected by the Guadiamar toxic flood. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 242, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chen, J.; Mc Connell, D.B.; Robinson, C.A.; Caldwell, R.D.; Huang, Y. Production and interior performances of tropical ornamental foliage plants grown in container substrates amended with composts. Comp. Sci. Util. 2002, 10, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Benito, M.; Masaguer, A.; Moliner, A.; Antonio, R.D. Chemical and physical properties of pruning waste compost and their seasonal variability. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 2071–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tittarelli, F.; Rea, E.; Verrastro, V.; Pascual, J.A.; Canali, S.; Ceglie, F.G.; Trinchera, A.; Rivera, C.M. Compost-based nursery substrates: Effect of peat substitution on organic melon seedlings. Comp. Sci. Util. 2009, 17, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. De Lucia, B.; Vecchietti, L.; Leone, A. Italian buckthorn response to compost based substrates. Acta Hortic. 2011, 891, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stellacci, A.M.; Cristiano, G.; Rubino, P.; De Lucia, B.; Cazzato, E. Nitrogen uptake, nitrogen partitioning and N-use efficiency of container-grown Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) under different nitrogen levels and fertilizer sources. Int. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 132–137. [Google Scholar]
  57. European Pharmacopoeia. Determination of Essential Oils in Herbal Drugs, 6th ed.; Council of Europe European, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines: Strasbourg, France, 2008; pp. 251–252. [Google Scholar]
  58. Servizio Informativo Agrometeorologico Siciliano. Available online: www.sias.regione.sicilia.it (accessed on 20 July 2020).
  59. Omer, E.; Hendawy, S.; El Gendy, A.N.; Mannu, A.; Petretto, G.L.; Pintore, G. Effect of irrigation systems and soil conditioners on the growth and essential oil composition of Rosmarinus officinalis L. cultivated in Egypt. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tuttolomondo, T.; Virga, G.; Licata, M.; Leto, C.; La Bella, S. Constructed wetlands as sustainable technology for the treatment and reuse of the first-flush stormwater in agriculture—A case study in Sicily (Italy). Water 2020, 12, 2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Osakabe, Y.; Osakabe, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.-S.P. Response of plants to water stress. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Gruda, N.S. Increasing sustainability of growing media constituents and stand-alone substrates in soilless culture systems. Agronomy 2019, 9, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Garcia-Gomez, A.; Bernal, M.P.; Roig, A. Growth of ornamental plants in two composts prepared from agro-industrial wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raviv, M. Can compost improve sustainability of plant production in growing media? Acta Hortic. 2017, 1168, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Savvas, D.; Gruda, N. Application of soilless culture technologies in the modern greenhouse industry—A review. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2018, 83, 280–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Han, S.; Kim, K. Effects of growth retardans on growth, flowering, and germination of harvested seed in Clinopodium chinense var. parviflorum. J. Korean Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1999, 40, 765–768. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lì, Z.; Wu, N.; Liu, T.; Chen, H.; Tang, M. Sex-related responses of Populus cathayana shoots and roots to AM fungi and drought stress. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Llorens-Molina, J.A.; Vacas, S. Effect of drought stress on essential oil composition of Thymus vulgaris L. (Chemotype 1, 8-cineole) from wild populations of Eastern Iberian Peninsula. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2017, 29, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. An, Y.Y.; Liang, Z.S. Drought tolerance of Periploca sepium during seed germination: Antioxidant defense and compatible solutes accumulation. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013, 35, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mathobo, R.; Marais, D.; Steyn, J.M. The effect of drought stress on yield, leaf gaseous exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 180, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rioba, N.B.; Itulya, F.M.; Saidi, M.; Dudai, N.; Bernstein, N. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and irrigation frequency on essential oil content and composition of sage (Salvia officinalis L.). J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2015, 2, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pereira, S.I.; Santos, P.A.G.; Barroso, J.G.; Figueiredo, A.C.; Pedro, L.G.; Salgueiro, L.R.; Deans, S.G.; Scheffer, J.J.C. Chemical polymorphism of the essential oils from populations of Thymus caespititius grown on the island S. Jorge (Azores). Phytochemistry 2000, 55, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Burdina, I.; Priss, O. Effect of the substrate composition on yield and quality of basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). J. Hortic. Res. 2016, 24, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Sadeh, D.; Nitzan, N.; Chaimovitsh, D.; Shachter, A.; Ghanim, M.; Dudai, N. Interactive effects of genotype, seasonality and extraction method on chemical compositions and yield of essential oil from rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.). Ind. Crop Prod. 2019, 138, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. La Bella, S.; Tuttolomondo, T.; Dugo, G.; Ruberto, G.; Leto, C.; Napoli, E.M.; Potortì, A.G.; Fede, M.R.; Virga, G.; Leone, R.; et al. Composition and variability of the essential oil of the flowers of Lavandula stoechas from various geographical sources. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 10, 2001–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Tuttolomondo, T.; Dugo, G.; Ruberto, G.; Leto, C.; Napoli, E.M.; Potortì, A.G.; Fede, M.R.; Virga, G.; Leone, R.; D’Anna, E.; et al. Agronomical evaluation of Sicilian biotypes of Lavandula stoechas L. spp. stoechas and analysis of the essential oils. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2015, 27, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tuttolomondo, T.; Dugo, G.; Leto, C.; Cicero, N.; Tropea, A.; Virga, G.; Leone, R.; Licata, M.; La Bella, S. Agronomical and chemical characterisation of Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. biotypes from Sicily, Italy. Nat. Prod. Res. 2015, 29, 1289–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Saija, A.; Speciale, A.; Trombetta, D.; Leto, C.; Tuttolomondo, T.; La Bella, S.; Licata, M.; Virga, G.; Bonsangue, G.; Gennaro, M.C.; et al. Phytochemical, ecological and antioxidant evaluation of wild Sicilian thyme: Thymbra capitata (L.) Cav. Chem. Biodivers. 2016, 13, 1641–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tuttolomondo, T.; Iapichino, G.; Licata, M.; Virga, G.; Leto, C.; La Bella, S. Agronomic evaluation and chemical characterization of Sicilian Salvia sclarea L. accessions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nunziata, A.; De Benedetti, L.; Marchioni, I.; Cervelli, C. High resolution melting profiles of 364 genotypes of Salvia rosmarinus in 16 microsatellite loci. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3728–3739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Flamini, G.; Najar, B.; Leonardi, M.; Ambryszewska, K.E.; Cioni, P.G.; Parri, F.; Melai, B.; Pistelli, L. Essential oil composition of Salvia rosmarinus spenn. wild samples collected from six sites and different seasonal periods in Elba Island (Tuscan Archipelago, Italy). Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Bolechowski, A.; Moral, M.A.; Bustamante, M.A.; Bartual, J.; Paredes, C.; Pérez-Murcia, M.A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A. Winery–distillery composts as partial substitutes of traditional growing media: Effect on the volatile composition of thyme essential oils. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bolechowski, A.; Moral, R.; Bustamante, M.A.; Paredes, C.; Agulló, E.; Bartual, J.; Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A. Composition of oregano essential oil (Origanum vulgare) as affected by the use of winery-distillery composts. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2011, 23, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 11 00013 g001 550
Figure 1. Types of plant habitus of rosemary biotypes in the study. (a) refers to erect habitus, (b) refers to semi-erect habitus, (c) refers to prostate habitus.
Figure 1. Types of plant habitus of rosemary biotypes in the study. (a) refers to erect habitus, (b) refers to semi-erect habitus, (c) refers to prostate habitus.
Agriculture 11 00013 g001
Agriculture 11 00013 g002 550
Figure 2. Maximum and minimum air temperature trends during the test period.
Figure 2. Maximum and minimum air temperature trends during the test period.
Agriculture 11 00013 g002
Agriculture 11 00013 g003 550
Figure 3. Chemical properties of substrates. Graph (a) refers to electrical conductivity values, while graph (b) refers to pH values of substrates.
Figure 3. Chemical properties of substrates. Graph (a) refers to electrical conductivity values, while graph (b) refers to pH values of substrates.
Agriculture 11 00013 g003
Agriculture 11 00013 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of irrigation on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of irrigation on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of irrigation on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 4. Effect of irrigation on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of irrigation on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of irrigation on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 11 00013 g004
Agriculture 11 00013 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of substrate on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of substrate on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of substrate on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 5. Effect of substrate on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of substrate on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of substrate on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 11 00013 g005
Agriculture 11 00013 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of plant habitus on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of plant habitus on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of plant habitus on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 6. Effect of plant habitus on production characteristics of rosemary biotypes. Graph (a) refers to effect of plant habitus on fresh and dry weight, while graph (b) refers to effect of plant habitus on essential oil. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 11 00013 g006
Table
Table 1. Physical properties of substrates. Average values are shown.
Table 1. Physical properties of substrates. Average values are shown.
ParameterGrowing Substrate
S1S2S3S4
Bulk density (g cm−3)0.230.250.330.17
Total porosity (%)89.5988.8886.0791.86
Air capacity at pF1 (%)41.1643.4232.2246.44
Available water (%)20.6519.8124.3318.32
Table
Table 2. Morphological and aesthetic characteristics of rosemary plants in response to year, irrigation, peat-alternative substrate and plant habitus.
Table 2. Morphological and aesthetic characteristics of rosemary plants in response to year, irrigation, peat-alternative substrate and plant habitus.
TreatmentPlant Height (cm)Plant Diameter (cm)Height-to-Diameter RatioNo. Primary
Branches (per Plant)		No. Secondary
Branches (per Plant)		Plant Branch Length (cm)Plant Branch Width (cm)No. Leaves cm Branch−1General Appearance of PlantFlowering
Year (Y)
Y126.18 a39.60 a0.73 a14.51 a14.22 a29.01 a3.43 a8.55 a5.40 a0.95 a
Y225.27 b38.66 b0.74 a14.25 a14.01 a28.53 a3.32 b8.67 b5.26 a0.94 a
Irrigation (I)
IW124.10 b36.68 b0.71 b15.39 a10.61 b27.96 b3.29 b8.89 a5.17 b1.58 a
IW227.83 a41.58 a0.76 a15.37 b17.63 a29.58 a3.46 a8.33 b5.50 a0.31 b
Substrate (S)
S125.35 b37.92 b0.72 a13.36 b12.92 b28.70 b3.32 b9.07 a5.21 b0.83 a
S224.59 b34.78 b0.77 a15.51 a12.43 b29.67 b3.47 ab8.81 ab4.99 b0.91 a
S324.46 b35.09 b0.74 a13.37 b11.71 b31.18 a3.63 a8.54 ab5.05 b1.11 a
S429.46 a48.71 a0.70 a15.29 a19.41 a26.54 c3.08 c8.02 b6.10 a0.94 a
Plant habitus (H)
H139.29 a30.29 c1.29 a18.69 a6.45 b27.96 b3.58 b8.90 a5.77 a1.20 a
H222.47 b50.73 a0.44 b10.83 c5.37 b33.12 a3.80 a8.54 a5.38 b0.79 b
H316.15 c36.37 b0.46 b13.62 b30.18 a25.23 c2.74 c8.39 a4.85 c0.85 b
Interactions (significance)
Y × In.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
I × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
I × Hn.s.*n.s.n.s.*n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
S × Hn.s.*n.s.n.s.***n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × I × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × I × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × S × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
I × S × H*n.s.*n.s.*n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × I × S × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test; n.s. = not significant; * = significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Production characteristics of rosemary plants in response to year, irrigation, peat-alternative substrate and plant habitus.
Table 3. Production characteristics of rosemary plants in response to year, irrigation, peat-alternative substrate and plant habitus.
TreatmentFresh Weight
(g plant−1)		Dry Weight
(g plant−1)		EO Content (%)
Year
Y198.35 a28.25 a0.67 a
Y296.66 a27.61 a0.67 a
Irrigation
I176.31 b21.38 b0.72 a
I2118.76 a34.49 a0.62 b
Substrate
S189.78 b26.01 b0.68 a
S282.83 b22.99 b0.66 b
S384.63 b22.89 b0.68 a
S4133.28 a39.74 a0.66 b
Plant habitus
H1100.08 a35.05 a0.68 a
H292.43 b27.01 b0.67 ab
H394.01 b21.75 c0.65 b
Interactions (significance)
Y × In.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.
I × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.
I × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.
S × H***
Y × I × Sn.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × I × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.
Y × S × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.
I × S × H*n.s.n.s.
Y × I × S × Hn.s.n.s.n.s.
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different for p ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test; n.s. = not significant; * = significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

La Bella, S.; Virga, G.; Iacuzzi, N.; Licata, M.; Sabatino, L.; Consentino, B.B.; Leto, C.; Tuttolomondo, T. Effects of Irrigation, Peat-Alternative Substrate and Plant Habitus on the Morphological and Production Characteristics of Sicilian Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Biotypes Grown in Pot. Agriculture 2021, 11, 13. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11010013

AMA Style

La Bella S, Virga G, Iacuzzi N, Licata M, Sabatino L, Consentino BB, Leto C, Tuttolomondo T. Effects of Irrigation, Peat-Alternative Substrate and Plant Habitus on the Morphological and Production Characteristics of Sicilian Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Biotypes Grown in Pot. Agriculture. 2021; 11(1):13. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11010013

Chicago/Turabian Style

La Bella, Salvatore, Giuseppe Virga, Nicolò Iacuzzi, Mario Licata, Leo Sabatino, Beppe Benedetto Consentino, Claudio Leto, and Teresa Tuttolomondo. 2021. "Effects of Irrigation, Peat-Alternative Substrate and Plant Habitus on the Morphological and Production Characteristics of Sicilian Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Biotypes Grown in Pot" Agriculture 11, no. 1: 13. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture11010013

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