Two urban biowaste materials, fermented under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, their soluble and insoluble alkaline hydrolysates, and a commercial biostimulant product, were compared for their capacity to boost Hibiscus crop production and quality. Plants were grown in 4‐litre pots, containing peat and pumice as substrate, under optimal growing conditions. A randomized-block experimental design was adopted. Two types (main factors of variability) of treatments were applied, i.e. by blending the above products with the substrate at transplant, and by fertigation using the soluble hydrolysates only. Plant biomass characteristics and ecophysiological parameters were measured. Mean effect of factors and their interactions were assessed by two‐way ANOVA. Principal component analysis was performed by using the different dependent variables to summarize the most relevant differences among treatments. Compared with the control (untreated plants), the applied treatments enhanced most of the investigated parameters. The most valuable effects were observed for total biomass accumulation (+25%), plant height (+10%), leaf chlorophyll SPAD index (+15%) and net photosynthesis (+24%). The hydrolysates performed better than the pristine materials. The former ones were comparable to the commercial biostimulant. The results confirmed the hypothesis that biowaste derived products induce biostimulant activity on Hibiscus; their application can improve cultivation sustainability.

Application of municipal biowaste derived products in Hibiscus cultivation: Effect on leaf gaseous exchange activity, and plant biomass accumulation and quality

MONTONERI, Enzo;GINEPRO, Marco;NEGRE, Michèle;
2016

Abstract

Two urban biowaste materials, fermented under anaerobic and aerobic conditions, their soluble and insoluble alkaline hydrolysates, and a commercial biostimulant product, were compared for their capacity to boost Hibiscus crop production and quality. Plants were grown in 4‐litre pots, containing peat and pumice as substrate, under optimal growing conditions. A randomized-block experimental design was adopted. Two types (main factors of variability) of treatments were applied, i.e. by blending the above products with the substrate at transplant, and by fertigation using the soluble hydrolysates only. Plant biomass characteristics and ecophysiological parameters were measured. Mean effect of factors and their interactions were assessed by two‐way ANOVA. Principal component analysis was performed by using the different dependent variables to summarize the most relevant differences among treatments. Compared with the control (untreated plants), the applied treatments enhanced most of the investigated parameters. The most valuable effects were observed for total biomass accumulation (+25%), plant height (+10%), leaf chlorophyll SPAD index (+15%) and net photosynthesis (+24%). The hydrolysates performed better than the pristine materials. The former ones were comparable to the commercial biostimulant. The results confirmed the hypothesis that biowaste derived products induce biostimulant activity on Hibiscus; their application can improve cultivation sustainability.
205
59
69
www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/5/0/3/3/1/6
Biostimulant; Biowaste; Hibiscus palustris; Photosynthesis; Substrate culture; Horticulture
Massa, Daniele; Prisa, Domenico; Montoneri, Enzo; Battaglini, Daniele; Ginepro, Marco; Negre, Michele; Burchi, Gianluca
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Articolo Daniele Massa et al_2016.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 280.54 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
280.54 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Articolo Daniele Massa et al_2016 Elsevier.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 669.3 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
669.3 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1619351
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 26
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 23
social impact