Journals / Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4

Effect of the producer and cultivar factor on leaf and fruit plant nutrient concentration in growing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

Domates (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) Yetiştiriciliğinde Üretici ve Çeşit Faktörünün Bitki Besin Maddesi Konsantrasyonu Üzerine Etkisi

Pages
484–495
Publication Date
2018-12-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Leaf analysis results showed that the average producer factor (64.80%) caused about 4 times more variation on the macro and micronutrients than the varieties factor (16.34%), in the fruit analysis results, it was determined that the average producer factor (53.95%) caused about 3.5 times more variation on the macro and micro nutrients than the varieties factors (15.19%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The genetic capacity determine plant nutrient content, yield and fruit quality of crops.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The producer factor ignored by many researchers is the source of other important variations in product yield and quality, depending on the concentrations of the plant nutrient.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Leaf analysis results showed that the average producer factor (64.80%) caused about 4 times more variation on the macro and micronutrients than the varieties factor (16.34%), in the fruit analysis results, it was determined that the average producer factor (53.95%) caused about 3.5 times more variation on the macro and micro nutrients than the varieties factors (15.19%).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sera · Domates · Çeşit

Abstract

The genetic capacity determine plant nutrient content, yield and fruit quality of crops. The producer factor ignored by many researchers is the source of other important variations in product yield and quality, depending on the concentrations of the plant nutrient. With the research, it was aimed to compare the effects of varieties and producer factors on the amount of nutrients in leaf and fruit. It was determined that the varieties factor was statistically different p <0.05) on K, Ca and Mg in the leaf, It was determined that the producers factor was statistically different (p <0.05) on N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn and Zn in the leaf. When the plant nutrients found in the fruit are evaluated, It was determined that the varieties factor was statistically different (p <0.05) on P and Ca in the fruit, It was determined that the producers factor was statistically different (p <0.05) on N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn ve Cu in the fruit. Leaf analysis results showed that the average producer factor (64.80%) caused about 4 times more variation on the macro and micronutrients than the varieties factor (16.34%), in the fruit analysis results, it was determined that the average producer factor (53.95%) caused about 3.5 times more variation on the macro and micro nutrients than the varieties factors (15.19%). As a result, it has been determined that the producer factor causes more variations on the macro and micro nutrients found in leaves and fruit than in the varieties. While the varieties developed by the breeders are being narrowed down, the risk of increased variability due to producer practices should be studied. Otherwise, the loss of yield and product quality may be inevitable, depending on the concentrations of plant nutrients found in fruit and fruit (deficit / excess) of some producers. Fertilization based on analysis results of soil and plant (leaf and fruit) can play an important role in narrowing this variation.

Özet

Bitkilerin genetik kapasitesi bitki besin maddesi içeriğini, verim ve meyve kalitesini etkilemektedir. Birçok araştırmacı tarafından göz ardı edilen üretici faktörü ise, bitki besin maddesinin konsantrasyonlarına bağlı olarak ürün verim ve kalitesindeki diğer önemli varyasyon kaynağıdır. Araştırma ile birlikte, çeşit ve üretici faktörlerinin yaprak ve meyvede besin maddesi konsantrasyonu üzerine etkilerini karşılaştırmak hedeflenmiştir. Çeşit faktörünün, yaprakta bulunan K, Ca ve Mg konsantrasyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak (p<0.05) fark oluşturduğu tespit edilirken, üretici faktörünün ise N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn ve Zn konsantrasyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak (p<0.05) fark oluşturduğu tespit edilmiştir. Meyvede bulunan bitki besin elementleri değerlendirildiğinde; çeşit faktörünün P ve Ca konsantrasyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak (p<0.05) fark oluşturduğu tespit edilirken, üretici faktörünün ise, N, P, K, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn ve Cu konsantrasyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak (p<0.05) fark oluşturduğu tespit edilmiştir. Yaprak analiz sonuçlarında ortalama üretici faktörünün (%64.80) çeşit faktörüne (%16.34) göre makro ve mikro besin elementleri üzerinde yaklaşık 4 kat daha fazla varyasyona sebep olduğu, meyve analiz sonuçlarında ise ortalama üretici faktörünün (%53.95) çeşit faktörüne (%15.19) göre makro ve mikro besin elementleri üzerinde yaklaşık 3.5 kat daha fazla varyasyona sebep olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, üretici faktörünün çeşit faktörüne göre yaprak ve meyvede bulunan makro ve mikro besin elementleri üzerinde daha fazla varyasyona neden olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Islahçılar tarafından geliştirilen çeşitlerle varyasyon daraltılırken üretici uygulamalarına bağlı varyasyonun artma riski üzerinde çalışılmalıdır. Aksi takdirde, bazı üreticilerin yaprakta ve meyvede bulunan bitki besin maddesi konsantrasyonlarına (noksan/fazla) bağlı verim ve ürün kalitesinde kayıp yaşamaları kaçınılmaz olabilecektir. Bu kayıpların önlenmesinde ise toprak, yaprak ve meyve analiz sonuçlarına dayalı gübrelemeler önemli bir rol oynayabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖZÜKARA, G., KAPLAN, M. (2018). Effect of the producer and cultivar factor on leaf and fruit plant nutrient concentration in growing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4, 484–495. https://ajindex.com/articles/423060

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Bergmann, W., 1992. Nutritional Disorders of Plants. pp 289-294.
  2. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stutgart. Black, C.A., 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Amer. Society of Agronomy Inc., Publisher Madisson, Wilconsin, U.S.A., 1372-1376.
  3. Bouyoucos, G.J., 1955. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of the soils. Agronomy Journal. 4(9): 434. Budak Z, Erdal İ (2016) Effect of foliar calcium application on yield and mineral nutrition of tomato cultivars under greenhouse condition Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 4(1): 1-10.
  4. Clark, R.B., Gross, R.D., 1986. Plant Genotype Differences to Iron. Journal of Plant Nutrition 9: 471-491.
  5. Ekincialp, A., 2018. Determination of nutrient, sugar and vitamin c content and certain yield parameters in miniature tomato cultivars cultivated with application of different fertilizers. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin. 27 (4): 2574-2584.
  6. Erdal, İ., Kepenek, K., Kızılgöz, İ., 2005. Effect of elemental sulphur and sulphur containing waste on the ıron nutriton of strawberry plants grown in a calcareous soil. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 23 (3). Evliya, H., 1964. Kültür bitkilerinin beslenmesi. Ankara.
  7. Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Yayınları, Yayın no:36, 292- 294 Ankara.
  8. Geraldson, C.M., Klacan, G.R., Lorenz, O.A., 1973. Plant Analysis as An Aid in Fertilizing Vegetable Crops, Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. Soil Science of America Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Guil-Guerrero, J.L., Rebolloso-Fuentes, M.M. 2009. Nutrient composition and antioxidant activity of eight tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) varieties. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 22. 123–129.
  9. Gomez, R., Costa, J., Amo M., Alvarruiz, A., Picazo, M., Pardo, J.E., 2001. Physicochemical and colorimetric evaluation of local varieties of tomato grown in SE Spain. Journal of Science of food and agriculture 81: 1105-1105.
  10. Gözükara, G., Kalkan, H., Kaplan, M., 2014. Evaluation of differences in fertilizer consumption of autumn tomato production in greenhouse. 9 th Internatıonal soil science congress. 14-16 October. Antalya 685-689.
  11. Gözükara, G., Kaplan, M., Kalkan, H., 2016. Evaluation of Soil Analysis Results and Fertilizer Consumption in Autumn Greenhouse Tomato Cultivation. 2. International Conference on Science, Ecology and Technology. 14-16 October. Barcelona 721-726.
  12. Gözükara, G., Kaplan, M., 2017. Are genotypes of hybrid tomato adequate to getting high yield and quality?. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences 30(2): 151-154.Havlin,