Advertisement

Responses of Gerbera jamesonii Plants to Different Salinity Levels and Leaching Ratios When Grown in Soilless Culture

  • Özlem Akat SaraçoğluEmail author
  • M. Kamil Meriç
  • İ. Hakkı Tüzel
  • Yasemin S. Kukul Kurttaş
Chapter

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the effects of different salinity levels and leaching ratios (LRs) on the growth, yield, quality, and water consumption of gerbera plants grown in soilless culture. Four nutrient solution salinity levels (S0: control; S1: S0 + 1 dS m−1; S2: S0 + 2 dS m−1; S3: S0 + 3 dS m−1) and two LRs (with drainage volumes of 25% of the applied nutrient solution volume (LR25) and 50% of the applied nutrient solution volume (LR50)) were tested in an open soilless culture system during the study which is included two separate production periods. The electrical conductivities (ECs) of the solutions with addition of NaCl to the S1, S2, and S3 treatments were greater than that of the S0 treatment. Gerbera jamesonii cv. ‘Skylina’ was used as the plant material and agricultural perlite was used as the growing medium. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the LRs with respect to yield and flower quality parameters in both growing seasons, whereas the yield decreased dramatically with an increase in salinity. It was found that the highest yield was obtained in the control treatment (S0) in which no additional salt was applied, while the lowest yield was obtained in the highest-salinity treatment (S3) in both growing seasons. Both the number and the weight of the flowers decreased as the salinity of the nutrient solution increased. In particular, a higher LR in saline conditions provided greater yields (i.e., greater flower numbers) in both seasons. This result showed that the LR functioned as an application to reduce the salt effect. In the first and second seasons, the calculated salinity threshold values were 1.4–2.1 dS m−1 for the EC of the nutrient solution and 1.7–2.8 dS m−1 for the EC of the drained solution. It was found that the gerbera plant is moderately sensitive to salinity.

Keywords

Gerbera Salinity Leaching ratio Threshold value Yield Quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Project No TOGTAG-3384).

References

  1. Adams P (2002) Nutritional control in hydroponics. In: Savvas D, Passam H (eds) Hydyroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals. Embryo Publications, Athens, pp 211–261Google Scholar
  2. Akat Ö (2008) Farklı Tuzluluk Düzeyleri ve Yıkama Oranlarının Gerbera Bitkisinde Gelişim, Verim, Kalite ve Su Tüketimi Üzerine Etkileri. EÜ Fen Bil Enst, Doktora Tezi, 231sGoogle Scholar
  3. Akat O, Tuzel IH, Ozzambak ME (2009) The effects of different salinity levels and leaching fractions on gerbera plants. International Symposium on Strategies Towards Sustainability of Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter Climate. Acta Horticulturae, vol 807, April 8–11, Antalya. pp 233–238Google Scholar
  4. Allakhverdiev SI, Sakamoto A, Nishiyama Y, Inaba M, Murata N (2000) Ionic and osmotic effects of NaCl-induced inactivation of photosystems I and II in Synechococcus sp. Plant Physiol 123:1047–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Álvarez S, Sánchez-Blanco MJ (2013) Long-term effect of salinity on plant quality, water relations, photosynthetic parameters and ion distribution in Callistemon citrinus. Plant Biol 16:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashraf M (1994) Organic substances responsible for salt tolerance in Eruca sativa. Biol Plant 36:255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1989) Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bass R, Van den Berg D (2000) Sodium accumulation and nutrient discharge in recirculation systems: a case study with roses. Acta Hort 507:157–164Google Scholar
  9. Bayçin-Korkut A (1998) Çiçek Yetiştiriciliği. Hasat Yayıncılık Yayınları, İstabul, 222 sGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassaniti C, Leonardi C, Flowers TJ (2009) The effect of sodium chloride on ornamental shrubs. Sci Hort 122:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassaniti C, Romano D, Flowers TJ (2012) The response of ornamental plants to saline irrigation water, irrigation–water management, pollution and alternative strategies. InTech, Rijeka, pp 131–158Google Scholar
  12. Cassaniti C, Romano D, Hop MECM, Flowers TJ (2013) Growing floricultural crops with brackish water. Environ Exp Bot 92:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaves MM, Osorio J, Pereira JS (2004) Water use efficiency and photosynthesis. In: Bacon MA (ed) Water use efficiency in plant biology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 42–74Google Scholar
  14. Dalla Guda C, Scordo E, Cervelli C, Farina E (2001) Effects of the electrical conductivity of the nutritive solution on Danae racemosa growth. In: V International symposium on protected cultivation in mild winter climates: current trends for suistainable technologies, vol 559, pp 627–631Google Scholar
  15. De Kreij C, Van Os PC (1989) Production and quality of gerbera in rockwool as affected by electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Soilless Culture, pp 255–266Google Scholar
  16. De Kreij C, Van Os PC, Van den Berg TH, Kalkman EC (1986) EC en kalium/calcium-verhouding van voedingsoplossingen bij gerbera. Vakblad voor de Bloemisterij 41:64–65Google Scholar
  17. De Kreij C, Voogt W, Bass R (1999) Nutrient solution and water quality for soilless cultures. Brochure 196. Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables (PBG), NaaldwijkGoogle Scholar
  18. Eryurt A, Sekin Y (2001) Manisa Bölgesi Yeraltı Sularında Mevsimsel Değişiklikler Sertlik ve Azotlu Maddeler. Yeraltı Suları ve Çevre Sempozyumu, Çevjeo, 2001, 21–23 Mart, İzmir, s:187–193Google Scholar
  19. Francois LE, Maas EV (1994) Crop response and management on salt-affected soils. In: Mohammad P (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 696Google Scholar
  20. Giuffrida F, Lipari V (2003) Leaching irrigation to prevent salt accumulation in the substrate. In: Pardossi A, Serra G, Tognoni F (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Managing Greenhouse Crops in Saline Environment. Acta Hort, vol 609, pp 435–440Google Scholar
  21. Grattan SR (1993) How plants responds to salts. In: Hanson B, Grattan SR, Fulton A (eds) Agricultural salinity and drainage. University of California Irrigation Program, University of California, Davis, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  22. Grattan SR, Hanson B (1993) Crop salt tolerance. In: Hanson B, Grattan SR, Fulton A (eds) Agricultural salinity and drainage handbook for water managers. University of California Irrigation Program, University of California, Davis, pp 5–10Google Scholar
  23. Gregory PJ (2004) Agronomic approaches to increasing water use efficiency. In: Bacon MA (ed) Water use efficiency in plant biology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 42–170Google Scholar
  24. Haman DZ, Capece JC, Smajstrla AG (1997) Irrigating with high salinity water. Electronic Publishing. BUL322/AE091. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00003289/00001. (Last accessed: 14.01.2019) http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
  25. Hannah M (1998) Cyber Conference Water Quality. http://www.greenbeam.com/cyberconference/woody-plants.1.html
  26. Hanson B (1993) Crop response to leaching fraction and salt distribution. In: Hanson B, Grattan SR, Fulton A (eds) Agricultural salinity and drainage handbook for water managers. University of California Irrigation Program, University of California, Davis, pp 61–65Google Scholar
  27. Hanson B, Grattan SR, Fulton A (1993) Amendments for reclaiming sodic and saline/sodic soils. In: Hanson B, Grattan SR, Fulton A (eds) Agricultural salinity and drainage handbook for water managers. University of California Irrigation Program, University of California, Davis, pp 81–85Google Scholar
  28. Howell TA (2006) Challenges in increasing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. In: Yazar A, Gencel B, Tekin S (eds) International symposium on water and land management for sustainable irrigated agriculture. Çukurova University, Adana, pp 53–63Google Scholar
  29. Jacoby B (1993) Mechanisms involved in salt tolerance by plants. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 97–123Google Scholar
  30. Jones H (2004) What’s water use efficiency? In: Bacon MA (ed) Water use efficiency in plant biology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 27–41Google Scholar
  31. Katerji N, Van Hoorn JW, Hamdy A, Mastrorilli M (2003) Salinity effect on crop development and yield analysis of salt tolerance according to several classification methods. Agric Water Manag 62:37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kazaz S (2017) Developments in the crop pattern and in the socio-economic and technological fields in the world ornamental plant sector and the future vision of Turkey. VI. Süs Bitkileri Kongresi. Batı Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enst. 19–22 Nisan 2016, Antalya (Eds: Özgül Karagüzel, Selma Kösa, M. Uğur Kahraman). Bildiriler kitabı sayfa:3–13Google Scholar
  33. Koca M, Bor M, Ozdemir F, Turkan I (2007) The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation, antioxidative enzymes and proline content of sesame cultivars. Environ Exp Bot 60:344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kotuby-Amacher J, Koenig R, Kitchen B (1997) Salinity and plant tolerance. AG-SO-03. Electronic Publishing, Utah State University. http://www.extension.usu.edu/files/agpubs/salini.htm
  35. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance—current assessment, journal irrigation drain. Div ASCE 103:115–134Google Scholar
  36. Martín-Closas LI, Recasens X (2001) Effect of substrate type (perlite and tuff) in water and nutrient balance of a soilless culture rose production system. International symp on protected cultivation in mild winter climates: current trends for sustainable technologies. Eds: Fernández, Martínez & Castilla. Cartagena, Spain. Acta Hort 559:569–574Google Scholar
  37. Meric MK, Tuzel IH, Tuzel Y, Oztekin GB (2011) Effects of nutrition systems and irrigation programs on tomato in soilless culture. Agric Water Manag 99:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Munns R, Termaat A (1986) Whole plant responses to salinity. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:143–160Google Scholar
  39. Picchioni GA, Graham CJ (2001) Salinity, growth, and ion uptake selectivity of container-grown Crataegus opaca. Sci Hort 90:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pokluda R, Kobza F (2001) Effect of climate conditions on properties of hydroponic nutrient solution. International symposium on protected cultivation in mild winter climates: current trends for sustainable technologies. Eds: Fernández, Martínez & Castilla. Cartagena, Spain. Acta Hort 559: 611–617Google Scholar
  41. Polat M, Yılmaz N (2001) Antalya havzasındaki yeraltı su kaynaklarında kirliliğin belirlenmesi ve koruma stratejileri. Yeraltı Suları ve Çevre Sempozyumu, Çevjeo 2001, 21–23 Mart, İzmir, s.247–253Google Scholar
  42. Quamme HA, Stushnoff C (1983) Resistance to environmental stress. In: Moore JN, Janick J (eds) Methods in fruit breeding. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 242–266Google Scholar
  43. Rhoades JD, Kandiah A, Mashali AM (1992) Saline waters as resources. The use of saline waters or crop production. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 48, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 133. pp 5–10Google Scholar
  44. Savvas D, Gizas G (2002) Response of hydroponically grown gerbera to nutrient solution recycling and different nutrient cation rations. Sci Hort 69:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schreurs Gerbera Catalogue (1998) Schreurs, De KwakelGoogle Scholar
  46. Sevgican A (2002) Örtüaltı sebzeciliği (Topraksız Tarım) Cilt – II. E.Ü.Z.F, Yayınları, İzmirGoogle Scholar
  47. Shannon MC, Noble CI (1990) Genetic approaches for developing economic salt-tolerant crops. In: Tanji K (ed) Agricultural salinity assessment and management. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice. New York, pp 163–185Google Scholar
  48. Shillo R, Ding M, Pasternak D, Zaccai M (2002) Cultivation of cut flower and bulb species with saline water. Sci Hort 92:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sivritepe N, ve Eriş A (1998) Asmalarda Tuza Dayanım ve Tuza Dayanımda Etkili Bazı Faktörler Üzerinde Araştırmalar. 4. Bağcılık Sempozyumu, 20–24 Ekim 1998, Yalova. Bildiriler Kitabı, s:56–63Google Scholar
  50. Smith DL (1987) Rockwool in horticulture. Grower Books, London, p 153Google Scholar
  51. Sonneveld C (2001) Effects of salinity on substrate grown vegetables and ornamentals in greenhouse horticulture. Thesis, Wageningen University, p 151Google Scholar
  52. Sonneveld C, Baas R, Nijssen HMC, De Hoog J (2000) Effect of salinity substrate grown vegetables and ornamentals in greenhouse horticulture. J Plant Nut 22:1033–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Syros T, Economou A, Exarchou E, Schmidt U (2001) Flower and growth evolution of gerbera cultivated oan perlite in an open hydroponic system. In: Maloupa E, Gerasopoulos D (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Growing Media and Hydroponics. Acta Hort 548:625–630Google Scholar
  54. Tsirogiannis I, Katsoulas N, Kittas C (2010) Effect of irrigation scheduling on gerbera flower yield and quality. Hort Sci 45:265–270Google Scholar
  55. Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) (2017) Crop production statistics. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1001. Accessed 25 May 2018
  56. Tüzel İH, Tüzel Y, Gül A, Eltez RZ, Altunlu H (1999) Torba Kültürü ile Yapılan Sera Domates Yetiştiriciliğinde Farklı Sulama Programları Ortam ve Ortam Hacimlerinin Verim ve Su Tüketimi Üzerine Etkileri, Türkiye III. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi, 364–368Google Scholar
  57. Tyagi NK (2003) Managing saline and alkaline water for higher productivity. In: Kijne et al. (eds) Water productivity in agriculture: limits and opportunities for improvement. CABI, Wallingford, pp 60–87Google Scholar
  58. Villarino GH, Mattson NS (2011) Assessing tolerance to sodium chloride salinity in fourteen floriculture species. Hort Technol 21:539–545Google Scholar
  59. Villora G, Moreno A, Pulgar G, Romero L (2000) Yield improvement in zucchini under salt stress: determining micronutrient balance. Sci Hort 86:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wahome PK (2003) Mechanisms of salt (NaCl) stress tolerance in horticultural crops—a mini review. Acta Hort 609:127–131Google Scholar
  61. Yemenici F (2000) Topraksız gerbera yetiştiriciliğinde bazı atıkların substrat olarak kullanımı üzerine araştırmalar. EÜ Fen Bil Enst, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 82 sGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeybekoğlu E (2000) Gerbera Yetiştiriciliğinde Hasat Öncesi ve Sonrası Yapılan Bazı Uygulamaların Verim Kalite ve Vazo Ömrü Üzerine Etkileri. EÜ Fen Bil Enst, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 71 sGoogle Scholar
  63. Zheng Y, Graham T, Richard S, Dixon M (2005) Can low nutrient strategies be used for pot gerbera production in closed-loop subirrigation? Acta Hort 691:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Özlem Akat Saraçoğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Kamil Meriç
    • 2
  • İ. Hakkı Tüzel
    • 3
  • Yasemin S. Kukul Kurttaş
    • 3
  1. 1.E.U. Bayindir Vocational SchoolEge UniversityBayindir-IzmirTurkey
  2. 2.E.U. Bergama Vocational SchoolEge UniversityBergama-IzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, E.U. Faculty of AgricultureEge UniversityBornova-IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations