Comparative evaluation of pumice as a soilless substrate for indoor Rubus idaeus L. cultivation

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2024-07-21

DOI

Open Access Location

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Taylor and Francis Group on behalf of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Rights

(c) 2024 The Author/s
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abstract

Pumice is an abundant natural resource in New Zealand and its application in horticulture could save significant costs. To investigate the effect of pumice substrates on raspberry growth and fruit quality, two dwarfing selections (sel.8 and sel.110) were grown hydroponically in (1) coconut coir (control); (2) pumice; (3) pumice/coir (50/50 v/v); (4) pumice/flax (50/50 v/v). Results showed that the addition of pumice to coir significantly increased bulk density, which provided better root anchor support for plants, and also increased the water holding capacity (WHC). Pure pumice had a higher bulk density and lower porosity compared to the other tested substrates, which enhanced fruit quality and yield, although the vegetative growth was slightly lower compared to the control. Mixed pumice/flax substrate had the lowest porosity and poorer WHC, resulting in inferior raspberry growth vigour and productivity. Our results furthermore suggested different substrates could affect the one-year-old cane height, crop yield and fruit characteristics. Pumice was more suitable for sel.8, while the pumice/coir mixture promoted a higher yield for sel.110. In conclusion, pumice and pumice-based mix substrates can be successfully used for hydroponic dwarfing raspberry production without compromising yield and fruit quality.

Description

Keywords

Growing media, pumice, coir, New Zealand flax, hydroponic substrate, harakeke, Rubus sp, vegetative growth, fruit quality, principal component analysis

Citation

Zhao R, Sofkova-Bobcheva S, Cartmill DL, Hardy D, Zernack A. (2024). Comparative evaluation of pumice as a soilless substrate for indoor Rubus idaeus L. cultivation. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science. 52. 3. (pp. 280-297).

Collections

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Creative Commons license

Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as (c) 2024 The Author/s