Figure 1
Root length at transplanting (35 days after seeding) of tomato seedlings hybrid cultivar ‘Merlice’, influenced by seeds soaking in biostimulants Radifarm and RutfarmMaxifol. The different letters indicate significant differences between the treatments at p < 0.05 established by Tukey’s multiple range test; values represent means ± SD
Table 1
Biometric parameters of tomato plants under the influence of biostimulators (mg·L−1) under hydroponic system
| Biometric parameters | Days after planting | Control | RF 2.5 | RF 5.0 | RF 7.5 | RM 2.5 | RM 5.0 | RM 7.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant height (cm) | 35 | 17.9 ± 2.0 d | 18.0 ± 1.7 d | 21.2 ± 2.1 ab | 21.5 ± 2.3 a | 20.1 ± 2.1 c | 20.9 ± 1.3 b | 21.0 ± 1.4 b |
| 70 | 143.5 ± 5.8 b | 146.5 ± 6.6 b | 171.5 ± 7.3 a | 178.0 ± 7.0 a | 159.2 ± 7.3 ab | 171.0 ± 5.6 a | 174.0 ± 6.1 a | |
| 105 | 174.5 ± 7.9 d | 180.0 ± 8.6 d | 193.5 ± 9.0 c | 197.5 ± 10.7 bc | 198.5 ± 10.3 bc | 206.5 ± 9.4 b | 217.0 ± 9.3 a | |
| Number of leaves | 35 | 6.5 ± 0.28 c | 6.8 ± 0.68 bc | 7.2 ± 0.74 ab | 7.2 ± 0.35 ab | 6.8 ± 0.67 bc | 7.3 ± 0.71 ab | 7.5 ± 0.80 a |
| 70 | 32.1 ± 2.1 d | 37.1 ± 1.9 bc | 39.1 ± 2.6 ab | 40.6 ± 2.4 a | 35.9 ± 1.9 c | 37.6 ± 1.6 bc | 39.0 ± 2.2 ab | |
| 105 | 43.6 ± 2.8 c | 50.0 ± 2.2 bc | 52.4 ± 2.4 ab | 53.9 ± 2.2 a | 48.4 ± 2.2 c | 50.5 ± 1.8 bc | 52.0 ± 2.7 ab | |
| Plant fresh weight (g) | 35 | 9.7 ± 1.0 d | 9.9 ± 0.9 d | 10.7 ± 1.1 c | 11.7 ± 1.2 b | 10.5 ± 1.0 c | 12.4 ± 1.2 ab | 13.0 ± 1.3 a |
| 70 | 150.7 ± 7.3 c | 151.1 ± 8.4 c | 152.8 ± 6.6 bc | 154.7 ± 7.9 b | 154.2 ± 7.0 bc | 158.9 ± 8.7 a | 161 ± 7.2 a | |
| 105 | 201.4 ± 10.8 c | 216.1 ± 11.1 bc | 230.2 ± 12.8 b | 238.7 ± 12.2 ab | 204.0 ± 12.0 c | 249.7 ± 16.9 a | 251.0 ± 14.3 a | |
| Plant dry weight (g) | 35 | 2.4 ± 0.1 e | 2.6 ± 0.3 de | 2.7 ± 0.2 cd | 2.8 ± 0.1 cd | 2.8 ± 0.2 bc | 3.1± 0.1 ab | 3.3 ± 0.2 a |
| 70 | 19.1 ± 2.1 d | 22.1 ± 2.2 c | 28.8 ± 2.6 b | 30.4 ± 2.7 ab | 24.2 ± 2.4 c | 30.9 ± 3.0 ab | 32.0 ± 1.8 a | |
| 105 | 46.5 ± 2.7 d | 55.1 ± 3.0 c | 58.9 ± 2.3 b | 60.3 ± 3.5 b | 58.9 ± 3.3 b | 73.3 ± 4.0 a | 75.0 ± 4.2 a | |
| Total leaf area per plant (dm2) | 35 | 0.47 ± 0.01 c | 0.55 ± 0.01 bc | 0.59 ± 0.1 b | 0.60 ± 0.02 b | 0.59 ± 0.01 b | 0.73± 0.02 a | 0.75 ± 0.02 a |
| 70 | 21.2 ± 0.68 b | 23.4 ± 0.67 a | 24.1 ± 0.89 a | 23.8 ± 0.80 a | 23.4 ± 0.75 a | 23.8 ± 0.73 a | 23.6 ± 0.80 a | |
| 105 | 33.2 ± 1.6 ab | 33.6 ± 1.3 a | 34.0 ± 1.8 a | 33.9 ± 1.9 a | 32.8 ± 1.7 b | 33.4 ± 1.8 a | 34.1 ± 1.5 a |
[i] The different lower case letter(s) in each single row indicates significant differences between the treatments at p < 0.05 established by Tukey’s multiple range test ± SD
Figure 2
Relative growth rate (A1, A2), crop growth rate (B1, B2), and net assimilation rate (C1, C2) of tomato hybrid cultivar ‘Merlice’, influenced by biostimulators – Radifarm: RF 2.5, RF 5.0, and RF 7.5; RutfarmMaxifol: SW 2.5, SW 5.0, and SW 7.5 + control (nontreated) under hydroponic system
Figure 3
Yield components: number of fruits per plant (A), fruit weight (B), fruit yield (kg per plant) (C) of hybrid cultivar ‘Merlice’, influenced by biostimulants under hydroponic system. The different lower case letters indicate significant differences between the treatments at p < 0.05 established by Tukey’s multiple range test; values represent means ± SD
Figure 4
Biochemical parameters: dry matter (A), total soluble solid (B), ascorbic acid (C), carotenoid contents (D), acidity (E), and nitrate contents in tomato fruits hybrid cultivar ‘Merlice’ (F), influenced by biostimulants under hydroponic system. The different lower case letters indicate significant differences between the treatments at p < 0.05 established by Tukey’s multiple range test; values represent means ± SD
Figure 5
Maturity degree (A) and taste index of tomato fruits hybrid cultivar ‘Merlice’ (B), applied with two biostimulants under hydroponic system. The different lower case letters indicate significant differences between the treatments at p < 0.05 established by Tukey’s multiple range test; values represent means ± SD