Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Vermicompost and Rice Husk Biochar Interaction Ameliorates Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Green Lettuce Under Soilless Culture Cover

Vermicompost and Rice Husk Biochar Interaction Ameliorates Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Green Lettuce Under Soilless Culture

Open Access
|Dec 2022

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Nutrient uptake (a) N, (b) P, and (c) K in green lettuce leaves at different compositions of the planting substrate M1 – growing substrate: 55% cocopeat, 15% rice husk biochar, and 30% sand, M2 – growing substrate: 55% cocopeat, 30% rice husk biochar, and 15% sand, V1–V5 – vermicompost amounts: 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 g per pot. The means accompanied by the same letter show no significant difference in the Tukey test 5%
Nutrient uptake (a) N, (b) P, and (c) K in green lettuce leaves at different compositions of the planting substrate M1 – growing substrate: 55% cocopeat, 15% rice husk biochar, and 30% sand, M2 – growing substrate: 55% cocopeat, 30% rice husk biochar, and 15% sand, V1–V5 – vermicompost amounts: 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 g per pot. The means accompanied by the same letter show no significant difference in the Tukey test 5%

Figure 2

Comparison of the N, P, and K uptake in green lettuce plants grown in substrates containing different proportions of rice husk biochar 15% (M1) and 30% (M2)
Comparison of the N, P, and K uptake in green lettuce plants grown in substrates containing different proportions of rice husk biochar 15% (M1) and 30% (M2)

Figure 3

Comparison of the N, P, and K uptake in green lettuce plants grown in substrates containing different amounts of vermicompost (V1–V5: 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 g per pot)
Comparison of the N, P, and K uptake in green lettuce plants grown in substrates containing different amounts of vermicompost (V1–V5: 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 g per pot)

The effect of growing substrate composition on yield components of green lettuce

TreatmentsTotal fresh weight of plant (g per plant)Total dry weight of plant (g per plant)Fresh weight of marketable yield (g per plant)Fresh weight of roots (g per plant)Dry weight of roots (g per plant)
M1V140.71 d3.81 b36.64 e4.06 b0.37 ab
M1V241.46 d3.86 b37.21 e4.25 b0.38 ab
M1V349.99 c4.76 ab44.75 d5.23 ab0.47 ab
M1V451.69 c4.68 b47.90 cd3.79 b0.30 b
M1V554.77 bc4.76 ab50.99 cd3.78 b0.35 b
M2V160.15 ab5.03 ab53.92 bc6.24 a0.58 a
M2V261.04 ab5.62 ab54.73 abc4.97 ab0.44 ab
M2V362.33 ab6.11 ab56.28 ab4.70 ab0.45 ab
M2V466.06 a6.38 ab61.62 a4.44 b0.53 a
M2V559.85 ab7.18 a54.62 abc3.84 b0.45 ab
HSD 5%8.0842.477.461.540.22
M147.72 b4.37 b43.46 b4.22 b0.37 b
M261.89 a6.06 a56.23 a4.84 a0.49 a
HSD 5%4.651.435.320.540.06
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2022-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2353-3978 | Journal ISSN: 2300-5009
Language: English
Page range: 55 - 66
Submitted on: Aug 1, 2022
Accepted on: Nov 1, 2022
Published on: Dec 31, 2022
Published by: National Institute of Horticultural Research
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2022 Nurhidayati Nurhidayati, Abu S. Ansari, Anis Sholihah, Pantipa N. Chiangmai, published by National Institute of Horticultural Research
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.