Ground peach pits: alternative substrate component for seedling production

Abstract

The exploitation of agro-industrial wastes is a strategy to add value to seedling production and reduce environmental problems. The production chain for processed peaches generates, approximately, 21,000 tons of fruit worldwide, and the pits are used mainly to generate energy. The objective of the study was to investigate the use of different proportions of ground peach pits (GPP) as a substrate component for seedling growth of Eucalyptus dunnii in the nursery and field. Different proportions of GPP mixed with either commercial substrate (CS) or with brown peat (BP) were tested. The physical and chemical properties of the substrates, the morphological and physiological attributes of the seedlings and their correlation with substrate properties were evaluated. The GPP increased the density, aeration space and pH and reduced total porosity, liquid retention and electric conductivity of the substrate. The use of this component resulted in hormesis, a biphasic dose–response model in which low levels of exposure to this component stimulated biological performance of plants and high levels of exposure inhibited performance. For improved seedling growth in the nursery and adequate post-planting development of E. dunnii, GPP with CS is recommended at 20% of the total substrate and with BP between 15 and 30%.

Keywords

Organic waste / Prunus persica / Eucalyptus dunnii / Tree species / Morphological attributes

References

[1] Agathokleous E. Perspectives for elucidating the ethylenediurea (EDU) mode of action for protection against O3 phytotoxicity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf, 2017, 142: 530-537.

[2] Agathokleous E. Environmental hormesis, a fundamental non-monotonic biological phenomenon with implications in ecotoxicology and environmental safety. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf, 2018, 148: 1042-1053.

[3] AkliBasiNda M, Tunc T, Bulut Y, Sahin U. Effects of different growing media on scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) production. J Anim Plant Sci, 2011, 21: 535-541.

[4] Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, de Moraes Gonçalves JL, Sparovek G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Z, 2013, 22: 711-728.

[5] Araújo AP, Sobrinho SP. Germinação e produção de mudas de tamboril (Enterolobium Contortisiliquum) (vell.) morong) em diferentes substratos. Revista Árvore, 2011, 35: 581-588.

[6] Arnold RJ, Xie YJ, Midgley SJ, Chen XF. Emergence and rise of Eucalyptus veneer production in China. Int For Rev, 2013, 15: 33-47.

[7] Bellé S. Uso da turfa “Lagoa dos Patos” (Viamão/RS) como substrato hortícola, 1990, Dissertação (Mestrado em Fitotecnia): Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul 143f

[8] Brasil (2007) Instrução normativa SDA n. 17. Métodos analíticos oficiais para análise de substratos para plantas e condicionadores de solo

[9] Brasil (2008) Instrução Normativa Nº 31. Altera os subitens 3.1.2, 4.1 e 4.1.2, do Anexo à Instrução Normativa SDA nº 17, de 21 de maio de 2007

[10] Carlile WR. The use of composted materials in growing media. Acta Hort, 2008, 779: 321-327.

[11] Chong C. Experiences with wastes and composts in nursery substrates. Hort Technology, 2005, 15: 739-747.

[12] Couto L, Nicholas I, Wright L. Short rotation eucalypt plantations for energy in Brazil. IEA Bioenergy, 2011, 43: 02.

[13] CQFS–Comissão de Química e Fertilidade do Solo (2004) Manual de adubação e de calagem para os estados do RS e SC. 10 ed, Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo—Núcleo Regional Sul, p 394

[14] Dickson AS, Leaf D, Hosner JF. Quality appraisal of white spruce and white pine seedling stock in nurseries. Forestry Chronicle, 1960, 36: 10-13.

[15] Dumroese RK, Heiskanen J, Englund K, Tervahauta A. Pelleted biochar: chemical and physical properties show potential use as a substrate in container nurseries. Biomass Bioenerg, 2011, 35: 2018-2027.

[16] Equipe Estatcamp (2014) Software Action. Estatcamp—Consultoria em estatística e qualidade, São Carlos-SP, Brasil. http://www.portalaction.combr/

[17] FAO–Organização das Nações Unidas para Agricultura e Alimentação (2014) Disponível em: https://www.fao.org.br/. Acesso em: 28 set. 2015

[18] Fermino MH (2014) Substratos: composição, caracterização e métodos de análise. Guaíba: Agrolivros, p 111

[19] Ferreira DF. SISVAR: a computer statical analysis system. Revista Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 2011, 35: 1039-1042.

[20] Gasparin E, de Avila AL, Araujo MM, Filho AC, Dorneles DU, Becker Foltz DR. Influência do substrato e do volume de recipiente na qualidade das mudas de Cabralea canjerana (Vell.) Mart. em viveiro e no campo. Ciência Florestal, 2014, 24: 553-563.

[21] Gonçalves JLM, Poggiani F (1996) Substratos para produção de mudas florestais. In: Congresso Latino Americano de Ciência do Solo, 13. Águas de Lindóia, Piracicaba, Sociedade Latino Americana de Ciência do Solo, CD-ROM

[22] Gonçalves JLM, Santareli EG, Moraes Neto SP, Manara MO. Gonçalves JLM, Benedetti V. Produção de mudas de espécies nativas: substrato, nutrição, sombreamento e fertilização. Nutrição e fertilização florestal, 2000, Piracicaba: IPEF 309 350

[23] Heiskanen J. Effects of compost additive in sphagnum peat growing medium on Norway spruce container seedlings. New Forest, 2013, 44: 101-118.

[24] Heiskanen J, Tammeorg P, Dumroese RK. Growth of Norway spruce seedling after transplanting into silty soil amended with biochar: a bioassay in a growth chamber—Short Communication. J For Sci, 2013, 59: 125-129.

[25] Heydari M, Pothier D, Jaferyan E, Merzaei V, Heidarpour A. Effect of organic soil amendments on growth and efficiency of redbud (Cercis griffithii) seedlings in nurseries. Ecopersia, 2015, 3: 867-879.

[26] Kiehl EJ. Manual de Edafologia: Relações Solo-Planta, 1979, São Paulo: Ceres 263

[27] Kratz D, Wendling I. Produção de mudas de Eucalyptus dunnii em substratos renováveis. Floresta, 2013, 43: 125-136.

[28] Landis TD (2009) The Target Plant Concept. In: Dumroese RK et al. (ed) Nursery manual for native plants: a guide for tribal nurseries—Volume 1: nursery management. Agriculture Handbook 730. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, pp 15–31

[29] Landis TD, Morgan N (2009) Growing media alternatives for forest and native plant nurseries. In: Dumroese RK, Riley LE (eds) National Proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations—2008. Proc. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp 26–31

[30] Molina-Montenegro MA, Salgado-Luarte C, Oses R, Torres-Díaz C. Is physiological performance a good predictor for fitness? Insights from an invasive plant species. PLoS One, 2013, 8: 1-9.

[31] Navroski MC, Araújo MM, Cunha FDS, Berghetti ALP, Pereira MDO. Influence of hidroretentor polymer in the survival of Eucalyptus dunnii seedlings under different water management. Nativa, 2014, 2: 108-113.

[32] Navroski MC, Araújo MM, Reininger LRS, Muniz MFB, Pereira MDO. Influência do hidrogel no crescimento e no teor de nutrientes das mudas de Eucalyptus dunnii. Floresta, 2015, 45: 315-328.

[33] PaludzyszynFilho E, Santos PETD, Ferreira CA. Eucaliptos indicados para plantio no Estado do Paraná, 2006, Colombo: Embrapa Florestas–CNPF 45

[34] Regan R (2014) Evaluating alternative growing media components. In: Wilkinson KM et al.: 2013 National proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations. Fort Collins (CO): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp 50–53

[35] Ritchie GA, Landis TD, Dumroese RK, Haase DL (2010) Assessing plant quality. Seedling processing, storage, and outplanting, vol 7. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, p 200 (Agric. Handbk. 674)

[36] Rocha JHT, Pietro MR, Borelli K, Backes C, Neves MB. Produção e desenvolvimento de mudas de eucalipto em função de doses de fósforo. Cerne, 2013, 19: 535-543.

[37] Rorato DG, Araujo MM, Dutra AF, Turchetto F, Berghetti ALP, Mieth P. Effect of different container volumes and concentration of the controlled release fertilizer in the production of Eugenia involucrate DC. Seedling. Afr J Agric Res, 2016, 11: 4762-4767.

[38] Sanches MC, Marzinek J, Bragiola NG, Nascimento ART. Morpho-physiological responses in Cedrela fissilis Vell. Submitted to chabges in natural light conditions: implications for biomass accumulation. Trees, 2017, 31: 215.

[39] Stape JL, Jlm G, Goncalves AN. Relationships between nursery practices and field performance for Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. New Forest, 2001, 22: 19-41.

[40] Strasser BJ, Strasser RJ. Mathis P. Measuring fast fluorescence transients to address environmental questions: The JIP-test. Photosynthesis: from light to biosphere, 1995, Dordrecht: Kluwer 977 980

[41] Tedesco MJ, Gianello C, Bissani CA, Bohnen H, Volkweiss SJ (1995) Análises de solo, plantas e outros materiais, 2 ed. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Boletim técnico, 5), Porto Alegre, p 174

[42] Vallone HS. Recipientes e substratos na produção de mudas e no desenvolvimento inicial de cafeeiros após o plantio. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 2009, 33: 1327-1335.

[43] Wendling I, Dutra LF. Wendling I, Dutra LF. Produção de mudas de eucalipto por sementes. Produção de mudas de eucalipto, 2010, Colombo: Embrapa Florestas 13 47

[44] Wendling I, Guastala D, Dedecek R. Características físicas e químicas de substratos para produção de mudas de Ilex paraguariensis St. Hil. Revista Árvore, 2007, 31: 209-220.

[45] Zaher-ara T, Boroomand N, Sadat-Hosseini M. Physiological and morphological response to drought stress in seedlings of tem citrus. Trees, 2016, 30: 985.