Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2016.25.2.106

Development of a Planting Density-Growth-Harvest Chart for Common Ice Plant Hydroponically Grown in Closed-type Plant Production System  

Cha, Mi-Kyung (Major of Plant Resources and Environment, Jeju National University)
Park, Kyoung Sub (Protected Horticulture Research Institute, National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science)
Cho, Young-Yeol (Research Institute for Subtropical Agriculture and Animal Biotechnology, Jeju National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Bio-Environment Control / v.25, no.2, 2016 , pp. 106-110 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, a planting density-growth-harvest (PGH) chart was developed to easily read the growth and harvest factors such as crop growth rate, relative growth rate, shoot fresh weight, shoot dry weight, harvesting time, marketable rate, and marketable yield of common ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L.). The plants were grown in a nutrient film technique (NFT) system in a closed-type plant factory using fluorescent lamps with three-band radiation under a light intensity of $140{\mu}mol{\cdot}m^{-2}{\cdot}s^{-1}$ and a photoperiod of 12 h. Growth and yield were analyzed under four planting densities ($15{\times}10cm$, $15{\times}15cm$, $15{\times}20cm$, and $15{\times}25cm$). Shoot fresh and dry weights per plant increased at a higher planting density until reached an upper limit and yield per area was also same tendency. Crop growth rate, relative growth rate and lost time were described using quadratic equation. A linear relationship between shoot dry weight and fresh weights was observed. PGH chart was constructed based on the growth data and making equations. For instance, with within row spacing (= 20 cm) and fresh weight per plant at harvest (= 100 g), we can estimate all the growth and harvest factors of common ice plant. The planting density, crop growth rate, relative growth rate, lost time, shoot dry weight per plant, harvesting time, and yield were $33plants/m^2$, $20g{\cdot}m^{-2}{\cdot}d^{-1}$, $0.27g{\cdot}g^{-1}{\cdot}d^{-1}$, 22 days, 2.5 g/plant, 26 days after transplanting, and $3.2kg{\cdot}m^{-2}$, respectively. With this chart, we could easily obtain the growth factors such as planting density, crop growth rate, relative growth rate, lost time and the harvest factors such as shoot fresh and dry weights, harvesting time, marketable rate, and marketable yield with at least two parameters, for instance, planting distance and one of harvest factors of plant. PGH charts will be useful tools to estimate the growth and yield of crops and to practical design of a closed-type plant production system.
Keywords
modeling; nutrient film technique; plant factory; within-row spacing; yield;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Agarie, S., A. kawaguchi, A. Kodera, H. Sunagawa, H. Kojima, A. Nose, and T. nakahara. 2009. Potential of the common ice plant, Mesembryanthemum crystallinum as a new high-functional food as evaluated by polyol accumulation. Plant Prod. Sci. 12:37-46.   DOI
2 Cha, M.K., J.S. Kim, and Y.Y. Cho. 2014. Growth model of common ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L.) using expolinear functions in a closed-type plant production system. Kor. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 32:493-498 (in Korean).
3 Cavero, J., R.G. Ortega, and M. Gutierrez. 2001. Plant density affects yield, yield components, and color of direct-seeded paprika pepper. HortScience 36:76-79.
4 Dennett, M.D. and K.H.M. Ishag. 1998. Use of the expolinear growth model to analyze the growth of faba bean, peas and lentils at three densities: Predictive use of the model. Ann. Bot. 82:507-512.   DOI
5 Goudriaan, J. and J.L. Monteith. 1990. A mathematical function for crop growth based on light interception and leaf area expansion. Ann. Bot. 66:695-701.   DOI
6 Heuvelink, E. 1995. Effect of plant density on biomass allocation to the fruits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Sci. Hort. 64:193-201.   DOI
7 Heuvelink, E. and L.F. M. Marcelis. 1989. Dry matter distribution in tomato and cucumber. Acta Hort. 260:149-157.
8 Ishag, K.H.M. and M.D. Dennett. 1998. Use of the expolinear growth model to analyze the growth of faba bean, peas and lentils at three densities: Fitting the model. Ann. Bot. 82:497-505.   DOI
9 Kahn, B.A., J.R. Cooksey, and J.E. Motes. 1997. Within-row spacing effects on traits of importance to mechanical harvest in paprika-type peppers. Sci. Hort. 69:31-39.   DOI
10 Kultur, F., H.C. Harrison, and J.E. Staub. 2001. Spacing and genotype affect fruit sugar concentration, yield, and fruit size of muskmelon. HortScience 36:274-278.
11 Lee, J.H., J. Goudriaan, and H. Challa. 2003. Using the expolinear growth equation for modeling crop growth in yearround cut chrysanthemum. Ann. Bot. 92:697-708.   DOI
12 Leskovar, D.I., L.A. Stein, and F.J. Dainello. 2000. Planting systems influence growth dynamics and quality of fresh market spinach. HortScience 35:1238-1240.
13 Locascio, S.J. and W.M. Stall. 1994. Bell pepper yield as influenced by plant spacing and row arrangement. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119:899-902.
14 Marcelis, L.F.M., E. Heuvelink, and J. Goudriaan. 1998. Modelling biomass production and yield of horticultural crops: A review. Sci. Hort. 74:83-111.   DOI
15 Maynard, E.T. and W.D. Scott. 1998. Plant spacing affects yield of 'Superstar' muskmelon. HortScience 33:52-54.
16 Motsenbocker, C.E. 1996. In-row plant spacing affects growth and yield of pepperoncini pepper. HortScience 31:198-200.
17 Papadopoulos, A.P. and S. Pararajasingham. 1997. The influence of plant spacing on light interception and use in greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.): A review. Sci. Hort. 69:1-29.   DOI
18 Schultheis, J.R., S.A. Walters, D.E. Adams, and E.A. Esters. 1999. In-row plant spacing and date of harvest of ‘Beauregard’ sweet potato affect yield and return on investment. HortScience 34:1229-1233.
19 Reiners, S. and D.I.M. Riggs. 1999. Plant population affects yield and fruit size of pumpkin. HortScience 34:1076-1078.
20 Sanders, D.C., J.D. Cure, and J.R. Schultheis. 1999. Yield response of watermelon to plant density, planting pattern, and polyethylene mulch. HortScience 34:1221-1223.