Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are free-living bacteria that, as their name suggests, promote plant growth. However, they can also be of help in the biological control of plant diseases. This study reports the effects of two different commercially available strains of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (FZB24 and FZB42) on tomato production in open and closed systems in the presence of different amounts of nutrients. Three factors were tested: (1) the type of nutrition system (open or closed), (2) the concentration of the nutrient solution (full or half strength), and (3) the PGPR applied (either B. amyloliquefaciens FZB24 or B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42, or a no-PGPR control). Perlite was used as the growth medium. Variables related to water use efficiency, yield and fruit quality were assessed. The use of half strength nutrient solution was sufficient for full growth in the open system in both spring and autumn seasons. However, the same strength nutrient solution was associated with reduced yields in the closed system during the autumn season. The application of either strain of B. amyloliquefaciens increased the yield of the tomato plants by 8-9% in the open system in the spring, whereas they had an adverse effect on yield in the closed system under half strength nutrient solution conditions during the autumn.Additional key words: closed system, nutrient concentrations, open system, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, soilless culture. ResumenEfectos de la nutrición y de Bacillus amyloliquefaciens en tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivado en perlita Las rhizobacterias promotoras del crecimiento de las plantas (PGPR) son bacterias que viven libres y, como su nombre indica, promueven el crecimiento de las plantas. Sin embargo, también pueden ser de ayuda en el control bioló-gico de las enfermedades de las plantas. En este estudio se investigaron los efectos de dos cepas comerciales de Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (FZB24 y FZB42) sobre la producción de tomate en sistemas abiertos y cerrados, en presencia de diferentes cantidades de nutrientes. Los tratamientos fueron: (1) tipo de sistema de nutrición (abierto o cerrado), (2) concentración de nutrientes (solución nutritiva completa o incompleta), (3) la PGPR aplicada (B. amyloliquefaciens FZB24, B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42, o un control sin PGPR). Se utilizó perlita como medio de crecimiento. Se evaluaron las variables relacionadas con la eficiencia del uso del agua, producción de tomate y calidad del fruto. La solución de nutrientes menos concentrada fue suficiente para un pleno crecimiento en el sistema abierto en ambas estaciones (primavera y otoño). Sin embargo, la misma solución de nutrientes disminuyó en otoño la producción en el sistema cerrado. La aplicación de ambas cepas de B. amyloliquefaciens aumentó la producción de las plantas de tomate un 8-9% en el sistema abierto en primavera, mientras que tuvo un efecto adverso sobre la producción en otoño en el sistema cerrado con la solución menos concentrada.Palabras clave adicionales: concent...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Water‐filled tensiometers are widely used to measure the matric potential of soil water. It is often assumed that, because these give a direct reading, they are accurate. With a series of laboratory tests with model laboratory systems of increasing complexity we show that the output of water‐filled tensiometers can, particularly in drying soils, be in serious error. Specifically, we demonstrated that water‐filled tensiometers can indicate a steady matric potential, typically between −60 and −90 kPa, when the soil is much drier. We demonstrate the use of water‐filled tensiometers that can measure matric potentials smaller than −100 kPa in the laboratory and in the field. The physics of the failure of water‐filled tensiometers is discussed. When the matric potential was greater than −60 kPa, in laboratory and field tests water‐filled and porous matrix sensors were in good agreement. In the field environment the porous matrix sensor was useful because it allowed early detection of the failure of water‐filled tensiometers. In dry soils (matric potential < −60 kPa) the porous matrix sensor was more reliable and accurate than the water‐filled tensiometer.