Production of cocona and jurubeba seedlings in different types of containers

Abstract

The effect of different containers was evaluated to produce cocona seedlings (Solanum sessiliflorum) and jurubeba (Solanum paniculatum). The experiment was performed in the mesoregion of Alto Solimões, in Benjamin Constant, Amazonas state, Brazil, in a particular production area. The seeding was done in black holed polyethylene bags and polystyrene trays with 128, 200 and 288 cells with volumes of 250.00; 32.61; 21.60 and 9.88 cm³, respectively. We adopted a completely randomized design with four containers, four replicates, being assessed five plants per replicate. The seedlings of cocona were evaluated at 27, 38, 45 and 52 days after sowing (DAS) and of jurubeba at 38, 45, 52, 59 and 66 DAS. We evaluated the number of leaves; length of the main root, the aerial and total parts of the plant, fresh and dry matter of the main root, fresh and dry matter of the aerial part. There was no difference on the number of leaves of jurubeba at 45 and 66 DAS; there was no difference on the number of leaves of cocona at 52 DAS; there occurred a greater number of leaves of cocona when seeded on trays containing 200 cells; The other characteristics for both species presented higher values when the seeding was done in the plastic bags, at all evaluation dates.

Substrates and containers for the development of Brassica pekinensis L. seedlings

“…Similar results were observed by Guimarães et al (2012), working with jurubeba (Solanum paniculatum) and cocona (Solanum sessiliflorum Dunal) seedlings, which observed with a higher length, fresh and dry shoot weight for seedlings grown in containers with a larger volume (32.61, 40 and 250 cm 3 ) and consequently with more substrate availability. Additionally, Donega et al (2014), who evaluated containers and substrates for the production of seedlings and hydroponic cultivation of thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.), also observed a greater development when seedlings were produced in large-sized trays (32.61, 40 and 250 cm 3 ).…”

“…This process, while improving production efficiency, may also negatively affect the productivity of the species (Maggioni et al 2014). In general, research results have shown that larger containers provided better conditions for the seedlings to develop Costa et al 2011;Guimarães et al 2012). On the other hand, smaller cells result in substrate savings and in increased number of plants per area.…”

Recipientes e densidades de semeadura combinadas com o tempo na produção de mudas de jambu

“…O melhor desempenho das mudas produzidas em recipientes de maior volume (162 células), também foi relatado por outros pesquisadores para diferentes espécies (Costa et al, 2011;Guimarães et al, 2012;Miqueloni et al, 2013;Lemos Neto et al, 2016). Segundo os pesquisadores, tais resultados podem ser explicados devido à maior quantidade de substrato disponibilizado para as plântulas em bandejas com maior volume de substrato (menor número de células).…”

“…Atualmente, são encontrados diferentes recipientes para a produção de mudas, todos com diferentes características como: número de células, profundidade, volume e formato (Guimarães & Feitosa, 2015). No entanto, das características citadas, o volume disponível no recipiente é a que mais impacta no crescimento e desenvolvimento inicial das mudas, como já demonstrado em diferentes trabalhos realizados (Costa et al, 2012;Guimarães et al, 2012;Lemos Neto et al, 2016;Mello et al, 2016).…”

Temperaturas e diferentes combinações de recipientes e substratos na produção de mudas de mostarda

“…Diante disso, o conhecimento da tecnologia de produção torna-se essencial (GUIMARÃES et al, 2012), sobretudo quanto às temperaturas (SANTOS et al, 2010), tamanho de recipientes e tipos de substratos mais adequados à espécie durante o estabelecimento das fases iniciais de crescimento (GUERRA et al, 2017). Esses fatores influenciam a velocidade e uniformidade da germinação das sementes (CARVALHO;NAKAGAWA, 2009), determinam o espaço disponível para o crescimento radicular (KANO et al, 2008) e atuam sobre a arquitetura das raízes e o estado nutricional das mudas (TESSARO et al, 2013), respectivamente.…”