Abstract
Planting greenhouse tomatoes ( Solanum lycopersicum ) in the same perlite more than once without reconditioning to restore medium loose structure, desalination to remove excess salt, and disinfection to guard against pest contamination is risky, and replacing the perlite to produce every new crop is costly. Reconditioning and treating perlite with hot water at a minimum cost provides a favorable solution for both problems and saves natural resources. A study was conducted in a 30 × 96-ft greenhouse in Spring 2007, 2008, and 2009 (January–July) to evaluate three methods for perlite recycling cost, desalination efficiency, and effects on tomato yield at three or four fruit per cluster. Each recycling method consisted of two components: the reconditioning action and the hot water treatment. The three recycling methods included no stir/sift then disinfect, stir then disinfect, and sift then disinfect. Perlite recycled with the no stir/sift then disinfect method was not reconditioned before the hot water treatment. Instead, it was agitated with a nozzle mounted on a pressure washer wand during the hot water treatment. Perlite recycled with the stir then disinfect method was reconditioned first with an auger mounted on an electric drill and then treated with hot water. Perlite recycled with the sift then disinfect method was reconditioned first by sifting the perlite with a homemade apparatus and was then treated with hot water. Recycling perlite with the no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced labor input by 49% and 81% compared with the stir then disinfect and the sift then disinfect methods, respectively. The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 22% and 50% compared with the other two methods, respectively. Perlite that was not reconditioned (no stir/sift) had higher nitrate-nitrogen (NO 3 -N) before hot water treatment than the stirred perlite and equal NO 3 -N to the sifted perlite. Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium electrical conductivity, NO 3 -N, potassium, and sodium. Tomatoes grown in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced similar marketable and cull yields and fruit weight. Pruning fruit to three per cluster increased marketable yield, fruit weight, and reduced cull yield. There was no significant recycling method × cluster pruning interaction for yield components, indicating that all recycling methods had similar effects on tomato yield at three or four fruit per cluster. We conclude that the no stir/sift then disinfect method is less time consuming, more economical, and has no negative impact on yield. Tomatoes grown with three fruit per cluster in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced greater marketable yield, less cull yield, and heavier fruit than tomatoes grown with four fruit per cluster.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
The no stir/sift then disinfect perlite recycling method reduced labor input by 49% compared with the stir then disinfect method.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- no stir/sift then disinfect methode0
- Outcome
- labor inpute0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 49%e0
- Comparator
- stir then disinfecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Recycling perlite with the no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced labor input by 49% and 81% compared with the stir then disinfect and the sift then disinfect methods, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The no stir/sift then disinfect perlite recycling method reduced labor input by 81% compared with the sift then disinfect method.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- no stir/sift then disinfect methode0
- Outcome
- labor inpute0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 81%e0
- Comparator
- sift then disinfecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Recycling perlite with the no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced labor input by 49% and 81% compared with the stir then disinfect and the sift then disinfect methods, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 22% compared with one of the other two methods (stir then disinfect, per the order of the sentence).
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- no stir/sift then disinfect methode0
- Outcome
- recycling coste0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- other two methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 22% and 50% compared with the other two methods, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 50% compared with the other of the two methods (sift then disinfect, per the order of the sentence).
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- no stir/sift then disinfect methode0
- Outcome
- recycling coste0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Comparator
- other two methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“The no stir/sift then disinfect method reduced recycling cost by 22% and 50% compared with the other two methods, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Perlite that was not reconditioned had higher nitrate-nitrogen before hot water treatment than the stirred perlite.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- not reconditioned (no stir/sift)e0
- Outcome
- nitrate-nitrogen (NO 3 -N)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- before hot water treatmente0
- Comparator
- the stirred perlitee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Perlite that was not reconditioned (no stir/sift) had higher nitrate-nitrogen (NO 3 -N) before hot water treatment than the stirred perlite and equal NO 3 -N to the sifted perlite”
Claim · model-written summary
Perlite that was not reconditioned had NO3-N equal to the sifted perlite before hot water treatment.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- not reconditioned (no stir/sift)e0
- Outcome
- NO 3 -Ne0
- Direction
- equale0
- Qualifier
- before hot water treatmente0
- Comparator
- the sifted perlitee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Perlite that was not reconditioned (no stir/sift) had higher nitrate-nitrogen (NO 3 -N) before hot water treatment than the stirred perlite and equal NO 3 -N to the sifted perlite”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium electrical conductivity and NO3-N.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Hot water treatmente0
- Outcome
- medium electrical conductivity, NO 3 -Ne0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium electrical conductivity, NO 3 -N, potassium, and sodium”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium potassium and sodium.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Hot water treatmente0
- Outcome
- potassium, and sodiume0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Hot water treatment significantly reduced medium electrical conductivity, NO 3 -N, potassium, and sodium”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomatoes grown in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced similar marketable and cull yields and fruit weight.
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- perlite recycled with any of the three methodse0
- Outcome
- marketable and cull yields and fruit weighte0
- Direction
- similare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes grown in perlite recycled with any of the three methods produced similar marketable and cull yields and fruit weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning fruit to three per cluster increased tomato marketable yield and fruit weight.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Pruning fruit to three per clustere0
- Outcome
- marketable yield, fruit weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Pruning fruit to three per cluster increased marketable yield, fruit weight, and reduced cull yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning fruit to three per cluster reduced tomato cull yield.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Pruning fruit to three per clustere0
- Outcome
- cull yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“Pruning fruit to three per cluster increased marketable yield, fruit weight, and reduced cull yield”
Claim · model-written summary
There was no significant interaction between recycling method and cluster pruning for tomato yield components.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- recycling method × cluster pruning interactione0
- Outcome
- yield componentse0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“There was no significant recycling method × cluster pruning interaction for yield components”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that the no stir/sift then disinfect perlite recycling method is less time consuming, more economical and has no negative impact on tomato yield.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- no stir/sift then disinfect methode0
- Qualifier
- less time consuming, more economical, and has no negative impact on yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tomato”
e0“We conclude that the no stir/sift then disinfect method is less time consuming, more economical, and has no negative impact on yield”
The same questions in other papers
cluster · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
cluster · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →pruning · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →heat · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →pruning · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →growing medium · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →heat · soil: chemistry · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.