↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Coconut Coir, Rockwool, and Peat Cultivations for Tomato Production: Nutrient Balance, Plant Growth and Fruit Quality

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Coconut Coir, Rockwool, and Peat Cultivations for Tomato Production: Nutrient Balance, Plant Growth and Fruit Quality
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.01327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jing Xiong, Yongqiang Tian, Jingguo Wang, Wei Liu, Qing Chen

Abstract

Rockwool (RC) and peat are two common substrates used worldwide in horticultural crop production. In recent years environmental and ecological concerns raised the demand for reducing the use of RC and peat. Although coconut coir (CC) has been increasingly used as an alternative to RC and peat, it is still needed to comprehensively evaluate the feasibility of CC before widely used. To meet this need, CC, RC, and peat-vermiculite (PVC) cultivations were used as tomato cultivation substrates to evaluate their effects on EC, pH and mineral ions in root-zone solution and drainage, nutrient uptake by crops, nutrient balance of cultivation system, plant growth and fruit quality. In general, CC significantly increased K and S uptake by crops, photosynthesis, individual fruit weight and total fruit yield compared to RC, and increased P and K uptake by crops and total fruit yield compared to PVC. Moreover, CC significantly increased organic acid of fruit in first truss compared to both RC and PVC. The uncredited nutrient was overally lower under CC than under RC and PVC (the lower, the better). For all substrates, the blossom-end rot (BER) of fruit increased gradually from 3rd to 13th trusses. The BER of fruit was not significantly influenced by CC compared to RC or PVC, but was sginificantly decreased by PVC compared to RC. Our results infer that CC was a potential substrate that could be widely used in tomato production. However, the inhibition of BER was still a challenge when CC was used as cultivation substrate for tomato.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Student > Master 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 62 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 35%
Environmental Science 9 6%
Engineering 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Chemical Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 67 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,913,495
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#12,195
of 20,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,725
of 317,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#355
of 504 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,486 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 504 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.