USE OF DIFFERENT VERMICOMPOSTING PRODUCED FROM WASTE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT AS SUBSTRATE FOR PRODUCTION OF LETTUCE SEEDLINGS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9592Keywords:
Lactuca sativa L., Substrate, Production of lettuce.Abstract
The substrate used in the production of seedlings has a key role in early development of the plant. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of vermicompost as substrates for the production and development of seedlings of lettuce (L. sativa L.). The test was conducted in the greenhouse of the Department of Soils, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, divided into 10 treatments and seven of ten repetitions. The treatments: T1-Red Residue (RVM), T2-Green Residue (RVD), T3-Residue Red: rice Husk “in nature” – 1: 1 (RVM: CAN 1: 1), T4-Residue Green: Rice husk “in nature” – 1: 1 (RVD: CAN 1: 1), T5-Residue Red: rice Husk Carbonized – 1: 1 (RVM: CAC 1: 1), T6 Residue Green: Rice husk Carbonized – 1: 1 (RVD: CAC 1: 1), T7-Residue Red: Residue green line – 1: 1 (RVM: RVD 1: 1), T8-Residue Green: Rice husk “in nature” – 3: 1 (RVD: CAN 3: 1), T9-Residue Red: rice Husk Carbonized – 3: 1 (RVM: CAC 3: 1) and T10 Fertile Turf (EB). Treatments that had better conditions on the number of leaves, height, fresh and dry biomass production of seedlings was treated with 50% residual red: 50% green waste - RVM: RVD. For the production of lettuce showed that the treatment is effective for plant height was RVM: RVD. For the other treatment variables RVM: CAC had better conditions when we compared the treatment that the CAC was in smaller proportions. It can be inferred that the RVM RVD and mixed with rice hulls and rice husk “fresh” can be used for the production of lettuce seedlings.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
