ş

1. Nutrient uptake of tomato as affected by
rootstock and tomato type
Voogt Wim, Janga Sergino, Van Winkel Aat, Blok Chris, Beerling
Ellen
Wageningen University and research, Greenhouse Horticulture, Bleiswijk, The Netherlands

2. Introduction:
The Fertiliser Recommendation System
2
Fertiliser Recommendation System
1980 - 1998
Oude situatie
Basic recipe suppy Drain
Adjustment and corrections
Analysis

3. The Standard Nutrient solution
3
Growing system
(e.g. rockwool)
Input
Nutrient solution
uptake
Drainage /
leaching

4. The Standard Nutrient solution
4
Growing system
(e.g. rockwool)
Input
Nutrient solution uptake
Drainage /
leaching
Water
Fertilisers
Mixing/dosing unit

5. The Standard Nutrient solution
5
Growing system
(e.g. rockwool)
Input
Nutrient solution uptake
Drainage /
leaching
Water
Fertilisers
Mixing/dosing unit
Adjustments:
• Cropping
stage
• Analysis
report
• Water
quality
• e.g.

6. The Standard Nutrient solution
6
Growing system
(e.g. rockwool)
Input
Nutrient solution
uptake
Drainage /
leaching
Water
Fertilisers
Mixing/dosing unit
Adjustments:
Cropping
stage
Analysis
report
Water quality
e.g.
Target values
(optimal for
crop
performances

7. Research question
 Developments since early 80-ies:
● New varieties
● High wire cropping system
● Recirculation
● (Artificial lighting)
● Production doubled !
 Use of rootstocks
 Tomato types / varieties
 Is the standard nutrient solution still applicable ?
 What do we know about nutrient uptake during cycle
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Yield
(kg.m
-2
)
Tomato
+ 117%

8. Material and methods
 Three types:
● Coarse round type ‘Merlice’
● Cocktail ’ Brioso’
● Cherry ‘Sweettelle’
Combination
 Four rootstock
● ‘Stallone’
● ’Unifort’
● ‘ 141’
● Non-grafted
 Two fruit loads: high and low
8

9. Experimental set up
 Rockwool cubes
 Planted 1st cluster flowering
 Four months cropping
 Closed system irrgation/recycling water
 Uptake determined by:
● Depletion method (supply – drainage)
● Biomass method (total biomass * dry matter
analysis)
9

10. Results
10
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Merlice Sweettelle Brioso
kg/m2
Yield High fruit load
non-grafted 141 Stallone unifort
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Merlice Sweettelle Brioso
kg/m2
Yield low fruit load
non-grafted 141 Stallone unifort

11. Nutrient content in biomass
11

12. Total uptake concentration (mmol/l)
12

13. Total uptake concentration (mmol/l)
13

14. 14
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
no rootstock 141 stallone unifort
umol/l
Fe
sweetelle Brioso Merlice
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
no rootstock 141 stallone unifort
umol/l
Mn
sweetelle Brioso Merlice
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
no rootstock 141 stallone unifort
umol/l
Zn
sweetelle Brioso Merlice
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
no
rootstock
141 stallone unifort
umol/l
B
sweetelle Brioso Merlice
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
no rootstock 141 stallone unifort
umol/l
Mo
sweetelle Brioso Merlice
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
no rootstock 141 stallone unifort
umol/l
Cu
sweetelle Brioso Merlice

15. Conclusions
 For tomato the general standard nutrient solution and
recommendation is applicable as the basic .
 Adaptions are needed for K and Mg: lower K and Mg for
cherry- and cocktail tomatoes and higher K and Mg for
coarse round and beef tomatoes.
 This extra K must be proportionally compensated by
lower Ca.
 At the anion side: lower NO3 and P for cherry tomatoes,
compensated by higher Cl and SO4.
 There is no need for adaptions of the nutrient
solution in case of using rootstocks.
15

16. Questions ?