Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Fruit size
Yield
(t ha
-1
)
Treatment
BER incidence (%)
L-diameter (cm)
S-diameter (cm)
Weight (g/fruit)
CK
6.18
4.66
116.70
50.26
22.81%
SR
6.42
4.90
128.60
56.42
10.28%
SF
6.43
4.91
128.76
60.84
18.51%
SL
6.60
4.94
133.85
72.28
9.42%
SO
6.64
4.95
134.50
68.09
13.22%
ST
6.40
4.86
126.11
53.38
20.58%
Table 3.
Effects of EM-Calcium solution application on tomato fruit size, yield and BER incidence
2.2.5. Ca accumulation in main parts of tomato plant
Ca accumulations in main parts of tomato plant with different EM-Calcium treatments were
displayed in Fig. 3; Ca content in upper leaf of SO, ST was significantly higher (P<0.05) than
that of the other treatments, however, which of SL was slightly lower compared with CK, this
indicated that spraying EM-Calcium on tomato leaves may change the migration path of
calcium in the leaves; Similar laws were also found in the Ca accumulation of lower leaf, Ca
content in lower leaf of SL was significantly lower (P<0.05) than that of the other treatments
(except CK). According to the results from Ca content in upper leaf and lower leaf, it could be
also inferred that SO had the most significant impact on the Ca accumulation of tomato leaves.
ST increased the Ca accumulation of root most significantly, and no significant differences
(P>0.05) were observed among SF, SL and SO. Ca contents of stem were obviously lower than
that of other plant organs, and the differences of which among the treatments were relatively
less, Ca content in the stem of SO was significantly higher (P<0.05), and there were no
significant differences (P>0.05) among the other treatments.
50
a
40
a
b
a
b
a
b
b
c
c
c
b
cd
c
c
30
d
c
c
c
20
a
b
b
b
b
b
10
0
Upper leaf
lower leaf
Root
Stem
CK
Spraying root
Spraying flower
Spraying leaves
Spraying one week old fruit
Spraying three week old fruit
Figure 3.
Effects of EM-calcium application on the Ca accumulation in main parts of tomato plants. Columns with the
same letter represent values that are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability according to the Dun‐
can's multiple range test. Each value is the mean ± SD (n=3). The treatment symbols are the same as the experiment
design.
