Page 1 of 19
European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 11, No. 3
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and
Quality of Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and
Quality of Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties
Md. Jahedur Rahman
ORCID: 0000-0002-9628-5877
Department of Horticulture,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Chand Sultana Chandni
ORCID: 0000-0002-2026-2214
Department of Horticulture,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Md. Shahajahan Ali
ORCID: 0000-0002-6704-0707
Department of Horticulture,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abu Raihan
ORCID: 0000-0001-8231-0245
Department of Horticulture,
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
M Mokbul Hossain
MR Consultants Ltd, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ABSTRACT
Nutrient solution and its composition may have the effect of growth and yield of
capsicum varieties. Individual crop has its specific nutrition requirement for its
proper growth in soilless culture. Therefore, it is important to identify specific
nutritional composition in capsicum / sweet pepper varieties in Bangladesh. In this
study, growth and yield parameter in different varieties of sweet pepper by
applying different nutrient solution formulations were investigated. Four levels of
nutrient solution concentrations, viz., S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S3:
Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and S4: 3⁄4 strength
Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and four varieties of capsicum, viz., V1:
California Wonder, V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1 and V4: Capsicum F1 were
treated as treatments. Vegetative growth, physiological, yield contributing
characters and antioxidant content were measured. In case of nutrient solution, the
highest plant height (119cm), number of fruits per plant (20), individual fruit
weight (210g) and fruits yield (3.99 kg/plant) were found highest when S3 nutrient
formulation was applied. But statistically similar results were found in S4 V4 which
was similar to that of S3. While the ascorbic acid (205.8 mg/100g FW), leaf area
Page 2 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 504
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
(136.8 cm2), leaf mass ratio (0. 97g.g-1) and net assimilation rate (0.000012 g.cm-2.
d-1) were maximum in S4. In varieties, the highest plant height (119cm), number of
fruits per plant (20), individual fruit weight (210g) and fruits yield (3.99 kg/plant)
were found in V4 which was similar to that of V3. The highest plant height number
of fruits/plants, individual fruit weight, yield/plant were found in S3V3 which was
similar to S4V4. Therefore, 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden, (2012) nutrient solution
can be used for sweet pepper cv. California Wonder in hydroponic system in
Bangladesh.
Key words: antioxidant, capsicum, fruit quality, hydroponics and soilless culture.
INTRODUCTION
Fruits of sweet pepper or capsicum (Capsicum annuum) among the most consumed species
throughout the world. The fruits contain capsaicinoids that give them the characteristic
pungent taste. Capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin, the two major capsaicinoids, are responsible for
up to 90% of the total pungency of pepper fruits. Capsaicinoids are currently used in the food
industry, for medical purposes as pharmaceuticals, and in defensive sprays. Sweet pepper fruits
are used as vegetable and condiments, and the requirement of pungency levels depend on the
purpose of the uses. The degree of pungency depends on Capsicum species and cultivars, and
the capsaicin contents may be affected by different Vectors such as the developmental stage of
fruits, environmental stresses, and nutrient accumulation in the placental tissue and so on.
In hydroponics, it’s absolutely essential to begin with a laboratory analysis of nutrient solution.
The three main things are important as the alkalinity, the electrical conductivity (EC) and the
concentration specific elements. Alkalinity is a measure of water’s ability to neutralize acid.
Alkalinity is usually reported in terms of ppm of calcium carbonate equivalents (CaCO3). The
greater nutrient solution’s alkalinity, the more the pH will tend to rise in the nutrient solution.
Water source alkalinity is a much more important to look at than its pH. Nowadays,
hydroponics culture is becoming increasingly popular all over the world. It is highly productive
in nature, conservative of water and land. Moreover, hydroponics culture is protective to the
environment. Hydroponics has proved to be an excellent alternative crop production system
(Savvas, 2003). The cultivation of vegetable crops and the achievement of high yields and high
quality are possible with hydroponics even in saline or acidic soils, or non-arable soils with
poor structure, which represent a major proportion of cultivable land throughout the world. A
further advantage of hydroponics is the precise control of plant nutrition. Furthermore, the
preparation of the soil is avoided in hydroponics, thereby increasing the potential length of
cultivation time, which is an effective means of increasing the total yield in greenhouses. The
reason, imposing a switch over to hydroponics is increasingly associated with environmental
policies as well. A hydroponic system enables a considerable reduction of fertilizer application
and a drastic restriction or even a complete elimination of nutrient leaching from greenhouses
to the environment (Avidan, 2000). Moreover, it provides an instant as well as long term
solution to the problem of inability of a household to produce its own vegetables under urban
settings.
The nutrient solution is one of the major components for successful hydroponic crop
production. The composition of nutrient solutions and the optimization of nutrition in
Page 3 of 19
505
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
commercial hydroponics can reduce fertilizer costs. Specific formulation of nutrient solution
compositions is required for the most horticultural species grown in soilless culture (De Kreij
et al., 1999). Moreover, to obtain high yield and good quality in commercial crops grown
hydroponically, the nutrient solution supplied to the plants must be specific for the particular
crop, the climatic conditions, or hydroponic system used etc.
Improving the yield and yield contributing characteristics in sweet pepper are important factor
for soilless culture technique. These may be improved by managing external nutrient
availability in the growing substrates. Proper nutrient combinations in the solution may
improve the yield and yield contributing characters in the crop. Environmental factors are the
limiting factors for the yield of a crop, and proper management of growing environments may
play an important role to increase in the yield and yield contributing characters of sweet
pepper.
Considering the above-mentioned facts, the present research work was aimed to modify a
simple nutrient solution for producing higher yield and high quality of capsicum in Bangladesh
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Site
The experiment was conducted in the polythene house (treated as semi-greenhouse) at the
Horticulture farm of Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207. Bangladesh during
July 2018 to March 2019. The site is situated between 23 0 41/ N latitude and 90 o 22/ E
longitude.
Plant Materials and Growing Environments
sweet pepper/capsicum varieties of average fruit weight around 180g were used in this
experiment. Seeds of sweet pepper were collected from Siddique Bazar Seed Market, Dhaka.
Experimental Environment
The seeds were sown in the seed bed prepared by the media mixture of coco peat, broken brick
and rice husk at the ratio of 6:2:2 (v/v). Two-week-old seedlings were transferred into the 250-
mL plastic pots. Eight-week-old seedlings were transferred 30-cm apart into the cork-sheet
boxes containing media mixtures of coco peat, broken brick and rice husk at the ratio of 6:2:2
(v/v). The 150-cm × 25-cm × 30-cm cork sheet boxes were prepared by cork sheets. The boxes
were filled with the media mixture of coco peat, brick broken and rice husk at the ratio of 6:2:2
(v/v). Six healthy seedlings were transferred in each box. The pH 6.0 and EC 3.0 – 3.5 dS·m- 1, respectively maintained in the nutrient solutions.
Experimental Design and Treatments
The experiment was conducted in a two factors Randomized Completely Block Design (RCBD)
with three replications. The factors were nutrient solution concentrations denoted as NS and
varieties of capsicum denoted as V.
Factor - A: Four levels of nutrient solution concentrations denoted as NS, viz., S1: Full strength
Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
Page 4 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 506
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4
strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. Factor - B: Four varieties of capsicum
denoted as V, viz., V1: California Wonder, V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1 and V4: Capsicum
F1.
The nutrient compositions of Hoagland and Arnon (1940) solution were NO3, NH4, P, K, Ca,
Mg, and S of 14.0, 1.0, 3.0, 6.0, 8.0, 4.0 and 4.0 meq·L-1, respectively, and Rahman and Inden
(2012) solution were NO3-N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S of 17.05, 7.86, 8.94, 9.95, 6.0 and 6.0 meq·L-1,
respectively. The rates of micronutrients were Fe, B, Zn, Cu, Mo and Mn of 3.0, 0.5, 0.1, 0.03,
0.025 and 1.0 mg·L-1, respectively for both the nutrient solutions. All the treatments were
started at half strength from the first day of the seedlings when transferred into the boxes.
Full strength of the treatments was started from the second week of the experiment. The pH
6.0 and EC 2.8 dS·m-1, respectively were maintained in the nutrient solutions. These
solutions were used in different boxes. After one week of capsicum seedlings transplantation
1/2 strength of nutrient solution was used. Treatments were applied from the second week
of the transplantation. Nine plants were considered as an experimental unit.
Preparation of Nutrient Solutions
In this experiment two nutrient solutions at different concentration were used. One nutrient
solution was Hoagland and Arnon (1940) solution and the other was Rahman and Inden (2012)
solution. These nutrient solutions were prepared according to their composition. Mg2SO4,
NH4H2PO4, KNO3, and Ca (NO3)2 were prepared as macro-nutrient solution and a micro-nutrient
stock solution was prepared.
Preparation of Growing Media for Raising Seedling
The mixture of coco peat, broken bricks (khoa) and ash at the ratio of 50:30:20% (v/v). Coco
peat was soaked in a big bowl for 24 hours. It was washed well with water and spread in a
polythene sheet for 3hours. Then they are mixed with khoa and ash properly. This mixer was
placed in a styrofoam sheet box for using seedbed.
Seed Sowing
The seeds were soaked in water for 24 hours and then wrapped with piece of thin cloth. The
socked seed were then spread over polythene sheet for 2 hours to dry out the surface water.
After those seeds were shown in plastic tray and covered with newspaper under room
temperature for rising seedlings.
Transplanting of Capsicum Seedling
Two-week old capsicum seedlings were transferred into the plastic pots containing the mixture
of coco peat, khoa and rice husk. Rahman and Inden (2012) solution were given to the seedlings
regularly along with fresh water (Plate 1). After that, six-week-old seedlings were transplanted
to the main boxes. The seedlings were transplanted in the afternoon carefully to minimize
transplanting shock. After transplanting of capsicum seedlings in the boxes, light watering was
done with water can.
Page 5 of 19
507
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
DATA COLLECTION
Different data on the growth and physiological growth parameters were recorded during the
experiment. Data were collected from each plant described below.
Plant Height
Plant height was measured in centimeter (cm) by a meter scale at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and180
DAT (days after transplanting) from the point of attachment of growing media up to the tip of
the longest leaf.
Individual Fruit Weight
The individual fruit weights were measured by electric balance at the Department of
Horticulture, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207.
Number of Fruits per Plant
Number of fruits per plant were counted at 75 (First harvesting), 120 (Second harvesting) and
180 (Third harvesting) DAT. All the fruits of each plant were counted separately. Only the
smallest young fruits at the growing point of the plant were excluded from the counting and the
average number was recorded.
Dry Weight of Stem, Leaf and Root
Stem, leaf and root was dried by sun for 2 days separately, after that these was transferred to
oven of central laboratory, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University for 72 hours at 105oC.
Yield per Plant
Yield per plant was determined with the following formula.
Yield per plant (g) = Individual fruit weight (g) × Number of fruits per plant
Yield per Hectare
Yield per hector was determined with the following formula.
Yield per hectare (kg) =
1000
Yield / plant (g) x 50000
where, 50000 = number of plant / hectares, and 1000 g = 1 kg
Growth Parameter Analysis
Growth parameters (dry weights of stem, leaf and root), and different physiological parameters
[Leaf area (LA), leaf area ratio (LAR), leaf mass ratio (LMR), Root weight ratio (RWR), Relative
growth rate (RGR), and Ret assimilation rate (NAR)] were determined in the experiments.
The parameters were measured as described below:
Leaf Area Index (LAI)
Leaf area index (LAI) was measured using Adobe photoshop CS-3 program.
Page 6 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 508
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Leaf Area Ratio (LAR)
Leaf area ratio (LAR) was determined using the following formula.
LAR =
LA
PDW
Where, LAR = leaf area ratio, LA = Leaf area (cm2), PDW = plant dry weight (g).
Leaf Mass Ratio (LMR)
Leaf mass ratio was determined using the following formula.
LMR =
LDW
PDW
Where, LMR = leaf mass ratio, LDW = leaf dry weight (g).
Statistical Analysis of Data
The data obtained for different characters were statistically analysed with SPSS version 21.0
and means separation were done by Tukey ‘s test at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the experiment were presented and discussed under the following headings.
Plant Height (cm)
Plant heights at different days after transplanting (DAT) of sweet pepper were significantly
affected by different concentrations of nutrient solutions except 0 DAT (Table 1). The plant
heights were measured at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180. At 0 DAT, the tallest plant (13.13 cm)
was found in S3 and the lowest (13.06 cm) in S4. At 30 DAT, the tallest plant (33.96 cm) was
found in S3 and the lowest (29.28 cm) in S1. At 60 DAT, the tallest plant (53.42 cm) was found
in S4 and the lowest (45.78 cm) in S1At 90 DAT, the tallest plant (69.11 cm) was found in S4 and
the lowest (58.66 cm) was found in S1. At 120 DAT, the tallest plant (78.33 cm) was found in S4
and the lowest (67.27 cm) was found in S1. At 150 DAT, the tallest plant (84.38 cm) was found
in S4 and the lowest (72.19 cm) was found in S1. At 180 DAT, the tallest plant (88.55 cm) was
found in S4 and the lowest (76.21 cm) was found in S1. The results revealed that the maximum
plants heights at all dates were found in plants grown in treatment S4 which was statistically
similar to that of S2. It was revealed that plant heights were increased with advancement of the
maturity of the plants. Narkhede et al. (2011) found that significant increase in plant height of
pepper plants treated with different fertilizer sources.
Plant height was significantly changed by different varieties of capsicum (Table 1). At 0 DAT,
the tallest plant (13.17 cm) was found in V3 and the lowest (13.03 cm) was found in V1. At 30
DAT, the tallest plant (33.72 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (30.05 cm) was found in V1. At
60 DAT, the tallest plant (53.85 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (45.09 cm) was found in V1.
At 90 DAT, the tallest plant (69.50 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (57.91 cm) was found in
V1. At 120 DAT, the tallest plant (79.79 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (65.43 cm) was
found in V1. At 150 DAT, the tallest plant (85.93 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (70.99 cm)
Page 7 of 19
509
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
was found in V1. At 180 DAT, the tallest plant (89.91 cm) was found in V4 and the lowest (75.41
cm) was found in V1.
In case of combined effect of liquid organic fertilizer and foliar application, the insignificant
variation was found at 0 DAT, whereas the significant variations were found at 30, 60, 90, 120,
150 and 180 DAT (Table 2). The highest plants at all dates were found in S4V4 the lowest were
found in S1V1.
Table 1. Main effects of nutrient solution and variety on plant height of capsicum at
different days after transplanting.
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Treatments Plant height at different days after transplanting (DAT) (cm)
0 DAT 30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 120 DAT 150 DAT 180 DAT
Nutrient solution concentrations (S)
S1 13.08 29.28 cz 45.78 c 58.66 c 67.27 c 72.19 c 76.21 c
S2 13.09 31.80 b 50.29 b 64.24 b 74.24 b 80.62 b 85.01 b
S3 13.13 33.96 a 53.27 a 68.68 a 77.79 ab 83.80 a 87.82 a
S4 13.06 34.22 a 53.42 a 69.11 a 78.33 a 84.38 a 88.55 a
Varity (V)
V1 13.03 30.05 c 45.09 c 57.91 c 65.43 c 70.99 c 75.41 c
V2 13.05 31.88 b 50.21 b 64.76 b 73.86 b 79.84 b 84.01 b
V3 13.17 33.60 a 53.61 a 68.53 a 78.56 a 84.21 a 88.25 a
V4 13.12 33.72 a 53.85 a 69.50 a 79.79 a 85.93 a 89.91 a
Level of significance (P)
S >0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
V >0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Page 8 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 510
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Table 2. Interaction effect of nutrient solution concentrations and variety of capsicum
on plant height at different days after transplanting.
Treatment Plant height at different days after transplanting (cm)
0 DAT 30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 120 DAT 150 DAT 180 DAT
S1V1 13.18 28.10 f 39.22 j 52.25 h 60.31 g 64.99 g 69.12 f
S1V2 12.98 28.83 ef 45.34 i 57.62 g 66.33 fg 71.17 f 75.35 e
S1V3 13.35 30.46 de 49.81 f-h 63.63 ef 75.05 b-e 79.46 d 83.48 d
S1V4 12.80 29.74 d-f 48.75 gh 61.14 fg 67.42 e-g 73.13 ef 76.88 e
S2V1 13.56 30.64 de 44.72 i 60.29 fg 71.88 d-f 78.59 de 83.01 d
S2V2 13.09 31.05 cd 50.39 e-g 63.71 ef 72.80 d-f 79.43 d 83.83 d
S2V3 12.75 32.65 bc 53.29 c-e 65.83 de 73.47 c-f 78.80 de 83.39 d
S2V4 12.95 32.83 bc 52.78 c-f 67.15 de 78.79 a-d 85.64 bc 89.81 bc
S3V1 13.09 30.65 de 49.38 gh 60.13 fg 67.23 e-g 72.92 ef 77.52 e
S3V2 12.73 33.23 b 51.26 d-g 67.78 c-e 75.07 b-e 80.89 cd 84.65 cd
S3V3 13.45 35.91 a 55.82 a-c 72.38 a-c 82.77 ab 89.68 ab 93.36 ab
S3V4 13.28 36.04 a 56.61 ab 74.44 ab 86.09 a 91.71 ab 95.74 a
S4V1 12.29 30.81 d 47.04 hi 58.97 fg 62.29 g 67.47 fg 72.00 ef
S4V2 13.38 34.42 ab 53.87 b-d 69.94 b-d 81.24 a-c 87.87 ab 92.22 ab
S4V3 13.12 35.37 a 55.51 a-c 72.28 a-c 82.93 ab 88.89 ab 92.78 ab
S4V4 13.43 36.26 a 57.25 a 75.26 a 86.87 a 93.27 a 97.20 a
Level of significance (P)
S×V >0.051 <0.0342 <0.0215 <0.0452 <0.0047 <0.001 <0.001
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Number of Fruit per Plant
Number of fruits per plant of capsicum were significantly affected bydifferent doses of nutrient
solution concentration (Figure 1). The highest fruit number was found in S4 (7.67) which was
statistically similar to that of S3 (7.47) treatment. On the other hand, S1 (6.33) showed lowest
fruit number. Samawat et al. (2001) reported in 100% Vermicompost treatment, fruit weight
and fruit number were three, five and nine times more than the control treatment. Patil et al.
(2004) observed that significantly highest numbers of fruits (42.07 per plant) were recorded
in the plants supplemented with 3 % of liquid organic fertilizers in tomato.
Page 9 of 19
511
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Figure 1. Effect of different doses of nutrient solution on number of fruits per plant of capsicum.
S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and
Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution
and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution.
Figure.2. Effect of different variety of cow dung leachate on number of fruits per plant of
capsicum. V1: California Wonder, V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
6.33
7
7.47 7.67
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
S1 S2 S3 S4
Number of fruit
Nutrient Solution
6.33
6.92
7.53 7.69
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
V1 V2 V3 V4
Number of fruit
Variety
Page 10 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 512
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Number of fruits per plant of capsicum were significantly affected by different variety (Figure
2). The highest fruit number was found in V4 (7.69) which was statistically similar to that of V3
(7.53). On the other hand, V1 (6.33) showed lowest fruit number.
Significant influence was noted on number of fruits influenced by combined effect of different
doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 3). The highest fruit number was
recorded from the treatment combination S4V4 and the lowest were found in S1V1.
Individual Fruit Weight
Individual fruit weight of capsicum was significantly affected by different doses of nutrient
solution concentration (Figure 3). The highest fruit weight was found in S4 (105.25 g) which
was statistically similar to that of S3 (104.32 g) treatment. On the other hand, S1 (94.01 g)
showed lowest fruit weight. Attarde et al. (2012) found that fruit weight of okra increases due
to the amplification of nutrient content through the application of vermicompost. Salas and
Ramirez (2001) observed maximum fresh fruit weight in capsicum treated with organic
manure like chicken manures, compost and vermicompost treatment than inorganic fertilizers.
Individual fruit weight of capsicum was significantly affected by different variety (Figure 4).
The highest fruit weight was found in V4 (105.30 g) which was statistically similar to that of V3.
On the other hand, V1 (94.28 g) showed lowest fruit weight.
Significant influence was noted on Individual fruit weight influenced by combined effect
ofdifferent doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 3). The highest
individual fruit weight was recorded from the treatment combination S4V4 and the lowest were
found in S1V1.
Figure. 3. Effect of different doses of nutrient solution on individual fruit weight of capsicum. S1:
Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon
(1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and S3:
3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution.
94.01
100.07
104.32 105.25
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
S1 S2 S3 S4
Individul fruit weight
Nutrient Solution
Page 11 of 19
513
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Figure 4. Effect of variety of variety of capsicum on individual fruit weight of capsicum. V1:
California Wonder, V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Fruit Dry Weight per 100 g
Fruit dry weight of capsicum were significantly affected bydifferent doses of nutrient solution
concentration (Figure 5). The highest fruit dry weight was found in S4 (9.77 g) which was
statistically similar to that of S3 (9.63 g) treatment. On the other hand, S1(7.67 g) showed lowest
fruit dry weight. Aslani and Souri (2018) found that Plants produced significantly higher pod
dry weight, although application of all the organic chelates significantly increased pod dry
weight.
Figure.5. Effect of different doses of nutrient solution on fruit dry weight per 100 g. S1: Full
strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon
(1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and S3:
3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution.
94.28
100.16
103.9
105.3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
V1 V2 V3 V4
Fruit weight
Variety
7.67
8.89
9.63 9.77
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
S1 S2 S3 S4
Dry weight
Nutrient Solution
Page 12 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 514
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Figure 6. Effect of variety of capsicum on fruit dry weight per 100 g. V1: California Wonder, V2:
Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Fruit dry weight of capsicum were significantly affected by different variety (Figure 6). The
highest fruit dry weight was found in V4 (9.88 g) which was statistically similar to that of V3. On
the other hand, V1 (7.50 g) showed lowest fruit dry weight. Significant influence was noted on
fruit dry weight influenced by combined effect of different doses of nutrient solution
concentration and variety (Table 3). The highest individual fruit weight was recorded from the
treatment combination S4V4 and the lowest were found in S1V1.
Table 3. Interaction effect of nutrient solution and variety on fruits/plant, individual
fruit weight and fruit dry weight of capsicum.
Treatment Number of fruits per
plant
Individual fruit weight
(g)
Fruit dry weight per
100 g (g)
S1V1 6.11 d 91.16 f 6.61 h
S1V2 6.22 d 92.68 ef 7.46 f-h
S1V3 6.78 cd 96.13 d-f 8.69 c-e
S1V4 6.22 d 96.07 d-f 7.91 e-g
S2V1 6.44 d 98.59 d-f 8.35 d-f
S2V2 6.89 cd 99.08 c-f 8.73 c-e
S2V3 7.00 cd 100.51 c-e 8.94 cd
S2V4 7.67 a-c 102.11 b-d 9.54 bc
S3V1 6.33 d 94.85 d-f 7.83 e-g
S3V2 7.00 cd 101.86 b-d 9.18 cd
S3V3 8.22 ab 109.65 ab 10.59 a
S3V4 8.33 ab 110.90 a 10.92 a
S4V1 6.44 d 92.54 ef 7.20 gh
S4V2 7.56 bc 107.02 a-c 10.22 ab
S4V3 8.11 ab 109.30 ab 10.51 a
S4V4 8.56 a 112.12 a 11.15 a
Level of significance (P)
7.5
8.9
9.68 9.88
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
V1 V2 V3 V4
Fruit dry weight
Variety
Page 13 of 19
515
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
S×V <0.0346 <0.0474 <0.001
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Yield per Plant
Marketable yield was affected by nutrient solution and variety (Figure 7). The highest yield
(812.75 g/plant) was found in S4 treatment while, the lowest yield (597.39 g/plant) was found
in S1 treatment. This might be due to higher number of fruit by application of S4. Doss et al.
(1981) reported that average yields from the lower nitrogen rate were greater than the higher
nitrogen rate in the two driest years and were similar or higher from the higher nitrogen rate
in year of more average rain. The effects of vermicompost on flowering and fruiting of
strawberry might be attributed to the higher doses of vermicompost have resulted in to better
growth of plants and consequently they took lesser days to flower and produced higher fruit
yield than those receiving inorganic fertilizers only (Atiyeh et al., 2001; Arancon et al.,2004).
Figure. 7. Effect of different doses of nutrient solution on fruit yield/plant of capsicum. S1: Full
strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon
(1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution and S3:
3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution.
597.39
702.18
784.86 812.75
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
S1 S2 S3 S4
Fruit yield/plant
Nutrient Solution
Page 14 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 516
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Figure 8. Effect of variety of cow dung leachate on fruit yield/plant of capsicum. V1: California
Wonder, V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
The yield contributing characters of the capsicum has significance due to different variety
(Figure 8). Marketable yield of capsicum was significantly affected by different variety. The
highest yield (817.61 g/plant) was found in S4 treatment while, the lowest yield (597.34
g/plant) was found in S1 treatment.
Dry Weight of Capsicum Plant
Leaf Dry Weight:
Leaf dry weight of capsicum at 180 DAT varied significantly by different doses of nutrient
solution concentration (Table 4). Result revealed that topmost result (11.37 g) was recorded
from S4 treatment whereas S1 treatment was scored as the lowest (9.34 g) after final harvest.
Leaf dry weight of capsicum were significantly affected by different variety (Table 4). The
highest root fresh weight was found in V4 (11.63 g) which was statistically similar to that of V3.
V1 treatment was scored as the lowest (9.00 g) after final harvest. Foliar application of
vermicompost leachate produce significantly higher leaf area and dry weight of plants than
control (Singh et al. 2010). Significant influence was noted on root fresh weight influenced by
combined effect ofdifferent doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 5). The
highest root fresh weight was recorded from the treatment combination S4V4the lowest were
found in S1V1.
Stem Dry Weight:
Stem dry weight of capsicum at 180 DAT varied significantly by different treatment ofnutrient
solution concentration (Table 4). Result revealed that topmost result (12.21 g) was recorded
from S4 treatment whereas S1 treatment was scored as the lowest (9.65 g) after final harvest.
597.34
695.93
786.28 817.61
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
V1 V2 V3 V4
Fruit yield/plant
Variety
Page 15 of 19
517
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Stem dry weight of capsicum were significantly affected by different variety (Table 4). The
highest root fresh weight was found in V4 (12.37 g) which was statistically similar to that of V3.
V1treatment was scored as the lowest (9.44 g) after final harvest.
Significant influence was noted on root fresh weight influenced by combined effect ofdifferent
doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 5). The highest root fresh weight
was recorded from the treatment combination S4V4the lowest were found in S1V1.
Root Dry Weight:
Root dry weight of capsicum at 180 DAT varied significantly by different treatment ofnutrient
solution concentration (Table 4). Result revealed that topmost result (5.23 g) was recorded
from S4 treatment whereas S1 treatment was scored as the lowest (4.43 g) after final harvest.
Root fresh weight of capsicum were significantly affected by different variety (Table 4). The
highest root fresh weight was found in V4 (5.23 g) which was statistically similar to that of V3.
V0 treatment was scored as the lowest (4.43 g) after final harvest.
Significant influence was noted on root fresh weight influenced by combined effect ofdifferent
doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 5). The highest root fresh weight
was recorded from the treatment combination S4V4the lowest were found in S1V1.
Table 4. Main effect of nutrient solution and variety on leaf dry weight, stem dry weight
and root dry weight of capsicum per plant.
Treatment Leaf dry weight per plant (g) Stem dry weight per
plant (g)
Root dry weight per
plant (g)
Nutrient Solution (S)
S1 9.34 c 9.65 c 4.43 c
S2 10.55 b 11.11 b 4.87 b
S3 11.23 a 12.05 a 5.16 a
S4 11.37 a 12.21 a 5.23 a
Variety (V)
V1 9.00 c 9.44 c 4.45 c
V2 10.48 b 11.14 b 4.86 b
V3 11.37 a 12.09 a 5.14 a
V4 11.63 a 12.37 a 5.24 a
Level of significance (P)
S <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
V <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Page 16 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 518
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Table 5. Interaction effect of nutrient solution and variety on leaf dry weight, stem dry
weight and root dry weight of capsicum per plant
Treatment Leaf dry weight per plant (g) Stem dry weight per plant (g) Root dry weight per plant (g)
S1V1 8.22 g 8.18 h 4.20 f
S1V2 9.11 fg 9.50 fg 4.31 ef
S1V3 10.43 cd 10.95 c-e 4.61 c-f
S1V4 9.58 d-f 9.99 e-g 4.59 c-f
S2V1 10.06 d-f 10.54 d-f 4.73 c-e
S2V2 10.29 c-e 10.86 c-e 4.80 c-e
S2V3 10.49 cd 11.13 c-e 4.92 b-d
S2V4 11.37 bc 11.93 bc 5.03 bc
S3V1 9.26 e-g 9.95 e-g 4.49 d-f
S3V2 10.64 cd 11.43 cd 4.99 b-d
S3V3 12.34 ab 13.18 a 5.54 a
S3V4 12.68 a 13.63 a 5.62 a
S4V1 8.46 g 9.09 gh 4.37 ef
S4V2 11.87 ab 12.76 ab 5.34 ab
S4V3 12.23 ab 13.09 ab 5.51 a
S4V4 12.90 a 13.91 a 5.70 a
Level of significance(P)
S×V <0.001 <0.0006 <0.0265
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Physiological Growth Traits
The physiological growth parameters of capsicum plants were significantly influenced by
different cow dung leachate application (Table 6). Cow dung leachate increased leaf area. In
case of leaf area (LA), the higher leaf area (LA) was found S3 treatment (575.69 cm2) and the
lower was found in S0 (523.15 cm2). Leaf area is an important factor of light interception and
consequently of transpiration, photosynthesis and plant productivity (Dufour, L. and Guérin,
V. (2005). Foliar application of vermicompost leachate produce significantly higher leaf area
and dry weight of plants than control (Singh et al. 2010). In case of Leaf Mass Ratio (LMR),
the higher Leaf Mass Ratio (LMR) was found in S4 and the lower was found in S1. Higher LMR
is one of the important criteria for producing higher metabolites. Prieto et al. (2007)
reported that increased LMR gave the plants an increased ability to intercept light. In case of
Leaf Area Ratio (LAR), the lower Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) was found in S1 while the higher was
found in S4. Lower LAR is one of the important criteria for producing higher metabolites.
Decreased LAR was found by Starck (1983) in tomato, which agreed with our findings. The
physiological growth parameters of capsicum plants were significantly influenced by
different variety (Table 6). In case of leaf area (LA), the higher leaf area (LA) was found in V4
and the lower was found in V1. In case of Leaf Mass Ratio (LMR), the higher Leaf Mass Ratio
(LMR) was found in V3 and the lower was found in V1. In case of Leaf Area Ratio (LAR), the
lower Leaf Area Ratio (LAR) was found in V1 while the higher was found in V4. Decreased
LAR was found by Starck (1983) in tomato, which agreed with our findings.
Page 17 of 19
519
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Significant influence was noted on plant physiological traits by combined effect of different
doses of nutrient solution concentration and variety (Table 7). In case of leaf area ratio (LAR),
the lower LAR was found in S4V4 while the higher was found in S4V4. Lower LAR is one of the
important criteria for producing higher metabolites. Starck (1983) in tomato crops found
decreased LAR.
Table 6. Main effect of nutrient solution and variety on leaf area, leaf mass ratio, leaf
area ratio of capsicum.
Treatment Leaf area (cm2
) LMR (g g-1
) LAR (cm2
g
-1
)
Nutrient solution (S)
S1 523.15 b 0.399 a 22.47 a
S2 538.79 b 0.397 a 20.33 b
S3 563.08 a 0.395 b 19.93 b
S4 575.59 a 0.394 b 20.25 b
Variety (V)
V1 513.77 c 0.393 b 22.60 a
V2 540.90 b 0.396 ab 20.55 b
V3 569.81 a 0.398 a 19.99 c
V4 576.13 a 0.398 a 19.84 c
Level of significance(P)
S <0.001 <0.0029 <0.001
V <0.001 <0.0060 <0.001
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
Table 7. Interaction effect of nutrient solution and variety on leaf area, leaf mass ratio,
leaf area ratio of capsicum
Treatment Leaf area (cm2
) LMR (g g-1
) LAR (cm2
g
-1
)
S1V1 509.42 e 0.399 a-c 24.76 a
S1V2 516.17 e 0.398 a-c 22.53 bc
S1V3 545.74 c-e 0.401 a 21.01 de
S1V4 521.25 de 0.397 a-c 21.59 c-e
S2V1 519.67 de 0.397 a-c 20.52 ef
S2V2 531.99 de 0.396 a-d 20.51 ef
S2V3 542.98 c-e 0.395 b-d 20.48 ef
S2V4 560.50 b-d 0.401 ab 19.83 fg
S3V1 514.65 e 0.391 de 21.74 cd
S3V2 535.43 de 0.393 cd 19.79 fg
S3V3 595.74 ab 0.397 a-c 19.18 g
S3V4 606.50 a 0.397 a-c 18.99 g
S4V1 511.33 e 0.386 e 23.36 b
S4V2 580.00 a-c 0.396 a-d 19.38 fg
S4V3 594.75 ab 0.397 a-d 19.30 g
S4V4 616.26 a 0.397 a-c 18.95 g
Page 18 of 19
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 520
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 3, June-2023
Level of significance
S×V <0.0241 <0.0214 <0.001
zMeans with different letter (s) is significantly different by Tukey’s test at P ≤ 0.05. P represents the level of
significance of two-way ANOVA. DAT – Days after transplanting. S1: Full strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940)
nutrient solution, S2: 3⁄4 strength Hoagland and Arnon (1940) nutrient solution, S2: Full strength Rahman and Inden
(2012) nutrient solution and S3: 3⁄4 strength Rahman and Inden (2012) nutrient solution. V1: California Wonder,
V2: Wonder Bell, V3: Capsicum F1, V4: Capsicum F1.
CONCLUTION
It can be concluded that higher fruit yield and other vegetative growth parameters and
physiological traits of capsicum were found in S4 treatment which is similar to that of S3. The
best varietal of capsicum was V4 which was similar to that of V3. Therefore, it can be
concluded that treatment combination of V4S4 or V3S3 can be used for production capsicum
in hydroponic system in Bangladesh.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors extend their gratitude to the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Planning
Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh for their contribution towards this
research under the project of the fiscal year 2018-2020.
References
Savvas, D. (2003). Hydroponics: A modern technology supporting the application of integrated crop management
in greenhouse. J. Food Agric. Environ. 1: 80-86. Schnitzler,
Avidan, A. (2000). The use of substrates in Israel. World congress on ‘Soilless Culture on Agriculture in the
coming millennium.’Maale Hachamisha, Israel. p.17.
De Kreij, C., Voogt, W. and Baas, R. (1999). Nutrient solutions and water qualities for soilless cul-tures. Brochure
No. 196, Research Station Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables, The Netherlands:Naaldwijk (2)
Narkhede, S. D., Attarde, S. B., and Ingle, S. T. (2011). Study on effect of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on
growth of chilli pepper plant (Capsicum annum). Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6(3).
Samawat, S., LAKZIAN, A., and Zamirpour, A. R. (2001). The effect of vermicompost on growth characteristics of
tomato.
Patil, M. B., Mohammed, R. G., & Ghadge, P. M. (2004). Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield
and quality of tomato. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ, 29(2), 124-127.
Attarde, S.B., S.D. Narkhede, R.P. Patil, S.T. Ingle. 2012. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and
nutrient content of [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench], 4(10), 137-140.
Salas, E, and Ramirez, C. A microbial bioassay to estimate nutrient availability in organic fertilizers; field
calibration; Bioensayo microbiano para estimular los nutrimentos disponibles en los abonos organicos:
calibracion en el campo. Costa Rica.
Aslani, M., and Souri, M. K. (2018). Growth and quality of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under foliar
application of organic-chelate fertilizers. Open Agriculture, 3(1), 146-154.
Doss, B. D., J. L. Turner and C.E. Evans. 1981. Influence of tillage nitrogen and rye cover on growth and yield of
tomato. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 106(1): 95-97.
Page 19 of 19
521
Rahman, J., Chandni, C. S., Ali, S., Raihan, A., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Effect of Different Nutrient Solutions on Growth, Yield, and Quality of
Hydroponic Capsicum Varieties. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(3). 503-521.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.113.13493
Atiyeh, R. M., Edwards, C. A., Subler, S., and Metzger, J. D. (2001). Pig manure vermicompost as a component of a
horticultural bedding plant medium: effects on physicochemical properties and plant growth. Bioresource
technology, 78(1), 11-20.
Arancon, N. Q., Edwards, C. A., Bierman, P., Welch, C., and Metzger, J. D. (2004). Influences of vermicomposts on
field strawberries: 1. Effects on growth and yields. Bioresource technology, 93(2), 145-153.
Singh, R., Gupta, R. K., Patil, R. T., Sharma, R. R., Asrey, R., Kumar, A., and Jangra, K. K. (2010). Sequential foliar
application of vermicompost leachates improves marketable fruit yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria×
ananassa Duch.). Scientia Horticulturae, 124(1), 34-39.
Dufour, L. and Guérin, V. (2005). Nutrient solution effects on the development and yield of anthurium and
reanum Lind. In Tropical Soilless Conditions. Sci. Hortic. 105(2): 269- 282, ISSN 0304-4238.
Prieto, M., Peñalosa, J., Sarro, M.J., Zornoza, P. and Gárate, A. (2007). Seasonal effect on growth parameters and
macronutrient uses of capsicum. J. Plant Nutr. 30: 1803-1820.
Starck, Z. (1983). Photosynthesis and endogenous regulation of the source-sink relation in tomato plants [beta- naphthoxyacetic acid, GA, dry matter]. Photosynthetica (Czechoslovakia).