Yield and Fruit Quality of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Cultivars Established at Different Planting Bed Size and Growing Substrates

Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 53(2):102-107. 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13580-012-0103-6 Research Report ISSN (print) : 2211-3452 ISSN (online) : 2211-3460 Yield and Fruit Quality of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Cultivars Established at Different Planting Bed Size and Growing Substrates Binod Prasad Luitel, Prakash Babu Adhikari, Cheol Soo Yoon, and Won Hee Kang * Department of Horticulture, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 200-701, Korea *Corresponding author: whkang@kangwon.ac.kr Received November 13, 2011 / Revised February 1, 2012 / Accepted February 28, 2012 Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer 2012 Abstract. This study was carried out to investigate the yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars using different plant bed width and growing substrates in Hwacheon Farm, 2011. Transplants of tomato cultivars Campari, Temptation, Annamay, and Adoration were planted at 20 cm, 40 cm, 60 cm, and 80 cm bed width and same cultivars were grown at cocopeat, rockwool and masato in early July, 2011 in a greenhouse. Planting bed size significantly affected the fruit number, marketable fruit number (%) and weight (g), and total yield (g) per plant. Plants grown at 60 cm bed width yielded the highest fruit number (22.4), marketable fruit number (56.0%), marketable fruit weight (356.8 g) and total yield (564.5 g) per plant. Bed width had no significant effect on fruit size and quality characters. Plants grown in cocopeat produced the highest marketable fruit number (56.2%) per plant and yielded the greatest (445.6 g) marketable yield per plant. Plants grown in cocopeat substrate produced higher fruit number (5.2%) and total yield (0.7%) than that of rockwool substrate. Fruit size and fruit quality characters showed no significant differences within growing substrates. Hence, planting the tomato cultivars in single row at 60 cm bed width is better approach to optimize the production space in greenhouse and cocopeat is recommended as potential growing substrates for tomato cultivation to increase its yield and fruit quality characters. Additional key words: cocopeat, growing substrates, masato, rockwool, transplants Introduction Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is an economically important vegetable crop in the world. In Korea, tomato has been widely grown popular income generating crop and Korea is also the largest supplier of fresh tomato in Japanese market. The estimated tomato production area was 6,144 ha with the total production of 408,170 ton (MFAFF, 2008). Tomato production has been increased in recent years and Korea is focused on fresh tomato production in greenhouse to encourage the export market. Hence, it is necessary to explore the production technology in tomato as well as to establish its cultivation as a profitable enterprise for tomato growers. Yield of tomato is a complex character which depends on many factors. Planting bed size and spacing are the most fundamental cultural factors that can influence the morphological development of tomato cultivars, fruit yield and quality characters. The number of rows in planting bed and bed width also depend on the production purpose, soil fertility, and plant structure (Awas et al., 2010). Many studies have been undertaken on plant spacing (Awas et al., 2010; Mantur and Patil, 2008), bed height and width in tomato (Kovach et al., 1983) and pepper (Luitel et al., 2010) cultivars but there has been little published concerning the bed width effect on the yield of tomato cultivars. Tomato cultivation in proper bed width/spacing using locally available masato may be one of the possible approaches to increase the tomato production in peri-urban areas of Korea. Tomato is commercially grown either in single row in open field or double row in greenhouse in Hwacheon but studies on single row management of tomato cultivars using different bed width using masato under the greenhouse cultivation have not undertaken yet. In Korea, a wide range of soilless culture techniques have been developed and commercially introduced for intensive tomato production particularly in greenhouse. Commercial growers use either cocopeat or rockwool as growing substrate in greenhouse for tomato production. The properties of growing substrates exhibit direct and indirect effect on plant

Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 53(2):102-107. 2012. 103 Table 1. Some physical properties of the different growing substrates before planting the tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Substrates BD (g cm -3 ) ph EC (ds m -1 ) Porosity (%) WHC (%) Cocopeat 0.16 6.6 2.7 58.0 90.5 Rockwool 0.08 7.1 2.0 92.0 52.5 Masato 1.4 6.8 2.4 38.0 31.0 BD, bulk density; EC, electrical conductivity; WHC, water holding capacity. physiology and production (Cantliffe et al., 2001). The physical properties of growing substrates concern with aeration, drainage and water retention capacity (Blanc, 1987; Cabrera, 2003; Lemaire et al., 1989). Several studies have been dealt with different growing substrates (Fandi et al., 2008; Ghehsareh et al., 2011; Mahamud and Manisah, 2007; Sirin and Sevgican, 1999) on tomato production but most of the growing media are mixture of peat moss, pine bark or a mixture of peat moss and pine bark with perlite and vermiculite (Bragg, 1990). Rockwool is not biodegradable, inorganic and non-renewable resource (Allaire et al., 2005). In contrast, cocopeat is an organic and renewable resource (Mahamud and Manisah, 2007). Masato is a locally available inorganic, simple and cheap growing substrate. The physical properties of these growing substrates may influence the yield potential of tomato cultivars. In this context, it is imperative to examine the effectiveness of different growing substrate with the production potential of tomato cultivars. In Korea, Campari, Temptation, Annamay, and Adoration are commercially grown popular F 1 hybrid cultivars and these are introduced from Europe. All cultivars are indeterminate in growth habit and cocktail type, and truss of all varieties are uniform shape. Furthermore, vegetative growth, fruit shape, size and quality are varied among the cultivars. Cultural practices may affect the production potential of tomato cultivars and therefore, this study was investigated to determine how different bed size and growing substrates affect the yield and fruit quality of the tomato cultivars. Materials and Methods This study was conducted in Hwacheon (38º 6 N and 127º 31 E) Research Farm, South Korea and the seeds of tomato cultivars Campari, Temptation, Annamay, and Adoration were received from Mifko Co. Ltd., Korea. Seeds were sown in plug trays filled with horticultural mix soil (Seoul Bio. Co. Ltd.) in the last week of April, 2011. For the transplants production, cuttings ( 20 cm in height with an average of 5 mm stem diameter) were taken from all the cultivars and rooted in plastic tray filled with masato soil, and transplants were received daily irrigation until the development of good root system. Two sets of experiments were conducted simultaneously under the same climate-controlled greenhouse. For the first experiment, planting beds were arranged parallelly in northsouth direction and bed width of 20 cm, 40 cm, 60 cm, and 80 cm were constructed by laying the wooden plank at both sides of the bed. Masato was filled at each bed and finally, black polythene was mulched over it. The bed height and bed to bed distance were maintained at 8 cm and 70 cm, respectively. For the second experiment, three different substrates were evaluated; (1) Cocopeat slab (95 cm 15 cm 8 cm), (2) Rockwool slab (97 cm 15 cm 8 cm) and (3) Masato. Cocopeat and rockwool slabs were placed over Styrofoam slab (177 cm 25 cm 5 cm) and masato at 60 cm bed width were arranged in the same place and direction. In the first experiment, well rooted transplants that were 30 cm in height with an average of 5 mm stem diameter were set by hand in single rows at the spacing s of 60 cm between the plants. For the second experiment, both slabs were prewetted 48 h before planting. The rockwool cubes (10 cm 9.5 cm 6.5 cm) were put on the top of the substrate and transplants were fixed in cubes. Planting was carried out on July 7 for both experiments. For both experiments, fifteen plants were planted at each treatment in randomized complete block design with three replications. Drip irrigation was supplied with a standard nutrient solution to the plants and recommended cultural practices for tomato were followed throughout these studies. Bulk density (BD), porosity and water holding of substrates were measured according to the methods described by Verdonck and Gabriels (1992). The ph was measured using electronic ph meter and electrical conductivity (EC) by a conductive meter. The physical properties of growing substrate were analyzed at the beginning of the study and are presented in Table 1. For both experiments, plant height measured at 80 days after planting in the field. Fruits were harvested twice when they turned into light red to red stage at 80 and 90 days after the plant establishment in the field. Marketable characteristics

104 Binod Prasad Luitel, Prakash Babu Adhikari, Cheol Soo Yoon, and Won Hee Kang for tomato were defined as; uniform color, good shape, good health state and weight greater than 35 g whereas misshapen, rotten, cracked fruits and weight lesser than 35 g were categorized into non-marketable. Observations on fruit characters were taken randomly on five fruits. Fruit weight (g) was determined by weighing in digital electrical balance. Total soluble content (ºBrix) was measured by a hand-held refractometer (Atago, Japan) and fruit length (mm), fruit width (mm) and pericarp thickness (mm) were measured by vernier caliper. The data from both experiments were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS program (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and significant mean separations were performed using Duncan s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Pearson correlation analysis was done using SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) in yield and fruit quality characters in tomato cultivars established at different substrates. Results and Discussion Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the effect of bed size/width on plant height, yield components and fruit quality characters of tomato cultivars are presented in Table 2. Bed size affected all the variables except plant height, total soluble content (ºBrix) and pericarp thickness. Effect of bed width on total fruit number per plant was highly significant (p 0.01). The greatest number of fruit per plant counted at 60 cm bed width (22.4) but it was statistically similar to fruit number produced at 80 cm bed width. Marketable and non-marketable fruit number percentage per plant, average fruit weight and marketable fruit weight per plant in bed width treatments were significantly different (p 0.05). The highest number of marketable fruit per plant produced at 60 cm bed width (56.0%) followed by 80 cm (54.1%). The highest percentage of non-marketable fruit per plant was recorded at 20 cm bed width (61.8%) and the least in 60 cm bed width (44.0%). Average fruit weight was also affected by the bed width treatments. As spacing increased from 20 cm to 60 cm, the fruit weight was also increased. Marketable fruit per plant was highest in 60 cm bed width (356.8 g) but it was statistically similar to the values at 80 cm bed width. Effect of bed width on total yield per plant was statistically highly significant (p 0.01). The maximum yield per plant measured at 60 cm bed width (564.5 g) followed by bed width at 80 cm (504.9 g). Fruit size had no significant difference within the bed width treatments, however, its effect on the total soluble content and pericarp thickness of the fruit was non-significant. Kovach et al. (1983) were reported that the marketable tomato yields were not significantly affected by bed width but in this study, bed width significantly affected the marketable fruit weight per plant. Awas et al. (2010) reported that plant spacing of 40 30 cm gave higher marketable yield in tomato. Luitel et al. (2010) reported that planting transplants at 60 cm bed width gave the highest total fruit number, marketable fruit number and weight per plant in pepper cultivars which is agreed to this result. Mantur and Patil (2008) obtained the highest tomato yield at two rows planting at 60 apart in single bed with the plant spacing of 60 cm. Non-marketable fruit number plant decreased at increased level of bed width treatments. Plants grown in smaller bed width/or spacing contained Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on effect of bed size on fruit yield and quality characters of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. Bed size (BS) Cultivars (C) BS C Bed size (BS) 20 cm 40 cm 60 cm 80 cm Cultivars Campari Temptation Annamay Adoration

Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 53(2):102-107. 2012. 105 small volume of soil, roots receive low nutrient and roots compete to take more nutrient and moisture, insufficient light into plant canopy which might be the reason of producing more non-marketable fruit in narrow bed width. Plant height measured at different cultivars was statistically highly significant (p 0.01) (Table 2). Plant height measured highest in Annamay (216.1 cm) followed by Campari (204.1 cm) and the lowest in Temptation (157.7 cm). The average fruit number per plant was highest in Campari (18.2) but it was not significantly different with Adoration and Temptation. Effect of cultivars on marketable and non-marketable fruit number percentage, and average fruit weight was statistically highly significant (p 0.01). Annamay yielded maximum marketable fruit number per plant (67.5%), however, it did not differ significantly with Campari Temptation and Adoration. Adoration gave maximum non-marketable fruit number (62.3%) per plant followed by Temptation (59.9). The average fruit weight produced maximum in Temptation (55.3 g) followed by Campari (52.9 g). Significant variation observed in marketable fruit weight and total yield per plant within the cultivars (p 0.05). Campari produced the highest yield (531.9 g) but it was statistically similar to the yield obtained in Temptation and Adoration. Cultivars effect on the fruit size and total soluble content was highly significant (p 0.01). The highest fruit length was measured in Campari (42.9 mm) but it did not differ significantly with other varieties. Total soluble content was measured the highest in Adoration (6.3 ºBrix) followed by Annamy (5.8 ºBrix). The interaction effect of bed size and cultivars in all variables was non-significant. Kim et al. (2006) reported the significant difference in total yield of round tomatoes and in the present study, all the varieties had round shaped fruit with truss type. Variation in vegetative growth and yield characters in tomato cultivars grown in different bed width is due to the genetic differences exists at each genotype. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the effect of growing substrates on fruit yield and quality characters and its interaction with tomato cultivars are presented in Table 3. Effect of growing substrates on yield, yield components and fruit quality characters except plant height and fruit pericarp thickness was statistically significant (p 0.05). Total number of fruit per plant was produced the highest in cocopeat (16.0) followed by rockwool (15.2). Similarly, the highest percentage of marketable fruit number per plant was produced in cocopeat (56.2%) grown plants followed by rockwool (52.5%). Plants grown in masato produced the highest nonmarketable fruit number (61.8%) per plant and the lowest in cocopeat (43.8%). Plants grown in cocopeat yielded the greatest average fruit weight (54.7 g) but it was statistically similar to the plants grown in rockwool. Plants grown in cocopeat yielded the highest (445.6 g) marketable yield per plant and the lowest (357.0 g) in masato grown plants. With respect to total yield per plant, plants grown in cocopeat gave the greatest yield (571.5 g) followed by rockwool (567.8 g). Effect of substrate on fruit size and total soluble content was significant (p 0.05). The highest fruit length was measured in cocopeat, however, values did not differ significantly with other treatments. The highest total soluble content was measured highest in masato (5.6 ºBrix), but it was statistically similar to TSS values of fruits grown in Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on effect of growing substrates on fruit yield and quality characters of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars.

106 Binod Prasad Luitel, Prakash Babu Adhikari, Cheol Soo Yoon, and Won Hee Kang cocopeat and rockwool. Ghehsareh et al. (2011) observed the non-significant differences in plant height, fruit yield and fruit number of tomato grown in different substrates like perlite, pumice, zeolite, cocopeat, and sawdust. In this study, we found the significant differences in fruit number per plant and fruit yield per plant grown in cocopeat, rockwool, and masato. In this study, we observed the highest fruit weight in cocopeat grown fruits. This may be due to the status of water and oxygen in the growing substrate. Since the oxygen deficiency restricts root respiration and negatively affects water and nutrient uptake which eventually reduced the fruit weight in masato grown plants and similar results were reported by Raviv et al. (2004). Gul and Sevgican (1994) also reported that fruit weight was increased in plants grown in soilless substrates compared to those grown in soil. Allaire et al. (2005) reported that tomato yield in peatbark substrates were similar to rockwool and this study also found the similar tomato yield in the plants grown cocopeat and rockwool. Masato is sand dominated inorganic substrates which drain the nutrient and that might be the reason for low tomato yield in masato. Permuzic et al. (1998) showed the quality and quantity of tomato fruit in the organic media was better than that in the inorganic media. Though the yield of tomato was better in cocopeat, growing substrates unaffected the quality of tomato. Mahamud and Manisah (2007) reported the mixture of cocopeat and sago wastes significantly affect the plant height and total yield, and they mentioned that 100% cocopeat gave good growth to tomato plants. Yau and Murphy (2000) reported that plants grown in cocopeat produced higher fruit number (43%) and total yield (64%) but in the present study, we found higher fruit number (5.2%) and total yield (0.7%) in tomato grown in cocopeat as compared to rockwool. Nurzynski (2006) observed no substantial difference in tomato yield between the plants grown in straw and rockwool. Bohme et al. (2001) reported no differences between organic (coconut-fibre) and inorganic (rockwool) substrates on yield of cucumber plants. Fandi et al. (2008) reported the higher total soluble solid content of tomato grown in sand substrate. But in this study, no significant differences exist in total soluble solids within the substrates but Inden and Torres (2004) observed the highest amount of total soluble content in fruits grown in cocopeat substrate. Cultivars effect on plant height was statistically highly significant (p 0.01) (Table 3). The highest plant height measured in Campari (209.3 cm) and lowest in Temptation (165.5 cm). Average fruit number and marketable fruit number percentage per plant produced among the cultivars was statistically significant (p 0.05). Adoration gave maximum (23.0) number of fruit per plant but it was statistically similar to Campari and Temptation. Temptation produced the highest marketable fruit number (57.0%) per plant followed by Adoration (53.2). The average fruit weight was highest in Temptation (56.8 g), which was statistically similar to Adoration and Campari. Cultivars effect on marketable fruit weight per plant, total yield per plant and fruit quality characters including fruit length, fruit width, and total soluble content was highly significant (p 0.01). Adoration yielded maximum marketable fruit weight (511.2 g) and it was statistically similar to Temptation. As far as total yield per plant is concerned, Adoration produced the greatest yield (668.9 g) which was statistically similar to the yield of Temptation and Campari. Except Annamay, fruit size was statistically similar to all cultivars. Regarding the total soluble content of the fruit, Adoration was recorded the highest (6.0 ºBrix) followed by Annamay (5.5 ºBrix) and Campari (5.3 ºBrix). The highest (5.2 mm) pericarp thickness measured in Adoration however it was statistically similar to fruits of other varieties. The significant response of tomato cultivars to yield and quality characters is due to the genetic makeup of these cultivars. The correlation of fruit yield, yield components and quality variables are presented in Table 4. Total fruit number Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficient analysis for variables measured in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars established at different growing substrates.

Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 53(2):102-107. 2012. 107 per plant significantly (p 0.05) correlated with average fruit weight. Likewise, total fruit number per plant showed highly significant (p 0.01) correlations with marketable fruit weight (r = 0.523) and total yield (0.757) per plant. Average fruit weight per plant was significantly correlated (p 0.01) with marketable fruit weight (r = 0.565), total yield per plant (r = 0.574), fruit length (r = 0.696) and width (r = 0.767) but the association was non-significant and negative (r = -0.031) with total soluble content of the fruits. There were also significant correlations (p 0.01) between marketable fruit weight per plant and total yield, fruit length, width and pericarp thickness. Total yield per plant was positively correlated with fruit size (length and width) and pericarp thickness. Fruit size had no correlation with total soluble content but fruit size showed highly significant (p 0.01) correlation with pericarp thickness. Fruit weight was positively correlated to pericarp thickness. Bernousi et al. (2011) observed total soluble solids has a negative correlation with mean of fruit weight per plant, fruit length, fruit width, pericarp thickness which confirms the results of this study. Bodende (2002) also reported that fruit width and fruit length are directly responsible for the determination of fruit yield in tomato and in this study, fruit size is positively correlated to fruit yield per plant. In conclusion, planting bed size at 60 cm is suitable for single row tomato cultivation as well as to optimize the production space in greenhouse. Cultivars response in yield and quality characters is due to the genetic make of the cultivars. Overall, plants grown in cocopeat substrate produced better in fruit weight and marketable fruit yield per plant. Hence, cocopeat can be used as potential replacement for rockwool as growing substrate in greenhouse tomato production. Literature Cited Allaire, S.E., J. Caron, C. Menard, and M. Dorais. 2005. Potential replacements for rockwool as growing substrate for greenhouse tomato. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 85:67-74. Awas, G., T. Abdisa, K. Tolosa, and A. Chali. 2010. Effect of inter-row spacing with double row arrangement on yield and yield component of tomato (Lycopercon esculentum Mill.) at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center (Central Rift Valley of Oromica, Ethiopia). Afric. J. Agric. Res. 6:2978-2981. Bernousi, I., A. Emami, M. Tajbakhsh, R. Darvishzadeh, and M. Henareh. 2011. Studies on genetic variability and correlation among the different traits in Solanum lycopersicum L. Not Bot Hort Agrobot Cluj. 39:152-158. Blanc, D. 1987. Soilless culture. Collective work. INRA. Paris. p. 478. Bodende, J.G. 2002. Path co-efficient and correlation studies in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J. Agric. Res. 61:327-330. Bohme, M., L. Hoang, and R. Vorwerk. 2001. Effect of different substrates and mineral as well as organic nutrition on the growth of cucumber in closed substrates systems. Acta Hort. 548:165-172. Bragg, N.C. 1990. Peat and its alternatives. Hants, UK. p.10. Cabrera, R.I. 2003. Fundamental of container media management. Part 1. Physical properties. The State Univ. of New Jersy Agric. Exp. Station. Cantliffe, D., J.N. Shaw, E. Jovicich, J.C. Rodriguez, I. Secker, and Z. Karchi. 2001. Passive ventilated high-proof greenhouse production of vegetables in a humid mild winter climate. Acta Hort. 559: 515-520. Fandi, M., J.A. Al-Muhtaseb, and M.A. Hussein. 2008. Yield and fruit quality of tomato as affected by the substrate in an open soilless culture. Jor. J. Agric. Sci. 4:65-72. Ghehsareh, A.M., N. Samadi, and H. Borji. 2011. Comparison of date-palm wastes and perlite as growth substrates on some tomato growing indexes. Afri. J. Biotechnol. 10:4871-4878. Gul, A. and A. Sevgican. 1994. Suitability of various soilless media for long-term greenhouse tomato growing. Acta Hort. 366:437-444. Hardgrave, M. and M. Harriman. 1995. Development of organic substrates for hydroponic cucumber production. Acta Hort. 401:219-224. Inden, H. and A. Torres. 2004. Comparison of four substrates on the growth and quality of tomatoes. Acta Hort. 644:205-210. Kim, Y.B., J.Y. Oh, J.H. Shin, K.L. Choi, Y.H. Chang, S.K. Kim, G.M. Shon, and G.W. Song. 2007. Characteristics of truss tomato cultivars in Korea. Acta Hort. 760:281-286. Kovach, S.P., A.A. Csizinszky, and C.D. Stanley. 1983. Effect of bed size and supplemental dry fertilizer on yields of drip irrigated cauliflower and tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 96:96-98. Lemaire, F., A. Dartigues, L.M. Rivieere, and S. Charpentier. 1989. Cultivation in pots and containers: Agronomic principles and applications. INRA, Paris and PHM. Luitel, B.P., T.J. Lee, T. Oyuntugs, and W.H. Kang. 2010. Yield in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars established at different planting bed size and growth containers. Hort. Environ. Biotechnol. 51:378-382. Mahamud, S. and M.D. Manisah. 2007. Preliminary studied on sago waste as growing medium for tomato. Acta Hort. 742:163-168. Mantur, S.M. and S.R. Patil. 2008. Influence of spacing and pruning on yield of tomato grown under shade house. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 21:97-98. Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MFAFF). 2008. Statistics of protected vegetables production. MFAFF, Gwacheon, Korea p. 7. Nurzynski, J. 2006. The yielding of greenhouse tomato grown in straw and rockwool substrates. Folia Hort. 18:17-23. Permuzic Z., M. Bargiela, A. Garci, and A. Rendina. 1998. Calcium, iron, potassium, phosphorous and vitamin C content of organic and hydroponic tomatoes. Hort. Sci. 33:255-257. Raviv, M., R. Wallach, and T.J. Blom. 2004. The effect of physical properties of soilless media on plant performance-a review. Acta Hort. 644:251-259. Sirin, U. and A. Sevgican. 1999. The effect of pot size and growing media on growth of tomato in soilless culture. Acta Hort. 491: 343-348. Tehranifar, A., M. Poostchi, H. Arooei, and H. Nematti. 2007. Effects of seven substrates on qualitative and quantitative characteristics of three strawberry cultivars under soilless culture. Acta Hort. 761:485-488. Verdonck, O. and R. Gabriels. 1992. Reference method for the determination of physical properties of plant substrates. II. Reference method for the determination of chemical properties of plant substrates. Acta Hort. 302:169-179. Yau, P.Y. and R.J. Murphy. 2000. Biodegraded cocopeat as a horticultural substrate. Acta Hort. 517:275-278.