





































Microsoft Word - p1-8


 Agricultural Science; Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 
ISSN 2690-5396   E-ISSN 2690-4799 

https://doi.org/10.30560/as.v7n1p1 

1                             Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

The Effect of the Combination Polymers – Grape Marc in the 
Development of Tomato Growing in Soilless  

Edouard Tabet1, Sarah Akiki1, Suzy Rouphael1, Elie Awad2, Chadi Hosri3 & Dalida Darazy4 

1 Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Production, Lebanese University, Dekwaneh, Lebanon 
2 Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Basic Sciences, Lebanese University, Dekwaneh, Lebanon 
3 Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Production, Lebanese University, Dekwaneh, Lebanon 
4 Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Protection, Lebanese University, Dekwaneh, Lebanon 

Correspondence: Edouard Tabet, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Plant Production, Lebanese University, 
Dekwaneh, Lebanon. Tel: 961-365-5178. E-mail: edouard.tabet@ul.edu.lb 

 

Received: January 10, 2025   Accepted: January 20, 2025   Online Published: January 29, 2025 

 

Abstract 
This study examined the impact of two fertilizers (FI (CRFA) and F2 (Arizona University) and three substrates 
(S1(100% coconut fiber), S2 (50% coconut fiber, 50% grape marc, and 7g of polymers), and S3 (50% coconut 
fiber, 50% grape marc, and 13g of polymers)) on tomato growth in a soilless system. Results showed that Fertilizer 
F2 was the most effective overall. Substrate S3 excelled in node count and flower bud spacing, likely due to 
improved moisture retention and nutrient availability. Substrate S1 supported optimal stem length and node 
spacing. Substrate S2 yielded the highest tomato production. These findings suggest that optimizing fertilization 
and substrate composition can significantly improve tomato yield and quality in soilless systems. This has 
implications for sustainable agriculture by reducing reliance on soil-based cultivation and potentially increasing 
crop productivity. Further research in this area could lead to more efficient and environmentally friendly farming 
practices. 

Keywords: fertilizer, soilless system, tomato, superabsorbent polymers, grape marc 

1. Introduction 

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is one of the most widespread crops globally, with a production exceeding 
180 million tons in 2021. Italy accounted for 53% of the total European production, while China, India, Turkey, 
and the US were also among the top producers (Eslami et al., et al., 2022). In Lebanon, tomatoes are one of the 
most cultivated and consumed vegetable crops, with a production of 305,300 tons over an area of 5,000 hectares 
in 2020 (FAOSTAT, 2020). With a growing global population and rising living standards, traditional agricultural 
practices face immense pressure due to dwindling freshwater resources (FAO, 2019). This necessitates a shift 
towards efficient and sustainable farming methods. Hydroponics is emerging as a solution to meet increasing 
demands (Velazquez-Gonzalez et al., et al., 2022). The search for high-quality, low-cost substrates has led to 
exploring organic agro-industrial wastes like grape marc compost as alternatives to peat (Abad et al., 2001; Tabet 
et al., 2022). However, grape marc's high-water content presents challenges compared to coconut substrates Grape 
marc, a byproduct of winemaking, presents a promising alternative to peat. Its use as a growing medium can reduce 
waste and promote circularity in the agricultural sector. However, grape marc's high-water content can be a 
challenge. (IRAL, 2017). Super-absorbents or hydrogels can enhance moisture availability in the root zone by 
absorbing significant amounts of water and helping plants to grow properly (Malik et al., 2022). This study aims 
to develop a prototype grow bag technique for hydroponic tomato cultivation with substrate combinations, such 
as polymers-grape marc, to reduce production costs and increase water holding capacity. By optimizing this 
approach, we can explore a more sustainable and cost-effective method for tomato cultivation. 

2. Material and Methods 

2.1 Work Description 

The experiment was conducted from April to August 2024 at the Agricultural Research and Training Center 
(CFRA) of the Faculty of Agronomy at the Lebanese University in Ghazir, Keserwan District (Mount Lebanon) 
at an altitude of 550 m. It took place in a bi-chapel greenhouse covering 224 m², containing 36 substrate bags for 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 2       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

tomato cultivation, with each bag containing three plants. Flower buds first appeared on April 26, 2024, and the 
first harvest took place on June 23, 2024.  

2.2 Experimental Design 

The tomato variety used in this experiment was the GH Tomato Delin F1 variety. The 36 bags were divided into 
groups for each fertilization recipe (F1 and F2) and substrates (S1, S2, and S3). The experimental setup followed 
split plot design with three repetitions: block 1, block 2, and block 3. Each block included the two fertilization 
recipes (main factors) and the three substrates (sub-factors). (Figure 1). 

2.3 Substrate and Fertilization Recipe 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three different substrate bags (20 liters each) were tested: 

 S1: 100% coconut fiber (control). 

 S2: 50% coconut fiber and 50% grape marc with 7g of polymers. 

 S3: 50% coconut fiber and 50% grape marc with 13g of polymers. 

Table 1 provides a clearer overview of the substrate compositions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Experimental design 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 3       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Table 1. Physico-chemical analysis of substrates according to IRAL 

Physico-chemical parameters Unit Grape Marc Coconut fiber rate 

Water content % 32.17 11.32 

Dry matter % 67.83 88.68 

Ash content % 16.69 5.55 

pH water (1:10) 1:10 7.45 5.19 

Electrical conductivity (EC) mS.cm-1 5.15 0.61 

Organic matter (combustion) %MS 83.31 94.45 

Carbon (combustion) %MS 46.28 52.47 

Kjeldahl nitrogen %MS 0.46 1 

 

The components of the fertilization recipes F1 (CRFA) and F2 (Arizona University) are outlined in Table 2.  

 

Table 2. Components of fertilization recipes F1 and F2 during the two phases of the production cycle in ppm 

Components of fertilization 

recipes 

Phase I 

0-6 weeks 

Phase II 

6 – 12+ weeks 

F1 F2 F1 F2 

Nitrogen (N) 237.50 224.00 376.18 189.00 

Phosphorus (P) 140.70 47.00 125.00 47.00 

Potassium (K) 216.60 281.00 434.00 351.00 

Calcium (Ca) 57.00 212.00 171.00 190.00 

Magnesium (Mg) 39.72 65.00 75.85 60.00 

Iron (Fe) 12.53 2.00 13.95 2.00 

Manganese (Mn) 4.97 0.55 4.46 0.55 

Zinc (Zn) 1.02 0.33 5.84 0.33 

Boron (B) 2.44 0.28 2.20 0.28 

Copper (Cu) 0.13 0.05 0.85 0.05 

Molybdenum (Mo) 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.05 

Source: Sunco, Ltd., and University of Arizona, Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, 
http://tinyurl.com/ljlj785/ 

 

The grape marc, obtained from a local winery, underwent a 6-week solarization process. This involved initial sun-
drying for 2 days followed by covering with nylon sheets to enhance the solarization effect. Consequently, 
Fertigation was applied via an irrigation station with a dosatron. 

2.4 Measured Parameters 

Data collection included stem length, number and distance of nodes, number and distance between flower buds, 
and yield. Measurements were taken manually using a measuring tape, and fruits were weighed using a precision 
scale. 

2.5 Ec and pH Measurements  

Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH were measured daily using a Multi-Function Water Tester. The EC was 
maintained between 1.69 and 2.49 ms/cm, and the target pH was between 6.5 and 6.99 (Adams, 2002).  

2.6 Statistical Analysis 

Statistical analyses were processed using GLM (General Linear Model) via Sigma stat software. As a split-plot 
design experiment was employed, Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare the main factors F1 and F2 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 4       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

along with sub-factors (S1, S2, S3) and their interactions at a significance level of 5% for all studied parameters 
(stem length, number of nodes, distance between nodes, number of flower buds, distance between flower buds, 
and yield). Duncan's Test was applied to indicate significantly different treatments . 

3. Results and Discussion  

3.1 Effects of Fertilization and Substrate  

In Table 3, results showed that fertilization recipe F2 yielded superior outcomes in flower bud number and yield 
compared to F1. Substrate S3 exhibited enhanced moisture retention, promoting node count and flower bud 
spacing, while S2 achieved the highest yield due to its balance of water retention and nutrient availability. 

 

Table 3. Effects of Fertilization and Substrate on Different Parameters 

Treatment F1 F2 S1 S2 S3 

Stem length (cm) 233.78 ± 29.40 217.33 ± 25.27 232.67 ± 24.65 227.67 ± 29.30 216.33 ± 26.50 

Number of nodes 24.22 ± 1.65 * 23.00 ± 2.05  21.67 ± 0.94 23.50 ± 1.12 25.67 ± 1.11* 

Nodes distance (cm) 9.69 ± 1.33 9.57 ± 1.55 10.75 ± 1.04* 9.69 ± 1.08 8.46 ± 1.19 

Number of flower buds 41.77 ± 1.99 44.33 ± 3.46 43.5 ± 4.23 43 ± 2.38 42.66 ± 2.21 

Flower buds distance (cm) 21.39 ± 0.94 21.72 ± 0.55 21.24 ± 0.60 21.32 ± 0.47 22.1 ± 0.90 

Yield (kg) 141.58 173.75* 101.49 111.53 102.31 

(*) indicates a P-value < 0.05 (statistically significant). 

 

3.1.1 Stem Length 

The analysis shows that fertilization treatments F1 (233.78 cm) outperformed F2 (217.33 cm); however, this 
difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Similarly, the three substrates did not significantly impact stem 
length (P > 0.05); with S1 (control) showing the highest mean at 232.67 cm followed by S2 at 227.67 cm and S3 
at 216.33 cm. According to Ayankojo (2020), increased nitrogen application correlates with improved growth 
rates, although excessive nitrogen does not always lead to higher yields or greater water use efficiency. 
Additionally, phosphorus is crucial for optimizing plant development; Sobrinho et al., (2024) demonstrated that 
higher phosphorus doses significantly enhance tomato growth when irrigation is properly managed. Kathi et al., 
(2021) affirmed that while polymers can help mitigate water stress, they do not necessarily enhance stem growth 
compared to balanced irrigation or fertilization alone.  

3.1.2 Number of Nodes 

Fertilization resulted in a higher mean number of nodes for F1 averaging 24.22 compared to F2's average 23.00; 
with P < 0.05 indicating that fertilization recipes significantly influence node development. Almeida et al., (2020) 
demonstrate that fertilizers positively affect tomato growth and yield in soilless systems, promoting greater node 
counts. While Singh et al., (2021) highlight that organic amendments like grape marc enhance growth parameters 
such as node development. Among substrates, S3 had the highest average node count at 25.67 cm, followed by S2 
at 23.50 cm, while S1 had an average count at 21.67 cm, showing a highly significant effect (P < 0.05). This 
suggests that substrate choice impacts node development due to factors like nutrient retention and water-holding 
capacity. Studies indicate that superabsorbent polymers (SAPs) can significantly improve plant growth metrics 
when used at optimal doses (Yang et al., 2020). The findings highlight the importance of proper polymer dosage 
for enhancing plant development, with S3's effective use of recommended polymer levels correlating with 
increased node production (Yang et al., 2022; Başak et al., 2020).  

3.1.3 Node Distance 

Analysis shows that fertilization treatments F1 enriched with higher nitrogen and phosphorus levels result in a 
mean distance between nodes of 9.69 cm while F2 yields 9.57 cm; however, P = 0.83 > 0.05 indicating no 
statistically significant difference, suggesting both treatments provide similar conditions for node spacing .This 
suggests both treatments provide similar conditions for node spacing. Research by Iqbal et al., (2022) supports the 
importance of nitrogen in promoting plant growth and spacing, while optimal plant spacing can reduce resource 
competition (Whitehead & Singh, 2000). Among the substrates, S1 exhibits the highest mean distance between 
nodes at 10.75 cm, followed by S2 at 9.69 cm and S3 at 8.46 cm. The P-value of 0.03 < 0.05 indicates that the 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 5       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

differences are statistically significant, highlighting the crucial role of substrate composition in influencing plant 
growth patterns. Iqbal et al., (2022) and Altrão et al., (2022) suggest that substrates with optimal moisture retention 
enhance root development and node spacing. The lack of polymer application in S1 may allow for unrestricted 
root growth, resulting in greater node spacing compared to S2 and S3, where polymer applications may affect root 
expansion (Chapman et al., 2012). Overall, results favor S1 for distance between nodes. 

3.1.4 Number of Flower Buds 

The number of flower buds in tomato plants shows that treatment F2 yielded an average of 44.33 flower buds 
compared to F1's 41.77, although the P > 0.05, indicating no significant difference. The increased flower count in 
F2 may be attributed to its higher calcium content, which enhances pollen germination and tube growth and is 
essential for fertilization (Yara International, 2023). Additionally, F2's nutrient balance, with lower nitrogen and 
phosphorus but higher potassium levels, likely contributes to improved plant health and flowering potential (Zhang 
et al., 2022). When comparing the substrates, flower bud production is quite similar across all types: S1 averages 
43.5 buds, S2 produces 43 buds, and S3 shows 42.66 buds, indicating no significant differences among them 
(Singh et al., 2021).  

3.1.5 Distance between Flower Buds 

The analysis of the distance between flower buds indicates that treatment F2 has a mean distance of 21.72 cm, 
slightly higher than F1's21.39 cm, however, with a P > 0.05, indicating no statistically significant difference. 
Among substrates, S3 shows the highest mean distance at 22.1 cm, while S1 and S2 have means of 21.24 cm and 
21.32 cm, respectively, with a P-value > 0.05, also suggesting no significant differences. These findings imply that 
both fertilization recipes and substrate choices do not strongly influence flower bud spacing (Khan et al., 2021). 
This consistency could indicate that other environmental factors, such as light availability or water management, 
may play more crucial roles in influencing flower bud spacing than the fertilization recipes or substrates themselves 
(Zhang et al., 2022).  

3.1.6 Plant Yield 

At the end of the experiment, treatment F1 yielded a total harvest weight of 141.58 kg, while treatment F2 produced 
a significantly higher weight of 173.75 kg, with a P < 0.05 promoting plant growth. Studies have shown that 
specific nutrient applications can substantially increase plant biomass and overall yield (Li et al., 2023), with 
balanced fertilization being crucial for maximizing tomato yields (Wageningen University, 2018; Tabet et al., 
2020). Among substrates, control substrate S1 produced the lowest total weight at 101.49 kg while substrate S3 
resulted in a total weight of 102.31 kg. However, substrate S2 yielded the highest total weight at 111.53 kg with 
P-value greater than 0.05, indicating no significant difference. Research indicates that incorporating 
superabsorbent polymers can increase the water-holding capacity of the soil, allowing plants to access moisture 
during critical growth stages, particularly under drought conditions (Fernando et al., 2013). However, the 
additional polymers in S3 did not lead to a significant improvement in performance over S2; a study demonstrated 
that using an optimal concentration of SAPs resulted in a notable increase in tomato yield, root growth, and overall 
plant health, highlighting the polymers' role in mitigating water stress (Günes et al., 2007). Overall, results favor 
treatments F2 and S2. 

3.2 Interactions between different Fertilization recipes and Substrates on All Parameters 

The results of interactions between different fertilization recipes and substrates on all parameters are showed in 
table 4.  

 

Table 4. Interaction between different fertilization recipes and substrates on all parameters 

Treatment F1S1 F1S2 F1S3 F2S1 F2S2 F2S3 

Stem length 231.00 ± 31.48  243.67 ± 40.92 226.67 ± 23.63 234.33 ± 22.81 211.67 ± 11.50 206.00 ± 35.04 

Number of nodes 22.33 ± 0.58  24.33 ± 0.58 26.00 ± 1.00 21.00 ± 1.00 22.67 ± 1.15 25.33 ± 1.53 

Nodes distance (cm) 10.35 ± 1.51  10.00 ± 1.53 8.73 ± 1.06  11.14 ± 0.69 9.37 ± 0.93 8.19 ± 1.70 

Number of flower buds 41.33 ± 2.49 42.33 ± 2.05 41.67 ± 0.94 45.67 ± 4.5 43.67 ± 2.49 43.67 ± 2.62  

Flower bud distance (cm) 20.93 ± 0.65 21.23 ± 0.35 22.01 ± 1.21 21.55 ± 0.31 21.43 ± 0.54 22.19 ± 0.40 

Yield (kg) 44.7 50.08 46.8 56.79 61.45 55.51 

 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 6       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

During the different phases of production, the interaction between the different fertilization recipes and the 
different substrates did not show any significant difference in all parameters. Regarding the stem length, the 
variables did not exhibit strong collaboration or antagonism sufficient, however there are variations in the average 
lengths among combinations showing that F1S2 yields the highest value at 243.67 cm which aligns with findings 
from studies indicating that optimal substrate and fertilization combinations are crucial for maximizing tomato 
growth (Gonzalez et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2021). Concerning the number of nodes, the most 
favorable results were in favor of F1S3 with the highest count of 26, having F1 rich in nitrogen phosphorus 
combined appropriate substrate such as S3 recommended dose polymersof 13g can improve crop yields and 
promote vigorous vegetative growth (Vera-Garcia et al., 2023; Ewulo et al., 2015). On the other hand, F2S1 
demonstrates superior growth compared to all other combinations, nodes distance 11.14 cm and number of flower 
buds of 45.67. Research has shown that while node spacing is critical for optimizing light interception and air 
circulation, the lack of significant differences among these treatments indicates that other environmental factors, 
such as light availability and water management, may also play crucial roles in determining plant architecture 
(López-Pereira et al., 2022). Some studies suggest that consistent nutrient management and substrate selection can 
enhance overall plant health without necessarily affecting node spacing significantly (Gonzalez et al., 2023). 
Furthermore, the elevated calcium content and optimized nutrient ratios in F2 enhances the pollen germination, 
flower production and fruit set in tomato plants (Yara International, 2023; Li et al., 2023). The lack of significant 
difference among the distance between flower buds suggests that both fertilization strategies and substrate 
variations do not have a strong impact on the spacing of flower buds in tomato plants (Du et al., 2021). Despite 
this, the best results were in favor of F2S3 (22.19 cm). In addition, the highest total weight was observed in 
treatment F2S2 (61.45 kg). This aligns with findings that have shown that substrate composition significantly 
affects plant growth parameters, emphasizing the importance of selecting appropriate growing media to enhance 
yield potential (Chowdhury et al., 2024). Finally, the study's findings may be limited by environmental factors 
(climate, seasonality, pests), crop-specific responses, and region-specific factors (soil, water quality, management 
practices). Key implications include the significant impact of polymer concentration on plant health. Optimal 
polymer dosage is crucial for enhancing plant development, while excessive use can be detrimental. Substrate 
composition, including organic amendments like grape marc, also influences plant growth. Proper fertilization, 
particularly with nitrogen and phosphorus, is essential for yield optimization, but excessive nitrogen application 
might not always lead to higher yields or water use efficiency.   

4. Conclusion 

According to our study, it is evident that fertilization recipes and substrates employed in our experiment, 
significantly influence various growth and productivity parameters of tomato plants in soilless culture. The results 
show that Fertilization recipe F2, rich in potassium and calcium, consistently outperformed F1 in terms of 
improving node and flower buds spacing, increasing the number of flower buds and yield. However, recipe F1 
with its higher nitrogen and phosphorus content, demonstrated greater efficacy in promoting stem length and node 
development. While substrate S1 (100% cocopeat) excelled in promoting stem length, node development and 
number of flower buds due to its superior water retention and aeration properties. Substrate S3 (50% coconut fiber 
and 50% grape marc with 13g of polymers) showed the best results for node count and flower bud spacing, 
benefiting from enhanced moisture retention and nutrient availability.  In terms of plant yield, substrate S2 (50% 
coconut fiber and 50% grape marc with 7g of polymers) performed the best, striking an ideal balance between 
water retention and root support while addressing the minimal water retention capacity of grape marc. Notably, 
the interactions between fertilization recipes and substrates did not significantly influence any of the measured 
parameters, suggesting that these factors operate independently. The study highlights the independent roles of 
fertilization recipes and substrates in optimizing tomato growth and yield in soilless systems. Fertilization recipe 
F2 and substrates S2 and S3 played pivotal roles in improving tomato productivity, aligning with the study's goal 
of optimizing soilless cultivation techniques. Grape marc, an agro-industrial by-product, and polymers offer 
several advantages in improving water use efficiency, reduced costs, enhanced sustainability, improved plant 
health and reducing costs in commercial hydroponic systems. Further research and development are needed to 
optimize the use of these materials and maximize their benefits 

References 

Abad, M., Noguera, P., & Bures, S. (2001). National inventory of organic wastes for use as growing media for 
ornamental potted plant production: Case study in Spain. Bioresource Technology, 77(2), 197-200. 

Adams, P. (2002). Nutritional control in hydroponics. In Hydroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals 
(pp. 211-261). Embryo Publications. 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 7       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

Almeida, A. A., Lima, M. R., & Silva, J. F. (2020). Growth and yield of tomato plants as influenced by nutrient 
application. J-STAGE. 

Altrão, C. S., Kawashim, T., Ohbu, M., Matsuura, S., Higuchi, M., Yanai, Y., ... & Yokota, K. (2022). Comparative 
study of disease suppression on various host plants by Bacillus cyclic lipopeptides. Agricultural Sciences, 
13(1), 1-9. 

Ayankojo, I. T., Morgan, K. T., Kadyampakeni, D. M., & Liu, G. D. (2020). Tomato growth, yield, and root 
development, soil nitrogen and water distribution as affected by nitrogen and irrigation rates on a Florida 
sandy soil. HortScience, 55(11), 1744-1755. 

Başak, H. (2020). The effects of super absorbent polymer application on the physiological and biochemical 
properties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plants grown by soilless agriculture technique. 

Chapman, N., Miller, A. J., Lindsey, K., & Whalley, W. R. (2012). Roots, water, and nutrient acquisition: Let's get 
physical. Trends in Plant Science, 17(12), 701-710. 

Chowdhury, M., Espinoza-Ayala, A., Samarakoon, U. C., Altland, J. E., & Yang, T. (2024). Substrate Comparison 
for Tomato Propagation under Different Fertigation Protocols. Agriculture, 14(3), 382. 

Du, Q. J., Xiao, H. J., Li, J. Q., Zhang, J. X., Zhou, L. Y., & Wang, J. Q. (2021). Effects of different fertilization 
rates on growth, yield, quality and partial factor productivity of tomato under non-pressure gravity irrigation. 
PLoS One, 16(3), e0247578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247578 

Eslami, E., Carpentieri, S., Pataro, G., & Ferrari, G. (2022). A comprehensive overview of tomato processing by-
product valorization by conventional methods versus emerging technologies. Foods, 12(1), 166. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12010166 

Ewulo, B. S., Sanni, K. O., & Adesina, J. M. (2015). International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and 
Agriculture. 

FAO. (2019). Https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1185405/. 

FAOSTAT. (2020). FAOSTAT-Production quantities of Tomatoes by country. 

Fernando, T. N., Aruggoda, A. G. B., Disanayaka, C. K., & Kulatunge, S. (2013). Effect of super water absorbent 
polymer and watering capacity on growth of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). 

Gonzalez, A., Martinez, J., & Lopez, R. (2023). Effects of fertilization on growth parameters in tomato crops: A 
review. Horticultural Science, 58(2), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13580-023-00567-8 

Günes, T. (2007). Effect of polymer on seedling survival and growth of transplanted tomato under water-stress. 
Asian Journal of Chemistry, 19(4), 3208. 

Iqbal, M., Ali, S., & Khan, M. A. (2022). The role of nitrogen in plant growth and development: A review. Journal 
of Plant Nutrition, 45(3), 345-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2022.2045678 

IRAL. (2017). Analyse physico-chimique des substrats. 

Kathi, S., Simpson, C., Umphres, A., & Schuster, G. (2021). Cornstarch-based, biodegradable superabsorbent 
polymer to improve water retention, reduce nitrate leaching, and result in improved tomato growth and 
development. HortScience, 56(12), 1486-1493. 

Li, F., Yuan, Y., Shimizu, N., Magaña, J., Gong, P., & Na, R. (2023). Impact of organic fertilization by the digestate 
from by-product on growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon) and soil properties 
under greenhouse and field conditions. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 10(1), 70. 

Li, F., Yuan, Y., Shimizu, N., Magaña, J., Gong, P., & Na, R. (2023). Impact of organic fertilization by the digestate 
from by-product on growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon) and soil properties 
under greenhouse and field conditions. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 10(1), 70. 

Lopes Sobrinho, O. P., dos Santos, L. N. S., Soares, F. A. L., Teixeira, M. B., Reis, M. N. O., Bessa, L. A., & 
Vitorino, L. C. (2024). Adjusting Irrigation and Phosphate Fertilizer to Optimize Tomato Growth and 
Production. Agronomy, 14(8), 1616. 

López-Pereira, M., Casal, J. J., & Hall, A. J. (2022). Is the tolerance of sunflower floret differentiation to crop 
density associated with the stem growth and with the oil yield response to density? Field Crops Research, 
272, 108362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108362 

Malik, S., Chaudhary, K., Malik, A., Punia, H., Sewhag, M., Berkesia, N., ... & Boora, K. (2022). Superabsorbent 



as.ideasspread.org   Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 1; 2025 

 8       Published by IDEAS SPREAD 
 

polymers as a soil amendment for increasing agricultural production with reducing water losses under water 
stress condition. Polymers, 15(1), 161. 

Singh, K. G., & Singh, A. (2021). Growth and yield of tomato in soilless media under naturally ventilated 
polyhouse. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 78(03), 297-303. 

Sunco, Ltd., and University of Arizona, Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, http://tinyurl.com/ljlj785/. 

Tabet, E., Awali, R., & Darazi, D. (2022). Optimizing fertigation of eggplant production in hydroponic coco-peat 
substrate. Lebanese Science Journal, 21, 129-145. 

Tabet, E., Sleiman, P., Hosri, C., Rouphael, S., & Farah, L. (2020). Optimisation of Off-Soil Tomato Fertilization 
and Substrate Recipes. Agricultural Science, 2(1), p243-p243. 

Vera-García, S. L., Rodríguez-Casasola, F. N., Barrera-Cortés, J., Albores-Medina, A., Muñoz-Páez, K. M., 
Cañizares-Villanueva, R. O., & Montes-Horcasitas, M. C. (2023). Enhancing Phosphorus and Nitrogen 
Uptake in Maize Crops with Food Industry Biosolids and Azotobacter nigricans. Plants, 12(17), 3052. 

Wageningen University. (2018). Effect of Fertilizer on Tomato Growth: A Study on Nutrient Management Practices. 

Whitehead, W. F., & Singh, B. P. (2000). Yield, Time of Maximum CO2 Exchange Rate, and Leaf-area Index of 
'Clemson Spineless' Okra Are Affected by Within-row Spacing. HortScience, 35(5), 849-852. 

Yang, F., Cen, R., Feng, W., Liu, J., Qu, Z., & Miao, Q. (2020). Effects of super-absorbent polymer on soil 
remediation and crop growth in arid and semi-arid areas. Sustainability, 12(18), 7825. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187825 

Yang, Y., Zhang, S., Wu, J., Gao, C., Lu, D., & Tang, D. W. (2022). Effect of long term application of super 
absorbent polymer on soil structure, soil enzyme activity, photosynthetic characteristics, water and nitrogen 
use of winter wheat. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 998494. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.998494 

Yara. (2023). Role of Calcium in Tomato Production. Retrieved from Yara. 

Zhang, M., Xiao, N., Li, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, D., Xu, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Growth and fruit yields of greenhouse 
tomato under the integrated water and fertilizer by Moistube irrigation. Agronomy, 12(7), 1630. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071630 

Zhou, Y., Li, X., & Wang, J. (2022). The impact of node spacing on tomato yield and quality: A field study. Field 
Crops Research, 272, 108362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108362 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

 


