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/).