Influence of Seed Treated by Plasma Activated Water on the Growth of Lactuca sativa L.
by
, , , , and
Nataša Romanjek Fajdetić
1,
Teuta Benković-Lačić
1,
Krunoslav Mirosavljević
1,*,
Slavica Antunović
1,
Robert Benković
1,
Mario Rakić
2,
Slobodan Milošević
2 and
Božica Japundžić-Palenkić
1 1
Biotechnical Department, University of Slavonski Brod, 35000 Slavonski Brod, Croatia
2
Institute of Physics, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(23), 16237; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316237
Submission received: 9 November 2022
/
Revised: 30 November 2022
/
Accepted: 1 December 2022
/
Published: 5 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Resilience)
Abstract
:The aim of this work was to determine if PAW (Plasma Activated Water) seed treatment and growing conditions could have positive effects on lettuce seedlings and growth. The paper presents the results of a pot experiment on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivation in greenhouse and field conditions after seed treatment with PAW. The experiment was conducted in two consecutive seasons in 2021 and 2022 and the following growth parameters were measured: head mass, rosette height, rosette width, number of leaves, root mass and root length. As a result of the study, it was found that lettuces grown in the greenhouse from PAW treated seeds had higher results in the first measurement for both cultivars (mass 32.26%, diameter 19.01%, number of leaves 13.49% and height 24.01%), while there were no statistically significant effects on the root system. The lowest results were obtained in untreated and field-grown plants. In addition, plant dry matter was measured and it was found that plants grown from PAW treated seeds had a higher percentage of dry matter (11.51% in 2021, and 11.58% in 2022). It was also found that cultivation in greenhouse resulted in a better quality of plants than the cultivation in the open field.
1. Introduction
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) is widely grown vegetable and one of the most important vegetable crops [1]. It is one of the most demanded lettuce crops in both fresh and ready-to-eat markets around the world [2]. The goal of every grower is to achieve higher and better quality yields. At the same time, the elimination of artificial fertilizers, chemical growth promotors and chemical protectants is highly desirable.
A Highly reactive environment with high-energy electrons, radicals, and various gaseous reactive species, including OH, H2O2, NO, HNO is generated by various types of atmospheric pressure air discharges generated by cold plasma. PAW (Plasma Activated Water) occurs when plasma comes into contact with water and when these reactive species dissolve in water, creating reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS) [3]. There are many ways in which PAW affects plants: protein synthesis, gene expression, enzyme activity, DNA methylation, DNA demethylation, DNA damage, seed coat morphological and chemical changes, plant hormone balance, germination and seedling growth [4].
The experiments using PAW began in early 21st century. The use of PAW during vegetation also improves resistance to pathogens as well. Plasma treatment of water creates an acidic environment that leads to conductivity and the formation of nitrogen species and reactive oxygen, which change the redox potential. PAW contains nitrites, nitrates, and ammonia which could be nutrients as well as signaling molecules that can promote seed germination and seedling growth [5,6]. These molecules may also help to break dormancy and promote germination. Nitric oxide (NO), one of the reactive nitrogen species produced by plasma, is known to regulate resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses, and plant development [7,8]. According to Thirdumas et al., soaking seeds with PAW not only has an antibacterial effect but also promotes seed germination and plant growth [9]. Nowadays, there are more and more problems in breeding related to climate changes. As a result of global warming there has been a worldwide increase in temperature since 1970 as well as changes in the precipitation regime, leading to several serious consequences for agriculture [10]. Crops are more frequently exposed to stresses of both abiotic and biotic origin, including exposure to unpredictable and extreme climatic events, changes in plant physiology, growing season and phytosanitary hazard, and increased losses of up to 30% and 50% in global agricultural production in the current scenario of rapidly evolving climate change [11]. Predicting the impact of climate change on crop yields is difficult and depends on the crop type and geographic region [12,13] and the type of abiotic stress [14]. Improving crop resilience to stress is critical to maintaining agricultural productivity [15]. Heat waves will occur more frequently, last longer, have higher temperature peaks and longer duration, and begin earlier in the summer than historically [16,17]. Multiple abiotic stress may occur sequentially or simultaneously, generating an important challenge to crop production that requires the analysis of stress combinations in the field [18].
High climate variability and extreme temperature events were experienced in the twentieth century, since the frequency of summer heat waves and spring frost has increased significantly. For plant seedlings, transplanting is an environmentally stressful period as they must adapt to outdoor conditions and quickly establish themselves in the field [14]. Stress to plants caused by adverse environmental conditions can result in lower yields. To meet the requirements of plants, the environment can be artificially modified in such cases, for example in greenhouses [19]. One of the most important components for the development of agriculture has become the greenhouse industry [20]. In a controlled environment in agriculture, the use of greenhouse can help maintain temperature, humidity, and photosynthetically active radiation [21]. To reduce the influence of climate fluctuation, cultivation in protected areas such as greenhouses is often used [22,23]. In addition to climate conditions, seed quality has a significant influence on a good harvest. To achieve high production and productivity rates, the use of high quality seeds is essential [24].
The hypothesis was that seed treatment with PAW and growing conditions (greenhouse and field) will have an effect on the growth and development of two lettuce cultivars and an effect on dry matter. The experiment was conducted with lettuce plants and the parameters evaluated were the visual appearance and growth parameters of the plants (head mass, head height, root mass, root length, number of leaves and rosette diameter) and dry matter. The aim of this work was to study influence of treatment of two lettuce cultivars with PAW on the morphological characteristics of seedlings and lettuce in greenhouse and field conditions.
2. Materials and Methods
The study was conducted with a three-factorial experiment; two varieties of lettuce seeds, PAW treatment for seeds and cultivation under greenhouse and field conditions in four replicates.
2.1. Preparing of Plasma Activated Water
Active species in plasma activated water (PAW) are generated in a plasma reactor based on a single electrode atmospheric pressure plasma jet. The atmospheric pressure plasma jet consists of a quartz tube with outer and inner diameters of 1.5 and 1 mm, respectively, and a copper wire with a diameter of 100 μm that is inserted into the capillary and serves as an electrode. The electrode is powered with a sinusoidal voltage waveform of 28 kHz with a maximum voltage of 12 kV (PVM500-2500 Plasma Power Generator, Information Unlimited), which was selected based on our previous optimization work [25], and the delivered power is typically about 15 W. The discharge is generated in nitrogen gas (99.996% purity), supplied to the capillary at a 500 sccm flow rate. The 215 mL sample in the Berzelius beaker is brought into contact with the plasma jet by placing the liquid surface at a distance of 5 mm from the capillary opening, which insures the comparable production of H2O2 and NO2− in the PAW. We use a commercial purified pharmaceutical grade water of (Pharmacopoeia Europaea, Ph. Eur. 9) with a pH of 6.5 and a conductivity of 0.98 µS/cm. The treatment time with the nitrogen plasma jet was 40 min. The plasma-activated samples are analyzed immediately after treatment, and several times during their storage. The concentration of NO2−, NO3− and H2O2, as well as the pH of the samples are measured with QUANTOFIX test strips (nitrate/nitrite 500, 10–500 mg L−1 NO3−, 1–80 mg L−1 NO2−, nitrate/nitrite 100, 5–100 mg L−1 NO3−, 0.5–50 mg L−1 NO2−, peroxide H2O2 25, 0.5–25 mg L−1, peroxide H2O2 100, 0.5–25 mg L−1; pH-Fix 2.0–9.0). The strips are evaluated using the QUANTOFIX Relax unit optical reader (from Macherey-Nagel, GmbH, Düren, Germany), which allows quantitative analysis with high accuracy. The Nitrate/nitrite strips were calibrated with NaNO2 and NH4NO3 solutions of known concentrations, and the calibration was checked with UV–VIS absorption spectroscopy measurements. The use of strips allows the ageing of samples to be monitored with a time resolution of 1 min without significant consumption of the sample (i.e., the sample volume can be kept quasi-constant during ageing). The measurement error was set to less than 10%. The ageing dynamics of PAW depend on the pH, which was controlled by adding metal ion concentration to the water [26,27]. The Mg ions were added by inserting a solid piece of magnesium (5 g) immediately during the plasma treatment and left in the liquid for one hour after the treatment. The conductivity of PAW was measured after treatment and during ageing using the conductivity probe (Metrohm 914 pH/DO/Conductometer Pt 1000/B/O). After treatment with the plasma jet, the conductivity of the sample increases to about 27 µS/cm. Each treatment was monitored by optical emission spectroscopy (OES). The spectra show the presence of NO, N2*. In addition, the concentrations of peroxide, nitrate/nitrite and pH were measured at 10 min intervals during treatment to ensure consistency of repeated treatment. For the March 2021 experiment, three PAW treatments were performed in volumes of 215 mL, mixed in the 2 L bottle and separated into 200 mL containers for storage and transport. From each treatment 15 mL of PAW was stored for ageing measurements over the next two weeks. PAW was characterized by the following physico-chemical elements, which are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Setting up the Experiment
The experiment was established at 9 March 2021 at the location Slobodnica (45°9′58″ N, 17°57′8″ E, an elevation of 87 m) in eastern Croatia in the trial filed and greenhouse of the University of Slavonski Brod. A three-factor trial was set up; seed varieties (V1, V2), growing conditions (greenhouse (G) and field (F)), and untreated and PAW treated seeds. Two seed varieties of crystal lettuce (Maradone (Lot: N87925, Vilmorin, France) and Minestrone (Lot: N78760, Vilmorin, France)) were obtained from commercial lettuce company. The PAW was prepared at the Institute of Physics in Zagreb and delivered to Slavonski Brod the day before lettuce sowing. A replicate of 4 × 50 seeds of each variety was soaked in PAW for one hour and then sown in modular trays (Pöpellmann TEKU (BP3153/60) 53 cm × 31 cm × 5.6 cm) with 60 sowing sites (volume of each site 76 mL) filled with cultivation medium Potgrond P (Klasmann-Deilmann). The other replicates of 4 × 50 seeds of each variety were soaked in untreated water and planted at the same time as a control batch. Greenhouse conditions were optimized to maximize seedling growth, with a pre-germination temperature of 15 °C and a post-germination temperature (10–12 °C during the day) and (6–10 °C during the night). After the seedlings reached the required growth stage (3–4 leaves) they were hardened off and planted in (Pöpellmann TEKU VTG 9) 9 cm × 6.8 cm (0.27 L) pots filled with ECO (Klasmann-Deilmann) batch cultivation media. The pots were tested under different growing conditions. One hundred pots of Maradone lettuce seeds treated with PAW were under greenhouse conditions and the other hundred pots were under field conditions. The control group was also grown under greenhouse and field conditions. The same was done with the Minestrone variety. The greenhouse was not specially heated or cooled, but was opened during the day and closed at night, as needed. Temperatures were measured daily and varied from 10 °C at night to 23 °C during the day. A total of 400 plants were grown in each experiment and 128 of them were randomly selected for measurements. The following biometric growth indicators were measured; rosette height, number of leaves, head mass, head diameter, root mass and root length. Plant mass was determined using an analytical balance with an accuracy of 0.01 g (PL3002, Mettler-Toledo International Inc., Greifensee, Switzerland Measurements were taken weekly on the following dates; 26 April 2021, 5 May 2021, 10 May 2021, 17 May 2021 and in the year 2022 at the following dates; 22 April 2022, 3 May 2022, 10 May 2022 and 17 May 2022 until lettuce reached commercial maturity. Each time biometric growth indicators of four plants of Maradona and Minestrone cultivars (per treatment and control) were measured in the greenhouse and in the field.
2.3. Dry Matter
Lettuce heads were measured four times and each time measured plants were dried at 60 °C for 3–4 days to the constant dry weight. The total dry weight of the plants was measured using an analytical balance an accuracy of 0.01 g (PL3002, Mettler-Toledo International Inc., Greifensee, Switzerland). Each time four plants of Maradona and Minestrone cultivars (per treatment and control) were measured in the greenhouse and in the field and the average dry weight of each plant was calculated by dividing the total dry weight by the number of plants. This was repeated 4 times and averaged again.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The collected research data were statistically processed using the RStudio computer program, while the statistically significant differences (LSD) were calculated with the MS Excel program, 2019. According to Fisher’s test on significance of variance analysis least significant differences (LSD) was calculated for p < 0.05 by comparing the means.
3. Results and Discussion
In the experiment, the influence of treating the seeds of two lettuce varieties with PAW on the development of the plants in greenhouse and in the field was studied. Each measured parameter (head mass, head diameter, root mass and length, number of leaves and rosette height) is presented in a separate table for 2021 and 2022. The measurement results are presented separately for the above-ground and below-ground parts of the plant, i.e., the root system.
3.1. Measurement of the Above-Ground Parts
The results of the measurement of the mass of the lettuce heads are shown in Table 2 for the year 2021 and in Table 3 for the year 2022.
In 2021 and 2022 (Table 2 and Table 3), statistical significance was found between treatments C (Control) and PAW in the first measurement. In the other measurements there was no statistical difference between the treatments. In the second, third and fourth measurements, a statistically significant influence of growing conditions was found, and it was found that growing in a greenhouse gave a statistically better result.
The second parameter measured was the diameter of the lettuce head. The results are shown in Table 4 for the year 2021 and in Table 5 for the year 2022.
In the first measurement of head diameter in the years 2021 and 2002 statistical significance was found for the following parameters: cultivar and seed treatment method. In the second, third and fourth measurement, a statistically significant difference was found in relation to growing conditions, and it was found that growing in a greenhouse gave a statistically better result.
The third parameter measured was the number of the leaves and results are shown in Table 6 for the year 2021 and in Table 7 for the year 2022.
In 2021 and 2022, in the first measurement, seed treatment had statistically significant effect on the number of leaves. Growing conditions didn’t have a significant effect, unlike the previous parameters. The LSD test showed statistical significance of the number of leaves between seed treatment C and PAW, which was the same for both cultivars (1.25 pcs).
Table 8 and Table 9 show that rosette height of was significantly affected by the cultivar and seed treatment in the first measurement. In the other measurements the rosette height was significantly influenced by the growing conditions and it was found that growing in the greenhouse gave a statistically better result.
3.2. Measurement of the Root Parameters
In this part, the results of the measurement of the below-ground part of the plants are presented. The first parameter measured was root mass which is presented in Table 10 for the year 2021 and in Table 11 for the year 2022.
The second parameter measured was the root length and the measurement results are shown in Table 12 and Table 13.
As can be seen, root mass was statistically significantly affected by cultivar in 2021 and 2022. The influence of seed treatment with PAW was absent. With the same cultivar, there was no statistically significant difference between treatment C and PAW.
3.3. Dry Matter
The next parameter determined was dry matter (Figure 1 for the year 2021 and Figure 2 for the year 2022).
As shown in Figure 1 for 2021, the average dry weight ranged from 13.68 g (lowest value) to 17.85 g (highest value), and no statistically significant influence was found between measurements (p = 0.2296).
Figure 2 for the year 2022 shows that the mass of dry matter ranged from 13.82 g as the lowest value to 17.85 g as the highest value and no statistical difference was found (p = 0.5398). As can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the PAW treatment had a positive impact on the dry matter of the measured plants. Figure 1 shows that V1PG had a dry matter 12.52% higher than V1CG and V1PF had a dry matter 13.34% higher than V1CF. V2PG had a dry matter 11.33% higher than V2CG. V2PF had a dry matter 8.87% higher than V2CF. Figure shows that V1PG had a dry matter 8.07% higher than V1CG and V1PF had a dry matter 11.14% higher than V1CF. V2PG had a dry matter 18.3% higher than V2CG. Also, V2PF had a dry matter 8.84% higher than V2CF.
4. Discussion
PAW is used in agriculture to increase protection against biotic and abiotic stress. It is environmentally friendly and can be used in organic farming or as an alternative to chemical biostimulants and artificial fertilizers. In addition, PAW affects plants in various ways; protein synthesis, gene expression, enzyme activity, DNA methylation, DNA demethylation, DNA damage, morphological and chemical changes in seed coat, plant hormonal balance, germination and seedling growth. In the conducted research, we tried to find out the influence of soaking of lettuce seeds in the PAW on further development of plants. According to Holubova et al. [28], there are many studies in which a positive influence of PAW on germination and development of plants was found, and many in which there were no results or they were negative. However, an optimal dose of PAW cannot be generally stated because different plant species respond differently to treatment with PAW. Therefore, we tried to find out how long the seeds must be soaked in PAW to obtain good results, because according to Filatova et al. [29] too short an exposure time has no effect, while too long exposure time can have a detrimental effect. From the obtained results it can be concluded that the seed treatment had an influence on the development of the above-ground part of the plants in the first stage of development, which can be seen from the Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9. Similar results were obtained by Sarinont et al. [30] who found that the average plant length was higher in plasma-irradiated radish seeds than in the control samples. Dobrin et al. [31] also obtained similar results when they studied wheat. Puač et al. [32] and Sivachandiran et al. [33] also found that the treated plants had better germination, improved enzyme activity and better developed plants. The tables show a statistically significant influence of PAW in the first measurement of the following parameters: mass of the head, number of leaves and height of the rosette, indicating the possibility that PAW treatment improves the growth of early seedling. Comparable results were obtained by Abbaszadeh et al. [34] and Kučerova et al. [35] who reported that PAW treatment on seeds improved the growth of early seedlings. Kučerova et al. [35] found that seeds cultivated at PAW interacted mainly with H2O2 at the early growth stages during imbibition and germination, while NO2− and NO3− were metabolized after the onset of germination and during early plant growth which also confirmed the assumption that the seedlings were still under the influence of PAW treatment in first measurement. From the presented research results, it is also evident that cultivation in a protected area led to significantly better results in seedling growth in terms of lettuce head, which is consistent with the results of Kang et al. [36] whose results indicated that the improvement in plant growth and stress tolerance could be explained by cultivation in greenhouse. The growing conditions in the protected area were not specifically adapted; there was no cooling of the area. The greenhouse was opened in the morning and closed in the evening. Nevertheless, the plants grown in the greenhouse were significantly larger and of better quality than those grown in the field. The increased CO2 concentration in the air at night and shading during the day probably contributed to this development. Pearson et al. [37] found that an increase in CO2 concentration resulted in an increase in final head weight of lettuce. According to Sarinont et al. [30] the growth promoting effects become weaker with time and this could be an explanation for the lack of effect on subsequent development. As for the root part, no positive result was found in the first measurement. Similar results were also obtained by others [30,33,34]. According to Guragin et al. [38] no significant increase in root length was observed in PAW and deionized irrigated radish and pea seedlings. This can be explained by the fact that PAW is rich in nitrogen and not in phosphorus, which is essential for root development. As for dry matter, it was found that the plants under PAW had higher dry matter than the untreated plants. Similar results were obtained by Ling et al. [39] who observed an increase in the shoot and root dry weight (21.95% and 27.51%, respectively) in soybean compared to untreated plants (control). According to Stoleru et al. [40] who found similar results on lettuce this mass could be explained by a stimulation of protein synthesis, induced by PAW. A similar conclusion was reached by Takaki et al. [41] in studying of Brassica rapa and Matra [42], who found that plasma treatment increased the dry matter of radish by 9–12%.
The results are also comparable to recent findings by Japundžić-Palenkić et al. [43] but research should certainly be expanded to obtain more detailed information on this topic.
5. Conclusions
According to the research results, it can be concluded that cultivation under greenhouse conditions gave better results for all measured morphological characteristics: head mass, rosette length, number of leaves, rosette diameter, root length and root mass.
Seed treatment with PAW had a positive effect on seedlings growth in the first stage of development only for the above-ground parts (head mass, rosette length, number of leaves, rosette diameter), in the first measurement compared to the control, but in the following measurements this effect was lost. In addition, there was no influence on the below-ground parts (root mass and length).
Lettuce grown from seeds treated with PAW had a higher percentage of dry matter than the control plants.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.M., T.B.-L. and N.R.F.; methodology, N.R.F., B.J.-P., T.B.-L. and S.M.; investigation, N.R.F., B.J.-P., R.B., T.B.-L., S.A., M.R. and S.M.; resources, N.R.F.; data processing R.B.; writing-original draft preparation, N.R.F.; writing-review and editing, K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the project Adaptation of vegetables to new agrometeorological conditions in Slavonia (AVACS), KK.05.1.1.02.0004. The project was financed by European Union from European Regional Development Fund. This work was also supported by COST Action CA19110.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Authors express their sincere gratitude to Katica Šimunović from University of Slavonski Brod for her advices in statistical analysis of experimental data.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Stoleru, V.; Munteanu NSellito, M.V. New Approach of Organic Vegetable Systems; Aracne Publishing House: Rome, Italy, 2014; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
- Fallovo, C.; Rouphael, Y.; Rea, E.; Baltistelli, A. Nutrient solution concentration and growing season affect yield and quality of Lactuca sativa L. var. acephala in floating raft culture. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 1682–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kučerova, K.; Henselova, M.; Slovakova, L.; Bačovinova, M.; Hensel, K. Effect of Plasma Activated Water, Hydrogen Peroxide, and Nitrates on Lettuce Growth and Its Psysiological Parameters. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starič, P.; Vogel-Mikuš, K.; Mozetič, M.; Junkar, I. Effects of Nonthermal Plasma on Morphology, Genetics and Physiology of Seeds: A Review. Plants 2020, 12, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Porto, L.C.; Ziuzina, D.; Los, A.; Boehm, D.; Palumbo, F.; Favia, P.; Tiwari, B.; Bourke, P.; Cullen, P. Plasma activated water and airborne ultrasound treatments for enhanced germination and growth of soybean. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 49, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaushik, N.K.; Ghimire, B.; Li, Y.; Adhikari, M.; Veerana, M.; Kaushik, N.; Jha, N.; Adhikari, B.; Lee, S.J.; Masur, K.; et al. Biological and medical applications of plasma-activated media, water and solutions. Biol. Chem. 2019, 400, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sami, F.; Faizam, M.; Faraz, A.; Siddiqui, H.; Yusuf, M.; Hayat, S. Nitric oxide-mediated integrative alterations in plant metabolism to confer abiotic stress tolerance, NO crosstalk with phytohormones and NO-mediated post translational modifications in modulating diverse plant stress. Nitric Oxide 2018, 73, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salgado, I.; Martinez, M.C.; Oliviera, H.C.; Frungillo, L.L. Nitric oxide signaling and homeostasis in plants: A focus on nitrate reductase and S-nitrosglutathione reductase in stress-related responses. Braz. J. Bot. 2013, 36, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thirdumas, R.; Kothakota, A.; Annapure, U.; Siliveru, K.; Blundell, R.; Gatt, R.; Valdramidis, V.P. Plasma activated water (PAW): Chemistry physico-chemical properties, applications in food and agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 21–31. [Google Scholar]
- Lotze-Campen, H.; Müller, C.; Popp, A.; Füssel, H. Food security in a changing climate. In Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 33–43. [Google Scholar]
- Sangiorgio, D.; Cellini, A.; Donati, I.; Pastore, C.; Onofrietti, C.; Spinelli, F. Facing Climate Change: Application of Microbial Biostimulants to Mitigate Stress in Horticultural Crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iizumi, T.; Furuya, J.; Shen, Z.; Kim, W.; Okada, M.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Nisihimori, M. Responses of crop yield growth to global temperature and socioeconomic changes. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, C.; Liu, B.; Piao, S.; Asseng, S. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9326–9331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beacham, A.M.; Hand, P.; Pink, D.A.C.; Monaghan, J.M. Analysis of Brassica oleracea early stage abiotic stress responses reveal tolerance in multiple crop types and for multiple sources of stress . J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 5271–5277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, J.K. Abiotic stress signalling and responses in plants. Pub. Med. Cell 2016, 167, 313–324. [Google Scholar]
- Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Maurer, E.P.; Miller, N.L.; Moser, S.C.; Schneider, S.H.; Cahill, K.N.; Clelend, E.E.; et al. Emissions pathways, climate change and impacts on California. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 12422–12427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, N.L.; Jin, J.; Hayhoe, K.; Auffhammer, M. Climate change, extreme heat, and electricity demand in California. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2007, 47, 1834–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, P.; Ramegowda, V.; Senthill Kumar, M. Shared and unique responses of plants to multiple individual stresses and stress combinations: Physiological and molecular mechanism. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abou-Hussain, S.D. Climate change and its impact on the productivity and quality of vegetable crops. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 8, 4359–4383. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Wang, P.; Guo, T. Effect of no tillage system on melon (Cucumis melo L.) yield, nutrient uptake and microbial community structures in greenhouse soils. Folia Hortic. 2020, 32, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pal, B.; Chakraborti, D.; Biswas, P. A genetic algorithm-based hybrid goal programming approach to land allocation problem for optimal cropping plan in agricultural system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 15–18 December 2009; pp. 181–186. [Google Scholar]
- Thomaier, S.; Specht, K.; Henckel, D.; Dierich, A.; Siebert, R.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M. Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero_Acerage Farming (Z Farming). Renew. Agric. Food Sys. 2015, 30, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maher, A.; Kamel, E.; Enrico, F.; Atif, I.; Abdelkader, M. An intelligent system for climate control and energy savings in agricultural greenhouses. Energy Effic. 2016, 9, 1241–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliviera, K.R.; Sampaio, F.R.; Siquiera, G.S.; Galvao, I.M.; Bennett, S.J.; Gratao, P.L.; Barbosa, R.M. Physiological quality of soybean seeds grown under different low altitude field environments and storage time. Plant Soil Environ. 2021, 67, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutasi, K.; Krstulović, N.; Jurov, A.; Salamon, K.; Popović, D.; Milošević, S. Controlling the composition of plasma-activated water by Cu ions. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2021, 30, 045015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutasi, K.; Popović, D.; Krstulović, N.; Milošević, S. Tuning the composition of plasma-activated water by a surface-wave microwave discharge and a kHz plasma jet. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 2019, 28, 095010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutasi, K.; Benes, L.; Toth, Z.; Milošević, S. The role of metals in the deposition of long-lived reactive oxygen and nitrogen species into the plasma-activated liquids. Plasma Processes Polym. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holubova, L.; Kyzek, S.; Durovcova, I.; Fabova, J.; Horvathova, E.; Ševčovičova, A.; Galova, E. Non-Thermal Plasma—A New Green Priming Agent for plants? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 9466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filatova, I.; Azharonoki, V.; Kadyrov, M.; Beljavsky, V.; Grozdov, A.; Shik, A.; Antonuk, A. The effect of plasma treatment of seeds of some grain and legumes an their sowing quality and productivity. Ronanian J. Phys. 2013, 56, 139–143. [Google Scholar]
- Sarinont, T.; Anano, T.; Kitazaki, S. Growth enhancement effects of radish sprouts: Atmospheric pressure plasma irradiation vs. heat shock. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014, 518, 012017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dobrin, D.; Magureanu, M.; Mandache, N.B.; Ionita, M.D. The effect of non-thermal plasma treatment on wheat germination and early growth. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 29, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puač, N.; Gherardi, M.; Shiratani, M. Plasma agriculture: A rapidly emerging field. Plasma Process Polym. 2017, 15, 1700174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivachandiran, L.; Khacef, A. Enhanced seed germination and plant growth by atmospheric pressure cold air plasma: Combined effect of seed and water treatment. RSC Adv. 2016, 7, 1822–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abbaszadeh, R.; Nia, P.K.; Fattahi, M.; Marzdashti, H.G. The effects of three plasma-activated water generation systems on lettuce seed germination. Res. Agric. Eng. 2021, 67, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kučerova, K.; Henselova, M.; Slovakova, L.; Hensel, K. Effects of plasma activated water on wheat: Germination, growth parameters, photosynthetic pigments, soluble protein content, and antioxidant enzymes activity. Plasma Process. Polym. 2019, 16, 1800131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.H.; Jeon, S.S.; Shin, S.M.; Veerana, M.; Ji, S.H.; Uhm, H.S.; Choi, E.H.; Shin, J.H.; Park, G. Dynamics of nitric oxide level in liquids treated with microwave plasma-generated gas and their effects on spinach development. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pearson, N.; Palmer, M.R. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years. Nature 1997, 406, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guragin, R.P.; Baniya, H.B.; Pradhan, S.P.; Pandey, B.P.; Subedi, D.P. Influence of PAW on the germination of radish, fenugreek and pea seeds. AIP Adv. 2021, 11, 125304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, L.; Jiangang, L.; Michong, S.; Xin, H.; Hangliang, S.; Yuanhoa, D. Effects of cold plasma treatment on seed germination and seedling growth of soybean. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 5859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stoleru, V.; Burlica, R.; Mihalache, G.; Dirlau, D.; Padureanu, S.; Teliban, G.C.; Astanei, D.; Cojocaru, A.; Beniuga, O.; Patras, A. Plant growth promotion effect of plasma activated water on Lactuca sativa L. cultivated in two different volumes of substrate. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takaki, K.; Takahata, J.; Watanabe, S.; Satta, N.; Yamada, O.; Fujio, T.; Sasaki, Y. Improvements in plant growth rate using underwater discharge. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 418, 012140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matra, K. Non-thermal Plasma for Germination Enhancement of Radish Seeds. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 86, 132–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Japundžić-Palenkić, B.; Benković, R.; Benković-Lačić, T.; Antunović, S.; Japundžić, M.; Romanjek Fajdetić, N.; Mirosavljević, K. Pepper growing modified by plasma activated water and growth conditions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Dry matter content of lettuce head in 2021.
Figure 2.
Dry matter content of lettuce head in 2022.
Table 1.
Physical-chemical characteristics of PAW.
| Concentration of (in mg L−1) | H2O2 | NO2− | NO3− | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 min treatment (t1, t2, t3) | 4.1 | 3.3 | 11.2 | 6.1 |
| 3.1 | 2.8 | 5.5 | 6.1 | |
| 0 | 1.4 | 5.4 | 5.8 |
Table 2.
The mass of the lettuce heads in the year 2021 (in g).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2021 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2021 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 8.17Bb | 13.65aB | 36.3A | 42.62A | 96.96A | 98.11B | 197.29B | 211.48B |
| V1 | Field | 25.77B | 28.61B | 74.63B | 92.11B | 152.34C | 159.47C | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 12.52bA | 17.61aA | 35.63A | 44.8A | 95.65A | 118.29A | 234.76A | 243.01A |
| V2 | Field | 18.39B | 21.12B | 80.91B | 88.6B | 195.02B | 215.91B | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 15.52) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.15) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.74) | * (p < 0.05, F = 19.03) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 27.57) | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.53) | * (p < 0.05, F = 18.05) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.03) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.85) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.78) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.71) | |||||
V1—variety 1; V2—variety 2; C—control; P—PAW; G—greenhouse; F—field; FV—F test lettuce variety; FGC—F test growing conditions; FBS—F test treatment before sowing; *—statistical significance; ns-no statistical significance; Values between the same line followed by different lowercase letters are statistically significantly different (LSD) at p < 0.05; Values within the same columns followed by different capital letters are statistically significantly different (LSD) at p < 0.05.
Table 3.
The mass of the lettuce heads in the year 2022 (in g).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2022 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 9.54bA | 14.32aA | 38.58A | 48.01A | 182.95A | 201.18A | 252.59B | 305.57A |
| V1 | Field | 33.56B | 43.17A | 97.92B | 74.36B | 277.23B | 267.72B | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 13.11bB | 17.86aB | 40.16A | 46.08A | 213.46A | 188.14A | 368.64A | 283.88A |
| V2 | Field | 22.48B | 35.52B | 117.68B | 105.16B | 234.14B | 227.28B | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.55) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.01) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.96) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.04) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 33.67) | * (p < 0.05, F = 130.57) | * (p < 0.05, F = 13.49) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 5.12) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.01) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.60) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.75) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 4.
The diameter of the lettuce head in the year 2021 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2022 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 10.25B | 10.5B | 19AB | 20A | 25.13bA | 28aA | 28.25A | 29.25A |
| V1 | Field | 18B | 17.75B | 22.25B | 23.5B | 23.5B | 24.25B | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 12.13bA | 15.25aA | 19.75A | 21.5A | 27A | 28A | 27.25A | 29.5A |
| V2 | Field | 15.75C | 17.25B | 22.25bB | 25.25bB | 26.25A | 26.75B | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 65.64) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.02) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.02) | * (p < 0.05, F = 2.95) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 11.8) | * (p < 0.05, F = 37.1) | * (p < 0.05, F = 26.51) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 0.27) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.43) | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.48) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.95) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 5.
The diameter of the lettuce head in the year 2022 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2022 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 9.2bB | 14.18aB | 20.5A | 20.5A | 29.75aA | 27.75bA | 24.25CD | 29.25B |
| V1 | Field | 15.88B | 162.5B | 21.5B | 22.5B | 25.25C | 23C | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 14.13bA | 17.25aA | 20A | 20.25A | 28aA | 26.25bA | 34A | 34.25A |
| V2 | Field | 18C | 20.75A | 23.3aB | 19.13bB | 28.75B | 24.25C | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 9.12) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.66) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.92) | * (p < 0.05, F = 19.97) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.31) | * (p < 0.05, F = 76.04) | * (p < 0.05, F = 22.07) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.28) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.88) | * (p < 0.05, F = 5.33) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.12) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 6.
The number of the leaves in the year 2021.
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2021 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2021 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 9.50b | 10.75a | 16.5A | 17.5A | 23A | 24.5A | 36.25A | 36.25A |
| V1 | Field | 15.5A | 16.25A | 20B | 20B | 30.25B | 31C | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 8.5b | 9.75a | 13.25B | 13.5B | 20B | 21.5C | 30.5B | 33.75B |
| V2 | Field | 11.75B | 11.75B | 18.25B | 19B | 26.5C | 28.5D | ||
| FV | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.83) | * (p < 0.05, F = 33.1) | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.97) | * (p < 0.05, F = 12.01) | |||||
| FGC | ns (p < 0.05, F = 4.17) | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.97) | * (p < 0.05, F = 24.01) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 6.21) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.55) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.91) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.06) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 7.
The number of the leaves in the year 2022.
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 5 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2022 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 8.75b | 10.5a | 16A | 17A | 24.5A | 24.25A | 27.25B | 32.75B |
| V1 | Field | 17.75A | 15.5AB | 23.75A | 25.25A | 36.25A | 36.5A | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 9.75b | 11.25a | 12B | 14BC | 19.75B | 21.5B | 29B | 29.75BC |
| V2 | Field | 11B | 11.5C | 18.5B | 20.75B | 28.75B | 27.5C | ||
| FV | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.39) | * (p < 0.05, F = 12.09) | * (p < 0.05, F = 17.44) | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.84) | |||||
| FGC | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.41) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.18) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.95) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.89) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.06) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.62) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.77) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 8.
The height of the rosette in the year 2021 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2021 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2021 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 6.75bB | 9.5aB | 11A | 10.5A | 13.5B | 15.25A | 16.25A | 16.75A |
| V1 | Field | 8.75B | 9.5A | 11.63C | 12.25C | 13.25D | 13.63C | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 10.63A | 10.88A | 10.5A | 11.75A | 15.25A | 15.75A | 15.38bB | 17aA |
| V2 | Field | 8.75B | 8B | 12.25C | 13C | 14.25C | 14.88B | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 23.42) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.87) | * (p < 0.05, F = 6.26) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.24) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 16.0) | * (p < 0.05, F = 31.9) | *(p < 0.05, F = 41.3) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.65) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.12) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.7) | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.58) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 9.
The height of the rosette in the year 2022 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 5 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | Measurement 4th 17 May 2022 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 6.5bB | 9.7aB | 11.5A | 11.38A | 14.13A | 16.75A | 16.63aA | 14.13b |
| V1 | Field | 10B | 9.63B | 10.88C | 10.13C | 14.5aB | 13b | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 7.38bA | 10.88aA | 9.63B | 11.5A | 12B | 11.75B | 17.13aA | 13.75b |
| V2 | Field | 9.5B | 9.63B | 7.75D | 8.88D | 11.63bC | 13.25a | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.27) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0,87) | * (p < 0.05, F = 30.82) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.89) | |||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.74) | * (p < 0.05, F = 67.34) | *(p < 0.05, F = 12.19) | ||||||
| FTS | * (p < 0.05, F = 13.85) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.39) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.76) | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.71) | |||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 10.
The root mass in the year 2021 (in g).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 8.76A | 9.08A | 36.31 | 37.96 | 31.56 | 37.30 |
| V1 | Field | 18.52 | 20.28 | 27.29 | 28.32 | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 4.02B | 3.65B | 13.82 | 23.46 | 27.34 | 30.40 |
| V2 | Field | 12.73 | 13.73 | 16.16 | 25.23 | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 9.26) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.34) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.74) | ||||
| FGC | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.94) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.38) | |||||
| FTS | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.0) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.27) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.97) | ||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 11.
The root mass in the year 2022 (in g).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 8.82A | 9.12 A | 37.24 | 26.75 | 38.45 | 37.96 |
| V1 | Field | 18.89 | 20.54 | 27.48 | 28.51 | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 3.82B | 3.47B | 17.58 | 22.56 | 26.84 | 29.56 |
| V2 | Field | 12.82 | 14.52 | 17.12 | 15.16 | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 10.13) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 4.01) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.03) | ||||
| FGC | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.25) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.18) | |||||
| FTS | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.2) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.98) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.84) | ||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 12.
The root length in the year 2021 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 26 April 2021 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2021 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2021 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 19.25B | 20.00 | 26.5A | 26.75A | 25A | 26.75A |
| V1 | Field | 15.25B | 16.B | 16.25bB | 24.5aA | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 24A | 24.00 | 23.25A | 235A | 2.45bA | 29aA |
| V2 | Field | 22A | 22.5A | 22A | 22B | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.85) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.55) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.69) | ||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 7.2) | * (p < 0.05, F = 1.01) | |||||
| FTS | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.04) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.07) | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.48) | ||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Table 13.
The root length in the year 2022 (in cm).
| Sampling Date | Measurement 1st 22 April 2022 | Measurement 2nd 3 May 2022 | Measurement 3rd 10 May 2022 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | Growing Conditions | C | PAW | C | PAW | C | PAW |
| V1 | Greenhouse | 20.51B | 21.2 | 26.7A | 27.08A | 26.89A | 26.75A |
| V1 | Field | 15.85B | 16.88B | 19.15B | 23.8A | ||
| V2 | Greenhouse | 24.36A | 24.45 | 23.78A | 24.89A | 26.98A | 29.18B |
| V2 | Field | 22.15A | 23.01A | 22.13AB | 22.46A | ||
| FV | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.26) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 1.63) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 3.02) | ||||
| FGC | * (p < 0.05, F = 8.84) | * (p < 0.05, F = 4.75) | |||||
| FTS | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.47) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 0.12) | ns (p < 0.05, F = 2.32) | ||||
* Explanations: see Table 2.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Romanjek Fajdetić, N.; Benković-Lačić, T.; Mirosavljević, K.; Antunović, S.; Benković, R.; Rakić, M.; Milošević, S.; Japundžić-Palenkić, B. Influence of Seed Treated by Plasma Activated Water on the Growth of Lactuca sativa L. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316237
AMA Style
Romanjek Fajdetić N, Benković-Lačić T, Mirosavljević K, Antunović S, Benković R, Rakić M, Milošević S, Japundžić-Palenkić B. Influence of Seed Treated by Plasma Activated Water on the Growth of Lactuca sativa L. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):16237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316237
Chicago/Turabian StyleRomanjek Fajdetić, Nataša, Teuta Benković-Lačić, Krunoslav Mirosavljević, Slavica Antunović, Robert Benković, Mario Rakić, Slobodan Milošević, and Božica Japundžić-Palenkić. 2022. "Influence of Seed Treated by Plasma Activated Water on the Growth of Lactuca sativa L." Sustainability 14, no. 23: 16237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316237
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
