MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTION AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL TRAITS OF FRUITS OF CONVENTIONALLY AND ORGANICALLY GROWN FIG<sup>1</sup>

MOURA, ELIAS ARIEL DE; MENDONÇA, VANDER; FERREIRA, ENOCH DE SOUZA; OLIVEIRA, LUANA MENDES; MELO, BRUNA ESTER FREITAS

doi:10.1590/1983-21252021v34n414rc

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Agronomy • Rev. Caatinga 34 (4) • Oct-Dec 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252021v34n414rc copy

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTION AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL TRAITS OF FRUITS OF CONVENTIONALLY AND ORGANICALLY GROWN FIG¹

SISTEMAS DE MANEJO E CARACTERÍSTICAS PRODUTIVAS E FÍSICO-QUÍMICAS DE FRUTOS DE FIGO CULTIVADOS CONVENCIONAL E ORGANICAMENTE

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Fig (Ficus carica L.) is widely accepted due to its organoleptic and pharmacological properties. Search for innovations to improve the crop management has increased to reduce environmental impacts and improve the organoleptic quality and food safety of the fruits. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of fertilization methods and plant training systems on the production and physicochemical traits of fig. The experiment was carried out in a randomized complete block design in a 5 × 4 factorial scheme, with three blocks and three plants per plot. The factors corresponded to five fertilizers (chemical, cattle manure, sheep manure, poultry litter, and organic compost) and four training systems (two branches, three branches, four branches, and espalier). Results showed that, when using chemical fertilizer and poultry litter, plants showed similar productivity and number of fruits, which had similar firmness, length, and peel color (L and °h). The highest production and number of immature fruits were obtained using cattle manure. Soluble solids content and soluble solids content/ titratable acidity ratio were higher in fruits from plants fertilized with cattle manure, sheep manure, and organic compost. On the other hand, plants trained with three and four branches or in espalier produced fruits with the highest soluble solids content and weight. Also, heavier fruits were obtained using chemical fertilization and conducting plants with two, three, and four branches.

Keywords:
Ficus carica L.; Formative pruning; Organic fertilizer; Organoleptic quality; Organic production

	Samples	S	P	B	O	M
N	g kg-1	0.53	0.43	0.40	0.80	0.37
pH	(H₂O)	8.47	8.50	8.60	8.53	8.50
MO	g kg-1	9.93	8.18	10.89	13.16	11.06
P		8.13	27.13	8.33	12.70	18.30
K⁺	---mg dm^-3---	99.13	97.77	81.77	82.87	83.63
Na⁺		56.13	62.83	31.07	37.20	51.30
Ca⁺²		2.23	2.17	1.90	2.07	2.10
Mg⁺²	---cmolc dm^-3----	0.53	0.63	0.53	0.53	0.43
(H⁺Al)		0	0	0	0	0
SB		3.26	3.32	2.78	2.97	2.92
t		3.27	3.33	2.80	2.97	2.97
CTC	---%---	3,26	3,32	2,78	2,97	2,95
V		100	100	100	100	100
	PST	5.67	8.33	5.33	7.33	7.33

Fertilizer	Commercial	Immature	Injured	Total
Fertilizer	Productivity (t ha^-1)
Organic compost	$3.18 \pm 2.72 c$	$0.48 \pm 0.37 b$	$0.19 \pm 0.23 b$	$3.85 \pm 2.91 c$
Cattle manure	$5.32 \pm 3.74 bc$	$1.13 \pm 0.48 a$	$0.40 \pm 0.26 bc$	$6.85 \pm 4.18 abc$
Sheep manure	$4.89 \pm 2.90 c$	$0.61 \pm 0.66 b$	$0.41 \pm 0.26 bc$	$5.91 \pm 3.01 bc$
Poultry litter	$8.32 \pm 3.29 ab$	$0.35 \pm 0.26 b$	$0.61 \pm 0.44 ab$	$9.28 \pm 3.66 ab$
Chemical fertilizer	$9.63 \pm 2.12 a$	$0.66 \pm 0.46 b$	$0.96 \pm 0.40 a$	$10.40 \pm 4.17 a$
CV (%)	44.66	61.81	61.11	47.98

Fertilizer	Number of fruits
Fertilizer	Commercial	Immature	Total
Organic compost	$49.83 \pm 40.85 c$	$27.08 \pm 15.75 b$	$74.54 \pm 38.32 c$
Cattle manure	$88.75 \pm 57.35 bc$	$50.08 \pm 21.67 a$	$138.83 \pm 67.11 bc$
Sheep manure	$84.75 \pm 54.72 bc$	$28.12 \pm 26.83 b$	$112.62 \pm 49.85 bc$
Poultry litter	$145.17 \pm 66.05 ab$	$22.75 \pm 13.73 b$	$167.92 \pm 69.38 ab$
Chemical fertilizer	$184.20 \pm 63.30 a$	$27.75 \pm 15.71 b$	$211.83 \pm 71.77 a$
CV (%)	52.69	56.61	42.68

Fertilizer	Two branches	Three branches	Four branches	Espalier
Fertilizer	Length (mm)
Organic compost	$51.05 \pm 0.89 aA$	$50.06 \pm 0.41 aAB$	$46.48 \pm 2.27 cB$	$50.02 \pm 1.50 aAB$
Cattle manure	$51.75 \pm 2.80 aAB$	$53.03 \pm 0.69 aA$	$53.39 \pm 2.27 aA$	$48.29 \pm 1.69 aB$
Sheep manure	$50.07 \pm 0.57 aA$	$50.71 \pm 1.80 aA$	$47.46 \pm 4.37 bcA$	$49.79 \pm 1.46 aA$
Poultry litter	$49.44 \pm 0.19 aB$	$51.43 \pm 0.21 aAB$	$53.35 \pm 2.05 aA$	$48.78 \pm 0.05 aB$
Chemical fertilizer	$52.82 \pm 1.25 aA$	$52.90 \pm 1.29 aA$	$51.28 \pm 1.73 abA$	$51.79 \pm 1.31 aA$
CV (%)	3.40
	Diameter (mm)
Organic compost	$50.13 \pm 1.60 aAB$	$47.73 \pm 2.12 aBC$	$44.84 \pm 1.80 cC$	$51.75 \pm 1.52 aA$
Cattle manure	$49.41 \pm 1.61 aA$	$50.30 \pm 1.60 aA$	$49.27 \pm 1.36 abA$	$50.36 \pm 1.48 aA$
Sheep manure	$47.58 \pm 1.52 aA$	$50.16 \pm 1.53 aA$	$50.59 \pm 1.04 abA$	$48.24 \pm 1.54 aA$
Poultry litter	$50.40 \pm 1.72 aA$	$49.51 \pm 1.31 aA$	$48.28 \pm 1.15 bA$	$50.31 \pm 0.63 aA$
Chemical fertilizer	$50.36 \pm 1.42 aA$	$50.16 \pm 0.43 aA$	$52.40 \pm 0.88 aA$	$50.45 \pm 0.09 aA$
CV (%)	2.85

Fertilizer	Two branches	Three branches	Four branches	Espalier
Fertilizer	Firmness (N)
Organic compost	$4.25 \pm 0.27 bA$	$2.57 \pm 0.93 bA$	$2.24 \pm 0.64 aA$	$2.30 \pm 0.96 bA$
Cattle manure	$2.94 \pm 0.60 bA$	$2.61 \pm 1.11 bA$	$4.94 \pm 2.37 aA$	$4.84 \pm 1.88 abA$
Sheep manure	$3.54 \pm 0.07 bA$	$4.78 \pm 2.83 abA$	$3.51 \pm 1.69 aA$	$2.43 \pm 0.43 bA$
Poultry litter	$4.88 \pm 3.20 abA$	$5.19 \pm 1.68 abA$	$3.88 \pm 3.23 aA$	$5.21 \pm 0.31 abA$
Chemical fertilizer	$7.41 \pm 2.01 aA$	$7.75 \pm 0.76 aA$	$4.32 \pm 0.24 aB$	$5.74 \pm 0.38 aAB$
CV (%)	30.94
	Hue angle (H)
Organic compost	$33.55 \pm 4.52 bB$	$36.32 \pm 2.72 bcAB$	$44.22 \pm 0.40 aA$	$27.37 \pm 5.52 bB$
Cattle manure	$38.23 \pm 3.05 bA$	$36.15 \pm 1.34 bcA$	$40.57 \pm 6.70 aA$	$34.56 \pm 2.51 abA$
Sheep manure	$35.88 \pm 9.16 bB$	$52.66 \pm 1.40 aA$	$38.60 \pm 3.88 aB$	$33.98 \pm 3.68 abB$
Poultry litter	$50.82 \pm 6.87 aA$	$33.59 \pm 4.81 cBC$	$26.18 \pm 2.36 aC$	$36.80 \pm 0.09 abB$
Chemical fertilizer	$49.11 \pm 3.08 aA$	$44.45 \pm 5.42 abA$	$45.26 \pm 5.15 aA$	$39.89 \pm 1.22 aA$
CV (%)	10.74
	Fruit weight (g)
Organic compost	$55.55 \pm 4.99 abAB$	$58.68 \pm 0.56 aA$	$46.19 \pm 5.81 bB$	$57.80 \pm 4.82 aA$
Cattle manure	$52.72 \pm 2.82 bA$	$56.60 \pm 3.86 aA$	$53.99 \pm 5.44 abA$	$57.76 \pm 5.90 aA$
Sheep manure	$50.17 \pm 2.96 bB$	$57.23 \pm 3.35 aA$	$56.07 \pm 2.21 abA$	$55.46 \pm 2.99 aA$
Poultry litter	$55.13 \pm 1.92 abA$	$55.57 \pm 2.08 aA$	$54.99 \pm 2.83 abA$	$54.45 \pm 2.94 aA$
Chemical fertilizer	$60.47 \pm 2.60 aA$	$59.70 \pm 1.39 aAB$	$59.86 \pm 2.54 aAB$	$53.55 \pm 1.27 aB$
CV (%)	5.54

Fertilizer	Chemical traits
Fertilizer	Soluble Solids	Lightness (L)
Organic compost	$15.00 \pm 2.66 a$	$45.22 \pm 4.09 ab$
Cattle manure	$13.20 \pm 2.01 ab$	$42.37 \pm 5.75 b$
Sheep manure	$12.01 \pm 1.70 b$	$46.68 \pm 4.52 ab$
Poultry litter	$11.58 \pm 2.22 b$	$48.07 \pm 6.04 ab$
Chemical fertilizer	$11.54 \pm 1.27 b$	$50.09 \pm 2.48 a$
CV (%)	12.99	10.56

Fertilizer	Two branches	Three branches	Four branches	Espalier
Fertilizer	SS/TA
Organic compost	$77.64 \pm 15.79 aA$	$105.38 \pm 5.46 abA$	$99.90 \pm 2.81 aA$	$93.13 \pm 10.71 aA$
Cattle manure	$91.23 \pm 16.51 aA$	$110.91 \pm 25.81 aA$	$94.90 \pm 28.42 aA$	$83.12 \pm 19.71 aA$
Sheep manure	$88.01 \pm 12.74 aA$	$74.01 \pm 22.34 bcA$	$84.81 \pm 14.31 aA$	$91.82 \pm 27.96 aA$
Poultry litter	$72.13 \pm 7.03 aB$	$71.07 \pm 11.91 bcB$	$110.96 \pm 11.31 aA$	$65.22 \pm 2.66 aB$
Chemical fertilizer	$70.08 \pm 18.12 aA$	$60.63 \pm 9.35 cA$	$88.56 \pm 8.86 aA$	$75.91 \pm 6.08 aA$
CV (%)	17.62

Fertilizer source	Two branches	Three branches	Four branches	Espalier
Fertilizer source	Vitamin C (mg ascorbic acid 100 g^-1 fresh weight)
Organic compost	$70.24 \pm 4.45 aA$	$56.93 \pm 4.08 bB$	$77.97 \pm 5.38 abA$	$76.74 \pm 6.73 aA$
Cattle manure	$67.88 \pm 5.07 aA$	$69.53 \pm 6.20 abA$	$67.17 \pm 6.06 bA$	$70.21 \pm 7.03 aA$
Sheep manure	$78.02 \pm 3.50 aAB$	$79.67 \pm 8.32 aAB$	$83.58 \pm 5.35 aA$	$67.49 \pm 2.17 aB$
Poultry litter	$64.88 \pm 6.49 aA$	$71.53 \pm 0.72 aA$	$74.70 \pm 6.01 abA$	$71.72 \pm 6.0 aA$
Chemical fertilizer	$72.02 \pm 4.86 aA$	$75.33 \pm 7.75 aA$	$70.96 \pm 6.63 abA$	$77.07 \pm 7.43 aA$
CV (%)	8.40
	Hydrogen potential (pH)
Organic compost	$5.34 \pm 0.17 aBC$	$5.92 \pm 0.26 aA$	$5.02 \pm 0.09 bC$	$5.44 \pm 0.24 abB$
Cattle manure	$5.33 \pm 0.33 aA$	$5.52 \pm 0.19 abA$	$5.49 \pm 0.06 aA$	$5.61 \pm 0.27 aA$
Sheep manure	$5.57 \pm 0.25 aA$	$5.28 \pm 0.21 bAB$	$5.56 \pm 0.09 aA$	$5.21 \pm 0.02 abB$
Poultry litter	$5.26 \pm 0.13 aA$	$5.39 \pm 0.15 bA$	$5.39 \pm 0.11 abA$	$5.12 \pm 0.21 bA$
Chemical fertilizer	$5.30 \pm 0.10 aB$	$5.35 \pm 0.12 bAB$	$5.71 \pm 0.12 aA$	$5.40 \pm 0.02 abAB$
CV (%)	3.30

Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido Avenida Francisco Mota, número 572, Bairro Presidente Costa e Silva, Cep: 5962-5900, Telefone: 55 (84) 3317-8297 - Mossoró - RN - Brazil
E-mail: caatinga@ufersa.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author

Brasil

Brasil

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTION AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL TRAITS OF FRUITS OF CONVENTIONALLY AND ORGANICALLY GROWN FIG1

SISTEMAS DE MANEJO E CARACTERÍSTICAS PRODUTIVAS E FÍSICO-QUÍMICAS DE FRUTOS DE FIGO CULTIVADOS CONVENCIONAL E ORGANICAMENTE

ABSTRACT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTION AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL TRAITS OF FRUITS OF CONVENTIONALLY AND ORGANICALLY GROWN FIG¹