Effect of chemical fertilization on the production of
melon (Cucumis melo L.) hybrids
under greenhouse conditions.
Efecto de la fertilización química en la producción de
híbridos de melón (Cucumis
melo L.)
bajo invernadero
Julio Gabriel Ortega1
Gema Burgos López 2
Washington Narvaez Campana 3
Fernando Ayón Villao 4
Agustín Álvarez Plúa 5
Heidi Flores Ramírez6
Published Edwards Deming Higher
Technological Institute. Quito
- Ecuador Periodicity April - June Vol. 1, Num. 25, 2025 pp.
15-29 http://centrosuragraria.com/index.php/revista Dates of receipt Received: December, 2024 Approved: February 28, 2025 Correspondence author Creative Commons License Creative Commons License,
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es
[1] PhD. Universidad Estatal
del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador. julio.gabriel@unesum.edu.ec, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-9235 2 Mg in
Agriculture. Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador. gema.burgos@unesum.edu.ec,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0025-3679 3 Mg. Universidad Estatal
del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador. washington.narvaez@unesum.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-2088 4 Mg. Universidad
Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador.
fernando.villao@unesum.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4772-9344, 5 Mg. Universidad
Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador. agustin.alvarez@unesum.edu.ec,
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-0176-1314 6 Agronomist Eng. Professional
graduate, Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador. flores-heidi5476@unesum.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9969-8864
Key words: Flowering, fruiting, developmental stages, crop
physiology.
Resumen: Con el objetivo de determinar el efecto de la
fertilización química para la producción de melón (Cucumis
melo L.) bajo invernadero, se realizaron
tres tratamientos (dos dosis y un testigo) de fertilización en dos híbridos de
melón, que fueron aplicados en tres estadios de desarrollo de la planta. Los tratamientos fueron implementados en un
diseño experimental de bloques completamente aleatorios en arreglo factorial 2
x 3 con seis tratamientos y cinco repeticiones. Las variables respuesta fueron: Altura de planta,
diámetro de tallo, número de frutos, uniformidad de frutos, volumen de fruto,
incidencia del virus, peso de frutos y grados Brix.
Los resultados mostraron que el tratamiento T2 (E1: 14,54 g de N/planta, 6,58 g de P, 0,00 g de
K/planta, E2:14,54 g de N/planta, 6,58 g de P/planta, 12,19 g de K/planta, y
E3: 0,00 g de N/planta, 0,00 g de P/planta, 12,19 g de K/planta) fue el que
mostró mayor diámetro de tallo, volumen de fruto, peso de fruto, grados brix, rentabilidad, mejor uniformidad de fruto y menor
incidencia de virus.
Palabras
clave: Floración,
fructificación, estadios de desarrollo, fisiología del cultivo.
Introduction
Gabriel et al.
(2023) proposed a chemical edaphic fertilization strategy for melon cultivation
under greenhouse conditions. This strategy was developed based on the analysis
of soil, water and crop requirements, using the Edisto melon hybrid, which is
one of the most widely cultivated melons in the area. The farmers of Recinto Puerto la Boca in Puerto Cayo
Parish in Manabi, Ecuador, developed strategies on
basic soil fertilization with macronutrients for their crops, and generally
manage them empirically, although they are aware of the need to achieve
profitable harvests, with post-harvest quality and long shelf life. Therefore,
they are aware of the need to implement crop management practices, including
fertilization, which has a great impact on the quality of the harvested
product. Therefore, the strategy developed consisted of elaborating a basic
edaphic fertilization plan, in low, medium and high doses, which were applied
at three stages of the crop (development, flowering and fruiting).
The best
fertilization strategy was determined to be treatment T2 (E1: 11.22 g N, 5.29 g
P, 0.00 g K, E2:11.22 g N, 5.29 g P, 11.12 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g P, 11.12 g
K) and achieved fruits of 0.97 kg, which would be the equivalent of 2.48 t/1000
m2 and a total kernel solids content (°Brix), of 9.85 °Brix for treatment T1
(E1: N = 7.95, P = 1.80, K = 0, E2: N = 7.95, P = 1.80, K = 10.15, E3: N = 0, P
= 0, K = 10.15) and 9.45 °Brix for Treatment T2 (Gabriel et al., 2023).
However, it is known that chemical fertilization does not cause a uniform yield
response and that much depends on soil chemical composition, soil type (texture,
structure), climate, water, pH, temperature, cultivar genetics used and other
factors (Bazán, 2015a; PROAIN, 2019; Massri & Labban, 2014).
Based on this
background, it was decided to carry out a study on the effect of the two best
chemical fertilization strategies on two new melon hybrids. Therefore, the
present study aimed to validate the two best chemical fertilization strategies
(medium and high) for melon (Cucumis melo L.) production under greenhouse conditions.
Methodology
The research was carried out in a greenhouse at Recinto Puerto La Boca, Puerto Cayo Parish, Jipijapa Canton , located at 1°18'20'' South latitude and
80°45'42" West longitude, at an altitude of 53 meters above sea level. The
average temperature is 24.8 °C/year and average precipitation is 298 mm/year,
with rainfall concentrated in February and the driest month being August. [Plan de Ordenamiento y Desarrollo
Territorial de la parroquia Puerto Cayo (PODT, 2015)].
Treatments
Treatments were
chosen from previous experience (Gabriel et al., 2023. Two of the best
treatments were chosen to be validated in two new hybrids (H1: Cataloupe, H2: Hybrid 64068). Prior to the formulation
of the treatments, chemical and physical analysis of the soil (greenhouse) and
water was carried out at the soil laboratory of the National Institute of
Agricultural Research (INIAP) in Pichilingue,
Guayaquil. To prepare the fertilization doses, the following were used as
sources of macronutrients: urea (46%), superphosphate (P2O5:
18-46-00) and potassium chloride (Cl K: 0-0-60), whose doses per plant are
shown in Table 1.
Table
1. Treatments
performed on two honeydew hybrids n.
|
Trat |
Stadiums |
UREA (46%) (g) |
P2O5 (18-46-0) (g) |
KCl (0-0-60) (g) |
N (g/plant) |
P (g/plant) |
K (g/plant) |
|
T1 |
E1 |
40,07 |
11,50 |
0,00 |
11,22 |
5,29 |
0,00 |
|
T1 |
E2 |
40,07 |
11,50 |
18,53 |
11,22 |
5,29 |
11,12 |
|
T1 |
E3 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
18,53 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
11,12 |
|
T2 |
E1 |
51,93 |
14,30 |
0,00 |
14,54 |
6,58 |
0,00 |
|
T2 |
E2 |
51,93 |
14,30 |
20,32 |
14,54 |
6,58 |
12,19 |
|
T2 |
E3 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
20,32 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
12,19 |
|
T3 |
Control (without
fertilization) |
Control (without
fertilization) |
Experimental design
The response variables evaluated were the Plant height (cm) (AP). stem
diameter (mm) (DT) at 50% flowering, number of fruits (Nfru),
melon mosaic virus incidence in percentage (Incivirus)
(Gabriel et al., 2017), fruit uniformity (Unifru),
fruit volume (cm3) (VolFru) (Moreno, 2000)
and fruit weight (kg) (Y) (Gabriel,
2021).
The experimental plot was implemented in a 1000
m greenhouse2. Three doses of chemical fertilization (T1, T2 and T3)
were applied at three stages of plant development (E1: at foliage (15 days
after transplanting), E2: at flowering (40 days after transplanting) and E3: at
fruiting (60 days after transplanting), to two melon hybrids (1: Cataloupe, 2: Hybrid 64068). Each row/treatment had 28
plants and the experimental unit for each treatment was 84 plants.
For soil preparation, the soil was removed
manually, then the soil was shredded to obtain finer
particles for the development of the seedlings in the beds. Organic matter (biocompost) was applied to provide adequate soil for the
plants at the time of transplanting. The biocompost
was applied at a rate of 75 kg per 33 m row. The soil was measured with the
help of a winch, for the formation of the 0.80 m wide by 33 m long and 0.15 m
high strips, and finally, the strips were leveled.
For planting in seedling trays, the substrate
was prepared with biocompost, guava leaf and local
soil in a 2:1:1 ratio. Ten kilograms of humus and a bag (10 g) of mycorrhiza
were added to prevent the attack of pathogens that cause damping off. Once the
substrate was prepared, the holes were filled with it, taking care to moisten
it. Then the seeds of the parents were sown in these trays. The trays were
irrigated twice a day to maintain humidity. A broad spectrum fungicide (carboxin + captan 3g/L) was
applied to prevent disease attack.
Transplanting was carried out in rows, for
which holes were made with a depth of 15 cm at a distance of 0.40 m between
plants within the row and a distance of 1.20 m between rows, then proceeded to
transplant one plant per hole. When transplanting, 50 g of earthworm humus (one
hand) was applied to encourage root development.
For the control of downy mildew caused by the
Oomycete Pseudoperonosphora cubensis and other leaf spots, Metalaxy
+ Mancozeb (Ridomil) (2.5g/l) was applied alternately with Chlorothalonil (2.5 mL/L), Trichoderma (3.0 mL/L)
and Bacillus subtilis (3.0 mL/L) from the eighth day after transplanting
(Gabriel, 2021).
Pest control was carried out according to the
monitoring and application of the damage threshold for insect control of pests
such as whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), blackfly (Prodiplosis
longifilia) and aphids (Myzus
persicae), the application of Thiamethoxan
(0.25 mL/L) was used, alternating with Avemectin
(2.25 mL/L), Confidor (0.60 g/L) and Neen (4 mL/L), starting 10 days after transplanting
(Gabriel, 2021).
Pruning was performed on a single main branch
and eliminating the remaining branches. Old leaves and shoots were removed to
avoid the formation of other secondary branches. Trellising was performed after
pruning, and after each pruning, a contact fungicide (Mancozeb
0.47 g/L) was used to prevent diseases caused by the wounds.
The plants were irrigated inside the greenhouse
using a drip irrigation system and the frequency of use was three times per
week. Harvesting began approximately
120 days after transplanting, depending on temperature. Commercial maturity
corresponds to the firm ripe stage or "3/4 detached", which is
identified when the fruit is gently cut and detaches from the plant.
Based on the defined model and prior analysis
of normality and homogeneity of variance for each case, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed to test hypotheses of fixed effects, as well as and
comparisons of treatment means using Tukey's test at P<0.05 probability.
ANOVA of the data was also used to estimate variance components for random
effects. The indicated analyses were performed using Proc GLM of SAS (SAS,
2020).
The economic analysis was performed to determine the benefit/cost of
each treatment applied. This analysis allowed defining the profitability or not
of the treatments (Boardman et al., 2018).
Results
Analysis
of variance
Table 2 shows that there were significant
differences at P<0.05 for plant height (PA) for hybrids (Cataloupe and Hybrid 64068), and highly significant
differences at P<0.01 for stem diameter (DT), fruit number (NFru), incidence of melon mosaic virus (Incivirus),
fruit uniformity (Unifru), fruit volume (Volfru) and weight (Y). Likewise, it was observed that in
the hybrids there were highly significant differences at P<0.01 for fruit
number (NFru), incidence of melon mosaic virus (Incivirus) and fruit uniformity (Unifru),
fruit volume (Volfru) and weight (Y). The
coefficients of variation (CV) were within the range allowed for this type of
research (11 to 31%), with the exception of PA, which had a coefficient of
variation of 45%.
Table 2. Analysis of variance for morphological and productive
characters.
|
FV |
gl |
Mean
squares |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
AP |
DT |
NFru |
Incivirus |
Unifru |
Volfru |
Y |
|
Rep |
4 |
0,39 |
6,74 |
34,47 |
400.92 |
14,31 |
246583542 |
0,09 |
|
Trat |
2 |
0,33 |
0,55** |
4,56** |
632,38** |
3,15** |
13074731172** |
0,89** |
|
Hybrids |
1 |
0,33* |
28,66 |
68,99** |
321,60** |
56,30* |
10617892022** |
2,51** |
|
Treated*hybrids |
2 |
1,15 |
1,02 |
126,07* |
93,95* |
0,83** |
198754414 |
0,50* |
|
Error |
125 |
0,42 |
0,06 |
13,96 |
30,44 |
1,37 |
458857131 |
0,06 |
|
total |
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CV |
|
45,48 |
10,64 |
30,90 |
30.44 |
16,84 |
31,28 |
15,52 |
*: Significant at P<0,05, **: Highly significant at P<0,01
Average
analysis
In
Table 3, the comparison of means by Tukey's test at P<0.05 probability,
showed that Strategy 2 was better for DT, NFru, Incvirus, Unifru, Volfru and Y. It was noted that the virus drastically
affected the control treatment (no fertilizer application).
Comparison of means of the number of pest insects determined in the
period 2019, Puerto La Boca.
Table 3. Mean comparison
of plague insect numbers determined on 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
Treatment |
NE |
MMIN |
PUL |
POL |
TRIPS |
MBL |
|
T4 |
42 b |
18 b |
8 b |
17 b |
46 b |
876 a |
|
T1 |
33 a |
12 ab |
6 b |
11 a |
25 a |
842 a |
|
T3 |
32 a |
12 a |
4 ab |
10 a |
19 a |
697 a |
|
T2 |
32 a |
10 a |
0 a |
9 a |
16 a |
545 a |
|
DSH |
10,32 |
6,05 |
4,74 |
5,13 |
12,64 |
697,57 |
Means with a common letter are
not significantly different (p > 0.05), Strategy 1: (E1: 11.22 g N,
5.29 g P, 0.00 g K, E2:11.22 g N, 5.29 g P, 11.12 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g P,
11.12 g K. Strategy 2: (E1: 14.54 g N, 6.58 g P, 0.00 g K, E2: 14.54 g
N, 6.58 g P, 12.19 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g P, 12.19 g K). Control: No
fertilization.
In Table 4, the comparison of means by Tukey's
test at P<0.05 probability showed that Cataloupe
was better for NFru, Volfru
and Y. Hybrid 64068 had lower incivirus.
Table 4. Analysis of means for hybrids .
|
Hybrid |
AP |
DT |
NFru |
Incivirus |
Unifru |
Volfru |
Y |
|
Cataloupe |
1,22 a |
8,25 a |
6,97 a |
20,24 a |
2,60 a |
79020 a |
2,84 a |
|
64068 |
1,09 a |
8,08 a |
5,25 b |
16,43 b |
2,58 a |
60030 b |
1,77 b |
|
DSH |
0,26 |
0,29 |
0,65 |
66,66 |
0,14 |
66,67 |
66,67 |
Means with a common letter are
not significantly different (p > 0.05).
In Table 5, the
comparison of means by Tukey's test at P<0.05 probability, showed that
strategy 2 applied to Cataloupe was better for DT, NFru,
lower Incivirus and good Unifru;
but for Strategy 1, applied to hybrid 64068 was better for Volfru
and Y. The control treatment (no fertilization) applied to the two hybrids was
the worst for all the variables evaluated, which were shown to be the most
affected by melon mosaic virus.
Table 5. Analysis of means for the interaction strategy x hybrids.
|
Treatment |
Hybrid |
AP |
DT |
NFru |
Incivirus |
Unifru |
Volfru |
Y |
|
Strategy 2 |
Cataloupe |
1,28 a |
9,08 a |
8,24 a |
3,80 b |
3,80 a |
74379.35 |
2.07 bc |
|
Witness |
64068 |
1,27 a |
8.87 ab |
3,40 c |
6,50 a |
1,75 c |
59191.93 cd |
2.26 bc |
|
Strategy 2 |
64068 |
1,20 a |
8.19 bc |
6,30 b |
4,50 b |
3,75 a |
97655,17 20 a |
3,69 a |
|
Strategy 1 |
64068 |
1,20 a |
8,11 c |
6,05 b |
6,00 a |
2,25 b |
80214.05 20 ab |
2,57 b |
|
Strategy 1 |
Cataloupe |
1,02 a |
7.48 cd |
6,56 b |
4,00 b |
2,60 b |
61337.44 cd |
1,48 c |
|
Witness |
Cataloupe |
0,97 a |
7,28 d |
6,12 b |
6,00 a |
1,40 c |
44372,63 d |
1.76 bc |
|
DSH |
|
0,44 |
0,74 |
1,64 |
1,32 |
0,37 |
18348,65 |
0,81 |
Means with a common letter
are not significantly different (p > 0.05), Strategy 1: (E1: 11.22 g
N, 5.29 g P, 0.00 g K, E2:11.22 g N, 5.29 g P, 11.12 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g
P, 11.12 g K. Strategy 2: (E1: 14.54 g N, 6.58 g P, 0.00 g K, E2: 14.54
g N, 6.58 g P, 12.19 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g P, 12.19 g K). Control:
No fertilization.
Correlation
analysis
Pearson's correlation analysis of the
treatments between fruit volume, yield and brix did not show significant correlations
(Table 6). The average Brix for Strategy 1 was 7.7%, for Strategy 2 4.88% and
for Strategy 3 (control) 4.22%. It was
not possible to detect the relationship of these variables among the enhanced
treatments. With the exception of Strategy 3, where a negative correlation
between volume and yield was observed, indicating that the lack of
micronutrients apparently affected the relationship between these variables. It
was noted that the volume in Strategies 1 and 2 were inversely proportional,
which, although not significant, would indicate that the greater the volume,
the lower the sugar content.
Table 6. Pearson's correlation for evaluated characters.
|
Strategy
1 |
|||
|
|
Volume |
Performance |
Brix degrees |
|
Volum |
1,00 |
0,44 ** |
-0.40 ns |
|
Performance |
|
1,00 |
0.53
ns |
|
|
|
1,00 |
|
|
Strategy
2 |
|||
|
|
Volume |
Performance |
Brix degrees |
|
Volume |
1,00 |
-0.18 ns |
-0.33 ns |
|
Performance |
|
1,00 |
0.17 ns |
|
Brix degrees |
|
|
1,00 |
|
Strategy
3 |
|||
|
|
Volume |
Performance |
Brix degrees |
|
Volume |
1,00 |
-0,60** |
0.12 ns |
|
Performance |
|
1,00 |
0.05 ns |
|
Brix degrees |
|
|
1,00 |
*:
Significant at P<0.05 of probability, **: Highly significant at P<0.01 of
probability, ns: Not significant
In general, all treatments showed a B/C>1,
when the product was marketed at $0.50/kg fruit (Table 7). Treatments T1 and T2
were the most profitable, with a B/C ratio=1.53 and 1.32, respectively. This
indicates that, for each dollar invested in T1, a profit of US$1.53 is
achieved; likewise in the case of treatment T2, where for each dollar invested,
US$1.32 would be earned.
Table 7. B/C analysis of the product marketed in supermarkets.
|
Cultivate |
NP (1000 m2) |
Weight/harvest (Kg) |
Weight/harvest (Kg) |
Price/kg (USD) |
Profit (1000 m2) |
Cost (1000 m2) |
BN (USD) MARKET |
B/C Ratio |
Profitability |
||
|
T1 |
2352 |
1,96 |
4609,92 |
0,5 |
2304,96 |
800 |
1504,96 |
1,53 |
Profitable |
|
|
T2 |
2352 |
2,79 |
6562,08 |
0,5 |
3281,04 |
800 |
2481,04 |
1,32 |
Profitable |
|
B/C > 1.0 =
Profitable.
Table 8. B/C analysis of the product
marketed in the supply market.
|
Trat |
NP
|
P/C
|
PT/C |
Pr/Kg
|
Benefit
|
Cost
|
Net
benefit |
B/C |
Profitability |
|
T1 |
3135 |
0,65 |
2037,75 |
0,3 |
611,33 |
371,15 |
240,18 |
0,65 |
Not profitable |
|
T2 |
3135 |
0,97 |
3040,95 |
0,3 |
912,29 |
371,15 |
541,14 |
1,46 |
Profitable |
|
T3 |
3135 |
0,89 |
2790,15 |
0,3 |
837,05 |
371,15 |
465,90 |
1,26 |
Profitable |
|
T4 |
3135 |
0,58 |
1818,30 |
0,3 |
545,49 |
371,15 |
174,34 |
0,47 |
Not profitable |
B/C > 1.0 = Profitable
A
comparison analysis between the product sold in supermarkets and the local
market showed that profits from supermarket sales are greater than 50% in both
cases.
Bazán, (2015b), reported an experiment to determine
the effect of different fertilization levels (NPK) on yield and fruit quality
and to determine the most appropriate dose to obtain the highest efficiency in
melon production. The fertilization level 150-100-150 kg/ha of N - P - K,
obtained the highest commercial yield with 47.97 t/ha, likewise, as
fertilization levels increase, the amount of non-commercial fruit decreases.
The fertilization level 200 - 150 - 200 and the level without fertilization 0 -
0 - 0 kg/ha of N - P - K, registered the highest non-commercial yield with
16.26 t/. ha-1 and 12.5 t. ha-1 respectively.
Quiroz (2008),
states that, to achieve 1000 kg of fruit, the melon crop extracts 1.5 kg N,
0.65 kg P and 3.37 kg K. Thompson (2012), mentions that melon is a relatively
demanding crop in nutrient elements; a 1000 kg/1000 m2 crop extracts from the
soil: 2.1 kg N, 0.8 kg P₂O₅, 4 kg K₂O and recommends a
fertilization of 10 to 15 kg N, 5 to 7 kg P, and 10 to 15 kg K for 1000 m2.
This also shows that crop needs are different in the different sites where they
were evaluated, this will depend on crop genetics and
environment (fertility of the soil, soil type, temperature, pH, organic matter,
etc.) (Molina, 2006).
In the research
carried out to validate the strategies 2 in the hybrid cathaulope
in its different stages (E1: 14.54 g N, 6.58 g P, 0.00 g K, E2: 14.54 g N, 6.58
g P, 12.19 g K, E3: 0.00 g N, 0.00 g P, 12.19 g K), was the best for stem
diameter, number of fruits, lower incidence of virus and greater volume of
fruit manifested by Tapia et al. (2010) the fertilizers used in the Cantaloupe
melon crop, as a base were urea, triple calcium superphosphate and potassium
sulfate through the irrigation system, the variables evaluated were: total
foliar N and K concentration (%) from the sixth to the eighth leaf from the
apex to the base of the main guide at 35 and 62 days after planting (dds); similarly, N-NO3 and K+ were evaluated at the
beginning of flowering (29 days), beginning of fruiting (35 days) and beginning
of harvest (62 days). The results indicate that there was an effect of the
nutritional doses applied on yield and fruit quality; increasing the dose of
nitrogen increased yield and quality, up to a maximum value of 61 t-ha-1 with 240 kg-ha-1 of N in 2006 and 44.3 t-ha-1 with
180 kg-ha-1 of N in 2007.
González et al.
(2021), mentions that, the current demand for food causes large amounts of
chemical fertilizers to be used in vegetable production systems, leaving soils
deteriorated and with low fertility in the long term, organic or chemical
fertilizers mixed with biofertilizers can be a viable
alternative to maintain and/or increase melon yields and at the same time
reduce the use of chemical fertilizers in vegetable production systems.
Finally, we
determined that in general all treatments showed a B/C > 1, when the product
was marketed at $0.50/kg fruit. However, treatments T1 and T2 were the most
profitable, with a B/C ratio = 1.53 and 1.32, respectively. This indicates that
in the case of treatment T1, for each dollar invested, it would earn 1.53
dollars; likewise in the case of treatment T2, where for each dollar invested,
it would be earning 1.32 dollars, the difference
between the two treatments is that T2 requires a greater amount of fertilizer.
In this regard, Kumar et al. (2007) found that optimal N and P fertilization
improved crop yield and profitability. Likewise, we were able to find through a
comparative analysis between the product sold in supermarkets and the local
market that the profits from supermarket sales are greater than 50% in all
cases.
Conclusions
Treatment T2 was
the best for stem diameter, fruit number, lower virus incidence, better fruit
uniformity, higher fruit volume and better yield.
Both hybrids were
drastically affected by the non-application of fertilizers, determining an
incidence of 6.22% plants affected by virus on average. T2 interacted with Cataloupe. T3 (control) had the worst response to
morphological, agronomic and yield variables.
The T1 strategy
was the one that showed the highest percentage of Brix degrees in the fruit in
general, followed by the T2 strategy. Both treatments were profitable in the
supermarket and in the market.
References
Bazán, D. A. (2015a). Four levels
of N-P-K fertilization in melon (Cucumis melo var. reticulatus L.) crop
under Cañete Valley conditions [thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria La
Molina, Lima, Peru].
https://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12996/1630/
Bazán, D. A. (2015b). Nitro-phospho-potassium fertilization in melon (Cucumis melo) crop
under Cañete valley conditions. [Thesis, Universidad
Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Peru].
https://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12996/1630
Boardman, N. E., Greenberg, D., Vining, A.,
& Weimer, D. (2018). Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice (5st
edition). Cambridge Universoty Prees, UK.
http://students.aiu.edu/submissions/profiles/resources/onlineBook/E5V5H3_Cost456
benefit%20analysis%20_%202018.p
Gabriel, J. (2021). Green book:
Agro-UNESUM Informa. Editorial Grupo Compas, Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí, Guayaquil, Ecuador. 212 p.
http://142.93.18.15:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/638
Gabriel, J., Pérez, R., Narváez,
W., Morán, J., Castro, A., & Burgos, G. (2023). Chemical fertilization of melon (Cucumis melo L.)
in greenhouse. A proposal to improve yield and quality. Journal of the Selva Andina Biosphere, 11(1), 84-93.
https://doi.org/10.36610/j.jsab.2023.110100081
Gabriel, J., Ortuño, N., Vera, M.,
Castro, C., Narváez, W., and Manobanda, M. (2017). Manual for disease damage
assessment in agricultural crops. Grupo COMPAS, Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador.
https://revistas.unesum.edu.ec/agricultura/index.php/ojs/article/view/3.
https://revistas.unesum.edu.ec/agricultura/index.php/ojs/article/view/3
Gabriel, J., Valverde, A.,
Indacochea, B., Castro, C., Vera, M., Alcívar, J. and Vera, R., (2021). Experimental designs: Theory and practice for
agricultural experiments. Second edition, Editorial Grupo Compás. Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
http://142.93.18.15:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/625
González, S. U., Gallegos-Robles,
M. Á., Preciado, R. P., García, C. M., Rodríguez, H. M. G., García, H. J. L.,
& Guzmán, S. T. L. (2021). Effect
of organic and inorganic sources of nutrition mixed with biofertilizers on
melon fruit production and quality. Terra Latinoamericana, 39,
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0187-57792021000100130&script=sci_abstract&tlng=en
Kumar, M.; Kumar Singh, M; Malik, S.; Prakash,
S.; Baboo, R. (2007). Studies on yield and economic returns of long melon as
affected by nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizat. Prog. Agric. 7 (1/2),149-150.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319755583
Massri, M., & Labban, L. (2014). Comparison
of differ-ent types of fertilizers on growth, yield and quality properties of
watermelon (Citrullus lanatus).
Agric. Sci, 5(6):475-82.
https://doi.org/10.4236/as. 2014.56048
Molina, E. (2006). Effect of
mineral nutrition on melon quality. Agronomic Information, 63:
1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ipni.net/publication/ia-lahp.nsf/
Moreno, J. M. (2000). Formulas
and volumes for the determination of areas and volumes. Guiniguada, 9(8/9), 291-3187.
https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/ElGuiniguada/article/view/685.
PODT (2015). Plan de Ordenamiento y
Desarrollo Territorial de la parroquia Puerto Cayo. Puerto Cayo - Jipijapa. Decentralized Autonomous
Government of the Puerto Cayo Parish.
PROAIN (2019). Agricultural Technology. Nutritional needs of melon. https://
proain.com/blogs/blogs/notas-tecnicas/necesidades-nu-trimentales-del-melon.
Quiroz, M. (2008) Determination of
macronutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) uptake curves in melon (Cucumis
melo L.) cv. Honey Dew Flesh under different
fertilization doses. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Peru. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do;jsessionid
SAS University (2020). An Introduction to SAS
University Edition
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/an-introduction-to/9781629600079/
Thompson, C., & Kelly, W. (2012). Vegetable crop 5th Edition. Editorial Mc. Graw Hill Book Company. Inc. New York, USA.