Abstract
Sustainable use of water and nutrients is fundamental in modern Mediterranean greenhouses and the use of modern decision support systems (DSS) can contribute to this direction. This work focuses on implementing new elements in water and nutrient recycling in cropping systems under saline conditions. Thus, two nutrient solution (NS) control strategies were applied to tomato crops grown in a recirculated NS under low- and high-salinity (NaCl) conditions. According to the first strategy, (i.e., Standard-STD) NS was replenished with water and nutrients based on predetermined “uptake concentrations” (UCs), i.e., nutrient to water uptake ratios, following standard commercial practices. According to the second strategy, NS was replenished by applying recalculated UCs of all nutrients after chemical analysis of a drainage solution sample using the software NUTRISENSE (NTS). Compared with the STD strategy, tomato plants treated with NTS retained drainage nutrient concentrations closer to the optimal values irrespectively of the salinity treatment. This eventually accounted for a smaller deviation from the mean threshold salinity value in the root zone at higher salinity levels, thus plants retained water consumption and crop yield potential at higher stomatal conductance minimizing physiological impacts of salinity on plants. Nutritional control strategies did not impose substantial difference in the UCs for most of the nutrients; however, this was not the case under salinity. Nutrient UCs determined and NTS strategy can be successfully used in DSS to optimize nutrient supply and prolong recirculation, thereby saving precious water and nutrients, in Mediterranean hydroponic crops with particular emphasis on saline environments.
Introduction
Water is a scarce and valuable commodity. Since agriculture is the largest water user, any saving in the water used for irrigation, even the smallest, accounts for a lot. On the other hand, the need to increase the circularity of crop production systems necessitates to keep nutrients in use as long as possible. In this context, recycling water and nutrients in closed soilless cultivation systems (CSCS) offers great opportunities to save precious water and reduce the consumption of fertilizers, thereby minimizing environmental impacts in greenhouse horticulture (; ). However, the necessity to control the variability of nutrient concentrations in the fertigation effluents in such systems discourages Mediterranean growers to adopt recycling processes in their greenhouses in most cases (). Standard injection of nutrients via stock solutions into the recycling irrigation solution generally forms an efficient fertigation strategy in closed soilless systems with continuous supply of water and nutrients (). The automated injection of nutrients into the replenishment nutrient solution (NS) is based on the concept of previously determined nutrient “uptake concentrations” (i.e., mass of nutrient per water volume absorbed; ) for each specific crop species, with periodic modifications during the cropping period tailored to the developmental stage (). Nevertheless, matching nutrient supply with special nutritional needs of the crop (; ) involves some difficulties with this technique because nutrient addition dosage is not directly related to the nutrient composition of the drainage. An ideal approach should be to continuously monitor individual nutrients in the recycled solution (e.g., ion-selective sensors), however, such techniques are not available in commercial practice up to now (). The integration of simulation and sensing tools with actual measurements and different management strategies has been documented to be effective in theory and practice in soilless crops (). Yet, the full implementation of decision support systems (DSS) and new emerging technologies (e.g., nanoparticles) in commercial soilless greenhouses remains an open issue (). In addition, when the primary water contains substantial amounts of NaCl, frequent adjustment of the nutrient injection ratios and concentrations is required to avoid nutrient imbalances and frequent discharge of the solution (; ). This phenomenon depends mainly on the concentration difference of unabsorbed or poorly absorbed ions such as Na+ and Cl− at the inlet (i.e., irrigation water) and the outlet (i.e., consumption by plants) and high levels of unused nutrients. Thus, salt accumulation may impose flushing of circulating water, a diluted nutrient solution supply or an elevated solution osmotic potential. This is a common problem facing Mediterranean regions and a serious drawback for the growers to adopt continuous recirculation systems (). Salinity usually harms crops through osmotic stress, nutrient imbalances, and ion toxicity and to overcome current limits, a research challenge is to develop management tools that reduce salinity in recycled solutions and/or minimize its physiological impacts on plants. Therefore, this study can help to optimize plant nutrition in CSCS establishing mean nutrient UCs (nutrient/water uptake ratios) for the selected crop species making plants less susceptible in salty environments. Additionally, these values can be used as input data in operating DSS as a mean to diminish or even avoid solution runoff under such conditions. NUTRISENSE (https://nutrisense.online/), which was developed by operates as a DSS using specific algorithms based on mass balance models (see ; ; ) for the target dosage of each nutrient. Recently an extended version of these algorithms has been proposed () which provides an alternative approach capable to automatically make the necessary adaptations whenever needed. Specifically, our objectives were to 1) develop novel elements in the continuous recycling of water and nutrients, 2) establish nutrient UCs for crops facing the issue of salinity in soilless systems, and 3) relate recycling effects to measured plant physiological responses. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) was selected as a model crop because has the lowest sensitivity to salinity of all fruiting greenhouse vegetables (), dominates worldwide in greenhouses (), relies on high addition of fertilizers () and has different cultivation requirements in soil and soilless systems ().
Thus, the potential application of a smart NS replenishment strategy provided by NUTRISENSE in hydroponic tomato crops could lead to a better management of the parameters (i.e., water and nutrients) of hydroponic solution, especially when primary water is of low quality. This is particularly important considering the increasing scarcity of fresh good quality water resources in southern Europe where European greenhouse crops are concentrated ().
Materials and methods
Plant material—growing conditions
The experiment took place at the Agricultural Research Institute of Cyprus (lat. 34°44′N/long. 33°19′E/altitude 35 m absl) under natural light conditions (daily global solar radiation averaged 10.9 MJ·m−2) in a multi-span greenhouse with plastic coverings equipped with automated climate–control system. Tomato plants (S. lycopersicum L.) of the beefsteak fruit type (Dafnis, Syngenta, Netherlands) were transplanted in twenty NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) hydroponic channels, 6 m long, 0.25 m wide, and 0.1 m deep, achieving a final planting density of 2.5 plants m−2. In each hydroponic channel, nutrient solution (NS) was recirculated day and night enabling a constant solution volume in the system with continuous NS flow from the replenishment tank into the drainage catchment tank. Thus, each hydroponic channel constituted an independent experimental hydroponic unit. The experiment was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021 (Autumn-Winter crop), keeping greenhouse air temperature between 13°C and 28°C and relative humidity between 60%–80%. Plants were trained vertically using a string trellis system attached to a horizontal wire above plant row. For pollination, a bumblebee colony (Bombus terrestris) was introduced into the greenhouse at the flowering stage and pest and diseases were controlled following the practices suggested for sustainability in greenhouse horticulture (). Plants were topped to facilitate a short production cycle (up to the 6th fruiting truss). A detailed description of the experimental layout has been given by .
Experimental treatments
Experimental treatments consisted of two nutritional treatments applied in closed hydroponic tomato crops grown under two salinity levels. The plants treated with: 1) a typical replenishment strategy in which replenishing water and nutrients was based on predetermined “uptake concentrations-UCs” values, henceforth named “Standard-STD” and 2) an alternative replenishment nutrient strategy in which, replenishing water and nutrients was based on recalculated UCs of nutrients (henceforth named as “NUTRISENSE-NTS”). Two salinity (NaCl) levels were established by adding NaCl at appropriate amounts in the primary water containing 1.6 mM of NaCl to increase the NaCl concentration to 5.0 mM. The two nutritional treatments and the two salinity levels (i.e., low- and high-salinity) were combined in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Each hydroponic channel corresponded to one experimental unit (n = 16) and external plant rows on both sides (n = 4) served as guard plants. Experimental treatments commenced immediately after transplanting and lasted up to crop termination.
Recycling nutrient solution and replenishment strategies
NUTRISENSE utilizes 1) a large database with target concentrations for all nutrients originating from several sources (e.g., ; ; ) amended with relevant data under Mediterranean climatic conditions (e.g., , , ; ; , , ; ; ) and 2) current concentrations of the selected nutrients in the supplied and drainage solution to recalculate UCs and readjust the injection rates of nutrients stock solutions in the recovery solution.
According to the first strategy (i.e., Standard-STD) NS was replenished with nutrients and water at predetermined nutrient to water uptake ratios, termed ‘uptake concentrations (UCs) during cropping following standard commercial practices. This technique is based on a programmed addition of nutrients as suggested by . Eventually, the input of each ion (Cif) is calculated using its uptake concentration denoted by Ciu and the ionic concentration in the raw water (Ciw) using the equation:
Therefore, blending a NS with nutrient concentrations equal to the expected uptake concentrations with the drain solution resulted in the preparation of the drip irrigation solution aiming at electrical conductivity (EC) values equal to those suggested for this particular crop species and stage of development. According to the second strategy (i.e., NUTRISENSE-NTS), replenishing water and nutrients was based on recalculated UCs of nutrients every 3 weeks which were obtained after introducing compositional characteristics of the drainage NS to NUTRISENSE, as determined through a chemical analysis in the laboratory. As mentioned elsewhere, NTS includes a large database with target NS compositions for different crop species and developmental stages and uses a series of algorithms based on mass balance models (see ; ; ) to calculate the injection rates of stock solutions into the irrigation water. However, a new element (i.e., an additional algorithm) was incorporated in NTS to facilitate the automated modifications of the replenishing NS composition in closed soilless systems. Thus, the actual drainage fraction (α) and current supplied (Cit) and drainage (Cid) nutrient solution concentrations are substituted in the following equation, to recalculate nutrient UCs values (Ciu,
The recalculation of the actual uptake concentration (Ciu) of the i nutrient (i = K, Ca, Mg, N, P) was based on a mass balance equation taking into consideration the concentration of the i nutrient in the current and previous drainage solution sample, the concentration of this nutrient in the replenishment solution and the water consumption between the two sampling dates.
After the recalculation of Ciu for each nutrient, NTS uses the following
To provide new target nutrient concentrations Cit in the drip solution where now α denotes the target fraction of the recycled solution to the total supplied NS and Cid denotes the target nutrient concentration in the root zone. Accordingly, target EC (ECt, dS m−1) in the drip solution is readjusted by NTS as follows ():where ΣCit denotes the sum of the readjusted macrocations (K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) concentrations plus ammonium (NH4+) and sodium (Na+) concentrations.
In both strategies, during the cropping period the drip solution EC was readjusted to higher levels as a function of the measured Na+ concentration in the root-zone solution to facilitate a fully reuse of the NS with zero discharge of fertigation effluents.
Determination of nutrient uptake concentrations
The mean nutrient uptake concentrations (UCi; mmol or μmol·L−1 of nutrient uptake per liter of water absorbed) were estimated based on the removal of water and nutrients from the recirculated nutrient solution at regular time intervals following a mass balance equation previously described ():where, UCi is the mean uptake concentration of the i nutrient (i.e. N_NO3+NH4, H2PO4-P; K, Ca, Mg, mmol·L−1, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, μmol·L−1), Vrns is the volume of the recycled nutrient solution; Vadns is the volume of the added nutrient solution (L) on a certain time interval; Cis and Cif (mmol·L−1) are respectively starting and final concentrations of the i nutrient in the recycled solution for the specified interval; and Ci is the concentration of the i nutrient in the added nutrient solution (mmol·L−1). Solution samples were collected from each hydroponic unit (from the replenishment and drainage catchment tank) at regular time intervals (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 116 days after transplanting) for elemental analysis and electrical conductivity (EC)/pH measurements (Multimeter MM40+, Crison Instruments, Spain). Water added to the system from calibrated replenishment tank was assumed to be equal to the water consumption by the plants since leakage from the system and evaporation were negligible. UCs for the selected nutrients were calculated and presented based on the stage of development (i.e., Vegetative and Reproductive) to be comparable with published recommendations. The UC of NO3− and NH4+ were added together to calculate the UC of total nitrogen (N).
Measurements
The concentration of nutrients in solution samples was determined as previously reported by . Briefly, an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Solaar M Series, Thermo Elemental, Cambridge, United Kingdom) for Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, a flame photometer (Model 420, Sherwood Scientific, Cambridge, United Kingdom) for K and Na and a UV/VIS spectrophotometer (Lambda 35, Perkin Elmer; Waltham, MA, United States) for NO3–N, NH4–N, and P determinations were employed. The determination of Cl− was done by silver nitrate titration method in the presence of chromate. The concentration of SO4-S was estimated based on the anion to cation balance. Leaf gas exchange indices (i.e., photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, substomatal CO2 concentration, and transpiration) were recorded in newly developed tomato leaves 60 and 90 days after treatment initiation using a portable photosynthesis system (Li-6400, Li-Cor, Lincoln, NE, United States). Yield parameters (i.e., fresh fruit yield, fruit number per plant, and mean fruit weight) were determined in each experimental unit.
Statistical analysis
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on selected data using SAS (ver. 9.2, SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, United States) using figures made by GraphPad Prism (ver. 5.0; GraphPad Software; San Diego California, United States).
Results
Mineral nutrients, yield and leaf stomatal responses
Nutritional control strategies (i.e., STD and NTS) did not impose substantial differences in the UCs of most of the nutrients irrespectively of the growing stage. Thus, recombining the data over treatments UCs averaged for the two stages as follow (Vegetative-Reproductive, Table 1): 15.2–14.1 (Nitrogen- NO3− + NH4+), 1.36–1.29 (Phosphorus-P), 8.54–8.32 (Potassium-K), 3.60–3.42 (Calcium-Ca), 1.76–1.70 (Magnesium-Mg, mmol L−1), 14.23–14.33 (Iron-Fe), 8.57–7.61 (Manganese-Mn), 7.24–6.88 (Zinc-Zn), and 0.92–1.12 (Copper-Cu, μmol L−1). However, this was not the case with salinity, which imposed limitations at high NaCl levels in the UCs of some macronutrients (i.e., N, K, and Ca). Micronutrients (Fe, Zn, and Cu) UCs did not show clear and consistent differences with regard to salinity except the UC of Mn, which slightly but significantly increased under high salinity (Table 1). Elemental analysis of the drainage (Figure 1) provides that NTS maintained some macronutrients (N-NO3 and K, Figures 1A,C) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn, and Cu Figures 1F,G,I) levels in the recycled solution closer to the recommended values compared to the STD strategy. On the other hand, salinity boosted drainage sodium chloride (NaCl) concentration regardless the STD or NTS, (Figures 1J, 2F), with only minor effects on the concentration levels of nutrients such as NO3-N and P (Figures 1A,B). Over salinity treatments, NaCl concentration in the drainage ranged between 9–24 mmol·L−1 (Figures 1J, 2F). Concentrations at high range were observed at later stages of growth when crop is considered less sensitive (; ). Concentration of the other selected nutrients in the drainage (Figures 1A–I) ranged as follows: 22–26 (NO3-N), 1.0–1.3 (P), 11–13 (K), 9.5–10.5 (Ca), 4.0–4.7 (Mg, mmol·L−1), 20–24 (Fe), 5.5–7.0 (Mn), 6.4–7.4 (Zn) and 2.0–2.5 (Cu, μmol·L−1). Furthermore, salinity imposed significant differences to the electrical conductivity (EC) in the drainage, plant water uptake, fresh fruit yield, mean fruit weight (Figures 2A–D) and stomatal conductance (Figure 2G) with minor or insignificant effects on transpiration and photosynthetic rates, respectively (Figures 2H,I). In most cases nutritional treatments effect, accounted for a small percentage in the total data variance. However, for some parameters such as the drainage EC, plant water uptake and mean fruit weight (Figures 2A,B,D), the effect was considered significant while for others such as fresh fruit yield (Figure 2C) not significant (p < 0.05). In some other cases, NTS did not have the same effect at all values of NaCl. Thus, a significant interaction effect (p < 0.05) between nutritional treatments and salinity was found, changing the order of the response variable, in the case of the stomatal conductance (Figure 2G). Finally, nutrient concentrations in the refill and drainage solution according to the nutritional strategies tested and the developmental stage are given in Table 2. These recipes for the STD strategy correspond to standard injection rates of nutrients in the recycled solution during the vegetative and reproductive stage following the commercial practice, whereas recipes for the NTS strategy correspond to injection rates of nutrients in the solution only for short periods within each stage (vegetative and reproductive) after chemical analysis of solutions. In absolute values, similar nutrient addition is provided initially at the vegetative stage from both nutritional strategies, whereas nutrient supplementations differ between the two when nutrients levels are accumulated in the recycled solution at later stages of growth (i.e., reproductive stage). The latter entails readjustments in the supply concentrations of nutrients and relevant variations in their ratio (Table 2).
TABLE 1
| Vegetative | Nutritional strategy | NO3+NH4 | P | K | Ca | Mg | Fe | Mn | Zn | Cu |
| STD | 15.3 | 1.37 | 8.63 | 3.67 | 1.79 | 14.20 | 8.63 | 7.18 | 0.98 | |
| NTS | 15.0 | 1.34 | 8.44 | 3.53 | 1.73 | 14.26 | 8.51 | 7.29 | 0.85 | |
| Salinity level | ||||||||||
| Low | 15.7 | 1.35 | 8.72 | 3.69 | 1.78 | 13.85 | 8.36 | 7.22 | 0.95 | |
| High | 14.6 | 1.36 | 8.35 | 3.51 | 1.74 | 14.61 | 8.78 | 7.25 | 0.88 | |
| Significance | ||||||||||
| N | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| S | ** | ns | * | * | ns | ** | ** | ns | ns | |
| N x S | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Reproductive | Nutritional strategy | NO3+NH4 | P | K | Ca | Mg | Fe | Mn | Zn | Cu |
| STD | 14.2 | 1.32 | 8.45 | 3.47 | 1.67 | 14.41 | 7.66 | 7.01 | 1.09 | |
| NTS | 14.0 | 1.26 | 8.19 | 3.36 | 1.72 | 14.26 | 7.55 | 6.75 | 1.14 | |
| Salinity level | ||||||||||
| Low | 14.2 | 1.32 | 8.48 | 3.69 | 1.68 | 14.51 | 7.51 | 7.11 | 1.13 | |
| High | 13.9 | 1.25 | 8.17 | 3.14 | 1.70 | 14.16 | 7.69 | 6.64 | 1.10 | |
| Significance | ||||||||||
| N | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | * | ns | |
| S | * | ns | ** | * | ns | ns | ** | ** | ns | |
| N x S | ns | ns | ** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
Nutrient uptake concentrations (NO3+NH4, P, K, Ca, Mg, mmol L−1 and Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu μmol L−1) in the vegetative and reproductive stage of hydroponic tomato crops supplied with nutrient solution compositions provided by two nutritional strategies (i.e., standard-STD and NUTRISENSE-NTS) under low- and high-salinity (NaCl) levels.
“STD” corresponds to a typical replenishment strategy in which water and nutrients were added in the system based on predetermined nutrient to water uptake ratios termed nutrient uptake concentrations-UCs and “NTS” corresponds to an alternative replenishment strategy in which, water and nutrients were added in the system based on readjustments of target nutrient UCs. Salinity (NaCl) levels were established by adding NaCl at appropriate amounts in the primary water containing 1.6 mM of NaCl (Low salinity) to increase the NaCl concentration to 5.0 mM (High salinity). Values are means of four replicates. Significance of F: ns, not significant and *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2

Agronomical (A–F) (root zone electrical conductivity-EC, water uptake, fresh fruit yield, mean fruit weight, fruit number per plant, and drainage sodium-Na concentration) and physiological (G–J) (Stomatal conductance, Photosynthetic rate, Transpiration rate, and Intercellular CO2 concentrations) responses in hydroponic tomato crops supplied with nutrient solution compositions provided by two nutritional strategies (i.e., standard-STD and nutrisense-NTS) under low- and high-salinity (NaCl) levels. “STD” corresponds to a typical replenishment strategy in which water and nutrients were added in the system based on predetermined nutrient to water uptake ratios termed nutrient uptake concentrations-UCs and “NTS” corresponds to an alternative replenishment strategy in which, water and nutrients were added in the system based on readjustments of target nutrient UCs. Salinity (NaCl) treatments were established by adding NaCl at appropriate amounts in the primary water containing 1.6 mM of NaCl (Low) to increase the NaCl concentration to 5.0 mM (High). Vertical columns in figure parts are means of four replicates ± standard errors.
TABLE 2
| Vegetative stage | Drip solution | Drainage | Target levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Unit | STD | NTS | STD | NTS | Root zone |
| K⁺ | mmol/L | 8.88 | 8.65 | 6.52 | 6.59 | 7.30–8.10 |
| Ca2⁺ | mmol/L | 3.86 | 4.00 | 7.34 | 7.78 | 8.50–9.50 |
| Mg2⁺ | mmol/L | 1.51 | 1.80 | 3.55 | 4.13 | 3.70–4.40 |
| NH₄⁺ | mmol/L | 1.61 | 1.61 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.05–0.20 |
| SO₄2⁻ | mmol/L | 2.97 | 4.27 | 5.80 | 5.50 | 5.70–7.60 |
| NO₃⁻ | mmol/L | 14.05 | 12.08 | 17.19 | 18.78 | 14.10–15.50 |
| H₂PO₄⁻ | mmol/L | 1.39 | 1.40 | 0.69 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.20 |
| Fe | μmol/L | 18.52 | 15.00 | 29.68 | 25.56 | 21.00–29.00 |
| Mn⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 12.34 | 11.20 | 3.31 | 4.05 | 5.00–9.00 |
| Zn⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 6.17 | 7.00 | 4.47 | 6.38 | 6.00–8.00 |
| Cu⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.70–0.90 |
| B | μmol/L | 30.86 | 36.98 | 30.00 | 35.00 | 45.0–55.0 |
| Mo | μmol/L | 0.51 | 0.70 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4–0.6 |
| K/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.42 |
| Ca/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.42 |
| Mg/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.18 |
| N/K | mol/mol | 1.76 | 1.58 | 2.64 | 2.85 | 2.40 |
| Reproductive stage | Drip solution | Drainage | Target levels | |||
| Parameter | Unit | STD | NTS | STD | NTS | Root zone |
| K⁺ | mmol/L | 9.33 | 6.77 | 14.26 | 14.83 | 7.60–8.40 |
| Ca2⁺ | mmol/L | 3.18 | 5.21 | 5.03 | 5.01 | 9.5–10.5 |
| Mg2⁺ | mmol/L | 1.48 | 1.94 | 3.37 | 2 | 4.00–4.90 |
| NH₄⁺ | mmol/L | 1.59 | 1.59 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05–0.20 |
| SO₄2⁻ | mmol/L | 2.86 | 5.23 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 6.30–8.50 |
| NO₃⁻ | mmol/L | 13.46 | 10.91 | 22.98 | 22.45 | 15.6–17.2 |
| H₂PO₄⁻ | mmol/L | 1.38 | 1.61 | 0.73 | 1.27 | 1.20–1.40 |
| Fe | μmol/L | 15.9 | 20.3 | 12.22 | 11.44 | 21.0–29.0 |
| Mn⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 10.6 | 12.59 | 2.13 | 2.48 | 5.00–9.00 |
| Zn⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 5.3 | 5.61 | 6.23 | 7.49 | 6.00–8.00 |
| Cu⁺⁺ | μmol/L | 0.74 | 0 | 3.32 | 3.53 | 0.60–0.80 |
| B | μmol/L | 31.8 | 39.96 | 30 | 32.00 | 45.0–55.0 |
| Mo | μmol/L | 0.53 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4–0.6 |
| K/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.62 | 0.49 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.42 |
| Ca/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.41 |
| Mg/(K + Ca + Mg) | mol/mol | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.17 |
| N/K | mol/mol | 1.89 | 1.84 | 1.61 | 1.51 | 2.10 |
Nutrient solution compositions provided by two nutritional strategies (i.e., standard-STD and NUTRISENSE-NTS) in hydroponic tomato crops during the vegetative and reproductive stage.
“STD” corresponds to a typical replenishment strategy in which water and nutrients were added in the system based on predetermined nutrient to water uptake ratios termed nutrient uptake concentrations-UCs and “NTS” corresponds to an alternative replenishment strategy in which, water and nutrients were added in the system based on readjustments of target nutrient UCs. Drip solution corresponds to the outgoing irrigation solution and drainage corresponds to the solution recirculated in the system. Recipes for the NTS correspond to injection rates of nutrients in the solution only for short periods within each stage following drainage chemical analysis, whereas recipes for the STD correspond to fixed injection rates of nutrients for each stage of growth.
Discussion
Recycling the effluent solution in hydroponics can be technically and economically feasible only if it is automatically replenished with the appropriate amounts of water and nutrients in proportions equal to their “uptake concentrations” (masses of nutrients uptake per volume of water uptake,
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study showed that potential application of a smart fertilizer control tool such as NUTRISENSE (NTS) can help to develop novel elements in the safe recycling of nutrients in Mediterranean greenhouses and to understand better the plant physiological responses behind this, together with establishing nutrient UCs for salinized tomato crops. Plants treated with NTS regulated leaf stomatal conductance and their water status after salinity tolerance threshold, which enables an adequate fruit yield in short-cycle tomato crops. Nutrient UC determined in the present study constitute a sound basis to be used in the libraries of NTS promoting a balanced plant nutrition at high Na+ and Cl− levels in the recycled solution, thus minimizing the need to discharge fertigation effluents. Research is in progress to examine root-derived responses and to give insights related to the nutritional status of the crop, which may provide physiological and productive advantages in tomato crops in regions suffering from scarcity of good-quality water.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Funding
This work was supported by the Agricultural Research Institute of Cyprus and the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) within the project “NUTRISENSE: Development of an innovative technology using special ion electrodes and suitable software for hydroponic production with emphasis on recycling of the drainage solution in closed systems” (HFRI-FM17-3196).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.965964/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AdamsP. (2002). “Nutritional control in hydroponics,” in Hydroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals. Editors SavvasD.PassamH. C. (Athens: Embryo Publications), 211–261.
2
AhnT. I.ParkJ-E.JungJ. H.KimS. M.YooG.KimH. S.et al (2021). Nutrient dosing framework for an emission-free urban hydroponic production. Front. Plant Sci.12, 768717. 10.3389/fpls.2021.768717
3
Bar-YosefB. (2008). “Fertigation management and crops response to solution recycling in semi-closed greenhouses,” in Soilless culture: Theory and practice. Editors RavivM.LiethH. J. (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 341–424.
4
ChapagainB. P.WiesmanZ. (2004). Effect of Nutri-Vant-PeaK foliar spray on plant development, yield, and fruit quality in greenhouse tomatoes. Sci. Hortic.102, 177–188. 10.1016/j.scienta.2003.12.010
5
Colmenero-FloresJ. M.Franco-NavarroJ. D.Cubero-FontP.Peinado-TorrubiaP.RosalesM. A. (2019). Chloride as a beneficial macronutrient in higher plants: New roles and regulation. Int. J. Mol. Sci.20, 4686–4732. 10.3390/ijms20194686
6
CuarteroJ.Fernández-MuñozR. (1998). Tomato and salinity. Sci. Hortic.78, 83–125. 10.1016/S0304-4238(98)00191-5
7
De PascaleS.OrsiniF.CaputoR.PalermoM. A.BarbieriG.MaggioA. (2012). Seasonal and multiannual effects of salinisation on tomato yield and fruit quality. Funct. Plant Biol.39, 689–698. 10.1071/FP12152
8
FAO (2018). Faostat. Rome: FAO Statistical Databases.
9
FAO (2013). Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops – principles for mediterranean climate areas. Rome: FAO.
10
FlexasJ.BotaJ.CifreJ.Mariano EscalonaJ.GalmésJ.GulíasJ.et al (2004). Understanding down‐regulation of photosynthesis under water stress: Future prospects and searching for physiological tools for irrigation management. Ann. Appl. Biol.144, 273–283. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00343.x
11
Franco-NavarroJ. D.BrumósJ.RosalesM. A.Cubero-FontP.TalónM.Colmenero-FloresJ. M. (2016). Chloride regulates leaf cell size and water relations in tobacco plants. J. Exp. Bot.67, 873–891. 10.1093/jxb/erv502
12
GianquintoG.MuñozP.PardossiA.RamazzottiS.SavvasD. (2013). Soil fertility and plant nutrition. Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops principles for mediterranean climate areas. Rome: FAO.
13
GrudaN. S. (2019). Increasing sustainability of growing media constituents and stand-alone substrates in soilless culture systems. Agronomy9, 298. 10.3390/agronomy9060298
14
KatsoulasN.SavvasD.KittaE.BartzanasT.KittasC. (2015). Extension and evaluation of a model for automatic drainage solution management in tomato crops grown in semi-closed hydroponic systems. Comput. Electron. Agric.113, 61–71. 10.1016/j.compag.2015.01.014
15
KimH. J.KimW. K.RohM. Y.KangC. I.ParkJ. M.SudduthK. A. (2013). Automated sensing of hydroponic macronutrients using a computer-controlled system with an array of ion-selective electrodes. Comput. Electron. Agric.93, 46–54. 10.1016/j.compag.2013.01.011
16
LeonardiC.MaggioA. (2013). “Choice of species and cultivars for protected cultivation,” in Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops principles for mediterranean climate areas (Rome: FAO).
17
MaggioA.RaimondiG.MartinoA.De PascaleS. (2007). Salt stress response in tomato beyond the salinity tolerance threshold. Environ. Exp. Bot.59, 276–282. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2006.02.002
18
MassaD.MagánJ. J.MontesanoF. F.TzortzakisN. (2020). Minimizing water and nutrient losses from soilless cropping in southern Europe. Agric. Water Manag.241, 106395. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106395
19
MedranoH.EscalonaJ. M.BotaJ.GulíasJ.FlexasJ. (2002). Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: Stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Ann. Bot.89, 895–905. 10.1093/aob/mcf079
20
NeocleousD.NikolaouG.NtatsiG.SavvasD. (2020). Impact of chelated or inorganic manganese and zinc applications in closed hydroponic bean crops on growth, yield, photosynthesis, and nutrient uptake. Agronomy10, 881. 10.3390/agronomy10060881
21
NeocleousD.NikolaouG.NtatsiG.SavvasD. (2021). Nitrate supply limitations in tomato crops grown in a chloride-amended recirculating nutrient solution. Agric. Water Manag.258, 107163. 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107163
22
NeocleousD.NtatsiG.SavvasD. (2017). Physiological, nutritional and growth responses of melon (Cucumis melo L.) to a gradual salinity built-up in recirculating nutrient solution. J. Plant Nutr.40, 2168–2180. 10.1080/01904167.2017.1346673
23
NeocleousD.SavvasD. (2015). Effect of different macronutrient cation ratios on macronutrient and water uptake by melon (Cucumis melo) grown in recirculating nutrient solution. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.178, 320–332. 10.1002/jpln.201400288
24
NeocleousD.SavvasD. (2018). Modelling Ca2+ accumulation in soilless zucchini crops: Physiological and agronomical responses. Agric. Water Manag.203, 197–206. 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.017
25
NeocleousD.SavvasD. (2016). NaCl accumulation and macronutrient uptake by a melon crop in a closed hydroponic system in relation to water uptake. Agric. Water Manag.165, 22–32. 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.11.013
26
NeocleousD.SavvasD. (2013). Response of hydroponically-grown strawberry (Fragaria×ananassaDuch.) plants to different ratios of K:Ca:Mg in the nutrient solution. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol.88, 293–300. 10.1080/14620316.2013.11512968
27
NeocleousD.SavvasD. (2019). The effects of phosphorus supply limitation on photosynthesis, biomass production, nutritional quality, and mineral nutrition in lettuce grown in a recirculating nutrient solution. Sci. Hortic.252, 379–387. 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.04.007
28
Nieves-CordonesM.García-SánchezF.Pérez-PérezJ. G.Colmenero-FloresJ. M.RubioF.RosalesM. A. (2019). Coping with water shortage: An update on the role of K+, Cl-, and water membrane transport mechanisms on drought resistance. Front. Plant Sci.10, 1619. 10.3389/fpls.2019.01619
29
NikolaouG.NeocleousD.ChristouA.KittaE.KatsoulasN. (2020). Implementing sustainable irrigation in water-scarce regions under the impact of climate change. Agronomy10, 1120. 10.3390/agronomy10081120
30
NikolaouG.NeocleousD.ChristouA.PolycarpouP.KittaE.KatsoulasN. (2021). Energy and water related parameters in tomato and cucumber greenhouse crops in semiarid mediterranean regions. A review, part II: Irrigation and fertigation. Horticulturae7, 548. 10.3390/horticulturae7120548
31
OrsiniF.SanoubarR.OztekinG. B.KappelN.TepecikM.QuacquarelliC.et al (2013). Improved stomatal regulation and ion partitioning boosts salt tolerance in grafted melon. Funct. Plant Biol.40, 628–636. 10.1071/FP12350
32
ParidaA. K.DasA. B. (2005). Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.60, 324–349. 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010
33
RopokisA.NtatsiG.KittasC.KatsoulasN.SavvasD. (2018). Impact of cultivar and grafting on nutrient and water uptake by sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum l.) grown hydroponically under mediterranean climatic conditions. Front. Plant Sci.9, 1244. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01244
34
SamboP.NicolettoC.GiroA.PiiY.ValentinuzziF.MimmoT.et al (2019). Hydroponic solutions for soilless production systems: Issues and opportunities in a smart agriculture perspective. Front. Plant Sci.10, 923. 10.3389/fpls.2019.00923
35
SavvasD.AdamidisK. (1999). Automated management of nutrient solutions based on target electrical conductivity, pH, and nutrient concentration ratios. J. Plant Nutr.22, 1415–1432. 10.1080/01904169909365723
36
SavvasD.GianquintoG.TuzelY.GrudaN. (2013). “Soilless culture. Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops,” in Principles for mediterranean climate areas (Rome: FAO).
37
SavvasD.GrudaN. (2018). Application of soilless culture technologies in the modern greenhouse industry - a review. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci.83, 280–293. 10.17660/eJHS.2018/83.5.2
38
SavvasD.NeocleousD. (2019). “Developments in soilless/hydroponic cultivation of vegetables,” in Achieving sustainable cultivation of vegetables. Editor HochmuthG. (Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited), 1–33.
39
SavvasD.NtatsiG.DrakatosS. (2020). A decision support system to automatically calculate and readjust nutrient solutions in commercial soilless cultivations. Acta Hortic.1271, 293–300. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1271.40
40
SavvasD. (2002). “Nutrient solution recycling,” in Hydroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals. Editors SavvasD.PassamH. C. (Athens: Embryo Publications), 299–343.
41
SavvasD. (2000). Nutritional management of gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii) grown in a closed soilless culture system. Acta Hortic.554, 175–182. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.554.18
42
SignoreA.SerioF.SantamariaP. (2016). A targeted management of the nutrient solution in a soilless tomato crop according to plant needs. Front. Plant Sci.7, 391. 10.3389/fpls.2016.00391
43
SonneveldC. (2002). “Composition of nutrient solution,” in Hydroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals. Editors SavvasD.PassamH. C. (Athens: Embryo Publications), 179–210.
44
SonneveldC. (2000). Effects of salinity on substrate grown vegetables and ornamentals in greenhouse horticulture. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University.
45
SonneveldC.StraverN. (1994). Nutrient solutions for vegetables and flowers grown in water or substrates. Ser. Voedingsoploss. Glastuinb.8, 45.
46
SonneveldC.VoogtW. (2009). Plant nutrition of greenhouse crops. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978-90-481-2532-6
47
TaizL.ZeigerE. (2002). Plant physiology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
48
ThompsonR. B.IncrocciL.van RuijvenJ.MassaD. (2020). Reducing contamination of water bodies from European vegetable production systems. Agric. Water Manag.240, 106258. 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106258
Summary
Keywords
recycling drainage, fertilizers, water, NUTRISENSE, salinity, greenhouses, tomato crops
Citation
Neocleous D and Savvas D (2022) Validating a smart nutrient solution replenishment strategy to save water and nutrients in hydroponic crops. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:965964. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.965964
Received
10 June 2022
Accepted
18 August 2022
Published
07 September 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Maria Elisa Magri, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil
Reviewed by
Hayssam M. Ali, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
Nicola Dal Ferro, University of Padua, Italy
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2022 Neocleous and Savvas.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Damianos Neocleous, d.neocleous@ari.gov.cy; Dimitrios Savvas, d.savvas@aua.gr
† These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Water and Wastewater Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.