Next Article in Journal
Straw and Biochar Application Alters the Structure of Rhizosphere Microbial Communities in Direct-Seeded Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Paddies
Previous Article in Journal
Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid-Mediated Alkalinity Stress Alleviation in Lollo Rosso Lettuce under Diverse Light Spectra
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/agronomy14020315
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Yield and Quality Traits of Tomato ‘San Marzano’ Type as Affected by Photo-Selective Low-Density Polyethylene Mulching

by
Maria Isabella Sifola
1,
Ida Di Mola
1,*,
Eugenio Cozzolino
2,
Lucia Ottaiano
1,
Sabrina Nocerino
1,
Riccardo Riccardi
3,
Patrizia Spigno
3 and
Mauro Mori
1
1
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy
2
Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA)—Research Center for Cereal and Industrial Crops, 81100 Caserta, Italy
3
ARCA 2010 S.c.a.r.l., Via G. Leopardi 18, 81030 Teverola, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(2), 315; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020315
Submission received: 21 December 2023 / Revised: 23 January 2024 / Accepted: 29 January 2024 / Published: 31 January 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of differently colored low-density polyethylene mulching films (black, silver/brown, and yellow/brown) in comparison with bare soil (BS) on soil temperatures, yield and yield components (number of fruit and average fruit weight), and fruit quality traits (color, firmness, total soluble solids content, polyphenols, flavonoids, ascorbic acid, carotenoids, and antioxidant activity) of a ‘San Marzano’ tomato crop grown in Southern Italy over two years (2014 and 2015). The warmer season (2015) shortened the cropping cycle (124 vs. 178 days, 2015 vs. 2014), thereby accelerating fruit ripening and improving firmness and redness (on average, the color parameter a/b was greater than in 2014). It determined the best yield response (53 vs. 44 Mg ha−1) by increasing the number of commercial fruits per unit land area despite the lower average fresh weight (AFW) than the first year. Regardless of the different plastic films, in both years, soil heat storage produced by mulching improved yield as compared to BS and showed a positive and significant effect on the contents of total soluble solids, polyphenols, flavonoids, and carotenoids without affecting the antioxidant activity. The highest values of quality traits were reached in the second year with silver and yellow mulches. Therefore, since the colored mulching films (yellow and silver) had a contradictory effect on yield and quality in the two years, further investigation is desirable.

1. Introduction

With its numerous positive effects on the soil/crop system, mulching has been a practice widely used in agriculture for a long time. It reduces water and nutrient losses [1,2,3], increases water infiltration into the soil while minimizing erosion, improves soil temperature [3,4,5] and several physical properties [2,3,4,6,7,8], and stops the soil C decline [9] and the resulting loss of productivity. It is also reported that mulching plays a role in suppressing weed development [10,11,12] and generally improves pest management, i.e., deflecting or repelling insect pests [2]. Mulching also strongly impacts plant response, increasing yield [13,14,15] and influencing final products’ marketable quality and nutritional composition [6,16,17,18,19]. Overall, it makes production processes more sustainable [4,20] and has a crucial role in both conservation and organic agriculture [1,21].
Mulching is becoming increasingly important in modern agriculture, although much work has recently been conducted to test new mulching materials, both organic and inorganic [1,4,17,22,23]. Plastic films are still the most preferred technique for the most important commercial crops worldwide (vegetables, cereals, and industrials) due to their wide availability and very low cost [2,3,7,19,23,24].
Plastic films can vary in several aspects, such as manufacturing process, type of polymer, density, mechanical properties, thickness, color, texture, and lifetime [3,4,25,26,27,28]. At present, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) films are the most used [3,4,26]. They show high elasticity, water tightness, and good resistance to both low temperature and chemical agents. Nevertheless, similar to other plastic polymers, they are characterized by a low resistance against UV rays [29,30] and cause both disposal and environmental problems [17,31]. LDPE films are available in black or differently colored (white, silver, yellow, red, and green are currently the most used), which may variably modify the radiation budget, thus affecting the microclimate around plants. They specifically impact different aspects of soil/crop systems: (1) soil temperature and its water content (evapotranspiration, due to the evaporation quota, is reported to decrease as a consequence of plastic mulch; [32]); (2) growth/yield responses, and (3) weed and pest diseases control [6,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Black plastic film is reported to increase soil temperature more than differently colored films since it absorbs more radiation than the others [28,33,42,43]. Nevertheless, colored films may directly change the response to photosynthetic active radiation (PAR), acting on quotas of transmittance, absorbance, and reflectance of covered surfaces. The higher the reflectance of plastic materials, the lower the soil temperature and the higher the soil moisture [23,28,41,43].
Differently colored films have long been tested on several crops to investigate how the changes in the radiation/energy budget of each one may affect the yield and quality responses [18,24,25,32,34,41,44,45,46]. As for silver plastic mulch, several studies showed that it reflected PAR more than black plastic films, thereby reducing soil temperature and the loss of water [41,47,48,49]. Silver mulch also repelled aphids more than other colored mulches, thus improving pest control [48,49]. As for the yellow film, it attracts insects, and interestingly, this behavior often made it easier to control the insect population over mulch [50]. The soil was frequently cooler under a yellow mulching film than under a green, red, or silver film [35,48,51]. In lettuce, the yield response of plants grown on yellow mulch was found to be generally worse than that obtained by plants on silver, red, orange, and green [35]. Pepper plants grown on yellow mulch showed lower height and dry plant mass than those grown on red or black mulch sheets [52]. However, since different colored plastic films still provide inconclusive results, they need to be tested in interaction with site-specific factors, such as crop season, soil, and crop types. Mulching of tomato crops has been deeply investigated [53,54,55,56,57,58], but very few studies were conducted on the effect of yellow and silver mulching films on yield and fruit quality traits [51,59].
The main aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of three differently colored low-density polyethylene mulching films (black, silver/brown, and yellow/brown) on the yield and quality of a tomato crop in comparison with bare soil. The ‘San Marzano’ tomato type was used, which is a traditional processing tomato widely cultivated in Southern Italy and characterized by fruits of uniform red color, elongated (60–80 mm) and parallelepiped shape, and by the absence of extraneous flavors and odors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials, Experimental Treatments, Crop Management, Samplings, and Measurements

A biennial field experiment was conducted in 2014 and 2015 at a private farm (ARCA 2010 s.r.l.) located in Acerra (NA; 40°56′ N, 14°22′ E; 30 m a.s.l.) on sandy loam soil whose physical and chemical characteristics are reported in Table 1. They showed good quality characteristics (moderate to high organic matter and nitrogen content and recommended pH value). The following three mulching double-layer low-density polyethylene (LDPE) films, supplied by Polyeur Srl (Benevento, ITALY), were used in comparison with bare soil (BS, control): (i) black film (black); (ii) photoselective yellow/brown film (yellow), and (iii) photoselective silver/brown film (silver). All films were traditional mulching plastic types obtained by polyethylene resin pellets, heated, and processed into bendable sheets of plastic film. They were characterized by their easy processability, great chemical resistance, high durability, and flexibility [17]. The films were manually placed on 15 April 2014, and 21 April 2015.
The seedlings of processing tomato (Solanum Lycopersicon L.), cv. Kiros (a ‘San Marzano’ ecotype, characterized by elongated fruits of bright red color and sweet-sour taste), were transplanted on 18 April 2014 and 22 April 2015, on plots 6.0 m wide and 20.0 m long, at a density of about 15,400 plants per hectare (1.3 × 0.5 m plant spacing). In both years, the crop was managed according to standard practices: In both years, the crop was managed according to standard practices: due to the high content of phosphorus and potassium, only nitrogen was added at the rate of 120 kg ha−1, or the control of the moth Tuta absoluta, a treatment with Spinosad was made in both years. As for irrigation, watering fully restored the water losses, considering that under mulching conditions, the Kc of tomatoes was reduced by about 35% [32].
The ripened fruits were harvested on 11 August, 3 and 24 September, 13 October 2014, and 10 and 21 August 2015. The marketable yield (Mg ha−1), the number of fruits, and the average fruit weight (AFW, g) were determined at each harvest. On a representative sample of 10 fruits per plot, the following measurements were also performed in both growing seasons: (i) color using a colorimeter (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) and (ii) firmness (kg cm−2) using a digital penetrometer (T.R. Turoni srl, Forlì, Italy) equipped with an 8 mm diameter probe. Space parameters, a* (−a, green/red, +a) and b* (−b, blue/yellow, +b) responses, were detected on the two opposite sides of each fruit, as well as the firmness measurements [58]; color data were shown as red/yellow (a/b) ratio [58].
The fruits were then prepared (juiced, frozen, fleshed, freeze-dried, and powdered) and stored for successive analytical determinations.

2.2. Total Soluble Solids, Polyphenols and Flavonoids, Ascorbic Acid and Carotenoids Contents, Antioxidant Activity (DPPH Assay)

The total soluble solids content (TSS, °Brix) was determined from the fruit juice using a digital refractometer (Sinergica Soluzioni, DBR35, Pescara, Italy). Total polyphenols content (TPC) was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu procedure [60]; the results were reported as mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE) per 100 g fresh weight (FW). For flavonoid content (FC) determination, an aluminum complex formation was used [61]; the results were expressed as the catechin equivalent (CE) 100 g−1 of FW. Ascorbic acid (AsA) was determined from frozen fruits using a spectrophotometer (absorbance at 525 nm) according to Kampfenkel et al. [62]; the results were expressed as mg 100 g−1 FW. Carotenoid content was also spectrophotometrically determined. In brief, 1 g of flesh tomato fruit was extracted with methanol (1:10 w/v) and then measured at 470 nm, according to the procedure reported by Wellburn [63]; the results were expressed as mg g−1 fresh weight (FW). Finally, antioxidant activity (AA) was assessed using a DPPH (1.1-diphenyl-2-picryl-hydrazil) assay according to the procedure reported by Brand-Williams et al. [64], and the results were reported as µmol Trolox equivalents (TE) g−1 FW.

2.3. Weather Conditions and Soil Temperatures

The meteorological data were collected at an automatic weather station on site. Soil temperatures (minimum and maximum) under different mulching and BS conditions were monitored continuously over the growing period (May to October 2014 and May to August 2015), using probes (Vantage Pro2, Hayward, CA, USA, Davis Instruments) in a 0–0.2 m soil layer. The air and soil temperature results of both years were reported at ten-day intervals over the growing seasons.

2.4. Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses

Treatments were arranged in a completely randomized block design with three replications. Results were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the means were separated according to the post hoc Tukey test (significance level 0.05). SPSS software (SPSS version 22.0 for Windows, Chicago, IL, USA) was used.

3. Results

3.1. Weather Conditions

Weather conditions for the two growing seasons were slightly different (Figure 1): the maximum temperature in 2014 reached lower values than in 2015 (34 vs. 39 °C; Figure 1) and later with respect to 2015 (third decade of August in 2014 vs. first decade of August in 2015; Figure 1). The first growing season (April to October 2014) was also rainier than the second one (April to August 2015), recorded at 580 vs. 227 mm, respectively (Figure 1). The additional months of September and October 2014 accounted for 156 mm.

3.2. Soil Temperatures

Over the 2014 growing season, the daily minimum and daily maximum soil temperatures ranged from 16.5 to 23.7 and from 18.3 to 27.4 °C and did not change markedly with mulching films (Figure 2A,B). In 2015, the daily minimum and daily maximum soil temperatures ranged from 17.1 to 26.5 and 20.6 to 34.4 °C, respectively (Figure 2C,D). They were greater under black film at the beginning of cropping (end-April to mid-May; Figure 2C,D) and under silver film in the following period (June to August; Figure 2C,D), except for the second period of July, during which the daily maximum soil temperature was the greatest under the yellow mulch.

3.3. Yield and Yield Components

On average, the marketable yield obtained in 2015 was greater than that in 2014 (53 vs. 44 Mg ha−1). Mulching treatments significantly affected marketable yield in the two years (Figure 3). In both 2014 and 2015, mulching positively influenced marketable yield, although significant only in 2015 under all kinds of differently colored mulching films (black, yellow, and silver; Figure 3). In the first year, however, plants grown under BS treatment yielded significantly less than plants under black film but without any significant differences compared to the yellow and silver films (Figure 3).
No year × mulching interaction was significant for the yield components (fruit number per square meter and AFW) and fruit firmness (Table 2). On average, the tomato plants grown in 2015 yielded a significantly greater number of fruits per unit land area than those grown in 2014 (Table 2). In addition, in the second year, fruits showed a lower AFW and greater firmness than in the first year (Table 2).
Overall, mulching positively affected fruit number per square meter but without any additional significant differences among different film types (Table 2). There was no significant effect of mulching on AFW (Table 2), whereas the firmness of fruit grown under black film was significantly less than that of fruits grown under other mulching materials or on bare soil (Table 2).

3.4. Quality Traits

In 2014, TSS increased significantly with both black and yellow treatments compared to both silver and BS, whereas, in 2015, they increased significantly according to mulching materials in the following order: BS < Black < Silver ≤ Yellow (Figure 4). On average, the TSS was 5.5 and 5.8 °Brix in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Changes in the a/b ratio due to mulching in the two years are reported in Figure 5. The a/b of BS was significantly lower than the a/b of the black, yellow, and silver films in both years (Figure 5). Overall, the effect of mulching was more evident in 2015, where the a/b was significantly greater in the fruits of plants grown under both yellow and silver films than in those obtained under a black film treatment (Figure 5).
The fruit quality traits reported in Table 3 were, on average, greater in 2015 than in 2014. In 2014, regardless of film type, mulching improved the TPC and FC (Table 3). The effect of mulching materials on TPC showed the following order: BS < Black = Silver = Yellow in 2014 and BS < Black < Silver < Yellow. As for FC, no change due to mulching treatments was recorded in 2014, whereas in 2015, the FC changed in the following order: BS = Black < Yellow < Silver (Table 3).
No effect of mulching treatment was recorded on AsA in either year (Table 3). As for the AA, it was significantly greater in the second year in fruits obtained with yellow and silver films than in those obtained with black film or in BS conditions (Table 3). Carotenoid contents increased with mulching films in both years, even though the effect was more evident in 2015 (Table 3). BS always showed the lowest values, whereas yellow and silver films were significantly greater in the second year but lower in 2014 (Table 3). Finally, the carotenoid content of plants grown on black mulch reached maximum values in the first year, albeit the minimum values in 2015 (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The mulching effect on soil temperature was strongly influenced by weather conditions, which were slightly different in the two years—the second year was less rainy but warmer than the first year, determining greater differences between the daily maximum and daily minimum soil temperatures. As expected, all mulching conditions (black, yellow, and silver) in both years determined greater soil temperatures than BS (differences were always positive) [3,4,5]. Surprisingly, in 2015, the highest soil temperature, on average, was not always recorded under black film, in contrast with results mostly reported by several studies [10,41,51,57,65,66]. Interestingly, differences in the daily maximum and minimum soil temperatures (average over the growing season) among black, yellow, or silver films vs. BS treatment were slightly lower in 2014 than in 2015. In particular, while the differences in the maximum temperatures ranged between 0.9 (Yellow vs. BS) and 3.3 °C (Black vs. BS) in 2014 and between 1.5 (Black vs. BS) and 3.7 °C (Silver vs. BS) in 2015, those in the minimum temperatures varied from 0.1 (Yellow vs. BS) to 0.6 °C (Black vs. BS) in the first year and from 1.4 (Yellow and Black vs. BS) to 2.2 °C (Silver vs. BS) in the second year.
When we calculated the soil degree-day (DD soil; [64]), based on the daily mean soil temperature and considering a Tbase of 12 °C [67], we found that in 2014, it was greater under black mulch than under other treatments (yellow and silver mulches or BS) over the entire growing season (May to October; +15%, on average). In 2015, in contrast, the same behavior was observed only at the beginning (May; +19%, on average) since in the remaining months (June to August), the DD soil under black plastic film was greater than that under BS treatment but not than those calculated under both yellow and silver mulches (−15%, on average). DD soil was frequently used to measure heat storage correctly in soils under mulching [45,65,68] and appeared as a useful indicator to evaluate the effect of mulching with plastic films of different colors over long periods [65,68]. Our results showed that in 2015, a season warmer than 2014, black mulch was effective in increasing soil temperature only when plant covering was limited due to small plant size [41,42]. In that condition, the effect of black mulch was presumably just appreciable since the tomato transpiration quota reportedly amounts to about 86%, whereas soil evaporation accounts for only 14% [69]. This effect was presumably evident only in the second year because the soil heat storage overall was greater than in the first year. In particular, in the first year, it changed from 54 (yellow on the third ten-day of April) to 139.6 °C day (black on the third ten-day of August), while in 2015, DD soil varied between 69.5 (silver on the third ten-day of April) and 183.9 °C day (silver on the third ten-day of July), thus producing a shortening of the growing season (124 vs. 178 days, 2015 vs. 2014) [6,70].
The warmer season (2015) determined the best yield response [33,41,47] by increasing the number of commercial fruits per unit land area (+35%) despite the lower AFW (−11%). As reported above, it shortened the cropping cycle, accelerating fruit ripening and improving firmness and redness (on average, a/b was generally greater than in 2014).
Regardless of different plastic films, in both years, soil heat storage produced by mulching generally improved the yield compared to BS [41,65,71,72]. In 2015, the soil heat storage was higher under silver than other colored mulching covers, but it did not determine an increase in yield. Presumably, this response could be due to the soil temperatures measured under this mulch, which overcame, even though only for a short period (the second ten-day of June, second and third ten-day of July), 30 °C, being the threshold above which tomato growth and development usually slow down [51].
The soil warming produced by mulching also influenced the quality traits in both years and showed a positive and significant effect on the contents of total soluble solids, polyphenols, flavonoids, and carotenoids [41,71,72] without affecting the antioxidant activity. Both positive and negative correlations between soil temperatures and both yield or quality parameters (nutrient concentration, sugar, carotenoid content, etc.) were also found in tomato production [73] or in other species [42,47,70,71]. Some studies [53,71,72,73,74] reported that root-zone heating, both under mulching and not mulching, was generally responsible for incrementing plant dry weight, yield, and nutrient uptake. Nevertheless, Kawasaki et al. [74] and He et al. [73] showed in tomato that root-zone heating determined decreases in quality since the carotenoid, sugar, and soluble solid contents of fruits were reduced. These contradictory results confirmed that the increases in soil temperatures might be a disadvantage in certain circumstances, especially in hot climate conditions.
As expected, the greater soil heat storage determined by different mulches in comparison with BS also accelerated fruit ripening [75], as demonstrated by the increase in the a/b ratio (Bs < Yellow < Black = Silver in 2014; BS < Black < Yellow = Silver in 2015). Color and firmness are two quality traits in tomato fruits [76,77,78] connected through fruit ripeness. Fruit color changes with ripeness, and ripeness affects firmness, which is one of the most important factors defining the quality of commercial tomato fruits [78]. In the present experiment, tomato fruits appeared deep red colored [76,77,78], and the fruit color (a/b not less than 2.2; [79]), ripeness, and firmness were those typically assigned to the ‘San Marzano’ tomato type.

5. Conclusions

The results of the present investigation confirmed that the heat storage produced by mulching may effectively enhance the yield and quality of tomato crops. Since different colored films produced contradictory effects strongly depending on climate conditions, further investigation is necessary before choosing, i.e., yellow, silver, or black plastic coverings for tomato cultivation.
Considering the remarkable soil heat storage induced by all cover types (the maximum soil temperatures increased up to 3.7 °C as compared to bare soil), mulching using plastic films in tomato cropping could be recommended in areas where maximum soil temperatures do not exceed 30 °C (threshold value for tomato) for long periods.
From the perspective of global mean temperature increasing as foreseen in future scenarios, this aspect becomes even more critical and, therefore, a starting point for further research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.D.M., E.C. and M.M.; methodology, L.O. and R.R.; validation, M.I.S., E.C. and S.N.; formal analysis, L.O. and S.N.; investigation, R.R. and P.S.; resources, E.C. and L.O.; data curation, I.D.M. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.S.; writing—review and editing, M.I.S. and I.D.M.; supervision, M.I.S. and I.D.M.; project administration, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Vincenzo Leone for his support in the field work and Milena Petriccione for qualitative analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Riccardo Riccardi and Patrizia Spigno were employed by the company ARCA 2010 S.c.a.r.l. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kader, M.A.; Singha, A.; Begum, M.A.; Jewel, A.; Khan, F.H.; Khan, N.I. Mulching as water-saving technique in dryland agriculture: Review article. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jabran, K. Role of Mulching in Pest Management and Agricultural Sustainability; SpringerBriefs in Plant Science; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  3. Iqbal, R.; Raza, M.A.S.; Valipour, M.; Saleem, M.F.; Zaheer, M.S.; Ahmad, S.; Toleikiene, M.; Haider, I.; Aslam, M.U.; Nazar, M.A. Potential agricultural and environmental benefits of mulches—A review. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2020, 44, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. El-Beltagi, H.S.; Basit, A.; Mohamed, H.I.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Kamel, E.A.R.; Shalaby, T.A.; Ramadan, K.M.A.; Alkhateeb, A.A.; Ghazzawy, H.S. Mulching as a sustainable water and soil saving practice in agriculture: A review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mangani, T.; Mangani, R.; Chirima, G.; Khomo, L.; Truter, W. Using mulching to reduce soil surface temperature to facilitate grass production. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lalitha, M.; Thilagam, V.K.; Balakrishnan, N.; Mansour, M. Effect of plastic mulch on soil properties and crop growth—A review. Agric. Rev. 2010, 31, 145–149. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, Y.; Tao, Y.; Wan, K.Y.; Zhang, G.S.; Liu, D.B.; Xiong, G.Y.; Chen, F. Runoff and nutrient losses in citrus orchards on sloping land subjected to different surface mulching practices in the Danjiangkou Reservoir area of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 110, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sagar, L.; Singh, S.; Sindhu, L. Impact of mulching in improving soil properties and crop performance—An Introspect. Biosci. Biotech. Res. Commun. 2020, 13, 178–184. [Google Scholar]
  9. Liu, Z.; Huang, F.; Wang, B.; Li, Z.; Zhang, P.; Jia, Z. Impacts of mulching measures on crop production and soil organic carbon storage in a rainfed farmland area under future climate. Field Crops Res. 2021, 273, 108303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nwosisi, S.; Nandwani, D.; Hui, D. Mulch Treatment effect on weed biomass and yields of organic sweetpotato cultivars. Agronomy 2019, 9, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khan, S.U.; Wang, X.; Mehmood, T.; Latıf, S.; Khan, S.U.; Fiaz, S.; Qayyum, A. Comparison of organic and inorganic mulching for weed suppression in wheat under rain-fed conditions of Haripur, Pakistan. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mzabri, I.; Rimani, M.; Charif, K.; Kouddane, N.; Berrichi, A. Study of the effect of mulching materials on weed control in saffron cultivation in Eastern Morocco. Sci. World J. 2021, 2021, 9727004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gao, H.; Yan, C.; Liu, Q.; Ding, W.; Chen, B.; Li, Z. Effects of plasticmulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gao, H.; Liu, Q.; Yan, C.; Wu, Q.; Gong, D.; He, W.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Mei, X. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and improved yield by plastic mulching in rice production. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 880, 162984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sun, D.; Li, H.; Wang, E.; He, W.; Hao, W.; Yan, C.; Li, Y.; Mei, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Z.; et al. An overview of the use of plastic-film mulching in China to increase crop yield and water-use efficiency. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2020, 7, 1523–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Brandenberger, L.; Wiedenfeld, B. Physical characteristics of mulches and their impact on crop response and profitability in muskmelon production. HortTechnology 1997, 7, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kasirajan, S.; Ngouajio, M. Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 501–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shiukhy, S.; Raeini-Sarjaz, M.; Chalavi, V. Colored plastic mulch microclimates affect strawberry fruit yield and quality. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2015, 59, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chen, L.; Zhu, X.; Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Lu, G. Effects of mulching on early-spring green asparagus yield and quality under cultivation in plastic tunnels. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Miles, C.; DeVetter, L.; Ghimire, S. Suitability of biodegradable plastic mulches for organic and sustainable agricultural production systems. HortScience 2017, 52, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mhlanga, B.; Ercoli, L.; Pellegrino, E.; Onofri, A.; Thierfelder, C. The crucial role of mulch to enhance the stability and resilience of cropping systems in southern Africa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kader, M.A.; Senge, M.; Mojid, M.A.; Ito, K. Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kader, M.A.; Senge, M.; Mojid, M.A.; Nakamura, K. Mulching type-induced soil moisture and temperature regimes and water use efficiency of soybean under rain-fed condition in central Japan. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017, 5, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, A.; Kaushal, A.; Garg, S.; Chawla, N. Effect of different coloured plastic mulches on growth, yield and quality of drip fertigated bell pepper (Capsicum annum var. grossum). Indian J. Hort. 2017, 74, 292–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Greere, L.; Dole, J.M. Aluminun foil, aluminium-painted, plasti, and degradable mulches increase yields and decrease insect-vectored viral diseases of vegetables. Hortechnology 2003, 13, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abdel-Bary, E.M. Handbook of Plastic Films; Rapra Technology Limited: Shrewsbury, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, N.; Sun, Z.K.; Feng, L.S.; Zheng, M.Z.; Chi, D.C.; Meng, W.Z.; Hou, Z.Y.; Bai, W.; Li, K.L. Plastic film mulching for water-efficient agricultural applications and degradable films materials development research. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2015, 30, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jones, H.; Black, T.A.; Singh Jassal, R.; Nesic, Z.; Johnson, M.S.; Smukler, S. Characterization of shortwave and longwave properties of several plastic film mulches and their impact on the surface energy balance and soil temperature. Sol. Energy 2021, 214, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Briassoulis, D.; Aristopoulou, A.; Bonora, M.; Verlodt, I. Degradation characterisation of agricultural low-density polyethylene films. Biosyst. Eng. 2004, 88, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Szlachetka, O.; Witkowska-Dobrev, J.; Baryła, A.; Dohojda, M. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) building films—Tensile properties and surface morphology. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salama, K.; Geyer, M. Plastic mulch films in agriculture: Their use, environmental problems, recycling and alternatives. Environments 2023, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements—FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 300, p. D05109. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ibarra-Jiménez, L.; Lira-Saldivar, R.H.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; Lozano-Del Río, J. Colored plastic mulches affect soil temperature and tuber production of potato. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2011, 61, 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ibarra-Jiménez, L.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; Cárdenas-Flores, A.; Lira-Saldivar, R.H.; Lozano-del Río, J.; Lozano Cavazos, C. Influence of double cropping on growth and yield of dry beans with colored plastic mulches. Chil. J. Agr. Res. 2012, 72, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Franquera, E.N.; Mabesa, R.C. Colored plastic mulch effects on the yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and soil temperature. J. Adv. Agric. Technol. 2016, 3, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Santin, A.; Villa, F.; Paulus, D. Chlorophyll content in plants and fruit yield of strawberry plants grown on mulching. Rev. Ciênc. Agrovet. Lages 2017, 16, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kader, M.H.; Nakamura, K.; Senge, M.; Mojid, M.A.; Kawashima, S. Effects of coloured plastic mulch on soil hydrothermal characteristics, growth and water productivity of rainfed soybean. Irrig. Drain. 2020, 69, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kader, M.A.; Khan, F.H.; Tulip, S.S.; Mridha, A.H.; Jewel, A. Applicability of plastic mulch and conservation strip tillage for potato production in Bangladesh. SAINS TANAH J. Soil. Sci. Agroclimatol. 2021, 18, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kirigiah, R.; Masinde, P.; Mworia, G.E. Effect of plastic mulch color and transplanting stage on baby corn plant performance. Eur. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2022, 4, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, R.; Wang, Z.; Ye, H.; Li, W.; Zong, R.; Tian, X. Effects of different plastic mulching film on soil hydrothermal status and water utilization by spring maize in Northwest China. Front. Mater. 2021, 8, 774833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Amare, G.; Desta, B. Coloured plastic mulches: Impact on soil properties and crop productivity. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2021, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Canul-Tun, C.E.; Ibarra-Jiménez, L.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; Lozano-del Río, A.J.; Cárdenas-Flores, A.; Zermeño-González, A.; Lozano-Cavazos, C.J.; Valenzuela-Soto, J.H.; Torres-Olivar, V. Influence of colored plastic mulch on soil temperature, growth, nutrimental status, and yield of bell pepper under shade house conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 1083–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Machanoff, C.A.; Vann, M.C.; Woodley, A.L.; Suchoff, D. Evaluation of the use of polyethylene mulches in the production of organic flue-cured tobacco. Agron. J. 2022, 114, 2501–2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. El-Moula, M.M.H.G.; Sadek, I.I.; Moursy, F.S. Effect of plastic color and organic mulching on the yield of tomato and lettuce. JSRM Hum. 2018, 9, 173–191. [Google Scholar]
  45. Khater, E.S.; Hamouda, R.; Mostafa, H. Changes of root zone temperature, growth and productivity of broccoli cultivated with coloured plastic mulches. Res. Agric. Eng. 2020, 66, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Snyder, K.; Grant, A.; Murray, C.; Wolff, B. The Effects of Plastic Mulch Systems on Soil Temperature and Moisture in Central Ontario. HortTechnology 2015, 25, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dıaz-Perez, J.C. Bell Pepper (Capsicum annum L.) grown on plastic film mulches: Effects on crop microenvironment, physiological attributes, and fruit yield. HortScience 2010, 45, 1196–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lamont, W.J., Jr. Plastic mulches for the production of vegetable crops. In A Guide to the Manufacture, Performance, and Potential of Plastics in Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chandramohan, R.; Harshal, A.; Nidhi, D. Effect of different Plastic Mulches on Vegetable Production: Review. IJIR Technol. 2020, 7, 140–143. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lament, W.J. Plastic Mulches for the Production of Vegetable Crops. HortTechnology 1993, 3, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mendonça, S.R.; Ribeiro Ávila, M.C.; Gomes Vital, R.; Evangelista, Z.R.; de Carvalho Pontes, N.; dos Reis Nascimento, A. The effect of different mulching on tomato development and yield. Sci. Hort. 1993, 275, 109657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Decoteau, D.R.; Kasperbauer, M.J.; Hunt, P.G. Bell Pepper Plant Development over Mulches of Diverse Colors. HortScience 1990, 25, 460–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chaudhary, A.N.; Ali, S.; Hassan, I. Effect of different colored plastic mulches on the yield and nutrient contents of tomato plant. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2002, 1, 388–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amayreh, J.; Al-Abed, N. Developing crop coefficients for field-grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under drip irrigation with black plastic mulch. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 73, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Martín-Closas, L.; Bach, M.A.; Pelacho, A.M. Biodegradable mulching in an organic tomato production system. Acta Hortic. 2008, 767, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aliabadi, B.T.; Hassandokht, M.R.; Etesami, H.; Alikhani, H.A.; Dehghanisanij, H. Effect of mulching on some characteristics of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under deficit irrigation. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 21, 927–941. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sekara, A.; Pokluda, R.; Cozzolino, E.; del Piano, L.; Cuciniello, A.; Caruso, G. Plant growth, yield, and fruit quality of tomato affected by biodegradable and non-degradable mulches. Hortic. Sci. 2019, 46, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Di Mola, I.; Cozzolino, E.; Ottaiano, L.; Riccardi, R.; Spigno, P.; Petriccione, M.; Fiorentino, N.; Fagnano, M.; Mori, M. Biodegradable mulching film vs. traditional polyethylene: Effects on yield and quality of San Marzano tomato fruits. Plants 2023, 12, 3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kishore, G.; Maheswara Babu, B.; Durga, M.L. Impact of plastic mulching on biometric parameters of tomato crop (Solanum lycopersicum): A meta-analysis. Biol. Forum Int. J. 2022, 14, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  60. Singleton, V.L.; Orthofer, R.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. In Methods in Enzymology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999; Volume 299, pp. 152–178. [Google Scholar]
  61. Petriccione, M.; De Sanctis, F.; Pasquariello, M.S.; Mastrobuoni, F.; Rega, P.; Scortichini, M.; Mencarelli, F. The effect of chitosan coating on the quality and nutraceutical traits of sweet cherry during postharvest life. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2015, 8, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kampfenkel, K.; Vanmontagu, M.; Inze, D. Extraction and determination of ascorbate and dehydroascorbate from plant tissue. Anal. Biochem. 1995, 225, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wellburn, A.R. The spectral determination of chlorophyls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 1994, 144, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C.L.W.T. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ibarra-Jiménez, L.; Zermeño-González, A.; Munguía-Lopez, J.; Rosario Quezada-Martín, M.A.; De La Rosa-Ibarra, M. Photosynthesis, soil tempera-ture and yield of cucumber as affected by colored plastic mulch. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2008, 58, 372–378. [Google Scholar]
  66. Nair, A.; Havlovic, B.J. Effect of plastic mulch color on tomato production in high tunnels. In Iowa State Research Farm Progress Reports; Iowa State University Digital Press: Ames, IA, USA, 2013; p. 1869. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mesa, T.; Polo, J.; Arabia, A.; Caselles, V.; Munn’e-Bosch, S. Differential physiological response to heat and cold stress of tomato plants and its implication on fruit quality. J. Plant Physiol. 2022, 268, 153581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ngouajio, M.; Ernest, J. Changes in the physical. Optical and thermal properties of polyethylene mulching during double cropping. HortScience 2005, 40, 94–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, H.; Huang, G.; Xu, X.; Xiong, Y.; Huang, Q. Estimating evapotranspiration of processing tomato under plastic mulch using the SIMDualKc model. Water 2018, 10, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vogelezang, J.V.M. Effect of root-zone heating on growth, flowering and keeping quality of Saintpaulia. Sci. Hortic. 1988, 34, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Parmar, H.N.; Polara, N.D.; Viradiya, R.R. Effect of Mulching Material on Growth, Yield and Quality of Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus thunb) Cv. Kiran. Univers. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 1, 30–37. [Google Scholar]
  72. Dinu, M.; Soare, R.; Poulianiti, K.; Karageorgou, I.; Bozinou, E.; Makris, D.P.; Lalas, S.; Botu, M. Mulching Effect on Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics of Yield in Sweet Potatoes. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. He, F.; Thiele, B.; Watt, M.; Kraska, T.; Ulbrich, A.; Kuhn, A.J. Effects of Root Cooling on Plant Growth and Fruit Quality of Cocktail Tomato during Two Consecutive Seasons. J. Food Qual. 2019, 15, 3598172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kawasaki, Y.; Matsuo, S.; Kanayama, Y.; Kanahama, K. Effect of Root-zone Heating on Root Growth and Activity, Nutrient Uptake, and Fruit Yield of Tomato at Low Air Temperatures. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2014, 83, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Majkowska-Gadomska, J.; Mikulewicz, E.; Francke, A. Effects of Plant Covers and Mulching on the Biometric Parameters, Yield and Nutritional Value of Tomatillos (Physalis ixocarpa Brot. Ex Hornem.). Agronomy 2021, 11, 1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gormley, R.; Egan, S. Firmness and Colour of the Fruit of Some Tomato Cultivars from Various Sources During Storage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1978, 29, 534–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Batu, A. Determination of acceptable firmness and colour values of tomatoes. J. Food Eng. 2004, 61, 471–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Öztekin, Y.B.; Vursavuş, K.K.; Kesilmiş, Z. Firmness classification of tomato fruits by using colour parameters. Anadolu J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 36, 511–519. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sacco, A.; Cammareri, M.; Vitiello, A.; Palombieri, S.; Riccardi, R.; Spigno, P.; Grandillo, S. Italian traditional tomato varieties: A focus on the Campania region. In Proceedings of the Congrés de la Tomaca Valenciana: La Tomaca Valenciana d’El Perelló El Perelló, Espai Cultural Ajuntament d’El Perelló, El Perelló, Spain, 17–18 May 2017; pp. 182–193. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 14 00315 g001
Figure 1. Weather conditions (rainfall and air temperatures) in 2014 (A) and 2015 (B).
Figure 1. Weather conditions (rainfall and air temperatures) in 2014 (A) and 2015 (B).
Agronomy 14 00315 g001
Agronomy 14 00315 g002
Figure 2. Effect of mulching treatments on the daily maximum (A,C) and daily minimum (B,D) soil temperature (average of a ten-day interval) measured in a 0–0.2 m soil layer in 2014 and 2015, respectively. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Figure 2. Effect of mulching treatments on the daily maximum (A,C) and daily minimum (B,D) soil temperature (average of a ten-day interval) measured in a 0–0.2 m soil layer in 2014 and 2015, respectively. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Agronomy 14 00315 g002
Agronomy 14 00315 g003
Figure 3. Effect of mulching treatments on marketable yield in the two years (2014 and 2015). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Figure 3. Effect of mulching treatments on marketable yield in the two years (2014 and 2015). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Agronomy 14 00315 g003
Agronomy 14 00315 g004
Figure 4. Effect of mulching treatments on the total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Figure 4. Effect of mulching treatments on the total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Agronomy 14 00315 g004
Agronomy 14 00315 g005
Figure 5. Effect of mulching treatments on the a/b (color). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Figure 5. Effect of mulching treatments on the a/b (color). Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Agronomy 14 00315 g005
Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of soils in the two experimental seasons.
Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of soils in the two experimental seasons.
Texture 20142015
  - Coarse sand%19.520.2
  - Fine sand%42.141.2
  - Silt%22.823.4
  - Clay%15.615.2
N–total (Kjeldahl method)%0.150.18
P2O5 (Olsen method)ppm205.00211.00
K2O (Tetraphenylborate method)ppm1500.961846.46
Organic matter (Bichromate method)%2.223.36
Electrical conductivitymS cm−10.130.20
pH 7.47.2
Table 2. The effect of mulching treatment on the number of fruits (n. m−2), average fruit weight (AFW, g), and firmness (kg cm−2) of a tomato crop grown in 2014 and 2015. Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. The ANOVA table reports the significance of treatments and their interaction. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Table 2. The effect of mulching treatment on the number of fruits (n. m−2), average fruit weight (AFW, g), and firmness (kg cm−2) of a tomato crop grown in 2014 and 2015. Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. The ANOVA table reports the significance of treatments and their interaction. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
TreatmentsFruit (n. m−2)AFW (g) Firmness (kg cm−2)
Years (Y)
201467.9 ± 1.86 b65.2 ± 0.56 a0.467 ± 0.012 b
201591.6 ± 4.07 a57.8 ± 0.34 b0.498 ± 0.016 a
Mulching (M)
BS69.1 ± 4.20 b62.2 ± 1.860.503 ± 0.014 a
Black85.7 ± 5.90 a60.9 ± 1.340.418 ± 0.011 b
Yellow82.7 ± 6.54 a61.9 ± 1.930.493 ± 0.016 a
Silver81.4 ± 8.52 a60.9 ± 1.870.513 ± 0.016 a
Significance
Y******
M*ns*
Y × Mnsnsns
ns, *, **: non-significant, and significant per p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01.
Table 3. The effect of mulching treatment on the total polyphenols contents (TPC), flavonoids (FC), ascorbic acid (AsA), carotenoids, and antioxidant activity (AA) of tomato fruits harvested in 2014 and 2015. Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences in interaction Year × Mulching at p ≤ 0.05. The ANOVA table reports the significance of treatments and their interaction. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
Table 3. The effect of mulching treatment on the total polyphenols contents (TPC), flavonoids (FC), ascorbic acid (AsA), carotenoids, and antioxidant activity (AA) of tomato fruits harvested in 2014 and 2015. Data are means ± standard errors. Different letters indicate significant differences in interaction Year × Mulching at p ≤ 0.05. The ANOVA table reports the significance of treatments and their interaction. BS, bare soil. Black, yellow, and silver are the three types of LDPE films used in the experiment (for details, see Section 2).
TreatmentsTPCFC AsACarotenoidsAA
mg GAE/100 g fwmg CE/100 g fwmg/100 g fwmg/100 g fwµmol TE/g fw
Years (Y)Mulching (M)
2014BS96.3 ± 2.6 e3.19 ± 0.08 ce10.4 ± 0.54.07 ± 0.20 d2.01 ± 0.06 b
Black119.3 ± 2.1 d3.57 ± 0.16 bd12.3 ± 0.47.60 ± 0.29 ab2.23 ± 0.03 b
Yellow112.1 ± 0.8 d3.63 ± 0.12 bc12.1 ± 0.46.49 ± 0.34 bc2.33 ± 0.12 b
Silver120.9 ± 3.5 d3.45 ± 0.14 be11.8 ± 0.55.97 ± 0.34 c2.27 ± 0.06 b
2015BS125.5 ± 4.0 d3.08 ± 0.15 e15.5 ± 0.54.44 ± 0.16 d1.91 ± 0.11 b
Black151.8 ± 3.7 c3.16 ± 0.06 de16.4 ± 0.75.74 ± 0.25 c2.12 ± 0.17 b
Yellow182.9 ± 4.3 b3.80 ± 0.03 b17.9 ± 0.58.09 ± 0.15 a5.40 ± 0.43 a
Silver200.7 ± 4.7 a4.84 ± 0.11 a17.6 ± 0.37.89 ± 0.17 a5.80 ± 0.42 a
Significance
Y*********
M**********
Y × M****ns****
ns, *, **: non-significant, and significant per p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sifola, M.I.; Di Mola, I.; Cozzolino, E.; Ottaiano, L.; Nocerino, S.; Riccardi, R.; Spigno, P.; Mori, M. Yield and Quality Traits of Tomato ‘San Marzano’ Type as Affected by Photo-Selective Low-Density Polyethylene Mulching. Agronomy 2024, 14, 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020315

AMA Style

Sifola MI, Di Mola I, Cozzolino E, Ottaiano L, Nocerino S, Riccardi R, Spigno P, Mori M. Yield and Quality Traits of Tomato ‘San Marzano’ Type as Affected by Photo-Selective Low-Density Polyethylene Mulching. Agronomy. 2024; 14(2):315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sifola, Maria Isabella, Ida Di Mola, Eugenio Cozzolino, Lucia Ottaiano, Sabrina Nocerino, Riccardo Riccardi, Patrizia Spigno, and Mauro Mori. 2024. "Yield and Quality Traits of Tomato ‘San Marzano’ Type as Affected by Photo-Selective Low-Density Polyethylene Mulching" Agronomy 14, no. 2: 315. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020315

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop