Propagation and Vegetative Development of Portulaca oleracea Linn. in Different Substrates


  •  Jaíza F. R. Chagas    
  •  Sheila A. da Paz    
  •  Matheus V. A. Ventura    
  •  Estevam M. Costa    
  •  Roberto K. Mortate    
  •  Bruno de M. Nunes    
  •  Alessandra P. A. Lima    
  •  Muriel S. Vilarinho    
  •  Mirian Nomura    
  •  Márcio M. Bessa    
  •  Manoel H. R. de Oliveira    
  •  Alex J. de O. Santana    

Abstract

UFP’s are unconventional food plants, which can be included in food and feed, but underutilized because they are few known and/or researched. Portulaca oleracea Linn, known as a wigworm, is considered a weed due to its easy spread in different places, has potential to be included in the diet of people, so that they can take advantage of its medicinal, nutritional and landscape benefits. In view of the above, the objective of this research was to evaluate the vegetative development of the bollworm cultivated in different substrates to obtain a better production of green mass besides adding higher medicinal and/or nutritional contents. The experimental design was a completely randomized design with 6 treatments: 1-Barranco soil (Witness), 2-Soil + Bovine manure, 3-Soil + Commercial substrate, 4-Soil + Charred rice straw, 5-Soil + Bovine manure + Charred rice straw, 6-Soil + Bovine manure + Commercial substrate and 5 replicates. The seed germination rate was evaluated at five, ten and 15 days after sowing (DAS). At 70 DAS the total fresh mass of the plants and total dry mass in grams, plant height, main root length and number of leaves were evaluated. The substrate composed of ravine soil + bovine manure + charcoal rice straw provided the best indices of development of the bollworm plant. The combination of three components for the formation of a substrate favored fresh and dry biomass.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact