Potato Research 40 (1997) 431 - 4 3 8

Comparison of hydroponic culture and culture in a

peat/sand mixture and the influence of nutrient solution
and plant density on seed potato yields
J. M U R O 1. V. DIAZ~. J.L. GOlqI 2 and C A R M E N LAMSFUS 1

IUnivcrsidad Ptiblica de Navarra, Campus Arrosadia, E-31006 Pamplona, Spain

2Organizaci6n de la Patata del Pirineo Occidental S.A.. Noain-Pamplona, Spain
Accepted for publication: 22 November 1997

Additional kevwords: minitubers, in vitro plants, autumn-winter cycle, spring-summer cycle,

Solanttm tttbel'osllnl L.

Summary
Two culture systems for propagating first generation potatoes were compared: the traditional
system used a peat/sand mixture with mineral fertilizer, and hydroponic culture used perlite
and nutrient solution. Total production and the number of tubers obtained using the
hydroponic system were significantly higher than using the traditional culture system. Tuber
yields from in vitro plants and minitubers depended upon time of year. During the
autumn/winter cycle yield from minitubers was double that from in vitro plants, whereas the
reverse was true during the spring/summer cycle. Four hydroponic test cultures were carried
out to study the influence of seed density. The number of tubers obtained increased
significantly with seed density but there was no decrease in the number of large-diameter
tubers.

Introduction

The first generation propagules of seed potatoes possess high economic value. They
are usually multiplied in greenhouses in porous substrates such as peat or mixtures of
peat with an inert substrate (sand, perlite, vermiculite). Replacing such substrates
with more expensive hydroponic systems may be economically viable if increased
production can be achieved. Use of hydroponic systems in the production of seed
potato affords another advantage in that close control of water, nutrients and
temperature conditions in the region of the stolon is possible (Boersing & Wagner,
1988) together with better sanitary control of the substrate.
Another requirement is to establish the behaviour of the two types of source
material, in vitro plants and minitubers. Minitubers are grown in greenhouses from
first generation in vitro plants, and direct propagation from minitubers in the field is
known to give low yields (Thornton & Neundorfer, 1986).
The object of the present study was three-fold: 1) to compare the yields of seed
potatoes from in vitro plants and minitubers grown in hydroponic systems: 2) to
optimize production by using the most suitable nutrient solution: and 3) to optimize
production by agronomical means.

Potato Research 40 (1997) 431

J. MURO, V. DIAZ, J.L. GOI~I AND CARMEN LAMSFUS

Materials and methods

Trials were carried out on culture benches in a thermostatically controlled

greenhouse. Benches measured 25 m long by 1.25 m wide by 0.20 m deep.
All trials were carried out during the autumn/winter and spring/summer growing
periods. Cvs Baraka and Jaerla were tested in each cycle using in vitro planting
material and minitubers 10-15 mm dia.
Plants needed for the different trials were obtained by means of successive in vitro
subcultures of plants from the germplasm collection of the Organizaci6n de la Patata
del Pirineo Occidental, S.A. (OPPOSA). Nutrient solution composition was 4.71 g
commercial Murashige & Skoog salts, 0.71 g tetrahydrated calcium nitrate, 20 g
sucrose, 6 g agar and 0.23 g diammonium phosphate per litre, pH was adjusted to
5.5+_0.1 using 0.1 M NaOH.
Cultures were grown in a chamber with photoperiod of 16 h light at 20+_1 ~ After
four weeks plants had 7-10 nodes and these were cut into nodal segments. This
procedure was repeated until a sufficient number had been obtained. After the final
cutting, cultures were stored in the chamber for 20 d, when plantlets had produced
5-7 nodes and were suitable for transplanting.
Tubers 10-15 mm dia. (minitubers) obtained from culture of in vitro plants were
placed in a refrigerated chamber at 4 ~ where they remained dormant. They were
presprouted in a sprouting chamber for two weeks in the dark at 20-25 ~ and high
relative humidity. A week before transplanting the substrates were disinfected by
applying tolclofos-methyl (2.5 g a.i./m 2) and thiram (0.4 g a.i./m2).
The following culture systems were tested:
a) The traditional system used for propagating potatoes in greenhouses consisted of a
peat/sand substrate (2:1 v/v), hand watering and fertilization (100 kg N, 65 kg P and
208 kg K/ha) before transplanting.

b) The hydroponic system consisted of culture benches filled with large-grain perlite,
drip irrigation and one of six nutrient solutions prepared according to the formulas
published by Steiner (1980) and Coi'c-Lesaint (Verdure, 1986), as well as four
modified versions of those two solutions (solutions I, II, III, and IV). Table 1 lists the
composition of the test solutions.
For the hydroponic system, in vitro plants were removed from the culture medium
and after the roots had been washed, they were planted directly in the culture bench
filled with disinfected perlite. This procedure was carried out on overcast days, and
an overhead mesh was used for the first five days to shade the plants and so reduce
the stress of transplanting.
For the traditional peat/sand culture system, plants were first planted in paper pots
filled with fertilized, neutral peat. The pots were placed under the culture benches for
10 days to reduce the stress of transplanting and then moved to the culture benches.
Dead plants or plants displaying symptoms of chlorosis or growth defects were
removed 10-15 d after transplanting and replaced by healthy plants.
The greenhouse bench plot measured 1 m 2 (1.25x0.8 m) with four rows of plants,

432 Potato Research 40 (1997)

 HYDROPONIC C U L T U R E W I T H IN VITRO PLANTS A N D MINITUBERS

Table 1. Composition (meq/I) of nutrient solutions used in the tests.

Co'fc-Lesaint Steiner Solution Solution Solution Solution

solution solution Ia IIa II1h IV h

K§ 4.83 11.55 5.55 5.55 5.76 5,76

Ca 2+ 3.12 1.49 6.91 6.69 3.80 7.62
Mg2§ 1,64 1.06 1.79 1.79 1.15 1,15
NH4+ 4.40 - 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40
NO 3 7.70 11.95 10.76 10.76 8.49 8.49
H2PO4- 4.40 1.02 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40
SO42 1.80 1.20 4.54 4.54 2.95 2.95

Quantities of oligoelements: Fe (EDTA), 0.005 g/h Mn (EDTA). 0.0025 g/I : Zn (EDTA) 9

0.0005 g/l : Cu (EDTA), 0.0025 g/I : B, 0.0005 g/l : Mo, 0.0005 g/I ; Mg (EDTA), 0.003 g/I.

a Solutions differring in P concentration

h Solutions differring in Ca concentration

five plants per row with a separation of 0.2 m between rows and 0.25 m between
plants. Three different planting distances were used in the plant density trials:
0.20x0.25 m (= 5 plants per row): 0.20x0.125 m (= 10 plants per row): and 0.20x0,062
m (= 15 plants per row). Each row was drip irrigated9 with one delivery nozzle per
plant. Polyethylene sheeting was used to line the bottom and enclose the sides of each
plot to prevent stolons growing from one plot to the next. The bottom liner sheet had
perforations for drainage 9 and the edges were welded together. Plots round the edges
of the bench were planted to guard against possible border effects.
A split-plot design with four replicates was used for the experimental trials. In trials
comparing the traditional system and the hydroponics, the culture system was the
primary factor and the planting material was secondary. In the trials comparing the
different hydroponic solutions, the solutions were the primary factor and the planting
material was again secondary. In the plant density trials the main factor was the
planting material and plant density was secondary.
The variables recorded for each plot were: total weight of tuber production (g),
total number of tubers, mean tuber weight and number of tubers >28 mm dia.

Results and discussion

Hydroponic culture vs ctdture in peat/sand mixtm'e. Tables 2 and 3 present results for
the trials comparing the traditional and hydroponic culture systems9 with two trials in
the spring/summer cycle and two trials in the autumn/winter cycle using cvs Baraka
and Jaerla.
Use of the hydroponic systems increased yields with respect to culture in the
peat/sand mixture for both types of planting material. This increase was attributable
both to a larger mean tuber diameter and to a greater number of tubers. Material
grown using the hydroponic systems was considerably healthier because the inert
perlite substrate is a inorganic medium that prevented spread of disease (Tello,

Potato Research 40 (1997) 433

J. MURO, V. DIAZ, J.L. GOI~IIAND CARMEN LAMSFUS

Table 2. Influence of planting material and culture system on the weight and number of tubers
per plot. mean tuber weight and number of tubers larger than 28 mm dia. in the autumn-winter
cycle.

cv. Baraka cv. Jaerla

Weight/No. of Tuber No. of Weight/No. of Tuber No. of

plot tubers/ weight tubers plot tubers/ weight tubers
(g) plot (g) >28 mm (g) plot (g) >28 mm

Planting material (PM)

In vitro plants 713b 49.1a 14.5b 13.1b 655b 35.8b 18.3b 13.4b
Minitubers 1346b 53.5a 25.2a 32.2a 1 3 0 3 a 54.9a 23.7a 21.2a

Culture system (CS)

Hydroponic(Co'fc-Lesaint) 1093a 54.3a 20.1a 26.4a 1085a 47.2a 22.9a 19.9a
Hydroponic(Steiner) 1128a 53.8a 20.9a 25.3a 1 0 7 3 a 47.7a 22.5a 18.1a
Peat/Sand 869b 45.6b 19.1a 16.2b 780b 40.9a 19.1a 13.9b

Interaction PM • CS n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s.: non-significant.
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different with the
Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range comparison test (P<0.05).

Table 3. Influence of planting material and culture system on the weight and number of tubers
per plot. mean tuber weight and number of tubers larger than 28 mm dia. in the spring-
summer cycle.

cv. Baraka cv. Jaerla

Weight/No. of Tuber No. of Weight/No. of Tuber No. of

plot tubers/weight tubers plot tubers/ weight tubers
(g) plot (g) >28 mm (g) plot (g) >28 mm

Planting material (PM)

In vitro plants 1553a 92.7a 16.7a 37.1a 2296a 100.5a 22.8b 50.1a
Minitubers 1182b 71.7a 16.5a 28.7b 1 7 6 2 b 60.0b 29.4a 32.1b

Culture system (CS)

Hydroponic(Co'l'c-Lesaint) 1552a 91.1a 16.7a 35.5a 2270b 80.3a 28.3a 47.7a
Hydroponic(Steiner) 1428a 88.4a 16.2a 32.1a 2325a 81.3a 28.6a 44.2a
Peat/Sand 1153b 67.1b 17.1a 31.2a 1493b 78.7a 19.0b 31.3b

Interaction PM x CS n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s.: non-significant.
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different with the
Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range comparison test (P<0.05).

434 Potato Research 40 (1997)

 HYDROPONIC C U L T U R E W I T H IN VITRO PLANTS AND MINITUBERS

1990). No damage was caused to the periderm of tubers by the accumulation of salts
in the nutrient. Such damage has been reported using NFT-based hydroponic culture
systems (Wheeler et al., 1990).
The nutrient solutions employed were based on those of Co'~'c-Lesaint and Steiner
(Table 1). Use of these two solutions did not give rise to any significant differences in
production, whereas the difference was significant between culture in either of these
two solutions and culture in the peat/sand mixture (Tables 2 and 3). In order to
maximize the higher potential yields obtained using these two hydroponic systems,
modified versions of the two solutions were tested, varying either the normal
concentration of the phosphate ions (Table 1, solutions I and II) or the normal
concentration of the calcium ions (Table 1, solutions III and IV). The object of
varying the P content was to try to increase the number of tubers that formed
(Domfnguez, 1984), while varying the Ca content was an attempt to test whether Ca,
which has been postulated to increase microtuber formation in vitro, would have the
same beneficial effect during hydroponic culture. However. none of the 10 trials
carried out using the modified nutrient solutions yielded any significant differences.
The preceding results show that use of the hydroponic systems increased yields
significantly when compared to culture in the peat/sand mixture, but that production
was not sensitive to the use of any of the modified nutrient solutions tested so long as
the solutions employed were balanced. This conclusion is consistent with the findings
reported by Boersing & Wagner (1988) for potatoes and by Steiner (1980) mainly for
lettuce and tomatoes.

hi vitro plants versus minitubers. The results obtained using the two types of planting
material, in vitro plants and minitubers, were indicative of differing yield trends with
the culture cycle (Tables 2 and 3).
In the autumn/winter cycle, minitubers produced significantly higher yields than in
vitro plants for all the parameters considered (total weight per plot, number of
tubers, mean weight of tubers, and number of tubers >28 mm dia.): plants grown from
minitubers had production per plot values roughly twice those achieved using in vitro
plants. This indicates that in vitro plants were not particularly well suited to the
autumn/winter cycle under the conditions of the experiment. They grew slowly at
first, mainly because of shorter days, resulting in an initial lag in development which
the plants were unable to overcome during the rest of the cycle.
Conversely, during the spring/summer cycle, yields from in vitro plants exceeded
those from the minitubers. This was chiefly because in the hydroponic systems, under
longer hours of daylight the in vitro plants experienced faster vegetative growth than
the shoots from the minitubers, so that the number of tubers obtained using the in
vitro plants was significantly higher. This finding was to some extent consistent with
the findings in a similar study reported by Wattimena et al. (1983).

Influence of plant density on the hydroponic systems. The results of the four trials are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 which present the data on yield, number of tubers and
tuber diameter for the two potato cultivars Jaerla and Baraka, and for the two culture

Potato Research 40 (1997) 435

J. MURO, V. DIAZ, J.L. GOI~IIAND CARMEN LAMSFUS

Table 4. Influence of planting material and planting density on the weight and number of
tubers per plot, mean tuber weight and number of tubers larger than 28 mm dia. in the autumn-
winter cycle.

cv. Baraka cv. Jaerla

Weight/No. of Tuber No. of Weight/No. of Tuber No. of

plot tubers/weight tubers plot tubers/ weight tubers
(g) plot (g) >28 mm (g) plot (g) >28 mm

Planting material (PM)

In vitro plants 757b 52.0a 14.5b 15.3b 567b 29.9b 1 9 . 0 a 9.7b
Minitubers 1329a 56.7a 23.4a 37.6a 1603a 85.1a 18.8a 30.2a

Planting density (PD)

5Plants/row 484c 29.2c 16.6a 16.5c 689c 30.5c 22.6a 12.3c
10Plants/row 1162b 58.8b 19.7a 27.7b I095b 45.2b 24.2a 19.7b
15 Plants/row 1633a 75.0a 21.8a 35.2a 1 4 7 1 a 61.8a 23.8a 27.8a

Interaction PM x PD * n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s.: non-significant. * : significant

Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different with the
Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range comparison test (P<0.05).

T a b l e 5. Influence of p l a n t i n g material and p l a n t i n g density on the weight and

n u m b e r of tubers per plot. m e a n t u b e r weight and n u m b e r of tubers larger than 28
m m dia. in the s p r i n g - s u m m e r cycle.

cv. Baraka cv. Jaerla

Weight/No. of Tuber No. of Weight/No. of Tuber No. of

plot tubers/ weight tubers plot tubers/ weight tubers
(g) plot (g) >28 mm (g) plot (g) >28 mm

Planting material (PM)

ln vitro plants 1729a 102.8a 16.8a 40.0a 2569a 100.5a 25.5b 58.2a
Minitubers 1316b 79.5b 16.5a 30.9b 1972b 60.0b 32.8a 37.2b

Planting density (PD)

5Plants/row 1003c 56.1c 17.8a 22.8c 1 5 6 1 c 49.2c 31.7a 30.8c
10Plants/row 1563b 95.9b 16.3a 39.1b 2385b 83.3b 28.6a 48.7b
15Plants/row 2001a 121.3a 16.5a 44.4a 2894a 108.3a 26.7a 63.7a

Interaction PM x CS n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

n.s.: non-significant.
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not signilicantlydifferent with the
Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range comparison test (P<0.05).

436 Potato Research 40 (1997)

 HYDROPONIC C U L T U R E WITH IN VITRO PLANTS A N D MINITUBERS

cycles at the three planting densities.

Using analysis of variance each of the variables was considered separately.
Interactions were not significant for any of the variables except weight per plot for cv.
Baraka during the autumn/winter cycle (Table 4).
Both total weight per plot and total number of tubers increased as density
increased, in accordance with findings from field trials (Hern~indez et al., 1985:
Midmore, 1988: Sarker & Kabir, 1991).
Increasing plant density did not result in higher yields of small tubers to the
detriment of those with larger diameters, and the production of the larger tubers
remained higher at higher densities. This finding differed from the results published
by Mendoza & Haynes (1977), Guarda & Giuiari (1983), Halderson et al. (1992), and
De la Morena et al. (1993) and may be because the plant density normally employed
is much lower than the potential maximum attainable using hydroponic culture
systems. This same phenomenon was again implicit in the small differences in mean
tuber weight at the different densities. Hence it would appear that optimum plant
density for the hydroponic culture systems employed is higher than the highest
density tested (15 plants per row). The potential positive interaction between
fertilization with nitrogen and plant density reported by van Burg (1967) and
Bodlaender & Reestman (1968) may also play a role, although a secondary one.

References

Bodlaender, K.B.A. & A.J. Reestman, 1968. The interaction of nitrogen supply and plant
density in potatoes. Netherhmds Journal o f Agricultural Science 16:165-176.
Boersing, M.R. & S.A. Wagner, 1988. Hydroponics systems for production of seed tubers.
American Potato Joapvla165: 470-471.
Burg, P.F.J. van, 1967. Relation of rate of nitrogen fertilization, seed spacing and seed size to
yield of potatoes. Netherlands Nitrogen Technical Bulletin 4, 30 pp.
De la Morena, 1., A. Guill6n, J.A. Navas & M.A. Gonz,-ilez, 1993. lnfluencia del tamafio del
tub6rculo utilizado como simiente sobre la producci6n del cultivo de patata. Actas de la X
Reuni6n de la Sociedad Espafiola de Fisiologfa Vegetal. III Congreso Hispano-Portugu6s de
Fisiologfa Vegetal.
Domfnguez, A., 1984. Tratado de fertilizaci6n. Ed. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid.
Guarda, G. & S. Giuiari, 1983. Effetto dell'investimento sulla produzione in tuberi seme di
varietal di patata. Sementi Elette 5: 23-28.
Halderson, J.L., J.C. Ojala, G.W. Harding & E.V. Musselman, 1992. Influence of seed
placement on Russet Burbank potato yield and grade. American Potato Journal 69:31-38.
Hernfindez, H., E. Ortiz & P. Marrero, 1985. Influence of plant density on microclimate and
yields of seed potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Cultivos Tropicales 7: 77-86.
Mendoza, H.A. & F.L. Haynes, 1977. Inheritance of tuber initiation in tuber bearing Solanam
as influenced by photoperiod. American Potato Journal 54: 243-252.
Midmore, D.J., 1988. Potato (Solaman spp.) in the hot tropics. V1. Plant population effects on
soil temperature, plant development and tuber yield. Fiehls Crops Research 19: 183-200.
Sarker, M.H. & M.H. Kabir, 1991. Effects of spacing on seedling tuber production from true
potato seeds. Potato Research 16: 56-61.
Steiner, A.A.. 1980. The selective capacity of plants for ions and its importance for the
composition and treatment of the nutrient solution. Proceedings Congress of Soilless
Culture, pp. 83-95.
Tello, J.C., 1990. El suelo como ente vivo. Curso de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente. Pamplona,
Spain, 203 pp.

Potato Research 40 (1997) 437

J. MURO.V. DIAZ. J.L. GOI~IAND CARMEN LAMSFUS

Thornton. M.K. & R. Neundorfer, 1986. Field performance of minitubers as affected by size
and greenhouse harvest date. American Potato Jottrnal (Abstract) 63: 458.
Verdure, M., 1986. Calcule de la composition de la solution nutritive Coi"c-Lesaint. Institute
National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.
Wattimena, G., B. McCownet & G. Weis, 1983. Comparative field performance of potatoes
from microculture. American Potato Journal 60: 27-33.
Wheeler, R.M.. C.L. Mackowiak, J.C. Sager. W.M. Knott & C.R. Hinkle, 1990. Potato growth
and yield using Nutrient Film Technique (NFT). American Potato Jo,rna167: 177-187.

438 Potato Research 40 (1997)