Growth of Rose, Rosa hybrida, in a Cocopeat-Based

Substrate System and Soil in Naivasha, Kenya

The Kenya cut flower industry has been an economic success due to its contribution to national

foreign exchange earnings.

For instance, the earnings were US$764 million in 2012

Roses are among the major flowers, US$463, 60.7% of value of flowers exported

Majority of production, about 39%, occur in Nakuru county, where Naivasha is located

Large scale horticultural farms are seen as a threat to the Lake Naivasha due to abstraction of large volumes of water and pollution from agrochemicals

Ketter, N.C.1, Wariara, K.1, Wesonga, J.M.1, Elings, A.2 and Hoogerwerf, F.3

1 Department of Horticulture, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. P. O. Box 62000 – 00200 Nairobi, Kenya 2 Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture, Wageningen, The Netherlands

3 DLV Plant, Wageningen, The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Objective To assess growth and development of roses in soil and hydroponic system for rose production in Naivasha,

Kenya

CONCLUSION Results showed that plants grown in hydroponics (cocopeat) did not differ physiologically with those in soil when grown under the same greenhouse climatic conditions. However, there is a significant difference on the productive parameters such as number of stems produced m-2, which every grower is interested.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank Green Farming consortium for funding this study, Arie van den Berg for allowing the research to be carried out in his farm and Johan Remeeus, the farm General manager for his support throughout the project.

RESULTS

CONTACT INFORMATION Naomi Chelimo Ketter, (MSc. Research student), Department of Horticulture , Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, P.O. Box 62000-00200,Nairobi Phone: +254 67 57 11 E-Mail: naomichelimo@gmail.com Website: http://www.jkuat.ac.ke

The 29th International Horticultural Congress | Sustaining Lives, Livelihoods and Landscapes,

17th – 22nd August 2014, Brisbane, Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS A commercial farm – van den berg Roses

Located at 0o 46’ S latitude and 36 o 43’ E longitude at an altitude of 1,900 m

Polythene covered greenhouse, Area 32,000 m2 planted with Rosa hybrida cv

Upperclass, 16,000 m2 on soil and 16,000 m2 on cocopeat media

Fig 1: Location of van den Berg Roses around Lake Naivasha

Fig 4: Data collection

Fig 3: Soil and hydroponics system set-up

Data on stem length, number of leaves and leaf elongation of the last leaflet length was collected from 5 plants per sample. Five sets of data were collected for each parameter

Fig 2: Materials flow-chart

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Lea

f ex

pa

nsi

on

(cm

)

Time (days)

hydroponics soil

Fig 7: Expansion of leaves in plants grown in soil and hydroponics system

The leaf expansion on plants grown in soil and in hydroponics were not

significantly different (df=16: P value=0.74).

Fig 5: Stem length expansion of plants grown in soil and

hydroponics system

The stem elongation of plants grown in soil

and in hydroponics were not significantly

different (df=10: P value=1.0).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 7 14 21 28 35

Ste

m l

eng

th (

cm)

Time (days)

hydro stem length soil stem length

Fig 6: Number of leaves per stem in plants grown in soil

and hydroponics system

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

1 7 14 21 28 35

Nu

mb

er o

f le

av

es

Time (days)

hydro no. of leaves soil no. of leaves

The number of leaves on stems of plants

grown in soil and in hydroponics were not

significantly different (df=10: P value=0.96).

1. Stem elongation 2. Number of leaves

4. Leaf expansion

6. Water use in soil and hydroponics system

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Wa

ter

us

e (

l m

-2 m

on

th-1

)

Time (Months)

Soil Hydroponics

The water use in the soil system was 2074 l m-2 over the 12 month period and

877 l m-2 in hydroponics representing a saving of 58%. The monthly total water

use for the soil system ranged between 150 and 191 l m-2 compared to

hydroponics where it ranged between 48 and 87 l m-2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Hea

d e

xp

an

sion

(m

m)

Time (days)

hydro head length soil head length hydro head diameter soil head diameter

5. Flower head expansion

The head length and diameter of the plants grown in soil and in hydroponics

were not significantly different (df=20: P value=0.75) and (df=20: P value=0.78)

respectively..

Top leaves Mid leaves

treatment

mean Number of

observations df p-value mean

Number of

observations df p-value

cocopeat 51.7 150 257 6.12E-11 51.4 150 251 0.000159

soil 48.2 150 49 150

3. Leaf Chlorophyll content

The chlorophyll in the leaves at the top and middle canopy of the plants grown in soil and

hydroponics systems were of highly significant (P value= 6.12e-11: P value=0.00159).

DISCUSSION

Table 1: Leaf chlorophyll content of plants grown in soil and hydroponics system

Fig 8: Flower head expansion in plants grown in soil and hydroponics system

Fig 9: Cumulative amount of water used in irrigation of plants grown in soil and

hydroponics system

• Higher stem elongation, leaf expansion, number of leaves and flower head

expansion was recorded in plants grown in hydroponics as compared to soil

although not significant.

• This was due to the same greenhouse growing conditions for soil and

hydroponics, high control of water supply and fertilizers in both systems and

because soil could have lost its dynamics over time.

• This is similar with what Maloupa et al (1999) found from plants grown on

different substrates for the physiological parameters measured as not significant.

• The difference in the leaf chlorophyll content in plants grown in hydroponics and

soil systems was highly significant. This resulted in more light penetration at the

same wavelength and Nitrogen levels in hydroponics hence more production of

stems in the system.

• Results from Ahmad et al (2011), on their research on physiological comparison

of cut rose cultivars grown in the open and greenhouse, found no significance in

total leaf chlorophyll contents in cultivars grown on both systems.

• Savings (58%) were made from the hydroponics system due to collection of the

drain water and re-using it in the soil system.