Next Article in Journal
Numerical Method for Optimizing Soil Distribution Using DEM Simulation and Empirical Validation by Chemical Properties
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Transformer Network Based on Cross–Spatial Learning and Deformable Attention for Composite Fault Diagnosis of Agricultural Machinery Bearings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Review of the Report on the Nutritional and Health-Promoting Values of Species of the Rubus L. Genus
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Use of Soil Surface Mulching on Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Production under Temperate Climate Conditions

by
Katarzyna Adamczewska-Sowińska
Department of Horticulture, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland
Agriculture 2024, 14(8), 1398; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081398
Submission received: 20 July 2024 / Revised: 15 August 2024 / Accepted: 16 August 2024 / Published: 19 August 2024

Abstract

:
Despite its significant thermal requirements, melon is a vegetable species that holds the potential for expanding the crop range in temperate climate regions. The selection of appropriate varieties and agronomic practices facilitates its cultivation in these regions. This experiment, employing a randomized block design, was conducted from 2019 to 2021, and this study evaluated the response of three melon varieties—‘Seledyn F1’, ‘Melba’, and ‘Malaga F1’ (factor I)—to various mulching materials (factor II): black polyethylene film (PE), black polypropylene nonwoven (PP), biodegradable film (Fbio), and giant miscanthus straw. Control plots were left unmulched. Melon seeds were sown on 15 April, and seedlings were transplanted on 31 May at a spacing of 100 × 80 cm. This study assessed yield, fruit number, individual fruit weight, and vertical and horizontal fruit diameters. Under optimal conditions, the varieties Seledyn F1 and Malaga F1 produced fruits with the highest individual mass. The application of synthetic mulches led to a two-fold increase in fruit yield compared to unmulched plots, with a 23.7% increase in fruit number. On average, the largest fruits were obtained with PE mulch. Melons grown on Fbio mulch yielded, on average, 40% less and produced 18.8% fewer fruits compared to those grown with PE mulch.

1. Introduction

Climate change adversely affects agricultural production and contributes to the decline in productivity of traditional major crops [1]. Stress factors such as a very high temperature and a lack of rainfall will appear more and more often, regularly, so that crops are permanently exposed to them [2].
A classification of thermal conditions in Poland indicates that since the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, the conditions have changed a lot [3]. Until the mid-1980s, they were classified as cold and cool conditions every year. Since the second half of the 1980s, conditions described as normal or warmer occurred more often. In the last decade, however, conditions from very warm to extremely warm prevailed. The average air temperature in Poland in 2022 reached 9.5 °C and was 0.8 °C higher than the annual multi-annual average (1991–2020). In the study area (Lower Silesia) was the warmest region, with an average annual air temperature of 10.5 °C. The average total rainfall in Poland in 2022 was 534.4 mm, which is 87.4% of the normal average value determined on the basis of 30-year data (1991–2020). Rainfall was characterized by strong spatial variability (350 to 950 mm) and unevenness during the growing season. The climatic water balance, i.e., the difference between total precipitation and evaporation, in the period from May to October, is often negative in Lower Silesia.
One of the outcomes of global warming is the expansion or limitation of the range of cultivated plants and the introduction of new species and varieties that require higher thermal conditions [4,5]. This direction can positively impact the economy by introducing these species to the local market, reducing imports, and decreasing energy consumption for transportation, thereby creating a shorter supply chain [6,7,8].
One species that could diversify the vegetable offerings for cultivation in Central Europe is the melon (Cucumis melo L.). This species likely originates from Northeast Africa [9]. Presently, it is cultivated in 88 countries worldwide, covering over 1 million hectares, with a yield of 28.6 million tons [10]. In Europe, it is grown on 77,000 hectares, predominantly in Italy, Spain, and Ukraine. In Central Europe, due to unfavorable climatic conditions, melon cultivation is mainly pursued by amateur gardeners and noncommercial production. However, there is increasing interest in its field cultivation. This thermophilic species is highly sensitive to low temperatures and spring and autumn frosts [11], is light-dependent, and has a significant water demand, especially during the fruit-setting period [12]. For the cultivation of thermophilic species, it is recommended to delay the sowing or planting date to improve growth conditions [13]. Another approach is the use of covers made of perforated polyethylene film or polypropylene nonwoven fabric [14,15,16]. Covering the soil surface with synthetic materials also ensures optimal conditions post-planting and during growth, by increasing soil temperature, reducing evapotranspiration, storing water, and limiting weed growth [17]. The application of synthetic mulches in melon cultivation not only raises soil temperature but also enhances sunlight availability, improves water utilization, and protects the plantation from insects and diseases [18]. Similarly, Parmar et al. [19] highlight the positive effects of mulches on the growth and yield of Cucurbitaceae vegetables, such as watermelon.
The enhancement of habitat conditions has a positive impact on plant development, as well as on the yield and quality of melon fruits. High-quality fruits are characterized by appropriate taste, good texture, aroma, and optimal sugar content. The sugar content, which can be positively correlated with the content of soluble substances, is the primary determinant of fruit quality [18]. Nevertheless, a fundamental step in commencing melon cultivation is the selection of a variety suitable for the prevailing climatic conditions. In Central Europe, it is advisable to cultivate varieties adapted to temperate climate conditions, tolerant to cold, and belonging to early and medium-early maturity groups. Singh et al. [20] demonstrated that, in addition to the cultivation location, the variety is a critical factor in determining fruit quality and sugar content. According to these authors, it is crucial in melon breeding programs to precisely identify the factors influencing the phytochemical composition of the fruits. This allows for the recommendation of specific varieties for particular environments, maximizing yield and quality, and enhancing the sensory and functional properties of the fruits.
The objective of this research was to determine the influence of variety and cultivation conditions on the yield and quality of melon fruits. It was hypothesized that the selection of an appropriate variety, adapted to climatic conditions, and the type of mulching material used for the soil surface could have a decisive impact on the yield and fruit quality of melons cultivated under the climatic conditions of Central Europe.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiment Localization and Design

The experiment was conducted from 2019 to 2021 at the Research and Didactic Station in Psary (51°19′08″ N, 17°03′37″ E), affiliated with the Department of Horticulture at the Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences. A two-factor experiment was established using a randomized block design with three replications. The study evaluated the response of three Polish-bred melon varieties from W. Legutko Sp. z o.o. [21], ‘Seledyn F1’, ‘Melba’, and ‘Malaga F1’ (factor I), to the application of different mulching materials (factor II). The mulches included black polypropylene nonwoven (PP) with a mass of 60 g m−2, black polyethylene film (PE), 0.05 mm thick, and biodegradable film BioAgri, 0.025 mm thick. BioAgri is produced from Mater-Bi®, a complex bioplastic raw material made from starch with polyesters, certified as biodegradable and compostable (European Standard EN 13432 and the US Standard ASTM D6400). For organic mulch, cut plants of giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Den.) were used. Control plots were left without mulch.

2.2. Experiment Methodology

Melon seeds were sown in a greenhouse on April 15, point-wise into multi-cell trays (with a cell volume of 0.273 dm3) filled with peat substrate. Care procedures included watering the seedlings and pinching the shoot tips before transplanting to stimulate branching. Pruning the shoots was performed when the plants had developed 4–5 leaves. The prepared seedlings were acclimate to harsher conditions for a week before planting in the field. Planting took place on 31 May, with a spacing of 100 × 80 cm. The size of each plot was 2.4 × 2.0 m. Before planting, the soil surface was leveled, and mulches were laid in strips 2.0 m wide. The gaps between the mulched areas were 0.5 m.
The field experiment was conducted on degraded calcic black earth, characterized by a light, moderately loamy texture derived from medium clay, classified as class IIIa according to the FAO-WRB Gleyic Calcic Chernozems soil classification and Polish soil classification system [16,22]. In the soil profile, there was a humus content of 1.8%, a pH level of 7.0, and a salinity of 103.1 μS cm−1.
Prior to planting, deep plowing was conducted in autumn following the application of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Fertilizer application rates were adjusted based on current soil nutrient levels determined through chemical analysis. Melons were cultivated with optimal nutrient concentrations: 80 mg P dm−3 and 200 mg K dm−3. In spring, soil leveling and harrowing operations were performed. Immediately before transplanting, ammonium nitrate was applied at a rate of 150 kg N ha−1, which was thoroughly incorporated into the soil using a rotary tiller.
During the vegetative growth period in the field, plants were irrigated as required, with each irrigation event delivering a 30 mm water dose. Harvesting occurred in 2019 on four occasions spanning from 29 July to 26 August, in 2020 on seven occasions from 3 August to 24 August, and in 2021 on five occasions from 5 August to 26 August. Fruits were harvested at full maturity, when ripe and easily detachable from the peduncle. Marketable yield and fruit count were assessed, accompanied by biometric measurements to determine individual fruit weight (in kg). Vertical and horizontal diameters measure a wider fruit diameter (in cm) and shape coefficient as a ratio of the vertical to horizontal diameter performed. The above-listed parameters depended to a large extent on the mulch type.
Throughout the growing season, soil temperature was monitored at a depth of 10 cm in each experimental plot using a DT-34 digital thermometer (Termoprodukt, Bielawa, Poland). Concurrently, air temperature at the experimental site was continuously recorded using an electronic Temp Logger AZ 8828, and precipitation was measured with a Hellmann rain gauge. The collected data were compared with meteorological records spanning from 1980 to 2010 obtained from the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management.

2.3. Experimental Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses of the experimental results regarding plant yield and biometric measurement were conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA) in Statistica 13 software. Tukey’s test was applied to calculate confidence intervals at a significance level of α = 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Weather Conditions

The weather conditions prevailing during the study period are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. In 2019, the average air temperature exceeded the long-term average. Late May precipitation facilitated sufficient soil moisture, promoting rapid root growth and seedling establishment post-transplanting. Showers in late July and early August intensified melon flowering and fruit set.
In 2020, excessive rainfall adversely affected melon growth and subsequent yield. These rains occurred post-transplanting and persisted throughout June, surpassing twice the long-term average precipitation. July, however, experienced notably low precipitation (60% below the long-term average). Air temperatures during the vegetative phase were above the long-term average. High temperatures in July, combined with water deficits and during the first two decades of August, were unfavorable for flowering and fruit set.
In 2021, June and July air temperatures averaged 3.5 °C and 1.7 °C higher, respectively, than the long-term average for these months. Low rainfall was recorded at the end of May and June, and in the second and third decades of July, while precipitation at the end of June and the beginning of July supported vegetative growth and flowering of the plants.
During the three-year study period, initial measurements conducted at the onset of melon growth revealed that soil temperatures at a depth of 10 cm remained consistent across plots with no mulch and those covered with PE and Fbio mulches (Figure 1). A slightly lower temperature was observed in plots mulched with PP nonwoven fabric approximately three weeks after planting. Throughout the measurement period, the lowest soil temperatures were consistently recorded under the miscanthus mulch. This temperature disparity deepened over time.

3.2. Melon Fruit Characteristics

Melon is categorized among vegetables with the most stringent thermal requirements. Optimal temperatures, both in soil and air, facilitate robust vegetative growth, flowering, and fruit ripening. The species is intolerant to prolonged periods of cold and frost throughout its growth stages, with higher average temperatures accelerating plant development and hastening fruit maturity [23]. According to Kurtar [24], cucurbitaceous plants thrive under temperatures ranging between 22 and 32 °C, while melon can withstand maximum temperatures between 39 and 45 °C. Moreover, melon necessitates consistent water supply during vegetative growth, with peak water demand occurring during flowering and fruit set. As pointed out by Kumlay et al. [2], drought stress, at various stages of plant development, changes the physiological and biochemical processes, which results in reduced crop productivity.
Ekinci and Dursun [25] demonstrated that even in warm climates, melon yields vary between growing seasons. A statistical analysis of the data gathered during this study underscored the significant impact of weather conditions, as well as the choice of variety and mulching material, on the successful cultivation of melon in a moderate climate (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). The year 2019 emerged as the most thermally favorable, yet fruit quality benefited from the conditions observed in 2021, characterized by elevated average air temperatures and moderately distributed rainfall. Similarly, Zaniewicz-Bajkowska et al. [26] emphasized better melon yields in years characterized by high air temperatures and low rainfall during the fruit ripening period. In the present research, all varieties exhibited significantly smaller vertical fruit diameters in 2020 (Table 7). While horizontal fruit diameter did not exhibit statistical differences across study years, a trend towards smaller fruit sizes was observed in 2020 compared to 2019 and 2021, by 20.0% and 13.8%, respectively. The Melba variety consistently yielded fruits of uniform mass across all study years. Furthermore, fruits of the Malaga F1 and Seledyn F1 varieties demonstrated significantly higher weight in 2021 compared to 2019 and 2020, with average increases of 36.8% and 57.9%, respectively.
Fruit size and shape constitute fundamental varietal traits of melon. The study findings have demonstrated significant varietal differences in these characteristics, as well as in fruit mass, as detailed in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11. The largest fruits were consistently observed in the Seledyn F1 and Malaga F1 varieties. Specifically, the horizontal diameter and unit mass of Seledyn F1 fruits remained statistically comparable to those of Malaga F1. Conversely, the Melba variety exhibited markedly smaller, elliptical fruits that weighed half as much as the others. Notably, Melba fruits were characterized by their elongated shape, while Malaga F1 fruits displayed a predominantly spherical form (Table 11).
Moreover, this study highlighted the substantial influence of mulching materials on melon fruit size (Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11). Some sources attest to the positive impact of soil mulching on vegetable growth [25], primarily due to enhanced soil moisture conditions (elevated moisture), increased soil temperature, and reduced fluctuations of these parameters during development. On average, the largest fruits, measuring 15.4 × 12.8 cm with a mass of 1.20 kg, were harvested from plants mulched with PE film (Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10). Conversely, fruits from plots mulched with Fbio, PP, and unmulched controls exhibited an average 10.8% reduction in both vertical and horizontal diameters and a 25.6% decrease in mass. Similar findings were reported by Parmar et al. [19] regarding the positive effects of plastic mulches on watermelon fruit size, while Ekinci and Dursun [25] demonstrated significantly increased fruit mass in melon plants grown under plastic mulch compared to those grown without mulch. The disparities in fruit size between plants mulched with miscanthus straw and those mulched with PE (yielding the largest fruits) were substantial, with differences of 31.8% for vertical diameter, 32% for horizontal diameter, and 47.5% for mass. Furthermore, the shape coefficient of fruits mulched with miscanthus straw was significantly lower compared to those mulched with PE, PP, and Fbio (Table 11).
On average, across the three-year study period, the Seledyn F1 variety cultivated with PE mulch produced the heaviest fruits, weighing 1.74 kg. Slightly lighter fruits were observed from the Malaga variety on PP and PE mulches, as well as from Seledyn F1 on PP mulch.
The beneficial effects of mulching were consistently evident throughout the study years (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). In 2019, the smallest fruits were harvested from plants mulched with miscanthus, while significantly larger vertical and horizontal diameters were observed in other treatments (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The heaviest fruits were obtained from PE, PP, and Fbio mulches, whereas fruits from the unmulched and miscanthus mulch treatments had, on average, 24.7% and 46.2% lower unit masses, respectively (Figure 4). Similarly, in 2021, melons grown with miscanthus mulch exhibited the smallest fruits. The vertical and horizontal diameters, as well as the unit mass, were on average 18.7%, 21.9%, and 23.8% smaller compared to fruits from plants mulched with other materials. In the less favorable growing conditions of 2020, the largest fruits were obtained from plants mulched with PE. These fruits displayed significantly larger vertical and horizontal diameters, averaging 40% and 37.8% larger, respectively, and had a unit mass 1.7 times greater than fruits from plants grown on PP and Fbio mulches. They were also 2.5 times and 1.7 times longer and, on average, twice as wide as fruits from miscanthus mulched or control plots. Their mass was on average 3.7 times greater than that from the aforementioned plots.

3.3. Melon Fruit Yield

The study results reveal pronounced variability in the yield of melon fruits under the influence of cultivation conditions. Yield outcomes were shaped not only by meteorological factors but also by the specific variety and type of mulching employed (Table 12, Table 13 and Table 14). In 2021, irrespective of the experimental factor, the average yield was twice as high as in 2019 and 2020, while in the control plots, it exceeded threefold. Across the study period, the average melon yield remained notably lower compared to yields typically achieved in warmer climates.
Under favorable meteorological conditions in 2020 and 2021 (Table 14), cultivation of the Seledyn F1 or Malaga F1 varieties with PE and PP mulches resulted in fruit yields similar to those reported by Buczkowska et al. [27] using mycorrhizal applications and irrigation regimes. The Seledyn F1 variety also showed high yields in studies by Kosterna et al. [28].
The yield of Seledyn F1 and Malaga F1 varieties surpassed that of the Melba variety by an average of 76.4% (Table 15). Similar fruit counts per square meter were observed across these varieties (Table 16).
Utilization of synthetic mulches led to a twofold increase in fruit yield compared to plots without mulching, accompanied by a 23.7% higher fruit count (Table 15 and Table 16). Optimal yields were achieved notably with PE film mulch and comparably with PP nonwoven mulch. The observed impact of mulching on melon cultivation aligns with findings from the previous literature. Ekinci and Dursun [25] reported melon yield increases of 15% with black plastic mulch and 25–28% with clear plastic mulch under Pakistan’s climatic conditions compared to control plots. Parmar et al. [19] emphasized enhanced water retention and improved nutrient availability on silver/black and black/white PE mulches in India, facilitating water conservation and nutrient uptake. In temperate climates during periods of reduced rainfall, plastic mulches play an equally pivotal role, contributing to elevated soil temperatures, particularly beneficial during cooler growing seasons. Elevated soil temperatures promote robust root system development in warm-season vegetables, thereby fostering vigorous above-ground growth. Bucki et al. [29] noted minimal microclimate effects of PP nonwoven mulch in their zucchini experiments, highlighting the predominant influence of meteorological conditions on zucchini yield outcomes.
After the application of plastic films, it takes approximately 100 years for them to degrade [30]. Retrieving these materials post-use is challenging, often leading to their residual accumulation in the soil, which adversely affects the absorption of nutrients and water by plants. Consequently, this diminishes crop yields and contributes to environmental contamination [31,32]. Moreover, the deployment of plastic mulch entails considerable expenses related to procurement, field application, and disposal, prompting the exploration of alternatives such as biodegradable films [29,33,34].
Research by Wang et al. [35] revealed that during initial growth stages, soil temperatures under biodegradable films exceeded those under polyethylene films. However, in subsequent stages, biodegradable films degraded, resulting in reduced thermal insulation compared to polyethylene counterparts [36]. Despite the higher initial cost of biodegradable films relative to plastic films, comprehensive cost analysis is essential, considering their disposal cost advantage [37].
In the conducted research, melon plants mulched with Fbio exhibited a yield that was, on average, 40% lower compared to those mulched with PE (Table 15). This yield was statistically equivalent to the unmulched control. In the Fbio-treated plots, there was an average reduction of 18.8% in fruit yield compared to PE, though this difference did not achieve statistical significance (Table 16). The study revealed that the impact of Fbio on melon yield varied significantly across different years. In 2019, the commercial yield was statistically similar to that of PE and PP (Table 14). Conversely, in 2020, it was 4.7 times lower than in PE plots and twice as low as in PP plots, while in 2021, it decreased by 1.3 and 1.7 times, respectively. Cozzolino et al. [38] compared the effects of using 50 µm thick black PE film and 15 µm thick black biodegradable Mater-Bi® film and found no significant differences in commercial yield, average fruit mass, or melon pulp hardness. Numerous other studies have reported the positive effects of biodegradable films on the cultivation of various vegetables, such as pumpkins [39], zucchinis [29], potatoes [40], and maize [35].
Cultivation under organic mulch from miscanthus resulted in a yield reduction of 58.9% (Table 15), a decrease in individual fruit mass by 40.3% (Figure 4), and a reduction in fruit quantity by 40.7% compared to plots mulched with synthetic materials (Table 16). Parmar et al. [19] similarly observed that mulching watermelons with wheat straw led to an average yield reduction of 18.1% compared to plastic mulches, with a corresponding decrease in individual fruit mass by 14.8%. It is plausible that the smaller fruit dimensions and lower yield observed under miscanthus straw mulch in the present study stem from its light color, which reflects solar radiation. Consequently, the soil temperature under this mulch is lower compared to other treatments (Figure 1). Furthermore, the decomposition of organic matter releases nitrogen, making it available for competing microorganisms and potentially limiting its availability for plant uptake.
In 2019, an average of 0.9 to 1.67 fruits per square meter were harvested. The Seledyn F1 variety yielded the highest production, while yields of Malaga F1 and Melba were lower by 20% and 43.7%, respectively (Table 14, Figure 5) In 2020, the yields of varieties remained statistically consistent but showed variation which influenced by the type of mulch used. The highest fruit quantity and yield were achieved in plots mulched with PE (Table 14, Figure 6). Plots mulched with PP yielded half the number of fruits and had a yield of 2.3 times lower. Similar yields were observed in plots treated with Fbio and the control group. Mulching with miscanthus resulted in a 6-fold decrease in fruit quantity and a 13.7-fold decrease in fruit yield. In the third year of the study, the Seledyn F1 and Malaga F1 varieties produced the highest yields. Despite a similar number of fruits per square meter, the yield of the Melba variety was on average 50% lower (Table 14, Figure 5).

4. Conclusions

In temperate climates, amidst the global trend of rising average temperatures, there is an increasing inclination towards scaling up the cultivation of plants with higher thermal demands. In moderate climates, risks such as frost, cold spells, and frequent periods of precipitation deficit pose significant challenges. An exemplary vegetable species with stringent thermal and water requirements is the melon.
The findings from the conducted research underscore profound variability in the commercial yield of melon fruits influenced by weather conditions. Despite notably higher average temperatures during June–August 2019 compared to 2020 and 2021, superior yields with increased unit masses were achieved in 2021. Adequate, evenly distributed rainfall was recorded in 2021, ensuring sustained water availability for the plants. Periods of water deficit lasting 10–20 days result in diminished flowering and fruit set, emphasizing the critical role of water accessibility during plant growth, particularly during crucial stages like flowering and fruit development. Optimal coinciding of these factors is crucial for maximizing melon yield.
Addressing these challenges involves the deliberate selection of suitable varieties adapted to climatic conditions and the implementation of agronomic practices aimed at enhancing soil moisture and thermal conditions. Mulching represents one such pivotal practice.
For cultivation in the temperate climate of Central Europe, varieties with short to medium growing seasons, resilient to cold and adverse moisture conditions, are recommended based on the study results. Specifically, the Seledyn F1 and Malaga F1 varieties are deemed suitable for field cultivation. These varieties yield substantial fruits, each weighing over 1 kg. Under favorable weather conditions in 2021, yields of these varieties without mulching reached 25 t ha−1 and 33.52 t ha−1, respectively.
Mulching with black polyethylene film or polypropylene nonwoven fabric exerts a positive influence on melon yield. The use of these materials resulted in an average increase in commercial fruit yield of 67.8% and 41.5%, respectively. Their efficacy varied depending on annual weather patterns; conversely, employing biodegradable film as mulch yielded inferior outcomes compared to synthetic counterparts. Organic mulching, meanwhile, is not recommended for melon cultivation.

Funding

The research is co-financed from the subsidy increased by the minister responsible for higher education and science for the period 2020–2026 in the amount of 2% of the subsidy referred to Art. 387 (3) of the Act of 20 July 2018—Law on Higher Education and Science, obtained in 2019.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kang, Y.; Khan, S.; Ma, X. Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security—A review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2009, 19, 1665–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kumlay, A.M.; Kocak, M.Z.; Gohari, G.; Nouraein, M.; Celikcan, F.; Kaysim, M.G.; Kulak, M. Agronomic traits, secondary metabolites and element concentrations of Lavandula angustifolia leaves as a response to single or reiterated drought stress: How effective is the previously experienced stress? Folia Hort. 2022, 34, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Climate of Poland 2022, Polish Climate Monitoring Bulletin, IMGW-PIB Own Study 2023. Available online: https://www.imgw.pl/sites/default/files/2023-07/climate-of-poland-2023_report.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  4. Ali, A.; Erenstein, O. Assessing farmer use of climate change adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Raza, A.; Razzaq, A.; Mehmood, S.S.; Zou, X.; Zhang, X.; Lv, Y.; Xu, J. Impact of Climate Change on Crops Adaptation and Strategies to Tackle Its Outcome: A Review. Plants 2019, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. European Commission. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System COM (2020) 381 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kiss, K.; Ruszkai, C.; Szucs, A.; Koncz, G. Examining the Role of Local Products in Rural Development in the Light of Consumer Preferences—Results of a Consumer Survey from Hungary. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pató, G.S.B.; Csiszárik-Kocsir, Á.; Herczeg, M.; Dominek, Á.; Varga, I.; Pató, B.; Kiss, F. Short Supply Chains from an Intermediary’s Point of View. Online J. Model. New Eur. 2020, 168–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Swamy, K.R.M. Origin, distribution and systematics of culinary cucumber (Cucumis melo subsp. agrestis var. conomon). J. Hort. Sci. 2017, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. FAOSTAT 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  11. Rolbiecki, R.; Rolbiecki, S.; Figas, A.; Jagosz, B.; Wichrowska, D.; Ptach, W.; Prus, P.; Sadan, H.A.; Ferenc, P.-F.; Stachowski, P.; et al. Effect of Drip Fertigation with Nitrogen on Yield and Nutritive Value of Melon Cultivated on a Very Light Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fabeiro, C.; Martin de Santa Olalla, F.; De Juan, J.A. Production of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) under controlled deficit irrigation in a semi-arid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 54, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Franczuk, J.; Rosa, R.; Kosterna-Kelle, E.; Zaniewicz-Bajkowska, A.; Panasz, M. The effect of transplanting date and covering on the growth and development of melon (Cucumis melo L.). Acta Agrobot. 2017, 70, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jifon, J.L.; Lester, G.E. Foliar fertilization of muskmelon: Effects of potassium source on market quality and phytochemical content of field-grown fruit. In Proceedings of the 2007 Fluid Forum, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 18–20 February 2007; pp. 154–161. [Google Scholar]
  15. Majkowska-Gadomska, J. Mineral content of melon fruit (Cucumis melo L.). J. Elem. 2009, 14, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Adamczewska-Sowińska, K.; Sowiński, J. Reaction of Sweet Maize to the Use of Polyethylene Film and Polypropylene Non-Woven Fabric in the Initial Growth Phase. Agronomy 2020, 10, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lopez, M.; Quezada, R.M.; De Larosa-Ibarra, M.; Cedeno-Ruvalcaba, B. Effect of plastic mulch on growth of melon (Cucumis melo L.) “Lacuna” hybrid. Phyton 2000, 69, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vescera, M.; Brown, R.N. Effects of three production systems on muskmelon yield and quality in New England. HortScience 2016, 51, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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. Universal J. Agric. Res. 2013, 1, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, J.; Metrani, R.; Jayaprakasha, G.K.; Crosby, K.M.; Jifon, J.L.; Ravishankar, S.; Brierley, P.; Leskovar, D.L.; Turini, T.A.; Schultheis, J.; et al. Profiling carotenoid and sugar contents in unique Cucumis melo L. cultigens harvested from different climatic regions of the United States. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2022, 106, 104306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. COBORU. Polish National List of Vegetable Plant Varieties; COBORU: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2023; ISSN 1231-8280. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kabała, C.; Charzyński, P.; Chodorowski, J.; Drewnik, M.; Glina, B.; Greinert, A.; Hulisz, P.; Jankowski, M.; Jonczak, J.; Łabaz, B.; et al. Polish Soil Classification, 6th edition—Principles, classification scheme and correlations. Soil Sci. Annu. 2019, 70, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bouzo, C.A.; Küchen, M.G. Effect of temperature on melon development rate. Agron. Res. 2012, 10, 283–294. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kurtar, E.S. Modelling the effect of temperature on seed germination in some cucurbits. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 1343–1353. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ekinci, M.; Dursun, A. Effects of different mulch materials on plant growth, some quality parameters and yield in melon (Cucumis melo L.) cultivars in high altitude environmental condition. Pak. J. Bot. 2009, 41, 1891–1901. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zaniewicz-Bajkowska, A.; Franczuk, J.; Kosterna, E. Effect of foliar feeding on yield and fruit quality of three melon (Cucumis melo L.) cultivars. Folia Hort. 2009, 21, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Buczkowska, H.; Sałata, A.; Nurzyńska-Wierdak, R. Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Fruit Yield under Irrigation and Mycorrhiza Conditions. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kosterna, E.; Zaniewicz-Bajkowska, A.; Franczuk, J.; Rosa, R.; Chromińska, K.; Borysiak-Marciniak, I.; Panasz, M. Effect of synthetic mulches on melon (Cucumis melo L.) yielding. Folia Hort. 2011, 23, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bucki, P.; Siwek, P.; Domagała-Świątkiewicz, I.; Puchalski, M. Effect of Agri-Environmental Conditions on the Degradation of Spunbonded Polypropylene Nonwoven with a Photoactivator in Mulched Organically Managed Zucchini. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2018, 2, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Briassoulis, D.; Babou, E.; Hiskakis, M.; Kyrikou, I. Analysis of long-term degradation behaviour of polyethylene mulching films with pro-oxidants under real cultivation and soil burial conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2015, 22, 2584–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, D.; Liu, H.; Hu, W.L.; Qin, X.; Ma, X.; Yan, C.; Wang, H. The status and distribution characteristics of residual mulching film in Xinjiang. China. J. Integr. Agr. 2016, 15, 2639–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Borrowman, C.K.; Johnston, P.; Adhikari, R.; Saito, K.; Patti, A.F. 2020. Environmental degradation and efficacy of a sprayable, biodegradable polymeric mulch. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2020, 175, 109126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Waterer, D. Evaluation of biodegradable mulches for production of warm-season vegetable crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2010, 90, 737–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Y.; Jia, X.; Olasupo, I.O.; Feng, Q.; Wang, L.; Lu, L.; Xu, J.; Sun, M.; Yu, X.; Han, D.; et al. Effects of biodegradable films on melon quality and substrate environment in solar greenhouse. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 829, 154527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Z.; Li, M.; Flury, M.; Schaeffer, S.M.; Chang, Y.; Tao, Z.; Jia, Z.; Li, S.; Ding, F.; Wang, J. Agronomic performance of polyethylene and biodegradable plastic film mulches in a maize cropping system in a humid continental climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mei, N.; Liu, B.; Zheng, J.; Lv, K.; Tang, D.; Zhang, Z. A novel magnetic palladium catalyst for the mild aerobic oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural into 2,5-furandicarboxylic acid in water. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 3194–3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cozzolino, E.; Di Mola, I.; Ottaiano, L.; Bilotto, M.; Petriccione, M.; Ferrara, E.; Mori, M.; Morra, L. Assessing Yield and Quality of Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Improved by Biodegradable Mulching Film. Plants 2023, 12, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cozzolino, E.; Bilotto, M.; Leone, V.; Zampella, L.; Petriccione, M.; Cerrato, D.; Morra, L. Produzione e qualità di melone retato su pacciamatura in mater-Bi. Colt. Protette 2015, 6, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ghimire, S.; Wszelaki, A.L.; Moore, J.C.; Inglis, D.A.; Miles, C. The Use of Biodegradable Mulches in Pie Pumpkin Crop Production in Two Diverse Climates. HortScience 2018, 53, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhao, H.; Xiong, Y.C.; Li, F.M.; Wang, R.Y.; Qiang, S.C.; Yao, T.F.; Mo, F. Plastic Film Mulch for Half Growing-Season Maximized WUE and Yield of Potato via Moisture-Temperature Improvement in a Semi-Arid Agroecosystem. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 104, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sum of effective temperature under soil cover. Average from years 2019–2021.
Figure 1. Sum of effective temperature under soil cover. Average from years 2019–2021.
Agriculture 14 01398 g001
Figure 2. Fruit vertical diameter (cm). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Figure 2. Fruit vertical diameter (cm). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01398 g002
Figure 3. Fruit horizontal diameter (cm). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Figure 3. Fruit horizontal diameter (cm). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01398 g003
Figure 4. Fruit weight (kg). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Figure 4. Fruit weight (kg). Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01398 g004
Figure 5. Fruit number per square meter. Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and varieties.
Figure 5. Fruit number per square meter. Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and varieties.
Agriculture 14 01398 g005
Figure 6. Fruit number per square meter. Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Figure 6. Fruit number per square meter. Interaction of the weather conditions in the years of study and the type of mulch. The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01398 g006
Table 1. Temperature within melon growing period in years 2019–2021 [°C].
Table 1. Temperature within melon growing period in years 2019–2021 [°C].
MonthsPeriod
(Month Days)
201920202021Average from Years 1991–2020
June01.–10.23.217.019.316.8
11.–20.25.021.520.9
21.–30.25.620.220.6
average24.619.620.3
July01.–10.19.722.019.518.8
11.–20.20.119.621.2
21.–31.24.722.420.7
average21.621.420.5
August01.–10.22.223.317.718.4
11.–20.21.324.119.2
21.–31.24.020.415.5
average22.522.517.4
Average for growing season22.721.219.418.0
Table 2. Rainfall within melon growing period in years 2019–2021 [mm].
Table 2. Rainfall within melon growing period in years 2019–2021 [mm].
MonthsPeriod
(Month Days)
201920202021Average from Years 1991–2020
June01.–10.0.938.41.273.0
11.–20.19.468.818.2
21.–31.6.664.028.6
sum26.9171.248.0
July01.–10.2.98.260.888.9
11.–20.6.418.710.4
21.–31.32.22.910.8
sum41.529.882.0
August01.–10.14.341.518.464.0
11.–20.5.56.616.4
21.–31.30.530.184.6
sum50.378.2119.8
Sum for growing season118.7279.2249.8203.8
Table 3. Variances analysis of melon fruit horizontal diameter.
Table 3. Variances analysis of melon fruit horizontal diameter.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year1729.642864.8251.851<0.001 ***
Variety1096.162548.0832.861<0.001 ***
Cover1756.424439.1126.327<0.001 ***
Year × variety211.34452.833.1680.013 *
Year × cover1443.258180.4110.816<0.001 ***
Variety × cover574.32871.794.304<0.001 ***
Year × variety × cover476.451629.781.7850.028 *
df—degrees of freedom. The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001, * significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4. Variances analysis of melon fruit vertical diameter.
Table 4. Variances analysis of melon fruit vertical diameter.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year3452.121726.175.067<0.001 ***
Variety54.6227.31.1880.305
Cover2606.94651.728.344<0.001 ***
Year × variety470.74117.75.117<0.001 ***
Year × cover1687.68211.09.175<0.001 ***
Variety × cover927.48115.95.041<0.001 ***
Year × variety × cover584.71636.51.5890.065
df—degrees of freedom. The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001.
Table 5. Variances analysis of melon fruit weight.
Table 5. Variances analysis of melon fruit weight.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year27.7213.960.6<0.001 ***
Variety42.0221.091.8<0.001 ***
Cover30.047.532.8<0.001 ***
Year × variety9.542.410.4<0.001 ***
Year × cover21.782.711.8<0.001 ***
Variety × cover18.782.310.2<0.001 ***
Year × variety × cover8.8160.52.4<0.01 **
df—degrees of freedom. The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001, ** significant at p ≤ 0.01.
Table 6. Variances analysis of melon fruit vertical to horizontal diameter ratio.
Table 6. Variances analysis of melon fruit vertical to horizontal diameter ratio.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year23.2211.671.5<0.001 ***
Variety14.027.043.2<0.001 ***
Cover7.341.811.3<0.001 ***
Year × variety3.140.84.7<0.001 ***
Year × cover9.081.16.9<0.001 ***
Variety × cover1.580.21.10.342
Year × variety × cover3.5160.21.30.167
df—degrees of freedom. The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001.
Table 7. Melon fruit biometric characteristics in following research years.
Table 7. Melon fruit biometric characteristics in following research years.
Year201920202021
Variety
Vertical diameter (cm)
Melba14.1 *b11.5 a13.6 b
Malaga F115.8 c11.4 a13.5 b
Seledyn F114.9 bc11.0 a15.7 c
Horizontal diameter (cm)
Melba10.88.49.2
Malaga F113.811.212.8
Seledyn F112.910.412.8
Fruit weight (kg)
Melba0.6 a0.5 a0.6 a
Malaga F10.9 b1.0 b1.3 c
Seledyn F10.9 b1.0 b1.5 d
* The same lowercase letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05.
Table 8. Melon fruit vertical diameter (cm). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 8. Melon fruit vertical diameter (cm). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE14.5 **c13.9 c17.9 d15.4 *C
Fbio14.3 c12.6 abc13.6 bc13.6 B
PP13.3 bc14.8 c14.0 c14.0 BC
miscanthus9.8 a11.5 abc10.4 ab10.5 A
control12.6 abc14.2 c14.0 c13.6 B
Average for variety13.113.614.3-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover; ** lower letters refer to the interaction of variety × cover.
Table 9. Melon fruit horizontal diameter (cm). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 9. Melon fruit horizontal diameter (cm). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE10.3 **bc13 def15.1 f12.8 *C
Fbio10.2 bc11.9 bcde11.8 bcde11.2 B
PP9.5 ab13.9 ef12.4 cde11.7 BC
miscanthus7.1 a10.3 bc8.9 ab8.7 A
control9.3 ab13.3 ef11.7 bcde11.4 B
Average for variety9.4 *A12.7 B12.2 B-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover and variety; ** lower letters refer to the interaction of variety × cover.
Table 10. Melon fruit weight (kg). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 10. Melon fruit weight (kg). Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE0.69 **abc1.18 ef1.74 g1.20 *C
Fbio0.70 abc0.79 bcd1.05 def0.84 B
PP0.55 abc1.27 f1.16 ef0.97 B
miscanthus0.39 a0.87 cde0.66 abc0.63 A
control0.47 ab1.10 def1.04 def0.87 B
Average for variety0.57 *A1.07 B1.17 B-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover and variety; ** lower letters refer to the interaction of variety × cover.
Table 11. Melon fruit ratio of vertical to horizontal diameter. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 11. Melon fruit ratio of vertical to horizontal diameter. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE1.34 **a1.03 a1.19 a1.17 *B
Fbio1.30 a0.92 a1.15 a1.15 B
PP1.32 a1.00 a1.05 a1.13 B
miscanthus1.09 a0.87 a0.93 a0.97 A
control1.24 a1.00 a1.06 a1.10 AB
Average for variety1.27 *C0.98 A1.09 B-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover and variety; ** lower letters refer to the interaction of variety × cover.
Table 12. Variance analysis of melon fruit yield.
Table 12. Variance analysis of melon fruit yield.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year3241.8121620.9048.4437<0.001 ***
Variety1431.752715.8821.3953<0.001 ***
Cover2703.764675.9420.2017<0.001 ***
Year × variety521.664130.413.8977<0.01 **
Year × cover2131.388266.427.9625<0.001 ***
Variety × cover1031.548128.941.47880.172
Year × variety × cover1556.881697.302.9081<0.001 ***
df—degrees of freedom; The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001, ** significant at p ≤ 0.01.
Table 13. Variance analysis of melon fruit number per square meter.
Table 13. Variance analysis of melon fruit number per square meter.
FactorsSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Year16.6628.3333.26<0.001 ***
Variety0.5120.261.020.3641
Cover9.9342.489.91<0.001 ***
Year × variety1.3340.331.330.2664
Year × cover14.4081.807.19<0.001 ***
Variety × cover2.4880.311.240.2853
Year × variety × cover10.41160.652.60<0.01 **
df—degrees of freedom; The F test to determine whether group means are equal is calculated using the variation between sample means/variation within the samples. *** significant at p ≤ 0.001, ** significant at p ≤ 0.01.
Table 14. Melon variety fruit yielding in following research years (t ha−1).
Table 14. Melon variety fruit yielding in following research years (t ha−1).
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Mean
Cover
2019
PE10.038.6216.5611.74 *ABCD
Fbio9.0615.0015.0713.04 ABCDE
PP5.8910.7314.0410.22 ABCD
miscanthus4.476.6810.147.09 AB
control7.2010.999.249.14 AB
mean7.3310.4013.01-
2020
PE12.32 **ab30.24 d32.91 d25.16 EF
Fbio8.95 ab1.94 a5.23 ab5.38 AB
PP6.99 ab17.07 bc8.67 ab10.91 ABCD
miscanthus1.60 a1.70 a2.21 a1.83 A
control5.99 ab4.53 a3.26 a4.59 AB
7.1711.1010.46-
2021+
PE10.39 ab25.07 def31.94 fg22.47 DEF
Fbio17.99 abcde10.02 ab22.82 bcdef16.94 BCDE
PP18.06 abcde27.57 ef41.11 g28.91 F
miscantus7.63 a18.7 abcde8.20 a11.51 ABCD
control6.32 a33.52 fg25.00 def21.61 CDEF
12.0822.5825.81-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the interaction of year × cover; ** lower letters refer to the interaction of year × variety × cover.
Table 15. Melon fruit yield t per ha. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 15. Melon fruit yield t per ha. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE10.921.327.119.8 *C
Fbio12.09.014.411.8 AB
PP10.318.521.316.7 BC
miscanthus4.69.06.86.8 A
control6.516.312.511.8 AB
Average for variety8.9 **a14.8 b16.4 b-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover; ** lower letters refer to the variety.
Table 16. Number of melon fruit per square meter. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
Table 16. Number of melon fruit per square meter. Interaction of cover type and variety. Average from 2019–2021 years.
VarietyMelbaMalaga F1Seledyn F1Average for Cover
Cover
PE1.5 a1.7 a1.6 a1.6 *B
Fbio1.6 a1.0 a1.2 a1.3 AB
PP1.7 a1.4 a1.6 a1.6 B
miscanthus0.9 a0.8 a0.8 a0.8 A
control1.3 a1.4 a1.0 a1.2 AB
Average for variety1.4 a1.3 a1.3 a-
The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups, determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α = 0.05. * Capital letters refer to the cover, lower letters refer to the variety.
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

Adamczewska-Sowińska, K. The Use of Soil Surface Mulching on Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Production under Temperate Climate Conditions. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1398. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081398

AMA Style

Adamczewska-Sowińska K. The Use of Soil Surface Mulching on Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Production under Temperate Climate Conditions. Agriculture. 2024; 14(8):1398. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081398

Chicago/Turabian Style

Adamczewska-Sowińska, Katarzyna. 2024. "The Use of Soil Surface Mulching on Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Production under Temperate Climate Conditions" Agriculture 14, no. 8: 1398. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081398

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