Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 4:14:1165856.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1165856. eCollection 2023.

Performance analysis of two typical greenhouse lettuce production systems: commercial hydroponic production and traditional soil cultivation

Lichun Wang  1 , Songrui Ning  2 , Wengang Zheng  1 , Jingyu Guo  3 , Youli Li  1 , Yinkun Li  1 , Xiaoli Chen  1 , Alon Ben-Gal  4 , Xiaoming Wei  1
Affiliations

Performance analysis of two typical greenhouse lettuce production systems: commercial hydroponic production and traditional soil cultivation

Lichun Wang et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the shortage of land and water resource, optimization of systems for production in commercial greenhouses is essential for sustainable vegetable supply. The performance of lettuce productivity and the economic benefit in greenhouses using a soil-based system (SBS) and a hydroponic production system (HPS) were compared in this study.

Methods: Experiments were conducted in two identical greenhouses over two growth cycles (G1 and G2). Three treatments of irrigation volumes (S1, S2, and S3) were evaluated for SBS while three treatments of nutrient solution concentration (H1, H2, and H3) were evaluated for HPS; the optimal levels from each system were then compared.

Results and discussion: HPS was more sensitive to the effects of environmental temperature than SBS because of higher soil buffer capacity. Compared with SBS, higher yield (more than 134%) and higher water productivity (more than 50%) were observed in HPS. We detected significant increases in ascorbic acid by 28.31% and 16.67% and in soluble sugar by 57.84% and 32.23% during G1 and G2, respectively, compared with SBS. However, nitrate accumulated in HPS-grown lettuce. When the nutrient solution was replaced with fresh water 3 days before harvest, the excess nitrate content of harvested lettuce in HPS was removed. The initial investment and total operating cost in HPS were 21.76 times and 47.09% higher than those in SBS, respectively. Consideration of agronomic, quality, and economic indicators showed an overall optimal performance of the H2 treatment. These findings indicated that, in spite of its higher initial investment and requirement of advanced technology and management, HPS was more profitable than SBS for commercial lettuce production.

Keywords: buffer capacity; economic benefit; nitrate; quality; vegetable production; water productivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Isometric view of the hydroponic growth system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Daily solar radiation and relative humidity in the greenhouse.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Temperature dynamics in greenhouse, nutrient solution, and soil.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Soil water content dynamics in the soil-based system during the two growth cycles. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Nutrient solution electric conductivity (ECw) for treatments H1, H2, and H3 in the hydroponic production system during the two growth cycles. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half- strength Hoagland solution. Arrows represent times of replenishment of nutrient solution.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Accumulated evapotranspiration of treatments under hydroponic production system and soil-based system during two growth cycles (G1 and G2). G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Fresh weight of lettuce per plant in the hydroponic production and soil-based systems. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution. S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. Error bars represent standard error of three replications.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Leaf area of lettuce per plant in hydroponic production and soil-based systems. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution. S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. Error bars represent standard error of three replications.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Canopy cover index (CCI) of lettuce per plant for hydroponic production and soil-based systems. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (Apr 9 to May 6, 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution. S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. Error bars represent standard error of three replications.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Yield presented as a function of greenhouse area (Y m–2) and water productivity of lettuce. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution. S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. Error bars represent standard error of three replications. Different letters indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 tested with one-way ANOVA.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Multicriteria assessment of treatments. G1 (A) the first cycle (3 March to 8 April 2021), G2 (B) the second cycle (9 April to 6 May 2021). H1 (0.7 HS), H2 (1 HS), and H3 (1.3 HS); HS is half-strength Hoagland solution. S1 (0.7 AEp ), S2 (0.9 AEp ), and S3 (1.1 AEp ); AEp is accumulated daily pan evaporation. The larger covered areas of radar map represent the better performance of lettuce production system for each treatment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abu-Rayyan A., Khraiwesh B. H., Al-Ismail K. (2004). Nitrate content in lettuce (Lactuca sativa l.) heads in relation to plant spacing, nitrogen form and irrigation level. J. Sci. Food Agr. 84, 931–936. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1733 - DOI
    1. Alahi A., Hossain M. I., Kabir K., Shahjahan M., Hosain M. T. (2014). Effect of phosphorus and plant spacing on the growth and yield of lettuce. Adv. Agric. Biol. 2, 1–7. doi: 10.15192/PSCP.AAB.2014.2.1.17 - DOI
    1. Amos C. C., Rahman A., Karim F., Gathenya J. M. (2018). A scoping review of roof harvested rainwater usage in urban agriculture: australia and kenya in focus. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 174–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.108 - DOI
    1. NBSC RMB exchange rate (Accessed September 26th, 2020).
    1. Barbosa G. L., Gadelha F. D. A., Kublik N., Proctor A., Reichelm L., Weissinger E., et al. . (2015). Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 12, 6879–6891. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606879 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources