| Literature DB >> 35567154 |
Andre Fussy1, Jutta Papenbrock1.
Abstract
Resources such as fertile soil and clean water are already limited in many parts of the world. Additionally, the conventional use of arable land is becoming increasingly difficult, which is further exacerbated by climate change. Soilless cultivation systems do not only offer the opportunity to save water and cultivate without soil but also the chance to open up urban areas such as residential rooftops for food production in close proximity to consumers. In this review, applications of soilless farming systems are identified and compared to conventional agriculture. Furthermore, aspects of economic viability, sustainability and current developments are investigated. An insight into the most important soilless farming systems-hydroponics, aquaponics and vertical farming-is provided. The systems are then differentiated from each other and, as far as possible, evaluated in terms of their environmental impact and compared with conventional cultivation methods. Comparing published data analyzing the yield of hydroponic cultivation systems in comparison to soil-based cultivation methods enables a basic overview of the profitability of both methods and, thus, lays the foundation for future research and practical applications. The most important inert substrates for hydroponic applications are presented, and their degree of sustainability is compared in order to emphasize environmental impacts and affect substrate selections of future projects. Based on an assessment of the most important soilless cultivation systems, the challenges and developments of current techniques are highlighted and discussed.Entities:
Keywords: aquaponics; hydroponics; nutrients; sustainability; vertical farming
Year: 2022 PMID: 35567154 PMCID: PMC9102199 DOI: 10.3390/plants11091153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Liquid or solution culture techniques further subdivided into circulating (closed) and non-circulating (open) techniques. GM, growth medium.
| Technique | Description | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Circulating methods (closed systems) | Nutrient solution pumped through plant root system, collecting and reusing excess solution. | ||
| NFT | Plants in channels with nutrient solution flowing past roots driven by a slight gradient. Often in substrate-filled net pots. | - low initial costs | - control of nutrient concentrations and pH required |
| DFT | Growing directly in nutrient solution. Often in substrate-filled net pots. | - efficient water and nutrient use | - take care regarding sufficient oxygenation |
| Ebb and flow system | Plants placed directly in growing trays often filled with medium. Nutrient solution periodically floods planting chamber and returns to reservoir. | - water-loving plants | - high demand for reservoir capacities and nutrient medium |
| Drip system | Substrate in which roots are supplied with nutrient solution via drip emitter, often periodically. | - simple installation | - drip lines/emitters susceptible to blockages |
| Wick system | Capillary action feeds plants via synthetic fibers such as nylon. Often with absorbent medium. | - suitable for indoor, small or single plants such as herbs and spices | - requires a lot of water |
| Aeroponic | Roots hang in air surrounded by sufficient oxygen and wetted with aerosol of nutrient solution distributed by atomizers. | - excellent aeration | - maintenance effort |
| Aquaponic [ | Combining hydroponic culture of plants with aquaculture of fish in closed water cycle and nitrifying bacteria. | - efficient water and nutrient use | - maintenance effort |
| Non-circulating methods | Nutrient solution is replaced when nutrient concentration decreases or pH and EC change. | ||
| Root dipping technique | Pots closely spaced submerged in nutrient solution. | - inexpensive | - less efficient water and nutrient use |
| Floating technique [ | Plants in small pots are fixed to Styrofoam sheet (or light plate) and float on nutrient solution. | - inexpensive | - less efficient water and nutrient use |
| Capillary action technique | Plant pots with holes at bottom and inert medium placed in shallow containers. Nutrient solution reaches medium by capillary action. | - suitable for ornamental, flower and indoor plants | - aeration depending on medium |
Solid media culture techniques or aggregate systems.
| Technique | Description | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hanging bag technique | Approximately 1 m long polyethylene bags filled with sterilized coconut fibers are sealed at the bottom and hung up (“verti-grow” technique). Plants in net pots pressed into holes in the sides of hanging bags. Nutrient solution distributed evenly from the top by micro-sprinkler. The nutrient solution drips down and moistens coconut fibers and plant roots. | - chance to reuse solution through nutrient solution-collecting channel | - risk of algae or mold growth |
| Grow bag technique | Polythene bags about 1 m long filled with sterilized coconut dust are placed horizontally in rows on the ground. Small holes are made at the top of the bags and 2–3 plants in net pots per bag are pressed into them. Slits on each side of the bags are provided for drainage, and fertilization is done with a black capillary tube leading from the main feed line to each plant. | - chance to reuse solution through nutrient solution-collecting channel | - risk of algae or mold growth |
| Trench or trough technique | Plants are grown in narrow trenches or in above-ground stone troughs. Inner linings of trenches are covered by thick polythene sheets. Size and shape of trench are constructed according to cropping nature. All required nutrients with water are circulated through the dripping system with a pump. | - suitable for lettuce, coriander, spinach, etc. | - tall-growing vine plants (cucumber, tomato, etc.) need additional support to carry the weight of their fruits |
| Pot technique | Pot technique is similar to trench or trough culture, but growing media is filled in clay or plastic pots. | - chance to reuse solution if nutrient solution-collecting channel is used | - tall-growing plants need additional support |
List of different plant species that can be cultivated hydroponically. Summarized partly after Hayden [44], Resh [83], Singh and Singh [32], Sardare and Adame [86], Mohammed [43] and Sharma et al. [33].
| Type of Crop | Plant Species | Expected Yield | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cereals | Comparable or higher | Al-Karaki and Al-Momani [ | |
| Higher and greater quality | Palermo et al. [ | ||
| Cultivar-dependent, higher | Vargas-Rodríguez [ | ||
| Comparable or higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Higher | Gros et al. [ | ||
| Comparable or higher | Vargas-Rodríguez [ | ||
| Fruits | Higher and greater quality | Guler et al. [ | |
| Lower | Sarooshi and Cresswell [ | ||
| Higher | Treftz and Omaye [ | ||
| Higher | Nascimento et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Nemati et al. [ | ||
| Vegetables | Comparable | Pascual et al. [ | |
| NA | |||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable | Pascale et al. [ | ||
| Lower | Poll et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Higher | Chandra et al. [ | ||
| Lower or Higher | Albaho et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Alimuddin et al. [ | ||
| Comparable or higher | Gros et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Chandra et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Comparable or lower | Chow and Price [ | ||
| Comparable | Gros et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Costa et al. [ | ||
| Comparable or higher | Ritter et al. [ | ||
| Leafy vegetables | Comparable | Sharma et al. [ | |
| Higher | Maboko and Plooy [ | ||
| Semi-aquatic plant | Xiang et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Singh and Singh [ | ||
| Higher | Ranawade et al. [ | ||
| Condiments | Comparable | Resh [ | |
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Higher | Padmathilake et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Higher | Daryadar [ | ||
| Higher and greater quality | Hayden [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable or higher and greater quality | Sgherri et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Higher | Chandra et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Comparable | Resh [ | ||
| Higher | Padmathilake et al. [ | ||
| Higher | Gurdas et al. [ | ||
| Flower/ornamental crops | Higher | Wilson and Finlay [ | |
| Higher | Hanan and Holley [ | ||
| Comparable | Das et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Sarmah and Bora [ | ||
| Medical crops | Higher | Bhattacharya [ | |
| Lower | Hayden [ | ||
| NA | |||
| Comparable | Hayden [ | ||
| Fodder crops | NA | ||
| NA | |||
| Comparable | Asadullah et al. [ | ||
| Comparable | Al-Karaki and Al-Hashimi [ | ||
| Comparable or higher | Vargas-Rodríguez [ |
Comparison of different substrates/GM modified after Savvas and Gruda [31].
| Material | Origin | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sand | Natural with particles of 0.05–2.0 mm | Relatively inexpensive, good drainage ability | Low nutrient- and water-holding capacity, high volume weight, low total pore space |
| Rockwool | Melted silicates at 1500–2000 °C | Light volume weight, high total pore space, ease of handling, totally inert, nutrition can be carefully controlled | Disposal problems, energy consumed during manufacture |
| Vermiculite | Mg, Al and Fe silicate sieved and heated to 1000 °C | Light volume weight, high nutrient-holding ability, good water-holding ability, good pH buffering capacity, good aeration due to high pore space | Compacts when too wet, energy-consuming product, expensive |
| Perlite | Siliceous volcanic mineral sieved and heated to 1000 °C | Light volume weight, sterile, neutral in pH (6.5–7.5), no decay, sufficient total pore space | Low nutrient capacity, energy-consuming product, expensive |
| Pumice | Light silicate mineral of volcanic material | Relatively light volume weight, good total pore space, cheap and long-lasting, environmentally friendly | High transport costs, pH may be high |
| Peat | Natural anaerobically processed plant residues | Physical stability, good air and water-holding capacity due to high total pore space, low microbial activity, light volume weight, low and easily adjustable pH, low nutrient content | Finite resource, environmental concerns (CO2 release), increasing cost due to energy crisis, may be strongly acidic, shrinking may lead to substrate hydro-repellence |
| Coconut coir | By-product of fiber coconut processing | Physical stability, light weight, good air content due to high total pore space and high water-holding capacity, subacid-neutral pH (5–6.8) | May contain high salt levels, energy consumption during transport |
| Bark | By-product or waste of wood manufacture | Good air content and water-holding capacity, good total pore space, sub-acid-neutral pH (5–7), sufficient volume weight, long-lasting | High variability, need time to reduce C:N ratio and terpenes concentrations, increasing cost since used as an alternative to fuel and in landscaping |
| Green compost | Composted plant residues | Good source of potassium and micronutrients, suppression of diseases, good moisture-holding capacity, urban waste reduction | Non-homogeneous, high volume weight, may contain excess salt, need time to be composted, becomes easily waterlogged |
| Biochar and hydrochar | Solid material derived from biomass pyrolysis or biomass hydrolysis | Production energy-neutral, helps with carbon sequestration, biologically very stable, wet material can be used for hydrochar; hydrochar has low electric conductivity | Properties vary dependent on feedstock (biochar), high production costs, biochar often has high pH, can be dusty |