Cytoplant 400 on melon

Test to evaluate biostimulant efficacy of Cytoplant-400

in open air melon crop
SICOP – Year 2015
1. Materials and methods (I):
1.1 Crop:
 Location: Torrepacheco (Murcia, Spain)
 Crop: Melon (Cucumis melo)
 Variety: Mural (toad skin)
 Transplant date: 29/03/2014
 Planting density: 0.44 plants/m2
 Planting framework: 1.20 x 1.90 m
 Irrigation system: Drip irrigation
 Cropping system: Open air Photo 1.- Partial view of the test.
 Planting system: Seedbed sowing and open field transplanting

1.2 Objective:
Evaluate the product Cytoplant 400 as a growth biostimulant in melon crops,
evaluate earliness, fruits and production by plot, as well as calibre.
1. Materials and methods (II):
1.3 Location:

Photo 2. Global location of the test.

Photo 3. Aerial view of the test location.

1. Materials and methods (III):
1.4 Study conditions:
 Plots distributed at random.
 4 repetitions per test area (including the control).
 Start date: 14/05/2015 (with first adult females w/o fruit set – BBCH 61)
 Second application: 7 days after the 1st (BBCH 62).
 3 harvests: 19/06/15 – 23/06/15 – 30/06/15.
 Additions of N, P2O5 y K2O according to crop needs.
 Two maintenance applications of Cepsul 80 were made at a dose of 20
kg/ha during the test. These were applied on 18/05/2015 and 25/05/2015.

1.5 Treatments and outline:

Product Dosage
T1 CONTROL ---
T2 Cytoplant 400 1 l/ha
1. Materials and methods (III):
1.6 Applications:
 Two foliar applications: motorized backpack MARUYAMA at 4 atmospheres.
 Mixture volume: 548.25 l/ha in both applications.

1.7 Evaluation methodology:

 Nº fruits/plot: The fruits harvested from each plot were counted in each
evaluation.
 Production/plot: Fruits counted on each plot are weighed.
 Earliness: Early harvest in the production based on the data gathered in the
previous parameters.
 Phytotoxicity: Phytotoxicity of the products was evaluated via visual inspection.
2.1 Results: Nº commercial fruits
Nº fruits per harvest
40
36
35 34
33

30

25 24
23

20

15 14

10

0
1st harvest 2nd harvest 3rd harvest
T1-Control T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha
2.2 Results: Nº commercial fruits
Average Nº fruits per plot
10.00
9.00
9.00 8.50
7.94
8.00

7.00
6.00
6.00 5.75

5.00

4.00
2.89
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
1st harvest (*) 2nd harvest 3rd harvest
T1-Control T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha

(*) Transformation of the square root of (n+0.5) has been applied

2.3 Results: commercial fruit weight
Weight of commercial fruit per harvest
120
107.03
104.2
100 95.92

80
67.05 65.22

60

41.3
40

20

0
1st harvest 2nd harvest 3rd harvest
T1-Control T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha
2.4 Results: commercial fruit weight
Total weight commercial fruit per treatment (in kg)
300
276.44

250

204.27
200

150

100

50

0
T1-Control T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha
2.5 Economic yield (kg/ha)
Yield per hectare (kg/ha)

T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha kg/ha

35.3
T1- Control %
kg/ha

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

2.6 Economic yield (€/ha)
(*) Economic yield (€/ha)

T2-CYTOPLANT 1 l/ha 12124.76

€
T1- Testigo 8959.19
3,165

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

(*) Yield calculated at € 0.40 /kg (melon price in the test region for this
campaign)
3. Conclusions

According to the results obtained and the test conditions:

 Nº fruits/earliness:
• Cytoplant 400 at a dose of 1 l/ha achieves early harvest and greater
number of harvested fruits.

 Production/yield:
• The main differences are observed in the the total number of fruits
achieved, which indicates that the tested products influence fruit set.
• Cytoplant 400 at a dose of 1 l/ha achieves 35% increase compared to
control.