This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 14 November 2014, At: 13:31Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compost Science & UtilizationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucsu20

Production and Interior Performancesof Tropical Ornamental Foliage PlantsGrown in Container Substrates Amendedwith CompostsJianjun Chenab, Dennis B. McConnellb, Cynthia A. Robinsona, RussellD. Caldwella & Yingfeng Huanga

a University of Florida, IFAS, Mid-Florida Research and EducationCenter, Apopka, Floridab University of Florida, IFAS, Department of EnvironmentalHorticulture, Gainesville, FloridaPublished online: 23 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Jianjun Chen, Dennis B. McConnell, Cynthia A. Robinson, Russell D. Caldwell& Yingfeng Huang (2002) Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental FoliagePlants Grown in Container Substrates Amended with Composts, Compost Science & Utilization, 10:3,217-225, DOI: 10.1080/1065657X.2002.10702083

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2002.10702083

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002 217

Compost Science & Utilization, (2002), Vol. 10, No.3, 217-225

Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental Foliage Plants Grown in

Container Substrates Amended with Composts

Jianjun Chen1,2, Dennis B. McConnell2, Cynthia A. Robinson1, Russell D. Caldwell1 and Yingfeng Huang1

1. University of Florida, IFAS, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, Florida

2. University of Florida, IFAS, Department of Environmental Horticulture, Gainesville, Florida

Three representative Florida composts were mixed by volume with sphagnum peatand pine bark to formulate 12 container substrates. After physical and chemical char-acterization, the substrates, along with a control, were used to grow containerizedCordyline terminalis ‘Baby Doll’, Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’, and Dracaena fragans‘Massangeana’ cane. All substrates were able to produce marketable plants, but onlyfive or seven, depending on plant genus, of the 12 compost-formulated substrates re-sulted in plants comparable or superior to those of the control substrate. The five alsohad substrate shrinkage equal to or less than the control. Plants were then moved toan interior evaluation site to determine the suitability of compost-formulated sub-strates in sustaining foliage plant growth under an interior environment. During a six-month interior evaluation, the plants maintained their aesthetic appearances. Based onplant growth parameters and quality ratings as well as substrate shrinkage both in pro-duction and interior evaluation, five of 12 compost-formulated substrates were iden-tified to be equal or superior to the control. This study showed that the three composts,after being appropriately mixed with sphagnum peat and pine bark, can be used ascontainer substrates in every phase of tropical foliage plant production and utilization.

Introduction

Tropical ornamental foliage plants are defined as those with attractive foliageand/or flowers that are produced in container substrates under shade in greenhousesor other structures and used primarily for interior decoration or interior plantscaping(Chen et al. 2002). A distinct difference between foliage and other ornamental plantproductions, therefore, is that marketable foliage plants produced will be maintainedunder interior environments from several months to several years. As a result, sub-strates used for foliage plant production must be capable of sustaining aestheticallypleasing plant growth under interior conditions for the same period of time. The oth-er common characteristic of foliage plants is six months to a year of production time,during which the pH of the container substrates may drop from 6 or 7 to 4 or 5. Sub-strate acidification may cause phytotoxicity, especially from heavy metals and boron(Joiner 1981; Sanderson 1980).

Florida leads the nation in containerized foliage plant production. According tothe USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, the national wholesale value of fo-liage plants in 2000 was $574 million with Florida accounting for $394 million (USDA,2001). Almost all foliage plants are exclusively produced in soilless substrates, withsphagnum peat (SP) and pine bark (PB) as the two major components. Peat is part ofthe wetland ecosystem, and scientists have raised great concerns about possible detri-mental effects of peat harvesting (Barber 1993; Barkham 1993; Buckland 1993). Addi-tionally, peat prices increase as supplies decrease (Sanderson 1980). Composts have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Jianjun Chen, Dennis B. McConnell, Cynthia A. Robinson, Russell D. Caldwell and Yingfeng Huang

218 Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002

been proposed as alternative substitutes for peat in containerized plant production(Bugbee and Frink 1989; Sanderson 1980).

Florida is also a leading state in the nation in generating municipal solidwaste (MSW), biosolids (BS), and yard trimmings (YT) (Goldstein 1997). Most ofthese waste materials can be converted into environmentally safe composts(Smith 1994). The use of composts as components of substrates for containerizedfoliage plant production could reduce peat use and recycle part of Florida’s or-ganic wastes. Composts from MSW or YT have been used as components of sub-strates for the production of foliage plants (Conover and Poole 1990; Fitzpatrick1998; McConnell and Shiralipour 1991). These studies, however, only used onesource of compost at a time, and physical and chemical properties of compost-formulated substrates were not well characterized. Furthermore, foliage plantsproduced using those compost-formulated substrates were not evaluated underinterior conditions.

The objectives of this study were to formulate container substrates using three rep-resentative composts from Florida, determine physical and chemical properties ofcompost-formulated substrates, use the substrates in foliage plant production, andevaluate the suitability of compost-formulated substrates in supporting foliage plantgrowth under interior conditions.

Materials and Methods

Composts and Compost-Formulated Substrates

Three representative Florida composts were mixed using a blender in volu-metric combinations with sphagnum peat and pine bark (Fafard, Inc., Apopka,

Florida) to obtain 12 sub-strates as described (Table 1).The composts were derivedfrom (1) aerobically digest-ed and windrow-curedMSW/BS, two parts MSWmixed with one part BSbased on weight (SumterCounty Solid Waste Facility,Florida), (2) windrow-com-posted YT (ConsolidatedResource Recovery, Saraso-ta, Florida), and (3) in-vesselcomposted YT/BS, threeparts YT mixed with twoparts BS based on weight(AllGro, Inc. , West PalmBeach, Florida). A commonindustry substrate, UF-2[(Poole et al. 1981), Universi-ty of Florida container sub-strate 2] composed of 50%SP and 50% PB, was used asa control.

TABLE 1. Components of container substrates in volumetric

percentage formulated by mixing composts derivedfrom municipal solid waste (MSW) with biosolids (BS),

yard trimmings (YT), and/or YT with BS withsphagnum peat (SP) and pine bark (PB).

Percentage

Substrate MSW/BSz YT YT/BSz SP PB

1 20 40 40

2 50 25 25

3 80 10 10

4 20 40 40

5 50 25 25

6 80 10 10

7 20 40 40

8 50 25 25

9 80 10 10

10 12 12 12 32 32

11 20 20 20 20 20

12 28 28 28 8 8

13 (control) 50 50

zMSW/BS was two parts MSW with one-part BS, and YT/BS was threeparts YT with two parts BS, based on weight.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental Foliage Plants Grown in Container Substrates Amended with Composts

Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002 219

Physical and Chemical Property Determination

Bulk density, organic matter, capillary pore space, water retention capacity, sat-urated hydraulic conductivity, pH, and electrical conductivity (EC) of 13 substratesin triplicate were determined by Agro Services International, Inc. (Orange City, Flori-da), based on the published USGA Green Section Procedures (USGA Green SectionRecord. Mar./Apr. 1993 and 1994 revisions). Cation exchange capacity (CEC), car-bon to nitrogen ratio (C/N ratio), and concentrations of mineral elements includingN, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mo, Al, Cd, Co, Na, Cr, Ni, and Pb were determinedby Fafard Analytical Service (Athens, Georgia). A sequential extraction proceduredescribed by He et al. (1995) was used to determine the speciation of trace elementsin compost-formulated substrates.

Foliage Plant Production

Uniform cuttings of Cordyline terminalis (L.) ‘Baby Doll’ and Dracaena fragrans (L.)‘Massangeana’ cane as well as tissue culture-propagated liners of Dieffenbachia macu-lata (Lodd.) ‘Camille’ were planted singly into 15-cm containers individually filledwith the 13 substrates. All plants were grown in a shaded glasshouse at a maximumphotosynthetically active radiation (PAR) of 284 µmol m-2 s-1, relative humidity from60 to 90%, and temperatures ranging from 25 to 35o C. Plants were watered twice aweek through overhead irrigation. Two weeks after planting, 5 g of a controlled-re-lease fertilizer, 18N-2.6P-10K (Osmocote 18-6-12, The Scotts Co., Marysville, OH), wereapplied to the surface of each container.

The experiment was arranged as a completely randomized design with 10 replica-tions. Plant growth was closely monitored, including daily inspection for growth disor-ders and disease incidence. After attaining marketable sizes, plant height and widthswere measured. A growth index (GI) was calculated based as GI = [(canopy widest width+ width perpendicular) � 2] x plant height. Plants were also graded visually for overallquality, as described by Stamps and Evans (1999), where: 1 = poor, 2 = substandard/un-salable, 3 = good/salable, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent. Substrate shrinkage, the per-centage of decreased depth of substrate relative to the original depth, was determined.Leachates were collected using the pour through method (Yeager et al. 1983), and pH andEC of the leachates were determined. Five of the 10 replicates were harvested by cuttingshoots at the substrate surface, and shoot fresh weights were determined.

Interior Evaluation

The remaining five replicates of each treatment were then placed in rooms designedand used for evaluating interior plant performance. Plants grew under a PAR of 16 µmolm-2 s-1 provided by cool-white fluorescent lamps with 12-hour lighting daily, relativehumidity ranging from 50 to 60%, and temperatures between 21 to 24°C. Plants werewatered weekly with no fertilizer application. Six months later, plant canopy height andwidths were recorded. After overall quality grading, shoots were harvested and freshweights determined. In addition, substrate shrinkage was measured.

Data Analysis

Chemical and physical properties, substrate shrinkage, plant growth index, over-all quality rating, and plant fresh weights were analyzed separately by species using

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Jianjun Chen, Dennis B. McConnell, Cynthia A. Robinson, Russell D. Caldwell and Yingfeng Huang

220 Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002

the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Inc. 1992, Cary, NC). Where significant(P < 0.05) difference occurred within a measured parameter, means were separated us-ing Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Differences at the 5% level.

Results and Discussion

Physical and Chemical Properties of Substrates

As the percentage of composts in the peat and bark-based substrates increased,there was a linear increase in bulk density but a decrease in organic matter (Table 2).Water retention at field capacity (% dry weight) greatly decreased when the increasedproportions of compost were derived from YT or YT/BS but was not affected by thepercentage of compost derived from MSW/BS. Noncapillary and capillary pore spacesand saturated hydraulic conductivity, a measure of a substrate’s ability to transmit wa-ter in a water-saturated state, were not directly affected by increased percentages ofcomposts in the substrates. Although compost percentages affected some measuredparameters, physical properties of the substrates were generally within the recom-mended ranges for production of foliage plants and other ornamental plants (Poole etal. 1981; Rynk et al. 1992).

The pH, EC, and CEC increased as the compost percentage in substrates increased(Table 3). The C/N ratio of substrates ranged from 13.2 to 27.8, suggesting that mostsubstrates were within maturity range since composts with C/N ratio 25 or less areconsidered to be mature (Ozores-Hampton et al. 1998). Five substrates (3, 8, 9, 11 and12) had EC readings higher than 3.0 dS m-1, the upper limit for most foliage plant pro-duction. The higher EC readings were not only associated with increased compost per-centages, but also with composts that were derived from materials containing BSand/or MSW as the original MSW/BS and YT/BS derived composts had EC readings

TABLE 2. Physical properties of container substrates formulated with composts from three Florida

facilities, each volumetrically combined with sphagnum peat and pine barkz.

Bulk Density Water-Retention at Organic Noncapillary Capillary Saturated Hydraulic Substratey (g cm-3) Field Capacity (%) Matter (%) Pore Space (%) Pore Space (%) Conductivity (cm/hr)

1 0.24x 156.7 91.5 29.5 37.2 72.9

2 0.29 163.0 77.3 35.2 47.6 70.4

3 0.34 160.3 68.2 27.3 55.1 85.6

4 0.28 185.0 78.1 27.6 51.6 123.7

5 0.44 115.7 64.2 27.5 50.9 81.3

6 0.55 92.0 31.7 23.5 51.1 89.7

7 0.24 213.7 85.9 32.1 50.2 100.8

8 0.32 180.3 79.7 20.3 56.7 81.3

9 0.42 137.7 76.9 22.9 57.6 85.6

10 0.26 222.3 74.4 21.6 58.7 62.7

11 0.36 151.3 59.9 26.8 53.6 80.5

12 0.46 123.7 48.7 20.5 57.0 70.4

13 0.22 158.0 95.1 37.9 35.2 82.0

LSD(0.05) 0.14 36.4 20.5 10.9 16.6 32.8

zAnalyzed by Agro Services International, Inc., Orange City, FL. The analyses were based on published USGA GreenSection Procedures (USGA Green Section Record. Mar./Apr. 1993 and 1994 revisions). Each sample had three replicates. ySee Table 1 for substrate components. xMean separation in column by Fishers LSD, P ≤ 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental Foliage Plants Grown in Container Substrates Amended with Composts

Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002 221

of 7.0 and 11.1 dS m-1, respectively, compared to the 3.5 dS m-1 of YT derived compost(Chen et al. 2001). Caution should be taken, however, when dealing with EC becausedifferent solution extraction methods result in different EC readings (Huang et al.2000). The referred EC in this study was measured using a method similar to the sat-urated media extract (Lucas et al. 1972).

Extractable N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, and Zn increased as compost proportion in-creased; other elements tested: Al, Cd, Co, Cr, Pb, Mo, and Ni were below the EPA’spermissible heavy metal loading ranges (USEPA 1993) (data not shown). The two el-ements boron (B) and sulfur (S), however, were listed in Table 3, because B in substrate9 was 10.5 mg kg-1, and S in substrates 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, and 12 was over 100 mg kg-1. Theselevels are considered detrimental to foliage plants.

Foliage Plant Production

Growth indices, fresh weights, and overall quality ratings of Cordyline terminalis‘Baby Doll’, Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’, and Dracaena fragrans ‘Massangeana’ canevaried significantly with substrates (Table 4). Substrates that produced Cordyline com-parable to or better than the control in growth indices and fresh weights were 1, 4, 7and 10. Substrates resulting in growth indices and fresh weights of Dieffenbachia andDracaena equal or superior to the control were 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10. Analyzing sub-strate physical and chemical properties in relation to plant growth parameters re-vealed no measured physical properties correlated with these plant growth parame-ters (Table 2); however, common chemical characteristics among these substrates weretheir initial low EC readings (≤ 3.0 dS m-1) and low S or B concentrations (Table 3).

Sequential extraction of substrates using water, KCl, Na4P2O7, NaOH, and HNO3indicated that approximately 60% and 70% of B and S, respectively, were water, KCl,and Na4P2O7 extractable (Chen et al. 2001). This suggests that B and S were leachablefrom the substrates, and leaching has been shown to reduce EC readings of these com-

TABLE 3. Chemical characteristics of container substrates formulated with composts from three Florida

facilities, each volumetrically combined with sphagnum peat and pine barkz.

EC CEC N C C/N B SSubstratey pH (dS m-1) (meq 100g-1) (%) (%) ratio (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)

1 3.8x 0.8 13.2 1.8 23.8 13.2 1.3 56.3

2 6.7 2.7 18.7 1.5 28.0 18.7 3.5 198.0

3 7.9 5.3 27.5 1.1 30.6 27.8 5.9 526.3

4 4.4 0.5 21.5 1.1 26.5 24.1 0.9 30.0

5 5.8 1.7 22.9 1.2 27.8 23.2 1.3 68.3

6 6.9 2.9 24.9 1.3 30.4 23.4 1.6 73.3

7 5.1 1.3 16.8 1.7 28.2 16.6 1.2 72.3

8 5.7 5.8 18.1 1.7 30.4 17.8 4.4 418.3

9 6.8 9.1 22.0 2.0 36.4 18.2 10.5 581.3

10 4.6 1.4 20.0 1.4 33.7 24.0 1.5 96.7

11 5.9 3.5 22.8 1.4 34.5 24.6 2.9 308.7

12 7.2 4.9 25.4 1.5 35.7 23.8 4.3 495.7

13 3.7 0.2 14.3 1.7 24.3 14.3 0.7 36.3

LSD(0.05) 1.6 0.9 10.5 NS NS 8.6 6.8 98.7

zpH and EC were analyzed by Agro Services International, Inc., Orange City, FL, and other parameters were analyzed byFafard Analytical Service, Athens, GA. Each sample had three replicates. ySee Table 1 for substrate components. xMeanseparation in column by Fishers LSD, P ≤ 0.05; NSNonsignificant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Jianjun Chen, Dennis B. McConnell, Cynthia A. Robinson, Russell D. Caldwell and Yingfeng Huang

222 Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002

post-formulated substrates (Huang et al. 2001). Comparing initial EC reading (Table 3)to those read at the end of production (Table 5) revealed that irrigation and plant up-take during production reduced EC and pH levels (Table 5). Thus, those plants withgrowth indices and fresh weights that were inferior to those of the control could be at-tributed to the initial high EC and/or B and S in the substrates. Although growth in-

TABLE 4. Growth index, fresh weight, and overall quality of Cordyline terminalis ‘Baby Doll’,

Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’, and Dracaena fragans ‘Massangeana’ cane produced incontainer substrates formulated with composts from three Florida facilities, each

volumetrically combined with sphagnum peat and pine bark.

Cordyline terminalis Dieffenbachia maculata Dracaena fragansSubstratez GIy FWx QRw GI FW QR GI FW QR

1 2042v 75 5.0 1207 194 4.8 150 163 4.9

2 1401 53 4.8 1113 166 4.7 141 130 3.9

3 1283 45 4.1 840 141 4.3 103 105 4.0

4 1999 70 4.9 1326 228 5.0 182 158 4.8

5 1856 65 5.0 1245 200 4.8 169 150 4.7

6 1432 56 4.0 1090 162 3.7 132 128 3.6

7 2246 88 5.0 1300 236 4.8 166 158 5.0

8 1368 56 4.0 1010 155 4.6 125 117 4.3

9 1223 50 3.5 863 135 3.7 109 101 3.5

10 1869 77 4.9 1249 215 4.8 160 179 4.9

11 1415 56 4.2 1047 148 4.3 121 118 4.1

12 1391 53 3.9 932 140 4.3 118 106 4.0

13 1759 70 5.0 1261 187 4.9 149 138 4.8LSD(0.05) 313 13 0.8 202 29 0.6 21 19 0.7

zSee Table 1 for substrate components. yGrowth index (cm2) calculated according to GI = [(canopy widest width + widthperpendicular) ÷ 2] x plant height. xFresh weight (g). wQuality rating based on: 1 = poor, 2 = substandard/unsalable, 3 =good/salable, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent. vMean separation in column by Fishers LSD, P ≤ 0.05.

TABLE 5. Electrical conductivity (dS m-1), pH, and shrinkage (% of initial depth) of compost-formulated

substrates at the conclusion of the production phase of Cordyline terminalis ‘Baby Doll’,Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’, and Dracaena fragans ‘Massangeana’ cane.

Cordyline terminalis Dieffenbachia maculata Dracaena fragansSubstratez pH EC SKy pH EC SK pH EC SK

1 4.0x 0.6 12.4 5.1 0.5 11.4 4.4 0.6 7.8

2 5.4 1.0 26.9 5.6 0.8 30.7 5.0 0.9 23.1

3 6.2 1.5 34.6 6.2 1.2 42.3 6.1 1.1 42.3

4 4.0 0.5 11.5 4.9 0.4 12.5 5.1 0.5 11.5

5 5.2 0.8 13.5 3.6 0.6 16.0 5.5 0.6 12.4

6 5.8 1.0 27.7 5.9 0.8 37.6 6.0 1.0 23.1

7 4.9 0.6 15.4 4.5 0.7 10.6 4.5 0.6 7.6

8 5.1 0.9 34.6 5.9 1.0 23.8 4.9 0.8 26.9

9 6.0 1.2 37.7 4.9 1.2 38.5 6.2 1.5 35.4

10 4.3 0.5 15.4 5.6 0.6 14.6 5.5 0.5 13.2

11 5.0 0.9 25.2 6.0 0.9 25.4 5.7 0.7 25.4

12 5.6 1.3 38.5 4.6 1.3 42.3 6.0 1.1 28.4

13 3.8 0.4 15.4 4.0 0.4 15.4 4.2 0.5 15.4

LSD(0.05) 1.4 0.5 9.0 1.2 0.6 7.8 1.1 0.6 9.2

zSee Table 1 for substrate components. ySK = Shrinkage. xMean separation in column by Fishers LSD, P ≤ 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental Foliage Plants Grown in Container Substrates Amended with Composts

Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002 223

dices and fresh weights were significantly reduced for those plants produced in sub-strates with high initial EC and S or B, plants were still salable since their overall qual-ity ratings were higher than 3 (Table 4).

Shrinkage, the loss of bulk volume in container substrates (Nash and Pokorny1990), has been another concern when composts are used as components of substratesfor containerized plant production. By the end of plant production, substrates hadshrunk ranging from 7.6% to 42.3% (Table 5). As the percentage of compost in the sub-strates increased so did shrinkage. Substrates with severe shrinkage problems suggestthe presence of organic matter with a rapid decomposition rate, which reduces not onlyaeration and drainage of substrates but also the aesthetic appearance of foliage plantsas a whole. It is generally believed that substrates with 15% or less shrinkage are ac-ceptable in foliage plant production. The control substrate had about 15% shrinkage.Substrates that shrank less than or comparable to the control were 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10.These substrates also produced Cordyline, Dieffenbachia, and Dracaena comparable orsuperior to the control (Table 4).

Foliage Plant Interior Performance

The growth indices and fresh weights of Dracaena fragans ‘Massangeana’ and Cordy-line terminalis ‘Baby Doll’ increased markedly during the interior evaluation (Table 6).However, Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’ requires higher light levels than Cordyline andDracaena, and only minimal growth occurred although plant quality was maintained. Nodisease was observed; no detectable odors were released from the substrates, and no fur-ther substrate shrinkage occurred during the six-month interior evaluation period.

The indoor environments where foliage plants are maintained differ greatly fromproduction environments (Manaker 1997). Well-acclimatized, high quality foliageplants may perform poorly indoors due to physiological drought created by high sol-

TABLE 6. Growth index, fresh weight, and overall quality of Cordyline terminalis ‘Baby Doll’,

Dieffenbachia maculata ‘Camille’, and Dracaena fragans ‘Massangeana’ cane grown in compost-formulated substrates after six months in interior evaluation rooms.

Cordyline terminalis Dieffenbachia maculata Dracaena fragansSubstratez GIy FWx QRw GI FW QR GI FW QR

1 3063v 134 4.8 1326 206 4.8 303 343 4.8

2 2565 107 4.6 1206 165 4.6 265 253 3.9

3 2354 89 3.4 1024 155 4.0 266 235 3.9

4 2890 135 4.9 1256 214 4.7 324 266 4.7

5 2458 122 4.6 1302 199 4.5 295 233 4.6

6 2059 99 3.5 1024 135 3.6 263 242 3.5

7 3257 121 4.8 1405 235 4.7 277 275 4.7

8 2195 116 4.0 1129 199 4.3 271 215 4.6

9 1990 90 3.1 1010 179 3.2 263 220 3.5

10 2709 127 4.7 1352 213 4.5 282 259 4.8

11 2246 105 4.0 1126 169 4.0 260 224 4.5

12 1959 106 3.4 1022 158 3.6 266 243 4.0

13 2549 118 4.5 1354 212 3.4 250 237 4.5

LSD(0.05) 412 29 0.8 309 52 0.8 NS 65 0.9

zSee Table 1 for substrate components. yGrowth index (cm2) calculated according to GI = [(canopy widest width + widthperpendicular) ÷ 2] x plant height. xFresh weight (g). wQuality rating based on: 1 = poor, 2 = substandard/unsalable, 3 =good/salable, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent. vMean separation in column by Fishers LSD, P ≤ 0.05; NSNonsignificant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

uble salts in substrates and/or phytotoxicity caused by element accumulation underlow light and low relative humidity conditions (Conover and Poole 1984). Comparingthe quality ratings graded before (Table 4) and after six months in an interior envi-ronment (Table 6), overall quality decreased slightly, but plant aesthetic appearanceswere still maintained. These results demonstrate that three Florida composts, after be-ing appropriately mixed with sphagnum peat and pine bark, not only produced sal-able foliage plants in production, but also sustain the quality of the plants under inte-rior conditions over at least six months.

Conclusion

Marketable foliage plants were produced using all compost formulated substrates,but plants exhibiting growth and quality comparable or superior to the control wereCordyline produced in substrates 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10 and Dieffenbachia and Dracaena pro-duced in substrates 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10. In addition to suitable physical properties,common chemical characteristics of these substrates included low initial EC readings(≤ 3.0 dS m-1) and low concentrations of S, B, and other mineral elements. All substratesshrank during the course of plant production. Substrates that shrank equal to or lessthan the control were 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10. Based on plant growth parameters and qualityratings as well as substrate shrinkage, the compost-formulated substrates that per-formed equal or superior to the control were 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10, which were formulatedby combining composted MSW/BS or YT/BS volumetrically at 20% and compostedYT at 50% or less with equal sphagnum peat and pine bark. These five substrates haddesirable physical and chemical properties, produced high quality foliage plants,showed less shrinkage during plant production, and sustained a high degree of plantquality under interior conditions. The use of composts as components of container sub-strates would reduce sphagnum peat use in foliage plant production and promotemarkets for composted organic wastes.

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate AllGro, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida, Consoli-dated Resources Recovery, Sarasota, Florida, and Sumter County Solid Waste Facility,Florida for providing composted materials, Fafard, Inc., Apopka, Florida for provid-ing peat and pine bark for this study, and Kelly Everitt for critical reading of this man-uscript. This research was supported in part by the Center for Biomass Programs, In-stitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This publication is the University of Florida.Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. R-08700.

References

Barber, K.E. 1993. Peatlands as scientific archives of past biodiversity. Biodiv. Conserv., 1:474-489.Barkham, J.P. 1993. For peat’s sake: Conservation or exploration? Biodiv. Conserv., 2:556-566.Buckland, P.C. 1993. Peatland archaeology: a conservation resource on the edge of extinction.

Biodiver. Conserv., 2:513-527.Bugbee, G.J. and C.R. Frink. 1989. Composted waste as a peat substitute in peat-lite media.

HortScience, 24:625-627.Chen, J., R.J. Henny and D.B. McConnell. 2002. Development of new foliage plant cultivars.

pp.446-452. In: Janick, J. (ed.) Trends In New Crops and New Uses. Timber Press, Inc., Port-land, Oregon.

Chen, J., C.A. Robinson, Z. Yang, Y. Huang and R.D. Caldwell. 2001. Physical and chemical char-acterization of three Florida composts. HortScience, 36:540 (Abstract).

Jianjun Chen, Dennis B. McConnell, Cynthia A. Robinson, Russell D. Caldwell and Yingfeng Huang

224 Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Conover, C.A. and R.T. Poole. 1984. Acclimatization of foliage plants. Hort. Rev., 6:119-154.Conover, C.A. and R.T. Poole. 1990. Utilization of Agrisoil compost in production of foliage

plants. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., 103:163-165.Fitzpatrick, G.E., E.R. Duke and K.A. Klock-Moore. 1998. Use of compost products for orna-

mental crop production: Research and grower experiences. HortScience, 33:941-944.Goldstein, N. 1997. The state of garbage in America. BioCycle, 38:60-67.He, X., T.J. Logan and S.J. Traina. 1995. Physical and chemical characteristics of selected U.S. mu-

nicipal solid waste composts. J. Environ. Qual., 24:53-552.Huang, Y., J. Chen, L. Qu, R.D. Caldwell and C.A. Robinson. 2000. Interpretation of soluble

salts and pH of bulk solutions extracted by different methods. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.,133:154-157.

Huang, Y., Z. Yang, J. Chen, C.A. Robinson and R.D. Caldwell. 2001. Leaching reduces heavymetals and soluble salts of composts and compost-formulated substrates. HortScience,36:540 (Abstract).

Joiner, N.J. 1981. Foliage Plant Production. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Lucas, R.E., P.E. Rieke and E.C. Doll. 1972. Soil saturated extract method for determining plant

nutrient levels in peat and other soil mixes. 4th Intl. Peat Congr., 3:221-230. McConnell, D.B. and A. Shiralipour. 1991. Foliage plant growth in potting mixes formulated

with composted yard waste. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., 104:311-313.Manaker, G.H. 1997. Interior plantscapes: Installation, maintenance, and management. 3rd ed. Pren-

tice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Nash, M.A. and F.A. Pokorny. 1990. Shrinkage of selected two-component container media.

HortScience, 25:930-931.Ozores-Hampton, M., T.A. Obreza and G. Hochmuth. 1998. Using composted wastes on Flori-

da vegetable crops. HortTechnology, 8:130-137.Poole, R.T., C.A. Conover and J.N. Joiner. 1981. Soils and potting mixes. pp.179-202. In: Joiner,

J. N. (ed.) Foliage Plant Production. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Rynk, R.M., M. van de Kamp, G.G. Willson, M.E. Singley, T.L.Richard, J.J.Kolega, F.R. Gouin, L.

Laliberty, Jr., D. Kay, D.W. Murphy, H.A.J. Hoitink and W.F. Brinton. 1992. On-farm com-posting handbook. N.E. Reg. Agr. Eng. Serv. Ithaca, New York.

Sanderson, K.C. 1980. Use of sewage-refuse compost in the production of ornamental plants.HortScience, 15:173-178.

Smith, W.H. 1994. Recycling composted organic materials in Florida. University of Florida,Gainesville, BP-2.

Stamps, R.H. and M.R. Evans. 1999. Growth of Dracaena marginata and Spathiphyllum ‘Petite’in sphagnum peat- and coconut coir dust-based growing media. J. Environ. Hort., 17:49-52.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2001. Floriculture Crops 2000 Summary. USDA,Washington, D.C.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Standards for the use or disposalof sewage sludge: final rules 40 CFR parts 257, 403, and 503. Fed. Reg. 58(32):9284-9415.

Yeager, T.H., R. D. Wright and S. J. Donohue. 1983. Comparison of pour-through and saturatedpine bark extract N, P, K, and pH levels. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 108:112-114.

Production and Interior Performances of Tropical Ornamental Foliage Plants Grown in Container Substrates Amended with Composts

Compost Science & Utilization Summer 2002 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:31

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14