Chapter 9: Results of using Greywaters on Scaly Buttons and Small Vanilla Lilies
9.2 Growth Results for Scaly Buttons
The effects of the various treatments applied to the Scaly Buttons on growth were examined by:
Counting the number of flower heads.
Determining the dry weights of the foliage.
Determining the dry weights of the roots.
Measuring the longest stem of each plant in a pot.
9.2.1 Number of flower heads
As the plants grew and produced flower heads it was obvious from a casual inspection which of the plants were being treated with M/Gro, SHU/2, and to a lesser extent SHU/5. The results are displayed in Figure 9.1 below, and the following observations were made:
The seven treatments without added urine or plant food i.e. Water, ECDR, Shower, ECTW, CPTW, CPDR, and CPTW Shower, averaged between 29 (ECDR) and 76 (CPTW) flower heads per pot. Combined statistical
comparison of all seven results showed no significant difference (p = 0.214).
M/Gro produced an average of 595 flower heads per pot, followed by SHU/2 (343) and SHU/5 (162). Difference between the three results was statistically significant (p <0.001).
Water and M/Gro results indicate that on average the use of Miracle-Gro® all purpose plant food increased the number of flower heads per pot by 926%.
Results of Shower, SHU/2, and SHU/5 treatments indicate that the addition of 0.5% v/v urine to shower water (SHU/2) increased the number of flower heads per pot by 472%, and addition of 0.2% v/v urine (SHU/5) by 170%.
Total wash CPTW averaged 77% more flower heads than deep rinse CPDR (p
= 0.093), whereas total wash ECTW averaged 69% more than deep rinse ECDR (p = 0.200).
Phosphate containing CPTW averaged 55% more flower heads than phosphate free ECTW (p = 0.169).
Scaly Buttons (Flower Heads)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
SHU/5 ECDR Water Shower ECTW CPTW CPDR M/Gro CPTW Shower
SHU/2
Treatment
Number of Flower Heads
Figure 9.1 – Scaly Buttons (Flower Heads) – Average number of Flower Heads per Pot per Treatment (Error bars indicate one Standard Deviation)
9.2.2 Dry weights of the foliage
The pattern of results for the dry weights of the foliage is very similar to that obtained for the number of flower heads, which can be seen by comparing Figure 9.2 with Figure 9.1. The results for dry foliage weight for each treatment are shown in Figure 9.2, and show the following:
The average dry weights of foliage produced by the seven treatments Water, ECDR, Shower, ECTW, CPTW, CPDR, and CPTW Shower, ranged from 4.6g (ECDR) to 7.5g (CPTW), however the difference between all seven results was not statistically significant (p = 0.537).
M/Gro treatment gave the highest average foliage dry weight per pot of 55.2g, followed by SHU/2 (29.3g), and SHU/5 (15.4g). Difference between the three results was statistically significant (p < 0.001).
M/Gro and Water treatment results show that on average the use of the plant food increased the foliage dry weight per pot by 736%.
SHU/2 produced 397% more foliage dry weight than Shower water, and SHU/5 produced 161% more. Both results statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Total wash CPTW averaged 46% more foliage dry weight than deep rinse CPDR (p = 0.183), whereas total wash ECTW produced 36% more than deep rinse ECDR (p = 0.188).
Phosphate containing CPTW averaged 18.6% more foliage dry weight than phosphate free ECTW (p = 0.464).
Scaly Buttons (Foliage)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SHU/5 ECDR Water Shower ECTW CPTW CPDR M/Gro CPTW Shower
SHU/2
Treatment
Foliage Dry Weight (g)
Figure 9.2 – Scaly Buttons (Foliage) – Average Dry Weights (g) of Foliage per Pot per Treatment (Error bars indicate one Standard Deviation)
9.2.3 Dry weights of roots
The results obtained by weighing the dry roots are shown in Figure 9.3, and the following observations were made:
The average dry weights of roots produced by the eight treatments Water, ECDR, Shower, ECTW, CPTW, CPDR, CPTW Shower, and the urine containing SHU/5, ranged from 5.4g (CPTW Shower) to 8.2g (Water), however the difference between all eight results was not statistically significant (p = 0.087).
M/Gro was still the standout treatment producing roots with an average dry weight per pot of 20.2g, which was more than twice that of the next heaviest i.e. SHU/2 with 9.6g.
The differences between SHU/2 and the remaining treatments were
considerably less for root weights than for the number of flower heads, and foliage weights.
Results due to M/Gro and Water treatments indicate that on average the use of the plant food increased the dry root weight by 145%.
The addition of 0.5% v/v urine to shower water increased the average dry root weight by almost 24%, but addition of 0.2% v/v urine resulted in less than 1%
increase over that produced by Shower. Difference in results between the three treatments was not statistically significant (p = 0.175).
Total wash CPTW averaged 19% more dry root weight than deep rinse CPDR (p = 0.402), whereas ECTW averaged 30% more than ECDR (p = 0.112).
Phosphate free ECTW averaged 13.9% more dry root weight than phosphate containing CPTW (p = 0.401).
Scaly Buttons (Roots)
0 5 10 15 20 25
SHU/5 ECDR Water Shower ECTW CPTW CPDR M/Gro CPTW Shower
SHU/2
Treatment
Roots Dry Weight (g)
Figure 9.3 – Scaly Buttons (Roots) – Average Dry Weights (g) of Roots per Pot per Treatment (Error bars indicate one Standard Deviation)
9.2.4 Stem Length Sum (SLS)
This method involved measuring the longest stem from each of the four plants in a pot and adding the four measurements together to obtain the Stem Length Sum (SLS) per pot. The SLS results are shown in Figure 9.4, and the following observations were made:
The average SLS results produced by the seven treatments Water, ECDR, Shower, ECTW, CPTW, CPDR, and CPTW Shower, ranged from 463 mm
(ECDR) to 568 mm (ECTW), however the difference between all seven results was not statistically significant (p = 0.554).
The lowest results were due to ECDR (463mm) and Water (492mm).
M/Gro treatment produced the largest average SLS per pot of 948mm, followed by SHU/2 (753mm) and SHU/5 (680mm). Difference between the three results was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
M/Gro and Water results indicate an average increase in SLS of 93% due to the addition of plant food.
The results for the three treatments SHU/2, SHU/5, and Shower, indicate a 43% average increase in SLS due to adding 0.5% v/v urine (p = 0.001), and a 29% increase due to adding 0.2% v/v urine (p = 0.021).
SHU/2 averaged 10.7% more SLS than SHU/5 (p = 0.085)
Total wash CPTW averaged 10% more SLS than deep rinse CPDR (p = 0.454), whereas ECTW averaged 23% more than ECDR (p = 0.155).
Phosphate free ECTW averaged 1.8% more SLS than phosphate containing CPTW (p = 0.876).
The SLS results do not show as great differences between the highest and lowest results as shown by the foliage dry weights.
Scaly Buttons (Stems)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
SHU/5 ECDR Water Shower ECTW CPTW CPDR M/Gro CPTW Shower
SHU/2 Treatment
Stem Length Sum (mm)
Figure 9.4 – Scaly Buttons (Stems) – Average Stem Length Sums (mm) per Pot per Treatment (Error bars indicate one Standard Deviation)
9.2.5 Photographs of two harvested Scaly Buttons
The following photographs (Figure 9.5) and (Figure 9.6) of Scaly Buttons removed from a SHU/2 treated pot L19, and a Shower treated pot L7 show the differences in flower heads, foliage growth, stem lengths, and roots due to the addition of 0.5% v/v urine to shower water (SHU/2). The roots are positioned as if still attached
Figure 9.5 – Scaly Buttons (Harvested) grown with SHU/2 treatment
Figure 9.6 – Scaly Buttons (Harvested) grown with Shower treatment
9.2.6 Growth measurements during the growing period
The Stem Length Sum (SLS) for each pot was determined on three occasions during the growth period, and when the plants were harvested. The harvest results have already been discussed in Section 9.2.4. The Average SLS results for the four measuring occasions are shown in Figure 9.7.
Application of the treatment solutions began on April 9, 2008 and within four weeks the M/Gro and SHU/2 treated samples showed increased average stem growth, whereas SHU/5 had similar stem growth to the total wash waters CPTW and ECTW.
At twelve weeks SHU/5 produced more average stem growth than CPTW and ECTW.
Overall to harvest time M/Gro produced the longest stem growth, followed by SHU/2 and then SHU/5, and of the seven treatments which did not contain added urine or plant food, the two total wash waters CPTW and ECTW produced slightly greater stem lengths than the other five treatments.
Scaly Buttons (Stems)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
SHU/5 ECDR Water Shower ECTW CPTW CPDR M/Gro CPTW Shower
SHU/2
Treatment
Stem Length Sum (mm)
12/5/08. 4/7/08. 10/9/08. Harvest
Figure 9.7 – Scaly Buttons (Stems) – Average Stem Length Sums (mm) per Pot per Treatment as determined on four occasions (Error bars indicate one Standard Deviation)
9.2.7 Early photographs of two Scaly Buttons
The following photographs (Figure 9.8 and Figure 9.9) of Scaly Buttons in a M/Gro treated pot P13 and a Water treated pot P7 show a typical difference in stem growth that had resulted from applying Miracle-Gro® all purpose plant food (M/Gro) for almost 12 weeks.
Figure 9.8 – Scaly Buttons grown with M/Gro treatment (Early growth)
Figure 9.9 – Scaly Buttons grown with Water treatment (Early growth)