Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Plant-Environment Interactions logoLink to Plant-Environment Interactions
. 2026 Aug 3;7(4):e70196. doi: 10.1002/pei3.70196

Impact of Soilless Growing Media on Growth, Yield, Fruit Quality, and Root‐Knot Nematode Incidence of Cucumber Under Protected Cultivation

S K Acharya 1, G S Patel 1, Lalu Prasad Yadav 2,✉, Anand Sahil 3, Prashant Kaushik 4, N K Meena 5, Prakash Mahala 6, Ali Khadivi 7,✉
PMCID: PMC13430664  PMID: 42549157

ABSTRACT

Soilless cultivation has emerged as an effective approach for improving cucumber productivity under protected cultivation by enhancing root‐zone conditions and minimizing soil‐borne constraints. However, the performance of different growing media combinations remains insufficiently understood. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of different growing media on cucumber growth, yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode incidence under protected cultivation. A completely randomized design (CRD) experiment was conducted with 13 different growing media treatments, including soil, perlite, vermiculite, cocopeat, sand, and their combinations. According to the findings, the Vermiculite + Cocopeat in the ratio of 1:1 (T9) combination reduced root‐knot nematode infection while dramatically increasing vine length, fruit set, fruit retention, fruit yield (28.05 kg/m2), and quality metrics. Vine length and yield were found to be strongly positively correlated by correlation analysis, while productivity was negatively correlated with root‐knot infestation. Fruit set, flowering period, and fruit retention all directly increased yield, according to path analysis. Strong genetic control over these variables was shown by estimates of variance components, which showed moderate heritability for fruit set and retention and high heritability (114.18%) for days to flower initiation. However, yield‐related traits exhibited low heritability viz yield per vine (14.24%) and YPP (12.89%), highlighting the significant role of environmental factors. These findings suggest that combination of Vermiculite and Cocopeat is the most suitable growing medium for cucumber cultivation in protected conditions, optimizing yield and reducing disease susceptibility.

Keywords: cocopeat, Cucumis sativus , soilless culture, sustainable horticulture, vermiculite

1. Introduction

Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus L.), a member of the Cucurbitaceae family, is a widely cultivated vegetable crop known for its high economic value and nutritional benefits (Yadav et al. 2019). It is an essential component of protected cultivation systems, where optimal environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, and light availability significantly enhance its growth and productivity (Singh et al. 2017). The adoption of greenhouse and soilless cultivation techniques has gained popularity due to their potential to increase yield, improve fruit quality, and minimize soil‐borne diseases (Albaho et al. 2008; Gashgari et al. 2018; Hussain et al. 2014; Kumar et al. 2022; Mazahreh et al. 2015; Raviv et al. 2008; Sahil, Singh, Yadav, et al. 2026).

Because it affects water retention, nutritional availability, and root development, growing media are essential to the production of cucumbers. Compaction of the soil, inadequate aeration, and vulnerability to root‐knot nematodes and other infections are some of the difficulties associated with traditional soil‐based farming (Dhillon et al. 2022). Root‐knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) are among the most destructive soil‐borne pathogens affecting cucumber production worldwide, particularly under protected cultivation where continuous cropping often leads to a rapid buildup of nematode populations. Infection by Meloidogyne spp. causes root galling, impairs water and nutrient uptake, reduces plant vigor, and results in substantial yield and quality losses. The physical and biological properties of growing media can influence nematode survival, movement, and root infection by altering aeration, moisture availability, and root‐zone conditions. Consequently, selecting suitable soilless substrates may not only improve plant growth and productivity but also reduce root‐knot nematode infestation, contributing to more sustainable cucumber production under protected cultivation. Alternative substrates like sand, perlite, vermiculite, and cocopeat are being used more and more in protected settings to get around these restrictions (Sarkar and Majumder 2019). It has been demonstrated that these soilless media improve nutrient uptake, maximize water use efficiency, and offer a growing environment devoid of pathogens (He et al. 2021).

Previous studies have demonstrated that the physical and hydraulic properties of soilless substrates strongly influence cucumber growth, nutrient uptake, water availability, and root‐zone aeration under protected cultivation. Organic substrates such as cocopeat and inorganic materials including vermiculite and perlite have been widely investigated because of their favorable water‐holding capacity, aeration, and structural stability (Alifar et al. 2010; Ghehsareh and Kalbasi 2012; Ghehsareh et al. 2012; Lizhong et al. 2022; Sahil et al. 2023). However, the comparative performance of different substrate combinations, particularly with respect to plant growth, fruit yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode incidence under naturally ventilated protected cultivation, remains insufficiently understood. One of the most damaging soil‐borne diseases limiting cucumber production is root‐knot nematodes, especially in protected cultivation where frequent cropping and ideal environmental conditions encourage their quick proliferation. Reduced plant vigor, fruit yield, and quality are the results of these nematodes' induction of root galls, which hinder water and nutrient uptake. Nematode establishment and disease severity may be impacted by the physical characteristics of soilless substrates, such as aeration, porosity, moisture retention, and drainage, which directly affect root‐zone conditions and root health. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether various growing media could contribute to better root health and more sustainable cucumber production under protected cultivation, the current study evaluated root‐knot nematode incidence in addition to plant growth, yield, and fruit quality (Wan Shafiin et al. 2021).

Even with soilless cultivations benefits, choosing the best growing medium is still very difficult. Plant growth, yield, and resilience to biotic and abiotic stressors can all be impacted by different substrate combinations. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess how different growing media affect the quality, growth, and yield of cucumbers grown in a protected, naturally ventilated environment. The study aims to provide light on effective and sustainable cucumber production methods by determining the ideal substrate mix.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted during kharif season of 2020 and 2021 on PPC 2 variety of cucumber in naturally ventilated protected structure erected at College Farm, College of Horticulture, SDAU, Jagudan. Experiment consists 13 treatments of different growing media and their combinations on a volume basis (lxwxh) in 2 × 1 × 1 foot bag size viz., T1—Soil, T2—Perlite, T3—Vermiculite, T4—Cocopeat, T5 –Sand, T6—Perlite and Vermiculite (1:1), T7‐ Perlite and Cocopeat (1:1), T8—Perlite and Sand (1:1), T9—Vermiculite + Cocopeat (1:1), T10—Vermiculite and Sand (1:1), T11—Cocopeat and Sand (1:1), T12—Perlite, Vermiculite and Cocopeat (1:1:1) and T13—Perlite, Vermiculite, and Cocopeat and Sand (1:1:1:1). It was laid out in CRD with three repetitions. Fresh growing media were used for all treatments during the first year of the experiment. In the second year, the same growing media were reused to evaluate their performance over successive cropping cycles. The Physico‐chemical properties of substrate are presented in Table 1. As soil and sand were included among the evaluated substrates and root‐knot nematodes are common soil‐borne pathogens affecting cucumber, root‐knot nematode incidence (RKI) was recorded as a common observation across all treatments to compare the influence of different growing media on root health. Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (100/60/60 kg/ha NPK) were applied at the time of filling of growing media on volume basis. A standard nutrient solution containing NPK (19:19:19) along with micronutrients Grade IV@1% (which contains essential nutrients for plants like zinc, iron, boron, copper, manganese and molybdenum) was applied fortnightly. If plants showed deficiency symptoms of the nutrients apart from treatment common application were kept. Ten grow bags (2 × 1 × 1) were used per treatment and they are repeated thrice which contains 30 grow bags per treatment. Seeds of cucumber cv. PPC‐2 were directly sown in the respective grow bags following the standard package of practices. Two seeds were sown per grow bag, and after germination, seedlings were thinned to retain one healthy and uniform plant per grow bag.

TABLE 1.

Physico‐chemical properties of substrate used in the study.

Sr.No. Name of substrate Properties
1. Soil loamy sand, comprising 77.85% sand, 13.65% silt, and 7.93% clay, with a pH of 7.79 and an electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.192 dS m−1.
2. Sand Sand characterized by its good aeration and poor water‐holding capacity, had a pH of 6.5 and water holding capacity is (WHC) about 49%.
3. Perlite Perlite, a crystal‐white lightweight substrate produced by heating volcanic material to approximately 1400°C, was included for its excellent aeration properties. It has pH is 8.50, EC‐0.08 dS m−1.
4. Cocopeat Cocopeat, a lightweight by‐product of the coir industry, exhibited very good water retention and a pH of about 6.7. It also contained small amounts of potassium and showed relatively higher EC values depending on water quality. WHC is about 7 times of its weight.
5. Vermiculite Vermiculite, a 2:1 type clay mineral, provided high water‐holding capacity while efficiently draining excess moisture and high in pH is low.
Open in a new tab

Source: Natural Resource Management Laboratory, COH, Jagudan.

Plants of cucumber were irrigated with 2 mm micro tube emitters for half an hour daily to meet out the crop water requirements. There were 60 irrigation were applied during crop grown period and 625 mL water per irrigation was applied (37.5 L water per plant during entire growing season). Plants were trained to a single stem using vertical polypropylene twine attached to overhead support wires. Regular tying and removal of lateral shoots were carried out according to standard protected cucumber cultivation practices. Although the first harvest commenced approximately 35–45 days after sowing, plants were maintained under protected cultivation for nearly 90 days to facilitate continuous harvesting and to monitor root‐knot nematode development throughout the cropping period. Observations were recorded on vine length at 30 days of planting (cm), vine length at 60 days of planting (cm), number of flower per vine, number of fruit set per vine, fruit setting, minimum days to flower initiation and days taken from fruit set to edible maturity, maximum number of fruits per vine, fruit retention, fruit length (cm), fruit Diameter (cm), average fruit weight (g), yield per vine (kg) and yield per m2 area (kg), TSS (°brix) and root knot index (RKI). RKI were observed in roots of 03 randomly selected plants at 30, 60 and 90 days after planting and number of juveniles nematodes per 100 cc of soil prior to sowing and post‐harvest of cucumber. Natural nematode infestation were scaled after carefully washed roots and evaluated using the 0–5 galling scale of Taylor and Sasser (1978) and Siddiqui et al. (2014) where 0 = no galls, 1 = 1–10 galls, 2 = 11–30 galls, 3 = 31–70 galls, 4 = 71–100 galls, and 5 = more than 100 galls with severe root deformation. The mean gall number per plant was recorded, and the root‐knot index (RKI) was calculated accordingly. Data were subjected to statistical analysis as per the standard procedure.

2.1. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted to assess variability and relationships among traits across different treatments and years. The statistical methods employed enabled a thorough assessment of the data, leading to strong conclusions regarding the genetic and environmental influences on trait performance. The ANOVA results elucidated the significance of factors, including replication, treatments, and residuals on the observed traits. Mean squares, F‐ratios, and significance levels (*** for p < 0.001, ** for p < 0.01, * for p < 0.05) were computed for both quantitative and qualitative traits. Standard errors (S.Em+) and critical differences (C.D. at 5% and 1%) were utilized to effectively compare treatment means (Gomez and Gomez 1984). Estimates of genotypic and phenotypic variance components were obtained for each trait. Broad‐sense heritability (H2) is defined as the ratio of genotypic variance to phenotypic variance, expressed as a percentage (Johnson and Wichern 2007). The genetic advance was calculated to evaluate the potential enhancement of traits under selection, offering important insights into the genetic potential and environmental stability of the assessed traits (Johnson et al. 1955). PCA was conducted to decrease dimensionality and pinpoint essential characteristics that contribute to overall variability. Eigenvalues, percentage of variation explained, and cumulative percentage of variance were calculated (Rao 1964). A scree plot and PCA biplot were created to illustrate the clustering of treatments and the interrelationships among traits. The PCA results identified traits that exert the greatest influence on variability (Yan and Kang 2003). Correlation coefficients between traits were computed for the years 2020 and 2021 independently. Heatmaps and half‐triangle correlation matrices were utilized to illustrate the relationships, offering insights into traits exhibiting strong positive or negative correlations over the two‐year period (Wright 1921). The path analysis examined both direct and indirect effects of traits on yield per vine (YPV). A regression‐based method was employed to estimate the direct contributions of individual traits, with results visualized to emphasize the main factors influencing yield performance. Mean values, ranges, coefficients of variation (CV), F‐ratios, and probabilities for key cucumber traits were analyzed and compared between 2020 and 2021. Shared (a, a) or distinct (a, b) letters indicated statistical differences across years for each trait.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Growing Media on Growth, Yield and Quality Parameters

Traits such as vine length at 30 days after sowing (VL30), vine length at 60 days after sowing (VL60), total soluble solids (TSS), and yield were significantly influenced by the growing media treatments (Table 2). The ANOVA revealed highly significant treatment effects (p < 0.001) for several growth and yield traits, including VL60 and yield (kg m−2), indicating that the choice of growing medium substantially affected cucumber performance. Fruit length (FL) was also significantly affected (p < 0.001), whereas fruit diameter (FD) showed a significant treatment effect at p < 0.01.

TABLE 2.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showing the effects of growing media, year, and their interaction on growth, yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode‐related traits of cucumber grown under protected cultivation during 2020 and 2021.

Sources of variations Treatments Year Year × Treatments Residual
DFI 1.78 76.19** 1.98 9.02
DFM 0.74 2.01* 0.26 0.44
FD 0.47** 3.42*** 0.03 0.15
FL 10.01*** 0.03 1.34 1.68
FR 207.6** 41.85 3.26 64.25
FS 351.0*** 36.88 20.77 50.85
FW 3073.99*** 111.7 106.63 187.95
NFLV 30.87** 27.61 1.84 11.53
NFRV 109.45*** 3.38 1.03 4.14
NFSV 98.28*** 193.75*** 1.81 2.18
RKI 4.1*** 0 0.22*** 0.01
TSS 0.03* 0.65*** 0.01 0.01
VL30 3264.57*** 986.92*** 27.35 36.19
VL60 4352.78*** 2713.96*** 199.13 217.32
YPP 354.56*** 3.08 6.86 8.35
YPV 3.18*** 0.22 0.03 0.09
Y/M2 28.27*** 0.82 0.64 0.63
Yield/kg/m2 28.05*** 6.57** 0.75 0.78
Open in a new tab

Note: [Days to flower initiation (DFI), days to first male flowering (DFM), fruit diameter (FD), fruit length (FL), fruit retention (FR), fruit setting (FS), and fruit weight (FW). Reproductive traits were assessed through the number of flowers per vine (NFLV), number of fruits per vine (NFRV), and number of fruit set per vine (NFSV), (RKI), total soluble solids (TSS), vine length at 30 days after planting (VL30) and vine length at 60 days after planting (VL60), Yield parameters included yield per plant (YPP), yield per vine (YPV), and yield per square meter (Y/M2)].

Abbreviation: NS = not significant.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

***

pot < 0.001.

The year also had a substantial impact on a number of traits, such as days to first flowering initiation (DFI), VL60, and yield (kg m−2), indicating that phenotypic variations were driven by environmental change between the two growing seasons. Additionally, root‐knot infestation index (RKI) and TSS showed significant year × treatment interactions, suggesting that these features responded differently to growth media in different years. For the majority of other attributes, however, the interaction effect was not significant, indicating that treatment performance was largely stable throughout the seasons. The unexplained experimental variance caused by random error and other uncontrollable environmental factors is represented by the residual mean squares.

The ANOVA results show that under protected culture, growing media treatments and seasonal environmental variables had a substantial impact on cucumber growth, yield, fruit quality, and root health. While the strong year effects emphasize the impact of seasonal environmental variability, the significant treatment effects show that crop performance is significantly influenced by substrate composition. The importance of assessing substrate performance throughout several growing seasons is highlighted by the strong treatment × year interactions found for a small number of characteristics, which imply that some responses were impacted by annual environmental conditions. Significant differences in vine length were observed among the growing media treatments. Vermiculite + cocopeat (1:1) (T9) consistently produced the longest vines at both 30 and 60 days after sowing, demonstrating the beneficial effects of balanced water‐holding capacity and aeration on vegetative growth.

3.2. Correlation Among the Traits During the Year 2020

Correlation analysis (Figure 1) revealed clear and biologically meaningful associations among growth, yield, and quality traits during 2020. Early vine vigor (VL30) and vine length at 60 DAS (VL60) showed strong positive correlations with yield attributes, particularly fruit weight, number of fruits, fruit size traits, yield per plant, and yield per unit area, indicating that vegetative growth played a key role in determining productivity. Yield per plant (YPP) and yield per unit area (YPV) were strongly and positively associated with fruit number per vine, fruit size parameters, and fruit weight, confirming their direct contribution to yield improvement.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Heatmaps and half‐triangle correlation matrices among different traits of C. sativus during the year 2020.

Fruit set and fruit number traits exhibited strong interrelationships and were positively correlated with yield components, while root‐knot nematode index (RKI) showed a consistent negative association with most growth and yield traits, highlighting the adverse effect of nematode infestation on plant performance. Total soluble solids (TSS) exhibited weak or negative correlations with yield traits, indicating a trade‐off between yield and fruit quality under protected cultivation. Overall, the correlation pattern suggests that improved vine growth, fruit number, and fruit size collectively enhanced cucumber yield, whereas higher nematode incidence negatively influenced productivity.

3.3. Correlation Analysis Among the Traits in 2021

Correlation analysis based on heatmaps and half‐triangle matrices (Figure 2) revealed consistent and biologically meaningful associations among vegetative growth, yield, fruit traits, and root‐knot nematode response during 2021. Vine length at 30 and 60 DAS showed strong positive relationships with major yield components, particularly fruit weight, number of fruits per vine, fruit size traits, yield per plant, and yield per unit area, indicating that vigorous vegetative growth directly contributed to higher productivity. Fruit weight and fruit number traits exhibited strong interrelationships and were the principal contributors to yield expression.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Heatmaps and half‐triangle correlation matrices among different traits of C. sativus during the year 2021.

Yield per plant and yield per unit area showed a very strong positive association with fruit number, fruit weight, and fruit size parameters, confirming their central role in determining cucumber yield under protected cultivation. Conversely, the root‐knot nematode index (RKI) exhibited a consistent negative correlation with vegetative growth and yield‐related traits, highlighting the suppressive effect of nematode infestation on crop performance.

Fruit quality traits, particularly total soluble solids (TSS), showed weak or negative correlations with yield traits, suggesting a trade‐off between yield and quality attributes. Days to flowering initiation exhibited a positive association with TSS but negative associations with yield components, indicating that delayed flowering may favor quality traits rather than yield accumulation. Overall, the correlation patterns observed in 2021 closely mirrored those of 2020, with minor variations in correlation strength likely due to seasonal microclimatic differences. These results collectively emphasize the importance of vegetative vigor and fruit number in enhancing yield, while underscoring the negative impact of nematode incidence and the yield–quality trade‐off under protected cultivation.

3.4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

Table 3 and Figure 3 showed the results of a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), showing the eigen values, variation explained, and cumulative variance for each principal component (PC). PC1 explains 69.89% of the variance, indicating that it captures the largest portion of the data's variability. The next two components, PC2 and PC3, explain 12.49% and 6.34% respectively, meaning that the first three components together account for 88.72% of the total variance. This highlights that most of the information in the dataset is captured by just the first few principal components.

TABLE 3.

Principal component analysis (PCA) showing the contribution of growth, yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode‐related traits to the principal components of cucumber grown under different soilless growing media.

Principal Component Eigenvalue Variation Explained (%) Cumulative variance (%)
PC1 12.11 69.89 69.89
PC2 2.16 12.49 82.38
PC3 1.1 6.34 88.72
PC4 0.65 3.73 92.45
PC5 0.37 2.13 94.59
PC6 0.33 1.93 96.52
PC7 0.3 1.72 98.24
PC8 0.15 0.88 99.12
PC9 0.09 0.5 99.61
PC10 0.03 0.18 99.8
PC11 0.02 0.11 99.91
PC12 0.02 0.09 100
PC13 0 0 100
Open in a new tab

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) of cucumber traits under different growing media.

3.5. Estimates of Variance Components

The Estimates of Variance Components are central to understanding how genetic and environmental factors contribute to the variation in each trait showed in Table 4. Traits like DFI (114.18%), TSS (95.78%), and DFM (89.84%) show very high heritability, indicating that genetic factors play a dominant role in determining these traits. This implies that selective breeding could effectively improve these traits. Traits like FS (48.6%) and FR (68.55%) have moderate heritability, meaning that both genetic and environmental factors contribute significantly. Traits like YPV (14.24%) and YPP (12.89%) have low heritability, suggesting that environmental factors have a more substantial influence on these traits.

TABLE 4.

Estimates of variance components of different traits of Cucumis sativus .

Traits Genotypic Variance Phenotypic Variance Heritability (%) Genetic Advance
VL 30 49.18 550.28 8.94 62.68
VL60 252.37 891.4 28.31 449.77
DFI 8.75 7.67 114.18 337.84
NFLV 9.99 13.25 75.44 238.47
NFSV 5.06 19.59 25.82 58.07
FS 45.08 92.76 48.6 326.34
DFM 0.43 0.48 89.84 58.84
NFRV 3.56 20.06 17.74 33.46
FR 52.64 76.79 68.55 497.38
FL 1.59 2.9 54.75 69.01
FD 0.18 0.23 79.98 34.13
FW 171.76 624.06 27.52 360.72
YPV 0.08 0.56 14.24 4.03
YPP 7.99 62 12.89 36.46
TSS 0.02 0.02 95.78 14.49
RKI 0.05 0.68 7.37 1.65
Open in a new tab

Traits with high genetic advance, such as VL60 (449.77) and FR (497.38), indicate substantial potential for improvement through selective breeding. These traits are likely to respond well to genetic selection. Traits like RKI (1.65) and YPV (4.03) show much lower genetic advance, indicating limited progress through selection. VL60 has a substantial genotypic variance (252.37) compared to its phenotypic variance (891.4), implying that it has a high genetic potential for improvement. In contrast, NFRV (3.56) genotypic variance vs. (20.06) phenotypic variance suggests that environmental factors might have a more significant impact on this trait.

High heritability (traits like VL60, DFI) typically results in higher genetic advance, suggesting that breeding will be highly effective for improving these traits. Traits with moderate heritability (such as FS, NFLV) will respond well to breeding but also require attention to environmental factors. Low heritability traits like YPV and YPP will see minimal genetic improvement unless accompanied by changes in the environment or management practices. Important information about the genetic and environmental factors influencing trait variability was revealed by the estimations of variance components. Strong genetic control over variables like days to flowering initiation (DFI), total soluble solids (TSS), and days to first male flowering (DFM) was demonstrated by their high heritability (> 85%). Fruit set (FS) and fruit retention (FR) showed moderate heritability, indicating a balanced impact of environmental and genetic factors. On the other hand, traits such as yield per plant (YPP) and yield per vine (YPV) showed low heritability (< 20%), suggesting that environmental factors dominated the relationship.

3.6. Path Analysis

Path coefficient analysis can effectively resolve these correlations by determining the direct contributions of various traits to yield per vine. According to the path coefficient analysis (Figure 4), traits such as DFM, YPP, FL, NFLV, RKI, FD, FS, and Cluster showed strongly positive direct effects, while NFSV and VL 60 exhibited slightly positive direct effects on yield per plant, underscoring their roles as significant yield‐contributing factors. In contrast, traits like VL 30, FR, FW, NFRV, TSS, and DFI reported negative direct effects on yield per plant.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Path analysis: Direct effect of traits on yield per vine.

3.7. Comparison Among the Different Traits of Cucumber

The Table 5 represents a comparison of key cucumber traits between 2020 and 2021, with a focus on their mean values, ranges, coefficients of variation (CV), F‐ratios, and probabilities (p‐values). Significant differences were observed in traits like DFI, NFSV, and DFM, with DFI increasing significantly from 33.25 in 2020 to 35.22 in 2021 and NFSV decreasing from 26.06 to 22.91. These results suggest that environmental factors or treatment effects may have influenced these traits, leading to notable year‐to‐year variations. On the other hand, traits such as VL30, FS, and Y/M2 showed no significant differences, indicating consistency across the 2 years.

TABLE 5.

Comparison of Cucumber Traits Between 2020 and 2021 Under Protected Cultivation.

Trait 2020 2021 F‐ratio Probability
Mean Range CV (%) Mean 2 Range CV (%)
VL30 82.87a 43.79–129.35 29.44 75.76a 40.33–112.99 29.33 1.8124 0.1822
VL60 174.04a 118.88–268.8 19.8 162.24a 122.85–207.69 14.42 3.1288 0.0809
DFI 33.25ba 28.71–39.09 10.05 35.22bb 32.01–37.94 4.37 11.2619 0.0012
NFLV 34.98a 27.09–40.88 11.41 33.79a 26.79–39.84 9.44 2.1144 0.15
NFSV 26.06ba 17.18–33.02 16.55 22.91bb 15.56–29.92 17.46 11.2031 0.0013
FS 68.99a 48.64–91.53 15.65 67.62a 51.72–84.47 12.41 0.3944 0.5319
DFM 8.39ca 6.74–9.6 9.82 8.71cb 7.77–9.68 5.56 4.4065 0.0391
NFRV 18.71a 10.27–29.15 25.21 18.30a 11.42–26.12 23.39 0.1668 0.6841
FR 81.98a 62.98–97.87 11.92 80.51a 65.67–94.6 9.54 0.5418 0.464
FL 17.74a 15.31–23.19 10.62 17.70a 15.41–21.56 8.62 0.0097 0.9218
FD 4.28aa 3.4–5.33 11.91 3.86ab 3.3–4.62 8.63 18.4109 0.0001
FW 155.75a 109.7–232.93 17.35 153.36a 119.88–211.4 15.03 0.1771 0.6751
YPV 3.34a 1.54–4.91 24.78 3.44a 2.0–4.73 19.5 0.3897 0.5343
YPP 36.27a 17.41–55.61 24.46 36.67a 24.0–49.24 18.66 0.0491 0.8253
Y/M2 10.39a 4.92–15.03 23.86 10.19a 6.26–14.16 19.24 0.1645 0.6862
TSS 2.92aa 2.68–3.16 4.27 3.11ab 2.9–3.35 4.03 41.5321 0.0
RKI 0.44a 0.0–3.33 205.64 0.45a 0.0–2.12 164.07 0.005 0.9441
Yield (kg/m2) 10.52a 4.97–15.27 23.93 9.94a 6.09–14.38 19.7 1.2915 0.2593
Open in a new tab

Note: Columns present the mean, range, coefficient of variation (CV), F‐ratio, and probability (p‐value) for each trait. Mean values followed by the same second lowercase letter (e.g., aa–aa, ba–ba, or ca–ca) within a row are not significantly different between 2020 and 2021, whereas different second lowercase letters (aa–ab, ba–bb, or ca–cb) indicate a significant difference between years (p 〈 0.05). The first lowercase letter (a, b, or c) denotes the significance category based on the p‐value: a = non‐significant (p ≥ 0.05), b = significant (p 〈 0.05), and c = highly significant (p 〈 0.01).

The coefficients of variation (CV) highlight the variability within each year. For instance, RKI exhibited a high CV of 205.64 in 2020, indicating substantial variation, while other traits like TSS had more stable values. Traits with high F‐ratios and low p‐values, such as DFI and NFSV, showed strong evidence of year‐to‐year differences. Conversely, traits like RKI and Yield (kg/m2) had high p‐values, indicating no significant variation between the years. These findings suggest that while some traits respond to environmental changes, others remain stable, and understanding these patterns can help in optimizing cucumber cultivation practices and breeding strategies.

4. Discussion

The present study clearly demonstrated that growing media significantly influenced vegetative growth, yield, fruit quality, and root health of cucumber under protected cultivation. The superior performance of the vermiculite + cocopeat (1:1) substrate observed across both seasons is consistent with earlier reports that emphasize the role of balanced aeration and water‐holding capacity in enhancing root growth and nutrient uptake in cucurbits. The results of Al‐Far et al. (2019), who noted improved plant growth in soilless media, are consistent with this discovery. As previously mentioned by Ghehsareh and Kalbasi (2012), the improved water‐holding capacity and aeration offered by vermiculite and cocopeat may be the cause of the longer vines in T9 (Vermiculite + Cocopeat in 1:1 ratio). The complementing physical characteristics of the two substrates may be the reason for the better vegetative development seen in the Vermiculite + Cocopeat (1:1) treatment. Vermiculite enhances moisture retention, aeration, and nutritional buffering, while cocopeat offers high water‐holding capacity and cation exchange capacity, guaranteeing a steady supply of water and nutrients to the root system. When combined, these characteristics produce a favorable root‐zone environment that encourages root growth, nutrient uptake, and photosynthetic activity, leading to increased biomass accumulation and vine elongation. Similar findings have been documented in greenhouse cucumber and other vegetable crops, where vegetative growth was enhanced by balanced substrate aeration and moisture availability (Gruda 2019). Similar improvements in vine length, fruit number, and yield under cocopeat‐based media have also been reported by Abou‐Hadid et al. (1995), Medany et al. (1995), Gruda, Gallegos‐Cedillo, et al. (2025), (Gruda, Samuolienė, et al. (2025)), supporting our findings.

However, variations in magnitude among studies may be attributed to differences in substrate composition, irrigation scheduling, nutrient formulation, and microclimatic conditions within protected structures. In the present investigation, yield and its component traits exhibited relatively low heritability despite moderate to high phenotypic variability. This indicates a stronger influence of environmental factors rather than genetic control. Under protected cultivation, yield expression is highly sensitive to microclimatic fluctuations such as temperature, relative humidity, and light intensity, as well as nutrient dynamics and moisture availability within different substrates. Even minor variations in substrate water retention and nutrient release can significantly affect fruit set, retention, and final yield, thereby reducing heritability estimates for yield‐related traits (Gruda, Samuolienė, et al. 2025) and (Pooyeh et al. 2012).

The findings showed that the T9 (Vermiculite + Cocopeat in 1:1 ratio) treatment had the lowest number of days needed for flower initiation and fruit setting. Early blooming was probably caused by improved root development and nutrient availability made possible by the combination of vermiculite and cocopeat (Mazahreh et al. 2015). Similarly, Singh et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of nutrient availability in protected cucumber cultivation, corroborating the improved flower and fruit set in optimized media.

The higher fruit yield obtained in the Vermiculite + Cocopeat substrate was likely a consequence of improved root development, efficient water and nutrient uptake, and sustained physiological activity throughout the cropping period. Balanced substrate aeration reduces root‐zone hypoxia, while adequate moisture retention minimizes plant water stress, thereby enhancing photosynthesis, flower retention, fruit set, and assimilate partitioning towards developing fruits (Fesendouz et al. 2025; Singh et al. 2026). Good WHC and aeration greatly influenced the root physiology by creating the congenial micro environment for root growth and development. According to He et al. (2021), the combination of vermiculite and cocopeat probably increased the efficiency of nutrient uptake. According to Gashgari et al. (2018), soilless growth media maximize resource usage and increase fruit yield. This finding is consistent with their findings. Additionally, the fruit's length, diameter, and average weight responded favorably to the optimized media, supporting Gruda, Gallegos‐Cedillo, et al. (2025) prior findings regarding the advantages of cocopeat‐based substrates.

Soil‐alone (T1) and sand‐alone (T5) treatments showed the largest root‐knot infestation, whereas combinations of soilless media showed the least amount of infestation, which might be due to the absence of primary inoculation of nematodes. It is not appropriate to interpret the decreased RKI seen in substrate blends with larger percentages of perlite, vermiculite, and cocopeat as proof that these substrates transmit nematodes. While fresh cocopeat is usually devoid of root‐knot nematodes unless contaminated or reused, perlite and vermiculite are inert, sterile minerals that do not act as sources of nematode inoculum. The favorable physical characteristics of these substrates, such as better aeration, drainage, moisture balance, and improved root‐zone conditions, which support healthy root development and may lessen root susceptibility to nematode infection, are more likely to be responsible for the decreased RKI. On the other hand, leftover nematode inoculum is more likely to be present in substrate blends comprising soil or recycled organic materials, which raises the possibility of root colonization and disease development. These results are consistent with those of Dhillon et al. (2022), who highlighted that nematode infestations are more likely to occur in soil‐based farming. The lack of noticeable infestation in T9 indicates that soil‐borne illnesses can be successfully reduced by substituting different substrates for soil (El‐Aidy et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2019; Sahil et al. 2023; Ziaf, Ahmad, et al. 2021).

Significant correlations between important cucumber features were shown by correlation analysis conducted during both the years. It made it more likely to identify varieties and promising lines using phenotypic features (Yadav, Gangadhara, Singh, 2024; Yadav et al. 2025; Mishra et al. 2026). In 2020, the number of fruit sets per vine (NFSV) (r = 0.77) and yield per vine (YPV) (r = 0.74) showed a substantial positive connection with vine length at 30 days (VL30). Similar relationships between VL60 and fruit weight (FW) (r = 0.86) and number of fruits per vine (NFRV) (r = 0.85) were found, confirming Papadopoulos's (2001) results that fruit output is positively impacted by greater vegetative growth. On the other hand, in both years, the root‐knot infestation index (RKI) was negatively correlated with yield metrics.

Vine length, fruit set, and fruit production were the most significant features in the PCA. This is in line with Wright (1921), who emphasized how PCA helps discover important features and reduce dimensionality. Important information about the genetic and environmental factors influencing trait variability was revealed by the estimations of variance components (Yadav, Gangadhara, Apparao, et al. 2024). Strong genetic control over variables like days to flowering initiation (DFI), total soluble solids (TSS), and days to first male flowering (DFM) was demonstrated by their high heritability (> 85%). Johnson and Wichern (2007) highlighted the importance of high heritability in breeding programs, and these results are consistent with their findings.

Fruit set (FS) and fruit retention (FR) showed moderate heritability, indicating a balanced impact of environmental and genetic factors. This confirms the findings of Wright (1921). On the other hand, characteristics such as yield per plant (YPP) and yield per vine (YPV) showed low heritability (< 20%), suggesting that environmental factors dominated the relationship (Singh et al. 2018).

When 2020 and 2021 findings were compared, it was shown that environmental conditions had a substantial impact on features like fruit setting and days to bloom initiation. Singh et al. (2018) also reported on the effect of climate variations on cucumber production, and they proposed that microclimate fluctuations are important in protected farming. High heritability traits, such as fruit weight and vine length, performed consistently in both years, indicating the possibility of genetic improvement (Johnson and Wichern 2007).

From a sustainability perspective, the use of cocopeat‐ and vermiculite‐based substrates offers multiple advantages under protected cultivation, including improved water‐use efficiency, reduced soil‐borne disease incidence, and better root health, as evidenced by the lower root‐knot nematode index recorded in these treatments. These substrates also facilitate uniform fertigation and reduce nutrient losses through leaching, contributing to environmentally sustainable and resource‐efficient vegetable production systems (Abou‐Hadid et al. 1995; Pooyeh et al. 2012; Medany et al. 1995). Thus, the present findings reinforce the suitability of optimized soilless media combinations as a sustainable strategy for enhancing cucumber productivity under protected cultivation.

5. Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the composition of soilless growing media significantly influenced cucumber growth, fruit yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode incidence under protected cultivation. The Vermiculite + Cocopeat (1:1) medium continuously outperformed the other substrate combinations in terms of vegetative growth, marketable production, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode infestation. These results suggest that under protected cultivation, improving substrate composition can improve root health and crop output at the same time.

Practically speaking, the Vermiculite + Cocopeat (1:1) substrate can be suggested as an appropriate growing medium for protected cucumber development when increased root‐zone health and good productivity are desired. Future research should assess how soilless substrates interact with root‐knot nematode populations in various environmental settings and protected cultivation systems, as well as their long‐term stability, economic viability, and reusability.

Funding

The authors indicate that there was no funding provided for the research presented in this article.

Ethics Statement

No research involving human participants or animals was conducted; therefore, ethics approval was not required.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1: On growth, yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode‐related traits of cucumber grown under protected cultivation during 2020 and 2021.

PEI3-7-e70196-s001.docx (33.2KB, docx)

Contributor Information

Lalu Prasad Yadav, Email: yadavlaluprasad682@gmail.com.

Ali Khadivi, Email: a-khadivi@araku.ac.ir.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting information of this article.

References

  1. Abou‐Hadid, A. F. , El‐Beltagy A. S., Medany M. A., and Hafez M. M.. 1995. “Performance of Soilless Media on Greenhouse Production of Cucumber, Cucurnis Sativus, in Egypt.” Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 1, no. 1: 93–98. 10.1300/J068v01n01_10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albaho, M. , Thomas B., and Christopher A.. 2008. “Evaluation of Hydroponic Techniques on Growth and Productivity of Greenhouse Grown Bell Pepper and Strawberry.” International Journal of Vegetable Science 14, no. 1: 23–40. 10.1080/19315260801890492. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al‐Far, A. M. , Tadros M. J., and Makhadmeh I. M.. 2019. “Evaluation of Different Soilless Media on Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus L.) Growth, Quality, and Yield Under Greenhouse Conditions.” Australian Journal of Crop Science 13, no. 8: 1388–1401. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alifar, N. , Ghehsareh A. M., and Honarjoo N.. 2010. “The Effect of Growth Media on Cucumber Yield and Its Uptake of Some Nutrient Elements in Soilless Culture.” Journal of Science and Technology 1: 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dhillon, N. K. , Kaur S., Anupam B., et al. 2022. “Management of Root‐Knot Nematode With Non‐Chemical Methods for Sustainable Cucumber Production Under Protected Cultivation.” Agronomy 13, no. 1: 124. 10.3390/agronomy13010124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. El‐Aidy, F. , El‐Zawely A., Hassan N., and El‐Sawy M.. 2007. “Effect of Plastic Tunnel Size on Cucumber Production in the Delta of Egypt.” Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 5, no. 1: 11–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fesendouz, S. O. , Ebrahimzadeh A., and Rasouli F.. 2025. “Using Agricultural Waste as an Alternative Growing Medium for Cultivating Cucumis sativus L. Greenhouse Transplants.” Scientific Reports 15, no. 1: 14899. 10.1038/s41598-025-98564-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Gashgari, R. , Alharbi K., Mughrbil K., Jan A., and Glolam A.. 2018. “Comparison Between Growing Plants in Hydroponic and Soil‐Based Systems.” In Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering, 1–7. ICMIE. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ghehsareh, A. M. , Hematian M., and Kalbasi M.. 2012. “Comparison of Date Palm Wastes and Perlite as Culture Substrates for Greenhouse Cucumber.” International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture 1, no. 1: 5. 10.1186/2251-7715-1-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ghehsareh, A. M. , and Kalbasi M.. 2012. “Effect of Organic and Inorganic Combinations on Greenhouse Cucumber Growth.” African Journal of Biotechnology 11, no. 37: 9102–9107. 10.5897/AJB11.1750. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gomez, K. A. , and Gomez A. A.. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. Wiley‐Interscience. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gruda, N. S. 2019. “Increasing Sustainability of Growing Media Constituents and Stand‐Alone Substrates in Soilless Culture Systems.” Agronomy 9: 298. 10.3390/agronomy9060298. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gruda, N. S. , Gallegos‐Cedillo V. M., Nájera C., Catalina E. G., Ochoa J., and Fernández J. A.. 2025. “Advancing Protected Cultivation: A Pathway for Nutrient‐Rich Vegetables.” Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 44, no. 2: 88–116. 10.1080/07352689.2025.2515801. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gruda, N. S. , Samuolienė G., Dong J., and Li X.. 2025. “Environmental Conditions and Nutritional Quality of Vegetables in Protected Cultivation.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 24: e70139. 10.1111/1541-4337.70139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gruda, N. S. , Samuolienė G., Li X., and Dong J.. 2025. “The Golden Mean of Balancing Nutritional Quality and Yield in Greenhouse Vegetable Cultivation.” International Journal of Vegetable Science 31, no. 6: 795–802. 10.1080/19315260.2025.2538489. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. He, L. , Ding X., Jin H., et al. 2021. “Effects of Commercial Rock Wool Strip and Coco Coir Strip on Growth, Photosynthesis, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Cucumber.” China Vegetables 10: 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hussain, A. , Iqbal K., Aziem S., Mahato P., and Negi A. K.. 2014. “A Review on the Science of Growing Crops Without Soil (Soilless Culture)—A Novel Alternative for Growing Crops.” International Journal of Agricultural and Crop Sciences 7, no. 11: 833–842. [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, H. W. , Robinson H. F., and Comstock R. E.. 1955. “Estimates of Genetic and Environmental Variability in Soybeans.” Agronomy Journal 47, no. 7: 314–318. [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, R. A. , and Wichern D. W.. 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kumar, S. , Bairwa D. S., Kumar K., Yadav R. K., and Yadav L. P.. 2022. “Climate Regulation in Protected Structures: A Review.” Journal of Agriculture and Ecology 13, no. 13: 20–34. 10.53911/JAE.2022.13102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lizhong, H. , Xiaotao D., Haijun J., et al. 2022. “Comparison of Rockwool and Coir for Greenhouse Cucumber Production: Chemical Element, Plant Growth, and Fruit Quality.” Heliyon 8, no. 10: e10930. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mazahreh, N. , Nejatian A., and Mousa M.. 2015. “Effect of Different Growing Media on Cucumber Production and Water Productivity in Soilless Culture Under UAE Conditions.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Sciences 3, no. 9: 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  23. Medany, M. A. , Hafez M. M., Abou‐Hadid A. F., and El‐Beltagy A. S.. 1995. “Root Media Materials for Cucumber Production in Closed Recirculated Hydroponic Systems.” Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 1, no. 1: 29–35. 10.1300/J068v01n01_04. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mishra, D. S. , Yadav V., Yadav L. P., et al. 2026. “Biochemical, Mineral, and Morphological Properties of Indian Tamarind ( Tamarindus indica L.).” Food Science & Nutrition 14, no. 4: e71754. 10.1002/fsn3.71754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Papadopoulos, A. P. 2001. “Computerized Fertigation for Cucumber Production in Soil and Soilless Media.” Acta Horticulturae 548: 115–124. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.548.11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pooyeh, F. , Peyvast G., and Olfati J. A.. 2012. “Growing Media Including Palm Waste in Soilless Culture of Cucumber.” International Journal of Vegetable Science 18, no. 1: 20–28. 10.1080/19315260.2011.568599. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rao, C. R. 1964. The Use and Interpretation of Principal Component Analysis in Applied Research. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  28. Raviv, M. , Lieth J. H., Bar‐Tal A., and Silber A.. 2008. “Growing Plants in Soilless Culture: Operational Conclusions.” In Soilless Culture Theory and Practice, 545–571. Elsevier Publications. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sahil, A. , Singh S. R., Kumar K., Tiwari J. N., and Mukesh N.. 2023. “Performance Evaluation of Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L.) Growth, Yield, and Quality Under Subtropical Climate.” Journal of Agriculture and Ecology 17: 38–43. 10.58628/JAE-2317-306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sahil, A. , Singh S. R., Yadav L. P., et al. 2026. “Aeroponic Cultivation of Lettuce: Unravelling Varietal Performance and Trait Interrelationships for Enhanced Productivity.” PLoS One 21, no. 3: e0345258. 10.1371/journal.pone.0345258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sarkar, A. , and Majumder M.. 2019. “Determination of Substrate Suitability Index for Prioritizing Substrates for Crop Production Under Protected Culture.” International Journal of Vegetable Science 25, no. 3: 285–294. 10.1080/19315260.2018.1510458. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Siddiqui, Y. , Ali A., and Naidu Y.. 2014. “Histopathological Changes Induced by Meloidogyne incognita in Some Ornamental Plants.” Crop Protection 65: 216–220. [Google Scholar]
  33. Singh, A. K. , Kranti K. K. V. V. S., Paschapur A. U., et al. 2026. “Comparative Evaluation of Biological and Chemical Treatments for Root‐Knot Nematode Management in Cucumber Under Mid‐Himalayan Protected Cultivation.” Discover Sustainability 7, no. 1: 260. 10.1007/s43621-025-01950-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Singh, M. C. , Singh J. P., Pandey S. K., Mahay D., and Shrivastva V.. 2017. “Factors Affecting the Performance of Greenhouse Cucumber Cultivation—A Review.” International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6, no. 10: 2304–2323. [Google Scholar]
  35. Singh, M. C. , Singh J. P., and Singh K. G.. 2018. “Development of a Microclimate Model for Predicting Temperatures Inside a Naturally Ventilated Greenhouse Under Cucumber Crop in Soilless Media.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 154: 227–238. 10.1016/j.compag.2018.08.044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Singh, M. C. , Singh K. G., Singh J. P., and Mahal A. K.. 2019. “Performance of Soilless Cucumbers Under Differential Fertigation in Naturally Ventilated Greenhouses.” Journal of Plant Nutrition 42, no. 11–12: 1316–1332. 10.1080/01904167.2019.1609507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Taylor, A. L. , and Sasser J. N.. 1978. Biology, Identification, and Control of Root‐Knot Nematodes (Meloidogyne Species). North Carolina State University Graphics. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wan Shafiin, W. N. S. S. , Ablah N. L., Nur Fatihah H. N., et al. 2021. “Breeding Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Content and Quality in Cucurbitaceae: A Review.” International Journal of Vegetable Science 27, no. 5: 415–438. 10.1080/19315260.2020.1833125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wright, S. 1921. “Correlation and Causation.” Journal of Agricultural Research 20, no. 7: 557–585. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yadav, L. P. , Gangadhara K., Apparao V. V., et al. 2024. “Genetic Diversity, Morphological Traits, Quality Traits and Antioxidants Potentiality of Coccinia grandis Germplasm Under Rainfed Semi‐Arid Region.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1: 868. 10.1038/s41598-023-49091-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Yadav, L. P. , Gangadhara K., Singh A. K., et al. 2024. “Genetic Diversity, Morphological and Quality Traits of Momordica dioica .” Scientific Reports 14: 30241. 10.1038/s41598-024-81828-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Yadav, L. P. , Gangadhara K., Singh A. K., et al. 2025. “Genetic Variability, Morphological Diversity, and Antioxidant Potential in Gynoecious Coccinia Accessions: Implications for Breeding and Biofortification.” BMC Plant Biology 25: 844. 10.1186/s12870-025-06335-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Yadav, L. P. , Koley T. K., Tripathi A., and Singh S.. 2019. “Antioxidant Potentiality and Mineral Content of Summer Season Leafy Greens: Comparison at Mature and Microgreen Stages Using Chemometric.” Agricultural Research 8, no. 2: 165–175. 10.1007/s40003-018-0378-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Yan, W. , and Kang M. S.. 2003. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ziaf, K. , Ahmad I., Hamid H., Haider M. W., Ghani M. A., and Noor A.. 2021. “Nutrient Uptake, Growth, Yield, and Quality of Cucumber Grown in Various Growing Media.” Agrobiological Records 6: 18–26. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1: On growth, yield, fruit quality, and root‐knot nematode‐related traits of cucumber grown under protected cultivation during 2020 and 2021.

PEI3-7-e70196-s001.docx (33.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supporting information of this article.

Articles from Plant-Environment Interactions are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES