Tag Archives: grow bucket

What Are The Easiest Plants To Grow With Hydroponics

Hydroponics can be a great way to grow a variety of plants, and some are easier to cultivate using this method than others. Here are some of the easiest plants to grow with hydroponics,dutch buckets making them suitable choices for beginners:

  1. Lettuce: Lettuce is a popular choice for hydroponic cultivation due to its rapid growth and relatively simple nutrient requirements. Various types of lettuce, such as leaf lettuce and romaine, thrive in hydroponic systems.
  2. Herbs: Herbs like basil, cilantro, parsley, and mint are well-suited to hydroponics. They have compact root systems and grow quickly, making them ideal for small-scale hydroponic setups.
  3. Spinach: Spinach is another leafy green that does well in hydroponic systems. It grows quickly and doesn’t require a lot of space.
  4. Swiss Chard: Swiss chard is a nutrient-dense leafy green that can be grown hydroponically. It’s relatively easy to maintain and produces colorful, edible stems.
  5. Kale: Kale is a hardy leafy green that is well-suited to hydroponics. It’s a nutrient-rich plant and can thrive in a controlled hydroponic environment.
  6. Cherry Tomatoes: Compact varieties of cherry tomatoes, such as “Tiny Tim” or “Patio Princess,” can be grown in hydroponic systems. They require some support for the vines but can yield a good harvest.
  7. Peppers: Bell peppers and chili peppers can be grown hydroponically. They thrive in warm conditions and can produce abundant fruits with proper care.
  8. Cucumbers: Compact cucumber varieties like “Bush Pickle” or “Spacemaster” can be grown in hydroponic systems. Trellising is essential to support their growth.
  9. Green Onions: Green onions, also known as scallions, are easy to grow hydroponically. They don’t require much space and have a relatively short growth cycle.
  10. Radishes: Radishes are fast-growing and can be cultivated hydroponically. They are a good choice for those looking for a quick harvest.

Remember that successful hydroponic gardening requires attention to factors like water quality, nutrient levels, pH, and lighting. While these plants are generally considered easy to grow hydroponically,grow bucket it’s important to research each plant’s specific requirements and tailor your hydroponic system accordingly. Additionally, starting with a simple system and gaining experience will help you become a more proficient hydroponic gardener over time.

Arthropod pests were generally unaffected by local or landscape scale factors

Of importance to urban farmers, multiple on farm practices have been identified that may be implemented to increase CBC in urban farms . To our knowledge, this work has not yet been gathered and synthesized, making it difficult to translate research into practice. Here, we review and summarize relationships between local farm and surrounding landscape effects in UA on pest and natural enemy populations, as well as on the resulting levels of biological control . Our literature review focuses on four questions for UA systems: Which local on-farm practices and off-farm landscape factors affect insect and mite pest populations and their crop damage; natural enemy biodiversity ; ecosystem services through increased biological control; and which practices can be recommended to urban farmers to promote CBC? We searched for peer-reviewed literature, published before February 2019, that measured natural enemy and insect pest richness, abundance, and rates of predation and parasitism in UA systems. We further focused the review on intra-urban studies that measured differences in on-farm composition, practices, and surrounding off-farm landscape attributes to measures of insect abundance, richness, and community composition. We excluded studies that either focused on taxa that do not provide regulating ecosystem services relevant to CBC , or compared pest or natural enemy abundance, richness and composition between urban and rural green spaces, farms, or gardens. We did this because these measures do not explicitly focus on UA or local on farm predictors of arthropods. In some cases,dutch buckets we did include urban-to-rural studies if a subset of the samples met the intra-urban requirement. For these studies, we excluded the reported findings from rural or natural landscapes.

The review protocol followed the PRISMA systematic review framework and the methodologies described in Pullin 2006 . We searched three databases including Web of Science, the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library database , and the National Center for Biotechnology Information , using search terms that are common in the CBC literature: “Biological control,” “Herbivore,” “Pest,” “Parasitism,” “Natural enemies,” and “Parasitoid.” These terms were paired with “Urban agriculture” and “Urbanization.” Search terms were applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords. Our search protocol identified 675 peer-reviewed publications using this methodology. We removed all duplicates and reviewed the remaining articles for relevance. From these, we identified 15 articles that met our protocol criteria and were selected for review . For each publication, we collected information on authors, title, site location, site sample number, land type , sampling period, methodology, and taxa assessed. We then recorded the statistically significant effects of 16 explanatory variables common among studies for species richness, abundance , and levels of ecosystem services through biological controls . To further identify explanatory variables, and to align variables with reviewed literature, we categorize variables as “local factors” or “landscape factors.” Local factors were defined as biotic and abiotic features of the local agroecosystem , and landscape factors were defined as features of the surrounding landscape . For each explanatory variable, we counted the number of reportable results . Some explanatory variable measures, such as local or landscape factors combined into an index value, or measures that were not clearly defined were categorized as “landscape cover” or “structural diversity” .In four publications, herbivorous taxa were studied that are UA crop pests, but few local factors were presented that explained increases in pest abundance or richness. Moreover, studies often showed inconsistent results, and the only factor repeatedly associated with increased pest richness was increased perennial richness and abundance. Structural diversity of vegetation, host plant density, garden age and soil moisture were also identified as factors affecting herbivore richness and abundance, but these relationships were only measured as significant once.Local factors positively affected parasitoid and predator abundance and richness in thirteen of fifteen reviewed studies, with only 7% of the reported results showing negative effects on natural enemy abundance and richness.

Important local factors that positively affected natural enemy populations included increased floral abundance and richness, increased mulch and leaf litter cover, larger garden size, high plant species richness, more perennials, and increased structural diversity. Garden size was the only factor that differed between predator and parasitoid taxa, with larger gardens positively affecting parasitoid populations and smaller gardens positively affecting predator abundance.We reviewed UA literature to assess how local on-farm management practices and surrounding off-farm landscape features affect herbivorous insect pests, arthropod natural enemies, and measures of conservation biological control. This is a first attempt to synthesize the growing number of case studies in this field. We found that local and landscape factors differentially affect insect pests and their natural enemies, as well as ecosystem services received through biological control. Local on farm diversification and management most commonly affected natural enemy species richness, abundance, and ecosystem services with of reported results showing positive impacts. Relationships between measures of arthropod diversity and impervious urban land cover at the landscape scale are inconsistent, as they have both negative and positive effects on arthropod populations . Some reviewed studies found parasitoid abundance increased, but richness decreased with urban landscape cover , or that these relationships for predators are differential across taxa, region, and landscape scale . The differences across taxa, region, and surrounding urban landscape composition are all important considerations.However, insect pests were the least commonly measured taxa across these studies. Only two reviewed studies focused on intra-urban local and landscape herbivorous pest effects, and most studies did not assess relationships between insect pests and crop damage . Rates of parasitism were also unaffected by local and landscape factors, even though parasitoids are prevalent in urban gardens . Similarly, urban-to-rural studies report that parasitic Hymenoptera may be somewhat resistant to landscape-scale habitat fragmentation in larger non-garden habitat patches . However, in more urbanized landscapes with smaller habitat patches, landscape fragmentation has negative effects on Hymenoptera species diversity .

Our review identified gaps in UA CBC-related research, particularly on the topics of methodology and geographic breadth. The key methodological issues that we found in the literature include: lack of measured temporal effects; inconsistent sampling techniques across studies; coarse taxonomic identification and biodiversity metrics of focal taxa; and difficulty in accessing sufficient landscape data. Only three of the reviewed studies measured temporal effects , and the average sampling period was only 22 weeks. Clearly, more extensive year round sampling is needed to account for possible temporal changes between seasons. To this point,growing lettuce hydroponically local climate measures were rarely reported; only a third of studies measured temperature, and none measured wind speed or humidity. These local abiotic climate-related factors should be considered as climate change will increasingly impact urban arthropods in the coming decades. It is important to consider methods of insect sampling and units of ecosystem function in CBC research. Often the goal of UA studies is to better understand functionally important species distributions in fragmented landscapes with implications for agricultural ecosystem functioning. While measuring the richness and abundance of insects is an essential step to understand species distributions, it does not account for functional effects of biodiversity that are of use to UA practitioners. Nineteen of the studies used pan traps or sticky traps, standard but often superficial methods in insect population studies. These sampling methods can be too broad when investigating biological controls . It would be useful to measure the actual rates of prey consumption, for example, by using exclusion and sentinel prey in relation to natural enemy presence, or by rearing parasitized insects. Emerging technologies such as molecular gut content analysis of predators using DNA-based prey assays are an effective method to link predator to pest . While most studies included multiple methodologies, it would be useful to include more standardization in UA field sampling protocols for biodiversity and biological control to facilitate future meta-analysis. With regard to biodiversity metrics in UA CBC research, most of the reviewed studies offer only a coarse overview of species identification, especially for parasitic Hymenoptera, which are often only identified to super family. Though genus- and species-level identification are time-intensive and require skilled labor, species- or genus-level data is necessary to better investigate species-effects on CBC. This is particularly important because many of the parasitic Hymenoptera in the reviewed studies are aggregated as “beneficial,” but many are hyperparasitoids, or are potentially parasitoids of other natural enemy predators . More research is needed on UA pests because insect pests are the least measured taxa across studies, and most studies do not assess relationships between insect pests and crop damage and yield. Only two reviewed studies focused on intra-urban local and landscape herbivorous pest effects . Additional challenges exist in UA landscape studies, notably the availability of fine-scale landscape data. Urban ecologists have been limited in their access to geographical data at a scale smaller than 30 m.

Many studies use the US National Landscape Cover Database, which includes a measure of the impervious surface, but the scale is inappropriate for complex urban environments particularly, when considering effects on arthropods that respond to habitat heterogeneity at much smaller spatial scales . Ground-proofing landscape composition can necessitate consistent access to a private property which can be challenging. Alternative methodologies have been proposed such as aerial drones with high-resolution cameras, but limits to drone flight plans in residential areas or excluded flight space make flights difficult. We also found a strong bias towards UA studies in North America and Europe. It is unclear as to whether this bias is a relic of the database search itself or there is a distinct lack of literature available.Crop pests in urban landscapes can be challenging to control, and they can have a disproportionate impact on the smaller crop sizes common to urban farms. Herbivorous insect populations in urban areas can persist for more extended periods, have increased fecundity, and can even be larger . Under managed or neglected urban landscapes can exacerbate pest issues. Irregular irrigation, application of fertilizers or pesticides, and higher levels of air pollution can induce plant stress or vigor, creating favorable conditions and refuges for herbivorous pests that can emigrate to urban farms and gardens . Urban agriculture is often practiced without pesticides for health and environmental reasons despite these challenges. Instead, farmers find themselves relying on time and labor-intensive cultural and mechanical practices for pest management. Consequently, urban farmers have shown great interest in agroecological pest management , a proactive ecosystem services based approach that aims to reduce pest abundance and crop damage by increasing natural enemy populations through agroecological practices . For example, increasing vegetative complexity, implementing soil conservation practices, and introducing floral resources for nectarivorous natural enemies. These practices increase the amount of shelter, nectar, and pollenresources on urban farms, increasing natural enemy populations, resulting in increased biological control services . In rural agroecosystems, APM practices, landscape effects, and conservation biological control have been widely studied . Metaanalyses have found that on-farm management practices such as intercropping, crop rotations, and increased structural diversity increase natural enemies’ abundance, diversity, and ability to regulate pest populations . Increased landscape diversity surrounding rural agroecosystems has been shown to mediate arthropod diversity and abundance, with natural enemies showing a positive response to increased landscape complexity . The enemies hypothesis states that increased structural complexity should increase natural enemy abundance, diversity, and associated ecosystem services . This hypothesis has been investigated and questioned in agroecosystem management, with varying results at different spatial and temporal scales, most often in rural contexts. Ostensibly, diversification effects observed in rural agroecosystems should be observed in their urban counterparts. However, the effects of diversification on biological control services and APM in urban agroecosystems regarding this hypothesis are still being explored, especially in how natural enemies are affected by landscape factors such as fragmentation and isolation, common in urban landscapes . The extent of fragmentation effects on organisms in urban environments, and related ES, has been a persistent question, especially in urban agroecosystem management . Roads, parking lots, and buildings increase impervious surfaces, fragmenting and reducing green space connectivity and impacting the quality and area of suitable habitat . The reduction of available and appropriate habitats for urban flora and fauna decreases meta population connectivity and drives a decline in urban species diversity, selecting for more disturbance tolerant species and increasing the chance of localized extinctions .