Fig 1.
Germination success of cherry tomato seeds.
Emergence of plants (n = 56 per group) in soil without microfibers (Control), with microfibers (Microfiber), and with only an aqueous extract from microfibers (Leachate). Plant emergence was monitored daily for 10 days after the last seedling emerged to ensure no late sprouts.
Fig 2.
Total dry biomass (g) of cherry tomato, including shoots, roots, and reproductive structures by age.
Tomatoes were grown without microfibers (Control), with microfibers (Microfiber), or with an aqueous extract from microfibers (Leachate). Plants were harvested at: a) transplant (n = 23, n = 14, n = 25 respectively due to differing emergence success), b) vegetative stage/onset of flowering (n = 14 per group), or c) reproductive stage/end of life (n = 14 per group). Intercepts are significantly different between Microfiber and other treatments in panels a and b (P < 0.05), while panel c only represents trendlines.
Fig 3.
Plant height from emergence to fruit set.
Individual plant trajectories are modeled as thinner lines, colored by their treatment. The thicker black line represents a fitted Gompertz curve growth parameters with maximum height K = 15.45 cm, minimum height L = 2.51 cm, growth rate A = 0. 12/day, and maximum growth rate at T = 40.28 days. Treatment was not a statistically significant predictor of any parameter nor did it improve model fit (pχ2 [3] = 0.9749, P = 0.81; ΔAIC = 6.54; ΔBIC = 11.76), suggesting treatment did not influence plant height during the tomato life cycle.
Fig 4.
Days to flowering following emergence.
Plants (n = 28 per group) in soil without microfibers (Control), with microfibers (Microfiber), and with only an aqueous extract from microfibers (Leachate). Tukey pairwise comparisons of a One-Way ANOVA with blocks are indicated by similar letters (P < 0.001 between control and fiber, P < 0.05 between fiber and leachate).
Fig 5.
Days to initiation of ripening.
Ripening was defined as the first sign of pigment change since emergence (n = 14 per group) in soil without microfibers (Control), with microfibers (Microfiber), and with an aqueous extract from microfibers (Leachate). Tukey pairwise comparisons of a One-Way ANOVA with blocks indicated by similar letters (P < 0.05 for significant differences).
Fig 6.
Water holding capacity of potting soil with and without microfibers.
A decrease was observed in the water holding capacity of soil with microfibers (Microfiber, n = 3) compared with the control (Control, n = 3)(t-test, (t(4) = 0.2918, P < 0.05).