The Effect of Nano-Fertilization and Tube Size on the Vegetative Growth and Yield Characteristics of Two Strawberry Cultivars

The experiment was conducted in the unheated plastic house of the Department of Horticulture and Landscaping / College of Agriculture / University of Tikrit in the agricultural season 2021-2022. To study the effect of nano-fertilization at a concentration of 0, 1.5, 3 g, and planting with different sizes of plastic tubes with a diameter of 4, 6, and 8 inches on the vegetative growth and yield characteristics of two strawberry varieties, Fragaria ananassa Duch, Rubygem and Albion. The results showed that there were significant differences between the studied factors, as the tube was superior. 8 inch in the characteristic of the average number of leaves, as it reached 18.00 leaf plant-1, total chlorophyll reached 47.35 SPAD, the yield per plant reached 567.31 gm plant-1, and the yield of the plastic house reached 2297.6 kilograms of plastic house-1. While the two tubes exceeded 6 inch and 8 inch in A number of traits studied, including plant length, which reached 14.56 cm and 14.75 cm, respectively, and the area of one leaf, which reached 46.72 cm2 and 47.06 cm2, respectively, while the total area amounted to 285.63 cm2 and 275.16 cm2, respectively. The cultivar Albion was significantly superior to the cultivar Rubygem in the average plant length of 13.67 cm, in the average number of leaves amounting to 12.78 leaf plant-1, in the proportion of dry matter in the leaves amounted to 49.88%, in the yield of one plant amounted to 414.08 gm plant-1, and the yield of the greenhouse It reached 1677.03 kilograms of plastic house-1, while the foliar spraying with nano-fertilizer was significantly superior to spraying with a concentration of 3 g L-1 in the total chlorophyll content of the leaves and reached 45.61 SPAD, the yield of one plant was 546.62 gm plant-1, and the yield of the greenhouse reached 2213.82 kilograms of house. Plastic-1, while the concentration exceeded 1.5 gm L-1 in the average number of leaves, which reached 13.83 plant leaves-1.


Introduction
The strawberry plant, Fragaria ananassa Duch, is an evergreen herbaceous plant that adapts to a wide range of climatic conditions [1].Strawberries are used in various food industries, such as making juices, milk, jams, ice cream, and pastries [2].Strawberries also provide many medical and therapeutic benefits, as the antioxidants present in strawberry fruits protect the body from free radicals [3].The predominant pigment in strawberry fruits is anthocyanin, which is one of the types of antioxidants that appears in the secondary metabolic activities of the plant.Its percentage in the fruits varies according to environmental conditions, varieties and fertilization.It plays an important role in the plant, as it works to protect the fruits from external stresses, and the concentration of anthocyanins increases with altitude.Temperatures and anthocyanins help to expand blood vessels and reduce the chances of developing high blood pressure [4].And the low calories of strawberry fruits, because they are fatfree, help to lose weight because they contain natural sugars, which makes them suitable for people with diabetes [5].Vertical farming is a modern approach to a strategic change in agriculture to transform traditional methods into modern methods, as it relies on the controlled environmental farming technique, where the environmental conditions in which the plant grows are controlled by controlling light, temperature, humidity, gases, and nutrients [6].As for the cultivar factor, it is one of the factors that determine productivity, and it is also one of the factors that help the success of the cultivation of the shilk, as each variety of the shilik has its own characteristics and productivity, and the genetic nature of the cultivated variety affects a large percentage of the crop yield in quantity and quality [7].Nanotechnology and its applications are one of the latest technologies in the field of agriculture, where the agricultural sector witnessed many products based on this technology, such as nano-fertilizers, nano-pesticides, and nano-growth stimuli, which contribute to the development of agriculture and obtaining high-yielding crops with low use of harmful chemicals [8].

Objectives of the Study
 Evaluation of two strawberry cultivars in order to find which one is better under the conditions of the unheated plastic house. Comparison of agriculture in the use of plastic tubes of different sizes and the statement of their effect on the characteristics of vegetative growth and yield. To know the response of strawberry plant to nano-fertilization sprayed and its effect on the characteristics of vegetative growth and yield.

Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted in the unheated plastic house of the Department of Horticulture and Landscaping / College of Agriculture / University of Tikrit in the agricultural season 2021-2022.This was done by using three sizes of plastic tubes with a diameter of 4, 6, 8 inches as a medium for growth instead of soil as vertical cultivation, as one sector contains three tubes, the length of each tube is 6 meters, and each tube contains 6 experimental units with a length of 1 meter for each experimental unit, the height of the tube The first is 50 cm off the ground, as well as between the other pipes, so that the height of the last pipe is 150 cm, and the distance between the repeaters is 110 cm to facilitate service operations and movement.The planting pipes were prepared by removing the upper surface of the pipe horizontally and filling it with a mixture of peat moss and sandy soil at a ratio of 2:1 for all pipes.As well as equipping the drip irrigation system and placing a gauge to measure the water pressure of 1 bar to ensure equal pressure in all agricultural pipes.

The First Factor: The Size of the Planting Tubes
This was done by using three sizes of plastic pipes with a diameter of 4, 6 and 8 inches as a growth medium instead of soil as a vertical cultivation.

Statistical Design
The experiment was carried out with a complete random block design (RCBD) according to the Split-Split-Plot Design system, and the tubes were placed in the main plot and the varieties in the sub-plot, and the nano-fertilization in the sub-sub plot, and the results were analyzed using SAS software, and the results were analyzed using SAS software.Comparison between averages according to Duncan's multiple range test at a probability level of 5% (SAS, 2001).

Plant Height (cm)
The plant length was measured from the soil surface level to the apex of the longest leaf using a tape measure and the average plant length for the experimental unit was extracted.

The Number of Leaves (Plant Leaf -1 )
The number of leaves for each of the five plants marked in the experimental unit was calculated after the last harvest, then collected and divided by five to extract the average number of leaves for each plant.

The Leaf Area (dm 2 )
The leaf area was calculated during the season of the experiment, as five leaves were taken from each experimental unit and weighed after separating the petioles from the leaves, then we extract the average weight of one leaf, then a number of discs known the area of the five leaves were taken and the average weight of the cut disc was extracted Then the paper area was calculated according to the following equation: (((the leaf from the cut disc area (cm 2 ) ×the whole leaf average weight (g))/(the leaf from the cut disc average weight))) The paper area was extracted according to the following equation: Leaf area = average area of one leaf × the total number of leaves of the plant

Leaves Chlorophyll Content (SPAD)
It was measured by a device (chlorophyll meter SPAD-502), where three readings were taken for each plant, and then the average was extracted.

Percentage of Dry Matter in the Leaves
The selected samples, which were weighed by fresh weight measurement, were dried using an electric oven at a temperature of 70°C until the weight stabilized.Then they were weighed using a sensitive balance, and the percentage of dry matter was calculated according to the following equation: The percentage of dry fruits = ((dry weight)/( wet weight)) × 100

Yield Per Plant (gm)
It was calculated by dividing the total yield of plants by their number.

The Yield of the Plastic House (kg greenhouse -1 )
The production of the plastic house was calculated according to the following equation: The total yield of the house = the average yield of one plant x 4050

Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar and Nano-Fertilization on Plant Height (cm)
Through Table No. (1), it is clear to us that there are significant differences between the treatments.The treatment of the tube size was 8 inches and 6 inches, and it gave the highest plant length of 14.75 and 14.56 cm, respectively, compared to the lowest plant length when planting with a tube of 4 inches in diameter, which reached 9.42 cm.With regard to the cultivar, cultivar A excelled by giving it the highest length of 13.67 cm compared to the lowest length of 12.15 for cultivar R. As for spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer, treatment N1 and N2 excelled by giving it the highest length of 13.44 and 13.94 cm, respectively, compared to the lowest length of 11.33 cm when treated without treatment.Spraying N0 It is clear to us from the same table in the treatment of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars that there are significant differences, as the tube cultivation treatment 8 inches outperformed the A variety and gave the highest plant length of 16.00 cm compared to the lowest length when the tube cultivation treatment was 4 inches for variety R and amounted to 7.94 cm.As for the overlap treatment between the size of the tubes and spraying with nanofertilizer, the treatment of the two-way overlap was superior when planting with a tube diameter of 8 inches and spraying with N2 concentration of 17.50 cm, compared to the minimum length of 8.50 at 4 inches for N2 concentration of 8.50 cm.In the treatment of interaction between the cultivar and nanofertilization, the treatment of cultivar A excelled when fertilizing N1 and N2, reaching 14.39 and 15.17 cm, respectively, compared to the lowest length of cultivar R when not spraying N0, which was 11.22 cm.Through the same table above, the triple overlap coefficients show us the superiority of the tube cultivation treatment with a diameter of 8 inches for cultivar A when spraying with nanofertilizer at a concentration of 1.5 and 3 grams, it reached 17.66 and 18.17 cm, respectively, compared to the lowest plant length, which was 5.33 cm when the tube cultivation treatment with a diameter of 4 inches for the cultivar.R and spray at a concentration of 3 g.

Effect of NPK nanofertilizer
* Averages that bear similar letters, there are no significant differences between them according to Duncan test at the probability level (0.05).

Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar, Nano-Fertilization, Average Number of Leaves (plant leaf -1 )
The data in Table (2) indicate that there is a significant difference between the size of the tubes, as the size of the tube exceeded 8 inches, recording an average number of leaves of 18.00 plant leaf -1 , compared to the lowest average size of the tube 4 inches, recording 6.72 leaves Plant -1 .As for the general effect of cultivars, cultivar A was significantly superior by recording an average number of leaves of 12.78 plant leaf -1 .As for the cultivar R, it recorded an average of 11.30 plant leaf -1 .As for the spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer, treatment N1 excelled by giving it the highest mean number of leaves, reaching 13.83 plant leaf -1 , compared to the lowest average number of leaves 9.94 plant leaf -1 when the treatment of non-spraying N0.As for the treatment of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars, the 8-inch tube cultivation treatment for cultivar A and cultivar R was significantly superior to the rest of the treatments and gave the highest number of leaves of 18.11 plant leaf -1 and 17.899 plant leaf -1 , respectively, compared with the lowest number of leaves in the cultivation treatment.In the 4-inch tube, class R, it reached 6.44 plant leaf -1 .As for the interaction treatment between the size of the tubes and spraying with nano-fertilizer, the dual intervention treatment excelled when planting with the 8-inch tube and spraying with the concentration N1 reached 21.50 plant leaf -1 , while the lowest number of leaves was recorded at the tube 4 inches for the concentration N0 and N2 reached 6,500 plant leaf -1 .As for the treatment of interaction between the cultivar and nano-fertilization, the treatment of cultivar A excelled when fertilizing with N1, amounting to 14.67 plant leaf -1 leaves, compared to the lowest number when not spraying, as it reached 8.78 plant leaf

Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar and Nano-Fertilization, Area of One Leaf (cm 2 )
Through Table (3), the results show that there are significant differences for the treatments, where the treatment of the tube size of 8 inches excelled, giving the largest area per sheet of 47.06 cm 2 .Which did not differ significantly from the 6-inch tube, which gave a paper area of 46.72 cm 2 , while the least area per sheet was 23.88 cm 2 at the 4-inch diameter tube.As for the cultivar, there was no significant effect in the area of one leaf between the cultivars.As for spraying with neutral nano-fertilizer, treatment N1 and N2 excelled by giving them the largest area per leaf and one, reaching 39.99 and 42.99 cm 2 , respectively, compared to the least area per leaf at N0, which amounted to 34.67 cm 2 .The treatment of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars with 8-inch tube cultivation of the R variety was significantly superior in giving the highest rate of one leaf area of 50.15 cm 2 , while the 4inch tube treatment of the R cultivar recorded the lowest area per leaf and one as it reached 20.40 cm 2 .
As for the treatment of the bilateral overlap between the size of the tubes and spraying with nanofertilizer, planting with a tube of 8 inch diameter and spraying with concentration N2 excelled, reaching 52.15 cm 2 , while the least area was observed when not spraying with fertilizer N0 in the tube 4 inch, it reached 21.71 cm 2 .In the treatment of interaction between the cultivar and fertilization, we note the superiority of class A when treated with N2 and amounted to 44.40 cm 2 , while the lowest rate was recorded for class A and class R when not sprayed with nano-fertilizer N0 and amounted to 34.62 cm 2 and 34.72 cm 2 , respectively.We also notice through the table with regard to the triple intervention coefficients between the factors of the study, we note the superiority of the cultivation treatment with a 6-inch tube for variety R when spraying with fertilizer N1, as it reached 57.48 cm 2 , while the least leaf area was 18.74 cm 2 at the 4-inch tube for cultivar R when not fertilizing N0.

Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar and Nano-Fertilization on Total Leaf Area (cm 2 )
It is clear from Table (4) that there are significant differences between the treatments, that the tube size treatment had a significant effect on the average total paper area and gave the highest value when the 8-inch and 6-inch tubes were treated, and reached 285.63 cm 2 and 275.16 cm 2 , respectively, compared to the 4-inch tube, which gave 147.88 cm 2 .As for the cultivars, we note that strawberry cultivars A and R did not differ significantly from each other in the average total leaf area and gave a value of 238.42 cm 2 and 234.03 cm 2 , respectively.As for spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer, the concentration N1 and N2 were superior, as it gave the largest leaf area of 241.06 cm 2 and 257.06 cm 2 , respectively, compared to the lowest value for this characteristic when the comparison treatment, N0, recorded 210.59 cm 2 .We also note from the table that the treatment of the bilateral overlap between the tubes and the cultivars showed significant differences, as the cultivation treatment excelled in the 6-inch and 8-inch tubes of variety R by giving the highest value for the total leaf area of 295.25 cm 2  and 295.20 cm 2 , respectively.Compared to the lowest total leaf area when cultivating in a 4-inch tube for cultivar R, it was 124.81 cm 2 .It is also noted in the same table the overlap treatment between the size of the tube and spraying with nanofertilizer.The treatment of bilateral overlap when planting from tube diameter 6 inch and spraying with a concentration of N2 was significantly superior with a value of 314.09 cm 2 compared to the lowest value of 135.43 cm 2 when the tube 4 inch and concentration N0 and in the treatment of overlap between the cultivar and nano fertilization The treatment of class A excelled when sprayed with concentration N2 with a value of 264.03 cm 2 compared to the lowest value of class A at concentration N0 which amounted to 210.14 cm 2 which did not differ significantly from variety R. Aat concentration N0 which amounted to 211.04 cm 2 .We also note from the same table that the triple intervention treatments show a significant superiority at the 6-inch tube of the R variety when spraying with nano-fertilizer N1 and it reached 348.12 cm 2 compared to the least leaf area of 115.41 cm 2 at the 4-inch tube of the R variety when the control treatment N0.Effect of NPK nanofertilizer * Averages that bear similar letters, there are no significant differences between them according to Duncan test at the probability level (0.05).

Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar and Nano-Fertilization on Leaf Total Chlorophyll Content (SPAD)
It is clear from Table (5) that there are significant differences in the leaves content of total chlorophyll SPAD, as the treatment of tube size 8 inch excelled and recorded the highest value for this characteristic and amounted to 47.35 SPAD, compared to the lowest content of chlorophyll, which amounted to 40.94 SPAD when cultivated in the tube 4 inch.As for the cultivar, it did not record a significant difference between them in the chlorophyll content of the leaves, as the A variety recorded an average of 44.59 SPAD, and the R variety recorded an average of 44.37 SPAD.With regard to spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer, the N2 treatment was significantly superior in the mean chlorophyll content of the leaves, which amounted to 45.61 SPAD, compared to the lowest chlorophyll content in the N1 treatment, which amounted to 43.66 SPAD.From the same table, it is clear in the treatment of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars that there are significant differences.Cultivation in 8-inch tubes for variety A excelled and gave 47.62 SPAD, compared to the lowest chlorophyll content when cultivating in 4-inch tubes for variety R, which amounted to 40.93 SPAD.The treatment of the bilateral overlap between the size of the tubes and spraying with nanofertilizer when planting with an 8-inch tube and spraying with concentration N1 and N2 gave them 48.00 SPAD and 48.01 SPAD, respectively, while the size of the tube 4 inches and spraying with concentration N1 gave the least value of 39.44 SPAD.In the treatment of interaction between the variety and nano-fertilization, the treatment of variety A was superior when fertilized with a concentration of N2 amounting to 48.01 SPAD compared to the lowest value of this variety A at a concentration of N1 amounted to 43.34 SPAD.Through the same table regarding the triple overlap coefficients between the studied factors, we notice significant differences, as the tube cultivation coefficient exceeded 8 inches for class A at N2 concentration and class R at N1 concentration, which reached 49.07 SPAD and 49.00 SPAD, respectively, compared to the lowest chlorophyll content when tube cultivation was treated.4 inches for variety A when spraying with concentration N0, which did not differ significantly from the tube diameter of 4 inches for variety R when fertilizing with concentration N1, and it reached 39.31 SPAD.
Table 5.Effect of tube diameter, cultivar and nano-fertilization on leaf total chlorophyll content (SPAD).

Overlap between tubes and items
Spraying Effect of NPK nanofertilizer * Averages that bear similar letters, there are no significant differences between them according to Duncan test at the probability level (0.05).

The Effect of Tube Diameter, Variety and Nano-Fertilization on the Percentage of Dry Matter in the Leaves (%)
The results of table (6) show that there are significant differences between the treatments, as the treatments with the 6-inch and 8-inch tubes excelled in the characteristic of the percentage of dry matter in the leaves, which amounted to 31.40% and 29.88%, respectively, while the 4-inch tube treatments recorded the least value for this characteristic, amounting to 25.80%.As for the effect of the varieties, we note that grade A was significantly superior to grade R, with a value of 49.88%, while grade R recorded the lowest value of 28.17%.With regard to the application of balanced nanofertilizer, we see that there is no significant effect of nano-fertilizer in this capacity.We note from the same table regarding the coefficients of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars that the interference coefficients between tube 6 inch and class R were significantly superior to the rest of the treatments by giving it the highest percentage of dry matter in the leaves, amounting to 32.86%, while the overlap treatment between tube 4 inch and class A gave the lowest value in this characteristic.It reached 24.73%.In the interaction treatment between the size of the tubes and spraying with the balanced nano-fertilizer, the interaction treatment between planting with the 6-inch tube and spraying with the nano-fertilizer N1 excelled in this characteristic and recorded 32.79%, compared to the lowest proportion of the dry matter at the 4-inch tube and the concentration N1 amounted to 24.55%.The treatment of the bilateral overlap between grade R and fertilization with concentration N1 was significantly superior, recording a value of 30.90%, compared to the lowest value when treating the interaction between grade A when spraying with nanofertilizer with concentration N1 amounted to 27.76%.We note from the same table regarding the triple overlap coefficients between the study factors, we see the superiority of the treatment with a tube diameter of 6 inches for variety R when spraying at concentration N1 and reached 35.06%.Compared to the lowest value of this characteristic at the 4-inch tube of class A and spraying with a concentration of N1, which amounted to 22.48%.Table 6.Effect of tube diameter, cultivar and nano-fertilization on the proportion of dry matter in the leaves (%).

Overlap between tubes and items
Spraying  7), the data indicate that the treatment of tube size 8 inches was superior, as it gave the highest yield of 567.31 gm plant -1 , compared to the lowest yield of tube 4 inches, which amounted to 188.70 gm plant -1 .As for the general effect of the cultivars, cultivar A was superior by giving it the highest yield of 414.08 gm plant -1 , compared to the lowest value of 354.07 gm plant -1 for cultivar R. With regard to the general effect of spraying with neutral nanofertilizer, treatment N2 was significantly superior by giving it the highest rate of yield per plant amounted to 546.62 plant-1 g, compared to the lowest value for this trait amounted to 188.02 g plant-1 when the control treatment N0.From the same table, we notice in the treatment of bilateral overlap between tubes and cultivars that there are significant differences between the treatments, as the treatment of 8-inch tube cultivation for variety A was significantly superior and recorded the highest average yield per house amounted to 587.19 g plant -1 .While the lowest value was recorded when the 4-inch tube cultivation treatment for cultivar R amounted to 139.53 g plant -1 .With regard to the treatment, the bilateral overlap between the size of the tubes and spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer was superior to the tube diameter of 8 inches and the spraying with fertilizer at a concentration of 3 g, giving it a rate of 819.16 g plant -1 , compared to the lowest rate at the tube of 4 inches and treated with concentration N0, which amounted to 118.77 g plant -1 .As for the dual intervention treatment between the cultivar and the balanced nanofertilization only, cultivar A and the treatment with a concentration of 3 gm were significantly superior, giving it the highest rate of 631.36 gm plant -1 .While the lowest rate of yield per plant was observed for cultivar R when not sprayed, N0, which reached 185.87 g plant -1 .The triple overlap treatment between the 8-inch diameter tube cultivation treatment for variety A when spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer with a concentration of N2 was significantly superior to the rest of the treatments by giving it the highest value of 927.86 g plant -1 , while the lowest value for this trait was recorded when the 4-inch tube cultivation treatment for cultivar R was treated with no treatment.Spraying N0 amounted to 93.21 g plant -1 .Table 7.Effect of tube diameter, cultivar and nano-fertilization on the yield of one plant (gm plant -1 ).

Overlap between tubes and items
Spraying

Effect of Pipe Diameter, Variety and Nano-Fertilization on Greenhouse Yield (kg plastic house -1 )
The results of Table No. (8) indicate that there are significant differences between the treatments, as the 8-inch tube size treatment excelled by recording the highest yield of the greenhouse amounted to 2297.6 kg plastic house -1 , compared to the lowest yield for this characteristic, which amounted to 764.2 kg plastic house -1 at the 4-inch tube.With regard to the varieties, class A was significantly superior in this characteristic, at a rate of 1677.03 kg plastic house -1 over class R, as it recorded an average of 1433.98 kg plastic house -1 .Also, for spraying with balanced nano-fertilizer, the concentration N2 was significantly superior to the rest of the concentrations in its class as the yield of greenhouse -1 , amounting to 2213.82 kg plastic house -1 , compared to the lowest yield of 761.49kg plastic house -1 when the control treatment N0.With regard to the bilateral overlap treatments, we see that there are significant differences between the tubes and the varieties, as the 8-inch cultivation treatment excelled for class A and gave the largest yield for the house amounted to 2378.13 kg plastic house -1 .As for the overlap treatment between the size of the tubes and spraying with neutral nano-fertilizer, we see a significant difference.Planting with a tube with a diameter of 8 inches and spraying with a concentration of 3 g reached 3317.6 kg plastic house -1 compared to the lowest yield of the house amounted to 481.0 kg plastic house -1 .Using concentration N0 at the tube.4 inch As for the treatment of bilateral interaction between the cultivar and nano-fertilization, the coefficient of class A excelled when fertilizing with a concentration of 3 g and reached 2557.00 kgplastic house -1 compared to the lowest value of 752.56 kg plastic house -1 for class A when not sprayed with fertilizer N0.Through the same table, we can see that the triple overlap coefficients are superior to the cultivation treatment with a tube of 8 inches in diameter for variety A when spraying with nanofertilizer with a concentration of N2, with a value of 3757.8 kg plastic house - 1 , compared to the lowest value of 377.1 kg plastic house -1 in the treatment with a 4-inch tube for the cultivar.R. At comparison transaction N0.Table 8.Effect of pipe diameter, variety and nano-fertilization on the yield of the plastic house (kg plastic house -1 ).It is concluded from the results in Tables (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) that the planting medium using a tube of 6 inch and 8 inch diameter compared with a tube of 4 inch diameter in vegetative growth indicators such as plant length, number of leaves, The area of one leaf, the total leaf area, the total chlorophyll, the percentage of dry matter, and the 8-inch tube was superior to the 6-inch and 4-inch tube cultivation in the yield of one plant and the yield of the greenhouse.The reason for the superiority of the strawberry plant grown in large-sized tubes is attributed to the increase in the volume of soil in the large tube, where there is more room for root growth, which increases the tube's ability to retain moisture, and this reflects positively on the absorption of nutrients, water, and the formation of hormones, which in turn leads to its superiority in growth [9].As the increase in the transfer and accumulation of carbon metabolites to the fruits contributes to the formation of large fruits, which reflects positively on the total yield of the greenhouse [10].This is consistent with what was mentioned by [11], that the green seedlings growing in containers tend to be proportional to the size of the container, as the effect of the size of the medium appears through the nutritional space it provides to the plant and its effect on the speed of plant growth and its entry into the different physiological stages.From the same previous tables and with regard to the effect of cultivars, we note the superiority of the Albion cultivar over the Ruby gem cultivar in terms of plant length, number of leaves, percentage of dry matter in the leaves, average yield of one plant, and average yield of the greenhouse, due to the genetic differences between cultivars and the variation in the strength of vegetative growth root and its response to environmental conditions [12].The results showed in the same tables that foliar spraying with neutral nanofertilizer at a concentration of 1.5 g L -1 and 3 g L -1 led to a significant increase in the studied vegetative traits and yield, plant length, number of leaves, leaf area, total leaf area, chlorophyll, and the percentage of The dry matter in the leaves, the yield of one plant, and the yield of the plastic house.The reason for this is due to the rapid arrival of the fertilizer by the foliar spray method and its representation in the metabolism sites through the stomata in the leaves, wounds and scratches in the cuticle layer, reaching the cells at a faster time, which leads to the continuity of the metabolic processes that lead to To improve the characteristics of vegetative growth, which is positively reflected in the formation of a greater number of fruits and an increase in the average weight of the fruit and thus an increase in the total yield [13].Thus increasing the growth speed and yield of the plant [14].The reason for the increase in vegetative growth and the positive effect on the yield characteristics of the plant is due to the role of nanofertilizers in providing the plant with plant nutrients, as these fertilizers are an important source of major nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium [15].As nitrogen has a role in building plastids, as nitrogen enters the composition of the Porphyrins unit that is included in the synthesis of chlorophyll, and is an essential element in building the amino acid tryptophan, which is involved in building auxins that increase meristematic activity, division and elongation of cells, building tissues and increasing growth materials such as proteins and nucleic acids and carbohydrates, which leads to an increase in vegetative growth and yield and an increase in dry matter accumulation [16].
As for phosphorus, it helps vegetative growth through its entry into the formation of energy-rich compounds and phospholipids and the building of chloroplasts through its entry into the synthesis of amino acids and proteins [13], and it also contributes to the construction of enzymatic conjugates NAD and NADP that have a role in oxidation and reduction processes and thus Increasing vital processes such as photosynthesis and respiration, which results in an increase in plant growth and yield [17].While potassium performs many physiological activities in the plant by activating important enzymes, assimilating carbohydrates, and transporting manufactured materials to the rest of the plant parts [18], Potassium is also a necessary element in activating amino acids and proteins that help manufacture chlorophyll and increase the photosynthesis process [19], and the regulation of the special mechanism in opening and closing stomata, which leads to an increase in vegetative growth activity, an increase in manufactured materials, and an increase in nutrients and energy compounds in the plant, which increases the plant yield [20].The increase in the dry weight of the shoots of plants treated with nanofertilizers is due to the role played by nanomaterials in increasing the surface area of reactions, which causes an increase in the activity and effectiveness of enzymes, and this stimulates an increase in the demand for nutrients and an increase in their absorption [21].The development of leaf growth, which is one of the primary sites for the biosynthesis of auxins, as the plant tissues receive sufficient amounts of auxins leads to an increase in plant height and enhances the number, size and quality of fruits, and thus increases the yield of the crop [22].This agrees with what [23], mentioned about increasing vegetative growth and yield in the plant due to the role of fertilizers manufactured with nanotechnology that increase the effectiveness of the photosynthesis process, enzymatic processes, and improve the cellular system.As for the effect of the double and triple interactions mentioned in the above tables, there were significant differences and superiority of the interaction coefficients and their interpretations with the interpretations of the previously mentioned single factors.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Shows the experimental field.2.1.3.Third Factor: Neutralized Nano Fertilizer (20N20P20K)The plants were sprayed with neutral nanofertilizer N2OP2OK2O with two concentrations of 1.5, 3gm L -1 , in addition to the comparison treatment without spraying and denoted N2, N1, N0 in the form of two batches, the first batch 45 days after planting the seedlings on 12/15/2021, and the second batch after The first installment in 14 days, on 12/29/2021.The nanofertilizer was prepared by dissolving 1.5 grams in 1 liter of distilled water with a concentration of N1.Dissolve 3 grams in 1 liter of distilled water with N2 concentration.

Table 1 .
Effect of tube diameter, cultivar and nano-fertilization on plant length (cm).

Table 2 .
The triple intervention treatment with an 8-inch diameter tube, cultivar R, when sprayed with nanofertilizer at concentration N1, had 22.33 plant leaf -1 , compared to the lowest number of leaves when planting in a tube of 4 inches diameter for variety A when not spraying N0 and spraying with concentration N2, and reached 6.00 plant leaf -1.Effect of tube diameter, cultivar, nano-fertilization, average number of leaves, plant leaf -1 .

Table 3 .
Effect of tube diameter, cultivar, and nano-fertilization.Area of one leaf cm 2 .
* Averages that bear similar letters, there are no significant differences between them according to Duncan test at the probability level (0.05).

Table 4 .
Effect of tube diameter, cultivar and nano-fertilization on total leaf area cm 2 .
Averages that bear similar letters, there are no significant differences between them according to Duncan test at the probability level (0.05).The Effect of Tube Diameter, Cultivar and Nano-Fertilization on the Yield of One Plant (g plant-1) Through TableNo.(