<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//TaxonX//DTD Taxonomic Treatment Publishing DTD v0 20100105//EN" "https://innovationsagriculture.pensoft.net/nlm/tax-treatment-NS0.dtd">
<article xmlns:tp="http://www.plazi.org/taxpub" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">128</journal-id>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="index">urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:6c61704f-9bf3-5251-ba56-032e2561d8ee</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title xml:lang="en">Innovations in Agriculture</journal-title>
        <abbrev-journal-title xml:lang="en">InnovAgr</abbrev-journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2617-1295</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Pensoft Publishers</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3897/ia.2026.183987</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">183987</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
          <subject>Research Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="scientific_subject">
          <subject>Horticulture</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="sdg">
          <subject>Climate action</subject>
          <subject>Decent work &amp; economic growth</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Organic versus conventional fertilization: impacts on growth, yield and profitability of lettuce cultivars</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group content-type="authors">
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Akter</surname>
            <given-names>Nazma</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1">1</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing - original draft</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/formal-analysis/">Formal analysis</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigation</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Nabi</surname>
            <given-names>Md. Nur</given-names>
          </name>
          <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6605-5185</uri>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A2">2</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigation</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/validation/">Validation</role>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Chowhan</surname>
            <given-names>Sushan</given-names>
          </name>
          <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6168-2402</uri>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A3">3</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing - review and editing</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/data-curation/">Data curation</role>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Kayesh</surname>
            <given-names>Emrul</given-names>
          </name>
          <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4971-0113</uri>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A2">2</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Alam</surname>
            <given-names>Mohammad Saiful</given-names>
          </name>
          <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8213-9342</uri>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A4">4</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/project-administration/">Project administration</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Roni</surname>
            <given-names>Md. Shyduzzaman</given-names>
          </name>
          <email xlink:type="simple">roni@gau.edu.bd</email>
          <uri content-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7388-5511</uri>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A2">2</xref>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/investigation/">Investigation</role>
          <role content-type="http://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/supervision/">Supervision</role>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="A1">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Uttar Durgapur Govt. Primary School, Motlab uttar, Chandpur-3643, Bangladesh</addr-line>
        <institution>Uttar Durgapur Govt. Primary School, Motlab uttar</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Chandpur</addr-line>
        <country>Bangladesh</country>
</aff>
      <aff id="A2">
        <label>2</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Department of Horticulture, Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh</addr-line>
        <institution>Department of Horticulture, Gazipur Agricultural University</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Gazipur</addr-line>
        <country>Bangladesh</country>
        <uri content-type="ror">https://ror.org/04tgrx733</uri>
      </aff>
      <aff id="A3">
        <label>3</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Adaptive Research and Extension Division, Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA), Sub-station Magura, Magura-7600, Bangladesh</addr-line>
        <institution>Adaptive Research and Extension Division, Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA), Sub-station Magura</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Magura</addr-line>
        <country>Bangladesh</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="A4">
        <label>4</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Department of Soil Science, Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh</addr-line>
        <institution>Department of Soil Science, Gazipur Agricultural University</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Gazipur</addr-line>
        <country>Bangladesh</country>
        <uri content-type="ror">https://ror.org/04tgrx733</uri>
      </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="corresp">
          <p>Corresponding author: Md. Shyduzzaman Roni (<email xlink:type="simple">roni@gau.edu.bd</email>)</p>
        </fn>
        <fn fn-type="edited-by">
          <p><bold>Academic editor</bold>: Turgay Akunal</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>22</day>
        <month>04</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>9</volume>
      <elocation-id>e183987</elocation-id>
      <uri content-type="arpha" xlink:href="http://openbiodiv.net/06AFF321-F165-5DDC-A291-2185788E5AA5">06AFF321-F165-5DDC-A291-2185788E5AA5</uri>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>31</day>
          <month>12</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>25</day>
          <month>02</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Nazma Akter, Md. Nur Nabi, Sushan Chowhan, Emrul Kayesh, Mohammad Saiful Alam, Md. Shyduzzaman Roni</copyright-statement>
        <license license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple">
          <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <abstract>
        <label>Abstract</label>
        <p>Lettuce (<italic><tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus" reg="Lactuca">Lactuca</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species" reg="sativa">sativa</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name></italic> L.) is an increasingly popular leafy vegetable in Bangladesh due to its high nutritional value and growing consumer preference for fresh salads. However, productivity remains low compared to major lettuce-producing countries like China and USA, largely because of inadequate cultivar selection and suboptimal nutrient management. The current study was carried out at Gazipur Agricultural University in Bangladesh during the winter to assess the growth performance, yield potential, and economic viability of three lettuce cultivars viz. Green Wave, Grand Rapids, and Iceberg under organic and conventional fertilization systems. Three cultivars and two fertilization techniques were combined in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Evaluations of yield, profitability, and growth characteristics (plant height, quantity, size, and area of leaves) were observed and analyzed. Results revealed significant interaction effects between cultivar and fertilization method for most growth and yield parameters. The Iceberg cultivar produced the highest marketable yield under conventional fertilization (31.0 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), while organic fertilization enhanced plant height and leaf area in Green Wave. Economic analysis indicated that Iceberg grown under organic fertilization provided the highest benefit-cost ratio (1.84), owing to premium market prices and lower input costs. Overall, the study demonstrates that cultivar choice strongly influences lettuce performance under different fertilization systems, and that organic cultivation of Iceberg lettuce offers a profitable and sustainable option for Bangladeshi farmers.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <label>Keywords</label>
        <kwd>Conventional fertilization</kwd>
        <kwd>growth</kwd>
        <kwd>lettuce BCR</kwd>
        <kwd>organic fertilization</kwd>
        <kwd>yield</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec sec-type="Introduction" id="sec1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Among salad crops, lettuce (<italic><tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus" reg="Lactuca">Lactuca</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species" reg="sativa">sativa</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name></italic> L.) is the most widely used and takes up the greatest space worldwide. It is a member of <tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="family" reg="Asteraceae">Asteraceae</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name>, the biggest dicotyledonous family (formerly <tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="family" reg="Compositae">Compositae</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name>). It is a tall, milky-juiced annual leafy herb. Early in the season, it grows a short stem and a cluster of leaves that, depending on the variety, vary greatly in shape, character, and color. It is widely acknowledged that Europe and Asia are where it first appeared in the New World (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Masarirambi et al. 2012</xref>). It was brought to several nations, including America, Europe, China, and others, shortly after the New World was discovered. Eventually, it spread to the rest of the world. China is currently the world’s top producer of lettuce, with the United States coming in second. It is frequently eaten either by itself or with dressing and is typically used as a salad with tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers, or other salad vegetables. Among the main vegetables, lettuce stands out since it is consumed almost exclusively raw (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Snowdon 2001</xref>). Although it cannot be considered a major salad crop, it has become one of the most significant and popular salad crops in Bangladesh because of its many uses, nutritional value, and delicious flavor. Although lettuce is becoming more and more popular, Bangladeshi farmers are not well-informed on its production package. For growth and development, this vegetable needs a lot of nitrogenous fertilizer. However, using too much nitrogen fertilizer to boost crop output affects the soil’s nutritional balance, pollutes the soil, lowers crop quality, and may render a significant portion of the resources unusable (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Ahmed et al. 2022</xref>). In order to achieve a greater vegetable output, soil health is essential (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Nahar et al. 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Jannat et al. 2023</xref>). Comparative studies show a consistent but nuanced story about how lettuce responds to organic and conventional fertilization. Under controlled conditions, conventional mineral fertilizers rapidly increased soil nitrogen and phosphorus availability, resulting in higher chlorophyll content, stronger canopy development, and greater fresh biomass, while organic amendments such as compost acted more slowly and produced lower short-term yields despite improving soil organic matter and amino acid accumulation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">García-Rández et al. 2025</xref>). However, evidence also shows that when organic fertilization is carefully managed, especially in combination with biostimulants, it can significantly enhance lettuce morphology and yield, increase head mass and leaf number while also promoting beneficial secondary metabolites related to stress tolerance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Fajdetić et al. 2025</xref>). Over the long term, field-based comparisons further indicate that organically managed systems can sometimes match or even surpass conventional yields, with organically grown lettuce showing higher fresh weight in certain trials, highlighting the importance of management practices and time scale when evaluating productivity and profitability (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Dhakal and Nandwani 2022</xref>). Concerns over the long-term sustainability of crop production have grown as evidence shows that excessive use of chemical fertilizers can degrade soil health and threaten sustainable productivity (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Virgine Tenshia and Singram 2005</xref>). At the same time, consumers increasingly associate organic farming with higher produce quality, driving demand for vegetables grown with fewer or no synthetic inputs. In response to the environmental and health risks linked to chemical fertilizers, many farmers are shifting toward vegetable production systems that avoid inorganic fertilizers altogether (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Asaduzzaman et al. 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Chowhan 2021a</xref>). As a result, organic farming has emerged as a widely accepted alternative for reducing health risks while supporting more sustainable agricultural practices.</p>
      <p>The lettuce is perfectly suited to Bangladesh’s Rabi season. In comparison to other nations that cultivate lettuce, such as Italy (73.5 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), Japan (58.6 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), and India (108.9 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), this country’s lettuce farming is restricted to a very small area with minimal production and an average yield of only 4.0 t ha<sup>-1</sup> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">FAOSTAT 2025</xref>). Lack of knowledge about contemporary production techniques, such as appropriate genotypes, ideal planting times, fertilizer requirements, soil fertility status, etc., may be the primary cause of this country’s poor lettuce yield (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Chowhan 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Chowhan 2021b</xref>). In the context of the aforementioned facts, the current study was conducted to examine the vegetative development, yield, and economic suitability of lettuce cultivars under conventional and organic fertilization, as well as to determine the optimal combinations for long-term crop productivity.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="materials|methods" id="sec2">
      <title>Materials and methods</title>
      <p>The experiment was conducted at the Horticulture Research Farm of Gazipur Agricultural University (<abbrev content-type="institution" xlink:title="Gazipur Agricultural University">GAU</abbrev>), Salna, Gazipur during the winter season. The cultivar of lettuce used in this experiment was the Green Wave, Grand Rapids and Iceberg were collected from the market of Siddique Bazar of Dhaka. The experiment comprised of six treatments (T<sub>1</sub> = Green Wave × Organic, T<sub>2</sub> = Grand Rapids × Organic, T<sub>3</sub> = Iceberg × Organic, T<sub>4</sub> = Green Wave × Conventional, T<sub>5</sub> = Grand Rapids × Conventional, T<sub>6</sub> = Iceberg × Conventional). In the organic fertilization method only well decomposed cow dung at the rate of 50 t ha<sup>-1</sup> was applied and in the conventional fertilization method- Urea, TSP, MOP and well decomposed cow dung was applied at the rate of 250 kg ha<sup>-1</sup>, 150 kg ha<sup>-1</sup>, 200 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> and 15 t ha<sup>-1</sup> respectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Moniruzzaman 2002</xref>). Urea was used as a top dressing in two equal installments at 12 and 24 days after transplanting (<abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>) in the case of the conventional growth method. Only well-decomposed cow manure (50 t ha<sup>-1</sup>) was used in the organic growth approach. The <abbrev content-type="institution" xlink:title="Gazipur Agricultural University">GAU</abbrev> meteorological station provided the distribution of average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidity, and rainfall during the crop growing season, which is shown in Suppl. material <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="S1">1</xref>: table SS1. Three replications of the field experiment were carried out using Randomized Complete Block Design (<abbrev xlink:title="Randomized Complete Block Design">RCBD</abbrev>). The experimental plot was 108 m<sup>2</sup> in total, measuring 13.5 m in length and 8 m in width. Three equal blocks were created from the entire region. Each block was split up into six plots, each with a random distribution of six treatment combinations. The experiment included a total of eighteen-unit plots. Each plot was 2 m by 1.5 m. Two blocks and two plots were kept 70 cm and 50 cm apart, respectively. Plots were elevated to a height of 10 cm. Row to row and plant to plant spacing in the plot was maintained at 25 cm and 40 cm, respectively. Intercultural tasks like irrigation, mulching, and gap filling were carried out as needed. With the exception of yields, which were recorded plot-wise, ten plants were chosen at random from the middle rows of the unit plot to avoid the border effect. To evaluate plant development, yield characteristics, and yields as impacted by various treatment combinations, data on a variety of parameters were gathered. At 15, 25, and 35 days after transplanting (<abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>), data were gathered on plant height, leaf length, leaf breadth, number of leaves per plant, and total leaf area per plant. Total yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>), leaf yield per plant (kg), and leaf yield per plot (kg) were determined and calculated at final harvest. The “Statistix 10” program was used to statistically analyze the gathered data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Statistix 2021</xref>). The Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (<abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev> at 5%) was used to examine the mean differences between the treatments after calculating the mean values for each treatment and conducting an analysis of variance for each variable (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Gomez and Gomez 1984</xref>). Economic analysis was done in order to compare the profitability of the treatment combination. Values of Gross return, Net return and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) were calculated in accordance with the formula by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Chowhan et al. 2021</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">2022a</xref>. The details of Cost of production (Input cost) and Overhead costings are described in Suppl. material <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="S1">1</xref>: tables S2, S3.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Results" id="sec3">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Assessment of the growth patterns revealed distinct differences in leaf development and biomass accumulation across the genotypes. Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">1</xref> provides a comprehensive overview of the descriptive statistics for these leaf-related traits and final yield attributes.</p>
      <table-wrap id="T2" position="float" orientation="portrait">
        <label>Table 1.</label>
        <caption>
          <p>Descriptive statistics for growth parameters and yield attributes of lettuce cultivars.</p>
        </caption>
        <table>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Variable(s)</bold>
              </th>
              <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Overall mean</bold>
              </th>
              <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>CV (%)</bold>
              </th>
              <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Std. Error (SE)</bold>
              </th>
              <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Range (Min–Max)</bold>
              </th>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Plant height at 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.03</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.9</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.4</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.90–15.79</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Plant height at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.15</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.25</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.34</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.86–20.29</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Plant height at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">20.37</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.06</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.6</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.95–22.52</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of leaves at 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev></td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.01</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.5</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.29</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.48–6.67</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of leaves at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev></td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.63</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.51</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.4</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.19–10.87</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of leaves at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev></td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.75</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.79</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.44</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.48–16.90</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf length at 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.75</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.44</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.37</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.99–12.55</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf length at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.98</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.97</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.17</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.67–16.71</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf length at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.5</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.96</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.28</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.43–17.38</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf breadth at 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.05</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.07</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.32</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.52–9.55</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf breadth at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.83</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.48</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.28</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.90–14.81</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Leaf breadth at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.22</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.08</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.57</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.43–17.29</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total leaf area at 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm<sup>2</sup>)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">193.27</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.8</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.82</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">148.00–222.64</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total leaf area at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm<sup>2</sup>)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">546.41</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.1</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">19.24</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">489.82–635.68</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total leaf area at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (cm<sup>2</sup>)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">666.73</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.38</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.41</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">618.54–742.25</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Yield per plant (kg)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.26</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.61</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.011</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.22–0.31</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Yield per plot (kg)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.85</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.61</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.35</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.60–9.30</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total Yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">26.33</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.61</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.16</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.00–31.00</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <table-wrap-foot>
          <fn>
            <p><abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, days after transplanting.</p>
          </fn>
        </table-wrap-foot>
      </table-wrap>
      <sec sec-type="Growth responses of lettuce cultivars under different fertilization regimes" id="sec4">
        <title>Growth responses of lettuce cultivars under different fertilization regimes</title>
        <p>Plant height of lettuce was significantly affected by the interaction between cultivar and fertilization method (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">2</xref>). At 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the tallest plants were observed in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (15.79 cm), which was statistically comparable to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (14.60 cm). The shortest plants occurred in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (12.90 cm), statistically similar to C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (13.17 cm) and C3G1 (13.49 cm). At 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> produced the tallest plants (20.29 cm), whereas C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> resulted in the lowest plant height (15.86 cm) and was significantly inferior to all other treatments. A similar trend was observed at 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, where C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> recorded the maximum height (22.52 cm), statistically comparable to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (21.86 cm). The shortest plants were obtained from C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (18.95 cm), which did not differ significantly from other treatments except C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> and C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub>.</p>
        <table-wrap id="T1" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 2.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Interaction effects of cultivar and fertilization on leaf production of lettuce.</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="2" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Treatment combinations</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="3">
                  <bold>Plant height (cm) at</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="3">
                  <bold>Number of leaves per plant at</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>15DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>25DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>35DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>15DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>25DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>35DAT</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.79 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">20.29 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.52 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.62 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.71</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.67 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.17 cd</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.43 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">19.57 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.05 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.87</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.57 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.21 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.67 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.95 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.62 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.76</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.48 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.60 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.71 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">21.86 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.62 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.71</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.90 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.90 d</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.86 d</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">19.14 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.48 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.19</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.43 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.49 bcd</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.91 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">20.19 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.67 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.52</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.43 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev> (5%)</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.95</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.67</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.93</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.45</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.96</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.14</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <table-wrap-foot>
            <fn>
              <p>Means in a column bearing different letter(s) are significantly different by Tukey’s <abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev>. <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, days after transplanting; C<sub>1</sub>, Green wave; C<sub>2</sub>, Grand Rapids; C<sub>3</sub>, Iceberg; G<sub>0</sub>, Organic; G<sub>1</sub>, Conventional.</p>
            </fn>
          </table-wrap-foot>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>The number of leaves per plant was significantly influenced by treatments at 15 and 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, but not at 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev> (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">2</xref>). At 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the highest leaf number was recorded in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (6.67), which was statistically similar to C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (6.62) and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (6.05). The lowest leaf number was observed in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (5.48), which was statistically comparable to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub>, and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>. At 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the highest number of leaves was recorded in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (10.76), though differences among treatments were not significant. At 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> produced the maximum number of leaves (16.90), statistically similar to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub>, while the lowest leaf number was observed in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (13.48), which did not differ significantly from C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec sec-type="Lettuce cultivars’ responses to different fertilization type in terms of leaf size" id="sec5">
        <title>Lettuce cultivars’ responses to different fertilization type in terms of leaf size</title>
        <p>Leaf length of lettuce was significantly influenced by the interaction between cultivar and fertilization method (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">3</xref>). At 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the highest leaf length was recorded in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (12.55 cm), which did not differ significantly from other treatments except C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub>. At 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> again produced the longest leaves (16.71 cm), significantly exceeding all other treatment combinations, while the shortest leaves were observed in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (13.67 cm). At 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, maximum leaf length was recorded in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (17.38 cm), which was statistically comparable to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, and C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>. In contrast, both C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> produced the shortest leaves (15.43 cm).</p>
        <table-wrap id="T3" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 3.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Combined influence of cultivar and fertilization on leaf size of lettuce.</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="2" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Treatment combinations</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="3">
                  <bold>Leaf length (cm) at</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="3">
                  <bold>Leaf breadth (cm) at</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>15DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>25DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>35DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>15DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>25DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>35DAT</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.55 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.71 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.33 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.33 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.33 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.90 ab</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.50 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.38 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.43 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.55 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.38 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.43 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.12 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.14 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.52 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.26 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.81 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.95 ab</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.71 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.14 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.38 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.86 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.38 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.19 ab</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">10.99 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.67 d</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.43 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.79 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">12.90 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15.57 ab</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.62 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.81 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.90 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.52 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.19 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">17.29 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev> (5%)</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.78</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.82</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.37</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.54</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.35</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.78</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <table-wrap-foot>
            <fn>
              <p>Means in a column bearing different letter(s) are significantly different by Tukey’s <abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev>. <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, days after transplanting; C<sub>1</sub>, Green wave; C<sub>2</sub>, Grand Rapids; C<sub>3</sub>, Iceberg; G<sub>0</sub>, Organic; G<sub>1</sub>, Conventional.</p>
            </fn>
          </table-wrap-foot>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Leaf breadth was also significantly affected by the cultivar × fertilization interaction (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">2</xref>). At 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the greatest leaf breadth was observed in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (9.55 cm), statistically similar to all treatments except C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>, which produced the narrowest leaves (8.52 cm). At 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> recorded the highest leaf breadth (14.81 cm), comparable to C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> and C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>, while the lowest value was found in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (12.90 cm). At 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, maximum leaf breadth occurred in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (17.29 cm), which differed significantly only from C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>. The lowest leaf breadth was recorded in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (15.43 cm).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec sec-type="Response of lettuce leaf area to cultivar and fertilization" id="sec6">
        <title>Response of lettuce leaf area to cultivar and fertilization</title>
        <p>Total leaf area of lettuce was significantly affected by the interaction between cultivar and fertilization method (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">4</xref>). At 15 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the highest leaf area was recorded in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (222.64 cm<sup>2</sup>), which was statistically comparable to C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (209.21 cm<sup>2</sup>) and C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (204.96 cm<sup>2</sup>). The lowest leaf area at this stage was observed in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (148.00 cm<sup>2</sup>). At 25 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> produced the maximum total leaf area per plant (635.68 cm<sup>2</sup>), whereas the minimum was recorded in C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (489.82 cm<sup>2</sup>), which was statistically similar to C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> and C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>. At 35 <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, the highest leaf area was obtained from C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (742.25 cm<sup>2</sup>), statistically comparable to C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>. In contrast, the lowest leaf area was recorded in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (618.54 cm<sup>2</sup>), which did not differ significantly from C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>, and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub>.</p>
        <table-wrap id="T4" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 4.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Interaction effect of cultivars and fertilization methods on total leaf area of lettuce.</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="2" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Treatment combinations</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="3">
                  <bold>Total leaf area (cm<sup>2</sup>) at</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>15DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>25DAT</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>35DAT</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">222.64 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">635.68 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">628.75 c</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">209.21 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">554.93 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">654.71 abc</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">191.68 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">496.43 cd</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">618.54 c</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">204.96 ab</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">570.71 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">742.25 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">183.14 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">489.82 d</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">633.89 bc</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">148.00 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">530.86 bcd</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">722.25 ab</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev> (5%)</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">47.91</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">94.13</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">138.31</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <table-wrap-foot>
            <fn>
              <p>Means in a column bearing different letter(s) are significantly different by Tukey’s <abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev>. <abbrev xlink:title="days after transplanting">DAT</abbrev>, days after transplanting; C<sub>1</sub>, Green wave; C<sub>2</sub>, Grand Rapids; C<sub>3</sub>, Iceberg; G<sub>0</sub>, Organic; G<sub>1</sub>, Conventional.</p>
            </fn>
          </table-wrap-foot>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec sec-type="Yield performance" id="sec7">
        <title>Yield performance</title>
        <p>Yield per plant, yield per plot, and yield per hectare were significantly influenced by the interaction between cultivar and fertilization method (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">5</xref>). The highest yield per plant (0.31 kg) was recorded in C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub>, while the lowest yield was observed in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (0.22 kg), which was statistically similar to C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (0.24 kg). Total yield per plot followed a similar trend, with the maximum yield obtained from C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (9.30 kg) and the minimum from C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (6.60 kg), statistically comparable to C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (7.20 kg). On a hectare basis, C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> produced the highest yield (31 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), whereas the lowest yield was recorded in C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (22 t ha<sup>-1</sup>), followed by C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (24 t ha<sup>-1</sup>).</p>
        <table-wrap id="T5" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 5.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Interaction effect of cultivars and fertilization methods on leaf yield at harvest of lettuce.</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Treatment</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Yield/plant (kg)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Yield/plot (kg)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.22 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6.60 c</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22.00 c</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.24 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">7.20 bc</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24.00 bc</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.27 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.00 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.00 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.27 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.00 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.00 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.27 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.00 b</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27.00 b</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.31 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">9.30 a</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.00 a</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1"><abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev> (5%)</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.05</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.68</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.59</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <table-wrap-foot>
            <fn>
              <p>Means in a column bearing different letter(s) are significantly different by Tukey’s <abbrev xlink:title="Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference">HSD</abbrev>. C<sub>1</sub>, Green wave; C<sub>2</sub>, Grand Rapids; C<sub>3</sub>, Iceberg; G<sub>0</sub>, Organic; G<sub>1</sub>, Conventional.</p>
            </fn>
          </table-wrap-foot>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec sec-type="Economic analysis" id="sec8">
        <title>Economic analysis</title>
        <p>The benefit-cost ratio was the highest (1.84) in the treatment C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (cultivar: Iceberg with organic method) (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T6">6</xref>) and the second and third highest benefit-cost ratio (1.69 and 1.59) were found in the treatments C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub> and C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub>. The lowest (1.47) benefit-cost ratio was recorded from C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (Cultivar: Grand Rapids with conventional method) and C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub> (Green wave with conventional method). From the economic point of view, the above results indicated that treatment C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub> (cultivar: Iceberg with organic method) was more profitable than the other treatments for the lettuce production.</p>
        <table-wrap id="T6" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 6.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Cost and return analysis of lettuce production under different treatment combinations.</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Treatment combination</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Marketable yield (t ha<sup>-1</sup>)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Gross return (BDT)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Cost of production (BDT)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Net return (BDT)</bold>
                </th>
                <th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>BCR</bold>
                </th>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">22</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">122,826</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">82,000</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40,826</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.50</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">133,992</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">82,500</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">51,492</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.59</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>0</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">150,741</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">82,000</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">68,741</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.84</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>1</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">124,848</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">84,400</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40,448</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.47</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>2</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">27</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">124,848</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">84,900</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">39,948</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.47</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">C<sub>3</sub>G<sub>1</sub></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">31</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">143,344</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">84,400</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">58,944</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.69</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <table-wrap-foot>
            <fn>
              <p>Details of economic analysis of production is presented in Suppl. material <xref ref-type="supplementary-material" rid="S1">1</xref>: tables S2, S3. Sales of marketable yield of lettuce for organic @BDT 5,583/t and for conventional @ BDT 4,624/t, 1 USD = 123 BDT. C<sub>1</sub>, Green wave; C<sub>2</sub>, Grand Rapids; C<sub>3</sub>, Iceberg; G<sub>0</sub>, Organic; G<sub>1</sub>, Conventional.</p>
            </fn>
          </table-wrap-foot>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Discussion" id="sec9">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>The above finding makes it clear that larger levels of organic fertilizers, especially well-decomposed cow dung, have a positive impact on lettuce plant height at harvest. Throughout the growing phase, organic fertilizers could have accelerated the nitrogen mineralization process and ensured the slow but consistent release of vital nutrients, which may have raised the synthesis of carbohydrates, improved growth, and ultimately increased the height of the plant at harvest. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Islam et al. (2012)</xref> discovered that environmentally friendly organic fertilizer improved lettuce growth and yield, after using synthetic fertilizers and a control. The superior performance of Iceberg lettuce in terms of yield under conventional fertilization aligns with earlier reports indicating that crisphead lettuce types respond strongly to readily available nitrogen sources (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Polat et al. 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Masarirambi et al. 2012</xref>). Conventional fertilizers provide immediate nutrient availability, which enhances vegetative growth and biomass accumulation. In contrast, organic fertilization improved plant height and sustained leaf growth, particularly in Green Wave, suggesting a gradual nutrient release pattern that supports steady growth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Chowdhury and Rahman 2021</xref>). Similar findings were reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Islam et al. (2012)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Asaduzzaman et al. (2010)</xref>, who noted improved soil structure and microbial activity under organic amendments. The economic superiority of organic Iceberg lettuce reflects increasing consumer willingness to pay higher prices for organically produced vegetables. Studies by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Reganold and Wachter (2016)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Seufert et al. (2012)</xref> also emphasized that organic systems, despite slightly lower yields, can remain profitable due to reduced external inputs and price premiums. Overall, the interaction between cultivar genetics and nutrient management practices plays a crucial role in determining lettuce productivity and profitability (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Chowhan et al. 2022b</xref>). Selecting appropriate cultivars for specific fertilization systems is therefore essential for sustainable vegetable production (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Al-Fuad et al. 2025</xref>).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Conclusion" id="sec10">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>The study demonstrates that lettuce growth, yield and profitability are significantly influenced by the interaction between cultivar and fertilization method. Iceberg emerged as the most productive cultivar under both fertilization systems, achieving maximum yield under conventional fertilization and highest economic return under organic management. Considering yield stability, profitability and consumer preference for organic produce, organic cultivation of Iceberg lettuce appears to be a sustainable and economically viable option for farmers in Bangladesh. Adoption of suitable cultivar–fertilization combinations can substantially improve lettuce productivity and farm income while supporting environmentally friendly agricultural practices.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Author contributions" id="sec11">
      <title>Author contributions</title>
      <p>Conceptualization: NA. Investigation and Validation: NA, MNN and MSR. Data curation: SC. Formal analysis: NA. Editing, final draft preparation and revision: SC. Supervision: EK, MSA and MSR.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Artificial Intelligence (AI) use" id="sec12">
      <title>Artificial Intelligence (AI) use</title>
      <p>The authors accept full responsibility for the content of the manuscript, including the disclosure of any use of AI.</p>
      <p>Artificial intelligence tools were used solely for language editing, including grammar and error checking. All content was reviewed by the authors, and only relevant and verified information was retained.
</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <mixed-citation>Al-Fuad AK, Akther S, Zakaria M, Swapon MAH, Chowhan S, Roni MS (2025) BARI Tomato-19 as a promising cultivar: A comparative study of growth, quality, and yield attributes. Madras Agricultural Journal 112: 172–183. <ext-link xlink:href="10.29321/maj.10.901268" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.29321/maj.10.901268</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <mixed-citation>Ahmed F, Islam M, Rahman MM, Chowhan S, Bhuiyan MSH, Kader M (2022) Effect of long term manuring and fertilization on carbon sequestration in terrace soil. Agricultural Science Digest – A Research Journal 42(1): 14–19. <ext-link xlink:href="10.18805/ag.d-315" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.d-315</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <mixed-citation>Asaduzzaman MD, Shamima S, Arfan MD (2010) Combined effect of mulch materials and organic manure on the growth and yield of lettuce. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Science 9: 504–508.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <mixed-citation>Chowdhury S, Rahman M (2021) Influence of different organic manures on growth, yield and mineral nutrient accumulation in lettuce (<italic><tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus">Lactuca</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species">sativa</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name></italic> L.). Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences 30(2): 159–168. <ext-link xlink:href="10.3329/dujbs.v30i2.54642" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3329/dujbs.v30i2.54642</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S (2021a) Potential hazards of air pollution on environment, health and agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Sciences &amp; Natural Resources 28(2): 1–10. <ext-link xlink:href="10.19080/ijesnr.2021.28.556231" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.19080/ijesnr.2021.28.556231</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S (2021b) Impact of agro technology on socio-economic condition of the farming groups at Jagannathpur. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Biotechnology 14(1): 97–109. <ext-link xlink:href="10.30954/0974-1712.01.2021.11" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.01.2021.11</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S, Ghosh SR, Chowhan T, Hasan MM, Roni MS (2016) Climate change and crop production challenges: An overview. Research in Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 3(2): 251–269. <ext-link xlink:href="10.3329/ralf.v3i2.29346" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v3i2.29346</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S, Ghosh SR, Hoque MI, Islam M, Nabi KME (2021) Yield and profitability analysis of pulse and oil seed based cropping patterns against Aman-Boro-fallow cropping systems in Magura. Agricultural Science Digest 41(1): 42–48. <ext-link xlink:href="10.18805/ag.D-261" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.D-261</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S, Islam M, Rahman M, Rana MS, Islam MA, Islam S (2022a) Four crops pattern for greater economic return and productivity. Current Research in Agriculture and Farming 3(1): 7–15.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <mixed-citation>Chowhan S, Islam M, Nahar K, Ali MKJ, Husain MM (2022b) No tillage cultivation of mustard requires definite boron dose for optimizing seed yield. International Journal of Plant &amp; Soil Science 34(1): 105–114. <ext-link xlink:href="10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i130879" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i130879</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <mixed-citation>Dhakal K, Nandwani D (2022) Growth and yield responses of leafy vegetables grown in organic and conventional agriculture systems. Organic Farming 8(1): 3–8. <ext-link xlink:href="10.12924/of2022.08010003" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.12924/of2022.08010003</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <mixed-citation>FAOSTAT (2025) Crops and livestock products, Tomato. <ext-link xlink:href="https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL" ext-link-type="uri">https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL</ext-link> [accessed on 11.03.2025]</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <mixed-citation>Fajdetić NR, Božić Ostojić L, Benković R, Zima D, Blažinkov M, Mirosavljević K, Popović B, Benković-Lačić T (2025) Effects of three organic fertilizers and biostimulants on the morphological traits and secondary metabolite content of lettuce. Horticulturae 11(11): 1288. <ext-link xlink:href="10.3390/horticulturae11111288" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11111288</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <mixed-citation>García-Rández A, Orden L, Sánchez-Méndez S, Andreu-Rodríguez FJ, Sáez-Tovar JA, Martínez-Sabater E, Bustamante M de los Á, Pérez-Murcia MD, Moral R (2025) Comparative evaluation of organic and synthetic fertilizers on lettuce yield and metabolomic profiles. Horticulturae 11(12): 1421. <ext-link xlink:href="10.3390/horticulturae11121421" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11121421</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <mixed-citation>Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons Publication, New York, 202–215.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <mixed-citation>Islam MS, Rahman MM, Hossain MA (2012) Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of lettuce. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 37(3): 485–494</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <mixed-citation>Jannat SA, Haque MA, Nahar K, Ali MKJ, Chowhan S, Hossian MM, Rahman MH (2023) Integrated effect of vermicompost and chemical fertilizers on the yield &amp; yield contributing characteristics of brinjal (<italic><tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus">Solanum</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species">melongena</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name></italic> L.). Asian Journal of Advances in Agricultural Research 23(4): 39–43. <ext-link xlink:href="10.9734/ajaar/2023/v23i4477" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaar/2023/v23i4477</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <mixed-citation>Masarirambi MT, Dlamini P, Wahome PK, Oseni TO (2012) Effects of chicken manure on growth, yield and quality of lettuce (<italic><tp:taxon-name><tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus">Lactuca</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species">sativa</tp:taxon-name-part></tp:taxon-name></italic> L.) ‘Taina’ under a lath house in a semi-arid sub-tropical environment. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural &amp; Environmental Sciences 12(3): 399–406.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <mixed-citation>Moniruzzaman M (2002) Plant density, age of seedling and nitrogen, phosphorus fertilizers effects in lettuce. MS thesis, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Agricultural University, Gazipur, 34 pp.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B20">
        <mixed-citation>Nahar K, Haque MA, Chowhan S, Ali MKJ, Husain MM, Rahman MM (2021) Combined effect of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizer on yield and yield contributing Characters of Tomato Plant. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 8(1): 20–26. <ext-link xlink:href="10.9734/ajsspn/2021/v8i130124" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.9734/ajsspn/2021/v8i130124</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B21">
        <mixed-citation>Polat E, Demir H, Onus AN (2008) Comparison of some yield and quality criteria in organically and conventionally-grown lettuce. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(9): 1235–1239.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B22">
        <mixed-citation>Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2: 15221. <ext-link xlink:href="10.1038/nplants.2015.221" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B23">
        <mixed-citation>Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485: 229–232. <ext-link xlink:href="10.1038/nature11069" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B24">
        <mixed-citation>Snowdon AL (2001) Lettuce, chicory and endive. In: ‘Color Atlas of post-harvest Diseases and Disorders of Fruits and Vegetables, Volume 2: Vegetables. CRC press, 196 pp. <ext-link xlink:href="10.1201/b18215" ext-link-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1201/b18215</ext-link></mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B25">
        <mixed-citation>Statistix (2021) Data analysis software for researchers (Version 10.0). Analytical Software, 2105 Miller Landing Rd, Tallahassee Florida 32312, USA.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B26">
        <mixed-citation>Virgine Tenshia JS, Singram P (2005) Influence of humic acid application on yield, nutrient availability and iron uptake in tomatoes. Madras Agricultural Journal 92: 670–676.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
    <sec sec-type="supplementary-material">
      <title>Supplementary materials</title>
      <supplementary-material id="S1" position="float" orientation="portrait" xlink:type="simple">
        <object-id content-type="doi">10.3897/ia.2026.183987.suppl1</object-id>
        <object-id content-type="arpha">1AEAB22D-4293-5103-8B50-BA6663DF3DB5</object-id>
        <label>Supplementary material 1</label>
        <caption>
          <p>Growth, yield and profitability of lettuce cultivars with various type of fertilizer application. The GAU meteorological station provided the distribution of average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidity, and rainfall during the crop growing season, which is shown in this file. Moreover, the details of Cost of production (Input cost) and Overhead costings are described. (.docx file)</p>
        </caption>
        <media xlink:href="innovationsagriculture-09-001_article-183987__-s001.docx" mimetype="application" mime-subtype="vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document" position="float" orientation="portrait" id="oo_1602904.docx">
          <uri content-type="original_file">https://binary.pensoft.net/file/1602904</uri>
        </media>
        <attrib specific-use="authors"/>
      </supplementary-material>
    </sec>
  </back>
</article>
