1

MAXIMIZING THE UTILIZATION OF DRAINAGE

WATER RE-USE IN IRRIGATION TOMATO PLANT

TREATED WITH HUMIC ACID

Abou El-Yazied, A. (1); Atta, Y. M. (2) Abd El-Gawad, H. G. (1)

and Eissa, A. M. (2)

1)Faculty. Agriculture., Ain Shams University 2) Drainage Research Institute –National Water Research Center - Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation

ABSTRACT

In this study, two field experiments were carried out during the growing seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, at the experimental farm of the south-west portion on a saline soil at Sahl El-Tena region, South Sinai governorate, Egypt, in order to investigate the effects of applacation of humic acid on both of water use efficiency (CWUE) and soil salinity, also investigate the effects of salinity and humic acid on vegetative growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Soil salinity was moderate ranging between 2 to 3 dSm-1 and high ranging between 5 to 8 dSm-1. Potassium humate (86% Humic acid and 6% Potassium oxide) was used at four levels, i.e., 0 (control, sprayed with distilled water), 0.5, 1 and 2 kg/fed., at two times, the first (50% of the amount) was added after 15 days from transplanting and the second one (50% of the amount) was carried out after one month from the first addition. A split plot design with three replicates was used where the soil salinity was the main plots and potassium humate treatments were located in the subplots. Results of this study indicated that the values of CWUE improved according to the increasing of humic acid dozes while the most suitable concentration was 1 kg/fed. The salts concentration with Moderate and high Soil Salinity decreased with the increase of humic acid rates and also decreased during all the stages of the growth period for all humic acid concentrations. The favorable tomato yield were obtained at Soil of salinity 2-3 ds/mm and 1.0 kg/fed humic acid. Tomato plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 dSm-1 with addition of 1kg/fed or 2 kg/fed humic acid produced the highest leaf number, leaf area, haulm fresh, dry weight and

2

chlorophyll content. The interaction between salinity and humic acid showed that tomato plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 dSm-1 with addition of 1kg/fed or 2kg/fed of humic acid produced the highest number of fruits per plants fruit yield and total yield. Tomato plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 dSm-1 with addition of 1kg/fad or 2kg/fad of humic acid produced the highest fruit size and lowest color chart in the two seasons as compared with other interaction treatments. Tomato plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 mmhos with addition of 2kg/fad of humic acid produced the highest total soluble solids content and vitamin C in the two seasons as compared with other interaction treatments. Key words: Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, Salinity, Water use

efficiency, Humic acid, Yield, Reproductive characteristics.

INTRODUCTION

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is one of most important

vegetable crops in the world. Which is consumed fresh, cooked or after

processing as well as commercial importance as a horticultural cash crop for

these reasons it was selected as a model crop for these studies.

Environmental stress such as salinity whether caused by water or Soil,

greatly influence growth and productivity of plants and also are considered as

one of the most important determinants of crop cultivation and agricultural

diversity especially in arid and semi-arid regions. Salinity inhibits tomato

seed germination, lengthens the time needed for germination, discourages the

overall growth of plants and consequently reduces the final crop yield.

Salinity is an important problem in more than one third of the world’s

agricultural lands and it causes yield decrease in many crops (Tekinel and

Çevik, 1983).

Humic acid (HA) is a heterogeneous mixture of many compounds with

generally similar chemical properties; it performs various functions in the soil

3

and on plant growth. The effect of HA on the availability of P and

micronutrients has been given particular attention because of considerable

increases in uptake rates of HA application (Mohsen, 2013). The objective

about the effect of humic acid on plant growth (Vaughan and McDonald,

1976) means that humic substances affect the ion exchange of plant nutrients

which are useful in microbial activity by increasing conversions directly as

well as indirectly as a result of the stimulating plant growth hormones.

(Albayrak and Çarnas, 2005) found that increasing application of humic

acid has significantly promoted root and leaf yield of forage turnip (Brassica

rape L.).

The major functional groups of humic acid include carboxyl, phenolic

hydroxyl, alcoholic hydroxyl, ketone and quinoid (Russo and Berlyn, 1990).

The mechanism of humic acid in promoting plant growth is not completely

known. In addition, increasing cell membrane permeability, oxygen uptake,

respiration, photosynthesis, phosphate .uptake and root cell elongation of

plant growth factors have been proposed by some authors to explain positive

effect of humic acid (Russo and Berlyn, 1990). On the other hand, humic

acid has beneficial effects on nutrient uptake by plants and was particularly

important for transportation and availability of micro nutrient (Böhme and

ThiLua, 1997).

Humic acid has hormone-like activity not only enhances plant growth and

the nutrient uptake but also anti-stress effects of salinity by reduced negative

effect (Kulikova et al., 2005; El-Hefny, 2010 ). HA is abundant in functional

groups, which leads to the active interaction with a diverse range of mineral

components. The major functional groups of HA include carboxyl, phenolic

4

hydroxyl, alcoholic hydroxyl, and ketone groups with the ability to chelate

positively charged ions (Russo and Berlyn, 1990).

This study is parallel to the thought of sustainable development and

aiming at maximizing the utilization the use of low-quality water "drainage

water reuse". That could be reached by using natural treatments that are not

harmful to the environment such as the use humic acid, which works to

improve the physical and biological properties of the soil helping in

maintaining the natural biological balance of the soil, as well as its physical

properties. This leads to improving the productivity of tomato plants and

consequently increasing the economic benefit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, two field experiments were carried out during the growing

seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, at the experimental farm of the south-

west portion on a saline soil at Sahl El-Tena region, south Sinai governorate,

Egypt, in order to investigate the effects of humic acid and salinity and their

interactions on vegetative growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon

esculentum Mill).

The experiment layout:

Seeds of tomato cultivar "Castle-rock" were sown in the shading screen

nursery in 15th august 2011 and 2012, using foam trays (209 eyes). The

shading screen nursery media was a mixture of peatmoss and vermiculite (1:1

v/v) (the recommended transplant production media for protected cultivation).

Seedbeds were watered early in the morning and late in the afternoon,

regularly, with sprinkler till germination; transplants were set up in the field

after thirty days (at 3-4 leaf stage).

5

The area of the experimental plot was 25 m2 consisted of five ridges, each

ridge was 4 m length and 1 m width, and the plant distance was 0.5 m apart

on one side.

Cultural management, irrigation, fertilization, disease and pest control

programs were followed according to the recommendations of the Egyptian

Ministry of Agriculture.

The soil texture of the experimental site was sandy loam having soil field

capacity of 18 %, soil wilting point 7.00, soil bulk density of 1.36 gm/cm3and

infiltration rate equal to 0.38 m/hr, and infiltration rate equal to 0.33 m/hr.

Both of soil physical and chemical properties are presented in Tables (A and

B) respectively.

Table (A): Physical properties of the experimental soil before transplanting.

Locations Soil

depth (cm)

Particle size distribution % Textural class caco3 Sand Silt Clay

moderate ranging

between 2 to 3 mmhos

0-25 3.83 78.5 6.7 14.8 Sandy loam 25-50 3.2 71.7 15.9 12.4

50-100 6.97 61.2 14.3 24.5 Sandy clay loam 100-150 7.25 56.2 17 26.8

high ranging between 5 to

8 mmohs

0-25 3.84 78.3 7.1 14.6

Sandy loam 25-50 4.31 74.6 8.5 16.9 50-100 3.98 75.7 9 15.3

100-150 4.76 74.5 6.8 18.7

6

Table (B): Chemical properties of the experimental soil before transplanting.

Locations Location

moderate ranging between 2 to 3 mmhos

high ranging between 5 to 8 mmohs

Depth (cm) 0-50 50-100 100-150 0-50 50-100 100-150

Soil pH 7.96 7.97 7.94 7.87 7.90 7.89 E.C, dS/m 5.75 3.72 5.56 8.94 3.46 4.11

Cations meq/l

Ca++ 13.20 8.53 13.67 15.84 7.60 9.22

Mg++ 8.43 5.65 8.67 9.27 4.71 5.62 Na+ 37.09 23.42 33.60 42.10 22.44 25.95 K+ 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.79 0.77

Anions meq/l

CO3-- Zero Zero Zero Zero Zero Zero HCO3- 4.44 4.48 4.58 4.50 4.53 4.36

Cl- 25.45 11.70 18.25 19.46 8.69 11.69 SO4-- 31.23 22.16 33.14 44.00 22.28 25.47

ESP 6.04 5.55 5.49 33.10 31.20 29.60

The source of the used irrigation water was El salam canal in which its current flow is 2

billion cubic meter annually. The chemical, nutritive and non-nutritive elements analysis of

the El salam canal water is presented in Table (C and D).

Table (C): Chemical analysis of the irrigation water.

Adj.

SAR

Soluble ions (mmolc L-1)

EC

iw d

S/m

pH SO42- Cl- HCO3- K+ Na+ Mg2

Ca2

+

8.01 2.35 5.19 4.23 0.55 21.11 1.83 3.86 1.20 7.73

Table (D): Some nutritive and non-nutritive elements of the used irrigation water

Non-nutritive heavy

metals (mg L-1)

Nutritive elements in mg L-1 (some macro and

micronutrients)

Cu Zn Mn Fe B P

N

Cd Ni Pb HN4 NO3

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.93 0.01 0.33 3.26 11.21

The experimental treatments and design:

Soil salinity was moderate ranging between 2 to 3 mmhos and high

ranging between 5 to 8 mmohs. Potassium humate (86% Humic acid and 6%

potassium oxide) was used at four levels, i.e., 0 (control, sprayed with

distilled water), 0.5, 1 and 2 kg/fed., at two times, the first (50% of the

7

amount) was added after 15 days from transplanting and the second one (50%

of the amount) was carried out after one month from the first addition

A split plot design with three replicates was used where the soil salinity

was the main plots and potassium humate treatments were located in the

subplots.

Crop water use efficiency

Water use efficiency (WUE) or yield per unit of water used is

key for agricultural production with limited water resources and it

was calculated by dividing the grain yield (kg fed-1) by the total

amount of water added (m3).

Soil salinity (EC dSm-1)as affected by humic acid concentration

Soil samples were collected from the root zone at the soil surface

(0-25, 25-50 and 50-75 cm depth) using hand auger with 8 cm

diameter to measure and estimate The contamination of soluble

cations and anions in soil sample in the extract of the soil sample

with a ratio of 1: 2.5 of soil to water as described by Jackson (1958).

Thereafter, Cations were determined using Inductively Coupled

Plasma (ICP) and anions were determined using Ion

Chromatography (IC) during the two season.

Studied characteristics:

Vegetative characteristics:

Plants were chosen at random from three replications (from the

inner ridges) at 60 days from transplanting to study the following

parameters.

1. Number of leaves per plant: was determined from five plants.

8

2. Average leaf area: using the fourth full expanded mature leaf from

the plant top of five plants. Leaf area was calculated as relation

between unit area and leaf fresh weight using the following equation

(Koller, 1972):

Leaf area (cm2) =

3. Fresh weight per plant: was recorded from five plants.

4. Dry weight per plant: was recorded from five plants per each

experimental plot. The samples were cleaned by washing with tap

water then dried in an air-forced ventilated oven at 70 ºC until a

constant weight (A.O.A.C., 1990).

5. Leaf chlorophyll reading (SPAD): It was determined using the

fourth expanded full mature upper leaf of 21 plants in the middle row

per plot. A digital chlorophyll meter, Minolta SPAD-502, (Minolta

Company, and Japan) was used. The SPAD readings were used as

relative values for chlorophyll content.

Fruit yield characteristics:

1. Number of fruits per plant: fruits of ten plants were counted and the

average number per plant was calculated.

2. Yield per plant: yield of ten plants was recorded from each plot, the

average weight of fruits/plant was calculated.

3. Yield per feddan: was calculated by multiplying the average yield

per plant by number of plants per feddan

Disk area × No. Disks × Leaf FW

Disk FW

9

Statistical analysis:

Data of the two seasons were arranged and statistically analyzed

using Mstatic (M.S.). The comparison among means of the different

treatments was determined, as illustrated by (Snedecor and Cochran

1982).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crop water use efficiency

Crop water use efficiency was determined for tomato under two soil

salinity levels and application of different humic acid dozes as shown in

table (1), The data revealed that the highest values of crop water use

efficiency of Tomato under 2-3 mmoh soil salinity level and 5-8 mmoh soil

salinity level were 10.8 kg/m3 and 7.1 kg/m3 respectively, achieved with

humic concentration 1kf/fed through second season.

This means that, the addition of humic acid concentration of 1kg

/fed reduced the effect of soil salinity on the yield and consequently

improved the productivity.

Also it could be noticed that the values of CWUE improved according

to the increasing of humic acid dozes while the most suitable concentration

was 1 kg/fed

10

Table 1: Applied water and water use efficiency of tomato under two soil

salinity levels

Cro

ps

Parameters Soil Salinity (dSm-1)

Moderate Soil Salinity Level EC1 (2-3 dSm-1)

High Soil Salinity Level EC2 (5-8 dSm-1)

1st

Sea

son

Concentrations of Humic 0.0

kg/fed 0.5

kg/fed 1

kg/fed 2

kg/fed 0.0

kg/fed 0.5

kg/fed 1

kg/fed 2

kg/fed Yield (kg/fed) 12390 13200 15490 14980 7596 9251 10050 9794

Water added (m3/fed.) 2891.88 Consumptive use (m3 fed-1) 1445.94

CWUE (kg/m3) 8.6 9.1 10.7 10.4 5.3 6.4 7.0 6.8 FWUE (kg/m3) 4.3 4.6 5.4 5.2 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.4

2st

Sea

son

Yield (kg/fed) 12470 13580 15580 15080 7553 9429 10300 9889

Water added (m3/fed.) 2891.88

Consumptive use (m3 fed-1) 1445.94 CWUE (kg/m3) 8.6 9.4 10.8 10.4 5.2 6.5 7.1 6.8

FWUE (kg/m3) 4.3 4.7 5.4 5.2 2.6 3.3 3.6 3.4

Soil salinity (EC dSm-1) as affected by humic acid concentration

Average Soil salinity (EC) in (ds/m) during the season was affected by

different rates of humic acid is shown in Figures (1, 2).

For Moderate Soil Salinity Level the data revealed that the value of soil

salinity EC (dSm-1) was insignificantly affected by increasing the rates of

humic acid. This means that, the salts concentration with Moderate Soil

Salinity Level decreased with the increase of humic acid rates. The relative

decrease percentages of soil salinity were 7%, 14 % and 17% corresponding

to humic acid dozes of 0.5 kg/fed, 1.0 kg/fed and 2.0 kg/fed respectively.

For High Soil Salinity Level, the trend was almost similar to that

observed with Moderate Soil Salinity Level. But the decrease of soil

salinity percentages were less compared to Moderate Soil Salinity Level as

they were 3%, 7 % and 10% for humic rate 0.5 kg/fed, 1.0 kg/fed and 2.0

kg/fed respectively.

11

Fig.1. Effects of HA Moderate soil salinity Level. Fig.2. Effects of HA on High soil salinity Level

Figure 3 shows the average electrical conductivity (EC) in (ds/m) which

was measured during the growth period (beginning, mid, maturity and end of

the growing season) using different humic acid rate for two soil salinity

levels.

For Moderate and high Soil Salinity Level, It was observed that, soil salinity

values decreased during all the stages of the growth period for all humic acid

concentrations.

Application of humic acid led to reduction of soil salinity since humic

acid could improve the soil physical properties by increasing soil porosity,

also the decomposition of humic acid releases acids forming compounds and

activates microorganisms, which react with the soluble salts already present

in soil either to convert them into soluble salts or at least increase their

solubility .

These results are in consent with those reported by Mohammad (2012) who

found that the electric conductivity (EC) of the soil treated with humic acid (HA)

were lower compared to the non-treated soil with humic acid. However, the effect

of addition of 1.0 g HA kg-1 was not significant compared with the controlled area

. The EC values of soil decreased significantly with 2.0 and 3.0 g HA kg-1soil

12

treatment dozes. This could be due to the role of humic acid in improving soil

aggregation and water movement leaching the excessive soluble salts

Fig.3. Effects of humic acid on High soil salinity Level

Vegetative growth characteristics:

Data presented in Tables (2-6) show the influence of salinity and humic

acid on leaves number, leaf area, haulm fresh, dry weight, chlorophyll content

and root weight per plants. In general, the vegetative growth of tomato

responded positively to salinity. Soil of salinity between 2:3 m mhos

increased leaf number, leaf area, haulm fresh, dry weight, chlorophyll content

and root weight per plants in the two seasons as compared with soil of salinity

between 5:8 m mhos. These results are in harmony with those obtained by

Botrini et al. (2000), and Arshed and Rashid (2001). In this respect, the

increase aerial parts of potato plants, i.e. numbers of leaves and stems, as well

13

as fresh and dry weight of whole plants and its organs by addition humic

acids through irrigation water might be due to the effect of humic acid which

provides nutrients that involve in plant bioactivities and finally leads to

growth induction (Abdel-Mawgoud et al., 2007 and Taha, 2011). Moreover,

humic acid increase the porosity of soil and improve growth of root system

which leads to increase the shoot system (Garcia et al., 2008). Likewise,

humic substances have been shown to stimulate shoot and root growth and

nutrient uptake of vegetable crops (Akinremi, et al., 2000 and Cimrin and

Yilmaz, 2005). Taha, (2011) reported that humic acid characterized by

improving plant growth directly or indirectly it act as biostimulant induced

hormonal activity of plant releasing different auxin types which in regulating

plant growth and environmental responses.

Respecting the humic acid treatments, the obtained data showed that the

addition of 1kg/fed or 2kg/fed humic acid increased leaf number, leaf area,

haulm fresh, dry weight, chlorophyll content and root weight per plants in the

two seasons as compared with other addition of humic acid treatments.

Arancon et al., (2003), Talaat (2003) on strawberry El-Zohiri and Asfour

(2009) on potato El-Zohiri and Abdou(2009) on garlic reported similar

results on tested vegetable crops. In addition,

Humic acid influence the plant growth both directly and indirectly. The

indirect effect of humic acid improves physical, chemical and biological

condition of soil. Its direct effects attributed due to its metabolic activity in

plant growth (Tejada et al., 2006). Therefore when plants were treated with

potassium humate, chlorophyll contents were also increased. On entering in

plant cell, the functional group of humic and fulvic acids can serve as

14

supplementary source of respiratory catalysts (e.g. polyphenols) and

oxidation / reduction regulations (e.g. quinines) (Irfan et al., 2005 ,

Sritharan et al., 2005).Increased contents of chlorophylls enhanced overall

photosynthetic activities of crops plants and there by yield in general.

(Roberto et al., 2008) Metabolic effects are assumed to be stimulated by

humic acid, resulting in a net increase in metabolism due to increase in

production of enzymes, amino acids, proteins and other metabolites (Ryosuke

et al., 2006). Humics include a large number of relatively simple leads to

increased growth and height and subsequently compounds of known

structures belonging to well-known increased biological yield through

increasing nitrogen groups: hydro carbohydrates, proteins, peptides, amino

content of the plant. It has also been reported that acids, fats, waxes, resins,

pigments and other low application of humic acid in nutritional solution led to

molecular weight organic substances.

The interaction between salinity and humic acid showed that tomato

plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 mmhos with addition of

1kg/fed or 2kg/fed humic acid produced the highest leaf number, leaf area,

haulm fresh, dry weight, chlorophyll content and root weight per plants in the

two seasons as compared with other interaction treatments

15

Table (2):.Effect of humic acid and salinity on leaves number /plant of

tomato plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments Humic acid levels 2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 65.00 b-d 92.50 ac 100.0 a 94.50 ab 88.00 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 47.17 d 61.63 cd 67.29 b-d 69.42 ad 61.38 B

Mean 56.09 B 77.06 AB 83.65 A 81.96 AB 2012/2013 season Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 76.33 ad 105.5 a-c 110.7 a 109.2 ab 100.4 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 49.44 d 67.72 d 69.70 cd 73.24 b-d 65.03 B

Mean 62.89 B 86.61 AB 90.18 A 91.20 A

Table (3):.Effect of humic acid and salinity on leaf area (cm2) of tomato

plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments Humic acid levels 2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 210.9 de 270.2 b 259.5 c 291.6 a 258.0 A

Ec2 (5-8 mm) 150.9 g 165.5 f 201.3 e 220.9 d 184.6 B

Mean 180.9 D 217.9 C 230.4 BC 256.2 A 2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 222.5 c 274.9 b 295.8 ab 304.0 a 274.3 A

Ec2 (5-8 mm) 153.5 e 166.6 de 180.0 d 211.3 c 177.8 B

Mean 188.0 C 220.8 B 237.9 B 257.6 A

16

Table (5):.Effect of humic acid and salinity on dry weight (g)/plant of

tomato plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments

Humic acid levels

2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 12.33 c 13.31 bc 16.28 ab 17.29 a 14.80 A

Ec2 (5-8 mm) 11.70 c 13.02 c 13.56 bc 17.99 a 14.07 A

Mean 12.01 B 13.17 B 14.92 AB 17.64 A

2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 13.14 de 14.08 cd 16.43 b 18.44 a 15.52 A

Ec2 (5-8 mm) 12.29 e 13.93 cd 14.27 c 17.92 a 14.60 A

Mean 12.71 B 14.01 AB 15.35 AB 18.18 A

Table (6): Effect of humic acid and salinity on chlorophyll reading in leaves

of tomato plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments Humic acid levels 2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3mm) 45.96 cd 47.05 a-c 48.78 ab 49.14 a 47.73 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 39.93 e 43.71 d 45.46 cd 46.22 b-d 43.83 B

Mean 42.94 C 45.38 B 47.12 AB 47.68 A 2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 47.60 b-d 48.24 bc 49.88 ab 50.90 a 49.16 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 41.04 f 44.68 e 45.42 de 46.86 c-e 44.50 B

Mean 44.32 C 46.46 B 47.65 AB 48.88 A

17

Yield and it's components:

Data presented in Tables ( ٦-٨ ) show the influence of salinity and humic

acid on number of fruits per plants, fruit yield and total yield. In general, the

yield and it's components of tomato responded positively to salinity. Soil of

salinity between 2:3 mmhos increased number of fruits per plants, fruit yield

and total yield in the two seasons as compared with soil of salinity between

5:8 mm hos.

Respecting the humic acid treatments, the obtained data showed that the

addition of 1kg/fed or 2kg/fed humic acid increased number of fruits per

plants, fruit yield and total yield in the two seasons as compared with other

addition of humic acid treatments. In this concerne, Arancon et al., (2003),

on strawberry Shafshak et al.,(2008) on tomato indicated that using tested

organic compounds reflected the higher values in total fruit yield and its

components expressed as number of fruits, early and produced yield per urea.

Some studies reported that humic acid can be used as a growth regulator to

regulate hormone level, improve plant growth and enhance stress tolerance

(Piccolo et al., 1992). Humic acids may stimulate shoot and root growth, and

improve resistance to environmental stress in plant, but the physiological

mechanism has not been well established (Delfine et al., 2005). Türkmen et

al. (2005) suggested that humic acid may promote much growth of pepper

seedlings in salty condition.

The interaction between salinity and humic acid showed that tomato

plants growing under soil of salinity between 2:3 mmhos with addition of

1kg/fed or 2kg/fed of humic acid produced the highest number of fruits per

plants fruit yield and total yield. Humic acid (Yildirim, 2007) have been

18

reported to improve plant physiological processes by enhancing the

availability of major and minor nutrients as well as enhancing the vitamins,

amino acids, and also auxine, cytokinine and ABA contents of the plants.

Thus, it enhances the uptake of essential nutrients under saline conditions. It

may due to vigorous growth and emhaned plant canopy establishment and

better inception of light and uptake of nutrients (Kasperbauer, 1987), that

resulted in higher fruit weight with Humic acid application (Aminifard et al.,

2010). Humic acid application increased the fruit weight by activating

hormones like auxine and cytokinine and result in high weight of fruits.These

results corroborate findings of Akingi et al. (2009). The applications of

humic acid increase the fruit widht by increasing the cell division and

enlargement and result in more width of fruits.These results approves findings

of Ahmad et al. (2010) , Mogda and Ayman (2012). Organic acids increase

the fruit length by enhancing hormone activities. These results corroborate

findings of Giancarlo et al. (2011), Mogda and Ayman (2012). The

application of organic acids increase the fruit diameter by increasing the cell

division and enlargement and result in more development and diameter of

fruits. Approve findings of Salman et al. (2005), Ashraf and Foolad

(2007). The applications of organic acids increase the growth and

development of fruits by enhancing hormone-like activities and result in more

yields. These results corroborate findings of Hassanuzzaman (2012), cecilia

et al. (2008). It has been reported that application of HA increased the growth

and yields of various vegetable crops (Zandonadi et al., 2007). Furthermore,

Salama (2009) indicated that soil application of humate led toalleviate the

negative effects of salinity on tomato plants.

19

Table (6):.Effect of humic acid and salinity on No.of fruits/plant of tomato

plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments Humic acid levels 2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 32.41 a-c 33.74 ab 36.09 a 33.82 ab 34.02 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 25.73 d 28.87 cd 30.35 bc 29.31 b-d 28.56 B

Mean 29.07 C 31.30 B 33.22 A 31.56 AB

2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 32.61 bc 33.53 ab 37.45 a 34.29 ab 34.47 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 25.78 d 28.66 cd 30.13 b-d 28.97 cd 28.39 B

Mean 29.19 C 31.10 B 33.79 A 31.63 B

Table (7): Effect of humic acid and salinity on fruit yield (kg /plant) of

tomato plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013 ).

Treatments

Humic acid level

2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 3.179 c 3.387 b 3.973 a 3.844 a 3596.A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 1.949 f 2.374 e 2.578 d 2.513 de 2353.B

Mean 2.564 C 2.880 B 3.276 A 3.179 AB

2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 3.201 bc 3.486 ab 3.998 a 3.870 a 3.638 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 1.938 e 2.419 de 2.644 cd 2.537 de 2.385B

Mean 2.569 B 2.952 AB 3.321 A 3.204 A

20

Table (8):.Effect of humic acid and salinity on total yield (ton /fed.) of tomato

plants in the two seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).

Treatments Humic acid level 2011/2012 season

0kg/fed 0.5kg/fed 1kg/fed 2kg/fed Mean

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 12.39 c 13.20 b 15.49 a 14.98 a 14.01 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 7.596 f 9.251 e 10.05 d 9.794 de 9.172 B

Mean 9.993 B 11.23 AB 12.77 A 12.39 A

2012/2013 season

Soil of salinity

Ec1 (2-3 mm) 12.47 bc 13.58 ab 15.58 a 15.08 a 14.18 A Ec2 (5-8 mm) 7.553 e 9.429 de 10.30 cd 9.889 de 9.294 B

Mean 10.01 B 11.51 AB 12.94 A 12.49 A

REFERENCES

A.O.A.C. (1990). Official methods of analysis of the'' Association of Official Agricultural chemists ''15th ed. Washington, D.C.

Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.R., N.H.M. EL-Greadly, Y.I. Helmy S.M. Singer. (2007). Response of tomato plants to different rates of humic-based fertilizer and NPK fertilization. J. Apple. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 169-174.

Akingi S, Buyukkeskin T, Eroglu A, Eygi BE. (2009).The Effect of Humic Acid on Nutrient Composition in Broad Bean Roots under salinity, Not. Sci. Biol 1 (1): 81-87.

Akinremi, O.O., H.H. Janzen, R.L. Lemke and F.J. Larney, (2000). Response of canola, wheat and green beans to leonardite additions. Canadian J. Soil Sci., 80: 437-443.

Albayrak, S., and Çarnas, N. (2005). Effects of different levels and application times of humic acid on root and leaf yield components of forage turnip. J. Agron., 4(2): 130-133.

Aminifard, M.H., H. Aroiee, H. Fatemi, A. Ameri and S. Karimpour. (2010). Responses of eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) to

21

different rates of nitrogen under field conditions. J. Central Eur. Agric. 11: 453-458. .

Arancon, NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Metzger PJ, Lee S, Welch C (2003) Effects of vermicomposts on growth and marketable fruits of field-grown tomatoes, peppers and strawberries. Pedobiologia 47:731–735.

Arshed, M. and A. Rashid (2001).Nitrogen uptake and dry matter production by tomato plants under salt stress. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 4 (4): 397-399.

Ashraf M, Foolad MR. (2007). Roles of proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environ Exp Bot, 59: 206-216.

Böhme M, Thi Lua H (1997). Influence of mineral and organic treatments in the rizosphere on the growth of tomato plants. Acta Hortic. 450: 161-168.

Botrini, L., M. L. d. Paola and A.Graifenberg. (2000). Potassium affects sodium content in tomato plants grown in hydroponic cultivation under saline-sodic stress. HortScience, 35 (7):1220-1222.

Cecilia P, Fatima C , Vieira S ,santos F , neves N, curado F , fran co J , Rodrigues , Antunes D .(2008). Influence of nitrogen and potassium on yield ,fruit quality and mineral composition of kiwifruit.international journal of energy and Environment. Issue 1, volume 2. .

Cimrin, K. I. Yilmaz. (2005). Humic acid applications to lettuce do not improve phosphorus availability. Acta Agriculturae & Enironmental Scandinavica, Section B- Plant Soil Science. 55(1):58-63.

Delfine, S., R. Tognetti, E. Desiderio, A. Alvino (2005). Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 25: 183-191.

22

El-Hefny, E.M. (2010). Effect of saline irrigation water and humic acid application on growth and productivity of two cultivars cowpea ( Vigna L.Walp ).Australian gournal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(12): 6154-6168.

El-Zohiri, S.S. M and H.E. Asfour. (2009). Effect of some organic compounds on growth and productivity of some potato cultivars Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor. 74 (3) : 403- 415.

El-Zohiri, S.S. M. and Y. M. Abdou . (2009). Response of garlic plants to the effect of nitrogen levels and some growth stimulants Annals of Agric. Sci . Moshtohor. 47(3); 361-374.

Garcia, M.C.V., F.S. Estrella, M.J. Lopes and J. Moreno, (2008). Influence of compost amendment on soil biological properties and plants. Dynamic soil, Dynamic Plant, 1: 1-9.

Giancarlo B, Antonella B, Emilio DS. (2011). The effects of proline application on protein synthesis and quality of Eruca sativa.Scientia Horticulturae, 128: 393-400.

Han, D and Ord B (1991). Influence of natural and Synthetic humic substances on the activity of urease. Journal of Soil Science 42 17-23.

Hassanuzzaman, M, Hossain MA, Da Silva J, Fujita M.(2012).Plant responses andtolerance to abiotic oxidative stress.springer,Berlin,pp 261-316.

Hossain, M.M., Nonami H., (2012). Effect of salt stress on physiological response of tomato fruit grown in hydroponic culture system. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 39: 26–32.

Irfan A, Shahzad M and Iqbal A (2005). The effects of seed soaking with plant growth regulators on seedling vigour of wheat under salinity stress. Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry 6-14.

23

Jackson. (1958) Soil chemical analysis by M.L.Jackson. Prentice Hall, Inc., USA. Chapter10, Sections 10-6 to 10-43.(PH) Chapter 3, Sections 3-1 to 3-35.

Kasperbauer, M.J. (1987). Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects on phytochrome mediated assimilate partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350-354.

Kulikova, N. A., E. V. Stepanova and O.V. Koroleva (2005). Mitigating activity of humic substances:Direct Influence on Biota. In: Use of HumicSubstances Remediate Polluted Environments: From Theory to Practice, NATO Science Series IV: Earth and ISBN: 978-1402032509. 285- 309p.

Mogda, M, Ayman ES. (2012). Effect of humic acid and amino acids on pomegranate trees under deficit irrigation. Journal of Horticultural Science & ornamental plants, 4 (3): 253-259.

Mohammad, V, and Mohammadreza, N, (2012). The effect of various nitrogen fertilizer amounts on yield and nitrate accumulation in tubers of two potato cultivars in cold regions of Isfahan (Iran). International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 4(12): 1688-1691

Mohsen Kazemi (2013) Vegetative and Reproductive Growth of Tomato Plants Affected. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., Vol 2 (11): 24-29.

Piccolo A, Nardi S, Concheri G (1992). Structural characteristics of humic substance as related to nitrate uptake and growth regulation in plant systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24: 373-380.

Roberto B, Luciano P, Lucia G and Fabio L (2008). Rooting of micro seed pieces by combined use of humic substances and endophytic bacteria in sugarcane. Journal Research Brassil Ci.Solo 32 1121-1128..

24

Russo, R.O. and G.P. Berlyn, (1990). The use of organic biostimulants to help low input sustainable agriculture. J. Sustainable Agric., 1(2): 19-42.

Ryosuke T, Shigenori M and Junie A (2006). Distribution pattern of root nodules in relation to root architecture in two loading cultivars of peanut (Aruchis hypogaca L.) in Japan. Journal of Plant Production Science 9(3) 249-255.

Salama, Y.A.(2009). Effect of some agricultural treatments on tomato plants adaptation to tolerate salinity stress. Ph.D. thesis, Fac.Agric., Benha Univ., Egypt.

Salman, S.R, Abou HSD, Abdel MAMR, El NMA .(2005). Fruit yield and quality of watermelon as affected by hybrids and humic acid application. Egypt J. Appl. Sci., 20(4): 244-259. .

Salman, S.R., S.D. Abou-hussein, A.M.R. Abdel-Mawgoud M.A. El-Nemer. (2005). Fruit yield and guality of watermelon as affected by hybrids and humic acid application. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 1(1):51-58..

Shafshak, Nadia. S., S.M.Aid, H.S. Khafaga and Y.A.M.Salama. (2008) . Improving growth and productivity of tomato under saline conditions by fertilization and salinity hardening. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 33(11): 7803-7815..

Snedecor, G.W and W.G Cochran .(1982). Statistical methods. 7th ed. Iowa state Unv. Press Lowa, U.S.A., 485 p..

Sritharan, N., Aravazhi, A and Vanangamudi, M (2005). Effect of foliar spray of nutrients and plant growth regulators (PGRS) for yield maximization in black gram. Madras agriculture Journal, India 92 (4-6) 301-307..

Taha, Z. Sarhan, (2011). Effect of humic acid and seaweed extracts on growth and yield of potato plant (Solomun tubersum, L.). Desirce cv. Meso potamia J. of Agric., (31): 2.

25

Talaat, B. N. (2003). Physiological studies on the effect of salinity, as corbic acid and putrescine on sweet pepper plant. Ph. D Thesis, Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., Egypt..

Tejada, M, Hernandez M and Garcia C (2006). Application of two organic amendments on soil restoration: Effects on the soil Biological Properties. Journal of Environmental Quality 35 1010-1017. .

Tekinel,O.Çevik.B.(1983).Culture-technique،(Irrigation and drainage).Çukurova Univ. Fac. Agric. Course Notes, p. 166..

Turkmen, O., S. Demir, S. Sensoy and A. Dursun. (2005). Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and humic acid on the seedling development and nutrient content of pepper grown under saline soil conditions. Journal of Biological Sciences. 5(5): 568-574..

Vaughan, D., and McDonald, IR. (1976). Some effects of humic acid on the cation uptake by parenchyma tissue. Soil Biol. Biochem., 8: 415-421..

Yildirim, E. (2007). Foliar and soil fertilization of Humic acid affect productivity and quality of tomato. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. (Section B). Soil Plant Sci. 57: 182-186..

Zandonadi, D., L. Canellas and A. Façanha (2007) Indolacetic and humic acids induce lateral root development through a concerted plasmalemma and tonoplast H+ pumps activation. Planta 225: 1583-1595. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00425-006-0454-2

26

نبات تعظيم اإلستفـادة من إعادة استخدام مياه الصرف الزراعى لرى

الطماطم المعامل بحامض الهيوميك )١(، هانى جمال عبد الجواد )٢( ، ، یاسرمحمد محروس عطا)١( أحمد أبو الیزید عبد الحافظ

)٢(عربى أحمد محمدین عیسى

ــة الزراعــة، جامعــة عــین شــمس١ ـــرف ، المركــز ٢) قســم البســاتین ، كلی ) معهــد بحــوث الصـــ

د المائیة والرى.القومى لبحوث المیاة ، وزارة الموار

المستخلص

لدراسة تأثیر إضافة ٢٠١٢/٢٠١٣و ٢٠١١/٢٠١٢خالل موسمى أجریت تجربتان حقلیتانحمض الهیومك على كفاءة إستخدام میاه الصرف الزراعى المخلوط وملوحة التربة وأیضا تأثیرهما

من األرض مختلفتین على النمو الخضرى و االنتاجیة وجودة محصول الطماطم . تم إختیار قطعتین دس/م ٣: ٢فى مستویات ملوحة التربة ، حیث كانت األولى متوسطة الملوحة وتتراوح ملوحتها من

% ٨٦دس/م ؛ حیث تم إضافة الهیومیك أسد ( ٨: ٥؛ بینما كانت التربة عالیة الملوحة تتراوح بین تركیزات لیكون أول تركیز % أكسید البوتاسیوم) بجرعات مختلفة قسمت إلى أربع ٦حمض الهیومك و

كجم/فدان" وقد أضیفت ٢كجم/فدان" والرابع" ١كجم/فدان" والثالث "٠.٥كجم/فدان" والثاني " ٠" یوم من الشتل والثانیة بعد مرور شهر ١٥% من التركیز) بعد ٥٠هذه الجرعات على مرتین األولى (

من أضافة الجرعة األولى؛ وتم تكرار هذة العملیة ثالث مرات لتركیزین ملوحة التربة المتوسطة والعالیة ؛ وأظهرت النتائج تحسن كفاءة اإلستهالك المائى بزیادة كمیة حمض الهیومیك ولكن كانت

مك كجم/فدان .كما تبین التناسب العكسى بین زیادة جرعة حمض الهیو ١أفضل جرعة هى إضافة وملوحة التربة أى أن زیادة جرعة الهیومیك تقلل من تأثیر ملوحة التربة.كما أن الملوحة تنخفض خالل جمیع مراحل النمو لكل تركیز من تركیزات الهیومك ؛وأفضل إنتاجیة كانت للتربة ذات الملوحة

الملوحة كجم حامض هیومیك/ فدان ؛ كما ان التربة ذات ١دس/م) مع إضافة ٣ - ٢المعتدلة ( كجم/فدان من حمض الهیومك أدت إلى ٢كجم/فدان أو ١دس/م) والمعاملة بإضافة ٣- ٢المعتدلة (

أعلى عدد من األوراق ؛ و مساحة سطح للورقة؛ والوزن الطازج ؛ والجاف ؛ومحتوى الكلوروفیل بنبات لیة للفدان والثمار الطماطم .كما تبین أیضا أن أعلى عدد للثمار على النبات الواحد واألنتاجیة الك

كجم/فدان من حمض ٢أو ١القابلة للتسویق قد ظهرت فى التربة المتوسطة الملوحة وعند إضافة الهیومیك بینما قل عدد الثمار الغیر قابلة للتسویق لهذه المعاملة مقارنة بالمعامالت األخرى خالل

جة النضج خالل الموسمین مقارنة الموسمین ؛ وقد انتجت هذه المعاملة أیضا أكبر حجم للثمار ودر كجم /فدان لنفس مستوى الملوحة من التربة أدى ٢بالمعامالت األخرى .وبزیادة جرعة الهیومك إلى إلى أعلى محتوى من المواد الصلبة الذائبة الكلیة