• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 30 (2025)
Volume Volume 29 (2024)
Volume Volume 28 (2023)
Volume Volume 27 (2022)
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 26 (2021)
Volume Volume 25 (2020)
Volume Volume 24 (2019)
Volume Volume 23 (2018)
Volume Volume 22 (2017)
Volume Volume 21 (2016)
Volume Volume 20 (2015)
Volume Volume 19 (2014)
Gabr, S., Abouelsaad, I., Brengi, S., Gouda, A. (2022). Growth and Yield of Spinach As Affected by Silicon and Fulvic Acid Under Salt Stress. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27(1), 26-42. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114829.1037
Said Mohamed Gabr; Ibrahim Ali Abouelsaad; Sary Brengi; Ahmed Gouda. "Growth and Yield of Spinach As Affected by Silicon and Fulvic Acid Under Salt Stress". Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27, 1, 2022, 26-42. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114829.1037
Gabr, S., Abouelsaad, I., Brengi, S., Gouda, A. (2022). 'Growth and Yield of Spinach As Affected by Silicon and Fulvic Acid Under Salt Stress', Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27(1), pp. 26-42. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114829.1037
Gabr, S., Abouelsaad, I., Brengi, S., Gouda, A. Growth and Yield of Spinach As Affected by Silicon and Fulvic Acid Under Salt Stress. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 2022; 27(1): 26-42. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114829.1037

Growth and Yield of Spinach As Affected by Silicon and Fulvic Acid Under Salt Stress

Article 3, Volume 27, Issue 1 - Serial Number 102, March 2022, Page 26-42  XML PDF (548.7 K)
Document Type: Research papers
DOI: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114829.1037
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Said Mohamed Gabr1; Ibrahim Ali Abouelsaad1; Sary Brengi2; Ahmed Gouda email 3
1Faculty of Agriculture - Damanhour University
2vegetable physiology,horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Arab Republic of Egypt
3Faculty Of Agriculture - Damanhour University
Abstract
Two pots experiments were conducted at Abu Hummus,El- Beheira Governorate, Egypt, during the successive winter seasons of 2019 and 2020 to investigate the effect of fulvic acid and silicon in elevating the negative impact of salinity on vegetative growth, yield and chemical composition of spinach under different salinity levels. Each experiment includes 20 treatments which were the combinations between four salinity levels (Tap water, 1500, 3000 and 4500 ppm) and soil application treatments of fulvic (1.5 and 3.0 gm / L) , silicon (1.5 and 3.0 mM) and  distilled water as control treatment. The experiments were carried out as randomized complete block design (RCBD) in split plot system with three replicates. Whereas, the salinity levels arranged in the main plots while the soil application treatments of fulvic and silicon were randomly located in the sub-plots. Generally, the obtained results indicated, that all tested characters decreased with increasing salinity levels. The reduction rate on any character varied depending on the imposed level of salinity stress. Adding fulvic acid and silicon in all concentrations showed significant effect in improving all studied traits as compared to the control treatment, in both seasons. Application of silicon at 3 mM recorded the highest values of plant height, plant fresh weight, plant dry weight, number of leaves per plant, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, protein and total chlorophyll contents and reduced the hazard effect of nitrate and total oxalate comparing  to the other treatments in both seasons. The combined treatment of silicon (Si) at the rate of 3 mM and salinity level at zero gave the highest values of the most tested parameters. The outcome of this research recommends the opportunity of adding silicon (Si) or fulvic acid (FA) to enhance spinach plants and minimize the harmful effect of salinity.
Keywords
spinach; salinity; silicon; fulvic acid; stress; growth
Main Subjects
Horticulture
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

     Spinach plants (Spinacia oleracea L.) belongs to the family Amaranthacea. Spinach is originated from south western and central Asia (Avşar, 2011). China is the largest spinach producer followed by United States and Japan (FAOSTAT, 2017). Fresh spinach is rich in many nutrients ( protein, Ca ,Mg, Na, P, Fe,  vitamins C, B-carotene, vitamins E, and vitamin A). However , spinach leaves also, contains high concentration of oxalates and phytates  (Heaney et al., 1988 and McConn  and   Nakata 2004).  Spinach is a moderately salt-tolerant glycophyte in the winter, but sensitive to moderately-sensitive if cultivated in the spring and summer (Ferreira et al., 2020).  Agriculture sustainability is threated by increased soil salinization, which reduces both the productivity and availability of land for agriculture (Shrivastava and Kumar, 2015). Soil salinity is one of the major abiotic stresses that hinder crop growth and productivity worldwide. It has been reported that approximately 20% of irrigated land worldwide is salt-affected, which represents one-third of food-producing land (Gregory et al., 2018). Moreover, the salt-affected areas are increasing at a rate of 10% annually for various reasons, including low precipitation, high surface evaporation, poor cultural practices and irrigation using saline water (Shrivastava and Kumar, 2015). This issue has been further aggravated by the continued trends in global warming and climatic changes. Thus, living with salinity is the only way of sustaining agricultural production in the salt affected soil. So that, it is must to find the best management to alleviate salt hazard (Al-Rawahy et al. 2011).

       In recent years, exogenous protectants such as osmoprotectants, phytohormones, humic compounds, antioxidants and various elements such  as silicon have been found useful to alleviate the salt-induced damages (Khan et al., 2017). The development of methods and strategies to ameliorate the deleterious effects of salt stress on plants has received considerable attention (Senaratna et al., 2000). In this respect, application of fulvic acid enhanced transport of minerals, improved plant hormone activity, modified enzyme activities, promoted photosynthesis, solubilization of micro and macro elements, protein synthesis, and reduction of active levels of toxic minerals (Aiken et al., 1985; Khang, 2011; Billard et al., 2014; Kandil et al., 2020). Moreover, the use of silicon can stimulate greater physical performance and better quality because of the positive effects of Si, Ca, Mg, and K absorption (Ferreira et al., 2010). Also, silicon mediated decreased uptake and transport of Na+ and increased uptake and transport of K+ (Tuna et al., 2008; Hashemi et al., 2010 and Farshidi et al., 2012), from roots to shoots under salt stress. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the role of fulvic acid and silicon in alleviating the negative impacts of salt stress and to evaluate the expected outcomes that may have on its growth and chemical characteristics on spinach plants irrigated with water in different salinity levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

           Two pots experiments were conducted at Abu Hummus, EL- Beheira Governorate, north Egypt, during the successive winter seasons of 2019 and 2020 to investigate the effect of fulvic acid and silicon in elevating the negative effect of salinity on vegetative growth, yield and chemical composition of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L. cv. Balady) under different salinity levels.  Soil physical and chemical properties were analyzed at the Agricultural Directorate Lab of Damanhur city, El-Behera Governorate, Egypt. Properties of the selected soil are shown in Table (1).

 

 

Table( 1):Chemical and physical properties of the experimental soil.

Chemical properties

 

PH

EC

( dSm-1)

Organic matter (%)

NO3 (ppm)

Available N (ppm)

Available P (ppm)

Available K (ppm)

2019

7.87

0.46

1.07

22. 75

18.21

14.50

26.42

2020

7.86

0.43

1.06

20.92

18.68

15.13

25.90

 

Physical properties

Season

Sand (%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Texture

Bulk density

(g cm-3)

 

 

2019

30.08

9.72

60.20

    Clay

1.50

 

 

2020

29.9

10.5

59.6

Clay

1.51

 

 

                 

 

       The spinach seeds, cv. Balady, purchased from a local seeds market,  were sown in plastic pots (35 cm inner diameter, and 30 cm height),  each was filled with 12 kg of soil (Table 1) , and placed in the open field. The seeds were planted on 15th and 10th of November in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Each treatment composed of five replicated pots with four plants in each pot. Each experiment includes 20 treatments which were the combinations between four salinity levels (Tap water, 1500 , 3000 and 4500 ppm) and soil application treatments of fulvic acid  (  1.5 and 3.0 gm / L) in form potassium fulvate , silicon (1.5 and 3.0 mM) in form  potassium silicate and  distilled water as the control treatment. The recommended concentrations of soil application treatments were applied as a drench to the spinach plants. The control plants were treated with tap water. Each soil application treatment was applied three times after planting. The first application was conducted in the two specific leaves phase (15 days) after sowing and the others were applied with one week intervals (Smolen and Sady 2012; Fouda, 2016). Harvesting was done after 50 days of planting in  both seasons (Barkat et. al. 2018).

All experimental pots received identical levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Ammonium nitrate (33.5% N) at the rate of 60 kg N/fed. was equally divided and side dressed after 21, 28 and 35 days after planting, Calcium super phosphate (15.5 % P2O5) at the rate of 150 kg P2O5 /fed. was base dressed before planting and potassium sulphate (48 % K2O) at the rate of 50 kg K2O /fed. was equally divided and side dressed after 21 and 28 days of planting. All other agricultural practices were adopted whenever they were necessary and as commonly recommended for the commercial production of spinach.

Plant measurements

vegetative growth parameters

Spinach plants were harvested after 50 days and the measurement of vegetative growth parameters was performed immediately. Ten spinach plants from each treatment were randomly taken to measure:

Plant height (cm);it was measured with the help of measuring scale from the surface of the soil to the growing tip of the selected plants and then the average was calculated.

Plant fresh weight (gm); the whole plant sample was weighted and the average weight plant-1(gm) was calculated.

Plant dry weight (gm); the collected 10 plants were oven dried at 70 C˚ in a forced air oven till obtaining a constant weight to obtain shoots dry weigh (g plant-1) and the dried tissues were ground for further analysis. in a forced-oven at 70 C˚till the weights became constant., then the dry matter was weighted.

Number of leaves per plant; it was estimated as an average of the selected plants.

Root length (cm) ;it was measured for 10 plants  randomly taken, and the average root length (cm) was calculated.

Root fresh weight (gm) ; the whole fresh root for 10 plants was weighted and the average weight (gm) was calculated

Root dry weight (gm) ; the collected fresh root for 10 plants were oven dried at 70 Cº in a forced air oven till obtaining a constant weight to obtain roots dry weigh (gm).

 

Leaf area per plant (cm2): leaves area / plant was calculated using the weight method as used by Fayed (1997). The leaves from the plant samples (three plants) were cleaned from dust and weighted. then, twenty random disks were taken from the leaves, using a circular puncher and weighted.

 

 

Where          20 = number of random disks

                     3   = number of plant sample

                              area of disk =   πr²


Chemical measurements

Total chlorophyll contents; total leaf chlorophyll contents (SPAD index) were measured using spad-502 chlorophyll meter devise (Konica Minolta, Kearney, NE, USA).

Total nitrogen, phosphorus ,  potassium, sodium and chloride; leaves samples were oven dried at 70ºC till obtaining a constant weight for 48 hours and ground in a mill with stainless steel blades. Wet digestion procedure was performed according to Chapman and Pratt (1978). Nitrogen percentage in leaves was determined by micro kjeldahl method as described by Page et al. (1982). Phosphorus percentage was determined calorimetrically as reported by Jackson (1973). Potassium and sodium were determined by atomic absorption Spectrophotometry methods (Bhowmik et al. 2012). Chloride was determined according to the method described by Jackson and Brown (1955).

 

Vitamin C and nitrate contents; vitamin C (mg100 g-1) and nitrate (ppm) were determined according to the method described by Singh (1988).

Total oxalate ; total oxalate (mg 100g-1) were determined according to the method described by Mazumdar and Majumder (2003).

 

Statistical analysis

     The experimental design was split plots in a randomized complete block design, whereas the salinity levels arranged in the main plots and the soil application treatments of  fulvic and silicon were randomly placed in the sub-plots. All the obtained data were statistically analyzed by CoStat program (Version 6.4, Co Hort, USA, 1998–2008). Least significant difference (LSD) test was applied at 0.05 level of probability to compare means of different treatments according to Williams and Abdi (2010).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effects of salinity levels, soil applications of fulvic acid , silicon and their interaction on vegetative growth of spinach plants are presented in Tables (2 and 3). Concerning the main effect of salinity levels on plant height ,  plant  fresh weight, plant  dry weight, number of leaves /plant, leaves area, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight, results presented in Tables (2 and 3) revealed that all tested parameters decreased by increasing salinity levels. The reduction rate on any character varied depending on the level of imposed salinity stress. The highest values of the given parameters were obtained from the control treatment, while that the rate of 4500 ppm salinity recorded the lowest ones, in both seasons. At salinity of 4500 ppm, the estimated percentage reductions, expressed as plant height, plant  fresh weight ,  plant  dry weight, number of leaves , leaves area, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight of the two seasons, were (26.42 and 31.18 %), (26.59 and 27.59 %), (26.16 and 26.77 %), (17.69 and 16.67% ), (20.01 and 29.04 %), ( 35.98 and 40.32 %), ( 40.70 and 40.17 %) and ( 23.07 and 22.79 % ) as compared to the control treatment in the first and second season, respectively. The adverse effects of high salinity on plants are related to the following factors: (1) low water potential of soil solution (water stress), (2) nutritional imbalance and disturbing ionic homeostasis (ionic stress), (3) specific ion effect (salt stress), (4) over-production of reactive oxygen species - (oxidative stress) (Parvaiz and Satyawati, 2008; Hasanuzzaman et al., 2013).

These results were in harmony with those reported by Mohammad et al.(1998) on tomato, Shereen et al. (2005) on radish , Gama et al.(2007) on common bean, Céccoli et al.( 2011) and  Siddikee et al.(2011) on sweet pepper, Brengi (2019) on cucumber, Ors and Suarez (2017) , Seven  and Sağlam (2020), Fayed, et al. (2021) and Kim et al., (2021) on spanish who reported, generally, that vegetative growth parameters, decreased with increasing salinity rates.

     Regarding the main effect of the ameliorative treatments (fulvic acid and silicon) on the plant height ,  plant  fresh weight and  plant  dry weight, number of leaves , leaves area, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight of spinach plants, results presented in Tables (2 and 3) exhibited that adding FA and Si in all concentrations showed significant effect in improving all the studied traits as compared with the control treatment, in both seasons. For instance, application of silicon at the highest level (i.e. 3 mM) recorded, generally, the highest values of plant height,  plant  fresh weight , plant  dry weight , number of leaves, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight compared to the other treatments, in both seasons . However, leaves area reached its maximum when plants were treated with FA at the rate of 1.5 gm /l in both seasons. The  particular treatment  of Si at the rate of 3 mM  the resulted estimated percentages increase in plant height, plant fresh weight , plant dry weight, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight   of 34.84 and 35.59 %), (25.19 and 27.34 %) , (26.19 and 28.65), (37.04 and 33.99 %) , (23.48 and 14.36 %) and (45.25 and 34.77%)  comparing to the control treatment in the first and second season, respectively. The positive effects of Si could plays different roles in plant growth and development, improve plant resistance to diseases and pests, increase photosynthesis, regulate respiration and increase the tolerance of the plant to elements toxicity (Zargar  et al., 2019). Moreover, Si fertilizer application can alleviate the adverse effects of various abiotic (e.g., drought, salt and metal toxicity) and biotic (pests and plant diseases) stresses on plants (Ma et al. 2004). Silicon seems to affect acquisition of other essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and calcium and other micronutrients as well (Liang et al., 2003 and Farshidi et al., 2012), thereby improving the growth of plants and the generally tolerance against salt stress

 


 

Table (2): Plant height, plant fresh weight , plant dry weight , Number of leaves and Leaves area of spinach plants as affected by salinity and soil application of both fulvic acid and silicon in both seasons of 2019and 2020.

Treatments

Plantheight(cm)

Plantfreshweight(gm)

Plantdryweight(gm)

Numberofleaves

Leavesarea(cm2)

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Salinity levels

(ppm)

Tap water

34.63A*

35.40A

71.39A

70.60A

7.40A

7.32A

7.04A*

7.60A

605.98A

610.26

1500

31.33B

31.37B

66.07B

65.10B

6.75B

6.67B

6.41B

6.70B

543.13B

539.72

3000

29.05C

27.99C

60.85C

58.85C

6.30C

6.11C

6.03C

6.32B

518.44C

500.68

4500

25.48D

24.36D

52.40D

51.12D

5.47D

5.36D

5.79C

6.33B

448.33D

433.04

 

Protection treatments

control

24.79D

24.17D

52.89C

51.11C

5.43C

5.25C

5.17B

5.11B

444.20D

431.58C

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

30.07C

30.22C

64.12B

63.15B

6.57B

6.50B

6.50A

6.83A

569.23A

566.39A

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

30.87B

30.39C

65.04AB

64.07AB

6.74B

6.64AB

6.58A

7.25A

545.10B

537.17B

Silicon1.5mM

31.46B

31.36B

65.12AB

63.68B

6.81A

6.69A

6.50A

7.33A

536.23C

529.45B

Silicon3mM

33.43A

32.77A

66.22A

65.08A

6.85A

6.76A

6.83A

7.17A

550.07B

540.04B

Tapwater

control

31.95de

33.45c

63.27e

64.05cd

6.57e

6.62d

6.53bcd

6.67bc

536.32fg

555.68de

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

33.65bc

35.17b

72.08b

71.90a

7.25bc

7.24bc

7.33ab

7.67ab

624.38ab

637.86a

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

34.73b

35.43b

73.23ab

71.90a

7.56ab

7.42ab

7.00abc

7.67ab

618.42bc

619.11abc

Silicon1.5mM

35.19b

35.37b

73.50ab

71.80a

7.79a

7.62a

6.67abcd

8.00a

617.45bc

612.00bc

Silicon3mM

37.63a

37.60a

74.87a

73.33a

7.86a

7.71a

7.67a

8.00a

633.31a

626.67ab

1500

control

24.37j

24.33k

57.25f

57.19f

5.58f

5.61e

5.38ef

5.51d

455.81j

455.34hi

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

31.64def

31.93cd

66.93d

64.83c

6.81de

6.60d

6.67abcd

7.00abc

604.79c

598.48c

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

32.57cd

31.67de

68.09cd

67.13b

7.10cd

7.00c

6.67abcd

7.33ab

547.32ef

537.31efg

Silicon1.5mM

33.07cd

33.37c

68.51cd

68.23b

7.11cd

7.11bc

6.67abcd

6.67bc

546.40f

547.80def

Silicon3mM

35.03b

35.53b

69.57c

68.10b

7.16c

7.02c

6.67abcd

7.00abc

561.31de

559.69d

3000

control

22.21k

20.83l

50.61h

45.97h

5.13g

4.67f

4.82fg

4.27e

423.90k

391.40j

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

29.42gh

28.83gh

62.85e

62.17de

6.55e

6.51d

6.33bcde

6.67bc

562.46d

554.04de

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

30.29fg

29.30fg

63.02e

61.23e

6.57e

6.38d

6.67abcd

6.67bc

542.34f

525.87fg

Silicon1.5mM

30.75efg

30.23efg

63.48e

62.00de

6.60e

6.50d

6.00cde

7.33ab

524.82g

514.40g

Silicon3mM

32.58cd

30.73def

64.30e

62.90cde

6.63e

6.51d

6.33bcde

6.67bc

538.69fg

517.67g

4500

control

20.63l

18.05m

40.45i

37.23i

4.44h

4.10g

3.97g

4.00e

360.79l

323.92k

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

25.57ij

24.93jk

54.60g

53.70g

5.69f

5.63e

5.67def

6.00cd

485.30h

475.18h

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

25.90ij

25.17jk

55.83fg

56.00f

5.71f

5.76e

6.00cde

7.33ab

472.33hi

466.40hi

Silicon1.5mM

26.83i

26.47ij

55.00fg

52.67g

5.73f

5.53e

6.67abcd

7.33ab

456.25j

443.58i

Silicon3mM

28.47h

27.20hi

56.13fg

56.00f

5.76f

5.78e

6.67abcd

7.00abc

466.99ij

456.14hi

         *Means having the same letter (s) within the same column are not significantly different according to LSD for all-pairwise comparisons test at 5% level of probability.


 

Table (3): Root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight of spinach plants as affected by salinity and soil application of both fulvic acid and silicon during in both seasons of 2019and 2020.

Treatments

Rootlength(cm)

Rootfreshweight(gm)

Rootdryweight(gm)

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Salinity levels

(ppm)

Tapwater

11.44A*

10.39A

9.97A

10.63A

1.20A

1.27A

1500

8.53B

9.21B

8.46B

9.07B

1.05B

1.13B

3000

7.81C

7.79C

6.58C

7.17C

0.96C

1.04C

4500

7.32C

6.20D

5.91D

6.36D

0.92D

0.98D

 

Protection treatments

control

7.05D

6.72C

6.78C

7.61C

0.77C

0.87C

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

8.97BC

8.89AB

7.98AB

8.79A

1.05B

1.15B

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

8.81C

8.63AB

7.68B

8.22B

1.10AB

1.17A

Silicon1.5mM

9.38AB

8.74B

7.86B

8.22B

1.12A

1.17A

Silicon3mM

9.67A

9.00A

8.37A

8.70AB

1.12A

1.17A

 

Tapwater

control

9.35d

9.36de

9.20bcd

10.25bc

0.99gh

1.10d

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

11.50bc

10.57b

9.67bc

10.27bc

1.23a

1.30a

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

11.00c

10.30bc

9.67bc

10.22bc

1.26a

1.32a

Silicon1.5mM

12.33ab

10.53b

10.00b

10.62b

1.25a

1.30a

Silicon3mM

13.00a

11.20a

11.33a

11.81a

1.25a

1.31a

1500

control

7.25g

7.80g

7.42e

8.42ef

0.83i

0.95f

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

8.77de

9.83cd

8.99cd

9.85bcd

1.06cdef

1.16bc

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

8.57def

9.53de

8.43d

8.93de

1.11bc

1.17b

Silicon1.5mM

8.83de

9.60de

8.60d

8.92de

1.13b

1.18b

Silicon3mM

9.23d

9.27e

8.87cd

9.21cde

1.13b

1.18b

3000

control

6.18h

5.33j

5.51hi

5.64ij

0.73j

0.74g

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

8.03efg

8.53f

7.00ef

8.15efg

0.95h

1.10d

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

7.97efg

8.30fg

6.62efg

7.44fgh

1.01fg

1.13cd

Silicon1.5mM

8.40def

8.47f

6.78efg

7.15ghi

1.07cde

1.12d

Silicon3mM

8.47def

8.30fg

7.00ef

7.49fgh

1.07cde

1.12d

4500

control

5.44h

4.37k

4.97i

6.12j

0.54k

0.67h

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

7.57fg

6.63i

6.28fgh

6.91hi

0.96h

1.05e

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

7.70fg

6.40i

6.00gh

6.31ij

1.01fg

1.06e

Silicon1.5mM

7.93efg

6.37i

6.05gh

6.18ij

1.04defg

1.06e

Silicon3mM

7.97efg

7.23h

6.27fgh

6.28ij

1.05def

1.05e

                 

*Means having the same letter (s) within the same column are not significantly different according to LSD for all-pairwise comparisons test at 5% level of probability.

 

 

Regarding the interaction effect between salinity levels and the ameliorative treatments (fulvic acid and silicon) on plant height ,  plant  fresh weight ,  plant  dry weight, number of leaves , leaves area, root length, root fresh weight and root dry weight of spinach plants, whereas results presented in Tables (2 and 3) showed significant interactions between both variables. The combined treatment between zero salinity and silicon at 3 mM accomplished , generally,  the highest values of aforementioned characters, in both seasons compared to other treatments.

Percentages of nitrogen, phosphor, potassium ,sodium and chloride in leaves

 Regarding the main effect of salinity levels on the percentages of nitrogen, phosphor potassium, sodium and chloride in plant leaves, result presented in Table (4) revealed that nitrogen, phosphor , potassium decreased as salinity levels increased. However sodium and chloride percentages increased as salinity levels increased. The highest values of nitrogen, phosphor and potassium were obtained from control treatment, while that of 4500 ppm salinity gave the lowest ones, in both seasons. At salinity of 4500 ppm, the estimated percent reductions, for  nitrogen, phosphor and potassium, were (22.63 and 30.61%), (11.11 and 22.80 %) and (29.90 and 26.58 %) in the first and second seasons, respectively and relative to the control treatment. Also, The highest values of sodium and chloride percentages were obtained from salinity at 4500 ppm treatment, while that of control treatment gave the lowest ones, in both seasons.

The nutritional disorders may result from the effect of salinity on nutrient availability, competitive uptake, transport, or distribution within the plant. Numerous reports indicated that salinity reduces nutrient uptake and accumulation of nutrients into the plants (Rogers et al. 2003; Hu and Schmidhalter 2005). A number of laboratory and greenhouse studies have shown that salinity can reduce N, P and K accumulation in plants (Feigin et al., 1991; Pessarakli, 1991; Al-Rawahy et al., 1992). This is not surprising since an increase in Cl uptake and accumulation is often accompanied by a decrease in shoot-NO3 concentration. Examples of such an effect have been found in cucumber (Martinez and Cerda, 1989), eggplant (Savvas and Lenz, 1996), melon (Feigin et al., 1987), and tomato (Kafkafi et al., 1982; Feigin et al., 1987; Martinez and CerdaÂ, 1989). In addition, Salinity stress decreases the uptake and concentration of P in plant tissues. Thus, plants exhibit reduced and stunted growth, dark green coloration of the leaves, production of slender stems, and death of older leaves (Taiz and Zeiger, 2006). Under saline-sodic or sodic conditions, high levels of external Na+ not only interfere with K+ acquisition by the roots, but also may disrupt the integrity of root membranes and alter their selectivity. The selectivity of the root system for K+ over Na+ must be sufficient to meet the levels of K+ required for metabolic processes, for the regulation of ion transport, and for osmotic adjustment (Martinez and Cerda (1989).

Concerning the main effect of the soil application treatments (fulvic acid and silicon) on the percentages of nitrogen, phosphor, potassium, sodium and chloride results presented in Tables (4)  showed that application of fulvic acid and silicon exhibited significant effect on the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as compared with the control treatment in both seasons. However, the differences between the two concentrations of either fulvic acid (1.5 and 3.0 g/l) or silicon (1.5 and 3.0 mM) were not significant. Whereas, soil application of fulvic acid and silicon differed in their effect on the contents of Na. The highest mean value of sodium was obtained with fulvic acid at 3 gm/l, where the lowest value was achieved with silicon at 3mM, in both seasons. So, fulvic acid activated the absorption of sodium, while silicon reduced it. Silicon at the rate of 3.0 mM reduced  chloride ,compared to the other treatments, in both seasons.  At silicon concentration of 3.0 mM, the estimated percent increase in nitrogen, phosphor and potassium, were (7.48 and 7.37%), (15.21 and 8.33 %) and (8.44 and 17.10 %)  in the first and second seasons, respectively relative to the control treatment. Meanwhile, for silicon at 3.0 mM, the estimated percent decrease  in sodium and chloride  were (23.23 and 22.08%) and (20.87and 20.53 %) in the first and second seasons, respectively in relative to the control treatment.

The positive effect of silicon could be mediated decrease in the uptake and transport of Na+ and increased uptake and transport of K+ (Tuna et al., 2008;  Hashemi et al., 2010 and Farshidi et al., 2012), from roots to shoots under salt stress. Silicon seems to affect acquisition of other essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and calcium and other micronutrients as well (Liang et al., 2003 and Farshidi et al., 2012), thereby improving the growth of plants and generally the tolerance against salt stress. Moreover, P  concentration and total P contents were increased by adding silicon under saline conditions. The possible causes for this may be associated with both Si-stimulated root activity showed by root dehydrogenase activity and Si-improved P bioavailability in soils due to the chemical competition between H2PO4− and silicate (H3SiO4−) anions for the sorption sites. ( Liang et al. ,1999) .

Pertaining the interaction effect between salinity levels and protection treatments (fulvic acid and silicon) on the percentages of nitrogen, phosphor, potassium, sodium and chloride in spinach leaves, results offered in Table (4) indicated significant differences among the interactions between both variables. The combined treatment between zero salinity and silicon at the rate of 3 mM  achieved , generally, the highest values of N, P and K percentages in both seasons compared to other treatments, except nitrogen in the second season and potassium in both seasons. However, the combination between 4500 ppm salinity level and fulvic acid at 3 gm/L achieved the highest values of sodium , in both seasons.Moreover, the combination between 4500 ppm salinity level and control treatment reached, generally, the highest values of chloride , in both seasons.

It is vital to note that silicon reduced the risk effect of either sodium or chloride because it plays different roles in plant growth and development, improve plant resistance to diseases and pests, increase photosynthesis, regulate respiration and increase the tolerance of the plant to elements toxicity (Deshmukh et al., 2017). Roshdy and Brengi (2016) found that silicon treatment resulted in significant decrease in leaves Na and Cl but increased K/Na ratio in snap bean leaves under salt stress condition.



 

Table (4): Percentages of nitrogen (N), protein, and phosphor (P) in leaves of spinach plants as affected by salinity and soil application of both fulvic acid and silicon in both seasons of 2019and 2020.

Treatments

N(%)

P(%)

K(%)

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Salinity levels

(ppm)

Tap water

3.49A*

3.56A

0.54A

0.57A

3.88A

3.95A

1500

3.23B

3.18B

0.52B

0.53B

3.39B

3.61B

3000

2.92C

2.74C

0.49C

0.47C

3.17C

3.28C

4500

2.70D

2.47D

0.48D

0.44D

2.72D

2.90D

 

Protection treatments

control

2.94C

2.85C

0.46C

0.48C

3.08B

3.04B

Fulvicacid1

3.06B

2.99B

0.51B

0.51B

3.33A

3.53A

Fulvicacid2

3.13A

3.01AB

0.52AB

0.52AB

3.35A

3.51A

Silicon1

3.12A

3.02AB

0.52AB

0.51B

3.36A

3.54A

Silicon2

3.16A

3.06A

0.53A

0.52A

3.34A

3.56A

Interaction

Tap water

control

3.51ab

3.56a

0.53cd

0.55cd

3.84a

3.92a

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

3.39bc

3.61a

0.54bc

0.58ab

3.93a

3.99a

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

3.53a

3.53a

0.55ab

0.60a

3.88a

3.96a

Silicon1.5mM

3.49ab

3.58a

0.54bc

0.56bc

3.88a

3.94a

Silicon3mM

3.53a

3.54a

0.56a

0.57b

3.87a

3.94a

1500

control

3.08f

3.00c

0.50efg

0.53d

2.97f

3.00d

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

3.23e

3.20b

0.52de

0.53d

3.42c

3.72b

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

3.21e

3.17b

0.52de

0.54d

3.51bc

3.75b

Silicon1.5mM

3.25de

3.23b

0.53cd

0.53d

3.52b

3.79b

Silicon3mM

3.36cd

3.28b

0.54bc

0.53d

3.52b

3.81b

3000

control

2.73h

2.56f

0.43h

0.44h

2.82g

2.67e

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

2.90g

2.71de

0.50fg

0.47fg

3.26de

3.46c

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

3.00fg

2.80d

0.51efg

0.48f

3.26de

3.39c

Silicon1.5mM

2.98fg

2.78d

0.51efg

0.48f

3.31d

3.44c

Silicon3mM

2.97fg

2.84d

0.50efg

0.50e

3.21e

3.46c

4500

control

2.46i

2.28h

0.39i

0.41i

2.69h

2.56f

Fulvicacid1.5gmperlitter

2.72h

2.42g

0.49g

0.44h

2.71h

2.97d

Fulvicacid3gmperlitter

2.77h

2.54fg

0.50efg

0.45gh

2.75gh

2.96d

Silicon1.5mM

2.76h

2.50fg

0.50efg

0.45gh

2.71h

2.99d

Silicon3mM

2.78h

2.60ef

0.50efg

0.47fg

2.75gh

3.03d

*  Means having the same letter (s) within the same column are not significantly different according to LSD for all-pairwise comparisons test at 5% level of probability.

 


Total chlorophyll, protein,ascorbic acid, nitrate and total oxalate contents

Regarding the main effect of salinity levels on the total chlorophyll, protein, ascorbic acid, nitrate and total oxalate contents  , data presented in Table (5) revealed that the total chlorophyll, protein and nitrate  decreased by salinity levels increased, whereas, ascorbic acid and total oxalate increased with increasing salinity levels , in the two seasons.  The reduction rate on total chlorophyll ,protein and nitrate varied depending on the level of imposed salinity stress. The highest values of total chlorophyll ,protein and nitrate content were obtained from  the control treatment, while that 4500 ppm of salinity gave the lowest ones, in both seasons. However, the highest values of ascorbic acid and total oxalate were attained from 4500 ppm salinity, although that zero salinity reached the maximum values, in both seasons. At salinity of 4500 ppm, the estimated percent reductions, in total chlorophyll ,protein and nitrate were (13.72 and 14.37%), (22.71 and 30.68 %) and (30.75 and 30.24 %),  in the first and second seasons, respectively relative to the control treatment .However, at salinity of 4500 ppm, the estimated percent increase in ascorbic acid and total oxalate were (10.11 and 9.53%) and (45.53 and 40.17%) in the first and second seasons, respectively relative to the control treatment . The present results are in agreement with those of Parida et al. (2005) who stated that salt stress has been shown to change the photosynthesis, osmoregulation, mineral ion contents, and chlorophyll content of spinach treated with 0–200 mmol L–1 NaCl and that salt stress showed toxic effects on plants and lead to metabolic changes, like loss of chloroplast activity and decreased photosynthetic rate. Also, the same conclusion were obtained by Khan et al.( 2013) and Berengi (2019) in cucumber. The decrease in chlorophyll content under stress is a commonly reported phenomenon, and in various studies, this may be due to different reasons, one of them is related to membrane deterioration (Mane et al., 2010). Also, with increasing salinity levels, total chlorophyll in pepper leaves significantly decreased, this reduction may be related to enhanced activity of the chlorophyll-degrading enzyme, chlorophyllase, as suggested by Mishra and Sharma, (1994) who indicated that increasing saline increased oxidation of chlorophyll leading to its decreased concentration. Moreover, other investigators indicated that during water stress brought about by salt stress, generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are thought to play important roles in inhibiting photosynthesis and H2O2 and OH- are responsible for injurious effect of salt stress on chlorophyll content and chloroplast ultra-structure (Yamane et al., 2004). Also, in spinach, Seven  and Sağlam(2020) found that chlorophyll and total protein content in spinach leaves  were reduced as salinity increased. Furthermore, increased salt content also interfered with protein synthesis and influences the structural component of chlorophyll (Jalee et al., 2008).Vaidyanathan et al. (2003) reported that the non-enzymatic antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, glutathione, α-tocopherol, and flavonoids, showed an accumulation in root tissues in rice plants subjected to salt stress.

            Concerning nitrate contents, our results were in agreement with those obtained by Bian et al.(2020) who reported that chloride showed an opposite trend to nitrate as it is well-known that salinity can reduce nitrate accumulation in leafy vegetables due to antagonism between nitrate and chloride for the same root anion channel. A linear decrease in nitrate concentration has been reported in romaine lettuce baby-leaf grown in high salinity solution (Scuderi et al., 2011 ; Barbieri et al., 2011 ; Bonasia et al., 2017) ). The increasing  in EC resulted in a reduction in nitrate concentration along with a Cl− rise in soilless-grown wild rocket (Bonasia et al., 2017). Moreover, it is known that chloride ions inhibit the activity of the enzymes involved in the N metabolism and consequently N assimilation (Barber et al., 1989; Debouba et al., 2006, 2007). Oxalic acid  in lettuce   leaves increased by increasing NaCl treatments (Tarakcioglu and Inal ,2002).

       Regarding, the main effect of the soil application of fulvic acid and silicon  on the total chlorophyll, protein, ascorbic acid, nitrate and total oxalate contents , results presented in Tables (5)  demonstrated that soil application of fulvic acid and silicon revealed significant effect on total chlorophyll and protein, in both seasons, compared to control treatment. However, ascorbic acid contents reached the maximum values when plants received control treatment, in both seasons. Nevertheless, the differences between the two levels of both fulvic acid and silicon in total chlorophyll and protein percentage, generally, were not significant, in both seasons. Nitrate contents reached its maximum when plants  were treated with fulvic acid followed by silicon at low concentration. Also, the differences between the high concentration of silicon (3 mM) and the control treatment were not significant, in both seasons. The highest values of total oxalate contents were obtained from control treatment, followed by the fulvic acid treatments, while that of silicon  treatments recorded the lowest ones, in both seasons. So, silicon reduce the hazard effect of oxalate.

  These results were in agreement with those of Lobato et al. (2009) who, documented that silicon encouraged a progressive increase in total chlorophyll in (Capsicum annuum L.) under water

 

stress compared to control. Also, Li et al. (2015) indicated that chlorophyll contents were increased as a results of adding Si application to tomato seedlings under salt stress. Moreover, in spinach plants, exogenous application of Si increased chlorophyll concentration under salinity stress (Eraslan et al., 2008).  Application of fulvic acid enhanced transport of minerals, improved plant hormone activity, modified enzyme activities, promoted photosynthesis, solubilization of micro and macro elements, protein synthesis, and reduction of active levels of toxic minerals (Aiken et al., 1985; Khang, 2011; Billard et al., 2014; Kandil et al., 2020).

Regarding, the interaction effect between salinity levels and protection treatments (fulvic acid and silicon) on total chlorophyll, protein, ascorbic acid, nitrate and total oxalate contents   of spinach plants, results in Table (5)  indicated  that the combined treatment between salinity level at 4500 ppm and control gave , generally, the lowest   chlorophyll and protein contents. The combination between 4500 ppm salinity level and fulvic acid at 3 gm/L achieved the highest values of ascorbic acid contents , in both seasons. Moreover, the combination between zero salinity and fulvic acid at 1.5 gm/l achieved the highest values of nitrate in both seasons compared to other treatments. However, the combined treatment between salinity level of 4500 ppm and control treatment attained , generally, the highest values of total oxalate contents, compared to other treatments.

 


 


Table (5) Total chlorophyll, protein, ascorbic acid and total oxalate contents of spinach plants as affected by salinity and soil application of both fulvic acid and silicon in both seasons of 2019and 2020.

 

Treatments

Chlorophyll(SPADUnit)

Protein(%)

Ascorbicacid(vitaminc)(mg/100gm)

totaloxalate

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2020

Salinity levels

(ppm)

Tapwater

39.57A*

39.94A

21.80A

22.26A

49.38D

45.11D

577.15D

574.97D

1500

37.28B

37.27B

20.16B

19.85B

52.27C

46.50C

766.07C

641.71C

3000

36.697C

35.6C

18.22C

17.10C

53.59B

47.94B

807.92B

721.02B

4500

34.14D

34.2D

16.85D

15.43D

54.37A

49.41A

839.94A

805.92A

 

Protection treatments

control

35.88B

34.59C

18.40C

17.82C

53.08A

50.15A

744.91A

734.37A

Fulvicacid1

36.88A

36.92B

19.11B

18.66B

52.88AB

48.72B

761.00A

710.851B

Fulvicacid2

37.14A

37.34AB

19.54A

18.80AB

52.89AB

47.33C

764.78A

671.609C

Silicon1

37.29A

37.25AB

19.50A

18.89AB

51.97BC

46.70C

750.34B

659.16D

Silicon2

37.41A

37.67A

19.74A

19.14A

51.20C

43.32D

717.49C

653.55D

Interaction

Topwater

control

39.17ab

39.34ab

21.91ab

22.24a

47.795g

41.36j

574.03ef

576.25hi

Fulvicacid1

39.5a

40a

21.20bc

22.57a

49.65fg

47.88cdef

576.73ef

565.62i

Fulvicacid2

40a

40.67a

22.03a

22.03a

49.53fg

44.59ghi

628.71e

590.82hi

Silicon1

39.5a

40a

21.79ab

22.35a

49.62fg

45.19fghi

563.66ef

589.491hi

Silicon2

39.67a

39.67ab

22.05a

22.11a

50.28f

46.52efgh

542.61f

552.68i

1500

control

36de

35.34fgh

19.25f

18.77c

51.71ccdef

49.36bcd

731.34d

647.47fg

Fulvicacid1

37.13cd

37.34cde

20.17e

20.02b

50.96ef

42.64ij

799.06abcd

633.37fg

Fulvicacid2

37.49bcd

37.67cd

20.06e

19.83b

53.56abcd

45.97fgh

789.69abcd

657.191ef

Silicon1

37.47bcd

37.34cde

20.31de

20.18b

52.55bcde

46.59defgh

749.701cd

655.72ef

Silicon2

38.29abc

38.67bc

21.01cd

20.47b

52.58abcde

47.96cdef

760.57bcd

614.78gh

3000

control

35.16ef

35.34fgh

17.09h

15.98f

51.28def

50.89ab

808.27abc

727.49cd

Fulvicacid1

36.87cd

37.34cde

18.10g

16.93de

53.15abcde

43.96hi

821.49abc

711.65cd

Fulvicacid2

37.24cd

37.67cd

18.77fg

17.48d

53.91abc

47.39cdefg

801.24abcd

738.42c

Silicon1

37.197cd

37.34cde

18.61fg

17.40d

54.49ab

48.03cdef

813.24abc

736.77c

Silicon2

37.01cd

38.67bc

18.55fg

17.73d

54.69ab

49.44bc

795.36abcd

690.76de

4500

control

32.34g

30.67j

15.35i

14.28h

54.02ab

48.86bcde

912.51a

822.27a

Fulvicacid1

34f

34.34hi

16.97h

15.12g

54.14ab

45.32fghi

846.69a

790.72ab

Fulvicacid2

34.67ef

34.67gh

17.30h

15.87fg

54.97a

52.46a

830.17ab

820.47a

Silicon1

35ef

35.34fgh

17.27h

15.64fg

54.43ab

49.51bc

814.34abc

818.63a

Silicon2

34.67ef

36efg

17.37

16.26ef

54.799ab

50.97ab

841.099a

777.51b

                     

 

*  Means having the same letter (s) within the same column are not significantly different according to LSD for all-pairwise comparisons test at 5% level of probability.

 

        The present study provided an evidence for the possibility of using silicon or fulvic acid (especially silicon )  to enhance spinach plants and minimize the harmful effect of salinity.

 

 

References
REFERENCES

Aiken, G.R., D.M. McKnight, R.L. Wershaw, and P. McCarthy.1985. An introduction to humic substances in soil, sediment and water, p. 1-9. In: G.R. Aiken, D.M. McKnight, and R.L. Wershaw (eds.). Humic substances in soil, sediment and water: Geochemistry, isolation and characterization. Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.

Al-Rawahy, S.A., H.S. Al-Dhuhli, S. Prathapar and H. Abdel Rahman .2011. Mulching Material Impact on Yield, Soil Moisture and Salinity in Saline-irrigated Sorghum Plots. International Journal of Agriculture Research, 6(1): 75-81.

Avşar, B. 2011. Genetic Diversity of Turkish Spinach Cultivars (Spinacia oleracea L.). TheGraduate School of Engineering and Sciences of İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir/Turkey, 27 pp, (in Turkish).

Barber, M. J., B. A.Notton, C. J.Kay and L. P. Solomonson .1989. Chloride inhibition of spinach nitrate reductase. Plant Physiol. 90: 70–74.

Barbieri, G., A. Bottino, E.Di Stasio, S.Vallone, A.Maggio .2011. Proline and light as quality enhancers of rocket (Eruca sativa Miller) grown under saline conditions. Sci. Hortic. 128,pp. 393–400.

Barkat, N., J.Singh , G. K.Jayaprakasha   and  B. S. Patil .2018. Effect of harvest time on the levels of phytochemicals, free radical‐scavenging activity, α‐amylase inhibition and bile acid‐binding capacity of spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 98(9): 3468-3477.‏

Bhowmik, S., B. K.Datta   and A. K. Saha .2012. Determination of mineral content and heavy metal content of some traditionally important aquatic plants of tripura, India using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 8(4):1467-1476.‏

Bian, Z., Y. Wang  , X. Zhang , T. Li  , S. Grundy and Q. Yang .2020. Foods a review of environment effects on nitrate controlled environments. Foods 9:732.

Billard, G.D., P.A. Ferreira,  G.V. Miranda,   J.C. Neves, W.B. Moraes, and D.B. Santos. 2007. Leaf contents of cationic macronutrients and their relationships with sodium in maize plants under saline stress. IDESIA 25:93-106.

Billard, V., P. Etienne, L. Jannin, , M. Garnica,  F.Cruz, J. M. Billard-Mina  and A. Ourry .2014. Two biostimulants derived from algae or humic acid induce similar responses in the mineral content and gene expression of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Journal of plant growth regulation, 33(2): 305-316.

Bonasia, A., C. Lazzizera, A. Elia and G. Conversa .2017. Nutritional, biophysical and physiological characteristics of wild rocket genotypes as affected by soilless cultivation system, salinity level of nutrient solution and growing period. Front. Plant Sci. 8:300. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00300.

Céccoli, G., J. C.Ramos, L. I.Ortega, J. M.Acosta  and  M. G.  Perreta .2011. Salinity induced anatomical and morphological changes in Chloris gayana Kunth roots. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

‏ Chapman, H.D and P.F. Pratt, 1978. Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants and Waters. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, USA., pp: 3043

Debouba, M., H. Maa Roufi-Dghimi, A. Suzuki, M. H. Ghorbel and I. H. Gouia .2007. Changes in growth and activity of enzymes involved in nitrate reduction and ammonium assimilation in tomato seedlings in response to NaCl Stress. Ann. Bot. 99: 1143–1151.

Debouba, M., H.Gouia, A.Suzuki and M. H. Ghorbel .2006. NaCl stress effects on enzymes involved in nitrogen assimilation pathway in tomato “Lycopersicon esculentum” seedlings. J. Plant Physiol. 163: 1247–1258.

Eraslan, F., A. Güne,  A.Inal, N. Çiçek and M. Alpaslan .2008. Comparative Physiological and Growth Responses of Tomato and Pepper Plants to Fertilizer Induced Salinity and Salt Stress under Greenhouse Conditions. International Meeting on Soil Fertility Land Management and Agroclimatology. Turkey. 687-696.

FAOSTAT. 2017. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

Farshidi, M., A. Abdolzadeh and  H.R. Sadeghipour  . 2012. Silicon nutrition alleviates physiological disorders imposed by salinity in hydroponically grown canola (Brassica napus L.) plants. Acta. Physiol. Plant, 34:1779–1788.

Fayed A.M. 1997. Evolution of some cultivars and mutants of cow pea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) under Kafr EL Sheikh condition M.Sci. Thesis . Fac . Agric , Kafr ELSheikh , Tanta. University.

Fayed, M.H, H.G. Ghanem, M. H. Sheta  and A.A. Ali .2021. Effect of magnetized water on water use efficiency of spinach under north sinai conditions. Misr J. Ag. Eng.,38 (2): 137 – 154.

Feigin, A., E.Pressan  ,P.Imas and O.Miltau .1991. Combined effects of KNO3 and salinity on yield and chemical composition of lettuce and chinese cabbage. Journal of Irrigation Science, 12: 223-230.

Ferreira, J.F.S.; J.B. da Silva, X.Liu, D. Sandhu . 2020. Spinach plants favor the absorption of K+ over Na+ regardless of salinity, and may benefit from Na+ when K+ is deficient in the soil. Plants, 9, 507.

Ferreira, R. L. F., R. J.Souza , J. G. Carvalho , S. E.Araújo Neto , V.Mendonça  and  P. G. S. Wadt .2010. Avaliação de cultivares de alface adubadas com silicato de cálcio em casa-de-vegetação. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 34(5):1093-1101.

Fouda, K. F. 2016. Response of onion yield and Its chemical content to NPK fertilization and foliar application of some micronutrients. Egyptian Journal of Soil Science, 56(3): 549-561.

Gama, P. B. S., S.Inanaga, K.Tanaka and  R.Nakazawa .2007. Physiological response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings to salinity stress. African Journal of biotechnology, 6(2).‏

Feigin, A., I. Rylski, A. Meiri  and  J. Shalhevet .1987. Nitrogen: Response of melon and tomato plants to chloride‐nitrate ratio in saline nutrient solutions. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 10(9-16): 1787-1794

Gregory, P. J., S. Ismail, I. B. Razaq and A.Wahbi .2018. Soil salinity: current status and in depth analyses for sustainable use. Chapter 2 (No. IAEA-TECDOC—1841).

Hasanuzzaman, M., K. Nahar and M. Fujita. 2013. Plant response to salt stress and role of exogenous protectants to mitigate salt-induced damages. In: Ahmad P, Azooz MM, Prasad MNV [eds.], Ecophysiology and Responses of Plants under Salt Stress, 25-87. Springer, New York.

Hashemi, A., A. Abdolzadeh and H.R .Sadeghipour . 2010. Beneficial effects of silicon nutrition in alleviating salinity stress in hydroponically grown canola, Brassica napus L., plants. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr., 56(2):244–253.

Heaney, R.P., C.M. Weaver, and R.R. Recker (1988).Calcium absorbability from spinach. Am. J. Clin. Nutr, 47:707–709.

Hu, Y. and U. Schmidhalter  .2005. Drought and salinity: A comparison of their effects on mineral nutrition of plants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci., 168: 541-549.

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA.

Jackson, R.K. and  I.G. Brown .1955. A note on the potentiometric determination of chloride. Proc.Amer.Soc.Hort.Sci.65:187.

Jaleel, A., B. Sankar, R. Sridharan and  R.Panneersel (2008). Soil salinity alters growth, chlorophyll content, and secondary metabolite accumulation in Catharanthus roseus. Turkish Journal of Biology, 32,pp. 79-83.

Jones Jr, J. B. 1991. Kjeldahl method for nitrogen determination. Kjeldahl method for nitrogen determination.

Kafkafi, U., N. Valoras and  J .Letey .1982. Chloride interaction with nitrate and phosphate nutrition in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Journal of Plant Nutrition, 5(12): 1369-1385.

Kafkafi, U. 1996. Root growth under stress-salinity. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafka fi U (eds) Plant roots: the hidden half, ed, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, 375–391.

Kandil, E. E., N. R.Abdelsalam, A. A. A. E.Aziz , H. M. Ali and  M. H. Siddiqui .2020. Efficacy of nanofertilizer, fulvic acid and boron fertilizer on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality. Sugar Tech, 22(5):782-791.

Khan, M.M,, R.S.M. Al-Mas'oudi, F. Al-Said and I .Khan .2013. Salinity effects on growth, electrolyte leakage, chlorophyll content and lipid peroxidation in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) International Conference on Food and Agricultural Sciences IPCBEE vol.55, IACSIT Press, Singapore doi: 10.7763/IPCBEE.2013. V55. 6.

Khan, W.U.D.,  T.Aziz,; I.Hussain ,P.M.A. Ramzani and  T.G. Reichenauer  .2017.Silicon: A beneficial nutrient for maize crop to enhance photochemical e_ciency of photosystem II under salt stress. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 63: 599–611.

Khang, V.T., .2011. Fulvic foliar fertilizer impact on growth of rice and radish at first stage. Omonrice, 18: 144-148.

Kim, B.M., H.J. Lee, Y. H. Song and H. J. Kim .2021. Effect of salt stress on the growth, mineral contents, and metabolite profiles of spinach. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.

Komornicki, T., K. Oleksynowa, J. Tokaj  and  J. Jakubiec  .1991. Guide for Soil Science and Geology Experiments. Part 2. Methods of Soil Analysis.

Li, Z., X. Jin , J. Wang , G. Yang , C. Nie , X. Xu  and  H. Feng  .2015. Estimating winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) LAI and leaf chlorophyll content from canopy reflectance data by integrating agronomic prior knowledge with the PROSAIL model. International journal of remote sensing, 36(10):2634-2653.

Liang, Y. 1999. Effects of silicon on enzyme activity and sodium, potassium and calcium concentration in barley under salt stress. Plant and soil, 209(2): 217-224.

Liang, Y., Q. I. N. Chen, Q. Liu , W. Zhang and R. Ding .2003. Exogenous silicon (Si) increases antioxidant enzyme activity and reduces lipid peroxidation in roots of salt-stressed barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Journal of plant physiology, 160(10):1157-1164

Lobato, A.K.S., G.K. Coimbra, M.A.M. Neto, R.C.L. Costa, B.G.S. Filho, C.F.O. Neto, L.M. Luz, A.G.T. Barreto, B.W.F. Pereira, G.A.R. Alves, B.S. Monteiro and C.A. Marochio .2009. Protective action of silicon on water relations and photosynthetic pigments in pepper plants induced to water deficit. Res J Biol Sci 4:617–623.

Ma, J. F., N. Mitani, S. Nagao, S.Konishi, K. Tamai, T. Iwashita  and  M. Yano  .2004. Characterization of the silicon uptake system and molecular mapping of the silicon transporter gene in rice. Plant physiology, 136(2):3284-3289.

Mane, A.V., B.A. Karadge and J.S. Samant .2010.Salinity induced changes in photosynthetic pigments and polyphenols of Cymbopogon Nardus (L.) Rendle. J Chem Pharm Res 2:338–347.

Martinez V. and A.Cerda .1989. Nitrate reductase activity in tomato and cucumber leaves as influenced by NaCI and N source. 1. Plant Nutr. 12(11),:1335-1350.

Mazumdar, B. C.,  and K. Majumder .2003. Meth. physico-chemical anal. Fruits., (No. 664.807/M476).

McConn, M.M. and P.A. Nakata .2004. Oxalate reduces calcium availability in the pads of the prickly pear cactus through formation of calcium oxalate crystals. J. Agric. Food Chem.52: 1371–1374.

Mishra, S. N. and I. Sharma .1994. Putrescine as a growth inducer and as a source of nitrogen for mustard seedlings under sodium chloride salinity. Indian J. Exp. Physiol., 32: 916-918.

Mohammad, M., R.Shibli, , M.Ajouni and L. Nimri .1998. Tomato root and shoot responses to salt stress under different levels of phosphorus nutrition. J. Plant Nutr. 21,: 1667–1680.

Nowosielski, O. 1988. The rules in development of fertilizing strategies in horticulture. Warsaw: PWRiL Publisher.

Ors, S. and D.L. Suarez .2017. Spinach biomass yield and physiological response to interactivesalinity and water stress. Agricultural Water Management 190 : 31–41.

Parida, A. K.,  and  A. B. Das .2005. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 60(3): 324-349.

Parvaiz, A and S. Satyawati .2008. Salt stress and phyto-biochemical responses of plants – a review. Plant, Soil and Environment 54: 89-99.

Pessarakli, M. 1991.Dry matter yield, nitrogen-15 absorption, and water uptake by green bean under sodium chloride stress. Crop Sci., 31 :1633-1640.

Rogers, M. E., C. M.Grieve and  M. C. Shannon .2003: Plant growth and ion relations in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) in response to the combined effects of NaCl and P. Plant Soil 253:187–194.

Roshdy, A.H and S. H. Brengi. 2016. Possibility of overcoming salt stress of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants using some safety materials. J. Agric. & Env. Sci. 15(3): 52-81.

Savvas, D., D. Giotis , E. Chatzieustratiou , M.Bakea  and  G. Patakioutas .2009. Silicon supply in soilless cultivations of zucchini alleviates stress induced by salinity and powdery mildew infections. Environmental and experimental botany, 65(1):11-17.

Scuderi, D., C. Restuccia , M. Chisari, R. N. Barbagallo, C. Caggia  and F. Giuffrida .2011. Salinity of nutrient solution influences the shelf-life of fresh-cut lettuce grown in floating system. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 59: 132–137.

Senaratna, T., D. Touchell, E. Bunn and K. Dixon .2000. Acetyl salicylic acid (Aspirin) and salicylic acid induce multiple stress tolerance in bean and tomato plants. Plant Growth Regulation, 30: 157-161.

Seven ,S  and  S. Sağlam (2020) Investigation on the relationship between salinity stress and epibrassinolide in spinach (Spinacia oleracea L. cv. Matador) seedlings .Cumhuriyet Sci. J., 41(1) :131-138.

Shereen, A., S.Mumtaz , S.Raza , M. A. Khan  and S. Solangi .2005. Salinity effects on seedling growth and yield components of different inbred rice lines. Pak. J. Bot, 37(1): 131-139.

Shrivastava , P., and R. Kumar .2015. Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 22: 123–131.

Singh, J. P. 1988. A rapid method for determination of nitrate in soil and plant extracts. Plant soil, 110(1): 137-139     .

Siddikee, M. A., B. R. Glick, P. S. Chauhan, W. jong Yim  and  T. Sa .2011. Enhancement of growth and salt tolerance of red pepper seedlings (Capsicum annuum L.) by regulating stress ethylene synthesis with halotolerant bacteria containing 1-minocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase activity. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 49(4): 427-434.

Smoleń, S.,  and  W. Sady .2012. Influence of iodine form and application method on the effectiveness of iodine biofortification, nitrogen metabolism as well as the content of mineral nutrients and heavy metals in spinach plants (Spinacia oleracea L.). Scientia horticulturae, 143:176-183.‏

Taiz, L. and E . Zeiger .2006. Plant physiology, 4th edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland.

Tarakcioglu, c. and A. Inal .2002. Changes induced by salinity, demarcating specific ion ratio (Na/Cl) and osmolality in ion and proline accumulation, nitrate reductase activity, and growth performance of lettuce.  Journal of plant nutrition, 25(1): 27–41.

Tuna, A. L., C. Kaya, D. Higgs, B. Murillo-Amador , S. Aydemir  and  A. R. Girgin .2008. Silicon improves salinity tolerance in wheat plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 62(1):10-16.‏

Vaidyanathan, H., P. Sivakumar, R. Chakrabarsty and G. Thomas .2003. Scavenging of reactive oxygen species in NaCl-stressed rice (Oryza sativa L.)-differential response in salt-tolerant and sensitive varieties. Plant Sci., 165: 1411- 1418.

Williams, L. J.,  and H. Abdi. 2010. Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test. Encyclopedia Res. Design., 218: 840-853.

Yamane, K., M. S. Rahman, M. Kawasaki, M. Taniguchi and  H. Miyake .2004. Pretreatment with antioxidants decreases the effects of salt stress on chloroplast ultrastructure in rice leaf segments (Oryza sativa L.). Plant production science, 7(3):292-300

Zargar, S. M., R.Mahajan, J. A. Bhat , M. Nazir and R.Deshmukh .2019. Role of silicon in plant stress tolerance: opportunities to achieve a sustainable cropping system. 3 Biotech, 9(3), 73.

Zhang, Y., X. Lin, Y. Zhang, S. J. Zheng  and S. Du .2005. Effects of nitrogen levels and nitrate/ammonium ratios on oxalate concentrations of different forms in edible parts of spinach. J. Plant Nutr., 28(11): 2011-2025.

Statistics
Article View: 1,266
PDF Download: 711
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.